283-296

The Holy Mandylion as the New Symbol in an Ancient Iconographic Schema

Articles

• Παπαδάκη-Oekland, Στέλλα
• ΠΑΠΑΔΑΚΗ-OEKLAND, Στέλλα

he present study takes as its starting point an iconographie subject frequently found in Cretan wall-paintings of the 13th and 14th century: the representation ofthe Holy Mandylion flanked by busts of Ioakeim andAnne, which is painted on the tympanum of the eastwall, usually of aisleless churches. A typical example isthe representation in the small church of Ayios Georgios at Sklavopoula Selinou. The wall-paintings of thischurch are dated to 1290/91, and are the earliest Byzantine frescoes on the island to be dated by an inscription(Fig. 1).From the point of view of iconography and style, thisrepresentation is characterized by the fact that it combines early elements (e.g., the facial type of Christ, andthe fact that it is depicted from the base of the neck up)with elements that are attested from about the middle ofthe 13th century (the fringed material of the Mandylionis tied at the ends, from which it is hanging). On theother side, its depiction on the eastern wall, positionwhich corresponds in domed churches to the face of theeastern of the arches on which the dome is carried, appears to conform with a tradition attested from themiddle of the 12th century in the case of domedchurches, and from the end of the century in aislelesschurches. As Grabar has already observed, the depiction of the Holy Mandylion in these positions, i.e. in themiddle zone of the church, presupposes that it had thesignificance not only of a sacred relic, but also of asymbol of the divine incarnation. This interpretation isfurther supported by the presence, as in this specificexample, of the figures of the parents of the Virgin, whobegan to appear on either side of it in some of the representations, again from about the middle of the 12thcentury. This particular symbolism is even clearer in theexamples where, as in the Cretan monument, this groupis portrayed on the tympanum of the east wall; for ithere forms part of a cycle of subjects (Virgin and Child,Annunciation) which, as a whole, refer to the idea of thedivine incarnation and, through it, the salvation ofmankind. The article goes on to investigate the "prehistory" ofthis iconographie subject, the conditions under which itwas created, its theoretical foundation, the extent to andvariants in which it was used.On the basis of the evidence available, it is clear that inthe monumental decorations of the 12th and the beginning of the 13th centuries, the Holy Mandylion is neverrepresented alone in these positions: it is alwaysaccompanied either by the figures of the parents of theVirgin, or by those of the two archangels (Monastery ofMiroz Neredica, Djurdjevi Stupovi). It is evident thatthe former variant was intended to stress the humannature of Christ, hence the fact that it alone appears onthe east wall of aisleless churches, while the latter wasintended to emphasise his divine nature. On the basis ofthese features, the hypothesis is propounded that these12th century groups derive from the breaking up of alarger composition, more complete in terms of iconography and meaning, that would have included figuresof both earthly and heavenly witnesses. This hypothesisis further supported by the fact that, in the earlier iconographie tradition, these same doctrinal ideas foundvisual expression in similar groups of figures, whichhowever were not centered around the Mandylion, butaround the figure of Christ Pantokrator, shown in bustor enthroned.These earlier groups can be identified in a number of10th and 11th century monuments, of which, certain atleast, undoubtedly follow the doctrine of the officialChurch: the katholikon of the Monastery of HosiosLoukas, the Koimesis at Nicaea, and the katholikon ofNea Moni on Chios. In all of these, the figures consistently found flanking that of Christ are the Virgin, St.John the Baptist, the archangels, and the parents of theVirgin. It is only at Hosios Loukas, where the decoration of the katholikon includes more than one of thesegroups, that the cycle of earthly "witnesses" of Christ iswidened to iclude James the Brother of the Lord andZacharias. An additional common feature linking theseearlier groups is that as they were placed in the area in front of the main entrance to the naos; they were constituting the counterpart of the subjects of similar contentpainted in the bema, and together with them, definedthe main, longitudinal axis of the church.These subjects must have been introduced in the decoration of the main vault over the narthex shortly after theiconoclastic controversy; while their use in the area ofthe bema must have been quite widespread already inEarly Christian times. The latter may be deduced indirectly, but with certainty, from the survival of theserepresentations in peripheral monuments (Cappadocia)and from reflections of monumental representations ofthis kind dating from the pre-iconoclastic period in portable works (e.g. flask no. 20 at Bobbio, and a miniatureof Kosmas Indikopleustes in the Vatican, gr. 699). Theconclusions drawn from these observations find furthersupport in the small number of examples known so farthat may be regarded as the "immediate precursors" ofthe groups with the Mandylion. We may note thechurch of Ayios Nikolaos at Megali Kastania in theMessenian Mani (Fig. 4), in which the tympanum of theeast wall has a representation showing the parents of theVirgin flanking not the Mandylion, but the bust ofChrist Emmanuel.On the basis of the above observations, it may be concluded that in the art of Constantinople until about thethird quarter of the 11th century, and in the provincesfor about a further century, the central figure in thegroups designed to suggest the dual nature of Christcontinued to be that of Christ in the type of the Pantokrator. These groups were replaced, possibly in themiddle of the 12th century, by the groups examinedhere, which had the same symbolism, occupied the sameposition and had the same function; they differed fromthe earlier groups only in depicting the Holy Mandylionin place of the figure of the Pantokrator. The theoretical aspect of the subject is then examined:that is, the problem of explaining under which considerations the representation of Christ in the traditionalgroups was replaced by the representation of the HolyMandylion, replacement which at first sight appears tobe a misure. For we have to accept that the mystic relationship, clearly attested in the writings of the ChurchFathers, between the sacred prototype and its materialreflection (the icon) would be disturbed by the intervention of an intermediate link, which, even though it weresupernaturally created, was nonetheless material. Abrief review of the sources, especially the liturgical texts,referring to the Holy Mandylion, composed mostly afterit had been transferred to Constantinople, shows thateven after the episode precipitated by the hereticalteaching on icons by Leo of Chalcedon, the Holy Mandylion was recognized as the supreme proof and outstanding symbol of the divine incarnation.At the same time, to return to the monuments, it may benoted that in several of the early, archaising variants ofthe groups of figures discussed, which were used to suggest Christ's suffering on earth and glory, the figure ofChrist is replaced by a depiction of the Cross, or of theHetoimasia (e.g. the lost mosaic in the eastern arch ofAyia Sophia in Constantinople). Thereafter, the replacement of the figure of Christ in groups with the samecontent by the new symbol-Mandylion, represents merely the re-introduction of an ancient practice. In this way,a traditional schema was "improved" and "brought upto date" by being linked with an ancient relic that hadbeen revived and was charged with new symbolism. Atthe same time, was secured the promotion anddissemination of the cult of the recently recaptured relic,which was the most unshakeable, tangible evidence forthe divine incarnation.

• History and Archaeology
• Arts

• Arts and religion

• http://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/deltion/article/view/4653
• http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/dchae.1018