The Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical Painting in Epiros

By Konstantinos GIAKOUMIS* University of New York / Tirana C.B.O.M.G.S., The University of Birmingham

What Jeremiah will lament our woes, or what is the time that will draw away through oblivions current all what we were destined to live and suffer? Captures of cities, desertions of churches, sacrilege of most-holy utensils, mens wails, 1 womens ululations, lootings, migrations

When Niketas Choniates, an eye-witness to the tragic events that followed the fall of Constantinople into the hands of the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade in April 1204, wrote this statement of lamentation, very little had he witnessed of the sufferings that the former subjects of the Byzantine Empire would experience thereafter, as a consequence of the effected political, administrative and religious changes.2 Yet, the disintegration of agrarian and urban economic structures from the eleventh c. thereafter,3 which resulted in an increasingly revolutionary attitude of the Byzantine subjects, especially during the two decades of the rule of the Angeli (1185-1204),4 eventually paved the way to the
*

This paper was presented in the Tenth International Congress of Greek-Oriental and African Studies held in Kryoneri, Attica in 25-28 August 2005. I thank Dr. Angeliki Lymberopoulou, Lecturer of Byzantine Studies at the Open University, UK, for reviewing my article and her valuable comments and suggestions, as well as Mr. Peter Panchy for his thoughtful observations. K. Sathas, (New York, 1972, rep.), I, p. 104. Cf. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, , , III, p. 454, cited in N.G. Ziangos, . (Athens, 1974), p. 49 and note 5 on pp. 49-50. For these issues, see E. Zachariadou, (1483-1567) (Athens, 1996), pp. 28-61, where references to further relevant literature. For the decline of economic and agrarian forces from the eleventh century thereafter, see roughly K.M. Setton On the Importance of Land Tenure and Agrarian Taxation in the Byzantine Empire, from the Eleventh Century to the Fourth Crusade, The American Journal of Philology 74:3 (1953), pp. 225-259 (253-259); and P Charanis, Economic Factors in the Decline of the Byzantine Empire, The Journal of Economic History 13:4 (1953), pp. 412-424 (418-424). In Niketas Choniates words , , (there were those who revolted in one place or another, again and again, and it is not

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

Fourth Crusaders, who found the Byzantine subjects almost as well prepared for the implantation of their feudal institutions as its mountainous terrain proved to be suited to the construction of their feudal castles.5 However, both, the events of April 12-15, 1204,6 as well as those after 1204, including heavier taxation for the peasantry, augmented forced labour (angary), distribution of lands as feuds to Crusaders, strict limitations of trade favouring Latin states and, last but foremost, the onerous and detestable slave trade of Orthodox war captives by western traders,7 were so crucial as to form, in the words of Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, the deep disgust and lasting horror with which Orthodox regard the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders, so difficult to be realized by Christians in the west.8 Psychologically, the issue of slave trade poisoned irremediably the relations between the eastern and western worlds. After 1204, Byzantiums enemies, including Christians like Catalans, Venetians and Genoese, seized increasingly Orthodox Christians for the slave market to the extent that Emperor Andronikos II (1282-1328) formally protested the Genoese practice of capturing Byzantine subjects for sale in Italy and Spain.9 Furthermore, in 1339, when the Byzantine emperor sent monk Varlaam as an ambassador to the papacy in order to negotiate possibilities of common action against the Turkish threat and of a possible union of the two Churches, he set forth a number of conditions, one of which was the liberation of all of the Orthodox slaves kept by Latins

5 6

7 8

possible to say how many times this happened) [Nicetas Choniates, De Isaacio Angelo, v. III/2, Bonn, p. 553; cited and translated in K.M. Setton On the Importance, The American Journal of Philology 74:3 (1953), p. 254 and note 51]. K.M. Setton On the Importance, The American Journal of Philology 74:3 (1953), p. 259. On the history of the Fourth Crusade I am hereby citing a selection of comprehensive secondary sources which use extensively both Byzantine as well as western primary sources on the issue: E. Bradford, The Story of the Fourth Crusade (New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1967), reviewed by E. Velde in The History Teacher 2:2 (1969), pp. 61-62; D.E. Queller, The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople, 1201-1204 (Philadelphia, 1977), reviewed by J. Folda in Speculum 54:3 (1979), pp. 620622 and by J. Riley-Smith in The English Historical Review 94/372 (1979), pp. 624-625; and W.B. Bartlett, An Ungodly War: The Sack of Constantinople and the Fourth Crusade (New York, 2000), reviewed by R.A: Sauers in The Journal of Military History 65:1 (2001), pp. 169-170. For a selection of primary sources, see E. Hallam (ed.), Chronicles of the Crusades: Eye-Witness Accounts of the Wars Between Christianity and Islam (London, 1989), pp. 198-245. E. Zachariadou, , pp. 28-61. T. Ware, The Orthodox Church (Baltimore, 1964), p. 69. For Byzantine negative literary reactions to the second crusade, see E: Jeffreys M. Jeffreys, The Wild Beast from the West: Immediate Literary Reactions in Byzantium to the Second Crusade, in A.E. Laiou R.P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 2001), pp. 101-116; cf. p. 117. The issue of slaves and slave trade after 1204 was treated in D.J. Constantelos, Poverty, Society and Philanthropy in the Late Medieval Greek World, (New Rochelle, NY, 1992), pp. 103-114, reviewed by T.S. Miller in Speculum 69:4 (1994) pp. 1143-1145 (1144).

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

and the virtual abolition of slave trade.10 In the eyes of the Orthodox, the issue of trading slaves captured by Catholic Christians and sold to Catholic Christians must have been felt at least as onerous as the trade of slaves captured by Turks and sold to Cretan Orthodox Greeks.11 The Orthodox Church, who retained her authority and influence over the Byzantine people, was another principal factor determining the relations between the Orthodox and the Roman-Catholic worlds. Beyond dogmatic and liturgical disagreements,12 there further were deep contradictions related to the daily role of the clergy. While clerical participation in military campaigns was forbidden by the Orthodox Church, the existence of Latin priest-soldiers in the ranks of the Crusader armies,13 who could hold lances and shields and also prepare the Holy Communion, shocked the Orthodox Christians.14 In addition, since 1204 the Latins, after abolishing the Patriarchate of Constantinople, continued to displace the Orthodox ecclesiastical administration from the lands they conquered. Metropolitans and bishops were not accepted in those regions and only lower members of the clergy could remain. Yet, their ordination was impossible within the occupied territories and candidates for priesthood had to travel to the zones of an Orthodox prelate where they were ordained and sent back to their parishes, such as priests from Venetian-occupied Crete, who were obliged to travel as far as Methoni to get ordained. Last, but not least, a considerable part of the church properties was confiscated,15 while the economic decline of the Byzantine Empire from the 11th to the 13th c.16 and, after 1204, the decrease in population, economic indigence, and lack of new endowments contributed to the decline of monasticisms social functions17 to the extent that organized charitable activities became almost impossible.
10

11

12

13

14 15 16 17

E. Zachariadou, , pp. 28-61. For the treatment of slaves in 14th and 15th century Europe, see the useful case-study of I. Origo, The Domestic Enemy: The Eastern Slaves in Tuscany in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Speculum 30:3 (1995), pp. 321-366. For this issue, see A.M. Stahl (ed.), The Documents of Angelo de Cartura and Donato Fontanella. Venetian Notaries in Fourteenth Century Crete, (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 2000), passim; this phenomenon was kindly brought to my attention by Dr. A. Lymberopoulou. For these differences set in their historical context, I cite two basic sources: A. Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy. The Church (1071-1453 A.D.) (Crestwood-New York: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1994); T. Ware, Eustratios Argenti: A study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964); and T.M. Kolbaba, Byzantine Perceptions of Latin Religious Errors: Themes and Changes from 850 to 1350, in A.E. Laiou R.P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades, pp. 117143. See, for example, the scene from the Bayeux Tapestry interpretation of the Battle of Hastings (1066). On the extreme left is Bishop Odo, wearing what may be a hauberk of scale armour and carrying a mace of cudgel form, while on the extreme right, William of Normandy raises his helmet by its nasal (D. Edge D. J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight, [London, 1988], p. 31). E. Zachariadou, , pp. 31-32. E. Zachariadou, , pp. 28-61. See note 3. D. Constantelos, Poverty, pp. 88-89.

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

Sensibly, the inhabitants of several non-Venetian-dominated cities and villages under the guidance of Orthodox prelates or monks gradually adopted an intense hostile attitude towards the Roman-Catholic world, which, later, paved the way to the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans.18 Yet, we are still unaware of the popular feelings of Orthodox Christians towards western Christianity in Venetian-dominated territories.19 Lying between East and West, Epiros20 were among the remotest provinces of the Balkans. Their limited natural resources, inaccessible shores, swampy plains and compact mountain-chains cut them off from most of the arterial roads of the Balkan Peninsula and made them a province of secondary importance. It was only the Ionian Islands, the Epirotic ports and the Otranto straits that were Epiros constant bridgehead towards the Apennine peninsula. For, when a Balkan state assumed power, it attempted unceasingly to control the Epirotic coasts in order to keep an eye on the opposite shore. Correspondingly, whenever a great power rose in the Italian peninsula, it felt the urge to take control of the passages and the opposite coasts. Access to the Balkan centres was chiefly made possible by the Via Egnatia,21 whose major ports in the Adriatic, Durrs and Vlor, were among the most important cities of Epiros. Thus, the provinces of Epiros were before all a border district of great strategic importance, whose populations favour must have been a distinct policy of both eastern and western powers. This paper aims at penetrating into the nebulous relations of Epiros with the Latin West after 1204. In so doing, I shall take into consideration representations of Latin soldiers, in general, and Crusaders, in particular, in ecclesiastical paintings of two late Byzantine churches and several early post-Byzantine churches and catholica. In late Byzantine paintings, Crusaders are identified in the soldiers from the scene of the Marys at the Tomb in the frescoes of the Church of St. George at Dhivr, Sarand (S. Albania, last quarter of the 13th c.), in the scene of Christs Betrayal by Judas in the church of the
18 19

20

21

See note 12. Dr. A. Lymberopoulou informed me that in an upcoming article of hers at The Warburg Journal she takes a different line of arguing on this issue using cases from Crete. Sharon Gerstel has attributed certain distinctive elements of Frankish influence in the monumental decoration of medieval Morea to an artistic symbiosis which places Morea in the midst of a number of Mediterranean locations where indigenous populations were confronted by Crusader overlords and where hybrid art forms arose from the interaction of two, and perhaps more, cultures (S.E.J. Gerstel, Art and Identity in the Medieval Morea, in A.E. Laiou R.P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades, pp. 263-285 [264, 280]). With respect to the geography and climate of Epiros, aside from personal observations, I have also referred to: M. Arapoglou, , 15-16 (1993-94), pp. 44-52; P. Halstead, , in (, 1996), pp. 63-64; M. Kiel, Ottoman Architecture in Albania 1385 - 1912 (Istanbul, 1990), p. 14 and V. Psimouli, (Athens, 1998), pp. 19-21, where additional literature. The term in its use in this article is irrelevant to the political connotations given to it at the end of the 19th century and most parts of the 20th century. In our times, the regions of Epiros are situated in both Greece and Albania. For the most recent study with respect to the via Egnatia in Ottoman times see: E. Zachariadou (ed.), The Via Egnatia under Ottoman Rule, 1380-1699 (Rethymnon, 1996).

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

Nativity of the Virgin on the island of Maligrad (W. Albania, 1369), as well as in scenes related to Christs Passion and to several martyrdoms of saints in the narthex of the catholicon of Philanthropenon Monastery (1560), the naos of the Diliou Monastery (1542/3), the naos of Eleousa Monastery (third quarter of 16th c.) , on the Isle of Ioannina, as well as several other 16th and 17th c. monuments in modern day Albania. Pursuing iconological and perceptive methods of art historical inquiry in one particular case-study, the Marys at the Tomb in the church of St. George at Dhivr and correlating seeming similarities of late-Byzantine and early post-Byzantine examples from Epiros and beyond, I shall attempt to unveil the dark and base memories left over by Crusaders and other Latin armies and to weave the historical stage that shaped collective memory in peripheral regions, like Epiros. Last but not least, I will endeavour to trace the beginning and the gradual fading of hostile and anti-western visual statements in Epiros. The cave-church of St. George at Dhivr is situated on the foot of a limestone cliff, in which some extensive caverns have been formed partly naturally, partly artificially. During the Byzantine period, the most inaccessible among them, placed to a higher plane, were transmuted to hermitages of anchorite monks. Considering that in some of these caves were found traces of fresco paintings, it is sensible to suggest that these caves once constituted a wider monastic cell. One of these caves, twenty feet above the base of the cliff, has been fitted up as a chapel built on a protrusion of the rock, approachable only by a narrow path carved on the stone. The walls of the hermitage are based on a rocky platform, on which a slanting, supportive wall ascends. The walls cover mostly the western part of the chapel and to a lesser extent its narrow northern and southern sides. To the East no walls were built and the altar was carved in the rocky front of the cavern. Three inscriptions were located in the church. Two of them are displayed in the narthex and are written the one on the top of the other and divided by a red line on the lintel of the entrance to the naos. The upper one reads: [][] [rebuilt], while the lower one: [saint]. Finally, the third inscription is placed below the scene of Christ the Saviour: () [Prayer of your servant, Isidore priest, along with his wife and children]. The last inscription refers to the patron of the frescoes, a certain priest named Isidore, who appears to have had the means to sponsor such an undertaking. The internal space of the chapel is articulated in three distinct, built parts: the narthex to the North, the naos in the middle and a cramped shrine to the South. The middle part bears a carved altar in the eastern side, where an altar base of rock decorated with overlaid 13th c. marble entablature spolia. All three parts of the monument are painted with frescoes made in three pictorial phases dated to the 11th (Sts. Kosmas and Damian in the Parabema), the last quarter of

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

the 13th c. (remaining scenes from shrine/parabema, the Dodekaorton cycle, Sts. Nikolaos, George and Demetrius),22 and the last quarter of the 14th c. (narthex) respectively23. The iconographic programme follows the established patterns of fresco decoration in cave-churches.24 Studying the iconographic programmes of ecclesiastical monuments provides several hints to understand a past, whose creators were mostly bearers of a rich oral culture who however left only few written records. Every image in ecclesiastical paintings is an exegesis, literally meaning leading out, an interpretation of a religious event. Even though images shape visual memory of how the past looked like, the use of image as exegesis changed over time. The Byzantines in their writings show themselves to be fully aware of the power of image to keep memories alive and interpret the past in a way that texts didnt (i.e. visions of saints, etc.). Sylvester Syropoulos records an objection, raised by the Byzantine emperor's confessor, Gregory Melissenos, to using a Latin-rite church for Orthodox services during the Council of Ferrara (1438) as follows: When I enter a Latin church, I do not revere any of the saints that are there because I do not
22

23

24

Apart from arguments to be developed in dealing with the scene of the Marys at the Tomb, the Dormition of the Virgin in our chapel bears similarities with the same scene in the church of St. Nikolaos of Kasnitze (1160-1180) in terms of the Virgins rightward time on the bier, the scenes arrangement and the biers cover decorated with rhombuses (M. Acheimastou-Potamianou, [Athens, 1994] fig. 43 on p. 71 and p. 220 and S. Pelekanidis M. Chatzedakis, , fig. 16 on p. 63 and pp. 50-65), while the overall scenes arrangement resembles with that of the Virgin at Assinou (1105-1106) [M. Acheimastou-Potamianou, op. cit., fig. 27 on pp. 56-57]. The most remarkable resemblance, however, is with the similar scene at the church of the Virgin Mavriotissa in Kastoria dated to the beginning of the 13th century [M. Acheimastou-Potamianou, op. cit., fig. 75-77 on pp. 102-103, 230 and S. Pelekanidis M. Chatzidakis, op. cit., pp. 63-83]. Archaic rendering is also followed in the representation of the conchs hierarchs, whose linearity is reminiscent of the hierarchs of the apse of the Sts. Anargyroi church, Kastoria, or St. Daniel the stylite, all dating to the first pictorial phase of the church, in the second half of the 10th century [op. cit.], with several saints of the church of St. Nikolaos Diarosite (M. AcheimastouPotamianou, , in M. Chatzidakis, (Athens, 1999), pp. 66-79) and in particular with Sts. Vlasios [fig. 13-14 on p. 76] and Nikolaos [fig. 6, on p. 71] dating in the middle of the 11th century, and with saints placed in medallions in the church of the Virgin Arakos, Lagoudera, Cypru dating 1192 (M. Acheimastou-Potamianou, op. cit., fig. 61 on p. 88 and pp. 226-227). For the dating of this third pictorial phase I am based on similarities between the portrait of the female of the donor in our church with that of Kalia in the church of the Nativity of the Virgin on the island of Maligrad, dating 1368/9. Theofan Popa mistakenly dated the chapel in four pictorial phases: I. The narthexs Dormition of the Virgin [mistaken identification] to the end of the 9th century. II. The naos Dormition of the Virgin and Sts. George, Nikolaos and Demetrios to the 15th c. III. The Marys at the Tomb, the Ascension and David to the 17th century. IV. The Archangels Michael, St. George and Christ in the type of the Eldest of Days to later than the 17th century (Th. Popa Piktura e shpellave eremite n Shqipri [Resum: La peinture des grottes d ermites en Albanie], Studime Historike 3 [1965], pp. 88-89, fig. 20). Due to the spatial limitations of cave-churches, the iconographic programme is limited to only a few Christological scenes very basic from a theological viewpoint, such as the Annunciation, the Baptism, and the Transfiguration, from the historical cycle, the Crucifixion and the Descent to Limbo. Similarly limited is the number of full-length saints.

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

recognize any of them. At the most, I may recognize Christ, but I do not revere Him either, since I do not know in what terms he is inscribed. So I make the sign of the cross and I revere this sign that I have made myself, and not anything that I see there.25 Hence, as often images condition the way we hear names (i.e. the Virgin Hodeghetria) and feel, Gregory Melissenos could have no devotional experience without the identification of the depicted figure or its inscription. On the northern wall of the naos of St. George at Dhivr, in the second zone of frescoes, there are two scenes, one of which is of great interest for our ends. It concerns the representation of the Marys at the Tomb in the western part of the wall. The pictures left part is entirely damaged and only its right is preserved in relatively decent condition. At the top right corner appears an empty cave, below which a sarcophagus with an open top contains Jesus cerement. At the left of the sarcophagus, a standing angel points at the sarcophagus with his right index finger. At the bottom right corner seven custody soldiers in full panoply appear to be petrified out of terror for the angels appearance and the removal of the Sepulchres stone. At their left, two standing female figures, turning away from the sarcophagus out of fear, can be identified from the lower parts of their mantles. The subject renders visually Mathews description of the meeting of the two Marys with the angel at the Sepulchre, alternatively known as Rejoice [Mt. 27:5928:15; cf. Mk. 15:44-16; Lk. 23:53-24:7; John 19:40-20:18]. Any given image not only constructs or reconstructs visually the biblical past, but also envisages links between this past and the periods present. Since at the time when our frescoes were made (last quarter of the 13th c.) there was no living eye-witness memory of the biblical event, while no written account of the Marys at the Tomb records minutiae details, such as the angels physiognomy, clothing, and the appearance of the custody, the rendering of such details relies on the initiative of the artist or its patron. As will be shown, in the Marys at the Tomb, the representation of the soldiers of the Sepulchres custody manipulates visual memory of the distant past to condemn a newly-created visual memory of the very recent present. The panoply of the soldiers presents realistically explicit features of Latin knights panoplies that also provide a terminus for the dating of our frescoes. The body armour consists firstly and foremost of a scale hauberk with an integral coif; similar examples can be traced in the first half of the 12th c., such as in a stone relief dated ca. 1128, from Angoulme Cathedral (with an integral coif)26 and in a metal relief of a knight, part of the decoration on the Gross-Comburg chandelier, ca. 1140 (without a coif).27 A cylindrical helm is worn by five soldiers over the coif, whose sides taper slightly towards the base, as in the helmets of the knights of Macchabees Battle in the Bible of Rhodes,
25

26 27

C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1453: Sources and Documents (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), p. 254. D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight (London, 1988), fig on p. 45. Op. cit., bottom right figure on p. 48.

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

dating late 10th or 11th c.,28 while its top is delicately domed, rather than conical, resembling examples from the late 12th and 13th c., as after the middle of the 12th c. the skull of the helm became rounded rather than pointed,29 while in our case a nasal bar is also fitted. The legs of our soldiers are covered by chausses made of full mail stocking gartered at the knee, similar to some church effigies and sculptural monuments dating from the early part of the 13th c.30 They also bear long sleeves of the scaled hauberk, a phenomenon observed in armours from the last decades of the 12th c.,31 yet not covering the palms and wrists, as this would have impeded ones grip of a weapon. The soldiers of the custody are also equipped with shields and lances. The shields are triangular, rather short and decorated with straight or undulating, vertical or horizontal strips coloured alternatively in red and white. These are similar to late 12th c. examples,32 while their upper edge is almost straight. This form pertains to late 12th c. modifications of the shields size and form from large with a rounded profile to the upper edge, to straighter and shorter, modifications that took place in the second half of the 12th c.33 According to David Edge and John Miles Paddock, throughout the 12th c. the knight had used the kite-shaped shield to the virtual exclusion of all other types. However, at the beginning of the 13th c. it was shortened and the top of the shield lost its very prominent curve. In conjunction with this the profile of the shield became less convex and took on a triangular shape. However, until the 1250s the shield was still moderately large and it was only within the next 20 years that the shield became smaller and its sides convex, probably best exemplified in a relief from the tomb of Gulielmo Beradi, in the church of Santa Annunziata, Florence and dated ca. 1289.34 The lance appears to be the sole weapon of these knights. Their form resembles 13th c. rather than 12th c. lances, since their heads are comparatively smaller as their profile more sharply pointed and consequently more penetrative.35 All of the aforementioned elements, in my view, do not point to a singular prototype, but rather to various parts of a knights panoply dating from the second half of the 12th c. to 1270s. This is among the reasons why I have suggested the last quarter of the 13th c. as the most likely dating of the frescoes of the second phase. Having shown the realistic similarities of the soldiers of the custody with Latin knights, it becomes evident that the image as exegesis is not necessarily an objective, or
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Op. cit., figure on p. 29. Op. cit., p. 44; I did not manage to take into consideration the English Psalter of St. Louis, ca. 1200. Op. cit., p. 45. Op. cit. See for example an initial from the Winchester Bible, ca. 1170 in op. cit., figure on p. 46. Op. cit. Op. cit., fig. on p. 62. Op. cit., p. 46. For this, compare the lances represented in the initial from the Winchester Bible, ca. 1170 in op. cit., figure on p. 46 with those in a panel from the Silver Shrine of Charlemagne in Aachen Cathedral, ca. 1207, in op. cit., p. 55.

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

neutral interpretation (otherwise the soldiers would present Roman or the very common Byzantine features), but it could be tailored to suit beliefs of the present. Moreover, while the combination of the scene with the one to its right (the Descent to Limbo) is very common, the placement of two of the soldiers outside the scenes red frame and closer to the personified Limbo can promote multiple layers of interpretation. Using perceptive and iconographic methods of art historical enquiry, it is comprehensible that in the evangelical excerpt [Mt. 28:11-15] the soldiers of the custody are portrayed negatively: having eye-witnessed Christs Resurrection notwithstanding, they later accepted a bribe by Jewish prelates and elders, who also promised to support them before the local ruler, if they upheld the fiction that Jesus disciples seemingly stole His body overnight. Matthew even states that this fiction was thenceforth upheld by the Jews to deny Christs Resurrection. Having denied to profess Christs Resurrection, the soldiers of the custody were certainly considered as deniers of the divine nature of Christ and, therefore, in collective beliefs must have been condemned to Hell alike other disclaimers of faith. This assumption is reinforced by both hymnographical and hagiographical evidence. The liturgical hymnographers36 treat the soldiers of the Sepulchres custody in dissimilar ways. In most cases the soldiers are presented as eye-witnesses of Christs Resurrection, yet in a non-negative way, contrary to the Jews.37 In one occasion the soldiers are portrayed as if they had not eye-witnessed the Resurrection.38 Yet, in the Matins of Sunday, Sound 5, in the first kathisma following the second stichologia, Sound 5, the soldiers of the custody are literally called enemies of Christ:
, , , , [(While) Life laid in the Tomb, and the stone was sealed; soldiers guarded

36

37

38

I followed the standard Greek version of the Parakletike, which was standardized in its current version as early as the 8th century. For the compilation of the Parakletike, see J.M. Neale, A History of the Holy Eastern Church, General Introduction, part I,2 (London, 1850), pp. 887 ff.; C. Paranikas, Anthologia Graeca Carminorum Christianorum (Leipzig, 1871), pp. LVII-LXX; J. Pargoire, Lglise Byzantine de 527 847 (Paris, 1905); H.J.W. Tillyard, The Hymns of the Ochtoechos, M.M.B. Transcripta III (1940), pp. XV-XIV and V (1949), pp. XI-XX; and E. Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography (Oxford, 1971). Sunday Matins, Sound 1, First kathisma following the first stichologia; Sunday Matins, Sound 1, Fourth sticheron anatolikon of the Lauds; Sunday Matins, Sound 2, Second sticheron of the Lauds. Sunday Matins, Sound 2, Fourth sticheron anatolikon of the Lauds; Sunday Matins, Sound 3, Second sticheron of the Lauds; Saturday Vespers, Sound 5, Third sticheron anatolikon; The Apolytikion of Sound 6; Sunday Matins, Sound 6, Second kathisma following the first stichologia; Sunday Matins, Sound 6, Second sticheron anatolikon of the Lauds; Sunday Matins, Sound 8, Fourth sticheron of the Lauds; the Synaxarion of Easter Sunday; Matins of the Myrrh-Bearers, Ode VII, Fourth troparion of the Myrrh-Bearers in Sound 2; Matins of the Myrrh-Bearers, Ode VII, Fifth troparion of the Myrrh-Bearers in Sound 2; Matins of the Myrrh-Bearers, Ode VIII, Fourth troparion of the Myrrh-Bearers in Sound 2. Sunday Matins, Sound 5, First sticheron of the Lauds.

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

Christ as a sleeping king; and, after blinding his enemies, the Lord rose]. There is no literary context allowing for a different interpretation as to who are Christs enemies. This interpretation is in line with patristic evidence which, while not naming the custody soldiers as Christs enemies, clearly indicated a common belief that they were deniers of the Resurrection.39 In his XC homily, St. John Chrysostome, after emphasizing in how many ways the soldiers experienced the divine nature of Christ,40 portrays them not only to be more corrupt than the Jewish people and Pontius Pilate, but also more money-thirsty than Judas: Do you realize that all of them were corrupted? (Pontius) Pilate? For he was convinced. The soldiers? The Jewish people? Do not wonder how money corrupted the soldiers. If money was so tempting for the disciple (= Judas), how much more would it be for them (the soldiers)?.41 To various degrees the custody soldiers were also negatively treated by other 4th c. Church Fathers, like St. Cyril of Jerusalem,42 St. Amphilochios of Ikonion,43 Eusebios of Emesa44 and
39

40

41

42

It is interesting to relate that in modern Greek there is still in use an expression relating the custody soldiers with the silenced knowledge of the Resurrection and, in wider context, any silenced knowledge; cf. (the guards know); compare also with the Fourth Sticheron Anatolikon of the Sound 5 Sunday Matins Lauds in Sound 2: . . . , , . . , , , , . , ; , . , , , , , . Chrysostome maintains that the earthquake during the Crucifixion took place only for the sake of soldiers: John Chrysostome (1979), Homily XC, in , , v. 12, Thessaloniki, p. 392, verses 11-17. ; ; ; ; . , . [John Chrysostome (1979), Homily XC, in , , v. 12, Thessaloniki, p. 398, verses 11-15]. , . , , , , , . , , . , , .

10

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

Apollinarios of Laodikeia.45 Last, but not least, St. John of Damascus, to whom we should probably attribute the authorship of the first kathisma in Sound 5 following the second stichologia of Sundays Matins in Sound 5, enjoins the faithful to hate Christs

43

44

45

, , , , , ; , , , , , [Meretakis E. [ed.] (1994), : (-) , v. 2, Thessaloniki, p. 90, 92]. . . ; ; ; [ ] . . , , , , , . , , , . [Papachristopoulos K. (1992), - , , v. 71, p. 91 (134-136)]. K. Bonis, : . . . /. . . . . (Athens, 1968), p. 209. The link between Judas and the soldiers is also evident in the commentaries of Apolinarios of Laodikeia: , , , [Judas betrayed Jesus for money putting aside all of the miracles that he witnessed, while the soldiers after accepting a considerable bribe, having announced the archpriests what they saw, they silenced in a profound way and spread rumours of what had not happened]. See K.G. Papachristopoulos G.P. Kounavi (ed.), , first part, , v. 72 (Athens, 1994), p. 306 (section 149).

11

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

enemies, as whoever does not confess Christ as Lord and Son of God is an antiChrist.46 I suggest that in the visual memory and religious beliefs of the artist, patron and/or the viewers of the Custody at the Sepulchre / Rejoice scene in question, both Latin knights and the soldiers of the Sepulchres custody, shared a common condemnation to Hell. Pursuing iconological methods of inquiry, this suggestion is reinforced by the approaching of the soldiers with the Limbo/Hades represented in the next scene by their depiction outside the pictorial frame of their scene.47 Indeed, in the adjacent subject of the Descent to Limbo, Christ tramples down Death,48 or captivates Limbo.49 In provincial, popular fashion, Death, Limbo or Hades (Devil), is personified in the form of an unkempt, old, dark and chained man. The Latin knights/custody soldiers of the bordering subject not only are represented at the same height with Death/Hell, but also transcend the red line dividing the two scenes further approaching Death/Hell. In no other place has the artist repeated this transgression, while in spite of his provincial training, his drawing abilities leave to me no doubt that the proximity of the soldiers with Hades and the transcending of the dividing line by the former to further approach the latter are utterly intentional to intensify the link between the Latin knights and Hell. This been shown, two more questions remain unanswered. First, since the different panoply pieces of our soldiers belong to different periods of time, where did the local artist or the patron draw his models? I suggest that the panoply parts of the scenes knights (dating in different periods) could be seen locally. Being a place of great strategic importance, Epiros had repeatedly been used as springboards of Latin expeditions against the East, as during the Byzantine-Norman wars (1081-1185),50 the

46

47

48

49

50

. , [Sakalis I. (1991), , in , v. 9, Thessaloniki, p. 150 (section 37, verses 1-2)]. Since the coupling of Marys at the Tomb with the Descent to Limbo is quite common in Byzantine paitnings, this argument is raised precisely because the soldiers transcend the pictorial frame of their scene approaching the adjacent scene. Check, for example, the Apolytikion of Easter: Christ is risen from the dead; by death trampling down Death and to those in the tombs giving life. I can roughly cite a Theotokion following Sundays Lauds You are most blessed, Virgin Mother of God, for through Him who took flesh from you Hell has been taken captive, Adam recalled, the curse slain, Eve set free, death put to death, and we given life. Therefore in praise we cry: Blessed are you, Christ our God, who have been thus well-pleased. Glory to you [Ephrem Archimandrite, Matins for Sundays and Feasts, in <http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem/mat-sun.htm> accessed in 11 March, 2006]. For a brief account of the Byzantine-Norman wars, see N. Ziangos, , pp. 33-36; E. Hallam (ed.), Chronicles of the Crusades: Eye-Witness Accounts of the Wars Between Christianity and Islam (London, 1989), pp. 52-55 (where extracts from William of Apulias Gesta Roberti Wiscardi).

12

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

First (Raymond of Toulouse and Hugh of Vermandois, 1096-1099)51 and the Fourth Crusades (Boniface of Montferrat, 1202-1204).52 Yet, as Angeliki Laiou relates, The Crusades were a frequent phenomenon of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. We are accustomed to taking into account of the major crusades, , but crusading expeditions took place often, and certainly the Christians and Muslims of the area were aware of the fact.53 It can be maintained that the artist or the patron had seen knights with their own eyes. Perhaps the painter might even have kept sketches of them or some knights had lost their lives in the battles of the region and their panoplies were taken as booty and used as models for the artist. Second, why must western knights have locally a negative reputation? While the Normans were considered by the Byzantine elites as little more than barbarians,54 their reputation was further blackened in Epiros after they seized and burnt Kanina, Vlor and Jericho in 108155 and Corfu in 1084.56 Moreover, the First Crusaders under Bohemund (1096) en route from the Epirotic coasts to the east, while endeavouring to refrain from pillage and disorder,57 caused no little disturbance, as accounted by St. Theophylaktos of Ochrid.58 While the First Crusaders advanced to the Middle East, they were hideously defamed, even though their alleged acts of cannibalism was more often rumoured than practised.59 Having said that the Crusader expeditions were far more often than we customarily take into account, it is worth mentioning that the 1120s were punctuated by crusading expeditions undertaken by Pisans and Genoese by sea, while in 1122 a Venetian Crusader fleet on its way to Palestine attacked Corfu in retaliation for the
51

52

53

54 55 56

57 58

59

Durrs and Vlora, two major bridgeheads of the East were used by the First Crusade armies as a transit station to proceed to the Byzantine capital with a special permission granted by Emperor Alexius I Comnenus. From western primary sources, see Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, accessible in English in E. Hallam (ed.), Chronicles of the Crusades, pp. 64-66. From Byzantine sources, see Anna Comnena, Alexiad, 10:7, in A.C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eyewitnesses and Participants (Princeton, 1921), pp. 78-79 [digitally reproduced in Medieval Sourcebook, Anna Comnena. The Alexiad. On the Crusades, <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/comnena-cde.html>, accessed in 07 March, 2006]. As Villehardouin relates, by April 1203 most of the Fourth Crusade army had embarked at Corfou, a few miles opposite the region of Sarand. For Villehardouins account (Geoffrey of Villehardouin, La Conqute de Constantinople, ed. by E. Faral (Paris, 1938), see E. Hallam (ed.), Chronicles of the Crusades, p. 213. A. Laiou, Byzantine Trade with Christians and Muslims and the Crusades, in A.E. Laiou R.P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades, p. 160. Anna Comnena, Alexiad, Book 10:347 cited in E. Hallam (ed.), Chronicles of the Crusades, pp. 69, 72. W. Miller, Valona, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 37 (1917), p. 185. S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, v. 1. The First Crusade and the Foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge, 1999), I, p. 74. Op. cit., pp. 155-156. P.G. 126, p. 324; this was only accessible to me in an Albanian translation, cf. K. Bozhori, Dokumente t Periudhs Bizantine pr Historin e Shqipris. Shek. VII-XV (Tiran, 1978), extract Nr. XV. A. Maalouf, The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, trans. by J. Rothschild (London, 1984), pp. 39 ff.; M. Billings, The Cross and the Crescent (New York, 1987), p. 55.

13

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

attempt of John II Komnenos to reduce Venices commercial privileges; it pillaged Byzantine lands on the way to and from Palestine and extracted the confirmation and expansion of Venetian commercial privileges in the Byzantine Empire.60 As for the Fourth Crusade, William Miller states that Boniface of Montferrat manned his army with the rag-tag and bobtail of Western Europe, who fought for him to receive feuds and titles.61 Even though there are no written accounts that I know of recording the impressions left by the Crusaders to the local populations, it is highly likely that the local inhabitants of Sarand region felt no different than other Orthodox people, whose impressions were described in the beginning of the paper. It may also be alleged that, since Epiros was among the principal target territories of immigrants from Constantinople,62 the immigrants must have also shaped or influenced popular dark and base memories about the Crusaders, especially those of the Fourth Crusade. Last but not least, the region in question was for most parts of the second half of the 13th c. a western dominion, either in the form of a dowry given by the Despot of Epiros, as in the case of the marriage of King Manfred of Hohenstaufen with Helen Angelina (1259),63 or in the form of occupation by force of arms, as in the case of the expedition of Charles I Anjou who took hold of Corfu and the mainland fortresses in 1266 and kept them until his death in January 1285.64 As implied by the representation of the soldiers of the Custody in the church of St. George at Dhivr, their presence in the region must have been distasteful to the locals. Similar conclusions can be drawn in the case of the subject of Judas Betrayal in the church of the Nativity of the Virgin on Maligrad. The church was re-built and redecorated under the patronage of Caesar Novak in 1368/9.65 In the scene of Judass
60

61

62 63

64 65

A. Laiou, Byzantine Trade with Christians and Muslims and the Crusades, in A.E. Laiou R.P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades, p. 160; cf. J. Riley-Smith, The Venetian Crusade of 1122-1124, in G. Airaldi B. Kedar (eds.), I Comuni Italiani nel Regno Crociato di Gerusalemme, Jerusalem, 24-28 May 1984, Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi 48 (Genoa, 1986), pp. 337-350. W. Miller, , 1204-1566 (Athens, 1960), p. 70, cited in N. Ziangos, , p. 74 and note 8. N. Ziangos, , pp. 49-50, 69-71. S. Runciman, The Sicilian Vespers: A History of the Mediterranean World In the Later Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 1984), p. 51. Op. cit., pp. 136, 146 (1271), 253-254 (1285). For the church of Maligrad, see Th. Popa, Mbishkrime t kishave n Shqipri, ed. by Nestor Nepravishta Kostandin Gjakumis (Tirana, 1998), Inscriptions Nr. 287-288 (pp. 149-151), 289 (p. 151), 299 (p. 155), 301 (p. 156); Th. Popa, Piktort mesjetar shqiptar (Tiran, 1961), p. 27 and fig. 17 in p. 19; Dh. Dhamo, Kisha e Shn Meris n Maligrad, Buletin i Universitetit Shtetror t Tirans: seria e shkencave shoqerore 2 (1963), pp. 154-198; Dh. Dhamo, Piktura murale e kishs s Shn-Meris n Maligrad, Akta t Konferencs s Par t Studimeve Albanologjike (Tiran, 1965), pp. 562-566; Dh. Dhamo, La peinture murale du Moyen Age en Albanie (Tiran, 1974): 8 Nntori Ed., pp. 4, 5-6 and fig. on pp. 2833, p. 13a-b and fig. in pp. 28-33; Dh. Dhamo, Vepra dhe tipare t pikturs n Shqipri n shek. V-XV (Valeurs et caractristiques de la peinture en Albanie aux V-XVe sicles), Studime Historike. 1 (1984), pp. 141-158, French synopsis in pp. 158-160.

14

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

Betrayal, two soldiers flank Jesus, both of whom wear kettle helmets with basinets, alternatively called chapel de fer, rather usual as from the beginning of the 14th c.66 While both soldiers extend threateningly their swords towards Jesus, the one at the right covers his back with a triangular shield curved to the body of the type called the heater, which follows the curve of the body. This shield-type became common after 1270s, similar in form to the one shown in the brass of Sir Robert de Bures, ca. 1331, in the Church of All Saints, Acton, Suffolk.67 It is needless, I believe, to argue why these soldiers would be very negatively perceived by the public. While in late Byzantine paintings at Mistra there is a deliberate absence of Latin influences,68 the Latinization of military costumes in narrative scenes is also observed in other former Latin-dominated regions. In the context of medieval Morea, Gerstel mentions vaguely that some evidence has been found in the details of narrative scenes, from the occasional embossing of haloes to unusual representations of soldiers at the Arrest and Crucifixion of Christ.69 Even though Gerstel identifies a Frankish coat of arms that marks the shield of one of the custody soldiers in the scene of the Marys at the Tomb of the church of St. John Chrysostome, Geraki, ca. 1300, thereby associating Roman soldiers with Latins,70 yet, she didnt it with the thesis I have hereby attempted to uphold. Lymberopoulou has identified a number of similar cases in 14th c. Crete; the representation of soldiers in western armour in scenes like the Marys at the Tomb, the Betrayal, the Carrying of the Cross, or the martyrdom of saints was considered by her as a hostile and anti-western comments.71
66

67 68

69

70 71

D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, p. 73 and figure on the same page depicting a knight wearing a kettle hat, detail from a 14th century illuminated address from the town of Prato to Robert of Anjou. D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, p. 83 and fig on p. 84. D. Mouriki, Palaeologan Mistra and the West, in Byzantium and Europe: First International Byzantine Conference, Delphi, 20-24 July, 1985 (Athens, 1987), p. 239. I did not manage to consult A. Grabar, L asymtrie des relations de Byzance et lOccident dans le domaine des arts au moyen ge, in I. Hutter (ed.), Byzanz und der Westen: Studien zur Kunst des europischen Mittelaltres (Vienna, 1984), pp. 9-24; cf. S.E.J. Gerstel, Art and Identity in the Medieval Morea, in A.E. Laiou R.P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades, p. 264 and note 7. S.E.J. Gerstel, Art and Identity in the Medieval Morea, in A.E. Laiou R.P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades, pp. 264-265 and note 6 on p. 264. Op. cit., pp. 278-279 and fig. 15. Such Latinized soldiers appear in at least the following churches: 1) Archangel Michael at Kavalariana Selinou, 1327/28, scenes of the Betrayal, Carrying of the Cross and Marys at the Tomb; 2) Hagios Nikolaos at Maza Apokoronou, 1325/26, scene of the Marys at the Tomb; 3) and Hagios Georgios at Anydroi Selinou, 1323, scene of Saint George before of the Governor. For these scenes, see A. Lymberopoulou, The Church of the Archangel Michael at Kavalariana: Art and Society on FourteenthCentury Venetian-Dominated Crete, doctoral thesis submitted at the Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham (Birmingham, 2002), passim. I am indebted to the author for bringing these monuments into my attention. I did not manage to consider M. VassilakisMavrakakis, Western Influences on the Fourteenth Century Art of Crete, Jahrbuch der sterreichischen Byzantinistik 32:5 (1982) [XVI. Internationaler Byzantinistenkongress (Wien, 4.-9. Oktober 1981), 2, 5], pp. 301-311; and S. Papadaki-Oekland, 14 .

15

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

Several post-Byzantine churches and catholica in Epiros provide substantial evidence that such hostile, anti-western visual statements consciously persists up to the first half of the 17th c., after which the phenomenon gradually fades out in mechanical repetition of earlier post-Byzantine models. The most impressive cases, however, can be viewed in the early post-Byzantine mural paintings of the Lite of Philanthropenon Monasterys catholicon on the Isle of Ioannina (painted in 1560), subject already discussed by the late Miltos Garidis.72 There, a great number of torturers, represented in different scenes of martyrdoms, bear the form of western knights.73 Exceptionally interesting is the martyrdom of St. Vincent, represented on the southern wall of the Lite; the saints executioner is engaged into chivalric dancing figure before he effects the final attack the fatal attack against the saint.74 In the martyrdom of St. Babylas and his disciples, a figure, identified by Garidis as a Spanish merchant, stands before the ruler.75 Very similar to an equestrian harness of Otto Heinrich, Count Palatine of the Rhine, dating 1530s and other German armours dating from the first quarter of the 16th c. are the mounted knight who tortures St. Amphilochios, Bishop of Ikonion, by dragging him behind his galloping horse.76 Similar models have, undoubtedly, been utilized to represent the executioners of St. Stephen the Younger, the Confessor.77 Patronized by the renowned family of Philantropenoi, who migrated from Constantinople due to its growing pro-Latin support, the Monastery of St.

72

73

74

75 76

77

;, in Kypraiou (ed.), . (Athens, 1992), II, pp. 491-516. M. Garidis, . () , 1560, in M. Garidis A. Paliouras (eds.), . 700 1292-1992 (Ioannina, 1999), pp. 65-75. Among the several examples that can be mentioned here I choose only: 1) The martyrdom of St. Tarachos [Garidis M. Paliouras A. [eds.] (1993), p. 95, fig. 144], whose torturers helmet is comparable to 14th century examples [e.g. the representation of Sir Geoffrey Luttrell from the Luttrell Psalter, ca. 1340, D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, p. 67; cf. the open at the front and lowering at the sides Italian sallet ca. 1480, op. cit., p. 121, figure above, or the Knights Tilting, from the Ordinance of Chivalry, 15th c. English illuminated manuscript by St. John Astley, op. cit., p. 159]. 2) The martyrdom of St. Epicharis [M. Garidis A. Paliouras (eds.), (Ioannina, 1993), p. 113, fig. 170, 172], whose torturers overcoat and helmet is comparable to 16th c. western harnesses [e.g. the equestrian harness of O. Heinrich, Count Palatine of the Rhine, ca. 153.0s, D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, p. 175]. 3) The beheading of St. John the Baptist [M. Garidis A. Paliouras (eds.), , p. 174, fig. 291], whose executioners helmet and overcoat is comparable to 14th c. examples. M. Garidis A. Paliouras (eds.), , pp. 96-97, fig. 145-146. For similar figures, see the executioner of St. Marcianus, op. cit., p. 103, fig. 161. Op. cit., pp. 78-79, fig. 112, 116. Op. cit., pp. 105, 107, fig. 160, 162 in comparison with D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, pp. 142 (up), 143 (up), and 175. M. Garidis A. Paliouras (eds.), , pp. 114-115, fig. 174, 176 in comparison with D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, pp. 142 (up), 143 (up), and 175.

16

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

Nikolaos of Philanthropenon virtually provides the most palpable examples of antiwestern pictorial statements. Similar, yet far less impressive examples can also be found in other 16th c. monuments of the region. The scene of the Betrayal of Jesus in the church of St. Athanasios at Goranxhi, Dropull (Gjirokastr region) dates in 1524 and imitates panoplies of the 12th and 13th centuries.78 In the catholicon of Ntiliou Monastery, on the Isle of Ioannina (1542/3), the scenes of Christs Derision, the Route to Golgotha, the Carrying of the Cross, the Ascent to the Cross and the Marys at the Tomb contain soldiers depicted in a western 14th and 15th c. fashion;79 yet, western influences in the armoury of several military saints indicates trends that may shadow the strength of the hereby presented thesis.80 However, the persistence of such examples point to the contrary. Cases indicating Latinization of soldiers can also be found in the third 16th c. monastery on the Isle of Ioannina, the Eleousa Monastery (third quarter of the 165th c.), in the representations of Christs Derision, Pilate and His Suite, the Carrying of and Ascent to the Cross.81 From other 16th c. monuments in the regions of Epiros we can cite the church of the Transfiguration at Veltsista (1568),82 St. Nikolaos at Krapsi (1563),83 the narthex of Barlaam Monastery, Meteora (1566),84 the church of St. Demetrios at Veltsista (1558-1568),85 the narthex of Dryano Monasterys catholicon (last quarter of the 16th c.)86 and the church of St. Nikolaos at Dhuvjan, Dropull (end of the 16th c.).87
78

79

80 81

82

83

84

85

86

The church in question in unpublished. For the comparison, see D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, pp. 84 ff. T. Liva-Xanthaki, , in M. Garidis A. Paliouras (eds.), , figs. 385, 387 and 293 on pp. 231, 232 and 238 respectively; cf. D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, pp. 84 ff.]. Op. cit., figs. 391 and 408 on pp. 235 and 244. B. Papadopoulou, , in M. Garidis A. Paliouras (eds.), , figs. 455-459 on pp. 277-279; cf. D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, pp. 84 ff. See the scenes of the Massacre of the Innocent, the Betrayal, Christs Judgement by Annas, Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate, the Derision and the Carrying of the Cross, the Ascent to the Cross and the Crucifixion, Joseph of Arimatheia before Pilate and the Marys at the Tomb [see A. Stavropoulou-Makri, Les Peintures Murales de l glise de la Transfiguration Veltsista (1568) en Epire et l atelier des peintres Kondaris (Ioannina, 1989), figs. 14b, 19b, 20, 21a-b, 22-24, 26 and 28-29 (details), 31a and 33b; cf. D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, pp. 84 ff.]. Martyrdom of St. Demetrios (A. Stavropoulou-Makri, Les Peintures Murales, pp. 137-153, fig. 54a; cf. D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, pp. 84 ff.). Martyrdoms of saints. (A. Stavropoulou-Makri, Les Peintures Murales, pp. 157-167, figs. 56a, 57; cf. D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, pp. 84 ff.). The Judgement by Annas and Caiaphas (A. Stavropoulou-Makri, Les Peintures Murales, pp. 153-157, figs. 60 and 61a; cf. D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, pp. 84 ff.). Martyrdoms of Sts. Demetrios and George; cf. D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, pp. 84 ff. The frescoes of the this monument date in the last quarter of the 16th century, with substantial overpainting from the 17th and the 19th century (G. Giakoumis K. Giakoumis, [Ioannina, 1994], pp. 79-81 and figs. 160-162; G. Giakoumis, [Athens, 1994], pp. 28-33 and figs. 29-43).

17

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

The 17th c. also offers some good examples, while the phenomenon clearly fades out in unsophisticated imitations towards the 18th c. One can cite the Martyrdom of St. Theodore Stratelates in the church of the Dormition of the Virgin at zervat, Dropull (1603),88 the Massacre of the Innocents in the catholicon of Ravenia Monastery, Dropull (second quarter of the 17th c.)89 and the Carrying of the Cross in the naos of the catholicon of the Transfiguration Monastery at Mingul, Gjirokastr (1666).90 From distant memories of the phenomenon in the 18th c. we could cite the martyrdoms of saints in the third zones of frescoes, western wall of the church of St. George at Libofsh, Fier (1782),91 which seemingly reproduce 17th c. models. In his authoritative Memory and Proof of Age in England (1272-1327), John Bedell92 states that history, when it is not invention, is memory written down. Although the enormous attention paid to memory by philosophers, psychologists and neurologists has led to little certainty, we do know that memory is a complex process, not a recording device, and that it involves many parts of the brain and aspects of the self. We construct our memories, choosing consciously or unconsciously to emphasize some experiences and impressions and disregard others, and, over time, we reshape them, reordering our pasts to meet the changing needs of the present. Our memories are shaped by our interactions with others, especially by conversations we have had about shared experiences. We each have our own histories, which we have made as much by thought as by need. With this in mind, in this paper, taking into consideration representations of Crusaders in ecclesiastical paintings of late Byzantine and early post-Byzantine churches and catholica, I attempted to interpret expressions of collective base memories of the Crusades in peripheral regions, as Epiros, Crete and, possibly, Morea. Further research in other contemporary monuments of former Latin-occupied territories could check the theory that such anti-western attitudes reflect general feelings, rather than isolated cases, especially in former western-dominated Orthodox provinces. Last but not least, the paper introduces an empirical methodology in which a historian can unveil collective memories of the past at the absence of textual sources by looking at and interpreting artworks.
87

88

89

90

91 92

See the soldier next to Longinus in the scene of the Crucifixion (see G. Giakoumis K. Giakoumis, , p. 150, fig. 300; cf. D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, pp. 84 ff.). G. Giakoumis K. Giakoumis, , pp. 53-55 and 56 and fig. 105 on p. 56; cf. D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, pp. 84 ff.]. G. Giakoumis K. Giakoumis, , p. 144, fig. 287; cf. D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, pp. 84 ff. For the monastery, see G. Giakoumis, (Athens, 1995), where citations to the relevant literature. For the monastery, see G. Giakoumis K. Giakoumis, , pp. 114-117; cf. D. Edge J.M. Paddock, Arms and Armour, pp. 84 ff. G. Giakoumis K. Giakoumis, , pp. 72-75, figs. 144-154, and particularly fig. 148 on p. 73. J. Bedell, Memory and Proof of Age in England 1272-1327, Past and Present 162 (1999), pp. 3-27 (p. 4); cf. G. Duby, Memories with No Historian, trans. by J. Wicke and D. Moschenberg, Yale French Studies 59 (1980) 7-16 (Rethinking History: Time, Myth and Writing).

18

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

1. Hermitage of St. George at Dhivr, Sarand. Cross-section (1-1)

2. Hermitage of St. George at Dhivr, Sarand , last quarter of the 13th century. The apse of the church with the altar stone and co-celebrating hierarchs

19

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

3. Hermitage of St. George at Dhivr, Sarand. The scene of Christ the Saviour and an inscription below it mentioning the patrons of the frescoes, a certain priest named Isidore along with his wife and children. Last quarter of the 13th century

20

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

4. Hermitage of St. George at Dhivr, Sarand. A view of the naos from the West. In the far end the entrance to the parabema. At the right the churchs ground plan

21

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

5. Hermitage of St. George at Dhivr, Sarand. The apse of the church with the altar stone and co-celebrating hierarchs

22

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

Index of the Iconographic Programme of the Cavern of St. George at Stilo-Dhivr 1. Saint Jacob, 2. Saint Basil or Cyril, 3. Lord Sabaoth, 4. Saint Kosmas, 5. Saint Damian, 6. Prophet Elijah, 7. Unidentified saint, 8. Unidentified saint, 9. Unidentified saint, 10. Unidentified saint, 11. Christ, 12. Saint Daniel the Stylite, 13. Saint Symeon the Stylite, 14. Saint Vlasios, 15. Saint Athanasios, 16. Saint Basil, 17. Saint John Chrysostome, 18. Saint Gregory, 19. Saint Martin, 20. Inscription , 21. Deisis and Annunciation (the Virgin Mary), 22. Lord Sabaoth and Annunciation (Archangel Gabriel), 23. Transfiguration, 24. Unidentified saint, 25. Archangel Michael, 26. Easter Morning, 27. The Descent to Hades, 28. Unidentified saint, 29. Saint Demetrius, 30. Saint George, 31. Saint Nikolaos, 32. The Dormition of the Theotokos, 33. The Saviour, 34. The Ascension, 35. Prophet David, 36. Unidentified saint, 37. Saint George, 38. Christ (Emmanuel), 39. The Theotokos with the portrait of a donor, 40. Portraits of donors, 41. Christ in a mandorla .

6. Hermitage of St. George at Dhivr, Sarand. A view from beneath the church which maps the frescoes. Select a number and see the underlying fresco. Refer to the table below for a complete listing of the artwork

23

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

7. Hermitage of St. George at Dhivr, Sarand. Naos. Northern wall. Second zone of frescoes. The Descent to Hades. Last quarter of the 13th century

24

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

8. Hermitage of St. George at Dhivr, Sarand. Naos. Northern wall. Second zone of frescoes. Easter Morning. Last quarter of the 13th century

25

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

9. Hermitage of St. George at Dhivr, Sarand. Naos. Northern wall. Easter Morning. Second zone of frescoes. Detail of the sleeping soldiers of the Sepulchres custody. Last quarter of the 13th century

26

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

10. A stone relief with two mounted knightsdated ca. 1128, from Angoulme Cathedral (with an integral coif) and a metal relief of a knight, part of the decoration on the GrossComburg chaldelier, ca. 1140 (without a coif) compared with our soldiers

27

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

11. Knights of Macchabees Battle in the Bible of Rhodes, dating late 10th or 11th century with helmets comparable to those of our soldiers

28

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

12. An initial from the Winchester Bible, ca. 1170. Notice the strips of red and white/pink on the shields, in conjunction to the similar patterns on the shields of our soldiers

29

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

13. A relief from the tomb of Gulielmo Beradi, in the church of Santa Annunziata, Florence, ca. 1289. Notice the triangular form of the shield in comparison with the shields of our soldiers

30

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

14. An initial from the Winchester Bible, ca. 1170, a panel from the Silver Shrine of Charlemagne in Aachen Cathedral, ca. 1207 and our soldiers. Notice how the lances in our scene are closer to the 1207 example

31

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

15. Hermitage of St. George at Dhivr, Sarand. Naos. Northern wall. The Descent to Hades. Second zone of frescoes. Detail of the personification of Death, or Satan, trembled down by Christ. Last quarter of the 13th century

32

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

16. A map of the Crusade Routes, from the First to the Eighth Crusade

33

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

17. The martyrdom of St. Vincent. Fresco. Philanthropenon Monastery, Narthex, 1560

34

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

18. The martyrdom of St. Amphilochius, Bishop of Ikonion. Fresco. Philanthropenon Monastery, Narthex, 1560

35

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

19. The martyrdom of St. Stephen the Confessor. Fresco. Philanthropenon Monastery, Narthex, 1560

36

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

20. The Betrayal of Jesus. Fresco. St. Athanasios Church at Goranxi, Dropull (Gjirokastra region), 1524

37

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

21. The Martyrdoms of Sts. George and Demetrius. Fresco. Dryano Monastery, Narthex, last quarter of the 16th century

38

Perception of the Crusader in Late Byzantine and Early Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical

22. The Carrying of the Cross. Fresco. Naos of Mingul Monastery, Gjirokastra, 1666

39

KONSTANTINOS GIAKOUMIS

23. A scene from the Bayeux Tapestry interpretation of the Battle of Hastings (1066). On the extreme left is Bishop Odo, wearing what may be a hauberk of scale armour and carrying a mace of cudgel form. On the extreme right, William of Normandy raises his helmet by its nasal

40