The Jewels from the crown: Symbol and substance in the later Byzantine imperial regalia

Byzantinische Zeitschrift

Volumn 96, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 157-168

  Hetherington, Paul ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60950037237     PISSN: 00077704     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/BYZS.2003.157     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. 19th century scholars such as Hopf and Heyd were among the first to comment on this episode, and it has more recently been mentioned by Muratore, Hodgson, Ostrogorsky and Zakythenos; these references were assembled by F.Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reiches, 5. Teil (Munich 1965) no. 2891 (mispr. as 2791), 9-10, who also gives details of many documents involved, some included by F.Miklosich and J.Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana (Vienna 1860-90); further documents are in F.Thiriet, Régestes des déliberations du Sénat de Venise concernant la Romanie, I (Paris 1958). A recent discussion of the transaction is in Kenneth M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (Philadelphia 1976), I, 318-320, and the whole episode is carefully assessed by D.M.Nicol, Byzantium and Venice. A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations (Cambridge 1994) 259-260 and 296-316. For the fullest analysis and documentation of the episode, see n. 4, below
2. See D.Nicol, The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus) ca. 1100-1460 (Washington, D.C 1968) 58-68
3. John V's reign has also recently been discussed in D. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium 1261-1453 (London 1972) 172-191
4. For the Venetian interest in Tenedos, see R.-J.Loernetz, John V Palaiologos and Venice (1370-1371), REB 16 (1958), 217-232
5. and F.Thiriet, Venise et l'occupation de Ténédos au XIVe siècle. Mé langes de l'Ecole Francaise de Rome, 65 (1953) 219-243. The ultimate fate of the jewels, still secured in the Treasury of San Marco in 1448, seems never to have been established; see Nicol, Byzantium and Venice, 316, refuting Thiriet's repeated claim that the jewels were returned to Constantinople in 1373. As they would presumably have in due course become the property of the Venetian bankers who provided the loan, they were probably eventually sold on the open market, and so lost their identity
6. For the fullest discussion of this episode, with transcription of 36 documents, see T. Bertelè, I gioielli della corona bizantina dati in pegno alla repubblica veneta nel sec. XIV e Mastino della Scala, Studi in onore di Arminto Fanfani, II (Milan 1962) 91-177
7. The most frequently used terms are stemma and stephanos; they are used in the 14th century as if the terms are interchangeable by both John Kantakouzenos, Historiae, I, 41 (Ed. Schopen, CSHB, I, Bonn 1828, 197-198)
8. and Pseudo-Codinus, Treatise on the Dignities and Offices, (Ed. Verpeaux), Paris 1966, 191 and 252-273
9. The authenticity of the "crown of Constantine Monomachus" in Budapest has most recently been called in question by N. Oikonomides, La couronne dite de Constantin Monomaque, TM 12 (1994) 241-262; even the Holy Crown of Hungary is accepted as a marriage of two pieces of widely differing enamel objects
10. see J.Deér, Die heilige Krone Ungarns (Vienna 1966) 185-270 where the possibility is also discussed of its Byzantine enamels having been re-used. Mention is made later of the only surviving headgear that may be a copy of the Byzantine imperial kamelaukion which was found in the sarcophagus of Constanza, wife of Frederick II Hohenstaufen (d. 1222); it is still in Palermo Cathedral, but there has to be an assumption that it was her husband's crown for it to be included in this discussion (see J.Deér, op. cit., and P.E.Schramm, Kaiser Friedrichs II Herrschaftszeichen (Göttingen 1955) 11-15
11. B.Cellini, Trattati dell'Oreficeria e della Scultura, ed. of 1857. ch. 4.
12. Although written in the mid-16th century, Cellini's treatise is the earliest published source to use technical terms of this kind, and he must have adopted existing terminology for describing them; his definition corresponds with that in the excellent modern study by G.Cantini Guidotti, Orafi in Toscana tra XV e XVIII secolo, 2 vols. (Florence 1994), I: Glossario, 85; Theophilus Presbyter does not mention them in the 12th century treatise De diversis artibus
13. For the morse of Clement VII, see Vita di Benvenuto Cellini, ed. G.G.Ferrero, (Torino 1959) I, ch. 51
14. Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca, 5th ed., Florence 1881, 653; this also corresponds with the definition of alveolo given in Cantini Guidotti, op. cit., I, 119
15. Du Cange, Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitas (Ed. Graz 1954) VIII, 4-8 makes it clear that the tabula should be understood here as corresponding to some form of board or panel on which the gem was displayed, while the word could also be used to denote a means of displaying relics, corresponding to a form of staurothèque, as in the 12th century text: Quomodo portio vivificae crucis Werdeam pervenit (Monum. Germ. Hist. Scriptores, t. 15, pars 2, Hanover 1888) 768-770. I am most grateful to Professor Schreiner for clarifying this point for me, and for pointing out this reference
16. This form of headgear, which had become standard for the imperial crown by the 14th century, is already mentioned in the Liber Cerimoniis, but with specific reference to military garb (perhaps best rendered as "helmet"), for which a stephanos was substituted for a coronation (CSHB, II, ch. 27, 628)
17. For a discussion of textual sources, see T. Kolias, " Kamelaukion", 32-33 JÖB (1983) 493-502
18. also E.Piltz, Kamelaukion et mitra. Insignes byzantins impériaux et ecclésiastiques (Stockholm 1977) 19 and 74-76
19. and RBK, III (Stuttgart 1978) 373-398
20. See Io. Spatharakis, The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts (Leiden 1976) 172-183
21. Coins of the Palaiologue period offer a less clear image than those of previous centuries; see P. Grierson, Catalogue of the Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, Vol. 3 (Washington DC 1993) Pt 1, 127-130 and Table 13
22. Among examples of crowned Palaiologue imperial portraits could be cited those of Andronikos II on a chrysobull in the Byzantine Museum, Athens (ill. in A.Grabar, L'empereur dans l'art byzantin (Strasburg 1936) Pl. XXVI, 2); of Andronikos III in Würtembergische Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart, cod. hist. 2, 601, f. 2 (ill. in Spatharakis, op. cit., fig. 180); the two of John VI Kantakouzenos in Paris, B.N. cod. gr. 1242, ff. 5 and 123, of 1370-75 (Spatharakis, op. cit., figs. 86-88, and in colour in Catalogue, Byzance. L'art byzantin dans les collections publiques francaises (Paris 1992) 419 and 461); and that of Manuel II as author of the funeral oration on his brother in Paris, BN, Suppl. gr. 309, f. 6, of 1407-25 (Spatharakis, op. cit., fig. 175-6)
23. Martin Crusius, Turcograecia (Basel 1584), unnumbered p., facing p. 1
24. discussed in H. Belting, C.Mango, D.Mouriki, The Mosaics and Frescoes of St. Mary Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul (Washington D.C 1978) 23-24. While there is doubt about whether the double portrait in mosaic was of Andronikos II or Andronikos III, both of whose empress consorts were named Anna, it is clear that this image is to be dated in the 14th century, and in any case before the death of Andronikos III in 1341
25. See the RBK, III, 373-398. and the mosaic portraits of Constantine IX and John II in the south gallery of Hagia Sophia in P.Underwood, The Mosaics of Haghia Sophia at Istanbul, Third Preliminary Report (Oxford / Boston 1942) pls. 10 and 26)
26. Nikephoros Gregoras, Byzantina Historia, XI, 11, 2 CSHB, II (Bonn 1830) 788-789
27. A diadema seems to have retained its original meaning of "crown", applicable to both male and female wearers, although its form, when worn by a man, would have been that of a kamelaukion; see Codinus, Dignities and Offices, ed. cit., 199: ... also RBK, III, 373-398
28. See RBK, III, 437-444
29. th century, BZ, 93 (2000) 133-137
30. See J. Deér, The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs of the Norman Period in Sicily (Washington, D.C. 1959) 171
31. C.Mango, Materials for the Study of the Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul (Washington D.C., 1962) 74-76, Fig. 97 (Fossati Drawing no. 364.) Fossati's colour notes designate the loros as of gold, with red and green shaped ornaments, resembling large gems, applied to it; his drawing was intended to be an accurate record before the mosaic was covered again, and so should be regarded as extremely reliable
32. A good recent publication, with bibliography, is that of Éva Kovács and Zsuzsa Lovag, The Hungarian Crown and Other Regalia (Budapest 1980)
33. See Patrick J. Kelleher, The Holy Crown of Hungary (Rome 1951, Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome, XIII), 32-33, n. 44, where expert evidence is cited
34. the recent identification of green glass is given in E.Toth and K. Szelényi, The Holy Crown of Hungary (Budapest 1999) 19
35. For the diplomatic background to the crown, see R.Cormack, But is it art?, Byzantine Diplomacy, J.Shepard and S.Franklin, eds., (Aldershot 1992) 218-236
36. Paul Hetherington, A purchase of Byzantine Relics and Reliquaries in Fourteenth-century Venice, Arte Veneta, 37 (1983) 9-30
37. This study, with the documents it included, was apparently unknown to G.Derenzini, who partially re-published them in: Esame paleografico del codice X.IV.l della Biblioteca Comunale degli Intronati e contributo documentale alla storia del "Tesoro" dello Spedale di Santa Maria della Scala, Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Università di Siena, 8 (1987)59-74