¹ Text of the agreement of March 1204 in Tafel, G. L. F. and Thomas, G. M., Urkunden zur älteren Handels-und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig (Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, zweite Abtheilung, Diplomataria et Acta 12–14) I, 444ff. nos. 119 and 120. (Hereafter T.-Th). Election of Baldwin in Villehardouin, , La Conquête de Constantinople , ed. de Wailly, N. (Paris 1874) 152–154; ed. Faral, E. (Paris 1938–39), II, 64–66; de Clari, Robert, La Conquête de Constantinople , ed. Lauer, P. (Paris 1924) 93; letter of Baldwin to Innocent III, PL 215, 45; Choniates, Nicetas, Historia , ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1835) 789–790. Election of Morosini in PL 215, 512 (Book VII, no. 203); Potthast 2382; T.-Th. I, 524, no. 129. The choice of Morosini in this fashion was of course uncanonical; Innocent III had not been informed in advance and it is by no means certain that the Pope would have approved the election of a Latin Patriarch: he might have preferred to negotiate with the Greeks. As it was, he denounced the procedure but confirmed the election just the same (letter cited above).Google Scholar

² Baldwin’s death in Nicetas 847–848; paraphrase of a letter from Ioannitsa himself to Innocent III, Gesta Innocentii , PL 214, cxlviii, no. 108; Akropolita, George, Opera , ed. Heisenberg, A. (Leipzig 1903) I, 22. The motives only appear after a searching analysis of the account of these developments given by Villehardouin and Nicetas. This line of argument will be discussed elsewhere; so will the legendary accounts of Baldwin’s fate which abound in other sources.Google Scholar

³ Villehardouin, ed. de Wailly, 262; ed. Faral II, 252.Google Scholar

⁴ The Cumans, a Turkish tribe, were allied with the Vlachs and Bulgars beginning with the Vlach revolt in 1185. The best account of them is Rasovskii, D. A., ‘Polovtsy,’ Seminarium. Kondakovianum 7 (1935) 245–262; 8 (1936) 161–182; 9 (1937) 71–85; 10 (1938) 155–178; 11 (1940) 86–128.Google Scholar

⁵ T.-Th. II, 37, no. 176.Google Scholar

⁶ T.-Th. II, 34–35, no. 174.Google Scholar

⁷ For the Palace see Van Millingen, A., Byzantine Constantinople (London 1899) 289ff. It was assigned to the future Latin Emperor, together with the Palace of the Blachernae, by the agreement of March, 1204, already cited.Google Scholar

⁸ The sources here are two, one Greek and one Latin: Nicholas Mesarites’ account of the debate of August 30, 1206, published by Heisenberg, A., ‘Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion,’ Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse (Munich 1923) II; and a letter of Innocent III, PL 215, 1077 (Book IX, no. 243); Potthast 2981; T.-Th II, 45, no. 178, January 13, 1207. Mesarites specifically names the icon as the Hodegetria and tells us all we know about the Greeks’ role in the episode; it is only the quarrel between Morosini and the Venetians with which the Pope concerns himself. Of this he gives a fuller account, quoting Morosini’s own complaint to him, than does Mesarites, for whom the strife among the Latins was less important than the debate between Latins and Greeks.Google Scholar

⁹ Innocent’s letter as cited. The words in quotes are a translation of Mesarites’ phrase (p. 15): πολυημέρῳ καí φρικαλέῳ … ἀναθὲματι. The church of the Pantokrator, acquired by the Venetians after the capture of Constantinople, was built by Irene, wife of the Emperor John Comnenus (1118–1143), and survives as the mosque of Zeirek-Djami. Van Millingen, A., Byzantine Churches in Constantinople (London 1912) 219–242; Richter, J. P., Quellen der byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte (Quellenschriften für Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik, Vienna 1897—a continuation of an earlier volume by F. W. Unger in the same series; hereafter cited as Richter, , Quellen II [Unger]) 240–242; Schneider, A., Byzanz (Istanbuler Forschungen Miscellany herausgegeben Abteilung Istanbul des archäologischen Instituts des deutschen Reiches, Berlin 1936) 68–69; Ebersolt, J., Les Églises de Constantinople (Paris 1913) I,185ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Mesarites, , loc. cit. 16.Google Scholar

¹¹ Innocent's letter as cited in note 8 supra. Google Scholar

¹² Richter II (Unger) 160. Mordtmann, J., Esquisse topographique de Constantinople (Lille 1891) locates the church on his map (plate 1) and comments (p. 51) that all traces of it have vanished. See also Van Millingen, A., Byzantine Constantinople (London 1899) 257ff. and map facing p. 19. Van Millingen gives a series of references in the sources to the small gate of the Hodegetria in the city wall close-by.Google Scholar

¹³ Demangel, R. and Mamboury, E., Le Quartier des Manganes et la premiere région de Constantinople (Paris 1939) 78ff. and plan, plate 1. See the careful review of this work by Janin, R. in Échos d'Orient 39 (1940) 236ff. When Demangel and Mamboury’s book is not available the best account is still Diehl, C., ‘Rapport sur les fouilles du Corps d’occupation français en Constantinople,’ Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Comptes rendus des séances (1923) 243ff. Diehl quotes M. Demangel's first announcement of the discovery.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Described by Diehl, loc. cit., and with further details and a photograph in ‘Chronique des fouilles et decouvertes archéologiques dans l’Orient hellénique,’ by the Editors in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 47 (1923) 342–3. See also Schede, Martin, ‘Archäologische Funde—Türkei,’ Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 44 (1929) 326 and Janin, R., ‘La Topographie de Constantinople byzantine, Études et découvertes 1918–1938,’ Échos d’Orient 38 (1939) 132. Google Scholar

¹⁵ Wulzinger, Karl, Byzantinische Baudenkmäler zu Konstantinopel (Hannover 1925) 43–44 and 46–47. Wulzinger has prepared a map (p. 39) of the east portion of Seraglio Point, which brings Mordtmann up to date. It will be noticed that Mordtmann locates the Monastery of St. Lazarus south of the church of the Hodegetria, and that Wulzinger reverses this relationship. Schneider, Alfons, Byzanz (note 9 supra) 90, also doubts the identification, and thinks the building was the site of private baths.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Wulzinger’s map is called by Demangel and Mamboury (op. cit. p. i) ‘hautement fantaisiste’; their own plate differs from it widely; they argue (102–111) strongly for the identification, marshalling several new arguments against both Wulzinger and Schneider. Janin’s review, however (loc. cit. note 2) indicates that, in his view, the question is still open.—In the summer of 1948, after this article had been accepted for publication, I had a chance to visit Istanbul and searched for the ruins of the church of the Hodegetria. The shore of Seraglio Point is now a military zone; after being arrested twice in one afternoon by the Turkish military for unwittingly penetrating into the zone, I was assigned a soldier as escort, and together we looked for the ruins, without success. I had with me Demangel and Mamboury’s book and a very large-scale map ([Nomides], Misn, Topographische und archäologische Karte von Konstantinopel im Mittelalter [Galata: Druckerei Kephalides 1938]) which had not been available to me while writing the article. Later, Dr. Aziz Ogan, Director of the Archeological Museum (Ottoman Museum), told me that the ruins had been cleared away or the dig filled in (!).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Πάτρια κωνσταντινουπóλεως III, 27; ed. Preger, Theodor, Scriptores originum Constanti-nopolitanarum (Leipzig 1907) II, 223; Codinus, ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1843) 80; Richter, , Quellen II (Unger) 160. For ascription to Codinus see Krumbacher, K., Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur (Munich 1897) 423.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Itinéraires russes en Orient, tr. Mme. de Khitrowo, B. (Geneva 1889) 229. Cf. Diehl, , loc. cit. 247 n. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁹ PG 86, 165 and 168. For Theodore see von Christ, Wilhelm, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, ed. Schmid, Wilhelm und Stählin, Otto (Munich 1924) II, ii, 1483, with a bibligoraphy.Google Scholar

²⁰ Nicephorus in PG 146, 1061 (Book XIV, chapter 2); 147, 41–44 (XV, 14). See Krumbacher, , op. cit. 291ff. for account of Nicephorus. The most complete discussion of the icon of the Hodegetria with the fullest references to the sources is still Du Cange, C., Constantinopolis Christiana, Book IV, pp. 59ff., being the second part of his Historia Byzantina duplici commentario illustrata, Byzantinae historiae scriptores graece et latine (Venice 1729) 21. See also Iacobus Gretser, S. J., Syntagma de imaginibus manu non factis deque aliis a sancto Luca pictis ch. 18, in Opera omnia (Ratisbon 1741) XV, 205ff.—The basic modern study is von Dobschütz, Ernst, Christusbilder (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur ed. Harnack, and Gebhardt, , 3; Munich 1898–99) II, 267ff. Ebersolt, J., Sanctuaires de Byzance (Paris 1922) 69–70 is incomplete and incorrect. It is noteworthy that Demangel, and Mamboury, , op. cit. 104ff. and elsewhere, follow Ebersolt uncritically in accepting the Pulcheria tradition and (p. 105) also accept Richter’s faulty source materials (see below note 31) and the passage from Nicephorus Kallistos Xanthopoulos. The result is that these authors, expert archeologists and the most recent writers on the subject, present an altogether inadequate and inaccurate account. Dobschütz, who reprints many of the relevant passages from the sources, is followed by Kondakov, N., Ikonografiya Bogomateri (Petrograd 1915) II, 152ff. and by Klein, Dorothee, St. Lukas als Maler der Maria (Berlin 1933) 7ff.—There is some disagreement whether the interpolation of the passage in Theodore Lector was done by Nicephorus himself or by some other author. Dobschütz, Cf., op. cit. II, 271 n. 1. For present purposes all that matters is that the tradition cannot be carried back to the sixth century.Google Scholar

²¹ The story of the Empress Eudocia’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 438, of her brilliant reception at Antioch en route, of her great interest in relics, and of her sending to Rome some of the chains which had bound St. Peter—for which her daughter, the western Empress Eudoxia, wife of Valentinian III, built the church of San Pietro in Vincoli—is told in the sources, with no mention of any portrait of the Virgin. Cf. Bury, J. B., History of the Later Roman Empire (London 1923) II, 227, who is following the Vita Melaniae iunioris , ed. Rampolla, , 1905. Gregorovius, F., Athenais (Leipzig 1882) 171, remarks that portraits of the Virgin by St. Luke were a regular article of commerce in fifth-century Jerusalem, at the time of Eudocia’s visit; but it seems highly probable that Gregorovius was pushing back into the fifth century a legend not developed until later; in any case it does not appear from the sources that Eudocia sent a portrait of any kind to Constantinople on this visit of 438. At the time of her retirement to Jerusalem in 443, relations between her and Pulcheria were so strained that it is altogether improbable that there should have been any correspondence between them. The sources do not record any.—Mesarites in Heisenberg, A., Grabeskirche und Apostelkirche (Leipzig 1908) II, 82–83: εὔδοξος αὔτή καί περιβóητος τς τν ‘Oδηγv δομητρία μονς ὄpa γáp, ὄπως καì ταȋν χεροȋν άνέχει παρθένος οσα τò τς παναγvου καί παρθένου ὁμοίωμα. Eudocia is not mentioned.Google Scholar

²² PG 97, 1301–4.Google Scholar

²³ Patriarch Germanos, as reported in Monachos, Georgios, ed. de Boor, (Leipzig 1904) II, 785; the so-called Epistle to Theophilus, wrongly ascribed to John of Damascus, PG 95, 349, where the story is first told that the Virgin, when shown Luke's handiwork, had said ‘My grace will go with it’; Theophanes, ed. de Boor, (Leipzig 1883) II, 12; Life of Theodore of Studion, PG 99, 177.Google Scholar

²⁴ Specifically called the earliest by Vasiliev, A.A., Byzance et les Arabes (Brussels 1935) I, 259 n. 4.Google Scholar

²⁵ Theophanes Continuatus, ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1838) 204; Skylitzes (in Cedrenus) ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1839) II, 179; Zonaras, , ed. Büttner-Wobst, T. (Bonn 1897) III, 413. For the planned expedition to Crete in the spring of 866, which assembled in Asia Minor, see Bury, J. B., A History of the Eastern Roman Empire (London 1912) 170ff. who follows the narrative historical sources in maintaining that the expedition never sailed. The surviving abridged Vita of Sergius Niketiates and a letter of Photius, however, indicate that it did sail, and landed briefly on Crete. Vasiliev, , op. cit. 260 n. 3; Grégoire, H., ‘Études sur le neuvième siècle,’ Byzantion 8 (1933) 526ff.Google Scholar

²⁶ The others, but not this one, are reported by Bury, , Eastern Roman Empire 170 n. 1.Google Scholar

²⁷ Genesios, , ed. Lachmann, K. (Bonn 1834) 103.Google Scholar

²⁸ All these passages are apparently unknown to Dobschütz or to Richter, , Quellen II (Unger) 158ff. neither of whom cites any text earlier than the thirteenth century.Google Scholar

²⁹ See above, note 17. Late texts attribute the salvation of Byzantium from the Arabs in 717 under Leo the Isaurian to the icon of the Hodegetria, but are of course not to be relied upon. Cf. Dobschütz, , op. cit. II, 273 n. 1.Google Scholar

³⁰ Mordtmann, , op. cit. 52–53. Although the inscription is partly defaced, it indicates that the wall of the church had been ruined before Bardas, Domestic of the Schools, rebuilt it at the command of Michael.Google Scholar

³¹ Richter’s reference, Quellen II (Unger) 161, to a passage allegedly from Michael Attaliotes (ed. Bonn, , 196) describing how Michael V Parapinakos (sic) spent the night at Kosmidion, and in the morning had a sermon preached by George, Metropolitan of Cyzicus, who had the icon of the Hodegetria with him, is not to be found in Attaliotes, at the place referred to or elsewhere. Aside from Richter’s carelessness in referring to Michael V Parapinakos (it should presumably be either to Michael V Kalaphates [1041–43] or to Michael VII Dukas Parapinakes [1071–78]—a carelessness demonstrated on the previous page, when he actually confuses Isaac I Comnenus [1057–1059] with Isaac II Angelus [1185–1195]), the whole alleged passage as he reports it from Attaliotes is precisely what happened to Michael VIII Palaeologus (1261–1282) upon the occasion of his entry into Constantinople in 1261. (See below, in text.) It is clear that Richter’s reference is inaccurate: Michael Attaliotes does not seem to mention the Hodegetria; and no other source tells any such story about the Emperors Michael V or Michael VII.—Moreover, the unsupported statement of Van Millingen, A., Byzantine Churches (note 9 supra) 303, that the icon of the Hodegetria ‘led Zimisces on his victorious campaigns against the Russians’ appears to be without foundation. The sources for this expedition (Leo Diaconus, Skylitzes, Yahya of Antioch, and the Russian Primary Chronicle) make no mention of the Emperor John Tsimisces (969–976) having taken the Hodegetria on his campaign against the Russian Prince Sviatoslav in Bulgaria in 972, or possibly (but probably not) in 971–974, as D. Anastasijević maintains. The chronology of these campaigns is debated between Anastasijević and Dölger, F. See Anastasijević's articles, ‘Leon Diakonos über das Jahr der Befreiung Bulgariens von den Russen durch Tzimiskes,’ Seminarium Kondakovianum 3 (1929) 1–4; ‘Die Zahl der Araberzüge des Tzimiskes,’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30 (1929–1930) 400–405; ‘Les indications chronologiques de Yahya relatives à la guerre de Tzimisces contre les Russes,’ Mélanges Charles Diehl (Paris, 1930) I, 1–5; ‘La chronologie de la guerre russe de Tzimisces,’ Byzantion 6 (1931) 337–342; and ‘Die chronologischen Angaben des Skylitzes über den Russenzug des Tzimiskes,’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 31 (1931) 328–333, all upholding his theory that the expedition began in 971 and lasted until 974, and all disputed by Dölger, F., ‘Die Chronologie des grossen Feldzuges des Kaisers Johannes Tzimiskes gegen die Russen,’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 32 (1932) 275–292. Schlumberger, Gustave, L'épopée Byzantine à la fin du dixième siècle (Paris 1896) I, 87ff. describes the campaign at length, using all the sources. He does indeed report that John captured at Dorystolon (Silistria) a miraculous icon of the Virgin, which Schlumberger (pp. 175–6) conjectures may have been one of those believed to have been made by no human hand (άχειροποιητóς—see Dobschütz passim), and which John Tsimisces apparently venerated highly, since, despite the protests of his courtiers, he placed it with his own hands in the chariot reserved for him at his triumphal re-entry to Constantinople, together with the imperial insignia of Bulgaria, also captured. Van Millingen may have been misled by some reference to this icon.—The use in the tenth century of an icon of the Virgin as a palladium, and her position as patroness of the Byzantine armies are, however, well attested. Thus Nicephorus Phocas, at the siege of Chandax (Candia) in Crete in 961, is said to have built a special shrine to the Virgin in which his soldiers worshipped, which survived at least a century later, and was remarkable for its beauty; and also spurred his troops to the final assault by an impassioned oration calling upon the Virgin immediately before his forces went into action. Schlumberger, G., Un empereur byzantine au dixième siècle, Nicéphore Phocas (2nd ed. Paris 1923) 72 n. 1 and pp. 74–75. Grégoire, H., loc. cit. 528–530, however, maintains that the church on Crete was built not by Nicephorus Phocas but almost a century earlier by Sergius Niketiates, the Admiral of the fleet of Michael III, who, Grégoire urges, did in fact land on Crete in 866.Google Scholar

³² Nicetas, , ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1835) 497. This passage is wrongly dated 1057, and ascribed to the reign of Isaac I Comnenus by Richter, , Quellen II (Unger) 160. For the revolt and its date, see Cognasso, F., ‘Un Imperatore Bizantino della Decadenza: Isacco II Angelo,’ Bessarione 31 (1915) 34, 48, 52. It was in this revolt that Conrad of Montferrat, elder brother of Boniface, first Latin King of Thessalonica, saved Byzantium.Google Scholar

³³ Mme. de Khitrowo, B., op. cit. (n. 18) 99. Excerpt also printed in Count Riant, P., Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae (Geneva 1878) II 224.Google Scholar

³⁴ See above, note 8.Google Scholar

³⁵ Pachymeres, , ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1835) I, 160. For Nicephorus Kallistos Xanthopoulos, see above, note 20. See also note 31 for the Metropolitan of Cyzicus.Google Scholar

³⁶ Gregoras, Nicephorus, ed. Schopen, L. (Bonn 1829) I, 86. It is also told by George Akropolita (ed. Heisenberg, 187) who reports that the Emperor followed the icon on foot from the Golden Gate to the church of St. John of the Studion, but who does not attribute the icon to St. Luke.Google Scholar

³⁷ Nicephorus I, 298, 422, 543, 555, 559; II, 576. Cf. Dobschütz, , op. cit. II, 272–273.Google Scholar

³⁸ Cantacuzenos, , ed. Schopen, L. (Bonn 1828) I, 305; II, 297, 607; III, 8.Google Scholar

³⁹ Krumbacher, , op. cit. 424–425.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ This ceremony is doubtless the one to which Anthony of Novgorod referred when he said that they carried the icon across the city.Google Scholar

⁴¹ The Nikopoios or Nikopoia (lit. ‘Victory-maker’) was also a highly venerated icon of the Virgin, which, however, appears never to have been attributed to St. Luke. This icon, held in as great esteem as the Hodegetria, was the special palladium of the Emperors, and had its own chapel in the great palace. It was regarded as the symbol of Byzantine victories over the barbarians, and its tradition goes back to the Emperor Maurice (582–602); but it probably dated from some time after the iconoclastic controversy. It is believed to be preserved in St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice, where, the local tradition is, Dandolo sent it after the Fourth Crusade. Frequently confused with the Hodegetria (Dobschütz, , op. cit. II, 272 n. 2, notes this confusion), it was far smaller in size, and portrayed the Virgin in an altogether different attitude: the original, which is almost certainly lost, probably had a full-length figure—the Venice copy shows a half-length—holding the Infant as if in a medallion on her bosom. The Nikopoia is regarded by Kondakov as the original of a separate iconographical genre (op. cit. [note 20 supra] II, 124ff, 137ff. with plates; see also Beissel, Stephanus, Geschichte der Verehrung Marias in Deutschland [Freiburg im Breisgau 1909] 75ff.). Kondakov suggests in passing (p. 197) that the Nikopoia icon now in Venice may have been captured by the Latins from the Emperor Alexius V Murzouphlus. He is presumably referring here to what is, in all probability, still a third icon. This third icon of the Virgin, of a type not at present identifiable, was captured from Alexius V Murzouphlus by Henry, Baldwin’s brother, later Latin Emperor, in February 1204, during the siege of Constantinople by the Crusaders. The incident is reported by Villehardouin, ed. de Wailly, 132; ed. Faral, II, 28; and in some detail by Robert of Clari, who describes the icon (‘ansconne’) as an Image of Our Lady, which the Greek Emperors carry with them when they go into battle, and as covered with gold and precious stones. He adds that it was sent to Cîteaux by the Latins (ed. Lauer, 65ff.). Du Cange, in his edition of Villehardouin (Paris 1657) 312, notes that it never reached Cîteaux and suggests (following Ramnusius, P., De bello Constantinopolitano, Venice 1634) that this is the icon still preserved in Venice; but he also says that it is neither the Nikopoia nor the Hodegetria. The capture of this third icon from Murzouphlus is also reported in the anonymous Devastatio Constantinopolis (ed. Hopf, C., Chroniques Gréco-Romanes [Berlin 1873] 91); by Alberic of Trois-Fontaines (MGH SS 23, 883); and in the letter of the Emperor Baldwin (T.-Th. I, 504) to Innocent III. Count Riant long ago concluded that it was virtually impossible to identify this icon, ‘Des dépouilles religieuses enlevées à Constantinople au XIIIe siècle,’ Mémoires de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de France, 4^e série 6 (1875) 36 n. 1. It certainly was not the Hodegetria; it may have been the Nikopoia, but this is doubtful.Google Scholar

⁴² Codinus, , ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1839) 69–70. Iacobus Gretser’s Commentary on Codinus (ibid. 315–316) contains references to many of the passages in the sources relative to the Hodegetria.Google Scholar

⁴³ Mme. de Khitrowo, B., op. cit. 137, 162, 201, 229. Ebersolt, J., op. cit. (note 20 supra) 69–70.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Narrative of the Embassy of Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo to the Court of Timour at Samarcand, A.D. 1403–6, tr. Markham, Clements R. (London 1859) 44. Clavijo adds that the icon is taken back into its church by one man, whose miraculous strength is given to him for this task only, and is hereditary in his family. He calls the church the ‘Dessetria,’ an obvious corruption of the Greek Hodegetria.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Khitrowo, , op. cit. 162.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Dukas, , ed. Bekker, I. (Bonn 1834) 272 and 288. See Van Millingen, A., Byzantine Churches 303.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Dobschütz, , op. cit. II, 273 n. 2. On the Pera, or Galata, icon see Dallegio D’Alessio, E., Le couvent et l'église des saints Pierre et Paul à Galata (Istanbul 1935) 19ff.; Palazzo, P. B. and Raineri, P. A. O.P., La chiesa di S. Pietro in Galata (Istanbul 1943) 38ff. Oddly enough, in the late seventeenth century the Venetian baile in Constantinople tried to seize this icon, just as his predecessor of 1206 had done with the true Hodegetria.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Bury, J. B., A History of the Later Roman Empire (London 1889) II, 447–448, following Lenormant, F., La Grande-Grèce (Paris 1881) II, 388. See also Storia della traslazione dell’ Immagine Miraculosa di S. Maria di Constantinopoli nella città di Bari (n.p. [Bari?] 1813); same (Naples 1824); and the record of the celebration of the eleven-hundredth anniversary of the alleged translation, Eoniade della traslazione della … Immagine … celebrata in quella [Bari] Cattedrale (Naples 1833)—all unknown to Lenormant and Bury, all in the Harvard Library, and all based on what purports to be an account written in the year 843 by a certain Gregory. This account was discovered to be a forgery, perpetrated by an eighteenth-century canon of Bari, anxious to provide his church with ammunition in a dispute in which it was engaged with the church of Canosa. See C. Cantù, ‘Di alcune falsificazioni storiche,’ Archivio storico italiano, Nuova Serie 12 (1860) 13ff. Reference also in Codice diplomatico Barese (Bari 1897) I, v note 1; cf. Gay, J., L’Italie méridionale et l’empire Byzantin (Paris 1904) 195. Lenormant, , op. cit. takes his account from what he calls the synaxarion of the Greek church of Bari, edited under Byzantine occupation in the tenth or eleventh century by ‘le papas Gligoris (sans doute une corruption de Grigorios).’ I have found no other reference to this synaxarion, and the name Gregory suggests that it is a mere Greek translation of the Latin forgery, with which its account precisely tallies.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Goldonowski, Andreas, Historia beatae Virginis Claromontanae (n.p., n.d.) passim; Nieszporkowitz, Ambrosius, Analecta mensae reginalis, seu historia imaginis Odigitriae etc. (Cracow 1681); Kiedrzynski, Anastasius, Mensa Nazaraea etc. (Czestochowa 1769).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Beissel, , op. cit. (note 41 supra) 74.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Kondakov op. cit. passim. Google Scholar

⁵² ‘Originally the Hodegetria icons represented the Virgin in full figure, standing and holding the Infant on her eft arm. Later, probably after the eleventh century, icons appeared with the Virgin supporting the Infant in her right arm. As the result of a long process of development, the full-length composition was gradually superseded by the half-figure, until the Hodegetria type became firmly established as a half-length figure holding the Infant on either the left or the right arm…. One of the interesting variants is the seated Hodegetria, in which the Virgin is represented in full figure, enthroned, and supporting the infant on either the left or the right arm.’ Lasareff, Victor, ‘Studies in the Iconography of the Virgin,’ The Art Bulletin 20 (1938) 46. For the use of the term with no explanation of its origin, see Diehl, Charles, Manuel de l'art byzantin (Paris 1925) I, 325 and passim. Google Scholar