The ‘Cult’ of Imperial and Ecclesiastical Silks in Byzantium

REFERENCES

• For further discussion of the relationship between the political and the ecclesiastical significance of Byzantine silk weaving see A. Muthesius, Studies in Byzantine and Islamic Silk Weaving (London, 1995), especially chapters VIII, X, and XII–XIV.
   Google Scholar
• For the relationship of Church and State under the Comneni in particular, see M. Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni 1081–1261. (Cambridge, 1995). Note in particular, chapter 25, pp. 530– 63, entitled, ‘Imperial Authority and the Orthodox Church’.
   Google Scholar
• For weaving metaphors dating back to Classical Greece see E. J. W. Barber, Prehistoric Textiles (New Jersey, 1991), pp. 375–76.
   Google Scholar
• For Theodoret of Cyrrus see A. Muthesius, Byzantine Silk Weaving A.D. 400–1200 (Vienna, 1997), chapter 2.2, pp. 23–24, with source reference in n. 28 on p. 26.
   Google Scholar
• For a discussion of the relevant passage in Proclus, refer to V. Limberis, Divine Heiress. The Virgin Mary and the Creation of Christian Constantinople (London, 1994), pp. 51, 62, 85–89, 96, III–12, 122, 129, 131–32, 135–37, and 145–47. On the Festival of the Virginity of Mary, see pp. 55–56 and 106. Concerning the attribution to Proclus see F. J. Leroy, Uhomiletique de Proclus de Constantinople (Citta del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1967), pp. 267–70. Also, R. Caro, La homiletica mariana griega en elsiglo V. Dayton (University of Dayton, 1972), pp. 308–24.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., p. 86.
   Google Scholar
• Proclus PG. 65.681.
   Google Scholar
• Limberis, Divine Heiress, pp. 3–4, 55–57, 60, 90, 102–05, 107–10, 117, and 145.
   Google Scholar
• This was one of the issues involved in the fall of Bishop Nestorius of Constantinople (428–31 a.d.). For the Nestorian heresy see M. Jugie, Nestorius et la controversa nestorienne (Paris, Beauchesne, 1912). F. Loofs, Nestorius and his place in the history of Christian doctrine (Cambridge, 1914), pp. 49–69. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco, 1978), p. 311. On the controversy over the suggestion of a separation of the divine and the human nature of Christ, see Socrates, Eccl. Hist. 7.32 For a further discussion of the issues see R. A. Norris Jr., transi., and ed., The Christological Controversy (Philadelphia, 1980). V. Limberis presents a detailed discussion on the subject in Divine Heiress, pp. 47–61.
   Google Scholar
• V. Limberis, Divine Heiress, pp. 85–97. The hymns of 430–70 A. D. are recorded in Proclus PG. 61.737–38; Cyril of Alexandria, PG 77, 1033–36; Chrysippus of Jerusalem, Patrologia Orientalis 19.218–19; Basil of Seleucia PG. 85.444, 448 and Theodotus PG. 77. 1389–1412.
   Google Scholar
• This is the thesis of V. Limberis, Divine Heiress, pp. 47–48.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., chapters 2–4, pp. 30–97. Consider also W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the cult of Christ (London, 1998), especially chapter 4 on pp. 109–52.
   Google Scholar
• For Byzantine court ceremonial in relation to Byzantine ecclesiastical ritual see H. Maguire ed., Byzantine Court Culture from 829–1204 A. D. (Washington, 1997), papers in parts 1 and 11, on pp. 1–81.
   Google Scholar
• For the development of liturgical ritual see R. F. Taft, Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond (Aldershot, 1995).
   Google Scholar
• Byzantine silks were not only used extensively in the saintly and the liturgical celebrations of the Orthodox church, but they greatly influenced the development of silken ritual in the Latin Church. See A. Muthesius, ‘Byzantine and Islamic Silks in the Rhine-Maaslands before 1200’, and ‘Politics, piety and the silken cult of relics. Aachen Münster treasury silks in historical context’, which appear in Studies in Byzantine and Islamic Silk Weaving, chapters VI and XIII.
   Google Scholar
• Nestorius refused to place the robe of Pulcheria on the Christian altar. See Barhad beshabba, Patrologia Orientalis 9 (1913 ) François Nau transi., pp. 565–66. Discussed by V. Limberis in Divine Heiress, pp. 20, 54.
   Google Scholar
• See Barhad beshabba, p. 565.
   Google Scholar
• On the early saints of Byzantium consult E. Malamut, Sur la route des saints byzantins (Paris, 1993).
   Google Scholar
• The relics of St Stephen symbolically served to raise morale during the war against Persia. This is discussed by K. Holum, Theodosian Empresses (Berkeley, 1982). The relics were sent by the Bishop of Jerusalem, from there to Constantinople. See C. de Boor ed., Theophanes, Chronographia (Hildesheim, 1963).
   Google Scholar
• For the Holy Mandylion see Skylitzes, (Thum ed.) pp. 231–32. Also I. Economides, Le Saint Voile (Athènes, 1992). Earlier see S. Runciman, some remarks on the image of Edessa. Cambridge Historical The ‘Cult’ of Imperial and Ecclesiastical Silks in Byzantium Journal, III (1929–31), pp. 238–52. A. Grabar, ‘La sainte Face de Laon et le Mandylion dans l’art Orthodoxe’, Seminarium Kondakovianum (1935), p. 16. Note also K. Weitzmann, ‘The Mandylion and Constantine Porphyrogennetos’, Cahiers archéologiques, XI (1960), pp. 163–84. For the relic of the arm of St John the Baptist under Constantine VII, refer to Daphnopates (Latyshev ed.), Δύο λόγοι, sections 17–18, on pp. 31–32, and see discussion in I. Kalavrezou, ‘Helping Hands for the Empire: Imperial ceremonies and the cult of relics at the Byzantine court’, esp. pp. 56, 67–70, and 76 with n. 93, as well as 68 and n. 62, in H. Maguire ed., Byzantine Court Culture from 829–1204 (Washington, 1997).
   Google Scholar
• Kalavrezou, Helping hands, p. 53.
   Google Scholar
• For the Virgin’s shroud and girdle respectively, see discussion in N. H. Baynes, ‘The supernatural defenders of Constantinople’, in Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, 1955), pp. 257–60.
   Google Scholar
• J. J. Reiske ed., De ceremoniis aulae byzantinae, 1–11 (Bon, 1829–30). A.Vogt ed., Le livre des Cérémonies, 1–11 (Paris, 1935–39).
   Google Scholar
• Limberis, Divine Heiress, pp. 7–8.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., pp. 8–9. M. McCormick ed., Eternal Victory Triumphal rulership in late antiquity, Byzantium and the early medieval west (Cambridge, 1990), chapters 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• A. Grabar, Byzantium. Byzantine art in the Middle Ages (London, 1966), coloured plate 7, on p. 31.
   Google Scholar
• See A. Muthesius, Studies in Silk in Byzantium (London, forthcoming), chapter 4.
   Google Scholar
• E. Piltz, ‘Middle Byzantine Court Costume’, in Byzantine Court Culture, pp. 39–52.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., pp. 42–48.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., figs. 3, 4, and 7, between pp. 40–41.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., fig. 6, shows Empress Mary wearing the thorakion.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., pp. 43–45.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., pp. 46–47.
   Google Scholar
• A. Muthesius, Byzantine Silk Weaving, chapter 5.
   Google Scholar
• Discussed in A. Muthesius, Studies in Silk in Byzantium, (London, forthcoming), chapter 13.
   Google Scholar
• A detailed study is found in J. E. Korn, Adler und Doppeladler. Ein Zeichen im Wandel der Geschichte (Ph.D. thesis, Göttingen University, 1969).
   Google Scholar
• For the joust see ‘Ekphrasis of the jousts of our mighty and holy lord and emperor’ (Lampros ed.) N.E., 5 (1908 ) pp. 13–18. Cf. P. Magdalino and R. Nelson, ‘The emperor in Byzantine art of the twelth century’, Byzantinische Forschungen, VIII (1982), pp. 123–83.
   Google Scholar
• For the double-headed eagle under the Palaeologians, see C. Chatzakoglou, ‘Die Palaiologen und das frühste Auftreten des byzantinischen Doppeladlers’, Byzantinoslavica, LVII (1996 ), pp. 60–68.
   Google Scholar
• On the sybolism of epimanikia in Byzantine vestiture see C. Walter, Art and Ritual of the Byzantine Church (London, 1982), p. 20, section V. For Byzantine vestments in general consult T. Papas, Studien Zur Geschichte der Messgewänder im byzantintinischen Ritus (Munich, 1965).
   Google Scholar
• Jerome, Commentaria in Ezechielem prophetam. PL. 25.427–44. Cited by L. L. Coon, Sacred Fictions, Holy Women and Haghiography in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia, 1997), chapter 3, pp. 52–70, esp. p. 53.
   Google Scholar
• For the Paulus Silentiarius account, see P. Friedländer ed., Johannes von Gaza und Paulus Silentiarius (Leipzig-Berlin, 1912), section 755 as cited by C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–1453, 88–89.
   Google Scholar
• Muthesius, Byzantine Silk weaving, chapters 7 and 8.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid, chapter 8, p. 81 and plate 27A (silk M398E). Also, M. Fleury-Lemberg, Textile Conservation and Research (Bern, 1988), cat. No. 94 on p. 502, and also pp. 367–69, 381–83.
   Google Scholar
• For the Proto Evangelium of James, see Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Oxford, 1991), vol. 2, p. 1030.
   Google Scholar
• Muthesius, Byzantine Silk Weaving, chapter 8, pp. 80–84.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., chapter 8, p. 80, and n. 4 on p. 82. Catalogue numbers M16 and M6a (Joseph Silks) M66 (Elijah and the raven silk).
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., chapter 7, pp. 67–68, pls. 20A, 20B, for catalogue number M35 silk.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., chapter 14, pp. 125–26.
   Google Scholar
• Pope Hadrian presented this type of silk cloth to St Peter’s, for example, in 772–74 A.D. Sixty five veils of Tyrian fabric with gold brocade were hung between the arches. For many smaller churches and monasteries too, he provided Tyrian silks. See L. Duchesne ed., Liber Pontiticalis (Paris, 1892), sections
   Google Scholar
• and 52, pp. 143 and 146, and translations in R. Davis ed., The lives of the eighth century popes (Liber Pontificalis) (Liverpool, 1992).
   Google Scholar
• Martianus Capella, De nuptis, 6, 580–81, 1–66.
   Google Scholar
• E. O’Connor, The Star Mantle of Henry II, Ph.D. thesis, (Columbia University, 1980). Also, Muthesius, Byzantine Silk Weaving, pp. 140–42 and bibliography in n. 10 of p. 143.
   Google Scholar
• Discussed by O’Connor, Star Mantle, pp. 151–52. See also, P. E. Schramm, F. Mütherich, Denkmale der deutscher Könige und Kaiser, 1, 2nd edn (Munich, 1981), pp. 163, 348, pl.130.
   Google Scholar
• A.Tihon, Études d’astronomie byzantine (Variorum, Aldershot, 1994), esp. chapter 1.
   Google Scholar
• Muthesius, Byzantine Silk Weaving, chapter 7, section 7.i.f. on p. 65 forward, and pl. 22A.
   Google Scholar
• See H. Maguire ed., Byzantine Court Culture from 829–1204 (Washington, 1977), chapters 1, 2, 4, and 6, in particular.
   Google Scholar
• See O. Grabar, ‘The shared culture of Objects’, in Byzantine Court Culture, pp. 115–29, esp. p. 121, concerning the written accounts numbered 84 and 85 in the Kitab al-Dhakha’ir wa al-Tuhaf (M. Hamidullah edn) (Kuwait, 1959). Cf. R. Ousterhout, ‘Rebuilding the Temple’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, XLVIII (1989) 66ff.
   Google Scholar
• The subject of silk in relation to Church and State is a central theme of the forthcoming Muthesius, Studies in Silk in Byzantium (London, 2001).
   Google Scholar
• See G. Dagron, Empereur et prêtre, Etude sur le <césaropapisme> byzantin (Paris, 1996).
   Google Scholar