John A. Cotsonis - The Religious Figural Imagery of Byzantine Lead Seals II - Studies On Images of The Saints and On Personal Piety (2020)

The Religious Figural Imagery of
Byzantine Lead Seals II
The articles republished in this volume are ground-breaking studies that employ
a large body of religious figural imagery of Byzantine lead seals ranging from the
6th to the 15th century. A number of the studies present tables, charts and graphs
in their analysis of iconographic trends and changing popularity of saintly figures
over time. And because many of the seals bear inscriptions that include the names,
titles or offices of their owners, information often not given for the patrons of
sacred images in other media, these diminutive objects permit an investigation into
the social use of sacred imagery through the various sectors of Byzantine culture:
the civil, ecclesiastical and military administrations. The religious figural imagery
of the lead seals, accompanied by their owners’ identifying inscriptions, offers a
means of investigating both the broader visual piety of the Byzantine world and
the intimate realm of their owners’ personal devotions. Other studies in the volume
are devoted to rare or previously unknown sacred images that demonstrate the
value of the iconography of Byzantine lead seals for Byzantine studies in general.
This volume includes various articles focusing on sphragistic images of saints
and on the religious imagery of Byzantine seals as a means of investigating
the personal piety of seal owners, as well as the wider realm of the visual piety
and religious devotions of Byzantine culture at all levels. A companion volume
includes studies dedicated to the image of Christ, primarily found on imperial
seals, various images of the Virgin and narrative or Christological scenes.
John A. Cotsonis is Director of the Archbishop Iakovos Library at Holy Cross

Greek Orthodox School of Theology, Brookline, MA, a Bishop of the Greek
Orthodox Archdiocese of America, and a Byzantine art historian specializing in
the iconography of Byzantine lead seals. He is the author of Byzantine Figural
Processional Crosses which is regarded as the standard work on the subject.
Also in the Variorum Collected Studies Series
PEREGRINE HORDEN and NICHOLAS PURCELL

The Boundless Sea
Writing Mediterranean History (CS1083)
MOHAMED EL MANSOUR
The Power of Islam in Morocco
Historical and Anthropological Perspectives (CS1082)
JOHN MARSHALL, edited by PHILIP BUTTERWORTH

Early English Performance: Medieval Plays and Robin Hood Games
Shifting Paradigms in Early English Drama Studies (CS1081)
JENNIFER O’REILLY, edited by CAROL A. FARR and

ELIZABETH MULLINS
Early Medieval Text and Image II
The Codex Amiatinus, the Book of Kells and Anglo-Saxon Art (CS1080)
JENNIFER O’REILLY, edited by CAROL A. FARR and

ELIZABETH MULLINS
Early Medieval Text and Image I
The Insular Gospel Books (CS1079)
JENNIFER O’REILLY, edited by MÁIRÍN MACCARRON

and DIARMUID SCULLY
History, Hagiography and Biblical Exegesis
Essays on Bede, Adomnán and Thomas Becket (CS1078)
MICHAEL BRETT
The Fatimids and Egypt (CS1077)
HIROSHI TAKAYAMA
Sicily and the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages (CS1076)
STEPHEN KATZ
Holocaust Studies
Critical Reflections (CS1075)
JOHN W. WATT
The Aristotelian Tradition in Syriac (CS1074)
PEREGRINE HORDEN
Cultures of Healing: Medieval and After (CS1073)
DAVID LUSCOMBE
Peter Abelard and Heloise: Collected Studies (CS1072)
For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/
history/series/VARIORUMCS
VARIORUM COLLECTED STUDIES SERIES

John A. Cotsonis

Studies on Images of the Saints

and on Personal Piety
First published 2020
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
This edition © 2020 John A. Cotsonis
The right of John A. Cotsonis to be identified as author of this work
has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Cotsonis, John A., author.
Title: The religious figural imagery of Byzantine lead seals. II, Studies
on images of the saints and on personal piety / John A. Cotsonis.
Other titles: Studies on images of the saints and on personal piety
Description: Abington, Oxon ; New York : Routledge, 2020. | Series:
Variorum collected studies ; CS1086 | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019046268 | ISBN 9780367346997 (hardback) |
ISBN 9780429327216 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Christian saints in art. | Seals (Numismatics)—Byzantine
Empire. | Christianity and culture—Byzantine Empire.
Classification: LCC N8079.5 .C68 2020 | DDC 704.9/4863—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019046268
ISBN: 978-0-367-34699-7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-32721-6 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
VARIORUM COLLECTED STUDIES SERIES CS1086

With gratitude to His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros of America
Σφραγῖδα φέρει τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας
(cf. G. Zacos & A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals [Basel, 1972],
I:1, no. 345)
CONTENTS
List of figures xi
List of graphs xv
List of tables and charts xvi
Acknowledgements xviii
Abbreviations xx
Introduction 1
PART I
Saints’ images on seals 17
1 Saints & cult centers: a geographic & administrative perspective

in light of Byzantine lead seals 19
Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 8 (2003), 9–26
2 An eleventh-century seal with a representation of Patriarch

Antony II Kauleas 43
Byzantion 74 (2004), 517–526
(with John Nesbitt)
3 The contribution of Byzantine lead seals to the study of the cult of

the saints: (sixth-twelfth centuries) 52
Byzantion 75 (2005), 383–497
4 “What shall we call you, O holy ones?” (Martyrikon Automelon,

Plagal 4th): images of saints and their invocations on Byzantine
lead seals as a means of investigating personal piety (sixth-twelfth
centuries) 153
Travaux et mémoires 20:2 (Mélanges Catherine Jolivet-Lévy)
(2016), 69–88
ix
contents
5 Choired saints on Byzantine lead seals & their significance (sixth-

twelfth centuries): a preliminary study 174
Travaux et mémoires 21:1 (Mélanges Jean-Claude Cheynet)
(2017), 53–66
6 An image of Saint Nicholas with the “Tongues of Fire” on a

Byzantine lead seal 193
Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 13 (2019), 151–166
PART II
Sphragistic imagery and personal piety 209
7 Onomastics, gender, office and images on Byzantine lead seals:

a means of investigating personal piety 211
Byzantine & Modern Greek Studies 32:1 (2008), 1–37
8 Religious figural images on Byzantine lead seals as a reflection of

visual piety during the Iconoclastic controversy 251
Cahiers archéologiques 56 (2015), 5–34
Addenda & Corrigenda 314

Index 317
x
FIGURES
1.1 Lead Seal of a Metropolitan of Ephesos, 11th/12th century

(Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.41): John the Theologian 22
1.2 Lead Seal of Philotheos, Bishop of Kyme, 11th century
(Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1947.2.206): John the Theologian 24
1.3 Lead Seal of Niketas, Metropolitan of Patras, 11th century
(Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.3): Andrew 25
1.4 Lead Seal of Nicholas, Metropolitan of Corinth, 12th/13th
century (Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1955.1.4975): Theodore
Teron & Theodore Stratelates 27
1.5 Lead Seal of Peter, Archbishop of Thessalonike, 8th century
(Cambridge, MA, Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard
University Art Museums, Bequest of Thomas Whittemore,
BZS.1951.31.5.1307): Demetrios 29
1.6 Lead Seal of Theodore, strategos of the Thrakesion Theme,
11th century (Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1947.2.196):
The Virgin & Child 34
1.7 Lead Seal of Basil, krites of the Peloponnesos & Hellas, 11th
century (Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1955.1.2242): Mark 36
1.8 Lead Seal of Basil Xeros, krites of the Peloponnesos & Hellas,
11th century (Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1955.1.3407):
Mark & Theodore 37
2.1 Lead Seal of the Monastery tou Kalliou, 11th century (private
collection): Saint Anthony, Archbishop of Constantinople 49
2.2 Lead Seal of Anthony II Kauleas, 893–901 (Dumbarton Oaks
BZS.1958.106.309): the Virgin & Child 50
2.3 Menologion of Basil II (Vatican, Bib. Apost. Vat. gr. 1613,
p. 393), Saint Anthony II Kauleas, c. 1000 51
3.1 John the Prodromos, lead seal, 6th/7th century, Numismatic
Museum, Athens, no. 875 81
3.2 Peter and Paul, lead seal, 11th century, Harvard Art Museums/
Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA, Bequest of Thomas Whittemore, BZS.1951.31.5.2096 84
xi
figures
3.3 John the Theologian, lead seal, 8th century, Athens, Benaki
Museum, no. B17 87
3.4 John the Theologian, lead seal, 11th century, Zacos Collection 89
3.5 Basil, lead seal, 7th/8th century, Numismatic Museum, Athens,
Stamoules Collection no. 23 [1924/3156] 97
3.6 Nicholas, lead seal, 7th century, Zacos Collection 99
3.7 Michael, lead seal, 10th century, Harvard Art Museums/Arthur
M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA,
Bequest of Thomas Whittemore, BZS.1951.31.5.270 103
3.8 Michael, lead seal, 10th century, Zacos Collection 104
3.9 Theodore, lead seal, 10th century, Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1947.2.56 113
3.10 Theodore, lead seal, 10th century, Dumbarton Oaks
BZS.1958.106.1884 114
3.11 George, lead seal, 10th/11th century, Harvard Art Museums/
3.12 George, lead seal, 10th/11th century, Dumbarton Oaks
BZS.1958.106.3062 121
3.13 Demetrios, lead seal, 7th/8th century, Zacos Collection 124
3.14 Demetrios, lead seal, 11th century, Harvard Art Museums/
4.1 John the Theologian, lead seal of Theophilos, archbishop of
Ephesos, 8th/9th century 159
4.2 Nicholas, lead seal of Romanos Philaretos, protonobelissimos,
11th century, Munich, Staatliche Münzsammlung, tray 15, no. 192 164
4.3 John the Baptist, lead seal of John, metropolitan of Mytilene,
11th century, Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.8 165
4.4 Anthony, lead seal of Xene Dalassene, 11th century
Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA, Bequest of Thomas Whittemore,
BZS.1951.31.5.1583 171
5.1 Virgin holding a medallion with the bust of Christ, Andrew,
lead seal of Theodore, metropolitan of Patras, 12th century,
Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1955.1.5035 175
5.2 Obv: Demetrios; Rev: Virgin and Christ Child enthroned,
lead seal of John, metropolitan of Thessalonike, ca. 1198,
5.3 Obv: Virgin orans with a medallion with bust of Christ; Rev:
Nicholas, lead seal of Michael Charsianites (?), 11th century,
Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA, Bequest of Thomas Whittemore,
BZS.1951.31.5.3397 185
xii
figures
5.4 Obv: Virgin holding Christ Child before her; Rev: Michael,
lead seal of the Church of the Kyriotissa (?), 11th century,
5.5 Obv: Virgin orans with a bust of Christ; Rev: Thomas, lead
seal of Helen, nun, 11th/12th century, Dumbarton Oaks
BZS.1958.106.20 189
6.1 Obv: Archangel Michael; Rev: Nicholas with the “Tongues
of Fire” lead seal, 11th century, Harvard Art Museums/Arthur
M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA,
6.2 Obv: The Virgin with her hands before her breast, lead seal
Sabbas, 11th century, Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.4505 197
7.1 Virgin standing praying, lead seal of Niketas, proedros,
strategos of Samos and logothetes of the dromos, 11th century,
7.2 Saint Basil, lead seal of Basil, Metropolitan of Thessalonike,
12th century, Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1955.1.4992 216
7.3 Nursing Virgin, lead seal of Romanos, Metropolitan of
Kyzikos, 11th century, Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M.
Sackler Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA,
8.1 Lead Seal of Leo III (717–720). Obv. Virgin Hodegetria
standing; Rev: Leo III bust. Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1955.1.4269 254
8.2 Lead Seal of Leo III and Constantine V (720–741). Obv: Cross
on steps, circular inscription; Rev: Inscription. Dumbarton
Oaks BZS.1955.1.4278 254
8.3 Lead Seal of Michael III (866–867). Obv: Christ bust; Rev:
Michael III bust. Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1947.2.415 256
8.4 Lead Seal of Anthony I, patriarch of Constantinople
(821–837). Obv: Cruciform invocative monogram; Rev:
Inscription. Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.5703 257
8.5 Lead Seal of Methodios I, patriarch of Constantinople (843–847).
Obv: Virgin Hodegetria standing; Rev: Inscription. (After G.
Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, ed. J. Nesbitt [Berne, 1984], no. 5a) 258
8.6 Lead Seal of Herakleios and Herakleios Constantine
(c. 613 – c. 616). Obv: Virgin holding Christ Child before her,
standing; Rev: Herakleios and Herakleios Constantine busts.
8.7 Lead Seal of Theophilos, archbishop of Ephesos, 8th/9th
century. Obv: John the Theologian bust; Rev: Inscription.
8.8 Lead Seal of John, bishop of Monemvasia, 9th century. Obv:
Christ bust; Rev: John the Theologian standing. St. Petersburg,
Hermitage M-8094 277
xiii
figures
8.9 Lead Seal of George, bishop of Bizye, 7th/8th century. Obv:

Virgin Hodegetria standing; Rev: Cruciform monogram.
8.10 Lead Seal of Euthymios, metropolitan of Sardis, 8th/9th
century. Obv: Virgin holding Christ Child before her, standing;
Rev: Inscription. (After G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine
Lead Seals, I [Basel, 1972], no. 1332) 290
8.11 Lead Seal of Euphemianos, archbishop of Euchaita, 9th
century. Obv: Theodore bust; Rev: Inscription. Dumbarton
Oaks BZS.1958.106.138 294
8.12 Lead Seal of Maria, daughter of a Caesar, 9th century. Obv:
Virgin holding Christ before her, bust; Rev: Inscription. (After
G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I [Basel,
1972], no. 2673) 300
xiv
GRAPHS
3.1 Number of Religious Figural Iconographic Seals by Century 57

3.2 Percentage of Seals with Religious Figural Iconography 58
3.3 Frequency of Seals with Images of Saints Per Century 66
3.4 Seals with Images of Saints as Percentages of Total
Iconographic Seals 67
3.5 Percentage of Iconographic Seals with Image of the Virgin 70
4.1 Seals with Concordant Images and Invocations as Percentage
of Total Seals with Saints’ Images 161
5.1 Frequency of Iconographic Seals with More Than One Holy
Figure or “Choired Saints” 178
5.2 Percentage of Iconographic Seals with More Than One Holy
Figure or “Choired Saints” 179
7.1 Number of Religious Figural Iconographic Seals by Century 214
xv
TA B L E S A N D C H A RT S
Charts
1.1 Metropolis of Ephesos 21
1.2 Metropolis of Patras 25
1.3 Metropolis of Corinth 27
1.4 Metropolis of Thessalonike 29
1.5 Thrakesion Theme 34
1.6 Theme of Peloponnesos 36
1.7 Theme of Thessalonike 39
3.1 Chronological Frequency of Images of Saints on Seals 59
3.2 Chronological Frequency of Old Testament Figures 79
3.3 Chronological Frequency of New Testament Figures 79
3.4 Chronological Frequency of Martyrs 92
3.5 Chronological Frequency of Hierarchs 94
3.6 Chronological Frequency of Military Saints 103
3.7 Chronological Frequency of Monastic Saints 134
3.8 Chronological Frequency of Female Saints 137
Tables
4.1 Frequency of Invocation Addressed to Saints Depicted
on Lead Seals 155
4.2 Addressee of Invocations on Seals by Century 155
7.1 Frequency of Homonymous Saints on Lead Seals
(6th-12th centuries) 217
7.2 Frequency of Images of the Virgin on Seals of Women
7.3 Ten Most Popular Personal Names on Lead Seals
7.4 Seven Most Popular Monastic Personal Names on Lead Seals
7.5 Family Groups Included in This Study 234
xvi
ta b l e s a n d c h a r t s
7.6 Persons Holding Military Offices 240

8.1 Iconographic Repertoire of Seals During Iconoclastic Centuries 263
8.2 Iconographic Repertoire of 7th/8th-Century Seal Owners from
the Ecclesiastical Administration 279
the Civil Administration 279
the Military 280
8.5 Iconographic Repertoire of 8th-Century Seal Owners from the
Ecclesiastical Administration 285
Civil Administration 285
Military 286
the Ecclesiastical Administration 289
the Civil Administration 292
the Military 292
Ecclesiastical Administration 292
Civil Administration 297
Military 299
8.14 Geographic Distribution of Iconographic Seals During
Iconoclasm 302
xvii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to the following individuals, institutions and publishers for their kind
permission to reproduce the articles included in this volume: Lee-Ann Anderson,
Taylor & Francis Group/Cambridge University Press (article XVIII); DeGruyter/
Saur (article XII); Jérôme Jambu, Société française de numismatique (article I);
His Eminence Metropolitan Methodios, Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
(article II); Fr. Michael Monos, Holy Cross Orthodox Press (article III); John
Nesbitt, co-author (articles IV, VII, XI and XIII); Paul Peeters, Peeters Publishers
and Booksellers (articles IV, VII, IX, XI, XIII and XIV); Whitney Rauenhorst,
The University of Chicago Press (article X); Kathleen Sparkes, Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC (articles V, VI and VIII); Elis
abeth Walczuk, Brepols (article XVII); Constantin Zuckerman, Association des
Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance (articles XV and XVI); and
Jannic Durand and Ioanna Rapti of Cahiers archéologiques, for Éditions Picard/
Actes Sud (article XIX).
In addition, I offer my heartfelt thanks to the following individuals who assisted
me in obtaining photographs and their permissions for publication, as well as those
who assisted in my obtaining the permission to republish some of the articles:
Jean-Claude Cheynet; Zhanna Etsina and Elena Stepanova, both of The State Her
mitage Museum, Saint Petersburg; the Fondazione Gaiani for the Museo e Tesoro
del Duomo di Monza; Julia Gearhart, Research Photography, Princeton University;
Eleanora Giampiccolo, Fabio Giusto and Riccardo Luongo, all of the Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana; Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA-Bequest of Thomas Whittemore; Donatella Hecht;
Bart Janssens, Brepols (article XVII); Ivan Jordanov; Joni Joseph, Joe Mills,
Samuel Shapiro, Jonathan Shea and Bettina Smith, all of Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC; Very Rev. Archimandrite Justin,
Holy Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai; Ioannides Kanonidis, Ephorate
of Antiquities of Chalkidiki and Mount Athos; Ioanna Koltsida-Makre; Nefeli
Kouvela, Benaki Museum, Athens; Anna Lyssikatou and Symeon Paschalidis, both
of the Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, Thessalonike; Cécile Morrisson
(articles XV and XVI); John Nesbitt, Brigitte Pitarakis (articles XV, XVI and XIX);
the Holy Monastery of Xeropotamou, Mount Athos; Werner Seibt; Vasiliki Stefanaki,
xviii
acknowledgements
Numismatic Museum of Athens; Elena Stolyarik, American Numismatic Society,

New York; Julia Triolo; Jonathan Vines, The British Library, London; and Alexan
dra Wassiliou-Seibt.
Besides Anthony Cutler and the late Nicolas Oikonomides, who first directed
me towards the rich body of sphragistic imagery, there are numerous colleagues
and individuals I also wish to acknowledge for their invaluable assistance, advice
and support of my work since the time of my dissertation research and over the
intervening years as these articles were published. First and foremost is John
Nesbitt, Curator of Seals, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library, Emeritus, who has
consistently and unselfishly shared much of his knowledge and expertise con
cerning the intricacies of sigillography, as well as offering insightful suggestions
regarding worthy topics for further study. Also I wish to thank colleagues who
have provided helpful advice, bibliography, photographs and technical support
upon requests, such as Gudrun Buhl; Beatrice Caseau, Jean-Claude Cheynet,
Andrew Constantine, Mina Galane-Krikou, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School
of Theology, Ioli Kalavrezou, Joel Kavelsmaki, Eric McGeer, Fr. Michael Monos,
Cécile Morrisson, Jamil Samara, Nancy Ševčenko, Jonathan Shea, Werner Seibt,
Christos Stavrakos, Elena Stepanova, Alice-Mary Talbot, Alicia Walker, Alex
andra Wassiliou-Seibt, Annemarie Weyl Carr, Lain Wilson and Jan Ziolkalski,
Director of Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Among those who
are no longer with us but who were also extremely helpful and supportive of
my work, from the beginning phases of the dissertation and onwards, I wish to
recall, in addition to Nicolas Oikonomides, Metropolitan Nicholas of Amissos,
Nubar Hampaturian, Jakov Ljubarskij, Very Rev. Archimandrite Maximos Moses,
Mando Oikonomidou, Vasso Penna, and Valentina Šandrovskaja.
Furthermore, I remain grateful to Michael Greenwood, editor for the Variorum
Collected Studies series of Routledge Publishing, for expressing interest in the
proposal for this volume, along with his peer review committee, to Stewart Beale,
editorial assistant to Michael Greenwood, and to Marie Louise Roberts, Deputy
Account Manager, Pre-Press Solutions of Apex CoVantage. Finally, I express my
appreciation to the following friends and colleagues who have been most support
ive of my work and encouraging during the preparation of this volume: James
and Julie Agoritsas, Rev. Dr. Stefanos Alexopoulos, Mark Arey, Very Rev. Archi
mandrite Maximos Constas, PhD; Gary Dippel, Rev. Dr. George Dragas, Very
Rev. Archimandrite Vasileios Drossos, Rev. Fr. Alexander & Presvytera Xanthi
Karloutsos, Fr. Jon Magoulias, Peter-Clyde Papadakos, the Parizek family, Very
Rev. Archimandrite Polycarp Rameas, Margo Stavros, Julia Triolo, Fr. John Tsi
kalas and Rev. Dr. Steven Zorzos.
Finally, I wish to express my sincere thanks to the Ladies Philoptochos Soci
ety of the Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church of Modesto, California for gra
ciously providing the funds for the publication rights for the images and articles
in theses volumes.
xix
A B B R E V I AT I O N S
AASS Acta Sanctorum, I-LXXI (Paris, 1863–1940)

AB Analecta Bollandiana and Art Bulletin
ACO Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, I-IV (Berlin-
Leipzig, 1922–1974); Series secunda, I-III (Berlin,
1984–2012)
AJA Ameican Journal of Archaeology
Anna Komnene Annae Comnenae Alexias, 1, ed. D. Reinsch et al.
(Berlin, 2001)
Ἀρχ. Δελτ. Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον
ArchAth Archvies de l’Athos
BBTT Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations
BCH Bulletin de correspondence hellénique
BF or ByzF Byzantinische Forschungen
BMGS Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
Bsl or ByzSl Byzantinoslavica
Byz. or B Byzantion
ByzAus Byzantina Australiensia
BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift
CA Cahiers archéologiques
CFHB Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae
Cheynet et al., Istanbul J.-C. Cheynet, T. Gökyıldırım and V. Bulgurlu, Les
sceaux byzantins du Musée archéologique
d’Istanbul (Istanbul, 2012)
Cheynet-Vannier, J.-C. Cheynet & J.-F. Vannier, Études
Études prosopographiques prosopographiques (Paris, 1986)
CSHB Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae
Corinth G. Davidson, The Minor Objects [Corinth XII]
(Princeton, 1952)
DACL Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie
Darrouzès, Notitiae J. Darrouzès, Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae
Constantinopolitane (Paris, 1981)
xx
a b b r e v i at i o n s
DChAE or ΔΧΑΕ or
Δελτ. Χριστ. Ἀρχ. Ἑτ. Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας
(Deltion tes Christianikes Archaiologikes Hetaireias)
DDC Dictionnaire de droit canonique, I-VII (Paris,
1935–1965)
DHGE Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie
ecclésiastiques
DOC Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton
Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection,
I, ed. A. Bellinger (Washington, DC, 1966 [repr.
Washington, DC, 1992]); II-III, ed. P. Grierson
(Washington, DC, 1968, 1973 [repr. Washington,
DC, 1993]); IV, ed. M. Hendy (Washington, DC,
1999); V, ed. P. Grierson (Washington, DC, 1999)
DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers
DOSEALS or DOS Catalogue of the Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton
Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, I-III, ed. J.
Nesbitt & N. Oikonomides (Washington, DC, 1991,
1994, 1996); IV-V, ed. E. McGeer, J. Nesbitt & N.
Oikonomides (Washington, DC, 2001, 2005); VI,
ed. J. Nesbitt & C. Morrisson (Washington, DC,
2009)
EO Échos d’Orient
Ἐπιστ. Ἐπ. Φιλ. Σχ. Ἀθ. Ἐπιστημονικὴ Ἐπετηρὶς Φιλοσοφικῆς Σχολῆς
Πανεπιστημίου Ἀθηνῶν
FM Fontes Minores
GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
Hagios Nikolaos Hagios Nikolaos: Der Heiilige Nikolaos in der
griechischen Kirche, I-III, ed. G. Anrich (Leipzig-
Berlin, 1913)
IRAIK Izvestija Russkogo Archeologičeskogo Instituta v
Konstantinopole
JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum
Janin, Églises R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire
byzantin, vol. 1, Le siège de Constantinople et le
patriarcat oecuménique, pt. 3, Les églises et les
monastères, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1969)
JG or Zepos, Jus Jus graecoromanum, I-VIII, ed. I. Zepos & P.
Zepos (Athens, 1931 [repr. Aalen, 1962])
JÖB Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik
Jordanov, Corpus I. Jordanov, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from
Bulgaria, I-III (Sofia, 2003, 2006, 2009)
JWCI Journal of the Warburg & Courtauld Institues
xxi
Konstantopoulos K. Konstantopoulos, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα

τοῦ ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἐθνικοῦ Νομισματικοῦ Μουσείου
(Athens, 1917)
LakSp Lakonikai Spoudai
Laurent, Corpus V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de l’Empire
byzantine, V:1–3, L’église (Paris, 1963–1972); II,
L’administration central (Paris, 1981)
Laurent, Orghidan V. Laurent, Documents de sigillographie byzantine:
Le collection C. Orghidan (Paris, 1952)
Mansi G. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima
collecto, I-LIII (Paris-Leipzig, 1901–1927)
MM F. Miklosich & J. Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca
medii aevi sacra et profana, I-VI (Vienna, 1860–
1890 [repr. Athens, 1996])
NE Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων
OCP Orientala christiana periodica
ODB Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium
Oikonomides, Dated Seals N. Oikonomides, A Collection of Dated Byzantine
Lead Seals (Washington, DC, 1986)
Oikonomides, Lead Seals N. Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead Seals (Washington,
DC, 1985)
Oikonomidès, Listes N. Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance byzantines
des IXe et Xe siècles: introduction, texte, traduction
et commentaire (Paris, 1972)
Pančenko, Katalog B. Pančenko, “Kollekcii Russago Archeologiceskago
Instituta v Konstantinople. Katalog Molivdovulov,”
Izvestija Russkogo Arheologiceskogo Instituta v
Konstantinopole, VIII, 1903, nos. 1–124; IX, 1904,
nos. 125–300; and 1908, nos. 301–500
PG or MPG Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca, ed.
J.-P. Migne, I-CLXI (Paris, 1857–1866)
REB Revue des études byzantines
REG or REGr Revue des études grecques
RHE Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique
RN Revue numismatique
SC Sources chrétiennes
Schlumberger, Sig. G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’empire byzantin
(Paris, 1884)
Seibt, Bleisiegel I W. Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in
Österreich, I: Kaiserhof (Vienna, 1978)
Seyrig J. C. Cheynet, C. Morrisson & W. Seibt, Les sceaux
byzantins de la collection Henri Seyrig (Paris,
1991)
xxii
Stavrakos, Kophopoulos C. Stavrakos, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel der

Sammlung Savvas Kophopoulos (Turnhout, 2010)
TM Travaux et mémoires
Viz Vrem Vizantijskij vremennik
Wassiliou, Corpus A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, Corpus der byzantinischen
Siegel mit metrischen Legend, 1: Einleitung,
Siegellegenden von Alpha bis inclusive My (Vienna,
2011); 2: Siegellegenden von Ny bis inclusive
Σφραγίς (Vienna, 2016)
WBS Wiener byzantinistische Studien
Zacos-Veglery G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals,
I:1–3 (Basel, 1972)
ZRVI Zbornik radova Vizantološkog Instituta
xxiii
INTRODUCTION
The 19 articles gathered in this two-volume set were published over a period of
25 years, from 1994 to 2019, and reflect the research interests that originated in
my 1992 doctoral dissertation entitled, A Society and Its Images: The Religious
Iconography of Byzantine Lead Seals, for The Pennsylvania State University,
under the direction of Anthony Cutler, and various subsequent investigative direc
tions. When in the late 1980s I was attempting to identify a dissertation topic, it
was the late Nicolas Oikonomides, at that time the Curator of Seals at Dumbarton
Oaks, who suggested to my advisor that the large body of sphragistic iconography
needed to be investigated by a Byzantine art historian. Oikonomides subsequently
served as the special reader on my dissertation committee. This time coincided
with the rise of the personal computer, which was an essential technological
development for managing the data from a vast number of seals.
These years also saw a renewed interest in sigillography within the broader
discipline of Byzantine studies, reappraising an older perception that considered
sigillography an auxiliary science, most often associated with prosopographic and
administrative studies. By the late 1980s, a historiographic reevaluation had begun
which recognized this discipline as central to the wider field of Byzantine studies.
A clear indication of this new appraisal was the fact that the first international collo
quium on Byzantine sigillography was held at Dumbarton Oaks/Georgetown Uni
versity in August 1986, during the Seventeenth International Congress of Byzantine
Studies.1 The papers from that Congress were subsequently published in the first
volume of Studies in Byzantine Sigillography in 1987, a series that has continued to
this day, with the most recent volume being number 13 (2019).2 Since 1986 there
have been 12 international colloquia on Byzantine sigillography, the most recent
1 Abstracts of these presentations can be found in The 17th International Byzantine Congress:
Abstracts of Short Papers, Washington, DC, August 3–8, 1986, Dumbarton Oaks/Georgetown Uni
versity, ed. G. Vikan (Washington, DC, 1986), 24–26, 59–61, 158–161, 229–230 and 238–239.
2 Studies in Byzantine Sigillography (hereafter SBS) 1 (1987), where four additional papers that do
not appear in the abstracts of the Congress are included. SBS volumes 1–7 (1987–2002) were pub
lished by Dumbarton Oaks; volumes 8 and 9 (2003 and 2006) by K. G. Saur; volumes 10–12 (2010,
2012 and 2016) by De Gruyter; and volume 13 (2019) by Brepols.
1
introduction
held in May 2019 at the State Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg. In 2004, the
Byzantine historian and sigillographer (and currently the Consultant for Byzantine
Sigillography at Dumbarton Oaks), Eric McGeer had summarized the growing sig
nificance and role of Byzantine seals for the field of Byzantine studies, including
their value for art historians, that was included in a report for Canadian Byzan
tinists.3 More recently, in 2018, the Byzantine historian and sigillographer, Ivan
Jordanov, published a survey of the history of the field of Byzantine sigillography,
tracing its origins to 18th-century Rome, and bringing the study up to date through
2018 with the inclusion of relevant scholars and significant publications.4 In this
history, he, too, stresses the growing significance of sigillography for Byzantine
studies. Furthermore, two major online databases related to Byzantine seals have
recently appeared: the Prosopography of the Byzantine World, depending heavily on
information gleaned from lead seals and covering the period from 641–1261, began
as a research project in 1989 and appears now in its second edition (2016);5 and
the Online Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks, which first became
available in 2012 and already includes 10,000 of the collection’s 17,000 seals.6 Also
indicative of the growing importance of the role of seals for Byzantine studies is the
graduate summer coins and seals seminar instituted at Dumbarton Oaks in 2002 and
continues to the present. On two of these occasions I was invited to present lectures
on the iconography of Byzantine seals. Moreover, recent catalogues of seals are
provided with titles that clearly indicate the significance of sphragistic material for
the understanding of the Byzantines and their world.7
The appearance of this two-volume collection of articles devoted to the study
of the religious figural imagery of Byzantine lead seals serves as a timely contri
bution to this more recent positive perspective and an appreciation of this essen
tial resource for the study of Byzantine society and religion. To date, however,
no other such volume exists. Although the 2008 two-volume collected works of
the eminent Byzantine sigillographer and historian Jean-Claude Cheynet con
tains 25 articles dealing with the study of Byzantine seals, just five of these
deal with sphragistic imagery, and these were originally published between
1992 and 2004.8 More recently, there is the 2013 collection of essays devoted
3 Eric McGeer, “Byzantine Sigillography,” Canadio-Byzantina 15 (March 2004), 10–13.

4 I. Jordanov, “Byzantine Sigillography,” Studia Academica Šumenensia 5 (2018), 11–24.
5 M. Jeffreys et al., Prosopography of the Byzantine World, 2016 (London, King’s College, 2017):
http://pbw2016.kdl.kcl.ac.uk.
6 Online Catalogue of Byzantine Seals (Dumbarton Oaks), www.doaks.org/resources/seals.
7 For example, see W. Seibt, Ein Blick in die byzantinische Gesellschaft: Die Bleisiegel im Museum
August Kestner (Rahden, 2011) and A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt and W. Seibt, Der byazntinische Mensch
in seinem Umfeld: Weitere Bleisiegel der Sammlung Zarnitz im Museum August Kestner (Rahden,
2015).
8 J.-C. Cheynet, La société byzantine: L’apport des sceaux, I-II (Paris, 2008). The five articles
are: “Quelques remarques sur le culte de la croix en Asie Mineure au Xe siècle,” originally pub
lished in Histoire et culture chrétienne: Hommage à Monseigneur Yves Marchasson, ed. Y.
Ledure (Paris, 1992), 67–78; “Texte et image sur les sceaux byzantins: les raisons d’un choix
2
introduction
to Byzantine numismatics and sigillography in memory of Petros Protonotarios,

yet only one article is dedicated to the images of seals.9 The timing of my pub
lication also corresponds to the growing, parallel interest in sphragistic imagery
for western medieval culture, as evidenced by six major recent publications.10
But these studies focus almost exclusively on western medieval seals. Among
them, only four articles are devoted to Byzantine seals, and these four are not all
devoted to seal imagery.11 Currently, there is no similar, English-language vol
ume dealing with seal imagery as a reflection of culture and identity dedicated
to the Byzantine East.
In the Byzantine empire, seals (Gr. singular σφραγίς, βούλλα; Lat. sigillum)
served a variety of purposes: to guarantee the privacy of correspondence; to vali
date official and private documents; to serve as the counter-signature of a superior
official by conveying authority on the issuance of his or her subordinates; or for
securing goods for commerce.12 Some lead seals were also used as tokens that
were distributed to the needy in exchange for food and services at charitable foun-
dations.13 Seals in Byzantium were made of gold, silver, lead and wax. Both gold
and silver were limited in use: gold seals were issued only by emperors, while
more rarely silver was employed for the seals of the despots of Epiros and the
iconographique (with C. Morrisson),” originally published in SBS 4 (1995), 9–32; “Par Saint
Georges, par Saint Michel,” originally appearing in Travaux et mémoires 14 (Mélanges Gilbert
Dagron) (2002), 115–134; “Le culte de Saint Théodore chez officiers de l’armée d’Orient,”
originally published in Byzantium, State and Society: In Memory of Nikos Oikonomides, ed. A.
Avramea et al. (Athens, 2003), 137–154; and “Le culte de Saint Jean-Baptiste en Cilicie et en
Syrie,” originally published in Byzance et ses périphéries (Mondes grec, balkanique et musul
man): Hommage à Alain Ducellier, ed. B. Doumerc and C. Picard (Toulouse, 2004), 57–66.
9 Ὁλοκότινον: Μελέτες Βυζαντινῆς Νομισματικῆς καί Σιγιλλογραφίας στή Μνήμη τοῦ Πέτρου
Πρωτονοταρίου, ed. E. Papaeuthymiou and I. Touratsoglou (Athens, 2013). The article concern
ing sphragistic imagery is Α. Mazarakes, “Ἡ είκόνα τῆς Παναγίας Ἀχειροποιήτου τῆς Μονῆς
Ἀβραμιτῶν,” 225–229.
10 Good Impressions: Image and Authority in Medieval Seals, ed. N. Adams et al. (London, 2008);
B. Bedos-Rezak, When Ego Was Imago: Signs of Identity in the Middle Ages (Leiden, 2011);
Medieval Coins and Seals: Constructing Identity, Signifying Power, ed. S. Solway (Turnhout,
2015); Seals and their Context in the Middle Ages, ed. P. Schofield (Oxford, 2015); Seals: Making
and Marking Connections Across the Medieval World, ed. B. Bedos-Rezak (Leeds, 2018); and A
Companion to Seals in the Middle Ages, ed. L. Whatley (Leiden, 2019).
11 L. James, “Displaying Identity and Power? The Coins of Byzantine Empresses between 804 and
1204,” Medieval Coins and Seals, 189–209; C. Sode, “The Formulation of Urban Identity on
Byzantine Seals,” Seals: Making and Marking Connections, 149–166; J. Shea, ”The Seals of the
Judges of the Hippodrome: Drawing from Seals Without Context,” A Companion to Seals, 181–
194; and A. Volkoff, “Power, Family, and Identity: Social and Individual Elements in Byzantine
Sigillography,” ibid., 223–241.
12 N. Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead Seals (Washington, DC, 1985), 8–9; ODB, III, 1859–1860;
and J. Nesbitt, “Sigillography,” in Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, ed. E. Jeffreys et al.
(Oxford, 2008), 151.
13 Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead Seals, 9; J. Nesbitt, “Byzantine Copper Tokens,” SBS I (1987), 67–76;
ODB III, 2091; and B. Caseau, “L’exercice de la charité à Byzance d’après les sceaux et les tessères
(Ve-XIIe siècle),” Travaux et mémoires 21/1 (Mélanges Jean-Claude Cheynet) (2017), 31–52.
3
introduction
Peloponnesos.14 Although wax seals were common, very few have survived due
to the fragility of the medium.15 It is the lead seal, however, that survives in great
number, literally thousands. It has been estimated that approximately 80,000 lead
seals exist worldwide, of which only a portion is published.16 The vast number
testifies to the fact that lead seals were in widespread use in Byzantium among all
ranks of society: emperors, patriarchs and officials in all levels of the imperial, mil
itary and ecclesiastical bureaucracies, monastics and private individuals as well.
Lead seals received their impressions from a boulloterion. This tool, in use as
early as the 4th century, was a pliers-shaped iron implement, incised in reverse on
the inner surfaces of its two hammer-like jaws.17 To make a seal, the user placed a
lead disk between the jaws and struck the tool with a hammer. These lead blanks,
cast in slate molds, were provided with a central channel through which a cord
was passed with which to attach the seal to a document.18 The lead seals usually
range in diameter between about 23 mm and 28 mm.19
Among the vast body of surviving lead seals, the largest portion are seals that
have no iconographic motif but only inscriptions. Many of these bear monograms
of various forms;20 others have bilateral inscriptions;21 many with elaborate,
14 Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead Seals, 6; ODB, III, 1859–1860; and Nesbitt, “Sigillography,” 150.
15 Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead Seals, 6–7; ODB, III, 1859–1860; and Nesbitt, Sigillography,” 150.
16 W. Seibt and M.-L. Zarnitz, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk: Katalog zur Ausstellung
(Vienna, 1997), 20 and Seibt, Byzantinische Gesellschaft, 28. J.-C. Cheynet, “L’ usage des sceaux
à Byzance,” Res Orientales 10 (1997), 23, suggests that more than 60,000 specimens survive
while in idem, “Le rôle des femmes de l’ aristocratie d’ après les sceaux,” in Sfragistika i istorija
kul’tury: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov, Posvjascennyj Jubileju V. C. Shandrovkoj, ed. E. Stepanova
(St. Petersburg, 2004) (repr. in Cheynet La société byzantine), 30, he states that between 60,000
and 70,000 lead seals exist. More recently, in Sceaux de la collection George Zacos au Musée
d’ art et d’historie de Genève, ed. M. Campagnolo-Pothitou and J.-C. Cheynet (Milan, 2016), 8,
Cheynet writes that approximately 80,000 specimens have survived.
17 For some description and discussion of boulloteria, see G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead
Seals (Basel, 1972), I:1, ix-xii and pls. 1–4; Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead Seals, 3–4; idem, “Le
boullôtèrion du césar Constant (336/337) trouvé à Beaumont-sur-Oise,” SBS I, 105–115; J.-C.
Cheynet, “Un nouveau boulloterion decouvert en Turquie,” SBS 10 (2010), 97–98; and Cam
pagnolo and Cheynet, Sceaux de la collection George Zacos, 12–13.
18 For a description of the production of lead blanks, see Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals,
I:1, xi–xiii; Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead Seals, 5; idem, “The Lead Blanks Used for Byzantine
Seals,” SBS I, 97–103; and C. Morrisson, “Numismatique et sigillographie: parentés et méthodes,”
SBS I, 3–14.
19 ODB, III, 1859 while Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead Seals, 5, states that the most common diame
ters range from 1.5 cm to 4.5 cm.
20 See for example, Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, nos. 286–584 and I:3, nos. 2766–
2838 and nos. 3006–3231 and G. Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals II, ed. J. Nesbitt (Berne, 1984),
nos. 1060–1089. For more recent literature, see R. Feind, Byzantinische Monogramme und Eigen
namen: Alphabetisiertes Wörterbuch/Byzantine Monograms and Personal Names: Alphabetized
Lexicon (Regenstauf, 2010) and W. Seibt, “The Use of Monograms on Byzantine Seals in the Early
Middle-Ages (6th-9th Centuries),” Paraekbolai 6 (2016), 1–14.
21 See Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, nos. 730–1095 and I:3, nos. 2859–2937 and
Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, nos. 949–1059.
4
introduction
learned metrical inscriptions.22 There are many early seals that have an image of
an eagle,23 while a smaller number from the middle Byzantine period bear depic
tions of various animals.24 In addition, there are just a few specimens with depic
tions of classical personifications25 and secular portraits.26 There are, however,
many examples of seals with the sign of the cross.27
On the other hand, Byzantine lead seals provide the largest number of surviv
ing examples of religious figural imagery as well as a continuous chronological
record of such images. These seals range in date from the 6th through 15th cen
tury. Many of the thousands of surviving lead seals bear images of Christ, the Vir
gin, various saints and narrative scenes depicting events from the lives of Christ
and the Virgin. Using the catalogues of the major published collections, over the
years I have created a database of such seals, beginning with 5,877 specimens for
the work of my 1992 dissertation and subsequently adding examples of such seals
from newly published catalogues, bringing the database now to include 11,819
specimens.28 These seals represent the largest and richest body of evidence for the
images of saintly figures and their cult in Byzantium.
22 See A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, Corpus der byzantinischen Siegel mit metrischen Legend, 1: Einlei
tung, Siegellegenden von Alpha bis inclusive My (Vienna, 2011); 2: Siegellegenden von Ny bis
inclusive Sphragis (Vienna, 2016).
23 For examples, see Zacos andVeglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, nos. 585–730 and I. Kοltsi
da-Makre, “Ἡ παράσταση τοῦ ἀετοῦ στά μολυβδόβουλλα καὶ ἡ προέλευση της,” Δελτίον τῆς
Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας, 4, 24 (2003), 411–416.
24 For a recent study, see A. Walker, “Islamicizing Motifs in Byzantine Lead Seals: Exoticizing Style
and the Expression of Identity,” Medieval History Journal 15:2 (2012), 381–408.
25 For examples, see Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1373 (with a winged victory) and no.
1382 (with a tyche) and E. Stepanova, “Victoria-Nike, on Early Byzantine Seals,” SBS 10 (2010), 15–24.
26 Other than imperial images, secular portraits are extremely rare on seals. For an early example,
see Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1386. For a middle Byzantine example, see
N. Oikonomides, “Theophylact Excubitus and His Crowned ‘Portrait’: An Italian Rebel in the
Late 10th Century?” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας, 4, 12 (1986), 195–202.
For a reassigning of this seal to an individual of the 12th century, see O. Kresten and W. Seibt,
“Theophylaktos Exubitos (kein ‘italienischer Rebell des späten 10. Jahrhunderts,’ sondern ΜΕΓΑΣ
ΔΙΕΡΜΗΝΕΥΤΗΣ unter Kaiser Manuel I. Komnenos) und seine Siegel,” JÖB 52 (2002), 231–
241. See also, J. Nesbitt, “Some Observations about the Roger Family,” Νέα Ῥώμη, 1 (2004),
209–217, for the late 12th-century seal of Andronikos Roger.
27 For a discussion of the image of the cross on seals and the chronological high point of this sphra
gistic imagery, see I. Koltsida-Makre, “The Representation of the Cross on Byzantine Lead Seals,”
SBS 4 (1995), 43–51; J.-C. Cheynet, “Quelques remarques sur le culte de la croix en Asie Mineure
au Xe siècle,” Histoire et culture chrétienne. Hommage à Monseigneur Yves Marchasson (Paris,
1992), 67–78 (repr. in his La société byzantine, 1, 275–284); B. Caseau, “L’iconographie des sceaux
après la fin de l’iconoclasme (IXe-XIe S.),” Proceedings of the International Symposium Dedi
cated to the Centennial of the Birth of Dr. Vassil Haralanov Held in Shumen September 13th-15th,
2007, ed. I. Jordanov et al. (Shumen, 2008), 225–232; and A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, “Σύμβολον
ζωηφόρον: Παραστάσεις σταυρών σε βυζαντινά μολυβδόβουλλα,” in Philotimia: Studies in Hon-
our of Alkmeme Stavridou-Zafraka, ed. T. Korres et al. (Thessalonike, 2011), 669–685.
28 This count does not include actual identical specimens that are duplicated in the various cata
logues, but it does include parallel and similar specimens. A list of the catalogues employed to
create the database appears at the end of the Introduction.
5
introduction
Since the publication of the first corpus of Byzantine lead seals by Gustave
Schlumberger in 1884, which established the systematic study of Byzantine sig
illography,29 lead seals have been investigated in light of their inscriptions,30
for prosopographical studies,31 as historical documents,32 and especially for the
study of the various administrations of the Byzantine empire and its provinc
es;33 and now recently to investigate the construction of personal identity in
Byzantium.34
Although the systematic study of seals has been established for over a century,
however, the study of seal iconography has not received a great deal of continu
ous attention. Toward the end of the 19th century, again, Schlumberger indicated
the relative frequency with which the images of Christ, the Virgin and numerous
saints were found on Byzantine seals.35 Despite the large number of seals pub
lished since his early study, Schlumberger’s preliminary findings remain funda
mentally accurate: depictions of the Virgin make up the overwhelming majority of
29 G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’empire byzantine (Paris, 1984).

30 For example, most recently the corpus of seals bearing metrical inscriptions, as cited above:
Wassiliou-Seibt, Corpus der byzantinischen Siegel mit metrischen Legend. See also J. Nesbitt,
“A Question of Labels: Identifying Inscriptions on Byzantine Lead Seals, ca. 850–950),” SBS 4
(1995), 53–62; N. Oikonomides, “On Sigillographic Epigraphy,” SBS 6 (1999), 37–42; and A.
Rhoby, “Epigrams, Epigraphy and Sigillography,” Ἤπειρόνδε (Epeironde): Proceedings of the
10th International Symposium of Byzantine Sigillography (Ioannina, 1.-3. October 2009), ed. C.
Stavrakos and B. Papadopoulou (Wiesbaden, 2011), 65–80.
31 Two classic publications are W. Seibt, Die Skleroi: eine prosopographisch-sigillographische
Studie (Vienna, 1976) and J.-C. Cheynet and J.-F. Vannier, Études prosopographiques (Paris,
1986). For some discussion devoted to the problems the sphragistic material presents for prosop
ographic studies, see C. Ludwig, “Sigillographie und Prosopographie: Möglichkeiten und Gren
zen gegenseitigen Nutzens,” Siegel und Siegler: Akten des 8. Internationalen Symposiums für
byzantinische Sigillographie (Frankfurt am Main, 2005), 105–114; W. Seit, “Zwischen Identifi
zierungsrausch und-Verweigerung: Zur Problematik synchroner homonymer Siegel,” Siegel und
Siegler, 141–150; and idem, “Beinamen, ‘Spitznamen,’ Herkunftsnamen, Familiennamen bis ins
10. Jahrhundert: Der Beitrag der Sigillographie zu einem prosopographischen Problem,” SBS 7
(2002), 119–136.
32 V. Šandrovskaja, “Die Bedeutung der Bleisiegel für das Studium einiger Aspekte der byzantinis
chen Geschichte,” JÖB 32:2 (1982), 165–173 and N. Oikonomides, “Τὰ βυζαντινὰ μολυβδόβουλλα
ὠς ἱστορικὴ πηγή,” Πρακτικὰ τῆς Ἀκαδεμίας Ἀθηνῶν 62:1 (1987), 255. More recently, see J.-C.
Cheynet, “La perte de l’Asie Mineure au XIe siècle a-t-elle laissé des traces dans l’anthroponyme
familiale?,” SBS 12 (2016), 1–12; W. Seibt, “The Eastern Frontier of Byzantium in the Decennia
after Manzikert-Can Seals Help Reconstruct Developments?,” SBS 12 (2016), 25–32; and S. Mét
tivier, “Note sur les sceaux des évêques de l’Anatolie turque (XIIe-XIIIe siècles),” ibid., 33–46.
33 T. Kourempanas, “The Seal of the First known Katepano of Italy,” in Ἤπειρόνδε (Epeironde),
179–182; J.-C. Cheynet, “La mise en place des themes d’après les sceaux: les stratèges,” SBS 10
(2010), 1–14; A. Gkoutzioukostas, “Seals of Byzantine Officials Connected with the Administra
tion of Justice,” JÖB 62 (2012), 9–18; and idem, “The Theme of Drougoubiteia,” SBS 13 (2019),
107–120.
34 See note 7, supra.
35 G. Schlumberger, “La Vierge, le Christ, les Saints sur les sceaux byzantins des Xe, XIe et XIIe
siècles,” Mémoires de la societé des antiquaires de France IV (1983), 1–28.
6
introduction
seals with religious figural imagery, the saints as a group are second in frequency
and Christ is rarely seen.36 More recently, John Rexine echoed similar conclusions
when acknowledging the importance of sigillographic iconography for the study
of Byzantine religious life.37
In the early years of the 20th century, the two great Russian savants Niko
laj Lihačev38 and Nikodim Kondakov39 used the Marian images found on seals
for their monumental classifications of the iconographic types of the Virgin. By
the mid-20th century, George Galavaris, in an introductory article dedicated to
Byzantine seals, attested to the importance of sigillographic iconography for art
historians because these objects often bear copies of monumental images as well
as those drawn from various icons, manuscripts and other so-called minor arts.40
Galavaris also devoted several articles to the iconography of the Virgin based on
sphragistic specimens.41 More recent interest in the iconography of the Virgin has
again made use of seals, as evidenced by the studies of Mirjana Tatič-Djurič.42
In his study of the Virgin Galaktotrophousa, Anthony Cutler turned to seals for
11th-century Byzantine examples of the rare motif of the nursing Theotokos.43
Eventually, sigillographers themselves began to recognize sphragistic iconog
raphy as a worthy direction for understanding Byzantine culture. Werner Seibt
36 Similar findings are observed by Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead Seals, 13–14; V. Šandrovskaja,
“Ob izobraženii Christa na vizantijskich pečatjach IX-XIV vv.,” Antihnaja drevnost i srednie veka,
30 (1999), 116–123 and 403–406; and in various articles of mine appearing in the present volume.
37 J. Rexine, “The Religious Significance of Byzantine Sigillography,” Greek Orthodox Theological
Review, 2 (1956), 74–80.
38 N. Lihačev, lstoričeskooe značene italo-grečeskoj ikonopisi izobrazenija Bogomateri (St. Peters
burg, 1911).
39 N. Kondakov, lkonografija Bogomateri, I-II (St. Petersburg, 1914–15).
40 G. Galavaris, “Seals of the Byzantine Empire,” Archaeology 12 (1959) 264–270.
41 G. Galavaris, “The Mother of God of the Kanikleion, GRBS 2 (1959), 177–182; idem, “The
Mother of God ‘Stabbed With a Knife’,” DOP 12 (1959) 229–233; idem, “The Representation
of the Virgin and Child on a ‘Thokos’ on Seals of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchs,” Δελτίον τῆς
Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 4:2 1960/61 (1962), 154–181; and idem, “Observations on
the Date of the Apse Mosaic of the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople,” Actes du XIIe con
grès international des études byzantines, Ochride, 10–16 Septembre, 1961, III (Belgrade, 1964),
107–110. Galavaris’s 14th-century dating of the apse mosaic is erroneous. For its commonly held
9th-century dating of the apse mosaic, see R. Cormack, “Interpreting the Mosaics of S. Sophia
in Istanbul,” Art History 4 (1981), 135–138 (repr. in Cormack, The Byzantine Eye: Studies in
Art and Patronage [London, 1989], V) and idem, “The Mother of God in the Mosaics of Hagia
Sophia at Constantinople,” in Mother of God: Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine Art, ed.
M. Vassilaki (Milan, 2000), 108–112. N. Oikonomides, “Some Remarks on the Apse Mosaic of
St. Sophia,” DOP 39 (1985), 111–115, also employed sphragistic evidence when assigning an
alternate date to the cathedral’s apse mosaic to the years of the Iconophile interlude, specifically
between 787–797.
42 M. Tatič-Djurič, “Marija-Eva. Prilog ikonografigi jednog retkogg tipa Orante,” Zbornik za Likovne
Umetnosti 7 (1971), 209–218 and eadem, “Bogorodica Nikopeja,” Zbornik radova: I kongress
saveza istor. umetn. Ohrid 19–22 IV (1976), 39–52.
43 A. Cutler, “The Cult of the Galaktotrophousa in Byzantium and Italy,” JÖB 37 (1987), 336–350.
7
introduction
traced the development of the iconography of the Virgin Nikopoios and its asso
ciations with the church of the Constantinopolitan Marian church of the Blacher
nai,44 as well as presented a major article outlining the varying iconographic types
of the Virgin found on seals, along with a relative chronological frequency of
these Marian types.45 Valentina Šandrovskaja acknowledged sphragistic imagery
as a valuable source of material for the Byzantine art historian.46 She also investi
gated seals that bear images of Christ47 and narrative scenes, such as the Annun
ciation,48 the Nativity and the Dormition,49 as well as individual figures such as
that of Saint George.50 Elsewhere, she pointed out that not only do seals offer a
wealth of iconographic examples, but their imagery is worthy of stylistic analysis
as works of art,51 a view more recently affirmed by the Byzantine archaeologist
and art historian Arne Effenberger.52
The relationship of sphragistic iconography to that of the minor arts was taken
up by Alicia Bank when comparing the paired images of military saints found on
both seals and steatite carvings.53 But in this realm of minor objects, sphragistic
iconography has been most compatibly compared with that of numismatic imagery.
André Grabar employed the religious iconography of both imperial and patriarchal
seals, along with that of contemporary coinage, in his study of Iconoclasm.54 Leslie
Brubaker and John Haldon, however, devote an entire chapter to the importance of
the sphragistic material for the study of Iconoclasm; they include bibliographies of
introductory literature for the seals, as well as the major published sigillographic
collections, and a table listing the known types, iconographies and inscriptions of
44 W. Seibt, “Der Bildtypus der Theotokos Nikopoios: zur Ikonographie der Gottesmutter-Ikone, die
1030/31 in der Blachernenkirche wiederaufgefunden wurde,” Byzantina 13 (1985), 550–564.
45 W. Seibt, “Die Darstellung der Theotokos auf byzantinischen Bleisiegeln, besonders im 11.
Jahrhundert,” SBS 1 (1987), 35–56.
46 V. Šandrovskaja, “Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel als Kunstwerke,” in Metalkunst von der Spätan
tike bis zum ausgehenden Mittelalter, ed. A. Effenberger (Berlin, 1982), 48–55.
47 Šandrovskaja, “Ob izobraženii Christa na vizantijskich pečatjach,” 116–123 and 403–406, where
she presents a brief survey of the iconography of Christ found on imperial and non-imperial seals
based on specimens in the collection of the Hermitage.
48 V. Šandrovskaja, “Vizantijskie pečati so scenoj Blagoveščenija,” Soobeščenija Gosud. Ermitaža
47 (1982), 61–63 and 86–87.
49 V. Šandrovskaja, “Vizantijskie pečatiso scenoj Uspenija,” Vostočnoe Sredizemnomor’e I Kavkaz
IV-XVI vv.: sbornik statei, ed. V. Afanas’ev (Leningrad, 1988), 82–92 and 161–162 and eadem.
V. Šandrovskaja, “Èrmitažnyie pečati s izobraženiem evangel’skih scen: Roždestvo i Uspenie”
Antichnaja drevnost’ i srednie veka 40 (2011), 251–268.
50 V. Šandrovskaja, “Obraz svjatogo Georgija na vizantijskich pečatjah,” II meždunarodnyj simpo
zium po gruzinskomu iskusstvu, Resumees (Tbilisi, 1977), 1–11.
51 V. Šandrovskaja, “Einige Kunstbesonderheiten der byzantinischen Siegel,” SBS 1 (1987), 27–34.
52 A. Effenberger, “Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk,” in Seibt and Zarnitz, Das byzanti
nische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk, 9–12.
53 A. Bank, “Gemmy-steatity-molivdovuly,” Palestinskii sbornik 23 (86), 1971, 46–52.
54 A. Grabar, L’iconoclasme byzantine: dossier archéologique (Paris, 1957), figs. 51–59 and passim.
Unfortunately, he assigned an erroneous chronology to several of the imperial seals in his discus
sion: figs. 51–55.
8
introduction
imperial seals belonging to the years of the iconoclastic controversy, from those
of Leo III (717–741) to those of Michael III (842–867), offering a corrected alter
native chronology of various imperial seals to that of Grabar.55 Imperial sphragis
tic iconography and its relation to numismatic exemplars have been treated more
recently by Cécile Morrisson and George Zacos.56 There is also Zhenia Zhekova’s
newer work dedicated to the image of Byzantine empresses on coins and seals.57
Since the time of my dissertation in 1992, in addition to my articles included
here in this collection, a number of studies concerning the significance of sphrag
istic imagery have been useful for my own ongoing work. One publication that
has proved to be central to this topic is the 1997 exhibition catalogue of 165 spec
imens, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk, authored by Werner Seibt and
Marie Luise Zarnitz, which considers the iconography of lead seals as works of
art and worthy of an exhibition in their own right, especially as emphasized in the
volume’s introduction by Effenberger.58 This catalogue was a paradigm shift in the
field. A year later there appeared a general overview of seal iconography associat
ing image selection with the broad sectors of Byzantine society published by Vasso
Penna.59 In an introductory article, Natasha Seibt has also discussed the importance
of seal imagery for identifying parallel sphragistic specimens whose inscriptions
had previously been given variant readings.60 More recently, Dumbarton Oaks has
created two online exhibits devoted to sacred figures depicted on seals based upon
specimens from their collection: Divine Guardians61 and Leaden Gospels.62
Since Seibt’s fundamental article outlining the various Marian representa
tions found on seals and their chronological frequencies, other articles devoted
to sphragistic images of the Virgin have appeared besides my own. There is
Penna’s overview of Marian images found on seals;63 Herbert Hunger’s study
of sphragistic Marian iconographic types and their terminology;64 and Ioanna
55 L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca 680–850): The Sources (Alder-
shot, 2001), 129–140.
56 C. Morrisson and G. Zacos, “L’image de l’empereur byzantine sur les sceaux et les monnais,” La
monnaie-miroir des rois, ed. Y. Goldenberg (Paris, 1978), 57–72.
57 Z. Zhekova, Vizantiiskata imperatrista vurkhu monetite i pechatite/The Byzantine Empress on
Coins and Seals (Veliko Turnovo, 2017).
58 Seibt and Zarnitz, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk, espec. 9–12 (see note 51, supra)
and passim.
59 V. Penna, “The Iconography of Byzantine Lead Seals: The Emperor, the Church, the Aristocracy,”
Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας, 4:20 (1998), 261–274.
60 N. Seibt, “Die Ikonographie auf byzantinischen Bleisiegeln und ihre Bedeutung,” SBS 9 (2006),
169–183.
61 Divine Guardians (www.doaks.org/resources/online-exhibits/gods-regents-on-earth-a-thousand-
years-of-byzantine-imperial-seals/divine-guardians).
62 Leaden Gospels (www.doaks.oorg/resources/online-exhibits/leaden-gospels).
63 V. Penna, “The Mother of God on Coins and Lead Seals,” in Mother of God: Representations of
the Virgin in Byzantine Art, ed. M. Vassilaki (Milan, 2000), 209–218.
64 H. Hunger, “Zur Terminologie der Theotokosdarstellungen auf byzantinischen Siegeln,” Aachener
Kunstblätter 60 (1994), 131–142 and idem, “Heimsuchung und Schirmherrschaft über Welt und
Menscheit: Μήτηρ Θεοῦ ἡ Ἐπίσκεπσις,” SBS 4 (1995), 33–42.
9
introduction
Koltsida-Makre’s survey of Marian images on seals based on examples from the

Athens Numismatic Museum.65 Also extremely useful is John Nesbitt’s study of
the chronology of the use of Marian sigla accompanying her sphragistc images,
providing an additional aid in dating seals.66 Bissera Pentchava has examined the
popularity of Marian images on seals during the Komnenian period, focusing on
the type in which the Virgin is depicted as a figure orans with a medallion of
Christ before her,67 while simultaneously Brigitte Pitarakis discussed the same
sphragistic Marian image, comparing its appearance also on bronze pectoral
cross-reliquaries, and emphasized the image’s role in personal piety.68 Pentcheva
also used various Marian sphragistic types as comparative pieces throughout her
monograph devoted to the role of images of the Mother of God in Byzantium.69
Most recently, Alexandra Wassiliou – Seibt produced a study focused on images
of the Mother of God on early seals up to the period of Iconoclasm.70 Related to
the importance of sphragistic iconography to the study of Iconoclasm is Beatrice
Caseau’s article devoted to seal imagery of the 9th through 11th century71 and
Maria Campagnolo-Pothitou’s discussion of the so-called Komnenian iconoclasm
associated with the beginning of the 12th century,72 the latter of whose conclu
sions have been critiqued by Wassiliou-Seibt.73
Most significantly, numerous investigations have dealt with images of saints on
seals; which, as observed above, form the second largest number of sacred figures
to appear on seals after that of the Virgin. Franz Bauer included sphragistic images
of Saint Demetrios for his monumental work on the patron of Thessalonike,74
65 I. Koltsida-Makre, “The Iconography of the Virgin through Inscriptions on Byzantine Lead Seals
of the Athens Numismatic Museum Collection,” SBS 8 (2003), 27–38.
66 J. Nesbitt, “A Question of Labels: Identifying Inscriptions on Byzantine Lead Seals, ca. 850–950,”
SBS 4 (1995), 53–62.
67 B. Pentcheva, “Rhetorical Images of the Virgin: The Icon of the ‘Usual Miracle’ at the Blachernai,”
Res 28 (2000), 34–55 (revised as a chapter in eadem, Icons and Power: The Mother of God in
Byzantium [University Park, PA, 2006, 145–164]).
68 B. Pitarakis, “À propos de l’image de la Vierge orante avec le Christ-Enfant (XIe-XIIe siècles):
l’émergence d’un culte,” Cahiers archéologiques 48 (2000), 45–58.
69 Pentcheva, Icons and Power, passim.
70 A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, “Die sigillographische Evidenz der Theotokos und ihre Entwicklung bis
zum Ende des Ikonoklasmus,” in Presbeia Theotokou: The Intercessory Role of Mary Across
Times and Places in Byzantium (4th-9th Century), ed. L M. Peltomaa, A. Külzer and P. Allen
(Vienna, 2015), 233–242.
71 B. Caseau, “L’iconographie des sceaux après la fin de l’iconoclasme (IXe-XIe S.),” in Proceedings
of the International Symposium Dedicated to the Centennial of the Birth of Dr. Vassil Haralanov,
225–232.
72 M. Campagnolo-Pothitou, “‘Comme un relent d’iconoclasme’ au début du XIIe siècle: le témoign
age sigillographique,” in L’aniconisme dans l’art religieux byzantine: Actes du colloque de Genève
(1–3 octobre 2009), ed. M. Campagnolo et al. (Geneva, 2014), 175–191.
73 A. Wassiliou-Seibt, “Der ausgesprochene Verzicht auf Heiligenbilder in verifizierten byzantinis
chen Siegelinschriften,” Parekbolai 6 (2016), 57–77.
74 F. A. Bauer, Eine Stadt und ihr Patron: Thessaloniki und der Heilige Demetrios (Regensburg,
2013), 260–261, 268, 272 and 396–398.
10
introduction
while Beatrice Caseau examined how the rare image of Saint Mark was employed
as a family saint on seals.75 Cheynet, on the other hand, has devoted a great deal of
scholarly attention to the complex roles played by various images of saints found
on seals: Saint John the Baptist, Saint Theodore, Saint George and the Archangel
Michael. These publications are valuable for investigating the geographical dis
persion of the cults of these holy figures as well as for visualizing opposing family
groups and their alliances within Constantinopolitan political struggles.76 Nesbitt
has outlined the history of the seals of the orphanotrophos (director of the orphan
age) of Constantinople, which bear the paired images of Saints Peter and Paul,77
whose sphragistic images were more recently studied by Valery Stepanenko.78
Nesbitt has also discussed the similarity of images shared among early
pre-Iconoclastic seals and those found on contemporary amulets and tokens,79
as well as contributed to our knowledge of rarely depicted sphragistic saints
such as Diomedes, an early Christian healing saint with a cult in Constantino
ple.80 In addition to her other sphragistic studies, Šandrovskaja has also pub
lished articles focused on various military saints’ images appearing on seals,
such as George and Prokopios,81 on those of the healing saints, Kosmas, Damian
and Panteleimon, known as the anargyroi (ἀνάργυροι – “without money” or
the “unmercenaries” – the physician saints who healed without receiving pay
ment),82 and on the various saints accompanying an image of the Virgin in
sphragistic compositions of the Deesis (intercessory image).83 Elena Stepanova
has surveyed the various types of images of Saint Nicholas on seals and their
relative frequencies in discussing the popularity of his cult in the Byzantine
75 B. Caseau, “Saint Mark, a Family Saint? The Iconography of the Xeroi Seals,” in Ἤπειρόνδε
(Epeironde), 81–109.
76 Cheynet, “Le culte de Saint Jean-Baptiste en Cilicie et en Syrie,” in Byzance et ses peripheries,
57–66; idem, “Le culte de Saint Théodore chez les officiers de l’armée d’Orient,” in Byzantium,
State and Society, 137–154; and idem, “Par Saint George, Par Saint Michel,” 115–134.
77 J. Nesbitt, “The Orphanotrophos: Some Observations on the History of the Office in Light of
Seals,” SBS 8 (2003), 51–62.
78 V. Stepanenko, “The Sts. Apostles Sts. Peter and Paul in Byzantine Sigillography,” in Ἤπειρόνδε
(Epeironde), 317–324.
79 J. Nesbitt, “Apotropaic Devices on Byzantine Lead Seals in the Collections of Dumbarton Oaks
and the Fogg Museum of Art,” in Through a Glass Brightly: Through a Glass Brightly: Studies
in Byzantine and Medieval Art and Archaeology Presented to David Buckton, ed. C. Entwistle
(Oxford, 2003), 107–113.
80 J. Nesbitt, “The Monastery of Diomedes,” in Byzantine Religious Culture: Studies in on Honor of
Alice-Mary Talbot, ed. D. Sullivan et al. (Leiden, 2012), 339–346.
81 V. Šandrovskaja, “Obraz svjatogo Georgija na vizantijskich pecatjach,” Referat zum II. Int. Sym
posium über georgische Kunst (Tbilisi, 1977), 1–11 and V. Šandrovskaja and A. Mohov, “Izo
braženija Svjatogo Prokopija na Èrmitažnyh Pečatjah,” Antichnaja drevnost’ i srednie veka 37
(2006), 191–211.
82 V. Šandrovskaja, “Pečati s izobrazenijami anargirov,” Piligrimy. Istoriko-kul’turnaja rol’palom
ničestva (St. Petersburg, 2001), 69–78.
83 V. Šandrovskaja, “Deesis-Kompositionen auf Siegel der Ermitage,” SBS 9 (2006), 159–167.
11
introduction
world,84 whereas Wassiliou-Seibt has produced several articles devoted to pop

ular holy figures depicted on seals, such as Saint George, as well as those rarely
encountered, such as Saint Athenogenes and Saint Menas Kallikelados (the elo
quent).85 There have also been articles dealing with iconographic sphragistic
choice and inscriptions as reflections of personal piety, such as those by Herbert
Hunger86 and Cheynet and Morrisson.87
Although my dissertation and subsequent articles did not include investigations
of the image of the cross on Byzantine lead seals, one should be aware that the
depiction of the cross, in various forms, is one of the most popular religious sym
bols found on the seals. Since the time of my dissertation, sphragistic cross imag
ery has received significant attention, as witnessed by the works of Cheynet,88
Koltsida-Makre,89 Caseau90 and most recently Wassiliou-Seibt.91
Before concluding this introductory section, some important remarks should
be made concerning the dating of seals. Among the large number of lead seals,
few are actually securely datable. This group generally comprises those drawn
from the ranks of emperors, empresses, patriarchs, high officials whose careers
are known and seals that are still attached to their original, dated or datable docu
ments. Yet each of these categories is beset with difficulties that may give rise to
uncertainties in dating.92 Traditionally, criteria used for dating seals were typolog
ical, stylistic and epigraphic.93
The typological method was used as early as Konstantine Konstantopou
los’s 1930 catalogue of the seals of the Anastasios Stamoules collection in the
Numismatic Museum in Athens94 and as recently as the publications of Zacos
and Veglery in the 1970s and 1980s.95 The typological groups are those such as
84 E. Stepanova, “The Image of St. Nicholas on Byzantine Lead Seals,” SBS 9 (2006), 185–195.
85 A.-K. Wassiliou, “Ὁ Ἅγιος Γεώργιος ὁ Δασορίτης auf Siegeln: Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte der
Laskariden,” BZ 90 (1997), 416–424; eadem, “Der Heilige Georg auf Siegeln: Einige neue Bullen
mit Familiennamen,” REB 59 (2001), 209–224; eadem, “Ένα Αξιοπρόσεκτο Μολυβδόβουλλο τῆς
Συλλογῆς Zarnitz: Ο Επίσκοπος Ηρακλειουπόλεως Δομέτιος και Ο Άγιος Αθενογένης,” Hellenika
55:2 (2005), 239–248; and eadem, “Die Neffen des Patriarchen Michael I. Kerullarios (1043–
1058) und ihre Siegel: Ikonographie als Ausdrucksmittel der Verwandtschaft,” Bulgaria Mediae
valis 2 (2011), 145–157.
86 H. Hunger, “Der homo byzantinus und das Bleisiegel,” DOP 46 (1992), 117–128.
87 Cheynet and Morrisson, “Texte et image sur les sceaux byzantins: les raisons d’un choix
iconographique.”
88 Cheynet, “Quelques remarques sur le culte de la croix en Asie Mineure au Xe siècle.”
89 Koltsida-Makre, “The Representation of the Cross on Byzantine Lead Seals.”
90 Caseau, “L’iconographie des sceaux après la fin de l’iconoclasme (IXe-XIe S.).”
91 Wassiliou-Seibt, “Σύμβολον ζωηφόρον,” 669–685.
92 See N. Oikonomides, A Collection of Dated Byzantine Lead Seals (Washington, DC, 1986), 5–11.
93 Ibid.,
94 K. Konstantopoulos, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα· Συλλογῆ Ἀναστασίου Κ. Π. Σταμούλη (Athens,
1930).
95 Zacos and Veglery Byzantine Lead Seals I and Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals II.
12
introduction
bilingual Greek and Latin seals; seals with bilateral inscriptions; iconographic
seals; monogrammatic seals; and seals with representations of eagles, cruciform
invocative monograms, circular inscriptions, images of the cross, and so on. But
this type of categorization is not precise and offers only broad and overlapping
chronologies. For example, concerning iconographic seals, as discussed above,
Seibt set forth the general chronological trends concerning the various Marian
sphragistic iconographic types as one means of establishing relative dates for
seals bearing figures of the Virgin.96 But such an approach provides only broad,
relative trends and not discrete chronological sequences, and many of these Mar
ian iconographic types overlap chronologically.
The stylistic approach includes features of sphragistic fashion: overall size,
size of letters, decorative details, types of borders and the specimen’s overall aes
thetic impression. This system of classification, too, offers only a broad, relative
chronological framework. Moreover, as Oikonomides has cautioned, sphragistic
fashions did not follow a straight-line development. More recently, Seibt also
recounted similar difficulties in assigning dates to seals.97
It is epigraphic criteria that have found favor with Oikonomides and other
modern sigillographers. Characteristic details of letter-forms that change with
time serve as more accurate and reliable tools for dating seals. Oikonomides
provides the necessary criteria for determining the dates of most of these forms.98
Additionally, the dignities and offices of the seal owners included in the sphrag
istic inscriptions can aid in dating seals. Since administrative titles fell in and
out of use over time, they may also contribute to a relative chronology, but
this element is also fraught with limitations.99 As both Oikonomides and Seibt
have remarked, all of these factors should be taken into consideration when one
attempts to evaluate the “general impression” of a seal. Even with these various
tools, however, the vast majority of seals are still assigned dates only to within a
century or a half century.
96 Seibt, “Die Darstellung der Theotokos,” 35–56.

97 W. Seibt, “Aspekte der genaueren Datierung byzantinischer Bleisiegel. Hindernisse auf dem Weg
zur Erstellung verläßlicher ‘Datierungsgerüste’,” SBS II (1990), 17–37.
98 Oikonomides, Dated Byzantine Lead Seals, 158–164 and idem, “Sigillographic Epigraphy,”
37–42, where the author offers explanations for the differences in epigraphic quality among seals
belonging to identical individuals. See also Seibt, “Aspekte,” 17–25.
99 Oikonomides, Dated Byzantine Lead Seals, 152. For the history of the Byzantine administration,
see R. Guilland, Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, Berliner byzantinistische Arbeiten, 35
(Amsterdam, 1967), passim; N. Oikonomides, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe
siècles (Paris, 1972); idem, “L’évolution de l’organisation administrative de l’empire byzantine au
XIe siècle (1025–1118),” TM 6 (1976), 125–152; idem, “Title and Income at the Byzantine Court,”
I Byzantine Court Culture from 829–1204, ed. H. Maguire (Washington, DC, 1997), 199–215; and
for the Palaiologan period, see Pseudo-Kodinos and the Constantinopolitan Court: Offices and
Ceremonies, ed. R. Macrides et al. (Farnham, 2013). For discussion of ecclesiastical dignities and
offices, see J. Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια de l’église byzantine (Paris, 1970).
13
introduction
Catalogues and publications of seals used for database

V. Bulgurlu, Bizans Kurşun Mühürleri (Istanbul, 2007)
M. Campagnolo-Pothitou and J.-C. Cheynet, Sceaux de la collection George Zacos au
Musée d’art et d’histoire de Gèneve (Milan, 2016)
J.-C. Cheynet, T. Gökyıldırım and V. Bulgurlu, Les sceaux byzantins du Musée
archéologique d’Istanbul (Istanbul, 2012)
J.-C. Cheynet, C. Morrisson and W. Seibt, Sceaux byzantins de la collection Henri Seyrig
(Paris, 1991)
J.-C. Cheynet and D. Theodoridis, Sceaux byzantins de la collection D. Theodoridis: Les
sceaux patronymiques (Paris, 2010)
J.-C. Cheynet and J.-F. Vannier, Études prosopographiques (Paris, 1986)
G. Davidson, Corinth XII: The Minor Objects (Princeton, 1952), nos. 2751–2808
W. De Gray Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Manuscripts in the British
Museum V (London, 1898)
A. Dunn, A Handlist of the Byzantine Lead Seals and Tokens in the Barber Institute of Fine
Arts, University of Birmingham (Birmingham, 1983)
I. Jordanov, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria, 1–3 (Sofia, 2003, 2006 and 2009)
I. Koltsida-Makre, Βυζαντινὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα Συλλογῆς Ὀρφανίδη-Νικολαΐδη Νομισματικοῦ
Μουσείου Ἀθηνῶν (Athens, 1996)
K. Konstantopoulos, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα τοῦ ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἐθνικοῦ Νομισματικοῦ
Μουσείου (Athens, 1917)
__________, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα· Συλλογὴ Ἀναστασίου Κ. Π. Σταμούλη (Athens,
1930)
V. Laurent, Documents de sigillographie byzantine: La collection C. Orghidan (Paris,
1952)
__________, Les sceaux byzantins du Médaillier Vatican (Vatican City, 1962)
__________, Les corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantin, 5/1–3: L’église (Paris, 1963–
1972); 2: L’administration central (Paris, 1982)
I. Leontiades, Μολυβδόβουλλα τοῦ Μουσείου Βυζαντινοῦ Πολιτισμοῦ Θεσσαλονίκης (Thes
salonike, 2006)
N. Lihačev, Istoričeskoe značene italo-grečeskoj ikonopisi. Izobrazenija Bogomateri v
proizvedenijah italo-grečeskih ikonopiscev i ih vlijane na kompozicii nekotoryh proslav
lennyh russkih ikon (St. Petersburg, 1911)
__________, Molivdovuly grečeskogo vostoka, ed. V. Šandrovskaja (Moscow, 1991)
D. Metcalf, Byzantine Lead Seals from Cyprus (Nicosia, 2004)
J. Nesbitt and N. Oikonomides, Catalogue of the Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and
in the Fogg Museum of Art, 1–6 (Washington, DC, 1991, 1994, 1996, 2001, 2005 and
2009)
J. Nesbitt, A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt and W. Seibt, Highlights from the Robert Hecht, Jr., Col
lection of Byzantine Seals (Thessalonike, 2009)
N. Oikonomides, A Collection of Dated Byzantine Lead Seals (Washington, DC, 1986)
B. Pančenko, “Kollekcii Russkago Archeologičeskago Instituta v Konstantinople. Kata-
log Molivdovulov,” Izvestija Russkogo Arheologiceskogo Instituta v Konstantinopole, 8
(1903), nos. 1–124; 9 (1904), nos. 125–300; and 13 (1908), nos. 301–500
V. Šandrovskaja, “Sfragistika,” Iskusstvo Vizantii v Sobranijach SSSR. Katalog Vystavki,
1–3 (Moscow 1977), nos. 205–258; nos. 678–865; and nos. 1020–1044
14
introduction
V. Šandrovskaja and W. Seibt, Byzantinische Bleisiegel der Staatlichen Eremitage mit

Familiennamen, 1: Sammlung Lichačev-Namen von A bis I (Vienna, 2005)
G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’empire byzantin (Paris, 1884)
__________, “Sceaux byzantins inédits,” Mélanges d’archéologie Byzantine (Paris, 1895),
199–274; Revue des études grecques, 13 (1900), 467–492; Revue numismatique, 9
(1905), 321–354 and 20 (1916), 32–46
W Seibt, Die Skleroi: Eine prosopographisch-sigillographische Studie (Vienna, 1976)
__________, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich, 1: Kaiserhof (Vienna, 1978)
__________, Ein Blick in die byzantinische Gesellschaft: Die Bleisiegel im Museum
August Kestner (Rahden, 2011)
W. Seibt and M. L. Zarnitz, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk (Vienna, 1997)
C. Sode, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin, 2 (Ποικίλα Βυζαντινά 14) (Bonn, 1997)
I. Sokolova, Byzantine Imperial Seals: The Catalogue of the Collection (St. Petersburg,
2007)
P. Speck, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin (West) (Ποικίλα Βυζαντινά 5) (Bonn, 1986)
C. Stavrakos, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel mit Familiennamen aus der Sammlung des
Numismatischen Museums Athen (Wiesbaden, 2000)
__________, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel der Sammlung Savvas Kophopoulos (Turn
hout, 2010)
A. Szemioth and T. Wasilewski, “Sceaux byzantins du Musée National de Varsovie,”
Studia Zródioznawcze. Commentationes, 11 (1966), 1–38 and 14 (1969), 63–89
A.-K. Wassiliou and W. Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich, 2: Zentral- und
Provinzialverwaltung (Vienna, 2004)
___________, Der byzantinische Mensch in seinem Umfeld: Weitere Bleisiegel der Sam
mlung Zarnitz im Museum August Kestner (Rahden, 2015)
G. Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, 2, ed. J. Nesbitt (Berne, 1984)
G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, 1:1–3 (Basel, 1972).
15
I
Saints’ images on seals
1
S A I N T S & C U LT C E N T E R S
A geographic & administrative perspective in light of
Byzantine lead seals*
The cult of saints has received much scholarly attention. The relative popularity
and prestige of holy figures have usually been examined through hagiography,1
imagery2 and in the context of pilgrimage or loca sancta.3 Less attention, how
ever, has been paid to the medium of Byzantine lead seals.4 Thousands of lead
seals survive that bear figures of saints in conjunction with inscriptions indicating
their owners’ title of office and the geographical locations associated with these
positions. Such datable sphragistic evidence provides a unique means of inves
tigating chronologically the dispersion of numerous saints’ cults through various
regions of the empire. This chapter draws upon the database that I have created and
maintained, consisting of 7,277 seals, including those recently published. These
seals bear religious figural iconography and range in date from the 6th through
the 15th centuries. This study will focus on just four metropolitan sees that had
* Portions of this paper were originally presented at the 25th Annual Byzantine Studies Conference,
University of Maryland, 1999 and at the 20th International Congress of Byzantine Studies, College
de France-Sorbonne, 2001. I wish to thank John Nesbitt for his valuable criticism concerning vari
ous aspects of this paper. Funds for the accompanying photographs were kindly provided by Holy
Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology.
1 For a recent example, see Byzantine Defenders of Images: Eight Saints’ Lives in English Transla
tion, ed. A.-M. Talbot (Washington, DC, 1998).
2 For example, see H. Maguire, The Icons of Their Bodies: Saints and Their Images in Byzantium
(Princeton, 1996).
3 See G. Vikan, Byzantine Pilgrimage Art (Washington, DC, 1982); The Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed.
R. Ousterhout (Urbana and Chicago, 1990); Les saints et leur sanctuaire a Byzance: textes, images
et monuments, ed. C. Jolivet-Levy, M. Kaplan and J.-P. Sodini (Paris, 1993); and E. Malamut, Sur
la route des saints byzantins (Paris, 1993).
4 For example, see C. Walter, “St. Demetrius: The Myroblytos of Thessalonike,” Eastern Churches
Review 5 (1973) 157–178 (reprinted in his Studies in Byzantine Iconography [London, 1977]);
idem, “Theodore, Archetype of the Warrior Saint,” REB 57 (1999) 163–210; V. Sandrovskaja,
“Obraz svjatogo Georgija na vizantijskich pečatjach,” Referat zum II. int. Symposium über georgis
che Kunst (Tbilisi, 1977) 1–11; A.-K. Wassiliou, “Der heilige Georg auf Siegeln: Einige neue Bullen
mit Familienamen,” REB 59 (2001) 209–224; I. Koltsida-Makre, “Μολυβδόβουλλα μὲ ἀπεικόνιση
σκηνῆς ἀπὸ τὸ βίο τοῦ ἁγίου Δημητρίου,” ΔΧΑΕ 23 (2002) 149154; and J.-Cl. Cheynet, “Par saint
Georges, par saint Michel,” TM 14 (2002) 115–134.
19
saints’ images on seals
traditional associations with a local saint. The frequency with which occupants of
these metropolitan sees chose the image of the indigenous patron saint for their
seals would reflect the relative devotion that the hierarchs had for the cult of these
holy figures. In addition, this investigation will examine the iconographic choices
of seals belonging to the suffragan or dependent bishops of these metropolitans in
order to determine how far the devotion to particular saints’ cults radiated from
their respective centers. Finally, this presentation will compare the iconographic
seals belonging to members of the civil and military bureaucracies that parallel
these ecclesiastical jurisdictions. This comparison of the administrative spheres
within the same geographical regions should offer more insight as to the role and
prestige of local saints and the extent of their cults’ appropriation within the vari
ous official levels of the empire.
The first city for this study is Ephesos, a city of metropolitan rank since the
early Christian period and celebrated as the final resting place of John the Theo
logian.5 The city’s two main Christian edifices were the basilica of the Virgin and
that of John.6 In 431, Ephesos was the site of the third Ecumenical Synod that
proclaimed the Virgin as Theotokos, thus officially acknowledging and enhancing
Marian devotions.7 The shrine of the evangelist was a pilgrimage site, and surviv
ing 6th-century terracotta ampullae bearing John’s image testify to the importance
of his tomb as a cult center.8
Chart 1.1 displays the religious iconographic seals for the metropolitan see of
Ephesos and its suffragan bishops.9 The chart indicates that the image of John the
Theologian is found on metropolitan seals as early as the 7th century. Seventeen
metropolitan seals10 bear images of the disciple (Figure 1.1)11 while four display
5 For the study of Christian Ephesos, see C. Foss, Ephesus After Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzan
tine and Turkish City (Cambridge, 1979); W. Brandes, “Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit,” Klio 64
(1982) 611–622; Ephesos, Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to its Archaeology,
Religion, and Culture, ed. H. Koester (Valley Forge, PA, 1995); and Efeso Paleocristiana e Bizan
tinafrüchristliches und byzantinisches Ephesos, ed. R. Pillinger, O. Kresten, F. Krinzinger and E.
Russo (Vienna, 1999).
6 Foss, Ephesus After Antiquity, 52–54 and 87–93, respectively, discusses these two structures; M.
Andaloro, “La decorazione pittorica degli edifici cristiani di Efeso: La chiesa di Santa Maria e il
complesso di San Giovanni,” Efeso, 54–70; S. Karwiese, “Die Marienkirche und das dritte ökume
nische Konzil,” Efeso, 81–85; and M. Falla Castelfranchi, “Il complesso di San Giovanni ad Efeso
nel quadro dell’architettura giustinianea dell’Asia Minore,” Efeso, 89–99.
7 For a discussion of the Synod, the cult of the Virgin and the subsequent political significance of the
city, see V. Limberis, “The Council of Ephesos: The Demise of the See of Ephesos and the Rise of
the Cult of the Theotokos,” Ephesos, Metropolis of Asia, 321–340.
8 M. Duncan-Flowers, “A Pilgrim’s Ampulla from the Shrine of St. John the Evangelist at Ephesus,”
The Blessings of Pilgrimage (Urbana, El., 1990) 125–139.
9 For the lists of Ephesos’ suffragan dioceses over time, see Darrouzès, Notitiae, 206–207, 219,
233, 252, 274–275, 296–97, 310–311 and 354–355. See also P. Culerrier, “Les évêchés suffragants
d’Éphèse aux 5e-13e siècles,” REB 45 (1987) 139–164 and DOSeals 3, 29–30.
10 This number represents 10 different individuals.
11 DOSeals 3.14. 9.
20
Chart 1.1 Metropolis of Ephesos
CENTURY
ICONOGRAPHY CITY 7 7/8 8 8/9 9 9/10 10 10/11 11 11/12 12 12/13 13

JOHN THE EPHESOS 3 1* 3 2 3‘ 3 2
THEOLOGIAN
Kyme 2
VIRGIN ephesos 2 1 1
Hypaipa 1
Tralleis 5
Bryelon 2
Adramyttion 1 1
Pitane 1
Myrine 1
Phokia 1
Pergamon 1
Priene 1
Arkadioupolis 1 2
Pyrgion 2 1
Anaia 1
Erythra 1 1
Kaloe 2
Myrina 1
Tios i
ANDREW Hypaipa 1*
ANTIPAS Pergamon 1
ATHANASIOS Adramyttion 1
DEMETRIOS Pergamon 1
GEORGE Tios 1
KODRATOS Magnesia 1 1
MARTYRIOS Assos 1
NICHOLAS Assos 1 1
Hypaipa 1*
Magnesia 1
THEODORE Tralleis 1
? Adramyttion 1
Pergamon 1
* Homonymous Saint
Figure. 1.1 Lead Seal of a Metropolitan of Ephesos, 11th/12th century (Dumbarton Oaks
BZS.1958.106.41): John the Theologian
Source: Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine Collection, Washington, DC
s a i n t s & c u lt c e n t e r s
that of the Virgin. Thus, the two major cults associated with Ephesos are repre
sented by the sphragistic evidence but with a definite preference for John, the
traditional founder of the city’s Christian community. The regional sphragistic
interest in John, however, seems to have been limited to Ephesos itself. Among
the suffragan dioceses of this metropolis, only one, that is, Kyme, has bishops who
employ the image of the Theologian for their seals. These are found on specimens
belonging to two 11th-century hierarchs of that see (Figure 1.2).12 The remaining
diocesan bishops did not adopt the same sphragistic iconography as their metro
politan center. The majority of suffragan bishops preferred an image of the Virgin,
demonstrating the strength of her cult among this group of the hierarchy.
The chart also indicates that, after the Virgin, a variety of other sphragistic
images were used by the suffragans. In some instances, the cult of the local saint
took priority over that of the more distant metropolis. For example, the figure
of Antipas, the early Christian martyred bishop of Pergamon, is found on a seal
belonging to a bishop of that city.13 Similarly, the martyr Kodratos is depicted on
two seals of bishops from the city of Magnesia.14 Sometimes, the name of the
owner of the seal determines iconographic choice. Andrew, the bishop of Hypaipa,
preferred his homonymous saint,15 as did Nicholas of the same diocese.16
Overall, the prestige of the saintly founder of the metropolitan see of Ephesos,
according to the sphragistic evidence, did not extend to its suffragan jurisdictions.
No iconographic allegiance bound subordinate dioceses to their mother church.
Local cults may take precedence over those associated with more distant author
ity. The role of the homonymous saint is also a factor in determining a bishop’s
sphragistic imagery, testifying to some degree of personal choice within the estab
lished office of the episcopacy. In the absence of any local cult, the image of the
Virgin is the most popular sphragistic iconography for ecclesiastical leaders.
The second metropolitan see that proves instructive is the Peloponnesian city of
Patras. Chart 1.2 represents a list of the seals bearing religious figural iconography
that belonged to its metropolitans and suffragan bishops.17 A number of seals bear
the image of the apostle Andrew, who according to tradition, was there martyred
and buried.18 The city boasted a church dedicated to this saint, and his figure
appears on the seals of seven different metropolitans (Figure 1.3).19 As was true
12 Ibid., no. 20.1. The other seal is listed in Laurent, Corpus V/l, no. 299.
13 Laurent, Corpus V/l, no. 289.
14 Ibid., no. 270 and Seyrig, no. 257.
16 Ibid., no. 265.
17 For the list of Patras’ suffragan dioceses, see Darrouzès, Notitiae, 284, 303, 325–326, 362 and 421.
For a history of the metropolis, see V. Laurent, “Les métropoles de Patras et de Lacédémone,” REB
21 (1963) 129–141 and DOSeals 2, 62 and 90.
18 For a discussion of the association of Andrew with the city of Patras, see F. Dvomik, The Idea
of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Life of the Apostle Andrew (Cambridge, MA,
1958) 208–222.
19 DOSeals 2, 34.4.
23
Figure 1.2 Lead Seal of Philotheos, Bishop of Kyme, 11th century (Dumbarton Oaks
BZS.1947.2.206): John the Theologian
Chart 1.2 Metropolis of Patras
CENTURY
ICONOGRAPHY CITY 9 9/10 10 10/11 11 11/12 12 12/13
ANDREW PATRAS 1 6 2
VIRGIN PATRAS 1 1
Lakedaimonia 2 2 1 1
Korone 1 1 1 2
Olenos 1
Helos 1
PRODROMOS Helos 1
JOHN THE Methone 1 3 2
THEOLOGIAN
? PATRAS 1
Figure 1.3 Lead Seal of Niketas, Metropolitan of Patras, 11th century (Dumbarton Oaks
BZS.1958.106.3): Andrew
Figure 1.3 (Continued)
of Ephesos, the local saint’s image is limited to the seals of the metropolitan see.
Here, none of the suffragan bishops employed Andrew’s portrait. Among these
dependent dioceses, the image of the Virgin is also encountered most frequently.
For the suffragan see of Methone, six seals, belonging to three different bishops,
depict John the Theologian.20 A church with this dedication existed in this city,21
and hence the local cult receives more attention than that based in the metropolis.
A third metropolitan city for discussion is Corinth. Chart 1.3 offers icono
graphic seals belonging to hierarchs of this see and to its suffragans.22 The met
ropolitan church of Corinth was dedicated to the two Saint Theodores (Teron and
Stratelates).23 Two metropolitan seals bear the image of the patron saints (Fig
ure 1.4)24 while three others display an image of just one of the Theodores.25 Only
one suffragan bishop, that of Argos, selected an image of Theodore for his seal.26
20 Ibid., nos. 30.1, 30.2a, b and c, 30.3 and 30.4.

21 Ibid., 85.
22 For the list of the suffragan dioceses of Corinth, see Darrouzès, Notitiae, 222, 244–245, 282,
302, 323, 361, and 420 and DOSeals 2, 77–93. For the medieval city, see J. Finley, “Corinth in
the Middle Ages,” Speculum 7 (1932) 477–99 and T. Gritsopoulos, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία καὶ
Χριστιανικὰ Μνημεῖα Κορινθίας, I (Athens, 1973) 45–204, passim.
23 Gritsopoulos, Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία, 166 and 203–204 and DOSeals 2, 78.
24 DOSeals 2.25.2 and Laurent, Corpus V/l, no. 564.
25 DOSeals 2.25.4a & b and Laurent, Corpus V/l, no. 562.
26
Chart 1.3 Metropolis of Corinth
CENTURY
ICONOGRAPHY CITY 8/9 9 9/10 10 10/11 11 11/12 12 12/13 13

2 THEODORES CORINTH 1 1
THEODORE CORINTH 1 2
Argos 1
VIRGIN CORINTH 1 2 1*
Damalas 1
Argos 1 2 2
Monemvasia 1
Zakynthos 1
Maine 1 1
CHRIST Monemvasia 1
NICHOLAS CORINTH 1*
JOHN THE THEOLOGIAN Monemvasia 1
GREGORY THE CORINTH 1*
THEOLOGIAN
ANASTASIOS Monemvasia 1
? CORINTH 2
Argos 1
* Homonymous saint
Figure 1.4 Lead Seal of Nicholas, Metropolitan of Corinth, 12th/13th century (Dumbarton
Oaks BZS.1955.1.4975): Theodore Teron & Theodore Stratelates
Again, the image of the Virgin is most frequently encountered. Among the various
other saints represented, two appear for reasons of homonymity: Nicholas27 and
Gregory the Theologian.28
The fourth area of this investigation is Thessalonike, the center of the cult of
Demetrios.29 His basilica was the locus of pilgrimage,30 and like Ephesos, sur
viving ampullae bearing the saint’s image indicate the significance of this cult.31
Chart 1.4 lists the metropolitan and suffragan seals with religious figural ico
nography for this metropolis.32 Demetrios appears on hierarchs’ seals of Thes
salonike beginning in the 8th century (Figure 1.5).33 Like Ephesos and Patras,
the image of the Virgin is again the second most frequently occurring portrait
used on these metropolitan seals. The Virgin served as a second patron of the city
27 I. Koltsida-Makre, Μολυβδόβουλλα, no. 49 (Latin).

29 For discussion of the cult of Demetrios, see C. Bakirtzis, “Le culte de Saint Démétrios,” Jahrbuch
für Antike und Christentum 20 (1995) 58–68.
30 For discussion of the saint’s shrine within the basilica, see A. Mentzos, Τὸ Προσκύνημα τοῦ Ἁγίου
Δημητρίου Θεσσαλονίκης στὰ Βυζαντινὰ Χρόνια (Athens, 1994).
31 C. Bakirtzis, “Byzantine Ampullae From Thessalonike,” The Blessings of Pilgrimage, 140–149,
Figs. 48–54.
32 For the list of the suffragan dioceses of Thessalonike, see Darrouzès, Notitiae, 278–279, 299,
316–317, 358 and 420 and DOSeals 1, 50–89.
33 DOSeals 1.18.86.
28
Chart 1.4 Metropolis of Thessalonike
CENTURY
ICONOGRAPHY CITY 8 8/9 9 9/10 10 10/11 11 11/12 12 12/13 13 13/14
DEMETRIOS THESSALONIKE 1 2 4 2 4 7 3
Tourkoi 1
VIRGIN THESSALONIKE 1 2 2 2 3
Kitros 5
Berroia 1 1
Servia 1 1
BASIL THESSALONIKE 2*
GEORGE THESSALONIKE 1 1*
? 1
Figure 1.5 Lead Seal of Peter, Archbishop of Thessalonike, 8th century (Cambridge, MA,
Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Bequest of
Thomas Whittemore, BZS.1951.31.5.1307): Demetrios
of Thessalonike. She had her own basilica, the Acheiropoietos,34 and her image
appears several times in surviving mosaics in the church of St. Demetrios itself.35
The one seal bearing the image of Basil belonged to a certain Metropolitan Basil,36
demonstrating again the factor of homonymity in iconographic choice. The same
principle can explain the figure of George.37
As great as the cult of Demetrios was for Thessalonike and the frequency with
which his portrait is found on Byzantine seals in general (273 examples), it is
somewhat surprising to find only one suffragan, that of Tourkoi, who employed
the saint’s image for his seal.38 The remaining dependent bishops preferred the
image of the Virgin. Again, suffragans appear to act independently of their eccle
siastical authorities in the realm of sphragistics: the metropolitan cult tends not to
migrate into the surrounding provinces.
34 Ε. Κουρκουτίδου-Νικολαΐδου, “Ὁ Ναὸς τῆς Ἀρχειροποιήτου,” Ἡ Θεσσαλονίκη καὶ τὰ Μνημεῖα

της, ed. Χ. Μαυροπούλου-Τσιούμη (Thessalonike, 1985) 59–67.
35 R. Cormack, Writing in Gold: Byzantine Society and Its Icons (London, 1985) 87–89. For the links
between the cult of Demetrios and that of the Virgin in Thessalonike, see idem, “The Making of
a Patron Saint: The Powers of Art and Ritual in Byzantine Thessaloniki,” World Art: Themes of
Unity in Diversity, Acts of the XXVth International Congress of the History of Art, III, ed. I. Lavin
(University Park, PA and London, 1989) 550–551.
36 DOSeals 1.18.80.
37 Laurent, Corpus V/3, no. 1610.
38 DOSeals 1.26.1.
30
Space does not permit the inclusion of material from other metropolitan sees, but
the sphragistic data consistently exhibit similar trends. Metropolitans most often
selected the image of the indigenous saint for their seals, whereas their dependent
bishops usually did not adopt the iconography of their superiors.39 Many preferred
some type of Marian imagery while others chose their homonymous saint or that of
a more proximate cult. The image of the Virgin on seals of metropolitans and their
suffragans alike demonstrates that her cult was particularity promoted by the upper
echelons of the clergy.40 Even where there was a strong local tradition, her image
was still employed for hierarchs’ seals. In some cases, the image of the local saint
took precedence over that of the metropolis. This variety in sigillographic imagery
reflects some flexibility and freedom of choice in official sphragistic imagery for
hierarchs.41 In addition, the seals indicate that Demetrios appears not to be the only
saint’s cult that had a strongly local character but those of John the Theologian and
Andrew as well. One may conclude, that in the realm of their official seals, local
bishops regarded themselves as independent of their ecclesiastical superiors and
did not iconographically associate themselves with the cults of their metropolitans.
At first glance, this lack of iconographic similarity between metropolitans and
suffragans seems unexpected, especially in the case of such popular saints as
Demetrios and John the Theologian whose powerful cults could lend prestige to
provincial bishops seeking to share in the authority of their superiors in larger
cities. Also, the metropolitan see was perceived as an ecclesio-political unit that
one would expect to find reflected in the iconography of these official seals.
According to ecclesiastical canonical prescriptions, metropolitans and their
suffragans were to collaborate closely in addressing concerns regarding their
eparchy. Metropolitans were to approve episcopal candidates for dioceses under
their jurisdiction from the nominees offered by the other suffragan bishops of the
metropolis (Canon 4 of Nicaea I);42 suffragan bishops were required to acknowl
edge the precedence of their metropolitans and were to do nothing extraordinary
in their own diocese without the metropolitan’s consent (Canon 9 of Antioch),43
but the same canon also stipulates that while metropolitans should take thought
for their whole province, they should not undertake matters without consulting
their suffragan bishops;44 metropolitans were to be ordained by bishops of their
39 J.-CI. Cheynet and C. Morrisson, “Texte et image sur les sceaux byzantins: les raisons d’un choix
iconographique,” SBS 4 (1995) 22, state in general terms that metropolitans and bishops custom
arily place images of the city’s patron saint on their seals, but they do not discuss iconographic
choices in light of metropolitans and their subordinate suffragan bishops.
40 Ibid., 24–25 and 32.
41 Ibid., 24, where a similar observation is made drawn upon a smaller sample.
42 G. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα τῶν Θείων καὶ Ἱερῶν Κανόνων, II (Athens, 1852) 122. See
also, R. Rhalles, “Περὶ τοῦ Ἀξιώματος τῶν Μητροπολιτῶν,” Πρακτικὰ τῆς Ἀκαδημίας Ἀθηνῶν, 13
(1938) 762–763.
43 G. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα, III (Athens, 1853) 140–141. See also Rhalles, “Περὶ τοῦ
Ἀξιώματος τῶν Μητροπολιτῶν,” 757.
44 Ibid.
31
own provincial synods (Canon 2 of Const. I);45 and the metropolitan was also
required to call a synod of his bishops twice a year (Canon 19 of Chalcedon).46
The canonical decrees outline a collegial and conciliar relationship between a
metropolitan and his suffragans, albeit assigning a privileged position to the for
mer. Ecclesiastical provinces were intended to operate as harmonious unified
entities as Apostolic Canon 34 designates, “for so there will be unanimity, and
God will be glorified.”47
That was the ideal. In practice, a different arrangement evolved. As early as 431, at
the Council of Ephesos, the protocol was initiated whereby metropolitans and their
suffragans no longer approached to sign conciliar statements as a unified group.48
Suffragans now had to affix their signatures after all metropolitans had signed, thus
undermining the perception of provincial unity by highlighting their subordinate sta
tus. In 451, the 28th Canon of Chalcedon stipulated that the metropolitans of Pontus,
Thrace and Asia (which included Ephesos) should be ordained by the Patriarch of
Constantinople and be subject to him rather than receiving their consecration from
their own provincial synods.49 Later, in the 9th-and 10th-century taktika, bishops
were not ranked immediately following metropolitans in imperial ceremonies, but
rather the prestigious, lay protospatharioi took precedence by occupying the posi
tion between these two ranks of the higher clergy.50 Also by the 10th century, it
became customary for metropolitans in general to be elected by the synod in Con
stantinople, not by their suffragans.51 From the 10th century onwards, emperors even
claimed the right to raise the status of a bishopric to metropolitan rank.52
The cohesiveness of the provincial synod began to suffer on the episcopal level
as well. From the 9th century onwards, there is evidence pointing to the election
of diocesan bishops also taking place in Constantinople, thus detaching the choice
of the local hierarch from his suffragan colleagues.53 By the mid-11th century, this
45 G. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα, II, 169–170.

46 Ibid., 265.
47 Ibid., 45, “Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται, καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ Θεός . . . ” For the English, see A Select
Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace,
Second Series, XIV (New York and Oxford, 1900 [reprinted Grand Rapids, 1952]) 596.
48 A. Crabbe, “The Invitation List to the Council of Ephesus and Metropolitan Hierarchy in the Fifth
Century,” Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 32/2 (1981) 394–396 and Limberis, “The Council
of Ephesos,” 332.
49 G. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα, II, 280῏281. For discussion of this canon and its ecclesiolog
ical consequences, see J. Darrouzès, Documents inédits d’ecclésiologie byzantine (Paris, 1966)
11–53, with the middle Byzantine texts and French translations following at 107–249 and P. Kar
lin-Hayter, “Notes sur quatre documents d’ecclésiologie byzantine,” REB 37 (1979) 249–258.
50 Listes, 51, 143–145 and 269.
51 Darrouzès, Documents inédits, 11–53 and 107–249; Karlin-Hayter, “Notes,” 249–258; and J. Hus
sey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford, 1986) 318–326.
52 Darrouzès, Documents inédits, 16–19, 24–27, 42–53, 108–115, 116–159 and 176–249 and Hussey,
The Orthodox Church, 311, 320 and 322–323.
53 N. Oikonomidcs, “Un décret synodal inédit du Patriarche Jean VIII Xiphilin,” REB 18 (1960)
75–76 and Hussey, The Orthodox Church, 326.
32
practice had become frequent enough for the patriarch Michael Kerularios to raise
objections. Yet his attempts at preventing these elections failed, and subsequent
patriarchs continued to sanction such procedures in the capital.54 Naturally, this
drastically reduced the role and significance of provincial synods. Ultimately, the
resulting centralization of authority created a dynamic that was far less concerned
with conciliar and collegial relations among the occupants of metropolitan sees
and their dependent suffragans.
These ecclesiastical administrative developments provide, therefore, a context
in which the sphragistic data may be understood. The lack of iconographic con
gruence between metropolitans and their dependent bishops reflects the actual
fractured and severed connections that came to prevail. The mutual interaction
between metropolitans and suffragan bishops appears to have been rather nom
inal and formal. Why would suffragan bishops feel any connection or loyalty to
superiors whom they have not elected or have little contact with as well as the
more distant, saintly cults that such metropolitans came to represent? By choosing
different sphragistic images than those of their superiors, dependent bishops could
at least give visual expression to their own independent spheres of authority.
The next step in this investigation is to observe the iconographic seals belong
ing to members of the civil and military bureaucracies that parallel the same
ecclesiastical jurisdictions discussed above. This comparison of the administra
tive spheres within the same geographical regions should offer more insight into
the role and prestige of local saints.
Although not the capital, Ephesos was the largest city of the Thrakesian
theme.55 Chart 1.5 displays iconographic seals belonging to individuals who held
positions within the civil and military administrations for this theme. As is clearly
evident, none chose the figure of John the Theologian for their seals. The Virgin
appears to be the most frequently selected image, not just for hierarchs, but even
for a strategos, or military governor of the theme (Figure 1.6).56 After the Virgin,
no single figure predominates. Seven are examples demonstrating the selection of
a homonymous saint.57 No great preference for military saints is indicated even
among those holding military offices.58
For the corresponding ecclesiastical charts of Corinth and Patras, Chart 1.6
lists iconographic seals from individuals within the civil and military adminis
trations for the theme of the Peloponnesos, whose capital was Corinth.59 Similar
54 Oikonomides, “Un décret,” 55–78 and Hussey, The Orthodox Church, 326.
55 For the Thrakesian theme, see R.-J. Lilie, “ ‘Thrakien’ und ‘Thrakesion’,” JÖB 26 (1977) 7–47;
Foss, Ephesus After Antiquity, 195–196; and DOSeals 3, 2.
56 DOSeals 3.99.9.
57 DOSeals 3.2.5, 2.9a & b, 2.13, 2.18, 2.20 and 2.28.
58 Cheynet and Morrisson, “Texte et image,” 31 state that military saints are a minority among
images of the civil functionaries but make no mention of those holding military office.
59 For discussion of the Peloponnesos and Corinth, see A. Bon, Le Péloponnèse byzantin jusqu’en
1204 (Paris, 1951); P. Lemerle, “Une province byzantine: le Péloponnèse,” Byzantion 21 (1951)
341–354; G. Huxley, “The Second Dark Age,” LakSp 3 (1977) 84–110; and DOSeals 2.62 and 78.
33
Chart 1.5 Thrakesion Theme
CENTURY
ICONOGRAPHY THRAKESION THEME 9/10 10 10/11 11

VIRGIN Anagrapheus 3
Chrysoteles 1
Krites 1 8
Praitor 1
Protonotarios 2
Strateqos 1
MICHAEL Epoptes 2*
Krites 1 1*
NICHOLAS Chrysoteles 1*
Krites 3(1*)
GEORGE Chartoularios 1
THEODORE Krites 1*
GREGORY Krites 1*
CHRYSOSTOM & MARK Praitor 1
? Chartoularios 1
* Homonymous Saint
Figure 1.6 Lead Seal of Theodore, strategos of the Thrakesion Theme, 11th century
(Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1947.2.196): The Virgin & Child
patterns emerge. Here, three images of Theodore appear, all belonging to strat
egoi,60 whereas Theodore paired with Mark is found on four seals belonging to
a krites.61 No image of the Apostle Andrew is found. Again, the Virgin’s image
predominates. There is no overwhelming preference for military figures among
those holding military positions and only one example of a homonymous saint
appears.62 The six seals bearing the image of Mark (Figure 1.7)63 and the four
examples depicting Mark and Theodore (Figure 1.8)64 belong to one or more indi
viduals named Basil of the Xeros family as outlined by both Oikonomides65 and
Nesbitt.66 The prestige of the apostolic figure of Andrew did not migrate into the
civil and military administrations. Yet the figure of Theodore is present in these
spheres of the theme of the Peloponnesos in addition to his patronal role in the
Corinthian metropolitan office as noted above.
60 Konstantopoulos, no. 73 and Corinth XII, nos. 2764 and 2785.

61 Schlumberger, Sig., 189, no. 7, and DOSeals 2.8.19a, b and c.
62 Laurent, Corpus II, no. 339.
63 DOSeals 2.8.17b. The other five are: Konstantopoulos, no. 398; Seyrig, no. 179; and DOSeals
2.8.16a and b and 8.17a.
64 DOSeals 2.8.19a. The others are listed in note 61, supra.
65 “The Usual Lead Seal,” 147–157.
66 DOSeals 2.8.16–2.8.19.
35
Chart 1.6 Theme of Peloponnesos
CENTURY
ICONOGRAPHY THEME OF THE 10 10/11 11 11/12 12 ?

PELOPONNESOS
VIRGIN Chrysoteles 1
Dioiketes 1
Dux 1
Ek Prosopou 1
Kommerkiarios 1
Krites 3 7 1
Praitor 1
Protonotarios 1
Protopraitor 3
Strategos 3
NICHOLAS Krites 3
Protonotarios 1
Strategos 1
THEODORE Strategos 1 2
MARK Krites 6
MARK & Krites 4
THEODORE
BASIL Krites 1*
? EpisKeptites 1
Strategos 1 2 1
* Homonymous Saint
Figure 1.7 Lead Seal of Basil, krites of the Peloponnesos & Hellas, 11th century (Dumbar
ton Oaks BZS.1955.1.2242): Mark
Figure 1.8 Lead Seal of Basil Xeros, krites of the Peloponnesos & Hellas, 11th century
(Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1955.1.3407): Mark & Theodore
Thessalonike served as the capital of the theme of Thessalonike.67 Chart 1.7

demonstrates that despite the popularity of the local saint, the image of Demetrios
is found on just four seals of individuals associated with the administration of this
theme.68 The figure of the Virgin enjoys only a slight majority. Again, she is also
seen on seals belonging to occupants of military positions. There exist a variety
of images, and the role of the homonymous saint can explain seven examples.69
The prestige of the local cult, therefore, is only slightly represented by mem
bers of the civil and military bureaucracies, as was the case for Theodore in the
Peloponnesos.
The trends observed in these charts appear to be consistent. The cult of the met
ropolitan see had little or no significance for the subordinate suffragan bishops.
Sphragistic imagery paralleled the fractured realities of the ecclesiastical admin
istration of the provinces. When the ecclesiastical imagery is compared with that
of the corresponding geographical civil and military bureaucracies, similar results
are obtained. The great metropolitan cults appear to be unrelated to the civil and
military offices as well. There is only a slight representation of the military figures
67 For Byzantine Thessalonike, see A. Vacalopoulos, A History of Thessaloniki

(Thessalonike, 1972) and DOSeals 1, 50–51.
68 Konstantopoulos, no. 7; Zacos-Veglery, no. 115; Dated Seals, no. 91; and DOSeals 1.18.37.
69 Schlumberger, Sig., 728, no. 3; Pančenko, Katalog, no. 418; Zacos, Seals II, no. 594; Dated Seals,
nos. 63 and 85; and DOSeals 1.18.25a and b.
38
Chart 1.7 Theme of Thessalonike
CENTURY
ICONOGRAPHY THEME OF THESSALONIKE 9 9/10 10 10/11 11 11/12 12 12/13 13 13/14 14
CHRIST Kommerkiarios 1
Strategos 1
VIRGIN Apographeus 1
Dux 3
Katepano 2
Kommerkiarios 1
Krites 1
Strategos 1
MICHAEL Dux 1
Kommerkiarios 1
Krites 1
PRODROMOS Krites 3*
NICHOLAS Krites 1*
Strategos 1*
DEMETRIOS Emperor of Thessalonika 1
Dux 1
Protonotarios of Koumerkion 1
DEMETRIOS & Kommerkiarios 1
NESTOR
THEODORE Krites 1
GEORGE Kommerkiarios 1
PANTELEIMON Anagrapheus 1*
THOMAS Epoptes 1
1*
* Homonymous Saint
Demetrios and Theodore in the civil and military administrations associated with
their parallel ecclesiastical regions. Sphragistic data indicate that within the same
region; the different spheres of authority follow divergent paths of emblematic
and devotional expressions.
This lack of iconographic congruence reflects the realities of provincial admin
istration. Metropolitans and bishops were expected, at least in theory, to remain
in their positions for life. Officials in the civil and military bureaucracies changed
their positions usually every three years, often hoping to obtain more prestigious
assignments in Constantinople.70 The superior administrative capabilities of a sta
ble provincial hierarch over those of an oft-replaced and corrupt civil official were
70 J. Herrin, “Realities of Byzantine Provincial Government: Hellas and Peloponnesos, 1180–1200,”

DOP 29 (1975) 258–259.
39
illustrated by Herrin in her study of 12th-century Greece, focusing on the activ

ities of Michael Choniates, the metropolitan of Athens.71 Her findings describe
conditions that existed throughout the empire. The ecclesiastical authority often
was a more effective force of government in the provinces than that of the civil
and military structures. The Church was an element of continuity in everyday
provincial life. A high-ranking cleric with a lifelong commitment to a specific
location would feel a greater sense of identification with his city and its local cult
traditions than a provincial official whose assignment was only temporary. Fur
thermore, the prestige of a holy predecessor, that is, the local saint’s cult, would
be seen as transferable to the leading churchman in his capacity as the saint’s
spiritual successor rather than to some transient governor or judge.
In her study of Michael Choniates’s correspondence, Herrin highlighted the hier
arch’s exemplary commitment to the local inhabitants regarding all aspects of pro
vincial life. To his doctor, Nicholas Kalodoukes, the metropolitan described himself
as the physician’s co-sufferer and addressed him as beloved son (ὁμοιοπαθές and
ἀγαπώμενε υἱέ).72 To a local friend, the sebastos Manuel Hyaléas, the metropolitan
wrote that even though he (the hierarch) is not a biological father, he knows well
the compassion of fathers for their children.73
Michael Choniates was, however, especially concerned with the welfare of the
poor and for their protection against the habitual financial abuses they suffered
under the systems of taxation. The fiscal vexations placed upon the local inhabi
tants by the strategos as head of both the civil and military administrations within
a province were commonplace,74 so much so, that in his Taktika, of c. 905, Leo
VI regarded the virtue of ἀφιλαργυρία (the complete absence of avarice) as the
premier moral quality expected of a strategos.75 The fiscal policies established for
the provinces by Nikephoros II Phokas (963–969), in order to pay for his military
campaigns and for organizing new themes during the years of famine,76 remained
71 Ibid., 253–284.
72 Μιχαἠλ Ἀκομινάτου τοῦ Χωνιάτου τὰ Σωζόμενα, ed. S. Lampros, II (Athens, 1880 [reprinted
Groningen, 1968]) 147.
73 Ibid., 244, Εἰ γὰρ καὶ πατὴρ οὐκ ἐγενόμην, ἀλλ᾽οἶδα τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς παισὶ τῶν πατέρων σπλάγχνα . . .
74 H. Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, “Recherches sur 1’administration de l’Empire byzantin aux ixe-xie siè
cles,” BCH 84 (1960) 17, 36–52. See also R. Morris, “The Powerful and the Poor in Tenth-Century
Byzantium: Law and Reality,” Past and Present 73 (1976) 3–27; J. Haldon, “Military Service,
Military Lands, and the Status of Soldiers: Current Problems and Interpretations,” DOP 47 (1993)
28–29, 38–39, 50 and 56–57; N. Oikonomides, “The Social Structure of the Byzantine Country
side in the First Half of the Xth Century,” Symmeikta 10 (1996) 105–125; and E. McGeer, The
Land Legislation of the Macedonian Emperors (Toronto, 2000) 25–31.
75 PG 107, 684, “Ἀφιλάργυρον δέ. Καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἀφιλαργυρία τοῦ στρατηγοῦ δοκιμάζεται, ὅταν
ἀδωροδοκήτως καὶ μεγαλοφρόνως προΐσταται τῶν πραγμάτων, καὶ δι᾽ἀρετὴν μόνην δωρεὰν
προβάλλεται τὰς ἀρχὰς τοῦ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν θέματος”and Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, “Recherches,” 45.
76 For Novels 18, 20, and 21, see Zepos, Jus I, 247–248, 253–256. For discussion concerning this
legislation, see P. Lemerle, The Agrarian History of Byzantium (Galway, 1979) 100–103 and
40
in the memory of the Byzantines as particularly harsh. The 12th-century histo

rian Zonaras seriously criticized the 10th-century emperor for his disregard of
the plight of the poor.77 In his history for the period, Zonaras wrote that whenever
a bishop died, the emperor dispatched representatives to the widowed diocese
who greedily appropriated any financial reserves.78 Also, the historian noted that
Nikephoros did not delay in sending to every town such officials as apographeis,
epoptai, strateutai, and protonotarioi who, Zonaras states, oppressed the subjects
with all manner of abuse, not sparing the poor any hardships, often even con
scripting them into one of the various military services.79
In his letters, Michael Choniates referred to similar ill treatment. He com
plained to the emperor about the taxes that favored the wealthy.80 He con
demned the rapacious greed of the praktores (fiscal agents) and referred to them
as the destroyers of the poor.81 He asked that the prayer of the poor be heeded
(προσέσχε τῇ δεήσει τῶν πτωχῶν)82 and that they will be sent a redeemer
(στέλλεται δεῦρο πενήτων ἀντιλήπτωρ).83 He wrote that the oppressive provin
cial officials were more numerous than the frogs that plagued Egypt (πρἀκτορες,
πραίτωρες, ἀπογραφεῖς, ἀναγραφεῖς, δασμολόγοι, ναυτολόγοι καὶ ὅσοι ἄλλοι
τοῦ πονηροῦ τούδε κόμματος, οὓς ἡ τῶν πόλεων βασιλὶς στέλλει πανταχόσε,
μάλιστα δὲ εἰς Ἑλλάδα ἐτησίους, καὶ ὅσους οὐδ´ ὁ Θεός ποτε βατράχους εἰς
Αἴγυπτον).84
Although Choniates may represent an idealized image of the paternal spokes
man for his city, Angold has shown that similar tensions existed between numer
ous metropolitans, who attempted to protect their ecclesiastical rights and the
concerns of the poor, and those local aristocratic families and/or civil and mil
itary officials.85 In addition to Choniates, Angold’s survey includes such figures
128–131; Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, “Recherches,” 16–23; and Haldon, “Military Service,” 50–53, esp.
note 122. For the recent English translation and discussion, see McGeer, Land Legislation, 86–103.
77 Epitome historiarum, ed. M. Pinder and M. Büttner-Wobst, III (Bonn, 1897) 505–506 and Glykat
zi-Ahrweiler, “Recherches,” 16–23.
78 Epitome historiarum, 505, “. . . ἀλλὰ κἂν ἐτεθνήκει ἐπίσκοπος, βασιλικὸν ὑπηρέτην εἰς
τὴν χηρεύσασαν ἐκκλησίαν ἐξέπεμπε καὶ γλίσχρως παρ᾽ἐκείνου τῶν ἀναγκαίων γινομένων
ἀναλωμάτων, αὐτὸς ᾠκειοῦτο τὰ περιττεύοντα.”
79 Ibid., “οὐ διέλιπον δ᾽ἐν ταῖς χώραις ἁπάσαις αὐτοῦ βασιλεύοντος ἀπογραφεῖς στελλόμενοι
ἐπόπται τε καὶ στρατευταὶ καὶ οἱ κεκλημένοι πρωτονοτάριοι, οἳ παντοίαις κακώσεσιν ἐξεπίεζον τὸ
῾ὑπήκοον καὶ εἰς ἐσχάτην ἀπορίαν συνήλασαν, οὐδὲ τῶν παντάπασιν ἀπόρων φειδόμενοι . . . ἐῴκει
γὰρ τὸ πᾶν τῇ στρατιώτιδι μεταχειρίσει ἐπιγραφόμενος.”
80 Τὰ Σωζόμενα, ed. Sp. Lampros, I (Athens, 1879 [repr. Groningen, 1968]) 307–308 and Herrin,
“Realities,” 269.
81 Τὰ Σωζόμενα, I, 146 and Herrin, “Realities,” 271.
82 Τὰ Σωζόμενα, I, 142.
83 Ibid., 145.
84 Τὰ Σωζόμενα, II, 105 and Herrin, “Realities,” 274.
85 M. Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium Under the Comneni, 1081–1261 (Cambridge, 1995)
139–265, passim.
41
as Theophylact,86 Demetrios Chomatianos of Ohrid87 and John Apokaukos of

Naupaktos.88 Even the recalcitrant Eustathios of Thessalonike sought relief for
the poor and remained in the city during the Norman invasion, while the governor,
David Komnenos, fled for safety.89
Zonaras’s criticisms and the correspondence of Choniates, along with that of
other such metropolitans, offer a textual parallel to our sphragistic evidence. The
seals exhibit little or no association with the local cults on the part of the military
and civil officials of a region, in contrast to the ecclesiastical officials who appear
to be more connected to their metropolitanates and to the needs of the local inhab
itants. The lack of iconographic congruence between the ecclesiastical, civil and
military bureaucracies within a particular region reflects the absence of any indig
enous coherence among these provincial structures of authority. The competing
and divisive elements of provincial rule present a fractured system lacking any
sense of social cohesion, and this is reproduced in the sphragistic iconography. No
single saint’s image appears to function as an all-encompassing emblem of unity
for the population of the region. Saints’ cults are rather geographically restricted,
often even individualized by the selection of homonymous figures or taken up
for motives that remain unknown to us. The Virgin’s image alone is consistently
present. By choosing different sphragistic images, therefore, officials within the
various bureaucracies of the provincial administration provide visual expression
to these independent and often antagonistic spheres of authority as well as to the
display of their owners’ personal piety.
86 Ibid., 158–172. The information is drawn from the archbishop’s letters as found in Théophylacte
d’Achrida, ed. R Gautier, II: Lettres (Thessalonike, 1986). See also M. Mullett, “Patronage in
Action: The Problems of an Eleventh-Century Bishop,” Church and People in Byzantium, ed. R.
Morris (Birmingham, 1990) 125–147.
87 Angold, Church and Society, 240–262. Discussion of this hierarch’s activities is based upon his
legal works as found in J. Pitra, Analecta sacra et classica spicilegio Solesmensi parata, VII (VI)
(Rome, 1891 [repr. Farnborough, 1967]).
88 Angold, Church and Society, 213–231. The chapter regarding this metropolitan was taken from
his writings as found in S. Petrides, “Jean Apokaukos, lettres et autres documents inédits,” IRAIK
14 (1909) 69–100 and N. Bees and E. Bee-Seferle, “Unedierte Schriftstücke aus der Kanzlei des
Johannes Apokaukos des Metropoliten von Naupaktos (in Aetolien),” Byzantinisch-Neugriechis
che Jahrbücher 21 (1976) 57–160.
89 Angold, Church and Society, 181. For this archbishop’s administration, see Opuscula, ed. T. Tafel
(Frankfurt am Main, 1832 [repr. Amsterdam, 1964]) and The Capture of Thessaloniki, trans. J.
Melville Jones (Canberra, 1988).
42
2
A N E L E V E N T H - C E N T U RY S E A L
W I T H A R E P R E S E N TAT I O N O F
PAT R I A R C H A N T O N Y
II KAULEAS
February 12th is the feast day of Antony II Kauleas, patriarch of Constantinople

(August 893-February 12th, 901). He has the distinction of being a saint both of
the Orthodox and of the Roman Church. The few details recorded regarding his
birth, education and early career may be summarized as follows. His mother and
father were a pious couple of Thracian or Phrygian origins; he was born to them
on a property belonging to his mother, a holding located in the vicinity of the
“Queen Cities,” Constantinople.1 They lived there as refugees from Iconoclast
persecution. At age five Antony already exhibited an interest in the reading of
holy texts, and at age 12 he entered a monastery. In due course he was ordained
a priest and thereafter was appointed to the post of abbot. The name of the mon
astery where he exercised the function of hegoumenos is unspecified. Later, his
father, who had long been a widower, joined him in the monastic life. During
his tenure as abbot Antony was renowned for “relieving” as his biographer says,
“the squalor of the poor”.2 His compassion extended beyond the confines of “one
city” (that is, Constantinople); he embraced the needy of Thrace and Mysia and
assisted as well the monks of Mt. Olympus.3 When Patriarch Stephanos I died
in May of 893, Antony was elected his successor and installed on the patriarchal
1 We cite here the Greek version of Antony’s Vita: A. PAPADPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Monumenta

graeca et latina ad historiam Photii Patriarchae pertinentia, Petropoli, 1899, p. 3, lines 16–17
and p. 4, lines 1 1–12 = P. L. M. LEONE, L’ ‘Encomium in patriarcham Antonium II Cauleam’ del
filosofo e retore Niceforo, in Orpheus 10 (n. s. 1989.2), 3.47–48 (p. 413) and 3.67 (p. 414). The
Latin version is printed in AASS, feb., t. II, p. 623–629 (PG, 106, cols. 181–200). JANIN (DHGE,
t. 3, Paris, 1924, col. 765, no. 118) repeats the opinion of the editor of the text in the AASS (625,
footnote a) that Antony was born about 829. Most of the relevant details regarding Antony’s life
appear in Janin, as well as the biographical entry appearing in the ODB, p. 125. The Vita is in fact a
biographical encomium written shortly after Antony’s death by a contemporary who lived between
the first half of the 9th century and the beginning of the 10th century and was a friend of Photios.
See LEONE, Encomium, p. 404–405.
2 PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, p. 10, lines 18–19 = LEONE, ed., 9.220–221 (p. 418).
3 PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, page 11, lines 6–10 = LEONE ed., 10.235–238 (p. 419).
43
throne the following August.4 According to the Vita Euthymii Stylianos Zaoutzes,
Leo VI’s powerful minister, backed Antony’s candidacy.5 From all reports Antony
devoted his efforts to promoting harmony within the Eastern church, a policy that
bore fruit in the re-entry into the church of Stylianos Mapas, metropolitan of Neo
caesarea, and his anti-Photian followers.6 Antony’s biographer speaks of the “old
ulcer of the church, namely the schism” and Leo’s wish to “cauterize it through
him [i.e. Antony],” who brought “East and West together” and uniting “the flower
of philosophy to the art of fine speech” found the right formula of reconcilia
tion.7 Patricia Karlin-Hayter is undoubtedly correct that “the Union of the Church
was the great achievement of Kauleas’ patriarchate,”8 but it remains unclear how
exactly the phrase “East and West” is to be understood. On the surface it seems
to refer to Constantinople and Rome, and in the end perhaps this may be what
the author meant. On the other hand, it may relate to Stylianos’s reconciliation
and involve nothing more than a reference to a resumption of peaceful relations
between churches in the eastern and western provinces of the empire.9
The Synaxarion of Constantinople states that Antony’s synaxis is celebrated
“in his monastery.”10 The spelling of the monastery’s name varies; it sometimes
appears in sources as τοῦ Καυλέα and then again as τοῦ Καλλίου or τοῦ Καλέως.11
It is under the form τοῦ Καλλίου that the name is given on a seal of the 10th/11th
century published by Laurent. It bears the legend Τῆς μονῆς on the obverse and
4 The date is known from a reference in a Narrative regarding the translation of the relics of St.
Theodora of Thessalonike. See Holy Women of Byzantium. Ten Saints’ Lives in English Transla
tion, ed. Alice-Mary TALBOT, Washington, DC, 1996, p. 221, footnote 294, and V. GRUMEL,
Chronologie des événements du règne de Leon VI, in EO, 35 (1936), p. 6.
5 Vita Euthymii Patriarchae CP. Text, Translation, Introduction and Commentary, P. KARLIN-HAY
TER, Brussels, 1970, p. 43. 19–20.
6 Vita Euthymii, p. 184–189; also p. 65.27–32: “It should be known that after the reconciliation
of Mapas, that is Stylianos of Neocaesaria, and the Union of the whole church, that same year
Anthony, after an outstandingly blessed and praise-worthy life, died on the twelfth of the month of
February.” [Translation of KARLIN-HAYTER]. See also letter 75 of Patriarch Nicholas I: “in the
days of the lord Leo you know that Mapas and his followers came around, and were united in the
Church” [Translation of JENKINS and WESTERINK]. Nicholas I, Patriarch of Constantinople.
Letters. Greek Text and English Translation by R. J. H. JENKINS and L. G. WESTERINK, Wash
ington, DC, 1973, p. 327 (cf. p. 326, lines 60–62).
7 PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, p. 14, lines 4–9 = LEONE ed., 305–309 (p. 421). The passage
is quoted in full, with translation, in H. GRÉGOIRE’s article La vie de Saint Blaise d’Amorium, in
Byz., 5 (1929–30), p. 399–400 and footnote 2.
8 Vita Euthymii, p. 175–176.
9 KARLIN-HAYTER’s suggestion, p. 186.
10 Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum. Novembris. Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice
Sirmondiano, ed. H. DELEHAYE, Brussels, 1902, col. 462.23.
11 Orthography and the history of the monastery are discussed in V. LAURENT, Le corpus des sceaux
de l’empire byzantin, V/2, Paris, 1965, p. 80–81 and R. JANIN, La géographie ecclésiastique de
l’empire byzantin. Les églises et monastères, Paris, 1969, p. 39–41. The monastery may also have
been known as the μονὴ τοῦ κῦρ Ἀντωνίου. For a seal imprinted with this name see LAURENT,
Corpus, V/2, no. 1139.
44
a n e l e v e n t h - c e n t u r y s e a l o f pat r i a r c h k a u l e a s
the inscription τοῦ Καλλ<ί>ου on the reverse.12 This is the same appellation by
which a die-cutter identifies the monastery on a mid-11th-century seal that we
publish below (pl. 1).13 In this instance the obverse is decorated with a half-length
representation of a bearded St. Antony wearing a phelonion and omophorion,
holding his right hand in blessing and a Gospel book with an elaborately deco
rated cover in his left hand. He is flanked by two columnar inscriptions, reading:
Ὁ ἅ(γιος) Ἀντώνι(ος) -ἀρχ(ιεπίσκοπος) Κωνστ(α)ν(τινουπόλεως). The reverse
displays four lines preceded by decoration, the last two letters between horizontal
bars: Τῆς μ(ο)νῆς τοῦ Καλλίου. We note that the second letter in line two (the eta)
seems to be accompanied by an accent mark. There are two ligatures: an omi
cron/upsilon (end of line two) of horseshoe shape and sigma/tau (last line of the
columnar inscription at right). The accent mark, as well as the ligatures, indicate
that the seal dates from the second half of the 11th century, quite likely the last
quarter. In sum the seal might easily date from the period of the reign of Patriarch
Kosmas I. We recall that Kosmas retired in 1081 to the monastery τοῦ Καλλίου.14
What would be more natural than for a monastery to assert its links with a sainted
patriarch than at a time when another patriarch was living (or had been recently
buried) within its walls?
Antony founded (or restored) the monastery τοῦ Καλλίου, and we may rea
sonably assume that it was the institution over whose affairs Antony had pre
viously presided as abbot. Owing to a sermon of Leo VI (886–912), written on
the occasion of the consecration of the church in the monastery of Kauleas, we
know that the monastery could boast a church of refined decoration. It had a
floor paved with white slabs framed within a border of stones of different color.
Above was a dome containing a representation of Christ. In the apse stood a
depiction of the Virgin holding Christ “in her arms,” the same figures appearing
on Antony’s patriarchal seal (pl. 2).15 This is not to say that there is a relationship
between the decoration of chapel and seal. Antony simply repeats on his seal a
form of ornament previously used by Patriarchs Photios and Stephanos. The fact
that Leo wrote a description of Antony’s monastery seems to indicate that Leo
and Antony enjoyed a personal relationship, one which we suggest was rooted in
a commonality of intellectual interests. Certainly, it must have been Leo’s wish
that Stylianos and his party be reconciled with the church, and Antony faithfully
12 Laurent, Corpus, V/2, no. 1 154. The specimen is unillustrated and it had been our intention to
reproduce the object, but J.-C. CHEYNET has informed us in an electronic communication that
the seal is of poor quality.
13 The seal measures 23 mm. in diameter and is in a private American collection.
14 Annae Comnenae Alexias, ed. D. R. REINSCH and A. KAMBYLIS, Berlin-New York, 2001,
III.4.4 (p. 96, line 8).
15 The text may be conveniently consulted in C. Mango’s book of translations, The Art of the Byz
antine Empire, 312–1453, Toronto, 1986, p. 202–203. For a French translation, see A. Frowlow,
Deux églises byzantines d’après sermons peu connus de Léon VI le Sage, in Études byzantines, III
(1945), p. 45–48. Antony’s seal is published in LAURENT, Corpus V/3, no. 1628 (= Dumbarton
Oaks 58.106.309).
45
carried out this policy decision. But we note Nikephoros the Philosopher’s
remark that Antony united “the flower of philosophy to the art of fine speech.” In
other words, Antony was a man of letters and as such was the sort of person to
whom Leo (“nurtured in letters,” to use Nikephoros the Rhetor’s phrase) would
have been drawn. Antony’s educational background is reflected in the flowery
phrases and classical allusions that fill Nikephoros the Philosopher’s encomion.
The tenor of the encomion can only be understood in the context of praise for a
fellow member of the literati.
In addition to the above, it should be pointed out that our seal adds a second
known example of the image of the sainted patriarch. He is commemorated in
the Menologion of Basil II, Vat. Gr. 1613, where his portrait accompanies the
hagiographic text (pl. 3).16 He is not, however, found among the saints listed in
the later Painter’s Manual of Dionysios of Phourna.17 On the seal Antony’s phys
iognomy resembles a rather generic type often employed for saintly hierarchs or
monastic figures: a balding head and long pointed beard.18 More specifically, his
portrait appears to be a composite drawn from well-known standard hagiographic
figural elements: the high, balding and bulbous head of John Chrysostom and the
long, pointed beard of Basil.19 When comparing the image of the seal and that
found in the Menologion, the portraits are strikingly different, even when taking
into account the employment of different media. In the manuscript, Antony has
a broader face and a fuller, wider beard that does not extend into a long, narrow
ing point as found on the seal. In addition, whereas on the seal the patriarch is
depicted with a large, bald head, in the miniature he displays a thick head of hair,
with wavy tufts crowning the forehead.
From these two disparate images, it appears that at the time of their production,
a standard portrait type for this saint had not yet been established. The textual and
visual evidence indicate that Antony was recognized as a saint rather quickly by
the highest echelons within Byzantine society. His memory was rapidly secured
by the creation of an early posthumous Vita and by enrolling his name among
the list of saints found in the 10th-century Synaxarion of Constantinople. The
16 II Menologio di Basilio II (Cod. Vaticano Greco 1613), Vol. II, Turin, 1907, p. 393.
17 DIONYSIOS OF FOURNA, Hermeneia, ed. A. PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, St. Petersburg,
1909. For the English translation, see P. HETHERINGTON, The ‘Painter’s manual’ of Dionysius
of Fourna, London, 1974, reprinted 1981.
18 For discussion of the relation of hagiographic texts to saintly portraits, see A. KAZHDAN and H.
MAGUIRE, Byzantine Hagiographical Texts as Sources on Art, in DOP, 45 (1991), p. 1–22. In
this study, reference is made (p. 12) to Nikephoros the “Philosopher’s” Vita of Patriarch Antony
II, in which the hierarch’s virtues are enumerated in artistic terms: an icon (εἰκλών) of virtue,
column (στήλη) of manliness and statue (ἄγαλμα) of chastity. For further discussion regarding
the depiction of hierarchs and monastics in light of their textual hagiographic descriptions, see H.
MAGUIRE, The Icons of Their Bodies: Saints and Their Images in Byzantium, Princeton, 1996,
p. 48–80.
19 For descriptions of these two standard hagiographic portraits, see MAGUIRE, The Icons of Their
Bodies, p. 25–28, fig. 20 and 23.
46
earliest known visual depiction of the saint is that found in the de luxe imperial
manuscript of the Menologion of Basil II, painted sometime around 1000,20 that
is, just roughly 100 years after Antony’s death. Our sphragistic representation
comes possibly 75 years later. In this example, the sainted patriarch bears another
physiognomy demonstrating that by the last quarter of the 11th century a consis
tent portrait type for this holy figure had not yet evolved. Since no other surviving
images are known, it is impossible to determine which image became the estab
lished type.
On our seal, Antony is also depicted with the two attributes that most clearly
identify him as a church hierarch: he wears the omophorion, or bishop’s pal
lium, and holds the Gospel book, the emblem of episcopal teaching authority
within the Church. The omophorion, a liturgical vestment in the form of a
long scarf decorated with crosses, was worn as a wide, loose loop over the
shoulders with its ends hanging down the front and back.21 In this example,
the omophorion is rendered exquisitely and in some detail. The arms of the
customary crosses that rest on the hierarch’s shoulder consist of small pellets.22
The omophorion rests loosely in a wide arc across the patriarch’s shoulders
with a distinct fold hanging clearly over the front of his left shoulder, falling
behind the Gospel book.
Over time, there were modifications in the form that the omophorion took,
although inconsistencies in its representations make it difficult to determine a
straightforward chronological development.23 From manuscript illuminations,
it seems that by the 9th century the omophorion usually was shown as forming
a V-shaped loop hanging from the shoulders, with a stitched long single band
hanging down the entire length of the front of the body as seen in numerous
miniatures of the Homilies of Gregory Nazianzos, Paris. B. N. Gr. 510. In
the Menologion of Basil II, of circa 1000, the omophorion is represented in
a variety of forms. By the mid-11th century, this liturgical garment was again
depicted with somewhat uniformity: as either a V-shaped or circular loop rest
ing over the shoulders, with long bands hanging back over the shoulders and
in the front.
The omophorion seen on our seal, however, is rather distinct in form. The loop
of the vestment spreads widely across the width of the shoulders, hanging rather
loosely. The frontal band folds over the hierarch’s left shoulder and hangs down
his chest behind the gospel book. This presentation of the omophorion is not fre
quently encountered in images of hierarchs. The earliest examples begin in the
20 For the dating of the manuscript, see A. CUTLER, The Psalter of Basil II, in Arte Veneta, 31
(1977), p. 9–15.
21 For discussion of the omophorion, see C. WALTER, Art and Ritual of the Byzantine Church, Lon
don, 1982, p. 9–13, and ODB, p. 1526.
22 For discussion of the types of crosses found on omophoria, see S. GERSTEL, Beholding the
Sacred Mysteries: Programs of the Byzantine Sanctuary, Seattle, 1999, p. 26.
23 WALTER, Art and Ritual, p. 12–13.
47
10th century: such as that found on the figure of Gregory the Wonderworker on
the exterior wing of the Harbaville ivory triptych in Paris;24 in the image of Pope
Leo of Rome among the wall paintings of the New Church of the Tokali Kilise
in Cappadocia;25 and in the earlier figure of Basil in the narthex of the church
of the Holy Anargyroi in Kastoria.26 In the Menologion of Basil II, among the
many representations of hierarchs, just six are shown wearing an omophorion
like the one on our seal.27 The 11th century provides some more examples: the
figure of Gregory of Nyssa in the apse of the church of Panaghia ton Chalkeon in
Thessalonike, dated 1028;28 the image of John Chrysostom in the manuscript of
the Homilies of John Chrysostom, Sinait. Gr. 364, fol. 2v, assigned to the years
1042–1050;29 the representation of Amphilochos in the apse of the church of Eski
Gümüs, Cappadocia, from the mid-11th century;30 and the vestment worn by Basil
in the south apse of the church of Saint Merkourios on Corfu, dated 107.31 Just
a few later examples can be found: on the figures of Basil and another liturgiz
ing bishop depicted in the sanctuary of the church of St. Neophytes, Paphos, of
1183;32 the figure of Basil in the apse of the church of the Virgin in Studenica,
dated to 1208/09;33 and that worn by Athanasios the Great in an early 14th century
icon now in the Hermitage.34
In the realm of seals, similar depictions of the omophorion’s elaborate presen
tation are found on images of hierarchs on nine specimens from the second half
of the 11th century.35 These sphragistic examples correspond to the chronology
given on our seal representing Patriarch Antony II. Likewise, the 11th-century
dating of our seal parallels the majority of the painted comparanda previously
cited. It appears that the carver of the boulloterion that produced this seal was
sensitive to iconographic trends occurring in other media as well. The overall,
rich, detailed and unique image of the sainted patriarch Antony II on this seal
24 A. CUTLER, The Hand of the Master: Craftsmanship, Ivory, in Byzantium (9th-llth Centuries),
Princeton, 1994, fig. 152.
25 A. WHARTON EPSTEIN, Tokali Kilise: Tenth-Century Metropolitan Art in Byzantine Cappado
cia, Washington, DC, 1986, fig. 113.
26 S. PELEKANIDIS and M. CHATZIDAKIS, Kastoria: Mosaics-Wall Paintings, Athens, 1985,
p. 22–23 and p. 27, fig. 4.
27 Il Menologio di Basilio II, p. 54, 88, 231, 254, 340 and 358.
28 A. CUTLER and J.-M. SPIESER, Byzance médiévale, 700–1204, Paris, 1966, fig. 221.
29 Ibid., fig. 262.
30 Ibid., fig. 195.
31 M. PARANI, Reconstructing the Reality of Images: Byzantine Material Culture and Religious
Iconography (llth-15th Centuries), Leiden, 2003, fig. 120.
32 GERSTEL, Beholding the Sacred Mysteries, p. 198, fig. 68.
33 S. ĆIRKOVIĆ, V. KORAĆ and G. BABIĆ, Studenica Monastery, Belgrade, 1986, p. 68, fig. 51.
34 Sinai, Byzantium, Russia: Orthodox Art From the Sixth to the Twentieth Century, ed. Y. PIATNIT
SKY et al., London, 2000, B131.
35 LAURENT, Corpus V/l, nos 352, 566 and 1000 and G. ZACOS, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, ed. J.
NESBITT, Berne, 1984, nos 479, 487a and b, 490, 600 and 743.
48
provides us with not only a diminutive masterpiece but also some insight into
the creation of hagiographic portraiture for figures who only recently were num
bered among the choir of saints.
John A. Cotsonis John Nesbitt
The Archbishop Iakovos Library Dumbarton Oaks

Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of 1703 32nd St., NW
Theology
50 Goddard Avenue Washington, DC 20007
Brookline, MA 02445, USA USA
e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]
Résumé
Édition d’un sceau avec le portrait du patriarque canonisé Antoine II Kauleas
(août 893-février 901). Ce sceau relève du monastère de Kauleas associé avec
le patriarche Antoine II. Tenant compte des données épigraphiques, le sceau
peut être daté de la seconde moitié du XIe s. La seule autre représentation con
nue du patriarche Antoine II est celle qui figure dans le Ménologe de Basile II.
Si l’on tient compte de la date de cet objet, on peut formuler de nouvelles
hypothèses sur les procédés suivis pour la canonisation des hauts ecclésias
tiques et sur les principes à suivre lors de l’établissement du portrait d’un saint
récemment canonisé.
Figure. 2.1 Lead Seal of the Monastery tou Kalliou, 11th century (private collection):
Saint Anthony, Archbishop of Constantinople
Source: John Nesbitt
49
Figure 2.2 Lead Seal of Anthony II Kauleas, 893–901 (Dumbarton Oaks
BZS.1958.106.309): the Virgin & Child
Figure 2.3 Menologion of Basil II (Vatican, Bib. Apost. Vat. gr. 1613, p. 393), Saint
Anthony II Kauleas, c. 1000
Source: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
3
THE CONTRIBUTION OF
BYZANTINE LEAD SEALS TO
T H E S T U D Y O F T H E C U LT
OF THE SAINTS
(sixth-twelfth centuries)*
The cult of saints has been the subject of much scholarly interest within Byzantine
studies.1 The popularity and prestige of holy figures have often been examined
* A portion of this material was presented at the Eighth International Symposium for Byzantine Sig
illography, Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003. I wish to thank Jean-
Claude Cheynet, Olga Karagiorgou and Werner Seibt for their helpful suggestions and insightful
comments. Special appreciation is offered to John Nesbitt, Nancy Ševčenko, Alice-Mary Talbot
and Leslie MacCoull for their valuable assistance and perceptive critiques that they contributed
during the preparation of this paper. Funds assisting in the publication of this article and the
accompanying photographs were kindly provided by Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of
Theology.
1 For some overviews, see The Byzantine Saint, University of Birmingham Fourteenth Spring Sym
posium of Byzantine Studies, ed. S. HACKEL, London, 1981; E. PATLAGEAN, Ancient Byzan
tine Hagiography and Social History, in Saints and Their Cults: Studies in Religious Sociology,
Folklore and History, ed. S. WILSON, Cambridge, 1983, p. 101–122; A. KAZHDAN, Byzantine
Hagiography and Sex in the Fifth to Twelfth Centuries, in DOP, 44 (1990), p. 131–143; A.-M.
TALBOT, Old Wine in New Bottles: The Rewriting of Saints’ Lives in the Palaeologan Period,
in The Twilight of Byzantium: Aspects of Cultural and Religious History in the Late Byzantine
Empire, ed. S. ĆURČIĆ and D. MOURIKI, Princeton, 1991, p. 15–26; I. ŠEVČENKO, Observa
tions on the Study of Byzantine Hagiography in the Last Half-Century or Two Looks Back and One
Look Forward, Toronto, 1995; Metaphrasis: Redactions and Audiences in Middle Byzantine Hag
iography, ed. C. HØGEL, Oslo, 1996; The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages:
Essays on the Contribution of Peter Brown, ed. J. HOWARD-JOHNSTON and P. A. HAYWARD,
Oxford, 1999; and C. HØGEL, Symeon Metaphrastes: Rewriting and Canonization, Copenhagen,
2002, p. 20–60. One should also consult the helpful websites, The Byzantine Saint: A Bibliogra
phy, constructed by PAUL HALSALL at the University of North Florida, www.unf.edu/classes/
saints/byzantinesaint-bibliography.html and The Military Martyrs, set up by DAVID WOODS,
www.ucc.ie/milmart/index.html.
52
byzantine seals and a study of the saints
through hagiography,2 imagery,3 relics4 and in the context of pilgrimage or loca

sancta.5 Less attention, however, has been paid to the medium of Byzantine lead
seals. The few studies that do exist tend to focus on just a small number of seals
and a limited selection of saintly figures.6 Yet thousands of lead seals survive
2 Some examples are The Miracles of St. Artemios: A Collection of Miracle Stories by an Anony
mous Author of Seventh-Century Byzantium, ed. V. CRISAFULLI and J. NESBITT, Leiden, 1997;
Byzantine Defenders of Images: Eight Saints’ Lives in English Translation, ed. A.-M. TALBOT,
Washington, DC, 1998; and M.-F. AUZÉPY, L’hagiographie et l’iconoclasme byzantin: Le cas de
la Vie d’Étienne le Jeune, Aldershot, 1999. For a helpful bibliography of hagiographic literature,
see M. HÖRSCH, Bibliographie, in Hagiographie und Kunst: Der Heiligenkult in Schrift, Bild und
Architektur, ed. G. KERSCHER, Berlin, 1993, p. 41–49. For the use of hagiography in the study of
cultural history, with a list of numerous published editions of saints’ vitae, see C. SCHOLZ, Graecia
Sacra: Studien zur kultur des mittelalterlichen Griechenland im Spiegel hagiographischer Quellen,
Frankfurt am Main, 1997. For a list of hagiographical texts relevant to the study of the period of
Iconoclasm, see Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca. 680–85): The Sources, an Annotated Survey,
ed. L. BRUBAKER and J. HALDON, Aldershot, 2001, p. 199–232.
3 For example, see R. CORMACK, Writing in Gold, London, 1985, p. 9–94 and 215–251; T. GOU
MA-PETERSON, Narrative Cycles of Saints’ Lives in Byzantine Churches from the Tenth to the
Mid-fourteenth Century, in Byzantine Saints and Monasteries, Brookline, MA, 1985, p. 31–44; N.
ŠEVČENKO, Illustrated Manuscripts of the Metaphrastian Menologion, Chicago, 1990; A. KAZH
DAN and H. MAGUIRE, Byzantine Hagiographical Texts as Sources on Art, in DOP, 45 (1991),
p. 1–22; H. MAGUIRE, The Icons of Their Bodies: Saints and Their Images in Byzantium, Princeton,
1996; N. ŠEVČENKO, The Vita Icon and the Painter as Hagiographer, in DOP, 53 (1999), p. 149–
165; and C. WALTER, The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition, Aldershot, 2003.
4 For a recent study, see M. KAPLAN, De la dépouille à la relique: Formation du culte des saints à
Byzance du Ve au XIIe siècle, in Les reliques: Objets, cultes, symboles. Actes du colloque interna
tional de l’Université du Littoral-Côte d’Opale (Boulogne-sur-Mer), 4–6 Septembre 1997, ed. E.
BOZÓKY and A.-M. HELVÉTIUS, Turnhout, 1999, p. 19–38.
5 See G. VIKAN, Byzantine Pilgrimage Art, Washington, DC, 1982; idem, Sacred Images and Sacred
Power in Byzantium, Aldershot, 2003; The Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. R. OUSTERHOUT, Urbana
and Chicago, 1990; Les saints et leur sanctuaire à Byzance: textes, images et monuments, ed. C.
JOLIVET-LÉVY, M. KAPLAN and J.-P. SODINI, Paris, 1993; E. MALAMUT, Sur la route des
saints byzantins, Paris, 1993; and DOP, 56 (2002) where one finds the published introduction and
nine papers from the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium of May 2000 devoted to Byzantine pilgrimage.
6 For studies that have employed lead seals, see C. WALTER, St. Demetrius: The Myroblytos of Thes
salonike, in Eastern Churches Review, 5 (1973), p. 157–178 (reprinted in his Studies in Byzantine
Iconography, London, 1977); idem, Theodore, Archtype of the Warrior Saint, in REB, 57 (1999),
p. 163–210; V. ŠANDROVSKAJA, Obraz svjatogo Georgija na vizantijskich pečatjach, in Referat
zum II. Int. Symposium über georgische Kunst, Tbilisi, 1977, p. 1–11; N. OIKONOMIDES, Ἡ
Αὐτοκράτειρα Ἁγία Σοφία, in Θυμίαμα στὴ Μνήμη τῆς Λασκαρίνας Μπούρα, ed. A. MARKOPOU
LOS et al., I, p. 235–238 and II, pl. 124; A.-K. WASSILIOU, Der Heilige Georg auf Siegeln ein
ige neue Bullen mit Familiennamen, in REB, 59 (2001), p. 209–224; J.-Cl. CHEYNET, Par Saint
George, par Saint Michel, in TM, 14 (2002), p. 115–134; I. KOLTSIDA-MAKRE, Μολύβδόβουλλα
μὲ ἀπεικόνιση σκηνῆς ἀπὸ τὸ Βίο τοῦ Ἁγίου Δημητρίου, in ∆XAE, per 4, 23 (2002), p. 149–154; J.
COTSONIS, Saints and Cult Centers: A Geographic and Administrative Perspective in Light of
53
that bear figures of a great variety of saints in conjunction with inscriptions that
often include their owners’ names and positions held within the various civil,
military and ecclesiastical administrations of the empire. Such datable sphragistic
evidence provides a unique and important means of investigating various aspects
of the cult of saints in the Byzantine world.
Large numbers of surviving Byzantine lead seals range in date from the 6th
through the 15th centuries.7 Recently, it has been estimated that possibly 80,000
lead seals exist worldwide, of which only a portion of this sample has been pub
lished.8 This present study draws upon a database I have created and maintained,
consisting of 7,284 seals drawn from major catalogues and publications.9 My
investigation, therefore, must be seen as a work in progress until all known seals
are published. It is known, for example, that there still remain unpublished large
numbers of aniconic monogrammatic seals of the 6th and 7th centuries and a sig
nificant number of unpublished bilateral iconographic seals. It is worth stating at
this point, however, that from the time that an earlier version of my work was
undertaken for a dissertation until this current study, 1,407 specimens have been
added to my original database of 5,877 examples, and no significant changes in
conclusions have been observed, rather just refinements in the numerical results.
This substantial number of 7,284 seals represents, therefore, a large number of
surviving objects and offers a representative sample size not found in other media.
The seals, therefore, can make a unique contribution to the study of the cult of the
saints.
The 7,284 seals that I have selected are only those that bear religious figural
iconography: Christ; the Virgin; saints; and Christological scenes. The database
does not include seals that display crosses,10 animal figures,11 classical personi-
Byzantine Lead Seals, in Studies in Byzantine Sigillography, 8 (2003), p. 9–26; J. NESBITT, Apo
tropaic Devices on Byzantgine lead Seals and Tokens in the Collections of Dumbarton Oaks and
the Fogg Museum of Art, in Through a Glass Brightly: Studies in Byzantine and Medieval Art and
Archaeology Presented to David Buckton, ed. C. ENTWISTLE, Oxford, 2003, p. 107–113; and C.
WALTER, Saint Theodore and the Dragon, in Through a Glass Brightly, p. 95–106.
7 N. OIKONOMIDES, Byzantine Lead Seals, Washington, DC, 1985 and ODB, III, p. 1859, where
the authors note that only a few rare specimens of pre-6th-century seals are known.
8 W. SEIBT and M.-L. ZARNITZ, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk, Vienna, 1997, p. 20.
9 The catalogues and publications employed for the database can be found in the Appendix at the
end of this article. Duplicate publication of identical specimens has been accounted for. Correc
tions regarding the dating of seals or their iconography are based upon information provided by
various published reviews and corrections to the catalogues; first hand observations of the col
lections; and the use of Prof. Werner Seibt’s photographic archive of lead seals at the Byzantine
Institute in Vienna. The final version of this paper was prepared in the summer of 2004 and does
not include any later published collection or catalogue of seals.
10 For a study of crosses found on lead seals, see I. KOLTSIDA-MAKRE, The Representation of the
Cross on Byzantine Lead Seals, in Studies in Byzantine Sigillography, 4 (1995), p. 43–52.
11 Of these, the depiction of the eagle is the most common. Examples are provided by G. ZACOS
and A. VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, Basel, 1972, nos. 585–730, pl. 64–72, who also
acknowledge the religious associations linked with the eagle. For discussion of the eagle as both
54
fications,12 secular portraits13 or only inscriptions.14 Among the large number of

lead seals, few, however, are actually datable within a short number of years or
decades. Those which comprise this group are usually drawn from emperors,
patriarchs, high-ranking officials whose careers are known, and seals that are
attached to their original, dated or datable documents. Nicolas Oikonomides out
lined the various approaches, and their inherent problems, that have been used
in dating Byzantine seals: typological, stylistic and epigraphic.15 The typologi
cal system of classification, which considers basic differences as iconic or ani
conic, or the arrangement of the various inscriptions, offers only a broad, relative
chronological framework. The stylistic method, which also takes into account
border designs, decorative devices found on seals, size of letters and an overall
“general impression of an esthetic,” likewise leads to rather wide timespans. It
is epigraphic criteria, however, that have found favor among modern sigillogra
phers: characteristics in details of letter-forms that change with time serve as tools
in dating seals. Oikonomides provided the necessary guidelines in determining
the dates of most of these forms.16 Additionally, titles and offices held by the seal
owners that are included in the sphragistic inscriptions can aid in dating seals.
Since administrative titles fell in and out of use over time, they may also contrib
ute to a limited, relative chronology.17 As both Oikonomides18 and Werner Seibt19
have remarked, all of these factors should be taken into consideration when one
an imperial and religious emblem, see ODB, I, p. 669 and I. KOLTSIDA-MAKRE, Ἡ παράσταση
τοῦ ἀετοῦ στὰ μολυβδόβουλλα καὶ ἡ προέλευσή της, in ∆XAE, per. 4, 24 (2003), p. 411–416.
12 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1373 and no. 1382 offer examples such as
a winged victory and a tyche, respectively.
13 Other than imperial images, secular portraits are extremely rare on seals. For an early example, see
ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1386. For a middle Byzantine example,
see N. OIKONOMIDES, Theophylact Excubitus and His Crowned ‘Portrait’: An Italian Rebel of
the Late Xth Century?, in ∆XAE, per. 4, 12 (1986), p. 195–202.
14 For a discussion of the varying quality of inscriptions found on lead seals, see N. OIKONO
MIDES, On Sigillographic Epigraphy, in Studies in Byzantine Sigillography, 6 (1999), p. 37–42.
15 N. OIKONOMIDES, Dated Byzantine Lead Seals, Washington, DC, 1986, p. 151–170. W. SEIBT,
Aspekte der genaueren Datierung byzantinischer Bleisiegel. Hindernisse auf dem Weg zur Erstel
lung verläßlicher, in Studies in Byzantine Sigillography, 2 (1990), p. 17–37, also recounted similar
difficulties in assigning dates to lead seals.
16 OIKONOMIDES, Dated Seals, p. 158–170, where charts displaying the chronological distribution
of letter-forms and decorative devices can also be found.
17 Ibid., 152. For a discussion of the administrative titles of the middle Byzantine period, see N.
OIKONOMIDES, Les listes de préséance des IXe et Xe siècles, Paris, 1972, p. 281–363. For
the Palaiologan period, see PSEUDO-KODINOS, Traité des offices, ed. J. VERPEAUX, Paris,
1966, p. 133–188. For the ecclesiastical administration see J. DARROUZÈS, Recherches sur les
Ὀφφίκια de l’église byzantine, Paris, 1970, passim. For discussion of the importance of seals in
the study of titles associated with the fiscal administration of the early to middle Byzantine peri
ods, see W. BRANDES, Finanzverwaltung in Krisenzeiten: Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen
Administration im 6.-9. Jahrhundert, Frankfurt am Main, 2002, passim.
18 OIKONOMIDES, Dated Seals, p. 156.
19 SEIBT, Aspekte, p. 18–19.
55
attempts to evaluate the “general impression” of a seal. Even with these various
tools, however, the vast majority of seals are still assigned dates to within a cen
tury or a half century. Seals in this database that are designated by a two-century
span, such as 11th/12th century, belong, therefore, to the late 11th or early 12th
century. The seals that are given a date of either 8th, 8th/9th or 9th century, that is,
coincident with the period of Iconoclasm, are understood to belong either to the
early 8th century, to the period of the Iconophile interlude of 787–815,20 or to the
second half of the 9th century.
The chronological limits of the evidence and this study need to be explained.
After the 11th century the total number of seals, both iconographic and aniconic,
begins to decline and most precipitously after the 12th century. The decline in
sphragistic production has been attributed to the shortage of a supply of new lead
beginning in the 11th century,21 a declining population, higher prices of imported
lead with a simultaneous increase in the use of wax seals for official purposes,22 and
to the loss of the sites of lead mines active in Asia Minor that fell to Turkish control
after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071.23 In addition, among the fewer seals surviv
ing from the Palaiologan period, the majority belonged to emperors and patriarchs
who, respectively, employed images of Christ and the Virgin for their seals. In light
of these observations, therefore, the present investigation will focus on seals from
the 6th through the 12th centuries, which constitute a larger and more varied icono
graphic sample and will not include the seals of the Palaiologan period.
In addition to the chronological limits, a few words should be given concerning
the nature of the sample size over time. The number of lead seals that were pro
duced and survive, both iconic and aniconic, fluctuates over time. The chronolog
ical distribution of the frequency of iconographic seals of this database appears in
Graph 3.1 and will be commented upon below.
The raw data, however, possess little meaning. What is evidently striking,
though, is the dramatic increase in the quantity of seals belonging to the 11th cen
tury. This is not due merely to an accident of survival but rather reflects historical
20 For seals assigned to the Iconophile interlude, see ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals,
I:2, nos. 1325–1351 and I/3, nos. 2979–2987.
21 N. OIKONOMIDES, The Lead Blanks Used for Byzantine Seals, in Studies in Byzantine Sigillog
raphy, 1 (1987), p. 100, n. 11.
22 G. VIKAN and J. NESBITT, Security in Byzantium: Locking, Sealing, Weighing Washington, DC,
1980, p. 25.
23 For the locations of these lead mines active from the eighth through the eleventh centuries, see
M. LOMBARD, Les métaux dans l’ancien monde du Ve au XIe siècle, Paris, 1974, p. 126 and
Map 3. B. PITARAKIS, Mines anatoliennes exploitées par les byzantins: Recherches récentes, in
Revue numismatique, 153 (1998), p. 141–185, states that although deposits of precious metals occur
throughout the Byzantine period independent of periodic territorial losses, her Table 2 indicates that
out of 54 mines located in the region of Anatolia, just six appear to have been active from the 13th
century and later. Her map displaying these sites places the majority of these locations in areas that
were lost to the Byzantines after 1071. See also A. SAVVIDES, Observations on Mines and Quar
ries in the Byzantine Empire, in Ekklesiastikos Pharos 82, n.s. 11 (2000), p. 134 and 141 and Map 1.
56
Graph 3.1 Number of Religious Figural Iconographic Seals by Century
developments. The empire in the 11th century experienced a revival in both urban
life and that of the provinces.24 Such growth necessitated a rise in the number of
functionaries in the civil, military and ecclesiastical bureaucracies, leading to an
increase in the amount of correspondence issuing from these offices and, in turn,
in the multiplication of seals. Also, in the 11th century, it is known that emperors
increasingly distributed dignities for political and financial reasons.25 Recipients
of such titles would be quick to produce new seals bearing inscriptions that would
announce their new social status. Hand in hand with this social change and eco
nomic improvement, the 11th century has also been described as a period of revival
in learning.26 An increase in scholarly and literary pursuits would imply an increase
in correspondence between the reading members of the culture, thereby creating a
24 A. KAZHDAN and A. EPSTEIN, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centu
ries, Berkeley, 1985, passim and M. HENDY, The Economy: A Brief Survey, in Byzantine Studies:
Essays on the Slavic World and the Eleventh Century, ed. S. VRYONIS, Jr., New Rochelle, NY,
1992, p. 141–152.
25 OIKONOMIDES, L’évolution de l’organisation administrative, p. 125 and idem, Title and Income
at the Byzantine Court, in Byzantine Court Culture From 829–1204, ed. H. MAGUIRE, Washing
ton, DC, 1997, p. 199–215.
26 C. NIARCHOS, The Philosophical Background of the Eleventh-Century Revival of Learning in
Byzantium, in Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, ed. M. MULLETT and R. SCOTT, Birming
ham, 1981, p. 127–135; N. WILSON, Scholars of Byzantium, Baltimore, 1983, p. 179; KAZH
DAN and EPSTEIN, Change in Byzantine Culture, p. 120–166; and M. MULLETT, Writing in
Early Medieval Byzantium, in The Uses of Literacy in Early Mediaeval Europe, ed. R. MCKIT
TERICK, Cambridge, 1990, p. 161.
57
Graph 3.2 Percentage of Seals with Religious Figural Iconography
larger demand for seals. These observations help to explain the significant increase
in the total number of iconographic seals appearing in the 11th century.
What proves to be more useful for this investigation is the proportional relation of
religious iconographic seals to the total number of seals (iconic and aniconic) of each
century. Only then can it be determined where there was a real increase or decrease
in the preference for seals bearing religious figural images. Graph 3.2 displays the
chronological distribution for the percentage of seals with religious iconography to
the total number of seals per century.27 The trends observed in this graph will also be
discussed below as they relate to the study of seals bearing images of saints.
The purpose of this investigation is to present all the saints found on these seals
and their corresponding relative chronological frequencies; to chart the changes
over time in the percentage of iconographic seals with images of saints in order
to determine any chronological variances in the preference for saintly figures as
an indicator of diachronic changes in the cult of saints; to observe which saints
or groups of saints enjoyed greater popularity and when; and to note and discuss
developments in hagiographic portraiture and their accompanying identifying
labels. Due to the large number of saintly images provided by the seals and their
great chronological range, this study will focus on broad general trends.
The sphragistic data found in Chart 3.1 present all saints found on the seals in
the database and the chronological frequency of their appearance. A total of 129
different saints is represented.
27 As for the religious figural seals, duplicate publications of non-figural examples were also taken
into account.
58
Chart 3.1 Chronological Frequency of Images of Saints on Seals
SAINT 6c 6/7c 7c 7/8c 8c 8/9c 9c 9/1 Oc 10c 10/11c 11c 11/12C 12c 12/13c 13c 13/14c 14c 14/15c ?c TOTAL
? 14 53 33 15 7 3 3 38 41 213 99 30 4 2 2 1 19 576
1 Aaron 1 1
2 Achillios 1 3 1 5
3 Agathon 1 1
4 Agathonikos 1 1 1 3
5 Akakios 1 1
6 Akepsim 1 1
7 Akindynos 1 1
8 Akylina 1 1
9 Alexander 1 1
10 All Saints 1 1
11 Anastasia 3 3
12 Anastasios 1 4 5
13 Andrew 1 11 2 4 18
14 Andrew Stratelates 1 1
15 Anna 1 1 2
16 Anthimos 1 1 2
17 Anthony 1 3 2 6
18 Antipas 1 1
19 Athanasios 1 1 1 3
20 Athenogenes 1 1
21 Augustine 1 1
(Continued )
Chart 3.1 (Continued)
22 Auxentios 1 1
23 Bacchos 1 1
24 Barbara 1 1
25 Barnabas 1 1
26 Basil 1 8 8 38 16 9 1 1 1 83
27 Catherine 1 1
28 Christopher 6 6
29 Clement 3 3
30 Constantine 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 11
31 Constantine, Bishop 1 1
32 Cosmas 2 1 6 9
33 Cyrus 1 1
34 Damian 2 1 6 9
35 Daniel 4 1 2 1 2 10
36 David 1 4 1 6
37 Demetrios 3 1 3 11 3 145 56 36 4 10 1 273
38 Dometios 1 1
39 Eleutherios 2 3 5
40 Elias 1 12 1 14
41 Epiphanios 1 2 1 4
42 Eudoxios 1 1
43 Eugenios 1 2 3
44 Euphemia 3 4 8 15
45 Eustathios 7 1 8
46 Eustratios 1 9 3 13
47 Euthymios 8 3 1 12
48 Gabdentios 1 1
49 Gabriel 1 1 2
50 George 3 3 16 217 106 62 13 13 6 1 5 445
51 Gregory Thaumatorgos 2 2 8 1 13
52 Gregory Theologian 1 5 1 1 8
53 Helen 1 1 2
54 Hyakinthos 4 3 7
55 lanouarios 1 2 3
56 Imerios 1 1
57 Irene 3 1 4
58 Isauros 1 1 2
59 Isidoros 1 1 2
60 John Chrysostom 2 1 9 48 11 6 1 78
61 John Kalybites 3 3
62 John Prodromos 1 3 1 1 2 10 18 96 35 17 3 2 2 1 192
63 John Theologian 1 4 3 3 4 6 5 26 11 3 9 1 75
64 John Unmercenary 1 1
65 Joseph 1 1
66 Kallinikos 1 1
67 Kodratos 1 1 2
68 Konon 1 1
69 Leo 1 1
70 Luke Evangelist 1 1
(Continued )
71 Luke Stylites 1 1
72 Mardarios 1 1
73 Mark 23 1 24
74 Markianos 1 1
75 Martinakios 1 1
76 Martyrios 1 1
77 Matthew 1 1
78 Menas 2 3 5
79 Menas Kallikelados 2 2
80 Menignos 2 2
81 Methodios 1 1 2
82 Michael 5 4 2 2 2 31 31 285 88 34 2 7 3 1 5 502
83 Michael of Sinai 1 1
84 Moses 1 1
85 Myron 2 1 3
86 Nicholas 3 1 2 1 3 44 70 368 93 61 2 7 9 664
87 Nikephoros 5 1 6
88 Niketas 1 2 13 2 1 19
89 Ouranios 1 1
90 Orestes 1 1
91 Panteleimon 4 5 42 9 3 63
92 Parthenios 2 2
93 Paul 10 8 17 4 1 1 1 2 18 8 5 1 1 77
94 Paul Bishop 1 1
95 Peter 11 8 10 4 1 1 1 2 2 23 12 8 1 1 85
96 Philagrios 1 1
97 Philip 2 5 1 1 9
98 Platon 2 2
99 Polycarp 1 1 1 1 4
100 Polyeuktos 1 1
101 Porphyrios 1 1
102 Prochoros 1 1
103 Prokopios 3 9 2 1 15
104 Romanos 1 1
105 Sabbas 2 4 3 9
106 Sampson 2 3 5
107 Samuel 1 2 3
108 Sergios 1 1 1 3
109 Sisinnios 1 1
110 Sophia 5 8 6 1 20
111 Spyridon 1 2 3
112 Stephen 2 3 2 27 7 7 1 49
113 Stephen Younger 1 4 5
114 Symeon Stylites 1 2 3 1 8 1 1 17
115 Tarasios 1 1
116 Theagenes 2 2
117 Thekla 2 2 1 5
118 Theodora 1 2 3
119 Theodore 2 14 1 2 3 1 1 16 17 199 93 50 19 18 5 5 446
120 Theodosios 2 2 4
(Continued )
121 Theophanes 4 1 5
122 Theopiste 1 1
123 Thomas 2 1 3 5 4 1 1 17
124 Three Youths 1 1 2
125 Titos 2 1 2 2 7
126 Tryphon 1 1 2
127 Zacharias 2 2
128 Zenais 1 1
129 Zotikos 1 1
At first glance, this number seems large, especially compared to the limited
number of saints found on coins where they do not appear until the Komnenian
dynasty and are restricted to images of the Archangel Michael, the military saints
and Constantine.28 The number of 129 seen on the seals, however, is actually
a small fraction of approximately 3,800 saints listed in the Byzantine Hagiolo
gion,29 that is, roughly 3.4%; or 4.3% of the approximately 3,000 holy figures
listed in the index to the 10th-century Synaxarion of Constantinople;30 or 5.2%
of the estimated 2,500 saints celebrated in the 10th-century typikon of the Great
Church;31 or 6.5% of the close to 2,000 saints represented in the BHG.32 Obviously
these saints depicted on the seals reflect either strong cult tradition or the personal
piety of their owners. These statistical findings correspond to Otto Meinardus’s
study of the cult of relics of saints of the Orthodox Church in which he determined
that of the Hagiologion’s approximately 3,800 saints, the relics of just 475 saints,
or 12.5%, were the focus of veneration.33 Anthony Cutler observed a similar phe
nomenon of relatively few different saints on ivory carvings, small objects also
associated with the realm of private devotions.34 More recently Paul Halsall, in his
analysis of documentary evidence regarding the relative popularity of Byzantine
saints, reached analogous conclusions: the cult of saints was limited in practice to
a very small number of holy individuals.35
28 P. GRIERSON, Byzantine Coins, Berkeley, 1982, p. 220. The same author, however, in A. R.
BELLINGER and P. GRIERSON, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Col
lection and in the Whittemore Collection, Washington, DC, 1973, III:2, p. 523–524 and pl. xxxv,
nos. 2.1 and 2.2, demonstrates that as early as 912–913, the emperor Alexander issued solidi that
depicted himself crowned by a bearded saint wearing a mantle and carrying a cross-staff, most
likely representing John the Baptist (whom Grierson incorrectly identifies as St. Alexander). The
identification of this figure as the Forerunner is also made by C. JOLIVET-LÉVY, L’image du
pouvoir dans l’art byzantin à l’époque de la dynastie macédonienne (867–1056), in Byzantion, 57
(1987), p. 447–448, fig. 3.
29 O. MEINARDUS, A Study of the Relics of Saints of the Greek Orthodox Church, in Oriens chris
tianus, 54 (1970), p. 132, provides the total number of saints drawn from S. EUSTRATIADES,
Ἁγιολόγιον τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλεσίας, Athens, 1935. From this total, however, Eustratiades, p.
ix-xviii, records 188 saints that were unknown to Nikodemos the Hagioreites; 20 neomartyrs; and
48 saints restricted to Cyprus. Even when taking these corrections into account, the number of
different saints depicted on the seals remains a very small percentage of the total class of Byzantine
holy men and women: 3.6%.
30 Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae: Propylaeum ad Acta sanctorum Novembris, ed. H.
DELEHAYE, Brussels, 1902, col. 1041–1180.
31 J. MATEOS, Le Typicon de la Grande Église, II, Rome, 1963, p. 232–264.
32 Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca, 3rd ed., ed. F. HALKIN, Brussels, 1957.
33 MEINARDUS, Relics of the Saints, p. 132.
34 A. CUTLER, The Hand of the Master: Craftsmanship, Ivory, and Society in Byzantium (9th-11th
Centuries), Princeton, 1994, p. 250.
35 P. HALSALL, Women’s Bodies, Men’s Souls: Sanctity and Gender in Byzantium, Ph. D. Disserta
tion, Fordham University, 1999, p. 26–27, 32–33, 41, 48, 50 and 261. His study includes numerous
charts providing insight into the relative popularity of a large number of saints and on p. 300, n. 18,
65
Graph 3.3 Frequency of Seals with Images of Saints Per Century
The bar graph in Graph 3.3 provides the frequency of seals with saints’ images
by century. Since the total number of surviving seals with religious figural iconog
raphy varies for each period, the percentage of those bearing depictions of saints
among this total for each century must be taken into account in order to interpret
the raw data more meaningfully. Graph 3.4 sets forth the percentages of seals with
images of saints from among those seals bearing images of Christ, the Virgin,
saints and Christological scenes.
As Graphs 3.1–3.4 indicate, figures of saints, and all religious figures, make
their sphragistic debut in the 6th century. This corresponds with general trends
observable elsewhere in Byzantine art. It was this period, more specifically from
the second half of the 6th century and into the 7th, that witnessed a significant
increase in the production and use of holy images in Byzantine society.36
he offers slightly different numbers gleaned from the Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae
(=SCP) and the BHG but with similar conclusions as those in the present paper.
36 The fundamental paradigm of this chronology is that of E. KITZINGER, The Cult of Images
Before Iconoclasm, in DOP, 8 (1954), p. 83–150 and idem, Byzantine Art in the Period Between
Justinian and Iconoclasm, in Berichte zum XI. internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress, München
1958, Munich, 1958, IV/1, p. 1–50. See also AV. CAMERON, Images of Authority: Elites and
Icons in Late Sixth-Century Byzantium, in Past and Present, 84 (1979), p. 3–35; eadem, The Lan
guage of Images: The Rise of Icons and Christian Representation, in The Church and the Arts, ed.
D. WOOD, Cambridge, 1992, p. 1–42; and H. BELTING, Likeness and Presence: A History of the
Image Before the Era of Art, Chicago, 1994, p. 78–101. For various reconsiderations of Kitzinger’s
thesis, see C. MURRAY, Art and the Early Church, in Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 28:2,
1977, p. 303–345; eadem, Le problème de l’iconophilie et les premiers siècles chrétiens, in Nicée II,
66
Graph 3.4 Seals with Images of Saints as Percentages of Total Iconographic Seals
The employment of religious figures as motifs on smaller objects of domestic

and private use is closer to the realm of seals themselves. Such images appear on
rings, belts, armbands, pilgrims’ ampullae and eulogiai of the 6th and 7th cen
turies.37 An illustrative example is a 6th/7th-century seal bearing the image of a
standing, bearded military saint, most likely Theodore38 and a late 6th-century
gold ring displaying a very similar figure.39 It has been demonstrated that the
images found on pilgrim souvenirs, jewelry and even clothing were expected to
provide medicinal and apotropaic benefits for their owners.40 An episode recorded
in the 7th-century collection of the Miracles of St. Artemios suggests that similar
787–1987: Douze siècles d’images religieuses, Paris, 1987, p. 39–49; L. BRUBAKER, Icons
Before Iconoclasm?, in Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 45
(1998), p. 1215–1254; and C. BARBER, Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in
Byantine Iconoclasm, Princeton, 2002, p. 13–37.
37 See BARBER, Figure and Likeness, p. 13–37 and VIKAN, Sacred Images and Sacred Power,
passim.
38 ZACOS and A. VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1283b.
39 M. ROSS, Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Mediaeval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks
Collection, II, Washington, DC, 1965, no. 179N. The comparison of similar seals and the same
ring has also been made by NESBITT, Apotropaic Devices, p. 110–111, fig. 13.14–13.16.
40 BARBER, Figure and Likeness, p. 13–37 and VIKAN, Sacred Images and Sacred Power; passim.
For images on clothing, see H. MAGUIRE, Magic and the Christian Image, in Byzantine Magic,
ed. H. MAGUIRE, Washington, DC, 1995, p. 51–72 and idem, The Icons of Their Bodies, p. 118–
137. For discussion of images and apotropaic devices particularly associated with women’s health
issues, see M. FULGHUM HEINTZ, Health: Magic, Medicine, and Prayer, in Byzantine Women
67
benefits may have been expected from religious images on lead seals. In Miracle
16, one reads how a man suffering from a hernia was cured by applying to his
genitals melted wax from an impression made by a seal bearing the image of St.
Artemios.41 Recently, John Nesbitt has demonstrated the use of both non-Chris
tian and Christian figures as apotropaic devices on lead seals.42 Thus, religious
figural images began to be placed on seals at a time when such images in general
proliferated and acquired the aspects of sacred character.
For the 6th century, the figures of saints comprise 52.9% of the sample of seals
that bear religious figural iconography. The second largest percentage for this
century is that of the Virgin, whose image comprises 51.7% of the iconographic
seals.43 It should be noted, however, that iconographic seals of the 6th century
comprise just 15.7% of the total number of seals for this period, which is a small
amount. Thus, the relatively small number of iconographic seals are roughly
evenly divided between images of the Virgin and a group of various saints. For the
7th/8th century, the percentage of seals with saints’ images rises to 69.2%. These
data parallel an interest in hagiographic literature that flourished and increased
after the 6th century.44 Claudia Rapp describes the 7th century not only as an early
period of gathering and collecting saints’ lives but also as a time of early literary
reworking or metaphraseis of older hagiographic texts.45
These observations, however, must be couched in the fact that only a small
fraction of seals from these periods bears figural iconography as seen in Graph
3.2, which exhibits for the 7th/8th century just 12.1% of the seals bears figural
images. From the 6th to the 6th/7th century, the ratio of iconographic seals rises
by an 82.6% increase: from 15.7% to 28.6%. At one level, these data appear to
support Kitzinger’s thesis that image production dramatically increased in the
and Their World, ed. I. KALAVREZOU, Cambridge, MA and New Haven, CT, 2003, p. 275–281
and nos. 164–186.
41 The Miracles of St. Artemios, p. 106–109. See also VIKAN, Art, Medicine and Magic in Early
Byzantium, p. 73, note 45. BRUBAKER, Icons Before Iconoclasm?, p. 1238–1239, when discuss
ing this miracle, regards the image on this seal as of secondary importance in comparison to the
material substance of the wax that had been sanctified by contact with the saint. Yet, it is significant
that the wax seal bore an image and not just an inscription as many contemporary seals do, and the
event is said to have taken place at a time when holy figures are more frequently adopted for use
on jewelry, pilgrim’s tokens and apotropaic devices. See notes 37 supra and 40.
42 NESBITT, Apotropaic Devices, p. 107–113.
43 It should be noted that percentages totaling greater than 100% reflect the phenomenon of one seal
bearing images of more than one saint or the Virgin and a saint (or saints).
44 H.-G. BECK, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, Munich, 1977, p. 270;
L. RYDÉN, New Forms of Hagiography: Heroes and Saints, in 17th International Byzantine
Congress, Major Papers, Dumbarton Oaks/Georgetown University, Washington, DC, August 3–8,
1986, New Rochelle NY, 1986, p. 538; J. HALDON, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, Cam
bridge, 1997 (rev. ed.), p. 425–435; and idem, Supplementary Essay, in The Miracles of St. Arte
mios, p. 38–39.
45 C. RAPP, Byzantine Hagiographers as Antiquarians, Seventh to Tenth Centuries, in BF, 21 (1995),
p. 32–44.
68
late 6th and 7th centuries.46 But the sphragistic ratio declines afterwards, indicat
ing very low percentages for iconographic seals in general. If these values accu
rately serve as an index to the image-producing activity of this society, then the
evidence of the seals indicates that the general use of images in pre-Iconoclastic
Byzantium was not widespread. Kitzinger’s opinion regarding a drastic loss of
objects under Iconoclasm may well be overstated.47 The sphragistic data cor
roborate both Hans-Georg Thümmel’s48 and Leslie Brubaker’s49 criticism of
Kitzinger’s paradigm and conclude that although the late 6th-early 7th century
was a seminal point in the acceptance and expansion of religious imagery, the
pre-Iconoclastic period witnessed only a limited and restricted use of images.
Since the overall low percentage of iconographic seals in the pre-Iconoclastic
centuries indicates a low level of image production in the wider culture, the
sphragistic data also lend support to the various scholars who conclude that
there was not a large-scale and systematic destruction of sacred art during the
years of Iconoclasm.50
With the onset of Iconoclasm in the second quarter of the 8th century, the
percentage of seals with portraits of saints falls (as does the total percentage
of iconographic seals in general) and continues to fall through the 9th century.
Simultaneously, however, though the total percentage of iconographic seals for
this period diminishes, that of the single largest other iconographic group, seals
bearing the image of the Virgin, increases, as demonstrated in Graph 3.5.
Graphs 3.4 and 3.5 indicate, especially from the 8th through the 10th/11th cen
turies, that the percentages of iconographic seals bearing images of the saints and
the Virgin develop inversely. These fluctuating distributional patterns exhibit the
phenomenon of competing cults. Again, it must be emphasized that for the 8th and
8th/9th centuries, Graph 3.1 demonstrates that the total sample of iconographic
seals is very small, and from Graph 3.2, one learns that the percentage of icono
graphic seals in general is extremely low: 4.2% and 4%, respectively. Yet, the
46 See note 36, supra.

47 KITZINGER, Byzantine Art in the Period Between Justinian and Iconoclasm, p. 2, believed that
the loss to have been “tremendous.”
48 H.-G. THÜMMEL, Die Frühgeschicte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre: Texte und Untersuchungen
zur Zeit vor dem Bilderstreit, Berlin, 1992, p. 103–115 and 199–204.
49 BRUBAKER, Icons Before Iconoclasm?, p. 1215–1254. BARBER, Figure and Likeness, p. 14–15
and 39, however, considers this period to be image rich.
50 For eample, C. MANGO, Historical Introduction, in Iconoclasm, ed. A. BRYER and J. HERRIN,
Birmingham, 1977, p. 3–6; S. GERO, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Constantine
V With Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources, Louvain, 1977, p. 113–117, 121 and 167;
P. SPECK, Ikonoklasmus und die Anfänge der makedonischen Renaissance, in Varia, I, Poikila
Byzantina IV, Bonn, 1984, p. 175–210; M.-F. AUZÉPY, La destruction de l’icone du Christ de
la Chalcé par Leon III: Propagande ou réalité?, in Byzantion, 60, 1990, p. 445–492; P. KAR
LIN-HAYTER, The ‘Age of Iconoclasm’?, in La spiritualité de l’univers byzantin dans le verbe et
l’image: Hommages offerts à Edmond Voordeckers à l’occasion de son éméritat, ed. K. DEMEON
and J. VEREECKEN, Turnhout, 1997, p. 137–149.
69
Graph 3.5 Percentage of Iconographic Seals with Image of the Virgin
relative ratios of seals with an image of the Virgin and those with saints permit
the discussion.
The percentile distributions correspond to trends known from historical and art
historical sources.51 During the period of Iconoclasm (c.730–787 and 815–843),
considerable debate centered on the intercessory powers of both the Virgin and
the saints, in addition to the acceptability of their images.52 According to Alex
ander Kazhdan, the most likely cause of the clash between Leo III and Patriarch
Germanos in 730 was the nature of the veneration of the Mother of God and
the role that she played in the life of the empire.53 Earlier in his reign, this same
emperor had placed an image of the Theotokos on his seals, as had his predeces
sors since Justinian I.54 Yet, when Leo III banned images, he removed her figure
from his seals, as did his successors until Nikephoros I.55
51 For discussion of the written and material sources related to the period of Iconoclasm, see Byzan
tium in the Iconoclast Era (ca 680–850).
52 S. GERO, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Constantine V: With Particular Attention
to the Oriental Sources, Louvain, 1977, p. 143–151; A. GIAKALIS, Images of the Divine: The
Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Leiden, 1994, p. 10, 22, 28, 46–49 and 101,
who argues that while the Iconoclasts would not tolerate images of the Theotokos and the saints,
they did, nonetheless, acknowledge their roles as intercessors; and N. TSIRONIS, The Mother of
God in the Iconoclastic Controversy, in Mother of God: Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine
Art, ed. M. VASSILAKI, Milan, 2000, p. 27–39.
53 ODB, II, p. 846. See also TSIRONIS, The Mother of God in the Iconoclastic Controversy, p. 36.
54 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, nos. 4–33.
55 Ibid., nos. 34bis a-42.
70
The Iconophiles, on the other hand, were quick to defend both the Virgin’s
intercessory role and her images.56 They reasoned that the Theotokos must be
revered since it was from her that Christ assumed flesh, thus his body was cir
cumscribable and therefore it could be depicted. For the Iconophile, any hostility
towards the venerable icons was therefore an attack against the Theotokos: she
became identified with the legitimacy of image veneration.
Unsurprisingly, the majority of seals assigned by Zacos and Veglerey to the
years of the Iconophile interlude of 787–815, 34 of 39 seals, or 87.2%, bear an
image of the Virgin and Child.57 After the final victory of the Iconophiles in 843,
Patriarch Methodios placed the image of the Theotokos on his seals, as would his
successors until the end of the empire.58 Understandably, as the overall number of
iconographic seals declined during the 8th and 8th/9th centuries, the percentage
of those depicting the figure of the Virgin increased. The 8th/9th century (the
Iconophile interlude) is critical since during this period the percentage reached its
highest point, 77.1%. The representation of the Theotokos, not the image Christ,
became the Iconophile emblem par excellence.59 The evidence of the seals for this
chronological period both reflects this outcome of the Iconoclastic controversy
and the relegation of the saints to a secondary status.
With the liquidation of Iconoclasm in the mid-9th century, the number and
percentage of iconographic seals rises. Although the percentages for the 8th/9th
and 9th centuries are very low, the 9th-century ratio more than doubles: from 4%
to 9%. Of the 107 iconographic seals of the 9th century, 72, or 67.3%, belong to
emperors, patriarchs and other high-ranking ecclesiastical hierarchs. These lead
ing figures of society would be most sensitive to the debate over images, and with
the Triumph of Orthodoxy they would be the first to adopt images for their seals
indicating the new political reality. These findings support the work of Patricia
Karlin-Hayter in her discussion of the expediency of competing groups adopting
new Iconophile policies.60
As the overall percentage of iconographic seals rises after Iconoclasm, the per
centage of saints selected for sphragistic iconography increases from the 9th cen
tury to the 9th/10th century. By contrast, during the same period the percentage of
56 For discussion of the Synod and the Iconophile writers, with reference to their Marian defenses,
see K. PARRY, Depicting the Word: Byzantine Iconophile Thought of the Eighth and Ninth Cen
turies, Leiden, 1996, p. 70–80, 125–132 and 191–201; TSIRONIS, The Mother of God in the
Iconoclastic Controversy, p. 27–39; and BARBER, Figure and Likeness, p. 68–70.
57 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals I:2, no. 1327. See also nos. 1325–1349A and I:3,
nos. 2979–2985.
58 G. ZACOS, Byzantine Lead Seals II, ed. J. NESBITT, Berne, 1984, no. 5 and nos. 7–54. The only
exception is that of his immediate successor, Ignatios, no. 6.
59 The sphragistic evidence supports a similar view articulated by A. WEYL CARR, Thoughts on the
Economy of the Image of Mary, in Theology Today, 56:3 (1999), p. 359–378.
60 P. KARLIN-HAYTER, Icon-Veneration: Significance of the Restoration of Orthodoxy?, in Novum
Millennium: Studies on Byzantine History and Culture Dedicated to Paul Speck, ed. C. SODE and
S. TAKÁCS, Aldershot, 2001, p. 171–184.
71
representations of the Virgin begins to fall, and this decline continues through the
10th/11th century. With the Iconophile triumph and the passing of time, the imme
diate concerns of the image-debate receded and the concentrated focus on the
image of the Theotokos as the visual proclamation and defense of icons gradually
waned. Long ago, Louis Mariès characterized the 9th century as a time when the
devotion to the saints received more attention as the reading of their lives became
part of the liturgical office.61
According to Rapp, the 9th century also witnessed a revival in interest in hagi
ographical literature with the development of early menologia and metaphrastic
reworkings.62 More recently, Stephanos Efthymiadis also has demonstrated that
renewed interest in hagiography, and the reworking of older Passions began in the
9th century.63 Furthermore, Nancy Ševčenko has also discussed how in the mid-
9th century Joseph the Hymnographer composed hundreds of canons in honor of
individual saints, an endeavor parallel to the revising of saints’ lives at this time.64
From the 9th to the 11th centuries, the ratio of iconographic seals as a whole
continues to climb. It is only at the 10th-century interval that the value of 29.2%
first surpasses any of the earlier periods. These data confirm Jeffrey Anderson’s
suggestion that icons began to be common objects only in the 10th century, and
that in the pre-Iconoclastic period, they were not frequently encountered.65
The largest percentage jump in seals with images of saints, however, is from
the 9th/10th century to that of the 10th: from 28.4% to 58.5%, that is, more than
100%. This increase may also be explained within the context of 10th-century
events. In the 10th century the systematic collecting and editing of saints’ vitae
were undertaken by such individuals as Niketas David the Paphlagonian66 and
Symeon Metaphrastes.67 Moreover, the 10th century witnessed the creation of the
Synaxarion of Constantinople that listed one or more hagiographic profiles for
each day of the calendar year.68
61 L. MARIÈS, L’irruption des saints dans l’illustration des psautiers byzantins, in AB, 68 (1950),
p. 159. See also S. DER NERSESSIAN, L’illustration des psautiers grecs du moyen âge, II, Paris,
1970, p. 91.
62 RAPP, Byzantine Hagiographers, p. 33–36.
63 S. EFTHYMIADIS, The Byzantine Hagiographer and His Audience in the Ninth and Tenth Cen
turies, in Metaphrasis, p. 59–80.
64 N. ŠEVČENKO, Canon and Calendar: The Role of a Ninth-Century Hymnographer in Shaping the
Celebration of the Saints, in Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive, ed. L. BRUBAKER,
Aldershot, p. 101–114.
65 J. ANDERSON, The Byzantine Panel Portriat Before and After Iconoclasm, in The Sacred Image
East and West, ed. R. OUSTERHOUT and L. BRUBAKER, Urbana and Chicago, 1995, p. 35.
66 Concerning the identity of Niketas and his literary career, see R. JENKINS, A Note on Nicetas
David Paphlago and the Vita Ignatii, in DOP, 19 (1965), p. 241–247 (repr. in Studies on Byzantine
History of the 9th and 10th Centuries, ed. D. OBOLENSKY, London, 1970) and ODB, III, p. 1480.
67 ŠEVČENKO, Metaphrastian Menologion, p. 1–10; HØGEL, Symeon Metaphrastes, p. 61–126;
and idem, Hagiography Under the Macedonians: The Two Recensions of the Metaphrastic
Menologion, in Byzantium in the Year 1000, ed. P. MAGDALINO, Leiden, 2003, p. 217–232.
68 SCP, passim and HØGEL, Hagiography, p. 220.
72
Other events of the 10th century also offer a context in which to further
understand the increased sigillographic attention given to the saints at this time.
The period was one of Byzantine recovery from Arab control of eastern prov
inces under the leadership of such military emperors as Nikephoros II Phokas
(963–969), John I Tzimiskes (969–976) and Basil II (976–1025). The recovery
reopened the regions of Cappadocia, other areas of Asia Minor, Syria and the
Holy Land for the safe travel of pilgrims to saints’ shrines.69 Pilgrimage stimu
lated a renewed interest in the cult of saints and a desire for their artistic represen
tation. A clear example of this phenomenon appears in Chart 3.1 regarding seals
with the image of Symeon Stylites. Two seals from the pre-Iconoclastic period
bear his image, and his representation does not return to sphragistic iconography
until the 10th century and finds its greatest frequency in the 11th century.70 This
new and expanded mobility of pilgrims led as well to more frequent translation
of saints’ relics. In a chronological list of arrivals of relics in Constantinople pre
pared by Nancy Ševčenko, the 10th century appears to be the most active period:
10 translations out of 31 translations listed for the 4th through the 11th centuries.71
The bar graph in Graph 3.4 displays a significant increase in the percentage
of seals bearing images of saints for the next chronological phase, the 10th/11th
century. This is followed by a decline for the 11th and 11th/12th centuries, which
exhibit very similar patterns, and then a further decline for the 12th century. This
evidence also reflects trends found in other media. Mariès, in studying images
found in the marginal psalters, described an “irruption of saints” in the Theodore
Psalter of 1066 as compared to earlier surviving examples of these psalters.72
69 For pilgrimage to the shrine of John the Theologian at Ephesos during the middle Byzantine
period, see C. FOSS, Ephesus After Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzantine and Turkish City, Cam
bridge, 1979, p. 117–129. See also MALAMUT, Sur la route des saints byzantins, p. 43 and 240.
For the shrine of Nicholas in Myra, see C. FOSS, The Lycian Coast in the Byzantine Age, in DOP,
48 (1994), p. 34 (repr. in his Cities, Fortresses and Villages of Byzantine Asia Minor, Aldershot,
1996). More recently, C. FOSS, Pilgrimage in Medieval Asia Minor, in DOP, 56 (2002), p. 129–
151, has shown that travel to various saints’ shrines in Asia Minor during the Middle Byzantine
period occurred to a greater extent than is usually assumed, especially for such sites as Ephesos,
Chonai, Euchaita, Nicaea, Myra, Mount Olympos, Euchaneia and Caesarea. For discussion of
12th-century pilgrimage to the Holy Land, see A. JOTISCHKY, History and Memory as Factors
in Greek Orthodox Pilgrimage to the Holy Land Under Crusader Rule, in The Holy Land, Holy
Lands, and Christian History, ed. R. SWANSON, Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2000, p. 110–122.
70 A parallel phenomenon is seen with eulogiai and medallions from the shrine of Symeon the Stylite
the Younger near Antioch. See VIKAN, Byzantine Pilgrimage Art, p. 27–40, fig. 22, 24, 25 and
30 and IDEM, Icons and Icon Piety, p. 572 and 576, fig. 3 and 9. For some other examples, see
J.-P. SODINI, Nouvelles eulogies de Syméon, in Les saints et leur sanctuaire à Byzance, p. 25–33
and pl. 1–4. For a discussion of the middle Byzantine iconography of this saint, see C. JOL
IVET-LÉVY, Contribution à l’étude de l’iconographie mésobyzantine des deux Syméon Stylites,
in Les saints et leur sanctuaire à Byzance, p. 35–47 and pl. 1–6.
71 I wish to thank Nancy Ševčenko for providing me with this data from her ongoing work.
72 MARIÈS, L’irruption des saints, p. 153–162. In his investigation of liturgical influences upon
the miniatures of the marginal psalters, A. CUTLER, Liturgical Strata in the Marginal Psalters,
in DOP, 34/35 (1982), p. 29, recognized an “irruption of liturgists” among the figures of the
73
Cutler and Spieser observed that this “irruption” seen in the Theodore Psalter
finds a parallel in the abundance of hagiographic representations in the mosaics
and frescoes of such churches as Hosios Loukas.73 In respect of the raw num
bers, as seen in Graphs 3.1 and 3.3, an “irruption of iconographic seals” and an
“irruption of hagiographic seals,” respectively, may now be added to the seis
mic developments of the 11th century. If the percentage of the seals is taken
into consideration, as presented in Graphs 3.2 and 3.4, however, the increase is
less explosive. From the 9th through the 11th centuries, the percentage of icono
graphic seals continuously rises, but with the more pronounced increase seen for
hagiographic seals instead in the 10th century. This more gradual trend confirms
Der Nersessian’s,74 Christopher Walter’s,75 and Anderson’s76 criticism of Mariès’
sudden “irruption of saints” which was based upon only a small number of sur
viving manuscripts.
A gradual trend is also reflected in the more recent work of Rapp77 and Efthy
miades,78 who demonstrate that extensive hagiographical reworkings of older
passions began much earlier, in the 7th century and in the second half of the 9th
century, clearly anticipating the revisions of the Metaphrastian menologion and
the compilations of the Synaxarion of Constantinople. Although the 10th/11th
century is a watershed mark for the depiction of saints on seals, the critical turn
ing point is the 10th century, a time when the largest percentile increase occurred,
from 28.4% to 58.5%, that is, more than a 100% increment. The “irruption of
saints” was actually a 10th-century phenomenon, further calling into question
Mariès’ findings. Visual parallels to this proliferation of hagiographic figures also
appear prior to the mosaics and frescoes of Hosios Loukas. They are found in the
Theodore Psalter yet offered criticism of Mariès’ methodology, p. 27–28. For additional criticism
of earlier methodologies applied to the study of the marginal psalters, see J. ANDERSON, On the
Nature of the Theodore Psalter, in Art Bulletin, 70: 4 (1988), p. 550–556.
73 A. CUTLER and J.-M. SPIESER, Byzance médiévale 700–1204, Paris, 1996, p. 322. For the
11th-century date for Hosios Loukas and the literature concerning this monument, see N.
OIKONOMIDES, The First Century of the Monastery of Hosios Loukas, in DOP, 46 (1992),
p. 245–255. C. CONNOR, Art and Miracles in Medieval Byzantium, Princeton, 1991, p. 122,
assigned the building and its decoration to the second half of the 10th century. For criticism of
Connor’s 10th-century dating, see OIKONOMIDES, op. cit., p. 249 and 251; N. ŠEVČENKO,
Review of Art and Miracles in Medieval Byzantium, in Speculum, 68:4 (1993), p. 1086–1090; and
N. CHATZIDAKIS, Review of Art and Miracles in Medieval Byzantium, in Burlington Magazine,
136,1090 (1994), p. 30–31.
74 DER NERSESSIAN, L’illustration des psautiers grecs, p. 89.
75 C. WALTER, Art and Ritual of the Byzantine Church, London, 1982, p. 57–58 and idem, The
Iconographical Programme of the Barberini Psalter, in The Barberini Psalter Codex Vaticanus
Barberinianus Graecus 372, Introduction and Commentary by J. ANDERSON, P. CANART and
C. WALTER, Zürich, 1989, p. 43, 46, 48, and 51–52.
76 ANDERSON, Theodore Psalter, p. 566.
77 RAPP, Byzantine Hagiographers, p. 31–44.
78 EFTHYMIADES, The Byzantine Hagiographer and his Audience in the Ninth and Tenth Centu
ries, p. 59–80.
74
10th-century ivory triptychs depicting the Deesis amidst numerous saints,79 and
the roughly contemporary frescoes of the New Church of Tokali Kilise where
images of saints abound.80
These hagiographic sphragistic highpoints of the 10th and 10th/11th centuries
followed by the slightly lower percentages of the 11th and 11th/12th centuries
parallel the history of the Metaphrastian menologion. Of the 30 different saints
found on 10th-century seals, 23, or 76.7%, are included in the Metaphrastian
menologion. From the 10th/11th century, 30 of the 39 saints, or 76.9%, are also
Metaphrastian, while among the 81 11th-century saints depicted on seals, 55, or
67.9%, are recorded in the Metaphrastian vitae. For the 11th/12th century, 33 of
38, or 86.8%, are from the Metaphrastian tradition, while in the 12th century, 29
of 43, or 67.4%, follow this edition. These ratios indicate a high correspondence
between the appearance of the Metaphrastian text in the 10th century and its con
tinued popularity into the 11th. Although the percentage of seals bearing images
of saints continued to decline in the 12th century, 29 of the 43 different saints
appearing on these seals, or 67.4%, are Metaphrastian.
The data likewise demonstrate that from the 9th/10th through the 11th century,
an ever greater number of different saints are represented on seals: from 12 to 30
to 39 and ultimately to 81 as the climax in the 11th century. These numbers also
reflect the history of the Metaphrastian menologion. The 11th century witnessed
an increase in the available editions of the 10th-century text, testifying to a broad
ening interest in the lives of saints.81 Furthermore, among the 43 illustrated man
uscripts of the Metaphrastian menologion, almost all belong to the second half of
the 11th century.82
At this point some further discussion should be devoted to the numbers
related to 11th-century seals in general. For reasons mentioned earlier, the
largest number of iconographic seals in this study belong to the 11th cen
tury. As seen in Graph 3.2, what is more interesting is the substantial per
centage of seals that are iconographic in the 11th century, and the percentage
remains roughly the same through the 12th century: 81.9% and 83%, respec
tively. Kazhdan and Epstein described the 11th and 12th centuries as a time
of increasing individualism and atomism.83 The development of private
79 For the 10th-century dating of these triptychs, see CUTLER, The Hand of the Master, p. 221. For
a later dating of the Vatican and Paris pieces, see The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the
Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843–1261, ed. H. EVANS and W. WIXOM, New York, 1997, nos. 79
and 80, respectively.
80 For this monument, see A. EPSTEIN, Tokali Kilise: Tenth-Century Metropolitan Art in Byzantine
Cappadocia, Washington, DC, 1986.
81 A. EHRHARD, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der
griechischen Kirche, II, Leipzig, 1938, p. 312; ŠEVČENKO, Metaphrastian Menologion, p. 3–4;
and HØGEL, Symeon Metaphrastes, p. 150–156.
82 ŠEVČENKO, Metaphrastian Menologion, p. 3. See also, HØGEL, Symeon Metaphrastes,
p. 151–152.
83 KAZHDAN and EPSTEIN, Change in Byzantine Culture, p. 86–87 and 233.
75
devotional practices was encouraged whereby icons in churches were made

more accessible and immediate through the use of proskynetaria, reflecting
greater intimacy with images of the Virgin and saints.84 Icons proliferated in
church interiors receiving special veneration and ceremonial lighting and at
this time became part of liturgical processions in addition to crosses and Gos
pel books.85 In discussing some miniatures in the Theodore Psalter of 1066,
Walter describes various figures who are represented as offering their prayers
to icons and that such depictions first appear in the 11th century.86 Also in
the 11th century, such fictive icons are included in the fresco decorations of
church sanctuaries as further indication of their more common presence and
expectation on the part of the beholder.87 In addition, this is the period of
Symeon “the New Theologian” whose teachings emphasized personal and
individual efforts towards salvation, often against the corporate practices and
authority of the official Church.88 Symeon himself created a controversy when
he ordered images made of his own spiritual father, Symeon Eulabes, who was
not officially recognized as a saint.89
This growing emphasis on personal piety may have stimulated the frequent
practice of choosing a religious image for one’s seal. With the great increase of
individuals filling the newly expanded bureaucracies of the civil, military and
ecclesiastical administrations throughout the provinces of the empire, it appears
that the greater demand in seal production also created a greater freedom in the
owners’ iconographic choice for their seals. This intimate and personal aspect of
sigillographic iconography again finds a parallel in similar, small contemporary
objects such as amulets. The use of such protective devices is known to have
continued into the middle Byzantine period, and a number of these amulets, espe
cially the lead examples, strongly resemble seals with their images of Christ, the
Virgin and saints and their accompanying invocative prayers.90 Michael Psellos
84 Ibid., 97. See also BELTING, Likeness and Presence, p. 225–233 and CUTLER and SPIESER,
Byzance, p. 313–316 and 389.
85 N. ŠEVČENKO, Icons in the Liturgy, in DOP, 45 (1991), p. 50–57 and BELTING, Likeness and
Presence, p. 225–249.
86 C. WALTER, ‘Latter-Day’ Saints in the Model for the London and Barberini Psalters, in REB, 46
(1988), p. 213.
87 ANDERSON, Byzantine Panel Portrait, p. 35–36 and S. GERSTEL, Beholding the Sacred Mys
teries: Programs of the Byzantine Sanctuary, Seattle, 1999, p. 18, 23 and 37.
88 KAZHDAN and EPSTEIN, Change in Byzantine Culture, p. 14 and 90–93 and G. PODSKALSKY,
Religion and Religious Life in Eleventh-Century Byzantium, in Byzantine Studies: Essays, p. 153–
173, who notes that Symeon was not alone in expressing these beliefs but rather was one expres
sion of this spiritual current of this period.
89 C. BARBER, Icon and Portrait in the Trial of Symeon the New Theologian, in Icon and Word: The
Power of Images in Byzantium, ed. A. EASTMOND and L. JAMES, Aldershot, 2003, p. 25–33.
90 A. GRABAR, Amulettes byzantines du moyen âge, in Mélanges d’histoire des religions offerts à
Henri-Charles Puech, ed. A. GUILLAUMONT and E.-M. LAPERROUSAZ, Paris, 1974, p. 531–
541 and J. SPIER, Medieval Byzantine Magical Amulets and Tehir Tradition, in Journal of the
Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 56 (1993), p. 26–52.
76
and John Italos provide examples that magical and amuletic practices were still
current in the 11th century, even among the intellectual elite.91
Thus, by the 11th century, it was expected or had become almost de riguer to
place a religious figure on one’s seal as a means of expressing some aspect of the
owner’s personal devotions. Cutler and Spieser have noted that the 11th-century
rise in the production of holy icons in general reflected the increased demand of a
growing number of individuals who looked to images as a means of satisfying a
variety of needs and that this attested to the greater role played by personal piety
in image production.92 The evidence of the seals corroborates their observations.
Images are now seen as essential. By the 11th century, all levels of society turned
to images for guidance and expressing devotions: the Empress Zoe consulted
her icon of Christ Antiphonites;93 pilgrims, local inhabitants, those seeking legal
recourse and even Emperor Alexios I turned to the so-called habitual or usual
miracle (τὸ σύνηθες θαῦμα) involving a Marian icon in the church of the Virgin
of Blachernai;94 and lay confraternities arose and managed the cults of various
celebrated icons.95 The sphragistic data for this period confirms the view of Robin
Cormack, who characterized the 11th century as a period of “iconification.”96
In the 12th century the percentage of seals with saintly images declines. This
trend continues to parallel the course of the Metaphrastian menologion. Not only
are almost all of the illustrated editions products of the 11th century97 but, begin
ning in the 12th century, textual references to the menologia become rare and are
almost exclusively associated with monastic settings.98 Also, the 12th century is
a period characterized by less interest in hagiographic literature. The Komnenian
91 SPIER, Medieval Byzantine Magical Amulets, p. 50. For an amulet described by John Italos and
its use, see Anecdota graeca e codicibus manuscriptis bibliothecarum Oxoniensium, III, ed. J.
CRAMER, Oxford, 1836 (repr. Amsterdam, 1963), p. 190–191. For a discussion of magic and
amuletic practices familiar to the literati in the 11th and 13th centuries, see J. DUFFY, Reactions
of Two Byzantine Intellectuals to the Theory and Practice of Magic: Michael Psellos and Michael
Italikos, in Byzantine Magic, ed. H. MAGUIRE, Washington, DC, 1995, p. 83–98.
92 CUTLER and SPIESER, Byzance, p. 313–316.
93 MICHAEL PSELLOS, Chronographia, ed. E. RENAULD, Paris, 1926, p. 149–150 and BELT
ING, Likeness and Presence, p. 186.
94 J. COTSONIS, The Virgin with the ‘Tongues of Fire’ on Byzantine Lead Seals, in DOP, 48 (1994),
p. 221–227; E. PAPAIOANNOU, The ‘Usual Miracle’ and an Unusual Image, in JÖB, 51 (2001),
p. 177–188; and A. WEYL CARR, Icons and the Object of Pilgrimage in Middle Byzantine Con
stantinople, in DOP, 56 (2002), p. 79–80.
95 N. OIKONOMIDES, The Holy Icons as Asset, in DOP, 45 (1991), p. 40–44 and BELTING, Like
ness and Presence, p. 188–192.
96 R. CORMACK, Painting the Soul: Icons, Death Masks and Shrouds, London, 1997, p. 159.
97 ŠEVČENKO, Metaphrastian Menologion, p. 3 and 7 and HØGEL, Symeon Metaphrastes,
p. 151–152.
98 ŠEVČENKO, Metaphrastian Menologion, p. 4 and HØGEL, Symeon Metaphrastes, p. 154 and
156, where the latter states that after the 11th century discussions and imperial associations of
the Metaphrastian edition decreased although copying and reworking of the collection continued
all through the Byzantine period, with the greatest number still belonging to the 11th and 12th
centuries.
77
era has traditionally been seen as a time when hagiography was out of favor,99 and
this view, with some qualification, is maintained more recently by Paul Magdali
no.100 Few new saints’ lives were now written, and by this time the chorus of saints
appeared to be a closed society whose members belonged to the distant past.101
With the decrease in the percentage of seals with images of saints in the 11th and
12th centuries is the corresponding increase in the percentage of seals bearing an
image of the Virgin, as seen in Graph 3.5. These data parallel a renewed interest in
various aspects of the Theotokos, as seen in the emergence at this time of new types
of Marian imagery and the great Marian cult icons.102 Yet, it should be noted that the
percentages for Marian seals, ranging from 40.5% to 46.4%, do not reach the higher
Marian ratios of the pre-Iconoclastic period. There is now a wider iconographic
repertoire available for the 11th and 12th centuries, reflecting the increased needs
of a larger clientele. These ratios indicate that the Virgin maintains a place of honor,
yet she is also found among the choir of the saints. There are a number of seals that
provide a visual counterpart to this heavenly coexistence. Among the seals that
actually depict the Virgin with other saints, the majority also belong to the 11th and
12th centuries: 43 of 49, or 87.8%. A fine specimen is one that belonged to Michael,
a 12th-century bishop of Rhaidestos, depicting the Virgin flanked by two saints.103
A. Old Testament figures
Chart 3.2 presents the numerical and chronological distribution of Old Testament
figures on our seals. The data in this distribution indicate that the role of Old
Testament figures on lead seals was minor. From the 6th through the 12th centu
ries, only eight different figures out of 129 on our seals, or 6.2%, fall within this
group. The majority of these Old Testament figures either bear the same name as
the owner of the seal or are associated with an institution dedicated to the saint
appearing on the seal. The most popular within this category is Elias (Elijah) the
99 BECK, Kirche und theologische Literatur, p. 271.

100 P. MAGDALINO, The Byzantine Holy Man in the Twelfth Century, in The Byzantine Saint,
p. 51–66 and IDEM, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180, Cambridge, 1993, p. 368.
See also M. ANGOLD, Church and Society in Byzantium Under the Comneni, 1081–1261, Cam
bridge, 1995, p. 371–373. G. GALATARIOTOU, The Making of a Saint: The Life, Times and
Sanctification of Neophytos the Recluse, Cambridge, 1991, p. 95–96, following Magdalino, like
wise regards the 12th and early 13th century as a period in which hagiography did not flourish
and when claims to sanctity were regarded with increased skepticism.
101 MAGDALINO, The Byzantine Holy Man, p. 61 and EFTHYMIADES, The Function of the Holy
Man, p. 158–159, see the 11th century as the time when the official Church was reluctant to rec
ognize new saints.
102 BELTING, Likeness and Presence, p. 281–296; A. WEYL CARR, The Mother of God in
Public, in Mother of God, p. 329–334; and EADEM, Icons and the Object of Pilgrimage,
p. 91–92.
103 J. NESBITT and N. OIKONOMIDES, Catalogue of the Byzantine Lead Seals at Dumbarton
Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, I, Washington, DC, 1991, no. 59.7a.
78
Chart 3.2 Chronological Frequency of Old Testament Figures
OLD 6C 6/7C 7c 7/8c 8c 8/9c 9c 9/10c 10/11c 11c 11/12C 12c TOTAL
TESTAMENT
FIGURES
Aaron 1 1
Daniel 4 1 2 1 8
David 1 1
Elias 1 12 1 14
Moses 1 1
Sampson 2 3 5
Samuel 1 2 3
Three Youths 1 1 2
Chart 3.3 Chronological Frequency of New Testament Figures
NEW 6c 6/7c 7c 7/8c 8c 8/9c 9c 9/10c 10c 10/11c 11c 11/12C 12c TOTAL
TESTAMENT
FIGURES
Andrew 1 11 2 4 18
Barnabas 1 1
John the 1 3 1 1 2 10 18 96 35 17 183
Prodromos
John the 1 4 3 3 4 6 5 25 11 3 65
Theologian
Luke 1 1
Mark 23 1 24
Matthew 1 1
Paul 10 8 17 4 1 1 1 2 18 8 5 75
Peter 11 8 10 4 1 1 1 2 2 23 12 8 83
Philip 2 5 1 1 9
Stephen 2 3 2 27 7 7 48
Thomas 2 1 3 5 4 1 16
Titos 2 1 2 2 7
Prophet. Eight of the 11th-century specimens belonged to one individual, Theo

dosios III Chrysoberges, the Patriarch of Antioch.104 The cult of Elias was very
strong in Antioch, and this patriarch employed the prophet’s image for his seal in
order to associate his office with the prestige of a local holy biblical predecessor.
104 For discussion concerning this hierarch, see V. GRUMEL, Le patriarcat et les patriarches d’An
tioche sous la seconde domination byzantine (969–1084), in EO, 33 (1934), p. 142–144.
79
Elias was active in the Phoenician region (I Kings 17:17–24) which later came
under the jurisdiction of the Antiochian patriarchate.105
B. New Testament figures
Of the 129 saintly figures represented on our seals, 13, or 10.1%, are from the
New Testament (Chart 3.3). The most popular image in this group is that of John
the Baptist, or the Prodromos (the Forerunner), corresponding to his popularity
in all media.106
The image of John the Prodromos on seals appears from the 6th/7th century to the
12th century. In the earliest example, the saint is depicted with a pointed beard, hair
standing out straight from his head and holding a cross staff over his right shoulder
(Figure 3.1).107 Although the figure is not identified by inscription, it is most likely the
Baptist since the name of the owner, in monogram form on the reverse, is John and
the camel-hair melote worn by the figure is an attribute of the Baptist (Matthew 3:4).
The 9th-century seal depicts the Prodromos with long straight hair parted at the
center and holding a small cross in his left hand. Here the figure is identified by
flanking cruciform invocative monograms, ΠΡΟΔΡΟΜΕ ΒΟΗΘΕΙ (Prodromos,
help).108 From this time onward the figures of the Prodromos are identified by
inscription. In a 10th-century example, the Baptist is depicted with an elongated
slender head, long straight hair and pointed beard.109 By the 11th century, the saint
is shown with the customary long, thick disheveled hair and beard that became
the standard portrait type, as seen in the specimen belonging to an 11th-century
metropolitan of Mytilene named John.110
Of the seals from the 6th/7th through the 10th century that bear the image of
the Prodromos and inscriptions including the offices held by their owners, the
majority belonged to members of the civil administration: 10 out of 17, or 58.8%.
Three belonged to bishops; two to members of the military bureaucracy; two were
issued by monks. For the 18 seals assigned to the 10th/11th century, there is a
more diversified distribution of the Prodromos’ image among social groups: five
105 For the history of the patriarchate of Antioch, see R. DEVREESSE, Le patriarcat d’Antioche
depuis la paix de l’église jusqu’à la conquête arabe, Paris, 1945; C. PAPADOPOULOS, Ἱστορία
τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Ἀντιοχείας, Alexandria, 1951; and J. TAWIL, The Patriarchate of Antioch
Throughout History: An Introduction, Boston, 2001.
106 For the significance of John the Forerunner in the Byzantine Church, see S. BULGAKOV, The
Friend of the Bridegroom: On the Orthodox Veneration of the Forerunner, trans. B. JAKIM,
Grand Rapids, MI, 2003, passim. Based on the study of HALSALL, Women’s Bodies, Men’s
Souls, p. 31, Table 2.1, John the Prodromos is the most popular saint following the Virgin.
107 K. KONSTANTOPOULOS, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα τοῦ ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἐθνικοῦ Νομισματικοῦ
Μουσείου, Athens, 1917, no. 875.
108 V. LAURENT, Le corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantin, V:2: L’église, Paris, 1965, no. 1194.
The seal belonged to Theodore Stoudites.
109 NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals I, no. 1.10.
Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, II, Washington, DC, 1994, no. 51.8.
80
Figure 3.1 John the Prodromos, lead seal, 6th/7th century, Numismatic Museum, Athens,
no. 875
Source: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund
belonged to monks or monasteries; four were those of church hierarchs; three

were members of the ecclesiastical administration other than bishops; two were
from the civil bureaucracy; and three are unknown. Of the 96 11th-century seals
bearing the image of the Prodromos, most were those from members of the civil
administration, 40; 24 belonged to hierarchs; 11 to monks or monastic founda
tions; the remaining few were those of the military, lower ecclesiastical figures
or individuals with unknown titles. The majority of all the titles of the 11th/12th
and 12th-century seals’ owners cannot be determined: 29 of 49, or 59.2%. Of
those titles that are known, 14 were titles from the civil administration; the others
are distributed among hierarchs, other clerics, monastics and military individuals.
These data indicate that, overall, members of the civil administration preferred the
image of the Prodromos more than other social groups, and although, as discussed
previously, this could reflect the swelled ranks of the civil administration that
began in the 11th century, it should be observed that here the preference for the
image of the Prodromos by the civil administration began before the 11th century.
Next followed hierarchs and monastics. Few of the lower clergy or members of
the military chose an image of this saint. Although the Prodromos was known as
an ascetic figure in the Gospels and was considered as an exemplar of the spiritual
and monastic life,111 veneration for this saint found greater favor among holders of
civil offices. The image of the Prodromos, therefore, was not usually employed by
seal owners as a behavioral or biographical role model but most likely was seen as
a major biblical figure with great intercessory powers.112
Not all of the apostles are represented on seals. The most frequent image is that
of John the Theologian, followed closely by the combined images of Peter and
Paul. After these, the figure of Stephen is seen most often. The figure of Andrew
is limited to only 18 examples. His portrait is used either by individuals who bear
the name Andrew or by ecclesiastical representatives from areas associated with
this apostle’s travels and martyrdom: Rus’ and Patras respectively.113 Although
the legend of Andrew, who was the first-called among the apostles and brother of
111 For discussions of John the Prodromos as the image par excellence of the spiritual and monastic
life, see E. LUPIERI, Felices sunt qui imitantur Iohannem (Hier. Hom. in Io.), in Augustinianum,
24 (1984), p. 33–71 and IDEM, John the Baptist: the First Monk: A Contribution to the History
of the Figure of John the Baptist in the Early Monastic World, in Word and Spirit, 6 (1984),
p. 11–23.
112 For the depiction of John the Prodromos as one of the intercessors in the classic representation of
the Deesis-Last Judgment composition, see B. BRENK, Tradition und Neuerung in der christli
chen Kunst des ersten Jahrtausends: Studien zur Geschichte des Weltgerichtsbildes, Vienna,
1966, p. 95–98; A. CUTLER, Under the Sign of the Deesis: On the Question of Representative
ness in Medieval Art and Literature, in DOP, 41 (1987), p. 145–154 (repr. in his Byzantium, Italy
and the North: Papers on Cultural Relations, London, 2000, p. 46–64); and A. MANTAS, Über
legungen zur Deesis in der Hauptapsis mittelbyzantinischer Kirchen Griechenlands, in Byzanti
nische Malerei: Bildprogramme-Ikonographie-Stil, ed. G. KOCH, Wiesbaden, 2000, p. 165–182.
113 For discussion of the use of Andrew’s image among the hierarchs of Patras, see COTSONIS,
Saints and Cult Centers, p. 13–14.
82
Peter, was eventually a key part of the Byzantine Church’s claim to hierarchical
superiority over Rome, such prominence is not borne out by the seals. Rather,
the sphragistic data reflect the actual use and development of this tradition. The
belief that the see of Byzantium was founded by Andrew started to spread only
at the end of the 8th century, grew in prominence in the 9th century and was not
universally accepted in the East until the 10th century.114
The figure of Peter, so closely linked with the claims of the Latin Church,
appears on seals almost twice as often as Andrew. Peter was referred to as the
koryphaios (chief) of the apostles, along with Paul, and was acknowledged as pre
eminent even by Photios and other writers of the 9th century.115 The cult of Peter
was well established in Byzantium and was continuously fostered by both impe
rial and ecclesiastical authorities.116 It is the combined image of Peter and Paul on
seals that enjoys popularity, with 54 examples. This preference for the pairing of
the two apostles reflects the practice seen in painted panel images whereby Peter
and Paul are either depicted in the same icon or in separate paired panels in which
the apostolic leaders gaze at one another.117
The seals with portraits of the princes of the apostles, Peter and Paul, span the
6th to the 12th centuries, though the greater percentage of them belong to the
pre-Iconoclastic period. During the pre-Iconoclastic centuries, their representation
usually consists of two facing busts, often flanking a central cross.118 On a seal of
the 7th/8th century, the attributes of Peter and Paul make their first sigillographic
appearance: the keys and book, respectively.119 Beginning with the ninth/tenth
century example, the figures are now identified and appear in a frontal position.120
Among the 11th- and 12th-century specimens, there are six seals that depict
Peter and Paul embracing one another (Figure 3.2).121
114 F. DVORNIK, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew,
Cambridge, MA, 1958, p. 223–257.
115 Ibid., p. 233–236.
116 J. MEYENDORFF, St. Peter in Byzantine Theology, in The Primacy of Peter, ed. J. MEY
ENDORFF and N. AFANASSIEFF, London, 1963 (2nd ed. Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire,
1973; repr. in The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, Crestwood,
NY, 1992), p. 7–29; V. VON FALKENHAUSEN, San Pietro nella religiosità bizantina, in Set
timane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 34:2 (1988), p. 627–674; and
O. CLÉMENT, You Are Peter: An Orthodox Theologian’s Reflection on the Exercise of Papal
Primacy, New York, 2003, p. 33–74.
117 K. WEITZMANN, The St. Peter Icon of Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, 1983, p. 31–40, fig.,
33–48.
118 E. MCGEER, J. NESBITT and N. OIKONOMIDES†, Catalogue of the Byzantine Lead Seals at
Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, IV, Washington, DC, 2001, no. 2.4.
Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, III, Washington, DC, 1996, no. 91.1, where the later dating
for this specimen by Laurent is corrected.
120 NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, I, no. 53.5.
121 NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, II, no. 5.1. The others are published by KON
STANTOPOULOS, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα, no. 713; G. DAVIDSON, Corinth XII: The
83
Figure 3.2 Peter and Paul, lead seal, 11th century, Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sack
ler Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, Bequest of Thomas Whitte
more, BZS.1951.31.5.2096
Although a few early western examples can be found for this motif,122 the
earliest surviving Byzantine example is seen on a 10th-century ivory panel in
the Victoria and Albert Museum.123 This iconography has been interpreted as an
expression of fraternal reconciliation124 and as an emblem endowed with various
overlapping meanings: a representation of an “historical” event from the Apoc
ryphal Acts of the Apostles; as an allegory of ecumenical peace; or an image of
apostolic harmony.125 In dealing with the same motif in a 15th-century Cretan
icon, Maria Vassilaki has placed this iconography within the context of the bicul
tural Cretan milieu at the time of the attempted union of the Council of Flor
ence.126 This spirit of reconciliation and peaceful coexistence may be reflected
earlier in the seals because this sphragistic iconography appears close in time
to the ecclesiastical strife of 1054 that existed between the Eastern and Western
Churches and the beginnings of the Crusader movement when the two cultures
lived in closer proximity to one another.127 Three of these six examples belonged
to metropolitans of regions that witnessed encounters between Greek and Latin
cultures: Ankyra;128 Kerkyra;129 and Tarsos.130
Minor Objects, Princeton, 1952, no. 2787; LAURENT, Corpus, V:2, nos. 1140 and 1541; and
MCGEER, NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, IV, no. 2.3.
122 H. KESSLER, The Meeting of Peter and Paul in Rome: An Emblematic Narrative of Spiritual
Brotherhood, in DOP, 41 (1987), p. 265–267 (repr. in his Old St. Peter’s and Church Decoration
in Medieval Italy, Spoleto, 2002).
123 A. GOLDSCHMIDT and K. WEITMANN, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des X.-XIII.
Jahrhunderts, I-II, Berlin, 1934 (repr. Berlin, 1979), no. 111.
124 KESSLER, Peter and Paul in Rome, p. 275. For discussion of the tension that existed between
Peter and Paul and their related imagery, with emphasis on early Christian monuments in the
West, see R. WILKINS SULLIVAN, Saints Peter and Paul: Some Ironic Aspects of Their Imag
ing, in Art History, 17:1 (1994), p. 59–80.
125 M. VASSILAKI, A Cretan Icon in the Ashmolean: The Embrace of Peter and Paul, in JÖB, 40
(1990), p. 408–409.
126 Ibid., p. 421. In studying a similar icon of Peter and Paul, c. 1400, in Vienna, K. KREIDL-PAP
ADOPOULOS, Die Ikone mit Petrus und Paulus in Wien: Neue Aspekte zur Entwicklung dieser
Rundkomposition, in ∆XAE, per. 4:1, 1980–1981 (1981), p. 349, pl. 98, uses two 11th-century
seals depicting the embrace as early examples of this iconography but without offering an
11th-century context for this imagery.
127 In discussing the kiss of Peter and Paul in frescoes of Macedonian churches beginning with the
12th century, S. GERSTEL, Beholding the Sacred Mysteries: Programs of the Byzantine Sanc
tuary, Seattle, 1999, p. 59–63, sees this imagery as both reflecting the realism of contemporary
Byzantine liturgical actions and making an anti-Latin statement regarding eucharistic practices of
the Roman Church. In her study of the frescoes of the church in Nerezi of 1164, I. SINKEVIĆ,
The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi: Architecture, Programme, Patronage, Wiesbaden, 2000,
p. 33, understands the image of the embrace of Peter and Paul as a symbol of desired union after
the events of 1054 and especially reflecting the pro-western policies of the emperor Manuel I.
128 MCGEER, NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, IV, no. 2.3.
129 NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, II, no. 5.1.
130 LAURENT, Corpus V:2, no. 1541.
85
As Chart 3.3 indicates, John the Theologian held a prominent place within the
holy figures of the apostolic group as is generally known.131 In addition to his
role in the events of the New Testament, John had particular significance for the
Byzantines: according to the encomium dedicated to this apostle by Sophronios
I of Jerusalem, John was a relative of Christ and he also baptized the Virgin;132
and during the ecclesio-political debates with the Latin Church in the 9th and 11th
centuries, John’s apostolic authority and his gospel were especially employed by
the Byzantines.133
The image of John the Theologian is found on seals from the 6th/7th through the
12th centuries. Among the earliest examples the saint is depicted with a bald head
and a short, pointed beard and is not identified by inscription. Except for two
examples, the 7th- and 8th-century seals belonged to bishops of Ephesos, the cult
center for John the Theologian.134 It is the early seal, 7th century, which belonged
to a bishop of Eirenoupolis, that identifies a similar figure with the inscription,
o aΓΙoC ΙΩaΝΝΗC.135 The three 8th/9th-century seals belonged to Theophilos,
the archbishop of Ephesos.136 In this group the portrait type is different: the saint
has a short thick cap of hair and a thickly delineated pointed beard; and he is
identified by the invocative inscription in the field of the obverse: [Ἅγι]Ε [Ἰωάννη
βοήθ]ει (Saint John, help).
One of the 8th-century seals with the image of John is noteworthy: this seal
belonged to Epiphanios, a hegoumenos of Patmos (Figure 3.3).137 The figure of
the saint is flanked by crosslets and an identifying invocation: Θεολόγε Βοήθη
131 For the significance of John’s image in the medieval period, see J. HAMBURGER, St. John the
Divine: The Deified Evangelist in Medieval Art and Theology, Berkeley, 2002, p. 1–64, where the
Byzantine tradition is discussed. For recent discussion of the Evangelist’s cult in general, see the
various articles in Atti del VIII simposio di Efeso su S. Giovanni Apostolo, ed. L. PADOVESE,
Rome, 2001. The Prodromos is also found to be one of the most popular saints in the study of
HALSALL, Women’s Bodies, Men’s Souls, p. 31, Table 2.1.
132 A. DMITRIEVSKIJ, Opisanie liturgitseskich rukopisej I, Kiev, 1895 (repr. Hildesheim, 1965),
p. 69. Although the typikon makes no reference to the text of The Baptism of the Apostles and
the Theotokos, it does appear in PG, 87: col. 3371–3372 as a fragment attached to Sophronios’
literature. T. SCHERMANN, Prophetarum vitae fabulosae indices apostolorum discipulorumque
domini, Leipzig, 1907, p. 160–161, includes the work in the Pseudo-Dorothean corpus. See also
J. COTSONIS, On Some Illustrations in the Lectionary, Athos, Dionysiou 587, in Byz., 59 (1989),
p. 8.
133 DVORNIK, Apostolicity, p. 238–244 and COTSONIS, On Some Illustrations, p. 8–9.
134 For example, NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, III, no. 14.7. For discussion of the
choice of the image of John the Theologian for the seals of the hierarchs of Ephesos, see COT
SONIS, Saints and Cult Centers, p. 10–13.
135 C. SODE, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin, II, Bonn, 1997, no. 381.
136 NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, III, no. 14.8. The other two are in the Hermitage. See
V. ŠANDROVSKAJA, Sfragistika, in Iskusstvo Vizantii v Sobranijach SSSR. Katalog Vystavki,
II, Moscow, 1977, no. 814 and ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no.1350a.
137 LAURENT, Corpus, V:2, no. 1279.
86
Figure 3.3 John the Theologian, lead seal, 8th century, Athens, Benaki Museum, no. B17
Source: Benaki Museum
(Theologian, help). The portrait here is closer to that which is found on later rep
resentations: the high, bald forehead and longer pointed beard.
What is remarkable is that this seal testifies to a monastic foundation on the island of
Patmos approximately three centuries earlier than the imperial establishment donated
by Alexios I and placed under the rule of the abbot Christodoulos. Laurent assigned
this seal to the 12th century, obviously burdened by the date of the Komnenian foun
dation, but the seal’s epigraphy, crosslets and wreath border all point to an earlier
period.138 An early Christian basilica is known to have been on the island, but there
are no recorded remains of later monastic buildings.139 In the land survey of Patmos,
written in 1088, Nicholas Tzanes describes the remains of an oratory (εὐκτήριον)
that had long ago been dedicated to John the Theologian.140 Our seal, therefore, offers
further evidence of an earlier monastic community in honor of the Theologian.
In the 11th century, portrait types for this saint continued to vary. On a seal belong
ing to Nikephoros, a strategos of the Optimatoi, John is rendered with a head of
hair consisting of small rounded dots, a large elongated nose, large ears and a long,
thin pointed beard.141 By the 11th century, however, the portrait type employed for
John the Theologian was more or less standard, as evidenced by these seals and by
other media as well: the high, bald forehead and longer pointed beard.142 His image
is always accompanied with some form of identifying inscription.
An interesting detail found on three 11th-century seals depicting John the Theo
logian is that he is portrayed as a bishop, wearing the omophorion (Figure 3.4).143
This episcopal representation of the Theologian is unknown in other media.
A similar phenomenon, however, occurred with some representations of Laza
ros, who by the 10th century was regarded as an early bishop of Cyprus.144 Walter
suggests that representing such figures in the guise of bishops was one method of
138 Based upon these criteria, the seal should be assigned to the 8th century. I wish to thank John
Nesbitt who has also suggested such a dating for this piece. It should be noted that the name of the
abbot inscribed on the seal, Epiphanios, is not included in the list of hegoumenoi who ruled this
monastery from 1088–1206. For the compilation of this abbatial list, see C. DIEHL, Le trésor et
la bibliothèque de Patmos au commencement du 13e siècle, in BZ, 1 (1892), p. 490, n. 1.
139 A. ORLANDOS, Ἡ ἀρχιτεκτονικἠ καὶ βυζαντιναὶ τοιχογραφίαι τῆς Μονῆς τοῦ Θεολόγου Πάτμου,
Athens, 1970, p. 11–18. For a general discussion of the island’s history and its monastic treasures,
see Patmos: Treasures of the Monastery, ed. A KOMINIS, Athens, 1988, passim.
140 Βυζαντινὰ ἔγγραφα τῆς Μονῆς Πάτμου, II, ed. M. NYSTAZOPOULOU-PELEKIDOU, Athens,
1980, no. 51, p. 39.
141 NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, III, no. 71.21a.
142 ZACOS, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, no. 682.
143 Ibid., no. 743. The other two examples are V. LAURENT, Documents de sigillographie byz
antine. La collection C. Orghidan, Paris, 1952, no. 265 and IDEM, Corpus, V:3, no. 1979. For
comparison, it is interesting to note that in the Coptic version of Gregory Thaumatourgos’ vision
of the Virgin and John the Theologian, preserved in a 9th-century manuscript, John is dressed as
a priest. See L. MACCOULL, Gregory Thaumaturgus’ Vision Re-Envisioned, in RHE, 94 (1999),
p. 9–10. I wish to thank Leslie MacCoull for bringing this reference to my attention.
144 C. WALTER, Lazarus a Bishop, in REB, 27 (1969), p. 203 (repr. in his Studies in Byzantine Ico
nography, London, 1977) and WHARTON EPSTEIN, Tokali Kilise, p. 67.
88
Figure 3.4 John the Theologian, lead seal, 11th century, Zacos Collection
Source: After G. Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, II [Berne, 1984], no. 743
enhancing a diocese’s claim to apostolic authority.145 This may well be true of John
the Theologian, who was not only regarded as the founder of the Ephesian diocese
but was also associated with the see of Constantinople as discussed above. Since
John was also called Theologian, he may have come to be considered worthy of epis
copal dignity recalling Gregory the Theologian. This phenomenon of the episcopal
John the Theologian on the seals appears in the 11th century, a time of increased
interest in the depictions of holy hierarchs and liturgical scenes in general.146
Throughout the chronological span of John’s sphragistic images, the greatest
number of these belonged to hierarchs: 39 of 65, or 60%. Eleven specimens were
issued from members of the civil administration; five from monasteries dedi
cated to the saint or a monastic; and four from the military. One seal belonged to
a priest, while the titles of ten examples cannot be determined. Thus the figure
of John the Theologian is closely associated with the ranks of the higher clergy
who usually selected his image when this saint was the local cult of their sees.147
Although an important figure in the New Testament and relatively popular
145 WALTER, Lazarus a Bishop, p. 205–208 and V. VON FALKENHAUSEN, Bishops and Monks
in the Hagiography of Byzantine Cyprus, in Medieval Cyprus: Studies in Art, Architecture, and
History in Memory of Doula Mouriki, ed. N. ŠEVČENKO and C. MOSS, Princeton, 1999,
p. 22–30. In note 14, von Falkenhausen cites Walter’s study on Lazaros but disagrees with his
hypothesis that the legend of Lazaros as a bishop began in Constantinople. She sees Cyprus as
the origin for this tradition.
146 CUTLER, Liturgical Strata, p. 29–30; WALTER, Lazarus a Bishop, p. 206–208; idem, Art and
Ritual of the Byzantine Church, London, 1982, p. 85–115; and CUTLER and SPIESER, Byzance,
p. 234–313, passim.
147 For example, see COTSONIS, Saints and Cult Centers, p. 10–13.
89
among the images of New Testament saints found on seals, John the Theologian
did not have a broad appeal within Byzantine society, at least in the realm of
personal piety as an intercessor on behalf of the owners of seals. Rather, he is a
saint appropriated to enhance the dignity of those holding episcopal office.
The images of Stephen appear on seals beginning with the 7th/8th century,
disappear, and then occur again from the 10th through 12th centuries. His pop
ularity within this group of New Testament figures reflects his status as the first
martyr of the Christian faith whose martyrdom is recorded in Holy Scripture
(Acts 7:54–60). Preference for his image may also be related to his liturgical
role as a deacon. Usually he is depicted with a small cross in one hand and an
incense box in the other,148 or in a few cases he is shown with a censer on a long
chain as depicted on the 11th-century seal of Stephanos, an archbishop,149 both
types suggesting his liturgical duties.150 This preference for the liturgical aspect
of Stephen corresponds well with the increased interest in liturgical depictions
in Byzantine art during these periods that was noted above. In middle Byzantine
monumental programs, images of Stephen are often located either within or
near the sanctuaries in such churches as Daphni151 and Kurbinovo.152 Although
the image of Stephen may have been significant as a liturgical figure, only 16 of
the 48 seals that bear his image, or 33.3%, belonged to members of the clergy.
Among the remaining group of New Testament figures occurring with less fre
quency on seals, most depict saints that either share the name of their owner or are
the subject of a local cult in a place where the owner held some official capacity:
Luke, Philip and Titus. In the case of Barnabas, no straightforward relationship
exists. For Mark, two of the seals belonged to a patriarch of Alexandria, the see
of which he was the patron saint, whereas 20 of them belonged to an individual
named Basil, offering no immediate explanation for the iconogaphic choice.153
The owner of the seal with the image of Matthew is unknown, and a number of
people with different names employ Paul for their seals. Among the seals with
Thomas, six owners share this name, but the remainder of the seals show no iden
tifiable connection to owner or provenance.
148 See MCGEER, NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES†, DO Seals, IV, no. 15.2. For discussion con
cerning the depiction of this saint and his customary attributes, see E. SCHWARTZ, The Saint
Stephen Icon, in Four Icons in the Menil Collection, Houston, 1992, p. 46–55, who interprets the
box held by Stephen to be instead a pyx for the Eucharist. In current practices on Mount Athos,
when deacons cense during liturgical services, they also carry on their left shoulders ornate boxes
of incense.
149 MCGEER, NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES†, DO Seals, IV, no. 77.1.
150 SCHWARTZ, The Saint Stephen Icon, p. 51, also states that generally the depictions of Stephen
emphasize his liturgical role.
151 E. DIEZ and O. DEMUS, Byzantine Mosaics in Greece, Cambridge, MA, 1931, fig. 77.
152 L. HADERMANN-MISGUICH, Kurbinovo: Les fresques de Saint-Georges et la peinture byzan
tine du XIIe siècle, II, Brussels, 1975, fig. 5 and 31.
153 For a discussion of this individual and his seals, see NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals,
II, no. 8.16.
90
C. Martyrs
Non-biblical martyrs found on seals from the 6th through 12th centuries are listed
in Chart 3.4. These martyrs comprise 29 of the total 129 different sphragistic
saints, or 22.5%. The chart reveals that only a few seals employ images of this
particular type of saint, and many appear only once. In the Martyrs Chart, the vast
majority of seals are of the 11th century, supporting observations made above that
this period witnessed an increased literary and artistic interest in the saints. Only
two of the martyrs, Martinakios and Platon, appear on seals of the pre-Iconoclas
tic centuries. All other depicted saints are from the post-Iconoclastic period.
Five of these martyrs’ images appear on seals whose owners share the same
name, whereas seven reflect local cult devotions (two of these also have individu
als who bear the same name). Fifteen have no direct correspondence to either the
owners’ names or local cult. Panteleimon, the physician saint, is by far the most
popular figure within this group, most likely because of his role as a healer.154
There are 63 examples bearing his image, ranging from the 10th through 12th
centuries, 42 of which belong to the 11th century. Although sometimes depicted
holding the small martyr’s cross before his chest, the youthful beardless saint with
curly hair is most often represented with his healing instruments, a scalpel in one
hand and a medicine box in the other, as seen on an 11th-century seal belonging
to Leo Triakontaphyllos, a judge of Thrace.155
D. Hierarchs
Twenty-eight of the 129 saints, or 21.7% are hierarchs, as seen in Chart 3.5. As
with the martyrs, most of the saints are represented by only one or a very few
seals. Fifteen out of the 28 images of different hierarchs are clearly related to the
name of their owner, such as the example of Leo of Catania,156 or to a local cult in
a place where the owner holds office, most often a bishop of a diocese in which
the saint is especially venerated, as in the case of Parthenios, the 4th-century
sainted bishop of Lampsakos.157 Although the two Gregorys, the Theologian and
the bishop of Nyssa are represented in slightly higher numbers, the images of
these two Church Fathers, too, reflect choices based on the seal-owners’ name and
154 For discussion of Panteleimon’s portrait type and hagiographic cycles, see Glory of Byzantium,
no. 249 and MAGUIRE, Icons of Their Bodies, p. 43–46. For a brief presentation of the life of
Panteleimon, with references to the Greek sources, and a discussion of painted hagiographic
cycles, see SINKEVIĆ, The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi, p. 66–71. For discussion of
representations of healing saints as a group, see N. GUERASSIMENKO, The Representation of
Physician Saints in the Katholikon of the Monastery of Hosios Loukas, Phokis, in Decorations
for the Holy Dead: Visual Embellishment on Tombs and Shrines of Saints, ed. S. LAMIA and E.
VALDEZ DEL ÁLAMO, Turnhout, 2002, p. 167–178.
156 W. SEIBT, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich, I, Vienna, 1978, no. 85.
157 NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, III, no. 54.2.
91
Chart 3.4 Chronological Frequency of Martyrs
MARTYRS 6c 6/7c 7c 7/8c 8c 8/9c 9c 9/10c 10c 10/11c 11c 11/12C 12c TOTAL
Agathonikos 1 1 1 3
Akakios 1 1
Alexander 1 1
Athenogenes 1 1
Auxentios 1 1
Christopher 6 6
Cosmas 2 1 6 9
Cyrus 1 1
Damian 2 1 6 9
Eudoxios 1 1
Eugenios 1 1
Gabdentios 1 1
Imerios 1 1
Isauros 1 1
Isidoros 1 1 2
John Unmercenary 1 1
Kallinikos 1 1
Mardarios 1 1
Martinakios 1 1
Martyrios 1 1
Menas 2 3 5
Menas Kallikelados 2 2
Menignos 2 2
Nikephoros 5 1 6
Panteleimon 4 5 42 9 3 63
Platon 2 2
Porphyrios 1 1
Theagenes 2 2
Tryphon 1 1 2
Chart 3.5 Chronological Frequency of Hierarchs
HIERARCHS 6c 6/7c 7c 7/8c 8c 8/9c 9c 9/1 Oc 10c 10/11c 11c 11/12C 12c TOTAL
Achillios 1 3 1 5
Akepsim 1 1
Antipas 1 1
Athanasios 1 1 1 3
Augustine 1 1
Basil 1 8 8 38 16 9 80
Clement 3 3
Constantine, Bishop 1 1
Eleutherios 2 2
Gregory Thaumatourgos 2 2 8 12
Gregory Theologian 1 5 1 1 8
lanouarios 1 2 3
John Chrysostom 2 1 9 48 11 6 77
Joseph 1 1
Kodratos 1 1 2
Leo 1 1
Markianos 1 1
Methodios 1 1 2
Myron 2 1 3
Nicholas 3 1 2 1 3 44 70 368 93 61 646
Ouranios 1 1
Parthenios 2 2
Paul, Bishop 1 1
Philagrios 1 1
Polycarp 1 1 1 1 4
Sisinnios 1 1
Spyridon 1 2 3
Tarasios 1 1
geography.158 Three members of this group of hierarchs stand out for frequency of
depiction: Basil, John Chrysostom and, especially, Nicholas.
The earliest image of Basil on seals is from the 7th/8th century (Figure 3.5).159
Already at this date the Church Father is rendered by his customary portrait type:
a large balding forehead, long face and a pointed beard.160 He is also here identi
fied by inscription.
His portrait type appears to be rather consistent from this early date because a
similar depiction is provided by the icon of the saint on Mt. Sinai, also identified
by inscription, assigned to the 7th century by Weitzmann.161
Basil’s image does not appear on seals again until the 10th century. From this
period onwards, the figure is identified by inscription and the seals usually bear
the customary portrait type as discussed above. Some variety in the visage is seen
in a 10th-century example where the saint is provided with a thick cap of short
curly hair and a prominent nose,162 and an 11th-century example also presents
Basil with an equally uncharacteristic cap of hair.163
Of the 80 seals with the image of Basil, 25 examples cannot be determined
regarding the title of office of their owners. Twenty-one specimens, or 26.3%,
came from church hierarchs; 19, or 23.8%, from the civil administration; six from
members of the lower clergy; seven are from monks or monasteries; and just two
belonged to military individuals. Here, the figure of Basil is mostly preferred by
hierarchs, followed by holders of titles in the civil administration.
The earliest Chrysostom representations likewise appear in the 7th/8th cen
tury and are identified by inscription. These are most likely eleemosynary tokens
belonging to the bishop of Constantinople.164 Although the face is worn in the
example shown here, the large upper area of the head is bald with a thick ring of
hair on the sides. The saint also has a short but rather wide beard and a large thick
head. The figure is clearly identified by inscription.
The image of Chrysostom does not appear on seals again until the 10th century
specimens. Even into the 11th century, examples exhibit a varied portrait type.
158 WALTER, Art and Ritual, p. 82, states that on seals the image of Gregory Thaumatourgos was
popular along with those of Basil and John Chrysostom but that the image of Gregory the The
ologian was not. According to the evidence provided in Chart X, images of neither the Thauma
tourgos nor the Theologian were as popular as those of Basil and Chrysostom.
159 K. KONSTANTOPOULOS, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα· Συλλογὴ Ἀναστασίου Κ. Π.
Σταμούλη, Athens, 1930, no. 23, pl. 1, no 18.
160 For discussion of images of Basil, see L. BRUBAKER, The Vita Icon of Saint Basil: Iconogra
phy, p. 70–93 and A. WEYL CARR, The Vita Icon of Saint Basil: Notes on a Byzantine Object,
p. 94–105, both in Four Icons in the Menil Collection.
161 K. WEITZMANN, The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Icons, Princeton,
1976, B24, pl. XX.
164 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1247 and V. LAURENT, Le corpus des
sceaux de l’empire byzantin, V:1, Paris, 1963, no. 2.
96
Figure 3.5 Basil, lead seal, 7th/8th century, Numismatic Museum, Athens, Stamoules
Collection no. 23 [1924/3156]
Source: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund
Most specimens depict him with the elongated head that is wider and bulbous at
the top, bald with a little hair at the sides, a face that narrows to the chin, ending in
a short, thin pointed beard as seen on an example from Dumbarton Oaks.165 This
portrait type will become the standard. In another 11th-century example, however,
Chrysostom is presented with full cheeks, thick curls of hair, a droopy mustache
and slanted eyes that give him an eastern physiognomy.166
The image of Chrysostom is found most frequently on seals that belonged to
members of the civil administration: 26 of the 77, or 33.8%. This number is fol
lowed by seals issued by hierarchs: 16, or 20.8%. Eight seals of the 77 came
from lower-ranking clergy; seven belonged to the monastic realm; and 20 cannot
be determined. None were issued from holders of military offices. As discussed
above, the large number of 11th-century seals belonging to members of the civil
administration must be taken into consideration. But the next largest percentile
group for his image is among high-ranking churchmen. As observed above, the
number of images of Basil on seals belonging to bishops is slightly more than
those issued by civil officials. It appears, therefore, that there does exist some
preference for members of the episcopacy to select images of the saintly hierarchs
who were celebrated as authors of the liturgical offices.
The two Church Fathers, Basil and John Chrysostom, are represented on seals
significantly more often than Gregory the Theologian. By the second half of the
11th century, however, in other media all three were customarily grouped together
as the Three Hierarchs, as seen in the miniature illustrating Psalm 32:1 in the

97
Theodore Psalter of 1066.167 As both Walter168 and Cutler169 note, the mid-11th
century witnessed an intense interest in all three of these ecclesiastical person
alities that resulted in the creation of a new feast day honoring them together,
January 29th.170 Yet on the seals, Basil and John Chrysostom appear more than
three times as often. The most probable explanation for this phenomenon may lie
in the fact that Basil and Chrysostom were generally regarded as the authors of
the two most common Byzantine liturgies. The data of the seals would then sup
port the work of Walter, who understands the 11th century to be a critical period
for the beginning of an increased interest in liturgical representations and those
bishops associated with the liturgy.171 But as the seals indicate, the popularity is
limited to the two liturgical authors, Basil and Chrysostom, and some caution
should be given in assigning great popular appeal to Gregory the Theologian. The
sphragistic evidence confirms observations made by Gerstel, who notes that in the
programs of the church sanctuaries, images of Basil and Chrysostom were always
found but not so for that of Gregory the Theologian.172
The most striking datum in Chart 3.5 is the enormous number of seals that
portray the sainted bishop, Nicholas. These seals span the 7th through the 12th
century. In the early examples, the portrait type is quite different from the one
usually found in the middle Byzantine period. Two of the 7th-century specimens
belonged to an eparch of an unidentified city named Nicholas. On them the por
trait is rendered with a large head placed on a very short, extremely thin neck,
only sparse amounts of hair appear, just a slight trace of a beard is seen, but he has
large overhanging eyebrows and swollen cheeks (Figure 3.6).173 He is identified
by inscription. These are the earliest known surviving images of this saint in any
medium.174
Over time, the representation of Nicholas on seals continues to appear with
various physiognomies. In one 8th/9th-century example, he is given short striated
167 DER NERSESSIAN, Psautiers grecs, II, p. 26, fig. 60. Two similar versions are found in the
14th-century copy of an 11th-century marginal psalter in the Walters Art Gallery, cod. W. 733,
fols. 3v and 46v. For reproductions of these miniatures, see CUTLER, Liturgical Strata, fig. 29
and 31. For recent discussion of this manuscript and a slightly earlier dating to the last quarter
of the 13th century, see Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557), ed. H. EVANS, New York,
2004, no. 160. In the late 11th-century Barberini Psalter, see J. ANDERSON and C. WALTER,
Description, in Barberini Psalter, p. 74, the same verse is provided with images of Chrysostom,
Gregory the Theologian and two other saints but not with that of Basil.
168 C. WALTER, Pictures of the Clergy in the Theodore Psalter, in REB, 31 (1973), p. 240 (repr. in
his Studies in Byzantine Iconography, London, 1977) and idem, Art and Ritual, p. 111–115.
169 CUTLER, Liturgical Strata, p. 30.
170 E. LAMERAND, La Fête des Trois Hiérarques dans l’église grecque, in Bessarione, 4 (1898/99),
p. 164–176.
171 WALTER, Art and Ritual, p. 239–249. See also CUTLER and SPIESER, Byzance, p. 257–271
and GERSTEL, Beholding the Sacred Mysteries, p. 23–25.
172 GERSTEL, Beholding the Sacred Mysteries, p. 24.
173 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1258 a. The other is no. 1258b.
174 See also ŠEVČENKO, Canon and Calendar, p. 109, n. 28.
98
Figure 3.6 Nicholas, lead seal, 7th century, Zacos Collection

Source: After G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2 [Basel, 1972], no. 1258a
hair with a visible “widow’s peak,”175 while in a 9th/10th-century example, Nich

olas is completely bald, has barely a thin line for a beard and an elliptical head.176
Divergent portrait types of Nicholas can still be found as late as the 11th century.
On one example belonging to Nicholas, a katepano of Chaldia and Mesopotamia,
the saint is rendered with a rather square head, high bald forehead with a rim of
short striated hair on top, large pointed ears, a wide flat nose, a thin mustache and
a short squared-off beard.177 Fortunately, in all of these variant depictions Nicho
las is consistently identified by inscription; otherwise the various representations
would not be easily recognizable. It is only in the 11th century that one portrait
type dominates on the seals as well as in other media.178 One example is given by
a krites of Mesopotamia179 where Nicholas is shown with the customary high bald
forehead, oval head and a short curly rounded beard.
The charts show that Nicholas is by far the most popular of all the saints, with
an overall total of 646 examples.180 He is surpassed only by the Virgin, who
appears on 3,159 seals. Nicholas’ immense popularity in Byzantine culture is well
documented.181 Attempts have been made to explain the great popularity. Nancy
175 LAURENT, Orghidan, no. 497.

176 IDEM, Corpus, V:1, no. 1003.
178 The sphragistic evidence supports the observations made by N. ŠEVČENKO, Nicholas of Myra,
in ODB, II, p. 1470.
180 Although Nicholas appears as one of the most popular according to the number of documents
listed in the BHG as recorded by HALSALL, Women’s Bodies, Men’s Souls, p. 31, Table 2.1,
there he is not the most popular, but rather John the Baptist.
181 L. HEISER, Nikolaus von Myra: Heiliger der ungeteilten Christenheit, Trier, 1978, p. 7–35;
C. JONES, Saint Nicholas of Myra, Bari, and Manhattan: Biography of a Legend, Chicago,
99
Ševčenko observed that a large proportion of the fresco cycles of Nicholas are set
in funerary contexts and may well have expressed their donors’ hope in the power
of the holy man’s intercession on behalf of their souls on the day of judgement.182
Henry Maguire has also attributed Nicholas’ popularity to the saint’s perceived
role in the administration of earthly justice and his role as advocate for heavenly
justice at the Last Judgement.183 Nicholas’ role as defender is clearly demonstrated
in the case of one of the shrines in Constantinople that is dedicated to him. This
shrine, or rather chapel, known as Nicholas τὰ Βασιλίδος,184 enjoyed a prestigious
location: behind the apse or east end of Hagia Sophia. Not only was this structure
attached to the most important church in the capital,185 but it also functioned as
a place of asylum and refuge (προσφύγιον). Anna Komnene related that it was
built long before her time for the purpose of granting safety to those accused of
various crimes.186 In this respect, Nicholas resembles the Virgin, for she acted as
the greatest of humanity’s intercessors and her image was especially linked to the
ekklesiekdikoi, or tribunal of priests attached to Hagia Sophia, and their proceed
ings in dealing with those seeking asylum in the Great Church.187 George Stričević
has also discussed how bilateral painted icons of Nicholas and the Virgin may
have had an intercessory funerary or postfunerary function.188 On seals, there are
46 examples of bilateral seals bearing images of the Virgin and Nicholas.189 This
1978, p. 1–6; ŠEVČENKO, Saint Nicholas in Byzantine Art, p. 18–24; I. ŠEVČENKO and N.
ŠEVČENKO, The Life of St. Nicholas of Sion, Brookline, 1984, p. 11–19; and G. ANTOU
RAKES, Ὁ Ἅγιος Νικόλαος στὴ Βυζαντινὴ τέχνη καὶ παράδοση (Athens, 1988), p. 11–14, 30–36
and 77–94, who, however, makes no reference to N. Sevcenko’s excellent study. For the role of
hymnographical material in fostering the cult of Nicholas, see ŠEVČENKO, Canon and Calen
dar, 107–112.
182 ŠEVČENKO, St. Nicholas in Byzantine Art, p. 173 and eadem, Canon and Calendar, p. 112, n. 37.
183 H. MAGUIRE, From the Evil Eye to the Eye of Justice: The Saints, Art, and Justice in Byzan
tium, in Law and Society in Byzantium: Ninth-Twelfth Centuries, ed. A. LAIOU and D. SIMON,
Washington, DC, 1994, p. 227–238 and idem, Icons of Their Bodies, p. 170.
184 R. JANIN, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, I: Le siège de Constantinople et le
patriarcat oecuménique, 3: Les églises et les monastères, 2nd. ed., Paris, 1969, p. 223–226.
185 CONSTANTINE PORPHYROGENNITOS, De ceremoniis aulae byzantinae, ed. J. REISKE,
I, Bonn, 1829, 35, p. 184, describes the chapel as connected to Hagia Sophia by a passage (dia
bãtikon). For the history of the chapel, see JANIN, Églises CP, p. 368–369 and G. MAJESKA,
Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Washington, DC,
1984, p. 136–139 and 223–224.
186 ANNA KOMNENA, Alexias, I, ed. D. REINSCH, A. KAMBYLIS and F. KOLOVOU, Berlin,
2001, p. 66.
187 J. COTSONIS, The Virgin and Justinian on the Seals of the Ekklesiekdikoi of Hagia Sophia, in
DOP, 56 (2002), p. 41–55.
188 G. STRIČEVIĆ, Double-Sided Icons of the Virgin and St. Nicholas, in Sixteenth Annual
Byzantine Studies Conference, Abstracts of Papers, Baltimore, 1990, p. 24–25. See also
MAGUIRE, From the Evil Eye, p. 235–236. For an example of such an icon, see Mother of
God, no. 66.
189 This number does not include those several other seals that bear images of either the Virgin and Nich
olas on the same side of the seal or these two figures in the company of other depicted saints on seals.
100
is the most frequent pairing seen in the sphragistic material. Both Nicholas and the
Virgin have been given epithets related to the concept of victory. Nicholas’s very
name refers to the people’s victory (νίκη λαοῦ);190 in the Encomium Methodii of
c. 860 dedicated to the saint, the author refers to Nicholas as the victory-creating
general of the saved (ὁ νικοποιὸς τῶν σωζομένων στρατηγὸς),191 a term similarly
close to one of the epithets used for the Virgin as victory-bearer, the Nikopoios.192
Viewed in this light, the extreme popularity of the image of Nicholas found upon
seals is readily understandable. His associations with the cult of the Virgin endow
him with such honors. This ranking is likewise borne out by the sphragistic data.
They both surpass any other saintly figure.
Of the 646 seals bearing an image of Nicholas, a large number of them do not
include the office of their owners or the inscriptions are unclear: 208, or 32.2%.
Although written sources testify that Nicholas’s cult had widely spread in the 9th
century,193 it is not until the 10th-century sphragistic examples that have seals whose
owners’ titles include geographic regions as dispersed as Hellas194 and Mesopota
mia.195 Of the 646 seals bearing an image of Nicholas, 177 of these include geo
graphic regions in the inscriptions of their owners’ titles. Of these, 114, or 64.4%,
represent areas scattered over the vast regions of Asia Minor with no definite pref
erence for any specific site. The remaining seals with geographic inscriptions are
from the areas of the Aegean, Hellas, the Peloponnessos, Thrace, Macedonia, the
Balkans and Italy, but with either one or just a few examples from each.
The largest group of specimens bearing the image of Nicholas that do include
their owners’ titles belong to the civil administration, 283, or 43.8%. After this
group, there is a somewhat even distribution among the other social groups: 50,
or 7.7%, from church hierarchs; 36, or 5.4%, belonged to the lower clergy; 30,
or 4.5%, were from members of the monastic realm; and 51, or 7.7%, from mil
itary office holders. Although the numbers and percentages following the civil
administration and the unknown titles are much smaller, in the case of Nicholas’s
image, there is a rather even distribution across the other social sectors, including
the military, which has not been observed for the other saints discussed thus far.
The broader sphragistic appeal for Nicholas corresponds to what is already known
about the great popularity of this saint’s cult.
190 JONES, Saint Nicholas, p. 37.

191 Encomium Methodii, ed. ANRICH, Hagios Nikolaos, p. 155.
192 For discussion of this Marian iconographic type, see W. SEIBT, Der Bildtypus der Theotokos
Nikopoios: zur Ikonographie des gottesmutter-Ikone, die 1030/31 in der Blachernenkirche wied
eraufgefunden, in Byzantina, 13 (1985), p. 550–564; N. ŠEVČENKO, Virgin Nikopoios, in ODB,
III, p. 2176; C. MALTEZOU, Βενετία καὶ Βυζαντινὴ παράδοση, in Μνήμη Δ. Α. Ζακυθήνου, ed.
N. MOSCHONAS, II, Athens, 1994, p. 7–20; and M. SCHULZ, Die Nicopea in San Marco zur
Geschichte und zum Typ einer Ikone, in BZ, 91:2 (1998), p. 475–501. For the Virgin’s military
associations, see WEYL CARR, The Mother of God in Public, p. 330–334.
193 ŠEVČENKO, The Life of Saint Nicholas, p. 20–23.
101
E. The Archangel Michael & military saints

Chart 3.6 offers a list of the Archangel Michael and military saints found on seals
from the 6th through 12th centuries. Fifteen of the 129 different saints, or 11.6%,
belong to this category. There is a great variation in frequency within this group.
Five of these saints appear only once, whereas four are extremely popular by com
parison: the Archangel Michael, George, Theodore and Demetrios.196
The Archangel Michael appears on 484 seals. On the five 6th-century exam
ples, Michael is depicted wearing a chiton and holding a labarum.197 In two exam
ples he is identified with an invocative inscription, ΜΙΧΑΗΛ ΒΟΗΘΗ (Michael,
help).198 On the 6th/7th-century examples, Michael is shown holding a cross-staff
in one hand and an orb in the other. None identify the figure by inscription. Sim
ilar representations are found on the two seals of the 7th century where again no
inscriptions identify the figure. The two 8th-century pieces portray the standing
Archangel in a chiton, holding a labarum and flanked by identifying cruciform
invocative monograms, ΑΡΧΙΣΤΡΑΤΙΓΕ (Commander, help).199
All of the 10th-century examples represent the Archangel Michael dressed in
the imperial loros. Seventeen of these loroi are the crossed type (Figure 3.7);200
seven are the modified straight type (Figure 3.8);201 whereas seven cannot be
determined.
The crossed form is the older, and the change to the straight form appears in
imperial images on seals and coins of the 10th century; the alteration occurred
during the reign of Romanos I, c. 930.202 The engravers of seals were sensitive to
196 According to the findings of HALSALL, Women’s Bodies, Men’s Souls, p. 31–32, Table 2.1, the
written sources listed in the BHG indicate Demetrios and George as the most popular of the mili
tary saints, whereas Theodore is included in a secondary group and Michael is found in a tertiary
group. As discussed in the present paper, the seals offer different relative popularities.
197 For a general discussion of the representation of angels, see M. ALPATOV, Sur l’iconographie
des anges dans l’art de Byzance et de l’ancienne Russie, in Zograf, 11 (1980), p. 5–15; S. GABE
LIĆ, Cycles of the Archangels in Byzantine Art, Belgrade, 1991; MAGUIRE, The Icons of Their
Bodies, p. 67–72, 82–85 and 151–159; and G. PEERS, Subtle Bodies: Representing Angels in
Byzantium, Berkeley, 2001, p. 13–60, passim.
198 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1256.
199 Ibid., no. 1351. The other is SEIBT and ZARNITZ, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel, no. 5.2.1.
202 For the coins, see BELLINGER and GRIERSON, DO Coins, III:2, p. 548, pl. 36, no. 9. For the
seals, see ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, no. 66d, pl. 19. The crossed loros,
however, can still be found on imperial effigies on coins and seals into the 11th century as well
as in manuscript illuminations: Coislin 79, fol. 1 (2bis)v. For a discussion of the loros and its
development, see BELLINGER and GRIERSON, DO Coins, III:1, p. 120–125, Table 12 and M.
PARANI, The Romanos Ivory and the New Tokali Kilise: Imperial Costume as a Tool for Dating
Byzantine Art, in CA, 49 (2001), p. 16 and eadem, Reconstructing the Reality of Images: Byzan
tine Material Culture and Religious Iconography (11th-15th Centuries), Leiden, 2003, p. 18–27.
For a discussion of the similarities of inscriptions and imagery found on coins and imperial seals,
see C. MORRISSON and G. ZACOS, L’image de l’empereur byzantin sur les sceaux et les mon
naies, in La monnaie: miroir des rois, ed. Y. GOLDENBERG, Paris, 1978, p. 57–72.
102
Chart 3.6 Chronological Frequency of Military Saints
MILITARY SAINTS 6c 6/7c 7c 7/8c 8c 8/9c 9c 9/1 Oc 10c 10/11c 11c 11/12C 12c TOTAL
Andrew Stratelates 1 1
Akindynos 1 1
Bacchos 1 1
Demetrios 3 1 3 11 3 145 56 36 259
Dometios 1 1
Eustathios 7 1 8
George 3 3 16 217 106 62 407
Hyakinthos 4 4
Konon 1 1
Michael 5 4 2 2 2 31 31 285 88 34 484
Niketas 1 2 13 2 1 19
Polyeuktos 1 1
Prokopios 3 9 2 1 15
Sergios 1 1 2
Theodore 2 14 1 2 3 1 1 16 17 199 93 50 399
Figure 3.7 Michael, lead seal, 10th century, Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sackler
Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, Bequest of Thomas Whitte
more, BZS.1951.31.5.270
Figure 3.8 Michael, lead seal, 10th century, Zacos Collection

Source: After G. Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, II [Berne, 1984], no. 899
the change in the imperial numismatic imagery and simultaneously represented a

similar loros for sigillographic images of the Archangel Michael.
In the 10th/11th century there was a greater variety of representation. Fifteen
seals show the archangel wearing the imperial loros: six of the crossed type,
104
nine of the straight type. Nine others could not be verified. Six examples por
tray Michael wearing the civil tablion but still holding the imperial scepter and
globe,203 and one depicts him with military accouterments: a sword in his right
hand, a spear in his left.204
In the 11th century, the variation continues. One hundred and ninety-nine of
the figures of Michael were imperially dressed with just nine displaying the older
crossed loros type. Thirty seals depict the archangel with the scepter and globe but
wearing a short civil or military tunic.205 Twenty-eight specimens portray Michael
in civil costume with the chlamys decorated with the tablion.206 Six display the
archangel in military garb: a short tunic, with a sword in one hand and its scab
bard in the other.207 One example shows Archangel Michael in another combined
form: wearing the imperial loros but holding the sword and scabbard.208 From this
11th-century group, three seals identify the archangel, dressed in military garb
and accouterments, with two different epithets: Ο ΧΟΝΙΑΤΗϹ (the Choniates),209
referring to Archangel Michael’s miracle at Chonai;210 and Ο ΣΤΡΑΤΗΛΑΤΗϹ(the
General).211 Although the imperial aspect of the archangel clearly dominates
sphragistic samples, by the 11th century his military character is also developed.
It even is appropriated for his representation as the Choniates as seen on the seal
that belonged to John, a megas domestikos of the skolon of the East.212
Among military saints, the cult of Archangel Michael was the most popu
lar,213 followed closely by George and Theodore. Several aspects of the archangel

204 V. LAURENT, Le corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantin, II: L’administration centrale, Paris,
1982, no. 196.
207 MCGEER, NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES†, DO Seals, IV, no. 40.10.a.
208 C. STAVRAKOS, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel mit Familiennamen aus der Sammlung des
Numismatischen Museums Athen, Wiesbaden, 2000, no. 61.
209 NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, III, no. 99.6 and SANDROVSKAJA, Sfragistika,
no. 698. There is also a third example assigned to the 11th/12th century, KONSTANTOPOULOS,
Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα, no. 709.
210 For the miracle at Chonai, see O. MEINARDUS, St. Michael’s Miracle of Khonae and Its
Geographical Setting, in Ἐκκλησία καὶ Θεολογία, 1 (1980), p. 459–469. For an overview of
the history of the shrine and the cult, see V. SAXER, Jalons pour servir à l’histoire du culte
de l’Archange Saint Michel en Orient jusqu’à l’Iconoclasme, in Noscere sancta miscellanea in
memoria di Agostino Amore OFM (1982), ed. I. VÁZQUEZ JANEIRO, Rome, 1985, p. 382–
391. For a discussion of this miracle and its relation to other hagiographical texts in light of the
debates of Iconoclasm, the successive reworkings of the narrative and the nature of the presence
and appearances of the Archangel, see G. PEERS, Hagiographic Models of Worship of Images
and Angels, in Byzantion, 67 (1997), p. 407–420 and IDEM, Subtle Bodies, p. 143–193, passim.
212 Ibid., no. 99.6.
213 For the cult of the Archangel, see J. ROHLAND, Der Erzengel Michael, Arzt und Feldherr:
Zwei Aspekte des vor-und frühbyzantinischen Michaelskultes, Leiden, 1977; SAXER, L’histoire
du culte de l’archange Saint Michel, 357–426; B. MARTIN-HISARD, Le culte de l’archange
105
contributed to his popularity. Various scholars have demonstrated the strong impe
rial connections Michael enjoyed as early as the Constantinian period.214 Given
such strong imperial associations, Michael on the seals was frequently depicted
with imperial insignia. From the 6th century onward, sphragistic examples show
the archangel holding the imperial scepter and globe.215 By the 10th century, it is
customary to portray him on seals wearing the imperial loros.216 From the 10th
century onward, the loros remained by far the most represented garment for him
on the seals. This reflects trends seen in other media as well.217
This sphragistic evidence supports observations of scholars who have recently
dealt with the topic of the loros-clad archangel. Maguire,218 Glenn Peers,219
Catherine Jolivet-Lévy220 and Maria Parani221 note that this iconographic motif
occurred with greater frequency after Iconoclasm. Whereas Maguire stresses that
the image of the imperially clad archangel was a visual means of enhancing the
celestial quality of the emperor and observes that angels are depicted in imperial
dress only when represented in the heavenly realm,222 Peers223 and Jolivet-Lévy224
argue that the loros on the emperor and archangel is a sign that they share an
identical status and role: each functions as a servant to the Heavenly King. Parani,
on the other hand, understands the loros-clad archangel as an image alluding to
Michel dans l’empire byzantin (VIIIe-XIe siècles), in Culto e Insediamenti Micaelici Nell’Ita
lia Meridionale fra Tarda Antichità e Medioevo. Atti del Convegno Internazionale Monte Sant’
Angelo 18–21 Novembre 1992, ed. C. CARLETTI and G. OTRANTO, Bari, 1994, p. 351–373;
JOLIVET-LÉVY, Culte et iconographie de l’archange Michel, p. 187–198; and PEERS, Subtle
Bodies, 157–193.
214 ROHLAND, Der Erzengel Michael, p. 114–135; SAXER, L’archange Saint Michel, p. 402–415;
C. MANGO, St. Michael and Attis, in ∆XAE, per. 4, 12, 1984 (1986), p. 58–62; MARTIN-
HISARD, Le culte de l’Archange Michel, p. 364–365; JOLIVET-LÉVY, Culte et iconographie
de l’archange Michel, p. 193–196; and G. PEERS, Patriarchal Politics in the Paris Gregory, in
JÖB, 47 (1997), p. 52–59.
215 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantgine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1257, offer one example.
216 MARTIN-HISARD, Le culte de l’Archange Michel, p. 355, also observed that the imperial image
of Michael dominated the sphragistic examples of the Archangel.
217 PARANI, Reconstructing Images of Reality, p. 45–46.
218 H. MAGUIRE, A Murder Among the Angels: The Frontispiece miniatures of Paris. Gr. 510 and
the Iconography of the Archangels in Byzantine Art, in The Sacred Image East and West, p. 64–65
and IDEM, The Heavenly Court, in Byzantine Court Culture, p. 255.
219 PEERS, Patriarchal Politics, p. 56.
220 C. JOLIVET-LÉVY, Note sur la représentation des archanges en costume impérial dans l’ico
nographie byzantine, in CA, 46 (1998), p. 121.
221 PARANI, Reconstructing the Reality of Images, p. 45.
222 H. MAGUIRE, Style and Ideology in Byzantine Imperial Art, in Gesta, 28:2 (1989), p. 222–223;
IDEM, A Murder Among the Angels, p. 65 and 68–69; and idem, The Heavenly Court, p. 255–
258. PARANI, Reconstructing the Reality of Images, p. 48, n. 159 and pl. 56, cites several late
Byzantine examples of the Annunciation in which Gabriel is clad in the loros and discusses a
possible “royal” character to the archangel even in these settings.
223 PEERS, Patriarchal Politics, p. 54–59.
224 JOLIVET-LÉVY, Note sur la représentation des archanges, p. 123–126. In his latter article con
cerning this topic, MAGUIRE, The Heavenly Court, p. 257–258, also makes this point.
106
triumphal themes of Christ as theophanies of his divine glory and as an attempt at

exalting the imperial status to that of beings in proximity to God.225
On the seals, the depiction of the Archangel Michael wearing the imperial loros
is by far the most popular representation. Ownership of these seals was not lim
ited to those who had titles associated with the imperial court. Private individuals
also preferred the archangel with his imperial associations. For the inhabitants of
the earthly realm, the person of the emperor was seen as sacred, an all-powerful
protector and the central figure of the court and bureaucracy.226 The emperor’s
image, clad in the loros, was widely circulated on coins with which the populace
would be most familiar and which they would naturally perceive as emblematic of
an all-powerful ruler, even Christ’s vicar on earth.227 Because Archangel Michael
acquired imperial connotations, his role as helper and intercessor in the heav
enly realm was enhanced and perceived as more effective on behalf of the seals’
owners.228
Although Michael was a patron of the emperor, he was also associated with
other high-ranking officials. Of the 285 11th-century seals with images of Archan
gel Michael, 35 bear high-ranking titles reserved for eunuchs who were personal
servants to the emperor.229 Of these, 32, or 91.4%, display images of the archangel
adorned with the imperial loros.
The military character of Archangel Michael has also been elucidated.230
Although the title has wider literary than sphragistic use, Michael was not actually
dressed in military garb in depictions on seals until the 11th century and then in
relatively few examples: six in military garb; three with non-military epithets but
225 PARANI, Reconstructing the Reality of Images, p. 46–49, esp. n. 155 in which she outlines the
views of Maguire, Jolivet-Lévy and Peers.
226 For discussion of the person and role of the emperor, see KAZHDAN and EPSTEIN, Change
in Byzantine Culture, p. 110–116; A. KAZHDAN and M. MCCORMICK, The Social World of
the Byzantine Court, in Byzantine Court Culture, p. 167–197; V. KEPETZI, Images de piété de
l’empereur dans la peinture byzantine (Xe/XIIIe siècle)-Reflections sur quelques exemples, in
Byzantinische Malerei, p. 109–145; and G. DAGRON, Emperor and Priest: The Imperial Office
in Byzantium, trans. J. BIRRELL, Cambridge, 2003, p. 127–222, passim.
227 PARANI, The Romanos Ivory and the New Tokali Kilise, p. 21, where she discusses the role that
the loros played in enhancing the Christo-mimetic character of the emperor.
228 In discussing the popularity of the sphragistic image of Michael dressed in the loros, MAR
TIN-HISARD, Le culte de l’Archange Michel, p. 355, clearly states that Michael is a kosmokra
tor whose image would evoke that of an emperor if he lacked wings.
229 N. OIKONOMIDES, Les listes de préséance byzantines du IXe et Xe siécle, Paris, 1972, p. 299–
301 and 305–307, enumerates the titles and positions specified for eunuchs. For further discus
sion of eunuchs in the service of the court, see S. TOUGHER, Byzantine Eunuchs: An Overview,
With Special Reference to Their Creation and Origin, in Women, Men and Eunuchs: Gender in
Byzantium, ed. L. JAMES, London, 1997, p. 169–172 and 179–180 and K. RINGROSE, The
Perfect Servant: Eunuchs and the Social Construction of Gender in Byzantium, Chicago, 2003,
p. 128–141 and 163–183.
230 ROHLAND, Der Erzengel Michael, p. 50–64 and 105–144; MARTIN-HISARD, Le culte de
l’Archange Michel, p. 352, 357, 360–361 and 369; JOLIVET-LÉVY, Culte et iconographie de
l’archange Michel, p. 193–196; and PARANI, Reconstructing the Reality of Images, p. 154–155.
107
in military costume; and one that combines the imperial loros with the sword and
scabbard.231 Of the 11th/12th-century seals of Michael, just six of 88 are in warrior
costume, and among those of the 12th century, only three of the 34 are military
figures. This phenomenon will be addressed below in a discussion of other military
figures. From the sphragistic evidence, therefore, the military aspect of the Arch
angel’s cult is of minor significance. This finding supports the work of Martin-His
ard,232 who qualified Rohland’s emphasis on the militarization of Michael’s cult.233
In addition to imperial and military associations, Michael was regarded as a
healer, a view that greatly contributed to his cult.234 From the 6th century come
the earliest surviving texts describing the miracle at Chonai, a city of Phrygia, and
the therapeutic properties of the shrine’s spring,235 whose healing waters became
the focus of a great pilgrimage center.236 Three seals in the database were those
of metropolitans of Chonai. Two belonged to an 11th-century hierarch named
Constantine who selected an image of Michael wearing the imperial loros for his
seals,237 while the third specimen, the name of whose owner does not appear in the
inscription, also assigned to the 11th century, bears an image of the archangel in a
short tunic but holding the imperial scepter and globe.238
Among churches dedicated to Michael, several others were sites of miraculous
healings: the church of ἐν τῷ Ἀνάπλῳ in Constantinople;239 the shrine ἐν τοῖς
Εὐσεβίου;240 the renowned shrine of Michael known as the Sosthenion, near Con
stantinople;241 and the shrine at Germia, in western Galatia.242 Seals associated
231 STAVRAKOS, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel mit Familiennamen, no. 61.

232 MARTIN-HISARD, Le culte de l’Archange Michel, p. 360–361.
233 ROHLAND, Der Erzengel Michael, p. 138–148.
234 ROHLAND, Der Erzengel Michael, p. 44–47 and 75–104; MARTIN-HISARD, Le culte de
l’Archange Michel, p. 352–353 and 370; and JOLIVET-LÉVY, Culte et iconographie de l’arch
ange Michel, p. 188–193.
235 ROHLAND, Der Erzengel Michael, p. 95. For the reworked editions of the legend, see Narratio de
Miraculo a Michaele Archangelo, ed. M. BONNET, AB, 8 (1889), p. 286–316. For comment on Bon
net’s editions, see PEERS, Hagiographic Models, p. 409, n. 8 and IDEM, Subtle Bodies, p. 143, n. 41.
236 For pilgrimage to the shrine of Chonai, see S. VRYONIS, JR., The Decline of Medieval Hellen
ism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh Through the Fifteenth Cen
tury, Berkeley, 1971, p. 20 and 33, n. 165; P. MARAVAL, Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient:
Histoire et géographie: Des origines à la conquête arabe, Paris, 1985, p. 385; SAXER, L’arch
ange Saint Michel, p. 385–391; MALAMUT, Sur la route des saints byzantins, p. 31, 41–42, 127,
169, 235, 297, 304–305, 307, 313 and 314; and PEERS, Subtle Bodies, 158 and 179.
237 NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, III, no. 12.1a and b.
239 JANIN, Églises CP, p. 338–340 and SAXER, L’archange Saint Michel, p. 404–407.
240 JANIN, Églises CP, p. 341.
241 Ibid., p. 346–349 and SAXER, L’archange Saint Michel, p. 407–415. For discussion of the Sos
thenion in light of Malalas’ chronicle, see G. PEERS, The Sosthenion Near Constantinople: John
Malalas and Ancient Art, in Byzantion, 68 (1998), p. 110–120.
242 For a discussion of this shrine and its founder, along with an edition of Pantoleon’s texts concern
ing the shrine’s healing waters, see MANGO, St. Michael and Attis, p. 45–55. See also IDEM,
The Pilgrimage Centre of St. Michael at Germia, in JÖB, 36 (1986), p. 117–132.
108
with these latter two shrines are found in the database. Two are connected to the
Sosthenion: an 11th-century piece belonging to an abbot of the monastery bearing
an image of Michael in the imperial loros,243 and an 11th/12th-century seal issued
by the monastery that shows Michael in a short tunic and holding the imperial
scepter and globe.244 Three seals of the database belonged to hierarchs of Germia,
and each of them displays an image of the archangel: a 7th-century example on
which Michael wears a long chiton and holds a cross staff and globe;245 and a
10th-century and an 11th-century example, both of which bear images of the arch
angel in the imperial loros.246 The large body of sphragistic material indicates only
a very small interest in the healing aspect of the archangel. Most of the sphragistic
images associated with the healing shrines noted depict Michael with imperial
accouterments, again indicating the greater preference for the archangel’s impe
rial character to that of miraculous healer.
As patron of the emperor, high officials and the military, as a wonder-working
healer, Archangel Michael understandably was popular in the Byzantine world. In
contrast, Gabriel, Michael’s counterpart, appears on seals very rarely and never
alone.247 In two instances he is paired with Michael,248 and he is one of the per
sonages of the 58 sphragistic depictions of the Annunciation.249 According to the
sphragistic data, there was little interest in the veneration of Gabriel, a conclusion
corroborated by Rohland’s observation of the small number of churches dedicated
to him.250
Like the other sphragistic images discussed so far, the image of Michael
appears most frequently on seals of holders of offices in the civil administration:
195 out of 484, or 40.3% of the total. There are 123 examples without titles or
with titles that cannot be determined, representing 25.4% of the sample. Of the
170 seals bearing an image of Michael that also include a geographic region in
their inscriptions, 118, or 69.4%, represent areas scattered over all the regions
of Asia Minor, without any particular concentration on a specific area. After
the seals from the civil administration, there are 66, or 13.6%, from the church

246 LAURENT, Corpus, V:2, no. 821, publishes the 10th-century example and MCGEER, NESBITT
and OIKONOMIDES†, DO Seals, IV, no. 5.1, present that of the 11th century.
247 Even though a few pre-Iconoclastic examples of angels on seals lack identifying inscriptions,
they clearly allude to Michael because two of the 6th-century examples actually invoke him
(ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, nos. 1251 and 1256) and his sigla are the
only ones that appear on later specimens.
248 I. KOLTSIDA-MAKRE, Βυζαντινὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα Συλλογῆς Ὀρφανίδη-Νικολαΐδη
Νομισματικοῦ Μουσείου Ἀθηνῶν, Athens, 1996, no. 322 and SEIBT and ZARNITZ, Das byzan
tinische Bleisiegel, no. 3.1.11. In neither example is the figure identified.
249 For a standard representation on the seals, see NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, I, no.
29.8.
250 ROHLAND, Der Erzengel Michael, p. 134.
109
hierarchy; 23, or 4.8%, from the lower clergy; 26, or 5.4%, from the monastic
world; and 52, or 10.7%, from the military administration. After the civil admin
istration, the veneration of Michael appears to be fostered mostly by members
of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the military offices. In this aspect, Michael’s
image parallels that of Nicholas, which finds a wider distribution across the sec
tors of Byzantine society.
After Michael, the three most popular military saints found on seals are Theo
dore (399); George (407); and Demetrios (259). These three will be discussed at
some length.251 Theodore first appears on seals in the 6th century, before George
and Demetrios. As can be seen from Chart 3.6, Theodore is depicted more fre
quently on seals from the pre-Iconoclastic period than any other military saint.
His cult developed very early as is evidenced by a homily ascribed to Gregory of
Nyssa and devoted to Theodore that also mentions an image of the saint.252 As in
the early examples of the other saints, in the pre-Iconoclastic period he is not iden
tified by inscription on the seals. In the 6th- and 6th/7th-century examples, he is
bearded, standing, wearing a short military tunic, holding a shield in his left hand
and a long lance or cross staff in the right, while either treading upon a serpent or
having the tip of the staff resting on the coiled beast.253 This imagery accords with
the legends concerning the saint’s killing of the dragon. Indeed, seals provide the
earliest evidence for this episode, which does not appear in the hagiographical
sources until the 8th century.254 A close parallel to the sphragistic image is the
251 For a general discussion of the depiction of military figures, see P. UNDERWOOD, The Kariye
Djami I, London, 1966, p. 249–261; M. MARKOVIĆ, On the Iconography of the Military Saints
in Eastern Christian Art and the Representations of Holy Warriors in the Monastery of Dečani, in
Mural Painting of the Monastery of Dečani: Materials and Studies, ed. V. Djurič, Belgrade, 1995,
p. 627–630, fig. 2–51; T. PAPAMASTORAKIS, Ἱστορίες καὶ ἱστορήσεις Βυζαντινῶν παλληκαρίων,
in ∆XAE, per. 4, 20 (1998), p. 213–228 and PARANI, Reconstructing the Reality of Images, p. 149–
155. For detailed discussion of these three particular saints and military saints in general, see WAL
TER, The Warrior Saints, p. 41–93, 109–144 and 270–290.
252 PG, 46, col. 736–748. For a more recent study of the homily’s manuscript and print tradition,
as well as for a critical edition, see J. CAVARNOS, De sancto Theodoro, in Gregorii Nysseni
Sermones 2, ed. G. HEIL, J. CAVARNOS and O. LENDLE, Leiden, 1990, p. cxxxv-clxxii and
59–71. See also C. ZUCKERMAN, Cappadocian Fathers and the Goths, in TM, 11 (1991),
p. 479–486, who following more recent scholarship, also considers the homily as authentic. For
recent studies devoted to the cult of Theodore as well as to his iconography, see N. OIKONO
MIDES, Le dédoublement de Saint Théodore et les villes d’Euchaïta et d’Euchaneia, in AB,
104 (1986), p. 327–335 (repr. in his Byzantium From the Ninth Century to the Fourth Crusade,
Hampshire, 1992); C. WALTER, Theodore, Archtype of the Warrior Saint, in REB, 57 (1999),
p. 163–210; IDEM, Saint Theodore and the Dragon, p. 95–106; IDEM, The Warrior Saints,
p. 44–66; J.-C. CHEYNET, Le culte de Saint Théodore chez les officiers de l’armée d’orient, in
Byzantium, State and Society: In Memory of Nikos Oikonomides, ed. A. AVRAMEA, A. LAIOU
and E. CHRYSOS, Athens, 2003, p. 137–153; and NESBITT, Apotropaic Devices, p. 107–113.
253 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1283b. See also NESBITT, Apotropaic
Devices, p. 110, fig. 13.14.
254 OIKONOMIDES, Le dédoublement, p. 328; WALTER, Theodore, p. 168 and 172–173; IDEM,
Saint Theodore and the Dragon, p. 96; and IDEM, The Warrior Saint, p. 51.
110
gold and niello ring from the 6th century in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection that
was mentioned above.255 In one of the two 7th/8th-century examples, the figure is
similar and also is labeled Theodore.256
Of the three 8th-century specimens, one is an equestrian figure, identified
as Theodore by a circular inscription on the obverse.257 Although several other
pre-Iconoclastic sphragistic examples of equestrian figures exist, they are not
identified, and it is difficult to determine if they are bearded or, given the youth
ful visage of George, the other equestrian military saint. An icon from Sinai,
assigned to the 9th/10th centuries, may be one of the earliest painted examples of
the equestrian Theodore,258 but the seals offer older evidence for this iconography.
Closer in date to our seals is a gold medallion in the museum of Reggio, assigned
to the late 6th or 7th century, in which the equestrian figure, identified by inscrip
tion, is depicted killing a serpent or dragon.259 The sphragistic evidence and that
of the gold medallion demonstrate that Theodore was the first of the warrior saints
depicted as an equestrian dragon slayer, even before a similar role was attributed
to George.260
The pre-Iconoclastic images of Theodore found on seals, especially those with
out an identifying inscription, are reminiscent of early Christian apotropaic amu
lets and rings. As discussed above, images on jewelry often functioned as amuletic
motifs and most likely continued to act in this capacity when transferred to lead
bullae.261 This is probably the case with images of the holy rider found on such
objects.262 Both the equestrian and standing sphragistic representations of The
odore destroying the serpent strengthen this similarity with the amuletic image.
Since the seals are close in size to the amulets and also for personal use, the same
apotropaic powers may have been expected from them as well, thus accounting
for the popularity of this image on pre-Iconoclastic seals. This similarity between
amuletic and sphragistic imagery might explain the fact that on these early seals
255 ROSS, DO Catalogue, II, no. 179N. See note 39, supra.
256 KONSTANTOPOULOS, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα, no. 1189.
257 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1281A.
258 WEITZMANN, Mount Sinai: The Icons, B.43, in which the saint is identified by inscription. The
matching panel is that of the equestrian figure of George.
259 W. VOLBACH, Un medaglione d’oro con l’imagine di S. Teodoro nel museo di Reggio Calabria,
in Archivo storico per la Calabria e la Lucania, 13 (1943), p. 68–89. See also OIKONOMIDES,
Le dédoublement, p. 328.
260 This phenomenon has also been observed by WALTER, Theodore, p. 173; idem, Saint Theodore
and the Dragon, p. 95–97 and 102; and idem, The Warrior Saints, p. 64.
261 NESBITT, Apotropaic Devices, p. 107–113.
262 See E. DAUTERMAN-MAGUIRE, H. MAGUIRE and M. DUNCAN-FLOWERS, Art and Holy
Powers in the Early Christian House, Urbana-Champaign, 1989, no. 84 and p. 25–28 for a dis
cussion of this motif. See also VIKAN, Art, Medicine, and Magic in Early Byzantium, p. 79–83;
IDEM, Two Unpublished Pilgrim Tokens, p. 341–346 and II, pl. 197–198; IDEM, Icons and Icon
Piety in Early Byzantium, p. 574–576; MAGUIRE, Icons of Their Bodies, p. 122–127; FUL
GHUM HEINTZ, Magic, Medicine, and Prayer, p. 278–281; Byzantine Women and Their World,
nos. 167–171; and NESBITT, Apotropaic Devices, p. 107–113.
111
Theodore is always depicted in military garb and only after Iconoclasm does he
appear on seals in civil costume.263
In the one 9th-century sphragistic example, Theodore is represented in civil
garb, the chlamys with the tablion, holding the martyr’s cross and identified by
inscription.264 Three of the 10th-century examples present the saint in military
garb, with the lance and shield (Figure 3.9),265 whereas 13 present him in civil
costume (Figure 3.10).266
On the 10th/11th-century seals, Theodore appears in civil costume three times
and 13 times in military garb. In one case, he appears with mixed attributes: wear
ing the civil chlamys with the tablion but holding both a lance and a cross.267 In the
11th century, 21 examples display the civil version, whereas 177 exhibit the mil
itary form, and one is uncertain. In the 11th/12th century, two representations are
in civil costume and 92 are in military garb, while in the 12th century, one is civil,
49 are military and one is uncertain. Thus, by the 10th/11th century the dominant
representation of Theodore is as a military saint, and this type quickly became
the standard.268 Of all the depictions of Theodore on seals, just one 8th-century
specimen presents him as an equestrian figure.269 The equestrian Theodore does
not, therefore, appear to be a preferred iconographic type. This may be a result of
the small size of the field of the seal.
From the 10th through the 12th centuries, one finds seals that differentiate
between the two Theodores, the Teron (the Recruit) and the Stratelates (the com
mander or general). Eight examples depict Theodore Teron alone and 14 portray
Theodore Stratelates. The earliest Theodore Teron is from the 10th century and is
presented in civil garb270 while only one of the 11th-century examples is the civil
263 OIKONOMIDES, Le dédoublement, p. 333, notes that in various pre-Iconoclastic images, Theo
dore could appear in either civil or military costume but states that the early sphragistic examples
were all of the military type and that the specimens that depict the saint either treading upon the
serpent, or stabbing the serpent with his lance, do not reappear after Iconoclasm and makes no
comment about this. WALTER, Theodore, p. 181–182 and 194, and IDEM, The Warrior Saints,
p. 56, observes that before Iconoclasm, and from the 11th century onwards, within various media,
Theodore is primarily represented in military costume, but for the early material the author does
not discuss any common amuletic associations.
267 Ibid., no. 62.1.
268 OIKONOMIDES, Le dédoublement, p. 333, makes the observation that during the 9th through
11th centuries both the civil and military representation of Theodore can be found on seals, while
WALTER, Theodore, p. 182–183 and 194 and IDEM, The Warrior Saints, p. 56, discussing var
ious media, states that after Iconoclasm, it became increasingly more common to portray Theo
dore as a soldier, especially by the 11th century. This trend will be further discussed in the present
paper, infra.
269 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, 1281A.
112
Figure 3.9 Theodore, lead seal, 10th century, Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1947.2.56
Figure 3.10 Theodore, lead seal, 10th century, Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.1884
type;271 the other two specimens from this century portray Theodore in military
garb, holding the spear and shield.272 The 11th/12th-century piece has Theodore
Teron in civil costume, and the latest two examples, belonging to the 12th century,
portray him as a military figure.273
The earliest example of Theodore Stratelates appears on a seal of the 11th
century and continues into the 11th/12th century.274 On seals, when this figure
is depicted alone, he is always in military garb.275 From the 11th to the 12th cen
tury, there are 15 examples of the two Theodores depicted together. Ten of these
provide no accompanying epithets of the two Theodores, whereas six examples
identify the two. These specimens all portray the saints in military costume except
for one 12th-century example in which the two Theodores are dressed in civil
garb, each holding a small martyr’s cross, but their shields and spears are placed
upright between them.276
Both Oikonomides277 and Walter278 discuss the development of the “dou
bling” or “twinning” of these two figures. The earliest figure of Theodore in
both hagiographic literature and images is the Teron whose shrine was known
in Euchaïta as early as the 5th century.279 Theodore Stratelates does not make
his literary hagiographic debut until the late 9th century when Niketas David
the Paphlagonian composed a Laudatio in honor of this saint, whose cult was
focused at his shrine in Euchaneia.280 The earliest images of the Stratelates are
found on the celebrated 10th-century ivory triptychs281 and in the Menologion of
271 Ibid., no. 16.8.

272 Ibid., no. 22.24 and KONSTANTOPOULOS, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα, no. 174.
273 N. LIHAČEV, Molivdovuly grečeskogo vostoka, ed. V. ŠANDROVSKAJA, Moscow, 1991, 8
and G. SCHLUMBERGER, Sigillographie de l’empire byzantin, Paris, 1884 p. 692, no. 1.
274 LAURENT, Le collection C. Orghidan, no. 95 and J.-C. CHEYNET, C. MORRISSON and W.
SEIBT, Sceaux byzantins de lac collection Henri Seyrig, Paris, 1991, no. 211.
277 OIKONOMIDES, Le dédoublement, p. 327–335.
278 WALTER, Theodore, p. 185–195 and IDEM, The Warrior Saints, p. 59–64 and 285–290.
279 OIKONOMIDES, Le dédoublement, p. 328–329; Walter, Theodore, p. 183 and 185; and IDEM,
The Warrior Saints, p. 57.
280 OIKONOMIDES, Le dédoublement, p. 329; WALTER, Theodore, p. 183–186; and IDEM, The
Warrior Saints, p. 59. The text of the Laudatio can be found in AASS, November IV (1925),
p. 83–89. Both Oikonomides and Walter discuss the history of the two distinct cities as they are
cited in the primary sources and their subsequent confusion in Byzantine texts and later in the
studies of modern scholars. On the other hand, it should be noted that PAPACONSTANTINOU,
Le culte des saints en Égypte, p. 99, cites Coptic references from the 8th century that refer to
Theodore of Euchaïta as “Stratelates”.
281 CUTLER, The Hand of the Master, p. 220–221, fig. 169, 170 and 176, assigns all three triptychs
to the mid to third quarter of the 10th century while I. KALAVREZOU, Triptych Icon With the
Deesis and Saints, and The Harbaville Triptych, both in Glory of Byzantium, nos. 79 and 80,
assigns the Museo Sacro triptych to the 10th/11th century and the Harbaville Triptych to the mid-
11th century. N. OIKONOMIDES, The Concept of ‘Holy War’ and Two Tenth-Century Ivories, in
115
Basil II of c. 1000.282 Physiognomically, the two Theodores share a similar por

trait type with a full head of curly hair and a full pointed beard,283 features also
observed on the seals.
The sphragistic evidence follows somewhat the outlines described by Oikon
omides and Walter. The pre-Iconoclastic seals bearing images of a bearded mili
tary figure of Theodore, destroying the serpent, do not provide an accompanying
epithet but clearly intend to depict the Teron because during this early period he
was the only military Theodore known. The earliest seal with Theodore labeled as
Teron is from the 10th century. It belonged to a metropolitan of Euchaita where
the shrine of the Teron (the Recruit) was located, and in this example the saint
is in civil dress.284 The epithet appeared when the distinction between the two
Theodores began to occur in other visual media and in the hagiographic literature.
On seals, however, the epithet Stratelates is not found until the 11th century, of
which just two examples survive, one of which belonged to John, a metropolitan
of Euchaneia, where the shrine of the Stratelates (the Commander) was located.285
Sphragistic data suggest that in the later period, the Stratelates was preferred over
the Teron. The preference for the Stratelates accords with both Oikonomides’s286
and Walter’s287 general observations that the cult of the commander was esteemed
more than that of the mere recruit or foot soldier. This preference parallels a syn
chronous pattern of aristocratization and militarization of Byzantine society in
general.288 Of the 399 seals bearing images of Theodore, just 35, or 8.8%, either
Peace and War in Byzantium: Essays in Honor of George T. Dennis, S. J., ed. T. MILLERi and J.
NESBITT, Washington, DC, 1995, p. 75–77, also links the Palazzo Venezia triptych to Constatn
tine VII (945–959), more specifically to the last years of his reign, and also observes (p. 73, n.
21) that this piece bears one of the earliest datable images of Theodore Stratelates. As regarding
the dates of the Museo Sacro and Harbaville triptychs, OIKONOMIDES, p. 75, n. 24, considers
them later pieces, basing his opinion upon the earlier work of I. KALAVREZOU-MAXEINER,
Eudokia Makrembolitissa and the Romanos Ivory, in DOP, 31 (1977), p. 319–324.
282 Il Menologio di Basilio II (Vatic. gr. 1613), ed. C. STORNAJOLO and P. FRANCHI DE CAVA
LIERI, Vatican/Milan, 1907, p. 383; WALTER, Theodore, p. 180 and 203, fig. 8; and IDEM, The
Warrior Saints, p. 65, fig. 48.
283 OIKONOMIDES, Le dédoublement, p. 333–334; WALTER, Theodore, p. 191; and IDEM, The
Warrior Saints, p. 60.
285 ZACOS, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, no. 519, whose incorrect reading of the inscription did not
determine a place name. OIKONOMIDES, Le dédoublement, p. 331–332, provided the correct
reading of the seal’s inscription and assigned the date. See also WALTER, Theodore, p. 184 and
The Warrior Saint, p. 58.
286 OIKONOMIDES, Le dédoublement, p. 334.
287 WALTER, Theodore, p. 188 and IDEM, The Warrior Saint, p. 62–64.
288 For discussions of the rise of the military and civil aristocracy after the 10th century, see H. AHR
WEILER, Recherches sur la société byzantine au XIe siècle: Nouvelles hiérarchies et nouvelles
solidarités, in TM, 6 (1976), p. 99–124; OIKONOMIDES, L’évolution de l’organisation admin
istrative, p. 125–152; KAZHDAN and EPSTEIN, Change in Byzantine Culture, p. 63–73 and
106–116; MAGDALINO, The Empire of Manuel I, p. 180–201; and KAZHDAN and MCCOR
MICK, The Social World of the Byzantine Court, in Byzantine Court Culture, p. 167–197.
116
identified the two saints with epithets or distinguished them by representing the
two figures together. It is evident from the seals, therefore, that the distinction
between the two Theodores was not a significant concern or that confusion con
cerning the identity of the two saints continued after the 9th century when the
Stratelates began to appear. Such an interpretation supports Oikonomides’s con
clusion regarding the duplication and conflation of the cults associated with the
figure of Theodore after Iconoclasm.289 Oikonomides regards the Stratelates as a
later fabrication whose hagiographic texts and portrait type were dependent on
that of the Teron.290 Walter reached similar conclusions.291 The sphragistic evi
dence concerning the epithets and doubling likewise correspond to Walter’s find
ings regarding the infrequent occurrence of the “twinning” of the Theodores in
inscriptions and church dedications, albeit the phenomenon was more common in
the literary sources.292
The doubling of the figure of Theodore in the sphragistic material, however,
strengthens Oikonomides’s hypothesis as to the origin of this phenomenon293
despite Walter’s rejection of Oikonomides’s thesis.294 Oikonomides suggested that
the two identities were based upon two iconographic types of the same saint: one
in civil costume, holding the martyr’s cross; the other dressed in military garb.
After Iconoclasm, an image of Theodore in civil costume was discovered and ven
erated at the shrine in Euchaïta, dedicated to the Teron, while another image, that
of Theodore dressed in military costume, was found in Euchaneia, the locus of the
cult of the Stratelates. As noted above, our earliest seal with the epithet of Teron is
from the 10th century. The figure is in civil garb, and it belonged to a metropolitan
of Euchaïta.295 Also as previously noted, three other examples of Theodore Teron
in civil costume appear on seals, but only one of the Stratelates in civil costume
can be found and that figure is accompanied by military accouterments. Walter,
on the other hand, contends that part of the confusion of the two Theodores is that
the term “stratelates” could be used either as a personal title or as a general hon
orary designation for any soldier of a certain standing.296 Yet this practice is not
frequently encountered in images of military saints in any media and, among the
thousands of sphragistic examples of military saints, only one other seal is the fig
ure of Archangel Michael identified as Stratelates.297 In addition, Walter attributes
the twinning of the Theodores to camaraderie or the esprit de corps appropriate to

290 Ibid., p. 333–335.
291 WALTER, Theodore, p. 186 and 189–195 and IDEM, The Warrior Saints, p. 59–64.
292 WALTER, Theodore, p. 188–189 and IDEM, The Warrior Saints, p. 63.
294 WALTER, Theodore, p. 186 and IDEM, The Warrior Saints, p. 60–61.
296 WALTER, Theodore, p. 186–187, where just two examples are noted and IDEM, The Warrior
Saints, p. 61 and 279.
117
military life and points out that this phenomenon is seen most commonly among
warrior saints.298 Although two different military saints often appear together on
seals, (e.g. George and Demetrios299 or Theodore and George),300 no other military
figures were actually twinned. Furthermore, other types of saints were paired on
seals, such as Nicholas and Theodore.301 The sphragistic data, therefore, tend to
undermine Walter’s conclusion.
Another 11th-century seal from our group, representing a bust portrait of
Theodore in military costume, has a different epithet, that is, ΤΟ ΣΦUΚΑΡΙ
(to Sphoukari).302 It belonged to a John Neustongos, hypatos and strategos.
Cheynet was the first to discuss this seal and other related examples.303 The epi
thet referred to the oldest church dedicated to Theodore the Teron in Constanti
nople, en tois Sphorakiou, attributed to Sphorakios, consul in 452.304 Despite the
phenomenon of the “twinning” of Theodore by the 10th century, it is not certain
that this seal must refer to Theodore Teron. Walter argues that though the sev
eral liturgical commemorations for Theodore Teron’s feast days were celebrated
in his church en tois Sphorakiou, this site was probably used for commemo
rations of the Stratelates as well because no church dedicated to him existed,
except in Euchaneia.305 Walter likewise points out that in several of the historical
sources, the epithet, and corruptions of it, were instead associated with Theodore
Stratelates.306
Of the seals that bear an image of Theodore, 79 include geographic regions
in their inscriptions. Forty-seven of these, or 59.5%, represent regions scattered
over Asia Minor with only one area of concentration: the metropolis of Euchaïta
with 19 seals. As has been observed with other figures, the majority of seals with
an image of Theodore also belonged to officials of the civil administration: 135
of the 399 examples, or 33.8%. The next largest group are seals that were issued
from members of the military: 56 seals, or 14%. These percentages are followed
by those for the hierarchs with 43 seals with the image of Theodore, or 10.8%; the
lower clergy with 12 specimens, or 3%; and the monastic with 6 seals, or 1.5%.
One hundred and forty specimens cannot be determined. Unlike the numbers
298 WALTER, Theodore, p. 191–193 and IDEM, The Warrior Saints, p. 60–61 and 289–290. In the
earlier pages, Walter also proposes a third possibility: confusion arose from a lesser-known third
Theodore, Theodore Orientalis.
299 For example, LAURENT, Corpus, II, no. 1133.
300 For example, ZACOS, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, no. 691a.
301 W. SEIBT, Die Skleroi: Eine prosopographisch-sigillographische Studie, Vienna, 1976, no. 22.
302 SEIBT and ZARNITZ, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel, no. 3.3.2.
303 J.-C. CHEYNET, Les Nestongoi, un exemple d’assimilation réussie, in 1100 godini Veliki Pre
slav, Shumen, 1995, p. 261–270.
304 JANIN, Églises CP, p. 152–153; SEIBT and ZARNITZ, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel, no. 3.3.2;
WALTER, Theodore, p. 172 and 187–188; and IDEM, The Warrior Saints, p. 61–62.
305 WALTER, Theodore, p. 187–188 and IDEM, The Warrior Saints, p. 61–63.
306 WALTER, Theodore, p. 176, n. 56 and 187, where the sources and differing scholarly opinions
are cited, and IDEM, The Warrior Saints, p. 61–62.
118
provided for the previously discussed saints, for Theodore, his image appears
to be more frequently selected for members of the military bureaucracy than for
those of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. These data seem to indicate that a military
saint is preferred by military officials and is one case where the biographical
similitude of saint and seal owner finds some correlation.
The figure of George is found on 407 seals. As Chart 3.5 indicates, he did not
appear sphragistically until the 9th/10th century, significantly later than Michael
and Theodore. In the three earliest examples from the 9th/10th century, George
was depicted twice in civil costume holding the martyr’s cross307 and once in
military garb.308 In one of the examples with civil costume, George was rendered
with a large head, a full youthful, beardless face, short straight hair and exposed
ears.309 He was identified by inscription as are all the earliest specimens of seals
of this saint. Of the two 10th-century examples, in one the saint was dressed in
military costume310 while the garb in the other cannot be determined.311 Among
the 10th/11th-century specimens, the majority represented the saint as a military
figure: ten portrayed George in military costume (Figure 3.11);312 four presented
him in civil garb with the martyr’s cross (Figure 3.12);313 one is uncertain;314 and
one is an equestrian figure.315
In these examples, George is depicted with a consistent portrait type: a full
youthful face and thick curly hair that covers his ears.316 These features appeared
on the 10th century examples and remained stable throughout later periods. The
10th-century sphragistic standardization of the saint’s features reflected the con
temporaneous trend in other media as well.
By the 11th century, the vast majority of seals depicted George as a military
figure: 210 examples, compared to six specimens in civil costume, and one that
cannot be determined. Among the 11th/12th-century examples, all but one are in
military garb. The seals belonging to the 12th century show George in military
costume except for two equestrian figures317 and one that is uncertain. Among the
307 LAURENT, Corpus V:2, no. 1213 and idem, Corpus II, no. 538.
308 Idem, Les sceaux byzantins du Médaillier Vatican, Vatican City, 1962, no. 209.
309 Idem, Corpus, V:2, no. 1213.
311 LIHAČEV, Molivdovuly grečeskogo, 3.
315 SEIBT and ZARNITZ, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel, no. 3.3.7.
316 For discussion concerning the iconography of George, see J. MYSLIVEČ, Svatý Jiří ve východ
křesťanském umění, in Bsl., 5 (1933–34), p. 304–369 and 370–375; D. HOWELL, St. George as
Intercessor, in Byzantion, 39 (1969), p. 135–136; T. MARK-WEINER, Narrative Cycles of the
Life of St. George in Byzantine Art, Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1977, p. 107–258,
passim; C. WALTER, The Origins of the Cult of Saint George, in REB, 53 (1995), p. 317–320;
WASSILIOU, Der Heilige Georg, p. 210–212; and WALTER, The Warrior Saints, p. 123–144.
317 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3, 2745a & b.
119
Figure 3.11 George, lead seal, 10th/11th century, Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sack
ler Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, Bequest of Thomas Whit
temore, BZS.1951.31.5.2336
Figure 3.12 George, lead seal, 10th/11th century, Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.3062
sphragistic specimens, epithets reflecting the devotion to local cults accompany

the figure of George only rarely.318
As noted above, images of George did not appear on seals until the 9th/10th
century, that is, three to four centuries after Michael and Theodore. Yet George’s
cult, centered originally at his shrine in Lydda, Palestine, was established as early
as the 4th century.319 Although George’s images were to outnumber depictions
of Theodore, Demetrios and other military saints on seals, representations of
George began to appear only post-Iconoclasm, even though his cult and the writ
ten accounts of his passio and miracula existed before the Iconoclastic period.320
The delayed sphragistic appearance parallels the later development of the painted
hagiographic cycles of George that began in the 10th century.321 This relatively
tardy sigillographic arrival may reflect the caution expressed by officials in both
the Western and Eastern Churches regarding his cult. In the early account of his
passio, the text describes incredible episodes of this martyr’s successive deaths
and resurrections following various tortures.322 Although the official Church kept
the memory of this saint, these legends were banned. In the early Western cen
sure, referred to as the Gelasian Decree and assigned to the late 5th or 6th cen
tury, the accounts were condemned as heretical,323 and in the East, the 9th-century
318 WASSILIOU, Der Heilige Georg, p. 211, notes two examples: Kouperotes, which does not
appear in my database of 7,285 seals, and Diasorites which is better documented: it accompanies
the image of George on two late 12th/early 13th-century seals that go beyond the chronological
limits of the present paper. They can be found, however, in KOLTSIDA-MAKRE, Βυζαντινὰ
Μολυβδόβουλλα, no. 14, who incorrectly read the epithet as Μεγαλωμάρτυς, and SCHLUM
BERGER, Sigillographie, p. 671, no. 21, who had not correctly read the epithet. The correct
reading is provided by A.-K. WASSILIOU, Ο ΑΓΙΟΣ ΓΕWΡΓΙΟΣ Ο ΔΙΑΣΟΡΙΤΗΣ auf Siegeln:
Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte der Laskariden, in BZ, 90 (1997), p. 416–417, who also cites
other published and unpublished examples.
319 For discussion of the cult of George, see DELEHAYE, Le légendes grecques, p. 45–76; HOW
ELL, St. George as Intercessor, p. 121–136; MARK-WEINER, Narrative Cycles, p. 1–20; WAL
TER, Saint George, p. 295–322; P. CHALKIA-STEPHANOU, Οἱ Ἅγιοι Γεώργιοι: Βιογραφίες,
Ἱστορία, Λαογραφία, Athens, 1996, p. 19–68, which includes the modern period; and WALTER,
The Warrior Saints, p. 109–123. For the standard works on the texts of the life and martyrdom of
George, see K. KRUMBACHER, Der heilige Georg in der griechischen Überlieferung, Munich,
1911; J. AUFHAUSER, Miracula S. Georgii, Leipzig, 1913; A.-J. FESTUGIÈRE, Sainte Thècle,
Saints Côme et Damien, Saints Cyr et Jean (Extraits), Saint Georges, Paris, 1971, p. 259–338; W.
HAUBRICHS, Georgslied und Georgslegende im frühen Mittelalter, Königstein, 1977, p. 203–
305, passim; and PAPACONSTANTINOU, Le culte des saints en Égypte, p. 70–72.
320 MARK-WEINER, Narrative Cycles, p. 27; WALTER, St. George, p. 296 and 317; and IDEM,
The Warrior Saints, p. 119.
321 MARK-WEINER, Narrative Cycles, p. 29 and 35 and WALTER, The Warrior Saints, p. 134–
142, who summarizes Mark-Weiner’s findings.
322 MARK-WEINER, Narrative Cycles, p. 3 and 22 and WALTER, The Warrior Saints, p. 111–112.
The standard work on the texts of the life and martyrdom of George is KRUMBACHER, Der
heilige Georg. See also the collection of texts by AUFHAUSER, Miracula S. Georgii and the
discussion by DELEHAYE, Les légendes grecques, p. 45–76.
323 MARK-WEINER, Narrative Cycles, p. 3. See H. LECLERCQ, DACL, VI: 1 (1924), p. 745 and
HAUBRICHS, Georgslied und Georgslegende, p. 285, provides the Latin text, “sicut cuiusdam
122
Patriarch Nikephoros reiterated the prohibition against the early versions of the
martyrdom.324
Yet, since George was from Cappadocia and his tomb was in Palestine, interest
in his burial site and cult naturally increased after the 10th-century reconquest of
regions under such imperial leaders as Nikephoros II Phokas and John Tzimiskes,
as discussed above.325 Moreover, Constantine IX Monomachos’ construction of
the church and palace complex of Saint George of Mangana in the mid-11th cen
tury stimulated a great following for this saint.326 The court celebrated the mar
tyr’s feast there on April 23rd, and his relics were deposited in this shrine.327 In
addition, recent scholarship has demonstrated the devotion of the wider Monoma
chos family to George, whose image appears on the seals of various members of
this clan.328
Of the seals that bear an image of George, 85 include geographic locations
in the inscriptions of the owners’ titles. Among these, 39, or 45.9%, represent
various regions of Asia Minor but with no specific numeric preference for any
site. On the other hand, 33 seals, or 38.8%, with an image of George belonged
to officials from the central, western and northern areas of the empire such as the
Greek mainland, the Aegean, Thrace, Macedonia, the Balkans, Russia and Italy.
Unlike the military figure of Theodore, the veneration for George appears to have
a broader geographic appeal according to the seals. As is the case for the other
figures discussed, the image of George on seals found its greatest appeal among
the holders of offices in the civil administration: 178 of 407, or 43.7%. The sec
ond largest category are those seals that could not be verified regarding title or
the titles were not included in the seals’ inscriptions: 132, or 32.4%. The numbers
and percentages of seals with the image of George are 67, or 16.5%, for military
titles; 15, or 3.7%, for hierarchs; 11, or 2.7%, for lower clergy; and 19, or 2.2%,
Cyrici et Iulittae, sicut Georgii aliorumque eiusmodi passiones quae ab hereticis perhibentur
compositae” See also WALTER, The Warrior Saints, p. 111, n.9.
324 KRUMBACHER, Der heilige Georg, p. 184 and MARK-WEINER, Narrative Cycles, p. 3. The
Greek text of Nikephoros is given in Syntagma, IV, p. 431; in J. PITRA, Juris ecclesiastici Grae
corum historia et monumenta 2 (Rome, 1868), p. 332; and in KRUMBACHER, Der heilige
Georg, p. 184, n. 2. But WALTER, The Warrior Saints, p. 111, n. 9, argues that Nikephoros’s
condemnation was not authentic but rather represented the beginning of modern scholarship’s
erroneous attribution to the 9th-century patriarch, first seen in Pitra’s work, supra. Walter’s opin
ion on this matter is based upon the study of the manuscript history of Nikephoros’ canons as
discussed in Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, I:2 and 3, 2nd ed. J. DAR
ROUZÈS, Paris, 1989, no. 406, where the editor concludes that the attribution to Nikephoros is
doubtful.
325 WALTER, The Warrior Saints, p. 133, also notes that George, along with other military saints,
intervened on behalf of Nikephoros Phokas in 961 at the battle of Chandax in Crete. See G.
SCHLUMBERGER, Un empereur byzantin au dixième siècle, Nicéphore Phocas, Paris, 1923,
p. 74.
326 For the history of this complex, see JANIN, Églises CP, p. 70–76.
327 Ibid., p. 73–74.
328 CHEYNET, Par Saint George, par Saint Michel, p. 119–124.
123
Figure 3.13 Demetrios, lead seal, 7th/8th century, Zacos Collection

Source: After G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3 [Basel, 1972], no.
2962a
for monastics. These data indicate that following the large number of civil admin
istrators, holders of military titles had the greatest preference for George, which is
not unexpected for a military saint. Here, as in the case of Theodore, there is some
parallel between title and choice of image. The image of George, however, found
little favor among ecclesiastics and monastics.
To turn to Demetrios, his image appears on 259 seals of this database. His
sphragistic depiction begins in the 7th/8th century and continues through the 8th
century. Seals bearing his portrait then reappear in the 9th/10th century and con
tinue through the 12th century. In the earliest examples, both belonging to George,
an apo eparchon and archon, Demetrios is depicted wearing civil garments, with
the chiton and tablion on his chlamys, and holding the small martyr’s cross before
him (Figure 3.13).329 He is presented with a thin roll of hair and large ears and is
identified by inscription.
The saint is depicted in a similar fashion in the one 8th-century example which
also bears an identification. Among the 10th-century examples there is some
inconsistency in the saint’s portrait type: in one specimen the figure has a full face
and tight ringlets of curls,330 whereas in another he is shown with a small head,
elongated face, large ears and a thick band of curly hair.331 All seals from the
7th/8th through the 9th/10th century depict Demetrios in civil costume. Of the 11
329 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3, no. 2962a.
124
10th-century examples, six are in civil costume and five in military garb. Of the
three 10th/11th-century specimens, two present Demetrios in civil costume and
one in military garb. By the 11th century, Demetrios’ portrait type on the seals
is more or less standard: a youthful face, short curly hair and exposed ears (Fig
ure 3.14).332 In addition, of the 145 sphragistic examples from the 11th century,
142 depict the saint in military costume carrying his shield and sword while just
three seals have the saint in civil costume. All later examples are also in military
costume. One specimen from the 11th/12th century is an equestrian figure.333
In discussing the change in the depiction of Demetrios from a nobleman in
civil costume to a military figure, Walter employs the evidence of seals but bases
his conclusions on only a few examples published at the time of his study.334 He
observes that this transformation of Demetrios took place in the 10th century and
was manifested on other objects as well as on seals. Walter based his observations
on two 10th-century seals that belonged to monks and on an 11th-century seal
belonging to an archbishop of Thessalonike. Walter concludes that these were the
earliest examples of Demetrios in military costume and considers that the change
in costume reflected clerical prescriptions for military saints when, following the
Church of Constantinople, ecclesiastical authorities were systematizing icono
graphic schemes. Thus, for Walter, the military depiction of Demetrios originated
in the capital and was later adopted at Thessalonike.335
Yet the two seals belonging to the monks should rather be assigned to the
11th century, sometime after the 1030s according to their epigraphy.336 Further
more, the five earliest sphragistic examples of Demetrios in military costume
all belong to the 10th century, four of them belonging to civil and military offi
cials associated with the region of Thessalonike.337 Thus the reverse seems to
be true: the military aspect of Demetrios was first cultivated in the region of
332 NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, I, no. 1.21b. For the iconography of Demetrios, see
C. WALTER, St. Demetrius: The Myroblytos of Thessalonika, in Eastern Churches Review, 5
(1973), p. 169–178 (repr. in his Studies in Byzantine Iconography, London, 1977); P. LEMERLE,
Note sur les plus anciennes représentations de Saint Démétrius, in ∆XAE, per. 4, 10 (1981),
p. 1–10; CORMACK, Writing in Gold, p. 51–53 and 78–94; E. ZACHARIADOU, Les nouvelles
armes de Saint Dèmètrius, in ΕΥΨΥΧΙΑ: Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, ed. MICHEL
BALARD et al., II, Paris, 1998, p. 689–693; and WALTER, The Warrior Saints, p. 76–90, who,
esp. p. 83, ns. 61 and 62, also notes that in various media an inconsistent portrait type for Deme
trios continued to exist into the 11th century.
333 KONSTANTOPOULOS, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα, no. 769.
334 WALTER, St. Demetrius, p. 174–175.
335 LEMERLE, Note sur les plus anciennes représentations, p. 7, offers a similar view.
336 The two seals appear in LAURENT, Corpus V:2, no. 1391 and no. 1412, who erroneously
assigned them to the 10th century. In his more recent study of Demetrios, WALTER, The Warrior
Saints, p. 78, repeats his earlier arguments and that of the earlier incorrect dating of these seals.
337 KONSTANTOPOULOS, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα, no. 7; OIKONOMIDES, Dated Seals, no.
72; and NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, I, nos. 18.37 and 43.28. The fifth example
belongs to an official of the theme of the Armeniakoi: MCGEER, NESBITT and OIKONO
MIDES†, DO Seals, IV, no. 22.36.
125
Figure 3.14 Demetrios, lead seal, 11th century, Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sack
lerMuseum,HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,MA,BequestofThomasWhittemore,
BZS.1951.31.5.1300
Thessalonike and by civil and military officials, not by the ecclesiastical hierar
chy in distant Constantinople.
This change in Demetrios’ depiction on seals may parallel actual 10th-century
events in the life of the city of Thessalonike itself. Although the city was subject
to Slavic sieges periodically from the 6th century onward, and literary sources
testify that the saint was called upon to protect his city, Thessalonike always
remained in Byzantine hands.338 Yet in 904 the Saracens, led by Leo of Tripoli,
captured and sacked the city.339 Concern for Thessalonike’s subsequent restoration
and future defense would naturally occupy its inhabitants who would look to their
city’s patron and heavenly defender, Demetrios, with increased emphasis as a
warrior figure. Such a catastrophe would provide a milieu in which Thessaloni
ke’s celestial protector, Demetrios, would take on a military character.
Only in the 11th century does the military depiction of Demetrios become
widespread, and it is then found on seals belonging to members of the civil, mil
itary and ecclesiastical bureaucracies. These 11th-century statistics for Demetri
os’s sphragistic warrior image do not support Walter’s thesis that the definitive
establishment of the saint as a military figure occurred first in the 13th century.340
The evidence also contradicts both Grabar341 and Walter, following the former’s
assertions,342 who understood the popularity of the military aspect of the saint to
be related to warrior emperors such as Basil II (976–1025), because his psalter
of c. 1004 includes an imperial portrait flanked by six images of soldier saints,
Demetrios among them.343 Although Basil II may have adopted such emblems
as the soldier saints, according to the sphragistic evidence, Demetrios’s military
image had its origin in the area of his shrine at Thessalonike. From there the
image of the warrior saint radiated. Only later, in the second half of the 11th cen
tury, does Demetrios appear on seals of members of high-ranking families such as
338 WALTER, St. Demetrius, p. 165–166; LEMERLE, Les plus anciennes représentations, p. 1–10;
CORMACK, Writing in Gold, p. 66–67; and WALTER, Warrior Saints, p. 76–77.
339 A. VACALOPOULOS, A History of Thessaloniki, Thessalonike, 1963 (repr. Thessalonike,
1972), p. 33–37. For the critical edition of the historical account of the capture of Thessalon
ike, see Ioannis Caminiatae de expugnatione Thessalonicae, ed. G. BÖHLIG Berlin, 1973. The
10th-century date of this text has been questioned by A. KAZHDAN, Some Questions Addressed
to the Scholars Who Believe in the Authenticity of Kaminiates’ Capture of Thessalonica, in BZ,
71 (1978), p. 301–314, who considers the account to have been either composed or reworked
in the 15th century. More recently, the authenticity of Kaminiates’s text has been argued by J.
FRENDO, The Miracles of St. Demetrius and the Capture of Thessaloniki: An Examination of
the Purpose, Significance and Authenticity of John Kaminiates’ De Expugnatione Thessalonicae,
in Bsl., 58 (1997), p. 205–224.
340 WALTER, The Warrior Saints, p. 91.
341 A. GRABAR, Un nouveau reliquaire de Saint Démétrios, in DOP, 8 (1954), p. 310.
342 WALTER, St. Demetrios, p. 175 and IDEM, The Warrior Saints, p. 79.
343 For the date and detailed description of the psalter and its images, see A. CUTLER, The Aristo
cratic Psalters in Byzantium, Paris, 1984, no. 58, fig. 412.
127
Nikephoros Botaneiates344 and Alexios I Komnenos,345 both before they acceded

to the throne. This change from civil to military costume for other saints in gen
eral will be discussed below.
The figure of Demetrios began to appear on seals approximately a century after
the first collection of his miracles, composed by John I, archbishop of Thessalon
ike, in the first half of the 7th century, but either roughly contemporary with or
shortly after the time of the anonymous collection of miracles composed towards
the end of the 7th century.346 Few of his seals survive from the pre-Iconoclastic
period. Only with the 10th century do they become more frequent. Among the 18
seals ranging from the 7th/8th through the 10th centuries, all but five belong to
civil, military and ecclesiastical administrators of Thessalonike and surrounding
regions,347 thereby lending further support to scholars’ assessment of the early
local character of Demetrios’s cult.348
The rise in the number of Demetrios’s seals after Iconoclasm is not only due
to the revival of figural imagery in general but also appears to parallel develop
ments in the spread of Demetrios’s cult in particular. In the 9th and 10th centuries,
Demetrios’s cult received imperial support from emperors who are not considered
military rulers, and long before Basil II, as described above. Basil I (867–886)
restored a church dedicated to the saint,349 and Leo VI (886–912) dedicated a
new church building to the Thessalonian saint.350 The first Passio narratives of
this saint intended for a broader audience, other than the earlier collections of
344 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3, no. 2687.
345 Ibid., no. 2703.
346 For the critical edition of these miracles, see P. LEMERLE, Les plus anciennes recueils des mira
cles de Saint Démétrius et la pénétration des slaves dans les Balkans, I-II, Paris, 1979–1981. For
an overview of the textual history of the miracula and the passiones, see WALTER, The Warrior
Saints, p. 68–73.
347 Two additional seals do not include the geographic region of their owners.
348 For discussion of the cult of Demetrios and his shrine, see DELEHAYE, Saints militaires, p. 103–
109; WALTER, St. Demetrius, p. 157–178; CORMACK, Writing in Gold, p. 50–94; IDEM, The
Making of a Patron Saint, p. 547–554; C. BAKIRTZIS, Byzantine Ampullae From Thessaloniki,
in Blessings of Pilgrimage, p. 140–150; R. MACRIDES, Subversion and Loyalty in the Cult of St.
Demetrios, in Bsl. 51 (1990), p. 189–197; P. MAGDALINO, Saint Demetrios and Leo VI, ibid,
p. 198–201; V. TAPKOVA-ZAIMOVA, Gens et choses de Salonique dans les actes démétriens,
in ΤΟ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟΝ: Studies in Honor of Speros Vryonis, Jr., I, ed. J. LANGDON et al., New
Rochelle, 1993, p. 385–396; A. MENTZOS, Τὸ προσκύνημα τοῦ Ἁγίου Δημητρίου Θεσσαλονίκης
στὰ Βυζαντινὰ χρόνια, Athens, 1994, passim; C. BAKIRTZIS, Le culte de Saint Démétrius, in
Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, 20:1 (1995), p. 58–68; IDEM, Pilgrimage to Thessalon
ike: The Tomb of St. Demetrios, in DOP, 56 (2002), p. 175–192; COTSONIS, Saints and Cult
Centers, p. 15–17; and WALTER, The Warrior Saints, p. 67–93.
349 JANIN, Églises CP, p. 89; WALTER, Saint George, p. 313; and IDEM, The Warrior Saints, p. 79,
n.48. For a study of Basil I’s reconstruction campaigns, see OUSTERHOUT, Reconstructing
Ninth-Century Constantinople, p. 115–130.
350 JANIN, Églises CP, p. 89; MAGDALINO, Saint Demetrios and Leo VI, p. 198–201; WALTER,
Saint George, p. 313; and IDEM, The Warrior Saints, p. 79–80, n. 48.
128
Miracles that focused on the city of Thessalonike,351 appeared in the 9th century.
The miraculous flowing myron at his church in Thessalonike brought greater fame
and more pilgrims to his shrine. The phenomenon of the myron possibly began
in the late 9th or early 10th century, is clearly attested in the 11th century, and
continued into the 15th century.352 It is from the 11th century onward that one
finds the surviving ampullae from his church with which pilgrims took away with
them the miraculously healing myron353 and the beginning of the production of the
surviving reliquaries and enamel encolpia.354 The role of the miraculous myron
associated with the cult of Demetrios created a more personal and individual
ized connection to his devotion.355 This was paralleled by the growing number
of individuals who placed his image on their seals, especially among the diverse
seal owners from the 11th century. Although Demetrios was among the more pop
ular military figures on Byzantine seals, the Archangel Michael, Theodore and
George appeared more frequently. These sphragistic data echo Walter’s obser
vations regarding the existence of a few surviving icons in which Demetrios is
represented alone in comparison to Theodore and George.356 The lower incidence
of depictions of Demetrios probably reflects the overall local aspect of his cult,
which was among the most closely tied to a particular shrine.
Of the 73 seals that bear an image of Demetrios that include geographic ref
erences in their inscriptions, 46, or 63%, are from regions of the Balkans, thus
indicating that the cult of Demetrios was closely associated with the western half
of the empire; and 19 of these are from officials of Thessalonike: 17 belong to
351 WALTER, St. Demetrius, p. 158, n. 2, with references to editions and studies; CORMACK, Mak
ing of a Patron Saint, p. 547–548, ns. 2 and 3, for citations of the editions; WALTER, Saint
George, p. 310–313; and MENTZOS, Τὸ Προσκύνημα, p. 67–90 (which includes the various
Greek texts and the 9th century Latin translation of Anastasius Bibliothecarius) and 167–168.
352 J. ROSENQVIST, Editor’s Note, in ΛΕΙΜΩΝ: Studies Presented to Lennart Rydén on His Six
ty-Fifth Birthday, Uppsala, 1996, p. 69, notes that the use of myron from Demetrios’s church in
Thessalonike is mentioned in one of the collections of miracles of St. Eugenios by John Laza
ropoulos. The sick man involved in the story was the brother of an abbot Ephraim who, with
certainty, belonged to the years of the late 9th and early 10th centuries. See J. ROSENQVIST,
The Hagiographic Dossier of St. Eugenios of Trebizond in Codex Athos Dionysiou 154, Uppsala,
1996, p. 300–304. This text may be the earliest reference to the myron of St. Demetrios. See
also BAKIRTZIS, Pilgrimage to Thessalonike, p. 176, n.6, where he also refers to the text of the
miracles of Eugenios but cites some of the earlier arguments that preferred an 11th-century date
for the beginnings of the myron. For the later history of the myron, see ibid., p. 185–192.
353 BAKIRTZIS, Byzantine Ampullae, p. 140–150; idem, Le culte, p. 65; and idem, Pilgrimage to
Thessalonike, p. 183. See also Glory of Byzantium, no. 118 and Byzantium: Faith and Power, no.
139.
354 A. GRABAR, Quelques reliquaires de saint Démétrios et le martyrium du saint à Salonique, in
DOP, 5 (1950), p. 1–28; IDEM, Un nouveau reliquaire, p. 305–314; WALTER, St. Demetrius,
p. 161 and 164, pl. 4 and 11; MENTZOS, Τὸ Προσκύνημα, p. 129–140; BAKIRTZIS, Pilgrimage
to Thessalonike, p. 182–184; and WALTER, The Warrior Saints, p. 80–85. See also Glory of
Byzantium, nos. 108, 116 and 117.
355 BAKIRTZIS, Le culte, p. 66.
356 WALTER, The Warrior Saints, p. 82–83.
129
various metropolitans of the city and two other non-clerical officials. On the other
hand, 22, or 30.1%, represent various regions in Asia Minor. These data are oppo
site for the geographic preference for Theodore whose sphragistic image found
greater favor among officials located in the eastern provinces of the empire.
Among the seals with an image of Demetrios, 78 of the 259, or 30.1%, were
from individuals from the civil administration; 71, or 27.4%, cannot be deter
mined; 66, or 25.5%, are from holders of military titles; 32, or 12.4%, were
from church hierarchs. Nine seals were issued from monastics, whereas just two
belonged to the lower clergy. Like the other two military saints, Theodore and
George, Demetrios found greater favor among military officials, but at a greater
percentage. According to the seals, veneration for Demetrios was least among the
lower clergy and monastics.
In the discussion concerning the figures of Theodore, George and Demetrios,
one feature common to all three saints was the transition from the civil garb of the
chlamys,357 with its tablion, to that of the military costume.358 For Theodore, all
pre-Iconoclastic examples represent him in military attire. But as suggested pre
viously, the prevalence of this military aspect reflected his early association with
the holy warrior and apotropaic signs of the earlier centuries. The two 9th-century
examples are civil figures, and just three of the 16 10th-century examples, or
18.8%, are in military garb. In the 10th/11th-century group, 14 of 17, or 82.4%,
are warrior figures and in the 11th century, 177/199, or 88.9%, comprise this
group. From the 11th/12th century onward, only three examples portray Theodore
as a civil figure.
George appeared in one 9th/10th-century example as a soldier saint, but was
in civil costume in the other two contemporary pieces. The three 10th-century
seals portray him as a military figure while nine of the 16, or 56.3%, of the
10th/11th-century examples display him as a military saint. By the 11th century,
210 of 217, or 96.8%, portray George in military garb, and among all the later
examples only one depicts him in civil costume.
In the case of Demetrios, the military type did not appear until the 10th century:
5 of 11 examples, or 45.5%; and one of the three 10th/11th-century pieces. But
in the 11th century, 142 of 154, or 97.9%, portray Demetrios in military garb. No
later example has the civil form.
The militarization in these examples clearly began in the 10th century, rap
idly increased in the 10th/11th century and was virtually complete in the 11th
century – most clearly among the pieces that are later than the 1030s, specimens
datable upon epigraphic grounds. As noted above, images of Michael in military
costume also began to appear in the 10th/11th century. This chronology is sup
ported by representations of these figures found in other media. In the 9th-century
Khludov Psalter, a group of martyrs, dressed in the long chiton and chlamys and
357 For discussion of this garment, see PARANI, Reconstructing the Reality of Images, p. 12–18.
358 For a detailed study of military costumes and their changes over time, see ibid, p. 101–148.
130
holding small crosses, illustrates Psalm 67:35, “God is wonderful in his saints.”359
The same verse in the Theodore Psalter of 1066 is provided with an equestrian
image of Prokopios in military attire.360 The 10th-century ivory triptychs reveal
that this was a period of transition when military saints depicted on the same
object could be represented in either civil or military costume.361 On the mid-10th-
century enamel Limburg reliquary, Theodore, George and Demetrios are shown
as civil figures holding the small martyr’s cross as on earlier seals.362 But on the
enamel relief icon in Venice depicting Archangel Michael surrounded by other
saints, assigned to the late 11th or early 12th century, all figures are rendered in
military garb, including the archangel.363
The trend exhibited by the seals and other media mirrored a shift in Byzantine
society as a whole. In the 10th century, Nikephoros II Phokas and John I Tzimiskes
conducted great military campaigns of reconquest in Asia Minor and Syria. Late
10th-century descriptions of Nikephoros II included knightly virtues as part of the
imperial ideal, though these did not become standard until the late 11th century.364
In the 10th century, two liturgical offices were composed to be sung on the eve
of battles.365 The military exploits of Basil II (976–1025) spanning the end of
the 10th and first quarter of the 11th centuries coincided with this change on the
359 M. ŠČEPKINA, Miniatjury Khludovskoj psaltyri, Moscow, 1977, 65 r. For discussion of the
Khludov Psalter, see K. CORRIGAN, Visual Polemics in the Ninth-Century Byzantine Psalters,
Cambridge, 1992, passim.
360 DER NERSESSIAN, Psautiers grecs, p. 37, fig. 139, pl. 47. It is interesting to observe, however,
that in the Bristol Psalter of c. 1000, Psalm 15:3, “In the saints that are in his earth” a depiction
of four anonymous male saints wearing the chlamys and holding small crosses accompanies the
verse. See S. DUFRENNE, L’illustration des psautiers grecs du moyen age, I, Paris, 1966, p. 55,
pl. 49, fol. 24r. For the same verse in the Theodore Psalter of 1066, the figures of Theodore,
Demetrios and George are found, yet all are dressed in civil costume. See DER NERSESSIAN,
Psautiers grecs, p. 21, fig.24, pl. 10.
361 Glory of Byzantium, nos. 79 and 80. For discussion of these saints on the ivory triptychs and their
associations with imperial victories, see OIKONOMIDES, The Concept of ‘Holy War’, p. 71–73
and 76.
362 See N. ŠEVČENKO, The Limburg Staurothek and Its Relics, in Θυμίαμα I, p. 289–294, and II,
pl. 166.
363 The Treasury of San Marco, Venice, ed. D. BUCKTON, C. ENTWISTLE and R. PRIOR, Milan,
1984, no. 18.
364 A. KAZHDAN, The Aristocracy and the Imperial Ideal, in The Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to XIII
Centuries, ed. M. ANGOLD, Oxford, 1984, p. 47–52; KAZHDAN and EPSTEIN, Change in
Byzantine Culture, p. 112–113; MAGDALINO, Manuel I, p. 418–422; and WALTER, The War
rior Saints, p. 131–132. For a refinement of Kazhdan’s observations, see J. MUNITIZ, War and
Peace Reflected in Some Byzantine Mirrors of Princes, in Peace and War in Byzantium, p. 57–61
and M. WHITTOW, How the East was Lost: The Background to the Komnenian Reconquista, in
Alexios I Komnenos, p. 61.
365 A. PERTUSI, Una acoluthia militare inedita del X secolo, in Aevum, 22 (1948), p. 145–168 and
T. DETORAKIS and J. MOSSAY, Un office byzantin inédit pour ceux qui sont morts à la guerre,
dans le cod. sin. gr. 734–735, in Muséon, 101 (1988), p. 183–211. See also G. DENNIS, Religious
Services in the Byzantine Army, in Εὐλόγημα: Studies in Honor of Robert Taft, SJ, ed. E. CARR
et al., Rome, 1993, p. 112–113 and 116–117.
131
seals.366 On the gold coins of Isaac I (1057–1059), a new numismatic imperial

image appeared: the emperor was depicted in military garb, grasping the scabbard
with his left hand and holding his unsheathed sword upward with his right.367 The
second half of the 10th and the 11th century were also a period that witnessed
the increasing militarization of the provincial administration whose regions were
headed successively by the strategos, doux or katepano.368
From the year of Basil II’s death in 1025 to the disasters of 1071, when the
Normans seized Bari and the Byzantines lost Manzikert to the Seljuk Turks,
Byzantium was involved in continuous warfare.369 This period of ongoing cam
paigns and the general militarization of the administration, beginning in the
late 10th century, offers a setting for the metamorphosis of the figures of these
saints from princely nobles in civil costume holding the martyr’s cross to war
riors outfitted in military garb and weapons.370 Recently, Cheynet has shown
366 For a recent discussion of Basil II and his campaigns and administration, see the various articles
in Byzantium in the Year 1000, ed. P. MAGDALINO, Leiden, 2003, passim. WALTER, The War
rior Saints, p. 278, too, considered the reign of Basil II as a critical period in the development of
the notion of the warrior saint.
367 GRIERSON, Byzantine Coins, p. 200, pl. 52, fig. 918–919 and KAZHDAN and EPSTEIN,
Change, p. 115–116, who noted that this type of imperial effigy received much criticism from
11th-century contemporaries and was not adopted by Isaac’s successors. For the Byzantine
sources, see MICHAEL ATTALEIATES, Historia, ed. W. BRUNET DE PRESLE and I. BEK
KER, Bonn, 1853, p. 60.3–4 and Ioannes Skylitzes Continuatus, ed. E. TSOLAKES, Thessalon
ike, 1968, p. 103.3–4.
368 H. AHRWEILER, Recherches sur l’adminstration de l’empire byzantin aux IXe-XIe siècles, in
BCH, 84 (1960), p. 36–67 and 89–91; OIKONOMIDES, Les listes de préséance, p. 344–346 and
354–363; IDEM, L’évolution de l’organisation, p. 148–152; J. HALDON, Military Service, Mili
tary Lands, and the Status of Soldiers: Current Problems and Interpretations, in DOP, 47 (1993),
p. 29–67, passim; J.-C. CHEYNET, La conception militaire de la frontière orientale (IXe-XIIIe
siècle), in Eastern Approaches to Byzantium, p. 57–69; C. HOLMES, ‘How the East was Won’ in
the Reign of Basil II, in ibid., p. 41–56; and J.-C. CHEYNET, Basil II and Asia Minor, in Byzan
tium in the Year 1000, p. 71–108.
369 For overviews of Basil II’s reign and legacy, see WHITTOW, The Making of Byzantium,
p. 358–390; M. ANGOLD, The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1204, 2nd ed., London, 1997, p. 24–34;
TREADGOLD, History, p. 513–533; and CHEYNET, Basil II, p. 103–108, who analyzes the
contrasting opinions of Whittow and Angold. For the Balkan region during and after Basil II’s
rule, see P. STEPHENSON, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Bal
kans, 900–1204, Cambridge, 2000, p. 62–79 and 123–144 and IDEM, The Legend of Basil the
Bulgar-Slayer, Cambridge, 2003, passim. For a discussion of Southern Italy during the reign of
Basil II, see V. VON FALKENHAUSEN, Between Two Empires: Byzantine Italy in the Reign of
Basil II, in Byzantium in the Year 1000, p. 135–159.
370 The protective power of images of military saints is discussed by MAGUIRE, Icons of Their Bod
ies, p. 19–22, 49–51 and 74–78 and C. CHARALAMPIDIS, Representations of Military Saints
in the Middle-Byzantine and Late-Byzantine Iconography of Greek Macedonia, in Studi sull’ Ori
ente cristiano, 5 (2000), p. 201, who concludes that the frequent representations of military saints
in Byzantine churches of Macedonia reflect the region’s liminal status and military offensives that
occurred along a border area subject to the attacks of the Slavs. WALTER, The Warrior Saints,
p. 277 and 284, also regards the images of military saints as apotropaic and protective devices.
132
that the figure of Theodore was associated with the Byzantine armies in Ana
tolia and the eastern frontiers as evidenced by the saint’s frequent appearance
on seals belonging to military leaders in these regions,371 and the present study
supports his findings. The sphragistic images of the military saints, beginning
in the 10th century and continuing through the second third of the 11th century,
provide valuable visual evidence of this fundamental change. Concern for the
military virtues began long before the arrival of the First Crusade of 1096 and
was full-blown at least two generations before the crucial year of 1071. The
increased interest of the ruling Komnenoi in military saints, as demonstrated
by the presence of Demetrios, George and Theodore on their coins372 and the
Western knightly practices developed under Manuel I,373 would only complete
or intensify, not initiate, a process already well established.374
F. Monastic saints
Chart 3.7 records the monastic saints appearing on lead seals from the 6th through the
12th centuries. There are 12 different monastic saints out of a total of 129 different holy
figures on seals, or 9.3%. Although monastic figures nearly equal military saints in
number, by contrast, each of the monastic saints is represented by either one or merely
a few sphragistic examples. In most instances, the owners either were homonymous
with the saint, or belonged to a monastic foundation with the saint’s name, or were
bishops of a see where the depicted saint was the local patron. Some of the monastic
figures in this group were very rarely depicted in Byzantine art, such as Zotikos, who
appeared just once on a seal issued by the leprosarium that he founded.375
But the same chart indicates that sphragistically, the most popular of the monastic
saints was Symeon the Stylite. Because not every one of the 16 sphragistic examples
includes an epithet in the saint’s identifying inscription, it is difficult to distinguish
between Symeon the Stylite the Elder, whose shrine was located at Qal’at Sem’an,
northeast of Antioch, and Symeon the Stylite the Younger, also known as Thaumas
tos, Thaumatourgos or Thaumastorites, that is, of the Wondrous Mountain, whose
371 CHEYNET, Le culte de Saint Théodore, p. 141–144.

372 GRIERSON, Byzantine Coins, p. 220–221, pl. 59, 63–66 and KAZHDAN and EPSTEIN,
Change, p. 116. For a recent discussion of the use of portraits of members of the Komnenian
family for the depiction of military saints, see C. BAKIRTZIS, Warrior Saints or Portraits of
Members of the Family of Alexios I Komnenos, in Mosaic: Festschrift for A. H. S. Megaw, ed. J.
HERRIN, M. MULLETT and C. OTTEN-FROUX, London, 2001, p. 85–87.
373 KAZHDAN, Aristocracy, p. 46–52; KAZHDAN and EPSTEIN, Change, p. 109–119; MAGDA
LINO, Manuel I, p. 246 and 471; and ANGOLD, Byzantine Empire, p. 236–252.
374 For discussion of the military campaigns of the Komnenian rulers, see J. BIRKENMEIER, The
Development of the Komnenian Army, 1081–1180, Leiden, 2002, passim.
375 V. LAURENT, Le corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantine, V:3, (Paris, 1972), n. 1916. For a
recent discussion of Zotikos and the leprosarium, see J. NESBITT, St. Zotikos and the Early
History of the Office of Orphanotrophos, in Byzantium, State and Society, p. 417–422.
133
Chart 3.7 Chronological Frequency of Monastic Saints
MONASTIC 6c 6/7c 7c 7/8c 8c 8j9c 9c 9/1Oc 10c 10/11c 11c 11/12C 12c TOTAL
SAINTS
Anastasios 1 4 5
Anthimos 1 1 2
Anthony 1 3 2 6
Epiphanios 1 2 1 4
Euthymios 8 3 11
John Kalybites 3 3
Luke Stylites 1 1
Michael of Sinai 1 1
Sabbas 2 4 3 9
Symeon Stylites 1 2 3 1 8 1 1 17
Theodosios 2 2 4
Zotikos 1 1
shrine was located southwest of Antioch.376 Such shrines, as previously discussed,

were important to pilgrims, and images of the two Symeons appeared also on eulo
gia tokens.377 The image on seals, as on tokens, began to appear in the 6th century
and then disappeared with the Arab conquest of Syria in the 7th century. Following
the late 10th-century Byzantine reconquest of the region, pilgrimage to these centers
recommenced, as evidenced by the reappearance of seals, which reached the greatest
number in the 11th century. The depiction of the bust of the Symeon the Younger atop
his column as found on one 11th-century seal378 recalls the iconography of one of the
later eulogia medallions, also from the 11th century, now in the Menil Foundation.379
376 Of the 17 seals with an image of Symeon Stylites, seven either identify Symeon of the Wondrous
Mountain or are associated with the monastery at his shrine: LAURENT, Corpus, V:2, no. 1559
bis and no. 1560; ŠANDROVSKAJA, Sfragistika, no. 815; LIHAČEV, Molivdovuly grečeskogo,
p. 36, no. 5 and p. 151, no. 15; ZACOS, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, no. 793; and CHEYNET et al.,
Seyrig, no. 288. For a brief discussion of the two Stylites and the problem of the conflation of
their identities, see ODB, III, p. 1985–1987.
377 VIKAN, Byzantine Pilgrimage Art, p. 27–40, fig. 22, 24 and 25 (Symeon the Younger). See also
IDEM, Icons and Icon Piety in Early Byzantium, (Symeon the Younger) p. 572, fig. 3. For other
examples, see VERDIER, A Medallion of Saint Symeon the Younger, p. 17–27; LAFONTAINE-DO
SOGNE, Itinéraires archéologiques dans la région d’Antioche, p. 140–158, pl. 45–48 (Symeon the
Younger); and SODINI, Nouvelles eulogies de Syméon, p. 25–33 and pl. 1–4 (for both Symeons).
For discussion of the confusion between Symeon the Stylite the Elder and Symeon the Stylite
the Younger, see C. JOLIVET-LÉVY, Contribution à l’étude de l’iconographie mésobyzantine des
deux Syméon Stylites, in Les saints et leur sanctuaire à Byzance, p. 35–47, pl. 1–6. For recent dis
cussion of the cult of Symeon the Stylite the Elder, see A. EASTMOND, Body vs. Column: The Cult
of St Symeon Stylites, in Desire and Denial in Byzantium, Aldershot, 1999, p. 87–100.
379 VIKAN, Byzantine Pilgrimage Art, p. 40, fig. 30 and IDEM, Icons and Icon Piety, p. 576, fig. 9.
For discussion of the middle Byzantine iconography of this saint, see JOLIVET-LÉVY, Contri
bution à l’étude de l’iconographie, p. 35–47 and pl. 1–6.
134
The next most popular figure in the monastic group is that of Euthymios the Great,
with 11 examples.380 Six of these belong either to monastic foundations bearing the
saint’s name or to homonymous owners.
As noted above, the percentage of monastic figures on seals is surprisingly
small, 9.3% of the total group of saints.381 By contrast, the representation of this
category of holy personages flourished in areas of artistic production such as illu
minated manuscripts (for example the Menologion of Basil II382 and the Theodore
Psalter),383 and in such monumental programs as Hosios Loukas,384 the church
of the Virgin at Asinou385 and that of Saint Panteleimon at Nerezi.386 The role of
monks and monasticism was central in Byzantine culture,387 yet monastic figures
strangely do not enjoy such a corresponding prominence on the lead seals. This
low sphragistic representation, however, is shared by other objects intended for
personal use. Among the many pieces of ivory carving, none includes monastic
figures.388 Only four examples of known steatite carvings depict monastic saints,389
and none is portrayed on enamels.390 The small number of monastic figures on
seals and other artifacts of personal use implies that this type of saint was not fre
quently adopted as a personal patron. Monastic saints may have seemed appropri
ate only for homonymous owners and institutions and as essential figures among
the choir of saints in monumental decorative programs,391 but generally they were
380 For discussion of the saint’s portrait type, see MAGUIRE, Icons of Their Bodies, p. 24–25. For
other monastic portraits and the representation of monastic figures in general, see ibid, p. 22–24,
49–51 and 66–74.
381 HALSALL, Women’s Bodies, Men’s Souls, p. 103 and Table 2.1, found a similar low preference
for monastic saints in the documentary evidence.
382 Il menologio di Basilio II (cod. vaticano greco 1613), ed. F. BOCCA, Turin, 1907, passim.
383 DER NERSESSIAN, Psautiers grecs, passim.
384 E. DIEZ and O. DEMUS, Byzantine Mosaics in Greece, Cambridge, MA, 1931, fig. 22–25 and
CONNOR, Art and Miracles, p. 24–32, fig. 37–52.
385 M. SACOPOULO, Asinou en 1106 et sa contribution à l’iconographie, Brussels, 1966, pl. 29.
386 SINKEVIC, St. Panteleimon at Nerezi, p. 60–61, fig. 10, 37, 46, 51, 52, 56 and 57.
387 For discussions of monks and monasticism, see P. CHARANIS, The Monk as an Element of
Byzantine Society, in DOP, 25 (1971), p. 61–84; Byzantine Saints and Monasteries, passim; The
Theotokos Evergetis and Eleventh-Century Monasticism, ed. M. MULLETT and A. KIRBY,
Belfast, 1994, passim; R. MORRIS, Monks and Laymen in Byzantium, 843–1118, Cambridge,
1995, passim; Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism, ed. A. BRYER and M. CUNNINGHAM,
Aldershot, 1996, passim; Work and Worship at the Theotokos Evergetis 1050–1200, ed. M. MULLETT
and A. KIRBY, Belfast, 1997, passim; G. CONSTABLE, Preface, in Byzantine Monastic Foundation
Documents, ed. J. THOMAS and A. HERO, I, Washington, DC, 2000, p. xi–xxxvii; and
A.-M. TALBOT, Women and Religious Life in Byzantium, Aldershot, 2001, passim.
388 A. GOLDSCHMIDT and K. WEITZMANN, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des
X.-XIII. Jahrhunderts, I-II (Berlin, 1934 [repr. Berlin, 1979]), passim and CUTLER, Hand of the
Master, passim.
389 I. KALAVREZOU-MAXEINER, Byzantine Icons in Steatite, I-II, Vienna, 1985, nos. 38, 51, 102
and A-45.
390 K. WESSEL, Byzantine Enamels From the 5th to the 13th Century, New York, 1968, passim.
391 L. JAMES, Monks, Monastic Art, the Sanctoral Cycle and the Middle Byzantine Church, in The
Theotokos Evergetis, p. 162–175, discusses the varying significance of monastic portraits in mid
dle Byzantine church programs from the point of view of monastic and lay beholders.
135
considered unsuitable in the personal realm. Ascetic monastic figures may have
been regarded as too remote for most individuals who thought they received
greater mercy and intercessory benefit from such personages as Nicholas or the
military saints. The sphragistic observations bear out those of Efthymiadis who,
following earlier scholars, noted that after Iconoclasm an emergent “monasteria
sation” of sanctity developed: the preference for monastics and secluded monastic
centers as the foci of holiness over that of the earlier holy man closely integrated
with his society.392 Yet simultaneously these new secluded monastic figures lacked
a popularity with a populace facing everyday problems. Monastic saints retained
significance only for smaller groups such as certain families, monasteries or par
ticular individuals, and functioned as intercessors in the personal realm rather than
the wider social setting.393
G. Female saints
As seen from Chart 3.8, 13 of 129, or 10.1%, of the saints on seals are women,
equal to the number found for the monastic figures. The chronological frequency of
distribution from the 6th through 12th centuries is laid out. Eight of these saints are
represented by only one, two or three examples. Only one of these seals was cho
sen for a homonymous saint, a 12th-century seal depicting Anna holding the infant
Virgin belonging to an Anna Komnene.394 Another example is indirectly related to
homonymous selection: the one specimen of Theopiste, and her small son appears
on the reverse of a seal whose obverse bears the image of her husband Eustathios
and another son – a family that was martyred together – and the seal was issued by a
man named Eustathios.395 Other female saints, such as Akylina396 and Catherine,397
have no obvious connection with their owners. The most popular female saint is
Sophia, followed by, after a significant decline, Euphemia, Thekla and Irene.
Most of the images of female saints are found on seals that belonged either
to hierarchs of sees where these saints enjoyed local cults or to churches dedi
cated to a given female saint’s memory: Anastasia appeared on the seals of John,
archbishop of Nikopolis;398 Barbara on that of the metropolitan of Laodikeia in
392 EFTHYMIADIS, The Function of the Holy Man, p. 154–161.

393 Ibid.
394 N. LIHAČEV, Istoričeskoe značene italo-grečeskoj ikonopisi izobrazenija Bogomateri, St.
Petersburg, 1911, p. 116, no. 253.
395 ZACOS, Byzantine Lead Seals II, no. 455. For the family’s martyrdom, see G. VAN HOOFF,
Acta Graeca s. Eustathii martyris et sociorum ejus, in AB, 3 (1884), p. 65–112. For an illustrated
example of their martyrdom cycle, see the panegyrikon of Esphigmenou, codex 14 in S. PELE
KANIDIS et al., The Treasures of Mount Athos, II, Athens, 1975, p. 208–209 and 363–364, fig.
329 and 330.
396 ZACOS, Byzantine Lead Seals II, no. 837.
397 LIHAČEV, Molivdovuly grečeskogo, p. 298, no. 11, pl. 81.
398 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1241 and NESBITT and OIKONO
MIDES, DO Seals, II, nos. 2.11a & b.
136
Chart 3.8 Chronological Frequency of Female Saints
FEMALE 6c 6/7c 7c 7/8c 8c 8!9c 9c 9/1 Oc 10c 10/11c 11c 11/12C 12c TOTAL
SAINTS
Akylina 1 1
Anastasia 3 3
Anna 1 1 2
Barbara 1 1
Catherine 1 1
Euphemia 3 4 7
Irene 3 1 4
Sophia 5 8 6 1 20
Thekla 2 2 2 6
Theodora 1 2 3
Theopiste 1 1
Zenais 1 1
Syria;399 Euphemia for the metropolitans of Chalcedon;400 Thekla for the metro
politan of Seleukeia;401 Theodora for the metropolitans of Mytilene;402 and Zenais
for a seal belonging to a church with this name.403 The four seals bearing an image
of Irene also all belonged to bishops, yet the hierarchs’ sees are not indicated;
most likely their cathedral church was dedicated to Irene or there was a strong
local veneration for this saint.404
On the two 11th-century seals issued by Nikephoros, a metropolitan of Seleu
keia, Thekla holds the martyr’s cross in her left hand and a book, possibly the Gos
pels, in her right.405 In his discussion of this rare motif of a woman saint holding
a book, Jeffrey Anderson has shown that such an image of Thekla first appeared

400 ZACOS, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, nos. 505 and 553 and NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO
Seals, III, nos. 77.1, 77.2, 77.3a and b, 77.4a-g, and 77.7a and b.
401 ZACOS, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, no. 638 and SEIBT and ZARNITZ, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel,
no. 3.2.2. Of the four earlier seals with Thekla, two also belonged to metropolitans, but their sees
were not indicated: SODE, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin, II, nos. 328 and 362; and two oth
ers do not provide their owners’ offices: KONSTANTOPOULOS, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα.
Συλλογὴ Ἀναστασίου Σταμούλη, no. 17 and SODE, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin, II, no. 317.
402 LAURENT, Corpus, V:1, no. 754 and NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES, DO Seals, II, nos. 51.7
and 51.9.
404 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, nos. 1243a and b; P. SPECK, Byzantinische
Bleisiegel in Berlin (West), Bonn, 1986, no. 78; and SEIBT and ZARNITZ, Das byzantinische
Bleisiegel, no. 3.2.3.
405 ZACOS, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, no. 638, where the accompanying photograph is erroneous.
The other is SEIBT and ZARNITZ, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel, no. 3.2.2., who are uncertain if
the object is either a book or a model of the grotto in which the martyr disappeared. Under closer
137
in the 11th century and can be found as well in a few monumental and manuscript
examples.406 According to Anderson, the book, or Gospel book, enhances Thek
la’s status by endowing her with teaching authority, an allusion to her privileged
position as a follower of the apostle Paul and to the greater instructive role that
women in general enjoyed in the early Church. Anderson sees the 11th century as
a critical point in the development of the image of female figures holding books,
a motif that may reflect the contemporary depiction of imperial women as learned
and involved in the affairs of state as are their spouses. The two seals of Metro
politan Nikephoros that bear the image of Thekla with a book appear to support
Anderson’s interpretation. They, too, belong to the 11th century, and since Thekla
died near Seleukeia and was the patron saint of the city, it is understandable that
the metropolitan would not only choose her image for his seals but would wish to
enhance the prestige of his position by depicting her with a book as a sign of her
wisdom and apostolic authority in line with Paul.407
Of the 20 seals depicting Sophia, 19 belong to the period before Iconoclasm.
In these examples, the saint is standing, veiled and either in an orans posi
tion408 or holding the small martyr’s cross.409 In two others, Sophia holds both
a small cross and a book.410 Another seal bearing the image of Sophia, that is,
the 7th/8th-century example belonging to Anastasios the bishop of Samos, may
explain why the figure of Sophia may also have been provided with a book
or Gospel book. The female figure is flanked by the identifying inscription: Η
ΑΓΙΑ ϹΟΦΙΑ Ο ΘΕΟΥ ΛΟΓΟϹ (Holy Wisdom the Word of God).411 The ref
erence is a clear allusion to Christ the Logos in his aspect as Holy or Divine
Wisdom (I Corinthians 1:24), the name also given to the Great Church, or
Hagia Sophia, in Constantinople and to major churches elsewhere throughout
the Byzantine empire.412 In the early and middle Byzantine periods, Holy or
observation with a magnifying glass, however, the object is clearly discernible as a book, with
even the clasps along its side visible.
406 J. ANDERSON, Anna Komnene, Learned Women, and the Book in Byzantine Art, in Anna
Komnene and Her Times, ed. T. GOUMA-PETERSON, New York and London, 2000, p. 134–
136 and 148.
407 For discussion of Thekla and the critical edition of her Vita, see Vie et miracles de Sainte Thècle:
Texte grec, traduction et commentaire, ed. G. DAGRON (Subsidia Hagiographica, 62), Brussels,
1978, passim. See also ODB, III, p. 2033–2034 and S. Davis, The Cult of Saint Thecla: A Tradi
tion of Women’s Piety in Late Antiquity, Oxford, 2001, passim.
408 For example, ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1278.
409 For example, see ibid., no. 1280.
410 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3, no. 2972 and LAURENT, Corpus, V:2, no.
931.
412 For the dedicatory name of the Great Church, see G. DOWNEY, The Name of St. Sophia in Con
stantinople, in Harvard Theological Review, 52 (1959), p. 37–41. See also J. MEYENDORFF,
Wisdom-Sophia: Contrasting Approaches to a Complex Theme, in DOP, 41 (1987), p. 391–401.
For a history of the Great Church, see R. MAINSTONE, Hagia Sophia: Architecture, Struc
ture and Liturgy of Justinian’s Great Church, London, 1988 and J. FREELY and A. ÇAKMAK,
138
Divine Wisdom – Sophia-was sometimes represented as a female personifica

tion, as seen in the 7th-century Syriac Bible in Paris413 and on the title page of a
10th-century Wisdom Book in Copenhagen.414
The creation of the image of the female martyr bearing the name Sophia as she
appears on these seals should be understood as the personification of the abstract
concept of Divine Wisdom that was characteristic of the pre-Iconoclastic peri
od.415 This is demonstrated by the seal of the bishop of Samos. Nine of the seals
bearing the figure of Sophia belonged to ecclesiastical hierarchs, and possibly
their cathedral church was dedicated to Hagia Sophia-Holy Wisdom. Also, two
other ecclesiastical officials, a skevophylax416 and deacon-oikonomos,417 chose
Sophia for their seals, possibly reflecting their connections to the Great Church or
another sanctuary bearing the name Holy Wisdom.
The figure of Irene on the four seals listed above most likely reflected the per
sonification of Irene as Divine or Holy Peace, Η ΑΓΙΑ ΕΙΡΗΝΗ, another aspect of
Christ the Logos, who is called Peace (Eph. 2:14).418 This name was given to the
second most important church in Constantinople, Hagia Irene, by Constantine the
Great, which Justinian I later rebuilt after the Nika riots of 532.419 All four of these
seals belonged to bishops who most likely had their cathedral church dedicated to
Christ as Holy Peace.
Byzantine Monuments of Istanbul, Cambridge, 2004, p. 90–128. For the post-Byzantine history
of the building and its architectural influences, see R. Nelson, Hagia Sophia, 1850–1950: Holy
Wisdom Modern Monument, Chicago, 2004, where the first chapter is dedicated to the early his
tory of the church.
413 J. MEYENDORFF, L’iconographie de la sagesse divine dans la tradition byzantine, in CA, 10
(1959), p. 262–263, fig. 1. See also F. VON LILIENFELD, Frau Weisheit-Typus, Symbol oder
Allegorie in Byzanz und der karolingischen Dichtung des 9. bis 10. Jahrhunderts, in Typus, Sym
bol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter, ed. M. SCHMIDT
and C. F. GEYER, Regensburg, 1982, p. 146–186. For later Byzantine and Slavic iconographic
developments of this theme, see MEYENDORFF, Wisdom-Sophia, p. 391–401; D. PALLAS,
Ὁ Χριστὸς ὡς ἡ Θεία Σοφία¨Ἡ εἰκονογραφικὴ περιπέτεια μιᾶς θεολογικῆς ἔννοιας, in ∆XAE,
15 (1989/90), p. 119–144; “DIE WEISHEIT baute ihr HAUS”: Untersuchungen zu hymnischen
und didaktischen Ikonen, ed. K. FELMY and E. HAUSTEIN-BARTSCH, Munich, 1999, passim;
and T. VELMANS, Deux images de la sagesse divine en Moldavie (Roumanie), in ∆XAE, per. 4,
22 (2001), p. 385–392.
414 H. BELTING and G. CAVALLO, Die Bibel des Niketas, Wiesbaden, 1979, pl. 1.
415 M. VAN ESBROECK, Le saint comme symbole, in The Byzantine Saint, p. 128–138.
416 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals I:2, no. 1275. For the office of the skevophylax,
see ODB, III, p. 1909–1910.
417 LAURENT, Corpus V:1, no. 49 and ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no.
1278. For the office of the oikonomos, see ODB, III, p. 1517.
418 VAN ESBROECK, Le saint comme symbole, p. 138–139.
419 For a history of this church, see U. PESCHLOW, Die Irenenkirche in Istanbul: Untersuch
ungen zur Architektur, Tübingen, 1977 and FREELY and ÇAKMAK, Byzantine Monuments,
p. 136–143.
139
The sole example of the post-Iconoclastic image of Sophia420 was presented

differently from those of the earlier centuries. Here the figure is depicted as an
empress, but in female imperial costume recalling that of the 6th century. Oikon
omides suggested that possibly the figure represented the 6th-century empress
Sophia, the wife of Justin II, remembered for her piety, whose memory was later
conflated with Sophia, the saint.421
Overall, the Chart demonstrates that the figures representing personified saints
are limited to the pre-Iconoclastic period, which corresponds to the artistic use
of personifications in general as van Esbroeck observed.422 On the evidence of
Chart 3.8, those female saints who appeared in the pre-Iconoclastic period were
not represented again after Iconoclasm, except for three: Euphemia, Thekla and
Sophia. The latter two are found, respectively, only twice and once in the middle
Byzantine period. In her study of female transvestite saints, Patlagean observed
that before the 9th century an interest in this genre of hagiography existed, after
wards disappearing, to be replaced by an emphasis on holy women and their role
within the family.423 This view has subsequently been supported by Kazhdan424
and Talbot, in her work on Byzantine women and female saints.425 Yet the seals
displayed no interest in the representation of these disguised saints or in holy
domestic figures. Rather, all of the women, except for Anna,426 were recognized as
martyrs (including the personified figures of Sophia and Irene). These sphragistic
findings corroborate those of Halsall’s study in which the written sources have
little to no interest in disguised saints or married female saints.427 In addition,
the earlier period witnessed a greater sphragistic preference for Sophia, followed
by Irene and Thekla; this trend does not correspond to that of hagiographic lit
erature, which indicates greater interest in Barbara, Catherine, Theodora, Thekla
and Euphemia.428 Furthermore, the seals demonstrate that Thekla did not enjoy a
position of particular significance among the group of female saints even though
420 MCGEER, NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES†, DO Seals, IV, 55.13.

421 N. OIKONOMIDES, Ἡ Αὐτοκράτειρα Ἁγἰα Σοφία, in θμίαμα, I, p. 235–238 and II, pl. 124 and
MCGEER, NESBITT and OIKONOMIDES†, DO Seals, IV, no. 55.13.
422 VAN ESBROECK, Le saint comme symbole, p. 128–140.
423 E. PATLAGEAN, L’histoire de la femme déguisée en moine et l’évolution de la sainteté fémi
nine à Byzance, in Studi Medievali, ser. 3, 17 (1976), p. 620–622 (repr. in her Structure sociale,
famille, chrétienité à Byzance IVe-XIe siècle, London, 1981).
424 KAZHDAN, Hermitic, p. 474–475 and 484.
425 A.-M. TALBOT, Byzantine Women, Saints’ Lives and Social Welfare, in Through the Eye of
a Needle: Judeo-Christian Roots of Social Welfare, ed. E. HANAWALT and C. LINDBERG,
Kirksville, MO, 1994 (repr. in her Women and Religious Life in Byzantium, Aldershot, 2001),
p. 109–114; EADEM, Introduction, in Holy Women of Byzantium, Washington, DC, 1996, p. xii;
and eadem, Female Sanctity in Byzantium, in Women and Religious Life, p. 1–16.
426 For a discussion of the significance of Anna and her image for Byzantine women, see S. GERS
TEL, Painted Sources for Female Piety in Medieval Byzantium, in DOP, 52 (1998), p. 96–98.
427 HALSALL, Women’s Bodies and Men’s Souls, p. 184–188, 229, 236, 239–240 and 258–260.
428 TALBOT, Introduction, p. xiv and EADEM, Female Sanctity, p. 2.
140
in the hagiographic literature she served as a model for later holy women.429 In
her study of female saints, Talbot concluded that the pre-Iconoclastic period wit
nessed a greater number of hagiographies of female saints and that newer female
personages whose vitae appeared after Iconoclasm were fewer and never as pop
ular as their predecessors.430 Similar results have been found in Halsall’s survey
of the hagiographic sources.431 The sphragistic data may require modifying their
conclusions. Chart 3.8 demonstrates that six female saints appeared on seals in the
earlier period while six different holy women are found on seals of the later centu
ries. Indeed, three of the earlier female saints reappear after Iconoclasm (Euphe
mia, Sophia and Thekla). All of these holy women who appear on seals, however,
are early saints, and the pre-Iconoclastic total number of examples is greater than
that of the post-Iconoclastic period: 34 and 18 specimens, respectively. But over
time, the same female saints did not enjoy a consistent popularity because most
of the post-Iconoclastic sphragistic examples of female saints are different figures
from those of the earlier centuries.
The victory of female saints’ faith over persecution was an essential factor in
preferring these images of holy women. The employment of images of women
saints on seals was not widespread, however. Even the great martyr Catherine
is found only once. Although her identifying inscription was written in Greek,
the name of the owner and his office (a comes from the Puglia region of Italy)
are in Latin: ALEX(an)DER COME(s) GRAVI(na).432 This indicates that at least
sphragistically, during the Byzantine period, the cult of Catherine in the East was
not as highly developed as in the Latin West. This corroborates other evidence.
Although Catherine’s image is found in such manuscripts as the Menologion of
Basil II of c. 1000433 and the Theodore Psalter of 1066,434 and in some monumen
tal representations, such as the narthex mosaics of the 11th-century church of
Hosios Loukas,435 her image is not frequently encountered. In the list of 73 select
churches in Greece with images of female saints dating from the 11th through
15th centuries prepared by Gerstel,436 only ten depict Catherine. Even the few
icons of Catherine at Sinai belong to the Crusader group.437 Her shrine at Sinai
429 C. RAPP, Figures of Female Sanctity: Byzantine Edifying Manuscripts and Their Audience, in
DOP, 55 (1996), p. 330, whose study of six materika manuscripts shows that Thekla served as a
role model for a variety of different kinds of female saints.
430 TALBOT, Female Sanctity, p. 2 and 15.
431 HALSALL, Women’s Bodies and Men’s Souls, p. 111, Table 4.1 and fig. 4.1.
432 LIHAČEV, Molivdovuly grečeskogo, p. 298, no. 11.
433 Il menologio, p. 207.
434 DER NERSESSIAN, Psautiers grecs, p. 54, fol. 167r, pl. 95, fig. 268.
435 GERSTEL, Painted Sources, fig. 1.
436 Ibid., p. 104–111.
437 D. MOURIKI, Icons From the 12th to the 15th Century, in Sinai: The Treasures of the Monastery
of Saint Catherine, Athens, 1990, p. 111, 114–115, fig. 46. See also Byzantium: Faith and Power,
no. 201.
141
was not a popular pilgrimage site for the Byzantines but attracted larger numbers
of Western pilgrims.438
As mentioned above, the 13 different female saints comprise merely 10.1% of
the total number of saints found on seals. This percentage corresponds in general
with observations made in hagiographic studies and with regard to depictions
of female saints in other media. Halsall also found a low percentage of female
saints as compared to male saints in his study of sources in the BHG.439 Among
the corpus of Byzantine saints, only a few were women, and their cults were
not universal.440 In monumental church decoration, female saints are sometimes
absent altogether from the sanctoral cycles, such as those of the church of Nea
Moni on Chios, Daphni and the Holy Apostles in Thessalonike.441 In the katho
likon of Hosios Loukas, of 122 holy figures just 12, or 9.8%, are female saints.442
Smaller objects intended for personal use, such as ivory and steatite carvings,
which were thus closer to the devotional realm of personal seals, likewise evi
dence little interest in female saints. Anna, Barbara and Thekla are found on
just one ivory panel.443 Female saints are depicted on only two steatite pieces.444
The sphragistic evidence indicates that female saints did not play a great role in
the area of personal piety and general intercession. It is important to note at this
point that of all the seals depicting female saints, only one belonged to a woman,
namely an Anna who selected an image of her homonymous saint as indicated
above. Thus, there does not appear to be any gender-related expression of piety
according to the sphragistic data.445 This also lends support to similar conclusions
438 N. TOMADAKIS, Historical Outline, in Sinai: The Treasures, p. 14, notes that by the early 11th
century, the cult of Catherine had gained prominence in the West. In her paper entitled “Shifting
Venerations at Patmos and Sinai” presented at the 2000 Dumbarton Oaks Symposium, Pilgrim
age in the Byzantine Empire, 7th-15th Centuries, N. ŠEVČENKO also observed the lack of a
major cult dedicated to Catherine during the Byzantine period and the greater devotion to this
saint demonstrated in the Latin West and by the Crusaders. She offered similar conclusions in
her presentation entitled, “Mount Sinai and the Cult of Saint Catherine in the East: A Long Road
Home?” presented at the Metropolitan Museum of Art Symposium for Byzantium: Faith and
Power, 17 April 2004. For papers devoted to the study of the cult of Catherine in the medieval
West, see St. Katharine of Alexandria: Texts and Contexts in Western Medieval Europe, ed. J.
JENKINS and K. LEWIS, Turnhout, 2003.
439 HALSALL, Women’s Bodies, Men’s Souls, p. 112, Table 4.1, fig. 4.1.
440 TALBOT, Byzantine Women, p. 105; EADEM, Introduction, p. xiii-xv; EADEM, Female Sanc
tity, p. 3; and HALSALL, Women’s Bodies, Men’s Souls, p. 111–112, Table 4.1 and fig. 4.1.
441 GERSTEL, Painted Sources, p. 90, who also notes the exception of Anna in the narthex of Nea
Moni.
442 CONNOR, Female Saints, p. 213, provides the number of male and female figures.
443 GOLDSCMIDT and WEITZMANN, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, no. 38.
444 KALAVREZOU-MAXEINER, Byzantine Icons in Steatite, nos. 51 and 102.
445 I am currently preparing a more in-depth publication focused on imagery and gender-related
piety. For earlier preliminary results regarding sphragistc data on this topic, see J. COTSONIS,
Women and Sphragistic Iconography: A Means of Investigating Gender-Related Piety, in Nine
teenth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, Abstracts of Papers, Princeton, 1993, p. 59.
142
found by Rapp446 and Halsall.447 Like the monastic figures discussed above, the
female saints enjoyed little sphragistic popularity. Since most of these women
saints were virgin martyrs, they likewise may have been perceived as too remote
for the invocations of most lay people. The maternal and intercessory role of the
Virgin instead permitted greater accessibility and solace.448 The images of female
saints, therefore, are limited.
H: General conclusions
The plethora of information provided by the sphragistic hagiographic images per
mits some generalizations. Working with such a large database allows more refined
conclusions in comparison to previous arguments based upon smaller samples
found in other media. A great number of different saints, 129, are found on seals,
this far exceeding the few that appear on coins. Moreover, because seals were
objects of personal use issued by a variety of individuals, where coins, by contrast,
were produced under the aegis of imperial mints, seals offer inferences regard
ing popular attitudes towards different groups of saints. Sphragistic iconography
reflected the variety of iconographic choices associated with personal devotions,
whereas numismatic iconography proclaimed official imperial concerns. Seals thus
permit a view of the relative popularity of saints within the choir of holy figures
of the Byzantine culture. Yet, although 129 different saints make their appearance
on seals, they are only a small fraction of the large number of holy figures known
to the Church. Saints appearing on seals, therefore, reflected a select group of holy
figures who were associated with a strong tradition of veneration or personal devo
tions. These sphragistic findings parallel studies of written sources in which only a
few saints among the thousands of holy figures enjoyed a great popularity.
Saints, and all religious figural iconography, began to make their appearance
on seals in the 6th century contemporary with the increase in holy images in
general, especially on small domestic objects of private use like rings and other
jewelry and apotropaic devices. The pre-Iconoclastic figures of Theodore clearly
recall amulets with images of the holy rider, thus to some degree aligning early
sigillographic iconography with amulets. The percentage of iconographic seals in
general, and those bearing images of saints, varied over time, and those percent
ages corresponded to wider trends in Byzantine culture, with some variations as
noted above. The closest parallels are cyclic interests in hagiography. During the
pre-Iconoclastic period, the percentage of seals bearing religious figural iconog
raphy never surpassed 30%. As a reflection of the image-producing activity of
the culture, these data indicate that the use of images before Iconoclasm was not
446 RAPP, Figures of Female Sanctity, p. 313–344.

447 HALSALL, Women’s Bodies and Men’s Souls, p. 135–139.
448 For these two aspects of the Virgin, see I. KALAVREZOU, The Maternal Side of the Virgin,
p. 27–40 and H. MAGUIRE, The Cult of the Mother of God in Private, p. 279–289, both in
Mother of God.
143
widespread, and therefore there was no wholesale destruction of images during

the Iconoclastic policies of the 8th and 9th centuries.
During the 8th and 9th centuries, before and after Iconoclasm and during the
Iconophile interlude, the percentage of seals bearing images of saints declined
as the ratio of seals with the image of the Virgin increased. During these peri
ods of the Iconoclastic controversy, the figure of the Theotokos was preferred.
She became the image par excellence of the Iconophiles. The largest percentage
increase in hagiographic seals was from the period designated 9th/10th century to
the 10th century. As the tumultuous events of Iconoclasm receded into the past,
the intensity of devotion towards the Virgin, the Iconophile emblem, declined,
relatively, permitting a wider and more diversified expression of religious venera
tion. Occurring at the same time was the systematic collection of vitae by Niketas
David the Paphlagonian and Symeon Metaphrastes, along with the production of
the Synaxarion. It was also the period of the Byzantine reconquest of eastern ter
ritories that enabled access for pilgrimage to saints’ shrines. The 10th century also
witnessed the greatest number of transfer of saints’ relics to Constantinople. In
addition, it was only in the 10th century that the percentage of iconographic seals
in general first surpassed the ratios of the pre-Iconoclastic period. This finding
indicates that holy images were not commonly encountered until the 10th century.
The statistical trends also reflect the fate of the Metaphrastian menologion.
The significant increase in the percentage of seals with images of saints in the
10th and 10th/11th centuries corresponds to the production of the Metaphrastian
text. Also, these two chronological periods exhibited the greatest variety of saints
appearing on seals and possessed the greatest number of saints corresponding to
those also found in the menologion. The sphragistic data offer new evidence that
this increase was not a sudden “irruption” but rather a gradual phenomenon that
emerged from the 10th century, not the 11th century.
The subsequent decline of the use of saints’ images in the 11th and 12th cen
turies paralleled the fate of the illustrated menologion and the decreased interest
in new hagiography in general throughout Byzantine society. By contrast, in the
10th and 11th centuries the larger variety of saints chosen for seals reflected a
more stable time, when individuals appeared to be able to express visually more
personal choice in their acts of piety: it was the best of times for individuation.
Also, throughout the 11th and 12th centuries, the percentage of seals bearing
religious figural iconography reached the highest ratios, over 80%. By this time,
it was expected to have an image of a holy figure on one’s seal. Religious images
became central in liturgical life and private devotions. The 11th century witnessed
the “iconification” of Byzantine society.
Although seals were small objects and employed for practical use, their engrav
ers were sensitive to and observant of trends in other visual media. These diminu
tive objects received complex images such as depictions of All Saints or a stylite
figure. The imperial loros worn by Archangel Michael changed on seals from the
older crossed type to the new straight form in the 10th century. This transition
appeared in imperial portraits on seals as well as coins. Close adherence to such
144
details illustrates that sigillographic iconography was within the mainstream of

the broader artistic activity of Byzantine culture.
Other iconographic peculiarities can be quite suggestive. Only on seals does
John the Theologian appear in the guise of a bishop. Again, a seal with the image
of John the Theologian, which belonged to an abbot from a monastic foundation
on Patmos and assigned to the 8th century, demonstrates that the holy island was
inhabited and had a history of religious institutions long before Christodoulos’s
arrival in 1088. The motif of the embracing figures of Peter and Paul occurred
on 11th-century specimens, earlier than most other examples of this iconogra
phy. This image has been interpreted here as reflecting an aspirational message of
bi-cultural harmony in light of 11th-century ecclesiastical differences.
The large body of sphragistic iconography has enabled us to trace the chrono
logical development of identifying inscriptions accompanying such images as
well as the evolution of hagiographic portraiture. The use of inscriptions appeared
with hagiographic images before those of the Virgin. The flanking cruciform
invocative monograms, Θεοτόκε Βοήθει, did not appear on sphragistic images of
the Virgin until the 7th century449 and did not become customary until the 7th/8th
century. This is significantly earlier than surviving images of the Virgin identi
fied as Theotokos in other media, for which Anna Kartsonis concluded that such
objects should be assigned a date after 787.450 Possibly the sphragistic examples
reflect the increasing devotion to the cult of the Virgin as well as to the belief
in her intercessory powers at this time, as discussed above, because owners of
seals placed their invocation in closer proximity to the Theotokos’ image on the
obverse of the seal. The sigla ΜΡ ΘΥ that accompany sigillographic images of
the Mother of God, though appearing on one 7th-century seal,451 did not become
common until the mid-9th-century specimens and not standard until the later 10th
century.452 As early as the 6th century, however, Archangel Michael was identified
with the inscription, ΜΙΧΑΗΛ ΒΟΗΘΗ. In the 7th century, portraits of John the
Theologian were labeled by the name of the city most closely associated with
his local cult, Ephesos, and in the same century, Nicholas, too, was identified by
inscription. From the 7th/8th century, figures such as Basil, Chrysostom, Deme
trios and Theodore appear with inscribed identifications. The practice of specify
ing individual saints’ images is, therefore, well established before the theological
debates concerning icons in the 8th and 9th centuries, and inscriptions on saints’
seals were standard after Iconoclasm. Identifying inscriptions most likely rise out
of practical needs. The iconography of a veiled woman holding a child is readily
perceived as the Virgin and Christ Child. But the numerous saintly individuals
449 For example, see ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, 1349A.
450 A. KARTSONIS, Anastasis: The Making of an Image, Princeton, 1986, p. 107–109.
451 See LAURENT, Corpus, V:2, no. 1070.
452 See J. NESBITT, A Question of Labels: Identifying Inscriptions on Byzantine Lead Seals, ca.
850-ca. 950, in Studies in Byzantine Sigillography, 4 (1995), p. 58–60 who refines earlier conclu
sions of KALAVREZOU, Images of the Mother, p. 165–172.
145
who began to be depicted on seals, as well as in other media, would usually be

unrecognizable and thus lead to great confusion.453
Yet, if identifying inscriptions had a practical aspect from the beginning of
hagiographic sphragistic portraiture, they became a theological necessity after the
Iconoclastic debates of the 8th and 9th centuries. By providing identifications
for such figures, not only are the hagiographic personages clearly named, but the
identification itself directs the focus of devotion to the images. When the holy
figure is known through the portrait’s specificity or limitation, the worshipper
can then properly enter into relationship with the icon. The acts of the Icono
phile Synod of Nicaea in 787 devote importance to naming images to ensure their
validity:
The icon resembles the prototype, not with regard to the

essence, but only with regard to the name and to the position
of the members which can be characterized.454
Therefore, since Christ is depicted according to his human nature,

it is obvious, as the truth has shown, that Christians confess
that which the icon has in common with the archetype is only the name, not
the essence.455
We acknowledge these to be nothing more than icons, in so

far as they bear the name only, not the essence of the proto
type.456
Defenders of images during the second phase of Iconoclasm argued similarly.

Theodore the Stoudite put it as follows:
and we call the image of Christ ‘Christ’ because it is also

Christ, yet there are not two Christs. It is not possible to
distinguish one from the other by the name, which they
have in common, but by their natures.457
453 NESBITT, A Question of Labels, p. 61, where the author, however, discusses this phenomenon in
the 10th century.
454 The English translation is by D. SAHAS, Icon and Logos: Sources in Eighth-Century Icono
clasm, Toronto, 1986, p. 77. For the Greek original, see MANSI, 13, col. 244B.
455 SAHAS, Icon and Logos, p. 84 and MANSI, 13, col. 252D.
456 SAHAS, Icon and Logos, p. 92 and MANSI, 13, col. 261D. Similar statements from the text are
found in MANSI 13, col. 256D; 257D; 269E; and 344B.
457 The English translation is by C. ROTH, St. Theodore the Studite: On the Holy Icons, Crestwood,
New York, 1981, p. 28. For the Greek original, see PG, 99 col. 337.
146
‘Is the inscription to be venerated,’ the heretics ask, ‘or the

icon, of which the title is inscribed? Is it exclusively one or
the other, and not both? How?’ How can the thing which
is named be separated in honor from its own appellation.
These are relationships, for a name is by nature the name of something which
is named, and a sort of natural image of
that to which it is applied. Therefore the unity of veneration
is not divided.458
Patriarch Nikephoros further emphasized the significance of inscriptions for holy

images, stating both that inscriptions authenticated images and that the inscribed
name of the saintly figure linked the image with its prototype.459 It is not surpris
ing, therefore, that when icon veneration was attacked, the Iconophile doctrines
expressed in the acts of Nicaea II (787) emphasized the naming of images as a
guarantee of their validity.460
Related to this phenomenon is the subject of portraiture. Although such fig
ures as Peter and Paul had consistent portrait types already in the early Christian
period, most depicted saints did not. The seals clearly exhibit a variety of phys
iognomies given to a single individual over a great period of time. Portraits of
John the Theologian, Basil, Chrysostom and Nicholas varied throughout the 10th
century and even into the 11th century. The gradual stabilization of portrait types
confirms, on the whole, the conclusions of Tomekovič, who considered the 10th
458 ROTH, On the Holy Icons, p. 34 and PG, 99, col. 344–345. Similar phrases from the Greek text
can be found in PG, 99, col. 340, 341; and 361.
459 PG, 100, col. 293. For the French translation, see Nicéphore, Discours contre les iconoclastes,
trans. and ed. M.-J. MONDZAIN-BAUDINET, Paris, 1989, p. 122. See also C. MANGO, The
Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312–1453, rep. ed., Toronto, 1986, p. 150, n. 5 and BOSTON, The
Power of Inscriptions and the Trouble With Texts, in Icon and Word, p. 44.
460 MAGUIRE, The Icons of Their Bodies, p. 38–40 and 100–145, emphasizes that the identifying
inscriptions that accompany images of holy figures were a result of the theological debates of Icon
oclasm whereby the Church sought to recontextualize and control the use of religious imagery and
disassociate icons from the realm of magical and apotropaic devices. Although Maguire quotes
from the Acts of the Second Synod of Nicaea, cited in note 454, supra, he does not discuss the theo
logical argument of the Synod, which stressed that images were validated by proper naming. Magu
ire also emphasizes that inscriptions appear regularly on icons after Iconoclasm but, as discussed
above, the sphragistic material indicates that hagiographic inscriptions accompany images regularly
from the pre-Iconoclastic period onwards. In her recent article devoted to the role of inscriptions,
BOSTON, The Power of Inscriptions, p. 36–51, also takes issue with Maguire’s basic thesis by
concluding that the theological arguments concerning the significance of names and inscriptions
promulgated by the Iconophiles during the Iconoclastic debates best accounts for the rise in use of
inscriptions on images after Iconoclasm. Although I agree with Boston’s interpretation, it is impor
tant to recall that for images of saints on seals, the identifying names appeared regularly before the
onset of Iconoclasm. For a discussion of the Aristotelian definition of homonymity and its use by
Theodore the Stoudite and Nikephoros, see PARRY, Depicting the Word, p. 52–63.
147
century and the Menologion of Basil II critical to the establishment of standard

hagiographic portraiture.461 But Tomekovič accepted the late 10th-century date
for the Menologion, which could actually be assigned within the first quarter of
the 11th century.462 Maguire also outlines the standardization of hagiographic por
traits but refers only generally to the post-Iconoclastic period as the time of spec
ification when recognition of depicted holy figures was considered an essential
experience on the part of the believer, again seen as the Church’s greater control in
the use of images of saints.463 Sphragistic iconography testifies that formulation of
consistent portraiture was not completely achieved by the end of the 10th century
and that development continued into the next.
The greatest utility, however, of the large database is the ability to determine
overall trends in the popularity of different saints and how these changed over
time. Certain groups were not frequently depicted on seals and played only minor
roles in the larger sphere of the veneration of Byzantine saints: Old and New
Testament saints; martyrs; monks; and female holy figures. Among the New Tes
tament figures, only the Prodromos and John the Theologian were frequently
represented on seals. The former was associated with great intercessory powers
and came to figure in the traditional Deesis iconography. John the Theologian,
an author of Scripture, was also related to Christ and a figure associated with
Byzantine ecclesiastical politics. These episodes from their lives and subsequent
associations lent support to their roles as major intercessory figures. Stephen, the
deacon and first martyr, also appeared to be popular in this group, and this possi
bly reflects a preference for liturgical figures.
Martyrs, monastic figures and female saints received comparatively little sigil
lographic attention. The austerity of ascetics and the fortitude of male and virgin
martyrs did not appeal to a broad section of Byzantine society, at least regarding
personal choices of sphragistic iconography. Presumably, therefore, personal and
intimate connections with such saints were not strong. Even women did not prefer
depictions of female saints for their seals, thus testifying to the absence of any
gender-related identification with the saint represented. Within these groups, the
three figures that did appear most frequently were those associated with healing
and celebrated pilgrimage sites: Panteleimon, Symeon the Stylite and Euphemia.
461 S. TOMEKOVIČ, Le ‘portrait’ dans l’art byzantin: example d’effigies de moines du ménologe
de Basile II à Decani, in Dečani et l’art byzantin au milieu du XIVe siècle: à l’occasion de la
célébration de 650 ans du monastère de Dečani, Septembre, 1985, Belgrade, 1989, p. 121–136.
462 Ibid., p. 122, n.8. Tomekovič cites S. DER NERSESSIAN, Remarks on the Date of the Menolo
gium and the Psalter Written for Basil II, in Byzantion, 15 (1940/41), p. 104–125, who assigned
the manuscript to the years 979–989. I. ŠEVČENKO, The Illuminators of the Menologium of
Basil II, in DOP, 16 (1962), p. 245, n. 2, questions the reliability of the latter terminus. A. CUT
LER, A Psalter of Basil II (Part II), in Arte Veneta, 31 (1977), p. 13, suggests the years 1001–
1005 for the menologion based upon its stylistic similarities with Basil’s psalter, a chronology
deduced by Cutler for this latter manuscript.
463 MAGUIRE, The Icons of Their Bodies, p. 100–145.
148
The holy hierarchs as a group appeared to be a popular category of saintly

figures, and this may parallel the preference for liturgical celebrants as previously
discussed. For that reason, Basil and Chrysostom were represented far more fre
quently than Gregory the Theologian. By the 11th century, Basil and Chrysostom
were most often remembered as authors of eucharistic liturgies. Within this group,
only Nicholas surpassed the liturgists, owing to his reputation as one of the great
est intercessors, second only to the Virgin.
Second to Nicholas in popularity were the military saints. Some of these
appeared with great frequency. When grouped together, they surpassed in number
all other figures except the Theotokos. From the 10th to the 11th century, their
iconography underwent a radical change. From aristocratic martyrs, dressed in the
civil chiton and chlamys and holding small crosses, they transformed into military
heroes, garbed in armor and bearing weapons. This change reflects the militariza
tion of the empire that began with the 10th-century Byzantine reconquest and
continued during the 11th-century defense of a disintegrating empire. Appeal to
warrior saints for protection in prolonged periods of insecurity very probably was
widespread, given the vast number of seals bearing their images.
The large corpus of iconographic seals in conjunction with the names and
offices of their owners offers some insight regarding the patronage and geo
graphic dispersion of saints’ cults. Images of saints were not usually chosen
by individuals who shared a similar office associated with the saint, except
in the case of hierarchs and military officials where there was some statisti
cal preference for images of Basil and Chrysostom and the military saints,
respectively. As noted above, gender did not play a role in selecting images of
saints. Throughout this investigation, it was observed that in some cases, peo
ple chose an image of a saint based on the principle of homonymity. But this
factor, too, has little statistical support based on this large database.464 Thus
saints were not regarded as personal role models of behavior for individuals
to emulate.
Images of John the Theologian were generally chosen by hierarchs to enhance
their associations with their sees, especially Ephesos, the cult center for this saint.
Nicholas and Michael, the most popular saints on seals, enjoyed a broader appeal
across various sectors of society. The military saints George, Theodore and Deme
trios found greater appeal among military officials. Of course, as previously men
tioned, saints’ images were found most frequently on seals belonging to members of
the civil administration, reflecting the large number of seals from such individuals
because the bureaucracy underwent great expansion at that time, especially in the
11th century.
464 I am preparing a fuller, in-depth investigation of the principle of homonymity and iconographic
choice. Preliminary findings, however, have been reported in J. COTSONIS, The Significance of
Homonymous Saints on Byzantine Lead Seals: A Preliminary Report, in Fifteenth Annual Byzan
tine Studies Conference Abstracts of Papers, Amherst, 1989, p. 7.
149
The sphragistic material also offers an indication as to the geographical dis

persion of a variety of saints’ cults. Some saints whose images appeared rarely
on seals were associated with officials assigned where the saint’s cult sites were
located, as Elias for the Patriarchs of Antioch and Euphemia for metropolitans
of Chalcedon. But for those saints whose images are found on a large number of
seals some geographic patterns also emerge: Nicholas’ and Michael’s cults are
mostly spread throughout regions of Asia Minor; Theodore’s cult also appears
more popular in Asia Minor, especially in Euchaita; George’s cult enjoys a broader
geographic span from Asia Minor in the East and to the Balkans in the West; while
Demetrios’ cult is favored in the Balkans.
A large variety of saints appear on seals for a span of six centuries. Over time,
the popularity of individual saints waxed and waned. In general, however, certain
types of holy figures are seen to dominate: holy hierarchs, military saints, healing
saints and saints associated with celebrated pilgrimage sites, that is, places asso
ciated with healing, either physical or spiritual. Holy figures most closely linked
to practical and essential needs of a believer’s daily struggles were considered
the most helpful intercessors: holy hierarchs performed prayers, sacraments and
charitable deeds that gave hope to the desperate; healing saints and miraculous
pilgrimage shrines offered cures for the ill and the sinner;465 and military patrons
protected the weak and defenseless from attacks by foreign enemies and demonic
powers alike.466 Such figures assisted all members of Byzantine society to make
the transition from the present to the future and from this world into the next.
As more collections of seals are published, the results found in this study can be
further tested.
465 A.-M. TALBOT, Pilgrimage to Healing Shrines: The Evidence of Miracle Accounts, in DOP,
56 (2002), p. 153–173, provides a thorough discussion of such pilgrimages, shrines, types of pil
grims, desired cures and methods of healing based upon hagiographic texts. Her study is supple
mented with chronological appendices listing healing saints and numbers of attributed miracles
based upon the examined texts. See also BAKIRTZIS, Pilgrimage to Thessalonike, p. 191, who
describes the significance of the hospital and miraculous healing at the shrine of Demetrios for
the pilgrims.
466 PARANI, Reconstructing the Reality of Images, p. 152.
150
Appendix
C ATA L O G U E S A N D
P U B L I C AT I O N S O F S E A L S
EMPLOYED
CHEYNET, J.-C. and J.-F. VANNIER, Études prosopographiques, Paris, 1986.

CHEYNET, J.-C., C. MORRISSON and W. SEIBT, Sceaux byzantins de la collection
Henri Seyrig, Paris, 1991.
DAVIDSON, G., Corinth XII: The Minor Objects, Princeton, 1952, nos. 2751-2808.
De GRAY BIRCH, W., Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Manuscripts in the British
Museum, London, 1898.
DUNN, A., A Handlist of the Byzantine Lead Seals and Tokens in the Barber Institute of
Fine Arts, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, 1983.
KOLTSIDA-MAKRE, I., Βυζαντινὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα Συλλογῆς Ὀρφανίδη-Νικολαΐδη
Νομισματικοῦ Μουσείου Ἀθηνῶν, Athens, 1996.
KONSTANTOPOULOS, K., Βυζαντιακὰ Μουλυβδόβουλλα τοῦ ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἐθνικοῦ
Νομισματικοῦ Μουσείου, Athens, 1917.
__________, Βυζαντιακὰ Μουλυβδόβουλλα· Συλλογὴ Ἀναστασίου Κ. Π. Σταμούλη, Athens,
1930.
LAURENT, V., Documents de sigillographie byzantine: Le collection C. Orghidan, Paris,
1952.
__________, Les sceaux byzantins du Médaillier Vatican, Vatican City, 1962.
__________, Les corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantine, V/1–3: L’église, Paris, 1963–
1972; II: L’administration centrale, Paris, 1982.
LIHAČEV, N., Istoričeskoe značene italo-grečeskoj ikonopisi izobrazenija Bogomateri,
St. Petersburg, 1911.
__________, Molivdovuly grečeskogo vostoka, ed. V. Šandrovskaja, Moscow, 1991.
NESBITT, J. and N. OIKONOMIDES, Catalogue of the Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton
Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, I-IV, Washington, DC, 1991, 1994, 1996 and 2001.
OIKONOMIDES, N., A Collection of Dated Byzantine Lead Seals, Washington, DC, 1986.
PANČENKO, B., Kollekcii Russago Archeologičeskago Instituta v Konstantinople. Kata-
log Molivdovulov, in IRAIK, 8 (1903), nos. 1-124; in 9 (1904), nos. 125–300; and in 13
(1908), nos. 301–500.
ŠANDROVSKAJA, V., Sfragistika, in Iskusstvo Vizantii v Sobranijach SSSR. Katalog
Vystavki, 1–3, Moscow, 1977, nos. 205–258; nos. 678–865; and nos. 1020–1044.
SCHLUMBERGER, G., Sigillographie de l’empire byzantin, Paris, 1884.
__________, Sceaux byzantins inédits, in Mélanges d’archéologie byzantine, Paris 1895,
pp. 199–274; in REGr, 13 (1900), p. 467–492; in RN, 9 (1905), p. 321–354 and in
RN 20 (1916), p. 32–46.
151
SEIBT, W., Die Skleroi: Eine prosopographisch-sigillographische Studie, Vienna, 1976.

__________, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich, 1: Kaiserhof, Vienna, 1978.
SEIBT, W. and M. L. ZARNITZ, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk, Vienna,
1997.
SODE, C., Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin, II (Ποικίλια Βυζαντινά, 14), Bonn, 1997.
SPECK, P., Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin (West) (Ποικίλια Βυζαντινά, 5), Bonn, 1986.
STAVRAKOS, C., Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel mit Familiennamen aus der Sammlung
des Numismatischen Museums Athen, Wiesbaden, 2000.
SZEMIOTH, A. and T. WASILWSKI, Sceaux byzantins du Musée National de Varsovie,
in Studia Zródioznawcze. Commentationes, 11 (1966), 1–38 and in 14 (1969), 63–89.
ZACOS, G., Byzantine Lead Seals, II, ed. J. Nesbitt, Berne, 1984.
ZACOS, G. and A. VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I/1–3, Basel, 1972.
152
4
“ W H AT S H A L L W E C A L L Y O U ,
O H O LY O N E S ? ” ( M A R T Y R I K O N
AUTOMELON, PLAGAL 4TH)
Images of saints and their invocations on Byzantine
lead seals as a means of investigating personal piety
(sixth-twelfth centuries)*
When surveying the vast body of surviving sigillographic material it is evident

that there are literally thousands of lead seals that bear images of saints. Of the
11, 506 seals bearing religious figural imagery, dating from the 6th to the 15th
centuries, there are 6,172, or 53.6 percent, with images of saints, representing
135 different saints.1 Upon closer scrutiny of these sphragistic specimens, one
discerns that the majority have accompanying inscriptions that invoke not the
depicted saint but rather the Lord, with the customary invocation that begins with
the phrase Κύριε, βοήθει – “Lord, help.”2 Only a small percentage of seals with
saints’ images displays accompanying invocations that address the holy figure
* It is an honor to contribute to this volume dedicated to the prolific academic career of Catherine
Jolivet-Lévy whose extensive scholarly work has greatly enhanced the field of Byzantine studies.
Much of her research has been devoted to an understanding of images of saints, including their
accompanying invocations and their devotional contexts. It is in this light that I offer the present
article with great admiration.
I wish to thank John Nesbitt who read an earlier version of this paper and offered insightful
comments for its improvement. In addition, I acknowledge Jean-Claude Cheynet, Alexandra Was
siliou-Seibt and Werner Seibt for their gracious assistance in providing two of the photographs.
1 The database for these seals was drawn from the major published collections. For an earlier study of
saintly figures found on seals, with 129 different saints among 7,284 seals, see J. COTSONIS, The
Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals to the Study of the Cult of the Saints (Sixth-Twelfth Century),
Byz. 75, 2005, pp. 383–497, passim.
2 For the few studies that address the significance of invocations on seals, see A. KAZHDAN, Review
of V. LAURENT, Le Corpus des sceaux de l’ Empire byzantine, vol. 2, L’administration centrale,
BZ 76, 1983, p. 384; W. SEIBT, Die Darstellung der Theotokos auf byzantinischen Bleisiegeln,
besonders im 11. Jahrhundert, SBS 1, 1987, pp. 35–56, at p. 40; A. KAZHDAN and A.-M. TAL
BOT, Women and Iconoclasm, BZ 84–85, 1991–1992, pp. 391–408, at pp. 401–404; H. HUNGER,
Der homo byzantinus und das Bleisiegel, DOP 46, 1992, pp. 117–128; J. NESBITT, A Question of
Labels: Identifying Inscriptions on Byzantine Lead Seals, ca. 850-ca. 950, SBS 4, 1995, pp. 53–62;
J. COTSONIS, Onomastics, Gender, Office and Images on Byzantine Lead Seals: A Means of
Investigating Personal Piety, BMGS 32:1, 2008, pp. 1–37; IDEM, Narrative Scenes on Byzantine
Lead Seals (Sixth-Twelfth Centuries): Frequency, Iconography, and Clientele, Gesta 48:1, 2009,
pp. 70–73; IDEM, To Invoke or Not to Invoke the Image of Christ on Byzantine Lead Seals. That
153
represented on the seal. This study focuses on these seals. In many cases, the
inscriptions include the name and title or office of their owners. Such information
permits further insight as to who and which social groups over time preferred such
concordant invocations and images for their seals, providing a means of investi
gating Byzantine devotional life.
Of the 135 different saints found on the identified seals, many are represented in
only one or a few cases. For the purposes of this study, the 12 most popular saints
found on seals will be examined as test cases that offer a sufficient number of seals
from which to draw conclusions.3 The period covered, chronologically, the 6th
through the 12th centuries, represents a span of time during which seals began to
appear in number, reaching their highest frequency in the 11th and 12th centuries.4
Preliminary observations
Table 4.1 presents the frequencies and percentages of invocations addressed to
the 12 most popular saints depicted on lead seals. There is generally a low corre
spondence between figure and invocative prayer. The concordance of image and
invocation ranges from 9.7 percent to 30.1 percent. Visual and verbal elements
of these objects do not, therefore, usually agree. Table 4.2 presents the frequency
of the various invocations. One of the first obvious trends is that the invocations
on the seals vary over time. A dramatic increase in frequency occurs in the 10th
century, peaks in the 11th century, and then begins to decline. Part of the expla
nation for this trend is the nature of sphragistic data in general. Jeffrey Anderson
made a similar observation concerning the 11th-century Barberini and Theodore
Psalters.5 In these manuscripts the illuminators frequently placed images of saints
at the beginning of the psalm texts accompanied by such expressions as “cry out”
or “call out,” thus subverting the Psalms’ authorship by making the saints the
is the Question, RN 170, 2013, pp. 549–582; and B. HOSTETLER, The Art of Gift-Giving: The
Multivalency of Votive Dedications in the Middle Byzantine Period, master’s thesis, Florida State
University, 2009, pp. 20–23 and pp. 27–28.
3 For a discussion of the relative popularity of the different saints’ images found on seals, see COT
SONIS, The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals (cited in n. 1), passim. The Virgin, whose image
is the most frequently employed, is not included in this investigation. Her sphragistic depiction is
usually accompanied by an invocative inscription addressed to her: Θεοτόκε, βοήθει (“Theotokos,
help”). There are, however, examples of Marian sphragistic images with invocations directed to the
Lord. For example DOSeals 2, no. 64.3.
4 For discussion of the chronological variation of the frequency of lead seals, both iconic and ani
conic, and the percentage of iconic seals from the total of iconic and aniconic specimens over time,
see COTSONIS, The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals (cited in n.1), pp. 390–414; IDEM,
Onomastics, Gender, Office and Images (cited n. 2), pp. 2–4 and IDEM, Narrative Scenes on Byz
antine Lead Seals (cited in n. 2), pp. 55–59.
5 J. ANDERSON, The State of the Walters’ Marginal Psalter and Its Implications for Art History,
Journal of the Walters Art Museum 62, 2004, pp. 35–44, at p. 38. See also C. BARBER, In the Pres
ence of the Text: A Note on Writing in the Theodore Psalter, in Art and Text in Byzantine Culture,
ed. L. James, Cambridge 2007, pp. 83–99.
154
Table 4.1 Frequency of Invocation Addressed to Saints Depicted on Lead Seals
Saint Frequency Percentage

Basil 16/129 12.4%
Demetrios 84/489 17.2%
George 88/671 13.1%
John the Baptist 38/277 13.7%
John Chrysostom 12/102 11.8%
John the Theologian 25/83 30.1%
Michael 83/744 11.1%
Nicholas 119/998 11.9%
Panteleimon 12/89 13.5%
Peter & Paul 6/62 09.7%
Stephen 14/69 20.3%
Theodore 106/695 15.3%
Table 4.2 Addressee of Invocations on Seals by Century
SAINT 6c 6/7c 7c 7/8c 8c 8/9c 9c 9/10c 10c 10/11c 11c 11/12c 12c TOTAL
Basil
To Saint 1 3 2 2 5 3 16
To Lord 2 5 43 6 56
Other 4 3 7
None 1 1 21 16 6 45
? 1 1 3 5
Demetrios
To Saint 1 2 49 13 19 84
To Lord 4 8 179 24 3 218
Other 2 2 3 7 1 15
None 1 7 3 66 40 34 151
? 1 1 16 2 1 21
George
To Saint 1 3 31 28 25 88
To Lord 2 3 15 207 59 9 295
Other 6 5 11
None 1 1 13 107 77 59 258
? 5 9 5 19
John the Baptist
To Saint 1 2 3 18 10 4 38
To Lord 2 8 12 83 12 3 120
Other 3 1 3 1 8
None 1 1 1 1 14 54 21 10 103
? 1 5 2 8
John Chrysostom
To Saint 1 8 3 12
(Continued )
Table 4.2 (Continued)
SAINT 6c 6/7c 7c 7/8c 8c 8/9c 9c 9/10c 10c 10/11c 11c 11/12c 12c TOTAL
To Lord 1 25 3 1 30
Other 2 2
None 2 1 10 24 11 7 55
? 3 3
John the Theologian
To Saint 1 3 1 3 4 11 2 25
To Lord 1 7 14 2 1 25
Other 1 1 2 3 7
None 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 9 4 1 23
? 1 1 1 3
Michael
To Saint 1 2 14 2 40 13 11 83
To Lord 2 9 18 194 23 5 251
Other 1 1 20 2 24
None 7 7 2 19 25 188 66 29 343
? 6 7 27 3 43
Nicholas
To Saint 2 21 10 49 15 22 119
To Lord 1 2 15 38 277 26 7 366
Other 1 2 22 4 29
None 3 1 1 1 1 22 49 223 85 54 440
? 6 17 20 1 44
Panteleimon
To Saint 7 4 1 12
To Lord 4 3 28 3 38
Other 5 5
None 1 6 18 8 1 34
Peter & Paul
To Saint 1 3 1 1 6
To Lord 1 2 1 4 2 1 11
Other 1 1
None 10 12 10 1 1 4 4 2 44
Stephen
To Saint 2 6 4 2 14
To Lord 2 2 17 5 26
Other 1 1
None 2 1 2 13 3 6 27
? 1 1
Theodore
To Saint 1 1 1 8 4 42 17 32 106
To Lord 13 13 147 49 3 225
Other 3 11 2 16
None 3 16 2 4 1 4 14 146 68 53 311
? 4 6 24 3 37
TOTAL 22 37 27 19 13 6 9 17 209 322 2,538 770 419 4,408
“ w h at s h a l l w e c a l l y o u , o h o ly o n e s ? ”
speakers of the texts and bringing the texts closer to the lives of the those who
used the books. One can in a similar manner understand the seals’ frequent discor
dant use of saints’ images but common invocations addressed to the Lord. In these
examples, it is the saint who invokes the Lord on behalf of the seal owner, with
the saint thus functioning as an intercessor and the prayer from the saint being
regarded as more beneficial than had it come from the mere owner of the seal.
This dissonance between textual invocation and the image found on the seals
is encountered in other spheres of Byzantine devotional life. Among the painted
churches of Cappadocia, it has been observed that the invocations accompanying
images of saints are almost always addressed to Christ and rarely directed to the
depicted holy figure.6 In the 10th-century Vita of Constantine the Ex-Jew, the
author recounts how Constantine was saved from a murderous attack through an
apparition of the Virgin but then clarifies that the rescue was due to the power of
the Holy Spirit and that the saint enjoyed God’s divine protection, leaving out any
agency of the Theotokos altogether. The narrator concludes that any saint’s power
and grace are not his or hers to dispose but are mediated through God alone,
thus subverting the widespread belief that a direct link existed between outward
appearance and agent.7 An 11th-century example is provided by Symeon the New
Theologian’s prayerful encounter with an icon of the Theotokos that leads him
to a spiritual vision of Christ, not the Virgin, in his heart.8 In these examples
the appearance or image of the sainted person serves as a vehicle for the Lord’s
grace, and that is the impression created by most of the seals with saints’ images
that invoke the Lord examined here.9 The voice of the sphragistic saintly image
calls upon the Lord on behalf of the seal owner. The apparent tension between the
image and text in these examples offers an alternate mode of communication in a
dialectical relationship of image and text.10
6 C. JOLIVET-LÉVY, Invocations peintes et graffiti dans les églises de Cappadoce (IXᵉ – XIIIᵉ siècle),
in Des images dans l’histoire, ed. M.-F. Auzépy and J. Cornette, Saint-Denis 2008, pp. 163–78.
7 D. KRAUSMÜLLER, Denying Mary’s Real Presence in Apparitions and Icons: Divine Imperson
ation in the Tenth-Century Life of Constantine the Ex-Jew, Byz. 78, 2008, pp. 288–303.
8 Symeon the New Theologian, Catéchèses XXIII-XXIV, Actions de Grâces 1–2, introduction,
text, and notes by B. Krivocheine and trans. by J. Paramelle (SC 113), Paris 1965, p. 346.208 –
p. 352.272, and IDEM, The Discourses, trans. by C. J. de Catanzaro (The Classics of Western
Spirituality), New York 1980, pp. 374–766. See also C. BARBER, Icons, Prayer, and Vision in
the Eleventh Century, in A People’s History of Christianity, vol. 3, Byzantine Christianity, ed. D.
Krueger, Minneapolis 2006, pp. 155–156 and IDEM, Contesting the Logic of Painting: Art and
Understanding in Eleventh-Century Byzantium, Leiden 2007, pp. 23–26 and p. 58.
9 See also JOLIVET-LÉVY, Invocations peintes (cited in n. 6), pp. 166–167 and 177–178.
10 For some recent discussion of the relation of image and text in Byzantium, see L. BRUBAKER,
Every Cliché in the Book: The Linguistic Turn and the Text-Image Discourse in Byzantine Man
uscripts, in James, Art and Text in Byzantine Culture (cited in n. 5), pp. 58–82; EADEM, Image,
Meta-Text and Text in Byzantium, in Herméneutique du texte d’histoire: Orientation, interpréta
tion et questions nouvelles, ed. S. Sato, Tokyo 2009, pp. 93–100; and EADEM, Show and Tell,
in Wonderful Things: Byzantium through Its Art, ed. A. Eastmond and L. James, Farnham 2013,
pp. 247–260.
157
The pre-Iconoclastic and Iconoclastic periods

The data in Table 4.2 demonstrate that in the pre-Iconoclastic period, very few of
the early seals are accompanied by invocations addressed to the concordant saint.
Of the 118 seals from the 6th through the 8th centuries, only 6, or 5.1%, have
invocative inscriptions directed to homonymous saintly figures. From the early
Byzantine period, the vast majority, 95, 80.5%, have no invocative inscription.
For seal owners at this time, the image of the holy figure selected was sufficient
to express their personal devotion. This phenomenon observed on the early seals
supports the understanding that holy images belonging to the pre-Iconoclastic
period, especially those found on everyday or household objects such as seals,
functioned primarily as amuletic or apotropaic devices, not as intermediaries with
the holy.11 Among the pre-Iconoclastic seals it is only in the 8th century that one
finds the most frequent occurrences of concordant invocatory inscriptions: four of
13, or 30.8 percent. Although these are small numbers, and so one must therefore
be cautious in any interpretation, it is telling that this value is reached at the onset
of the Iconoclastic period, exactly when sacred images in general were taking on
new roles as channels of intercessory power.12
The six pre-Iconoclastic seals with concordant images and invocations rep
resent five different individuals. Three seals were issued by two high-ranking
churchmen, a bishop and a metropolitan,13 while another belonged to an abbot
of the monastery on Patmos.14 Although only five individuals are represented
11 H. MAGUIRE, The Icons of Their Bodies: Saints and Their Images in Byzantium, Princeton 1996,
pp. 100–145; A. WALKER, A Reconsideration of Early Byzantine Marriage Rings, in Between Magic
and Religion: Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and Society, ed. S. Asir
vatham, C. Ondine Pache and J. Watrous, Lanham, MD 2001, pp. 149–164; M. FULGHUM HEINTZ,
Magic, Medicine, and Prayer, in Byzantine Women and Their World, ed. I. Kalavrezou, Cambridge,
MA 2003, pp. 275–305; G. VIKAN, Sacred Images and Sacred Power in Byzantium, Aldershot 2003,
passim; and L. BRUBAKER and J. HALDON, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680–850: A His
tory, Cambridge 2011, 50–62. For the amuletic function of imperial images on coins, see H. MAGU
IRE, Magic and Money in the Early Middle Ages, Speculum 72:4, 1997, pp. 1037–1054, and M.
FULGHUM, Coins Used as Amulets in Late Antiquity, in Between Magic and Religion, pp. 139–148.
For the amuletic or apotropaic role of images specifically found on seals, see J. NESBITT, Apotropaic
Devices on Byzantine Lead Seals and Tokens in the Collections of Dumbarton Oaks and the Fogg
Museum of Art, in Through a Glass Brightly: Studies in Byzantine and Medieval Art and Archaeology
Presented to David Buckton, ed. by C. Entwistle, Oxford 2003, pp. 107–113; and C. WALTER, Saint
Theodore and the Dragon, in Entwistle, Through a Glass Brightly, pp. 95–106.
12 MAGUIRE, The Icons of Their Bodies (cited in n. 11), pp. 139–145 and BRUBAKER and HAL
DON, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (cited in n.11), 50–66.
13 On the former, C. STAVRAKOS, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel der Sammlung Savvas Kophopoulos:
Eine Siegelsammlung auf der Insel Lesbos, Turnhout 2010, n° 3.4. On the latter, G. ZACOS and A.
VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, vol. 1, pt. 2, Basel 1972, no. 1351 and W. SEIBT and M.-L. ZARNITZ,
Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk: Katalog zur Ausstellung, Vienna 1997, no. 5.2.1.
14 V. LAURENT, Le corpus des sceaux de l’ Empire byzantin, vol. 5, pt. 2, L’ Église, Paris 1965, no.
1279, who erroneously assigned the seal to the 12th century. For the redating of the seal to the 8th
century, see COTSONIS, The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals (cited in n. 1), pp. 422–423.
158
Figure 4.1 John the Theologian, lead seal of Theophilos, archbishop of Ephesos, 8th/9th
century
Source: After Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, vol. 1, pt. 2, no. 1350a
by the pre-Iconoclastic specimens, there seems to be a preference for concor

dant invocative inscriptions among the clergy who hold high administrative
positions.
For the group of seals assigned to the 8th/9th century, the years of the Icono
phile interlude, only three of the six display concordant image and invocatory
inscriptions. All three were issued by one person, Theophilos, archbishop of
Ephesos, who placed the image of John the Theologian on his seals because John
was the patron saint of this archiepiscopal see (Figure 4.1).15
The six seals of the 9th-century sample with concordant images and invocations
represent five individuals: an emperor (Basil I),16 two archbishops, a bishop and
the celebrated abbot, Theodore Stoudites.17 Again, a high official – an emperor,
hierarchs and an abbot of an extremely important monastery – issued the speci
mens. It has been shown that hierarchs often selected the image of the local patron
saint of their respective sees for their sphragistic iconography to lend prestige to
their own positions by identifying their authority with the traditional local saint.18
15 ZACOS and VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals I:2 (cited in n. 13), no. 1350a; V. ŠANDROVSKAJA,
Сфрагистика, in Искуссмбо Вuэанмuu б собранuях СССР: Камалоƨ бысмабкu, vol. 2, ed. A. Bank,
Moscow 1977, no. 814; and DOSeals 3, no. 14.8. For the custom of the hierarchs of Ephesos selecting
the image of John the Theologian for their seals, see J. COTSONIS, Saints and Cult Centers: A Geo
graphic and Administrative Perspective in Light of Byzantine Lead Seals, SBS 8, 2003, pp. 10–13.
16 DOSeals 6, no. 52.1.
17 LAURENT, Corpus, vol. 5, pt. 2 (cited in n. 14), no. 1194.
18 COTSONIS, Saints and Cult Centers (cited in n. 15), pp. 9–26 and B. MOULET, Évêques, pouvoir
et société à Byzance (VIIIe- XIe siècle): Territoires, communautés et individus dans la soociété
provinciale byzantine, Paris 2011, p. 81, pp. 142–145, 151, 172 and 177.
159
Hierarchs might also have attempted to further enhance their association with
their saintly predecessors by adding the concordant invocative prayer to these
holy figures.
Just three of the 17 seals from the 9th/10th century bear concordant images and
invocations. For two of the three specimens, one belonged to a bishop and the
other to a metropolitan. The one layman was an imperial protospatharios logo
thetes tou stratiotikou, a high-ranking official of the military bureaucracy with
fiscal responsibilities.19 Once more, little can be gleaned from such a small sample
size, but the presence of hierarchs and important officials is consistent with obser
vations from the previous period that such individuals are more likely to have
seals that exhibit concordant images and invocations.
The middle Byzantine period

As seen from Table 4.2, beginning in the 10th century the number of seals bearing
images of saints, as well as seals displaying concordant images and invocations,
significantly increases so that discussing percentages of such concordances is
meaningful. The ratios for the 10th through 12th centuries are presented in Graph
4.1 where one observes the 10th-century highpoint, 31.6%, followed by a decline
and then a gradual return to a value of 28.9% for the 12th century, approximating
that of the 10th-century acme.
The 10th-century value of concordant images and invocations parallels the syn
chronous phenomenon when sphragistic images of saints in general peaked, at
56.3 percent, in contrast to those of Christ, the Virgin and Christological scenes.
The increased concentration of the images of saints found on seals for this period
reflects the context of contemporary events: the systematic collecting and editing
of saints’ vitae and the creation of the Synaxarion of Constantinople;20 the period
19 V. LAURENT, Le Corpus des sceaux de l’ empire byzantin. Tome II: L’administration centrale,
Paris 1981, no. 538. For the office of the logothetes tou stratiotikou, see ODB 2:1248 and King’s
College, London, Prosopography of the Byzantine World, 2011 ed., http://blog.pbw.cch.kcl.ac.uk/
reference/glossary, accessed 18 March 2014.
20 For a summary of these developments and literature devoted to these topics, see COTSONIS,
The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals (cited in n. 1), p. 406. For more recent general discus
sion concerning hagiographic interests of the 10th century, see A. TIMOTIN, Visions, prophéties
et pouvoir à Byzance: Étude sur l’hagiographie méso-byzantine (IX-XI siècles), Paris 2010,
pp. 234–235 and pp. 346–347; S. EFTHYMIADIS, Hagiography from the ‘Dark Age’ to the Age
of Symeon Metaphrastes (Eighth-Tenth Centuries), in The Ashgate Research Companion to Byz
antine Hagiography, vol. 1, Periods and Places, ed. S. Efthymiadis, Farnham 2011, pp. 114–130;
C. HØGEL, Symeon Metaphrastes and the Metaphrastic Movement, in The Ashgate Research
Companion to Byzantine Hagiography, vol. 2, Genres and Contexts, ed. S. Efthymiadis, Farnham
2014, pp. 181–196; and A. LUZZI, Synaxaria and the Synaxarion of Constantinople, in Efthymi
adis, Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography, vol. 2, pp. 197–208.
160
100
90
80
70
60
Percentage
50
40
31.6
30 28.9
20 15.7
10.1
10 6.5
0
10c 10/11c 11c 11/12c 12c
Century
Graph 4.1 Seals with Concordant Images and Invocations as Percentage of Total Seals
with Saints’ Images
of Byzantine reconquest of regions and Mediterranean travel that had fallen under
Arab control, once again allowing pilgrims’ safe travel to saints’ shrines, includ
ing those of Nicholas in Myra and to John the Theologian in Ephesos;21 and also
the more frequent translation of saints’ relics to Constantinople during the 10th
century.22
The 66 seals of the 10th century that exhibit concordant invocations and images
represent 49 different individuals, Church hierarchs, 14, form the largest group.
All of these individuals either had the image of the local saint on their seals, as in
the case of Philaret, the metropolitan of Euchaita whose seals bear the image of
21 See COTSONIS, The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals (cited in n. 1), pp. 406–407, for liter
ature on historical overviews of pilgrimage to various shrines. See also E. KISLINGER, Making
for the Holy Places (7th-10th Centuries): The Sea-Routes, in Routes of Faith in the Medieval Med
iterranean: History, Monuments, People, Pilgrimage Perspectives, ed. E. Hadjitryphonos, Thessa
lonike 2008, pp. 123–124 and R. NELSON, “And So, With the Help of God”: The Byzantine Art
of War in the Tenth Century, DOP 65–66, 2011–2012, pp. 169–192.
22 COTSONIS, The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals (cited in n. 1), p. 407. In a chronological
list of arrivals of relics in Constantinople prepared by NANCY ŠEVČENKO, the 10th century
appears to be the most active period: 11 translations out of 36 translations listed for the 4th through
the 11th centuries. I wish to thank Nancy Ševčenko for providing me with this data from her
ongoing work. See also A. LIDOV, Leo the Wise and the Miraculous Icons in Hagia Sophia, in
The Heroes of the Orthodox Church: The New Saints, 8th-16thc., ed. E. Kountara-Galake, Athens
2004, p. 401; and TIMOTIN, Visions (cited in n. 20), p. 341.
161
Theodore,23 or they selected the depiction of their homonymous saint, as in the

case of Basil, archbishop of Apameia.24
Five seal owners are from the lower clergy, and 30 represent various officials
among the civil and military bureaucracies. Ten of the latter are from the mil
itary bureaucracy, nine of whom are high-ranking officials: eight have the title
of strategos, or military governor of a theme.25 Of the 20 civil officials, 16 are
individuals with important administrative positions. Of the military officeholders,
three selected their homonymous saint, while five of the civil administrators did
the same.
For the 10th/11th century, the 21 seals with concordant images and invocations
represent 18 different individuals, three of whose seals do not include the title or
office of their owners in the inscriptions. Of the 18, only five belong to the eccle
siastical administration, three of whom had important administrative positions.
None of the ecclesiastical officials selected an image of a homonymous saint. Five
of the 18 owners were from the military: four held the office of strategos and one
a doux, a military commander of a large district.26 Five individuals were also from
the civil administration, four of whom were either persons with high-ranking titles
or dignities or an important high-ranking official.
For the group of 10th/11th-century seals with concordant images and invoca
tions, although the percentage of such seals is dramatically lower than the preced
ing period, there is broader social representation among them. Among these seals,
the ecclesiastical, military and civil bureaucracies are equally represented. It is
known that the 11th century witnessed an increase in titles and offices reflecting
the growing bureaucracies of the administrations,27 and at the end of the 10th cen
tury and beginning of the 11th century one witnesses a parallel social broadening
of participants who employ concordant images and invocations for their seals. Of
this group of 18 individuals, only three selected an image of their homonymous
saint.
The 256 seals with concordant images and invocations belonging to the 11th
century represent 191 different individuals. Although the percentage of seals bear
ing images of saints remains relatively stable during the 10th, 10th/11th and 11th
23 G. ZACOS, Byzantine Lead Seals, vol. 2, ed. by J. Nesbitt, Bern 1984, nos. 873 and 874 and
DOSeals 4, nos. 16.5a and b.
24 DOSeals 3, nos. 43.1a and b.
25 For the term and duties of the strategos, see ODB 3:1964 and King’s College, London, Prosopog
raphy of the Byzantine World (as cited in n. 19), accessed 18 March 2014.
26 For the office of the doux, see ODB 1:659 and King’s College London, Prosopography of the
Byzantine World (as cited in n. 19), accessed 20 March 2014.
27 N. OIKONOMIDES, L’evolution de l’ organisation administrative de l’Empire byzantin au XIe
siècle (1025–1118), TM 6, 1976, pp. 141–152; IDEM, Title and Income at the Byzantine Court,
in Byzantine Court Culture from 829–1204, ed. H. Maguire, Washington, DC, 1997, pp. 199–215;
and IDEM, The Role of the Byzantine State in the Economy, in The Economic History of Byzan
tium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, vol. 3, ed. A. Laiou, Washington, DC, 2002,
pp. 1008–1010.
162
centuries 56.3%, 55.7% and 56.9%, respectively, the percentage of sphragistic

concordant saintly images and invocations for these periods declines: 31.6%,
6.5% and 10.1%, respectively. Although images of saints became more popular
for seal owners during these centuries, there was not a concurrent stable interest
in addressing prayerful invocations to the saints depicted.
Among these 191 individuals from the 11th century, the largest group, 79, or
41.4%, do not include the title or office in the inscription of their seals. Forty-two
seal owners, or 22%, were of the ecclesiastical administration; 60, or 31.4%,
belonged to the civil administration. Ten seals, or 5.2%, were issued from mem
bers of the military bureaucracy. The broader representation among the various
social groups, especially that of the civil bureaucracy, reflects the trends regarding
the nature of the sphragistic data of the 11th century previously discussed. By this
time, it is civil officials, not churchmen, who are the dominant group preferring
concordant images and invocations for their seals.
Of the 42 ecclesiastical officials, the majority, 32, or 76.2%, are either hierarchs
or held other important administrative positions such as synkellos (high-ranking
title of the patriarchate)28 or a representative of an archbishop.29 Of the 42 officials,
26 church officials, or 61.9%, selected an image of either their homonymous saint
or the local cult figure. Thus, for members of the ecclesiastical administration, the
factors of high office, homonymy and local cults were significant considerations
for seal owners to have concordant sphragistic invocations and images.
Among the civil officials, 17 of the 60, or 28.3%, either held high-ranking
offices, such as Genesios Romanos, magistros vestarches eparchos (either a pre
fect of a city or the head of an office),30 or held prestigious dignities or titles,
such as Romanos Philaretos, protonobelissimos (Figure 4.2).31 The largest group,
37, or 61.7%, were mid-level officials or dignitaries, while 6, or 10%, were low-
level officials and dignitaries. This indicates that the use of concordant images
and invocations was spread among various strata of the civil administration. In
other words, there was a “democratization” of the practice. Twenty-three of the 60
officials, or 38.3%, selected an image of their homonymous saint for their seals.
Ecclesiastical officials employed the image of their homonymous saints more fre
quently, while more than a third of the civil officials did so.
28 For the three seals issued by three synkelloi, see V. LAURENT, Le corpus des sceaux de l’ Empire
byzantin, vol. 5, pt. 1, L’Église, Paris 1963, nos. 229 and 236 and I. KOLTSIDA-MAKRE,
Βυζαντινὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα Συλλογῆς Ὀρφανίδη-Νικολαΐδη Νομισματικοῦ Μουσείου Ἀθηνῶν, Ath
ens 1996, no. 377. For the title of synkellos, see ODB 3:1993–1994 and King’s College, London,
Prosopography of the Byzantine World (cited in n. 19), accessed 20 March 2014.
29 DOSeals 5, no. 111.1.
30 LAURENT, Corpus, vol. 2 (cited in n.19), no. 1018. For the office of the eparchos, see ODB 1:704,
and King’s College, London, Prosopography of the Byzantine World (cited in n. 19), accessed 28
March 2014.
31 SEIBT and ZARNITZ, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk (cited in n. 13), no. 4.1.6. For
the dignity protonobelissimos, see ODB 3:1489–1490 and King’s College, London, Prosopogra
phy of the Byzantine World (cited in n. 19), accessed 28 March 2014.
163
Figure 4.2 Nicholas, lead seal of Romanos Philaretos, protonobelissimos, 11th century,
Munich, Staatliche Münzsammlung, tray 15, no. 192
Source: Werner Seibt
Of the ten military officials, nine were high-ranking, such as Nikephoros

Vatatzes, a magistros vestis doux (military commander of a large district) of All
the West.32 Of the ten military officials, five selected an image either of their hom
onymous saint or of the regional saint’s cult. As for the ecclesiastical and civil
officials discussed above, here too it is observed that high official status, hom
onymy and devotion to a local cult were all significant factors that increased the
likelihood of a concordant image and invocation on seals.
Of the 76 different 11th-century individuals who chose the image of their hom
onymous saint for their seals, 33, or 43.4%, refer to themselves as the namesake
of the depicted saint in their invocations through the use of the term ὁμώνυμος
(“homonymous”) in some form, usually as a substantive participle, while omitting
their own name. The majority of these, 23, did not include their title or office.
Six were members of the clergy, two were civil officials, and two belonged to
the military. One specimen, the seal of John, metropolitan of Mytilene, provides
an example. His seal bears the image of John the Baptist and the invocation:
Ὁμωνυμοῦντα πρωτοσύγκελλον σκέποις, τὸ πρόδρομον φῶς, Μιτυλήνης ποίμενα
(“O prodromal light, protect your namesake the protosynkellos and shepherd of
Mytilene”) (Figure 4.3).33 This more intimate supplication, in which the owner
of the seal reinforces his homonymous identity and closeness with his heav
enly patron, appears for the first time in the 11th century. This self-referential
32 DOSeals 1, nos. 1.21a and b. For other seals of Nikephoros Vatatzes with military offices and
concordant images and invocations, see I. JORDANOV, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria,
vol. 3. pt. 1, Sofia 2009, nos. 1001 and 1487.
33 DOSeals 2, no. 51.8.
164
Figure 4.3 John the Baptist, lead seal of John, metropolitan of Mytilene, 11th century,
Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.8
expression of personal piety on seals parallels similar trends in the wider Byz
antine culture. Various scholars have identified the 11th and 12th centuries as
a period of intensified use of and intimacy with images in the realm of private
devotions.34
In addition to emphasizing their homonymous relation with their patronal saint,
seal owners in the 11 century begin to address the saint with more qualitative and
intimate epithets or other expressions instead of the straightforward invocation of
Ἁγίε . . ., βοήθει (“Saint so – and – so, help”). Among the 191 different 11th-cen
tury indivduals, excluding those who employed some form of the word ὁμώνυμος
(“homonymous”), 107, or 56%, make use of these more varied, qualitative or
elaborate personalized prayers, often in poetic meter. Metrical seals in general
began to appear more frequently before the middle of the 11th century, with the
majority belonging to the late 11th and 12th centuries.35 This is also the period
when metrical epigrams began to appear with greater frequency, accompanying
sacred portraits depicted on panel icons or other objects of the minor arts.36
Many of the sphragistic specimens supplicate the saint to protect (σκέποις);
to watch over (φρουρείς); to guard (φύλαττε); or to save (σώζοις) the per
son. Examples of the qualitative epithets addressed to the saint are: ἀθλοφόρε
(“O victorious one,” for a martyr), ἀθλητά (“O athlete,” for a martyr), μάκαρ
(“Blessed one”), θερμὲ προστάτα (“fervent protector or patron”), or μάρτυς
(“martyr”). In a number of cases the invocation emphasizes the closeness of the
owner with the saint by referring to the owner as belonging to the saint, as in the
case of Argyros Karatzas, kouropalates, a high-ranking honorary title, whose
seals bear an image of Nicholas with the accompanying invocation Τὸν σὸν
34 A. KAZHDAN, and A. EPSTEIN, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth
Centuries, Berkeley 1985, p. 97; H. BELTING, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image
Before the Era of Art, Chicago 1994, pp. 225–249; and A. CUTLER and J.-M. SPIESER, Byzance
médiévale, 700–1204, Paris 1996, pp. 313–316 and p. 389. See also R. CORMACK, “Living
Painting,” in Rhetoric in Byzantium, ed. E. Jeffreys, Aldershot, 2003, pp. 242–246 and BARBER,
Contesting the Logic of Painting (cited in n. 8), passim, where the texts of various 11th-century
authors discussing the role of images in the spiritual life are examined. For a recent and dif
ferent view concerning Michael Psellos’s phrase “living painting,” see G. PEERS, Real Living
Painting: Quasi-Objects and Dividuation in the Byzantine World, Religion and the Arts 16, 2012,
pp. 433–460.
35 A.-K. WASSILIOU-SEIBT, Corpus der byzantinischen Siegel mit metrischen Legenden, vol. 1,
Vienna 2011, p. 33 and EADEM, Πρώιμα βυζαντινά μολυβδόβουλλα με έμμετρες επιγραφές,
in Ἤπειρόνδε (Epeironde): Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium of Byzantine Sig
illography (Ioannina, 1.-3. October 2009), ed. C. Stavrakos and B. Papadopoulou, Wiesbaden
2011, p. 223. See also H. HUNGER, Die metrischen Siegellegenden der Byzantiner. Inhalt und
Form, Anzeiger, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse
125, 1988, pp. 1–16; E. McGEER, Discordant Verses on Byzantine Metrical Seals, SBS 4, 1995,
pp. 63–69; and M. LAUXTERMANN, Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres: Texts and
Contents, vol. 1, Vienna 2003, p. 161.
36 Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung, vol. 2, Byzantinische Epigramme auf
Ikonen und Objekten der Kleinkunst, ed. W. Hörandner, A. Rhoby and A. Paul, Vienna, 2010, p. 32.
166
οἰκετὴν θύτα Θεοῦ φύλατῶν με κουροπαλάτην Ἄργυρον τὸν Καρατζὰν (“Priest

of God, protecting your own, Argyros Karatzas, the kouropalates”).37 Alexan
dra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt has observed that the seals with metrical inscrip
tions and qualitative epithets and forms of invocative address have an especially
close relation with their accompanying images.38 Like the self-referential use of
ὁμώνυμος, stressing homonymy, the additional epithets, intensified supplicatory
phrases, and desires of belonging all reveal a greater personalized and fervent
interaction of pathos on the part of these individuals’ devotions in interacting
with their patron saints.39
The 121 seals with concordant images and invocations assigned to the
11th/12th-century group represent 96 different individuals. The majority of these
individuals, 54, or 56.3%, did not include their title or office on their seals. This
practice continued a trend that began in the 11th century, but a greater percentage
came to refrain from including their social position in their sphragistic inscrip
tions. Twenty-three, or 42.6%, chose the image of their homonymous saint. For
these individuals, it was sufficient to express their visual and textual piety in rela
tion to only their name and the homonymous identification with their holy name
sake. Announcing their social position was not as significant.
It has been noted that because the space for engraving metrical epigrams on
seals is small, inscriptions focused on the essentials of the seal owners’ names and
prayer, omitting the string of titles or cursus honorum of the patron.40 Individuals
included their family names, or connections to illustrious relations, to announce
their prestigious social standing without having recourse to listing their positions
or honorary titles.41 Yet for the 11th and 11th/12th centuries, only 41 of 191 indi
viduals, or 21.5%, and 24 of 96 individuals, or 25%, respectively, included family
names on their seals. The absence of titles and positions on the seals of those who
employed concordant invocations and images is most likely not due to limita
tions of space for metrical inscriptions but rather reflects some other preference.
Because employing metrical inscriptions is in itself a sign of belonging to the
literary elite,42 the lack of cursus honorum may very well reflect a preference by
37 JORDANOV, Bulgaria (cited in n. 32), nos. 429 and 430.

38 WASSILIOU-SEIBT, Corpus (cited in n. 35), 57–59.
39 HUNGER, Der homo byzantinus und das Bleisiegel (cited in n. 2), p. 126.
40 A. RHOBY, Epigrams, Epigraphy and Sigillography, in Ἤπειρόνδε (Epeironde) (cited in n. 35),
p. 68.
41 HUNGER, Der homo byzantinus und das Bleisiegel (cited in n. 2), pp. 120–121. For literature
devoted to the appearance of family names on seals as an indication of aristocratic and social
prestige, see COTSONIS, Onomastics, Gender, Office and Images (cited in n. 2), p. 21, ns. 67–69.
42 W. HÖRANDNER, Epigrams on Icons and Sacred Objects: The Collection of Cod. Marc. Gr. 524
Once Again, in La poesia tardoantica e medievale: Atti del I Convegno Internazionale di Studi
Macerata, 4–5 maggio 1998, ed. M. Salvadore, Alessandria 2001, p. 123; T. PAPAMASTORAKIS,
The Display of Accumulated Wealth in Luxury Icons: Gift-Giving from the Byzantine Aristocracy
to God in the Twelfth Century, in Byzantine Icons: Art, Technique and Technology, ed. M. Vassi
laki, Heraklion 2002, pp. 35–49 and LAUXTERMANN, Byzantine Poetry (cited in n. 35), p. 46.
167
their owners to emphasize a more introspective, personalized devotional character

through their seals.
Members of the ecclesiastical and civil bureaucracies are almost equally rep
resented: 17 individuals, or 17.8%; and 18, or 18.8%, respectively. Just seven, or
7.3%, are from the military. Of the 17 churchmen, the majority, ten, or 58.8%, are
hierarchs, while one was a priest of the Great Church of Hagia Sophia in Constan
tinople. Of the 17, seven, or 41.2%, selected an image of either their homonymous
saint, that of the local saint’s cult, or the religious institution with which they were
affiliated.
Of the 18 individuals with civil titles or offices, 12, or 66.7%, were either
high-ranking dignitaries or officeholders. Only three of the 18 adopted the image
of their homonymous saint for their seals. As with the contemporary ecclesiastical
officials, prestige of title or office was a factor in choosing concordant sphragis
tic images and invocations for civil officials and titleholders but not homonymy.
Among the seven military officials all were men of high-ranking administrative
positions. None of these individuals selected an image of their homonymous saint.
For the 96 individuals of the 11th/12th century only a small minority chose
a straightforward invocation. Ninety, or 93.8%, preferred some form of a more
intimate, qualitative or intensified poetic prayer to the saint, often with an epithet.
By this point in time, on those seals that do display concordant images and invo
cations, it had become de rigueur to make use of an elaborate and personalized
invocation. Sixteen of the 96, or 16.7%, use some form of ὁμώνυμος (“homony
mous”). Most of the others call out to the saint as ἀθλοφόρε (“O victorious one,”
for a martyr), ἀθλητά (“O athlete,” for a martyr), or μάκαρ (“Blessed one”). The
majority ask the saint to protect (σκέποις) or to guard (φύλαττε) the person.
The 121 seals from the 12th-century seals bearing concordant images and invo
cations represent 97 different individuals. The majority of these individuals, 62, or
63.9%, do not include their title or office in their inscription. A significant number
of this group, 29, or 46.8%, selected an image of their homonymous saint. Most
individuals employing concordant images and invocations at this time express
their personal devotion by focusing on their textual prayer and devotional image
without calling attention to their social status. Yet 61 of the 97 individuals, or
62.9%, employed family names on their seals, a significant percentile increase
over those of the 11th and 11th/12th centuries. For this century, it may well be
that the use of prestigious family names on the seals acted as social calling cards
to enhance an owner’s prestige. As the years of the Komnenian dynasty played
out, the greater significance placed on relations with the imperial family and aris
tocracy, witnessed by the more frequent employment of sphragistic patronyms,
reflects this pattern of social development. Yet close to 40% still did not employ
family names and, as discussed above, this was not the determining factor for
those 11th- and 11th/12th-century seals omitting a cursus honorum in their met
rical texts. It still appears that devotion was stressed over the broader social sta
tus. The character of the piety is even more personalized, excluding any external
self-referential allusions.
168
The next largest group is that of the civil dignitaries or officeholders, 24, or
24.7%, while the smallest group is from the Church, 11, or 11.3%. No seals from
this period were issued by members of the military. By the 12th century, the prac
tice of concordant textual and visual piety on seals had become the prerogative
of the civil bureaucracy. Of the 11 ecclesiastical officials, eight were hierarchs,
and an important monastery, that of John the Theologian on Patmos, issued one
seal.43 Of the 11 church officials, eight selected an image of a saint that was either
homonymous or the local cult figure.
Of the 24 civil officials of the 12th century, all held either high dignities, such
as Isaac Komnenodoukas, sebastokrator (title bestowed by the emperor on his
closest male relatives),44 or offices, such as George Oinaiotes, sebastos parakoi
momenos (official in charge of the imperial bedchamber).45 Just five of the 24, or
20.8%, placed an image of their homonymous saint on their seals.
Of the 97 individuals from the 12th century, only 4, or 4.1%, employed a simple
invocation. Ninety-three, or 95.9%, made use of more intimate and qualitative
supplications. Thus, by the late 11 century, it had become standard or expected
that individuals who did employ concordant images and invocations preferred
elaborate and poetic forms of address to their holy protectors. Thirteen people,
or 13.4%, invoked the saint with some form of the term ὁμώνυμος (“homony
mous”). This is less than during the previous two periods, and it seems that by
the 12th century, a greater variety in devotional expressions was being practiced.
Again, the saint is usually addressed with the epithets of ἀθλοφόρε (“O victorious
one,” for a martyr), ἀθλητά (“O athlete,” for a martyr), or μάκαρ (“Blessed one”).
Most often, the holy figure is asked to protect (σκέποις) or to guard (φύλαττε) the
person.
It is interesting to note two synchronous, divergent trends. From the 10th,
10th/11th and 11th centuries, the percentage of seals with saints’ images among
the total number of iconographic seals remained stable – at 56.3%, 55.7%, and
56.9%, respectively – but the percentage for the 11th and 12th centuries declined –
to 44.3% and 41.2%, respectively. Simultaneously, the percentage of seals bearing
concordant images and invocations increased from 10.1% in the 11th century to
15.7% and 28.9% for the 11th/12th and 12th centuries, respectively. These ratios
indicate that while fewer individuals were selecting saints’ images for their seals,
among those who did, more of them preferred to employ concordant sphrag
istic images and invocations. Recent reevaluations of the interest in saints and
hagiographic literature for this period suggest that although there may have been
43 ŠANDROVSKAJA, Сфрагистика (cited in n. 15), no. 766.

44 G. SCHLUMBERGER, Sigillographie de l’Empire byzantine, Paris 1884, p. 641, no. 13. For the
title sebastokrator, see ODB 3:1862, and King’s College, London, Prosopography of the Byzan
tine World (as cited in n. 19), accessed 1 April 2014.
45 JORDANOV, Bulgaria (cited in n. 32), no. 261A. For the office of parakoimomenos, see ODB
3:1584, and King’s College London, Prosopography of the Byzantine World (as cited in n. 19),
accessed 1 April 2014.
169
a decline in the production of the hagiographical collections in the 11th and 12th
centuries compared to the 10th century, hagiographic production continued, espe
cially in the provinces.46 These statistical trends involving seals lend support to
this assertion.
Female seal owners

It should be kept in mind that the total number of seals belonging to women is
extremely small in comparison to that of men. The vast majority of the seals
belonged to those who held positions in the civil, military and ecclesiasti
cal bureaucracies, all institutions governed by men. Few seals were issued by
empresses, women of aristocratic families, wives of men who held either import
ant titles or offices, or female monastics. From the 11,506 seals in this database,
just 248, or 2.2%, belonged to women, representing 140 different female seal
owners. Of the 140 women, 117, or 83.6%, selected some form of Marian ico
nography for their seals, a statistic that testifies to the strong correlation between
female devotion and the cult of the Virgin and supporting observations made by
various scholars to this effect.47 Seventeen women, however, placed an image of
a saint on their seals.48 Just one of these specimens, the 11th-century seal of Xene
Dalassene, bears an invocation to the depicted saint. It has an image of Anthony
and the accompanying invocation: Δαλασηνὴν Ξένην με σῴζοις τρίσμακαρ (“O
Thrice – Blessed One, save me, Xene Dalassene”) (Figure 4.4).49 The editors of
this seal suggest that Xene is a monastic name and as such possibly explains the
iconographic choice because Anthony of Egypt was venerated as the founder of
monasticism. If these assumptions are correct, maybe Xene’s choice of a concor
dant image and invocation was intended to strengthen her personal identification
as a monastic with the patronal monastic saint. Statistically, this close identifi
cation with a saintly figure other than the Virgin is an extremely rare occurrence
among female seal owners from various perspectives: it reflects just 0.4% of the
total specimens issued by women; it comprises 0.7% of the sphragistic creations
of the actual number of different women; and it is 5.9% of the saints’ images
with such invocations issued by women. Thus, concordant images and invoca
tions related to saints for female devotions were practically non-existent among
the seals examined.
46 For a more recent reappraisal of the status of hagiography for this period, see S. PASCHALIDIS,
The Hagiography of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, in Efthymiadis, The Ashgate Research
Companion to Byzantine Hagiography, vol. 1 (cited in n. 19), pp. 143–71.
47 See COTSONIS, Onomastics, Gender, Office and Images (cited in n. 2), pp. 10–11.
48 Two of these seals also have an image of the Virgin on the obverse and the saint appears on the
reverse, so they are also counted among the women who chose a Marian image.
49 V. LAURENT, Le corpus des sceaux de l’ Empire byzantin, vol. 5, pt. 3, L’ Église, Paris 1972,
no. 2010. See also J.-C. CHEYNET and J.-F. VANNIER, Études prosopographiques, Paris 1986,
p. 109, no.27.
170
Figure 4.4 Anthony, lead seal of Xene Dalassene, 11th century Harvard Art Museums/
Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, Bequest of
Thomas Whittemore, BZS.1951.31.5.1583
Conclusion
This investigation has focused on the 12 most frequently depicted saints repre
sented on lead seals along with their accompanying invocative inscriptions. The
vast majority of these invocations address the Lord rather than the saint depicted,
thus establishing a discordant relation between text and image. In such cases, it
was seen that the saint, acting as an intercessor, invokes the Lord on behalf of the
seal owner.
Among the pre-Iconoclastic seals, only a very few specimens exhibit a concor
dant image and invocation. Most seals with figures of saints from this period have
no invocation. The sacred image alone was sufficient for expressing the owners’
personal devotion. These early religious figural sphragistic images functioned
as amuletic or apotropaic devices, similar to those found on other contemporary
household objects. Their role was not understood as intercessory. It is only during
the years leading up to the outbreak of Iconoclasm, during the controversy, and the
period immediately following the Iconophile victory that there is a correspond
ing increase in seals with concordant images and invocations. This is exactly
when sacred images began to be perceived as agents of intercessory power and
the recipients of prayers. The majority of seal owners during the pre-Iconoclastic
and Iconoclastic centuries who employed concordant sphragistic images and
invocations were ecclesiastical hierarchs, who often selected an image of their
local cult’s saint. The accompanying invocation addressed to these figures further
reinforced the hierarchs’ association with their holy predecessors.
For the middle Byzantine period, the highest rate of concordance belonged
to the 10th century. This reflects synchronous broader interests in hagiographic
literature, pilgrimage to saints’ shrines and an increase in the frequency of relic
transfers to Constantinople. In the 10th century, the majority of seal owners using
concordant images and invocations were still among the hierarchs, who pre
ferred images of their local cult figure or their homonymous saint, followed by
high-ranking civil and military officials, among whom homonymy and local cults
were of less interest.
By the 10th/11th century, a trend had begun characterized by greater social
representation among the various groups of individuals using concordant images
and invocations for their seals. By the 12th century, members of the civil bureau
cracy and people of administration formed the majority of users. This “democ
ratization” of the sphragistic employment of concordant images and invocations
mirrors the wider adoption of images in devotional life during the 11th and 12th
centuries as well as the swelling of the civil administration’s numbers at this time.
From the mid-11th century onwards, seals with concordant images and invo
cations increasingly made use of invocative prayers that included some form of
the word ὁμώνυμος (“homonymous”) as a self-referential expression stressing
their owners’ closeness to and identification with their depicted saintly name
sake. This is also the period when metrical epigrams began to appear with greater
frequency on seals and replaced the earlier, more direct invocation. Many of the
172
sphragistic specimens now supplicate the saint to protect (σκέποις); to watch over
(φρουρείς); to guard (φύλαττε); or to save (σώζοις) the person. More qualita
tive epithets addressed to the saint are now used, such as ἀθλοφόρε (“O victori
ous one,” for a martyr), ἀθλητὰ (“O athlete,” for a martyr), or μάκαρ (“Blessed
one”). These additional qualitative epithets, intensified supplicatory phrases and
desire for belonging all reveal an increased personalized and fervent interaction of
pathos on the part of these individuals’ devotions in interacting with their patron
saints, a hallmark of the devotional characteristics of the 11th and 12th centuries.
Another trend beginning in the 11th century and continuing thereafter, was the
omission of the owners’ titles or offices from their invocations. This was not seen
as a consequence of the more elaborate metrical inscriptions requiring greater
space. Rather, not announcing broader social status reflected a focused, introspec
tive and personal prayer.
Although the middle Byzantine period witnessed a “democratization” of the
use of concordant images and invocations, the majority of individuals employing
such sphragistic devices continued to come from the high-ranking officials of the
clergy, civil administration and the military. For the latter two groups, homonymy
with the depicted saint and the image of the local cult figure were secondary fac
tors in the preference for concordance.
The sphragistic data indicate that just as the use of concordant images and
invocations was not common practice among male seal owners, it was even less
so among women. Just one woman out of 140 made use of concordance for her
seal. Clearly there was a gender bias with respect to this devotional expression.
Although the number of seals bearing concordant images of saints and their
accompanying invocative inscriptions is relatively small compared to the larger
body of seals with depictions of saints, those examples that make use of such
concordance prove quite significant in further contributing to understanding Byz
antine devotional life. The complex interplay between the image and text on these
small objects should not be overlooked.50 Close scrutiny of these specimens from
the realm of sigillography continues to provide a wealth of information concern
ing a culture that ceaselessly depended on its saints for divine assistance.
50 In contrast to HUNGER, Der homo byzantinus und das Bleisiegel (cited in n. 2), p. 123, who
regarded the saintly image on the obverse of the seal as a secondary concern to that of the invoca
tory inscription on the reverse.
173
5
CHOIRED SAINTS ON
BYZANTINE LEAD SEALS &
THEIR SIGNIFICANCE (SIXTH-
TWELFTH CENTURIES)
A preliminary study*
I am very pleased to contribute to this volume dedicated to the scholarship of Jean-

Claude Cheynet that has greatly enhanced Byzantine studies, especially the field of
sigillography. Much of his sphragistic research has been dedicated to images of saints
on lead seals. My chapter is offered as a tribute to such work as well as an acknowl
edgement of his generous helpfulness and enthusiasm for collegial endeavors.
Byzantine lead seals survive in the thousands and range in date from the
6th through the 15th centuries. Many of these specimens bear religious figural
images: those of Christ, the Virgin, various saints and narrative scenes depicting
events from the life of Christ and of the Virgin. From the major published sigil
lographic collections I have created a database of 11,506 seals bearing such reli
gious imagery. This study will focus on those seals that depict more than one holy
figure, hereby referred to as “choired” saints, either unilaterally or bilaterally, (i.e.
obverse and/or reverse) and are assigned to the 6th through 12th centuries, a span
of time representing the largest number of surviving lead seals (Figure 5.1 and
Figure 5.2).1 The investigation will discuss the chronological frequencies of such
seals as well as attempt to identify trends in the grouping of types of saints. In
addition, because many of these seals bear the names and honorary titles or offices
of their owners, this inquiry will further undertake an examination of the clientele
who make use of such imagery as a means of expressing their personal piety.
Of the 10,930 seals dating from the 6th through 12th centuries and bearing reli
gious figural imagery, 889, or 8.1%, display more than one saintly person.2 This
* I wish to thank John Nesbitt for reading an earlier draft of this paper and for offering his insightful
comments for its improvement.
1 For a discussion of the relative chronological frequencies of religious figural seals, see J. COT
SONIS, The Contribution of Byzantine lead seals to the study of the cult of the saints (6th-12th
century), Byz. 75, 2005, pp. 385–497, here pp. 385–90.
2 This number does not take into account the 145 seals that have just narrative scenes depicting events
from the life of Christ and of the Virgin which naturally have more than one person included in the
image. For a discussion of such seals, see J. COTSONIS, Narrative Scenes on Byzantine lead seals
(6th-12th centuries): frequency, iconography, and clientele, Gesta 48, 1, 2009, pp. 55–86.
174
Figure 5.1 Virgin holding a medallion with the bust of Christ, Andrew, lead seal of Theo
dore, metropolitan of Patras, 12th century, Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1955.1.5035
Figure 5.2 Obv: Demetrios; Rev: Virgin and Christ Child enthroned, lead seal of John,
metropolitan of Thessalonike, ca. 1198, Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.10
choired saints on byzantine lead seals
ratio indicates that representations of choired saints on seals was a limited, selec
tive practice. The relatively small size of seals, most commonly ranging in diam
eter from 1.5 to 4.5 centimeters,3 cannot be the only explanation for the low value
because there are examples of densely populated Christological scenes found on
seals, such as those depicting the Nativity and the Dormition.4
General chronological trends

Graph 5.1 presents the chronological frequency of all seals with an image of
choired saints. A more meaningful distribution is provided by Graph 5.2 in which
the varying chronological percentages of seals bearing an image of choired saints
compared to the total number of seals bearing religious figural imagery are seen.
Graph 5.2 demonstrates that at no time did seals bearing images of choired saints
ever reach a value of 20%.
For the pre-Iconoclastic period, the highest ratio of seals bearing an image of
choired saints, 16.8%, occurs in the 7th/8th century. This is also when images of
saints, including single images of saints, on lead seals in general reach their high
est percentile value for the pre-Iconoclastic period: 63 seals of 101, or 62.4%, of
the religious figural iconographic seals. These were the years that witnessed the
disruption of the Byzantine Empire through the Arab and Bulgar raids. In addi
tion, it has been characterized as a time of turning away from the received wisdom
of the classical past and seeking instead the certainty found in religion and the
cult of saints.5 Within this context of cultural anxiety there arose a greater interest
in the writing of hagiography and the collection of miracle-stories of saints, such
as those of Artemios, and works like the Questions and Answers of Anastasios of
Sinai. Following the periods of internal conflicts due to the Christological con
troversies of the 4th through 6th centuries and confronted by the rise of the new
religion and power of Islam, Byzantine Christians were faced with a new and trou
bled reality.6 Claudia Rapp describes the 7th century not only as an early period of
3 N. OIKONOMIDES, Lead seals, p. 5. See also ODB 3, p. 1859, where the most common range of
diameters cited is between 2.3 and 2.8 centimeters.
4 For example, see COTSONIS, Narrative scenes (quoted n. 2), pp. 66, 70.
5 G. DAGRON, L’ombre d’un doute: L’hagiographie en question, VIᵉ-XIᵉ siècle, DOP 46, 1992,
pp. 59–68; C. RAPP, Byzantine hagiographers as antiquarians, 7th to 10th centuries, Byz. Forsch.
21, 1995, pp. 31–44, here pp. 34 and 44; S. EFTHYMIADIS and V. DÉROUCHE, Greek hagiogra
phy in late antiquity (4th-7th centuries), in The Ashgate research companion to Byzantine hagiogra
phy. I, Periods and places, ed. S. EFTHYMIADIS, Farnham 2011, pp. 35–94, here pp. 78–9; and L.
BRUBAKER & J. HALDON, Byzantium in the iconoclast era, c. 680–850: A history, Cambridge
2011, pp. 15, 18–9, 21, 23, 60–72, 457–8, 538–43, 777–82.
6 Av. CAMERON, New themes and styles in Greek literature: 7th/8th centuries, in The Byzantine
and early Islamic Near East. I, Problems in the literary source material, ed. by Av. CAMERON
and L. CONRAD, Princeton 1992, pp. 81–105, here pp. 82–5, 90, 101–2; J. HALDON, The works
of Anastasius of Sinai: a key source for the history of 7th-century East Mediterranean society and
belief, ibid., pp. 102–47, here pp. 142–7; and ID., Supplementary essay, in The miracles of St. Arte
mios: a collection of miracle stories by an anonymous author of seventh-century Byzantium, ed. V.
CRISAFULLI and J. NESBITT, Leiden 1997, 33–73.
177
500
450
404
400
350
300 288
Frequency
250
200
150
100 85
50
24 22 17 17
13 3 5 11
1 0
0
6c 6/7c 7c 7/8c 8c 8/9c 9c 9/10c 10c 10/11c 11c 11/12c 12c
Century
Graph 5.1 Frequency of Iconographic Seals with More Than One Holy Figure or “Choired
Saints”
gathering and collecting of saints’ lives but also as a time of early literary rework
ing or metaphraseis of older hagiographic texts.7 The need for authentic and accu
rate Vitae was likewise addressed by the fathers of the Quinisext Council in 692
who denounced those who produced false or dubious accounts of the lives of the
martyrs.8 Given this worldview it is not surprising to find a stronger preference
among seal owners of the 7th/8th century for placing choired images of saints on
their seals. The visual message claims an intensified saintly protection and inter
cession on behalf of those who issued such seals.
The second chronological highpoint in Graph 5.2 is the 11th/12th century. The
Komnenian period has been understood as a time when holy men and hagiography
were out of favor.9 Yet more recent overviews of this period have placed hagiog
raphical literature in a more positive light.10 Although the celebrated Menolo
gion of Symeon Metaphrastes was compiled in the 10th century, its publication
occurred from the middle of the 11th century through the early 12th century, and
the illustrated versions were produced in the second half of the 11th century and
7 RAPP, Byzantine hagiographers as antiquarians (quoted n. 5), pp. 34–44.

8 Concilium Constantinopolitanum a. 691/2 in Trullo habitum (Concilium Quinisextum), ed. H.
OHME, (ACO, ser. sec. 2, 4), Berlin – Boston 2013, p. 48, can. 63. See also RAPP, Byzantine
hagiographers as antiquarians (quoted. n. 5), pp. 37–8.
9 P. MAGDALINO, The Byzantine holy man in the 12th century, in The Byzantine saint, ed. by
S. HACKEL, London 1981 [repr. in ID., Tradition and transformation in medieval Byzantium,
Aldershot 1991, no. VII], pp. 51–66.
10 S. PASCHALIDIS, The hagiography of the 11th and 12th centuries, in Ashgate research compan
ion to Byzantine hagiography. 1 (quoted n. 5), pp. 143–71.
178
100
90
80
70
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20 16.8 17.2
10 10.1 7.9 7.5

3.7 4.3
4 1.6 3.2 1.5
1.9
0 0
6c 6/7c 7c 7/8c 8c 8/9c 9c 9/10c 10c 10/11c 11c 11/12c 12c
Century
Graph 5.2 Percentage of Iconographic Seals with More Than One Holy Figure or “Choired
Saints”
into the very early years of the 12th century.11 At least from the middle of the 11th
century, the Metaphrastian text was employed for the reading of a saint’s life for
the celebrated day in the orthros as confirmed by the liturgical typikon of 1054
of the Constantinopolitan Evergetes monastery, and the Metaphrastian text was
employed in later monastic typika as well.12
In addition, during the second half of the 11th century there occurred contro
versial debates concerning saints and their miraculous powers. On one hand were
the heretical teachings of the philosopher John Italos, who espoused the view
that it was no longer possible to become a saint, as well as those who questioned
the miracles attributed to the saints. On the other hand were John the Deacon
and Maistor and Niketas Stethatos who defended the cult of the saints and their
efficaciousness even after death.13 Also, throughout the 11th century important
11 N. ŠEVČENKO, Illustrated manuscripts of the Metaphrastian Menologion, Chicago 1990, pp. 3

and 6–7; and C. HØGEL, Symeon Metaphrastes: rewriting and canonization, Copenhagen 2002,
pp. 127–34 and p. 150–156.
12 ŠEVČENKO, Illustrated manuscripts of the Metaphrastian Menologion (quoted n. 11), p. 3;
EAD., The Evergetis Synaxarion and the celebration of a saint in 12th-century art and liturgy, in
Work and worship at the Theotokos Evergetis 1050–1200, ed. by M. MULLETT and A. KIRBY,
Belfast 1997, pp. 386–99; and HØGEL, Symeon Metaphrastes (quoted n. 11), p. 152.
13 For the text of John the Deacon and Maistor and its analysis, see J. GOUILLARD, Léthargie des âmes
et culte des saints: Un plaidoyer inédit de Jean Diacre et Maîstôr, TM 8, 1981, pp. 171–86. For the
179
hagiographic texts continued to be composed; such as the vita of Symeon the New
Theologian by Niketas Stethatos14 and the vita of Lazaros of Mount Galesion;15
and the celebrated intellectual, Michael Psellos, wrote saints’ lives and enkomia,
the most significant of which were his akolouthia and enkomion of Symeon Meta
phrastes.16 In the 12th century various high-ranking churchmen, such as Eusta
thios, metropolitan of Thessalonike, Michael Choniates, metropolitan of Athens,
and the canonist John Zonaras produced hagiographic works.17
The sphragistic high-point of the 11th/12th century parallels the proliferation of
saints’ images in other media. In her catalogue of 671 Byzantine bronze pectoral
cross-reliquaries, Brigitte Pitarakis includes 111 pieces, or 16.5%, that include
depictions of saints in addition to those customarily found on such objects such as
Christ, the Virgin or busts of the four Evangelists.18 Of these 111, the two largest
chronological groups are those assigned to the 11th and 11th/12th centuries: 16
and 80, respectively. Of the 238 steatite carvings catalogued by Ioli Kalavrezou,
31, or 13%, include pieces that depict more than one saint together either uni
laterally or bilaterally, (i.e. obverse and/or reverse).19 The largest chronological
grouping, ten, are those assigned to the 12th century.
The realm of painted objects reflects a similar trend. As Nancy Ševčenko
observed, the monthly calendar icon panels at Mount Sinai that depict rows of
densely crowded saintly figures belong to the late 11th and 12th centuries.20
text of Niketas Stethatos’ defense of the saints and the 11th-century context, see S. PASCHALIDES,
Ὁ Ἀνέκδοτος Λόγος τοῦ Νικήτα Στηθάτου κατὰ Ἁγιοκατηγόρων καὶ ἡ Ἀμφισβήτηση τῆς Ἁγιότητος
στὸ Βυζάντιο κατὰ τὸν 11ο Αἰώνα, in The heroes of the Orthodox Church: the New Saints, 8th-16th
c., επιμ. Ε. Κουντούρα῏Γαλάκη [ed. by E. KOUNTOURA-GALAKE], Aθήνα, 2004, pp. 493–518.
14 For the vita, see Niketas Stethatos, The Life of Saint Symeon the New Theologian, transl. by R. P.
H. GREENFIELD, Washington, DC, 2013.
15 For the vita, see AASS Novembris III, Brussels 1910, p. 508–588. For discussion of the Saint, the
vita and an English translation, The life of Lazaros of Mt. Galesion: an eleventh-century pillar
saint, introd., transl., and notes by R. P. H. GREENFIELD, Washington, DC, 2000.
16 Michaelis Pselli Scripta minora. 1, Orationes et dissertationes, ed. recognovitque E. KURTZ,
Milano 1936, pp. 94–119 and Michaelis Pselli Orationes hagiographicae, ed. E. A. FISHER,
Stutgardiae 1994, pp. 267–88. For discussion of Michael Psellos as a hagiographer, see HØGEL,
Symeon Metaphrastes (quoted n. 11), pp. 66–8, 154–6; ID., Psellus hagiographus: contradictio
in adjecto?” in Les vies des saints à Byzance: genre littéraire ou biographie historique?, sous
la dir. de P. ODORICO et P. A. AGAPITOS, Paris 2004, pp. 191–200; E. A. FISHER, Michael
Psellos in a hagiographical landscape: the Life of St. Auxentios and the encomium of Symeon the
Metaphrast, in Reading Michael Psellos, ed. by Ch. BARBER and D. JENKINS, Leiden 2006,
pp. 571–7; and PASCHALIDIS, The hagiography of the 11th and 12th centuries (quoted n. 10),
p. 153–4.
17 See PASCHALIDIS, The hagiography of the 11th and 12th centuries (quoted n. 10), pp. 156–9.
18 B. PITARAKIS, Les croix-reliquaires pectorales byzantines en bronze, Paris 2006.
19 I. KALAVREZOU-MAXEINER, Byzantine icons in steatite, Wien 1985. These counts do not
include those pieces that depict scenes from the life of Christ or the Virgin.
20 N. ŠEVČENKO, Marking holy time: the Byzantine calendar icons,” in Byzantine icons: art, tech
nique and technology, επιμ. Μ. Βασιλάκη [ed. by M. VASSILAKI], Ηράκλειο 2002, pp. 51–62
(repr. in her The celebration of the saints in Byzantine art and liturgy, Farnham 2013).
180
Elsewhere Ševčenko has outlined the 11th- and 12th-century development of a

new aesthetic expressed by the growing complexity of the elements of liturgi
cal celebrations of saints’ commemorations echoed also in decorations of church
interiors by the preference for a dense array of differing types of holy figures and
scenes.21 It is within this aesthetic current that Ševčenko also assigns the birth
of the decorated and vita icons that include additional figures and scenes in the
surrounding frames of panel icons that add to the hagiographic density of the icon
panel.22 In her recent study of vita icons, Paroma Chatterjee describes how, as
textual hagiography diminished in the 11th century, images of saints increased in
number from portraits to including scenes of their lives.23 Although the choired
saints’ images on seals are not narratives, they do reflect the au courant taste for
denser visual hagiographic depictions.
Another observable trend provided by the seals bearing images of choired
saints is that concerning the placing of all the figures either unilaterally or bilater
ally, (i.e. either on the obverse alone or on both the obverse and reverse). Among
the pre-Iconoclastic group, the majority of seals with choired saints present the
figures on one side: 55 of the 77, or 71.4%. Yet there is a gradual shift from the
6th through the 7th/8th centuries in favor of bilateral representation. Although the
number of seals from each period is small, the overall trend is revealing: from 12
of 13, or 92.3%, with images of saints only on the obverse in the 6th century to
nine of 17, or 52.9%, in the 7th/8th century. This trend in the increased iconicity
of the seals’ surfaces parallels the growing preference for religious iconographic
seals in general as well as the rise in the broader use of sacred figures within the
culture until the outbreak of Iconoclasm.24
During the century and a half after Iconoclasm, among the few seals repre
senting these years, there is only a slight preference for a return to a unilateral
representation; five out of eight specimens, yet this is not a dependable indicator
because three of the seals were issued by the same individual. By the 10th century
the specimens are almost evenly divided between unilateral or bilateral repre
sentation: eight and nine out of 17, respectively. Beginning with the 10th/11th
century there is an increasingly greater number of bilateral representations, so
much so that by the 11th/12th century the vast majority of seals are produced in
this manner: 261 of 288, or 90.6%. Again, the growing preference for bilateral
21 N. ŠEVČENKO, The Evergetis Synaxarion and the Celebration of a Saint in Twelfth-Century Art
and Liturgy, in Work and Worship at the Theotokos Evergetis (quoted n. 12).
22 Ibid., p. 398. See also EAD., Vita icons and “decorated” icons of the Komnenian period,” in Four
icons in the Menil Collection, ed. by B. DAVEZAC, Houston 1992, pp. 56–69, and EAD., The
Vita icon and the painter as hagiographer, DOP 53, 1999, pp. 149–65. Both of these articles are
reprinted in EAD., The celebration of the saints (quoted n. 20).
23 P. CHATTERJEE, The living icon in Byzantium and Italy: the Vita image, eleventh to thirteenth
centuries, Ann Arbor 2014, pp. 69, 73.
24 COTSONIS, The contribution of Byzantine lead seals (quoted n. 1), pp. 391, 398–402; ID., Nar
rative scenes (quoted n. 2), p. 57; and BRUBAKER & HALDON, Byzantium in the iconoclast era
(quoted n. 5), pp. 32–66.
181
iconicity mirrors the overall general bias for seals with religious figural images
and the cultural trend for an increasing use of images in devotional life, a practice
elsewhere identified as iconification.25
With the 12th century, however, there is a reversal whereby the majority of
seals with choired saints are shown unilaterally: 51 of 84, or 60.7%. Among
the 11th-century specimens, 203 of the 404, or 50.2%, have inscriptions that do
not include their owners’ family names or their titles or offices. For those of the
11th/12th century, the ratio is 233 of 288, or 80.9%, while for the 12th century it
is 36 of 84, or 42.9%. With more frequent inclusion of family names and strings
of cursus honorum in sphragistic inscriptions in the 12th century, then naturally
the space intended for saintly images would yield to text. The greater frequency
of 12th-century seals including family names and titles/offices has been explained
elsewhere as a means of employing sphragistic inscriptions as social calling cards
announcing their owners’ connections to imperial families and/or social positions
as the years of the Komnenian dynasty played out.26
Pre-Iconoclastic choired saints and seal owners

The seals depicting choired saints and belonging to the 6th through 8th centuries
number 77 specimens, representing 73 individuals. The most frequently grouped
holy figures are Peter and Paul: 37 of 77 seals, or 48.1%. The next largest group is
that of the image of the Virgin with at least one other figure: 21 examples. Among
these the Virgin is grouped with various types of saintly figures. The image of the
Theotokos is ubiquitous on seals from all periods, and it appears from the data that
her great intercessory role can be aligned with different types of saints, indicating
a multivalent aspect to her status. Christ appears on just three examples. His figure
plays only a limited role for sphragistic iconography in this period and throughout
the Byzantine centuries, being most commonly employed for imperial seals.27
For the majority of the seal owners from this period, the sphragistic inscriptions
either do not include their title/office or they are illegible: 51 of 77, or 66.2%.
Of those that are known, most are from the ranks of the clergy: 13, while seven
are from the civil administration. Of the clergy, nine are from hierarchs. Among
these only three inscriptions include the names of their ecclesiastical jurisdictions.
25 COTSONIS, The contribution of Byzantine lead seals (quoted n. 1), pp. 391, 410–2. For the use of
the term “iconification,” see R. CORMACK, Painting the soul: icons, death masks and shrouds,
London 1997, p. 159.
26 H. HUNGER, Der homo byzantinus und das Bleisiegel, DOP 46, 1992, pp. 120–1. For literature
devoted to the appearance of family names on seals as an indication of aristocratic and social pres
tige, see J. COTSONIS, Onomastics, gender, office and images on Byzantine lead seals: a means
of investigating personal piety, BMGS 32, 1, 2008, pp. 1–37, here p. 21, nn. 67–9.
27 For a discussion of the relative low frequency of the image of Christ on lead seals and its primary
association with imperial seals, see J. COTSONIS, To invoke or not to invoke the image of Christ
on Byzantine lead seals: that is the question, RN 170, 2013, pp. 549–82.
182
Two hierarchs placed the images of Peter and Paul on their seals as a reference to
Paul representing the local saint’s cult as in the case of an unknown metropolitan
of Ankyra.28 Of the 46 seals that have legible names of their owners, just three
included the image of their homonymous saint, indicating that homonymity was
not a significant factor in sphragistic iconographic selection.29 Four seals (three
individuals) have images of saints that are homonymous with the owners’ affili
ated institution.
Ninth-through tenth/eleventh-century choired saints

and seal owners
From the liquidation of Iconoclasm in 843 through the late 10th/early 11th cen
tury, 36 seals (representing 34 individuals) bear images of choired saints. During
the Iconoclastic controversy, the most frequently encountered image found on
seals was that of the Virgin.30 Her image proved to be the Iconophile image par
excellence. It has been shown that saints’ images did not become common on
seals until the 10th century, paralleling the broader rise in hagiographic interests
exemplified by the Metaphrastian menologion.31 The predominant use of Marian
imagery on seals after Iconoclasm therefore continues as the legacy of the Icono
phile victory as well as a practice for employing single depictions of saints on
seals. Since an outcome of the liquidation of Iconoclasm was the formalization
of the Church’s understanding of the icon as an intercessory connection with the
holy and as the directed focus of one’s prayers on behalf of the believer,32 possibly
the custom of portraying a single figure per icon/seal reflected this desire to focus
an encounter on one saint’s intercessory powers.
The most frequently seen image for this period is that of the Virgin with at
least one other saint: 11 examples. Among these she is depicted with a variety
of different types of saints. She appears with Nicholas on four different seals,
pairing most frequently the two most popular saints in Byzantine devotional life.
Independently, their sphragistic images are the two highest in frequency, indicat
ing their special status as the preeminent intercessors.33 The sphragistic linking
28 DOSeals 4, no. 2.4. For the practice of hierarchs employing the image of the local saint for their
seals, see J. COTSONIS, Saints and cult centers: a geographic and administrative perspective in
light of Byzantine lead seals, SBS 8, 2003, pp. 9–26.
29 For discussion of the insignificance of homonymity for sphragistic imagery, see COTSONIS, Ono-
mastics, gender, office and images (quoted n. 26), pp. 5–10.
30 COTSONIS, The contribution of Byzantine lead seals (quoted n. 1), pp. 403–5.
31 Ibid., pp. 406–7.
32 For a discussion of the chronological development of the theological understanding and devo
tional use of icons, see BRUBAKER & HALDON, Byzantium in the iconoclast era (quoted n. 5),
pp. 32–68, 782–799.
33 COTSONIS, The contribution of Byzantine lead seals (quoted n. 1), pp. 434–7, and E.
STEPANOVA, The image of St. Nicholas on Byzantine lead seals, SBS 9, 2006, p. 185–95,
who also indicates the large number of seals pairing the Virgin with Nicholas in general. For
183
prefigures the common pairing of the images of the Virgin and Nicholas on bilat
eral icons that are known from the late Byzantine period.34
A few seals depict saints that are usually paired based upon hagiographic tradi
tion, such as Kosmas and Damian. There is one example of joining saints based
upon their homonymity, such as the seal bearing the images of Luke the Evange
list and Luke the Stylite, issued by a monk named Luke.35 But there are numerous
examples of choired saints whose associations are not clearly understood, such as
a seal with paired images of Matthew and Basil.36
Twenty-four of these 34 seal owners include their title/office within their
inscriptions. During this period a wider group of individuals employed choired
saints’ images: nine from the ecclesiastical administration; 12 from the civil
bureaucracy; and three belonged to men from the military. Five of the Church
officials were hierarchs. Among the 12 civil officials, five held positions of impor
tance while the remainder occupied mid- to lower-level offices. The three military
officials were all of high-ranking positions.
Of the 24 individuals, five employed an image of a homonymous saint for one
of the holy figures on their seals. Five individuals chose for their seals an image of
one of the saints who was the local cult figure. Two individuals employed at least
one of the saints who is the patron of the institution they represent.
Eleventh-century choired saints and seal owners

There are 404 11th-century seals bearing images of choired saints that represent
323 individuals. As before, the image of the Virgin appears most frequently: on
194 specimens, or 48% of the group. Likewise, her image most frequently occurs
with that of Nicholas: 53 examples (Figure 5.3); followed by that with an image of
Michael the Archangel: 31 examples. Next in frequency is the image of the Theot
okos paired with the most popular military saints: Demetrios: 18; George: 13; and
Theodore: 8. Of the total number of iconographic seals in the database, among the
military saints the relative ranking by highest frequency is Michael, Theodore,
George and Demetrios. Yet when the figures appear with the Mother of God, a dif
ferent hierarchy of popularity is found: Michael (Figure 5.4), Demetrios, George
and lastly Theodore. It seems that when a figure is associated with the Theot
okos a different valence is acquired for the saint. One wonders if the beardless,
youthful, androgynous physiognomies of Michael, Demetrios and George are per
ceived as virginal in nature and therefore closer in character to the Virgin herself
than to a bearded military figure such as Theodore. This sphragistic association
Nicholas as the most powerful intercessor, after the Virgin, and the popularity of his images, see
N. ŠEVČENKO, The life of Saint Nicholas in Byzantine art, Torino 1983, pp. 161–12, 172–3.
34 G. STRIČEVIČ, Double-sided icons of the Virgin and St. Nicholas, Sixteenth annual Byzantine
studies conference, abstracts of papers, Baltimore 1990, pp. 24–5.
35 LAURENT, Corpus 5, 2, no. 1409.
36 LAURENT, Orghidan, no. 664bis.
184
Figure 5.3 Obv: Virgin orans with a medallion with bust of Christ; Rev: Nicholas, lead
seal of Michael Charsianites (?), 11th century, Harvard Art Museums/Arthur
M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, Bequest of Thomas
Whittemore, BZS.1951.31.5.3397
Figure 5.4 Obv: Virgin holding Christ Child before her; Rev: Michael, lead seal of the
Church of the Kyriotissa (?), 11th century, Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1947.2.17
echoes observations made by Myrto Hatzaki who noted that the youthful, beard
less beauty of male saints, especially military saints, often connoted a spiritual
purity and power not unlike that associated with the Mother of God.37 Could it
be that the “dangerous beauty” and military ardor of youthful, beardless soldier
saints, as referred to by Hatzaki,38 is kept in check by the virginal aspects of the
Mother of God?
There are 12 examples on which the Theotokos is grouped with an image of
John the Baptist. Here one recalls images of the “conventional” Deesis as the two
intercessors flank an image of Christ.39 But as the sphragistic data demonstrate,
these pairings are not as popular as those seals displaying images of the Virgin
with either Nicholas or the military saints. The evidence from the seals confirms
Anthony Cutler’s observation on the great mutability of Deesis iconography as
well as his cautionary remarks against prioritizing the Virgin and the Baptist as
the preferred intercessors of the Byzantines.40
Of the 404 seals, 167, or 41.3%, bear identifying information representing 130
different individuals. The majority of these seal owners belong to the civil bureau
cracy: 76, or 58.5%; followed by members of the clergy: 41, or 31.5%; and third,
by those of the military: 13, or 10%. With the expansion of the civil adminis
tration in the 11th century, iconographic trends initiated by the clergy in earlier
periods are now taken up by civil officials in a “democratization” of sphragistic
iconographic or devotional practices.
Among the clergy, the majority of the seals were issued by hierarchs: 22 of
41, or 53.7%. Monks and monastic houses form the second largest group from
the Church: 11, or 26.8%. The remainder belonged to individuals from various
clerical ranks.
Of the 76 individuals from the civil bureaucracy, there are four with high titles
or offices, such as John Doukas, sebastos.41 The remainder of these civil officials
represents middle- to lower-level title-holders or officials. Among the 13 military
officials, the majority, nine, held important administrative offices such as John,
nobelissimos protovestiarios megas domestikos of the Scholon of the East.42
37 M. HATZAKI, Beauty and the male body in Byzantium: perceptions and representations in art and
text, Basingstoke 2009, pp. 78–9, 95, 101, 104, 116–35.
38 Ibid., pp. 124–9.
39 For a discussion of a group of seals depicting a Deesis in which the Virgin is flanked by various
saints, see V. ŠANDROVSKAJA, Deesis-Kompositionen auf Siegeln der Ermitage, SBS 9, 2006,
pp. 159–67.
40 A. CUTLER, Under the Sign of the Deesis: on the question of representativeness in medieval art
and literature, DOP 41, 1987, pp. 145–54 (repr. in ID., Byzantium, Italy and the North: papers on
cultural relations, London,2000, pp. 46–64), who also draws attention (p. 147) to the great variety
of different choired saints found on seals. See also Μ. Ι. ΚΑΖΑΜΙΑ-ΤΣΕΡΝΟΥ [M. KAZAM
IA-TSERNOU], Ἱστορώντας τή “Δέηση” στίς Βυζαντινές Ἐκκλησίες τῆς Ἑλλάδος, Θεσσαλονίκη
2005, pp. 37–8, 160, 225–31, 258–83.
41 SEIBT, Bleisiegel, 1, no. 39, and JORDANOV, Corpus, 2, no. 200.
42 DOSeals 3, no. 99.7.
187
Of the 323 individuals from this period, 37, or 11.5%, selected an image of their
homonymous saint for one of the figures for their seals: ten from the Church; 14 of the
civil administration; two from the military; and 11 of unknown rank. Thirteen individ
uals included the figure of the saint of the local cult: 11 from the Church and two from
the civil administration. Seven seals have one of their holy figures homonymous with
the institution that issued them: six were from monastic houses and one from a church.
All 11 of those who held military offices have at least one military saint depicted on
their seals, and of these, nine have seals where more than one figure is a military saint.
Eleventh/twelfth-century choired saints and seal owners

For the 11th/12th century there are 288 seals with choired saints’ images rep
resenting 276 different individuals for certain. Like the previous centuries, the
image of the Virgin with at least one other saintly figure is the most frequent.
Again, she is most often accompanied by Nicholas: 33 examples. After Nicholas,
she is seen most often with one of the military saints. The next largest group is the
choiring of military saints in various combinations. Beyond these groupings there
are only very few examples of military figures with other saints.
After the military figures, the pairing of Peter and Paul occurs most frequently:
12 examples. There follows a wide variety of paired saints of various types but
represented by only one or a few specimens each. Some groupings are straightfor
ward: John Chrysostom and Basil, as authors of the two Byzantine liturgies. For
others the motive of pairing is not easily determined, such as John the Theologian
and the military saint Prokopios.43 There are five examples where a saint or saints
is/are grouped with a narrative scene, such as the seal depicting the Annunciation
and Nicholas.44 There are three examples on which the identical saint is paired
with himself as in the case of the seal with bilateral images of John the Baptist.45
The majority of the 11th/12th-century seals have no inscriptions that include
either their owners’ names or titles/offices: 224 seals of the 288, or 77.8%. Here
the images are placed bilaterally. This type of seal has been termed an “anony
mous” seal.46 Among the 64 seals that do have identifying inscriptions, 27 bear
just the owners’ names without titles/offices while 37 have a title/office and/or a
name. Among the seals that bear their owners’ names, 32, representing 28 individ
uals among 54 named individuals, or 51.9%, were issued by members of imperial
families, such as the seals of Adrian Dalassenos.47 There is one seal issued by a
woman: Helen, a nun (Figure 5.5).48
43 JORDANOV, Corpus, 3, no. 2555.

44 STAVRAKOS, Kophopoulos, no. 2.1.11.1.
45 K. KONSTANTOPOULOS, Μολυβδόβουλλα, no. 749.
46 OIKONOMIDES, Lead Seals, p. 10.
47 CHEYNET and VANNIER, Études prosopographiques, Dalassènoi no. 24.
48 LAURENT, Corpus, 5, 3, no. 2014bis. I wish to thank Jonathan Shea for the corrected reading of
this seal’s inscription.
188
Figure 5.5 Obv: Virgin orans with a bust of Christ; Rev: Thomas, lead seal of Helen, nun,
11th/12th century, Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.20
Of the 28 individuals whose sphragistic inscriptions include either their title or

their office, ten are from the Church; 15 from the civil administration; and three
from the military. Seven of the ecclesiastical officials are from the upper echelons of
the clergy. Among the 15 civil administrators, seven were issued by individuals with
high-ranking dignities or offices. The three military officials were also of high rank.
Although many of the seals in this group bear no identifying inscriptions, of the
54 named individuals, ten, or 18.5%, selected a homonymous saint for their seals.
But this is ten of the total 276 individuals, representing just 3.6% of the group for
which there is any certainty. Only four employed an image of the local cult figure.
Just three seals indicate a military office, and here all three have at least one image
of a military saint.
Twelfth-century choired saints and seal owners

The 85 seals for this period represent 67 different individuals. Here, too, the image
of the Virgin occurs with another figure most frequently: 33 seals, or 38.8% of the
group. Again, her figure is associated most often with military figures and then
with Nicholas. Following these groupings, there is a more even hagiographic dis
tribution among types of saints and the Virgin.
The next most popular depictions are groupings of military figures. Follow
ing these, Peter and Paul are most common: six examples. The remainder of the
specimens is scattered pairings of various types of saints. Some are not readily
discernible as to their associations, such as a seal bearing the images of George
and Stephen.49 One seal unites a narrative scene with a saint: the Anastasis with
that of Auxentios.50
Of the 85 seals 32, or 37.6%, do not have an inscription with either their own
ers’ names or titles/offices. Of the 37 different named individuals in this group, at
least 17, or 45.9%, were from high-ranking or imperial families.
Thirty-one individuals have seals that include their title/office in their inscrip
tions: 18 are from the ranks of the Church while 13 belong to the civil administra
tion. None were issued by the military. Of the ecclesiastical realm, 11 were issued
by hierarchs. Of the civil officials, nine were owned by high-ranking individuals.
From the total of 67 different individuals, 32 have no identifying inscription.
Of the 37 identified individuals, four, or 10.8%, selected at least one image of
a homonymous saint for their seals. Four seals employed at least one image of
their homonymous institution, and these were all monastic houses. Five seals
employed at least one image of the local saint of their owners’ jurisdictions, and
these were all hierarchs.
49 Ι ΛΕΟΝΤΙΑΔΗΣ [I. LEONTIADES], Μολυβδόβουλλα τοῦ Μουσείου Βυζαντινοῦ Πολιτισμοῦ

Θεσσαλονίκης, Θεσσαλονίκη 2006, no. 54.
50 CHEYNET et al., Istanbul, no. 6.95, where the editors suggest that this seal was issued by the
monastery of the Anastasis in Constantinople that also possessed the relics of Saint Auxentios.
190
Conclusion
This investigation has shown that throughout the Byzantine period the use of
choired saints’ images on seals was never a dominant practice employed by
seal owners. Only during the years of the 7th/8th century and then again in the
11th/12th century were there significant increases in such sphragistic imagery.
These periods parallel chronological increased interest in hagiographical liter
ature, hagiographic imagery, and theological debates concerning the role and
power of saints within society. The sphragistic trends also corresponded to a sim
ilar phenomenon in other contemporary media.
Another observation is the tracking of the unilateral and bilateral disposition of
the figures. The pre-Iconoclastic period began with a stronger unilateral presenta
tion, but with time there was a growing desire for bilaterality and iconicity reflecting
the contemporaneous growth in the cult of images until the outbreak of Iconoclasm.
Immediately following the Iconophile victory, there was a preference for single
images, mostly Marian, reflecting the legacy of Iconophile thought and sphragistic
imagery developed during the conflict. With the passing of time, greater sphragistic
iconicity, expressed through bilateral imagery, eventually became the norm, peak
ing in the 11th/12th century, reflecting wider cultural iconification. The 12th century
witnessed a significant decline in bilateral imagery in response to the greater signif
icance of including family names and titles/offices in sphragistic inscriptions as a
means of announcing one’s prestigious relations and social standing in Komnenian
society.
Unsurprisingly, the image of the Virgin with at least one other figure was the
most popular visual offering. She is acknowledged at once as the most powerful
of intercessors and as a multivalent figure associated with a variety of saints.
She is most often grouped with images of Nicholas and the military figures,
and each of these soldier saints in turn are among the most frequently choired
holy personages. The sphragistic observations further reinforce our understand
ing that the Deesis image should not be defined so narrowly but rather testify to
the rich variety of choired saintly figures the Byzantines called upon for divine
assistance.
Motives for the grouping and selecting of such holy figures were complex.
Some groupings were easily understood, such as those saints who shared a hagiog
raphic tradition. Other cases may never be determined. In the pre-Iconoclastic
period the majority of such seals were issued by Church hierarchs, sometimes
selecting saintly figures associated with their local cult or institutional affiliation.
Homonymity with the seal owner was never a dominant factor in image selection
throughout the Byzantine period.
After Iconoclasm there was a gradual wider social use, or “democratization,” of
the sphragistic use of choired saints’ images. But within the ecclesiastical, civil,
and military administrations, there is a clear tendency for choired saints to be
strongly favored among the higher echelons of these bureaucracies. Another con
sistent trend is for military officials to select at least one military figure for their
191
seals. Here one observes the strongest identification of owners’ offices and corre
sponding similitude with a saintly type.
Possibly these general observations will differ as more collections of seals are
published. But until then, this investigation has shown that a study of the choired
saints on seals is another valid means of investigating personal piety and the wider
devotional practices of Byzantine culture.
192
6
AN IMAGE OF SAINT NICHOLAS

WITH THE “TONGUES OF FIRE”
O N A B Y Z A N T I N E L E A D S E A L*
Among the 17,000 lead seals belonging to the collections of Dumbarton Oaks and
the Fogg Museum of Art,1 there are hundreds of seals that have often been cate
gorized as purely “iconographic” or “anonymous” seals. These seals bear a reli
gious figural image on both their obverse and reverse, without any accompanying
inscription indicating the name of their owner or his honorary title or office held
within the civil, ecclesiastical or military bureaucracy.2 Of these anonymous seals
with bilateral religious figural imagery, one previously unpublished specimen of
particular interest will be the subject of this paper.
This seal (Figure 6.1), assigned to the second half of the 11th century bears on
its obverse a bust of Archangel Michael, dressed in the imperial loros, holding
a scepter in his right hand and a globus cruciger in his left, and flanked by his
identifying sigla Μ – Χ [Μ(ι)χ(αήλ)]; on the reverse is a bust of Saint Nicholas,
blessing with his right hand and holding a Gospel book in his left, and flanked
by an identifying inscription: |ΝΙ–Κ|Ο|Λ [Ὁ ἅ(γιος) Νικόλ(αος)].3 Αbove each
* I wish to thank John Nesbitt for his insightful comments when reading an earlier draft of this paper.
1 For an overview and history of this collection and its sources, see DOSeals 1, vii-viii. For the online
cataloguing of this collection, see www.doaks.org/resources/seals (accessed 10 January 2017).
2 For discussion of “iconographic” or “anonymous” seals, see N. Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead Seals
(Washington, DC, 1985), 10 and idem, “The Anonymous Seal,” SBS 4 (1995), 71–72. For a discus
sion of “anonymous” seals bearing metrical inscriptions, see Wassiliou, Corpus Ι, 38–45.
3 Dumbarton Oaks Collection BZS.1951.31.5.3483 (Fogg 3483). For designating the “obverse” and
“reverse” of a bilateral iconographic seal without an invocative inscription to guide the direction
of “reading” the seal, I have followed the convention of the Byzantine heavenly hierarchy in which
the angels have precedence over the holy hierarchs, thereby prioritizing Archangel Michael with
the obverse of this seal and assigning Nicholas to the reverse. For the relative ranking of sacred
personages in the Byzantine heavenly hierarchy which was clearly established by the time of our
seal in the 11th-century liturgical rite of the prothesis (ἡ πρόθεσις), see V. Laurent, “Le ritual de
la proscomidie et le métropolite de Crète Élie,” REB 16 (1958), 129–130, with discussion of the
dating of the 11th-century rubrics at 118–121. See also R. Taft, The Great Entrance: A History of
the Transfer of Gifts and Other Pre-Anaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, 2nd ed.
(Rome, 1978), 25–26, esp. n. 61; M. Altripp, Die Prothesis und ihre Bildausstattung in Byzanz unter
besonderer Berücksichtigung der Denkmäler Griechenlands (Frankfurt am Main, 1998), 55–56 and
64–65; T. Pott, Byzantine Liturgical Reform: A Study of Liturgical Change in the Byzantine Tradi
tion, trans. P. Meyendorff (Crestwood, NY, 2010), 210–220; H.-J. Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy:
193
Figure 6.1 Obv: Archangel Michael; Rev: Nicholas with the “Tongues of Fire” lead seal,
11th century, Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard Uni
versity, Cambridge, MA, Bequest of Thomas Whittemore, BZS.1951.31.5.3483
saint nicholas with the “tongues of fire”
column of Nicholas’s inscription there appears tear-shaped globules. Encircling

both the obverse and reverse images are borders of dots. The tear-shaped globules
accompanying Saint Nicholas on this sphragistic specimen are a unique represen
tation of this holy hierarch. Among other iconographic seals in the Dumbarton
Oaks and Fogg collections paring the Archangel Michael with Saint Nicholas,
none of these depict the latter with the tear-shaped globules. No other such image
of the saint with this iconographic device is known on seals from any other col
lection or in any other media. In addition, the tear-shaped globules are not found
with any other holy figure, except for a number of images of the Virgin and a
very few with Christ. It is unlikely that the engraver of this sphragistic image of
Nicholas made a thoughtless egregious error that deviated from accepted icono
graphic custom. Rather, as will be shown in this discussion, this artistic device
of the tear-shaped globules flanking Nicholas is a carefully selective image that
conveys great meaning.
On seals, however, there are numerous examples of the tear-shaped globules
flanking various iconographic types of the Virgin. Among the major published
collections, there are 95 such pieces where this device appears above the custom
ary sigla of the Virgin, the ΜΡ ΘΥ (Μήτηρ Θεοῦ-Mother of God). Most of these,
Symbolic Structure and Faith, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (New York, 1986), 98–99; and S. Muk
suris, Economia and Eschatology: Liturgical Mystagogy in the Byzantine Prothesis Rite (Brookline,
MA, 2013), 42–43 and esp. 50–51, n. 37. Muksuris provides a parallel Greek and English text of
the contemporary prothesis rite, 7–11, where the hierarchical order of saintly figures is listed. For an
overview of the arrangement of images of holy personages in the decorative schemes of post-Icon
oclastic churches according to the heavenly hierarchy, see O. Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decora
tion: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium (London, 1948; repr. New Rochelle, New York,
1976), 16–29; H. Maguire, “The Cycle of Images in the Church,” in Heaven on Earth: Art and the
Church in Byzantium, ed. L. Safran (University Park:, PA, 1998), 121–151 and idem, “The Heav
enly Court,” Byzantine Court Culture from 829–1204, ed. H. Maguire (Washington, DC, 1997),
247–258. Concerning the hierarchical arrangement of sacred figures found on the three 10th-century
ivory triptychs, that in the Palazzo Venezia in Rome, that in the Museo Sacro in the Vatican and the
Harbaville triptych in the Musée du Louvre, see E. Kantorowicz, “Ivories and Litanies,” Journal
of the Warburgand Courtauld Institutes 5 (1942), 70–76, who sees the order of saintly figures as
reflecting the heavenly realm and proper liturgical order; while J. Durand and M. Durand, “Àpropos
du triptyque ‘Harbaville’: quelques remarques d’iconographie médio-byzantine,” in Patrimoine des
Balkans: Voskopjë sans frontiers 2004, ed. M. Durand (Paris, 2005), 133–55 and A. Eastmond, “The
Heavenly Court, Courtly Ceremony, and the Great Byzantine Ivory Triptychs of the Tenth Century,”
DOP 69 (2015), 71–93, observe a different order of the sacred figures than found in monumental
decoration and understand the ivories’ programs as stressing the economy of salvation (Durand and
Durand) or the triptychs representing different views of the heavenly court and the tensions between
personal devotions and the corporate nature of the imperial ceremony of the Constantinopolitan
court (Eastmond). In depictions of the Last Judgment, the images of the saved, or saintly categories
of figures, are arranged in a similar, but not always consistent, hierarchical order among the var
ious versions of the scene. For discussion of the arrangement of the categories of holy figures in
scenes of the Last Judgment, see M. Angheben, “Les Jugements derniers byzantins des XIe-XIIe
siècles et l’iconographie du jugement immediate,” Cahiers archéologiques 50 (2002), 120–21 and
N. Ševčenko, “Images of the Second Coming and the Fate of the Soul in Middle Byzantine Art,” in
Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity, ed. R. Daly (Grand Rapids, MI, 2009), 254.
195
83, belong to the 11th century; eight are from the 10th/11th century; two from the
11th/12th century; and two belong to the 12th century. One example, also from the
Dumbarton Oaks collection, is an 11th-century seal issued by an individual named
Sabbas (Figure 6.2). In my earlier study, these tear-shaped globules accompany
ing sphragistic Marian images were identified as the “Tongues of Fire.”4
The “Tongues of Fire” are not found with images of the Virgin in other media
except for a few coins: a two-thirds miliaresion of Constantine IX Monomachos
(1042–55); a two-thirds miliaresion of Constantine X (1059–67); a tetarteron of
Michael VII Doukas (1071–78); and a follis of Alexios I issued before his mone
tary reforms of 1092.5 On coins, however, the “Tongues of Fire” also appear with
three different images of Christ: on an anonymous follis, assigned to the years
976–1035; on a two-thirds miliaresion issued by Michael VII Doukas (1071–78);
and on a tetarteron issued by Alexios I, again before his monetary reforms of
1092.6 The numismatic examples, like their sphragistic counterparts, also exhibit
the “Tongues of Fire,” possibly as early as the late 10th century, while the major
ity belongs to the 11th century. On the seals, however, this iconographic detail
occurs only with the image of the Virgin, and is now seen, uniquely with a depic
tion of Nicholas, also from the 11th century.
As demonstrated in my earlier work, the “Tongues of Fire” themselves are
also found in other media and contexts. They are employed to represent the fiery
tongues in the descent of the Holy Spirit in scenes of the Pentecost, as in the
11th-century Dionysiou lectionary.7 Or closer to the seals with Marian iconogra
phy and the “Tongues of Fire” are the images that illustrate the verses of Psalms
44:2 and 71:6 in the marginal psalters, verses that typologically refer to the Incar
nation, especially the Old Testament prefiguration of the rain falling on Gideon’s
fleece.8
Although the themes of the Incarnation and Gideon’s fleece have a long history
in both Byzantine liturgical and artistic expression, the sphragistic iconographic
device of the “Tongues of Fire” appeared on a group of seals with Marian imag
ery, the majority of which belong to the 11th century, and a few contemporary
coins. The sigillographic iconography does, however, parallel other 11th-century
phenomena that reflect a new attitude toward religious images, whereby icons
were perceived to take on a more dynamic and interactive role within the sphere
4 For a discussion of seals with Marian images flanked by the “tongues of fire”, see J. Cotsonis, “The
Virgin with the ‘Tongues of Fire’ on Byzantine Lead Seals,” DOP 48 (1994), 221–27, where our fig.
2 was first published as fig. 2.
5 Ibid., 222–23, figs. 5–8, where the numismatic examples with Marian images are further discussed
and illustrated.
6 Ibid., 223, figs. 9–11, where the numismatic examples with images of Christ are further discussed
and illustrated.
7 S. Pelekanidis et al., The Treasures of Mount Athos, I (Athens, 1973), 174, fig. 213. See also Cot
sonis, “The Virgin with the ‘Tongues of Fire’,” (see n. 4), 223, fig. 13.
8 For discussion of these miniatures and the literature related to their interpretation, see Cotsonis,
“The Virgin with the ‘Tongues of Fire’,” 223–25, figs. 14–16.
196
Figure 6.2 Obv: The Virgin with her hands before her breast, lead seal Sabbas, 11th cen
tury, Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.4505
of devotional practices. A most significant example is that of the so-called habit

ual or usual miracle (τὸ σύνηθες θαῦμα) involving an image of the Virgin in the
Marian church of Blachernai in Constantinople. Michael Psellos describes this
phenomenon from the year 1075.9 In this text Psellos relates that at Blachernai
there was an icon of the Virgin covered by a veil. Every Friday evening, the veil
mysteriously rose and remained suspended in midair before a large crowd. In
explaining the event, Psellos claims that the Divine Spirit descends upon the
image (τοῦ Θείου Πνεύματος ἄντικρυς κάθοδος).10 He describes how the form of
the Virgin is changed and receives her animated presence (τὴν ἔμψυχον ἐπιδημίαν
αὐτῆς).11 Further into the account, Psellos refers to the phenomenon as a new
manifestation of the Spirit (νέα πνεύματος ἔμφασις).12
9 For the more recent edition of this text, see Λόγος ἐπὶ τῷ ἐν Βλαχέρναις γεγονότι θαύματι, ed. E.
Fisher, Michaelis Pselli Orationes hagiographicae (Stuttgart, 1994), 200–29. For an English trans
lation of this text, see E. Fisher, “Discourse on the Miracle that Occurred in the Blachernae,” in
Michael Psellos on Symeon the Metaphrast and on the Miracle at Blachernae: Annotated Trans
lations with Introductions (2014) (http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5488) (accessed 12
January 2017). For more recent literature than my 1994 article concerning the “usual miracle” at
Blachernai, see B. Pentcheva, “Rhetorical Images of the Virgin: The Icon of the ‘Usual Miracle’
at Blachernai,” Res 38 (2000), 35–55 (revised as a chapter in her subsequent publication Icons
and Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium [University Park, PA, 2006], 145–63); S. Papaio
annou, “The ‘Usual Miracle’ and an Unusual Image,” JÖB 51 (2001), 177–98; A. Semoglou, “Le
voile ‘miraculeux’ de la Vierge Kykkotissa et l’icône du ‘miracle habituel’ des Blachernes: Un cas
d’assimilation dans l’iconographie byzantine,” Cahiers balkaniques 34 (2006), 15–29; C. Barber,
“Living Painting, or the Limits of Painting? Glancing at Icons with Michael Psellos,” in Reading
Michael Psellos, ed. C. Barber and D. Jenkins (Leiden, 2006), 126–30; idem, Contesting the Logic
of Painting: Art and Understanding in Eleventh-Century Byzantium (Leiden, 2007), 80–83 and
97–98; idem, “Movement and Miracle in Michael Psellos’s Account of the Blachernae Icon of
the Theotokos,” in Envisioning Experience in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Dynamic Pat
terns in Texts and Images, ed. G. De Nie and T. Noble (Farnham, Surrey, 2012), 9–22; E. Fisher,
“Michael Psellos on the ‘Usual’ Miracle at Blachernae, the Law and Neoplatonism,” in Byzantine
Religious Culture: Studies in Honor of Alice-Mary Talbot, ed. D. Sullivan, E. Fisher and S. Papa
ioannou (Leiden, 2012), 187–204.
10 Λόγος, 205:135–36. See also Fisher, “Discourse” at 5.4.
11 Λόγος, 205–06:135–36. See also Fisher, “Discourse” at 5.4. and n. 25, where the author acknowl
edges the scholarly discussion devoted to the translation and significance of the Greek word
ἔμψυχος (animate, ensouled, living) as it relates to its use and perception of Byzantine sacred art
of the 11th and 12th centuries. The term ἔμψυχος γραφή (“living painting” or “ensouled painting”)
appearing in the works of Michael Psellos first entered scholarly art-historical discussion via H.
Belting, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, trans. E. Jephcott
(Chicago, 1994), 261–96. A critique of Belting’s interpretation was set forth by R. Cormack, “Liv
ing Painting,” in Rhetoric in Byzantium, ed. E. Jeffreys (Aldershot, 2003), 235–53. Following
Cormack’s initial reinterpretation of Belting’s analysis, other scholars have further nuanced the
term ἔμψυχος γραφή: Barber, “Living Painting?,”(see n. 9), 118–30; idem, Contesting the Logic
of Painting (see n. 9), 71–98; idem, “Movement and Miracle,” (see n. 9), 9–22; B. Pentcheva, The
Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in Byzantium (University Park, PA, 2010), 191–208;
and G. Peers, “Real Living Painting: Quasi-Objects and Dividuation in the Byzantine World,”
Religion and the Arts 16 (2012), 433–60.
12 Λόγος, 212: 329–30. See also Fisher, “Discourse” at 5.14.
198
Elsewhere, Psellos recorded the activity concerning another 11th-century

image that exhibited similar lifelike characteristics, the celebrated icon of Christ
Antiphonites that belonged to the empress Zoe.13 According to Psellos, the empress
would turn to this icon when expressing gratitude for favors received or beseech
it when troubles befell her. In response to the petitions of the empress, the figure
of Christ would turn either red to indicate a favorable reply or pale to portend an
unfavorable outcome. Psellos refers to the image as almost alive (μικροῦ δεῖν
ἔμνουν εἰργάσατο τὸ εἰκόνισμα)14 and says that Zoe would speak to it as if it were
animated (καὶ ὡς ἐμψύχῷ διαλεγομένην).15
In yet a third text, Psellos employed almost identical terms when describing
an icon of the Crucifixion.16 He characterizes the panel as a form of animated
painting (ἡ ἔμψυχος αὕτη γραφὴ)17 and values the image for its verisimilitude and
sense of movement (τῷ δοκεῖν ἐμψυχῶσθαι σύμπασαν τὴν εἰκόνα καὶ μηδεμιᾶς
ἀμοιρεῖν τῶν κινήσεων).18 According to Psellos, the beauty of this icon does not
originate in its colors but rather derives from the scene’s resemblance to nature
and its kinetic qualities (δὲ οὐκ ἐκ χρωμάτων τὰ τοιαῦτα δοκεῖ συνεστάναι, ἀλλ᾽
ἔοικε τὸ σύμπαν ἐμψύχῳ φύσει καὶ ἀτεχνῶς κινουμένη).19
These references support the interpretation that the “Tongues of Fire” flanking
images of the Virgin on seals depict a Descent of the Holy Spirit. The sphragistic
iconography corresponds to a period in which the potential for images to take on
life through the Holy Spirit was acknowledged. The adoption of such images for
personal use, such as seals, also reflects these 11th-century artistic and devotional
currents. Various scholars have associated this new, animated style of painting
(ἡ ἔμψυχος αὕτη γραφὴ) of the 11th century with the increased use of images in
private devotions.20 It is from this period that images of the Virgin flanked by the
13 Michaelis Pselli Chronographia, edited, translated and commented by D. R. Reinsch (Berlin,

2014), 133–34. For a more recent discussion of this icon, see L. James, Light and Colour in Byz
antine Art (Oxford, 1996), 83–85; Barber, Contesting the Logic of Painting, 83–86; Pentcheva,
The Sensual Icon, 184–87; and Peers, “Real Living Painting,” 441–43.
14 Michaelis Pselli Chronographia, 133.
15 Ibid., 134.
16 For the more recent edition of this text, see Λόγος εἰς τὴν σταύρωσιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ, ed. Fisher, Michaelis Pselli Orationes hagiographicae (see n. 9), 116–98. For more
recent discussion of this text, see eadem, “Image and Ekphrasis in Michael Psellos’ Sermon on the
Crucifixion,” ByzSl 55 (1994), 44–55; Belting, Likeness and Presence (see n. 11), 269–72; Barber,
“Living Painting?,” (see n. 9), 121–25; idem, Contesting the Logic of Painting (see n. 9), 72–80;
idem, “Movement and Miracle,” 10–13; Pentcheva, The Sensual Icon (see n. 11), 191–94; and
Peers, “Real Living Painting,” (see n. 11), 437–41.
17 Λόγος εἰς τὴν σταύρωσιν, 197: 862–63.
18 Ibid., 196: 845–46.
19 Ibid., 196: 856–58.
20 For a summary of scholarly literature devoted to this topic, see J. Cotsonis, “The Contribution of
Byzantine Lead Seals to the Study of the Cult of the Saints (Sixth-Twelfth Century),” Byz 75 (2005),
410–12. See also Cormack, “Living Painting,” (see n. 11), 244; Barber, Contesting the Logic of
Painting, 88–93; Pentcheva, The Sensual Icon, 194–98; and Peers, “Real Living Painting,” 441–43.
199
“Tongues of Fire” were chosen by individuals for their seals. That is, objects of
personal use were used to reflect their owners’ piety.
Given the cultural climate of the 11th-century understanding of animated or
enlivened images in Byzantium, one can understand the use of the “Tongues of
Fire” on the Virgin’s images on seals in light of the Blachernai Marian weekly
icon-phenomenon, the empress Zoe’s image of the Christ Antiphonites and the
icon of the Crucifixion described by Psellos. What is of particular interest here is
that the “Tongues of Fire” appear as well on an 11th-century seal with the image
of Saint Nicholas. As stated above, this iconographic device does not accompany
other saints’ images. This transfer of the “Tongues of Fire” from the Virgin to
Nicholas may well reflect a common or similar perception of these two sacred
personages among the Byzantines.
In the realm of seals, the images of the Virgin and Nicholas are the most com
monly found. From my database of 11,506 religious iconographic seals drawn
from the major published collections, the Virgin appears most frequently: 4,698
seals bear her image, the single largest sphragistic iconographic category.21 The
Mother of God was understood by the Byzantines as the intercessor par excel
lence, a unique position she enjoyed as the mother who could move her Divine
Son to compassion on behalf of believers.22 But the next most popular figure is
21 For the predominance of the image of the Virgin on lead seals, see Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead
Seals (see n. 2), 13–14; W. Seibt, “Die Darstellung der Theotokos auf byzantinischen Bleisiegeln,
besonders im 11. Jahrhundert,” SBS, 1 (1987), 35–56; W. Seibt and M.- L. Zarnitz, Das byzan
tinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk. Katalog zur Ausstellung (Vienna, 1997), 104–06; V. Penna,
“The Iconography of Byzantine Lead Seals: The Emperor, the Church, the Aristocracy,” ΔΧΑΕ,
4, 20, (1998), 261–74; eadem, “The Mother of God on Coins and Lead Seals,” in Mother of God:
Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine Art, ed. M. Vassilaki (Athens, 2000), 212–17; Cot
sonis, “The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” (see n. 20), 400–14; and W. Seibt, Ein Blick
in die byzantinische Gesellschaft: Die Bleisiegel im Museum August Kestner (Rahden, 2011),
23–24; A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, “Die sigillographische Evidenz der Theotokos bis zum Ende des
Ikonoklasmus,” in Presbeia Theotokou: The Intercessory Role of Mary across Times and Places in
Byzantium (4th-9th Century), ed. L. M. Peltomaa et al. (Vienna, 2015), 233–42.
22 For some discussion of the Virgin as intercessor, see I. Kalavrezou, “Images of the Mother: When
the Virgin Mary Became Meter Theou,” DOP, 44 (1990), 165–72; eadem, “The Maternal Side of
the Virgin,” in Mother of God, 41–46; H. Hunger, “Heimsuchung und Schirmherrschaft über Welt
und Menschheit: Μήτηρ Θεοῦ ἡ Ἐπίσκεπσις,” SBS 4 (1995), 33–42; I. Djordjević and M. Mark
ović, “On the Dialogue Relationship Between the Virgin and Christ in East Christian Art,” Zograf,
28 (2000/2001), 13–48; J. Cotsonis, “The Virgin and Justinian on Seals of the Ekklesiekdikoi of
Hagia Sophia” DOP 56 (2002), 52–55; idem, “Religious Figural Images on Byzantine Lead Seals
as a Reflection of Visual Piety during the Iconoclastic Controversy,” Cahiers archéologiques 56
(2015), 8–10; N. Koutrakou, “Use and Abuse of the ‘Image’ of the Theotokos in the Political Life
of Byzantium (with Special Reference to the Iconoclast Period),” in Images of the Mother of God:
Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. M. Vassilaki (Aldershot, 2005), 77–90; N. Tsironis,
“From Poetry to Liturgy: The Cult of the Virgin in the Middle Byzantine Era,” in Images of the
Mother of God, 91–99; Pentcheva, Icons and Power (see n. 9), 111–17; The Cult of the Mother
of God in Byzantium: Texts and Images, ed. L. Brubaker and M. Cunningham (Farnham, 2011);
Presbeia Theotokou (see n. 21). For the Virgin as the most frequently depicted intercessory figure
200
that of Nicholas, with 1,017 sigillographic examples, also testifying to his great
intercessory role in the Byzantine world.23 These two figures far outnumber all of
the other holy figures found on seals: the next largest group is Archangel Michael
and the military saints George and Theodore whose frequencies are in the 700s.
Another significant observation is that among the published seals that bear a reli
gious image on both the obverse and reverse, either anonymous or with the names
and offices/titles of their owners included, the pairing of the images of the Virgin
and Nicholas occurs most frequently: 99 examples.24 The next most frequent pair
ing is that of the Virgin and Archangel Michael, with 64 specimens. The sphragis
tic linking of the Virgin and Nicholas prefigures their common pairing on bilateral
icons that are known from the late Byzantine period.25
Nancy Ševčenko observed that a large proportion of the fresco cycles depicting
the life of Nicholas are set in funerary contexts and may well have expressed their
donors’ hope in the power of the saint’s intercessions on behalf of their souls on
the day of judgment.26 She has also pointed out how in the numerous hymnolog
ical canons composed in honor of Saint Nicholas the endings repeatedly remind
the faithful of the imminent day of judgment and the great need for an intercessor
like Nicholas.27 Henry Maguire has also attributed Nicholas’ popularity to the
saint’s perceived role in the administration of earthly justice and as an advocate
of heavenly justice at the Last Judgment.28 Nicholas’ role as a defender is clearly
demonstrated in one of the shrines in Constantinople that is dedicated to him.
This shrine, or rather chapel, known as ta Vasilidos (τὰ Βασιλίδος), enjoyed a
in funerary images, see T. Papamastorakis, “Funerary Representations in the Middle and Late
Byzantine Periods,” ΔΧΑΕ, 4, 17 (1994), 285–304.
23 See also Cotsonis, “The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” 433–37 and E. Stepanova, “The
Image of St. Nicholas on Byzantine Lead Seals,” SBS 9 (2006), 185–95. For Nicholas as the most
powerful intercessor, after the Virgin, and the popularity of his images, see N. Ševčenko, The Life
of Saint Nicholas in Byzantine Art (Turin, 1983), 21–23, 161–62 and 172–73; eadem, “San Nicola
nell’arte bizantina,” in San Nicola: Splendori d’arte d’Oriente e d’Occidente, ed. M. Bacci (Milan,
2006), 61–70; H. Maguire, “From the Evil Eye to the Eye of Justice: The Saints, Art and Justice in
Byzantium,” in Law and Society in Byzantium: Ninth-Twelfth Centuries, ed. A. Laiou – D. Simon
(Washington, DC, 1994), 227–38 and idem, The Icons of Their Bodies: Saints and Their Images in
Byzantium (Princeton, 1996), 169–86.
24 See also Cotsonis, “The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” 436 and Stepanova, “The Image
of St. Nicholas on Byzantine Lead Seals,” 195.
25 G. Stričevič,” Double-Sided Icons of the Virgin and St. Nicholas,” in Sixteenth Annual Byzantine
Studies Conference, Abstracts of Papers (Baltimore 1990), 24–25. See also Maguire, “From the
Evil Eye to the Eye of Justice,” 236. For an example of one of these later bilateral icons pairing the
images of the Virgin and Nicholas, see Vassilaki, Mother of God (see n. 21), no. 66.
26 Ševčenko, The Life of Saint Nicholas in Byzantine Art (see n. n. 23), 159–62 and 173.
27 N. Ševčenko, “Canon and Calendar: The Role of a Ninth-Century Hymnographer in Shaping the
Celebration of the Saints,” in Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive, ed. L. Brubaker
(Aldershot, 1998), 112, esp. n. 37 (repr. in her The Celebration of the Saints in Byzantine Art and
Liturgy [Farnham, Surrey, 2013], I).
28 Maguire, “From the Evil Eye to the Eye of Justice,” (see n. 23), 227–38 and idem, The Icons of
Their Bodies (see n. 23), 169–186.
201
prestigious location: behind the apse or east end of Hagia Sophia.29 Not only was
this structure attached to the most important church in the capital, but it also func
tioned as a place of asylum or refuge (προσφύγιον-prosphygion). Anna Komnene
related that it was built long before her time for the purpose of granting safety to
those accused of various crimes.30 In this respect Nicholas resembles the Virgin,
for she acted as the greatest of humanity’s intercessors and her image was espe
cially linked to the ekklesiekdikoi, or tribunal of priests attached to Hagia Sophia,
and their proceedings in dealing with those seeking asylum in the Great Church.
Her image appears on the seals of the ekklesiekdikoi.31 George Stričevič has also
discussed how bilateral painted icons of Nicholas and the Virgin may have had
an intercessory funerary or post-funerary function.32 Both Nicholas and the Virgin
have been given epithets related to the concept of victory. Nicholas’s very name
refers to the people’s victory (νίκη λαοῦ):33 in the Encomium Methodii, dedicated
to the saint ca. 860, the author refers to Nicholas as the “victory-creating gen
eral of the saved” (ὁ νικοποιὸς τῶν σωζομένων στρατηγὸς),34 a term approxi
mating one of the epithets used for the Virgin as victory-bearer, the Nikopoios
(Νικοποιὸς).35 In addition, Anna Komnene also records the existence of a church
dedicated to Saint Nicholas in the Blachernai region of Constantinople, close to
the celebrated homonymous Marian shrine, discussed above, and the Blacher
nai palace.36 Such physical proximity of the two shrines near an imperial palace
would naturally create a close association of the cults of the two holy figures in the
29 Janin, Églises, 368–69. See also Cotsonis, “The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” (see n.20),
435.
30 Anna Komnene, 66: 44–50 (ed. Reinsch – Kambylis). See also Janin, Églises, 369 and Cotsonis,
“The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” 435–36.
31 Cotsonis, “The Virgin and Justinian on the Seals of the Ekklesiekdikoi,” (see n. 22), 41–55.
32 Stričevič,” Double-Sided Icons of the Virgin and St. Nicholas,” (see n. 25), 25. See also Maguire,
“From the Evil Eye to the Eye of Justice,” (see n. 23), 236 and Cotsonis, “The Contribution of
Byzantine Lead Seals,” (see n. 23), 436.
33 Encomium Methodii, in Hagios Nikolaos, I, 155: 1 and C. W. Jones, Saint Nicholas of Myra, Bari,
and Manhattan: Biography of a Legend (Chicago, 1978), 7–8.
34 Encomium Methodii, 155: 2–3.
35 For some discussion of the Marian iconographic type Nikopoios, see W. Seibt, “Der Bildtypus der
Theotokos Nikopoios: Zur Ikonographie der Gottesmutter-Ikone, die 1030/31 in der Blachernen
kirche wiederaufgefunden wurde,” Byzantina 13:1 (1985), 550–64; ODB, 3, 2176; C. Malte
zou, “Βενετία καὶ Βυζαντινὴ Παράδοση: Ἡ Εἰκόνα τῆς Παναγίας Νικοποιοῦ,” in Μνήμη Δ. Α.
Ζακυθήνου, ed. N. Moschonas, 2 (Athens, 1994), 7–20; M. Schulz, “Die Nicopea in San Marco:
Zur Geschichte und zum Typ einer Ikone,” BZ 91:2 (1998), 475–501; and Pentcheva, Icons and
Power (see n. 9), 76–80.
36 Anna Komnene, 310: 88–90. For a history of this church, its location and the possibility that
the original shrine was built by Justinian and dedicated to Saints Priskos and Nicholas, another
homonymous holy figure than Nicholas of Myra, see Janin, Églises, 369–71; Jones, Saint Nicholas
of Myra, Bari, and Manhattan, 12–13; Ševčenko, The Life of Saint Nicholas in Byzantine Art (see
n. 23), 19; eadem, “Canon and Calendar,” (see n. 27), 108; and G. Majeska, Russian Travelers
to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Washington, DC, 1984), 44 and
337–38.
202
minds of the Byzantines. Viewed in this light, the extreme popularity of the image
of Nicholas upon seals and in other media and the culture is readily understand
able. His associations with the cult of the Virgin endow him with such prestige.
And the closeness of his image with that of the Virgin is understandable, including
the adopting of the “Tongues of Fire,” especially in the 11th-century context of
sacred images regarded as empsychos graphe, as described above.
And like the animated or empsychos graphe image of the Virgin of the usual
miracle at Blachernai, 11th-century Constantinople also had claim to two cel
ebrated miracle-working images of Saint Nicholas.37 One was enshrined in the
church of Saint Nicholas Molivotοs (τοῦ Μολιβωτοῦ) and was known as the
bloody or bleeding icon (thauma de imagine cruenta):38 when certain imperial
guards came and harassed the monks at this monastery, one monk in particular
was sorely disturbed by the episode, and when lighting the lamps he acciden
tally struck the icon of Saint Nicholas which then began to bleed profusely (καὶ
κρουνίδες αἱμάτων εὐθέως ἐκενοῦντο ποταμηδόν). During the night, Nicholas
appeared to the emperor, most likely Constantine X Doukas (1059–67), and
recounted the misdeed and instructed the emperor to rectify the situation. The
emperor then went to the monastery, saw the bleeding icon of the saint (καὶ τὴν
ἁγίαν τοῦ ἀγίου εἶδεν εἰκόνα κατῃμαγμένην) and besought Nicholas’s forgive
ness. After restoring peace, the emperor granted the monastery imperial favors.
In 1200, Anthony of Novgorod visited this monastery and described how this
icon was covered with a gilt silver revetment that was removed whenever the
emperor would come to kiss the saint’s wounded image and then it would be
recovered.39 The second famous icon of Saint Nicholas was kept in the homony
mous chapel behind the apse of Hagia Sophia, referred to as the ta Vasilidos (τοῦ
Βασιλίδος), mentioned above.40 During the reign of one of the emperors, Roma
nos, this icon was known to cure a lame man to whom the saint had previously
appeared and instructed him to be taken to his chapel (ta Vasilidos) in order to
be healed. Once there, the lame man immediately recognized the saint due to the
shared likeness of the holy hierarch in the image and vision (ὁρᾷ τὸν μέγαν καὶ
περιβόητον ἐν θαυματουργίας Νικόλαον . . . ἀληθῶς ἐν είκόνι γεγραμμένον) after
which he embraced the icon panel and was healed (καὶ θάττον ἐπιλαμβάνεται μὲν
37 M. Bacci, “Il corpo e l’immagine di Nicola,” San Nicola (see n. 23), 21.
38 Hagios Nikolaos, I, 415–16. The narrative is from the text of the Encomium Neophyti, assigned
by Anrich to c. 1200; Hagios Nikolaos, II, 149–54 and 431–32. For the church of Saint Nicholas
Molivotοs (τοῦ Μολιβωτοῦ), see Janin, Églises, 372–73.
39 B. de Khitrowo, Itinéraires russes en Orient (Geneva, 1889), 110. See also Janin, Églises, 372–73.
40 Hagios Nikolaos, I, 349–52. Anrcih is uncertain as to which emperor Romanos this is and states
that the oldest manuscripts containing this miracle account are from the 11th century but already
present reworked texts. He prefers to assign the event described to the reigns of Romanos I Leka
penos (920–944) or to Romanos II (959–963). He only rules out the possibility of Romanos IV
Diogenes (1068–1071) while leaving Romanos III Argyros (1028–1034) a possibility (p. 349).
See also Hagios Nikolaos, II, 143, for the 11th-century dating of the earliest manuscripts with this
miracle event. In addition, see Janin, Églises, 368–69.
203
τῆς σανίδος, ἐν ᾗ ἐκτετύπωτο ὁ ἅγιος). The text recounts how after the miracle
many offered up praise and glory and kept the memory of the great wonder. This
healing episode was memorialized even later in the 14th century when Nikeph
oros Kallistos again referred to this miraculous image in his paraphrase of the
saint’s miracles.41
These images of the holy hierarch that portrayed him with easily recognizable
verisimilitude, which bled, and performed miraculous cures were perceived by
those who encountered them as actual exchanges with the saint himself. They
were animated with the saint’s living presence; they were, therefore, empsychos
graphe in character just as the contemporaneous image of the Virgin at Blach
ernai that was involved with the usual Friday miracle. The “Tongues of Fire”
accompanying Nicholas’s image on our seal reinforce the perception of this sim
ilarity and rank the hierarch’s miraculous images among the celebrated “living”
icons of the capital. The owner of our seal may have been an actual pilgrim to one
or both of these shrines where he or she may have venerated the images and where
he or she may even have been a recipient of a healing miracle worked by the saint.
As noted previously, the obverse of our seal bears the image of Archangel
Michael. On seals the images of Archangel Michael and Nicholas are both pop
ular. After the Virgin, their depictions on seals occur most frequently: among the
published seals of my database, Nicholas is found on 1,017 specimens, while
Michael is represented on 768. Like Nicholas, several aspects of the archangel
contributed to the popularity of his cult: he enjoyed strong imperial connections
and military associations; he was known as a healing figure with pilgrimage
shrines; and he was associated with the judgment of souls at death and their trans
port to the next world.42 At one level one can understand the pairing of these two
saints, Archangel Michael and Nicholas, bilaterally on an individual’s seal. But
general popularity is only a partial explanation. Another factor to consider is that
the owner may have shared a name with either the archangel or the saintly hier
arch. Yet this hypothesis, too, is not a necessarily strong assumption: it has been
41 Hagios Nikolaos, I, 352–53. See also Janin, Églises, 368.

42 For some literature devoted to the various aspects of the cult of Archangel Michael, see J. P.
Rohland, Der Erzengel Michael, Arzt und Feldherr: Zwei Aspekte des vor- und frühbyzantinischen
Michaelskultes (Leiden, 1977); V. Saxer, “Jalons pour server à l’histoire du culte de l’Archange
Saint Michel en Orient jusqu’à l’Iconoclasme,” in Noscere sancta miscellanea in memoria di
Agostino Amore OFM (1982), ed. I. V. Janeiro (Rome, 1985), 382–91; ODB, 2, 1360–1361; B.
Martin-Hisard, “Le culte de l’archange Michel dans l’empire byzantin (VIIIe-XIe siècles),” in
Culto e Insediamenti Micaelici nell’Italia Meridionale fra Tarda Antichità e Medioevo. Atti del
Convegno Internazionale Monte Sant’Angelo 18–21 Novembre 1992, ed. C. Carletti – G. Otranto
(Bari, 1994), 351–73; C. Jolivet-Lévy, “Culte et iconographie de l’archange Michel dans l’Orient
byzantine: Le témoignage de quelques monuments de Cappadoce,” Les Cahiers de Saint-Michel
de Ciuxà 28 (1997), 187–98; G. Peers, Subtle Bodies: Representing Angels in Byzantium (Berkeley
and Los Angeles, 2001), 157–93; Cotsonis, “The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” (see n.
20), 438–47; R. Cline, Ancient Angels: Conceptualizing Angeloi in the Roman Empire (Leiden,
2011), 158–65.
204
demonstrated that, statistically, individuals who issued seals with saintly images
did not usually select an image of their homonymous saint.43
Whatever the motive was for the iconographic choice of this seal owner, the
selection of images reflects a rather particular, specific and individual devotion.
Although the images of Archangel Michael and Saint Nicholas are among the
most popular sacred figures found on seals, their sphragistic pairing is strikingly
rare. Among the 574 purely iconographic anonymous seals in the Dumbarton
Oaks and Fogg collections, just 13, or 2.3%, unite the archangel and Nicholas.
Of the 11,506 seals that bear religious figural imagery drawn from the major pub
lished collections, just 21, or 0.2%, have depictions that include both Michael and
Nicholas, either together on one side or dispersed over the obverse and reverse.
These 21 seals reflect at least eight different owners. From the 21 seals that include
inscriptions indicating their owners’ titles and/or offices, a variety of officials are
found among the ecclesiastical, civil and military bureaucracies: monk, priest,
krites, hypatos and doux. The imagery of our seal, therefore, reflects a visual piety
that is not frequently depicted. It is highly personalized and individual in nature.
He or she may have preferred to link the images of two members of the heav
enly hierarchy who were most strongly associated with judgment after death and
the care of souls, reflecting his or her own spiritual need for powerful interces
sors. This bilateral arrangement functioned as a visual invocation to potent sacred
intermediaries on behalf of the seal owner while alive but also expressed his or
her hope for their divine assistance at the time of death.
Archangel Michael has a long history as a psychopompos, a sacred figure present
at the hour of an individual’s death and leading the soul into the next world.44 In the
middle Byzantine apocalypse tales, it is Michael who escorts travelers and souls
between this world and the other world where the visions of judgment and the pun
ishment of sinners take place, while all along the archangel pleads as a great inter
cessor for mercy on behalf of the sinners.45 In iconographic depictions of the Last
Judgment, archangels are customarily included as members of the heavenly court.46
In both a 12th-century icon of the Last Judgment from Sinai and the contempo
rary mosaic of the Anastasis/Last Judgment in the cathedral of Torcello, Archangel
43 J. Cotsonis, “Onomastics, Gender, Office and Images on Byzantine Lead Seals: A Means of Inves
tigating Personal Piety,” BMGS 32:1 (2008), 1–37.
44 O. Meinardus, “Der Erzengel Michael als Psychopompos,” Oriens Christianus 62 (1978), 166–68.
45 J. Baun, Tales from Another Byzantium: Celestial Journey and Local Community in the Medieval
Greek Apocrypha (Cambridge, 2007), 205–06, 235–38 and 297–99.
46 For more recent literature devoted to depictions of the Last Judgment, see Angheben, “Les Juge
ments derniers byzantins,” (see n. 1), 105–34; Ševčenko, “Images of the Second Coming,” (see
n. 3), 250–72; A. Volan, “Picturing the Last Judgment in the Last Days of Byzantium,” in The
Kariye Camii Reconsidered, ed. H. Klein, R. Ousterhout – B. Pitarakis (Istanbul, 2011), 423–46;
V. Marinis, Death and the Afterlife in Byzantium: The Fate of the Soul in Theology, Liturgy, and
Art (Cambridge, 2017), 53–73; and The Departure of the Soul According to the Teaching of the
Orthodox Church: A Patristic Anthology, ed. N. Hatzinikolaou (Florence, AZ, 2017), 458–680,
passim.
205
Michael is provided a prominent position close to Christ, and he is dressed in the

imperial loros and holds the scepter and globus cruciger as he does in the image
on our seal.47 Angels, albeit unnamed, are depicted as main participants in scenes
of death or the judgment of souls, as in the miniatures of the Heavenly Ladder of
John Klimax in Princeton, dated 1081; the prefatory miniatures of a psalter in the
Dionysiou monastery on Mount Athos, codex 65, from the second quarter of the
11th century; and in the miniatures illustrating the service for those struggling to
die, the canon εἰς ψυχοῤῥαγοῦντα (psychorragon) in the horologion on Lesbos,
Leimonos monastery cod. 295, belonging to the third quarter of the 12th century.48
But in the third verse of the fifth ode of this canon, the voice of the dying monk cries
out directly to Archangel Michael for aid at the moment of his death: “Save [me], O
great angelic power of God, Michael, leader of angels. I cannot anymore call your
holy name to help me. (Σῴζου ὁ μέγας ἄρχων Θεοῦ, Μιχαήλ ἀγγέλων ἀρχηγέ· οὐκ
ἔτι γάρ σου τὸ ἅγιον ὄνομα καλέσω τοῦ βοηθῆσαι μοι·).49 In the horologion, this
verse is accompanied by a miniature depicting the dying monk praying to an icon
of Archangel Michael suspended above him, in which the archangel is identified by
inscription and holds the lance and globe similar to the depiction on our seal.50 In
addition, it is known that the middle church, the heroon, of the imperial Pantokra
tor monastic complex in Constantinople was dedicated to Archangel Michael and
served as the mausoleum of the Komnenian dynasty.51Although later in time, it is
important to recall that among the 14th-century frescoes of the funerary chapel of
the Chora, also in Constantinople, the image of Archangel Michael, rendered in a
large medallion, is given a prominent position at the center of the arch of the bema
and in proximity to the scenes of the Anastasis and Last Judgment.52
47 For a convenient pairing of the Sinai icon and the Torcello mosaic, see Angheben, “Les Jugements
derniers byzantins,” 108–09, figs. 3 and 4.
48 Ševčenko, “Images of the Second Coming,” 268–72, where literature concerning the iconography
of death, the dating of the Dionysiou psalter, the dating of the service for the psychorragon, and
references to later Byzantine fresco examples of the canon are provided. For the manuscript of the
Heavenly Ladder, see S. Kotzabassi and N. Ševčenko, Greek Manuscripts at Princeton, Sixth to
Nineteenth Century: A Descriptive Catalogue (Princeton, 2010), 117, fig. 135. For images of the
Dionysiou psalter, see Pelekanidis et al., Treasures of Mount Athos, 419–20, figs. 118, 121 and
122. For the most recent scholarship on the illustrated canon of the psychorragon in the Leimonos
horologion, see Marinis, Death and the Afterlife in Byzantium, 49–73 and 107–30 He also provides
an English translation of the canon, 135–40.
49 Marinis, Death and the Afterlife in Byzantium, 137.
50 Ibidem, 122, fig. 38.
51 E. Congdon, “Imperial Commemoration and Ritual in the Typikon of the Monastery of Christ Pan
tokrator,” REB 54 (1996), 175–80; R. Ousterhout, “Architecture, Art and Komnenian Ideology at
the Pantokrator Monastery,” in Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday
Life, ed. Nevra Necipoǧlu (Leiden, 2001), 133 and 144–50; and P. Magdalino, “The Foundation of
the Pantokrator Monastery in Its Urban Setting,” in The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople,
ed. S. Kotzabassi (Berlin, 2013), 36 and 43–48.
52 P. Underwood, The Kariye Djami, 1: Historical Introduction and Description of the Mosaics
and Frescoes (New York, 1966), 242–43 and 3: Plates: the Frescoes, pls. 201 and 242; and S.
der Nersessian, “Program and Iconography of the Frescoes of the Parecclesion,” in The Kariye
206
As outlined above, images of Saint Nicholas were frequently placed in funerary

chapels or areas of churches associated with burial, acknowledging the saint’s
role in guaranteeing just judgment, especially as a great intercessor for souls after
death. It was also noted that this aspect of the saint was stressed in liturgical
hymns dedicated to him. Thus, both Archangel Michael and Saint Nicholas were
perceived not only as popular saints but as especially potent and fervent inter
cessors within the celestial hierarchy on behalf of the living and the dead. The
owner of our seal would therefore wisely have selected these sacred portraits for
his or her own personal seal, even if he did not share a homonymous relation with
either sacred personage. Nicholas’s shared aspects with the Mother of God also
help us explain his great popularity, even to the point where both holy figures
revealed their living presence through miraculous Constantinopolitan icons and
both could be depicted with the “Tongues of Fire,” especially during the second
half of the 11th century when our seal was produced. The sphragistic animated,
living image, or empsychos graphe, of Saint Nicholas, which may refer to one of
his two celebrated miraculous icons discussed above, offers the owner of our seal
the opportunity for a more intimate, empathetic and personally intense interac
tion with the holy hierarch, who along with the powerful psychopomp, Archangel
Michael, will ensure hope for continued protection and health in this life and for
a successful arrival among the blessed in the next.
Djami, 4: Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and Its Intellectual Background, ed. P. Under
wood (New York, 1975), 324–25. For recent discussion of the function of the parekklesion and
its fresco program, see S. Gerstel, “The Chora Parekklesion, the Hope for a Peaceful Afterlife,
and Monastic Devotional Practices,” The Kariye Camii Reconsidered, 129–45.
207
II
Sphragistic imagery and
personal piety
7
ONOMASTICS, GENDER, OFFICE

AND IMAGES ON BYZANTINE
LEAD SEALS
A means of investigating personal piety*
The Archbishop Iakovos Library,

Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology
Based upon a database of 7,390 lead seals that bear religious fig
ural imagery in conjunction with the names and official titles of
their owners, this paper investigates the contribution of lead seals
to our understanding of the choice of various religious images as
an expression of personal piety. The study examines the roles of
homonymity, gender, family names and official titles in individu
als’ selections of sacred images for their seals. Tables and figures
display the numerical and statistical results that are compared to
trends found in other media.
Introduction
The subjects of identity, gender and personal piety have received significant atten
tion in recent scholarship.1 Such studies depend on texts, sacred images, donor
portraits and inscriptions. Another important source for these areas of investi
gation, however, is the medium of Byzantine lead seals. Thousands of such lead
seals survive that bear inscriptions indicating the name of their owner and their
title or office held in conjunction with some form of religious figural imagery.
* I wish to thank Annemarie Weyl Carr for her insightful comments regarding an earlier version of
the material related to gender. Special appreciation is also extended to John Nesbitt for his helpful
discussions throughout the preparation of this paper as well as to the two anonymous readers. Funds
for the accompanying photographs were kindly provided by Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of
Theology.
1 For example, see Women, Men and Eunuchs: Gender in Byzantium, ed. Liz James (London 1997);
Desire and Denial in Byzantium, ed. Liz James (Aldershot 1999); A.-M. Talbot, Women and Reli
gious Life in Byzantium (Aldershot 2001); Byzantine Women and Their World, ed. I. Kalavrezou
(Cambridge, MA 2003); K. Ringrose, The Perfect Servant: Eunuchs and the Social Construction of
Gender in Byzantium (Chicago 2003); and C. Connor, Women of Byzantium (New Haven, CT 2004).
One should also consult the helpful website, Bibliography on Women in Byzantium, www.doaks.org/
womeninbyzantium.html. Recently, D. Smythe, ‘Gender’, Palgrove Advances in Byzantine History
(Basingstoke 2005) 157–65, provided a summary of current literature devoted to the study of gender
in Byzantium.
211
s p h r a g i s t i c i m a g e ry a n d p e r s o n a l p i e t y
Figure 7.1 Virgin standing praying, lead seal of Niketas, proedros, strategos of Samos
and logothetes of the dromos, 11th century, Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1947.2.146
An example is provided by an 11th-century seal issued by Niketas, proedros,

strategos of Samos and logothetes of the dromos, depicting the Virgin on the
obverse and the inscription on the reverse beginning with the invocation, Θ(εοτό)
κε Βοήθ(ει) – Theotokos, help (Figure 7.1).2 With such pieces, through images
and devotional formulae, individuals could offer a visual expression of their reli
gious devotions.3 The large number of lead seals, therefore, provides a unique
means of investigating the relationship between individual identity and the pic
torial expression of one’s personal piety not found in other media. The present
study will attempt to examine in some depth the various motives that may deter
mine the choice of imagery for an owner’s seal, specifically: likeness of name,
or homonymity; gender; family associations; or offices within the bureaucratic
administrations of the Empire.
This study draws upon a database I have created and maintained, consisting
of 7,390 seals from major catalogues.4 The seals I have selected are only those
2 J. Nesbitt and N. Oikonomides, Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg
Museum of Art II (Washington, DC, 1994) (hereafter DOSeals, II) no. 44.9.
3 N. Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead Seals (Washington, DC, 1985) 19; H. Hunger, ‘Der homo byzanti
nus und das Bleisiegel’, DOP 46 (1992) 123–27; and W. Seibt and M.-L. Zarnitz, Das byzantinische
Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk (Vienna 1997) 11 and 122.
4 The catalogues employed for the database can be found in the Appendix of this article. Duplicate
publication of identical specimens has been accounted for. Corrections regarding the dating of seals
or their iconography are based upon information provided by various published reviews and cor
rections to the catalogues; first-hand observations of the collections; and the use of Prof. Werner
Seibt’s photographic archive of lead seals at the Byzantine Institute in Vienna. The final version
212
onomastics, gender, office and image on seals
that bear religious figural imagery: Christ; the Virgin; saints; and Christological
scenes. The chronological limits of the evidence need to be explained. Religious
figural images begin to appear on seals in the 6th century and continue until the
end of the empire. After the 11th century, however, the total number of seals, both
iconographic and aniconic, begins to decline, and most precipitously, after the
12th century. Also, among the fewer seals surviving from the Palaiologan period,
the majority belonged to emperors and patriarchs who employed images of Christ
and the Virgin respectively for their seals. In light of these observations the pres
ent investigation will focus on seals from the 6th through the 12th centuries that
constitute a larger and more varied iconographic sample.
In addition to the chronological limits, a few words should be given concern
ing the nature of the sample size over time. The number of lead seals that were
produced and survive, both iconic and aniconic, fluctuates over the centuries. The
chronological distribution of the frequency of iconographic seals of this database
appears in Graph 7.2. What is striking is the dramatic increase in the quantity of
seals belonging to the 11th century. This is not due merely to an accident of sur
vival but rather reflects historical developments. The empire in the 11th century
experienced a revival in both urban life and that of the provinces.5 Such growth
necessitated a rise in the number of functionaries in the civil, military and eccle
siastical bureaucracies, leading to an increase in the amount of correspondence
issuing from these offices and, in turn, in the multiplication of seals. Also, in
the eleventh century, it is known that emperors increasingly distributed dignities
for political and financial reasons.6 Recipients of such titles would be quick to
produce new seals bearing inscriptions that would announce their new social sta
tus. Hand in hand with this social change and economic improvement, the 11th
century has also been described as a period of revival in learning.7 An increase
in scholarly and literary pursuits would imply an increase in correspondence
of this paper was prepared in the spring of 2005 and therefore does not include J. Nesbitt and N.
Oikonomides, Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art V
(Washington, DC, 2005); V. Šandrovskaja and W. Seibt, Byzantinische Bleisiegel der Staatlichen
Eremitage mit Familiennamen I (Vienna 2005); and I. Jordanov, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from
Bulgaria II: Byzantine Seals with Family Names (Sofia 2006).
5 A. Kazhdan and A. Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centu
ries (Berkeley 1985) passim and M. Gerolymatou, ‘Ἐμπόριο, κοινωνία καὶ αἰσθήσεις (11ος-12ος
αἰῶνας)’, Byzantium Matures: Choices, Sensitivities, and Modes of Expression (Eleventh to Fif
teenth Centuries), ed. C. Angelidi (Athens 2004) 257–68.
6 N. Oikonomides, ‘L’évolution de l’organisation administrative de l’empire byzantin au XIe siècle
(1025–1118)’, TM 6 (1976) 125 and idem, ‘Title and Income at the Byzantine Court’, Byzantine
Court Culture From 829–1204, ed. H. Maguire (Washington, DC, 1997) 199–215.
7 P. Lemerle, Cinq études sur le XIe siècle byzantin (Paris, 1977) 193–248; C. Niarchos, ‘The philo
sophical background of the eleventh-century revival of learning in Byzantium’, Byzantium and the
Classical Tradition, ed. M. Mullett and R. Scott (Birmingham 1981) 127–35; N. Wilson, Scholars
of Byzantium (Baltimore 1983) 179; Kazhdan and Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture, 120–66;
and M. Mullett, ‘Writing in Early Medieval Byzantium’, The Uses of Literacy in Early Mediaeval
Europe, ed. R. McKitterick (Cambridge 1990) 161.
213
Graph 7.1 Number of Religious Figural Iconographic Seals by Century
between the reading members of the culture, thereby creating a larger demand
for seals. These observations help to explain the significant increase in the total
number of iconographic seals appearing in the 11th century. The chronological
skewing of the data will be taken into consideration in the results discussed below.
Previous studies
Only a small number of sigillographic studies have focused on an attempt to under
stand the motives that determine a person’s choice of imagery for his or her seals.
Herbert Hunger, in a survey based on just a few examples, discussed the function
of the inscriptions and images found on seals as a means of understanding an
individual’s or group’s religious and social aspirations.8 He touched upon the fac
tors of homonymity, aristocratic family groups, and the iconographic choices of
high-ranking ecclesiastics. Jean-Claude Cheynet and Cécile Morrisson, also in an
overview drawing upon a few examples, presented broad trends in attempting to
analyze the various reasons behind sphragistic iconographic choice: homonymity;
gender; family groups; and titles held within the various Byzantine administrative
bureaucracies.9 Homonymity has also been cited in introductory surveys of Byzantine
8 Hunger, ‘Homo byzantinus’, 117–28.

9 J.-C. Cheynet and C. Morrisson, ‘Texte et image sur les sceaux byzantines: les raisons d’un choix
iconographique’, Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 4 (1995) 9–32.
214
lead seals as one of the factors in selecting images for one’s seals.10 The religious
devotions of some family groups and the loyalties among warring clans have been
seen as motives behind the iconographic choice for lead seals.11 Seals issued by
women, especially those of the aristocracy, and their preference for an image of
the Virgin have also been a topic of scholarly discussion.12 Elsewhere, the choice
of the image of Saint Theodore for the seals belonging to many military officials
in the eastern part of the empire has been explained on the basis of this region’s
proximity to the cult sanctuaries of the two Theodores: Saint Theodore Teron (the
Recruit) in Euchaïta and Theodore Stratelates (the Commander) in Euchaneia.13
The tendency of metropolitans and bishops to place the image of the patron saint
of their sees on their seals, in contrast to civil and military officials in the same
geographic regions, has also been studied.14 More recently, it has been shown
that the images of the Virgin and those of the 129 different saints that appear on
seals represent actually only a small fraction, less than 7%, of the holy figures
included in the various lists of saints known to the Byzantine Church.15 Such lim
ited selection of saints’ images indicates that seal owners also based their choices
of sphragistic imagery on strong cult traditions. Except for the latter two investi
gations, the previous studies employed only a small number of seals for illustra
tive purposes. This present investigation, too, draws upon a significantly larger
database, consisting of 7,390 published seals.
The role of homonymity in the choice of sphragistic images

It is commonly assumed that patrons of objects intended for religious use often
include a depiction of their homonymous saint as an expression of their personal
piety. Unfortunately, due to the loss of many objects and the lack of documenta
tion for most of the artifacts that do survive, the relative frequency with which
donors chose images of their homonymous saints cannot be determined. Yet
with the vast number of surviving lead seals the principle of homonymity in the
selection of devotional imagery can be tested. For some examples this is clearly
10 For example, Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead Seals 14; J.-C. Cheynet, ‘L’usage des sceaux à Byz
ance’, Res orientales 10 (1997) 25–6; and D. Tsougarakis, Εἰσαγωγὴ στὴ Βυζαντινὴ Σφραγιδογραφία
(Athens 1999) 40; and Seibt and Zarnitz, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel 5.3.8.
11 J.-C. Cheynet, ‘Par Saint Georges, par Saint Michel’, TM 14 (2002) 115–34.
12 J.-C. Cheynet, ‘Le rôle des femmes de l’aristocratie d’après les sceaux’, Sfragistika i Istorija
Kul’tury: Sbornik Naucnyh Trudov, Posvjascennyj Jubileju V. C. Šandrovskoj, ed. E. Stepanova
(St. Petersburg 2004) 30–49.
13 J.-C. Cheynet, ‘Le culte de Saint Théodore chez les officiers de l’armée d’orient’, Byzantium, State
and Society: In Memory of Niko Oikonomides, ed. A. Avramea, A. Laiou, and E. Chrysos (Athens
2003) 137–53.
14 J. Cotsonis, ‘Saints and cult centers: a geographic and administrative perspective in light of Byz
antine lead seals’, Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 8 (2003) 9–26.
15 J. Cotsonis, ‘The contribution of Byzantine lead seals to the study of the cult of the saints’, B 75
391–92.
215
Figure 7.2 Saint Basil, lead seal of Basil, Metropolitan of Thessalonike, 12th century,
evident, such as the 12th-century seal that belonged to a certain Basil, a metropol
itan of Thessalonike, who selected the image of Saint Basil for the obverse of his
seal along with the invocative inscription found on the reverse: ΟΜΩΝΥΜΟΝ
ϹΟΙ ΘΕΤΤΑΛΩΝ ΘΥΤΗΝ ϹΚΕΠΕ (Protect your namesake the metropolitan of
the Thessalians) (Figure 7.2).16
In Table 7.1, there is a list of 35 common Christian names out of 160, or 21.9%,
that appear on the seals of this database. For each name, the frequency with which
a person chose the image of his or her homonymous saint out of the total number
of instances that the Christian name appears on the seals is given along with the
corresponding percentage. The results are arranged in three categories: those with
greater than a 50% correspondence; those with at least a 30% concordance; and
those with less than 30%.
It is immediately apparent that of the 35 names, only six occur with images of
homonymous saints more than 30% of the time. Among the three with the highest
percentile values – that is, over 50% – Maria is the greatest. Of those women
named Maria, 35 of 39, or 89.7%, selected some iconographic type of the Virgin
for their seals.17 In the second category, the name of George occurs most fre
quently with his homonymous saint: 38.4%. From the third group, the percentile
values range between zero and 20.2%.
For those Christian names that have more than one homonymous saint, the
seals provide further insight. Among the 20 homonymous Gregorys, only two
Museum of Art I (Washington, DC, 1991) (hereafter DOSeals, I) no. 18.80.
17 The high correspondence between women with the name Maria and the image of the Virgin on
their seals was also noted by Cheynet, ‘Le rôle des femmes’, 40.
216
Table 7.1 Frequency of Homonymous Saints on Lead Seals (6th-12th centuries)
I. GREATER THAN 50%:

NAME FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
Demetrios 17/24 70.8%
Maria (for Virgin) 35/39 89.7%
Nicholas 128/239 53.6%
II. GREATER THAN 30%:
George 83/216 38.4%
Michael 170/475 35.8%
Theodore 97/321 30.2%
III. LESS THAN 30%:
Alexios 0/66 0.0%
Andronikos 0/34 0.0%
Anna 1/26 3.8%
Anthony 3/19 15.8%
Basil 45/304 14.8%
Christopher 1/55 1.8%
Constantine 4/543 0.9%
Epiphanios 1/37 2.7%
Eudokia 0/18 0.0%
Eustathios 5/39 12.8%
Eustratios 3/24 12.5%
Euthymios 3/36 8.3%
Gregory 20/99 20.2%
Irene 0/13 0.0%
John 141/752 18.8%
Kosmas 0/33 0.0%
Leo 1/335 0.3%
Nikephoros 5/205 2.4%
Niketas 14/218 6.4%
Paul 4/34 11.8%
Peter 14/78 17.9%
Romanos 0/90 0.0%
Stephen 21/140 15.0%
Symeon 5/49 10.2%
Theodora 0/11 0.0%
Theodosios 0/44 0.0%
Theophylaktos 1/53 1.9%
Theophanes 0/33 0.0%
Thomas 5/35 14.3%
depict Gregory Thaumatourgos (the Wonderworker), while the rest are images of
Gregory the Theologian (of Nazianzos). Of the 141 examples of the homonymous
Johns, the iconographic breakdown is as follows: 81 bear images of John the
Baptist, or Prodromos (the Forerunner); 45 depict John Chrysostom; 14 represent
John the Theologian (the Evangelist); and one has the image of John Kalybites,
a 5th-century ascetic. Only two of the 21 homonymous Stephens bear an image
of Stephen the Younger, the Iconophile martyr of the 8th century, whereas the
remaining portray the sainted deacon of the New Testament. At least as far as
these examples indicate, whenever there is a choice in selecting a homonymous
saint, the seals identify which is the more popular holy patron. These relative
sphragistic popularities reflect the general preferences for these same holy indi
viduals within the wider Byzantine culture.18
The data from Table 7.1 demonstrate that the majority of individuals did not
select an image of their homonymous saint for their seals. Of 35 names, 32 demon
strate less than a 50% homonymity with respect to iconography, and most of these
(i.e. 29) show less than 30%. The overall low correspondence of these results
requires a reconsideration of the role of the homonymous saint in the expression
of personal piety and in the related realm of religious artistic patronage in general.
Caution, therefore, should be the rule when attributing objects bearing religious
figures to unverifiable homonymous donors for, statistically, the evidence of the
seals weakens hypotheses of this sort.
As seen in Graph 7.1, the chronological weight of the data requires comment.
By far, the largest number of seals belongs to the 11th century followed by those
assigned to the 11th/12th and 12th centuries for the reasons previously outlined.
From the 35 most common names listed in Table 7.1, 381 seals belong to the 6th
through the 8th/9th centuries. Of these, 21 seals, or 5.5%, bear images of homony
mous saints. From the 9th through the 9th/10th centuries, there are 138 seals from
the list of 35 common names. Among these seals, eight, or 5.8%, depict a homon
ymous saintly figure. Of the 280 seals representing the 10th century, 48, or 17.1%,
bear homonymous saints’ images. Of the 258 seals of the 10th/11th century, 54,
or 20.9%, represent owners with homonymous saintly portraits. From the 2,529
11th-century seals from this list, 490, or 19.4%, exhibit the representation of the
owners’ homonymous holy patron. Among the 596 seals included in the list of 35
names that belong to the 11th/12th century, 112, or 18.8%, reflect a homonymous
correspondence of image and owner’s name. Of the 542 belonging to the 12th
century, 94, or 17.3%, have the image of a homonymous saint.
These data indicate that for the pre-Iconoclastic era and the period of the Icono
phile interlude, the significance of the homonymous saint for image selection was
18 For the relative popularity of the different saints’ images found on seals, see Cotsonis, ‘The contri
bution of Byzantine lead seals’. For an examination of the relative popularity of saints based upon
the number of surviving hagiographic texts, see P. Halsall, ‘Women’s bodies, men’s souls: sanctity
and gender in Byzantium’, Ph.D. dissertation (Fordham 1999).
218
minimal. A similar conclusion can be drawn for the period immediately follow
ing the Iconophile victory. It is from the 10th century onwards that the role of
the homonymous saint takes on greater meaning in the selection for images by
seal owners. The 10th century witnessed the greatest percentile increase: from
the previous 5.8% to 17.1% – that is, almost triple the ratio, or approximately a
270% increase in percentage. The data demonstrate that the highest ratio is for the
10th/11th century followed by a slow decline through the 12th century.
This chronological trend in homonymity can be understood in light of overall
developments in sphragistic imagery. In the pre-Iconoclastic period, the majority
of religious iconographic seals bear an image of the Virgin. This Marian pref
erence peaks as the Iconophile emblem par excellence during the years of the
Iconophile interlude when the percentage of iconographic seals with images of
the Theotokos reaches 77.1% for the 8th/9th century.19 From the 9th century the
percentage of Marian images on seals continuously declines to the lowest level at
22% in the 10th/11th century. Conversely, this is the span of time that witnessed
the increasing percentage of seals bearing images of saints. The largest percentile
rise in the percentage of seals with images of saints occurred in the 10th cen
tury, and the ratio peaked at 72.6% in the 10th/11th century.20 Not only did the
percentile ratios of saintly sphragistic figures increase, but the number of actual
different saints appearing on seals rose: 12 in the 9th/10th century; 30 in the 10th
century; 39 in the 10th/11th century; and ultimately 81 in the 11th century.21 Thus,
in the middle Byzantine period, with the increasing percentage of iconographic
seals, there is a corresponding increase in the percentage of seals with hagiog
raphic images until the 11th through the 12th centuries when the Virgin’s image
again dominates.22 With the increased variety of saints’ images there is the greater
opportunity and freedom for an owner of a seal to select the image of his or her
homonymous saint. This reflects the context for the observed trend in homonym
ity with respect to selection of seal imagery for this same period. Although the
overall results for homonymity are low, the greater preference for homonymous
saints, however, is seen to occur in the middle Byzantine period, most especially
during the 10th/11th and 11th centuries.
The chronological trend in the sphragistic data exhibiting greater freedom in
placing various saints on seals, and even the chronological preference for hom
onymous saints, is another piece of evidence in our understanding of the 11th
century as a time of increasing individualism and atomization within Byzantine
society. This is especially true regarding the development of private devotional
practices and the use of images.23 From the sigillographic material, the late
19 Cotsonis, ‘The contribution of Byzantine lead seals’, 400–05.

21 Cotsonis, ‘The contribution of Byzantine lead seals’, 410.
23 Kazhdan and Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture, 86–7, 90–3, 97 and 233 and H. Belting, Like
ness and Presence: A History of the Image Before the Era of Art (Chicago 1994) 225–33 For more
219
10th through the 11th centuries are shown to be the time of the greatest vari
ety of choice of images for owners of seals. This freer attitude towards image
selection gave visual expression to the increasing role of the seal owners’ per
sonal choice in their acts of piety, indicating this was the best of times for the
individual.
The overall low correspondence of homonymity, however, found in the sphrag
istic evidence in Table 7.1 parallels trends in other areas related to the expression
of Byzantine religious life. Of the 19 painted churches of Cyprus surveyed by
Andreas and Judith Stylianou, none of the names of the donors is the same as
that of the holy figure selected for the dedication of their respective church.24
Among 37 religious manuscripts containing images of holy figures discussed by
Iohannis Spatharakis, only three exhibit a correspondence of homonymous patron
and saintly figure.25 From the 77 13th-century churches in Greece that comprise
Sophia Kalopissi-Verti’s study of dedicatory inscriptions and donor portraits, just
five cases offer some correlation of homonymous donor and saintly dedication.26
This trend is repeated among the icons discussed by Nancy Ševcenko in her dis
cussion of donors and holy figures.27
The image that is chosen most frequently by individuals for their seals is that
of the Virgin. Her depiction is ubiquitous: of the 7,390 specimens that comprise
the entire database for this study, 3,188, or 43.1%, bear some type of image of the
Theotokos. This number represents the largest single iconographic group of seals.
This percentile preference for choosing a Marian image reflects the intense devo
tion to her cult on the part of the Byzantines and their appeal to her intercessory
powers. The Mother of God was well known as the intercessor par excellence,
a unique position she enjoyed as the Mother who could move her Divine Son to
compassion on behalf of believers.28
recent discussion concerning the 11th and 12th centuries as the beginning of a transformation in
Byzantine culture with reference to the individual, see A. Cutler, ‘Change and causation in later
Byzantine art’, Byzantium Matures, 23–52; K. Ierodiakonou, ‘The self-conscious style of some
Byzantine philosophers (11th-14th Century)’, Byzantium Matures, 99–110; and M. Panayotidi,
‘Donor personality traits in 12th-century painting: some examples’, Byzantium Matures, 145–66.
24 A. Stylianou and J. Stylianou, ‘Donors and dedicatory inscriptions, supplicants and supplications
in the painted churches of Cyprus’, JÖB 9 (1960) 97–128.
25 I. Spatharakis, The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts (Leiden 1976) passim.
26 S. Kalopissi-Verti, Dedicatory Inscriptions and Donor Portraits in Thirteenth-Century Churches
of Greece (Vienna 1992) passim.
27 N. Ševčenko, ‘The representation of donors and holy figures on four Byzantine icons’, Δελτίον τῆς
Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 17 (1994) 157–64.
28 For a general discussion of the Virgin as intercessor, see I. Kalavrezou, ‘Images of the Mother:
when the Virgin Mary became Meter Theou’, DOP 44 (1990) 165–72; eadem, ‘The maternal side
of the Virgin’, Mother of God: Representations of The Virgin in Byzantone Art, ed. M. Vassilaki
(Athens 2000), 41–6; J. Cotsonis, ‘The Virgin and Justinian on seals of the Ekklesiekdikoi of Hagia
Sophia’, DOP 56 (2002) 52–5; and N. Tsironis, ‘From poetry to liturgy: the cult of the Virgin in the
middle Byzantine era’, Images of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium,
ed. M. Vassilaki (Aldershot 2005) 91–9.
220
The role of gender

Another aspect of Table 7.1 requiring comment is that of the choices made by
women for their seals. It should be kept in mind that the total number of seals
belonging to women is extremely small in comparison to that of men. The vast
majority of the seals included in this investigation belonged to those who held
positions in the civil, military and ecclesiastical bureaucracies, all institutions
governed by men. Here, the five female names appearing in Table 7.1 total
only 107 pieces, comprising a combined sample size smaller than that of 11 of
the individual masculine names listed. From the 7,390 seals in this entire data
base, just 176, or 2.4%, belonged to women, representing 22 different names.
Despite this limitation, important information can still be gleaned, especially
when one recalls that seals provide the largest number of surviving objects
in any medium that bear female names in conjunction with figural religious
imagery.
The most obvious trend that one can also discern from the sphragistic mate
rial is the frequency with which women actually do choose an image of the
Theotokos. It was shown above that the vast number of women named Maria
selected an image of the Virgin for their seals: 35 of 39, or 89.7%. Women in
general chose some kind of image of the Virgin for their seals; thus, homonym
ity was not the prime motive behind female choice. Of the 176 seals owned
by women, 141, or 80.1%, selected some form of Marian iconography. This
statistic testifies to the strong correlation between female devotions and the cult
of the Virgin and supports observations made by various scholars.29 Table 7.2
presents the frequency and percentage of images of the Virgin on seals issued
by women according to Christian name for the 6th through 12th centuries. Of
the 139 seals represented in this table, 116, or 83.5%, depict an image of the
Theotokos. Among the 19 female names appearing in Table 2, only three seals
belong to the pre-Iconoclastic period: one of the seals issued by a Maria and
the one seal issued each by a Markellia and a Melissa. Each of these specimens
bears an image of the Virgin. All of the other examples belong to women of the
middle Byzantine period, with the majority (62) assigned to the 11th century.
With just three early examples, little can be gleaned regarding women’s prefer
ences for sphragistic iconography in the pre-Iconoclastic era even if these three
depict Marian iconography. But for women of the middle Byzantine period, the
seals demonstrate a high correspondence between the female sex and a desire for
representations of the Virgin.
Ιt would be useful to determine whether such choices were based upon gender
alone or if other factors contributed to this association. It is important to recall
that the image of the Virgin was also the most frequently selected sphragistic
29 The literature related to the religious life of Byzantine women has grown considerably. See the
website, Bibliography on Women in Byzantium, www.doaks.org/womeninbyzantium.html, and the
discussion by Smythe, ‘Gender’, 157–65.
221
Table 7.2 Frequency of Images of the Virgin on Seals of Women (6th-12th centuries)
NAME of WOMAN FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Anna 22/26 84.6%
Arete 1/1 100.0%
Catherine 1/1 100.0%
Doukaina 1/1 100.0%
Eudokia 16/18 88.9%
Euphemia 4/4 100.0%
Euphrosyne* 2/2 100.0%
Gregoria 1/1 100.0%
Helen** 2/2 100.0%
Irene*** 8/12 66.7%
Kale 1/1 100.0%
Maria 35/39 89.7%
Markellia 1/1 100.0%
Melissa 1/1 100.0%
Thekla 1/1 100.0%
Theodora**** 5/11 45.5%
Theophano 4/5 80%
Xene 6/7 85.7%
Zoe***** 4/4 100%
* One with the scene of the Annunciation
** One with the image of Saint Thomas on the reverse
*** Two with scenes of the Annunciation
**** One with the scene of the Annunciation and 1 with the Dormition
***** One with the scene of the Annunciation and 1 with the Dormition
figure for men. Of 6,488 seals issued by men30 and bearing religious figural ico
nography, 2,732, or 42.1%, placed the Theotokos on their seals. This is the single
largest iconographic selection made by men. After the Virgin, other saintly fig
ures are found on their seals at a much lower frequency. Although men exhibit a
wider variety of figural choices, which reflects the larger sample size, the image
of the Virgin is still by far the most popular selection for them as it is for women.
More importantly for this investigation, it is significant to observe that the three
examples of seals from the database that depict an image of the Nursing Virgin,
or Theotokos Galaktotrophousa, belonged to men (Figure 7.3).31 Women did not
30 This number reflects the total of 7,390 iconographic seals of the database minus those seals issued by
various institutional groups (such as monastic communities, diakoniai, the tribunal of the ekklesiek
dikoi), emperors (who usually selected an image of Christ), empresses (who usually selected an
image of the Virgin), patriarchs (who usually selected an image of the Virgin), and all other women.
31 DOSeals, III, 53.8. The other two specimens are V. Šandrovskaja, ‘Sfragistika’, Iskusstvo Vizantii
v Sobranijach SSSR. Katalog Vystavki, II (Moscow 1977) no. 802 and G. Zacos, Byzantine Lead
222
Figure 7.3 Nursing Virgin, lead seal of Romanos, Metropolitan of Kyzikos, 11th century,
Harvard Art Museums/Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University, Cam
bridge, MA, Bequest of Thomas Whittemore, BZS.1951.31.5.707
adopt this image for their seals in order to present themselves as mothers, modeled
on the Mother of God.
As discussed above, one reason why women selected an image of the Virgin for
their seals was homonymity: the vast majority of women named Maria placed an
image of the Theotokos on their seals. Yet in a few instances men are known to
have preferred an image of the Virgin based upon onomastic connections. A cer
tain Manuel of the 11th century selected the Theotokos and Child for his seal,
which is accompanied by a play on words on his name and the role of the Mother
of God in the inscription: ΕΜΜΑΝΟΥΗΛ ΤΕΚΟΥϹΑ, ΜΑΝΟΥΗΛ ϹΚΕΠΟΙϹ
(Emmanuel you bore, Manuel you protect).32 A George Drosos placed an image
of the Virgin and Child on his seal accompanied by the following text that con
nects his family name with the consoling aspect of the Theotokos: ΓΕΩΡΓΙΩΝ
ΔΡΟϹΙϹΟΝ ΑΓΝΗ ΤΟΝ ΔΡΟϹΟΝ (O Pure One, refresh [drosison] George Dro
sos).33 Here the family name Drosos, the Greek word also for dew (δρόσος), is
the identical term employed for the moisture that fell miraculously upon Gideon’s
fleece in the Old Testament (Judges 6:36–40), an event long understood as a pre
figuration of the Virgin’s role in the Incarnation. The miracle of Gideon’s fleece is
Seals, II, ed. J. Nesbitt (Berne 1984) no. 879. For discussion of the iconography of the Nursing
Virgin, which includes the sphragistic evidence, see A. Cutler, ‘The Cult of the Galaktotrophousa
in Byzantium and Italy’, JÖB 37 (1987) 335–50.
32 Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, no. 565.
33 C. Stavrakos, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel mit Familiennamen aus der Sammlung des Numisma
tischen Museums Athen (Wiesbaden 2000) no. 79.
223
again referred to in Psalm 71:6: ‘He shall come down like rain upon a fleece’ and
in the marginal psalters, this verse, too, was provided with an image of the Virgin
and Child, as in the Theodore Psalter of 1066.34 Thus for the Byzantines, the name
Drosos enjoyed an association with the Theotokos, and it is understandable why a
member of this family would select an image of the Virgin for his seal.
The sigillographic material also indicates that on occasion women selected
the image of the Virgin when they belonged to monastic foundations dedicated
to the Mother of God. A certain 11th-century Eudokia placed a Marian figure
with the epithet ΠΕΡΙΔΟΞΟϹ (Peridoxos, renowned or famous) on her seal, and
the inscription identifies the owner as a nun of a homonymous monastic house.35
Of course, institutional affiliation was a factor that also influenced men’s icono
graphic choices, as seen in the example of Symeon, an 11th-century abbot of a
monastery dedicated to the Theotokos whose seal also bears a depiction of the
Virgin and Child.36
Inscriptions that accompany Marian sphragistic images provide additional
insight towards evaluating similarities or differences in choices of figures with
respect to gender. The most common invocation associated with representations
of the Virgin is ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕ ΒΟΗΘΕΙ (Theotokos, help): of the 3,188 seals bear
ing an image of the Theotokos in the total database, 1,207, or 37.7%, include
this petition. This invocation accompanies sphragistic images of the Virgin from
the 6th/7th century onwards. Other terms included in the seals’ inscriptions that
reflect either Mary’s virginal purity or her motherhood occur at a much lower
frequency and within a narrower chronological range. Of the following cases,
only three seals are assigned to the 9th through 10th centuries. All the oth
ers belong to the 11th and 12th centuries. Examples of such terms are: (ΠΑΝ)
ΑΓΝΗ ([all] pure); ΑΜΩΜΗ (spotless); ΑΧΡΑΝΤΗ (undefiled); ΜΗΤΗΡ
(mother); ΜΗΤΡΟΠΑΡΘΕΝΕ (virgin-mother); and ΠΑΡΘΕΝΕ (virgin). Of
the 2,732 men who chose the Virgin for their seals, 252, or 9.2%, employed
one of these terms in the invocative inscriptions; while of the 141 women who
placed some kind of image of the Virgin on their seals, eight, or 5.7%, included
these terms. Although the percentile use of these Marian invocative epithets
is small for both genders, the sphragistic evidence indicates that men tended
to invoke the Theotokos in terms of her virginal and maternal aspects more
than women. Moreover, only men, and not women, used the terms ΜΗΤΗΡ
(mother) or ΜΗΤΡΟΠΑΡΘΕΝΕ (virgin-mother), thus calling on Mary’s moth
erly character as a means of devotional focus. Again, only men employed the
34 S. Der Nersessian, L’illustration des psautiers grecs du moyen âge, II (Paris 1970) 38, Pl. 51, Fig.
149. For a discussion of this typology, see E. Kitzinger, ‘The descent of the dove: observations
on the mosaic of the Annunciation in the Cappella Palatina in Palermo’, Byzanz und der Westen,
ed. I. Hutter (Vienna 1984) 107–09. See also A. Kartsonis, Anastasis: The Making of an Image
(Princeton 1986) 191–203.
35 V. Laurent, Le corpus de sceaux de l’empire byzantin, v: 3 (Paris 1965) no. 1294bis.
36 Laurent, Corpus, v: 3, no. 1291, no. 1291.
224
terms ΑΧΡΑΝΤΗ (undefiled) and ΠΑΡΘΕΝΕ (virgin) in their exclamations of

the Mother of God’s purity. These results appear to support Robin Cormack’s
views that women were not especially devoted to the Virgin as a role model
based on gender.37
In addition to the invocation ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕ ΒΟΗΘΕΙ (Theotokos, help) accom
panying these Marian sphragistic images, other supplicatory inscriptions are
employed for the Virgin. A few examples are: ϹΚΕΠΟΙϹ (protect); ϹΥΜΠΑΤΤΕ
(be compassionate); ϹΩΖΟΙϹ (save); ΦΡΟΥΡΕΙ (watch over); or ΦΥΛΑΤΤΕ
(guard). Of the 2,732 men who selected an image of the Virgin for their seals, 151,
or just 5.5%, incorporated these addresses to the Theotokos, while four of the 141,
or a mere 2.8%, of the women who placed the Virgin on their seals made use of
similar prayers. Although both values are low, the data again indicate a preference
of men for these Marian invocations. Also, like the particular epithets referring
either to Mary’s motherhood or purity, these sigillographic supplications, except
for two specimens, all belong to the 11th and 12th centuries.
This large body of sigillographic material can, therefore, contribute to our
understanding of the relation of gender and the cult of the Theotokos. The com
parative conclusions must be limited, however, to the middle Byzantine period
because only three of the seals issued by women in the database are from the
pre-Iconoclastic centuries. Both men and women turned to the Mother of God as
the most popular devotional figure and with similar needs: onomastic relations;
devotional concerns; institutional affiliations; and a host of intercessory invo
cations. The employment of the maternal and virginal epithets addressed to the
Theotokos, along with the more urgent and articulated supplicatory invocations,
were observed almost exclusively on the seals of the 11th and 12th centuries.
These qualitative and intimate expressions of personal piety played out on the
seals parallel similar trends in the wider Byzantine culture of the 11th and 12th
centuries as observed by various scholars discussing the increased intimacy with
images.38 Gender alone is not responsible for determining one’s sphragistic image
but rather the perception that the cult figure (in this case: the Theotokos) functions
as a powerful intercessor.
What of the 35 of the 176 seals owned by women, or 19.9%, that did not bear an
image of the Virgin: what did they depict? A variety of selections was available:
one selected Anna; one Anthony; two George; two John the Baptist (Prodromos);
two Michael; three Nicholas; one Panteleimon; one Stephen; one Thomas; and one
is unidentifiable. The one image of Anna was chosen as a homonymous saint.39
Some women directed their devotions to more than one holy figure simultane
ously, as seen from two examples where the Virgin appears on the obverse of their
37 R. Cormack, ‘Women and icons, and women in icons’, Women, Men and Eunuchs: Gender in
Byzantium, 34, esp. nos. 29 and 30, citing the work of Caroline Walker Bynum.
38 See references in note 23 above.
39 N. Lihačev, Istoričeskoe značene italo-grečeskoj ikonopisi izobrazenija Bogomateri (St. Peters
burg 1911) 253.
225
seals and Michael and Thomas appear on the reverse, respectively.40 Fourteen
seals belonging to women from the 10th through 12th centuries bear the image
of Christ. Except for two, one who was the daughter of an emperor and the other,
a sebaste, the wife of a high-ranking court official, the rest of these belonged to
empresses from the 11th and 12th centuries.41 Usually, after Iconoclasm, emper
ors selected the image of Christ for their seals while empresses took that of the
Virgin.42 Although it is not certain why all these imperial women selected Christ’s
portrait, in two cases there is an available explanation. Eudokia Makrembolitissa
as consort (1059–1071) selected the Mother of God for her seals,43 but as the regent
for her sons (1067), she chose Christ’s portrait as if she were the ruling emperor.44
Theodora, the sister of Zoe, placed the image of Christ on her seals when she also
possessed sole imperial authority (1055–1056).45 Thus, when women perceived
themselves as emperors rather than consorts, they used imperial imagery for their
seals. For the other women, possibly the enhanced perception of elite women in
Byzantine culture, beginning in the 11th and 12th centuries, provided a context
in which imperial and aristocratic women could freely adopt an image that was
traditionally employed for emperors, homonymous monastic institutions and a
few men of other offices.46 Thus the presence of Christ and various male saints on
seals of female owners, although small in number, indicates that women were not
40 Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, no. 905, pl. 87 and V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de l’empire
byzantin, v:3 (Paris 1972) no. 2014bis.
41 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1 no. AE2676 and N. Lihačev, Molivdovuly grečeskogo
vostoka, ed. V. Šandrovskaja (Moscow 1991) 117, Pl. LXIV, no. 11, respectively.
42 For a chronological sequence of imperial seals, see Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1,
nos. 1–128bis, Plates 9–31.
43 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, nos. 89 and 90.
44 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, no. 91 and Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in
Österreich, I (Vienna 1978) no. 23.
45 Lihačev, Molivdovuly, 255–6; Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, no. 81; and Seibt, Die
byzantinischen Bleisiegel, no. 19.
46 Cheynet and Morrisson, ‘Texte et image’, 25–6, also noted this phenomenon and likewise sug
gested that the status of imperial women rose during the 11th and 12th centuries but that the prac
tice of empresses placing an image of Christ on their seals in the Palaiologan period did not occur
and reflected a possible return to a previous status whereby empresses placed an image of the Vir
gin on their seals. The latest example, however, of an empress choosing an image of Christ for her
seals is that of Irene Comnene (1222–1241) who placed the image of Christ Lytrotes (Redeemer)
on her seals. For a specimen, see Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, no. 119. For the
enhanced role of elite women in Byzantine culture, especially in the 11th and 12th centuries, see A.
Laiou, ‘The role of women in Byzantine society’, JÖB 31 (1981) 233–60; L. Garland, Byzantine
Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium, AD 527–1204 (London, 1999), 136–228, passim;
T. Gouma-Peterson, ‘Gender and power: passages to the maternal in Anna Komnene’s Alexiad’,
Anna Komnene and Her Times, ed. T. Gouma-Peterson (New York 2000) 107–24; and Connor,
Women of Byzantium, 207–316, passim. For criticism of Garland’s thesis, that elite women of the
11th and 12th century were able to escape the traditionally restrictive ideology of their culture, see
B. Hill, ‘Imperial women and the ideology of womanhood in the eleventh and twelfth centuries’,
Women, Men and Eunuchs, 76–99.
226
restricted to a gender identification in the realm of their personal piety, an obser

vation noted by others such as Judith Herrin.47
The motives for these choices of male figures by female seal owners are not
discernable for the majority of specimens. From sigillographic evidence, we
know that Anna Dalassene placed the image of the Virgin and Child on her lead
seals, yet in the Alexiad, her granddaughter Anna Komnene notes that when Anna
Dalassene acted as proxy for her son, the emperor Alexios I, during the month of
August, she had seals depicting scenes of the Transfiguration and the Dormition.48
Since these represent the two major liturgical celebrations of that month, her
choice may have reflected this seasonal association with her rule. As this example
indicates, there often is no single answer standing behind these women’s, and for
that matter, any individual’s choice of religious devotions and images.
There remains one important piece of evidence that demonstrates that prefer
ence of image need not correspond to gender identification. From the 52 examples
of 13 different female saints found depicted on lead seals, only one was issued by
a woman: as noted above, this seal belonged to Anna who selected her homony
mous patron Anna, the mother of the Virgin.49 Thus it appears that women did not
generally foster the cults of their saintly sisters, an important observation to keep
in mind when attempting to assign images of holy women to a female clientele.
With the one exception noted above, seals bearing portraits of female saints
belonged to men. The majority of these saints were selected by individuals from
the ranks of the clergy, in most cases those associated with shrines dedicated to
these particular holy women. For example, all of the representations of Euphemia
belong to metropolitans of Chalcedon where the saint’s shrine was a center of
pilgrimage.50
Numerically, the female saints are not well represented by the sphragistic
material: just 52 of the total of 7,390 seals, or 0.7%, have depictions of holy
women. Given these data, it would be safe to conclude that their cults were not
47 J. Herrin, ‘Women and the faith in icons in early Christianity’, Culture, Ideology and Politics, ed.
R. Samuel and G. Stedman Jones (London 1982) 64–7 and eadem, ‘In search of Byzantine women:
three avenues of approach’, Images of Women in Antiquity, ed. Av. Cameron and A. Kuhrt (Detroit
1983) 181.
48 For her seals, see Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3, nos. 2695a and b and J.-C.
Cheynet and J.-F. Vannier, Études prosopographiques (Paris 1986), ‘Les Dalassènoi’, no. 16. For
more recent discussion of the titles on Anna Dalassene’s seals, see E. Malamut, ‘Une femme poli
tique d’exception à Byzance’, Femmes et pouvoirs des femmes à Byzance et en Occident (VIe-XIe
siècles), ed. S. Lebecq et al. (Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex 1999) 116–8. For the historical reference
to Anna Dalassene’s seals, see Annae Comnenae Alexias, ed. D. Reinsch, A. Kambylis and F.
Kolovou (Berlin and New York 2001) 102. Examples of these seals do not survive. Cheynet and
Vannier, Études prosopographiques, 97–8 and Malamut, ‘Une femme politique’, 117–8, suggest
that these seals were made of wax.
49 See note 39 above. For a discussion of the female saints found on lead seals, see Cotsonis, ‘The
contribution of Byzantine lead seals’, 477–86.
50 For some examples of these seals, see DOSeals, III, no. 77.1–77.4 and 77.7.
227
very popular.51 Female saints appear to be “site-specific,” limited to particular

shrines or regions. Their cults are not widely fostered by either men or women,
even though these saints have a place within the ecclesiastical calendar and within
the programs of church decorations.52 Yet, when included in the liturgical com
memorations and examples of monumental art, the presence of female saints
remains statistically small when compared to their male counterparts.53 Possibly
this reflects a transference of the lower status assigned to women within Byz
antine society onto their celestial counterparts. Images of holy women are also
rarely found on other small objects intended for private use, such as steatites and
ivory carvings.54
Thus, it does not appear that female saints were the particular recipients or
focus of women’s devotions and intercessory prayers. Only in a small number
of instances is there evidence for such gender-related piety. In the Laudatio of
Thomais of Lesbos by Konstantine Akropolites, writing in the late 13th century,
the 10th-century saint is likened to Susanna, Thekla and Barbara.55 In 1341, when
the convent of the Theotokos of Maroules in Constantinople became a male mon
astery, the frescoes of female saints in the refectory were replaced by images of
holy men.56 In the 14th-century typikon of the convent of the Theotokos Bebaia
Elpis (Mother of God of Sure Hope), also in Constantinople, a materikon con
taining the vitae of female saints is listed as appropriate reading material for nuns
who were to regard these saints as living images and inspiring figures.57 These
51 See Cotsonis, ‘The contribution of Byzantine lead seals’, 477–86 and Halsall, ‘Women’s bodies,
men’s souls’, 110–21.
52 For the discussion of images of female saints within iconographic programs of churches, see S.
Gerstel, ‘Painted sources for female piety in medieval Byzantium’, DOP 52 (1998) 89–112; C.
Connor, ‘Female saints in church decoration of the Troodos Mountains in Cyprus’, Medieval
Cyprus: Studies in Art, Architecture, and History in Memory of Doula Mouriki, ed. N. Ševčenko
and C. Moss (Princeton 1999) 211–40; and Connor, Women of Byzantium, 190–205.
53 For an overview of this material, see Cotsonis, ‘The contribution of Byzantine lead seals,’ 485–86.
54 I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, Byzantine Icons in Steatite (Vienna 1985) no. 51: Paraskeve; Pelagia;
Matrona; and Anastasia; and no. 102: Anastasia and Mary of Egypt and A. Goldschmidt and
K. Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des X.-XIII. Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1934
[repr. Berlin 1979]) no. 38: Anna; Barbara; and Thekla. See also A. Cutler, The Hand of the Mas
ter: Craftsmanship, Ivory, and Society in Byzantiun (9th-11th Centuries) (Princeton, NJ 1994)
236, fig. 242.
55 Laudatio S. Thomaïdis a. Constantino Acropolita, AASS, Novembris IV, 243.
56 F. Miklosich and J. Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, I (Vienna
1860) 222. See A.-M. Talbot, ‘A comparison of the monastic experience of Byzantine men and
women’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 30 (1985) 7–8 (repr. in her Women and Religious
Life) and eadem, ‘The conversion of Byzantine monasteries from male to female and vice-versa’,
ΠΟΛΥΠΛΕΥΡΟΣ ΝΟΥΣ: Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, ed C. Scholz
and G. Makris (Leipzig 2000) 360–4.
57 H. Delehaye, Deux typica byzantins de l’époque des Paléologues (Brussels 1921) 35–6 (repr. in
his Synaxaires byzantins, ménologes, typica, ed. F. Halkin [London 1977]). For discussion of this
monastery and the English translation of the typikon, see ‘Bebaia Elpis: Typikon of Theodora Syn
adene for the convent of the Mother of God Bebaia Elpis in Constantinople’, trans. A.-M. Talbot,
228
references to gender correspondence are exceptional. In her study of six manu

script collections of female saints’ lives, or materika, Claudia Rapp demonstrated
that such gender-specific texts did not presuppose an audience of women and
that numbers of examples exist whereby the intended audience of hagiographical
material was of the opposite sex than that of the subject matter.58
Sigillographic evidence offers us a varied picture concerning the role of gender
in the selection of images. Seals demonstrate that both men and women were espe
cially devoted to the Virgin. Their concerns were similar when expressing their
invocations to her. Mary’s sphragistic popularity attests to her role as the most
powerful of intercessors. The ambiguity with which her cult was perceived by
both sexes corresponds to work related to the study of western medieval women.
Caroline Walker Bynum cautioned modern readers that religious symbols are pol
ysemic, that gender is a complex notion and that there is no clear association of
women and men with the saints of their own sex.59
The role of onomastics

Another aspect of this sphragistic material that is worthy of comment is that con
cerning onomastics. What should be apparent from the data in Table 7.1 is that the
popularity of the cult of a particular saint as exhibited on seals does not necessi
tate the same popularity of the homonymous Christian name. This is the corollary
to the low percentage values for the relationship between name and homonymous
image analyzed above. From the total database of 7,390 lead seals, after the image
of the Virgin, the most popular saints to appear on seals are Nicholas (684), Arch
angel Michael (518), Theodore (452), George (458), Demetrios (280) and John the
Baptist (196).60 What is striking is the extreme disparity in a number of examples.
Table 7.3 is a list of the ten most frequently occurring personal names found on
seals from the 6th through the 12th century. The highest frequency for each name
peaks in the 11th century, followed by the 11th/12th and 12th centuries. Although
after the Virgin, Nicholas is the most frequently encountered saint’s image on the
seals, the name Nicholas is not the most prevalent: 239 examples. A similar situ
ation exists for Demetrios whereby images of the military figure comprise a large
sample (264 specimens) yet the name occurs in just 24 instances for the same
Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, IV, ed. J. Thomas, A. Constantinides Hero and G.
Constable (Washington, DC, 2000) 1512–78, esp. 1531 for the relevant passage. See also Talbot,
‘Comparison’, 11, n. 48, where she mentions the existence of a few other such collections of vitae
of female saints.
58 C. Rapp, ‘Figures of female sanctity: Byzantine edifying manuscripts and their audience’, DOP 50
(1996) 313–32.
59 C. W. Bynum, ‘ . . . And woman his humanity: female imagery in the religious writing of the later
Middle Ages’, Gender and Religion: On the Complexity of Symbols, ed. S. Harrell and P. Richman
(Boston 1986), 257–88.
60 For discussion of the frequency of saints’ images on seals and the relative popularity of their cults,
see Cotsonis, ‘The contribution of Byzantine lead seals’, passim.
229
Table 7.3 Ten Most Popular Personal Names on Lead Seals (6th-12th centuries)
NAME FREQUENCY (w/Imperial Seals) FREQUENCY (w/o Imperial Seals)

John 749 741
Constantine 539 419
Michael 475 447
Leo 334 322
Theodore 321 321
Basil 304 273
Nicholas 239 239
Niketas 219 219
George 218 218
Nikephoros 203 187
chronological period. The opposite phenomenon, however, is exemplified by the

popular names Constantine (539) and Leo (334), yet their homonymous images
on seals occur only eight times and once, respectively, while the cases of Michael
and Theodore offer examples where name (475 and 321, respectively) and image
(499 and 405, respectively) are closer in number.61
The name John is by far the most common. This is not surprising because
two New Testament protagonists lend it great esteem: John the Evangelist (the
Theologian) and John the Baptist (the Forerunner or Prodromos). Byzantine
sources refer to the name John as χαριτώνυμος (name of grace), and this epithet
is also found within the inscriptions of some seals the owners of which are called
John.62 From the early Christian period through the last century of Byzantium,
John remained either the most popular or one of the most popular male names.63
From the database of our seals, the next five in descending order are Constantine,
61 Similar findings based upon a small sample size of seals were noted by B. Martin-Hisard, ‘Le culte
de l’archange Michel dans l’empire byzantin (VIIIe-XIe siècles)’, Culto e insediamenti micaelici
nell’ Italia meridionale fra tarda antichità a medioevo: Atti del convegno internazionale Monte
Sant’ Angelo 18–21 novembre 1992, ed. C. Carletti and G. Otranto (Bari 1994) 354; and J.-C.
Cheynet, ‘L’anthroponymie aristocratique à Byzance’, L’anthroponymie document de l’histoire
sociale des mondes méditerranéens médiévaux, ed. M. Bourin, J.-M. Martin and F. Menant (Rome
1996) 270–3 and 286.
62 For examples from texts, see Vita Joannis Damasceni, MPG 94: 433 and W. Hörandner, Theodoros
Prodromos, historische Gedichte (Vienna 1974) VIII: 61; XIV: 45; and XIX: 135. For seals, see
Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3, no. 2730bis: the seal of John Komnenos, despotes;
and no. 2742: the seal of John Angelos, caesar. For the latter, see also Hunger, ‘Homo byzantinus’,
124–5.
63 Eusebius, Historiae ecclesiasticae, VII: 25, MPG 20: 700. For the English translation, see Euse
bius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, trans. G. Williamson (New York 1984)
311; and Symeon of Thessalonike, De sacramentis, LX, MPG 155:209. See also P. Koukoules,
Βυζαντινῶν Βίος καὶ Πολιτισμὸς, IV (Athens 1951) 59.
230
Michael, Leo, Theodore and Basil.64 Except for Theodore, these names, and that
of John, were also imperial appellations. As royal names, they may have been a
source of prestige, power and even a quasi-divine character, qualities sought after
and prompting their widespread proliferation. It seems that for the middle Byzan
tine period, the imperial names, as a total, provided greater influence in assigning
one’s personal identity than those of the saints who enjoyed popular cults such as
Nicholas.65
One may begin to wonder then if on the tiny seals two spheres of influence are
at work: the imperial and the religious. Names that have been associated with
emperors and the imperial tradition may have been suitable to bestow on children.
As adults, however, the bearers’ personal devotion was linked not to their homon
ymous saints but rather to those saints the seal owners understood as enjoying a
higher prestige and intercessory power in the spiritual court. Yet, for the pre-Icon
oclastic period, the evidence, albeit a smaller sample size, indicates another phe
nomenon. The three most frequent names appearing in these earlier centuries are
John (70), Theodore (60) and George (31), respectively. Chronologically, they do
not coincide with or follow any emperor with those names. The names are, how
ever, those of homonymous saints whose cults were well established during this
period.66 Possibly in the earlier Byzantine period, popular saints were frequently
drawn upon for naming, but at this time the images of those same saints were not
usually selected for the owner’s seals. From the total number of these three early
sphragistic onomastic groups (161), a variety of holy figures were selected for
their seals, with the majority of owners, 85, or 52.8%, selecting an image of the
Virgin.
Another means of assessing the preference or prestige of names is to examine
those seals issued by monks or nuns – that is, individuals who entering upon the
monastic life would have changed their given name and taken on a new identity.
From the entire database of 7,390, there are 289 examples of seals bearing reli
gious figural images issued by monks. These specimens represent 80 different
monastic names, yet 56 of these names are represented by only three or fewer
examples. There is no overwhelming preference for any monastic name, but
Table 7.4 presents a list of the seven most popular names belonging to monks
found on our seals, after which several names compete with the eighth and lower
64 Again, similar findings were observed by Martin-Hisard, ‘Le culte de l’archange Michel’, 353; and
Cheynet, ‘L’anthroponymie aristocratique à Byzance’, 270–3.
65 E. Patlagean, ‘Les débuts d’une aristocratie byzantine et le témoignage de l’historiographie: sys
tème des noms et liens de parenté aux IXe- Xe siècles’, The Byzantine Aristocracy: IX to XIII Cen
turies, ed. M. Angold (Oxford 1984) 26, also observed that from written sources, inscriptions, and
seals, there was a preference for imperial names. Martin-Hisard, ‘Le culte de l’archange Michel’,
354, also concluded that the onomastics and the iconography of the seals express ‘two different
levels of devotions and complementarity’; and Cheynet, ‘L’anthroponymie aristocratique à Byz
ance’, 284–86, likwise noted an affinity for imperial names.
66 See Cotsonis, ‘The contribution of Byzantine lead seals,’ 415–26 and 448–62.
231
Table 7.4 Seven Most Popular Monastic Personal Names on

Lead Seals (6th-12th centuries)
NAME FREQUENCY
John 28
Basil 14
Niketas 13
Nicholas 12
Gregory 10
Theodore 9
Michael 8
preferences. As can be seen by these data, John again is the most popular name
even in the monastic realm. The names Basil, Niketas, Nicholas, Theodore, and
Michael also appear on this list. The presence of the names Basil and Michael,
both limited to monastic owners of the middle Byzantine period, may indicate
that, again, in the monastic realm, where the life and virtue of humility is taken
on as a mode of existence, names with imperial resonance are chosen by monastic
individuals.
The role of family names

It remains to determine if any relation can be found between images and family
names – that is, if the sphragistic evidence suggests that families maintained any
particular saintly cult. Patronyms rarely appear in the sources from the late 9th
century but are prevalent after the year 1000, reflecting the greater importance
then given to lineage as a source of social status and authority.67 In the late 10th
century family names also begin to appear on seals, and they continue into the
12th century.68
67 Patlagean, ‘Les débuts d’une aristocratie byzantine’, 23–42 and A. Kazhdan and S. Ronchey,
L’aristocrazia bizantina dal principio dell’ XI alla fine del XII secolo (Palermo 1997) 383–91.
For a lengthy review and criticism of Kazhdan’s and Ronchey’s publication, see J.-C. Cheynet,
‘L’aristocrazia bizantina nei secoli X-XII: A proposito del libro di A. Kazhdan e S. Ronchey’, Riv
ista storica italiana 113 (2001) 413–40, and esp. 420–2, related to the use of seals. See also J.-C.
Cheynet, ‘L’aristocratie byzantine (VIIIe-XIIIe s.)’, Journal des savants (2000) 284.
68 For the development of family names on seals, see J.-C. Cheynet, ‘Du prénom au patronyme:
les étrangers à Byzance (Xe-XIIe siècles)’, Studies in Byzantine Sigillography I (1987) 57–66;
P. Stephenson, ‘A development in nomenclature on the seals of the Byzantine provincial aristoc
racy in the late tenth century’, REB 52 (1994) 187–211; Cheynet, ‘L’anthroponymie aristocra
tique à Byzance’, 273–8; A. Kazhdan, ‘The formation of Byzantine family names in the ninth and
tenth centuries’, BS 58 (1997) 91–4; Kazhdan and Ronchey, L’aristocrazia bizantina, 167–74;
and Stavrakos, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel mit Familiennamen, 34–44. For a criticism of some
of Stephenson’s conclusions and more recent discussion of family names on seals, see W. Seibt,
232
The seals used in this study represent over 300 different family names.69 In the
vast majority of cases, it is impossible to determine any iconographic preference
because only a few different members for each family are represented. In many
instances, only one religious iconographic seal per family is known. Therefore,
this investigation will limit itself to those families that are represented by at least
five different individuals. With this stipulation, 32 different families (i.e. no more
than 10.7% of the total number of patronyms found in the database) are available
for consideration. This small percentage of data can offer only limited insight
into the devotional practices of middle Byzantine aristocratic families. Although
the Komnenoi easily satisfy this five-member criterion, this family will not be
included because there are numerous homonymous and roughly contemporary
owners of seals within the family that cause inextricable prosopographical dif
ficulties. Both Cheynet and Morrisson have made preliminary investigations of
the seals belonging to members of the first three generations of this clan, that is,
before too many homonymous contemporary individuals issued seals, and they
have observed a preference for the image of Saint George on their seals.70
Table 7.5 lists the 32 groups included in this study and the various religious
figures employed for their seals from the 10th, 11th and 12th century. The num
bers take into account those individuals represented by seals with at least one or
more different religious images. Parallel examples belonging to the same owner
are not included in the total. It is apparent that none of these families employs
solely one particular image,71 although the Hexamilites72 and Melissenos families
almost exclusively employ the Virgin’s image. Furthermore, the choice of images
of these leading families is limited to a narrow range of figures: Christ, the Virgin,
Nicholas, Archangel Michael, the military saints and a small number of other
various saints. Only three different Christological or narrative scenes appear:
most are images of the Annunciation; two are examples of the Dormition; and
‘Beinamen, ‘Spitznamen,’ Herkunftsnamen, Familiennamen bis ins 10. Jahrhundert: Der Beitrag
der Sigillographie zu einem prosopographischen Problem’, Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 7
(2002) 119–36 and idem, ‘Probleme mit mittelbyzantinischen Namen (besonders Familiennamen)
auf Siegeln’, Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 8 (2003) 1–7.
69 From the historical sources, Kazhdan and Ronchey, L’aristocrazia bizantina, 199–220, have com
piled a list of 373 family names of the Byzantine aristocracy from 976–1204. The same authors
(357–79) drawing just upon the collection of seals at Dumbarton Oaks, list at least 111 family
names while Stavrakos, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel mit Familiennamen, includes over 200 dif
ferent family names that appear on the seals belonging to the Numismatic Museum in Athens.
From the bibliographical survey related to the prosopography of the middle and later Byzantine
periods, A. Savvides, ‘Bibliographical advances in Byzantine pprosopography of the middle and
later Periods’, Medieval Prosopography 13 (1992) 83–114, lists 352 family names.
70 Cheynet and Morrisson, ‘Texte et image’, 29–30 and J.-C. Cheynet, ‘L’iconographie des sceaux
des Comnènes’, Siegel und Siegler: Akten des 8. Internationalen Symposions fûr byzantinische
Sigillographie, ed. C. Ludwig (Frankfurt am Main 2005) 53–68.
71 Similar observations were made by Cheynet and Morrisson, ‘Texte et image,’ 29 and 31.
72 For discussion of the Hexamilites family in light of their seals, see A.-K. Wassiliou, ‘Die Fami
lie-Hexamilites. Ein Beitrag zur byzantinischen Prosopographie’, Hellenika 52/2 (2002) 243–58.
233
Table 7.5 Family Groups Included in This Study
FAMILY (10thc-12thc) Christ Virgin Nicholas Michael George Theodore Demetrios Other Other Annunciation Other ?
Military Saint Scene
Angelos 2 2 1 1 1 5
Antiochites/Antiochos/Antiocheus 7 1 3 1 4 1
Anzas 7 2 1 1 1
Batatzes 4 1 2 1 1
Botaneiates 1 3 1 1 2 1
Bourtzes 3 1 2 1 4 2 1 6
Brachamios 1 1 1 2 4 1
Choumnos 1 1 2 1 1
Chrysoberges 3 1 1 2 1
Dalassenos 8 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 4
Doukas 4 13 1 4 5 2 2 1 2
Hexamilites 6 1
Kamateros 6 1 1 1
Kastamonites 4 2 1 1 1 1 1
Katakalon/Katakalonos/Katakalos 1 2 1 1 2 2 1
Machetarios 4 2
Makrembolites 4 2 2 1
Melissenos 1 6 1
Mesopotamites 4 1 1 2 1
Monomachatos/Monomachos 1 1 4 1 1
Palaiologos 4 2 3 1 1 1
Radenos 6 1 1
Skleros 9 1 1 1 2 1 2 2
Skoutariotes 3 1 1
Spanopoulos 1 1 2 2
Synadenos 3 2 1 1
Tarchaneiotes 1 3 1 2
Taronites 4 1 2
Tornikes/Tornikios 4 1 2 2 2
Tzirithon 3 1 1 1 1
Xeros 7 3 1 2 1
Xiphilinos 3 1 1
one is of the Ascension. This preference reflects the overall popularity of images
found on seals whereby the largest iconographic samples consist of the Virgin,
Nicholas, Michael and the military saints. As observed elsewhere, the image of
Christ plays a minor role. Here there are two examples of Christ appearing on
the seals of empresses: Irene Doukaina (1081–1118) and Euphrosyne Doukaina
(1195–1203).73 As discussed above, this may reflect the period when the status of
imperial women enjoyed higher favor.
As seen from Table 7.5, the figure of the Virgin is the most numerous. Of the 32
families listed, 31 include at least one member who selected a Marian image for
their seal: from this database, only the Tarchaniotes family does not employ her
image among the five members.74 Five families have only one image of the Vir
gin among their members represented in this database: Brachamios; Choumnos;
Katakalon; Monomachos; and Spanopoulos. From the total of 345 seals listed in
Table 7.5, 135, or 39.1%, bear the image of the Virgin.75 As in the general pop
ulation, the image of the Theotokos forms the single largest category of images.
The sphragistic data indicate that these family groups of 11th- and 12th-century
Byzantine society fostered the cult of the Virgin more than that of any other holy
figure.76 On the seals of families not included in this chart, the Virgin is also the
most frequently encountered image. A telling parallel is found in Valerie Nunn’s
study of 12th-century epigrams appearing on encheiria, or peploi (richly woven
hangings dedicated to special icons), offered by aristocratic families: 11 of the 17
embroideries were presented to icons of the Mother of God.77
Among the 32 families listed in Table 7.5, there is no discernable trend as to
the type of family that preferred the cult of the Virgin. Members of both the civil
and military aristocracies are represented by such examples as the Xeroi and the
Antiochitai, respectively. Constantinopolitan families as well as those with for
eign origins are likewise present, as evidenced by the Kamateroi and the Anzai,
respectively. Among the families that have only one or no representations of the
Virgin on their seals, there is no visible pattern. The Brachamioi, Choumnoi,
Katakalones, and Spanopouloi each have only one seal with the depiction of the
Virgin. The Brachamioi were a military family from Armenia while the Choumnoi
73 For Irene’s seals, see Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, nos. 103a and b; and Seibt, Die
byzantinischen Bleisiegel, no. 28. Examples of Euphrosyne’s are provided by Zacos and Veglery,
Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, no. 111 and Šandrovskaja, ‘Sfragistika’, no. 1020.
74 There are, however, published elsewhere, seals issued by a Gregory and a Makarios Tarchaniotes
that bear images of the Virgin. See I. Leontiades, ‘Die Siegel der Familie Tarchaneiotes’, Studies
in Byzantine Sigillography 3 (1993) 48 and 50. These same examples are included in idem, Die
Tarchaneiotai: Eine prosopographisch-sigillographische Studie (Thessalonike 1998) 55–6 and 60.
75 The total for the Marian images does not include the depictions of the Annunciation and Dormition.
76 Cheynet and Morrisson, ‘Texte et image’, 29–32, referring to a smaller number of family groups,
also observed an increasing presence of the image of the Virgin on seals of leading clans through
the 12th century.
77 V. Nunn, ‘The Encheirion as adjunct to the icon in the middle Byzantine period’, BMGS 10 (1986)
73–102.
236
were Byzantine civil functionaries. If one takes into account the percentage of
seals bearing an image of the Virgin from the total number of seals in each family
grouping, similar trends emerge. Families from the military and civil bureaucra
cies, those of Constantinopolitan and foreign origins, are represented among both
the highest and the lowest percentages for Marian sphragistic iconography. These
observations, therefore, do not support the generalizations made by Cheynet and
Morrisson, and repeated later by Seibt, that families associated with the Constan
tinopolitan civil administration and that of the Church more often prefer images
of the Virgin and “civil” saints for their seals while those families belonging to the
military aristocracy are more likely to select images of military saints.78
After the Virgin, the most popular images encountered on the seals of our 32
families listed in Table 7.5 are Archangel Michael, the military saints, and Nicho
las. This is analogous to the overall popularity of these holy figures found on seals
in general as well as within the body of hagiographical literature.79 Despite the
general preference for military figures within these families, when the image of
Michael is used, it is most often as the imperial, loros-clad archangel and not the
figure in military costume:80 21 out of a total of 28, or 75%. There is a long-stand
ing association between this angel and the office of the emperor.81 The emperor’s
78 Cheynet and Morrisson, ‘Texte et image’, 30–2, yet at 30 the authors note the presence of Marian
imagery on seals of military families that they have discussed and W. Seibt, ‘Zwischen Identifi
zierugsrausch und – Verweigerung: Zur Problematik synchroner homonymer Siegel’, Siegel und
Siegler, 143.
79 Cotsonis, ‘The contribution of Byzantine lead seals’, passim and; Halsall, ‘Women’s bodies, men’s
souls’, passim.
80 For discussion of angels dressed in the imperial loros, see H. Maguire, ‘Style and ideology in Byz
antine imperial art’, Gesta 28 (1989) 222–4; idem, ‘A murder among the angels: he frontispiece
miniatures of Paris. Gr. 510 and the iconography of the archangels in Byzantine art’, The Sacred
Image East and West, ed. R. Ousterhout and L. Brubaker (Urbana, IL 1995) 65 and 68–9; idem,
‘The heavenly court’, Byzantine Court Culture, 255–8; G. Peers, ‘Patriarchal politics in the Paris
Gregory’, JÖB 47 (1997) 54–9; C. Jolivet-Lévy, ‘Note sur la représentation des archanges en
costume impérial dans l’iconographie byzantine’, Cahiers archéologiques 46 (1998) 121–8; and
M. Parani, Reconstructing the Reality of Images: Byzantine Material Culture and Religious Ico
nography (11th-15th Centuries) (Leiden 2003) 44–50. For a critique of this literature and its rela
tion to the sphragistic data, see Cotsonis, ‘The contribution of Byzantine lead seals’, 438–44. For
discussion of the military aspect of the Archangel Michael, see J. Rohland, Der Erzengel Michael,
Arzt und Feldherr: Zwei Aspekte des vor- und frühbyzantinischen Michaelskultes (Leiden 1977)
50–64 and 105–44; Martin-Hisard, ‘Le culte de l’archange’, 352, 357, 360–1 and 369; and C.
Jolivet-Lévy, ‘Culte et iconographie de l’archange Michel dans l’orient byzantin: Le témoignage
de quelques monuments de Cappadoce’, Cahiers de Saint-Michel de Cuixà 28 (1997) 193–6. For
the military image of Michael on seals, see Cotsonis, ‘The contribution of Byzantine lead seals’,
444–5.
81 Rohland, Der Erzengel Michael, 114–35; V. Saxer, ‘Jalons pour servir à l’histoire du culte de
l’Archange Saint Michel en Orient jusqu’à l’Iconoclasme’, Noscere sancta: miscellanea in memo
ria di Agostino Amore OFM (1982), ed. I. Vázquez Janeiro (Rome 1985), 402–15; C. Mango, ‘St.
Michael and Attis’, Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας, per. 4, 12, 1984 (1986)
58–62; Jolivet-Lévy, ‘Culte et iconographie de l’archange Michel’, 193–6; and Peers, ‘Patriarchal
Politics’, 52–9.
237
image, clad in the loros, was widely circulated on coins with which the popu
lace would be most familiar and which they would perceive as emblematic of
an all-powerful ruler, even Christ’s vicar on earth.82 Because Archangel Michael
acquired imperial connotations, his role as helper and intercessor in the heav
enly realm was enhanced and perceived as more effective on behalf of the seals’
owners.83
Table 7.5 also indicates that the images of the three military saints, George,
Theodore, and Demetrios, occur with roughly the same frequency with an order of
preference for George (31), followed by Theodore (30) and Demetrios (25). This
parallels their sigillographic frequency in the larger body of sphragistic material.
There are six families in which no military saints appear on the seals employed
here. Five of these groups were from the civil and ecclesiastical administrations:
the Chrysobergai; Hexamilitoi; Radenoi; Spanopouloi; and Xiphilinoi. At first
glance, such findings seem to support the conclusions of Cheynet and Morris-
son and Seibt, whose work indicated that families of the civil and ecclesiastical
bureaucracies preferred images of the Virgin and “civil” saints while those of the
military aristocracy favored images of soldier saints for their seals as previously
cited. However, the Melissenos family belonged to the military aristocracy and
yet no image of a military saint is found on a seal from a member of this clan
included in this table. Also, when the percentage of seals bearing images of mil
itary saints among the total number of figural seals for each family is taken into
account, again there is not always a strict correspondence among families of the
military and civil administrations. The Brachamioi, a military family, reflect the
highest percentage of images of military saints: seven out of ten, or 70%. Yet the
following two highest values are for the Monomachoi, five of eight, or 62.5%,
and the Choumnoi, three among six, or 50%: both groups belonged to the civil
bureaucracy. While the lowest percentile values for military saints’ images are
from families of the civil administration, such as the Anzai, one from 12, or 8.3%,
and the Xeroi, one of 14, or 7.1%, there are examples where civil families exhibit
a higher percentage of images of soldier saints on their seals than do a number
of military families. This is the case for the Skleroi, four of 19, or 21.1%, while
the military clans of the Taronitai, at one of seven, or 14.3%, and the Tornikai, at
two from 11, or 18.2%, show less interest in the soldier saints. This is particularly
interesting because previously the Skleros family has not been characterized as
supportive of military saints’ cults.84
82 M. Parani, ‘The Romanos ivory and the new Tokali Kilise: imperial costume as a tool for dating
Byzantine art’, Cahiers archéologiques 49 (2001) 21, where she discusses the role that the loros
played in enhancing the Christo-mimetic character of the emperor.
83 Cotsonis, ‘The contribution of Byzantine lead seals’, 444. In discussing the popularity of the sphra
gistic image of Michael dressed in the loros, Martin-Hisard, ‘Le culte de l’archange’, 355, states
that Michael is a kosmokrator whose image would evoke that of an emperor if he lacked wings.
84 Seibt, Die Skleroi, 15–6 and passim; idem, ‘Zwischen Identifizierungsrausch und – Verweigerung’,
143; and Cheynet and Morrisson, ‘Texte et image’, 30.
238
The data in Table 7.5 and the fact that small numbers of seals within each family
group are employed should serve as a caution when attempting to portray any cor
relation between types of family groups and corresponding types of saints favored.
Often there is no straightforward parallel, and there does not appear to be a practice
of a particular family saint. Rather, the evidence indicates that sphragistic iconog
raphy reflects the practice of an individual’s choice and not one of family group.
This evidence corroborates Cheynet who states that the Monomachoi, with their
sphragistic devotion to Saint George, constitute the only example of a family who
is devoted exclusively to one particular saint for one and two generations.85 In his
same study, Cheynet also claimed that the Makrembolites family was devoted to
the cult of Archangel Michael, citing the example of the seals of a John Makremb
olites, krites (judge).86 Yet, from Table 7.5 this does not appear to be the case. One
observes that for this family, only two individuals chose an image of the archangel
while there are four images of the Virgin and two also of Theodore.87
The data in Table 7.5 indicate that both civil and military aristocratic fami
lies shared the same types of sphragistic images, although patterns within these
families can be detected. Among the 32 families, there are a number of individ
uals who held military offices. These persons are listed separately in Table 7.6.
Of the 73 entries, 50, or 68.5%, display images of either Archangel Michael or
military saints. These data indicate that those in military careers tended to pre
fer images of the soldier saints and Archangel Michael for their seals. Archangel
Michael also has a long tradition of military associations for the Byzantines, and
he is frequently addressed in terms alluding to his high military function, such as
ἀρχιστράτηγος (commander) or πρώτιστε ταγμάτων νοῶν (first of the ethereal
orders), for example.88
These results lend support to the general findings of Cheynet and Morrisson who
observed that those who held military offices usually chose an image of a military
saint or Archangel Michael for their seals.89 Of the 25 examples bearing an image
85 Cheynet, ‘Par Saint George, Par Saint Michel’, 120; but on 120–1 the author discusses and provides
a photograph of a seal of a Theodore Monomachos that bears the images of both Saints George
and Theodore together. This accounts for the one example of Saint Theodore for the Monomachos
family appearing in our Table 5. Here, there is some evidence that a homonymous saint may be
included in the family’s hagiographic repertoire. If the individual George Monomachatos is part
of the Monomachos family, then his seals bearing an image of the Virgin and Child and reflect a
Marian devotion within this family. For an example of one of these seals and discussion of par
allels, see A.-K. Wassiliou and W. Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich, II: Zentral
-und Provinzialverwaltung (Vienna 2004) no. 273.
86 Cheynet, ‘Par Saint George, Par Saint Michel’, 126–7.
87 For a discussion of the Makrembolites family in light of their seals (including examples not
appearing in the present database) and other sources, see H. Hunger, ‘Die Makremboliten auf
byzantinischen Bleisiegel und in sonstigen Belegen’, Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 5 (1998)
1–28.
88 See Hunger, ‘Homo byzantinus’, 126.
89 Cheynet and Morrisson, ‘Texte et image’, 31; Cheynet, ‘Par Saint Georges, par Saint Michel’, 116;
idem, ‘Le cult de Saint Théodore’, 141–45; and idem, ‘L’iconographie des sceaux des Comnènes’, 62.
239
Table 7.6 Persons Holding Military Offices
NAME (10c-12c) DATE DIGNITY & IMAGE

MILITARY OFFICE
John Antiochites 11c. (1050/60) Protospatharios epi John Prodromos
tou Chrysoklitrinou
Strategos of Anabazos
Theocharistos 11c (c.1050–75) Protospatharios epi Theodore
Antiochites tou Manglabiou
Kastrophylax
Theodore 11c (c.1050–75) Patrikios Strategos Theodore
Antiochites
Constantine 11c. Patrikios Anthypatos Theodore
Antiochos Strategos
John Batatzes 11c (c. 1033–66) Protospatharios George
Strategos
Nikephoros 11c. (1050’s-60’s) Vestes Dux of All Demetrios
Batatzes West
“ 11c.(1060’s-1075) Magistros Vestarches Demetrios
Dux Praitor of
Aigaios Pelagos
“ 11c. (1075–1080) Proedros Dux of Demetrios
Bulgaria
“ 11. (1080’s) Couropalates Demetrios
Eustratios 11c. (c. 1067) Patrikios Anthypatos Demetrios
Botaneiates Strategos of Gebel
Leo Botaneiates 11c. Protospatharios of Virgin
Dyrrachium
Nikephoros 11c. (1061–62) Proedros Dux Demetrios
Botaneiates
“ 11c. (1062) Proedros Dux of Demetrios
Thessalonike
“ 11c. (1067–68) Proedros Dux of Demetrios
Antioch
“ 11c Protoproedros Dux of ? Military
Strymon
“ 11c. (1074) Couropalates Demetrios
“ 11c. (1074–77) Couropalates Dux of Demetrios
Anatolikoi
“ 11c. Sebastos Virgin & Child
“ 11c. (1078) Sebastos Dux of Michael Choniates
Hellas
“ 11c. (1078–81) Emperor Christ
Constantine 11c. (mid) Spatharaocandidatos Demetrios
Bourtzes Topoteretes
“ 11c. (mid) Magistros Oplitarches Demetrios
MILITARY OFFICE
“ 11c. (mid) Axiarches Demetrios

David Bourtzes 11c. (1040’s-80’s) Patrikios Anthypatos Michael Imperial
Vestes Strategos
Michael Bourtzes 11c. (1030’s-60’s) Anthypatos Patrikios Michael Imperial
Stratelates
“ 11c. (1030’s-60’s) Anthypatos Strategos Michael Imperial
Nikephoros 11c.-12c. Vestes Katepano ? Military
Bourtzes
Theodore 11c. (1050–99) . . . Topoteretes Theodore & Theodore
Bourtzes
Elpidios 11c. (1050’s-90’s) Couropalates Dux of Demetrios
Brachamios Cyprus
George 11c. (1066–99) Strategos George
Brachamios
Isaac Brachamios 10c. (950’s-90’s) Anthypatos Patrikios ? Equestrian
Strategos
John Brachamios 11c. (1050–99) Vestes Strategos Demetrios
Kale Brachamena 11c. (1000–50) Protospatharissa Virgin & Child
Strategissa
Leo Brachamios 11c. (1030’s-60’s) Protospatharios Demetrios
Strategos
Philaret 11c. (1060’s) Protospatharios Demetrios
Brachamios Hypatos Topoteretes
of Cappadocia
“ 11c. (c.1070) Magistros Dux Demetrios &
Theodore
“ 11c. (1070’s) Couropalates Dux Theodore
“ 11c. (1070’s) Couropalates Theodore
Stratopaidarches of
Anatolikai
“ 11c. (1070’s) Protocouropalates Theodore
Domestikos of Skolon
of East
“ 11c. (Late) Protosebastos Theodore
Domestikos of East
Constantine 11c. (mid) Proedros Dux Demetrios
Dalassenos
Euphemia 11c. (1050–99) Proedrissa Strategissa Virgin & Child
Dalassene Doukaina
Nikephoros 11c. (1050–99) Dishypatos Strategos ?
Dalassenos
Romanos 11c (late) Protospatharios Virgin & Child
Dalassenos Katepano of Iberia
(Continued )

MILITARY OFFICE
Theodore 11c. (mid) Vestarches Strategos Theodore
Dalassenos of Opsikion
Andronikos 11c. (c.1072–77) Protoproedros Virgin & Child
Doukas Protovestatiarios of
Domestikos of Skolon
of East
“ “ “ Virgin & Child
Nikephoros 11c. (late) Apo Droungaion tou Theodore &
Kastamonites Stolou Demetrios
Constantine 11/12c. Dux of Cyprus Theodore &
Katakalonos Demetrios
Demetrios 11c. Anthypatos Patrikios Demetrios
Katakalos Katepano of
Paradounabon
John Katakalos 11c. Protospatharios Theodore
Tagmatophylax
Basil Machetarios 11c. (1060’s-70’s) Vestes Krites Virgin & Child
Katepano of
Melitine & Lykandos
Theodore 11c. Protospatharios Theodore
Makrembolites Domestikos of
Optimatoi
George 11c. (Late) Protospatharios Virgin
Melissenos Imperial Strategos of
Mamistra
Nikephoros 11c. (c.1065–70) Magistros Vestarches Virgin & Child
Melissenos Katepano
“ “ Magistros Dux of “
Triaditza
George 11c. (1060’s-70’s) Vestes Katepano Virgin & Child
Monomachatos
“ “ Patrikios Katepano of “
Basprakania
“ 11c. (1078–81) Proedros Dux “
“ “ Protoproedros Dux of “
Dyrrachium
George 11c. (c.1081) Couropalates Dux of Virgin & Child
Palaiologos Dyrrachium
Nikephoros 11c. (1050–99) Proedros Dux Virgin
Palaiologos
Michael Radenos 11c. Magistros Vestarches Virgin & Child
Stratiotikon
Logothesion

MILITARY OFFICE
Basil Skleros 11c. (1028–33) Magistros Vestes Virgin & Child

Strategos of
Anatolikai
John Skleros 11c. Patrikios Anthypatos Virgin & Child
Strategos of
Peloponnessos
Romanos Skleros 11c. (1042) Magistros Protostrator George
“ 11c. (1050) Magistros Dux of “
Antioch
“ 11c. (1057–58) Proedros Michael Imperial
Stratopedarches of
East Dux of Antioch
Basil Synadenos 11c. (c.1040) Protospatharios George
Strategos of
Dyrrachium
Nikephoros 11c. (1025–50) Patrikios Anthypatos Demetrios
Synadenos Strategos of
Cappadocia
Basil 11c. (mid) Magistros Dux Michael Civil
Tarchaneiotes
Joseph 11c. (1072–73) Proedros Dux of Demetrios
Tarchaneiotes Antioch
Michael 11c. (1070’s-80’s) Patrikios Demetrios
Tarchaneiotes Protoanthypatos
Strategos
of Demetrios, just six, or 24%, are clearly associated with military positions from
the western regions of the empire, in closer proximity to the saint’s shrine in
Thessalonike. Five other seals, or 20%, are linked to regions of the Middle East,
while three specimens, or 12%, are from officials in Asia Minor. The remaining
11 do not indicate their owners’ regional authority. Of the 14 examples of Saint
Theodore, five, or 35.7%, reflect positions in Asia Minor, the region associated
with the shrines of the two Theodores.90 Eight seals from this group, or 57.1%,
do not indicate their owners’ regional authority, and one other seal is associated
with Cyprus. These rather low percentages reflecting a seal owner’s proximity to
a cult shrine of a major saint and his preference for the homonymous saint’s image
for his seal tends to weaken the observations of Cheynet, who concluded that
90 For discussion of the two Saints Theodores and their respective shrines, see N. Oikonomides, ‘Le
dédoublement de saint Théodore et les villes d’Euchaïta et d’Euchaneia’, AB 104 (1986) 327–35;
Walter, The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition, 44–66; and Cotsonis, ‘The contribution
of Byzantine lead seals’, 448–56.
243
Demetrios was preferred by military officials in the western regions of the empire
while Theodore was preferred by those in the east.91
Table 7.6 also includes seals belonging to two women who bear the feminine
forms of military titles, indicating the offices held by their spouses: Kale Bra
chamena, protospatharissa strategissa, and Euphemia Dalassene, proedrissa
stratelatissa doukissa.92 In each case these women chose images of the Virgin.
This preference of women for images of the Virgin holds true despite their use of
military titles.
The evidence set forth in Table 7.6 permits one to observe, in a limited number
of cases, the situation where an individual has more than one seal, thus testifying
to the owner’s different dignities and functions over the course of his career.
Given this information, the opportunity arises to examine if any relation exists
between the dignity or office held by the owner of the seal and the iconography
selected for that object. The problem, however, should be approached with cau
tion owing to prosopographical uncertainties. Errors result when either various
seals are not assigned to the proper individual or when seals belonging to dif
ferent individuals of the same name are incorrectly attributed to the identical
owner.93
In the majority of cases, Table 7.6 demonstrates that individuals selected the
same saint for their seals throughout their lifetimes and careers. This practice is
also known for individuals in the civil administration as well, and is the usual
practice for most individuals.94 In a number of instances, however, individuals are
known to have changed their sigillographic iconography concurrent with a change
in the course of their careers. An example in Table 7.6 is Romanos Skleros. As a
magistros protostrator, and as the magistros dux of Antioch, he chose an image
of George in military costume for his seals. Later, as proedros stratopedarches of
the Orient and dux of Antioch, he placed an image of Archangel Michael in impe
rial costume on his seal. As Cheynet and Morrisson observed, it is hazardous to
91 Cheynet, ‘Par Saint Georges, par Saint Michel’, 116; idem, ‘Le cult de Saint Théodore’, 141–5;
and idem, ‘L’iconographie des sceaux des Comnènes’, 62.
92 For discussion of women employing the feminine form of their spouses’ titles, see Cheynet,
‘L’usage des sceaux à Byzance’, 28; idem, ‘Official power and non-official power’, Fifty Years
of Prosopography: The Later Roman Empire, Byzantium and Beyond, ed. Av. Cameron (Oxford
2003) 146–7; and idem, ‘Le rôle des femmes de l’aristocratie d’après les sceaux’, 30–42. For the
seal of Kale Brachamena, see J.-C. Cheynet, C. Morrisson and W. Seibt, Sceaux byzantins de la
collection Henri Seyrig (Paris 1991) no. 296. For that of Euphemia Dalassene, see Cheynet and
Vannier, Études prosopographiques, ‘Les Dalassenoi’, 14, 93.
93 A. Kazhdan, Review of Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantin. Tome II: L’admin
istration centrale, BZ 76 (1983) 383–4; Oikonomides, Dated Byzantine Lead Seals, 10–1; and
W. Seibt, ‘Seals and the Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire’, Fifty Years of Prosopography,
95–102 and idem, ‘Zwischen Identifizierungsrausch und – Verweigerung’, 141–50.
94 See N. Oikonomides, ‘The Usual Lead Seal’, DOP 37 (1983) esp. 153–7 and DOSeals, II, nos.
8.16 and 8.17. See also Cheynet and Morrisson, ‘Texte et image’, 16 and Cheynet, ‘L’usage des
sceaux à Byzance’, 25–6.
244
attempt to offer an explanation for such a change in the choice of image.95 Others
who changed were Nikephoros Botaneiates and Philaret Brachamios.96 Most of
the seals belonging to Nikephoros Botaneiates, as proedros dux, proedros dux
of Thessalonike, proedros dux of Antioch, as couropalates, and as couropalates
dux of the East bear the image of Demetrios in military costume. As sebastos,
he placed an image of the Virgin and Child on his seals, while as the sebastos
dux of Hellas, Nikephoros chose an image of Archangel Michael Choniates, in
military costume, for his seal.97 It is presumed that this figural choice was made
since Nikephoros Botaneiates came from the region of Chonai in Asia Minor, the
center of the miracle-working shrine of the Archangel Michael.98 Once Nikepho
ros became emperor (1078–1081), he selected an image of Christ for his seals.99
Other people, in contrast, changed their dignities and/or offices but kept the
same sphragistic iconography: Nikephoros Batatzes retained images of Deme
trios in military costume; Constantine Bourtzes kept issuing seals with images of
Demetrios in military garb; and Michael Bourtzes continued to employ images
of Archangel Michael in imperial costume. On the other hand, while holding one
office, the same individual could employ different images for his seal: Andron
ikos Doukas used two different types of images of the Virgin, the Nikopoios and
the Virgin and Child enthroned. Some in Table 7.6 issued seals with religious
images but also owned seals that bear inscriptions only. Nikephoros Bourtzes
and Theodore Dalassenos provide two examples.100 From the examples offered by
Table 7.6, one can conclude that no general pattern of images and titles emerges
that consistently coincides with the cursus honorum of individuals, except in the
95 Cheynet and Morrisson, ‘Texte et image’, 19. For these various seals of Romanos Skleros, see
Seibt, Die Skleroi, no. 18 and Cheynet, Morrisson, and Seibt, Seyrig, nos. 158 and 159. Another
example is provided by Šandrovskaja, ‘Sfragistika’, no. 753.
96 For a brief discussion of the iconographic choices made by Philaret Brachamios, see Cheynet and
Morrisson, ‘Texte et image’, 18–9.
97 For seals outlining the career of Nikephoros Botaneiates, see Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead
Seals, I:3, no. 2687; Oikonomides, Dated Byzantine Lead Seals, no. 91; Zacos and Veglery, Byz
antine Lead Seals, I:3, no. 2688 (a parallel example is provided by Lihačev, Molivdovuly, 3);
Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3, no. 2690 (parallel examples are found in Lihačev,
Molivdovuly, 1 and C. Sode, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin, II (Bonn 1997) no. 182); Zacos
and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3, no. 2690bis a and b (parallel examples appear in G.
Schlumberger, ‘Sceaux byzantins inédits’, REG 13 (1900) no. 153 and DOSeals, III, no. 86.18);
G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’empire byzantin (Paris 1884), 625, no. 1 (see also idem,
‘Sceaux byzantins inédits’, Revue numismatique 9 (1905) no. 253 for a parallel specimen); and
Šandrovskaja, ‘Sfragistika’, no. 698. For this latter seal, possibly the military aspect of the Arch
angel’s character was preferred since Nikephoros at this time also bore a military title of dux.
Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel, 141 and 253, prefers to assign this seal to the homonymous
grandson of the emperor. See also Cheynet and Morrisson, ‘Texte et image’, 27.
98 Cheynet and Morrisson, ‘Texte et image’, 27–8. See also C.-L. Dumitrescu, ‘Remarques en
marge du Coislin 79: Les trois euniques et le problème du donateur’, B 57 (1987) 41, esp. n. 18.
99 For example, see Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, no. 96.
100 Cheynet and Vannier, Études prosopographiques, no. 25, 48–9 and no. 11, 90–1, respectively.
245
limited cases of emperors, empresses and patriarchs. What has become evident,
however, is that, broadly speaking, those men holding high-ranking military posi
tions tended to employ figures of military saints for their seals.
Conclusion
In this investigation into the relationship between an individual or family name
and the choice of religious imagery, the sphragistic evidence proves to be both
unique and informative. The large number of seals enables the scholar statisti
cally to test long-held assumptions. The results demonstrate that the role of an
owner’s Christian life had little relation to the preference of any particular reli
gious figural image. The major exception is the name Maria where a very high
correlation exists between appellation and image. The data, however, do indicate
that a chronological preference when selecting sphragistic images of homony
mous saints was more likely to occur and this highpoint was the 10th/11th cen
tury, followed closely by the 11th century. It was at these periods that there was
the highest percentage of seals with images of saints and the largest number of
different saints depicted. The wider variety of hagiographic portraiture found
on seals issued during this chronological span implies that a greater freedom in
individual choice in the visual expression of one’s personal piety existed. On the
other hand, the image of the Virgin was the most preferred holy figure for seals,
reflecting her role as the greatest intercessor. Such conclusions should be taken
into account when scholars attempt to assign objects in other media to unknown
homonymous donors solely on account of the religious imagery that such objects
exhibit.
Families likewise revealed no overall consistent pattern in choosing sigillo
graphic imagery. Those from military or civil backgrounds tended to select
similar images. This sphragistic evidence, therefore, offers one solution to the
unanswered question posed by Cormack who sought to determine if there is any
difference in the patronage of the civil and the military aristocracy.101 No single
family restricted itself to a single figure for its seals. One therefore cannot speak
of a family or dynastic cult. Individual choice is the practice, not a single fig
ure representing a family group. The sphragistic data did demonstrate, however,
that those members within a family that held a military title did usually select an
image of a military saint for their seals. Thus, in this limited sphere, there does
appear to be some correlation between image and office held by an individual.
Yet, the range of images employed by these clans in general was limited and dom
inated by the Virgin, Nicholas, Archangel Michael, and the military saints – that
is, the figures considered as the most popular and powerful intercessors within the
broader framework of Byzantine society.
101 R. Cormack, ‘Aristocratic patronage of the arts in eleventh- and twelfth-century Byzantium’, The
Byzantine Aristocracy IX to XIII Centuries, 158–72.
246
The sphragistic data also grant some insight into onomastics. The variety of
names found on seals peaked in the 11th century when the number of religious
figural seals was at its greatest. First names that were popular were not the same as
those of the popular saints. Personal names that belonged to emperors became, in
general during the middle Byzantine period, more widespread than others. Yet the
prestige of imperial names did not lend itself to the popularity of the cult of their
homonymous saints. It appears as if two separate spheres of onomastics were at
work. Individuals may have received prestigious imperial names at baptism, but,
as adults, these individuals turned not to holy figures who bore their homonymous
identities but rather to the popular saintly intercessors. Also, during the pre-Icono
clastic period, the personal names most commonly appearing on seals were John,
Theodore and George, yet chronologically they do not parallel imperial names.
Instead they reflect the names of contemporary homonymous saintly cults. Possi
bly, for the earlier centuries, popular saints’ names were employed for naming, but
the images of such holy figures were not frequently employed by these individu
als. Rather, the depiction of the Virgin was the most often chosen.
The examination of those individuals who possessed more than one seal sug
gested that a dignity or function was not associated with a specific religious
image. Some owners of seals kept the same image while holding different titles,
while others used different images with the same titles. Still others changed their
sphragistic images when they received new titles. This variety of sphragistic image
selection clearly demonstrates that an individual’s intercessory prayers were not
statically devoted to a single holy figure but could synchronically and diachron
ically change. Thus, as seen for the families, here too no specific religious figure
in the sense of an emblem or heraldic sign came to be associated with a title. The
linking of image and title seems restricted only to high ranking-positions such as
emperor, empress, patriarch, and, to some extent, metropolitans of sees whose
thrones are associated with the cults of local regional saints. Only in a broader
pattern does one observe that men in military careers tend to prefer images of
warrior saints for their seals.
The only relatively consistent pattern is the choice of images made by women.
The sigillographic results offer strong evidence for female devotion to the Virgin.
This observation, however, is valid for the middle Byzantine period because only
three seals belonging to women are from the pre-Iconoclastic period. Meanwhile,
the sphragistic data demonstrated that the image of the Theotokos is also the most
frequently selected figure for seals belonging to men as well. Women did not
indicate any sphragistic devotion towards female saints. Images of the latter were
chosen only by men. On occasion, women also selected images of Christ or of
male saints for their seals. Gender-related piety regarding both men and women,
therefore, appears to be a more complex phenomenon than mere same-sex iden
tification. The Virgin’s roles as powerful intercessor and mother were seen to be
central elements determining women’s choice of images. Yet in numerous cases, it
was shown that men selected images of the Virgin for the identical reasons as did
women: for protection; for health; for healthy offspring; and even for homonymity.
247
This impetus behind the rise in the cult of the Theotokos during the 11th and
12th centuries may also be related to her parallel devotion among the aristocratic
families at that time. Various scholars have commented on the emerging role of
aristocratic women as an important factor in Byzantine society of the late 11th and
12th centuries. One only needs to remember such characters as Anna Dalassene,
Irene Doukaina, and Anna Komnene. The devotions of such women to the Virgin
may have influenced their families as well as larger sections of society. This inter
pretation gains support from the contemporary rise in the frequency of sphragistic
representations of the Virgin.
Motives determining the choice of sigillographic religious figural images are
varied and complex. Personal and family names, gender, places of origin, as well
as social position, offer only partial explanations. The need to investigate other
factors exists in order to understand more fully the reasons behind the selection of
particular sphragistic images and how these images visually express the personal
piety of seal owners.
248
Appendix
EMPLOYED
Cheynet, J.-C. and J.-F. Vannier, Études prosopographiques (Paris 1986).

Cheynet, J.-C., C. Morrisson and W. Seibt, Sceaux byzantins de la collection Henri Seyrig
(Paris 1991).
Davidson, G., Corinth XII: The Minor Objects (Princeton 1952), nos. 2751–2808.
De Gray Birch, W., Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Manuscripts in the British
Museum (London 1898).
Dunn, A., A Handlist of the Byzantine Lead Seals and Tokens in the Barber Institute of Fine
Arts, University of Birmingham (Birmingham 1983).
Koltsida-Makre, I., Βυζαντινὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα Συλλογῆς Ὀρφανίδη- Νικολαΐδη Νομισματικοῦ
Μουσείου Ἀθηνῶν (Athens 1996).
Konstantopoulos, K., Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα τοῦ ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἐθνικοῦ Νομισματικοῦ
Μουσείου (Athens 1917).
Konstantopoulos, K., Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα· Συλλογῆ Ἀναστασίου Κ. Π. Σταμούλη
(Athens 1930).
Laurent, V., Documents de sigillographie byzantine: Le collection C. Orghidan (Paris
1952).
Laurent, V., Les sceaux byzantins du Médaillier Vatican (Vatican City 1962).
Laurent, V., Les corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantine, V/1–3, L’église (Paris, 1963–
1972); II: L’administration central (Paris 1982).
Lihačev, N., Istoričeskoe značene italo-grečeskoj ikonopisi izobrazenija Bogomateri
(St. Petersburg 1911).
Lihačev, N., Molivdovuly grečeskogo vostoka, ed. V. Šandrovskaja (Moscow 1991).
Nesbitt, J. and N. Oikonomides, Catalogue of the Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and
in the Fogg Museum of Art, I-IV (Washington, DC 1991, 1994, 1996, 2001).
Oikonomides, N., A Collection of Dated Byzantine Lead Seals (Washington, DC 1986).
Pančenko, B., ‘Kollekcii Russago Archeologiceskago Instituta v Konstantinople. Katalog
Molivdovulov’, IRAIK, 8 (1903) nos. 1–124; in 9 (1904) nos. 125–300; and in 13 (1908)
nos. 301–500.
Šandrovskaja, V., ‘Sfragistika’, Iskusstvo Vizantii v Sobranijach SSSR. Katalog Vystavki,
I-III (Moscow 1977) nos. 205–258; nos. 678–865; and nos. 1020–1044.
Schlumberger, G., Sigillographie de l’empire byzantine (Paris 1884).
249
Schlumberger, G., ‘Sceaux byzantins inédits’, in Mélanges d’archéologie Byzantine (Paris

1895), 199–274; REG 13 (1900) 467–492; in Revue numismatique 9 (1905), 321–354;
and 20 (1916), 32–46.
Seibt, W., Die Skleroi: Eine prosopographisch-sigillographische Studie (Vienna 1976).
Seibt, W., Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich, Vol. 1, Kaiserhof (Vienna 1978).
Seibt, W. and M. L. Zarnitz, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk (Vienna 1997).
Sode, C., Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin, II, Poikila Byzantina, 14 (Bonn 1997).
Speck, P., Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin (West), Poikila Byzantina, 5 (Bonn 1986).
Stavrakos, C., Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel mit Familiennamen aus der Sammlung des
Numismatischen Museums Athen (Wiesbaden 2000).
Szemioth, A. and T. Wasilewski, ‘Sceaux byzantins du Musée National de
Varsovie’, Studia Zródioznawcze. Commentationes, 11 (1966) 1–38 and 14 (1969) 63–89.
Wassiliou, A.-K. and W. Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich, 2: Zentral- und
Provinzialverwaltung (Vienna 2004).
Zacos, G., Byzantine Lead Seals, II, ed. J. Nesbitt (Berne 1984).
Zacos, G. and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I/1–3 (Basel 1972).
250
8
RELIGIOUS FIGURAL IMAGES ON

BYZANTINE LEAD SEALS AS A
REFLECTION OF VISUAL PIETY
DURING THE ICONOCLASTIC
C O N T R O V E R S Y*
In memory of my mother, Demetra
Our knowledge and understanding of the complexities and nuances regarding the
phenomenon of 8th- and 9th-century visual piety prior to, during, and immedi
ately following Byzantine Iconoclasm have been greatly enhanced in recent years
due to scholarly work from various perspectives: through the study of the contem
porary hagiographical sources;1 from the examination of 9th-century manuscript
illumination;2 through investigation of the theological and aesthetic foundations
for the validity of Christian figural representation and the changing nature of the
theological discourse between Iconoclast and Iconophile thinkers;3 via an exam
ination of the actual physical characteristics of images reflecting Iconophile pref
erence;4 through the recent museum exhibition, Byzantium and Islam, focused on
* I wish to thank John Nesbitt for reading earlier drafts of this paper and for his thoughtful suggestions
for its improvement. Thanks are also due to Jean-Claude Cheynet, Werner Seibt, Jonathan Shea and
Elena Stepanova for their assistance in locating and providing photographs for this publication.
1 La Vie d’Étienne le Jeune par Étienne le Diacre, ed. M.-F. Auzépy, Aldershot, 1997; eadem, L’hagi
ographie et l’iconoclasme byzantin: Le cas de la Vie d’Étienne le Jeune, Aldershot, 1999 and Byzan
tine Defenders of Images: Eight Saints’ Lives in English Translation, ed. A.-M. Talbot, Washington,
DC, 1998.
2 K. Corrigan, Visual Polemics in the Ninth-Century Byzantine Psalters, Cambridge, 1992 and L.
Brubaker, Vision and Meaning in Ninth-Century Byzantium: Image as Exegesis in the Homilies of
Gregory of Nazianzus, Cambridge, 1999. For more recent work on the ninth-century psalters, see
M. Evangelatou, “Liturgy and the Illustration of the Ninth-Century Marginal Psalters,” Dumbarton
Oaks Papers, 63, 2009, p. 59–116.
3 C. Barber, Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm, Prince
ton, 2002 and J. Elsner, “Iconoclasm as Discourse: From Antiquity to Byzantium,” Art Bulletin,
94:3, 2012, p. 368–394.
4 B. Pentcheva, The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual and the Senses in Byzantium, University Park, PA,
2010, p. 57–96. For criticism of Pentcheva’s conclusion concerning the Iconophile preference for
relief images, see C. Barber’s review of her publication in Art Bulletin, 93:3, 2011, espec. p. 372.
251
the 7th through the 9th century;5 in light of collected historical studies devoted
to the topic;6 from research that has focused primarily on the role of emperors
and Constantinopolitan patriarchs;7 and by recent reexamination of the texts and
reception of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod.8 Any current research devoted to
the period of Byzantine Iconoclasm must also include Leslie Brubaker and John
Haldon’s two essential and comprehensive publications that index the written,
archaeological and visual evidence pertaining to the Iconoclastic debate and that
subsequently examine the primary sources and the historiographic literature for a
reconsideration of the phenomenon of Byzantine Iconoclasm.9
Previously the significance of Byzantine lead seals and their imagery has
played a minor role in studies dealing with the use of sacred images during the 8th
and 9th centuries. In his seminal work on Iconoclasm, André Grabar included a
brief discussion of the changing imperial and patriarchal sphragistic iconography
that reflected the official stance on religious figures, yet he assigned an erroneous
chronology and identification to several of the seals discussed.10 In their survey
5 Byzantium and Islam: Age of Transition, 7th-9th Century, ed. H. Evans and B. Ratliff, New York,
2012.
6 Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive?, ed. L. Brubaker, Aldershot, 1998 and M.-F.
Auzépy, L’histoire des iconoclasts, Paris, 2007. In support of Auzépy’s argument for doubting that
an image of Christ existed at the Chalke gate before the one set up by Irene after 787, see L.
Brubaker, “The Chalke Gate, the Construction of the Past, and the Trier Ivory,” Byzantine and Mod
ern Greek Studies, 23, 1999, p. 258–285; J. Haldon and B. Ward-Perkins, “Evidence from Rome
for the Image of Christ on the Chalke Gate in Constantinople,” ibid., p. 286–296 and P. Magdalino,
“The Other Image at the Palace Gate and the Visual Propaganda of Leo III,” Byzantine Religious
Culture: Studies in Honor of Alice-Mary Talbot, ed. D. Sullivan et al., Leiden, 2012, p. 139–154.
On the other hand, several scholars writing after the publication of Auzépy’s seminal article have
maintained that Leo III did actually remove an image of Christ from the Chalke gate in either
726 or 730: G. Dagron, “L’iconoclasme et l’établissement de l’Orthodoxie (726–847),” Histoire
du christianisme des origines à nos jours, IV, ed. J.-M. Mayeur et al., Paris, 1993, p. 100–101; P.
Speck, “Τὰ τῇδε βατταρίσματα πλάνα: Überlegungen zur Aussendekoration der Chalke im achten
Jahrhundert,” Studien zur byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte: Festschrift für Horst Hallensleben zum
65. Geburtstag, ed. B. Borkopp et al., Amsterdam, 1995, p. 211–220; and M. Lauxtermann, Byzan
tine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres: Texts and Contexts, I, Vienna, 2003, p. 274–284.
7 R.-J. Lilie, Byzanz unter Eirene und Konstantin VI. (780–802), Frankfurt am Main, 1996; idem,
Die Patriarchen der ikonoklastischen Zeit: Germanos I.-Methodios I. (715–847), Frankfurt am
Main, 1999; P. Speck, Kaiser Leo III., die Geschichtswerke des Nikephoros und des Theophanes
und der Liber Pontificalis, Bonn, 2002; and G. Dagron, Emperor and Priest: The Imperial Office
in Byzantium, Cambridge, 2003.
8 H. G. Thümmel, Die Konzilien zur Bilderfrage im 8. und 9. Jahrhundreit: Das 7. ökumenische
Konzil in Nikaia 787, Paderborn, 2005.
9 L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic Era (ca 680–850): The Sources, An
Annotated Survey, Aldershot, 2001 and L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic
Era, c. 680–850: A History, Cambridge, 2011. See also the introductory re-examination of the
subject of Byzantine Iconoclasm and its historiography by L. Brubaker, Inventing Byzantine Icon
oclasm, London, 2012.
10 A. Grabar, L’iconoclasme byzantin: Le dossier archéologique, 2nd ed., Paris, 1984, p. 135–150
and p. 219–237, figs. 51–59. For more recent and correct chronologies of imperial and patriarchal
252
religious figural images on lead seals
of the primary sources for the Iconoclast period, Brubaker and Haldon, however,
devote an entire chapter to the importance of the sphragistic material for the
period under discussion; they include bibliographies of introductory literature for
the seals, as well as the major published sigillographic collections, and a table list
ing the known types, iconographies and inscriptions of imperial seals belonging to
the years of the Iconoclastic controversy, from those of Leo III (717–741) to those
of Michael III (842–867).11 Before Iconoclasm, emperors from at least Justin II
(565–578) – if not Justinian I (527–565) – through the early years of Leo III’s
reign (717–720) before his ban against holy images, placed some type of images
of the Virgin on their seals (Figure 8.1).12 In the Iconoclastic period (720–787 and
815–843), emperors replaced the image of the Mother of God with that of a cross
and a prayer to the Trinity (Figure 8.2).13 During the Iconophile interlude (787–
815), three emperors, Nikephoros I (802–811), Michael I (811–813), and Leo V
(813–815) until his renewal of the ban on images in 815, again took up the image
of the Theotokos for their seals.14 After the end of Iconoclasm in 843, emperors,
seals, see G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, Basel, 1972, nos. 1–128bis, pls.
9–31; G. Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, ed. J. Nesbitt, Bern, 1984, nos. 1–54, pls. 1–11; I.
Sokolova, Byzantine Imperial Seals, St. Petersburg, 2007, passim; and J. Nesbitt and C. Morris-
son, Catalogue of Byzantine Lead Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, VI,
Washington, DC, 2009 (hereafter DOSeals VI), passim.
11 Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic Era: The Sources, p. 129–140.
12 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, nos. 4–33 and pls. 9–14; Sokolova, Byzantine
Imperial Seals, nos. 17–61; and DOSeals VI, nos. 6.1, 8.1–28.2. Seal no. 4 in the Zacos and
Veglery volume, assigned to Justinian I, has been a matter of some dispute. W. Seibt, Die byz
antinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich, Vienna, 1978, p. 59, n.10; idem, “Review of G. Zacos and
A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, 1:1–3,” Byzantinoslavica, 36, 1975, p. 208–209; idem, “Die
Darstellung der Theotokos,” p. 36–37; and J.-C. Cheynet and C. Morrisson, “Texte et image
sur les sceaux byzantins: les raisons d’un choix iconographique,” Studies in Byzantine Sigil
lography 4, 1995, p. 10 (repr. in his La société byzantine: L’apport des sceaux, I, Paris, 2008,
p. 113–132), prefer to assign this seal to Justin II (565–578). Although B. Pentcheva, Icons and
Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium, University Park, PA, 2006, p. 19 and fig. 13, assigns
the seal to Justin II in her text, in her caption accompanying the photograph of the seal she
acknowledges a possible Justinianic issuance. According to Zacos and Veglery, the inscription
of the emperor’s name is incomplete (DNIVSTIN . . .). Due to the arrangement of the letters,
however, they conclude that the intended name is Justinian rather than Justin. The same posi
tion of letters is found on Justinianic coinage. I wish to thank John Nesbitt for this verification.
Seibt based his attribution on the seal’s imperial portrait that he claims has a light beard. He
also rules out the possibility of the letter A preceding the N in the inscription. Upon examina
tion of the specimen, however, no trace of a beard can be detected and the letter D preceding
the N, for Dominus Noster, read by Zacos and Veglery, is correct. For a recent reevaluation of
Leo III’s ban against images in 730, see Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic
Era: A History, p. 119–127.
13 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, nos. 43, 46 and 48, pl 16; Sokolova, Byzantine
Imperial Seals, nos. 64–66 and no. 71; and DOSeals VI, nos. 31.1–34.1, 42.1–42.8 and 44.1–47.2.
14 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, nos. 34bis-39 and nos. 49–54, pls. 15–17; Sokolova,
Byzantine Imperial Seals, no. 70; and DOSeals VI, nos. 38.1 and 40.1.
253
Figure 8.1 Lead seal of Leo III (717–720). Obv. Virgin Hodegetria standing; Rev: Leo III
bust. Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1955.1.4269
Figure 8.2 Lead Seal of Leo III and Constantine V (720–741). Obv: Cross on steps, circu
lar inscription; Rev: Inscription. Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1955.1.4278
beginning with Michael III after the end of his minority (856–867), until the end
of the empire, placed an image of Christ on their seals (Figure 8.3).15
When a search is made for examples of patriarchal seals from the pre-Icono
clastic period that bear religious figural imagery, only one example has come to
light: the seal issued by Eutychios (552–565 and 577–582) with its worn depic
tion of an unidentified bearded saint.16 For the Iconoclastic period, when reli
gious figural images were officially banned, seals belonging to three Iconoclastic
patriarchs are known: Theodotos (815–821); Anthony I (821–837); and John
15 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1, nos. 56–128bis, pls. 18–31; Sokolova, Byzantine
Imperial Seals, nos 74–210; and DOSeals VI, nos. 49.1–109.1.
16 Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, no. 1. This specimen had been previously published by V. Lau
rent, Le corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantin, V:1, Paris, 1963, no. 1, who suggested that the
image could possibly be either that of John Chrysostom or Christ. Because the portrait type is
rather generic and there is no accompanying identifying inscription, it is uncertain as to the identity
of the figure. Zacos also notes that another specimen bearing an image of John Chrysostom, pre
viously described by Laurent, Corpus, V:1, no. 2, is actually an eleemosynary ticket or charitable
token and should be assigned rather to the late 7th or early 8th century. A similar token is also listed
by Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, 1:2, no. 1247, pl. 99. For the sequence of known
Constantinopolitan patriarchal seals, from the pre-Iconoclastic period to the end of the empire, see
Laurent, Corpus, V:1, nos. 1–48, pls. 1–7; Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, nos. 1–54, pls. 1–11;
and DOSeals VI, nos. 110.1–130.1.
255
Figure 8.3 Lead Seal of Michael III (866–867). Obv: Christ bust; Rev: Michael III bust.
VII (837–843).17 No image appears on these pieces: the obverses display cruci
form invocative monograms, and five-line inscriptions occupy the reverses (Fig
ure 8.4). The invocative monograms begin with the prayer Κύριε βοήθει (Lord,
help). With the final Iconophile victory in 843, from Methodios I through all of his
successors, except for Ignatios, patriarchs placed an image of the Theotokos on
their seals (Figure 8.5).18 Recently, the imagery of imperial and patriarchal seals
17 Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, nos. 2, 3 and 4, respectively; N. Oikonomides, A Collection of
Dated Byzantine Lead Seals, Washington, DC, 1986, nos. 43, 45 and 49; and DOSeals VI, nos.
110.1 and 111.1. The specimens belonging to Theodotos and Anthony were previously published
by Laurent, Corpus, V:1, nos. 3 and 4, respectively, who erroneously read the cruciform invocative
monograms as Θεοτόκε Βοήθει (Theotokos, help).
18 For reference to the patriarchal seals of the Byzantine period, see note 16, supra. For a discussion
of the chronological variance of the Marian iconography found on patriarchal seals as a reflection
of the diachronic changes of the apse mosaic decoration in Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, see
G. Galavaris, “The Representation of the Virgin and Child on a ‘Thokos’ on Seals of the Constan
tinopolitan Patriarchs,” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 4:2, 1962, p. 154–181;
and idem, “Observations on the Date of the Apse Mosaic of the Church of Hagia Sophia in Con
stantinople,” Actes du XIIe congrès international d’études byzantines, Ochride, 10–16 Septembre,
1961, III, Belgrade, 1964, p. 107–110. Galvaris’s 14th-century dating of the apse mosaic in Hagia
Sophia is erroneous. For the commonly accepted 9th-century dating of the mosaic, see R. Cor
mack, “Interpreting the Mosaics of S. Sophia at Istanbul,” Art History, 4, 1981, p. 135–138 (repr.
in his The Byzantine Eye, London, 1989), who also provides the relevant bibliography, p. 147,
for the study of the church’s mosaics; and idem, “The Mother of God in the Mosaics of Hagia
Sophia at Constantinople,” Mother of God: Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine Art, ed. M.
Vassilaki, Athens, 2000, p. 108–113. For a dating of the apse mosaic of Hagia Sophia to the years
of the Iconophile interlude, more specifically between 787–797, also employing the iconography
of patriarchal seals, see N. Oikonomides, “Some Remarks on the Apse Mosaic of St. Sophia,”
256
Figure 8.4 Lead Seal of Anthony I, patriarch of Constantinople (821–837). Obv: Cruciform
invocative monogram; Rev: Inscription. Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.5703
Figure 8.5 Lead Seal of Methodios I, patriarch of Constantinople (843–847). Obv: Virgin
Hodegetria standing; Rev: Inscription. (After G. Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals,
II, ed. J. Nesbitt [Berne, 1984], no. 5a)
from the period of Iconoclasm has been examined in light of its means of visually
proclaiming the changing roles and self-understanding of the emperor and patri
arch of Constantinople before and after Iconoclasm.19
Coins, which could only be minted by emperors, from the period under
discussion, shed further light on the imperial policy toward religious figural
images. Michael III and his mother, the regent Theodora, restored the image of
Christ on coins after the end of Iconoclasm,20 reviving the short-lived innova
tion of the emperor Justinian II (685–695 and 705–711).21 Prior to Justinian II,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 39, 1985, p. 111–115. For criticism of Oikonomides’ dating, see Cor
mack, “Additional Notes: Study VIII,” The Byzantine Eye, p. 14.
19 J. Cotsonis, “The Imagery of Patriarch Methodios I’s Lead Seals and the New World Order of
Ninth-Century Byzantium,” Legacy of Achievement: Metropolitan Methodios of Boston, Festal
Volume on the 25th Anniversary of His Consecration to the Episcopate, 1982–2007, ed. G. Dragas,
Palmyra, VA, 2008, p. 366–387 and idem, “The Imagery of Patriarch Ignatios’ Lead Seals and
the Rota Fortunae of Ninth-Century Byzantine Ecclesio-Political Policies,” Servant of the Gos
pel: Studies in Honor of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, ed. T. Fitzgerald,
Brookline, MA, 2011, p. 52–98. See also I. Kalavrezou, “Images of the Mother: When the Virgin
Mary Became Meter Theou,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 44, 1990, p. 171, where imperial and
patriarchal seals are included in her discussion.
20 P. Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whit
temore Collection, III:1, Washington, DC, 1973, p. 454, 463–464, pl. 28. See also Brubaker, Vision
and Meaning in Ninth-Century Byzantium, p. 148. For a discussion comparing imperial seals and
coins, see C. Morrisson and G. Zacos, “L’ image de l’ empereur byzantin sur les sceaux et les
monnaies,” La monnaie miroir des rois, ed. Y. Goldenberg, Paris, 1978, p. 57–72, and see the
contemporaneous imperial seals and coins published together throughout DOSeals, VI.
21 J. Breckenridge, The Numismatic Iconography of Justinian II (685–695, 705–711 A. D.), New
York, 1959, passim; and P. Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks
Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, II:2, Washington, DC, 1968, p. 568–570, 578–580,
581–582, 644–646 and 648–649, pls. 37–38.
258
coins did not bear religious figural images, and Justinian II’s immediate suc
cessors did not employ this numismatic practice that appears to have been
of little interest.22 With the revival of the image of Christ on the coinage of
Michael III, numismatic depictions of the Lord continued to be employed until
the end of the empire, along with periodic use of the images of the Virgin or
various saints.23
From an earlier database that I had created of over 7,000 published lead seals
bearing religious figural iconography and reflecting the broad spectra of the
ecclesiastical, civil and military bureaucracies, as well as private individuals,
I produced a chronological distribution that displayed the relative percentage
of seals with holy images as compared to the total number of seals per century
(including aniconic seals, which bear either only inscriptions or an image of the
cross), demonstrating a decline in the production of iconographic seals during
the 7th/8th century through that of the 8th/9th, that is, during the Iconoclas
tic period, after which the percentage of religious figural iconograpahic seals
steadily increased.24 The present study, however, will attempt to examine the
figural imagery of lead seals, in conjunction with the titles/offices of their own
ers, from the 7th/8th century through the 9th century as a means of investigat
ing personal piety and the use of images during the Iconoclastic centuries. The
22 Breckenridge, The Numismatic Iconography of Justinian II, 86, concludes that Justinian’s first
coin type with the “Pantokrator” form of Christ is contemporary with or reflecting the same
thought-world, but not necessarily the direct result of Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council of
691/692 that preferred representations of Christ in His human nature over that of symbols. Gri
erson, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins, II:2, p. 570, accepts Breckenridge’s view as does J.
Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture, rev. ed., Cambridge,
1997, p. 370–371, where he also sees the rejection of the use of the image of Christ on the coins
of Justinian’s immediate successors as a sign of returning to a previous imperial policy in which
the emperor legitimizes his own authority; and idem, “Constantine or Justinian? Crisis and Iden
tity in Imperial Propaganda in the Seventh Century,” New Constantines; The Rhythm of Imperial
Renewals in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries, ed. P. Magdalino, Aldershot, 1994, p. 106, n. 32,
where he suggests that the new coin-type likely precedes the council. In addition, P. Yannopoulos,
“Le changement de l’iconographie monétaire sous le premier règne de Justinien II (685–695),”
Actes du XIe congrès international de Numismatique organisé à l’occasion du 150e anniversaire
de la Société Royale de Numismatique de Belgique, Bruxelles, 8–13 septembre 1991, III, ed. T.
Hackens and G. Moucharte, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1993, p. 35–40, concluded that Justinian II’s coin
with the image of Christ had no connections with Canon 82 but rather the numismatic innovation
was a response to the Arabo-Byzantine coinage issued by Abd al-Malik whose reverse bore the
inscription, “In the name of Allah.” Breckenridge, The Numismatic Iconography of Justinian II,
raises the problem of the coinage of Abd al-Malik as one possibility for understanding the new
coin type of Justinian II but then rejects this hypothesis and concludes that the sequence of events
was reversed. Grierson Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins, II:2, p. 570, accepts Breckenridge’s
order of the coinage.
23 For a survey of post-Iconoclastic coinage, see P. Grierson, Byzantine Coins, Berkeley, 1982,
p. 172–318, pls. 42–95, passim.
24 J. Cotsonis, “The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals to the Study of the Cult of the Saints
(Sixth-Twelfth Century),” Byzantion, 75, 2005, p. 390–391 and 402–405.
259
need for investigating the visual piety of the 8th and 9th centuries via the use
of personal objects, such as seals, bearing religious imagery was suggested by
Anna Kartsonis in her work on historiated phylacteries, objects also intended
for personal use but whose imagery, like those of seals, reflected both official
religious policies as well as private devotions.25 Her study focused on just the
handful of surviving historiated 8th- and 9th-century cross-shaped phylacter
ies made of gold and silver. She does, however, refer to the mass-produced
bronze versions that also bear sacred figural representations. Since the time of
Kartsonis’s study, Brigitte Pitarakis has catalogued over 650 surviving bronze
historiated pectoral cross-reliquaries, but only 13 of these, 11 of which are
historiated, are assigned to the 7th through 9th centuries.26 All the rest belong
to the 9th/10th through the 13th century and therefore fall beyond the chrono
logical scope of this study.
Turning again to lead seals, Elena Stepanova has offered a brief examination
of 14 seals bearing images of saints belonging to the Hermitage in which she
observes a trend whereby in the pre-Iconoclastic period, seals with images of
saints, accompanied by their identifying inscriptions, very often were issued by
members of the clergy as their official seals, while seals similarly bearing saints’
images but without inscriptions were created by individuals for private use.27
Yet her study, too, was based upon only a small, select sample focusing on the
pre-Iconoclastic period. The use of a large number of seals, however, offers a
broader range of material for this topic of investigation. My present study draws
from my updated database of 10,786 lead seals bearing religious figural iconog
raphy ranging in date from the 6th through the 15th century, 349 of which belong
to the 7th/8th through the 9th centuries, that is, from the years just prior to the
onset of imperial Iconoclasm through the period when sacred images were offi
cially restored.28 This count represents the largest number of objects with religious
figural imagery surviving from the period under discussion and therefore offers
the richest source of material for such an analysis. Since many of these seals also
bear the titles or offices of their owners, the choice of images by members of
the different administrative branches of the Byzantine empire, and across various
geographic regions, can be observed for telling trends that may contribute to our
understanding of visual and personal piety during the period prior to, during, and
immediately after Iconoclasm and regarding the use of sacred images during these
controversial years.
25 A. Kartsonis, “Protection Against All Evil: Function, Use and Operation of Byzantine Historiated
Phylacteries,” Byzantinische Forschungen, 20, 1994, p. 78–79 and 86.
26 B. Pitarakis, Les croix-reliquaires pectorals byzantines en bronze, Paris, 2006, where nos. 1–9,
nos. 581–582 and Suppls. 1 and 2 belong to the period of our study.
27 E. Stepanova, “Pečati S Izobraženijami Svjatyh: Doikonoborčeskoe Vremja,” Trudy Gosudarst
vennogo Ermitaža, 51, 2010, p. 319–326 and 623. I wish to thank Daria Pino for providing an
English translation of this article.
28 See the Appendix for the list of catalogues from which the total database of seals was drawn.
260
Frequency and types of images

Table 8.1 presents the chronological distribution of religious figural imagery on
seals from the period of the Iconoclastic controversy, totaling 365 examples.29
From the totals for each chronological period, one observes that there are 109
images from the 7th/8th century, just before the onset of Iconoclasm, after which
the number declines to a low of 34 and rises again in the 9th century, when Icon
oclasm was liquidated, to a total of 159 images for the period. This decrease and
subsequent increase in the frequency of seals bearing sacred images is what one
would expect from the years of the Iconoclastic debates, and it proves to be a real
decline and rise when these figures are compared with the total number of seals
(both figural and aniconic) for each chronological period: 96/771, or 12.5% for
the 7th/8th century; 63/1,443, or 4.4% for the 8th century; 34/906, or 3.8% for the
8th/9th century; and 159/1,441, or 11% for the 9th century.30 It should be noted
that the ratio of iconographic seals to total seals for the 7th/8th century, that is, the
period just before the onset of Iconoclasm, is 12.5%, not a large value at all. As an
index to the image-producing activity of this society, the seals then demonstrate
that image use was not widespread in pre-Iconoclastic Byzantium and that con
sequently no far-reaching, systematic destruction of sacred figural art was neces
sary under Iconoclasm. The evidence of the seals corroborates Peter Schreiner’s,31
Hans-Georg Thümmel’s,32 and Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon’s33 criticisms of
29 Although there are 349 different seals, several specimens have more than one holy figure depicted,
either together on the obverse or distributed over the obverse and reverse, thus bringing the total
to 365 different images.
30 The percentiles reflect the actual number of seals with religious figural imagery per chronological
period, not the number of images on seals. For very similar percentile values in an earlier study
see Cotsonis, “Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” p. 391 and 401–402, where the database of
seals bearing religious figural iconography was 7, 284.
31 P. Schreiner, “Der byzantinische Bilderstreit: Kritische Analyse der zeitgenössischen Meinungen
und das Urteil der Nachwelt bis heute,” Bisanzio, Roma e L’Italia nell’Alto Medioevo, 3–9 aprile
1986, I, Spoleto, 1988, p. 322 and 379–392.
32 H. G. Thümmel, Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen BilderLehre: Texte und Untersuchungen
zur Zeit vor dem Bilderstreit, Berlin, 1992, p. 103–115 and 199–204 and idem, Die Konzilien zur
Bilderfrage, p. 33–34, 50–52 and 174.
33 L. Brubaker, “Icons Before Iconoclasm?,” Morfologie sociale e culturali in Europa fra tarda
antichità e alto medioevo, ed. Av. Cameron and O. Capitani, Spoleto, 1998, p. 1215–1254 and
Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic Era: A History, p. 50–66, 197–234, 372–411
and 787–799. See also C. Mango, “Historical Introduction,” Iconoclasm, ed. A. Bryer and J. Her
rin, Birmingham, 1977, p. 3–6; S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Constantine
V: With Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources, Louvain, 1977, p. 113–117, 121 and 167; P.
Speck, Ikonoklasmus und die Anfänge der makedonischen Renaissance, Bonn, 1984, p. 175–210;
M.-F. Auzépy, “La destruction de l’icone du Crist de la Chalcé par Leon III: Propagande ou réal
ité?,” Byzantion, 60, 1990, p. 445–492 (repr. in her L’histoire des iconoclasts, p. 145–178); and P.
Karlin-Hayter, “The ‘Age of Iconoclasm’?,” La spiritualité de l’univers byzantin dans le verbe et
l’image: Hommages offerts à Edmond Voordeckers à l’occasion de son éméritat, ed. K. Demoen
and J. Vereecken, Turnhout, 1997, p. 137–149.
261
Ernst Kitzinger’s earlier paradigm that recognized a dramatic increase in the pres
ence of holy images beginning in the 6th century that consequently necessitated a
drastic loss of sacred images during Iconoclasm.34
Table 8.1 also presents another discernable trend: the reduction in the variety of
saintly images occurring on seals as Iconoclasm progressed. In each chronolog
ical period, the image of the Virgin dominates, as her image on seals is the most
frequently encountered throughout the centuries of the Byzantine empire: of the
10,786 seals bearing religious figural imagery in my database, 4,404, or 40.8%,
have an image of the Virgin, the single largest iconographic category among the
seals.35 The Mother of God was understood as the intercessor par excellence, a
unique position she enjoyed as the Mother who could move her Divine Son to
compassion on behalf of believers.36 But among those seals assigned to the 7th/8th
34 E. Kitzinger, “The Cult of Images before Iconoclasm,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 8, 1954,
p. 83–150 (repr. in his The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West: Selected Studies by Ernst
Kitzinger, ed. W. E. Kleinbauer, Bloomington, IN, 1976, p. 90–156) and idem, “Byzantine Art
in the Period between Justinian and Iconoclasm,” Berichte zum XI. internationalen Byzantinis
ten-Kongress, München 1958 IV/1, Munich, 1958, p. 1–50 (repr. in his The Art of Byzantium and
the Medieval West, p. 157–232).
35 For the predominance of the image of the Virgin on lead seals, see N Oikonomides, Byzantine Lead
Seals, Washington, DC, 1985, p. 13–14; Seibt, “Die Darstellung der Theotokos,” p. 35–56; W. Seibt
and M.-L. Zarnitz, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk. Katalog zur Austellung, Vienna,
1997, p. 104–06; V. Penna, “The Iconography of Byzantine Lead Seals: The Emperor, the Church,
the Aristocracy,” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας, 4, 20, 1998, p. 261–274;
eadem, “The Mother of God on Coins and Lead Seals,” Mother of God: Representations of the Vir
gin in Byzantine Art, ed. M. Vassilaki, Athens, 2000, p. 212–217; Cotsonis, “The Contribution of
Byzantine Lead Seals,” p. 400–414; and W. Seibt, Ein Blick in die byzantinische Gesellschaft: Die
Bleisiegel im Museum August Kestner, Rahden, 2011, p. 23–24. For some discussions of specific
Marian sphragistic images, see W. Seibt, “Der Bildtypus der Theotokos Nikopoios: zur Ikonogra
phie des Gottesmutter-Ikone, die 1030/31 in der Blachernenkirche wiederaufgefunden wurde,”
Byzantina, 13, 1985, p. 550–564; J. Cotsonis, “The Virgin with the ‘Tongues of Fire’ on Byzantine
Lead Seals,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 48, 1994, p. 221–27; idem, “The Virgin and Justinian on
Seals of the Ekklesiekdikoi of Hagia Sophia,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 56, 2002, p. 41–58; idem,
“The Image of the Virgin Nursing (Galaktotrophousa) and a Unique Inscription on the Seals of
Romanos, Metropolitan of Kyzikos,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 65/66, 2011–2012, p. 193–208; H.
Hunger, “Zur Terminologie der Theotokosdarstellungen auf byzantinischen Siegeln,” Aachener
Kunstblätter, 60, 1994, p. 131–140; B. Pentcheva, “Rhetorical Images of the Virgin: The Icon
of the ‘Usual Miracle’ at the Blachernai,” Res, 38, 2000, p. 35–55; B. Pitarakis, “À propos de
l’image de la Vierge orante avec le Christ-Enfant, (XIe-XIIe siècles): l’émergence d’un culte,”
Cahiers archéologiques, 48, 2000, p. 45–58 (the previous two authors deal with the same Marian
iconographic type on seals but offer varied perspectives and conclusions); I. Koltsida-Makre, “The
Iconography of the Virgin through Inscriptions on Byzantine Lead Seals of the Athens Numismatic
Museum Collections,” Studies in Byzantine Sigillography, 8, 2003, p. 27–38; and J. Cotsonis and
J. Nesbitt, “The Virgin Aigyptia (The Egyptian) on a Byzantine Lead Seal of Attaleia,” Byzantion,
78, 2008, p. 104–113.
36 For a general discussion of the Virgin as intercessor, see J. Ledit, Marie dans la liturgie de Byzance,
Paris, 1976, p. 303–313. See also Kalavrezou, “Images of the Mother,” p. 165–72; eadem, “The
Maternal Side of the Virgin,” Mother of God, p. 41–46; I. Djordjević and M. Marković, “On the
Dialogue Relationship Between the Virgin and Christ in East Christian Art,” Zograf, 28, 2000/2001,
262
Table 8.1 Iconographic Repertoire of Seals During Iconoclastic Centuries
IMAGE 7th/8th 8th CENTURY 8th/9th 9th CENTURY TOTAL

CENTURY CENTURY
? 30 11 1 4 46
Christ 51 51
Virgin Hodegetria 20 24 13 29 86
Virgin & Child 2 1 3
Enthroned
Virgin & Child on 1 1
Thokos
Virgin & Child Front 18 9 8 34 69
Virgin Orans 2 2
Virgin Bust 1 1
Virgin Praying/Hands 1 1
Front
Virgin Imprecise 1 1
Virgin Nikopoios 3 23 26
Virgin & Child Imprecise 1 1
Deesis 1 1
Annunciation 1 1
Anastasia 3 3
Basil 1 1 2
Demetrios 3 1 4
Epiphanios 1 2 3
George 1 1
Gregory Thaumatourgos 2 2
Ianouarios 1 2 3
John the Baptist 1 1 1 3
John Chrysostom 2 2
John the Theologian 1 3 3 3 10
Kallinikos 1 1
Michael 2 2
Nicholas 1 2 3 6
Peter 1 1
Peter & Paul 4 1 5
Polycarp 1 1
Sabbas 2 2
Samuel & David 1 1
Sophia 6 6
Symeon Stylites 3 3
Theodore 4 4 1 9
Thomas 1 1
Three Youths 1 1
Titos 2 1 3
TOTAL 109 63 34 159 365
century, there are many more examples of images of saints other than the Virgin
than in the succeeding two chronological periods: for the 7th/8th century there
are 35 representations, or 32.1% of the total representations, of 16 different saints
besides the Virgin; for the 8th century there are 18 representations of saints, or
28.6% of the total, now of ten different holy figures. Of the seals belonging to the
8th/9th century, there are eight depictions of saints, or 23.5% of the total for that
period, representing four different saintly individuals. From the 9th century, there
are 14 depictions of saints, or 8.8% of the total iconographic seals for that period,
representing nine different sacred personages.
Thus, during the years of the Iconoclastic controversy, Iconophile visual piety
focused on the imagery of the Virgin.37 These percentile distributions correspond
to trends known from historical and art historical sources.38 During the period of
Iconoclasm considerable debate centered on the intercessory power of the Virgin
in addition to the legitimacy of her image.39 According to Alexander Kazhdan,
the most likely cause of the clash between the Iconoclast emperor Leo III and
the Iconophile patriarch Germanos I in 730 was the nature of the veneration of
the Mother of God and the role that she played in the life of the empire.40 The
p. 13–48; Cotsonis, “The Virgin and Justinian on Seals of the Ekklesiekdikoi,” p. 52–55; J. Baun,
“Discussing Mary’s Humanity in Medieval Byzantium,” The Church and Mary, ed. R. Swanson,
Woodbridge, 2004, p. 63–72; N. Koutrakou, “Use and Abuse of the “Image” of the Theotokos in the
Political Life of Byzantium (with Special Reference to the Iconoclast Period),” Images of the Mother
of God, p. 77–90; N. Tsironis, “From Poetry to Liturgy: The Cult of the Virgin in the Middle Byzan
tine Era,” Images of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. M. Vassilaki,
Aldershot, 2005, p. 91–99; Pentcheva, Icons and Power, p. 111–117; and S. Kalopissi-Verti, “The
Proskynetaria of the Templon and Narthex: Form, Imagery, Spatial Connections, and Reception,”
Thresholds of the Sacred: Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical, and Theological Perspectives
on Religious Screens, East and West, ed. S. Gerstel, Washington, DC, 2006, p. 118–132; and L. M.
Peltomaa, “Romanos the Melodist and the Intercessory Role of Mary,” Byzantina Mediterranea:
Festschrift für Johannes Koder zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. K. Belke et al., Vienna, 2007, p. 495–502.
See also The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium: Texts and Images, ed. L. Brubaker and M.
Cunningham, Farnham, 2011, passim. For the Virgin as the most frequently depicted intercessory
figure in funerary images, see T. Papamastorakis, “Funerary Representations in the Middle and Late
Byzantine Periods,” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας, 4, 17, 1994, p. 285–304.
37 See Cotsonis, “Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” p. 400–414, where the chronological com
peting trends between the Virgin and saints in light of sphragistic imagery is discussed.
38 For discussion of the written and material sources related to the period of Iconoclasm, see Brubaker
and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic Era: The Sources, passim.
39 The complex parsing of the Iconoclast and Iconophile texts concerning the Theotokos, her images and
her intercessory powers can be found in Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Constantine
V, p. 143–151; A. Giakalis, Images of the Divine: The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumeni
cal Council, Leiden, 1994, p. 10, 22, 28, 46–49 and 101; K. Parry, Depicting the Word: Byzantine
Iconophile Thought in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries, Leiden, 1996, p. 191–2201; N. Tsironis, “The
Mother of God in the Iconoclastic Controversy,” Mother of God, p. 27–39; Koutrakou, “Use and
Abuse of the “Image” of the Theotokos”, p. 77–90; Cotsonis, “The Imagery of Patriarch Methodios
I’s Lead Seals,” p. 373–374; and idem, “The Imagery of Patriarch Ignatios’ Lead Seals,” p. 58.
40 Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, II, p. 846. See also Tsironis, “The Mother of God in the Icono
clastic Controversy,” p. 36.
264
Iconophiles, on the other hand, were quick to defend both the Virgin’s intercessory
role and her images.41 They reasoned that the Theotokos must be revered because
it was from her that Christ assumed flesh: thus his body was circumscribable and
able to be depicted. For the Iconophile, any hostility toward the venerable icons
was therefore an attack against the Theotokos: she became identified with the
legitimacy of image veneration. Unsurprisingly, the majority of seals assigned
by George Zacos and Alexander Veglery in their catalogue to the years of the
Iconophile interlude of 787–815, 34 out of 39 seals, or 87.2%, bear an image of
the Virgin and Child.42 After the final victory of the Iconophiles in 843, Patriarch
Methodios I placed the image of the Theotokos on his seal, as noted above, and
his successors would do so as well.43 The representation of the Theotokos, not the
image of Christ, became the Iconophile emblem par excellence.44
The data from Table 8.1 also reveal not only the predominance of images of the
Theotokos on the seals for the centuries under discussion but also the preference
for certain Marian iconographic types. Among the 191 Marian images found in
Table 8.1, two iconographic forms predominate: the Virgin holding the Christ
Child in front of her, a type often referred to as the Virgin Kyriotissa (Figure 8.6),45
with 69 examples (36.1%), and the most preferred Marian iconography, the Virgin
holding the Christ Child on her left arm, the type known as Hodegetria, with 86
specimens (45%) forming the largest single group (Figure 8.1). When tracking
41 For discussion of the Synod and the Iconophile writers, with reference to their Marian defenses,
see Parry, Depicting the Word, p. 7–80, 125–132 and 191–201; Tsironis, “The Mother of God in
the Iconoclastic Controversy”; Barber, Figure and Likeness, p. 68–70, much of which is repeated
in his “Theotokos and Logos: The Interpretation and Reinterpretation of the Sanctuary Programme
of the Koimesis Church, Nicaea,” Images of the Mother of God, p. 51–59; and Koutrakou, “Use
and Abuse of the ‘Image’ of the Theotokos,” p. 81–89. See also Tsironis, “From Poetry to Liturgy,”
p. 92–95.
42 G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals I:2, Basel, 1972, nos. 1325–1349A, pls. 103–104
and I:3, nos. 2979–2985, pls. 202–203.
43 Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, nos. 5 and 7–54, pls. 1–11 and DOSeals VI, nos. 110.1–129.1. The
only exception is that of his immediate successor, Ignatios, no. 6, pl. 1. See also Cotsonis, “The
Imagery of Patriarch Methodios I’s Lead Seals,” p. 366–387; and idem, “The Imagery of Patriarch
Ignatios’ Lead Seals,” p. 52–98.
44 Cotsonis, “The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” p. 404. The sphragistic evidence supports
similar views articulated by R. Cormack, Painting the Soul: Icons, Death Masks and Shrouds,
London, 1997, p. 89–92 and A. Weyl Carr, “Thoughts on the Economy of the Image of Mary,”
Theology Today, 56:3, 1999, p. 359–378.
45 For the iconographic type of the Virgin Kyriotissa, see S. Kalopissi-Verti, Die Kirche der Hagia
Triada bei Kranidi in der Argolis (1244), Munich, 1975, p. 213–216; M. Tatić-Djurić, “L’ icône
de Kyriotissa,” Actes du XVe congrès international d’ études byzantines, Athènes-Septembre 1976,
IIB, Athens, 1981, p. 759–786; A. Rizzi, “Un’ icona costantinopolitana del XII secolo a Venezia:
La Madonna Nicopeia,” Thesaurismata, 17, 1980, p. 290–306; Seibt, “Der Bildtypus der Theot
okos Nikopoios,” p. 549–564; M. Schulz, “Die Nicopea in San Marco zur Geschichte und zum
Typ einer Ikone,” Byantinische Zeitschrift, 91:2, 1998, espec. p. 486–487 and 489–495; and B.
Pitarakis, “Un groupe de croix-reliquaires pectorals en bronze à décor en relief attributable à Con
stantinople avec le Crucifié et la Vierge Kyriotissa,” Cahiers archéologiques, 46, 1998, p. 81–102.
265
Figure 8.6 Lead Seal of Herakleios and Herakleios Constantine (c. 613 – c. 616). Obv:
Virgin holding Christ Child before her, standing; Rev: Herakleios and Herak
leios Constantine busts. Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.552
the chronological distribution of Table 8.1 and taking into account the percentile
value of the two Marian types from the total number of Marian images for each
time period, another significant trend is observed. As the Iconoclastic debate pro
gresses there is greater Iconophile use of the Virgin Hodegetria type: 20/43 or
46.5% for the 7th/8th century; 24/34, or 70.6%, for the 8th century; 13/25, or 52%
for the 8th/9th century; and 29/89, or 32.6%, for the 9th century. For the image
of the Virgin Kyriotissa type, the corresponding time periods reveal: 18 of 43, or
41.9%; 9 of 34, or 26.5%; 8 of 25, or 32%; and 34 of 89, or 38.2%. At the outset
and after Iconoclasm, the values for the two Marian types are similar, but during
the years of the official Iconoclastic policies the figure of the Virgin Hodegetria is
employed more frequently.
The iconographic type of the Virgin Hodegetria was already an established and
popular Marian image in various media before Iconoclasm, at least as early as the
6th century.46 The Virgin Kyriotissa type, too, was a long-standing Marian represen
tation by the time of the Iconoclastic outbreak and was found in various media.47
It was the Marian type chosen for imperial lead seals from Justinian I (527–565)
through Constantine IV, co-ruling with his brothers, Herakleios and Tiberios (663–
668).48 Yet it was the image of the Virgin Hodegetria that was selected for imperial
seals in the years closely preceding the onset of Iconoclasm, first on that of Con
stantine IV, during his sole rule (681–685) (or possibly that of Leontios [695–698]),
46 For more recent work on the image of the Virgin Hodegetria, see I. Tognazzi-Zervou, “Licono
graphia de la “vita” delle miracolose icone della Theotokos Brefokratoussa: Blachernitissa e
Odighitria,” Bolletino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, 40, 1986, p. 215–287; D. Mouriki,
“Variants of the Hodegetria on Two Thirteenth-Century Sinai Icons,” Cahiers archéologiques, 39,
1991, p. 153–182; Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, III, p. 2172–2173; H. Belting, Likeness and
Presence: A History of the Image Before the Era of Art, Chicago, 1994, p. 31, 57–77; G. Babić,
“Les images byzantines et leurs degrees de signification: l’exemple de l’Hodegetria,” Byzance et
les images, ed. A. Guillou and J. Durand, Paris, 1994, p. 189–222, where sphragistic examples of
the Virgin Hodegetria are also taken into account; C. Angelidi and T. Papamastorakis, “The Vener
ation of the Virgin Hodegetria and the Hodegon Monastery,” Mother of God, p. 373–387 and nos.
54–66; B. Pentcheva, “The ‘Activated’ Icon: The Hodegetria Procession and Mary’s Eisodos,”
Images of the Mother of God, p. 195–208, which also employs sigillographic iconography; and
eadem, Icons and Power, p. 109–143 (where the preceding article of Pentcheva’s is reproduced as
a chapter) and 173–187.
47 Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, III, p. 160 and 165–166; R. Freytag, Die autonome Theot
okosdarstellung der frühen Jahrhunderte, I and II, Munich, 1985, I: p. 223–229 and 231–246 and
II: figs. 4, 10, 11, 12–32 (depicting early seals), 57 and suppl. 19. For examples on the historiated
cross-reliquaries, see Kartsonis, “Protection Against All Evil,” p. 73–102, pls. 1, 2, and 5 and
Pitarakis, “Un groupe de croix-reliquaires pectorals,” p. 81–102; for a mosaic example, see C. Bar
ber, “Theotokos and Logos: the Interpretation and Reinterpretation of the Sanctuary Programme of
the Koimesis Church, Nicaea,” Images of the Mother of God, p. 51–59; for early painted examples,
see Belting, Likeness and Presence, figs. 63, 64 and 68; and for some early sphragistic examples,
see Seibt, “Die Darstellung der Theotokos,” p. 36–42, figs. 1, 2 and 6. For further discussion of the
iconographic Marian type, see note 45, supra.
48 For these seals, see Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals I:1, nos. 4–23; Sokolova, Byzantine
Imperial Seals, nos. 17–60; and DOSeals VI, nos. 6.1–22.3.
267
through the early years of the reign of Leo III (717–720), before he instituted the
ban on holy images.49 The image of the Virgin Hodegetria was also the sphragistic
Marian type chosen for the emperors during the Iconophile interlude: Nikepho
ros I (802–811), Michael I (811–813), and the early years of the reign of Leo V
(813–815).50 The first patriarch after the liquidation of Iconoclasm, Methodios I
(843–847), also placed the image of the Virgin Hodegetria on his seal as did his later
successor Photios (858–867 and 877–886).51 Because the Virgin Hodegetria was the
imperial sphragistic image before the official policies of Iconoclasm and was the
preferred image for the seals of the Iconophile emperors and patriarchs, the highest
officials of the Byzantine empire, then it must be understood that the image of the
Virgin Hodegetria functioned as the emblematic image of the Iconophile party.52
The image of the Virgin Hodegetria type on the imperial seal of either Constan
tine IV or Leontios must have had particular significance for the emperor who
issued it, because it was a break with the previous imperial sphragistic imagery
of the Herakleian dynasty, the Virgin with the Christ Child held in front. In her
discussion of the early imagery of the Virgin Hodegetria type found on these
imperial seals, Bissera Pentcheva describes how the Mother of God is depicted
holding the Christ Child close to her, with her right hand clasping His knees (Fig
ure 8.1), thus emphasizing the closeness of the relationship between Mother and
Child as compared to the more open presentation of the post-Iconoclastic Hode
getria in which the Child sits upright, and the Virgin’s right hand now gestures to
Christ as if to offer him to the beholder (Figure 8.5), emphasizing now interac
tion and prayer with the those engaged with the image.53 If this interpretation is
49 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals I:1, nos. 23–33; Sokolova, Byzantine Imperial Seals, no.
61; and DOSeals VI, nos. 24.1–28.2. Seibt, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich, p. 77, n.
6, however, preferred to assign Zacos and Veglery’s seal no. 23 not to Constantine IV but rather to
Leontios (695–698). The possibility of this attribution for Leontios is maintained in the commen
tary for this seal in DOSeals VI, no. 24.
50 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals I:1, nos. 43, 46 and 48; Sokolova, Byzantine Imperial
Seals, no. 61; and DOSeals VI, nos. 38.1 and 40.1.
51 Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, nos. 5 (Methodios) and 7a and b (Photios); and DOSeals VI,
113.1 (Photios). Photios issued seals with two Marian iconographic types: the Virgin Hodegetria
and the Virgin holding the Christ Child in front of her. Because neither can be precisely dated, it is
impossible to assign one or the other type to either his first or second patriarchate. They may also
have been issued contemporaneously. See also Cotsonis, “The Imagery of Patriarch Methodios I’s
Lead Seals,” p. 366–387; and idem, “The Imagery of Patriarch Ignatios’ Lead Seals,” p. 52–98.
52 In her work devoted to the bronze pectoral cross reliquaries, Pitarakis, “Un groupe de croix-rel
iquaires pectorals,” p. 98 and eadem, Les croix-reliquaires pectorals, p. 179, concluded that the
image of the Virgin Kyriotissa type served as the triumphal sign of the Iconophiles based upon
14 contemporary examples. In addition to the larger number of available sphragistic specimens
from the period of our discussion (349), the difference in findings may reflect the nature of the two
media: the narrow field of the longitudinal arm of a pectoral cross available for figural imagery is
more conducive to the vertically compact depiction of the Virgin Kyriotissa type than that of the
Virgin Hodegetria with the horizontally projecting body of the Christ Child.
53 Penthceva, “The ‘Activated’ Icon,” p. 196–197 and eadem, Icons and Power, p. 110–117. Long
ago, N. Lihačev, “Sceaux de l’empereur Léon III Isaurien,” Byzantion, 11, 1936, p. 469–482,
268
correct, then the image on Constantine IV’s seal may reflect his role in summon
ing the Sixth Ecumenical Synod of 680/681 in Constantinople which condemned
the Monothelite heresy and defended the doctrine that the incarnate Christ had
two wills characteristic of his two natures, both divine and human.54 The depic
tion of the Child closely held by the Mother of God, emphasizing their connect
edness and the human nature of Christ received from the Virgin at the moment
of the Incarnation, would visually support the reality of Christ’s human nature
and therefore the presence of his human will.55 It was on the basis of the reality
of the Incarnation that Iconophiles defended images of Christ, and so it is not
surprising that this early version of the Virgin Hodegetria, with the Child clasped
so tightly to the Mother, is the image preferred for the seals of the Iconophile
interlude. Cyril Mango has suggested that the image of the Virgin standing and
holding a mandorla that encloses the Christ Child found on the earlier seals of the
Herakleian dynasty carried an anti-Monophysite message whereby the mandorla
stressed the divine nature of Christ as separate from the human nature of the
Mother.56 Yet if the earliest imperial seal with the image of the Virgin Hodegetria
employing 8th- and 9th-century imperial and patriarchal seals, outlined the chronological icono
graphic change in the image of the Virgin Hodegetria and referred to the earlier type whereby the
Mother clasps the Child closely with both hands as the “human” type. Lihačev’s observations
were later repeated and cited by Babić “L’exemple de l’Hodegetria,” p. 198–200, espec. n. 39,
where she, too, refers to the earlier version as the “human” type and suggests that there must have
been a celebrated 7th-century icon of this type of Virgin Hodegetria in Constantinople. A. Grabar,
“Remarques sur l’iconographie Byzantine de la Vierge,” Cahiers archéologiques, 24, 1977, p. 174
(repr. in his L’art paléochrétien et l’art byzantin, London, 1979, XI), also understood the gesturing
right hand of the Virgin of the Hodegetria type to signify prayer or adoration. For the history of the
post-Iconoclastic association of an icon of the Virgin and Child with the Hodegon monastery, see
C. Angelidi, “Un texte patriographique et édifiant: Le ‘discours narratif’ sur les Hodègoi,” Revue
des études byzantines, 52, 1994, p. 113–149; B. Zeitler, “Cults Disrupted and Memories Recap
tured: Events in the Life of the Icon of the Virgin Hodegetria in Constantinople,” Proceedings of
the XXIXth International Congress of the History of Art, held in Amsterdam, 1–7 September 1996,
Amsterdam, 1999, p. 701–708; and Angelidi and Papamastorakis, “The Veneration of the Virgin
Hodegetria and the Hodegon Monastery,” p. 373–387.
54 For introductory remarks concerning the Sixth Ecumenical Synod and publication of its decree,
see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, I, ed. N. Tanner, London, 1990, p. 123–130 and Con
ciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta, ed. G. Alberigo et al., I, Turnhout, 2006,
p. 189–202. For the full record of the acts and documents of the Synod, see Concilium Universale
Constantinopolitanum Tertiam: Series secunda; II:1 and 2, ed. R. Riedinger, Berlin, 1990–1992.
55 H. Torp, “Una Vergine Hodighitira del periodo iconoclastico nel ‘Tempietto Longobardo’ di
Cividale,” Arte d’Occidente: Temi e metodi: Studi in onore di Angiola Maria Romanini, ed.
A Cadei et al., II, Rome, 1999, p. 593, however, suggests that the image of the Virgin Hodegetria
type became a new palladium for Constantine IV in relation to his decisive naval victory against
the Arabs in 678. Yet no mention of a Marian icon is made in the sources referring to this siege.
For a discussion of the historical sources and the absence or presence of Marian icons as palladia,
see Pentcheva, Icons and Power, p. 44–52.
56 C. Mango, “The Chalkoprateia Annunciation and the Pre-Eternal Logos,” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς
Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας, per. 4, 17, 1994, p. 165–170 and idem, “Constantinople as Theotokoup
olis,” Mother of God, p. 21. For a more recent discussion of the seals of the Herakleian dynasty,
269
should be assigned to Leontios, as Werner Seibt has suggested, and the editors of
the Dumbarton Oaks specimen acknowledge as a possible identification, then the
change from the Marian type found on the Herakleian imperial seals to the Hode
getria type may well proclaim the visual piety of the new emperor, Leontios, of
Isaurian origin and not of the Herakelian dynasty, whose new Marian image was
maintained by his successors through the Iconophile interlude.57
As mentioned above, among the images of saints found on seals during the
periods under discussion, both the number and type of saintly figures declined
as Iconoclasm played out. For the 7th/8th century there are 16 different saints
representing a variety of hagiographic types: hierarchs (Basil, John Chrysostom
and Nicholas); military saints (Demetrios, George and Theodore); monastic fig
ures (Epiphanios, Sabbas, and Symeon Stylites); New Testament figures (John the
Baptist, John the Theologian and Peter and Paul); Old Testament figures (Sam
uel and David and the Three Youths); and female saints (Anastasia and Sophia).
There is no strong preference for any one category of holy figure. In a number
of cases where there is more than one example of a depicted saint there is more
than one seal issued by the same person: all three examples of the image of Anas
tasia were issued by John, an archbishop of Nikopolis;58 two of the three exam
ples of Demetrios were issued by George, an archon;59 both specimens of John
Chrysostom appear on the seals of a bishop (patriarch) of Constantinople;60 two
see C. Morrisson, “Du consul à l’empereur. Les sceaux d’Héraclius,” Novum Millennium: Studies
on Bzyantine History and Culture Dedicated to Paul Speck 19 December 1999, ed. C. Sode and S.
Takács, Aldershot, 2001, p. 257–265. Torp, “Una Vergine Hodighitira,” p. 592, however, prefers
to see the Kyriotissa Marian type on the Herakleian seals as referring to a palladial icon of this
dynasty, following the earlier study of Lihačev as in note 53, supra.
57 For the attribution of the seal to Leontios, see note 49, supra. Lihačev, “Sceaux de l’empereur
Léon III,” p. 475, who at the time of the writing of his publication, considered the seal of Leo
III to be the first imperial seal to bear the image of the Virgin Hodegetria and suggested that this
iconographic type was Syrian in origin, as found in the example in the Rabbula Gospels, and
that it reflected the Syrian origins of the Isaurian dynasty. For Leontios, see Oxford Dictionary of
Byzantium, II, p. 1212–1213 and for Leo III, see ibid, p. 1208–1209. For the image of the Virgin
Hodegetria in the Rabbula Gospels, see Il tetravangelo di Rabbula, Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea
Laurenziana, Plut. 1.56: L’illustrazione del Nuovo Testamento nella Siria del VI secolo, ed. M.
Bernabò, Rome, 2008, p. 18–19, 84–85 and 113–126, pl. 2, where different authors discuss the
miniatures and their various datings as either contemporary with the text (586) or produced a
generation earlier and subsequently joined to the manuscript. The pre-Iconoclastic version of the
Virgin Hodegetria may not have been of Syrian origin because contemporary painted examples
are found in Rome. For some recent discussion of the celebrated early Roman Marian icons, see
G. Wolf, “Icons and Sites: Cult Images of the Virgin in Medieval Rome,” Images of the Mother of
God, p. 2–49.
Museum of Art, II, Washington, DC, 1994 (hereafter DOSeals II), nos. 2.11 a and b and 2.13.
59 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3, nos. 2962a and b.
60 V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de l’ empire byzantin, V:1, Paris, 1963 (hereafter Laurent, Corpus
V:1), no. 2 and Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1247.
270
of the images of Peter and Paul were issued by Stephen, an orphanotrophos;61

the two images of Sabbas were issued by the same individual of unknown title or
office;62 two of the six seals depicting Sophia were from the same Theognostes, a
metropolitan;63 two of the three examples of Symeon Stylites belonged to George,
a stylite of Chios;64 while two of the four examples of Theodore were issued by
the xenon of Saint Theodore.65
For the 8th century, there are ten different saints found among the seals, rep
resenting four different hagiographic groups, as compared to six groups in the
preceding period: military saints (Demetrios, Michael and Theodore); a monastic
(Epiphanios); a hierarch (Ianouarios); and New Testament figures (John the Bap
tist, John the Theologian, Peter and Paul, Thomas and Titos). Although fewer cat
egories of saints are represented, New Testament figures appear to be preferred.
This may reflect an Iconophile response to the Iconoclasts whereby holy figures
from the Scriptures – the written word that was favored by the Iconoclasts – were
the sacred images selected. But it should be noted that the majority of these New
Testament figures on seals were issued by high-ranking churchmen: five of the
eight seals bearing these figures are associated with hierarchs, four of whose sees
are associated with the apostle found on their seals.66 One seal was issued by
an abbot of a monastery dedicated to that apostle,67 while another seal’s New
Testament figure was homonymous with its owner.68 It was a common practice
for hierarchs to place an image of their saintly predecessors or those of locally
venerated saints on their seals in order to enhance their own prestige.69 The saint’s
61 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, nos. 1268a and b.
62 W. De Gray Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Museum,
London, 1898, no. 17975 and V. Laurent, Les sceaux byzantins du Médaillier Vatican, Vatican
City, 1962, no. 242.
63 N. Lihačev, Molivdovuly grečeskogo vostoka, ed. V. Šandrovskaja, Moscow, 1991, p. 45, no. 15
and Laurent, Corpus V:1, no. 996.
64 V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de l’ empire byzantin, V:2, Paris, 1965 (hereafter Laurent, Corpus
V:2), no. 1301 and D. Metcalf, Byzantine Lead Seals from Cyprus, Nicosia, 2004, no. 492.
65 E. McGeer and J. Nesbitt, Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg
Museum of Art, V, Washington, DC, 2005 (hereafter DOSeals V), nos. 64.1 a and b.
66 For John the Theologian: Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3, no. 2986 and Seibt and Zarnitz,
Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk, no. 5.2.12; for Titos: DOSeals II, nos. 36.8a and b; for
Thomas: C. Sode, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin, II, Ποικίλα Βυζαντινά, XIV, Bonn, 1997, no. 333,
where the owner of the seal, Sergios, is identified as a bishop but without including the name of his see.
67 Laurent, Corpus V:2, no. 1279, for the figure of John the Theologian on the seal of an abbot of the
monastery of Patmos, dedicated to the saint. Laurent assigned this seal to the 12th century but for
the 8th-century dating, see Cotsonis, “Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” p. 422–423.
68 Ibid., no. 1328, where an abbot, Peter, selected the image of Peter and Paul for his seal. For a study
of the statistical frequency with which owners chose their homonymous saints’ images for their
seals, see J. Cotsonis, “Onomastics, Gender, Office and Images on Byzantine Lead Seals: A Means
of Investigating Personal Piety,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 32:1, 2008, p. 1–37.
69 For this sphragisitc practice, see J. Cotsonis, “Saints & Cult Centers: A Geographic & Adminis
trative Perspective in Light of Byzantine Lead Seals,” Studies in Byzantine Sigillography, 8, 2003,
p. 10–19.
271
sphragistic image was as a marker of identity linking the hierarch to the local
church and to the community he served.70
This 8th-century trend for the use of apostolic figures or local holy men for hier
archical sphragistic imagery parallels the growing concern for the apostolicity of
the thrones of hierarchs and ecclesiastical leaders that developed as an Iconophile
reaction to the Iconoclasts.71 Already by the end of the 7th century, as witnessed
by the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod held in Constantinople in 680–681,
the eastern patriarchates are now all referred to as apostolic in character.72 During
Iconoclasm, the defenders of images employed the argument of apostolicity as a
weapon against the Iconoclastic emperors who intervened in ecclesiastical mat
ters. Again in the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod of 787, the eastern patri
archs are considered apostolic, and Patriarch Tarasios identifies himself as one of
the apostles when he addresses the Eastern patriarchs and proclaims, “I beseech
you as brethren, and in the language of the Apostle.”73 The claim to apostolic roots
is especially developed in the next Iconophile generation in the writings of Theo
dore of Stoudios who emphasized that dogmatic affairs were the sole concern of
the Church, governed not by the emperor, but by the patriarchs of all the sees who
were the successors of the apostles.74 In the years following the Iconophile victory,
Photios clearly links his patriarchal see to apostolic succession.75 By comparison,
70 B. Moulet, Évêques, pouvoir et société à Byzance (VIIIe- XIe siècle): Territoires, communautés et
individus dans la soociété provinciale byzantine, Paris, 2011, p. 142–145 and 172.
71 F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew, Cam
bridge, MA, 1958, p. 167–171; P. O’Connell, The Ecclesiology of St. Nicephorus I (758–828),
Rome, 1972, p. 16, 21–22, 35, 131–134, 153–155 and 223; and V. Phidas, “The Johannine Apos
tolicty of the Throne of Constantinople,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 45, 2000, p. 25–26,
32, 34, 46 and 49; and A. Louth, “Apostolicity and the Apostle Andrew in the Byzantine Tradi
tion,” Heiligkeit und Apostolizität der Kirche: Forscher aus dem Osten und Westen Europas an
den Quellen des gemeinsamen Glaubens, ed. T. Hainthaler et al., Innsbruck, 2010, p. 235–240. See
also Cotsonis, “The Imagery of Patriarch Methodios I’s Lead Seals,” p. 383–384.
72 Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum Tertiam, II:1, p. 8 and II:2, p. 829–830. See also
Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium, p. 162–163 and O’Connell, The Ecclesiology of
St. Nicephorus I, p. 33–34.
73 Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum: Series secunda, III:1, ed. E. Lamberz, Berlin, 2008,
p. 12, 112, 222, 242 (for the specific quote of Tarasios) and 268 offer several examples. See also
Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium, p. 170–171; M.-F. Auzépy, “Manifestations de la
propagande en faveur de l’orthodoxie,” Byzantium in the Ninth Century, p. 95 (repr. in her L’his
toire des iconoclasts, p. 100); Thümmel, Die Konzilien zur Bilderfrage, p. 149–150; The Life of
Patriarch Tarasios by Ignatios the Deacon, ed. and trans. S. Efthymiadis, Aldershot, 1998, p. 80,
104, 107, 115, 183–184 and 187; and Phidas, “The Johannine Apostolicty,” p. 32 and 34.
74 Theodori Studitae Epistulae, I and II, ed. G. Fatouros, Berlin, 1991, p. 94, 101, 508, 672 and
697–698. See also Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium, p. 168–169; O’Connell, The
Ecclesiology of St. Nicephorus I, p. 195–227; Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 189–191 and 223–
226; and Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic Era: A History, p. 368–385.
75 Photii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Epistulae et Amphilochia, III, ed. B. Laourdas and L.
Westerink, Leipzig, 1985, p. 141. See also Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicty, p. 223–254 and
I. Dorfmann-Lazarev, “The Apostolic Foundation Stone: The Conception of Orthodoxy in the
272
it is significant that in the Decree of the Iconoclast Synod of Hieria of 754, known
only from the Acts of the Iconophile Seventh Ecumenical Synod of 787, when the
text recounts the previous six Ecumenical Synods, these gatherings of bishops are
never linked to apostolic dignity, but instead the Decree claims that the emperors
Constantine V and his son Leo, who summoned the Iconoclastic council, were the
ones comparable to the Apostles.76 Thus the significance of apostolic origins for
the Church’s organization, leadership, and hierarchical prestige was understood
by the end of the 7th century and enhanced by Iconophile churchmen during the
debate on images.
Among the 8th-century examples of saints’ images on seals, no one partic
ular saint is especially preferred. Of those with multiple examples, most are
seals issued from the same individual. There are two examples of Epiphanios,
the patron of Cyprus, one issued by an archbishop of the island,77 and the other
by a homonymously named bishop of Cyprus;78 the three examples with John
the Theologian were issued by three different individuals, all from areas asso
ciated with the apostle.79 The two images of Michael were issued by the same
Controversy between Photius of Constantinople and Isaac Surnamed Mŕut,” Byzantine Orthodox
ies, ed. A. Louth and A. Casiday, Aldershot, 2006, p. 179–197.
76 Die ikonoklastische Synode von Hiereia 754, ed. and trans. T. Krannich, C. Schubert and C. Sode,
Tübingen, 2002, p. 34–39. See also D. Sahas, Icon and Logos: Sources in Eighth-Century Icono
clasm, Toronto, 1986, p. 65 and 70–74.
77 Metcalf, Byzantine Lead Seals from Cyprus, no. 457. For the cult of Epiphanios in Cyprus, see
C. Rapp, “Epiphanius of Salamis: The Church Father as Saint,” The Sweet Land of Cyprus:
Papers Given at the Twenty-Fifth Jubilee Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham,
March 1991, ed. A. Bryer and G. Georghallides, Nicosia, 1993, p. 169–188.
78 Metcalf, Byzantine Lead Seals from Cyprus, no. 460.
79 Laurent, Corpus V:2, no. 1279, for a monastery of St. John on Patmos,. For the cult of John on
Patmos, see O. Meinardus, St. John of Patmos and the Seven Churches of the Apocalypse, New
Rochelle, NY, 1979, p. 1–12. Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I: 3, no. 2986, for a seal of
an archbishop of Ephesos. For the cult of John at Ephesos, see C. Foss, Ephesus after Antiquity:
A Late Antique, Byzantine and Turkish City, Cambridge, 1979, passim; H. Koester, “Ephesos in
Early Christian Literature,” Ephesos, Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to its
Archaeology, Religion, and Culture, ed. H. Koester, Valley Forge, PA, 1995, p. 135–140; Efeso
paleocristiana e bizantina: Früchristliches und byzantinisches Ephesos, ed. R. Pillinger et al.,
Vienna, 1999; and Atti del VIII Simposio di Efeso su S. Giovanni Apostolo, ed. L. Padovese, Rome,
2001, passim. Seibt and Zarnitz, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk, no. 5.2.12, for a seal
of a bishop of Eirenoupolis. There were two cities with this name in Asia Minor – one in Cilicia
and one in Isauria. The editors of this seal prefer Eirenoupolis of Cilicia because the owner of the
seal, the bishop Paul, was also the name of a bishop from Eirenoupolis who attended the Synod of
Trullo in 692. For the signature of the bishop Paul for the Synod of Trullo, see Mansi, XI, 997C.
For discussion of the two cities of Eirenoupolis, see F. Hild and H. Hellenkemper, Tabula Imperii
Byzantini V: Kilikien und Isaurien, I, Vienna, 1990, p. 245–248. John was the most esteemed apos
tle throughout Asia Minor, and it is possible that more than one bishopric would employ his image
for an episcopal seal. As Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium, p. 238–245, outlines, it
must be remembered that in 861 when Ignatios, the patriarch of Constantinople, was under trial,
he claimed his apostolic authority not only to Andrew but also to John because by that time Con
stantinople had jurisdiction over far away Ephesos.
273
person.80 The four images of Theodore were issued by two individuals – three
belonged to Peter, a bishop of Euchaita, the location for the pilgrimage shrine
of Theodore,81 and the fourth belonged to an apo eparchon;82 while the two
examples of Titos were issued by Andrew, a metropolitan of Crete, where Titos
is the patron saint.83
For the 8th/9th century, there are just four different saints represented and only
two types: hierarchs and New Testament figures. Again, these are the types of
holy individuals with whom Iconophiles would prefer to associate themselves.
The two examples of Ianouarios, patron saint of Naples, were issued by two dif
ferent bishops of that city.84 All three examples of John the Theologian were from
one archbishop of Ephesos whose apostolic claims go back to this saint (Fig
ure 8.7).85 That of Titos was again issued by a metropolitan of Crete, where the
saint is regarded as the island’s Christian founder.86 For the two images of Nich
olas, one belongs to an individual whose title is unknown,87 while the other was
issued by a monastery named for the saint.88 Thus, seven of the eight examples
were from individuals who were hierarchs themselves and who enhanced their
80 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals I:2, no. 1351 and Seibt and Zarnitz, Das byzantinische
Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk, no. 5.2.1.
81 E. McGeer, J. Nesbitt and N. Oikonomides, Catalogue of Byzantine Lead Seals IV, Washington,
DC, 2001 (hereafter DOSeals IV), nos. 16.4a and b and V. Bulgurlu, Bizans Kurşun Mühürl
eri, Istanbul, 2007, no. 206. For the cult of Theodore established at Euchaita, see N. Oikono
mides, “Le dédoublement de Saint Théodore et les villes d’Euchaïta et d’Euchaneia,” Analecta
Bollandiana, 104, 1986, p. 327–335 (repr. in his Byzantium from the Ninth Century to the Fourth
Crusade, Hampshire, 1992); C. Walter, “Theodore, Archetype of the Warrior Saint,” Revue des
études byzantines, 57, 1999, p. 163–210; idem, “Saint Theodore and the Dragon,” Through a Glass
Brightly: Studies in Byzantine and Medieval Art and Archaeology Presented to David Buckton, ed.
C. Entwistle, Oxford, 2003, p. 95–106; idem, The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition,
Oxford, 2003, p. 44–66; J.-C. Cheynet, “Le culte de Saint Théodore chez les officiers de l’armée
d’orient,” Byzantium, State and Society: In Memory of Nikos Oikonomides, ed. A. Avramea et al.,
Athens, 2003, p. 137–153 (repr. in his La société byzantine: L’apport des sceaux, II, Paris, 2008,
p. 307–322); and P. Grotowski, Arms and Armour of the Warrior Saints: Tradition and Innovation
in Byzantine Iconography (843–1261), Leiden, 2010, p. 101–102 and 118–120.
82 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals I:2, no. 1281A.
83 DOSeals II, nos. 36.8 a and b. For the cult of Titos on Crete, see F. Halkin, “La légende crétoie
de Saint Tite,” Analecta Bollandiana, 79, 1961, p. 241–256 and D. Tsougarakis, Byzantine Crete:
From the 5th Century to the Venetian Conquest, Athens, 1988, p. 113–114 and 197–198.
84 G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’empire byzantin, Paris, 1884 (hereafter Sigillographie),
p. 233 and Laurent, Corpus V;1, no. 919. For Ianouarios as the patron saint of Naples, see H.
Delehaye, “Hagiographie napolitaine,” Analecta Bollandiana, 59, 1941, p 1–13.
85 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1350a; V. Šandrovskaja, “Sfragistika,” Iskusstvo
Vizantii v Sobranijach SSSR. Katalog Vystavki, II, Moscow, 1977 (hereafter “Sfragistika”), no.
814; and J. Nesbitt and N. Oikonomides, Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in
the Fogg Museum of Art III, Washington, DC, 1996 (hereafter DOSeals III), no. 14.8.
86 DOSeals II, no. 36.11.
87 V. Laurent, Documents de sigillographie byzantine: Le collection C. Orghidan, Paris, 1952 (here
after (Orghidan), no. 497.
88 Schlumberger, Sigillographie, p. 233.
274
Figure 8.7 Lead Seal of Theophilos, archbishop of Ephesos, 8th/9th century. Obv: John
the Theologian bust; Rev: Inscription. Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1955.1.4712
clerical positions by employing the patron saint of their sees on their seals, and
one was from a homonymously named monastic house.
With the 9th century there is an increase in the number of different saints found
on the seals, now nine holy individuals. In addition, there is again a wider repre
sentation as to the type of saints selected for the seals: hierarchs, New Testament,
monastic and military, similar to that as in the 8th century group. The military
and monastic saints are represented by only one example while the preference
for hierarchs and New Testament figures continues, testifying to the ongoing sig
nificance these types of saints held for Iconophile bishops. The two examples of
Gregory Thaumatourgos were issued by the same individual, Leo, a metropolitan
of Neocaesarea, where Gregory Thaumatourgos is the local saint.89 Of the three
seals with the image of John the Theologian, two belonged to archbishops of
Ephesos,90 and one was issued by a bishop of Monemvasia where John appears
also to have been venerated (Figure 8.8).91 At least as early as the 8th century,
Monemvasia was on the sea route that connected Italy to Ephesos, the center of
the cult of John the Theologian, and to the Holy Land. And in Monemvasia there
are the ruins of a monastery dedicated to the Seven Sleepers of Ephesos.92 In
addition, in the 10th-century collection of spiritually edifying accounts composed
by Paul, Bishop of Monemvasia, a healing-miracle that occurred in the city was
attributed to John the Theologian.93
89 Laurent, Corpus V:1, no. 488 and Lihačev, Molivdovuly grečeskogo vostoka, p. 182–183, no. 13.
For the cult of Gregory at Neocaesarea, see W. Telfer, “The Cultus of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus,”
Harvard Theological Review, 29, 1936, p. 225–344 and R. van Dam, “Hagiography and History:
the Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus,” Classical Antiquity, 1, 1982, p. 272–308.
90 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals I:3, no. 2987 and DOSeals III, no. 14.4.
91 Šandrovskaja, “Sfragistika,” no. 807. Originally, Schlumberger, Sigillographie, p. 185, no.1,
assigned the seal to the 10th century and to a bishop of Monemvasia. Later, N. Bees, “Zur Sigil
lographie der byzantinischen Themen Peloponnes und Hellas,” Vizantijskij vremennik, 21:3, 1914,
p. 104–106, placed the seal at the end of the 9th or early 10th century and read the episcopal see as
Methone. Subsequently, Lihačev, Molivdovuly grečeskogo vostoka, p. 154–156, no. 2, pl. LXVIII,
preferred a 9th-century date for this seal and also a reading of the hierarch’s see as Methone. Later,
Laurent, Corpus V/1, no. 579, reassigned the seal to the 10th century and restored the reading of
the diocese as Monemvasia. In his review of Laurent’s Corpus, W. Seibt, “V. Laurent-Le Corpus
des sceaux de l’empire byzantin. Tome V: L’Église, parties 1–3,” Byzantinoslavica, 34, 1974,
p. 79, assigned the seal to the 9th century. In her catalogue entry, Šandrovskaja cites the variants of
the earlier scholars, except for that of Seibt. It should be noted that the city of Methone, too, had a
long-standing cult devoted to John the Theologian: its cathedral was dedicated to this saint, and the
saint’s image appears on most of the seals of Methone’s bishops. See S. Lambros, “Ἐνθυμήσεων
ἤτοι χρονικῶν συλλογὴ πρώτη,” Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων, 7, 1910, p. 157; Oxford Dictionary of Byz
antium, II, p. 1356; DOSeals II, nos. 30.1–30.4; and Cotsonis, “Saints and Cult Centers,” 14.
92 H. Kalligas, Byzantine Monemvasia. The Sources, Monemvasia, 1990, p. 42. A. Katsores,
Μονεμβασία. Ἡ Θρυλικὴ Καστροπολιτεία τοῦ Μοριᾶ, Athens, 1976, p. 190, lists the existence of a
small church dedicated to John the Theologian in Monemvasia but does not provide a date for its
construction.
93 For this miracle, see Les récits édifiants de Paul, évêque de Monembasie, et d’autres auteurs, ed.
J. Wortley, Paris, 1987, p. 112. For an English translation, see The Spiritually Beneficial Tales
276
Figure 8.8 Lead Seal of John, bishop of Monemvasia, 9th century. Obv: Christ bust; Rev:
John the Theologian standing. St. Petersburg, Hermitage M-8094
Source: The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg
The single seal bearing the image of John the Baptist belonged to an abbot of
the Stoudios monastery that was dedicated to the Forerunner.94 Two of the three
seals bearing the depiction of Nicholas were issued by a bishop Nicholas.95 The
single representation of Theodore was from an archbishop of Euchaita, the local
shrine of the military saint, as mentioned above.96 The seal with the image of
Peter was owned by a metropolitan of Sardis named Peter.97 As this listing of
saints indicates, there was no distinguishable preference for any one saint across
all the examples because those with multiple examples were often issued from an
identical owner.
As shown elsewhere, it was not until the 9th/10th century that the percentile
value of seals bearing images of saints approximates that of the 7th/8th century,
and it was not until the 10th century that the sphragistic images of saints outnumber
those of the Virgin.98 Thus, the Iconoclastic debates created a narrower visual piety
for Iconophiles. Defenders of images employed the image of the Theotokos, most
often in the Hodegetria type, for their seals. When saints’ images were selected for
the seals of Iconophiles, most often they were of New Testament figures or holy
hierarchs who could lend prestige to the apostolic claims of ecclesiastical hierarchs
in the face of Iconoclast emperors and officials who attempted to interfere in the life
of the Church. By choosing saintly, local predecessors for their seals, the hierarchs
identified with their cities and their collective memory, thereby clearly expressing
their social role of affirming a political stance in reaction to Iconoclastic policies.99
Social groups and sphragistic iconographic choice

In addition to the iconographic types found on seals and their frequencies during
the period of Iconoclasm, it is important to determine which social groups were
employing these images for their seals. Tables II through IV present the frequency
of seals by image and by title/office for the ecclesiastical, civil and military
administrations for the period of the 7th/8th century. At first glance it is evident
that the majority of the seals for this time period belonged to Church officials
(Table 8.2) with 57 specimens; followed by members of the civil administration
(Table 8.3) with 45 examples; and the smallest number are represented by the mil
itary (Table 8.4) with four pieces. Just before the onset of Iconoclasm it appears
of Paul, Bishop of Monembasia and Other Authors, ed. and trans. J. Wortley, Kalamazoo, 1996,
p. 113.
94 Laurent, Corpus V:2, no. 1194. For a history of the monastery and its patronal dedication, see
R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, I: Le siège de Constantinople et le
patriarcat oecuménique, 3: Les églises et les monastères, 2nd ed., Paris, 1969, p. 430–440.
95 I. Jordanov, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria, I, Sofia, 2003, nos. 32.1 a and b.
96 DOSeals IV, no. 16.1.
97 Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, no. 869.
98 For a more in-depth discussion of the chronological trends, see Cotsonis, “The Contribution of
Byzantine Lead Seals,” p. 402–407.
99 Moulet, Évêques, pouvoir et société à Byzance, p. 172 and 177.
278
Table 8.2 Iconographic Repertoire of 7th/8th-Century Seal Owners from the Ecclesiastical
Administration
Metropolitan
Archbishop
Monastrey
DiaKonia
Panachys
Patriarch
IMAGE
Deacon
Church
TOTAL
Bishop
Xenon
Stylite
Abbot
Priest
? 7 4 3 2 1 2 1 20
Virgin Hodegetria 2 1 1 4
Virgin Orans 1 1 2
Annunciation 1 1
Anastasia 2 2
Basil 1 1
George 1 1
John Chrysostom 2 2
John the Theologian 1 1
Nicholas 1 1
Peter & Paul 2 2
Samuel & David 1 1
Sophia 3 3 6
Symeon Stylites 1 2 3
Theodore 2 2
TOTAL 2 12 11 3 2 8 9 2 1 2 1 2 2 57
Table 8.3 Iconographic Repertoire of 7th/8th-Century Seal Owners from the Civil
Administration
Noumeron ton Veniton
Kouvikoularious
Orphanotrophos
Chartoularios
Apo eparchon
Notarious
Eparchos
Emperor
IMAGE
TOTAL
Archon
?
? 8 1 9
Virgin Hodegetria 10 1 1 1 13
Virgin & Child on Thokos 1 1
Virgin & Child Front 4 1 2 1 1 9
Virgin & Child Enthroned 2 2
Demetrios 2 2
(Continued )
Noumeron ton Veniton

Kouvikoularious
Orphanotrophos
Chartoularios
Apo eparchon
Notarious
Eparchos
Emperor
IMAGE
TOTAL
Archon
?
Epiphanios 1 1
John the Baptist 1 1
Peter & Paul 2 2
Sabbas 2 2
Theodore 1 1 2
Three Youths 1 1
TOTAL 29 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 45
Table 8.4 Iconographic Repertoire of 7th/8th-Century Seal Owners from the Military
IMAGE Strategos Stratelates Tourmarches TOTAL

Virgin Hodegetria 1 1 2
Virgin & Child 1 1
Front
Demetrios 1 1
TOTAL 1 2 1 4
that ecclesiastical officials demonstrated a greater use of images, and among this
group, high-ranking churchmen are the most represented: patriarchs, archbishops,
metropolitans and bishops: 34 out of 57 of the ecclesiastical seals, or 59.6%. All
other ecclesiastical officials have minor representation. The next largest group
is that of the diakoniai, or charitable institutions or confraternities, with eight
examples.100 Five of these eight were issued by the same institution, the Constan
tinopolitan diakonia of the Theotokos tou Virou.101 The remaining were from three
100 For discussion of diakoniai, see Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, I, p. 494 and D. Constantelos,
Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare, 2nd ed., New Rochelle, NY, 1991, p. 71–73. For a
general discussion of confraternities in Byzantium, see P. Horden, “The Confraternities of Byzan
tium,” Voluntary Religion, ed W. Sheils and D. Wood, Oxford, 1986, p. 25–45. For discussion of
a specific diakonia of the middle Byzantine period, see J. Nesbitt and J. Wiita, “A Confraternity
of the Comnenian Era,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 68, 1975, p. 360–384.
101 Laurent, Corpus V/2, no. 1221c and DOSeals V, 34.1a-d. For a brief description of this church and
its charitable house, see Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, p. 160–161.
280
different diakoniai. In general, therefore, it appears that ecclesiastical hierarchs

preferred placing images of holy figures on their seals compared to other individ
uals within the Church’s administrative offices. As noted above, hierarchs appro
priated the prestige of their saintly, local predecessors by identifying with them
through their sphragistic iconography and so had more to gain by reinforcing
their association with the venerated holy man of their jurisdiction. Among the less
numerous examples of lower ecclesiastical orders and officials this trend does not
appear as consistently, and such owners of seals seem freer to employ images of a
more personal nature by selecting either the generic image of the Virgin, as in the
case of Marinos, an abbot of Herakleia of Pontos, whose seal bears an image of
the Virgin Hodegetria,102 or an image based on homonymity, as with the two seals
with images of Theodore issued by the xenon, or hospital, of Saint Theodore.103
The 34 sphragistic images found on the seals of high-ranking clergymen of the
7th/8th century represent 24 different hierarchs. Of these, 11 individuals do not include
the name of their diocese or metropolis, and their motive of sphragistic iconographic
choice is unknown. Of the 13 hierarchs whose seals’ inscriptions include the name
of their cathedral city, six selected depictions of saints associated with their jurisdic
tions, such as the archbishop of Ephesos with the image of John the Theologian,104
the bishop (patriarch) of Constantinople with the image of John Chrysostom,105 and
the metropolitan of Amaseia, a province of Cappadocia, with the image of Basil.106
The remaining seven hierarchs with known ecclesiastical sees either have illegible
images or there is no clear discernable motive for selecting the image that appears
on their seals. Two of these hierarchs participated in the Sixth Ecumenical Synod
of 680/681: Theodore, the bishop of Ibora (a suffragan see of Amaseia), whose seal
bears an image of an uncertain female saint,107 and George, the bishop of Bizye (in
Thrace), with a seal depicting the Virgin Hodegetria (Figure 8.9).108 George of Bizye
also participated later in the Synod of Trullo in 691/692.109

103 DOSeals V, 64.1a and b. For the use of the term xenon as a hospital by the 6th century, see T.
Miller, The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire, 2nd ed., Baltimore, 1997, p. 23–29 and
idem, “Charitable Institutions,” The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, ed. E. Jeffreys, J.
Haldon and R. Cormack, Oxford, 2008, p. 627. For a list of the known xenones in Constantinople,
see Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, p. 557–563.
104 I. Jordanov, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria, III, Sofia, 2009, no. 1716A.
105 Laurent, Corpus V/1, no. 2 and Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1247.
107 Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum Tertiam, II:2, p. 760. For his seal, see DOSeals IV,
no. 27.2, where the editors misidentified the figure as the Prophet Elias. Earlier, Laurent, Corpus
V/1, no. 429, suggested either St. Basil or St. Ouranios. More recently, W. Seibt, “Review of Cat
alogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, IV,” Byzantinische
Zeitschrift, 96, 2003, p. 750, concluded that the figure is that of an uncertain female saint based
upon the more legible left-hand inscription Η ΑΓΙΑ.
108 Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum Tertiam, II:1, p. 16, 28, 38, 48, 164, 172, 184, 192, 264,
280 and 404 and II:2, p. 518, 572, 632, 668, 686, 756 and 824. For his seal, see DOSeals I, no. 74.2.
109 Mansi, XI, 992.
281
Figure 8.9 Lead Seal of George, bishop of Bizye, 7th/8th century. Obv: Virgin Hodegetria
standing; Rev: Cruciform monogram. Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.5644
Table 8.3 presents the images found on the 45 seals of members of the civil
administration belonging to the 7th/8th century. The largest group, half of the total,
belongs to individuals whose office is unknown. Among those offices listed, no one
group is overwhelmingly represented as was the case of the hierarchs among the
ecclesiastical officials. Of course, the highest position included in this table is that
of the emperor, the one example whose seal bears a Marian image, as was imperial
practice before the onset of Iconoclasm as outlined above.110 As with the ecclesi
astical hierarchs, the emperors, too, chose images that they identified with the role
of their office or position. As noted above, in the pre-Iconoclastic period, emperors
regarded themselves as the intercessors for their subjects before God, mirroring the
role of the Theotokos.111 As seen with the hierarchs, imperial sphragisitc imagery
was chosen to enhance their position, in this case by the close identification of the
imperial office with the Mother of God. Except for the emperor, the archon (both
seals issued from the same individual), the eparchos, and the orphanotrophos,
offices that had actual administrative authority, the remaining offices represented in
Table 8.3 are modest dignitaries and subordinate officials. Only a few civil admin
istrators preferred seals with sacred images, and the majority of those who did
were lower-ranking bureaucrats. Again, the image of the Virgin dominates, as with
the ecclesiastical officials. Two examples demonstrate image selection based upon
personal and institutional homonymity: the one seal bearing the image of John the
Baptist was issued by an apo eparchon named John,112 and the two seals issued with
the image of Peter and Paul were issued by a Stephen, orphanotrophos of the cele
brated orphanage of Saints Peter and Paul in Constantinople.113 The motives behind
the choices of the other saintly figures are not easily determinable.
Table 8.4 displays the data for the iconographic seals issued by members of
the military for the 7th/8th century. It is quickly evident that this group is the
110 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals I:1, no. 28 and I. Leontiades, Μολυβδόβουλλα τοῦ
Μουσείου Βυζαντινοῦ Πολιτισμοὒ Θεσσαλονίκης, Thessalonike, 2006, no. 1. The seal is that of
Tiberios II (698–705) (sometimes known as Tiberios III).
111 Cotsonis, “The Imagery of Patriarch Methodios I’s Lead Seals,” p. 366–387 and idem, “The
Imagery of Patriarch Ignatios’ Lead Seals,” p. 52–98. See also Kalavrezou, “Images of the
Mother,” p. 171.
112 Sode, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin, II, no. 327.
113 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals I:2, no. 1268 a and b. For a study of seals belonging
to orphanotrophoi, and a discussion of the office of the orphanotrophos, see J. Nesbitt, “The
Orphanotrophos: Some Observations on the History of the Office in Light of Seals,” Studies in
Byzantine Sigillography, 8, 2003, p. 51–62, where our seal also appears. Nesbitt’s investigation
revises and updates the earlier work on the orphanotrophos by R Guilland, “Études sur l’his
toire administrative de l’Empire byzantine,” Revue des études byzantines, 23, 1965, p. 205–221.
For discussion of this orphanage, see Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin,
p. 567–568; T. Miller, “The Orphanotropheion of Constantinople,” Through the Eye of a Needle:
Judeo-Christian Roots of Social Welfare, ed. E. Hanawalt and C. Lindberg, Kirksville, MO, 1994,
p. 83–103; idem, The Orphans of Byzantium: Child Welfare in the Christian Empire, Washington,
DC, 2003, espec. p. 176–246; and J. Nesbitt, “St. Zotikos and the Early History of the Office of
Orphanotrophos,” Byzantium, State and Society, p. 417–422.
283
least represented of the three administrative branches for this time period: just
four specimens are included and little can be learned from such a small number
of specimens. Yet it is safe to assume that for this chronological period, military
officials tended not to place images of holy figures on their seals as compared to
members of the ecclesiastical and civil administration. In addition, even though
there are a small number of seals for this group, again, the image of the Virgin
dominates and only one individual selects an image of a military saint. At least
from this small group, there is no pattern of military officials preferring images of
military saints for their seals.114
Tables V through VII present the titles/offices held by owners of seals bearing
sacred images for the 8th century. Again, the largest group is that of the eccle
siastical administration, seen in Table 8.5, with 35 specimens; followed by the
civil administration, Table 8.6, with 26 examples: and the least are found among
military officials, Table 8.7, with two examples. In this period, too, among the
church officials, it is the hierarchs who dominate: archbishops, bishops and met
ropolitans, who provide the most examples: 29 out of 35, or 82.9%. This number
represents 22 different individuals. Few other Church officials are sphragistically
present and just two monastic owners are included. The evidence of the seals
indicates that as Iconoclasm unfolds, those Church officials who do continue to
support the use of images are mostly represented by hierarchs, not by lower clergy
or monastics. The data appear to support the work of Auzépy,115 Thümmel,116 Ben
jamin Moulet,117 and Brubaker and Haldon118 who concluded that Iconoclast and
Iconophile policies were supported by the bishops and that monks were not the
leading faction during the debates, playing a minor role in the controversy. One
of the hierarchs in this group, Paul, bishop of Eirenoupolis, whose seal bears an
image of John the Theologian, may be identical to the homonymous signatory
in the earlier acts of the Synod of Troullo of 691/692.119 Another churchman of
this group of seals is John, an archbishop of Ephesos, whose seal bears an image
114 See Cotsonis, “Saints & Cult Centers,” p. 19–23; idem, “The Contribution of Byzantine Lead
Seals,” p. 494; and idem, “Onomastics, Gender, Office and Images on Byzantine Lead Seals,”
p. 28–31, where, in the latter study, a larger sample size of seals from a later period, the 11th cen
tury, indicates the opposite pattern whereby individuals with military titles often, but not always,
selected an image of a military saint for their seals.
115 M.-F. Auzépy, “L’iconodoulie, défense de l’image ou de la devotion à l’image?,” Nicée II, 787–
1987, Douze siècles d’images religieuses, ed. F. Boespflug and N. Lossky, Paris, 1987, p. 157
(repr. in her L’histoire des iconoclasts, p. 37); eadem, “La place des moines à Nicée II (787),”
Byzantion, 58, 1988, p. 5–11 and 20 (repr. in her L’histoire des iconoclasts, p. 45–49 and 56); and
eadem, L’hagiographie et l’iconoclasme byzantin, p. 271–289.
116 Thümmel, Die Konzilien zur Bilderfrage, p. 2, 8–9, 40–42, 77–78, 119, 123–125, 128 and 311.
117 Moulet, Évêques, pouvoir et société à Byzance, p. 183, 186–190 and 347.
118 Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic Era: A History, p. 155, 197–199, 234–247,
261, 268, 279, 376–377, 396–397, 649, 650–664 and 790–791.
119 Seibt and Zarnitz, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk, no. 5.2.12, as in note 79, supra,
where the dating of the seal and its owner are discussed.
284
Table 8.5 Iconographic Repertoire of 8th-Century Seal Owners from the Ecclesiastical
Administration
Metropolitan
Archbishop
Blachernai
Diakonia
IMAGE
Deacon
TOTAL
Bishop
Abbot
? 4 3 1 1 9
Virgin & Child 1 1
Enthroned
Demetrios 1 1
Epiphanios 1 1 2
Ianouarios 1 1
John the Theologian 1 1 1 3
Michael 2 2
Peter & Paul 1 1
Theodore 3 3
Thomas 1 1
Titos 2 2
TOTAL 2 7 16 1 2 1 6 35
Table 8.6 Iconographic Repertoire of 8th-Century Seal Owners from the Civil
Administration
Chartoularious
Kouvikoularios
Apo eparchon
Patrikios
Emperor
Notarios
Hypatos
IMAGE
TOTAL
Eparch
Komes
?
? 2 2
Virgin Hodegetria 1 9 1 2 1 1 3 18
Theodore 1 1
TOTAL 4 1 1 9 2 3 1 1 1 3 26
Table 8.7 Iconographic Repertoire of 8th-Century Seal Owners from the Military
IMAGE Stratelates Strator TOTAL

Virgin Hodegetria 1 1
Virgin & Child Front 1 1
TOTAL 1 1 2
of John the Theologian, and who may well be the identical hierarch of Ephesos
who participated in the Seventh Ecumenical Synod.120 However, an aniconic seal
bearing on the obverse an invocative monogram, Χριστὲ βοήθει (Christ, help),
has also been assigned to the same prelate even though the line of the inscription
bearing the name of the city on the reverse is incomplete.121 If these sphragistic
assignments are correct, then these seals demonstrate how the same hierarchs
could change their sigillographic presentations in order to reflect or comply with
official imperial policies either in supporting or rejecting sacred images as dis
cussed above.
As in the preceding period, in the 8th century, ecclesiastics place the image
of the Virgin on their seals more often than that of any other figure: 10 out of 35
examples, or 28.6%. Her image appears on seven of the 21 different hierarchs’
seals at this time, or 33.3%, as compared to the four of the 24, or 16.7%, in the
preceding chronological period. As noted above, the image of the Virgin’s signif
icance increased for Iconophiles as the conflict progressed, and from the seals it
appears that hierarchs clearly attached Iconophile importance to her depiction. As
Moulet observed, if hierarchs did not choose for their seals the image of their local
saint or saintly predecessor then they most often selected that of the Virgin. While
her image was not an identity marker of episcopal territory, it functioned as a “nat
ural protectress” for the upper level clergy.122 Yet, as outlined above, the image of
the Mother of God became the emblem par excellence for the Iconophiles who
saw her as the vehicle of the Incarnation and the most powerful of intercessors.
Six different hierarchs, however, placed an image of their saintly predecessor
upon their seals, such as a Peter archbishop of Thessalonike employing an image
of Demetrios123 or Andrew, a metropolitan of Crete, with an image of Titos on his
120 Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum: Series secunda, III:1, p. 18. For the seal, see Zacos
and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3, no. 2986, who also links this seal to the hierarch John of
Ephesos among the signatories of the Synod of 787.
121 Laurent, Corpus V/1, no. 256. See also Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3, no. 2986,
who accept Laurent’s identification.
122 Moulet, Évêques, pouvoir et société à Byzance, p. 151.
123 N. Oikonomides, A Collection of Dated Byzantine Lead Seals, Washington, DC, 1986, no. 35.
286
seals,124 while five different hierarchs’ seals bear images that are uncertain. The
six of the 21 hierarchs, or 28.6%, as compared to the five of the 24, or 20.8%, for
the preceding period, reflects an increase in the use of saintly predecessors for
episcopal seals. This trend parallels the historical developments outlined above
concerning the growing interest in apostolicity and saintly local figures as a means
by which high-ranking churchmen attempted to enhance their prestige and juris
dictional authority, especially in light of the intrusion of imperial power into the
life of the Church during the Iconoclastic period.
For the remaining hierarchs in this period, either the diocese is not included in
the seals’ inscriptions or the iconography is uncertain. Only one hierarch selected
an image that was homonymous: the image of John the Theologian for John, the
archbishop of Ephesos, yet the motive may have also been that of identifying with
the local cult figure.125 One abbot, Peter, of an unidentified monastery, selected a
saintly homonymous image for his seal126 while, as noted above, an abbot of the
monastery on Patmos selected an image of John the Theologian, the patron of the
island.127 Otherwise, it is uncertain why the other ecclesiastical individuals of the
8th century selected their sphragistic images.
Table 8.6 presents the frequency of seals bearing religious figural images for
civil administrators for the 8th century. The majority are imperial seals, nine spec
imens representing five different emperors, all of whom employed the image of
the Virgin Hodegetria for their seals. As seen, the Virgin Hodegetria was the pre
ferred Marian sphragistic image immediately preceding the onset of Iconoclasm,
especially for imperial use. These nine seals were issued by the emperors Justin
ian II through Leo III, before the latter took his position against images in 730.128
After the emperor, there is only one office in Table 8.6 that is a high-ranking
position, that of the eparchos, here represented by two individuals.129 The remain
ing titles/offices appearing in Table 8.6 are modest, subordinate officials, offering
just a few examples. Thus, few members of the civil administration during the 8th
century placed images of saintly figures on their seals and most of these were of
lower bureaucratic rank. It is the imperial seals that dominate this group.
As with the other tables previously discussed, here, too, the image of the Virgin
is most frequently observed: 22 out of 26, or 84.6%. The majority of these exam
ples are of the Virgin Hodegetria type: 18, half of which are found on the imperial
seals. As outlined above, this was the Marian type preferred by emperors, and it
124 DOSeals II, nos. 36.8a and b.

125 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3, no. 2986.
126 Laurent, Corpus V:2, no. 1328.
127 Ibid., no. 1279.
128 For a critical discussion of the primary sources concerning the nature of Leo III’s initiation of a
policy against sacred images, and its limited character, see Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in
the Iconoclastic Era: A History, p. 119–127.
129 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, nos. 1331A and 1334.
287
became the Iconophile emblem. In addition, only two images of saints appear,
following the pattern discussed previously regarding the narrowing of the visual
repertoire of sacred sphragisitc images as Iconoclasm progressed. There is no
obvious motive for selecting these saints’ images for the two owners.130
Little can be said concerning the two seals appearing in Table 8.7 that were
issued by military officials during the 8th century.131 Only that it appears that
military officials at this time did not prefer religious figural images for their seals.
For the 8th century, there does not seem to be any widespread use of imagery
for the seals of the broader lay public. This observation supports the conclusions
of Brubaker and Haldon that the Iconoclastic conflict was not a widespread pre
occupation throughout all levels of Byzantine society but rather a dispute cen
tered mostly on imperial figures and high-ranking churchmen.132 The wider laity
appears not to have been as caught up in the controversy over sacred images as
the former two groups. The extremely low number of iconographic seals issued
by military officials during this period may reflect either a general practice of
military officials not employing seals with religious imagery or a deliberate ani
conic preference in light of official, imperial Iconoclastic policies. Again, as Bru
baker and Haldon have shown, from the end of the 7th century through that of
the 9th, the military underwent an increasing politicization, as a result of which
imperial ties with the army, and its policies, were strengthened and the interests
of the wellbeing of military officials became increasingly aligned with official
imperial decrees and beliefs.133 Thus, an imperial ban against sacred images
would quickly be adopted by military bureaucrats falling in line with an official
policy from Constantinople.
Tables 8.8, 8.9 and 8.10 display those seals with religious figures issued by
members of the ecclesiastical, civil and military administrations for the period
of the 8th/9th century. As with the previous periods discussed, here, too, the
greatest use of iconographic seals comes from church officials: 29 examples
from the ecclesiastical administration; three for the civil; and just two for mili
tary officials. During the years of the Iconophile interlude it appears that eccle
siastics acted as the strongest supporters of holy images. For these years, as in
the preceding periods discussed, Iconophile churchmen overwhelmingly pre
ferred an image of the Theotokos for their seals: 21 of 29, or 72.4%. Table 8.8
130 Ibid., no. 1281A and Metcalf, Byzantine Lead Seals from Cyprus, no. 136.
131 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1336 and Bulgurlu, Bizans Kurşun Mühürleri,
no. 88.
132 Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic Era: A History, p. 151–155, 197–198, 261–
263, 278–279, 372, 396, 400–403, 450–452, 642–664 and 790–791. This conclusion also had
been reached earlier by Schreiner, “Der byzantinische Bilderstreit,” p. 350–361 and 402–403 and
H. G. Thümmel, Bilderlehre und Bilderstreit: Arbeiten zur Auseinandersetzung über die Ikone
und ihre Begründung vornehmlich im 8. und 9. Jahrhundert, Würzburg, 1991, p. 37–38.
133 Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic Era: A History, p. 26–29 and 630–642 and
724–771, passim.
288
Table 8.8 Iconographic Repertoire of 8th/9th-Century Seal Owners from the Ecclesiastical
Administration
IMAGE Archbishop Bishop Metropolitan Monastery Monk TOATAL

? 1 1
Virgin Hodegetria 2 4 4 10
Virgin & Child Front 2 3 3 8
Virgin Nikopoios 2 1 3
Ianouuarios 2 2
John the Theologian 3 3
Nicholas 1 1
Titos 1 1
TOTAL 5 10 9 2 3 29
also indicates that the most popular Marian image for this period on seals is the
Hodegetria type, followed closely by the Virgin with the Christ Child held in
front, or Kyriotissa type.
Among the churchmen represented in this group by Table 8.8, the vast majority
are hierarchs: 24 of the 29, or 82.8% belong to metropolitans, archbishops and
bishops. During the 8th/9th century it appears that among those from the ecclesi
astical administration, the use of sphragistic figural imagery was preferred almost
exclusively by the higher echelons of the Church. Again, the sphragisitc evidence
supports the observations of Auzépy, Moulet, and Brubaker and Haldon, who con
cluded that hierarchs, who had the most to lose if they did not align themselves
with imperial policies, were the first and strongest supporters of either imperial
Iconophile or Iconoclast dictates.134 The 24 seals of the hierarchs represent 20 dif
ferent individuals. Several of these prelates are known to have participated in the
Iconophile synod of 787: Niketas, metropolitan of Klaudioupolis, whose seal has
an image of the Virgin Nikopoios (the iconographic type in which the Theotokos
holds a medallion of the Christ Child before her);135 Euthymios, metropolitan of
Sardis, a leader of the Iconophile party who was later banished during the second
Iconoclasm and eventually recognized as a saint, with a seal depicting the Virgin
holding the Child before her (Figure 8.10);136 Sisinnios, bishop of Chalkis, whose
134 See notes 115–118, supra.

135 Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum: Series secunda, III:1, p. 20, 196 and 278 and III:2,
p. 492. For his seal, see DOSeals IV, no. 7.4. For the Nikopoios Marian iconographic type, see
note 45, supra and S. Samerski, La Nikopoeia: Immagine di culto, palladio, mito veneziano,
Venice, 2012, p. 9–18.
136 Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum: Series secunda, III:1, p. 18, 192 and 272 and III:2,
p. 340 and 490. For his seal, see Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1332. For
discussion of Euthymios of Sardis and for his Vita by Patriarch Methodios I, see J. Gouillard, “La
Vie d’Euthyme de Sardes (†831),” Travaux et mémoires, 10, 1987 p. 1–101.
289
Figure 8.10 Lead Seal of Euthymios, metropolitan of Sardis, 8th/9th century. Obv: Virgin
holding Christ Child before her, standing; Rev: Inscription. (After G. Zacos
and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I [Basel, 1972], no. 1332)
sphragistic image is that of the Virgin Nikopoios;137 and Theophanes, bishop of

Sora, whose seal bears an image of the Virgin Hodegetria.138
Two other prelates among the seal owners of the 8th/9th century who do not
appear in the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod were, however, known to
have been victims of Iconoclasm: Aimilianos, metropolitan of Kyzikos, whose
seal depicts the Virgin with the Christ Child before her, who died in exile for his
opposition to the Iconoclast Synod of 815 and was recognized as a confessor of
the faith;139 and Theophilos, archbishop of Ephesos, who issued seals with images
of John the Theologian, was a correspondent with Theodore the Stoudite, and was
also exiled and imprisoned as a confessor of the second Iconoclasm.140
Among the ecclesiastical seals for this period just two different monasteries
are represented, one selecting an image of Nicholas as the homonymously named
137 Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum: Series secunda, III:1, p. 26 and 206 and III:2,
p. 504. For his seal, see DOSeals I, no. 48.2.
138 Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum: Series secunda, III:1, p. 30 and 206 and III:2,
p. 510. For his seal, see Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, no. 1348A.
139 For his commemoration on the 8th of August in the ecclesiastical calendar, see Synaxarium eccle
siae Constantinopolitanae: Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris, ed. H. Delehaye, Brus
sels, 1902, col. 875. See also A. Vogt, “S. Théophylacte de Nicomédie,” Analecta Bollandiana,
50, 1932, p. 78 and Laurent, Corpus V/3, no. 1703. For the most recent edition of Aimilianos’
seal, see DOSeals III, no. 53.1.
140 For his commemoration on the 25th of September in the ecclesiastical calendar, see Synaxarium,
77. For Theodore the Stoudite’s letters to Theophilos, see Theodori Studitae Epistulae, II, nos.
385, 414 and 455. For Theophilos’ seals, see Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I: 2, no.
1350; Šandrovskaja, “Sfragistika,” no. 814; and DOSeals III, no. 14.8.
290
saint of the foundation.141 The three seals belonging to a monk represent one indi
vidual who chose the image of the Virgin Kyriotissa type for his seals.142 Once
more the sphragistic material indicates little monastic presence was visible during
the Iconoclastic controversy.
Of the 24 hierarchical seals the Virgin was the most popular image: 19 bear
some type of Marian figure on their seals. The remaining five employ images
of saints on their seals, but these were saints who were the local cult figures of
the churchmen’s jurisdictions. Thus, while the importance and prestige of the
local saint and his cult are significant for a few hierarchs during the Iconophile
interlude, high-ranking Iconophile churchmen find the image of the Theotokos to
be the most appropriate form of expression of their visual piety and Iconophile
position.
Table 8.9 presents the iconographic repertoire and frequency of seals with reli
gious figural imagery issued by members of the civil administration for the 8th/9th
century and Table 8.10 displays those of the military officials for the same period.
As can be immediately observed, in both groups there are only three and two
specimens represented, respectively. The number of seals representing these two
sectors of society is too insignificant to lead to any conclusions. For the 8th/9th
century the majority of Iconophiles come from the ecclesiastical administration,
and from the world of the hierarchs.
Tables 8.11, 8.12, and 8.13 set forth the religious iconographic seals issued
by members of the ecclesiastical, civil and military administrations, respec
tively, for the 9th century. As is obvious, there is an increase in the number of
all groups reflecting the end of Iconoclasm after 843. There are, however, only
four examples from military officials. As the three charts indicate, the members
of the ecclesiastical bureaucracy again outnumber the representatives from the
civil and military administrations: 86, 65, and four examples, respectively. Once
more it appears that officials within the Church stand at the vanguard of the new
Iconophile policies beginning in 843, followed by the civil bureaucracy, with little
representation from the military.
From Table 8.11 one discerns that the image of the Virgin continues to be the most
prevalent figure among Church officials: 68 out of 86 examples, or 79.1%. Yet, unlike
the immediately previous time period, now the number of different saints appearing
on seals begins to rise, as well as the number of examples of these saints, approxi
mating those values seen in Table 8.5 for the ecclesiastical office holders from the
8th century. With the end of Iconoclasm, the iconographic choice for seals appears to
widen as there is less immediate Iconophile focus on the Virgin. As noted above, this
trend of increasing presence of saints on lead seals will continue to expand, reaching
the highest percentile value with the 10th/11th century group of seals.143
141 Schlumberger, Sigillographie, p. 233.

142 V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de l’ empire byzantin, V:3, Paris, 1972 (hereafter Laurent, Cor
pus V:3), no. 1962 and Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:2, nos. 1325 a and b.
143 Cotsonis, “Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals,” p. 402 and 406–410.
291
Table 8.9 Iconographic Repertoire of 8th/9th-Century Seal Owners from the Civil
Administration
IMAGE ? Apo eparchon Kandidatos TOTAL

Nicholas 1 1
TOTAL 1 1 1 3
Table 8.10 Iconographic Repertoire of 8th/9th-Century Seal Owners from the Military
IMAGE Stratelates Strator TOTAL

Virgin 1 1
TOTAL 1 1 2
Table 8.11 Iconographic Repertoire of 9th-Century Seal Owners from the Ecclesiastical
Administration
Kouvouklesios
Metropolitan
Archbishop
Patriarch
Diakonia
Ekdikos
IMAGE
Deacon
TOTAL
Bishop
Abbot
Priest
Monk
Christ 1 1 1 3 1 7
Virgin Hoegetria 4 1 6 1 8 1 21
Virgin & Child Front 20 2 1 1 1 1 26
Virgin Nikopoios 7 2 1 1 1 5 1 18
Virgin Deomene 1 1
Virgin-Imprecise 2 2
Gregory Thaumatourgos 2 2
John the Theologian 2 1 3
Kallinikos 1 1
Nicholas 2 2
Peter 1 1
Theodore 1 1
TOTAL 2 36 10 2 1 1 1 15 2 12 4 86
The data in Table 8.11 also reveal that among the ecclesiastical officials of
the 9th century, it is again the hierarchs who are most likely to employ religious
figures for their seals: archbishops, bishops and metropolitans, and here, also,
patriarchs: this group numbers 73 of the total 86 specimens listed, or 84.9%. As
the upper echelon of the Church, these high-ranking clerics herald the changing
ecclesiastical and imperial policies regarding images during the shifting fortunes
of the Iconoclastic/Iconophile regimes. The remaining 13 images belong to sub
ordinate ranks in the ecclesiastical world.
The group of 73 seals belonging to hierarchs represents 48 different individu
als. Forty of these 48, or 83.3%, selected some image of the Virgin for their seals,
a dominant trend already observed among hierarchs. All but two of the other eight
churchmen selected an image of another saint who either was the object of the
local cult, as in the case of Gregory, an archbishop of Ephesos with the depiction
of John the Theologian,144 or that of Euphemianos, an archbishop of Euchaita
with the image of Theodore (Figure 8.11),145 or for homonymous motives such
as Nicholas, a bishop of Theobouleia whose two seals bear the likeness of Saint
Nicholas,146 or Peter, a metropolitan of Sardis with an image of Saint Peter.147
The iconographic choice that cannot be easily explained is that of Athanasios, a
bishop of Monemvasia, who placed an image of Christ on the obverse and that of
John the Theologian on the reverse, although the choice for the reverse has been
suggested above.148 The three patriarchal seals bearing an image of Christ were
all issued by Ignatios, patriarch of Constantinople (847–858 and 867–877).149 As
noted previously, post-Iconoclasm patriarchs continued to place an image of the
Theotokos on their seals, while contemporaneous emperors chose an image of
Christ. Elsewhere, I have discussed at length the exception with Ignatios’s choice,
whose sphragistic imagery served three purposes: to announce his break with the
ecclesiastical policies of his predecessor, Methodios; to invoke his imperial fam
ily origins; and to align himself with his Stoudite monastic supporters.150
Various hierarchs among our 9th-century seal owners were present at either
the pro-Ignatian Synod of Constantinople in 869/870 or at the pro-Photian
Synod of Constantinople in 879/880.151 For the Synod of 869/870, the following
144 DOSeals III, no. 14.4.

145 DOSeals IV, no. 16.1.
146 Jordanov, Bulgaria I, nos. 32.1a and b (the identical two seals appear in his later volume, Bul
garia III, as nos. 1719 and 1720).
147 Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals II, no. 869.
148 Šandrovskaja, “Sfragistika,” no. 807.
149 Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals II, nos. 6a, b and c. See also DOSeals VI, no. 112.1.
150 Cotsonis, “The Imagery of Patriarch Ignatios’ Lead Seals,” p. 52–98.
151 For discussion of these synods, see D. Stiernon, Constantinople IV, Paris, 1967, passim; F.
Dvornik, The Photian Schism: History and Legend, 2nd ed., Cambridge, 1970, p. 132–201; Der
Kampf um das Menschenbild: Das achte ökumenische Konzil von 869/870 und seine Folgen, ed.
H. Schöffler, Dornach, 1986, passim; J. Meijer, A Successful Council of Union: A Theological
Analysis of the Photian synod of 979–880, Thessalonike, 1975, passim; and H. Chadwick, East
293
Figure 8.11 Lead Seal of Euphemianos, archbishop of Euchaita, 9th century. Obv: Theo
dore bust; Rev: Inscription. Dumbarton Oaks BZS.1958.106.138
participated: Nikephoros, metropolitan of Nicaea, who issued a seal with the

image of the Virgin Hodgetria;152 Euphemianos, the archbishop of Euchaita, men
tioned above;153 John, archbishop of Kios, whose seal bears an image of the Virgin
Nikopoios;154 Epiphanios, archbishop of Cyprus, with seals depicting the Virgin
with the Christ Child in front of her;155 and Basil, archbishop of Ephesos, whose
seal also has the image of the Virgin with the Christ Child before her.156 For the
Synod of 879/880, the following hierarchs from our group of seal owners are
recorded: Gregory, metropolitan of Kyzikos, with a seal bearing an image of the
Virgin Nikopoios;157 again, the same Euphemianos, archbishop of Euchaita par-
ticipated;158 Theophilos, metropolitan of Ikonion, whose seal has an image of the
Virgin Nikopoios;159 Epiphanios, archbishop of Kios, whose seals has the image
of the Virgin Hodgetria;160 Leo, archbishop of Calabria, who issued a seal rep
resenting the Virgin Nikopoios;161 Arsenios, archbishop of Lemnos, whose seal
depicts the Virgin with the Christ Child before her;162 Methodios, the bishop of
Pergamon, with the image of the Virgin Nikopoios on his seal;163 and Sabbas, the
newly appointed metropolitan of Athens, whose seals exhibit either the image of
the Virgin with the Christ Child held before her or that of the Virgin Nikopoios.164
and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times until the Council of Flor
ence, Oxford, 2003, p. 164–181.
152 Mansi, XVI, 45, 134 and 190. For the hierarch’s seal, see Laurent, Corpus V/1, no. 393.
153 Mansi XVI, 192.
154 Mansi, XVI, 158 and 191. For John’s seal, see DOSeals III, no. 503.
155 Mansi, XVI, 308. For his seals, see A. Dunn, A Handlist of the Byzantine Lead Seals and Tokens
in the Barber Institute of Fine Arts, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, 1983, no.
49 and Metcalf, Byzantine Lead Seals from Cyprus, no. 459.
156 Mansi, XVI, 134, 158 and 190. For this prelate’s seal, see Šandrovskaja, “Sfragistika,” no. 785.
157 Mansi XVIIA, 373. For the seal, see DOSeals III, no. 53.5.
158 Mansi, XVIIA, 373. Although Euphemianos was a signatory in both the pro-Ignatian synod of
869/870 and the pro-Photian synod of 879/880, shortly after, sometime between 880–886, Pho
tios deposed the hierarch and replaced him with another. See Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat
de Constantinople, I:2 and 3, 2nd rev. ed. V. Grumel and J. Darrouzès, Paris, 1989, no. 558 and
DOSeals IV, no. 16.1. An account of this episode is recorded in the Vita Ignatii, see Nicetas
David, The Life of Patriarch Ignatius, trans. and ed. A. Smithies and J. Duffy, Washington, DC,
2013, p. 128–129.
159 Mansi, XVIIA, 373.
160 Mansi XVIIA, 373. For the hierarch’s seals, see DOSeals III, no. 50.2a and b.
161 Mansi, XVIIA, 373. For Leo’s seal, see Laurent, Corpus V/1, no. 909.
162 Mansi, XVIIA, 373. For this seal, see DOSeals II, no. 50.1.
163 Mansi, XVIIA, 377. For Methodios’ seal, see DOSeals III, 28.1.
164 Mansi, XVIIA, 373. Sabbas was elevated to metropolitan of Athens in May 879, upon the death
of his predecessor, and served until his death in 913. Prior to this appointment, Sabbas was the
bishop of Demetrias, and one of his seals from this episcopacy is included in my database for the
religious figural seals of 9th-century hierarchs: Laurent, Corpus V/3, no. 1760. For 9th-century
examples of Sabbas’ seal as metropolitan of Athens, see Laurent, Corpus V/1, no. 590 and Zacos,
Byzantine Lead Seals, II, no. 883. Parallel examples to the latter seals have been more recently
published but have been assigned to the entire period of Sabbas’ metropolitonate, that is 879–913
and thus fall into the succeeding chronological period of seals for my database, the 9th-10th
295
Of the lower 13, or subordinate church individuals, eight chose an image of the
Virgin for their seals. One chose an image of the homonymous saint representing
the institution to which the owner belonged: the abbot Theodore of the Stoudios
monastery in Constantinople selected the image of John the Baptist for his seal,
since the monastery was dedicated to the Forerunner.165 There is no clear reason
why four remaining subordinate ecclesiastical officials chose the images for their
seals.166
The 65 seals listed in Table 8.12 represent 20 different individuals from the
civil administration. The number of individuals for the civil bureaucracy is less
than half of those different individuals from the ecclesiastical world. The 43 impe
rial seals belong to only six different emperors. For the 9th-century emperors,
the majority of seals bear an image of Christ, 37 of the 42: those of our sample
were issued by Michael III (842–867) and Basil I (867–886). As noted above,
post-Iconoclast emperors most commonly placed an image of Christ on their
seals. The five imperial seals with an image of the Virgin Hodegetria were issued
by three early 9th-century emperors of the Iconophile interlude: Nikephoros I
(802–811);167 Michael I (812–8130);168 and Leo V (813–815, before reinstating
the Iconoclast policies).169 The one imperial seal bearing the image of Saint Basil
was issued by Basil I and provides the rare example of an emperor selecting an
image of his homonymous saint for his seal.170
Excluding the imperial seals form this group of 9th-century seals, the remainder
in Table 8.12 belonged to 14 different individuals. After the exalted position of the
emperor, the other seal owners represent a cross section of positions, some with
offices or titles with significant authority or prestige, such as the epi tes sakelles
(official of the imperial treasury); epi tou chrysotriklinou (court official in charge
of the Chrysotriklinos-Golden Hall); epi ton oikeiakon (official of the imperial pri
vate treasury); ostiarios (palace official introducing dignitaries to the emperor) and
protospatharios (a high-ranking title in the 9th century), and others who were low-
er-level bureaucrats, such as the chartoularios (subordinate official with archival and
fiscal duties), ek prosopou (a representative of various officials and governmental
century, and therefore are not included in this study: DOSeals II, 9.9a and b. Because it is impos
sible to determine when exactly during his rule the hierarch’s seals were issued, I have main
tained the dating of the two earlier publications in order to properly ensure recording Sabbas’s
participation in the Synod of 879 within the chronological limits of this present study. For infor
mation concerning Sabbas, see A. Orlandos and A. Vranouses, Τὰ Χαράγματα τοῦ Παρθενώνος,
Athens, 1973, no. 75.
165 Laurent, Corpus V/2, no. 1194. For the dedication and history of the monastery, see Janin, La
géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, p. 430–440.
166 Laurent, Corpus, V/1, no. 120, with the image of Kallinikos; Laurent, Corpus V/2, nos. 1198,
1204 and 1354, all with an image of Christ.
167 Zacos & Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals I:1, no. 46b; DOSeals VI, nos. 38.1 and 40.1.
168 Sokolova, Byzantine Imperial Seals, no. 70.
169 Zacos & Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals I:1, no. 48.
170 DOSeals VI, no. 52.1.
296
Table 8.12 Iconographic Repertoire of 9th-Century Seal Owners from the Civil
Administration
Spatharakandidatos
Daughter of Caesar
Epi ton oikeiakon
Protospatharios
Chrysotriklinou
Kommerkiarios
Epi tes sakelles
Chartoularios
Ek prosopou
Hypologios
Spatharios
Ostiarios
Emperor
IMAGE
Epi tou
TOTAL
?
? 1 2 3
Christ 1 37 1 1 2 1 43
Virgin & Child Front 1 1 2 1 2 7
Virgin Nikopoios 2 1 1 1 5
Basil 1 1
Polycarp 1 1
TOTAL 2 3 1 1 43 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 65
departments), hypologios (an official with the control of trade?), kommerkiarios

(fiscal official for sate warehouses, import/export control and duties), spatharios
(low-ranking title) and the spatharokandidatos (low-ranking title).171 Five individ
uals (representing six seals) chose an image of Christ for their seals. Although the
image of Christ was so closely linked with the person of the emperor, as discussed
above, on occasion few other individuals also employed his image for their seals.
This appears to be more frequently encountered in the 9th century following the
end of Iconoclasm with its debates centered on the legitimacy of Christ’s image
and in response to the imperial adoption of his image. Among the 156 seals with
religious figural imagery belonging to the 9th century, 53, or 34%, bear an image
of Christ. This is the highest percentile throughout the entire chronological span
of religious iconographic seals from the 6th through the 15th century. Otherwise,
all the other civil officials of the 9th century placed an image of the Virgin on their
seals except for a certain Leo, protospatharios who has an unidentifiable military
saint’s image.172 A certain Theophanes, spatharios has an unidentifiable image of a
171 For the brief definition of these offices and titles, see the Glossary of the online database,
Prosopography of the Byzantine World: blog.pbw.cch.kcl.ac.uk/reference/glossary/(accessed 3
July 2013). The rare term, hypologios, does not appear in the Prosopography’s glossary but it is
discussed by Zacos, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, no. 258 and DOSeals III, no 59.2, where the edi
tors acknowledge the uncertainty of the term. See also Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I, p. 416
(chartoularios) and p. 683 (ek prosopou); II, p. 1141 (kommerkiarios); III, p. 1540 (ostiarios);
p. 1748 (protospatharios); p. 1935–1936 (spatharios); and p. 1936 (spatharokandidatos).
172 Leontiades, Μολυβδόβουλλα, no. 23.
297
saint on the obverse and reverse of his seal.173 Thus, except for the new practice of
the imperial use of the image of Christ on post-Iconoclastic seals, the majority of
individuals from the civil administration turn to the Theotokos for their sphragistic
imagery. Saints play a very minor role for these individuals who are not concerned
with the prestige of holy predecessors and local cult figures as are ecclesiastical
hierarchs. The civil servants of the 9th century appear to follow the general pattern
of the ubiquitous use of the image of the Virgin for sphragistic imagery as well as
following in the wake of the Iconophile victory where supporters of images during
the controversy most frequently employed some image of the Theotokos. It should
also be noted, however, that the image of the Virgin Hodegetria is no longer the
dominant Marian type found on seals for this period.
The four seals issued by 9th-century military officials are listed in Table 8.13
and these represent four different individuals. The number of this group is small,
and one hesitates to make any general inferences. None of these officers selected
an image of the Virgin for their seals, possibly indicating at this time, in the 9th
century, her image was not taken up by military men for their personal devotions, at
least as expressed by their sphragistic iconography. Among these military officials,
three were officers with commanding roles: the droungarios tes viglas, the katepano
and the tourmarches, while the komes of the imperial fleet had a subaltern or sub
ordinate role.174 For the 9th century, although only four specimens are available for
discussion, those members of the military administration who selected images for
their seals appear to come from the upper ranks. There is no obvious motive for the
iconographic choice of these four individuals. None are homonymous iconographic
selections with their owners’ names. The one iconographic specimen listed as a
Deesis is composed of the figures of the Virgin, Christ and John the Theologian.175
173 K. Konstantopoulos, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα τοῦ ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἐθνικοῦ Νομισματικοῦ

Μουσείου, Athens, 1917, no. 533γ.
Prosopography of the Byzantine World: blog.pbw.cch.kcl.ac.uk/reference/glossary/(accessed
3 July 2013). See also Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I, p. 484–485 (comes/komes); p. 663
(droungarios tes viglas); II, p. 1115–1116 (katepano); and III, p. 2100–2101 (tourmarches).
175 Schlumberger, Sigillographie, p. 230. For discussion of the image of the Deesis, where John
the Baptist is usually the third figure after Christ and the Virgin, see C. Walter, “Two Notes
on the Deesis,” Revue des études byzantines, 26, 1968, p. 311–336; A. Cutler, “Under the
Sign of the Deesis: On the Question of Representativeness in Medieval Art and Literature,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 41, 1987, p. 145–154; A. Mantas, “Überlegungen zur Deesis in der
Hauptapsis mittelbyzantinischer Kirchen Griechenlands,” Byzantinische Malerei: Bildpro
gramme-Ikonographie-Stil, ed. G. Koch, Wiesbaden, 2000, p. 165–182; R. Warland, “Dee
sis-Emmanuel-Maria: Bildkonzepte kappadokischer Höhlenkirchen des 13. Jahrhunderts,”
ibid., p. 365–386; and N. Chatzidakis, “Ἡ Δέηση τοῦ Ἀγγέλου στό Μουσείου Κανελλοπούλου
καί ἡ χρήση τοῦ ἀνθιβόλου της κατά τό 15ο αἰῶνα,” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς
Ἑταιρείας, per. 4, 27, 2006, p. 283–296. For examples of the image of the Deesis on seals,
where the image of the Virgin is the central figure, and not Christ, and flanked by saints, see
V. Šandrovskaja, “Deesis-Komposition auf Siegeln der Ermitage,” Studies in Byzantine Sig
illography, 9, 2006, p. 159–167.
298
Table 8.13 Iconographic Repertoire of 9th-Century Seal Owners from the Military
IMAGE Droungarios Katepano Komes of Tourmaches TOTAL

tes Viglas Imperial Fleet
Deesis 1 1
Christ 1 1 2
Nicholas 1 1
TOTAL 1 1 1 1 4
Among the 349 seals examined for this investigation, just three belonged to
women. It should be kept in mind that the vast majority of seals were issued by
those who held positions in the ecclesiastical, civil, and military bureaucracies, all
institutions governed by men. Compared to men, very few belonged to women:
either from empresses, private individuals, female monastics or women who bore
the feminized form of their husbands’ title or office.176 From our sample, one was
issued in the 7th/8th century by Markellia, an abbess of a monastery,177 and two
belong to the 9th century, a Marina Baanissa whose seal does not include a title,178
while the second was issued by Maria, a daughter of a caesar, and thus a member
of the imperial family (Figure 8.12).179 Concerning this latter seal of the daughter
of a caesar, the editors who published this specimen, George Zacos and Alexan
der Veglery, assigned the seal to the second half of the 9th century but could not
offer a closer identification as to its owner because none of the three caesars from
this period are known to have had a daughter named Maria. However, the piece
remains significant because it indicates that in the early years of the Iconophile
176 For literature devoted to women and their seals, see Cheynet and Morrisson, “Texte et image
sur les sceaux byzantins;” J.-C. Cheynet “La patricienne à ceinture: Une femme de qualité,” Au
cloîte et dans le monde. Femmes, homes et sociétés (IXᵉ-XVᵉ siècle). Mélanges en l’honneur de
Paulette L’Hermite-Leclercq, ed. P. Henriet and A.-M. Legras, Paris, 2000, p. 179–187 (repr.
in his La société byzantine: L’apport des sceaux, p. 163–174); idem, “Le rôle des femmes de
l’aristocratie d’après les sceaux,” Sfragistika I Istorija Kul’tury: Sbornik Naucnyh Trudov, Posv
jasennyj Jubileju V. C. Šandrovskoj, ed. E. Stepenova, St. Petersburg, 2004, p. 30–49 (repr. in
his La société byzantine: L’apport des sceaux, p. 175–196); V. Penna, “Zoe’s Lead Seal: Female
Invocation to the Annunciation of the Virgin,” Images of the Mother of God, p. 175–182; Cot
sonis, “Onomastics, Gender, Office and Images on Byzantine Lead Seals,” p. 10–18; and idem,
“Narrative Scenes on Byzantine Lead Seals (Sixth-Twelfth Centuries): Frequency, Iconography,
and Clientele,” Gesta, 48:1, 2009, p. 67.
178 Jordanov, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria, III, no. 1825.
179 Zacos and Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:3, no. 2673. For the title of caesar in the Byzantine
period, see Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I, p. 363 and “kaisar” in the Glossary of the online
database, Prosopography of the Byzantine World: blog.pbw.cch.kcl.ac.uk/reference/glossary/
(accessed 3 July 2013).
299
Figure 8.12 Lead Seal of Maria, daughter of a Caesar, 9th century. Obv: Virgin holding
Christ before her, bust; Rev: Inscription. (After G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byz
antine Lead Seals, I [Basel, 1972], no. 2673)
triumph, a woman of the imperial house officially proclaims her support of images,
and specifically Marian images. The prestige of her social standing testifies to the
possibility of high-ranking female patronage of sacred images at that time which
could have provided a leading example for other women to follow. Yet, because
the size of the group of female seal owners is extremely small, little safely can
be determined concerning female iconographic choice during the period under
study. On the other hand, since all three women chose an image of the Virgin for
their seals, this observation follows a more general, broader pattern of sphragistic
choice among female seal owners and contributes to the view that women in Byz
antium were especially devoted to the Theotokos.180 Although the extremely few
seals owned by women during the centuries under investigation here, like that for
the few monastic seal owners, lends support to the more recent revisions in stud
ies of Iconoclasm that question the overtly female support of images among the
Iconophile party,181 the presence of the seal of Maria, daughter of a casear, should
give some pause when reconsidering the particular devotion of women to icons.
Geographic regions and iconoclasm

In addition to images and social groups, the sphragistic material offers evidence con
cerning the geographic distribution of image use during the Iconoclastic controversy
because the inscriptions on many seals bear the geographical locations in which the
owners held their office. Or in the case of various others, the geographical location
180 For the sphragistic imagery of female seal owners, see Cotsonis, “Onomastics, Gender, Office
and Images on Byzantine Lead Seals,” p. 10–12. The literature devoted to the religious life of
Byzantine women has grown considerably See the website, Bibliography on Gender in Byzan
tium, www.doaks.org/resources/bibliography-gender-in-byzantium (accessed 29 July 2013).
181 Brubaker, Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm, p. 117–119.
300
can be determined, such as with the title of the kouvikoularios and the office of the
eparchos, terms belonging to individuals at the imperial palace and the prefect of
Constantinople, respectively.182 This information will provide further insight into
understanding the geographical limits of the Iconoclastic policies and expressions of
visual piety. The frequency of seals bearing religious figural iconography from the
7th/8th through the ninth centuries, and bearing inscriptions of offices that included
geographical locations, or those whose geographical locations can be determined
with certainty by the nature of their title or office, is listed in Table 8.14. As can
be immediately observed, the total number of seals for each chronological period
reflects the overall trends discussed above: as Iconoclasm progressed chronologi
cally, the number of seals bearing geographic locations in their inscriptions declined
with time but then rose again in the 9th century with the liquidation of Iconoclasm.
But of particular interest is the percentage of seals from outside of Constantinople
for each chronological period: for the 7th/8th century, 40 of the 58, or 69%, belonged
to individuals from regions beyond the capital of Constantinople; from the 8th cen
tury, 34 of the 49, or 69.4%, are from outside the capital; of the 8th/9th century, 24
of the 25, or 96% originate from non-Constantinopolitan locations; and among the
9th-century sample, 73 of 146, or 50%, are outside of Constantinople. These ratios
demonstrate that although the number of iconographic seals overall declined as the
epoch of Iconoclasm unfolded, a higher proportion came from regions outside of
the capital city, and that by the 9th century this trend began to reverse itself with
the removal of the ban on sacred images. This evidence adds further support to
the investigations of such scholars as Hélène Ahrweiler,183 Stephen Gero,184 Ihor
Prosopography of the Byzantine World: blog.pbw.cch.kcl.ac.uk/reference/glossary/(accessed
3 July 2013). See also Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I, p. 705 (eparch); and II, p. 1154
(kouvikoularios).
183 H. Ahrweiler, “The Georgraphy of the Iconoclastic World,” Iconoclasm, p. 21–27, who, based
upon the text of the Vita of St. Stephen the Younger, written during the years of the second Icon
oclasm, notes the four regions listed by the Vita’s author where Iconophiles were most welcome
refugees: the north-east Pontic region; Italy; Cyprus, with the south-east coast of Anatolia; and
the area of the Sea of Marmara, that is, the area around Constantinople itself, the latter based upon
interpreting the term in the Vita, προποντίδα-“Propontis,” as referring to the region of the Sea of
Marmara. Ahrweiler concludes that in general Iconoclast policies stemmed from the capital and
grew weaker in proportion to the remoteness of the provinces but also that within a single region,
social and economic factors often determined who would support or oppose Iconoclast policies
because often Iconoclasts and Iconophiles lived side by side. For the edition of the Vita Stephani,
published by Auzépy subsequent to Ahrweiler’s study, see La Vie d’Étienne le Jeune, p. 125 for
the Greek text and p. 218–221, for commentary on the geographical significance. Here, Auzépy
prefers to define “Propontis” as a generalized term for “straits,” in this case the entry to the open
sea between Cyprus and Anatolia, thereby listing only three regional havens for Iconophiles. See
also her L’hagiographie et l’iconoclasme byzantine, p. 271–281.
184 Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Constantine V, p. 118–142, where, p. 126, no.
57, the author also cites the Vita Stephani for the regions that harbored Iconodule refugees, and
like Arhweiler, note 183, supra, Gero understands the geographical term in the Vita Stephani,
“Propontis,” to refer to the area of the Sea of Marmara.
301
Table 8.14 Geographic Distribution of Iconographic Seals During Iconoclasm
AREA 7/8c 8c 8/9c 9c TOTAL

? (Hierarchs of Unknown Sees) 13 7 2 22
Abydos 1 2 3
Aegean 1 1
Amaseia 1 1
Anatolikon Theme 2 2
Ankyra
Arkadiopolis 1 1
Armeniakon Theme 1 1
Athens 1 1 2
Bizye 1 1
Boukellarion Theme 1 1
Bulgaria 14 14
Calabria 4 4
Chalkis 1 1
Cherson 1 1
Chios 2 2
Constantinople-non-imperial 16 6 1 30 53
Constantinople-imperial 2 9 43 54
Corinth 1 1
Crete 2 1 3
Cyprus 10 8 2 20
Demetrias 1 1
Dyrrachion 1 1
Eirenopoulis 1 1
Ephesos 1 1 3 4 9
Euchaita 3 1 4
Gangra 1 1
Herakleia of Pontos 1 1 2
Iboria 1 1
Ikonion 1 1 2
Italy 1 1
Karia 3 3
Kios 3 3
Klaudiopolis 1 1
Korone 1 1
Kyzikos 1 2 3
Laodikeia 3 3
Leiparis 1 1
Lemnos 1 1
Leukos 1 1
AREA 7/8c 8c 8/9c 9c TOTAL
Macedonia 1 1
Mardatai 1 1
Messina 1 1
Mytilene 1 1 2
Monemvasia 2 2
Naples 1 2 3
Neocaesaria 2 2
Nicaea 1 2 3
Nikomedia 1 1
Nikopolis 3 2 5
Noumerika 1 1
Patmos 1 1
Pergamon 1 1 2
Polemonium 1 1
Proussa 1 1
Psibela 1 1
Rhodes 1 1
Rossano 1 1
Samos 1 1
Sara 1 1
Sardes 1 3 4
Sardinia 1 1
Seulekia 2 2
Sicily 1 1
Stavroupolis 2 2
Syllaion 1 1
Tauromenon 1 1
Theoboulea 2 2
Thessalonike 1 2 3
Trapezous 1 1
TOTAL 58 49 25 146 278
Ševčenko,185 and Robin Cormack,186 who argued that Iconoclasm was signifi
cantly a Constantinopolitan, imperial phenomenon and less strictly enforced in the
185 I. Ševčenko, “Was there Totalitarianism in Byzantium? Constantinople’s Control over its Asiatic
Hinterland in the Early Ninth Century,” Constantinople and Its Hinterland: Papers from the
Twenty-Seventh Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, April 1993, ed. C. Mango and
G. Dagron, Aldershot, 1995, p. 91–108.
186 R. Cormack, “Away from the Centre: ‘Provincial’ Art in the Ninth Century,” Byzantium in the
Ninth Century, p. 157–158.
303
provinces. More recently Marie-France Auzépy has arrived at a similar conclusion,

although her analysis of 8th- and 9th-century texts has a more nuanced conclusion
of the political life of the provinces, where Iconoclastic and Iconophile sympathies
were not so clearly divided or practiced.187 This more complex understanding of the
geographical limits of Iconoclasm and the acknowledgement of concurrent Icono
phile/Iconoclast factions within the same region has been subsequently supported
by Michel Kaplan,188 Moulet,189 and Brubaker and Haldon.190 In the Vita of the
Iconophile martyr St. Stephen the Younger, executed in 765, and written by Stephen
the Deacon in either 807 or 809, the hagiographer claims that just three, or possibly
four, regions are safe for the supporters of images during the first period of Icono
clasm: the northeast Pontic region; Italy; Cyprus, with the southeast coast of Anato
lia; and the area of the Sea of Marmara.191 Actually, the evidence of the seals, as seen
in Table 8.15, presents more numerous areas within Anatolia where sacred figures
were employed during these years than the three or four regions listed in the Life
of St. Stephen the Younger. The sphragistic material, therefore, goes even further
in demonstrating the narrow geographical confines of imperial Constantinopolitan
Iconoclasm. Although there is a wide distribution of areas represented, stretching
from the Syrian frontier to Bulgaria and Italy, the majority of examples concentrate
on various regions of Asia Minor, the Pontic, the Aegean, the Sea of Marmara, the
Greek mainland, Cyprus and Italy. These are exactly the geographical territories
that were regarded as Iconophile harbors during the first period of Iconoclasm as
stipulated in the Vita of St. Stephen the Younger and so provide additional credence
to the hagiographical text, despite the revisionist reading of this section of the Vita
by Auzépy and Brubaker and Haldon, who question the evidence for Iconoclast
persecution and the flight of Iconophiles to such peripheral regions of the empire.192
In addition, from Table 8.14, it is discernable that as the Iconoclastic episode
progressed, the number of different regions represented remains relatively stable:
for the 7th/8th century there are 15 different locations represented; for the 8th
century there are 17 different locations; while for the 8th/9th century there are
18 locations listed. Only in the 9th century is there a great increase in the num
ber of regions represented, more than double – 38 different locations. One factor
187 La Vie d’Étienne le Jeune, p. 125 and 218–221 and Auzépy, L’hagiographie et l’iconoclasme
byzantine, p. 243–248 and 271–288.
188 M. Kaplan, La Chrétienté byzantine du début du VIIᵉ siècle au milieu du XIᵉ siècle. Images et rel
iques, moines et moniales, Constantinople et Rome, Paris, 1997, p. 95–102, who, like Ahrweiler
and Gero, understands the term “propontis” to refer to the Sea of Marmara.
189 Moulet, Évêques, pouvoir et société à Byzance, p. 185–186 and 209–210.
190 Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic Era: A History, p. 81–83, 155, 199, 234–
235, 376, 381, 399, 402, 412 and 790–791, in agreement with Auzépy, interpret the relevant pas
sage in the Vita of St. Stephen the Younger to refer to just three areas that harbored Iconophiles.
191 For the date of the Saint’s martyrdom and that of the composition of the Vita, see La Vie d’Étienne
le Jeune, p. 8–9. For the discussion concerning the various regions of Iconophile refuge, see notes
183–190, supra.
192 See notes 187 and 190, supra.
304
contributing to this dramatic increase in the geographic spreading of sphragistic

religious figural imagery is the final, official imperial policy ending Iconoclasm
in 843. Another is that the second half of the 9th century witnessed the end of the
ongoing Arab, Bulgar, and Slav raids that had disrupted life in both the capital
and the provinces and resulted in loss of Byzantine territories throughout the 7th,
8th, and first half of the 9th centuries.193 Regions embroiled in warfare, or lost
to the Empire, would have less of a need for sealed administrative documents
or private correspondence, a factor contributing to the lower frequency of seals
for the 7th/8th through the 8th/9th centuries.194 With the relative peace and sta
bilization from the mid-9th century onwards, the empire experienced a period of
recovery and expansion that would have a parallel increase in provincial admin
istrative functioning and correspondence and the use of seals in a greater number
of regions.
These data, too, indicate that once Iconoclasm became an official imperial pol
icy, there was no increasing chronological intensification of the ban against sacred
images, thus not requiring greater areas of refuge for the supporters of images.
Most telling, however, is the evidence given by the number of geographic regions
on the seals from the 7th/8th-century period, that is, just prior to the onset of
Iconoclasm. It is close in number to those produced during the Iconoclast years,
thus demonstrating that the imperial pogrom against religious figural imagery was
of little actual impact. The dramatic geographic sphragistic increase of the 9th
century may parallel the free use of images after the final Iconophile victory in
843 and the end of the incessant raids, but it may also reflect the new, heightened
193 A. Louth, “Byzantium Transforming (600–700),” The Cambridge History of the Byzantine
Empire, c. 500–1492, ed. J. Shepard, Cambridge, 2008, p. 221–250; M.-F. Auzépy, “State of
Emergency (700–850),” ibid., p. 251–291; W. Kaegi, “Confronting Islam: Emperors versus
Caliphs (641-c. 850),” ibid., p. 365–394; E. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Empire, Cam
bridge, MA, 2009, p. 171–185 and 197–219; Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclas
tic Era: A History, p. 71–77, 163–168, 250–256, 357–365, 453–459, 537–539, 550–553 and
576–759; and B. T. Carey, J. Allfree and J. Cairns, Road to Manzikert: Byzantine and Islamic
Warfare, 527–1071, Barnsley, 2012, p. 32–112, passim.
194 J. Haldon and H. Kennedy, “The Arab-Byzantine Frontier in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries: Mil
itary Organisation and Society in the Borderlands,” Zbornik Radova, 19, 1980, p. 95–96 (repr. in
Arab-Byzantine Relations in Early Islamic Times, ed. M. Bonner, Aldershot, 2004, p. 157–158);
Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, p. 118–124, where the author cautions that although
there is a reduction of copper coinage, used in everyday transactions, found in archaeological
sites in the Balkans and Anatolia in the second half of the 7th century, as an indication of the
disruption of daily life in the provinces, there is still often continuity of late antique urban centers
into the medieval period; A. Dunn, “A Byzantine Fiscal Official’s Seal from Knossos Excavations
and the Archaeology of Dark-Age Cities,” Creta romana e protobizantina: Atti del congresso
internazionale (Irakleion, 23–30 settembre 2000), ed. M. Livadiotti and I. Simiakaki, Padua,
2004, p. 139–146, who also argues that sigillographic evidence often indicates the continuity
of late antique urban centers into the medieval period in the absence of traditional numismatic,
architectural and ceramic evidence; and Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic
Era: A History, p. 454.
305
significance sacred figures took on after the image debates and the desire of the
seals’ owners to align themselves with the new imperial policy favoring the use
of holy images.195
Yet even during the Iconoclastic periods of the 8th and 8th/9th centuries, Con
stantinople itself, and cities not too distant from it, such as Abydos, Nicaea, and
Noumerika, a suffragan of Nicaea, had individuals who issued seals with religious
figural iconography. Among the 15 8th-century seals from Constantinople, nine
were issued by five different emperors from before 720, while six were issued
by various officials, one from an ecclesiastical foundation and five from the cen
tral administration. The 8th-century specimen from Abydos was from a civil ser
vant.196 The sole 8th/9th century piece from Constantinople was from a monastic
foundation,197 while the two contemporary pieces from Nicaea and Noumerika
were issued by those cities’ ruling hierarchs.198 Thus one must question how
strictly enforced was the ban on images even within Constantinople itself and its
hinterland. Again, the seals appear to support those scholars, cited above, who
conclude that the Iconoclastic edict was not rigorously or uniformly observed,
even within the capital.
It is also interesting to note that as the period of Iconoclasm unfolded, those
hierarchs whose seals do not bear the name of their cities, or of the few where the
inscription is illegible, significantly declines with time whereby none are found
in the 8th/9th-century period and just two appear in the 9th century. This sug
gests that during the Iconoclastic ban on sacred images such hierarchs tended
not to employ sacred figures for their seals. Because these high-ranking officials
would have been considered ruling individuals of the official Church, they would
have quickly followed official imperial Iconoclastic polices in order to maintain
their positions of authority, and this is borne out in the more recent scholarly
literature.199 Yet, in light of the discussion above, hierarchs were also shown to
be the most avid supporters of images among the seal owners during the years
under investigation. In each chronological period, the vast majority of seals issued
195 For the indispensable role of sacred images in the wake of the Iconophile victory, see Thümmel,
Bilderlehre und Bilderstreit, p. 115–126; idem, Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilder-
Lehre: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Zeit vor dem Bilderstreit, Berlin, 1992, p. 199–203; idem,
Die Konzilien zur Bilderfrage, p. 192–192, 283, 293, 306 and 309–310; Belting, Likeness and
Presence, p. 164–172; Cormack, Painting the Soul, p. 92–93, 136–151 and 156; P. Karlin-Hayter,
“Icon Veneration: Significance of the Restoration of Orthodoxy?,” Novum Millennium, p. 171–
184; Barber, Figure and Likeness, p. 125–139 and Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Icon
oclastic Era: A History, p. 772–799.
197 Metcalf, Byzantine Lead Seals from Cyprus, no. 583.
198 DOSeals III, no. 59.11 for Nicaea and ibid., no. 61.1 for Noumerika.
199 Auzépy, “La place des moines à Nicée II (787),” p. 5; La Vie d’Étienne le Jeune, 25; Moulet,
Évêques, pouvoir et société à Byzance, p. 172, 183–187, 208–210, 335–338 and 346–348; and
Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic Era: A History, p. 197, 261, 376, 646 and
649.
306
by individuals outside of Constantinople belonged to the upper echelons of the

clergy – either archbishops, metropolitans or bishops: for the 7th/8th century, 22
of the 27, or 81.5%; for the 8th century, 22 of 24, or 91.7%; for the 8th/9th century
13 of 13 or 100%; and for the 9th century, 56 of 65, or 86.2%. Thus, as discussed
previously, high-ranking churchmen outside of the capital were the most likely
supporters of images during the imperial ban against the depiction of holy fig
ures, thus indicating their independence from imperial policies that attempted to
intrude upon their ecclesiastical domain. This apparently conflicting sphragistic
material, however, actually highlights the fluctuating and inconsistent adoption
or rejection of the imperial Iconoclastic policy on the part of the high-ranking
churchmen. As the analysis of the sources by Auzépy, Moulet, and Brubaker and
Haldon consistently reveals, hierarchs, as well as other officials, both clergy and
lay, would accept or abandon Iconoclasm, following the imperial lead, while
simultaneously, there was concurrent support for and against Iconoclasm within
the same geographical regions. There were no absolutes.
It seems, however, that when the hierarch’s city is included in his title or inscrip
tion, there is a stronger defense and use of sacred imagery involved, as if the
hierarch claims the image for his region and proudly proclaims his independence
from imperial intervention in his domain. This phenomenon occurs especially for
the period of the 8th/9th century, when most of the seals with images are issued
by hierarchs and all these hierarchical specimens include the names of their sees.
These observations lend further support to the views of those who understand
the hierarchs’ sphragistic imagery as a visual reinforcement of their spiritual and
social connections to the community of people in their charge on the local level.200
Table 8.14 offers additional significant information. From the 7th/8th century
through the 9th century, the number of seals from the geographical area outside
of Constantinople varies: 27 seals, representing 18 different individuals for the
7th/8th century; 24 seals representing 18 different persons for the 8th century; 13
seals representing 9 different owners for the 8th/9th century; and 65 seals repre
senting 43 different individuals for the 9th century. The general trend is what we
have come to expect for the Iconoclastic period: as the prohibition against images
progressed the number of iconographic seals declined only to rise again in the
9th century with the end of Iconoclasm. Yet the number of different individuals
represented for the total number of seals for each time frame is a significant
percentage: for the 7th/8th century, 66.7% representing different individuals; for
the 8th century, 75%; for the 8th/9th century group, 69.2%; and for the 9th cen
tury, 66.2%. Thus, for the periods before the onset of Iconoclasm, the 7th/8th
century, and that after Iconoclasm, the 9th century, approximately similar values
representing the number of individuals in non-Constantinopolitan regions reflect
image usage. But with the onset of Iconoclasm, the value of Iconophile support
200 Cotsonis, “Saints & Cult Centers,” p. 10–18 and 22–26 and Moulet, Évêques, pouvoir et société
à Byzance, p. 81, 142–145, 151, 172 and 177.
307
beyond the capital appears to rise, only to decline again in the 8th/9th century, as
if to indicate that fewer seal owners outside of Constantinople need to take up the
use of images in order to define their position when the Iconophile interlude takes
place, or that over time, fewer people in the provinces made use of sphragistic
imagery due to ongoing imperial policies and individuals succumbed to the ban
on images.
Conclusion
This investigation has shown that the rich amount of information gleaned from
lead seals bearing religious figural imagery and inscriptions provides a significant
and unique contribution to our understanding of 8th- and 9th-century Iconoclasm.
The lead seals offer the largest body of surviving objects in any medium from
this period. My database includes 349 examples assigned to the 7th/8th century
through the 9th century. The study yields results that at times either support or
contradict recent scholarship devoted to Iconoclasm and simultaneously provide
new and further insight for the subject.
It was demonstrated that from the 7th/8th century to the 9th century, the fre
quency of seals bearing sacred images fell and rose again as would be expected,
paralleling the initiation and subsequent termination of official Iconoclastic poli
cies. This trend reflected, however, a real increase and decrease since the percent
age of religious iconographic seals from the total number of iconographic and
aniconic seals per century was taken into account. These data, likewise, indicated
that in the pre-Iconcolastic period, the use of sacred figures was not widespread
and consequently there was no generalized, systematic destruction of images
during the 8th and 9th centuries in Byzantium, thus lending support to more recent
scholarship that has reached similar conclusions.
The seals from the period of this study also demonstrate varying trends in the
range of visual piety. The image of the Virgin is the single most popular sacred
figure depicted on seals. The Mother of God was understood as the most pow
erful intercessor, a unique position she enjoyed as the Mother who could move
her Divine Son to compassion on behalf of believers. Although images of other
saintly figures appear on seals, it was observed that from the period immediately
prior to the onset of Iconoclasm, through the years of the Iconoclastic debates,
and from the end of the Iconoclastic policies, there was a steady reduction in
the number of different saints employed for sphragistic iconography, followed
by a rise again in the 9th century. It was the image of the Virgin that increased
in frequency as the images of the saints decreased. Her image reached a high
point among the seals of the 8th/9th century, that is, the years associated with
the Iconophile interlude: 25 of 34, or 73.5%, of the seals with religious figural
imagery for that period have an image of the Virgin. The image of the Theotokos,
not Christ, became the emblem par excellence for the Iconophiles. For the period
under review, the field of visual piety was narrowed and focused on the Mother
of God.
308
Not only did Iconophiles overwhelmingly prefer an image of the Virgin, but
as the years of the Iconoclastic century unfolded, one Marian type in particular
was adopted as a sign for supporters of images: the Virgin Hodegetria, where the
Virgin holds the Child on her left arm. Since the image of the Virgin Hodegetria
was the imperial sphragistic image before the official policies of Iconoclasm and
was the preferred image for the seals of the Iconophile emperors and patriarchs,
the highest officials of the Byzantine empire, then it must be understood that the
image of the Virgin Hodegetria functioned as the emblematic image of the Icono
phile party.
In addition to the decline in the number of saints depicted on seals from the
8th and 9th centuries, there was also a reduction in the variety or types of saints
depicted. Seal owners who selected images of saints at this time preferred either
New Testament figures or those of saintly bishops. This preferential trend paralleled
the increasing concern for the tradition of apostolicity by Iconophile hierarchs who
sought to maintain their ecclesial authority against the intrusion of imperial Icon
oclastic policies in the life of the Church. Such images were most often selected
by hierarchs who desired to enhance the prestige of their positions by associat
ing themselves with the saintly founders or holy predecessors of their respective
sees. Only after Iconoclasm ended did sphragistic hagiographic imagery begin to
increase again with respect to frequency and the type of saintly figure selected.
Due to the inscriptions included on the seals bearing their owners’ titles/offices,
additional insight was gathered regarding the social use of images during the
Iconoclastic debates. The largest number of seals with figural imagery during
each period of our study were issued by members of the ecclesiastical administra
tion, and by far mostly from hierarchs. As noted above, these hierarchs most often
selected an image of the saintly founder or predecessor for their seals as a means
of reinforcing links to their apostolic succession and enhancing the prestige of
their ecclesial authority as visual proclamations of their independence from inter
ference from imperial claims within their jurisdictions, especially in light of impe
rial Iconoclastic policies. If not the image of the local saint, hierarchs usually
chose an image of the Virgin, and, as mentioned previously, the hierarchical pref
erence for the Virgin increased as Iconoclasm progressed, reaching the greatest
preference for those hierarchical seals assigned to the 8th/9th century, that is, the
Iconophile interlude. Rarely did a hierarch select an image of his homonymous
saint. It appears that this would have been too personal a choice for the official
seal of the upper echelons of the ecclesiastical administration.
This study also demonstrated that fewer seals came from the lower levels of
the Church’s administration or the ranks of the civil bureaucracy, and only a few
representative specimens from the monastic and military sectors. Among the civil
administration, most examples belonged to emperors and only a few to holders of
high-ranking titles. After emperors, the majority were owned by individuals with
subalternate positions. These findings, too, corroborate the conclusions of recent
scholarship that understand Iconoclasm as a phenomenon of limited interest and
impact that was predominately an issue or polemic that preoccupied emperors
309
and Church hierarchs. There was no broad, widespread lay involvement, nor did
monastics or military figures play any significant role in the debates, according
to the sphragistic evidence. These latter observations also parallel conclusions
drawn in recent scholarship.
Among the lower clergy, the laity, monastics and military officials, the Vir
gin remained the most popular sphragistic image. Within these groups, however,
there were more frequent occasions where an image of a homonymous saint was
employed, thus indicating a freer choice in expressing personal devotions. There
were also a few occasions in which military officials placed an image of a military
saint on their seals.
Only three seals in the study were issued by women. All three selected an image
of the Virgin reflecting the usual pattern of female sphragisitc iconographic choice
for their personal devotions. Although the number of seals belonging to women
in general is small because the majority of seals were issued by those who held
positions in the ecclesiastical, civil and military bureaucracies, all institutions
governed by men, it is telling that only three are included in the period from the
7th/8th through the 9th centuries. This evidence lends further support to find
ings of recent investigations that conclude that women were not especially strong
defenders of images during the Iconoclastic debates.
More information about Iconoclasm was revealed by the geographic names
included in the inscriptions on seals. As Iconoclasm progressed chronologically,
the percentage of seals originating outside of Constantinople increased, indicat
ing that the Iconoclastic policies were limited to the capital itself. Seals bearing
images originating in the Constantinopolitan hinterlands demonstrate even further
that the ban on images was not strictly enforced and extremely localized within
Constantinople. These data continue to confirm recent similar findings regarding
the limited nature of imperial Iconoclasm.
In addition, the majority of the geographically identified iconographic seals are
from Asia Minor, the Pontic region, the Aegean, the Sea of Marmara, the Greek
mainland, Cyprus and Italy, the exact regions specified in the Vita of St. Stephen
the Younger. Although this text has been heavily scrutinized in recent scholar
ship’s revisions for a newer understanding of Iconoclasm, it appears that the seals
support the text’s forthright listing of the Iconophile harbors of refuge.
Another aspect of Iconoclasm highlighted by the geographic distribution of the
iconographic seals is the consistent level of imperial Iconoclasm over time. From
the 7th/8th century through the 8th/9th century, the number of different regions
listed on seals remains relatively stable. There was no progressive persecution
against Iconophiles that would have resulted in larger groups of refugees to a
greater number of geographic areas. Only in the 9th century is there a sizeable
increase in the number of geographically inscribed seals. This phenomenon was
shown to reflect the new, enhanced and necessary significance images took on
after the theological debates of the 8th and 9th centuries as well as the stabiliza
tion of the empire’s provinces with the end of the Arab, Bulgar and Slav raids of
the previous two centuries.
310
A related development was the number of different individuals from beyond

Constantinople who employed iconographic seals. For the 7th/8th and the 9th
centuries, the number is similar. Yet for the 8th century there is an increase only
followed by a decrease in the 8th/9th century. The latter decline may reflect either
a lesser need for Iconophile seal owners to employ sacred figures during the
Iconophile interlude or that a greater number of individuals had adopted, and con
tinued to follow, the Iconoclast policies after the first period of Iconoclasm ended.
The geographical delineation of the iconographic seals provides further insight
to our conception of Iconoclasm’s regional development. It was shown that the
largest number of seals with religious figural imagery from outside of Constan
tinople belonged to hierarchs. Yet, the number of hierarchical seals that did not
include the cities of the hierarchs’ sees declined as the Iconoclastic period pro
gressed chronologically. These conflicting trends indicate that upper-level church
men, so closely dependent on imperial favor, could vacillate in their adherence to
the changing imperial Iconoclast and Iconophile policies as scholars have recently
shown and that concurrent support for, or rejection of, sacred images existed in
the same regions. In addition, iconographic seals of hierarchs with geographical
inscriptions are more frequently encountered than those without the names of the
hierarchs’ sees, leading one to consider that when the hierarch’s city is named,
there is a greater tendency to employ an image as a means of establishing his
association with his see, as if the image is the link to the region.
The 349 seals employed in this investigation have proven to offer a wealth of
information. Through the close scrutiny of their chronological frequency, imag
ery and inscriptions, the diminutive sigillographic realm continues to shed new
light and insights for our further nuanced understanding of visual piety, the use
of images, and the much-studied phenomenon known as Byzantine Iconoclasm.
311
Appendix
U S E D F O R D ATA B A S E
V. BULGURLU, Bizans Kurşun Mühürleri, Istanbul, 2007.

J.-C. CHEYNET and J.-F. VANNIER, Études prosopographiques, Paris, 1986.
J.-C. CHEYNET, C. MORRISON and W. SEIBT, Sceaux byzantins de la collection Henri
Seyrig, Paris, 1991.
J.-C. CHEYNT, Sceaux byzantins de la collection D. Theodoridis: Les sceaux patro
nymiques, Paris, 2010.
G. DAVIDSON, Corinth XII: The Minor Objects, Princeton, 1952, nos. 2751–2808.
W. DE GRAY BIRCH, Catalogue of Seals in the Department of Manuscripts in the British
Museum, London, 1898.
A. DUNN, A Handlist of the Byzantine Lead Seals and Tokens in the Barber Institute of
Fine Arts, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, 1983.
I. JORDANOV, Corpus of Byzantine Seals from Bulgaria, I-III, Sofia, 2003, 2006 and
2009.
I. KOLTSIDA-MAKRE, Βυζαντινὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα Συλλογῆς Ὀρφανίδη-Νικολαΐδη
Νομισματικοῦ Μουσείου Ἀθηνῶν, Athens, 1996.
K. KONSTANTOPOULOS, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα τοῦ ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἐθνικοῦ
Νομισματικοῦ Μουσείου, Athens, 1917.
K. KONSTANTOPOULOS, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα· Συλλογὴ Ἀναστασίου Κ. Π.
Σταμούλη, Athens, 1930.
V. LAURENT, Documents de sigillographie byzantine: Le collection C. Orghidan, Paris,
1952.
V. LAURENT, Les sceaux byzantins du Médaillier Vatican, Vatican City, 1962.
V. LAURENT, Les corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantine, V/1–3: L’église, Paris, 1963–
1972; II: L’administration centrale, Paris, 1982.
I. Leontiades, Μολυβδόβουλλα τοῦ Μουσείου Βυζαντινοῦ Πολιτισμοῦ Θεσσαλονίκης, Thes
salonike, 2006.
N. LIHAČEV, Istoričeskoe značene italo-grečeskoj ikonopisi izobrazenija Bogomateri, St.
Petersburg, 1911.
N. LIHAČEV, Molivdovuly grečeskogo vostoka, ed. V. ŠANDROVSKAJA, Moscow,
1991.
D. METCALF, Byzantine Lead Seals from Cyprus, Nicosia, 2004.
J. NESBITT and N. OIKONOMIDES, Catalogue of the Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton
Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art, I-VI, Washington, DC, 1991, 1994, 1996, 2001,
2005 and 2009.
312
J. NESBITT, A.-K. WASSILIOU-SEIBT and W. SEIBT, Highlights from the Robert Hecht,
Jr., Collection of Byzantine Seals, Thessalonike, 2009.
N. OIKONOMIDES, A Collection of Dated Byzantine Lead Seals, Washington, DC, 1986.
B. PANČENKO, Kollekcii Russago Archeologiceskago Instituta v Konstantinople. Katalog
Molivdovulov, Izvestija Russkogo Arheologiceskogo Instituta v Konstantinopole, VIII, 1903,
nos. 1–124; IX, 1904, nos. 125–300; and XIII, 1908, nos. 301–500.
V. ŠANDROVSKAJA, Sfragistika, Iskusstvo Vizantii v Sobranijach SSSR. Katalog
Vystavki, I-III, Moscow 1977, nos. 205–258; nos. 678–865; and nos. 1020–1044.
V. ŠANDROVSKAJA and W. SEIBT, Byzantinische Bleisiegel der Staatlichen Eremitage
mit Familiennamen, I: Sammlung Lichačev-Namen von A bis I, Vienna, 2005.
G. SCHLUMBERGER, Sigillographie de l’empire byzantin, Paris, 1884.
G. SCHLUMBERGER, Sceaux byzantins inédits, Mélanges d’archéologie Byzantine, Paris,
1895, p. 199–274; REG, XIII, 1900, p. 467–492; RN, IX, 1905, p. 321-354 and XX, 1916,
p. 32–46.
W. SEIBT, Die Skleroi: Eine prosopographisch-sigillographische Studie, Vienna, 1976.
W. SEIBT, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich, I: Kaiserhof, Vienna, 1978.
W. SEIBT and M. L. ZARNITZ, Das byzantinische Bleisiegel als Kunstwerk, Vienna,
1997.
C. SODE, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin, II, Ποικίλα Βυζαντινά, XIV, Bonn, 1997.
I. SOKOLOVA, Byzantine Imperial Seals: The Catalogue of the Collection, St. Petersburg,
2007.
P. SPECK, Byzantinische Bleisiegel in Berlin (West), Ποικίλα Βυζαντινά, V, Bonn, 1986.
C. STAVRAKOS, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel mit Familiennamen aus der Sammlung
des Numismatischen Museums Athen, Wiesbaden, 2000.
C. STAVRAKOS, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel der Sammlung Savvas Kophopoulos,
Turnhout, 2010.
A. SZEMIOTH and T. WASILEWSKI, Sceaux byzantins du Musée National de Varsovie,
Studia Zródioznawcze. Commentationes, XI, 1966, p. 1–38 and XIV, 1969, p. 63–89.
A.-K. WASSILIOU and W. SEIBT, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel in Österreich, II: Zen
tral- und Provinzialverwaltung, Vienna, 2004.
G. ZACOS, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, ed. J. NESBITT, Berne, 1984.
G. ZACOS and A. VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, I:1–3, Basel, 1972.
313
ADDENDA & CORRIGENDA
I: Saints’ images on seals

Saints & Cult Centers: A Geographic & Administrative Perspective in Light
of Byzantine Lead Seals Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 8 (2003), 9–26
An Eleventh-Century Seal with a Representation of Patriarch Antony II Kau

leas Byzantion 74 (2004), 517–526 (with John Nesbitt)
The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals to the Study of the Cult of the
Saints (Sixth-Twelfth Century) Byzantion 75 (2005), 383–497
p. 473: Since not every one of the 16 sphragistic examples . . . should
be . . . 17 sphragistic examples . . .
note 377: . . . See A. Eastmond . . . Desire and Denial in Byzantium,
Aldershot. . . . should be . . . A. Eastmond . . . Desire and Denial in
Byzantium, ed. L. James, Aldershot. . . .
For more recent articles devoted to saints’ images found on seals, see
A.-K. Wassiliou, “Ένα Αξιοπρόσεκτο Μολυβδόβουλλο τῆς Συλλογῆς
Zarnitz: Ο Επίσκοπος Ηρακλειουπόλεως Δομέτιος και Ο Άγιος
Αθενογένης,” Hellenika 55:2 (2005), 239–248; V. Šandrovskaja and
A. Mohov, “Izobraženija Svjatogo Prokopija na Èrmitažnyh Pečatjah,”
Antichnaja drevnost’ i srednie veka 37 (2006), 191–211; E. Stepanova,
“The Image of St. Nicholas on Byzantine Lead Seals,” SBS 9 (2006),
185–195 and V. Stepanenko, “The Sts. Apostles Sts. Peter and Paul in
Byzantine Sigillography,” Ἤπειρόνδε (Epeironde), 317–324.
Since the publication of this article in 2005, a valuable resource for the
study of the cult of the saints has been created and based at Oxford
University: The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity (CSLA) Database (csla.
history.ox.ac.uk) which also includes information drawn from seals.
The database incorporates evidence up to circa AD 700.
‘What Shall We Call You, O Holy Ones?’ (Martyrikon Automelon, Plagal

4th): Images of Saints and Their Invocations on Byzantine Lead Seals
314
addenda & corrigenda
as Means of Investigating Personal Piety (6th-12th Centuries) Travaux et

mémoires 20:2 (Mélanges Catherine Jolivet-Lévy) (2016), 69–88
note 46: . . . (cited in n. 19) . . . should be . . . (cited in n. 20) . . .
Regarding seal images and their accompanying inscriptions, especially
poetic or metrical inscriptions, one should now consult A.-K. Wassil
iou-Seibt, Corpus der byzantinischen Siegel mit metrischen Legend,
1: Einleitung, Siegellegenden von Alpha bis inclusive My (Vienna,
2011) and 2: Siegellegenden von Ny bis inclusive Sphragis (Vienna,
2016). For epigrams and metrical devotional inscriptions associated
with religious images in various media, see now A. Rhoby, Byzan
tinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken, Byzantinische Epi
gramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung, Bd. 1, ed. W. Hörander et al.
(Vienna, 2009); A. Rhoby, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Ikonen und
Objekten der Kleinkunst, Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftli
cher Überlieferung, Bd. 2, ed. W. Hörander et al. (Vienna, 2010); A.
Rhoby, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Stein nebst Addenda zu Banden
1 und 2, Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung,
Bd. 3:1–2, ed. W. Hörander et al. (Vienna, 2014); N. Ševčenko, “Writ
ten Voices: The Spoken Word in Middle Byzantine Monumental
Painting,” Resounding Images: Medieval Intersections of Art, Music,
and Sound, ed. S. Boynton and D. Reilly (Turnhout, 2015), 153–165;
and I. Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion in Later Byzantium (Cam
bridge, 2016).
Choired Saints on Byzantine Lead Seals & Their Significance (Sixth-Twelfth

Centuries): A Preliminary Report Travaux et mémoires 21:1 (Mélanges
Jean-Claude Cheynet) (2017), 53–66.
The study of seals with bilateral religious figural imagery, as discussed
in this paper, has proved to be a fruitful line of research for the recent
investigation of bilateral icons. See J. Rodriguez, Images for Personal
Devotion in an Age of Liturgical Synthesis: Bilateral Icons in Byzan
tium, ca. 1100–1453 (PhD dissertation, Yale University, 2018).
An Image of Saint Nicholas with the ‘Tongues of Fire’ on a Byzantine Lead
Seal, Studies in Byzantine Sigillography, vol. 13 (2019), 149–164.
Note 46: . . . “Les Jugements derniers byzantins,” (see n.1) . . . should
be: . . . “Les Jugements derniers byzantins,” (see n. 3)
II: Sphragistic imagery and personal piety

Onomastics, Gender, Office and Images on Byzantine Lead Seals: A Means
of Investigating Personal Piety Byzantine & Modern Greek Studies 32:1
(2008), 1–37
315
addenda & corrigenda
note 35: . . . v: 3 . . . should be . . . v: 2 . . .

note 36: . . . v: 3 . . . Should be . . . v: 2 . . .
For a more recent article investigating an office held, such as the tourmarch,
and sphragistic iconographic choice, see L. Wilson, “A Subaltern’s Fate:
The Office of Tourmarch, Seventh through Twelfth Century,” DOP 69
(2015), 49–70.
For more recent studies of family devotions and sphragistic imagery, see
B. Caseau, “Saint Mark, a Family Saint? The Iconography of the Xeroi
Seals,” Ἤπειρόνδε(Epeironde): Proceedings of the 10th International
Symposium of Byzantine Sigillography (Ioannina, 1.-3. October 2009),
ed. C. Stavrakos and B. Papadopoulou (Wiesbaden, 2011), 81–109 and
A.-K. Wassiliou-Seibt, “Die Neffen des Patriarchen Michael I. Kerul
larios (1043–1058) und ihre Siegel: Ikonographie als Ausdrucksmittel
der Verwandtschaft,” Bulgaria Mediaevalis 2 (2011), 145–157.
Since the publication of this article a number of important works devoted
to gender in Byzantium have appeared. Among these are: Questions
of Gender in Byzantine Society, ed. B. Neil and L. Garland (Farnham,
Surrey, 2013) and Female Founders in Byzantium and Beyond, ed. L.
Theis (Vienna, 2014).
For more recent studies devoted to donors and patrons and their artistic patron
age as a reflection of their personal devotions, see the collected works in
Donation et donateurs dans le monde byzantine: Actes du colloque interna
tional de l’Université de Fribourg 13–15 mars 2008, ed. J.-M. Spieser and
É. Yota (Paris, 2012) and R. Franses, Donor Portraits in Byzantine Art: The
Vicissitudes of Contact between Human and Divine (Cambridge, 2018).
Religious Figural Images on Byzantine Lead Seals as a Reflection of Visual Piety
during the Iconoclastic Controversy Cahiers archéologiques 56 (2015), 5–34
Since the preparation and publication of this article, there have appeared
several important works related to the subject of Byzantine Iconoclasm,
of which are the following: J. S. Codoñer, The Emperor Theophilos and
the East, 829–842: Court and Frontier in Byzantium during the Last
Phase of Iconoclasm (Farnham, Surrey, 2013); L’aniconisme dans l’art
religieux byzantine: Actes du colloque de Genève (1–3 octobre 2009),
ed. M. Campagnolo et al. (Geneva, 2014); E. Fogliadini, L’image con
testée: le concile de Hiéria (754) et la pensée thélogiques des icono
clasts, trans. T. Boespflug (Paris, 2017); Iconoclasm from Antiquity to
Modernity, ed. K. Kolrud and M. Prusac (Burlington, VT, 2014); M.
Humphreys, Law, Power, and Imperial Ideology in the Iconoclast era,
c. 680–850 (Oxford, 2015); and T. Tollefsen, St. Theodore the Studite’s
Defense of the Icons: Theology and Philosophy in Ninth-Century Byzan
tium (Oxford, 2018). There has also appeared a new English translation
of the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod: The Acts of the Second
Council of Nicaea (787), 2 vols., trans. R. Price (Liverpool, 2018).
316
INDEX
abbot (hegoumenos) 43, 159, 271, 281, 287 Antioch 79, 133 –4, 150, 244 –5
Abydos 306 Antiochites(ai) family 236
Aegean Sea 101, 123, 304, 310 Antipas, Saint 23
Ahrweiler, Hélène 301 Antony II Kauleas, Saint and patriarch
Aimilianos, metropolitan of Kyzikos 290 43 –8
akolouthia 180 Anzas(ai) family 236, 238
Akropolites, Konstantine 228 Apameia 162
Akylina, Saint 136 Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 85
Alexandria 90 apo eparchon 124, 274, 283
Alexiad 227 apographeus 41
Amaseia 281 Apokaukos, John 42
Amphilochos, Saint 48 apostle(s) 271 –3
ampulla 28, 67, 129 Apostolic Synod 32
amulet 111, 143 Arab conquest (raids) 134, 177, 305, 310
anargyroi 11 archbishop 125, 136, 159, 274, 276, 278,
Anastasia, Saint 136, 270 280 –1, 284, 286 –7, 289 –90, 293, 295
Anastasios, bishop of Samos 138 archon 124, 270, 283
Anastasios of Sinai, Questions and Argos 26
Answers 177 armband 67
Anastasis (Resurrection) 190, 205 –6 Armenia 236
Anatolia 304 Arsenios, archbishop of Lemnos 295
Anderson, Jeffrey 72, 74, 137, 154 Artemios, Saint, Miracles of 67 –8, 177
Andrew, Apostle, Saint 23, 26, 31, 35, Ascension 236
82 –3 Asia 32, 243
Andrew, bishop of Hypaipa 23 Asia Minor 56, 73, 101, 109, 118, 123,
Andrew, metropolitan of Crete 274, 286 130 –1, 150, 245, 304, 310
angel 206 asylum 100, 202
Angelina, Irene Komnene 260 Athanasios, bishop of Monemvasia 293
Angold, Michael 41 Athanasios, Saint 48
animal 54 Athenogenes, Saint 12
Ankyra 85, 182 Athens 40, 295
Anna 227 Athens Numismatic Museum 10, 12
Anna, Saint 136, 140, 142, 225, 227 Auxentios, Saint 190
Annunciation 8, 109, 188, 233 Auzépy, Marie-France 284, 289, 304, 307
anonymous follis 196
Anthony, Saint 170, 225 Baanissa, Marina 299
Anthony of Novgorod 203 Balkans 101, 123, 150
Anthony I, patriarch 255 Bank, Alicia 8
317
Barbara, Saint 136, 140, 228 chiton 102, 109, 124, 130, 149
Barberini Psalter 154 chlamys 105, 112, 124, 130, 149
Barnabas, Saint 90, 142 Chomatianos, Demetrios 42
Basil 90, 231 –2 Chonai 105, 108, 245
Basil, archbishop of Apameia 162 Choniates, Michael 40 –2, 180
Basil, archbishop of Ephesos 295 Chora, church of Constantinople 206
Basil, metropolitan of Thessalonike 30, Choumnos family 236, 238
216 Christ 5 –8, 10, 45, 56, 66, 71, 76, 86, 107,
Basil, Saint 30, 46, 48, 96 –8, 145, 147, 138 –9, 146, 148, 157, 160, 174, 180,
149, 184, 188, 216, 270, 281, 296 187, 195, 196, 199, 206, 213, 226, 233,
Basil I, emperor 128, 159, 296 236, 238, 245, 247, 255, 258 –9, 265,
Basil II, emperor 73, 127 –8, 131 –2 269, 293, 296 –8, 308
Batatzes, Nikephoros 245 Christ Antiphonites 77, 199, 200
Bauer, Franz 10 Christodoulos, abbot of the monastery of
belt 67 Patmos 88, 145
BHG (Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca) Christological scenes 66, 160, 177, 213,
65, 142 233
bishop 20, 23, 26, 30 –3, 38 –9, 86, 88, Chrysoberges (ai) family 238
96, 137, 144, 158 –60, 215, 273, 276, Chrysoberges, Theodosios III, patriarch of
280 –1, 284, 289, 290, 293, 295, 309 Antioch 79
Bizye 281 coin (s) 8, 9, 132, 133, 144, 196, 258
Blachernai region, Constantinople 202 comes 141
book 137 –8 Constantine 230
Botaneiates, Nikephoros 128, 245 Constantine I, emperor and Saint 65, 139
boulloterion 4, 48 Constantine IV, emperor 267 –9
Bourtzes, Constantine 245 Constantine X, emperor 196, 203
Bourtzes, Nikephoros 245 Constantine- the Ex-Jew 157
Brachamena, Kale, protospatharissa Constantinople 11, 32, 39, 43, 72, 89, 96,
strategissa 244 100, 108, 118, 125 –6, 138 –9, 161, 168,
Brachamios(oi) family 236, 238 172, 179, 198, 201 –2, 206, 228, 258,
Brachamios, Philaret 245 269 –71, 281, 283, 288, 293, 296, 301,
Brubaker, Leslie 8, 68, 252 –3, 261, 284, 306, 308, 310 –11
288 –9, 304, 307 Copenhagen 139
Bulgaria 304 Corfu 48
Bulgar raids 177, 305, 310 Corinth 26, 33
Corinthians 138
Calabria 295 Cormack, Robin 77, 225, 246, 303
calendar icons 180 Council of Florence 85
Campagnolo-Pothitou, Maria 10 couropalates 245
Cappadocia 48, 73, 123, 157, 281 Crete 274, 286
Caseau, Béatrice 10 –12 cross 13, 54, 80, 83, 112, 115, 117, 119,
Catania 91 124, 131, 137, 138, 149
Catherine, Saint 136, 140 –1 cross-reliquary, pectoral 180, 260
censer 90 cross-staff 80, 102, 109 –10
Chalcedon 137, 150, 227 Crucifixion 199 –200
Chaldia 99 Crusade, First 133
Chalkis 289 Cutler, Anthony 1, 7, 65, 74, 77, 98, 187
charitable foundation 3, 280 Cyprus 88, 220, 243, 273, 295, 304
chartoularios 296
Chatterjee, Paroma 181 Dalassene, Anna 227, 248
Cheynet, Jean-Claude 2, 11 –12, 118, 132, Dalassene, Euphemia, proedrissa
214, 233, 237 –9, 243 –4 stratelatissa doukissa 244
Chios 142, 271 Dalassene, Xene 170
318
Dalassenos, Adrian 188 Encomium Methodii 101, 202
Dalassenos, Theodore 245 engolpion 129
Damian, Saint 11, 184 enkomion(a) 180
Daphni, church 90, 142 eparchos 163, 283, 287, 301
David, Prophet 270 Ephesos 20, 23, 26, 28, 33, 86, 89, 145,
deacon 90, 139 149, 159, 161, 274, 276, 281, 284,
Deesis 11, 75, 148, 187, 191 286 –7, 290, 293, 295
Demetrios, Saint 10, 28, 30 –1, 38 –9, 102, Epiphanios, archbishop of Cyprus 295
110, 118, 124 –5, 127 –30, 131, 133, Epiphanios, archbishop of Kios 295
145, 149, 150, 184, 229, 238, 243 –5, Epiphanios, hegoumenos (abbot) of
270 –1 Patmos 86
Der Nersessian, Sirarpie 74 Epiphanios, Saint 270 –1, 273
diakonia (ai) 280, 281; see also charitable Epiros 3
foundation epi tes sakelles 296
Diomedes, Saint 11 epi ton oikeiakon 296
Dionysios of Phourna 46 epi tou chrysotriklinou 296
Dionysiou lectionary 196 epoptes(ai) 41
Dionysiou psalter, Mount Athos, codex 65, Epstein, Ann 75
206 Eski Gümüs church, Cappadocia 48
Divine Guardians 9 Euchaita 115 –18, 150, 161, 215, 274, 278,
Divine Spirit 198 293, 295
Divine Wisdom 139 Euchaneia 115 –18, 215
domestikos 105, 187 Eudokia, nun 224
Dormition (Koimesis) 8, 177, 227, 233 Eulabes, Symeon 76
Doukaina, Euphrosyne 236 eulogia(ai) 67, 134
Doukaina, Irene 236, 248 eunuch 107
Doukas, Andronikos 245 Euphemia, Saint 136 –7, 140 –1, 148, 150,
Doukas, John, sebastos 187 227
doux (dux) 132, 162, 164, 205, 244 Euphemianos, archbishop of Euchaita 293,
(doukissa-fem.), 245 295
dragon 110 –11 Eustathios, archbishop (metropolitan) of
Drosos, George 223 –4 Thessalonike 42, 180
droungarios tes viglas 298 Eustathios, Saint 136
Dumbarton Oaks 1, 2, 9, 97, 111, 193, Euthymios, metropolitan of Sardis 289
195, 205, 270; Online Catalogue of Eutychios, patriarch 255
Byzantine Seals 2 Euthymios the Great, Saint 135
Evangelist 180
eagle 13 Evergetes monastery, Constantinople 179
Ecumenical Synods 20
Effenberger, Arne 8 –9 Fogg Museum of Art 193, 195, 205
Efthymiadis, Stephanos 72, 74, 136 Follis 196
Egypt 41 Forerunner 80, 218, 230, 278, 296; see
Eirenoupolis 86, 284 also John the Baptist, Saint
ekklesiekdikoi 100, 202
ek prosopou 296 Gabriel 109
eleemosynary 96 Galatia 108
Elias (Elijah), Prophet 78 –9, 150 Galavaris, George 7
emperor 3, 106 –7, 159, 226, 237, 252 –3, Gelasian Decree 122
268, 272, 283, 287, 296 –7, 309 George 231, 247
empress 226 George, apo eparchon and archon 124
empsychos graphe 203 –4, 207 George, archon 270
enamel 129, 135 George, bishop of Bizye 281
encheirion(a) 236 George, metropolitan of Thessalonike 30
319
George, Saint 8, 11 –12, 102, 105, 110 –11, Holy Wisdom 138 –9
118 –19, 122 –4, 129 –31, 133, 149 –50, Homilies of Gregory Nazianzos, Paris. B.
184, 190, 201, 216, 225, 229, 233, N. Gr. 510, 47
238 –9, 244, 270 Homilies of John Chrysostom, Sinait. Gr.
George, stylite of Chios 271 364, 48
Georgetown University 1 horologion, Lesbos, Leimonos monastery
Germanos I, patriarch and Saint 70, 264 cod. 295, 206
Germia, in Galatia 108, 109 Hosios Loukas 74, 135, 141 –2
Gero, Stephen 301 Hunger, Herbert 9, 12, 214
Gerstel, Sharon 98, 141 Hyaleas, Manuel, seabstos 40
Gideon’s fleece 196, 223 –4 hypatos 118, 205
globe (globus cruciger) 105 –6, 109, 193, hypologios 297
206
God 107, 131, 157, 206, 283 Ianouarios, Saint 271, 274
gold 3, 111, 132, 260 icon (s) 71 –2, 76 –8, 85, 111, 129, 146,
Gospel/s 47, 137 –8, 193 166, 181, 196, 199 –200, 202 –7, 300
Grabar, André 8 –9, 127, 252 Iconoclasm 8, 10, 56, 69, 70 –1, 106, 112,
Great Church 65, 100, 138 –9, 168; see also 117, 136, 140 –1, 143 –5, 172, 181, 183,
Hagia Sophia; Holy Wisdom church 191, 226, 251 –3, 258, 260 –2, 264,
Greece 40, 141, 220, 304, 310 267 –8, 270 –1, 278, 283, 287 –9, 293,
Gregory, archbishop of Ephesos 293 297, 300 –1, 303 –10
Gregory, metropolitan of Kyzikos 295 Iconophile 71, 144, 147, 183, 191,
Gregory of Nyssa, Saint 48, 91, 110 218 –19, 251, 265, 267, 269, 271,
Gregory the Theologian, Saint 28, 89, 91, 273 –4, 276, 278, 284, 286, 288 –9, 291,
97 –8, 149, 218 293, 304, 307 –10
Gregory the Wonderworker Iconophile interlude 56, 71, 159, 218, 253,
(Thaumatourgos), Saint 47, 218, 274 265, 268 –70, 291, 296, 307, 310
Iconophile victory (triumph) 72, 172, 256,
Hagia Irene, church in Constantinople 139 265, 272, 298, 299 –300
Hagia Sophia 100, 138, 168, 202, 203; see Ignatios, patriarch, Saint 256, 293
also Great Church; Holy Wisdom church Ikonion 295
Hagiologion 65 Incarnation 196, 223, 269
Haldon, John 8, 252 –3, 261, 284, 288 –9, incense 90
304, 307 International Congress of Byzantine
Halsall, Paul 65, 140 –1, 143 Studies 1
Harbaville triptych, Paris 48 Irene, Saint 136 –7, 139, 140
Hatzaki, Myrto 187 Islam 177
Heavenly ladder 206 Italos, John 179
Helen, nun 188 Italy 101, 123, 141, 304
Hellas 101, 245 ivory 75, 85, 115, 131, 135, 142, 228
Herakleia of Pontos 281
Herakleios 267 jewelry 111, 143
Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg, John 230 –2, 247
Russia 2, 48, 260 John I Tzimiskes, emperor 73, 123, 131
heroon 206 John I, archbishop of Thessalonike 128
Herrin, Judith 40, 227 John VII, patriarch 255 –6
Hexamilites family 233, 238 John, apo eparchon 283
Holy Anargyroi church, Kastoria 48 John, archbishop of Ephesos 284, 287
Holy Apostles, church in Thessalonike 142 John, archbishop of Kios 295
Holy Land 73, 276 John, archbishop of Nikopolis 136, 270
Holy Peace 139 John, megas domestikos of the skolon of
holy rider 111 the East 105, 187
Holy Spirit 157, 196, 199 John, metropolitan of Euchaneia 116
320
John, metropolitan of Mytilene 164 Komnenos, David, governor of
John Chrysostom, Saint 46, 48, 96 –8, 145, Thessalonike 42
147, 149, 188, 218, 270, 281 Komnenos, Isaac, emperor 132
John Kalybites, Saint 218 Komnenos, Manuel I, emperor 133
John Klimax, Saint 206 Komnenos, Manuel, kouropalates 215
John the Baptist, Saint 11, 80, 164, 187 –8, Kondakov, Nikodim 7
218, 225, 229 –30, 270 –1, 278, 283, Konstantopoulos, Konstantine 12
296; see also John the Forerunner, Saint; koryphaios 83
John the Prodromos, Saint Kosmas, Saint 11, 184; see also
John the Forerunner (Baptist) 80, 230, 278, anargyroi
295 Kosmas I, patriarch 45
John the Prodromos (the Baptist, the kouropalates 166 –7
Forerunner) 80, 82, 148, 218, 225, 230 kouvikoularios 301
John the Theologian (Evangelist), Saint krites 35, 99, 205, 239
20, 23, 26, 31, 33, 82, 86, 88 –90, 145, Kurbinovo, church of Saint George 90
147 –9, 159, 161, 169, 188, 218, 230, Kyme 23
270 –1, 273 –4, 276, 281, 284, 286 –7, Kyzikos 290, 295
290, 293, 298
Jolivet-Lévy, Catherine 106 labarum 102
Jordanov, Ivan 2 Lampsakos 91
Joseph the Hymnographer, Saint 72 lance 110, 112
judge 90 Laodikeia 136
Judges 223 Last Judgement 100, 201, 205 –6
Justin II, emperor 140, 253 Latros 117, 216
Justinian I, emperor 70, 139, 253, 267 Laurent, Vitalien 44, 88
Justinian II, emperor 258 –9, 287 Lazaros, Saint 88
Lazaros of Mount Galesion, Saint 180
Kalavrezou, Ioli 180 Leaden Gospels 9
Kallistos, Nikephoros 204 Leimonos monastery, Lesbos 206
Kalodoukes, Nicholas 40 Lemnos 295
Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia 220 Leo 230 –1
Kamataros(oi) family 236 Leo III, emperor 9, 70, 253, 264, 268, 287
Kaplan, Michel 304 Leo V, emperor 253, 268, 296
Karatzas, Argyros, kouropalates 166 –7 Leo VI, emperor 40, 44 –6, 128
Karlin-Hayter, Patricia 44, 71 Leo, archbishop of Calabria 295
Kartsonis, Anna 145, 260 Leo, bishop of Catania 91
Kastoria 48 Leo, metropolitan of Neocaesarea 276
Katakalon family 236 Leo, pope of Rome 48
katepano 99, 132, 298 Leo, protospatharios 297
Kazhdan, Alexander 70, 75, 140, 264 Leontios, emperor 267 –8, 270
Kerkyra 85 Leo of Tripoli 127
Kerularios, Michael, patriarch 33 leprosarium 133
Kios 295 Lesbos 206, 228
Kitzinger, Ernst 68 –9, 262 Lihačev, Nikolaj 7
Klaudioupolis 289 loca sancta 19, 53
Kodratos, Saint 23 Logos 138 –9
Koltsida-Makre, Ioanna 9 –10, 12 logothetes tou stratiotikou 160
komes 298 logothetes of the dromos 212
kommerkiarios 297 loros 102, 104 –9, 144, 193, 206, 237 –8
Komnene, Anna 100, 202, 227, 248 Luke, Evangelist and Saint 90, 184
Komnenodoukas, Isaac, sebastokrator 169 Luke, monk 184
Komnenos, Alexios I, emperor 77, 88, 128, Luke the Stylite, Saint 184
196, 227 Lydda, Palestine 122
321
Macedonia 101, 123 Michael the General (Stratelates),
Magdalino, Paul 78 Archangel 105
magistros 163 –4, 244 Michael I, emperor 253, 268, 296
Magnesia 23 Michael III, emperor 9, 253, 255, 258 –9,
Maguire, Henry 100, 106, 201 296
Makrembolites family 239 Michael VII Doukas, emperor 196
Makrembolites, John, krites 239 miliaresion 196
Makrembolitissa, Eudokia, empress 226 miracula 122
Mango, Cyril 269 Mytilene 137, 164
Manuel 223 monasticism 135
Manzikert, Battle of 56, 132 Monemvasia 276, 293
Mapas, Stylianos, metropolitan of monk 82, 135, 187, 205 –6, 231, 284
Neocaesarea 44 Monomachos(oi) family 236, 238 –9
marginal psalter 196, 224 Monomachos, Constantine IX, emperor
Maria 216, 221, 246 196
Maria, daughter of a caesar 299 Monothelite heresy 269
Mariès, Louis 72 –4 Morrisson, Cécile 9, 12, 214, 233, 237 –9,
Marinos, abbot of Herakleia of Pontos 281 244
Mark, Evangelist, Saint 11, 33, 90 Mother of God 10, 70, 145, 184, 187, 195,
Markellia 221, 298 200, 207, 220, 223 –6, 228, 236, 253,
Martinakios, Saint 91 262, 264, 268 –9, 283, 286, 308; see
Martin-Hisard, Bernadette 108 also Theotokos
materikon 228 –9 Moulet, Benjamin 284, 286, 289, 304, 307
Matthew, Evangelist (Saint) 90, 184 Mt. Olympus 43
McGeer, Eric 2 Myrar 161
medallion 111, 134 myron 129
medicine box 91 Mysia 43
Meinardus, Otto 65
Melissa 221 Naples 274
Melissenos family 233, 238 Nativity 8, 177
melote 80 Naupaktos 42
Menas Kallikelados, Saint 12 Nea Moni 142
Menil Foundation 134 Neocaesarea 44, 276
menologia 72 Nerezi 135
Menologion of Basil II, Vat. Gr. 1613, Nesbitt, John 10, 11, 68
46 –8, 115 –16, 135, 141, 148 Neustongos, John, hypatos and strategos
Mesopotamia 99, 101 118
Metaphrastion menologion 74 –5, 77, 144, New Church, Tokali Kilise, Cappadocia
178, 183 48, 75
Methodios, bishop of Pergamon 295 New Testament 80, 86, 89 –90, 148, 218,
Methodios I, patriarch and Saint 71, 256, 230, 271, 274, 276, 278, 309
265, 268, 293 Nicaea 295, 306
Methone 26 Nicholas 232
metropolitan 19 –20, 23, 26, 28, 30 –3, 38 –9, Nicholas, bishop 278
40, 116, 137, 150, 158, 160, 164, 215, Nicholas, bishop of Hypaipa 23
271, 280 –1, 284, 286, 289 –90, 293, 295 Nicholas, bishop of Theobouleia 293
Michael 230 –2 Nicholas, katepano of Chaldia and
Michael, Archangel 11, 65, 102, 104 –10, Mesopotamia 99
117, 119, 129, 131, 144 –5, 149, 150, Nicholas, Saint 11, 28, 96, 98 –101, 110,
184, 193, 195, 201, 204 –7, 225 –6, 229, 118, 135, 145, 147, 149 –50, 161, 166,
233, 236 –9, 244, 246, 271, 273 183 –4, 187 –8, 190 –1, 193, 195 –6,
Michael, bishop of Rhaidestos 78 200 –5, 207, 225, 229, 231, 233, 236 –7,
Michael Choniates, Archangel 105, 245 246, 270, 274, 278, 290, 293
322
Nicholas, Saint, chapel (ta Vasilidos), parekklesion 171
Constantinople 100, 201, 203 Paris 139
Nicholas, Saint, Molivotos church, Parthenios, bishop of Lampsakos 91
Constantinople 203 passio 122, 128
Nika riots 139 Patlagean, Evelyne 140
Nikephoros I, emperor 70, 253, 268, 296 Patmos 86, 88, 145, 158, 169, 287
Nikephoros II Phokas, emperor 40 –1, 73, Patras 23, 28, 33, 82
123, 131 patriarch (s) 32, 90, 150, 252, 255 –6, 264,
Nikephoros, metropolitan of Nicaea 298 268, 270 –1, 280 –1, 293, 309
Nikephoros, metropolitan of Seleukeia Paul, bishop of Eirenoupolis 284
137 –8 Paul, bishop of Monemvasia 276
Nikephoros, patriarch 123, 147 Paul, Saint 82 –3, 90, 138
Nikephoros, strategos of the Optimatoi 88 Peers, Glenn 106
Nikephoros the Philospher 46 Peloponnesos 4, 23, 33, 38, 101
Niketas 232 Penna, Vasso 9
Niketas, metropolitan of Klaudioupolis Pentchava, Bissera 10
289 Pentecost 196
Niketas, proedros, strategos of Samos and peplos(oi) 236
logothetes of the dromos 212 Pergamon 23, 295
Niketas David the Paphlagonian 72, 115, personifications, classical 55
144 Peter, abbot 287
Nikopolis 136, 270 Peter, archbishop of Thessalonike 286
nobelissimos 187 Peter, bishop of Euchaita 274
Noumerika 306 Peter, metropolitan of Sardis 278, 293
Nunn, Valerie 236 Peter, Saint 82 –3, 278, 293
Peter and Paul, Saints 11, 83, 145, 147,
Oikonomides, Nicolas 1, 13, 55, 115 –17, 182 –3, 188, 190, 270 –1, 283
140 phelonion 45
oikonomos 139 Philaret, metropolitan of Euchaita 161
Oinaiotes, George sebastos Philip, Apostle and Saint 90
parakoimomenos 169 Photios, patriarch,, Saint 45, 268
Old Testament 78, 148, 196, 223 Phrygia 108
omophorion 45, 47 –8, 88 Phylactery 260
Optimatoi theme 88 pilgrimage 53, 73, 134, 172, 274
Orient 244 Pitarakis, Brigitte 10, 180, 260
Orphanage of Peter and Paul, Platon, Saint 91
Constantinople 283 Pontus(os) (Pontic) 32, 281, 304, 310
orphanotrophos 11, 271, 283 portraits, secular 55
orthros 179 praktor (es) 41
ostiarios 296 priest 168, 205
Princeton 206
Painter’s Manual 46 proedros 212, 244 (proedrissa-fem.), 25
Palaiologos, Michael VII 3 Prokopios, Saint 11, 131, 188
Palestine 122, 123 proskynetaria 76
Panaghia ton Chalkeon church, Prosopography of the Byzantine World 2
Thessalonike 48 protonobelissimos 163
Panteleimon, Saint 11, 91, 148, 225; see protonotarios(oi) 41
also anargyroi Protonotarios, Petros 3
Panteleimon, Saint, church in Nerezi 135 protospatharios (oi) 32, 160, 243
Pantokrator monastery, Constantinople 206 (protospatharissa-fem.), 296 –7
Paphos 48 protostrator 244
parakoimomenos 169 protosynkellos 164
Parani, Maria 106 protovestiarios 187
323
Psalm 67 131 Seven Sleepers of Ephesos 276
Psalm 71 224 shield 110, 112, 115
Psalm 97 sigillum 3
Psalter of Basil II (Venice, Cod. Marc. gr. sigla 145, 193, 195
17) 127 silver 3, 260
Psellos, Michael 76, 180, 198 –200 Sinai 96, 111, 141, 180, 205
psychopompos 205 Sisinnios, bishop of Chalkis 289
psychorragon 206 Sixth Ecumenical Synod, Constantinople
Puglia 141 269, 272, 281
skevophylax 139
Qal’ at Sem’an, Antioch 133 Skleros(oi) family 238
Quinisext Council 178 Skleros, Romanos, as magistros
protostrator; as magistros dux of
Radenos(oi) family 238 Antioch; as proedros stratopedarches of
Rapp, Claudia 68, 72, 74, 143, 177, 229 the Orient and dux of Antioch 244
Reggio 111 skolon of the East 105
relics 53, 72 Slav raids 305, 310
reliquary(ies) 129 Sophia, Saint 136, 138 –9, 140 –1, 270 –1
Rexine, John 7 Sophronios I, patriarch of Jerusalem 86
ring (s) 67, 111, 143 Sora 290
Rohland, Johannes 108 –9 Sosthenion, shrine of Archangel Michael,
Romanos, Genesios, magistros vestarches Constantinople 108
eparchos 163 Spanopoulos(oi) family 236, 238
Romanos I, emperor 102 Spatharakis, Ioannes 220
Rome 83 spatharios 297
Rus’ 82 spatharokandidatos 297
Russia 123 spear 105, 115
Spieser, Jean-Michel 74, 77
Sabbas, metropolitan of Athens 295 Stamoules, Anastasios 12
Sabbas, Saint 270 –1 Stamoules, Anthony 2
Saint Merkourios church, Corfu 48 steatite 8, 135, 142, 228
Saint Neophytos, church, Paphos 48 Stepanenko, Valery 11
Samos 138 –9, 212 Stepanova, Elena 11, 260
Samuel, Prophet 270 Stephanos, archbishop 90
Šandrovskaja, Valentina 8, 11 Stephanos I, patriarch 43, 45
Saracens 127 Stephen, orphanotrophos 271, 283
Sardis 278, 289, 293 Stephen, Saint 82, 90, 148, 190, 225
scabbard 105, 108, 132 Stephen the Deacon 304
scalpel 91, 108 Stephen the Younger, Saint 218, 304, 310
scepter 105 –6, 108, 193 Stethatos, Niketas 179, 180
Schlumberger, Gustave 6 Stoudios monastery 278, 296
Schreiner, Peter 261 strategos(oi) 33, 35, 40, 88, 118, 132, 162,
Sea of Marmara 304, 310 212, 244 (stragegissa-fem.)
sebaste 226 stratelates 244 (stratelatissa-fem.)
sebastokrator 169 strateutes (ai) 41
sebastos 40, 169, 187, 245 stratopedarches 244
Seibt, Werner 9, 13, 55, 237 –8, 270 Stričević, George 100, 202
Seleukeia 137 Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 1
Seljuk Turks 132 Stylianou, Andreas and Judith 220
Ševčenko, Ihor 301 –3 Susanna 228
Ševčenko, Nancy 72 –3, 99 –100, 180 –1, sword 105, 108, 132; see also lance
201, 220 Symeon Metaphrastes 72, 144, 178, 180
324
Symeon the New Theologian, Saint 76, Theodore Stratelates, Saint 26, 112,
157, 180 115 –18, 215
Symeon Stylites, Saint 73, 148, 270 –1 Theodore the Stoudite, Saint 146, 159,
Symeon the Stylite the Elder 133 272, 290, 296
Symeon the Stylite the Younger Theodore the Teron, Saint 26, 112,
(Thaumastos, Thaumatourgos, 115 –18, 215
Thaumastorites) 133 –4 Theodotos, patriarch 255
Synaxarion of Constantinople 44, 46, 65, Theognostes, metropolitan 271
74, 144, 160 Theophanes, bishop of Sora 290
synkellos 163 Theophanes, spatharios 297
Synod of Antioch 31 Theophilos, archbishop of Ephesos 86,
Synod of Chalcedon 32 159, 290
Synod of Constantinople I 32, 72 Theophilos, metropolitan of Ikonion 295
Synod of Constantinople 869/870 293 Theophylact of Ohrid (Theophylaktos of
Synod of Constantinople 879/880 293, Bulgaria) 42
295 Theopiste, Saint 136
Synod of Ephesos 32 Theotokos 20, 70 –2, 78, 145, 149, 157,
Synod of Hieria (Iconoclast Synod of 815) 182, 184, 187, 212, 219, 221, 225, 236,
273, 290 247 –8, 253, 256, 265, 278, 283, 288 –9,
Synod of Nicaea I 31 291, 298, 300, 308; see also Mother of
Synod of Nicaea II (Seventh Ecumenical God; Virgin
Synod) 146, 147, 252, 272 –3, 286, Theotokos Bebaia Elpis (Mother of God of
289 –90 Sure Hope), convent in Constantinople
Synod of Trullo 281, 284 228
synthronon 242 Theotokos Blachernai, Constantinople,
Syria 73, 131, 134, 304 church of the Virgin 8
Syriac Bible 139 Theotokos of Maroules, convent in
Constantinople 228
tablion 105, 112, 124, 130 Theotokos tou Virou 280
taktika 32, 40 Thessalonike 10, 28, 30, 38, 48, 125,
Talbot, Alice-Mary 140, 141 127 –8, 129, 142, 180, 215, 243, 245,
Tarasios, patriarch, Saint 272 286
Tarchaniotes family 236 Thrace 32, 43, 90, 101, 123
Taronites (ai) family 238 Thomais of Lesbos, Saint 228
Tarsos 85 Thomas, Saint 225 –6, 271
Tatič-Djurič, Mirjana 7 Thrakesion theme 33
tetarteron 196 Three Hierarchs 97
Thekla, Saint 136 –8, 140 –2, 228 Three Youths 270
theme 162 Thümmel, Hans-Georg 69, 261, 284
Theobouleia 293 Tiberios 267
Theodora, empress 226, 258 Titus (Titos), Saint 90, 271, 274, 286
Theodora, Saint 137, 140 token (s) 3, 96, 134; see also eulogia;
Theodore 230 –2, 238, 247 eleemosynary
Theodore, bishop of Ibora 281 Tomekovič, Svetlana 147 –8
Theodore, Saint 35, 38, 67, 102, 105, “tongues of fire” 196, 199 –200, 203 –4,
110 –12, 115, 117 –19, 124, 129, 130 –1, 207
133, 143, 145, 149, 150, 162, 184, 201, Torcello 205
215, 229, 239, 243, 270 –1, 274, 278, Tornikes(ai) family 238
293 tourmarches 298
Theodore Psalter 73, 74, 76, 98, 135, 141, Transfiguration 227
154, 224 Triakontaphyllos, Leo 91
Theodore Sphoukari, Saint 118 Trinity 253
325
triptych 115, 131 Virgin, church of, Studenica 48
typikon 65, 179, 228 Virgin Acheiropoietos basilica,
Tzanes, Nicholas 88 Thessalonike 30
Virgin Blachernai, church, Constantinople
usual miracle 77, 198 77, 198, 200, 204
Virgin Peridoxos monastery 224
Van Esbroeck, Michel 140 Vita Euthymii 44
Vassilaki, Maria 85
Vatatzes, Nikephoros, magistros vestis Walker Bynum, Caroline 229
doux 164; see also Batatzes, Nikephoros Walter, Christopher 74, 76, 98, 115 –18,
Vatican, Psalter cod. gr. 752 125, 127, 129
Veglery, Alexander 12, 71, 265, 299 Wassiliou-Seibt, Alexandra 10, 12, 167
vestarches 163 wax 3, 56
vestes 164 Weitzmann, Kurt 96
Virgin 5 –8, 10 –11, 13, 20, 23, 28, 31, Wisdom of God 138
33, 38, 45, 56, 66, 68 –72, 76 –8, 86, Wondrous Mountain 133
99, 100 –1, 143 –5, 149, 157, 160, 170,
174, 180, 182 –4, 187, 190 –1, 195 –6, xenon of Saint Theodore 271, 281
198, 200, 202 –4, 212 –13, 215 –16, Xeros, Basil 35
219, 221 –5, 227, 229, 233, 236 –9, 244, Xeros(oi) family 236, 238
245 –8, 253, 262, 264 –9, 278, 281, Xiphilinos(oi) family 238
283 –4, 286 –7, 289 –91, 293, 295 –8,
300, 308 –10; Virgin Galaktotrophousa Zacos, George 9, 12, 71, 265, 299
7, 222; Virgin Hodegetria 265, 267, Zaoutzes, Stylianos 44 –5
268 –70, 278, 281, 287, 289 –90, 295 –6, Zarnitz, Marie Luise 9
309; Virgin Kyriotissa 265, 267, 289, Zenais, Saint 137
291; Virgin Nikopoios 8, 101, 202, 245, Zhekova, Zhenia 9
289, 295; Virgin Peridoxos 224; see also Zoe, empress 77, 199 –200, 226
Mother of God; Theotokos Zonaras, John 41 –2, 180
Virgin, church of Asinou, Cyprus 135 Zotikos, Saint 133
326

John A. Cotsonis - The Religious Figural Imagery of Byzantine Lead Seals II - Studies On Images of The Saints and On Personal Piety (2020)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

John A. Cotsonis - The Religious Figural Imagery of Byzantine Lead Seals II - Studies On Images of The Saints and On Personal Piety (2020)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

John A. Cotsonis - The Religious Figural Imagery of Byzantine Lead Seals II - Studies On Images of The Saints and On Personal Piety (2020)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Religious Figural Imagery of

Byzantine Lead Seals II

John A. Cotsonis is Director of the Archbishop Iakovos Library at Holy Cross

PEREGRINE HORDEN and NICHOLAS PURCELL

JOHN MARSHALL, edited by PHILIP BUTTERWORTH

JENNIFER O’REILLY, edited by CAROL A. FARR and

JENNIFER O’REILLY, edited by CAROL A. FARR and

JENNIFER O’REILLY, edited by MÁIRÍN MACCARRON

The Religious Figural Imagery of

The Religious Figural Imagery of

Studies on Images of the Saints

VARIORUM COLLECTED STUDIES SERIES CS1086

1 Saints & cult centers: a geographic & administrative perspective

2 An eleventh-century seal with a representation of Patriarch

3 The contribution of Byzantine lead seals to the study of the cult of

4 “What shall we call you, O holy ones?” (Martyrikon Automelon,

5 Choired saints on Byzantine lead seals & their significance (sixth-

6 An image of Saint Nicholas with the “Tongues of Fire” on a

7 Onomastics, gender, office and images on Byzantine lead seals:

8 Religious figural images on Byzantine lead seals as a reflection of

Addenda & Corrigenda 314

1.1 Lead Seal of a Metropolitan of Ephesos, 11th/12th century

8.9 Lead Seal of George, bishop of Bizye, 7th/8th century. Obv:

3.1 Number of Religious Figural Iconographic Seals by Century 57

7.6 Persons Holding Military Offices 240

Numismatic Museum of Athens; Elena Stolyarik, American Numismatic Society,

AASS Acta Sanctorum, I-LXXI (Paris, 1863–1940)

Konstantopoulos K. Konstantopoulos, Βυζαντιακὰ Μολυβδόβουλλα

Stavrakos, Kophopoulos C. Stavrakos, Die byzantinischen Bleisiegel der

3 Eric McGeer, “Byzantine Sigillography,” Canadio-Byzantina 15 (March 2004), 10–13.

to Byzantine numismatics and sigillography in memory of Petros Protonotarios,

29 G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’empire byzantine (Paris, 1984).

Koltsida-Makre’s survey of Marian images on seals based on examples from the

world,84 whereas Wassiliou-Seibt has produced several articles devoted to pop­

96 Seibt, “Die Darstellung der Theotokos,” 35–56.

Catalogues and publications of seals used for database

V. Šandrovskaja and W. Seibt, Byzantinische Bleisiegel der Staatlichen Eremitage mit

ICONOGRAPHY CITY 7 7/8 8 8/9 9 9/10 10 10/11 11 11/12 12 12/13 13

ICONOGRAPHY CITY 9 9/10 10 10/11 11 11/12 12 12/13

Figure 1.3 (Continued)

20 Ibid., nos. 30.1, 30.2a, b and c, 30.3 and 30.4.

ICONOGRAPHY CITY 8/9 9 9/10 10 10/11 11 11/12 12 12/13 13

Figure 1.4 (Continued)

27 I. Koltsida-Makre, Μολυβδόβουλλα, no. 49 (Latin).

ICONOGRAPHY CITY 8 8/9 9 9/10 10 10/11 11 11/12 12 12/13 13 13/14

Figure 1.5 (Continued)

34 Ε. Κουρκουτίδου-Νικολαΐδου, “Ὁ Ναὸς τῆς Ἀρχειροποιήτου,” Ἡ Θεσσαλονίκη καὶ τὰ Μνημεῖα

45 G. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα, II, 169–170.

ICONOGRAPHY THRAKESION THEME 9/10 10 10/11 11

Figure 1.6 (Continued)

60 Konstantopoulos, no. 73 and Corinth XII, nos. 2764 and 2785.

ICONOGRAPHY THEME OF THE 10 10/11 11 11/12 12 ?

Figure 1.8 (Continued)

Thessalonike served as the capital of the theme of Thessalonike.67 Chart 1.7

67 For Byzantine Thessalonike, see A. Vacalopoulos, A History of Thessaloniki

Chart 1.7 Theme of Thessalonike

70 J. Herrin, “Realities of Byzantine Provincial Government: Hellas and Peloponnesos, 1180–1200,”

illustrated by Herrin in her study of 12th-century Greece, focusing on the activ­

in the memory of the Byzantines as particularly harsh. The 12th-century histo­

world,84 whereas Wassiliou-Seibt has produced several articles devoted to pop

illustrated by Herrin in her study of 12th-century Greece, focusing on the activ

in the memory of the Byzantines as particularly harsh. The 12th-century histo

Prophet. Eight of the 11th-century specimens belonged to one individual, Theo

hair with a visible “widow’s peak,”175 while in a 9th/10th-century example, Nich

Basil II of c. 1000.282 Physiognomically, the two Theodores share a similar por

Divine Wisdom – Sophia-was sometimes represented as a female personifica

The sphragistic material also offers an indication as to the geographical dis

by the pre-Iconoclastic specimens, there seems to be a preference for concor