Palaeologan Luxury Art in a “Period of Decline”: Byzantine Enamel of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries and Its Potential for Innovation

Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Lecturer in Art History, Justus Liebig University Gießen, Germany

#Retour à la publication Imprimer la page

Byzantine enamels were luxury items of the Middle Ages, desired in Byzantium and beyond.1 Very high-quality cloisonné enamels that covered gold surfaces were produced in Byzantium from the ninth century onwards and were used to adorn crowns, icon covers, liturgical implements, jewellery, and even horse harnesses and saddles.2 As diplomatic gifts, these objects impressed foreign dignitaries and rulers. The earliest surviving enamels suggest that it was an imperial art.3 Although becoming more common after the tenth century,4 enamels of the later middle and the late Byzantine period are considered to be representative of luxury art, primarily commissioned by the imperial court, the aristocracy, and the high clergy.

Today, we can get an impression of this highly skilful art through roughly a thousand enamels housed in collections all over the world (this figure refers to single enamel plaques, which were often grouped in series on objects, such as icon frames or book covers).5 However, this is only a fraction of what must have been produced.6 Most of the surviving enamels date to the tenth and eleventh centuries, whilst only a few have been attributed to the twelfth century. The evidence for late Byzantine enamels from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries7 is even scarcer and has not been the focus of research until recently.8

An important aspect regarding the arts in the late Byzantine period is the political and economic history of the empire.9 Geographical and economic decline in this period and their relationship to the arts, and to luxury arts in particular, must be taken into consideration. A significant upturn in architecture, fresco, and icon painting in the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries seems at odds with the economic situation following the Latin Occupation (1204–1261) and the recapture of the Byzantine Empire. However, Byzantine enamels are usually seen as “victims” of this economic decline, and there are indeed fewer examples from this period as well as noticeable changes in their production. Later Byzantine enamels were usually made of less valuable materials (gilded silver or copper instead of gold), and the colours tend to be opaque rather than translucent. They seem to lack the lustre and brilliance of enamels from the ninth to eleventh centuries, and the enamellists were thought to have been merely replicating older techniques and styles in lower quality.

This paper aims to demonstrate that later Byzantine enamels still manifest a high degree of technical proficiency and elegance. Thus, Byzantine enamel of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries should be seen from a new and more nuanced perspective, focusing on the technical and visual innovation and resourcefulness of the enamellists who continued to produce high-quality artworks in the face of economic decline.10

State of Research and Research Problems

First, it is necessary to discuss the state of research and the challenges in studying Byzantine enamels. Having had much attention in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was not until 1967 that Klaus Wessel published the reference work Die byzantinische Emailkunst, also translated into English as Byzantine Enamel.11 Wessel finished his catalogue with two objects that can be considered key works of the art of enamelling. Wessel’s cat. no. 65 is an icon located in Freising, Germany, since the fifteenth century (figs. 1 and 2) that features enamel medallions on its frame. It has been dated to the thirteenth century, but this date has recently been challenged.12 The second object is a Palaeologan book cover from the fourteenth century (Wessel’s no. 66; see fig. 3, detail): “And so we come to the end of the dated Byzantine enamels.”13 Despite its age, Wessel’s book is still a frequently used reference work, but there is much more to say on Byzantine enamels today, especially on those from the late Byzantine period. After Wessel’s book was published, scholarly interest in enamels has largely ceased, with two exceptions. David Buckton and Paul Hetherington have both published extensively on particular objects or groups of objects, and Buckton in particular has identified many inauthentic Byzantine enamels.14

Fig. 1. Byzantine icon in the Diocesan Museum Freising, Germany; frame: probably fourteenth century, enamels: thirteenth to fourteenth centuries (© Diocesan Museum Freising; photo: Jens Bruchhaus)

Fig. 2. Enamel medallion on the Freising Icon frame with a depiction of the Saint Paul; thirteenth to fourteenth century (© Diocesan Museum Freising; photo: Jens Bruchhaus)

Fig. 3. Enamel medallion on a Palaeologan book cover in the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venice, with the depiction of the Prophet Moses; fourteenth century (photo: Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie)

A major problem for researchers of Byzantine enamel is that forgeries, copies, and disputed enamels have blurred the picture. An example is a pair of gold earrings that bears the image of an emperor called Ioannes, attributed to John I Tzimiskes (969–976). With their supposed imperial image, these earrings were seen as rare examples of dated Byzantine enamel.15 However, after the composition of the enamel on the earrings was analysed, the enamels turned out to be from the nineteenth century.16 The group of so-called Botkins has also obscured research on Byzantine enamels. These high-quality Byzantine-style enamels were made around 1900 in Russia (many by a Fabergé enameller) and sold to the collector and patron of the arts Mikhail Botkin.17 Their indisputable high quality makes it difficult for the untrained eye to distinguish them from authentic Byzantine enamels.18 Even the eleventh-century Monomachos Crown in Budapest, one of the most famous dated Byzantine enamel works, has been disputed,19 although it would have been virtually impossible for a nineteenth-century enamel forger in the age before colour photography to produce enamels so close to the colours and style of other Byzantine enamels.20

Another problem in researching these objects is the difficulty in attributing Byzantine enamels, unless inscriptions enlighten us regarding their provenance. A group of supposedly Byzantine enamels was reused on the Theophanu Cross and a reliquary of the Holy Nail in the Treasury of Essen, Germany. Both were commissioned by the early eleventh-century abbess Theophanu of the Essen Convent (granddaughter of the Byzantine princess Theophanou, who had married the Holy Roman Emperor Otto II).21 Often claimed to be Byzantine enamels, they are, however, Ottonian and originally belonged to the nimbus of the Golden Madonna in Essen, Germany, an Ottonian masterpiece of the late tenth century.22 The Artukid Bowl in Innsbruck was also often considered a Byzantine object. However, according to Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, it was most likely produced by a Greek workshop in Seljuk Anatolia before 1130.23 The Artukid Bowl has strengthened the view that opaque enamel on copper was a later development of Byzantine enamel, introduced after the tenth- and eleventh-century heyday of Byzantine enamel on gold with bright, translucent colours. However, a recently published enamel on copper excavated in Preslav, Bulgaria, and attributed to Byzantine craftsmen, was dated to the late tenth or eleventh centuries, which might change our ideas about dating enamel on copper.24 An example that will be discussed in more detail later in this paper is the group of 87 enamel medallions attached to a mitre in Stockholm that bear Latin inscriptions (figs. 4 and 5). They were attributed to thirteenth-century Latin-ruled Constantinople, but it is more likely that they are from Sicily around 1300.25

Fig. 4. Mitre of Bishop of Linköping, Kettil Karlsson Vasa (1458-65), in the Historiska Museet, Stockholm (photo: Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie)

Fig. 5. Enamel medallion of the Linköping Mitre in the the Historiska Museet, Stockholm, with a depiction of Saint Mark (photo: Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie)

Research has mostly focused on the works of enamel art of the ninth to eleventh centuries,26 the most attractive objects with their predominantly translucent colours, and the emerald-green background of the earliest pieces. Examples of dated enamels from this period are the so-called Fieschi-Morgan Staurotheke (cross reliquary) in the Metropolitan Museum New York (which dates from the first quarter of the ninth century);27 the enamelled “votive crown” of Emperor Leo VI the Wise (886–912) in the treasury of San Marco in Venice,28 and two chalices in the same museum naming an emperor Romanos in their inscriptions, often ascribed to Romanos II (945–963).29 A magnificent ensemble of enamelled Byzantine jewellery is the Preslav Treasure found in Preslav, Bulgaria (datable to between the late ninth century and 971, most likely around 927).30 Another pivot for dating Byzantine enamels is the large tenth-century Limburg Staurotheke,31 donated by Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenetos and his son and co-emperor Romanos II, later embellished by the Proedros Basileios, according to its inscription.

The enamels of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries form a much smaller corpus of objects. Enamels of this period have not been researched as intensively as the earlier pieces, and studies have often focused on other issues such as the paintwork of icons whilst the frames or backgrounds embellished with enamel have been largely ignored.32

Techniques of Byzantine Enamel

The earliest datable Byzantine enamels of the ninth and first half of the tenth centuries, such as the aforementioned Fieschi-Morgan-Staurotheke and the “votive crown” ascribed to Emperor Leo VI the Wise, were cloisonné or Vollschmelz enamels, covering the whole surface, and the enamel colours were separated by flat wires (cloisons). This technique seems to have been abandoned rather quickly in favour of émail enfoncé or Senkschmelz, introduced in the first half of the tenth century. Here, émail cloisonné is restricted to recessed areas, chased into a sheet metal (it is actually a sub-technique of the former). The earliest datable examples of Senkschmelz are the diadem plaques in the Preslav Treasure, probably made around 927.33 Émail champlevé or Grubenschmelz refers to enamels in cut-out (instead of chased) recesses, often engraved lines. It was also in use at a very early stage, on the diadem plaques in the Preslav Treasure, albeit just small details. In the ninth through eleventh or twelfth centuries, gold was usually employed as the base for enamel. Later, we predominantly encounter silver as the base for the enamel and for the cloisons separating the different colour fields from each other, with gilding applied after the enamelling process.

In the late Byzantine period, enamels were made using all three of those enamel techniques. But there were also new ways of applying enamel, especially in the wake of the Crusades, which had led to an increased exchange of techniques with the West: émail champlevé and Gothic basse taille enamel, the latter introduced in thirteenth-century Italy. The émail en ronde bosse technique was the primary method used for enamels on three-dimensional surfaces, either relief or sculpture. It was to my knowledge employed only for two Byzantine objects: the twelfth-century icon of the Archangel Michael in Venice34 and the thirteenth-century Demetrios relief icon from the Guelph Treasure, now in Berlin35 (fig. 6). The latter used other unusual enamel methods that we will explore later: pseudo-champlevé, a variation of basse taille enamel and enamel with the appearance of set gemstones.

Fig. 6. Demetrios Icon with different enamel techniques in the Kunstgewerbemuseum Berlin; thirteenth century (© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kunstgewerbemuseum; photo: Karen Bartsch)

Visual Appearance of Enamel in the Twelfth Century and After

In general, the appearance of enamels of the twelfth century and after differ from the earlier pieces with regard to their colour range and surface texture. They are almost entirely opaque and seem to lack the brilliance of earlier pieces. The typical radiating emerald green of enamels from the tenth- and eleventh-centuries seems to have disappeared in later enamels. Whether this was due to a lack of technical knowledge or a change in taste remains unclear, but since high-quality enamels continued to be produced, as will be shown, the latter seems more likely.

The quality of later Byzantine enamel was often considered lower than those of tenth- and eleventh-century enamels. In close-up view, the surfaces of most examples appear less brilliant, cracked, and unpolished. The number of bubbles that appear in enamel during the firing process is generally higher, which makes the surface look lacklustre. However, this is not always the case: the Demetrios pendant in the British Museum (fig. 7), dated to the twelfth or thirteenth century,36 shows a broad colour scheme with eleven different tones: four different shades of blue (lapis lazuli blue, lighter blue, turquoise and greyish light blue), light and dark green, yellow, red, white, black, and flesh colour). The image of the saint, the background and the inscription on the rim (typical white on blue for later enamels) have a very smooth and shiny surface. Its closest parallel in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (fig. 8)37 is visually different, appearing matte and lacking brilliance. However, under the microscope, the enamels reveal an advanced state of deterioration, which gives this misleading impression. The Freising enamels38 (figs. 1 and 2) neither display their original brilliance due to an inadequate restoration. The original quality of those enamels, however, can be judged from the proficiency of their execution, such as the accurate setting of cloisons and the rich colour scheme, proving that a high-quality work was still produced in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

Fig. 7. Small reliquary pendant of Saint Demetrios, with the figure of Saint Georgios on the back, British Museum, London; thirteenth century (photo: Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie)

Fig. 8. Small reliquary pendant with the figure of Saint Demetrios in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, Washington D.C., early thirteenth century (© Dumbarton Oaks Collection)

The difference in later enamels’ colours and the preference for opaqueness is a tendency beginning in the twelfth century, as one can see from the famous late twelfth-century Esztergom Staurotheke (fig. 9).39 In particular, the colour green is noteworthy: its “grassy” tone differs strikingly from the bright emerald green used on ninth- through eleventh-century objects. The cloisons within the figures are set in what could be called a “graphic style”, particularly with regard to the garments’ folds, turning in right angles, which is typical for enamels of this period. According to the research of Günter Prinzing, the central enamel with the crucifixion scene must have been the one sent from Constantinople to the Bishop of Esztergom in Hungary around 1190 as a diplomatic gift40 (the frame is later and can be dated to the mid-fourteenth century,41 see below). Thus, the crucifixion scene would have represented the acme of Byzantine craftmanship, the quality of which is again perceivable from the accurate cloison design and the broad range of colours. Although the appearance of ninth- through eleventh- century objects might be more appealing to the modern eye, later enamels with their rather “abstract” style of cloisons, the different colours and colour qualities should be valued objectively and not seen as a sign of decreased quality. In light of the more or less seamless production of enamels until the fourteenth century, the observed changes in enamels should rather be ascribed to a change in taste.

Fig. 9. Esztergom Staurotheke, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption and Saint Adalbert, Treasury; central enamel plaque with crucifixion around 1190, frame: mid-14th century (from Prinzing, 2013, p. 247, fig. 1)

Figural Enamel in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries

A small group of enamelled objects was dated to the thirteenth century on the basis of their style, among them the aforementioned small round Demetrios reliquaries (British Museum, Dumbarton Oaks Collection; figs. 7 and 8), originally worn as pendants, and two plaques depicting Saint Nicholas of Myra and Basil the Great in the Kremlin.42 In this group of “traditional” figural enamels, which usually depict Christ, Mary, saints, and the hetoimasia (the empty throne prepared for the return of the Messiah) we can count the frame of the mosaic icon of John the Theologian with ten round Senkschmelz medallions, dated to the early fourteenth century. It has been suggested that the enamel medallions on the icon frame were reused,43 but there seems to be no reason to assume they were not made for the mosaic icon we can see today.44 If we accept the dates given for these enamels, we also have to accept that there was a pluralism of style. None of them seem to be made by the same hand or the same workshop, so a stylistic comparison remains difficult.

With regard to enamels, the thirteenth century presents more difficulties since the two large groups of enamels that had been assumed to be securely dated examples have been challenged recently, their dates and attributions doubted. This changes our perception of thirteenth-century enamel considerably. Both were thought to date from the period in which Constantinople was under Latin Occupation: first, the enamel medallions on the icon of the Virgin in Freising, Germany, which were believed to be from mid-thirteenth-century Thessaloniki (which was in Byzantine hands again from 1246 onward); and, second, the enamels on a mitre in Stockholm. The latter bear Latin inscriptions and were presumed to have been made in Constantinople during Latin rule (1204–1261).

Enamel Medallions on the Freising Icon

In Wessel’s book on Byzantine enamels, the second to last catalogue entry is the one on the Freising Icon, according to legend painted by Saint Luke (figs. 1 and 2).45 This icon has a silver-gilt frame with ten enamel medallions and an enamelled inscription that mentions the donor Manuel Dishypatos. He was traditionally identified with the metropolitan of Thessaloniki, who held this office sometime between 1250 and 1256 and was banned in 1260/1261.46 Since his title is not mentioned in the inscription, the frame and the enamelled medallions were dated to before he held office. The paintwork itself and the cover of the painted icon’s background can be ascribed to a later phase in the second half of the fourteenth century,47 before the icon was taken to Europe in 1399 by Manuel II Palaeologos (1391–1425) on his journey to European rulers to request support in defending the Byzantine Empire from Ottoman attacks.

The ten enamel medallions made on a gilded silver base show the following figures: in the top row from left to right, an archangel, probably Michael (without inscription), the hetoimasia, and (the empty throne, prepared for the return of the Messiah), the Archangel Gabriel (the archangels in frontal view); then in the second row, Peter and Paul (in profile, turning to the Virgin Mary); underneath Saint George and Saint Demetrios; and in the bottom row Saint Kosmas, Saint Panteleimon, and Saint Damian (all in frontal view) – the latter is almost lost, but the remains of the inscriptions allow to identify the saint. The eight different colours of the enamels are all opaque: red, black, white, pink (for faces and hands), yellow, green, turquoise, and blue.

The figural enamels of the Freising Icon have been discussed by various scholars. In 1964, Andreas Xyngopoulos48 found that they display an early Palaeologan style. Jozsef Deér thought that the enamels had been reused and dated them to before 1235.49 Klaus Wessel assumed that all enamels were made in the same period, around 1250, despite the differences in frontal and profile view and the “more Palaeologan style” of the enamels in the top rows.50 The main reason for his grouping of them was the similarity of the inscriptions. However, Marcell Restle divided the ten enamels into two groups because of their different postures.51 He thought that the five enamels in the top rows fit the historical date of before 1258 (the assumed beginning of Manuel Dishypatos’ office), whilst the lower enamels were believed to be older and reused. David Buckton spoke against this assessment52 and argued that all of the Senkschmelz enamels “form perfect arrangements of associated saints, and militating against an earlier date is the chemistry of the glasses”.53

This view has been corroborated by recent research. All of the enamel medallions share common features: the same size of approximately 3 cm, the same metal alloy, the same type of letters for the inscriptions, and the same range and chemistry of colours.54 Thus, there is no reason to assume that the enamel medallions were made at different times. The differences in posture can be explained by their function: the saints in the bottom rows, Saints George and Demetrios, as well as Kosmas, Damian and Panteleimon, face the beholder of the icon, whilst the Princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, turn towards the Virgin Mary as intercessors, emphasizing their higher rank over the military and medical saints. This again speaks for a coherent and contemporary enamel group.

However, the question remains whether they were indeed made for or were commissioned by Manuel Dishypatos, the later metropolitan. This has been challenged both by Ivan Drpić and Andreas Rhoby.55 They favour a diakonos Manuel Dishypatos from a monastery in Serrai (Serres, eastern Macedonia) mentioned in the year 1365. Some of the reasons are that the letter “N” is shaped like a Cyrillic letter “И”, which appears more commonly in the fourteenth century and very rarely before, and, furthermore, the quality of the epigram.56 Olga Shashina and Irina Sterligova nevertheless consider the Freising enamels to be thirteenth-century works of art on the basis of stylistic comparison with thirteenth-century enamels from Russia.57 However, the frame of the icon with the repoussé circles for the enamel medallions, into which they fit exactly, might actually be of a later date than the mid-thirteenth century. Its ornaments point to a date in the first half of the fourteenth century58 (although dating ornamentation remains comparatively vague), thus the enamels could also have been made later than the thirteenth century, perhaps in the first half of the fourteenth century. In any case, the Freising enamels are no longer anchors for research on Byzantine enamels nor do they provide securely dated mid-thirteenth-century pivots. They might have to be dated decades later than the mid-thirteenth century, or if they were made in the time of the Manuel Dishypatos identified by Dripć and Rhoby, even a century later than hitherto assumed.

It is remarkable that the quality of the enamels for such a high-class object looks rather mediocre at first glance. The enamels are cracked and there are many holes in the surface from bubbles arising during the firing process; the colours, especially that of the red enamel, has faded to almost white at the borders (caused by the reaction of the enamel with non-precious metal alloyed with the precious metal silver); and the cloisons look rather broad, making the enamels appear less elegant. Recent analyses have shown that the enamels were treated with chemicals during a “restoration” process that altered their surface and thus changed their overall appearance.59 However, the design of the separating cloisons proves again that this was still a high-quality object. But the typical emerald colour of the tenth and eleventh century was not part of the original colour set of the Freising icon and is generally absent in late Byzantine enamels. The question remains why the emerald colour so typical of middle Byzantine enamel had fallen out of fashion. After the observations made above, it is more likely that different tones of green were tried out, and less likely that Byzantine craftsmen were not able to reproduce emerald green enamel.

Enamels on the Stockholm Mitre From Linköping Cathedral (c. 1300)

Another, even larger ensemble of Byzantine enamel medallions has also been attributed to the thirteenth century (figs. 4 and 5).60 A total of 87 (of originally 116) Senkschmelz enamels bear saints, accompanied by Latin inscriptions; the others, in the spandrels between the medallions, are roughly triangular and are decorated with an ornamental design. This huge ensemble was later attached to a Western, fifteenth-century mitre housed today in Stockholm. Paul Hetherington61 suggested that the figural, Byzantine-style enamels were made in Latin-ruled Constantinople (1204–1261) in the early thirteenth century to decorate a mitre for one of the first Latin bishops of Constantinople by Byzantine enamellists in the capital. After 1204, the Latin Church created archbishoprics, and the six new bishops in Constantinople were all in need of mitres. According to Hetherington, his sudden demand for new regalia would have been best supplied by already established and experienced local artisans. This would not only explain the Latin inscriptions, but also the fact that the medallions on the lappets of the mitre have no inscriptions naming them – in Byzantium this was compulsory after Iconoclasm. After the end of the Latin Occupation of Constantinople, these regalia with the enamels would have been taken to Western Europe.

However, a recent autopsy has proven that all of the enamels – both the medallions and the ornamental enamels – are technically analogous:62 figural medallions and ornamental plaques were made in exactly the same colours, and a small, flat wire, 1 mm in width, running parallel to the rim, was fixed at the bottom of all of the enamels on the mitre. They were clearly made for sewing onto fabrics with the help of wire loops, also attached to the bottom of the medallions. This evidence suggests that all of the enamels reused on the fifteenth-century mitre belonged together. They must have come from another mitre because the arrangement of round medallions and spandrel enamels and the amount of medallions fits this purpose exactly.

Palaeographical evidence points to a date for the inscriptions no earlier than the late thirteenth century and thus after the Latin Occupation. This is corroborated by stylistic comparisons for the ornamental enamels: a large group of enamels with similar floral design was made around 1300 in France in the reign of the French King Philip the Fair (1285–1314). Comparisons with enamels from Sicily, amongst them the ceremonial sword of Emperor Frederic II, today in Vienna, and the kamelaukion of Constance of Aragon (both around 1220)63 prove that the un-Byzantine technique with the rim and the loops for sewing onto fabrics is typical for Sicilian enamels.

Therefore, the group of enamels on the Linköping mitre can neither be considered Byzantine (only “Byzantinising”) nor were they made in Latin-ruled Constantinople. They are rather a testimony for the ongoing interest in the Byzantine style in Sicily after the death of the most important patron of the arts, Emperor Frederic II (d. 1250). This is in itself an important finding, but for the study of Byzantine enamels, it has repercussions in that they can no longer be labelled Byzantine.

Although made in Sicily, the enamels discussed herein prove that the traditional layout of Byzantine enamels with Christ and saints was current well into the late thirteenth or early fourteenth centuries. This is also corroborated by enamels on a Palaeologan book cover in the Marciana Library in Venice64 (fig. 3) that was most likely of Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) origin. A date in the early fourteenth century was suggested on the basis of the Palaeologan style of the relief scenes, but Wessel did not want to exclude the late thirteenth century.65 This date also concerns the enamels, which were doubtlessly part of the original design of the book cover. Traditional in design and colours, the medallions following thirteenth-century trends with their lacklustre surface, but there are also innovative details in the figural and also the ornamental enamels of the book cover. In bright light, the colours come to life and are much more vivid than the hitherto published images suggest (see snapshot in fig. 3). There are also new additions to the traditional colour chart: while the figural enamels are made with well-known colours (dark blue, yellow, red, white, light green, turquoise, flesh colour, grey and black), the scrolls surrounding the medallions are green, a striking watery light blue, and – as a “newcomer” – violet (lavender).

Champlevé and Pseudo-Champlevé

A new addition to the technical portfolio of the Byzantine enamellers in the late Byzantine period was champlevé enamel (Grubenschmelz).66 This is enamel in a recession cut or etched into a substantial metal surface, usually a plate or a three-dimensional object, as opposed to Senkschmelz, for which recesses were chased or pressed into thin sheet metal without subducting any material. Champlevé enamel in opaque colours was typical for Western medieval enamel on copper, especially from Limoges, the Rhine-Meuse area, and Hildesheim.67 Particularly during the Crusades, this style became an inspiration for Eastern enamellists68 as can be demonstrated by a thirteenth-century Byzantine censer in the Benaki Musuem in Athens (see below). But the origins of champlevé in Byzantium can be traced back to a time before an increased exchange in the wake of the Crusades: on the diadem plaques in the Preslav Treasure, probably made around 927,69 tiny details were already carved into the metal that were too difficult or cut out. However, the Western-inspired champlevé on a larger scale is rather rare in Byzantium, and usually it was executed in a limited colour range of green, blue, red, and sometimes white.

This technique was, for example, employed for linear enamel70 on five gold rings of the late twelfth or thirteenth century, which were cast and cut out to receive enamel: four gold rings (one illustrated in fig. 10) come from a hoard found in the area of Thessaloniki and can be dated for various reasons to the twelfth or early thirteenth centuries.71 Similar enamels in more vivid colours can be found on a Byzantine engagement ring from the late twelfth to thirteenth centuries (fig. 11).72

Fig. 10. Byzantine gold ring from a thirteenth-century hoard (supposedly found in the area of Thessaloniki), National Archaeological Museum/Stathatos Collection, Athens; late twelfth to early thirteenth century (photo: Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie)

Fig. 11. Byzantine gold engagement ring, National Archaeological Museum/Stathatos Collection, Athens; late twelfth to early thirteenth century (photo: Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie)

The late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century rings mentioned above demonstrate another novelty, regarding techniques and style: placing the colours next to each other without separating cloisons (flat wires). This can already be found earlier on the scrolls decorating the eleventh-century Monomachos Crown and several twelfth-century examples, such as the aforementioned vessel found in Ukraine and the cuffs of the Byzantine cross in Eine-Oudenaarde.73 In these cases, the metal was, however, chased instead of cut to create linear cavities to receive the glass paste74 – strictly speaking, this is Senkschmelz. Thus, in comparison with the solid rings that are decorated with genuine champlevé enamel, we could call this “pseudo-champlevé”.75 It is important to mention these examples here, because to set colours next to each other in the groves without separating cloisons was a new trend beginning with the Monomachos Crown in the eleventh century, which continued up to the fourteenth century – in champlevé and Senkschmelz concurrently.

Other examples of linear enamel in Senkschmelz are found on icon frames and revetments, such as the enamel medallions on the aforementioned Palaeologan book cover in the Marciana Library in Venice with vividly coloured linear enamel in green, light blue and violet (fig. 3), and on the frame of two icons depicting Church Feasts in Florence, which have been dated to the early fourteenth century because of the style of the micromosaic icon the frame surrounds.76

A clear case of pseudo-champlevé enamel is found on the aforementioned thirteenth-century Demetrios relief in Berlin (fig. 6). The recesses for the blue enamel background of the raised inscriptions were chased into the thin sheet metal instead of being cut out. There was not enough metal substance to cut a cavity, and, this being a relief icon, the enameller chose the visual idea of champlevé, but implemented it differently.

Censer with Military Saints, Benaki Museum (Second Half of the Thirteenth Century)

A good example of Byzantine émail champlevé inspired by Limoges enamels is a censer or katzion in the Benaki Museum Athens, dated to the second half of the thirteenth century77 (fig. 12). It is made from a copper alloy and was originally gilded. The enamel, seemingly black in most of the published photographs, is actually green and blue, and – as in the examples of linear enamel – the colours are not separated by cloisons. On the one hand, the shape of the censer and its iconography with the two military saints Theodore and Demetrios follow middle Byzantine conventions and “censers of this type were a specific form of luxury church vessel”78 in Byzantium. The overall design of the enamel, on the other hand, with the figures and the surrounding scrolls has much in common with thirteenth-century enamels from Limoges, especially those from after the 1220s.79 As Anna Ballian pointed out: “It is probably no coincidence that Byzantine enamelled copper artifacts began to appear in the thirteenth century at the same time as Limoges enamels spread to the Crusader East”.80 This type of enamel, so unusual for Byzantium, shows obvious similarities with French enamel of the thirteenth century that came to the eastern Mediterranean in the wake of the Crusades. However, it was not executed in genuine champlevé, cut out from solid copper, but instead formed out of two metal sheets held together by rivets. Whether this was based on a misunderstanding or had technical reasons, remains open.

As a side remark, enamel on copper or copper alloys, especially bronze, were known in Byzantium before the Crusades. One of the main examples of Byzantine enamel on copper is a medallion with the womb demon and a Greek inscription housed in the Louvre (probably dating from the early twelfth century),81 executed in cloisonné enamel. A prominent example is the Artukid Bowl in Innsbruck, which has recently been attributed by Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger to a Greek workshop in Seljuk Anatolia and dated before 1130.82

Fig. 12. Byzantine censer with a depiction of two military saints, made with pseudo-champlevé enamel in the style of Limoges enamels; thirteenth century (photo: Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie)

Fig. 13. Detail of the frame of the Mandylion Icon, San Bartolomeo degli Armeni, Genoa; around the middle of the fourteenth century (from Wolf / Dufour Bozzo / Calderoni Masetti 2004, fig. 7)

Repoussé Enamel

A very interesting case at the “borders of experimentalism” (Francesca dell’Aqua)83 is the enamel on the frame of the famous Mandylion Icon in Genoa (fig. 13), dated to around the middle of the fourteenth century.84 Although figural by design, the enamels fill only the grooves of the repoussé relief, thus emphasizing the graphic style of the figures in the narrative cycle surrounding the image of the Mandylion. The grooves are highlighted with enamel in various opaque colours, predominantly red, green, and blue, with the addition of white and in some areas translucent brown.85 Furthermore, particular areas, such as Christ’s knees, were described as being executed in black niello, which is a metal sulphide, not glass86 (analysis of the compositions is, however, a desideratum).87 This is a rare solution, neither cloisonné nor champlevé, but it might have been more common than hitherto thought, either due to loss of enamel or an oversight.88

A similar method was applied to the frame of the mid-fourteenth-century Esztergom Staurotheke (fig. 9) that surrounds the aforementioned late twelfth-century enamel with the crucifixion. The repoussé reliefs between the figures show ornamental designs also executed in repoussé. The lower parts of this relief are broader, but also filled with enamel paste: green for the square elements, black (or perhaps dark blue) for the round ones (or perhaps niello – again, scientific analysis would solve this question). This solution overlaps with pseudo-champlevé enamel since the sheet metal is chased and not cut-out. It was clear on the basis of comparisons with other icon frames and revetments that the frame of the Esztergom Staurotheke is Palaeologan, but its exact date and the question of when it replaced an older closing mechanism of the cross reliquary was unknown. For historical reasons, a date around 1300 had been suggested.89 However, I have argued for a later date due to the ornament band along the inner rim of the frame. It is almost identical to a rare, Western-derived ornament on the Bessarion Cross that can be dated to the mid-fourteenth century.90

A last example proves the ingenuity and creativeness of enamellists in the thirteenth and fourteenth century by merging repoussé and enamel. The aforementioned thirteenth-century Demetrios relief in Berlin (fig. 6) can be compared to the previous examples but surprises with new variations: the background of the metal relief icon is decorated with palmettes made of five “leaves” in blue, turquoise, green, white, and red enamel. The enamel is melted into small, chased areas with a border, yielding the appearance of encrusted gemstones in settings.91 A similar effect can be seen on the twelfth-century silver vessel found in Ukraine, discussed above.92

Gothic Émail Basse Taille in Byzantium: The Return of Translucent Enamel

Apart from opaque Limoges enamels, translucent enamel in the basse taille technique – translucent enamel over a low-relief pattern in silver or gold – also inspired works in the Eastern Mediterranean. Jannic Durand pointed out that Gothic basse taille enamel was developed in the West in the thirteenth century93 and then adapted in Byzantine art. Examples are a Byzantine encolpion in Vatopedi Monastery with a Greek inscription that combines the Anastasis with a Western motif, Christophoros carrying Christ as a child on this shoulders (first half of the fifteenth century),94 and a fourteenth-century book cover in Sofia, combining traditional Byzantine elements with four translucent enamels, completing the cycle of feast scenes executed in repoussé.95

According to their inscriptions, a chalice and a paten in the Vatopedi Monastery with basse taille enamels were donated by Thomas Preljubović (fig. 14).96 He was the Serbian Despot of Ioannina from 1367 to 1384 and well known for making several donations. The chalice displays many features of Gothic models of the fourteenth century from Italy and Venice in particular, such as the shape of the chalice or the ornamentation, while the polylobed paten with its inscription appears to be Byzantine, however using Gothic translucent enamel, untypical for Byzantium. The object’s familiarity with Venetian and also Dalmatian art raises the question of the object’s provenance. They were either made in Venice or Dalmatia, or artisans from these areas produced them at Preljubović’s court in Ioannina or in a larger artistic centre close by: Thessaloniki.97 The fact that the objects are unique and that so few goldsmiths’ works from the Palaeologan period have survived makes it difficult to answer this question. In any case, whilst the shape of the paten is Byzantine, the enamels are not.

Fig. 14. Paten donated by the Serbian Despote Thomas Preljubović (1367-1384), Venice or Dalmatia, Vatopaidi Monastery; fourteenth century (from Iera Monē tou Batopediou, Athos 1994, 39)

Attempts to create basse taille enamel can be surmised in the repoussé enamels on the Berlin Demetrios Icon (fig. 6): Demetrios’s cloak was filled with green enamel, which is more translucent than the other colours on the object. Here and in other places, where the enamel has been lost, we can see that the metal was pixelated underneath to allow a better bond of the enamel and the metal. This “pattern” can be seen especially in larger green areas of the enamel, for example, where Demetrios’s cloaks wafts over the horse’s back. While the pixelation of a metal basis initially has technical reasons, it might not be too far-fetched to be reminded of Gothic basse taille enamels that allow the deliberately patterned metal ground to be seen.

The Enamelled Cross Decorated in the Chapel of the Burning Bush, Sinai

Paul Hetherington has recently presented a cross decorated with enamels that is kept in the Chapel of the Burning Bush in Saint Chaterine’s Monastery on Sinai98 – a recent addition to the corpus of late Byzantine enamel (figs. 15 and 16).99 This large processional cross might be the one that was mentioned as a “silver Fragoudoulia”, a “Frankish” work, in a seventeenth-century inventory (1673).100 On the one hand, it shows several enamels revealing Western influence, such as the Virgin Mary in the basse-taille technique, the style of the figure, and the flower petals arguing for a fourteenth-century dating. The enamel is placed on silver, which was carved with a rhomboid pattern, clearly visible behind the translucent enamel. On the other hand, four feast scenes are in accordance with Byzantine iconography, which makes that this cross is an interesting “hybrid”. The knob (fig. 16) is the most revealing enamel on this piece. It bears an inscription with the actual signature of the Greek enameller: Εργο Χ[ε]ιρο Αλεχιου του σιροπουλ[ου] – “Work by the hand of Alexios Syropoulos”. Although the enameller cannot be identified, it is noteworthy that this is the only signed work of a Greek medieval enamellist – very unusual for Byzantine enamel.

Fig. 15. Enamelled Cross, Saint Catherine’s Monastery; fourteenth century (from Hetherington 2019, p. 29, fig. 11, photo: Paul Hetherington)

Fig. 16. Enamelled Cross, Saint Catherine’s Monastery; fourteenth century (from Hetherington 2019, p. 29, fig. 12, photo: Paul Hetherington)

Variations of Pseudo-enamel

In the late Byzantine period, enamels were also imitated in different materials, which we sum up here as “pseudo-enamel”’ – from imitations with the aim of copying to inspirations taken from enamel, for example, in book illumination, such as in the twelfth-century Ostromir Lectionary, where gold lines were used in the way of gold cloisons separating colours in cloisonné enamel.101 In the thirteenth century, Senkschmelz enamels clearly served as inspiration for painting on parchment. The mitre of Jacques de Vitry, Bishop of Acre (fig. 17), is decorated with what appears to be rectangular Senkschmelz enamel plaques with rounded tops. Although, at first, this might be inspired by book illumination, the painted “gemstones” on the mitre’s top speak for the attempt to evoke a mitre decorated with goldsmiths’ works. In the light of de Vitry’s other rich donations of precious metal objects, lack of funding would not have been the main reason for this choice.102

Fig. 17. Mitre of Jacques de Vitry, Bishop of Acre, Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, c. 1216 (from Drake Boehm / Holcomb 2016, p. 236, fig. 89)

Fig. 18. Bessarion Cross in the Bessarion Staurotheke, Gallerie dell’Accademia, Venice; mid-fourteenth century (© Gallerie dell’Accademia, Venice; from Klein / Poletto / Schreiner 2017, p. 210, fig. 2)

Mimesis: Medallions on the Bessarion Cross

The Bessarion Cross in Venice (fig. 18)103 is a magnificent filigree-decorated silver-gilt cross that was commissioned by Eirene of the Palaeologoi family, who is mentioned in the inscription running around the side of the cross. The historical background allows us to date the cross to between 1347 and 1354.104 The famous Bessarion Staurotheke with the (older) cross inside was brought to Venice by Cardinal Bessarion (d. 1472) in the fifteenth century. The filigree of the cross is extremely rich and of very high quality,105 and it was rather surprising, that after recent analyses, the green substance in the medallions turned out to be a resin-based paste, imitating the effect of enamel.106 In this case, it is obvious that the appearance of genuine enamel was imitated (the visible craquelure is a result of aging), although the question remains why. The filigree is well-made, meaning that good artisans were available, at least for this technique. The enamellist represented, of course, a special branch of luxury arts production. One conclusion would be that the “pseudo-enamel” employed here represents a deliberate innovation and the incorporation of a new material (comparable to Bakelite in the 1920s).

Reverse Painting on Glass

Other materials suggest that Byzantine artists also employed techniques redolent of enamel, such as reverse painting on glass. This is reverse painting under glass that was made in Byzantium and Italy in the fourteenth century and in many cases has a gold background in common with Senkschmelz enamel. Warren Woodfin discussed this in relation to the fourteenth-century Byzantine writer Pseudo-Kodinos:107 “A reading of Pseudo-Kodinos’ treatise alongside surviving works of art suggest that fourteenth-century Byzantines were intentionally using ersatz media in an effort to maintain the appearance of continuity with the empire’s more prosperous past”.108

In light of the declining economy in the late Byzantine period, it seems convincing that enamellers would try to find other solutions for the highly desired enamels. However, a differentiation is due between “fake” enamel aiming at misleading the beholder (in the sense of a trompe-l'œil) and other solutions that can be called innovative (e.g., the relief enamel on the Genoa Mandylion icon frame, fig. 13). In the case of reverse painting under glass, the objects seem to play with the notion of enamel but are often recognisable as being different, for example, when the background is red or blue instead of gold.109 This raises the question whether the use of reverse painting on glass can always be explained as compensation for the “loss of the necessary materials and skills for the manufacture of cloisonné enamel”,110 or instead as an interest in a different, new technique.

Conclusion

The examples of later Byzantine enamel discussed here have shown that there is a corpus of objects requiring further investigation, especially pertaining to methods of material science. The enamels of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries show a wide range of innovative techniques, often traceable back to the twelfth or even eleventh centuries, casting a new light on this genre.

Scholarly opinion often considered enamelling as an art in decline due to its supposed lower quality and less pleasing appearance. This process of decline was believed to have begun before 1204: “Already by the later [twelfth] century it would seem that the conditions of patronage, expense and skill were starting to become increasingly scarce”.111 The often-quoted fourteenth-century story of Nikephoros Gregoras in his Rhomean History illustrates the economic situation of the mid-fourteenth century in Byzantium: Nikephoros mocks the financially precarious situation of the imperial Byzantine court by noting that the emperor used gilded leather plates in order to pretend to have more wealth than was actually the case.112 That the court at roughly the same time, in 1357, was even forced to sell off precious objects with relics can be seen in Siena today, where a group of Byzantine reliquaries – some of which enamelled – gives testimony to this desperate transaction.113 However, around the middle of the fourteenth century, we also see the production of high-quality works, such as the Bessarion Cross (fig. 18), bearing the name of an imperial family member, and the frame of the Esztergom Staurotheke, which is surely of Byzantine making (fig. 9). Whilst the pseudo-enamels on the Bessarion Cross at first might be seen as an expression of limited resources, the gilded silver filigree is of very high quality. Here, the focus of the modern eye should lie on the ingenuity of creating pseudo-enamel that would have looked like genuine enamel of the time, before it developed the age-related craquelure we see today.

Other enamel works presented in this essay have suffered inept treatment or restoration, such as the Freising Icon, and counter notions of decreased quality of the objects and the proficiency of the artisans. The trend towards opaque colours should also be seen in a different light. In the context of similar developments in the West (e.g., Limoges enamel) and the return of translucent enamel in the thirteenth century to the West and then to the East, makes it more plausible to see the favouring of opaque colours as a widespread phenomenon that is rather a question of a fashion than a decline in proficiency.

The enamels presented herein suggest that we should adjust our perception of a “period in decline”. Although the highlights of Byzantine architecture and icon and fresco painting of the late thirteenth and the first half of the fourteenth centuries have always been acknowledged by researchers, the general evaluation of this period often takes an economic-political point of view. Cecily Hilsdale has advanced our understanding of this period as a period of cultural blossoming,114 and a recent conference in Birmingham has also focused on this discrepancy: “Late Byzantium Reconsidered”.115 The editors of the conference volume (2019) wanted “to examine a selection of case studies counter-balancing the notion of decline and the narrative of decay frequently acknowledged for this period”.116 Studying enamels of the Palaeologan period supports these claims that despite economic decline, luxury arts were actively used for “promoting the artistic sphere as a diplomatic strategy”.117

Middle Byzantine enamel was a hallmark of Byzantium, and it did not disappear in the Palaeologan period, as Wessel’s catalogue suggests. The necessity of producing luxury arts in a time when procuring material, especially precious metal, must have been difficult. For the art of enamelling it was, however, the proverbial “mother of invention”. The enamels presented herein unfold the enormous potential of the late Byzantine period to reinvent a luxury art.

Bibliography

Sources

Nikephoros Gregoras
Nikephoros Gregoras, Rhomäische Geschichte / Historia Rhomaike, ed. and German trans. Jan Louis van Dieten, Stuttgart 1973.

Exhibition catalogues

Athens 1964
Andreas Xyngopoulos, “Icons”, Byzantine Art, a European Art, exh. cat., Athens, Zappeion Exhibition Hall, [Council of Europe, exhibition catalogues, 9], Athens 1964.

Bonn 2010
Byzanz. Pracht und Alltag, exh. cat., Bonn, Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, February-June 2010, Munich 2010.

Cologne 1984
Hansgerd Hellenkemper, ed., Der Schatz von San Marco in Venedig, exh. cat., Cologne, Römisch-Germanisches Museum, October 1984-January 1985, Cologne – Milan: Olivetti, 1984.

Genova 2004
Gerhard Wolf, Colette Dufour Bozzo, Anna Rosa Calderoni Masetti, eds., Mandylion: intorno al Sacro Volto, da Bisanzio a Genova, exh. cat., Genova, Museo Diocesano, April-July 2004, Milan: Skyra, 2004.

Limburg / Frankfurt 2009
August Heuser, Matthias T. Kloft, eds., Im Zeichen des Kreuzes. Die Limburger Staurothek und ihre Geschichte, exh. cat., Limburg, Diözesanmuseum, September-November 2009, Frankfurt, Dommuseum, December 2009-January 2010, Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2009.

London 2008
Robin Cormack, Maria Vassilaki, eds., Byzantium 330–1453, exh. cat., Londres, Royal Academy, October 2008-March 2009, London 2008.

Munich 1998
Reinhold Baumstark, ed., Rom und Byzanz. Schatzkammerstücke aus bayerischen Sammlungen, exh. cat., Munich, Bayerische Nationalmuseum, October 1998-Februar 1999, Munich 1998.

New York 1996
Elisabeth Taburet-Delahaye, Barbara Drake Boehm, eds., Enamels of Limoges. 1100–1350, exh. cat., New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, March-June 1996, New York 1996.

New York 1997
Helen C. Evans, William D. Wixom, eds., The Glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era A.D. 843–1261, exh. cat., New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, March-July 1997, New York 1997.

New York 2004
Helen C. Evans. ed., Byzantium. Faith and Power, exh. cat., New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, March-July 2004, New York 2004.

New York 2016
Barbara Drake Boehm, Melanie Holcomb, eds., Jerusalem. 1000–1400. Every People under Heaven, exh. cat., New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, September 2016-August 2017, New York 2016.

Palermo / Vienne 2004
Wilfried Seipel, ed., Nobiles officinae. Die königlichen Hofwerkstätten zu Palermo zur Zeit der Normannen und Staufer im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert, exh. cat., Palermo, Palazzo dei Normanni, December 2003-March 2004, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, March-June 2004, Milan : Skira, 2004.

Paris 2018
Jannic Durand. ed., Le trésor de Preslav, exh. cat., Paris, Musée du Louvre, June-November 2018, Paris 2018.

Schallaburg 2018
Falko Daim, Dominik Heher, eds., Byzanz & der Westen. 1000 vergessene Jahre, exh. cat., Schallaburg, Renaissanceschloss, March-November 2018, Schallaburg 2018.

Thessaloniki 1997
Athanasios A. Karakatsanis, Treasures of Mount Athos, exh. cat., Thessaloniki, Museum of Byzantine Culture, June 1997-May 1998, Thessaloniki 1997.

Thessaloniki 2002
Demetra Papanikola-Bakirtzi, ed., Everyday Life in Byzantium, exh. cat., Thessaloniki, White Tower, October 2001-January 2002, Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2002.

Monographs and articles

Achechova 2014
Aglaé Achechova, “De la meilleure façon de constituer une collection. Le cas des émaux byzantins de Mikhaïl Botkine”, Les Cahiers de l’École du Louvre, 4, 2014, pp. 33‑44.

Asutay-Effenberger 2009
Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, “Überlegung zur Datierung und Lokalisierung der Innsbrucker Artukiden-Schale”, Byzantion, 79, 2009, pp. 37‑47.

Bárány-Oberschall 1937
Magda Bárány-Oberschall, The Crown of the Emperor Constantine Monomachos, [Archaeologica Hungarica 22], Budapest 1937.

Biron 2015
Isabelle Biron, Émaux sur métal du IXe au XIXe siècle. Histoire, technique et matériaux, Paris: édition Faton, 2015.

Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2004
Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “Niello (Goldschmiedetechnik)”, Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst, vol. 7, Stuttgart 2004, cols 966‑976.

Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2010
Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “A 13th-century Jewellery Hoard from Thessalonica: A Genuine Hoard or an Art Dealer’s Compilation?”, in Chris Entwistle, Noel Adams, éds., Intelligible Beauty. Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, [British Museum Research Publication 178], London 2010, pp. 219‑232.

Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2011
Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Byzantinischer Schmuck des 9. bis frühen 13. Jahrhunderts. Untersuchungen zum metallenen dekorativen Körperschmuck der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit anhand datierter Funde aus Bulgarien und Griechenland, [Spätantike – Frühes Christentum – Byzanz. Kunst im ersten Jahrtausend. Reihe B: Studien und Perspektiven, 28], Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2011.

Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2017
Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “The Ornamental Decoration of the Late Byzantine Bessarion Cross: Medieval Cultural Transfer between Byzantium, the West, the Islamic World and Russia”, in Klein / Poletto / Schreiner 2017, pp. 183‑224.

Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2018a
Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “Contact between Byzantium and the West from the 9th to the 15th Century and Their Reflections in Goldsmiths’ Works and Enamels”, in Falko Daim, Dominik Heher, Claudia Rapp, eds., Menschen, Bilder, Sprache, Dinge. Wege der Kommunikation zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen, 1: Bilder und Dinge. Studien zur Ausstellung "Byzanz & der Westen. 1000 vergessene Jahre", Mainz 2018, pp. 73‑104.

Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2018b
Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “Rahmen und Beschlag des Freisinger Lukasbildes: Untersuchungen zur Ornamentik des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts in Byzanz”, in Bosselmann‑Ruickbie / Roll 2018, pp. 109‑122.

Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2020
Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “Byzantinisierende Emails auf einer Mitra des 15. Jahrhunderts aus Linköping (heute in Stockholm). Lateinerzeitliches Konstantinopel oder Sizilien um 1300? Zur mittelalterlichen Emailkunst und Aspekten von „Kulturtransfer“ im Mittelalter”, in Sible de Blaauw, Elisabet Enß, Petra Linscheid, eds., Contextus. Festschrift Sabine Schrenk, Münster 2020, pp. 489‑504.

Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2021
Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “Byzantine Jewelry and Enamels”, in Ellen C. Schwartz, ed., Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Art and Architecture, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, pp 575-591.

Bosselmann-Ruickbie (in print)
Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “New Light on Byzantine Enamels of the Thirteenth Century”, in Jenny Albani, Ioanna Christoforaki, eds., Πάντα ῥεῖ – Byzantium in Change: Art, Archaeology and Society in the Thirteenth Century, Athens (in print).

Bosselmann-Ruickbie (forthcoming)
Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “A Newly Discovered ‘Botkin’? Scientific and Art Historical Analysis of a ‘Byzantine’ Pantocrator Enamel and its Role in Research on Byzantine Enamels”, in Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, (forthcoming).

Bosselmann-Ruickbie / Roll 2018
Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Carmen Roll, eds., Das Freisinger Lukasbild. Eine byzantinische Ikone und ihre tausendjährige Geschichte, Tagungsband zum Internationalen Symposium Freising 2016, [Kataloge und Schriften – Diözesanmuseum Freising, 67], Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2018.

Bosselmann-Ruickbie / Stolz 2009
Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Yvonne Stolz, “Ottonischer Nimbus oder byzantinischer Juwelenkragen? Zur Goldenen Madonna und zehn trapezoiden Emails auf dem Nagelreliquiar und dem Theophanukreuz im Essener Domschatz”, Mitteilungen zur Spätantiken Archäologie und Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte, 6, 2009, pp. 77‑99.

Botkin 1911
Michail Petrovic Botkin, Collection M. P. Botkine, St. Petersburg 1911.

Buckton 1988
David Buckton, “Bogus Byzantine Enamels in Baltimore and Washington DC”, Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, 46, 1988, pp. 11‑24.

Buckton 1997
David Buckton, “Exhibition Review: New York, The Glory of Byzantium”, The Burlington Magazine, 1131, June 1997, pp. 425‑427.

Buckton 1998
David Buckton, “The Gold Icon of St Demetrios”, in Joachim Ehlers, Dietrich Kötzsche, eds., Der Welfenschatz und sein Umkreis, Mayence 1998, pp. 277‑286.

Buckton 2000
David Buckton, “Byzantine Enamels in Bavaria”, Mitteilungen zur spätantiken Archäologie und Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte, 2, 2000, pp. 93‑106.

Buckton 2001
David Buckton, “Stalin and Georgian Enamels”, in Anthony Eastmond, ed., Eastern Approaches to Byzantium. Papers from the Thirty-third Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, March 1999, [Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications, 9], Aldershot etc.: Ashgate Variorum, 2001, pp. 211‑218.

Buckton 2006
David Buckton, “Byzantine Enamels in the Twentieth Century”, in Elizabeth Jeffreys, ed., Byzantine Style, Religion and Civilization. In Honour of Sir Steven Runciman, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 25‑37.

Chatzidakis 1972
Manolis Chatzidakis, “Une icône en mosaïque de Lavra”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 21, Vienne 1972, pp. 73‑81.

Cutler 2002
Anthony Cutler, “The Industries of Art”, in Laiou 2002, pp. 555-587.

Deér 1966
Joszef Deér, “Die byzantisierenden Zellenschmelze der Linköping-Mitra und ihr Denkmalkreis”, in Walter Nikolaus Schumacher, eds., Tortulae. Studien zu altchristlichen und byzantinischen Monumenten, [Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte, Suppl. 30], Rome – Fribourg – Vienna 1966, pp. 49‑64.

Dell‘Acqua 2013
Francesca Dell‘Acqua, “Borders of Experimentalism. Glass in the Frame of the Genoa Mandylion”, in Chris Entwistle, Liz James, eds., New Light on Old Glass. Recent Research on Byzantine Glass and Mosaics, London: British Museum Press, 2013, pp. 234‑241.

Drpić 2016
Ivan Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion in Later Byzantium, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Durand 2004
Jannic Durand, “Innovations gothiques dans l’orfèvrerie byzantine sous les Paléologues”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 58, 2004, pp. 333‑354.

Durand 2015
Jannic Durand, “Les émaux byzantins IXe–XVe siècle”, in Biron 2015, pp. 65‑69.

Gauthier 1972
Marie-Madeleine Gauthier, Émaux du Moyen Âge, Fribourg 1972.

Grabar 1975
André Grabar, Les revêtements en or et en argent des icônes byzantines du Moyen Âge, [Bibliothèque de l’Institut hellénique d'études byzantines et postbyzantines de Venise, 7], Venice 1975.

Guth-Dreyfus 1954
Katia Guth-Dreyfus, Transluzides Email in der ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts am Ober-, Mittel- und Niederrhein, [Basler Studien zur Kunstgeschichte, 9], Basel 1954.

Helfenstein et al. 2012
Eva Helfenstein et al., “Technical Examination of Enamels from the Botkin Collection”, Studies in Conservation, 57.S1, 2012, pp. 147‑156.

Hetherington 1983
Paul Hetherington, “A Purchase of Byzantine Relics: Purchase of Byzantine Relics and Reliquaries in Fourteenth-Century Venice”, Arte Veneta. Rivista di storia dell’arte, 37, 1983, pp. 9‑30.

Hetherington 1988
Paul Hetherington, “Enamels in the Byzantine World. Ownership and Distribution”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 81, 1988, pp. 29‑38 (reprinted in: Hetherington 2008a, II).

Hetherington 2003
Paul Hetherington, “Studying the Byzantine Staurothèque at Esztergom”, in Chris Entwistle, ed., Through a Glass Brightly. Studies in Byzantine and Medieval Art and Archaeology Presented to David Buckton, Oxford 2003, pp. 82‑94 (reprinted in: Hetherington 2008a, IX).

Hetherington 2006
Paul Hetherington, “Byzantine Cloisonné Enamel. Production, Survival and Loss”, Byzantion, 76, 2006, pp. 185‑215 (reprinted in: Hetherington 2008a, I).

Hetherington 2008a
Paul Hetherington, Enamels, Crowns, Relics and Icons. Studies on Luxury Arts in Byzantium, [Variorum Collected Studies Series, 908], Aldershot: Routledge, 2008.

Hetherington 2008b
Paul Hetherington, “The Enamels on the Mitre from Linköping Cathedral, and Art in Thirteenth-Century Constantinople”, in Hetherington 2008a, XI, pp. 1‑16.

Hetherington 2019
Paul Hetherington, “Late Byzantine Enamel : A Period of Transition”, in Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, ed., New Research on Late Byzantine Goldsmiths’ Works, Proceedings of the Conference held in Mainz, 29–30 October 2015, [Byzanz zwischen Orient und Okzident 13], Mainz 2019, pp. 21‑34.

Hilsdale 2014
Cecily J. Hilsdale, Byzantine Art and Diplomacy in an Age of Decline, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Hostetler 2016
Bradley A.. Hostetler, The Function of Text: Byzantine Reliquaries with Epigrams, 843-1204, PhD thesis, Florida State Univ., 2016.

Ikonomaki-Papadopoulos 1990
Yota Ikonomaki-Papadopoulos, “Church Metalwork”, in Konstantinos Manaphes, ed., Sinai: Treasures of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Athens 1990, pp. 263‑310.

Jevtić 2019
Ivana Jevtić, “Art in Decline or Art in the Age of Decline? Historiography and New Approaches to Late Byzantine Painting”, in Andrea Mattiello, Maria Alessia Rossi, eds., Late Byzantium Reconsidered: The Arts of the Palaiologan Era in the Mediterranean, London – New York 2019, pp. 31‑52.

Kartsonis 1986
Anna D. Kartsonis, Anastasis. The Making of an Image, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.

Kemper 2020
Dorothee Kemper, Die Hildesheimer Emailarbeiten des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts, Regensburg 2020.

Kempkens 2019
Holger Kempkens, “Westliche sakrale Goldschmiedekunst des Mittelalters und ihre Rezeption im spätbyzantinischen Kulturraum”, in Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, ed., New Research on Late Byzantine Goldsmiths’ Works. Proceedings of the Conference held in Mainz, 29–30 October 2015, [Byzanz zwischen Orient und Okzident 13], Mainz 2019, pp. 127‑146.

Kiss 2000
Etele Kiss, “The State of Research on the Monomachos Crown and Some Further Thoughts”, in Olenka Z. Pevny, ed., Perspectives of Byzantium and its Neighbours [843–1261], Yale 2000, pp. 60–83.

Klein 2004
Holger A. Klein, Byzanz, der Westen und das 'wahre' Kreuz. Die Geschichte einer Reliquie und ihrer künstlerischen Fassung in Byzanz und im Abendland, [Spätantike – Frühes Christentum – Byzanz. Kunst im ersten Jahrtausend, Reihe B: Studien und Perspektiven, 17], Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2004.

Klein / Poletto / Schreiner 2017
Holger A. Klein, Valeria Poletto, Peter Schreiner, eds., La Stauroteca di Bessarione fra Constantinopoli e Venezia, Proceedings of the Conference held in Venice 2015, Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2017.

Koenen / Müller-Wiener 2008
Ulrike Koenen, Martina Müller-Wiener, eds., Grenzgänge im östlichen Mittelmeerraum: Byzanz und die islamische Welt vom 9. bis 13. Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2008.

Laiou 2002
Angeliki E. Laiou, ed., The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, [Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 39], 3 vol., Washington DC 2002.

Loverdou-Tsigarida 2003
Katia Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Thessalonique centre de production d’objets d’arts au XIVe siècle”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 57, 2003, pp. 241‑254.

Matschke 2002
Klaus-Peter Matschke,Commerce, Trade, Markets, and Money: Thirteenth-Fifteenth Centuries”, in Laiou 2002, vol. II, pp. 771‑806.

Mattiello / Rossi 2019
Andrea Mattiello, Maria Alessia Rossi, eds., Late Byzantium Reconsidered: The Arts of the Palaiologan Era in the Mediterranean, London 2019.

Mihailova 2013
Tonka Mihailova, “Copper Enamel Application from Preslav”, Preslav. Collected Essays, 7, 2013, pp. 116‑123.

Oikonomides 1994
Nicolas Oikonomides, “La couronne dite de Constantin Monomaque”, Travaux et Mémoires 12, 1994, pp. 241–262.

Prinzing 2001
Günter Prinzing, “Zur Datierung der Staurothek von Esztergom aus historischer Sicht”, in Wojciech Balus, ed., Ars Graeca – Ars Latina. Studia dedykowane Profesor Annie Różyckiej, Krakow 2001, pp. 87‑91.

Prinzing 2013
Günter Prinzing, “The Esztergom Reliquary Revisited. Wann, weshalb und wem hat Kaiser Isaak II. Angelos die Staurothek als Geschenk übersandt?”, in Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Falko Daim, eds., ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΙΟΝ. Spaziergang im kaiserlichen Garten. Schriften über Byzanz und seine Nachbarn. Festschrift für Arne Effenberger zum 70. Geburtstag, [Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 106], Mainz 2013, pp. 247‑256.

Rhoby 2018
Andreas Rhoby, “Das Inschriftenprogramm auf dem Beschlag der Freisinger Lukasikone”, in Bosselmann-Ruickbie / Roll 2018, pp. 87‑98.

Ross 2005
Marvin C. Ross, ed., Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Mediaeval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection. Jewelry, Enamels, and Art of the Migration Period, 2, (2nd ed., reprint with an addendum by Susan A. Boyd and Stephen R. Zwirn), Washington DC 2005.

Schellewald 2018
Barbara Schellewald, “Die Freisinger Marienikone im Wandel : Ästhetischer Duktus, inhaltliche Akzentuierung und das Phänomen der Übermalung”, in Bosselmann-Ruickbie / Roll 2018, pp. 33‑61.

Schreiner 2017
Peter Schreiner, “La croce della stauroteca all’epoca dei Paleologhi”, in Klein / Poletto / Schreiner 2017, pp. 99‑112.

Shashina / Sterligova 2018
Olga Shashina, Irina Sterligova, “Die Medaillons auf dem Metallbeschlag des Freisinger Lukasbildes und die Geschichte byzantinischer Cloisonné-Emailarbeiten”, in Bosselmann‑Ruickbie / Roll 2018, pp. 99‑106.

Stege / Grillparzer / Mahnke 2018
Heike Stege, Alexander Grillparzer, Shimon Mahnke, “Die Emailarbeiten des Freisinger Lukasbildes – Technologische und analytische Untersuchungen zu Herstellungstechnik, Zustand und Materialzusammensetzung”, in Bosselmann‑Ruickbie / Roll 2018, pp. 281‑287.

Sterligova 2013
Irina A. Sterligova, ed., Byzantine Antiquities. Works of Art from the Fourth to Fifteenth Centuries in the Collection of the Moscow Kremlin Museums, Moscow 2013.

Stromberg 1988
Constance Stromberg, “A Technical Study of Three Cloisonné Enamels from the Botkin Collection”, Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, 46, 1988, pp. 25‑36.

Tóth / Szelényi 1999
Endre Tóth, Károly Szelényi, Die Heilige Krone von Ungarn. Könige und Krönungen, Budapest 1999.

Von Euw / Schreiner 1991
Anton von Euw, Peter Schreiner, eds., Kaiserin Theophanu. Begegnung des Ostens und Westens um die Wende des ersten Jahrtausends. Gedenkschrift des Kölner Schnütgen-Museums zum 1000. Todesjahr der Kaiserin, 2 vols, Cologne 1991.

Von Euw / Schreiner 1993
Anton von Euw, Peter Schreiner,eds., Kunst im Zeitalter der Kaiserin Theophanu, Akten des Internationalen Colloquiums veranstaltet vom Schnütgen-Museum, Köln, 13.-15. Juni 1991, Cologne: Locher, 1993.

Wessel 1967a
Klaus Wessel, Die byzantinische Emailkunst vom 5. bis 13. Jahrhundert, [Beiträge zur Kunst des christlichen Ostens, 4), Recklinghausen 1967.

Wessel 1967b
Klaus Wessel, Byzantine Enamels from the 5th to the 13th Century, Engl. trans. Irene R. Gibbons, Greenwich, CT : New York Graphic Society, 1967 (translation of Wessel 1967a).

Wessel 1971
Klaus Wessel, “[Art.] Email”, Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst, vol. 2, Mainz 1971, col. 93‑129.

Woodfin 2016
Warren T. Woodfin, “Within a Budding Grove: Dancers, Gardens, and the Enamel Cup from the Chungul Kurgan”, The Art Bulletin, 98.2, 2016, pp. 151‑180.

Woodfin 2017
Warren T. Woodfin, “The Mock Turtle’s Tears. Ersatz Enamel and the Hierarchy of Media in Pseudo-Kodinos”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 41(1), 2017, pp. 55‑80.

Yanagishita 2017
Mari Yanagishita, “II restauro delle parti metalliche e degli ‘smalti’. Fasi di intervento e dati rilevati”, Klein / Poletto / Schreiner 2017, pp. 53–68.

Notes

  • 1.
    This essay is based on my paper given at the colloque “Autour des métiers du luxe à Byzance” 2016. I would like to thank the organisers Marielle Martiniani-Reber, Musée d’art et d’histoire de Genève, and André-Louis Rey, Université de Genève. I would also like to thank Nicole Liaudet and Gabriella Lini, Musée d’art et d’histoire, as well as my husband, Dr Leo Ruickbie, for his valuable suggestions on the text.
  • 2.
    For an overview see Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “Byzantine Jewelry and Enamels”, in Ellen C. Schwartz, ed., Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Art and Architecture, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.
  • 3.
    Paul Hetherington, “Enamels in the Byzantine World. Ownership and Distribution”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 81, 1988, pp. 29‑38, esp. p. 29, (reprinted in: Hetherington 2008a, II), with a discussion of this issue.
  • 4.
    See, for example, the ring of Admiral Stryphnos (late twelfth century), Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Byzantinischer Schmuck des 9. bis frühen 13. Jahrhunderts. Untersuchungen zum metallenen dekorativen Körperschmuck der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit anhand datierter Funde aus Bulgarien und Griechenland, [Spätantike – Frühes Christentum – Byzanz. Kunst im ersten Jahrtausend. Reihe B: Studien und Perspektiven, 28], Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2011, cat. no. 94.
  • 5.
    Paul Hetherington, “Byzantine Cloisonné Enamel. Production, Survival and Loss”, Byzantion, 76, 2006, pp. 185‑215, esp. p. 185, (reprinted in: Hetherington 2008a, I).
  • 6.
    Hetherington 2006, op. cit., pp. 85‑115, estimated that this number reflects approximately 1% to 2% of the originally produced amount.
  • 7.
    Unfortunately, the fifteenth century is difficult to evaluate due to the lack of datable objects.
  • 8.
    Recent publications on this subject: Paul Hetherington, “Late Byzantine Enamel : A Period of Transition”, in Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, ed., New Research on Late Byzantine Goldsmiths’ Works, Proceedings of the Conference held in Mainz, 29–30 October 2015, [Byzanz zwischen Orient und Okzident 13], Mainz 2019, pp. 21‑34 (on two enamel ensembles in Stockholm and Sinai); Olga Shashina, Irina Sterligova, “Die Medaillons auf dem Metallbeschlag des Freisinger Lukasbildes und die Geschichte byzantinischer Cloisonné-Emailarbeiten”, in Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Carmen Roll, eds., Das Freisinger Lukasbild. Eine byzantinische Ikone und ihre tausendjährige Geschichte, Tagungsband zum Internationalen Symposium Freising 2016, [Kataloge und Schriften – Diözesanmuseum Freising, 67], Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2018, pp. 99‑106 (on the enamels of the Freising Icon).
  • 9.
    See Angeliki E. Laiou, ed., The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, [Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 39], 3 vol., Washington DC 2002, and on the Palaeologan period esp. Klaus-Peter Matschke, “Commerce, Trade, Markets, and Money: Thirteenth-Fifteenth Centuries”, vol. 2, pp. 771‑806, and also Anthony Cutler, “The Industries of Art”, vol. 2, pp. 555-587.
  • 10.
    Research on this has considerably advanced since the paper was given in 2016 and has been largely incorporated here.
  • 11.
    Klaus Wessel, Die byzantinische Emailkunst vom 5. bis 13. Jahrhundert, [Beiträge zur Kunst des christlichen Ostens, 4), Recklinghausen 1967; Klaus Wessel, Byzantine Enamels from the 5th to the 13th Century, Engl. trans. Irene R. Gibbons, Greenwich, CT : New York Graphic Society, 1967 (translation of Wessel 1967a). For older literature see a short overview on research: Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “Byzantine Jewelry and Enamels”, in Ellen C. Schwartz, ed., Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Art and Architecture, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, pp. 575-591, esp. pp. 586-587.
  • 12.
    See below.
  • 13.
    Wessel 1967a/b, op. cit., p. 32.
  • 14.
    See references in the footnotes.
  • 15.
    Exhibition ‘The Glory of Byzantium’ (1997) in the Metropolitan Museum New York, see Helen C. Evans, William D. Wixom, eds., The Glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era A.D. 843–1261, exh. cat., New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, March-July 1997, New York 1997, cat. no. 167 (Sarah T. Brooks).
  • 16.
    The modern enamels were possibly applied to authentic earrings, see, Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2011, op. cit., pp. 62‑64. First doubts on the Tzimiskes earrings were expressed by David Buckton in 1997, see David Buckton, “Exhibition Review: New York, The Glory of Byzantium”, The Burlington Magazine, 1131, June 1997, pp. 425‑427, esp. p. 426, and later David Buckton, “Byzantine Enamels in the Twentieth Century”, in Elizabeth Jeffreys, ed., Byzantine Style, Religion and Civilization. In Honour of Sir Steven Runciman, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 25‑37, esp. p. 26.
  • 17.
    Catalogue of the Botkin collection: Michail Petrovic Botkin, Collection M. P. Botkine, Saint Petersburg 1911. On this collection see also “The Botkin Collection and the Naïvete of the Educated Consumer” (Dumbarton Oaks). Research on “Botkins”: David Buckton, “Bogus Byzantine Enamels in Baltimore and Washington DC”, Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, 46, 1988, pp. 11‑24; Constance Stromberg, “A Technical Study of Three Cloisonné Enamels from the Botkin Collection”, Journal of the Walters Art Gallery, 46, 1988, pp. 25‑36; David Buckton, “Stalin and Georgian Enamels”, in Anthony Eastmond, ed., Eastern Approaches to Byzantium. Papers from the Thirty-third Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, March 1999, [Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications, 9], Aldershot etc.: Ashgate Variorum, 2001, pp. 211‑218; Buckton 2006, op. cit., pp. 27–29; Eva Helfenstein et al., “Technical Examination of Enamels from the Botkin Collection”, Studies in Conservation, 57.S1, 2012, pp. 147‑156; Aglaé Achechova, “De la meilleure façon de constituer une collection. Le cas des émaux byzantins de Mikhaïl Botkine”, Les Cahiers de l’École du Louvre, 4, 2014, pp. 33‑44; Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “A Newly Discovered ‘Botkin’? Scientific and Art Historical Analysis of a ‘Byzantine’ Pantocrator Enamel and its Role in Research on Byzantine Enamels”, in Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, (forthcoming). An example that does not appear in Botkin’s catalogue, but is very close to them is a medallion showing the bust of Saint Theodore in Byzanz. Pracht und Alltag, exh. cat., Bonn, Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, February-June 2010, Munich 2010, cat. no. 433 (Voloymyr Chardaef) that was exhibited as authentic Byzantine enamel.
  • 18.
    See for example, Munich 2010, Byzanz. Pracht und Alltag, cat. cit., cat. no. 433, which was exhibited as an authentic Byzantine enamel, but is in fact too similar to the Botkins made in Russia around 1900 to be an original.
  • 19.
    Magda Bárány-Oberschall, The Crown of the Emperor Constantine Monomachos, [Archaeologica Hungarica 22], Budapest 1937; Nicolas Oikonomides, “La couronne dite de Constantin Monomaque”, Travaux et Mémoires 12, 1994, pp. 241‑262; New York 1997, The Glory of Byzantium, cat. cit., cat. no. 145 (Henry Maguire); Etele Kiss, “The State of Research on the Monomachos Crown and Some Further Thoughts”, in Olenka Z. Pevny, ed., Perspectives of Byzantium and its Neighbours [843–1261], Yale 2000, pp. 60‑83; Buckton 2006, op. cit., pp. 31‑33; Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2011, op. cit., p. 23.
  • 20.
    Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2011, op. cit., p. 23, nt. 109, with the arguments brought forward.
  • 21.
    On Theophanou see, Anton von Euw, Peter Schreiner, eds., Kaiserin Theophanu. Begegnung des Ostens und Westens um die Wende des ersten Jahrtausends. Gedenkschrift des Kölner Schnütgen-Museums zum 1000. Todesjahr der Kaiserin, 2 vols., Cologne 1991; Id., Kunst im Zeitalter der Kaiserin Theophanu, Akten des Internationalen Colloquiums veranstaltet vom Schnütgen-Museum, Köln, 13.-15. Juni 1991, Cologne: Locher, 1993.
  • 22.
    Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Yvonne Stolz, “Ottonischer Nimbus oder byzantinischer Juwelenkragen? Zur Goldenen Madonna und zehn trapezoiden Emails auf dem Nagelreliquiar und dem Theophanukreuz im Essener Domschatz”, Mitteilungen zur Spätantiken Archäologie und Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte, 6, 2009, pp. 77‑99, esp. pp. 81‑90.
  • 23.
    Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, “Überlegung zur Datierung und Lokalisierung der Innsbrucker Artukiden-Schale”, Byzantion, 79, 2009, pp. 37‑47, with comprising bibliography; Ulrike Koenen, Martina Müller-Wiener, eds., Grenzgänge im östlichen Mittelmeerraum: Byzanz und die islamische Welt vom 9. bis 13. Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2008, especially the contributions by both editors.
  • 24.
    Tonka Mihailova, “Copper Enamel Application from Preslav”, Preslav. Collected Essays, 7, 2013, pp. 116‑123, esp. pp. 122‑123.
  • 25.
    Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “Byzantinisierende Emails auf einer Mitra des 15. Jahrhunderts aus Linköping (heute in Stockholm). Lateinerzeitliches Konstantinopel oder Sizilien um 1300? Zur mittelalterlichen Emailkunst und Aspekten von „Kulturtransfer“ im Mittelalter”, in Sible de Blaauw, Elisabet Enß, Petra Linscheid, eds., Contextus. Festschrift Sabine Schrenk, Münster 2019, pp. 489‑504.
  • 26.
    For an overview see Wessel 1967a/b, op. cit.
  • 27.
    Robin Cormack, Maria Vassilaki, eds., Byzantium 330–1453, exh. cat., Londres, Royal Academy, October 2008-March 2009, London 2008, cat. no. 52.
  • 28.
    Hansgerd Hellenkemper, ed., Der Schatz von San Marco in Venedig, exh. cat., Cologne, Römisch-Germanisches Museum, October 1984-January 1985, Cologne – Milan: Olivetti, 1984, cat. no. 8.
  • 29.
    Ibid., cat. nos. 11, 12.
  • 30.
    Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2011, op. cit., pp. 18‑40. Exhibition in the Musée du Louvre in 2018: Jannic Durand, ed., Le trésor de Preslav, exh. cat., Paris, Musée du Louvre, June-November 2018, Paris 2018. See also the international research project in the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz.
  • 31.
    August Heuser, Matthias T. Kloft, eds., Im Zeichen des Kreuzes. Die Limburger Staurothek und ihre Geschichte, exh. cat., Limburg, Diözesanmuseum, September-November 2009, Frankfurt, Dommuseum, December 2009-January 2010, Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2009, cat. no. 4.1.
  • 32.
    Shashina / Sterligova, op. cit.; Hetherington 2019, op. cit. See also Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “New Light on Byzantine Enamels of the Thirteenth Century”, in Jenny Albani, Ioanna Christoforaki, eds., Πάντα ῥεῖ – Byzantium in Change: Art, Archaeology and Society in the Thirteenth Century, Athens (in print).
  • 33.
    Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2011, op. cit., pp. 22–24. Latest publications on the Preslav Treasure: Paris 2018, Le trésor de Preslav, cat. cit.
  • 34.
    Cologne 1984, Der Schatz von San Marco, cat. cit., cat. no. 19.
  • 35.
    The unique relief icon was dated to the twelfth century by Klaus Wessel (Wessel 1967a/b, op. cit., cat. no. 55), but David Buckton convincingly suggested a date in the mid-thirteenth century, particularly based on comparisons with representations of military saints (David Buckton, “The Gold Icon of St Demetrios”, in Joachim Ehlers, Dietrich Kötzsche, eds., Der Welfenschatz und sein Umkreis, Mayence 1998, pp. 277‑286).
  • 36.
    Bradley A. Hostetler, The Function of Text: Byzantine Reliquaries with Epigrams, 843-1204, PhD thesis, Florida State Univ., 2016, p. 175, cat. no. A22.
  • 37.
    Demetra Papanikola-Bakirtzi, ed., Everyday Life in Byzantium, exh. cat., Thessaloniki, White Tower, October 2001-January 2002, Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2002, cat. no. 202 (Susan Boyd).
  • 38.
    Heike Stege, Alexander Grillparzer, Shimon Mahnke, “Die Emailarbeiten des Freisinger Lukasbildes – Technologische und analytische Untersuchungen zu Herstellungstechnik, Zustand und Materialzusammensetzung”, in Bosselmann‑Ruickbie / Roll, op. cit., pp. 281‑287.
  • 39.
    Paul Hetherington, “Studying the Byzantine Staurothèque at Esztergom”, in Chris Entwistle, ed., Through a Glass Brightly. Studies in Byzantine and Medieval Art and Archaeology Presented to David Buckton, Oxford 2003, pp. 82‑94 (reprinted in: Hetherington 2008a, IX); most recent: Falko Daim, Dominik Heher, eds., Byzanz & der Westen. 1000 vergessene Jahre, exh. cat., Schallaburg, Renaissanceschloss, March-November 2018, Schallaburg 2018, cat. no. 34 (Arne Effenberger).
  • 40.
    Günter Prinzing, “Zur Datierung der Staurothek von Esztergom aus historischer Sicht”, in Wojciech Balus, ed., Ars Graeca – Ars Latina. Studia dedykowane Profesor Annie Różyckiej, Krakow 2001, pp. 87‑91, esp. pp. 89‑91; Günter Prinzing, “The Esztergom Reliquary Revisited. Wann, weshalb und wem hat Kaiser Isaak II. Angelos die Staurothek als Geschenk übersandt?”, in Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, Falko Daim, eds., ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΙΟΝ. Spaziergang im kaiserlichen Garten. Schriften über Byzanz und seine Nachbarn. Festschrift für Arne Effenberger zum 70. Geburtstag, [Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 106], Mainz 2013, pp. 247‑256.
  • 41.
    Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “The Ornamental Decoration of the Late Byzantine Bessarion Cross: Medieval Cultural Transfer between Byzantium, the West, the Islamic World and Russia”, Holger A. Klein, Valeria Poletto, Peter Schreiner, eds., La Stauroteca di Bessarione fra Constantinopoli e Venezia, Proceedings of the Conference held in Venice 2015, Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2017, pp. 183‑224, esp. p. 206.
  • 42.
    Irina A. Sterligova, ed., Byzantine Antiquities. Works of Art from the Fourth to Fifteenth Centuries in the Collection of the Moscow Kremlin Museums, Moscow 2013, cat. no. 26. See Shashina / Sterligova, op. cit., pp. 104‑105 and fig. 5. These enamels are set into a little diptych from the nineteenth century and must have come from a larger context.
  • 43.
    Katia Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Thessalonique centre de production d’objets d’arts au XIVe siècle”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 57, 2003, pp. 241‑254, esp. pp. 248–249; Shashina / Sterligova, op. cit., 105–106 and fig. 6. André Grabar and Manolis Chatzidakis had assumed that the enamels were re-used and came from an earlier icon frame, see André Grabar, Les Revêtements en or et en argent des icônes byzantines du moyen âge, [Bibliothèque de l’Institut hellénique d'études byzantines et postbyzantines de Venise, 7], Venice 1975, p. 62, cat. no. 33; Manolis Chatzidakis, “Une icône en mosaïque de Lavra”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 21, Vienne 1972, pp. 73‑81, esp. 79–81.
  • 44.
    Further studies on this would be useful, but the style of the figures and the inscriptions points at quite a late date of the enamels.
  • 45.
    Wessel 1967a/b, op. cit., cat. no. 65; Reinhold Baumstark, ed., Rom und Byzanz. Schatzkammerstücke aus bayerischen Sammlungen, exh. cat., Munich, Bayerische Nationalmuseum, October 1998-Februar 1999, Munich 1998, cat. no. 84 (Marcell Restle); David Buckton, “Byzantine Enamels in Bavaria”, Mitteilungen zur spätantiken Archäologie und Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte, 2, 2000, pp. 93‑106, esp. pp. 97–99. For a collection of papers devoted to all aspects of this icon, see the volume with the papers of the 2016 conference in Freising: Bosselmann-Ruickbie / Roll, op. cit. For the discussion of the frame’s date see Andreas Rhoby, “Das Inschriftenprogramm auf dem Beschlag der Freisinger Lukasikone”, in Bosselmann-Ruickbie / Roll, op. cit., pp. 87‑98.
  • 46.
    Ibid., pp. 93‑95.
  • 47.
    Painting: Barbara Schellewald, “Die Freisinger Marienikone im Wandel: Ästhetischer Duktus, inhaltliche Akzentuierung und das Phänomen der Übermalung”, in Bosselmann-Ruickbie / Roll, op. cit., pp. 33‑61 (the fourteenth-century layer was painted over a probably tenth-century depiction of the Mother of God). Metal revetment: Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “Rahmen und Beschlag des Freisinger Lukasbildes: Untersuchungen zur Ornamentik des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts in Byzanz”, in Bosselmann-Ruickbie / Roll, op. cit., pp. 109‑122.
  • 48.
    Andreas Xyngopoulos, “Icons”, Byzantine Art, a European Art, exh. cat., Athens, Zappeion Exhibition Hall, [Council of Europe, exhibition catalogues, 9], Athens 1964, cat. no. 214.
  • 49.
    Joszef Deér, “Die byzantisierenden Zellenschmelze der Linköping-Mitra und ihr Denkmalkreis”, in Walter Nikolaus Schumacher, eds., Tortulae. Studien zu altchristlichen und byzantinischen Monumenten, [Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte, Suppl. 30], Rome – Fribourg – Vienna 1966, pp. 49‑64, 59, nt. 36 (erroneously given by Wessel 1967a/b, op. cit., cat. no. 65, as nt. 26).
  • 50.
    Wessel 1967a/b, op. cit., cat. no. 65.
  • 51.
    Munich 1998, Rom und Byzanz, cat. cit., cat. no. 84 (Marcell Restle).
  • 52.
    Buckton 2000, op. cit., pp. 97‑99.
  • 53.
    Ibid., p. 98.
  • 54.
    Stege / Grillparzer / Mahnke, op. cit., pp. 83‑84.
  • 55.
    Ivan Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion in Later Byzantium, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016, p. 3; Rhoby, op. cit., pp.  94‑95.
  • 56.
    Full discussion in Rhoby, op. cit.
  • 57.
    Shashina / Sterligova, op. cit.
  • 58.
    Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2018b, op. cit.
  • 59.
    Stege / Grillparzer / Mahnke, op. cit., p. 282.
  • 60.
    Paul Hetherington, “The Enamels on the Mitre from Linköping Cathedral, and Art in Thirteenth-Century Constantinople”, in Hetherington 2008a, XI, pp. 1‑16, esp. p. 14; Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2020, op. cit.
  • 61.
    Hetherington 2008b, op. cit., pp. 5‑15.
  • 62.
    Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2020, op. cit., as reference for the whole paragraph.
  • 63.
    Wilfried Seipel, ed., Nobiles officinae. Die königlichen Hofwerkstätten zu Palermo zur Zeit der Normannen und Staufer im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert, exh. cat., Palermo, Palazzo dei Normanni, December 2003-March 2004, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, March-June 2004, Milan : Skira, 2004, cat. no. 54 (Claudia Guastella), cat. no. 57 (Helmut Trnek).
  • 64.
    Wessel 1967a/b, op. cit., cat. no. 66.
  • 65.
    Ibid., no. 66.
  • 66.
    See on this chapter Jannic Durand, “Les émaux byzantins IXe–XVe siècle”, in Isabelle Biron, Émaux sur métal du IXe au XIXe siècle. Histoire, technique et matériaux, Paris: édition Faton, 2015, pp. 65‑69; Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “Contact between Byzantium and the West from the 9th to the 15th Century and Their Reflections in Goldsmiths’ Works and Enamels”, in Falko Daim, Dominik Heher, Claudia Rapp, eds., Menschen, Bilder, Sprache, Dinge. Wege der Kommunikation zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen, 1: Bilder und Dinge. Studien zur Ausstellung "Byzanz & der Westen. 1000 vergessene Jahre", Mainz 2018, pp. 73‑104, esp. pp. 94‑99; Holger Kempkens, “Westliche sakrale Goldschmiedekunst des Mittelalters und ihre Rezeption im spätbyzantinischen Kulturraum”, in Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, ed., New Research on Late Byzantine Goldsmiths’ Works. Proceedings of the Conference held in Mainz, 29–30 October 2015, [Byzanz zwischen Orient und Okzident 13], Mainz 2019, pp. 127‑146.
  • 67.
    See, for example, John Philip O'Neill, ed., Enamels of Limoges: 1100–1350, exh. cat., Paris, Musée du Louvre, October 1995-January 1996, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, March-June 1996, New York 1996; Biron 2015, op. cit.; Dorothee Kemper, Die Hildesheimer Emailarbeiten des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts, Regensburg 2020.
  • 68.
    For examples of church equipment, such as candlesticks, see Helen C. Evans. ed., Byzantium. Faith and Power, exh. cat., New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, March-July 2004, New York 2004, cat. no. 65 (Anna Ballian).
  • 69.
    Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2011, op. cit., pp. 22–24. Latest publications on the Preslav Treasure: Paris 2018, Le trésor de Preslav, cat. cit.
  • 70.
    Cf. Warren T. Woodfin, “Within a Budding Grove: Dancers, Gardens, and the Enamel Cup from the Chungul Kurgan”, The Art Bulletin, 98.2, 2016, pp. 151‑180, esp. p. 157 for the term.
  • 71.
    Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2011, op. cit., nos. 193–196 ; Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “A 13th-century Jewellery Hoard from Thessalonica: A Genuine Hoard or an Art Dealer’s Compilation?”, in Chris Entwistle, Noel Adams, éds., Intelligible Beauty. Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, [British Museum Research Publication 178], London 2010, pp. 219‑232, esp. nos 5‑8.
  • 72.
    Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2011, op. cit., cat. no. 137.
  • 73.
    For these and other examples of line enamel, see Woodfin 2016, op. cit., pp. 156‑160, figs. 16‑18.
  • 74.
    See Ibid., p. 157, and for a photograph of the back of the Monomachos Crown plates see fig. 15.
  • 75.
    Compare Ibid., 2016, p. 176, note 46.
  • 76.
    London 2008, Byzantium 330–1453, cat. cit., cat. no. 227.
  • 77.
    Most recent: Falko Daim, Dominik Heher, eds., Byzanz & der Westen. 1000 vergessene Jahre, exh. cat., Schallaburg, Renaissanceschloss, March-November 2018, Schallaburg 2018, cat. no. 192 (Anastasia Drandaki), with overview of literature.
  • 78.
    New York 2004, Byzantium. Faith and Power, cat. cit., cat. no. 65 (Anna Ballian).
  • 79.
    Elisabeth Taburet-Delahaye, Barbara Drake Boehm, eds., Enamels of Limoges. 1100–1350, exh. cat., New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, March-June 1996, New York 1996, cat. no. 98 (B. Drake Boehm, c. 1220-1230), cat. no. 124 (B. Drake Boehm, ca. 1240-1260)
  • 80.
    New York 2004, Byzantium. Faith and Power, cat. cit., cat. no. 65 (Anna Ballian). Ballian mentions two similarly shaped censors which are unfortunately now lost.
  • 81.
    Durand 2015, op. cit., pp. 69‑68, fig. 4.
  • 82.
    The occasion was probably the wedding of Rukn ad-Daula (1114–1144) who is mentioned in the inscription and who married the Seljuk princess Sacide Hatun (died 1130), see Asutay-Effenberger, op. cit., pp. 44‑45 (the article also gives an overview over older literature).
  • 83.
    Francesca Dell‘Acqua, “Borders of Experimentalism. Glass in the Frame of the Genoa Mandylion”, in Chris Entwistle, Liz James, eds., New Light on Old Glass. Recent Research on Byzantine Glass and Mosaics, London: British Museum Press, 2013, pp. 234‑241; Gerhard Wolf, Colette Dufour Bozzo, Anna Rosa Calderoni Masetti, eds., Mandylion: intorno al Sacro Volto, da Bisanzio a Genova, exh. cat., Genova, Museo Diocesano, April-July 2004, Milan: Skyra, 2004.
  • 84.
    Discussion of the date see Dell’Acqua, op. cit., p. 240.
  • 85.
    Ibid., p. 237 (on Abgar’s bed cover in the first and the fifth scene, Dell’Acqua’s pl. 11).
  • 86.
    For Byzantine niello see Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “Niello (Goldschmiedetechnik)”, Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst, vol. 7, Stuttgart 2004, cols. 966‑976.
  • 87.
    Dell’Acqua, op. cit., 2013, pp. 236‑238. The use of niello in combination with enamel, as described by Dell’Acqua, requires further discussion and analyses. If niello under enamel is meant, this would be virtually impossible to do. My thanks to Prof. Susanne Greiff, University of Tübingen, for the discussion of the issue.
  • 88.
    Klaus Wessel, “[Art.] Email”, Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst, vol. 2, Mainz 1971, col. 93‑129, esp. col. 129, mentions that the chalice attributed to Despote Manuel Palaiologos, Despot von Mistra (1349–1380) was enamelled in the fold of the figures garments. Without an autopsy, this is impossible to verify, but Wessel must have seen the enamel traces himself.
  • 89.
    Hetherington 2003, op. cit., pp. 91‑93; Holger A. Klein, Byzanz, der Westen und das 'wahre' Kreuz. Die Geschichte einer Reliquie und ihrer künstlerischen Fassung in Byzanz und im Abendland, [Spätantike – Frühes Christentum – Byzanz. Kunst im ersten Jahrtausend, Reihe B: Studien und Perspektiven, 17], Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2004, pp. 136‑137.
  • 90.
    Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2017, op. cit., p. 206.
  • 91.
    Similar in colour and technique is the enamel on a hitherto unpublished double-sided medallion in the Toledo Museum of Art with the relief image of the Archangel Saint Michael. My sincerest thanks to curator Sophie Ong who has brought this enamel to my attention and is preparing a publication on the object.
  • 92.
    Woodfin 2016, op. cit., fig. 1, 4.
  • 93.
    See Marie-Madeleine Gauthier, Émaux du Moyen Âge, Fribourg 1972, pp. 206‑215, and cat. no. 166 ; Katia Guth-Dreyfus, Transluzides Email in der ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts am Ober-, Mittel- und Niederrhein, [Basler Studien zur Kunstgeschichte, 9], Basel 1954.
  • 94.
    Jannic Durand, “Innovations gothiques dans l’orfèvrerie byzantine sous les Paléologues”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 58, 2004, pp. 333‑354, esp. pp. 348–349, with discussion of the date.
  • 95.
    Ibid., p. 349 and fig. 30.
  • 96.
    Ibid., pp. 339‑341, with further literature. See also Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2018a.
  • 97.
    Ibid., p. 341, with discussion of the different hypotheses.
  • 98.
    Hetherington 2019, op. cit.
  • 99.
    It has been shortly described by Yota Ikonomaki-Papadopoulos, "Church Metalwork", in Konstantinos Manaphes, ed., Sinai: Treasures of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Athens 1990, pp. 263-310, esp. pp. 267-268.
  • 100.
    Ibid., pp. 267-268.
  • 101.
    New York 1997, The Glory of Byzantium, cat. cit., cat. no. 198 (Olenka Z. Pevny).
  • 102.
    Barbara Drake Boehm, Melanie Holcomb, eds., Jerusalem. 1000–1400. Every People under Heaven, exh. cat., New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, September 2016-August 2017, New York 2016, pp. 235‑236 and fig. 89.
  • 103.
    See the conference publication on the Bessarion Staurotheke: Klein / Poletto / Schreiner, op. cit.
  • 104.
    Peter Schreiner, “La croce della stauroteca all’epoca dei Paleologhi”, in Klein / Poletto / Schreiner, op. cit., pp. 99‑112, esp. pp. 102‑105.
  • 105.
    Bosselmann-Ruickbie 2017, op. cit., p. 183.
  • 106.
    Mari Yanagishita, “II restauro delle parti metalliche e degli ‘smalti’. Fasi di intervento e dati rilevati”, Klein / Poletto / Schreiner, op. cit., pp. 53–68, p. 58.
  • 107.
    Warren T. Woodfin, “The Mock Turtle’s Tears. Ersatz Enamel and the Hierarchy of Media in Pseudo-Kodinos”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 41(1), 2017, pp. 55‑80, with examples.
  • 108.
    Ibid., p. 55.
  • 109.
    See, for example, London 2008, Byzantium 330–1453, cat. cit., cat. no. 251.
  • 110.
    Woodfin 2017, op. cit., p. 60.
  • 111.
    Hetherington 2019, op. cit., p. 33.
  • 112.
    Nikephoros Gregoras, Rhomäische Geschichte / Historia Rhomaike, ed. and German trad., Jan Louis van Dieten, Stuttgart 1973, 15,2.
  • 113.
    Paul Hetherington, “A Purchase of Byzantine Relics: Purchase of Byzantine Relics and Reliquaries in Fourteenth-Century Venice”, Arte Veneta. Rivista di storia dell’arte, 37, 1983, pp. 9‑30.
  • 114.
    Cecily Hilsdale, Byzantine Art and Diplomacy in an Age of Decline, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, e.g., p. 2.
  • 115.
    Andrea Mattiello, Maria Alessia Rossi, eds., Late Byzantium Reconsidered: The Arts of the Palaiologan Era in the Mediterranean, London 2019, see introduction for an overview, esp. pp. 1-2.
  • 116.
    Ibid., p. VIII (foreword).
  • 117.
    Ibid., p. 3 (introduction) and especially Cecily Hilsdale’s contribution, pp. 53‑70.