8/8/2019 rubyzantineBB

1/1

s imilar idea is expressed by M an uel I I Paleologos in his advice to his son and co-emperor,J o h n : '

Gcxl will provide good things in abundance lor You, knowing thai You owe Your power from him , realizing that Youare his servant and rejoicing more as God's servant than as ruler over others.Court ceremonies developed into a ver i table l i turgy. The sanctuary was the Sacred Palace.

The imper ial garments assumed form and colour according to the rhythm of the church fes t i vals. Par t icular dress ing-rooms in the palace, natatoria, were used for changing the imper ial gar ments according to a s t r ict ly regulated r i tual . Reci tat ions of r i tual formulae, hymns and rhythmical accla ma tions, sometimes in the form of a dialogue, const i tu ted the imp er ial l iturgy. O n theeve of a solemn ceremony, meticulous instructions were given to all participants. The ceremonialgarb emphasized the sacred and eternal ly elevated role that the imper ial cour t was meant to playin the cosmic order. Pearls, precious stones and the palatial architecture expressed the majestas ofthe state. The imperial images reflected the position of the emperor in relation to public law, iuspublicum. They became the object of the same expressions of honour as the emperor himself andparticipated in the same manifestations of the official law.

In the imper ial cul t of the army, the laureata played an impor tant role as s tatues in the sanctuar ies , as images on the banners and f lags , car r ied by so-cal led imaginiferi. The r igh t to car ryan imper ial image on a banner was a pr ivi lege also shared by high cour t of f icials . In the opposi te case, i t was a disgrace to the imper ial images on mil i tary banners to lose to the enemy inwar .

W he n imper ial images app ear ed in contexts outs ide the dom ain of pu bl ic law, they were considered as an insignium, a personal sign of honour, or a symbol of imperial power delegated tohigh court officials. Only the cnsules ordinari had the official right to carry the imperial image onthe sceptre . After the fal l of the Roman Empire, th is r ight was conferred on the Byzant ineemperor. The imperial port rai ts could be f ixed on the tablion of the chlamys, as is seen o n th e ivoryportrai t of Ariadne carrying the image of Leo II as consul , in 474, on the imperial d ip tych no.51 in the Bargel lo museum in Florence, or on the sfaranikon, die h igh , sumptuous ly decora tedheadg ear worn by the archontes, with the image of an em per or seated on the thro ne in frontal posein the front and a s tanding emperor on the back.

Andr Grabar has demons t ra ted tha t the imper ia l i conography depended on the absence o rpresence of the image of Christ. In front of Christ, the emperor could only be depicted standingor in proskynesis.

In spite of the fact mat only a few emperors and empresses in Byzantium were officially canonized as sain ts (e .g . Constant ine the Great , h is mother Helen, Irene and Theodora, the twoempresses who res tored the cul t of images in the 8 th and 9th centuries and the Hungarianpr incess I rene , Jo hn I I Ko m nen os ' wife) , a ll emp erors an d em presses app ear w i th a n imb us onthe following types of portraits:

1. O n co rona t ion portrai ts , wh ere Chris t or the Theo tok os is crow ning the couple to thesacred imperial d igni ty (e .g . the ivory d iptych represent ing Romanos IV and Eudokia (1068-71)wear ing the heavy loros costume in Cabinet des mdai l les , Paris) .

2. O n gold or lead seals, a t tach ed to wri t ten do cum ents in ord er to sanct ion their aum entic i -ty an d legal validity (e.g. the seal of gold of J o h n Vili Paleologos o n a Chrysobulbs logos, Vat o p ed iMonas te ry , Mount Athos ca . 1430).

M. II Paleologos, Praecepla tducatwnis rtgiae. PG 156, 3 23 -3 24 :" ? ", , ? , ? , .223