1 Introduction
The texts of the Old Testament prophets who forecast Christ’s coming constitute a special challenge in Christian iconography. While the historian’s account is subsequent to the event he describes, the prophet’s Visions construct narratives of events yet to take place. Visions therefore constitute a special category of iconography and the eternal validity of Scripture lifted the Vision out of its historical framework. Thus Isaiah, writing between 742 and 687 BCE, was thought to have foreseen the birth of Christ from a virgin (Isa 7:14): “The Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” The Hebrew can be read as simply “young woman”, but Matthew applies Isaiah’s prophecy to Mary’s miraculous virginal conception by the Holy Spirit, before she came together with Joseph (Matt 1:18 ff.). Matt 1:23 rephrases Isaiah’s text to read: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel”. Christian art could therefore illustrate the Nativity either as a series of episodes of the Gospel narratives, or as a single image of the Mother and Child.
Ezekiel, composing his book in response to the Persian destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, pinned the Israelites’ hope of restoration on his future Visions of the Lord Enthroned (Ezek 1:1–28) and the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezek 40–48). For the purposes of iconography several details from Ezekiel are important:
From the midst of fire came the likeness of four living creatures. (1:5–6)
Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. (1:8)
… each (creature) had the face of a man in front, the face of a lion on the right side … the face of an ox on the left side, and the face of an eagle at the back. (1:10)
… each creature had two wings, which touched the wing of another, while two covered their bodies. (1:11)
… I saw a wheel upon the earth beside the living creatures, one for each of the four of them, … like the gleaming of a chrysolite. (1:15–16)
The four wheels had rims and spokes; and their rims were full of eyes round about. (1:18)
And above the firmament over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was the likeness as it were of a human form. (1:26)
Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking. (1:28)
These powerful images of the Cherubim, the Living Creatures, and the wheels are repeated in Ezekiel Chapter 10.1
The early iconography of Ezekiel’s Visions focuses on various aspects worthy of note, especially angels. Ezekiel’s “four living creatures” are interpreted as angels and angels are a major part of the rich iconography of his Visions. As for Isaiah, though he does not mention the Archangel Gabriel, Luke narrates how the divine message was communicated through him (Luke 1:26). The iconography of angels, be their rank designated or not, is fundamental to the development of Christian imagery and it became especially popular in the decoration of church apses and domes, manuscripts, and icons.
Since the earliest monuments, angels are represented in a humanising manner abandoning their fierce Biblical identity as ox, lion, and eagle mentioned in Ezekiel. They appear with beguiling human visages to make contact with the faithful and they have human hands to hold the rainbow en-framing the Lord. Their enormous size is also part of their message; they become cosmic figures embracing the whole of Creation, as they embrace the great nave vessel of the church. Angels are part of a complex programme of dome decoration, which must be studied as a totality. In no single monument has this programme survived intact, but the fragments belong to works of the highest quality, some of which have already inspired extensive commentary. The tendency, however, has been to discuss the monuments separately which misses the cumulative force of their complementary information. The creation of a complex church iconography was a new attempt to understand man’s relationship to the disposition of the powers of the cosmos. The liturgy is like a grand ballet tracing the structures of the new spiritual universe. The challenge is to describe in words what the monuments demonstrate in colour. From being the throne-bearers of Yahweh, angels became the guardians of the Eucharist.
2 Early Churches
The earliest extended dome programme to survive, the Rotunda of Thessaloniki, documents the development of this new celestial iconography in a very exciting way (Figure 1.1).2 Here, the four-faced Angel of the prophetic Visions of Ezekiel posed an especially acute problem for the illustrator as it did for the exegete. Accepting the Theodosian dating of Kiilerich and Torp in the 390s, the mosaicists seem to have bypassed Ezekiel’s account of the wild and savage faces of the Creatures, opting instead to show their appealing forward-facing human faces. In the nearly contemporary apse mosaic of Sta Pudenziana in Rome (400–410), the angelic Four Creatures assume the fearful bestial identities assigned them in Ezekiel—winged man, lion, ox, and eagle—in figures on an even larger scale than that of Christ enthroned below them. Christ, defying art historians’ attempts to find antecedents in representations of the Roman emperor, sits in the learned company of his twelve Apostles whose leaders, Peter and Paul, make gestures of speaking with him. In the strict etiquette of the court, no one else was permitted to sit in the presence of the emperor. The antecedents for the Sta Pudenziana mosaic are rather to be found in representations of Socrates and other men of learning discussing philosophy with their followers.3
The dependence of the Thessaloniki mosaic on the Ezekiel prophecy is further emphasised by the human hands of the Four Living Creatures, as Ezekiel says that “under their wings on their four sides they had human hands” (Ezek 1:8). These human hands are especially important here for on their very fin-
Figure 1.1
Mosaic of the medallion of Christ supported by four angels, Rotunda of Thessaloniki, 390s Killerich—Torp 2017, Figure 38 (page 47)
Copyright: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports—Archaeological Receipts Fund
gertips the four angels gingerly support a unique 360° rainbow that encircles the representation of Christ with his right arm raised. In nature one never sees more than a fragment of a rainbow. The full circular mosaic rainbow that embraces the whole congregation below must be credited to the artists’ imagination and it illustrates Ezekiel’s “glory of the Lord” (Ezek 1:28). The charming human faces of the angels regard us with understanding and concern as they support the great golden wheel of the Lord. In Thessaloniki, the rainbow contains a garland of rich fruit, within which is an inner ring featuring 28 smaller gold wheels with black rims and spokes of gold. Though Kiilerich and Torp see this motif as a “circle of silver stars,”4 they are more likely golden, or “chrysolite,” wheels with “rims and spokes,” as in Ezekiel’s description. “The Glory of the Lord” was represented in Byzantine art by the rainbow in a symbolism that God Himself had announced to Noah after the great flood when he set the rainbow as a sign of his covenant with mankind and with all the creatures of the earth signifying that he would never again permit a universal flood (Gen 9:9–17).
According to Ezekiel, the Lord Enthroned should be in the centre of the Visions but, once again, the artists showed their independence. Although the mosaic tesserae of the Lord are mostly missing, the drawing of the figure has fortunately been recovered and it shows the Lord not enthroned but standing with a commanding raised right hand. Kiilerich has significantly identified this as the pose of the statue of Constantine as Sun-god Helios which the emperor himself had placed atop a porphyry column in the centre of his circular forum in Constantinople in 330 CE.5 The column was still in place when Theodosius evoked the image of Christ in the Rotunda mosaic.6
In 2014 a symposium of the Courtauld Institute of Art was held in Athens to examine the extraordinary coincidence of pagan, Jewish, and Christian speculation and piety that came together in the Late Antique mosaics of Thessaloniki.7 One of the issues under consideration was the pious practice of “seeing God” referred to in philosophical, mystical, and iconographical expressions.8 The philosopher Alexander of Aphrodisias in the 2nd century CE speculated that the activity of perception involved an assimilation of the viewer to the person or object being viewed.9 The mosaic of the little chapel of Hosios David/Moni Latomou, Thessaloniki (425–450) presents Christ seated on a rainbow within a brilliant mandorla of white and silver light, surrounded by the four Living Creatures of the Ezekiel Visions: man, lion, ox, and eagle (Ezek 1:10).10 Christ unfurls a scroll bearing the text of Isaiah 25:9–10a which begins with “Behold our God” (Figure 1.2). What it meant to “behold God” was a subject of intense speculation by rabbis as well as by Christian commentators. The mosaic was discussed in the Athens symposium by Laura Nasrallah11 who
Figure 1.2
Mosaic of Christ in the Vision of Ezekiel, apse of Hosios David/Moni Latomou, Thessaloniki, 425–450. Eastmond—Hatzaki 2017, Figure 35 (page 79)
Copyright: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports—Archaeological Receipts Fund
appealed to Alexandrian optics, which consider the effect of the object on the viewer, implying that gazing upon God would be expected to divinise the devout viewer. It is significant that both Byzantines and Catholics attached special importance to the viewing of Christ in the Sacrament. One should compare the Roman liturgy’s “elevation of the Eucharist,” following the prayer of the consecration, to the Byzantine rite’s Great Entrance procession where the deacons carried the Eucharist on their heads around the church. Viewing the consecrated Bread and Wine conveyed a special blessing on the viewer.12 The viewer’s experience of the mosaic of Hosios David, even though the space was much more intimate than the grand programmes and enormous domes of the Rotunda of Thessaloniki or, later, of St Sophia in Constantinople, had a similar effect. These can all be considered as examples of what Nasrallah refers to as “the practice of seeing God,” a practice of prayer or meditation in which the devout confronted mental images of God, while at the same time insisting on God’s absolute transcendence. Origen and John Chrysostom, she remarks, insisted that Ezekiel did not claim to have seen God but only a “likeness” of God, as is of course written in Ezekiel 1:28.
In the Hosios David, Christ’s scroll bears a modified quote from Isaiah: “Behold our God, upon whom we hope and rejoice greatly in our salvation, that he may give rest to this house.” It is important to notice this difference: in the prophetic text the word is oros (mountain), whereas here it is given as oikos (house), referring pointedly to the chapel itself in which the mosaic is found. The unnamed woman who donated the chapel wanted to refer to Isaiah, who was most frequently cited for his prediction of the miraculous birth of Christ from a virgin (Isa 7:14) but also wanted to refer to the “house”, that is the chapel itself. The river below the Vision is the Chebar, mentioned in Ezekiel 1:1, 3. The two figures of prophets flanking Christ are handled very differently. The one on the left is rendered as an older, wilder man, with long grey beard and long unkempt hair, standing bent in a reverential posture and making a listening gesture with his large hands. The figure on the right is an elegant younger man, seated on a stool and holding a codex, his thoughtful gesture of hand to chin accentuating his trim beard and short haircut that recall Roman portraits. It would be reasonable to assume that the two contrasting prophets are on the left Ezekiel and on the right Isaiah whose text Christ holds for the viewer to read, or even St John, as the Four Living Creatures re-appear in Revelation 4:6–8 and both Ezekiel and Revelation 4 clearly discuss the Enthroned or seated God, the Apocalypse borrowing the language and imagery of Ezekiel. The figure is, however, Habbakuk holding a book with the words of Ezekiel’s third chapter.13
3 The Development of the Peacock Motif
The 6th century is pivotal for Byzantine iconography: it is the time when the peacock motif multiplies. Life-like blue and gold peacocks and delicate peacock tail feathers had already been employed in colourful profusion in the Rotunda of Thessaloniki, on the so-called Martyrs’ zone. While peacocks are not mentioned in Scripture, the imaginative Byzantine artists seized upon their gorgeous mating display to symbolise the miraculous fertility of the Virgin Mary. An early spectacular example is the church of St Polyeuktos in Constantinople, commissioned by the wealthy heiress of the Theodosian family, Anicia Juliana (520–527). The fourteen niches either side of the nave of this splendid church contained perhaps as many as twenty-eight life-size sculptures of peacocks, their tails outspread as in their mating dance. Encircling the niches are the proud hexameter verses of the founder’s dedication, around which in turn is found a heavily laden grapevine.14 It is disappointing that the inscription is exclusively concerned with the generosity of the donor and gives no help with the iconography. But British archaeologist Martin Harrison, who excavated the ruins of the church, argued that the peacocks stood for the Cherubim of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem and he demonstrated at the same time that the measurements of the church in long or royal cubits matched exactly those of Solomon’s temple.15 The Eucharistic associations of the vine were commonplace in Early Christian literature and the location of the peacocks either side of the altar would support a Eucharistic interpretation.16 The peacocks in Anicia Juliana’s church were guardians of the Eucharist.
The peacock had been Juno’s bird, which Byzantine artists chose to emphasise the miraculous nature of Mary’s divine conception. It was a real stroke of genius that artists seized upon the peacock display, for before she and Joseph “came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 1:18) thus realising Isaiah’s prophecy, “Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a child” (Isa 7:14). This most extraordinary fertility image is used repeatedly in connection with the Annunciation. For example, in two 6th-century illustrations of the “Annunciation to Zachariah and to Mary” attached to the 10th-century manuscript M 2374, fol. 229 recto and verso (Figures 1.3 and 1.4), the annunciate angel Gabriel’s wings are covered with peacock feathers full of brilliant “eyes.”17 One might say this is incorrect ornithologically, since in his mating dance the peacock makes this striking display of feathers in his tail, not his wings. However, when Christian art takes up this symbolism in the Angel of the Annunciation, the peacock’s tail feathers appear on the angel’s wings. The many “eyes” on the peacock’s tail can then be understood as signifying the all-seeing angelic wisdom. According to the Physiologus, just as the peacock cries when he sees his ugly feet, so man will cry out to God when he realises his ugly sins; perhaps his hoarse croaking is a call to repentance.18 Artists wanted to mark Mary’s miraculous conception of her divine offspring with the most remarkable fertility imagery they could find, and they assigned her the iconography of the peacock’s mating dance. Because of such associations the peacock bird is still commonly cultivated in monastery gardens.
Figures 1.3–4
The angel Gabriel with wings of peacock feathers in the Annunciations to Zachariah and to Mary, Matenadaran 2374, fol. 229r and 229v, 6th century
Copyright: Matenadaran Mesrop Mashtots Institute of Ancient Manuscripts
A Eucharistic interpretation can also be suggested for the nine mosaic peacocks with tails outspread in Basilica A of Nikopolis in Greece (Figure 1.5).19 Basilica A stands within the fortification walls of the city and was dedicated to Saint Demetrios by two successive bishops named Doumetios, the earlier around 550 and his son Doumetios II in the last quarter of the 6th century, around 575. The peacock mosaics are located to the south of the narthex, in the diaconicon, or sacristy, where the faithful would have left their offerings of bread and wine to be prepared for transfer to the altar by deacons in the procession of the Great Entrance of the liturgy. The mosaic shows an amphora-chalice from which issues a vigorous grapevine surrounded by the semicircle of nine standing peacocks with their tails outspread. The grapevine is used in Isaiah as a symbol of Israel, starting with Isa 5:1–2, “Let me sing for my beloved a love song concerning his vineyard.” The Lord is the gardener, but in return for his tender care, his vine in Isaiah yields only sour wild grapes. In the New Testament, however, the vine bears a clear Eucharistic message as we find in John 15: 1–8, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser,” and the narrative of the Last Supper refers to the fruit of the vine in Mark 14:22–25 and Luke 22:17–20. In the Early Christian church, the Eucharist was celebrated daily and communion was received both as bread and wine. Since peacocks are not a biblical motif, the art historian must infer their meaning from the context. In nature, the peacock bird does not belong in cultivated vineyards but inhabits the tall grasses of wild marshlands and his extraordinary outspread tail is part of his mating behaviour.
Figure 1.5
Mosaic with grapevine issuing from an amphora-chalice surrounded by peacocks, Diaconikon, Basilica A of Doumetios, Nikopolis, 550–575
Copyright: Konstantinos L. Zachos (Zachos 2015, 181)
Continuing a liturgical practice since the 4th century “Apostolic Constitutions,” fans, or rhipidia, were used in the Divine Liturgy to accompany the Great Entrance. The earliest surviving fans, from the Kaper Koraon treasure, securely dated to 577 by silver stamps, show peacock feathers.20 The other term for such fans is hexapteryga, or “six-winged,” alluding to the peacocks’ connection with the Seraphim, according, as we will see, to the Vision of Isaiah. The Kaper Koraon rhipidia, enriched by the influence of Ezekiel’s Vision and the powerful text of the Revelations (Rev 4:6–9), have four “many-eyed” wings, crossed at the top and bottom, with human, lion, ox, and eagle faces (symbols of the four Evangelists). Peacock feathers encircle the rhipidia and the wheels of Ezekiel’s Visions are on either side. A very similar iconography is to be found in the Rabbula Gospel “Ascension,” from the monastery of St John of Zagba, Mesopotamia, dated 886. We find once again crossed wings, filled with eyes, with the human face and three Beast faces in the centre, with an open hand and four “fire-wheels,” as Weitzman denotes them, based on Ezekiel’s Vision.21
4 Seraphim and Isaiah’s Vision
In Scripture the celestial beings known as Seraphim are mentioned only once in the Old Testament, in the Vision of Isaiah (Isa 6:2), but the four Living Creatures of Revelation 4:6–8 seem intended as Seraphim, and they have six wings: the Prophet describes them as having three pairs of wings and standing above God’s throne. John Chrysostom, in his commentary on Isaiah, describes Seraphim as incorporeal (asomatoi) powers of the heavenly demoi whose name in Hebrew means “burning mouths.”22 The usual epithet for Seraphim was hexapteryga, “having six wings,” as we saw in the context of the rhipidia. By the 9th century, under the inspiration of Revelation 4:8, artists depicted Seraphim as composite creatures similar to Cherubim, with four or six wings, a face in the centre, and faces of ox, lion, and eagle. The many-eyed wings are derived from those of the Cherubim (see below).23
The peacock motif, prominent in Early Christian art, exists from classical antiquity to Christian times: paradisiac gardens, springtime renewal related to the regeneration of the bird’s feathers, imperial in association with Juno. Peacocks were assigned more strictly Christian symbolism standing for eternal triumph in heaven and heavenly splendour. The “eyes” of peacock feathers were perceived as the many-eyed wings of Seraphim, Cherubim, and Archangels, as we saw in the Matenadaran miniatures of the “Annunciation.” Thus peacocks, in their angelic guise, were present in the earliest works of Christian art and in what are perhaps the two most important episodes of Christ’s life, the Annunciation of his coming and the announcement of his death at the Last Supper.
One of the most striking “peacock-eyed” instances of angel wings is to be found in the apse mosaic of the Panagia tis Angeloktisti in Kiti, Cyprus, a work most probably of the late 6th century, according to Megaw who finds parallels with St Catherine’s monastery in the Sinai and with San Vitale in Ravenna.24 In Kiti, the Virgin Mary holds in her left arm the Christ Child and is flanked by the archangels Michael and Gabriel, their wings constructed from the tail feathers of the peacock. Artists must have observed actual peacocks very carefully: for the upper third of the angels’ wings they employed the fish-scale pattern seen at the stem of the bird’s tail, while on the lower two thirds of the angels’ wings we find the familiar full “open eye” tail feathers.
5 Cherubim, Ezekiel, and the Cherubikon
Cherubim in the Old Testament served as the throne-bearers of Yahweh.25 Greek authors describe them as fiery, with four faces and many eyes (polyomata), praising God, defending the church, and assisting in the Last Judgement. Pseudo-Dionysos emphasised their spiritual qualities in their ability to receive the gift of light and to see and comprehend God.26 According to Chrysostom, the name meant “full knowledge.”27 Images of two gold Cherubim were placed on the Ark of the Covenant (Exod 25:18–22) and in the Temple of Solomon (1 Kgs 6:23–29), as Harrison also observed in the context of St Polyeuktos’ church. These Old Testament Cherubim were cited by John of Damascus among others in polemics against the Iconoclasts, made by human hands yet objects of cult, they justified the veneration of icons.28
At this moment the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine church was enriched by the insertion of the Cherubikon hymn in 573–574 by Justin II to mark the bringing up of the offering of Bread and Wine to the altar. The hymn significantly refers to the participants in the liturgy as representing (in the Greek it is literally “icon-ising”) the Cherubim. Though the actual text is short, the hymn is sung at a very slow tempo, in imitation of the singing of the Heavenly Hosts:
Let us who mystically represent the cherubim and sing the thrice-holy hymn to the life-giving Trinity—let us now lay aside every earthly care.So that we may welcome the King of all, who comes invisibly, borne aloft by armies of angels. Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.29
Already in the opening words, the hymn, chanted by the congregation as well as the cantors, assimilates them to the Cherubim.30 In many ways this is the dramatic climax of the Byzantine celebration of the Eucharist and the placing of the Bread and Wine on the altar was an essential element in the Eucharistic rite from earliest times. A simple reading of the text cannot convey the drama. The deacons, according to the rubrics, are instructed to place the offerings on a tray and carry it on their heads for all to see while the chanting of the Cherubikon is slowed down to evoke musically the grandeur of the Cherubim. The parading of the offerings through the congregation must be seen as part of the rite of “seeing God.”31 Gazing on the Blessed Sacrament was thought to confer special blessings on the devout, and this has been documented in the Latin rite of the mass as well, as already indicated.32 The tangible evidence that we retain of the hymn’s powerful impact on church ritual is the rhipidia, their representation of the Cherubim seen to this day in Orthodox churches. Participation in the liturgy involved what we might call play-acting, reinforced by costumes (vestments) and props (rhipidia).33 While the author is not named, the Cherubikon hymn gave a new theatrical climax to the liturgy.
6 Vrtʽanēs Kʽertʽoł
In the early 7th century, we have a very important Armenian document, Vrtʽanēs’ treatise “Concerning Iconoclasts,” which is virtually a new source on the theology of icons. Although it was published in a well-annotated French translation by Sirarpie Der Nersessian in 1945 it has gone quite unnoticed by Byzantine art historians who prefer to believe that the subject was exclusively the domain of Greek theologians.34 Catholicos of Dvin 604–607, Vrtʽanēs Kʽertʽoł (ca. 550–620) wrote letters to the clergy of his see concerned with their adherence to the “correct” monophysite position. He refers to the Nativity of Christ as the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy of a virgin birth (Isa 7:14) by which she has equivalently dethroned the ancient fertility goddesses of the pagans. In his discussion of a series of icons of the Life of Christ, Vrtʽanēs attributes the Nativity to Isaiah: “As Isaiah spoke of the Nativity and Jeremiah (about) the going forth … and Ezekiel and Hosea the Resurrection.” Numerous are the images in both architecture and the portable works of art of the Enthroned Theotokos, her throne enriched with gemstones and pearls. A less frequent motif associated with the seat of the Mother of God, the wheels of Ezekiel’s Vision, is to be found in the Walters Armenian manuscript 537, fol. 2r, dated 966 (Figure 1.6). In this painting, albeit schematically, four “wheels” are placed at the corners of the Virgin’s throne. The accompanying inscription quotes the words of Elizabeth at the Visitation, “Blessed are you among women” (Luke 1:42) to which Mary replied, “The Lord has put down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of low degree” (Luke 1:52).
The “wheels” that Ezekiel included in his Vision of the enthroned Lord presented a puzzle for both artists and commentators. The wheels symbolise the Lord’s mobility or omnipresence. Mary’s part in salvation history is described in dramatic detail in the lengthy Akathistos Hymn of the 6th century, sometimes ascribed to Romanos the Melode, and many of these details show up in the so-called festival icons that embellish Byzantine churches after Iconoclasm. Ezekiel is more than once cited in Vrtʽanēs’ treatise. Specifically, in discussing the Cherubim, Vrtʽanēs says,
Moses set the example of images for the altar, by God’s command; two Cherubim finely fashioned of gold with wings and human form on top of the table of atonement … And the divine prophet Ezekiel; the Visions that he saw he did not (see) like other prophets or (pronouncers of) oracles, but through the prophecy of one who has seen God he spoke saying: the Lord placed me on a very high mountain, and on it was the likeness of a built city, and he led me inside, and I saw in it a temple, … And I (Ezekiel) saw the temple decorated (“painted”) all around on the inside and outside (with) cherubim and palm trees … and the cherubim had human form, two by two all of them, and a palm tree in the middle of the two.35
Figure 1.6
The wheels of Ezekiel’s Vision at the corners of the Virgin’s throne, The Virgin and Child Enthroned. Walters Armenian Gospel W 537, fol. 2 recto, 966
Copyright: The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore
Thus, returning to the association of Cherubim and rhipidia, we learn in the History in Three Parts, written in 980 by Bishop Uxtanēs of Sebastia, that Vrtʽanēs, having compiled a written inventory, showed his successor Catholicos Abraham (r. 607–615) the contents of the patriarchal treasure which included “fans.”36 This further confirms our information on the use of these liturgical fans or rhipidia, expanding our knowledge to Armenia.
7 St Sophia of Constantinople
Cherubim constituted a very important part of the iconography of the Visions of Isaiah and Ezekiel, both in the earliest versions of the subject and in the most famous. The construction of a coherent celestial map of man’s salvation is the grand accomplishment of the middle Byzantine system of dome decoration and its definitive realisation is documented in the works under examination here. The Rotunda of Thessaloniki and St Sophia of Constantinople were both extremely ambitious projects. These two largest domes in the history of Byzantine architecture, executed in gold at enormous expense, were very demanding intellectually, involving the best theological minds of the time. About five hundred years apart, they confronted the same grand challenge and the solutions they reached were decisive for the history of Byzantine art. Naturally there are several significant differences between them, which we cannot discuss here. It is important to note, however, that the four angels who support the mosaic rainbow framing an ascending Christ in Thessaloniki are also to be found on the pendentives in St Sophia. They are represented as enormous six-winged Cherubim/Seraphim, their hands hidden beneath their wings. As they are located in the pendentives, far below the medallion of Christ in the dome, they are separated by a zone of windows in the drum. Moreover, the Mother of God, who was entirely missing in the Rotunda of Thessaloniki, takes her place among the Cherubim/Seraphim by being placed over the sanctuary in St Sophia. The enormous Cherubim/Seraphim in the pendentives may be perceived as attending her as well as the Pantokrator. Since she bore Christ within her, when the Theotokos is pictured enthroned, the image may also be understood as an image of Christ enthroned, as Isaiah wrote “upon the throne of David” (Isa 9:7).
Any discussion of the mosaics of St Sophia must start with Cyril Mango’s comprehensive monograph.37 On the confusion concerning the identity of the angelic imagery, Mango argues,
The hexapteryga of the pendentives have been called both cherubim and seraphim by various authors. This uncertainty cannot be definitely resolved, although I would be inclined to … seraphim. According to the book of Isaiah (6:2–6), seraphim had faces, hands and feet and each of them was provided with six wings … The cherubim, on the other hand, as described by Ezekiel in his Visions by the river Chebar and at Jerusalem (1:5 ff.; 10:1 ff.), were four in number; each had four faces, four or eight wings, were completely covered with eyes, and moved with wheels. Unfortunately, these distinctions were not observed in Byzantine iconography. … In Byzantine art six-winged cherubim are the rule rather than the exception, and we even find seraphim with multiple eyes.38
Commenting on the involvement of Gregory the Illuminator in the mosaics, Mango mentions that the Emperor Basil I, responsible for the 9th century programme, traced his own lineage to Gregory the Illuminator, who converted the Armenian royal family to Christianity, according to a genealogy prepared for the Emperor by the learned Patriarch Photios. This may also explain the special attention to Ezekiel and Isaiah in the mosaics of St Sophia. In the great cathedral of Constantinople, Ezekiel is the first prophet in the row of prophets of the north tympanum.39 He also appears, holding a scroll inscribed with Ezek 1:4–5, in the eastern side of the vault of the central bay in a room over the southwest vestibule.40 Isaiah is the first in the row of prophets in the south tympanum, his right hand pointing towards the sanctuary, his left holding a scroll with the inscription from Isa 7:14, “Behold the Virgin …”41 Both of these prophets, along with Jeremiah, are on a larger scale than the others.42 The 9th century programme of St Sophia is therefore also remarkable for its interest in Visions, and, as we saw, Visions were a particular bias of Vrtʽanēs. Thus, in this eclectic iconography, especially of the vault, we find Isaiah’s Seraphim, Ezekiel’s tetramorphic four-winged Cherubim, wheels and flames and the rainbow that may derive from Ezek 1:28 or Rev 4:3. Quite aptly Mango refers to the mosaic as having a “composite character,” that is drawn from several scriptural passages.43
8 Conclusion
One cannot but express admiration for the considerable number of monuments and works of art that have in one way or another incorporated the Visions of Isaiah and Ezekiel in their iconography, as well as the variety with which the subject was embraced. Fully conscious that the topic chosen for this paper is vast and complex and that the material was not treated in any great depth or completeness, it is perhaps fitting to conclude with two Armenian monuments, just a sampling of the large numbers of religious buildings and artefacts that these two prophets’ Visions illuminated down the centuries.
On the western façade of the Church of the Holy Cross on the island of Ałtʽamar (915–921) we find a rich programme of sculptural decoration with Christ, angels and the donor Gagik Arcruni. The iconography of this façade has been extensively discussed, though far from completely.44 Scholars have chosen to leave out of their discussions the two large angelic creatures with hands raised in the orans position flanking the main central figures. Haloed, with a pair of wings crossed over their nimbus, they have a second set of long wings crossing in front of their body like stoles and a third pair hanging behind. They are therefore “six-winged” or hexapteryga Seraphim, their wings covered in the requisite peacock eyes clearly relating them to the numerous hosts that have been depicted with peacock wings.
Christina Maranci’s recent study of the Ezekiel Visions in Ani Cathedral and the Church of St Gregory “Abułamrencʽ ” offers a climax for our study of the subject.45 The iconography literally wraps around the ceremonial action. This is a long way from the intimacy of the Hosios David where the chamber was intended, according to one legend, for the private prayer of a princess hiding from public scrutiny. In Ani, the Vision was meant to captivate the public as the community assembled with their bishop for the divine service. It is unfortunate that the decoration is so badly damaged to the point of being almost invisible. On the other hand, it is very fortunate that through Maranci’s skilled image adjustment software, we are once again able to discern the cathedral’s apse paintings which definitely represent the theophanic Vision of Ezekiel and Revelations 4, with the figure of the prophet himself included, as we have seen in Hosios David and as could be seen elsewhere as well. To date these paintings Maranci uses numerous comparanda in Byzantine and Armenian art and she proposes an early 11th century date, the time of the construction of the church. Thus, we find that Ezekiel’s visions were very important to Armenian art and literature, certainly ever since Vrtʽanēs’ seminal treatise. The subject of the iconography of the visions of Isaiah and Ezekiel is important and far-reaching and deserves lengthy and careful study.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (Metzger—May 1977).
Kiilerich—Torp 2017, 46–51. The preliminary sketch is painted in black directly on the brickwork. Christ’s raised right hand is still visible in the mosaic, as well as part of the nimbus and the top of his long cross-staff.
Mathews 1993, 109–111.
Kiilerich—Torp 2017, 50.
Kiilerich—Torp 2017, 50 and fig. 46.
On Constantine’s column, see also Mathews 2009–2010, 5–16.
Eastmond—Hatzaki 2017.
Nasrallah 2017, 77–79.
Magness 2005, 1–52.
Mathews 1993, 118–121.
Nasrallah 2017, 76–89.
On the actions accompanying the Consecration and related passages in Grigor Anecʽi, see Jungmann 1951, vol. I, 202–218.
This exact iconography is also seen on the reverse side of a two-sided icon with the Virgin Kataphyge from Thessaloniki, dated 1371–1393. See Vassilaki 2004, 198–199.
Harrison 1989, figs. 31 & 34.
Harrison 1986, figs. 98 and 108. Idem, 1989, 137–142.
For their location see Mathews, 2016, figs. 6.17 and 6.18.
Mathews 1995, 200–215, figs. 1 and 2.
Sancti Epiphanii ad Physiologum, 1588, 47–49.
Kitzinger 1951, 81–122; Zachos 2007, vol. II, 35, fig. 17, drawing by Alexandros Philadelpheus made on visit to Nikopolis in 1916; Chrysostomou—Kefallonitou 2001, 34 ff.; Zachos 2015, 177–181.
See “Rhipidion” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Kazhdan et al. 1991, vol. 3, 1791) and Evans 2004, 132–133.
Weitzmann 1977, pl. 36, 29 and 101.
PG 56, 70.
See “Seraphim” in Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Kazhdan et al. 1991, vol. 3, 1870).
The angels hold a sceptre and offer a globe with a cross at the apex. Megaw notes that these features are repeated in the mosaic at St Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai and help corroborate the 6th century dating of the mosaic. He also notes that the precision and delicacy used to construct the faces in Kiti echoed in the technique used on the faces of San Vitale at Ravenna. See Megaw 1974, 57–88.
See “Cherubim” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Kazhdan et al. 1991, vol. 1, 414).
Rorem and Luibheid 1987, 50–51.
PG 48, 724.
Anderson 1980.
Kucharek 1971, 478; see also 477–484.
Taft 1975, 53–118.
See Nasrallah, supra.
See the prayers accompanying the elevation of the sacrament immediately after the “Consecration,” when the celebrant raised first the bread and then the chalice over his head for all to see, in Jungmann, 1951, vol. 2, 202–217.
A pre-Christian precedent for this ritual can be found in a panel painting of the Archaic period, treating the offerings as too holy to handle. See Mathews 2016, fig. 2.3.
See forthcoming translation of Vrtʽanēs, Concerning Iconoclasts, by Maranci and van Lint.
Maranci and van Lint, forthcoming.
Arzoumanian 2008, 85–86.
Mango 1962.
Mango 1962, 85–86.
Mango 1962, 61, figs. 78, 88, 89.
Mango 1962, 44.
Mango 1962, 58.
Mango 1962, diagrams III and IV.
Mango 1962, 34.
See, for example Beledian 2019, 268 ff. and Donabédian 2019, 310–315.
Maranci 2021.
Bibliography
Anderson, D. (trans.) 1980. Saint John of Damascus. On the Divine images: Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine Images, Crestwood, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Arzoumanian, Z. (trans.) 2008. History of Armenia by Ukhtanes of Sebastia, Burbank, CA: AGBU.
Beledian, K. 2019. “L’invention des images: une expérience du regard au Vaspurakan”, in Pogossian—Vardanyan 2019, 253–290. DOI: 10.1163/9789004400993_011.
Chrysostomou, P.—Kefallonitou, F. 2001. Nikopolis, Athens: Ministry of Culture.
Donabédian, P. 2019. “Sainte-Croix d’Ałtʽamar. Sens symbolique, architectural et iconographique de la dédicace”, in Pogossian—Vardanyan 2019, 291–346. DOI: 10.1163/9789004400993_012.
Eastmond, A.—Hatzaki, M. (eds.) 2017. The Mosaics of Thessaloniki Revisited: Papers from the 2014 Symposium at the Courtauld Institute of Art, Athens: Kapon.
Evans, H. (ed.) 2004. Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557), New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Harrison, R.M. 1986. Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul. Vol. 1, The Excavations, Structures, Architectural Decoration, Small Finds, Coins, Bones, and Molluscs, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781400857975.
Harrison, R.M. 1989. A Temple for Byzantium: The Discovery and Excavation of Anicia Juliana’s Palace-Church in Istanbul, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Jungmann, J.A. 1951. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development, 2 vols, New York: Benziger Brothers, Inc.
Kiilerich, B. and Torp, H. 2017. The Rotunda in Thessaloniki and its Mosaics, Athens: Kapon.
Kitzinger, E. 1951. “Studies on Late Antique and Early Byzantine Floor Mosaics”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6, 81–122.
Kucharek, C. 1971. The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Its Origin and Evolution, Allendale, NJ: Alleluia Press.
Magness, J. 2005. “Heaven on Earth: Helios and the Zodiac Cycle in Ancient Palestinian Synagogues”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 59, 1–52.
Mango, C. 1962. Materials for the Study of the Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul, Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 8).
Maranci, C. 2021. “Visions of Ani: Software-recovered Painting from the Apse of the Cathedral and the Church of Saint Gregory “Abułamrencʽ””, Revue des Études Arméniennes 40, 233–261. DOI: 10.2143/REA.40.0.3290114.
Maranci, C.—van Lint, T.M., forthcoming. Translation of Vrtʽanēs, Concerning Iconoclasts.
Mathews, T.F. 1993. The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mathews, T.F. 1995. Art and Architecture in Byzantium and Armenia: Liturgical and Exegetical Approaches, Aldershot, Hampshire: Variorum.
Mathews, T.F. 2009–2010. “The Piety of Constantine the Great in his Votive Offerings”, Cahiers archéologiques 53, 5–16.
Mathews, T.F. 2016. The Dawn of Christian Art in Panel Paintings and Icons, Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum.
Megaw, A.H.S. 1974. “Byzantine Architecture and Decoration in Cyprus: Metropolitan or Provincial?”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 28, 57–88. DOI: 10.2307/1291355.
Metzger, B.M.—May, H.G. (eds). 1977. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, New York: Oxford University Press.
Nasrallah, L. 2017. “Ezekiel’s Vision in Late Antiquity: The Case of the Mosaic of Moni Latomou, Thessaloniki”, in Eastmond—Hatzaki 2017, 77–90.
PG 48 = John Chrysostom. “Ejusdem de incomprehensibili, contra anomoeos, absente episcopo.” In Migne, J.-P. (ed.) 1862. Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca. Vol. 48, Paris, 701–748.
PG 56 = John Chrysostom. “Interpretatio in Isaiam prophetam.” Migne, J.-P. (ed.) 1862. Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca. Vol. 56, Paris, 11–94.
Pogossian, Z.—Vardanyan, E. (eds.) 2019. The Church of the Holy Cross of Ałt‘amar: politics, art, spirituality in the Kingdom of Vaspurakan, Leiden—Boston: Brill (Armenian texts and Studies 3). DOI: 10.1163/9789004400993.
Rorem, P. (ed.)—C. Luibheid (trans.) 1987. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works. New York: Paulist Press.
Sancti Epiphanii ad Physiologum (Saint Epiphanius on the Physiologus) 1588. Antwerp: Christopher Plantin.
Taft, R.F. 1975. Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Pre-anaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium.
Kazhdan, A. et al. (eds). 1991. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acref/9780195046526.001.0001.
Vassilaki, M. 2004. “Two-Sided Icon with the Virgin Kataphyge and the Vision of Ezekiel”, in Evans 2004, 198–199.
Weitzmann, K. 1977. Late Antique and Early Christian Book Illumination, New York: Braziller.
Zachos, K. (ed.) 2007. Nikopolis B: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium (11–15 September 2002), 2 vols, Preveza: Actia Nikopolis Foundation.
Zachos, K. 2015. Archaeologikos odigos Nikopolis, Athēna: Ypourgeio Politismou kai Toursimou.