The Critical Tradition of Byzantine Botanical Illustration in the Alphabetical Dioscorides by Andrew Peter Griebeler A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Medieval Studies and History of Art in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Diliana Angelova, Co-Chair Professor Beate Fricke, Co-Chair Professor Maria Mavroudi Professor Whitney Davis Spring 2019 Abstract The Critical Tradition of Byzantine Botanical Illustration in the Alphabetical Dioscorides by Andrew Griebeler Doctor of Philosophy in Medieval Studies and History of Art University of California, Berkeley Professor Diliana Angelova, Co-Chair Professor Beate Fricke, Co-Chair This dissertation recovers the history of Byzantine botanical illustration in the Alphabetical Dioscorides from its origins in the Hellenistic Period to its integration with early modern botanical illustration in the fifteenth century. Chapter 1 examines Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis historia to establish how botanical illustration differed from descriptions and specimens as a way to create visual knowledge. It also connects the emergence of botanical illustration to Hellenistic rulers' study of botany. Chapter 2 delineates the different ways ancient botanical illustrations selectively depict plants. Chapter 3 assesses the relationship between illustration and text copying, in order to show how the makers of early illustrated herbals ensured and even emphasized the transmission of visual knowledge. Chapter 4 reconstructs Middle Byzantine (ca. 843-1204 CE) modes of botanical inquiry through a close study of the Morgan Dioscorides (New York, Morgan Library, MS M 652). It demonstrates the critical and innovative dimensions of the Byzantine botanical illustration, including the comparison and compilation of earlier pictures and the ex novo illustration of plants through direct observation of nature. Chapter 5 considers the continuation of this critical tradition and how it disseminated in the wider Mediterranean world in the Late Byzantine period (1204-1453 CE). Chapter 6 finally outlines contemporaries' shifting attitudes towards botanical illustration through close study of the frontispieces of the Vienna Dioscorides (Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, med. gr. 1). This study upsets the common scholarly view that Byzantine art and science were unconcerned with observation of the natural world. Botanical illustrations played a central role in the Byzantine botanical tradition by enabling the creation of visual knowledge. The study further characterizes Byzantine contemporaries' approaches to botanical study through the priorities expressed in their depictions of the natural world. Although researchers have routinely typified Byzantine art by its lack of natural forms and its artists’ seeming unwillingness to depict the natural world through direct observation, evidence for detailed, “from life” depictions of plants in botanical manuscripts shows that Byzantine artists were capable of looking to nature. Byzantine conceptions of the natural world were not based on received classical texts and images, but also in direct experience of the natural environments within which Byzantine people worked and lived. 1 For My Parents i Table of Contents List of Figures iii Acknowledgments xiv Introduction 1 1. Pliny the Elder's Effigies Herbarum 11 2. Depicting Plants in the Ancient Herbal 33 3. Production and Layout 56 4. The Morgan Dioscorides and Middle Byzantine Botany 68 5. The Dissemination of Byzantine Botanical Illustration in the Later Middle Ages 92 6. The Frontispiece Cycle of the Vienna Dioscorides and Its Changing Narratives 115 Conclusion 142 References 145 Figures 166 ii List of Figures Fig. 2.1. Frescoed wall from Room F, the Villa of P. Fannius Synistor, Boscoreale now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. 03.14.11, ca. 50-40 B.C., 70x33in. (177.8 x 83.8cm). Photo: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Fig. 2.2. Illustration of pseudodiktamnon. P.Tebt. II 679, fragment e. Tebtunis Center, University of California, Berkeley. Photo: Tebtunis Center, University of California, Berkeley. Fig. 2.3. Illustration of unidentified plant. P.Tebt. II 679, fragment f. Tebtunis Center, University of California, Berkeley. Photo: Tebtunis Center, University of California, Berkeley. Fig. 2.4. “Flora” or “Primavera” fresco from the Villa di Arianna at Stabiae. ca. 15-45 CE. Now in Naples, Museo archeologico nazionale di Napoli. Inventory number 8834. Photo: Museo archeologico nazionale di Napoli. Fig. 2.5. Side A, Johnson Papyrus (MS 5753). Fifth century CE. London, Wellcome Collection. Photo: Wellcome Collection. Fig. 2.6. Side B, Johnson Papyrus (MS 5753). Fifth century CE. London, Wellcome Collection. Photo: Wellcome Collection. Fig. 2.7. Palimpsested fragment of an illustrated herbal, ff. 16v-17r, fifth or sixth century CE, St. Catherine’s in the Sinai, Arabic “New Finds” NF 8. Photo: Sinai Palimpsests Project (http://sinai.library.ucla.edu). Fig. 2.8. Illustration of ēryngion, f. 78r, Naples Dioscorides, late sixth century CE. Naples, Biblioteca nazionale, gr. 1. Photo from Dioscurides Neapolitanus: Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli Codex ex Vindobonensis Graecus 1 (Rome/Graz: Salerno Editrice/Akademische Druck u. Verlagsanstalt, 1992). Fig. 2.9. Illustration of helichryson ē chrysanthemon, f. 375v, Vienna Dioscorides, early sixth century. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, med. gr. 1. Photo from Der Wiener Dioskurides. Codex medicus graecus 1 der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Graz: Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1998). Fig. 2.10. Detail of rear wall, Room M, from the villa of P. Fannius Synistor in Boscoreale, Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Accession Number 03.14.13a–g. ca. 50–40 B.C. Photo: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Fig. 2.11. Illustration of ion porphyroun, f. 148v, Vienna Dioscorides, early sixth century. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, med. gr. 1. Photo from Der Wiener Dioskurides. iii Fig. 2.12. Illustration of rhodon ē rhoda, f. 282r, Vienna Dioscorides, early sixth century. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, med. gr. 1. Photo from Der Wiener Dioskurides. Fig. 2.13. Illustration of kynokephalion, f. 159v, Vienna Dioscorides, early sixth century. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, med. gr. 1. Photo from Der Wiener Dioskurides. Fig. 2.14. Illustration of batos, f. 83r, Vienna Dioscorides, early sixth century. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, med. gr. 1. Photo from Der Wiener Dioskurides. Fig. 2.15. Illustration of geranion, f. 85r, Vienna Dioscorides, early sixth century. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, med. gr. 1. Photo from Der Wiener Dioskurides. Fig. 2.16. Illustration of anemōnē hē phoinikē, f. 25v, Vienna Dioscorides, early sixth century. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, med. gr. 1. Photo from Der Wiener Dioskurides. Fig. 2.17. Illustration of symphyton, f. 132r, Naples Dioscorides, late sixth century CE. Naples, Biblioteca nazionale, gr. 1. Photo from Dioscurides Neapolitanus. Fig. 2.18. Illustration of several kinds of satyrion, f. 133r, Naples Dioscorides, late sixth century CE. Naples, Biblioteca nazionale, gr. 1. Photo from Dioscurides Neapolitanus. Fig. 2.19. Illustration of skammōnia, f. 331v, Vienna Dioscorides, early sixth century. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, med. gr. 1. Photo from Der Wiener Dioskurides. Fig. 2.20. Illustration of lōtos ho en aigyptō gennōmenos, f. 117r, Old Paris Dioscorides, eighth century. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, gr. 2179. Photo: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ Fig. 2.21. Illustration of potamogeitōn, f. 113r, Old Paris Dioscorides, eighth century. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, gr. 2179. Photo: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ Fig. 2.22. Illustration of asklēpias, f. 48v, Old Paris Dioscorides, eighth century. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, gr. 2179. Photo: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ Fig. 2.23. Illustration of skammōnia, f. 16r, Old Paris Dioscorides, eighth century. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, gr. 2179. Photo: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ Fig. 2.24. Illustration of chelidonion, f. 3v, Old Paris Dioscorides, eighth century. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, gr. 2179. Photo: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ iv Fig. 2.25. Illustration of isatis, f. 5r, Old Paris Dioscorides, eighth century. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, gr. 2179. Photo: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ Fig. 2.26. Illustration of lonchitis, f. 65r, Old Paris Dioscorides, eighth century. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, gr. 2179. Photo: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ Fig. 2.27. Illustration of lonchitis, f. 113r, Naples Dioscorides, late sixth century CE. Naples, Biblioteca nazionale, gr. 1. Photo from Dioscurides Neapolitanus. Fig. 2.28. Illustration of tēlephion, f. 5v, Old Paris Dioscorides, eighth century. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, gr. 2179. Photo: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ Fig. 2.29. Illustration of myos ōta, f. 5r, Old Paris Dioscorides, eighth century. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, gr. 2179. Photo: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ Fig. 2.30. Illustration of anagallis, f. 2r, Old Paris Dioscorides, eighth century. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, gr. 2179. Photo: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ Fig. 2.31. Illustration of othonna, f. 4v, Old Paris Dioscorides, eighth century. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, gr. 2179. Photo: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ Fig. 2.32. Illustration of gentianē, f. 7v, Old Paris Dioscorides,