sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alexander Kazhdan, Andrew I of Hungary, Augustaion, Byzantine rhetoric, Constantine, Constantine X Doukas

Masarykova univerzita Filozofická fakulta

Seminář dějin umění

Bc. Teodora Georgievová

“Byzantine” : between East, West and the Ritual

Diplomová práce

Vedoucí práce: Doc. Ivan Foletti, M.A. 2019

Prehlasujem, že som diplomovú prácu vypracovala samostatne s využitím uvedených prameňov a literatúry.

Podpis autora práce

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor doc. Ivan Foletti for the time he spent proofreading this thesis, for his valuable advice and comments. Without his help, I would not be able to spend a semester at the University of Padova and use its libraries, which played a key role in my research. I also thank Valentina Cantone, who kindly took me in during my stay and allowed me to consult with her. I’m grateful to the head of the Department of Art History Radka Nokkala Miltová for the opportunity to extend the deadline and finish the thesis with less stress. My gratitude also goes to friends and colleagues for inspiring discussions, encouragement and unavailable study materials. Last but not least, I must thank my parents, sister and Jakub for their patience and psychological support. Without them it would not be possible to complete this work. Table of Contents:

Introduction 6 What are and 7 Status quaestionis 9 ritual 9 The votive of Leo VI 11 The Holy Crown of 13 The crown of IX Monomachos 15 The crown of Constance of Aragon 17 1. Byzantine crowns as objects 19 1.1 The votive crown of Leo VI 19 1.1.1 Crown of Leo VI: a votive offering? 19 1.1.2 Iconography and composition of the crown 20 1.1.3 Contacts between and , and the history of Leo VI’s crown 21 1.1.4 Role of the votive crowns in sacral space 23 . . Transfer of the crown change in iconography? 24 1.2 The crown of Constantine Monomachos 26 1.2.1 Description and original arrangement of the plaques 26 . . Monomachos crown a forgery? 28 1.2.3 Monomachos crown as mirror of imperial virtues 30 1.2.4 Why was the crown found in Ivanka pri Nitre? 33 1.2.5 Relations between Byzantium and Hungary in the first half of the 34 1.3 The Holy Crown of Hungary 36 1.3.1 Composition and iconographic “programme“ of the corona graeca 36 1.3.2 Corona graeca as a gift to a consort 38 1.3.3 Historical circumstances of the imperial gift 40 1.3.4 Transformation of the crown 41 1.4 The from Preslav 43 1.4.1 The Preslav Treasure: its discovery and dating 43 1.4.2 Description of the diadem 44 .4.3 Gift’s „message“ 45 .4.4 Circumstances of the diadem’s transfer to 46 1.5 Plaques from the Pericope Book of Henry II 47 1.6 Plaques from the Khakhuli Triptych 48 1.6.1 Relations between Byzantium and Georgia 48 1.6.2 Two spoliated 49 2. est eti a ro riation si n o as ion or o iti a as irations? 52 . The „kamelaukion“ of Queen Constance of Aragon 52 2.1.1 The present state of the crown 52 2.1.2. Kamelaukion or not? The „kamelaukion“ from before restorations 53 2.1.3 The crown from Palermo: a of Frederick II? 55 . .4 The crown from Palermo as woman’s crown 56 2.1.5 Ties with Palermo and Byzantium 57 . The diadems from Kievan Rus‘ 59 2.2.1 Kiev as artistic centre 59 2.2.2 Diadems from Kiev 60 2.2.3 Differences between Kievan and Byzantine enamel 61 .3 „Byzantine“ crown of William the Conqueror 62 3. The crowns in Byzantium 64 3.1 Changing form of the imperial crown 64 3.2 Byzantine crowns in the context of court customs 67 3.3 The crown and the Church 69 3.4 The meanings of the crown 69 4. Crowns as tools of diplomacy 71 4.1 Moving of objects and mechanism of gift-giving 71 4.2 Crowns as part of the visual representation of the Byzantine emperor 72 4.3 Crowns as gifts: objectives and restrictions 73 4.4 Why gifted crowns differed from the ones used in Byzantium? 75 5. The ritual function of the crowns 78 5.1 Byzantine coronation ritual 78 5.1.1 Coronation in De cerimoniis 78 5.1.2 Changes in the ritual after the 12th century 81 5.1.3 Depictions of 84 5.2 Coronation in Bulgaria 84 5.3 coronation 85 5.3.1 Crowning of Hungarian king in the Arpadian era 85 5.3.2 The Roman coronation of Frederick II Hohenstaufen and Constance of Aragon 88 5.4 Coronation in Byzantium and in the West: status of the candidate 89 5.5 Dissemination of the Byzantine imperial representation 89 5.5.1 Hungarian Kingdom 89 5.5.2 Georgian lands 90 5.5.3 Bulgarian Kingdom 91 5.5.4 Rus 91 5.5.5 Norman 92 Conclusions and personal observations 94 Bibliography 96 Illustrations 112

Introduction

Just as the ruler’s body and behaviour were held to ideals of beauty and decorum, his costume and were the visible expression of his majesty and virtues. “Your might is made known (...) by the throne, and by the , and by the pearl-spangled robe,” said Euthymios Malakes (c. 1115-before 1204) to Manuel I (1143-1180) in 1161. For the rhetorician each jewel of the emperor’s regalia symbolized an aspect of his virtue.1 The anonymous description of Manuel I presiding over the tournament says that the gold of his crown “flashed like lightning, the pearls appeared white, and the precious red stone glistened, these being mirror of the treasury of wisdom that resides in the emperor’s head.”2 Byzantine crowns, mainly their distribution behind the frontiers of the Empire, will be discussed further in my thesis. I don’t restrict myself only to objects physically created in Byzantium or by Byzantine workshop. I’m nearly as drawn to the crowns crafted behind the borders of the Empire, in lands culturally or diplomatically connected with it. In this case, the question I’m trying to answer is what exactly prompted the foreign commissioners to demand the use of motifs prevalent in Byzantine courtly art. The primary subjects of my research are the four most famous preserved crowns in the time span of 9th to 13th c.: the Monomachos crown, housed in the National Museum in Budapest; the Holy Crown of Hungary, now in the building of the Hungarian Parliament; the votive crown of Leo VI from the of San Marco in Venice, and the crown of Queen Constance of Aragon in the Palermo cathedral. Nonetheless, I also tried to include other objects, sometimes only mentioned in sources or suspected to be parts of coronation insignia, such as the crown of William the Conqueror, the enamels from the Pericopes of Henry II and enamel groups from the Khakhuli triptych. I’m mostly interested in the ritualized nature of the crowns as objects of coronation. In this case, I study the coronation rituals of medieval Hungary, Holy of Frederick II Hohenstaufen (1220-1250) and compare them to the official ritual of the Byzantine court. From this comparison, I try to understand whether there was an actual response in the ritual to the arrival of the Byzantine crown, e.g. whether it was an impulse for the adoption of Byzantine elements in the ritual. The other big question perpetually appearing in my research is the role of the crowns in the and the specific messages included in their production and sending. The structure of my thesis is as follows: in the first chapter a short overview of the state of research on the coronation ritual and on the four most famous crowns will be laid down. Because of the wide span of the topics the referred bibliography will be selective. The next two chapters will create case studies of Byzantine and Byzantium-inspired crowns. The fourth chapter will introduce crowns worn by Byzantine , changes that they underwent

1 Maguire (1997), pp. 186-187. Source: Magdalino (1993), pp. 463; Papadopulos-Kerameus (ed.) (1913), pp. 63: „...τό ϰράτος ού τό πέδιλον μόνον, άλλα ϰαί ό ϑρόνος ϰαί ή τιάρα ϰαί τό περιμάργαρον έσϑημα...“ 2 Maguire (1997a)., pp. 187. Source: Lampros (1908), pp. 7: “Ηστραπτε μεν ό χρυσός, ό μάργαρος έλίυϰαίνετο ϰαί ό λυχνίτης ίπεστιλϐε ϰαί ησαν ϰάτοπρον ταΰτα τοϋ τη ϰεφαλή του βασιλεως έγϰειμενου θησαυρού της φρονήσεως, ϰαί μονονού παρήν επάδειν προφητιϰώτατα βασιλεύ έδόθη σοι φρόνησις, ήλθε δε σοι τά αγαθά όμου πάντα.“ 6 between the 9th and the 13th century, their place in the court ceremonial and their sacred status. In the last part of this work the role of the crowns in Byzantine diplomacy and the particularities of their form as gifts will be defined. A special focus will be put on the sociological aspects of gift-giving in the elite environment. Finally, I will compare the coronation rituals (in the extent of the preserved records) in Byzantium, Bulgaria, Hungary, and the in the first half of the 13th century and study the dissemination of the Byzantine imperial representation in countries with strong diplomatic relations to the Empire. The aim of my thesis is to describe the specific circumstances of creation and exchange of crowns with Byzantine inspiration or provenance, to define the differences in their form and meaning in comparison with the crowns of the Byzantine monarchs, to place them in the context of mechanism of gift-giving at the Byzantine court and to speculate to what extent they had the power to change the process of foreign coronations.

What are Byzantium and Byzantine art?

Before discussing the question of the significance of the crowns in Byzantine culture, the role of gift-giving in Byzantine diplomacy, the motifs and mechanisms of appropriation of Byzantine forms and imperial representation, I would like to define the term Byzantium. The Byzantines never extended the name Byzantion to their empire, which was termed “of the Rhomaioi”. For them, the Byzantioi were the inhabitants of the capital.3 Byzantium as a term for the state was introduced into scholarship only in the 16th century by Hieronymus Wolf (1516-1580).4 In the titles of 17th-century historians other expressions were more frequently used: “Empire of Constantinople”, “late Roman Empire”, “Eastern Empire”, “Greek Empire”. This vocabulary asserts that Byzantium was not yet an independent or very definitive concept, and may be used to confirm that the 17th century was a time when the conception of a lasting Roman Empire was still valid.5 The active interest in Byzantine history stemmed among others from the claims of both the king of France and the Habsburgs to be considered legitimate heirs of the Byzantine imperial crown, and thereby the Roman Empire.6 Byzantium was nothing more but a representation of a universal empire, which had temporarily ceased to exist, but the restoring of which had always served as an ultimate aim.7 In the 18th century the Byzantine problem was seen in perspective of continuity, or rather decadence, of the Roman Empire.8 The 19th century saw Byzantium as continuation of the Greek states. The idea behind it is as follows: since 146 BC remained under foreign domination, except for brief periods of renewal. Roman rule ended only with the advent of Leo III the Isaurian (717-741). After a respite of a few centuries came the Latin domination, which gave way to a weak Greek empire, subsequently destroyed by the Turkish

3 Mango /Kazhdan (1991), pp. 344. 4 Kazhdan (1991), pp. 344. Source: Corpus Historiae Byzantinae, in: Wolf (ed.) (1568). About Hieronymus Wolf see: Irmscher (1985), pp. 91-102. 5 Spieser (2000), pp. 209-210. 6 Spieser (2005), pp. 274. 7 Ebd., pp. 275. 8 Spieser (1991), pp. 340. 7 invasion.9 The strong relationship between ancient Greece and the medieval Byzantium was supposed to have been established through . The moral changes, introduced by it, made it possible to stop the decadence of the late Roman Empire.10 In the case of artistic production Constantine (306-337) managed to stop it by bringing together in his new capital the best works of Greek antiquity, which served as a model for artists. Byzantium in this context opposes the West, in particular, where the decadence continued, further aggravated by the barbarian invasions.11 Because of its importance in the 19th century this notion of Hellenism, inappropriate in relation to Byzantine reality, has, nevertheless, played an essential role in the development of knowledge about Byzantine art.12 The scholars of the early 20th century, such as Diehl, Strzygowski, and Ainalov relied on concepts that had been identified by their predecessors. The development of Byzantine art was once again seen in connection with the Roman Empire. Because of the geographical location of Byzantium the question of possible “oriental influences” was raised.13 Little by little, Byzantine art ceased to be perceived as nothing but a bastardized Roman art.14 The term Byzantine is thus a historiographic invention. It is, however, very useful since it permits us to use one unique name for describing a large and complex phenomenon. I will therefore use it in my thesis in relation to the crowns in the meaning: “originating from the lands of the former eastern part of the Roman Empire, drawing from the tradition of antiquity but also from the contacts with the Islamic cultures of the Mediterranean”.

Note: Whenever dates are given in brackets after a name of a or his consort, they indicate the years of reign. In all the other cases they represent the years of birth and death.

9 Spieser (1991), pp. 344-345. 10Ebd., pp. 346. 11 Ebd.., pp. 350-351. 12 Ebd., pp. 362. 13 Ebd., pp. 361-362. 14 Spieser (2005), pp. 286. 8

Status quaestionis

There is no status quaestionis corresponding perfectly with the topic of the present thesis. I have thus decided to present, firstly, a state of research dedicated to the main objects analyzed in this research. Namely the crown, preserved today in Palermo, the crown of Constantine IX Monomachos, the corona graeca of the Holy Crown of Hungary and the votive crown of Leo VI. Subsequently, I will also discuss the way in which the coronation ritual had been studied. As can be seen from the choice of topics, this is not a complete and exhaustive discourse on the “Byzantine” crowns, their place in the Byzantine diplomacy and their ritual function. Instead, the following lines offer a series of case studies of the most discussed objects and the ritual in which they played a major role. Because of the extensive research done on all of the topics, the bibliography which I work with is selective.

Coronation ritual

For the comparative research of coronation rituals in Western Europe and Byzantium, the foundation stone is the work of Reginald Maxwell Woolley, who tries in 1911 to capture the roots and the changes of the ritual in the . He focuses on the ceremonies and prayers used in England, France, , German lands, Hungary and Byzantium, compares them and searches for the reasons for the appearance of common elements.15 Another fundamental book for the coronation studies is Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsideen nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell by Otto Treitinger, exploring the relationship between the monarchic power and God, channelled through the court ceremonial, and the relationship between the secular and the religious status of the ruler.16 Important for the following scholars is the introduction of the edition of ordines for the coronation of the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, written by Reinhard Elze. His detailed examination of the particular norms for the coronation liturgy and their application in the ceremonial allows him to conclude that the ordines served more as general guidelines or instructions written by contemporary learned men and clerics than as an exact record of actual coronations.17 A specific type of coronation is explored in the book Krone und Krönung: die Verheißung und Verleihung von Kronen in der Kunst von der Spätantike bis um 1200 und die geistige Auslegung der Krone of Joachim Ott. Like Treitinger, he discusses the concept of the heavenly power of the monarch in the West but focuses more on the artistic representation of the phenomenon of coronation from the hands of God.18 The same research was done for Byzantium by Andrea Torno Ginnasi.19 Byzantine coronation ritual is well-known and doesn’t offer many unsolved questions, because it is described in its evolution by the De cerimoniis of Constantine VII

15 Woolley (1911). 16 Treitinger (1956). 17 Elze (ed.) (1960), pp. xxiii 18 Ott (1998), especially pp. 29-120. 19 Torno Ginnasi (2014). 9

Porphyrogennetos and by De Officiis of Pseudo-Kodinos.20 The specific detail in the ceremonial, connecting the West with Byzantium, is analyzed in the article Omphalion und Rota Porphyretica. Zum Kaiserzeremoniell in Konstantinopel und Rom by Schreiner. As the title suggests, the scholar is interested in the role of the disc on the pavement of Hagia in Constantinople and St Peter’s in Rome respectively. He reaches the conclusion that the tradition of the disc as a waiting place for the emperor during the coronation ceremony is transferred to Rome from Byzantium.21 In 1996 Gilbert Dagron publishes his book Empereur et prêtre. Étude sur le «césaropapisme» byzantin about the position of the emperor between the secular and sacred power.22 In one of the chapters the author offers the description of a model coronation according to De cerimoniis. In the following pages on many examples from the 5th to the 10th century he demonstrates that the model was always varied and updated according to the background of the aspiring emperor and his way to power.23 Interesting for the understanding of the relationship between the architecture and the ritual is the article of George Majeska The Emperor in his Church: Imperial Ritual in the Church of St Sophia. Here the author discusses the movement of the coronation procession inside of the church of and defines the role of the emperor in the liturgy.24 Maria Raffaella Menna researches the ritual in connection with the church architecture as well but focuses more on the period from the 12th to the 15th century. She notes the theatricality of the coronation ceremony and various changes it underwent from the time of De cerimoniis, including the appearance of the unction.25 A recent contribution to the knowledge about the Byzantine coronations is the new edition of the work of Pseudo-Kodinos (14th century) Pseudo-Kodinos and the Constantinopolitan Court: Offices and Ceremonies. In a series of studies following the critical edition the collective of authors discusses the hierarchy at the court, the ceremonial attire of the emperor and his courtiers, the relationship between the ceremonial and different spaces in the palace and in the churches, and the inclusion of the senses of the spectator in the ritual (music, light, acclamations). In connection with the imperial coronation, the continuity in some parts of the ceremony (anointing, lifting on a shield), which were considered to be inventions of the 12th century, is suggested.26 The crucial works about the coronation ritual in medieval Hungary were written by Emma Bartoniek, who studies coronations and the evolution of the coronation oath from the 11th century, when short notes about its existence appear in chronicles, until the year 1526. Following her detailed examination, we can conclude that the coronation oath depended on the changes in the relationship between the ruler and its subjects and on the balance of power, which to a high degree copied the development in many Western kingdoms.27 Bartoniek’s article about the coronation focuses for the most part on the coronation of St Stephen as

20 Reiske (ed.)(1829) and Reiske (ed.) (1830); Verpeaux (ed.) (1976). 21 Schreiner (1979), pp. 401-410. 22 I was working with the more recent English translation of the book: Dagron (2003). 23 Ebd., pp. 54-125. 24 Majeska (1997), pp. 1-12. 25 Menna (2007), pp. 455-463. 26 Macrides et. al. (eds.) (2013), pp. 275-444. 27 Bartoniek (1917), pp. 5-44. 10 represented in sources from the 11th and early 12th centuries. She finds parallels with the French coronation in the importance given to the crown as an object and to the acclamations, which later give way to the coronation oat and anointing, similar to the ceremonial common in German lands.28 János Bak follows the comprehensive studies of Emma Bartoniek. In the appendix of his work Königtum und Stände in Ungarn im 14.-16. Jahrhundert he questions the assumption, based on fragments of a coronation prayer, that the coronation ritual in the 11th- century Hungary followed the Anglo-Saxon ordo. He argues that the same words were present in many ordines in the West and could have reached Hungary by different channels. Apart from the actual crowning, he lists the enthronement and the coronation oath as the most important parts of the legitimization of the ruler, based on evidence from the 13th century. The author also states the strong presence after the 14th century of the Roman coronation ritual in Hungary and hints on its previous use in Arpadian times.29 In the article Coronation in medieval Hungary, Erik Fügedi notes the possibility of repeated coronation and consecration in the case of some Hungarian rulers. He also explains the symbolic value of coronation insignia, many of which, however, were used only after the 14th century. Special attention is paid to the Holy Crown as a means of contact of the new ruler with the sacred presence of St Stephen (1000-1038). The importance of Esztergom as a coronation city is emphasized.30 In the recent studies of the rituals of medieval Hungarian rulers, the most important publication is Rituály a symbolická komunikácia v stredovekej strednej Európe (Arpádovské Uhorsko 1000-1301) of Dušan Zupka.31 The work gives a concise overview of the available sources (or more precisely the lack thereof) and of previous research on the topic. The author divides the coronations into three different categories: the coronation of the new ruler, festival crowning and crown-wearing. He explains the meaning each of them had for the status of the ruler in the context of the court ceremonial and hierarchy of power.32 In his earlier article Zupka emphasizes the heightened importance of insignia in the coronation ritual in the 14th century, which is the first one described in the sources.33

The votive crown of Leo VI

In 1861 Julien Durand describes the Treasure of St Mark in his article Trésor de Saint- Marc à Venise.34 He views the crown as a gift of future Leo VI (886-912) to the Church of the Virgin in Constantinople, made in 870 after a terrible earthquake, which the young prince miraculously survived. Because of his age, the object was supposedly commissioned by his father Basil (867-886).35

28 Bartoniek (1923), pp. 245-304. 29 Bak (1973), pp. 165-190. 30 Fügedi ( 986), pp. 159-189. 31 Zupka (2011). 32 Ebd., pp. 38-44. 33 Zupka (2010), pp. 29. 34 Durand (1861). 94-104. 35 Ebd., pp. 96-97. 11

Jules Labarte focuses more on the identification of the figure of the emperor and on the basis of historical evidence reaches the conclusion of his predecessor. Most significant for the future research is his observation that the crown was not made to be worn, but was hung above the altar.36 The crown of Leo VI is discussed also in the work Histoire et monuments des émaux byzantins of Nikodim Kondakov, who sees it as a part of a chalice, transformed into a votive crown. According to him the style of the additionally applied enamel medallions doesn’t correspond with the dating to the reign of Leo VI.37 Michelangelo Murano and Andrè Grabar, on the other hand, settle for Leo VI as the commissioner of the crown. Its possible destination is seen in the space above the altar of the church of San Zaccaria in Venice, previously constructed on the orders of the said emperor.38 They also pay more attention to the Grotto of the Virgin, which the crown is now part of. The authors dismiss the possibility that all of its parts were a product of the same period. Instead, they suggest the 13th century and a Venetian workshop as a time and place of their joining.39 Klaus Wessel writes about the crown in his comprehensive study of Byzantine enamels from the 5th to the 13th century.40 He focuses more on the technique of the enamel medallions, on the basis of which he dates the crown to the beginning of the 9th century. In his opinion, the object incorporates the idea of parallels between Christ and the emperor, who is equal to the apostles. The appearance of the apostolic images would be connected with the destination of the crown, the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. In the catalogue of the exhibition Deomene: l'immagine dell'orante fra Oriente e Occidente Martina Galuppo compares the votive crown with the rims of the chalices from the Treasury of St Mark and reaches the conclusion that the dimensions and the materials used are identical. The parallel is seen also in the symbolic meaning of the crown and the chalice, as both are a tool of consecration by a divine hand.41 The bachelor thesis of Nicole Ninni includes a concise overview of the previous research on the crown.42 Along with it the author gives multiple examples of the artistic rendering of votive crowns from the 5th century onward.43 In addition she tries to answer the question of whether they had ever been worn and what was their place in the sacred space.44 She comes to the conclusion that the crown of Leo VI was indeed worn during a coronation ceremonial, but due to its minuscule dimensions was created for a child.45 The last article about the crown is written by Stefania Gerevini.46 The author discusses the questions of the commonly accepted transfer of the crown to Venice after the year 1204 and the reasons for its reemployment as a part of the so-called Grotto of the Virgin. She gives multiple examples of the exchange of gifts, embassies and workshops between Byzantium and

36 Labarte (1872), pp. 321. 37 Kondakov (1892), pp. 237-238. 38 Murano /Grabar (1963), pp. 47. 39 Ebd., pp. 62. 40 Wessel (1967), pp. 57-58. 41 Galuppo (2001), pp. 221-222. 42 Ninni (2017). 43 Ebd., pp. 17-19. 44 Ebd., pp. 19-20. 45 Ebd., pp. 57. 46 Gerevini (2014). 12

Venice in the time span from the 9th to the 14th century. She notes that the longevity of the interest in Byzantine art and of the contacts indicates many possible dates for the transfer of the crown, predating the and its aftermath.47 Gerevini also hypothesizes that the inclusion of the crown in the Grotto was connected with its liturgical use during the feast of the Purification of the Virgin and its impact on the viewer was intensified by candlelight.48 The importance of the article is elevated by the publishing of an unknown description of the crown from 1801, which shows that the enamelled medallions were rearranged during the restoration in the 19th century.49

The Holy Crown of Hungary

In 1880 the art historians under the supervision of Arnold Ipolyi have the rare possibility to observe the Holy Crown in person. This is the only examination ever made in which dismantling of the object has been permitted. The involved scholars start to discuss the fundamental questions, which still haven’t been answered with certainty: the context and the date of creation of the two parts of the crown, the original form and purpose of these parts, and the manner and date of their assemblage. The upper part of the crown is believed to be the crown given to St Stephen (1000-1038) by Silvester II (999-1003). For the first time photos of the interior and exterior of the crown are published.50 After the exhibition of the Holy Crown on the Congress of the International Association of Museums held in Budapest in 1928, at which time 80 experts saw the object, Gyula Moravcsik restudies the Greek inscriptions of the corona graeca and presents photographs of the Byzantine enamels, which are a valuable contribution to the documentation of the crown.51 After the Second World War, the crown is placed under the custody of the US Army and Patrik Kelleher has the opportunity to study the object in depth, publishing his conclusions with photographic documentation in 1951.52 The most important parts of the book are the discussion about the significance attached to the Holy Crown in medieval Hungary and the thorough analysis of the contemporary sources connecting it with St Stephen.53 Kelleher points out that the enamelled gables and pendants of Byzantine origin haven’t been part of the corona graeca and were made separately at the end of the 13th century.54 He also refuses the possibility that the Byzantine crown was intended to be worn by a woman. According to him the images of sovereignty (Pantokrator, two emperors and a king) suggest that the object was fashioned for an independent ruler of state.55 Until 1978 no one could see the Hungarian royal insignia, locked up in the treasury of Fort Knox. Scholars, therefore, had to base their observations on photographs of the object,

47 Gerevini (2014), pp. 205-208. 48 Ebd., pp. 214-217. 49 Ninni (2017), pp. 209-212. 50 Ipolyi (1886). 51 Moravcsik (1935), pp. 113-162. 52 Kelleher (1951). 53 Ebd., pp. 1-3 and 42-55. 54 Ebd., pp. 67. 55 Ebd., pp. 65. 13 which led to uncertainty of their conclusions. In his monograph Die heilige Krone Ungarns, Josef Deér tries to date the corona graeca and the corona latina of the Holy Crown by setting them in the context of Byzantine, Irish and Ottonian art respectively.56 The other important question he discusses is St Stephen’s tradition in connection with the crown and the perception of the object in the 12th and 13th centuries.57 His complex analysis of the archaeological and textual evidence and of the international policy of Hungary in the Middle Ages helps him to conclude that the insignia was put together in the last third of the 13th century with the use of spoliated pieces in order to replace an older diadem, lost in the disputes for the throne. The choice of anachronic style and material was made to emulate the appearance of the insignia of the early kings of Hungary.58 The publication of Zsuzsa Lovag and Éva Kovács The and Other Regalia is the first major compilation of the observations of the object after its return from the USA and granting of free access to it to the professional public. It discusses the iconography of the corona graeca, the technique of its enamels, the reasons for its sending to Hungary and attempts to establish a more precise date for its joining with the corona latina. The authors rely mostly upon the filigree of the upper crown, compared to goldsmith works from the reign of Béla III (1172-1196). The question of the female wearer is also asked, based on the elaborate shape of the crown with projections.59 The book Tausend Jahre Stephanskrone written by Kálman Benda and Erik Fügedi reviews the fortunes of the crown during its 1000-year-long existence. For our purposes, the first part of the book is the most important. In it, the scholars discuss the origins and evolution of the connection between the legend about the crown and St Stephen.60 Péter Váczy is the only one among the scholars writing about the Holy crown who occupies himself with the question of the reception of the crown in Hungary. In the article The Angelic Crown with the help of plentiful historical sources he demonstrates the popularity of the motif of the heavenly origins of the crown, gifted to the ruler by an angel. He traces this perception of the crown to Byzantium and tries to identify the reasons for its spread in Hungary in the 14th century.61 On the occasion of the millennial anniversary of the coronation of St Stephen and the of Hungary a special issue of Acta Historiae Artium was published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the purpose of which was to summarize the previous research on the Holy Crown and bring a new perspective to it. The international group of scholars brings up various aspects of the artwork, from the reasons which prompted Michael VII (1071-1078) to send the crown as a gift to King Géza I (1074-1077), including his marriage to Byzantine aristocrat,62 to the definition of its place in the history of Byzantine enamelling, based on a detailed technical description of the modifications of the technique of cloisonné enamel from the 0th to the 12th century.63 Catherine Jolivet-Lévy points out the

56 Deér ( 966), pp. 33-182. 57 Ebd., pp. 183-209. 58 Ebd., pp. 210-270. 59 Kovács /Lovag ( 980), pp. 18-58. 60 Benda /Fügedi ( 988), pp. 9-50. 61 Váczy ( 98 ), pp. 1-18. 62 Cheynet (2002), pp. 5-13. 63 Buckton (2002), pp. 14-21. 14 evocation of the heavenly court in the choice of iconographic “programme” and of the subservient position of the Hungarian king based on the inscriptions and the attire of Géza, the Byzantine emperor and his son. She also notices hidden hints on the military alliance between the monarchs in the depiction of a sword, which Géza is holding, and of venerated Byzantine military saints.64 Paul Hetherington is concerned with the circumstances under which the corona graeca would have been produced in Constantinople. He writes about the crown in the context of diplomatic gifts and compares its enamels with others of the same period, now in Tbilisi. He stresses that the production could have involved the re-use of individual plaques, such as the one with a rounded top portraying Michael VII. He also suggests that the low value of the gems in the crown could be a result of diplomatic or economic considerations.65 Etele Kiss searches for the possible recipient of the object and hypothesizes that it was first made for a Byzantine empress in the 11th century and adapted for King Géza by the addition of his enamel plaque.66 Zsuzsa Lovag remarks on the time frame and reasons for joining of the corona graeca and corona latina. She makes a short resume of the hypotheses made by the previous research and concludes that plaque with Michael VII and some of the pendants were added to corona graeca second-handily. The upper part of the crown was reused, but the original purpose of it (asterisk, reliquary crown) remains unclear. The dating of the assemblage in the 12th century is reached on the grounds of the filigree and the presence of the venerated relic of the True .67 The most unusual is the article of Sándor Radnóti, who analyses the sacred status of the crown, reasons for its perception as almost a relic and in consequence its limited visibility throughout its long history.68 A new perspective on the iconography of the lower part of the Hungarian crown in connection with its intended wearer and its status as a gift is offered by Cecily Hilsdale in her article The Social Life of the Byzantine Gift: The Royal Crown of Hungary Re-Invented. She views the crown in the light of the order of the Byzantine world and concludes that it was created as a reminder of connections of Géza I and his aristocratic Byzantine wife with Byzantium and their subservience to it. The transformation of the crown in the 12th century is seen as an incentive for the creation of the legend about its origin as a gift for St Stephen. With the transformation of the form of the object the intended wearer changed and with it also the perception of the iconography.69

The crown of Constantine IX Monomachos

The fundamental work on the crown of Constantine IX Monomachos, which generations of scholars will reference, is written by Magda Bárány-Oberschall. In her book The Crown of the Emperor Constantine Monomachos, she gives its thorough description and

64 Jolivet-Lévy ( 00 ), pp. 22-32. 65 Hetherington (2002), pp. 33-38. 66 Kiss (2002), pp. 39-51. 67 Lovag (2002), pp. 62-71. 68 Radnóti ( 00 ), pp. 83-111. 69 Hilsdale (2008), pp. 602-631. 15 analysis of the inscriptions, identifies all the figures, tries to find parallels for its iconography, and hypothesizes about the circumstances of its sending to Hungary and its recipient. 70 Sándor Mihalik notices the side-glance of Constantine on the crown and concludes that he couldn’t be the centre of the composition. The author, therefore, proposes a crown with Christ in the centre, three rulers flanking him, the Virgin, dancers, virtues and two preserved apostle medallions.71 Simultaneously with Mihalik Zoltán Kádár proposes another possible reconstruction of the crown, including many undiscovered pieces as well. In his opinion, the crown had two tiers of plaques, emperors occupying the centre of the lower tier, with Christ above them, dancers in the rear part of the crown, connected with the rest by several unknown plaques. The whole ensemble would have formed a very sophisticated and concise iconographic “programme”, but based on too many pieces that don’t exist.72 In the article Il concetto della regalità nell'arte sasanide e l'interpretazione di due opere d'arte bizantine del periodo della dinastia macedone: la cassetta eburnea di Troyes e la corona di Costantino IX Monomaco di Budapest Géza de Frankovich analyzes the possible sources of inspiration for the dancers on the Monomachos crown. After considering the Islamic art (especially the Artoukid bowl) and antic-like illuminations in Byzantine manuscripts, he reaches the conclusion that the closest elements can be found in the Sassanid art represented by the bowl from Baltimore and the ivory casket from Würzburg.73 In 1994 Nicolas Oikonomides polarizes the research on Monomachos crown with his daring suggestion that the object was a product of a 19th-century forgery. He brings many arguments in favour of his hypothesis: the mistakes in the inscriptions and titles, the placement of several elements of female attire, the direction of the glances of the ruling trio, the forms of the crowns and the placement of the pendants, the choice of the virtues, ornamental decoration of the background, the representation of the dancers, which according to him are unprecedented or very rare in the Byzantine art.74 Etele Kiss contributes to the discussion about the crown of Monomachos following the article of Oikonomides, whom she controverts.75 For every particular detail, which Oikonomides points out as unusual and incompatible with Byzantine courtly art, she finds parallels in products of the court workshops, contemporary with the Monomachos crown.76 She systematically goes through all of Oikonomides’s arguments against the authenticity of the object. Kiss describes the strategic position of the place where the crown was found, suggests possible scenarios of its burying, from which she deduces the dating and the circumstances of the transfer to Hungary.77 Consecutively she interprets what the iconography of the crown could have meant to its recipients.78 Based on the technical aspects of the plates

70 Bárány-Oberschall (1932). 71 Mihalik (1963), pp. 199-243. 72 Kádár ( 964), pp. 113-124. 73 de Frankovich (1964), pp. 19-42. 74 Oikonomides (1994), pp. 241-262. 75 Kiss (2000), pp. 60-83. 76 Ebd., pp. 66-75. 77 Ebd., pp. 64-65. 78 Ebd., pp. 76 16 and comparisons with manuscript illuminations Kiss concludes that the crown was intended to be worn by a woman.79 Ildikó Mellace Katona borrows Kiss’s arguments, but adds to them, discussing the improbability of the forgery of the Byzantine crown in Hungary of the 60s of the 19th century. She points out that the finder of the plaques didn’t profit from selling them to the National Museum, the Byzantine art was considered to be quite unaesthetic and the lack of protection of cultural heritage halted the development of any significant interest in antiquities. The situation would, therefore, make such forgery futile and unprofitable.80 In 2007 Thomas Maguire accepts the conclusions of Kiss and instead of inscriptions and peculiarities in the decorations focuses on the crown as a mirror of the virtues of the emperor, described in contemporary panegyrics.81 In the last article about the Monomachos crown, Timothy Dawson tries to convincingly resolve the question of the origin and function of the object.82 In his opinion in comparison with what is known about the imperial crowns in the Middle Byzantine period, the crown shows several anomalies, such as flexibility, small dimensions, and enamel ornamentation.83 On the basis of historical accounts in De cerimoniis of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, he concludes that it was better suited as a gift for the triumph of the emperor, worn on his arm. He supports his hypothesis with iconographic evidence.84 He refuses the possibility that the emperor was the intended beneficiary, pointing out the oddities in the iconography and inscriptions and suggesting one of his generals instead. He also moves the arrival of the crown to Hungary to the time after the Fourth Crusade, when the fleeing Emperor Alexios III (1195- 1202) may have sold it in need of funds.85

The crown of Constance of Aragon

The earlier historiography on the object follows the conclusions of Josef Deér. He bases his observations on the comparisons with the Byzantine imperial crowns. The scholar notes that the form of the Sicilian crown is similar to the kamelaukion, a male crown used by Byzantine emperors during the religious feasts from the time of the Komnenian . He strictly differentiates between the typology of closed male and opened female crowns, stating that the Palermitan kamelaukion, even though it was found in the sarcophagus of Constance of Aragon (1220-1222), must have been worn by her husband Frederick II (1220-1250) for his imperial coronation in 1220.86 In her work about the goldsmith works in Sicily between the 12th and the 19th century Maria Accascina remarks that the crown can be viewed as a work of the Palermitan court workshop, based on comparison with works of art from the Norman period (filigree, attachment of pearls), but with visible presence of details common for the artistic tradition of

79 Kiss (2000), pp. 65. 80 Mellace Katona (2005), pp. 332-333. 81 Maguire (2007), pp. 1-8. 82 Dawson (2009), pp. 183-193. 83 Ebd., pp. 184-185. 84 Ebd., pp. 186-187. 85 Ebd., pp. 188-190. 86 Deér ( 9 ). 17 the German lands, seeping in the Sicilian production during the reign of the Hohenstaufen dynasty.87 Gregorio La Grua doesn’t oppose the suggestion of Deér that the wearer of the crown was Frederick II but adds that it could not have been the official crown of Sicily. He points out that in pictorial representations Roger II (1130-1154) is displayed wearing an open crown, that Frederick owned different crowns and that the corone regni usually ended with a cross, like the Hungarian crown, not with a gem.88 Elisabeth Piltz includes the Palermitan crown in the comprehensive study of the kamelaukia as religious and imperial objects. She adds to the conclusions of Deér by describing the coronation of Frederick II in Rome and pointing out the closeness between his and episcopal ordination, even if simplified. Therefore his imperial crown, like the kamelaukion of Byzantine emperors, had a religious function.89 In 1993 Claudia Guastella revises the previous research by addressing the form of the crown from Palermo. By detailed analysis of the sources, she determines that its current form is a product of a restoration done around the middle of the 19th century and the conclusions based on it are therefore invalid. She describes all the modifications done to the crown and offers the 18th-century engraving as a testimony of its original appearance. The author questions the Byzantine kamelaukion as an exclusive source of inspiration, even though she doesn’t rule it out entirely. Instead, she suggests examples from German lands as possible sources.90 In 1999 Meinard von Engelberg develops Guastella’s hypothesis. In the article "Die Kaiserkrone Friedrichs II."? Zur Deutung der "Haube der Konstanze" im Domschatz von Palermo he demonstrates that close parallels to the shape of the crown can be found in the insignia from the German lands and in the evolving crown of the Holy . With the help of pictorial evidence, he also concludes that in Sicily the distinction between the form of the male and female crowns wasn’t always applied, therefore it is probable that the crown belonged to Constance, as it was buried with her.91 The last remarks on the crown from Palermo were made in 2010 by Maria Concetta Di Natale in the book Il Tesoro della Cattedrale di Palermo. The author offers a concise and well-arranged overview of the previous research but doesn’t bring anything new to it.92

The inconcise nature of the bibliography on the topics studied in this thesis allows very few genaral conlusions. Overall it is possible to observe one trend, common for the reasearch of coronation rituals and crowns. It stems from the continous shift in thinking about art and its history. The focus gradually moves from mere description, stylistic analysis and study of sources to more complex questions about the sociological aspects of gift-giving and rituals, requiring interdisciplinary cooperation, which the following chapters try to reflect.

87 Accascina (1974), pp. 75-79. 88 La Grua (1975), pp. 73-81. 89 Piltz (1977), pp. 113. 90 Guastella (1993), pp. 265-283. 91 von Engelberg (1998-1999), pp. 109-127. 92 Di Natale (2010), pp. 39-52. 18

1. Byzantine crowns as objects

The following pages contain a corpus of crowns send from the Eastern Empire to foreign rulers. Every subchapter discusses technical parameters of the crowns, their iconography and dating. But the main focus is on the specific circumstances of the transfer of the “Byzantine” insignia and motivations behind it. The objects are therefore viewed and interpreted through the prism of their status of gifts.

1.1 The votive crown of Leo VI 93

1.1.1 Crown of Leo VI: a votive offering?

The crown of Leo VI is a gilded silver band decorated with round cloisonné enamels and triangular glass-paste inlays [1].94 On the basis of stylistic analysis and because of the use of translucent green enamel, this is commonly dated to the late 9th or early 10th century and attributed to a Constantinopolitan workshop.95 The small size of the crown, very similar to a set of votive crowns from the Visigoth treasury of Guarrazar [2], points out to the fact that it was not intended to be worn.96 Its diameter of 13 cm would make impossible the securing of the crown on a head bigger than a child’s one. Its function before the reemployment as the base of the so-called Grotto of the Virgin, now in the treasury of basilica of San Marco in Venice, was most likely that of a votive offering.97 In his work Dictionnaire d’Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie, published in 1925, Henri Leclercq formulates a question about the primary function of these crowns. He tries to decipher whether they could have been worn during ceremonies or whether they were used solely as ex-voto. On the example of the crowns from Guarrazar he demonstrates that the small diameter of the objects, as well as the presence of loops, which were created at the same time as the crowns, suggest they were meant as offerings since their production. This hypothesis is supported also by the hanging pendants, which would inconvenience the bearer and obscure his vision.98 In the last complex work about the crown, Nicole Ninni questions Leclercq’s conclusions. She tends towards the opinion of Julien Durand, who connects the creation of the crown to the earthquake in the year 869. According to his work Leo VI (866-912), only 4 years old at the time, gifted the object one year later to the church of Theotokos in Constantinople as a sign of thankfulness. It would have served as an ex-voto for the Virgin,

93 Gerevini (2014), pp. 198. The most important publications on the crown are: Ninni (2017); Da Villa Urbani (2008), pp. 396, cat. n. 64; Galuppo (2001), pp. 221-222, cat. n. 85; English Frazer /Alcouffe (1986), pp. 125- 131, cat. n. 8; Mallé ( 973), pp. 94-96; Grabar (1971), pp. 81-82, cat. n. 92; Beckwith (1967), pp. 57; Wessel (1967), pp. 24-25; Murano /Grabar (1963), pp. 47, 59; Kondakov (1892), pp. 237-238; Molinier (1888), pp. 62, 95-96; Pasini (1886), pp. 68-70, cat. n. 111; Labarte (1872), pp. 321; Durand (1861), pp. 96-97. 94 The crown is 3,5 cm high, with a diameter of 13 cm. See: Galuppo (2001), pp. 221. 95 Ninni (2017), pp. 23-24, 37-38; Gerevini (2014), pp. 198; English Frazer /Alcouffe (1986), pp. 128; Mallé (1973), pp. 94-95. 96 About the votive crowns from Guarrazar see: García-Vuelta /Perea (2014), pp. 245-271; Perea (2001). 97 Gerevini (2014), pp. 198. For measurements of the crowns of Guarrazar, see: P. O’Neill (ed.) ( 993), pp. 3- 57, cat. n. 12a, 12c, 12e, 12g. 98 Leclercq (1925), coll. 1855. For more see: Ninni (2017), pp. 20. 19 who made the little prince one of the few survivors of the catastrophe. Because of Leo’s young age, the crown would have been commissioned by his father (867-886).99 Ninni and Durand both suppose that the donation of the crown foreshadowed the future coronation of Leo VI in 886.100 Ninni demonstrates that the small dimensions of the crown would have corresponded with the diameter of a child’s head. In this case, the small Leo would have been decorated with it during a special court ceremony, the purpose of which would have been to assure fluent transfer of power from Basil I to his son. The researcher, however, mistakenly points out that on one of the enamelled medallions Leo VI is wearing a crown with pendants, similar to the object which the medallion decorated [3].101 It is not contrary to the potential use of the crown during a courtly ceremony, but only the sides of the crown on the medallion are decorated by prependilia, typical for Byzantine crowns from the period of our interest. We, therefore, can’t compare it to the crown from the treasury. Even though because of the lack of written sources we can’t categorically refuse the potential practical use of the crown, without stronger evidence its function as a votive offering seems more plausible. It is supported also by parallels with other preserved votive crowns. It is interesting to note that other medieval examples of votive crowns, such as the crown of queen Theodolinda in Monza or the crowns from Guarrazar are set with precious stones [4].102 The crown of Leo VI strays from this tradition, as it is decorated with enamels. This can be explained by economic motifs: in the middle Byzantine period, the gems may have been substituted by cheaper glass inlays, tendency visible also in the production of luxurious book covers.103

1.1.2 Iconography and composition of the crown

Only half of the 14 enamelled medallions originally decorating the crown survive and they are all displayed on the front of the artefact. One of them bears an image of a Byzantine emperor, inscribed ΛΕωΝ ΔΕCΠ[ΟΤΗC], generally identified as Leo VI (886-912).104 His face is compared to the in the narthex of Hagia Sophia [5].105 The others feature bust images of six saints and apostles, identified by their names inscribed by gold cloisonné flanking the heads. The iconography of the diadem has been interpreted as representing the emperor depicted as the thirteenth apostle.106 According to this reading, the image of Leo VI originally occupied a position opposite that of Christ, so that an analogy was established between the sovereignty of the Pantokrator (on the front of the diadem) and the earthly ruler (on the back).107 The crown supports a carved piece of crystal. Three peacocks, only two of which survive in their entirety, surmount the metal tongues that join the crown to the crystal piece [6]. According to Stefania Gerevini the statuettes, which carry suspension rings on their

99 Durand (1861), pp. 96-97. See also: Ninni (2017), pp. 39. 100 Ninni (2017), pp. 57; Durand (1861), pp. 96-97. 101 Ninni (2017), pp. 58. 102 For the crown from Monza see: Bertelli (2017); Maspero (2003). 103 English Frazer /Alcouffe (1986), pp. 130. 104 Gerevini (2014), pp. 198. 105 Bettini (1974), pp. 79. 106 Gerevini (2014), pp. 200; English Frazer /Alcouffe (1986), pp. 128; Grabar (1971), pp. 81. 107 On the origins and implications of this notion see: Treitinger (1956), pp. 129-135. 20 backs, originally could have been affixed to the rim of the crown.108 However, she also points out that the closer observation of the object hadn’t shown any signs of welding on the rim, which makes it impossible to suppose where the peacocks had been attached.109 This leads to the conclusion that the birds were either added to the Grotto of the Virgin when the object was assembled in the late 13th or early 14th century, or they may have been hanging from the crown on thin chains. The last possibility is supported by a miniature of a Gospel book from the 11th century in the Byzantine Collection [7].110

1.1.3 Contacts between Venice and Constantinople, and the history of Leo VI’s crown

The votive crown has been associated with the many artworks that reached Venice in the aftermath of the , or in the period of Latin occupation of the city, which lasted until 1261.111 It has been widely interpreted as the expression of Venetian political or religious triumphalism.112 Our knowledge of the early history of the treasury of San Marco is incomplete. We do not know when it was founded and almost no information exists about the circumstances of arrival and reception of individual pieces.113 It is true that the Fourth Crusade represented a fundamental stage in the history and development of the treasury of San Marco. However, its significance should not overshadow the wide range of alternative modes of acquisition of important artworks. Besides pillaging, these included commerce, diplomatic activity, and gifts deriving from the intermarriage of the ruling . All of these are documented in earlier medieval Venice.114 Direct evidence of the presence of Byzantine artefacts in Venice before 1204 is provided, between the many examples, by one of the bronze doors of the basilica of San Marco (Portal of St. Clement), made in Constantinople in 1080 [8], and by the Pala d’Oro, allegedly executed in 0 under Doge Ordelafio Falier [9].115 There is no direct evidence that the Grotto of the Virgin was connected with the events of the 1204 to 1261. The object is not mentioned in the earliest surviving inventory of the San Marco Treasury, created in 1283.116 It is first recorded in a later inventory in 1325, more than a century after the Fourth Crusade.117 As for the individual components of the object, the circumstances of their transfer to Venice remain uncertain. A case can be made that the

108 Gerevini (2014), pp. 201. 109 Ebd. The observation was first made by English Frazer /Alcouffe (1986), pp. 198. 110 Gerevini (2014), pp. 202 points out to the MS 5, fol. 4r, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Collection, Washington, DC. 111Perry (2015). 112Gerevini (2014), pp. 205. The triumphalist approach in relation to the Grotto has been criticized by Cutler (1995), pp. 237-267. 113 Gerevini (2014), pp. 205. For more information about the earlier preference of the sack of Constantinople as a source of most Byzantine objects in the treasury of San Marco see: Hellenkemper (1986), pp. 31-41;Hahnloser (1971), pp. 3-4, 15-21; Demus (1960), pp. 26-27; Molinier (1888), pp. 21, 25; Pasini (1886), pp. 9. 114 Nicol (1988). 115 Gerevini (2014), pp. 205-206. About the Portal of St Clement see: English Frazer (1973), pp. 152, about the Pala d’Oro: Hahnloser /Polacco (eds.) (1994). On intermarriage, see the union between Giovanni Orseolo (981- 1006), the son of Venetian Doge Pietro II Orseolo, and Maria Argyropoula (died 1007), sister of the future Emperor Romanos III (1028-1034), at the beginning of the 11th century. It is further described in: Nicol (1988), pp. 45-47. 116 About the inventory see: Gallo (1967), pp. VII-VIII. 117 Gerevini (2014), pp. 206. 21 translation of the Byzantine crown to Venice may have occurred already in the late 9th or early 10th century, at the time of its manufacture. The ties between Venice and Byzantium were strong in this period, and evidence of diplomatic contacts and gift-giving between them is copious.118 By sending their sons to be honoured at Byzantine court, by contracting marriages with Byzantine ladies, the ruling families of Venice showed their admiration and respect for an older civilisation, from which they were to acquire many of their own social customs.119 In the early 9th century, the iconoclast emperor Leo V (813-820) founded the monastery of San Zaccaria in Venice. On this occasion, he bestowed a set of precious relics and allegedly dispatched Byzantine craftsmen to the lagoon to build and decorate the church to host the relics. It was a public demonstration of the emperor’s favour.120 In 879 Emperor Basil I (867-886), father of Leo VI, sent an embassy to the Doge Orso I Partecipazio (864- 881), granting him the imperial title of protospatharios (first sword-bearer) and sending him many costly gifts. Orso had been promoted in the ranks of the Byzantine family.121 Basil’s embassy had been the first sent to Venice for nearly forty years. Its significance for the Venetians was no doubt greater than for the “Byzantines”. But for them, too, it signified that Venice, now more of a city-state than a province, was in some sense still a member of their family. They retained a firm belief that the granting of court titles to foreign powers domesticated them and reminded them of the importance of the connection with the empire.122 Byzantine emperors did not make state visits to other countries. They expected foreign rulers to come to them at Constantinople, to be properly impressed by the city and the reception in the imperial palace. In the 10th century, the Doges revived the earlier practice of sending their sons to Constantinople. The constant movement of merchants and traders between the two cities and the influx of Byzantine architects and craftsmen created a feeling of interdependence.123 It is also interesting to notice that the corno ducale, the headdress worn for centuries by the Doge, may have originated from the skiadion, carried by some Byzantine dignitaries such as protospatharios (a title granted to the Doge).124 During the coronation of the Doge till the end of the 18th century, there have been present echoes of Byzantine tradition as well. The newly elected Doge had to take his place on the movable throne which was transported through St Mark’s Square and the ruler threw money to the crowd. It is said that Sebastiano Ziani (1172-1178) was the first Doge to distribute money, but this gesture is only an adaptation of a Constantinopolitan tradition of distributing gifts. The triumphal procession itself originated in the antique custom of carrying the newly elected ruler on a shield.125 During the reign of Leo VI the doge Orso II Partecipazio (912-932) visited the court in Constantinople, where the emperor gave him the title of protospatharios and offered him

118 Gerevini (2014), pp. 206. 119 Nicol (1988), pp. 22. 120 Leo V’s imperial chrysobull is lost, but the donation is mentioned in a Venetian ducal decree dating from the early 9th century: Tafel /Thomas (eds.) (1856), pp. 2-3; Cessi (ed.) (1940), n. 52, pp. 92-93; Dölger (ed.) ( 96 ), n. 339. The episode is also discussed in: Nicol (1988), pp. 23-24 and Bettini (ed.) (1974), pp. 46. 121 John the Deacon, Cronaca, in: Monticolo (ed.) (1890), pp. 125-126. For the discussion of the episode see: Nicol (1988), pp. 33. 122 Nicol (1988), pp. 34. 123 Ebd. 124 Ortalli (2005), pp. 419. For more information see: Pertusi (1965), pp. 83. 125 Ortalli (2005), pp. 419-420. 22 precious gifts on his return to Venice.126 The same protocol was followed a few years later when the son of Doge Pietro Candiano (died 959) was greeted in the capital by Emperors Constantine VII (945-959) and Romanos (920-944), who loaded him with presents on his return home.127 Venetian sources do not specify the nature of the diplomatic gifts, but enamelled artefacts, precious and portable, were favoured as such throughout the middle Byzantine period.128 Byzantine emperors repeatedly offered enamelled crowns to foreign rulers to confirm dynastic marriages and in cases where the political superiority of the Empire in relation to rival or satellite states needed to be reaffirmed.129 While it is difficult to prove that the votive crown of Leo VI arrived in Venice during his reign, the evidence presented above indicates that the Fourth Crusade was not the only possible occasion for the crown’s acquisition and that early date of reception as a diplomatic gift from Byzantium is plausible.130

1.1.4 Role of the votive crowns in sacral space

If we accept the generally assumed votive function of the crown of Leo, the question arises about the role it played in the sacral space. Smaller crowns, donated as offerings to ecclesiastical foundations, were popular royal gifts in the medieval Mediterranean. Most physical evidence survives from the West, particularly from Visigoth , but textual sources indicate that Byzantine emperors were also accustomed to donating such objects to ecclesiastical foundations.131 According to ’ Chronographia: “On Easter Day [of the year 593] Sophia Augusta, wife of Justin [III], together with , consort of Emperor , had a crown made, and brought it to the emperor. The emperor, having looked at it, heading to the church, offered it to God, and hung it above the altar with three thin chains decorated with gold and precious stones.”132 He also indicates that votive crowns

126 John the Deacon, Cronaca, in: Monticolo (ed.) (1890), pp. 131. 127 Gerevini (2014)., pp. 206-207; Nicol (1988), pp. 36. For the description of the visit see: John the Deacon, Cronaca, in: Monticolo (1890), pp. 133. 128 Schreiner (2004), pp. 251-282. 129 Gerevini (2014), pp. 207. For diplomatic function of the crowns see further chapter 5. 130 Gerevini (2014), pp. 208. 131 Ebd., pp. 207. The evidence of use of crowns as votive offerings in Byzantium is available both for the early and middle Byzantine periods. Theophanes reports in his Chronographia an interesting episode concerning the death of Emperor Leo IV in 780. He allegedly died after seizing and wearing a crown preserved in Hagia Sophia: „On September 8 of the fourth indiction Constantine’s son Leo died in this way: he was mad about precious stones, and was in love with the great church’s crown. Coals came out from it onto his head and caused a severe fever. He died after ruling five years, less six days.“ in: Theophanes, Chronographia, Turtledove (ed.) (1982), pp. 139-140. For the original version see: de Boor (ed.) (1963), lines 25-30, pp. 4 3: „τή δέ ή τοΰ Σεπτέμβριον μηνός της δ' ίνδιϰτιώνος τέϑνηχε Λέων, ό νζος Κωνΰταντίνον, τρόπω τοιοντω. λιϑομανής ύπαρϰων λίαν ήράσϑη τοΰ στέμματος τής μεγάλης έϰϰλησίας ϰαί λαβών έφόρεσεν αύτό. ϰαί έξήλϑον άνϑραϰες έπί τήν ϰεφαλήν αύτόΰ, ϰαί ληφϑείς σφοδρϖ πνρετϖ τέϑνηχε βασιλεύσας παρά εξ ημέρας έτη πέντε.” The 10th-century text De sacris deiparae ad fontem reports Empress Irene’s donation. Healed of a haemorrhage by the miraculous fountain of the Pege in Constantinople, the empress „together with her son, dedicated [to the church]...a crown and vessels for bloodless sacrifice decorated with [precious] stones and pearls.“: Mango (ed.) (1986), pp. 156-157. 132 Gerevini (2014), pp. 207-208. Quoted from: Theophanes, Chronographia, in: de Boor (ed.) (1963), lines 13-18, pp. 8 : „Τούτω τϖ ετει μηνί Μαρτίω ϰς, ίνδιϰτιϖνος δ, τή ήμερα τον άγίον πάσϰα Σοφία ή

23 were often hung above altars within architectural niches by means of chains, and surviving examples, such as the crowns of the treasury of Guarrazar, preserve golden chains and pendants.133 In the western part of the former Roman Empire, the ex-voto offerings were also displayed under the chancel screen.134 The crowns hanging on chains in niches appear already on the of the nave of San Apolinare Nuovo in , even though in this case they may have been used as chandeliers, which were more frequent and close to the outer appearance of the votive offerings [10].135 The preserving of this phenomenon is evidenced by the description of Hagia Sophia by archbishop Anthony of Novgorod (died 1232). He noticed a crown positioned in the centre of the ciborium above the church’s altar, from which a cross and below it a golden dove were hanging. Around the ciborium, according to him, there were displayed crowns of other emperors.136 The same phenomenon is attested also in the area of the Holy Roman Empire. On a relief from the 13th century, positioned in the left wing of the transept of the Duomo in Monza, depicting the coronation of an emperor, above the altar the viewer can see four votive crowns hanging [11].137 The inventory of the San Marco basilica from 1325 mentions a series of 11 coronae, clearly labelled with letters from A to M, which suggests that they were probably hung together. However, the source doesn’t specify if the crowns were an object of devotion or if they served a more practical purpose and were used for illumination.138

1.1.5 Transfer of the crown change in iconography?

For a long time, it was believed that the crown presented an example of reshaping of the iconographic “programme”, caused by a change of its geographical location.139 According to this reading, the image of Leo VI originally occupied a position opposite that of Christ. The twelve apostles would have been arranged between them, both elevating the emperor to the status of disciple and showing his role as representative of Christ on earth. Some scholars have deduced that the crown was rotated clockwise in Venice so that the emperor was “dethroned”, pushed to the left in order to place St. Mark, patron of the city, in the centre.140 Description of the Grotto by the director of Biblioteca Marciana, Jacopo Morelli, from 1801, shows otherwise. His notes are extremely relevant to the understanding of many objects

ανγουστα, ή γυνή Ιουστίνον, άμα Κωνσταντίνη, τη γνναιϰί Μανριϰίον, ότεμμα χατασχεχχίσασαι νπερτιμον τώ βασιλεΐ προσήγαγον. ό δέ βασιλενς τουτο ϑεασάμενος, άπελϑών εις την έϰϰλησίαν τϖ ϑεϖ τούτο προσηγαγε ϰαί έϰρέμασεν aυτο έπάνω της αγίας τραπεζης διά τριϰαλάστον άλυσιδίον διαλίϑον ϰαί ϰρνσοϋ.” Translated to English by Stefania Gerevini. 133 Gerevini (2014), pp. 208. 134 Leclercq (1922), coll. 1040. 135 Ebd., coll. 1852-1853. 136 English Frazer /Alcouffe (1986), pp. 30. „Во олтари же великомъ надъ святою трапезою великою на средѣ ея подъ катапетазмою повѣшенъ кресть; подъ крестомъ голубь златъ; и иныхъ царей вѣчны висять окрестъ катапетазмы.”: Anthony of Novgorod, Книга Паломник, in: Loparev (ed.) (1899), pp. 9-10. 137 Ninni (2017), pp. 19. 138 English Frazer /Alcouffe (1986), pp. 130. For more information about the inventory see: Gallo (1967), pp. 295-297. 139 About the concept of „programme“ see: Guillouët /Rabel (eds.) ( 0 ). 140 Gerevini (2014), pp. 210. For more information see: Cutler (1995), pp. 237 and Grabar (1971), pp. 82. 24 in the treasury because they predate the campaign of restoration that was carried out by Favro brothers in 1836, which substantially altered them.141 That chains (and perhaps originally pendants) hung from the votive crown is suggested by the presence of small suspension rings attached to the lower rim of the crown under each of the enamelled medallions. Although now empty, in the 19th century the rings could have contained fragments of a chain or of a system of chains and pendants, as seen frequently on other medieval votive crowns, such as those from Guarrazar.142 Morelli’s description demonstrates that the present arrangement of enamels is different from what he saw in 1801, and it shows that the object must have been modified between 1801 and 1886 when Pasini illustrated the Grotto in its current state.143 Even though the medallions are now crowded in the front, Morelli distinguished between enamels mounted on the front and on the back. The text also mentions nine instead of seven surviving medallions. The two representing Peter and Matthew were lost or removed. On the front of the crown were Paul, Leo VI, N, N, and Peter, whereas the back featured Matthew, James, N, Mark, N, Luke, Bartholomew, N, and Andrew. Morelli didn’t specify the starting point of his list, but it seems plausible that he stood in front of the object and wrote down the medallions in order from left to right. If this is correct, the crown was in the same position as it is now, with the medallion of Leo VI to the left of the viewer [12].144 The most likely occasion for the rearrangement of the iconography of the crown was the campaign of restoration of the objects in the treasury of San Marco carried out in 1836. The motivation of the drastic change seems to be quite simple: there were not enough medallions to decorate the entire circlet, so all the surviving enamels were shifted to the front of the object, leaving its back devoid of decoration. Before this alteration, the decorative figures circled the crown, a fact supporting the hypothesis that the crown was made to be visible all around.145

141 Gerevini (2014), pp. 210. On the restorations see: Gallo (1967), pp. 93-9 . Morelli’s description of the Grotto of the Virgin is following: „Tabernacolo di cristallo con dentro una immagine di Maria Vergine di tutta figura, d’argento, in piedi, un diadema di perle./Si veggono quattro buchi di cristallo, ch’è lavorato in arabeschi, ed è grosso assai, per li quali si doveva appenderlo./ Nel fondo del cristallo v’è un bucco, per cui si congiunge l’immagine di Maria Vergine ad un cerchio d’argento alto un’oncia e mezzo, largo cinque./ Questo circolo è ornato di smalti rotondi, di pietre preziose (balassi) e di perle. Li smalti parte vi sono e parte mancano: dovevano essere quattordici./ Ve ne sono soltanto nove, tutti rappresentati mezze figure./ Dinazi vi sono: San Paolo, Leone Imperatore, N., N., S. Pietro./ Dietro: Matteo, Giacomo, N., Marco, N., Luca, Bartolomeo, N., Andrea./ Sotto ad ognuna di queste immagini di smalto v’è il residuo di una catenella con qualche perla, e si vede che questo tabernacolo fu fatto per dovere restare appeso.” in: Jacopo Morelli, fol. 44 r-v, Riservate, MS 73, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, Venice. Stefania Gerevini translates it as: “Tabernacle of crystal, with a full- figure image of the Virgin Mary inside, made of silver, standing, with a diadem of pearls. It is possible to see four holes in the crystal, which itself is carved into arabesques and is quite big, by means of which [holes] it was probably hung. At the bottom of the crystal is a hole, through which the image of the Virgin Mary is joined with the circlet of silver that measures one ounce and a half in height, and five ounces in width. This circlet is adorned with round enamels, precious stones (balas ) and pearls. The enamels have partly survived, and partly are lost: there must have been fourteen. There are only nine left, all representing half figures. On the front are: Paul, Leo the Emperor, N, N, Peter. Behind: Mathew, James, N, Mark, N, Luke, Bartholomew, N, Andrew. Below each of these images in enamel there are the remains of a thin chain with some pearls, and one can see that this tabernacle was made to be suspended.” 142 Gerevini (2014), pp. 211. 143 Pasini (1886b), table L, n. 111. 144 Gerevini (2014), pp. 211. 145 Ebd., pp. 211-212. 25

In its early 19th-century arrangement, the enamel of the emperor was not opposite that of Christ (already lost in 1801), but that of Mark. This is likely to have been the original position of the Mark enamel, as it seems improbable that the medallion of the patron saint of Venice would be deliberately reset to occupy a position on the back of the crown once the object was in Venice. The sequence of medallions on the front with Paul and Peter so far to the left and right of the central medallion suggest instead that the figure of Leo VI may have occupied a subordinate position at one side of the central image, probably that of Christ or the Virgin. The votive crown was not turned clockwise to “displace” the emperor from his original central position; rather, its original arrangement was maintained when it was remounted in Venice.146 Because of the lack of accurate descriptive sources, characteristic for the diplomatic gift-giving between the and the West, we are unable to define the precise moment when the crown of Leo VI was moved to Venice, which doesn’t necessarily correspondent with the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade. Nevertheless, the object still serves as a tangible evidence for the active cultural exchange in the Mediterranean. Even though the changes of the disposition of the enamelled medallions after its arrival to Venice were suspected, the latest publications suggest that the crown preserved its “Byzantine” character when it was incorporated into the religious life of the Republic. This could potentially be intepreted as a sign of high regard for the ceremonial and culture of the Eastern Empire. However, without sources to describe the reception of the crown in Venice the research remains inconclusive.

1.2 The crown of Constantine Monomachos147

1.2.1 Description and original arrangement of the plaques

What remains from the so-called Monomachos crown are seven arched plaques decorated with enamel [13].148 The latter were reportedly discovered in a field in the village Ivanka pri Nitre and sold to the Hungarian National Museum between 1860 and 1870.149 The tallest plaque shows an emperor dressed in full . The upper part of his body is surrounded by an inscription identifying him as “Constantine Monomachos, autokrator of the Romans”.150 The lower part is framed by vine scrolls, on which six colourful birds are sitting. Next in order of height are four enamels, two of which portray empresses, and two dancers. Inscriptions identify the empresses as “Zoe, the most pious augusta”151 (the wife of

146 Gerevini (2014), pp. 212. 147 Dawson (2009), pp. 183-193; Maguire (2007), pp. 1-8; Mellace Katona (2005), pp. 331-340; Kalavrezou (2002), pp. 242-244; Kosztolnyik (2001), pp. 30-44; Kiss (2000), pp. 60-83; Maguire (1997), pp. 210-212; Oikonomides (1994), pp. 241-262; Holčík ( 984), pp. 35-50; Lipinsky (1969), pp. 238-242; Wessel (1967), pp. 96-104; de Frankovich (1964), pp. 19-42; Kádár ( 964), pp. 113-124; Mihalik (1963), pp. 199-243; Deér ( 9 ), pp. 433-435; Bárány-Oberschall (1932); Mitchell (1922), pp. 64-69; Érdy ( 86 ), pp. 67-78. 148 The dimensions of the plaques are 11,5 x 5 cm, 10,5 x 4,8 cm, 10,7 x 4,8 cm, 10 x 4,5 cm, 9,8 x 4,5 cm, 8,7 x 4,2 cm, 8,7 x 4,2 cm. See: Kiss (2000), pp. 63. 149 Maguire (2007), pp. 1. See also: Bárány-Oberschall (1932), pp. 49. 150 ΚΩΝΣΤANTINOΣ AΥTOKPATO(P) POMEON O MONOMAXOΥΣ 151 ZΩΗ OI EYΣAIBAIΣTATH AYΓOΥΣTA 26

Constantine IX), and her sister “Theodora, the most pious augusta”.152 Like Constantine, they stand stiffly in full regalia. The empresses and dancers are also framed by wine scrolls with birds. Each of the dancers kicks one leg behind her and holds a long scarf over her head. The two smallest plaques depict the virtues of Truth and Humility, each of them flanked by two cypress trees with two birds on their branches.153 The plaques were found together with a small setting with glass, whose original function is unknown. Most likely it once held a precious stone that was to be attached to the crown.154 The plaques were probably made to be sewn onto a cloth or leather backing, which is suggested by small, irregularly spaced holes drilled into the narrow strips soldered around the backs of the enamels inside their edges. Because the holes are not set at the same levels on the plaques, they could not have been intended for joining the plaques together by means of hooks or wires. Nor is it likely that the holes at the bottoms of the plaques were designed for attaching pendant pearls and jewels, as they aren’t noticeably more torn or bent out than the holes at the sides.155 Arabic sources speak of Byzantine belts of cloth covered with gold and enamel plaques.156 The arched tops of the Monomachos plaques suggest they were most probably intended for a diadem of some kind rather than a belt. A parallel is provided by five 10th century enamel plaques found in Preslav, Bulgaria, which are decorated with the Ascension of Alexander the Great and with fantastic beasts. These also have arched tops and are perforated by small holes at their edges for sewing.157 Miniature in the Madrid Chronicle of offers the most convincing model for the reconstruction of the Monomachos crown. On folio 51 Theodora (842-856), wife of the Emperor (829-842), wears a cylindrical headdress decorated with several arched plaques that are encircled by pearls and arranged in diminishing size, with the largest plaque in the centre [14].158 The two medallions with St Peter and St Andrew, which were found together with the other plaques, were originally attached by a different method [15]. Each medallion is pierced by four nail holes, which damage the inscriptions and thus hint on a reuse of the medallions.159 They differ significantly from the other seven plaques. The characters that constitute the inscriptions are red instead of blue; the medallions are composed of two sheets of gold, whereas the plaques are made of a single sheet.160 Etele Kiss suggests that originally they were part of a group of apostles that together with Christ used to decorate a frame.161 As the remaining plaques were probably stitched to a textile or leather core, it is possible that the medallions of apostles were spoliated and added to the ensemble.162 In the

152 ΘEOΔΩPA H EYΣAIBEΣTATI AYΓOΥΣTA. Transcriptions from: Kiss (2000), pp. 60. 153 Maguire (1997), pp. 210. 154 Kiss (2000), pp. 77. 155 Maguire (1997), pp. 210 156 Ebd. For more information see: Canard (1964), pp. 54. 157 Maguire (1997), pp. 210. See also Kiss (2000), pp. 65. 158 Kiss (2000), pp. 65. See also: Mellace Katona (2005), pp. 334. The first scholar to suggest that Monomachos crown was supposed to be worn by a woman was Deér ( 9 ), pp. 434. About the Skylitzes manuscript see: Grabar /Manoussacas (1979), fig. 48, 50. 159 Maguire (1997), pp. 210. 160 Kiss (2000), pp. 60-61. 161 Ebd., pp. 61. 162 About spoliation see: Hetherington (2008); Cutler (1999), pp. 1055-1083; Hetherington (1988), pp. 37-38. 27 case of the medallion of St Andrew, the choice could have been motivated by the name of the potential recipient, Hungarian king Andrew I (1046-1060).163 The reason behind the choice of St Peter, however, is unclear. Although we can’t refuse this hypothesis altogether, the stylistic coherence of the other plaques shows that they were created intentionally to be used on the crown. If the workshop had the resources and capability to produce such plaques, it would be more logical to create new medallions of saints instead of reusing them. Therefore, in my opinion, the medallions must have been part of a larger group of objects, buried in Ivanka pri Nitre together with the crown.

1.2.2 Monomachos crown a forgery?

Most of the investigators have assumed that the Monomachos plaques are outstanding mid-eleventh-century work of Zeuxippos’s court goldsmith workshop, made under the direct patronage of Constantine IX Monomachos (1042-1055), Zoe (1028-1050) and Theodora (1042-1056) between Constantine’s and Zoe’s wedding in 04 and Zoe’s death in 0 0.164 As far as the production of the crown, the only source speaking about the goldsmith workshops in the middle of the 11th century is the Book of the Prefect (finished possibly after 968).165 The latter stated that workshops of the goldsmiths as well as of the jewellers had to be open on the main road of Constantinople. We thus have to assume that there were many goldsmith workshops, not only the one of Zeuxippos Palace, which potentially worked on imperial commissions.166 Several scholars did find the titles of the figures on the crown and the orthography of the inscriptions problematic and noted also other anomalies.167 The main critique of the authenticity of the crown was Nicolas Oikonomides. According to him the spelling errors in the inscriptions are unusual for objects produced by an imperial workshop as a diplomatic gift.168 The gaze of Constantine also poses a problem: he looks to his left, towards his sister- in-law Theodora, not towards his wife Zoe. This cannot be corrected by changing the places of the two women, because in this way Theodora would occupy the place of honour on the right and the empresses would be looking away from Constantine. In the opinion of Oikonomides again this anomaly is unimaginable in the context of Byzantine courtly etiquette.169 Only the crown of Theodora supposedly carries a cross, even though she was merely one of the co-empresses and crosses appear more frequently on the male crowns [16].170 The prependilia strangely copy the shape of the headdresses of the portrayed

163 King Andrew I is proposed as a recipient of the crown by many scholars: Lipinsky (1969), pp. 241; Mihalik (1963), pp. 238-240; Bárány-Oberschall (1932), pp. 89-90; Mitchell (1922), pp. 64. 164 Kiss (2000), pp. 62. See also: Maguire (2007), pp. 1. 165 About the Constantinopolitan workshops see: Cutler (2002), pp. 544-576. 166 Leo VI, The Book of the Prefect, in: Koder (ed.) (1991), chapter 2. More: Mellace Katona (2005), pp. 337. Wessel (1967), pp. 7 also presumes that there were several enamellers’ workshops simultaneously operating in Constantinople. 167 Kiss (2000), pp. 62. Moravcsik (1932), pp. 92-95 rejects the official character of the inscriptions. Dölger (1956), pp. 150 speaks of inscriptions breaking the courtly protocol. Rudt de Collenberg (1971), pp. 343-344 has noted inconsistencies in the depiction of the thorakion. 168 Oikonomides (1994), pp. 241-243. 169 Ebd., pp. 246. 170 Ebd., pp. 247. 28 individuals.171 The shield-like part of the loros (thorakion) is misplaced on the left side of the body in case of Empress Zoe and it is outlined in such a way that it appears to be separated from the rest of the dress.172 Speaking about the personifications, even though the Truth enjoyed certain popularity in the 11th century, it didn’t constitute a typical imperial virtue, and Humility is completely unlinked with the imperial iconography.173 On the basis of these flaws, Oikonomides reached the conclusion that the whole ensemble is a product of 19th-century forgery.174 His evidence, however, proves to be inconclusive, as I shall prove below. Etele Kiss explains the second-rate quality of the enamels by the excessive patronage of Constantine IX. She draws attention to the fact that in 1046 the emperor gifted many enamelled objects to the Fatimid caliph Al-Mustansir, which had to be transported by 50 mules. The big amount implies that not all of the objects were made in an imperial workshop.175 Not all the enamels with imperial iconography had to be of the highest quality, as suggested not only by Monomachos plaques but also by the plaque representing Emperor Michael (1071-1077) on the Khakhuli triptych [17].176 Mistakes in orthography are a feature shared with the Byzantine enamel of Irene Komnena on the Pala d’Oro in Venice [18]. Inconsistencies in abbreviations and accents appear also in the imperial command on the Cross of Irene Doukaina (1081-1118), dated to the 1130s, now in the Basilica of San Marco and in inscriptions from the 14th century [19]. Because they appear also on works with imperial or aristocratic associations, their presence on the Monomachos plaques doesn’t necessarily suggest a provincial origin and doesn’t indicate they are forgeries, as Oikonomides assumes.177 Parallels in the court art can be found for most of the apparent anomalies in the imperial costumes. A parallel for the form of the female crowns with small triangular projections at the top is provided by the portrait of Constantine IX between Zoe and Theodora that appears in a contemporary manuscript at Mount Sinai [20].178 Although Nicolas Oikonomides claimed that on the enamels Theodora’s crown is surmounted by a little cross, which against the protocol is missing on the crowns of Zoe and Constantine,179 in fact, none of the crowns bears a cross. Theodora’s crown is topped only by a rounded finial.180 The form of the prependilia, which make a curve following the shape of the hair rather than falling straight down, can be matched in the enamel medallions of imperial falconers, now attached to the Pala d’Oro [21].181 These images suggest that at least in the 12th century differences in the portrayal of crowns, even in Constantinopolitan works, were accepted.182 The arrangement of the imperial women’s garments also finds parallels in other Byzantine works. The miniatures of the Theodore

171 Oikonomides (1994), pp. 247-248. 172 Ebd., pp. 248-249. 173 Ebd., pp. 252. 174 Ebd., pp. 258-262. 175 Hijjawi Quaddumi (ed.) (1996), pp. 108-109. See Kiss (2000), pp. 76. 176 Kiss (2000), pp. 76. 177 Ebd., pp. 66. For incorrect inscriptions in Constantinopolitan manuscripts see: Cutler (1994), pp. 72-73. 178 Codex Sinait. gr. 364, fol. 3r. The comparison taken from Maguire (1997), pp. 210. For more information see: Weitzmann /Galavaris (1990), pp. 66. 179 Oikonomides (1994), pp. 247. 180 Maguire (1997), pp. 210. See also: Kiss (2000), pp. 67. 181 Maguire (1997), pp. 210. For more information about the enamels on Pala d’Oro see: Hahnloser /Polacco (1994), pp. 65. 182 Kiss (2000), pp. 68. 29

Psalter, illuminated in Constantinople in 1066, provide examples of the single long sleeve and the thorakion183, framed by a clear border and enclosing a cross [22].184 The Madrid Chronicle of John Skylitzes contains a miniature with five daughters of the Emperor Theophilos (829- 842) and their grandmother. Four of the daughters wear the thorakion on their right side, while the fifth wears it on the left [23].185 The positioning of the thorakion on different sides of the body is explained already by Guillaume de Jerphanion, who considers it as a means of reaching symmetry, which was desirable in Byzantine works of art.186 Considerable discussion has been devoted to the direction in which the imperial figures turn their eyes.187 Because Constantine looks to his left, it has been proposed that originally there must have been a plaque with Christ, towards whom the emperor would have been turning his glance. Zoe, who also looks to her left, would have been placed at Constantine’s right so that she would be looking at him. And Theodora, who looks to her right, would have been placed at the emperor’s left. However, Byzantines weren’t always consistent in following the logic of the gaze. In the miniature at Sinai, Zoe, standing at Constantine’s right, looks to her right, away from her husband.188 As the rare variations of the commonly accepted iconography and mistakes in the inscriptions appear on luxurious imperial commissions, they can’t be viewed as evidence of forgery or work of second-hand workshop. We may rather hypothesize that they are result of a hasty production, prompted by the excessive gift-giving of the emperor.

1.2.3 Monomachos crown as a mirror of imperial virtues

The puzzling pairing of the virtues of Truth and Humility with the imperial portrait on the Monomachos crown isn’t without precedence as well. Truth appears as an imperial virtue flanking the throne of III Botaneiates (1078-1081) in the manuscript of ’s homilies in Paris [24].189 On the crown she points to her mouth, indicating the source of truthful words [25]. Although the appearance of Humility is without parallel in surviving Byzantine imperial art, it was an expected virtue of kings and emperors, both in

183 The original name of the garment is unknown. The term thorakion is used arbitrarily by the literature. The garment could have been part of a loros with no border on the right side, which was decorated with a cross. This type of loros was brought forward from the back and usually appeared on the right side of the torso. Eventually, this shield-like segment may have developed into a separate garment, because in the 10th century there is evidence of its inclusion in portrayals of saints. See: Kiss (2000), pp. 68. 184 The manuscript mentioned above is from the British Library: Ms. Add. 19352, fol. 130r and 167r: Maguire (1997), pp. 210. More about the manuscript: Rudt de Collenberg (1971), pp. 345, fig. 45 and 46. 185 Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, Vitr. 26-2, fol. 44v: Kiss (2000), pp. 69. See also: Rudt de Collenberg (1971), fig. 70. 186 Mellace Katona (2005), pp. 336. See also: de Jerphanion (1930), pp. 71-79. 187 Maguire (1997), pp. 210; Oikonomides (1994), pp. 246-247; Kádár ( 964), pp. 115-116; Mihalik (1963), pp. 223. 188 Maguire (1997), pp. 210; Rudt de Collenberg (1971), pp. 345, fig. 45 and 46. 189 Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris, MS. Coislin 79, fol. 2r. For more information about the miniature see: Spatharakis (1976), pp. 110-111. 30

Western Europe and Byzantium [26].190 In the West, the ruler was compared to David, whose humilitas was contrasted with the superbia of Goliath.191 Basil I (867-886) is praised for his humility in the poem of Patriarch Photius (858-867, 877-886). It is written as if it were a prayer to God by Basil himself. The emperor refers to his spiritual humility, echoing the words of David: “You, who look upon all things, seeing the humility and suffering of my heart, release me from the weight of my afflictions (...) I was the youngest among my father’s children, but, such are wonders you work, you proclaimed me emperor.”192 Humility of the emperor was also a theme emphasized in coronation orations.193 Humility’s pose on the enamel, with the arms folded across the chest, is matched by an illustration of monastic humility (tapeinophrosyne) in a 12th-century copy of the Heavenly Ladder of John Climacus, now at Mount Sinai [27].194 An emperor possessing the two virtues of Humility and Truth was a model favoured by the Church, as the images of the Vatican Psalter (Ms. Vat. gr. 752) illustrate [28].195 The gesture of Humility, with her hands crossed in front of her torso, was a sign of reverence in front of the God, performed by participants of the liturgy, but also in front of the emperor during courtly ceremonies. Often the hands are covered by the dress, according to antique Byzantine tradition of Persian origin. This way the gesture was made by the emperor during the coronation ceremony.196 The imperial humility was not an exclusively masculine quality. For example, the 12th- century orator Michael Italikos (c. 1090-1157), in a eulogy addressed to Irene Doukaina (1081-1118), the wife of Alexios I (1081-1118), includes Humility in a catalogue of the empress’s virtues.197 The vine scrolls, surrounding the augustae, the basileos, and the dancers, create an allusion of a garden, which in the Byzantine rhetoric had strong paradisiacal connotations.198 In Byzantine oratory, the emperor either creates a garden (his kingdom), or he is himself a bird-filled garden of virtues, or the imperial virtues are compared to trees.199 It was a commonplace to compare the emperor or the empress to a flowery meadow, or to a garden. We encounter such images for example in the aforementioned poems addressed to Basil I by the Patriarch Photius: “Let us pluck flowers from the meadows of the eloquence and wisdom, in order that we may crown the honoured head of our wise (...) You may cherish your

190 Oikonomides (1994), pp. 252, 255. 191 Such a comparison is clearly implied in the ivory covers of the Psalter of Queen Melisende, whose husband, Fulk, was king of Jerusalem, and as such a successor of David. On the fron cover of the manuscript, the scene of David fighting Goliath is set beneath a personification of Humilitas decapitating Superbia, who is dressed in armour like the Philistine. See: Maguire (2007), pp. 3 and Kühnel ( 994), pp. 72. 192 “Ιδών ό βλέπων πάντα ταπείνωσιν ϰαί πόνον εμής χαρδίας, λύεις καϰώσεων τά βάρη...Νεώτερος ύπήρϰον εν τέϰνοις του πατρός μου, αλλ, ώ σου τώυ θαυμάτων, ανέδειξας δεσπότην.”: Patriarch Photius, Carmina, in: Migne (1900), coll. 579B-580A 193 Kiss (2000), pp. 70. 194 Maguire (1997), pp. 210. The manuscript MS. gr. 418, fol. 197v, is discussed in: Martin (1954), especially pp. 98. 195 Kiss (2000), pp. 70. More: Kalavrezou et. al. (1993), pp. 195-219. 196 Mellace Katona (2005), pp. 336. 197 Maguire (2007), pp. 4-5. See: Michael Italikos on Irene Doukaina, in: Gautier (ed.) (1972), 148.1-8. 198 Mellace Katona (2005), pp. 338. 199 Maguire (1997), pp. 212. See also: Maguire (1994), pp. 189-194. Source: poems of , in: Hörander (ed.) ( 974), pp. 401, lines 1-24. 31 flock in the springtime of your wisdom, and direct them by leading them to the life-bringing pastures.”200 Close verbal parallel to the imagery of the enamels can be found in a poem, written by Theodore Prodromos (1115-1166) for the marriage of Alexios (1141-1183), the grandson of the Emperor (1081-1118): “Who has seen a garden of the virtues? Let him come now, let him see one!/ Let him see a cypress tree, let him see the prime of life,/ wherefore we process before the famous bridegroom./ Let him see comely clusters of ivy those comely locks of hair./ Let him see the groom’s good fortune a cedar loftier than the cedar of Lebanon;/ his family another beautiful vine, abounding in grapes;/his character a rose more fragrant than the wild rose of the meadow;/ his humility a gentle myrtle above all myrtles;/ his moderation and kindness a lily above all lilies; the gracefulness of his features above hyacinths;/ the eloquence of his speech above lotuses and honey;/ and the nobility of the bridal chamber and of the wedding procession like ivy around a plane tree and vine around the laurel,/ like pearl set against purple, or a precious stone against linen,/ and like a nightingale set in a garden and a light upon a lamp, and like the union of palm trees of male and female.../ Meadows of joy, paradises of graces,/ and gardens of the most imperial festival!/ Who has seen a garden of the virtues? Let him come now, let him see one!”201 Women dancing with scarves are a classical motif, whose Late Antique examples served as prototypes for Byzantine, Sasanian and early Islamic representations [29]. The Hellenistic terracotta with a dancing woman (3rd century B.C.) from the Metropolitan Museum in New York confirms that female dancers were shown kicking up their legs since Antiquity [30]. Female dancers strike this pose in mid-eleventh-century Byzantine miniatures, such as that of David’s victory over Goliath in the Vatican Book of Kings [31].202 The closest contemporaneous parallel to the Monomachos dancers can be found on a gold ring with the monogram of Emperor Nikephoros II (963-969), discovered in Bulgaria, which was decorated with two nimbed enamelled dancing girls (now missing).203 These examples suggest that the dancing female figures on the crown represent a familiar motif, evolving through the interaction of Byzantine and Near Eastern art.204 The appearance of the dancers in the scenes from the life of David, whose victories were employed in the patristic literature and imperial

200 Maguire (2007), pp. 6. See: Patriarch Photius, Carmina, in: Migne (ed.) (1900), coll. 583C- 84C: „Λπό λογιϰών λειμώνων σοφιας λάϐωμεν ανθη, ιωα του σοϕου δεσπότου τιμίαν στέψωμεω ϰάραν...Τό ποίμνιον περιθαλπων, επί νομάς τούτους αγων τάς ζωηφόρους θύνης.“ 201 Maguire (2007), pp. 7-8. Source: poems of Theodore Prodormos, in: Hörander (ed.) ( 974), verses - 24, pp. 401: „Τίς είδε κήπον άρετών; έλθέτω νυν, ίδέτω./ βλεψάτω μέν ϰυπάριττον ώδε τήν ήλιχίαν,/ έφ’ οδ νυν προπομπεύομεν περιφανούς νυμφίου,/ ϰιττου ϰορύμβους ευπρεπείς τούς εύπρεπείς βοστρύχους,/ τήν τύχην ϰέδρον υψηλήν υπέρ Λιβάνου ϰέδρον,/ τό γένος άλλην άμπελον πολύβοτρυν ώραίαν,/ τόν τρόπον ρόδον ευοσμον υπέρ λειμώνος ρόδον,/ τό ταπεινόν, τό γαληνόν υπέρ τά μύρτα μύρτον,/ τό μέτριον ϰαί προσηνές υπέρ τά ϰρίνα ϰρίνον,/ τάς του προσώπου χάριτας υπέρ τάς υαϰίνθους,/ τάς μούσας τάς έν λέξεσιν ύπέρ λωτόν ϰαί μέλι,/ τής δέ παστάδος τά σεμνά ϰαί τής νυμφαγωγίας/ ώς περί πλάτανον ϰισσός ϰαί περί δάφνην ϰλήμα,/ περί πορφύραν μάργαρος ϰαί περί βύσσον λίθος/ ϰαί περί ϰήπον αηδών ϰαί φως περί λυχνίαν,/ φοινίϰων τε συνέλευσις άρρενος ϰαί θηλείας/ ϰαί φίλημα μαγνήτιδος τής λίθου ϰαί σιδήρου/ ϰαί σύνοδος ϰαινοφανής ήλιου ϰαί σελήνης,/ λειμώνες ώδε χαρμονής, παράδεισοι χαρίτων/ ϰαί ϰήποι πανηγύρεως τής βασιλιϰωτάτης./ νυν τελετών ή τελετή, νυν εορτών ή μείζων/ ϰαί πανηγύρεων πασών ή περιφανεστέρα/ ϰαί πάντα πλήρη τερπωλής ϰαί πλήρη θυμηδίας.“ 202 Vat. gr. 333, fol. 24r, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rome 203 Kiss (2000), pp. 73. More about the ring: Vaklinova (1980), pp. 142-146. 204 Kiss (2000), pp. 73. 32 rhetoric to illustrate the subjugation of tyranny, makes them possible symbols of military success of the emperor.205 The Old Testament parallel, however, doesn’t explain why the dancers have halos. Unlike female dancers, personifications of the virtues were frequently haloed in Byzantine art. The virtues of Truth and Justice on the previously mentioned depiction of Nikephoros III are nimbed. Nimbed personifications of Mercy and Justice appear also in the portrait of John II Komnenos (1118-1143) with his son Alexios (1106-1142) in the Gospels in the Vatican Library [32].206 Another nimbed virtue appears in the portrayal of David and Goliath in the Bristol Psalter [33].207 Here the personification of Strength behind David has a halo, while the fleeing Boastfulness has none. It is possible that the dancers on the crown carry metaphorical connotations associated with the virtues. In the words of the 12th- century rhetorician Eustathios of (1115-1195) the women can be described as a chorus of graces, whose circular dance praises and honours the emperor.208 The enamel plaques in Budapest are thus authentic examples of Byzantine imperial rhetoric. They illustrate many common motifs: the virtues of Truth and Humility, the garden metaphors of plants, trees, and birds, and the dances, whether of the graces, the virtues, or the daughters of Jerusalem who welcomed King David.209 Whoever produced the plaques possessed a remarkably sophisticated knowledge of Byzantine political imagery.210 However, it is dubious if such a complicated iconography could have been understood by the recipients in the West without knowledge of contemporary Constantinopolitan literature. In my opinion, it is more probable that the main appeal of the crown was its link to the tradition of the Byzantine Empire and the abundant use of the luxurious sunken enamel.211

1.2.4 Why was the crown found in Ivanka pri Nitre?

The frontier of Ivanka pri Nitre, called Bucsány, is a forested hillside, which extends to the north in the direction of .212 Even though it seems to be a very improbable place for a Byzantine crown to be found at, one explanation, however strange, exists. We may assume that it travelled with its owner during a military campaign. If an army had approached Nitra from the direction of in the west, aiming to attack Nitra without being noticed, the best solution would be to go around the town along this hillside. While in the vicinity of Ivanka, the army could have realized that they are being observed and, anticipating the arrival

205Kiss (2000), pp. 74-75. 206 Cod. Urb. gr. 2, fol. 19v, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rome 207 Cod. Add. MS 40 731, fol. 231v, British Library, London 208 Maguire (2007), pp. 5-6. Source: Eusthatios of Thessaloniki, Orations, in: Regel /Novosadskij (eds.) (1982), 85.6-7. 209 Maguire (2007), pp. 7. 210 Ebd., pp. 2. 211 The design is first sunk by hammering in a gold plate, and then filled with enamel, which is on the same level as the surrounding gold ground. Where the design covers a considerable area, the details are outlined by gold fillets dividing one colour from another, producing a work in cloisonné enamelling. Where the design extends to no more than a narrow cavity, as in the leaves on the Monomachos crown, no fillets are necessary, and the work becomes a variety of champlevé enamelling. See: Mitchell (1922), pp. 64. 212 Kiss (2000), pp. 64. 33 of opposing troops from Komárom or Nitra, might have decided to bury its treasures.213 In 1914, a coin of Constantine IX Monomachos was found in Ivanka, and 20 km to the east, in the village of Čifáre, seven coins of Constantine and one earlier coin were discovered.214 There were several expeditions from the West against Hungary in the 11th century that may have involved raids of Nitra. In 1042 and 1051 this part of the Hungarian Kingdom has been assaulted by Henry III of Germany (1039-1056). If we discuss the potential existence of treasure consisting of enamels, the most interesting is the campaign of Salomon (1063-1074), the former Hungarian king, and German king Henry IV (1056-1105), his brother-in-law, against King Géza I ( 074-1077) in 1074.215 During this campaign, Salomon and Henry unsuccessfully tried to besiege Nitra, after which they proceeded southeast to the Danube.216 The site of the hoards of coins corresponds to their movement. Salomon could have acquired the enamelled plaques through his wife, Judith, the daughter of Henry III of Germany, or through his father, King Andrew I of Hungary (1046-1060). The connections between Constantine and Henry III are well documented and include a detailed (although misleading) record of the gifts presented to Henry III by Constantine in 1049.217

1.2.5 Relations between Byzantium and Hungary in the first half of the 11th century

As a result of the Byzantine invasion in Bulgaria, from 1019 for two centuries Hungary and Byzantium were neighbours and came into direct contact.218 were of potential value for intimidating Bulgarians. High-born persons of Bulgarian origin could take up residence in the Hungarian Kingdom, judging by the find at Michalovce of the gravestone dated 060/ 06 of a “knjaz” Presian (996-1060), possibly identifiable with the eldest son of John Vladislav (1015-1018), tsar of Bulgarians.219 Presian himself could hardly have posed an active threat to Byzantium, having been blinded and later turned into a monk, after being charged with conspiracy against Romanos III (1028-1034).220 Nonetheless, his subsequent withdrawal to the Hungarian lands suggests that the emperor had reason to seek Hungarian neutrality, if not active co-operation, in relation to the Bulgarian problem, which became increasingly serious after the Bulgarians’ revolt in 040-1041.221 Friendly relations with Byzantium, established by Stephen I (1000/1001-1038), were maintained by his immediate successors. During the 11th century hardly any conflict is known.222 Andrew I founded a Greek monastery in Visegrád, dedicated to his patron saint,

213 Kiss (2000), pp. 64-65. 214 Ebd., pp. 64. For more information about the find see: Fiala (1995), pp. 47-56; Gedai (1969), pp. 107. 215 Székely ( 986), pp. 85 ff. 216 Kiss (2000), pp. 65. The battle for Nitra is recorded in the chronicle of Antonio Bonfini (1427-1502/3) Rerum Ungaricarum decades, in: Iványi /Juhász (eds.) ( 936), pp. 45-54. 217 Kiss (2000), pp. 65. See also: Kersten (1994), pp. 144-148, where the author analyses the list of the gifts and reaches the conclusion that it is not complete, therefore it could have contained a crown. 218 Moravcsik (1970), pp. 62. 219 Avenarius (1993), pp. 123. On the gravestone see: Tkadlčík ( 983), pp. 113-123. 220 Shepard (1999), pp. 59 with further suggestion of the sources. 221 Ebd. 222 Ebd., 55-83. 34 and settled Basilian monks at , beside Lake Balaton.223 Such patronage formed part of his general effort to restore Christian institutions and observance after the great uprising of 1046, which reportedly left three out of ten bishops in Hungary.224 He is also known as a monarch who tried to disentangle the country from the sphere of power of the Holy Roman Empire, in effect possibly looking for Byzantine support.225 In fact, there is no firm evidence of active military or political cooperation between the Empire and Hungarian leaders in the 1040s or in the early .226 Hungarian rulers were in no position to provide effective military help to Byzantium at the time when it was most needed for dealing with the Pecheneg raids (late 1040s-early 1050s). King Andrew was then engaged in restoring Christian worship after the uprising which had overthrown his predecessor and which contained anti-Latin and anti-Christian elements. He was also constantly threatened with an invasion of Emperor Henry III (1039-1056), which finally took place in 1051 and 1052.227 Mentions in narrative sources of contacts between the Hungarian and Byzantine ruling circles and between their agents become more plentiful from 1060 onwards.228 If we base the search for the recipient on the place where the crown was discovered, according to the previously mentioned it would make more sense if the crown was a gift to Andrew’s successor Salomon (1063-1074).229 However, during Salomon’s reign in the 060s his Byzantine counterpart wasn’t Constantine IX, but ( 0 9-1067).230 In my opinion, it would be illogical for an emperor to use a crown with a portrait of his predecessor (even without blood relation to him) as a diplomatic gift. Thus, we need to conclude that if the crown was meant to be received in Hungary, its recipient must have been King Andrew I, even though sources about his relations with Byzantium are scarce. If the crown was created for a woman, as suggested by a comparison with the , there is one reason, however hypothetical, that the crown arrived in Hungary shortly after its production. Having to flee from Hungary at the end of the 1030s, Andrew found refuge at the court of the great prince Jaroslav the Wise (1019-1054) in Kiev.231 In exile, Andrew had converted to orthodox Christianity and then married Jaroslav’s daughter, Anastasia (c. 1023-c. 1096). In 1046 the grand prince and the concluded a peace treaty and strengthened it with dynastic marriage: Vsevolod, son of Jaroslav, married the daughter of Constantine IX Monomachos. Because of family ties, we can’t exclude the possibility that the crown was meant to be worn by Andrew’s wife Anastasia.232 If the dancers symbolize Victory (they quite often do so in the Western as well) and if King Andrew I of Hungary (1046-1060) were the recipient of the Monomachos crown, the crown’s iconography could have served to remind him of the disorderly beginning

223 Moravcsik (1970), pp. 62-64. For more information see also: Shepard (1999), pp. 61-62 and Olajos (1999), pp. 86 with sources. 224 Shepard (1999), pp. 62. See also: Komjáthy ( 960), pp. 245-246. 225 Moravcsik (1970), pp. 64. 226 Shepard (1999), pp. 60. 227 Ebd., pp. 63-64. 228 Ebd., pp. 64. 229 About Salomon see: Kosztolnyik (1981), pp. 78-94. 230 About Constantine X Doukas see: Norwich (1993), pp. 337-343. 231 Makk (1990), pp. 23-41. 232 Olajos (1999), pp. 85-87. 35 of his reign, when he had to convert the pagans and face the attacks of Henry III of Germany (1039-1056).233 If the crown were presented to Henry III in the late 1040s, it may have encouraged him in his universal political program, the pax in terra.234 Produced in one of the Constantinopolitan workshops, the Monomachos crown with its complex iconography embodies the contemporary imperial rhetoric. When it was given as a gift, however, even without knowledge of Byzantine topoi its luxurious enamels with vine scrolls, birds and dancers could have been interpreted as a hint on the universal courtly leasures, shared by the rulers. The gold and the enamel held the power to awe the spectator and the new owner into reverence for the Byzantine emperor.

1.3 The Holy Crown of Hungary235

1.3.1 Composition and iconographic “programme” of the corona graeca

While presently an integrated object, the composite nature of the crown is obvious. Interior views of the crown display the marks of assembly: large gold nails are hammered through the exterior of the lower crown, and two of the Latin-inscribed plaques on the arches as significantly obscured by the projections of the lower Greek crown [34].236 The circlet of the lower part of the crown, the so-called corona graeca, is an almost regular circular band, welded at the back, formed out of a rather thick (1,5 mm) gold plate.237 At the centre the band is surmounted by a semicircular, protruding part. On the larger of these, coinciding with the front of the head was placed the plaque showing the figure of the Pantocrator, while the Emperor Michael VII’s (1071-1078) portrait figured on the smaller, back plaque, the Emperor being the other main protagonist of the ensemble [35, 36]. On the itself, square cloisonné enamels and precious stones alternate. The ornamental pinnacle decorations (four on both sides), alternately in arch and triangle form, all have an à jour (translucent) enamel finish and flank the plaque with Christ.238 Since the enamel fields had to be soldered to one another and not to the base, the design is more exposed to distortions. However, the unevenness disappears when we see the ornaments in light shining through them. Then the blue and the green of the pattern of golden design sparkle in all their splendour.239 Coupled with the golden background and gems they awe the spectator and captivate his gaze. Pierced gems are secured to their tops, substituted by a pearl on the two

233 Kiss (2000), pp. 76. 234 Ebd. 235 Marosi (2018), pp. 351-354; Hilsdale (2008), pp. 602-631; Péter ( 003), pp. 421-510; Buckton (2002), pp. 14-21; Hetherington (2002), pp. 33-38; Jolivet-Lévy ( 00 ), pp. 22-32; Kiss (2002), pp. 39-51; Lovag (2002), pp. 62-71; Radnóti ( 00 ), pp. 83-111; Szakács ( 00 ), pp. 52-61; Tóth ( 00 / 00 ), pp. 315-348; Tóth /Szelenyi (2000); Holler (1996), pp. 907-964; Bakay (ed.) (1994); Benda /Fügedi ( 988); Váczy ( 98 ), pp. 1- 18; Bertényi ( 980); Kovács /Lovag ( 980), pp. 18-58; de Vajay (1976), pp. 37-64; Wessel (1967), pp. 111-115; Deér ( 966);Bárány-Oberschall (1961); Boeckler (1956), pp. 735-742; Kelleher (1951); Uhlirz (1951); Moravcsik (1935), pp. 113-162; Ipolyi (1886). 236 Hilsdale (2008), pp. 607. 237 Its inner circumference is 63,6 cm, height 17,9 cm without pendants. See: Marosi (2018), pp. 351 and Kovács /Lovag (1980), pp. 23. Ebd., pp. 37 explain the dimensions of the crown, far exceeding the circumference of a human head, with the fact that it was worn over a , making the rigid hoop of the circlet more comfortable. 238 Kovács /Lovag ( 980), pp. 23. 239 Ebd., pp. 25. 36 outermost ones. A row of pearls mounted on pins decorates the reverse side of the crown and runs to the protruding plaque at the back. A group of four pendants on each side hangs from the lower rim of the crown, with a single one in the back.240 The ten cloisonné plaques undoubtedly constitute a homogeneous series. The elegance of the enamel palette, clarity of design and attention to detail make them one of the finest ensembles of the genre.241 According to David Buckton “neither before nor after it did Byzantine enamel reach the painstaking precision of the plaques on the corona graeca.”242 Around the enthroned Pantocrator, represented on the largest plaque, the saints form a sort of paradisiacal court. The paradisiacal site is indicated by the stylized cypresses rising on both sides of Christ’s throne. The archangels with multicoloured wings, wearing ornamental tunics, refer to the heavenly origin of royal power. Michael is frequently represented as the divine bearer of princely insignia [37]. We can find similar concepts on the Khakhuli triptych and on the coin issued by Emperor Isaac II [38, 39].243 Another role awarded to him is that of archistrategos, or the warrior leader of the heavenly army. In this case, the heavenly warriors are represented by a pair of saints, dressed in richly decorated armour and holding a shield and a spear: St George, the soldiers’ patron saint, and St Demetrius, the most venerated military saint of Byzantium [40].244 Both were considered protectors of the Empire against the attacks of the barbarians, the infidels and the pagans. The archangels and soldier-saints are followed on the reverse side of the circlet by two half-length portraits of physicians Cosmas and Damian [41]. They were viewed as the guarantors of the emperor’s physical well- being.245 Their worship was widespread in all strata of society throughout the Empire from the end of the 5th century, and they were highly venerated in the imperial court, as attested for example by ivory depicting the coronation of Emperor Leo VI, now in Berlin [42].246 On the central enamel on the reverse side of the crown, with its back to the Pantocrator, is the Byzantine emperor occupying the peak of worldly hierarchy: “Michael the Ducas, Emperor of the Romans, believer in Christ”.247 To his right on the crown is depicted “Constantine, Emperor of the Romans, born in purple”248 and on his left, “Géza, faithful King of Turkia“249 (Byzantine name for Hungary) [43, 44].250 Except for the two Byzantine rulers staring into the air, all the persons have pointed gazes: the angels look sideways and upward at Christ, the saints from the corner of their eyes also look towards Christ, and Géza looks at the emperors. The linking of the glances divides the images into two unequal groups representing celestial and earthly protagonists.251 The

240 Kovács /Lovag ( 980), pp. 23. 241 Ebd. Hetherington (2002), pp. 36 points out the possibility that the plaque with the image of Michael VII was spoliated from another object, because it is the only one with holes in it. In my opinion, however, the holes may be a result of the reshaping of the Holy Crown in the 12th century. 242 Buckton (2002), pp. 15. 243On the Khakhuli triptych see: Eastmond (2016), pp. 88-105; Papamastorakis (2002), pp. 225-254; Amiranashvili (1972). On the coin see: Hendy (1999), n. 1c. 244 About the veneration and iconography of St George see: Lempire (2018), pp.29-42; 245 Mango (1994), pp. 189-192. 246 Jolivet-Lévy ( 00 ), pp. 23; Kovács /Lovag ( 980), pp. 24. 247 Μιχ(άήλ) έν Χ(ριστ)ϖ πιστόϛ βασιλεύϛ ’Ρωμαίων ό Δούκ(αϛ), in: Hilsdale (2008), note 46, pp. 629. 248 Κων(σταντίνοϛ) βασιλεύϛ ’Ρωμαίων ό πορφυρογέννητοϛ, in: Hilsdale (2008), note 46, pp. 629. 249 Γεωβιτζάϛ πιστόϛ κράληϛ Τουρκίαϛ, in: Hilsdale (2008), note 47, pp. 629. 250 Kovács /Lovag ( 980), pp. 23-24. 251Ebd., pp. 24. 37 hierarchy of celestial and terrestrial powers and the inferiority of the basileus with respect to the Pantocrator are indicated by the reduced dimensions of the emperor’s image and its placement (it is situated a little lower than the plate with the Pantocrator, the row of pearls separating it from the lower register is missing).252 The imagery of the Holy Crown, most certainly a Byzantine diplomatic gift by virtue of the plaques bearing the two contemporary ruler’s portraits, doesn’t include secular imagery, like many other gifted objects (for example crown from Preslav, Monomachos crown, Artukid bowl) do.253 It is a more austere hierarchical object that emphasizes the difference from the receiver rather than common tastes and courtly culture, which was the most important aim of a diplomatic gift. The language of Michael VII’s gift is entirely Byzantine, not cosmopolitan, and its message addresses its particular wearer.254

1.3.2 Corona graeca as gift to a consort

One of the unresolved questions regarding the crown is the gender of it recipient. We should consider the theory that the corona graeca of the Holy Crown of Hungary makes more sense as a consort’s crown because it would have been inappropriate for Géza I (1074-1077) to wear a crown bearing his own portrait.255 Instances of such practice are unattested, while both texts and images from various periods depict courtiers, officials and subjects wearing an image of the emperor as a symbol of allegiance.256 Depictions of regalia in Byzantine art show consorts and reigning empresses represented in crowns with sharp crests or pinnacles surmounted by pearls. On Monomachos crown, for example, the pointed projections of Zoe and Theodora’s crowns differ significantly from that of Constantine IX. Maria Parani, in her study of Byzantine art, notes that even after the shape of the emperor’s crown changes in the late 11th to early 12th century, empresses continue to wear taller and more elaborate crowns with projections along the top.257 If we accept that the intended wearer of the crown was the Byzantine consort of Géza from the aristocratic family Synadenoi, then the representation of the Pantokrator, the two emperors and the Hungarian king implies where the allegiances of his Byzantine bride should lie: first and foremost to Christ, depicted on the front of the crown, then both to her fatherland, embodied by the portraits of Michael VII Doukas and Constantine, and her new home and husband Géza, depicted on the back.258 This conclusion helps to explain why the austere enamels of the crown depart so significantly from other cosmopolitan designs appropriate for exchange. As a crown for Byzantine bride marrying into a foreign culture, it employs an entirely different form of visual diplomacy. The imagery doesn’t blur cultural

252 Jolivet-Lévy ( 00 ), pp. 23. 253 About the Artukid bowl see: Steppan (2000), pp. 84-101. 254 Hilsdale (2008), pp. 611. 255 Ebd., pp. 611- 613. The female recipient of the crown was advocated by Kovács /Lovag ( 980), pp. 37; Wessel (1967), pp. 115; Deér ( 966), pp. 52-62 and Bárány-Oberschall (1961), pp. 19. Jolivet-Lévy ( 00 ), pp. 27-28; Kelleher (1951), pp. 35; Ipolyi (1886), pp. 67 support the hypothesis that the crown was meant to be worn by Géza I himself. 256 Hilsdale (2008), pp. 615. 257 Ebd., pp. 614. More: Parani (2003), pp. 29. 258 Hilsdale (2008), pp. 615. 38 boundaries by employing common courtly motifs. Instead, it describes hierarchy and allegiance appropriate for an intended wearer from Constantinople.259 The ties of the bride would be displayed to those who would see her wearing the crown. It would have looked Byzantine to Hungarian eyes, though the rhetoric of the rear pinnacle may not have been immediately apparent. On the other hand, for Synadena it would provide a concrete description of her role as a gift, bound to her giver and the giver of the crown she would wear.260 The “programme” of the corona graeca maps heavenly and earthly hierarchies by visualising the Byzantine conception of order. Such a harmonious hierarchy contrasted with chaos or disorder, which was associated with the barbaroi outside the borders of the Empire.261 Such a distinction between inside and outside and the proper order of cultures dominates the books of protocol De cerimoniis and is also expressed visually in the enamel plaques of the Holy Crown. Although all three monarchs are described as loyal or faithful, the Constantinopolitan rulers are Roman emperors (basileioi) in contrast to Géza, who is described merely as ruler (kral) of Hungary (Turkia). Colour distinctions are as significant as linguistic ones, for red was reserved for imperial signatures while blue was employed by the next rank of courtiers to sign documents.262 Precedence is also made clear in visual terms through dress and attributes. The Byzantine emperor is represented in the imperial loros and his son in an elaborate collared garment. Both wear ornate crowns with prependilia and hold a labarum (standard). Michael clasps a sword in his other hand while Constantine holds a scroll-like object.263 On the other hand, Géza, dressed in a much simpler , bears a crown without pendant pearls, and he holds a sword and cruciform .264 The two Byzantine rulers are also distinguished by large green nimbi outlined in red, which they share with the archangels and saints along the front of the crown, while the Hungarian king is the only figure on the crown lacking a halo. The crown’s composition symbolically includes the foreign ruler in the imperial family by positioning him alongside the porphyrogennetos as a key participant in the earthly court but simultaneously defines his position within the family network as an inferior partner. Such hierarchy elucidates the very nature of a Byzantine gift, filled with ulterior narratives of superiority.265

259 Hilsdale (2008), pp. 618. 260 Ebd., pp. 621. 261 Ebd., pp. 618. See also: Shepard (1988), pp. 67-118 and Ahrweiler (1975), pp. 129-147. 262Hilsdale (2008), pp. 618. The significance of colour difference of the inscriptions on the Holy Crown is discussed also by Grabar (1936), pp. 15-16. About the precedence of colours in the Byzantine court see: Guilland (1967), pp. 38. 263 Hilsdale (2008), pp. 618 points out that both Constantine IX on Monomachos crown and Michael VII on the Khakhuli triptych hold the same object. She suggests that because the artworks were intended to be gifts, the object wasn’t a badge of office authority (mappa or akakia) but rather a scroll or a letter tied with red string since any gift would have originally been accompanied by a letter. Gifts and letters together appear in many of the narratives of Byzantine-Arabic exchange included in the Book of Gifts and Rarities. 264Hilsdale (2008), pp. 618. Wessel (1967), pp. 115 associated the cruciform sceptre and the diadem (stephanos) with the attire of the highest official class of Byzantine aristocracy, patrikios. 265 Hilsdale (2008), pp. 618-619. 39

1.3.3 Historical circumstances of the imperial gift

In terms of motivation, at first, scholars have assumed that Michael VII sent the corona graeca to Géza in recognition of his assumption of power in 074.266 Within this context, the gift of a crown to the new king expressed the intention to gain Hungary as an ally. Such a gesture was well situated within the larger foreign policy of Michael VII Doukas. The Hungarians were undeniably important Byzantine allies in the late 11th century.267 Géza is always mentioned as a friend of the Greeks. His attitude is further symbolized by his marriage with the daughter of Theodulus Synadenus, niece of the later emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates (1078- 08 ), who returned to Byzantium after her husband’s death in 077.268 The Synadenoi family maintained close ties with the ruling dynasties of Komnenes, the Doukas and later the Botaneiatai. They often served in the highest positions in the themes in the West, and through their network of „clients“ became famous even beyond the Danube. They could, therefore, be a flattering choice for the Hungarian ruler.269 This marriage brought the Hungarian king into contact with influential Byzantine circles and was connected with the Hungaro-Byzantine alliance.270 The precise date of the wedding remains unknown, Jonathan Shepard, however, contemplates the early .271 The crown was therefore sent to Hungary somewhere between 1074, when Géza ascended to the throne and the son of Michael VII, Constantine, became his co-emperor, and 1077, the year of the death of the Hungarian king.272 After the siege of , laid by Hungarian king Salomon (1063-1074) in 1071 and related to the Bulgarian uprising, the Byzantine emperor reportedly sent envoys to his rival brother Géza to secure peace and friendship and the prince released all his captives.273 Géza could have been regarded as a counterweight to his brother Salomon, an enemy of the Eastern Empire, and a potential guarantor of stability in central Europe. The return of the prisoners whom he had acquired at Belgrade might have strengthened his credentials for a role as a „client“ on the Danube.274 When Michael VII received supreme power in October 1071, the Empire was pressed from all sides. In the East, the Seljuk Turks had crushed the army of Roman IV Diogenes (1068-1071) at Mantzikert, seizing the very person of the emperor. When they liberated their prisoner, a terrible civil war tore apart Asia Minor. In Italy, in the same year, (1015-1085) brought down , the last Byzantine point of support. Finally, in the , Croatia entered into rebellion.275 At that particular time, Michael VII was resorting to a variety of diplomatic devices on several fronts in order to cope with the situation. The offer of

266 Hilsdale (2008), pp. 619. See also: Pauler (1895), pp. 133; Kollar (1764), pp. 86. 267 Hilsdale (2008), pp. 619. See also: Kelleher (1951), pp. 60. 268 Moravcsik (1970), pp. 65. 269 Cheynet (2002), pp. 11. 270 Moravcsik (1970), pp. 6 . The only source that speaks briefly about the marriage is John Skylitzes’s Continuation, 185, in: Tsolakes (ed.) (1968), pp. 23-26. 271 Shepard (1999), pp. 77-78. 272 Cheynet (2002), pp. 8. 273 Shepard (1999), pp. 77-78; Moravcsik (1970), pp. 64-65. The actions of the emperor are described in 14th- century , in: Dercsényi et. al. (eds.) (1964b), pp. 376. 274 Shepard (1999), pp. 79. 275 Cheynet (2002), pp. 7. Source: Nikephoros , Material for a History, in: Gautier (ed.) (1975), pp. 211. 40 marriage-ties with foreign ruling families featured prominently among them.276 Whatever the precise circumstances giving rise to the enamel plaques, they represent imperial initiatives aimed at securing stability on Byzantium’s northern and north-west approaches and they offer evidence of awareness of the importance of Hungarian leaders.277 The fact that Géza had been recognized by the Byzantine court as the (as the inscription on the crown attests), was a guarantee for the independence of the Hungarian kingdom. Géza I was in need of such recognition by Byzantium, for after Salomon’s fall, when in 074 he succeeded him on the throne, he had to secure not only his personal rule but also the country’s independence of the Germans who supported Salomon.278 But the Hungaro-Byzantine alliance was far from one-sided. It was in the interest of Byzantium to be on good terms with the Hungarian kingdom because at the time the empire was threatened not only by the internal rebellion of the Bulgarians and Serbs but also by the attacks of the Seljuk Turks from the east and the and Uzes from the north.279 Both the emperor and the Hungarian king hold a sword on their representations on the crown. This attribute hints on the military alliance between the two sovereigns. The images of military saints George and Demetrios, both in warrior attire, further confirms the link between the sending of the crown to Hungary and military alliance.280 The cross that Géza holds in his hand is the instrument of the emperor’s victory in the struggle against the barbarians and the infidels. It is the guarantee of the victory of the Christian ruler. This meaning is especially significant if we consider the reason for the alliance between the Hungarian and the Byzantine ruler, sealed by the diplomatic marriage and the gift of the crown.281

1.3.4 Transformation of the crown

Even after Synadena’s return to Byzantium, the crown stayed behind. At some point, most probably in12th century, it was transformed into a new object. The interlaced arms of corona latina were attached to the open, ring-shaped band that presumably was once worn by a Byzantine bride.282 Some of the evidence, howsoever feeble, for the dating of corona latina was searched in the filigree decorations, which are comparable to the objects discovered in Székesféhervár in the royal tombs from the 12th century [45, 46].283 The objects, however, could have been produced much earlier.284 If the suppositions of Éva Kovács and Zsuzsa Lovag are correct and the filigree was soldered to the branches of the upper crown285, it could

276 Shepard (1999), pp. 79. 277 Ebd., pp. 82. Jolivet-Lévy ( 00 ), pp. 29 connects the sending of the crown with diplomatic alliance as well, and she supports her conclusion with the iconographic analysis of the enamels. She, however, refuses the significance of the Géza’s marriage for its dispatching. 278 Székely ( 986), pp. 85 ff. 279 Moravcsik (1970), pp. 69. 280 Jolivet-Lévy ( 00 ), pp. 25. 281 Kovács /Lovag ( 980), pp. 42. 282 Hilsdale (2008)., pp. 621; Kovács /Lovag ( 980), pp. 82. 283 Lovag (2002), pp. 70. See also: Szakács ( 00 ), pp. 55-57. 284 Szakács ( 00 ), pp. 55. 285 Kovács /Lovag ( 980), pp. 43. 41 have been created before the corona latina, whose function (if it was reused, as many scholars assume) and age are uncertain as well.286 The Hungarian crown is mentioned in the sources under different names. It is referred to, mainly in the early sources, simply as “the king’s crown”, or “the royal crown”; then increasingly as “the crown of the country”, or “the crown of Hungary”, but most frequently as “the holy crown”. 287 The upper part of the crown had an important function, namely to keep a relic of the , acquired by St Stephan (1000-1038) and reportedly carried by Géza II (1141- 1162) during his campaign in Galicia.288 Christ’s image at the top was pierced through because of it, and the bands were mounted precisely so that they provide a place of distinction for the cross, not for the simple cross of today, but for its predecessor. Before Queen Isabela (1539-1540) handed over the regalia to King Ferdinand (1526-1564) in 1551, she broke the cross off the crown’s peak for her son, John Sigismund (1540-1570). Originally, the cross in question was probably a reliquary cross.289 The reinforcement of royal insignia with the revered remains of instruments of Passion was a long-standing tradition closely connected with , who had a nail of the Holy Cross implanted in his and rein.290 The veneration of the True Cross dates from St Stephen’s era. Not only the Byzantine emperors but also Western rulers considered the relic as a “weapon“ ensuring victory. It is a special Hungarian feature, however, that the veneration of the True Cross was closely interwoven with the cult of the country’s first king.291 Perhaps the Hungarian crown was holy because it had once been reinforced with a fragment of the victory-bringing relic. The cult of the relic and of the first king was continuous. Thus, for the time being, it is impossible to link the transformation of the crown to a certain phase of the cult or to a certain king.292 We can only conclude that it was certainly done during or after the reign of Géza II, who carried the unattached relic on his campaign, or his son Béla III (1172-1196), at whose time the double cross reminding of the relic of the True Cross became part of the coats of arms of the Hungarian kings.293 Preserving traces of its history, the crown was physically altered to become Hungary’s coronation crown, an object central to conceptions of national identity ever since. While custom-made for one wearer to express her position as a gift, it has been reshaped to enhance the authority of a new male wearer.294 Along with its new social function as a king’s crown, the identity of the giver shifted as well. Over time, the crown became understood not as a gift from Byzantine emperor but from Pope Silvester II (999-1003) to King Stephen (1000-1038), the first Christian monarch of Hungary.295

286 Lovag (2002), pp. 62-64, 66-70. 287 Váczy ( 98 ), pp. 1. 288Lovag (2002), pp. 70. 289 Kovács /Lovag ( 980), pp. 79-81. 290 Radnóti ( 00 ), pp. 107, n. 19; Kovács /Lovag ( 980), pp. 81. See also: Schramm (1956), pp. 869-883. 291 Kovács /Lovag ( 980), pp. 81. 292 Ebd., pp. 81. 293 Lovag (2002), pp. 70. 294Hilsdale (2008), pp. 623. Deér ( 966), pp. 179 also emphasizes that the corona latina was added to accommodate a male wearer. 295 Kelleher (1951), pp. 42-55. 42

This understanding doesn’t appear in textual sources until the th century. The earliest reference to the crown, the 11th-century Chronicle of Thietmar, Bishop of Merseburg,296 mentions that Stephen “received a crown and benediction”, neglecting to mention the origin or donor of the crown, and the late 11th-century Major Life of St Stephen297 describes Stephen’s coronation but likewise omits its origin. The first one to explicitly mention the crown as a gift from the Roman Pope is Bishop Hartwig’s (1088- after 1116) account of St Stephen, 298 written between 1112 and 1116.299 Since the time of Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085), the papacy has been trying to impose its authority over emperors and kings.300 Hungarian king Coloman (1095-1116), trained for an ecclesiastical profession, seemed to be more responsive towards papacy than his forefathers. The new St Stephen’s legend, compiled by bishop Hartwig on his instructions, related the history of the foundation of the Hungarian kingdom in the way the Holy Sea expected him to: Stephen became the first king of the Hungarians with the blessing of the pope and was crowned with the crown sent by him.301 The attribution of the insignia to the holy king transferred the sanctity to the object which thus became a proper relic.302 The material presence of the crown became important when Hungary was threatened by the emergence of pretenders to the throne and frequent change of kings at the beginning of the 14th century. In this period the crown became politically charged relic and was surrounded by almost religious devotion and mystical idea of the state, ensuring the perseverance and legitimacy of the monarchical power.303 The Holy Crown of Hungary, used by the emperor as a tool of diplomacy in times of need, embodied the Byzantine ideal of order of terrestrial power. It was created to remind its wearer of the supremacy of the Byzantine ruler and the obligation to offer military help. After a century, however, through addition of the upper crown and association with the venerated first Christian ruler it transformed in almost a relic, indispensable for the confirmation of legitimate monarchic power.

1.4 The diadem from Preslav

1.4.1 The Preslav Treasure: its discovery and dating

In 1978 a farmer discovered some golden jewellery when ploughing near the Bulgarian town of Preslav.304 Afterwards archaeologists revealed one of the most important groups of goldsmith’s works from the Middle Byzantine period known to date. It contains more than 80 golden, gilded or silver, partly enamelled pieces of jewellery, dress appliqués, diadem

296 Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon Thietmari, in: Holtzmann (ed.) (1935), IV.59, pp. 98: „...coronam et benediccionem accepit.“ 297 Legenda Sancti Stephani Regis Maior, in: Bartoniek (ed.) (1948), pp. 384. 298 Bishop Hartwig, Life of St Stephen, in: Tóth (ed.) ( 94 ), pp. 412-414. 299 Hilsdale (2008), pp. 623-624; Kelleher (1951), pp. 42, 48, 50. 300 Capitani (2015); Leyser (1994). 301 Váczy ( 98 ), pp. 5. 302 Lovag (2002), pp. 87. 303 Ebd., pp. 95. 304 Totev (1986), pp. 81-106. 43 plaques, vessel fragments, a rock crystal seal, a gemstone ring, two early Byzantine spoons, and 15 silver coins.305 The most outstanding pieces, such as enamelled necklaces, pendants and earrings, are of excellent quality.306 Some of the plaques of the diadem, however, were not discovered. The advanced and rainy autumn at the time of the ploughing and the fact that the treasure wasn’t noticed and was left in the open amidst the lumps of soil during the winter led to the damage of some of the finest and most lavishly adorned objects with multicoloured cloisonné enamel.307 The goldsmith’s works were found outside the medieval town of Preslav. They were packed in a box, hastily hidden in a stone oven of a hut. Reliable terminus ante quem is the year 971, when the glittering capital of the (681-1018) was taken and plundered by the Byzantine emperor (969-976) after decades of very volatile relations between Bulgaria and Byzantium.308 The course of events explains easily the reasons for taking the expensive objects and their hurried concealment in the oven of the investigated dwelling in Kastana, as well as the fact that some of the settlements in the vicinity of the capital city had been burned down and deserted by their inhabitants.309

1.4.2 Description of the diadem

The five semicircular gold plates with enamelled representations of two griffins, one with a head of a lion, one with a head of an eagle, and two simurghs and the Ascension of Alexander, which were discovered among other precious things in 1978 in Preslav, are part of the diadem handed over by the emperor [47].310 Made of thin gold sheets, the plaques are rectangular with an arched upper end and dimensions 5,4 x 4,4 cm. The little round openings on the vertical edges have been used to attach the plaques to a fabric or leather and to link them together. The openings made on the horizontal sides have been used to hang pearls, thread through them chains with pendants and gold beads, multicoloured stones, rock-crystal and glass as in the case of the two-sided necklace.311 According to its construction and partly to its ornaments the Preslav diadem can be related to the diadems from Kievan Rus’, especially to the diadem from Sakhanovka.312 The plates are created from two sheets of gold. The thinner one at the bottom is hollowed to hold the enamel, while the one on the top is cut out in the shape of the figures. The work is characterized by the obvious effort to fill up the decorated space, by a tasteful use of polychromy and precisely shaped fine golden cells.313 Because of the fact that the treasure stayed in the open during the winter, after the ploughing, that the enamels in the great part of the cloisonné have been damaged, and those not affected have lost their original freshness of tonality and lustre. As a result of observations

305 Minaeva (2010), pp. 177-178. 306 Bosselmann-Ruickbie (2004), pp. 77. 307 Totev (1993), pp. 18. 308 Bosselmann-Ruickbie (2004)., pp. 77. See also: Totev (1993), pp. 7-16. 309 Totev (1993), pp. 14. 310 Alto Bauer (2010), pp. 21. 311 Totev (1993), pp. 20. 312 Ebd., pp. 23. See also: Aladjov (2018), pp. 39. 313 Aladjov (2018), pp. 46-48. 44 on some traces of utilized enamels, the excellent taste and the high professional level of the goldsmith are obvious. They are seen in the easiness with which he draws the outlines by means of gold partitions and when he enlivens the enamels by heart-shaped patterns, trefoils rosettes, and palmettes.314 Technological arguments speak for the same period and place of production of almost all jewellery of Preslav treasure. The enamels on the Preslav jewels, together with pearl decorations and braided framing are closely related to the unique pair of arm cuffs from Thessaloniki [48].315 It is very likely that the highest quality goldsmith works in Preslav and Thessaloniki were created around the same time and possibly by the same workshop or workshop group. They could only have been made by very experienced craftsmen who worked for the highest-ranking and wealthiest customers. This workshop was most likely located in Constantinople, the capital of the Empire.316

1.4.3 Gift’s “message”

From the few preserved pieces it cannot be decided whether it adorned male or female head. In any case, it corresponds to the type of the larger Monomachos crown in Budapest, which was decorated with sunken enamel as well.317 The Ascension shows the ancient ruler as he is carried to the sky on a biga drawn by two griffins.318 Based on the so-called Alexander novel of Pseudo-Kallisthenes (3rd century), Alexander was transformed into an example of an ideal ruler in the Christian sense and depicted both in the East and in the West.319 While in Early Christian art the subject was understood as the image of superbia (pride), in Byzantine art the imperial connotations of the apotheosis of a successful ruler were emphasized. Thus, Byzantine depictions of Alexander constantly show him as Byzantine emperor.320 Typological comparisons of the Byzantine emperor with such figures as Alexander the Great or Herakles further document the appropriation of the imperial imagery of Antiquity by the Byzantines.321 Having in mind that the iconography was widely spread in Byzantium, it is worth pointing out that that the Alexander romance was quite popular in Bulgaria, too. Its Slavonic version appeared in Preslav in the 10th century.322 Simurghs were mythical creatures from the Sassanid tradition, consisting of dog’s head, lion’s paws and peacock’s tail, and associated with royal iconography.323 The griffins, back to back and standing upright on their hind paws, are similar to those depicted on a Byzantine lead seal from the 10th century in the sphragistics collection of the Hermitage, on the lavishly decorated enamel medallion from the 11th century, incorporated into Pala d’Oro in Venice, on the central plaque of the 11th century diadem from Sakhanovka and on a 12th century enamelled copper cup, exhibited in the Innsbruck Museum [49, 50].324 The aforementioned

314 Totev (1993), pp. 23-24. 315 On the cuffs see: Kalavrezou (1997), pp. 243-244 with further bibliography. 316 Bosselmann-Ruickbie (2004)., pp. 78-79. 317 Ebd., pp. 78. 318 Roman two-horse chariot. See: http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/biga (searched on 09. 12. 2019) 319 Bosselmann-Ruickbie (2004), pp. 78. 320 Steppan (2000), pp. 87. 321 Ebd., pp. 88. 322 Totev (1993), pp. 24. 323 Bosselmann-Ruickbie (2004), pp. 78. 324 Totev (1993), pp. 27. 45 objects, as well as the 12th century stone reliefs from the Demitrievski and Uspenski cathedrals in Vladimir in , demonstrate that the scene’s imperial connotations led to its appropriation in areas subject to strong cultural and political exchange with Byzantium [51].325 The chariot on the Preslav plaque depicted frontally with a semi-carriage and two wheels on a long horizontal axis is the same as the one on the seal in the Hermitage and on a 12th-century relief on the northern facade of Basilica di San Marco in Venice [52].326 Alexander is in ceremonial imperial dress, with a stemma (low crown) adorned with pearls on his head. Large precious stones glitter on the loros across his chest. In his hands, he holds spears with pieces of meat stuck on their points for luring the griffins during the flight.327 With respect to those details, the representation of Alexander resembles slightly the above-mentioned relief on the facade of San Marco. Closest to the scene on the Preslav plaque is the flight from the lead seal in the Hermitage. It is easy to explain bearing in mind the common date for the finds the first half of the 10th century.328 The depiction of Alexander’s flight had an apotropaic (protective) function. Especially on facade reliefs, it played the role of talisman, protecting people from evil forces. In accord with the protective character of the flight are the polymorphic images, depicted on the rest of the plaques.329 The composition with lions and griffins doesn’t contradict the Byzantine art from the time of the (9th-12th century) when Persian and early Arabic ornamental compositions and motifs entered its decorative repertory on fabrics, enamels, gold jewellery, manuscripts, and architectural ornaments.330 It is interesting to note that the lion and griffin were popular subjects in the early medieval Bulgarian art. The graffiti discovered on the fortress walls of the former capital Pliska, dating to the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th century depict winged lions. They appear on the marble slab from Preslav and on some specimens of the Preslav painted pottery [53].331

1.4.4 Circumstances of the diadem’s transfer to Bulgaria

Peaceful relations between Bulgaria and Byzantium began with Tsar Peter I (927-969), who married Maria-Irene, the granddaughter of the Byzantine emperor (920-944), in 927.332 With her Byzantine courtiers and lifestyle came to Preslav.333 For a while, Bulgarians not only enjoyed a high reputation in Byzantium, but they also predominated in Byzantine diplomacy, a fact that was surely expressed by valuable gifts such as jewels found in Preslav.334 reports on the marriage of the Bulgarian Tsar Peter I and Maria Lekapene in Constantinople in 927: when the couple left for Bulgaria, they carried with them a lot of wealth and countless equipment.335 The diadem was

325 Steppan (2000), pp. 88. 326 Totev (1993), pp. 27. 327 Ebd., pp. 24. 328Ebd. , pp. 27. 329 Ebd. 330 Ebd., pp. 28. 331 Ebd., pp. 30-31. 332 About the diplomatic relations between Byzantium and Bulgaria see: Stephenson (2000), pp. 18-46. 333 Steppan (2000), pp. 80. 334 Bosselmann-Ruickbie (2004)., pp. 80. 335 Theophanes Continuatus, in: Bekker (ed.) (1838), pp. 414-415. 46 most probably part of the wedding gifts. It is impossible to tell if it was made for the queen or the king, but its iconography is a particularly strong evocation of the power of the monarch. The figure of Alexander the Great references the ruler as the master and guardian of the earthly realm (cosmocrator), while the fantastic creatures serve as guardians of the sacred space.336 If the dating is accurate, the plaques from Preslav would belong to the group of the oldest Byzantine cloisonné enamels of the sunken type, and they would be the oldest example from Constantinople predating the third quarter of the 10th century.337 The high quality of the enamels on a gifted diadem is a reminder of the importance of the gift-giving for the imperial diplomacy. Through its iconography the object as a whole is also a testimony of the movement of ideas and models in the Mediterranean of the 9th and 10th century.

1.5 Plaques from the Pericope Book of Emperor Henry II

Twelve plaques in Byzantine cloisonné enamel have been set into the border running around the front cover of the Pericope Book, which Emperor Henry II (1014-1024) donated to Bamberg Cathedral [54].338 All the plaques end in a round arch at the top. The middle plaque in the top row is taller and broader than the others.339 It shows a picture of Christ blessing, and the others depict busts of the Apostles.340 There is an inscription indicating that Henry II was responsible for the decoration of the cover. The last line states: “ornat perfectam rex Heinrich stemmate sectam” (“King Henry adorns the perfect doctrine with a crown”). The term stemma, in Greek specifically meaning an imperial crown, is not a certain indicator of the prior function of the plaques, because it was also used symbolically for the victorious wreaths of the Apostles.341 Nonetheless, from the use of this specialised term and also the shape of the plaques Olle Kallström has concluded that they formed part of a Byzantine crown that was taken to pieces on Henry’s instructions for the purpose of decorating the Pericope Book.342 As Henry inherited the from Otto III (996-1002), it must be assumed that the crown came into his possession in that way.343 Percy Ernst Schramm has shown that the crown couldn’t have arrived in the West during the reign of Henry II, because at the time the relations with Byzantium were quite tense.344 According to Josef Deér, the arched form and small dimensions of the enamel plates point out to the fact that the wearer of the diadem was a woman.345 It is, therefore, more probable that the diadem would have belonged to the Byzantine princess Theophano (c. 955-

336 Aladjov (2018), pp. 41. 337 Ebd., pp. 46. 338 Schramm (1955), pp. 638. See also: Chazelle (2007), pp. 139-161; Szakács ( 993), pp. 67. 339 The dimensions of the plaques with the Apostles are 4 x 3,4 cm, the plaque with Christ is 4,5 cm tall and 4 cm wide. See: Schramm (1955), pp. 639. 340 Wessel (1967), cat. n. 26, pp. 80-85. 341 Ebd., pp. 85. 342 Kallström ( 9 ), pp. 61-72. 343 Wessel (1967)., pp. 85. 344 Schramm (1955), pp. 640. 345 Deér ( 9 ), pp. 433. 47

990), niece of the Emperor John I Tzimiskes (969-976), who married Otto II (973-983) in 972. According to Schramm’s calculations when reconstructing the stemma, at least one, but probably three figures are missing. Mark is definitely absent and perhaps the interceding figures of Mary and were originally present, too [55].346 The plates weren’t part of a rigid structure with pearls and gemstones, such as the Holy Crown of Hungary, but they most probably resembled the later diadems from Kievan Rus’.347 Schramm, however, assumed that the enamels were fringed by rows of pearls.348 If the suppositions are correct, the object is another dated example of an enamelled crown, significant for the dynastic and political relations between Byzantium and the West, in this case, the Holy Roman Empire, in the second half of the 10th century.349

1.6 Plaques from the Khakhuli Triptych

1.6.1 Relations between Byzantium and Georgia

According to the hypothesis of Titos Papamastorakis, part of the enamels decorating the Khakhuli Triptych is to be dated to the 9th-11th centuries and comes from Byzantine workshop.350 The presence of Byzantine enamels in Georgia in the aforementioned period is plausible because of the strong links between the Empire and Georgian rulers.351 Papamastorakis suggests that the enamels were recycled to decorate the triptych and were originally set into luxury objects, sent as gifts from Byzantium to Georgia.352 Occasions such as the embassy of Miriam, wife of King George I (1014-1027), to Constantinople in 1030, or the wedding of Helena, niece of the Emperor Romanos Argyros (1028-1034) to King Bagrat IV (1027-1072) in 1032 kept the policy of reciprocal gift-giving between Byzantine and Georgian ruling houses alive. The same was achieved with the marriage of Maria of , daughter of Bagrat IV, to the Emperor Michael VII Doukas (1071-1078) in 1071, of her cousin Irene to Isaac Komnenos, younger brother of the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118) in 1076, or the marriage of Katai, daughter of David IV (1089-1125) to Alexios, son of Anna Komnena (1083-1153) and Nikephoros Bryennios (1062-1137) in 1116-1118.353 Indeed tells us that in the course of an affair between the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (1042-1055) and an unnamed Alanian princess: “...once again all our treasures were frittered away. Some were scattered around inside the , while other were sent off to the barbarian kingdoms. For the first time ever the land of Alanians was suffering from a surfeit of good things sent from

346 Wessel (1967), pp. 85. See also: Schramm (1955), pp 640-642. 347 Schramm (1955), pp. 639. 348 Ebd., pp. 640. 349 Wessel (1967), pp. 85. 350 Papamastorakis (2002), pp. 231. The most recent research on the object in connection with the Byzantine diplomacy and gift-giving was published in: Eastmond (2016), pp. 88-105. 351 Didebulije (2018), pp. 27-45; Macrides (1992), pp. 273 ff. 352 Papamastorakis (2002), pp. 231-232. 353 Ebd., pp. 248, with further references to the sources. 48

Constantinople. [Their] ships sailed into our harbour and, when they put to sea again, they were fully loaded with precious objects belonging to us, things that once made the Roman Empire an object of envy.”354

1.6.2 Two spoliated diadems

Papamastorakis suggests that two groups of enamels, decorating the triptych, were previously part of a crown and a diadem. The first group is formed by six enamels, all set on the central panel: the rectangular plaque in which Christ is crowning the Byzantine Emperor Michael VII Doukas (1071-1078) and his consort Maria of Alania (1053-1118), the two rectangular plaques with the images of the Virgin and of John the Baptist, the round-topped rectangular plaque with the image of the enthroned Christ, and the two rectangular plaques with archangels Michael and Gabriel [56].355 The plaque that represents the crowning of the imperial couple is placed at the very top of the triptych and occupies the most important position in relation to the other enamels. The other five plaques have been set in distinctive surrounds so as to underline their importance and make them stand out from the other enamels. All six pieces share a series of features: the way in which the necks and facial features are delineated is the same in all the figures, the footstools on which the archangels stand are the same as those used for the imperial couple, the image of the enthroned Christ is identical with that of the Christ crowning the emperor and the empress. Finally, the script is the same on all the enamels.356 The privileged position of the coronation enamel is due to its subject matter, showing the eminent position that the Georgian princess had achieved as empress of Byzantium. The direct relationship between the earthly and heavenly rulers is made clear by the way in which Christ is shown crowning the imperial couple in person, and confirmed by the inscription: “I crown Michael and Mariam by my own hands.”357 The reign of Michael VII Doukas provides the time frame (1071-1078) for the enamels. According to Papamastorakis, the iconography of an imperial coronation suggests a luxury object, which could have been a votive crown. In this case, the plaques could have been arranged as follows: at the front of the crown the enamel with the enthroned Christ would have been placed in the centre with the standing figures of the Virgin and St John the Baptist in intercessory poses to the left and right. The enamel with the image of the enthroned Christ would have been set higher than the other enamels. Its rounded top would be appropriate for such an object and its elevated position could explain why the Virgin and St John are turning their gaze upwards. On the back, the enamel with the coronation would have been placed at the centre with the archangel Michael on the left and the archangel Gabriel on the right. They

354 Michael Psellos, Chronographia, in: Renault (ed.) (1967), pp. 46: „Αΰθις ουν έσπαθδτο πάντα ϰαί διεφθείρετο, ϰαί τά μέν εντός των τειχών διεσϰίδναντο, τά δέ έξαγώγιμα εις τήν βάρβαρον ην. Καί τότε πρώτως ή τών Αλανών γή τών από τής ήμετέρας 'Ρώμης έμπέπληστο αγαθών ϰατήγοντο ουν νήες καί αυθις άνήγοντο φορτίδες δλαι τών παρ’ ήμΐν τίμιων ϰαί οις πάλαι τό τών ’Ρωμαίων έζηλοϋτο βασίλειον.” For more see: Papamastorakis (2002), pp. 248. 355 The dimensions of the plaques are 7,4 x 7,2 cm (crowning Christ), 8,1 x 4 cm (Virgin), 8 x 4,2 cm (John the Baptist), 7 x 4,5 cm (enthroned Christ), and 7,9 x 3,5 cm (archangels). See: Papamastorakis (2002), pp. 239. 356 Papamastorakis (2002), pp. 239. 357 Ebd., pp. 240. 49 turn their gaze towards the imperial pair. Archangel Michael is depicted also with his namesake, Emperor Michael VII, in the Paris. cod. Coislin 79, which was produced as a gift for the emperor [57].358 The archangel Gabriel, a protagonist in the Annunciation, may be seen as representing an aid to Maria who announces the likely birth of heirs to the emperor on the occasion of her coronation. The proposed arrangement provides two independent but complementary groupings, which are intended to emphasize the goodwill of the holy personages towards the emperors and the special relationship between them. It was a gift that was appropriate for sending to Maria’s birthplace. The object was the most important relic in the collection of the Georgian kings. This is evident from the special surroundings which were created for the plaques on the triptych and the eminence they were given on it.359 Another group is formed by five enamels, situated directly beneath the central : a semicircular plaque with the figure of Christ Pantocrator seated on a rainbow, flanked by four square plaques of identical dimensions with busts of the Virgin, the archangel Michael and two military saints, Demetrios and George [58].360 The archangel Michael, who is turning towards the right, and the Virgin, who is turning to the left, are each holding a crown. From the shape of the crowns, it is possible to deduce that the one held by the archangel is intended for a man, while that held by the Virgin is intended for a woman. St George is turning his gaze to the right, while St Demetrios looks to the left. The symmetrically opposed gestures of the four figures, the direction of the gaze of the two military saints and the presence of the two crowns can only be explained if we accept that they framed two other figures (one male and one female) on the object for which they were originally created. These figures, to whom they are offering the crowns, were probably the Emperor Michael VII Doukas and Maria of Alania. The archangel Michael and the Virgin are confronting their imperial namesakes.361 Papamastorakis expresses his opinion that the enamels come from a diadem. There is a similarity between the enamels of the two groups as regards technique and their iconography, which is consistent with the theme of the coronation of Michael and Maria. Thus we are led to the conclusion that they come from the same workshop and that the second group too can be dated after the year 1071, having been sent to Georgia as a gift on the occasion of the coronation of the Byzantine emperor and the Georgian princess.362 It is interesting to note that enthroned Christ together with St George and St Demetrios appear also on the corona graeca of the Holy Crown of Hungary, created around the same time as the diadem.363

The crowns, sent as gifts by the Byzantine emperor to foreign rulers, all embody the Byzantine ideals of imperial virtues, terrestrial order and heavenly legitimization of monarchical power. They were created to confirm dynastic marriages, establish diplomatic relations or support the claim for military help. Even though we can’t assume that their

358Papamastorakis (2002), pp. 241-242. See also: Spatharakis (1976), pp. 107-118. 359 Ebd., pp. 243. 360 The dimension of the plaques are 2,5 x 6 cm (Christ seated on a rainbow) and 3 x 3 cm (square plaques). See: Papamastorakis (2002), pp. 243. 361 Ebd., pp. 243. 362Ebd., pp. 243-245. 363 Ebd., pp. 245. 50 elaborated iconography was always understood by the recipient, they had the power to awake respect toward the sender by the sheer presence of lavish enamel decorations and gold.

51

2. Aesthetic appropriation sign of fashion or political aspirations?

During the direct observation of the crown of Queen Constance and several objects from the Treasury of the San Marco cathedral in Venice striking similarities between the used ornaments can be noticed. Similar ones appear also on the diadems from Kievan Rus. Those repeat not only the ornaments but also the iconography of the Deesis and Ascension of Alexander the Great, both typical for the “Byzantine” art. The crown of Queen Constance couples the cloisonné decorations with local filigree. When discussing the “Byzantine” crowns from the outskirts of the Empire, one interesting question occurs: was the reuse of Byzantine forms due to the exclusivity, luxury and fashion, associated with the Byzantine enamels? Or was it a sign of political aspirations of the rulers, aiming to emulate the representation of the Constantinopolitan court in order to express their equality? The conclusion based on the studies of the crowns shows that reasons can be found in both camps, even though the political motives tend to be perceived as more important. The goal of this chapter, therefore, is to analyze the circumstances in which the aformentioned crowns and diadems were created, with the emphasis on the character of the links their commissioners had with the Eastern Empire.

2.1 T e “kamelaukion” o Queen Constan e o ra on364

2.1.1 The present state of the crown

In its present state, the crown from Palermo is a hemispherical cap from a silk cloth [59].365 Its upper part is created by crossed beaded silk bands. The triangular curved filigree plates, which fill the space between the bands and a semi-stiff lining, give the cap certain rigidity. The crown is richly decorated with gemstones, pearls, and enamels in different shapes [60].366 There are prependilia attached at the temples, each forming a ladder structure of quadrilateral plaques and pendants [61]. If we take into account the representations of Byzantine emperors and their families in the mosaics and manuscripts from 11th to 13th century, it becomes obvious that prependilia, yet of much simpler construction, were common on “Byzantine” crowns. The same can be said about some insignia in the West, inspired by the aesthetic of the Eastern Empire, as illustrated by the imperial crown in . In the Middle Ages it was decorated by pendants, from which, however, only loops for their suspension have survived [62].367

364 Di Natale (2010), pp. 39-52; Guastella (2006), pp. 371-377; Guastella (2004), pp. 228-234; von Engelberg (1998-1999), pp. 109-127; Guastella (1995), pp. 63-74; Varoli Piazza (1993), pp. 361-366; Guastella (1993), pp. 265-283; Piltz (1977), pp. 113; Lipinsky (1975), pp. 347-370; La Grua (1975), pp. 73-81; Accascina (1974), pp. 75-79; Grabar (1956), pp. 265-273; Schramm (1955), pp. 11-15; Deér ( 9 ); Daniele (1784), pp. 81-85 365 The crown is 13,5 cm high, with diameter of 18,5 cm. The prependilia have 20,5 cm in length and maximally 10 cm in width. See: Guastella (2006), pp. 371. 366 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 109. 367 Ebd., pp. 110. See also:Decker-Hauff (1955), pp. 567-569 for the reconstruction of the crown with prependilia. 52

It is worthy to remember that in the Eastern Roman Empire, kamelaukion became the main crown of the basileus in the 12th century, during the reign of Komneni. Before that, the emperors usually wore a simple open diadem (stemma) and kamelaukion considered to be a sacred crown was kept in Hagia Sophia and was used by the emperor only during religious rituals.368 In the spiritual context kamelaukia were known in the West as well. The first mention about them as part of the liturgical vestments dates from the when Pope Constantine I (708-715) wore a cap called kamelaukion during his visit to Constantinople “as is customary in processions in Rome”.369

2.1.2 Kamelaukion or not? The “kamelaukion” from Palermo before restorations

The crown, perceived today as a kamelaukion, was found in the sarcophagus of the Empress of the Holy Roman Empire and Queen of Sicily Constance of Aragon (1212-1220), first wife of Frederick II (1198-1250), and is now displayed in the treasury of the Palermo cathedral. The earlier historiography focusing on the object is based on the findings of Deér.370 The scholar sees in it kamelaukion created for Frederick II’s imperial coronation, and excludes the possibility that it was indeed worn by Constance, in whose sarcophagus it was discovered.371 This hypothesis was supported by La Grua, who adds to it but points out that Frederick used many different crowns and that the “kamelaukion” could have had religious function, because, like the crown in Budapest, corone regni were terminated with a cross, not with a gemstone.372 Following the initial supposition that the crown from Palermo is kamelaukion, Deér focuses on the fact that this type of crown was exclusively attributed to the Byzantine emperor.373 On the other hand, the arched crown, more spread in the West, was used in Byzantium as an attribute of the co-ruler () under the name stemmatogyrion.374 The Hohenstaufens in Sicily were supposedly the only ones outside Byzantium who dared to claim the privilege of wearing kamelaukion, which could be interpreted as an expression of their equality with the emperor in the East. The use of kamelaukion in Sicily wouldn’t be unnatural since, according to von Engelberg, the Sicilian court followed the Byzantine ceremonial to a major degree.375 It is not entirely true that the closed cap crown had been worn in the West only by Frederick II. André Grabar was the first to draw attention to particular illumination in the Welfenchronik from the Abbey of Weingarten, created in the 12th century [63].376 It shows Frederick Barbarossa (1155-1190) with his sons Henry VI (1191-1197) and Frederick, Duke

368 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 111. See also: Piltz (1977), pp. 28ff. 369 „...apostolicus pontifex cum camalauco, ut solitus est Roma procedere, a palatio egressus...properavit.“, in: Duchesne /Vogel (eds.) (1955), pp. 390. More: von Engelberg (1998), pp. 111; Piltz (1977), pp. 20ff. 370 Deér ( 9 ). 371 This hypothesis was repeated and supported by Schramm (1955), pp. 11-15; Accascina (1974), pp. 75-79 and Lipinsky (1975), pp. 347-370. See also: Di Natale (2010), pp. 43. 372 Di Natale (2010), pp. 43. See also: La Grua (1975), pp. 73-81. 373 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 110. See also: Deér ( 9 ), pp. 22, 30, 38-40, 58. 374 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 111. See also: Piltz (1977), pp. 69, 88ff. 375 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 110. See also: Deér ( 9 ), pp. 6ff, 13-17, 22ff, 39ff. 376 Fulda, Hessische Landesbibliothek, Codex D 11, fol. 14r. 53 of Swabia (1170-1191). The latter wears a bejewelled cap, typologically equivalent to the crown from Palermo. As his title was only a Duke, it is possible that his headdress was differing from the crown in a sense that it was made entirely from a textile, while the crown in its original state was supported by an underlying solid structure.377 It is, however, important to note that the conclusions of Deér and his followers weren’t based on a detailed material analysis of the structure of the crown. As noted by Claudia Guastella, many of the pearls and gemstones were moved from their original positions.378 From the two prependilia only the enamels of the upper part of the left one are created with the original cloisonné technique, comparable to the decorative elements of another product of the Palermitan courtly workshop the cross from Cosenza, gift of Frederick II [64].379 While the original parts of the prependilia were inserted into golden bezels and the enamels were paired with garnets, later they fell out and had to be inserted again. The process involved creation of new gilded bezels, which were standardized in shape and size, reheating of the enamel and substitution of the garnets. The technique of this intervention can be ascribed to a Palermitan goldsmith workshop at the beginning of the 19th century.380 Changed were also the small chains connecting the enamelled rhomboid pendants to the rectangles in between. This change is evidenced by many unused loops on the rectangles, which served to stabilize and smooth the movement of the prependilia. There are no attachments created for the pendants in the silk textile, on which all the elements of the crown are fixed and which was substituted in the 19th century as well. Seven of the nine lilies with turquoises were restored and moved to the rim of the object. All the pearls on the crown appear to have been attached with a fairly new metal thread and distributed irregularly. The rectangular enamelled plaques and two of the twelve quatrefoils were replaced with enamels on silver, unskilfully imitating the originals. It is also interesting to note that the triangles from gilded silver, decorated with filigree, positioned on the arched part of the crown, are not isosceles, as the symmetrical structure demands, but are different in height and seem regular only because they had been rotated during the remounting. The dainty filigree is framed by thicker flat metal stripes, most probably constructed to be fixed with nails on a rigid structure, not to be sewn on a textile.381 The many changes that the crown underwent hint on its complete restructuring, which Guastella places in 1848 at the latest.382 It is therefore impossible to make assumptions about the function of the crown on the basis of its current shape. After the first reopening of the sarcophagus in 1491, the crown was identified as “coppula tutta guarnuta di pietri preciusi, perni grossi, et minuti, et piagi di oru massizzu...”.383 As evidenced by new stitching and retouching of the original textile of the crown and observations made after second reopening of the sarcophagus in 1791, in the 15th

377 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 113. More: Grabar (1956), pp. 268ff. 378 Guastella (1993), pp. 265-266. 379 About the cross from Cosenza see: Di Dario Guida (2006), pp. 227-230; Leone (2006); Dolcini (1995), pp. 109-114; Dolcini et. al. (1988), pp. 127-140; Di Dario Guida (1984); Lipinsky (1955), pp. 76-100; Caruso (1904). 380 Guastella (1993), pp. 265-266. 381 Ebd., pp. 266, 270. 382 Ebd., pp. 266. See also: Di Natale (2010), pp. 44; von Engelberg (1998) agrees with the year 1848 as a date of the restoration and makes a precise list of the changes the crown underwent. 383 Guastella (1993), pp. 74: „cupola all decorated with precious stones, large and small pins, and plaques of solid gold...“. See also: Di Natale (2010), pp. 40. 54 century the crown was restored for the first time, but without the change of its outer disposition.384 The most precise depiction of the crown before its complete reshaping was made at the end of the 18th century by the topographer Camillo Manganaro, active in Sicily at the time [65]. His image is apparently diverse from the current structure of the object. There is no symmetrical articulation. The crown doesn’t have a form of a calotte, divided into four equal sections, but is a half-ovoid, with the crossing of the arches displaced to the back, so the visual apex would be on the top of its wearer’s head. This explains the uneven sides of the filigree triangles, which were apparently soldered to an underlying solid structure. They were framed by the red silk, showing through the pearl arches and the stripe of lilies below. The apex of the crown was moved to the back, and the crown was, therefore, higher then it appears now.385 The suspected metal structure underneath the textile would explain why the Empress wore a silk hood under her crown, as the records from the opening of her sarcophagus in 1491 confirm.386 Completely missing is the metal stripe in the base of the crown, decorated with encased gemstones and filigree, divided at least in two parts, connected with hinges and attached to a rigid structure underneath.387 It served to adapt the insignia to the measurements of the head of its wearer quite common solution of many other medieval crowns, constructed from metal segments that were nailed and hinged together and were worn over a silk hood. One of the objects with identical solution is the crown with lilies and crossed arches, donated in 1236 by Frederick II to the relics of St Elisabeth (now in Stockholm) [66].388 The accuracy of the Manganaro’s drawing is supported by the original lining material, preserved in the treasury of the cathedral. The traces of threads and nail holes, as well as the shape of the fabric pieces reveal exactly the same arrangement of the individual elements of the crown as Manganaro’s work. This allows the conclusion that the crown was completely dismantled during the restoration and was recomposed using new materials in altered form.389

2.1.3 The crown from Palermo: a coronation crown of Frederick II?

According to Deér, the crown from Palermo was used during Frederick’s imperial coronation in Rome in 1220. He assumes that the emperor was not crowned with the traditional Imperial crown, although it was undeniably in his possession at the time, but with an insignia specially made for the occasion.390 It was possible, as a study by Jürgen Petersohn shows that a coronation with a crown other than the so-called “crown of ” was recognized as equally valid if it was performed by the right crowner in the right place.391 The appearance of the crown in the sarcophagus of Constance was explained as a sign of great

384 Guastella (1993), pp. 274. See also: von Engelberg (1998), pp. 110. 385 Guastella (1993), pp. 278. 386 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 110. 387 Guastella (1993), pp. 278. 388 Guastella (2006), pp. 375. More about the crown of St Elisabeth: Heuser (1974), pp. 19-21. 389 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 110. 390 Deér ( 9 ), pp. 35ff. 391 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 110. See also: Petersohn (1993), pp. 97ff. 55 grief of Frederick over the premature death of his wife, which led to him giving her his personal crown as a post-mortal gift.392 This conclusion, however, seems strongly improbable. Frederick II is depicted with a closed crown only on his seal as a German king in 1215, preceding his imperial coronation and production of the crown from Palermo [67]. The later imperial seal no more depicts him with a closed crown, but with an open diadem instead [68].393 The seals of his parents are different. Henry VI (1191-1197) carries a closed crown, which corresponds to the tradition of the Hohenstaufen (the same crown appears on the seal of Frederick Barbarossa) [69, 70].394 Empress Constance I (1191-1197), daughter of the Sicilian king Roger II (1130-1154), is represented with an open diadem [71].395 She wears the same regalia as her son Frederick on his seal, where he is represented as the king of Sicily open diadem with pendants and loros [72]. The inspiration coming from the Byzantine court is unmistakable. But the difference is that both the king and the queen are wearing an open crown. This allows the conclusion that in Sicily the distinction of the crown’s forms wasn’t always applied. Not only the seals of Frederick II and Constance I but also representations of their Norman predecessors suggest that the official crown of Sicily was a diadem, not kamelaukion.396 If, as we proved, it is impossible that the crown from Palermo was Sicilian king’s crown, could it be Frederick’s imperial coronation crown? The coronation rite from 1209, created for Otto IV (1209- ) and probably used also for Frederick’s coronation in 0, explains that the Emperor should be crowned with two insignia and diadem on top of each other.397 The same was in force for the empress.398 Von Engelberg hypothesizes that the mitre and the diadem evolved into a conical headdress, which could have been a model for the original shape of the crown from Palermo.399 If the crown would be interpreted as a type of imperial coronation crown, instead of a Byzantine kamelaukion, it would no longer be an isolated object but would fit into a consistent Western tradition of imperial crowns. It is beyond our knowledge what crown Frederick II wore at his imperial coronation. The sources, however, don’t permit definite judgment as to whether he used a closed crown, the traditional Imperial crown of the Holy Roman Empire, which he had in his possession, or an open crown.

2.1.4 The crown from Palermo as woman’s crown

Deér bases his thesis that the crown from Palermo was worn by Frederick II on the assumption that bejewelled were used by women in Byzantium in the ,

392 „In Western Europe the crown shapes are far from being so clearly distinguishable and associated with certain offices as in Byzantium.“: von Engelberg (1998), pp. 111. See also: Schramm (1955), pp. 14 ff; Deér (1952), pp. 18ff. 393 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 114. 394 Ebd., pp. 114. More: Busch /Lohse (1961), plate 21. 395 von Engelberg (1998)., pp. 115. 396 Ebd. 397Ebd, pp. 6. The Pope placed „mitram clericalem in capite ac super mitram imperatorium diadema...“, Ordo of the Hohenstaufens, in: Elze (ed.) (1960), pp. 66. The awarding of the mitre to the emperor leads back to the 11th century and its combination with the diadem probably references the biblical description of the crown of the high priest. See: Schramm (1954), pp. 68ff. 398 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 120. 399 Ebd., pp. 116-119. 56 but then they were completely replaced by the open diadem as the only female crown.400 Examples from the “” prove otherwise.401 In Bulgarian Bojana Church a mural depicts Sebastokratorissa Desislava, the wife of a local ruler (the title meant that he prided himself to be second to the Emperor), with a beaded cap [73]. And Bulgaria in the 13th century had as close ties to Byzantium as Sicily.402 It is notable that in the German lands the arched type of the crown appears in several contexts in connection with women. The most notable examples are the depiction of Salomon and Queen of Sheba on the altar of Klosterneuburg by Nicolas de Verdun, or in the lands of the Hohenstaufens the seal of the city Gelnhausen, dated to the first half of the 13th century, on which an empress receives an arched crown from an emperor [74, 75].403 And it was this part of Europe where Frederick spent years preceding the coronation and the death of Constance, the only of his wives to be crowned an empress.404 Significant for our case is the series of exultet from , published by Guglielmo Cavallo.405 There, in the images of the monarchic power, the open crown (exultet of the Cathedral of Bari), a crown similar to the one of Roger II on the mosaics in La Martorana and of William II in Monreale, changes into a hardly identifiable closed crown (the first exultet of Troia) [76-78]. In the second exultet of Troia, dated by Cavallo in the first half of the 12th century, the latter morphs into an arched crown decorating both the emperor and the empress [79].406 In his manuscript Liber ad Honorem Augusti (1196) on the fol. 140 r Peter of Eboli depicts a poet invoking Sapientia, who is traditionally portrayed as a crowned woman. Here she wears a closed crown [80].407 Another personified virtue with a closed crown (in this case it is possible to distinguish between the arch and the lining, similar to the crown from Palermo) can be found on a glass panel from the parish church in Paretz, Brandenburg, dating to the 13th century [81].408 The fact that the crown from Palermo was found in the sarcophagus of the Queen Constance and that the enamels on the object closely resemble the decorations on her dress, found in the same sarcophagus, makes it more than probable that Constance wore her own imperial crown to the grave, even if burial with genuine, valuable crown is unusual. 409

2.1.5 Ties with Palermo and Byzantium

The crown is unanimouslyidentified with the production of the Arabo- Byzantine court workshop in Palermo The main reason is the combination of little pearls and fine spiral filigree, which appear also on the coronation insignia (gloves, shoes, ceremonial sword,

400 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 120. More: Deér ( 9 ), pp. 6ff. 401 For the notion of “Byzantine Commonwealth” see: Obolensky (1971). 402 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 120. More: Grabar (1956), pp. 273. 403 For the seal of Gelnhausen see: Haussherr (ed.) (1977), cat. n. 145; for the depiction of Queen of Sheba on the altar of Klosterneuburg see: Holubar (1997), pp. 67-69; Buschhausen (1974), pp. 12-19. 404 Guastella (1993)., pp. 282. 405 Cavallo (1994). 406 Guastella (1993), pp. 282. 407 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 120. See also:Peter of Eboli, Liber ad honorem augusti, in: Kölzer /Stähli (eds.) (1994), pp. 223. 408 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 120. 409 Ebd., pp. 123; Guastella (1993), pp. 279. 57 coronation mantle), now in Vienna [82].410 The similarities inspired Josef Deér to conclude that the crown was part of the unified “Byzantinizing” representational attire which Frederic II commissioned in Palermo for his Roman coronation in 1220. Some pieces later became part of the traditional imperial robe of the Holy Roman Empire.411 If we compare the crown to other artworks from the court workshop in Palermo, we can see traces of serial production of certain elements, prepared for use in different contexts. The rhomboid pendants of the prependilia find their counterparts in the posterior part of the stauroteca of Cosenza, including the loops in the corners, which have no function on the reliquary. The series of oblong perforated sapphires, originally part of a necklace, which was reused on the crown, is also present on the crown of St Elisabeth, commissioned by Frederick II as well.412 The same type of embedding of the pearls is used not only on the crown but also on the cross from Velletri and the scabbard of the imperial sword, now in Vienna [83].413 The enamels on the crown are inspired by the production in the “Byzantine Commonwealth”. This occurrence can be explained by the long-term tradition of the Palermitan court workshop, in which Byzantine craftsmen, models and ideas concentrated.414 The continuity between the 12th and the 13th century, the period of and Hohenstaufens, was secured by Frederick II because of the quality of the production of the workshop, its fame and its capacity to innovate and carry on the tradition at the same time.415 It is important to note that Frederick II, like the Norman kings before him, maintained a circle of scholars and artists at Palermo who drew on the multiple languages and cultures of the Mediterranean.416 In some ways, his reign could be considered in continuity with the Norman kingdom. On the other hand, his island was ruled with increasingly stronger, although often conflictive, relationships with both the German kingdom and the Roman papacy.417 The reason why “Byzantinizing” elements appear on the coronation crown of Empress Constance and coronation insignia of her husband may be an expression of the ambitions of Frederick II to rival the opulent representation of the Byzantine court as an emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Even if in 1220 the Eastern Empire was divided and weakened after the Fourth Crusade, its culture was deemed worthy of imitation in the West.418 The interest in the Byzantine art was spiked further by the transfer of objects from Constantinople by crusaders.419 The ambition to be seen as equal to the Byzantine emperor wasn’t new for the Sicilian kings but gained new strength when King Frederick II became an emperor. The panel with the coronation of Frederick’s grandfather Roger II (1130-1154) in the Palermitan church La Martorana has a remarkably close resemblance to a Byzantine ivory relief in the Pushkin Museum in depicting presumably Emperor Constantine VII (913-959) receiving his

410 Di Natale (2010), pp. 41. See also: von Engelberg (1998), pp. 111. 411 von Engelberg (1998), pp. 111. 412 About the crown of St Elisabeth see: Tegnér ( 009), pp. 38-60; Rexroth (1981), pp. 122-137. 413 Guastella (2006), pp. 377. 414 Andaloro (1995), pp. 22. 415 Ebd., pp. 23. 416 For an overview of the intellectual life at the court of Frederick II see: Tronzo (1994). 417 Davis-Secord (2017), pp. 215. 418 About the political situation of the Empire after 1204 see: Harris (2003), pp. 145-186. 419 About the phenomenon see: Goss /Verzár Bornstein ( 986). 58 crown from Christ [84].420 The king wears the imperial loros, as he does on several coins and on his seals.421 This adoption of Byzantine patterns can be explained by the rivalry of Roger II with the Byzantine emperor in the 1140s and the ambition of the king to put himself in his place.422 In the mosaic the Norman king proclaims himself as ruler by the grace of God, equal to the basileus in Constantinople, and, like the latter, receiving his crown from Christ himself, without any earthly intermediary.423 That this is a reflection of Roger’s ambition during the later years of his successful reign is evident from literary sources. He not only allowed himself to be addressed as basileus,424 but he is also said to have demanded from an emissary of Manuel Comnenos (1143-1180) that his rank should be recognized as being equal to that of the emperor.425 Even though its inspiration by the Byzantine imperial insignia has to be refused on the basis of the material and pictorial evidence, in its enamel decorations the crown of Constance carries on the tradition of the Byzantine-Norman court workshop in Palermo. It intertwins with the tradition of the German lands, connected with the Hohenstaufen dynasty, creating unique homogenous work of art.426

2.2 The diadems from Kievan Rus

2.2.1 Kiev as artistic centre

Prince Vladimir the Great, ruler of Kievan Rus’(980-1015), introduced Christianity to Rus’ from Byzantium, making it a new state religion in 988.427 The event marked the beginning of a new era in art for Rus’ in general and for Kiev in particular, which accessed and absorbed the rich culture of the Byzantine Empire.428 Strategically located on the steep banks of the river Dnieper, Kiev became the focal point of contact between Rus’ and the Empire. Local architects, painters, and goldsmiths prospered there. In the course of a century Kiev developed into one of the largest international centres in Europe and some Western prelates in the 11th century described it as being “the rival of Constantinople”.429 Kiev was as important to Rus’ as Constantinople was to the Empire. Both cities created and developed medieval jewellery fashions for the upper echelons of society. All shifts in the fashion of Rus’ medieval ceremonial costume ornaments were closely connected to Kiev. Here, in the artistic centre of the state, gifted artisans, goldsmiths and enamellers were modifying old forms and

420 Kitzinger (1990), pp. 190-192. About the iconographic theme of emperor being crowned by Christ see: Grabar (1936), pp. 112 ff. 421 Steinberg (1937), pp. 5. 422 Kitzinger (1990), pp. 195; Wieruszowski (1963), pp. 46 ff. 423 Kitzinger (1972), pp. 90; Steinberg (1937), pp. 16. 424 Kitzinger (2003), pp. 1055. More: Homilies of Philagathos, in: Migne (ed.) (1864), col. 541C and 952 B. 425 Kitzinger (2003), pp. 1055. More: Joannis Cinnami Historiarum Lib. III, in: Migne (ed.) (1864b)., col. 420 B. 426 Guastella (1993)., pp. 283. See also: Di Natale (2010), pp. 41. 427 About the introduction of Christianity to Kievan Rus‘ see: Litavrin (2000); Brajchevskij (1989). 428 About the art of Kievan Rus‘: Pevny (1997), pp. 280-319; Rybakov (1948). 429 Pekarska (2010), pp. 212. 59 creating new shapes of decoration.430 Constantinople not only supplied the craftsmen of ancient Rus’ with Christian iconography and objects but the rich goldsmiths’ tradition encouraged the development of techniques such as the enamelled-gold technique.431

2.2.2 Diadems from Kiev

The diadems from the artistic centre in Kiev are constructed from several enamelled golden plaques, originally mounted on a silk textile, interconnected by hinges and reaching only from one ear to the other one.432 They attest to the transfer of ideas concerning the production of insignia from Byzantine court to culturally and politically connected neighbour .433 The first diadem was found in the Old Town of Kiev in 1889 along with other treasures and is housed in Hermitage. It consists of nine gold enamelled plaques, seven of which are semicircular in their upper part and two pieces at the end are trapezoidal [85].434 On the three panels in the middle are the figures of Deesis (Christ, Mary and John the Baptist). They are followed on both sides by archangels Michael and Gabriel and by apostles Peter and Paul.435 The object is dated by coins of the period of the emperors Alexius I (1081-1118) and John II Komnenos (1118-1143), included in the find, to the first half of the 12th century. According to Deér the faulty Greek orthography and the Slavic inscription on the plate with Apostle Paul point out to a work of a local workshop.436 His opinion is shared by the later scholarship, especially Tatjana Makarova, who devotes a rather lengthy article to the diadem in her book about the Russian cloisonné enamel. In the inscriptions she identifies a peculiar combination of Slavic and Greek letters, which she interprets as a mark of a Russian workshop.437 The trapezoidal end pieces are decorated with stylized plant ornaments in small enamel medallions.438 Ornaments of the same form and executed in the same technique also appear in the production of a western outpost of Byzantium, the Norman court workshop in Palermo. Gold enamelled plates of the same shape adorn the crown of Queen Constance of Aragon, as well as the imperial gloves and the ceremonial sword in the treasury, which originated from the same workshop. Similarities between the art in Kiev, Palermo, and Venice can only be explained by contact with the court workshop in Constantinople, which in turn borrowed the motif from Sassanid art.439 The second diadem was found in the village of Sakhanovka. The shape and number of the plaques, their decoration with pearls on pins, ornamental motifs and the trapezoidal

430 Pekarska (2010), pp. 217. 431Ebd., pp. 212. 432 Deér ( 9 ), pp. 433-434. 433 Ebd., pp. 435. 434 The three middle plaques are 5 cm high and 3,3 cm wide, the other four semicircular plaques are 4, 3 cm high and have the same width. The complete length of the diadem is 34 cm. See: Deér ( 9 ), pp. 436. 435 Deér ( 9 ). 436 Ebd., pp. 435-436. 437 Makarova (1975), pp. 50. 438 Deér ( 9 ), pp. 436. 439 Ebd., pp. 436-437. 60 endings of the diadem resemble strongly the diadem from Kiev [86].440 At the bottom of the seven larger plaques (as was the case with the diadem from Kiev) there are small rings for attaching pendants, which unfortunately have been lost. It is possible that both diadems come from the same workshop.441 The diadem from Sakhanovka can be dated with the help of a coin from the time of the reign of Manuel Komnenos (1143-1180), which was discovered together with it. Because of it we can be sure that the diadem was buried not earlier than 1143 and was most probably made in the 12th century.442 The middle plate depicts the Ascension of Alexander the Great. This iconography, together with the generous use of decorative plant motifs, recalls slightly the so-called Artukid bowl from the museum in Innsbruck.443 The object was exquisitely decorated with cloisonné enamel in a Byzantine workshop in the first half of the th century as a gift for an Artukid emir, who ruled from the eastern Anatolian cities of Hisn Kayfa and Khartpert. It uses iconographic solutions seen on 12th century Constantinopolitan courtly objects, which appropriate Islamic motifs due to the reciprocal cultural exchanges in the 11th and 12th centuries.444 Both artworks thus reflect the world of the crusades with the fusion of ideas, customs, fashion, and techniques.445

2.2.3 Differences between Kievan and Byzantine enamel

In 1907-1908 during excavations of an area adjacent to the Desiatina Church in Kiev, archaeologists uncovered an enamel and glassmaking workshop with furnaces, clay crucibles for melting glass and enamel, and many bracelets and rings, decorated with cloisonné enamel.446 In 1950 another glassmaking workshop was uncovered in Kiev near the Pecherskii Monastery. With the help of stratification, the find was dated toward the end of the 11th century,447 suggesting continuous production of enamel before and around the time when the diadems were crafted. The enamelled jewellery uncovered in Kiev differs from Byzantine examples with regard to the technique used in making the jewellery and with regard to the enamel itself. The Kievan enamels are less stable, more subject to deterioration from long exposure to earth. This is due to differences in the chemical composition and in the polishing technique.448 From all the centres in Kievan Rus, producing enamel, Kiev used techniques, colouring, and treatment of detail closest to the Byzantine workshops.449 In my opinion, on the basis of known movement of craftsmen and materials between Constantinople and Kiev in the 12th

440 The height of the larger plaques is 6cm, their width is 5,4 cm. The trapezoidal endings are 2,7 cm wide. The complete length of the diadem is 43, cm. See: Deér ( 9 ), pp. 437. More about the technical parameters of the diadem: Makarova (1975), pp. 44-48. 441 Deér ( 9 ). 442 Makarova (1975), pp. 48. 443 Deér ( 9 )., pp. 438. 444 Steppan (2000), pp. 84-101. See also: Cantone (2014), pp. 308-317. 445 Deér ( 9 ), pp. 439. About the relationship between the Crusades and art see: Weiss (1998); Folda (1982). 446 Shelkovnikov (1966), pp. 97. 447 Ebd. 448 Ebd, pp. 95. 449 Ebd., pp. 96. 61 century it is possible to assume that arriving goldsmiths had a crucial impact on the production of enamels and were incorporated into the local workshops.450

2.3 “Byzantine” rown o Wi iam t e Conqueror

The dissemination of “Byzantine” crowns may have far surpassed the boundaries of the Byzantine Commonwealth. There is a possible connection between the Norman duke William the Conqueror (1035-1087) and the Byzantine empire in the second half of the 11th century. William’s predecessors had forged quite close links with the eastern Mediterranean world. In the later 1020s, Jerusalem was attracting many pilgrims from northern France as well as Aquitaine. William’s own father, Duke Robert (1027-1035), died at in 1035, having met up with his great-uncle Fulk Nerra (c. 970-1040), so as to travel together to Jerusalem under imperial escort. The emperor had received him in Constantinople on his outward journey.451 Sometime before his invasion in England, William was himself on the receiving end of embassies from Byzantium, according to William of Poitiers (c. 1020-1090).452 Moreover, individuals in Duke William’s entourage had personal experience of the Byzantine court’s customs. In the reign of ( 0 7-1059) and at the beginning of Constantine X’s ( 0 9- 067), Odo II Stigand, eldest son of William’s steward and trusted associate, spent three years at court, receiving the title of protospatharios and, apparently, waiting upon the emperor.453 The diffusion westwards from Byzantium of decorative motives, practical techniques, and symbols of authority could also have occurred at a slightly lower social level. A fair number of Normans served the emperor in some capacity in the third quarter of the 11th century before eventually heading back to Normandy.454 Given such contacts between the Norman politico-military elite and Byzantium and the Norman leadership’s self-comparison with the classical Roman past, the various hints of Byzantine emblems, motifs, and of rites of rulership in the aftermath of the conquest of England are unsurprising. According to the Carmen de Hastingae proelio: “He commanded that a noble crown of gold and jewels, such as would be seemly, be fashioned for him by a master-craftsman. Arabia provided gold, Nilus gems from the river; Greece inspired a smith skilled in the art as he, who scarcely inferior to Solomon created Solomon’s wondrous and befitting diadem. Foremost a adorned the centre of the brow; next after this a radiant jacinth followed; third in the circlet of wrought gold a topaz glittered; the fourth place a sapphire enriched with beauty; fifth was sardonyx, set at the king’s ears, to which chalcedony came next, the sixth in order. Seventh was jasper, which from afar repels the foe; the eight, a fire-breathing sard, glowed red. In the ninth seat a lucent chrysolite was throned, and you, beryl, illuminated the tenth place. A green emerald completed the eleventh number, to which colour also chrysoprase, the twelfth, gave strength. At the highest point, above all, stood a pearl that filled the stones below itself with light, placed on the right and on the left of which

450 Lecture of Ivan Foletti and Adrien Palladino, Converting Holy Russia: Between Historiography and Art History, a New Artistic Geography for Kievan Rus‘ (988-1180), Lausanne, 05. 09. 2019. 451 Shepard (2013), pp. 360-361. 452 William of Poitiers, Gesta Guillelmi, in: Davis /Chibnall (eds.) (1998), 1.59, pp. 96-97. See also: Shepard (2013), pp. 361. 453 Shepard (2013), pp. 361. See also: Ciggaar (1987), pp. 49-51. 454 Shepard (2013), pp. 361. See also: Ciggaar (1987), pp. 48-49, 54-55. 62 there gleamed twin amethysts, perfectly matched. As with the clouds dispelled the wheel of heaven turns, studded with blazing stars, so the golden crown, adorned with precious stones glorious with light, flashed upon all sides with a dazzling radiance.”455 It was a skilful craftsman from “Greece” who made “a noble crown (stemma)”, “a crown (diadema)” befitting William’s new status of king, for his coronation in Westminster Abbey. This poem almost certainly dates from within a few years of the coronation, perhaps from just afterwards.456 Whatever the exact design of the crown William wore at Westminster, the earliest sources recourse to the terminology of ultimately Greek origin stemma and diadem to underline that the crown points to unmistakably imperial authority.457 The source of inspiration behind the types of crown shown on William the Conqueror’s silver pennies is open to question, but their elaborate forms carried the unmistakable message that he was no longer a but a rex, and this was where the connotations of Byzantine imperial imagery had their uses. There can be little doubt that William’s pose with a sword across his right shoulder derives from the design of coins of Isaac I Komnenos (1057-1059) [87, 88]. Presumably, he adopted it because of its eastern imperial associations, rather than as a general expression of martial prowess.458

On the basis of the case studies in this chapter, we can conclude that the adoption of forms and motifs, associated with the Byzantine art, was pre-eminently motivated by political aspirations of the commissioners. It can be viewed as visual manifestation of the adoption of Byzantine imperial representation by foreign rulers. Two of the most important preconditions for the creation of Byzantinizing crowns were the diplomatic contact with the Empire and the presence of travelling Byzantine workshops or artists.

455 Guy, Bishop of Amiens, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, in: Morton /Muntz (eds.) (1972), lines 757-782, pp. 48- : „Auro uel gemmis iubet ut sibi nobile stemma/ Illud quod deceat, fiat ab artifice./ Misit Arabs aurum, gemmas a flumine Nilus;/ Grecia prudentem dirigit arte fabrum/ Qui Salomoniacum, uix deterior Salomone,/ Mirificum fecit et diadema decens./ Principio, frontis medium carbunculus ornat;/ Post hinc iacinctus lucifer insequitur;/ Tercius aurifico resplendet in orbe topazon;/ Saphirus quartum ditat honore gradum;/ Sardonicus quintus regales obsidet aures;/ Cui calcedonius ordine sextus adit;/ Septimus est iaspis, procul a quo pellitur hostis;/ Sardius octauus igniuomus rutilat./ Figitur in nona sella lux crisolitana;/ Tuque, berille, locum clarificas decimum;/ Vndecimum uiridis numerum smaragdus adimplet;/ Huic quoque crisoprasus fert duodenus opem./ Verticis in summo stat margarita suprema,/ Que sibi subpositos luce replet lapides,/ In cuius dextra leua quoque parte locata/ Est ametisti lux, cui color est geminus./ Ethereus ueluti propulsis nubibus axis/ Insitus ignitis syderibus rutilat,/ Aurea lucifluis distincta corona lapillis/ Vndique sic renitet lumine clarifico.“ The twelve stones listed are identical, except for the carbunculus, with those said by Augustine (De duodecim lapidibus) to form the floor of heaven. 456 Shepard (2013), pp. 362. 457 Ebd., pp. 363. „Diadema“ also occurs in William of Poitiers’s account of the coronation: William of Poitiers, Gesta Guillelmi, in: Davis /Chibnall (eds.) (1998), 1.59, pp. 96-97. See also: Ciggaar (1987), pp. 59. 458 Shepard (2013), pp. 363. See also: Ciggaar (1987), pp. 60-61. 63

3. The crowns in Byzantium

To be able to demonstrate and understand the transformation that the usual form and iconography of the crown underwent when the object was created as a diplomatic gift, it was necessary to use Byzantine regalia as comparative material. As of yet, there are no such preserved objects known to us. Therefore written sources, mosaics and manuscript illuminations from 9th to 13th century depicting the imperial family with their head-jewels were used in their stead. The crown was a prime symbol of the Byzantine imperial office, and its physical appearance could thus have been expected to be of the greatest importance. However, the study of the appearance of crowns that were worn by Byzantine emperors, the empresses, the imperial family and client rulers over the centuries has always presented particular difficulties. This is due to a range of problems, which include imprecise textual sources, variations of terminology, uncertainty over the accuracy of the pictorial sources, and the fact that the form of imperial crowns was in any case subject to constant change.459

3.1 Changing form of the imperial crown

A simple diadem decorated with gems, tied by straps of cloth at the back of the head (transformed in the middle of the 6th century to pendilia on both sides of the diadem) was in use from the 4th to the 9th century. This new type can be observed for example on the coins of Emperors ., Justinian, and [89-91]. Then slowly a stemma appeared and gained pre-eminence over the diadem. It was a golden hoop encircling the head, similar in shape to the diadem, but rigid, decorated with gems, pearls, or emeralds, at the front with a large coloured stone, usually surmounted by a cross and trimmed with ear-length pendants. The stemma did not yet incorporate a cap, as we may see on the mosaic showing Leo VI in front of Christ in Hagia Sophia, or on the ivory with coronation of Romanos II and his wife from the hands of Christ in Cabinet des Médailles, Paris [9 ]. Other examples include Michael VII Doukas on the Holy Crown of Hungary and on an enamel plaque from Khakhuli triptych, and illumination with Nikephoros III Botaneiates in the Codex Coislin 79 from Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris.460 The closed type of imperial stemma first appeared in Byzantine art at the end of the 11th century. Reiske, in his commentaries on the De cerimoniis of the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (913-959), describes this crown as follows: “The stemma originating from a helmet, was a head-covering with golden hoops; one encircled the entire head horizontally and two semi-circular ones intersected each other at right angles. Usually a cross was

459 Most frequently used terms are stemma and stephanos. See: Hetherington (2003), pp. 158. 460 Dagron (2003), pp. 54-55; Carile (2000), pp. 80. The list of examples can be found in: Torno Ginnasi (2014), pp. 89-91, 93-95, 105-107, 113-118, 126-135; Wessel et. al. (eds.) (1978), coll. 391-393; Spatharakis (1976), pp. 107-118. 64 superimposed on the top. The other part was made of precious cloth covered with gems and pearls.” 461 The domed kamelaukion, typical for the late Byzantine period, was very different from the lower and open stemma of the middle Byzantine rulers.462 The first pictorial testimony of it appears on the portrait of John II Komnenos (1118-1143) on the mosaic panel in the south gallery of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, created probably quite soon after his ascension to the power in 1118, followed by a depiction of his first-born son Alexios, adorned by the same headdress [93, 94].463 The kamelaukion was formed by a metal band, encircling the head of the wearer, attached to two arcs crossed on the top of the head. The spaces between the two arches were filled with metal plaques.464 Kamelaukion had not undergone many changes in shape. The form that appeared during the reign of John II remained valid until the fall of the Byzantine Empire, which can be demonstrated by comparison of the mosaic with John II Komnenos and his wife Irene in front of the Virgin in Hagia Sophia, the mosaic portrait of co- emperor Alexios Komnenos ibidem, and the portraits of emperors in the 15th-century manuscript of Zonaras, now in Modena (Mutin. gr. 122) [95].465 By the 14th century, the kamelaukion had become standard for the imperial crown. While any contemporary representation of the emperor wearing a crown must be regarded with caution, we can reach some conclusions regarding the outer appearance of the head jewels. The emperor’s crown at this time is invariably depicted as being of a gold-coloured material. There was always a band that fitted around the head, resting above the ears, and one feature invariably shown is a panel mounted centrally on it above the wearer’s forehead, displaying a single large gem. This seems to have been one of the most persistent features of the imperial crown, as it is present on the crowns since the 11th century. Further gems decorated the band to either side, evenly spaced. Above this rose the rounded dome which enclosed the wearer’s head, and which seems to always have been surmounted by a small cross or another decorative item. A further constant feature was a central strip running from the prominent mounted gem up to the apex, and itself holding a further mounted gem. On either side of this were more gems set in two identical groups. The other feature invariably included was that of the prependilia, hanging down on either side of the head of the wearer, and ending in jewelled pendants.466 There is one jewel that is invariably given a place of prime importance on the front of the headband of all representations of the crown. Paul Hetherington identifies it as a balas ruby and suggests that if there was a “hereditary” element in the imperial regalia, it was

461 „Stemma vero, a galea ortum, erat cucufa cum circulis aureis uno rotundo totum caput horizontaliter includente, et duobus sese ad rectos angulos secantibus semicircularibus, et super imposita vertici plerumque cruce, caetera panno pretioso, gemmis et margaritis obsito.“, in: Reiske (ed.) (1830), pp. 45. For translation see: Kelleher (1951), pp. 31-32. 462 Torno Ginnasi (2014), pp. 141. 463 Ebd., pp. 142. 464 Piltz (1977), pp. 80. 465 Wessel et. al. (eds.) (1978), coll. 394. For examples see: Torno Ginnasi (2014), pp. 140-145, 147-149; Wessel et. al. (eds.) (1978), coll. 394- 396; Piltz (1977), pp. 56-65; Spatharakis (1976), pp. 172-183. 466 Hetherington (2003), pp. 162-163. 65 perhaps this individual stone, mentioned in the documents from the 14th century in isolation from all other jewels as “...domini Imperatoris [et] balaxio suo”.467 It would seem that the crown itself was to some extent an assemblage made up from different elements, the most valuable from which could be detached and re-attached individually, leaving an existing substructure. The headband of the kamelaukion may have been of gilded metal, as it would be hard to imagine it being created of solid gold, leading to its fragility.468 While the crowns worn by the reigning emperors were distinctive, the exact difference between their appearance and the headdress of other legitimate wearers of the crown of lower status, for example caesars, sebastokrators, and despots, is uncertain.469 As Anna Comnena tells us, the pendants (cataseistae) which hang from the sides and rear of the crown, were the most distinctive feature. She describes the 12th-century hierarchy of crowns at the Byzantine court as follows: “Further he [the Emperor Alexius I Komnenos] ordered that on the public festivals both the Sebastocrator and the Caesar should wear crowns which were, however, very inferior in grandeur to the diadem he wore himself. The imperial diadem, or tiara, was like a semi-spherical close-fitting cap, and profusely adorned with pearls and jewels, some inserted and some pendent; on either side at the temples two of pearls and jewels hung down to the cheeks. This diadem is the essentially distinctive feature of the imperial dress. But the of the Sebastocrators and Caesars are but sparingly decorated with pearls and jewels, and have no globe they weren’t closed].” 470 The female crown was already in the 6th century the combination of a diadem at the front and the overlying conical cap covered with gems, underneath which the hair of the wearer was tucked in a chignon with interwoven pearls (as we can see on the mosaic with Empress Theodora, San Vitale, Ravenna) [96].471 In the 10th century the diadem transformed into ornate, multilayered crown with triangular and oval projections at the top, connected with the conical cap underneath. In this way it is represented on the ivory with coronation of Emperor Romanos II and his wife , on the mosaic with Constantine IX Monomachos and his wife Zoe in front of Christ in Hagia Sophia, on the mosaic depiction of John II Komnenos and his wife Irene in front of the Virgin ibidem, or on the illumination with

467 Hetherington (2003), pp. 163. The document mentioned above regards the pledge of Byzantine imperial crown gems with Venetians as collateral for a loan in April 1343. It can be found in: Bertele (1962), pp. 91-177. 468 Hetherington (2003, pp. 164. 469 Macrides et. al. (eds.) (2013), pp. 346; Shepard (2011), pp. 140. For the crowning of the caesar with stephanos (open crown) see: Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, II. 52, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 218-220, 222-225. 470 Anna Comnena, Alexiad, III.4, in: Dawes (ed.) (1928), pp. 78. The Greek original in: Migne (ed.) (1864), coll. 272- 7 : „Ου μήν άλλά και στίμμασιν έν ταις πάνδημοι; ήμέραις αυτούς στέφανουτθαι προσίταττε, τον τε σιβαστοκράτορα καί τον Καίσαρα, κατά πολΰ διαφέρουσι τή πολυτελεία τοΰ διαδήματος ω αΰτδς έστεφανωτο. Το μάν γάρ βασιλικόν διάδημα καθαπερ ήμισφαίριον εδγυρον, τήν κεφαλήν διαδεί πανταχοίθεν, μαργάροις κοσμούμενον, τοίς μέν εγκειμίνοις, τοίς δέ ϰαι έξηρτημενοις. 'Εϰατίρωθεν γάρ τών κροτάφων όρμαθοί τινες άπαιωροΰνται διά μαργάρων ϰαΐ λίθων ϰαι τάς παρειά; έπιξέουσι. Καί εστι τούτο εξηρημενον τι χρήμα τοΐ; βισιλεΰσι στολής. Οί δέ τών σεβαστοϰρατδρων και τών Καισάρων στέφανοι, σποράδην έστιν οπου τών μαργάρων ϰαι λίθων μιτίχοντες ανευ τοΰ έπισφαιρώματος.“ More: Kelleher (1951), pp. 32. 471 About this mosaic see: Pasi (2006); Barber (1990), pp. 19-42; Stricevic (1962), pp. 80-100. 66

Alexios I, his wife and son being crowned by angels and Christ in Barberini Psalter [97, 98].472 While the form of the female crown didn’t change significantly throughout the period of our interest, the insignia of the emperor transformed qradually from open diadem to closed kamelaukion. What remained unchanged were the pendilia and the hereditary central jewel, which distinguished it from the headdresses of the courtiers as crucial sign of the power and the legitimity of the monarch.

3.2 Byzantine crowns in the context of court customs

It must be noted that none of the imperial crowns of the Byzantine emperors and their family was adorned with enamels. Only jewels decorated them instead. These jewels were the “imperial jewels” of Byzantium and were passed from the emperor to his successor. The general idea of an imperial crown which was passed on did not exist.473 Imperial stemmata of Byzantium were, under normal circumstances, created anew for each successive emperor, the function of each crown terminating after the death of its owner.474 When the body of the sovereign was about to be sealed in its tomb, the master of the ceremonies said to it: “Remove the crown from your head”, and the praepositos475 tied round his head a simple purple band, remembrance of the kingship which has also died.476 Some crowns were buried with the emperor, others given to churches as votive offerings.477 Late Roman emperors removed their crown as a sign of mourning, penance, and at least to the 10th century when they entered a church.478 This custom had changed by Palaiologan times when it was specified that the emperor should remove the crown during communion.479 By removing then resuming the crown at each entry into the sacred space, the emperor was recognizing that the delegated power which he had personally received from God ceased wherever God had his residence on earth, just as it would cease when Christ returned, on the Day of Judgement.480 When the emperor laid down his crown before entering the church, his act prefigured that of the last emperor of Byzantium, who, the Apocalypses said, would depart for Jerusalem to lay his crown on the cross of Golgotha and return his power to Christ with the Second Coming in mind.481

472 Carile (2000), pp. 80. For examples see: Torno Ginnasi (2014), pp. 93-95, 113-118, 126-129, 133-135, 140- 145; Oikonomides (1978), pp. 220-232; Spatharakis (1976), pp. 26-36. 473 Hetherington (2002), pp. 36-37. 474 Kelleher (1951), pp. 32. 475 Grand chamberlain, normally the highest-ranking in the imperial service. See: Kazhdan (1991), pp. 1709. 476 Dagron (2003), pp. 82. Source: Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 76: „Απόθου τό στέμμα από της ϰεφαλης σου.“ 477 McCormick (1991), pp. 554. About the votive offerings see: Theophanes, Chronographia, in: de Boor (ed.) (1963), pp. 281, lines 16-20, pp. 453, lines 27-30. 478 McCormick (1991), pp. 554. Source: Theophanes, Chronographia, in: de Boor (ed.) (1963), pp. 173, lines 1- 7; Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (1829), pp. 412-415. 479 McCormick (1991), pp. 554. Source: Pseudo-Kodinos, De Officiis, in: Verpeaux (ed.) (1976), pp. 268, lines 4-20. 480 Dagron (2003), pp. 82, 104. 481 Ebd., pp. 104. See also: Dagron (1984), pp. 329-330. 67

Every emperor had many crowns at his disposal, used according to the occasion. Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos notes that on the day of Nativity the emperor was adorned with a green crown on his way to Hagia Sophia and with a white one on his return to the palace.482 On the day of the Epiphany, he wore a blue crown and returning from the Great Church a white one.483 On the day of the Pentecost, he switched to a red crown and on his return to a white one.484 On Easter Sunday, the emperor used a white or a red crown as he chose, but if he had been seen with a white crown in the morning, returning to the palace he wore the red, or vice versa.485 On the second day of the Easter week, the monarch was seen with a green crown and returning from the liturgy with a white one.486 There is, however, a discrepancy between textual and visual sources. The textual reference to red and white crowns that can be worn by the emperor according to 10th- century De cerimoniis, which can be considered in this context as an impeccable source for its period, finds no corresponding echo in any of the illustrative material.487 The colours were probably those of some kind of cloth lining, like the coloured velvet inside modern crowns.488 Five imperial colours appeared on the fabric and the gems of the crown and on imperial robes. Gold was used in combination with purple, red, green, blue and white. White was associated with Easter, purple with coronations, funerals, and promotions, others were used because of their connection with the factions.489 In the 14th century, Pseudo-Kodinos takes care to differentiate the coronation crown from all other worn by the emperor. Although the emperor had a choice of garments and to wear, the author stipulates that when he wore the stemma, he also always wore the loros and held the cross and akakia.490 However, occasions for such dress were few in the ceremonial life of the court: Palm Sunday and promotions of patriarchs, despots, caesars, sebastokrators.491 All things belonging to the emperor and his officials were considered sacred. Consequently, the vestes sacrae were kept in the seclusion of the vestiary, carefully guarded by the vestitores, an unbearded corps of dignitaries belonging to the most intimate entourage of the emperor.492 Already here we come across the taboos associated with the change of costume and coronation. The emperor was never crowned in front of bearded officials, except when he was crowned by the patriarch. It was for this reason that the unbearded officials

482 Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 190. 483 Ebd. 484 Ebd., pp. 189. 485 Ebd., pp. 187. 486 Carile (2000)., pp. 81-82. Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 189. 487 Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis I., in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 187-191. See: Hetherington (2003), pp. 159. 488 McCormick (1991), pp. 554. See also: Bellinger /Grierson (eds.) (1973), pp. 129. 489 Piltz (1997), pp. 50. Factions were associations that staged circus games and races; after the late 5th century they became deeply involved in performing acclamations, especially during the coronations, as the Hippodrome and its vast audiences attracted a developing imperial ceremonial. This enhanced their political significance. See: McCormick (1991b), pp. 773-774. 490 Macrides et. al. (eds.) (2013), pp. 346-347. Source: Pseudo-Kodinos, De Officiis, in: Verpeaux (ed.) (1976), pp. 136, lines 6-7. 491 Macrides et. al. (eds.) (2013), pp. 347. Source: Pseudo-Kodinos, De Officiis, in: Verpeaux (ed.) (1976), pp. 170, lines 22-23, pp. 242, lines 4-5, pp. 244, lines 8-9. 492 Piltz (1997), pp. 39. About the perception of the imperial vestment in the Byzantine court ritual see: Treitinger (1956), pp. 214-218. 68 formed a circle around him. In this way the eunuchs were considered to protect the emperor from the evil eye.493

3.3 The crown and the Church

Constantine Porphyrogennetos claims (with some exaggeration), that the Church dictated the choice of the crown to be used in the ceremonial, that the patriarch sent to the palace the crown which was appropriate for each festival and that the emperor was obliged to return it later.494 The sacred status of the crown was confirmed during the coronation ceremony, when the patriarch sanctified the object, placed on the altar, with a special prayer, in the same way as he would sanctify holy images before transferring them to the altar.495 The Great Church was a repository of sort for votive or disused crowns, for those which pious emperors consecrated to Christ496, and for those, above all, with an eventful history. One of the latter was the crown which Emperor Maurice (582-602) suspended by a chain of gold above the altar at Easter of 601, to the dismay of his wife and mother-in-law, who had procured it for him at great cost.497 Similar example is the crown of Heraclius (610-641), which he had chosen to wear in defiance of convention when he was buried in February of 641. His son, Heraklonas (May-October 641), had retrieved it from his tomb a few months later because it was worth seventy pounds of gold. Heraclius’ widow dedicated it to God, but it was used again when a popular uprising forced Heraklonas to crown Constans II (641- 668).498 It was almost certainly this same crown that aroused the greed of Leo IV (775-780) and which, taken back from God and wrongfully worn, had seemed to cause its wearer’s death, after which Irene (752-803), Leo’s widow, offered it to Hagia Sophia.499

3.4 The meanings of the crown

In his treatise Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos strictly defines the status of the imperial crowns as sacred. According to him, they were not made by a human hand and therefore they should be kept in Hagia Sophia and worn only during processions on the days of major church feasts.500 Even though we can’t be sure if his orders have been observed, we can assume that in Byzantium the crown was indeed viewed as a gift

493 Piltz (1997), pp. 39-40. Source: Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 98: „Χρή είδέναι οτι ενώπιον βαρβάτων ό βασιλεύς ουδέποτε στέφεται, έξ αυτής τής αρχής ταύτης τής παραδόσεως φυλαττομένης.” „It must be noted here that the Emperor can never be crowned in front of the bearded, which custom have been observed from the beginning.“ 494 Dagron (2003), pp. 105. Source: Constantine VII Porphtrogennetos, De administrando imperio, in: Moravcsik (ed.) (1967), pp. 66-69. 495 Piltz (1977), pp. 132. Source: Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 203. 496 Dagron (1984), pp. 206, 249-250. Source: Anthony of Novgorod, Книга Паломник, in: Loparev (ed.) (1899), pp. 9-10. 497 Theophanes, Chronographia, in: de Boor (ed.) (1963), pp. 281. 498 Ebd., pp. 299. 499 Dagron (2003), pp. 104-105. Source: Theophanes, Chronographia, in: de Boor (ed.) (1963), pp. 453-454. 500 Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De administrando imperio, in: Moravcsik (ed.) (1967), pp. 67. 69 from God, as documented by many illuminations and ivories depicting the crowning of the monarch or a ruling couple from the hands of Christ or an angel.501 The elements of the ceremonial dress and insignia of the emperor, for example, the precious stones, reflecting the “divine light emanating from his person”, aided to a high degree the representation of the sovereign as a supernatural being, whose power comes directly from God.502 Byzantine orators liked to visualize diadems and crowns as mirrors of the emperor’s virtues. In one of his speeches Byzantine rhetorician Michael Italikos (c. 1090- c. 1157) connects the diadem on the head of the basileus with his wisdom: “It is not a choir of Nereids who escorts them, but a basileus autocrator, who is not yet married, but mystically engaged, whose head is adorned with wisdom as a diadem, the chest with courage and prudence, the feet with beauty.”503 In one of his poems dedicated to the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (1042-1055) John Mauropous (around 1000-1070s) underlines the sacredness of the crown, when he compares it, together with the pearls and precious stones, to saints.504 In the 12th century, Benjamin of Tudela remarks of the light that derives from the emperor’s crown: “...at night time no lights were required, for everyone could see by light which the stones gave forth.”505 The sparkling colours and the sumptuous use of gold, precious stones, and pearls all preach the divine character of the legitimate dynasty and its hierarchy, always appearing with new effects, overwhelming and never boring the beholder.506

The crowns of the Byzantine emperor and his wife, created from gold, gemstones and pearls, were constructed in such a way that they exuded power and captivated the onlookers with their glitter. Differently from Hungary the power of the monarch was connected with the crown as a symbol, not with the particular object. Therefore the emperor could choose from several according to the religious feast in which he participated. As the crowns were considered to be sacred, they were kept in Hagia Sophia and used only during religious celebrations. They represented the supernatural power of the ruler and, when he left the crown behind while entering the Great Church, his humility in front of God.

501 For example the ivory with Christ crowning the Emperor Constantine VII from Pushkin Museum in Moscow, ivory with Christ crowning Emperor Romanos II and his wife Eudocia from Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, illumination with coronation of Basil II by archangel Gabriel from Menologion of Basil II, illumination with coronation of Nikephoros III and Maria of Alania by Christ from Codex Coislin 79, or illumination showing Christ and angels crowning Alexius I Komnenos and his family from Barberini Psalter. See: Torno Ginnasi (2014), pp. 89-91, 93-95, 105-107, 133-135, 140-145 with further extensive bibliography. 502 Carile (2000), pp. 88. 503 „Κοσμεί δέ τούτου τήν κεφαλήν ταινία, κυκλοτερής δέ καί πρύ τής ταινίας, διάδημα πρύ του διαδήματος, ή βασιλικωτάτη των άρετών φρόνησις. Ό χρύσεος γάρ ούτος στέφανος διαλαμβάνει μέν τήν χρυσήν κεφαλήν. εκεί γάρ κατοικίζουσιν οί σοφοί το φρονεΐν. ’Έστι δέ τούτον ίδεΐν περιμάργαρον καί ώσπερ διαυγέσι λίθοις κατάστερον, συνέσει καί όξύτητι καί άγχινοίφ, καί δσαι φρονήσει συνανατέλλουσιν.”, in: Michael Italikos, Speech to the Patriarch Michael II , Constantinople, 1143, in: Gautier (ed.) (1972), 76.1-7, translation pp. 67. See: Maguire (2007), pp. 7. 504 John Mauropous, poems, in: de Lagarde (ed.) (1882), n. 31, pp. 16-17. See: Torno Ginnasi (2014), pp. 114. 505 Macrides et. al. (eds.) (2013), pp. 355. Source: Benjamin of Tudela, The Book of Travels, in: Adler (ed.) והיא היתה עיר בצורה בהר מאד ובה מעיינות והיא ארץ ׳נחלי מים וגנות ופרדסים וכרמי]ם[ „ :(pp. 3 (pp. in Hebrew ,(1907) “...וזתים ואין שם יהודים י 506Piltz (1997), pp. 50. 70

4. Crowns as tools of diplomacy

4.1 Moving of objects and mechanism of gift-giving

Not only during our period of interest were goldsmiths’ works exchanged as diplomatic gifts and trade goods, were brought home by travellers and pilgrims or did change ownership as war booty and through theft and thus potentially had an impact on other cultural spheres.507 The objects that arrived from Byzantium to the West were transported by several “cultural agents”. Most important, in terms of numbers, were certainly the crusaders. The latter donated dozens of “Byzantine” objects to churches and other religious buildings in their native countries. Other prominent personages, such as merchants or diplomats, born in the West, should be mentioned. After finishing their journey to Constantinople, they brought back venerated relics or enamels.508 Not only the objects themselves but also craftsmen producing them stimulated exchange and inspired changes in fashion through their work in different areas.509 With regard to the relations of Mediterranean East and West, the sources document at least one embassy per year for the 9th to 11th century with an increase (two to three embassies) in the 12th century, especially due to the Crusades. The sources, however, rarely report exchange of gifts, which would have surely accompanied such diplomatic activities, and if they do, the descriptions are vague.510 According to Robin Cormack objects used as diplomatic gifts should be treated less as “art” to be analyzed on their own and more as items chosen or designed to impress and to be valued by the receiver as a part of cross-cultural negotiation.511 The exchange of gifts was an essential part of negotiations. The social mechanism behind the gift-giving is following: each side is obliged to accept the generously offered gift of the other. The transaction is based on obligation and self-interest: the giver is in position of superiority until the donation is reciprocated and the return gift is more lavish than the first one. The granting of favour could be a return gift as well, which was the purpose of diplomacy.512 In the early and central Middle Ages gifts created personal relationships, contributed to the formation of power and social integration of society. As a “social glue” they created social and political order in a world perceived as chaotic.513 Public authority was founded on a ruler’s dynamic network of personal alliances established, restored and maintained through gift-giving. That network’s range determined the monarch’s sphere of power: weak alliances entailed weak authority.514

507 Bosselmann-Ruickbie (2018), pp. 73. 508 Ninni (2017), pp 21-22. More: Mallé ( 973), pp. 79. 509 Bosselmann-Ruickbie (2018), pp. 73. 510 Ebd., pp. 75-76. See also Schreiner (2004) for analysis of documents about the embassies. 511 Cormack (1992), pp. 219. 512 Ebd., pp. 220. See also: Mauss (1966). 513 Bijsterveld (2001), pp. 151. 514 Ebd. 71

4.2 Crowns as part of the visual representation of the Byzantine emperor

It remains clear that emperors understood the power of visual extravagance and manipulated it to the maximum advantage, as we can conclude from the description of the reception for the Arab ambassadors from the Emir of Tarsus on 31 May 946, recorded in De cerimoniis.515 The crowns were used as a part of imperial representation in front of the foreigners.516 The emperor could take all the treasures of Constantinople when he wanted to put on a display. He used objects from church treasuries and also borrowed silver from silversmiths, monasteries, and churches outside the city. In addition to this exhibition of precious objects, there was an effect of special dress, silk and Persian carpets, adding to the feeling of magnificence and superiority of the Byzantine court. Every one of the senses of the visitors was activated.517 “Inside, the Chrysotriklinos518 was decorated (...) with the Emperor’s thrones, the couches and golden table. Crowns and ornaments from Our Lady of the Pharos and other churches in the Palace were hung in its eight bays. In addition to these, various enamels preserved in the Treasury, the Imperial mantles, and S. Peter’s golden scapular, set with pearls were employed. From the silver doors were hung (...) the crowns and enamels “one by one”, that is, “a crown in the middle with an enamel on either side”. The eastern bay, in which was the great picture of God, was all adorned with crowns. The other seven were hung with candelabra from the Church of ur Lady of the Pharos. In the eastern bay the three lights were replaced by three crowns in the centre the green one from the church of the Holy Apostles, on the right the blue crown from Our Most Holy Lady of the Pharos, on the left the blue one of the arch-martyr Demetrios. These three were prepared by order of the pious Emperor Constantine (...) When the Emperor came out of the and entered the Metatorion519 of the Great Hall of Manaura, the ambassadors were directed to enter into his presence (...) When the Emperor entered the Manaura, the singers and the members of the factions began to sing the Imperial odes. He entered robed in his octagonal chlamys and great white diadem, and took his seat on the throne of Solomon (...) After the usual ceremonies, the Saracens went out through the Anadendrarion, the Hall of the Candidati,520 and the one which contained the Kamelaukion.”521

515 Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 580-584. See also: Hetherington (1988), pp. 29-38, especially pp. 32; Paspates (1893), pp. 321-329. More about the diplomatic relations between Byzantium and Arabs: Kennedy (1992), pp. 133-144. 516 Cormack (1992), pp. 226-227. 517 Ebd., pp. 227. 518 Main ceremonial and reception hall of the Great Palace of Constantinople, probably constructed at the end of the 6th century. It was a domed octagon lit by 16 windows. See: Kazhdan (1991), pp. 455-456. 519 A combination of imperia box nad private oratory attached to a reception room, described as being situated in Hagia Sophia, but here apparently used as a name for one of the rooms in the palace. See: Majeska (1997), pp. 6. 520 In the late Roman Empire the term kandidatos denoted a member of a unit of imperial bodyguards who wore whire uniforms (candida turba). On seals the title is usually connected with subaltern offices both in the army and in the civil service. See: Kazhdan (1991b), pp. 1100. 521 Paspates (1893), pp. 325-328. The Greek original in: Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 580-584: „εν δε πόρτηχι τον χρνσοτριχλίνον, ήτοι έν τω ώρολογίω (...) θεν το πάσχα έιξοπλίζεσθαι, ηγουν διά τον πενταπνργίονχαι των βασιλείων θρόνων, των χραβάττων τε χαι της χρνσηζ τραπεζης χαί των λοιπών (...) δέ τάς δχτώ καμάρας τον χρνσοτριχλίνου εχρεμάσθησαν τά τον ναόν της νπεραγίας Θεοτόκου τον Φάρου στέμματα ϰαι των ετέρων εκκλησιών τον παλατιού , και έργα διάφορα χειμεντά από τον φνλαχος, χαι τά

72

As the excerpt of De cerimoniis demonstrates, crowns were not only gifted to the embassies but also employed in the decoration of imperial halls and churches, visited by the foreigners. They helped create the illusion of grandeur and omnipotence of the emperor. Because of the fact that the imperial crown was worn only during religious feasts, mainly votive crowns and maybe crown-like candellights, the bright colours of which were created with the help of gemstones and enamels, were used. In the flicker light of the candles they came to life and awed the emissaries, making them feel, accept and fear the power of the emperor.

4.3 Crowns as gifts: objectives and restrictions

The artistic gifts were important, because they surpassed their monetary value with the visual one, thus more prone to impress the foreigners. As stated by Robin Cormack: “The tiniest bit of enamel art can be seen as worth more than heavy bags of coins.”522 Since the setting of diplomacy in which the exchange of gifts took place was one with a facade of friendship and common values, art could act in it to claim that elites between cultures speak a common symbolic language.523 Robert Ousterhout described the common visual expressions in art, understood by the elites in the West, Byzantium and the East as a “visual language of power”, and Oleg Grabar spoke about the “shared culture of objects”.524 In art, rulers could find the evocation of the high life and ambitions which they mutually respected. The favour of a gift of art, like a diplomatic ritual, aimed to flatter enemies into respect.525 The exclusivity of the gifts was partly a result of restrictions. One section of the Book of the Prefect compels to report to prefects those women who offer gold and silver goods or pearls and gemstones because those mustn’t be sold to foreigners.526

βασιλιχά χαί ανγονστιαϰά χλανίδια ουτω. του αγίου Πέτρου το δλόχρυσον χαι διάυο μαργαριτών πλατάνιον. (...)άνω δέ των αργυρών πυλών τον αυτόν χρνσοτρικλίνου έχρεμάσϑη τό χρυσόνν σάγιον το λεγόμενον χαισαρίκιον. ιστέον, οτι τά στέμματα χαι τα χειμευτά έργα εν παρ εν εκρέμαντό, ηγονν μέσον στέμμα χαι ενϑεν χαχειϑεν έργα χειμευτά. εν δε τη ανατολική καμάρα ονχ έχρεμάσϑη έργα χειμευτά, άλλ’ ολη από στεμμάτων ην χεχαλλωπισμένη. Ιστέον, οτι εις τάς ζ καμάρας τον χρνσοτριχλινου πολνχάνδηλα αργυρά μετά άλνσιδίων αργυρών από τον ναού της νιιεραγίας Θεοτόκου τον Φάρου έχρεμάσϑησαν. είς δέ την άνατολιχην κόγχην αντί των τριών χανδηλων έχρεμάσθησαν τρία στέμματα. εμπροσϑεν μέν το πράσινον στέμμα των αγίων χαι ένδοξων αποστόλων μετά καί του σταυρόν χαι της περιστεράς αδτοΰ. δεξιά δέ το βένετον στέμμα της υπέρ αγίας Θεοτόκου τον ο Φάρου μετά χαι τον σταυρόν χαι της περιστεράς αυτόν. αρισιερψ δε τό βένετον στέμμα τον αγίου μεγαλομάρτνρος Λημητρίον μετά χαι του σταυρόν χαι της περιστεράς αντον. Ιστέον, δτι ταντα τά τρία, στέμματα παρά Κωνσταντίνον του φίλο χριστού δεσπότου χατεσχευάσϑησαν. (...) Τον βασιλέως από τον παλαιών εξελϑοπος και έν τω μψατωρίω τον μεγάλον τρίκλινου της μα νν αύρας είσελϑόντος, εδηλωϑησαν οι Σαρακηνοι του έλϑεΐν και τον βασιλέα ϑεάσασϑαι. (...) Ιστέον, ότι, τον βασιλέως από τον παλατιού ελϑοντος είς τό μητατώριον της μαννανρας χαι εϊσελ&οντος έκεϊσε, ηρξαντο οι ψάλται μετά των δημοτών φδειν τα βασιλίκια. Ιστέον, οτι ο βασιλεύς περιβαλλόμενος τό οχταγωνον χλανίδιον χαι τό μέγα λενχόν στέμμα, άνηλ&εν έν τφ Σολομωντείψ ϑρόνφ, χαι έχαϑέσϑη. (...) καί της εΐω&νίας τάξιως τελεοϑιίσης, οι μεν Σαραχηνοι έ'ξελΰόντες διήλϑον διά τον άναδενδραδίον καί του τρίκλινου των χανδιδάτων και του τριχλίνον, έν ω το ϰαμελανκιον ϊσταται (...).” 522Cormack (1992), pp. 228. 523Ebd., pp. 230. 524 Bosselmann-Ruickbie (2018), pp. 75. More: Ousterhout (2009), pp. 92; Grabar (2006), pp. 115-129. 525 Cormack (1992)., pp. 236. 526 Alto Bauer (2010), pp. 23-24. For the source see: Leo VI, The Book of the Prefect, in: Koder (ed.) (1991), chapter 2, section 4. 73

Crown as a gift gave and confirmed power. It was a rich work of precious and valued metal, usually in the universally admired medium of enamel in which Byzantium at the time was pre-eminent. It exuded the prestige of the giver, but also the common values and attitudes of both parties. It conveyed who was superior in the transaction, but in a manner acceptable to the recipient, whose desire of recognition was fulfilled.527 On the one hand, it showed the subjects the sacral legitimacy of their own king, which was recognized by the supreme Mediterranean authority, the Byzantine emperor. On the other hand, this act of empowering legitimacy rested on the subordination to the Emperor.528 It is important to note, however, that crowns were explicitly prohibited as gifts by the official 10th century book of protocol, De administrando imperio: “Know therefore that all the tribes of the north have (...) a ravening greed of money, never satiated, and so they demand everything...but are always eager for more, and desirous to acquire great profits in exchange for small service (...) Should they ever require and demand, whether they be Chazars, or Turks, or again Russians, or any other nation of the northerners and Scythians, as frequently happens, that some of the imperial vesture or diadems or state robes should be sent to them in return for some service or office performed by them, then thus you shall excuse yourself: “These robes of the state and the diadems, which you call ‘kamelaukia’, were not fashioned by men, nor by human arts devised or elaborated, but, as we find it written in secret stories of old history, when God made emperor the former Constantine the Great...He sent him these robes of state by the hand of his angel, and the diadems (...), and charged him to lay them in the great and holy church of God (...) which (...) is called St. Sophia; and not to clothe himself in them every day, but only when it is a great public festival of the Lord. And so by God’s command he laid them up, and they hang above the holy table in the sanctuary of this same church, and are for ornament of the church (...) And when a festival of our Lord and God Christ comes round, the patriarch takes up such of these robes of state and diadems as are suitable and appropriated to that occasion, and sends them to the emperor, and he wears them in the procession, and only in it, as the servant and minister of God, and after use returns them again to the church, and they are laid in it. Moreover, there is a curse of the holy and great emperor Constantine engraved upon his holy table of the church of God, according as he was charged by God through the angel, that if an emperor for any use or occasion or unseasonable desire be minded to take of them and either himself misuse them or give them to others, he shall be anathematized as the foe and enemy of the commands of God, and shall be excommunicated from the Church; moreover, if he himself be minded to make others like them, these too the church of God must take, with the freely expressed approval of all the archbishops and of the Senate (...).529

527Cormack (1992), pp. 236. 528 Alto Bauer (2010), pp. 21. 529 „’Ίσθι ούν, ότι τοΐς βορείοις άπασι γένεσι φύσις ώσπερ καθέστηκεν το εν χρήμασι λίχνον καί άπληστον καί μηδέποτε κορεννύμενον, όθεν πάντα έπιζητεΐ καί πάντων έφίεται, καί ούκ έχει τάς επιθυμίας δρω περιγραφομένας, άλλ’ άεί του πλείονος επιθυμεί, καί άντί μικράς ώφελείας μεγάλα κέρδη προσ πορίζεσθαι βούλεται...Εί άξιώσουσί ποτέ καί αίτήσονται είτε Χάζαροι, είτε Τούρκοι, εϊτε καί 'Ρώς, ή έτερόν τι έθνος τών βορείων καί Σκυθικών, οΐα πολλά συμβαίνει, εκ τών βασιλείων έσθήτων ή στεμμάτων ή στολών ένεκά τίνος δουλείας καί υπουργίας αύτών άποσταλήναι αύτοΐς, ούτως χρή σε άπολογήσασθαι, δτΐ’ «Αί τοιαΰταί στολαί καί τά στέμματα, ά παρ’ υμών κάμελαύκια ονομάζεται, ούτε παρά άνθρώπων κατεσκευάσθησαν, ούτε έξ άνθρωπίνων τεχνών έπενοήθησαν ή έξηργάσθησαν, άλλ’ ώς 30 άπό παλαιάς ιστορίας έν άπορρήτοις λόγοις γεγραμμένον εύρίσκομεν, ήνίκα ό Θεός

74

Constantine Porphyrogennetos implies that the crowns, considered to be sacred and not created by human hand, were supposed to be worn only by the Byzantine emperor with the permission of the Church. Otherwise the perpetrators would be cursed with untimely death. Even though chronicles, noted in the previous chapter, describe some cases of emperors being punished for the greedy usurpation of crowns, in practice the prohibition of their gifting was bided less than strictly. If we take De administrando imperio as a basis for creating a Byzantine image of foreigners from developing kingdoms behind the northern frontier, we see greedy people, ready to be swayed by gold and luxury, characteristic which could be explored despite the underlined risks. In spite of the warnings, it is evident that quite a few crowns were given to Byzantium’s “barbarian” neighbours when Byzantium needed political support from the outside.530

4.4 Why gifted crowns differed from the ones used in Byzantium?

The medium of enamel doesn’t appear to have accessorized the Byzantine imperial crown. At no stage we have any visual or literary evidence that this luxury medium was used in the regalia. This forms a complete contrast with the few crowns that have survived that were worn by client rulers.531 Even though De administrando imperio as a normative text wasn’t applied diligently in the foreign politics of the empire, it holds notions of strongly ritualized character of the emperor’s crown as evidence of his connection with God. In my opinion, it is safe to assume that it was the sacred character of the Byzantine crown that prompted the ruler to commission only enamel crowns, incomparable to the official one, as diplomatic gifts.

βασιλέα έποίησεν Κωνσταντίνον έκεΐνον τον μέγαν, τον πρώτον Χριστιανόν βασιλεύσαντα, δι’ άγγέλου αύτώ τάς τοιαύτας στολάς έξαπέστειλεν καί τά στέμματα, άπερ υμείς καμελαύκια λέγετε, καί διωρίσατο αύτώ θεΐναι ταϋτα έν τή μεγάλη του Θεού άγια εκκλησία, ήτις επ’ όνόματι αύτης της ένυποστάτου σοφίας Θεού 'Αγία Σοφία κατονομάζεται, καί μή καθ’ έκάστην αύτά άμφιέννυσθαι, άλλ’ δτε δημοτελής καί μεγάλη τυγχάνη δεσποτική εορτή. Διό δη Θεοϋ προστάγματι ταΰτα άπέθετο, άτινα καί άνωθεν της άγιας τραπέζης έν τώ θυσιαστηρίω του αύτοϋ ναού άποκρέμαται, καί εις κόσμον της έκκλησίας καθέστηκεν. Τά δε λοιπά ίμάτια καί σαγία βασιλικά της ίεράς ταύτης τραπέζης άνωθεν έπίκεινται έφαπλούμενα. ' Ηνίκα δέ καταλάβη τοΰ Κυρίου ημών καί Θεού Ίησοΰ Χρίστου εορτή, άναλαμβάνεται έκ τών τοιούτων στολών καί στεμμάτων τά προς τον καιρόν έπιτήδεια καί άρμόζοντα ό πατριάρχης, καί άποστέλλει προς τόν βασιλέα, καί άμφιέννυται αύτά έκεΐνος, ώς ύπηρέτης Θεού καί διάκονος, έν τή προελεύσει καί μόνον, καί πάλιν μετά τήν χρείαν άν τιστρέφει αύτά πρός τήν έκκλησίαν, καί άπόκεινται έν αύτή. Αλλά καί κατάρα τοΰ άγιου καί μεγάλου βασιλέως Κωνσταντίνου έστίν εν τή αγία ταύτη τραπέζι της του Θεού έκκλησίας έγγεγραμμένη, καθώς αύτώ διά του άγγέλου ό Θεδς διωρίσατο, ίνα, εάν βουληθή βασιλεύς διά τινα χρείαν ή περίστασιν ή έπιθυμίαν άκαιρον εξ αύτών έπάραι καί ή αυτός καταχρήσασθαι ή ετέροις χαρίσασθαι, ώς πολέμιος καί των του Θεού προσταγμάτων εχθρός, άναθεματίζεται καί της έκκλησίας άποκηρύττεται εί δε καί αυτός έτερα όμοια καμεϊν βουληθή, ινα καί αυτά ή του Θεού έκκλησία άναλαμβάνηται, των άρχιερέων πάντων εις ταΰτα παρρησιαζομένων καί της συγκλήτου- καί μη έχειν εξουσίαν μήτε τον βασιλέα, μήτε τον πατριάρχην, μήτε έτερόν τινα τάς τοιαύτας άναλαμβάνεσθαι στολάς ή τά στέμματα άπο της άγιας του Θεοΰ έκκλησίας. Καί φόβος μέγας έπήρτηται τοΐς βουλομένοις άνατρέπειν τι των τοιούτων θεϊκών διατάξεων.”: Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De administrando imperio, in: Moravcsik (ed.) (1967), pp. 66-69. See also Hilsdale (2008), pp. 613. 530 Hilsdale (2008), pp. 613. 531 Hetherington (2003), pp. 166. 75

We can take the Holy Crown of Hungary as an example. The plaques of Byzantine enamel played a highly significant part in its design. The stones now set in the crown, identified as sapphires, amethysts, and almandine garnets have been assessed as being of poor quality and little value. It was even discovered to be made from green glass. While it is possible that they are substitutes from a later period, the sanctity with which the crown was surrounded in Hungary makes this unlikely. They may, therefore, be regarded as forming part of its original design.532 According to Paul Hetherington, the difference of materials used for a crown when it was given to a client ruler like King Géza I of Hungary (1074-1077) and when it was designed for an imperial head were deliberate.533 They fall into two fields: political and economic. The enamels on the corona graeca were intended to convey a political and diplomatic message: the subservient status of King Géza I to the Byzantine power. For this message to be clear, only some kind of figural form such as enamel was appropriate.534 To the modern observer the extraordinary artistry of the crown’s enamels make it a work of matchless beauty, and certainly of greater artistic interest than if it had been decorated solely by gems like the imperial crown. But as I have demonstrated in the previous chapter, throughout the long development of imperial Byzantine crowns, enamels were never valued in their design. For the 11th century Byzantine court the use of enamel may have been a solution that had another objective besides the political one. The monetary value of enamels would certainly be much lower than that of fine gems. While gems could have been mortgaged at any time that the Hungarian royal finances needed a further supply of funds, enamels would be far more likely to stay in their intended place.535 And I agree with Hetherington that it could never have been in the interests of the Byzantine court to bestow an independent source of money on a client king. Enamels provided spectacular, worthy and diplomatically significant alternative.536 Their use in the Byzantine diplomacy is further attested by the aforementioned gifts of Constantine IX Monomachos (1042-1055) to the Fatimid caliph. Before him, in 949 Constantine VII (944-959) sent a letter to the Caliph of Cordoba contained in a silver casket with a portrait of the emperor on the lid “made in coloured glass of extraordinary workmanship”.537 More specifically, from De cerimoniis we know how in the imperial palace enamel was made to serve diplomatic purposes simply by creating an atmosphere of overwhelming richness and luxury: plates and other vessels were displayed to impress visiting dignitaries.538 The clear indication of the value and esteem in which enamel was held in the period between the 10th and 13th centuries is the readiness with which individual pieces have been re-used. It was done especially in the West, where the original manufacture of the

532Hetherington (2003), pp. 166-167. See also: Tóth /Szelenyi ( 000), pp. 19 for recent identification of the green glass. 533 Hetherington (2003), pp. 167. 534 Ebd. 535 Ebd. 536 Ebd. 537 Arabic text by Ibnu Hayyam, quoted by Ibn Mohammad al Makkari: A History of the Mahomedan dynasties of Spain, in: Bibl. imp., MS arabe, anc. fonds No. 704, fol. 9v. See: Hetherington (2006), pp. 210. 538 Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 640. See: Hetherington (2006), pp. 210. 76 cloisonné enamel ceased to exist, the enamels were scarce and there was shortage of craftsmen to produce them.539

Conceptualized as gifts, the crowns were governed by the ideology of indebtedness. Even though the subtle rhetoric of the objects wouldn’t have been immediately apparent to the foreign audience, they would have looked undoubtedly “Byzantine” or maybe imperial to its eyes. The power relations triggered by the gift of the crown involve reciprocal expectations and future allegiances.540 This interpretation recalls the theory of anthropologist Marcel Mauss of the gift that never truly alienates, but rather always remains to a certain extent inseparable from its sender: “What imposes obligation in the present received and exchanged is the fact that the thing received is not inactive. Even when it has been abandoned by the giver it still possesses something of him. Through it the giver has a hold over the beneficiary just as, being its owner, through it he has a hold over the thief.”541 The metaphor of thief and true owner is a description of an inalienable relationship between person and object and it highlights the self-interested, even possessive aspect of giving. As an active object, the crown represented its own and its wearer’s fidelity.542

539 Hetherington (1988), pp. 37-38. 540 Hilsdale (2008), pp. 621. 541 Mauss (1966), pp. 11-12. See also: Hilsdale (2008), pp. 621. 542 Hilsdale (2008), pp. 621. 77

5. The ritual function of the crowns

In the next few pages, I would like discuss the coronation rituals in Byzantium, Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Holy Roman Empire. They were chosen because of their connection to the crowns send from or inspired by the Byzantine Empire. Through comparison I will try to decide if or to what extent the sending of the Byzantine crown modified the initiation of the monarch in the receiving country. In the last part of the chapter I will also reflect on the dissemination of the Byzantine imperial representation in the kingdoms diplomatically connected with the Empire.

5.1 Byzantine coronation ritual

5.1.1 Coronation in De cerimoniis

The coronation of the Eastern Roman emperors was described in the book De cerimoniis of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (944-959) and in the liturgical book Euchologion. The latter incorporated two manuscripts, one datable around 795, the other coming from the 12th century. The insignificance of the variations between the two texts suggests that the ceremony, at least from the point of view of the officiating clergy for whom they were copied, remained unchanged.543 The emperor with his entourage arrived for his coronation at the southwest portal of Hagia Sophia much as he did on major feasts, and was met by the patriarch at the entrance to the inner narthex. From there they entered the nave together through the central (imperial) doors and went onto the solea, the raised balustraded pathway leading from the ambo in the centre of the church, to the chancel barrier.544 When they arrived at the central gates of the sanctuary, the emperor, with a lighted candle in his hand, prayed with the patriarch before the Holy doors of the sanctuary but didn’t enter its precincts. During the prayer, the monarch was standing on a porphyry disk set in the floor before the central doors [99].545 Up to this point, we have the normal ceremonial arrival of the emperor at Hagia Sophia and his entrance into the church with the patriarch as prescribed for major festivals. He is thus, in certain sense, acting as emperor even before his coronation. Panayotis Yannopoulos suggests that this behaviour may be stemming from the fact that the man to be crowned is de jure already an emperor, by power of his control of the palace, the army, and the Senate. It is this control that allows him to arrange the ecclesiastical coronation, which adds the charismatic seal to the political reality.546

543 Majeska (1997), pp. 2. Sources: Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 191-196; Euchologion, in: Goar (ed.) (1960), pp. 726-730. 544 Majeska (1997), pp. 2. Sources: Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 192. On the internal arrangement of Hagia Sophia see: Mainstone (1988), pp. 219-235. 545 Majeska (1997), pp. 2, 6. On the porphiry disc see: Schreiner (1979), pp. 401-410. 546 Majeska (1997), pp. 2. More: Yannopoulos (1991), pp. 73-89. 78

There was ambiguousness as to the imperial crown’s significance: a distinctive crown was a prerogative of supreme rulership, but it was not the only item of regalia, and the act of crowning by the patriarch or a senior emperor was not the sole element in the Byzantine inauguration ritual. Acclamations, rather than the crowning, could be regarded as constitutive, because, as Gilbert Dagron has emphasized, few successions to the throne were undisputed and in practice the tensions affected procedures for inauguration. Sometimes the display of military power was more important than the crowning itself, the legitimization from above serving as a mere addition.547 However, the emperor didn’t exercise any genuinely liturgical functions (entering the sanctuary, kissing the altar, or censing) until he had been raised to sacred imperial status by his coronation.548 After the prayer, the emperor and the patriarch turned and walked back to mount the ambo, where the coronation objects, the crown, the chlamys, and the fibula laid ready on a small table. After a litany intoned by the deacon, the patriarch read a special prayer over the imperial chlamys and fibula: „Lord our God, King of kings and Lord of lords, You who, through the intermediary of your prophet Samuel, chose your servant David and, by unction, made him king of your people Israel, hear also today our supplication, look down from your holy dwelling on high on we who are unworthy, deign to anoint with the oil of gladness your faithful servant, a man it has pleased you to establish as emperor over the holy nation which you have made your own by the blood of your only Son. Endow him with power from on high, put on his head a crown of precious stones, bless him with long life, place on his right hand the sceptre of salvation, establish him on the throne of righteousness, gird him with the weapons of your Holy Spirit, give strength to his arm, subject to him all the barbarous nations, instil into his heart fear of you and compassion towards his subjects, preserve him a scrupulous defender of the teaching of the holy Church: so that he may judge your people fairly and the poor with justice, defend the children of the poor and inherit thy heavenly kingdom. For yours is the power, the kingdom and the glory.“549 Later he handed them to courtiers, who vested the emperor in them.550 The patriarch then read a prayer over the imperial crown: „Before you, the only King of men, he to whom you have entrusted the earthly kingdom bows down the neck, with us. And we beseech you, Master of all, keep him under your protection, strengthen his kingdom, grant that he does your will in all things, make justice and an abundance of peace flourish during his lifetime; may the peace of his reign enable us to lead a sweet and tranquil

547 Shepard (2011), pp. 140. See also: Torno Ginnasi (2014), pp. 33-66; Dagron (2003), pp. 21-40, 54-83, 192- 199. 548 Majeska (1997), pp. 2. More: Yannopoulos (1991), pp. 73-89. 549 Dagron (2003), pp. 58. Original: Euchologion, in: Goar (ed.) (1960), pp. 7 6: „Κύριος ο Θεός μας, Βασιλιάς των βασιλιάδων και Κύριος των κυρίων, εσείς που, μέσω του προφήτη σου Σαμουήλ, επέλεξε τον δούλο σου Δαβίδ και, με τη βοήθεια του, τον έκανε βασιλιά του λαού σου Ισραήλ, ακούσε και σήμερα τη ικεσία μας, ιερή κατοικία πάνω σε εμάς που είμαστε ανάξιοι, επιδιώκουμε να χρίσουμε με το λάδι της ευτυχίας τον πιστό σας δούλο, έναν άνθρωπο που σας ευχαρίστησε να καθιερώσετε ως αυτοκράτορα πάνω στο ιερό έθνος που κάνατε το δικό σας με το αίμα του μοναδικού σας Υιού. Τον δώστε με δύναμη από ψηλά, βάλτε στο κεφάλι του ένα στέμμα από πολύτιμους λίθους, τον ευλογείτε με μακρά ζωή, τοποθετήστε στο χείλος του το χέρι το σκήπτρο της σωτηρίας, τον καθιερώστε στο θρόνο της δικαιοσύνης, τον πιάστε με τα όπλα της Αγίας σας Πνεύμα, δώστε δύναμη στο χέρι του, υποκείμενη σε αυτόν όλα τα βαρβαρόχρωμα έθνη, στηρίζοντας στην καρδιά του φόβο για σας και συμπόνια προς τους υποκειμένους του, διατηρήστε τον έναν σχολαστικό υπερασπιστή της διδασκαλίας της ιερής Εκκλησίας: έτσι ώστε να κρίνει τον λαό σας δίκαια και οι φτωχοί με δικαιοσύνη, να υπερασπιστούν τα παιδιά των φτωχών και να κληρονομήσουν την ουράνια βασιλεία σου. Για δική σας είναι η δύναμη, η βασιλεία και η δόξα.” 550 Majeska (1997), pp. 2. 79 existence in all piety and honesty. For you are the King of peace and the Saviour of our souls and bodies, and we glorify you.”551 Making a sign of the cross with the crown, the patriarch placed it on the emperor’s head, intoning “Worthy!”. The congregation repeated his chant of the word “worthy” three times.552 The ritual here would strike a Byzantine as quite familiar. Its form is close to that of ordination to holy orders, the sacramental act that distinguishes clergy from laity.553 Like a newly ordained clergyman, the emperor participated in the procession of the “great entrance” in the liturgy; he was commemorated by the clergy as they entered the sanctuary in the same way they commemorated the celebrating bishop or patriarch; he exchanged the kiss of peace with the patriarch, and he partook of the Eucharist, not like a layman with the consecrated bread and wine together in a spoon, but like a priest or deacon, receiving the consecrated bread in his hand from the patriarch and drinking the consecrated wine from the chalice held by the patriarch. 554 It is, however, precisely in the reception of the communion that the ambiguity of the imperial ordination manifested itself. Unlike bishops, priests and deacons, the newly crowned emperor didn’t communicate inside the sanctuary at the holy table itself, but rather at a special small table set before the central entrance to the sanctuary.555 If the emperor was accompanied by a caesar, the patriarch was to crown the basileus, who subsequently crowned the caesar. The same happened with the augusta, who wasn’t crowned in the cathedral but in the palace, in the church of St Stephan, in the 10th century. Augusta, accompanied by other members of the imperial family, came close to the solea and received the crown from the emperor.556 The latter climbed down from the ambo, using the stairs on the east side, turned towards the iconostasis.557 Constantine VII (913-959) specifies that after the coronation emperor descended the ambo, entered the metatorion located at the east end of the south aisle, and sat on a portable throne.558 Here the dignitaries came to greet him in order of hierarchy, falling to the ground

551 Dagron (2003), pp. 58-59. Original source: Euchologion, in: Goar (ed.) (1960), pp. 7 7: “Πριν από σας, ο μόνος βασιλιάς των ανθρώπων, αυτός στον οποίο έχετε εμπιστευτεί το γήινο βασίλειο κάτω από το λαιμό, μαζί μας. Και σας ικετεύω, Κύριε όλων, τον κρατάτε κάτω από την προστασία σας, ενισχύετε τη βασιλεία του, χορηγείτε ότι κάνει το θέλημά σας σε όλα τα πράγματα, δημιουργεί δικαιοσύνη και πληθώρα ειρήνης ανθίζει κατά τη διάρκεια της ζωής του. μπορεί η ειρήνη της βασιλείας του να μας επιτρέψει να οδηγήσουμε μια γλυκιά και γαλήνια ύπαρξη σε κάθε ευσέβεια και ειλικρίνεια. Επειδή είσαι ο βασιλιάς της ειρήνης και ο Σωτήρας των ψυχών και των σωμάτων μας και σας δοξάζουμε.” 552 Majeska (1997), pp. 3. Source: Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 93: „ϰαι ό βασιλεύς μετά των ηραιποσιτων ένδύουσι την χλανίδα τον νεοχειροτόνητον βασιλέα, ϰαι πάλιν ποιεί εύχήν έπι των στεμμάτων, ϰαι πρώτον μεν ίδίαις χερσι στέφει ό πατριάρχης τον μέγαν βασιλέα, εϊτα έπιδίδωσι τφ μεγάλφ βασιλεί το στέμμα, ϰαι στέφει ό βασιλεύς τον νεοχειροτόνητον βασιλέα, ϰαι ενϑέως αναϰράζουσι τα δυο μέρη ϰαι λέγουσιν ,,αξιος”.“ 553 Majeska (1997), pp. 3. On clerical ordination see: Euchologion, in: Goar (ed.) (1960), pp. 194-261. 554 Majeska (1997), pp. 3-4. Sources: Pseudo-Kodinos, De Officiis, in: Verpeaux (ed.) (1976), pp. 258 and Euchologion, in: Goar (ed.) (1960), pp. 194-261. 555 Majeska (1997), pp. 4. Source: Symeon of Thessalonica, De sacro templo, in: Migne (ed.) (1866), pp. 351. 556 In early churches of Constantinople, solea was an enclosed processional pathway leading from the sanctuary barrier to the ambo. After , when this pathway was no longer used, the term is sometimes applied that part of the raised sanctuary platform (bema) that lies outside the sanctuary barrier. See: Taft (1991), pp. 1923. 557 Menna (2007), pp. 456-457. Source: Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 191-196, 202-207. 558 Metatorion was a room in Hagia Sophia and perhaps in other churches. De cerimoniis often mentions it as a chamber where the emperor changed his clothes and took breakfast with high officials (Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 18, 192). Its precise location is not clear: Constantine variously describes it as situated near the bema and altar 80 and kissing his knees. The ceremony continued with the kiss of peace, communion and the exit, according to the order laid down for the great religious festivals.559 It is understandable, as the dates of imperial coronations were deliberately made to coincide with great religious feasts, in which they played the role of a small episode.560 After participating in the distribution of the bread to the crowds the crowned emperor returned to the imperial palace on a horse, while his entourage followed him on foot to take part in the grand banquet.561 After the coronation purses of coins were distributed following the rigid hierarchical system of the court. The emperor personally scattered gold coins to his titleholders in the courtyard of his palace. The previous day one of the titleholders had distributed purses of mixed coins (gold, silver, copper) to the people and the army in the courtyard of Hagia Sophia, the Augustaion.562 De cerimoniis puts emphasis on the heavenly origin of the power of the emperor. Between the numerous acclamations addressed to the new ruler many times the coronation is associated with God: “glory to the God who has crowned your head”, or “glory to the God who has consecrated you an emperor”, or “and now he, who has crowned you an emperor with his own hand...to preserve you in purple for many and many years.”563 The concept is confirmed also by the Euchologion, used probably before the middle of the 10th century. Particularly the prayer pronounced by the patriarch above the imperial cloak (chlamys) is an appeal to God to hand the power to the elected one, bestow a golden crown on his head, give him the sceptre of the salvation and support him on the throne.564

5.1.2 Changes in the ritual after the 12th century

During the ruling of the dynasty of the Palaiologoi, the coronation had become integrated with the liturgy (in the De cerimoniis it took place separately, before the ecclesiastical office). The coronation of the empress had also become part of the coronation of the emperor, not a ceremony held separately in the palace.565 The former coronation ritual was enriched with the professing of the faith of the sovereign and the acclamatio.566 The profession of the faith was written by the emperor himself and delivered in Hagia Sophia before the beginning of the ceremony.567 It is attested in the narrative sources sporadically from the late 5th until the early 9th century. Then it disappears from the sources

(Ebd., pp. 17, 145), behind the gate of the narthex (Ebd., pp. 64), or in the gallery (Ebd., pp. 157). See: Cutler (1991), pp. 1353. More about the architecture of Hagia Sophia: Mainstone (1988), pp. 223-226. 559 Dagron (2003), pp. 55. Source: Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 193. 560 Dagron (2003), pp. 57. 561 Menna (2007), pp. 458. Source: Pseudo-Kodinos, De Officiis, in: Verpeaux (ed.) (1976), pp. 269. 562 Macrides et. al. (eds.) (2013), pp. 393. Source: Pseudo-Kodinos, De Officiis, in: Verpeaux (ed.) (1976), pp. 214-216, 238-240. 563 Torno Ginnasi (2014), pp. 91. Source: Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 9 : „δόξα θεφ τφ στέψαντι την κορυφήν σου”, “δόξα Θίψ τφ άναδείξαντί σε βασιλέα”, „άλλ’ ό στέψας σε, ό δείνα βασιλέα, αυτοχειρως... φνλάζει σε είς ηλήϑη χρόνων έν τή πορφύρα“. 564 Torno Ginnasi (2014), pp. 91. Source: Euchologion, in: Goar (ed.) (1960), pp. 726. 565 Macrides et. al. (eds.) (2013), pp. 416. Sources: Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 191-196, 202-207; Pseudo-Kodinos, De Officiis, in: Verpeaux (ed.) (1976), pp. 252-273. 566 Menna (2007), pp. 455. 567 Ebd. Source: Pseudo-Kodinos, De Officiis, in: Verpeaux (ed.) (1976), pp. 252-254. 81 until the late 12th century, when Choniates mentions it in an account of Alexios III’s coronation in 1195.568 The reason for the gap in the sources should be seen in the nature of narratives concerning customary procedures. The ordinary is nor recorded, it is the extraordinary that is worth mentioning. It is therefore probable that the practice of the profession continued between the 9th and the 12th century, but wasn’t noted. Pseudo-Kodinos makes references to some of its parts the emperor promised to maintain the true faith and the Church’s customs and to abstain from cruelty towards his subjects.569 The acclamatio was the proclamation of the emperor, taking place in the Augustaion.570 During this ritual the monarch was lifted on a shield above the crowd, as depicted on the fol. 10 of the Chronicon of John Skylitzes, preserved in the Biblioteca National in Madrid and dated between 1150 and 1175 [100].571 Only after this the basileus, with a crown or other type of a headdress headed towards the south entrance of the cathedral. Before entering the sacred building the emperor changed his attire in a temporary wooden structure, enclosed by a curtain, specially reserved for him.572 The acclamatio was a sign of initiation of the new monarch, frequent amongst Germanic tribes, in use also in Roman and Byzantine lands between the 4th and the 7th century. In general the acclamatio preceded the coronation by days or even months. In the high Middle Ages it was long forgotten. In De cerimoniis, as well as other contemporary sources, its relation to the coronation or other court rituals is not mentioned at all.573 In the Palaiologan era the emperor was elevated so he would the crowd. The patriarch was included in the lifting of the shield, symbolically supporting it in front, alone or with the father of the emperor. Other high dignitaries (caesars, sebastokrators, despots) were positioned behind the shield and at its sides. The antique ceremony was restored in all its former glory, but the inclusion of the patriarch shifted its meaning. It was no more strictly secular ceremony acknowledging the military power of the monarch but included acknowledgement from the Church as well.574 In the 12th century, the custom of anointing the new emperor with chrism was introduced.575 In his commentary of the 12th canon of the Council of Ancyre Theodore Balsamon, patriarch of Antioch (1130/40-after 1197), recounts that in 969 the Emperor John Tzimiskes (969-976), having assassinated his predecessor Nicephore Phokas (963-969), was forbidden to enter the Grand Church by the Constantinopolitan patriarch. A synodal decree later admitted him to it with the following explanation:

568 Macrides et. al. (eds.) (2013), pp. 416. Source: Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 422; Nicetas Choniates, Historia, in: Bekker (ed.) (1835), pp. 598-599. 569 Macrides et. al. (eds.) (2013), pp. 416-417. Source: Pseudo-Kodinos, De Officiis, in: Verpeaux (ed.) (1976), pp. 253-254. 570 Enclosed open space in Constantinople situated south of Hagia Sophia. Probably carved out of a pre-existing agora. Remodelled in 459 and again by , the Augusteon served not as a public forum but as a courtyard of a restricted access. See: Mango (1991), pp. 232. 571 Menna (2007), pp. 456. About the manuscript see: Torno Ginnasi (2014), pp. 66-68; Anderson (1997), pp. 501-502; Grabar /Manoussacas (1979). 572 Menna (2007), pp. 456. Source: Pseudo-Kodinos, De Officiis, in: Verpeaux (ed.) (1976), pp. 256. 573 Menna (2007), pp. 459. More: Kantorowicz (1963), pp. 15-155; Brightman (1901), pp. 367-369. 574 Menna (2007), pp. 459. Source: Pseudo-Kodinos, De Officiis, in: Verpeaux (ed.) (1976), pp. 260. 575 Majeska (1997), pp. 3. For more information see: Nicol (1976), pp. 37-52; Brightman (1901), pp. 383-389. Source: Pseudo-Kodinos, De Officiis, in: Verpeaux (ed.) (1976), pp. 258. 82

“The patriarch, in agreement with the Holy Synod, according to the synodal decision, which was then promulgated and whose text is preserved in the archives, declared that, since the anointing of the holy baptism erases all sins, however great and numerous, which were committed before, the analogous action of the royal anointing had erased the murder of which Tzimiskes had been guilty before receiving it.”576 Before the proper coronation, the patriarch blessed the emperor with chrism consecrated during the Easter week, making a sign of a cross on his forehead.577 According to Henri Leclercq the fact that the consecration was absent from the Byzantine coronation ritual can be explained by the Roman origins of the Empire. The status of the monarch was strengthened by the perseverance of the antique tradition of monarchical worship. Thus the emperors didn’t experience so early the need of western “barbaric” royals to sanctify themselves by a rite imitated from the Bible.578 The emperor was considered to be anointed by God per se, in the same way as prophets and Prophet David in particular. This principle was announced at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, in relation to the Emperor Marcianus (450-457), often compared to David.579 The insertion of the anointment into the ceremony reflects the transformation of the role of the monarch between the Macedonian and Palaiologan era. It is connected with the strengthening of his position in the Church (during the rule of (1143- 1180) the emperor gains the title of epistemonarche, censor of the doctrines of the Church).580 The significant point is that the patriarch anoints only the head of the monarch, thus demonstrating that he is anointed of Christ and “the head of all”. There is a contrast with the western coronation ritual in which the emperor’s body was anointed with chrism and his head with oil. Anointment in two kinds was never a Byzantine practice.581 The other new element included in the ceremonial and following the actual coronation was prokypsis (adoration), which could be considered as a form of imperial theophany. After the coronation the emperor joined his family on a wooden tribune with gilded thrones, situated in the east part of the nave. He went up the stairs on the posterior side of the tribune, which was protected from the gaze of onlookers by golden curtains. Only when the members of the imperial family took their respective places and when the choir repeatedly sang the invocation “rise, rise” (“άνατείλατε, άνατείλατε”) did the curtains part and the imperial persons appeared in front of the beholders, displayed in half-length, producing the same effect as an aligned group of devotional images, shown to the believers as an object of veneration.582 This form of presentation of the imperial family can be seen in fol. 227 v of the Madrid

576 Leclercq (1950), coll. 312. For the original source see: PG, Migne (ed.) (1865), coll. 6: „Είπε γάρ μετά της άγιας συνόδου έν τη γενομένη τηνιϰαΰτα συνοδιϰή πράξει, τη έν τϖ χαρτοφυλαϰείω άποϰειμένη, ώς, έπεί τό χρίσμα τοΰ άγιου βαπτίσματος τά προ τούτου άμαρτήματα άπολείφε οΐα ϰαί όσα ά ώσι, πάντως ϰαί τό χρίσμα της βασιλείας τόν πρό ταύτης γεγονότα φόνον παρά τοΰ Τζιμισϰή έξηλειψεν.” 577 Menna (2007), pp. 456. Source: Pseudo-Kodinos, De Officiis, in: Verpeaux (ed.) (1976), pp. 259. 578 Leclercq (1950), coll. 313. 579 Menna (2007), pp. 463; Nicol (1976), pp. 37-42; Walter (1976), pp. 53-73. 580 Menna (2007), pp. 458. More: Nicol (1976), pp. 37-41. About the role of the emperor in the Church see: Dagron (2003), pp. 257-287. 581 Nicol (1976), pp. 48-49. Source: Symeon of Thessalonica, De Sacro Templo et ejus Consecratione, in: Migne (ed.) (1865b), pp. 353. 582 Menna (2007), pp. 456, 459. More: Kantorowicz (1963), pp. 151-162. Source: Pseudo-Kodinos, De Officiis, in: Verpeaux (ed.) (1976), pp. 257. 83

Skylitzes, even though it isn’t a depiction of coronation ceremony [ 0 ].583 Its roots can be found in the late antique triumphal representation of the emperor during public festivities, such as games on the Hippodrome, where he revealed himself in the imperial box only after the crowd shouted repeatedly “άνατείλατε, άνατείλατε “.584 The effect of the imperial theophany was considerably heightened by the suggestive illumination of the interior of the tribune. Candlelight, especially if deployed from below to light the emperor, would have intensified the light that emanated from the jewels and gold of his garments and . As a result the contemporary orations describe the appearance of the monarch and his family members as heavenly visions.585

5.1.3 Depictions of coronations

The moment of the coronation of the emperor by the patriarch, nevertheless being the hallmark of the succession of the monarchic power, stemming from Heaven, is underrepresented in the Byzantine art. Some of the few depictions are offered by the Madrid Skylitzes. Today the prevailing view is that the manuscript is a product of 12th-century Norman court of Palermo. Both the script, which can be attributed to the region of Messina, and the fact that the miniatures combine Byzantine, western and Arabic, lead to Sicily, which at that time was the crossroads of these three cultures.586 The axis of the narration is the succession of the emperors. The basic principle which governs the layout system of the manuscript’s illustrations is the positioning of the miniatures within the text, and their immediate contiguity with the text which they illustrate.587 Fol. 114v presents the coronation of Constantine Porphyrogennetos (913-959) by Patriarch Euthymius (907-913) in 913, fol. 133v the coronation of Roman II (959-963), depicted together with his father, fol. 139v the coronation of Basil II (976-1025) by Patriarch Polyeuctus (956-970) and fol. 159r the coronation of John Tzimiskes (969-976) [102-105].588

5.2 Coronation in Bulgaria

The Byzantine emperor was regarded as holy from the moment of his coronation, so that portrait artists painted his head surrounded by a nimbus. As the patriarch held the diadem over his head, the assembled people cried out, “Holy! holy! holy!“ and “Long live!”589 The

583 Menna (2007), pp. 260. More about the illumination: Grabar /Manoussacas (1979), fig. 267. 584 Menna (2007), pp. 260. More: Kantorowicz (1963), pp. 150-158. Source: George Cedrenus, Synopsis, in: Bekker (ed.) (1838), pp. 709. 585 Macrides et. al. (eds.) (2013), pp. 444; Menna (2007), pp. 260. Source: Manuel Holobolos, Orations, in: Treu (ed.) (1906), 86.5-86.10. 586 Tsamakda (2000), pp. 127. 587 Ebd., pp. 128-129. 588 Menna (2007), pp. 457. More about the illuminations: Grabar /Manoussacas (1979), fig. 140, 163 and n. 159b. 589 Sedlar (1994), pp. 43. Source: Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, in: Reiske (ed.) (1829), pp. 93: „ϰαι πάλιν ποιεί ευχήν επί τον στέμματος αυτοί, ϰαί πληρώσας λαμβάνει αυτός δ πατριάρχης το στέμμα, ϰαι τίϑησιν αυτό είς την ϰεφαλήν του δεσπότου, ϰαι ευϑέως αναϰραζει ό λαός · ,,άγιος, άγιος, άγιος, δόξα έν ύψι'στοις δεφ, ϰαι έπι γης ειρήνη,” τρίτον · είτα · ,,ό δείνα μεγάλου βασιλέως ϰαι αντοχράτορος πολλά τά έτη” ϰαι τά εξής.”

84 rulers of Bulgaria’s Second Empire ( 8 -1396) were also crowned in this manner. They were first raised on a shield and then acclaimed by the waiting crowd. Afterward a solemn procession made its way to the coronation church, where they took communion and received the actual crown. Whether an identical procedure was followed under the First Empire (864- 1018) is unknown.590

5.3 Latin coronation

In Western Christendom for a monarch’s position to be fully recognized a formal coronation was highly desirable, even if not absolutely prerequisite. This ceremony required the nobility of the kingdom publicly to acknowledge the sovereign’s authority, while the presence of high church dignitaries signified the royal power was sanctified by God. Normally the ceremony took place as soon as possible after a ruler’s accession to the throne. In some cases, he was even crowned twice, the first time while his father was still alive. This preliminary ceremony was designed to ensure an orderly succession by emphasizing the future monarch’s right to rule. From the standpoint of relations with foreign powers, a formal coronation announced the monarch’s independence from other sovereigns.591 The seal of divine grace for a newly enthroned monarch was the ceremony of anointing with holy oil, for which Biblical precedent existed.592 As performed in medieval times, coronation can be traced back to the old Roman- Byzantine custom whereby the emperor was elected by the Senate and afterwards acclaimed by the waiting crowd.593 The coronation of kings in the West was borrowed from the Carolingians. Elevation to the throne was the decisive symbolic act which exalted the ruler above all his subjects and endowed him with the insignia of office.594

5.3.1 Crowning of Hungarian king in the Arpadian era

In medieval Europe, the inauguration rites were usually formed by rites of enthronement, anointing, and coronation as recorded in ecclesiastical orders. For medieval Hungary in the Arpadian era (1000-1301) we have almost no evidence about coronations at all.595 The earliest reference can be assigned to the work De administrando imperio of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. He notes that the Duke Arpád (89 -907) was elevated on a shield according to a Khazar custom.596 According to the Life of St Stephan, written around 1083, after receiving acclamations from the people the future king was anointed and crowned with a diadem. Emma Bartoniek

590 Sedlar (1994), pp. 43-44. More: Gošev ( 966), pp. 146-168. 591 Sedlar (1994), pp. 43. 592 Ebd., pp. 37. In the Bible Samuel anoints Saul and David as kings (1 Samuel 10:1 and 16:13), the priest Zadok anoints Solomon (1 Kings 1:39) and an unnamed disciple of Elisha anoints Jehu (2 Kings 9:6). See: Viberg (1996), pp. 19. About the importance of anointing in the West see: Bertelli (1990), pp. 19-35. 593Sedlar (1994), pp. 43. More: McCormack (1995), pp. 362-370; Woolley (1911), pp. 7-10. Source: Flavius Vopiscus of Syracuse, , in: Magie (ed.) (1932), pp. 300-313. 594 Sedlar (1994), pp. 44. 595 Zupka (2010), pp. 29. 596 Torno Ginnasi (2014), pp. 35. Source: Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De administrando imperio, in: Moravcsik (ed.) (1967), pp. 172-173. 85 points out that the text gives pre-eminence to the acclamation as the formal confirmation of the monarch by his subjects, the coronation being only an additional tool of transfer of royal dignity.597 Even though the source is not precise in describing the coronation, it gives us the general idea about its most important parts, which were standard for the western inauguration rituals. Among the secular acts that accompanied the consecration, from the first three centuries of the existence of Hungarian Kingdom only enthronement is expressly mentioned for the coronations of Peter Orseolo (1041) and Salomon (1064).598 The coronation of Ladislaus V (1452-1457) is the first one during which the scattering of coins among people is documented. The custom, however, was certainly much older and possibly in use between the 11th and the 13th century.599 Emma Bartoniek persisted in thinking that in the case of the coronation of King Salomon in 1064 the coronation ordo could be identified.600 She based her belief on the sentence “Esto dominus fratrorum tuorum...” used in the prayer at the coronation in the Hungarian Chronicle.601 This sentence, a quotation from Genesis (12:29), is indeed part of the prayer Omnipotens det tibi Deus. Bartoniek found it in the so-called Egbert ordo of the Anglo-Saxon coronation and assumed that this ordo had been used in 1064. Later research, however, has proven that the prayer was used in several ordines so the statement loses its absolute validity. The fact that Hungarian Chronicle was written almost three centuries after the reported coronation also compromises the accuracy of the report.602 In the 11th century the prayer could have reached Hungary through Lombardy or Lorraine, connections with which according to the research of Polykarp Radó were the main source of the liturgy in Hungary. 603 Reliable evidence of the coronation oath as a part of the Hungarian inauguration comes from the reign of Stephen V (1270-1272), who admitted in a royal charter that he promised under oath to maintain the rights of all his subjects. This source also mentions that the king took oath on the so-called “coronation cross”, one of the outstanding pieces in the treasury of Esztergom, which originated in the 12th century.604 Hungarian coronations can be observed in detail only in the later Middle Ages, partially from the 14th century, but mainly from the 15th century. From this period we have the oldest descriptions in narrative sources, as well as the first coronation ordo (1438). Supposedly

597 Bartoniek (1923), pp. 247-248. Source: Legenda maior S. Stephani regis, in: Bartoniek (ed.) (1948), pp. 384: „Presulibus cum clero comitibus cum populo laudes congruas acclamantibus, dilectus deo Stephanus rex appellatur et unctione crismali perunetus, diademate regalis dignitatis feliciter coronatur.“ 598 Bak (1973), pp. 166. More: Deér ( 97 ), pp. 1-56. Source: Hungarian Chronicle, in: Domanovszky (ed.) (1937), pp. 324ff, 352. 599 Bak (1973), pp. 170. Source: The memoirs of Helene Kottanner, in: Mollay (ed.) (1971), pp. 274. 600 Bartoniek (1923), pp. 297. 601 Hungarian Chronicle, in: Domanovszky (ed.) (1937), pp. 3 : „Cum autem in coronatione Salomonis canerent: ‚esto dominus fratrum tuorum‘, et hoc per interpretem Bele duci innotuisset, quod Salomon infantulus sibi dominus constitueretur, graviter est indignatus.“ 602 Fügedi ( 986), pp. 175. 603 Bak (1973), pp. 166. More: Radó ( 9 9), pp. 299-309; Elze (1952), pp. 583. 604 Fügedi ( 986), pp. 185. Source: Codex diplomaticus comitum Zichy, in: Nagy et. al. (eds.) (1871), pp. 20: „...cum ad regni nostri gubernacula coronarique accessissemus et per universale edictum omnes barones nostri seu quicunque et qualescunque comitatus dignitates et honores regni nostri tenentes in Albensem civitatem convenissent et nos eisdem inviolabilis fidei firmitatem tactis sacrosanctis reliquis necnon vivifice crucis ligno interposito observaturos promissemus ut singulos singulariter et universos universaliter in suis iuribus illesos conservaremus...“ 86 already from the time of Louis I the Great (1342-1382) the widely spread Pontificale Romanum written by bishop William Durandus (c. 1230-1296) has been used.605 In the 15th century Helene Kottaner (c. 1400-after 1470), the wet nurse of Ladislaus V, wrote in her memoirs: “There are three laws in the . They believe that if any one of them is disregarded, the claimant is not a legal king. The first law is that which says the king of Hungary has to be crowned with the Holy Crown. The second is that he must be crowned by the archbishop of Esztergom. The third is that the coronation must be held in Féhervár.”606 The right of the archbishop of Esztergom as the most important prelate at the coronation dated from before 1162.607 Székesféhervár had been the centre of the ruling dynasty’s domain ever since the Hungarian conquest. The church of St Peter was built in the second half of the 10th century and Prince Géza (-997) was buried there in 997.608 About 1015 St Stephen (1000-1038) had a basilica built where first his son Emerich (c. 1007-c. 1030) and later himself (c. 1038) were buried. When both of them were canonized in 1083 the basilica became a place of national pilgrimage. All coronations prior to 1527 were held there with the exception of two.609 The importance of the ceremony for the legitimacy of the Hungarian king was emphasized by the fact that the royal chancellery reckoned a reign from the day of a king’s coronation and the chronicles regularly recorded the date.610 After the assembly of nobles had elected a new king they acclaimed him jointly with the common people who had gathered nearby. The country’s highest-ranking prelate, usually the archbishop of Esztergom, anointed him with holy oil and placed the crown and mantle of St Stephen on his head. The new king received a sceptre a highly ornamented rod symbolizing authority and a sword denoting military power. After being raised to the throne he pronounced the coronation oath, promising to respect the traditional rights of the nobles and the Church. Finally, the assembly swore faithfulness to their new sovereign and lifted him on their shoulders.611 Only through coronation, enthronement, and taking of the coronation oath the ruler became a legitimate possessor of authority.612

605 Zupka (2010), pp. 29. Source: Coronation ordo of William Durandus, in: Elze (ed.) (1960), pp. 102-121. 606 The memoirs of Helene Kottanner, in: Mollay (ed.) (1975), pp. 7 : „Wann sy habent drew geseczin dem Kunigreich zu Ungern. Vnd wo der aine abgeet, da mainen Sie, daz er nicht rechtleich Kunig sey. Das ain gesecz ist, daz vnd das Haisst, daz ain Kunig sey. Das ain gesecz ist, daz vnd das Haisst, daz ain Kung zu Vngern sol gekront werden mit der heiligen kron. Das ander, daz in sol kroenen der Ercz Bishoue zu Gran. Das dritt, daz die kronung sol beschehen zu Wissenburg.” 607 Fügedi ( 986), pp. 176. Source: Monumenta ecclesiae strigonensis, in: Knauz (ed.) (1874), pp. 114. 608 Kralovánszky ( 990), pp. -53. 609 Fügedi ( 986), pp. 177. More: Deér ( 97 ), pp. 1-56. 610 Fügedi ( 986), pp. 159. Source: Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum, in: Szentpétery (ed.) (1937), pp. 453, 464, 467. 611Sedlar (1994), pp. 44. See also: Woolley (1911), pp. 126-127. This coronation ritual can be traced to the 15th century. Source: Ritus benedicendi et coronandi reges Hungariae qui obtinuit dum Albertus V Dux Austriae in regem Hungariae coronaretur, in: Martène (ed.) (1736), pp. 234ff. 612 Bartoniek (1917), pp. 34. 87

5.3.2 The Roman coronation of Frederick II Hohenstaufen and Constance of Aragon

When the Holy Roman Empire came into existence and Charlemagne was crowned at Rome on Christmas day in 800, there came into existence a western imperial rite.613 There is no record of the forms used, nor do we even know for certain what took place on that occasion, but we may presume with Woolley that Pope intended to do what was proper on the occasion of accession of an emperor, and followed the Constantinopolitan ritual in the outline, while maybe using prayers that were Roman compositions made for the occasion.614 In the period around 1220, when the Sicilian crown was made for the imperial coronation of Frederick II (1220-1250) and his wife Constance (1220-1222) the coronation ritual may be described as follows: the emperor and empress go in procession to St Mary in Turri, the choir singing Ecce mitto angelum, and there the emperor takes the oath to defend the Church and kisses the Pope’s feet. The Pope gives him the kiss of peace and the procession continues to St Peter’s. At the Silver door of the basilica, the Bishop of Albano meets the emperor and prays to God. Then the Pope enters amidst chants. Sitting opposite the emperor on a porphyry disc, he addresses to him a series of questions concerning his faith and duty. Next the emperor is vested in the chapel of St Gregory and is led to Pope, who blesses him. The Bishop of Ostia then proceeds to the Silver door, where the empress has been waiting, and leads her to St Gregory’s altar to await the Pope’s procession. The mass ensues; the emperor and the empress lying prostrate the while. The Emperor is then anointed by the Bishop of Ostia on the right arm and between the shoulders. The benediction of the empress follows, and she is anointed on the chest. After the anointing the Pope descends to the altar of St Maurice, on which the crowns have been deposited. He puts the crown on the head of the emperor and invests him with a sword, a sceptre, and an orb. The acclamations follow and the mass proceeds, the emperor offering bread, candles, gold, and together with the empress wine and water for the chalice. Both take communion and on leaving the basilica emperor swears three times to maintain the rights and privileges of Roman people.615 Like in Hagia Sophia, a porphyry disc can be found in the St Peter’s basilica in Rome near the main entrance. Older drawings and sources indicate that it was previously positioned opposite the altar of St Simon and Judas. This place had utmost significance within the ceremonial of the imperial coronation. Before the coronation oath the emperor, coming from the porta argentea, stopped on the porphyry disc and the Bishop of Porto prayed for him. The coronation ordo from the first half of the 12th century reports that on the right side of the disc a chair was placed for the emperor, on which he sat opposite the pope during scrutinium.616 The first mention of the porphyry disc is made in the Roman ordo from Ottonian Pontifical. The manuscript, however, is very vaguely dated between the end of the 9th century and year 960.617 The disc was possibly created for the coronation of Otto I (962-973), whose policy in

613 About the coronation of Charlemagne see: Sullivan (1959). 614 Woolley (1911), pp. 32-33. 615 Ebd., pp. 49-51. Source: Ordo Cencius II and Hohenstaufen ordo, in: Elze (ed.) (1960), pp. 35-47, 61-69. 616 Schreiner (1979), pp. 405. More about the ritual function of the porphyry disc in St Peter’s basilica: Andrieu (1954), pp. 189-218. Source: The Ordo Cencius II, in: Elze (ed.) (1960), pp. 38. Scrutinum is constituted by a series of questions from the Pope to the emperor, concerning his faith and duty. See: Woolley (1911), pp. 50. 617 Schreiner (1979), pp. 406. Source: The Roman ordo from the Ottonian Pontifical, in: Elze (ed.) (1960), pp. 1- 2. 88 many ways sought to imitate Byzantium, where it was already at use. Both in Byzantine and in the Latin ritual the porphyry disc was the emperor’s waiting place during a liturgical act.618

5.4 Coronation in Byzantium and in the West: status of the candidate

The western coronation through anointing incorporated the candidate into his office, changing his status. It transmitted the divine grace by which alone he was enabled to fulfil his mission. On the other hand, while the coronation in the East demonstrated emperor’s legitimacy, it did not confer qualification to rule. It constituted, instead, recognition that the chosen emperor was already qualified. For the absence in Byzantium of any theory of hereditary emperorship, and the continuing adherence to the principle of the election meant that an emperor was found rather than made.619 Where a western king prostrated himself before his inauguration, a Byzantine emperor remained standing throughout his acclamation and coronation alike. Thus, the coronation, unlike the western anointing, ended in no symbolic rebirth but was a representation of a pre-existing fact.620

5.5 Dissemination of the Byzantine imperial representation

5.5.1 Hungarian Kingdom

In 1310 Angevin chronicler in Chronicon Budense writes for the first time about “sibi data corona ab angelo”, thus hinting on the heavenly origin of Hungarian crown, sent on earth by God through an angel.621 According to the opinion of Péter Váczy the belief must have been wide-spread long before it was first recorded.622 Based on a further evidence, which I will give in the following lines, I dare to hypothesize that this legend could be connected with the Byzantine origin of the lower part of the crown and could have been translated from Byzantium, when the object and Byzantine bride of King Géza I (1074-1077) first arrived in Hungary in the last quarter of the 11th century.623 In the western representations either God’s hand appears from behind the clouds and hands over a crown to the ruler, or Christ himself is sitting or standing, performing the coronation. Both versions can be found in Byzantium as well. There was, however, another version which is uncharacteristic for the western representations. Here the crown and other symbols of power are brought by the angels as mediators.624 The crown, brought by the angel

618 Schreiner (1979), pp. 406-407. More about the policy of Otto I: Puhle (ed.) (2012), pp. 517-539. 619 Nelson (1986), pp. 270-271. 620 Ebd., pp. 271. Source for the western coronation: ‚Edgar‘ ordo, in: Schramm (ed.) (1968), pp. 233-241; for the Byzantine coronation: Euchologion, in: Goar (ed.) (1960), pp. 727. 621 Váczy ( 98 ), pp. 4. See: Chronicon Budense, in: Podhradczky (ed.) (1838), pp. 129. 622 Váczy ( 98 ), pp. 4. 623 For more information and bibliography see pages 38-41. 624 Váczy ( 98 ), pp. 6. In his dissertation Torno Ginnasi (2014) creates an exhaustive list of depictions of heavenly coronations. Some examples of crowning by an angel are: 880-883, illumination with coronation of Basil I by Archangel Gabriel, cod. Gr. 0, fol. Cv., Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris (pp. 76); around 1018, illumination with coronation of Basil II by Christ and Archangel Gabriel, cod. Gr. Z. 17, fol. 3r, Biblioteca Marciana, Venice (pp. 105-107); 1047, illumination with coronation of Constantine IX, Zoe and Theodora by 89 descending from Heaven, was filled with special holiness and it became a relic on earth. In chapter 13 of his work De administrando imperio Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (913- 959) confirms that “...when God made Constantine the Great the first Christian emperor, he sent him these robes of state and crowns by his angel...”. In the following lines, we read that these objects, as they are holy relics, must be guarded in Hagia Sophia and may be taken out only on the great religious holidays.625 The Hungarian crown was also considered sacred since people thought it had been given by the angel and it was guarded as a relic in the Maria Church in Székesfehérvár. All the kings were crowned with it and they were allowed to wear it on the three major holidays: Nativity, Easter, and Pentecost.626 If, however, the Hungarians were able to believe in the angelic origin of their crown like the Byzantines, the spreading of this belief must have taken place before the 12th century. Indeed St Stephen (1000-1038) had issued documents in Greek which were understood until the age of King Coloman (1095- 1116), although by then they were translated into Latin.627 The transfer of ideas is further attested by the Chronicum Pictum Vindobonense, an illuminated codex created at the court of the Hungarian king Louis I (1342-1382) and dated around the year 1360. It is a Latin written record of the history of Hungarian lands, based on information from earlier sources, now lost. In reference to the reign of Géza I ( 074-1077) it recollects a vision that his brother Ladislaus (1077-1095) had during a battle in 1074: as illustrated on the fol. 42r, an angel descended from Heaven and laid a golden grown on the head of the future Hungarian monarch [106].628 In the way the sacred coronation is represented we can suspect an allusion to the theocratic conceptions of monarchical power, borrowed from Byzantium.629

5.5.2 Georgian lands

Representations of rulers receiving their crowns from Heaven appear in the political imagery of several kingdoms on the fringes of the Byzantine world. The theme seems to have been taken up quite soon after it became current in Byzantium in the late 9th century.630 In the later 10th century leaders of the Georgian elite, the Bagratoni princes, began to draw heavily on Byzantine authority symbols and imagery as a way of stressing legitimacy and preeminence. Brothers David (966-1000/1001) and Bagrat (961-966) were occasionally depicted in Byzantine-style vestments and, in Bagrat’s case, wearing crowns with pendilia as a means of enhancing their local status, and they probably actually wore such garments in

Christ and angels, cod. Gr. 364, fol. 3r, Library of the Monastery of St Catherine, Mount Sinai (pp. 113-116); 1092, illumination with coronation of Alexius I and his family by Christ and angels, cod. Gr. 372, fol. 5, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rome (pp. 140-145). 625 Váczy ( 98 ), pp. 6. Source: Constantine VII Porphyrogenetos, De administrando imperio, in: Moravcsik (ed.) (1967), pp. 66-67, „...ήνίκα ό Θεός βασιλέα έποίησεν Κωνσταντίνον έκεΐνον τον μέγαν, τον πρώτον Χριστιανόν βασιλεύσαντα, δι’ άγγέλου αύτώ τάς τοιαύτας στολάς έξαπέστειλεν καί τά στέμματα...“. 626 Váczy ( 98 ), pp. 11. 627 Ebd., pp. 12. 628Torno Ginnasi (2014), pp. 132. Source: Chronicon Pictum, in: Dercsényi et. al. (eds.) ( 964), pp. 83, the transcription of the text Dercsényi et. al. (eds.) ( 964b), pp. 132-133. 629 Torno Ginnasi (2014), pp. 132. 630 Shepard (2011), pp. 147. 90 their courts.631 Once the Georgian lands became more united under a single ruler in the 11th century, Byzantium could provide an extensive repertory of symbols, although Georgian monarchs initially needed to approach the appropriation cautiously, in fear of offending the still very powerful basileus. By the late 11th century the kings proceeded to have themselves represented in full imperial attire. Thus coins of David IV (1089-1125) show him wearing a stemma with prependilia. He is clothed in loros and holding a sceptre and an orb with a cross [ 07]. And an icon now preserved in St Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai shows David being offered a crown by Christ.632 Given the medieval Georgians’ acquaintance with Byzantine authority-symbols, there is little reason to doubt that the specific motif of the ruler receiving his crown from Heaven derives from the Constantinopolitan court practice.633

5.5.3 Bulgarian Kingdom

The early medieval Bulgarians were well-acquainted with ideological connotations of the crowns as symbols of authority granted to the monarch. One may note the depictions of the stemma on the later seals of Tsar Simeon (893-9 7), and also on Tsar Peter’s seals [ 08, 109].634 In the 13th century Tsar Ivan Asen II (1218-1241) was shown on a gold coin in imperial Byzantine garments, wearing a loros, and St Demetrios invests him with an imperial crown and a sword [110]. On the face of the coin, there is Christ as “the king of glory”. This way the coin is declaring Ivan’s almost imperial status.635

5.5.4 Rus

In the lands of Rus, crowns denoting rulership and their representations were not quite as important for the political and court culture in the period that interests us. The explanation is quite simple. A crown was a symbol of the legitimate power vested in an individual ruler. In early Christian Rus authority tended to be shared among the Rurik family as a whole, or by its branches, rather than being concentrated in the hands of one person.636 Crowns of the Byzantine type were not wholly unfamiliar to the ruling elite, as the diadems from Kiev and Sakhnovka testify.637 The earliest examples of the reception of the representation of the monarch from Byzantium can be seen in the coins of Vladimir Sviatoslavich (980-1015), which show him wearing an imperial stemma topped by a cross, with pendilia hanging over his ears [111].638 Anna Komnena (989- 0 ), the princess who became Vladimir’s bride, may have brought crowns of some sort to her new home. It has been suggested that crowns were actually used as regalia at Vladimir’s court.639 But neither crowns nor representations of rulers

631Shepard (2011), pp. 150. For imperial garments of Georgian kings see: Eastmond /Jones (2001), pp. 173-177. 632 Shepard (2011), pp. 150. See also: Eastmond (1998), pp. 56-58. 633 Shepard (2011), pp. 151. 634 Ebd., pp. 152. See also: Iordanov (2001), pp. 46-66. 635 Shepard (2011), pp. 153. 636 Ebd., pp. 6. More about the Rus‘ and its system of rulership: Franklin /Shepard (1996), especially pp. 167 ff. 637 For more information and bibliography see pages 59-62. 638 Shepard (2011), pp. 156. For the coins of Vladimir Sviatoslavich see: Sotnikova /Spasskij (1982), pp. 151, 159. 639 Shepard (2011), pp. 157. See also: Poppe (2003), pp. 140-141. 91 wearing them became prominent features of early Rus’ political culture. Instances where a prince was shown wearing a crown tend to be exceptions proving the rule. One of them is a portrait of Vladimir’s successor, Yaroslav (1019-1054), wearing a crown, in a wall-painting on the western interior wall of the church of St Sophia in Kiev [112]. But the wall-painting’s design and figures are known to us only from a later copy of a drawing made in 1651, and it is uncertain whether the details of the original painting of Yaroslav and his family before Christ survived unaltered until then.640

5.5.5 Norman Sicily

One example of the dissemination of the Byzantine monarchical representation can be seen also in the environment of the Norman Kingdom in Sicily. On the mosaic in the Palermitan church La Martorana King Roger II (1130-1154), receiving his crown from Christ, wears the costume of a Byzantine emperor, as he does on several coins and on his seals.641 The mosaic panel has a remarkably close resemblance to a Byzantine ivory relief in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow depicting presumably Emperor Constantine VII (913-959). It can be explained only by assuming that an authentic Byzantine design served as a model.642 The question arises whether or to what extent the figure in the mosaic corresponds to what contemporaries attending the king on ceremonial occasion actually saw. It needs to be pointed out that the loros on the mosaic is not up-to-date in Byzantine terms. At the beginning of the 11th century, most portrayals of Byzantine emperors show them wearing „modified“ loros, which hangs down straight in front rather than being draped diagonally over both shoulders.643 If the depiction of the loros on Roger’s mosaic corresponds to Palermitan reality in the 1140s, it could only mean that either the king was wearing the garment that had been discarded by the Constantinopolitan court or that those who designed his imperial wardrobe were not well informed about the contemporary imperial fashion, which is unlikely. It is much more natural to assume that the mosaicists followed a pictorial model similar to the Moscow ivory.644 Percy Schramm calls this type of depiction a „stereotyped form passed on regardless of whether it corresponds to reality because it was still felt to be suitable in terms of content“.645 The mosaic does not have a reference to the concrete act of Roger’s coronation but is instead an abstract and timeless statement of his concept of power and authority.646 Several possible channels through which the Byzantine conception of the unique relationship of the monarch with God travelled can be considered. One of them is the arrival of some sort of crown from basileus at the court of another ruler. Other include his envoys’ impressions of the ceremonies performed in the Great Palace in Constantinople or inspiration

640 Shepard (2011), pp. 157. See also: Kämpfer ( 978), pp. 111-115, with various hypothetical reconstructions of the original wall-painting. 641 Steinberg (1937), pp. 5. 642 Kitzinger (1990), pp. 190-192. 643 The evidence can be found in the coins and the mosaic panels in the south gallery of St. Sophia in : Oikonomides (1978), pp. 220-232; Bellinger /Grierson (1973) (eds.), pp. 120 ff.; Whittemore (1942), pls. 3, 9, 12, 20, 25, 29, 33. 644 Kitzinger (1990), pp. 192. 645 Schramm (1954), pp. 18. 646 Kitzinger (1990), pp. 196. 92 from Byzantine iconography, from coins to coronation scenes in illuminated codices, or as shown on the ivories and enamels presented to foreign monarchs.647

In the case of Hungarian and Bulgarian Kingdoms and the Roman coronation of the emperor Frederick II (1220-1255) and his wife there are no sources indicating direct relation between the act of wearing a Byzantine or Byzantinizing crown and incorporation of elements of Byzantine court ceremonial into the coronation ritual. The Bulgarian coronation shares many common features with the Byzantine ritual, but the similarities are due to the fact that the Byzantine Empire was a source of Christianity (i. e. the liturgy) in Bulgaria and are not a result of arrival of a Byzantine diadem.648 The coronation of Emperor Frederick II is completely following the tradition of the Roman Latin rite. The very few similarities between the ordo used in 1220 and the coronation ritual described by Pseudo-Kodinos are due either to the common inspiration in the antique Roman ceremonies (acclamation) or the policy of the Ottonians, who sought to imitate Byzantium (the importance of the porphyry disc). Because of the fragmented sources it is difficult to make conclusions about the evolving of the Hungarian coronation ritual. The few preserved notes suggest that it followed the Latin rite. Even though it shares some features with the Byzantine ceremony, such as the acclamations, the lifting on a shield and the scattering of coins, they are either common for both Byzantine and western ceremonies (acclamations), appear more than a century after the arrival of the Monomachos crown and Holy crown (scattering of coins), or are completely anachronic (lifting on a shield). Notwithstanding the aforementioned conclusions, we can see connection between close diplomatic relations of Sicily, Rus, Bulgaria, Georgia, Hungary with the Byzantine Empire, and the adoption of Byzantine imperial representation. In the case of Hungary it is potentially linked with the arrival of the Byzantine crown.

647 Shepard (2011), pp. 152. About the heavenly legitimization of the ruler see: Kantorowicz (1997), pp. 42-86; Bertelli (1990); Treitinger (1956), pp. 32-43 (legitimization through coronation). 648 About Christianization of Bulgaria see: Gjuzelev (1996), pp. 5-26. 93

Conclusions and personal observations

The ambition of this text was to introduce in a concise way the problematic of the crowns connected in some way with the Byzantine Empire. Through comparison with insignia of the Byzantine emperors the changes in outer appearance prompted by their specific role in diplomacy were established. The question of the place of the insignia in the coronation ritual and their status in Byzantium, Hungary, Rus’ and the Holy Roman Empire was also asked. The conclusion is that the “Byzantine” crowns can be divided on the basis of the place of creation to truly Byzantine and foreign crowns, applying Byzantine iconography and forms. In connection with artistic geography, it is important to make one observation. Even though Constantinople had been a centre of artistic production and melting pot of ideas and iconographies, high-quality production could be seen also on the periphery of the “Byzantine Commonwealth”. This can undoubtedly be said about the diadems from Kievan Rus’ and the crown of Constance of Aragon from Sicily. Their outer appearance is usually ascribed to the collaboration of local masters with Byzantine craftsmen and workshops. It was prompted by the occasional diplomatic contacts with the Empire and its still strong position as a source of artistic inspiration and political aspirations of foreign monarchs. Outside of Byzantium the Byzantine iconography and forms melted into the local artistic culture. In the case of crowns with Byzantine provenance, distributed outside the borders of the Empire, there is no doubt about the political motivation of their creation. Each of them signified the relationship between the Byzantine emperor and the recipient of his gift. It was their role in the foreign diplomacy that precipitated their shape and iconographic content. The motivation of their production impacted their decoration, which demonstrated the elements of court culture, common for the Byzantine and foreign monarchs. It is important to note that the crowns in Byzantium were viewed as sacred acheiropoietoi and their gifting was strictly prohibited. They belonged only to the basileus and the Church, which regulated their public wearing. The visual impact on the recipients and the ability of the crowns to carry important messages, however, were such that this regulation was often disregarded. The reception of Byzantine motifs in foreign workshops, which produced among others the crown from Palermo and the diadem from Kiev, was partly prompted by the high aesthetic qualities of the Byzantine artworks and dissemination of capable Byzantine workshops in lands with diplomatic connection to the Empire. However, the main stimulus must have been the ambition of the foreign rulers to demonstrate the same degree of power as the mighty Byzantine emperors. This is attested by the appearance in their pictorial representations of imperial attire and motif of heavenly coronation, suggesting their sacred status. For the confirmation of the legitimacy of the ruler, the coronation was among the most important parts of the initiation ritual. Because of the differences in its perception and the process itself in the West and in Byzantium one of the possible research tasks was to compare them and assess the extent to which the ritual changed in realms of the recipients of donated crowns. The main obstacle I encountered while searching for sources describing different coronation rituals and attesting their changes is the absence of such in the early stages of

94 development of the Hungarian and Bulgarian kingdoms. Even though the connection of the first one with the Latin ritual and of the latter with the Byzantine one is so strong we can hypothesize that the arrival of crowns didn’t impact the initiation of the respective monarchs, unless we find a way to fill the void in the sources, the hypothesis remains too fragile. The only type of coronation attested by visual and partly literary sources in Rus’, Sicily, Hungary, and Georgia, which can be traced back to the Byzantine ideas about the monarchical power, is the heavenly coronation from the hands of God or an angel. The other interesting way of thinking about crowns as diplomatic gifts would be to ask about their reception and status received in the foreign kingdom. The answer would be possible only for the Holy Crown of Hungary, whose mystic and symbolic status is, however, known from the middle of the 13th c., long after its arrival to the kingdom. In other cases the translation from Byzantium and its circumstances are unattested in the sources, making it hard to reach solid conclusions on this front. The questions left unanswered, which create opportunities for further research, are those concerning the circumstances of production and reception of most of the presented crowns. It would also be interesting to delve more into the Hungarian coronation ritual before the 13th century. The possibilities, however, are limited in both cases because of the lack of written sources. The only solution in the case of Hungarian coronation may be to analyze the coronation ritual in Croatia, used during the coronations of Hungarian kings after the inclusion of Croatia into the Hungarian kingdom in the 12th century, which could have repeated some parts of the coronation in Hungary.649

649 I thank Ana Marinković from Art History Department of the University of Zagreb for suggesting this possibility. 95

Bibliography

Primary sources:

Adler, Marcus Nathan (Ed.) (1907): The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, London.

Anderson, Jeffrey (Ed.) (1997): The Madrid Chronicle of John Skylitzés, New York.

Bartoniek, Emma (Ed.) (1948): Legendae S. Stephani Regis, in: Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum II., Budapest, p. 377-440.

Bekker, Immanuel (Hg.) (1835): Nicetae Choniatae Historia, Bonn.

——— (Ed.) (1838a): Theophanes Continuatus (=Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae VI, 1), Bonn.

——— (Ed.) (1838b): Georgius Cedrenus: Ioannis Scylitzae ope I., Bonn.

Cavallo, Guglielmo (Ed.) (1994): Exultet. Rotoli liturgici del medioevo meridionale, Rome.

Cessi, Roberto (Ed.) (1940): Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia anteriori al mille 1, Padova.

Dagron, Gilbert (1984): Constantinople imaginaire. Études sur le recueil des Patria, Paris.

Davis, Robert/Chibnall, Marjorie (Eds.) (1998): The Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers, Oxford.

Dawes, Elizabeth (Ed.) (1928): The Alexiad of the Princess Anna Comnena, London. de Boor, Carolus (Ed.) (1963): Theophanis Chronographia 1, Rome. de Lagarde, Paul (Ed.) (1882): Iohannis Euchaitorum Metropolitae, quae in Codice Vaticano Graeco 676 supersunt, Göttingen.

Der sényi, Dezsö et. a . (Eds.) (1964a): Képes Krónika. Chronicon Pictum I., Budapest.

——— (Eds.) (1964b): Képes Krónika. Chronicon Pictum II., Budapest.

Dö er, Franz (Ed.) (1965): Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565-1453 1: Regesten von 565-1025, -Berlin.

Domanovszky, Alexander (Ed.) (1937): Chronici Hungarici compositio saec. XIV, in: Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum I., Budapest, p. 239-505.

Duchesne, Louis Marie Olivier/Vogel, Cyrille (Eds.) (1955): Liber pontificalis I., Paris.

Elze, Reinhard (Ed.) (1960): Die rdines für die Weihe und Krönung des Kaisers und der Kaiserin (=Fontes iuris Germanici antiqui in usum scholarum ex Monumentis Germaniae historicis separatim editi IX.), Hannover.

Gautier, Paul (Ed.) (1972): Michel Italikos: Lettres et discours, Paris.

——— (Ed.) (1975): Nicephori Bryenii historiarum libri quattuor (=Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae series Bruxellensis IX), Brussels.

Goar, Jacques (Ed.) (1960): Euchologion sive rituale graecorum, Graz.

Hijjawi Quaddumi, Ghada (Ed.) (1996): Book of Gifts and Rarities: Translation, Annotation, and Commentary of the „Kitab al-Hadaya wa al-Tahuf“, Cambridge.

96

Holtzmann, Robert (Ed.) (1935): Thietmari Mersenburgensis Episcopi Chronicon (=MGH: Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum Nova Series IX.), Berlin.

Hörander, Wo ram (Ed.) (1974): Theodoros Prodromos, historische Gedichte, Vienna.

Iványi, Bé a/Ju ász, Ladis aus (Eds.) (1936): Antonius de Bonfinis: Rerum Ungaricarum decades II/4, Leipzig.

Knauz, Ferdinand (Ed.) (1874): Monumenta ecclesiae strigonensis I., Esztergom.

Koder, Johannes (Ed.) (1991): Das Eparchenbuch Leons des Weisen, Vienna.

Kollar, Franz (1764): De originibus et usu perpetuo potestatis legislatoriae circa sacra apostolicorum regum libellus singularis, Vienna.

Kö zer, T eo/Stä i, Mar is (Eds.) (1994): Petrus de Eboli. Liber ad honorem Augusti sive de rebus Siculis, Sigmaringen.

Loparev, Khrisnaf (Ed.) (1899): Kniga Palomnik: Skazanie mest sviatykh vo Tsaregrade Antonia arkhiepiskopa Novgorodskago v 1200 godu, Saint Petersburg.

Magie, David (Ed.) (1932): Historia Augusta III., Cambridge.

Mango, Cyril (Ed.) (1986): The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1453: Sources and Documents, Toronto.

Martène, Edmund (1736): De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus II., Antwerp.

Migne, Jean-Paul (Ed.) (1864a): Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca 131, Paris.

——— (Ed.) (1864b): Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca 132, Paris.

——— (Ed.) (1864c): Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca 133, Paris.

——— (Ed.) (1865a): Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca 137, Paris.

——— (Ed.) (1865b): Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca 146, Paris.

——— (Ed.) (1866): Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca 155, Paris.

——— (Ed.) (1900): Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca 102, Paris.

Mollay, Karl (Ed.) (1975): Die Denkwürdigkeiten der Helene Kottannerin (1439-1440), Vienna.

Monticollo, Giovanni (Ed.) (1890): John the Deacon: Cronaca, in: Cronache veneziane antichissime 1, Rome, p. 125–126, 131.

Moravcsik, Gyula (Ed.) (1967): Constantine Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio, Washington, D. C.

Morelli, Jacopo: Studi, citazioni e altro, Riservate, MS 73, Biblioteca nazionale Marciana,Venice.

Morton, Catherine/Muntz, Hope (Eds.) (1972): The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy, Bishop of Amiens, Oxford.

Nagy, Imrich et. al. (Eds.) (1871): Codex diplomaticus domus senioris comitum Zichy de Zich et Vasonkeö I., Budapest.

Papadopulos-Kerameus, Athanasios (Ed.) (1913): Noctes Petropolitanae, Saint Petersburg.

Pod rad zky, Józse (Ed.) (1838): Chronicon Budense, Budapest.

97

Regel, Vasilij Eduardovich/Novosadskij, Nikolaj Ivanovich (Eds.) (1982): Fontes Rerum Byzantinarum I., Leipzig.

Reiske, Johann Jakob (Ed.) (1829): Constantini Porphyrogeneti Imperatoris De Cerimoniis Aulae Byzantinae I., Bonn.

——— (Ed.) (1830): Constantini Porphyrogeneti Imperatoris De Cerimoniis Aulae Byzantinae (Commentarii) II., Bonn.

Renau t, Émi e (Ed.) (1967): Michael Psellos: Chronographia II., Paris.

Szent étery, Emeri us (Ed.) (1937): Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducum regumque stirpis Arpadianae I., Budapest.

Tafel, Gottlieb/Thomas, Georg (Eds.) (1856): Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig, mit besonderer Beziehung auf Byzanz und die Levante: vom neunten bis zum Ausgang des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts 1, Vienna.

Tót , Zo tán (Ed.) (1942): A Hartwik-legenda kritikájához, Budapest.

Treu, Max (Ed.) (1906): Manuelis Holoboli orationes, Potsdam.

Tsolakes, Eudoxia (Ed.) (1968): He synecheia tes chronographias tou Ioannou Skylitse, Thessalonike.

Turtledove, Harry (Ed.) (1982): The Chronicle of Theophanes: An English Translation of Anni Mundi 6095- 6305 (A.D. 602-813), Philadelphia.

Verpeaux, Jean (Ed.) (1976): Pseudo-Kodinos: Traité des offices, Paris.

Wolf, Hieronymus (Ed.) (1568): Corpus Historiae Byzantinae, am Main.

Secondary sources:

Accascina, Maria (1974): Oreficeria di Sicilia dal XII al XIX secolo, Palermo.

rwei er, Hé ène (1975): L’idéologie politique de l’empire byzantine, Paris.

Aladjov, Andrey (2018): Le trésor de Preslav: découverte, composition et datation, in: Jannic Durand (Ed.): Le trésor de Preslav: reflet d’un âge d’or du Moyen Âge bulgare, Paris, p. 38–63.

Alto Bauer, Franz (2010): Byzantinische Geschenkdiplomatie, in: Falko Daim/Jörg Drauschke (Eds.): Byzanz - das Römerreich im Mittelalter 3: Peripherie und Nachbarschaft, Mainz, p. 1–55.

Amiranashvili, Shalva (1972): Chachulskij triptich, Tbilisi.

Andaloro, Maria (1995): Federico e la Sicilia fra la continuità e discontinuità, in: Maria Andaloro (Ed.): Federico e la Sicilia dalla terra alla corona: arti figurative e arti suntuarie, Palermo, p. 3–30.

Andrieu, Michel (1954): La rota porhyretica de la Basilique Vaticane, in: Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’École Française de Rome 66, p. 189–218.

Avenarius, Alexander (1993): Byzanz und die Anfänge des ungarischen Mönchtums, in: Byzantinoslavica 54, p. 121–126.

Bak, János (1973): Mittelalterliche Königskrönung in Ungarn (Quellenübersicht), in: János Bak (Ed.): Königtum und Stände in Ungarn im 14.-16. Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden, p. 165–190.

98

Bakay, Korné (Ed.) (1994): Sacra corona Hungariae, Köszeg.

Bárány-Oberschall, Magda (1932): Konstantinos Monomachos császár korónaja/ The Crown of the Emperor Constantine Monomachos (=Archaeologia Hungaricae 22), Budapest.

——— (1961): Die Sankt Stephans Krone und die Insignien des Königreiches Ungarn, Vienna-Munich.

Barber, Charles (1990): The imperial panels at San Vitale: a reconsideration, in: Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 14, p. 19–42.

Bartoniek, Emma (1917): A koronázási eskü fejlödése 6-ig, in: Századok 51, p. 5–44.

——— (1923): A magyar királlyáavatáshoz, in: Századok 57, p. 245–304.

Beckwith, John (1967): L’arte di Costantinopoli, Turin.

Bellinger, Alfred/Grierson, Philip (Eds.) (1973): Catalogue of the Byzantine coins in the Dumbarton Oaks collection and in the Whittemore collection III/1, Washington, D. C.

Benda, Ká man/Fü edi, Erik (1988): Tausend Jahre Stephanskrone, Budapest.

Bertele, Tommaso (1962): I gioielli della corona bizantina dati in pegno alla repubblica veneta nel sec. XIV e Mastino della Scala, in: Studi in onore di Arminto Fanfani II., Milan, p. 91–177.

Bertelli, Carlo (2017): La Corona Ferrea, Geneva-Milan.

Bertelli, Sergio (1990): Il corpo del re. Sacralità del potere nell’ Europa medievale e moderna, Florence.

Bertényi, Iván (1980): A magyar korona története. Második, változatlan kiadás, Budapest.

Bettini, Sergio (Hg.) (1974): Venezia e Bisanzio, Milan.

Bijsterveld, Arnoud-Jan (2001): The Medieval Gift as Agent of Social Bonding and Political Power: a Comparative Approach, in: Esther Cohen/Mayke de Jong (Eds.): Medieval Transformations: Texts, Power, and Gifts in Context (=Cultures, Beliefs and Traditions: Medieval and Early Modern Peoples 11), Leiden, p. 123–155.

Boeckler, Albert (1956): Die „Stephanskrone“, in: Percy Ernst Schramm (Ed.): Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte vom dritten bis zum sechzehnten Jahrhundert III. (=Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica 13), Stuttgart, S. 735–742.

Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Antje (2004): Goldener Glanz aus Byzanz: Der Schatz von Preslav (Bulgarien) - Ein kaiserliches Geschenk an einen „barbarischen“ Regenten, in: Antike Welt 35 (6), p. 77–81.

——— (2018): Contact between Byzantium and the West from the 9th to the 15th Century: Reflections in Goldsmiths’ Works and Enamels, in: Falko Daim et. al. (Eds.): Menschen, Bilder, Sprachen, Dinge: Wege der Kommunikation ywischen Byzanz und dem Westen 1: Bilder und Dinge, Mainz, p. 73–104.

Brajchevskij, Michail Julianovich (1989): Utverzhdenie khristianstva na Rusi, Kiev.

Brightman, Frank (1901): Byzantine Imperial Coronations, in: Journal of Theological Studies 2, p. 359–392.

Buckton, David (2002): The Holy Crown in the history of enamelling, in: Acta Historiae Artium XLIII, p. 14– 21.

Busch, Harald/Lohse, Bernd (Eds.) (1961): Romanische Plastik in Europa, Frankfurt am Main.

Buschhausen, Helmut (1974): The Klosterneuburg Altar of Nicholas of Verdun: Art, Theology and Politics, in: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 37, p. 1–32.

99

Canard, Marius (1964): Les relations politiques et sociales entre Byzance et les Arabes, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18, p. 33–56.

Cantone, Valentina (2014): Se il centurione parla arabo. Arte e propaganda a Bisanzio tra X e XI secolo, in: Hortus Artium Medievalium. Journal of the International Research Center for and Middle Ages 20, p. 308–317.

Capitani, Ovidio (2015): Gregorio VII: il papa epitome della chiesa di Roma, Spoleto.

Carile, Antonio (2000): Le insegne del potere a Bisanzio, in: Antonio Carile et. al. (Eds.): La corona e i simboli del potere, Rimini, p. 65–124.

Caruso, Carlo (1904): La Croce reliquiario del Duomo di Cosenza, Cosenza.

Chazelle, Celia (2007): Charles the Bald, Hincmar of Rheims and the ivory of the Pericopes of Henry II, in: Patrick Wormald/Janet Nelson (Eds.): Lay intellectuals in the Carolingian world, Cambridge, p. 139– 161. Cheynet, Jean-Claude (2002): L’Empire byzantin et la Hongrie dans la seconde moitié du XIe siècle, in: Acta Historiae Artium XLIII, p. 5–13. Ciggaar, Krijnie (1987): Byzantine Marginalia to the Norman Conquest, in: Anglo-Norman Studies (9), p. 43– 63. Cormack, Robin (1992): But is it art?, in: Jonathan Shepard/Simon Franklin (Eds.): Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers from the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of , Cambridge, March 1990, Aldershot, p. 219–236. Cutler, Anthony (1991): Metatorion, in: et al. (Eds.): The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium II., Oxford-New York, p. 1353. ——— (1994): The Hand of the Master: Craftsmanship, Ivory and Society in Byzantium (9th-11th Centuries), Princeton. ——— (1995): From Loot to Scholarship: Changing Modes in the Italian Response to Byzantine Artifacts, ca. 1200-1750, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 49, p. 237–267. ——— (1999): Reuse or use? Theoretical and practical attitudes toward objects in the early Middle Ages, in: Ideologie e pratiche del reimpiego nell’alto medioevo. Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 2, Spoleto, p. 1055–1083. ——— (2002): The Industries of Art, in: Angeliki Laiou (Ed.): The Economic History of Byzantium: from the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century 2, Washington, D.C., p. 544–576. Da Villa Urbani, Maria (2008): Crown of Leo VI, in: Cormack, Robin/ Vassilaki, Maria (Eds.): Byzantium, 330-1453, London, p. 396. Dagron, Gilbert (2003): Emperor and Priest: the Imperial Office in Byzantium, Cambridge.

Daniele, Francesco (1784): I regali sepolcri del Duomo di Palermo riconosciuti e illustrati, Naples.

Davis-Secord, Sarah (2017): Where three world met: Sicily in the early medieval Mediterranean, Ithaca.

Dawson, Timothy (2009): The Monomachos crown: towards a resolution, in: BYZANTINA ΣΥΜΜΕΙΚΤΑ 19, p. 183–193.

Decker-Hauff, Hansmartin (1955): Die „Reichskrone“ angefertig für Kaiser Otto I., in: Percy Ernst Schramm (Ed.): Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte vom dritten bis zum sechzehnten Jahrhundert II. (=Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica 13), Stuttgart, p. 560– 637.

Deér, Jose (1952): Der Kaiserornat Friedrichs II., Bern.

——— (1955): Mittelalterliche Frauenkronen in Ost und West, in: Percy Ernst Schramm (Ed.): Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte vom dritten bis zum sechzehnten Jahrhundert II. (=Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica 13), Stuttgart, p. 418–450.

——— (1966): Die heilige Krone Ungarns, Vienna.

100

——— (1971): und die Herrschersitze der Arpaden, in: Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 79, p. 1–56. de Frankovi , Géza (1964): Il concetto della regalità nell’arte sasanide e l’interpretazione di due opere d’arte bizantine del periodo della dinastia macedone: la cassetta eburnea di Troyes e la corona di Costantino IX Monomaco di Budapest, in: Arte lombarda IX, p. 1–48.

Demus, Otto (1960): The Church of San Marco in Venice, Washington, DC.

Di Dario Guida, Maria Pia (1984): La Stauroteca di Cosenza e la cultura artistica dell’estremo Sud nell’età normanno-sveva, Cava de’ Tirreni.

——— (2006): Stauroteca, in: Maria Andaloro (Ed.): Nobiles Officinae: perle, filigrane, e trame di seta del Palazzo Reale di Palermo I., Palermo, p. 227-230.

Di Natale, Maria Concetta (2010): Ori e argenti del Tesoro della Cattedrale di Palermo, in: Maria Concetta Di Natale/Maurizio Vitella (Eds.): Il Tesoro della Cattedrale di Palermo, Palermo, p. 39–52.

Didebulije, Mariam Teimurazis Asuli (2018): Cultural interactions in the Caucasus and beyond: investigation issues, in: Michele Bacci et. al. (Eds.): Cultural interactions in medieval Georgia, Wiesbaden, p. 27–45.

Dolcini, Loretta et. al. (1988): La stauroteca di Cosenza, in: OPD Restauro 3, p. 127–140.

——— (1995): La croce-stauroteca di Cosenza: da Bisanzio a Palermo, in: Andaloro, Maria (Ed.): Federico e la Siclia: dalla terra alla corona, Palermo, p. 109-114.

Dö er, Franz (1956): Die Entwicklung der byzantinischen Kaisertitulatur und die Datierung von Kaiserdarstellungen in der byzantinischen Kleinkunst, in: Franz Dölger (Hg.): Byzantinische Diplomatik. 20 Aufsätze zum Urkundenwesen der Byzantiner, Ettal, p. 130–151.

Durand, Julien (1861): Trésor de Saint-Marc à Venise, in: Annales archéologiques XXI, p. 94–104.

Eastmond, Anthony (1998): Royal imagery in medieval Georgia, University Park.

——— (2016): Greeks bearing gifts: the icon of Xaxuli and enamel diplomacy between Byzantium and Georgia, in: Convivium. Supplementum 3, p. 88–105.

Eastmond, Anthony/Jones, Lynn (2001): Robing, Power and Legitimacy in Armenia and Georgia, in: Stewart Gordon (Hg.): Robes and Honor: the medieval World of Investiture, Basingstoke-New York, S. 147– 192.

Elze, Reinhard (1952): Politische- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, in: Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 9, p. 572–594.

English Frazer, Margaret/Alcouffe, Daniel (1986): Grotta della Vergine, in: Cambiaghi, Renata (Ed.): Il tesoro di San Marco, Milano, p. 125-131.

English Frazer, Margareth (1973): Church Doors and the Gates of Paradise: Byzantine Bronze Doors in Italy, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27, p. 145–162.

Érdy, János (1861): Nyitra-Ivánka területén 860, 86 évben kiszántott bizánci románcok a XI századból, in: Archaeológiai Közlemények 2, p. 67–78. Fiala, Anton (1995): Kontakt der Slowakei mit Byzanz im früheren Mittelalter im Lichte der Münzfunde, in: Mitteldonaugebiet und Südosteuropa im frühen Mittelalter, Kolloqium, Bratislava, p. 47–56. Folda, Jaroslav (1982): Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century (=British Archaeological Reports, International Series 152), Oxford. Franklin, Simon/Shepard, Jonathan (1996): The Emergence of Rus 750-1200, London. Fü edi, Erik (1986): Coronation in medieval Hungary, in: János Bak (Ed.): Kings, Bishops, Nobles and Burghers in Medieval Hungary, London, p. 159–189. Gallo, Rodolfo (1967): Il Tesoro di San Marco e la sua Storia, Venice-Rome.

101

Galuppo, Martina (2001): Corona votiva di Leone VI, in: Deomene: l’immagine dell’orante fra riente e Occidente, Milan, p. 121-122. Gar ía-Vue ta, Ós ar/Perea, i ia (2014): Guarrazar: el taller orfebre visigodo, in: Anales de historia del arte 24, p. 245–271. Gedai, István (1969): Fremde Münze im Karpatenbecken aus dem .-13. Jahrhundert, in: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 21, p. 105–148. Gerevini, Stefania (2014): The Grotto of the Virgin in San Marco: Artistic Reuse and Cultural Identity in Medieval Venice, in: Gesta 53 (2), p. 197–220. Gjuzelev, Vasil (1996): Pokrastvaneto na balgarskija narod spored njakoi malko poznati izvori i istoricheski sachinenija ot IX-XV v., in: Rodina 2, p. 5–26.

Goss, V adimir/Verzár Bornstein, C ristine (1986): The Meeting of Two Worlds: Cultural Exchange between East and West during the Period of the Crusades, Kalamazoo.

Gošev, Ivan (1966): Zur Frage der Krönungzeremonien und die zeremonielle Gewandung der byzantinischen und bulgarischen Herrscher im Mittelalter, in: Byzantinobulgarica 2, p. 146–168.

Grabar, ndré (1936): L’empéreur dans l’art Byzantin, Paris.

——— (1956): Une couronne du début du XIIIe siècle et les coiffures d’apparat féminines, in: Cahiers archéologiques (8), p. 265–273.

——— (1971): Corona di Leone VI, in: Hahnloser, Hans (Ed.): Il tesoro di San Marco, Florence, p. 81-82.

Grabar, ndré/Manoussa as, Manoussos (1979): L’Illustrations du manuscrit de Skylitzès de la Bibliothèque National de Madrid, Venice.

Grabar, Oleg (2006): The Shared Culture of Objects, in: Constructing the Study of Islamic Art II.: Islamic Visual Culture, 1100-1800, Farnham, p. 115–129.

Guastella, Claudia (1993): Per l’edizione critica della corona di Costanza, in: Leonardo Urbani (Ed.): La Cattedrale di Palermo: Studi per l’ottavo centenario dalla fondazione, Palermo, p. 265–283.

——— (1995): La corona di Costanza d’Aragona, in: Maria Andaloro: Federico e la Siclia: dalla terra alla corona, Palermo, p. 63-74.

——— (2004): Die Krone der Konstanze von Aragon, in: Seipel, Wilfried (Ed.): Nobiles Officinae: Die königlichen Hofwerkstätten zu Palermo zur Zeit der Normannen und Staufer im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert, Milan, p. 228-234.

——— (2006): Corona di Costanza d’Aragona, in: Maria Andaloro (Ed.): Nobiles Officinae: perle, filigrane, e trame di seta del Palazzo Reale di Palermo I., Palermo, p. 371-377.

Guilland, Rodolphe (1967): Recherches sur les institutions Byzantines I., .

Gui ouët, Jean-Marie/Rabel, Claudia (Eds.) (2011): Le Programme : une notion pertinente en histoire de l’art médiéval ?, Paris.

Hahnloser, Hans (1971): Il tesoro di San Marco, Florence.

Hahnloser, Hans/Polacco, Renato (1994): La Pala d’ ro, Venice.

Harris, Jonathan (2003): Byzantium and the Crusades, Bloomsbury.

Haussherr, Reiner (Ed.) (1977): Die Zeit der Staufer. Geschichte, Kunst, Kultur. Katalog der Ausstellung Stuttgart 1977 I., Stuttgart. Hellenkemper, Hansgerd (1986): I trofei del Doge, in: Cambiaghi, Renata (Ed.): Il tesoro di San Marco, Milan, p. 31-41. Hendy, Michael (1999): Catalogue of the Byzantine coins in the Dumbarton Oaks collection and in the Whittemore collection IV: 1081-1261, Washington, D.C.

102

Hetherington, Paul (1988): Enamels in the Byzantine World: Ownership and Distribution, in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 81, p. 29–38.

——— (2002): La couronne grecque de la Sainte Couronne de Hongrie: le contexte de ses émaux et ses bijoux, in: Acta Historiae Artium XLIII, p. 33–38.

——— (2003): The Jewels from the Crown: Symbol and Substance in the Later Byzantine Imperial Regalia, in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 96 (1), p. 157–168.

——— (2006): Byzantine „cloisonné“ enamel: production, survival and loss, in: Byzantion 76, p. 185–220.

——— (2008): Enamels, Crowns, Relics and . Studies on Luxury Arts in Byzantium, Farnham.

Heuser, Hans-Jör en (1974): Oberrheinische Golschmiedekunst im Hochmittelalter, Berlin.

Hilsdale, Cecily (2008): The Social Life of the Byzantine Gift: The Royal Crown of Hungary Re-Invented, in: Art History 31 (5), p. 602–631.

Ho čík, Šte an (1984): Byzantské emaily z Ivanky pri Nitre, in: ARS I., p. 35–50.

Ho er, Lász ó (1996): A magyar korona néhány alapkérdéséröl, in: Századok 130 (4), p. 907–964.

Holubar, Karl (1997): Zur Darstellung der Königin von Saba auf dem Verduner Altar, in: Jahrbuch des Stiftes Klosterneuburg 16, p. 67–69.

Iordanov, Ivan (2001): Korpus na pechatite na srednovekovna Balgaria, Sofia.

Ipolyi, Arnold (1886): A magyar Szent Korona és a koronázási jelvények története és müleírása, Budapest.

Irmscher, Johannes (1985): Hieronymus Wolf, der Begründer der Byzantinistik in Deutschland, in: Byzantina 13, p. 91–102. de Jerphanion, Guillaume (1930): Le „Thorakion“ caractéristique iconographique du XIe siécle, in: Mélanges Charles Diehl 2, Paris, p. 71–79.

Jolivet-Lévy, Cat erine (2002): L’apport de l’iconographie à l’interprétation de la „corona graeca“, in: Acta Historiae Artium XLIII, p. 22–32.

Kádár, Zo tán (1964): Quelques observations sur la reconstitution de la couronne de l’empereur Constantin Monomaque, in: Folia archaeologica XVI, p. 113–124.

Kalavrezou, Ioli et. al. (1993): Critique of the emperor in the Vatican Psalter gr. 752, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47, p. 195–219.

——— (1997): Jewelry from a Thessalonian Hoard, New York.

——— (2002): Images of Women in Byzantium, in: Demetria Papanikola-Bakirtzi (Ed.): Everyday Life in Byzantium, Athens, p. 241–249.

Ka ström, O e (1951): Ein neuentdecktes Majestätsdiadem ottonischer Zeit, in: Münchener Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst III (2), p. 61–72.

Käm er, Frank (1978): Das russische Herrscherbild von den Anfängen bis zu Peter dem Grossen: Studien zur Entwicklung politischer Ikonographie im bizantinischen Kulturkreis, Recklinghausen.

Kantorowicz, Ernst (1963): Oriens Augusti-Lever du Roi, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17, p. 118–177.

——— (1997): The King’s Two Bodies: a Study in Medieval Political Theology, Princeton, 2. edition.

103

Kazhdan, Alexander (1991a): Byzantium, in: Alexander Kazhdan et al. (Eds.):The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I., Oxford-New York, p. 344-345.

——— (1991b): Praepositus sacri cubiculi, in: Alexander Kazhdan et al. (Eds.):The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium III., Oxford-New York, p. 1709.

——— (1991c): Chrysotriklinos, in: Alexander Kazhdan et al. (Eds.):The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I., Oxford-New York, p. 455-456.

——— (1991d): Kandidatos, in: Alexander Kazhdan et al. (Eds.):The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium II., Oxford-New York, p. 1100.

Kelleher, Patrick J. (1951): The Holy Crown of Hungary, Rome.

Kennedy, Hugh (1992): Byzantine-Arab diplomacy in the Near East from the Islamic conquest to the mid eleventh century, in: Jonathan Shepard/Simon Franklin (Eds.): Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers from the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, Aldershot, p. 133– 144.

Kersten, Otto (1994): Correctiunculae zu Auslandsschreiben byzantinischer Kaiser des 11. Jahrhunderts, in: Aachener Kunstblätter 60, p. 143–162.

Kiss, Etele (2000): The State of Research on the Monomachos Crown and Some Further Thoughts, in: Olenka Pevny (Ed.): Perceptions of Byzantium and Its Neighbors (843-1261), New York, p. 60–83.

——— (2002): La „couronne grecque“ dans son contexte, in: Acta Historiae Artium XLIII, p. 39–51.

Kitzinger, Ernst (1972): The Gregorian Reform and the Visual Arts: A Problem of Method: The Prothero Lecture, in: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (22), p. 87–102.

——— (1990): The Mosaics of St Mary’s of the Admiral in Palermo, Washington, D.C.

——— (2003): On the portrait of Roger II. in the Martorana in Palermo, in: Ernst Kitzinger (Ed.): Studies in late antique Byzantine and medieval Western art II., London, p. 1055–1061.

Komját y, Mik ós (1960): Quelques problèmes concernant la charte de fondation de l’abbaye de Tihany, in: Gyözö Ember et. al. (Eds.): Études historiques publiées par la Commission Nationale des Historiens Hongrois I, Budapest, p. 219–252.

Kondakov, Nikodim Pavlovich (1892): Histoire et monuments des émaux byzantins, Frankfurt am Main.

Koszto nyik, Zo tán (1981): Five Eleventh Century Hungarian Kings: their Policies and their Relations with Rome (=East European Monographs 79), Colo.

——— (2001): The Monomachos Crown, Domestic Intrigue and Diplomatic Reality Prevalent at the Hungarian Court during the Mid-Eleventh Century, in: Chronica 1, p. 30–44.

Ková s, Éva/Lovag, Zsuzsa (1980): The Hungarian Crown and Other Regalia, Budapest.

Kra ovánszky, án (1990): The Settlement History of Veszprém and Székesféhervár in the Middle Ages, in: László Gerevich (Ed.): Towns in Medieval Hungary, Budapest, p. 51–95.

Kü ne , Bianca (1994): Crusader Art of the Twelvth Century, Berlin.

La Grua, Gregorio (1975): La corona di Costanza di Aragona regina di Sicilia, in: O Theologos (6), p. 73–81.

Labarte, Jules (1872): Histoire des arts industriels au Moyen Age à l’epoque de la Renaissance I., Paris.

104

Lampros, Spyridon (1908): Ekphrasis ton xylokontarion tou krataiou kai agiou em on authentiou kai basileos, in: Νέος Ελληνομνήμων 5 (1), p. 3–18.

Leclercq, Henri (1922): Ex-voto, in: Henri Leclercq/ Fernand Cabrol (Eds.): Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie V, Paris, coll. 1037-1049.

——— (1925): Couronnes de Guarrazar, in: Henri Leclercq/ Fernand Cabrol (Eds.): Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie VI, Paris, coll. 1842-1859.

——— (1950): Sacre impérial et royal, in: Henri Leclercq/ Fernand Cabrol (Eds.): Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie XV, Paris, coll. 304-343.

Lempire, Jean (2018): Saint-Georges des Manganes et la figure Tropaiophore au XIe siécle byzantin, in: Michèle Ballez et. al. (Eds.): Saint Georges et le dragon: genèse et génération de récits, Louvain-La- Neuve, p. 29–42.

Leone, Giorgio (2006): La Stauroteca di Cosenza: una scheda per un manufatto del Tiraz palermitano del secolo dodicesimo, Pozzuoli.

Leyser, Karl (1994): Communications and Power in Medieval Europe: The Gregorian Revolution and Beyond, London.

Lipinsky, Angelo (1955): La stauroteca di Cosenza e l’oreficeria siciliana nel secolo XII, in: nobilissima 9, p. 76–100.

——— (1969): Ori, argenti e gioielli nella Pannonia romana. Ori e smalti bizantini in Ungheria dall’avvento degli Arpadi, in: Corsi di cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizantina (Ravenna: 16.-29. marzo 1969), Ravenna, p. 238–242.

——— (1975): „Sicanie Regni Corona“: il „Kamelaukion“ detto „Cuffia di Costanza“ nel Tesoro del Duomo di Palermo, in: Byzantino-Sicula II, Palermo, p. 347–370.

Litavrin, Gennadij Grigorievich (2000): Vizantia, Bolgaria, Drevnaja Rus (XI- nachalo XII v.), Saint Petersburg.

Lovag, Zsuzsa (2002): L’intégration de la couronne latine et la couronne grecque, in: Acta Historiae Artium XLIII, p. 62–71.

Macrides, Ruth (1992): Dynastic Marriages and Political Kinship, in: Jonathan Shepard/Simon Franklin (Hgg.): Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers from the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, Aldershot, p. 263–280.

——— et al. (Eds.) (2013): Pseudo-Kodinos and the Constantinopolitan Court: Offices and Ceremonies (=Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies 15), Farnham.

Magdalino, Paul (1993): The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180, Cambridge.

Maguire, Henry (1994): Imperial Gardens and the Rhetoric of Renewal, in: Paul Magdalino (Ed.): New Constantines: The Rhytm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th centuries, Aldershot, p. 181–197.

——— (1997a): Images of the court, in: Helen Evans/William Wixom (Eds.): The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A. D. 843-1261, New York, p. 183–191.

——— (1997b): Enamel Plaques and Medallions: „The Crown of Constantine IX Monomachos“, in: Helen Evans/William Wixom (Eds.): The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A. D. 843-1261, New York, p. 210-212.

——— (2007): Davidic Virtue: The Crown of Constantine Monomachos and its Images, in: Henry Maguire (Ed.): Image and Imagination in Byzantine Art, London, p. 1–8.

105

Mainstone, Rowland (1988): Hagia Sophia: Architecture, Structure and Liturgy of Justinian’s Great Church, London.

Majeska, George (1997): The Emperor in his Church: Imperial Ritual in the Church of St Sophia, in: Henry Maguire (Ed.): Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, Washington, D. C., p. 1–12.

Makarova, Tatjana Ivanovna (1975): Peregorodchatie emali Drevnej Rusi, Moskva.

Makk, Ferenz (1990): Megjegyzések I. András történetéhez, in: Acta historica (Szeged) 91, p. 23–41.

Ma é, Lui i (1973): Cloisonnés bizantini (con una introduzione all’arte dello smalto medioevale), Turin.

Mango, Cyril (1991): Augustaion, in: Alexander Kazhdan et al. (Eds.):The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I., Oxford-New York, p. 232.

——— (1994): On the Cult of Saints Cosmas and Damian at Constantinople, in: Θυμίαμα Στη Μνήμν Της Λασκαρίνας Μπούρα, Athens, p. 189–192.

Mango, Cyril/Kazhdan, Alexander (1991): Byzantion, in: Alexander Kazhdan et al. (Eds.):The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I., Oxford-New York, p. 344.

Marosi, Ernö (2018): The Holy Crown of Hungary: The „Crown of St Stephan“, in: Xavier Barral i Altet et. al. (Eds.): The Art of Medieval Hungary, Rome, p. 351–354.

Martin, John (1954): The Illustration of the Heavenly Ladder of John Climacus, Princeton.

Maspero, Valeriana (2003): La corona ferrea. La storia del più antico e celebre simbolo del potere in Europa, Monza.

Mauss, Marcel (1966): The Gift. Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies, London.

McCormack, Sabine (1995): Arte e cerimoniale nell’antichità, Turin.

McCormick, Michael (1991a): Crown, in: Alexander Kazhdan et al. (Eds.):The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I., Oxford-New York, p. 554.

——— (1991b): Factions, in: Alexander Kazhdan et al. (Eds.):The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I., Oxford- New York, p. 773-774..

Me a e Katona, I dikó (2005): La corona di Costantino IX Monomaco: originale o falso?, in: Rivista di Studi Ungheresi 4, p. 331–340.

Menna, Maria Raffaella (2007): La cattedrale e le incoronazioni nel Medioevo a Bisanzio, in: Arturo Carlo Quintavalle (Ed.): Medioevo: l’Europa delle cattedrali, Milan, p. 455–463.

Mi a ik, Sándor (1963): Problematik der Rekonstruktion der Monomachos-Krone, in: Acta Historiae Artium IX, p. 199–243.

Minaeva, Oksana (2010): Preslavskoto zlatno sakrovishte: presechna tochka na Iztoka i Zapada v karaja na parvoto khiljadoletie sl. Chr., in: Godishnik ’2010, p. 177–227.

Mitchell, Helen (1922): A Dancing-Girl in Byzantine Enamel, in: The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs 40 (227), p. 64–69.

Mo inier, Émi e (1888): Le trésor de la basilique de Saint Marc à Venise, Venice.

Moravcsik, Gyula (1932): A Konstantinos Monomachos-korona feliratai/ The Inscriptions on the Monomachos Crown, in: Magda Bárány-Oberschall (Ed.): Konstantinos Monomachos császár korónaja/ The Crown of the Emperor Constantine Monomachos (=Archaeologia Hungaricae 22), Budapest, S. 44–46, 92–95.

106

——— (1935): A magyar Szent korona görög feliratai, in: Egyetemes Philologiai Közlöny 59, p. 113–162.

——— (1970): Byzantium and the Magyars, Amsterdam.

Murano, Mi e an e o/Grabar, ndré (1963): Treasures of Venice, Padova.

Nelson, Janet (1986): Politics and ritual in early medieval Europe, London-Ronceverte.

Nicol, Donald (1976): Kaisersalbung: The Unction of Emperors in Late Byzantine Coronation Ritual, in: Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 2, p. 37–52.

——— (1988): Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations, Cambridge.

Ninni, Nicole (2017): La corona di Leone VI nel Tesoro di San Marco (Bachelor thesis, Dipartimento dei Beni Culturali, Università degli Studi di Padova), Padova.

Norwich, John Julius (1993): Byzantium: The Apogee, London.

Obolensky, Dimitri (1971): The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500-1453, London.

Oikonomides, Nicolas (1978): The Mosaic Panel of Constantine IX and Zoe in Saint Sophia, in: Revue des études byzantines 36, p. 220–232.

——— (1994): La couronne dite de Constantin Monomaque, in: Travaux et Mémoires 12, p. 241–262.

O ajos, T érèse (1999): Contribution à l’histoire des rapports entre Constantine Monomaque et le roi hongrois André I, in: Günter Prinzing/Maciej Salamon (Eds.): Byzanz und Ostmitteleuropa 950-1453 (=Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 3), Wiesbaden, p. 85–95.

Ortalli, Gherardo (2005): Venise et Constantinople: une „byzantinité latine“, in: Clementina Rizzardi (Ed.): Venezia e Bisanzio: aspetti della cultura artistica bizantina da Ravenna a Venezia (V-XIV secolo), Venice, p. 417–430.

Ott, Joachim (1998): Krone und Krönung: die Verheißung und Verleihung von Kronen in der Kunst von der Spätantike bis um 1200 und die geistige Auslegung der Krone, Mainz.

Ousterhout, Robert (2009): Symbole der Macht. Mittelalterliche Heraldik zwischen Ost und West, in: Margit Mersch/Ulrike Ritzerfeld (Eds.): Lateinisch-griechisch-arabische Begegnungen. Kulturelle Diversität im Mittelmeerraum des Spätmittelalters, Berlin, p. 91–109.

P. O’Nei , Jo n (1993): The Art of Medieval Spain, A.D. 500-1200, New York.

Papamastorakis, Titos (2002): Re-deconstructing the Khakhouli Triptych, in: ΔΕΛΤΙΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΗΣ ΑΡΧΑΙΟΛΟΓΙΚΗΣ ΕΤΑΙΡΕΙΑΣ (23), p. 225–254.

Parani, Maria (2003): Reconstructing the Reality of Images: Byzantine Material Culture and Religious Iconography (11th-15th centuries), Leiden.

Pasi, Silvia (2006): Ravenna, San Vitale. Il corteo di Giustiniano e Teodora, Modena.

Pasini, Antonio (1886a): Il tesoro di San Marco in Venezia 1, Venice.

——— (1886b): Il tesoro di San Marco in Venezia 2, Venice.

Paspates, Alexandros Georgios (1893): The Great Palace of Constantinople, London.

Pauler, Gyula (1895): A magyar nemzet története az Arpádházi királyok alatt I., Budapest.

107

Pekarska, Ljudmila (2010): Jewellery from Princely Kiev and Byzantine Influence, in: Chris Entwistle/Noël Adams (Eds.): „Intelligible Beauty“: Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, London, p. 212–218.

Perea, Alicia (2001): El tesoro visigodo de Guarrazar, Madrid.

Perry, David (2015): Sacred plunder: Venice and the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade, University Park.

Pertusi, Agostino (1965): Quedam regalia insignia. Ricerche sulle insegne del potere ducale a Venezia durante il Medioevo, in: Studi veneziani 7, p. 3–123.

Péter, Lász ó (2003): The Holy Crown of Hungary, Visible and Invisible, in: The Slavonic and East European Review 81 (3), p. 421–510.

Petersohn, Jür en (1993): Echte und falsche Insignien im deutschen Krönungsbrauch des Mittelalters? Kritik eines Forschungsstereotyps, in: Sitzungberichte der wissenscheftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main XXX (3), p. 72–119.

Pevny, Olenka (1997): Kievan Rus’, in: Helen Evans/William Wixom (Eds.): The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A. D. 843-1261, New York, p. 280–319.

Piltz, Elisabeth (1977): Kamelaukion et mitra: insignes byzantins impériaux et ecclésiastiques, Stockholm.

——— (1997): Middle Byzantine Court Costume, in: Henry Maguire (Ed.): Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, Washington, D.C., p. 39–52.

Poppe, Andrzej (2003): Losers on earth, winners from heaven: the assassination of Boris and Gleb in the making of eleventh-century Rus, in: Quaestiones medii aevii novae 8, p. 133–168.

Puhle, Matthias (Ed.) (2012): Otto der Große und das Römische Reich: Kaisertum von der Antike zum Mittelalter, .

Radnóti, Sándor (2002): The Glass Cabinet. An essay about the place of the Hungarian crown, in: Acta Historiae Artium XLIII, p. 83–111.

Radó, Po ykar (1959): De originibus liturgiae romanae in Hungaria saeculi XI, in: Ephemerides liturgicae 72 (1), p. 299–309.

Rexroth, Karl Heinrich (1981): Das Stockholmer Reliquiar Kaiser Friedrichs II. und der heiligen Elisabeth, in: Hessische Heimat 31, p. 122–137.

Rudt de Collenberg, Wipertus (1971): Le Thorakion: Recherches iconographiques, in: Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome 83, p. 263–361.

Rybakov, Boris (1948): Remeslo drevnej Rusi, Moscow.

Schramm, Percy Ernst (1954a): Die geistliche und die weltliche Mitra, mit Seitenblicken auf die Geschichte der päpstlichen Tiara. Ein weiteres Beispiel für den Wandel von Form und Bedeutung, in: Percy Ernst Schramm (Ed.): Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte vom dritten bis zum sechzehnten Jahrhundert I. (=Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica 13), Stuttgart, p. 51– 98.

——— (Ed.) (1954b): Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte vom dritten bis zum sechzehnten Jahrhundert I. (=Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica 13), Stuttgart.

——— (1955a): Ein byzantinisches Stemma aus dem Besitz Kaiser Heinrichs II. (Theophanus?), in: Percy Ernst Schramm (Ed.): Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte vom dritten bis zum sechzehnten Jahrhundert II. (=Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica 13), Stuttgart, p. 638–642.

——— (1955b): Kaiser Friedrichs II. Herrschaftszeichen, Göttingen.

108

——— (1956): Kronen mit Reliquien - Reliquiare in Kronenform - Kronen aus Kopfreliquiaren, in: Percy Ernst Schramm (Ed.): Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte vom dritten bis zum sechzehnten Jahrhundert III. (=Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica 13), Stuttgart, p. 869–883.

——— (Ed.) (1968): Kaiser, Könige und Päpste II., Stuttgart.

Schreiner, Paul (1979): Omphalion und Rota Porphyretica. Zum Kaiserzeremoniell in Konstantinopel und Rom, in: Byzance et les Slaves: études de civilisation. Mélanges Ivan Dujčev, Paris, p. 401–410.

——— (2004): Diplomatische Geschenke zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen ca. 800-1200: Eine Analyse der Texte mit Quellenhang, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 58, p. 251–282.

Sedlar, Jean (1994): East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500, Washington, D. C.

Shelkovnikov, Bebut Alexandrovich (1966): Russian Glass from the 11th to the 17th Century, in: Journal of Glass Studies (8), p. 95–115.

Shepard, Jonathan (1988): Aspects of Byzantine Attitudes and Policy Towards the West in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries, in: James Howard-Johnston (Ed.): Byzantium and the West c. 850-c. 1200, Amsterdam, p. 67–118.

——— (1999): Byzantium and the Steppe-Nomads: The Hungarian Dimension, in: Günter Prinzing/Maciej Salamon (Eds.): Byzanz und Ostmitteleuropa 950-1453 (=Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 3), Wiesbaden, p. 55–83.

——— (2011): Crowns from the basileus, crowns from heaven, in: Jonathan Shepard (Ed.): Emergent Elites and Byzantium in the Balkans and East-Central Europe, Farnham, p. 139–159.

——— (2013): Adventus, Arrivistes and Rites of Rulership in Byzantium and France in the Tenth and Eleventh Century, in: Alexander Beihammer et. al. (Eds.): Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean: Comparative Perspectives, Leiden-Boston, p. 337–374.

Sotnikova, Marina Petrovna/Spasskij, Ivan Georgievich (1982): Russian coins of the X.-XI. centuries A. D. (=BAR International Series 136), Oxford.

Spatharakis, Iohannis (1976): The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts, Leiden.

Spieser, Jean-Michel (1991): Hellénisme et connaissance de l’art byzantin au XIXe siècle, in: Suzanne Said (Ed.): ‘EΛΛHNIΣM Σ: quelques jalons pour une histoire de l’identité grecque, Leiden-New York- Copenhagen-Cologne, p. 337–362.

——— (2000): Du Cange and Byzantium, in: Robin Cormack/Elizabeth Jeffreys (Eds.): Through the looking glass. Byzantium through British eyes, Aldershot-Burlington-Singapore-Sydney, p. 199–210.

——— (2005): Art byzantin et influence: pour l’histoire d’une construction, in: Michel Balard et. al. (Eds.): Byzance et le extérieur: contacts, relations, échanges, Paris, p. 271-288.

Steinberg, Sigfrid (1937): I ritratti dei re normanni di Sicilia, in: Bibliofilia (39), p. 1–29.

Stephenson, Paul (2000): Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900-1204, Cambridge.

Steppan, Thomas (2000): The Artukid Bowl: Courtly Art in the Middle Byzantine Period and Its Relation to the Islamic Art, in: Olenka Pevny (Ed.): Perceptions of Byzantium and Its Neighbours (843-1261), New York, p. 84–101.

Stricevic, Georg (1962): Sur le problème de l’iconographie des mosaïques imperiales de Saint-Vital, in: Felix Ravenna 85, p. 80–100.

109

Sullivan, Richard (Ed.) (1959): The Coronation of Charlemagne: What Did It Signify?, Boston.

Szaká s, Bé a Zso t (1993): A Glance at Pre-Romanesque. The Front Cover of the Book of Pericopes of Henry II, in: Obraz, slowo, gest i muzyka w kulturze sredniowecznej Europy, Poznan, p. 67–72.

——— (2002): Remarks on the filigree of the Holy Crown of Hungary, in: Acta Historiae Artium XLIII, p. 52– 61.

Széke y, Györ y (1986): Magyarország történeti kronológiája I., Budapest.

Taft, Robert (1991): Solea, in: Alexander Kazhdan et al. (Eds.): The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium III., Oxford-New York, p. 1923.

Te nér, Göran (2009): Das Stockholmer Reliquiar mit der Krone - ein Reliquiar der heiligen Elisabeth?, in: Elisabeth von Thüringen: Eine Frau des 13. Jahrhunderts und ihre Wirkung, Munich, p. 38–60.

Tkad čík, Vojtě (1983): Cyrilský nápis v Michalovcích, in: Slavia 52, p. 113–123.

Torno Ginnasi, Andrea (2014): L’incoronazione celeste nel mondo bizantino: politica, cerimoniale, numismatica e arti figurative, Oxford.

Totev, Totju (1986): Preslavskoto sakrovishte, in: Izvestija na narodnija muzej Varna 37, p. 81–106.

——— (1993): The Preslav Treasure, Sofia.

Tót , Endre (2001): Über die ungarische Heilige Krone. (Forschungsbericht), in: Folia archaeologica (49–50), p. 315–348.

Tót , Endre/Sze enyi, Karo y (2000): The Holy Crown of Hungary: Kings and Coronations, Budapest.

Treitinger, Otto (1956): Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsideen nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell, Darmstadt.

Tronzo, William (1994): Intellectual life at the court of Frederick II Hohenstaufen (=Studies in the history of art 44), Washington, D.C.

Tsamakda, Vasiliki (2000): The Miniatures of the Madrid Skylitzes, in: Joannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum. Codex matritensis Graecus Vtr. 26-2, Athens, p. 127–156.

Uhlirz, Mathilde (1951): Die Krone des hl. Stephan, des ersten König von Ungarn (=Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für österreichisches Geschichtsforschung XIV), Graz-Vienna-Munich.

Vá zy, Péter (1985): The Angelic Crown, in: Hungarian Studies 1, p. 1–18. de Vajay, Szabolcs (1976): Corona Regia - Corona Regni - Sacra Corona. Königskronen und Kronensymbolik im mittelalterlichen Ungarn, in: Ungarn-Jahrbuch 7, p. 37–64.

Vaklinova, Margarita (1980): Prsten na Nikifor (XI v.), in: Balgarsko srednovekovie. Sbornik v chest na prof. Ivan Dujchev, Sofia, p. 142–146.

Varoli Piazza, Rosalia (1993): La fodera della corona di Costanza: un’ipotesi di lavoro, in: Leonardo Urbani (Ed.): La Cattedrale di Palermo: Studi per l’ottavo centenario dalla fondazione, Palermo, p. 361–366.

Viberg, Ake (1996): The concept of Anointing in the Old Testament, in: Journal of European Pentecostal Theological Association 16 (1), p. 19–29. von Engelberg, Meinrad (1998): „Die Kaiserkrone Friedrichs II.“? Zur Deutung der „Haube der Konstanze“ im Domschatz von Palermo, in: Arte medievale (XII–XIII), p. 109–127.

110

Walter, Christopher (1976): The Significance of Unction in Byzantine Iconography, in: Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 2, p. 53–73.

Weiss, Daniel (1998): Art and Crusade in the Age of Saint Louis, Cambridge.

Weitzmann, Kurt/Galavaris, George (1990): The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Illuminated Greek Manuscripts 1. From the Ninth to the Twelvth Century, Princeton.

Wessel, Klaus (1967): Byzantine Enamels from the 5th to the 13th century, Greenwich.

——— et al. (1978): Insignien, in: Klaus Wessel/ Marcel Restle (Eds.): Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst III., Stuttgart, p. 370-498.

Whittemore, Thomas (1942): The Mosaics of St Sophia at Istanbul . Third Preliminary Report Work Done in 1935-1938, Oxford.

Wieruszowski, Helen (1963): Roger II of Sicily, Rex Tyrannus, in Twelfth Century Political Thought, in: Speculum (38), p. 46–78.

Woolley, Reginald Maxwell (1911): Coronation rites, Cambridge.

Yannopoulos, Panayotis (1991): Le couronnement de l’empereur à Byzance: rituel et fond institutionnel, in: Byzantion 61, p. 71–92.

Zu ka, Dušan (2010): Historiography in Motion, in: Roman Holec/Rastislav Kožiak (Eds.): Power of rituals and rituals of power: Religious and secular rituals in the political culture of medieval Kingdom of Hungary, Bratislava-Banská Bystrica, p. 29–42.

——— (2011): Rituály a symbolická komunikácia v stredovekej strednej Európe (Arpádovské Uhorsko 1000- 1301), Prešov.

111