Liturgy and the Illustration of Gregory of Nazianzen's Homilies. An Essay in Iconographical Methodology - article ; n°1 ; vol.29, pg 183-212

Christopher Walter

Description

Revue des études byzantines - Année 1971 - Volume 29 - Numéro 1 - Pages 183-212
REB 29 (1971) France p. 183-212.
Ch. Walter, Liturgy and the Illustration of Gregory of Nazianzeri's Homilies. — The method of studying the transmission of manuscript illuminations, as presented by K. Weitzmann in Illustrations in Roll and Codex, is considered with regard to Byzantine manuscripts. There follows a critique of Galavaris's application of this method to the liturgical edition of Gregory of Nazianzen's homilies. The author concludes that the illustration of this edition has no archetype, consisting rather of various adaptations of the illustration of the full edition ; that it was little influenced either by Lectionary models or by liturgical ceremonies.
30 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Informations

• Publié par: REVUE_DES_ETUDES_BYZANTINES
• Publié le: 01 janvier 1971
• Nombre de lectures: 14
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

Christopher Walter
Liturgy and the Illustration of Gregory of Nazianzen's Homilies.
An Essay in Iconographical Methodology
In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 29, 1971. pp. 183-212.
Abstract
REB 29 (1971)Francep. 183-212.
Ch. Walter, Liturgy and the Illustration of Gregory of Nazianzeri's Homilies. — The method of studying the transmission of
manuscript illuminations, as presented by K. Weitzmann in Illustrations in Roll and Codex, is considered with regard to Byzantine
manuscripts. There follows a critique of Galavaris's application of this method to the liturgical edition of Gregory of Nazianzen's
homilies. The author concludes that the illustration of this edition has no archetype, consisting rather of various adaptations of the
illustration of the full edition ; that it was little influenced either by Lectionary models or by liturgical ceremonies.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Walter Christopher. Liturgy and the Illustration of Gregory of Nazianzen's Homilies. An Essay in Iconographical Methodology .
In: Revue des études byzantines, tome 29, 1971. pp. 183-212.
doi : 10.3406/rebyz.1971.1444
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1971_num_29_1_1444LITURGY AND THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY
OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES
An Essay in Iconographical Methodology
Christopher WALTER
Among the most remarkable of the surviving works of art executed in
and around Constantinople in the Xth, Xlth and Xllth centuries are the
illuminated liturgical books. Of these perhaps the Gospel books and the
Lectionary are the richest. It would be in them, if Professor Kurt Weitzmann
is right, that the far-reaching changes consequent upon the establishment
of a liturgical lectionary cycle appear most clearly1. However until Professor
Weitzmann has published his promised study of the Constantinopolitan
Lectionary it is possible to appreciate exactly neither what these changes
were, nor what was the role of the Lectionary in providing models for the
illustration of other liturgical books.
One which was likely to be affected is the liturgical selection of Gregory
of Nazianzen's homilies. Dr George Galavaris is indeed ready to maintain
that the most probable source for the New Testament scenes which illus
trate these homilies was in every case a lectionary model2. Since the majority
of the illuminated manuscripts of these homilies date from the late Xlth
and the early Xllth century, the hypothesis is certainly plausible. While
waiting for the appearance of Weitzmann's study, it is possible to examine
the case which Galavaris presents, and to ask to what extent it is necessary to
postulate a lectionary or other liturgical model in order to explain the minia
tures in question. First, however, it will be as well to make some remarks
1. K. Weitzmann, Byzantine Miniature and Ikon Painting in the Xlth Century, in
The Proceedings of the Xlllth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford 1967,
p. 212-219.
2. G. Galavaris, The Illustrations of the Liturgical Homilies of Gregory Nazianzenus,
Princeton 1969, p. 98. (This article serves also as a review of the book). 184 CH. WALTER
about Galavaris's presentation of the miniatures and about the method
which he uses to study them.
By uniting in one volume 474 photographs of miniatures from 34 of
these manuscripts Gaiavaris has rendered a valuable service to Byzantine
scholars. The volume appears in the Princeton series of studies in manus
cript illustration, of which Professor Weitzmann is general editor. The
presentation of the photographs is of a high order. Nor are neglected such
other aspects of bookmaking as meticulous attention to detail, while the
wealth of bibliographical references attests to the technical quality of
library services in the United States.
It is an essential part of the discipline of art history to establish as accur
ately as possible the date and provenance of the objects being studied. This
is easy in the cases where an inscription indicates the date exactly : Vatican,
gr. 463, 10623 \Londin. Add. 24381, 10884 ; Laurent. VII 24, 1091s ;
gr. 464, 13596. Unfortunately these are not the most important manus
cripts. The others have to be situated upon grounds of style. For some
manuscripts Gaiavaris proposes an earlier date than do other scholars.
Where he proposes the Xlth rather than the Xllth century his attribution
is based on plausible analogies. However it is surprising to find Mosq. 146
dated to about 1000 primarily on the grounds of its ornament. Lazarev
has suggested a date around 10707. On the grounds of the proportions of
the figures one might suggest a comparison with a Saint John of Studios
manuscript such as Londin. Add. 19352. On other grounds too, as I shall
explain later, a case may be argued for dating this manuscript to the second
half of the Xlth century. However, if Gaiavaris felt convinced by his argu
ments in favour of the earlier date, it is even more surprising that he has
not drawn an important conclusion. If Mosq. 146 was really illuminated
some seventy years earlier than the other extant Gregory manuscripts,
it would witness to the first experiments in illuminating this genre of manus
cripts, and provide valuable information about the « archetype » — if
archetype there was.
Given the importance of this collection of iconographical documents,
it is regrettable that Gaiavaris should have confined his descriptive remarks
principally to such aspects of their style as are relevant to their date and
3. G. Galavaris, op. cit., p. 250-252.
4. p. 227. Ibid.,
5. Ρ- 218.
6. p. 252-253. Ibid.,
7. p. 229-231 ; V. Lazarev, Storia dellapittura bizantina, Turin 1967, p. 189. THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 185
provenance. Byzantinists will be consulting this volume, in which many
miniatures are published for the first time, for a variety of reasons. As an
instrument of study they will find the book defective in many respects.
The bibliographical notes on the iconography of the miniatures are not
presented in a form which facilitates consultation. No developed description
is given either of individual miniatures or of the character of individual
manuscripts. This is particularly regrettable in cases, such as initial letters,
when the physical relationship between the miniature and the text is not
evident in the photograph. For example in Taurin. C I 6, f. 69V and 83 (fig.
52 and 57) two initials are labelled « Genre Scene ». No allusion is made to
either in the catalogue, while for f. 84V-91V the reader is only told that there
are « historiated initials illustrating single words or phrases »8. But Galavaris
neither identifies them nor supplies the reader with the material necessary
to do so himself.
The reason perhaps for these omissions is that Galavaris is less interest
ed in the manuscripts themselves than in a hypothetical archetype from
which they would be derived. His primary aim is to demonstrate that such
an archetype existed. He bases his argument on a consideration of the
logical relationship between the miniatures and the text, a relationship
which is the same, according to him, for all the manuscripts of this genre.
Anything, therefore, which is original in the individual manuscripts is of
secondary importance. It could have been added later or alternatively the
archetype might have been more fully illustrated ; the copyists would then
have selected certain scenes according to their individual requirements9. It
must be said at once that such an explanation is entirely gratuitous. What
impresses in examining the miniatures is not their similarity but their
variety. There is nothing obvious to suggest that there was a single accepted
tradition for the illuminai ion of the liturgical selection of Gregory's homil
ies. The notion has come from outside, not from an actual consideration
of the manuscripts. In his desire to realise to the full its implications Galav
aris is forced not only to contradict himself but also to ignore or misre
present the real character of these manuscripts.
Galavaris seeks the distinctive character of this single tradition parti
cularly in the « invented » miniatures which would be peculiar to the litur
gical selection of Gregory's homilies. Seventeen title miniatures and twelve
supplementary miniatures were, he says, designed especially for this litur
gical selection of Gregory's homilies. The others occurred first as illustra-
8. G. Galavaris, op. cit., p. 260.
9. Ibid., p. 37. CH. WALTER 186
tions to other texts, from which they « migrated » to the homilies. However
again he qualifies his original statement by adding that this distinction between
« invented » and « migrated » miniatures is not rigid. On the other hand it
is necessary in order to establish the iconographical groups found in the man
uscripts ; these are to be classified according to the text which they origin
ally illustrated ; the structure of the manuscripts may then be understood10.
The pioneer in this method of studying a manuscript was Professor
Weitzmann. It might therefore be as well, before examining further Gala-
varis's way