1. Introduction The cult of Theotokos held a central place in the religious life of Constantinople. Already from the 7th century Constantinople became, according to C. Mango’s expression, “Theotokoupolis” (=city of Virgin Mary), with an ever growing emphasis on Virgin’s cult which is also apparent in the effort to gather relics of hers in the capital. In one of his orations in 624/625, Theodore Synkellos mentions the density of churches and chapels dedicated to Theotokos, situated almost in every public building, palace or religious foundation.1 The most important pilgrimage shrine of Theotokos at Constantinople was the church of Blachernai.2 In reality, it was a complex including the basilica (it is also mentioned as the Great Church in the De Cerimoniis), the Hagia Soros, where Virgin’s was kept, as well as other holy relics, and a bath edifice, the so-called lousma (λού[σ]μα).3 The date of the structure is uncertain. Earlier, the basilica was believed to have been founded by the empress Pulcheria;4 however, more recent research attributes the erection of the basilica to Justin I (518-527). The Soros was most probably an older structure than the basilica, whereas its erection was associated with the translation of the maphorion from a village near Nazareth to Constantinople, in the last years of Leo’s I reign (457-474). Blachernai was a quarter on the shores of Golden Horn, lying outside the enceinte of Theodosian land walls. Breezy and woody region, it was a fine suburb where some wealthy Romans built their mansions. Furthermore, at Blachernai there was natural spring of mineral water, which was used for baths, to which healing qualities were attributed at some point by the 5th century. such qualities, connected with the local Virgin’s cult.5 2. The monument. Architectural description The appearance of this early-Byzantine monument is partially known by descriptions, since the monument itself has not been preserved. Procopios describes it (around 554), as a , with two colonnades made of Parian marble. It was a structure of overwhelming dimensions, with 50 m. length. During the repairing-works that took place under Justin II (565-578), two were added, on the northern and the southern wall of the initial building, so as to form a transept visible in the groundplan.6 The basilica had a and accessible through a staircase, as well as an and a . On the gallery there was a chapel and a chamber. To the south of the there was a small (sacristy).7 It seems that the bath edifice was located to the south of the basilica, towards the Palace. To the southeast of the basilica there was the shrine of Hagia Soros. This edifice probably predated the basilica, and was circular in groundplan.8 The Hagia Soros was not just a chapel, since it was a building of significant dimensions, with a separate narthex, to which a chamber behind the basilika's skeuophylakion gave access. The Soros also included a triclinus for the emperor.9 Beneath the Altar of the Soros there was a reliquary, to which the sources are referring as episkepsis (ἐπίσκεψις).10 From other sources we learn that inside the Soros there was an ambo,11 which means that the place was intended from the beginning to host holy services. In all probability it had a gallery as well with a chapel and a metatorion (a changing room). Via the triclinus a pass with a staircase gave access from the Soros to the Blacharnai palace.12 3. The history of the Virgin Mary of Blachernai 3.1. The date of the basilica In the earlier bibliography the basilica of Blachernai was believed to have been founded by the empress Pulcheria and her husband Maurice (450-457) between the years 450-453. This attribution was based on the testimony of ample later sources.13 Nevertheless, Procopios records it as a Justin’s I edifice (518-527). Under Justin II the basilica acquired its trancept that gave it a cruciform shape, a work that is attested in two epigrams of the Anthologia Palatina (1.2-3); In the second of these epigrams, founder of the church appears again Justin I.14 According to C. Mango, these two testimonies are clearer and more reliable than the imprecise information we collect from later sources, and thus, we must consider the chronology that places the monument's erection in the years of Justin I safe enough.15 3.2. The Hagia Soros and the tradition related to Pulcheria The eukterion (place of worship) of Blachernai already existed there in the year 475, when Verina, Leo’s I wife (457-474) and Basiliskos’ sister (475-476), against whom he had turned after his accession to the throne, sought refuge there. However, the building in question must have been the Soros and not the basilica, which is a later addition, as we have seen.16 The foundation of the Soros is associated with the translation of Virgin’s maphorion from Nazareth to Constantinople, during the decade of 460. Neither is Pulcheria’s role believed to be certain regarding the erection of this older edifice. According to C. Mango, the Soros was built by Verina during the last years of Leo’s reign. Verina’s relation to the Soros and the foundation at Blachernai generally passes in silence in the written sources. The later tradition, repeated among others by Theophanes, associates Pulcheria’s name not only with Virgin Mary of Blachernai, but with the Virgin Mary of Chalkoprateia as well,17 attributing, thus, to this empress an important role in the introduction and the consolidation of the Virgin’s cult at Constantinople: because both of these churches, not only were dedicated to Theotokos, but they also sheltered, supposedly or not, important relics of Theotokos: the holy girdle (Virgin Mary of Chalkoprateia) and the maphorion (Virgin Mary of Blachernai). Nevertheless, the evidence on Virgin Mary of Chalkoprateia imply that it was rather a foundation of Verina than of Pulcheria. As far as the relic of the holy girdle is concerned, it is a tradition of uncertain origin and in any case subsequent to the one referring to the maphorion; however, since the moment it made its appearance, in the beginnings of the 8th century, it has been usually associated with the story of maphorion;18 after the fall and the sack of Constantinople by the knights of the Fourth Crusade, a fragment of the holy girdle was supposedly kept in the Virgin Mary of Blachernai.19 In relation to the decoration of the Hagia Soros, some testimonies have been preserved about two of its decorative scenes: the first one was probably covering the apse conch and portrayed the figure of enthroned Theotokos, flanked by the emperor Leo I, Verina and their daughter Ariadne. Verina was pictured in a posture of veneration, with her grand-son Leo in her arms. The second scene (or a big portable icon, it is not clear) was found in the diakonikon and depicted Theotokos flanked by two angels and two saints, John Prodromos and Conon. In a posture of prayer were depicted the patrikioi Galbius and Candidus, who transferred, according to the tradition, Virgin’s maphorion to Constantinople.20 3.3. The glory of the shrine Until the beginnings of the 6th century, the pious foundation of the Virgin Mary of Blachernai seems to have already rose to prominence as a place of miraculous healings – an attribute connected with the relic of the maphorion as well as with the spring on that spot) and this reputation eventually urged Justin I to built a grand basilica at Blachernai, which remained the largest Constantinopolitan church of Theotokos in dimensions. Always according to C. Mango, it is probable that the foundation of the Soros church and the translation of the maphorion to Constantinople were connected with Monophysitic cycles of the capital city, a hypothesis based on the testimony of the sources referring to the origin of the two patrikioi, of Galbius and Candidus. In that case, the erection of a splendid church by Justin I could have been interpreted as an effort to associate the already famous relic with the Orthodox tradition. This may explain as well the evolution, during later times, of the tradition connecting the translation of the maphorion and the foundation of the church at Blachernai with the pious Orthodox empress Pulcheria.21 Under Justin II (565-578) the basilica was renovated and acquired a cross shaped ground-plan. A large number of clergy served at the temple, which was second only to the clergy of Hagia Sophia. In 588 the emperor Maurice established a weekly patronal feast at the church of Blachernai, while a Novel of Herakleios (610-641) ordained the reduction of the number to 74 persons:22 12 presbyters, 18 deacons, 6 deaconesses, 8 subdeacons, 20 lectors, 4 chanters and 6 doorkeepers. According to Theodore Synkellos, by the 7th century Blachernitissa was already considered as the most important oikos of the Virgin at the capital.23 In 1070 the church of the Virgin Mary of Blachernai was destroyed by fire24 and was restored by the emperors Romanos IV (Diogenes) (1068-1071) and Michael VII Doukas (1071-1078). The new building most probably followed the previous basilica-with-transept plan. From de Clavijo’s description we are informed that it was a three-aisled basilica with an attic window, without dome, with superb inner decoration.25 In 1434, short before the Fall of Constantinople the church was burnt down for the second time. After 1434 only the place of the holy fountain remained intact, while afterwards, in 1453, the wider region came within the Ottomans’ sphere of authority. Traces of the edifice were visible until the middle of the 16th century, but soon afterwards they disappeared as well.26 In 1867 the land belonged to the property of a Turk. It was bought by the guild of Constantinople’s furriers, which erected a small shrine around the hagiasma (holy spring).27 Gradually, as the time passed the Patriarchate of Constantinople erected new buildings, giving to the area its present form. The church was decorated with paintings in 1964, depicting themes from the pilgrim’s history. 4. The Virgin Mary of Blachernai as Constantinople’s divine protector 4.1. Akathistos Hymn It is not clear when the Virgin Mary of Blachernai was first considered Constantinople’s divine protector. It seems, however, that it was an evolution predating the great siege of Constantinople by the Avars in 626.28 According to the tradition, during the siege of 626 the patriarch of Constantinople Sergios (610-638) walked in procession holding the maphorion (and/ or the icon of Theotokos Blachernitissa) around the city and on its walls, encouraging thus its not numerous defenders. A little later, while the Avars tried with small boats (monoxyla) to get Persian reinforcements ferried across, from the opposite Asian shore, a storm burst out which destroyed their fleet and forced them to abandon the siege. After the raising of the siege the entire people of Constantinople gathered at the church of the Virgin Mary of Blachernai, where a thanks-giving agrypnia (vigilance) was performed. During the vigilance the Akathistos Hymn was chanted, which according to the tradition was supposed to have been composed the same day by patriarch Sergios,29 in an act of gratitude for rescuing the city. The event has been depicted on the inner side of the latest edifice. This tradition is later; the narrations closest to the 7th-century events record neither the procession (litany) of Virgin’s icon (there are some narrations recording a certain icon of Christ and a Virgin’s icon situated on the western walls) nor the storm inflicted upon the Avars.30 As far as the maphorion is concerned, in reality it had already been transferred in 623 from the Virgin Mary of Blachernai, which remained extramural, in order not to run any danger during the siege. However, already the 7th-century sources attributed the raising of the siege of 626 to a miracle of Theotokos Blachernitissa, whose vision supposed to have appeared before the of the Avars and to have put him to flight. An epigram of George Pisides in the Palatine Anthology praises Virgin Mary of Blachernai for protecting the city from the barbarians. To the Virgin’s miraculous intervention was attributed as well the rescue of Constantinople during the sieges of 676-678 and 717-718 by the Arabs; the Akathistos Hymn had been associated with the raising of the second siege. Finally, the siege of the Rus in 860 was ended thanks to a storm disastrous for the enemy fleet, attributed to the fact that patriarch Photios sank into the waters Virgin’s maphorion. Generally speaking, between the 6th and the 9th century Theotokos was distinguished as Constantinople’s par excellence supernatural protector; in this belief central place possessed the shrine of the Virgin Mary at Blachernai.31 4.2. The miraculous icon of Theotokos Blachernitissa In the 11th century, the historian Michael Attaleiates referring to Virgin’s icon that Romanos IV Diogenes had brought along with him in his campaign against the Seljuks, defined it as the one of Blachernitissa, the miraculous icon from the church of Blachernai.32 The first time a Virgin’s icon that was associated with military campaign dates already to the beginnings of the 7th century, during Herakleios’ campaign against Phokas (602-610), however until the 11th century Virgin’s icons regarding military events were not defined due to specific names. The iconographic type of Theotokos which is defined as Blachernitissa on coins and seals portrays Theotokos with her hands raised, in a gesture of entreaty; the variation of Virgin Orans with Christ-Child in bust, within a medallion in front of her chest is also called Blachernitissa, as well as Episkepsis. Finally, an 11th-century icon from the Sinai monastery portrays Theotokos holding Christ-Child, according to the type, but is defined as Blachernitissa.33 Obviously Virgin’s icons such as the above-mentioned ones were found in the shrine of the Virgin Mary at Blachernai, but it is hard to define which one of them was considered to be the miraculous one associated with the celebration of triumphs and the protection of the city. A description of Leo the Deacon about Virgin’s icon that John I Tzimiskes used during his triumph in 971, after his victory over the Bulgarians, seems to fit in with the type that we call today Eleousa, while other sources as well point out that such an icon, believed to be miraculous, was kept inside the church of Blachernai.34 Besides, from the 12th century on another icon of Theotokos, that of , very close to the Eleousa type from an iconographical viewpoint, became the par excellence palladium of Constantinople. This icon, for which also existed the legend of being made by the hands of the Evangelist Luke, was connected with illuminations of the Akathistos Hymn on 14th-century manuscripts, while each year it was been carried to the palace of Blachernai from the Palm Sunday until Easter Sunday.35 The close relation of these two Theotokos icons, associated both with Constantinople’s supernatural protection, becomes clear on the Virgin of the Tretyakov gallery (fig. 3), a Constantinopolitan icon of 1130 according to the Eleousa type, that was gifted to the prince of Kiev and believed to possess Blachernitissa’s qualities, while it was from the 15th century onwards that its attribution to the Evangelist Luke commenced, following the example of Hodegetria icon of Constantinople.36 5. Theotokos Blachernitissa – The “Great Panagia” of the city In Byzantine and post-Byzantine liturgical pattens (panagiaria), as well as in 14th-15th-c. paintings and mosaics in the apses of the bema, we find quite often representations of the Theotokos in the type of Blachernitissa inscribed “Great Panagia”. In relation to this observation it is worth-mentioning that, monasteries under the name “Great Panagia”37 existed already during the 10th century at Athens and at Irtakion, near Kyzikos. However, the use of the epithet associated with the imperial cult point to Constantinople, because it was there that many monuments were venerated under the title “Great”; ti was also there that Theotokos Blachernitissa was originally considered as the city’s divine protector.38 It is very probable that the “Great Panagia” constituted the every-day name of the shrine of the Virgin Mary at Blachernai, because besides the relation of the iconographic types between Great Panagia and Blachernitissa, we may suppose that this name was used as a way to denote the church at Blachernae and differentiate it from other, smaller churches at Byzantine Constantinople dedicated to the Mother of God. Furthermore, besides its size, the Virgin Mary of Blachernai was, as we have said, by far the most celebrated church of Theotokos at Constantinople, which, already before the 7th century, had been associated with miraculous healings.39 In addition, the existence of other extramural churches dedicated to Blachernitissa, mainly at Ravenna and the Greek mainland, most probably urged the Byzantines to ascribe the name "Great Panagia" to the original Virgin Mary of Blachernai (meaning the church).40 Following the course of this hypothesis, we may think that the "Acolouthia of the lifting of the Panagia" ("Panagia" was for the first time celebrated at the church of Blachernai, since the scenes of the Great Panagia are related to the imperial ideology, whereas we are not obliged to associate this Eucharistic rite ceremony exclusively with monastic refectories in the 10th c.41 Thus, we can not exclude the possibility that the "Acolouthia of the lifting of the Panagia" had been introduced exactly at Blachernai, by far the most important Constantinopolitan church among those dedicated to Theotokos, since the clergy serving there possessed the statue and the power, because of its close relations with the imperial court, to introduce novelties in the Divine Liturgy. During the last centuries of the empire’s decline (14th -15th c.), at churches under the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Ohrid appeared frescoes with the inscription ΜΕΓΑΛΗ ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ (the Great Panagia), that, besides the spread of this iconographic type, perhaps they attest an effort to promote the Archbishopric as the guardian of the liturgical tradition under threat, at the decayed capital, by non Christian presumptive conquerors.42 On the other hand, the naming Great Panagia which accompanies many a variation of Blachernitissa’s imagery inside encolpia, medallions and objects of personal use in general, could be associated with the fame of the Virgin Mary of Blachernai miraculous cult mainly in relation to healings; it acquired, thus, during the post-Byzantine period an apotropaic and soteriological nature, and not so much an Eucharistic one. |
1. Θεόδωρος Σύγκελλος, “Theodore Syncellus, In depositionem pretiosae vestis”, in Combefis, F. (ed.), Novum auctarium, vol. II. Historia haeresis monotheliarum santaque in eam sextae Synodi actorum vindiciae (Paris 1648), pp. 751-786, for the relics see esp. p. 754. Mango, C., “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople”, in: Cambi, N., Marin, E., (eds.), Radovi XIII Međunarodnog Kongresa za starokršćansku arheologiju (Split, Poreč 25.9 -1.10. 1994) [Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae II] (Split-Vatican City 1998), p. 61. Mango, C., "Η Κωνσταντινούπολη ως Θεοτοκούπολη", in: Μήτηρ Θεού. Απεικονίσεις της Παναγίας στη βυζαντινή Τέχνη (Benaki Museum, Athens 2000), pp. 17-25. 2. Mango, C., “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople”, in: Cambi, N., Marin, E., (eds.), Radovi XIII Međunarodnog Kongresa za starokršćansku arheologiju (Split, Poreč 25.9 -1.10. 1994) [Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae II] (Split-Vatican City 1998), p. 61. 3. Mercati, G., “Due nove memorie di S. Maria delle Blacherne”, in: Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia. Memorie, Ser. 3, vol. 1 (Roma 1923/24), p. 26 ff. Mango, C., “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople”, in: Cambi, N., Marin, E., (eds.), Radovi XIII Međunarodnog Kongresa za starokršćansku arheologiju (Split, Poreč 25.9 -1.10. 1994) [Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae II], (Split-Vatican City 1998), p. 63, fig. 1. 4. Ebersolt, J., Sanctuaires de Byzance (Paris 1921), p. 44 ff. Janin, R. Le géographie ecclésiastique de l’ empire Byzantine, I: Le siège de Constantinople et le Patriarchat Oecuménique, 3: Les églises et les monastères (Paris 21969), pp.161-168. 5. Mango, C., “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople”, in: Cambi, N., Marin, E., (eds.), Radovi XIII Međunarodnog Kongresa za starokršćansku arheologiju (Split, Poreč 25.9 -1.10. 1994) [Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae II] (Split-Vatican City 1998), p. 62. 6. Προκόπιος, Περι κτισμάτων, J. Haury (ed.), G. Wirth (corr.) Procopii Cesariensis Opera Omnia, IV: De aedificiis (Leipzig 1964), I.3.3-5. Θεοφάνης, Χρονογραφία, de Boor, C. (ed.) Theophanis Chronographia (Leipzig 1883), p. 244. 7. Mango, C., “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople”, in: Cambi, N., Marin, E., (eds.), Radovi XIII Međunarodnog Kongresa za starokršćansku arheologiju (Split, Poreč 25.9 -1.10. 1994) [Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae II], (Split-Vatican City 1998), p. 63, fig1. 8. «... περιφερής ή σφαιροειδής νεώς», Νικηφόρος Κάλλιστος Ξανθόπουλος, Εκκλησιαστική Ιστορία, ed. J.P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus Series Greca 147, col. 45D, 69C. 9. Janin, R. Le géographie ecclésiastique de l’ empire Byzantine, I: Le siège de Constantinople et le Patriarchat Oecuménique, 3: Les églises et les monastères (Paris 21969), p. 168. Mango, C., “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople”, in: Cambi, N., Marin, E., (eds.), Radovi XIII Međunarodnog Kongresa za starokršćansku arheologiju (Split, Poreč 25.9 -1.10. 1994) [Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae II], (Split-Vatican City 1998), p. 63. 10. Grumel, V. “Sur l’ Episkepsis des Blachernes”, Échos d’ Orient 29 (1930), pp. 334-336. 11. «Βίος αγίου Ανδρέα του δια Χριστόν σαλού», Migne, J.P. (ed.) Patrologiae cursus completus Series Greca 111, col. 848C. 12. Mango, C., “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople”, in: Cambi, N., Marin, E., (eds.), Radovi XIII Međunarodnog Kongresa za starokršćansku arheologiju (Split, Poreč 25.9 -1.10. 1994) [Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae II], (Split-Vatican City 1998), p. 63. See as well Κωνσταντίνος Πορφυρογέννητος, Περι Βασιλείου τάξεως Ι 27, A. Vogt (ed.), Constantin VII Porphyrogénète, Le livre des Cérémonies vol. 1 (Paris 1935), p. 141. 13. For the relevant sources see Janin, R. Le géographie ecclésiastique de l’ empire Byzantine, I: Le siège de Constantinople et le Patriarchat Oecuménique, 3: Les églises et les monastères (Paris 21969), p. 161 note 11. See as well Νικηφόρος Κάλλιστος Ξανθόπουλος, Εκκλησιαστική Ιστορία, XV.14, Migne, J.P. (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus Series Greca 147, col. 41D-44A. 14. Παλατινή Ανθολογία, Beckby, H., (ed.) Anthologia Greca I (Munich 21965), epigr. 2 and 3; Mango, C., “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople”, in: Cambi, N., Marin, E., (eds.), Radovi XIII Međunarodnog Kongresa za starokršćansku arheologiju (Split, Poreč 25.9 -1.10. 1994) [Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae II], (Split-Vatican City 1998), p. 64. 15. Mango, C., “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople”, in: Cambi, N., Marin, E., (eds.), Radovi XIII Međunarodnog Kongresa za starokršćansku arheologiju (Split, Poreč 25.9 -1.10. 1994) [Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae II], (Split-Vatican City 1998), p. 64. 16. Βίος Δανιήλ Στυλίτου, Delehaye, H., (ed.) "Vita Danielis stylitae", Analecta Bollandiana 32 (1913), p. 187. Mango, C., “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople”, in: Cambi, N., Marin, E., (eds.), Radovi XIII Međunarodnog Kongresa za starokršćansku arheologiju (Split, Poreč 25.9 -1.10. 1994) [Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae II], (Split-Vatican City 1998), pp. 64-5. 17. Θεοφάνους Χρονογραφία, De Boor, C. (ed.) Theophanis Chronographia (Lipsiae 1883), pp. 102 and 105. 18. Mango, C., "Η Κωνσταντινούπολη ως Θεοτοκούπολη", in: Μήτηρ Θεού. Απεικονίσεις της Παναγίας στη βυζαντινή Τέχνη, (Benaki Museum, Athens2000), p. 19. For a more detailed critical presentation of the traditions with regard to Pulcheria’s role in the foundation of the Virgin Mary of Blachernai and the translation of the maphorion to Constantinople see Mango, C., “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople”, in: Cambi, N., Marin, E., (eds.), Radovi XIII Međunarodnog Kongresa za starokršćansku arheologiju (Split, Poreč 25.9 -1.10. 1994) [Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae II] (Split-Vatican City 1998), pp. 65-73. 19. The last report of this holy relic is an anonymous Russian pilgrim to Constantinople between the years 1424 and 1453. We are unaware of what happened to this piece of the Timia Zone after 1453. Thus, the only surviving piece is the one kept in the Holy Monastery of Vatopaidi, where it ended up after a very adventurous way. 20. Mango, C., “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople”, in: Cambi, N., Marin, E., (eds.), Radovi XIII Međunarodnog Kongresa za starokršćansku arheologiju (Split, Poreč 25.9 -1.10. 1994) [Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae II] (Split-Vatican City 1998), pp. 70-1. Especially for the wall mosaic on the apse conch see Grabar, A., L'iconoclasme byzantin. Dossier archéologique (Paris 21984), pp. 29, 54· Mango, C., The art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453. Sources and documents (London2 1986), pp. 34-5. 21. Mango, C., “The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople”, in: Cambi, N., Marin, E., (eds.), Radovi XIII Međunarodnog Kongresa za starokršćansku arheologiju (Split, Poreč 25.9 -1.10. 1994) [Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae II] (Split-Vatican City 1998), pp. 73-4. 22. Konidaris, J. (ed.), «Die Novellen des Kaisers Herakleios», Fontes Minores 5 (1982), pp. 68, 70. 23. Θεόδωρος Σύγκελλος, “Theodore Syncellus, In depositionem pretiosae vestis”, in Combefis, F. (ed.), Novum auctarium, vol. II. Historia haeresis monotheliarum santaque in eam sextae Synodi actorum vindiciae (Paris 1648), p. 774. Angelidi, C.- Papamastorakis T., «Picturing the spiritual protector: from Blachernitissa to Hodegetria», in Vassilaki, M. (ed.), Images of the Mother of God. Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium (Ashgate 2005), p. 209. 24. Μιχαήλ Ατταλειάτης, Ιστορία, ed. I. Bekker (CSHB, Bonn 1853), p. 138. 25. Janin, R., Le géographie ecclésiastique de l’ empire Byzantine, I: Le siège de Constantinople et le Patriarchat Oecuménique, 3: Les églises et les monastères (Paris 21969), p. 168, with a reference to Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, Historia del Gran Tamorlan (Madrid 1782), p. 63. 26. Gyllius, P., De topographia Constantinopoleos (Lyon 1561), IV.5, p. 204. 27. Πασπάτης, Α. Γ., Βυζαντιναί μελέται (Constantinople 1877), p. 185. 28. Mango, C., "Η Κωνσταντινούπολη ως Θεοτοκούπολη", in: Μήτηρ Θεού. Απεικονίσεις της Παναγίας στη βυζαντινή Τέχνη (Benaki Museum, Athens 2000), pp. 20-22. 29. The tradition associating the Akathistos hymn with the siege of 626 goes back already to the 10th century, see Angelidi, C.- Papamastorakis T., «Picturing the spiritual protector: from Blachernitissa to Hodegetria», in Vassilaki M. (ed.), Images of the Mother of God. Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium (Ashgate 2005), p. 212 and note 23. 30. The 7th-century sources are a poem of George of Pisidia, Perusi, A. (ed.), Giorgio di Pisidia Poemi (Studia Patristica et Byzantina 7, Freising 1960), pp. 176-224; a homily attributed to Theodore Synkellos, Makk, F., Traduction et commentaire de l’homélie écrite probablement par Théodore le Syncelle sur le siege de Constantinople en 626 (Opuscula Byzantina III, Szeged 1975); and an excerpt in the Chronicle Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf (CSHB, Bonn 1832), pp. 716-7. See Pentcheva, B.V., «The supernatural protector of Constantinople: the Virgin and her icons in the tradition of the Avar siege», Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 26 (2002), pp. 5-12, for the 7th-century sources, and pp. 22-27, for the middle Byzantine sources concerning the event and the formation of the later tradition. 31. Mango, C., "Η Κωνσταντινούπολη ως Θεοτοκούπολη", in: Μήτηρ Θεού. Απεικονίσεις της Παναγίας στη βυζαντινή Τέχνη (Benaki Museum, Athens 2000), pp. 22-3; Angelidi, C.- Papamastorakis T., «Picturing the spiritual protector: from Blachernitissa to Hodegetria», in Vassilaki M. (ed.), Images of the Mother of God. Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium (Ashgate 2005), p. 212. 32. Μιχαήλ Ατταλειάτης, Ιστορία, ed. I. Bekker (CSHB, Bonn 1853), p. 153. 33. Patterson-Ševčenko, N., «Vigin Blachernitissa», in Kazhdan, A. (editor-in-chief), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 3 (Oxford-New York 1991), pp. 2170-1. 34. Angelidi, C.- Papamastorakis T., «Picturing the spiritual protector: from Blachernitissa to Hodegetria», in Vassilaki M. (ed.), Images of the Mother of God. Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium (Ashgate 2005), pp. 212-3. 35. Patterson-Ševčenko, N., «Vigin Hodegetria», in Kazhdan, A. (editor-in-chief), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 3 (Oxford-New York 1991), pp. 2172-3. 36. For the succession of Blachernitissa by Hodegetria on the role of capital’s palladium see Angelidi, C.- Papamastorakis T., «Picturing the spiritual protector: from Blachernitissa to Hodegetria», in Vassilaki M. (ed.), Images of the Mother of God. Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium (Ashgate 2005), pp. 212-7. 37. For this theme see Мутафов, Е. «ΜΗΤΗΡ ΘΕΟΥ Η ΜΕΓΑΛΗ ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ – поява, разпространение, варианти и хипотези. ΠΡΟΛΕΓΟΜΕΝΑ», Mediaevalia Christiana 2.C. (2008) (forthcoming). 38. On coins dated to the years of Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259/1261-1282) and of Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282-1328), as well as on illuminated manuscripts from the 14th c., behind Virgin’s figure are depicted on the ground the walls and the towers of Constantinople. See Грозданов, Ц., Студии за Охридския живопис (Скопjе 1990), pp. 128-129, fig. 50 and p. 51 with previous bibliography. 39. Those writers that record the miracles are Theodore Synkellos, “Theodore Syncellus, In depositionem pretiosae vestis”, in: Combefis, F. (ed.), Novum auctarium, vol. II. Historia haeresis monotheliarum santaque in eam sextae Synodi actorum vindiciae (Paris 1648), pp. 751-786, as well as George Pisides in the Palatine Anthology, Beckby, H., (ed.), Anthologia Greca 1 (Munich2 1965), 121, col. 6-9: «ἐνταῦθα κρουνοὶ σαρκικῶν καθαρσίων καὶ ψυχικῶν λύτρωσις ἀγνοημάτων· ὅσαι γάρ εἰσι τῶν παθῶν περιστάσεις, βλύζει τοσαύτας δωρεὰς τῶν θαυμάτων.». 40. In medieval Thessalonica as well we observe such a contrast. The church of the Virgin Mary Acheiropoietos of the 5th c. is called «μέγας ναός» by the bishop of Thessalonica Eustathios in his «Ιστορία άλωσης της Θεσσαλονίκης από τους Νορμανδούς» a work of the year 1185, underestimating in a way all the other notable churches of the city, namely Hagia Sophia and Saint Demetrios. In the 15th c. Saint Symeon of Thessalonica also calls the Acheiropoietos «Μέγα ναό της Θεοτόκου» eventually in contrast to the Nea Panagia, built upon the foundations of a 12th-century Virgin’s monastery. 41. Геров, Г., Б. Пенкова, Р. Божинов, Стенописите на Роженския манастир (София. 1993), p. 137 with previous bibliography about the theme of the divine service in question and its celebration at the Balkan monasteries. 42. In the 14th c. Byzantium experienced a period of decay, during which the empire’s neighbors tried to acquire some precious objects and valuable symbols. Even the Bulgarian chronographers of Tsar John Alexander’s court (1331-1371) made an attempt to name Veliko Tŭrnovo “New Reigning City” and “Third Rome”. See accordingly Тъпкова-Заимова, В., Търново между Ерусалим, Рим и Цариград, Търновска книжовна школа, 4, Културно развитие на българската държава ХІІ ь-ХІVь (София 1985), pp. 249-261. By the Nomokanon of Stefan Dušan in 1334 the Archbishopric of Ohrid became autonomous and the archbishop Nikolaos in 1347 called himself “Archbishop of Bulgaria”. Because of its religious significance Ohrid was named the “Zion of the Bulgarians” or the “Jerusalem of the Bulgarians”. |