Journal articles on the topic 'Post-byzantine art'

The front cover of John Bintliff's Complete Archaeology of Greece is interesting. There is the Parthenon: as most of its sculptures have gone, the aspect is post-Elgin. But it stands amid an assortment of post-classical buildings: one can see a small mosque within the cella, a large barrack-like building between the temple and the Erechtheum, and in the foreground an assortment of stone-built houses – so this probably pre-dates Greek independence and certainly pre-dates the nineteenth-century ‘cleansing’ of all Byzantine, Frankish, and Ottoman remains from the Athenian Akropolis (in fact the view, from Dodwell, is dated 1820). For the author, it is a poignant image. He is, overtly (or ‘passionately’ in today's parlance), a philhellene, but his Greece is not chauvinistically selective. He mourns the current neglect of an eighteenth-century Islamic school by the Tower of the Winds; and he gives two of his colour plates over to illustrations of Byzantine and Byzantine-Frankish ceramics. Anyone familiar with Bintliff's Boeotia project will recognize here an ideological commitment to the ‘Annales school’ of history, and a certain (rather wistful) respect for a subsistence economy that unites the inhabitants of Greece across many centuries. ‘Beyond the Akropolis’ was the war-cry of the landscape archaeologists whose investigations of long-term patterns of settlement and land use reclaimed ‘the people without history’ – and who sought to reform our fetish for the obvious glories of the classical past. This book is not so militant: there is due consideration of the meaning of the Parthenon Frieze, of the contents of the shaft graves at Mycenae, and suchlike. Its tone verges on the conversational (an attractive feature of the layout is the recurrent sub-heading ‘A Personal View’); nonetheless, it carries the authority and clarity of a textbook – a considerable achievement.

The paper discusses the visual representations of St. Mark of Ephesus, under-researched in previous scholarship, which have survived in several monuments of post-Byzantine wall painting in the Balkans. These depictions are analyzed as visual testimonies of the veneration of Mark of Ephesus in the period under consideration, i.e. as important indicators of the presence, continuity and dissemination of his cult a long time before his official canonization in the 18th century. The paper also offers an overview of the different iconographic versions of the images of St. Mark of Ephesus. Finally, it examines the possible reasons for the emergence of images representing this famed anti-Unionist metropolitan in the discussed monuments. In this context, the images of Mark of Ephesus are considered through the prism of their placement in a given iconographic program; wherever possible, the role of the ktetor and artist in their creation is examined.

The image of the Virgin Mary breastfeeding the Christ Child belongs to the most fascinating and yet least researched themes of Byzantine Marian iconography. In the past it has been assumed that the images of the Virgin Galaktotrophousa derived from the art of the Italian Duecento and Trecento in the post-Byzantine period. However, there is sufficient ground to assume that these images were known already in the Middle Byzantine period and were popular during the period of the Paleologian dynasty.

"The aim of this paper is to highlight and briefly discuss some of the most problematic terms and concepts that recur in art historiography: for example, the words Byzantine, post-Byzantine, Eastern, Western and Local. These concepts are used in a misleading way not only by American and Western European authors, but also by Eastern and South-Eastern European ones: in fact, the “Balkan” art historiography based itself on the Western-European one, adopting its periodisation, terminology and interpretative framework, which led to a number of methodological problems that researchers are now trying to identify, discuss and, if possible, solve. Keywords: art historiography, South-Eastern Europe, silverwork, Byzantium. "

Seni lukis Byzantine adalah salah satu warisan kesenian dunia yang belum banyak dibahas oleh kalangan akademisi seni di Indonesia. Warisan seni lukis Byzantine sering disamakan dengan Ikonografi, yaitu gambar-gambar suci yang sampai hari ini masih dipertahankan fungsinya dalam gereja-gereja yang menggunakan ritus Byzantine (Gereja Orthodox dan Gereja Katolik Ritus Byzantine). Seni Byzantine dibagi tiga periode, yaitu awal, tengah, dan akhir, dimana pada periode Tengah-Akhir muncul ikon berjenis Menologion. Seni lukis Byzantine dikaji menggunakan Ikon Pesta Transfigurasi yang merupakan digitalisasi dari ikon aslinya yang berasal dari abad ke-16 untuk menjelaskan bentuk visual, struktur dan hubungannya dengan narasi. Kajian menemukan ada kesamaan antara visualisasi narasi ikon dengan struktur pesta Gerejawi yang memiliki tiga pola (Pra Pesta – Pesta – Pasca Pesta/Apodosis).Byzantine painting is one of the world's artistic heritage that art academics have not widely discussed in Indonesia. The legacy of Byzantine painting is often equated with iconography, which is sacred images that still retain their function in churches that use the Byzantine rite (Orthodox Church and Byzantine Rite Catholic Church). Byzantine art had developed in three periods, namely beginning, middle, and end, wherein the Middle-Late period, an icon of the Menologion type appears. The byzantine painting was studied using the Transfiguration Feast Icon, digitizing the original icon dating from the 16th century to explain its visual form, structure, and relationship to narrative. The study found similarities between the visualization of the iconic narrative and the ecclesiastical party structure with three patterns (Pre Pesta – Pesta – Post-Pesta / Apodosis).

This study is devoted to iconographic types of presentations of the martyrdom of St. Demetrios in post-Byzantine art, but it also includes later examples from the 18th and the 19th centuries, when the scene was entirely simplified. It also discusses the inclusion of presentations of the death of St. Demetrios in other iconographic cycles, as well as its significance for the iconographic formulae in presentations of the death of some other saints.

Co-operative patronage is based on the joint effort of individuals, lay or clerical, couples, families, colleagues, ecclesiastical and military authorities, or fellow citizens. Through the donor inscriptions are revealed the different categories of such co-operative patronage in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine society. In the Greek-speaking Post-Byzantine world, such types of anonymous groups of donors and benefactors most often came from a community as a whole, or certain inhabitants of a region, while collective donations by groups of monks were also widespread. The present paper examines the practice of anonymous collective sponsorships in Post-Byzantine Epirus, presenting the surviving monuments from the sixteenth to the seventeenth century and, in detail, the cases of anonymous collective sponsorships in a specific painting workshop of the eighteenth century, that of the so-called Kapesovite painters. In Post-Byzantine period the special privileges from the Ottomans and the development of trade, contributed to the Epirus’s cultural development. The tectonic transformations in the residential network of Epirus began in the late sixteenth century and increased after the seventeenth century. During the eighteenth century, the flourishing of Post-Byzantine art is a fact, indicating the gradual rise to prevalence of the parishes and the communities over the monastic establishments and individual donors. The financial and commercial privileges, especially after the treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca (1774), contributed decisively to religious monuments’ construction or renovation. The financial circumstances and the social cohesion of the Orthodox Christians in Epirus favored the increase of anonymous collective sponsorship in the eighteenth century. The monuments of that period evidence a significant amount of co-operative patronage, in which “anonymity” starred among the donors. The anonymous collective sponsorships indicates the community’s cohesion and the benefactor’s desire to create a legacy for future generations.

The development of Information Technology and Digital Humanities has brought numerous significant changes to the Cultural Heritage domain. The Digital Humanities has become a dynamic and fertile research field, and new projects and opportunities are constantly flourishing. The BYZART project perfectly fits this context. This project is coordinated by the Department of History and Cultures of the University of Bologna, embracing a wide consortium of partners from Bulgaria, Greece and Italy. It aims at enhancing Byzantine and Post-Byzantine artistic and cultural heritage within the Europeana platform. This project will enrich the existing Europeanacollections with about 75,000 new cultural and artistic multimedia objects relevant to Byzantine history and culture, including collections of digitized photos, video and audio content, and 3-D surveys and reconstructions. We have also established a liaison between the new materials and Byzantine-related content already existing on Europeana. The archival material collected and digitized by the BYZART consortium is of the greatest cultural and art-historical importance, but until now, it has not been properly evaluated or published. For this reason, BYZART aims to guarantee the preservation and evaluation of significant cultural heritage objects from a wide range of contexts, while also making them accessible to scholarly and general audiences alike.

Determined by its biblical origins, the birth of specifically Christian visual culture had to be given through overcoming the inevitable resistance of early church towards images. In order to find its stable place on late antique cultural scene, early byzantine art, thus, had to rely on support of religious and cultural patterns remote of magisterial artistic trends. Among those, contemporary theory recognizes as especially important: 1) cult of relics and 2) sealing practices. Crossing the possibility of theoretical definition of unique semiotic model standing behind those two cultural- religious practices with the fact that after iconoclasm byzantine art will be systematically distanced from both of them, this research attempts to explore the relation between iconophile theory and byzantine artistic production from a yet unexplored interpretative position. Hypothesis that category of indexical sign, as it is proposed by contemporary semiotics (based on Peircean legacy), can be used for extraction of this unique semiotic model is used here as a specific methodological tool for re-approach to both - 1) the pre-iconoclastic need for accentuating the indexical aspects of iconic images and 2) the mystery of post-iconoclastic radical distancing towards such a semiotic need. On the basis of such an integrated approach it is possible not only to search for more precise explanation of co-relations between artistic practices and contemporaneous (iconophile) theory, but to explain curious historical delay in application of this theoretic knowledge in artistic and liturgical realms, together with a late outburst of iconoclastic behaviour provoked by this very delay. Namely, one of the most prominent incarnations of pre-iconoclastic need for ?indexicalisation? of iconic medium, the mysterious Mandylion from Edessa, had very curious role in historical development of post-iconoclastic plastic arts in Byzantium. This specific object was miraculously and undividedly uniting both key indexical aspects of pre-iconoclastic cognitive settings in one icon - causally connected with the archetypehimself. However, exactly this kind of synthetic, relic-seal-image status turned out to be the specific semiotic stumbling stone in the process of application of iconophile theory in liturgical arts. This is why in XI century byzantine church decided to refrain Mandylion from public life for good and lock it in court chapel, under the protection of the emperor himself. As one of the most curious theological decisions of medieval Christianity, this extraordinary semiotic conversion was, actually, the final step in application of the most advanced achievements of the late iconophile theory, which was, at the same time, the first step in development of artistic system relaxed from the pressure of need for legalistic, causal validation of pictorial language.

ABSTRACTMedieval Byzantine debates regarding icons included fine distinctions between image, prototype, and symbol as these terms related to personhood. Iconodules and iconoclasts differed regarding the ability of art to represent the person. Must artistic representations of a person, to be justified, be consubstantial with the person represented and thus circumscribed, as iconoclasts believed? Or is it sufficient to refer to artistic representations as being symbolic of their human subjects? Embracing the victorious iconodule distinction between a person and artistic representations of the person raises questions regarding the manner in which an image can reveal a human being. Post-structuralist philosophers Maurice Blanchot and Kevin Hart have inverted this problematic. They begin the interpretation of icons and personhood not from the traditional understanding of the honor or worship paid to Christian icons. Instead, they examine the icon's deconstruction of the viewer. What results is an iconodule defense of a post-Cartesian “anthropological iconoclasm.”

A research protocol based on imaging techniques and physicochemical analyses was designed and carried out in order to investigate the construction technology of four panel paintings produced by a very important 18th century artist, hieromonk Dionysius from Fourna. Dionysius was the first painter of the post-Byzantine period who wrote an artists’ manual for the Eastern Orthodox painting art: he recorded and described in his treatise ‘Hermeneia of Art Painting’ the materials and construction techniques of the 18th century Christian painting. The contribution of Dionysius and his ‘Hermeneia of the Painting Art’ is decisive because it gathers all the previously scattered advice and guidelines about the construction of panel paintings and the information quoted by him is probably the only official recorded source of Eastern Orthodox art technology. In this context, four panel paintings signed by Dionysius were selected for scientific research: it is the first time that an effort is made to analytically characterize the materials used by the hieromonk, to recognize the construction technology, and examine whether it follows the recipes included in his manuscript or not.

Curtains constituted a standard component of the scenography of imperial ceremonies during the Middle and Late Byzantine period. This paper explores how curtains were used to control and ritualise sensory and perceptual access to the sacred person of the emperor and to manipulate emotive response to ritual performances. It also enquires into the way in which curtains, both as material objects and as symbols, were employed by those staging imperial ceremonies in order to articulate and communicate messages regarding the nature of the emperor's authority and his special status vis-à-vis his subjects. Paradoxically, the performative and symbolic potential that ensured the curtains’ use in imperial ceremonies led to their exclusion from the representation of the emperor in imperial portraiture, since post-Iconoclastic art did not admit veiled secrets.

AbstractThe representation of other arts in cinema can be regarded as a different semiotic system revealing what is hidden in the narrative, as a site of cultural meanings inherent to the cinematic apparatus addressing a pensive spectator, or a discourse on cinema born in the space of intermediality. In the post-1989 films of Romanian director Lucian Pintilie, painterly and sculptural references, as well as miniatures become figurations of cultural identity inside allegories about a society torn between East and West. I argue that art references are liberating these films from provincialism by transforming them into a discourse lamenting over the loss of Western, Christian and local values, endangered or forgotten in the post-communist era. In the films under analysis – An Unforgettable Summer (1994), Too Late (1996) and Tertium Non Datur (2006) – images reminding of Byzantine iconography, together with direct references and remediations of sculptures by Romanian-born Constantin Brâncuşi, participate in historico-political allegories as expressions of social crisis and the transient nature of values. They also reveal the tension between an external and internal image of Romania, the aspiration of the “other Europe” to connect with the European cultural tradition, in a complex demonstration of a “self-othering” process. I will also argue that, contrary to the existing criticism, this generalizing, allegorical tendency can also be detected in some of the films of the generation of filmmakers representing the New Romanian Cinema, for example in Radu Jude’s Aferim! (2015).1

Abstract. In 1985, the World Heritage Committee inscribed the site “Painted Churches in the Troodos Region” of the Republic of Cyprus on the UNESCO World Heritage List. The latter included nine Byzantine and Post Byzantine Churches to which a tenth church was added in 2001. In the framework of the IH-AT project, all the churches and the premises in their proximities were analysed using a wide array of non-destructive digital methodologies coupled with more traditional art-historical studies. Image- and Range-based techniques were used to document all the morphological features of the buildings with the final goal of understanding their humble architecture. Additionally, a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) was performed to investigate the presence of buried structures that, according to historical sources, were once surrounding the religious sites.For the exploitation and visualization of the extensive database by the scientific community and the public at large, a web portal comprised of reliable and efficient technology-ready tools have been developed.The proposed methodology was implemented to provide new insights on the churches’ architectural features; confirm the presence or absence of buried remains of archaeological interest; and help heritage professionals, with lack or minimal programming skills, to customize online visualizations of 3D interactive models.

Based on the complex interrelations between word and image, the present paper aims to elucidate the penetrating correlation of the theological thought of the time with the art of a specific epoch. The findings of this study emphasize on the Hesychasm and its influence over Byzantine iconography in the fourteenth century AD, especially in relation to the formation of a new, unusual form of mandorla, called “hesychastic type”. In order to explain its rise and further development in Byzantine and Post Byzantine iconography, the paper discusses the earliest extant patterns of the “hesychastic type” of mandorla from the very beginning of the century and compares them with several subsequent examples. The focal point of the research is to find out which one is the earliest known pattern of the “hesychastic type” of mandorla and the place where this type of the symbol has emerged. The generally shared view claims that the new form has been produced firstly in Thessaloniki and can be seen in the partially survived Transfiguration mosaics in the Holy Apostles Church there. However, this study proceeds from the assumption that the prime model originates from Constantinople, caused by the theological and artistic milieu in the metropolis and probably found its place first in the wall paintings of the Chora Church. In support of this hypothesis, we are going to pay particular attention to the evidences about the relationships between the first and the second city in the Empire, the obvious intervisuality between the iconographic models in both churches and to some data about the erroneous dating of the wall decorations of the Holy Apostles Church in Thessaloniki.

Based on the complex interrelations between word and image, the present paper aims to elucidate the penetrating correlation of the theological thought of the time with the art of a specific epoch. The findings of this study emphasize on the Hesychasm and its influence over Byzantine iconography in the fourteenth century AD, especially in relation to the formation of a new, unusual form of mandorla, called “hesychastic type”. In order to explain its rise and further development in Byzantine and Post Byzantine iconography, the paper discusses the earliest extant patterns of the “hesychastic type” of mandorla from the very beginning of the century and compares them with several subsequent examples. The focal point of the research is to find out which one is the earliest known pattern of the “hesychastic type” of mandorla and the place where this type of the symbol has emerged. The generally shared view claims that the new form has been produced firstly in Thessaloniki and can be seen in the partially survived Transfiguration mosaics in the Holy Apostles Church there. However, this study proceeds from the assumption that the prime model originates from Constantinople, caused by the theological and artistic milieu in the metropolis and probably found its place first in the wall paintings of the Chora Church. In support of this hypothesis, we are going to pay particular attention to the evidences about the relationships between the first and the second city in the Empire, the obvious intervisuality between the iconographic models in both churches and to some data about the erroneous dating of the wall decorations of the Holy Apostles Church in Thessaloniki.

Based on the complex interrelations between word and image, the present paper aims to elucidate the penetrating correlation of the theological thought of the time with the art of a specific epoch. The findings of this study emphasize on the Hesychasm and its influence over Byzantine iconography in the fourteenth century AD, especially in relation to the formation of a new, unusual form of mandorla, called “hesychastic type”. In order to explain its rise and further development in Byzantine and Post Byzantine iconography, the paper discusses the earliest extant patterns of the “hesychastic type” of mandorla from the very beginning of the century and compares them with several subsequent examples. The focal point of the research is to find out which one is the earliest known pattern of the “hesychastic type” of mandorla and the place where this type of the symbol has emerged. The generally shared view claims that the new form has been produced firstly in Thessaloniki and can be seen in the partially survived Transfiguration mosaics in the Holy Apostles Church there. However, this study proceeds from the assumption that the prime model originates from Constantinople, caused by the theological and artistic milieu in the metropolis and probably found its place first in the wall paintings of the Chora Church. In support of this hypothesis, we are going to pay particular attention to the evidences about the relationships between the first and the second city in the Empire, the obvious intervisuality between the iconographic models in both churches and to some data about the erroneous dating of the wall decorations of the Holy Apostles Church in Thessaloniki.

It is a great pleasure and an honour to be writing for the fortieth anniversary volume ofByzantine and Modern Greek Studies. As editor of the journal for some twenty years, from 1984 until 2004, I have watched the journal grow in stature and in esteem over that period, and I am delighted to see it continuing to do so in the hands of its current editors. In the first issue I edited, I also contributed an article that attempted to reconcile some very different approaches to the history of Byzantine society and culture, or at least, to show that such different approaches were not necessarily mutually exclusive. If now rather out-of-date in its content, that article remains a useful baseline for discussing the relationship between empirical research and writing and theoretical reflection.‘“Jargon” vs. “the facts”‘?was a comment about the confrontation that at the time appeared to exist between, very broadly speaking, those who were interested in questioning the theoretical assumptions underlying and informing their research, and those who were not interested in such debates, preferring to see them either as irrelevant or as inaccessible. In my concluding remarks, I suggested that Byzantine Studies in the mid-1980s was in the process of what T. S. Kuhn would have called a ‘paradigm shift‘, that is to say, a process through which a traditional set (or sets) of assumptions and priorities, as well as theories and approaches, is replaced by different sets of ideas. While the changes in the nature of the subject that have occurred since then have not been particularly marked, there have nevertheless been some interesting and important developments that have altered the framework within which some ways of looking at the medieval eastern Roman world are carried on. The so-called ‘linguistic turn‘, for example, pushed Byzantinists, in particular, scholars of Byzantine literature and visual culture, to grapple with various aspects of what might very broadly be termed post-modernist and post-structuralist theory. This is evident in some of the writing and publishing of the later 1980s and 1990s in particular, and in some respects has now been incorporated into our ‘ways of seeing’ the Byzantine world.2In particular issues of intertextuality, of authorial intention, of reception, and of the relativizing of cultural interpretive possibilities (in respect of our own perspective) have become part and parcel of scholarly discourse, thus greatly enriching our discipline.3Represented by more recent work in literary studies and art history especially, I believe this shift also facilitated a much greater degree of cross-disciplinary reading, comparative thinking, and in respect of historical context and setting, a generally more open approach to the medieval west and the Islamic world in terms of both material and method.4

<p>The paper focuses on the cultural components of a walking trail axed upon the ‘Theodoros Papagiannis’ collection of sculpture. The latter is hosted in the Museum of Contemporary Art of Helliniko, a village tucked within the Municipality of Northern Tzoumerka, Epirus, Greece. While the artist’s sculptures are also found in the Museum’s courtyard are they also admired along a walking trail that begins at the village’s entry point and ends at the Post-Byzantine Monastery of Tsouka. The research is carried out from the perspective of a walking trail’s cultural value. Our trail of interest joins two locations, the one being secular and the other sacred, thus defining an itinerary which unfolds along these two different attraction sites. As a result, the walker/traveler moves from one established location to the other, all the while objectifying the two and defining space under his/her own terms. He/She makes connections between both sites in order to restore the unity of space and thus becomes a travelling witness to the creation of a single narrative. He/She enjoys the privilege of the travelled route, as well as all that exists along this route.</p>

The archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann once met, in London, the poet Alfred Tennyson – who, though he saluted Mount Ida tenderly, never travelled much south of the Dolomites. In the course of conversation, Schliemann remarked: ‘Hissarlik, the ancient Troy, is no bigger than the courtyard of Burlington House’. ‘I can never believe that’, Tennyson replied. Most of us, I dare say, would understand Tennyson's disbelief – and agree, accordingly, with the sentiment that Troy the site is not a marvellous ‘visitor experience’. The location may be broadly evocative – for those imaginatively predisposed to survey a landscape of epic combat. Yet the excavated remains are rather underwhelming, and difficult to comprehend. The huge trench cut through the Bronze Age settlement by Schliemann, and the resultant spoil heap left on the northern edge of the citadel, certainly contribute to a sense of confusion. But that aside, the multiple layers of habitation, from c.3000 bc until Byzantine times, customarily represented like a pile of pancakes in archaeological diagrams, will test even those pilgrims arriving with some expertise in ancient construction methods. Choice finds from the city are lodged in remote museums; and the substantial extent of Troy in Hellenistic, Roman, and possibly earlier times, indicated mainly by geophysical prospection, is hardly discernible. So archaeologists, post-Schliemann, have to work hard to make the ‘Trojan stones speak’ – at least if they also wish to avoid the charge of being obsessed (as Schliemann notoriously was) with establishing some kind of historical reality for Homer's epic. The late Manfred Korfmann, director of the international excavations at Troy since 1988, produced an enthusiastic guidebook. Now his colleague C. B. Rose has made a one-volume synthesis of the results so far, The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Troy. This will be particularly welcome for students unable or unwilling to access the annual excavation journal, Studia Troica. But novices, I fear, may soon despair of grasping the phases of stratification and ceramic assemblage more often cited by the author than explained (e.g. ‘LH III2a/VIh’). And any reader seeking new answers for old questions about the site's relationship to ‘the Trojan War’ should prepare for disappointment. Much of the evidence for Troy in the late Bronze Age – the period of c.1250 bc, generally reckoned to correlate with events transformed into epic – remains elusive: where, for example, are graves comparable to those of Mycenae? On the other hand, the lesson of the multi-period approach is that Troy the historical city largely constructs its identity upon Troy the mythical citadel – as does the Troad region. So Rose does well to devote an entire chapter to the remarkable archaic sarcophagus recovered in 1994 from a tumulus in the Granicus valley, with scenes of the sacrifice of Polyxena, Hecuba's attendant distress, and some kind of celebration. The iconography here may not be easy to relate to the gender of the deceased (a middle-aged man, according to osteological analysis). Yet it makes a visual statement about the sort of mythical bloodline to be claimed in the region: and, in due time (for Rose's survey is chronological), we will see the epigraphic and monumental evidence for similar ancestral claims by members of the Julio-Claudian clan.

The depiction of St. Sisoes above the grave of Alexander the Great was formulated at the end of the 15th century. The image in question is a visual interpretation of a short song (?I see you, grave?), and it was often painted in the churches throughout the Balkans during the next two centuries. With references to the textual basis of this iconographic theme, as well as its meaning, the article is devoted to insufficiently studied Serbian examples of frescoes of St. Sisoes above Alexander?s tomb, preserved on the walls of several churches painted in the first half of the 17th century.

The article deals with the techniques of the moveable spectator position and summing up angles in Russian iconography. Those visual techniques, described by a number of researchers, pertain to the ‘basic grammar’ of post-iconoclastic Byzantine and medieval Russian art. Firstly, the sliding spectator position and the summation of the angles made it possible to show the depicted object simultaneously from several points of view – the icon-painter represented the visual figure in several mutually exclusive (with a fixed observer position) angles. The technique was used in Russian iconography primarily to demonstrate significant objects. Thus, in the space of the composition the creator of the image conveyed all the necessary information about the depicted object, saturating the picture with various semantic nuances and creating ‘micro-stories’. Less often the same technique could also be used to demonstrate peripheral objects. Secondly, the summation technique solved another task, demonstrating the dynamics of the character’s movement. In that case, it is not the painter who ‘moves’ (mentally examining the object from different positions), rather the hero of the visual story. Fixing different moments of time, the icon-painter transforms the depicted figure so that the character’s body freezes in an unnatural position. The position of the body conveys information about the direction of the movements of the hero depicted. The paper considers both typical and specific examples of the use of those techniques in medieval Russian art.

Arab military expansion was a real challenge to the Byzantine Empire. The defeats sustained in wars with the Arabs, whom the Byzantines called sometimes Hagarenes to refer to Biblical Hagar, forced new method of war waging. That knowledge was taken predominantly directly from battlefield. The Arab menace increased during the reign of Leo VI the Wise (886-912). Albeit not a soldier himself, he took an attempt to reorganize the Byzantine army and navy. Although it did not bring an immediate effect, the Empire gradually be­gan to initiative. The situation changed for better during the reign of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (911-959) and Romanos I Lekapenos (919-959). A peace with the Bulgarians allowed to collect substantial forces on the eastern border of the empire. The weakening of the Abbasids gave way to the Hamdanid dynasty from northern Iraq and Syria to grow to the most serious Byzantine adversary in mid- 10th century, particularly during the reign of Sayf al-Dawla (945-967), who re­corded some remarkable victories over the Byzantine forces. In 955 Nikephoros II Phokas took over the post of domesticos of the East. Along with his brother Leo, Strategos of Cappadocia and John Tzimiskes, they were able to change the course of war, winning some battles in northern Syria. The struggle with the Muslims resulted in a number of military treatises, the most known of which were attributed to emperors Leo VI and Nikephoros II Pho­kas. Although it is not certain if they were written by them themselves, they were certainly created on their behalf. Among several treatises of Leo VI, the Tactica seems to be the most interest­ing. The work divided in 20 chapters was meant as a handbook for military com­manders. It discussed the organization of infantry, cavalry and navy, and their use in war, as well as that of sieges, ambushes etc. Much attention was paid to Arab logistics. Remarkably little, if any attention was paid to religious grounds as a rea­son for expansion. Not too surprisingly, much of the work was dedicated to the methods of efficient struggle against Muslims; the author correctly identified both strong and week sides of the Byzantine army. Some points clearly suggest a desire to take over certain elements of organization and war art from the adversary. Also the treatise by Nikephoros Phokas represents equally good value as Tactica. In this work we find a number of details regarding both military and non-military customs of the Arabs, which is not surprising, as the author was a military commander, experienced in battles against the Muslims. For this reason we should respect even more the military knowledge of Leo’s Tactica, if we remember that the author was not a professional soldier. Interestingly enough, with the notable exception of Nikephoros Phokas, the authors of other treatises added little to the information contained in Leo’s work. The reason for that was explicitly laid out by an anonymous author of still another treatise, Βιβλίον τακτικόν, who wrote that the chiefs knew so much about the raids on the lands of the Hagarenes that there was no use to discuss them in detail.

During its long Byzantine and Post-Byzantine history Constantinople was the center for church art in general, but especially for music. This old city on the Bosporus maintained its prime position until the beginning of the 20th century when, because of new political and social conditions, the Greek people started to acquire their independence and freedom, and Athens became the new capital in the cultural as well as the political sense. During the first decades of the 20th century the Athenian music scene was marked by an intensive dispute between those musicians who leaned towards the European musical heritage and its methods in musical pedagogy, and those who called themselves traditionalists and were engaged in the preservation of traditional values of church and folk music. The best insight into the circumstances in which Greek musical life was getting a new direction are offered by the numerous musical journals published in Athens before the First World War. Among them, The Formigs is of the special interest, firstly because of the long period during which it was published (1901-1912), and secondly because of its main orientation. The editor Ioannes Tsoklis, a church chanter, and his main collaborator, the famous Constantinopolitan musician and theorist and later Principal of the Department for Byzantine music at Athens musical school Konstantinos Psahos, with other associates firmly represented the traditional position. That is why most of the published articles and the orientation of the journal generally were dedicated to the controversial problems and current musical events that were attracting public attention. The editorial board believed that there was a connection between the preservation of musical traditions and their development on one side, and foreign musical influences that were evident in the promotion of polyphonic church music, which had been totally foreign to the Greek Orthodox church until the end of the 19th century, on the other. Tsoklis and Psahos were resolved to provide enough reliable documented articles and theoretical and historical studies on church and folk music to pull up the church chanters and in such a way contribute to their better musical education. They assured that this would be the best way to attract and recruit church chanters struggling to maintain their own musical heredity. The Formigs thus served primarily in the so-called Greek music question, actuated with the aim of eliminating polyphonic music from liturgical practice. However, it also assisted in national endeavors to ensure that church and folk music would obtain separate status in official Greek musical education, which had been significantly changed by non-traditional, European methodology.

This study proposes a reconceptualization of the so called “Serbijan Baroque” reflected in the creation of eighteenth-century imperial province of the Banat. The corpus of this investigation consists of written sources and works of art, structurally analysed and decoded as traditional versus modern Baroque additions. Aesthetic influences of Byzantine, Russian, Ukrainian, Wallachian and Moldavian tradition were surpassed by the dynamism of the Baroque. The change of ideas led to a synthesis in the province of the Banat where the promoters of Serbijan Baroque, were sometimes mentioned as post-Brancovan style promoters (Wallachian Baroque). Nikola Neșcovici and Nedelcu Popovici are two trend settlers in whose evolution one can identify tradition and the need for modern iconography invested with didactic and moralizing values inculcated by the formation workshops.These vagrant painters settled in the imperial Banat and adopted Western iconographic formulas for the Serbijan Orthodox churches. In the Orthodox tradition there is a close connection between the shape of the monument and its related iconography. Enriched since the fifteenth-sixteenth centuries with spaces of vaulting systems, the eighteenth century Serbijan architecture promoted throughout cultural transfer ideas coming from different centers evolving into a distinctive episode within the Habsburg monarchy. The profile of the synthesis achieved by architecture and its mural and iconostasis decoration, is demonstrated by these interpretations, a perfect illustration of the concept defining the evolution od Serbijan Baroque subsumed under the term of Gesamtkunstwerk.

Relying on post-Byzantine tradition, eleven painters from five generations of the Dimitrijevic-Rafailovic family, accompanied by Maksim Tujkovic, painted several thousand icons and several hundred iconostases between the late seventeenth and the second half of the nineteenth century. They worked in major Orthodox Christian monasteries in Montenegro, Kosovo and Metohija, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Dalmatia, but their works can mostly be found in modest village churches in the Bay of Kotor (Cattaro) and on the South Adriatic coast. The decoration of these churches was financially supported by the local population headed by elders. Along with a reconstruction of their biographies and a chronological overview of their major works, this paper seeks to trace stylistic changes in the Bay of Kotor school of icon-painting. While simply varying a thematic repertory established in earlier periods, the painters from the Bay of Kotor were gradually introducing new details and themes adopted from Western European Baroque art under indirect influences coming from the monastery of Hilandar, Corfu, Venice and Russia. This process makes this indigenous school of icon-painting, which spanned almost two centuries, comparable to the work of Serbian traditional religious painters (zografs) and illuminators active north of the Sava and Danube rivers after the Great Migration of the Serbs (1690). Despite differences between the two, which resulted from different cultural and historical circumstances in which Serbs lived under Ottoman, Venetian and Habsburg rules, similarities in iconography and style, which were inspired by an urge to counteract proselytic pressures, are considerably more important.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG /> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 6.0pt; margin-right: 0cm; margin-bottom: 6.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; mso-para-margin-top: .5gd; mso-para-margin-right: 0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom: .5gd; mso-para-margin-left: 0cm; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;">The purpose of the present study is to provide insights into experimental research on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for developing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) skills and aspects of Byzantine history and culture in the context of Greek primary education. It aims at a) developing a CLIL project with a focus on Byzantine and post Byzantine history and culture for 6th primary school students; b) investigating the effects of CLIL on students’ skills performance after a total of 30 teaching sessions intervention; c) identifying whether CLIL instruction develops a more positive attitude towards FL and content learning. A multimodal and multisensory learning environment was created in order to support and enhance language skills and content knowledge. In such a context, students were encouraged to use language creatively through getting involved in communicative, problem-solving and inquiry-based activities. The positive effects of the project were indicated, particularly on students’ communicative skills. Also gains were recorded in relation to students’ enhancement of content knowledge and skills, as well their positive attitude towards FL and content learning.</p> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves /> <w:TrackFormatting /> <w:PunctuationKerning /> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas /> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF /> <w:LidThemeOther>EL</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables /> <w:SnapToGridInCell /> <w:WrapTextWithPunct /> <w:UseAsianBreakRules /> <w:DontGrowAutofit /> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark /> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning /> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents /> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps /> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math" /> <m:brkBin m:val="before" /> <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45;-" /> <m:smallFrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispDef /> <m:lMargin m:val="0" /> <m:rMargin m:val="0" /> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup" /> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440" /> <m:intLim m:val="subSup" /> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr" /> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading" /> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><! /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Κανονικός πίνακας"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} --> <!--[endif] -->

Abstract By focusing on the known details of Laonikos Chalkokondyles’ biography, on his relation to Byzantine historiographical tradition, by comparing his historical work to that of contemporary intellectuals living under the Ottomans as well as those in the west, examining his portrayal of Mehmed II, his adoption of a Herodotean model, the revival of Herodotus in the Renaissance more generally, and the reception of the ᾿Aπόδειξις in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, I argue that Laonikos was writing for an elite circle of Byzantine émigrés and other intellectuals with access to classical Greek in the west, rather than for the post- Byzantine intellectuals associated with the Ottoman court.

This paper deals with a specific iconographic type of Archangel Michael: he is shown bearing a soul in the form of a swaddled infant, while subduing an old man who is wearing only a loincloth. Who is Michael subduing? Three possible answers are considered: 1) the figure can be identified with Satan the fallen angel who, like Michael, has an immaterial nature and is commonly considered as his enemy par excellence; 2) he can also be an anonymous sinner, whose soul is depicted in Michael's hand; 3) finally, one could identify him with Hades, the god of the Underworld and personification of death, because he is depicted as an old man, semi-nude with a pronounced musculature, as well as because of the assimilation of Michael to God. Rather than making a single choice, the author proposes a combined interpretation of the image, which allows for the integration of all the aspects of Michael's cult (military, triumph over Satan, psychopomp, archangel of the Last Judgment) and unifies the past (the fall of Satan), the present (death of a sinner) and the future (Last Judgment).

Church dignitaries were often represented as ktetors in Serbian painting of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, primarily in wall paintings and on icons. The first part of this paper discusses twelve ktetor representations of Serbian patriarchs and metropolitans. By analyzing the ktetoric projects of Orthodox Serbs within the Ottoman Empire, the historical framework and description of every portrait, it explores the questions regarding not only the self-referentiality of the ktetors from the highest circles of the clergy under the Patriarchate of Pec, the patterns and ways they wanted to be represented and remembered, but also the ideological and program context as well. Finally, this two-part study attempts to examine the question of individual and collective identity, imagery and ideas constructing the visual culture of clerical ktetorship in Serbian Post-Byzantine painting.

The paper deals with the iconographical type of saint Theodore Stratelates and saint Theodor Teron facing each other. The author focuses on its appearance, its flourishing, as well as its diffusion, which is seen mainly in the area of Macedonia and in the Balkans.

In the first half of the 19th century in literature on art the term ‘Old Masters’ was disseminated (Alte Meister, maître ancienns, etc.), this in relation to the concept of New Masters. However, contrary to the widespread view, it did not result from the name institutionalization of public museums (in Munich the name Alte Pinakothek was given in 1853, while in Dresden the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister was given its name only after 1956). Both names, however, feature in collection catalogues, books, articles, press reports, as well as tourist guides. The term ‘Old Masters’ with reference to the artists of the modern era appeared in the late 17th century among the circles of English connoisseurs, amateur experts in art (John Evelyn, 1696). Meanwhile, the Great Tradition: from Filippo Villani and Alberti to Bellori, Baldinucci, and even Winckelmann, implied the use of the category of ‘Old Masters’ (antico, vecchio) in reference to ancient: Greek-Roman artists. There existed this general conceptual opposition: old (identified with ancient) v. new (the modern era). An attempt is made to answer when this tradition was broken with, when and from what sources the concept (and subsequently the term) ‘Old Masters’ to define artists later than ancient was formed; namely the artists who are today referred to as mediaeval and modern (13th–18th c.). It was not a single moment in history, but a long intermittent process, leading to 18th- century connoisseurs and scholars who formalized early-modern collecting, antiquarian market, and museology. The discerning and naming of the category in-between ancient masters (those referred to appropriately as ‘old’) and contemporary or recent (‘new’) artists resulted from the attempts made to systemize and categorize the chronology of art history for the needs of new collector- and connoisseurship in the second half of the 16th and in the 17th century. The old continuum of history of art was disrupted by Giorgio Vasari (Vite, 1550, 1568) who created the category of ‘non-ancient old’, ‘our old masters’, or ‘old-new’ masters (vecchi e non antichi, vecchi maestri nostri, i nostri vecchi, i vecchi moderni). The intuition of this ‘in-between’ the vecchi moderni and maestri moderni can be found in some writers-connoisseurs in the early 17th (e.g. Giulio Mancini). The Vasarian category of the ‘old modern’ is most fully reflected in the compartmentalizing of history conducted by Carel van Mander (Het Schilder-Boeck, 1604), who divided painters into: 1) oude (oude antijcke), ancient, antique, 2) oude modern, namely old modern; 3) modern; very modern, living currently. The oude modern constitute a sequence of artists beginning with the Van Eyck brothers to Marten de Vosa, preceding the era of ‘the famous living Netherlandish painters’. The in-between status of ‘old modern’ was the topic of discourse among the academic circles, formulated by Jean de La Bruyère (1688; the principle of moving the caesura between antiquité and modernité), Charles Perrault (1687–1697: category of le notre siècle preceded by le siècle passé, namely the grand masters of the Renaissance), and Pellegrino Antonio Orlandi writing from the position of an academic studioso for connoisseurs and collectors (Abecedario pittorico, 1704, 1719, 1733, 1753; the antichimoderni category as distinct from the i viventi). Together with Christian von Mechel (1781, 1783) the new understanding of ‘old modernity’ enters the scholarly domain of museology and the devising of displays in royal and ducal galleries opened to the public, undergoing the division into national categories (schools) and chronological ones in history of art becoming more a science (hence the alte niederländische/deutsche Meister or Schule). While planning and describing painterly schools at the Vienna Belvedere Gallery, the learned historian and expert creates a tripartite division of history, already without any reference to antiquity, and with a meaningful shift in eras: Alte, Neuere, and lebende Meister, namely ‘Old Masters’ (14th–16th/17th c.), ‘New Masters’ (Late 17th c. and the first half of the 18th c.), and contemporary ‘living artists’. The Alte Meister ceases to define ancient artists, while at the same time the unequivocally intensifying hegemony of antique attitudes in collecting and museology leads almost to an ardent defence of the right to collect only ‘new’ masters, namely those active recently or contemporarily. It is undertaken with fervour by Ludwig Christian von Hagedorn in his correspondence with his brother (1748), reflecting the Enlightenment cult of modernité, crucial for the mental culture of pre-Revolution France, and also having impact on the German region. As much as the new terminology became well rooted in the German-speaking regions (also in terminology applied in auction catalogues in 1719–1800, and obviously in the 19th century for good) and English-speaking ones (where the term ‘Old Masters’ was also used in press in reference to the collections of the National Gallery formed in 1824), in the French circles of the 18th century the traditional division into the ‘old’, namely ancient, and ‘new’, namely modern, was maintained (e.g. Recueil d’Estampes by Pierre Crozat), and in the early 19th century, adopted were the terms used in writings in relation to the Academy Salon (from 1791 located at Louvre’s Salon Carré) which was the venue for alternating displays of old and contemporary art, this justified in view of political and nationalistic legitimization of the oeuvre of the French through the connection with the tradition of the great masters of the past (Charles-Paul Landon, Pierre-Marie Gault de Saint-Germain). As for the German-speaking regions, what played a particular role in consolidating the term: alte Meister, was the increasing Enlightenment – Romantic Medievalism as well as the cult of the Germanic past, and with it a revaluation of old-German painting: altdeutsch. The revision of old-German art in Weimar and Dresden, particularly within the Kunstfreunde circles, took place: from the category of barbarism and Gothic ineptitude, to the apology of the Teutonic spirit and true religiousness of the German Middle Ages (partic. Johann Gottlob von Quandt, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe). In this respect what actually had an impact was the traditional terminology backup formed in the Renaissance Humanist Germanics (ethnogenetic studies in ancient Germanic peoples, their customs, and language), which introduced the understanding of ancient times different from classical-ancient or Biblical-Christian into German historiography, and prepared grounds for the altdeutsche Geschichte and altdeutsche Kunst/Meister concepts. A different source area must have been provided by the Reformation and its iconoclasm, as well as the reaction to it, both on the Catholic, post-Tridentine side, and moderate Lutheran: in the form of paintings, often regarded by the people as ‘holy’ and ‘miraculous’; these were frequently ancient presentations, either Italo-Byzantine icons or works respected for their old age. Their ‘antiquity’ value raised by their defenders as symbols of the precedence of Christian cult at a given place contributed to the development of the concept of ‘ancient’ and ‘old’ painters in the 17th–18th century.

This paper presents preliminary results of the Palamas Archaeological Project relating to the Late Roman and Early Byzantine periods in the study area in western Thessaly, Greece. These periods are comparatively understudied in Thessaly, and the aim of this work is to highlight the extent of the material and the potential of investigating the archaeology of Late Antiquity in the region. The work was centred on excavations and survey at the site at Vlochos, alongside architectural survey at the neighbouring site on Kourtikiano hill. The paper also presents studies into Late Roman and Early Byzantine material found during cleaning at Vlochos. Additionally, an unpublished inscription spoliated in a church in nearby Palamas is presented. The results show a dynamic and detailed range of Late Antique activity in the area, adding significantly to our understanding of the post-Classical habitations on the western Thessalian plain.

Owing to its geographical location, Istria was not directly exposed to the devasta- tion in the fourth and fifth centuries, when it avoided both the civil wars and the migratory movements accompanied by invasions of wandering barbarian tribes. After the victory of Christianity, newly created city elites, with the bishop at the helm, had, since the early fifth century, managed the construction activities in cities, primarily relating to monumental projects, which altered the physical appearance of the cityscape. Local peculiarities are often considered as one of the most import- ant factors both for the process of change and for the endurance of the preexist- ing values in political and religious life. Recent studies, however, suggest that the transformation of post-Roman cities was not exclusively a consequence of intense Christianization. The emergence of the new city elite was the result of a conscious effort by the representatives of state authorities. This phenomenon is noticeable as early as the Late Roman Empire and persisted during the times of the barbar- ian states of Odoacer and Theoderic. In Istria it is most evident during Byzantine reign when the intertwining of political and religious spheres is the clearly visible in post-classical urban centres. This phenomenon can be detected thanks to a greater number of written and material sources. The events that took place in the aftermath of the Byzantine-Gothic war and Justinianʼs reconquest of the former Arian regions between 535 and 555 were an intentional reaction of the Byzantine political and religious power centres. Their primary objective was the cleansing of the vestiges of the Arian heresy, followed by the construction of new Christian edifices. The spon- sors of these building projects were Justinian himself, then bishops, state officials and members of the aristocracy. Justinianʼs conquest of the territories of the Ostro- gothic Kingdom between the Alps and the Adriatic Sea – including Istria – caused not only social-political, but also religious-political changes. The transformation of Ravenna into a political power centre during the reign of Theoderic also marks a turning point for the historical development of Istria, although one should consider the situation on the peninsula before the onset of Byzantine rule, as well.

The Transfiguration constitutes one of the most important events in the New Testament. Yet, only few pre-iconoclastic examples of the Transfiguration scene have survived: S. Apollinaire in Classe, Ravenna, St. Catherine Monastery, Sinai and Porec in Istria, each has its unique iconography. Therefore, scholars have concluded that the Transfiguration scene became widespread only after the iconoclastic controversy. We aim to show, that Transfiguration scene in Shivta, an early Byzantine settlement in the Negev desert, allows a glimpse into the early Christian iconography of the well-known scene, providing a missing link to its development in the post-iconoclastic period.

Owing to old photographic plates that recorded those segments of the mural decoration of Davidovica on the Lim which were later destroyed or considerably damaged, it is possible to put forward a more complete reconstruction of its thematic program. The programmatic and iconographic features of both the destroyed frescoes and the surviving ones correspond to the solutions that can be found in Post-Byzantine painting. The palaeographic analysis of inscriptions and the analysis of the style of the murals in the dome, the area under the dome and both chapels in Davidovica clearly indicate that we are dealing with paintings done in the second half of the sixteenth century.

AbstractOn the basis of the Post-Roman surface finds from the Boeotia Survey in central Greece, the use and social meaning of glazed vessels as table utensils from Byzantine to Ottoman times (ca. 10th–19th centuries A.D.) will be discussed, as well as the cultural changes in dining manners in that period. It is the intention of this paper to approach this evolution of “wining and dining” habits in an interdisciplinary perspective, in which archaeological data, textual sources and iconographical information will be combined.