¹ Baldwin Smith, E., Architectural Symbolism of Imperial Rome and the Middle Ages (Princeton Monographs in Art and Archaeology 30; Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press 1956) 219 pp., 175 figs.Google Scholar

² Baldwin Smith, E., The Dome : A Study in the History of Ideas (Princeton Monographs in Art and Archaeology 25; Princeton, N. J, 1950).Google Scholar

³ Well aware of my own limitations with regard to the history of architecture — I must, for instance, refrain from commenting on Professor Smith's interesting discussion of ‘Islamic implications’ in his Conclusion, Architectural Symbolism 179ff. — I shall limit myself on the whole to the criticism of the author's method of symbolical interpretation. For the methodology of the history of architectural symbolism cf. Krautheimer, R., ‘Introduction into the Iconography of Mediaeval Architecture,’ Journal of the Courtauld and Warburg Institutes 5 (1942) 1ff.; Bandmann, G., Mittelalterliche Architektur als Bedeutungsträger (Berlin 1951), and the works of Grabar, A. quoted below, note 11.Google Scholar

⁴ Here the author draws heavily on the studies of Ernst Kantorowicz, H., especially his ‘The “King's Advent” and the Enigmatic Panels in the Doors of Santa Sabina,’ The Art Bulletin 26 (1944) 207ff.Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. Apoc. 21 and Ps. 23. 7-9; see also below, section 10Bb i, note 23.Google Scholar

⁶ See, for instance, the numerous examples in Heer, F., Aufgang Europas (Wien-Zürich 1949) 126ff. (and Kommentarband 59ff.).Google Scholar

⁷ Christian, Early, Byzantine (and to some extent also western medieval) symbolism of heaven was conceived in terms of concave, concentric cosmological spheres or of a city, the new, the heavenly Jerusalem.Google Scholar

⁸ In other respects Professor Smith's discussion of Roman and medieval coins and seals carrying the image of palace or temple is very instructive, especially with regard to the slow reception of the city gate motif as a representation of Rome on the coins of the Holy Roman Empire (for the only gradual victory of the Roman over the non-Roman empire idea cf. Erdmann, C., Forschungen zur politischen Ideenwelt des Frühmittelalters [Berlin 1951] 1-51); for Charlemagne's temple coin — perhaps, the denarius palatinus — which in its symbolism is eminently Christian rather than eminently Roman, see the study of a former student of mine, Hugh Fallon, ‘Imperial Symbolism on Two Carolingian Coins,’ Museum Notes, The American Numismatic Society 8 (1958) 119ff.Google Scholar

⁹ For the ruler as vicarius and imago Dei or Christi see now the important and comprehensive remarks in Kantorowicz, E. H., The King's Two Bodies (Princeton 1957) 87ff., 159ff., with bibliography. Cf. also Deér, J., ‘Das Kaiserbild im Kreuz,’ Schweizer Beiträge zur allgemeinen Geschichte 13 (1955) 48ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Things are different as regards the frequent re-transfer from heaven to earth of city-symbolism in the case of the church building, for instance, in the famous hymn of church dedication Urbs beata Hierusalem …; but even here it has not been conclusively proved that the symbolism of the heavenly Jerusalem has influenced the forms of ecclesiastical architecture itself, either in the case of the early Christian basilica (so Kitschelt, L., Die frühchristliche Basilika als Darstellung des himmlischen Jerusalem [München 1938]; Stange, A., Das frühchristliche Kirchengebäude als Bild des Himmels [Köln 1950]; cf. the sound critical remarks of Bandmann, op. cit. 89f.) or in the case of the Gothic cathedral (so H. Sedlmayr, Die Entstehung der Kathedrale [Zürich 1950] and, more subtly and acceptably, Simson, O. v., The Gothic Cathedral [Bollingen Series 48; New York 1956] especially xxff., 8ff., 227ff.). — For the relationship of the concept of the holy City (heavenly as well as earthly Jerusalem) to medieval city planning cf. Braunfels, W., Mittelalterliche Stadtbaukunst in der Toskana (Berlin 1953) 134ff.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. André Grabar, ‘Le témoignage d'une hymne syriaque sur l'architecture de la cathédrale d’Edesse au VI^e siècle et sur la symbolique de l’édifice chrétien,’ Cahiers archéologiques 2 (1947) 41ff., also the same author's great work Martyrium: Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l'art chrétien antique II (Paris 1946) 354; furthermore Cecchelli, C., ‘La basilica a cupola come tempio celeste,’ Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und christlichen Archäologie 1.1 (Baden-Baden 1952) 71ff.Google Scholar

¹² See also Lehmann, K., ‘The Dome of Heaven,’ The Art Bulletin 29 (1945) 1ff., for painted or stuccoed imitations on flat ceilings of architectural baldachins with celestial symbols and mythological figures for the purpose of suggesting heaven. Cf. Hautecœur, L., Mystique et architecture: Symbolisme du cercle et de la coupole (Paris 1954). For the history of the baldachin see now E. Schramm, P. in Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik III (Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica 13.3; Stuttgart 1956) 722-727, and the articles ‘Baldachin’ and ‘Ciborium’ by Treitinger, O. and Klauser, T., respectively, in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 1 (Stuttgart 1950) 1150ff. and 3 (1957) 68ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ In this connection Professor Smith, Architectural Symbolism 106, misinterpreted Gesta Romanorum c. 54 (ed. Oesterley, H., Berlin 1872) 349: there was no intention in this text to refer to deification of the emperor Frederick II or to the celestial character of his Capua Gate; on the contrary the Gesta treat the emperor and his door as mere symbols of the properly divine realm of Christ and the Church.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Smith, Thus, Architectural Symbolism 31.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Op. cit. 31 and 36.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Op. cit. 36.Google Scholar

¹⁷ It is not clear whether Professor Smith wished to derive the bulbous domes of Moslem architecture from such late Roman origins. The important article of Born, W., ‘The Origin and the Distribution of the Bulbous Dome,’ Journal of the American Society of Architectural Historians 3.4 (1943) 32ff., is not quoted.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. the survey of research on the Westwerke in Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik I (MGH Schr. 13.1; 1954) 354ff.; furthermore Fuchs, A., ‘Zum Problem der Westwerke,’ Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und christlichen Archäologie 3 (Wiesbaden 1957) 109ff.; but see also Grabar, , Martyrium I 533ff., concerning the relationship of various kinds of avant-nefs on the one hand and of palace chapels on the other to funerary architecture. Cf. also Swoboda, K. M. in Kunstgeschichtliche Anzeigen, Neue Folge. 4.1-2 (1959; reviewed below, section 10A) 9ff.Google Scholar

¹⁹ It is an altogether not permissible simplification to say that ‘the Ottonian and Hohenstaufen masters of the Holy Roman Empire were insisting in their struggle with the Papacy that the Church as an adjunct to the State was under the Palatium’ (Smith, op. cit. 37).Google Scholar

²⁰ See the judicious remarks of Bandmann, op. cit. 207ff. and also 106ff. concerning Charlemagne's western addition to his palace chapel at Aachen, which, it is true, is itself a centralized building and by way of San Vitale or similar buildings is linked to the tradition of imperial Byzantine architecture (cf. Fichtenau, H., ‘Byzanz und die Pfalz zu Aachen,’ Mitteilungen des Instituts fur Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 59 [1951] 1ff.). The Westwerk idea was not limited to the Holy Roman Empire; corresponding structural and ceremonial elements are found both in Byzantium and in papal Rome: Maria, S. in Turris at St. Peter's; cf. Grabar, A.'s review of Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen, in Journal des savants 1956, 17f.Google Scholar

²¹ A word of warning must be added regretfully with regard to the numerous misspellings and incorrect usages of Latin and other foreign words and terms and other errors due to the posthumous appearance of the book: they are only partially remedied by four pages of Errata which were distributed by the publishers. Among remaining substantial (not merely linguistic) errors the following should be mentioned: p. 72 n. 78: for ‘Cranford’ read ‘Cornford’; p. 89 n. 51: for ‘Frederick II’ substitute ‘Frederick I’; p. 93 n. 64: for ‘Louis the Fat’ ‘Charles the Fat’; p. 150: for ‘statue’ ‘image’; p. 157 n. 29: for ‘Emperor Louis II’ ‘Anti-King Conrad’; in the same note delete the statement about Frederick Barbarossa forcing Pope Hadrian IV to be his servant; finally it should be noted that such terms as ‘papal prelates’ (p. 6), ‘imitatio imperialis’ (pp. 6, 74, 103), ‘sancti palatii ritus’ (p. 155), etc., are not infrequently coined and used by the author in an arbitrary manner.Google Scholar

¹ Rubin, Berthold, Das Zeitalter Iustinians I (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter and Co. 1960) XIV and 539 pp., 16 plates, 11 maps.Google Scholar

² The author promises to deal with the western wars in a second and with the other aspects of Justinian's reign and age in a third and fourth volume.Google Scholar

³ On the one hand the author does not really come to grips with the problem of political murder and other forms of ‘liquidation’ in Byzantium; on the other hand it would seem to me at least an insult to compare the hierarchical and liturgical regime of Byzantium with a political ‘liturgy’ celebrated by Rudolf Hess and other Nazi officials in their propagandistic performances, or with similar events in the Soviet sphere; this is not to deny that some of the analogies between the Byzantine theocracy and modern totalitarianism, pointed out by Rubin, are revealing. Cf. Rubin, Zeitalter Iustinians 405ff. n. 316.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Rubin, B., Prokopios von Kaisareia (Stuttgart 1954, also in RE 23.1 [1957] 273ff.).Google Scholar

⁵ Rubin, , Zeitalter Iustinians 43. Justinian's relative neglect of the Balkans has been often castigated by historians.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Rubin, , Zeitalter Iustinians 126f. and the long note 224 on pp. 395f.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Rubin, , ibid. 150. Concerning the ideology of legal reform by ‘cutting’ see also my forth coming article ‘Vegetation Symbolism and the Concept of Renaissance,’ De Artibus XL Opuscula: Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky (New York 1961).Google Scholar

⁸ Rubin, , ibid. 155.Google Scholar

⁹ Thus the constitution Tanta § 1, which confirms the Digest; cf. Rubin, , ibid. 156ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ For commentaries cf. below, pp. 489f.Google Scholar

¹¹ Rubin, ibid. 155.Google Scholar

¹² See the constitution Omnem in the Digest; cf. Rubin ibid. 152ff.Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid. 155.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See also Rubin, B., ‘Der Fürst der Dämonen: ein Beitrag zur Interpretation von Prokops Anekdota,’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44 (Festschrift Franz Dölger; 1951) 469ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ Cf. Rubin, Zeitalter Iustinians 226.Google Scholar

¹ André Grabar, L'iconoclasme byzantin: Dossier archéologique (Collège de France, Fondation Schlumberger pour les Études Byzantines; Paris: Collège de France 1957) 277 pp., 163 figs.Google Scholar

² Grabar, A., L'empereur dans l'art byzantin : Recherches sur l'art officiel de l'empire d'orient (Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg 75; Paris 1936).Google Scholar

³ Grabar, A., Martyrium : Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l'art chrétien antique, 2 vols. (Paris 1946).Google Scholar

⁴ Ross, Marvin C., ‘A Byzantine Gold Medallion at Dumbarton Oaks,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 11 (1957) 247ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Alföldi, Andrew and Cruikshank, Erica, ‘A Sassanian Silver Phalera in Dumbarton Oaks,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 11 (1957) 237ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Cf. Dobsch, E. v.ütz, Christusbilder (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 18 [Neue Folge, vol. 3]; Leipzig 1899) 102ff., 40ff., 4∗∗ff.; also Grabar, A., La sainte face de Laon: Le Mandylion dans l'art orthodoxe (Prague 1931) 22ff.Google Scholar

⁷ Kitzinger, Ernst, ‘The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954) 83–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Kitzinger, op. cit. 149f.Google Scholar

⁹ Kitzinger, E., ‘On Some Icons of the Seventh Century,’ Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton 1955) 132–150. See also the review of this volume by G. von Simson, O. and A. Strittmatter, Dom, ‘A Tribute to Albert Friend,’ Traditio 14 (1958) 426f.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Kitzinger, , ibid. 146, and ‘Cult of Images’ 149f.Google Scholar

¹¹ Kitzinger, E., ‘Byzantine Art in the Period between Justinian and Iconoclasm,’ Berichte zum XL Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress, München 1958 (Munich 1958) IV 1.1-50.Google Scholar

¹² For the latter see Kitzinger, , ‘Byzantine Art’ 11, and the notes on the work of the Byzantine Institute by Underwood, P. A., discussed below, section 10 Bb iii.Google Scholar

¹³ Earlier mosaics of St. Demetrius, together with the apse mosaic of Hosios David at Salonica, probably belong to the late sixth or very early seventh century; cf. Kitzinger, ‘Byzantine Art’ 20ff.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For these coins cf. R. Bellinger, A., ‘The Gold Coins of Justinian II,’ Archaeology 3 (1950) 107ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The illustration of the Old Testament in Christian art has much older roots than that of the New, roots which are Hellenistic-Jewish; cf. Weitzmann, K., ‘Die Illustration der Septuaginta,’ Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, Folge 3, vol. 3/4 (1952-53) 96ff.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Kitzinger, , ‘Byzantine Art’ 45.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Kitzinger, , ibid. 46. See also below, p. 447,Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. Kitzinger, , ibid. 47.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The Roman conciliar picture incidentally, with the deposition of ‘a priest called Anastasius,’ mentioned by Grabar, Iconoclasme 49f., commemorated the condemnations of the famous Anastasius Bibliothecarius; cf. Ladner, G. B., Die Papstbildnisse des Altertums und des Mittelalters I (Monumenti di Antichità Cristiana Ser. 2, vol. 4; Città del Vaticano 1941) 152ff.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cf. Stern, H., ‘Les représentations des conciles dans l'église de la Nativité a Bethléem,’ Byzantion 11 (1936) 151ff., 13 (1938) 415ff.; ‘Nouvelles recherches sur les images des conciles dans l’église de la Nativite à Bethléem,’ Cahiers archéologiques 3 (1948) 82ff. — The mosaics of the provincial councils still belong to the late seventh century, whereas those of the ecumenical councils were restored and altered in the twelfth century.Google Scholar

²¹ Stern, Thus H. in his important review of Grabar's book in Syria 36 (1959) 316.Google Scholar

²² Gibb, Hamilton A. R., ‘Arab-Byzantine Relations under the Umayyad Caliphate,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12 (1958) 219–233.Google Scholar

²³ A. Vasiliev, A., ‘The Iconoclastic Edict of the Caliph Yazid II, A.D. 721,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9-10 (1956) 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Cf. Ostrogorsky, G., ‘Les débuts de la querelle des images,’ Mélanges Charles Diehl I (Paris 1930) 235ff.; but see also Mango, C., The Brazen House: A Study of the Vestibule of the Imperial Palace of Constantinople (Arkaeologist-Kunsthistoriske Meddelelser, Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab 4.4; Copenhagen 1959) 173.Google Scholar

²⁵ Even though this elimination had begun a little earlier (711-717) during the reigns of Philippicus, Anastasius II, and Theodosius III.Google Scholar

²⁶ See Grabar, , Iconoclasme 125. I may also refer to my own, less cautious, formulation in ‘Origin and Significance of the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy,’ Mediaeval Studies 2 (1940) 134f. Google Scholar

²⁷ For the image of Christ over the Chalce gate, for the date of its first destruction by Leo III, and for the iconoclastic and post-iconoclastic inscriptions mentioned in the text, cf. now Mango, The Brazen House 108ff and 170ff. Professor Mango in my opinion has made it almost certain that the iconoclastic inscription dates from the reign of Leo V, not from that of Leo III. It is possible that a Cross was substituted for the image of Christ by both emperors; cf. Mango, op. cit. 119 and 122.Google Scholar

²⁸ This question is connected with the problem of a difference in the concept of the image as understood by iconoclasts and iconodules, respectively, the former allegedly requiring and at the same time denying the possibility of consubstantiality between image and prototype; cf. Grabar, Iconoclasme 140, who follows Ostrogorsky, G.; cf. the latter's Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreits (Breslau 1929); I am still sceptical with regard to this theory of two different image concepts; cf. my article ‘Der Bilderstreit und die Kunst-Lehren der byzantinischen und abendländischen Theologie,’ Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 50 (Folge 3, vol. 1; 1931) 6f. n. 20. In fact, Kitzinger, ‘Cult of Images,’ loc. cit. 100ff., 146f., shows very clearly that the magic propensities of the iconodule masses were founded on an image concept which very definitely presupposes identity between image and prototype; the term ‘animistic,’ used in this connection by Kitzinger, is however somewhat misleading, as the supposed presence of a saint in his image is after all something very different from, let us say, that of a nymph in a tree.Google Scholar

²⁹ Cf. Ladner, ‘Origin,’ loc. cit. 139. See also Koch, L., O.S.B., ‘Christusbild-Kaiserbild,’ Benediktinische Monatsschrift 21 (1939) 85ff.; v. Campenhausen, H., ‘Die Bilderfrage als theologisches Problem,’ Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 49 (1952) 49ff.Google Scholar

³⁰ In addition to the literature cited by Grabar, Iconoclasme 170, see the important article by Brett, G., ‘The Automata in the Byzantine “Throne of Solomon”,’ Speculum 29 (1954) 477ff.Google Scholar

³¹ Cf. the article of Professor Oliver Strunk, reviewed below, section 10 Bb ii.Google Scholar

³² See Grabar, , Iconoclasme , especially 224f.Google Scholar

³³ See also R. Martin, J., ‘The Dead Christ on the Cross in Byzantine Art,’ Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton 1955) 189ff.Google Scholar

³⁴ Cf. above, p. 428. — For the mosaics in the Hagia Sophia of the patriarchs who had suffered for the sacred images cf. Grabar, Iconoclasme 193f. and the notes of A. Underwood, P. reviewed below, section 10 Bb iii.Google Scholar

³⁵ Jenkins, R. J. H. and A. Mango, C., ‘The Date and Significance of the Tenth Homily of Photius,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9-10 (1956) 123–140; see also The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, trans. Mango, C. (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 3; Cambridge, Mass. 1958) 177ff.Google Scholar

³⁶ Cf. Grabar, Iconoclasme 140f.Google Scholar

³⁷ Grabar, ibid. 246; also id., ‘La représentation de l'intelligible dans l'art byzantin du moyen âge,’ Actes du VI^e Congrès International d’Etudes Byzantines, Paris 1948 (Paris 1951) 127ff., especially 137ff.Google Scholar

³⁸ See especially Grabar, op. cit. 244-248, for the development of these ideas from such fourth-century theologians as Basil the Great via Ps.-Dionysius to Theodore of Studion, and cf. fig. 162 (not 163) for a pictorial illustration of the vision of God through Christ incarnate in a ninth-century manuscript (Paris, Bibl. Nat. MS grec 923) of the Sacra Parallela of John Damascene.Google Scholar

³⁹ A few minor errors and misprints may be mentioned for the event of a second edition: p. 34 par. 2: the Cross reliquary was donated to the city of Rome not by Tiberius II, but by Justin II; p. 53 n. 1: read ‘XII^e’ instead of ‘XIII^e s.’; p. 60 par. 2: the traditional number of bishops present at the First Council of Nicaea is 318, not 392; p. 76 par. 1 line 3: read ἀμνòν, not μνòν; p. 130, titles of 5) and 6): read ‘Grammaticum,’ not ‘Grammaticam’; p. 137, second last line: read ‘iconoclastes,’ not ‘iconodoules.’Google Scholar

¹ Alexander, Paul J., The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople : Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1958) XII and 287 pp.Google Scholar

² Alexander, P. J., ‘The Iconoclastic Council of St. Sophia (815) and Its Definition (Horos),’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7 (1953) 35ff., where Nicephorus’ excerpts from the acts of the council of 815 are edited (see my review of this article in Traditio 10 [1954] 590f.). Professor Alexander is preparing a complete edition of the Refutatio et eversio; a summary in English is added to the book here reviewed as an Appendix.Google Scholar

³ See Alexander, , Nicephorus 9 and 235; for the different view of Grabar, Iconoclasme, especially 111f., see above, p. 442; to me, too, evidence of the sources suggests Moslem influence: it does not seem to favor the assumption of exclusively anti-idolatrous motives on the past of the iconoclasts, cf. my article quoted above section 3a, note 26.Google Scholar

⁴ See also Alexander, P. J., ‘An Ascetic Sect of Iconoclasts in Seventh Century Armenia,’ Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton 1955) 151ff., especially 158, and cf. Der Nersessian, Sirarpie, ‘Image Worship in Armenia,’ Armenian Quarterly 1 (1946) 67ff.Google Scholar

⁵ V. Anastos, Milton, ‘The Ethical Theory of Images Formulated by the Iconoclasts in 754 and 815,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954) 151–160; see also Professor Anastos’ paper ‘The Argument for Iconoclasm as Presented by the Iconoclastic Council of 754,’ Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies 177ff.Google Scholar

⁶ In his article mentioned in note 2.Google Scholar

⁷ See Alexander, , Nicephorus 126f. and 140, and cf. above, pp. 442, 448 and n. 4.Google Scholar

⁸ Hansmann, K., Ein neuentdeckter Kommentar zum Johannes-Evangelium (Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur- und Dogmengeschichte 16.4-5; Paderborn 1930).Google Scholar

⁹ Professor Alexander in concentrating on Nicephorus’ and Theodore of Studion's Aristotelian terminology of relation and on Nicephorus’ likewise Aristotelian terminology of causation fails to observe that the antithesis of θέρις and φύρις is at least equally important in the utilization of Aristotelian thought by the Byzantine iconophiles and that here John Damascene was the pioneer; cf. Ladner, G. B., ‘The Concept of the Image in the Greek Fathers and the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7 (1953) 16f. Google Scholar

¹⁰ See above, p. 445. Cf. also J. Visser, A., Nikephoros und der Bilderstreit (Haag 1952) 92ff. Nicephorus at times uses a terminology of the rulership of Christ in the City of God which in some respects is not unlike that of St. Augustine, though hardly influenced by him; it is probably a development of earlier patristic ideology of the heavenly city.Google Scholar

¹ Grillmeier, Aloys, S.J., Der Logos am Kreuz: Zur Christo logischen Symbolik der älteren Kreuzigungsdarstellung (München: Max Hueber Verlag 1956) XII and 151 pp.Google Scholar

² Panofsky, E., ‘Iconography and Iconology: An Introduction to the Study of Renaissance Art,’ Meaning in the Visual Arts (Garden City, N. Y. 1955) 32.Google Scholar

³ The date is found in the manuscript itself, but the question has recently arisen whether perhaps it refers only to the text; cf. Leroy, J., ‘L'auteur des miniatures du manuscrit syriaque de Florence, Plut. I, 56, Codex Rabulensis,’ Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Comptes rendus des séances de l'année 1954 (Paris 1954) 278ff., and see also the remarks of Dussaud, following Leroy's paper. In general cf. now the monumental publication by Cecchelli, C., Furlani, G. and Salmi, M., The Rabbula Gospels: Facsimile Edition of the Miniatures of the Syriac Manuscript Plut. I, 56 in the Medicaean-Laurentian Library (Olten-Lausanne 1959); for the date see p. 75.Google Scholar

⁴ The possibility of a special significance of the open eyes of Christ in the Rabulas miniature is not invalidated by the fact that the two thieves, too, are represented with their eyes open, since according to John 19.32f. they were still alive after Christ had died.Google Scholar

⁵ Hesbert, R.-J., Le problème de la transfixion du Christ dans les traditions biblique, patristique, iconographique, liturgique et musicale (Paris etc. 1940).Google Scholar

⁶ Grondijs, L. H., L'iconographie byzantine du crucifié mort sur la croix (Bibliotheca Bruxellensis 1; Bruxelles 1947). The new book of Professor Grondijs, Autour de l'iconographie byzantine du crucifié mort sur la croix (Leiden 1960), in which he replies to Father Grillmeier's criticism, was not yet accessible to me.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Peterson, E., ‘La croce e la preghiera verso l'oriente,’ Ephemerides Liturgicae 61 (1945) 52ff.Google Scholar

⁸ Matthew 24.30.Google Scholar

⁹ In addition to the literature cited by Father Grillmeier cf., for instance, Gag, J.é, Στανϱòς νιxπoιóς: La victoire impériale dans l'empire chrétien,’ Revue d'histoire et de philologie religieuses 12 (1933) 370ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. B. Ladner, G., ‘St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augustine on the Symbolism of the Cross,’ Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton 1955) 88ff. — Father Grillmeier also utilizes the recent numerical and cosmological interpretations of the magic square Sator Arepo and discusses its relation to Cross symbolism.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. E. Perry, B., ‘Physiologus,’ RE 20.1 (1941) 1074ff.; Peterson, E., ‘Die Spiritualität des griechischen Physiologus,’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 47 (1954) 60ff.Google Scholar

¹² Physiologus, ed. Sbordone, F. (Milan etc. 1936) 6.Google Scholar

¹³ The article of R. Martin, J., ‘The Dead Christ on the Cross in Byzantine Art,’ Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies 189ff., must be corrected accordingly. Nevertheless, Professor Martin strengthens the thesis that the type of the dead Christ appeared in Byzantine art as early as the second half of the ninth century. — At the end of his book Father Grillmeier gives admittedly incomplete lists of Western medieval representations of the Crucifixion of both types: that of the Rabulas codex and that showing the dead Christ.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Fink, J., ‘Grundlagen des Kreuzigungsbildes,’ Theologische Revue 53 (1957) 241ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵ In Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 1 (1958) 127ff.; Professor Ernst Kantorowicz, H. kindly drew my attention to this important review.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cf. Grillmeier, , Logos 102.Google Scholar

¹ André Grabar, Ampoules de Terre Sainte (Monza-Bobbio) (Paris: Librairie Klincksieck, C. 1958) 70 pp., 56 plates. This book does not reproduce the few ampullae which have survived outside the churches of Giovanni, S. of Monza and Colombano, S. of Bobbio (in which they had been preserved probably since the reign of the Lombard queen Theodolinda [† 625]). Two ampullae are in the United States: at the Dumbarton Oaks Collection in Washington and the Art Institute in Detroit.Google Scholar

² Only two ampullae of Monza and one of Bobbio show the whole figure of Christ crucified. The two thieves flank the Cross not only in these ‘historical’ Crucifixion reliefs, but also in those of the ‘symbolical’ type.Google Scholar

³ For the influence of the holy places of Palestine on early Christian and medieval architecture and art in general see Professor Grabar's great work Martyrium, quoted above, section 3a, note 3.Google Scholar

⁴ Frolov, A., ‘The Veneration of the Relic of the True Cross at the End of the Sixth and the Beginning of the Seventh Centuries,’ St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly 2 (1958) 1ff. — For the relationship between the cult of relics and that of icons cf. Grabar, Martyrium and Kitzinger, E., ‘Cult of Images,’ reviewed above, p.438.Google Scholar

¹ Cf., for instance, Hess, W., O.S.B., ‘Imago Dei (Gn 1, 26),’ Benediktinische Monatsschrift 29 (1953) 371ff.; G. Söhngen, ‘Die biblische Lehre von der Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen,’ Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 2 (1951) 52ff.; Koehler, L., ‘Die Grundstelle der Imago-Dei-Lehre,’ Theologische Zeitschrift 4 (1948) 16ff.; Somers, H.M., S.J., ‘The Riddle of a Plural (Genesis 1, 26),’ Folia 9 (1955) 63ff.; Mc, R.L. Wilson, ‘The Early History of the Exegesis of Gen. 1, 26,’ Studio Patristica 1 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 63; Berlin 1957) 420ff.; Schmidt, K. L., ‘Homo Imago Dei im Alten und Neuen Testament,’ Eranos Jahrbuch 15 (1947) 166ff.; Schumann, F. K., ‘Imago Dei,’ Imago Dei: Beiträge zur theologischen Anthropologie … Gustav Krüger … dargebracht (Giessen 1932) 167ff.; Bover, J. M., S.J., “Tmaginis” notio apud Paulum, B.,’ Biblica 4 (1923) 174ff.; Struker, A., Die Gottesebenbildlichkeit des Menschen in der altchristlichen Literatur der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte (Münster 1913); Peterson, E., ‘L'immagine di Dio in Ireneo, S.,’ La Scuola Cattolica 69 (1941) 46ff.; Mayer, A., O.S.B., Das Gottesbild des Menschen nach Clemens von Alexandrien (Studia Anselmiana 15; Rome 1942); Rahner, S.J., H., ‘Das Menschenbild des Origenes,’ Eranos-Jahrbuch 15 (1947) 197ff.; the book of Father Crouzel on Origen, reviewed in the following pages; Bernard, R., L'image de Dieu d'après saint Athanase (Théologie 25; Paris 1952); Daniélou, J., S.J., Platonisme et théologie mystique: Essai sur la doctrine de saint Grégoire de Nysse, 2nd ed. (Théologie 2; Paris 1953); Schoemann, J. B., ‘Gregors von Nyssa theologische Anthropologie als Bildtheologie,’ Scholastik 18 (1943) 31ff.; T. Muckle, J., C.S.B., ‘The Doctrine of St. Gregory of Nyssa on Man as the Image of God,’ Mediaeval Studies 7 (1945) 55ff.; Leys, R., S.J., L'image de Dieu chez saint Grégoire de Nysse (Museum Lessianum, Sect. Théol. 49; Bruxelles, Paris 1951); Merki, H., O.S.B., ‘OMOIΩΣIΣ ΘEΩ: Von der platonischen Angleichung an Gott zur Gottähnlichkeit bei Gregor von Nyssa (Paradosis 7; Freiburg Schweiz, i. d. 1952); B. Ladner, G., ‘The Philosophical Anthropology of Saint Gregory of Nyssa,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12 (1958) 59ff.; id., ‘The Concept of the Image in the Greek Fathers and the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy,’ ibid. 7 (1953) 1ff.; J. Meany, J., S.J., The Image of God in Man according to the Doctrine of Saint John Damascene (Pontif. Universitas Gregoriana, Fac. Theol., Diss.; San José Seminary, Manila 1954); McCool, G. A., S. J., ‘The Ambrosian Origin of St. Augustine's Theology of the Image of God in Man,’ Theological Studies 20 (1959) 62 ff. (cf. the forthcoming studies on the Augustinian doctrine of the image by M. Somers, H., of, S. J. Louvain); Ebel, B., O.S.B., ‘Das Menschenbild in der Liturgie der Kirche,’ in Imago Dei (Düsseldorf 1948) 27 ff.; W. Dürig, Imago: Ein Beitrag zur Terminologie und Theologie der Römischen Liturgie (Münchener Theologische Studien, Abteil. 2, vol. 5; München 1952). See also the synthetic articles of Hilda-C. Graef, ‘L'image de Dieu et la structure de l’àme d'après les pères grecs,’ Vie spirituelle, Suppl. 5 (1952) 331ff., and of Camelot, T., O.P., ‘La théologie de l'image de Dieu,’ Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 40 (1956) 443ff., largely concerned with the book of Father Crouzel on Origen. For Philo see the dissertation of Giblet, mentioned below, note 5, and for the Platonist antecedents, Wilms, H., ΕΙΚΩN (Münster 1935). In general cf. my book The Idea of Reform (Cambridge, Mass. 1959) 54 ff., 83ff., 185ff.Google Scholar

² Crouzel, Henri, S.J., Théologie de l'image de Dieu chez Origène (Théologie 34; Paris 1956); cf. also the summary ‘L'image de Dieu dans la théologie d’Origène,’ Studia Patristica 2 (TU 64; Berlin 1957) 194ff,Google Scholar

³ Cf. especially p. 52.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Wolfson, H. A., Philo I (Cambridge, Mass. 1948) 300ff.Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. Giblet, J., ‘L'homme image de Dieu dans les commentaires littéraux de Philon d’Alexandrie,’ Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis: Sylloge Excerptorum e Dissertationibus … in Sacra Theologia vel in Iure Canonico … 17.5 (Louvain 1949) 113ff.Google Scholar

⁶ Not always, however; cf. Crouzel, Théologie 67f,Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Crouzel, , ibid. 152, 181.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. the similar doctrine of Gregory of Nyssa; see, for instance, my study on Gregory's anthropology, quoted above n. 1.Google Scholar

⁹ Crouzel, Thus, Théologie 245; cf. also ibid. 179.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. also Edsman, C.-M., Le baptême de feu (Acta Seminarii Neo-testamentici Upsaliensis 9; Leipzig-Uppsala 1940) 1ff.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. Crouzel, , Théologie 153 and 221, also Ladner, Idea of Reform 73 and 87 n. 19.Google Scholar

¹ E. Mommsen, Theodor, Medieval and Renaissance Studies , ed. F. Rice, Eugene, Jr. (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press 1959) XIII and 353 pp., 39 figs.Google Scholar

² ‘St. Augustine and the Christian Idea of Progress: The Background of the City of God,’ ibid. 265-298.Google Scholar

³ Ibid. 292.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid. 297 and 296.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid. 282ff.Google Scholar

⁶ ‘Aponius and Orosius on the Significance of the Epiphany,’ ibid. 299-324.Google Scholar

⁷ On the fragment from Livy, used by Aponius in this connection, and on its probable authenticity, cf. Mommsen, T. E., ‘Augustus and Britain: A Fragment from Livy,’ American Journal of Philology 75 (1954) 175ff.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Mommsen, ‘Aponius and Orosius,’ loc. cit. 310; ‘St. Augustine’ ibid. 282ff.; see also Peterson, E., Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem , reprinted in Theologische Traktate (Munich 1951) 86ff.Google Scholar

⁹ This idea is still found in Dante, Purgatorio 32.102: ‘Di quella Roma onde Cristo è Romano,’ and in De monarchia 2.12, ‘Christum nascendo iustum esse auctoritatem imperii Romani persuasisse.’Google Scholar

¹⁰ ‘Orosius and Augustine,’ loc. cit. 325-348.Google Scholar

¹¹ Orosius, Historiarum aduersum paganos libri VII 1. prol. 10.Google Scholar

¹² Mommsen points out that Orosius hardly mentions the two cities; Augustine on the other hand has not the scheme of the four world monarchies, which Orosius uses abundantly.Google Scholar

¹³ De civitate Dei 18.52.1-5; cf. Mommsen, ‘Orosius and Augustine,’ loc. cit. 346f.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Orosius, Histor. 7.43.20.Google Scholar

¹ Chavasse, Antoine, Le sacramentaire gélasien (Vaticanus Reginensis 316): Sacramentaire presbytéral en usage dans les titres romains au VII^e siècle (Bibliothèque de théologie, Ser. 4, Histoire de la théologie, vol. 1; Tournai: Desclée and Cie 1958) XXXIX and 817 pp.Google Scholar

² Sacramentarium Veronense (Cod. Bibl. Capit. Veron. LXXXV [80]), ed. C. Mohlberg, L., O.S.B., Eizenh, L.öfer, O.S.B., and Siffrin, P., O.S.B. (Rerum ecclesiasticarum Documenta cura Pontificii Athenaei Sancti Anselmi de Urbe edita, Ser. maior, Fontes 1; Rome 1956).Google Scholar

³ Mohlberg, Father, in his edition of the Sacramentarium Gelasianum, cited in note 6, is more sceptical. Most experts in the history of the liturgy have on the whole voiced their approval of Canon Chavasse's work. See especially the review article by Abbot Capelle, B., O.S.B., ‘Origine et vicissitudes du sacramentaire gélasien d'après un livre récent,’ Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 54 (1959) 864ff., who, however, would like to assume the existence of several pre-Gelasian and pre-Gregorian liturgical collections as source of the surviving Roman sacramentaries rather than the one sacramentary reconstructed by Professor Chavasse.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. A. Lowe, E., ‘The Vatican Ms of the Gelasian Sacramentary and Its Supplement at Paris,’ The Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1925/26) 357ff.Google Scholar

⁵ Wilmart, A., O.S.B., ‘L'index liturgique de Saint-Thierry,’ Revue bénédictine 30 (1913) 437ff.Google Scholar

⁶ Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Aeclesiae Ordinis Anni Circuli (Cod. Vat. Reg. lat. 316 / Paris. Bibl. Nat. 7193,41/56) (Sacramentarium Gelasianum), ed. C. Mohlberg, L., O.S.B., Eizenhöfer, L., O.S.B., and Siffrin, P., O.S.B. (Rerum ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Ser. maior, Fontes 4; Rome 1960).Google Scholar

⁷ Siffrin, P., O.S.B., Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Aeclesiae (Cod. Vatican. Regin. lat. 316) Sacramentarium Gelasianum (Rer. eccl. Doc., Ser. minor 5, Konkordanztabellen zu den römischen Sakramentarien 2; Rome 1959).Google Scholar

⁸ Of the first half of the eighth century. Edition by the same three learned Benedictines: Missale Francorum (Cod. Vat. Reg. lat. 257) ed. Mohlberg, L. C., Eizenhöfer, L., and Siffrin, P. (Rer. eccl. Doc., Ser. maior, Fontes 2; Rome 1957).Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. Andrieu, M., Les ‘Ordines Romani’ du haut moyen âge III (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, Études et Documents 24; Louvain 1951) 269ff. and 287ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Andrieu, , op. cit. II (23; 1948) 417ff.Google Scholar

¹¹ For this influence cf. B. Ladner, G., The Idea of Reform (Cambridge, Mass. 1959) 378ff.: Chapter III, ‘The Transmission of Augustinian Monasticism to Early Mediaeval Europe,’ 1. ‘The Influence of the Augustinian Rule,’ 2. ‘Monastic Life of Clerical Communities in the post-Augustinian Age.’Google Scholar

¹² See above, note 2.Google Scholar

¹³ Professor Chavasse here continues and rectifies the study of Schmidt, H., S.J., ‘De lectionibus variantibus in formulis identicis sacramentariorum Leoniani, Gelasiani et Gregoriani,’ Sacris Erudiri 4 (1952) 103ff.; cf. Chavasse, Sacramentaire gélasien XIV ff.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See the recent edition by C. Mohlberg, L., O.S.B., Eizenh, L.öfer, O.S.B., and Siffrin, P., O.S.B., Missale Gallicanum Vetus (Cod. Vat. Palat. lat. 493) (Rer. eccl. Doc., Ser. maior, Fontes 3; Rome 1958).Google Scholar

¹ Fichtenau, Heinrich, Arenga: Spätantike und Mittelalter im Spiegel von Urkundenformeln (Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Ergänzungsband 18; Graz-Köln: Verlag Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. 1957) 244 pp.Google Scholar

² See, for instance, Kantorowicz, E. H., ‘Kaiser Friedrich II. und das Königsbild des Hellenismus,’ Varia Variorum: Festgabe für Karl Reinhardt (Münster-Köln 1952) 169ff., with many references to the literature; also Cerfaux, L. and Tondriau, J., Un concurrent du christianisme: Le culte des souverains dans la civilisation gréco-romaine (Tournai 1957), and The Sacral Kingship (VIIth International Congress for the History of Religions, Rome, 1955 = Studies in the History of Religions [Supplements to Numen] 4; Leiden 1959).Google Scholar

³ Here the author might have used to advantage the important study by Quain, E. A., S.J., ‘The Medieval Accessus ad Auctores,’ Traditio 3 (1945) 215ff., where the cross-connections between the techniques of introduction used by grammarians, lawyers, and philosophers, are excellently discussed; these techniques may perhaps have a greater bearing on the history of the arenga than appears in Professor Fichtenau's book.Google Scholar

⁴ For Eusebius and Synesius cf. my book The Idea of Reform (Cambridge, Mass. 1959) 121ff.Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. H. P. L'Orange, Studies on the Iconography of Cosmic Kingship in the Ancient World (Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning, Ser. A: Forelesninger 23; Oslo 1953) 139ff.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Digest 1.10.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Kantorowicz, E. H., ‘Dante's “Two Suns“,’ Semitic and Oriental Studies (University of California Publications in Semitic Philology 11; 1951) 217f. Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Fichtenau, , Arenga 87 and 147ff.Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. Arbesmann, R., O.S.A., ‘The Concept of “Christus Medicus” in St. Augustine,’ Traditio 10 (1954) 1ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Rivière, J., “In partem sollicitudinis”: Évolution d'une formule pontificale,’ Revue des sciences religieuses 5 (1925) 210 ff.; Ladner, G. B., ‘The Concepts of “Ecclesia” and “Christianitas” and Their Relation to the Idea of Papal “Plenitudo Potestatis” from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII,’ Sacerdozio e Regno da Gregorio VII a Bonifacio VIII (Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae 18; Rome 1954) 49 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹ For the phrase ‘per diversa, non tamen adversa, sed potius consona scripturae sacra testimonia’ in the canonization bull of Celestine III for Peter of Tarentaise (1191), cf. de Ghellinck, J., S. J., Le mouvement théologique du XII^e siècle, 2nd ed. (Museum Lessianum, Sect. histor. 10; Bruges etc. 1948) 517 ff.; also a forthcoming study by Kuttner, S. (Wimmer Lectures, St. Vincent Archabbey, Latrobe, Pennsylvania).Google Scholar

¹² Cf. E. Schramm, P., ‘Sacerdotium und Regnum im Austausch ihrer Vorrechte,’ Studi Gregoriani 2 (1947) 403ff.Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. also B. Ladner, G., ‘Formularbehelfe in der Kanzlei Kaiser Friedrichs II. und die “Briefe des Petrus de Vinea”,’ Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung, Ergänzungsband 12 (1932) 134f., 136f., 138ff.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See above, p. 433.— Concerning Louis XV's ‘mystères de gouvernement’ (Fichtenau, Arenga 198 no. 437) cf. Kantorowicz, E. H., ‘Mysteries of State: An Absolutist Concept and Its Late Mediaeval Origins,’ Harvard Theological Review 48 (1955) 65ff., a study which takes its start from James I's ‘mystery of state.’Google Scholar

¹ Dom Jean Leclercq, L'amour des lettres et le désir de Dieu: Initiation aux auteurs monastiques du moyen âge (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf 1957) 269 pp., 4 plates. An English translation will be published by Fordham University Press in New York in the near future under the title, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God. Google Scholar

² von den Steinen, W., ‘Monastik und Scholastik: Zu Dom Jean Leclercq, L'amour des lettres et le désir de Dieu,’ Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 89 (1959) 243ff., rightly remarks that before the twelfth century, i.e., before the beginning of scholasticism, the spirit and culture of the cathedral schools and of the monasteries were not essentially different from one another.Google Scholar

³ Leclercq, Amour des lettres 246f.Google Scholar

⁴ Leclercq, ibid. 33.Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. my book The Idea of Reform (Cambridge, Mass. 1959) 63ff., 326.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Quain, E. A., S.J., ‘The Medieval Accessus ad Auctores,’ Traditio 3 (1945) 215ff.Google Scholar

⁷ In terms of historical classification all this forms a part of what Panofsky, E. calls the proto-humanism of the twelfth century, beside which there existed a proto-Renaissance in art, which originally was ‘a Mediterranean phenomenon’; cf. now Panofsky's excellent synthesis Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (Figura: Studies Edited by the Institute of Art History, University of Uppsala 10; Stockholm 1960) especially 55ff., 68ff.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. also the good introductions of Dom Gerard Sitwell, O.S.B., to his translation of the lives of St. Odo of Cluny and of St. Gerald of Aurillac by John of Salerno and Odo of Cluny, respectively: St. Odo of Cluny (The Makers of Christendom; London-New York 1958).Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. also Adele Fiske, R.S.C.J., ‘St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Friendship,’ Citeaux 11 (1960) 1 ff., and the same author's Ph.D. Diss. (Fordham University 1959) The Survival and Development of the Ancient Concept of Friendship in the Early Middle Ages. Google Scholar

¹⁰ Leclercq, Amour des lettres 202; cf. Schuck, J., Das Hohelied des Hl. Bernhard von Clairvaux (Paderborn 1926).Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. W. von den Steinen, op. cit. 252.Google Scholar

¹² Cf. Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St.-Denis and Its Art Treasures, ed., trans. and annot. Panofsky, E. (Princeton 1946).Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. Leclercq, Amour des lettres 241.Google Scholar

¹ See, for instance, Goppelt, L., Typos (Gütersloh 1939); Dani, J.élou, S.J., Sacramentum Futuri (Paris 1950).Google Scholar

² Schmidt, Gerhard, Die Armenbibeln des XIV. Jahrhunderts (Graz-Köln: Verlag Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. 1959) XII and 163 pp., 44 plates.Google Scholar

³ Cornell, H., Biblia Pauperum (Stockholm 1925).Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. also Panofsky, E. in the commentary to his edition and translation of Suger's writings on the work done at St.-Denis during his abbotship, quoted on this page, note 12, especially 176ff., 180ff., 199ff.Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. F. Röhrig, Der Verduner Altar (Vienna-Munich 1955).Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. James, M. R., ‘Pictor in Carmine,’ Archaeologia 94 (Ser. 2, vol. 44; 1951) 141ff., especially 161f.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Schmidt, G., ‘Der Codex 370 der Wiener Nationalbibliothek,’ Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 17 (21; 1956) 14ff.; Edith Hoffmann, ‘Ein unbekanntes wichtiges Denkmal österreichischer Kunst’ [i.e., the Biblia pauperum of the Budapest Art Museum], Petrovics Elek Emlékkönyv = Hommage à Alexis Petrovics (Budapest 1934) 170ff.; Deissmann, A. and Wegener, H., Die Armenbibel des Serai (Berlin-Leipzig 1934), etc.Google Scholar

⁸ Almost all manuscripts of the fourteenth century and a few of the fifteenth are included in the study.Google Scholar

⁹ He also discusses non-illustrated manuscripts of the Biblia pauperum, which he considers as derivatives rather than sources of the illuminated ones. The whole problem of late mediaeval typological manuscripts without illustrations, such as the Pictor in carmine, is being studied by Father Floridus Röhrig of Klosterneuburg.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Schmidt, Armenbibeln 10f.Google Scholar

¹¹ Dr. Schmidt himself assumes that an older Biblia pauperum was the source of two of the enamel additions to the Verdun altar made in 1330/31 (see above), but does not consider the possibility that it may have been the archetype. Jerchel, H., ‘Die ober- und niederösterreichische Buchmalerei der ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts’, Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, Neue Folge, vol. 6 (1932) 34, thinks it probable that the St. Florian Biblia pauperum and that of the Vienna Cod. 1198 have a common archetype, but does not localize it.Google Scholar

¹² The fact, discussed by Schmidt, Armenbibeln 13 and 86, that contrary to all other manuscripts the sub-family St. Florian does not show Mary in the scene of the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and represents her death rather than her coronation, is certainly noteworthy. But it is hardly a suffi cient reason to exclude the possibility that half a century earlier the archetype may have originated in a monastery of Augustinian Canons such as Klosterneuburg, especially as the tempera panels of the Verdun Altar, though they are approximately contemporary with the manuscripts of the St. Florian sub-family, include a picture of the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin, as well as one of her death.Google Scholar

¹³ The author here largely follows the fundamental studies on medieval typological imagery by Heider, G., ‘Beiträge zur christlichen Typologie aus Bilderhandschriften des Mittelalters,’ Jahrbuch der Zentralkommission, k. k. 5 (1861) 1ff.; by Tietze, H., ‘Die typologischen Bilderkreise des Mittelalters in Österreich,’ ibid. Neue Folge, vol. 2 (1944) 2. 21 ff.; by Lutz, J. and Perdrizet, P., Speculum humanae salvationis (Mulhouse 1907); and by Cornell and James in the works quoted in notes 3 and 6.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. Schmidt, , Armenbibeln 117ff. Dr. Schmidt accepts the possibility that the word pauper, where it occurs in late medieval abbreviations of the Bible or in typological works of that period, refers to the Mendicants and other poor clerics and at the same time to the ‘poor in spirit.’ Weckwerth, A., ‘Die Zweckbestimmung der Armenbibel und die Bedeutung ihres Namens,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Ser. 4, vol. 68 (1957) 225ff. — a study which Dr. Schmidt could only briefly discuss at the end of his work — links the great revival of typology in the twelfth century to the orthodox reaction against the Cathari and also tries to connect the term Biblia pauperum with this background.Google Scholar

¹ Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, ed. Klauser, T. (Stuttgart 1950 ff.); it has reached the letter E. Google Scholar

² Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum (Münster 1958ff); supplements the Reallexikon. Google Scholar

³ Centro Italiano di Studi sull’ Alto Medioevo, Atti (Spoleto 1951ff.) and Settimane di Studio (Spoleto 1954ff.).Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. especially Arte del Primo Millennio: Atti del II^o Convegno per lo Studio dell’ Arte dell’ Alto Medio Evo, Pavia 1950 (Turin 1950) and Frühmittelalterliche Kunst in den Alpenländern: Actes du III^e Congrès International pour l’Etude du Haut Moyen Age, Lausanne 1951 (Olten-Lausanne 1954).Google Scholar

⁵ Classica et Mediaevalia (Copenhagen 1938ff.).Google Scholar

⁶ Cahiers archéologiques: Fin d'antiquité et moyen âge (Paris 1945ff.).Google Scholar

⁷ Neue Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte des 1. Jahrtausends 1: Spätantike und Byzanz (Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und christlichen Archäologie 1.1; Baden-Baden 1952) and 2: Frühmittelalterliche Kunst (same collection 1.2; 1954); also Karolingische und Ottonische Kunst (same collection 3; 1957).Google Scholar

⁸ Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton 1955); cf. the review article by von, O. G. Simson and Dom Strittmatter, A., ‘A Tribute to Albert Friend,’ Traditio 14 (1958) 422ff.Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. below, section 10B.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies (London 1943ff.).Google Scholar

¹¹ Medievalia et Humanistica (Boulder, Colorado, 1943ff.).Google Scholar

¹² The Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes (London 1937ff.).Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. section 10C.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Seznec, J., The Survival of the Pagan Gods : The Mythological Tradition and its Place in Renaissance Humanism and Art (Bollingen Series 38; New York 1953); cf. my review in Traditio 10 (1954) 581ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Panofsky, E., Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (Figura: Studies Edited by the Institute of Art History, University of Uppsala, 10; Stockholm 1960).Google Scholar

¹ Cf. also Swoboda, K. M., ‘Über Stilkontinuität vom 4. zum 11. Jahrhundert,’ Neue Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte des 1. Jahrtausends 1 (Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und christlichen Archäologie 1.1; Baden-Baden 1952) 21ff., and ‘Kunst und Religion,’ Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 58 (1950) 707ff.Google Scholar

² Kunstgeschichtliche Anzeigen, unter Mitarbeit von Irmgard Hutter herausgegeben von Karl Swoboda, M., 3 and 4.1-2 (Kunsthistorisches Institut der Universität Wien, Institut für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung; Graz-Wien-Köln: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. 1958 and 1959) 207 and 56 pp.Google Scholar

³ Cf. von Gerkan, A., ‘Die profane und die christliche Basilika,’ Römische Quartalschrift 48 (1953) 129ff. (now also in Gerkan, A. v., Von antiker Architektur und Topographie [Stuttgart 1959] 447ff.). The older view is well represented by the article of Krautheimer, R., ‘The Beginning of Early Christian Architecture,’ Review of Religion 3 (1938-39) 127ff.; his Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum: The Early Christian Basilicas of Rome (Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, Monumenti di Antichità Cristiana, ser. 2. 2; Rome 1937ff.) is still in progress.Google Scholar

⁴ Quoted above, section 3a, note 3.Google Scholar

⁵ Guyer, S., Grundlagen mittelalterlicher abendländischer Baukunst (Einsiedeln 1950).Google Scholar

⁶ W. Deichmann, F., ‘Gründung und Datierung von San Vitale zu Ravenna,’ Arte del Primo Millennio: Atti del II^o Convegno per lo Studio dell’ Arte dell’ Alto Medio Evo, Pavia 1950 (Turin 1950) 111ff.; see also the same author's Studien zur Architektur Konstantinopels im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert nach Christus (Baden-Baden 1956).Google Scholar

⁷ P. L’Orange, H., Studien zur Geschichte des spätantiken Porträts (Oslo 1933).Google Scholar

⁸ Gerke, F., Die christlichen Sarkophage der vorkonstantinischen Zeit (Berlin 1940); Die Zeitbestimmung der Passionssarkophage (Berlin 1940); Christus in der spätantiken Plastik (Berlin 1940).Google Scholar

⁹ Bovini, G., I sarcofagi cristiani (Città del Vaticano 1949); Sarcofagi paleocristiani di Ravenna (Città del Vaticano 1954); Sarcofagi paleocristiani della Spagna (Città del Vaticano 1954).Google Scholar

¹⁰ F. Volbach, W., Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum zu Mainz, Katalog 7; Mainz 1952).Google Scholar

¹¹ Delbrueck, R., Probleme der Lipsanothek in Brescia (Bonn 1952).Google Scholar

¹² Saxl, F., Lectures (London: The Warburg Institute 1957) I 45-57.Google Scholar

¹³ Saxl, op. cit. 57.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. Le Blant, E., Etude sur les sarcophages chrétiens antiques de la ville d’Arles (Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France, Ser. III: Archéologie; Paris 1878).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Saxl, ‘Mithras — The History of an Indo-European Divinity,’ Lectures I 13-44. Cf. also Saxl, Mithras (Berlin 1931).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cf. also J. de Menasce, ‘The Mysteries and the Religion of Iran,’ The Mysteries: Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks 3 (Bollingen Series 30.2; New York 1955) 135ff.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cf. Kempf, T. K., Das bischöfliche Museum in Trier (Trier 1954).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. below, note 23.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Nordstrom, C.-O., Ravennastudien (Figura 4; Stockholm 1953).Google Scholar

²⁰ Cf. meanwhile G. and Sotiriu, M., Eἰxóνες τῆς Moνῆς Σινã = Icones du Mont Sinai, 2 vols. (Collection de l’Institut Français d’Athènes 100 and 102; Athens 1956-1958).Google Scholar

²¹ Nordenfalk, C., ‘The Beginning of Book Decoration,’ Essays in Honor of Georg Swarzenski (Chicago-Berlin 1951) 9ff.Google Scholar

²² Cf. Weitzmann, K., ‘Observations on the Cotton Genesis Fragments,’ Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton 1955) 112ff., also his article quoted above, section 3a, note 15.Google Scholar

²³ Bianchi, R.-Bandinelli, Hellenistic-Byzantine Miniatures of the Iliad (Ilias Ambrosiana) (Olten-Lausanne 1955); cf. also the facsimile edition of the manuscript by the Bibliotheca Ambrosiana (Bern-Olten 1953).Google Scholar

²⁴ Wormald, F., The Miniatures of the Gospels of St. Augustine (Corpus Christi Coll. Ms. 286) (Cambridge 1954).Google Scholar

²⁵ Stern, H., Le calendrier de 354 (Institut Français d’Archéologie de Beyrouth, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 55; Paris 1953).Google Scholar

²⁶ Weidl, W.é, The Baptism of Art: Notes on the Religion of the Catacomb Paintings (Westminster n.d.).Google Scholar

²⁷ L'Orange, H.P., Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture (Oslo 1947); cf. also his book mentioned above, section 8a, note 5.Google Scholar

²⁸ Riegl, A., Die spätrömische Kunstindustrie (Vienna 1901).Google Scholar

²⁹ Cf. Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S., The Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial : A Provisional Guide (London 1951).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ Holmquist, W., Germanic Art during the First Millennium A.D. (Stockholm 1955), and Tauschierte Metallarbeiten des Nordens, aus Römerzeit und Völkerwanderung (Stockholm 1951).Google Scholar

³¹ Salin, E., La civilisation mérovingienne d'après les sépultures, les textes et le laboratoire, 3 vols. (Paris 1949ff.).Google Scholar

³² Werner, J., Das alemannische Gräberfeld von Bülach (Basel 1953); Fuchs, S. and Werner, J., Die langobardischen Fibeln aus Italien (Berlin 1950)Google Scholar

³³ See Swoboda's, discussion, Kunstgeschichtliche Anzeigen, N.F. 3. 165ff., of the relation between Salin's, B. various ‘Tierstile’ and the so-called Vendel-styles of Scandinavia, on the basis chiefly of the works of Greta Arwidsson, Vendelstile: Email und Glas im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert (Uppsala 1942) and Valsgärde 8 (Die Gräberfunde von Valsgärde II) (Uppsala 1954).Google Scholar

³⁴ Cf. Masai, F., Essai sur les origines de la miniature dite irlandaise (Publications de Scriptorium 1; Brussels-Antwerp 1947). See also the more moderate views of W. Clapham, A., ‘Notes on the Origin of Hiberno-Saxon Art,’ Antiquity 8 (1934) 43ff., and of Nordenfalk, C., ‘Before the Book of Durrow,’ Acta Archaeologica 18 (1947) 141 ff.Google Scholar

³⁵ See the mummy wigs of the evangelists in the Book of Durrow and the indirect influence of Isis-Horus motifs upon the representation of the Virgin and Child in the Book of Kells.Google Scholar

³⁶ In this connection cf. the historical studies of Levillain, L., ‘Études sur l'abbaye de Saint-Denis à l’époque mérovingienne II,’ Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes 86 (1925) 5ff., on the highly differentiated basilican, quasi-monastic communities of Merovingian France; also Margaret Deanesly, ‘Early English and Gallic Minsters,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (Ser. 4) 23 (1941) 25ff.Google Scholar

³⁷ Khatchatrian, A., ‘Notes sur l'architecture de l’église de Germigny-des-Près,’ Cahiers archéologiques 7 (1954) 161ff.Google Scholar

³⁸ Cf. Buchkremer, J., ‘Untersuchungen zum karolingischen Bau der Aachener Pfalzkapelle,’ Zeitschrift für Kunstwissenschaft 1 (1947) 1ff.Google Scholar

³⁹ Schürenberg, Lisa, ‘Mittelalterlicher Kirchenbau als Ausdruck geistiger Strömungen,’ Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 14 (1950) 24ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Juraschek, F., ‘Die Rauten der Königshalle in Lorsch an der Bergstrasse und die Triumphalarchitektur der Spätantike,’ Neue Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte des I. Jahrtausends 2 (Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und christlichen Archäologie 1.2; 1954) 115ff.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Reinhardt, H., Der St . Galler Klosterplan (St. Gallen 1952).Google Scholar

⁴² For the cross-basilica type see especially H. Forsyth, G., Jr., The Church of Saint Martin at Angers (Princeton 1953).Google Scholar

⁴³ Cf. Krautheimer, R., ‘The Carolingian Revival of Early Christian Architecture,’ The Art Bulletin 24 (1942) 1ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Köhler, W., Die karolingischen Miniaturen II: Die Hofschule Karls des Grossen (Denkmäler deutscher Kunst; Berlin 1958).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Boeckler, A., ‘Formgeschichtliche Studien zur Adagruppe,’ Abh. Akad. Munich N.F. 42 (1956).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Rosenbaum, Elisabeth, ‘The Evangelists of the Ada School and Their Models,’ The Art Bulletin 38 (1956) 81ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Grabar, A. and Nordenfalk, C., Early Medieval Painting from the Fourth to the Eleventh Century (The Great Centuries of Painting, Skira; New York n.d.).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Kitzinger, E., Römische Malerei vom Beginn des 7. bis zur Mitte des 8. Jahrhunderts (Munich 1934) and the second and third of his three articles quoted above, section 3a.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Porcher, J., ‘L’évangéliaire de Charlemagne et le psautier d’Amiens,’ Revue des arts 7 (1957) 51ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ H. Kantorowicz, E., ‘The Carolingian King in the Bible of San Paolo fuori le Mura,’ Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton 1955) 287ff., has proved that this sumptuous manuscript was dedicated to Charles II, the Bald, and not to Charles III, the Fat.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Cf. M. Friend, A., Jr., ‘Carolingian Art in the Abbey of St. Denis,’ Art Studies 1 (1923) 67ff., and ‘Two Manuscripts of the School of St. Denis,’ Speculum 1 (1926) 59ff. For the connection of the Codex Aureus of St. Emmeram and related manuscripts with the court of Charles the Bald in the latter part of his reign see now Nordenfalk, pp. 151f. of the work quoted in note 47 above.Google Scholar

¹ Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress, München 1958 (München: In Kommission bei Beck, C. H. 1958) 525 pp., 60 figs. The pagination is separate for each of the reports.Google Scholar

² See above, section 3a.Google Scholar

³ See below, section 10Bb, i and iii.Google Scholar

⁴ Pertusi, A., ‘La formation des thèmes byzantins.’Google Scholar

⁵ G. Kapsomenos, S., ‘Die griechische Sprache zwischen Koine und Neugriechisch.’Google Scholar

⁶ Kyriakides, S., ‘Forschungebericht zum Akritas-Epos.’Google Scholar

⁷ The author suggests as terminus ante quem the year 967.Google Scholar

⁸ Sherwood, P., ‘Maximus and Origenism.’Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. especially Sherwood, P., The Earlier Ambigua of St. Maximus the Confessor and His Refutation of Origenism (Rome 1955).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. above, section 5, end.Google Scholar

¹¹ For Gregory the bodily condition of man before the fall was not afflicted by passions, but was much like the spiritual one which will again prevail after the resurrection of the bodies; cf. my article ‘The Philosophical Anthropology of Saint Gregory of Nyssa,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12 (1958) 89ff.Google Scholar

¹² ‘The Patriarch Photius in the Light of Recent Research.’Google Scholar

¹³ Dvornik, F., The Photian Schism (Cambridge 1948).Google Scholar

¹⁴ For the Epanagoge see the review of Professor Zepos’ article, below, and cf. the important remarks by Professor Dvornik in his recent book The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 4; Cambridge, Mass. 1958) 271ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf. Stephanou, P., S.J., ‘La violation du compromis entre Photius et les ignatiens,’ Orientalia Christiana Periodica 21 (1955) 291ff.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Zepos, P. J., ‘Die byzantinische Jurisprudenz zwischen Justinian und den Basiliken.’Google Scholar

¹⁷ Wenger, L., Die Quellen des römischen Rechts (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 2; Vienna 1953) 696f. Google Scholar

¹⁸ For the ‘Military Laws’ contained in the Tactica of Leo VI (formerly attributed to Leo III) cf. Zepos, op. cit. 18, and Wenger, op. cit. 699,Google Scholar

¹⁹ Jammers, E., Schl, R.ötterer, Schmid, H., Waeltner, E., ‘Byzantinisches in der karolingischen Musik.’Google Scholar

²⁰ Kirsten, E., ‘Die byzantinische Stadt.’ Cf. now F. Dölger, ‘Die frühbyzantinische und byzantinisch beeinflusste Stadt,’ Centro Italiano di Studi sull’ Alto Medioevo, Atti 3 (Spoleto 1958) 1ff. and Ostrogorsky, G., ‘Byzantine Cities in the Early Middle Ages,’ DOP 13 (1959) 45 ff.Google Scholar

²¹ City-like settlements grew up also in the caves or grottoes of Cappadocia, Sicily, and certain parts of South Italy; according to Professor Kirsten they were not dependent upon the similar monastic settlements of these regions.Google Scholar

¹ Dumbarton Oaks Papers (hencefort DOP) 8 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1954) 330 pp., 42 figs. and 2 plates in the back cover. — DOP 9 and 10 (ibid. 1956) 316 pp., 116 figs. — DOP 11 (ibid. 1957) 277 pp., 119 figs. and 3 illustrations in text. — DOP 12 (ibid. 1958) 287 pp., 159 figs. and 1 illustration in text.Google Scholar

² Cf. sections 3a and 3b.Google Scholar

³ Banner, William A., ‘Origen and the Tradition of Natural Law Concepts,’ DOP 8.49-82.Google Scholar

⁴ The terms between quotation marks are mine and are used in the manner of ‘abbreviations.’Google Scholar

⁵ Wolfson, Harry A., ‘Philosophical Implications of the Theology of Cyril of Jerusalem,’ DOP 11.1-19. This paper was given at the Symposium held at Dumbarton Oaks in 1955.Google Scholar

⁶ ‘Philosophical Implications of Arianism and Apollinarism,’ DOP 12.3-28.Google Scholar

⁷ Wolfson, H. A., The Philosophy of the Church Fathers I (Cambridge, Mass. 1958).Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Wolfson, Philosophy of the Church Fathers I, chapters V and VI, on single and double faith theories.Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. Wolfson, ibid. chapter XV: ‘The Mystery of the Trinity.’Google Scholar

¹⁰ Quoted in note 6.Google Scholar

¹¹ Professor Wolfson promises to discuss this last-mentioned subject in greater detail in the second volume of his Philosophy of the Church Fathers. Google Scholar

¹² Cf. op. cit. chapter XII, pp. 192ff., on the view held by Philo, by the Apologists, and also by Arius that the Logos first was with God and then begotten; and pp. 198ff., on the doctrine made explicit first by Irenaeus and Origen of the eternally generated Logos; also pp. 202ff. on the corresponding difference between Philo on the one, and Plotinus and Origen on the other hand, with regard to non-eternal or eternal origin of the world ideas.Google Scholar

¹³ These papers formed a part of the Symposium on the Cappadocian Fathers held at Dumbarton Oaks in 1956.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Callahan, John F., ‘Greek Philosophy and the Cappadocian Cosmology,’ DOP 12.29-57.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Callahan, , op. cit. 56 n. 1; cf. his book Four Views of Time in Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass. 1948) and especially his article ‘Basil of Caesarea, a New Source for St. Augustine's Theory of Time,’ Harvard. Studies in Classical Philology 63 (1958) 437ff. The question of how far the doctrine of time of the Cappadocians was psychologically oriented, would seem to require further investigation; cf. also my book The Idea of Reform (Cambridge, Mass. 1959) 206 and my article quoted in note 16.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ladner, Gerhart B., ‘The Philosophical Anthropology of Saint Gregory of Nyssa,’ DOP 12.59-94.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Otis, Brooks, ‘Cappadocian Thought as a Coherent System,’ DOP 12.95-124.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Otis, op. cit. 121.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Professor Otis considers Gregory of Nyssa's double creation hypothesis in De hominis opificio — see the exposition in my article quoted in note 16 — ‘an unconvincing tour de force.’ It is impossible here to argue with his reasons, which in turn seem unconvincing to me.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ladner, ‘Philosophical Anthropology,’ DOP 12.84f. n. 114, cf. ibid. 93 n. 152. Professor Otis, op. cit. 110 n. 38, rejects this solution. However, it does not seem to me that he has proved that the Cappadocians’ partial abandoning of Origen's system necessarily involved the impossibility of angelic lapse.Google Scholar

²¹ Cf. the texts in Otis, op. cit. 111ff.Google Scholar

²² Sirarpie Der Nersessian, ‘An Armenian Version of the Homilies on the Harrowing of Hell,’ DOP 8.201-224.Google Scholar

²³ For the quotation in the homilies of Ps. 23.9 — the opening of the ‘eternal gates’ — cf. my book, quoted in note 15, p. 447 n. 21, and the literature mentioned there.Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. La Piana, G., Le rappresentazioni sacre nella letteratura bizantina dalle origini al sec. IX (Grottaferrata 1912).Google Scholar

²⁵ Dain, Alphonse, ‘La transmission des textes littéraires classiques de Photius à Constantin Porphyrogénète,’ DOP 8.31-47.Google Scholar

²⁶ Professor Dain briefly refers to the return of Greek books and scholars to the Byzantine Empire from Moslem territories in the tenth century — no doubt in the wake of the expansionist policy of the great emperor-generals of the Macedonian period.Google Scholar

²⁷ Dain, A., ‘Rapport sur la codicologie,’ Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress, München 1958 (Munich 1958), with comments by Giannelli, C. and Hunger, H. Cf. also Dain, A., Les manuscrits (Paris 1949) 71ff.Google Scholar

²⁸ Jenkins, Romilly J. H., ‘The Classical Background of the Scriptores post Theophanem,’ DOP 8.11-30. The paper of Professor Jenkins and the one by Professor Dain, mentioned in note 25, were delivered at the Symposium on the Cultural Era of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, held at Dumbarton Oaks in 1953.Google Scholar

²⁹ Cf. Alexander, P. J., ‘Secular Biography at Byzantium,’ Speculum 15 (1940) 194ff.Google Scholar

³⁰ The surviving fragments of Nicholas’ work significantly are contained in the historical excerpts of Constantine VII. Professor Jenkins also discusses the possibility of a secondary influence of Plutarch's lost life of Augustus.Google Scholar

³¹ Cf. Weitzmann, K., Greek Mythology in Byzantine Art (Princeton 1951).Google Scholar

³² Kantorowicz, Ernst H., ‘The Baptism of the Apostles,’ DOP 9-10. 203-251. This paper and those by Professor Wellesz and Professor Strunk, quoted next, were given at the Symposium on Byzantine Liturgy and Music, held at Dumbarton Oaks in 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ Kantorowicz, op. cit. 219. The author adduces very interesting early texts, from Aphraates, the ‘Persian Sage,’ from the Syrian poet Cyrillonas, etc.Google Scholar

³⁴ Cf. Kantorowicz, op. cit. 234ff., also for the relation of the Byzantine type of the representation of the pedilavium to ancient and medieval medical iconography, which includes footbaths and hand-to-head gestures.Google Scholar

³⁵ Kings and emperors, too, practiced the ritual foot washing on Holy Thursday; in Austria twelve poor men were thus washed by the emperor until 1918; cf. Kantorowicz, op. cit. 242f. n. 160.Google Scholar

³⁶ For the connection with caritas-chants cf. Kantorowicz, op. cit. 246f., Bischoff, B., ‘Caritas-Lieder,’ Liber Floridus: Mittellateinische Studien Paul Lehmann … dargebracht (St. Ottilien 1950) 165ff.Google Scholar

³⁷ Wellesz, Egon, ‘The “Akathistos”: A Study in Byzantine Hymnography,’ DOP 9-10. 141-174.Google Scholar

³⁸ Wellesz, op. cit. 162.Google Scholar

³⁹ Strunk, Oliver, ‘The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia,’ DOP 9-10.175-202.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Strunk, op. cit. 191ff.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Bellinger, Alfred R., ‘Roman and Byzantine Medallions in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection,’ DOP 12.125-156.Google Scholar

⁴² Cf. H. P. L’Orange, Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture (Oslo 1947).Google Scholar

⁴³ Professor Bellinger also discusses two other specimens and the very similar medallion of Phocas in the Numismatic Collection at the Art Museum in Vienna.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Beardlessness is one of the characteristics which the chroniclers disparagingly note in their attempts to define the rather sub-human personality of this emperor.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ For the latter cf. the third article of Kitzinger, E., reviewed above section 3a, especially pp. 20 and 27, fig. 21 c.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Stern, Henri, ‘Les mosaiques de l’église de Sainte-Constance à Rome,’ DOP 12.157-218.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Professor Stern does not deal with the two mosaics in the two lateral apses which represent the traditio legis and the transmission of the power of the keys by Christ to Peter.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The life of pope Silvester I in the Liber Pontificalis is the only source which speaks of a baptistery; it was written only about 500.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ There is also another uncertain scene around a prisoner.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ This corresponds largely to the iconography of the catacombs and early sarcophagi. Cf. also above section 10A, note 14.Google Scholar

⁵¹ It should not be forgotten, however, that Paradise landscapes with religious connotations did exist in early Christian art; see above, section 3a, and cf. Grabar, Iconoclasme byzantin 166.Google Scholar

⁵² Jamme, Albert, W. F., ‘Inscriptions on the Sabaean Bronze Horse of the Dumbarton Oaks Collection,’ DOP 8.315-330.Google Scholar

⁵³ Jamme, op. cit. 324.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ André Grabar, ‘Un rouleau liturgique constantinopolitain et ses peintures,’ DOP 8.161-199.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Grabar, op. cit. 168ff., also briefly discusses other illuminated Byzantine liturgical rotuli. The greater part of Byzantine liturgical rolls has no illustrations and some contain liturgical texts other than the liturgies of Chrysostom or Basil. For the western Exultet rolls cf. Myrtilla Avery, The Exultet Rolls of South Italy II (plates) (Princeton 1936), also my article ‘The “Portraits” of Emperors in Southern Italian Exultet Rolls,’ Speculum 17 (1942) 181ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ At a later date, but still in the twelfth century, the liturgy of St. Basil was written on the back of the roll and a small piece was added at its beginning, which on the obverse contains certain prayers from the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, not contained in the main piece,Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Cf. Millet, G., Recherches sur l'iconographie de l'évangile aux XIV ^e, XV^e et XVI^e siècles (Paris 1916).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. above, section 1, note 11.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ André Grabar, ‘Un nouveau reliquaire de saint Démétrios,’ DOP 8.305-313.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Cf. Grabar, A., ‘Quelques reliquaires de saint Démétrios et le martyrium du saint à Salonique,’ DOP 5 (1950) 1ff.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Underwood, Paul A., ‘First Preliminary Report on the Restoration of the Frescoes in the Kariye Camii at Istanbul by the Byzantine Institute, 1952-1954,’ DOP 9-10.253-288; ‘Second Preliminary Report …, 1955,’ DOP 11.172-220; ‘Third Preliminary Report …, 1956,’ DOP 12.235-265.Google Scholar

⁶² The existence of the frescoes was known, but of most of them only the dimmest outline could be guessed rather than seen. A Symposium on the Kariye Camii was held at Dumbarton Oaks in 1960.Google Scholar

⁶³ Demus, O., ‘Die Entstehung des Paläologenstils in der Malerei,’ Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress, München 1958 (Munich 1958).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Cf. Millet, G., Recherches , quoted above, note 57, especially pp. 630ff.; also ‘L'art des Balkans et l’Italie au XIII^e siècle,’ Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Bizantini 2 (Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 6.2; Rome 1940) 275.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ So above all Lazarev, V. N., Istorija vizantijskoj živopisi (Moscow 1947), according to Professor Demus (I do not read Russian).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Cf. Demus, op. cit. 30f. Some scholars still unconvincingly date the Deesis of the Hagia Sophia in the Comnenian period.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ The richness of medieval Macedonian art, not yet fully explored, is stressed by Professor Demus, who refers to the numerous works of Xyngopulos, A., for instance, to his book Thessalonique et la peinture macédonienne (Athens 1955).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Cf. Weitzmann, K., ‘Constantinopolitan Book Illumination in the Period of the Latin Conquest,’ Gazette des beaux-arts, Ser. 6, vol. 25 = 86.1 (1944) 193ff,Google Scholar

⁶⁹ For the problem of ‘historical distance’ as a condition for a true Renaissance see various studies by Panofsky, E., now especially his Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (Stockholm 1960).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Underwood, Paul A., ‘Notes on the Work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul: 1954,’ DOP 9-10.291-300; ‘Notes on the Work …: 1955-1956,’ DOP 12.267-287.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Underwood, P. A., ‘The Deisis Mosaic in the Kahrie Cami at Istanbul,’ Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (Princeton 1955) 254ff.Google Scholar

⁷² DOP 12.284ff.Google Scholar

⁷³ Whittemore, Thomas, The Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul : Preliminary Reports on Work Done 1931-1938, 4 vols. (Byzantine Institute, Paris 1933 and 1936, Boston 1942 and 1952).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ DOP 9-10.291-294.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ For these cf. above, section 3a, n. 12. For the probability that the earliest figure representations in Hagia Sophia dated from the latter part of the sixth century, cf. also the third article of Kitzinger, E., quoted avove section 3a, n. 11, especially p. 43, n. 168.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ There is also a small adjoining space with mosaics — crosses, rinceaux, etc. — which may belong to the era of Justinian I.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See also Grabar, Iconoclasme byzantin 193f. (cf. above, section 3a, n. 34).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Cf. DOP 9-10.298f.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Cf. ibid. 299f.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Downey, Glanville, ‘The Church of All Saints (Church of St. Theophano) near the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople,’ DOP 9-10.301-305.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Forsyth, George H., ‘Architectural Notes on a Trip through Cilicia,’ DOP 11.223-236.Google Scholar

⁸² Canard, Marius, ‘Les aventures d'un prisonnier arabe et d'un patrice byzantin à l’époque des guerres bulgaro-byzantines,’ DOP 9-10.49-72.Google Scholar

⁸³ Dvornik, Francis, ‘Byzantine Political Ideas in Kievan Russia,’ DOP 9-10.73-121.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Dvornik, op. cit. 91.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Obolensky, Dimitri, ‘Byzantium, Kiev and Moscow: A Study in Ecclesiastical Relations,’ DOP 11.21-78.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Though this text had been correctly printed by Parisot, V. in 1851, most historians were misled by a crucial mistake in the Bonn edition of 1855, by Bekker, I., which omits the reference to the alternation in the nationality of the primates of the Russian Church. Professor Obolensky states that both surviving manuscripts contain the passage in question.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Obolensky, op. cit. 75.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Professor Obolensky does however give a good account of the terminological difficulties with regard to the Greek terms κατάστασις (appointment) and χειροτονία (in the then prevailing meaning of consecration) and the Slavonic terms postavlenie (appointment, which may include election and consecration) and blagoslovenie (ratification [by the patriarch]).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Robert Lee Wolff, ‘Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261,’ DOP 8.225-303. Cf. also Wolff, R. L., ‘The Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261: Social and Administrative Consequences of the Latin Conquest,’ Traditio 6 (1948) 33ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Wolff, ‘Politics’ 295. ⁹¹ Wolff, op. cit. 296-303.Google Scholar

⁹² It is very doubtful whether a more lenient papal policy toward Venetian excesses, including the arrogations of the first three patriarchs, could have saved the Latin Empire, and Professor Wolff himself points out the theoretical and practical objections to such a policy.Google Scholar

⁹³ It is tempting here to recall how in a somewhat similar situation, in the early Carolingian age, secularization of Church property was in part made good by the introduction of the tithe.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ihor Ševčenko, ‘Nikolas Cabasilas’ “Anti-Zealot” Discourse: A Reinterpretation,’ DOP 11.79-171.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Cf. I. Ševčenko, ‘The Zealot Revolution and the Supposed Genoese Colony in Thessalonica,’ Πϱoσφoϱà εἰς Στίλπωνα Π. Kuϱιαίδην (Salonica 1953) 603ff., with literature on the Zealots.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Again (cf. note 93) one might compare the situation in Byzantium with a much earlier one in the Carolingian age, in this case with that in the declining Carolingian Empire of the time of Charles the Bald, where a similar irreconcilable conflict between ecclesiastical, especially monastic, and feudal interests caught the royal government, threatened by external and internal foes, as in a vise.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Ševčenko, ‘Anti-Zealot Discourse’ 170.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Vasiliev, A. A., ‘Notes on Some Episodes concerning the Relations between the Arabs and the Byzantine Empire from the Fourth to the Sixth Century,’ DOP 9-10.306-316.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Vryonis, Speros, Jr., ‘The Will of a Provincial Magnate, Eustathius Boilas (1059),’ DOP 11.263-277.Google Scholar

¹ Saxl, F., Lectures (London: The Warburg Institute, University of London 1957) vol. I: 390 pp., vol. II: 26 pp., 243 plates.Google Scholar

² See above, section 10A.Google Scholar

³ Saxl, Lectures I 1-12.Google Scholar

⁴ Saxl, ‘Macrocosm and Microcosm in Mediaeval Pictures,’ Lectures I 58-72. Cf. also the older studies from the Warburg circle by Liebesch, H.ütz, ‘Kosmologische Motive in der Bildungswelt der Frühscholastik,’ Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg 1923-1924 (1926) 83ff.; Das allegorische Weltbild der heiligen Hildegard von Bingen (Studien der Bibliothek Warburg 16; Leipzig-Berlin 1930), and the very interesting recent article by Bober, H., ‘An Illustrated Medieval School-Book of Bede's “De Natura Rerum”,’ The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 19-20 (1956-1957) 65ff., especially 84 and figs 4, 5, 11, and 13. See also Allers, R., ‘Microcosmus from Anaximandros to Paracelsus,’ Traditio 2 (1944) 319ff. For the relation between medieval cosmological images and the ‘life of forms’ in medieval art, which can be symbolical and ornamental at one and the same time, cf. the articles by Baltrusaitis, J., ‘Quelques survivances de symboles solaires dans l'art du moyen âge,’ Gazette des beaux-arts, Ser. 6, vol. 17 = 79.1 (1937) 75ff.; ‘L'image du monde céleste du IX^e au XII^e siècle,’ ibid. Ser. 6, vol. 20 = 80.2 (1938) 137ff.; ‘Rose des vents et roses de personnages à l’époque romane,’ ibid. 265ff.; ‘Cercles astrologiques et cosmographiques à la fin du moyen âge,’ ibid. Ser. 6, vol. 21 = 81.1 (1939) 65ff.Google Scholar

⁵ For late Antiquity and the earlier Middle Ages cf. the study of Stern, H. on the calendar of 354, quoted above, p. 483 n. 25, and Webster, J. C., The Labors of the Months in Antique and Mediaeval Art to the End of the Twelfth Century (Princeton Monographs in Art and Archaeology 21; Princeton 1938).Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Panofsky, E. and Saxl, F., Dürers ‘Melencolia I’ (Studien der Bibliothek Warburg 2; Leipzig-Berlin 1923). For the ‘Vitruvian man’ and proportion studies cf. Panofsky's studies quoted below, note 13.Google Scholar

⁷ Saxl, ‘The Revival of Late Antique Astrology,’ Lectures I 73-84.Google Scholar

⁸ Saxl, ‘The Belief in Stars in the Twelfth Century,’ Lectures I 85-95.Google Scholar

⁹ Saxl, op. eit. 94.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. also Saxl, F., Verzeichnis astrologischer und mythologischer illustrierter Handschriften des lateinischen Mittelalters 1: In römischen Bibliotheken, and 2: Die Handschriften der Nationalbibliothek in Wien (Sb. Akad. Heidelberg 1915, 6 7 and 1925-26, 2) and Saxl, F. and Meier, H., ed. Bober, H., Catalogue of Astrological and Mythological Illuminated Manuscripts of the Latin Middle Ages 3: Manuscripts in English Libraries (London 1953).Google Scholar

¹¹ Saxl, ‘Illuminated Science Manuscripts in England,’ Lectures I 96-110.Google Scholar

¹² Saxl, ‘Science and Art in the Italian Renaissance,’ Lectures I 111-124.Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. Panofsky, E., ‘Die Entwicklung der Proportionslehre als Abbild der Stilentwicklung,’ Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft 14 (1921) 188ff., translated into English: ‘The History of the Theory of Human Proportions as a Reflection of the History of Styles,’ in Panofsky, Meaning in the Visual Arts (Garden City 1955) 55ff.; Dürers Kunsttheorie (Berlin 1915); The Codex Huygens and Leonardo da Vinci's Art Theory. The Pierpont Morgan Library Cod. M.A. 1139 (Studies of the Warburg Institute 13; London 1940). — For the related problems of mathematical perspective in medieval and Renaissance art cf. also Saxl, op. cit. 113ff., and above all Panofsky, E., ‘Die Perspektive als “symbolische Form”,’ Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg 1924-25 (1927) 258ff.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Saxl, ‘Illustrated Mediaeval Encyclopaedias 1: The Classical Heritage,’ Lectures I 228-241, and ‘Illustrated Mediaeval Encyclopaedias 2: The Christian Transformation,’ ibid. 242-254. Cf. also Goldschmidt, A., ‘Frühmittelalterliche illustrierte Enzyklopädien,’ Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg 1923-1924 (1926) 215ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵ This copy would have been executed soon after the death of Isidore, who left the work unfinished.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Saxl, op. cit. 254.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Saxl. ‘The Troy Romance in French and Italian Art,’ Lectures I 125-138.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Saxl, ‘Petrarch in Venice,’ Lectures I 139-149.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Saxl, ‘Troy Romance,’ loc. cit. 137.Google Scholar

²⁰ Saxl, ‘Jacopo Bellini and Mantegna as Antiquarians,’ Lectures I 150-160.Google Scholar

²¹ Saxl, ‘Illustrated Pamphlets of the Reformation,’ Lectures I 255-266.Google Scholar

²² Cf. my article ‘Die mittelalterliche Reform-Idee und ihr Verhältnis zur Idee der Renaissance,’ Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung 60 (1952) 57f. n. 121 and n. 122.Google Scholar

²³ Saxl, ‘Dürer and the Reformation,’ Lectures I 267-276.Google Scholar

²⁴ Saxl, ‘Holbein and the Reformation,’ Lectures I 277-285.Google Scholar

¹ Mommsen, Theodor E., Medieval and Renaissance Studies , ed. Eugene Rice, F., Jr. (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press 1959) XIII and 353 pp., 39 figs.Google Scholar

² Cf. section 6.Google Scholar

³ Mommsen, loc. cit. 3-18.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid. 19-32.Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. ibid. 32.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid. 33-49.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid. 50-70.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. ibid. 70.Google Scholar

⁹ Mommsen, ‘An Introduction to Petrarch's Sonnets and Songs,’ loc. cit. 73-100,Google Scholar

¹⁰ Mommsen, loc. cit. 98f.Google Scholar

¹¹ Mommsen, ‘The Last Will: A Personal Document of Petrarch's Old Age,’ loc. cit. 197-235.Google Scholar

¹² Mommsen, loc. cit. 232.Google Scholar

¹³ Mommsen, ‘Petrarch's Conception of the “Dark Ages’”, loc. cit. 106-129.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Mommsen, loc. cit. 129.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf. now Panofsky, E., Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (Figura 10; Stockholm 1960); see also my forthcoming article ‘Vegetation Symbolism and the Concept of Renaissance,’ cited above, p. 433 n. 7.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Petrarch, Africa 9.457, cf. Mommsen, loc. cit. 127.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cf. Mommsen, loc. cit. 108 notes 13f. Interestingly enough, the Romantics were to use similar metaphors for the Middle Ages: this period may have been a night, but a night full of stars.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Tenebrae; cf. Mommsen, loc. cit. 118.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. Mommsen, loc. cit. 127.Google Scholar

²⁰ Petrarch, Fomil. 1.4, cf. Mommsen, loc. cit. 120.Google Scholar

²¹ Cf. for instance, my article quoted in note 15.Google Scholar

²² Mommsen, ‘Petrarch and the Decoration of the Sala Virorum Illustrium in Padua,’ loc. cit. 130-174.Google Scholar

²³ Cf. Prince d’Essling and E. Müntz, Petrarque: Ses études d'art, son influence sur les artistes, ses portraits et ceux de Laure, l'illustration de ses écrits (Paris 1902).Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. Schlosser, J. v., ‘Ein Veronesisches Bilderbuch und die höfische Kunst des XIV. Jahrhunderts’, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses 16 (1895) 183ff. Gerhart Ladner, B. Google Scholar

²⁵ Mommsen, ‘Petrarch and the Story of the Choice of Hercules,’ loc. cit. 175-196.Google Scholar

²⁶ Panofsky, E., Hercules am Scheidewege und andere antike Bildstoffe in der neueren Kunst (Studien der Bibliothek Warburg 18; Leipzig-Berlin 1930).Google Scholar

²⁷ Mommsen, loc. cit. 190.Google Scholar

²⁸ Mommsen, ‘Rudolph Agricola's Life of Petrarch,’ loc. cit. 236-261. This paper appeared first in Traditio 8 (1952) 367–386.Google Scholar

²⁹ Mommsen, ‘An Early Representation of Petrarch as Poet Laureate,’ loc. cit. 101-105. — One more study on Petrarch by Mommsen, not included in the volume reviewed, should be mentioned: ‘The Date of Petrarch's Canzone Italia Mia,’ Speculum 14 (1939) 28–37.Google Scholar