• C L

d

2

---- -----------

COLLANA DI STUDIO DI STORIA DELL'ARTE diretta da MARIO D'ONOFRIO

VII LINDA SAFRAN

S. PIETRO AT OTRANTO

BYZANTINE ART IN SOUTH ITALY

ROMA

EDJZIONI RARI NANTES

• C L

d

2

This publication has been made possible by the generous assistance of the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and The Catholic University of America.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© Copyright Edizioni Rari Nantes s.r.1. 00153 Roma, via di San Francesco a Ripa, 68 - Tel. 5895916

Presentation

The church oj·s. Pietro at Otranto is one of the n1ost in1portant medieval monun1ents

in Apulia. While it has long attracted the attention of scholars, in particular because of' its

surviving wall paintings, which contain some of the finest examples qf Byzantinizing art

in Southern Italy, it has not to this date been the subject of· a n1onograph. Perhaps one

reason for the lack rl{ such a book has been the difficulty presented by the monument

itself: this is a church about which we possess virtually no documentar.v evidence from

the Middle Ai;es, and no datable ;nscr;ptions. There are no less than six layers offres­

coes, and even in one .fresco layer there may he great variations in style and materials.

7°0 add to these d(fficulties, the church is located in an area o,f confluence between the

artistic traditions of East and West, benveen Byzantium and Italy. It is hardly surprising

that atten1pts at dating the frescoes have differed Yvidely; even the best preserved layer of'

ji·escoes, the second, vvas dated benveen the ti-velfth and the fourteenth centuries by vari­

ous scholars. Undaunted by such difficulties, Linda Sqfran, in this well docuniented study,

has faced the questions raised hy this church, discussing its date, nieaning, function,

patronage, and social context. Through a minute and exhaustive examination o,f all types

of evidence offered by the monument, including paleography, style, iconography, and

ornament, she has been able, like a n1odernforensic scientist, to offer solutions to many

of the m«jor problems posed by the building.

With respect to the chronology, the author concludes that the frescoes of the first

layer are of the late tenth or early eleventh century, and thus she cml{irms that they

belong to the period o,f Byzantine rule in Southern Italy. 1"he next layer, very limited in

extent, she treats as a tvvelfth-century pendant to the .first. For her second layer, more

extensive and controversial in its dating, she establishes a tin1e frame in the second half

o,f the thirteenth century, while she places the third layer, with its donor portrait of a

priest, in the early fourteenth century. The two post-medieval layers, both dated by

inscription, can be assigned to 1540 and 1576177.

In her discussion of' the /Unction o,f the church, the author brings .forward strong

argunients against its role as the Orthodox cathedral oj'Otranto, but suggests instead that

the building was originally a private foundation. As her book demonstrates, the j'rescoes

o,f the second layer at S. Pietro are essentially laid out according to the Middle Byzantine

n1odel. However, art historians are increasingly coming to realize that the scheme o,f dec­

oration of the medieval Byzantine church, while .fixed in its broad outlines, ivas a very

elasticfran1e; both within and without the enipire it could be altered to reflect particular

regional, social, jltnctional, or individual concerns. This study shows how the thirteenth-

5

C £

d

1

2

3

century decorative schen1e of S. Pietro at Otranto, though in,spired hy Byzantine n1odels,

departed .fron1 them in many -i,vays, especial!}' in its inter;ration into the C~hristological

cycle o_f scenes JJ·orn the book o_f Genesis shov.,,ing the Creation and Fall. These depar­

tures .from standard Byzantine practice must have reflected the concerns of' the local

patron.

On the question of.patronage, the author n1akes important observations. The clues

o.ffered by the monun1ent are not sujjlcient to identify specific individuals as being

responsible for the building and the phases o,f its decoration, but there is Slffficient inj(Jr­

n1ation to enable a consideration o_{ the total cultural context of their production.

Scholars are no longer studying the art and architecture o.f the Byzantine periphery only

in relation to larier and n1ore powe1ful 111etropolitan centers, vvhose influence vvas pas­

sively received. Rather, the monuments of' regions such as Apulia are noiv seen as pos­

sessing cultural identities in their own right, whose richness marches that of 1,vorks in cen­

ters .-;uch as Rome, Thessa!oniki, and ConstantinOJJ!e. Through her study of rhis buildini,

the author shows the diff"erent f'vays, stylistic, iconographic, and fUnctional, by vvhich

Byzantine n1odels could be n1odified to suit local concerns and circun1stances. In this

respect, the significance of her 1,vork passes beyond the ·church qf S. Pierro itself, and

even the town and region in 1:vhich it is situated, f"or she provides a 11aradigm for the

treatment of' all such monun1ents that reinterpret metropolitan models in a process that

can be described as creative rather than deri"vative.

HENRY MAGUIRE

6

Preface

I first saw S. Pietro in 1982, thanks to a Samuel H. Kress Foundation grant for disserta­

tion research administered by the History of Art Department at Yale University. Fieldwork

in Otranto, beginning in 1984, was supported generously by the Sumner McKnight Crosby

Fellowship and the Caroline Fund of Yale University. The work would not have been possi­

ble vvithout the encouragement and assistance of the Soprintendenza ai Beni Ambientali

Architcttonici Artistici e Storici della Puglia, in Bari; I am most grateful to the

Superintendent and to the staffs of the Biblioteca, the Fototeca, the Ufficio Vincoli, and the

Ufficio di Restauro. Don Orazio Gianfreda :u1d other suppo11ers in Otranto made my work

there most enjoyable. The Soprintentenza per i Beni Artistici e Storici de1la Basilicata, in

Matera, also pennitted 1ne to visit and photograph sites in that region.

Much of the research for the dissertation was undertaken in Rome, especially at the

Bibliotheca Hertziana, the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, and the Ecole Fran,aise de

Rome. Comparative research in Greece in 1985 was made possible by a Samuel H. Kress

Foundation travel fellowship, and I am indebted to the Department of Byzantine

Antiquities in Athens and to the individual Ephors for permission to visit and photograph

unpublished monuments throughout the country. Most of the dissertation was written

while I was a Junior Fellow in Byzantine Studies at Dumbarton Oaks in 1987-88; access

to the incomparable facilities and discussions with n1y colleagues there greatly improved

that work. I wish to convey 1ny appreciation to the fonner Director, Robert Thomson, and

to the staffs of the Byzantine Library, the Visual Resources department, and the Photo

Studio for their able assistance. The cu1rent volume is the product of revision done, again

opti1nally, during my tenure as a Research Associate at Dumbarton Oaks. I am grateful to

the current Director, Angeliki Laiou, and to the many staff members and colleagues who

abetted this undertaking.

This book has benefited enormously from the guidance and constructive criticisms of

many scholars and friends. I am grateful to the original readers of the dissertation: my

advisor, Charles B. McClendon, without whom I would not have heard of Otranto; and

Walter Cahn, Margaret Frazer, and Valentino Pace. Robert Browning, Bernard Coulie,

Francesco D'Andria, Lydie Hadermann-Misguich, Andre Jacob, and Herbert Kessler all

contributed their unique expertise to the dissertation or the book. For more extensive criti­

cal colloquy I am particularly indebted to Vera von Falkenhausen, Marina Falla

Castelfranchi, Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, Henry Maguire, Doula Mouriki, Robert Ous­

terhout, Valentino Pace, and Maria Panayotidi.

Gianni Carluccio, Carolyn Connor, Vito Fumarola, Smiljka Gabelic, Herbert Kessler,

7

C L

d

1

2

Doula Mouriki, Maria Panayolidi, Nicole Thierry, and Leandro Ventura provided pho­

tographs from their own collections; Grahame Barker, Ida Blattmann, Marina Falla

Castelfranchl, Natalia Teteriatnikov, and Annabel Wharton shared unpublished material;

and Miranda Carrieri, Maria Carla Cassone, Vito Fumarola, Giovanni Gjangreco,

Serafino Marchiano, Marisa Milella, Carlo Pattone, Fabrizio Vona, and especially Anto­

nella DiMarzo facilitated access to numerous sites. In the early stages of the work

Matthew J. Gold provided sustenance of all sorts. Joan Pierpoline executed the map and

architectural drawings; Leandro Ventura did the Italian translation and much, much more.

It is i1npossible to list all the colleagues, critics, friends, and loved ones who contributed

to this book in so many ways, but I am sincerely grateful to each one of then1.

The present volume could not have been realized without the financial support of the

Sa1nuel H. Kress Foundation and The Catholic University of America; to both institutions

I express deep appreciation.

Linda Safi-an

8

INTRODUCTION

Otranto is the easte1n1nost town in Italy, separated from ancient Epirus and modern

Albania by the narrow straits that divide the Adriatic from the Mediterranean [Fig. !]. Its

strategic location made Otranto the most important.port in Byzantine South Italy, and for

centuries it re1nained a nexus for contacts of all sorts between East and West. The most

imposing survivor of the Byzantine era in Otranto, and one of the most important records

of the Byzantine presence in all of South Italy, is the church of S. Pietro. Now isolated

within the dense fabric of the walled centro storico [Fig. 2J, the exterior of the monu1nent

is enlivened by a staggered roofline and by engaged pilasters and blind arcades [Figs. 3 a-d].

Upon entering one is struck by the intimate scale, the play of light and shadow created by

vaults of different heights, and the brilliant colors of the interior decoration [Color figs.

13 et al.]. Closer observation reveals a complicated palimpsest of two complete and four

partial layers of fresco decoration, several of them Byzantine in style and iconography and

son1e of extraordinary quality. Despite its obvious historical and artistic interest, S. Pietro

at Otranto has not previously been the subject of a comprehensive monograph.

The present study attempts to gather all the information available on the medieval

phases of S. Pietro, and in particular to make sense of the visual testimony offered by the

monument itself. No written documents survive to tell us how the church was used in dif­

ferent periods, where the craftsmen came from, when the different fresco layers were

co,nmissioned, and by whom. It has nevertheless been possible to address these issues by

analyzing the architecture of the church, establishing the "text" of its wall paintings, and

adducing comparisons in South Italy and in the broader Byzantine sphere. The aim has

been to achieve as complete and precise an artistic and cultural contextµalization of the

monument as possible. Although the focus is monographic, the study also considers more

general problems of byzantinizing art in South Italy and elsewhere.

Because they are in South Italy, S. Pietro and other monuments in the region tend to

be ignored by Byzantinists; because they fall outside the mainstream of Italian artistic

developments, they have been largely ignored by Western Medievalists. But because of

its location, South Italy~and Otranto in particular--deserves the attention of art histori­

ans and other scholars from both disciplines. Subjected to a variety of analyses, S. Pietro

at Otranto proves to be no 1nute historical docun1ent, but a vivid testimonial to the unique

cultural and artistic vitality of a little-known region rich in history.

9

-(

L

CHAPTER I HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE, FRESCO STRATIGRAPHY

Historical Overviei,v

The name Otranto is probab1y related to the Greek root Opos, "mountain," and may

refer to a nearby hill which, although unimposing, stands out in the flat loca] terrain. 1

Otranto gave its narne to the surrounding province, the Terra d 'Otranto, although the

province had been known in Antiquity variously as Messapia, Iapygia, Bruttium, :u1d

Calabria.2 In tbe thirteenth century the Terra d'Otranto became one of Frederick II's

three administrative regions in Apulia; it included the Salentine peninsula, part of the

northwestern Murge region, and the area around Matera. Except for the excision of

Matera, assigned to Basilicata in 1663 by the Aragonese, the Terra d'Otranto retained

essentially the same extent until the twentieth century. It now refers only to the province

of Lecce, because Taranto and Brindisi were separated from it in the 1920s. Throughout

the following study, "Otranto" refers to the city or to the church of S. Pietro; "Terra

d'Otranto" and "Salento" refer interchangeably to the modern province at the extreme

southern tip of Apulia; and "South Italy" denotes the broader regions of Apulia (including

the Salento), Basilicata, and Calabria.

While Otranto is n1entioned regularly by na1ne in historical sources from the Roman

period onward, these references seldom include specific information about the city and its

buildings. Even more proble1natic is the lack of sources from the periods of greatest inter­

est to this study, the Byzantine and later medieval periods. The one ample body of prima­

ry source material for medieval South Italy, the large nu1nber of saints' lives, mentions

Otranto only occasionally, but this is not surprising because none of the saints was from

the Salento.3 The Byzantine civil archives are completely lost; the only records that sur­

vive fro111 the Byzantine period are documents from monasteries and ecclesiastical institu­

tions.4 The destruction of the civil archives in Otranto can be attributed to the Turkish

conquest of 1480, although they may have been scattered earlier. The local archives con­

serve the privileges accorded Otranto by Frederick II and confirmed by Charles II of

Anjou, as well as records of the Pastoral Visits, the rounds made regularly by the local

bishop to assess conditions in his diocese, after 1538.5 Several Latin chronicles and

annals survive, supplementing the meager Greek sources, but none are from Otranto;6

similarly, the Arab chroniclers cite Otranto as a populous, wealthy city without providing

specific information. As for papal documents, no privileges for the archbishopric of

10

Otranto survive from the eleventh or twelfth centuries, and later references are rarely

inforrnative.7 There is no census of the surviving archival material fron1 the Salento,

espccia!ly the Greek 1naterial, and critical editions arc fcw.8 Nevertheless, recent archae­

ological work offers tantalizing new primary source material that promises to illuminate

the history of the site. The following overview of the political and religious history of

Otranto is hardly exhaustive, but in the absence of a convenient survey will provide suffi­

cient context for a consideration of the church of S. Pictro.9

The foundation and earliest history of Otranto are unlmown, but the site was occu­

pied by the Bronze Age. 10 Materials excavated in 1977-78 by the British School at

Rome date from the late ninth century B.C.E. and are the oldest in Italy to show contacts

\Vith Greece. 11 This precocious contact was no doubt due to the city's geographical posi­

tion, which fostered co1nmercial relations with Greece throughout the succeeding cen­

turies. In the fifth century B.C.E., Attic imports predominated, as they did throughout the

Adriatic. 12

Otranto was cited frequently in the Roman period by such authors as Strabo, Livy,

and Pliny. 13 Local tradition holds that in the first century C.E., Peter erected an altar on

the site of the church of S. Pietro, an event "recorded" in t\vo inscriptions of indetermi­

nate date that were formerly visible on the exterior of the church.14 The British School

partly excavated a necropolis for slaves and liberti of the Augustan ::md Flavian periods

outside the walls of Otranto; the ce1netery was apparently abandoned in the second centu­

ry C.E. and replaced in Late Antiquity by a zone of s111al1 workshops.15 Excavations near

the port zone found evidence of close contacts with North Africa, Asia Minor, and

Palestine, where the wealth of the R.oman E1npirc was concentrated.16 Because Otranto

vvas the terminus of the ancient Via Traiana, an extension of the Via Appia from Rome to

Brindisi, 17 the city is cited in pilgrim itineraries of the Late Antique cmd early medieval

pcriods. 18 Other early tncdieval history sources, such as the letters of Gregory the Great

and Paul the Deacon's History of the Lombards, also cite Otnmto whereas they never

mention Bari, the eventual regional capital.19 In the early sixth century Cassiodorus

likened Otranto to Tyre for its production of purple dye, and the silk-dyeing industry con­

tinued to thrive throughout the Middle Ages.20 Also in the sixth century Procopius

referred frequently to the city (usually as "Dryus") as an important Byzantine

stronghold. 21 In the early eighth century Otranto, along with Gallipoli, remained in

Byzantine hands while most of Apulia fell to the Lombards.22 However, Otranto too

eventually fell into the hands of the Lombard ruler, Desiderius, and in 758 it was

exchanged for Byzantine help against Desiderius's rival, Liutprand of Benevento.23 The

"duchy" of Otranto probably dates to the period after 758,24 and around this time Paul the

Deacon referred to Otranto as one of the richest cities in Apulia.25

Our earliest info1mation about religious life in Otranto also dates to this period.

Letters of Pope Gregory the Great refer to a bishopric at Otranto, and letter no. 21, dated

11

..--··· (

L

Cl

595, instructs a bishop named Peter to fill the vacant sees of Brindisi, Lecce, and

Gallipoli.26 It is not known where this bishop's church was located, but there is now

archaeological evidence for a large sixth-century basilica adjacent to a necropolis outside

the city wa11s.27 By the period of the duchy of Otranto, the city (along with Gallipoli)

was a dependency of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

After 758 Otranto \Vas under Byzantine jurisdiction,28 and it remained Byzantine for

the next three hundred years. The contention that Otranto was destroyed by the Arab

Sawdan (emir from 857-871) and its population deported to Carthage, as repo1ted by the

Byzantine historian Skylitzes, is untenable: the Io1.1T6s of the text has been shown to

refer to Ugento, on the Ionian coast, and not to Otranto.29 By 876 a Byzantine military

official, Gregory,30 was at Otranto, and when the Lombards of Bari requested Byzantine

help against the Arabs,31 troops were sent from Otranto. Once in Bari, the Byzantines

exiled the Lombard nobles to Constantinople and paved the way for Byzantine domina­

tion of the region.32 Adn1inistratively, Otranto was part of the SicHian theme in the late

ninth century, but by the early tenth century Sicily was effectively lost to the Byzantines

and Otranto soon became annexed to the theme of Longobardia. 33 Arab attacks occurred

throughout the tenth century but were always repulsed,3 4 and Otranto remained the prin­

cipal Byzantine port in South Italy. Brindisi is also mentioned as a port, and after the

early eleventh century Bari grew in mercantile importance.35

At the end of the reign of the Byzantine emperor Nikephoros II Phokas (963-969),

the Byzantine katepanatc of Italy was established with its capital at Bari. It is uncertain

whether the former themes of Longobardi a and Calabria and the new theme of Lucania

were united at this time into a single administrative and military unit, since sub-units­

notably, the theme of Calabria---<:ontinued to exist. 36 In any event, the katepan, the local

governor, apparently ruled all three themes. The katepan nonnally came from outside

Italy; he would live in Bari for a few years, and some sponsored a significant amount of

building there or elsewhere.37 fn this period there were a number of insurrections, per­

haps not directed so much against the emperor as against his local representative.38

Otranto was certainly a fo1tified settlement (Kd.u'Tpov) in the Byzantine period, and it

remained the 1nost i1nportant point of embarkation to and from Constantinople, hosting

such dignitaries as the metropolit,m Leo of Sinada (998), abbot Atenulf of Montecassino

(1021), and the usurper George Maniakes in 1042.39

ln the first part of the ninth century Otranto had an iconoclastic bishop and numbered

iconoclasts among its citizenry.40 According to the Nio. TavTc,Kci' of Leo VI (ca. 901),

Otranto was an autocephalous archbishopric.41 It must have been raised to tbis level by

the third quarter of the ninth century, because an archbishop Mark of Otranto was ranked

highly at a Photian synod in 879.42 In 967 or 968 Otranto was raised to metropolitan sta­

tus by the patriarch of Constantinople, Polyeuktos, and the emperor Nikephoros II

Phokas.43 A 1netropolitan insta11s the bishops for its suffragan sees; Otranto's five suffra-

12

, ..•... gans, all far away but still in the sa1ne theme, we_re Gravina, Tursi, Matera, Tricarico, and

Acerenza.44 Attaching these distant suffragans to Otranto \Vas probibly part of a deliber­

ate effort to strengthen support for the Byzantine administration in a mixed Greco-Latin

z~ne.45 However, Liutprand's state1nent that Polyeuktos had prohibited the J_,atin rite

throughout South Italy is a generalization without foundation.46 Bishops fi-01n Otranto

participated in synods at Constantinople in 1027/28, 1054, and again in 1066. In 1079, a

bishop John of Otranto signed a synodal ton1os in Constantinople even though Otranto

bad already fallen to the Nom1ans and a Latin archbishop, Hugh, had been installed by

the ne,v rulers. 47 Throughout South Italy it is very difficult to document the transition

from the Greek to the Latin rite, and the situation in Otranto indicates that in certain cities ·

two sets of clergy were maintained for some timei4_8 ·.

tn 1064 the walls of Otranto, defended by Russian and Varangian mercenaries under

the command of a local aristocrat, were breached by the Normans due to the treason of

the commander's niece. 49 The most important innovation introduced by the new Norman

rulers was the feudal system, and the Te1ra d'Otranto was among the Italian possessions

of Bohemund, the Prince of Antioch.so Nevertheless, much of the old Byzantine aristoc­

racy stayed in power under the Normans.5 1 Otnmto continued to be mentioned frequently

as a point of embarkation: Robert Guiscard gathered his army there in 1081 for his great

Byzantine offensive, and his viscera were interred at Otranto after his death in 1085.52

There is archaeological evidence, in the form of coins and i1nported ceramics, for consid­

erable commercial activity in Otranto throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries.53

There was building activity as we11: the Nonnan cathedral at Otranto, one of the first of

the great Norman buildings in South Italy, was dedicated in 1088, and in 1163 the famous

historiated mosaic pavement was laid.54 Nevertheless, with the Norman counts based in

Lccce, not Otranto, the inland city began to supplant Otranto as commercial center.

The Nonnans appear to have been very tolerant of the Greek rite, allowing Greek

bishops to replace newly installed Latin ones in cities where the overwhelming!,- Greek

P.opulation refused to tolernte the Latin clergy.55. In 1098/99 the Normans founded or

renewed the Greek monastery of S. Nicola at Casale, just south of Otranto.56 But the

presence of Norman signori in Accrcnza, Matera, and Tricarico by the 1070s indicates

that Otranto had little control over its former suffragan bishoprics.57 From the twelfth

century on, the archdiocese of Otranto had new, local, suffragans-Leu ca, Castro,

Gallipoli, Lecce, and Ugento-which strengthened the city's ties to its surrounding region.58

Through the marriage of the last Nonnan heiress, Constance, to Henry VI, son of

Frederick I Barbarossa, the Norman kingdom passed to the Swabian house of Hohen­

staufen.59 The son of this union was Frederick II, the puer Apuliae. In 1219 Frederick

confiimed numerous concessions and privileges to the Cathedral of Otranto, thus ensur­

ing the city's fidelity to the Hohenstaufens.60 In 1228 he embarked from Otranto for

13

Palestine, and in 1240 he urged work on the castle at Otranto, where two of the towers

were in disrepair;6l this fortification work was still being encouraged in 1256.62 Otranto

was faithful to the Hohenstaufcns, but after the death of Frederick ll it was briefly held by

the pope before being retaken in 1255 by Frederick's illegitimate son, Manfred, who had

usurped the throne from the legitimate heirs. ln that sa1ne year Otranto participated in a

collective raid on pro-Manfred Nardo. 03 When at the behest of the pope Charles I of

Anjou defeated Manfred at Benevento in 1266, Otranto became part of the Angevin king­

dom.64 Relatively stable political conditions were restored with the parallel rise of the

Angevin and Palaeologan dynasties; these conditions were perhaps furthered by the short­

lived union of the Orthodox and Catholic churches promulgated at the Council of Lyons

in 1274.65 In 1267 Charles named a comitus at Otranto as well as at Gallipoli and

Taranto,66 perhaps indicative of the importance of those three cities. In 1268 Frederick

II's son, Conradin, lost to the Angevins at Tagliacozzo, marking the definitive end of

Hohenstaufen power in the region. However, the Sicilian Vespers of 1282, rooted in local

dislike of the Anjou and supported by the Byzantines, soon marked the end of Angevin

hegemony.67 There is a spurious report that from 1282 until 1302 Otranto belonged, at

least in name, to the Aragonese.68 After being "returned'' to the Angevins at the Peace of

Caltabellotta, a 1306 diploma of Charles Il of Anjou confirmed the privileges earlier

accorded Otranto by Frederick If.69 In the religious sphere, a docun1ent datable before 1261 cites forty Latin priests, six

clerics, and four Greek clerics in Otranto.70 The year 1283 saw some local religious con­

flict: there were two archbishops in Otranto, first the unwelcome Tancred of Neocastro,71

then James, probably the san1e as the James II who was named as the co11ector of the

papal decima in 1302 but who, upon his death in 1309, had not completed the task.72 The

decitna required payment to the I-Joly See of, in theory, one-tenth of the resources of most

churches, monasteries, and individuals obliged to pay (the 1nendicant orders vverc

exempt). In 131 O the Greek priests in Otranto are recorded as having paid 10 tari, com­

pared to 4 1/2 for the Latin priests,73 indicating that the Greeks were wealthier or tnore

numerous than their Latin colleagues, or both. By the early fourteenth century, however,

Otranto was evidently becoming less important as a Greek cultural center than the inland

centers of NardO and Soleto, \vhere large numbers of Greek manuscripts were being

copied. 74 After the long reign of Robert "the Wise" of Anjou (1309-43), Otranto and much of

the region passed into Hungarian hands and ultimately to Alfonso V of Aragon. It was

eventually caught between the Venetians and Florentines who, in their mutual attempts to

weaken the other economically, encouraged a Turkish attack. The sources arc understand­

ably plentiful regarding Otranto's fall to the Turks on August 14, 1480, at which time

eight hundred citizens were 1nartyred; the city was recaptured by Alfonso of Aragon in

14s1.1s The devastation in Otranto was extensive, and the city never fully recovered;76

14

indeed, Turkish cannonballs are still found on many streets. The British School's excava­

tions reveal that the once-flourishing workshop sector located outside the· Aragonese

walls was abandoned in this period, presumably because the population had shrunk to fit

inside the walls.77 The Turks were repulsed in 1535, and again in 1537 after they had

destroyed nearby Castro. The earliest surviving Pastoral Visit dates to 1538 ,u1d contains

the oldest extant mention of the church of S. Pietro;78 its probable author, archbishop

Pietro Antonio de Capua, initiated the canonization of the martyrs of Otranto in 1539. In

!567 he was among the first Italian bishops to propound the edicts of the Council of Trent, which he attended, at a synod in Otranto.79

By 1573 the expunging of the Greek rite was well under way with the formation of

the Congregazione dei Greci 80 a few years before the final fresco layer at S. Pietro was

painted (1576/77). In 1684 there were still three Greek churches functioning in Otranto,81

but it is unlikely that S. Pietro was one of these as this fact is not recorded in the Pastoral

Visits. The continuity of Greek language in the region, which survived the eliinination of

the Greek rite, continues to be the subject of debate: it retnains to be detennined whether

it continued unbroken fron1 the Greek settlements of Magna Grccia or whether there was

a hellenophonic infusion in the Byzantine period.82

In sun1, Otrantine history will always be imperfectly known because of a paucity of

records. Enough survives, however, to provide a general context for the church of S.

Pietro, which must itself be considered a precious document for the history of Otranto.

The Architecture of rhe Church

At some sixteen meters above sea level S. Pietro is on the highest point in Otranto,83

not far from the bastion overlooking the port and dominating a small, paved piazza sur­

rounded by whitewashed houses that retain their medieval appearance [Figs. 2, 3a-b]. The

church is built of limestone ashlars, with a 1nortared rubble core and tufa blocks between

the windows of the central apse [Figs. 3a--<l, 41. Small ashlars are employed in the vaults

and very large blocks, perhaps reused fron1 earlier construction on the site, are used at the

corners. 84 Thin bricks are interpolated at irregular intervals between the ,nasonry cours­

es; these are visible on the western end of the south exterior wall, in the central apse, and

_in the window arches. A hard local stone resembling pietra leccese can be seen along the

base of the north exterior wall and was evidently used in the foundations. 85

The church has a cross-in-square plan with three protruding semicircular apses joined

directly to the naos [Figs. 5-6]. It measures between 9.3 and 9.5 m. on each exterior

side, 86 with the north-south cross-anns very slightly shorter than the east-west cross­

anns. 87 The central square is the largest of the nine bays, 1neasuring 3.12 m. between the

inner comers of the column bases. This 1neasurement is probably based on the 0.315 m.

usually cited as the length of the Byzantine foot;88 the central square therefore 1neasures

15

almost exactly ten Byzantine feet, and each exterior side of the church is three tin1es that

of the central module. 89 The central apse is broader (2.02 m.) and deeper than the flank­

ing absidioles (0.96 in.). For convenience, the apse to the north is herein referred to as the

pro thesis and the south apse is referred to as the diakonikon. 90 There is no narthex.

The central square in S. Pietro is surmounted by a lo\v hemispherical cupola lColor

fig. 13J.91 A shallow cornice outlines the cupola and provides a base for four windows,

one facing each cardinal direction. The current rectangular windows were almost certain­

ly cut down from larger round-headed openings. Additional light enters through arched

windows in the lunettes on the end walls of the north, south, and west cross-arms,92 and

through a triple window in the central apse. A small window in the diakonikon was origi­

nally complemented by one in the prothesis that was filled in at some later date.

The cupola rests on pendentives formed by the arched openings of the four principal

bays [Figs. 12-19]. The cross bays. on the cardinal axes, have high barrel vaults. The four

corner bays have low barrel vaults oriented east-west, and open into the adjacent cast and

west bays at a height about one-third lower than the openings into the transverse bays. An

important consequence of the choice of longitudinal corner barrel vaults at Otranto is that

the pictorial fields available in the cast and west bays are larger than those in the north

and south bays.

The pendentives are supported by four columnar piers. It is clear, however, from the

evidence of the paintings on some pseudocapitals that the supports were originally

squared piers [Figs. 6, 17, 79].93 These piers were recut sometime after the late sixteenth

century to simulate capitals (with chamfered lower corners), shafts, and bases. 94 The

monumental pseudocapitals and square bases are separated from the shaft by a simple

torus.95 In the cast-west bays, the springing of the arches corresponds to the chamfered

edges of the pseudoeapitals only 0.10 m. above the shaft.

The interior walls are articulated with two engaged half-columns and two corner

quarter-columns, all with bases and pseudocapitals; these columnar responds were origi­

nally pilasters [Figs. 5-6].96 They flank slightly recessed triple blind arches on the north,

south, and west walls (the latter surrounding the modem doorway), as well as the central

apse [Figs. 12-19]. The exterior elevations at Otranto reflect its interior articulation, with

three blind arches on the north, south, and west walls corresponding to the interior vault­

ing structure (smaller barrel vault, large cross-arm vault, smaller barrel vault) [Figs.

3a-dJ. In addition, each pilaster strip on the exterior corresponds to a pilaster (now an

engaged column) on the interior. The interior and exterior detailing reflect a conscious

and consistent attempt at unified wall articulation.

From an aesthetic viewpoint, the arcading provides a pleasing modulation of the wall

surface. Contributing to the liveliness of the exterior are the triangular gables, terra-cotta

tiles that probably reproduce the original appearance of the roof, and a small campanile

on the south side [Fig. 3b].97 Whereas only a west doorway is used today, it is clear from

16

the interior decoration and from written records that doorways on the north and south

·s-ide;-were in use at various periods in the church's history, and it seems lik.ely that at

le~;-t·--tl~e south and west doorway were origirial ·(alterations are discussed below) [Figs.

5_-6].--0n the interior, arched and squared larnp niches flanking the central apse at differ­

ent levels appear to be original, as is a carved basin inserted into the south wall [Fig. SJ.

South ltaly contains a great number of Romanesque buildings, but only a relatively

few n1onumen1s that predate the Norman period have been preserved.98 Very few works

can be assigned to the Middle Byzantine period, and these without secure documentary

evidence. ln order to place S. Pietro into its proper architectural context and to resolve the

controversy about its dating, it will be necessary to consider co1nparanda1,,both in the

region ;:::_nd abroad. An assessment of which architectural features are most sig~ificant and

which comparisons arc closest will permit some observations about the models etnploycd by the architect of S. Pietro.

Looking first at construction fabric, it seems possible to generalize that stone was the

preferred building material in the province of Apulia. Structures such as the cathedral of

S. Maria di Siponto (after 1023) or the tenth-century "Tempietto" at Seppannibale are

built of stone, and the great Norman cathedrals in the region are all of fine ashlar.

llowever, dedicatory inscriptions from Byzantine buildings in Bari that no longer survive

mention two kinds of building materials: "/\C0w," probably 1neaning ashlar, was used in

1011 in !he church of St. Demetrius built by the katepan Basil Mesardonites,99 but anoth­

er of his buildings, the 0:u'Tu, was constructed "with bricks as strong as stone."100 The

dearth of brick buildings in Apulia must therefore be ascribed in part to the accidents of

preservation. Another important class of local monuments, the subterranean churches

carved from the soft local tufa, obviously cannot offer relevant construction information.

In Calabria good-quality limestone is rarer than in Apulia, and its paucity may have

contributed to a greater use of brick. In the Cattolica at Stilo and S. Marco at Rossano, the

two surviving monu1nents in Calabria most similar to S. Pietro in plan and elevation [Fig.

81], the former is faced with brick and the latter has alternating brick and mortared rubble

courses. In the Byzantine empire, including Constantinople and much of Greece, brick

was used with great frequency, with pure brick facing or decorative cloisonne brickwork

often employed on church exteriors. 10 1 In Bulgaria the building material is almost exclu­

sively rubble, and in Asia Minor it is ashlar blocks. Local architectural workshops tended

to employ the building material that was most available, and the masons of S. Pietro fol­

lo\ved a strong local tradition of building mainly in stone. The construction fabric of the church therefore provides little information about its models.

l11e plan of S. Pietro is more informative. Centrally planned buildings supported by

four piers are not uncommon in the region (an eleventh-century example is S. Maria di

Siponto), but more specific local analogies to the cross-in-square, or quincunx, plan can be

17

found in 00th rock-cut and sub diva monuments. Several of the rock-cut churches evident­

ly attempted to imitate cross-in-square masonry architecture; in the vicinity of Otranto

exa1nples are S. Maria degli Angeli at Poggiardo and S. Salvatore at Giurdignano. 102

These monuments are in general only slightly smaller than S. Pietro. and the survival of

carved chancel barriers indicates that they served the same liturgical function as masonry

churches of similar plan.103 The proximity of two of these shes to Otranto raises the possi­

bility that they emulated S. Pietro in plan, or that all three had a common local model.

Four masonry examples of the cross-in-square plan survive in mainland South Italy.

In Apulia are S. Pietro at Otranto and the twelfth-century church of S. Basilio (now S.

Andrea) at Trani, whose plan was evidently influenced by S. Pietro or its prototype; 104 in

Calabria are the already-mentioned Cattolica at Stilo and S. Marco at Rossano. 105

Supplementing these extant examples in Calabria are the ruins of S. Giorgio in S. Luca

d' Aspromonte and records of the destroyed Byzantine church of the Ottimati in Reggio

Calabria.106

Similarities between S. Pietro and the Cattolica and S. Marco have been noted since

the beginning of the century. All three monuments have nine interior bays and triple apses

[Figs. 6, 8!].107 However, unlike Otranto, these other Italian quincunxes have very tall

center drums supported by columns (Stilo) or piers (Rossano) and with cupolas in the cor­

ners instead of the Apulian barrel vaults. With all nine bays of the cross-in-square of

equal size, with their three apses uniformly deep and wide, and with the central cupola

dominating only because it is taller, not broader, than the four corner cupolas, the

Calabrian churches do not share the hierarchical arrangement of interior space found at

Otranto. The other centrally planned buildings in South Italy differ even more dramatical­

ly from the spatial conception found at Otranto, leaving S. Pietro to stand alone in the

region in terms of its plan and spatial resolution.

The closest analogies for the plan and spatial conception found at Otranto are provin­

cial Byzantine n1onuments. The cross-in-square was the archetypal Middle Byzantine

church plan and was used throughout the Byzantine world from at least the late ninth cen­

tury; the earliest extant example, on the Sea of Marmara, is dated to ca. 800_11l8 Small­

scale monuments with a cross-in-square plan and three projecting apses are very common

in Greece and the eastern Mediterranean; the plan is dictated by liturgical requirements,

as communicating apses are essential to the Byzantine rite of the prothesis. 109 All of the

Italian cross-in-square monuments, like many of their Greek counterparts, differ from

Constantinopolitan ex:unples in the suppression of interposed sanctuary bays and conse­

quent proximity of naos and sanctuary.110 Moreover, Constantinopolitan and metropoli­

t,m-influenced monuments usually have polygonal apses, unlike the rounded apses at

Otranto. In Italy and in Greece rounded apses are the norm for all building types.

The cross-in-square plans in Otranto, Calabria, a~d Si~ily-(the Martorana at Palermo

of 1143) have been linked to sibling examples in Crete and Cappadocia via the intermedi-

18

ary of the Peloponnese, specifically monu1nents in the Mani penins11la.111 A ,nonu,nent

that certainly comes close to S. Pietro in its compressed plan and sernicircular apses, but

with the addition of a narthex, is St. Germanos at Prespa in northern Greece.112 The

narthex is co1nmon in Byzantine churches but not required, and its presence at Otranto, as

in the n1ore dra1natically situated churches at Stilo and Rossano, is precluded for topo­

graphical reasons.

The true cross-in-square plan is so unco1n1non in South Italy that its i1nportation can

be assu1ned. The plan used at S. Pietro was evidently brought to Italy from the Byzantine

sphere, but not fron1 Constantinople: only the Byzai1tine provinces can offer nu1nerous

examples of the roughly square, simplified cross-in-square en1ployed at Otranto. The

provinces also offer analogies for the spatial modulation found at S. Pietro and missing in

the Calabrian quincunxes. No importation need be postulated for the semicircular apses, which accord perfectly with South Italian tradition.

The low corner barrel vaults at Otranto are not found in Stilo or Rossano, but they

seem to have some precedent in Apulia. A partly preserved triconch church that flanks the

cathedral at Castro, south of Otranto, has corner barrel vaults that all spring from the

same levcl. ll 3 This vaulting solution is ,nore primitive than the one employed at Otranto,

where the vaults spring from different heights, and the Castro edifice has been dated to

the ninth or tenth century based on comparisons with Athonite churches. Barrel vaults

over the corner bays are less common in other Byzantine provinces.114 They are used in

Asia :rviinor and the nearby Aegean islands, cmd in parts of Greece, but corner bays are

more frequently covered by groin vaults or cupolas.115 The preference for barrel vaulting

evident at Otranto may therefore ret1ect local building practice rather than Byzantine influence.

1'he piers supporting the central cupola at Otranto also find so1ne kinship with other

South Italian examples. Columnar piers very similar to those now at S. Pietro are used at

Castro, while the cupola at Rossano is upheld by square piers that must resemble the orig­

inal Otrantine supports.116 The crypt churches in South Italy that contain pseudo-cupolas

carved out of the rock are also "supported" by squared piers, which may indicate that

their inasonry 1nodels used square supports, though we must be wary of deducing actual

building techniques from rock-cut examples. By contrast, the central cupolas at Stilo and

S. Luca d 'Aspromonte are supported by four marble spolia columns. The most presti­

gious Norman cathedrals in South Italy also tend to favor columns, although many 1nonu­

menu, u.<:.e piers of varying shape; the vaults of Constantinopolitan monu1nent,;: are also

supported by columns as a rule. Piers are commonly used in the Byzantine sphere in

regions with little available marble, such as Epirus, northern Greece, Crete, and parts of

Asia Minor. Like the construction material, the choice of support for the cupola must

have been dictated in part by availability. The Constantinopolitan and Norman preference

suggests that there may also have been an element of prestige in the use of marble spolia.

19

We kno,v from the reuse of Late Antique and Byzantine columns and capitals in the crypt

of the Norman cathedral at Otranto that such spolia were 1ocally available, 117 raising the

possibility that S. Pietro may not have been a prestigious public monument.

The aiiiculation of the interior and exterior that is so striking at Otranto is absent at

Stilo, except for the east wall, but present at Rossano, where the wall pilasters fulfill lhe

structural function of carrying the weight of the corner cupolas. The pilasters at S. Pietro,

by contrast, are purely ornamental; they are not required to support the barrel vaulting of

the corner bays.118 Reinforcing the simi1arities between Otranto and the rock-cut church

of S. Salvatore in Giurdignano are the pilaster responds in the latter, where they cannot

serve any structural purpose.

Va1ious types and degrees of blind exterior arcading are common in South Italy from

the eleventh through the thirteenth century; it has been suggested that this arcading imitates

that of S. Maria di Siponto.119 Other important examples of blind arcading are the Norman

cathedral at Taranto (ca. 1070) and the Roccelletta at Squillace, in Calabria (late eleventh · r h t ,,120 Ifs century), a monument "of decidedly Comnene and Constantmopo ,tan c arac er. .

Pietro is dated in the eleventh- to thirteenth-century range, its exterior articulation can be

related to the more limited arcading on a sizable number of South Italian monuments. Yet it

differs from them in that its exterior articulation reflects very clearly its interior structure; it

is not simply wall decoration, but serves to express on the exterior the vo1umes of the interi­

or. This is a virtual hapax in the region, and models must be sought elsewhere.

Articulation of exterior elevations with blind arcades, niches, and pilasters that corre­

spond to the internal layout is a characteristic of metropolitan Byzantine architecture of

the Middle Byzantine period. Among Constantinopolitan cross-in-square churches, exa1n­

ples include the Myrelaion (Bodrum Djarni) of ca. 920 and the church of Christ

Pantepoptes (Eski Imaret Djami) of ca. 1085.12! Such "structural" arcading is also found

in Greece; an early and pronounced example is the Panagia ton Chalkeon in Thessaloniki

of 1028, whose founder had been katepan in South Italy. 122 For the most part blind

arcading is uncommon in Greece,123 and most examples of exterior wall articulation arc

less extensive than at Otranto. The relative lack of wall penetration at S. Pietro is, howev­

er, closer to Greek than to Constantinopolitan examples.

The triangular gables at Otranto also contribute to the articulation of the exterior.

While such gables continued to prevail in southern Greece, Epirus, Macedonia, and most

islands after the eleventh century, they were largely replaced in the Byzantine sphere by

the undulating eaves favored in Constantinop1e in the Comnene period. 124 In his archi­

tectural survey of S. Pietro, Horia Teodoru noted the discrepancy between the accepted

dating of S. Pietro in the late eleventh century and the preference at that time for curving

eaves, but he held this fact insufficient for dating the church any earlier. 125

As regards smaller details of the architecture at Otranto, we might note that similar

campanili survive nearby at the imprecisely dated S. Salvatore in Sanarica and at S.

20

M ne·ir Gallipoli 126 It is unclear whether these are original, or later additions; in auro < - •

Byzantium ca,npanili arc rare before the twelth century. On the interior, the recessing ~f

the area around the central apse conch is unusual in Byzantium, but occurs regularly 1n

A ulia in Romai1esque monuments and in the crypt churches. At S. Pietro, the decoration

o:this recessed area belongs to the second fresco layer and the recessing itself may be a

later renovation. Elsewhere in the interior, differentiated niches akin to those at Otnmto

still flank the apses in the crypt church of SS. Andrea and Procopio at Fasano, which has

a carved dedicatory inscription from 1073. A squared niche also survives to the left of the

original apse at S. Giovanni Evangelista in S. Cesario di Leccc, which is dated by a paint­

ed inscription to 1329. It does not seem necessary to adduce Byzantine comparanda for

such coinn1on and functional details, the models for which were clearly available locally.

The n1arble basin on the south wall at Otranto is the sole piece of medieval liturgical

furniture surviving in the church [Fig. 8]. Decorated with an incised Greek cross that was

apparently elongated into a Latin cross at an unknown date, it is too small to serve as· a

baptismal font and was probably used for ablutions or for washing liturgical implc­

nients.127 A basin sharing considerable formal similarities is in the identical position at

the Cattolica at Stilo,128 and a cousin is affixed to the last column in the south aisle at S.

Maria di Devia in the Gargano.129 Placement of the basin in the cast-central part of the

south wall also finds parallels in a number of tenth-eleventh century monuments in

Cappadocia.130 The fact that these basins are frequently placed alongside doorways 131

suggests that originally there was a supplementary south entry at Otranto, as at both Stilo

and Rossano.

To su1n1narize the South Italian and Byzantine comparanda, the building material,

semicircular apses, con1er barrel vaults, perhaps the columnar piers, and the smaller inte­

rior details at Otranto all appear to reflect local tradition. The wall articulation is a

Constantinopolitan feature that was also diffused in the Byzantine provinces, although the

continuity of the wall surfaces at Otranto is more typical of provincial than metropolitan

exan1ples. Similarly, the squarish cross-in-square plan without interposed sanctuary bays

probably comes from the Byzantine provinces, as does the hierarchical interior spatia]

conception. An individual architect with firsth,md knowledge of monuments in the nearby

ByzanLine province of Greece might have provided instructions or dra,vings to local

masons, v,,1ho then t1eshed out the imported plan and instructions regarding articulation

with details fa1niliar from regional building tradition. Links between Otranto and the

provincial Byzantine sphere are not surprising, as Otranto is actually closer to Greece

than 10 Calabria; moreover, these links will be borne out by the study of the fresco deco­

ration. With so few surviving cross-in-square examples in South Italy, it is difficult to

extrapolate regional architectural features such as are known to have existed in the other

Byzantine provinces in the Middle Byzantine period.132 Even with such a small sam­

pling, differences between the Apulian and Calabrian monuments suggest that South ltaly

21

-

•

was not a homogeneous region, and that Apulia and Calabria were heirs to differing local

traditions. Although its good state of preservation should facilitate dating, S. Pietro has been

assigned a wide variety of dates. According to local tradition the church dates to the first

century C.E. and is the temple in which St. Peter celebrated 1nass in Otranto while on his

way to Rome.133 It has been dated to the sixth century based on co1nparisons with a mys­

terious S. Sophia at Antioch,134 and to the eighth century, oddly enough, as a miniature

version of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. 135 Teodoru agreed that S. Pietro predates the

Norman cathedral at Otranto dedicated in 1088.136 Cecchelli dates S. Pietro to the tweltih

century on the basis of comparisons with S. Andrea al Trani;137 Krauthei,ner dates it to

the late eleventh century;l38 and Prandi more generally to the Nor1nan period.139

Guillou's redating of the church to the late ninth or early tenth century is based primarily

on the analysis of painted inscriptions and only incidentally on the architecture.1 40

Given the wide diffusion of the cross-in-square in both thne and space, it is not possi­

ble to date S. Pietro merely on the basis of plan. Unfortunately, other architectural fea­

tures are si1nilarly inconclusive as to date, although the distinctive blind arcading may

possibly be linked with that at S. Maria di Siponto anct'many later monuments. Although

the absence of dated monuments in the region makes a secure dating impossible, a rela­

tive chronology can perhaps be attempted. Some compel1ing argu1nents for dating the

Calabrian cross-in-square churches have been adduced, :.md it is worth reviewing them

here to determine whether they shed light on the date of their Apulian cousin.

On the basis of its semicircular apses, high cylindrical dome, and especially the deco­

rative motifs in its brickwork, the Cattolica at Stilo has been dated convincingly to the

,Jenth century by analogy with 1nonuments in Greecc. 141 Some scholars still favor a

twelfth-century ascription,142 but the most recent assessments accept a date in the tenth or

eleventh century.143 S. Marco at Rossano, described as "more awkward [than Stilo] in

every respect," is presutned to be later.144 It has been suggested that Rossano may date

between 950, the date of a devastating local earthquake, and 1060, the date of the Norman

conquest.145 This tern1inus ante quen1 is unconvincing because Byzantine building types

survived the Norman conquest,146 but the tern1inus post queni 1nay be valid. The strong

similarities between the two Calabrian churches suggest a relative proximity in their con­

struction dates, so if the Cattolica belongs to the tenth century then S. Marco cannot be

far behind. It should thus be assigned to the latter part of the tenth century, perhaps after

the earthquake and certain1y after the construction of the Cattolica.

S. Pietro is closer to Rossano than to Stilo, because only the former has the predomi­

nantly stone fabric, piers instead of columns, and interest in interior wall articulation seen

at Otranto. S. Pietro is also more sophisticated in its spatial conception than either of the

Calabrian monuments. Comparisons with nearby Castro are limited by the latter's poor

preservation, but the only study of the tnonument dated it to the ninth or tenth century and

22

held it to be earlier than Otranto. S. Pietro therefore postdates all of its South Italian com­

paranda, except for the derivative S. Andrea at Trani. In te1ms of Byzantine co1nparisons,

the articulatjon of the exterior strongly supports a Middle Byzantine ascription. A con­

struction date in the late tenth century would accord well with the historical circum­

stances considered earlier in this chapter. As we shall sec, a date in the late tenth or early

eleventh century is also supported by a study of the fresco decoration.

Alterations and Restorations

S. Pietro bears the marks of numerous alterations, not all of them felicitous. Many of

these bad i1nplications for the survival of the fresco decoration. The earliest and 1nost sig­

nificanl alteration was the construction of ,m adjacent parekklcsion used for burials lFig.

7].147 This single-apsed chapel abutted the church along its north side and used some two­

thirds of S. Pietro's north wal1 as its south wall. 148 Its rubble foundations were much crud­

er than those of the church, suggesting a construction date some distance in time from that

of S. Pietro.149 That this date was not earlier than the eleventh century is known fro1n evi­

dence recovered in the only one of the four tombs in the parekklesion that was undis­

turbed.150 This tomb, the one nearest the apse along the north side, contained the skeleton

of a child; a bronze coin of good quality that was placed near its head has been dated to the

eleventh century [Fig. 9]. 151 The parekklesion was probably constructed and used for

burials sometilne after this date, in the eleventh or twelfth century .152

Soundings 1nade at the time of the excavation of the parekklesion indicate that the

church originally held an even more co1n1nanding position on the acropolis. The ground

sloped sharply away to the west, and the west facade could doubtless be seen from a dis­

tance.153 Yet the west entry154 is but one of three doors in use at various times in the

church's history. The Pastoral Visit of 1607/8 records the presence of doorways looking

east and south,155 which 1nust correspond to the west entry and the doorway between the

church and the parekk:lesion. 156 The west entry was closed in 1657 with the insertion of a

stone inscription by the archbishop of Otranto, Gabriel Adarzo de Santander,157 and the

west facade was absorbed into the house of one Cristofaro de Mai1ina.158 The parekkle­

sion \vas no longer in use by this time; the connecting north doorway was closed by what

becan1e the main altar, to St. Peter, in the seventeenth century.159 These renovations led to

the exclusive use of the south door, which was certainly in use at the time of the execution

of the second fresco layer and is probably original [Figs. 3b, 15]. Known as the "Porta de!

Popolo'· or "Porta <lei Papas," this south door remained open until the 1950s restoration

campaign. 160 An altar in the central apse to saints Leonardo, Oronzo, and Biagio was ded­

icated in 1841; the dedicatory plaque in the center of the east bay's north wall still mars

the sunounding scene161 [Fig. 48].

Another significant interior renovation in S. Pietro was the recutting of the four cen-

23

-(

1

tral piers into columns. This probably occurred in conjunction with the extensive seven­

teenth-century alterations; that it was done after the sixteenth-century fresco redecorations

is evident from the abrupt truncation of frescoes belonging to the 1540 and 1576 cam­

paigns.162 For example, the St. Leonard (1540) on the south face of the northeast pier's

pseudocapital is cut off in the middle of the face [Fig. 79]. The plain pseudocapitals were

inexplicably described by Bertaux as "ornCs de feuillages travailles au ciseau et au

trep,u1."163 An important consequence of the reduction of piers to columns is that any

traces of a templon or screen between and adjacent to the two eastern piers have been lost.

Certain architectural renovations, such as the attachment of altars to the north ::md

west walls, had the effect of obliterating the underlying wall paintings. Frescoes survive

only along the edges of those walls [Figs. 17, 19]. The loss of paintings in other areas

may be attributable to the vicinity of neighboring constructions and attendant weakening

of the structural fabric. Nor can the deleterious effects of weathering be ignored: the

higher humidity levels on the north side of the church have damaged the northwest comer

bay frescoes with particular severity.

Restoration campaigns undertaken by the Soprintendenza in this century attempted to

address various problems affecting both the architectural integrity of S. Pietro and tbe

condition of its frescoes. A letter of 1911 attests to the restoration and plastering of

colutnns.164 From 1948-52, the first extensive campaign of restoration in the church was

prompted by "da1nage from war and rain."165 Isolation of the monument from its seven­

teenth-century accretions was a major aim of this restoration, and adjacent homes were

therefore demolished to create an "isola S. Pietro." Other actions of the 1940s-50s cam­

paign included closing the south entry and opening the west doorway; 166 removing and

replacing the deteriorated roof tiles; closing up some windows; 167 new paving and plas­

tering; protective cementing of the foundation walls; and general sealing of the .1rchitec­

tural fabric. Restoration of the frescoes \.Vas also undertaken: isolated fresco sections

were cen1ented to secure them to the underlying masonry. Unfortunately, this cement

absorbed moisture and promoted further damage to the frescoes. Between 1961 and 1966,

some surface restoration seems to have been performed. 168

From 1981-82 the Soprintendenza effected another extensive restoration campaign at

S. Pietro.169 The causes of hu1nidity in the interior were eli1ninated and the roof com­

pletely redone. The cement applied in the 1950s was removed from most frescoes; it was

left intact in small lacunae, where its removal might have proved more damaging to the

surrounding fresco than does its presence. All the paintings were cleaned and the pictorial

surfaces stabilized. The paintings in the east bay vault had lost their adherence to the

vault and required consolidating injections.170 Some frescoes, particularly the fifth-layer

images on the pseudocapitals, needed extensive scraping to remove algae growth. The

pitted fifth-layer paintings of the prothesis apse proved most resistant to restoration, and

much of their surface color had been lost due to 1noisture in that area. Some smaH water-

24

color rctouchings of the paintings were effected, and bare areas throughout the interior

were replastered with bright new intonaco that has since yellowed a bit in tone.

Stratigraphy of the Frescoes

The interior decoration of S. Pietro consists of superimposed layers of plaster,

although this seemingly obvious fact has been accepted only relatively recently.171

crn·eful observation reveals a palin1psest co,nposed of a variable number of layers, with

inore in the cast apse and on the west wall than elsewhere. All of the interior decoration is

in the true fresco technique, with the addition of surface highlights and finishes a secco.

The plaster layers have different degrees of tenacity to the wall and to each other, and

each layer differs co1npositionally fro1n the others. Chc1nical analysis of the frescoes has

not been perfor1ned, but observations in situ have succeeded in clarifying the interior

stratigraphy of S. Pietro. There are nun1erous criteria for linking fresco segments with others and thereby

yielding definable strata of decoration. The most obvious reason to consider t,vo sections

as part of the same layer is contiguity. With an extensive section of fresco and with no

discernable overlapping of surfaces, conten1poraneity of execution can be assu1ned. But

with noncontiguous fresco areas, other criteria must be employed. One of these criteria is

physical differences among the layers. At Otranto, the presence of materials such as coc­

cio pesto, ultramarine, and straw in relatively few areas serves to link those areas as prod­

ucts of the same ca1npaign of decoration. For proximate but nonadjacent fresco seg1nents,

the depth of the intonaco of each can help to link them, particularly if an overall median

depth of each layer can be established on the basis of more secure (overlapping) fresco

areas. This method has been employed productively in the analysis of such superimposed

frescoes as the famous "palimpsest wall" at S. Maria Antiqua in Rome. 172 It is useful at

S. Pietro for linking areas of fresco a few centimeters apart, as in the northeast pendentive

and north wall of the east bay [Fig. 65]. A lack of pitting or scoring of a frescoed surface

may indicate that it never received a subsequent layer of decoration or that any subse­

quent decoration was undertaken rapidly and without regard to its tenacity and longevity.

On the other hand, the presence of pitting is a sure indication of at least the intention to

paint over the existing fresco.

The principle of sym1netry may be helpful in associating frag1nents on opposite

walls. At S. Pietro the vaults ref1ect this principle, with each vault containing two regis­

ters of decoration on each side [Figs. 11-l 2]. Only in the west bay has too little been pre­

served to determine whether the disposition of two scenes per side was ,naintained there.

It see1ns reasonable to assume that some symmetrical division into zones was also

e1nployed for the poorly preserved flat wall areas. There are four registers of decoration

on the south wall of the south bay [Fig. 451, for example, and one would like to extrapo-

25

(

1

late the same configuration of four zones in the north bay.

Stylistic ele1nents also serve to link isolated fresco sections into more comprehensi­

ble layers. A comprehensive evaluation of the style of each layer will be undertaken in

the succeeding chapters, but one clement deserves to be singled out at this point. This is

the colorful stepped-cross motif used as a framing device for the ,najority of the extant

fresco scenes. It is not present in those areas notable for their inclusion of coccio pesto or

those that contain decomposed straw as an additive. The framing device thus helps to

underscore the physical distinctions among the various layers, and can be used as a crite­

rion for assigning frescoes to a particular stratum.

Given the above considerations, it is now possible to evaluate the extent of the differ­

ent fresco layers that survive in S. Pietro. The stratigraphic evaluations provide a funda­

mental underpinning for the iconographic and stylistic analyses that follow.

The first layer of fresco [Figs. 10, 20-291 is characterized by a grayish-brown base

coloration that reflects the presence of very co1npact, finely ground earthenware, or

coccio pesto, ::m ad1nixture that is not common in the region173 or in Byzantine paint­

ing.174 This distinctive fabric is seen today in several areas of the interior. The lower

part of the north wall of the northeast corner bay has two layers of intonaco, with the dis­

tinctive coccio pesto coloration underneath a fifth-stratum painting. Apparently, the first­

layer painting on this wall was not covered until the fifth campaign of decoration in

1576/77. The barrel vault of the northeast corner bay contains two scenes [Last Supper

and Washing of the FeetJ that also belong to the first layer, as does a fragmentary scene

on the south side of the northwest corner bay vault [Betrayal of Christ]. So too does a

fragment on the north wall of the north bay [ crouching figure 1, as well as small areas of

ornament near the juncture of the north and west walls of the west bay. In the southwest

corner bay, on the south wall, a frag1nent of coccio pesto intonaco bearing a pseudo-mar­

ble motif is visible above and extending underneath a second-layer head of a female

saint; another is nearby on the south wall of the south bay. And in all four pendentives,

the restorer has left intact areas of durable coccio pesto from which the painted decora­

tion has fallen away.

Traces of first-layer intonaco are found in enough disparate areas of the interior to

suggest that the entire church was initially frescoed. It is assumed that, barring unexpect­

ed external circumstances, Byzantine churches were decorated within a relatively short

period after their construction. This assumption finds suppo1i in South Italy, where sever­

al dedicatory inscriptions state that church construction was followed in1mediately by decoration.175

Another type of coccio JJesto, this one 1nore porous and friable, is found on the north

wall of the west bay and continuing around the corner onto the west wall [Figs.

30-32]. 176 The fragmentary scene [Nativity and Arrival of the MagiJ overlaps patches of

26

underlying fresco, and therefore cannot be part of the first layer. However, because of the

e Of coccio pesto this scene is unlikely to be too far in date fro1n that .of the first-presenc · _ ' . . . layer frescoes, H \ViH be cons1.de~ed hc~cu.1 a~ a .pendant ~o the first layer, ~ot as a separa~e stratum, because its charactenstlc fabnc 1s hn11ted to this one scene and 1s related physi-

cally to the first layer. The second fresco layer consists of co1n1non plaster, litne, and pulverized tufa. 177

Ultramarine has been used on the east bay walls, but not the vault; in the areas of orna­

ment outlining the central apse; and on the west face of the northeast pier lColor figs. 13,

36, 501.178 This costly material is produced fron1 finely ground lapis lazuli mined in

Afghanistan;l7l.l it yields a bright-blue color with a sn1ooth surface that adheres wen to the

underlying intonaco. Ultramarine has recently been found in the 1nid-tenth century fres­

coes of New Tokali kilise,180 and it is also attested at H. Sophia in Trebizond (ca. 1260),

at the Kariyc Djarni (ca. 1315), and in Duccio's "Maesta" (1308). 181 It is unknown

among the other frescoes of Apulia, although it has been found in so1ne painted icons

allegedly produced in the province. 182

The second layer of frescoes is the most extensively preserved fFigs. 11, 33-77;

color figs. 36, 50-51, 53, 63, 68J; it seems to have incorporated and not overpainted

son1e of the decoration of the first layer, specifically the scenes in the northeast corner

bay vault.183 Second-stratum intonaco is found in the east bay walls and vault, the lower

apse vvall, and surrounding the apse lthe Annunciation, a hicrarch, angel medallions, the

Nativity, Anastasis, Pentecost, and ornamental n1otifs]. Only a frag1nent is visible in the

apse conch (subsequently covered by fourth-layer painting), hut it is seen in all four pen­

dentives, especially the well-preserved northeast and northwest pendentives. in the

northeast, the depth of the intonaco at the extreme lower angle of the pendentive is

equivalent to that of the east bay scene that continues around the con1er to within 2 cm.

of this intonaco184 [Fig. 65J; here a physical criterion unites in a single stratum two fres­

co areas lhat differ greatly in style. Second-layer paintings have also adhered reasonably

well to the north bay vault [Genesis scenesj and to the east wall of the south bay

lPresentation in the Temple and Baptisml. Only frag,nents remain on the west side of

the south vault and on the south wall itself. Further traces arc also found in the west bay,

and 011 the pseudocapitals of all piers except the northwest. A large fragment containing

ultramarine on the west face of the northeast pier is contiguous with the fresco scene

above, on the cast wall of the north bay; its relationship to the image below, which pro­

jects rorvvard by several centimeters, is ambiguous. This lower image [male saintJ may

represent a change in the program effected after the frag1nent containing ultramarine had

been applied. The third stratum of painting is very limited in extent [Fig. 78J. lt is visible only in

the cast bay, in the cylindrical part of the apse above the altar and to the right of the win­

dows [donor priest and HodegitriaJ.185 This layer, though s1nall, is notable because it

27

-----contains the only donor portrait and painted dedicatory inscription surviving in the

church. Its paleography provides an approximate terniinus ante quem in the early four­

teenth century for the second layer, which it overlaps.186

A marked poverty of the fresco medium may be observed in the fourth and fifth lay­

ers. These contain straw as an additive and, through the organic process of its disintegra­

tion, have lost their original consistency; hence they betray the 1nost surface damage of'

any of the layers. In addition, the depth of the intonaco is highly variable in both layers,

an indication of poor fresco technique.187 The fourth layer of frescoes is lin1ited to the

cast bay [Color fig. 13, figs. 73, 79]. The date "1540" appears twice, in the border of the

apse conch scene and, farther down, in a panel that fills the central window. This date

applies to the paintings of the apse conch [Virgin and Child enthroned between angels]

and t? most of the apse, including the areas around and between the apse windows. The

layer continues outside the apse in the lunette lAnnunciationJ :u1d sides of the surround­

ing arch frinceau orna1nentl An additional fourth-layer frag1nent is found on the left wall

of the bay, on the south face of the northeast pier pseudocapital [St. Leonard].

The fifth layer of fresco decoration is more extensive [Color fig. 13, figs. 15, 17, 19,

33, 77, 79-80]. It covers part of the fourth layer in the vicinity of the cast apse, notably on

the lower part of the arch surrounding the apse [imitation marble columns]. It fills the

prothcsis apse [La1nentationJ and covers the first-layer painting on the north wall of the

prothesis bay [Virgin and Child between Sts. Nicholas and Francis di Paola]. It is also

found on the north wall of the north bay and on the west entry wall. In all of the corner

bays, fifth-layer decorative n1otifs outline the blind arched recesses. The pseudocapitals

of the four central piers have fifth-layer images lbusts of saintsJ surviving on at least three

sides, and the capitals of seven of the eight engaged half-columns also preserve this layer

of decoration. The date "1576" or "1577" appears on a total of five pseudocapital images

and can be assumed to pertain to the entire fresco layer.188 The third, fourth, and fifth

fresco layers are described in Appendix I, and will not be considered in any detail in the

iconographic and stylistic analyses that follow. In addition, a scene executed in tempera

in the southeast corner bay [Presentation in the Temple] bears the date 1857 and will not

be included in the present study.

Despite careful analysis, so1ne isolated fresco fragments cannot be assigned to any of

the layers on the bases of the physical criteria outlined above. These too must be recon­

ciled with the fresco stratigraphy of S. Pietro, but in the absence of objective physical evi­

dence one must rely on n1ore subjective iconographic and stylistic evaluations. These

fragments will be discussed in the context of the layer into which they appear to fit best.

28

NOTES TO CHAPTER I

1 Greek '(',Sr=·--' ·JS, -,:i·., ,,·ros, from a con1n1on Mediterranean root and from ,vhich Latin H_vdrus, Hydrun/um, el

aL. and fourth-century Odron/o; sec G. Alessio, "Sul nome di Otranto," AS/-' 5 (]952), pp. 216-236. The toponyn1s of

the villages around Otranto arc also Greek.

2 "Terra IJidronti'' is first cited in 1094: Alessio, "Sul nome di Otranto," p. 219. l'v1. Schipa, "La migrazione de!

norne ·Calabria',"' An:hivio storico per le Province Nupo/etane 20 (1895), pp. 23-47; G. Santini, "ll 'castrum

Cal!ipolitanum' e la geografia mn1ninistrativa dell'Tta!ia hizantina (sec. VT-TX),'' ASP 38 (1985), pp. 9-10.

.1 Sec s. Bor~nri, JI monachesimo hizanlino nella Sicilia e ne!!' llalia meridiona!e prenormane (Napks, 1963); G.

da Costa-Louillct. "Saints de Sicile et d'Italie 1nefidionale au VIIJc, JXc et Xe siecles," Byza11tio11 29-30 (1959-60), pp.

89-173: E. Follieri, "Tl culto dei santi ncll'Italia grcca,'' Chiesa greca, pp. 553-577.

+ Collections of documents housed in Messina and Rome have disappeared, though some individual docun1ents

hnve since been recovered. The numerous documents housed in the Archivio di StahJ in Naples were lost during the

bombings of World War 11; some had been published, albeit disappointingly, in F Trinchera, Syllabus Gruecarum

membumarum (Naples, 1865); document n. 44, pp. 57-58, mentions Otranto. There are also parchments from

Benedictine foundations at NardO [M. Pastore, ed., "Le pergan1ene della Curiae de! CapitolO di Nardo;· Centro di s1udi

salentini, ,Honograji"e e umtrilnlti V (1964)] and S. Giovanni Evangelista and SS. NiccolO c Cataldo. both in Lecce [F

de Luca, Gli orc/iivi de/le antiche purrocchie di Lecce (Galatina, 1974) I.

5 Sec Appendix JI.

6 i\tlatcrial from individual archives in Apulia, but not from the Tena d'Otranto, has been systematized in the Codice

cfiplonwtico pugliese. The Anna/es Barensis cover the period 605-l 043; the Chro11ico11, attributed to Lupus Protospatharios,

covers 805-1102. Both are in L. A. Murat01i, ed., !v!GH, Rerum Italicarum Scrip/ores 5 (Bologna, 1927); both arc related to

an older common source datable to 1051. Also useful are the Annalcs Be11evcnta11i (788-1182) and the Chronica monastcrii

Casincnsis. by Leo of Ostia (Leo Mar~icanlts), in Mmatori, cd., MGH, Rer. Ital. Script. 7 (Bologna, 1937).

D. Venclola, Document/ varicani relativi a/la Puglia, L Documenti rratti dai registri \/aricani da i111wce11zo 111 a

Nicola fl/:!!. Documenti tratti dai registri Vaticani da Bonifacio V!Il a Clemente V (Trani, 1940).

H Andre Guillou has published the records of a mnnber of Greek 1nonasteries in Calabria: Corpus des actes grecs

d'lta!ie du Sud er de Sicile. Rechen:hes d'histoire et de g{ographie (Vatican City, 1968- ) . .T. A. Siciliano, "The Greek

Religious and Secular Community of Southern Italy and Sicily During the Later Middle Ages,'' unpublished Ph.D.

diss., Rutgers University, 1983, assembles a wealth of documents but does not focus on Otranto. 9 Es.~cntial studies on Otranto or lhe i1mnediate region, in chronological order, include: E. Aar (=L. DeSin1one),

"Gli studi storici in Terra d'Otranto," Archivio storico italia110, ~er. 4, T (1877), pp. 189-196, 370-382, 591-604; U

(1878), pp. 158-169, 463-483; III (1879), pp. 276-306; IV (1879), pp. 112-129, 320-334; VI (1880), pp. 100-114, 305-

334: TX (1882), pp. 235-265; Xll (1883), pp. 274-295, 414-427; XV (1885), pp. 112-129, 263-286, 403-415; XVl

0885), pp. 274-283; XIX ( 1887), pp. 280-292, 420-441; Maggiulli, Otran/o: G. F. Tanzi, L' Archivio di S!ato in Len:e

(Note e Documenti) (Lecce, 1902); idem, La cittG di Otranto e ii territnrio mu11icr]Ja/e (Lecce, 1906); P. Coco, "Archivi

cccle~iastici in Terra d'Otranto, JII: Oria, Otranto, Ugcnlo, Gallipoli, Lcccc," Rivista di storia safentinu 13 (1921):

Antonaci, llydruntum; idem, Otranto, Testi e Mo11ume11ti. =Studi sulfa civilta sa!entina 11 (Galatina, 1955); idem,

Otra/1/o, cuore; G. Gianfreda, Otranto nella storia (Galatina, 1973); and Blattmann, "Otranto: scavi," chap. 2.

,o "Olranto, archeologia," p. 6. Holes for supporting the posts of Bronze Age huts as well as frag1nents of

Mycenaean pottery have been found. For Otranto in the ancient and early medieval periods see ''Otranto, archeologia":

M. Bernardini, Panoramo archeo!ogico dell' estremo Salemo (Trani, 1955); M. Leone, Terra d' Otramo dalle origini

alfa co!onizzazione romana (Lecce, 1969).

29

(

l

' 11 Thc:se excavations, undertaken in conjunction with thc Soprintendenza Archeologica dclla Puglia (at Taranto),

the Soprintcndcnza ai Beni Ambientali, Architcttonici. Artistici c Storici della Puglia (at Bari: hereafter,

Soprinlenden:u), and with members of the Institute of Archeology .it rl1e University of Lecce, have not ycl been fully

plthlishcd. Preliminary reports include D. Michaelides, ''Olnmlo," Old H'arld Archaeology il/eivs!etter TTJ (February

1979); "Otranto, archeologia" D. Whitehouse, "Otranto bizantina, scavi di emergenza, 1977, 78," l'vlagna Grecia

Bi:anlina e Tradi:ione C/assica. =Atti de! 170 Convcgno di sludi sulla Magna Grccia, Taranto 1977 (Naples, 1982), pp.

537-541. For a description and n1aps of the exc.ivation cantieri stx: Blattrnaun, "Otranto: scavi.''

12 "Otranto, arcbeologia," pp. 14, 16.

n See Alessio, "Sul non1e di Otranto," passim,

14 Sec F. M. De Asle, In ,Memurabilibus Hydrunlinae Ecclesiae. Epitome (Bt;ncvcnto, 1700), No surviving

n1edieval references support this tradition of Petrine foundation.

1:, i\1ichaclidcs, Old VVorld 1\rr1111colog.v Nc1vsle1ter; "Otranto, archeologia," p, 19,

lo "Otranto, archcologia," p, 16,

17 Sec G. Uggeri, ''La Via Trniana 'Calahra',' Ri'r'crche e Srudi 12 (1979), pp. J 15-130. The Via Appia-Traiana

was also known as the Via i\ugusta-Sallentina,

18 E.g., the /tinerarium Burdigalensis (334), and many others: see R. Gelsornino, "Itincrarium Burdigalcnsi e la

Puglia,'' \leteru Chrisliunorum 3 (1966), pp, 161-208, esp. p, 187.

19 V, von Falkenhausen, "Spazio, societii, pote1·e ncll'ltalia dei Conrnni.'' Ruropa i'vlediterra11ea, Quaderni l

(1986), p, 198,

20 Letter (507-511) in lv!GH XII, I, 2 (1894), ed. T. Momrn8en, pp, 11-12: Eoa Tyros est l-Jydron ltalica.

21 Procopius II, Bella V-VTII, ed. J. Haury (Leiden, 1962), e.g., UT, 1; V, 15; VI, 5; Vll, 9, 22 et al,

22 von Falkenhausen, La domi11azione bizanti11a, p. 8, The city was visited by Pope Conslanline 011 his voyage

from Syrat;usc lo Constantinople in 710/11.

n MGH Epistofae III, 514-5 ISff; von Falkenhausen, La dominazione /Jizanti11a, p, 8,

24 von fialkenhausen, La dominazione hizantina, p, 9, Only one seal altcsl~ to a lc0ci'.v1,,ou s,~u,Us

'l'Soctiv'Tos: V, Laurent, Le corpus de sceaux de I' empire byzanlin, V, L' Eg!ise (Paris, 1963), p. 109,

25 Otnmlo is aptam mercimo11iis . Pauli DiaconL Historia Langobardorum, Bk, II, ch, XXL

20 P, F Kehr, llalia Pontificia, IX, Samni11m-Apulia-Lucania. =Reges/a Ponrificum Romanorum (GOttingen,

1962),p.409, no. 1.

27 Can1iere Maldonato (=Cuntiere VI), partly excavated by lhc British School at R01ne in 1982-83, Finds includ­

ed a silver reliquary and a fol/is of Heraclius. See Blattmann, "Otranto: scavi," chap. 4.

2s Con8tantine Porphyrogenitus, De admi11istrando imperio 27, =Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae

(Washington, D,C,. 1967). For the Byzantine period see von Falkenhausen, La dominazione biza11tina; A. Guillou,

Studies on Byzantine Italy (London, 1970); idem, Culture et societl! en ltalie hyzanline (\!le-Xie s.) (London, 1978);

and idem, Aspe11i detla Civilt/J /Jizantina in Italia (Bari, 1976), The older study by J. Gay, L'lralie 1111!ridionale et

f' empire hyza11tin depuis I' avhH'ment de Basile jusqu' ci /11 prise de Bari par !cs Normand., (867-107!) (Pa1i8, 1904),

translated as L'ltalia meridiona!e e t'impero bizantino dall'avvenlo di Basilio I al/a resa di Bari ai Normanni

(Florence, 1917), is still usefuL

29 Maintained by Guillou, "Italic mG!idionale byzantine," pp. 154-155 and repeated by G, Santini, "11 'castrum

Callipolitanum' e la geografia an1n1inistrativa dell'Italia bizantina,'· p, 18, but refuted hy A. Jacob, "Une mention

d'Ugento dans la chroniquc de SkylitLl:e>," Re{,ue des E111des Byzanrines 35 (1977), pp, 229-235; Jacob, "Testhnonianze

bizantine," pp. 54-55. Guillou's corollary (p. 184)-that the church of S, Pietro at Otranlo was built in the late ninth

century as part of the subsequent reconstruction of Otrnnto··-· is therefore unfounded.

.lo Gregory was primicerius protospatharius el bajalus (~olo,,\o positions very close to the emperor: see

von Falkenhausen, La dominazione bizantina, esp, p, 76,

01 There was an Arab emirate at Bari until shortly before this date: see G, l\tlusca, L'emirato di Bari 847-871

(Bmi, 1964).

30

:i, von Falkeuhausen, La dominazione /Jizantina, pp. 20-21,

33 von Falkenhausen, Lu dominazione hizantina, p, 33,

:H 111 9 !2-·913. 027-928, 950,-951, and 976-977, according lo Blatlmann, ''Otranto: scavi See 1\,1, Amari,

, . u /mani di Si!'i!ia 11 (Catania, 1935), pp, 208,280, 370ff. In general sec F Gabricli and U, SceJTato, Gli Stana de1 1n usu

" It /ia C11/rura contarti e /radizio11i (Milan, 1979). Arabi 1n a · ·

35 von falkcnhausen, "Taranto,'' p. 146; eadem, La dominazione bizantina, p. 138,

, 6 von Falkenhaus<en, La domi11azione bizanti11a. pp. 46ff.; A. Guillou, "Geografia amministrati,· '._l kalcpanato

bizantino d' ftalia (IX-XI sec.).'. repr, in Culture el socie/1!, IX.

37 E.g .. katcpans Basil Boioannc~ and Basil Mesardoni1.es: sec von Falkenhausen, "Provincial Aristocrat;y," pp.

213~215. 38 von Fa!kenhau5cn, ''Provincial Aristocracy," pp. 224-225.

39 von Falkenhausen, La dominazione hizunlinu, p, 138,

4o F. Dvornik. La vie de Saint Grdgoire le Dfcapolile et !es slaves macddonie11s au LY.I.' sii:cle, Travaux publits

par \'Instilut d'audes slaves 5 (Paris, 1926). pp. 22, 41, and 58 IL 1-12.

41 J. Darrou 7.Cs, iVotitiue l!,'piscopatuum Ecciesiae Constantinopolitanae (Paris, 1981 ), notice 7, L 68, Bari was

raised to that status in 953, later lo be joined by Trani, Brindisi, Lucera, and Siponto, See von fia]kcnhausen, "Taranlo,''

p. 138. 42 Laurent, Le cmp11s de sceaux, p, 728, Whether this Mark was the farnous hynmographer Mark of Otranto i~

uncertain. 43 Liutprand of Cren1ona, Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitanu, in V. Gnm1el, Les Regestes des m:tes du

palriarcat de Constontinople I (Paris, 1932). p. 226, no, 792; Kehr, lralia Po11tificia TX. p, 408; see also Darrouzes,

Notitiae Episcopawum, p, 51. While the archbishop is not cited by name in Liutprand, secondary sources often call him

Peter ITI: cL F. Ughelli, lta!ia Sacra 9 (Venice, 1922), col. 55,

44 These were all new or (in the case or Acerenza) revived sees: Kehr. Italia Prmtiji"cia IX, p, 452,

45 The privilege of installing bishops may have been quickly revoked: the Notiria of emperor John Tzimiskcs ror

978 lists no suffragans for Otranto, while a later list cites one, V, Laurent, "L'€glisc de l'ltalie n1€ridionale entre Rome

cl Byzance a la veille de la conqucle normande," Chiesa greca, p 19.

.ir, Lauren[, "L'€glisc Ue l'ltalie n1€ridionale," p. 13; von Falkenhausen, La dominazione hiza111ina. pp, 49 and

166. 47 von Falkenhausen, Lu dominazione bizantina, p. 164, Hugh i.8 attested by 1067; in 1071 he was present at the

dedication of the new Desiderian abbey at Monteca88ino,

4H Tn general see D. Girgensohn, "Dall'episcopato grcco all'episcopato latino nell'Ttalia meridionalc," Chiesa

grcca, pp, 38-39; N. Kamp, "Vescovi e diocesi ncll'Italia 1neridionale nel passaggio dclla dominazione bizantina allo

stato normanno,'' Civi/r{I rupestrc il Pa.1·saggio, pp, 165-196.

49 i<.ekaumenos, L1 l-'u.,'T'l'{OKc5v (late eleventh century), ed, G, G. Litavrin (Moscow, 1972), pp, 176-178 and

commt;ntar/ pp, 437ff; \Ve learn from this source that homes were built against the city wa!L The c01nmander at Otranto

was named l\1elipezzi, of the aiistocratic family of that name in Bari, See von Falkenhausen, La dominazione hizantina.

p, 150, On the Norman period see J. DecaJTcaux, Normand.~, Papes et 1110i11es en ltalie mi?ridionu!e et en Sicile,

Xle--XJII.' sil'cle (Paris, 1974); J. J, Norwich, The Kingdom in !he Sun (Harlow. 1970) and idem, 'Fhe Normans in the

S0111h (London, 1963); C, D, Po8o,l/ Sa/ento Normanrw, Territorio, istituzioni, societJ (Galatina, 1988),

50 Tanzi, La cit/G di Otranto e if terrilorio municipa/e, p. 5, implies that Otranto was itself infeudated lo

Bnhernund and that this reudal status was continuous. But cL N, Kamp, Kirche und 1vlonarchie im Slaufischen

KOnigreich Sizilien 10/1, 2. Apu/ien und Kalahrien (Munich, 1925), p. 714: Otranto was a feud of Walter of Brienne

from 1201---05, and again under Manfred from 1250-58.

51 von Falkenhausen. "Provincial Aristocracy," p, 225; eadem, "I ceti dirigenti prcnormanni al tempo della costi­

tuzione degli stati normanni nell'Ilalia meridionale e in Sicilia." Forme di po/ere e struttura sociale in Italia nel

Mediocvo (Bologna, 1977), pp, 343ff

31

(

1 s: Guillennu;, Apulicnsis, l.e Geste de Rolwrr Guiscard, eel. M. l\tlathieu, c=Istitulo Siciliano di Studi Bizantini e

Neoel!enici, Testi e Monumenti. Testi IV (Palermo, 1961), pp. 21 L 259ff.

53 Blattrnann, "Otnmto: scavi," passim.

5-1 On the Cathedral at Otranto in general see P. Belli D'Elia, T. Garton, M. D'E!ia, "Olranlo, Cattcdralc," in Belli

O'Elia, Puglia XI secolo, pp. 153-173. For the twelfth-century pavement sec C. Frugoni, "ll nmsaico della Cattedrale di

Otranto," in La Puglia fra Bisanzio e !'Occidente (Milan, 1980), pp. 197-204, bibliography p. 411 ); X. Barral i Altct,

Les mosai'ques de pavement midiivufes en France et Italic (Rome, 1989). Recent excavation has uncovered a black and

white 1nosaic under the historiated pave1nent; see Chapter IV.

55 E.g., at Rossano in Calabria: Girgensohn, ''Dall'episcopato greeo," p. 40. See also V. von :Falkenhausen. "I

monasteri greci dell'Italia meridionale e della Sicilia dopo l'avvento <lei Normanni: conlinuitfi e mutamenli," Civi!tci

rupes1re: if Passaggio, pp. 197-219.

56 On the fanmus 1nonastery at Casale see T. Kiilzer, "Zur Geschichte des Klosters S. Nicola di Casolc," Quellen

und Forsclmngen aus italienischen Archiven imd Bihliolheken 65 (1985), pp. 418-426; 0. and A. Parlangeli, "11 monas­

tero di San Nicola di Casale, eentro di cultura bizantina in Tena d'Otranto," /Jolleltino della Badia greca di

Groltaferrata 5 (1951), pp. 30-45, reviewed by M. Lasearis inByzantion 21 (1951), pp. 255-256.

57 Kamp, "Vescovi e dioeesi," p. 173.

5g B. Vetere, "Distrettuazione diocesana c organizazzione parrocchialc in Puglia nei secoli XIII-XV," Pievi e

Purrocchie in Italia net Basso Medioevo, Atti de! V. Convegno di storia della chiesa in Italia (Rome, 1984), 11, pp,

1109-1132.

-"9 On the Hohenstaufen and Angevin periods see J. M. Martin, "~cJL1voir, geographie de !'habitat et topographie

urhaine en Pouille sous le regne de Frederick IL" ASP 38 (1985), pp. 61-89; P. F. Palumbo, "Terra d'Otranto dagli

svevi agli angioini e l'assedio di Gallipoli,'' ASP Il (1958), pp. 56-87: idem, Con1rih11li al/a s10ria del/'e1d di Manfredi

(Rome, 1959). The Angevin chancellery records also contain nun1erous scattered references to Otranto, usually to its

port or ils archiepiscopal status: see R. Filangieri di Candida, ed., I Registri delta Cancel/eria Angioina (Naples,

1950--80), passim.

nn Maggiulli, Otranto, Document AA.

01 J. L.A. Huillard-Breholles,Hisroria diplomat/ca Friderici Secundi (Paris, 1859), V, 2, pp. 852-853.

D2 Letter of Alexander TV to the commune of Otranto, in Vendola, Documenti Vaticani l, n. 336, tram,lated in

Antonaci, Hydru11111m, pp. 144-145.

t3 A. Jacob, "L'annee 1255 a Nard() d'aprCs une note du Scorialensis RI 18," Que/fen und Forschungen aus ital­

ienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 58 (1978), pp. 615-623, correcting the date 1045 proposed by A. Guillou in

"Production and Profits in the Byzantine Province of llaly (Tenth to Eleventh Ccnturie8): An Expanding Society,"

DOP 28 (1974), pp, 106-107, and in "l!alie meridionale byzantine," pp. 171-172.

M Charles had ships built in Otranto for his campaign against Gallipoli, which was still holding out against the

Angevins: Antonaci, Hydruntum, p. 149.

65 Jacob, "Culture grecque,'' pp. 61-62.

!iii Maggiulli, 01ra11/o, p. 46. Comitus, frorn comitarus, has a nebulous significance: it can mean a representative

of the court, a judge, leader of an armed division, et at. [J. F. Niermayer, Mediae Latiniratis Lexicon Minus (Leiden,

1976)]; cf. P. Sella, Glossario Latino Italiano, Stato della Chiesa-Veneta, Abruzzi, =Studi e Testi 109 (Vatican City,

1944), p. 167: naval commander.

67 Sec S. Runciman, The Sicilian Ve~pers. A History o/1he Aledilerranean World in the Late Thirteenth CentW)'

(Cambridge, 1958).

68 After its conquest by Roger de Lauria, admiral of Frederick II of Aragon: Antonaci, Ifydruntum, p. 141. This

infonnation comes from the suspect Anonimo de/ Chro11icon neretirmm.

69 Coco, Vestigi di grecismo, pp. 76-77.

711 P. Coco, "Le cause dcl tramonto de! rito greco in Terra d'Otranto," Rinascenza Salentina 4 (1936), pp. 255-

264. Tl is unclear what type of document is being cited.

32

71 !{econ.led in a letter of Martin JV dalcd January 9, 1283, bu! unrecorded in local documents: Antonaci,

f1ydnmt1m1, P· !50. -

72 The distribution or his goods in 1310 showed him to have been an enom1ously wealthy prelate: see Chapter JV

bl Ill of patronage. Antonaci, Hydrunlum, p. 154, n. 10, maintains thal the two Jan1eses ,vere different indi­on the pro c

viduals. 13 On the collection of the decima in Otranto in 1310 and 1324 sec Vendola, Ra1io11es decimarwn; Vendola, "Le

decime." Unfortunately, unlike other regions of Italy, the cledn1a records for Apulia are hoth incomplete and imprecise.

74 Jacob. ''Culture grecque."

75 Sec esp. "il Galatea," Antonio de Fcnariis of Galatone: De situ Japygiae Liber, in £pistole Salentine,

=Bibh'oteca di cuftura pugliese 3 (Galatina, 1974); additional bibliography in G. Vallone, "Otranto e il diritto dei

Turchi," ASP 38 ( 1985), pp. 103-110. 7~ On the srnte of affairs in Otranto after the Turkish conquest see S. Panareo, "In Terra d'Otranto dopa l'inva­

sione turchcsca del 1480," Rf-vista storica safentina 8 (1913), pp. 35-56; idem, "Capitoli e grazie concesse alla cittll di

Otranto (1482-1530)," Rinascenza salenrina 3 (1935), pp. 125-138.

77 Po~ited by .l.\tfichaelides, Old World Archaeology News/el/er

78 See Appendix IL In the same year the Frati minirni of S. Francc8co di Paola were installed at Otranto. They

erected a convenl in 1540. contemporary with the penultimate fresco layer at S. Pietro.

79 Antonaci. Orranto, cuore, p. 195.

go See z. N. Tsirpanlis, "Memorie storiche sullc communitfl e chiese greche in Terra d'Otranto (XVI sec.),"

Chiesa greca, pp. 845-881; V. Peri, "Chiesa latina e Chiesa greca nelJ'Jtalia postridentina (1564--1596)," Chiesa ireca.

pp. 271-469: idem, "La Congregazione dei greci e i suoi primi documenti," Studi Gratiani 13 (l 967), pp. 131-256.

s1 F. UghellL Italia Sacra 9 (Venice, 1922), col. 53: tres Gra'Corurn erant Ecclesia', in quihus GrO!ci Sacerdotes,

& Ministri, GrO!co more sacrafaciehanl; P. Rodotll, Del origine, progresso e s/ato presenle de/ rilo Greco in Italia I

(Rome, 1758), p. 373. B. Spane\ La grecitcl bizantina e i suoi nflessi geografici ne{f'Italia meridionafe e insufare,

=Puhbficazioni def!' Islituto di ieoirafia dell' Universitci di Pisa 12 (Pisa, 1965), pp. 71, 73n., thinks that three Greek

churches were too many for a town the size of Otranto, and assumes that they accommodated the extraurban population

as well. ~2 The unbroken tradition was supported by Rohlfs (cf. Jacob, "Testin10nianze bizantinc," p. 56), the infu~ion by

Parlangeli; each side continues to find supporters. For a summary of lhe arguments (with bibliography), and an attrac­

tive new proposal about an influx of Greek-speaking Calabrians fleeing the Arab8 for Apulia in the High Middle Ages,

see J. M. Martin, ''Une origine calabraise pour la Grecfa salentim.:'!" RSBN, n.s. 22-23 ( 1985-86), pp. 53-63.

~3 BJattmann, "Otranto: scavi," p. 37.

84 Momnnental ashlars have been found in a Roman stratigraphic context elsewhere in Otranto: see the forth­

coming excavation reports of the British School at Ron1c.

~.1 !lie presence of this material at Otranto is signaled by C. De Giorgi, Descrizione jisica ieologica e idrografica

de/la Provincia di Lecce (repr. Lecce, 1960), p. 304.

86 All measurements were done by the author. The original measurements nrny not have been identical to these,

given the numerous alterations to the structure throughout its history (see below. Alterations and Restorations). The ear­

liest description of the church, that of De Giorgi, Provincia di Lecce II, p. 267, gives measurements of 8.38 m.

east-west and 7.98 m. notth-south; it seems likely that these arc interior measurements. The plan of S. Pietro in Fig. 5

corrects cnors in the plan illustrated in Restauri in Puglia 11, p. 463, which has evidently been p1intc<l backwards (e.g.,

the open window at S. Pietro is in the diakonikon, not the prothesi8).

87 A8 expressed by Teodoru, who made the first architectural survey of the building, if 1 represents the width of

the cn,ss then 1.056 represents its length (Teodoru, "Eglises cruciformes," p. 26).

~8 The standard handbook is E. Schilbach, Byzantinische Merrologie (Munich, 1970). p. 31. However, Restlc

determined !hat the ba8ic unit of 1neasuren1ent in Cappadocia varied between 0.304 and 0.308 Ill. [M. Restle, Studien

zur fi"iihhyzantinische11 Architekrur Kappadokien.1· (Vienna, 1979), =bsterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,

33

Philosophisch-Histmische Klasse Denkschriften 138, Text, pp. 90ff. and esp. p. 134], and otl1er scholars have deduced

different units. The consistency of a Byzantine foot measurement has been called into question by J. Wilkinson, who

observes that while Roman foot-rulers (at 0.296 n1.) are plentiful. no Byzantine rulers have yet been found: J.

Wilkinson, "Byzantine and Roman Measurement," unpublished paper. I thank Professor Wilkinson for sharing his his­

toriographical study with me prior to its publication. A useful recent review of Byzanlinc metrology appears in S.

Sinos, Die Klosterkirche der Kosnwsoleira in Bera (Vira), Byzanlinisches Archi\l 16 (Munich, 1985). pp. 159ff.; sec

also E. Fernie, "Historical Metrology and Architectural History," Art llistOJJ' J ( 1978), pp. 383-399.

H9 Other buildings in South Italy are apparently based on the module of the Byzanline fool. A case has been made

for the symbolic meaning of the dimensions of the Cattolica at Stilo using 0.315 m. as the basic unit: R. Jurlaro,

"Nuove tesi per la lcttura planimetrica della Cattolica di Stilo." Calabria Bizanlina, lncontri 4-5. 1978-79 (Reggio

Calabria, 1983), pp. 55-58. The 'Centopietre' and S. Giovanni al Pati:1. both in Apulia. have also heen measured in

Byzantine feel: sec A. Prandi, "Monumenti salentini inediti o ma! noti," Paffadio Xl (1961), pp. 1-30 and 103-136. 90 Bertaux en-oncously described the three apses as all of equal depth: E. Bcrlaux, L' art dans l' !ta lie miridionale

(Paris, 1904). p. 121. On the problem of the names and functions of the pastophory apses sec G. Babic, /,es chapel/es

annexes des iglises hyzantines. Fonction /itwJ;ique et programmes iconographiques, =BihliolhCque des CA 3 (Paris,

1969), esp. chaps. 2 and 3; see also the review by S. Curcic in AB 55 (1973). pp. 448-451. 91 In the early literature on S. Pietro the cupola was assumed to be monolithic, suggesting comparisons to such

n10numents as the l'Vlausoleum of Theodoric at Ravenna: see, e.g., L. Maroccia, La edico/a bizantina di S. Pierro in

Otranto (Bari, 1925), p. 18. This assumption has been disproved in the course of restoration.

n In 1932, at the time or Teodoru's survey, these windows were rcc~angular (see Teodoru, "Eglises cruciformes,"

figs. 3 and 5). 91 See below, Alterations and Restorations. That the columns were originally piers was suggested rather oblique­

ly by Prandi, "Salento provincia"; G. Demetrokalles could not confirm this in Contrih111ion ii I' itude des monuments

hyzantins et midiivaux d' Italic (Athens, 1971), p. 105: but Jurlaro, "Nuove tesi,'' p. 57, lists S. Pietro arnong the monu-

1nents containing a cupola supported by piers.

9-1 The pseudocapitals, their upper borders delimited by a painted border. vary in height from 0.725 to 0.745 m.

The column shafts now measure fron1 l.89 to 1.91111. in height, between n10ldings, and vary in circmnference from as

much as 2.0 m. al top (southeast) to 1.85 m. at bottom (southwest). The bases vary in height from 0.305 m. (southeast)

lo 0.36 m. (northwest). 9-" Each torus measures approxin1ately 0.07 m. in height. 96 The di1nensions of the engaged columns reflect the slight discrepancies that characterize the central piers:

pscudocapitals range from 0.705 m. to 0.74 m. in height; column shafts measure fro1n l.85 to 1.92 m. tall; bases arc

from 0.29 lo 0.39 m. high. For all the freestanding and engaged cohnnns, there is a maximum difference of 0.15 n1. in

height (shaft+ base).

97 Cf. the discussion of roof tiles in H. Teodoru, "Les eg!ises a cinq coupoles en Calabre," Ephemeris

Dacoromana 4 (1930), pp. 178-179. 98 On n1edieval architecture in Apulia see Belli D'E!ia, Puglia XI .1ecolo; Belli D'Elia, Puglia ji·a Bisanzio;

Bertaux, Aggionwmento; and Resh.mri in Puglia II, all with bibliographies. Venditti, Architetrura hizantina, excludes

Apulia except for the rupestral 1nonuments.

~Y 'Ibe inscription of Mcsardonitcs was found in 1932, inserted into a wall of S. Nicola at Bari: it is now con­

served in the gallery of the basilica. The text is published and illustrated in Guillou, "Un document." superseding the

earlier incorrect edition (but better illustration) by F. Babudri, "L'iscrizione incdita bizantina harcsc del secolo IX e le

costruzioni dell'lmperatore Basilio l," ASP 14 (1961 ), pp. 50-89.

100 J am not convinced that the inscription indicates that "patrons regarded brick as good, but ashlar as stronger

and n1ore beautiful," as slated by Wharton, Art of Empire, p. 128. On the O:u 'I u, or ·,1 fJC\,C'T (,)p·,ov, the Byzantine

administrative area. see Guillou. "Un document."

101 See C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture (New York, 1976), esp. chap. 7, and Krauthei1ner, Architecture,

chap.17.

34

102 for tbc: rock-cut churches see especially Prandi, ··salcnto proviucia," pp. 676-677; Venditti, Architcttura

!Jiza!1tina. esp. pp. 228ff; and Medea, Cripte. Farioli Campanati, Ui:antini in Italia, gives a good _overview, and

Fonseca. fas,10 Sa/cnto, is a useful con1pendium of sites in t11e region although the frescoes and inscriptions are pub­

lished uncritically.

Hn Sec esp. A. Prandi, "Aspetti archeologici dell'eremitisn10 in Puglia," L · eremitismo i11 occiden1e nei secoli XI e

XII, Miscellanea del Centro di Studi Medioevali IV (Milan, 1965), pp. 435-456, and now F. Dcll'Aquila and A.

Messina, ''fl 1"er11plo11 nelle chiese rupestri dell 'Italia meridionale." Hyzrmtion TJX (1989), pp. 20-47.

IM G. Demetrokallcs, ··ov CT'TQ',JPOE:l8E:(s E:YYE:·yp0,,µ~l(1 ... oc '.lo,'.JC T···1s .i.c,.1c.;,Cc1.s Ka.,, kci'."Tw

I-ro .. \1,,J.':;, EtBS 36 (1968), pp. 106 and 108, repr. in Demetrokalles, Co11rributio11 a l'etude des monuments

hy:::anti11s et mhlifvaux d' l!alie, V.

105 For bibliography and commentary on Stilo and Rossano, see the fundamental architectural surveys by

Tcodoru, "Les eglises a cinq coupoles en Calabre": G. Lave1micocca in Be11aux, Aggior11ame1110, vol. IV, pp. 305-31 O;

Venditti, Architettura /Jizantina, pp. 852-879.

1rn, On S. Giorgio and the Ottimati see Venditti, Archi1e//11ra hizanlina, pp. 873-876; F. Arillolla, "La chiesa

bizantina dcgli Otti1nati," Brurtium 61 (1982), pp. 5-9.

101 In Prandi, "Salcnto provincia," p. 673, similarities between Stilo and Otranto arc exaggerated by the reproduc­

tion of a plan showing S. Pietro with only four engaged columns and a single apse window.

108 For !he origin. dissemination, and rai.1·m1s d'e1re of this plan, sec Krautheimer, Architer·ture, pp. 340ff. 1n

Constantinople lhc earliest surviving example is dated 907: see T. Macridy, et al., "The Monastery of Lips (Fenari Isa

Camii) at Istanbul," DOP 18 (1964), pp. 251-315. For cross-in-square plans in Greece sec A. Orlandos, "Bula. V'TC',·J.

ABME 9 (1961), pt. 1, pp. 3-20, and M. Soteriou, "To l\0,Bc\1,K61J 'T"fl'c, lvk1n'ic:,

per. 4, 2 (1960-61), pp. 101-129.

1119 Sec Brightman, !.iturgies. and Mateos, Typicon 1-Il.

1.'Cl0s 'T"flS E1rc.CTK01T1~s:'

n,c-rpO:n1 .A6 'I 10:iv," DXAE

110 Farioli Ca111panati, Biza11ti11i in Italia, p. 240; Krauthei1ner, Architecrure, pp. 392-393, 401ff. A

Constantinopolitan example, the church of St. John the Baptist (i., :c.;-i Tpo\JA -.i:.;, is of uncertain dale: T. Mathews,

The Byzantine Churches r?( Isranhul, A Photographic Survey (University Park. Pa .. 1976), pp. 159-160.

111 Krautheimer. Architecture. pp. 402,511.

112 Ascribed by K. Mijatev, Die mirtelalterliche Baukunsr in Bulgarien (Sofia, 1974), p. 102, to 1006 (probably

built by Tsar Samuel), but the complicated building history is summarized hy Krautheimer, Architecture, p. 498, n. 28.

113 Sec R. Bordenache, "Due 1nonun1enti dell'ltalia meridionale, 1. L'avanzo di una chiesetta greca in Castro."

B0lle11ino d' Arte 27 (1933), pp. 169-178.

11,1 Teodoru, "Egliscs cruciformes.'' p. 28, overstates the case by claiming that baJTel vaulting of the con1er vaults

is rare: cf. l(.rauthein1er, Architecture, p. 340.

li5 P. L. Vocotopoulos, "The Role of Constantinopolitan Architecture Dming the Middle and Late Byzantine

Period;· Cil:..'11 XVI, p. 555.

116 According to .Turlaro, "Nuove tesi," p. 57, piers were also used in the now-destroyed Byzantine church of the

01timati (956?) in Reggio Calabria, but Arillotta, ··La chiesa bizantina degli Ottimati,'. states that co!un1ns were

employed.

1n See P. Vergara, "Ele1nenti architettonici tardoantichi e medioevali nella cripta della Cattedrale di Otranto;­

RINASA n.s. TIT, 4 (1981), pp. 71-103.

118 Teodoru, ··Eglises cruciforn1es,'' p. 30, crediting G. Millet with this observation for churches in Crete; Farioli

Campanati, Ni:rrntini in Italia, p. 249. This nonstruclural kature is found in some Bulgarian churches of the tenth and

early eleventh century, and is repeated in the twelfth century at S. Andrea in Trani.

11Y Belli o·Elia, Pugfiafra Bisa11zio, p. 120.

120 Krauthcimer, Archilect11re, p. 403.

121 Krautheimer, Architecture, pp. 356ff.; C. L. Striker, The .Myrelaion (Rodrum Camii) in lsta11bul (Princeton, 1981).

35

122 Vocotopoulos, "The Role of Constantinopolitan Architecture," p. 557. On the Panagia ton Chalkeon see

Krautheimer, Archi1ec1ure, pp. 373ff. with additional bibliography; on the katepan Christopher Burgaris sec von

Falkenhausen, La domi11azio11e bizanti11a, pp. 91ff.

123 Krautheimer, Archi1ec/ure, p. 379.

124 Vocotopoulos, "The Role of"Constantinopolitan Architecture." p. 555.

125 Teodoru, "Eglises cruciformes," p. 34.

12b Teodoru, "Egliscs crucifonnes," p. 22, n. 3, considered S. Pietro's campanile the work of restorers.

127 On these basins, or piscine, see H. C. Butler. Early Churches in Syria, Fourth to Seventh Centuries (Princeton,

1929), pp. 216-218: W. Djobadzc, Archeo!oiica! investigations in the Region \.Vest 1~( Anrioch 011-the-Orontes

(Stuttgart, 1986), pp. 47-48; and esp. the recent disse1tation by N. B. Tctcriatnikov, "Liturgical Planning of Byzantine

Churches in Cappadocia," Lmpublished Ph.D. diss., New York University Instilulc of Fine Arts, 1987, chap. 2.

12~ Illustrated in Farioli-Crunpanati, "Cultura aitistica,'· fig. 188. The double convex rim of the basin at Otranto is

also found on a basin from S. Marco, Rossano, unfortunately no longer in situ and with a central n1otif of a rosette

instead of a cross: illustration in Musolino, Calabria hizantina, fig. 28.

129 R. Mola. "S. Maria di Monte D'Elio," insediamenti Benedeuini in Puglia, 11, Catalogo, =Universitit degli Studi

di Lecce, Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia, Istituto di Storia Medioevale c Modema, Documenti 2 (Galatina, 1981), p. 22

and figs. 40, 50. The church is known from a document dated 1032 and the basin is probably original.

130 Examples in Teteriatnikov, "Liturgical Planning," p. 110.

131 Teteriatnikov, "Liturgical Planning," p. 109.

132 Krautheimer, Architecture, p. 355.

133 Gianfreda, Basilica bizantina, p. 21; H. Schulz, Denkmiiler der Kunst des Mille/alters in Unterira!ien

(Dresden, 1860), p. 260.

134 U. Panareo, '·Monumenti di Otranto: la chiesa di S. Piclro gioiello architcltonico ispirato a S. Sofia di

Antiochia," ll 1\1essaigero, February 12, 1950. This church does not exist.

135 De Giorgi, Provi11cia di Lecce II, p. 268 et al.

nn Teodoro, "Eglises cruciformes,'· p. 34.

137 C. Cecchel!i, "Sguardo gcncrale all'architethira bizantina in Italia,'· RSHN 4 (1935). p. 37.

13H Krauthein1er, Architecture, p. 511, n. 70.

139 Prandi, "Salento provincia." p. 673.

140 The c01nparative monuments of mchitecture adduced by Guillou ("Italic n1eridionale byzantine, p. 184) are

problematic. For exan1ple, the church of St. John the Baptist at Ncscbar (Nlesetnbria) has blind arcading only on the

exterior and only corresponding to the principal vaults, not the corner bay vaults. The Bulgarian church does have roof

lines similar to S. Pietro, although it is more ba~ilican in plan. More importantly, Nesebar has recently been rcdated to

the late tenth or early eleventh century (Krautheiiner Architecture, pp. 312 and 498 with other opinions).

141 By A.H. S. Megaw, "Byzantine Reticulate Revetments,'' ><apcCTT/"),01-011 1cc.c; A. U,u).Li1;Su.,, III

(Athens, 1964), pp. 18-19.

1'12 E.g., G. Demetrokalles, "Tl problcma della datazione della Cattolica di Stilo," Archivio storico per la Calabria

e la Lucania 35 (1967), pp. 31-36. on the basis of con1parisons with n10numents in the Peloponnese. Jurlaro, "Nuove

tesi," passim, considers the Cattolica a twelfth-century rebuilding of an earlier n1onmnent on the site, hut his reasoning

is unconvincing.

308.

143 Krautheimer, Architecture, p. 402: the tenth-century dating is accepted by Lavermicocca, Aggionwmenro, p.

144 Krauthei1ner,Archirecrure, p. 403.

145 By P. Lojacono, "Restauri alla chiesa di S. Marco a Rossano," B0lletti11o d' Arte 27 (1934), pp. 374-385.

146 Cf. the twelfth-century S. Andrea at Trani; Krautheimer, Architecture. p. 402.

147 The parekklcsion was discovered in July 1979 and excavated by a collaborative effort of the lstituto di

Archeologia e Storia Antica dell'Universita di Lecce and the Soprintendenza Archeologica della Puglia (Taranto): see

36

I . '"Otnnto ,. The parekklesion measured 6.8 by 3.3 Ill. It was razed at an indctcnninate post-sixteenth-century D'Ancna, ' ·

date, 14s This is evident from lhe extensive traces of painting on the north wall of S. Pietro. This pain.ling consists of

rwo fresco layers that correspond, in fabric and color. to the two sixteenth-century layers inside the church (see

Appendix 1). 149 ll is difficult to ascribe a date to foundation typology. A n1inimmn distance of some 50 years \Vas informally

snggestcd to me by Professor Francesco D' Andria of the Univcrsita di Lecce in Nove1nber 1984. See illustrations in

Rcstauri in Puglia II, p. 466.

15u The undisturbed tomb was constructed of cut stone and followed the east-west alignment of the parekklesion.

1.11 The anonymous coin, with a bust of Christ (obverse) and a cross with quadrants bearing the legend

lC/XC/'·.JI/k,.; (reverse), has been assigned to the eleventh-century Constantinopolitan 1nint: see D'Andria.

''Otranto,'· p. 224, n. 2, with comparative references; also A. Travaglini, lnventario dei rinvenimenli monelafi def

Sa/enlo (Rome, 1982). A second coin is too badly damaged to dale with precision.

1,2 For an analysis of the skeletal remains, see M. J. Becker, "An Analysis of the Human Skeletal Remains of the

Byzantine Period from the Church of San Pietro, Otranlo (OSP)," Civil/ii rupestre: la Cappadocia, pp. 226-230.

Becker states that the ton1bs are "eleventh to twelfth cenhi1y" (p. 226), a5 does Blallmann, "Otranto: scavi," p. 150.

Also cf. F. D"Andria, "La docun1entazione archeologica mcdioevalc nella Puglia meridionale,'' Civiltd rupestre: la

Serhia, pp. 223-228. The frag1nentary ceramic evidence, currently being studied by Dott.ssa Ida Blatlmann, also ~up­

ports an eleventh- or twelfth-cenlUry date for the pmekklesion.

153 There is a hypothetical rendering of the original sihiation in "Otranto, archeologia," p. 4.

154 A wesl entry was originally posited by De Giorgi, Provincia di Lecce 11, p. 267, but dismissed by Teodoru,

"Eg!ises cruciformes," p. 33, as unlikely because one would need to climb more steps to reach a west entry than to

reach the south entry in use in his day.

155 Sec Appendix 11.

156 The presence of such a connecting doorway is confim1cd hy the physical evidence of the intonaco that sur­

vives on the north wall of S. Pietro, and which continues along the side of the connecting arched opening under the

masonry infill that closed the connecting door.

157 De Georgi, Provincia di Lecce II, p. 267. The inscription, which no longer survives, is recorded by a later

archbishop or Otranto. F. M. De Aste, in his in Memorabilibus llydruntinae Eccfesiae. Epitome (Benevento, 1700), and

reprinted with emendations in Gianfreda, Basilica hizantina, p. 22. ln De Aste: "Divo Petro. Qui prima Synaxis pcrac­

ta, Occidcnlali Ecclesiae Pctram posuit, delubrain per vetustam prisca jain pietate refectum, pene collapsum. D. Fr.

Gabriel Adarzo de Santander Archiepiscop. Hydruntinus Salentinorum Primas commendandum reparavit. Anno Salutis

1667" (p. 12). Santander·s alterations to S. Pietro are conte1nporary with his renovations to the Cathedral of Otranto,

where he was responsible for Baroque accretions to the Norman facade; see Antonaci, Otranto, cuore, p. 212. Adauo

di Santander was archbishop of Otranto from 1657 to 1674.

158 According to De Giorgi, Provi11cia di Len:e II, p. 267; reprinted in Gianfreda, Basilica bizantina, p. 23. Sec

fig. 2 in Teodon1, "f:glises crucifonncs."

159 This is commemorated in the large plaque extant on the north wall of the northwest corner bay, inserted in

1825 by Cardinal D. Caroppo Petracca. The inscription reads: D.O.M. SACELLUM IIOCCE DIVO APOSTOLORUM

PRINCIPI OB CHRISTI FIDEivl HYDRUNTINUS ADNUNTIATAM GRATO ANIMO ANTIQUITUS ERECTlHvT

VETUSTATE ATQUE UDORE CORRUPTUM DIDACUS CAROPPO PETRACCA SUB TIT. S. PETRI INCAS­

TRO ~1ETROP. CANONICUS ALTARl VETERI NOVO DECENTIORI SUFFECTO PAVIMENTO AC SOLARIO

QUADRIS STRATO LAPIDIBUS SACRA SUPELLECTILl PRAED1TO MAXUME RELIQUIIS SS. Xll APOS­

TOLORUM DITATO REFICIUNDLIM POSTERISQUE FREQUENTANDUM CURAVIT EODEMQUE EXORAN­

TQUE LEO PP. XII PRO PlACULARE FUNCTIS VITA FACIUNDO ALTARE IPSUMMET PRIVILEGIARIUM

QUJ\QUE DIE BENIGNE DECLARAVIT TERTIO NON. DECEMBRIS A.S. 11825] SlMULQUE CHRISTIFI­

DELlBUS RITE DISPOSITIS A PRJMIS VESPERIS AD SOLIS OCCASUM fESTIS SS. APOSTOLORUM PETRI

37

ET PAULI ElUSDEMQUE AD VINCULA ET CATHEDRAE ROJ\.1ANAE ET ANTIOCIIENAE HANC AEDJCU­

LAN1 DEVOTE lNVISENTlBUS TBTQUE AL1QUANDTU EX MENTE SANCTITATlS SUAE PIE ORANT1Bl1S

TNDULGENTlAM PLEN. DENATIS QUOQUE PRO.FUTURAM ABSQUE ULLA BREVlS EXPEDITIONE

CLEMENTER ELARGITUS EST IN PERPETUUN1. Gianfreda. Hasilicu /Jizanti,w, pp. 22-23, omits several lines.

Nineteenth-century photographs show the baroque seventeenth-century altar in situ, and fragments of its sculptural dec­

oration arc still scnttered in the church. The large staluc of Peter now standing against the south wall was probably con1-

missioned for this altar: "Cesare Penna di Lcccc [ l ]636" i~ incised on its base. Cesare Penna is otherwise known for his

signed statue of S. Pietro Celestino on the facade of the Palaz70 (formerly Monastery) <lei Celeslini in Lecce. See

Gianfreda, Basilica bizunlina, n. 49, and U. Thieme and F. Becker, "Cesare Penna" in Alfgemeines Le:i.ikon der bilden­

den Kuns/ 26 (Leipzig, 1932), p. 381.

1w The south doorway was flanked in the nineteenth century by Dmic columns and two ··ancient"' inscriptions,

recorded by De Aste, /11 1'vfemoruhilihus, p. 12 (and later, with numerous cnors of transcription, by De Giorgi,

Pro\lincia di /,en:e TI, p. 268, and Maggiu!li, 01ra11to, p. 167): "OSc: .A.y,.,c,s nc:·r fY.J·:; crno.,,J .s :",,-J>ocs

1,-1u-ou1; XpcuT01J 1rpv)Tos c.uO,"y''(~Acuc: 3cu1,1.oi• TC cu,v-1p6wKc·· and "Hie Petrus occidius Icsurn Christun1

prinmm evangelizavit aramque erexit."

1&1 The plaque reads: QUO HYDRVNTINI. POPVLL JN. SANCTOS. ORONTIVM. PROV. PATR. BLA­

SIVM. EPTSC. M. ET LEONARDVM DEVOTlO. INCALESCERET. D. YlNC. ANDR. GRANDE. ARCIIIEP.

HYDR. ARA!\,1. HANC. ERJGENDAM. AC. PIETATE. PARl. PRAEDIO. PRO. EXSOLVENDIS. ONERIB. COl\1-

PARATO. DONANDAM. CURAVIT. AN. MDCCCXLI. Vincenzo Andrea Grande. or Lccce, was archbishop of

Olranto frmn 1834 to 1871. We may infer that tbe underlying fre8co had been wl~itewashed previously. and that the

insert.ion of tbe plaque did not intentionally ruin the fresco.

lfi2 The niale figure (prohably Christ) on the engaged capital to the left of the entry was similarly tnmcated when

the engaged pilasters were recut .is columnar responds [Fig. 801- Of the four new columns carved fron1 the original

piers, the two in the n01th (nearest the rnain altar) were painted to imitnte Doric !luting; the two weste111 colun1ns

received a brown marble-like stippling.

Jfi3 Bertaux, L' art da11s l' /talie meridionale, p. 121.

164 At a cost of £[=lire] 900,000. Information about the restorations, including correspondence, contracts. and

drawings, is contained in folder #875 at the Soprintendenza.

165 This campaign was effected by Soprintcndente Schellini. An initial appropriation of £800,000 was supple­

mented by an additional £500,000.

1uu According to Panareo, "Monumenli di Otrnnto,'· the original west entry was obstructed by a funerary 1nonu­

ment th.it is otherwise unattested; this may be a reference to the Santander inscription.

107 This must refer to the square window in the south bay. visible as fig. 5 in Teodoru, "Egliscs cruci!"ormcs," and

fig. 3 in Gianfreda, Basilica bizantina.

168 Under Soprintendcntc Chiurazzi. £470.000 was spent on a 95-square-mcter aren.

169 On this ca1npaign see Resluuri in Pur;lia II, p. 462, and, for the frescoe~, Resta11ri in Puglia I; the latter

includes a technical appendix on pp. 135-136. There exists a Jog by the restorer. Cesare Franco. citing his daily activi­

ties, as well as an hour-long film of the restoration in progress that is used for teaching purposes at the Soprintenclenza.

no These paintings hclong to the second fresco layer; no underlying first-layer paintings were found.

171 By A. Guillou at a conference in 1973, "Longobardi, Bizanti.ni e Nonnanni nell"Italia mcridionale: continuit3.

o frattura?" Civi/t(/ rupestre: il Passar:gio, published sooner in French as Guillou, "Italic meridionale byzantine:· esp.

pp. 181 and 186; and in the sa1ne year hy Belting, "Greeks and Latins," p. 13, n. 44: "There are, however, two layers of

frescoes ... "). This belated recognition of the presence or several layers of fresco can probably be attributed to the poor

condition of" the church prior to the 1981-82 cleaning and restoration.

1n See J. Nordbagen, "The Frescoes of John VII," Acw ad archeologiam et historiam artium pertineme 3 (1968),

pp. 3 12 for a historiographic survey of this monmnent.

IT.\ According lo the re,,,torcr of the frescoes, Cesare Franco, or the Soprintendcnza. See "Relazione tecnica" in

38

r,.fi!c!la, "Frescanti 1nericlionali." p. 136. Coccia pesto appears to a very n1ininial degree in ihe frescoes on the left side

of the nave vnult at S . .lvfaria della Croce in Casarancllo [C. Franco, personal communication, March 1986]. These fres­

coes are ,1sually dated to the thirteenth century, but becattse the monument also contains frescoes of the late tenth or

early eleventh century (as well as an Early Christian mosaic in the sanctuary). lhe trace~· of coccio pesto probably repre­

sent residue nnd admixture from the earlier phase of fresco decoration. For the frescoes at Casaranello see now Safran,

"Redating"'; ror the 1no~aic, see M. Trinci Cecchclli, "J mosaici di Santa Maria della Croce a Casaranello," Vetera

Christil111or11m l 1 (1974), pp. 167-186.

17e f know of no rekrences to cocr:io pesto as an element in Cappadocian frescoes. Extensive analysi8 has been

tindertaken at New Tok.iii kilise: see P. Schwartzbaum, "The Conservation of the Mural Paintings in the Rock-Cut

Churches of Gi::ireme:' in Wharton, Tokuli Kilise, p. 55. Coccio pesto would appear to be present in the pla8ler of S.

Sophia at Novgorod: D. Winfield, "Middle and Later Byzanline Wall Painting Methods. A Comparative Study," DOP

22 ( L 968), roldout chart IV, with no indication of which fresco layer is meant.

175 E.g .. the crypt of S. Biagio at S. Vito dei Normanni (1196): I .A,vcc] KOL 8 l::i1J, ,]0~ KL a.,,,] a., I vc:::r Tcp-,l J 0,

0 Trcl1,CTC:'fTTCS vo,Cs, [l\.1-r1]1<,,J JKT[w~~-p[,,]ou l ~·r [01Js] s1jIE:' cvS[cvT1,.:.,..1~us] (in A.

Guillou. "Art et religion dans l 'ltalie grecquc mcdiCvale, EnquSte," Chiesa f;Feca. p. 729); also S. Giovanni Evangelista

at S. Ce~ario di Lecce (1329): .l\1101.,K[o8o~lfiE!,i KQC _c:1,GJ'{]pcx¢ e-,-1 o

,S(·JAY1 c:11 IJ...'1\''t yy:[uJ~pv:--:,] (inA.Jacoh."Tnscriptionsdatees,'·p.56).

17u Approximate deptl1: 2-6 nnn.

1n Approximate depth; 2-4 mm.

1TCl 1JCTE:1T·TOS 1Ju.Os,

1n Elsevv"hcre in the interior, the blue color is the more common azurite. a copper carbonate, applied over a black

ground. In the first-layer paintings of the northeast corner bay, the azurite used for the background has changed chemi­

cally to malachite (green copper carbonate) due to moisture. Azurite was mined in Hungary, Sardinia, and France. See

R. J. Gettens and E. \V. Pitzhugh. "Azurite and Blue Verditcr," Studies i11 Conservation XI "(1966), pp. 54-61.

1'19 J. Plesters, "llltra1na1ine Blue, Natural and Artificial." Studies in Conservation XI (1966), pp. 62-75. Other

sources of lapis lazuli, in Siberia and the Andes, were not known until the nineteenth century.

IHO Schwartzbaum, "The Conservation of the Mural Paintings," p. 55.

1s1 Pl esters, "Ultramarine Blue,'· with references.

102 C. Franco, personal communication. Niarch 1986.

rn_, The first-layer scenes in the northeast bmTcl vault show no signs of pilling or other preparation to receive a

suhsequent "coal" of painting. Moreover, the first-layer paintings visible through gaps in a sixteenth-century layer on

the north wall of this bay revenl no second layer between the first and the ultimate decoration. Given the relatively high

tenacity of the second layer in tbe rest of t11e church, the evidence suggests that no overpainting of the vault or wall

paintings was atten1pted in the northeasl co111er hay. Yet the second layer did cover the pseudo-1narblc fragments origi­

nally depicted in the southwest corner and south bays. The conservation of particular !"irsl-layer scenes is therefore a

product o-:' conscious selection.

rn4 The depth of each is approxi1nately 2-3 mm.

185 Approximate deplh: 1-5 mm. 106 The overlap is difficult to read due to lacunae in the intonaco at the juncture of the apse cylinder and the sur­

rounding arch. However, a portion of this juncture at a hcighl of approxiniately 2 111. clearly show8 that the third layer in

the apse overlaps the second layer on the arch.

l87 Approximate depth of the fourth layer: 2-8 mm.; of the fifth layer: 3-8 m1:1.1. 18~ The date "1576" appears twice: above St. Anthony Abbot on lhe north face of the northeast p8eudocapital,

and above an unidentified niale snint (Ch1ist?) on an engaged west wall capital; "1577" appears three times: above

John the Baptist on the casl f"ace of the southwest pseudocapital, above a male martyr on the soulh face of the same cap­

ital, and below the Lainentntion in the prolhesis apse. "157[ ]" also appears twice (see Appendix 1).

39

CHAPTER II

THE FIRST FRESCO LA YER

The surviving first-layer paintings in S. Pietro [Figs. IO, 20-29, color fig. 21] are not

numerous, but to date they are the best known of all the frescoes in the church. The

scenes of the Washing of the Feet and the Last Supper, the best-preserved paintings from

this layer, were visible as early as 1881.l In his magisterial study of art in South Italy

published in 1904, Emile Bertaux described these two scenes as "not earlier than the four­

teenth century." 2 After Teodoru's architectural study placed the building in the twelfth

century, scholars revised the dating of the frescoes to the Norman period.3 The most

important contributions to the literature on the two scenes were made by Hans Belting4

and Andre Guillou5 in separate articles appearing in 1974. Guillou asserted that icono­

graphic, stylistic, and especially paleographic comparisons with Cappadocia permit a dat­

ing in the late ninth or early tenth century. Belting contended that the two scenes are

products of the workshop active in 959 at the nearby crypt of S. Cristina at Carpignano.6

Later studies, none of them focused specifically on S. Pietro, have tended to repeat one or

the other of these two early datings.7

The stratigraphic analysis recounted in the preceding chapter has resulted in the iden­

tification of additional fragments belonging to the first layer. Although these are less well

preserved than the two already-known scenes, they should nonetheless be included in any

assessment of the first layer. A more thorough investigation of the iconography, paleogra­

phy, and style of all the first-layer frescoes suggests that while Guillou and Belting were

correct in pushing back their date to before the No11nan period, an ascription to the very

end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century is more likely.

Iconographic Analysis

On the north half of the northeast comer bay barrel vault, the scene of the Washing of

the Feet (0 Vl'TT'Tfip) is represented on a blue ground within a orange-red border that is

partly conserved8 [Figs. 20, 22, color fig. 21]. At left, nearest the arched opening into the

north bay, is a white tower-like structure. Before this stand a trio of apostles, one young

and beardless, the second middle-aged with a short dark beard, and the third with the

disheveled white hair and long beard that identify him as Andrew.9 All three wear white

tunics with scarlet clavi; their himatia are also white, but the co1ors used to delineate the

folds are pink, pale greenish-brown, and salmon. The fom1h figure from the left is Christ,

40

cross-ni1nbed, wearing a deep golden-brown tunic and dark purplish mantle over which is

a white apron decorated with a blue cross-hatched pattern and border. Christ blesses with

his right hand and holds the leg of Peter, seated before him, in his left. Peter sits on a gold

stool ·with a red cushion; he wears a mantle edged in black and with salmon creases. He

bolds his right hand to his head, while his right foot is immersed in a chalice-shaped basin

of gold with black designs. Behind Christ and Peter, a solid red background extends from

above the basin to the height of Peter's upraised arm. Behind Peter, seven standing apost1cs observe the scene of the foot-washing. Young,

beardless figures alternate with middle-aged, dark-bearded ones until the end of the row,

where a white-haired apostle with a long beard makes a gesture of acclamation. Crouched

below him is the tweltih apostle, youthful and beardless, who turns away from the central

action while unfastening his sandal. All but the first, fourth, and sixth of these apostles

sport a salmon-shaded mantle over a \vhite tunic; the other three wear cloaks with green­

ish-gold articulations. Red clavi are prominent. All of the figures have hands and finger­

nails outlined in red and faces, arms, and legs outlined in red or black. They all have

golden haloes with edges decorated by triple-pearl clusters.

Over the head of Andrew, the title of the scene appears vertically: 0 [\J In [ Tl HP. Above Christ and Peter, and descending into the space between them, is a description of

the action excerpted from John 13:8-10 [Fig. 23]:

6MHNI~ICT6CnD6A;M6DICTONE~f\lA AnEKPI8HATTOWIC~InENEANMH f\lH~OCE6KEXICMEPOCMETEM6 KEl,1HT6CnD6A,CIM6 MW IW~IAJ\/\Ap A/ XDIPAU'.E THIJKE ¢A /\HI!

This is !he only lengthy Greek inscription in S. Pietro, and the only one that provides

more than the title of the scene to which it is appended.

The Washing of the Feet, commemorated on Holy Thursday, is described only in

John 13: l-20. The episode occurred during the Last Supper.JO Christ wishes to teach

hun1ility to his apostles by washing their feet; when Peter protests, Christ asserts that

Peter cannot be part of him if he does no! allow his feet to be washed. Peter responds that

Christ should wash not only his feet, but his hands and head as well. The hand-to-head

gesture thus signifies encouragement, not objection.1 1 In earlier works such as the

Rossano Gospels (sixth century), Peter is shown objecting to Christ's action. 12 The ges-

41

ture of encourage1nent appeared by the late ninth century: in the Chludov Psalter it illus­

trates Psabn 50, 13 and it became conventional in Byzantine representations and also appeared in the West by the late tenth century .14

In the West, the title of the scene-"Mandatum"-stresses Christ's command to love and his teaching by example;15 in the East, the title [\JvnT the Greek word for basin used in John's gospel, emphasizes the act of purification and sanctification.16 A variety of

poses for Christ serves to distinguish different moments in the action. Christ may be st::md­

ing, bowing, or kneeling toward Peter, and he may be represented in the act of holding,

washing, or drying Peter's foot; this action is son1etimes combined with a gesture of bless­

ing, as at S. Pietro. Christ's nearly upright posture was not common before the eleventh

century, when it was seen at Nea Moni (1042-56); in the twelfth century it is found at S.

Marco in Venice and at Monreale. 17 According to Millet,18 Christ actively washing Peter's

foot is an earlier type, still seen at S. Angelo in Formis (late eleventh century), while dry­

ing the foot is a later type found at Hosios Loukas (second quarter of the eleventh centu­

ry), 19 S. Marco, and Monreale. The pose at Otnmto, on the other hand, is an uncommon

one: Christ holds Peter's leg at the knee while blessing him. A close parallel is on a paint­

ed cross in Florence from the second half of the twelfth century: Christ, kneeling, holds

Peter's calf.20 Also close arc the reliefs on the Farfa Casket (ca. 1060), where Christ holds

Peter's instep,21 and the Salerno ivory (ca. 1080), where Christ, bending deeply, docs not

quite hold Peter's leg.22 In all of these examples, as at Otranto, Christ is blessing with his

right hand; at Otranto the thumb touches only the ring finger, in the Greek m::mner.

At S. Pietro, Christ is clad in full classical attire. This occurs in the Rossano Gospels,

Nea Moni, and Hosios Loukas (narthex n1osaic and crypt fresco), although n1ost exa1nples

of the scene show Christ wearing only a chiton.23 In the Eastern tradition Christ wears a

decorated apron instead of the large knotted towel seen in so1ne Western versions.

However, the busy overall decoration of the knee-length apron at Otranto is unusual. It

consists of a diagonal grid with each diamond filled by a solid circle surrounded by dots.

At the hem, solid horizontal stripes of varying thickness t1ank a repeated chevron patte111.

Dots encircled by pearl-like smaller dots are very co1nmon on gannents in the crypt paint­

ings of South Italy. In its elaborateness the pattern at Otranto rivals that of the cloth held

by the angel in the Baptism at Karanlik kilise (mid-eleventh centuryJ.24

Peter may sit alone in the Washing of the Feet, as he does here and at S. Angelo in

Formis, or on a chair or bench with the other apostles, as at Hosios Loukas (narthcx) and

Mo1u-ealc. The apostles may be distributed in a single group behind the two protagonists,

as in the Rossano Gospels, but 1nore com1nonly they are all together behind Peter or in

two groups flanking the central episode.25 The composition in which the apostles flank

Christ and Peter has been described as 1nore suited to and characteristic of monu1nental

art,26 but both types occur in wall painting. At Mavrw;an (seventh-eighth century) and

New Tokali kilise (mid-tenth century) 27 in Cappadocia, the apostles are all behind Peter.

42

But at Kilii;:lar kilise there are two groups of five apostles, each group labeled O I

MA8 ]TE, with Andrew and Matthew immediately behind Pcter; 28 this disposition is fol­

lowed at chapel #4 of Glillii dere (913-920), with six figures-including, anachronistical­

ly, nf,8/\C!C-behind Christ29 [Fig. 82]. Hosios Loukas, S. Angelo in Formis, and

Daphni (ca. J 100) all have the apostles distributed in two groups of five and six. At

Otranto, as at Monreale (late twelfth century), the apostles are divided into noticeably

unequal groups: three and eight at S. Pietro, two and eight at Monreale. This asymmetry

also occurs in some inanuscripts. 30

The focal basin at Otranto is very close in fonn to the bowls in the scene of the Lasl

Supper on the other side of the barrel vault, and their decoration with a vermiculated

arabesque is identical [Color fig. 21, figs. 24-25]. Similar footed bowls are seen in many

depictjons of the scene; their chalice shape n1ay have been intended to evoke the liturgical

objects on the nearby altar. It seems probable that the gold tone of the bowls is meant to

indicate inetalwork, perhaps with inlay decoration, but they could also be painted cera1nic

picces.31 The basins closest in form to that at S. Pietro are found in the Leningrad (with

pearled edges) and Pierpont Morgan lectionaries. Such bowls belong to a late Sasanian

tradition, and vegetal ornamentation in the fonn of continuous scrolls is a hallmark of

,ncdicval Islamic metalwork.3 2 However, it is difficult to adduce specific surviving

objects for comparison. Among painted examples, the decoration of the central bowl in

the Last Supper at Elmali kilise (mid-eleventh century) is very close. 33 The same type of

overall oma1nent also occurs on the basin of the Bath scene in the Nativity at Tagar (ca.

1080) and on the bowls proffered by the Magi in the Adoration scenes at Karanlik and

yarikli kilise (n1id-eleventh century). It seen1s certain that a 1imitcd repertoire of tnodels

was used for such objects; at Otranto the decoration is the same regardless of the size or

function of the bowl or basin. A mode1 book was the probable source of these repeated

patterns. The n1otif of the young apostle who unfastens his sandal to prepare for his own foot­

\.Vashing vvas included in 1nost Byzantine representations of the Washing of the Feet from

at least the tenth century.34 An early exa1nple n1ay be the ivory in Berlin that has usually

been assigned to the lale tenth century ,35 but a date in the 860s has recently been pro­

posed.36 In early tenth-century monuments such as Kili,lar and Gullli dere #4 lFig. 82]

and the Leningrad lectionary, the apostles are not removing their footwear. By the mid­

eleventh century, apostles were shown removing their sandals in the na1ihex n1osaics at

Hosios Loukas and Nea Moni; the fact that this motif is lacking at S. Angelo in For1nis

and in the Morgan lectionary, both from the second half of the eleventh century, attests to

their dependence on earlier 1nodels. The representation at Otranto, with the young apostle

squeezed into the corner, probably belongs to a transitional period between the introduc­

tion of the motif and its wider dissemination in 1nural painting, when the shoe-removing

1notif is better integrated into the scene. 37

43

---While the Washing of the Feet at Otranto accords well with the usual Middle

Byzantine depiction in general tenns, it contains so1ne iconographic features that suggest

a date after the end of the tenth century. Christ's pose, for example, has no parallels

before the eleventh century. The dra1natic asymmetry in the distribution of the apostles is

not found a1nong the Cappadocian 1nonu1nents of the early tenth century that have hereto­

fore been adduced as comparisons. And while the motif of the young apostle who loosens

his s:u1dal may have been introduced earlier in ivory carving, its adoption in wall painting

can only be placed between the first quarter of the tenth and the mid-eleventh century.

The Last Supper (0 Oc~·'TT-vos Cl µuu'TlK6s) is depicted on the south side of the

northeast comer bay vault, contiguous with the upper edge of the Washing of the Feet

[Figs. 20, 24-27]. On each side is a white pedimented structure detailed in blue, identical

to the one in the adjacent scene. Between these architectural elen1ents stretches a golden

bar, half obscured by a long swag of white drapery with red and salmon-colored folds and

with fringes and geometric designs in dark blue. Beneath this drapery swag, Christ and

the apostles are a1Taycd around a sig1na-shaped table.

Christ, seated at left on a backless, red-cushioned throne identical to the one used by

Peter in the Washing of the Feet, has his legs extended along the left edge of the table. He

wears the same dark-brown tunic and purple mantle, with its white folds outlined by

black creases, as in the co1npanion scene. He holds a scroll before him in his left hand and

blesses with his right while facing the table and assembly. The sigla IC XC are visible

above his golden cross-nimbus, which, like all nimbi in this vault, is decorated along the

rim with trios of pearls.

Next to Christ is the young, beardless John, gesturing toward Christ with his hand

upraised. John's white mantle has parallel folds of greenish-gold. He and the other apos­

tles are visible to bust length, below which their bodies are obscured by the table.

Adjacent to John is Peter, identified by his short white hair and beard, wearing a white

cloak with sahnon-colored folds. The garrnents of the apostles alternate between greenish

and salmon folds, and their physiognomies show a regular alten1ation as well; elderly

Peter, for example, is followed by a middle-aged apostle with dark hair and beard, who in

turn is followed by a young beardless figure. The subsequent figure with slightly

disheveled white hair is Andrew. The pallem of old/middle aged/young is entirely regular

except that the eighth and ninth figures have switched their relative positions and the

eleventh~at the end of the table opposite Christ, and extremely abraded~has dark hair

and seems to be bearded. Finally, alone at the front of the table, dark-haired, beardless

Judas is shown in profile, unnimbed, with one hand extended toward Christ.

The blue se1nicircular table has a broad red border and is richly laid. In the center is a

large footed bowl, gold with stylized blue designs, containing two salmon-colored fish;

three s,nall footed bowls are white with red designs, and contain one fish apiece.

Interspersed alongside the bowls are three small white goblets. Strewn on the table are

44

numerous vegetables with slim pale stalks and splayed leaves. In front of Christ is a pair

of carefully rendered utensils, a long-bladed knife and a fork with two Jong. tines, and

before every figure is a reddish-gold half-n1oon shape outlined and bisected with white.

Unlike the Washing of the Feet, the Last Supper lacks a long inscription. In addition

to the partial s]gh1 for Christ, traces of lettering, probably the abbreviated names of the

apostles, survive above several of the ni1nbi. The simple legend that identifies the scene-

06InNDCD1vlTC TH K0C-has been placed upside-down and is readable only when view­

ing the companion scene of the Washing of the Feet. In ter1ns of execution, it belongs to

the same giornata as the ]atter. 38

The Last Supper is recorded in all four Gospels and references to it are also made

elsewhere in the New Testament. 39 The event provided the historical foundation for the

eucharist and, although it is not one of the scenes in the so-called Byzantine feast cycle

which will be discussed below, it is among the ,nost itnportant subsidiary episodes. The

Conimunion of the Apostles has the same liturgical significance and was often substituted

for the Last Supper. 40

The interior setting of the scene is often suggested by an architectural background.

The knobbed buildings at S. Pietro have numerous para11e]s in tenth-century

1nanuscripts,41 and in South Italy one anchors the composition at S. Simeone 'a Famosa'

in Massafra (early fourteenth century) [Fig. 85].42 The background is further emphasized

at Otraoto by the drapery swag suspended between two framing structures. Such drapery

is a classicizing motif derived from stage decoration 43 that is found, albeit with 1nany

more fussy loops, in the Marriage at Cana scene at Old Tokali kilise (first quarter of the

tenth century). Closer in 1nonumental feeling to the restrained swag at Otranto, which has

only two loops and decoration restricted to the fullest part and to the hanging ends, arc

depictions of drapery in the Menologium of Basil II (first quarter of the eleventh

century).44 In monumental painting the oldest ext,mt example of the restrained drapery

swag is in the Communion of the Apostles in the be1na of the Transfiguration church at

Koropi in Attica (1020s) [Fig. 831;45 an intermediate step may be observed in some

Ottonian wall paintings at St. George in Reichenau-Oberzell (ca. 1000). In South Italy,

however, there are but two comparisons, both later in date: the Last Supper scenes at S.

Maria clella Croce in Casaranello (second half of the thirteenth century)46 [Fig. 84] and S.

Sin1eonc 'a Famosa' [Fig. 85] have multiloop swags siinilarly suspended between archi­

tectural clements.

The ornamental banding on the drapery swag at S. Pietro consists of an "X" pattern

with the angles filled in by smaller "V" shapes within a rectangle defined by four open

circles. The pattern is similar to that used as filler ornament at Kilii;lar kilise (ca. 900) and

is not too dist,mt from the robe worn by Sy1neon in the Presentation in the Temple at

Goreme chapel 6a (930-940). More significantly, an identical pattern is used to adorn the

hem of the archangel Michael at SS. Stefani in Vaste, near Otranto (10327).47

45

•

In early works such as S. Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna and the Rossano Gospels

(sixth century), the apostles at the Last Supper recline in the antique fashion. Later they

arc invariably seated; only Christ sometimes retains the n1attress that originally supported

a reclining posture.48 In Byzantine depictions Christ is usually at the left edge of the

table. 11ie positions of the other participants vary, with either Peter or Judas usually dis­

tinguished by his prominent placement opposite Christ. At Kili,Iar kilise, Old Tokali, and

Gtillti dere #4 (913-920), Christ is at left next to John, followed by Peter, Andrew, and

the rest;49 at the opposite end of the table is Judas.SO The placement of Peter near Christ

has been termed a Cappadocian variant,5l but the tradition is surely metropolitan since it

can be traced to such 1nonun1ents as the Chludov Psalter, produced in Constantinople in

the ninth century. Furthermore, in the Cappadocian column churches (middle and third

quarter of the eleventh century) Judas is at the center of the table and Peter is at the far

right. 52 At Kili,lar kilise all the apostles look at Christ, but at Otranto they regard each

other instead, a feature that occurs as early as Old Tokali and Gtillti dere #4.

Judas is not always set apart physically from the other apostles as he is at Otranto,

where he is isolated in front of the table. He is similarly isolated in the late tenth century

Leningrad lectionary and at S. Sebasti:u10 al Palatino in R .. ome (tenth century).53 But

since Judas seems to be displaced to the front of the table at S. Pietro largely for reasons

of restricted space, the 1nodel 1nay have shown hin1 at the end of the table instead.

Confusion about his pose is evident in the peculiar depiction of the palm outstretched

toward Christ but with the fingernails also visible.54 Judas is linked visually with Christ

by this extended hand, but we cannot easily "read" the dialogue between the protagonists

because Christ is shown in the act of blessing, not of admonishing or proffering the sop

that will indicate Judas's guilt. Judas's gesture alone frequently serves to distinguish him

fron1 the other apostles, as in the Rossano Gospels, S. Angelo in Fonnis, and the Salerno

ivories (ca. 1080); at the Panagia Phorbiotissa in Asinou (1106) Judas is the figure reach­

ing toward Christ and not the one isolated in front of the table. 55

Fro1n the eleventh century on, most depictions of the Last Supper showed the young

John leaning upon Christ's bosom as explicitly recounted in John 13:23 and 13:25.56 The

oldest illustration of this occurs in the Chludov Psalter (with John to the right of Christ),

but none of the archaic Cappadocian monuments include this motif and it is not found in

the Leningrad lectionary, at S. Angelo in Fonnis, or in the Salerno ivories, all of which

depend on older models. The n1odel used at Otranto was therefore not a recent one, but it

can hardly be considered archaic because n1any eleventh-century 1nonu1nents did not

adopt this progressive motif. The later monuments in South Italy that depict the Last

Supper all show John leaning on Christ to varying degrees.

The sigma is an ancient table form,57 appearing at Kilii;lar kilisc in ca. 900, but a

rectangular table is seen even earlier at Mavruyan an<l again in the column churches; cer­

tainly the shape of the table alone cannot determine a monument's Byzantine or Western

46

fi!iation.58 In South Jtaly the sigma table is retained at Casaranello [Fig. 84], S. Mauro at

Sannicola, near Gallipoli (ca. l 300), 59 and S. Simeone 'a Famosa' [Fig. 85], while at S.

Giovanni Evangelista in S. Cesario di Leccc (1329) 60 the table is rectangular. The semi­

circular object before each apostle at S. Pietro may represent the bread that is otherwise

missing from the scene. If so, these unusua11y large, scored half-loaves most resemble

those in the Gospel book of Henry III (1039/40); 6 l later they were repeated at

Casaranello. The fish displayed in large bowls are ubiquitous in Byzantine depictions of the Last

Supper, unlike the lamb that was often seen in the West after the eleventh century. It is

not necessary to interpret the small cups as chalices with eucharistic implications; they

are probably just drinking cups, and were included in the scene by the early tenth century,

as at Old Tokah kilise. Vegetables rese1nbling leeks or scallions are strewn liberally on

the table at S. Pietro, and while their number and form arc somewhat unusual, some type

of leafy vegetable is frequently depicted. Vegetables do not seem to have been illustrated

in the tenth-century Cappadocian monuments or even in the column churches, but similar

ones are present at S. Angelo in Formis.

The knife and long-tined fork in front of Christ at Otranto [Fig. 24] are interesting

iconographic clements because the latter utensil was only coming into regular table use in

Byzantiu111 in the tenth century.62 Knives alone appear in manuscripts and ivories in both

East and West after the ninth century. At Old Tokali there are knives and forks in the

Marriage at Cana scene, but the place setting at Otranto may be the earliest n1onumental

depiction uf a knife and fork outside Cappadocia. These utensils recurred in the tenth or

eleventh century in the scene of the Last Supper at Ballek kilise, and at Karanlik kilise

there are several sets of silverware at the Last Supper. In South Italy, knives and forks can

also be seen in the much later depictions of the Last Supper at Casaranello and S.

Simeone 'a Famosa' [Figs. 84-85].

The Last Supper at S. Pietro accords well with the usual iconography of the scene in

the Middle Byzantine period. The classicizing drapery swag that frames the scene is a

revival n1otif found in manuscripts of the later tenth century and in wall paintings by the

turn of the century. The earliest example of Judas isolated in front of the table dates to the

late tenth century, although his position at Otranto 1nay not renect up-to-date iconography

so rnuch as a space too small to accommodate twelve apostles. The fact that John docs not

lean on Christ betrays dependence on a n1odcl that was not among the most progressive,

but because this 1notif was only becoming canonical in the eleventh century it does not

offer precise clues for dating. Similarly, the presence of a complete set of silverware at

the Last Supper suppo1is a date not earlier than the tenth century, but a more specific dat­

ing is hampered by a dearth of dated comparanda.

A single fragment survives at the center of the south side of the northwest comer bay

vault; it is heavily abraded and reveals its distinctive coccio pesto fabric rFig. 28]. On a

47

In early works such as S. Apo1linare Nuovo in Ravenna and the Rossano Gospels

(sixth century), the apostles at the Last Supper recline in the antique fashion. Later they

arc invariably seated; only Christ sometirnes retains the mattress that originally supported

a reclining posture.48 In Byzantine depictions Christ is usually at the left edge of the

table. The positions of the other participants vary, with either Peter or Judas usually dis­

tinguished by his prominent placement opposite Christ. At Kilii;lar kilise, Old Tokali, and

Giillii dere #4 (913-920), Christ is at left next to John, followed by Peter, Andrew, and

the rest;49 at the opposite end of the table is Judas.50 The place1nent of Peter near Christ

has been termed a Cappadocian variant,51 but the tradition is surely metropolitan since it

can be traced to such 1nonuments as the Chludov Psalter, produced in Constantinople in

the ninth cenlury. Furthennore, in the Cappadocian column churches (1niddle and third

quarter of the eleventh century) Judas is at the center of the table and Peter is at the far

right,52 At Kili,lar kilise all the apostles look at Christ, but at Otranto they regard each

other instead, a feature that occurs as early as Old Tokali and Gi.iHi.i dcrc #4.

Judas is not always set apart physically from the other apostles as he is at Otranto,

where he is isolated in front of the table. He is similarly isolated in the late tenth century

Leningrad lectionary and at S. Sebastiano al Pa]atino in Rome (tenth century).53 But

since Judas see1ns to be displaced to the front of the table at S. Pietro largely for reasons

of restricted space, the model may have shown him at the end of the table instead.

Confusion about his pose is evident in the peculiar depiction of the pahn outstretched

toward Christ but with the fingernails also visib]e,54 Judas is linked visually with Christ

by this extended hand, but we caJ.mot easily "read" the dialogue between the protagonists

because Christ is shown in the act of blessing, not of admonishing or proffering the sop

that will indicate Judas's guilt. Judas's gesture alone frequently serves to distinguish him

from the other apostles, as in the Rossano Gospels, S. Angelo in Formis, and the Salerno

ivories (ca, 1080); at the Panagia Phorbiotissa in Asinou (1106) Judas is the figure reach­

ing toward Christ and not the one isolated in front of the table. 55

From the eleventh century on, most depictions of the Last Supper showed the young

John leaning upon Christ's bosom as explicitly recounted in John 13:23 and 13:25,56 The

oldest illustration of this occurs in the Chludov Psalter (with John to the right of Christ),

but none of the archaic Cappadocian monuments include this 1notif and it is not found in

the Leningrad lectionary, at S. Angelo in Fonnis, or in the Salerno ivories, all of which

depend on older models. The 1nodel used at Otranto was therefore not a recent one, but it

can hardly be considered archaic because 1nany eleventh-century monuments did not

adopt this progressive motiL The later monuments in South Italy that depict the Last

Supper all show Jolm leaning on Christ to varying degrees.

The sig1na is an ;;u1cient table form,57 appearing at Kili9lar kilise in ca. 900, but a

rectangular table is seen even earlier at Mavru9an and again in the column churches; cer­

tainly the shape of the table alone cannot detennine a monu,nent's Byzantine or Western

46

filiation.58 In South Italy the sigma table is retained at Casaranello [Fig, 84], S, Mauro at

Saunicola, near Gallipoli (ca, 1300),59 and S, Simeone 'a Famosa' [Fig, 85], while at S.

Giovanni Evangelista in S, Cesario di Lecce ( 1329)60 the table is rectangular, The semi­

circular object before each apostle at S. Pietro may represent the bread that is otherwise

missing from the scene. If so, these unusually large, scored half-loaves most resemble

those in the Gospel book of Henry Ill (1039/40); 6 1' later they were repeated at

Casaranelh The fish displayed in large bo\.vls are ubiquitous in Byzantine depictions of the Last

Supper, unlike the larub that was often seen in the West after the eleventh century, It is

not necessary to interpret the sn1all cups as chalices with cucharistic implications; they

are probably just drinking cups, and were included in the scene by the early tenth century,

as at Old Tokah kilise. Vegetables rese1nbling leeks or scallions are strewn libera!ly on

the table at S. Pietro, and while their number and form are somewhat unusual, so1ne type

ofleafy vegetable is frequently depicted, Vegetables do not seem to have been illustrated

in the tenth-century Cappadocian monuments or even in the column churches, but similar

ones are present at S. Angelo in Fonnis.

The kuife and long-tined fork in front of Christ at Otranto [Fig, 241 arc interesting

iconographic ele1nents because the latter utensil was only coming into regular table use in

Byzantiutn in the tenth century.62 Knives alone appear in manuscripts an<l ivories in both

East and West after the ninth century, At Old Tokali there arc knives and forks in the

Marriage at Cana scene, but the place setting at Otranto may be the earliest monumental

depiction of a knife and fork outside Cappadocia. These utensils recurred in the tenth or

eleventh century in the scene of the Last Supper at Ballek kilise, and at Karanlik kilise

there are several sets of silverware at the Last Supper. In South Italy, knives and forks can

also be seen in the much later depictions of the Last Supper at Casaranello and S.

Simeone 'a Famosa' [Figs, 84-85],

The Last Supper at S, Pietro accords well with the usual iconography of the scene in

the Middle Byzantine period. The classicizing drapery swag that frames the scene is a

revival n1otif found in maJ.1uscripts of the later tenth century and in wall paintings by the

tum of the century, The earliest example of Judas isolated in front of the table dates to the

late tenth century, although his position at Otranto may not reflect up-to-date iconography

so much as a space too small to accommodate twelve apostles. The fact that John does not

lean on Christ betrays dependence on a model that was not cunong the 1nost progressive,

but because this n1otif \vas only becoming canonical in the eleventh century it docs not

offer precise clues for dating. Similarly, the presence of a complete set of silverware at

the Last Supper supports a date not earlier than the tenth century, but a more specific dat­

ing is hampered by a dearth of dated comparanda,

A single fragment survives at the center of the south side of the northwest corner bay

vault; it is heavily abraded and reveals its distinctive coccio pesto fabric lFig. 28]. On a

47

----blue ground, two figures appear to be striding to the left (toward the naos and prothesis),

Only the lower parts of their bodies, between the waist and calves, have survived. The fig­

ure at left wears a light garment with pinkish creases; his direction is indicated by the

extended rear leg and the articulation of the drapery around the knees. Following close

behind is a smaller figure wearing a more uniformly salmon-colored garment that ends in a

straight line and leaves part of the bare legs and the top of one black boot visible. Stopping

above the hem of the "skirt" is a vertical white sash or pouch. A narrow gold-tone stripe

between the two figures may represent a spear or staff carried by the second. Behind the

second figure, a patch of orange may represent the short tunic of a third figure.

The mantle of the first figure recalls the dress of the apostles in the prothesis vault,

and probably belongs to an apostle. Because he is situated at the center of the vault, above

the apex of the arch leading into the west bay, this person must be of central importance to

the scene. The short garments worn by the figure or figures that follow suggest that they

are soldiers and that the scene is the Betraya1 of Christ (H npo5ouCa, 'TO\J 'Io\.J5a.,).

This is confirmed by a dark-brown area at the left edge of the fragment that must belong to

the mantle of Christ, as that is the color he wears in the Washing of the Feet and the Last

Supper. Christ is being approached or embraced by .Judas, .who is followed by soldiers;

ample remaining space could have accommodated the subsidiary episode of Peter cutting

off Malchus 'sear as well as additiona1 apostles, Jews, and soldiers.

The basic cotnposition of the Betrayal is derived from the Gospels.63 Eady represen­

tations of the Betrayal survive in Cappadocia at Kili,;lar kilise (ca. 900), Old Tokali kilise

(first quarter of the tenth century), and a nutnber of eleventh-century monuments.64 In

the fragment at Otranto Judas approaches from the right (that is, from Christ's left), as he

does at Kili9lar kilise, Old Tokali, <;:avusin (963-969),65 and S. Angelo in Fonnis (late

eleventh century). Millet termed this the "oriental type,"66 as opposed to Judas's approach

from Christ's right as seen at Daplmi (ca. 1100).

Given the poor condition of the fresco, nothing can be said about ancillary elements

that normally figure in the scene. The sole iconographic feature of note is the sash or

pouch worn by the short-skirted so1dier. A similar feature is seen at S. Ange1o in Formis

and Monreale (late twelfth century) and earlier in Paris. gr. 510 (ca. 880).67 An early

Byzantine tnilitary treatise notes that soldiers wore pouches to hold bowstrings and other

objects, and this may be the article depicted here,68 but it is also possible that this object

represents a misunderstanding of the folds of the skirt depicted in the model.

The Betrayal scene at S. Pietro contains the essentials of the later depictions in South

Italy at Casaranello, S. Cesario di Lecce, and S. Mauro. With the Last Supper and

Washing of the Feet, the scene represents the third episode of a Passion cycle. Unfor­

tunately, the poor condition of the frag1nent precludes extrapolation of any infonnation

regarding its date.

At the right edge of the north wall of the north bay, at the height of the window sill

48

and the apex of the adjacent arch leading into the prothesis, a sinaH pitted frag1nent attests

to the presence of first-layer painting [Figs. 16-17, 29]. Two blue-green hillocks repre­

sent a landscape ground. Above this, against a pale blue ground, a figure in a short blue

cloak and scarlet tights crouches to\vard the right. His two hands, outlined in red, are

extended at knee level; a frontal eye and reddish cheek are barely discernible. The hands

and the blue ground extend to the angle formed by the wall and vault, where they disap­

pear under a fragment of red and blue stepped-cross border that is all that remains of the

second-layer painting on this wall. The attribution of this fragment to the first fresco layer seems certain because of its

pitted condition and its overlap by a second-layer fragment, but it has not been possible to

identify the scene. If the wall scenes are related in logical historical order to the comer

bay scenes, this north wall figure would belong to some episode from the Passion. Thus if

the Betrayal of Christ had not already been identified in the northwest corner bay, we

might be tempted to interpret the crouching figure as Malchus. The pose of the figure,

careening toward the edge of the scene, might support its identification as the apostle

James in the Transfiguration, but the short garment and leggings rnle this out. If the wall

scene originally extended onto the adjacent vau1t, the figure could be a child from an

Entry into Jerusalem on the east side of the north vault. But these identifications are

merely conjectural, and all that can be said with certainty is that a narrative scene was

original1y depicted on the north wall. Approximately one-quarter of a scene of the Nativity and Arrival of the Magi sur­

vives on the lower zone of the north wall of the west bay; small fragments extend onto the

west wall, and the whole is in poor condition [Figs. 19, 30-31]. As already noted in the

discussion of fresco stratigraphy, we are dealing here with a pendant to the first fresco

layer that also has a characteristic fabric. In addition, along the upper edge of the scene is

a red border stripe outlined in white that differs visibly from the lighter red of the first­

layer borders. Moreover, at the juncture of the two walls patches of red underneath the

intonaco in question can only belong to the first fresco layer. The scene cannot belong to

the extensive second layer of frescoes from which it differs greatly in material, style, and

framing device, and which has its own Nativity and Arrival of the Magi. There is no evi­

dence that the pendant was part of a larger campaign, as its fabric has been found only in

the west bay; it was, apparently, an isolated scene that was subsequently covered over by

the second fresco layer. The ground color, a dark blue, is mottled by areas of abrasion where the coccio pesto

shows through. At the center of the fragment, fhe tightly swaddled Christ child lies in a

golden manger outlined in blue and with wavy red lines along the perimeter. The manger

is rendered without perspective as if uptilted, and the child's white swaddling bands

edged in green stand out against its bright-red interior. His cross-nimbus is gold, out1ined

in red with a white edge.69 A white ass and brown ox look down into the 1nanger. Above

49

them are the faint outlines of a white star, from which two rays emanate vertically toward

the child, piercing the dark blue of the cavern, To the viewer's right, a green hill partly

obscures one angel with a red wing and two others of whom only the outlines of heads are

visible. Below the angels and to the right of the Child, the Virgin reclines on a red mat­

tress, or kline (K\C1.111)-Only her scarlet maphorion and a nimbus with a wide red border

are preserved, but they are sufficient to indicate that her face was turned away from the manger.

To the left of the manger and slightly overlapping its lower corner, a white horse car­

ries a rider with one hand upraised lFig. 32]. This figure is dressed in a reddish gannent

and a peaked golden headdress that resembles a rolled turban. It is decorated with ovals,

probably jewels that have lost their color, and has pearl borders. While no inscription is

legible, the scene can be identified as the Arrival of the Magi juxtaposed with the

Nativity. A fragment around the adjacent comer, consisting of an upraised hand on a blue

ground, must belong to one of the missing Magi. A few large letters are visible to the

right of the surviving Magus: they are possibly to be read as EPA.

The feast of the Nativity, the Greek l€1J1JT]Ul,S TO\J Xp~uToU, was fixed by the

Council of Ephesus at December 25.70 The scene makes explicit the mystery of the

Incarnation and is described in the Gospel of Luke as we11 as in several apocryphal

sources.7 1 Luke also provides information about the Annunciation to the Shepherds (2:8-

14), while Matthew recounts the story of the Magi (2:2-11). These subsidiary episodes, as

well as the First Bath, are frequently incorporated into Middle Byzantine Nativity scenes.

They are included at S. Biagio in S. Vito dei Normanni (1196)72 [Fig. 86] and S. Cecilia

(late tweltih century) 73 [Fig. 87], which contain the only two South Italian depictions of

the Nativity besides Otranto that can be dated before the late thirteenth century.74 At S.

Pietro, the episode of the Arrival of the Magi survives and the Annunciation to the

Shepherds, though not preserved, may be suggested by the angels who look toward the

right edge of the scene. However, the trio of extant angels may simply belong to the choir

of angels whose presence is noted in the Gospel account. 75

Luke 2:7 mentions a stable as the venue of the Nativity, but in Byzantine depictions

the cave cited in the apocryphal sources replaces the stable.76 At Otranto, however, as at

S. Biagio, only the Virgin seems to be within the cave. This also occurs at the Cappella

Palatina (mid-twelfth century) and Lagoudera (1192). Gabriel Millet used the pose of

Mary as the basis for his analysis of the Nativity scene, but it is difficult to ascertain the

position of the Virgin in the first-layer pendant at Otranto because only her head and

shoulders are preserved. In the Middle Byzantine period the Virgin assumed one of two

poses: either she is extended on her kline alongside the manger or, less commonly, she is

in an upright, sitting posture derived from Early Christian sources.77 The large-scale

Virgin is upright, dominating the con1position, at S. Biagio, at Eski Gi.imlis in Cappadocia

(eleventh century), and at the Panagia at Moutoullas in Cyprus (1280);78 this may be her

50

·t· 11

at S Pietro. Because the Virgin here looks away from the Magus \Vho do1ninates pOS1 IO · the left half of the composition, the Bath scene 1nust have been represented at the right.

The animals overlooking the manger were included in the Nativity scene from at

least the fourth century, even before the presence of the Virgin and Joseph becaine estab-

1. l d 79 l'he ox and ass, who came to symbolize the enlightened Jews and Gentiles, lS 1e ,

respectively, are derived from Isaiah I :3 and the Septuagint version of Habakkuk 3:2;

their presence is recorded in the late Pseudo-Matthew but not the early Protoevangelium.

The long, tightly swaddled figure of Christ in the manger at Otranto has parallels at St.

Barbara in Soganli (] 006 or I 021) and at <;:arikli kilise (mid-eleventh century): at S.

Biagio and S. Cecilia the child is barely discernible. The Arrival of the Magi at the Nativity is just one event in the cycle of images con­

cerned vvith the Magi, of which the Adoration is the most frequently depicted scenc. 80

The Magi on horseback are a somewhat rarer but not uncommon motif. By the ninth cen­

tury the Journey and Adoration of the Magi were autono1nous scenes;8 1 their integration

into the Nativity \vas later. The oldest cxa1np]e of the Magi on horseback is at F,rras, in

Nubia, in a wa11 painting fro,n the first half of the eighth century.82 In eleventh-century

inanuscripts the Magi are shown on horseback en route to the Nativity.8 1 Riding Magi

arrive at the Nativity on the north apse wall at Tagar, a Cappadocian triconch (ca.

1080);84 in the eleventh-century column churches at GOreme the horses are tied to a tree

and the Magi have dismounted to adore the Virgin and Child. There are also twelfth-cen­

tury examples in 1nonumental painting and ,nosaic of the Magi approaching the Nativity

scene, often combined with their offering gifts on foot; the best-known of these is in the

Cappella Palatina. 85

The surviving Magus at Otranto is 1nost notable for his imposing size. Two of the

Magi at S. Biagio [Fig. 86] are also relatively large in scale, while the third is oddly

small; all three at S. Cecilia are tiny [Fig. 87]. The lead figure in a11 of the South Italian

monun1e111.ts raises his am1 toward the light that guides the Magi to the n1anger. 86 At

Otranto this star is barely preserved and looks curiously dovelike; at S. Biagio and S.

Cecilia the star is replaced by an angel. According to Christian exegesis the star had been

prophesied by Balaam (Nmn. 24:17), but in a number of "metropolitan" Byzantine repre­

sentations, such as New Tokali kilise (1nid-tcnth century), it is often replaced by a guiding

angel. The Magi may represent the three ages of man.87 At S. Biagio the lead Magus

("tv1i::px1 .. ,::.s," for Melchior) is the oldest, but this does not seem to be the case at S.

Pietro. At S. Cecilia, 'T a.o- [ 'TT ctp]" (Gaspar) leads. 88 Both S. Biagio and S. Cecilia have

richly caparisoned horses and riders. The ga1ments wo111 by the Magus at S. Pietro are not

sufficiently well preserved to pcnnit comparison, but his headgear does not correspond

with either the South Italian or more distant Byzantine examples. The Magi usually wear

tiny square crowns or Parthian-type caps, because they were conceived of as oriental

51

kings fron-1 an early date, but the ''cnJ\Vn" her;;; c.orrcsponds lo neither of these, It is Inter­

mediate between the Byzantine sten1Jna and kamelaukion crowns but differs fron1 both,89

llle scene of the Nativity and Arrival of the Magi is too poorly preserved to pe1111it

useful observations about its style, :,,;o ,,,ve can attempt to dra\v conclusions about its date

on the basis of iconography, The pose of the Virgin provides no clue: only the Magus is

inforn1ative. _Although the Magi appear on horseback fro1n an earJy date, they did not

becorne clo:<ely integrated into 1he Nativity itself untll the eleventh century. T'he 1ate

t,velfth century witnessed a rca] vogue in such depictions, \Vhich may perhaps be connect­

c.d with the growing impo11ance of the cult of the Magi after their relics \Vere discovered

in lvlilan in J 158.90 Thi~ vogue is refle.cted in two 1nonu1nental enscn1bles near Otranto,

one of \vhich is secureJy dated. \:Vhether S, Pielro served as a 1node1 for S. Biagio and S.

Cecilia cannot be determined, hut it is 1nore likely that the crypt frescoes copied a buHt

church than that inspiration '\Vent in the other direction. While the ft1agi tu-e given greater

emphasis at Otranto than in the other fre-.coes~-they occupy tvvo walls and are rnuch larg­

er in scalc--a comrnon n)odel for all three 1\pulian monument.., should not be ruled out.

Paleo/2,raph_v

1\n analysis of the paleography of the fir;:;t-layer inscrlptlons at S. Pietro proves criti­

cal for the dating of the frescoes. These insc-riptions L Fig. 23 J have been the object of a

separate study, 91 so lt \Viti be possible here merely to reiterate the conclusions of that

analysis. Despite the assertion by Andre Guillou that the paleography of the inscriptions

at Otranto is c.losest to that of Gtillu dere #4 (913.-920) [Fig. 82], and that S. Pietro should

therefore be dated to the late ninth or early tenth century ,92 a comparison of orthography

and letter fom1s indicates that analogies with other Cappadocian monun1c.nts are clo)er,

and those \Vith South ftalian 1nonuments cioser still. 1f distant con1parisons are to be

adduced, the Italian uncials appear closest to the dedicatory inscription of Direkli kilisc

(976- I 025), 93 especially in ihe th.lckcning of certain letters. Ho\vever, siniilarities

bet\vecn Otranto and Cappadocia prove to be general similarities belonging to a broad

Medile1Tanean koine. C.01nparisons \Vith dated monuments in I.he sarne geographic area as

Otranto provide a much 1nore precise tnol for dating the inscriptions.

The alphabet at S. Pietro shares features of t\.vo dated inscriptions in the crypt at

Carpignano, that of Theophylact in 959 fFig. 88J and Eu5tathius in !020,94 as weJl as with

Casaranello (\ate tenth--first half of the eleventh century) [Fig. 92 J"5 and some fragments

in the crypt of SS. Stefani al Vaste (10329) [Figs. 90-91]. all of which will be more explic­

itly linked to C)lranto in the succeeding discu~:;ion of first··layer fresco style. 1'hese co1n­

parisons yield a dale between 959 and the first half of the eleventh century, a full century

aft.er Gu.illou's dating. ;'Vloreover, it has been dernonslrated that the paleographic features

seen at Otranto first appear in late tenth-century 1nanuscripts. Because inscriptions are

52

'. . 'h' ·-. · 1 lheir paleooraphv th~m are 1nanuscrip1s,96 a late tenth- or early eleventh-Ore arc ale 11 b -

::irt · date for the first fresco layer at S. Pietro vvould appear to be the earliest possible.

· -.p~_ngran1

The scenes tbat survive in the first fresco layer at Otranto can he analyzed in the

.--.. , . ,.. t -xt of Bvz.antine and South Italian church decoration in the tcnth--elevenlh .broade1 ,._on e. • . , he Pctiod in v,rhlch the frescoes can be placed on 1conograpluc and on paleo-

ceritury, t - . . . • ·. · d, Tt .. ,ill be useful to review the development of Middle Byzantme church .u-r;iph1c oroun .. - Y>

.e~ ·c even thou-gh the paucity of first-layer remains at S, Pietro will preclude decoration, '-' . . ,

l t . - of a complete pro1."'ram of decoration and hnHt assess1nent ot ,vhere the ektrapo a 10n - • c · < • • • •

hf ... 1·1,tc) that developn1e-nt. The second fresco layer \Vtll prove n1ore 1llun11nat1ng .churc n::; -, 'ft°~m the progn11n1natic poiJ1t of view.

Ao ideal N1id<lle B_yzantine canon of decoration was described by Otto De1nus, based

on -three great eleventh,century 1nosaic ensembles; Nea tv'lonL Hosios l.. .. ou~as, and

OaphnL97 In this scheme, lhe central-plan church can be vie~ed as an,i1nage ol the cos­

mos, as a record of place;; in the Holy Land sanctified by the hfe of Chrtst, and a\ a calen-­

dat coninien 1ora1ing the major feasts of the liturgical year. ~l\lthough it evolved for use in

d~med central-plan churches, the canonical program \Vas so int1uential that churches of

1bngiuidinal plan also adapted the schc1ne to their particular elevations. The sche1ne ,vas

fn.c;easingly-elaborated \~.6th tl1.e addition of 1nore scenes and secondary cycles, but lt

reniained the essence of aU Byzantine .::hurch decoration. Specific themes nonnally occur in certain areas of the church. An in1age of Christ

Pantocrator is usually in the cupola, the Virgin is frequently in the conch of the apse, and

:lde.f>cending hierarchy of holy figures----angcls an<l prophets 1 apostles, evangelists. rnar­

tyrs, bishnps, and others-fills the space belov,7. The vaults and upper walls usuaHy con­

fain an abbreviated cycle of Christological scenes. The choice of scenes in this so-called

fea.<Jt cvcie \Vas presumably dictated by liturgical rather than narrative considcrations, 98

\vhich ~lc{:ounts for the deletion of 1nany historical events frorn the life of Christ Little is

k.ho,vn about the evolution of this cycle, which eventually came to include l\velve scenes

and is kno\vn as the Dodekaorton lt n1ust be stressed, however.

that the choler of feast scenes was by no means canonical. W'ith one exception, no n1onu­

mental prngrain or n1anuscript preserves the '"complete cycle'' of t\velve scenes, iOU and

sle:nificant vutlations occur in the choice and disposition of subjects, especially v,hen the

in~diutn is fresco rather than 1nosaic. Secondary scenes from other cycles are often incor-­

poratcd, although these usually respect the hicrarchlcal arrangernent of the c.hurch interior

and are depleted in the lo\ver zones or in subsidiary space~. But the hierarchy of single fig­

ures is the backbone of the decorative sysle1n, and the scenes are in a way redundant. 1'he

specific choice of figures and scenes depended 011 the patron and the purpose of the church.

53

-----It is difficult to obtain a clear idea of progra1nmaLic decoration in the period preced­

ing the cycles analyzed by Demus because so few 1nonu1nents conserve that phase of dec­

oration. Valuable, if imprecise, testimony is provided by the ekphrascs of some post­

Iconoclastic churches in Constantinople.lOl It appears that narrative Christological scenes

were freely depicted after the end of Iconoclasm; fraginents of programmatic decoration

survive from throughout the Byzantine world, 102 but it is only frotn Cappadocia and to a

lesser extent Greece that we can obtain some idea of co1nplete programs of decoration in

the tenth-eleventh century. The paintings of Kili,lar kilise (ca. 900). for example, provide

evidence for a cross-in-square decorative schc1ne even though this is an excavated and

not a built church.103 In South Italy, program1natic decoration containing scenes from the Christological

cycle in addition to the expected single figures was extremely rare before the thirteenth

century. In all periods, iconic decoration by far outnumbered cyclical decoration in the

region; this is one of the greatest differences between the South Italian and Cappadocian

enseinbles.104 The iconic preference may be due to the fact that so much of the surviving

pictorial testimony co1nes from rupestral monuments, whose function or patronage n1ay

have differed from most built churches in a way that encouraged the donation of votive

imagery. In fact, there is little evidence outside Otranto that the Byzantine cycle of pro­

grammatic decoration was known in South Italy in the tenth century. In its prescribed

space flanking the apse [Fig. 88], the Annunciation in the crypt at Carpignano (959)

might be construed as such evidence, but a single feast scene is hardly indicative of a

complete cycle.105 Similarly, in the cross-in-square Cattolica at Stilo in Calabria, a thir­

teenth-century Ascension in the east bay vault-the customary place for this scene in a

Byzantine church after the tenth century 106-is superimposed over an earlier scene, prob­

ably an Ascension and perhaps of tenth-century date.107 Also in Calabria, S. Nicola (for­

merly the Chiesa dell'Ospedale) in Scalea contains a possible Ascension on the east wall

(eleventh or thirteenth century)lOS in addition to pastoral scenes and the Vision of

Eustathius, the latter datable on stylistic grounds to the ninth century. Scalca probably

contained a partial program of cyclical decoration.

In Apulia, the earliest dated monument for which the Byzantine decorative scheme

possibly provided some inspiration is the crypt of S. Biagio (1196),109 although the

scheme had to be reduced and adapted to a rectangular, flat-roofed, rock-cut chapel. S.

Cecilia (late twelfth century), a crypt of similar plan, contains a few Christological (or

perhaps Marian) scenes, as well as two scenes of martyrdotn.110 However, neither of

these monuments reflects the hierarchical arrangc1nent of images dictated by the Middle

Byzantine church plan. At S. Pietro, fragments of first-layer intonaco throughout the interior confirm that an

extensive decorative campaign was indeed carried out [Fig. 101. Nothing can be said

about the program of the cupola or the sanctuary, but traces of coccio pesto indicate that

54

the pendentives received unknown subjects in this period. There are only the 1nerest

traces of decoration in the naos, and none at all in the upper vaults or lower zones. Only

in the lovv corner bays, where scenes from the Passion of Christ survive, can we infer

something about the program of the first layer. As discussed above, the Washing of the

Feet and the Last Supper are paired in the prothesis vault; the Betrayal of Christ occupies

one side of the northwest corner bay vault; and the crouching figure on the north wall

might also belong to a fourth episode from the Passion.

A fe\v Passion scenes are commonly included as part of the Christo1ogica1 cycle, so

the presence of isolated scenes culled from the Passion narrative neither indicates a sepa­

rate Passion cycle nor precludes one. A Passion cycle of twelve scenes is part of an exten­

sive narrative prograin at ~avusin in Cappadocia (963-969).lll Passion cycles survive

occasionally in eleventh-century funerary contexts 112 and in monuments of the late

twelfth century, 113 but they did not become common until the thirteenth century when

they reflected the growing links between iconography and liturgy.I 14 When they did

occur, Passion cycles were relegated to subsidiary spaces far from the sanctuary.115 The

placement of the Passion scenes at Otranto suggests an awareness of the hierarchical

arrange1nent of scenes appropriate in a Byzantine church . .In other words, because the

Passion scenes do not belong to the feast cycle proper, they were relegated to the comer

bays instead of occupying the more prominent cross-vaults. However, it is unusual to find

events from the Passion cycle depicted in the eastern end of Byzantine monuments of the

tenth--eleventh century. While the individual Passion scenes have no canonical position,

they tend to be dispersed in the western parts of churches.

The Washing of the Feet is near the northvvest corner of the north wall in Kili9lar

kilise and on the west wall of the south transept at New Tokali kilise (mid-tenth century).

Half the scene is on the south wall, the rest on the west wall of the south chapel at GUllU

dere #4 (913-920). At Hosios Loukas (second quarter of the eleventh century) it is in the

north apse of the narthex, at Nea Moni ( I 042-55) on the south wall of the inner narthex,

and at Daphni (ca. 1100) on the north wall of the north bay of the outer narthex. At S.

Angelo in Fonnis (late eleventh century) the scene follows the Last Supper on the lowest

zone of the south wai'i, near the west enJ.116 Although the scene is sometimes found in

the northvvest part of a church it is exceptional in the northeast, its position at Otranto.

The Last Supper is depicted somewhat more frequently than the Washing of the Feet.

Like the latter it does not have a fixed position, although it too is often found in the west­

ern part of a church. At Kili9lar kilise, <;:avusin, and Goreme chapel 4a (ca. 1000) it is on

the west wall over the entry; in the south chapel at GUIIU dere #4 it is on the south side of

the west wall. At Old Tokali kilise (first quarter of the tenth century) the scene is near the

east end of the south side of the nave vault, at New Tokali on the south wall of the south

transept. However, in two of the Cappadocian colu1nn churches (mid- and third quarter of

the eleventh century) the Last Supper is above the entry to the diakonikon.117 In Greece

55

-it is placed low in the southwest corner at Panagia ton Chalkeon (1028) and at Daphni it

is on the east wan of the north bay of the outer narthex. At S. Angelo in Formis it is at the

west end of the 1owcst tier of the south nave wall. In 1ater monuments the location of the

Last Supper remains mutable, though with some preference for the south vault. 118

Despite the greater frequency of depiction of this scene, its placement in S. Pietro is

unique and only the two representations in the Cappadocian column churches approxi­

mate this eastern location.

In South Italy the Washing of the Feet is unlmown except at Otranto, while the Last

Supper occupies a variety of locations in monuments that postdate S. Pietro by several

centuries. There appears to be some preference, at least in the longitudinal-plan masonry

churches, for placing the scene in the north: at Casaranello (second half of the thirteenth

century) it is the second scene on the north side of the vault; and at S. Mauro (ca. 1300)

and S. Cesario di Lecce (1329) it is the first scene on the north wall. In the crypt of S.

Simeone 'a Famosa' (ear1y fourteenth century) the scene is on the south wall, while it is

in the center of the north wal1 of the rock-cut Lama di Pensiero in Grottaglie. However,

there is no reason to attribute the northern location of the Last Supper in some of these

monuments to the influence of S. Pietro.

The Betrayal of Christ is located in the western parts of tenth and eleventh-century

churches with a notable degree of consistency. At Kilii;lar kilise the Betrayal is on the

south wall of the southwest bay. At Giillii dere #4 and <;:avusin it is on the west wall; at

Pilrenli Seki kilise (tenth or eleventh centurytt9) it is on the west end of the south vault; at

Old Tokali the scene is toward the west end of the south side of the barrel vault; and at

Bahattin Samanligi kilise (tenth or eleventh century) it is in the northwest alcove. At S,

Angelo in Formis it is near the west end of the north wall and at Daphni it occupies the

west wall of the n011h bay of the outer narthex. The Betrayal at S. Pietro thus follows the

usual location of the scene. In the later South Italian monu1nents that contain a

Christological cycle (Casaranello, S. Mauro, S. Cesario di Lecce), the Betrayal is consis­

tently the second scene on the north wall or north nave vault.

The Washing of the Feet occurred during the Last Supper and this temporal proximi­

ty is frequently reflected in a visual juxtaposition. The pairing of the two scenes occurred

in monumental painting, 1nanuscripts, and portable objects at least as early as the sixth­

century Rossano Gospels. In addition to the juxtapositions noted above, the scenes are

paired--Washing of the Feet above, Last Supper below~in the south arm of H. Giorgos

at Panigyristra in Skala, Laconia (late tenth century).120 The location of the two scenes in

the crypt at Hosios Loukas is also noteworthy: here the Last Supper and Washing of the

Feet face each other in the east bay, flanking the Deesis and participating in the

Resurrection imagery of the crypt.

It is unusual to find Passion scenes in the prothesis bay, and the configuration at S.

Pietro appears to constitute a hapax. Yet the Washing of the Feet and the Last Supper are

56

far from inappropriate in the prothesis. The preparation of bread and wine is the function

of the prothesis rite, and instruments used in this rite-such as the >. ;( r1

, or holy

tflrtce-had allegorical associations with the Passion. 121 The Last Supper was the histori­

cal institution of the eucharist; its symbolic version, the Corn1nuri.ion of the Apostles,

which is so frequently depicted in the sanctuary of Middle Byzantine churches, is found

in the prothesis niche of the rock-cut church of the Nativity in the Kaloritissa monastery

on Naxos (second quarter of the tenth century). 122 It has been suggested that the Last

Supper was depicted over the entry to the diakonikon at Karanlik and Elmali kilise as a

substitution for the Comn1union of the Apostles, and also because the liturgical vessels on

the table allude to the function of that bay. 123 Eucharistic themes are clearly appropriate

in the prothcsis, yet there was no established tradition of their representation there.124

The prothesis sometimes contains an image or cycle dedicated to a particular saint, such

as the scenes from the life of John the Baptist at the Panigyristra, Skala, or those of the

Virgin in the Transfiguration church at Koropi in Attica (1020s).125 A great variety _of

other themes could also be represented in the prothesis. Tl is unlikely, however, that the

choice of two scenes containing St. Peter in the Otranto prothesis reflects the dedication

of the church: although Peter is in a central position in the Washing of the Feet, as

demanded by the scriptural narrative, he is not particularly prominent at the Last

Supper. t26

The fresco fragments that constitute the first layer at S. Pietro are insufficient to

reconstruct the entire program. The surviva1 of Passion scenes datable to the tenth or

eleventh century is not in itself surprising, as there are numerous parallels in Cappadocia

and a few in Greece, but their placement at Otranto in the low corner bays indicates that

more important feast scenes were depicted in the high cross-vaults. The liturgical signifi­

cance of the prothesis scenes was evidently understood. A hierarchical scheme of decora­

tion was in use by the ninth century and the mere presence of a program containing narra­

tive scenes ls not informative about a date, but the first-layer scenes at Otranto attest to

the dissemination of the conventional schema of Byzantine church decoration in the far­

thest reaches of the Empire.

A special problem is posed by the Nativity and Arrival of the Magi in the west bay.

Iconographic comparisons suggested that the scene belongs to the twelfth century. It was

certainly covered over by the second layer, and the Nativity in the second 1ayer is to the

south, to the right of the sanctuary, in accord with eventual Byzantine and South Italian

conventions. Yet there is evidence for an earlier tradition of placing the Nativity in the

west bay. The scene is on the west wall, toward the north side, at <;avusin, and over the

west entry at Goreme chapel 9 (end of the tenth century), Belli kilise (end of the tenth

century), and Piirenli Seki kilise. In <;:arikli kilise, the more irregular of the approximately

cross-in-square column churches, the Nativity and Arrival spans the north side of the west

vault and the west wall as at S. Pietro. The scene occupies the west Junette at Bahattin

57

-Samanligi kilisc, where the entry is to the south. Hovvever, it n1ust be noted that a number

of monurnents depict the Nativity in various other locations. 127 The position of the

Nativity, with or without the Magi, docs not appear to have stabilized before the eleventh

century, so it is unclear whether the pendant scene at Otranto i1lustratcs the old tradition

of placement in the west.

The extension of the Nativity and Arrival scene around a corner, from the north vault

of the west bay onto the west wall of the sa,nc bay, is not without precedent The Nativity

scene is particulaily susceptible to division, with the episodes of the Annunciation to the

Shepherds or the Arrival of the Magi lending themselves to displacernent on an adjoining

wall surface. As early as Church #3 in Mavruc;an (seventh-eighth century), the Nativity

itself is on the west wall of the south bay while the shepherds are on the south wall of the

west bay.128 In the same scene at Old Tokali kilise, two shepherds in the scene of the

Annunciation lo the Shepherds arc complemented by a third on the adjacent wall.

Similarly, at <;avusin, the Nativity on the west wall is continued on the north wall. with

three shepherds. The Magi ,md their tethered horses are separated from the rest of the

Nativity scene in all three of the column churches. Such extensions around a corner recur

frequently in the twelfth-century Sicilian mosaics. The separate representation of the

remaining Magi in the scene at Otranto therefore belongs to a well-established tradition of

representing subsidiary scenes, or parts thereof, on adjacent walls.

It is impossible to draw firm conclusions about a program composed of just one

scene. The placement of the Nativity and Arrival of the Magi at Otranto accords with a

tradition seen in Cappadocian monuments datable before the 1nid-eleventh century. After

that time the Nativity tends to be in the south, following a conventional clockwise narra­

tive order of Christological scenes that begins in the east with the Annunciation. On the

other hand, the scene at Otranto ,nay be a votive image devoid of programmatic intent,

sitnilar to the isolated scenes that arc depicted in the crypt churches without apparent

regard for any larger narrative context. In the rupestral 1nonuments it is not unusual to

find one scene excerpted from the Christological cycle and placed amidst other votive

iinages, which are usually standing saints; the isolated Annunciation at Carpignano (959)

[Fig. 88] and the Presentation in the Temple at the Candelora in Massafra (late thirteenth

century)l29 are examples. It is likely that the pendant scene at Otranto belongs to this cur­

rent of popular devotional i1nagery that is well attested in all periods among the monu­

ments of South Italy. Moreover, it is tempting to view the execution of the scene as part

of a larger program of church patronage. If the Nativity and Arrival of the Magi was

painted in the second half of the twelfth century it may have been contemporary with the

construction of the parekklesion. Unfortunately, neither commission can be closely dated,

and it is not possible to be n1ore precise about the circumstances that may have prompted

contemporaneous additions to the building and its decoration.

58

$tylisHc Ana/-ysis

It will be necessary to analyze the con1position, color, treatment of space, and render-

[ th hunuan fioures and draperies ln the first-layer scenes at Otranto before compar-Jno O e ~ c , " h' , with Byzantine and other South Italian n1onuments. In the Washing of the Feet ~,- . .. . . (-Color fig. 21, fig. 22], the groups of apostles are thv1ded asyn1metr1cally and the main

· . ·s pushed off-center to the left. The result is that the focus of the scene, the action action 1

between C,hrist and Peter, is n1ore visible fro1n the naos; it would otherwise be difficult to

· the low barrel vault [Fig. 651. The effect is obtained without placing Christ at the see 1.n far left, \vhich would have sacrificed a centralized composition and reduced the monu-

mentahty of the scene. Meanwhile, the apostle undoing his sandal is placed in a spandre1-

]ike corner of the vault. He has been described as being badly adapted to the

composition,130 but considering that the figure had only recently been introduced into the

scene his position represents a good use of the available space. One suspects that this fig­

ure was not present in-the model available to the artist at Otranto. In the Last Supper [Figs. 24-26], Judas has been moved to the front of the table, at

least in part for lack of space. He and the apostles at the right are smaller than those at the

left, nearer Christ. This variation in figure size can be viewed as an optical correction

frotn the point of view of one approaching the prothesis from the north bay: in this case

the figures arc rendered properly in Byzantine inverse perspective. The variation may also

be for hierarchical motives,131 as the same an·angement is found on a t1at surface at

Kili~lar kilise (ca. 900). Finally, the din1inution could indicate that painting progressed

from left to right, and that changes in scale were required in the course of the \York to

squeeze thirteen figures around the table. It seems likely that all three of these considera­

tions-optical, iconographic, and practical-came into play in the execution of this scene.

Color rhythms arc iinportant in the first-layer scenes. A11 the apostles have white

hirnatia, al!hough the fold colors give the effect of either salmon pink or greenish-brown.

In both scenes these drapery colors alternate regularly. In addition, the distinctions of

age-young, middle aged, elderly-and associated hair and beard colors provide a stacca­

to rhythn1 at the expense of a more conventional hierarchical ordering. The monotony that

would rcsul! if all the figures in the Last Supper faced uniformly toward Christ is avoided

by having two of the figures (the fourth and sixth apostles) face away from Christ and

toward their neighbors; this occurred in the first quarter of the tenth century at Old Tokali

kilise.

The first-layer palette consists ma.inly of light earth tones except for the bright red

and blue of the backgrounds; the fragment \Vith a crouching figure in the north bay con­

tains pastel tones otherwise unattested in this layer. Early scholarship on the South Italian

frescocsl32 held that 1nonochromatic frescoes with flat modeling belonged to the tenth

through thirteenth century, while n1ore varied coloring and more robust modeling were

59

-indicative of a later date. This reasoning induced Bcrtaux to assign the Otranto paintings

to the fourteenth century, but dating on the basis of color has been untenable since the

discovery in 1934 of the brightly hued Poggiardo frescoes, many of which date to the

eleventh or twelfth century .133

Architectural elements are used as partial framing devices in both of the prothesis

scenes, and the drapery swag in the Last Supper further delimits the scenes [Figs. 20-27].

This pcnnits an independent conception of each image, far more n1onu1ncntal than that

found in such early tenth-century Cappadocian monuments as Old Tokali kilise with its

long strips of narrative images. It is unusual to find scenes that share the same vault divid­

ed by such a realistic device. The pron1inence of the drapery swag in this role suggests a

transitional phase between the undivided double in1age in the vault, seen at Kili~lar kilise

and the column churches, and the later vault co1npositions with two scenes framed by red

dividing stripes.

The implied depth of the surviving scenes is very shallow. In the Washing of tbe Feet

the red backdrop effectively inhibits spatial recession and restricts the action to a narrow

stage. In the Last Supper, the table and the background architecture have the same limit­

ing effect. The division of the background by means of a hoiizontal strip of color, ahnost.

invariably yellow, was used with great consistency in South Italy from the tenth century

on. 134 This backdrop at shoulder height is characteristic of tenth-century churches in

Cappadocia 135 and cs also found in Corfu (1074/75).136 Still, a certain amount of space is

implied by the overlapping of figures and ni1nbi in both scenes. In the Last Supper this

overlapping is perfectly regular: the figures closest to Christ are shown in the foreground,

and each succeeding figure recedes slightly. In the Washing of the Feet the overlaps are

less logical, and a foreground figure often has his nimbus overlapped by that of a figure

ostensibly standing behind him.

The first-layer artist or artists had probletns rendering seated figures. Neither Christ

nor Judas in the Last Supper nor Peter in the Washing of the Feet is seated convincingly;

Peter's stool has no rear legs. Nor is there a consistent point of view in the rendering of

objects. Peter's foot-basin and the bowls and cups on the Last Supper table are viewed

simullaneously fron1 the side, with their pedestals seen head-on, and obliquely from

above, with the contents visible. This perspective was also used in Cappadocian monu­

ments throughout the tenth century.

Because of the consistent use of the three-quarter pose, the profile adopted for Judas

is that much n1ore striking. All the figures have squarish faces outlined in black or red

[Figs. 23-25, 27]; in several cases the outlining overlaps the fresco colors. indicating

rapid workmanship. Beardless figures have medium-gray shadows defining the jaw and

modeling the side of the cheek. Hair is dark brown or light gray, striated respectively with

black or white; the hairline is ogive- or heart-shaped, and only Andrew's hair is parted.

Ears are small loops, broader at the top and narrowing to a point below, without any inter-

60

elaboration. The brows arc not furrowed, but so1ne figures, such as Christ in the

i\ill,'a,shing of the Feet, have a continuous white highlight across the brow that forms a "V"

., .. ,Acm,e at the root of the nose. The thick, dark brows arc straight or very slightly curved

the eyes; there is a light-gray horizontal shadow at the root of the nose. Eyebrows

thickest next to the nose, where they descend to form its contour, while on the other

side they arc very thin and dip at a 90-degree angle to meet the eyelid contour. The very

large oblong eyes have enormous dark pupils; the upper lid, for1ned of two lines, is

_e,xtended to rneei the eyebrow but does not 1neet the lower edge of the eye. The eyelid

-crease, the upper of the two lines, is delineated in red; under the eyes are thick, dark shad­

ows that extend the length of the eye. The expressions are best characterized as calm.137

The noses are usually straight (but not that of the next-to-last apostle behind Peter in

the Washing of the Feet), with a gently curved tip and a straight horizontal lower edge

that fonns a squarish nostril with a continuous line. A short vertical stroke represents the

philtrum indentation between nose and n1outh. The dark upper lips are long and thin, with

pronounced and sometimes pointed curves, while the pale lower lip is short and curved

al)ove a short horizontal shadow that sets off the chin. 'fhe edges of the mouth are forked

in two small points. The head of Christ in both scenes appears to be 1nore c,rrefully mod­

eled than that of the accompanying figures, with gray shading along the side of the nose

and marking the creases between the nose and mouth. However, all of the faces and fig­

ures in this layer are executed with the simplest Byzantine working n1ethods, that is, with

juxtapositions of a few colors and without any blending of colors on the plas.ter sur­

f'ace.138

The figures in the first layer arc approxi1nately 7 heads tall, but they seem more

attenuated because of their short waists, long legs, and relative thinness 139 [Color fig. 21 l Necks arc long and rather thin, wilh n1ini1nal gray shading; the trapezoidal neckline is

emphasized with a dark outline. Shoulders are sharply sloping. The arms of certain fig­

ures (such as the apostle at left in the Washing of the Feet) are too short for their bodies,

and little attention has been paid to relative lengths of forearn1s and upper anns. The

hands are small; outlined in red, with fingernails painstakingly delineated in the same

color, they arc vvell drawn except for Christ's blessing hand in the Washing of the Feet,

which is probably exaggerated for iconographic reasons.

The drapery be::rrs little relationship to the bodies underneath and in general has a

t1attening, decorative effect. The himation is usually folded above the waist ,md passed

around the neck to drop in a simple fold over the left shoulder, leaving the wide-sleeved

undergarment visible over the chest and right ann. The abdomen is e1nphasized with mul­

tiple curving folds. Stylized creases do not respect the body contours, and details such as

clavi pay no heed to the underlying folds. Drapery folds over the legs form independent

and often quite inventive patterns. Parallel double or triple folds mark the broadest part of

the thigh and the area just above the knee; the same thigh pattern is found in the fragn1ent

61

--of the Betrayal of Christ [Color fig. 21. fig. 28]. When depicted frontally, the knees are

c1nphasizcd \Vith parallel folds above and a large dark patch underneath. There are areas

of broad white highlighting and no short stroke or "comb" highlights. This play of lights

and shadows takes on independent life at the expense of figural plasticity. As Belting

observed, a clear interrelationship between the outline and the internal design is lacking,

and detached highlights do not adapt to the linear design. 140

With their 1ninimally modeled faces and drapery that tends to flatten rather than

model the figure, the first-layer frescoes are products of the linear, hieratic style once

termed "1nonastic," a designation that has been shown to be eironeous. 141 The uniformity

of the stylistic devices used in rendering facial features and drapery indicates that a single

workshop, and possibly a single artist, was responsible for the execution of the surviving

first-layer scenes. One of the difficulties of comparing the i1nages at S. Pietro to others in the region is

the dearth of narrative scenes. With very few exceptions, surviving figures are iconic and

frontal instead of in the three-quarter view used consistently at Otranto. Another problem

is that of preservation. As David Winfield has observed, poorly preserved intonaco has

the effect of "mellowing" an i1nage, of making it more naturalistic, !42 so the conservation

of a fresco should be taken into account in making judgments about its style. Finally, the

loss of so 1nuch material in South Italy cannot help but li,nit the effectiveness of a com­

parative analysis. Although paleographic analysis has 1nade it possible to expand the cor­

pus of works in the region that date to approximately the sa,ne period as S. Pielro, 143 the

sampling of 1nonu1nents is still very small and may be statistically insignificant when

co1npared with the number of works originally extant. The restricted number of frescoes

from this period pennits their comparison with Otranto in roughly chronological order,

instead of on a point-by-point basis, and this affords a more thorough picture of wall

painting in South Italy than has emerged heretofore. "Byzantinizing" refers to paintings that are Byzantine in style and iconography to

so,ne degree, but probably not by "true" Byzantine artists. It is an unsatisfactory tern1 for

the phcno1nenon ofByz[u1tine provincial art in South Italy, but it is the one used in the lit­

erature to date and will be retained here, at ]cast provisionally. The oldest byzantinizing

frescoes in South Italy are probably the fragments of a pastoral scene and of the Vision of

St. Eustathius at S. Nicola in Scalea (Calabria). These have been dated to the ninth centu­

ry, 144 and their schematic n1odeling with thick contours distinguishes the1n from the

Otranto frescoes. Much closer, geographically and stylistically, are the enthroned Christ

and adjacent Annunciation at Carpignano [Figs, 88-89], signed by Theophylact with the

date 959. This is the work that is most often compared with S. Pietro. The technique of

modeling with stripes of color (dark creases, white folds) rather than by blending is used

at both Carpignano and Otranto and was observed by Marasco, 145 but she did not pursue

the comparison because she accepted the traditional, architecturaHy based dating of S.

62

Pietro to the twelfth century. Belting, rightly relieved of those architectural constraints,

also found numerous similarities between the t\VO and attributed the prothesis frescoes at

Otranto to the \Vorkshop responsible for the Annunciation angel at Carpignano.146 fie

cited as specific points in co1n1non the design of the gannents, the faces with their large,

staring eyes, and the pearl-ri1n nilnbi. However, none of these features is limited to these

n1onuments. The pearl-edged nimbi were common in South Italy until at least the four­

teenth century, 147 and the treat,nent of the drapery and the large staring eyes are found in

all monuments in the region that are datable to the tenth or early eleventh century, includ­

ing those that can alinost certainly be attributed to different workshops.

While Carpignano and Otr::u1to clearly belong to the same artistic tradition and are

approxiinately contemporary in date, it is difficult to accept Belting's assertion that they

are products of the same workshop. At Carpignano itself there were two artists at work on

the paintings dated 959; a difference of hands can be discerned between Gabriel and the

enthroned Christ even though their conte1nporaneity is indisputable.148 The faces of

Christ and Gabriel both have white highlights emanating from the corners of the eyes, a

feature seen in Greece at H. Panteleimon at Ano Boulari in the Mani (991/2) and in

Evrytania (first third of !he eleventh century),149 although only Christ has a triangular

shadow between his eyebrows. These features are also found in a poorly preserved figure

of S. Cristina in the same crypt that appears to be contemporary with the 959 figures,150

but they are not present at Otranto.

In comparison with figures at Otranto, the angel at Carpignano [Fig. 89] has a more

angular, straight nose but is less square-jawed; he has 1nore white facial highlights, and

the phi!tru.n1 is rendered as a dark dot encircled by white, a convention also used nearby at

Casaranello [Fig. 93]. The eyes at Otranto are better drawn and include an eyelid crease

lacking at Carpignano. The drapery over Christ's legs at Carpignano [Fig. 881 is more

stylized than that of any figure in S. Pietro, but it is not as abstract as in the 1020 figures

of the Virgin and Child by Eustathius. Gabriel's drapery patterning (e.g., the folds over

the right mm) is close to that of figures in the Washing of the Feet at Otranto, although

more repetitive; at Otranto there is slightly n1ore sense of the body underneath. The styl­

ized nying end of Gabriel's drapery is not found at Otranto. Christ's hands and Gabriel's

right hand at Carpignano arc enormously oversized co1npared with hands at S. Pietro,

although they share the same emphasis on fingernails. In sum, there are enough differ­

ences between the frescoes at Otranto and Carpignano to conclude that different individu­

als \Vere responsible for the execution of these paintings; at the same time, there are

enough significant similarities to attribute them to artists working in the satne tradition

and not too far apart in date. This corroborates !he paleographic analysis, which found the

Otranto inscriptions close to but not identical with the 959 inscription signed by Theophylact at Carpignano.

Still at Carpignano, the enthroned Christ signed by Eustathius in I 020 represents an

63

-exaggerated "petrification" of Theophylact's \Vork in 959, 15 1 a hardening and 1nisunder­

slanding of the earlier artist's style. The flanking Hodegitria and poorly preserved

archangel are part of the same commission. Their vacuous faces and completely inorganic

drapery betray the hand of an untalented copyist Belting disagreed with Guillou, who had

Jinked these figures of 1020 to the slightly later mosaics of Hosios Loukas, 152 and indeed

these paintings appear to represent a stylistic tangent that has no future in the region or

beyond its confines. However, the Otranto frescoes are not part of this process of petrifi­

cation: they are closely linked with images in the nearby crypt of SS. Stefani at Vaste,

and may even have inOuenced later painting in the region. 153

SS. Stefani at Vastc contains a large number of votive frescoes of varying date. 154

The figures of Christ between angels in the south (right) absidiole [Fig. 90] and isolated

figures of Sts. Andrew [Fig. 91], George, Anthony, Philip, a monk, and others on the

nave piers are linked by a consistent stylistic idiom, as well as by paleographic similari­

ties. The figures of Basil, Nicholas, and John Chrysostom (usually misidentified as

Gregory Nazianzen) in the north absidiole and the archangel Michael in a niche on the

north wall also have features in common with this group, although they me marked by

greater elongation and linearity in the drapery. The scene ·in the central apse shares no

stylistic affinities with either of these other groups, and neither do many pier figures that

are clearly later in date. Charles Diehl allegedly read three dates in the crypt: 1032 and 1093 in the right and

left absidio]es, respectively, and 1376 in the central apse.155 None of these dates survives

today, but the oldest accords well with the style of letters still visible alongside Christ and

above Gabriel in the south absidiole [Fig. 90], and adjacent to St Andrew on an eastern

pier [Fig. 91].156 The date 1032 has never been accepted in the later literature and the

group generally has been assigned to the twelfth century, but such a late date is highly

improbable on paleographic grounds. For example, the unusual "V" -shaped cross-bar of

the A al Vaste is identical to that at both Myriokephala in Crete, dated before 1027,157

and S. Pietro [Fig. 23]. Moreover, a stylistic parallel between St Philip at Vaste and the

first-layer frescoes at Otranto has recently been observed; 158 when the comparison is

broadened to include other figures attributable to the 1032 group, such as St Andrew, this

parallel proves lo be well founded. In stylistic terms, the faces at Vaste from 1032 are modeled like those at Otranto

except for a greater use of white highlights and the fact that the eyes are completely out­

lined and are less oblong in shape [Figs. 23, 27, 91]. The best comparison is naturally

with the only figure in three-quarter view, Gabriel in the south absidiole [Color fig. 21,

figs. 23-25, 90]: the angel's face is drawn as at Otranto, with thick brows, a double-line

lid extending beyond the eye, under-eye shadows, and a straight nose. Most of the figures

at Vastc are 1nore elongated than at S. Pietro, but they_have the san1e short arms, small

hands, and detailed fingernails. The bodies tend to disappear beneath a greater profusion

64

">Jtxlf.1:nore cursive folds, but many of the surface patterns found at Otranto are recognizable: ernphasized abdomen, white circles al the knee, solid areas of white highlight sur­

i!JUnded by dark parallel folds. Nowhere at Olranto, however, do we find the symmetrical

&Ill ery fold that hangs from the wrist of the angel at Vaste. The nimbi at Vaste have p . d h . b . 2:roupS of four pearls on the nm, as oppose to t ree at S. Pietro, ut since pearl clusters

-j11

any number are uncom1non-a continuous pearled ri1n is far more usual~they may

represent a specific workshop feature. The same may be true for the forked ends of the

mouths and the unusually small hands, in addition to the shared ornamental detailing pre­

viously noted as an iconographic feature. Thus, while the greater refine1nent in facial modeling and more realistic drapery

treatment at Vaste represent a more chronologically advanced stage than Otranto, some

details are so si111ilar as to suggest the possibility of execution by the same workshop. The

date read by Diehl, 1032, accords well with both the fresco and script style. I would sug­

gest, therefore, that 1032 represents a terniinus ante quem for the first-layer frescoes at S.

Pietro. [fa single workshop or successive generations of the same workshop were active

at both monuments, that would rule out a much earlier date for Otranto.

At Casaranello, two poorly preserved male saints in the sanctuary [Fig. 921 are con­

tiguous with a dedicatory inscription datable on paleographic grounds to the early

eleventh or perhaps late tenth century. 159 The left figure in the sanctuary, a bishop who is

probably to be identified as Nicholas by the adjacent letter traces, wears the omophorion

folded low on the chest but no enchirion, sartorial details that support a date before the

eleventh century.160 Stylized drapery that falls from the veiled hand of the unidentified

right-hand figure in the sanctuary is identical to the pattern on Christ's right leg at

Carpignano in Theophylacl's fresco of 959 [Fig. 88]. Thus a late tenth or early eleventh

century date for the sanctuary figures seems secure on paleographic, iconographic, and

stylistic grounds. Recently the sanctuary figures have been shown to belong to the same

decorative campaign as a Virgin and Child and a St. Barbara [Fig. 93] on two of the piers

of the nave.161 The Virgin and Barbara had always been assigned to the second half of

the thirteenth century, but this late dating is untenable because the drapery of the sanctu­

ary bishop is very close to that of Barbara. In addition, some incised graffiti adjacent to

the figure of Barbara give the dates , X /IE (1127) and , X , , (between 1092 and 1191),

providing for the pier figures a terminus ante quem in the early twelfth century _162

Moreover, both the sanctuary bishop and Barbara share striking similarities with Otranto.

The focus on the right knee rendered as a white roundel, for instance, is virtually the same

as that of the fourth apostle behind Peter in the Washing of the Feet at S. Pietro [Color

fig. 21].

When the Casaranello figures are compared further with Otranto, differences in the

facial modeling become apparent. The eyebrow does not descend to meet the extended

line of the eyelid, a feature also missing al Carpignano in I 020. The facial highlights are

65

different, with a long white stripe defining the nose at Casarancllo. The large "U"-shaped

stroke encircling the philtrum is not found at Otranto, but is used for Gabriel at

Carpignano in 959 [Fig. 89, 93]. There are also some similarities with figures at Vaste,

especially in the drawing of the eyes. In general, the figures from the late tenth-early

eleventh-century campaign at Casarane1lo find affinities with Otranto and with other con­

temporary monuments in the region. While the drapery at Casaranello is as close to S.

Pietro as that of Carpignano (959), and certainly closer than that of Yaste, the facial mod­

eling is quite different. This bespeaks the activity of yet another workshop active in the

region in the late tenth or early eleventh ccntury.163

Although analogies to works in the region are surely the most telling, it is important

to consider the place of Otranto and its South Italian cousins in the wider Byzantine

sphere. Guillou had likened the frescoes at S. Pietro (as well as the Annunciation at

Carpignano) to archaic monuments in Cappadocia, positing an unspecified stylistic kin­

ship with Old Tokali kilise.164 The latter is a contemporary of Gtillti dcre #4 (913-

920)165 [Fig. 82], the monument with which Guillou had compared the content and

orthography of the inscription in the Otranto Washing of the Feet. As noted above, the

paleographic affinities are not entirely convincing, and stylistic comparisons prove simi­

larly unpersuasive. Resemblances to S. Pietro are found mostly in the faces, with their

large eyes, straight noses, and small looped ears. Dissimilarities outweigh the similarities,

however. The Cappadocian figures have tiny pursed mouths and red cheek patches not

present at Otranto. The Old Tokali and Giillii dere #4 figures are extremely flat and stiff,

despite numerous busy drapery highlights and folds that often fonn starkly contrasting

"Z"-shaped surface patterns. The drapery seems insubstantial compared to that at S.

Pietro. The Cappadocian frescoes are more abstract than those in South Italy, although

they belong to the same general current that flattens and schematizes the figures to vary­

ing degrees.166 They are closer to the frescoes at Carpignano from 959 than to S.

Pietro, 167 which supports the slightly later date for Otranto that is suggested by its affini­

ties with Vaste and Casaranello.

Just as the Cappadocian monuments have been linked stylistically with late ninth­

century works in Thessaloniki l68 and ultimately to some 1nosaics at H. Sophia in

Constantinople,169 Belting has connected the style at Carpignano and Otranto ultimately

to a metropolitan trend seen mainly in ninth-century Constantinopolitan mosaics and

manuscripts.170 The face of Gabriel at Carpignano can be readily compared with faces in

Paris. gr. 510-a squarish face with eyes set high, a straight nose, thick dark contour

lines-but in the manuscript drapery models the body much more naturalistically than it

does in the fresco. This metropolitan style appears to have survived, in an increasingly

schematized form, through the tenth century. The flattening and hardening of what was

originally a play of light and shadowl71 is already evident in early tenth-century

Cappadocian monuments such as Giillii dere #4, but frescoes in the apse of the Kaloritissa

66

on Naxos (second quarter of the tenth century) 172 show how co1npetently the yi.\;~i~~~e cnurc:u 111odels could be interpreted by provincial artists. The undergarment of an

adoring 1he Virgin and Child at Naxos has a pattern of highlights that closely

.)F'•.~ierrible:s thal or the Christ between angels in the south absidiole at Vaste a century later.

frescoes at Otranto arc not as elegant as those of Naxos; they only distantly recall the

i~r,nstan,tin,opol1tan 1nodels, while expressjng a taste for simplification, linearity, and

<_'(>rnmneiatnot unco1nmon in provincial works. The persistence of metropolitan trends may be seen at Hosios Loukas, where the fig­

ure of Joshua [Fig. 94] originally on the exterior of the Theotokos church is now visible

00 the north interior of the Katholikon, obviously predating the construction of the lat-

l73 A date at the end of the tenth or beginning of the eleventh century seems likely, ter. aJJhough the construction date of the Katholikon remains very tnuch in dispute. Joshua

~ a more sinuous profile and more curved nose th:u1 the figures at Otranto. There is

shading between the eyes and brows that is absent at S. Pietro, and in general the faci~l

modeling is ,nore coloristically modulated and tnore suggestive of volume. Nevertheless,

Joshua's individual facial features are not too distant from those of figures at Otranto, and

the hands share the same long fingers and detailed fingernails. In general, the Otranto

frescoes simplify the n1etropolitan modeJ.174 There are obvious qualitative and stylistic

differences between Joshua and figures at Otranto, but these indicate participation in dif­

ferent artistic currents rather than greatly differing dates of execution.

Other figures at Hosios Loukas also offer some similarities to S. Pietro. Its mosaics

were compared to S. Pietro by Marasco,175 but more fruitful co1nparisons can be made

with its frescoes.176 The paintings in the northwest chapel of the Katholikon have been

dated to the second quarter of the eleventh century, those in the southwest chapel to the

third quarter of that century. 177 In the northwest chapel, the figure of John in the

Crucifixion is close to Otranto, especially in the strongly contoured, square-jawed face

with its slightly heart-shaped hairline. As at Otranto, John has a straight nose with square

nostrils and the suggestion of a forked mouth above a shaded lower lip. His eyes are

drawn differently, with only a half-shadow underneath, although the thick brow line is the

same. The drapery has more calligraphic outlines and a less insistent overall pattern of

highlights. The file of saints on the south wall of the same chapel shows more archaistic

drapery patterns, especially parallel folds. It is clear that these elegantly linear, elongated

figures are later than those at S. Pietro, but some of them do retain earlier stylistic fea­

tures. The presence of shared stylistic traits indicates that Otranto does not predate Hosios

Loukas by some 150 years, as the currently accepted dating of S. Pietro in the late ninth

or early tenth century would have it.

The precisely dated paintings at H. Panteleimon in the Mani (991/2) are popular in

character, with slight attention paid to anatotny or drapery; they do not lend themselves to

comparisons with South Italy except, perhaps, with Eustathius's crude paintings at

67

Carpignano of 1020. On Naxos, however, there are some images that can be n1ore prof­

itably co1nparcd with Otranto. The Protothronos near Chalki contains frescoes of several

periods, the oldest probably datable to the end of the tenth century. 178 The heads of fig­

ures in the Presentation in the Temple-a rare narrative scene preserved from this peri­

od-have numerous affinities with Otranto, including the schematic modeling, the facial

expressions, and the drawing of the individual facial features, although the drapery is ren­

dered less abstractly. Though of lower quality, the Naxos figures are not too distant from the Joshua at Hosios Loukas.179

The oldest frescoes in Kastoria, at H. Stephanos and the Taxiarches church, have the

shoulder-high backdrop that is so common in South Italy. Both ensembles have very

schematic linear modeling and less volun1e than Otranto. The frescoes have long been

dated to the late ninth-early tenth century,180 but they were recently assigned to the third

quarter of the tenth century and described as products of a provincial current also seen at

<;:avusin (963-969) in Cappadocia.181 The composition of the Last Judgment in the

vestibule at H. Stephanos is devoid of overlaps and more rigidly two-dimensional than

the narrative scenes at Otranto. In this it is more closely related to early tenth-century

works in Cappadocia, so if it is indeed to be dated later in the ·century it demonstrates an

even greater "time lag" than do the South Italian frescoes.

Other frescoes in Kastoria can be more readily compared with Otranto. The narthex

of H. Anargyroi contains figures of Constantine, Helena, a donor na1ned Const,mtine, and

Sts. Basil and Nicholas that have been dated to the beginning of the eleventh century.182

Painted by at least two artists, these figures all have the dark outlines, flattened surfaces,

and minimal facial modeling seen at Otranto; furthermore, they have comparable striated

hair, simple loop ears, and deeply arched brows. The eyes are drawn differently, however,

and only the donor figure has pronounced under-eye shadows.183 The expressions seem

more intense than at Otranto-Basil's brow is furrowed-and the faces are less schen1a­

tized. The drapery rendering is difficult to compare because Constantine and Helena wear

heavily jeweled gannents that eliminate any linear patterning and completely flatten the

bodies. On the whole, these paintings appear to be slightly more "progressive" than those

at Otranto. The same is true of the Episkopi in Evrytania. The second layer of frescoes

there (first third of the eleventh century) has three- and four-pearl clusters on the nimbi as

well as some of the stylized drapery folds found at Otranto, but these are restricted to a

few areas and do not form an overall oma1nental pattern. In addition, the facial 1nodeling

at Evrytania is more sophisticated and less abstract, revealing a closer dependence on

metropolitan trends.

In Cappadocia, the recent cleaning of New Tokali kilise (mid-tenth century) has

revealed its exceptional quality.184 The figures have small heads on substantial bodies,

with thinner faces and more delicate features than at Otranto; they are modeled more col­

oristica1ly, without dark outlines, and they have white "comb" and stroke highlights on

68

both faces and draperies. None of these features can be found at S. Pietro, and only the

rnost genera] stylistic similarities can be cited. Furthermore, the palette at New Tokali is

both darker and 111ore varied. It seems clear that the artist at Otranto was not fa1niliar \Vith

the 111etropohtan currents seen at New Tokali kilise. Similarly, despite iconographic and

coloristic kinship with Otranto, the frescoes at Koropi (1020s) are characterized by more

plastic modeling and dynamic drapery [Fig. 83 J. And while we might have expected com­

parisons with the Panagia ton Chalkeon (1028) to be instructive, because the patron of

that church had served for three years as katepan of the theme of Longobardia185 and

quite probably knew the church of S. Pietro, the Thessalonikan monument is noticeably

different in style and quality, with more subtly modeled faces and more fluid drapery.186

It is obvious that the katepan did not bring artists from South Italy to decorate his church.

While S. Pietro does not reflect the progressive metropolitan trends seen in the mid­

tenth century at New Tokali and early in the eleventh century at Panagia ton Chalkeon, it

does have affiliations with monuments outside South Italy that are contemporary with

those two but belong to 1nore conservative stylistic currents. The works in Greece that are

assigned to the first half of the eleventh century appear on the whole to be slightly more

progressive than S. Pietro. While the stylistic features of these monuments too may ulti­

mately be traceable to Constantinople, the important fact is that they continued to have a

long and independent life in the Byzantine provinces.

Based on both regional and wider Byzantine stylistic comparisons, a date at the end

of the tenth or very beginning of the eleventh century should be assigned to the first-layer

paintings at Otranto. Within South Italy the frescoes fit comfortably between the earliest

paintings at Carpignano, dated 959, and several figures at Vaste that can be tentatively

dated to 1032; they also share some striking similarities with the earliest campaign at

Casaranello, assigned to the late tenth or early eleventh century. Details suggest that relat­

ed workshops may have been responsible for the execution of the paintings at Otranto and

Vastc, and these two decorative programs should therefore be reasonably close in date.

For this reason the Otranto paintings might be dated slightly closer to Vaste than to

Carpignano, even though the better preservation of the latter may, at first glance, suggest

other\vise.

A comparison of the frescoes at Otranto with monuments elsewhere in the Byzantine

sphere fails to clarify to what degree Byzantine artistic currents were modified by indige­

nous traditions, because the latter are impossible to trace. Stylistic features that appear to

be more or less specific to this province and that survived throughout the succeeding cen­

turies include the persistence of the colored backdrop at shoulder height (red, instead of

yellow, at Otranto) and the pearled nimbi. South Italy was evidently not receptive to the

classicizing, painterly currents seen at New Tokali kilise, Koropi, or the Panagia ton

Chalkeon, but the loss of monuments executed for high-ranking patrons in such major

centers as Bari precludes certainty on this point. While the apparent lack of progressive

69

.. features probably reflects a conservative regional aesthetic, it may be that the paucity of

surviving wall paintings does not accurately reflect the original breadth of artistic produc­

tion.

Virtually no observations about style can be made for the pendant scene of the

Nativity and Arrival of the Magi because the fresco is so poorly preserved. Some facial

features of the Magus are visible, unlike the rest of his body or his drapery [Fig. 32]. Hts

unusual snub nose with its thin nostril has few parallels in Byzantine art, but can be found

in South Italy at S. Biagio (1196), a monument already related to the scene on icono­

graphic grounds. However, a single detail is obviously insufficient for assigning a date to

the scene.

Conclusions

Having concluded our analysis of the first fresco layer, we can now review the evi­

dence for its dating. Least informative in this regard is the program, which, because of its

partial preservation and a dearth of comparative material, does not reveal much about its

date of conception. The location of the scenes does not acccird with that found in other

monuments, but it does ref1ect an understanding of the hierarchy of images and of their

liturgical significance in the post-Iconoclastic Byzantine decorative scheme. More signifi­

cant for the question of dating, the frescoes contain a few iconographic features that were

not introduced before the late tenth century. The paleographic analysis, anchored by com­

parisons with securely dated monuments in the region, provides clear indication that the

frescoes belong to the late tenth or early eleventh century; this is especially significant

because paleographic evidence had previously been used to support a much earlier dating.

Finally, stylistic analysis reveals the closest connections with monuments in the immedi­

ate vicinity, most notably Carpignano (959) and Vaste (1032), as well as echoes of early

tenth-century Cappadocian works and parallels with late tenth and early eleventh-century

monuments in Greece. The iconographic, paleographic, and stylistic analyses were under­

taken independently, but collectively they support a dating at the end of the tenth or

beginning of the eleventh century. An ascription to "circa 1000," plus or minus a work­

shop generation in either direction, would accord well with the available evidence.

The state of the arts in Byzantium in the period around I 000 has been reconsidered in

recent years by several scholars.187 This period followed the heterogeneity of post­

lconoclastic ninth-century works and preceded the wider diffusion and relative standard­

ization of stylistic formulae in the eleventh century. The second half of the tenth century

is widely known in the art historical literature as the "Macedonian Renaissance," although

two distinct renaissance periods have actually been traced, one in the mid-tenth century

:u1d one at its end.188 Until the recent restoration of New Tokali kilise, this alleged

renaissance appeared to be restricted to manuscripts and ivories. Even now it is impossi-

70

ble to trace the evolution of monumental painting in the tenth century because of the lack

of dated 1nonuments. A clear evolution is, in any event, improbable; more likely there

were only parallel tendencies toward more or less naturalistic forms. In Cappadocia, the

only region in vvhich ample material from this period survives, the monuments evince a

great variety of styles and there is significant disagreement about the dating of some key

works. New Tokali kilise reveals familiarity with the art of the capital (although

inetropolitan art was itself heterogeneous in nature), but it does not seem to have been

influential in the future stylistic direction of Cappadocia. In South Italy, a similar stylisti­

cally up-to-date monument may have existed, but if so, it has left no trace. Certainly it

exerted no influence at Otranto.

Frain a broader perspective, the stylistic, iconographic, programmatic, and paleo­

graphic sin1ilarities between works in South Italy and those in Greece and Cappadocia

affirm the existence of an artistic koine in the Byzantine provinces in this period. This

koine was not a product of monastic migration, as once thought,189 but of mobile artjsts,

abundant provincial patrons, and the vitality and authority of the artistic center,

Constantinople. More specifically, it may reflect the easier 1novement of artists and mod­

els in a period corresponding to the expansion of Byzantine territory in the reign of Basil

IJ (976-1025). The early eleventh century was a period of greater political stability than

the tenth century, a situation that fostered increased economic prosperity and concomitant

artistic productivity; 190 the great monastic churches from which the "classical" Byzantine

decorative scheme was deduced all date to the eleventh century. However, it is difficult to

determine whether such broad socioeconomic factors had any specific impact on a sma11

church located in an already long-beld Byzantine territory.

It does seem clear that South Italy in general participated in the increasing Byzantine

prosperity. Evidence for commercial contact with the Byzantine empire, rather than with

North Africa and Egypt, is contained in the Cairo Geniza documents. 191 Excavations

undertaken at various sites in Otranto itself, including work at the parekklesion adjacent

to S. Pietro, confirm these commercial ties. There is evidence, for example, that green­

glazed vvare, manufactured in Constantinople or in Greece and otherwise unattested in

Italy, was imported in Otranto before the eleventh century. 192 Of the 177 Byzantine

bronze fol/es from the sixth to the thirteenth century that were excavated at Otranto, two­

thirds were minted in the years 886-944 or 1059-71; another 27 coins date to the interven­

ing years,193 during which S. Pietro was constructed and received its first layer of frescoes.

There is also evidence for the tenth- or eleventh-century construction in Otranto of some

large-scale structures of a defensive or commercial nature, and very close to S. Pietro itself

are the remains of a Byzantine waII.194 That this wall pertained to a monastic complex

associated with the church cannot be ruled out, but it was more likely p:ut of a defensive

structure for the acropolis.

Evidence for intellectual contact between Otranto and the Byzantine world is provided

71

by the large number of tenth- and eleventh-century manuscripts from the Terra d'Otranto.

These manuscripts have been divided into two groups-indigenous ltalo-Greek of lower

quality, and high-quality Constantinopolitan-that underscore the coexistence of dual cul­

tural currents; the ,netropolitan current was nourished by frequent contacts with neighbor­

ing Greece.195 Unfortunately, none of these manuscripts is illuminated and the oldest

securely dated example is from l 095, so neither artistic nor paleographic comparisons

with the frescoes at S. Pietro can be adduced.

The extensive artistic activities in South Italy in the years around 1000, including the

number of fresco workshops identified in this study, can perhaps be associated with the

building activities undertaken by early eleventh-century katepans. The cessation of Arab

raids after the third quarter of the tenth century and the elevation of Otranto to metropoh­

tan status in 967 or 968 may also have spurred construction and attracted artists. In gener­

al, the cli1nate for artistic production appears to have been favorable, and the disappear­

ance of all but a handful of monuments from this period is to be greatly regretted.

For the poorly preserved scene of the Nativity and Arrival of the Magi, herein con­

sidered a pendant to the first layer, a date in the twelfth century can be proposed largely

on iconographic grounds. As regards the context of this scene, and that of the possibly

contemporary parekklesion, the excavations of the British School suggest that the twelfth

century was a particularly f1ourishing period in Otranto. Local artistic activity included

the laying of the extensive historiated pavement in the Cathedral and the renovation of S.

Nicola at Casale. There appears to have been an increased importation of glazed ceramics

from Constantinople in the late eleventh and twelfth century, and the end of the twelfth

century also saw the importation of sgraffito and spatter-painted ware.196 Mariy of the

excavated Byzantine coins belong to this period, and although the two found entombed

adjacent to S. Pietro [Fig. 9] were minted in the eleventh century that is no argument

against their funereal use a century later. Furthermore, the large-scale structures of the

earlier medieval period in Otranto appear to have been enlarged during the Norman peri­

od. While none of these activities can be specifically associated with the first-layer pen­

dant phase, they support the viability, both artistic and economic, of architectural and

painted additions to S. Pietro in this period.

72

NOTES TO CHAPTER TI

1 De Giorgi, Provincia di Lecce II, pp. 260ff.

2 E. Bertaux, L' art dans f' Italie ml?ridionale (Paris, 1904), p. 122.

3 E.g. by Prandi, "Salcnto Provincia," p. 692, n. 23 (firnt half or the Lwelfth century), followed by Marasco,

''Affreschi in S. Pietro," who assigned the \Vashing of the Peet and the Last Supper to the first half of the twelfth century

and the rest of the frescoes in the church to the end of the century.

4 Belling, "Greeks and Latins:· esp. pp. 12-14. Belting's arlick:, perhaps following Marasco's, misidentifies the

locations of the scenes: tl1ey are both in the northeast corner hay, not the "southwest corner room." 'I11is error is repeat­

ed in Milella, Restauri in Puglia I, p. 132.

s Guillou, ·'Italie mtridionale byzantine." Guillou had presented the san1e text in Italian at a conference held in

1973: "Longobardi, Bizantini c Norrnanni nell'Italia meridiona!e: continuiti't o frattura?" Civiltl1 rupestre: ii Passaggio,

pp. 23-61. 6 The crypt at Carpignano is ahnost invariably cited as "SS. Marina and Cristina," but its original dedication was to

S. Cristina alone: E. Bandicra, Carp1/;nano Sa/entino. Centro.frazione, casali, =S!Orie municipa/i 3 (Cavallino di Lecce,

{980), pp. 33-36. Hereafter: Carpirnano.

7 E.g., Pace, Puglia fra Bisanzio, p. 323 (supporting the tenth-century dating by Belting); Wharton, Art of t:mpire.

p. 145 (tenth century); Falla, "Ruolo dei programmi," p. 187, n. 3 (tenth century).

8 The lower edge of the scene has been cut off by a fourth-layer St. Leonard on the pseudocapital and by a floral

border belonging to a fifth-layer image of the Virgin and Child between Sts. Nicholas and Francis di Paola.

9 This type for Andrew was already established by the fifth ccnlury: K. Wessel, "Andreas," RbK I, cols. 154-156.

10 On the tiining of the scene see E. H. Kantorowicz, "The Baptism of the Apostles," DOP 9-10 (1956), pp. 203-251.

11 For the iconography sec Millet, Jconographie de !'Fvangile, pp. 310-325; Schiller 11, pp. 41-47: K. Wessel,

"FuBwaschLmg," RbK JI, cols. 595-608; Sandberg-Vavala, Croce dipinla, pp. 218-224; and especially Giess,

Fusswaschung.

12 Peter's hands arc outstretched toward Christ: Giess, Fusswa~chung, cat. no. 6 and fig. 5 (fol. 3').

n Moscow, Hist. Mus., Ms. gr. 129, fol. 50": Giess, Fw;,1·was1."hung, cat. no. 26. Peter's earlier expression of sur­

prise, not encouragement, is still seen in the late tenth-century lcctionary from Trebizond now in Leningrad (Public Lib ..

Tvb. gr. 21, fol. 6''): Giess, Fusswaschw1g, cat. no. 9.

14 E.g., in an antiphonary at St. Gall: see Kantorowicz, '·Baptism of the Apostles," fig. 54.

15 .Fro1n Mandatum is dc1ived Maundy Thursday, synonymous with Holy Thursday. This titulus is seen at, e.g ..

Monreale.

u, Schiller II, p. 43.

17 According to Demus, Norman Sicily, p. 285. a bent posture is more characteristic of Oriental (that is,

Cappadoclan) and Western depictions; but cf. De1nus, San Marco 1, p. 100: "The aln1ost upright stance of Christ.

instead of the more frequent stooping or kneeling postw·e, is not specific to any particular date or place."

rn l\,fillet, Jconographie de r Evangile, pp. 310-312.

19 Schiller II, fig. 125. The bibliography on Hosios Loukas is extensive and the controversies about its dating

remain unresolved: see, e.g., Panayotidi, "Peintw·e," nn. 45-47, 101-102, and Mouriki, "Stylistic Trends, 11th and 12th,''

pp. 8lff. Still fundamental arc Stikas, Oikodomikon Chroniko11 and E. Stikas, 0 rT{Twp Tou ka.ffa/\:,KoJ T 17s

lv/01:rfs LlcT{ou /100Kci'(Athcns, 1974).

20 Giess, Fuss1vaschu11g, cal. no. 66 and fig. 29 (second half of the twelfth century).

21 Bergman, Salerno !varies, pp. 88-89 and fig. 153.

73

• 2:' Giess, F11s.1wu.1c/11111g, cat. no. 52; Bergman, Salerno Ivories. p. 69 and rig. 30.

2J Muuriki,Nea Moni, p. 182; Wessel, '·1Fuf:\wa~chung:' RbK JI, col. 603.

24 Restle, Byzantine Woll Painting, TT, fig. 230. 25 Occasion.illy the apostles arc omitted (except for Pclcr), as al Egri Tas kiliscsi, dalc<l early tent11 century by

Thierry (Nouvelles i[;lises, pp. 57-59) and S. K(rntof, Caves of God. The Monaslic Environment of Byzantine Cappadocia

(Cambridge, Mass., 1972) but eleventh century by Lafontaine-Dosognc ("Nouvcllcs Notes'') and Restle, By:anrine w·a!l

Paintin[;); also in the Man:iana Job manuscript of 905 (Giess, Fusswasr}nmg, cal. no. 11).

26 Weitzmann, "Constanlinopolitan Lectionary,'' p. 366. 27 Wharton, Tokali Kifise, p. 73. The 5cene is almost completely lost

2~ The twelfth apostle, Judas, has here been suppressed. 2Y Giillii dere #4, the chapel of St. John, is also known as Ayvali kilise based on its original publication by N. and

M. Thierry, "Ayvali kilise ou pigeonnier de Giilli Dere. Eglise inedite de Cappadoce," CA 15 (1965), pp. 97-154. This

has been revised as chapter VII, "Eglise Saint-Jean de Giillii dere (Eglise No. 4 de Giillii dere)," in Thierry, Haut Moyen­

Age; the Washing of the Feet is described on p. 146 and illustrated in pl. 87d.

:m E.g., the Gospel book of Otto llI (I\1unich, Staatsbibl., Clm. 4453, fol. 234''), end of the tenth century (Gies~,

Fusswaschung, cat. no. 78).

31 Ceramic material with comparable decoration has nut been foltnd in the BritiSh School's excavations at Otranlo,

however.

32 E. Baer, Metalwork in i\Jedieval Islamic Art (Albany, 1983), esp. p. 104 (fig. 81) and pp. 133ff.

33 Restle, Byzantine Wall Painting II, fig. 179.

3·1 The re1noval of footwear has a long a~socialion \Vith sanctified ground and liberation from sin: see Schiller II,

pp. 42 and 45; K. Weitzmann, "The Constantinopolitan Lectionary, Morgan 639," Studies in Art and Literature for Re lie

Da Costa Greene (Princeton, 1954), p. 366; repr. in idem, Byzantine Liturgical Psalters and Gospels (London, 1980),

XIV.

35 A. Goldschmidt and K. Weitzmann, Die hyzantinischen E/fenhei11s!wlpture11 des X-XIII Jahrhunderts (Berlin,

1934), vol. 2, no. 13.

16 1. Kalavrezou, "A New Type of Icon: Ivories ahd Steatites," Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and His Age,

Second International Byzantine Conference, Delphi 1987 (Athens, 1989), pp. 380 and 396.

17 The apostle undoing his sandal continued to be rendered awkwardly in some later monuments, including a

Coptic Gospel book of ca. 1180 (Paris, Bihl. Nat., Ms. copte 13, fol. 295): Giess, Fusswaschung, cat. no. 20.

JH The giornate are the fresco painter's daily work units: sec P. and L. Mora and P. Philippot, La conservation des

peinlures murales (Bologna, 1977), esp. pp. 135ff. 39 !Vfatt. 26:17-29, Mark 14:12-25, Luke 22:7-23, and John 13:18-30 (where the meal itself is already over); I Cor.

10:16,ICor. 11:23,eta/

40 On the iconography or the Last Supper see Schiller IL pp. 24ff.; Sandberg-Vavala, Croce dipinta, pp. 200-217;

Millet, Iconographie de l' Evangife, pp. 286-309; K. Wessel, "Abendmahl," RbK I, cols. 1-11; IC Wessel, Abendmahl

und Apostelkomrnunion (Recklinghausen, 1964). 41 E.g., the Paris Psalter, Bibi. Nat. ms. gr. 139, fol. 2, (third quarter of the tenth century): H. Omont, Fac-simil§s

des miniatures des plus andens mmruscrits grecs de la Bihlioth1.lque Natio,'wte du Vie au xre si(cle (Paris, 1902), pl. Tl.

Guillou ("Halie rnCridionale byzantine," p. 183) finds an unconvincing analogy for the architectural elements at Otranto

in Paris IBibl. Nat.] gr. 54 (of the late thirteenth century, not fourteenth as stated). 42 On this monument see Abatangelo, "Chise---criptc," pp. 83-105; Fonseca, Terra Jonica, pp. 134-145. I-/ereafter:

S. Simeone 'a Famosa'.

41 C. L. Waltz, "Architectural Motifs and Backgrounds in the Menologium of Basil JI," unpublished M.A. thesis,

Ohio State University, 1976: see esp. pp. 196ff.

44 Pages in the Nienologium that contain large drapery swags are signaled by Waltz. "Architectural Motifs and

Backgrounds," p. 196. 'The date or the Menologium (Vat. gr. 1613), actually a synaxary, is usually given as 979~989

baser! on the findings of S. Der Nersessian, "Remarks on the Date of the Menologium and the Psalrer Written for Basil

74

!l." By::antioll 15 ( 1940 -41 ), pp. 104-125. However. convincing arguments for a <lat~ in the [alter part of BasiJ 's long

, (froJll 975-Hl25) are presented by L Sevcenko, "On Pan!oleon the Painter," JOB 21 (1972), pp. 241-249. Other reign . . . eleventh<en!llry manuscnpl~ also contarn this 1notif, e.g. Cuislin 2L fol. 276", and Dionysiou 587, fol. 53r, where a red

swag adorns the architectural background of the Last Supper. For recent bibliography OP the 1\1enologium of Ba~il TT see

L Ventura. "A proposito Jelle trasmigrnzioni de! 'lvlenologio di Basilio TT' (codice Vaticano greco 1613)," Ai:r'adernie e

hibfiotedie J"fwlia L V (1987), esp. p. 38, n. 1.

+5 Panayotidi, "Peinture," p. 91: "compositions architecturalcs omCes de tissus parfaitement classicisants."

46 See Prandi, "Ca~aranello,'' and Pace, Pug!iafra Bisunzio, pp. 392-394. llereafter: Casara11e/!o.

47 Medea, Cripte, fig. 99. On the paintings at Vaste see below, Stylistic Analysis.

a~ Older models were again employed at S. Angelo in .Fonnis (late eleventh century) where t11e apostle opposite

Christ also retains the mattress.

~~ For the Byzantine list of the apostles, which differs from that in the West, see G. de Jerphanion, "Qucls sont les

douze ap6tres dans l'iconographie chretienne?'' La \/oi.r des Mo11wne111s (Paris-Brussels, 1930), pp. 189-200. Also see

below, iconography of the second-layer Penteco5t scene .

.10 The same distribution of figures may be observed at Balick kilisc and the Etchmiadzin Gospels (Sandherg­

Vavala, Croce dipinla, p. 214, n. 15). At New Tokali kilise (mid-tenth century) the fresco is so poorly preserved that it is

difficult to determine \Vho is opposite Christ. According to \Vharton, Tokali Ki/ise, p. 73, it is impossible to choose

between Peter and .Judas, but the profile (fig. 81) seen1s to me clearly lo belong to Judas.

51 Sandberg-Vavalb., Croce dipi11ta, p. 206.

52 Comparable ornament at Otranto and son1e of the column churches has already been noted. The column churches

are Elmali kilise (Gtireme chapel 19), <;aril<li kilise (Gtircmc chapel 22), and the slightly later Karanlik kilise (GOren1e

chapel 23). See N. Thierry, "L'art monumental byzanlin en Asic Mineure du Xl 0 siecle au XlVe.," DOP 29 (1975), pp.

S7ff .. and A. \Vharton Epstein, "The Fresco Decoration of" the Column Churches, Gtiremc Valley, Cappadocia. A

Consideration of Their Chronology and Their Models," CA 29 (1980-81), pp. 27-45. For the scenes of the Last Suppe1

see Restle, Byza111ine Wall Pai11tit1R 11, figs. 235 and 179.

53 Millet, Iconographic de l'Evangile, fig. 276; on the church see L. Gigli, S. Sebasliano al Palatino (Rome, 1975).

54 The ~ame an01nalous depiction of a palm with fingernails occurs at Myriokephala in Crete (before 1027).

5.1 D. C. \\'infield and E. J. W. Hawkins, "The Church of our Lady at Asinou, Cyprus. A Report on the Seasons of

1965 and 1966," DOP 21 (1967), fig. 5.

56 Mil kt. Icnnographie de!' Evangi!e, pp. 296-297.

57 "Sigma table" is a n1isnomcr, as the sigma (C:) refers to the shape of the hcncl1 that follows the outline of the

table. However, this widely used term will he retained here.

50 On the sigma and other table shapes, see P. Angiolini-Martinclli, "Nota sull'iconografia della mcnsa circolare

nella raffiguraz.ionc dcl\'Ultima Cena della chiesa della Vergine Periblcptos di Ocrida," CARE 33 (l 986), pp. 83 105; cf.

L. H. Loomis, "The Tahlc of"thc Last Supper in Religious and Secular Iconography," Art Studies 5 (l 927), pp. 71 88.

59 On thi~ monument sec Falla, "S. Mauro"; Pace, Pugliafi·a Bisanzio, pp. 394-397; Pace, Decani et !"art byzan­

tine, pp. 111-1 J 3. Ilereafter: S. Mauro.

60 On this monument see A. Cassiano. "S. Giovanni Evangelista" in San Cesario di Leccc.

Sloria-Arle-Architettura, =Documentari. Luoghi Documenti e Artist! di Puglia 7 (Galatina, 1981) and Pace, Decani et

I" art byzantine, pp. l l 3-114. Hereafter: S Cesario di Lecce.

01 Gicss. Fusswaschung, cat. no. 81. 62 A silverware survey is in Ni. Chatzidakis, "A propos d'une nouvelle maniere de dater Jes pcinturcs de

Cappadoce," Byzantion 14 (1939), pp. 110-113. 63 Matt. 26:46-50; Mark 14:42-46; Luke 22:47-53; John 18: 1-11. For the iconography of the scene see: Schiller IL

pp. 51-56; Millet, Jconographie de l' Evangife, pp. 326-344; Sandberg-Vavala, Crrwe dipinta. pp. 231-241. 6·1 E.g., Bahattin Samanligi kilisc, Pi.ircnli seki kilise, Karanlik kilisc, Elmali kilise. 65 The church is dated by the portrait of and invocation to the en1peror Nikcphoros II Phokas: see L. Rodley, "The

Pigeon House Church, <;avusin," .I6B 33 (1983), pp. 301-339.

75

00 Millet, ico11ographie dr I' l~vangile, p. 326.

67 E.g., by the young Samson, fol. 347°: Omont, Fac-simi!Cs des miniatures des plus a11cie11s mmwscrits, pl. XLIX.

68 'l11is 1T0,)·,.,-,,, .. :i, is cited in the sixth-century Stratcgikon of Maurice (l.2.16). On Lhc apparel and attributes of

Byzantine soldiers see J. F. JTaldon, ''S0n1e Aspect5 of Byzantine Military Technology From lhe Sixlh to the Tenth

Centuries,'' n_-vzuntine and 1i1odern Greek Studirs I (1975). pp. 11-47.

69 The nimbus is not pcarl-riirnned like those in the first-layer scenes in the prothesis vault.

7u For the iconography of the scene see Schiller l, pp. 58-87: G. Ristow, "Geburt Christi,"" RhK II, cols. 637-662;

Millet. lconographie de l'Evun[;ife. pp. 93-169; Lafontaine-Dosognc, ''Infancy of Christ Cycle," esp. pp. 208ff.; G.

Ristow, Die Geburt Chrisli in der friihchristlichen und byzantinisr-/1-ostkirch!ichen Kunst (Recklinghausen, 1963); K.

Kalokyrcs, /-/ l c ///,')70-c,? ')Oi_i /ipiCT"Toci E(,'=,' 'I !]l·' Bu{,_, )ITC/.')ri) Tc:y_vi/1,' U/'c: EA),c{Oo3 (Athens, 1956).

71 Luke 2:1-20; mentioned in 11att. 1:25. Cf. also the second-ccnlltry Protoevangcliurn of Jarnes and the seventh- or

eightli-ccntury Pscudo-Mallhew. On the apocryphal texts see K. Wessel, "Apokrypha," RbK I, cols. 209-218; J.

Lafontainc-Dosogne, ''Iconography of the Cycle of the Life of t11e Virgin," Kariye Djumi 4, pp. 163-164.

72 Sec Medea, Cripte, pp. 91-101; M. Semcraro Herrmann, fl s1111ruario rupestre di S. BiaJ?iO a S. Vito dei

Non11un11i (Fasano, 1982), with good color photographs; Pace, Pugliufi·a Bisanzio, pp. 335-338; Chiese-cripte e i11sedia­

mcnti rupestri def terriwrio di S. \/ito def Normarmi (Fasano, n.d. [1968?1). The crypt is dated by its painted dedicatory

inscription. l!ereafier: S. Biu[;io.

73 Pace, Puglia _fi'a Bisanzio, p. 340, suggests a late twelfth-century date, with which I agree, based on the style of

the better-preserved frescoes; N. Lavermicocca, Gli insediamcnti rupestri de! territorio di Monopoli, "Corpus'' der;li

insediamenti medievali delta Pur;fia, della Lucania e delta Calabria 1 (Rome, 1977), pp. 75-87, dates the crypt to the

mid-twclrth century. The Nativity fresco is in extremely poor condition; lhe only reasonably well-preserved elen1ents are

the three Magi arriving on horseback at the left of the scene, conducted by an angel, and the scaled Joseph [Fig. 87 J.

l!ereafter: S. Cer:ifia.

74 In 1988 new frescoes were uncovered at Sanarica in the church or S. Salvatore. To the left of the Nativity scene

on the south nave wall arc remains of a large standing figure who may be one of the Magi. The Sanarica paintings are as

yet unstudied (they were mentioned by DeGiorgi, Provincia di Lecce, pp. 268ff.), but their ~triking stylistic similarity to

the Ascension on the west wall at the nearby S. Marina in Muro Lecccsc argues for a similar dating. Muro Leccese is dis­

cussed briclly in Pace, Pu[;fia fra Bisanzio, pp. 328-329, but both the dating in the first half or the twelfth century and

assertion of French inl1uence seem to me unlikely.

75 Luke 2:14. The angelic choir is a constant feature in post-Iconoclastic depictions of" the Nativity and is found in

the second-layer Nativity at Otranto. See Lafontainc-Dosogne, "Infancy of Christ Cycle," p. 213.

76 The cave is cited in the Protoevangelium of Jarnes 18-20 and Pseudo-Matthew 13, although the tradition is cer­

tainly earlier: sec E. Benz, "Die Heilige H6hle in dcr alten Chri5tenhcit und in der 6stlich-orthodoxen Kirche," Era11os­

Juhrhuch 22 (1953), pp. 365-432.

n Ristow, "Geburt Christi," RbK II, col. 650.

78 Sec Momiki, "Panagia at MoutouJJas," p. 184. For Eski Giimiis see N. Thierry. "Un style byzantin sch6matique

de Cappadocc date du Xl0 siecle d'apres une inscription," Jour11al des Savants (1968), pp. 45-61.

79 Sec Schiller I, pp. 60-61; Ristow, "Geburt Ch1isti," RbK IT, col. 640; G. Vezin, L' Adora/ion el le cycle des

1i1ages (Paris, l 950).

80 On this theme see Schiller I, pp. 94-114; Hadermann, K11rbi110\·o, pp. 115-117; K. Wessel, "Anbetung der

Magicr u. I-lirtcn." RhK I, cols. 153-154; U. Monncrel de Villard, Le leggende oricntali sui 1i1agi evangelici. =Studi e

Testi 163 (Rome, 1952); and the exhibition cawlog Die l!eifigen Drei KOnige. Dars1ellung und \/erehru.ng (Cologne,

1982).

81 E.g., at the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople: see E. Legrand, "Description des oeuvres d'art et de

1'6g!ise des Saints Ap6tres de Constantinople, poeme en ver5 iambiques par Constantin le Rhodicn," Revue des Ezudes

Grecques 9 (1896), J!. 771 ff.

82 K. Tv[ichalowski, Faros. Die Kmhedrale aus dem \Viistensand (Zurich, 1967), pp. 107 109 and pl. 26; also

i\'ubische Kunst aus Faros (Vienna, 1970), p. 39 and pl. 2. Millet, iconographie de f'Evanr;ife, p. 154, cites an eighth-

76

cenwry Syrian miniature that depicts the approach ol the i\:Iagi on horsebnck. This may be a reference to Berlin, Lib. Kgl.

Bibi., Syr. 28. fol. 8" (Homilies, eighth-ninth century).

81 lncluding Paris. gr. 74, fol. 4; Jerusalem, Lib. Greek Patr., TcJ,f,,-,,J 14, fol. 99" (Homilies of Gregory of

Naiianzcn); Florence, Bibi. Lalli·. Plut. VI.23, fol. 6" (Gospels): Rome, Bibi. Vat., Barb. gr. 372, fol. l ]5r (Psalter).

gc; Rcstle, Byzantine Wall Painting Ill, fig. 365, gives the date as ca. 1080. The dating of Tagar hy Lafontaine­

DosO!:,'llC, "Nouvellcs note~," p. 133, in the late tenth century based on comparisons \Vith Direkli kilisc (976-1025) is

unconvincing. Jerphanion (Cappadoce TT, I, 187ff.) dated the church to the thirteenth century by comparison with the

Church of !he forty Martyrs near Suves.

~5 Also at Pskov, Nercditsa, ct al.: see Hadermann, Kurhinovo, pp. 115-116.

~o SL:e C. D. Kalokyris, The Star of Bethlehem i11 By:::a11rine Art (The~~aloniki, 1969).

g7 On this !heme sec E. Scars, The Ages of l\1011, i\1edie11al Jn1erpre1atio11s qf' the Life Cycle (Princeton, 1987), pp.

9!-94.

88 The oldest Magus is rrcquently the leader, but the order can vary. Sec Lafontaine-Dosogne, "infancy of Christ

Cycle.'' p. 218. n. 141; on the evolution of the iconography of the individual Magi sec Sears, The Agrs oflvlan, pp. 91-94

and nn. 40-57.

89 On Byzantine imperial headgear see E. Piltz, Kamelaukion et Mitra, insignes b_-,,zantins impiiriaux et er:disias­

tiques, ,c:;[}ppsa!a Figura, Nova Series 14 (Stockholm, 1977).

911 See Sears, The Ages of.Man, p. 93 and n. 55. I owe this suggestion to Waller Calm.

91 Safran, ''Redating,'' with a chart comparing the alphabet at Otranto with those or local and Cappadocian monu­

ments.

92 Guillou, "Ilalic mCridionalc hyf:antine,'' pp. 181-182.

93 At date in the last quarter of the tenth century is preferred by Lafontainc-Dosogne, ''Nouvelles notes," pp. 145-

146, while Restle, Byzantine Waf/ Painting TIJ, no. LXll, prefers a date around 1020-25.

<J,1 Published by A. Guillou, "Notes d'€pigraphie byzantine,'' Studi A1edievali ser. 3, 11 (1970), pp. 403-408, rcpr. in

Culrnre el socihl! ell Italic byzantine Vie--Xie s. (London, 1978), VIII. For criticism and a reinterpretation of the

Eustathius inscription see esp. Jacob, "Inscriptions clat6es," pp. 41-48.

95 Jacob, "Inscriptions dat€es," p. 51.

96 See, e.g., V. Gardthausen, Griechische Pafaeographie, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1913), tab. 3.

97 Demus, Byzantine i\1osaic Decor11tio11. Sec also E. Giordani. "Das mittelbyzantinische Ausschmiickungssyste1n

als Ausdruck eines hieratischen Bildprogrannns," Jahrhuch der 6sterreichischen byzanti11ischen Gesellschaft T (1951),

pp. 103-134: K. \Vessel, "Bildprogramm," R/JK I, cols. 663-690. Useful summaries of sources and monuments pertaining

to the probkm of Middle Byzantine programs arc in Tladcrmann, Kurbinnro, pp. 43-48, and Skawran, Middle Byzantine

Fresco, pp. 12-56. 9~ Kartsonis, Anaslasis, p. 16.

99 The twelve scenes arc: Annunciation, Nativity, Presentation in the Temple, Baptism, Transfiguration, Raising of

Lazarus. Enlry into Jerusalem, Crucifixion, Anasla~is, Ascension, Pentecost, and Koimesis (Death of the Virgin). For the

literary sources and development of this cycle see M. Restle, "Dodekaorton," RbK [, cols. 1207-14, and the recent syn­

opsis by E. Kitzinger, "Reflections on the Feast Cycle in Byzantine Art," CA 36 (1988), pp. 51-73.

too The exception, as pointed out by Kitzinger, "Reflections on the Feast Cycle," is the barrel-vaulted Panagia

Monasgou at l\!Tonagri, Cyprus: see Boyd, "Monagri." The complete program i5 more easily found on portable ohjects,

such as the miniature mosaic icon in the Museo dell 'Opera de\ Duorno in Florence (early fourteenth century). 101 See especially A. Frolow, "Deux 6glises byzantincs d'aprCs des sermons peu connus de Leon VT le Sage,'·

Etud1cs Byzantines 3 (1945), pp. 43-91; S. Der Ncrsessian, "Le df:cor des €glises du lXc siecle," C!EB VT, Paris 1948

(Paris, !952), II, pp. 315-320; R. J. H. Jenkins and C. Mango, "Tlie Date and Significance of the Tenth Homily of

t'hotius," DOP 9-10 (1956), pp. 125-140.

He A list of Christological scenes surviving in provincial monuments is given in Wharton, Tokali Ki/ise, pp. 46-47:

ihe Washing of the .Feet and the Last Supper at S. Pietro are included.

77

•

IOJ Perspective drawing \Vith the disposition or subjects in Restle, Byzantine w·a1t Paiming II, XXIV. 10·' See G. ck Jcrphanion, review of Meden, Cnj-,te. in Archivio stori!D 17er la Calabria e fa Lucania TX (1939), p.

403.

ws On Carpignano see Fonseca, Basso Sa/ento, pp. 59-75;,L. Capone, La cnjJta delle Sanre ivlari11a e Cristina in

Carpignano Sa/e11/illo (Fa5ano, 1979); Medea, Cripte. pp. 109-118.

IOU N. Giolb, H A :,J). 171/nc; ·Tou· .\,ucu ro•_; fln'.(Tn TWJ/ ,/J l'T),IJ,E•, ,n_; A ,Y' ,\t,ET!7,(.'' (Athens,

l 981).

107 Partly visible in Farioli-Campanati, Bizantini in ltalia, fig. 189; also in Falla, "Calabria,' fig. 14.

ins Falla, "Calabria,"' figs. 2, 10 (identified as the Visitation). We O\Ve the correct renaming of the monument to the

identil'ica!ion of S. Nicola in the apse, a place reserved for the eponymous saint (ihid., p. 391). 109 Tl1e Christological cycle consists of the Annunciation, Nativity, Presentation in lhe Temple, .Flight into Egypt,

and Entry into Jerusalem. 110 The Christological scenes are the Annunciation, Visitation, and Nativity.

! 11 Rodley, "The Pigeon House Church, ('avusin," pp. 325ff. 112 E.g., the crypt at !Iosios Loukas (mid-eleventh century, according to Stikas, Oikodomikon Chronikon: but cf.

the recent dissertation of C. L. Connor, "The Crypt at Tiosios Loukas and lts frescoes," New York University, 1987, in

which a dale in the last third of the tenth ccnlltry is proposed. For an overview of the problem 5ee D. I. Pallas, "Zur

Topographic und Chronologic von Hosios Lukas: Einc Kritisclie Obersicht," Byzanlinischc Zeitschrifr 78 (1985). pp. 94-

107. 113 E.g., the aisles at Monreale: Denrns, Norman Sicily, pp. 283-290. The narthex of the Zoodochos Pigi at Samari

in Messenia (ca. 1200) contained sixteen scenes from lhe Passion of ,vhich fewer than half are still identifiable: H.

Grigoriadou-Cahagnols, "Le 'decor peint de l'Cglise de Samari en Mess6nie," CA 20 (1970), p. 179. ffrcreafter:

Sanrarina.

114 Grigoriadou-Cabagnols, "Le d€cor peint," pp. 179-180; Dufrenne, "Enrichissemcnt du programme,'' pp. 42-43. 115 At S. John the Theologian on Patmos (second stratum, late twelfth or early thirteenth century) the Passion cycle

is on the west wall; at H. Sotiras near Nlegara (third qllartcr of the thirteenth century) it is in the south\\resl corner bay.

See Dufrennc, "Enrichissemcnt dll programme," p. 43. 110 The two scenes share a single panel: 0. Demus, Romanesque Mural Pair11i11g (New York, 1970), p. 296 (clia­

gra.m).

117 Elrnali and Karanlik kilisc: Wharton Epstein, "The Fresco Decoration of the Column Churches," plans on pp.

31-32.

lli E.g., at Spas Nereditsa (1199) it was on the ca8! side or lhe south vault; at H. Stratigos in Mani (end of the

twelfth century) it is on the west wall of the south vault below lhe Wirnhing of the f-ieet. 119 Thierry. Nouve/les iglises, and Kostof, Caves ri God, support a tenth-century date: Lafontaine-Dosogne,

"Nouvelles notes," and Restle, Byzantine Wall Paintinf!,, give a date in the first half of the eleventh century.

120 Panayotidi. "Peinture," p. 83. 121 This is attested by the commentary of Gennanu~, eighth-century Patriarch of Constantinople: see M. Mandala.

La protesi de/la liturgia nel rilo hizantino-greco (Grottafcnala. 1935). pp. 98, 157-158. 122 M. Panayolidi. "L'eglise rupestre de la NativitC dans l'i'le de Naxos. Ses peintures primitives," CA 23 (1974),

pp. 107-120; Panayotidi, "Peinture,"p. 78.

l'.'J Wharton Epstein, "The Fresco Decoration of!hc Column Chllrches,'" p. 3l, n. l8.

l'.'4 Skawran, Middle Byzanline Fresco, p. 27.

125 Panayotidi, ''Peinture," pp. 82-83, 89.

l2!, Paul's inclusion in the Washing of the Feet at GUllli dcrc-#4 tmderscores the particular importance accorded him

in that church: Thierry, Haut 1\.Joye11-!lge, p. 146. 127 The Nativity is on the west side of the north apse wall at Tagar (ca. 1080), in the soulh hay at El Nazar (end of

the tenth century), at the west end of ll1e south nave vault at Old Tokali and the west side of the north transept at New

Tokali, and on the west side of the south cross-ann at Koropi (1020s).

78

us Jerphanio11s Cappadoce 11, l, pp. 210 and 213.

129 On this monument see Medea, Cripre, p. 206: Fonseca, Terra Jonica, p. 114 and color pl. 7; Aba!angelo,

CMeSe"criµte, pp. 162-177, esp. 165-168.

!30 Gui!Jou, "Halie meridionale byzantine." p. 182; Belting, "Greeks and Latins," p. i3.

131 This observation is made by Marasco, "Affreschi in S. Pietro," p. 80.

!'12 Diehl. followed by Bertaux.

133 Marasco, "Affreschi in S. Pietro," p. 87. On S. Maria di Poggiardo see B. Molajoli, "La cripta di Poggiardo,'·

Attl e i\1enwrie def/a Societd Magn11 Grecia Bizanlina e Medieva!e I (]934), pp. 9-23:'Medea, Cripte, pp. 128-147;

Fonseca, Basso Safento. pp. l 55-166. Hereafter: Poggiardo.

134 E.g., at Carpignano (959), Poggiardo, Vaste (frescoes of various dates), S. Biagio (1196). In the late thirteenth

century thi~ background convention is found at Caulonia in Calabria (reduced to a mtJTow strip) and at S. Vito Vecchio:

in {376 the yellow backdrop is 5till in use in the apse at Vaste.

135 Panayotidi, "Peinture,'· p, 83 and n. 39.

un H. Jvferkourios (dated by inscription): P. L. Vocotopoulos, "Fresques du XIe si6cle a Corfou," CA 21 (1971),

pp. 151-180.

137 Byzantine faces tend to communicate one of two general impressions, calm tranquillity or emotional distur­

bance (D. Winl'ield, "Middle and Later Byzantine Wall Painting Methods. A Comparative Study," DOP 22 (1968), pp.

128.-129 and figs. 29-31). I am·extremcly wary of assigning a more specific emotional content to a painted expression;

this caution is shared by H. Maguire, ''The Depiction of Sorrow in Middle Byzantine ArL" DOP 31 (1977), esp. p. 167.

Still, the expression of the eyes has recently been used lo help date the Byzantine monuments of Greece (Panayotidi,

"Peinture"); cf. also Velmans, "Valeurs affectives."

13~ On By7.antine methods of wall painting sec esp. Winfield, "Middle and Later Byzantine Wall Painting

Methods.'' No underpainting is visible at Otranto.

139 The average adult hun1an is 7 1/2 heads tall. See J. and D. Winfield, Proporlion and Structure of the Human

Figure in Byza11ti11e w·all-PaintinR and iVfosaic, B.A.R. International Series 154 (Oxford, 1982).

140 Belting, "Greeks and Latins.'' p. 13.

141 !vfango, "Cosiddetto 1nonastico," esp. p. 54.

142 Winfield, ''Middle and Later Byzantine Wall Painting Methods," p. 126.

143 See Sal"ran, "Redating."

144 Falla, "Calabria," p, 390 and n. 9; G. Musolino, Calabria hizantina, icone e tradizioni religiose (Reggio

Calabria, 1966), also dates this layer lo the ninth century.

14.1 Jvlarasco, "Affreschi in S. Pietro," pp. 82-83, 88.

146 Belting, ''Greeks and Latins,'' p. 13.

147 See Second Layer, Iconography of the Single Figures.

148 Cf. !VI. Falla Castelfranchi, "L'arte dei n1onastcri basiliani nell'Ilalia meridionalc," Antiqua 11, no. 6 (1977), p.

24, who considers lhe Annunciation figures later than the figure of Christ dated by insniplion to 959. She links Gabriel

and the Virgin stylislically to paintings in the same crypt dated 1020. 1~g Observed hy Skawran, 1\.Jiddfe Byzanrine Fresco, p. 75. For I-I. Panteleimon, dated by inscription, see N. B.

Drandakis, ''Ayoos n::\l'Tcl,c~;,l0J1, MTioc,1/-,ccp·ve.;;P," EEBS 37 (1969-70), pp. 437-458; for Evrytania, see M.

Chatzidakis, in Byzantine Murals and Icons, exhibition catalog, Athens 1976, pp. 57-67; Panayotidi, "Peinture,'' p. 96.

The latter frescoe~ were removed from !he church in 1965 and are now in the Byzantine Museum in Athens.

i,o The few paleographic remains, the face and remaining drapery, and the border consisting of a red stripe with

pearl dots all support execution by Theophylacl, or at least conlemporaneily wilh his frescoes. Illustrated in Capone, La

cripla de!te Sante iVfarina e Cristina in Carpignano Sa/enlino. p. 27 and fig. 13, and dated 810 on the basis of a late tran­

scription; Fonseca, Basso Salen/o, p. 66. gives· the accompanying dedicatory inscription, now deprived of any elate. The

fresco is mentioned by Pace, Puglia fra Bisanzio, p. 324, who dales it correctly to the tenth century.

I.II Belljng, "Greeks and Latins," p. 14. For Eustathiu~, Pace sees distant Beneventan influence and some similari­

ties with Cimitilc and manuscripts produced in Bari: Pace, Puglia.fa Bisanzio, p. 324.

79

•

15c Belting, "Greeks and Latins," pp. 12, 14, referring lo A. Guillou, "Noles sur la societe dan~ le katepanat d'Ttalie

au XJe siecle," 1vfEFRAJ 78 (1966), p. 465.

15_; The Christ of Tlieophylact at Carpignano wa~ adduced (by Prandi, "Casaranello,'' pp. 281-282) as the ultimate

model for thirteenth-century scenes in the vault at Casaranello, but it is more likely that the earlier Passion scenes at

Otranto, which are stylistically rel.ited to Carpignano, provided such a model: cL the Last Supper in both monuments

!Figs. 24-25, 841. 15.-1 On this 1nonument see C. Diehl, L'art byzanli11 dans /"ltalie miridiona!e (Paris, 1894), pp. 64-84; DeGiorgi,

Provincia di Lecce II, pp. 14-23; Medea, Cripte, pp. 157-166 and figs. 88-102: Fonseca, IJasso Salento. pp. 227-243 and

pis. XLJ-XL VII; see also G. Lavermicocca in Bertaux Agr;ior11ame11to, vol. IV. p. 147 with references. The frescoes are

deteriorating rapidly. l!erel'.fler: Vaste.

155 Reported in DeGiorgi, Provincia di Lecce 11, p. 22, n. l; Fonseca, Pugliafra Bisanzio, p. 84.

15(, Paleographic similarities between Ou-anto and Vaste are discussed in Safran, "Redating."'

157 The documentary evidence is the will of the founder of the monastery, St. John Xenos. See B. Antourake, Ao

,,\;,'0;1crJ A!fup:,01:cj,d),v.>11 Kac 1"Jo u,xT(KGJl' Kp//T17s 1-1 t:TO uv J.l 'rTapc K v:A 00-<<~1 1-' a UTW1_; (A then~, 1977), pl.

22 a, b.

158 Falla. ''Ruolo dci programmi,'' p. 187, n. 3.

159 Jacob, "Inscriptions dat6es,'· p. 5 l. There is a brier description of the l"igures but no date in Pace, Puglia ji·a

Bisanzio, p. 392. lt is unclear whether lhis frag1nent is not noted by Prandi, "Casaranello," or whether he dismisses it as

one of the sixteenth-cenlury accretions ''di nessun conto'· (p. 229). See now Safran, "Redating".

160 See C. Walter, "Liturgical Vestments," in Art and Ritual of /he Byzan_line Church, Birmingham Byzantine

Series I (London, 1982), pp. 9-26: N. Thierry, "Le costume Cpiscopal byzantin du lX.0 au Xill" siecle d'aprCs Jes pein­

tureH datCes," Revue des Erudes B:vzantines 24, :=1ll/e/anges V. Crume/ (1966), pp. 308-315, repr. in eadem, Peintures

d' Asie Mineure et de Transcaucasie aux xe et Xie s. (London, 1977), Il; also Bright1nan. Lilurgies and Hadem1ann,

Kurbinovo, pp. 86-88. 161 Safran, "Redating." The insc1iption naming Barbara has been suspected of being a late addition, but it is inte­

gral with the figure as well as identical in location and similar in script to contemporary figures in other monuments.

162 On the graffiti at Casaranello see now A. Jacob. "La consecration de Santa Maria della Croce a Casaranello et

l'ancicn diocese de Gallipoli,'' RSBN, n.s. 25 (1988), pp. 147-163. Two other dates (1058/59 and 1064/65) in the devo­

tional graffiti at Casarancllo were earlier reported by Jacob ("Inscriptions datCc~:· p. SL n. 40; "Testimonianze bizan­

tine," p. 60), further attesting to the presence of paintings with a terminus a11te quem in the mid-eleventh century.

163 Indubitably related to the frescoes at Carpignano and Otranto are the frag1nents in St. Lasi (Biagio) at Salve,

near Lcuca, but it bas not been possible to examine these firsthand. Farther to the north and clearly the producr of yet

another atelier, some fragrnents in S. Nicola, TVfottola, probably belong to the early eleventh century. On this rnonument

sec N. Lavennicocca, "11 programma decorativo del Santuario rupcstre di S. Nicola di !Vlottola,'' Civil/ii rupestre: if

Passaggio, pp. 291-337; Pace, Puglia.fro Bisanzio, pp. 340-344; and A. Gentile, La chiesa rupestre di Sun Nicola in

agro di Mottola, per una lettura simho!ico·teologica (Mottola, 1987).

164 Guillou, "Italic meridionalc byzantine," pp. 183, 185.

165 On the contemporaneity or Giillti dere #4 and Old Tokali kilise see Wharton, Toka!i Kilise, pp. 1411 and esp. the

rekrcnces in n. l. IM This is also lhe opinion or Belting, "Greeks and Latins," pp. 12ff.

101 Cf. the two Annunciations (Wharton. Toka/i Kilise. fig. 16 and Pace, Bizanlini in ltalia, fig. 182), although

Tokali has a more lively narrative feeling; cf. also the irrational treatment of the leg of the seated Elizabeth (Wharton,

Toka!i Kilise, fig. 24) and of Christ at Carpignano (Pace, ibid.).

10~ N. Tbieny, "Apropos de !'Ascension d'Ayvali kilise et de celle de Sainte-Sophie de Salonique," CA 15 (1965),

pp. 145-154, rcpr. in Peintures d' Asie Mineure et de Transcaucasie aux xe er Xie s., IV.

169 .For mosaics in H. Sophia dated to the late ninth-early tenth century see C. Mango and E. J. W. Hawkins, "The

Apse Mosaics of St. Sophia al Istanbul," DOP 19 (1965), pp. 113-151; idem, "The Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul. The

Church Fathers in the North Tympanum," DOP 26 ( l 972), pp. 1-41; R. S. Cormack and E. J. W. Hawkins, "The Mosaicg

80

of Saint Sophia at Istanbul: The Rooms Above lhc Southwest Vestibule and Ramp." DOP 31 (1977), esp. pp. 235ff.

170 E.g., the Co.,;rnas lndicoplcustcs or ca. 880 (Vat. gr. 699), to which we can add the contemporary Homilies of

Gregory in Paris (gr. 510). Comparisons arc detailed in Belting, "Greeks and Latins." p. 12; Mango, Seminario 20 in I.a

civiltJ bi:antina, esp. pp. 269-270. llowcvcr, the Vatican Cosma5 may be of Italian and not Constantinopolitan prove­

n:ance: see J. Leroy, "Noles codicologiy_ues sur le Vat. gr. 699,'' CA 23 (1974), pp. 73-78.

t71 Belting. '·Greeks and Latins." p. 12.

1n Panayotidi. "L'Cglise rupestre de la NativitC dans l'ilc de Naxos"; Panayotidi, "Peinture,'' p. 78.

rn SeeE. Stikas, 0 KT·: 1 JJP TC\) \oJlo\1,,,0\J ·1 11s lvlu~ris C!u(cu /\o·Jnt (Athens, 1974), pp. 103ff.

!74 M. Panayotidi, "The Character of Monumental Painting in the Tenth Century. The Question of Patronage."

Constantine Vil Pmphyrogenilus and His Age, Second International Byzantine Conference, Delphi 1987 (Athens, 1989),

p. 325. 115 T"vfarasco, "Affreschi in S. Pietro," p. 84. This wa~ problcmalic because for her the Otranto images postdate<l

those at Hosios Loukas by over a century.

176 See Jvfouriki, "Stylistic Trends. I Ith and 12th," pp. 81ff.

1n T. Chat7idakis-Bacharas, Les peintures murales de Hosios Loukas, Les chapelles occide11tales, =TcrpC\8ca

,rqs Xp,,una11c;;i7's Apy.aco).o'.,(as .v:ac Ttfxv17s2(Athcns, 1982),p.188.

178 Panayotidi, "Pcinture," pp. 83~84; Skawran, 1ll/iddle Byzantine Fresco. cat. nos. 12, 23 and figs. 105ff., assign~

these paintings to the second layer, before 1083.

1n Panayolidi, "Peinture," p. 84.

1~0 A. Wharton Epstein, "Middle Byzantine Churche~ of Kastoria: Dates and Implications,'' AB 62 (1980), p. 190

and n. 4 with earlier bibliography.

181 Panayotidi, "Pcinture,'· p. 82.

rn2 By Panayotidi, "Pcinture," pp. 84-85. Wharton Epstein, "Middle Byzantine Churches of Kastoria," p. 198, sug-

gests a date in the first third of the eleventh century; K ctu I u,µ1. l11 Hur a 1;-r1. u rf TEX ui7 cTTT) 11 EA;., ,:(Sa,

,f,17¢,.0'r,.1·,u,· T 0,,:,.1 u ypct¢Ct:s (Athens, 1984), p. 23, dates them lo second hair or the tenth century.

18.l The donor rigure resembles s01ne figures in the "linear style" al Eski Gi.imi.is in Cappadocia, dated to the third

qt1arter of the elevcnlh century: see N. Thierry, "L'art monumental byzantin en AHie Mineure du XI" siecle au XlV","

OOP29(1975), fig. 14.

lo4 See \Vharton, Tokali Kilise, esp. pp. 26-27, figs. 58-119, and color pls. 2-7.

1x1 von Palkcnhausen, La Jominazione hizan1i11a, p. 91.

1~6 See K. Papadopoulos, Die Wandma!ereien des XI . .lahrhunderts in der Kirche Panagia ton Cha/keon in

Thessaloniki (Graz-Colognc. 1966); Mouriki, ''Stylistic Trends, 11th and 12th." pp. 79ff.

187 Essential references for Byzantine wall painting in this period include Constantine Vil P01ph)TO?,enitus and His

Age, Second ln!emational Byzantine Conference, Delphi 1987 (Athens, 1989); M. Panayotidi. "Les monuments de Grece

depuis la f"in de la crise iconoclaste jusqu'3 !'an millc," unpubli~hcd thCse du 3eme cycle, Sorbonne, Paris, 1969;

Panayotidi. '·Pcinturc"; Mango, Seminario 2° in La civil/ii bizantina: and, for Cappadocia, the numerous works by N. and

1\1. Thierry: cf. their review of the literature. ·'Notes critiques apropos des peintures rupestres de Cappadoce, 'Revue des

EtudPs Byzanlines 26 (1968), pp. 337-366.

i,:~ See H. Belling, ''La Bible de Nicctas" in La r·iviltd bizantina dal XII a{ XV secolo. =Corsi di Studi Ill (Rome,

1982), pp. 309-322.

1g9 See esp. Mango. "Cosiddetto monastico." 1911 Mango, "Architecture du Xl 0 siecle,"' esp. pp. 352-353. 19t S. D. Goitein, "Sicily and Southern Italy in the Cairo Geniza Documents.'' Archivio storico per la Sicilia orien­

ta/e 67 (1971), pp. 9-33, esp. p. 13. 192 Blattmann, "Otranto: scavi." See now M. Milella Lovecchio, "Commercio e ceramica bizantina in Italia,"

Recherches sur la cCramique hyzanline, Bulletin de C01Tcspondancc Ilcllt:nique, Supplement XVIII, ed. V. Deroche and

.T.-M. Spiescr (Athens, 1989), pp. 95-107. 193 Vv'hitehouse, "Otranto bizantina, scavi di en1ergenza," p. 539 (coins studied by Henry Weller). See also the cata-

81

log of coins excavated al Otranto by the British School at R01ne, listed by Byz&ntine ruler aad by excavation context.

Eight coins can be attributed to the reign of Basil II (P. Balog, A. Finetti, R. Reece, and H. 'iVeller, "The Coins," unpub­

lished).

194 B]attmann, "Otranlo: scavi," p. 150.

195 Jacob, "Culture grecque," pp. 55-56; idem, ''Les Ccritures de Terre d'Otrante," La pa/Cographie grecque et

byzantine, Collm-1ucs intemationaux du C.N.R.S. 559 (Pmis, 1977), pp. 269ff.; affim1ed by P. Canart, "Dibattito," lvlagna

Grecia Bizantina e Tradizicme Classica, Taranto 1977 (Naples, 1982), pp. 277-279. Most of t11ese manuscripts were

reused as palimpsest parchments in the thirteenth and fourteenth century: Jacob, "Tcstimonianze bizantine," p. 52.

196 Blattmann, "Otranto: scavi," pp. 243ff.; Whitehouse. "Otranto bizantina," p. 540. Fragments of "ivleaslcs

Ware" datable to the twelfth century were also discovered.

82

CHAPTER HI

THE SECOND FRESCO LAYER

Although the second fresco stratum at S. Pietro is extensively preserved [Figs.

JQ-11 ], it has received little treatment in the art historical literature. In part this is because

these paintings, unlike the first-layer frescoes in the prothesis bay, only ca1ne to light dur­

ing the restoration campaigns of the past forty years. Since that time, scenes and figures

have frequently been misidentified or ignored, the anomalies of the decorative program

have not been addressed, and a wide range of possible dates has been proposed.

The Baptism in the south bay [Fig. 41] and the Reproach and Denial of Adam and Eve

in the north bay (usually referred to as the Expulsion from Paradise) [Fig. 67, color fig. 68]

are the scenes that have received the most attention, doubtless because of their good states

of preservation. 1~ogether with the two scenes in the prothesis, these were dated by Prandi

to the twelfth century; he placed the Anastasis, in the east bay [Fig. 48], a few years later.I

Marasco considered the Baptism and the Reproach and Denial to be works by two painters

at the end of the twelfth century. 2 Guillou drew analogies between the Genesis scenes at

Otranto and those at Monreale, and favored a late twelfth-century date. In 1977, David

Wright suggested that the Nativity, Pentecost, and Anastasis, all in the east bay [Color

figs. 36, 53, figs. 48, 58], as well as one of the evangelists (presumably John, nearby in the

northeast pendentive [Fig. 71]), were works executed around 1300 by a metropolitan

artist.' Valentino Pace accepted Wright's hypothesis about the date, if not the artistry, and

subsequenlly provided the first fairly complete description of the second-layer frescoes;4

more recently Pace placed these frescoes in the first quarter of the fourteenth century .5

However, Annabel Wharton has lately returned to the Momeale analogy and supported a

late twelfth-century date for the Denial and other Genesis and Christological scenes.6

The second fresco layer has been assigned dates from the end of the twelfth to the

early fourteenth century because it contains paintings executed in two very different

styles. Comparanda therefore span two centuries tmd a broad geographic range. As with

the first layer, the first step in evaluating the frescoes must be identification of all the

re1naining frag1nents; a number of scenes and figures have not been noted prcviously.7

Assembling all the surviving components of the second fresco layer will permit more

secure evaluation of the iconography, style, and especially the program, which will in

turn provide more firm ground for resolving debate about the specific cultural mi1ieu that

produced these frescoes.

83

.. Iconography of the Christologica/ Cycle

Flanking the central apse is the scene of the Annunciation, with the ,u1gcl Gabriel on

the viewer's left and the Virgin at right [Figs. 33-34]. These figures are confined witl1in

sin1ple red borders instead of the stepped-cross frame that unifies the other scenes in the

second layer. The head, ,rr111s, and torso of Gabriel are obscured by a fourth-layer fresco

consisting of dark floral decoration on a gold ground. Gabriel is on a blue background,

which is extended above to form the ground for the rinceau orna1nent that enframes the

apse conch. Part of his nimbus, outlined in black and white, and the six-pearled finial of

his staff protrude above the later plaster. Below, the overall blue-gray tone of his stichari­

on is enlivened by the agitated, angular white and gold folds of his himation. The latter

billows up at hip level; the hem is edged in white and there is a scarlet stripe over the left

leg. Gabriel's wings are not visible. He wears scarlet boots trimmed with rows of pearls at

the ankle, instep, and toe. The figure is accompanied by an inscription at the upper edge

ofthepanel[Fig.35]: D AP[XMTE/:DI] 1/1,BPIH/\ and,totheright,A GR P

DNS, which can only be the beginning of the traditional salutation "A[ve Maria] gr[atiaj

p[lena] D[omi]n[u]s."

The Virgin is poorly preserved; her upper and lower extremities are obscured by

fourth-layer ornament, and her body is extremely abraded. Nonetheless, it is possible to

distinguish her, in a blue tunic and red rnaphorion, standing before a gold throne with a

red cushion and turning slightly toward Gabriel across the apse. The background color is

blue, probably ultramarine.

The Annunciation, the Greek E or .Xa,1,pcT1.,CffJ..6s, is described in

Luke 1 :26-38, but many of the particulars not found in the Gospel are provided by apoc­

ryphal accounts such as the Protoevangelium of James and the Pseudo-Matthew.8 The

feast of the Annunciation on March 25 was celebrated in Constantinople before the fifth

century and was probably introduced to Ron1e in the seventh century,9 and the scene is

ubiquitous in ,nonumental painting after Iconoclasm. In South Italy, the Annunciation is

the single most popular episode from the Christological cycle, depicted more frequently

than any other scene and sometimes included as the only cyclic episode in an otherwise

iconic decorative progra,n.10 In monuinents that contain just a few scenes the

Annunciation is almost invariably present, 11 and in those with extensive Christological

cycles the Annunciation is found at S. Biagio (1196) and perhaps at the Lama di Pensiero,

Grottaglie. 12 It does not survive at either S. Mauro (ca. 1300) or S. Cesario di Lecce

(1329), probably because both have lost much of their apse-area decoration.

Gabriel's approach from the left is the usual one in the Middle Byzantine period,

reversing a pre-Iconoclastic prefercnce.1 3 He -carries the expected messenger's staff,14

and the classical garments and pearl-trimmed red boots are his standard dress. Because of

the surface abrasion on the panel containing the Virgin, it is not possible to determine her

84

or to ascertain whether she held any attributes, such as the spindle. The backless, <:/j~stu.:rc d throne (6(1Kos) at Otranto was traditional in the Middle Byzantine period. 15

,e._ushior..e . . , Jn south Italy it is seen at S. Biagio, but at S. Cecilla (late twelfth century) the throne has

a shoulder-high backrest. . . The Virgin's standing pose was less con1n1on by the tvvelfth century but 1s neverthe-

. f und in many monuments, including Daphni (ca. 1100), the Cappella Palatina (mid-Jess o . twelfth century), Monreale (late twelf!h century), and Samarina (ca. 1200). In the thir-

teenth century the Virgin was far more frequently represented as enthroned, but she.con­

. , to stand at the Mavriotissa in Kastoria (early thirteenth century?),1 6 SopocanI (ca. t_1nues !265), Gradac ( 1276), Arilje (1296), and H. Demetrius Katsouris in Arta (ca. 1300). 17

·The standing pose is retained into the fourteenth century, but it was archaizing even in the

.thirteenth. In South Italy the Annunciate Virgin stands in the twelfth century at S. Biagio

ands. Cecilia, and in the thirteenth at tl1e Cripta de] Croceflsso in Ugento, 18 S. Anthony

Abbot in NardQ,19 and S. Giovanni in Monterrone at Matera,20 but she is usually seated in

h . h' h h . · 121 the few thirteenth and fourteent -century monuments In w IC s e 1s preservec.

In the West, the emphasis on Gabriel's arrival gave way in the later 1nedieval period

to the conversation between the angel and the Virgin; after the twelfth century, painted

scro11s often contained the text of their dialogue. This concern for the text of the Inessage

is not so explicit in Byzantine monuments. The text is never recorded on a scroll, but the

Greek dialogue does appear at f-1. Anargyroi and f-1. Nikolaos Kasnitzis in Kastoria and at

f-1. Neophytos, Pcrachorio, and Lagoudera in Cyprus, all of the late twelfth century; a cen­

tury later, the Annunciation scenes at Moutoullas (1280) and in the narthex at Vatopedi

on Mt. Athos also contain the statements of both parties. In South Italy, Gabriel's mes­

sage is recorded in Latin at S. Cecilia, 22 S. Anthony Abbot, Nardo, 23 and S. Sepolcro,

Barletta (late thirteenth century); it is in Greek at Carpignano and possibly at S. Biagio. 24

A poem entitled E1,s TOlJ XctlpETlrr by John Grasso of Otranto, composed in the

first half of the thirteenth century, praises an icon containing the salutation of Gabriel to

the Virgin that may well have resembled the scene at S. Pictro. 25

The Otranto Annunciation clearly accords with the normal Byzantine iconography.

'The poses of the protagonists are inconclusive from the standpoint of dating: the standing

Virgin represents conservative iconography, but this is nonetheless found in numerous

high-quality ,nonuments throughout the thirteenth century. The 1nost unusual feature in

the Otranto scene is the use of Greek for the identifying titulus and Latin for the saluta­

tion. This linguistic melange may indicate a mixed-language audience for the image or

the hybrid cultural background of the patron, possibilities that are better explored below

in the contexts of paleography and patronage. The scene on the right wall of the east bay, comprising the Nativity, First Bath, and

Annunciation to the Shepherds, is badly abraded and its details are difficult to make out

[Color fig. 36, fig. 37]. Within a red and blue stepped-cross frame, a craggy landscape

85

• ranging in color from gold to green to gray pea.ks at either side and forms a raised cavern

in the center under a pale sliver of heaven. In the landscape cleft at left, three angels in

blue tunics and pink cloaks gesture toward the center of the composition. Directly below

them, the seated Joseph, with his head resting on his right hand, also turns to look at the

central scene. He is ni1nbed, white-haired, and vvears a reddish 1nantle with dark red folds

edged in white. The lower part of his figure is lost, as is the entire lower left co111er of the scene.

The jagged cave of the Nativity is red. In its center, the Christ child lies swaddled in

a manger rendered in inverse perspective. The pale gray manger is articulated by rectan­

gular apertures in greenish-gold; its interior is dark blue. The child's head is toward the

left, near the reclining figure of his mother. Mary, dressed in blue, hes on a reddish­

orange klinc and looks at the child; the lower edge of her robe reaches ahnost to the seat­

ed figure of Joseph and is the best-preserved section of the whole scene.

Below the manger is the scene of the First Bath [Fig. 38]. In a white basin decorated

with red, the cross-nimbcd Christ child is supported by a lone midwife wearing a red and

white head scarf. The child appears rather diminutive in the basin and is partly obscured

by the blue water. The nurse holds his seemingly solid nimbus edge with her left hand,

while her right is immersed in the water. A white ewer with a broad lip and large handle

stands to the left of the basin.

More than a third of the panel is taken up by the scene of the Annunciation to the

Shepherds. To the right of the Nativity and Bath scenes, in the crevice between two hills,

a large angel dressed in a pink cloak and blue tunic addresses two shepherds standing

below. Scant traces of letters are visible above the angel's outstt·etched hand. Both shep­

herds wear blue leggings and knee-high white boots or stockings edged in scarlet. The left

shepherd leans on a long stave with an oblong end; the right, taller, shepherd is dressed in

pink and has a gold cloak creased in green over his left shoulder; he holds a shorter staff.

In front of the pair, below the angel, is a bulbous green-and-white landscape elc,nent

under which are at least four white sheep, their fleece suggested by reddish-gold stria­

tions. Behind the shepherds, a light-colored dog jumps and barks, showing his teeth [Fig.

39]. At the upper right, the edge of an unidentifiable square object is visible. Against a

brilliant ultramarine sky, the inscription identifying the scene is divided in two by the

centralhillockandmoon: atleftisH XT 1EN;atright,l~HCIC.

The essential iconography of the Nativity has already been reviewed in the context of

the earlier Nativity and Arrival of the Magi; only those features in the second-layer

Nativity that were not present in the earlier scene need be considered here. The pose of

the Virgin, for instance, is far more readable in the second layer th::m it was in the pendant

to the first. Mary is placed emphatically on the diagonal, with her feet extending beyond

the edge of the mattress, almost touching the sealed Joseph.26 This strong diagonal,

implying a degree of spatial depth, is characteristic of Nativity scenes of the early

86

..............................

palaeologan period, including Sopocani (ca. 1265), Arilje (1296), the Protaton on Mt.

Athas (ca. 1300), and Paris. gr. 54 (late thirteenth century). The extension of the Virgin's

feet beyond the mattress occurs in some late Byzantine depictions, such as the Peribleptos

at Mistra (ca. 1350). Restraining a figure within surrounding contours was a characteristic

of the second half of the twelfth century27 that persisted well into the thirteenth. In South

Italy, few of the Nativity scenes are sufficiently preserved to judge the position of the

Virgin, but she is somewhat more upright al S. Maria della Lizza in Alezio (early four­

teenth century), where her left arm projects emphatically beyond the kline while her

whole left side overlaps its edge.28

The use of red for the cave of the Nativity at Otranto is highly unusual, 29 and there is

no iconographic justification for this anomaly. Within the cave, the square masonry

manger 1nay be a reference to the altar actually constructed at the grotto of the Nativity in

Bethlche1n;30 its articulation with square niches has paraliels at the Cappella Palatina

(mid-tweltih century). It is not possible to determine whether a star and its rays originally

illuminated the manger.31

The First Bath, v,,1hich is not preserved in the first-layer pendant scene, is not account­

ed for in the Gospels or the apocrypha although the latter do mention the presence of two

midwives at the Nativity.32 Nevertheless, the episode underscores the humanity of Christ

and is practically ubiquitous in Byzantine depictions of the Nativity. The scene is derived

from classical prototypes, in particular the bathing of Dionysos.3 3 It usually contains the

two apocryphal attendants, one holding or bathing the child, the other adding water to the

basin. At S. Pietro only one is present, but the other is suggested by the large unattended

ewer; the same configuration occurred earlier in the Menologium of ·Basil II (early

eleventh century).34 The Christ child can be shown in the process of being bathed or just

prior to the bath: he may be erect or lying in the basin, following antique prototypes; he

may be seated or lying on the lap of the midwife, a pose found in Byzantine painting from

the twelfth century on; or, rarely, he may be shown in the process of being dipped into the

water.35

In many of the Bath scenes in South Italy (S. Biagio, S. Cecilia, S. Salvatore at

Sanarica, Alezio), the torso of Christ is shown erect and frontal in the basin. This archaiz­

ing pose was common among provincial Byzantine monuments of the thirteenth centu­

ry, lo and the Christ child often continued to be submerged in the water during the

Palacologan period.37 Other exa1nples of the scene in Italy participate in iconographic

currents more popular in the thirteenth century: at S. Maria del Casale in Brindisi (early

fourteenth century) the child is seated on the lap of the midwife,38 and at S. Cesario di

Lecce (1329) it appears that the child is being lowered into the basin. At Otranto, neither

the archaizing pose of standing in the basin nor the more progressive one of resting in the

lap of the midwife has been adopted. Instead, the scene hearkens to the very human, clas­

sicizing scene of actual bathing that was used in two monuments of exceptionally high

87

• quality, the Menologium of Basil II and Hosios David (ca. 1200)[Fig. 95J,39 although in

neither of these does the midwife support the child by his nimbus.

The Annunciation to the Shepherds, which is also missing from the earlier Nativity at

S. Pietro, is described in Luke 2:8-14 and in Pseudo-Matthew 13.40 A shepherd who

bears witness to the miracle of Christ's bi11h beca1nc an integral part of the Byzantine

Nativity scene after the tenth century; one is seen, for exa1nple, in the Menologium of

Basil ll. In the early Cappadocian monuments two shepherds arc the rule; later there were

frequently three. A flute-player is also traditional, sometimes substituting for one of the

shepherds. 41 At Otranto the shepherds are too poorly preserved to pennit differentiation

by age or even to ascertain their nu1nber. There may have been a third shepherd or a

flautist in the lost sections of the fresco, above the two preserved shepherds or perhaps

near Joseph. 42 It is also difficult to assess the dress or attributes of the shepherds, but

their short tunics and cloaks have little in common with the fur cloak (1> ~ AcnT\) worn by

many shepherds. One certainly can-ics the typical long staff, although it lacks a crook at the end.

The barking dog is unusual in the Byzantine Nativity scene, and should probably be

interpreted as a narrative detail that ulti1nately derives from a separate scene of the

Watching Shepherds that preceded the Nativity.43 A dog appeared in the sixth-century

mosaics described by Choricius of Gaza44 as well as at Castelseprio (early ninth century),

but they are rare in post-Iconoclastic representations.45 A dog is being fed in the

Watching Shepherds scene in a twelfth-century manuscript;46 a calm canine appears in

the Nativity at Kurbinovo (1191) and in Cavallini's mosaic in S. Maria in Trastevere

(1295). 47 The lively attitude of the dog at Otranto has little precedent, and might well

reflect the taste for narrative details that is usua]ly associated with the Palaeologan period.

The iconography of the second-layer Nativity at Otranto is on the whole quite conser­

vative, although the poor preservation of the scene may have obscured the presence of

some more innovative details. Of the weII-preserved sections, the Bath scene is very clas­

sicizing, recalling one of the major monun1ents of the Macedonian renaissance as well as

a classicizing monument of the very end of the twelfth century. The unusually dressed

shepherds and the lively dog may suggest a Palaeologan nan-alive taste, as does the diago­

nal placement of the Virgin who extends beyond her kline. The red cave remains an unusual and unexplainable feature.

Less than one quarter of the following scene, the Presentation in the Temple, has sur­

vived on the east vault of the south bay. There is only an irregular painted strip along the

lower edge and three isolated fragments [Figs. 40-41 J. The dominant feature is a central

white column with a flared base, diagonally scored in imitation of fluted marble. Draped

over and partly obscuring this object is a scarlet cloth, edged in white and with dark

creases. To the ]eft, a standing figure is dressed in a long blue garment and red shoes; far­

ther to the left another figure is clad in light pink. To the right, someone garbed in red

88

stands with his feet wide apart; he \Vears pointed scarlet slippers, edged in white at the

notched ankle, that overlap the stepped-cross lower border of the scene. At the right edge

a fourth fignre, wearing a white garment with a curving upturned hem, leans toward the

. ht Although no inscription remains, the presence of paired figures flanking a central ng . element identifies the scene as the Presentation in the Temple: at left are Joseph and the

Virgin, in the center is the draped altar, and at right are the High Priest Sy1neon and the

prophetess Anna. . . . . The iconographic elements of the Presentation are found 111 Luke 2:22-39, which 1s

concerned with the Purification of the Virgin. 48 The Byzantine representation

('"f'TTo,,nct1)'T·fi) took as its focus the meeting of Christ cmd Symeon, celebrated in the

liturgy on February 2; this event was often represented at the door of the temple. The

Presentation was included in the mosaic decoration at S. Maria Maggiore in Ro1ne in the

fifth century and is recorded in the sixth-century mosaics at Gaza,49 but it did not become

an integral part of the Byzantine Christological cycle until the eleventh century. Despite

its late introduction, the disposition of the figures in the scene was relatively consistent in

the Middle and Late Byzantine periods. The Virgin, Child, and Symeon are usually in the

center, with Joseph and Anna flanking them, as at Otranto, H. Stratigos in Mani and

Samarina (both ca. 1200), and Sopocani (ca. 1265). In South Italy, the earliest surviving depiction of the Presentation is at S. Biagio

(1196). In the second half of the thirteenth century the scene was included in the crypt of

the Candelora at MassafraSO and in lhe upper church of S. Lucia at Brindisi; 51 at the end

of the century it was found at S. Mauro52 and in 1329 it recurred at S. Cesario di Lecce. 53

All of these monuments maintain the sy1n1netrical disposition of figures seen at Otranto,

but at the Candelora the scene is reduced to the pre-Iconoclastic depiction of the Virgin

and Symeon alone with the Child, flanking a central altar that supports a Gospel book. 54

Because so much of the scene at Otranto is lost, it is not possible to evaluate tnany

iconographic features. It cannot be determined whether Mary or Symeon held the child,

or the degree of emotional expression between them. 55 It is clear that the scene takes

place al the altar, but the door of the temple may also have been represented in accord

with Byzantine preference. A comparably shaped altar base is found in the sa1ne scene at

S. Biagio, and as the base for the Amnos in an apse at Studenica (ca. 1233); in both of

these the altar is painted to ilnitate veined marble. The diagonal f1uting seen at Oh·anto

seems an even more classicizing reference.

Red boots arc the attributes of high-level Byzantine officials and angels, but the par­

ticular style of footwear worn by Symeon, with its exaggerated pointed toe an<l a low-cut

"V" at the ankle, was not a metropolitan Byzantine fashion. Comparable shoes crre seen as

early as the second decade of the eleventh century in the Bari Exultet 56 ; later they arc

worn by figures in the Arsenal Bible (ca. 1250)57 and in a 1nosaic lunette at S. Marco in

Venice (third quarter of the thirteenth century). 58

89

The Presentation in the Temple at S. Pietro has not been noted previously, although

its identification is secure. Unfortunately, it is so poorly conserved that little can be said

about its iconography. It appears to maintain the nonnal Middle Byzantine figural distri­

bution, but certain details arc not usually associated with this scene.

Im,nediately below the Presentation, on the east wall of the south bay, is the Baptism

[Figs. 41-42. 44]. More than three-quarters of the scene is preserved. At left. against a

curved green peak, the back of John the Baptist is seen leaning forward toward Christ.

John is clad in a dark garment with a \Vhite belt, and one of his bare feet touches the

undulating white line that marks the river's edge. The undulations of the gray-green, bell­

shaped river only slightly obscure the nude figure of Christ. His head is inclined toward

the right, but the right arm does not survive and his gesture toward a s1nall, dark figure

crouching near his feet has been lost. This youthful figure, the personification of the

Jordan [Fig. 43], turns his head in strong contrapposto toward Christ and wears a rather

n1alevolent expression. He appears to hold ;;m urn in his right hand, although details are

lost, and his legs extend out behind those of Christ. Christ himself, broad-shouldered but

thin, stands with his weight on the right leg and' the left slightly bent; the muscles of his

chest and abdomen are carefully delineated. His striated brown hair foils behind his left

shoulder, and the beard falls in two rounded segments.

The right half of the composition is taken up by three angels posed against a craggy

greenish-yellow background that echoes lhe curve behind John the Baptist. The angel

closest to Christ kneels on his left knee; his right knee is raised to 1neet his veiled hands.

Like his companions, this angel wears a full-sleeved, dark-blue undergarn1ent edged in

white with white clavi. His hi1nation is pink with dark folds, as is the cloak of the angel

standing farthest to the right. This third angel extends his veiled hands before him at waist

level, echoing the bearing of the first except for the latter's kneeling pose. Between them,

the second angel, wearing a yellow cloak, stands with unveiled hands raised to chest

level. The first angel has wavy, striated hair; the other two have plaited coiffures, and all

three wear white fillets with a central gem. Parts of four golden wings are visible, the oth­

ers hidden by the angels' bodies. The stepped-cross border is visible on three sides; along

the lower edge, following the arch that opens into the diakonikon, it has been replaced by

a simple red band. 59 In the upper center of the scene, the inscription H [ ~ J A TT! CH C

TOT KT, "the Baptism of the Lord," is visible, as is X C, part of the sigla for Christ.

The Baptis1n ( 'H Bd'.1TTL,O-L,s) is described several times in the Gospels,60 but these

accounts do not explain many of the clen1ents that are nonnally included in Byzantine

depictions of the scene.61 Many of these extra-evangelical elements are derived from the

liturgy for January 6 when the Baptism is celebrated as an importm1t epiphany.62 · By the

Middle Byzantine period the attendant angels and the personification of the Jordcm were

always present and such narrative details as the axe in the tree stump63 and additional

observers on land and in the sea had already made their appearance; in the Palaeologan

90

. d f"igLffPS and details multiplied. 64 'fhe bell-shaped river with its undulating banks perto " . . was usual in the Middle Byzantine period; 65 later the landscape became rockier.

Christ's slight contrapposto here is akin to that at Daphni (ca. l 100). His complete

nudity and partial obfuscation by the current confonn to pre-Palaeologan depictions; in

Palaeologan examples Christ see1ns to stand in front of the \Yater, not im1ncrsed in it, and

he is rarely nude.66 Christ depicted nude and i1nn1ersed in late 111onuments indicates

reliance on a conservative model.67 Where the Baptism has survived in South Italy, in

monuinents datable to the thirteenth or early fourteenth century, the scene manifests these

conservative features. Christ is both nude and immersed at S. Mauro (ca. 1300), S.

Simeone 'a Famosa' (early fourteenth century), and S. Cesario di Lecce (1329). At S.

Salvatore in Sanarica, the frontal Christ's relation to the water is unclear, and in the upper

church at Casalrotto (Mottola), probably S. Giacomo, the scene is similarly difficult to

read.68 The Baptisn1 was attested but no longer survives at S. Michele in Marsico Nuovo

(Calabria),69 S. Nicola in Faggiano,70 and the Lama di Pensiero near Grottaglie.71

The figure of John the Baptist is barely preserved at Otranto, but he appears to wear

the traditional mclote: the light-colored belt would not be so visible if a mantle had been

worn. The fur tunic alone was co1nmon froin the twelfth to 1nid-thirtecnth century; later,

it was usually covered by a ,nantle.72 At both S. Mauro and S. Cesario di Lccce John is

clad in a short fur gar1nent. Earlier, as at Nea Moni and Daphni, John had worn the

antique garb of a prophet, and he continues to do so in South Italy at S. Simeone 'a

Famosa'. The youthful personification of the Jordan at S. Pietro is of a relatively rare type: the

river is n1orc con1monly personified as an old man, derived ulti1nately from ancient

mythology.73 The Jordan is shown as a youth in wall paintings dating from the mid-tenth

to the end of the thi11eenth century, including New Tokali kilise, Nea Mani, Daphni, the

Cappella Palatina, Pskov, Kurbinovo, Studenica, Panagia at Merenta in Attica, the Parma

baptistry, and St. Nicholas, Prilep.74 However, the personification at Otranto belongs to

an even s1naller sub-group of these youthful depictions because he is here somewhat

dark-skinned. Dark-skinned personifications are rare, and are readily conflated with

depictions of the devil. With his teeth bared, the Otranto personification looks particularly

sinislcr.75 Similar youthful and dark personifications of the Jordan are found at Karanlik

kilise in Cappadocia (mid-eleventh century) and at Monagri on Cyprus (first half of the

thirteenth century). In South Italy, a smaller, darker personification can still be seen in the

Baptisn1 at S. Mauro, but in the other 1nonuments the figure has not survived.

Another uncommon feature of the Baptism at Otranto is the attitude of the attendant

angels: the first is poised with one knee on the ground, while the upraised hands of the

second are not veiled [Fig. 44]. In Byzantine depictions of the Baptism the angels invari·

ably stand in adoration with their hands covered by their himatia or by garments that they

extend toward Christ.76 The covering of hands reOects the liturgical practice seen in the

91

•

deacon's approach to sacred objects on the altar,77 and the unveiled hands at Otranto have

consequently been tenned a provincial or Western eletncnt.78 However, in an eleventh­

century liturgical roll fron1 Constantinople one of two angels at the Baptism has uncov­

ered hands,79 and this feature is seen again in a twelfth-century 1nanuscript of the homi­

lies of Gregory Nazianzen. 80 The unveiled hands are duplicated at S. Cesario di Lecce; in

the other South Italian n1onu1ncnts where the angels' hands are visible, they are cov­

ered.81 Thus there is lin1ited 1nctropolit,.u1 precedent for the ano1naly at Otranto, as well

as some small degree of local popularity. It seems likely that the model for this part of the

scene was intended for a different adoration in which hands are often left uncovered, such as that of ::mgels adoring the Hetoimasia or the Virgin. 82

This hypothesis seems particularly likely as an explanation for the Baptism's other

iconographic oddity, the kneeling angel whose upraised right knee is confused with his

covered hands. This has been viewed as a Western trait derived from the lu1eeling pose

com1nonly assumed in the Latin church. 83 But angels regularly pose on one knee in

Byzantine decoration, as in the frieze of ::mgels at S. Sophia in Ohrid (mid-eleventh centu­

ry), the conch of H. Nikolaos Kasnitzis in Kastoria (late twelfth century), and in the dome

of Christ Soter in Megara (third quarter of the thirteenth ccnt~ry). S01ne monuments con­

tain angels that are both bare-handed and kneeling, such as H. Hierotheos near Megara

(1170s), where angels in the cupola adore medallions of the Virgin and the Hctoimasia

while encircling a rare seated P::mtocrator.84 In South Italy, none of the other 1nonuments

depicting the Baptism preserve this pose, but at S. Maria di Anglona (early thirteenth cen­

tury?) there is an angel on one knee in the original south apse. At S. Pietro itself the pose

is duplicated in the scene of the Creation of the Angels in the north bay [Figs. 60-61].

Anthony Cutler has observed that this proskynesis with one knee on the ground occurs in

the donor portrait in the Leo Bible (after 940), in the scene of Peter Saved from Drowning

at Monreale (late twelfth century), and in the pose of Adam in the Anastasis.85 The kneeling pose was thus potentially fa,niliar from a number of sources.

The Baptism at S. Pietro contains elements that have been tcrn1ed Western and

provincial, but the scene conforms too well to Middle Byzantine iconography to catego­

rize it in this way. The garment worn by John the Baptist is typical of twelfth- and thir­

teenth-century monu1nents, as is the nu,nber of angels. The unveiled hands and kneeling

pose of two of the ::mgels arc not com1non in the Baptism, but they do occur frequently in

other Byzantine contexts. The personification of the Jordan as a youth has a long tradi­

tion; his darker skin tone is n1uch rarer, but ·it is found in some thirteenth-century n1onu­

ments including one in the Terra d'Otranto. The Baptis1n at S. Pietro contains none of the

iconographic innovations associated with the fourteenth century, and with the depiction

of Christ as nude and i1nrnersed it is difficult to imagine that the model used for the scene postdated the first half of the thirteenth century.

Across from the Presentation and Baptism, on the west side of the south bay vault,

92

only sinall fragn1ents of intonaco are preserved !_Figs. 15, 47]. The largest of these 1narks

the juncture of the lower right con1er of the top register and the upper right corner of the

bottom register, each register with its own stepped-cross frame. The upper zone contains

diagonal striping in blue and gray tones with white and black, while the lower reveals the

top edge of a white architectural elen1ent, with details in red against a blue background.

An additional tiny fragment, at the apex of the arch that opens into the southwest corner

bay, may depict drapery folds. While it is impossible to provide secure identifications of

these two scenes fron1 such scanty remains, it is te1npting to hazard an informed guess

about the subject of the second. The architectural eletnent suggests a cornice or doorway,

and most likely belonged to the sepulcher in the Raising of Lazarus ( 'E-ycpuL,s To·u

/\cl'( o u )86 or to a schematic rendering of the city in the Entry into Jerusalem

(8cc"coqi'5 po s ). 87

The south wall of the south bay is also poorly preserved [Figs. 14-15, 45]. It is divid­

ed by the stepped-cross border into three registers, and a lower frag1nent shows no trace

of the framing 1notif bllt seems to belong to a fourth register. The uppennost zone is

pierced by a central window, which now extends slightly into the second zone as well; the

third and fourth zones are interrupted by the blind arch that was used as a doorway in the

nineteenth century. The little that remains of the wall's fresco decoration, perhaps one­

tenth of the original extent, is extremely abraded and has proved difficult to interpret

In the lunette-shaped upper register nothing is preserved except a na1row strip at the

left edge, where the stepped-cross border reveals the height of the original lunette but lit­

tle else. The background color is a deep blue; at the right side of the fragment, a curved

line signals the edge of a pale shape originally extending to the right; it could be a stand­

ing figure.

In the second zone, on]y an irregular strip at left and two tiny, isolated fragments at

right survive. The small upper-right fragment contains the letters HC, probably part of the

original identifying inscription. Below and to the right of these letters is a curved reddish

and white shape, perhaps to be associated with a smaller fragment below that contains

what appear to be stylized white drapery folds, darkly creased, on a bright red back­

ground. The larger fragment along the left edge of the wall [Fig. 461 is dominated by a

curved fonn that has lost its color. Above it, in the upper left corner, a nimbed torso faces

Jett with hands outstretched. The figure may be winged, as a shape protrudes at the appro­

priate height and angle. Another figure at the lower edge of the scene is clad in red and

kneeling or running toward the right: the curve of his haunch, his knee, and one sandaled

foot are visible. A fragment of a nimbus that interrupts the pale expanse between the two

figures may belong to the kneeling one or to another, now lost, participant.

The pale, curved shape that dominates the left half of the second register could be

interpreted as the edge of a sigma table (as in the Miracle at Cana, which would be appro­

priate after the adjacent Baptism scene), the end of a mattress (as in the Koimesis, which

93

can occur on any wall), or some naturalistic fo1m such as a hill (suggesting various out­

door interpretations, including the Transfiguration or the Agony in the G,u·den). It is

unclear whether the nimbus of the upper-left-corner figure is cross-inscribed, which

would have secured his identification as Christ and supported an interpretation of his

kneeling in prayer at Gethse1nane. This scene docs not survive in South Italy.

The kneeling figure may argue for identification of the scene as the Transfiguration

(lv1E:Tetµ6p¢wu1,s).88 Peter is co1nmonly depicted at the Transfiguration in just the pose

and location seen at Otranto: virtually exact parallels arc seen at Kurbinovo (1191), H.

Nikolaos Kasnitzis (late twelfth century), and Paris. gr. 54 (late thirteenth century). In

1nost later monuments the apostles adopt far more convoluted and dramatic poses.

However, there is not 1nuch room in the scene for a standing figure of Christ, and it is dif­

ficult to explain the presence of a nimbcd figure at the Transfiguration who faces away

from the central scene. He cannot be one of the group of apostles that accompanies Christ

to the site of the Transfiguration in some monuments of the Palaeologan era. 89 In South

Italy the Transfiguration survives at S. Salvatore at Sannicola, near Gallipoli (ca. 1300),90

and at S. Cesario di Lecce (1329); both retain the more restrained Middle Byzantine poses

of the apostles, but S. Salvatore contains the progressive motif of the accompanying apos­

tles. The presence of figures in motion ensures that the second scene on the south wall at

Otranto was a narrative scene, but individual ele1nents accord only in part with possible

identifications for the whole and it is not possible to identify the scene with any confi­dence.

The Christological cycle continues with the Anastasis on the left wall of the cast bay,

well preserved but for the unfortunate insertion of a nineteenth-century plaque [Figs.

48-49J. The scene is framed by a red and blue stepped-cross border that is embellished on

the left side by dots in the central squares, the only time such elaboration occurs. The bor­

der forms a right :u1gle at the northeast pier to accommodate the original image on the pseudocapital, now obscured by later fresco strata.

Hills in shades of gold, green, and gray rise to the left of the center and at the right

edge and are set against an ultramarine sky. The void at the upper left is filled by a much­

abraded figure who holds an unfurled scroll and points toward the center of the scene.

The scroll is white with gold rules and dark letters, of which only a few are legible:

TO C/, EC T ,/ n , To the right of this figure, who is perhaps to be identified as John the

Baptist, is a cluster of at least eight Old Testament kings; the tops of their heads and some

crowns are visible [Color fig. 50J. Only the three figures in the front row are individuated.

The figure at left is middle aged, the central one is young and beardless, and the one to

the right is white-haired and bearded. All three wear imperial garb, including jeweled

gold crowns with praependuliae. The king at left wears a red chlamys over a white dal­

matic modeled with greenish-gold creases; the chlamys of the central king, probably

Solomon, is blue with darker blue folds over the same white undergarment. The older

94

king at right, who is probably David, has a dark blue tunic and a red cloak. The tunics arc

ted with segn1enta and each chla,nys has an orna1ncntcd gold tablion. None of the decora three figures is nimbed.

In the valley formed by the two peaks, but largely obscured by the nineteenth-century

Iaque, the cross-nimbed Christ faces forward [Fig. 52J while pulling Adam with his left

:and and holding a cross-staff in his right. The sigla IC and XC are legible to the left of

the cross and to the right of the nimbus. Christ wears a blue cloak over a white tunic mod­

eled in red and with a scarlet clavns along the left leg. His stigmata are large, dark spots.

Christ is trampling on the chest and leg of a white-haired Hades, shown in profile and

with teeth bared and wrists bound. The dark blue domain of Hades is separated from the

surrounding areas by an undulating white line, simi1ar to the one that defines the banks of

the Jordan in the Baptism. The gold and scarlet door valves and oversized white keys that

had secured the infernal regions are shown scattered at the bottom.

In the right half of the scene, white-haired Adam is being pulled by his rigbt mTn

from a pink marble sarcophagus [Color fig. 51]. He steps out awkwardly, wearing a blue

tunic and a white cloak articulated by go1d and. gray creases. Behind hin1 stands Eve,

wearing a blue undcrgannent covered by a rt;d maphorion that veils her hands and a pale

blue headdress that falls to the shoulders. Both she and Adam face inward toward Christ,

whose head divides the inscription identifying the scene: to the left is H /l,~1/1.; to the

right, CT.1,CIC. The Anastasis is one of the most important images in the Christological cycle. As the

feast picture for Easter, the frontispiece of the Greek Lcctionary, and the illustration for

the first homily of Gregory Nazianzen, its imagery is well known.9 1 While in the West

the res~rrcction of Christ shows hiln rising from the tomb, in Byzantine art the Anastasis,

sometimes known as the Descent into Limbo ( c H E:L..S '/'\Sou Ki:£6060 s), represents the

resurrection.92 Yet this scene is not described in the Gospels. One important source for

Anastasis imagery is the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, but other sources must also be

assumed.93 The iconography of the scene is derived from classical iUustrations of the

descent of Orpheus or Hercules into Hades, refined by Late Antique depictions of imperi­

al triumphs and by hymnological texts.94

There are four 1najor variants of the Anastasis image,95 all based on the pose of

Christ. One of the oldest (the "descensus" or "narrative" type) has Christ leaning toward

, Adam, usually with his arm across his body, in order to lift him from his tomb. This is

seen twice at S. Maria Antiqua in Rome (eighth century), the oldest surviving 1nonumen­

tal example, as well as at Nea Moni (1042-55) and Daphni (ca. 1100). A second type (the

"renaissance" or "contrappostal" type), which coexisted with the first once it was intro­

duced, features a contrappostal relationship between Christ and Adam in which Christ

strides a\vay from Adam while reaching back to raise him. This is seen at Hosios Loukas

(mid-eleventh century). A third type ("dogmatic" or "hymnological") focuses on Christ,

95

• shown frontally with hands extended and flanked by Adam and Eve; this is known only

from manuscript illustrations.96 The fourth Anastasis type, the last to be introduced, coin­

hines the second and third: Christ raises Adam while striding away from him, and simul­

taneously raises Eve on his other side. This is the type seen in the Wolfenbi.ittcl sketch­

book (second quarter of the thirteenth century),97 at Kariye Djami (ca. 1315),98 and in numerous other Palaeologan examples.

1'he pose of Christ at S. Pietro is somewhat ambiguous because much of his torso has

been lost, but it borrows elements fro1n both the first and second types. It is similar to that

at Hosios Loukas except that Christ's torso is frontal and his feet indicate a slight inclina­

tion toward Adam, instead of away from him as expected in the contrappostal type. In

both monuments Christ holds the patriarchal cross-an iconographic element characteris­

tic of the second type and later adopted by the first99~in his right hand while his left ann,

grasping the limp-wristed Adam, has a rubbery curve. Christ's grasping Adam with his

left hand contradicts the description in the Gospel of Nicodemus, but this detail is similar­

ly ignored at Hosios Loukas and Daphni. As at Otranto, Christ is frontal at H. Anargyroi

and H. Nikolaos Kasnitzis in Kastoria and at H. Neophytos and Lagoudera on Cyprus (all

late twelfth century). In South Italy, the only other surviving Anastasis scenes are at S.

Salvatore in Sanarica (twelfth-thirteenth century?), where Christ adopts the cono·appostal

pose, and at S. Cesario di Lecce (1329), where Christ is shown with feet poised exactly as

at S. Pietro, knee bent slightly toward Adam, but with his right arm crossing his body

toward Ada1n as in the first Anastasis type. The scene was also included in the vault pro­

gram at S. Mauro (ca. 1300), but only traces of the mune of Solomon survive today_HIO

The patriarchal cross held by Christ is a reference to the True Cross and a symbol of

his victory over dcath. 101 From ::m early date the cross was likened to the rod of Moses,

capable of rending the earth in two and creating the two hills that are the standard topog­

raphy of the Anastasis. 102 The allusions to the Passion in the scene at Otranto are rein­

forced by the large stigmata; they are equally prominent at S. Cesario di Lecce.

Hades is being trampled like a barbarian captive fro1n Roman iconography, a pose

emphasized in pictorial representations from at least the late ninth century although not

mentioned in the Gospel of Nicodemus.103 At Otranto he is not being shackled by angels,

a theme found at Sopocani (ca. 1265) and popular in later monuments. The white-haired

lord of the underworld here closely reiterates the pose of his counterpart at Daphni, but

with wilder hair and teeth revealed by an open-mouthed snarl. The closest comparison for

his pose and expression are found in S. Pietro itself: Hades is rendered in the same twist­

ed contrapposto used for the personification of Jordan in the Baptism scene [Figs. 43, 48].

The crossed doors and sundry locks strewn in the cavern underscore Christ's triumph

over death and were included in the scene from an early date.

John the Baptist is present at the Anastasis because he entered the underworld before

Christ to announce the latter's imminent a1Tival to the righteous. Both he and Isaiah arc

96

. <l in the Gospel of Nicode1nus as being at the scene; the earliest instance of rnenttone . . . . .

, ·nclusion appears to be at New Tokah klhse (mid-tenth century). He ,s usually John s 1 C •

Ointing to Christ and often displays the text of John 1:29,!0 4 although the remam­shown P . . . letters on the scroll at S. Pietro do not correspond to that passage. At S. Ces_ano d1 ing - · 1 d d'ff Lecce, John displays a different text. Hb However, other mon~1nen~s inc_ u e .' erent

rophets at the Anastasis, 106 so absolute certainty about the identity of the figure at p . 1 Otranto is in1poss1b e.

Adam is always dressed in white in this scene and has long, wavy white hair [Color

fig. 51]. Eve is not mentioned in the Gospel ofNicode1nus and i~ not essential to the ~ar­

rative, but by the Middle Byzantine period she was usually mcludcd_l0 7 She often

appears to rise beside Adam as if drawn out from his side, a reference to her original

incarnation. Eve's hands are here covered by her mantle, as is usua1,1os but one article of

her dress is worthy of note: the pale hood and yoke that fall over the shoulders of the

rnaphorion are unusual and rarely worn by Eve. This hood is seen predominantly in

Palaeologan monuments, although a few earlier examples also survive.1° 9 At Gradac

(1276), the central midwife in the bath scene in the Nativity has the same pale-blue hood,

as does the daughter of Jairus at the Kariye Djami. In South Italy, St. Catherine on the

right wall at S. Vito Vecchio in Gravina (ca. 1300) sports an identical hood.11°

Old Testament kings are included in the Anastasis because they testify to the humani­

ty of Christ through his Davidic lineage. The nearly full-length kings in their sarcophagus

[Color fig. 50], balanced by Adam and Eve in their tomb, represent a second set of man's

ancestors; their descendant, Christ, is meant to be understood as re-creating mankind. 111

Only David is named in the Gospel of Nicodemus, but he is almost always joined by

Solomon and so1netimes by additional unspecified kings. David is easily recognized by

his short white beard and Solomon, usually depicted as young and beardless after the

ninth or tenth century,112 is beside him. Additional kings appear at Daphni although they

are not individualized, and at Otranto most members of the group are similarly unidentifi­

able. However, the bearded king at the far left has individualized features. 113 He may

represent the middle age of man, complementing David's age and Solomon's youth. The

three ages of man are 1nore often represented by the three Magi in the Nativity scene, but

they are absent in the second layer at S. Pietro. The kings here wear the traditional stem­

rna crown instead of the late thirteenth-century kainelaukion. 114 Their lack of nimbi is

fairly uncommon: in monu1nental painting the nimbi are omitted at H. Neophytos in

Cyprus and S. Marco in Venice, both late twelfth century, and at Boiana (1259) and the

Protaton (ca. 1300).115 In South Italy the same anomaly is shared by S. Angelo in Formis

(late eleventh century)l 16 and S. Cesario di Lecce.

Except for a few details, the Anastasis at Otranto accords with the usual Middle

Byzantine iconography. While the pose of Christ is slightly unorthodox, in that his feet

point toward Adam instead of away, this is probably no more than a conflation of the first

97

and second Anastasis types. The symmetrical arrangement of Adan1 and Eve found in

n1onuments of the Palaeologan period has not been adopted here, but Eve's uncommon

headdress and perhaps the multiplication of Old Testament kings can be considered late

features.

The east bay vault contains the scene of the Pentecost, with a row of seated apostles

on each side of the vault [Color fig. 53, figs. 54, 57, 58]. The presence and angle of the

reddish-gold rays seen approaching the apostles indicate that the lost summit of the vault

depicted the dove of the Holy Spirit. A red and green stepped-cross border is visible on

all sides, proving that the entire vault was conceived as a single scene, but for purposes of

description the Pentecost will be considered as two separate panels, left and right as

observed from the naos. Neither preserves its upper edge, both are badly abraded, and the

right panel has other large lacunae as well.

In the left half [Color fig. 53, fig. 54], six apostles are depicted against an architec­

tural background. At the left, between the first and second apostles, this archit,:ctural ele­

ment consists of a gold pilaster that enframes a vertical scarlet panel bearing the name

nETPO.? in white [Fig. 55]. At right, behind the sixth figure, a ta]I metallic-green pilaster

abuts a lower panel; both have cross-shaped indentations, and the taller member contains

a framed scarlet panel with the letters ¢IA,,, O.? [Fig. 56]. At the upper edge of this

architectural element, above a white meander border, a conical-roofed, windowed tower

is seen rising above the juncture of two scarlet hills. The six apostles share a low common

throne, greenish-gold in color and pierced by pairs of arched apertures outlined in white.

Below, a common footrest has a white rinceau design on a green ground. The same pat­

tern also serves as a low back to the bench, visible between the fourth and fifth figures

and at fhe far right.

The first apostle is identified as Peter by the inscription on the adjacent panel and by

the curly white hair and short beard consistently associated with the Prince of the

Apostles.117 He wears a dark blue chiton under a salmon-colored hi1nation with white

folds and dark pink creases. With his left hand he balances a bound scroll, decorated with

diagonal red bands; with his right he makes a Greek gesture of benediction imitated by

most of his fellow apostles. Like all of them, he wears sandals and has a nimbus edged in

black and white.

The second figure is an elderly man with receding white hair and a longer beard [Fig.

55]. Above his nimbus the barely visible letters H0 identify the figure as John. He wears

a pale-blue chiton with dark blue creases under a gold himation with greenish-gold shad­

ows. His right arm is constrained in a sling of his himation; in his left hand he holds a

codex decorated with a scarlet cross pattern and elaborately bound in gold.

The third apostle has dark hair and a trim beard. He wears a scarlet tunic under a pale

gray-green robe articulated with gold highlights. On his lap he displays a codex decorated

like that of John. Although no inscription survives to identify him, he must be one of the

98

reinaining three evangelists because he holds a decorated Gospel book instead of a rotu­

lus, as do t\VO figures in each half of the Pentecost. His nimbus, and that of the adjacent

fourth figure, is slightly larger than those of his companions in this panel. This succeed­

ing figure [Fig. 56] has the unruly white hair and beard characteristic of the apostle

Andrew, and faint letters to the left corroborate the identification: l"J~6.PEA,C. He wears

a gold tunic with red creases under a dark greenish 1nantle, and there are traces of a sc::rr­

!et clavus over his right shoulder. A bound scroll is held upright on his left thigh.

The fifth apostle has receding dark hair and a dark beard. Above his head, nearly

illegible, is the name C nio~I [Fig. 56]. His pale-blue undergarment recalls that worn by

John, and there is a thick scarlet clavus over his right shoulder. His himation is white and

gold with dark gray creases. Simon's left hand supports the center of a rotulus resting on

his left thigh, while his right hand holds the scroU's upper end instead of making a gesture

of blessing. The final figure in the left half is the young, beardless Philip, identified both by fig­

ure type and by the inscription incorporated into the adjacent architectural background.

He wears a white tunic with a scarlet stripe over the right shoulder, and his salmon-col­

ored himation is modeled with darker pink and white. The end of a scro]I peeks out from

his veiled left hand, while his right is raised chest-high to make fhe Latin sign of benedic­

tion, with the lhumb touching the third and fourth fingers of his right hand.

The less well-preserved right half of the Pentecost [Figs. 57-59] has a more elaborate

architectural background than does its sibling across the vault. It consists of dark blue­

green and white brickwork surmounted by a variety of towers. At the right (naos) end, a

gold-colored brick wall rises above the heigh! of the seated apostles before it tenninates

in a white 1neander border, over which falls a dark drapery swag under a red panel.

Behind the first apostle on this side is a framed scarlet panel. Between fhe first two fig­

ures, diagonal scarlet hatching on gold ground indicates the three-dimensional recession

of the architectural backdrop. At the left, two conical-topped square towers enclosing

frained scarlet panels precede a three-sided projecting gold element with a dark cornice,

red arches, and a tall spire. Inscriptions on the three scarlet panels are il1egible and none

are preserved on !he blue ground, making identification of these figures very difficult.

As in the left half, the figures in this panel share a common low throne articulated by

arched openings. On this side the apertures are in groups of three and the central opening

is taller than its flanking "windows"; at the lower left corner, a two-story a1Tangement of

paired instead of triple arches is visible. And on this half, the footrest and back of the

throne are gold instead of green, but with the san1e rinceau on1a1nent outlined in white.

The first apostle at right, opposite the figure of Peter across the vault, can be identi­

fied on the basis of his receding hair and long dark beard as PauJ.118 He wears a white

chiton with gray folds, and a scarlet clavus over his right shoulder extends over his left

knee and calf; the stripe is interrupted by drapery folds but it appears to pass through

99

--------------------------------------

them rather than follow their curves. Paul's hi1nation is green with white highlights. He

holds with both h<mds a codex that is bound in gold and decorated with a striated pattern

that distinguishes it fro1n a Gospel book.

The apostle adjacent to Paul has white hair and a long white beard. He wears a pale

blue-gray tunic and a salmon-colored himation edged in white and with dark saln1on

creases. On his left knee is a golden Gospel book with a ccntra1 cross outlined in scarlet.

Because of this attribute he can be identified as Matthew, the only elderly evangelist

besides John, who is opposite him on the left half of the vault.

The head of the third apostle has been completely lost. The figure wears a scarlet

undergarment and a white mantle shaded in tones of gold and gray. The outline of a

codex decorated with a cross is visible on his left thigh, identifying hi1n as one of the two

remaining evangelists, Mark or Luke. With his right hand he appears to be ,naking the

Latin gesture of benediction. The fourth figure, young and beardless, 1nust be the apostle

Thomas, because the only apostle who shares that facial type, Philip, is already accounted

for in the left half of the Pentecost. Thomas wears a dark blue tunic under a green cloak

with darker green creases and with folds outlined in white. The para11el white highlights

are like those that articulate Paul's drapery. He holds a scroll in his left hand, while his

right is pressed to his chest.

The fifth apostle has dark hair and a long dark beard. He wears a salmon-colored

himation over a pale blue tunic, and in both hands holds a decorated rotulus. His neigh­

bor, the last apostle on the right side, has dark hair and a short dark beard. He wears a

white chiton with scarlet clavi on the right shoulder and lower right leg; the metallic­

green himation appears to narc out at shoulder level. He holds a double-banded scroll on

his left thigh. Like the six apostles across the vault, these figures are all shod in thin san­

dals. But in the right half the nimbi of the apostles arc all the same size, and the prepon­

derance of blessing gestures on the left is not repeated.

The Pentecost Ls related in Acts 2:1-13,119 and there are several possible composi­

tions for the scene in a church. A circular schema is found in cupolas, as at Hosios

Loukas (mid-eleventh century) and S. Marco in Venice (end of the twelfrh century). The

most common schema for flat surfaces is a se1nicircular, pyramidal, or horseshoe-shaped

distribution of figures, as in the basilica of Monreale (late twelfrh century). A third com­

positional arrange1nent is the frieze, which is rare in monu1nental painting but is used at

Grottaferrata (end of the twelfth century) and the Mavriotissa (early thirteenth century'').

The final sche1na, consisting of two rows of facing apostles, is the cotnposition of choice

for a barrel vault and the one employed at S. Pietro. Examples of this old traditionl20 of

confronted rows of apostles include Samarina (ca. 1200) [Fig. 96J; H. Triada, Kranidi

(1244); Omorphi Ekklesia, Athens (ca. 1285); H. Demetrius Katsouris, Arla (ca. 1300)

[Fig. 98]; and Gracanica (1321). The rays of light that radiate toward the apostles at

Otranto are the "tongues as of fire" (Acts 2:3) that enabled the apostles to speak all Ian-

100

es in order to spread the word of Christ.121 . guag . . . , The choice of apostles depicted varies among n1onuments and between East and

)Vest In Byzantine monuments Paul is included even though he is not mentioned in the

Acts account, because he and Peter are aln1ost always paired in Byzantine art and

t:honght;i22 in addition, Luke and Mark, who were not apostles, substitute for Jude

(Thaddeus) and James the Less. 123 These saine substitutions occur in the central part of

Byzantine Last Judgment compositions, which closely parallel the Pentecost. At Otranto,

eight of the twelve apostles can be identified with certainty: five on the left by the

accompanying Greek tituli, three on the right by figural type or attribute. The apostles

who cannot be specifically identified must be James and Bartholomew, who share very

close physiognomies, and Mark an<l Luke, who are also very similar figure types. The ros­

ter of apostles at Otranto, therefore, is Peter-John the Theologian-Mark or Luke

"cAndrew-Simon-Philip on the left, opposite Paul-Matthew-Luke or Mark

-Thomas-James or Bartholomew-Bartholomew or James on the right, with the four

evangelists given pride of place adjacent to Peter :u1d Paul. This arrangement contrasts

with that of the Pentecost scene at Monreale, where the figures, arranged in a semicircle,

are not identified but the presence of three youthful apostles indicates that Jude or the

young John the Evangelist of Western tradition was included. This choice 1night be

expected in a monument whose patronage is securely Western. The prototype for

Monreale, the CappeHa Palatina, has a roster identical to that at Otranto, which supports

Ernst Kitzinger's assessment that that the 1nodcls used at the Cappella Palatina were

strongly Byzantine although tempered by Western-probably South Jtalian-interpola­

tions.124 The Pentecost is very rare in Italy before the fourteenth century, and it does not

survive among the byzantinizing monuments of mainland South Italy except at S. Pietro.

Identification of the apostles at Otranto depends in part on their iconographic types or

attributes. The fact that different gestures of blessing are used does not appear to be

iconographicaHy significant.125 It is worth noting that despite the overall consistency of

depictions of St. Peter, variations in his hair style are com1non and can yield clues about

dating and iconographic tradition. Peter's hair style at Otranto, with a combed-down dou­

ble roll of iocks, is a fu1ly developed Palacologan type found in the late thirteenth century

at Fasano, in South Italy, but best seen in a later icon fro,n Mt. Sinai that is based on

Palaeologan mode]sl26 [Figs. 55, 97j. Pauline iconography, on the other hand, shows lit­

tle variation. His attribute here, a patterned codex, is similar to that in Paul's hands on the

exterior of H. Anargyroi (end of the twelfth century), at Ravdouchou on Mt. Athos (early

thirteenth century), and at H. Demetrius Katsouris (ca. 1300) [Figs. 58, 98j.

Just as the non-evangelists on the two halves are differentiated by the decorative

motifs on their scrolls, a siinilar differentiation of details in the two halves is found in the

fun1iture. The continuous throne on each side has different-colored rinceaux at its lower

edge, and different numbers and configurations of arches pierce each side. The latter

101

asymmetry is s,-iared by just two late thirteenth-century monuments in Greece: Omorphi

Ekklesia in Athens and H. Demetrius Katsouris in Arla [Fig. 98].127

The very elaborate architecture at S. Pietro, especially that of the right half [Fig. 59],

is virtually without precedent in this scene. 128 An architectural background is often omit­

ted altogether from the Pentecost, as both the textual narrative and iconographic conven­

tion may be said to "justify the absence of buildings in most examples . . before the

Palaeologan period." 129 So1ne monuments do contain tall buildings at the edges of the

scene, 130 and at Kranidi (1244) these buildings also contain the sli1n vertical panels or

"portals" seen at S. Pietro. The use of these p::mels as fields for inscriptions, however,

appears to be unprecedented, and nowhere in Byz::mtine art is there a vista into the dis­

tance as depicted in the left panel at Otranto [Fig. 56]. At Monrealc "portals" sometimes

contain identifying names, but these are written horizontally and do not exploit the verti­

cal field.13l A century later, in the Cappella Minutolo of the Cathedral at Naples

(1285-90), the artist used a vertical panel as a field for an inscription identifying the adja­cent cityscape as R.ome.132

The Pentecost at S. Pietro contains the Byzantine roster of paiiicipants, a fact that

supports the probability of Greek patronage of this fresco layer despite the intrusion of

some Latin elements that will be discussed below. The apostles are 1norc interactive and

varied in their poses, and the architectural setting is far more elaborate, than what is usu­

al1y found in the scene. Though poorly preserved, there are clear indications of three­

dimensionality in the ai·chitecture that strongly suggest a thirteenth-century date.133 The

use of the architecture as both a frame for a view into the distance and a field for inscrip­

tions is not characteristic of Byzantine works, but is found in the West by the late thir­

teenth century. Details in the furniture find parallels in Greek ,nonuments of the late thir­

teenth century, and the iconographic type for Peter, who alone among the apostles shows

so1ne variation in his physiognomy, also corresponds to Byzantine works of that period.

Unlike the other scenes in the second-layer Christological cycle, an iconographic n1odel

for the Pentecost that predates the Palaeologan period is highly unlikely.

~rhe Christological cycle exhibits a mixture of conservative and progressive icono­

graphic traits. While most of the surviving scenes recall Middle Byz::mtine iconographic

schemes and could be comfortably assigned to the late twelfth or early thirteenth century,

much of the Pentecost and some features in the Anastasis and Nativity suggest a date later

in the thirteenth century. Many of the scenes 1nost influenced by new iconographic fea­

tures in the Palaeologan period are lost or never existed at Otranto: we do not know, for

instance, whether the postures of the disciples in the Transfiguration were exaggerated,

whether a large group of apostles accompanied the Entry into Jerusalem, or if 1nany Holy

Women witnessed the Crucifixion, all features that would support a Palaeologan date

instead of a Middle Byzantine one. 134 While the progressive iconography of some scenes

is probably indicative of a late date, we will need to consider the iconography of the non-

102

Iconography of the Genesis Cycle

Before discussing the individual Genesis scenes-at Otranto, it will be useful to review

rue traditions of Genesis illustration in East and West. The most important one for under­

standing the cycle at S. Pietro is the tradition based on the Cotton Genesis recension. The

late fifth-century Cotton Genesis manuscript itself survives in a fragmentary state, and is

best known as the model for mosaics in the narthex of S. Marco in Venice (thirteenth cen­

tury).m The manuscript is also related to a large number of works known collectively as

, :_the Cotton Genesis recension, which are probably based not directly on the Cotton

Genesis manuscript itself but ultin1ately on its archetype. The recension includes a group

of Carolingian bibles; 136 the twelfth-century Millstatt Genesis and Hortus Deliciarum; 137

the mosaics of the Cappella Palatina and Monreale in Sicily [Figs. 101-102]; 138 and the

Salemo [Fig. 99]139 and Berlin ivories [Fig. IOOJ,140 among other monuments. Evidence

for knowledge in Rome of a tradition rese1nbling the Cotton Genesis recension, but pre­

dating the Cotton Genesis manuscript itself, is provided by the mid-fifth century paintings

in St. Peter's and S. Paolo f.l.m. now known only from late copies.14l These Roman

monuments in tum inspired a host of copies among twelfth and thirteenth-century monu­

ments in Central Italy.142 The most distinctive feature of the Cotton Genesis recension is

the consistent depiction of an anthropomorphic Creator.

The Cotton Genesis is not the only tradition of Genesis illustration. In the sixth-cen­

tury Vienna Genesis, God is represented as a hand descending from heaven. 143 This

motif is maintained in the Octateuchs, 144 which represent the most important Old

Testa1nent tradition in Byzantium. The existence of a different, but evidently quite limit­

ed, oriental tradition is suggested by the frescoes and reliefs at Aght'amar in Annenia (ca.

921), \\-'here Genesis scenes adon1 the base of the cupola and the exterior. 145 Another

Byzantine tradition, still ill-defined, 1nay be represented by such monuments as Paris. gr.

510 (ca. 880) and son1e later manuscripts and ivory caskets.146 Prior to the fourteenth

century, the Genesis cycle known in the East, including Aght'a1nar, appears to have been

limited to the story of Adam and Eve. A monumental Byzantine Old Testament tradition

was posited by Demus but is not supported by the evidence currently available. 147

In all of the Genesis scenes at S. Pietro, the anthropomorphic figure of the Creator

appears at least once, at the left [Figs. 60-64]. The Creator also stands at the left edge of

the scenes in the Salerno ivories [Fig. 99] and at the Cappella Palatina, whereas in the

Roman group of monuments, at Monreale [Fig. 101 ], and in the Berlin ivory [Fig. 100] he

sits on a globe.148 This is strikingly different from the Byzantine Octateuchs, in which

103

~··

the Creator, represented only as a hand descending fro1n the sky, never takes a particular~

ly active role in the creation scenes. 149 The anthropo1norphic Creator links S. Pietro with

the Cotton Genesis recension and its related Western archetypes rather than with the

Octateuch tradition.

In the Cotton Genesis itself the Creator sports a cross-nimbus and holds a cross-staff,

These overtly Christological elements are not found in the Carolingian bibles, which are

based on cm older, more neutral archetype. The Creator at S. Pietro wears a cross-nimbus

and is consequently to be identified as Cluist-Logos;ISO however, the fact that he holds a

scroll instead of a cross indicates partial reliance on an older model. The rotulus is also

found in two of the Carolingian bibles,151 in the Salemo ivories, and at Monreale. In the

Cotton Genesis manuscript and its medieval Roman filiations the Creator is young and

beardless, but a different tradition, the one seen at Otranto, shows the Creator with a

beard. This occurs at Aght'amar, Monreale, the Cappella Palatina, S. Paolo inter vineas in

Spoleto, 152 and in the Millstatt Genesis, Salerno ivories, and Hortlls Deliciarum. The

bearded Creator has been tenned an "orientalism,"153 because even though Christ is not

rendered anthropomorphically in the Octateuchs he is normally bearded in Byzantine art.

Only in the Salerno ivories and Cappella Palatina docs the Creator share with Otranto the

three traits of a beard, a standing pose, and a furled scroH.154

The first of the Genesis scenes at S. Pietro con1prises three fragments on the upper

register of the west wall of the north bay, representing less than half the original extent of

the scene [Figs. 60---61]. The entire right edge is hidden by a fifth-layer floral border, but

the typical second-layer stepped-cross frame, here with red and green crosses instead of

the more typical red and blue, is visible at the scene's upper and lower edges. At the left,

the standing figure of the Creator faces toward the right with his right arm extended over

the nimbus of a figure who kneels before him. Christ's features have been lost. He wears

a pink tunic with white highlights and deep pink creases under a pale blue-green mantle

shadowed in navy and with some gold-tone modeling of the folds. His gold nimbus,

edged in black with a continuous pearled rim, has white cross-bars decorated with red

dots that form a cross pattern.

Kneeling before the Creator is an angel, head downcast [Color fig. 631, whose veiled

hands meet at his raised right knee while the left leg is extended parallel to the ground;

his sandaled left foot is visible in the fresco fragment at right. The feet of both Christ and

the angel overlap the lower frame, The angel's pale greenish undergarment has dark blue

creases and his salmon-pink mantle has white folds. His golden wings, visible at both

sides, are articulated in brown, and his nimbus has a continuous pearled rim on its black

outline. At the top edge of the scene, a badly abraded fragment contains the nimbus and

downcast features of another angel in the same pose. At the right, pink folds edged in

white and deep sahnon are faintly visible at the lower edge; above, an indecipherable pat­

tern of bluish-gray with white highlights contrasts with a red "V"-shape at the upper right.

104

. ·ption between Christ and the better-preserved angel identifies the scene in white 1nscn on the blue ground: In I H C IC TD [ , ] Arr E /\0 iii, the Creation of the Angels.

The Creation of the Angels is very rarely included in extant Genesis cycles. In addi-

s Pietro where the scene has not heretofore been identified, only three examples · ...•. ir .. •li(>n to ' , > .\\<•i!;eknown, and all are South Italian. In the Berlin ivory [Fig. 1001 the scene is the second

Genesis episodes and represents the activity of the second day, the Creation of the

. Firmament. 155 The Creator is depicted as a youthful figure seated upon a globe at left

five angels incline before hi1n. In the Salen10 ivories lFig. 99], the second scene . ,,.,, ... -snows a standing, bearded Creator holding a scroll while four angels bow deeply toward

bjm.156 Here too the scene represents the second day of creation. The rnosaics at

JY[onreale offer a variation [Fig. 101]: in the second episode of the first scene, a bearded

creator with a scroll sits on a globe at the left while seven angels stand at the right. From

inscription157 and from the rays that emanate from the cluster of m1gels, the scene is

identified as the Creation of Light, belonging to the activity of the first day. 158 Thus all

three exan1ples differ from the scene at Otranto, which is the first and largest scene of the

cycle and is explicitly identified as the Creation of the Angels. 159

The angelic creation is not mentioned in the Bible, but it was a popular topic in the

hexaemeral hterature. 16° Not surprisingly, little consensus was reached. According to

Basil of Caesarea, author of the first Christian exegesis of the six days of creation, the

angels, who belong to the invisible world, were created he/ore the creation of the visible

world on the first day. This was accepted by numerous commentators, including Gregory

Nazianzen and John Chrysosto1n.l6l For Augustine, on the other hand, the Creation of

the Angels was equivalent to the Creation of Light on the first day. This is the concept

n1ade explicit at Monreale, although Augustine was not necessarily the immediate source.

That the angels are present on the first day in the Cotton Genesis recension is implied in

the opening n1iniature of the Millstatt Genesis, where the Lord holds one end of a scro11

while an angel holds the other.162 The angels were also created on the first day in Jewish

"wisdon1 literature," in particular the Book of Jubilees.163 Jubilees was known to a num­

ber of Byzantine and Western authors and referred to both expressly and tacitly. 164

According to Talmudic commentary the angels were created on the second or the fifth

day, and this tradition is not exclusively Jewish; it was also well known in Western cxe­

gesis.165 Angelic creation on the second day is the tradition followed by the Salerno and

Berlin ivories, in which the angels are thereby identified with the firmament.

Each of the monuments that illustrates the Creation of the Angels offers a different

interpretation of the same activity, and all of these find support in the various exegetical

traditions. At S. Pietro the Greek inscription makes the interpretation quite clear. Because

it is the first scene in the cycle, it is unlikely that it represents the symbolic Creation of

the Firmament on the second day. With its explicit title the scene cannot be interpreted as

the Augustini:u1 Creation of Light, although it could still represent the first day if a source

105

such as Jubilees were used. But because the following scene appears to represent the

activity of the first day, the Cre,ation of the Angels must illustrate the Greek patristic tra­

dition that the angels were created before the rest of the universe.

The proskynesis pose of the better-preserved angel at Otranto is not found in the

other three examples of the scene, where the angels either stand erect or bow from the

waist. 'ifhe position of this angel, is very like that of the first angel in the Baptism in the

south bay [Figs. 42, 601, with similar confusion between the covered hands and the raised

knee and with the other leg extended behind. It is likely that the same cartoon or sketch

served as a model for both adoring angels, and that the same workshop was responsible

for botll the Christological and the Genesis cycles.

In su1n, the inclusion of a Creation of the Angels scene marks a major difference

between ~outh Italian works and other monuments belonging to the Cotton Genesis

recension, l66 and its popularity may indicate that it held special 1neaning for patrons and

audiences in the region. 167 With its literal, non-allegorical titulus, the scene at S. Pietro

probably reflects the common model for the South Italian recension better than the other

surviving monuments. Moreover, the place1nent of the scene at the beginning of the

Genesis cycle at Otranto suggests a reliance on the writings of the Greek church fathers

absent from these other works.

Approximately half of the next panel, containing the Creation of Heaven and Earth

and Creation of Adam, is preserved on the lower register of the north bay's west wall

[Figs. 60, 62]. A green and red stepped-cross frame is visible along the top edge. At the

upper left, the cross-nimbed head of the Creator overlaps the frame while gazing down

and toward the right. His face is well preserved, and although the body is almost com­

pletely lost a sma11 fragment of drapery reveals that the Creator's garments, a pinkish-red

tunic and pale blue-green 1nantle, were identical in all the scenes in this bay.

In front of the Creator, seemingly suspended from the decorative frame, is a pale­

blue hemisphere [Color fig. 63J. This heavenly orb contains a white roundel, in which the

dark-blue outline of a crescent moon cradles a head or mask; it no doubt faced a corre­

sponding solar roundel that is no longer preserved. Below the hemisphere are concentric

circles in shades of white, green, and gray. Lower still, blue and white striations mark a

body of water that billows in three waves and supports a large bird that faces to the right.

This white dove, outlined in red, has scalelike feathers edged in blue and sports a gold

nimbus outlined in red and white with white cross-bars.

To the right of this vertically aligned heaven, earth (?), and water, a pair of standing

figures faces right. They mark the central axis of the composititm, directly over the arch

that opens into the northwest corner bay. Both wear the pale blue-green undergaiments

and salmon-pink robes worn by the angels in the preceding scene; the mantle of the left

figure billows behind, nearly touching the dove. Part of a gold nimbus outlined in red and

white is visible, as is the upper edge of one wing. The two can be securely identified as

106

els Both hold their hands splayed before thc1n at chest level while foHovving a figure ang .. who strides tovvard the right with his right hand upraised in a gesture of speech or com-

and This lead figure is nin1bed, but wingless and with traces of a n1ustache; because he 111 · is also clad in a pink tunic under a bluish-green ,nantlc he can be identified as the Creator.

The right edge of the composition is Jost, but there is space for additional figures under a

fifth-layer floral border. No inscription survives to identify this scene.

Because the Creator appears twice it is likely that two scenes are being represented in a

single framed panel. The nimbed dove on the left surely represents the Holy Spiritl68

which, in accordance with Genesis 1 :2, is shown hovering over the waters on the first day

of creation on the Berlin [Fig. 1001 and Salerno ivories and at S. Marco, the Cappella

Palatina, Monrcale, and S. Paolo f.Lm.169 For the dove to appear on any day after the first

would be a serious anachronis,n in violation of the Biblical text, yet the remaining compo­

nents of the scene do not accord well with the usual iconography of the first day. The disks

or personifications representing Light and Dark are missing, l 70 and the Creator is full­

length instead of bust-length as in the Sicilian 1nosaics, S. Paolo f.l.m., and the Berlin ivory

(at Salerno he is not present at all). Except for the presence of the dove, the scene at Otranto

has little in conunon with i1nages fro1n the Cotton Genesis recension for the first day.171

Concentric disks represent the earth as early as the ninth century, but these are fre­

quently enframed by a red band representing fire, the lightest of the elements. 172 Such

concentric disks can also signify the firmament between the waters, as at S. Marco,173

and the greenish disk at Otranto might therefore denote the firmament created on the sec­

ond day. I-lowcvcr, the finnament is equated with heaven in Genesis 1 :8, and heaven is

already denoted in this scene by the hemisphere containing a n1ask of the moon. The con­

centric circles can only represent the earth. Although the sun and moon were not created

until the fourth day, they may have been included in the first day's activities at S. Paolo

f.Lm.,174 and they are also found in that context in later Ro1nan copies and other monu­

ments.175 In the Octateuchs the sun and moon are represented as personifications in

medallions, while the Ron1an equivalents always appear in mandorlas. 176 The moon­

mask at Otranto is si1nilar to its counterpart in S. Marco, where the moon is blue; in South

Italy such disks are otherwise unknown.

The unexpected co1nbination of the dove fro1n the first day, the celestial bodies from

the fourth day, and the representation of the hemisphere of heaven, the green earth, and

the waters con·esponds exactly to the Biblical account: "In the beginning God created the

heaven and the earth ... and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen.

1:1-2).177 The conflation of diverse narrative moments is an attempt to create a unified

image of cosmic creation, and although this iconography is not found elsewhere it is

clearly supported by the text. Identification of this second scene as the activity of the first

day supports our conclusion that the Creation of the Angels belongs to the period before

the creation of the 1naterial world.

107

~ I

It is difficult to decipher the scene on the right because of its poor conservation, but if

we identify the single figure as the Creator based on the color of his robes, the absence of

wings, and the presence of a beard, we recognize the Creator being followed by two

angels. Angels so1netimes acco1npany the Creator in scenes belonging to the Cotton

Genesis recension; they witness the Creation or Enliven1nent of Ada1n in the Grandval

and Vivian bibles and in the Millstatt Genesis. Angels 1nay also witness the Creation of

Eve, as (perhaps) at Aght'atnar.1 78 Because the Creation of Eve survives in the third

scene at Otranto, it seen1s plausible to identify the right half of the second scene as the

Creation of Adam. Ada1n, now lost, would have appeared in the a1nple space at the far

right. The Creation of Adan1 initiates the Alhnn and Eve cycle in the Carolingian bibles

and on the Berlin plaque, although it is absent fro1n the Salerno ivories. The orant ges­

tures of the two angels support the idea of witnessing an act of creation, as the sa1nc ges­

tures are adopted by angels in the Grandval and Vivian bibles :u1d on the Berlin ivory.179

This further reinforces the connection between S. Pietro and the Cotton Genesis recen­sion.

The Genesis cycle continues across the vault with a scene in the upper register on the

east side that is scarcely one-quarter preserved [Figs. 64-661. ·This sorry state permits

secure identification only of the right half of the co111position. The red and green stepped­

cross fran1e is seen along the bottom edge. Overlapping the fra1ne is a s:u1daled foot

belonging to the Creator, idenlified by his decorated cross-nimbus and the usual pink

tunic and pale aqua-green cloak. His head and halo on a separate fresco fragment show

him to be inclining slightly to the right. The object of the Creator's attention is found on

the same large fragn1ent that contains his figure. A nude figure is reclining, his feet

toward Christ, on an i1regular gold-toned ground shaded in red and brown. His left hand,

resting on a rocky outcrop, is reduced to a claw shape, while his abdo1nen, kneecaps, and

navel arc delineated in so1nc detail. The scene has been called the Creation of Adam 180

but a flesh-colored ele,nent outlined in black protrudes from the reclining figure's stom­

ach and securely identifies the scene as the Creation of Eve, in the process of being pulled

from the body of the sleeping Adam. This identification also accounts for the angle of

Christ's head and body, as he reaches down toward Eve. Traces of white letters are on the blue background above Adam's knees.

The Creation of Eve (Gen. 2:21-2) involved two steps: drawing the rib from the side

of Ada1n, :u1d shaping the rib into the figure of Eve. The S. Marco mosaics include both

actions, as do the Carolingian bibles, but most other n1edieval depictions show only the

first. A one-step creation, with Eve emerging directly from the side of Adam, is seen at

Aght'amar, in the Octateuchs, in the Sicilian mosaics,181 and in the Berlin [Fig. IOOJ and

Salerno ivories. Robert Bergman adduced the use of a model related to the Octateuchs to

explain the iconographic difference between the Salemo ivories and the Cotton Genesis

(as copied at S. Marco), 182 but this 1nay not be the case; the Creation of Eve as a single

108

. could represent a fusion of the two episodes in the Cotton Genesis, which had action already occurred at S. Paolo f.l.n1. in the fifth ccntury. 183 In many exa1nples ,the Creator

maintains his distance fro1n Eve. It is impossible to determine ,vhether the Creator at

Otranto draw·s Eve up by h,.u1d; certainly he is inclined toward her.184

The subject of the missing left half cannot be detennined with certainty, but it 11111st

have illustrated an event between the Creation of Adam and the Creation of Eve, perhaps

the widely diffused episode of Adam Naming the Animals (Gen. 2: 19-20).

The lower regislcr of the north bay's east wall is the best preserved of all the Genesis

panels, despite serious surface damage in the left half lFigs. 64-65, 67, color fig. 68]. The

~pper left corner and small sections at the upper right and right edge arc missing, and the

left edge is obscured by a fifth-layer floral border. The stepped-cross frame, here red and

blue instead of the red and green that predominates in this bay, follows the contours of the

arch that opens into the prothesis bay. 185

At the center of the composition, a gold-colored tree with stylized foliage supports -at

least nine dark fruits. Twined twice around this tree is a white serpent with blue scales,

pointed ears, and a pointed snout; it peers left toward two barely discernible figures who

face each other. The figure nearest the serpent vvears a white undergarment with a hem

interrupted by inverted pleats and creases of blue and brown; his red cloak is outlined and

creased in black with white fold highlights, and his hands arc extended forward at chest

level. No ni1nbus is visible, and there is insufficient space for a wing between his back

and the serpent. The facing figure al the far left wears the pink tunic and pale aqua mantle

that identify lhc Creator in all of the Genesis scenes. The heads of both figures arc lost.

To the right of the serpent is a second tree, sn1aller than the first, with foliage that

shades from white in the center to pink to a scarlet-brown scalloped exterior. Farther to

the right is the Creator [Fig. 67], identified by his usual attire, by the ornamented white

cross-arms on his gold niinbus, and by the sight Tc X C flanking his head. His brown

hair is slriated, and his beard falls in two rounded segments. The Creator's left hand is

upraised, and the drapery around his right arm falls to a sharp point below the knees. In

his outstretched right hand, a white scroll is raised tovvard two figures separated from hi1n

by a third species of tree, this one gold and green and bearing red fruit. While the

Creator's sandaled right foot oversteps the decorative frame, the left foot of the adjacent

figure overlaps the lrce and appears suspended above an undulating reddish-gold ground.

Identifiable as Adam, this figure wears a girdle of long green leaves. His right hand is held to his chest, his left bent before him at abdomen level. The face of Adam is com­

pletely obliterated, and only three locks of his long brown hair survive, but old pho­

tographs reveal his right eye, nose, mustache, mouth and two-part heard [Fig. 671.186 At

the far right is Eve, balanced on her right toe and facing away from the Creator. Eve

\\'ears a skirt of leaves, and points to the southern edge of the vault with her right arm

held high across her body. The stylized muscles of her torso are clearly delineated, as are

109

Aclan1 's, but her face, her lefl leg, and the object of her gesture have been lost.

The episode that co1nprises the left half of the scene is eniginatic. We can identify the

figure at left as the Creator because of his consistent drapery colors, but we are left with a n1ystcrious clothed figure who confronts him. This second figure can only be an angel or

Adan1, although such a pairing in Paradise is not described in the Bible or any apocrypha.

Angels in the Garden are not without precedent. We have already seen them accom­

pany the Creator in the Creation of Ada1n across the vault, and they are found in the

Creation of Eve in 1nonuments that range from Aght'amar to the Carolingian bibles. The

draped figure could therefore be ,w angel who migrated from the scene of Eve's creation

to the next register because of an incorrectly understood model. Angels also appear in

scenes of the Reproach of Adam and Eve after the Fall; in the Millstatt Genesis, for

example, an angel stands behind the Creator in the Calling of Adam and Eve. The Berlin

,wd Salerno ivories include angels in some hexaeineral scenes but not in the Reproval. If

the figure at Otranto is indeed a wingless angel, he has siblings in scenes 3-5 of the

Berlin ivory [Fig. 100]. However, angels appear often in the second fresco layer at -s. Pietro and their identity is never in doubt: alJ of them are winged. Furthermore, angels in

Genesis scenes always serve as witnesses to an event, not as cen.tralized protagonists. The

juxtaposition of the Creator with a wingless figure of equal stature argues against this fig­

ure being an angel, and suggests an alte111ative identification of the figure as Adam.

If the draped figure is to be identified as Adam, we 1nust consider the circumstances

in which he might be clad in classical attire. It is stated in Genesis 2:25 and 3:7 that Adam

and Eve were naked in Paradise, but there is a long literary tradition (based on Genesis

3:21) that holds that Adam was clothed prior to the FaU.187 According to Greek, Syriac,

and Jewish tradition, and retained in 1nedieval Iranian, Muslin1, Irish, and German litera­

ture, God gave Adam beautiful "robes of glory" or "garments of light" that were then lost

or stolen by the serpent's wiles. Adam's robes are likened to royal, angelic, and also

priestly vestments, an allusion to his being the first Old Testament prophet in the

Byzantine tradition. 188 Jewish com1nentary refers specifically to the loss of a purple or

onyx-colored robe, 18

9 and the mantle of the draped figure is a deep red. The theology of

clothing underscores the typology and similarity between Adam and Christ, the New

Adan1, and is an essential part of Syriacl90 and Greek patristic tradition.191 In Western

exegesis too, particularly Augustinian, Adam's robe represents immortality and inno­

cence lost via his sin. 192 The whole ai,n of the Incan1ation is to reclothe man in these lost robes of glory via the three great theophanies of Nativity, Baptism, and Anastasis.

This pervasive literary tradition is not co1nple1nented by an extensive iconographic

tradition, but sporadic pictorial testimony docs exist. Ada1n appears to wear a filmy "gar­

ment of light" in the scene of his Naming the Animals in two of the Octateuchs, Vat. gr.

746 (fol. 37') and Seraglio (fol. 42vJ. 193 Two Byzantine psalters also show Adam

clothed, once in a toga and once in a short tunic.194 In three fifth-century Syrian

I 10

Adarn is clothed and enthroned, and several twelfth-century bestiaries from

l d also find Adam dressed underscoring the difference between him and all other ~w. , ... 196 Adam is also represented as clothed to 1nd1cate his resemblance to the creatures. . ,

t r vvho is certainly never depicted nude. This seems to be the meaning of the theme ereao, . .. . e exterior reliefs at Aght'amar Ylad1mff (end of the twelfth century), and Suzdal in som ' . .

· nine of the thirteenth ccntury).197 Furthermore, Adam 1s always clothed m the (begm ~ . . . . scene of the Ana.stasis, and the scenes of Adatn Naming the Animals and the R~surre~t1on

are compared frequently in Western commentaries. 198 There is, however, little visual

parallel between the standing, facing poses.of Christ and Adam.her~ an~ their poses .in t~e

Anastasis in the east bay, where Christ is frontal and Adam 1s ch1nb1ng or kneeling 111

three-quarter view,

Given the lack of comparative material the identification of the left half of the fourth

Genesis panel must remain conjectural, but lt is not difficult to imagine a conversation

between the Creator and Adam, perhaps as part of Adam's introduction to Paradise or

during the admonition against eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge (Gen. 2:16-17).

The few 1nonuments that depict the Ad1nonition do not ex::lude Eve 199 and the literary

tradition does not stress such a scene, but the draped figure can with some conviction be

identified as Adam because of the absence of wings, the proximity of the serpent looking

over his shoulder, and the rich interpretation of the program that emerges from this identi­

fication and that will be discussed below.

[n the right half of the panel [Fig. 67], the poses of Adam and Eve closely parallel

those in the Calling of Adam and Eve at S. Marco, where each figure has one arm holding

leaves over the genitalia and the other arm upraised. Both the Vivian and S. Paolo bibles

appear to adopt the Cotton Genesis image of the Calling to serve as the Expulsion, which

is omitted at Otranto. 200 The pose is also that of the scene identified as the Reproach at

Aght'amar201 and as the Denial in the Bamberg and Grandval bibles, which belong to the

Cotton Genesis recension. The poses of the protoparents at Otranto are so1newhat

ambiguous, because we do not know whether the serpent was repeated at the 1nissing

right edge of the composition. If it was, then Adam's pointing to Eve and Eve's pointing

to the serpent would evoke the scene of the Denial in the Cotton Genesis, except that

Eve's arm crosses her body as it someti1nes docs in the scene of Adam and Eve Hiding.

At the Cappella Palatina and Monreale [Fig. 102] the poses of the Creator and Adam are

akin to that at Otranto, but Eve points down toward the serpent in both cases. Although

exact parallels are difficult to adduce, the final Genesis scene at S. Pietro can be safely

identified as the Reproach and Denial of Adam and Eve.202

The physical likeness between the Creator and Ada,n in this scene is quite striking.

Both have bifurcated beards and long, flowing hair. The Cotton Genesis depicts both

Christ and Adam bea~dless and shm1-haired, and the model for the Carolingian bibles

apparently showed both the Creator and Adam with long hair but beardless. Only at

111

Aght'arnar,203 the Cappella Palatina, 204 Monreale, and in the Salerno ivories do both the

Creator and Adam have beards. The visual equation of Christ and Athun is based on

Pauline passages such as I Corinthians 15:22 and 15:45 and Colossians 1:15, and the hex.

aemeral literature stressed the similitude of man and God as man's goal and destiny.205

Despite the schematization of the landscape clements, it is possible to identify partic­

ular Jlora in the Garden at S. Pietro. One might expect the central tree to be a fig, as this

identification was common in both Rabbinic writings and Christian commentaries.206

However, the large, dark fruits at Otranto are pomegranates, identifiable by co1nparison

\vith herbals and with the Cotton Genesis illustration of the Creation of Plants.207

Pomegranates also appear on the exterior relief sculpture at Aght'an1ar, in the Salemo

ivories, and in the Grandval Bible. They were used as sy1nbols of resurrection in Early

Christian art, and commentaries likened the red of the pomegranate to the blood of Christ

and the Christian 1nartyrs; in cross-section the fruit is allegedly cross-shaped.208 The

pomegranate tree had ancient symbolic value as the Tree of Life, but it is unusual to find

it serving as the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil around which the serpent is

entwined. A tree very similar in form to the pomegranate at S. Pietro, but without the

fruits, is in the Ascension on the west wa11 of S. Marina in MU.ro Leccese (twelfth centu­

ry?). The presence of apple trees, identifiable by their leaves and fruits, indicates that the

artist was familiar with hexaemeral literature that elucidated the variety of flora created

on the third day and present in the Garden. 209

The serpent in the Garden can take many forms.210 Frequently it is dragonlike, with

a co,nb or beard;21l it may resemble a c::unel, as in the Seraglio Octateuch; someti1nes it is

strictly scrpentlike, as in the Cappella Palatina; and at other times it has a canine head, as

at Otranto, S. Paolo f.1.m., and S. Marco. With its doglikc snout, pointed ears, and indi­

vidually delineated scales, the creature at Otranto closely resembles the beast in the scene

of Michael transfixing the dragon at S. Nicola, Mottola (second half of the thirteenth cen­turyJ.2t2

Genesis 3:7 relates that Adam and Eve sewed together fig leaves and made them­

selves aprons or loincloths. However, the protoparents are invariably shown holding

leaves before them to cover their nudity,213 or standing strategically behind a bush;214 the

leafy skirts seen at S. Pietro are vi11ually unique. The only other 1nonumcnt I know of that

so literally illustrates the Biblical text is Paris. gr. 510, the Homilies of Gregory

Nazianzen (ca. 880).215 Yet while literalness is a characteristic of some scenes at S.

Pietro-it helps explain the unusual conflation of heaven, earth, and sea in the second

scene, for instance-it is antithetical to the depictions of the Creation of the Angels and

the Creator confronting Adam, where stiict reliance on the Biblical text can be ruled out.

The cycle at Otranto can be linked in a general way to other members of the Cotton

Genesis recension, all of which feature an anthropomorphic Creator. The place of

Aght'amar in this tradition still needs to be clarified, but the cycles in Sicily and the

112

iI/ ,!,a]erno and Berlin ivories in particular offer notable similarities to the iconography at S. Yet if the preceding identifications of the scenes are correct, an unusual choice

arrangement has been made that differs fundamentaHy fro1n these other monuments.

·nc features at Otr~mto that are not otl1erwise attested are the literal, non-symbolic Speer . . . -identification of the Creation of the Angels scene; the conflated rendering of the first day;

the fu]l-length angels witnessing the Creation of Adam; the meeting in Paradise of the

Creator and another draped figure, who is probably Adam; suppression of the scene of the

fall; the leafy skirts of Adam and Eve in the Reproach and Denial; and the omission of

the Expulsion (vvhich may, however, have been depicted out of sequence on the end

-wall). Despite resemblances to other South Italian me1nbers of the Cotton Genesis recen-

. 1·11·s 1·mpossible to consider any extant 1nonu1nent a direct model for the cycle at S.

-$1011, L c

Pietro. The Genesis cycle seems instead to be a new synthesis, based on motifs and

sources that were widely available to late medieval patrons and artists. On the basis of the Salerno and Berlin ivories and the Sicilian mosaics, Herbert

Kessler raised the possibility of a South Italian variant of the Cotton Genesis recen­

sion.217 But is there sufficient evidence to support such a hypothesis? The number of

examples of Genesis illustration in South Italy is small, but that number can be expanded

by a consideration of some additional monuments, including S. Pietro, that have never

been included in the discussion. The oldest evidence for Genesis illustration in South ltaly is provided by the Cripta

del Peccato Originale in Matera (ninth-tenth century?), where a cross-nimbed, standing

Creator presides over the Creation of Light and Dark and the Creation of Adam. 218

Showing a clear duality of models, the hand of God then effects the Creation of Eve adja­

cent to a serpent-twined tree, to the right of which Adam and Eve shield themselves with

leaves after the Fall. The inscriptions in this abbreviated cycle are in Latin.

Another monument in the region that contains Genesis in1agery is the Cripta del

Padreterno at Castellaneta.219 An unpublished scene on the east wall of the left (north)

aisle depicts an elaborate Tree of Life flanked by Adam and Eve; Adam can be discerned

in the act of eating the fruit. The inscription on the red border surrounding the scene is in

Latin: ADA[M]. .. TUR ... U(M 9 )(S?). Adam's linear modeling suggests a date in the

twelfth or thirteenth century. Finally, and most importantly, the sanctuary of S. Maria at Anglona, near Tursi in

Basilicata, has an extensive Old Testament cycle along the upper register of the right nave

wall; a New Testament cycle originally occupied the left side of the nave.220 The Genesis

scenes at Anglona (early thirteenth century'?) feature a standing, bearded Creator in

scenes of the Creation of Heaven and Earth-where a canopy-like heaven suggests influ­

ence from the Octateuchs-and the Creation of Birds, Fish, and Animals; Creation of

Man; Adam Naming the Animals; Creation of Eve (with the Creator bent over the supine

Adam, as at Otranto); Adam and Eve in Paradise; Admonition to Adam and Eve; the Fall;

113

Adam and Eve 1-Iiding; and the Expulsion.2 21 The cycle continues through the story of

Joseph. As at Otranto, the hexaerneral scenes at Anglona are abbreviated in favor of the

Adam and Eve cycle. Because this occurs in so1ne portable Byzantine works as well, it may be possible to relate the South Italian cycles to Byzantine models. However, as the

sources of these Byzantine works are as yet ill-defined, such an analysis is beyond the scope of the present study.

The survival of these other cycles suggests that Genesis il1ustration was better kno'NU

in the region of Apulia-Basilicata than has heretofore been recognized. It also suggests

that patrons were eager to include some Genesis imagery, whether isolated scenes (as at

Castellaneta) or limited cycles (as at Matera), even when space constraints precluded the

depiction of a co1nplete cycle. In this regional context the abbreviated cycle at Otranto

appears less unusual than it does when compared with the wider Italian tradition. But with

so little homogeneity a1nong the surviving monuments of Apulia and Basilicata, it is evi­

dent that a great variety of models were in circulation. That some of these models were

related to the Cotton Genesis recension is clear, as this is the tradition that predominates

at S. Pietro and elsewhere in South Italy; other models may have included portable

objects from Byzantium. The identification at Otranto of only the fourth known Creation

of the Angels scene lends support to the theory of a regional v,u·iant of the recension because all the known exa1nples come from southern Italy. '

Iconography of the Single Figures

In addition to the Christo logical and Genesis scenes, a rich panoply of single figures

formed an integral part of the second-layer decorative progra1n. However, only an angel

and a hierarch in the sanctuary, evangelists in the pendentives, and a few fragmentary fig­

ures along the walls and on the central piers survive today. The single figures in the lower zones have been almost entirely lost due to interior alterations and neglect.

Above the Annunciate Virgin to the right of the apse, part of the 1540 plaster is out­

lined in white rcolor fig. 13J. This outline follows the contours of the second-layer deco­

ration underneath, as shown by the red and blue stepped-cross border visible at the right

edge and upper right comer. This border encloses a white medallion edged in blue, from

which a flowering tendril grows organically to fill the upper right corner. The tendril, of

white, gold, and red, bears greenish-gold and red-gold flowers; its form and extent are

better appreciated in the corresponding zone across the apse, above the figure of Gabriel.

The medallion encloses the bust of an angel on a red ground, wearing a dark undergar­

n1ent and a white mantle with gold and black creases [Fig. 69]. The s::une 1nantle colors

are seen at the lower edge of the matching medallion. The better-preserved right ano-el has

plaited hair, deep-set downcast eyes, and ruddy cheeks. The one visible wing is gr:enish­

gold in tone, its lower edge fringed thickly in white. The angel wears the ribbon diadem

114

. - fl 1Jng ends that probably identifies him as an archangel despite the lack of a with tree- ) C • • • •

iJobe, or identifying l1tulus. ]oros, g · · · Id d · S th It 1 Medallions on a red ground are con1mon 1n the Byzantine ~or an .In ou · a y,

ldoin enclose 'ln angel. Angels in medallions were included 1n cupola pro-but they se ' . t· the late twelfth century on: examples include H. Hierotheos at Megara grarns ron1. .

(!!?Os), Lagoudera (1192), and Kariye Djami (ca_-1315). They also appear at the apex of

P t ost vault in the Cappella Palatma (mid-twelfth century) and along the nave the en ec ,_ . _ . .

t Monreale (late twelfth century)· in the parekkles10n of Omorph1 Ekklesrn, Athens walls a ' . . , l285) the anuel medallions arc red. In Italian panel painting, the presence of angel

(c,t , o . . . fl - 22? I medallions flanking the central image has been attnbuted to Byzantine 1~ uencc. - .n . . I · c terms the thick white fringe of the angel's wing at Otranto 1s paralleled m 100nog1ap 11 , . . . _

some of the angels in the nave at Monreale, as is the classical attire 111 lieu of.court cos­

tume.223 The unusual position of the medallions at S. Pietro will be discussed 1n the con-

text of the sanctuary program. . _ The type of rinceau fro,n which the Otranto 1nedallions seem to grow_ 1s _found .at

Monrcale in much more stylized form.224 At S. Nicola, Mottola (second hall of the thir­

teenth century), stylized foliage connects soffit medallions of the Wise and Foolish

Virgins, and at S. Mauro (ca. 1300) the nave prophets are linked in the same fashion [Fig.

103j. Ats. Bartolomeo in Ginosa (second half of the thirteenth century), two angels stand

in fron1 of a rinceau, yielding the impression that the spiraling vine sprouts from their

nimbi [Fig. 104].225 In the soffit of the apse niche in the Lamalunga crypt at Fasano,

tondi containing the evangelists' symbols grow from a stylized rinceau quite similar to

the one at Otranto.226 Such organic 1nedallions are probably copied from manuscript

models: rinceaux surround medallions of the Pantocrator or Emmanuel in a number of

twelfth-century manuscripts of the so-called Decorative Style.227 The angel medallion at

s. Pietro differs from these examples in that the rinceau does not just abut the medallion,

but seeins to forin its fra1ne. This is an extremely organic concept, enhanced by the three­

din1ensionality of the vine and its flowers. There are few coro1laries among Middle

Byzantine monuments, but a si1nilar no\vering rinceau may be seen at Patmos, in the sec­

ond phase of the Refectory, where the rinceau for1ns a medallion with infill consisting of

split palmettes.228 At Panagia Bellas (Kokkino Ekklesia) near Voulgareli in Epirus

(1281), a rinceau with flowers that closely resembles that at S. Pietro adorns a pilaster on

the west wall. The naturalistic rinceau at Otranto is thus paralleled most closely in monu­

rnental decoration of the thirteenth century.

J 11 the pendentives, only the fresco decoration in the northeast and northwest is well

preserved [Fig. 17]. In the northeast, an elderly male with a pearled nimbus is seated fac­

ing the central apse [Figs. 71]. His tooled golden throne is pearl-rimmed and has a white

cloth, decorated with a red and blue pattern of circles and stripes, looped over the back.

The upper edge of the throne is not a straight line; the section visible at right dips lower

115

than that at the left. The figure has receding white hair and a long white beard. He wears a

pink 1nantle over a bluish-gray undergannent, and holds a scroll on \vhich he is in the act

of writing. In front of him is a lectern and perhaps part of a desk, 1nuch abraded: below

his sandaled feet fill the na1row angle between the adjacent Pentecost and Genesis' scenes~

No inscription survives on the abraded blue ground, but from the facial type and the let­

ters on the scroll~[ EN AP><H H/11 J O [ /10 J ,rJ [CJ, the beginning of the Gospel of John-the figure can be identified with certainty as the evangelist John.

[n the northwest pendentive, a figure facing east toward John appears to sit on the

armrest of a squared throne with tall corner posts fFig. 72]. He wears a pink tunic and

blue inantle, and is in the act of writing the word En I LH on the top line of a white scroll.

This is the beginning of the Gospel of Luke and identifies the figure as that evangelist.

Luke has dark hair bound by a white fillet and appears to be beardless, although a lacuna

n1akes this uncertain. His ni1nbus is not on1ainented with pearls, like John's, but has the

usual (for the second layer) dark outline edged in white. Part of a tall square lectern is vis­ible to the right of the nimbus.

Only four small fragments survive on the sonthwest pendentive [Figs. 15, l 9J. The

largest of these reveals the contours of a pearl-rimmed nin1bus On a blue ground, as well

as traces of [ /\ l, IO [ C] lv1AP KO [ C]: the evangelist Mark occupied this pendentive.

Even less remains of the southeast pendentivc, mere fragments of blue ground on a coccio pesto base, but it must have contained an image of Matthew.

The figures at Otranto accord well with established evangelist types, in which John

and Matthe\v ,rrc the elderly pair-John distinguished by his receding hairline, as in the

Pentecost scene [Color fig. 53, fig. 55J-while Luke and Mark are middle-aged. As is

well known, the iconographic types of the evangelists derive fron1 classical author por­

traits.229 In addition to their figural types and the opening words of their respective

Gospels, the evangelists may be further differentiated by their poses. At Otranto, howev­

er, both John and Luke are shown in a pose frequently reserved for the latter, with the Jett

hand holding tl1e codex or scroll and the right hand writing. This type for Luke dates at

least to the Macedonian renaissance, as represented by Paris, Bibl. Nat Coislin 195.230

The pose, however, was not used exclusively for Luke, as a Constantinopolitan atelier of

the late thirteenth century consistently adopted Luke's pose in Coislin 195 for

Matthew.231

The saine pose, 1noreover, is used for M,u·k at the Mavriotissa (early thir­

teenth century''), and for Matthew at H. Stratigos in Mani (late twelfth century) and

Sopocani (ca. 1265). It is unusual to find this pose adopted for John, who is more often

portrayed in a pensive posture or with head upturned to receive divine inspiration.232 The

poverty of poses for the evangelists at Otnu1to testifies to a limited model, such as an

incomplete Gospel book, a hagiographic text with a single author portrait, or a sketch­book containing just this one pose.

Few evangelist portraits are preserved in South Italian wall painting. Two may be

116

. s Mauro (ca. 1300) on the spandrels of the nave arcade: identifiable as Matthew seen at · . · 1 233 b h b iconographic type) and Luke (by association with the adJacent figure of Pau ), · · ot

( y . ·t b~ 1 neither replicates the pose at Otranto. At Anglona (early thirteenth century?), face eas u . . . . , , b art of one evangelist is preserved on a south nave pier; he sits, facing eas~, amidst el~ o-

p -h·t cture and fun1iture. The rock-cut 1nonu1nents preserve evangehst symbols but rate arc 1 e

no active evangelist portraits. 234 . . . _ .. The evangelists are noimally provided vi'ith fu1niture to support their wnt1ng .act1.v1-

ties. Tall lecterns arc visible at S. Pietro but desks arc less certain'. although a cornb1nat'.on

· th J 1·n the Middle Byzantine period. 235 The kmds of thrones on which of the rvvo was e ru e . the suTviving evangelists sit arc fairly uncommon. John frcq~cntly occupies a round­

backed willow chair, but here he has an elaborate seat hung wJth a <l_ecorated cloth. The

draped throne is similar to that used by Luke and Mark in the Evangehstna at Gerakl (late

elfth century), but this form is more commonly reserved for the V1rg1n or for Christ.

tsw th Italy offers examples in the lower church of S. Lucia in Brindisi (second half of the OU ' . . . . J ) 236 · ti tury) and at S Zaccaria at Caulonia 1n Calabria (late thirteent 1 century , · thHtcen 1 cen · .

as well as in several crypt churches.237 Luke's boxy throne with diagonal aims and cor­

ner finials is found with arched sides and other detailing in ele~enth-ccntury

·cri'pts 238 and is also close to that of Jacob in the narthex at S0pocan1. manus . , . . The hemicycle of the apse preserves the figure of a standing, frontal hrerarch at Jts

Jett edge [Figs. 73-74]. His face has been lost, but his dark hair and long dark beard iden­

tify him as BasiJ.239 Dressed in a red undergannent with gold and white folds topped by

a gree.11. phelonion with blue creases, the figure stands out against the ul.tramar1ne back­

ground. tiis white oinophorion bears faint traces of black cross d~coratlon; the ends. ~f

one cross are visible below an isolated fourth-layer frag1nent. The triangular gold en.ch1n­

on is decorated with jewel-like red and blue diamonds and horizontal bands, as 1s the

bound volume he holds in his left hand. Basil's nimbus comes to the height of the adja-

G b · I' · t whi'le hr·s lower extremes arc lost under the sixteenth-century altar cent a ne s wais , .

installed flush with the curve of the apse. 240 Behind and to the right [Fig. 12, color frg.

13], a greenish-gold backdrop abuts a red border stripe outlined in white. Inside this bor­

der, in the zone below the windows, a white meander outlines a field ~f mottl~d. dark

hlue-green. While not preserved in the center, this field continues at the right until inter­

rupted by the overlapping third fresco layer, and it seems reasonable to concl~de that a

similar standing hierarch shared the sarne background to the right of the apse cyhnder ..

By the eleventh century hierarchs had begun to be depicted in the act of bowmg

toward the center of the apse, toward a Hetoimasia or Amnos, as 1f celebrating the

liturgy.241 In such cases their closed codices crre replaced by unfurled scrolls containing

the text of an appropriate liturgical prayer.242 At Otranto, Basil's frontal po~e and closed

codex indicate a Jack of participation in the liturgy. These features characterize conserva­

tive enseinbles until the end of the thirteenth century, especially in Greece, where many

117

n1onu1ncnts adhere to this older iconographic tradition: St. George in Oropos (ca.

1230/40), H. Demetrius Katsouris in Arla (ca. 1230/40) [Fig. 1051, Christ Soter at

Alepohori (1260-80), Ch1ist Soter near Megara (third quarter of the thirteenth century),

and Porta Panagia, Pili (1283-89) [Fig. 106].243 Even in fourteenth-century

Constantinople, frontal hierarchs are depicted in the absidioles at Fethiye Dja1ni (ca.

1310) and the parckklesion at Kariye Djami (ca. 1315). It has been suggested that iconic

hierarchs are appropriate in spaces where the liturgy is not celebrated,244 but the number

of examples found in central apses belies this explanation. In southern Apulia, frontal

hierarchs survive at S. Marina in Muro Leccese (eleventh century?), S. Maria delle

Cerratc (first half of the thirteenth centuryJ,245 and the lower church of S. Lucia in

Brindisi (thirteenth century); in Calabria they are at the Cattolica in Stilo (late thirteenth

century) and S. Nicola in Scalea (eleventh century). While common in built churches

hierarchs have virtually disappeared from the South Italian crypts. However, their exclu~

sion on liturgical grounds is untenable, 246 as six frontal hierarchs are visible in the crypt of S. Salvatore at Giurdignano, near Otranto [Fig. 107].247

The third register on the south wall of the south bay extends as high as the blind arch

that interrupts it, wcU below the level of the arches that open into the adjacent diakonikon

and southwest comer bay [Figs. 15, 45]. This zone is defined at its upper edge by the

familiar stepped-cross border. In the upper left corner the letter O on a blue background is

adjacent to a nimbus that overlaps the border. The ni1nbus belongs to a figure wearing a

pink mantle with black folds who holds three gold keys outlined in black at his left side

[Fig. 75J; this can only be St. Peter. His drapery falls in multiple folds between his knees,

while the fabric is stretched taut over the lower limbs. The second frag1ncnt in this regis­

ter actually continues around the right (western) edge of the scene, where it overlaps a

small section of first-layer intonaco. This fragment contains a tiny portion of a nimbus

and the shoulder of a figure wearing a white mantle with gray creases [Fig. 76J. His

height is equivalent to that of Peter on the same wall, and his identification is provided by

the remaining letters visible at right: [nA.T]/\0, plus the curved abbreviation" for final

C. Paul, a not unexpected pendant to Peter, is contiguous with panels painted t; resetnble

marble on the west wall of the bay, and was pitted to receive a subsequent fresco layer. If

more survived of the figure of Paul, he would presumably have the high forehead with

receding hairline, long nose, and dark beard already noted in the Pentecost at Otr::mto

[Fig. 58]. This characteristic iconography was known in South Italy, for example at s. Mauro (ca. 1300) and in the grotto of S. Michele in Gravina (thi11eenth century?).

Because so much of his figure is lost, it cannot be determined whether the imao-e of b

Peter on the south wall resembled the one in the Pentecost. The sole discernible icono-

graphic element is Peter's keys. These are derived from the reference in Matthew 16: J 9 to

the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and were included in both Eastern and Western depic­

tions of Peter in the Early Christian period. The keys came to be interpreted as a symbol

118

of papal au1hority, and sometimes the pope is shown holding keys.248 In Middle

zantine art Peter very rarely holds keys as an attribute.249 This may be due in part to ~ IB . d .. 1· . their papal associations, but it also rcf1ects a more genera yzan1Ine 1s1nc 1nat1on to

depict saints with attributes, in contrast to Western practice. Nevertheless, in the thir­

teenth century the keys reappeared in the Byzantine world in monuments exposed to

Western influence, notably Crusader icons and churches in Attica dated to the _period of

Frankish doinination.250 The inclusion of the keys at Otranto may therefore reflect

Western influence, indicate a thirteenth-century date, or both. In South Italy, Peter fre­

quently holds keys: three at Casalrotto in Mottola, for example, and two at S. Vito

Vecchio. The depiction of three keys, which possibly refers to Peter's power over heaven,

earth, and hell, dates at least to the Late Antique period~threc keys appear in the famous

sixth-century icon of Peter at Mt. Sinai-but is much less common than two keys.

Below Peter, an isolated and heavily pitted fragment depicts blue drapery overlapped

by deep pink, perhaps a blue chiton and pink himation draped at an angle [Figs. 15, 451.

To the right are what appear to be two parallel staffs of greenish-gold shaded in red, simi­

lar to the staff held by Gabriel in the Annunciation. It is not possible to link this fragment

with the image of Peter above it: the pink hues are of different values, and even if Peter

were standing he would have to be disproportionately tall to incorporate this lower frag­

ment. Furthermore, the two staffs appear directly below the keys although there is no

trace of the1n in the third register. The fragment must therefore belong to a fourth register,

of which nothing else survives. The method of rendering drapery folds links this fragment

\vith the second fresco layer, but further identification of the figure is itnpossible.

Below the Genesis scenes on the east wall of the north bay, the no1iheast pier pre­

serves some problematic fragments [Figs. 12, 65, color fig. 13]. Contiguous with the

Reproach and Denial of Adam and Eve and separated from its lower stepped-cross frame

by a plain red band, a patch of ultramarine contains the faint sigla IC and X [Cl. At the

lo\ver edge a bulge several centimeters in depth corresponds to a second fresco frag1nent.

A red band at the top encloses an azurite blue background, and a gold nimbus thinly out­

lined in black and white surrounds the head of an elderly saint with receding white hair

and pronounced brow furrows. To the left of the nimbus is the letter H; to the right, Hu, John, is a possible reading that also accords with the figure type. This figure is at the

same height (approximately 2 m. above floor level) as Peter and Paul on the south wall of

the south bay. Also at this height is a figure on the east face of the southwest pier, where

there are faint traces of a gold-nimbed male head against a blue background [Figs. 18,

77]; at right is the Latin name IACOBU[S], James. The figure is cut off at shoulder level

by a sixteenth-century pseudocapital depicting John the Baptist. On the west face of the

southeast pier, below and to the left of the Baptism, a tiny fragment contains the letters

XC in white on an azurite background [Figs. 10, 12, color fig. 13]. The second-layer fres­

coes originally on the northwest pier are completely lost.

119

The pier figures present notable problems of interpretation and permit little icono­

graphic analysis. It is particularly difficult to explain the bulge on the northeast pier.

Perhaps it takes its arched shape, echoed by that of the lapis lazuli fragment above it,

from the architectural frame of a monu1nental icon decorating the original templon barrier

that must have separated the sanctuary from the naos. No traces of this barrier have sur­

vived at Otranto since the four central piers were cut down to eolun1nar piers, but such

architectural frames for monumental icons are still in situ at Nerezi, Porta Panagia at Pili,

and the Metropolis at Mistra. The sigla still visible on the lapis patch would indicate that

the subject of the monumental icon was Christ. This hypothesis finds support in the tiny

frag1nent on the southeast pier, \vhere the sigla for Christ in small letters might have

acco1npanied the Christ child in a monu1nental icon of the Virgin ,md Child. The pairing

of Christ with the Virgin and Child on the templon screen is entirely consistent with

Byzantine church decoration,2 51 although their order is more frequently reversed.252 The

hypothetical arrangement al Otnmto, with Christ on the northeast pier and the Virgin and

Child on the southeast, occurs at Porta Panagia (1283-89) and the Kariye Djami (ca.

1315), among other examples. If Christ was depicted on the norfheast pier, as suggested

by the sigla and perhaps also by use of lapis lazuli as a partial background, it is difficult to

explain the presence of John im1nediately below. One of the two figures 1nust represent a

change in program effected during its execution, and the greater thickness of the intonaco of John suggests his supcri1nposition over an earlier figure of Christ.

The figure of "Jacobus" on the southwest pier also raises problems. The inscription

that identifies him is in Latin, but its thin white letters are unlike any style of script, Greek

or Latin, in the church. The identifying inscription may not be contemporary with the fig­

ure, but the script is not distinctive enough to date. The faint re1nains suggest a dark­

haired male, and James the Less traditionally has dark hair in Byzantine art. In South Italy

he is represented in this manner at S. Giovanni in Monterrone (late thirteenth century), so

the inscription may in fact be the co1rect one for the image. James cannot be conclusively

identified arnong the apostles in the Otranto Pentecost, although he must be one of the

two easternmost apostles in the right panel, one of whom has dark hair [Fig. 59J. If the

figure is Ja1nes, he and John appear to represent a li1nited change in program that called for the depiction of apostles on the central piers.

On the east face of the northeast pier, there is a badly worn fragment at the height of

the springing of the soffit. The outline of a nimbed head is visible on a blue ground, but

not even the gender of this saint can be detennined. The south wall of the southwest cor­

ner bay conserves the pitted head of a female saint that overlaps a fragn1ent of first-layer

pseudo-marble decoration [Fig. 76]. Her head is veiled in a close-fitting, dark red

maphorion, which is such common attire for female saints in Byzantium and South Italy

that it is impossible to identify the figure in the absence of attributes or an inscription. A

wide choice of saints is possible: in South Italy, Margaret and Catherine are especially

120

but 1nany others also appear in both built churches and crypts. 'fhe niinbus of the oOIJUHU,

·f· d s·tint is edged with a continuous row of pearls, a decoration that was used unidentI ie . ' , - . . in the first-layer frescoes at S. Pietro and that also .:i.ppeared 1n the second

f tl e two 1nain figures in the Creation of the Angels and the evangelist John. The fayer or i

I d · nbus was extremely con1mon in South Italy from the tenth century (e.g., pear e n11 . . . . . . 0 ;11 9S9) through the fourteenth (S. Cesano d, Lecce m 1329). Such decorated Carp1gnan . -

. bi· are found sporadically in Middle Byz::u1tine ,uid later monuments; they arc usually = . h . · t ·d \Vith the more decorative tendencies of the provinces and are also c aractens­assoc1a e tic of some Crusader ateliers. 253 .

On the vvest wall, immediately to the right of the doorway, three supenmposed layers

are visible [Fig. 80]. The two upper strata share the friable fabric of the Cinquecento fres­

co layers, but the lowest layer may belong to the second Byzantine layer. A tiny frag1n~nt

of salmon-colored intonaco against a blue ground probably belongs to the drapery of a

standing figure. A triangular patch of white doubly out1ined in blue may represent the

lower end of an omophorion; the sa1ne pattern over what would be the right knee perhaps

corresponds to the enchirion, indicating that the second-layer figure flanking the doorway

wore Byzantine ecclesiastical garb.

Single figures seldom reveal much iconographic innovation, and those in the second

layer at Otranto are very conservative. Basil, for instance, has none of the elaboration of

the ecclesiastical garments (e.g., polystavria or vermiculation of the enchirion) found in

many ]ate twelfth and thirteenth-century works. The fact that he is frontal and hieratic

rather than inclined and officiating indicates that the model did not belong to the most

progressive metropolitan trends of the twelfth-thirteenth century, but it does not rule out

a late elating because the ,nore conservative frontal depiction is very co1n1non through the

thirteenth century. The surviving evangelists are oddly repetitive in their poses, a fact thal

may preclude a monumental model, though some inventiveness is seen in their throne

types. Only the organic nature of the angel medallions reveals a notable degree of icono­

graphic invention. Except for these medallions and rinceaux, vvhich find their closest par­

allels among late thirteenth-century monuments, the single figures at S. Pietro could

belong to any conservative milieu in the Middle Byzantine or early Palaeologan periods.

Ornantenr

The second fresco layer preserves a great variety of ornament, ::md the whole second­

layer progra,n is organized according lo the concept of oma1nentally fr:uned scenes. It is

therefore iinportant to examine the ornament at Otranto in detail, but before doing so it

will be useful to classify the types of ornament found in monun1ental painting in general.

The first type is used on a small scale for the decoration of objects, such as nimbi or cos­

tumes. This incidental, small-scale orna1nentation is an unreliable indicator of when a

121

111onu1ncnt was painted; such decoration could be drawn from any available iconographic

guide, thereby reflecting earlier and not contemporary tastes. 254 The second type of orna­

ment is used on a large scale for the decoration and emphasis of architectural fo11ns, such

as archivolts, iinposts, or the base of a cupola. This type is considered a more reliable

indicator of workshop practice and of the date of execution of a ,..vork.255 At Otranto

there is a third kind of ornament that is neither incidental nor architectonically based. This

third type is the decorative frame that encloses each scene; the fra1nes are then djvided

from one another by red border stripes [Color figs. 13, 53; figs. 48, 65, et al.]. Ornamental

framing is a concept alien to Byzantine 1nonumental art, where simple red stripes are used

to divide scenes. Because of the pro1nincnce at S. Pietro of orna,nent belonging to this

third category and to the second, architectonic type, the less-informative small-scale orna­

ment will not be investigated here.

The stepped cross or crenellated lozenge that ado1ns the second-layer borders con­

sists of a central row of open red squares with a short stroke projecting from each side,

flanked by rows of blue or green half-squares with projecting strokes.256 These half­

squares are staggered to fill the space above and below the red squares, leaving 1nuch of

the white ground vislble. The white ground stripe varies in wldth from 4-6 cm. and the

squares are drawn with varying degrees of care. S0n1e scenes arc more precisely framed

than others, with the Pentecost boasting the most regular contours.

The stepped-cross ,notif was used on Byzantine portable objects from the tenth cen­

tury on;257 in ena1nels and miniature n1osaic icons this paltern, or a si1nplified version of

it, frequently enframes the central figure. In the eleventh and twelfth century the motif

enjoyed a vogue in 1nanuscript illumination.2 58 In contrast with its widespread use as a

diaper and border, especially in the late twelfth century, 259 the stepped cross was not used

to ado111 any s1nall-scale objects at S. Pietro.

The stepped cross is used as large-scale ornament to outline and e1nphasize such

architectonic entities as the conch and groin vaults at Hosios Loukas (mid-eleventh centu­

ry) and the base of the cupola at H. Hierotheos in Megara (1170s), but it is most frequent­

ly employed in that role in the thirteenth and fourteenth century.260 Examples include

outlining of the cupola at the Christ Soter church in Megara (third quarter of the thirteenth

century) and reinforcement of an architrave in the church of Christ at Vernia (1315).

In a few n1onuments the stepped cross neither adorns small objects nor emphasizes

large architectural divisions, but is used as a fra1ning device, although to a 1nuch more

limited degree than at Otranto. The motif thus outlines medallions of ::mgels, the Virgin,

:u1d the Hetoi1nasia at H. Hierotheos in Megara; a medallion of Christ E1nmanuel in the

prothesis of Christ Soter at Megara; and rectangular pseudo-icons at H. Athanasios in

Geraki (ca. 1300)_26t On the north side of the Refectory at Patmos (early thirteenth cen­

tury), a stepped-cross band divides the Metalepsis from the Metadosis (the scenes are

framed in red); at H. Athanasios it flanks the red-stripe border along one side of the Last

122

r ,10,1 the Presentation of the Virgin. The most extensive use of the stepped-cross Soppe ' -' · ·- ' border outside South Italy occurs in another church in Ger~ki, St.. George int.he castle (ca.

1300), vvhere the motif forms a continuous frame for Chr1stolog1cal scenes 111 the central

barrel vault. In South Italy, the stepped cross is extremely common as both large-scale architec­

·c decoration and as a frame for single i1nages and scenes. A late .thirteenth-century ton1 ex:mnple that is geographically close to Otranto is visible above the angels flanking the

apse at Giurdignano [Fig. 107J. Also in the thirteenth century, th~ stepped crJoss _e,npha­

sized the contours of the nave arcade of S. Adriano at S. Demetr10 Corone26- [Fig. 108J and at Cerrate. At S. Simeone 'a Famosa' it frames a votive panel on the right \Vall; at

Alezio it enframes the Annunciation; and at S. Maria dcl Casale it encircles the

Crucifixion in the south transept [Fig. 1101. These last three monu1nents can be dated to

the early fourteenth century. At the crypt of Li Monaci near Copertino (1315), a stepped

cross frames the archangel Michael; at S. Vito Vecchio (ca. 1300) it forms the upper bor­

der of the scene of the Myrophores. Although the fra1ning of scenes occurred earlier in a

partial and simplified form (e.g., at S. Biagio in 1196), the stepped-cross frame used at

Otranto enjoyed a pa11icularly strong vogue in South Italy from the mid-thirteenth to the

early fourteenth century. While the stepped-cross pattern is not uncommon in Byzantine monuments, its use as

a montnncntal framing device is largely restricted to South Italy and probably reflecls a

regional aesthetic. ~fhe jewel-like detail of these frames argues for a non-1nonumental

model, and because the stepped cross served as a framing clement on 1nany kinds of

Byzantine portable objects an illuminated manuscript or portable icon may have provided

inspiration. In 1nanuscripts, the "separately framed format" is one of the hallmarks of both

the twelflh-century Kokkinobaphos group and the Decorative Style of the twelfth-early

thirteenth century.263 A reliquary or book cover is another possible source of inspiration,

and such objects were transported to the West in quantity especially after the conquest of

Constantinople in 1204_264 Although no specific objects of this sort can be placed in

Otranto, it is highly probable that sonic passed through its port and were available lo

serve as n1odels.

The conch of the central apse at S. Pietro is recessed one step fron1 the surrounding

arch that contains the archangel medallions [Color fig. 13, fig. 70]. As seen from a head­

on view, this recessed area has an ulh·a1narine blue background and a flowering rinceau

identical to the one sun·ounding the archangels. The vine itself is white and gold with red,

and the flowers are either green, white, and blue, or gold and red. Inte1twined with this

vine are large pseudo-Kufic letters in white outlined in dark blue. As the decoration in the

central portion of the arch is not preserved, this script is visible only at the two sides.

Pseudo-Kufic or kufcsque265 decoration enjoyed great popularity in Byzantine and

Western art in all media, especially from the eleventh through the thirteenth century. 266

123

-~-------------------1111111 An early cxa,nplc of its use as incidental urnan1cnt is seen on Joshua's hehnet in the late

tenth-century fresco at Husios Loukas rFig. 941. In the second half of the thirteenth centu­

ry, a stylized white pseudo-Kufic frieze on a blue ground, as at S. Pietro, was used in the

apse at Porta Panagia in Pili (1283-89) [Fig. 106]. In South Italy, pseudo-Kufic lettering

was used as sn1all-scalc ornamentation on objects such as the central dish in the Last

Supper at S. Simeone 'a Famosa' [Fig. 85], but it was especially popular as architectonic

decoration. In the late thirteenth century it appeared in stylized form on the painted

arcades that fra1nc standing saints at S. Giovanni in Monte1ronc in Matera, S. Margherita

in Mottola, and S. Vito Vecchio. Pscudo-Kufic script is used on a larger scale to outline

sections of the nave arcade at Ce1Tate (first half of the thirteenth century) and Anglona

(early thirteenth century?). As at Otnmto, it is intertwined with a vine scroll in the crypt

of S. Marco at Massafra (thirteenth century)2 67 and, most notably, at S. Maria delle Ccrrate [Fig. 109].

At Cerratc, both the ense1nble of vine and letters on a blue ground and their role in

outlining the apse conch are very similar to S. Pietro. While the pseudo-Kufic letters at

Ce1Tate are three-din1ensional, both they and the t1owering rincca~, are simpler and more

schematized than the orna1nent at Otranto; the letters are identical to those on the clavus

of St. James the Less at S. Giovanni in Monterrone. The "text" at Ce1Tatc repeats and

reverses the words for Allah and "victory" (nasr); the inscription at Otr::mto also includes

other words, such as "kingdom" (al-malik). The pseudo-Kufic at S. Pietro is more faithful

to the original Kufic n1odel in that it contains no clockwise curves in the letters. None of

the published examples ofpseudo-Kufic script approaches the delicacy and complexity of

the lettering at Otranto, or reveals such an intimate integration of letters and rinceau. The

repetitive and siinplified inscription at Cerrate could not have served as a n1odel for the

elegant lettering seen at Otranto. Nor is it likely that S. Pietro exerted much influence on

the decoration of the much larger church at Ccrrate, with which it shares very little stylis­

tic affinity. Nevertheless, the formal ::md positional similarities between the apse orna­ment in both suggest a comn1on monumental model.

The soffit of the arch at Otranto that contains the pseudo-Kufic inscription on its face

bears a zigzag patten1 that fonns a continuous pattern of red triangles on a light ground

[Fig. 70]. These triangles sprout white tendrils outlined in red or blue that fill the triangular

co1npartments; red and blue alternate with only occasional irregularity. The simple zigzag is

an extremely common type of ornainent,268 but the "floreated zigzag" used at Otranto is

found mainly in Palaeologan monuments such as the Omorphi Ekklesia near Athens (ca.

1285), Bogorodica Ljeviska ( 1307), and more elaborately at St. Clement's in Ohrid

(1295).2 69 In South Italy, 1nore schematic triangles are used at S. Giovanni in Monten·one

and in the nave arcade at S. De1netrio Corone (mid-thiiteenth century). Triangles akin to

those at Otranto are found in a soffit at S. Lucia alle Malvc in Matera (thirteenth century)

and in the south transept at S. Maria del Casale (early fourteenth century) [Fig. 110].

124

Contiguous \Vith the lower stepped-cross border of the Anastasis is a con1plex inter­

laced floral ornan1ent in white outlined in dark blue on a light red, blue, and green ground

[Fig. 16]; the same ornament on the opposite side of the bay, below the Nativity, is poorly

preserved. Based in part on a heart shape, this ornan1ent finds analogies with some pat­

terns at Patmos, especially the motif that fills the intraclos of the north arch in the Chapel

of the Virgin (late twelfth-early thirteenth century), where the interlacing "fronds" create

interstices that arc colored red, blue, and grccn.270 This ra,nily of orna1nent first appeared

at the end of the eleventh century but n1ultiplied during the thirteenth and fourteenth ccn­

tury.271 Variants sin1ilar to that at Otranto are found around the prothesis at Panagia Kera,

Kritsa (ca. 1300), and in the parekk:lesion at Zica (late thirteenth century). ln South Italy,

the central portion of the Otranto design is similar to a soffit ornan1ent at S. Salvatore in

Sanarica (thirteenth century); the on1ament at S. Pietro in Ninfa (Lazio), of the first third

of the thirteenth century, also co1ncs close. 272 The pattern at Otranto differs from the

Patn1os exa1nples in its less schematic rendering and in the greater interest in overlap and

three-dimensionality that was also evident in the nearby rinceau ornan1ent. Hovvevcr,

none of the floral or vegetal ornament at Otranto approaches the fanciful decoration found

in such early fourteenth-century monuincnts as the Kariye Djan1i and the churches of

Mistra. 273

Flanking the arch that opens from the south bay into the southwest corner bay are

fresco fragments painted to simulate red and blue diagonally striated marble [Fig. 77].

This pattern differs from first-layer pseudo-marble in its lighter ground color, buff instead

of yellow, and its diagonal instead of ve1iical stripings. The larger fragment to the left

contains several "panels" of pscudo-n1arble arranged vertically to follow the curve of the

adjacent arch; it continues around the juncture with the south wall and overlaps a first­

stratum pseudo-marble fragment [Figs. 15, 76]. The lower left fragment is also contigu­

ous with the female saint on the south wall; to the right of the arch, above the head of

"Jacobus," another fragment is as wide as the southwest pier. Plaster painted to look like

marble is extremely com1non in Byzantine churches, doubtless in e1nulation of the real

marble revetment in the most luxurious monuments. Another ubiquitous type of orna-

1nent, blue acanthus on a light ground, survives on the south wall of the west bay274 and

to the lower right of the Baptism in the south bay.

The ornament of the second layer at S. Pietro is closely related to Byzantine exam­

ples, but its most pron1inent motifs are employed in a n1anner that is distinctively South

Italian. While the stepped-cross pattern itself is too widespread to be infonnative about

dating or proven::mce, as a device for framing scenes it is found ahnost exclusively in

South Italian monu1nents of the thirteenth and early fourteenth century. The conception of

the church as a receptacle for fra1ncd scenes is not a Byzantine one, despite isolated

instances of framing in Byzantine art after the late twelfth century. Similarly, while the

pseudo-Kufic rinceau has antecedents in Byzantine art in all media from the tenth century

125

on, the closest parallels to the rinceau at Otranto are in South Italian 1nonu1nents of the

second half of the thirteenth century. The triangular ornan1ent that sun·ounds the apse is

found in Byzantine and South Italian works of the same period, while the complex floral

design does not survive in South Italy but is related to thirteenth-century n1onumcnts in

Byzantiu1n. The large-scale orn:.m1ent at Otranto reveals that local artists working in the

latter part of the thirteenth century were responsible for the execution of its ornament, and

probably for the overall decorative conception of the church.

Paleography

Unlike the first fresco layer, where script style and content provided convincing evi~

dence for dating, paleography contributes relatively little to our understanding of the sec­

ond layer. In this layer there arc no lengthy inscriptions, only tituli for the scenes and a

single Biblical phrase. Nevertheless, a few interesting issues raised by the orthography,

content, or language of the second-layer inscriptions should be addressed. 275

The identifying inscription on the scene of the Baptism [Fig. 44] reads either H [B]/\TTICHC or [B]fa.~TICHC TOT KT, H Bd'.1TTc.cns. mu The first reading, with the 1il.,'f ligature, is the most likely, as it involves ,nerely a homonyn1ous

transliteration of Bci'.¢Tl,CTl·S, an older form.276 '+1 for n and n for '+1 are common labi­

al confusions witnessed by papyri,277 and the dialectical pronunciation "i vJftisis," identi­

cal to that at Otranto, is attested in Corfu. 278 Furthermore, the same orthography occurs

in several of the archaic 1nonu1nents in Cappadocia. At Kilic;lar kilise (ca. 900), for exam­

ple, cvi_: is regularly used for cvn and B0.,uT1Jc:rµcl) B0,\iT1 .. uo1J, and so on.279 The

I -H iotacism is common in the first-layer inscriptions at Otranto and occurs elsewhere

in the second layer.280 Although the B is no longer legible, its presence in the original

inscription must be assumed. The second possible reading would involve an unusual A,n ligature in which the n resembles a I. This odd fo1m of a Greek n is not attested in South

Italy, however; it is found on the so-called Bury St. Edmunds Cross now in the Cloisters

(second half of the twelfth century), and ,mticipated in Anglo-Saxon works of the tenth

century.281 A connection with English works is possible in Otranto via the No1111ans, but

it is not necessary as an explanation here; the first reading is probably correct.

The inscription in the Creation of the Angels, In!HCIC TD /'TI-E1\0I,, 11

1r o C 11 rr 1, s T cD [ v] '/ C \ ecJ v [Color fig. 63 J, is interesting chicn y because it has no

parallel in surviving wall painting or 1nanuscripts. As already observed, the scene of the

Creation of the Angels is known only in South Italy, where at Monreale it is identified in

Latin as "Creation of Light" and in the Berlin and Salen10 ivories it is unlabeled. Nor is

the phrase prominent in the hexaen1eral or patristic literature, where r< TC o-ls is the pre­

ferred term for "creation. "282 It may be an ad hoc creation by the artists at Otranto, or it

1nay copy ;u1 inscription fron1 some lost South Italian monun1ent. Fro,n an orthographic

126

, t of vie\\' the presence of nested letters, especially I, is not unusual: these are found poin • ' , . ally for example at S Salvatore (ca 1300), on scrolls held by the apse h1erarchs. The loc , ' · ·

titulus also contains the nu1nerous iotacis1ns characteristic of both the first and second

fresco ]ayers: I for H, I for O I, 0 for Gl. It is unclear whether the second word con­

tains an 0-1\1 ligature necessitated by the lack of space (the adjacent angel was certainly

ainted before the inscription), or whether the I\J is 1nissing, in which case the· lack of

;greement between the article and the genitive plural would raise serious que~tions a~out

the painter's knowledge of Greek. Stylistically the writing is very uneven, wllh the fmal

letter double the size of the initial letters and the whole phrase painted aslant. Such inat­

tention is also evident in some of the other second-layer tituli where the abbreviation

inarks are not placed directly over the letters, an inaccuracy that is usuaUy indicative of

copying.

There is no doubt that the Greek and Latin components of the inscription over

Gabriel on the east w~ll-0 /'P I fa.BP I H/1 / A GR P DNS, 'O [ os]

10,~pvi\). / A[ve Maria] GR[atial P[lena] D[omi]N[u]S-me contemporary, and it is

highly likely that they me products of the same hand [Fig. 35]. The form of the A is iden­

tical, and the ,nanner of thickening the vertical parts of letters and extending the horizon­

tal serifs iS consistent in both. But except for the almost ubiquitous presence of the Greek

sigla IC ~<C and l"v~P Sf in monuments containing Latin inscriptions, it is unusual to

find a mixture of Greek and Latin within a single scene. The presence of two languages in

a single monument in South Italy is not uncommon: at the Li Monaci crypt (1315) 283 the

dedicatory inscription is in Greek while all the tituli are in Latin, and at Casaranello the

nave cycles of Sts. Catherine and Margaret have Latin tituli while the contiguous Passion

scenes contain inscriptions in Greek. Occasionally an individual saint will have tituli in

both languages, such as John the Baptist at the Coelimanna crypt and St. Nicholas at S.

Biagio (1196). A striking example of linguistic eclecticism comparable to that at S. Pietro

is found at S. Salvatore in Sanarica, where the image of Christ on the west face of the

northeast nave pier holds an open book inscribed "I am the light of the world" in both

Greek and Latin. The presence of two languages implies that the audience would under­

stand both. Because the Latin inscription at Otranto is a direct scriptural quotation, it

could have been well known if the liturgy were celebrated in Latin-a possibility that

cannot be ruled out, in the absence of documentation-or if this were a private chapel

whose users \vere well versed in both languages. This is evidence for both bilingualis1n

and a high degree of literacy in a certain segment of lhe population of n1edieval South

Italy.

In strictly pa]eographic terms, the inter-9-al scroll thal characterizes the B and P at

Otranto is found locally in several carved fu1~erary inscriptions of the twelfth-thirteenth

centuries.284. The long horizontal serifs of the C and E are found in the dedicatory inscrip-

127

tion at Li Monaci, but also earlier at S. Biagio. The vertical serif from the top bar of the A

and/\ is also seen at Li Monaci, as well as S. Cesario di Lecce (1329), but seldom earlier.

The long angled spurs at the base of some letters have numerous parallels in South Italy,

especially in Matera and Massafra.285 Three kinds of abbreviation 1narks are used: an X­

shaped 1nark over "archangel" in the Annunciation lFig. 351; an arcuated lintel over

"Dominus" in the same scene and over the sigla for Christ on the northeast pier; and a

wavy extended tilde over "Christou" in the Nativity. The second of these is the most com-

1non, used for the nornina sacra at, e.g., the Candelora crypt in Massafra (late thirteenth

century) and S. Simeone 'a Famosa' (early fourteenth century); the first and third are also

found at S. Simeone. The third abbreviation is a Latin type, used to indicate the suppres­

sion of the letter R.286

These paleographic features arc not conclusive for dating the second fresco layer.

Despite son1e orthographic similarities with inscriptions of the early fourteenth century,

the complete lack of ligatures and accents in the tituli would be archaizing after the mid­

thirteenth century. Ligatures and accents arc included at Cerrate (first half of the thir­

teenth century) and at S. Mauro and S. Salvatore (both ca. 1300). On the basis of paleog­

raphy it is difficult to accept a date after the mid-thirteenth· century for the model

employed for the second-layer inscriptions. Even then the script is very conservative, a

fact that accords with the iconography of 1nost of the scenes and single figures. 287

Program

By the thirteenth century, Byzantine church decoration tended to include more sub­

sidiary cycles and a greater nu1nber of isolated scenes fro1n these cycles than ever before.

This programmatic expansion has been attributed to the growing influence of the liturgy

on church decoration.288 The sanctuary and the narthex are the parts of the church that

were most affected by these innovations in program. However, S. Pietro lacks a narthex

and has lost much of its second-layer sanctuary decoration. Fresco losses here and in the

cupola arc particularly lamentable, because these spatial units probably contained clues to

the meaning of the entire pictorial scheme.

In South Italy, churches that contain byzantinizing cyclical decoration datable

between the late twelfth and the early fourteenth century are ,nuch 1nore numerous than

those with tenth- or eleventh-century cycles.289 Despite this numerical increase, S. Pietro

re1nains the only monu1nent with a program of decoration 1nore ·or Jess consistent vvith the

Byzantine model outlined by Demus and described in Chapter IJ.290 With the exception

of the cross-in-square Cattolica at Stilo, which retains very little of its thirteenth-century

1nural clecoration,291 the other suh di·vo churches in South Italy that contain pictorial

cycles all have longitudinal plans to which the Byzantine scheme has been adapted with

128

varying degrees of fidelity and coherence. Several crypt churches also contain program­

inatic dccoration,292 although iconic, nonprogrammatic decoration remains far more com­

mon in the rupestral setting. The be1na is the most important pa11 of a church from the liturgical point Of view, but

little survives of the sanctuary program at S. Pietro [Figs. 11-121. The conch of the apse

is hidden under a 1540 Virgin and Child flanked by angels. It is possible that this scene

copied the underlying second-layer subject, because the theophany of the Virgin and

Child ~dored by archangels is ahnost de rigueur in the Byzantine apse conch. It occurs at

H. Sophia in Constantinople and innumerable other monuments of the Middle and Late

Byzantine periods.293 In South Italy, however, a Virgin and Child in the conch is far less

coinmon than either a Deesis or a Pantocrator. 294 The pair never occur in the apses of sub

divo monuments, although they do appear in the crypt churches at Giurdignano [Fig. I 07]

and Poggiardo.295 One additional apse theme is known in South Italy: the Ascension,

archaic in that location by the thirteenth century, is found at Cerrate (first half of the thir­

teenth century) [Fig. I 09].296 Although the presence of the Virgin and Child in two

rupestral apses very near Otranto raises the possibility of influence from S. Pietro, there is

reas0n to suspect that the sixteenth-century theme does not replicate the underlying ffes­

co. The lunette above the central apse now contains a 1540 Annunciation, but because the

second-layer Annunciation flanks the apse the Cinquecento depiction cannot copy the

same underlying scene. The original subject of the Junette, like that of the conch, is

unknown, and the sixteenth-century decoration cannot be used to reconstruct the earlier

decorative program. The medallions with busts of angels that flank the conch do not help identify the

original apse theme [Fig. 69]. By the Middle Byzantine period the archangels usually

flanked the Virgin in the conch itself, and their displacement is fairly uncommon.297 At

the Evangelistria in Geraki (late twelfth century) tbe archangels are on the east wall above

the conch containing a bust of the orant Virgin. Adoring angels are on the triumphal arch

at H. Anargyroi (late twelfth century), but these are full-length and not in medallions.298

A close comparison for the position of the angels at Otranto is seen at Giurclignano,

where angels flanking the Virgin in the conch arc supplemented by angels outside. At S.

Bartolomeo in Ginosa [Fig. 104], similarly displaced angels flank a Deesis in the conch.

The displacement of the angels at S. Pietro may indicate that the apse theme was not the

expected Byzantine Virgin and Child, but it is hardly conclusive on that score: given the

smaH dimensions of the apse at Otranto, there may not have been sufficient space for the

angels in the conch itself.

Fortunately, analysis of the sanctuary program is on firmer ground as it approaches

ground level. The lowest zone of the apse contains one surviving church father, Basil, at

the leli edge of the apse cylinder [Figs. 12, 73]. The continuous background in the center

of the curve of the apse indicates that only one other hicrarch was accon1modated on the

129

opposite side. The matching figure was probably John Chrysostom who, with Basil, was

the author of the most important Byzantine liturgies. Basil and/or John Chrysostom sur­

vive in many Byzantine apses from the eleventh century on and they also figure in numer­

ous South Italian apse compositions.299 The absence of painting in the center of the apse

at Otranto was not considered inappropriate in conjunction with frontal bishops: the same

gap occurs in the unpublished "basilichetta bizantina" at Bafi.300 Because Basil is so low

down on the apse wall, it is possible that half-length bishops, perhaps in medallions or

framed as pseudo-icons, were origina11y placed above or below the two hierarchs at

Otranto, bringing their number to the more usual four.301

The liturgical role of the apse was emphasized after the eleventh century by grouping

the hierarchs together in the bema instead of leaving the1n scattered in the naos or narthex

(as at H. Anargyroi in the early eleventh century). The depiction of hierarchs officiating

at the mass underscores the relationship between the Incan1ation and the eucharist cele­

brated in the sanctuary.302 In South Italy, officiating bishops are preserved at the end of

the thirteenth century at S. Mauro and S. Salvatore and in the Panagia at Rossano in

Calabria. The frontality of the bishops at Otranto does not indicate that the regular liturgy

was not celebrated there, but only that the iconographic modelS employed were not the

1nost progressive. The prothesis and diakonikon can also be considered part of the sanctu­

ary, and the conserved first-layer scenes of the Washing of the Feet and the Last Supper

are entirely appropriate to the liturgical activities of the bema area. In the absence of

interposed sanctuary bays, the narrative scenes on the east bay walls and vault and the

images on the eastern piers may be treated as part of the Christological cycle of the naos.

If we knew the subject of the apse conch we would have a much clearer idea of the

focus of the second-layer program. If the Virgin and Child were depicted, that would be

good evidence that a standard Byzantine program served as the model for this phase of

decoration. Such a progratn would reinforce the architectural and iconographic evidence

that makes S. Pietro the monument in South Italy that best exemplifies Byzantine decora­

tive principles. However, even if we knew that the Deesis-the most likely alternative­

were the subject of the conch, we would still not know whether that i1nage reinforced a

particular ideological theme, indicated a funereal function, or si1nply reflected prevailing

local practice.

While it is not possible to reconstruct the program of the sanctuary, an assessment of

the naos program is both feasible and highly instructive about the intellectual context of

the second-layer decoration. All of the naos scenes in the second layer are united by their

omament,tl frames, which confer a precious reliquary-like quality to the interior. In the

uppermost zone nothing survives [Color fig. 13], but it seems reasonable to suppose that

the cupola contained an image of the Pantocrator. This symbolic abstraction of the

Ascension303 is by far the most co1n1non cupola theme, although other images were occa­

sionally placed there.304 None of the three cross-in-square churches in South Italy pre-

130

. 1·ts cupola decoration but in t\velfth-century Sicily the Pantocrator occupied the serves · ' central cupola at the Cappella Palatina and Martorana in Palermo. It cannot be determined

whether the hypothetical Otranto Pantocrator was alone, or surrounded by prophets or

angels as in the Sicilian 1nonuments. The pendentives comprise the next zone in the central-plan decorative hierarchy

[Figs. 10-19]. By the twelfth century they were normally occupied by the evai1gelists;

earlier these were represented by their apocalyptic symbols.305 At Otranto, Matthew and

John face one another in the eastern pendcntives as is usual in Byzantine churches, but

their order is reversed from the norm: John is usually in the southeast pendentive. 306 His

position in lhe northeast does have a precedent at Kilii;lar kilise and at S. Sophia in Kiev

(mid-eleventh century), and may reflect the position he held in the first fresco layer. The

relative locations of Luke and Mark are more variable; they are frequently in the positions

they occupy at S. Pietro, facing east toward the older evangelists, although al the Cappella

Palatina and Martorana the two face each other and their order is reversed. At the

Evangelistria in Geraki (late twelfth century), the Church of the Holy Apostles in Pee

(mid-thirteenth century), and St. Clement's in Ohrid (1295), the four evangelists arc dis­

tributed in the order found at Otranto. In South Italy evangelists are rare, and those pre­

served at S. Mauro (ca. 1300) occupy the spandrels of the nave arcade according to no

discernible order: Mark and John are in the south, Matthew and Luke in the north.307 At

Anglona (early thirteenth century?), the sole surviving evange1ist is also on a nave pier.

John's juxtaposition to the scenes of the Anastasis and Pentecost in the sanctuary at

Otranto [Figs. 11, 65] may not be fortuitous: in the Orthodox liturgy, most of the lections

for the period fron1 Easter (represented by the Anastasis) to Pentecost are taken from

John. Between Pentecost and the New Year, which begins in September, the majority of

readings are taken from Matthew; this 1night explain, in part, his location "following" the

Pentecost in the southeast pendentive. A liturgical or calendrical reading of the program

breaks down with the next two evangelists, however, as Luke is read from the New Year

until Lent and Mark is read during Lent and until Holy Week. 308 In any case, the order of

the evangelists corresponds to both the order of their Gospels and the order of the suc­

ceeding narrative cycle, which begins in the southeast.

The upper vault zone of the naos contains scenes from the Christological cycle,

arranged clockwise fro1n the sanctuary in chronological order lFig. 11 l Six scenes have

been securely identified by means of iconographic analysis, with two more tentatively

identified on the west half of the south cross-arm. The number of scenes on each side of a

vault varies: while there are two preserved on the east half of the south vault, suggesting

an original total of four for the entire vault, there are only three scenes in the cast vault;

the Pentecost occupies the space of two scenes. The west bay 1nay originally have had

either three or four scenes. It should be recalled that the eastern and western vaults are

larger than those in the north and south, due to the orientation of the comer b::rrrel vaults,

131

and can be expected to contain the most in1portant scenes. It cannot be determined

whether nairative fragments on the south end wall and lost scenes on the north and west

walls belonged to the Christological cycle, and how many scenes were therefore repre­sented in toto.

The cycle begins in the sanctuary with the Annunciation. Gabriel and the Virgin

flank the central apse so that the angel's announcement travels across real space, an inter­

penetration of reality and symbol found in most Middle and Late Byzantine ,nonuments.

S0meti1nes the scene occurs in the lunette above the apse or in the pendentives,309 but at

Otranto the representation is placed unusually low in order to accomn1odate the medal­

lions of angels displaced from the apse conch. Elsewhere in South Italy, the Annunciation

is seldom located in this "canonical" position. In the masonry churches it has rarely sur­

vived the overpainting of the apse area that has occurred in n1ost monun1ents.310 In the

rock-cut churches the location of the scene varies: at Carpignano, the Annunciation of

959 flanks a niche on the east wall [Fig. 88]; at S. Biagio (1196) it is on the ceiling near

the south wall; at S. Cecilia (late twelfth century) it is in the middle of the north wall.

The Christological cycle continues on the lower zone of th_e southern half of the east

bay vault with the Nativity, First Bath, and Annunciation to the Shepherds. The scene is

found in the same position at Arilje, in Serbia (1296), but despite visual and exegetical

parallels between the body of Christ in the manger and the Host on the altcff the scene is

seldom depicted in church sanctuaries. Instead, the Nativity is usually found in the south

vault, in its eastern half or on the tympanum; in the south pendentive; or on the south wall

of the naos.311 As at S. Pietro, all of these locations reinforce the clockwise progression

of the Christological cycle from its beginning in the sanctuary. In South Italy too the

Nativity is often depicted in the south, as at S. Biagio, S. Cecilia, S. Salvatore at Sanarica

and S. Cesario di Lecce. At S. Mauro, the Nativity was probably the first scene on th~

south vault, just at the edge of the raised sanctuary area. At S. Maria del Casale (early

fourteenth century) it is on the east wall before the south transept; at Alezio (early four­

teenth century) it is now alone on the west wall, far from an Annunciation that differs sig­nificantly in style and may belong to a different stratum of decoration.

Around the comer from the Nativity, in the south cross-arm, the upper part of the

easte111 side of the vault contains the Presentation in the Temple. The location of the

scene between the Nativity and the Baptis1n, which is immediately below, accords with

the historical order of the scenes. The Presentation is almost always located in the south

cross-arm or south wall of Byzantine churches, as at Nerezi (1164), Djurdjevi Stupovi

(1170s), Kurbinovo (1191), and St. Clement's in Ohrid (1295). The southern placement

of the episode at S. Pietro is consistent with other suh divo monuments in South Italy: at

S. Mauro it is the second scene on the south side of the nave vault, and at S. Cesario di

Lecce it is the second scene on the original south wall. In the crypt churches the location

varies: at S. Biagio the Presentation is the first scene on the ceiling, followed by the

132

. ht ·nto Eo-ypt at the Candelora in Massafra it is on the north wall of the narthex. fltgl b' ...

ThP Baptism is frequently in the south arm or on the south wall, as at DJurdJev1

Stupovi and Hosios David ( ca. 1200); it may also appear in the narthex bec_ause baptisms

, were often performed there.312 The basin on the south wall below the Bapt1sn1 at Otranto

[figs. 8, J 5 J is too small for baptisms, but is nonetheless suggestive of liturgical usage;

holy water used throughout the year for ablutions was blessed durmg Epiphany by clip­

ping a cross into such a basin.313 In South Italy, the Baptism appears on the south (right)

nave wall at S. Salvatore in Sanarica, S. Cesario di Lecce, and S. Mauro. It was ong1nally

on the apse wall of S. Michele in Marsico Nuovo and the rear (north) wall at S. Nicola,

Faggiano. In the crypt churches it still survives on the south wall at S. Simeone 'a

P,amosa' and in the upper church, probably S. Giacomo, at Casalrotto. At S. Pietro, the

proskynesis pose of the first angel in the Baptism links the scene visual~y with t.he

Genesis cycle in the north bay, where the Creation of the Angels on the west side contains

another kneeling angel. The two scenes on the west half of the south vault are lost [Figs. I 0, 47], but identifi­

cation of the bottom scene as the Raising of Lazarus or the Entry into Jerusalem is likely

on iconographic grounds. Both these scenes arc found mainly in the ,vestern vaults or

walls of Byzantine churches: at the Episkopi in Mani (late twelfth century) the Entry is

on the south half of the west vault; at Sopocani (ca. 1265) the Entry and Raising of

Lazarus face each other in the west vault. Either scene would be appropriate after the

Baptism on the opposite side of the vault. In South Italy, the Raising of Lazarus is not

preserved in any 1nonument, and the Entry into Jerusalem was rarely represented: it fol­

lows the Presentation on the ceiling at S. Biagio, and succeeds the Baptism on the rear

wall of the Lama di Pensiero in Grottaglie (thirteenth century').

The identification of the Transfiguration as the scene in the second register on the

south wall of the south bay is tentative at best, as the surviving fresco frag1nents are

extre1nely enigmatic [Figs. 10, 11]. In most monuments the vault and wall scenes are suc­

cessive, but it was also possible to interrupt the Christological cycle with a separate cycle

or scenes: at Kranidi (1244), an Abraham cycle on the south wall interrupts the

Christological cycle between the Nativity and the Raising of Lazarus. At S. Pietro itself,

the Genesis cycle in the north bay interrupts the su1rounding Christological cycle. The

fragments on the south wall can therefore be interpreted in several ways: (I) They belong

to scenes that were 1neant to be "read" after the east vault scenes (the Presentation and

Baptism) and before the west vault scenes (probably Lazarus and/or the Entry), in which

case the Transfiguration would be a likely subject. This pattern would differ from the

sequence in the north bay, however, where the four Genesis scenes form a coherent cycle

that cannot have been intenupted by scenes on the adjacent wall. (2) They were meant to

be "read" after the four vault scenes, in which case scenes from Christ's Passion or

Miracles may have been represented. (3) They originally comprised an independent or

]33

partial cycle unrelated to the vault scenes. In this case any number of subjects would be

possible, including scenes from the lives of Peter and Paul, who \Vere depicted as individ­

ual figures iinmediately below. At present there is insufficient reason to favor any one of these three possibilities over another.

The continuation of the Christological cycle in the westen1 cross-arm is entirely lost.

An important scene such as the Ascension may well have been depicted here, as the vault

over the entry is one of the 1nost pron1inent interior spaces. Similarly, the west wall prob­

ably featured a scene of so1ne i1nportance that is otherwise unattested in the surviving

decorative program, perhaps the Crucifixion or Koimesis. In those South Italian monu­

ments where the west wall or west vault decoration survives, the Koi1ncsis is at Cerrate,

the Myrophores are at the upper church of S. Lucia in Brindisi (second half of the thir­

teenth century), the Crucifixion was depicted in the Cattolica at Stilo, and the Last

Judgment survives at S. Cesario di Lecce and S. Maria del Casale. No one scene was con­sistently placed on the west wall.

The Christological cycle continues in the prothesis bay,314 where the scenes of the

Last Supper and Washing of the Feet from the first-layer decoration were deliberately

retained. It see1ns less likely that the Betrayal of Christ and'its presu1ned companion

scene in the northwest bay were also preserved: their very poor state of preservation sug­

gests overpainting, and the Christological cycle would lose its consistent clockwise narra­

tive order if these scenes were included. Instead, after the two scenes in the prothesis

(whose appropriateness in this location has already been noted), the cycle continues in the

east bay with the Anastasis opposite the Nativity on the lower part of the north side of the vault [Fig. 11].

Despite its importance as the major feast scene for Holy Week, the Anastasis has no

fixed position in Byzantine church decoration. It is on the lower apse wall at New Tokali

kilise, in the apse conch in the parekklesion at Kariye Djan1i, in the north arm of

Djurdjevi Stupovi, and in the westen1 vault at Kranidi and the church of Christ Soter in

Megan1. At S. Pietro the importance of the Anastasis is underscored by its placement in

the sanctuary. Elsewhere in South Italy, the Anastasis is also close to or pa1t of the sanc­

tuary: it is the eastern1nost scene on the north wall at S. Mauro and S. Cesario di Lecce

and the next-to-easternmost scene on the north nave wall at S. Salvatore in Sanarica. In

all three the scene is opposite the Nativity, as at Otranto. This confrontation of the

Anastasis and Nativity also occurs at Mileseva (ca. 1230), where the two scenes are on

opposite walls just outside the sanctuary, and probably also in the sanctuary of On1orphi

Ekklesia near Athens (ca. 1285), although only the Anastasis survives today.315 The

presence of both the Incaination and Resun·ection in the sanctuary reinforces the sy1nbol­

ism of the eucharistic sacrifice celebrated between them at the central altar.

The placement of the Anastasis in the sanctuary at Otranto thus has syn1bolic value

and accords with the chronological order of the Christological cycle, but it may also indi-

134

dependence on a textual n1odel because the Anastasis is e1nphasized as the first scene

_~ __ he Greek Lectionary. In addition, a link between Nativity and Anastasis had been sug­

ftl \ed by Irenaeus in the second century and was greatly developed in the homiletic liter­

which drew analogies between the caves in both scenes. Best known among the

.·1t,,rn,terrc authors was Gregory Nazianzen, whose writings were the most copied texts in

Byzantine world after the Bible itself.3 16 Collections of Gregory's orations were

.-,,!i,•copreu in South Italy from at least the tenth century,317 and two dated Gregory

manuscripts vvere produced in the Salento itself in the thirteenth century.3l8 As this can­

_not be said of any other writers of homilies (including Basil of Caesarea, to whom

,)'• ,Gre,gory was certainly indebted, or John Chrysostom), it seems legitimate to focus on

Gi·eg,ory in adducing possible textual sources for the i1nages at Otranto. Gregory's oration

on the ,r-.Jativity and second oration on Easter underscore the relationship between these

important -feasts by repeating large blocks of common text,319 and in the Easter horni­

ly Gregory says explicitly, "I would have thee celebrate both the Birthday and the Burial

of Him who was born for thee and suffered for thee."320 The visual and symbolic inter­

connections a1nong the Anastasis, Nativity, and other scenes, and the i1nportance of the

homilies of Gregory Nazianzen to the co1nplete second-layer decorative program will be

further explored below. Above the Anastasis and Nativity, spanning the bema vault, is the Pentecost [Figs.

11, 12]. This scene is usually found in the uppermost vaults of Byzantine churches, as

befits its occun·ence in the heavenly sphere, but it has no prescribed location. It is fre­

quently placed in the west vault, as at Perachorio, H. Stratigos in Mani, the Omorphi

Ekklesia in Athens, and H. Demetrius Katsouris in Arla (ca. 1300), or on the west wall, as

at Kurbinovo, Djurdjevi Stupovi, Mileseva, and St. Clement's in Ohrid, but it may also be

some\vhat de-e1nphasized by placement in the narthex, as at Samarina, or in the north

vault, as in lhe Cappella Palatina, Monreale, and Gracanica. Yet there is a long tradition

of placing the Pentecost in the cast: examples include H. Panteleimon in Ano Boularii

(99l/2), Panagia ton Chalkeon (1028), and Hosios Loukas (mid-eleventh century). The

position of the Pentecost at S. Pietro seems to ret1ect the early preference for depicting

this scene in the east, which may also indicate its location in the first-layer decoration. ln

addition, placement in the east bay is appropriate on two counts. First, the Pentecost is the

final scene in the Christological cycle which at Otranto begins and ends in the east bay.

Second, this allegory of divine inspiration is wen suited to the s:u1ctuary where the priests

are celebrating the liturgy.321 As this scene is not preserved elsewhere in the region, no

local programmatic comparisons can be adduced.

Of the single figures, the evangelists have already been considered as part of the naos

program while the angels and hierarchs in the apse have been evaluated as part of the

sanctuary. Peter and Paul, the only other single figures that can be securely identified,

often flank doorways in connection with Peter's role as the gatekeeper os) of

135

---------------------------------------------

Paradise. 322 They do so on the west facade of H. Anargyroi (late twelfih century), and in

Kariye Djami at the entry fro1n the inner narthex into the church proper. Peter's place­

ment at Otranto could also be construed as being at one end of the lost chancel barrier, a

position of i1nportance; he anchors that position at Perachorio, which is dedicated to Peter

and PauI.323 Peter and Paul are also prominent at S. Mauro, where they face each other

across the nave on the first pair of piers outside the sanctuary.

The female saint in the southwest corner bay at S. Pietro reflects the tendency to

depict wo1nen far from the apse, corresponding to their place in the church during ser­

vices.324 They are often in the narthex or on the west wall, and in churches without a

narthex there seems to be a preference for placing fe1nale saints on the south wall and

males on the north. This is the situation in Cappadocia,325 and in South Italy female saints

are si1nilarly located in the southwest comer bay at Castro326 and on the north wall of the

south aisle at S. Demetria Corone (mid-thirteenth century).327 At S. Salvatore in Sanarica

the north aisle contains a row of standing saints who appear to be male (their poor state of

conservation precludes certainty), suggesting that a co1Tesponding row of female saints

originally filled the south aisle.

There is evidence for additional standing figures on the sOuth and west wall and on

the central piers at S. Pietro. Such standing figures are normal in the lower zones of

Byzantine churches and are found in South Italy at Cerrate, S. Lucia in Brindisi, and S.

Cesario di Lecce. Nothing survives in the soffits of the vaults at Otranto, although these

were perhaps decorated with full-length figures of saints as at S. Mauro, Muro Leccese,

Cerrate, S. Demetrio Corone, and Anglona. It is not possible to infer any particular pro­

gra1nmatic emphasis from the scanty reinains of the single figures at Otranto.

The key to interpretation of the second-layer program is the Genesis cycle in the

north bay. There is no precedent for the inclusion of such a cycle in a cross-in-square

church, which is not to say that there is no Old Testament in1agery in Byzantine monu-

1nental decoration. A Genesis cycle comprised the cupola decoration at Aght'a1nar in

Armenia ( ca. 915), and the scene of the Fall survives on the west wall of the narthcx at

Koropi in Greece (1020s). Old Testament prophecies and prefigurations of the eucharist,

such as the Hospitality of Abraham, were co1nmonly illustrated in the sanctuary of

Middle Byzantine churchcs; 328 four typological scenes appear in the side chapels of the

scmctuary at Hosios Loukas. In the thirteenth century the narthex beccune the usual place

to depict episodes belonging to the time before the Incarnation,329 but Biblical scenes

continued to be housed in some sanctuaries as part of the Palaeologan return to Early

Christian sources. 330 However, after Aght'a,nar there is no evidence for a Byzantine tra­

dition of Genesis illustration on a monumental scale.

Genesis i1nagery is far 1norc common in Italy, where a large number of monuments

containing extensive Old Testament cycles can be linked either to Early Christian Rome,

to the twelfth-thirteenth century revival in Ro1ne of Early Christian art, or to Norman

136

Sicily. In all of these 1nonuments the Genesis scenes occur at the beginning of an Old

Testament cycle arrayed on one or both sides of the nave or aisles of a longitudinal build­

. Paired \Vith a New Testament cycle, the Genesis scenes for1n a continuous narrative ;ng. of sacred history that ahnost invariably begins at the eastern end of the south wall.331 In

rt1ainland South Italy an extensive Old Testa1nent cycle survives only at Anglona, where

it too unfurls along the south nave wall beginning at the cast end.332

With the exception of Aght'amar, all extant Genesis cycles differ fro1n the one at

Otranto in the following ways: they arc part of a much larger Old Testament cycle; they

begin at the cast end of longitudinal monuments; and they are expressly complemented by

New Testament cycles on the opposite wall or on lower registers of the same wall. The

differences between the cycle at Otranto and the Italian examples are due in so,ne degree

to architectural exigencies; an extensive longitudinal distribution of scenes is impossible

in a small cross-in-square building. Why, in spite of these constraints, did the patron of

the second fresco layer want to include a Genesis cycle in a Byzantine edifice that was

slated to contain an otherwise conventional Byzantine decorative program?

To view the second fresco layer as an idiosyncratic 1nixing of Byzantine and Western

models is unsatisfactory, and to sec S. Pietro as a small-scale evocation of the Italian 1nonu­

ments is also ditiicult to accept: the Genesis cycle at Otranto is not part of a larger Old

Testament cycle, but stands alone; if the patron wanted to replicate the Italian cycles he

should have placed the Genesis scenes in the eastern or southern bay, to si,nulate the con­

sistent progression of scenes from the sanctuary; and, finally, there is no precedent among

the Italian monuments for the Creation of the Angels as the initial scene. Although the wide

diffusion of Old Testament imagery in ltaly was probably influential, the Genesis cycle at

Otranto caimot be understood as merely a miniaturization of the Italian cycles. Very differ­

ent choices have been made in the selection, arrangement, and placement of the scenes, and

these choices can be explicitly connected with the homilies of Gregory Nazianzen.

In his orations on Easter and the Nativity, which have already been cited to clarify

the pairing of those two scenes in the sanctuary, Gregory discusses Creation at great

length.333 According to Gregory [v], and illustrated literally at Otranlo, the first of God's

activities was the creation of the angels. In no other monument is the angelic creation

accorded such prominence. Next to be created was the n1aterial world, earth and sky [ vi},

corresponding to the left half of the second Genesis scene. This was followed, in both the

homilies and the fresco, by the creation of man [ vii]. Additional passages common to

both orations include Adam in Paradise-the ,nost likely subject of the next scene at

Otranto, which has been lost-and the story of the Fall, which provided the motivation

for Christ's incarnation as the New Adam. The entire Easter oration revolves around the

soteriological hope that with Christ's resun·ection the old Adam is put aside, and the new

Ada1n is fulfilled liJ. The Anastasis at Otranto adjoins the Creation scenes because

Anastasis represents a new creation as the path to salvation.334

137

attributed to any nu1nber of factors, alone or in con1bination: different patrons, different

hands, or different modes are all possibilities.349 Hagia Sophia in Constantinople con~

tained rnosaics of vastly different styles, 1nost of which were simultaneously visible until

the Turkish conquest. Examples in fresco are numerous from all periods. And at S. Pietro

itself, the new second layer was co1nposed of paintings in two very different styles, which

are discussed below. It therefore seen1s unlikely that the preexistence of a third style at

Otranto would have troubled conten1porary viewers.

Stylistic Analysis

The two distinct styles in the second fresco layer may, for the sake of convenience,

be labeled Style A and Style B. They are contemporary products of the same campaign of

redecoration. Style A is used for scenes and figures outside the east cross-ann: the

Presentation in the Te1nple, the Baptis1n, the fragments in the south bay, the four Genesis

scenes, the evangelists, and the other single figures except Basil. Style B is restricted to

the east bay: the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Anastasis, the Pentecost, Basil, and the

angel medallions. 350 The two styles are best discussed in t1lrn, with an evaluation of

characteristics preceding a discussion of comparanda.

The composition of the scenes in Style A is dictated largely by the size of the uni­

formly framed panels. The figures are larger than those of the first layer because the

cross-vaults are larger than the corner bay vaults. In the pendentives, the evangelists'

heads touch the cornice at the base of the cupola and their feet fill the narrow spandrels;

the feet and nimbi of other figures frequently overlap the decorative border. This feature

is usually dismissed as an element of chance or a reflection of poor work1nanship, but it is

found in some very high-quality Byzantine 1nonu1nents and is part of a tradition that dates

to Antiquity. 351 In thirteenth-century Venice and the West such overstepping of the bor­

der is clearly intentional, so that the fra1ne becomes "an integral part of the pictorial

unit."352 At S. Pietro too, these overlaps represent a subtle play on the pictorial space. In

cases where a figure's feet overlap the border [Figs. 61, 66], the frame becomes the

ground and the action is restricted to an even narrower plane.

Very little spatial depth, rarely more than the width of a body, is communicated in

any of the scenes. Only in the Baptis1n do three figures overlap an<l imply some recession

in depth [Fig. 44J. The angel nearest Christ is farthest back, indicated by the overlap of

the upper bodies and the fact that the feet of the third angel are lower than those of the

first. This disposition of the figures takes into account the arched lower edge of the

scene, a11owing the right angel's feet to partly fill an otherwise awkward space. Hovv­

ever, the disposition of the figures in space is not convincing: in the Reproach and

Denial, for example. all three figures appear to be suspended above the ground [Color

fig. 68J.

140

The rendering of landscape consists of a low horizon line and colorful hilly ground;

"'?" re few IJlants. In the Creation of Eve and the R.cproach and Denial the gFound is an _:fue:re a '~ealistic gold, articulated in red, and Ada1n reclines on rocks of the same color. The

are highly schcmatized, but pa1iicular species can be identified. In the Baplism the

__ - . le green ground rises without a transitional ground line to fom1 folded peaks. The juxta-~-p! of the ground and the water of the Jordan is very stylized; a naturalistic rocky

landscape must have been the ultin1ate source, but it has been abstracted here to an ahnost

czl(' trore:cognrWLble degree. For interior scenes, the furniture in Style A is badly drawn. As the evangelists have very odd relationships wiLh their respective chairs: Luke

seems to sit on the armrest lFig. 721, and John's seat steps down behind his nin1bus and

seems too shallow to accommodate him [Fig. 71]. In general, the figures in Style A are

awkwardly placed in relation to their surroundings. Poses are used to unify the scenes. Most conspicuous is the standing figure who faces

r-ight at the left edge of 1nost surviving panels. In the Genesis cycle this is the Creator,

duplicated in each panel except the first [Figs. 60, 64]; Joseph and John the Baptist filled

this role in the south hay [Figs. 40-42J. The repetitive stances arc emphasized by the

extension of the right arm in every case, and a "reading" of each scene from left to right is

clearly intended. However, the static framing and rhythmic 1novements suggest that the

scenes are designed as n1uch to be contemplated as icons as read as narratives. 353 In a

more limited repetition of poses that was shown to have progra1n1natic significance, the

kneeling angel in the Baptism is mirrored in the Creation of the Angels, and the pulling

up of Eve in Paradise is rei1ecte<l in the pulling up of Adam in the Anastas is.

There are a nu1nber of reasonably well-preserved faces in Style A: three belong to

representations of Christ [Figs. 44, 62, 671; five are angels [Figs. 44. 69, color fig. 63J;

two are evangelists [Figs. 71-72J; and one. the female figure on the south wall [Fig. 76J,

is the only surviving frontal figure.354 There are differences in the drawing of the faces

shown in three-quarter view, but these are minimal and do not preclude description of the

group as a whole. The faces are oval. often with a slight indent at eye level (but not Luke

or the third Baptis1n angel). The dark facial conlour thins as it rounds the chin and disap­

pears into the shading that models the side of the face. The hair is striated (white on gray,

or light and dark on brown) or plaited, and there are usually some short strands falling

over the center of the forehead. The three Baptism angels have three different coiffures.

The hair of 1nost figures covers the ears, revealing only a simple loop or, in John's case, a

stylized shape outlined in white without any detailing. The brow is sometimes furrowed

(John). and the brow ridge is emphasized by a continuous white highlight above the eye­

brows. This line may be straight (Christ in the Creation of Heaven and Earth) or notice­

ably curved (second Baptism angel). Below dark brows, the eyes are deeply set in shaded

sockets.355 The dark contour of the almond-shaped eyes does not meet at -the inner cor­

ner; it curves up at the ends, and the lower eyelid line is extended out to the te1nples (best

141

seen on the second Baptism angel). There is a line of shadowing underneath. Pupils are

large and round; in the case of the second Baptism angel, the eyes are focused not on the

scene but on the spectator. 1'he expressions are calm in every case except for this same

angel, whose raised brows co1n1nunicate so1ne vague e1notional tension.

The root of the nose is so1neti1nes marked by a pronounced wishbone shape, rendered

as a ,vhite highlight and filled with a gray triangle (second Baptism angel, Christ in

Creation of Heaven and Earth). The noses are very long, usually straight but so,nctirnes

curved (Christ and third angel in the Baptism). The end of the nose may be straight or

decidedly aquiline (first Baptism angel); the well-defined nostrils are nearly square. The

long noses are heavily shadowed along one side, while the nostril may be outlined with a

highlight corresponding to the upper pa11 of lhe crease between nose and mouth (John,

second and third Baptism angels). The cheeks are red, so,netimes indicated by parallel

strokes (Christ in Creation of }leaven and Earth, fe1nale saint), sometimes outlined with a

dark curve (John, Christ in the Baptism). The hollow of the cheek shades directly into the

beard of Christ (Baptism, Reproach and Denial), whose mustache does not meet his bifur­

cated beard. Only the 1nustached figures and the frontal female saint have a dot n1arking

the philh·um. The mouths are drawn with a straight or slightly d0wn-curving stroke above

a short dark line indicating the bottom edge of the pendant red lower lip. The third

Baptisn1 angel has the lower lip fully outlined and a separate stroke separating the lip

fro1n the chin. At approximately 8 heads high, the figures in Style A are slightly elongated.

However, only Eve in the Reproach and Denial [Fig. 67] is so thin as to appear attenuat­

ed; the other figures have sufficient mass to balance their height, although Christ's legs in

the Baptism and Adam's in the Reproach and Denial are unnaturally thin. Christ in the

Denial shows real girth around the waist and hips. The heads, except for the frontal

female saint, arc set onto thick, sturdy necks emphasized by a shadow line at the base and

by the low rounded necklines of the garments. On the neck of Christ in the Reproach and

Denial this shadow has an additional loop and imitates a decorative torque. The muscula­

ture on the abdomens of Christ in the Baptism and Ada1n and Eve in the Denial is

schematic but shows an understanding of body volume; Adam's stylized kneecaps in two

scenes are less convincing. All of the arms are sturdy and well proportioned. The hands

and feet are well drawn, except that in profile the feet have the big toe separated from the

others, and in the Creation of Eve Adam's hand has a curious claw shape. There is an

interest in showing a variety of poses, and weight 1nay be cairied on the right or left leg.

The continuous dark body contour, which is very thick in places, isolates the figures

against their backgrounds. The smooth drapery of Style A tends to mold itself to the figure underneath. The

abdomen is marked by a trio of nested "V"s (Christ in the Reproach and Denial, second

Baptism angel). There is a bunched double fold of drapery over the thighs of Christ in the

142

Denial, John, and the first Baptism angel; the third angel has a single fold. These folds

emphasize the very substantial volumes of the legs and hips of all these figures, especially

the angels. Jn addition, Christ has a number of parallel folds on his upper thigh that inter­

rupt the oval fold patterns drawn in black. The backs of the knees are emphasized by

pointed "V" folds. There are no busy folds or dra1natic flying ends of gannents, and the

complex folds visible at the hem of the figure opposite Christ (Adam?) in the scene pre­

ceding the R.eproach and Denial recur only in the figure of Gabriel in the Annunciation.

Instead, rhythmic folds highlighted in white arc balanced by creases rendered in black

and several intermediate tones. The lower edges of so1ne garments are traced with a calli­

graphic vvhite line (altar cloth in the Presentation in the Te1nple, himatia over angels'

hands in the Baptism), and the drape suspended over Christ's leti arm in the Denial falls

in gentle curves before coming to a sharply pointed end. Finally, the palette of Style A

shows a preference for warm, light drapery tones (aqua, pink, light red) but also some

unusual dark blue (Baptism angels). 356 Color often has an iconographic function, identi­

fying a figure as an angel (blue tunics, pink or yellow mantles) or as the Creator (pink

tunic, pale blue-green mantle).

It is not possible to find exact correspondences for this style in the region.357 No sur­

viving monuments can be linked in their entirety to Style A, and stylistic comparisons can

only be made with specific features in a few related works. Comparisons have been

adduced between the scenes in Style A and the mosaics of Monreale,358 but these are

valid only in terms of iconography, not style.359 Style A has neither the emotional con­

tent nor the plethora of inventive drapery folds found at Monreale; it lacks flying drapery

ends, circular disks at the hips and other joints, and hard highlights.360 Co,nparing the

Reproach and Denial scene in the two monuments [Figs. 67, 102], Christ at Monreale has

a repeated pattern of folds at the hem that is missing al Otranto. The bunched folds over

his right thigh do not emphasize just the thigh, but continue across to the other leg. The

volumes of individual body parts are better indicated at Otranto; the nested "V" folds are

missing at Monreale, where the musculature of Adam and Eve is also more stylized.

Finally, the scene at Otranto is more expressive, with both hands of Christ raised in

rebuke. These differences are sufficient to indicate that the frescoes at S. Pietro were not

produced by the atelier operating at Monreale in the 1180s; the Sicilian workshop can

indeed be traced on the Italian mainland, but it did not find work in Apulia.

An important comparison between Otranto and a local monument has been adduced

by Valentino Pace.361 The deep-set eyes and continuous brow hne of certain figures,

most notably the angel in the Creation of the Angels [Color fig. 63], compare very closely

with the features of the Virgin in the Nativity al S. Cesario di Lccce (1329) [Fig. 111 J. There are differences: the Virgin has a more languorous expression than the angel, as

well as smoother facial modeling. The value of the co1nparison lies in its linking Style A

to one of the very few dated rnonun1ents in the region, showing that such emphatic facial

143

modeling survived locally well into the fourteenth century. This survival also underscores

the difficulty of assigning a date to a particular styllstic feature; in other parts of the

Byzantine world such modeling is retardataire long before 1329, but in lhc Salento this

style is found in a fourteenth-century monument that also contains up-to-date depictions

of architecture. In tenns of facial modeling, red checks are found in South Italy at the Candclora crypt

(late thirteenth century), S, Vito Vecchio (ca, 1300) [Fig. I 12], and S. Nicola at Mottola

(second half of the thirteenth century); the curved red strokes at Otranto especially resem­

ble those at S. Giovanni in Monterrone, Matera (late thirteenth century). The prominent

noses with well-defined nostrils occur at S. Vito Vecchio, and the square nostrils of the

frontal female saint on the south wall are like those of John Chrysostom in the apse of the

Cattolica at Stilo (probably second half of the thirteenth century). Christ in the Creation of

Heaven and Earth [Fig. 62] has the same facial shape, pronounced brow ridge, eye con­

tour, and long nose with square nostrils as St. Theodore in the crypt of S. Nicola at

Faggiano [Fig. 113]. 111e Faggiano fresco has been dated to the second half of the thir­

teenth century,362 a date supported by the paleography of the acco1npanying inscription.

Christ's bifurcated beard is not uncommon in the region: it ls found at S. Margherita

in Mottola and S. Vito Vecchio, as well as at Monreale [Figs. 101-102]. His decorative

neck fold in the Reproach and Denial finds no exact parallels, but is doubtless derived

from a stylized fold like that on the neck of tbe archangel Michael in S. Anna at

Brindisi.363 A good overall comparison of facial features-broad face on a sturdy neck,

san1e drawing and expression of the eyes, wishbone-shaped highlight over the nose, and

schcmatized drawing of the ,nouth-can be ,nade with the undated S. Ciriaca at the

Matcrdomini crypt in Laterza [Fig. 114], one of the most Byzantine in style of all the

crypt frescoes.364 However, the comparison is h1nited by the poor conservation of the

only frontal saint in Style A [Fig. 76].

The figural proportions in Style A are less attenuated than those of S. Vito Vecchio

or the Presentation of the Virgin at Ccrrate.365 The drapery of Christ in tbe Reproach and

Denial, for example, is less abstract than that at Cerrate, where the folds over the thigh of

Joachi1n create ornamental compartments that flatten the body instead of modeling the

underlying volume. ln addition, the drapery suspended from Joachi1n's ar1n has more

angular folds than tbe gently flowing but more pointed drapery of Christ in the Reproach

and Denial. A general comparison may be made witb the robes of the unidentified bishop

in the oratory of S. Martino in Bari (1nid-thirtecnth century): 366 the figure has a sin1plified

pattern of folds with the focus on the knee, like the Baptism angels, as well as the hard

nested "V" folds of Christ in the Reproach m1d Denial. As occasionally at Otranto, white

edging of the drapery occurs at Cerrate, S. Giovanni in Monterrone, and S. Anna in

Brindisi. Still, all these comparisons indicate only general similarities between Style A

and other works in the region.

144

Outside South Italy, good comparisons for Style A arc only slightly more numerous.

Coloristically, Style A falls between the rich but somber palette that characterizes Late

Comnene vvorks and the lighter tones associated with the thirteenth century (the

Palaeologan period favored metallic pastel shades), but color is less a secure criterion for

dating than a product of individual artistic choice.367 Compositional1y the scenes accord

with the shallow stage-space found in Byzantine monuments of the late twelfth and early

thirteenth century. The landscape is not rendered with the "extreme sobriety"368 of a

rnonu1nent such as Patmos, which still belongs to a conservative Late Comnene aesthetic,

but it is also a ]ong way from the "atmospheric" i1npression of the very progressive

Hosios David in Thessaloniki (ca. 1200)369 and 1nost later monu1nents. None of the sur­

viving scenes contains any architectural background, the presence of which 1night have

pennitted a more precise dating.

Most of the heads in Style A are closest to those in monu,nents from the end of the

twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century. The way in which the eyes of Christ and of

the second angel in the Baptism meet the bridge of the nose at a right angle and are

emphasized with a wishbone highlight [Fig. 44] recalls such monuments as H. Neophytos

(ca. 1200)370 and Studenica (1209). However, this also occurs in the Hodegitria mosaic

icon fron1 Calatamauro in Palermo, which has been variously dated to the first half of the

thirteenth century, the second half of the thirteenth century (perhaps the third quarter),

and to ca. 130Q.37l The Sicilian mosaic also has the long, curving nose found in Style A

and characteristic of Late Comnene works. The unusually straight profile and facial fea­

tures of the evangelist Luke and of Christ in the Creation of Heaven and Earth [Figs. 62,

72} arc strikingly close to the head of the Annunciate Virgin in a later monument, H.

Demetrius Krokeon in Laconia (1286), except that Luke's nose is longer.372

Red cheeks were common throughout the Middle Byzantine period, but above all in

monuments from the eleventh through the early thirteenth century; examples include

Patmos (the Chapel of the Virgin and the Refectory) and Milcseva (ca. 1230).373 The

faces of the Baptism angels can be compared with the group of three angels on the north

side of the Refectory at Patmos [Figs. 44, 115]; similarly, Christ in the Baptism is close to

the Christ in the Patmos Communion of the Apostles [Figs. 44, 116]. The Patmos figures

have thinner necks and squarer faces; their noses are shorter and their lips fleshier; they

have more insistent highlights on their faces and especially on the drapery; :u1d their gar­

n1enls have more complicated folds, and more of them. Co1npared to the trio at Otranto,

there is less differentiation among the Patmos angels; they all have the sa1ne hairstyles

and expressions. On the whole, however, these figures are not far removed from those of

Style A, and the faces in particular belong to a phase of development that is easily related

to the style at S. Pietro.

The drapery of the Patmos angels is not well preserved, but other figures in the

Refectory have much more agitated drapery and thus offer less satisfactory comparison

145

---. -FT' .

with Otranto. The restrained quality of the drapery in Style A suggests a more monumen~

ta! aesthetic. The way in which the drapery folds over the thighs of the Baptism angels

[Figs. 41, 44] emphasize their volume is paralleled at Hosios David ( ca. 1200) [Fig. 118],

th~ 1nonument par excellence that announces the new monumental trends of the thi11centh

century. The thigh folds also find manuscript parallels in the early thirteenth century.374

The long uninterrupted fall of the himation of the second Baptism angel contributes to a

monumentalization of the figure difficult to find in the twelfth century, when the drapery

tended toward fragmentation. 375 One idiosyncrasy-the way Christ's midriff in the

Reproach and Denial appears lo merge with the line of his left shoulder [Fig. 67, color

fig. 68]-recurs in the arcosolium angel at Porta Panagia in Pili (1283-89).37°

It is difficult to agree with one description of the figures at Otranto as "elongated,

hyperactive ... robed in energetic drapery."377 The figures in Style A are marked by

tranquillity and their drapery is very restrained. It is also difficuh to accept that these fres­

coes have "a style similar to that which appears ubiquitously in the Empire in the late

twelfth century." 378 Certainly Style A has important features in common with the Late

Comnene style; the design of the individual facial features is particularly close. However,

the Otranto faces completely lack the "form-designing lines"'379 that characterize true

Comnene faces, and the lack of ornamentation does not accord with Late Comnene

taste. 380 This lack of elaboration is evident in the ears, which in 1nost late twelfth-century

monuments are highly stylized, and in the gannents, which are completely devoid of both

the vermiculation and mannered folds associated with the period.381 Features that post­

date the Comnene period and push the execution of Style A into the thirteenth century

include the volume of Christ in the Reproach and Denial and of the Baptism angels, espe­

cia11y the second, with their relatively thick necks and flanks [Figs. 44, 67]; the restrained

linearism and broad modeling of virtually all the garments; the lack of stylized ornamen­

tation of any sort; and the intense but calm expressions, modeled with color as well as

with line. Comparanda for Style A span the period from the end of the twelfrh until the

late thirteenth century, and the persistence of Late Con1nene stylistic features does not

necessarily indicate a date within the Late Co,nncnc period.

Style B contains scenic compositions more varied than Style A. The two Pentecost

panels are flanked by tall architectural elements, with the central part of each scene lower

than the two sides [Color fig. 53, figs. 54, 57-58]. The apostles' nimbi are not all the

same size or the same height, and the variable distance between figures enlivens the com­

position. The Nativity is focused on the central hill that houses the 1nanger, and the flank­

ing angelic groups are enclosed by parenthesis-shaped peaks [Color fig. 36, fig. 37]. The

rhyth1n is gently flowing, uninterrupted by sharp intrusions, and focused in on itself as a

result of the framing peaks; in this way the composition underscores the calm, pastoral

nature of the scene. In the Anastasis, on the other hand, the nimbi of John the Baptist and

Christ alternate with two sharply extruded peaks in a jagged up-and-down pattern [Figs.

146

_48

-4 9]. This 1novement accords with the violence of the action, although the figures

'.\nemselves are monun1cntally calm. The figure of Christ is at the juncture of four divi­

. s ·,n the composition (the "V" of the sky, the hill behind the protoparents, the dark s:1on • cavern of Hades, and the hill enclosing the Old Testament kings); his waist is where all

these coinpositional and coloristic ele1nents meet. The focal point is thus not on the ccn­

-tral axis of the scene, but pushed to the right. The scenes in Style B reveal an understanding of spatial depth not present in Style A.

In the Nativity the strong diagonal of the Virgin's body leads the eye back into space. The

manger. convincingly rendered in three dimensions, is behind the multilevel rolling

ground; the n1idwife is behind the basin. Both manger and basin are rendered obliquely

from above. Adam's sarcophagus in the Anastasis is n1ore strongly angled, as if viewed

from a higher vantage point; it was probably drawn to fit into the spandrel-like space

flanking the arch that opens into the prothesis. In the Pentecost, the edges of the Gospel

books and Philip's rotulus also appear to project forward, emphasizing the sense of depth.

The architecture in the Pentecost, especially the right panel, is visually complex and

spatially convincing [Figs. 57-59]. The poorly preserved but still discernible cornices,

varied roof levels, and forward projection of the "portals" attest to an interest in depth

unknown before the thirteenth century, though a burgeoning interest in architecture is

attested earlier by the backgrounds at Lagoudera ( 1192) and elsewhere.18 2 The fore­

ground of the scene is only as deep as the bench upon which the apostles sit, but the tnan­

ner in which their la1ees project at different levels and their feet overlap the base suggests

another spatial plane. The positions of the feel indicate that the logical placement of the

figures in space was inconsistently carried out. Several figures look out of their respective scenes toward the viewer, including

Christ and Solomon in the Anastasis and Thomas in the Pentecost [Figs. 48-58, color fig.

50]. They are thus allied with the second Baptism angel, in Style A [Fig. 44], in integrat­

ing the entire church into the pictorial space. This occurred in the Late Comnene period in

such 1nonuments as Nerezi, Kurbinovo; H. Anargyroi, 383 and Hosios David. It reflects a

desire to engage the sensibilities of the spectator, a trend that began at Nerezi but became

increasingly prominent in the thirteenth century. 384 In South Italy, the surviving evange­

lists at S. Mauro (ca. 1300) also look out at the viewer, and the predominance of frontal

figures in the rock-cut monutnents further reveals an interest in establishing a direct

votive relalionship, a discourse between viewer and image. There are enough reasonably well-preserved faces in Style B to indicate that two

1nodes of depicting n1ale faces were employed, although it is unclear how tnany artists

were at work. ~fhe first mode is limited to the Pentecost apostles, of whom Philip is the

best preserved except for damage around the eyes [Figs. 55-56J. For these faces coloristic

modeling has been employed with highly plastic effect; a green proplasmos is visible at

the edge of the oval face, and touches of red arc seen on the cheeks. The contours are

147

deeply shadowed, obscuring any linear outline, and the faces are very soft and fleshy. The

cheeks of bearded figures arc not full like those of Philip, but slightly concave, with dark

reddish shading, The almond-shaped eyes with oval pupils have slightly arched brows

above and half-shadows underneath. Noses, defined only by color and shadov,r, are round­

ed and slightly hooked at the tip; the nostrils are round, The red lips are sott and full, with

the shorter lo\ver lip projecting forward over a shadow that marks the rounded chin. The

cars have a distinctive "S" a1ticulation within overall oval outlines. Except for the white

hair of Peter and John and the beard of the latter, little use is made of line; the dark-haired

figures all appear to have a sn1ooth, abundant cap of hair.

The second mode in Style B is used for the Anastasis rcolor figs, 50-51, fig, 52],

Nativity, and the angel medallion flanking the apse [Fig, 691; the angel and Adam [Color

fig, 51 J are especially well preserved, This style differs in a few particulars from that of

the Pentecost faces. Here the ochre of Adam's cheek 1nelds with his impressionistically

drawn hair and yellow ni1nbus without any clear outlines, but the internal facial features

do have dark contours. The eyebrows are thin and straight, nearly touching and flattening

the eye and yielding the impression of a deep eye socket and a focused gaze. The brows

form a highlighted wishbone shape at the bridge of the nose ·that is not present in the

Pentecost faces, although this area is not well preserved in any of those. 11Iis treatinent

recalls the second Baptisn1 ::mgel in Style A, but there the nose is much longer and the

drawing exclusively linear. E1notional intensity is suggested in Ada1n 's face by the finely

furrowed forehead, drawn brows, and concentrated expression. Eve in the Anastasis has

linear detailing on her cheek, a convention for age found in monuments of all periods

lFig. 48J.385 Her mouth is drawn more frontally than in three-quarter view, a characteris­

tic of several of these figures. Christ in the same scene [Fig. 52J belongs to the second

mode but his frontality reveals its elements in a different way: the features appears s1nall­

er, in a broad face framed by abundant hair. The expression is also fiercer, but this may

be a product of the more focused frontal view. Style B faces in both modes are rendered

by a soft, painterly modeling of solid volumes.

The figures in Style B appear to he well proportioned, at approximately 6 1/2 to 7

heads tall, although only Christ in the Anastasis is fully erect and visible from head to

foot. In addition to being larger figures in a larger pictorial field, the Pentecost apostles

are considerably more robust and muscular than the figures in the Anastas.is and Nativity.

The apostles [Color fig. 53, figs. 54-591 have relatively long torsos, a fact emphasized by

their low common throne. They are extremely broad-shouldered below thick, bulging

necks, and they have especially prominent calf muscles. Their hands are well drawn on

sturdy wrists, and their feet are sli1n and elegant. The figures executed in the second

stylistic mode are also broad-shouldered, but their musculature is less emphatic; the necks

are less bulging, though they are certainly sturdy [Fig. 48, color fig. 50J, Unlike the

Pentecost apostles their arms are very thin, with li111p wrists and small, weak hands. These

148

l . betray some unconvincing draftsn1anship: in the Anastasis, Adam's lower figures a so . . - .

·, ,i·ly dravvn with the thighs foreshortened to an 1mposs1ble degree, and 1n the torso ts pot , . . . -1 the child in the bath is distressingly small and thrn [Ftg. 38].

Nattvt Y . . . . _ . . The drapery of all the figures in Style B 1s busy, clmgy, silken in fcclmg, with

• -1·11kl)' folds rendered as light tones nanked by darker ones in different colors. numerous c1 · There arc great independent swaths of drapery on the laps of some. of the Pentecost a~os-

d Pete r John and Thomas have their arms tightly constrained by drapery slings tles,an , , ' .. . . , '51 }1emlines are lively and varied, with no lazy repetition of forms. In their profu-

[F1g. -' · , . sion the folds take on patterns independent of the underlying body structure; the facete~

compartments on Philip's left sleeve, the folds on John's torso, an~ th~ lower par~ of

Gabriel's garment are examples [Figs. 33, 55-56J, The dark-colored htmatta have parttcu­

larly calligraphic and irrational highlights. Clavi are treated in two ways:. on the tor~os

they are broad stripes, heedless of the drapery folds underneath and producmg a flattenmg

effect (Philip, Simon); on the legs they arc thin, illogically mterrupted by folds as they

follow the contour of the knee and calf (Paul, Christ in the Anastasis). The clavus of the

unidentified left-hand apostle in the right Pentecost panel combines these attributes [Fig.

59}. The coinplicated gannents have substance, mass, but they cannot be said to draw that

1nass fron1 the body underneath. The palette of Style B is very rich, and modeling is achieved most frequently by

means of added color instead of by darker tones of the same base color. 386 Especially in

the first stylistic mode, the shading of garments and bodies is used to bring out figural

volunic. It is possible that the shading was intended to correspond with the light source

included in the Pentecost scene (the tongues of fire co,ne fro1n the center of the vault), but

this is inconsistently carried out. The underside of John's ar1n sling is strongly shaded,

producing a very classical ::md convincing three-dimensionality, but Philip's right sleeve

has a thin, serpentine contour that practically de1naterializes the fabric. On the whole

Style B is characterized by significant tension bet ween the monumental stature and -faces

of its figures and the busyness of their drapery.

Comparisons in South Italy for Style A were limited, but even fewer can be adduced

for Sty le B. The architectural background in the Pentecost at Otranto is far more convinc­

ing than the irrational architecture of the Last Supper at Casaranello [Fig. 84], dated to the

second half of the thirteenth century. It is somewhat closer to the projecting "brick" ells

in the Koi1nesis at the Cripta del Ci1nitero in Miggiano, imprecisely assigned to the thir­

teenth ccntury.387 The architecture in the Last Supper at S. Cesario di Lecce (1329) and

in the J(oimesis at Cerrate (fourteenth century) is much more elaborate. With their cast

shado\vs and Gothic detailing, these 1nonuments provide a useful terrninus ante quen1 for

S. Pietro. The clingy, complicated drapery of Style Bis nowhere replicated in the region. At S.

Mauro (ca. 1300) the vault prophets and possibly the pier figure of Paul have some of the

149

... , '1f',' ..

f

I same type of coloristic modeling [Fig. 103]. In the upper church of S. Lucia at Brindisi,

apostles at the base of the bier in the Koimesis on the right \Vall have con1plcx drapery

folds over the torso but less so over the legs, where the folds at S. Pietro arc most pro~

nounced. The Koimesis faces are ahnost illegible because they were pitted to receive

another layer of frescoes (second half of the thirteenth century?), but they recall the deep.

set eyes of Ada,n in the second stylistic 1node. Some figures at S. Sin1eonc 'a Fan1osa'

(early fourteenth century), particularly in the Deposition, share the lack of dark facial

contours and the rounded, slightly hooked noses of Style B.388

A search for comparanda beyond South Italy reveals that the landscape of the

Anastasis and Nativity has neither the highly stylized and repetitive excrescences found at

the tops of hills in Late Comnene monuments (and in South Italy at Anglona), nor the

very rocky 1andscapes associated with Palaeologan painting. Particularly in the Nativity

the landscape has a reasonably at1nosphcric feeling due to the many small hillocks articu­

lated in different shades, although this effect is lessened by the poor condition of the

scene [Color fig. 36], In general, the landscape in Style B does not enclose and echo the

figures as it does in Late Comncnc works; it has a more indcpc~dent co1npositional tllnc­

tion.

The dignified rhythms of the compositions and the calm, monumental figures accord

with later thirteenth-century Byzantine principles-389 In earlier depictions of the

Pentecost, for instance, the apostles are shown at the same height and either equally

spaced or regularly paired in conversational groups.390 The Otranto Pentecost is thus

more relaxed and varied than the same scene at Smnarina (ca. 1200)391 lFig. 96], or at H.

Demetrius at Vladimir ( 1195) in the very similar composition of the Last Judgment. The

ingenuity of the poses, varied positions of the knees and foreshortened legs, and !o\V

bench and long torsos at S. Pietro arc all features found in the Pentecost at H. DemetTius

Katsouris near Arla ( ca. 1300) [Fig. 98 J. The Style B figures all have small feet, as at

Arta, not the ·'flatiron" club-feet seen in South Italy at Anglona and in most fourteenth­

century Byzantine works.392

The Style B figural conception also differs from the monuments of the turn of the

thirteenth century: the long torsos, bulging musculature, and broad shoulders are

nowhere evident at Vladi1nir or Samarina. The thick necks and larger-than-life feeling of

some Style B figures, especially the Pentecost apostles, suggest comparison with the

apostles in the south aisle of the Metropolis at Mist:ra (1288-1315),393 but the Mistra fig­

ures are so inflated by their drapery that the sense of underlying ,nusculature is lost. This

never occurs at Otranto. Yet the corporeality of figures in the first stylistic 1node is very

different from that in the second, and in the Nativity, for example, the slight proportions

of the Christ child in the basin [Fig. 38] are closer to those of the Virgin in the Bath of the

Virgin at Nerezi (1164) than to the herculean Christ child at Hosios David (ca. 1200)

lFig .. 95], who anticipates Palaeologan developments.394

150

The ann slings seen in the Pentecost and Anastasis are a classical inotif that \Vas rela­

fr•vely rare in Lhc tenth and eleventh century but became popular in later Byzantine art.395

Paul and tbe other apostles in the Pentecost at Monreale (late twelfth century) and else­

where have such i1npossibly tight arm slings. Simon's almost mannered "broken wrist" in

the left Pentecost panel is more unusual [Fig. 56]. Its closest comparisons are in the

nartbex of the Metropolis at Mistra (ca. 1292-1315), where Peter and some other apostles

at the Last Judgn1ent have similarly bent wrists, and with Paul in the Pentecost at H.

Demetrius Katsouris (ca. 1300) [Fig. 98], The agitated drapery of Style B is its most unusual feature and one that finds few

analogies .. Such complex and silky folds are difficult to find in thirteenth-century monu­

ments, where broader modeling and fewer folds were the rule. The rippling fold over

Philip's left thigh [Fig. 56] recalls late twelfth-century mannerisms, but general compar­

isons may also be adduced with the Communion of the Apostles at Gradac (1276) and a

poorly-preserved figure at H. Theodore in Mistra (early fourteenth century), where some

fragmented drapery resembles Philip's left sleeve. However, this detail is an angular

anomaly among the fluid folds that characterize most Style B drapery. The apostles at the

Last Supper in the parekklesion of Omorphi Ekklesia ( ca. 1285) [Fig. 121 J have a similar­

ly busy drapery style that contributes to a certain restlessness in the scene.396 There is a

greater liveliness and interaction among the Omorphi Ekklesia figures that has been

attributed to Western influence, but they resemble those of Style B. Additional analogies for the drapery treatment in Style B can be found in manuscripts

ranging in date from the Late Comnene period to ca. 1300. One early manuscript that

offers a reasonably close coinparison is Athens, cod. 93, \Vhere the figure of Luke glitters

with numerous agitated folds and highlights; the manuscript is attributed to

Constantinople, ca. 1170.397 Very close to this is the figure of Matthew in Athens, cod.

2251 (foL 7v), previously ascribed to ca. 1200 but now dated a full century later. 398 The

strident highlighting of the himation resembles that on some of the dark garments in the

Pentecost. Closer still are the figures of Matthew (foL 10') lFig .. 122] and Luke (foL 143v)

in Athens, cod. 152, where abundant garments fall in rich, undefined folds accentuated by

numerous highlights and outlining faceted planes in the fabric.399 The manuscript is

assigned to the last third of the thirteenth century. With its soft multitone transitions from

light to dark and hints of body volume underneath, this drapery has a good deal in com­

mon with mucb of the drapery in Style B; the figural proportions and sense of mobility,

low seat, and small feet are also close. Numerous busy folds are likewise found in the

Wolfenbtittel sketchbook and the Goslar Gospels of 1230-40, both of which show signifi­

cant Byzantine influence as independent copies of a Venetian originaL 400

Comparisons with the fleshy, coloristically modeled faces of the Pentecost apostles

can be made with some figures in the nave at Mileseva (ca. 1230), but Style Blacks the

thin nose and short white highlights, especially at the tip of the nose, found in the Serbian

151

inonun1cnt. The apostle Philip can also be compared with his well modeled but more lin~

ear likeness al Kranidi (1244). Perhaps the closest comparison can be made with some

figures al Sopocani (1265), including the apostle John on the west wall of the north

transept and an unidentified Pentecost apostle in the apse [Fig. 119]. These figures share

with Style B's Philip [Fig. 56] the smooth cap of hair, polychromatic modeling of the

fleshy face with a touch of red on the cheeks, and shadowing on the neck that obliterates

any linear contour of the head,401 while the eyes recall those of Adam in the Anastasis,

deep-set under low brows. Later in the thirteenth century, so1ne faces in the Last Supper

at Omorphi Ekklesia ( ca. 1285) [Fig. 121] are similarly modeled in a coloristic and highly

impressionistic manner that cannot be called classically beautiful.

The abundant hair of Christ in the Anastasis rFig. 52J could be considered a

Palaeologan characteristic,402 but this coiffure began in the Late Co1nnene period and is

found at Kurbinovo (1191). Christ has his hair similarly piled high in the Deesis mosaic

in Hagia Sophia, now generally dated to the reconquest of Constantinople under Michael

VIII Palaeologus (ca. 1261).403 Comparison with the small-featured face, hair, and

expression of Christ at S. Pietro might be made with the Christ from the Deesis at the

Hodegitria church in Spilies, Euboea, dated by inscription to 1311 ;404 small, almost fierce

features in a broad face also characterize the apostles of the Metropolis in Mistra.

The face of Adam and other figures executed in the second stylistic mode most

resembles that of Ezekiel in the diakonikon of the Metropolis at Mistra (1270-86)405 [Fig.

120], except that the eyebrows at Mistra are not so straight and the eyes therefore appear

less deeply set. There is the same curious application of a nearly frontal lower lip to a

face drawn in three-quarter view, although the treatn1ent of the hair at Otranto is even

more wispy and impressionistic than at Mistra. Also comparable is Abraham at Arilje

(1296)406 with his deep-set eyes, "V" shape at the bridge of the hooked nose, and right

angle between the nose and eyebrow. However, this figure replaces the calm intensity of

Adatn with the more expressive e1notional content characteristic of Macedonian and

Serbian works. St. Saba in the apse at the Holy Apostles in Pee (1240---60) and the frontal

hierarchs at Porta Panagia in Pili (1283-89) [Fig. 106] are not too far from Adam,407 but

the facial modeling at S. Pietro is more coloristic and the hair is only partly divided from

the face by a black contour line. Figures in the diakonikon at Kato Panagia near Arta

(mid-thirteenth century)4D8 and the slightly earlier hierarchs at H. Demetrius Katsouris in

the same town (ca. 1230/40) [Fig. 1051 arc also reasonably close. These figures are relat­

ed to Otranto by certain fonnal sin1ilarities and by the i1npression of 1nonumentality and

calm, but they appear to predate Style B because of their greater reliance on linear model~ ing, especially visible in the hair and beards.

An instructive comparison for the second stylistic mode can be made between the

angel in a medallion at S. Pietro [Fig. 69] and the blind man in a Miracle scene in the

Chapel of the Virgin at Patmos [Fig. 117]. The faces are nearly mirror images, with the

152

inclination of the head and shape of the face, the "V"-shaped root of the nose, red

.h ks delicate mouth, curve of the chin, thin eyebrows, deep-set eyes and under-eye t:.-ee , bUChes. But at Patmos all of these features are delineated in a far 1norc linear fashion

;hat is not nearly so reliant on coloristic modeling. The Style B angel has no facial con­

tour except that rendered as a shadow on his relatively thicker neck. While the individual

features are nearly identical, the effect is very different in the two tnonuments. Whatever

date one accepts for Patmos, it belongs to the Late Co1nnene tradition and Style B clearly

postdates it while retaining some of its fonnal resonances.

In order to date the second-layer frescoes on the hasis of style it is necessary to

review briefly the phases of late twelfth- through early fourteenth-century painting in

Byzantiun1. The relative artistic homogeneity that contributed to a Late Co1nnene koine

began to break down in the last few decades of the twelfth century, and even more so

after the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204. Works from this transitional period

show a decreased emphasis on abstract spiritual qualities and an increasing interest -in

bodily volume and pictorial space. The monuments of the period 1nay be divided into

three distinct stylistic groups.409 First was the "dynamic" style (third quarter of the

twelfth century, with echoes in the thirteenth), which includes such monuments as

Kurbinovo and H. Anargyroi in Kastoria with their elongated bodies, small heads, pro­

nounced linearity, and exuberant flying drapery ends. The next phase was the "rococo,"

"Art Nouveau," or "elegant" style, of which H. Neophytos on Cyprus is the sole dated

example (1183) but which also includes H. Hierotheos in Megara, the Episkopi in Mani,

and the Evangelistria in Geraki. 410 Works in this style have ornamental t1ying drapery

and rippling garments, but all this moven1ent does not seem n1otivated by the actions of

the figures. The third trend, which appeared at the very end of the twelfth century, was

the "monu1nental" style. It had many stylistic modes, but always a quiet dignity in which

the co1nplex forms of the two preceding styles were largely suppressed. 411 The major

monu1nents in this style are Vladimir, Sa1narina, Hosios David, and parts of Patmos lFigs.

95-96, 115-118].

The Byzantine world was fragmented after 1204, but Byzantine art nourished in the

provinces and did not cease in the capital. St. Saba was able to find capable mural

painters in Constantinople to bring to Serbia in 1220, and around 1250-60 a Greek

painter executed the St. Francis cycle at the Kalenderhane Djan1i in Constantinople.4 12

Metropolitan manuscript production had already decreased dramatically by the mid­

twelfth century, with new provincial centers and new classes of patrons encouraging new

types ofproduction.413 In the provinces under Latin occupation Orthodox church decora­

tion flourished, perhaps as a sign of resistance,414 and the independent Byzantine king­

doms of Nicaea, Epirus, and Trebizond produced high-quality monuments. Continuing

the rnonumental trends announced at the end of the twelfth century, the thirteenth century

saw greater figural volume, heightened interest in spatial depth achieved by three-din1en-

153

sional means, a decrease in the value of line, and a further reduction of the violent con­

rrapposti and other mannerisn1s that 1narked the Late Co1nnene period. 415 Soon after the

Byzantine reconquest of Constantinople in 1261, the 1nonumental, classical trend cuhni­

nated with the frescoes at Sopocani and, probably, the Dees is in Hagia Sophia, the latter

an exa1nple of Late Comnene for1nulas surviving even in the capital. The organically

modeled, plastic tendencies of this First Palaeologan sty1e416 engendered different artistic

responses. One was an even 1nore exaggerated development of figural monumentality

kno\vn as the "cubic" or "heavy" style, which is represented by such works as the

Protaton on Athos (ca. 1300) and St. Clement's at Ohrid (1295) but was rooted in

Constantinople itsclf.417 Another was the Second Palaeologan style, possibly announced

by the Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki418 but epitomized by the Kariye Djami (ca. 1315).

Features of this style include tall figures with inflated oval outlines and thick waists, high­

piled hair, low benches, and elaborate architectural backgrounds. 419 All of these are

anticipated in earlier monuments, and some are found at Otranto.

One of the 1najor changes during the thirteenth century was the treatment of pictorial

space,420 which makes this a useful if not an absolute criterion for dating. Innovations

included the increasing complexity of architectonic forms; the Projection of objects and

buildings in inverse perspective; and variations in viewpoint, from the bird's-eye view

favored in the last third of the thirteenth century (from Sopocani to Ohrid) to a more vari­

able viewpoint, often from below, in the Second Palaeologan period. Style A in S. Pietro

preserves no architecture, and Style B lacks the highly elaborate buildings of the First and

especially the Second Palaeologan periods. Yet it is significant that the Pentecost, a scene

usually devoid of any architecture whatsoever, here received so complex a background.

The degree of architectural and spatial elaboration in Style B indicates that its models

were produced after Mileseva (ca. 1230), where two-dimensional structures still predomi­

nate, but prior to Sopocani (ca. 1265), where more elaborate buildings appear.

The figural monumentality seen in both Styles A and B is a thirteenth-century trait.

However, the intensification of emotions that is also characteristic of the thirteenth centu­

ry42l is not well represented at Otranto, where the scenes most associated with humaniza­

tion and emotional pathos-the Threnos, Crucifixion, scenes from the life of the Virgin­

are missing. A certain emotional intensity may be seen in the faces of Christ and Adam in

the Anastasis [Color fig. 51, fig. 521, and the actual bathing of the child by the nurse in

the First Bath is a very intimate, humanized choice of pose [Fig. 38J. In addition, the

nu,nerous glances directed outward toward the spectator contribute to the affective value

of many of the scenes. Despite the generally progressive trends in thirteenth-century painting, the Late

Comnene style proved highly durable and the monuments of this period are often marked

by a mix of up-to-date and retardataire features. The firmly dated H. Triada at Kranidi

(1244), for example, boasts such progressive features as soft, light coloring; some broad

154

drapery n1odeling; classical faces; and 1nonu1nental figures and co1npositions; but it also

has 1nany Late Co,nnene characteristics, including little spatial depth; sparse landscape;

planar sets; flat architecture and figures; an<l some fragmented drapery.422 Diverse stylis­

tic trends continued to coexist even in Constantinople in the late thirteenth and early four­

teenth century. In this light, the mClange of conservative and progressive features that

characterizes the second fresco layer at Otranto is unexceptional.

Neither Style A nor Style B at S. Pietro betrays the stylistic 1nanneris1ns and excesses

of the dynatnic or rococo styles; both are related to the 1nonumental trend that appeared at

the end of the twelfth century. Style A is still close to the Late Comncne aesthetic, but its

ainp1e fon11s, restrained linearity, and suppression of 0111a1nent point to a thirteenth-centu­

ry date; its models were most likely created in the first quarter of the century. Style B is

more problematic. With its near-absolute suppression of line in favor of volume and its

developed sense of architecture and space, it is obviously later than Style A. The difficul­

ty lies in reconciling the corporeality of the figures and the soft, coloristically modeled

faces of the first stylistic n1ode with the nervous linearity of the drapery. The closest com­

paranda indicate a date in the third quarter of the thirteenth century. Style A and Style B

therefore employ models fro1n diverse dates, but as components of a single fresco layer

they can have only one date of execution. Stylistic analysis suggests that this date was in

the third quarter of the thirteenth century.

Conclusions

The preceding analyses of iconography, ornament, paleography, program, and style

reveal that there arc progressive and conservative features in each of these areas. In

iconographic terms the second-layer frescoes are generally conservative. The

Christological scenes conform in large measure to Middle Byzantine conventions, with

little of the 1nultiplication of figures and details that characterizes Palaeologan itnagery.

However, son1e of the scenes-particularly those identified as belonging to Style B­

contain features associated with the later thirteenth century. These include the large num­

ber of Old Testament kings and the dress of Eve in the Anastasis, and Peter's hairstyle

and the arched low throne in the Pentecost. These progressive features could still be pre­

cocious components of a late twelfth-century cycle, but that they arc instead part of a thir­

teenth-century cycle that retains a large nu1nbcr of conservative features is proved by the

non-iconographic analyses. The ornament, for example, strongly supports a late thir­

teenth-century date. The stepped-cross pattern is widely used in Byzantine art, but its

employn1cnt as a framing device for scenes in monumental painting occurs exclusively in

Western monuments of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century. The paleographic

analysis yields 1nixed results, in that the abbreviation marks belong to the thirteenth cen­

tury although the letter forms and lack of ligatures or accents are archaizing at that date.

155

Sin1ilarly, the unique features of the program neither support nor contradict a thirteenth­

century dating except insofar as they reflect the larger context for the frescoes, which is

explored below. Finally, stylistic analysis indicates that the ,nodels for the second layer

were produced in two periods: the early thirteenth century for the scenes and figures out­

side the sanctuary, and the third quarter of the thirteenth century for the i1nages in the east

bay. The degree of development of the architectural setting, the coloristic facial modeling,

monumental figures, and other details all argue for a date after the ,niddle of the thir­

teenth century on stylistic grounds.

The dates proposed in the art historical literature for the second fresco layer at

Otranto can therefore be refined considerably. Progressive features militate against execu­

tion in the late twelfth century, and a paucity of fourteenth-century features rules out the

late date. There is little reason to posit a tiinc lag for the arrival of these features in South

Italy when, as comparisons have already suggested and as will be argued fu1iher below,

the models surely come from other provincial milieus and not from faraway

Constantinople. The frescoes do contain a great deal of conservative iconography as well

as so1ne older stylistic fo1mulas, but these features persisted, part!cularly in the Byzantine

provinces, throughout the thirteenth century. Indeed, the coexistence of features repre­

senting different trends is an argument for a thirteenth-century date, because such hetero­

geneity characterizes most thirteenth-century ensembles in Greece and-despite the lack

of dated material-in South Italy. The fresco fabric itself also supports this date, as ultra­

marine is very rarely found in monu1nental painting before that time.423 The second-layer

frescoes can safely be assigned to the second half of the thirteenth century, and probably

to the third quarter; the evidence now available does not pennit greater precision. Support

for this dating emerges fro1n a consideration of the frescoes in their local and

Mediterranean contexts. A review of these broader contexts encourages so1ne specula­

tions about the cultural and intellectual setting for the unusual second-layer progra1n, the

nature of the models used, and the origins of the artists who worked at Otranto.

Stylistic dissi1nilarities between Otranto and other works in the area arc striking, par­

ticularly because so many of these monuments have also been assigned to the second half

of the thirteenth century. Yet S. Pietro hardly represents an anomalous intrusion into an

otherwise homogeneous group, as these other monuments have very little stylistic rela­

tionship to one another. Only rarely can two South Italian fresco ense1nbles (such as

Muro Leccese and Sanarica, both essentially unpublished) be confidently assigned to a

single workshop; adn1ittedly, the criteria for defining a medieval workshop in the absence

of artists' signatures or documentary evidence are elusive and Morellian standards are

certainly too stringent. Some frescoes in the Mottola-Massafra area have been linked

loosely to one another and to so1ne Apulian icons, and it has been suggested that these

co1n1non features should be attributed to a diffusion of Palestinian or Crusader influence

brought by monks and artists nccing the Turkish capture of Jerusalem in 1244 :u1d Acre

156

in 129 l."'24 More specifically, they have been related to works in Cyprus, the last Latin

bulwark in the eastern Meditcrranean.42 5 No icons have been securely localized to the

Salento, ho,vevcr, where this presun1ed Crusader int1uence is lin1ited to the Cripta del

Crocefisso at Ugcnto with its frescoed shields bearing the Templar insignia.426 A "wave"

of Crusader iniluence cannot be traced in the Salento, and the increased artistic produc­

tion in South Italy in the second half of the thirteenth century should be seen as part of a

larger Mediterranean phenomenon: it is attested in _the same period in Grecce,427 where

the Crusaders arc not known to have arrived in number. In any case, Crusader influence

fails to explain the style of the second layer at Otranto, which bears no rcsen1bhu1ce to

works in Cyprus or Palestine.

Paralleling the increase in wall painting after the mid-thirteenth century was a dra­

matic rise in the copying of Greek 1nanuscripts in the Terra d'Otranto. The explosion of

manuscript production, especially in the years 1280-1320, was anticipated by an equally

fertile period a half-century earlicr; 428 the mid-century hiatus can perhaps be attributed to

a difficult political climate. In both of the productive periods, the borrowing and copying

of secular and theological manuscripts reflects a high intellectual and cultural level that

was not limited to the monastic environinent, 429 although in the first third of the thir­

teenth century this cultural activity revolved around the person of Nicholas-Nectarius,

abbot of S. Nicola at Casale from 1219 to 1235. The learned Nicholas, renamed Nectarius

when he became a 1nonk at the Greek monastery on the outskirts of Otranto, traveled

widely as a papa] envoy and is known to have brought back 1nanuscripts from

Constantinople. 430 The Salentine "school" of Greek poetry consisted of Nicholas­

Nectarius and his students John Grasso and George of Gallipoli, plus the son of the for­

mer, Nicholas of Otranto. 431 None of their poems and epigrams, nor any of the other

manuscripts localized to the region of Otranto, is illuminated, and the few manuscripts

that contain marginal drawings share no stylistic or pa!eographic affinities with S.

Pietro.432 Nonetheless, the increase in manuscript production in the first third and last

quarter of the thirteenth century can be related to the second-layer frescoes. First, the

interest in and availability of 1nanuscripts supports the possibility of a textual underpin­

ning for the fresco program. A 1nanuscript containing framed Gospel scenes may have

suggested the framing of scenes at S. Pietro, and a homiletic 1nanuscript-such as the

manuscripts of Gregory Nazianzen known to have been copied or collated in this peri­

od-1nay have inspired the integration of the Genesis and Christological cycles. Second,

the quantity of manuscript production testifies to the vitality of Greek culture in the

region in approximately the period in which the second-layer frescoes were exccuted.433

The peaks in literary and cultural activity in the region provide our best insight into the

unusual second-layer program.

The longest and n1ost erudite work of Nicholas-Nectarius is his treatise Kcvrci 1

Iou6al,:0v, Against the Jews, which dates to the early 1220s.434 The treatise recounts a

157

series of dialogues lasting several days between the Greek abbot and the scholarly Jews

of Otranto, and contains references to his earlier debates vvith Jews in Const::u1tinople,

Thessaloniki, and elsewhere. The abbot's ai111 is to convert Jews who fail to recognize the

truth of Christian doctrine, and writings of the abbot's circle also contain disparaging ref­

erences to the error of Jewish beliefs. The best explanation for such a focused literary out­

put is the prominence of the local Jewish co1nmunity. Jews had settled in Otranto by the

early tenth century,435 and in the twelfth century Benjamin of Tudela found five hundred

Jewish "hearths" (families) there, a nu1nber exceeded in Italy only in the n1uch larger

cities of Salerno and Palenno.436 The presence of Jews in Otranto in the thirteenth centu­

ry is also well documented: in 1219 the co1n1nunity was cited in privileges accorded by

Frederick II, a Jewish poet fro1n Provence na1ned Anatoli resided there before 1230,437

and the thriving local silk industry, well known as far away as France, was in the hands of

the Jewish population.438 The Jews of Otranto were thus numerous, prosperous, and

learned enough to participate in a sophisticated theological polemic with the abbot of

Casale. In his treatise, the Christian apologist repeatedly counters the Jews' use of and

conclusions about the independent veracity of the Old Testa1nent. Ultimately, of course,

Nicholas-Nectarius and Christ prevail and the leader of the JewiSh community is baptized

in the Ef<K>.:qrr the Nonnan Cathedral of Otranto.439 Like their teacher ,u1d

n1odel, the pupils of Nicholas-Nectarius assert the superiority of the New Adam over the Old.440

The inclusion of a Genesis cycle in the second fresco layer at S. Pietro should be seen

as an extension of this verbal and written polemic into the visual sphere. Relying in some

particulars on homiletic exegesis, the frescoes at Otranto parallel the conviction of

Nicholas-Nectarius and his followers that Old Testament Jewish history was 1nerely

preparatory to New Testament Christian truth. The unusual prominence of the Creation of

the Angels scene, which is associated with Jewish angelology, here bccon1es Christian

propaganda with the presence of a cross-nitnbed Creator and with a visual echo in the

Baptism, signaled by the repetition of the poses of the angels. The program at Otranto

asserts the Christian fulfillment of the original Creation more convincingly than do the

larger Italian cycles, in which the decoration is evenly divided between Old and New

Testament episodes and the Genesis scenes arc placed near the sanctuary.

Polemical interpretation of history was not new in Byzantine art and thought; it was,

for example, widespread in iconophile literature in the period of Jconoclasn1.441 In monu­

mental painting, the Jewish-Christian pole1nic is as old as our oldest surviving cycle of

programmatic wall paintings, the synagogue at Dura Europos (ca. 245), where the decora­

tive progra1n represents .:m attempt by .Jewish patrons to counter contemporary Christian

assertions about the anival of the Messiah and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy

in the Nevv.442 At S. Pietro we have a renection of a debate that, while longstanding and

virtually universal, was of particular loca] concern in the first half of the thirteenth centu-

158

ry. This is unlikely to be coincidental. 'fhe discrepancy in dates between the anti-Semitic

treatise of Nicholas-Nectarius and the probable execution of the frescoes in the third quar­

ter of the thirteenth century is bridged by the poetic production of the abbot·s circle,

which extended until mid-century. In any event, it is probable that the polemic did not die

with Nichoias-Ncctarius, but continued to be used against the local Jewish com1nunity by

succeeding abbots of Casale and bishops of Otranto. It could have inspired wall painting

for many decades, but it may lend some weight to dating the second layer nearer mid-cen­

tury rather than later.

In discussing the Jewish community of Otranto we have 1nentioned the silk industry,

which was but one of the city's sources of wealth. Otranto had rcn1ained an important

port since its Byzantine heyday, although by the thirteenth century it shared the role of

gateway to the Orient with Brindisi. 443 Because of their geographic and cultural proxi1ni­

ty, Otranto had contacts of all kinds with the Greek East in general and Greece in particu­

lar. The city imported large quantities of Byzantine sgraffito and glazed ceramics,

unknown elsewhere in Italy, with imports peaking between 1150 and 1250.444 Many pil­

grin1s reached Jerusalem by embarking at Otranto for Corfu and then continuing on to the

coast of Epirus, the longer but less arduous route followed by Benjamin of Tudela.445

Contact between Otranto and Corfu is particularly well documented in the first half of the

thirteenth century: the metropolitan of the island, George Bardancs, was a close friend of

Nicholas-Nectarius and visited Caso le and Otranto in the 1230s.446 Corfu was pm1 of the

Despotatc of Epirus in this period. 447 It passed into Hohenstaufen hands in 1259 \\i'ith a

dynastic ,narriagc, and in 1267 it was under Angevin rule.448 There are numerous refer­

ences to the movement of goods between Otranto and Corfu in the Angevin period, and

some residents of Otranto served as Angevin representatives in Corfu.449 Epirus contin­

ued to 1naintain close contacts with the Terra d'Otranto through family connections,

including a maniage in 1294 with Philip, Prince of Taranto, a son of Charles II of Anjou.

Given their geographic proximity and the number of documentable commercial,

political, :u1d personal contacts between Co1fu or Epirus and South Jtaly, artistic contact

is highly probable. Specific evidence for this is contained in the correspondence between

George Bardancs in Corfu and Nicholas-Ncctarius in Casale. In ca. 1225, a painter

"ski11ed in pictorial art" was sent by the metropolitan to his friend the abbot.450 He

brought with him parchment to be used for copying the abbot's dialogues against the

Latins. We c::m thus be confident that at least one painter went from Co1fu to Otranto; it

seems reasonable to assu1ne that others made this same short joun1ey.451 The premise of

close artistic contact across the Straits of Otranto later in the thirteenth century is

strengthened by the church of the Parigoritissa at Arta (ca. 1290), which contains sculp­

tural decoration that can be linked iconographically and stylistically to Apulia.452

A co1nplctc investigation of the artistic situation in Epirus in the thirteenth century is

beyond the scope of this study, and-such an investigation would be tentative in any case

159

because many of the relevant monun1enls av,.rait cleaning, conservation, and publication.

A very brief summary can be attempted here. On Corfu itself only a fe\v fresco ense,nbles

survive, and those have all been dated to the eleventh ccntury; 453 none can be related to s. Pietro. The mainland, on the other hand, preserves a large number of frescoed churches

from the thirteenth century.454 Many of these have already been tnentioned because they

offer iconographic or stylistic comparisons with S. Pietro. In keeping with the generally

conservative outlook of the province, the monutnents of Epirus never completely tran­

scend the conservative Cotnnene tradition; at the same time, they reflect progressive

stylistic currents that cuhninated in the second half of the thirteenth century. The new

plastic clements can be seen in varying degrees at Kato Panagia (mid-thirteenth century),

Vlacherna (mid-thirteenth century and ca. 1300), Voulgareli (1281), H. Demetrius

Katsouris (ca. 1230/40 and ca. 1300) [Figs. 98, 105], the Parigoritissa, and, in neighbor­

ing Thessaly, at Porta Panagia (1283-89) [Fig. 106].455 All of these mix old and new fea­

tures, though nowhere so overtly as Styles A and B at Otranto.

The prominence of conservative elements even in the more progressive of the two

styles at Otranto indicates that its models did not come from one of the tnost advanced

artistic centers. Despite a certain heterogeneity even in Constantinople, there is little evi­

dence for such stylistic disparity after the mid-thirteenth century.456 We can distniss the

contention that a metropolitan artist was responsible for Style B457_high quality is not

ipso facto equivalent to Constantinopolitan artistry, although this assumption permeates

Byzantine art history. Nor could Thessaloniki, now identified as an import::mt artistic cen­

ter, have been the source: the painterly quality of Style B differs essentially from the

1nore hard-edged, "realistic" quality of works in the Macedonian orbit.458 The mix of

styles and interpolation of only a few up-to-date iconographic features at Otranto suggest

a provincial source for the models. Epirus, in cotnpetition with Nicaea for leadership of a

reconstituted Byzantine empire for much of the thirteenth century, had an uneasy relation­

ship with Constantinople by the third quarter of the century; 459 in its monuments, distant

metropolitan models are filtered to suit a 1nore conservative regional aesthetic. Although

no extant 1nonument in the Despotate can be directly linked with S. Pietro in stylistic

terms, the satne provincial aesthetic obtains in South Italy. With its geographical proxi1ni­

ty and its wealth of political, commercial, and personal contacts with Otranto~including

a document that confirms the movement of an artist from Corfu to Casole-Epirus must

be considered a likely source for the models used at Otranto. What fonn might these models have taken? The framing of the second-layer scenes

suggested a manuscript or other portable 1nodel, and framing of narrative scenes has been

shown to be a feature of Late Conmene Gospel 1nanuscripts that was revived in the early

Palaeologan period in books commissioned for private devotion.460 However, the Creation

of the Angels scene at Otranto indicates that a manuscript could not have been the only

model; the scene is not i11ustrated in any text, and although it is based on patristic exegesis

160

is not found in illuminated exegetical manuscripts. Because of the duplication of poses in

Creation of the Angels and the Baptism, the source for both is likely to have been a

wing isolated from its larger context. This is supported by the unveiled bands of one of

Baptism angels, an feature unusual in that scene but one appropriate to, and doubtless

.ca,,ri,iea from, another scene of adoration. The immediate models at S. Pietro were probably

'<d•ra\\'lil]\S made by the artists (or retained by their workshops) from other drawings or from ,~pec1t1c monuments. This was the most widespread kind of pictorial guide,461 and it seetns

that the artist sent from Corfu around 1225 would have carried drawings of this sort.

i/%·:.;Xt;;-<'tt is also conceivable that the second-layer frescoes copied some prestigious monument in area that no longer survives. Similarities in the form and placement of the pseudo-Kufic

ornament at S. Pietro and Cerrate suggest that both were partly derived from the sarne

Possibilities include the Byzantine cathedral of Otranto, if there was one in the third //H'N''"

of the thirteenth century, or S. Nicola at Casale, but as we know nothing about the

de,cor-ation of these monuments this hypothesis must remain conjecturaJ.462 hemselves of

It has been suggested that "imported" Greek artists were responsible for the second­

layer paintings at Otranto, as well as the frescoes at Cerrate and S. Mauro.463 Yet it is

impossible to cite a Greek work that is sufficiently similar to a monument in South Italy

suppose a cotnmon artistry; for S. Pietro we have had to seek iconographic and stylistic

analogies in a large number of monuments. Even with our evidence for one artist moving

from Epirus to Otranto, we cannot assume that the artists of the second layer replicated

this journey a quarter or half century later. Because the framing device and the integration

of the Genesis and Christological cycles are so non-Byzantine, it is more likely that local

artists were responsible for the layout, program, and execution of Styles A and B, and that

one of their number, the master of Style B, was more up-to-date than the others. He had

clearly been exposed to progressive stylistic currents-although not to avant garde

metropolitan models-which he applied selectively. This exposure may have occurred by

means of travel to Greece, perhaps more specifically to Epirus, or by training under a

Greek master who had come with a model book to South Italy.

Sometime after the middle of the thirteenth century, perhaps soon after, the master of

Style B worked alongside local colleagues who were more comfortable with familiar

models from earlier in the century. For a commission the size of S. Pietro it is not neces­

sary to posit the collaboration of two workshops trained in Styles A and B; a few individ­

uals could have completed the second fresco layer within a year.464 Knowing as little as

we do about South Italian workshop practices, there can be no certainty about the training

of the master at Otranto. We cannot distinguish the work of a Greek artist in Italy from

that of an indigenous Italo-Greek who had made drawings of Byzantine art in Greece.

This is, in any case, an unimportant distinction: South Italian artists who use Byzantine

models and are probably Greek in language, religion, and cultural background are

Byzantine artists in a provincial setting. The high quality of the second-layer frescoes at

Otranto belies any pejorative implications in the term "provincial a11."

161

NOTES TO CHAPTER III

1 Prandi "Salcnto Provine· " 689 · h h A · · . , . ta, P· , states t al t e nasla8JS 1s closer to the Baptism than to the Last Supper

and pro_bably succeeds the former by a "brief distance," but he leaves the issue unexplored because "si intendc qui

trattarc II problenrn soltanto nelle sue linee gencriche" (n. 21). 2 Marasco, "Affreschi in S. Pietro," p. 89. 3 Stated at the College Art Association conference in February 1977 and cited by Pace, PuRlia fra Bisanzio

394 and idem B · ( · · I r 493 · ' p. . . . . , /Zan Int tn ta w, p. (with the date 1975). The metropolitan ascription was challenged by Pace B1zant1m 1n Italia, p. 476. '

4 Pace, Rizantini in Italia, pp. 475-476, with some misidentifications of scenes (the Creation of Adam for the

Creation of Eve, Expulsion for the Reproach and Denial) and several on1issions. 5 Pace, Decani et /'art byzantin, p. 115. 6 Whaiion, Art of Empire, p. 146. 7 The list of scenes offered in G. Lavermicocca, "Gli affreschi deUa chiesa bizantina di S. Pietro ad Otranto:

Tentativo di integrazione ieonografica de] ciclo," CIEB XlV, IT, pp. 256-259, is without'Inerit. 8 For the iconography of the Annunciation se"' M'll"l, !"OO",''·aph,,, J, /'E' ·1 " ' " ~ ,,~ , ~ ,vanRI e. pp. 67-92; Hadermann,

Kurbinovo, pp. 96-103; Schiller I, pp. 33ff. 9 Schiller I, P· 34; see also A. Cameron, "The Theotokos in Sixth-Century Constantinople. A City Finds its

Symbol," Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 29 (1978), pp. 79-108. 10 E.g. at Carpignano (959); Lamalunga, Monopoli (eleventh-twelfth century); S. Anthony Abbot, Nard() (thir­

teenth century); S. Salvatore,_ Giurdignano (late thirteenth century?); Cripta del Crocefisso, Ugento (thirteenth century);

Madonna a Tre Porte, S. Nicola all'Annunziata, Madonna de Idris, grotto "ad Erchie," all in Matera; Annunziata

Lizza_no. At S. Anthony Abbot, Massafra, the Annunciation appears three tin1es and there are also traces of a Visitation'.

In built churches, the Annunciation is the sole Christological 8cene at San Sepolcro, Barletta (late thirteenth century).

Al n

1

E.g1., at S. Cecilia (late twelfth century); S. Simeone 'a Famosa' (early follrteenth century); S. Maria della Lizza,

cz10 ear y fourteenth century). 12 Fonseca, Terra .Tonica, p. 78, refers to a Virgin preceding the Nativity scene.

u Millet Iconoor h · d {' i: '/ 67 D . , · "ap 1e e wmg1 e, p. ; . Denny, The Annunciatio11from !he Right from Early Christian Tzmes lo the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1977), chaps. I-TI. ·

14_T~e elaborate rendering of the finial at Otranto is paralleled at Boiana in Bulgaria (1259): A. Grabar. La pein­

lure rel1g1euse en Bulgarie (Paris, 1928), Album, pl. X.

_1.'_T. Malmquist, Byzantine Twelfth-Century Frescoes in Kastoria, Agioi Anargyroi and ARios Nikolaos tau

Kasnllzl (Uppsala, 1979), p. 43; Skawran, Middle Byzantine Fresco, p. 30 and n. 174. 10

N. ~outsopoulos, The Monaste1y ofzhe Virgin 1vla,y Mavriotissa at Castoria (Athens, 1967), fig. 91. The date

of the Mavnotissa remains disputed, with some author~ arguing for a late eleventh- or early twelfth-century ascription

[A. Wharton Epstein, "Middle Byzantine Churches of Kastoria: Dates and Implications," AB 62 (1980) pp. 202-206·

Mouriki, "Stylistic Trends, 11th and 12th," p. 101} and others supporting the traditional early thirteenth-c~ntury date [L: Hadermann-Misguich "Argu t ·, 1 · · · , , mens JCOnograp 11ques pour le maml1en de la datation des peinturcs de la Mavriotissa au

debut du _Xlil" siecJ.e," paper given at CJEB XVIl, Washington, D.C., 1986, Abstracts of Short Papers, pp. 136-137].

Th_e Bapt~s~1 ,~cen~ I~ the narthex belongs to a different fresco layer (late twelfth century): Hadermann, Kurhinovo, p.

37, Mourik1, StyhstJC Trends, 11th and 12th," p. 1 Hl. On the dating problem'' 0ee /',·c·T-- 0 ,,, ,·," B ,. . . / , ·~ ' ,,_, ' L' i'-'"-J U~Jt))T(JJ') "'"Xi''}

UT/7"/J E,\,\ctoo..) 1/'0¢1.S,0-,-d To1.xoypacf,{c;:; (Athens, 1984), pp. 78ff. 17

The monument contains two layers of medieval frescoes by several hands, although Djuric, "Peinture nmrale

162

b zantine, pp. 222-223, and before him/\. K. Orlandos, "J, l--:y, D111J,ijTpooc; <0,.,.uo\Jp-,i," AB[V!F 2 (1936), pp.

S;:69

, failed to recognize the presence of superimposed strata. The first layer is datable to the second qllarlcr of the

thirteenth century, the second to around 1300. See Mouriki, "Stylistic Trends. 14th," p. 57 (last quarter of the thirteenth

cenwry) and Kalopissi, "Tendenzc stilistiche," pp. 224-226 and 237-238, with earlier bibliography (first quarter of the

fourteenth century). 1s Pace, Puglia ji·a Bisanzio, p. 371 and fig. 484 (early thirteenth century"?); M. D'Elia, "Aggiunte alla pittura

pug!iese del Tardo-Mcdioevo (la c1ipta de! Crocefisso a Ugento)," Scritti di storia dell'arte in onore di Ugo Procacci T

(Milan, 1977). pp. 62-67 (late thirteenth century).

1Y On this rnonurnent sec Fonseca. Basso Salento, pp. 123-127; B. Vetere, "La facies rupestre del territorio

Neretino." Civiltil rupesrre: la Serhia, pp. 170ft. and color figs. 1-8.

IO Late thirteenth century: illustrations in La Scalctta (R. de Ruggieri, ed.), Le chiese rupestri di 1Vatera (Rome,

[966); brief commentary in Pace, PuRfiafra Bisanzio, pp. 378ft.

21 The standing Virgin type is revived at the end of the thirteenth century by Torriti at S. Maria Maggiore in Rome

(1295) 22 N. Laverrnicocca. Gli insediamenti rupestri def territario di Monopoli, "Corpus'' deRli insediamenti medievafi

della Pt1Rlia, def/a Lucania e de/la Calabria I (Rome, 1977). p. 87: ABE MA/RlA GRAZIA/PLENA; E[CC]E

A[N]CIL[L]A DOM[!Nl] S. E. SECUNDU[M] BERBU[M[.

23 Fonseca, Basso Salento, p. 125: AVE MARIA /GRA PLE /NA is visible alongside the Virgin. In this monu­

ment. exceptionally, all the inscriplions are in Latin.

24 Only traces of letters arc visible, but most other inscriptions in the crypt are in Greek and if the text appeared

here it too was probably in Greek.

25 Gigante, Poeti bizantini, p. 120, VI.

26 Joseph's thoughtful pose and displacement to the side of the scene is the usual configuration after the Early

Christian period: see H. Maguire, "The Depiction of Sorrow in Middle Byzantine Art," DOP 31 (1977), pp. 138-139.

n Demus, Norman Sicily, p. 418ff.; Megaw and Hawkins, "Perachorio," p. 317.

28 On this monument sec G. Mongiello, "ll rcstauro della chiesa di Santa Maria dell' Alizza in Alczio," Arte

Cristia11a 62 (1974), pp. 225-236. Hereafter: A/ezio.

29 Given the poor conservation of the entire scene it is possible that the color has changed. Color reproduction

should never he trusted, but the cave in the Nativity scene in Paris. gr. 74, fol. 108 (second half of the eleventh century)

appears to have a reddish cast in Ristow, Geburt Christi, p. 46.

:io K. Weitzmann. '·Loca Sancta and the Representational Arts of Palestine," DOP 28 ( 1974), p. 37.

_,1 See Hadennann, Kurbinuro, pp. 116-117.

-'2 Protoevangeliun1 of James 19-20; Pseudo-Matthew 13. The episode is omitted from the Ilermeneia, the eigh­

teenth-century Athonite "Painter's Guide'· probably based in part on Byzantine traditions [English Lranslation by P.

Hetherington, The 'Painter's Manual' f!{ Dionysius (!f" Fourna (London, 1974)]. The two nursemaids arc named Salome

and Zelomi in the Pseudo-Matthew; only Salome is nained in the Protoevangclium.

33 See P . .J. Nordhagen, "The Origin of the Washing of the Child in the Nativity Scene," Byzantinische Zeilschr/(r

54 (1961 ), pp. 333-337 ; E. Kitzingcr, "11te Hellenistic Heritage in Byzantine Art," DOP 17 (1963), pp. 100-105.

Ji Tn scenes of the bath of the Virgin or of variou~ saints, only one nurse is usually present. A useful discussion of

the bath scene, it~ classical forebears. and the variant poses of Christ is found in Kalopissi, Kranidi, pp. 92-95, although

no monumental cx.a1nples of the pose found at S. Pietro-the Child lying in the basin supported by Lhc midwife-that

postdate the eleventh century arc cited.

_,s Erect in the basin at I-Iosius Loukas (mid-eleventh century), H. Nikolaos Kasnitzis (late twelfth century).

Episkopi and TI. Stratigos. Mani (both late twelfth century); lying in the basin at Hosios David, Thessaloniki (ca. 1200):

seated on the lap of the midwife al Cappella Palatina (mid-lwelfth century), Kranidi (1244) Sopocani (ca. 1265); lying

on lap at Gradac (1276), Arilje (1298), Kariye Djarni (ca. 1315); dipped into basin at tvlonagri (early thi11centh century).

3C> E.g., tbe Panagia at Merenla, /\ltica (second half of the thirteenth century): N. Coumbaraki-Panselinou, Saini-

163

!Ir ..

Pierre de Ka/yvia-Kouvara el la Chupe!le de la \/ierge de !\1Crenta_ Deu.x monuments du Xl!le sii'cfe en Attique

(Thessaloniki, 1976), and at Moutoullas (1280): D. Mouriki, ''The Wall Painting of the Church of the Panagia at

Moutoullas, Cyprus," Byzanz und der \Vesre11 (Vienna, 1984), pp. 171-213. It also occurs in sculpture in South Italy, as

in the archivolt over the west portal at S. Maria delle Cerrate, near Squinzano.

·n Lafontainc-Dosogne, ''Infancy Cycle," p. 213.

.lH A color plate of this fresco, part of a stratum underlying a Crucifixion on the east wall to the right of the apse, is

in Restauri in Puilia II, pl. III and fig. 36.3. On the monument and its other frescoes (1nost notably the Last Judgment

on the west wall signed RINALDUS DE TARENTO and datable to the early fou1teenth century) see Restauri in Puglia

II, p. 262; M. S. CalO, La chiesa di S. Maria def Casafl' pres.1·0 Brindisi (Brindisi, 1967); Pace, Puglia fra Bisanzio, pp.

398-400 and fig. 524. Hereajler: S. Maria def Casale.

39 On this monument see l\t[ouriki, "Stylistic Trends, 11th and 12th," p. 120; E. Tsigaridas, 0, To:. X oypo.,cpCcs

Tqs, lvlo1n-fs /la.To",uou 8cuu,1,).ov(K17s ,:a,:, !/ Bu{avT~vYJ {c,.1ypcuf,LK1i "C l7ou acC,JJ10.,

=lvl0,KcS01)o1<f[ 8:.f3c.~,.o97/Kr/ 66 (Thcssaloniki, 1986). The sarne pose is used at Nerezi (1164) for the first bath of

the Virgin. 40 There is a long exegetical tradition on the meaning of the scene that includes analogies to Christ as the Good

Shepherd. See the discussion in Kalopissi, Kranidi, pp. 85-86. 4 1 Lafontaine-Dosogne, "Infancy Cycle," pp. 210-21 l.

42 The pairing of Joseph and an aged shepherd does not appear before the second half of the thirteenth century:

references in Kalopissi, Kranidi, p. 92. 43 P. Hetherington, "The Mosaics of Pietro Cavallini in Santa Maria in Trastevere," Journal of the }Varhurg and

Courtauld Institutes 33 (1970), p. 97. 44 Translated in C. Mango, The Art of the Byzanline Empire 312-1453 (Toronto, 1986), p. 65. 45 Lafontaine-Dosogne, "Infancy Cycle," p. 211, n. 94. The dog recurs at St. Paul's on Mt. Athos (1447). 46 Athos, Rossicon (=Panteleimon) 2: Millet, Iconoxraphie de l'i.vangile, fig. 81. 47 Hetherington, "Mosaics of Pietro Cavallini," p. 97. The dog also figures in Tuscan sculpture of ca. 1300, con­

finning the incorporation of this element into Italian iconography at the end of the thirteenth century. 48 On the iconographic development of the scene see D. Shorr, "The Iconographic Development of the

Presentation in the Te1nple," AB 28 (1946), pp. 17-32; K. \Vessel, "Darstellung Christi im Tempel," RhK 1, cols.

1134-45. 49 Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, p. 65.

so On this monument see Abatangelo, Chiese-cripte, pp. 162-167; Falla, "Ruolo <lei programmi:' pp. 205 ff.;

Fonseca, TerraJonica, p. 114 and pl. 7.

si The scene is on the north wall, near the west end. The terminus post quem for this fresco cycle is 1253, the date

of the canonization of St. Peter Martyr whose martyrdo1n is depicted on the west wall. On this monument see B.

Sciarra, "Gli affrcschi del\a chiesa superiore di S. Lucia in Brindisi," Studi sa7entini 41-42 (1972), pp. 112-116; Pace,

Puglia fra Bisanzio, pp. 371-373: M. Guglielmi, Gli affreschi de/ XIII e XIV secofo nelle chiese def ce11tro storico di

Brindisi (Martina Franca, 1990), pp. 42-97. Guglielmi challenges the Presentation identification on p. 79. 52 Falla, "San Mauro," p. 161, notes only the presence of Anna with a still-legible cartiglio. In fact, two figures are

visible to the right of a squared central altar. 53 Color illustration in Pace, La Pittura in ltalia, p. 394. The Presentation is later depicted in S. Falcione, Matera,

and in the Crocefisso crypt, Chiancalata (apse niche). 54 Cf. the seventh-century mosaic of the Presentation at Kalenderhane Djami in Constantinople: C. L. Striker and

Y. D. Kuban, '·Work at Kalenderhane Crunii in Istanbul: Third and Fourth Preliminary Reports," DOP 25 (1971), esp.

pp. 255-256.

55 These features have been used to date the scene: see H. Maguire, "The Iconography or Symeon with the Christ

Child in Byzantine Art," DOP 34-35 (1980-81), pp. 261 269; idem, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium (Princeton, 1981),

pp. 84ff.

164

50By the bishop in the "Prayer of the Deacon:' Exuhet 1 (ca. 1020---40): G. Cavallo, Rotofi di Exultet deff'Italia

meridionale (Bari, 1973), pl. 4.

57 Sec IL Buchthal, Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Oxford, 1957), pl. 72.

5~ Over the Porta S. Alipio: Denms, San Marco 2, figs. 351, 353-4.

59 Except for the Annunciation, which is divided into two separate panels, this is the only instance in the second

fresco layer vvhere the stepped-cross border does not appear.

1,0 Nlatt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22, John 1 :29-36; also cited in Rom. 6:3ff., I Cor. JO: 1-4, and John 3:5.

01 For the iconographic development of the scene sec Schiller I, pp. 127-143; J. Strzygowski, Iconographie der

Tai!fe Christi (Munich, 1885); Millet, Iconographic de l' Evangile, pp. 170-215; G. Ristow, Die Taufe Christi im Jordan

(Berlin, 1958) and idem, Die Taufe Christi (Rccklinghausen, 1965).

62 Along with the Adoration of the Magi and the Marriage at Cana. See G. de Jerphanion, "Epiphanie ct thCo­

phanie. Le Bapteme de Jesus dans la liturgic ct dans !'art chr€tien," la Voix des Monuments II (Paris-Brussels, 1930).

PP· 165-188. 63 From Mall. 3:10 and Luke 3:9, citing John the Baptist's sennon on repentance.

M Other figures at the Baptism: apostles, who serve as witnesses, or laymen, sometimes swimming, in apparent

conflation of the two successive episodes in which John baptizes first the people and then Christ. An early example is at

Nea Moni (1042-55): see Mouriki, Nea 111oni, pp. 122-126, and eadem, "Revival Themes with Elements of Daily Life

in Two Palaeologan Frescoes .Depicting the Baptisn1," Okeanos. Essays Presented to Ihor Sevcenko on his Sixtieth

Birthday, =1Iarvard Ukrainian Studies VII (1983), pp. 458-474. The personification of the sea, usually as an old

woman, did not become common until the fourteenth century although it is found earlier, e.g. at the Cappella Palatina

(mid-twelfth century).

65 Cf., e.g., Hosios Loukas (mid-eleventh century); Kurbinovo (1191); H. Nikolaos Kasnitzis (late twelfth centu-

cy). 66 Christ is nude and not obscured by the water at the Protaton, Mt. Athas (ca. 1300); Panagia Kera, Kritsa (ca.

1300); the Holy Apostles. Thcs8aloniki (ca. 1312); and the Peribleptos, Mistra (ca. 1350). In pre-Palaeologan depictions

he is nude and not obscured at the Mavriotissa (early thirteenth centu1y?) and H. Nikolaos Kasnitzis.

67 At Fethiye Djami in Constantinople (ca. 1310), the nude Christ is immersed in and obscured by the river. This

is pointed out as an archaizing feature by D. Mouriki, "Iconography of the Mosaics," in H. Belting, C. Mango, D.

Mouriki, The Mosaics and Frescoes 1~f St. Mary Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) ,al Istanbul, D.O. Studies 15

(\.Vashington, D.C., 1978), p. 64.

68 According to Fonseca, Terra Jonica, p. 166, the scene at Casalrotto has been destroyed. However, it is still visi­

ble on the right (south) wall. On this monument see P. Dalena et al., Casa!rotto (Galatina, 1981). For the dedication to

S. Giacomo see Falla, "Calabria," p. 39 l and n. 16.

6~0riginally on the apse wall. See Falla, ''Ruolo dei program1ni," p. 189, n. 8.

70 Discovered in 1926, the crypt was destroyed in 1956. The Baptisn1, on the rear wall, featured a nude Christ

being baptized from the right by John, wearing a dark mantle over a fur undergarment. Christ held one hand open

toward the Baptist while the other made a Greek gesture of benediction. Above Christ was a dove and the inscription

BArr,, TT K[ ]. The scene was dated to the eleventh or twelfth century by Medea, Cripte, pp. 182-188, reprinted in

Fonseca, Terra Jonica, pp. 58-60, but it is surely of the thirteenth century on the bases of paleography and style. 71 Medea read the inscription O n°06POlvlOC next to the Annunciation to tl1e Shepherds, and this can only

belong to a succeeding scene or the Baptism; John n1ust have been at the right of the scene. See Fonseca, Terra Joni ca,

p. 78. 72 Boyd, "Monagri," p. 297; Millet, Icmwgraphie de l' Evanxile, pp. 182-183.

73 In the Hermeneia, Jordan is described as "a naked old man lying bent up" (Hetherington, The 'Painter's

Manual' of Dionysius of Fourna, pp. 33 and 101). On personifications in general see L. Popovich, "Personifications in

Palcologan Painting (1261-1453)," unpublished Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr, 1963. 74 This list expands that in Mouriki, Nea !1.1oni, pp. 123-124 with bibliography. The youthful Jordan is also found

on portable objects dating from the sixth century.

165

75 His contorted pose and lively expression seem to transcend the expected fearful expression suggested hy Psalm

l 13(114), 3: "The sea saw it and fled; Jordan was driven back." This Psahn, referring to the Parting of the Red Sea-a

type for the Baptism-had long been incorporated into the liturgy for Epiphany: see E. Mereenier and G. Bainbridge,

La pril!re des fglises de rite /Jyzanzin, II. Flies Fixes (Chevetogne, 1953), p. 281. 76 E.g., at Nea Mani and Panagia Kera, Kritsa, a1nong many examples of widely varying date and level of patron­

age. Tlte number of angels ranges frmn two to as 1nany as six (at the Protaton). but after the twelfth century the most

common configuration is three: Strzygowski, Taufe Christi, p. 22; Millet, Jco11ographie de l' {va11gile, p.178.

77 De Jcrphanion, "Epiphanie et 'lb6ophanie," p. 182.

n First cited by Guillou, "Italie m6ridionale byzantine," p. 186, as a provincial element; reiterated in Resta11ri in

Puglia I, p. 135, and termed a Western motif. 79 Jerusalem, Greek Patriarchate 109, niarginal illustration; the other angel proffers a doth. The angels here sub­

stitute for clergy assisting at the Mass, and the illustration accompanies the prayer or epicfese: A. Grabar, "Unc rouleau

liturgique constantinopo\-itain et ses peintures," DOP 8 (1954), pp. 175 and 193.

80 Sinai gr. 339, fol. 197°: Galavaris, Homilies o_f Gregory, fig. 389. 81 At S. Simeone 'a Famosa', two angels labeled AGLI DNI have hands wrapped in lhcir mantles; at S. Mauro, a

fragment that depicts a black and v'>'i1ite patterned cloth suggests that the angel8 held garments over their hands, because

their himatia could not have been black and white. 82 E.g., the adoration of the Virgin in the conch of the Panagia ton Chalkcon, TI1essaloniki (1028), or the adoration

of the Hetoimasia in lhe diakonikon of the Metropolis, Mistra (ca. 1285). At Marcellina (Lazio), bare-handed angels

adore Christ in the early thirteenth century: G. Matthiae, "Les fresques de Marcellina," CA 6 (1952). pp. 71-81.

HO By Guillou, "ltalie n1eiidionale byzantine,'· p. 186, citing Jcrphanion, Cappadoce 11, 2, p. 463 . .Tcrphanion was

discussing the tympanum sculptures fron1 the south porch of Notre-Danie-du-Port at Clermont-.Ferrand, Auvergnc,

where the Adoration of the f\1agi and the Baptism nank the Prcsentalion (illustrated in .Terphanion, "Epiphanie et

Th6ophanie,'' pl. 37, 1). It seems to 1ne that the angel in the Baptisn1 at Clennont-Ferrand is kneeling for two reasons:

to provide a symmetrical arrangement opposite the kneeling Magus, and because lhe tympanum is shorter at its

extremes than in the center and thus cannot accommodate a standing figure at its edges. A liturgical explanation for the

angel's pose is therefore unwarranted. 84SeeD.Nlouriki, "O Zcv·(p[J._,~l.,uJs ;;:;l,o'.K-:.;u1.i.os -rou "po{>\c,·J ·1uu P., rC::,·~ Icpofh::n~ KOJ.,'"'c{ ,--:,-ra.

M(-,1 c.,p0,," AAA 11 (1978), pp. 115-142. ln the conch or the Taxiarchcs church near Marcopoulo, Allica (late thi1teenth

century), bare-handed kneeling angels adore the standing Virgin and Child: M. Aspra-Vardavaki, "1]1., S·u'(,u.1-'r ,,Es

-rocxDy·po,'t<Es ~ou Tc.,~cc(?x'- 1 c-rs:i lv1[J._,1__,KU·110uAu A'1'1 cn)'c:,," DXAE per. 4, 8 (1975-76), pl. 106. The

angels who flank the Virgin in the conch at St. Nicholas, .Nlanastir (1271), are also practically kneeling: Symposium

Sopocani, fig. 12.

~5 A. Cutler, "Proskynesis and Anastasi8," in Tran~figuration.1· (Univer.~ity Park, Pa .. 1975), pp. 76 and 106ff.

Peter Saved fro1n Drowning and t11e Anastasis are described as analogous by Nikolaos Mesarites: see G. Downey,

"Nikolaos Mesarites: Description or lhe Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople:· Transactions (4° the American

Philosophical Society 47 (1957), p. 879. For the date of lhc Leo Bible, sec C. Mango, "The Dale of Cod. Vat. Regin. gr.

I and Lhe 'Macedonian Renaissance'," Acta ad archaen!ogiam et artium historiam perti11e11tia IV (1969), pp. 121-126.

M This miracle occurred on the day before Palm Sunday: John 11 :32-44. See Schiller I, pp. 181-186; Millcl,

lconographie de l' f.vangile, pp. 232-254; Hadcnnann, Kurhinovo, pp. 130-135. 87 This in1portant episode of Palm Sunday is recounted in all four Gospels: Matt. 21: 1-1 l, Mark 11: 1-10, Luke

19:28-40, and John 12: 12-19. Sec Schiller TT, pp. 18-23; Millet, Iconographic de I' E'vangife, pp. 255-284; !Iadermann,

Kurbinovo, pp. 135-142. 88 This is perhaps supported by the HC frag1nent, given the frequency of iotacisms in the painted inscriptions at S.

Pietro.

89 E.g., lviron 5 and Sopocani. 90 On this monmnent sec Pace. Puglia fra Bisanzio, pp. 397-398; Pace, Decani et !' art byzantin, pp. 110-J 11.

Tlereafter: S. Salvatore

166

91 Fur the iconography of the scene see now Kartsonis, Anastasis. Al8o: E. Lucchesi-Palli, "Anastasis." RbK l,

142-148· Sandbercr-Vava!a, Croce dipintu, pp. 309-313; K. Weitzmann, "Aristocratic Psalter and Lectionary," cols. ' 0

,

d o/"!lie Art Museum Princeton University 19 (1960), pp. 98-107, reprinted in idem, Byzantine Liturgical Psalters Recor ' (I/Id Gospels (London, 1980), VL Hadermann, Kurhinovo, pp. 162-167; R. Bagatti, "L'iconografia dell' Anasta8is o

p[scesa agli fnferi," Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Liher A1111uus 32 (1982), pp. 239-272.

92 For the variety of tcnns used to denolc the Anastasis see Kartsonis, Anaswsis, pp. 4ff.

9.J The Gospel of Nicode1nus is also known as the Acts of Pilate: sec K. Wessel, "Apokrypha," RbK I, cols. 213~

Zl4; Kartsonis, Anastasi.1·, pp. 14-16.

94 See Weitz1nann, "Aristocratic Psalter and Lectionary," p. 99; A. Grabar, Christian Iconography (P1incclon.

l968), pp. 125-126; E. Schwartz, "A New Source for the Byzantine Anastasis," Marsyas 16 (1972-73), pp. 32-33.

95 According to Kartsonis; according to Wcitzmann there are three, and according to Lucchesi~Palli, two.

96Qne of the Anastasis images in the ninth-century Chludov Psalter is of this type (Kartsonis, Anastasis, p. 136

and fig. 44b); so is Athos. lviron 1, fol. l' (ibid., fig. 50).

97 Duchthal, 'Musterbuch' of Wolfe11biittef, pp. 19ff.

98 S. Der Nersessian, "Progran1 and Iconography of the frescoes of the Parccclesion,'' Kariye Djami 4, pp. 320 ff.

99 As at Daphni, rendering the differences between the two types minimal (Kartsonis, Anastasis, p. 214).

I/JO According to NL Falla CastelfranchL description given in situ, September 1984. The identification of this scene

as the Anastasis is supported by the proximity of a medallion of David.

101 For this symbolism sec Kartsonis, Anastasis, pp. 205-207.

102 Kartsonis, Anastasis, pp. 207-209. Found at Nca Moni but not at Hosios Loukas or Daphni, the two-hill divi-

sion of the background is seen in most Middle and Lale Byzantine depictions.

1m Kartsonis, Ana stasis, p. 16; Schwartz, "A New Source for the Byzantine Anastasis."

104 As at the Hennitage of H. Neophytos, twice; Lagoudcra (1192); Boiana (1259).

105 G. Pas;,arelli, "Le scrittc di S. Giovanni Evagclista a San Cesario," in San Cesario di Lecce,

Storia-Arle-·-Architeltura (Galatina, 1981), pp. 76-77.

wo E.g., Amos and Hosea arc depicted (with texts reversed) at the Evangelistria in Geraki (late twelfth century).

Mouriki, '·Stylistic Trends, 11th and 12th," p. 113, dates these frescoes to ca. 1200.

107 For the role of Eve in the Ana5tasis sec Kartsonis, A11astasis, pp. 210ff.

108 Eve's hands are occasionally uncovered, as at Monreale, Lagoudera, Sopocani. I-1. Apostles in Thessaloniki,

and some manLtscripts.

109 In the late twelfth-early thirteenth century crypt at Aquileia (Burial of Sts. Hermagoras and Fortunatus), and at

Monreale (Healing or the Daughter of Jairus).

110 Now in lhc Museo Tomaso Pornarici in Gravina; color illustration in Pace, Bizantini in Italia, fig. 430. On this

monument sec Pace, Pug/iafru Bisanzio. pp. 378ff. Medea, Criple, pp. 60-66, considered the paintings to be copies ca.

1300 or a work of ca. 1200. M. Chatzidakis suggested a twelfth-thirteenth cenlury date in Byzantine Art An Furopean

Art (Athens, 1964), pp. 225-226.

111 The earlies! inclusion of the Kings is at the S. Zeno chapel at S. Prassede, Rome (817-824). For a thorough

discussion or David and Solomon at the Ar1astasis see Kartsonis, Anuswsis. pp. 186-203, 214.

112iv1ouriki,NeaAI011i, p. 136.

11.1 See the observations of Stylianou regarding the individualization or an Old Testament king in the Anastasis at

H. Nikolaos tis Stegis near Kakopetria, Cyprus (late thirteenth---early fourteenth century), which may be a portrait of the

donor; cited in Mouriki. Nea Moni, p. 138, n. 7.

114 On iinperial headgear see E. Piltz, Kamelaukion el mitra, lnsignes byzuntins imperiaux et eccli:siastiques

(Stockholm, 1977).

115 This also occttrs earlier in manuscripts, e.g. Bari Exultet I (ca. 1020-40); for additional exainples see

Kartsonis, i\nastasis.

1100. Morisani, "L'iconografia della Discesa al Limbo nella pittura dell'arcc di Montecassino," Siculorum

167

Gymnasium 14 (1961), pp. 84~97.

1 l7 On the iconography of St. Peter see K. Weitzmann, The St. Pe1er Icon (!f"Dumharton Oaks (Washington, D.C.,

1983); C. K. Carr, "Aspects of the Iconography of Saint Peter in Medieval Art of Western Europe to the Early

Thirteenth Century," unpublished Ph.D. diss., Case Western Reserve University, 1978; H. Leclerq, "Clefs de Saint

Pierre," Dictionnaire d' archto!ogie chrefienne et de liturgie 3, pt. 2 (Paris, 1914), cols. 1859-67. 118 Weitzmann, The St. Peter Icon, p. 21 and figs., passim; L. Eleen, The J{/ustration of the Pauline Epistles in

French and English Bihles of the Twe{fih and Thirteenth Cenruries (Oxford, 1982), pp. 2-3. 119 For the iconography of the Pentecost see A. Grabar, "La 'sch6nrn' iconographique de la Pentec6te," L' art de fa

fin d'Antiquitf: et du Moyen Age (Paris, 1968), I, pp. 615-627 (on the semicircular arrangement in manuscripts);

Hadermann, Kurbinovo, pp. 175-181; Kalopissi, Kranidi, pp. 117-119; L. Ouspensky, "Quelqucs observations au sujet

de l'iconographie de la Pentec6te," Messager de l'Exarchat du Patriarche Russe en Europe Occidentale, =Vestnik

Russkogo Zapadno Evropiskogo Patriarskigo Ekzsarkhata 9 (1960), no. 33-34, pp. 45-92. 120 Early examples: New Tokali kilise (mid-tenth century); <;avusin (963-969); Panagia ton Chalkeon (1028);

Asinou (1106). 121 The Nations, cited in Acts 2:5-11, arc often included after the ninth century but in barrel vaults they are fre­

quently omitted. 122 See especially von Falkenhausen, "San Pietro," passim. 123 R. S. Nelson, "A Byzantine Painter in Trecento Genoa: The 'Last Judg1nent' at S. Lorenzo," AB 67 (1985), p.

557; G. de Jerphanion, "Quels sont les douze ap6tres dans l'iconographie chretienne?" La Voix des 1vfonuments

(Paris-Brussels, 1930), pp. 189-200; K. Wessel, "Apostel," RbK I, esp. cols. 234-238.

124 Kitzinger, Monreale, pp. 42, 60, et al. 125 M. D'Elia, "Per la pittura del Duecento in Puglia e Basilicata: ipotesi e proposte," Antiche civiltii lucane. Atti

de! Convegno di studi di archeologia, storia dell' arte e de! folklore, Oppido Lucano 1970 (Galatina, 1975), p. 162,

observes that in South Italian frescoes "greco o latino puO essere indifferentemente ii gesto di henedizione.'' 126 Wcitzmann, The St. Peter Icon, p. 39. Peter has the same hairstyle in the undated crypt of S. Lorenzo at

Fasano: sec A. Chionna, lnsediamenti rupeslri nel territorio di Fasano (Fasano, n.d.), pl. 16.

127 Vasilake, Omorphi Ekklesia, p. 50. 128 The architecture is discussed more fully below in the context of style.

129 Mouriki, Nea Moni, p. 191. 1311 E.g., New Tokali, Asinou, Djurdjevi Stupovi, H. Stratigos, Kranidi. 131 E.g., NERO REX in a 8ccne fr01n the Lives of Peter and Paul, S. CASTRE[NJSlS from the Nliracles of St.

Castrensis. 132 In the "Quo Vadis" scene, probably by Montano d'Arezzo: see F. Bologna, I pittori a/la corle angioina di

Napoli ( 1266-1414) e Ult riesame dell' arte nell' eriifedericiana (Rome, 1969), color pl. IV. 133To Pace, Bizantini in Italia, p. 476, the architecture suggcsrn a date not before the end of the thirteenth century. 134These progressive elements are cited by G. Soteriou, "Ac Too X 0··1p:i..,¢( o,c ·r O\J B\J'(,o.. l.JT·v vo\J ·~a. iJOp(o'J

TWl) To..~co..pxWv D(o-¢Cv,is," DXAEper. 4, 3 (1962-63), p. 201. 135 The Cotton Genesis (London, Brit. Lib., cod. Cotton Otho B IV) and the 1nonun1ents mo8! closely related lo it

have now been the objects of a thorough study: see Weitzmann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, with earlier bibliography. 136 The group includes three bibles produced in Tours (second quarter of the ninth century): the Grandval Bible

(London, Brit. Lib., cod. add. 10546, fol. 5v); the Bamberg Bible (Bamberg, Staatsbibl., misc. class. Bibl. 1, fol. 7"); and

the Vivian Bible (Paris, Bibl. nat., cod. lat. I, fol. 10"). The S. Paolo Bible (at S. Paolo f.1.m., Rome) was produced at

Reims or S. Denis (ca. 870) from a Touronian model. See Kessler, "Hie Homo Formatw·," figs. 1-4; H. Kessler, The

Illustrated Bibles from Tours, =-Studies in M11n11script Jlfumination 7 (Princeton, 1977); and P. K. Klein, "Les images de

la Genese de la Bible carolingicnne de Bamberg et la tradition des frontispieces bibligues de Tours," Texte et Image,

Ac/es du Co!!oq11e international, Chantilly 1982 (Paris, 1984), pp. 77-107. All of the Carolingian bibles begin with the

Creation of Adam, except for the Bamberg Bible, which shows the Creation of the Heavenly Bodies (Klein, ihid., p. 100).

168

131 The l\'1ilhtatt Genesis is a Gernian paraphrase produced in Salzburg or Caiinthia between 1180 and 1200

"I fu•r Ki:irtner Landcsarchiv cod. 6/19): see Weitzmann and Kessler, Collon Genesis, p. 23.; A. Kracher, (r,. agen • , ' Mi//stiitter Genesis und Physiolo?,us Handschrifr (Graz, 1967). The Hortus Dcliciarum was produced at Hohenbourg in

I between 1168 and 1178 (Strasbourg Bibl. de la Ville): R. B. Green et al., Herrud of Hohenhourg. flortus A sace '

Deliciarum, =Studies of the Vlarhtir?, Institute 36 (London and Leiden, 1979); R. Green, "The Adam and Eve Cycle in

the Hortus Dcliciarum," Late Classical and Medieval Swdies in lfonor of' A. !'VI. Friend Jr. (Princeton, 1955), pp. 340-

341. us Demus, Norman Sicily; Kitzinger, Monreale. On the Creation cycle in the Cappella Palatina see the recent dis­

sertation by Nerce5sian, "Cappella Palatina." An English prototype based on the Cotton Genesis recension has been

suggested as the model for the Sicilian ensembles, including the two mosaic cycles and the cloister capitals at Cefalll.

and Monreale (\Veitzmann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, p. 28).

139 Produced in Amalfi ca. 1080 (Salerno, Museo dcl Duomo): see Bergman, Salerno Ivories.

140 Perhaps from Montecassino, eleventh century (Berlin, Staatliche Museen): see Kessler, "Ivory Plaque.'' The

Berlin ivory represents an intermediate step between the Cotton Genesis and the later Italian depictions of Genesis such

as the bibhie atlantiche and the Momeale mosaics (Kessler, "Ivory Plaque," p. 79). That Old Testament scenes were

painted in the atrium at Montecassino is known from Leo of Ostia; the amount of Byzantine inflllcncc on these 8cencs,

if any, cannot be detennined.

141 S. Waetzoldt, Die Kopien des 17. Jahrhunderts nach Mosaiken und Wandmalereien in Rom, =R6mische

Forschun?,en der Bibliotheca Hertziana 18 (Vienna, 1964), pp. 56ff. and figs. 328ff.

142 !V{anuscripts and fresco cycles cited in Garrison, "Iconography of Creation," who also summarizes and criti­

cizes the major studies of the ltalian cycles by J. Garber, Wirkt1n?,en der frUhchristlichen Gemii.ldezyklen der a/ten

Peters- und Pau/s-Basiliken in Rom (Berlin, 1918) and Demus, Norman Sicily. The Italian fresco cycles are listed in

Demus, pp. 250-251, and reiterated in Garrison, p. 205. These lists include Otranto, but without comn1ent; S. Pietro has

never been introduced into the discussion of Genesis illustration in South Italy.

143 I-I. Gerstingcr, Die Wiener Genesis (Vienna, 1931); 0. Mazal, Wiener Genesis. Vollsliindiges Faksimile des

Codex Theol. Gr. 31 der 6sterreichischen Nationalhibliothek in Wien (Frankfort, 1980). The hand of God is known

earlier from the mid-third century synagogue at Dura Europos.

144 Six Octateuch nrnnuscripts are known: Vat. gr. 747 (eleventh century); Vat. gr. 746; Smyrna, Evangelical

School A.l, destroyed in 1922 but published by D. C. Hesseling, Miniatures de l'Octa1e11que ?,rec de Smyrne (Leiden,

1909): Seraglio cod. 8 (Topkapi Saray), published by T. Uspenski, L'Octateuque d11 Strait, =Bulletin de l'fnstitut

archiolo?,ique grec de Constantinople XII (1907), all twelfth century; Vatopedi cod. 602 (Genesis scenes lost); and

Florence, Laur. Plut. V. cod. 38 [M. BenrnbO, "Considerazioni sul manoscritto laurenziano plut. 538 e sulle 1niniature

della Genesi degli ottateuchi bizantini," Annali de/la sc11ola normale superiore di Pisa, 3rd ser., 8 (1978), pp. 135-157],

both thirteenth century. Sec in general Lassus, "Octateuques.'' After lhe Creation scenes in the Octateuchs, God is rep­

resented as a half-figure in the heavens.

145 The monograph of S. Der Nerscssian, Aght' amar, Church of the lloly Cross (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), is still

fundamental. See also Thierry, "Cycle d'Adam," and Mathews, "Genesis Frescoes," with additional bibliography.

140 See L. Brubaker, "The Illustrated Copy of the 'Homilies' of Gregory of Nazianzus in Paris (Bibliotheque

Nationale, Cod. Gr. 510)," unpublished Ph.D. diss., The Johns Hopkins University, 1982, pp. 346-357. So1ne of the

members of this "unclassified edition of Genesis illustration" (p. 355) feature an anthropmnorphic creator.

147 De1nus, Norman Sicily, passim. His Byzantine biases have been largely refuted; see, e.g., the critici8ms of

Garrison, "Iconography of Creation," pp. 205ff. On the meager reflections of Cotton Gencsi~ iconography in Byzantine

manuscripts and ivories see Weitzmann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, pp. 28-29.

14~ The globe at S. Paolo f.1.m. probably belongs to the thirtecnlh-century repaintings (Kessler, '·Ivory Plaque,"

pp. 90-91).

149 In the Florence (fol. 1 v) and Smyrna (fol. 2') Octateuchs God is depicted anomalously as an old, white-haired

man (cross-nimbed at Smyrna): La~sus, "Octateuques," pp. 96-97. However, these depictions have nothing in common

169

~··

with the Creator at S. Pietro. 1511

The Logos (\Vord of God) as the instrument of creation is suggested by John l 1 see W ·, \ K

Corron Genesis, p. 37, with bibliography. ~ ; er zmann anc essler,

151 The S. Paolo and Grandval bibles. 152

Thc Genesis scenes at Spolcto arc lin1itcd to the Creation of Eve and Adam Naming the Animals on the north

transept wall: see 0. Demus, Romanesque Mural Painting (New York, 1970), p. 302 and pl. 59. 153

Garrison, "Iconography of Creation," p. 203; also in Kessler, "Ivory Plaque," p. 90.

_15

·1

ln th~ Cap~ella Palatina Christ holds the scroll in some but not all of the scenes. This anomaly may be a prod­

uct of restoratwn. Smee the same model was employed at the Cappella Palatjna as at Monreale, where Christ is bearded

and holds a scroll (alt110ugh he is there seated on a globe), the scro!J was ce1tainly present in the original model. 155 Kessler, "Ivory Plaque," p. 81. 156 Bergman, Salerno ivories, pp. 16-17.

167. 1.'i

7"FEC[ITJ OS LUCE APPELLAVJTQ LCE (luccm) DIE ET TENEBRaS NOCTE'': Demus, Norman Sicily, p.

!SH Gen. l: 3. On the Augustinian tradition of the angel as symhol of "Fiat lux," sec J. Zahlten, Crealio mundi.

Darstelfunien der scchs SchiJpji111gstage 1md 11atunrissens!'/1a/iliches Weltbild im f\1i!tefalter, =Strrllgarter Beitrd.?,e zur

Gesc/uchte und Politik 13 (Stullgart, 1979), pp. 123-128; Kessler, "Ivory Plaque," pp. 80ff. 159

In none of the South Italian monuments do we have the motif found in the Cotton Genesis of one "angel,"

actually a winged personification, representing each day of creation. On this theme sec M.-T. D' Alverny, "Les anges ct

les jour~," CA 9 (1957), pp. 271-300. The ignorance or suppression of this theme in the S0t1th Italian monuments is

unlikely to be attributable merely to lack of space. 160

The hexaemeral literature refern to commentaries on the creation of the world as recounted in Genesis. As the

tenn was used by Philo Judacus in the first century C.E., there ,vas prohably an older body of Jewish literature on the same theme. See Robbins, p. I.

lr.r Angels are alluded to as witnesses lo creation in Job 38:7: Robbins, p. 45, n. 2. On the angelology of Basil,

much of which follows Origen, see M. A. Orphanos, Creation and Salvation According to St. Basif of' Caesarea

(Athens, 1975), chap. 1 with extensive references. Other commentators disagreed with Basil, including Epiphanius,

Procopius, and Cosmas lndicopleustes: Robbins, p. 62. 162

Described in Green, "The Adam and Eve Cycle," p. 342. In the H01tus Deliciarum, the Creation of the Anoe]s

is explained as the Creation of Light but is, oddly, the illustration for the seventh day. with God resting between ~wo groups of angels.

103 .Jubilees 11:2. See R.H. Charles, The Book of Juhilees or the Little Genesis (London, 1902), pp. 11-12; also

idem, The Apoc1ypha and Pseudepigrapha of' thr Old Testament, Vol. 11, Pseudepigrapha (Oxford, 1913, repr. 1979), pp. 13-14.

lli4

See Charles, Book of Jubilees, pp. lxxvii, ff.; Robbins, pp. 25ff. On the afterlife of Jubilees see K. Bene:er. Das

Buch der .Tubiliien, -=.Tiidische Schrifren aus helfenistisch-riJmischer 7eit, Bd. 2 (Gi.itersloh, 1981 ). ~ 165 "P l T . 1 " . 1 Ltre Y . cw1s 1 JS l 1e assessn1ent of Kessler, "Ivory Plaque,'' pp. 81-83, and idem, "Hie Homo Formatur,'' p.

157, n. 67: this assertion was challenged by Bergman, Salerno Ivories, p. 17. 166

Weitzmann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, p. 22; Kessler, "Ivory Plaque,'' pp. 84, 86. Angels do not appear in

the Octatcuchs ~nless specified by the Biblical text; their only appearance in the Creation scenes is at the closed gates

of Paradise after the Pall. Lassus, "OctateLKJUes," p. 141. 167

Perhaps this popularity reflects regional devotion to the cult of St. Michael the Archangel, whose sanctuary in

the Gargano (Apulia) attracted local patronage as \Veil as international pilgriinagc.

168Matt. 3:16, Mark 1:10, Lnke 3:21, John 1:32. 169

Thcse waters are related to the Baptismal walers in patristic literature: sec references in Congar, "Theme de

Dieu-CrCateur," p. 196, n. 33. In Salemo and S. Marco the dove is not nimbed. 170

These disks appear in the Berlin and Salen10 iv01ics and at S. Paolo f.l.m.

170

171 Kcsskr, "Ivory Plaque," p. 79. The head of Abyssus seen in depictions of the first day in the Berlin ivory and

u ·c·ile is derived from lhe Octateuchs. at JnODI '

172 Kesskr. "Ivory Plaque," p. 92.

17'.iJn tbc Octateuchs, the fim1ament i" denoted by an arc: Lassus, "Octateuqucs," pp. 101-105.

17,iWaetzoldt, Die Kopien des 17 . .Tahrhunderts, fig. 328.

17.1 E.g., the twelfth-century Oratory of S. Sebastiano in the Lateran (WaelLoldt, Die Kopie11 des 17. Jahrhunderts.

<S ll"i) In the twclfrb-century Souvigny Bible (Moulins, Bibl. nrnnicipalc, me>. l, fol. 4"), a bearded Creator on Day ~ .. . .

h Id edallions of the sun and moon in his outstretched anns while a mm bed dove hovers over the waters below: One o ~m see W. Cahn, Romanesque Bihle J//11mi1wtion (Ithaca, 1982), color fig. 138.

171, On the Octateuch personifications see Lassus, "Octateuques," pp. 108-11 l; on the Roman ones see Garrison,

''Iconography of Creation," p. 208 ("These details are ... one of the most inl'allible signs of Rome").

177 fn Jubilees, seven things were created on the f'irst day: heaven, earth, the waters, spirits (e.g., angels), the

abyss, da:lc and light; Charles, Book ofluhifees, p. 11.

178 A draped f'igure in the ~cene that follow~ the Creation ol' Eve is identified a~ an angel by Mathews, "Genesis

Frescoes.'' p. 247, but Thierry, "Cycle d'Adan1.'' p. 299, identifies the figure as Christ. Angels arc also near the

Creation ol' Eve in the Granclval and Vivian bibles and the Millstatt Genesis (Kessler, "Hie H01no Fonnatur,'' figs. 2, 3,

10), despite Mathews 's assertion that "the angel witnessing the creation of Eve is unique to Aght'amar" (p. 25 l).

179 The witnessing angels may derive from personifications seen in the Cotton Genesis: see 11. D. Taylor, "The

Iconography of the .Facade Decoration of lhc Cathedral of Orvicto," unpublished Ph.D. diss., Princclon, 1969, esp.

chap. II.

1811 Pace, Bizanlini in Italia, p. 476.

1~1 But in neither the Cappella Palalina nor 11onrealc docs the Creator incline toward Eve.

rn2 Bcrgnian, Salerno Ivories, p. 20.

183 Cf. two state1nenls in Weitzmann and Kessler. Cotton Genesis: "[Bergman I niay have hccn n1istaken to reject

tbe idea tbat the Creation of Eve wa~ a conflation or Lhe two~phase scene in [the Cotton Genesis I. The grouping of

Adam and Eve in ]Salerno] does resemble that in the Octalcuchs, albeit in the Byzantine cycle lhe anthropomorphic

Creator is missing; but the composition is hardly distinctive" (p. 22); and ''Bergnian ... may be correct that the compo­

sition [ of the Creation of Evel i~ derived from the Byzantine Octatcuchs'' (p. 54). The question of Byzantine influence

on this scene remains open.

184 According lo Mathews, only Aght'amar shows Eve explicitly being drawn oul by the Lord, reflecting a special

intimacy described in the Annenian sources: Mathews, "Genesis Frescoes," p. 256.

IHI The arch is therefore at the san1e height and width today as when the fresco was executed.

1~6The features of Admn could still he seen before the latce>t restoration, and are visible in older photographs: sec

Pace, Bizanti11i in Jtaliu, fig. 436: Wharton, Art of Empire, fig. 5.13. and Marasco, "Affreschi in S. Pietro,'' fig. 4.

IP See Brock, "Clothing Metaphors," p. 14. The tradition may also derive from psaln1s that rcl'cr explicitly to

Genesis, such as Ps. 8:5-6, in which man is described as a little lower Lhan the angels and crowned or clothed with

glory. Exegesis of' Luke 15:22, the robe brought to the prodigal son, is also a likely source. See the extensive references

in B. Murdoch, "The Garments of Paradise, A Note on lhe lViener Genesis and the Anegenge," Euphorio11 61 (1967),

pp. 375-382; also R. SticheL Die Name11 Noes, seines Briider u11d seiner Frau (Gi:ittingcn, l 979), p. 100, n. 405.

188 These connections arc probed by X. Muratova. "' Adam donne leurs noms aux ani1naux ', l'ieonographie de la

scene dans !'art du Moycn Age: !cs manuscrits des bcstiares enluminCs du Xllc et du X]Jle sif:cles" Studi Medievali

18:2 (1977), pp. 379 and 382; H. Maguire, "Adam and the Animals: Allegory and the Literal Sense in Early Christian

Art,'' DOP 41 (1987), nn. 33-34; Murdoch, "The Garments of Paradise"; Brock, "Clothing Metaphors,'' pp. 20ff.

189 Murdoch, "The Gannents of Paradise," p. 376. The High Priest, Symeon, is clad in red in Lhc Presentation in

the Temple in the south bay at S. Pietro.

l'lOSee Brock, ''Clothing Metaphors,'' pp. 21fL, with extensive references for lhe Syriac tradition; also Muratova,

"Adam donnc leurs noms," p. 379.

171

191 Sec, e.g., the summary of the exegesis of Gregory of Nyssa in J. DaniClou, The Bihle and the Liturgy (Notre

Dame, 1956), pp. 50-53.

192 Murdoch, "The Garments of Parndise," p. 380.

lY:J H. Broderick, "A Note 011 the Garments of Paradise," Byzant/011 55 (1985), pp. 250-254. Adam may also be clothed in Val. gr. 746 011 fol. 30v, Lhe scene of his walking in the Garden.

194Vatican, Barb. gr. 372, fol. J()v (eleventh-Lwelflh century) and B1il. Mus. add. 19352, fol. 6v (dated 1066):

both cited in M.-T. and P. Canivet, "La mosai·que cl' Adam dans 1'6glise syricnne de Huarte (Ve s.)," CA 24 (1975), p. 62, n. 52.

195 Canivet, "La mosai"que <l'J\dam," pp. 49-67; in addition to the 1nosaic from Huarte, mosaics with the same

theme now at Hama and Copenhagen ru·e discussed and illustrated (figs. 8-9). The final report 011 Huarte is available in

P. and M.-T. Canivet, '·I complcssi cristiani de] 4 e de] 5 sccolo a Huarlc (Siria settcntrionale)," Rivista di archeologia cristiana 56 (1980), pp. 146-172.

196 Sec the list or manuscripts in Muratova, "Adam donne lcurs noms," pp. 377-378; Broderick, "A Note on the

Garmen ls of Paradise," p. 252, ciles Petrus Corncstor. 197 Muratova. "Adam donnc leurs noms," p. 379.

198E.g. by Rhabanus Maurus (=PL CVTI, 484): Muratova, "'Adam donnc leurs noms," p. 384.

199 The Grandval Bible and the Hortus De[iciarun1: see Kessler, "Hie Homo Formatur," pp. 152, 157. The

Admonition also occurs in a fourteenth-century Byzantine illustration of the Homilies of Gregory Nazianzen in Paris,

Bihl. Nat. gr. 543, fol. 116' (Galavaris, Homilies of Grer.;ory, pp. 118-120 arid fig. 462). By the fourteenth century, a

recension based ullimatdy on the Cotton Genesis and featuring a bcru·ded Creator was available in the Byzantine world. 20

°Kessler, "Hie IIomo .Formatur," p. 150. While the Fall is clearly implied at S. Pietro by the presence of the ser­

pent and fruit tree, and perhaps by the transition from Adam clothed to Adatn in fig leaves, the omission of the

Expulsion scene is unusual. It is possible that the Expulsion was depicted on the end wall of this bay, where a fragment

of the stepped-cross border testifies to the presence of second-layer painting on this wall.

201 Thierry, "Cycle d'Adarn," p. 302 and fig. 5. 202

The scene has been identified without comment as the Expulsion from Paradise, which is erroneous: e.g.,

Guillou, "Halie rn6ridionale byzantine," p. J 86; Pace, Bizantini in Italia, p. 476 [Cacciata], although the caption fur fig. 436 [Rimprovero dopo il Pecca!o] is correct.

203 111 the most popular Armenian comn1entary God appears in the likeness of nian to create Adam; the "Teaching

of St. Gregory," cited in 11athcws, "Genesis Frescoes," pp. 253ff. 204

Nercessian, '·Cappclla Pa!atina," investigates lhe programmatic implications of the physical similarity between the Creator and Adam.

205 Sec Orphanos, Crear ion and Salvation According to S1. Basil of Caesarea, pp. 80ff.

206 Weitzmann and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, p. 36; D. Mouriki-Charalambous, "The Octateuch Miniatures or the

Byzantine Manuscripts of Cos1nas Indicopletistes," unpublished Ph.D. diss., Princeton, 1970, pp. 22 and 205. On the rig

tree sec 0. Goetz, Der Feigenhaum in der religiOsen Kunst des Abendlandes (Berlin, 1965) and V. Reichmann. "Feige I

(Ficus carica)," Reatlexikonfiir Anlike und Christen/um 7 (Stuttgmt, 1969), cols. 639-682, esp. 658ff.

2117 Weitzmann and Kessler, Cm ton Genesis, pp. 49-50. 20

~ See F. Muthn1a11n, Der Granatapf'e!, Symbol des Lebe11s in der Allen \iVelt (Bern, 1982); V. Engemann,

"Granatapfcl," Rea//ex.ikonfiir Antike und Christemum 12 (Stultgart, 1983), cols. 689-718.

2119 Cf. Weitz1nan11 and Kessler, Collon Genesis, p. 50.

210 On the varieties and evolution of the serpent sec H. A. Kelly, "The Metamorphoses of the Eden Serpent During

the Middle Ages and Renaissance," Viator 2 (1971), pp. 301-327; F. DeMaffei, "Eva e ii serpentc, ovverossia la prob­

len1atica della derivazione, o non, delle miniature vetero-tcstamcntarie cristiane da presunti prototipi ebraici," RSRN. n.s. 17-19 (1980-82), pp. 13-35.

211 This in reference to its classical model, the 8pC:n,Jv guarding the apples of the Hesperides: see Kessler. "Hie

Homo Formatur," p. 155.

172

212 Color illustration in Fonseca, Pug!iaji·a Bisanzio, fig. 119.

l · [ k" l · to Monreale Wharton misdescribcs Lhc scene 213 F .. g. ,it S. Marco and the Cappclla Pa alma. n sec mg ana og1cs .

, to in Lhis way (Art ofFmpire, p. 146). at Otr,tn 21.r E.g., in the Seraglio Oclatcuch, fol. 47r; Vat. gr. 746, fol. 41 •. .

215 Fu~. 52": illustrated in S. Der Ncrsessian, "The Illustrations of the Ho1nilies of Gregory of Nazianzus, Pans gr.

S l, of Lhe Connections Between Text and hnages," DOP 16 (1962), pp. 197-241, fig. 9 (cited incorrectly as 5[0, A (UC J . · · • · t d Vt' XI'"'

). I '·,, JI Qniont 111inialurer; der; JJlus anciens manuscnts f?/"ecs de la B1bhotheque Nat101w e u au v fol 25v : a so · " , · · . . .

· , .·, 1929) l XXJV. Adam is bearded here, but there is no anthropomorphic Creator. See the d1scus.·s1on m 51ecle (P,1J1s, , P · . . ~rubaker, ''The Illustrated Copy of the 'Ho1nilies' of Gregory of Nazianzus." On dep1ct10ns of Adam and Eve m other

. din other media see K. Wessel, "Adam und Eva,"' RbK I, cols. 40-54. -m . . • h ., ,.,·, ·1~rities with Monreale for the scene of the Demal have been noted hy \Yharton, Art O; 210 ]conograp 1c ., m "

Empire, p. 146. . .· · l .,,b1,··h a distinct South Italian branch of the Collon Gcncs1.s rcce11s10n or to attempt to 217 ·'Jt is prematmc o e.," ~ , ,

.. · I· ,ionship to the archetype· but we nrnst accept the possibility that such a variant did exisl, that its angcolog-deflne its re d '

ical elements differed (Ton1 those of the Cotton Genesis ... ": Kessler, "Ivory Plaque," p. 84.

21~ Pace, Puglia fra Bisanzio, pp. 317-320; La Scaletta, Matera, pp. 266-268.

21~on the crypt sec Fon$eca, Terra Jonica, p. 48.

220 Dales proposed for the Old Testament cycle range from the late twelfth century [G. Roma, '·La chiesa di S.

Maria di Anglona pres~o Tursi e la sua clecorazione pittorica." Rol/ettino della Badia greca di Grollaferrata 40 (1986),

. 75-102; A. Orelle Iusco, ed., Arte in Basilicata, rinvenimenti e restauri (Matera, 1981 ), p. 28] to the early fourlcenth.

PP . [G l'a;sarclli "Alcune iscrizioni bizantine dell 'Italia meridionalc," Boflettino def/a Badia greca d1 centu1y J. .. ,

· .. "'5 (1981) 3-35· Pace Deca11i et !'art b-vzantin, pp. 115-118]. A conference held in June 1991 acccpt-Grotta/e11a/a .J . , PP· , ' ·

ed a date in the early thi11ecnth century. Hereafter: Anglona.

221 This list or scenes differs from that in the paleographical sludy of Passarelli, "Alcune iscrizioni. ' which in tun1

differs from the schen1a in Roma, "La chiesa di S. Maria di Anglona," fig. 1. The early scenes of the Creation cycle are

in poor condition and arc very difficult to interpret.

2221. Stubblcbine, "Byzantine Influence in Thirteenth-Century ltalian Panel Paiuting,'' DOP 20 (1966), P· 89.

223 On angels in Byzantine art see Demus, Norman Sicily, pp. 311-313, with references; Skawran, A1idd!e

Byzantine Fresco, pp. 14- I 8ff.; M. Tatic-Djuric, Das Bild der Enr.;el (Recklinghausen. 1962).

224 Surrounding the angels in the nave and the prophets around the apse: Demus, 1\/orman Sicily, pl. 59, 97ff.

225 On this rnonmnent see Fonseca, Terra Jo11ica, pp. 68-69.

no see Lavennicocca, Gli /nsediamenti rupeslri de/ 1errilorio di Monopoli, pp. 49-60; no date for the frescoes is

suggested.

227 Sec Wey] Carr, Jllumi11alin11 1150-1250, e.g. fiche 1. F9; fiche 2, E8fT.

n~ Orlandos, Patmos, pp. 191 and 352, fig. 110 and pl. 17. These paintings have also been dated as early as 1180

and as late as the thirteenth century: sec below, Stylistic Analysis.

229 A. M. Friend, "The Portraits of the Evangelists in Greek and Lalin Manuscripts," Ari Studies 5 (1927), pp.

115-147; 7 (1929), pp. 3-29.

2:IOfol. 240,·: see Friend, "Evangelists," fig. 101.

231 Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 22 and pl. 66:F.

232 See H. Buchlhal, "A Byzantine Miniature of the Fourth Evangelist and lts Relatives,'' DOP 15 (1961), pp. 129-

139.

233 See Falla, "San Mauro," pp. 162ff.

c34 E.g., S. Biagio, the Lama d'Antico and Lainalunga in Fasano, and the Favana crypt at Vcglic. A winged eagle,

probably th: symbol for John, su1vives at Casalrotto and at the Ccnlopictrc in Patll.. On the evangelist sytnbols see R. S.

Nehon, The Jconor.;raphy of Pr(j"ace and 111iniature in rhe Byza111ine Gospel Book (New York, 1980), esp. chap. 2.

ns See E. Kitzinger, "The Portraits of the Evangelists in the Cappella Palatina in Palermo," Studien zur mittelal-

173

.,.....,, ff:;t"!

tcr/ichc Kunst 800-1250, Festschnjtfiir Florentine Miitherich ;:um 7(). Geb11rtstag (11unicl1, 1985), pp. 187-192.

nu On this monument see 0. Moris,mi, "La Dees is di Caulonia," Napoli Nobilissima 2 (1962- -63), pp. 123 127;

his conclusions about a twelfth-century date have been rightly rejected by Pace, Bizantini i11 ltaliu, p. 456.

2J7 E.g., S. Vito Vecchio (ca. 1300); S. Lorenzo at Fasano (eleventh century?); S. Margherita at Mottola (four­

teenth century?).

nR E.g., Cleveland, !Vfus. of Art 42.511 (1063?): T. Spatharakis, Corpus of Dated llfuminated Greek 1\1wmscripts

lo the Year 1453, =By:::antina ,Veerlandica 8 (Leiden, 1981 ), fig. 140. 239

Comparable figure types are identified as Basil in numerous Byzantine and South Italian monuments. On the

development or the portrait type for Basil see IL Buchthal, "Some Notes on Byzantine JTagiographical P011raiture," Gazelle des Beaux Aris 62 (1963), pp. 81-90.

240 The original Byzantine altar would have been free-standing and would no! liave obscured the lower portion of

the figure. ln South Italy, such frce-sranding altars are preserved in numerous crypt churches, e.g., at S. Gregorio in Mottola (Fonseca, Terra Jmzica, p. 156 and fig. 140).

241 See G. Babic, "Les discussions christologiques ct le decor des Cglises byzantines au XlI• siecle. Les Cveques

officiant devanl !'Hetoimasie et devanl l'Amnos," Friihmitlclafterliche Studien 2 (1968), pp. 368-386. Basil and

Chrysostom celebrate as early as 1080 at Veijusa; four hicrarchs participate at Nerezi (l 164). 242

G. Babic and C. Walter, "The Inscriptions Upon Liturgical Rolls in Byzantine Apse Decoration," Revue des

Etudes Byzanrines 34 (1976), pp. 269-280. 24

:i On this monument see Tsitouridou, "Porta-Panaghia." 244

S. Der Nersessian, "Program and Iconography of the Frescoes of the Parecclcsion,'' Kariye Djarni 4, p. 319. 245

On this monument see Pace, Bizantini in Italia, p. 459 (first quarter of the thirteenth century); Pace, Pugliafra

Bisanzio, pp. 353-354; Terra mia, vol. 1, De{/'ahhadia di S. Maria de/le Cerra/e (Galatina, 1970). The sculpture has

recently been the subject of a thesis by Dorothee Kemper of the University of Bonn. who assigns the earliest nave capi­

tals lo the last third of the twelfth century. Hereajler: Cerrat('.

24r. By Falla, "Ruolo dei program mi,'' p. 190. 247

On this monument sec Fonseca, Basso Safento, pp. 104-110; Medea, Criple, pp. 120-121. The frescoes are in

extremely poor condition but the figures in the apse conch can probably be assigned to the later thirteenth century on

stylistic grounds. !Jereafier: Giurdignano.

'48

G. Ladner, Die Papsrhifdnisse des Afterrums und des 1l1itrelalters, vols. 1-3 (Vatican City, 1941-84), passim. 249

D. Mouriki, "An Unusual Representation of the Last Judgment in a Thirteenth Century Fresco at SL George

near Kouvaras in Attica,'' DXAE per. 4, 8 (1975-76), pp. 155-156. The keys arc present at Kurbinovo (119]) and Lagoudera (1192).

l.'iO J\1ouriki, "An Unusual Representation of the Last Judgment, 'p. 156.

336.

2-'

1 M. Chatzidakis, "L'Cvolution de l'icone aux l l"--13c siCcles et la transformation du templon,'' C/t,13 XV, 1, p.

252 See chm·ts in Kalopissi, Kranidi, p. 46ff.; also Megaw and Hawkins, "Pcrachorio," p. 333, n. 136.

2-'' See, e.g., K. Weitzmann, "Four Icons on Mount Sinai: New Aspects in Crusader Art,'' J6B 21 (1972), p. 289.

254 Mcgaw and Hawkins, "Peracl1orio," p. 336. Ornament has been used to assign monuments to workshops: cf.

A. G1ishin. "Byzantine Cappadocia: A Study of its Ornament," CIEB XVIf (Washington, D.C .. 1986), Abstracts of Short Papers, p. 135.

255 Megaw and Hawkins, "Pcrachorio,'' p. 336. 256

Red and green is not as common as red and blue. In addition to Lhe scene that originally Jay under the six­

teenth-century Annunciation in the lunctte over the apse, reJ and green stepped crosses enframc only the Pentecost and tlirec of the Genesis scenes.

257 L. Hadermann Misguich. "Pour une clatation de la staurothequc d'Esztergom ii. l'epoque tardo-Comnenc,"

Zbornik Narodni i\!/uzej IX-X (Belgrade, 1979), pp. 295-296. 258

A. Frantz, '·Byzantine Illuminated On1ament. A Study in Chronology:· AB 16 (1934), p. 49; Hadermann,

174

"Staurot11Cque d'Eszte1·gom," p. 296.

259 Mcgaw and Hawkins, "Pcrachorio," p. 340; South Ilaly provides examples through the thirteenth century.

2001-fadcrmann, "StaurothCy_uc d'Esztcrgom," p. 296.

261 N. l\1outsopou!os and G. Dcmctrokallcs, r c:pcf.n 01 CKK,\ 11u (t·s TO u ut 1:(.0-voc! (Thessaloniki, 1981 ), p.

242 (pis. 69-70) and figs. 229-235 (dated to the fourteenth century). For a Jate of ca. 1300, sec E. Counoupiotou­

:rv[anolessou, "l\(cs Tu., x. '-''{r-·o.¢C1cs uTo licpU:r.c," CIEB XV, II A, pp. 305-324.

262 Sec N. Lavermicocca, "Gli affreschi clella chiesa di S. Adriano a San Dcmclrio Coronc nci pressi di Rossano,"

C!EB XV. II A, pp. 337-348: hereafier: S. Demelrio Corone. Lavc1n1icocca's dating of these frescoes to the mid­

twelfth century cannot be correct; cf. V. Pace, "Presenze e influenze cipriolc nclla pillura duccentcsca italiana," CARE

32 (1985). p. 293 (late twelfth-early thi11centh century); Falla, "Calabria,'' p. 398 (first half of thirteenth century). The

dating js further complicated by what are probably seventeenth-century retouchings. The multitude of figures and their

bodily volume in the Presentation of the Virgin in the south aisle I Fig. 1181 argues for a mid-thirteenth century date.

263 Wey! Carr, !f{wnination J 150-1250, passim.

2M K. \Vessel, Byzantine Enamelsfi·om the 51h lo the 131h Cenlury (Greenwich, Conn., l 968), p. 9.

2r.s Kufesque is Kufic + arabesque, a term coined by George Miles and used by R. Ettinghausen, "Kufcsque in

Byzantine Greece, the Latin West and the Muslim World," A Colloquium in Memory of Georie Carpenter 1Wiles

(1904-1975) (New York, 1976), pp. 28-47.

266 According to Ettinghauscn (ibid.) the use of pscudo-Kufic peaked in the mid-twelfth century; for Erdmann, the

peak came in the thirteenth century: K. Erdmann, "Arabischc Schriflzcichcn als Omamcntc in der abendlandischcn

Kunst des Mittelaltern,'' Akadcmie der lVissenscha.fien und der Literalllr in Mainz, Ahhandlungen der Geis/es- und

Soziaf-wissenschaftlichrn Klasse 9 (1953), pp. 467-513, esp. p. 504. Sec also S. D. T. Spittle, "Cufic Lellering in

Christian Art," The Archaeological Journal CXI (1954), pp. 138-152; G. C. Miles, ·'Byzanlimn and lhc Arabs:

Relations in Crete and the Aegean Arca," DOP 18 (1964), pp. 20ff.; G. Sotcriou, "Apc.,~1.,vu..,C E.co.Kuu~u'juiccS Ecs

TCi B u{0, ',To vci'. 1;, v,i1.sc:Co, T ·,is ::_>,_\J:00s," Byzantinische-Neugreichische .lahrhiicher l 1 (1935), pp. 233-269.

2U7 l\1edea, Cripte, p. 205 and figs. 129-130; for Abatangclo, Chiese-cripte, p. 157, the frieze is ''di sapore cinque­

centesco." The scroll and letters are extremely stylized.

2M Frantz, "Byzantine Jlluminatcd Ornament,'' p. 43.

2w For examples sec z. Jane, Ornaments in the Serbian and Macedonian Frescoes from the Xll to the Middle of

1he XV Cenlury (Belgrade, 1961). It also appears in manuscripts. such as Paris. gr. 543 and 533: sec Frantz, "Byzantine

Illuminnted Ornament,'' p. 45 and pl. Il, figs. 18-19.

nOQrlandos, Patmos, pp. 171ff., 345ff., pls. l, 57, and fig. 104.

271 Orlandos, Patmos, p. 346.

272 L. Hadennann-Misguich, Images de Ninfa, Peintures midiivafes dans une ville ruinie du Latium, =Quaderni

della Fo11dazione Camillo Caeta11i Vll (R0111e, 1986), p. 92 and figs. 58-59.

273 On these see C. LcPage, "L'omementation vegetale fantastique et le pseudo-r6alis1ne dans la peinture byzan­

tine,'' CA 19(1969),pp.191~211.

274 Under fifth-layer images of S. Francesco di Paola on the southwest pier and S. Lucia on the engaged colun1n

pseudocapitaL

ns ror discussion or these inscriptions 1 an1 indebted to Be1nard Coulie and Rainer Stiebel.

nocr.E.Kriaras,1.c<;1,1:6 ri7s 1\!iccTo,:c,,,(1'rfs E).~171,1.,17's L!.17,u'~;:Sc.•us· l/.h.<f-lµur~(as· ,'iOU-lL;ULJ,

vol. 4 (Thessaloniki, 1975), p. 29 (2[3).

277 J. H. Moulton and W. F. Howard, A Grammar of New Tes/amen/ Greek, 11 (repr. Edinburgh, 1968), pp. 109ff.

Por the papyri: E. Mayscr, Gramrnatik der griechischen Papyri mis der Ptn/emiierzeit. I, 1 (Berlin, 1970). p. 151.

nH G. Rohlfs, Scavi /inguistic:i nel/a Magna Grecia (Galatina, 1974), p. 178; a similar usage is known at Bova in

Calabria. Cf. G. Rohlfs, Lexicon Graecanir:um lraliae lnf'erioris (Ti.ibingcn, 1964), p. 78.

279 Jerphanion, Cappadoce, I, 1, p. 241. The same substitution is also found at, e.g .. Old Tokali kilise:

Bu,JTCO lfa.,; Belli kilise: 8,J..,OTT]U~lo. v; GOre1ne, Chapel of the Theotokos, John the Baptist. and St. George:

175

[CJ.U'T cu 'Ir_;,.

2H11E.g., in IIIHCIC for H nc1IHCI=: (see below), and probably in the south wall fragmenl with HC, because

many more Greek \Vorcls end in - l :::: than -H C.

2H1 See T. P. F. Hoving, "The Bury St. Edmunds Cross," The 1vletropofitan Museum (!f"Art Bulletin 22 (1964), pp.

317-340: S. Langland, "Pilate Answered: What T Have Wrilten T Have W1itten," The Metropolitan 1vfusewn of Art

Bulletin 26 (1968), p, 421, fig. 11, with reversed form of Pin the Bcm::dictional of Archbishop Rubert, late tenth centu­

ry.

282But cf. Chrysoston1's Homily 2.2 on Genesis: "c·n u:u c" o,·1vE>sous.'·

283 A. Jacob, "Une d6dicace de sancluairc inCditc a la Masseria Li Monaci. pres de Copertino en Terre d'Otrante,"

MEFRM 94 (1982), 2, pp. 703-710.

284 Including an inscription of 1130 from Alcssano, now in Lecce at the Museo Provinciale S. Castromediano, no.

5164 (sec A. Jacob, "Notes sur quelques insc1iptions byzantines du Salento rn6ridionale,'' lv!EFRM 95 (1983), 1, pp, 74-

78): one of 1143 from SS. Stefani at Vaste, now Lecce no. 3678 (ihid., pp. 83-85); and a now-lost inscription of 1238

from Cavallino (Jacob, "Inscriptions datecs," pl. lll). 285 E.g., at S. Giovanni in Monterrone in Matera and S. Leonardo in Massafra. l owe this observation to

Gianfranco Fiaccadori.

286 A. Cappelli, The Elements of Ahhrevialion in 1vfedieval Latin Paleo;;:raphy, trans. D. Heimann and R. Kay

(Lawrence. Kan., 1982), pp, 13 and 16, pt. 3.4. 287 The script of a third-layer Latin dedicatory insc1iption at S. Pietro [Fig.78] provides an approximate terminus

ame quem for the second layer in the early fourteenth century: sec Appendix l.

2H8 Dufrcnne, "Enrichissement du programme," passim. 2H9 Built churcheH in South Italy with programnrntic decoration datable between the twelfth and fum1centh century

include: S. Salvalore at Sanarica (twelfth-thirteenth century?); Anglona (early thirteenth century?); Ccrratc (first half

of the thirteenth century): S. Demetria Carone, Calabria (mid-thirteenth century); Casaranello (second half of the thir­

teenth century): S. Lucia, Brindisi, upper church (second half of the thirteenth century, after 1253); S. Mauro (ca.

1300); S. Salvatore (ca. 1300): Alezio (early fourteenth century); S. Cesario di Lecce (1329). Nlany more monuments

contain one or two isolated scenes. 2911 ln addition lo the bibliography already cited for the first layer, the following are irnportant for the later devel­

optnent of the decorative program: J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, "L'evolution du prograrrune decoratif des Cglises de 1071 a 1261," CJEB XV, pp. 287-329: S. Dufrenne, Les pro;;:rammes iconographiques des iglises hyzanfines de Mistra,

=Bibliotheque des CA 4 (Paris, 1970); eadem, "Emichissement du programtne." 291 Only the Ascension in the east bay vault and the Crucifixion on the west wall survive in part, but both scenes

are in their usual locations within the "classical" scheme of a Byzantine church. 292 Crypt churches of varying plan that contain cyclical decoration datable between the twelfth and fourteenth cen­

tury include: S. Biagio (1196); S. Cecilia (late twelfth century); S. Giovanni at the Lama di Tammurrone, Fasano

(twelfth century?); Lama di Pensiero, Grottaglie (early thirteenth century?); S. Simeone 'a .Farnosa' (early fourteenth

century): S. Antuono, Oppido Lucano, Basilicata (fourteenth century). Like the built churches, a much larger number of

crypts contain only one or two isolated scenes.

NJ 'Ills theme is found in Egypt as early as the fifth-sixth century. For apse programs of the pre-Iconoclastic peri­

od see C. Ihm, Die Programme des christ/ichen Apsismalerei von 4. Jahrhunderrs bis zur Mille des 8. ]ahrhunderls

(Freiburg irn B., 1960). 294 '11te Deesis occupies the conch at S. Salvatore (ca. 1300) and in Calabria at S. Nicola, Scalea (eleventh centu­

ry); an unidentified church near S. Aniceto; S. Zaccaria, Caulonia (late thirteenth century); and S. Michele, Marsico

Nuovo. The Pantocrator is in the conch at S. Maria di Devia in the Gargano and, in the crypt churches, at Carpignano

(twice), S. Vito Vecchio, and S. Gregorio at Mottola. See Falla, ''Ruolo dei progranuni,'' pp. 188-189. In the rupestral

churches the Deesis or Pantocrator are the most common subjects. The Deesis is also the favored apse theme in Georgia

and Crete: T. Velmans, "La koine grecque et les regions p6riph€riques orientales," CJEB XVI, pp. 677-723, esp. pp.

176

693ff.; T. Vclmans, ·'L'iinage de la Dcisis clans les 6glises de Georgie et dans celles d'alttn::s rCgions du nwnde

byzantin." CA 29 (1980-81). pp. 47-102; 31 (1983), pp. 129-173.

29~ Bo,h of these sites are very near Otranto. Two additional examples, in Matera, are cited by Falla, "Ruolo dei

programmi," p. 188, n. 5. 29Vfhe Ascension also appeared earlier at Sotterra, near Paola in Calabria; this late eleventh-early twelfth century

monument is closely allied with Campanian painting. See Falla, "Calabria," pp, 394-395. l-<'or the Ascension in the apse

cf, some monuments at Nin(a in Lazio: Hadermann-Misguich, Images de Ninf'ai esp. pp. 60ff.

297ln a "metropolitan vaiianl" the angels are sometimes displaced (full-length) to the benia walls. aH at H. Sophia

in Constantinople, Hosios Loukas, Daphni, Monreale, Samarina: Skawran, Middle Byzantine Fresco, p. 17. Cl'. Demus,

Byzantine 1vlo~aic Decoration, p. 21.

ns Angels in medallions do appear at H. Anargyroi on the west wall, below an orant Virgin and above the

Koimes1s. 299 Basil appears in the apse at New Tokali kilise (mid-tenth century), and he and Chsysostom are paired at least

as early as Panagia ton Chalkcon (1028). 1n South Italy Basil survives at, e.g., S. Mauro, S. Salvatore, S. Nicola at

Scalea; Chrysostotn is at the Cattolica in Stilo, Panagia at Rossano, Cerrate.

3011The "basilichetta," located on Strada Lamberti in Bari Vecchia at lsolato 48, was discussed by this author at

the Fifteenth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference in Amherst, Massachusetts, in October 1989. It is triple-apHe<l and

contains !"our hierarchs in the central apse cylinder: they are preserved 10 knee level. Because they all wear the enchiri­

on over the right thigh, they are 10 be dated no earlier than the eleventh century.

301 This occurs at, e.g., Zica and Backovo.

31l2 The Communion of the Apostles has the saine symbolic content. The only clear evidence for this scene in

South Italy was an inrnge at S. Angelo in Monte Raparo that no longer survives: Bertaux. L'art dans l'ltalie ml'rid­

ionale, p. 123: Bertaux Aggiornamento, vol. IV, p. 314.

.ioJ According to Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, pp. l 9ff.: but see J. T. Matthews, "The Pantocrator: Title

and Image," w1publi~hcd Ph.D. diss., New York University Institute of Fine Arts, 1976, esp. pp. 14ff.

3n4 E.g., the Ascension itself, as at H. Sophia (late ninlh century) and the Panagia ton Chalkcon, both in

Thessaloniki and perhaps implying a Thessalonikan vmiant.

305 As at Kiliqlar kilise (ca. 900) and other "archaic" churches in Cappadocia. At Perachorio (late twelfth century),

the suppression of the evangelists in favor of their symbols recalls the program of, e.g., Panagia ton Chalkeon: Megaw

and Hawkins, "Perachorio," p. 287.

3no E. Kitzinger, ''The Portraits of the Evangelism in the Cappella Palatina in Palermo," S1udien zur mitte!a/rer­

liche Kunst 800-1250, F es/schriftfiir Florentine 1Wiitherich zwn 70. Geburtstag (Munich, 1985), p. 181.

JmPalla, "San Mauro," pp. 162-163.

308 Mateos, Typicon TI, p. 91. The probable depiction of Lazarus and/or the Entry into JeruHalem on the west side

of the south vault, adjacent to Mark, would still be appropriate.

JO'lEspecially in Cyprus: Perachorio (ca. 1180), Lagoudera (1192).

310 Il survives, e.g., on the tribune wall at S. Sepolcro in Barletta (late thirteenth century). The soffit of the north

niche in the Oratory of S. Martino at Bari contains poorly preserved figures of the Virgin at left and an angel at right

who may represent an Annunciation: see G. Bertelli, "Note su Bari in eta medioevale: l'oratmio di San Martino," Bari

sacra (Galatina. 1984), p. 284.

311 Easten1 half of south vault: Panagia ton Chalkeon, EpiHkopi in Mani (late twelfth century), Staro Nagoricino

(1312); tytnpanmn: Perachorio, King's Church at Studenica (1314); south pendentive: Daphni (ca. 1100); south naos

wall: Kurbinovo (1191 ), Lagoudera, Panagia at Moutoullas (1280), St. Nicholas at Prilep (1298).

J12 E.g., at Panagia ton Chalkeon; Mavriotissa (early thirteenth century?); Panagia Bellas (Kokkino Ekklesia),

Voulgareli (1281).

:i;3 N. B. Teteriatnikov, ''Liturgical Planning of Byzantine Churches in Cappadocia," unpublished Ph.D. diss.,

New York University Institute of Fine Arts. 1987, pp. 115-117.

177

314 At the upper right edge of the north wall of the north bay. a tiny stepped-cross frag1nent attests to the presence

of second-layer painting.

315Vasilake, Ommphi Fkk!esia, pp. 14 and 124. 316 .T. Noret, "Gregoire de Nazianze, l'auteur le plus citC, apres la Bible, dans la litt€rnture ecclCsiastique byzan­

tine," II. Symposium Nazianze11um, Louvain-la-Ncuve, 1981 (Paderbrnn, 1983), pp. 259-266.

317 .T. Trigoin, "L'ltalie m€ridionale et la tradition des textes antiques," J6B 18 (1969), pp. 47-48. See also P.

Canart, "Le livre grec en Halie m€ridionale sous lcs rCgnes Normand ct Souabe: aspects mat€riels el sociaux," Scrittura

e civiftci 2 (1978), esp. pp. 131-132.

318 Vindob. Suppl. gr. 37 (1265), copied by the priest Nicholas of Gallipoli, and Paris. gr. 549 (before 1279/80),

ascribed to the Terra d'Otranlo on paleographic grounds: citcd in Jacob, ·'Cullure grecque," pp. 71-72.

3l9 Gregory Nazianzen, Select Orarions (=PG 36, 624ft), Orations XL V (pp. 422ff.) and XXXVIII (pp. 345ff.).

320 Gregory Nazianzen, Select Orations, p. 431.

321 Demus, Byzamine 1'vfosaic Decaralion, p. 20. 322 Sec von Falkenhausen, "San Pietro," p. 632. This lends support to the existence of a south entry at S. Pietro at

the tin1e of the execution of the second fresco layer.

323 Mcgaw and Hawkins, "Perachorio," p. 290.

324Skawran, i\1idd!e Byzantine Fresco, p. 47. 325 Teteriatnikov, "Liturgical Planning of Byzantine Churches in Cappadocia,·' pp. 151ff. 326 Unpublished frescoes at Castro include some fragments of single figures, one with a Latin cartiglio. and a few

areas of 0111ament.

327 Sts. Julitta/Juliana, Anastasia, and Irene: Lavermicocca, "Gli affreschi della chiesa di S. Adriano a San

Demetrio Corone," pp. 345-346.

328 Skawran, Middle Byzantine Fresco, pp. 25ff. 329 E.g., the Ancestors of Christ arc in the narthex at Arilje and Sopocani and a Joseph cycle occupies the

exonarthex at Sopocani and the north porch al St. Sophia in Trebizond: Dufrenne, "Enrichissement du programme,"

pp. 43ff.

no S. Dufrenne, Les programmes iconographiques des Cglises byzantines de Mistra, =Bibliotheque des CA 4 (Paris, 1970), p. 28

331 Demus, Norman Sicily, p. 245. In Sicily (Cappella Palatina and Monrealc) the Old Testament cycle hegins at

the east end of the south wall: the saine is true in the Roman group of 1nonuments. At S. Angelo in Fonnis, the Genesis

scenes began, but no longer survive, at the east end of the south wall of the south aisle. In the J\bruzzi, at S. Maria ad

Cryptas at Fossa (thirteenth century), the Genesis scenes begin on the cast wall ahove the apse and continue along the

south wall.

332 The Genesis scenes at Matera and at Castellaneta may have been part of a larger cycle, but they could not have

accon1modated many scenes.

J.l.l Gregory Nazianzen, Se/eel Orations. Because the relevant passages in orations XLV and XXXVIII are repeat­

ed verbatim in the Greek manuscript tradition, I cite only oration XLV, the second homily on Easter. References to spe­

cific sections in the homilies are in brackets. 134 The conception of the Anastasis as re-creation was described as a "special theme in apocalyptic and homiletic

literature" by Kartsonis, Anaswsis, p. 72, n. 100. but this is certainly an underntatemcnl. 335 Congar, "ThCme de Dieu-Createur," p. 192 and passim. The Pantocrator as Creator has been suggested as the

unifying focus of the program at the Cappella Palatina (Nercessian. "Cappella Palatina"), but Pantocrator does not nec­

essarily have this meaning.

336 In Cosmas Indicopleustes, V: see W. Wolska, La Topographie chri!tienne de Cosmas Jndicopleustfs (Paris,

1962), p. 94.

.,.,7 Kartsonis, Anaswsis, pp. 74ff.

nKGrcgory Nazianzen, Select Orations, pp. 360ft. (=PG 36, 359ff.).

178

319 iVlateos. T'i'pico11 TT, pp. 86ff.; Gregory Nazianzen, Select Orarions. p. 368, n. ~. On connections between

, , , ·rnd Anastasis see Km1sonis, Anastasi.\ esp. pp. 1751T. }lapusm, . . . . ..

1~oThe poem is dedicated to John the Bapllst: Gigante, Poet, B1za11t1m, p. 120, V.

J41 Gal. 3:27: Mateos, Typicon II. p. 88.

3~c The: importance of height of the scene to viewer accessibility was noted by Kartsonis. Anustasis, p. 219, based

on an observation by Hans Belting.

J~JBrock, "Clothing Metaphors," p. 15.

H~ Nlaleos, Typicon 11, p. 213; Cougar, "ThCmc de Dieu-Cr€atcur," pp. 193ff. with iinp011ant references .

.1-15 "La creation est le pendant ct le presuppose de la Redemption": Congar. "ThCrnc de Dieu-Cr€atcur," p. 195.

J46Paris. Bibi. oat., gr. 543, folio 116": Ga!avaris, Homilies ofGreiory, p. 118 and fig. 462.

J~7 On the influence of homilies in art see esp. H. 11aguire. !Ir! and Eloquence in Byzantium (Princeton, 1981) and

Hellerno, Advenrus Domini. f:sr-!1a/O{ogical Tho11ghr in 4th-Century Apses and Catecheses (Leiden, 1989).

34g S,ce the ironic scenario outlined by Mango. "Cosiddetto monastico:' p. 53 .

. '49 The concept of 1nodes-thc "conscious choice made by artists between different manners in the light of the

content, meaning or purpose of a given representation or group of representations"---was suggested by E. Kitzinger,

Art in rhe i'vfaking (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), p. 71 and passim.

350 On1ament will not be considered separately in the discussion of style, but the artists or Style B who worked in

the ea~t bay were almo~l ce1tai111y responsible for the ornament in that bay .

. ,51 To cite just two Constantinopolitan examples: the miniature mosaic icon in the Musco del Duomo, Florence

(early fourteenth century), arid Theodore Metochites in the donor panel at Kmiye Djaini (ca. 1315). For the classical

tradition see J. Hurwit, "Image and Fraine in Greek Art," American Journal of Archaeology 81 (1977), pp. 1-30.

3.'i20emus, San Marco 2, pp. 218-219.

35.\ 111is differs from such monuments as Monreale, where repetition of fonns serves to stress the narrative flow as

well as unify each individual image: Demus, Norman Sicily, p. 419 .

.l54 There are no surviving profiles, although the unwrillen Byzantine rule against depicting any but evil figures in

profile had broken down by the late twelfth century.

35.S Many of eyes are damaged, probably the result or deliberate vandalism and possibly related to the Turkish

destruction of Otranlo in 1480 .

. >56" ... blue draperies .. are rather rare in Byzantine n1onumental painting'' D. J'vlou1iki, Lh ,ot x_oypa¢Cc:c:

TOIJ J,S·1 ,1,oo Ko'/.·Tc( CTTD A).errox_cDpc 1V1Eydp,.S0s· (Athens, 1978),p. 81.

3S'i' That the style of the Baptisn1 and Denial is not found elsewhere in the Tena d'Otranto was noted hy Marasco,

"Affreschi iu S. Pietro," pp. 90ff.

358 \Vharton, Art of Empire, p. 146.

359 Otranto does c01ne closer in style to Monreale than to the Cappella Palatina, where the contours are dosed and

the drapery has a more flattening effect.

3Gf1These last two features are listed as "characteristics ol" the Monrealc style" by Demus, Norman Si1·ily, p. 434.

361 Pace, Decani et I' art byzanlin, p. l 14.

-167 !vtcdea, Cripte, pp. 185-187; also P. Belli D'Elia, Bari. Pinacoteca provincia/e (Bologna, 1972), p. 25.

3b3 Pace, Puglia fi·a Bisanzio, fig. 507. CL also the drawing of some necks in Patmos, Chapel of the Virgin:

Orlandos, Patmos, pl. 8.

.ir,4 For a color reproduction sec Fonseca, P11gliafra Bisanzio, fig. 113. Medea, Cripte, pp. 247-248, dated the fres­

co to the thirteenth or fourteenth century.

:165 The linear drawing of the nearly nude Adam and Eve is found in Italian manuscripts related to the Bible of

Manfred (first half of the thitteenth century) and has been dcsclibed as "Byzantine·': see A. Daneu Lattanzi, "Ancora

sulla SCLtola miniaturistica dell'Italia meridionale sveva," /,a Bihliofilia 66 (1964), p. 112. However. except for very

general conventions of drawing nude figures, neither Style A nor B resemhlcs 111anuscripts illuminated in South ltaly

between the late twelfth and early rourteenth centuries.

179

166 Bertel Ii, "Note su Bari in eta n1ediucvale: J 'oratorio di San .l\.1artino," pp. 285-287 .ind rig. 10. 167 Hadennann, "Peinture tardo-ComnCne et prolongcmcnts,'' esp. p. 277. The Conmenc dynasty was in power

from 1081 until 1185, when it was succeeded by the Angeli until the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204, In the

art historical literature the Comnene and Angeli periods are frcc1ucntly merged and the Angeli years arc known as the Late Comnene period.

368 Orlandos, Patmos, p. 384. The dating of the Pat1nos con1plex is still disputed. For the Chapel of the Virgin,

Orlnndus prefers a date of 1185-90, while Grigoriadou, followed by Skawran, favors an early thirteenth-century ascrip.

tion; MoLtriki gives a date or ca. 1180 for the whole ensemble. For the Refectory, Orlandos attributes the north side to

the early thirteenth century, Grigoriadou says late twelfth century, and ITadermann gives a date of ca. 1200: fot· its sec.

ond phase, Orlandos posits dates in the early and later thirteenth century (bibliogrnphy in Skawran, Middle Byzantine

Fresco, cat. nos. 57, 58, and 63). According to D_iuric, "Peinture nuuale byzantine,'' p. 209, part of the Refectory is to

be dated 1230-40 and reflects a degree of liberation from Late Comncnc linearity on the pmt of artists linked to the

Empire of Nicaea. See now E. Kollias, Patmos (Athens, 1986), in the series Byzantine Art in Greece, i\1osai'c-s-}Va/l

Paintill[;S, ed. M. Chatzidnkis, where the paintings in the Chapel of the Virgin are assigned to the last quarter of the

twelfth century while those in the Refectory are dated to 1176-80 (first phase) and the third quarter of the thirteenth

century (second and third phases).

Joy Mouriki, "Stylistic Trends, 11th and J 2th,'' pp. 120-121. 37

n Icons of Christ and the Virgin fonnerly nttributcd to the sixteenth century: C. Mango and E. J. W. Hawkins,

"The Hem1itage of SL Neophytos and its Wall Paintings,'' DOP 20 (1966), p. 201 and fig. 56. Tl1c wishbone is also

found in Style B, in the face of Adam in the Anastasis, but the latter's nose is completely different. 371 Firnt half of the century: V. Lazarcv, Storia della pittura bizanlina (Turin, 1967), p. 284; second half: Pace,

Bizantini in Italia, p. 490 and fig. 444; en. 1300: Demus, 1\/orma11 Sicily, p. 189 (related to the Kariye Djaini). 372N. B. Drandakis, ".A·nO T1,S 'Tocxo'fpo,¢<;::s 0 rou !\'y(ou 6r11-, 1'Tp(o1.; i<r~0Kc0S1., ( 12El6)," DXAE

per. 4, 12 (1984), fig. 30. 373 Examples cited in Orlandos, Patmos, p. 128, nn. 1-3. 37

'1 E.g., Luke on fol. 158" of Berlin, Staatsbibl. Gr. Quarto 66 (probably ca. 1210); however, the aiticulation of

the knees is different and the drapery patten1s in general arc more extravagant. See Wey! Carr, lllumination 1150·-1250,

fiche 8, C4 and pp. 8lff. 375 Th.is long fold is also paralleled in Berlin, Quarto 66, fol. l 77r. 376 Tsitouridou, "Porta-Panaghia,'' fig. 9 and pp. 876tr. The fresco depicts a monk being presented to the Virgin

by an angel. Because it is adjacent to the tornb of the 1nonastcry's founder, the sebastokrator John Angelus Comnenus

Doukas who died in 1289, he is presumably lhc monk being introduced. An eighteenth-century source reproduces a

now.Jost inscription that gives the date of the construction of the church as 1283.

377 Wharton, Art of Empire. p. 146. 373 lbid. The author is referring only to the scenes in the north and south bays; she docs not differentiate Style A

from Style B because no notice is taken of the cast bay scenes.

379 Demus, Norman Sicily, p. 432.

38DKitzingcr, Monreale, p. 104. 381 See Orlandos, Patmos, p. 161; Megaw and Hawkin~, ''Perachorio," pp. 341ff.

' 82 Djuric, "Pe.inture muralc byzantine," pp. 180-181: A.H. S. Mcgaw, "Background Architecture in the

Lagoudcra Frescoes," J6B 21 (1972), pp. 195-201. 383 These three monuments arc cited by Hadermann, Kurbinovo, pp. 441-442.

3M Vehnans, "Valeurs affectivcs,'' p. 50.

385 IIadennann, Kurhinovo, pp. 362-363. 186 Color has been used to detcnnine patronage by Djuric, "Peinture murale byzantine," pp. 185ff. (brighter colors

and modeling by color is aristocratic; darker colors and modeling by tones of one color indicates ecclesiastical patron­

age), but see the comments of Cormack, "Aristocratic Patronage,'' p. 163.

·187 On Miggiano see Fonseca, Basso Salento, pp. 119-122.

180

33g Sec Pace. Pugfio jh1 Bisanzio, color fig. 495.

:iK9 These features are associated with the evolved thirteenth century by Djuric, "Pcinture murale byzantine,'' p.

_190£. Diez and O. De1nus, Byzantine I'vf.osaics in Greece. llosios Lucas and Daphni (Cmnbridge, Mass., 1931), p.

13. Such conversational pairs occur at Asinou, ITosios Loukas, Cappella Pal'.1tina, H. Str.atigos, and_ ~r~~idi.. .

191 T1ic Pentecost. in t11e nmihex, is not by the n1ost accomplished artist al Sa1nanna: Tvfounk1, Stylistic Trends,

12th,., p. 119 and n. 132.

392 o. Demus, "The Style of the Kari ye Djan1i and its Place in the Development of Palaeologan Art," Kariye

p. 113.

39.1 On the Metropolis sec Kalopissi, "Tendenze stilisliche," p. 239; Mouriki, "Stylistic Trends, 14th,'' p. 71; M.

Cfost,id,.Jm,"l\~0Yrc:po, y,,c, ""T]l.' cCJ1up(o., Ko..c 'T"']V TiX"'"'I Tr1s lvh-11"06'Tfo>·T]S Tou lvl,_,u,,.pci'.,'' DXAE

4, 9 (1977-79), pp. 143-179.

J94 l\1ouriki, "Stylistic Trends, 11th and 12th." p. 120.

395 K. \.Veitzmann, "The Constantinopolitan Lectionary, Morgan 639,'' Sllldics i11 Art and Literature for Belle Da

Greene (Princeton, 1954), p. 368; repr. in idem, Byzanline Liturgical Psu/ters and Gospels (London, 1980), XIV.

J%Vasilakc, Omorphi Ekklesia, pp. 104-105; Mouriki, "Stylistic Trends, 14th," p. 76.

397 Fol. 86": see E. Conslantinides, "The Tetraevangclion, Manuscript 93 of the Athens National Library,'' DXAE

per. 4, 9 (1977-79), esp. pp. 190,210 n. 69, and pl. 69; also Wey! Carr, Illumination 1150-1250, pp. 46ff; color illus·

tration in A. Marava-Chatzinikolaou and C. Toufexi-Paschou, Catalogue r!( the Illumirwted Byzantine Manuscripts of

the National Library of Greece, l, Manuscripts of New Testan1ent Texts 10th-12th Century (Athens, 1978), fig. 639.

The manuscript is one of the earliest to use the separately framed formal l"or its miniatures.

39H A. Marava·Chatzinikolaou and C. Toufexi-Paschou, Catalogue o{ 1he 11/wninated Byzantine Manuscripts of

the Nalionaf Library of Greere, Il, 13th-15th Century (Athens, 1985), fig. 173 and pp. 83, 88ff.

399 Thid., color fig. 56 and pp. 38, 39, 41ff.

400 See Buchthal, 'Musterh11ch' of Wolfenbiitte/, esp. pp. 34-35 and figs. 17, 19, 20ff; in the Goslar Gospels, see

e.g. the angel of the Annunciation, fol. 70": R. Kroos in Die Zeit der Stauf'er (Stuttgart, 1977), L pp. 598·599 and IT,

fig. 560.

411! Features described in Velmans, "Valeurs affectives," p. 54 and fig. 13.

402 The "exuberance of hair ... is a constant feature or Palaeologan representations": Mango and Hawkins, "The

Hermitage ol' St. Neophytos and its Wall Paintings,'' p. 201.

403 T11e elating of the mosaic is still in dispute. For bibliography and an ascription lo ca. 1200 see T. Velrnans, La

peinwre murafe byzantine ii la.fin du MoyenAge T (Paris, 1977), pp. 117·120.

404 H. Liapes, .~l/1cu-a.,.r,.11J0Yd ,lvlui7µ.c:(a E u/30(0..s (Athens, 1971), pl. 99 .ind color pl. C/

405Chatzi<lakis, "I\Ju_,),rEoo, vL.u 'TT]l.' cu<TopCo, c:o.,c ,,.·,11' 'TiXVT] 'T"f]S MT]Tp6·no\11;;," p. 178, assigns

the first fresco pbase to 1270-86; repeated by Kalopissi, "Tendenze stilistiche,'' p. 238. l'vlouriki, "Stylistic Trends,

14th." p. 71, gives the dale 1291-92.

406G. Millet and A. Frolow, La peinture du MoyenAge en Youf?osfavie (Paris, 1954), pl. 84, fig. l.

407 The similarities between the works of "Master E" at Pee and the hierarchs at Pili were noted by E. Schwartz,

''The Original Fresco Decoration in the Church or the Holy Apostles in the Patriarchate of Pee," unpublished Ph.D.

<liss., New York University Institute of Pinc Arts, 1978, p. 159.

408Thc monastery of Kato Panagia was built by the Despot of Epirus, Michael 11 Doukas, between 1236 and 1271.

Only a few bishops in the diakonikon survive fr01n the original decoration. See M. Chatzidakis, "Aspects de la peinturc

murale Ju XlIJc s. en GrCce,'· Symposi11m Sopocani. fig. l; Djuric, "Peinture muralc byzantine," p. 221.

,w9 Essential surveys for late twelfth-century Byzantine art include Mouriki, "Stylistic Trends, 11th and 12th";

Haden11ann-Misguich, "Peinture tardo-Comnene et prolongements"; Haclennann-Misguich, "Tendances expressives ct

recherches ornementales clans la peinture byzantine de la seconde n10iti€ du Xllc siecle," Byzantion 35 (1965), pp. 429-

448: Djuric, "Peinture murale byzantine," pp. 167-196. Hadermann and Mouriki divide the monuments of the period

181

into three groups, whik Djuric favors a rive-part division. 410

Djuric identifies Patmos and the Evangelistria, as well as H. Straligos in Mani, as belonging to the momun ~ ental

trend exemplified hy the frescoes of Vladi1nir. He also assigns Hosios David to !he third quarter of the twelfth cent . Djuric, ''PeinLure muralc byzantine," pp. 172, J 76. ury,

411 See esp. Mouriki. "Stylistic Trends, 11 lh and 12th," pp. 116-123.

41" Djuric, "PeinlLtre muralc byzantine," pp. 199-201, 204-205; C. L. Striker and Y. D. Kuban, "Work.

Kalcnderhane Carnii in Istanbul: Second Preliminary Report," !JOP 22 (1968), esp. pp. 191-192. at

. 4

1.l See H. BuchthaL "Studies in Byzantine Manuscript Illumination of the Thirteenth Century," Jahr/Jue// dei·

Berlmer Museen 25 (1983), pp. 27-102; Weyl Carr, Tlfumination 1150-1250, passim. The Comnenian pet·iod h cl d . d ~ · rea Y witnesse an increase in provincial prosperity. A concise summary is in Wey! Carr, Illumination J /50-1

250 esp. pp. 149-150 and nn. 31-33. '

'114 Kalopissi, "Tendcnze stilistiche," p. 252. 115

For the thh1eenth century, essential references include Symposium Sopocani; Djuric, "Peinture muralc hyzan­

tine,''pp. 196-246; Kalopissi, "Tenclcnze stilistiche"; Kalopissi, Krwiidi, pp. 302ff.; Buchthal and Belting. Pmrmiar:e·

lV[ounki, "Stylistic Trends, 14th"; T. Vehnans, La peinture murafe hyzantine it /a.fin du Moyen Age I (Paris, 1977), · 311?1 "hi" . · pp, · - - , wit 11stonograph1c study, pp. 11-28. Two articles by 0. Dc1nus are still fondarnental: "Die Enlstchung des

Palaologenstils in der ivlalerei," CJEB Xl, Munich 1958, IV, 2 and "Style of the Kariye Djami.'' Kar(ve Djami 4, 109-160. pp.

416 The ten11inology First and Second Palaeologan Style is from Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 58. The First

corresponds roughly to the reign of Michael VIII Palacologus (1261-82), the Second to the reign of Andronicus II (1282-1328).

417 "CT1e mosaics of Kilise Djami attest to this. On the coexistence of different progressive styles in Constantinople

ca. 1290-1310 see W. Grape, "Zum Stil der Mosaiken in der Kilise Camii von Istanbul," Pamheon 32 (1974), pp. 3-13.

For the art of Constantinople in this period see also R. Nau1nann and IT. Belting, Die t:uphemia-Kirche am Jiippodrom

zu lslanbu! zmd ihre Fresken (Berlin, 1966): H. Belting, "The Style of the Mosaics,'' in H. Belting, C. Mango. D.

Mouriki, The Mosaics and Frescoes of St. Mary Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) al Istanbul, D.O. Studies 15 (Washington, D.C., 1978), pp. 96-111.

dJH This monument, usually elated ca. 1310-14, has recently been rcdated to "after 1329": P. Kuniholm and C.

Striker, "Dendrochronological Investigations in the Aegean and Neighboring Regions. 1983-1986,'' Journal of Ficfd Archaeology 14 (1987), p. 387.

419 Some of these features are cited in K. Weitzmann, "Constantinopolitan Book Illumination in the Period of the

Latin Conquest," Gazelte des Beau.x.-Arts 25 (1944), pp. 193-214. 420

See A. Stojakovic, "La conception de l'espace defini par ]'architecture peinte clans la peinture murale serhe du

XJile sieclc,'' Symposium Sopoca11i, pp. 169-178: A. Stojakovic, L'eapace architecrura! dans la peinture de fa Serbie

midiiva{e (Novi Sad, 1970): T. Velmans, "Le role du dCcor architectural et la representation de l'espace dans la pein­turedes Pa!eologues,'' CA 14(1964),pp. 183-216.

421 Yclmans, "Valeurs affcctivcs''; Vclmans, La peinture murale byzantine Cl fa fin du Moyen Age, pp. 102-112.

422 Kalopissi, Kranidi. esp. p. 321.

423 See Chapter l, Stratigraphy of the Frescoes. 424

First suggested by M. D'Elia, "Per la pittura de! Duecento in Puglia e Basilicata: ipotesi e propostc,'' Antiche

civilrU fucane. Alti de! Convegno di srudi di archeologia, storia dell' arte e del folklore. Oppido Lucano 1970 (Galatina, 1975), pp. 165ff.

425 lhid., esp. pp. 160ff.; V. Pace, "lcone di Puglia, della Terra Santa. di Cipro: appt1nti prelirninari per

un'indagine sulla ricezionc bizantina nell'Italia rneridionale duecentcsca," l{ Media oriente e f'occidell!e nell'arle de{

XJIT seco{o (Bologna, 1982), pp. 181-191; idem, "Italy and the Holy Land: Import-Export 2. The Case of Apulia,''

Crusader Art in the 1\velfth Century, =B.A.R. Inten1ational Serie8 152 (Oxford, 1982), pp. 245-269; idem, "Prescnze e

influenze cipriotc nella pittura duecentesca italiana," CARE 32 (1985), pp. 259-298 with ample references inn. I.

182

• ,1 .. "Aggiunte alla pilrnra pu"liese de] Tarclo-Medioevo (la cripta de! Crocefisso a Ugento),'' Scritti di 426 M. D E 1.i, ~ o .

· -, di [Joo Procacci J (Milan 1977) pp. 62-76. On the Templars in South ltaly sec K. \V1escr, . Jef/'arte11101101e ,, · ' Ill .. d ll'O ·dine Teutonico in Puglia,'' ASP 26 (1973), pp. 475-487 with earlier bibliography. i irt!Zl e 1

421 See Kalopissi, "Tendenze stilistiche,'' p. 252. . .

428 Jacob. "Culture grccque,'' pp. 6lff.; .Jacob, "Tcstimonianze biz.antine,'' pp. 64ff. A list of rnanus~npts attnbu_t-

. cl Otrtnto is found in "Culture ,,rccque." pp. 70-77; cf. the list of manuscripts ascnbed to Apuha t the regwn aroun , · "' . 0 '·C 1· · g,.,,,,,· ,J,ll·t Puo-lia trasferiti in biblioteche italiane ed estcrc." Bolfettino de/la Badia greca d1 M, Petta, ,oc 1c1 "" '- , o ·

ttaferraia 26 (1972), pp. 83-129. ro ,, 'pt, bo•,·owed from S Nicola at Casole are listed in the typikon of the monastery: H. Omont, "Le 429The 1nanuscn · , · . 1 s Nicolas de Casale pres d'Otrante,'' Revue des ltudes Grecques 3 (1890), pp. 389-390. The contents of

::tvp1con c e , . A J b "U b'b] J. • t·nt library are collated in Paris. gr. 549, datable between 1280 and 1320/30: . aco. nc 1 10-x1i1other unpor d . .

":.h' ue m6dievale de Terre d'Otrante,'' RSBN, n.s. 22-23 (1985-86), pp. 285-315. It has been shown that the manuscnpt

, t eq . llj• P"'"''" not monks· see Jacob "Culture grecque " p 62; Jacob. "Testimonianze bizantine." p. 63. copyists were usua , "· ~, ' · · ' . . .' . · . . . . I · of the role of monks from Casale in the dissemrnat10n of prolane llteraturc 1s aff1nned by P. Canart This downp ay1ng . . ~ .

G .. · s,·,,,,,r,·na e Tradi-ione Classica 170 Convegno d1 stud1 sulla Magna Vrecia, Taranto 1977 (Naples, ".[Magna /{'LIU ~c ~ , . • .

[gSZ), pp. 278-2791. The widespread earlier view, ascribing all local cultural act1v1ty t~ the monaster~, 1s represented

··by R. Weiss, ·'The Greek Culture of South Italy in the Later iv[iddle Ages,'' Proceedings of the Bnt1sh Academy 37

(1951), PP· 23-50. 4Jn Hoeck-Locnert7., Niko!aos-Nektarios, pp. 30ff.

4_11 Gieante, Poeti bizantini; Gigante, "La civilta lclleraria,'' Bizanlini in Italia, pp. 630-638.

, f.. p · 2"72· P. Hoffmann .. "La dCcoration du Parisinus graecus 2572, schCdographie otrantaise,'' 4L c ., e.g.. ans. gr. -' .

iWEFRM 96 (1984), 2, pp. 617-645. . . . . 43 .l A rnanusciipt such as Vat. gr. 1276, which contains anti-Latin polemics and texts dclcndrng Byzantme reli­

gious and cultural traditions, indicates that these Greek traditions persisted in the early fourteenth century in the face of

d 11 · · ,· ,. N'"' A A««oncia Lon"o and A Jacob "Une anlhologie salcntine du XJVe sitcle: le Vaticanus gr. gra ua atm1za 101,. ~,.,,_., . ._,. o · ,

1276,'' RSBN, n.s. 17-19 (1980-82), pp. 149-228, esp. p. 165.

434 The treatise survives in a single manuscript, the unedited Paris. gr. 1255 (thirteenth century): sec Hoeck­

Loenertz. Nikolaos-Nekwrios, esp. pp. 82-88; S. Bowman. The .Je1vs ofB_-yzantium, J2n4-1453 (University, Ala., 1985),

32-33; R. Dcvreessc, Les ma1111scrits grecs de l' Iwlie mdridio11ale, =Studi e Testi 183 (Vatican City, 1955), P· 47.

4_15 See J. Mann, Tex.ts and Studies in Jewish l!istory and Literature I (Cincinnati, 1931 ), pp. 12-15, regarding the

pernecution of South Italian Jews around 930, during the reign of Romanos I Lecapenus.

4.16 M. N. Adler, The Ttinerary rd" Benjamin of Tudela (London, 1907), p. 9; C. Colafemmina, "L'itinerario

1. 1· B · · d· T d 1· "ASP 28 (1975) p 87 Benjamin was in Otranto in ca. 1160. A twelfth-century pug 1esc c 1 em amino d u e a, , · ·

French rabbi paraphrased Isaiah 11 :3 as "Out of Bari shall go fo11h the Torah, and the word of God from Otranto." See

S. D. Goitein, "Sicily and Southern Italy in the Cairo Geniza Documents,'' Archivio storico per la Sicilia orientate 67

(1971), p. 16; G. Gianfreda, Otranto 11ella storia (Galatina, 1980), p. 111.

417 C. Colafcmniina, "Un poeta ebreo ad Otranto ncl XIll sec.: Anatoli,'' ASP 30 (1977), pp. 177-189.

4:18 The silk of Otranto was praised in French poetry of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries: see A. Guillou. ''La

soie du KatCpanat d'ltalie,'' Travaux et Memoires 6 (1976), esp. p. 79, n. 55; repr. in idem, Cu/lure et socie1e en ltafie

byza111i11e (V/e-x1e s.) (London, 1978). XII.

4W Hoeck-Loenertz, Nikofaos-Nektarios, p. 86.

·1~0 See the poems and epigrams in Gigante, Poeli /Jizantini. esp. V (p. 106) by John Grasso and I (p. 147) by

Nicholas of Otranto. 441 E.g., in the Chludov Psalter: see K. Corrigan, "The Ninth Century Byzantine Marginal Psalters,'' Ph.D. diss.,

U.C.L.A., 1984, esp. Chap. IV (in press, Cmnbridge 1992).

4-12 For this interpretation see the essay by Herbert Kessler in K. Weitzmann and H. Kessler, The Frescoes of the

Dura Synagogue and Christian Art, D.O. Studies 28 (Washington, D.C., 1990).

183

44~ Otranto and Brindisi are invariably cited together as possible points of embarkation or exportation in <locu-

1nents pertaining to the Morea (the duchies of Athens, Euboea, Naxos, and Kephallcnia, part of the Angevin empire

after 1267): see C. Penal and J. Longnon, Actes refa1{f:1· a la pri11cipau1e de ['V/orfe 128()-1300 (Paris, 1967), docu­

ments 68, 73, 132ff. The Venetians, Genoans, and Pisans also used these two porls: F. Guerrieri, Le relazio11i Ira

Venezia e Terra d'Otruntofino al 1530 (Trani, 1904), p. 14.

·H·1 Blattmann, "Otranto: scavi," pp. 280-284. The cera.rnics miginated in Corinth and the Peloponnese. and per­

haps in Constantinople; their importation continued into the fowiecnth century.

•145J. P.A. Van der Vin, Travellers to Greece and Consrantinople I (Leiden, 1980), pp. 18 and 24.

,14G Sec the correspondence between Bardancs and Nichohrn-Ncctarius in Hocck-Loenertz, Nikolaos-Nektarios, pp.

148-235. Bardanes was metropolitan of Corfu from 1219 to ]238/39, but he evidently had civil and perhaps military

responsibilities as well: Frederick II asked him to cede the island in ca. 1236. a request that Bardanes politely declined.

See A. Acconcia Longo, "Per la storia di Corfi:1 m::l Xlll secolo, I. II testo greco di una lettera di Giorgio Bardanes a

Federico II," RSBN, n.s. 22-23 (1985-86), pp. 209-229.

447 On the so-called Despotate of Epirus sec D. M. Nicol, The Despot ate of Epiros 1267-1479 (Camb1idge, 1984);

also idem, "The Relations of Charles of Anjou with Nikephoros of' Epiros," Byzanlinische Forschungen 4 (1972), pp.

170-194.

448 The marriage between Manfred and an Epirote princess "established a link between Epiros and the south of

Italy which was never thereafter to be broken until the Turkish conquest in the fifteenth century": Nicol, The Despotate

of Fpiros, p. 7. See also P. Soustal and J. Kotler, Nikopo{is und Kephallenia, ""Tabula lmperii Byzantini 3 (Vienna,

1981 ), pp. 178-181; A. Acconcia Longo, "Per la storia di Corfil nel Xlll secolo, II. Giovanni Comneno Vatatzes: Nota

prosopografica," RSBN, n.s. 22-23 (1985-86), esp. pp. 231ft. and n. 6.

449 E.g., a justice nan1ed Tiroldo: see R. Filangieri di Candida, ed., 1 Regislri de/la Cancel!eria Angioina,

1283-12R5, v. 27 (Naples, 1979), pp. 208,231,380, 419ft.

450 This information is contained in a letter carried by the painter, the opening of which can be translated as fol­

lows: "Many thanks to this man, skilled in pictorial art ('rE:xvns ~-1p,0Tflµov1., XP'.DIJ,CJ,'O'upyoKTjs), who has

spent so much time with us in straightforwa.r·dness and is now dispatched with good expectations. .": Greek text in

Hoeck-Loene1iz, Nikolaos-Nektarios, p. 180.

451 We have some evidence for the movements of artists between Byzantium and Italy. At an unspecified date the

painter Paul of Otranto decorated a phiale at a n1om1stcry outside Constantinople with baptismal themes; he is praised in

a poem by Nicholas-Nectarius (see Hoeck-Loenertz, Nikolaos-Nektarios, pp. 114, 116 and poe1ns X-XJ on p. 141; G.

N. Sola, "Paolo d'Otranto, Pittore (Sec. XII)," Roma e l'Oriente 6 (1916), esp. pp. 132-133). An early fourteenth-centu­

ry document from Genoa mention8 a Constantinopolitan painter nan1ed Mark active in that city, probably explaining the

presence of paintings in the Second Palaeologan Style at S. Lorenzo: see Nelson, "A Byzantine Painter in Trecento

Genoa: The 'Last Judgment' at S. Lorenzo," p. 555.

452 The building was constructed between 1283 and 1296, dates derived from the persons named in the carved

dedicatory inscription; Nicol, The Despotate of t]Jiros, p. 241, narrows the date to 1294-96. See A. K. Orlandos, H

liap11yo,r:nfroua-0, TT)S "ApTT)S, ""Bl.,B,\tof!J/KT) TTJS cv A6Y)uo.ls Apxaco.\oy1,K17's FTalp<c(ctS' 52

(Athens, l 963), and the newer study of the architecture by Lioba Theis, Die Architektur der Kin:he der Panagia

Paregoretissa in Arta!Epirus (Amsterdam, 1990), which demonstrates that the existing structure is built around an ear­

lier core. Orlandos's attribution of the sculpture to a South Italian atelier (pp. 84-85ff.) is repeated verbatim by E.

SLikas, "L'tglise byzantine de la Panaghia Parigoritissa (Consolatrice) d'Arta en Epirc et l'intluence italienne," CARE

22 (1975), esp. pp. 364ff. Specifically, the sculpture of the Parigoritissa finds dose comparisons with the portals of

Cerrate and Ruvo di Puglia. Sec the forthcoming 17po.,k'I :,ye( of the First International Symposium on the Despotate of

Epiros, held in May 1990 (loannina, 1992), including L. Safran. "Exploring Artistic Links Between Apulia and Epiros

in the 1l1irteenth Century: The Problem of Sculpture and Wall Painting."

453 Skawran, Middle Byzantine Fresco, cat. nos. 14, 24, 25 with bibliography.

454 See Djuric, "Pcinturc murale byzantine," pp. 214ff.; D. Palla~, ''Epiros," RbK II, esp. cols. 287-289; Mourilci,

184

"Stylistic Trends, 14th," pp. 56-57: Kalopissi, "Tendenze stilistiche," pp. 235-238.

455 Several of the Epirote monuments were originally published by Orlandos in ABlvfE 2 (1936). Fur recent bibli­

ography see A. Paliouras. ",31.,S\1,,=iyr~o.qJCo, ·yoo, T'fllJ 'r,,,c,,po ( 191:/::1-79), E1J{o,,)"1,11fi o.,px:;,,c:,\c,yCcl

KCL1., TE:;{·;,-,," l-i-rre(P"'T,,Kd \'po l1(Kc( 22 (1980), pp. 256-266; M. Achein1astou-Potan1ianuu. "The Byzantine Wall

paintings of Ylacherna Monastery (Arca of Arta)," ClF.R XV, II A, pp. l-14; Tsitouridou, "Porla-Panaghia."

456 Djuric, "Pcinture murale byzantine," p. 245.

4.57 Sec above, n. 3.

45H See Mouriki, "Stylistic Trends, 14th," pp. 58-70, 83. Only Kalliergis, who painted the Church of Christ in

Veroia in 1315, stands out as painterly: see S. Pclckanides, Va))c./,ny,,':', UAr,,s 8ETT,1,){0.s, cipcuTo,;

(Athens, 1973), plates.

4.59 Epirus lost to Nicaea and Michael VIII Palaeologus at the Battle of Pelagonia in 1259. but a8sumed the mantle

of Fidei Defensur against Michael's attempted union with the Pope at the Council of Lyons (1274): see Nicol, The

Despotale of Epirus, p. 16. At the end of the thirteenth century, however, there is evidence for clo8c cultural contact

between Epirus and Constantinople: the mosaics of the Parigoritissa were probably executed by a n1ctropolitan atelier,

and the narthex of the Vlacherna monastery (ca. 1300) contains a depiction oft11e litany of the icon of the Virgin, which

occurred every Tuesday in Constantinople; see Acheimastou-Potan1ianou, "The Byzantine Wall Pain lings of Vlacherna

Monastery (Arca or Arta);' pp. 4ff. and figs. 14-17.

46USec esp. Wey! Carr,)1/wninution J 150-1250, pp. 145-l47ff. 461 Proof of the use of such models in the Byzantine world is contained in the Life of St. Pancratius of Taormina

(ca. 700?), in which ''pictures on parchment" are expressly used as guides in church decoration: Kitzinger, Monreale,

p. 49; Buchthal, 'Musterbuch' of \Vo(f"enbiittel, esp. pp. 55ff.; C. Mango, The Ari of" the Byzanrine Empire 312-1453

(Toronto. 1986), pp. 137- l 38. The Vcrcclli Roll is a thirteenth-century Western example of such a pictorial guide: see

L. Eleen, "Acts Illustration in Italy and Byzantjum.'' DOP 31 (1977), pp. 258ft. with earlier bibliography.

'!62 S. Pietro itself has been "identified" as the Byzantine cathedral of Otranto; for a refutation sec below, Chapter

JV. 463 E.g., V. Pace, "Arte bizantina, arte italiana," Le re/azioni tra !'Italia e la Grecia II, ;;;;If Veltro 3--4 (1983), pp.

285-294; Pace, Bizantini in Italia, pp. 475ff.

464 See Mango, "Cosiddetto monaslico;· p. 57.

]85

CHAPTER IV FUNCTION, AUDIENCES, CONTEXT

The preceding chapters analyzed the architecture and the medieval fresco layers of S.

Pietro in synchronic fashion. It should now be possible to address questions that transcend

individual fresco stratigraphy, including the function of the church and the various audiences

for its frescoes at different periods in its history. These diachronic issues in turn permit some

general observations about Byzantine and byzantinizing art in the province of South Italy.

The Function of the Church

Byzantine ecclesiastical architecture and decoration is in general so unifo1m that in

the absence of documentation it is often impossible to determine the function of a particu­

lar church. Because S. Pietro at Otranto was redecorated and used over a span of several

centuries, this prob1em is co1npounded: its function probably changed over time, and its

role in Otranto when it was built in the late tenth century is not likely to have been the

same as when the parekklesion was added and used for burials, probably in the twelfth

century, or when the extensive thirteenth-century redecoration was undertaken. We can­

not even be certain that the church continued to be used by Greeks instead of Latins after

its initial construction and decoration. Despite these difficulties, the claim is often made

that S. Pietro was the Byzantine cathedral of Otranto. This hypothesis first appeared in

print in the nineteenth century and has gained credence through repetition, 1 although

more recent literature has begun to cha11enge this assertion.2 Important arguments can be

raised against the identification of S. Pietro as a cathedral church, and these arguments

encourage alternative hypotheses about its actual use.

Medieval cathedrals usua11y occupied the site of an earlier church that marked a sanc­

tified local spot, often associated with a martyrium. In Byzantium and in South Italy,

cathedrals tended to 1naintain a fixed position over the centuries. In Bari, for exa1nple, the

Norman cathedral was built on the site of the Byzantine cathedral, which in tum occupied

an Early Christian cult site.3 The Norman cathedral at Taranto also retains traces of an

earlier Byzantine foundation on the same site, and the sa1ne is true for Canosa and Trani. 4

The cathedral at Otranto, consecrated in 1088, is thus likely to have been built on the site

of the previous cathedral. This likelihood is supported by the presence of sixth, and sev,

enth-century Byzantine carved capitals in the crypt, and by recent excavations under the

twelfth-century mosaic Ooor that revea1ed an extensive earlier pavement. s This earlier

mosaic, black and white with geometric motifs, may have belonged to the previous cathe-

186

dral; its restricted palette indicates a date in the ninth or tenth century rather than in the

Early Christian periodf 1 The Norman cathedral and its probab1e Byzantine_ predecessor

v,,,ere ti1erefore built at some distance to the \Vest of S. Pietro, virtually across the walled

city [Fig. 2J. At the same tin1e, there is no archaeological evidence that S. Pietro occupied

the site of an earlier building, only a local tradition that St. Peter erected an altar there.

This lack of continuity in the use of the site of S. Pietro contrasts with the continuous use

of the site of the Norm:u1 cathedral, and presents a strong challenge to an identification of

the former as a cathedral.

The building typology, with its three interconnecting apses, indicates that S. Pietro

was constructed for the Orthodox rite. If it were a public church it probably had a ten1plon

screen, an opaque barrier between the naos and the sanctuary,? but traces are co1npletely

lacking due to the recutting of the square central piers into columnar piers. The church

may still have been in use by Greeks at the time of the addition of the parekklesion.

VVhile the numis1natic evidence from onoe of the to,nbs is inconclusive, as Byzantine coins

vverc in general circulation and not restricted to Orthodox users, the sixteenth-century

paintings in the parekklesion (traces of which are visible on the north exterior wall of the

church proper lflig. 3a]) appear to have respected a barrier near the east end. If S. Pietro

\Vere being used as an Orthodox church in the second half of the thirteenth century, it

probably had the liturgically mandated barrier, but if it served as a private oratory the

chancel ba1rier would not be necessary. The interior alterations have eliminated these

clues to the function of the church

The size of a structure must be taken into account in determining its probable use,

and a church measuring under 10 meters on a side can hardly have served as the cathedral

of Byzantine Otr:u1to. With the sanctuary occupying the three easternmost bays of the

naos and the whole presumably blocked off to the public,s there would have been little

space in which to acco1n1nodate the Orthodox population. The number of potential wor­

shipers is not known, but can be surmised on the basis of some statistics noted in previous

chapters. If there were five hundred Jevvish fan1ilies in Otranto when it was visited by

Benj:unin of Tudela in the twelfth century, there n1ust have been n1any more Orthodox

families; and if there were enough adherents of Orthodoxy to maintain three Greek

churches in Otranto as late as 1684, there were certainly many more in the Byz:u1tine era

and succeeding centuries. Moreover, as the ,najor public church in the principal port of

the theme of Longobardia, the cathedral of Otnmto could be expected to accommodate

transients in addition to the city's Greek inhabitcu1ts. It has been esti1nated that S. Pietro

had a maximum capacity of only fifty laity,9 a capacity that was clearly insufficient to ful,

fill the function of the cathedral of Byzantine Otranto. Fifty worshipers may even be too

generous a figure: the tenth-century Constantinopolitan convent of Constantine Lips

(Fenari Isa Djami) is more than twice the size of S. Pietro even without its capacious

narthex, but it accommodated only fifty nuns.lo

187

Comparing S. Pietro with buildings of siinilar scale in South ftaly is problen1atic

because the function of these other buildings is also unknown lFig. 81 J. While "Cattolica"

may indeed signify a cathedral, the Cattolica at Stilo could also have been the n1ain

church of a n1onastery, or a private oratory.I I S. Marco at Rossano n1ay also have had a

,nonastic or private function.12 The fo1mer church of the Otti1nati at Reggio Calabria,

\Vhich shared the small di1nensions of Stilo, has been called the Byzantine cathedral of

that city but without any proof.13 The small ninth-century church of Sts. Crisanthus and

Daria in the castle at Oria is probably not the san1e as the episcopal church in Oria, which

was dedicated to the Virgin; 14 the function of the small tetraconch at Castro that was later

absorbed into the twelfth-century cathedral is unknown. The buildings in South Italy that

are finnly identified as episcopal or archiepiscopal churches-S. Sabino at Canosa, the

"·vescovato vecchio" at S. Severina in Calabria ( 1036), S. Maria at Anglona-are all large

basilicas. As noted, the remains of structures unden1eath the large Norman basilicas indi­

cate a continuity of building typology in addition to cult site. The Byzantine cathedrals in

South Italy therefore see1n to have been substantially larger than S. Pietro, and this is true

of Byzantine cathedrals elsewhere as well. The only comparably diminutive structure that

may have served as a cathedral is the so-called Little Metropolis in Athens (late twelfth

century),15 but the name and identification are suspect; most Byzantine cathedrals in

Greece, such as the Old Metropolis in Vernia, are very large buildings indeed. For the

most part, Byzantine buildings on the scale of S. Pietro, including nu,nerous examples in

Kastoria and in Arla, have been associated with s1nall monasteries.

The discovery of the funeral parekklesion also suppo11s such an identification, but

assess1nents are hampered by the lack of comparative material in the region. Burials with­

in cities were certainly widespread by the Middle Byzantine period, vvhen ancient prohi­

bitions and integrated town-planning concepts had been abandoned. 16 Undert1oor to1nbs

and arcosolia are common in South Italy: near Otranto, dozens of to1nbs have been found

in S. Cesario di Lecce, S. Marina in Muro Leccese, and at Sanarica, but the original func­

tion of all these 1nonuments is unknown. In Byzantine churches burials often look place

in the narthex, but such a space was missing at Otranto and the parekklesion may have

been built to remedy this omission. 17 The relatively s1nall number ofton1bs and the var­

ied ages and genders of the occupants suggest that when the parekklesion was constTucted

S. Pietro served as a family monastery and burial plot, not as a cathedral.

Cathedrals in Apulia are almost invariably dedicated to the Virgin. 18 In 1034 the

archbishop of Bari restored the episcopal church dedicated to S. Maria, 19 which was only

rededicated to S. Sabino after the "discovery" of his relics there. 20 The cathedral of

Siponto was dedicated to Mary in both its Early Christian and Romanesque phases, and

so was Oria.21 On the other hand, the Byzantine cathedral of Gallipoli was apparently

dedicated to S. Agatha.22 A cathedral dedicated to St. Peter in Apulia would therefore be

unusual, but not impossible, and the dedication of S. Pietro proves inconclusive in ascer-

188

raining the function of the church.

The dedication of S. Pietro is rooted in local tradition but unsupported by· docun1enta­

tion before the sixteenth century, when descriptions of "St. Peter in the Castle" con·e­

spond to our 1nonument (see Appendix II). The decorative program neither strongly sup­

ports nor contradicts the traditional dedication. In the original tenth-century decoration

Peter survives in the Washing of the Feet, where he plays a central role, and in the Last

Supper, where he is rather unusually relegated to a position next to John instead of being

seated at the head of the table opposite Christ. In the thirteenth-century frescoes Peter is

paired with Paul on the south wall of the south bay, :u1d the two also face each other in

the east bay where they anchor the rows of apostles in the Pentecost. None of these

appear::u1ces of Peter is especially telling, whereas his placement in the apse would be a

persuasive indicator of the accuracy of the dcdication.23 Peter does appear with Paul in

the central apse in the frescoes of 1540, and the pron1inence of this position supports the

\Vritten evidence that the church was dedicated to Peter by the sixteenth century.

Accepting the traditional dedication to Peter seen1s reasonable, but a dedication to

Peter in Byzantium almost always implied a joint dedication to PauJ.24 The two were

paired in literature, art, and veneration, and they still share a joint feast day (June 29) in

both East and West. S. Pietro Imperiale at Taranto, which is attested in the sources by the

late tenth century and is the only imperial Byzantine 1nonastery in Apulia that is known to

us, is also referred to as SS. Pietro e Paolo or as SS. Apostoli.25 However, even with a

dual dedication one patron saint so1netimes prevails, and Peter enjoyed particular venera­

tion during the reign of Basil I; after the "schism" of I 054 fewer dedications to Peter

alone are attested, although this does not 1nean there was any lessening of his cult in

Byzantium.2 6 In South Italy the cult of Peter alone as Prince of the Apostles enjoyed spe­

cial popularity because he allegedly traversed the region, including a stop at Otranto, on

his way to Rome. 27 Over fifty churches dedicated to Peter are attested in the decima

records for Apulia for 1324.28 It cannot be determined whether S. Pietro was originally

dedicated only to Peter, or also to Paul: as a Byzantine church it probably had a double

dedication, but in Italy the single dedication to Peter was more co1nmon.

The interior decoration of S. Pietro provides very little indication of how the church

was used. The only surviving liturgical furnishing, the small basin on the south \Vall, is

appropriate in Orthodox and Western churches of all types and is not informative about

function. Similarly, the superimposed fi'esco layers offer few clues. The prothesis paint­

ings appear to reflect a liturgical usage of that space, but the eucharist can be performed

in even the humblest Byzantine private church. In the second layer, a Deesis instead of a

Virgin in the apse conch would indicate an eschatological bias that might preclude identi­

fication of S. Pietro as a cathedral, but the subject of the apse remains uncertain. The

presence of non-celebrating hierarchs along the apse wall seems to be an artistic archaism

unrelated to the actual usage of the monu1nent. Nor does the progra1n of single figures

189

--------------------

reveal an emphasis on a particular category of saints; had there been a file of 1nonastic

saints, for instance, this would have been a good indication that S. Pietro was a n1onastic

establishn1ent The only real clue about function found in the painted decoration are the

inscriptions, predo1ninantly in Greek but at least once, in the sanctuary, in Greek and

Latin. It is highly unlikely that an Orthodox cathedral would have incorporated Latin

inscriptions into its decoration. The significance of the presence of cyclical rather than iconic decoration at S. Pietro

is difficult to ascertain. While images of individual saints far outnumber narrative decora­

tion in the region, cyclical decoration is found in a nun1bcr of monu1nents more or less

conte1nporary with the second fresco layer at S. Pietro. However, there is no consistency

of function a1nong these monun1ents. Cerrate and S. Detnetrio Carone were Greek

1nonasterics; S. Mauro belonged to a Benedictine tnonastery; S. Salvatore was surely

monastic, Stilo probably so. S. Lucia at Brindisi may be a Latin church over a former

Greek oratory, but the evidence is unclear; S. Cesario di Lecce has the accoutrements

(prothesis and diakonikon niches) of an Orthodox church of so1ne kind. Anglona was

episcopal; Casaranello was n1onastic; Muro Leccese is still an enigtna. The number of

monastic churches with cyclical decoration proves that such decor was not li1nited to pub­

lic sanctuaries.29 The mere presence of non-iconic decoration cannot be used as a criteri­

on for identifying a public church, much less a cathedral.

That S. Pietro was the object of several campaigns of decoration is also not indicative

of cathedral status. It has been suggested that the numerous fresco layers in the Old

Metropolis al Vernia, datable from the eleventh lo the fourteenth century, attest to the

importance of the 1nonument and indicate that it was deen1ed wo1ihy of periodic con1mu­

nity patronage.30 However, many of the humble rock-cut monutnents in South Italy also

contain superimposed frescoes evidencing patronage over several centuries-Carpignano

is one important example-but these were certainly not cathedrals, and their "communi­

ty" of patrons was very s1nall. It is not possible to elucidate any clements in the decora­

tive program at Otr:u1to that support the cathedral identification, and the presence of a bi­

lingual inscription argues against it. The fact that Otranto was elevated lo metropolitan status in 967 or 968 cannot be

connected explicitly with S. Pietro, because the fresco evidence, including the paleogra­

phy, indicates that the church was not decorated and therefore probably not constructed

until some decades after that date. Otranto quite probably had a Byzantine cathedral by

879, when it was elevated to an autocephalous archbishopric, and S. Pietro was not built

for another hundred-plus years. The historical data therefore support the archaeological,

architectural, and a1iistic evidence that S. Pietro is unlikely to have been the Byzantine

cathedral of Otranto at any time. Unfortunately, determining that S. Pietro was not a cathedral docs not reveal what

function the church did serve at various periods in its history. As already noted, the prob-

190

Jeni of detennining how Byzantine churches \Vere used is ha,npered by Lhe lack of any

clear architectural distinction between public churches, 1nonastic chapels, and private ora­

tories.31 In the absence of documents, surrounding buildings, or significant liturgical fur­

nishings, we are unable to tell one building type from another even though the buildings

were clearly differentiated in practice. A cathedral, episcopal church, or public church (a

KCL6 oll L. f. 1< r: A ·riu "catholic church") performed aH the sacra,nents; it answered to

the local bishop, and its offices were open to all, as in a Western parish church-32 A pri­

vate or monastic church, or one belonging to a charitable institution (an c:UK cos

Kos, "place of prayer"), could distribute the eucharist but not perform the sacratncnts

of baptis1n or marriage without authorization of the bishop; such churches were not sub­

ject to episcopal consecration.33 Private religious experience was certainly possible: the

liturgy was often celebrated individualJy, paiticularly on weekdays, and there arc refer­

ences to bishops using private oratories in their homes and monks using their ce!ls.34

By the Middle Byz:u1tine period the construction of private churches far outstripped

that of public churches, particularly in the cities, where large nu1nbers of new monasteries

were being founded. 35 In the early tenth century Thcssaloniki had only four "catholic"

churches; at Tanu1to, six out of eight churches located within the walls in 1080 were

1nonastic; in Constantinople in 1437, there were eight "catholic" churches con1pared with

two hundred monasteries, n1any of which contained several churches-36 In Byzantine

Bari private donors erected a large number of churches, many belonging to important

,nonasteries and a great many constructed in the eleventh century.37 Throughout the

empire there were many 1nore private churches than public churches, and lay patrons evi­

dently preferred to found private churches rather than make donations to a cathedral.38 Jt

therefore seems n1ost probable that when it was built around 1000 S. Pietro was a private

church, a product of the economic prosperity, increased security, and growth in private

piety that contributed to urban revival and intensified building activity throughout the

Byzantine world between the late tenth and the late twelfth eentury.39

S. Pietro occupies a co1nmanding position on the acropolis of Otranto, a location that

was frequently the site of the 'TTpacTc,Jplo-u, the fortified residence of the Byzantine gov­

ernor.40 In the late tenth century the highest-ranking Byzantine officials in Italy were in

Bari, but Byzantine administrative and military personnel must have been ubiquitous in

Otranto as well, where they would have supervised the numerous etnbassies and troops

that passed through the city and its port. The "'P (or 0:o-Tu) at Bari was

located midway between the two highest points in the city, one of which supported the

cathedral; within the walJs of this complex, the future site of the church of S. Nicola, four

Byzantine churches or oratories were constructed by wealthy donors.41 Because Otranto

had been a Byzantine stronghold for far longer than Bari and had a larger propmtion of

Greeks in its population, it too may have had several churches in its 'TTpCLcTrJJpcov. S.

Pietro may have been one of the churches founded by the local Byzantine aristocracy,

191

·------ ------

which conceivably maintained residences in or near the TI 1,ov. Its location in the

heart of Otranto suggests that the original patron enjoyed some local status. and does not

exclude identification as a 1nonastic church. It see1ns most probable that S. Pietro was in

continuous use as a private church, not a public one. Whether this private church was part

of a small monastic foundation is less important and, in any event, impossible to determine.

Crajtsn1en, Patrons, and Other Audiences

Even as a private church, S. Pietro was a product of many hands and would have

been used, or at least seen, by many people. The issue of manufacture has been discussed

at some length in the preceding chapters on architecture and on the individual fresco lay­

ers, and can be summarized here; the question of "patronage" of various types still needs

to be addressed more thoroughly.

The architecture of S. Pietro attests to a local workshop partly reliant on Byzantine

provincial models. The si1nplified type of cross-in-square plan and the exterior articula­

tion that corresponds to the interior were imported from the Byzantine provinces, but the

use of barrel vaulting in the corner bays, round apses, recessing of the area around the

apse conch, and other interior details are all hallmarks of Apulian builders (or perhaps, in

the case of the apse recessing, Apulian renovators). Similarly, the first fresco layer was a

product of a local atelier related to but distinct from other workshops active in the region

at the end of the tenth or beginning of the eleventh century. The program and iconogra­

phy were probably based on Byzantine prototypes, but too little is preserved and the com­

parative material is too 1imited to permit certainty. An unrelated workshop executed the

first-layer pendant a century or two later, another the second layer in the second half of

the thirteenth century.

That the artists of the second fresco layer were also South Italian is clear from the

ornament and the paleography, although the program closely follows a Middle Byzantine

decorative scheme with the notable addition of a Genesis cycle. These artists had at their

disposal not illuminated manuscripts or complete model books, but drawings that could

be adapted lo varying contexts, such as the figure of the kneeling angel who appears in

both the Creation of the Angels and the Baptism. These drawings were for the most part

culled from works of the early thirteenth century, but some were more up-to-date: at least

one of the ai1ists knew the progressive Byzantine currents of the mid-thirteenth century,

most 1ikely from travel in nearby Greece. The second-layer artists executed their commis­

sion competently even when the iconography of a scene was unfamili::rr, as was probably

the case for part of, if not the entire, Genesis cycle. Some of the paintings, particularly

those in the east bay, are more than 1nerely co1npetent; they are the finest byzantinizing

paintings that survive from medieval South Italy.

192

It is unlikely that the craftsmen were responsible for many of the decisions that inake

the second-layer paintings unique. These decision_-; were the province of the pa.tron. 42 He

or she (there were female patrons in Byzantium and in the West, and a large number of

votive inscriptions in South Italy are fro1n women) hired the artists and decided on the

materials, including the quantity of ultramarine to be used in the frescoes. He or she must

also have provided general instructions to the artists about the program. For the second

layer, the patron evidently expressed a wish to integrate a Genesis cycle with a

Christological cycle, a program unknown in the region and uncommon everywhere in

churches of central plan. The inclusion of the unusual Meeting of the Creator and Adam

can only be understood as a desire of the patron. Finally, the patrons of both layers proba­

bly provided the texts for some of the painted inscriptions-the long inscription in the

Washing of the Feet and the rare titulus for the Creation of the Angels are unlikely to have been in the artists' model books.

While no information has survived concerning the individuals who might have coin­

missioned the frescoes at Otranto over the centuries, other small-scale monu1nents in

South Italy retain dedicatory inscriptions that provide names, dates, and other data about

private or family patronage. 43 Throughout the Byzantine world, the decoration of church­

es of modest scale tended to be a product of individual initiative, whether lay or monas-. 44 · · tic; 1n no case 1n South Italy is com1nunal patronage of a monument attested. Patronage

of the original church of S. Pietro and of its first fresco layer can perhaps be associated

vvith an aristocrat or high-level cleric of sufficient status to own property on the acropolis

of Otranto. Byzantine officials assigned to the katepanate of Italy only rarely patronized

public building outside Bari, 45 but their initiative cannot be ruled out. There were certain­

ly wealthy families in Otranto, though very few names are known: the Melipezzi, aristo­

crats in Bari, had at least one representative in Otranto by the eleventh century,46

although nothing connects them specifically with S. Pietro. All we know is what the mon­

ument itself tells us: near the very end of the tenth century an unnamed individual com­

missioned a church in which to celebrate the Orthodox rite, and had it decorated with

Byzantine paintings containing Greek inscriptions. For the parekklesion and the first­

layer pendant fresco, which 1nay or may not belong to the same renovation campaign, it is

only possible to deduce that other unnamed patrons wanted to have a burial plot attached

to the church, and wanted to add an isolated fresco scene or scenes to its interior.

Because so much more of the second fresco layer is preserved, the question of

patronage during the thirteenth century is both more interesting and 1nore problematic.

The high cost of part of the second-layer fresco fabric signals the patronage of an

extremely wealthy individual. Although the actual price of ultramarine in the thirteenth

century is not known, its expense or scarcity evidently curtailed its more extensive use in

S. Pietro itself and in the region as a whole. The jewel-like borders of the second-layer

scenes may also attest to the patron's acquaintance with luxury goods, whether icons, reli-

193

quaries, or 1nanuscripts containing framed narrative scenes. Possession of manuscripts

does not necessarily imply literacy, but a high degree of textual fan1iliarity is apparent

from the integration of Genesis and Christological scenes. This patron knew of the local

Christian-Jewish polemic and he knew Greek homiletic literature~the creation of the

angels before the creation of the world comes from the Greek church fathers. He also,

apparently, knew Latin. It has been pointed out that language is an unreliable indicator of

patronage and artistry,47 but language must have some meaning for its intended audience,

and the interpolation of a Latin scriptural quotation (Ave Maria gratia plena Doniinus)

only makes sense if the liturgy at S. Pietro were celebrated in Latin or if the patron knew

both Latin and Greek. Both are possible, and the latter is likely: although documentary

proof is lacking, bilingualism must have been fairly common in the Salento which,

though Greek-speaking, was bordered by Latin-speaking zones. Who was this very

wealthy, well-read, probably bilingual patron?

Unfortunately, little information can be gleaned fron1 the later decorative campaigns

and written sources. In the early fourteenth century a tonsured priest from NardO left his

image and an inscription in Latin in the apse [Fig. 78] (see Appendix !), but neither tbe

language nor the content are informative. Certainly by the time of the sixteenth- and sev­

enteenth-century Pastoral Visits S. Pietro was not used for the Orthodox rite, as this fact

would have been stated explicitly in such a document (see Appendix 11). Some of the

names recorded as providing funds to the church do belong to old Greek families, but by

the sixteenth century these families were no longer necessarily Orthodox. As for the visu­

al evidence, the tv,ro sixteenth-century fresco campaigns contain Westerners such as St.

Eligius as well as saints venerated in both East and West. While of interest for the post·

medieval history of S. Pietro, these later sources are uninformative about the thirteenth­

century patron. Nothing in the surviving second-layer decoration allows us either to confirm

Orthodox patronage or exclude the possibility of patronage by a Catholic. While the

Byzantine roster of apostles in the Pentecost suggests Greek patronage, the same figures

are found in the Cappella Palatina at Palcnno where the patronage was unquestionably

Norman. The pro1ninence of the Genesis cycle is not iinpossible but is at least unorthodox

for an Orthodox patron. That Latins patronized Byzantine artists in the eleventh century is

certain,48 :u1d the sheer quantity of byzantinizing paintings executed in South Italy in suc­

ceeding centuries indicates that Byzantine style and iconography continued to be highly

prized by patrons of all faiths. An example is S. Mauro near Gallipoli, with paintings that

are strongly byzantinizing and have Greek inscriptions, but which was a possession of the

Benedictine monastery of S. Maria di Nard0.49 The reliance on Greek texts for the

nuances of the Genesis cycle and the relationship between the program and the polemic

described by the Greek abbot of Casole make it somewhat more likely that the patron was

Orthodox, and that the Western features of the decoration reflect a regional independence

194

frorn Byzantine canons rather than actual Catholic patronage, but the latter cannot be

ruled out.

Because of a lack of documents, it is not possible to propose a specific Greek candi­

date for patron of the second fresco layer, although the evidence for a Greek audience

will be discussed below; however, a Latin who 1neets the necessary criteria can be posit­

ed. One of the wealthiest individuals in Otranto in the later thirteenth century \vas the

archbishop James, who probably held that office from 1283 until 1309. Al his death

James left three hundred ounces of gold, an enormous su1n, as well as numerous liturgical

fittings and manuscripts that included several books of sermons; perhaps the homilies of

Gregory Nazianzen were among them. 50 There is also a tan1a1izing reference to a cappel­

/am pulc[h]er[r]imam, presumably a private oratory, which was not disposed of along

with his other goods.51 S. Pietro could, in theory, have been appropriated at any time

after the construction of the parekklesion as the private chapel of the Latin archbishops of

Otranto.52 It is not possible to establish a direct connection between the church vessels

cited in the disposition of James's goods and the much later inventories of furnishings in

S. Pietro, but the quantity of costly altar cloths and liturgical implements owned by the

archbishop argue for a similarly lavish wall decoration in his "beautiful chapel"-includ­

ing, perhaps, frescoes containing lapis lazuli. The addition of the na1ne "Jacobus," James,

10 the figure on the southwest pier might also indicate that a redecoration was undertaken

or completed by someone with that name. The second layer could conceivably have been

begun under Matthew De Palma, who was archbishop from 1253 until 1282, and com­

pleted under his successor, James. While the entire second layer was conceived as a unit

and unified by the consistent fra1ning device, such a scenario helps explain the multitude

of stylistic modes: it is possible that only the cupola, pendentives, and central piers exe­

cuted in Style A were cotnpleted under the first patron, after which the central piers were

redone to depict the apostles and the rest of the decoration was cotnpleted under the aus­

pices of the new patron. A new artist, trained in the more advanced Style B and hired with

the same infusion of funds that permitted the inclusion of ultramarine, 1night then have

joined the local artists who had already laid out the overall decorative scheme. Such a

reconstruction 1nay be neat, and it serves as a reminder that the patron was a real individ­

ual and not just a theoretical constluct, but it is based on highly circumstantial evidence.

Securely identifying the patron, giving him a name, would be satisfying in the way

that solving any puzzle is satisfying. However, in the absence of more and better docu­

mentation it is impossible to identify the patrons of S. Pietro, and fundamentally such

identification matters very little. The patron was an individual acting in concert with other

individuals-the painters, the vendors of expensive pigments, the local religious hierar­

chy-to create the experience of the interior of S. Pietro. He was but one component of a

larger social and ideological structure that dictated how piety and ostentation could be

legitimately expressed at a particular place and ti1ne. We can probably accept that his

195

,vealth enabled him to obtain the best a11ists available. However, much work still needs to

be done to understand the social processes behind the patronage and creation of

Byzantine art. Even if it served as a private oratory, S. Pietro would have been seen by more than

just its craftsmen and a handful of individual patrons. Evidence for a wider audience may

be i1nplicit in nearby monuments: at Cerrate and perhaps at Giurdignano, some decora­

tive particulars are so close to S. Pietro that direct copying is a possibility, although a

co,nmon prototype can also be sunnised. Another kind of evidence offers less subjective

testimony that S. Pietro, or a church very much like it, made an impression on an audi­

ence of Greek intellectuals. This evidence is contained in the fo11owing poem by John

Grasso, the i1nperial notary from Otranto who was part of the circle of poets around

Nicholas-Nectarius of Casole in the second quarter of the thirteenth century:

KQ'Ta 'To 'U1r6Scvyµa, 'TWV 'TCCTCTO:pwv CT'TUA0J1J 'TWlJ (1TL, 'TO\J

[ \o,CT 'T ·qp( ou) c [ K ov1J 1:,6 v 'T wv 'To \J s 'TE CT CT a,p a,s E \3 o, '( '( c\l CT 'T Cl s)

EKS00E1J'TCS 1Ta,p' 'IwO:vVO\J 'ISpollv'TOSJ oU 'ToU Klip

l\11.,Ko\cio,J,

' 'T\J'TfOS,

crK-rivT\ 'T\J'TT0°( fJ,Ol.. 'Tllv8c 'TT)v f.KKA·11rrCa,v

'T·~ 'TE'TPQK'TU'~ Kl6vwv c'U'Ta,l;C~

c\t.,CT'TWV c·00E'TWS 1TC'TTTryµEvT11J

o-xo

0ET]'(Op(a,a.,s

els 1TpCls

J oTo, ST) 'T{.6-u ii1ToCT'T6iw1,'

c L CT 'Tc 'Ta, µEv 11-t.1

'T\Jxo1,c CT1lKWv eo,\OfVWV

1TpCls oDs 'T\J'TTlKWs ii¢ops{ 1TCl1J'TQ 'Tii8c.53

The introductory lines, which raise certain problems of interpretation, were probably

composed not by John Grasso but by his later compiler or editor. The whole can be trans­

lated as follows:

Verses on the patten1 of the four columns upon the sanctuary which portray the four

evangelists, published by John the notary of Otranto, pupil of lord Nicholas.

The old shadow-model [ =the Old Testament] expresses to me a form; the tabernacle

represents to me this church, which is well built on the four-fold good order of the pillars,

each allotted to an evangelist, the church stretched out in length by the divine words of

the apostles, as if by surveyors' cords; and may whoever enters this shrine with divine

longing attain the heavenly abodes, mansions toward which all this symbolically looks.

196

With its clear use of such de1nonstrative phrases as "this church" and "all this," the

poem de1nands to be read as an actual expericntia1 record, although it has been translated

heretofore in highly abstract te1n1s. A specific extant four-column church in Otranto, with

evangelists on the supporting columns, apostles elsewhere, and an overall decoration that

symbolically represented the heavens, made a strong impression on this highly literate

viewer. S. Pietro is a four-support church with evangelists in the pendentives and traces

of at least one evangelist, John, on the northeast pier; the addition of Jacobus to the south­

\Vest pier suggests a possible prograin of apostles. The celestial hierarchy is implicit in the

Creation and Re-creation narrative depicted in the vaults, cmd was doubtless reinforced by

the programs of the apse and the cupola. We cannot be certain that the poem refers specif­

ically to S. Pietro, but its reference to the typological relationship between the Old and

New Testaments supports our reading of the overall second-layer program and the intel­

lectual cun·ents that lay behind it. If S. Pietro itself was not known to John Grasso, son1e

other Byzantine cross-in-square (four-colu1nn) church with similar decoration was, and

this is just as significant for reconstructing the cultural context of the second fresco layer.

Some Contextual Issues

Long after the definitive political break with Byzantium in 1071, much of South Italy

and especially the Terra d'Otranto remained part of the Byzantine artistic and cultural

orbit. While the lingua franca in South Italy was Latin, many communities in the Salento

retained the Greek rite and the Greek language for centuries, some even until modern

tiines.54 Throughout the region, the decoration of public, private, and monastic churches

was consistently byzantinizing in style and iconography. The taste for things Byzantine

transcended class boundaries: it is evidenced by truly deluxe commissions such as the

frescoes of S. Pietro but also, on a humbler and doubtless on a more widespread scale, by

rude votive images in some crypt churches and by the importation of utilitarian ceramics

from the East. Nevertheless, this taste had certain limits; Byzantine models were modified

and interpreted by practitioners and patrons according to local exigencies and personal

preferences. This may be as good a definition as any of "provincial Byzantine" or "byzan­

tinizing" art. Local artistic traditions (including the types of models available at a given

1no1nent), particular historical circumstances (such as the Jewish-Christian polemic at

Otranto ), and the desires and resources of individual patrons will result in a great deal of

variety despite a certain co1nn1onality of sources. In this respect, the diverse stylistic

modes at S. Pietro are a microcosm of the larger regional situation and of provincial art in

general.

The architecture and frescoes at Otranto are part of a larger pattern of artistic trans­

n1ission across the Adriatic and in the Mediterranean as a whole. These artistic and other

contacts existed throughout the Middle Ages, but increased as a result of the Crusades

197

and are especially \Vell docu,nented in the thirteenth century. That Otranto's overseas

contacts were closer than those with its hinterland follows from the sea-based rather than

land-based economy of the city. At the same tiine, the style, iconography, orna1nent, and

especially the program of the sophisticated second fresco layer reveal a certain indepen­

dence from Byzantine "1netropolitan" art. This independence is greater than that found in

other provinces of the Byzantine cultural sphcre 55 and can be attributed to the political,

ecclesiastical, and geographic distance of South Italy from the most important Byzantine

centers, as well as to the concomitant availability of other, Italian models.

The distinction between metropolitan and provincial art is far from clear-cut. Only

two cities in the Byzantine empire, Constantinople and Thessaloniki, have been securely

identified as artistic metropolises, or creative centers; everyplace else is an artistic pro­

vince which, because of the centralized nature of the Byzantine state, was presu1nably

dependent on a metropolis for its artistic inspiration. Status as an artistic province could

be independent of political affiliation; South Italy is a good example. Metropolitan art is

often misused as a synonym for high-quality ai1, but the latter could certainly be produced

by artists who had no association with Constantinople or Thessaloniki. A capable artist

would travel wherever commissions were forthcoming; his students or apprentices might

also execute works far away, thus rendering the boundary between metropolis and

province very fluid and highly penetrable. The polarization of "metropolitan versus

provincial" may ultitnately go the way of "aristocratic versus monastic," a concept long

used to explain stylistic variations in Byzantine art but now understood as artificial and

inisleading.56 Provinces both rely on and are independent from metropolitan tnodels; the

degree of association needs to be evaluated case by case, and is not automatically an indi­

cator of quality. That provincial art is bad, stylistically inferior art is an old cliche that

still tends to infiltrate art historical judg1nents, but it is manifestly untrue in the case of S.

Pietro. Far from being a pallid reflection of some hypothetical 1netropolitan precursor, the

architecture and frescoes at Otranto stand out as unique artistic syntheses that could only

have been created in this part of South Italy. South Italy was a melting pot in which the ingredients were largely, but not exclu­

sively, Byzantine. The stylistic disparity that characterizes the monuments in lhe region is

most easily understood as a product of artists or workshops of varying skill using differ­

ent models. The limited number of monuments surviving from the period of the first fres­

co· layer enables us to recognize certain workshops, but not to identify their place of ori­

gin; with the explosion of artistic production in the thirteenth century, a phenon1enon by

no means limited to South Italy, even recognizing the workshops is difficult. Although

definition of what constitutes a medieval workshop remains problematic, there seems to

have been no par1icularly influential atelier in South Italy until the fourteenth century,

when artists associated with the Angevin court at Taranto had a broad degree of regional

influence.57 There was no single artistic center in medieval South Italy, no place where

198

artists might receive co1nmon training and which could be said to enjoy a privileged sta­

tus. l~his lack of a center would make it easier for itinerant artists to find work in the

region, a supposition borne out by the idiosyncratic work of the up-to-date master of Style

B at Otranto and by the document informing us of the artist who went from Corfu to

Casale. A detailed study that aims at isolating and tracing the movements of individual

artists and fresco workshops in the region is hampered by the poor conservation of many

monuments, but stil1 needs to be done.

The greatest problem in evaluating the art of medieval South Italy is that only a hand­

ful of works have so far been securely dated. It is extremely difficult to trace stylistic

developments-the variety of dates proposed for many monuments, including S. Pietro,

shows that style is an insufficient criterion for dating-and iconography remains relative­

ly consistent over time. In the absence of written records, which are extremely scarce for

n1edieval monuments throughout the region, other kinds of "documents" need to be

mined: votive inscriptions, archaeological evidence, and especial1y the careful analysis of

the monuments themselves. Comprehensive studies that coordinate archaeological, art

historical, documentary, and other kinds of information still need to be undertaken for the

vast 1najority of 1nonuments, and as new works are discovered and old ones cleaned and

conserved, our picture of artistic production in this corner of the Byzantine cultural

sphere is likely to change.

Despite the quantity and in several cases the quality of its byzantinizing works, South

Italy has never figured prominently in surveys of Byzantine art.58 In part this is because

the monuments crre incompletely or poorly published,59 and in part because of the notion

that they are provincial in the pejorative stylistic sense. The region has suffered from the

Byzantinists' traditional obsession with Constantinople, but scholarly fashions change;

the Byzantine provinces are now receiving more attention, as attested by the number of

recent studies and sytnposia on Georgian and Cappadocian monuments. The fact that

South Italy contributes little to our understanding of metropolitan art should no longer be

an obstacle to its study. Similarly, if the frescoes at Otranto do not add more to our

knowledge of Byzantine art in the West it is because the Salento in the Middle Ages was

never Western; the reception of Byzantine 1nodcls therefore followed a patten1 very dif­

ferent fro1n that in Ca1npania or Venice or Saxony, where Byzantine art, however influen­

tial, was imposed upon a fundamentally Western religious, linguistic, and cultural sub­

structure.60 The monuments of South Italy, and especially those of the Terra d'Otranto,

arc nevertheless i1nportant in two respects: they function as documents in a poorly docu­

mented region, and they contribute to a better understanding of the art of the Byzantine

cultural empire.

While the Terra d'Otranto served as a bridge between the medieval East and West, it

has tended to fall between the cracks of modem art historical scholarship, which is divid­

ed into separate camps of Byzantine and Western Medieval art. Such a division ignores

199

both the continuity of sociocultural and artistic traditions along the shores of the

Mediterranean and the independent artistic heritage of individual regions. S. Pietro at

Otranto reveals the limits of any comprehensive influence "radiating" from either Ro1ne

or Constantinople, while sitnultaneously bearing witness to the range of artistic models

available in the region over several centuries. Like 1nany monuments in South Italy, the

church was a product of individual initiatives, local traditions, and of Byzantine art as a

broader cultural phenomenon; it stands alone in the complexity and exceptional quality of

its palimpsest frescoes. S. Pietro mirrors the rich history and art history of a culturally

vital and complex region. Like other historical documents and other works of art, it is'

both representative and unique.

200

NOlES TO CHAPTER IV

1 That S. Pietro was the Byzantine cathedral was asserted rnost forcefully by A. Guillou, "Halie m€ridionale

byzantine," p. 184: "S. Pietro doit elre considCrC, je pense, cornn1e la cath€drale de la ville byzantine d'Otnmte reslau­

rCe.'· However, .. Otrante restaurCc" is based on an incorrect assmnption that Otranto had been destroyed hy lhc Arabs

and rebuilt in the late ninth century (sec Chapter I, Historical Overview). Other statements thal S. Pietro was the cathe­

dral are in F. Bacile, "Cattedrale Jdruntina," in La Cat!edrale di Castro (1896); L. Maroccia, La edicola hizantina di S.

Pietro in Otranto (Bari, 1925); Mango. "Cosiddetto monastico," p. 54: "chiesa parrocchiale o mcglio cpiscopalc," and

Belli D'Elia, Puglia Xi secolo. pp. 250, 252.

2 E.g., Wharton, Art of Empire, p. 144; M. Falla Castelfranchi, "L'inedita tomba ad arcosolio prcsso la cripta ddla

catlcdralc di Otranto," \letera Chri.\'£ianorum 21 (1984), p. 374. Other authors do not take a position, e.g. N. Lavcnnicocca,

"Cultura rigurativa e committenza ndla dccorazione delle chiese--grotta pugliesi," Nicolaus I (1973), p. 323.

3 V. von Falkenhausen, "Spazio, societ3, potere nell'ltalia dei Comuni," Europa Medilerranea, Quadcmi I (1986),

p. 197; N. Lavermicocca, "Nola in rnargine alla topografia di Bari bizantina," RINASA scr. III, 3 (1980), p. 130. The

polychrome mosaic under the cathedral at Bari has been dated to the fifth or sixth century by G. Bertelli, "Per una stmia

di Bari palcocristiana: note sul mosaico sutleffaneo della cattedrale," \/etera Christiwwnim 18 (1981), pp. 393-421.

·1 Wharton, Art of Empire, p. 147; C. D'Angela, "Le origini delta chiesa di Taranto," La Chiesa di Taranto, 1, ed.

C. D. Fonseca (Galatina, 1977); M. Falla Castelfranchi, "Note prelin1inari su Oria ncl IX secolo," Alli de/ VI Congresso

nazionale di archeo!ogia cristiana, Pcsaro-Ancona 1983 (Ancona, 1985), pp. 124-125. At Siponto, the Rornanesque

cathedral occupied the site of the Early Christian con1plex: C. D' Angela, "UhicaLione e dedicazione delle cattedrali

nella Capitanata dal V all'XI secolo," Taras 2 (1982), p. 153.

5 P. Vergara, "Elementi archilcllunici tardoantichi e medioevali ne!la cripta dclla Cattedrale di Otranto," RINASA

ser. III, 4 (1981), pp. 71-103; Falla, "L'inedita tomba ad arcosolio," pp. 373-380. Until recently it was thought that only

at Otranto was the Norman cathedral built on a virgin site; the spolia in the crypt were alleged to have been obtained

from surrounding minor churches (8cc Belli D'Elia, Puglia XI secolo, pp. 245-246). Notice of the new pavement

appeared in an article by B. Muscatello, "Sorpresa ad Otranto, un altro mosaico 80llo quello de! 1165," Guzzetta de/

i'vfezzogiorno (October 11, 1986), p. 12.

6 er. the lively colors of the firth- and sixth-century tnosaic8 at Casaranello, Bari. and elsewhere: R. Moreno

Cassiano, "Mosaici paleocristiani di Puglia," MEFRi\1 88 (1976), I, 277-373; Bcrtclli, "Per una storia di Bari paleocris­

tiana," p. 419.

7 See T. Mathews, "'Private' Liturgy in Byzantine Architecture: Toward a Re-appraisal," CA 30 (1982), p. 126.

H Cf., e.g., the arrangen1ent in the roughly cross-in-square crypt at Giurdignano: Fonseca, Puglia ji·a Bisanzio,

figs. 91 and 97n.

9 Wharton, Art of Empire, p. 144.

111 Krautheimer, Archi1ec1ure, p. 343.

11 The name is presmnably derived from "Ko,60>.cK~ !c:KK\riu(a,," on which see below. The Cattolica is identi­

fied as the cathedral or episcopal church of Byzantine Stilo by Guillou, "Italic mC!idionale byzantine," p. 184. P. Orsi.

Le chiese hasilia11e della Ca!ahria (Florence, 1929), p. 33, estimated the capacity of the Cattolica at some thirty persons

and scorned its possible identification as a cathedral; he preferred to identify it as a private oratory. Wharlon, Art of

Empire, p. J 40, also suggests a private or monastic function.

12 Whatton, Art of Empire, p. 140.

13 F. Arillotta, "La chiesa bizantina degli Ottimati," Bruttium 61 (1982), pp. 7ff.

14 Falla, "Note prelhninari su Oria," p. 115.

15 Krauthcin1er, Architecture, p. 508, n. 44.

16 Bouras, "City and Village," p. 647; G. Dagron, "Le chrislianisme dans la ville byzantine," DOP 31 (1977), esp.

pp, 11-19.

201

17 The narthex was possibly omitted at Otranto for topographical reasons, but none of the other cross-in-square

churches of the Byzantine period in South Italy ha~ a narthex either, and its inclusion was clearly not a priority in the

tenth century.

18 " ••• [N]on si pu{) non rilevare questa nutrita attcslazione di dedicazioni a S. l\tfaria che, se tipiche del periodo

del origini [the Early Christian phase], ridivcntano nuinerose nell'XI secolo

cazione dellc cattedrali,'' p. 161.

IJ'Angela, "Ubicazione e dedi-

19 Maria que est epi.1copio: Codice Diplomulico Barese, Le pergamene def D11omo di Bari (925-1264), ed. G. B.

Nitto De Rossi and F. Nitti Di Vito (Baii, 1897), l, p. 25. Bisanzio dirupavil Episcopi11m Barinum, & ccrpir laborare:

Anonymo Barese, in L.A. Muratori, ed. MGH, Rer. ltal. ScnjJt., vol. 5, p. 149. Cf. Berte!Ji. "Per una storia di Bari pale­

ocristiana," p. 421.

20 They had been purloined frmn Canosa: \Vharton, Art of Empire, p. 148.

21 D' Angela, "Ubica;,:ione e dedicazione delle cattedrali," p. 153: Falla, "Note preliminari su Oria. p. 124.

n G. Fiaccadori, "Sull'intitulazione della Cattedrale di Gallipoli," Rivisla di Storia de!la Chiesa in Italia 36

(1982), pp. 416-420.

23 CL the presence of Nicholas in the apse of S. Nicola at Sca!ea: Falla, "Calabria," p. 391 and n. 17, with refer-

ences to many other examples.

24 Sec von Falkcnhausen, "San Pietro," pp, 629ff.

25 von Falkcnhauscn, "San Pietro," p. 630, n. 18 and p. 666, and eadem, "Taranto," pp. 157-158.

2n von Falkenhauscn, "San Pietro," pp. 656ff.

n Sec N. Lave1111icocca, "Men1orie paleocristiane di Puglia," Studi di storia puglie,\'e in onore di Giuseppe

Chiarelli I (Galatina, 1972), esp. pp. 243-248, 283-284.

2R Vcndola, Raliones decimartim, pp. 372ff.

29 Cf. the contrary assc1iion of N. Laverrn.icocca, "Gusto popolarc c tradizione colta in alcune pitture rupestri

bizanline in Puglia," Actes d11 Ile Conires international des Ftudes du Sud-Es/ Europiien, Athens 1970 (Athens. 1972),

IV, 11, Com1nunications, p. 335.

JO .tvl. Panayotidi, "Les eglises de veria, en Macedoine," CARE 22 (1975), p. 306.

31 "It is frequently impossible to determine whether these [the "large number of small churches with a great vari­

ety of l"orms"] were paii~h or private churches or the katlwlika of monasteries": Bouras, ''City and Village," p. 646.

Only katholika were erected freestanding within a courtyard: the other types were integrated into the urban fabric (ibid.,

p. 646).

32 Guillou, "Organisation Cccksiastique,'' p. 313; E. Herman, "The Secular Church," Cambridge Medieval

History, IV. The Byzantine Empire, pt. 2, Goverrnnent, Church and Civilisation (Cambridge, 1967), p. 118.

3.1 Guillou, '·Organisation eccl€siastique," p. 314. On private churches see now J. P. Th01nas, Private Relir;ious

Foundations i11 the Ryza11tine F,mpire, D.O. Studies 24 (Washington, D.C., 1987).

14 Mathews, '"Private' Liturgy in Byzantine Architecture," pp. 135- l 36. This freedom in cult practice, made easi­

er by and reflected in the essential san1eness of the liturgical cnvironn1ent regardless of its public or private use, was a

characteristic of Orthodoxy not found in the West.

35 Bouras, "City and Village," p. 646; Mango, "Architecture du XTe siCclc," pp. 354ff.

10 Herrnan, "T11e Secular Church," p. 118; von Falkenhausen, "Taranto," p. 145. A monastery had a canonical

minimu1n of three 1nonks and ,m average, perhaps, of" between ten and twenty: sec A. Bryer, "The Late Byzantine

l'vlonastery in Town and Countryside,'' Studies in Church History 16 (1979), p. 225.

37 Lavcrmicocca, "Nola in margine alla topografia di Bari bizantina," p. 132.

3H A. Wharton Epstein, "Middle Byzantine Churches of Kastoria: Dates and Jmplicalions. 'AB 62 (1980), p. 199.

39 Cf. Mango, "Architecture du XJe siCclc,'' passim; Bouras, "City and Village," p. 616.

40 As at Athens and Servia, and later at Trcbizond and Mistra. This could also be the site of the metropolis or epis­

copal church, e.g., the metropolitan churches at Athens, Serrai, Chalkis, Monemvasia, and Vcroia, and the episcopal

churches at Skyros and Skopelos: Bouras, ''City and Village," pp. 645-646.

202

11 von falkenhau\cn, '·Spazio, societa. potere nell'[talia dei Comuni."" p. 199: Lavcnuicocca, '·Nota in rnargine

a!la topografia di Ba1·i hizanlina," pp. 133-135; Guillou, "Un document," pp. 10-11.

·P Sti1nulating discussions of patronage are found in R. Cormack, "Patronage and :'Je,v Programs of Byzantine

Iconography,'' J'he 17th ln1er11a1ional B_-,·zantine Congress, 1Vfajor Papers (New Rochelle, N.Y., 1986), repr. in The

Byzantine b)'e, X (London. 1989): idem, "Aristocratic Patronage or lhe Arts in 11th- and 12th-Century Byzantium," in

;\tl. Angold, ed.," The Byzantine Aristocracy IX to Xlll Cenluries, B.A.R. lnternational Series 221 (Oxford, 1984). pp.

158 172, repr. in The Byzantine b)'c, lX; and A. Cutler, '·Art in Byzantine Society." J6B 31/2 (1981), 759-787.

43 E.g., S. Cesario di Lecce, S. Biagio, SS. Andrea and Procopio at I-<asano: see A. Guillou, "Art ct religion dans

l'Italie grecque rnedicvale, EnquSte,'' Chiesa greca Il, pp. 725ff. Such dedicatory inscriptions are normally placed over

doorways, but the medieval frescoes over all three ol" the doorways used at S. Pietro in variolls periods arc completely

lost.

44 Mouriki, "Styli~lic Trends, 11th and 12th,'' p. 123.

45 von falkcnhau~cn, "Provincial Aristocracy," pp. 213-215.

41, von falkcnhattscn, La dominazione bizantina, p. 156.

47 By Belting, ·'Greeks and Latins," p. 6.

48 Belting, "Greeks and Latins:' passim.

49 On this imporlanl 1nonastery see B. Vctcre, "S. !Vlaria di NardO: un abba1ia bencdcllina di Tena d'Otranto.

Profilo storico-critico," Jnsediame11ti Benedettini in Puglia l (Galatina, 1980), pp. 199-254, and especially L. Duval­

A1110ud and A. Jacob, "La description du diocCsc de NardO en 1412 par Jean de Epiphaniis e~t-clle aulhcntiquc?,"

B0f!e11i11o dell'lstituto s/orico italiano peril A1edioevo e Archivio Muratoriano 90 (1982/83), pp. 331-353.

.'ill Jaines owned at least one large volume of sem1om,, a book of vi1tues m1d vices. a missal. a breviary. an ordinar­

ium, a pontifical, three ~mall books of sermon~, the legends of the saints. and other .. antique," unnamed books: sec

Vcndola, "Le decime." p. 165.

.11 Vendola, '·Le dccime," pp. 159ff.

52 A Byzantine church at Reggio was allegedly appropriated by the Normans as a private chapel: Arillotta, "La

chiesa hizanlina clegli Ottimati,'' p. 6.

.1., See now L. Safran, ·'A Medieval Ekphrasis Prom Otranlo,'' Byzanlinische Zeitschrift 83 ( 1990), pp. 425-427.

with earlier bibliography.

s-i See above, Historical Overview. The areas of 111ost intensive Greek culture in the region, as evidenced by

rnanusc1ipt copying, were immediately around Otranto and in lhe quadrangle bordered by Gallipoli, NardO, Solclo, and

Maglie: see J.-M. Marlin, ';Une origine calabraise pour la Greda salentine?" RSBN, n.s. 22-23 (1985-86), pp. 53-63.

ss Cf. similar conclusions in Wharton, Ario/Empire, chap. 5.

5u Sec Com1ack, "Aristocratic Patronage of the Arts in 11th- and 12th-Century Byzantiun1," esp. pp. l 62 163:

lVTango. "Cosiddetto monastico," passim. A definition of provincial arl is offered by \Vharton, Art of l'.mpire, p. 12.

Cf., for example, Rinaldo of Taranto's "La~! Judg1nent"' at S. Maria del Casale, the fourteenth-century

Koimesis at Ccrrate, the Annunciation at Alezio, and the Last Judgment in the Cathedral at Matera. On Rinaldo of

Taranto sec M. S. CalO, /,a chiesa di S. 1\111ria def Casale presso Brindisi (Brindisi, 1967); on Giovanni of Taranto.

known only from a 1304 docmnent that records his activity at S. Nicola in Bari, see M. Antonelli, "Sulla datazione

degli affreschi dell a Basilica di S. Nicola di Bari,'' Anna Ii delta FacoltG di !.ettere c Filosofia dell' Unirersird di Bari I

(1954), pp. 183-192, who concludes that Giovanni was not responsible for the extant paintings in the right apse. For the

new trends in Tuscan painting in the late thirteenth-early fourteenth century, which finally penetrated the Salcnto at

Galatina and Soleto, sec F. Bologna, 1 pittori a/la corre angioina di Napoli (1266-1414) e un riesame deft' a rte ne!f' e/(1

federicia11a (Rome, 1969), and P. Leone de Castris, "La pittura del Duecento c dcl Trecento a Napoli e nel Meridione,"

La pittura in !111/ia. Le origini (Milan, 1985), pp. 395-446.

:,g V. Lazarev, Storia del!a pillura bizantina (Turin, 1967), dis1nisses Byzantine painting in South Italy in two

pages and one footnote.

59 As this volume goes to press it is possible to signal several new works that pronllse to be useful for future stud-

203

ies of monuments in the Salcnto: 0. IvlaLzolta, 1vfo11aci e fibri greci nel Sale1110 medie1:a/e (NovolL 1989); G. Bertelli,

"Arte bizanlina nd Salento. Architetturn e scultura (secc. lX-Xlll)." and M . .Falla Castelfranchi, "La pittura bizantina

in Saknto (secoli X-·XlV)," both in !Id Ol'esr di Bi.1·unzio. Arte storia e societG nel Sufento medievale, proceeding\ of a

conference held at lvlarlano in 1988 (Galalina, 1989 [19901). 60 On various aspects of Byzantine art and the West, excluding South ltnly, see esp. 0. De1nus, Byzantine Ari and

the West (New York, 1970); Denrns, San 1vfaruJ: E. Kitzinger, "The Byznntine Contribution to Western Art of the

Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries," DOP 20 (1966), pp. 27-47; essays in Byzantine Art A11 r;uropean Art (Athens,

1964); J. Nordhagen, ''Byzantium and the West." Les pays du nord et Byzance (Scandinavie et Ryzance) (Uppsala,

1981 ), pp. 345-351: H. Belling, ''Zwischen Gotik und Byzan7," 7eitschriftfiir Kunstf{escfiichre 41 (1978), pp. 217-257,

esp. pp. 246ff.

204

Appendices

I. The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Fresco Layers 1

The Third Layer

The third fresco layer is confined to the right side of the central apse and consists of two figures. Donor.figure [Fig. 78]: kneeling male, tonsured, in white tight-sleeved undergannent with maniple and red cloak. Adjacent inscription: MEMETO DNE I FAMULI. TUI. I PERI . JOHIS / MAGRI . NICLI I DE NERJTONE: Remember, Lord, your servant Presbyrer John, son of [ i }2 Magister Nicholas of Nardo. The script style, with its mix of Rornancsque and Gothic letters and the straight instead of "arcuated lintel" abbreviation mark, indicates a date in the early fourteenth century.3 Hodegitria: mostly hidden under a fourth-layer St. Paul, identifiable by the sandaled feet of the Christ child held to her chest. The feet, pointing to the right, indicate that the child was held in the Virgin's right ann in contrast to usual Byzantine practice.

The Fourth Layer

This layer is today 1i1nited to the apse area, where it is dated by inscription to 1540. There may also have been fourth-layer decoration on the west wa11 of the church and in the parekklesion. Apse conch lColor fig. 13]: seated orant Virgin (MD, for Mater Domini, in flanking roundels) with the Christ child between her knees. The child holds a book (Ego sum lux mundi . . ) and blesses with his right hand. The Virgin is flanked by kneeling angels. Lunette above the apse: Annunciation in a landscape setting, with kneeling Gabriel at left, kneeling Virgin adjacent to lectern at right, Ancient of Days in center facing the Virgin. Legible letters on the Virgin's book include NCI DOM ... Left edge of the apse [Fig. 73]: standing St. Peter, with keys, over second-layer St. Basil Right edge of the apse: standing St. Paul, with sword, over third-layer Hodegitria and presumed second-layer hierarch. Above and betvveen the "J!v'indovvs: two-headed black birds and addorsed lions/dragons with shields; the date "1540" is found both above and in the lower part of the central win­dow, which was evidently filled in by this date. Norrheast pier, south face lFigs. 17, 79]: St. Leonard, identified by inscription and by his peculiar tonsure. The painting is cut off at eye level, indicating that the recutting of the piers into colu1nns occurred after 1540.

The Fifth Layer

The fifth layer, dated 1576/77, is the most extensive of the post-medieval interventions, as all of the pseudocapitals, the end walls, and probably the parekklesion were evidently repainted at this ti1ne even though not all preserve their decoration. The 1540 decoration of the apse was also covered in the new ca1npaign. Wall decoration: Floral ornament is extensive in the east bay and along the edges of the other bays [Fig. 33J, 1l1e north and west bays also have painted Corinthian columns and a painted molding [Figs. 17, 80].4 In the northeast corner bay [Figs. 65, 791, the north wall has the Virgin and Child between Sts. Nicholas (N), with three gold balls, and Francis di Paola (S FRACISC[USJ D.P.). Above, two nude putti arc in the process of crowning the Virgin. Below is a model of a church, possibly S. Pietro although it lacks a cupola and more closely resembles the Cathedral al Otranto. The prothesis apse contains a Descent from the Cross, with the Virgin and Child flanked by angels and symbols of the Passion. The north wall of the north bay [Fig.171 has fragments of adoring angels at window level

205

and a hooded figure (a monk?) at the right edge. The west wall oj' the west hay [Fig. 801 has a ina!e n1arlyr lo the left of the doorway. He has a head wound and holds a book, and is probably to be identified as St. Peter Martyr. The acco1npanying inscription is illegible: PAN . .TE(?) ET l(")IRTIT. To the right of the door is an unidentified bishop saint, per­haps Oronzo. Under the martyr is what appears to be a preparatory drawing, very small in scale, of a standing female saint. In the northwest corner bay, on the west wall, this draw­ing recurs in painted form about 40 cm. tall and is identified as St. Catherine (S C). She holds a wheel and steps on a prostrate king.

PseudocaJJitals: All figures are in arched fran1es, bust length against a blue background.

Northeast pier, east face: unidentified second-layer fragment Northeast p;er, south face: St. Anthony Abbot, with crooked staff and "T," inscription S [Fig. 17] Northeast p;er, west face: St. Lucy, holding eyes [Color fig. 13, fig. 65 J Northeast p;er, north face: St. Anthony Abbot, with bell, inscription S A TONI, date 1576 Southeast pier, east }"ace: St. Barbara, with tower Southeast pier, south face: St. Eligius, with miter and inscription S ELIGIUS Southeast pier, west face: St. Gregory, with papal miter and inscription GREGORIUS . p [Color fig. 131 Southeast pier, northjc1ce: St. Veronica, with inscription S V [Fig. 151 Southwest p;er, east face: John the Baptist, with inscription OANIDEIOFRANSA F.F. 1576 [Figs. 19, 771 Southwest pier, south face: St. Peter Martyr, with head wound and martyr's palm Southvvest pier, vvest,face: -Southwest pier, north face: St. Francis di Paola, with staff and inscription FRACIS [Fig. 151 Northwest pwr, east face: St. Leonard, with chain [Fig. 19] Northwest p;er, south face: angel? [Fig. 17] Nortlnvest pier, )Vest face: -f!ort~vv~st pier, north /'ace: male saint with circular object and female saint in wimple; 1nscnptton V (::: Veronica?) East wall pilaster, left of apse: St. Apollonia, with pincers and inscription S APOL [Color fig. 13] East wall pUaster, r;i;ht of apse: St. Nicholas, with inscription FELl.EROMIRIATI F.F. 157. [Color fig. 13] South wall pUaster, left of recessed arch : Virgin nursing Child [Fig. 15] South wall pUaster, right of recessed arch : second-layer female saint [Fig. 761 West wall pilaster, lef_i of doorway: St. Lucy, with eyes and inscription S LUCIA [Fig. 19] West wall pilaster, nght of doorway: male, probably Christ, with date 1576, cut off at neck by later recutting of the pilasters and piers [Figs. 19, 801 North wall pilaster, lefi_o/'recessed arch formerly lead;,,g to parekklesfrm: St. Nicholas? [Fig. 17] N?rth wqll p1laster, ri.ght of recessed arch.former(v leading to parekklesion: St. Leonard, with cham and S L [Fig. 65 J

Pare(cklesion: traces of intonaco (standing figures) corresponding to the fabric and colors used 111 the 1540 and 1576/77 decoration [Fig. 3a]

IL The Pastoral Visits

1538, Visitatio Hydruntinae DioecesL,,jc,l. 20 St( Petri de Castello Ab.

206

+Abbas Marcus Antonicy de Gilberto tenet et possidct canonicatum sub titolo Sti. Petri in Castelli 5 ... Sti Petri in Castello intra moenia Hydrunti et habet ec bona: hnprimis barro Casamasella 6 pro vedecima ipsius casalis annuatim solviti pro dicto canonicato ducatos decem Iten1 barro casalis Botrunei 7 quo vedecima ipsius casalis annuatim solviti dicto canonica­tui ducatos sex [tern Ioannes Antonius Marioto annuati1n debet dicto canonicati libra1n unam [cuiusdan1J (mediam) cere pro dona sua dotali iuxta domum Angeli Demetri' Rodagy.8 Jte1n dominus Bernardinus Colucca9 annuatim solviti dicti canonicatui grana septcm cu,n din1idio pro sua Iardeno _ sta tnoenardia ...

/60718, Visit ofLucfo di Morra, fol. 42r

Ecclesia Seti Petri in Castello Post modum accesiti ad a visitandam ccclcsiam Sancti Petri in Castello, quae est tituli Canonici Abbatis Caecarise San Petro, pro [oto] constata ex bulla hie presentata Illustrissimi Petri Antony de Capua10 expcdita Hydrunti sub die 8 mensis Fcbruari 1576.tt Apparet possessio capta eodem die, mense, et anno per Abbatem Scipionem de Marco 12

Canoni Hydruntino, nunc autem Archedeaconc,n ciusdem ecclcsia. Ecclesia ipsa est antiquissima, et edificata sub fornice tota bene se habente, et quatuor substentata columnis ex lapidibus confectis In tota ecclesia, depicta sunt varie sanctorum imagines. Habet due aharca, quoru1n unum respictis ponentem, in quo depicta est Imago Sanctissima dei Genitricis, con Sto. Nicolai. 13 Altarc est lapidiun1 sed fabricatu1n cum scabellu1n de lapidibus. l--Iabet pa1mum sericeum violacei i coloris. Mapquan1 unam Altcrum collocatum est ex parte orientali, est lapideum extructum sub quadam parva cupola, in qua dcpicta reperitur Imago Sanctissima Dei Gcnitricis, ct aliorum sanctorum. 14 1-Iabet dictum altarc scabellu1n ex lapidibus duabus mappis on1atu1n Panno laneo cum cruce nigra in media etate Duo bus cero feraryis. Habet campanulam 15 Habet dicta ecclesia dua ieanuas quanu,n una respicit orientem, altera austrum 16 cu,n seris ex ct clavibus. Habet in bonis. Baro Casamassella solviti pro dedecima eiusdem Casalis ducati 10. quolibet anno. Baro Butrunei pro dedccima ciusdc1n Casal is Butrinci due. 6 qualibct anno. Notarus: Troianus Riccius solviti grana 7 1/2 pro Iardeno quod possidet propo sta Veneraridam extra moenia civitatis iuxta bona dicta ecclesia ex occidente, iuxta bona M. A. Liprauoti ex duobus lateribus aquilonis ciliget et orientes, viam publicam ex austro.

fol. 42v t7 d 'b d . 'b d 11· M . . Iten apparet in visita Ill.mi Corderos quo proqtu usdam a om1r1 us e 1 ong1on1 solviti et libra una ccra quolibet anno, quod cutn (clipissent). Dicti Abb. Caesaresi cc nun quam percepisse, fuit ei mandatum necesse investigare (m,u1datum) Aquo salvatur dictus entroitus ad hoc nc dicta voluntas testimonia de ...

Marginalia: Oggi Can. L. Morontio 1697 Oggi Can. D, Pr. Agostinalli 1750 Oggi Can. Caroppo-Petracca 18 . .. Can. _opissiede ...

207

NOTES

· I 1· s p· t have not been the object or attention except for brief mention~ in 1 The post-Byzantine p mses o . 1e ro

Gianfrcda, Basilica hiumrina, and Anlonaci, Otra11/0, cuore. . 2 This indicates that the priest's father was married, and therefore 1nost likely-hut not neccssanly-Greck.

, This inscription was evaluated by Dr. L. Boyle and Dr. A. Can1pana al Lhe Vatican Library in N_ovembc_r 1984,

thanks to the kindness of Professor Andre Jacob. A date between 1300 and J 350 is probable but the earlier date 1s more

likely beC'ause of the archai1jng features in the paleography. 4 This pattern is identical to that in the Cathedral al Otranto above the image or St. Anthony Abbot in the entry

vestibule. A single workshop thus executed work in two buildings in Otranto in this period.. .

5 S. Pietro is not in the castle at Otranto, but it is wilhin the walled part of the city, winch must be mtendcd here.

l · ·11 Oh· t ] the o,·xteenth century it was a ("cud of the Rondacchi family. 6 Casamasel a 1s a v1 age near an o. n ~

7 Bolruo-no is a village near Otranto. 0

h' f ·i f G k .· · ·ned the feuds or Casamassclla and lhe Alimini Jakes, to the north or 8 The Rondacc I am1 y, o ree ougm, ov, ·

Otranto. Their stennna-a nude putto, atop a 11uted column and holding a cross--is found on paintings in the Cathedral

k h I t. · 1576/77 at S Pietro The putto and column occupy hair the stemma; the other at Otnmto by the wor s op a so ac 1ve 1D . ·

half contains a tree, perhaps a paln1, a possible reference to marriage with the Della Palma fa1nily.

9 A Bernardo Coluccia, a "Basilian," died with Stefano Pendinelli, archbishop of Otranto, during the Turkish con-

quest or Otranto in 1480.

w Archbishop ofOtranto, 1536-79.

11 Year in which the rirth fresco layer at Otranto was begun.

12 The De Marco family was part of the old Greek nobility in Otranto.

13 With S. Francesco di Paola, this is the in1age 011 the north wall of the northeast corner bay. This altar, later to S.

Pietro, was in the north bay. 14 This is the altar in the east bay, dedicated by the nineteenth century to SS. Biagio, Leonardo, and Oronzo.

15 The can1panile, on the south side of the roof, is still extant [Fig. 3b].

16 The two doors look east and south: that is, they are in the west and north, c01Tesponding to the moden1 west

entry and the now-closed door leading lo the attached parekklesion.

17 Pietro de Cordcros was archbishop of Otranlo, 1579-85. rn This archbishop of Otranto installed the long inscription in the northwest comer bay or S. Pietro in 1825.

208

Abbreviations of Works Frequently Cited

AAA =Athens Annals of Archaeology ( Ap X a00,\6 y1. 1:c1. A 11u,,).i1:-Ta <=E A&rf J)O v)

AB =Art Bulletin

AB111F. =Apxe{ov ·rc~,1, Bub T /)Tc· i'c,Sv lv!vi7,ue(c,_q,1 n7s E,\,\d8os

ASP ==Archivio storico pugliese

CA == Cahiers archtologiques

CARE =Corso di Cultura sulf' arte ravennate e hizantina

(JEE XV =Congres imemationale d'6tudes byzantines, Athens 1976 (Athens, 1981)

Cft}J XVI ==Congres internationale d'€tudes byzanlines, Vienna I 981, J6B 31 :2 (1981)

DXAE ==LlEAT(ov TI/S Xpoa--Tca11(.Ki(S Apx0,00Aoy1,KY)s ETa!,pc·Cas

DOf' -=Dwnhar1on Oaks Papers

EEBS =E-r1eT77pCs Ercu .. pe{o.s Bc1(aY'T1.1;c$v I·nou8W1,

JOB ==]ahrbuch der 6sterreichischen Byzantinistik

MEFRi\1 ==A1elanges de l' Ecolefran1:aise de Renne, Jldoyen Age-Temps Modernes

,"11/Gll ;;;c.Monumenta Germaniae Historica

PG =J.P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca (Paris, 1857-)

Pl, ==J.P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cur.ms completus, series latina (Pari8, 1844-)

RbK =Reullexikon zur hyzantinische Kunst (Stuttgart, 1963-present)

RlNASA =Rivista dell' Istiwto Nazionale di Archeofogia e Storia dell' Arte

RSBN == Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoeltenici

Abatangelo, Chiese-cripte ==L. Abatangelo, Chiese-cripte e affreschi italo-hizantine di Massaji·a (Taranto, 1966)

Antonaci, /lydruntum ==A. Antonaci, Hydrrmtum (Otranto), Sludi sulla civilta salcntina I (Galatina, 1984)

Antonaci, O!ranto, cuore ==A. Antonaci, Otranto, cuore de! Sa!ento (Galatina, 1976)

Belli D'Elia, Puf{liafra Bisanzio =P. Belli D'Elia, ''fl ronianico," La Pugliafra Bisanzio e !'Occidente (Milan. 1980),

pp. 117-196

Belli D'Elia, Puglia XI seco!o =P. Belli D'Elia, Aile sorgenti de! Roman/co. Puglia XI secolo (Bali, 1975, repr. 1987)

Belting, "Greeks and Latins" =H. Belting, "Byzantine Art An1ong Greek8 and Latins in Southern Italy," DOP 28

(1974). pp. 1-29

Bergman, Salerno Ivories =R. P. Bergman, The Safrrno Ivories, Ars sacra.from Medieval Ama!fi (Cumbridge, Mass., 1980)

Bertaux Aggiornamento ==Aggiornamemo to E. Bertaux, L'art dans f'ltalie mi?ridionale, ed. A. Prandi (Rome, 1978),

vol8. JV-V

Bizantini in Italia== G. Cavallo et al., I Bizanti11i in Italia (Milan, 1982)

Blaumann, "Olnmto: scavi" =I. Blattmann, "Otranto in eta mediocvale (scavi 1977-1981)," unpublished thesis of spe­

cialization in classical and medieval archaeology, Universitii. degli studi di Lecce, Facoltii. di I..ettere e

Filosofia, 1985-86

Bouras, "City and Village" =C. Bouras, "City and Village: Urban Design and Architecture," CIEB XVI, pp. 611-653

Boyd, "Monagri" =S. Boyd, "The Church of the Panagia Monasgou, Monagri, Cyprus, and its Wallpaintings," DOP 28

(1974). pp. 276-328

Brightman, Liturgies ==F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, vol. J, Eastern Liturf!,ies (Oxford, 1896)

Brock, "Clothing Metaphors" =cS. Brock, "Clothing Metaphors as a Means of Theological Expression in Syriac

Tradition," Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den iistlichen Vdtern u. ihre11 Paraftele11 im 1vlittelalter, Kolloquium

Eichsttitt 1981 (Regensburg, 1982), pp. 11-38; repr. in Studies in Syriac Christianity (London, 1992), XJ

Buchthal, 'Musterhuch' r!f"Woffenhiitrel =H. Buchthal, The 'Mus1erbuch' ofWolfenh(itte{ and irs Position in the Art of

the Thirteenth Century, =Byzantina Vi11dohonensia 12 (Vienna, 1979)

209

Buchthal and Belting, Palronage :;;JI. Buchthal and H. Belting, Patronage in Thirteenth-Century Conslantinople: An

Atelier of Late Byzantine Book Illumination a11d Calligraphy, D.0. Studies 16 (\Vashington. DC. 1978)

Chiesa greca =La Chiesa greca in Italia da/1'\llff al XVI secolo, Atli clel Convegno storico interecclcsiale, Bari 1969,

=Italia sacra 20-22 (Padua, 1972)

Civiltii rupestre: ta Cappadocia ""Le aree omogenee delta Civiltii rupestre ne/l'am/Jito dell'Jmpero Biza11ti110: La

C d .· At'' de! V Convecrno intcmazionalc di studio sulla Civilta rupestre mcdioevalc nel Mezzogion10 appa ocw, w • "'

d'ltalia, Leccc-NardO 1979 (Galatina, 1981)

Civiltii rupestre: !lahiwt =Habitat-Slrurtore-Territorio, Atti del III. Convcgno intcrnazionale di studio sulla Civilfa

rupestre mcdioevale nel Mezzogiorno d'ltalia, Taranto-Grottaglie 1975 (Galatina, 1978) . . .

Civi/tci rupestre: il Passaggio c=.!l passaggio dal dominio bizantino alto Stato normanno nel/' Italia mer1dwna/e, Att1 de]

II. Convcgno internazionale di studio sulla Civiltii rupestrc 1nediocvale ncl Mezzogiorno d'Italia,

Taranto-Mottola 1973 (Taranto, 1977)

Civil/cl rupestre: /a Serhia =Le aree omogenee de/la Civiltci rupestre nell'amhito dell'Jmpero Bizantino: La Serbia, Atti

de! IV. Convegno intcrnazionale di studio sulla Civilt3 rupestre medioevale ncl Mezzogiorno d'Italia,

Taranto-Fasano 1977 (Galatina, 1979)

Congar, "ThCme de Dieu-Cr6ateur," =Y.-M. J. Congar, "Le thCme de Die11-CrCuteur et \cs explications de l'hcxarn6ron

dans la tradition chr6tiennc," L'Homme devant Dieu, Melanges ojferls au Pi!re Henri de Lubac, Theologie 56

(Paris, 1963), pp. 189-212

D'Andria, "Otranto" =F. D'Andria, "Otranto. Richerche archeologichc a San Pietro," Civi/t(/ rupestre: La Cappadocia,

pp. 223-225

De Giorgi, Provincia di Lecce =C. De Giorgi, Lu Provincia di Lecce. Bozzetti di viaggio, 2 vols. (Lecce, 1882-88, repr.

Galatina, 1975)

Demus Bvzantine Mosaic Decoration =0. Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration (London, 1948)

Dcn1us: ;orman Sicily =0. Demus, The Mosaics of Norman Sicily (London, 1950)

Demu 8 , San Marco =0. Demus, The Mosaics of San Marr·o in Venice, Vol. 1, The Twelfth Century, Vol. 2, The

Thirtecnlh Century (Chicago, 1984)

Djuric, "Peinture murale byzantine" =V. Djuric, "La peinture 1nurale byzantine, XHe et Xllle siCclcs," CIEB XV, Ill,

pp. 159-252

Dufrenne, "Enrichissemenl du programme" cc=.S. Dul"rcnne, "L'enrichissc1nent du programme iconographique dans les

eglises byzantines du Xllleme siecle." Symposium Sopocani, pp. 35-46

von Falkenhausen, La dominazione bizuntina =V. von Falkenhausen, Lu domirwzione hizanrina ne/1' lwlia meridionale

dal IX all'Xf secolo (Bari, 1978)

von Falkenhau 8en, "Provincial Aristocracy" =V. von Falkenhausen, "A Provincial Aristocracy: The Byzantine

Provinces in Southern Jlaly (9th_ 1Jth century)" in M. Angold, ed., The Byzantine Arlistocracy IX lo Xlll

Centuries, B.A.R. International Series 221 (Oxford, 1984), pp. 211-225

von Falkenhausen. "San Pietro" =V. von Falkcnhausen, "San Pietro nella rcligiositil bizantina," Bisanzio, Roma e

f' Italia nel!'Alto Medioevo, Settimane di studio def Centro Italiano di Studi sull' Alto Medioevo 34 (1988), PP·

627-674

von Falkenhausen, "Taranto" =V. von Falkenhau8en, "Taranto in epoca bizantina," Studi medievali 9 (1968), pp. 133-166

Falla. "Calabria" =M. Falla Castelfranchi, "Per la storia della piltura bizantina in Calabria." Rivista Storica Calabrese 6

(1985), pp. 389-413

Falla, "Ruo\o dei programmi" =M. Falla Castelfranchi, "Del ruolo <lei programmi iconografici absidali nella pillura

bizantina dcll'ltalia meridionale e di un'imniaginc desueta c colta nella cripta della Candelora a Massafra,'·

Gli insediamenti rupestri della Surdeg11a, Atti del Seminario di Studio 6, IL popolamento rupestre dell'area

mediterranea: La tipologia de/le fonti, Lccce 1984 (Galatina, 1987), pp. 187-208

Falla, "San Mauro" =M. Falla Castelfranchi, "Gli affrcschi della chiesa di San Mauro presso Gallipoli, Note prelimi­

nari," Byzantion 51 (1981), pp. 159-168

210

Farioli Campanati. Uizanrini in Italia =R. Farioli Campanati. "La culiura artlstica nellc regioni bizantine d"ltalia dal VI

aJI' XT seco[o,'' Bizanlini i11 Italia, pp. 213-270

Fonseca, Basso Salento =C. D. Fonseca, et al., Gli insediamenti rupestri medievali nel Basso Salento (Galatina, 1979)

Fonseca. Puglia fi·a Bisanzio =C. D. Fonseca, "La Civilt3 rupestre in Puglia," La P11glia fra Bisanzio e I' Occidente

(Milan, 1980), pp. 37-116

Fonseca, Terra .fonica =C. D. Fonseca, Civilr/1 rupestre in Terra .fonica (Milan and Ron1c, 1970)

Galavnris. J{omilies of Gregory c=.G. Galavaris, The fllustralions of the Liturgical Homilies of Gregory Nazianzenus,

Studies in Manuscript Illumination 6 (Princeton, 1969)

Garrison, "Iconography of Creation" =E. B. Ganison, "Note on the Iconography of Creation and of the Fall of Man in

Eleventh- and Twelfth-Ccnlury Rome,'' Studies in the 1-listory of,Wedieval Italian Paintin[!, 4, pt. 2 (Florence,

1961),pp. 201-210

Gianfreda, Basilica bizantina ::G. Gianfreda, Basilica bizanlinu di S. Pierro in Otranto (4th ed., Galatina, 1983)

Giess, Fus.nvaschung ::H. Gies8, Die Dars1elh111g der Fusswaschung Christi in den Kunsrwerken des 4.-12.

.Jahrhunderts (Rome, 1962)

Gigante, Poeti hizantini ::M. Gigante. Poeti /Jizantini di Terra d'Otranto net secolo Xlll, 2nd ed., Byzantina el Neo­

Hellenica Neapo!itana 7 (Naples, 1979)

Gregory Nazianzen, Select Orations =Gregory Nazianzcn. Se/eel Orations, in A Select Library of Nicene and Pas/­

Nicene Fathers o/the Christian Church VII (Grand Rapids, 1955)

Guillou, "Un document'' =A. Guillou, "Un document sur le gouvcmement de la province. L'inscription hislorique en

vers de Bari (1011)," Studies 011 Byzantine Italy (London, 1970), VITT; Italian translation, "L'iscrizione metri­

ca di Bari. Un documento sul governo della provincia (1011 ),'' in idem, A.1petti de/la civift(/ bizanlina in Italia

(Bari, 1976), pp. 187-205

Guillou, "Italic mCridionale byzantine" =A. Guillou, "Jtalie meridionale Byzantine ou Byzantins en ltalie m€ridionale?"

Byzantion 44 (1974), pp. 152-190, repr. in Cuflure et socieli en Italic h_vzantine (Vle-x1e s.) (London, 1978),

xv Guillou, "Organisation tcclCsiastique" =A. Guillou, "L'organisation tcc\Csiastique de l'Ttalie byzantine autour de 1050

de la Metropole aux 6glises privees," Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche defla 'Societas Christiana' dei secoli

XI-Xll, Miscellanea del Centro di studi medioevali VIII (Milan, 1977), pp. 309-322

Hadermann, Kurbinovo =L. Hadermann-Misguich, Kurbinovo, Lesfresques de Saint-Georges et la peinture byzantine

du Xffe sii!cle (Brussels, 1975)

Hadennann, "Peinture tardo-Comnene et prolongements" =L. Hadermann-Misguich, "La peinture monumentale tardo­

Comnene ct ses prolongements au XIlle sieclc,'' CJEB XV, I, pp. 255-284

Hoeck-Loenertz, Niko!aos-Nektarios =1. M. Hoeck and R. J. Loenertz, Nikofaos-Nekwrios von Otranto abt von Casale,

=Studia Patristica et Byzantina 11 (Etta!, 1965)

Jacob, "Culture grecque" =A. Jacob, "Culture grecquc cl manuscrits en Terre d'Otrante,'' Alli def JIJ° Congresso

lnternazionale di Studi Salentini e def 1° Congresso Storico di Terra d'Otranto, Lccce 1976 (offprint Leccc,

1980)

Jacob, "Inscriptions datees" =A. Jacob, "Inscriptions byzantincs dat€es de la province de Lccce (Carpignano. Cavallino,

San Cesario)," Accademia Nazionafe dei Lincei, Rendiconti def/a C/asse di Scienze mora!i, storiche e filo"

fogiche, ser. VIII, 37 (1982), pp. 41-62

Jacob. "L 'inscription m€trique" =A. Jacob, "L'insc1iption m6trique de l'enfeu de Carpignano," RSRN 20-21 (1983-84),

pp. 103-122

Jacob, "Testin1onianze bizantine" =A. Jacob, "Testimonianze bizantine nel Basso Salento, fl Basso Salenlo, Ricerche di

storia sociale e religiosa (Galatina, 1982), pp. 49-69

Jcrphanion, Cappadoce =G. de Jcrphanion, Line nouvefle province. Les ig!ises rupestres de Cappadoce (Paris, 1925-42)

Kalopissi, Kranic!i =S. Kalopissi-Verti, Die Kirche der llagia Triadu bei Kranidi in der Argo/is (1244), =Miscellanea

Byzantina Monacensia 20 (Munich, 1975)

211

Kalopissi, ''Tendenze stilistiche'' =S. Kalopissi-Verti, "Tendcnze stilisliche della pittura monumentale in Grecia clurante

ii Xlll secolo,'' CARE 31 (1984), pp. 221-253

Kariye Djami =P. Underwood, ed., The Kariye Djami, vols. 1-3 (New York, 1966): vol. 4 (New York, 1975)

Kartsonis, Anastasis :=A. Kartsonis, Anasrasis. The 1\1.aking of an Image (Princeton, 1986)

Kessler, "Hie Homo Formatur" :=H. Kessler, "Hie Homo Formatur: The Genesis Frontispieces of the Carolingian

Bibles,'' AB 53 (1971), pp. 143-160

Kessler, "Ivory Plaque" =H. Kessler, "An Eleventh Century Ivory Plaque frmn South Italy and the Cassinese Revival,"

Jahrhuch der Berliner Museen 8 (1966), pp. 67-94

Kitzinger, 1\1onreale :=E. Kitzinger, The Mosaics(!{ Monreale (Pale1mo, 1960)

Krautheimer, Architecture =R. Krautheimer with S. Curcic, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 4th ed.

(Harmondsworth, 1986) Lafontaine-Dosogne, "Infancy Cycle" =J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, "Iconography of the Cycle or the Infancy of Christ,"

Kariye Djami 4, pp. 197-241 Lafontaine-Dosogne, '·Nouvelles notes" =L Larontaine-Dosogne, "Nouvelles notes cappadodennes,'' Byzantion 33

(1963). pp. 121-183 Lassus, "Octateuques" :=J. Lassus, "La creation du monde clans \es Octaleuques byzantins du douziCme siecle,''

Fondation Eugene Piot, Monuments et Memoires 62 (1979), pp. 85-148

Maggiulli, Otranto =L. l\ilaggiulli, Otranlo. Ricardi (Lecce, 1893)

Mango, "Architecture du xre siecle" :=C. Mango, "Les monuments de !'architecture du Xie siecle et 1.eur signification

historique et sociale," Travaux et Memoires 6 (1976), pp. 351-365

Mango, La civiltd hizantina =C. Mango, Seminario 1 °--3° in La civiltd hizantina Jal IX all' XI secofo, Corso di Studi I.~'

1977 (Bari, 1978), pp. 265-273 Mango, "Cosiddetto monastico" =C. Mango, ''Lo stile cosiddetto 'monastico' della pittura bizantina,'' Civiltd rupestre:

Ilahitat, pp. 45-62 Marasco. "Affreschi in S. Pietro" =I. P. Marasco, "Affreschi medioevali in S. Pietro d'Otranto,'' Annali dell'Universitd

di Lecce. Facoltd di Lettere e Fifosofia 2, 1964----65 (Lecce, 1966), pp. 79-97

Mateos. Typicon ll =J. Mateos, La Typicrm de la Grand £g/ise, ms. Saini-Croix 110. 40, xe sii!cle, II, Le cycle des fcles

mobiles, =Orientalia Christiana Periodica 166 (Rome, 1963)

Nlathews, "Genesis Frescoes'' =T. Mathews, "The Genesis Frescoes of Alt'Amar,'' Revue des Etudes Arminiennes 16

(1982), pp, 245-257

Medea, Cripte :=A. Medea, Gli affreschi delle cripte eremitiche pui!iesi (Rome, 1939)

Mcgaw and Hawkins, "Perachorio" =A.H.S. Mcgaw and E.J. Hawkins, "The Church of the Holy Apostles at

Perachorio, Cyprus, and its Frescoes," DOP 16 (1962), pp. 279-348

Millet, Iconographie de !' Evangile =G. Millet, Recherches sur I' iconographie de l' Evangile aux X!Fe, xve et XVIe

siCcles (Paris, 1916, repr. 1960)

Mouriki, Nea A1oni =D. Mouriki, The Mosaics of Nea Mani on Chios (Athens, 1985)

l\ilouriki, "Stylistic Trends, 11th and 12th" :=D. Morniki, "Stylistic Trends in Monumental Painting of Greece During

the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries," DOP 34--35 (1980-81), pp. 77-124

Mouriki, "Stylistic Trends, 14th" =D. Mouriki, "Stylistic Trends in Monumental Painting of Greece at the Beginning of

the Fourteenth Century," L'art byzantin au dih11r du Xn'e siecle, Symposium de Gracanica 1973 (Belgrade,

1978), pp. 55-83 Ncrcessian, "Cappella Palatina" = N. Nercessian, "The Cappella Palatina of Roger II," unpublished Ph.D. diss.,

U.C.L.A., 1981 Orlandos,Patmos:=A.K.Orlandos,h' opxt,Ttc1<To1,1K"{) 1<a1. ao fh1tav·T:,,10,i, To1xoypcvp(cu., n;s: tvkni{)s:

Tov B1co,\6yov i/c{Tµov (Athens, 1970)

"Otranto, archeologia" ="Otranto, archeologia di una cittli,'' exhibition catalog, Musco Provinciale di Lecce, April-May

1983; as "Otrante, arch6ologie d'une cit€,'' at Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Musee ArchCologique,

Nove1nber-December 1983

212

Pace. Bizuntini in l!alia =V. Pace, "Pittura bizantina nell'ltalia rncridionalc (sccoli XI-XIV):' in Bi;:a11tini in Jwlia, pp.

429-494

Pact, Deca11i el I' art hy::antin =V. Pace. "Affreschi dell'ltalia 1ne1idionalc ·grcca' nclla p1ima meta de!' XIV secolo."

lJecuni et /'art by:antin au milieu d11 XIVe siilc/e, Collogues scientifiques de ]'Academic Serhe des Sciences

et des Arts XLIX, Classe des sciences historiques 13 (Belgrade. 1989), pp. 109-118.

Pace, La Pillura in Ira!ia =V. Pace, "Pittura del Duecento e clel Trecento in Puglia, Basilicata e ncll'Italia meridionale

'grcca' :· La Pirtura in Italia. Le origine (Milan, 1985), pp. 385-394

Pace, Puglia fi·a Bisan:io =V. Pace, "La pittura delle origini in Puglia (secc. IX--XlV)," La Puglia fra Bisanzio I'

!'Occidente (Milan. 1980), pp. 317-400

Panayotidi. "Peinture" =M. Panayotidi, "La peinture monumentale en Grece de la fin de l'lconoclasmc jusqu'a l'avCne­

ment des Con1nenes (843-1081)." CA 34 (1986), pp. 75-108

Prandi. ''Casaranello" =A. Prandi, "Pitture inedite di Casaranello;' R!NASA 10 (1961), 227-292, repr. in A. De Bcrnart,

ed., Paesi e fir:ure del Vecchio Sa/ento, =Documentari. Luoghi lJocumenti e Artisti di Puglia 5 (Galatina,

1980), pp. 273-327

Prancli. "Salento provincia" =A. Prandi, "Ii Salento provincia dell'arte bizantina,'' Atti de/ com 1er:110 i111er11azionafr sul

Inna 'L'Oriente cristiano nel!a storia de/la civilr/1', Ro1ne-Florence 1963, Accademia Nazionalc dci Lincci,

Quademo 62 (R01ne, 1964), pp. 671-711

Reswuri in Puglia I :=M. Millela Lovecchio, "Frescanti mericlionali bizantineggianti dei secc. X-XVI,'' Restauri in

Puglia ]()71-19811 (Fasano, 1983), pp. 132-136

Res/auri in Puglia II:= M. G. di Capua, ed., Restauri in Puglia 1971-1983 11 (Fasano, 1983 [19881)

Rcstle, Byzantine \'Vall Painting =M. Restle, Byzantine iYa!! Painring in Asia Minor (Greenwich, Conn., 1967)

Robbins :=F. E. Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literarure. A Stlldy of the Greek and Latin Commentaries on Genesis

(Chicago, 1912)

Safran, "Redating" :=L. Safran, "Reclating Some South Italian Frescoes: The First Layer at S. Pietro. Otranto, and the

Earliest Paintings at S. Maria della Croce, Casaranello," Byzanrion LX (I 990). pp. 307-333

Sandberg-Vavala, Croce dipinta :=E. Sandberg-Vavalh, La croce dipinta ilaliana (Verona, 1929)

Schiller :=G. Schiller, Iconography (Jj'Christian Ari, trans. J. Seligman (Greenwich, Conn .. 1971)

Skawran, 11/liddle Byzanline Fresco :=K. Skawran, The De\'elopmenl of Aliddle Byzuntine Fresco Puinting in Greece

(Pretoria, 1982)

Stikas. Oikodomikon Chronilwn :=E. Stikas, To O,\r0S0;.,'.o1<6v Xpo1,,,.g,:Ji• 'Tl")S: ,~1/ov/'fs: Ou{ou /\olu<U

'+'c,,g{iSus· (Athens, 1970)

Symposium Sopocani :=L' art hyzuntin du XIIIe sii!cle, Symposium de Sopocani, Belgrade 1965 (Belgrade, 1967)

Teodoru, '·Eglises c1ucifonnes'· =H. Teodoru, "f.:glises cruciformes dans l'Italie meridionale, San Pietro d'Otrante,''

1:.:phemeris Dacoromana V (1932), pp. 22-34

Thierry, "Cycled' Adam" :=N. Thierry, "Le cycle de la creation et de la faute ct·Aclam a Alt'ainar:' Revue des Et11des

ArmCniennes 17 (1983), pp. 289-311

Thierry, Nouvelles l'r:!ises =N. and M. Thierry, Nouveffes fglises rupestres de Cappadoce, Region de Ilasan !Jagi

(Paris, J 963)

Tsitouridou, "Porta-Panaghia'' =A. Tsitouridou. "Les fresques du Xllle siecle clans J'eglise de la Porta-Panaghia en

Thessalie,'" CIEB XV, II B, pp. 863-878

Vasilake. Omorphi Ekk/esia :=A. Vasilake-Karakatsane, Oi To(. x c_, y;:;c,,rp1'cs ,. r1s· U,uuµ4'r)s E.r1<), T/L' o,i's u ,,;1,

/-\GrfJ;c1., :=Tc'lpU:Cho. T17s .'x'p:.cr'Tco.,;;,,r.i!·s: Apxat,o.\oy(o.s; ,<a, T(A_1n7s: !(Athens, 1971)

Velmans, "Valeurs allectives" =T. Vehnans, "Les valeurs affectives clans la peinture 1nurale byzantine et la maniere de

Jes representer,'' Symposium Sopocani, pp. 47-57

Venditti, Architettura bizanti11a :=A. Venditti, Architettura bizantina nell' Italia meridionale,

Campa11ia-Calabria-L11cania (Naples, 1967)

Vendola, ''Le decime" =D. Vendola, "Le decime ecclcsiastichc in Puglia ncl sec. XIV,'' Japygia 8 (1937), pp. 137-166

213

Vendola, Ratio11es decimarum =D. Venclola, Nariones decimarurn llaliae 11ci seco!i XIII e XIV,

Ap11/ia-Lucania-Calabria, =Sllldi e Trsri 84 (Vatican City, 1939)

Wcitzmann <1ncl Kessler, Collon Genesis =K. Weitzmann and H. L. Kessler, The Collon Genesis. Bri1ish Librm)' Codex

Colton Otho B.VI. The Illustrations of the Septuaginl, Vol. 1: Genesis (Princeton. 1986)

Weyl Carr, !llumina1io11 1150-1250 =A. Wey] Carr, Byzantine lllumina1io11 1150-1250: The Study of a Provincial

Tradition (Chicago, 1987)

\\i'harton, Art of Empire =A. 1. Wharton, Arr of h:mpire. Painting and Archilec/ure of the Byzantine Periphery, A

Compararive Study of Four Provinces (University Park and London, 1988)

Wharton, Tokali Ki!ise =A. Wha1ton Epstein, Tokafi Ki{ise, Tenth-Century Metropolillln Art i11 Byzantine Cappadocia,

D.O. Studies 22 (Washington, DC, 1986)

214

ILLUSTRATIONS ILLUSTRAZIONI

The color plates follow the same numbering as the black-and-white iJJustrations but are printed at the end of the series.

Le fOto a colori, pur seguen.do la n.umerazione generate delle illustrazioni, sono stampate allafine della serie.

Monopoli"

Fasano,

S. Vito dei Normann!•

• Massafrii

•Grottaglle

• Taranto

• Faggiano

" Brin ·si

S. Maria delle Cerrate •

• Squinzano

ardO

S. Mauro •

Gallipoli•

• Lacee

• S. Cesario di Lacee

" Copertlno

Soleto u • Carp1gnano

\QTRANTO

G1urd1gnano • 0 !1 ~~;gl:

• Sannlcola • Muro Lacee ~

•Sanarica

• Alezio Poggiardo •., Vaste

•Casaranello

Migglano•

• Ugenlo

Castro•

• Salve

1. Map of ·southe1n Apulia, with sites mentioned in the text Carta della Puglia meridionale, con l'indicazione di siti citati nel testo

_._r- _____ ~----

-"- -- - ~

2. Otranto, centro storico: 1, S. Pietro; 2, Cathedral; 3, Castle Otranto. centro storico: 1, San Pietro; 2, Cattedrale; 3, Castello

3 a. Otranto, S. Pietro, view of exterior from the north Otranto, San Pietro, veduta esterna da nord

____ ...,.____ __

--

3 b-d. Otranto, S. Pietro, views of exterior from the south (top), southwest (left), and southeast

(right)

Otranto, San Pietro, vedute esterne da sud (in alto), sud-ovest (a sinistra), sud-est (a destra)

0

0 0 ~

o ODO

4m

WEST

SOUTH

EAST

4. Otranto, S. Pietro, exterior elevations

Otranto, San Pietro, alzati esterni

i C

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

~ ---------------------------~ /-----...__ I

I / ""'- I I / ' I

I \l V 1:

I\ J I\ /I I '\ I I I '- / I I '-, ,,,/ i.i-------------~-=-----~ ------

1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I J

I I i I I I I I I I I I

5. Otranto, S. Pietro, existing plan with section cuts Otranto, San Pietro, pianta attuale con tagli di sezione

I I I I I

I I

------•----~ - ----•-------/ ' I I / ""'- I I / "' I I / \ I 1/ \ I I/ \I I ii f I ,1 /1 I\ I : I \ I I I "'. / ! ---------'-, _____ ,, ---.-------

1 I I I I ! I j

II I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I

6. Otranto, S. Pietro, late tenth-century plan

Otranto, San Pietro, pianta del tardo X secolo

0 2 4m

I I I

~: n I I H I I I I I I I I I

REMAINS OF WALLS

----------------

SAN PIETRO - NORTH WALL ,o..,~..,..,.-i,...,,....,.,..'j,,,~ ... ~..,;;3m

7. Otranto, S. Pietro, plan of parckklesion adjacent to north side of the church

Otranto, San Pietro, pianta del parekklesion adiacente al lato nord delta rhiesa

8. Otranto, S. Pietro; acquasantiera on south wa11 Otranto, San Pietro, acquasantiera sulfa parete sud

9. Otranto, S. Pietro, one of the coins found in the parekklesion, obverse (left) with bust of Christ

and reverse (right) with inscription Otranto, San Pietro, una delle monete recuperate nel parekklesion, recto (a sinistraJ con busto di

Cristo, e verso (a destra) con iscrizione

a b

8 9 11

10 10

31 39 19 20

36 14 21

29 30 h

~ 13

~ \ I

·,26 15

37 16 17 17

23

d e

f 39

h

25

10. Otranto, S. Pietro, ceiling perspective numbered with extant medieval fresco fragments

Otranto, San Pietro, prospettiva della volta con iframmenti di ajj/·eschi medievali esistenti numerati

KEY TO THE FACING ILLUSTRATION:

First Fresco Layer and First-Layer Pendant a, Washing of the Feet; b, Last Supper; c, Crouching figure; d, Betrayal of Christ; e, Nativity and

Arrival of the Magi; f, Magus; g, Pseudo-marble; h, Coccia pesto fragments

Second Fresco Layer

l, Angel medallion; 2, Pseudo-Kufic rinceau ornament; 3, Triangular compartment ornament; 4,

Complex floral oma1nent; 5, Gabriel; 6, Annunciate Virgin; 7, Basil; 8, Unidentified saint; 9,

Anastasis; 10, Pentecost; 11, Nativity; 12, -XC fragment; 13, Presentation in the Temple; 14,

Baptism; 15, Unidentified narrative fragment; 16, Fragment fro1n Raising of Lazarus or Entry into

Jerusalem; 17, Pseudo-marble; 18, Male saint labeled lacobus; 19, Unidentified narrative fragment;

20, Peter; 21, Unidentified fragment; 22, Narrative fragment with -HC; 23, Paul; 24, Unidentified

female saint; 25, Unidentified saint; 26, Creation of the Angels; 27, Creation of Heaven and Earth;

28, Creation of Adam; 29, Unidentified Genesis scene; 30, Creation of Eve; 31, Creator with Adam

(?); 32, Reproach and Denial of Adam and Eve; 33, Lapis lazuli patch (Christ?); 34, Male saint

(John?); 35, Evangelist John; 36, Evangelist Matthew; 37, Evangelist Mark; 38, Evangelist Luke;

39, Acanthus ornament frag1nent

LEGENDA DEU'ILLUSTRAZJONE A FRONTE:

Primo strato di affreschi e pendant del pri1no strato

a, Lavanda dei Piedi; h, Ultilna Cena; c, Figura accovacciata; d, Tradimento di Cristo; e, NativitG ed

Arrivo dei Magi;!, Mago; g, Finto m.armo; h, Frammenti di coccio pesto

Secondo strata di affreschi

1, Medaglione con angelo; 2, Ornato a rinceau pseudo-cufico; 3, Ornato a scomparti triangolari; 4,

Ornato floreale complesso; 5, Gabriele; 6, Vergine Annunciata; 7, Basilio; 8, Santo non identificato; 9,

Anastasis; JO, Pentecoste; J l, NativitG; 12, Frammento-XC; 13, Presentazione al Tempio; 14,

Battesimo; 15, Frammento narrativo non identificato; 16, Frammento con Resurrezione di Lazzaro o

lngresso in Gerusalemme; 17, Finto marmo; 18, Santo con iscrizione lacobus; 19, Framn1ento

narrativo non identificato; 20, Pietro; 21, Frammento non identificato; 22, Frammento narrativo con

-HC; 23, Paolo; 24, Santa non identificata; 25, Santo non identificato; 26, Creazione degli Angeli; 27,

Creazione def Cielo e della Terra; 28, Creazione di Adamo; 29, Scena della Genesi non identzji'c:ata;

30, Creazione di Eva; 31, fl Creatore con Adamo(?); 32, Riniprovero e Diniego di Adamo ed Eva; 33,

Zona di lapislazzuli (Cristo?); 34, Santo (Giovanni?); 35, Evangelista Giovanni; 36, Evangelista

Matteo; 37, Evangelista Marco; 38, Evangelista Luca; 39, Frammento di ornato ad acanto

WASH­ING OF 'HE FEET

I °', _ _J__; @

ANASTASIS ST t

PENTECOST

6JCREATOR (7) DENIAL JOHN W ADAM OF ADAM

& EVE

~ (4) 0 (5) CREATON

GENESIS (:;VE

1)CREATION OF "THE ANGELS

3)CREA- (2) CREATION TION OF OF LUKE

NATIVITY

PENTECOST

MATT. BAPTISM

PRESENTATION IN THE TEMPLE

ADAM --~--~--__\~-/----- IACOBJS

@ RETAINED FROM FIRST LAYER G) U"IIDENTIFIED SCENE

PETER

--=---

PAUL

11. Otranto, S. Pietro, ceiling perspective labeled with second-layer progra1n of narrative scenes

and single figures Otranto, San Pietro, prospettiva della volta con l'indicazione de! progra,nma del secondo stralo

. 7--

Ll~··_· __

12. Otranto, S. Pietro, east perspective, with first- and second-layer frescoes

Otranto, San Pietro, prospettiva verso est, con affreschi de! primo e secondo strata

.. w

14. Otranto, S. Pietro, section A (south), with first- and second-layer frescoes Otranto, San Pietro, sezione A (sud), con ajfreschi del primo e secondo strata

15. Otranto, S. Pietro, view of south cross-an11

Otranto, San Pietro, veduta de! braccio meridionale

16. Otranto, S. Pietro, section B (north), with first- and second-layer frescoes

Otranto, San Pietro, sezione B (nord), con ajfreschi del primo e secondo strato

17. Otranto, S. Pietro, view of north cross-arm Otranto, San Pietro, veduta del hraccio settentrionale

18. Otranto, S. Pietro, section C (west), with first- and second-layer frescoes

Otranto, San Pietro, sezione C (ovest), con affreschi de! pri,no e secondo strato

I

19. Otranto, S. Pietro, view of west cross-arm

Otranto, San Pietro, veduta def hraccio occidentale

20. Otranto, S. Pietro, northeast corner bay, detail of vault with Washing of the Feet (left) and

Last Supper (rir:ht)

Otranto, San Pietro, vano angolare di nord-est, particolare della volta con la Lavonda dei Piedi (a

sinistra) e l'Ulti,na Cena (a destra)

22. Otranto, S. Pietro, northeast corner bay, north side, Washing of the Feet, outline drawing Otranto, San Pietro, vano angolare di nord-est, lato nord, Lavanda dei Piedi, disegno schematico

23. Otranto, S. Pietro, northeast con1er bay, north side, Washing of the Feet, detail of the inscription Otranto, San Pietro, vano angolare di nord-est, lato nord, Lavanda dei Piedi, particolare

de!l'iscrizione

24. Otranto, S. Pietro, northeast corner bay, south side, Last Supper, left half Otranto_, San Pietro, vano angolare di nord-est, fato sud, Ultima Cena, parte sinistra

25. Otranto, S. Pietro, northeast corner bay, south side, Last Supper, right half

Otranto, San Pietro, vano angolare di nord-est, lato sud, Ultima Cena, parte destra

26. Otranto, S. Pietro, northeast corner bay, south side, Last Supper, outline drawing

Otranto, San Pietro, vano angolare di nord-est, lato sud, Ultima Cena, disegno schernatico

27. Otranto, S. Pietro, northeast corner bay, south side, Last Supper, detail of Christ, John, Peter, and unidentified apostle Otranto, San Pietro, vano angolare di nord-est, lato sud, Ultima Cena, particolare di Cristo, Giovanni, Pietro e apostolo ignoto

28. Otranto, S. Pietro, northwest corner bay, south wall, Betrayal of Christ Otranto. San Pietro, vano angolare di nord-est, parete sud, Tradimento di Cristo

29. Otranto, S. Pietro, north bay, north wall, crouching figure, outline drawing Otranto, San Pietro, braccio nord, parete nord,fixura accovacciata, disegno schematico

30. Otranto, S. Pietro, west bay, north wall, Nativity and Arrival of the Magi, outline drawing Otranto, San Pietro, braccio ovest, parete nord, Nativitil ed Arrivo dei Magi, disegno schematico

31. Otranto, S. Pietro, west bay, north wall, Nativity and Arrival of the Magi Otranto, San Pietro, braccio ovest, parete nord, Nativitd ed Arrivo dei Magi

32. Otrantu, S. Pietro, west bay, north wall, Nativity and Arrival of the Magi, detail of Magus Otranto, San Pietro, braccio ovest, parete nord, Nativitd ed Arrivo dei Magi, particolare de! re Mago

33. Otranto, S. Pietro, east bay, arch surrounding the apse, Annunciation: Gabriel (left),

Annunciate Virgin (right)

Otranto, San Pietro, hraccio est, area intorno all'abside, Annunciazione: Arcangelo Gabriele (a

sinistra), Vergine Annunciata (a destra)

A GR. P --"--\)l\l ~.

i ,

34. Otranto, S. Pietro, east bay, arch surrounding the apse, Annunciation, outline drawing Otranto, San Pietro, braccio est, arco intorno all'abside, Annunciazione, disegno schematico

35. Otranto, S. Pietro, east bay, left side of arch surrounding the apse, Annunciation, inscription

above Gabriel Otranto, San Pietro, hraccio est, lato sinistro dell'arco intorno all'abside, Annunciazione, iscrizione

sopra l'Arcangelo Gabriele

37. Otranto, S. Pietro, east bay, south wall, Nativity, outline drawing Otranto, San Pietro, braccio est, parete sud, Nativitll, disegno schematico

38. Otranto, S. Pietro, east bay, south wall, Nativity, detail of First Bath Otranto, San Pietro, braccio est, parete sud, Nativita, particolare del Primo Bagno

39. Otranto, S. Pietro, east bay, south wall, Nativity, detail of dog fro1n Annunciation to the Shepherds Otranto, San Pietro, braccio est, parete sud, Nativita, particolare de! cane dell'Annuncio ai Pastori

40. Otranto, S. Pietro, south bay, east wall, Presentation in the Temple, outline drawing Otranto, San Pietro, braccio sud, parete est, Presentazione al Tempio, disegno schematico

41. Otranto, S. Pietro, south bay, east wall, Presentation in the Temple (top) and Baptism (bottom)

Otranto, San Pietro, braccio sud, parete est, Presentazione al Tempio (in alto) e Battesimo (in basso)

42. Otranto, S. Pietro, south bay, east wall, Baptism, outline drawing Otranto, San Pietro, braccio sud, parete est, Battesin10, disegno schematico

43. Otranto, S. Pietro, south bay, east wall, Baptism, detail of Jordan personification Otranto, San Pietro, hraccio sud, parete est, Battesimo, particolare della personificazione del

Giordano

44. Otranto, S. Pietro, south bay, east wall, Baptism, detail of Christ and angels

Otranto, San Pietro, braccio sud, parete est, Battesi,no, particolare del Cristo e degli angeli

11 I; ; I 'I I I 1-----~-

45. Otranto, S. Pietro, south bay, south wall, outline drawing

Otranto, San Pietro, braccio sud, parete sud, disegno scheniatico

46. Otranto, S. Pietro, south bay, south wall, second register, left part of unidentified scene Otranto, San Pietro, hraccio sud, parete sud, secondo registro, parte sinistra di una .\'Cena non

identificata

47. Otranto, S. Pietro, south bay, west wall, junction of upper and lower registers, frag1nents frotn two narrative scenes Otranto, San Pietro, braccio sud, parete ovest, !inea di unionefra i registri superinre ed i,1feriore,

frammenti di due scene narrative

48. Otranto, S. Pietro, east bay, north wall, Anastasis Otranto, San Pietro, hraccio est, parete nord, Anastasis

49. Otranto, S. Pietro, east bay, north wall, Anastasis, outline dra\ving Otranto, San Pietro, hraccio est, parete nord, Anastasi.I', disegno schematico

\

---------------------------------------

52. Otranto, S. Pietro, cast bay, north wall, Anastasis, detail of head of Christ

Otranto, San Pietro, braccio est, parete nord, Anastasis, particolare della testa di Cristo

54. Otranto, S. Pietro, east bay, north wall, Pentecost, left half, outline drawing Otranto, San Pietro, braccio est, parete nord, Pentecoste, parte sinistra, disegno schematico

55. Otranto, S. Pietro, east bay, north wall, Pentecost, left half, detail of Sts. Peter and John Otranto, San Pietro, braccio est, parete nord, Pentecoste, parte sinistra, particolare dei santi Pietro e

Giovanni

56. Otranto, S. Pietro, east bay, north wall, Pentecost, left half, detail of Sts. Andrew, Simon and

Philip Otranto, San Pietro, braccio est, parete nord, Pentecoste, parte sinistra, particolare dei santi Andrea,

Simone e Filippo

I

57. Otranto, S. Pietro, east bay, south wall, Pentecost, right half, outline drawing Otranto, San Pietro, hraccio est, parete sud, Pentecoste, parte destra, disegno schematico

58. C)tranto, S. Pietro, east bay, south \Vall, Pentecost, right half Otranto, San Pietro, hraccio est, parete sud, Pentecoste, parte destra

59. Otranto, S. Pietro, east bay, south wall, Pentecost, right half, detail of architecture and two apostles at left

(!tranto, San Pietro, braccio est, parete sud, Pentecoste, parte destra, particolare dell'architettura e dei due apostoli a sinistra

60. Otranto, S. Pietro, north bay, west wall, first three scenes in the Genesis cycle: Creation of the Angels (top), Creation of Heaven and Earth (bottom left), Creation of Adam (hotton1 right),

outline drawing Otranto, San Pietro, hraccio nord, parete ovest, prime tre scene del ciclo della Genesi.· Creazione

degli Angeli (in alto), Creazione de! Cielo e della Terra (in basso a sinistra), Creazione di Adamo (in

basso a destra), disegno schernatico

61. Otranto, S. Pietro, north bay, west wall, first scene , Creation of the Angels

Otranto, San Pietro, braccio nord, parete ovest , prima scena, Creazione degli Angeli

62. Otranto , S. Pietro, north bay, west wall, Creation of Heaven and Earth (left) , Creation of Adam

(right) Otranto, San Pietro , braccio nord, parete ovest, Creazione de/ Cielo e de/la Terra (a sinistra ),

Creazione di Adamo (a destra)

64. Otran to, S. Pietro , north bay, east wall, last four scenes in the Genesis cycle : unidentified scene (top /eji), Creat ion of Eve (top right), Meeting of the Creator and Adam (?) (bottom left),

Reproach and Denial of Adam and Eve (bottom right), outline dra wing Otranto, San Pietro, braccio nord, parete est, ultime quattro scene de/ ciclo de/la Genesi: scena non

identificata (in alto a sinistra), Creaz ione di Eva (in alto a destra), lnconrro tra ii Creatore ed Adamo

(?) (in basso a s inistra), Rimprovero e Diniego di Adamo ed Eva (in basso a destra), disegno schema ­tico

0

65. Otranto, S. Pietro , view of northeast corner Otranto, San Pietro , veduta dell'ang olo nord-est

p

66. Otr anto, S. Pietro, north bay, east wall, Creation of Eve

Otranto, San Pietro, braccio nord, parete est, Creazione di Eva

67. Otran to, S. Pietro, north bay, east wall, Reproach and Denial of Adam and Eve, deta il from old

photograph Otranto, San Pielro, braccio nord, parete est, Rimprovero e Diniego di Adamo ed Eva, portico/are da

una vecchia fotograjia

69. Otranto, S. Pietro , east bay, arch surro unding the apse, right side, angel in medallion Otranto, San Pietro, braccio est, arco intomo all'abside, lato destro, angelo in un medagli one

70. Otranto, S. Pietro, east bay, upper left of apse, detai l of ornament Otranto, San Pietro, hraccio est , zona in alto a sinistra dell'abside, particolare dell'orname ntazione

71. Otranto, S. Pietro, northeast pendentiv e, evangel ist John Otranto, San Pietro, pennacchio di nord-est , evangelista Giovanni

72. Otranto, S. Pietro , northwest pendent ive, evangelis t Luke

Otranto, San Pietro, pennacchio di nord-ovest, evangelista Luca

73. Otranto, S. Pietro, view north from

central apse, St. Basil under 1540 St. Peter

Otranto, San Pietro, veduta verso norc/

dall'abside cenrrale, San Basilio sotto ii San Pietro de/ 1540

l\

74. Otranto, S. Pietro, north side of apse, St.

Basil , outl ine drawing

Otranto, San Pietro, faro nord dell'abside, San

Basilio, disegno schematico

>

75. Otranto, S . Pietro, south bay, sou th wall , thi rd register, St. Peter Otranto, San Pietro, braccio sud , parete sud, terzo registro, San Pietro

76. Otranto, S. Pietro, south bay, south wall, St . Paul (left) and unidenti fied female saint (right)

Otranto, San Pietro, braccio sud, parete sud, San Paolo (a sinistra) ed una santa non identijicata (a destra)

77. Otranto, S. Pietro, south bay, west wall , lower zone, pseudo -marble fragments, head of St.

James (Iacobu s), 1576 St. John the Baptist Otranto, San Pietro , hraccio sud, parete ovest, zona inferiore,.frammenti ajinto marmo, testa di San

Giacomo (Jacohus), ii San Giovann i Battista de/ 1576

78. Otranto, S. Pietro , central apse, south wall adjacent to window , donor figure and inscription,

detail Otranto , San Pietro, abside centrale , parete meridiona/ e adiacente a/la fin estra, donat ore ed

iscriz ione, particolare

a

79. Otranto, S. Pietro, northeast pier, south face below Anastasis, 1540 St. Leonard truncated by recutting of piers

Otranto, San Piet ro, p ilastro nord -est, lato sud sotto /'Anastasis , ii San Leonardo de/ 1540 tagliato per la riduz ione dei p ilastri

80. Otranto, S. Pietro, west bay, west wall , 1576/77 martyr, bishop, male saint

Otranto, San Pietro , braccio ovest, p arete ovest , martire, vescovo, santo del 1576177

STILO, CATTOLICA ROSSANO, S. MARCO

?

81. Stilo, Cattolica, and Rossa no, S. Marco (Calabria), plans and ceiling perspect ives Stilo , Cauolica , e Rossano, San Marco (Calabria), p iante e prospettive delle volte

1 2 3m

82. Giillii dere (Gorcme), rock-cut chapel n. 4, south chapel, south wall, Washing of the Feet ,

detail Giilli.i dere (Goreme), cappella ipogea n. 4, cappel/a sud , parete sud , Lavanda dei Piedi, particolare

83. Koropi (Attica), H. Soter, north bema wall , Comm union of the Apostles Koropi (Attica}, Hagios Soter , parete nord de/ hema , Comun ione degl i Apostoli

84. Casaranello, S. Mar ia della Croce, north nave vaul t, Last Supper Casaran ellu, San.ta Mari a de/la Croce, Lato n.ord della volta de/la navata, Ultima Cena

85. Massafra, S. Simeone «a Famos a» crypt, right wall , Lasl Supper

Massafra , cripta di San Simeone «a Famosa.", parete c/estra, Ultima Cena

86. S. Vito dei Normann i, S. Biagi o crypt, south wa ll, Arriv al of the Mag i, detail San Vito dei Normanni, crip ta di San B iagio, parete sud , Arrivo dei Mag i, pa rticolare

87. Monopol i, S. Cecilia crypt, south wall, Nativi ty, detail of Lhe Arri val of the Magi and seated

Joseph Monopoli, cripta di Santa Cecilia, pa rete sud, Nati vita, particolare dell'Arrivo dei Mag i con San

lriuseppe sedu to

88. Carpignano, S. Cristina crypt, east wall , Christ signed by Theophy laktos, 959, flanked by the

Annunciation Carpignano, cripta di Santa Cristina , parete est, Cristo Jirmato da Theophylaktos, 959, con

l'Annunciazione ai /ati

89. Carpignan o, S. Cristina crypt, eas t wall, Annunciat ion, detail of Gabriel , 959

Carpignano, cripta di Santa Cristina, parete est , Annun ciazione, particolare del/'Arcangelo Gabriele , 959

90. Vaste, SS. Stefani cryp t, south absidiole, Christ flanked by angels, detail Vaste, cripta di Santi Stefani, absidiola sud, Cristo con Angeli , particolare

91. Vaste, SS. Stefani crypt, easternmost pier in north arcade, east side, St. Andrew Vaste, cripta di Santi Stefani , pilast ro ad est de/le arcate nord, lato est, Sant'Andrea

92. Casaranello, S. Maria della Croce, sanctuary, north wall, two male saints Casaranello, Santa Maria de/la Croce, presbiterio, parete nord, due santi

93. Casaranello, S. Maria della Croce, second nave pier on right, St. Barbara Casaranello, Santa Maria della Croce, secondo p ilastro destro della navata, Santa Barbara

~/ .. -\

{roettiTOONO,l. t;NANTiOff

94. Stiris, Hosios Loukas, exterior of Theotokos church , now interior of Katholikoo, Joshua

Stiris , Hosios Loukas, estemo della chiesa de/la Theotokos, ora interno def Katholikon, Giosue

95. Thessaloniki, Hosios David (Latomos monastery), south ban-el vault, east side, Nativity, detail

of First Bath Salonicco , Hosios David (monastero di Latomos} , vofta a botte sud, fato est, Nativita, particolare de/

Primobagno

96. Samarina (Messen ia), Zoodochos Pigi, narthex barrel vault, west side, Pentecost Samarina (Messenia) , Zoodochos Pigi, volta a botte de/ nartece, Jato ovest, Pentecoste

97. Mount Sinai, Monastery of St. Catherine, chapel of St. John the Theologian , icon of St. Pete r Monte Sinai, Monastero di Santa Caterina, cappella di San Gio vanni if Teologo, icona di San Pietro

98. Arta (Epirns), H . Demetr ius Katsouris , west bay, north side, Pentecost , detail (second fresco layer)

Arta (Epiro), Hagios Demetrius Katsouris, braccio ovest , lato nord, Pentecoste, particolar e (ajji·esco del secondo strato)

99. Salemo, Museo del Duom o, ivory plaque with Creation of the Finname nt Salerno, Museo del Duomo, placca d'avorio con la Creazione de/ Firmamento

100. Berlin, Staatlicbe Museen Preuss ischer Kulturbes itz, ivory plaque with Genesis scenes

Bertino, Staatliche Museen Preussische r Kulturhes itz, placca d 'avorio con scene della Genesi

101. Monreale, Cathed ral of S. Maria, south wall, east end, Creation of Day and Night, detail

Monreale, Cattedrale di Santa Maria , parete sud, parte est, Creazione de! Giorno e de/la Notre, particolare

102. Monrcale, Cathedral of S . Maria , south wall , Reproach and Denial of Adam and Eve, details Mon.reale, Cau edrale di Santa Maria , parete sud, Rimprovero e Diniego di Adamo ed Eva, particolari

103. Sannicola, S. Mauro, nave vault , north side, interlace of prophet roundels , deta il of Abdias and Isaiah

Sannicola, San Mauro . volta de/la navata, lato nord, intreccio dei medaglioni dei Profet i, particolar e di Ahd ia e I saia

104. Ginosa, S . Bartolomeo crypt , arch surrounding the apse , angel and rinceau, detail Ginosa , cripta di San Bartolomeo, arco intorno a/L'abside, angelo e rim:eau , parricolare

105. Arta (Epirus), H. Demetrius Katsour is, apse, H . Modestos, detail (first fresco layer) Arta (Epiro), Hagios Demetrius Katsouri s, abside, Ha1;ios Modesto s, p articolare (a/fresco del primo

srrato)

106. Pili (The ssaly), Porta Panagia, apse wall, fron tal Hierarchs with pscudo-kufic inscription Pili (Tessaglia) , Porta Panagia, parete del/'abside , Padr i de/la chi esa con iscrizione pseudo -cufica

107. Giurdignano, S . Salvatore crypt, centra l apse Giurdignano, cripta di San Salvator e, abside centrale

108. S. Demetr ia Carone (Calabria), S. Adriano , south aisle, Presentation of the Virgin in the

Temple , deta il San Demelrio Carone (Calabria), Sant'Adriano , navata sud, Pres enlazione de/la Vergine al Tempio ,

particolare

109. Squinzano, S . Maria delle Cerrate, centra l apse Squinzano , San1a Maria del/e Cerrate , abside cen1rale

110. Brindisi , S. Maria del Casale, south transept, cast wall , ornamenta l motifs adjacent to the

Crucifixion Brindisi, Santa Maria de/ Casale , transetto sud , paret e est, motivi om amenta li adiacenti a/la

Crocefissione

111. S. Cesario di Lecce, S. Giovanni Evangelista , south wall, Nativity, detail of face of the Virgin San Cesario di Lecce, San Giovanni Evangelista, parete sud , Nativita , part icolare del volto della

Vergine

112. Gravina , S. Vito Yec~hio crypt (now Museo Pomaric i, Gravina), north wall , east end,

Myrophores, detai l Gravina, Cripta di San Vito Vecchio ( ora Museo Pomaric i, Gravina) , parete nord, parte est,

Myroph ore, particolare

113. Fagg iano, S. Nicola crypt (now Pinacotec a Prov inciale, Bari), east wall, St.

Theodore, detail Faggiano, cripla di San Nicola (ora

Pinacoteca Provinciale, Bari), pa rele est, San

Teodoro , particol are

114. Laterza , Materdom ini crypt, pier to

right of entry, St. Ciriaca , detail Laterza, cripta de/la Materdomini , pilastro a

destra dell'ingresso , Santa Ciriaca ,

p articolar e

115. Patmos, Monastery of St. John the Theologian, refectory , north bay, north wall lunette , three angels and Abraham , detail of angels

Patmos, Monastero di San Giovann i ii Teo/ag o, refettorio, hraccio nord, lunetta della pare te nord, /re angeli ed Abramo, particolare degl i angeli

116. Patmos, Monaste ry of St. John the Theologian, refectory , north bay, north side,

Communion of the Apostles , detail of head of Christ

Patmos , Monastero di San Giovanni ii Teologo , refettorio, braccio nord, Lato norc/,

Comunione degli Apostoli, particolare della

testa di Cristo

117. Patmos, Monastery of St. John the

Theologian , Chapel of the Virgin, east part of cross -vault, Healing of the Blind Man , deta il

Patmos, Monastero di San Giovanni ii

Teologo, cappella della Vergine , zona est

def/a volta a crociera , Guarigione de/ Cieco Nato , par ticolare

JI8. Thessaloniki , Hosios David (Latomos monastery) , south bane ! vault , west side, Baptism,

detail of angel Salonicco, Hosios David (monastero di Latomos), volta a bolle sud, Lato ovest, Battesimo, particolare

di un angelo

119. Sopoca ni, triumpha l arch, Pentecos t, head of an unident ified apostle Sopocani , arco trionfale, Pentecoste , parricolare della testa di un. apostolo non idenl(ficato

120. Mistra , Metropolis (H. Demetrius), diakon ikon, head of Ezekiel

Misrra, Metropolis (Hagios Demetrius) , diakonikon, testa di Ezec:hiele

121. Galatsi (Athens), Omorphi Ekklesia , parekklesion, north wall , Last Supper , detail

Galalsi (Alene), Omorphi Ekklesia, parekklesion , parete nord , Ultima Cena, particolare

122. Athens , National Library, cod. 152, fol. 1 or, St. Matthew

Atene, Bibliotec:a Nazionale, cod. 152,f ol. !Qr , San Matteo

13. Otran to, S. Pietro, view of interior to the east

Otranro, San Pietro, veduta dell'inlemo verso est

..------

21. Otranto, S. Pietro, northeast corner bay, north side, Washing of the Feet, detail Otranto, San Pietro, vano angolare di nord-est , lato norcl, Lavanda dei Pied/, particolare

36. Otranto, S . Pietro, east bay, south wall, Nat ivity

Otra.1110, San Pietro, hraccio est, parete sud, Na!ivita

SO. Otranto , S. Pietro, east bay, north wall , Anastasis, detail of Old Testame nt kings

Otranto, San Pietro, braccio est, parete nord, Anastasis, particolare dei re de/ Vecchio Testamento

p

51. Otranto , S. Pietro, east bay, north wall, Anas tasis, detail of head of Adam

Otranto, San Pietro, braccio est, parete nord, Anastasis, particolare de/la testa di Adamo

53. Otranto, S. Pietro , east bay, north wall, Penteco st, left half Otranto, San Pietro, braccio est, parete nord , Pentecoste, parte sinistra

63. Otramo, S. Pietro, north bay, west wall , Creation of the Angels, detai l of angel Otranto, San Pietro, braccio norcl, parete ovest, Creazione deg/i Angeli, po rtico/are del/'angelo

68. Otranto, S. Pietro, north bay, east wall, Meeting of Creator and Adam (?) (left), Reproach and Denial of Adam and Eve (right)

Otranto, San Pietm, braccio nord , parete est, lncontro trail Creature ed Adamo(?) (a sinistra) , Rimprovero e Diniego di Adamo ed Eva (a destra)

LINDA SAFRAN

SAN PIETRO AD OTRANTO

ARTE BIZANTINA IN ITALIA MERIDIONALE

ROMA

EDTZTONT RART NANTES

Vendo la , Ratiunes decimaru m = J) . Vendola , Rationcs d ecinrnrum haliae nei scGoli XfTI c X IV, Apulia -Lucan ia-Ca la ­

bria = Srud i e Tcst i, 84, Cin i, dcl Vatican o 1939

Wc itzrnann e Kessler , Cotton Genes is = K. We itzrnan n , H. L. Kess ler, The Cotton Gene sis, British Library Cod ex Cot ­

ton Otho B .VI, 11ie lllu strat ion s of the Sep tua gint, vol. I, Genesis . Pr inceton 1986 -

Wey ! Carr, lll uminat ion 1150- 125 0 = A. Wey ! Ca rr, By zantine lll um inat ion 1 150- 1250 : The Study ol a Provinc ial Tra ­

dition, Chicago 1987

Wharton . Ai1 o f Empire= A. J . Wha n on, Art o f Emp ire. Pa inting and Architect ure of the Byzant ine Periphe ry . i\ Com-

parat ive Stu dy of Four Pro vinces , University Park , Londo n 1988

Wh arton, Tok ali Kilise =A.W harton Epste in , Toka li Ki lise, Tenth- Centu ry Me tro politan Art in Byzan tine Cappadocia,

0. 0. Studies 22 , Wash ingto n (D.C.) 1986

440

-

TABLE OF CONTENTS I IND/CE

Presenta tion by Henry Magu ire I Presentazione di Henry Maguir e

Preface I Prefa zione

INTRODUCTION I /NTRODUZIONE

I. HISTORY, ARCHITECTUR E, FRESCO STRATIGRAPHY I. STORIA, ARC/-/ITE'JTURA. STRATfGRAFTA DEGL! AF FRES CH!

Historical Overview I Panorama storico

The Arch itect ure of the Ch urch I A rchiteuura della chiesa

Alterat ions and Res tora tions I Modifiche e restau ri

Stratigraphy of the Frescoes I Stmtigrafia deg Ii affre schi

Notes to Chapter I I Note al Capitolo I

II. THE FIRST FRE SCO LA YER II. GU AFFRESCHT DEL PRIMO STRATO

Iconograph ic Analysis I Analisi iconografica

Paleograp hy I A11alisi pafeogra.f1ca

Program I Pmgramma

Stylistic Analysis I Analis i stilistica

Co nclusions I Conclusion i

Notes to Chapte r 11 I Note al Capitulo II

Ill. TIIES ECONDFRESCO L AYER Ill. GU AFFRESCHI DEL SIC-CONDO S'J'RAfO

Iconography of the Christologica l Scenes/ lr:onogrq/ ia de/ cicl o cristulogico

Iconography of the Genes is Cycle I lconogrqfia de/ ciclo del/a Genesi

Iconography of the Single Figures/ lcon ograjia de/le figure singole

Ornament I Ornati

Pa leograp hy I Analisi paleogrqfica

Program I Programma

Stylistic Analysis I Analisi sti/istica

Conclus ions I Conclu.sioni

Notes to Chap ter III I Note al Capitofo Ill

5 I 217

7 I 219 9 I 221

JO

222 10 / 222 15 I 227 23 I 236 25 / 238 29 I 243

40 255

40 I 255 52 I 268 53 I 269 59 I 275 70 /-287 73 I 291

83 30!

84 I 302 103 I 322 114 I 335 12] I 343 126 I 347 128 I 350 140 I 362 155 I 379 162 I 38t5

IV. FUNCTION, AUDIENCES , CONTEXT IV. FUNZ!ONE, FRUIZ!ONE, CONTHSTO

The Function of the Church I Funzione de/la chiesa Craftsmen, Patrons, and Other Audiences/ Artefici, committenli ed alrrifruitori Some Contextual lssucs I Alcune questioni di contesro Notes to Chapter NI Note al Capitolo IV

APPENDICES/ APPENDICI I . The Th ird, Fourlh, and Fifth Fresco Layers I I. Gli ajfreschi def terzo, de/ quarto e de! quinto strata IL The Pastoral Visits I ff . Le visite paswrali Notes I Note

Abbreviations of Works Frequent ly Cited I Abbreviazioni pe ril materiale

bibliografico pi11 . .fi"equenremenle citato

186 4!J

186 I 4ll 192 I 417 197 /423 201 I 426

205 I 430

205 I 430 206 I 432 208 I 434

209 I 435

...

Finito di stampare nel mese di luglio 1992

da Spaziostampa - Roma per conto dcllc Edizioni Rari Nantes