Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:01:09.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Virgin’s help for Constantinople

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Paul Speck†
Paul Speck†*
Affiliation:
Berlin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the last issue of this journal there appeared an article by Bissera Pentcheva in which the author argued that before iconoclasm the cult of Mary knew no images, in particular in processions, and that in addition images of Mary had no significance as protector of the city. Such phenomena first appeared in the tenth century and were then projected back on the past. In order to examine this thesis we will need once again to review the sources.

Type
Short Notes
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 27 , 2003 , pp. 266 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Pentcheva, Bissera, ‘The supernatural protector of Constantinople: the Virgin and her icons in the tradition of the Avar siege’, BMGS 26 (2002) 2–41 (hereafter ‘Protector’)Google Scholar.

2. ‘Protector’ 39.

3. Cf.Speck, P., Das geteilte Dossier. Beobachtungen zu den Nachrichten über die Regierung des Kaisers Herakleios und die seiner Söhne bei Theophanes und Nikephoros (Poikila Byzantina 9. Bonn 1988) 54 n. 91Google Scholar.

4. ‘Protector’ 16.

5. Heraclias 2. 13-18 (in Pertusi, A., ed., Giorgio di Pisidia. Poemi 1. Panegirici Epici [Studia Patristica et Byzantina 7. Ettal 1959], 240–261)Google Scholar.

6. On Phocas as despoiler of maidens: cf. Das geteilte Dosier, 55-58.

7. See n. 3.

8. ‘Protector’, 11. Cf. on this Speck, P., Zufälliges zum Bellum Avaricum des Georgios Pisides (Misc. Byz. Monac. 24. Munich 1980) 64 Google Scholar.

9. Cf. Zufälliges (as in n. 8 above), 27-29; Pentcheva, ‘Protector’, 5-10. The Chronicon Paschale makes no mention of the procession, an omission which is probably to be explained through the mutilation of the manuscript. See Speck, P., ‘Die Interpretation des Bellum Avaricum und der Kater Μεχλεμπε’, Varia II (Poikila Byzantina 6. Bonn 1987), 371–402, at 388Google Scholar (Engl. trans, in Speck, P., Understanding Byzantium. Studies in Byzantine historical sources, ed. Takács, Sarolta [Aldershot 2003], XV)Google Scholar.

10. Cf.Speck, P., ‘Bilder und Bilderstreit’, in Byzanz. Die Macht der Bilder. Katalog zur Ausstellung im Dom-Museum Hildesheim, ed. Brandt, M. and Effenberger, A. (Hildesheim 1998), 56–67 Google Scholar, at 57 (repr. in Varia VII [Poikila Byzantina 18. Bonn 2000], 56).

11. On this interpretation see Speck, Zufälliges (n. 8 above), 27f.

12. Cf. Speck, Zufälliges, 28; Pentcheva, ‘Protector’, 7.

13. Loc. cit.

14. ‘Protector’, 5.

15. For details, see Speck, Das.geteilte Dossier, 298-317.

16. See n. 10; also Pentcheva, ‘Protector’, 5. This legend is not based around an image, of course.

17. Pentcheva, ‘Protector’, 16.

18. See, e.g., Speck, P., ‘Klassizismus im 8. Jahrhundert? Die Homelie (sic) des Patriarchen Germanos über die Rettung Konstantinopels’, REB 44 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Appendix: ‘Die Synaxare der Belagerung Konstantinopels’, 226f. (English transl, ‘Classicism in the eighth century? The homily of Patriarch Germanos on the deliverance of Constantinople’, in Speck, Understanding Byzantium, XI); and idem, Kaiser Leon III. Die Geschichtswerke des Nikephoros und des Theophanes und der Liber Pontificalis, I (Poikila Byzantina 19. Bonn 2002), 284-298. See also Pentcheva, ‘Protector’, 23-26.

19. See Speck, P., Artabasdos, der rechtgläubige Vorkämpfer der göttlichen Lehren. Untersuchungen zur Revolte des Artabasdos und ihrer Darstellung in der byzantinischen Historiographie (Poikila Byzantina 2. Bonn 1981)Google Scholar, Appendix II: ‘Der Brief Papst Gregors II. an den Patriarchen Germanos’, 155-178.

20. From which Pentcheva concludes that the Cross and the image (she says labarum, Cross and image) are connected to the time before the siege. In particular, the Cross is here ‘an example from the past, when God helped his chosen people’ (‘Protector’, 19).

21. For this whole issue, see now Speck, Kaiser Leon III (n. 18 above), 296 and n. 825.

22. ‘Protector’, 19.

23. ‘Protector’, 19.

24. Such images were carried on a framework borne by several bearers on their shoulders – cf. Liber Pontificalis. Texte, introduction et commentaire, ed. Duchesne, L., 2 vols. (Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, II sér., 3. Paris, 1886/1892), 443. 3–5 Google Scholar.

25. It was certainly less widespread than is thought: see Speck, P., ‘Wunderheilige und Bilder. Zur Frage des Beginns der Bilderverehrung’, Varia II (Poikila Byzantina 11. Bonn 1991), 163–247 Google Scholar.

26. See on this Speck, P., Ich bin’s nicht, Kaiser Konstantin ist es gewesen. Die Legenden vom Enfluß des Teufels, des Juden und des Moslem auf den Ikonoklasmus (Poikila Byzantina 10. Bonn 1990), 91–98 Google Scholar, 106f. – note that this reference is marked in the index to the volume under the words ‘Prozessionen mit Bildern’!