chapter 14 The Miracle Cycle between Constantinople, Thessalonike, and Mistra
Maria Alessia Rossi
This paper will address the dialectic between the City and the cities from an art historical perspective. I will focus on the development of Christ’s Miracle Cycle in Constantinople, Thessalonike, and Mistra. The comparison of three churches housing this iconography, one from each city, will give an insight into the relationship between the capital and the other cities of the empire in the early Palaiologan period: the monastery of Chora in Constantinople (1316–21), the parekklesion of St. Euthymios in Thessalonike (1303), and the church of the Aphendiko in Mistra (1311–13).1 The aim is to examine the differences and simi- larities in the layout and grouping of the episodes of this Cycle, as well as the function and meaning they came to convey. In the first instance, this is in order to understand why this rare iconography was chosen to decorate churches so far away from each other. Secondly, this paper will ask whether the icono- graphic scheme conveyed different meanings in different cities and contexts. The reconquest of Constantinople by Emperor Michael VIII in 1261 sealed the beginning of the Palaiologan period and was hailed by its contemporaries as the will of God.2 Nevertheless, the empire was reduced in size, and surrounded
1 For a general overview of the artistic and cultural patronage of the period, see Edmund Boleslaw Fryde, The Early Palaeologan Renaissance (1261–c. 1360) (Leiden, 2000). For the years concerning Andronikos II’s reign, see Alice-Mary Talbot, “Building Activity in Constantinople under Andronikos II: The Role of Women Patrons in the Construction and Restoration of Monasteries,” in Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, ed. Nevra Necipoğlu (Leiden, 2001), pp. 329–344. For a historical survey, see Donald Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, (1261–1453), 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 1–141. 2 For Michael VIII Palaiologos, see Deno John Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West 1258–1282: A Study in Byzantine-Latin Relations (Hamden, 1973); Ruth Macrides, “The New Constantine and the New Constantinople–1261?,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 6 (1980), 13–41. For the reconquest of Constantinople, see Georgios Akropolites, The History, ed. Ruth Macrides (Oxford, 2007), pp. 270–275; George Pachymeres, Relations historiques, ed. Albert Fallier and Vitalien Laurent, 2 vols (Paris, 1984–2000), 1:194–202. See also Vincent Puech, “La refondation religieuse de Constantinople par Michael VIII Paléologue (1259–82): un acte politique,” in Religion et Société Urbaine au Moyen Âge, études offertes à Jean-Louis
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004307742_016 The Miracle Cycle 227 by enemies. This is why, along with the capital, other cities in strategic positions increased their power and wealth. There are two major instances of this process within the Byzantine sphere: Thessalonike and Mistra. The former was at the frontier with the Serbian Kingdom and became the crossroads for diplomatic missions and the headquarters for military campaigns.3 In 1303 Andronikos II’s second wife, Eirene, decided to move her court to Thessalonike, increasing even further the artistic and political importance of the city. Mistra, on the other hand, was a newly-founded city that within but a short time became the commercial and military strategic axis of the Byzantine Peloponnese.4 The Miracle Cycle is rarely depicted before and after the early Palaiologan period (1261–1328).5 Its sudden proliferation is, therefore, likely to be linked to the socio-political and historical circumstances surrounding Andronikos II’s reign. His first imperial act was to reject the Union of the Churches imposed by his father, Michael VIII, and restore the Orthodox Church. Andronikos II was extremely concerned with re-establishing a sense of unity among his subjects. To do so, he promoted the religious element and the Patriarchate as the ram- parts of the Byzantine Empire by means of newly active shrines, saints’ relics, and the creation of a beneficent atmosphere in which a Renaissance could take place. The proliferation of miraculous shrines, miracle accounts, saints’ lives, and of the Miracle Cycle should be read as part of a broader trend, pursued by
Biget par ses anciens élèves, ed. Patrick Boucheron and Jacques Chiffoleau (Paris, 2000), pp. 351–362. 3 For contributions on the history and artistic role of Thessalonike in the Palaiologan period, see the papers in the collective volume Symposium on Late Byzantine Thessalonike, ed. Alice- Mary Talbot and Jean-Michel Spieser (Washington, D.C., 2004); Marcus Rautman, “Patrons and Buildings in Late Byzantine Thessaloniki,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 39 (1989), 295–315. 4 See Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, ed. Sharon Gerstel (Washington, D.C., 2013). On the architectural and artistic campaigns in Mistra, see Suzy Dufrenne, Les programmes iconographiques des églises byzantines de Mistra (Paris, 1970), pp. 8, 41; Manolis Chatzidakis, Mystras: The Medieval City and the Castle (Athens, 1992), pp. 59–67. 5 There is no complete monograph on the Miracle Cycle. The main studies dealing with the grouping and disposition of Christ’s Miracle Cycle are: Gabriel Millet, Recherches sur l’iconographie de l’evangile aux XIVe, XVe et XVIe siecles: d’apres les monuments de Mistra, de la Macedoine et du Mont-Athos (Paris, 1916), pp. 57–66; the essay of Paul Atkins Underwood, “Some Problems in Programs and Iconography of Ministry Cycles,” in The Kariye Djami: Studies in the Art of Kariye Djami and its Intellectual Background, ed. Paul Atkins Underwood (Princeton, 1975), pp. 245–302. See also Thalia Gouma-Peterson, “Christ as Ministrant and the Priest as Ministrant of Christ in a Palaeologan Program of 1303,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 32 (1978), 197–216.