The Economic History of Byzantium From

580 ANTHONY CUTLER

makers of objects in other media bore equally on workers in ivory. Such iconographical variants as exist—the prominence given, for example, to a particular saint—may signify the identity of the commissioner, in which case we are not entitled to speak of a “market” in the sense of a locus where a client could acquire a ready-made piece that happened to please him or her. If such a market existed, it would be for objects, often in bone, that derived from prototypes fashioned in the more expensive material (Fig. 5).115 Bone, available whenever animals were slaughtered for meat or parchment, was both locally available and cheaper. It was also softer and therefore faster and easier to work, all good reasons why it was the preferred material for the large number of boxes with so-called mythological subject matter that survive from the tenth and eleventh centuries;116 since bone was not subject to the constraints and competition that appear to have interrupted Byzantine imports of ivory before the Fourth Crusade,117 caskets clad in this material could have continued to be made in and after the twelfth century. On the other hand, the presence of strips of bone ornament on boxes that were otherwise adorned in ivory suggests once again how precious this latter material was, even before the diversion (to Italian cities?) of the regular commerce in elephant tusks.118

If the value of ivory in the middle Byzantine world was as high as is suggested by craftsmen’s readiness to work material lower in quality than that used in the late antique world, and to substitute cheaper bone for it, there remains the question why objects of ivory should be listed so infrequently in ecclesiastical and monastic inventories or the wills of private individuals.119 Apart from the reinforcement that this relative silence provides for the general thesis of rarity outlined above, it must be remembered that ivory is not “liquid” in an economic sense. Plaques could be detached from their original settings and removed, as they often were to the West occasionally before, and much more often after, the thirteenth century,120 but they could not be melted down or even recarved in any satisfactory manner. Highly important as devotional images or

115Examples of such derivatives include the bone-clad “Apostles Casket” at Dumbarton Oaks, a reduced version of an iconographically similar box, with plaques of ivory, now in the Bargello in Florence.

116Thus a box formerly in Vienna (A. Goldschmidt and K. Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des X.–XIII. Jahrhunderts, vol. 1, Ka¨sten [Berlin, 1930], no. 28) freely depends upon the celebrated Veroli Casket in London (ibid., no. 21). See A. Cutler, “Ehemals Wien: The Pula Casket and the Interpretation of Multiples in Byzantine Bone and Ivory Carving,” Ro¨mische Historische Mitteilungen 41 (1999): 117–28.

117The only certainly Palaiologan ivory known is a tiny circular box in Washington, D.C., for which see N. Oikonomides, “John VII Palaeologus and the Ivory Pyxis at Dumbarton Oaks,” DOP 31 (1977): 329–37.

118To my knowledge, the presence of “denti di leofante” in Venetian trade is first attested by F. Balducci Pegolotti, La practica de la mercatura, ed. A. Evans (Cambridge, Mass., 1930), 141, but since tusks traveled most likely as ballast in ships hauling other commodities, they could well have reached Italian ports before the 14th century. Probably for this reason, too, ivory is not recorded in documents of the kommerkiarioi.

119The rare exceptions are listed by Cutler, Hand of the Master, 20.

120Generally on this question, see A. Cutler, “From Loot to Scholarship: Changing Modes in the Italian Response to Byzantine Artifacts, c. 1200–1750,” DOP 49 (1995): 237–67.

objects of pleasure as they may have been, ivory carvings would be of lesser concern to those who, before the age of art collecting, drew up legal or commercial documents.

Book Illumination

In light of N. Oikonomides’ chapter (“Writing Materials, Documents, and Books,” in this volume),121 little further needs to be said about book production. This postscript to my chapter on the industries of art is therefore concerned only with economic issues raised specifically by the adornment of manuscripts and the possession of artifacts finished in this way. It would be an exaggeration to say that the difference between an embellished book and one lacking in such decoration is expressed by the contrast between the 500 nomismata that a fifth-century jeweler is said to have taken to adorn a Gospel book with precious stones and mother of pearl122 and the 12 nomismata paid for a (presumably) undecorated Gospel book in the Life of St. Lazaros of Mount Galesios (d. 1053).123 But the antithesis points in the right direction, even though the data on the earlier book refers to its cover, not its contents, and the difference is a matter of the cost of materials and not of chronology.

Elaborately bound books are not the issue here, but when the vast preponderance of undecorated books is taken into account,124 a book like the lectionary Sinai gr. 204, written entirely in gold on smooth white parchment measuring more than 28 21 cm and with five full-page pictures in gold,125 may have been taken as a sign of only slightly less luxury. That illumination was considered part of a book’s magnificence is clear from Eustathios Boilas’ description of the evangelion—“my highly prized, or rather my priceless treasure”—that he bequeathed to his monastery. Again written in gold, in addition to its enameled ornament it had painted initials and images of the Evangelists and the Nativity.126 It is evident (and hardly surprising) that Boilas knew well the book that he had paid for,127 but limited awareness of the contents of other manuscripts is implied by their pristine condition. A copy of the liturgical homilies of Gregory of

121See EHB, 589–92.

122O. Lampsides, “Batikanoi` kw´ dike" perie´conte" to`n bi´on aJgi´ou Iwaj´ nnou tou' Kalubi´tou,” Arcei'onj Po´ntou 28 (1966): 7, lines 6–8.

123AASS, Nov. 3:514F.

124For example, fewer than fifty of the more than two thousand surviving lectionaries are illustrated. On this and similar calculations, see J. Lowden, “Luxury and Liturgy: The Function of Books,” in Church and People in Byzantium, Twentieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Manchester, 1986 (Birmingham, 1990), 263–80, esp. 267, 275.

125K. Weitzmann and G. Galavaris, The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Illuminated Manuscripts (Princeton, N.J., 1990), 1: no. 18. With reference to a much larger manuscript, Paris, Bibliothe`que Nationale, gr. 510, I. Hutter, “Decorative Systems in Byzantine Manuscripts, and the Scribe as Artist: Evidence from Manuscripts in Oxford,” Word and Image 12 (1996): 10, speaks of “several ounces of gold lavishly distributed over every page.” Given that the gold foil employed in most Byzantine illumination is rarely more than 2 microns (.0002 mm) thick, this must be taken as a dramatic exaggeration.

126Lemerle, Cinq ´etudes, 24, line 24–25, line 21.

127Unfortunately, he does not report the cost of this or any other of his books, in contrast to the round number of 300 nomismata that he cites as the cost of his gold-inlaid processional cross, a silverplate example of the same type of object, and other liturgical furnishings (ibid., 24, lines 119–25).

582 ANTHONY CUTLER

Nazianzos, Sinai gr. 339,128 illuminated on almost every one of its 437 pages just before the middle of the twelfth century, shows no traces of candle soot, grease, or other signs of use.129 Richly illustrated lectionaries, by their very nature, were not utilitarian works but emblems of splendor, ceremonially borne by a deacon during the Little Entrance and placed ultimately on the altar together with the cross. In a manner akin to that of

¨

the sixth-century Vienna Genesis (Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, theol. gr. 31), their text was greatly abbreviated to allow space for the pictures.

This proportional relation between text and images appears to imply a calculated synergy between scribe and painter. But cooperation of this sort, with its implications for craft specialization, hardly seems to have obtained before the tenth century.130 Even thereafter we find professional scribes like John Tzoutzounas decorating the books they had copied.131 The cases of Theodore, the artist-scribe of the Stoudios Psalter in London (British Library, Add. 19.352) of 1066 and, somewhat later, Theophanes, who copied and painted the canon tables and a picture showing himself offering his book to the Virgin (National Gallery of Victoria 710/5; Fig. 6),132 are better-known examples of one pair of hands at work on all stages in the production of a manuscript. The Palaiologan period offers similar examples, ranging from professional scribe-illuminators133 to monks performing the same set of tasks.134

Whether or not this sort of vertical integration of the means of production represented an economy for the client is unknown. What is sure is that no later than the tenth century, when the full-page pictures of the Paris Psalter (Bibliothe`que Nationale, gr. 139) were prepared independently of the text,135 painters were hired to decorate areas reserved in books for titles, headpieces, and historiated initials. In the eleventh century, changing relations between teams of scribes, painters, and their assistants can be observed, though perhaps not established with certainty, across a succession of books.136 This capacity to supply professional embellishment answered a need, a demand for polychrome brilliance that either was coeval with or swiftly followed the demonstration of such effects in mosaic and enamel decoration. Komnenian owners

128Weitzmann and Galavaris, Illuminated Manuscripts, no. 56.

129Lowden, “Liturgy and Luxury,” 271 and fig. 46, contrasts this with a well-worn Gregory manuscript in Moscow, State Historical Museum, gr. 146. For most sumptuous lectionaries, we must assume that parallel working copies were used in the bema.

130Hutter, “Decorative Systems,” 9–10.

¨

131 I. Hutter, “Oxforder Marginalien,” JOB 29 (1980): 344–54. Tzoutzounas produced two Praxa-

¨

postoloi in 1087 and 1092, respectively, an Octateuch (Vienna, Osterreichische National bibliothek, theol. gr. 57), and a Psalter (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Cromwell 9) among other books.

132R. S. Nelson’s challenge to the belief that Theophanes, the donor of the Melbourne manuscript, was himself the scribe and painter of the book (“Theoktistos and Associates in Twelfth-Century Constantinople: An Illustrated New Testament of AD 1133,” J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 15 [1987]: 64 n. 59) has recently been adequately answered by Hutter, “Decorative Systems,” n. 24.

133Nelson, Theodore Hagiopetrites.

134Notably, if clumsily, Ioasaph II of the Hodegon monastery in Constantinople.

135H. Buchthal, “The Exaltation of David,” JWarb 37 (1974): 330–33.

136J. C. Anderson, “Cod. Vat. 463 and an Eleventh-Century Painting Center,” DOP 32 (1978): 177–96; idem, “The Seraglio Octateuch and the Kokkinobaphos Master,” DOP 36 (1982): 83–114.

were willing to pay for the addition of newly painted leaves to older books;137 at the same time, older images were recycled for use in books written as much as two centuries later.138 Especially in the Palaiologan era, pictures were inserted into books never originally intended to display kosmesis of this sort.139

The employment of professional painters and the passion for polychrome decora- tion—phenomena far less evident in early Byzantine manuscripts—probably went hand in hand, with the latter providing the impetus for the former. This synchronous development must have strained the material resources of an economy more accustomed, for example, to use the cochineal derived from the coccus insect for the dyeing of textiles than for the red lake used in book illumination. While verdigris, the pigment made by treating copper with vinegar, could have been produced in an urban context, the scarlet that came from cochineal depended upon rural, entomological enterprise;140 the huge number of insects required to produce a useful amount of pigment helps to explain the costliness of decorated books.

At the same time, the widespread sources of the colors used141 offers some explanation for the geographical diversity that characterizes the production of illuminated manuscripts in Byzantium. The above-mentioned John Tzoutzounas worked somewhere in the Aegean theme.142 Books with pictures in the so-called Decorative Style, their images half eaten away by the acidic verdigris favored by its painters, have been placed in Cyprus or Palestine, not in Constantinople.143 Better than any other medium, book illumination makes the case that the production of art in Byzantium and the economic incentives and rewards that it yielded were not limited to industries resident in the capital.

137Thus the Gospel book London, Burney 19 (Byzantium, no. 176 [J. Lowden]), written in the second half of the 10th century, acquired evangelist portraits in the second quarter of the 12th.

138Thus Princeton, University Library, Garrett 6 (Illuminated Greek Manuscripts from American Collections, ed. G. Vikan [Princeton, N.J., 1973], no. 1).

139For examples, see J. Lowden, “Observations on Illustrated Byzantine Psalters,” ArtB 70 (1988): 249.

140Similarly a rural product of the Peloponnese and the Levant was the dried saffron, which, soaked in water or glair, yielded a yellow that could substitute for orpiment (a sulphide of arsenic traditionally used to simulate gold in book production).

141For a useful survey of the metallic and vegetable sources of pigments, see James, Light and Colour, 28–31.

142Hutter, “Oxforder Marginalien,” 352.

143A. W. Carr, Byzantine Illumination, 1150–1250: The Study of a Provincial Tradition (Chicago, 1987).

584 ANTHONY CUTLER

Select Bibliography

Actes de Docheiariou, ed. N. Oikonomides. Archives de l’Athos. Paris, 1984.

Actes d’Iviron, ed. J. Lefort, N. Oikonomides, and D. Papachryssanthou. Archives de l’Athos. 4 vols. Paris, 1990.

Agnellus, MGH. ScriptRerLangob.

Anderson, J. C. “Cod. Vat. 463 and an Eleventh-Century Painting Center.” DOP 32 (1978): 177–96.

———. “The Seraglio Octateuch and the Kokkinobaphos Master.” DOP 36 (1982): 83–114.

Andreescu-Treadgold, I. “The Mosaic Workshop at San Vitale.” In Mosaici a San Vitale e altri restauri: Il restauro in situ di mosaici parietali, ed. A. M. Iannucci et al. Ravenna, 1992.

Asemakopoulou-Atsaka, P. “Oi dwrhte´" sti" ellhnike´" afierwmatike´" epigrafe´" tou anatolikou´ kra´ tou" sthn o´yimh arcaio´thta.” In Armo"Ú Timhtiko´" To´mo" ston kaqhghth´ N. K. Moutsopoulo gia ta cro´nia pneumatikh´" tou prosfora´ " sto Panepisth´mio. 2 vols. Thessalonike, 1990.

Astruc, C. “L’inventaire dresse´ en septembre 1200 du tre´sor et de la bibliothe`que de Patmos.” TM 8 (1981): 15–30.

Balducci Pegolotti, F. La pratica de la mercatura, ed. A. Evans. Cambridge, Mass., 1936. Belting, H. Das illuminierte Buch in der spa¨tbyzantinischen Gesellschaft. Heidelberg, 1970. Blockley, R. C., ed. The History of Menander the Guardsman. Liverpool, 1985.

Bouras, L. The Cross of Adrianople, a Silver Processional Cross of the Middle Byzantine Period.

Athens, 1979.

Boyd, S. A. and M. M. Mango, eds. Ecclesiastical Silver Plate in Sixth-Century Byzantium.

Washington, D.C., 1992.

Buckton, D. “Byzantine Enamel and the West.” ByzF 13 (1988): 235–44.

Byzantium: Treasures of Byzantine Art and Culture from British Collections, ed. D. Buckton. London, 1994.

Caillet, J.-P. L’e´verge´tisme monumental chre´tien en Italie et `a ses marges. Rome, 1993.

De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, ed. J. J. Reiske. 2 vols. Bonn, 1829.

Codex Theodosianus [CTh], ed. T. Mommsen and P. M. Meyer. 2 vols. Berlin, 1905. Constantoudaki-Kitromilides, M. “A Fifteenth-Century Byzantine Icon Painter Work-

ing on Mosaics in Venice.” ¨ 32.5 (1982): 265–72.

JOB

Cutler, A. The Craft of Ivory: Sources, Techniques, and Uses in the Mediterranean World, A.D.

200–1400. Washington, D.C., 1985.

———.“From Loot to Scholarship: Changing Modes in the Italian Response to Byzantine Artifacts, c. 1200–1750.” DOP 49 (1995): 237–67.

———.The Hand of the Master: Craftsmanship, Ivory and Society in Byzantium (9th–11th Centuries). Princeton, N.J., 1994.

———.“The Right Hand’s Cunning: Craftsmanship and the Demand for Art in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages.” Speculum 72 (1997): 971–94.

———.“Uses of Luxury: On the Function of Consumption and Symbolic Capital in

Byzantine Culture.” In Byzance et les images: Cycle de confe´rences organise´ au muse´e du Louvre par le service culturel du 5 octobre au 7 de´cembre 1992, ed. A. Guillou and J. Durand. Paris, 1994.

Dagron, G. Constantinople imaginaire. Paris, 1984.

Demus, O. Die byzantinischen Mosaikikonen. Vol. 1, Die grossformatigen Ikonen. Vienna, 1991.

Digenes Akrites MS G, ed. J. Mavrogordato. Oxford, 1963.

Dionysios of Fourna. ErmhneiJ´a th'" zwgrafikh'"´cnh",te ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus. St. Petersburg, 1909.

Doncheva-Petkova, L. “Problemi pri proizvodstvoto na kru˘stovete-enkolpioni (materiali, tekhnologii, atelieta).” Arkheologiia 34.4 (1992): 1–12.

Durand, J., ed. Byzance: L’art byzantin dans les collections publiques franc¸aises. Paris, 1992. Feissel, D., and A. Philippidis-Braat. “Inventaires en vue d’un recueil des inscriptions historiques de Byzance. III, Inscriptions du Pe´loponne`se.” TM 9 (1985): 299–382.

Frolow, A. La relique de la Vraie Croix. Paris, 1961.

Gautier, P. “La Diataxis de Michel Attaleiate.” REB 39 (1981): 5–143.

———.“Le typikon de la The´otokos Ke´charitoˆme´ne`.” REB 43 (1985): 5–155. Glavinas, A. A. HJ ejpi` Alexij´ou Komnhnou'(1081–1118) peri` iJerw'n skeuw'n, keimhli´wn kai`

aJgi´wn eijko´nwn e“ri" (1081–1095). Thessalonike, 1995.

Goldschmidt, A., and K. Weitzmann. Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des X.–XIII. Jahrhunderts. Vol. 1, Ka¨sten. Berlin, 1930.

———.Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des X.–XIII. Jahrhunderts. Vol. 2, Reliefs. Berlin, 1934.

Grabar, A. Les reveˆtements en or et en argent des icoˆnes byzantines du moyen-ˆage. Venice, 1975.

Grierson, P. “The Role of Silver in the Early Byzantine Economy.” In Ecclesiastical Silver Plate in Sixth-Century Byzantium, ed. S. A. Boyd and M. M. Mango. Washington, D.C., 1992.

Haldon, J., ed. Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions. Vienna, 1990. Harvey, A. Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire, 900–1200. Cambridge, 1989.

Hetherington, P. “Enamels in the Byzantine World: Ownership and Distribution.” BZ 81 (1988): 29–33.

Hutter, I. “Decorative Systems in Byzantine Manuscripts, and the Scribe as Artist: Evidence from Manuscripts in Oxford.” Word and Image 12 (1996): 4–22.

———. “Oxforder Marginalien.” ¨ 29 (1980): 344–54.

JOB

Illuminated Greek Manuscripts from American Collections, ed. G. Vikan. Princeton, N.J., 1973.

Iskusstvo Vizantii v sobraniiakh SSSR. 3 vols. Moscow, 1977. James, L. Light and Colour in Byzantine Art. Oxford, 1996.

Kalokyris, K. D. “ Iwaj´ nnh" Pagwme´no" oJ Buzantino`" zwgra´ fo" tou' IDaijw'no"”. Kr.Cron.

12 (1958): 347–67.

Koder, J., ed. Das Eparchenbuch Leons des Weisen. Vienna, 1991.

Kyrillos von Skythopolis, ed. E. Schwartz. Leipzig, 1939.

586 ANTHONY CUTLER

Lemerle, P. Cinq ´etudes sur le XIe sie`cle byzantin. Paris, 1977. Logvin, H. Kiev’s Hagia Sophia. Kiev, 1971.

Lowden, J. “Luxury and Liturgy: The Function of Books.” In Church and People in Byzantium. Twentieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Manchester, 1986. Birmingham, 1990.

Mango, C. The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312–1453. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1972.

———.“La croix dite de Michel le Ce´rulaire et la croix de Saint-Michel de Syke´on.” CahArch 36 (1988): 41–49.

———.“Storia dell’arte.” In La civilta` bizantina dal IX al XI secolo, ed. A. Guillou. Bari,

1978.

Mango, C., and E. J. W. Hawkins. “The Mosaic of St. Sophia at Istanbul: The Church Fathers in the North Tympanum.” DOP 26 (1972): 1–41.

Mango, M. M. “Significance of Medieval Tinned Copper Objects.” BSCAbstr 16 (1990): 165–66.

Mango, M. M., and A. Bennett. The Sevso Treasure. Part 1. Ann Arbor, 1994. Manoussakas, M. “ HJ diaqh´kh tou' Aggej´lou Akotaj´ ntou (1436), ajgnw´ stou Krhtikou'

zwgra´ fou.” Delt.Crist. Arcj. EtJ., ser. 4, 2 (1960–61): 139–51. al-Maqrizi. Histoire d’Egypte, trans. E. Blochet. Paris, 1908.

Megaw, A. H. S., and E. J. W. Hawkins. The Church of Panagia Kanakaria at Lythrankomi in Cyprus: Its Mosaics and Frescoes. Washington, D.C., 1977.

Michaelis Attaliotae Historia, ed. I. Bekker. Bonn, 1853.

Michel Psellos, Chronographie, ed. E. Renauld. Vol. 1. Paris, 1926.

Miljkovic´-Pepek, P. “Deux icoˆnes d’Ohrid peu ´etudie´es.” In Byzantine East, Latin West: Art-Historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, ed. C. Moss and K. Kiefer. Princeton, N.J., 1995.

Nelson, R. S. Theodore Hagiopetrites: A Late Byzantine Scribe and Illuminator. 2 vols. Vienna, 1991.

———. “Theoktistos and Associates in Twelfth-Century Constantinople: An Illustrated New Testament of AD 1133.” J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 15 (1987): 53–78.

Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History, ed. C. Mango. Washington, D.C., 1990.

Nicephori Gregorae Byzantina historia, ed. L. Schopen and I. Bekker. 2 vols. Bonn, 1835. Nicetae Choniatae Historia, ed. J. L. van Dieten. Berlin–New York, 1975.

Nordhagen, P.-J. “The Mosaics of John VII (A.D. 705–707).” Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia, Institutum Romanum Norvegiae 2 (1965): 121–66.

Oikonomides, N. “The Holy Icon as Asset.” DOP 45 (1991): 35–44.

———. Les listes de pre´se´ance byzantines des IXe et Xe sie`cles. Paris, 1972. Orlandos, A. HJ Parhgori´tissa th'"“Arth". Athens, 1963.

The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium [ODB], ed. A. P. Kazhdan et al. 3 vols. New York, 1991.

Pelekanides, S. Kallie´rgh", o”lh" Qettali´a" a“risto" zwgra´ fo". Athens, 1973.

Petit, L. “Le monaste`re de Notre-Dame de Pitie´ en Mace´doine.” IRAIK 6 (1900): 113–53.

———. “Typikon du monaste`re de la Kosmosoteira pre`s d’Aenos (1152).” IRAIK 13 (1908): 17–75.

Plesters, J. “The Materials of the Wall-Paintings.” In The Church of Haghia Sophia at Trebizond, ed. D. Talbot Rice. Edinburgh, 1968.

Poppe, A. “The Building of the Church of St. Sophia in Kiev.” JMedHist 7 (1981): 15–66.

Rhalles, G. A., and M. Potles, Su´ntagma tw'n qei´wn kai` iJerw'n kano´nwn [Su´ntagma], 6 vols. Athens, 1852–56.

Ross, M. C. Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Medieval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collections [DOCat]. 2 vols. Washington, D.C., 1962–65.

Sandin, K. “Aspects of the Artisanship and Possible Liturgical Use of the Cross of Adrianople.” Byzantinorossica 1 (1995): 58–74.

ˇ ˇ ¨

Sevcenko, I. “On Pantoleon the Painter.” JOB 21 (1972): 241–49. Spieser, J.-M. Thessalonique et ses monuments du IVe au VIe sie`cle. Paris, 1984.

Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1883–85. Reprinted Hildesheim, 1963.

Theophanes Continuatus, ed. I. Bekker. Bonn, 1838.

Troitskaia Letopis’, ed. M. D. Priselkov. Moscow, 1950.

Tsigaridas, E. N. “La peinture `a Kastoria et en Mace´doine grecque orientale vers l’anne´e 1200.” In Studenic´a et l’art byzantin autour de l’anne´e 1200, ed. V. Korac´. Belgrade, 1988.

Underwood, P. The Kariye Djami. 4 vols. New York, 1966–75.

Vickers, V. “Metrological Reflections: Attic, Hellenistic, Parthian and Sasanian Gold and Silver Plate.” Studia Iranica 24 (1995): 163–85.

Vryonis, S. “The Question of the Byzantine Mines.” Speculum 37 (1962): 1–7. Weitzmann, K., and G. Galavaris. The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai: The

Illuminated Manuscripts. Vol. 1. Princeton, N.J., 1990.

Winfield, D. “Middle and Later Byzantine Wall Painting Methods: A Comparative Study.” DOP 22 (1968): 61–139.

Young, S. H. “Relations between Byzantine Mosaic and Fresco Technique.” ¨ 25

JOB

(1976): 269–78.

590 NICOLAS OIKONOMIDES

became compulsory in the secretariat of the caliphate around 800. The earliest surviving Greek manuscript on paper, Codex Vaticanus 2200, also seems to have been written around 800, in the Arab-dominated East. Paper manuscripts survive from the eleventh century on. The earliest surviving Greek document on paper dates possibly from 1016 and certainly from 1052 (Actes de Lavra, no. 20, 31). The use of paper was thus introduced into Byzantium certainly in the tenth century, and possibly in the ninth, when there is a reference to a tax charge called chartiatika (cartiatika´ ). There are also references to “paper makers” chartopoioi (cartopoioi´). In the first quarter of the ninth century, there were paper makers (not to be confused with parchment makers) in the monastery of Stoudios, which had a large scriptorium, and in the tenth century paper makers holding honorary titles are found in the Peloponnese; it would seem that they were suppliers to the court. We also possess the seal of a “komes of paper makers,” who must surely have been a state official. I think it possible that these were manufacturers of paper for Byzantium, but this view has been questioned.

The first paper we find in Byzantium is of the Oriental type (called bombykinon or bambakeron) and cotton based in two different qualities and without a watermark. Paper of this type continued to be used in the Byzantine world until the fifteenth century, in parallel with western-type paper, with a watermark, imports of which into the East from Italy began in the thirteenth century, flooding the Byzantine market in the fourteenth century thanks to its mass production.

Paper was always cheaper than parchment, perhaps half the price, or even less; and in the fourteenth century it became still less expensive. On the other hand, it was not so strong. To judge from the surviving documents, paper seems to have been used almost exclusively in the eleventh and twelfth centuries by the imperial secretariat and by private individuals almost throughout the empire, with the exception of Macedonia, where parchment always prevailed. In 1204, however, things changed, and parchment was the rule everywhere (including the imperial secretariat) for three-quarters of a century. By the middle of the fourteenth century, paper once more dominated everywhere. A study of manuscripts reveals the same fluctuations in the use of paper. In 1200, 20% of the manuscripts of Patmos were on paper, but the constant wear that they suffered meant that by 1307 only 8.3% of the manuscripts in the same library were on paper.

The material on which it was written was an element of decisive importance in the value of the manuscript. We sometimes find leaves of parchment and paper together in the same manuscript, in an attempt to combine the strength of the former with the low cost of the latter. As a result of the relative scarcity of writing materials, people tended to use the blank leaves at the beginning and end of the manuscripts to make notes and write out contracts. When the shortages were even greater, many people ignored the prohibitions of the synods and erased the writing on earlier parchment manuscripts, replacing them with fresh texts. These manuscripts are called palimpsests, and they become more common during the thirteenth century.

The greatest single item of expense connected with manuscripts was, of course, the