Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:31:44.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formulas for Salvation: A Comparison of Two Byzantine Monasteries and their Founders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Ann Wharton Epstein
Ann Wharton Epstein
Affiliation:
Ms. Epstein is assistant professor of history of art in Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the Christian world during the late fourth through the sixth centuries various strains of monastic life developed, from extreme eremitic isolation to the communal discipline of the cenobia. These different types of monastic life continued to evolve through the Middle Ages. Though most specialists are aware of the multiplicity of patterns of monastic life which are found within both the Latin and the Byzantine spheres, they have been less concerned with what informs these traditional patterns.1This paper attempts to isolate some differences in modes of monastic life in the eastern empire during the Komnenian period and then to explain those differences in terms of the founders' distinct conceptions of salvation.2 The analysis compares two founders—John II Komnenos and Neophytos—and the monastic life led in their respective institutions—the Pantocrator monastery in Constantinople and the Enkleistra in the provincial milieu of Byzantine Cyprus. These two monasteries have been selected not only because they represent extreme examples of their types, but also because rich artistic and literary documentation survives from both.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , December 1981 , pp. 385 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1981

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. In searching for the origins of capitalism, Max Weber explored the religious differences between the East and the West. He concluded that occidental spirituality might be characterized as ascetic activism, while that of the Orient could be defined as contemplative mysticism. Furthermore, within the western tradition, ascetic activism took distinct forms—notably, claustral asceticism in the Middle Ages which rejected the world and puritan asceticism in the Reformation which sought to remodel the world. But while these two forms of ascetic spirituality may represent the dominant and effective modes of religiosity within their respective historical spheres, the same duality is also helpful in analyzing the variety of religious experiences within a single culture. Weber, Max, “Vorbmerkung,” Gesammelte Aufsatze zur religionssoziologie, 3 vols. (Tübingen, 1920–1921), 1: 1–16;Google Scholar and idem, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Tübingen, 1925), 1: 310–317. Bendix, Reinhard, Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (Berkeley, 1977), pp 200–281Google Scholar

2. This paper is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Charles T. Holman, D.D. It was developed in a National Endowment for the Humanities summer seminar on monasticism directed by Giles Constable. I want to thank Aleksander P. Každan, Robin S.Cormack, and Lawrence Butler for their critical comments on various drafts of this piece.

3. The most important primary source for the life of Neophytos is his own typikon. Tsiknopoullos, loannos P., ed., Kypriaka Typika, Pēgai kai meletai tēs Kypriakēs istorias (Nicosia, 1969), pp. 69–104.Google Scholar (Hereafter, citations to Tsiknopoullos's edition of Neophytos's typikon will include only the page and line where the passage begins.) Konstantinos Manaphes, A., “Paratērēseis eis ta ‘kypriaka typika’,” Epistēmonikē epetēris lēs Philosophikēs Schholēs tou panepistēmiou Anthenōn 1969–1970 (Athens, 1970), pp. 155–168.Google Scholar For an excellent English resume with references to further primary sources, see Mango, Cyril and Hawkins, E. J. W., “The Hermitage of St. Neophytos and Its Wall Paintings,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 20 (1966): 122–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Kinnamos, John, Epitome rerum ab lonanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, ed. Keineke, A., in Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1836);Google Scholaridem, The Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, trans. Charles Brand (New York, 1976). This history as well as the Synaxarium of Constantinople (Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, ed. Delehaye, Hippolyte, in Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum, 11 [Brussels, 1902], p. 887. 27–35)Google Scholar and the works dependent on it indicate that the Empress Eirene, John II's charitable if unloved wife, began the foundation which John II completed and for which he wrote the typikon. Zivojinovic, M., “Slovenski Prolog Žitija Carice Irine,” Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 8 (1964): 483–492.Google Scholar Since it is likely that Eirene did not die until 1134 and that the monastery was fully operational in 1136, she may well have had a large role to play in the foundation. Moravcsik, G., Szent László Leánya es a Bizanci Pantokrator-Monostor (Budapest, 1923), p. 74;Google ScholarGautier, Paul, “L'Obituaire de Typikon du Pantocrator,” Revue des etudes byzantines 27 (1969): 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nevertheless, it is clear from the typikon that John II considered himself the ktetor.

5. On this social shift, see Každan, Aleksander P., Social'nyj sostav gospodstuvjuščego klassa Vizantii XI-XII vv., (Moscow,1974).Google ScholarKaždan's book is summarized in French by I. Sorlin in “Publications soviéteiques sur le XIe siècle: ‘La Structure de la classe dominante àByzance aux XIe et XIIe siècles’,” Memoires et Travaux 6 (1977): 367–398.Google Scholar

6. It has been suggested that the Holy Apostles, traditional burial site of Byzantine emperors, was too crowded by the eleventh century for further imperial tombs. This does not seem an entirely satisfactory explanation for the shift to dynastic mausolea. Grierson, Phillip, “The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337–1042),” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1962): 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. See Megaw, A.H.S., “Notes on Recent Work of the Byzantine Institute,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 (1963): 333–364,CrossRefGoogle Scholar for a summary discussion of the building sequence of the complex. Eirene died in 1136 rather than in 1124 as Megaw suggests. Gautier, “L'Obituarie du typikon du Pantocrator,” p. 247.

8. For a general study of typika with a catalog of published foundation documents and bibliography, see Manaphes, Konstantinos A., Monasteriaka Typika—Diathekai (Athens, 1970).Google Scholar Other earlier general studies include Placide de Meester, “Les typiques de fondation (Typika Ktētorika),” Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Bizantini, 3 vols. (Rome, 1940), 2: 489–508,Google Scholar and Janin, Raymond, “Le monachisme byzantin au Moyen Age, Commende et typica (X-XIV siecle),” Revue des études byzantines 22 (1964): 5–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Gautier, Paul, “Le Typikon du Sauveur Pantocrator,” Revue des études byzantines 32 (1974):CrossRefGoogle Scholar I. 535. (Citations to Gautier's edition of this typikon will include only the line where the passage begins.)

10. Tsiknopoullos, , p. 79. 13.Google Scholar

11. Ibid., p. 98. 13.

12. Ibid., p. 80. 2.

13. Gautier, , “Le Typikon,” I. 535.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., 1. 1446.

15. Ibid., 1. 685.

16. Miklosich, Fr. and Mϋller, los., Ada et Diplomata Graeca Medii Aevi, Orientis 5 (Vienna, 1887), p. 296. 18.Google Scholar See also Lemerle, P., Cinq études sur le XIe siécle byzantine (Paris, 1977), p. 77ff.Google Scholar

17. Gautier, , “Le Typikon,” I. 728.Google Scholar

18. Ibid., 1.904. For Byzantine attitudes towards philanthropy, see Demetrios Constantelos, J., Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare (New Brunswick, N. J., 1968), especially pp. 170–179Google Scholar and the chapter “Philanthropy and Monastic Establishments,” pp. 88–110.

19. Tsiknopoullos, , pp. 93. 5, 101. 3.Google Scholar

20. Ibid., p. 94. 5.

21. Gautier, , “Le Typikon,” I. 291,Google Scholar especially 1.466.

22. Tsiknopoullos, , p.94. 31.Google Scholar

23. Ibid., pp. 96. 9, 96. 23, 97. 3.

24. Gautier, , “Le Typikon,” I. 607.Google Scholar

25. Tsiknopoullos, , p. 98. 3.Google Scholar

26. Gautier, , “Le Typikon,” I. 63.Google Scholar

27. Ibid., 1. 148.

28. Tsiknopoullos, , p. 94.Google Scholar 15.

29. Ibid., p. 82. 31.

30. Gautier, , “Le Typikon,” I. 205.Google Scholar

31. Ibid. I. 1.

32. Ibid., 1. 41.

33. Tsiknopoullos, p. 73. 9; quoted from Romans 3: 18.

34. Ibid., p. 73. 7.

35. Ibid., p. 73. 18.

36. Ibid., p.81. 12.

37. Falkenhausen, Vera von, “Greek Monasteries in South Italy: Constitution and Economy” (Paper delivered at the Seventh Annual Byzantine Symposium, Birmingham, England, 03 1973), p. 5.Google Scholar

38. Tsiknopoullos, , pp. 99. 8, 80. 5.Google Scholar

39. Ibid., P. 94. 14.

40. Acta Sanctorum, 3 09, pp. 864–865.Google ScholarPetit, Louis, Vie et office de Saint Euthyrme le Jeune (Paris, 1904), p. 38.Google Scholar

41. Acta Sanctorum, 7 Swptember, p. 280.

42. Petit, Louis, “Vie de Saint Athanase l'Athϋnite,” Analecta Bollandiana 25 (1906): 76–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBilales, Nicodemos, ed., O Osios Athanasios a Athōnites, 2 vols. (Athens, 1975–1976),Google Scholar par.66.

43. Gautier, , “Le Typikon,” I. 554.Google Scholar There may have been some objection to this in Constantinople. Jeanselme, E. and Oeconomos, L., “La satire contre les higoumenes,” Byzantion I (1924): 325–326.Google Scholar Saint Neophytos stipulates in contrast that a monk should not normally wash. Tsiknopoullos, p. 96. 5.

44. As Robin Cormack pointed out to me, the section on work follows this passage directly, suggesting that while homosexuality may be a problem, hard work may well provide a remedy (“We know that physical labor is very beneficial; for this little I know myself from experience…” Tsiknopoullos, p. 95. 15).

45. Djucev, Ivan, “II Tipico de monastero de S. Giovanni nell'isola di Pantelleria,” Bollettino della Badia Greca de Grottaferrata, n.s. 25 (1971): 3-17.Google Scholar

46. Gautier, , “Le Typikon,” 1. 123.Google Scholar

47. Petit, Louis, “Typikon du monastére de la Kosmosotira,” Izvestia of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople 13 (1908),Google Scholarpars. 53, 55. Gautier, , “Le Typikon,” I. 525.Google Scholar Also see Každan, Aleksander P., ‘Byzantiǐskiǐ monastyr’ XI-XIIvv. kak Sotsial'naya Gruppa,” Vizantiǐ uremmenik 31(1971): 58–60.Google Scholar

48. Megaw, , “Notes on Recent Work,” pp. 335–364.Google Scholar For a plan and photographic survey, see Mathews, Thomas, Churches of Constantinople: A Photographic Survey (University Park, pa., 1976), pp. 71–101.Google Scholar

49. The church is constructed in the so-called recessed brick technique in which alternate couses of brick are set back from the plane of the wall and hidden by pointing. This idiosyncratic construction habit was particularly popular from the early eleventh through the twelfth century. It is closely associated with the metropolis and with buildings constructed by artisans who came from Constantinople. For a brief discussion and enumeration of buildings in which this technique has been identified, see Mango, Cyril, “The Date of the Narthex Mosaics of the Church of the Dormition at Nicaea,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13 (1959):CrossRefGoogle Scholar 245ff. For a more recent study, see vocotopoulos, P. L., “The Concealed course Technique: Further Examples and a Few Remarks,” Jahrbuch der üsterreichischen byzantinistik 28 (1979):Google Scholar 247ff.

50. This material has been considered by Lawrence Butler in “The Pantocrator Monastery: An Imperial Foundation” (M.A. thesis, Oberlin College, 1979).Google Scholar

51. Megaw, , “Notes on Recent Work,” pp. 349–364.Google Scholar For a contrary view, see Lafond, J., “Découverte de vitraux historiés du moyen-âge a Constantinople,” Cahiers archéologiques 18 (1968: 231–238.Google Scholar For a discussion of the templon screen of the Pantocrator and the debate concerning the Pala d'Oro enamels, see Epstein, Ann W., “The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier: Templon or Iconostasis?,” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 134 (1981):CrossRefGoogle Scholar forthcoming.

52. Megaw, , “Notes on Recent Work,” pp. 335–340.Google Scholarschweinfurth, Phillip, “Der Mosaikfussboden der komnenischen Pantokratorkirche in Istanbul,” Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts 69 (1954): 253–260.Google Scholar

53. Winfield, David, “Reports on Work at Monagri, Lagoudera, and Hagios Neophytos, Cyprus, 1960–1970,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 25 (1971): 264,Google Scholar augments the discussion of painting phases found in Mango and Hawkins, “The Hermitage of St. Neophytos,” pp. 135–206. This latter publication remains the most comprehensive and useful work on the Enkleistra. Other discussions include Andreas Stylianou and Stylianou, Judith A., The Painted Churches of Cyprus, (Stourbridge, Worcs., 1964), pp. 123–136;Google Scholaridem, “Some Problems Concerning the Enkleistra of St. Neophytos and its Wall-Paintings” Kypriakai Spoudai 26 (1962): 129–139; Indianos, A. C. and Thomson, G. H., “The Wall Paintings of St. Noephytos Monastery,” Kypriakai Spoudai 3 (1940): 155–224.Google Scholar

54. Tsiknopoullos, p. 89. 25.

55. See Mango, and Hawkins, , “The Hermitage of St. Neophytos,” p. 204;Google Scholar and Winfield, , “Reports, 1969–1970,” p. 264.Google Scholar Mango and Hawkins's article includes plans and a photographic survey of the monument. For modifications of the proposed chronology, see Epstein, “Sanctuary Barrier.”

56. Mango, and Hawkins, , “The Hermitage of St. Neophytos,” plates 60–73, 78–109.Google Scholar For the most recent analysis of the stylistic developments of the second half of the twelfth century, See Mouriki, Doula, “Wall Painting of the Eleventh and Twelfth Century in Greece,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34 (1980):CrossRefGoogle Scholar forthcoming. Earlier surveys include Demus, Otto, “Die Entstehung des Paläologenstils,” Bericht des XI. Internationalen Byzantinistenknogresses (Munich, 1958), p. 8ff.;Google ScholarLazarev, viktor, “Zhivopis XI-XII vokov v Makedonii” Actes du XIIe Congrés international des études byzantines, Ochride, 1961, 3 vols. Belgrade, 1963), 1: 105ff.Google Scholar Also see Demus's comment on the last paper in ibid., pp. 341–345.

57. See Mango, , and Hawkins, , “The Hermitage of St. Neophytos,” p. 204;Google Scholar and Winfield, , “Reports, 1969–1970,” p. 264.Google Scholar

58. Mango, and Hawkins, , “The Hermitage of St. Neophytos,” pp. 159, 165–166, 180–182,Google Scholar and plates 19, 48, 66, 95. This atavism is one of the characteristics of provincial painting. While it occasionally represents a conscious imitation of an earlier local monument of particular status, this reversion to an earlier style occurs most commonly once the political and economic ties between the metropolitan center and the province are severed. The dated paintings in the Church of the Forty Martyrs at Söviç (1216–1217) offer a parallel return to early komnenian forms. Jerphanion, Guillaume de, Jerphanion, Une nouvelle province de l'art byzantin, les églises rupestres de Cappodoce, 2 vols. (Paris, 1936). vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. 156–174.Google Scholar

59. Mango, and Hawkins, , “The Hermitage of St. Neophytos,” p. 124Google Scholar Despite his protestations to the contrary, Neophytos seems to have accepted land donations. According to note in a Cypriote manuscript (gr. 301 in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris), by 1203–1204 the Enkleistra had already acquired the sanctuary of Saint Epiphanios ton Koubouklion as a metochion. See darrouzès, J., “Manuscrits originaires de Chypre à la Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris,” Revue des études byzantines 8 (1951): 172–174.Google Scholar

60. Acta Sanctorum, 1 March, p. 98.

61. Tsiknopoullos, pp. 83. 10, 90. 30.

62. Vincent, H. and Abel, F. M., Jerusalem nouvelle, 2 vols. (Paris, 1914), 1: 261,Google Scholar reconstruct the program of the Holy Sepulchre from pilgrims’ accounts. I am indebted to Annemarie Carr for this reference.

63. Mango, and Hawkins, , “The Hermitage of St. Neophytos,” pp. 154–157, 170–172.Google Scholar

64. Ibid., pp. 140–153.

65. The Crucifixion appears in the cell above the tomb and above the door into the bema. Ibid., pp. 177–178, 183–184. The second Anastasis is depicted to the right of the tomb, and the second Ascension is found in the bema vault, over the altar. Ibid., pp. 184–185, 164–165.

66. Walter, Christopher, “Two Notes on the Deesis,” Revue des études byzantines 26 (1968): 311–336;CrossRefGoogle Scholaridem, “Further Notes on the Deesis,” Revue des études byzantines 28 (1970): 161–187.

67. Mango, and Hawkins, , “The Hermitage of St. Neophytos,” pp. 159, 165–166, 180–182,Google Scholar and plates 19, 48, 66, 95.

68. Gautier, , “Le Typikon,” II, 22, 39.Google Scholar