Between Constantinople and Rome

An Illuminated Byzantine Gospel Book (Paris gr. 54) and the Union of Churches

Kathleen Maxwell

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781351955843
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Arte
• Subtopic: Historia del arte medieval

This is a study of the artistic and political context that led to the production of a truly exceptional Byzantine illustrated manuscript. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, codex grec 54 is one of the most ambitious and complex manuscripts produced during the Byzantine era. This thirteenth-century Greek and Latin Gospel book features full-page evangelist portraits, an extensive narrative cycle, and unique polychromatic texts. However, it has never been the subject of a comprehensive study and the circumstances of its commission are unknown. In this book Kathleen Maxwell addresses the following questions: what circumstances led to the creation of Paris 54? Who commissioned it and for what purpose? How was a deluxe manuscript such as this produced? Why was it left unfinished? How does it relate to other Byzantine illustrated Gospel books? Paris 54's innovations are a testament to the extraordinary circumstances of its commission. Maxwell's multi-disciplinary approach includes codicological and paleographical evidence together with New Testament textual criticism, artistic and historical analysis. She concludes that Paris 54 was never intended to copy any other manuscript. Rather, it was designed to eclipse its contemporaries and to physically embody a new relationship between Constantinople and the Latin West, as envisioned by its patron. Analysis of Paris 54's texts and miniature cycle indicates that it was created at the behest of a Byzantine emperor as a gift to a pope, in conjunction with imperial efforts to unify the Latin and Orthodox churches. As such, Paris 54 is a unique witness to early Palaeologan attempts to achieve church union with Rome.

1

Introduction

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, codex grec 54 (Paris, BnF, gr. 54; Paris 54, or P54) is one of the most ambitious and complex manuscripts produced during the early Palaeologan period. Its full-page evangelist portraits, extensive narrative cycle, and unique polychromatic bilingual texts have garnered scholarly attention since Gabriel Millet published some of its illustrations in 1916.¹ More than eighty-five years later, however, little is known about this thirteenth-century Greek and Latin Gospel book. The circumstances of its commission are undocumented and we do not understand why its narrative cycle, Latin text, and ornament remain incomplete. This study addresses the following questions: What circumstances led to the creation of Paris 54? Who commissioned it and for what purpose? How was a deluxe manuscript such as this produced? Why was it left unfinished? How does it relate to other Byzantine illustrated Gospel books?

While nothing is known about the origins of Paris 54, it can be linked to two very different manuscripts. Its dependence on the evangelist portraits and some of the text miniatures of the illustrated Gospel book, Mt. Athos, Iviron 5, is widely acknowledged. This study clarifies the relationship between Paris 54 and Iviron 5. The correct identification of the text miniatures of Paris 54 reveals that it incorporates all 29 scenes found in Iviron 5, as well as 22 additional miniatures. Paris 54’s significantly expanded miniature cycle combined with its distinctive double-column format and colorful bilingual texts create an entirely different impact, however, than Iviron 5’s smaller, single-column Greek text written in standard brown ink.

A second source for Paris 54 is also identified. My research indicates that the Greek text of Paris 54 was likely copied directly from Princeton, University Library, Codex Garrett 3, a Gospel book of 1136 that otherwise appears unrelated to Paris 54.² The occurrence of unique textual anomalies in Paris 54’s and Garrett 3’s Greek texts of Matthew, coupled with additional paratextual evidence, underlines Paris 54’s dependence on Garrett 3.

Paris 54 surpasses both of its models, as manifested by its generous proportions, its bilingual and multi-colored texts, the enhanced format of its images, and the expanded number of passages selected for illustration. The differences between Paris 54 and its models are due both to the stipulations of Paris 54’s unidentified but highly ambitious and sophisticated patron, as well as to decisions and modifications adopted by its head scribe. In fact, Paris 54’s innovations are a testament to the extraordinary circumstances of its commission.

I will demonstrate that Paris 54 was never intended to copy any other manuscript. Rather, it was designed to eclipse its contemporaries and to physically symbolize a new relationship between Constantinople and the Latin West, as envisioned by its patron. Further analysis of Paris 54’s texts and miniature cycle indicates that Paris 54 was created at the behest of a Byzantine emperor as a gift to a pope, in conjunction with imperial efforts in the late thirteenth century to unify the Latin and Orthodox Churches.

Description and Provenance

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, codex grec 54³ entered the Royal Library in France in 1599 along with numerous other Greek manuscripts from the remarkable collection of Catherine de Medici.⁴ Comprising 364 folios of thick, white parchment measuring 335 × 250 mm, the manuscript contains the complete Gospels in Greek in the left-hand column and an incomplete Latin version of the Vulgate in the right-hand column. Four full-page evangelist portraits were inserted at the beginning of each Gospel, while space was reserved throughout the text for as many as 52 narrative miniatures.⁵ Only 22 text miniatures were completed, and five others remain in varying stages of completion. Twenty-five remaining miniatures received, at most, only a simple, rectangular red-ink frame indicating the original scope of the program. Paris 54, with the exception of the decorative frames of the evangelist portraits, is almost completely devoid of ornament. Space was reserved at the beginning of each Gospel for an ornamental headpiece, but these were never executed.

Historiographical Review⁶

Paris 54 attracted the attention of New Testament text scholars almost a century before paleographers or art historians.⁷ Its bilingual text led many to propose that it was produced on Italian soil.⁸ This trend roused opposition as early as 1916 in Millet, and again in 1931 with Lazarev.⁹ It was not until 1929, when Henri Omont fully published Paris 54’s illustrations, that it began to be consistently noted by art historians.¹⁰

Paris 54 remains something of an anomaly. Extensively illustrated Gospel books are rare in the Palaeologan period. By this time the preferred venue for extensive narrative cycles was monumental painting.¹¹ However, as we shall see, there are many aspects of Paris 54 that contribute to its singular status above and beyond its narrative cycle. Since Paris 54 has never been the subject of a comprehensive study, every aspect of the manuscript—script, illumination, ornament, and text—warrants examination.

Chapter Summaries

Chapter 2 addresses codicological and paleographical issues of Paris 54, including the unusual make-up of Paris 54’s quires (ten folios) and their bilingual Greek and Armenian quire signatures, as well as paleographical peculiarities of its Greek and Latin Gospel texts. Paris 54’s polychrome text is unique in Byzantine manuscript production and its hierarchical implications are of interest. Bright red ink was used for the simple narrative text, while a darker red or crimson ink was reserved for Jesus’ words, the genealogy of Christ, and the words of the angels. Old Testament passages, the words of the disciples, Zachariah, Mary, Elizabeth, Simeon, and John the Baptist are in blue, while dark brown ink was used for words spoken by the Pharisees, people from the crowd, Judas Ischariot, the Centurion, the devil, shepherds, and the scribes. Paleographical analysis indicates that the Greek text, with the exception of one quire, was executed by one scribe working in a handsome archaizing script, while the Latin text is the product of many different hands and several different time periods. Moreover, Paris 54’s Greek text has recently been associated with a select group of secular and religious manuscripts produced in Constantinople that is dated or datable to the period 1277–1330.

Chapter 3 analyzes Paris 54’s unfinished aspects to gain insight into the modus operandi of both scribes and artists. Examination of the Greek text reveals that it was completed before the Latin text was initiated, and that the head scribe expanded and refined his unique concept of the varied ink colors as he proceeded with the Greek text. The scribes responsible for the Latin text were careful to maintain absolute color symmetry with the Greek text located in the left column of each page. While this symmetry was undoubtedly motivated by aesthetic concerns, it was also imperative that both the Greek and Latin texts break for an illustration at the same point, since the illustration extends across both columns of text. The resulting line-for-line color parallelism in the Greek and Latin text was attained through some interesting scribal machinations. In addition, evidence from Mark’s Gospel indicates that the Latin text and narrative miniatures of that Gospel were produced simultaneously. The point at which the Latin text is taken over by a new (and probably later) scribe using black ink corresponds with the location of the first uninitiated miniature (fol. 142r) in the manuscript (Plate 8).¹² Meanwhile, the five incomplete illustrations of Luke allow for the reconstruction of the precise steps in which they were painted. As we shall see, these unfinished illustrations provide surprising parallels with the working methods utilized by the Latin scribe in folios 120v–141v.

Codicological and textual anomalies in the Paris 54’s Gospels of Mark and Luke can be linked rather closely with similar disruptions in miniature production. Taken together, the evidence suggests that artists and scribes worked more intimately in the production of this manuscript than is generally recognized in the Byzantine sphere. This degree of cooperation between scribes and artists challenges traditional assumptions about the ways in which deluxe manuscripts were produced during this period.

Chapter 4 focuses on Paris 54’s Greek Gospel text and its treatment by New Testament text critics. A review of this scholarship reveals that Paris 54’s Greek text is a member of a small subgroup of manuscripts of the Byzantine text type that was identified initially by Hermann von Soden in 1911, and confirmed by E.C. Colwell. Membership in this group has been reestablished more recently by those employing the Claremont Profile Method, as well as by Kurt Aland’s test passages method, the results of which have been published in a series of volumes beginning in the late 1990s. In 1982, Frederik Wisse actually named a small group of Gospel manuscripts after Paris 54. Moreover, Wisse paired Paris 54’s Greek text of Luke with that of Princeton, Garrett 3, a Greek Gospel book from Jerusalem dated to 1136.

I will demonstrate that Princeton, Garrett 3 likely served as the actual model for the Greek text of Paris 54. The data indicate that, notwithstanding their divergent origins, dates and formats, Paris 54 and Princeton, Garrett 3 share a number of significant textual aberrations not found in Iviron 5 or in any of the manuscripts with which New Testament text critics have associated Paris 54.

Furthermore, a small cross executed in red ink is found in Princeton, Garrett 3’s text in a number of places that correspond precisely to the locations of the miniatures interspersed throughout Paris 54 (Plate XXXIII). I propose that these red crosses were added to Garrett 3’s text by the head scribe of Paris 54. The presence of each cross served as a visual cue, reminding the scribe to leave spaces for the miniatures that he wished to include in Paris 54’s text as he copied the Greek text of Garrett 3. The inclusion of these red crosses throughout Garrett 3’s four Gospels, together with the results of my textual comparative study of both manuscripts’ Gospels of Matthew, suggest that Paris 54 was copied directly from Princeton, Garrett 3.

Chapter 5 utilizes traditional art historical methods of formal analysis to characterize the three artists who created Paris 54’s narrative cycle and evangelist portraits. Artists A and B were responsible for the miniatures of Matthew and Mark, as well as the four full-page portraits of the evangelists. These artists copy the miniatures of Iviron 5 with mixed results, whereas Artist C executed the miniatures of Luke and John and demonstrates less dependence on Iviron 5. His independent and iconic compositions suggest that he was trained in a more monumental medium such as icon or fresco painting. Artist C’s animated faces, dramatic gestures, and dynamic, three-dimensional settings distance him from both Artists A and B and reflect his sensitivity to stylistic developments of the later thirteenth century.

Chapter 6 examines the relationship between the narrative cycles and evangelist portraits of Paris 54 and Athos, Iviron 5. Prior to my research, Paris 54 was largely perceived to be a copy of Iviron 5 and was even described as its twin. In this chapter, I demonstrate that Iviron 5 itself was available to the head scribe (and designer) of Paris 54 and to the two artists responsible for the four evangelist portraits and the narrative miniatures of Matthew and Mark. The enlarged lateral format of the illustrations of Paris 54 posed challenges for Artists A and B as they sought to transfer the compositions of Iviron 5 to the expanded width of Paris 54’s compositions. The lackluster results seen in some of their efforts betray the dimensions of their immediate model—that is, a manuscript with illustrations of the approximate dimensions of Iviron 5’s miniatures. Artist C, however, displayed greater initiative and creativity in response to these changes in format, as well as a willingness to incorporate contemporary iconographic and stylistic trends into his work.

Based on my physical examination of both Paris 54 and Iviron 5,¹³ I conclude that they are more closely related in terms of style than published reproductions of both manuscripts suggest. The best-known color reproductions of Iviron 5 distort the differences between the styles of the two manuscripts. These observations have important ramifications concerning the relative date of the two works, a subject addressed in Chapter 7.

Despite Iviron 5’s role in the genesis of Paris 54, it is clear that Iviron 5 was never meant to be more than a springboard for Paris 54. The second half of this chapter examines the motivating factors behind the decision to expand Paris 54’s narrative cycle. The fact that the additional 22 miniatures of Paris 54’s narrative cycle are not distributed equally among its four Gospels suggests a degree of intentionality that has not been addressed previously. The additional scenes in Matthew and Mark are selected overwhelmingly from Christ’s passion, whereas the three additional scenes in John are drawn exclusively from post-Resurrection appearances of Christ. In contrast, the illustrations added to Paris 54’s Gospel of Luke differ in both the diversity of scenes selected and in their distribution throughout the text of his Gospel.

The chapter concludes with an analysis of the seven added scenes to Paris 54 which contain significant references to St. Peter. Five of these scenes emphasize Peter’s weakness of character—that is, moments when he has disappointed or denied Christ. These scenes can be contrasted with the more neutral character of the Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-Law (Mk. 1:30), a scene involving Peter that is common to both Paris 54 and Iviron 5.¹⁴ The other two added scenes cast Peter in a more positive light. The Miraculous Draught of Fishes, for example, is actually the calling of St. Peter.¹⁵ The synoptic Gospels all include this scene, but in Matthew’s (Mt. 4:18–22) and Mark’s (Mk. 1:16–20) accounts, Andrew is given as important a role as Peter. It is noteworthy that the designer of Paris 54 chose Luke’s text (Lk. 5:1–11), for in it Peter alone is the focus of this encounter with Christ.¹⁶ This point is underscored by an iconography scholar who writes that this passage in Luke’s text is “extremely rarely depicted during the Middle Ages.”¹⁷

The Post-Resurrection Appearance of Christ to the Disciples on the Shores of the Sea of Tiberias offers a fitting conclusion to the series of “Peter” miniatures. This is the last of the scenes added to Paris 54, and it serves as the final miniature in its narrative cycle.¹⁸ In this passage, Peter is fully “rehabilitated” and, according to the Church of Rome, his primacy among the apostles is acknowledged. Paris 54’s narrative cycle ends with this final post-Resurrection appearance, and it is in the course of this encounter that Christ effectively transfers leadership to Peter.¹⁹ The Gospel of John ends a few verses later. The singular role of St. Peter in Paris 54’s expanded narrative ...