In this book the beauty and meaning of Byzantine art and its aesthetics are for the first time made accessible through the original sources. More than 150 medieval texts are translated from nine medieval languages into English, with commentaries from over seventy leading scholars. These include theories of art, discussions of patronage and understandings of iconography, practical recipes for artistic supplies, expressions of devotion, and descriptions of cities. The volume reveals the cultural plurality and the interconnectivity of medieval Europe and the Mediterranean from the late eleventh to the early fourteenth centuries. The first part uncovers salient aspects of Byzantine artistic production and its aesthetic reception, while the second puts a spotlight on particular ways of expressing admiration and of interpreting of the visual.

"The period encompassed by this volume of translations opens with a major crisis over the status of the icon and its veneration. Charles Barber and David Jenkins (I.1.1 in this volume) present three extensive texts related to this crisis, which began when Leo of Chalcedon objected to the imperial appropriation of materials bearing sacred images, such as the doors of the Chalkoprateia church in Constantinople. As his arguments against this act unfolded in the period from 1082- to 1095, Leo developed a theory of the image that argued for a formal, as opposed to a material, presence of Christ in his icons. Given this presence of Christ's character, Leo argued that an icon should not be destroyed and that this portrayal deserved adoration. A full account of this argument is presented in Leo's letter to his nephew Nicholas of Adrianoupolis. This letter, which perhaps dates to 1093 or 1094, shows how Leo builds his case upon a reading of the ninth-century iconophile writings of Theodore of Stoudios and other authorities, which Leo reads as offering support for a hypostatic presence in the image mediated by the visible character of the subject. A key response to Leo of Chalcedon's arguments is offered by Eustratios of Nicaea. His Syllogistic Demonstration builds upon the logical model of ninth-century iconophile thought to show that the icon only has a formal relation to the subject depicted in that object. It is a response that is notable for its precise accounts of the limits of depiction, which becomes the description of the outline, form, and dimension of the outward and sensible traits of the appearance of a person. This allows him to argue that the material and sensible icon cannot receive adoration: Christ as God is adored; Christ as God cannot be depicted; therefore, the depicted, as depicted, is not adored. So that in no way can we speak of the adoration of a manufactured icon, or of adoration in an icon"--

"The period encompassed by this volume of translations opens with a major crisis over the status of the icon and its veneration. Charles Barber and David Jenkins (I.1.1 in this volume) present three extensive texts related to this crisis, which began when Leo of Chalcedon objected to the imperial appropriation of materials bearing sacred images, such as the doors of the Chalkoprateia church in Constantinople. As his arguments against this act unfolded in the period from 1082- to 1095, Leo developed a theory of the image that argued for a formal, as opposed to a material, presence of Christ in his icons. Given this presence of Christ's character, Leo argued that an icon should not be destroyed and that this portrayal deserved adoration. A full account of this argument is presented in Leo's letter to his nephew Nicholas of Adrianoupolis. This letter, which perhaps dates to 1093 or 1094, shows how Leo builds his case upon a reading of the ninth-century iconophile writings of Theodore of Stoudios and other authorities, which Leo reads as offering support for a hypostatic presence in the image mediated by the visible character of the subject. A key response to Leo of Chalcedon's arguments is offered by Eustratios of Nicaea. His Syllogistic Demonstration builds upon the logical model of ninth-century iconophile thought to show that the icon only has a formal relation to the subject depicted in that object. It is a response that is notable for its precise accounts of the limits of depiction, which becomes the description of the outline, form, and dimension of the outward and sensible traits of the appearance of a person. This allows him to argue that the material and sensible icon cannot receive adoration: Christ as God is adored; Christ as God cannot be depicted; therefore, the depicted, as depicted, is not adored. So that in no way can we speak of the adoration of a manufactured icon, or of adoration in an icon"--

"The period encompassed by this volume of translations opens with a major crisis over the status of the icon and its veneration. Charles Barber and David Jenkins (I.1.1 in this volume) present three extensive texts related to this crisis, which began when Leo of Chalcedon objected to the imperial appropriation of materials bearing sacred images, such as the doors of the Chalkoprateia church in Constantinople. As his arguments against this act unfolded in the period from 1082- to 1095, Leo developed a theory of the image that argued for a formal, as opposed to a material, presence of Christ in his icons. Given this presence of Christ's character, Leo argued that an icon should not be destroyed and that this portrayal deserved adoration. A full account of this argument is presented in Leo's letter to his nephew Nicholas of Adrianoupolis. This letter, which perhaps dates to 1093 or 1094, shows how Leo builds his case upon a reading of the ninth-century iconophile writings of Theodore of Stoudios and other authorities, which Leo reads as offering support for a hypostatic presence in the image mediated by the visible character of the subject. A key response to Leo of Chalcedon's arguments is offered by Eustratios of Nicaea. His Syllogistic Demonstration builds upon the logical model of ninth-century iconophile thought to show that the icon only has a formal relation to the subject depicted in that object. It is a response that is notable for its precise accounts of the limits of depiction, which becomes the description of the outline, form, and dimension of the outward and sensible traits of the appearance of a person. This allows him to argue that the material and sensible icon cannot receive adoration: Christ as God is adored; Christ as God cannot be depicted; therefore, the depicted, as depicted, is not adored. So that in no way can we speak of the adoration of a manufactured icon, or of adoration in an icon"--

"In this book the beauty and meaning of Byzantine art and its aesthetics are for the first time made accessible through the original sources. More than 150 medieval texts are translated from nine medieval languages into English, with commentaries from over seventy leading scholars. These include theories of art, discussions of patronage and understandings of iconography, practical recipes for artistic supplies, expressions of devotion, and descriptions of cities. The volume reveals the cultural plurality and the interconnectivity of medieval Europe and the Mediterranean from the late eleventh to the early fourteenth centuries. The first part uncovers salient aspects of Byzantine artistic production and its aesthetic reception, while the second puts a spotlight on particular ways of expressing admiration and of interpreting of the visual"--Publisher's description.

Compensating a four-decades shortfall, this collective volume is the first reader in Byzantine spatial studies. It offers a diversity of topics and scientific approaches, articulated by up-to-date interdisciplinary dialogue, and reflects on the future challenges of Byzantine spatial studies.

This volume explores the power of matter and materials in the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as Byzantium. Recent attention to matter as dynamic and meaningful constitutes an emerging, interdisciplinary field of inquiry known as materiality, new materialism, or the material turn. Materials can be symbolic, but matter can also act on human subjects. This volume builds on these insights to consider the role of matter, materials, form, and embodied experiences in Byzantium. In many respects, Byzantine materiality represents a continuation of its Greco-Roman inheritance, which was also shared by neighboring peoples such as the Umayyads and Abbasids. But the Byzantines also developed their own, unique perspectives on matter and form, as with their parsing of the sacred materialities of icons, the Eucharist, and relics. Chapters in this volume consider the cultural meanings and functions of materials such as gold and ivory, the materiality of icons and relics, experiences of objects, as well as Byzantine philosophies of matter and form. Materiality takes center stage in Byzantine constructions of power, luxury, belief, and identity, which will be of interest to scholars and students of Byzantium and the wider medieval world.