Chronographia

AFTER LEPANTO:
VISUALIZING TIME, HISTORY, AND PROPHECY IN THE CHRONOGRAPHIA OF GEORGIOS

KLONTZAS
A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate School
of the University of Notre Dame
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Arts
By
Mary Williams
Charles Barber, Director
Department of Art, Art History and Design
Notre Dame, Indiana
April 200
CONTENTS
Figures.......................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................vi
Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................................1
1.1. The Chronographia of Georgios Klontzas…………………………………………………………..2
1.2. An Allegory of the Battle of Lepanto…………………………………………………………………..6
Chapter 2: The Marcianus Codex cl. VII, 22 (=1466)……………………………………………………………....9
2.1. General Characteristics…………………………………………………………………………………......9
2.2. The Contents of the Manuscript…………………………………………………………………........10
2.2.1. Biblical and Legendary Past (ff. 1r-38r)…………………………………..............12
2.2.2. History of Islam: Mohammed to Murad III (ff. 38v-141v)……………........17
2.2.3. Prophetic Future Events (ff. 141v-204r)………………………………………........22
Chapter 3: The Life and Work of Georgios Klontzas…………………………………..............................27
Chapter 4: The Pictorial Narrative of the Ottoman Expansion…………………………………..............32
4.1. Visualizing Lepanto as the Fulfillment of History………………………………………..........32
4.1.1. The Battle of Lepanto……………………………………………………………………......32
4.1.2. The Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios………………………………………………..35
4.1.3. The Oracles of Leo the Wise………………………………………………………………...40
4.1.4. The Xerolophus Column………………………………………............................. ..43
4.2. Cyclical, Linear and Historical Time……..................................................................48
4.3. Configurations of Time in the Pictorial Narrative………………………………………….......52
4.3.1. Unifying Compositional Strategies………………........................................54
4.3.2. Configurations of Time……………………………………………………...................56
4.4. After Lepanto…………………………………………………………………………….........................64
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….........67
Apendix: Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………………................69
Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..........96
i
FIGURES
Figure 1: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, folio 140r
[after Rigo, Oracula,61]...............................................................................................70
Figure 2: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, folia 140v-141r
[after Rigo,Oracula, 62-63+……………………………………………………………………………………….71
Figure 3: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22. Leather Cover
* after Paliouras, 61+………………………………………………………………………………………………….72
Figure 4: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, folio 74v
[after Rigo, Oracula, 52+……………………………………………………………………………………………72
Figure 5: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 120r
[after Rigo, Oracula, 58]……………………………………………………………………………………………73
Figure 6a: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, fol. 3r [microfilm:
Marciana Library]……………………………………………………………………………………………………..73
Figure 6b: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 78r
*microfilm: Marciana Library+……………………………………………………………………………………74
Figure 7a: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, Fol. 64v
Figure 7b: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, Fol. 65v
Figure 8a: Paris, Private Collection, Codex Bute, fol. 5v [after

Vereecken and Hadermann-Misguich, Les Oracles, Pl. VIII+……………………………………..75
Figure 8b: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 170, fol. 6v [after

Rigo, Oracula, 20+……………………………………………………………………………………………………..75
Figure 8c: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, folio 98r
[after Rigo, Oracula Leonis, 54+…………………………………………………………………………………76
Figure 9a: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 155v
Figure 9b: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 157r (detail)
Figure 9c: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 158v (detail)
[microfilm: Marciana Library+……………………………………………………………………………………77
ii
Figure 10a: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 89r (detail)
[after Rigo, Oracula, 51] …………………………………………………………………………………………..78
Figure 10b. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 112v (detail)
[after Rigo, Oracula, 56+……………………………………………………………………………………………78
Figure 10c: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 120r [after
Rigo, Oracula, 58+……………………………………………………………………………………………………..79
Figure 10d: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 129r [after
Rigo, Oracula, 59+……………………………………………………………………………………………………..80
Figure 10e: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 145v. [after
Rigo, Oracula, 64+……………………………………………………………………………………………………..80
Figure 11: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 3, fol. 3v [after Rigo,
Oracula, 80+………………………………………………………………………………………………………………81
Figure 12a: Paris, Private Collection, Codex Bute, fol. 7v [after Vereecken
and Hadermann-Misguich, Les Oracles, Pl. X+………………………………………………………….82
Figure 12b: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 170, fol. 8v [after Rigo,
Oracula, 24+………………………………………………………………………………………………………………82
Figure 13: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 145, fol. 257v [after Hutter,
Corpus der byzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften, Vol. 2, fig. 619+………………………83
Figure 14a: Paris, Private Collection, Codex Bute, fol. 8v [after Vereecken
and Hadermann-Misguich, Les Oracles, Pl. XI+………………………………………………………….83
Figure 14b: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 170, fol. 9v [after Rigo,
Oracula, 26+………………………………………………………………………………………………………………84
Figure 15: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 84v [microfilm:
Marciana Library+……………………………………………………………………………………………………..84
Figure 16: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, folia 148v-149r
[microfilm: Marciana Library]……………………………………………………………………………………85
Marciana Library+…………………………………………………………………………………………………….87
iii
Figure 20a: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 9 [microfilm:
Figure 20b: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 95v [microfilm:
Figure 21a: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 138r [microfilm:
Figure 21b: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 138v [microfilm:
Figure 21c: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 139r [microfilm:
Figure 22a: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, folio 121v [microfilm:
Figure 22b: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, folio 122r [microfilm:
Figure 22c: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 122v [microfilm:
Figure 22d: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 123r [microfilm:
Figure 23: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 92v [microfilm:
Figure 24: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 101v [microfilm:
Figure 25: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 93r [microfilm:
Figure 28: Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, [microfilm: Marciana
Library+……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..95
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
v
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
On October 7th, 1571, the Ottoman Empire under Sultan Selim II (1566-1574) was
defeated by the combined Christian navy of the Holy League, consisting of Spain, Venice
and the Papacy, at the Battle of Lepanto (in modern-day Nafpakos, Greece).1
Considered the greatest naval battle since the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, where the
Roman Emperor Octavian defeated Mark Antony and Cleopatra, the victory signaled a
new era of unity in the Mediterranean and Western Europe after years of internal
strife.2 However, the memory of Lepanto outlived the actual military significance of this
victory. The Ottomans quickly recovered their navy and took the strategic fortress of
1
For a general survey of the historical events surrounding Lepanto, the origins of
the Holy League, a detailed account of the battle, see F. Braudel, The Mediterranean and
the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, Vol. II (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1995), 1027-1139; Other recent sources on the Battle of Lepanto cited in the
present thesis include, S. Shaw, “The Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the
Ottoman Empire, 1280-1808,” Vol. 1. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turky
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); H. Bicheno, The Crescent and the Cross:
The Battle of Lepanto, 1571 (London: Cassell, 2003).
2
For the comparison between Actium and Lepanto in Spanish and Italian
literature, see M. Murrin, History and Warfare in the Renaissance Epic, 143; The two
battles, separated by over a millennium of warfare, took place in close distance to one
another. On the tension left in Christian nations after the Reformation, Counter-
Reformation and Spanish Inquisition and the idea of unity under Crusade, see H.
Bicheno, 11-12.
1
Modon in 1572 at the tip of the Peloponnese.3 Venice concluded peace with the sultan
in 1573 and the Holy League disbanded soon after.4
1.1. The Chronographia of Georgios Klontzas
When the Cretan icon-painter and miniaturist Georgios Klontzas (1540-1608)
began composing his universal history, the Chronographia (Venice, Marcianus Graecus
Codex VII, 22), two decades had passed since the Holy League victory at Lepanto.5 As a
Greek living in the capital of Venetian Crete, Klontzas had borne witness to this
momentous event and the overwhelming response of the Christian community.6 The
3
Braudel, 1121-1123.
4
On the “betrayal” of Venice, see Ibid.,1125-1133. According to Braudel, the
death of Pope Pius V, the primary defender of the Crusade against the Turks, on May 1 st,
1572, was sufficient enough to cause the dissolution of the Holy League. Ibid., 1114-
1115.
5
E. Mioni, Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum Codices Graeci manuscript, Vol. II
(Rome: Libreria dello Stato, 1960), pp. 36-38; For this study I have consulted a microfilm
of the manuscript from the Marciana Library in Venice.
6
On the religious and civic ideology of Lepanto in Venice, see E. Gombrich,
“Celebrations in Venice of the Holy League and the Victory of Lepanto,” in Studies in
Renaissance and Baroque Art Presented to Anthony Blunt (London: Phaidon, 1967); The
number of artistic commissions in Venice and Spain point to an immediate desire to
memorialize the battle and the men who participated in it. See, in particular, a general
discussion of commissions in K. M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571)
(Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1976), 1100 ; On specific works of art, see
Anthony Blunt’s discussion of El Greco’s Dream of Philip II (also called “The Adoration of
the Name of Jesus” and “Allegory of the Holy League), in “El Greco’s ‘Dream of Philip II’:
an Allegory of the Hoy League,” JWCI 3 (1939-1940), 58-69; See also, Bronwen Wilson’s
discussion of Paolo Veronese’s Allegory of Lepanto, commissioned in 1572 by Pietro
2
collective memory of the Holy League victory is shown in a composite image on folio
140r (Fig. 1) of the Chronographia acts as a frontispiece for the battle, shown on folia
140v-140r (Fig. 2).7 In this image, the artist, Klontzas, brings together apocalyptic and
oracular texts in a way that frames the battle of Lepanto as the culminating event of his
universal history. However, Klontzas, living two decades after the Battle, was aware of
its unexceptional aftermath and continues to illustrate historical events like the capture
of Modon (ff. 141v-142r) and the reign of Murad III (f. 145v). Klontzas’ interpretation of
the Battle of Lepanto in the Chronographia, it will be argued here, represents one
artist’s unique manner of negotiating the symbolic devices through which human beings
understand their own temporality.
The entire manuscript is, like the frontispiece on folio 140r, a composite of
apocalyptic and oracular works and historical events.8 However, the series of 410
miniatures executed by Klontzas that fully illustrate the Chronographia bring together
Giustinian for the altar of the Rosary at the Church of Saint Peter Martyr in Murano. B.
Wilson, The World in Venice: Print, the City, and Early Modern Identity (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2005), 150-153.
7
In the upper right corner of the battle scene of folio 42r, Klontzas writes: “Here
is the greatest victory of Christianity”*e9dw~ ei0nai me/galwtath bi/twriaj tw~n
xristianw~n ].
8
Most of the apocalyptic texts quoted in the Chronographia, although quoting
different pseudonymous authors, are inseparable from traditional Byzantine apocalyptic
thought. Specific sources will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 1, Section 2, of
this thesis. Paul J. Alexander’s extensive body of work on the Byzantine apocalyptic
tradition gives a general survey of texts and themes. See P. J. Alexander, The Byzantine
Apocalyptic Tradition, D. deF. Abrahamse, ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1985).
3
these disparate parts into a universal chronicle of humanity, from the expulsion of Adam
and Eve to the Last Judgment. The basic focus for Klontzas’ universal history is an
apocalyptic account of the conflict between Christianity and the sons of Hagar, the
Ishmaelites. This account, attributed pseudonymously to the Bishop Methodios of
Patara, allowed Klontzas to incorporate the rise, spread and eventual fall of the
Ottoman Empire into a longer narrative of the divinely-ordered process of Christian
history.9
Klontzas’ manuscript is astonishing and has certainly not received sufficient
scholarly attention for the breadth of historical data and artistic merit it reveals. The
first extensive study of the manuscript was published in 1977, by Athanasios Paliouras. 10
Paliouras published all 410 miniatures, giving a brief description of each. 11 His main
objective was to situate these images in relation to other works of art, notably the
author’s other works and, especially, Italian prints that circulated heavily in the second
9
For the conflict between Christianity and the Ishmaelites in the Apocalypse of
Pseudo-Methodios, see Paul Alexander, Bzyzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, 24.
10
A. Paliouras, 9O Zwgra/foj Gew/rgioj Klo/ntzaj kai\ ai3 Mikrografi/ai tou~
Kw/dikoj au0tou~ (Athens: Ekdoseis Gregore, 1977). For a description of the contents of
the manuscript, see Spyridon Lambros, “9O Markiano\j kw~dic tou~ Krhto\j Gewrgi/ou
Klo/ntza” in Ne/oj 9Ellhnomnh/mwn 12 (1915), 41-52; For discussion of an Oracle
concerning Cyprus, see V. Laordas, “0O Markiano\j kw~dic tou~ Gewrgi/ou Klo/ntza kai\
oi9 peri\ Krh/thj xrhsmoi/,” in Krhtika\ Xronika\ 5 (1951), 231-245.
11
Paliouras, 78-159.
4
half of the sixteenth century.12 While Paliouras has certainly established Klontzas’
dependence upon Renaissance and Mannerist works of art, his study offers no
comprehensive analysis of these images within the narrative status of the manuscript.
Subsequent literature has framed narrow aspects of the manuscript.13 Most
recently, in 2005, Angela Volan examined the representations of the Legend of the Last
Emperor, an important feature of the Byzantine apocalyptic tradition, in the
Chronographia.14 Volan’s goals did not include a comprehensive analysis of the
manuscript and her objectives were directed more toward the Last Emperor tradition in
the sixteenth-century, with the Chronographia merely offering a contemporary example
which went into great detail regarding the events of the Ottoman expansion. Her
findings were based primarily upon the established tradition of the Last Emperor in
Byzantine apocalyptic, so very little evidence from the manuscript was used to support
12
Paliouras, 23. See, for example, the parallel between the image of Noah’s son
Ionitus, the first astrologer, on fol. 5v of the Chronographia, and the allegory of
astrology by Giulio Campagnola.
13
See C. Mango, “The Legend of Leo the Wise,” Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog
Instituta 6 (Belgrade, 1960), 59-93. Reprinted in Ibid., Byzantium and its Image (London:
Variorum, 1984), study XVI. The relationship between Georgios Klontzas’ Chronographia
and other sixteenth-century Post-Byzantine miniature cycles is discussed in detail in Ch.
3; See also, A. Rigo, Oracula Leonis: Tre manoscritti Greco-veneziani degli oracoli
attribuiti all’imperatore bizantino Leone il Saggio (Bodl. Baroc. Marc. gr. VII. 22, Marc.
gr. VII.2), (Venice: Studio Editoriale Programma, 1988). Rigo compares three different
versions of the manuscript composed in the sixteenth century.
14
A. Volan, “Last Judgments and Last Emperors: Illustrating Apocalyptic History
in Late and Post-Byzantine Art,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2005).
5
her arguments. One consequence of this is that a number of her observations regarding
the text and miniatures are incorrect.15
The Chronographia of Georgios Klontzas has thus never been examined in its
own right. Comparative studies of the individual miniatures ignore the complexity of the
pictorial narrative, while broad analyses of quoted sources in the manuscript draw
attention away from the role of Klontzas as both artist and author. Therefore, much
work remains to be done on the Chronographia. In this thesis, I will address one topic in
particular, namely the role of the author/artist Klontzas in designing a visual response to
the oracular and apocalyptic texts that framed the Ottoman expansion. By juxtaposing
these allegorical ways of understanding the past with the historical mode, Klontzas
considers the extent to which all three are ideological constructions mediated by the
artist.
1.2. An allegory of the Battle of Lepanto
The composite image to the Battle of Lepanto on folio 140r will offer an initial
point of departure for the present study, as Klontzas incorporates multiple layers of
meaning upon a singular abstracted landscape. On the left side of the composite image
on folio 140r stands a column that traverses the top of the frame. Upon the shaft of this
15
For example, see her interpretation of the image on folio 34r, which illustrates
Pseudo-Methodios’ text above stating that Alexander wrote a prophecy upon the
golden gates he built to hold the kings of the nations of Gog and Magog. Volan
interprets this image as Alexander writing his name on the trunk of a tree in the
tradition of the great kings depicted above. Volan, 161.
6
column, the artist has depicted a number of figures arranged in five tiers. Seven kings
stand side by side in the top and bottom tiers, situated with three in the upper tier and
four in the lower. The three middle tiers are conjoined vertically by a long serpent on
either side of which stands five Turkish sultans, two in the top tier, two in the middle
tier, and one in the lowest tier, the latter of which stands below the serpent with arms
outstretched. All twelve figures bear a sword against their shoulder. At the bottom of
the column is an open tomb resting upon a small bridge. Inside the tomb lays the
skeletal figure of another king.
Above the tomb to the right of the column stand the five largest figures in the
composition. They can be easily divided into two groups based on gestures of dialogue.
Two men, a Pope and a Venetian Doge, stand on either side of an archangel in the group
to the right. The angel hands a cross-staff and an olive branch to the Pope and the
Venetian Doge holds a palm of victory. On the right, two fantastical creatures, a
skeleton dressed in courtly/military garb and a bull dressed in an Ottoman sultan’s
robes, grasp each other’s right hand. Another skeleton stands directly behind the bull-
headed sultan, obscured from the neck down. The skeleton is crowned with an olive
wreath and is holding a lantern in its right hand. The tail of the bull-headed sultan’s
robes is being devoured by a winged lion in the bottom right corner of the image.
Entitled “Here is the fulfillment of the oracle of Leo the Wise, where he speaks of
7
Selim,”16 we are told only that the image below depicts some sort of oracular fulfillment
concerning the sultan Selim II.
The historical event to which this composite image acts as a frontispiece, the
Battle of Lepanto, informs an initial identification of the three central characters in the
composition. These figures can be identified as the Sultan Selim II, Pope Pius V (1566-
1572), and the Doge Alivise Mocenigo (1570-77). Certain aspects of the iconography, I
will argue, point to the Holy League victory at Lepanto, thereby signaling the association
between the composite image and the battle depicted on the next two folia. However,
in the description given above, one immediately recognizes the existence of added
layers of meaning for which the historical battle of Lepanto gives no precedence. In the
present thesis, I will use this composite image, and the gaps in its legibility, as a point of
departure for the use of apocalyptic and oracular symbolism in the Chronographia.
16
Marc. Gr. VII, 22. Fol. 140r: e0dw~ plhrwnetai o9 xrhjmo\j tou~ kurou~ le/ontoj
tou~ sofou o3pou le/gei peri\ tou~ selh~m.
8
CHAPTER 2:
THE MARCIANUS GRAECUS CODEX VII 22 (=1466)
2.1. General Characteristics
The manuscript of Klontzas’ universal history is now held in the Bibliotheca
Marciana in Venice under the label Marcianus Graecus Codex VII 22.17 Historical clues
within the manuscript give a date range of 1591-92 for the manuscript’s production.18
The manuscript contains 217 folia that measure 205 x 153 mm and is illustrated with
410 miniatures of varying sizes.19 It is bound in a leather cover that measure 207 x 160
mm, (Fig. 3) which, Paliouras concludes, was more than likely added later and produced
in an unknown workshop in Candia.20 The only use of color in the manuscript occurs in
the elaborate ornamental illustrated frames, which are decorated in gold leaf and red
ink, (Fig. 4) and in the script, which switches back and forth between black and red ink
17
E. Mioni, Codices graeci manuscripti Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum, v. II
(Rome, 1960), 36-38; Ibid, Codices graeci manuscripti Bibliothecae Divi Marci
Venetiarum. Indices omnium codicum graecorum (Rome, 1960), 54.
18
Paliouras, 67. The first clue to the date of the piece can be found on folio 136r,
where Klontzas mentions February 1591. The next one occurs on ff. 149v-150r, which
contains an inscription pointing to Girolamo Cappello (GRNM KPL DOUK), who was
Duke of Candia between 12 November 1590 to March of 1593.
19
Paliouras, 60.
20
Ibid., 62.
9
to distinguish significant points in the text.21 (Fig. 5) Two scribes can be distinguished:
one, who only wrote the passages quoted in the text, is marked by a much larger script
and a consistent use of ligatures. (Fig. 6a) The other hand writes the remainder of the
text.22(Fig. 6b)
2.2. Contents of the Manuscript
Folia 1r-204v of the manuscript are dedicated to the Chronographia, which
concludes on folio 204v with a note from the author that states: “The hand of Georgios
Klontzas, that wrote these things received from memory and by my own free will.” 23
21
The ornamental frames primarily encase portraits either of authors, as their
works are referenced in passing or directly quoted in the text of the Chronographia, or
important historical figures mentioned in the text, such as the individual Ottoman
sultans, as the reign of each sultan is introduced by an imperial portrait and concludes
with what I will refer to as “tomb portraits”.
22
Rigo, 70, no. 3. The scribal hand attributed to the copied sources appears on ff.
1r-6r, 18r, 29v-38r, part of 48r, 88v, 90v-91v, part of 136r, 151v, part of 154v, 157v-
160v, 175v-178v, 179v. The rest of the text is written in the hand of the other scribe.
The majority of the text is written in the smaller text and might thus be attributed to the
author, Klontzas. The small calligraphic text is used whenever the author is not quoting
another source, including the commentary provided above or below historical episodes,
with the exception of the Oracles of Leo the Wise, the Book of Daniel, and a treatise by
Pseudo-Hippolytus, discussed below, which are rendered in the same small script.
23
Marc. Gr. VII, 22: Fol. 204v. Gewrti/ou xei\r klo/ntza, ta de\ gegra/fei o9 d0 au0~
labw\n me/mnhso kai\ mou~ profro/nhj. The signature of the author/artist Klontzas on
folio 204v is followed on folia 205r-206r with a poem (oracle) by Gregory the Theologian
(also called Gregory Nazianos) (329-289), and is written in the same script as the
signature on folio 204v, thus marking the whole section as a post-script. Sixteen folia
(208r-217r) follow this last portion of the text and contain a number of sketches, which
Paliouras concludes were added to the end of the manuscript sometime in the
seventeenth century. Paliouras, 60.
10
The Chronographia is a universal history of mankind from the fall of Adam and
Eve to the Last Judgment, between which the author traces historical wars between
Christianity and the descendents of Hagar, the Ishmaelites. The greater structure of the
manuscript is based upon a seventh-century Byzantine apocalyptic text attributed to
Bishop Methodios of Patara.24 This apocalyptic and prophetic work sets up the conflict
among the great empires of Christianity, Rome and Byzantium, and the descendents of
Ishmael, represented in the kingdoms of Islam. The Holy Wars between Islam and
Christianity is a thread that runs through the entire Chronographia and situates the rise
and expansion of the Ottoman Empire within a universal apocalyptic narrative. Given
the nature of the present argument, which presents the Battle of Lepanto as a crucial
turning point in the manuscript, a brief summary of the entire contents of the
Chronographia is necessary in order that this culminating battle and the history of the
24
Alexander, 14-36. The Syriac text, from Cod. Vat. Syr. 58, has been edited by
G.J. Reinink with a German Translation, Die Syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodios.
Corpus Scriptorium Orietnalium, v. 540-541 (Lovanii: Peeters, 1993); Alexander provides
an English Translation of the Syriac Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios as it appears in
Cod. Vat. Syr. 58. See, Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, 37-51. The first Greek
redaction of the text was first edited in 1897 by V. Istrin, Otrovenie Mefodiia Patarskago
I Apokrificheskiia Videniia Daniila v Vizantiiskoi I Slaviano-Russkoi Literaturakh, in
Chteniia v Imperatorskom Obshchestvie Istorii I Drevnostei Rossiiskikh pri Moskovskom
Universitete (Moscow, 1897), in two volumnes, Izsledovanie (vol. 181) and Teksty (vol.
183). Two more recent critical editions have since been prepared by Anastasios Lolos,
Die Apocalypse des Pseudo-Methodios, Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, Heft 83
(Meisenheim am Glan, 1975), and most recently by W.J. Aerts and G.A.A. Kortekaas with
a Latin translation, Die Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodios die Ältesten Griechischen und
Lateinischen Übersetzungen. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 569-
570, Subsidia t. 97 (Lovanii: Peeter, 1998). All quotations or citations from the Greek
text are taken from Aerts and Kortekaas’ edition, vol. 1 (pp. 70-198), and follow their
chapter divisions and pagination.
11
Ottoman Empire can be understood in relation to the larger apocalyptic structure of the
manuscript.
2.2.1. Biblical and Legendary Past (folia 1r-38r)
As mentioned above, the Chronographia is a universal history composed largely
from traditional Byzantine apocalyptic texts. Of these the Apocalypse of Pseudo-
Methodios, which will be discussed in greater detail below, is the primary source quoted
in the manuscript for both biblical/legendary past events and apocalyptic future
scenarios.25 The manuscript opens on folio 1r with the first line of this apocalypse, which
reads: “The holy word of our father Methodios, bishop of Patara, who is among the
saints, concerning the kings of the nations.”26 History begins 5500 years before the birth
of Christ, with the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise and the murder of Abel by
Cain (Fol. 1v).27 Methodios’ text carries the narrative up to the reign of the first king
25
The scenes that illuminate the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios (from here on
PsM) in the Chronographia constitute the only known example of an illustrated version
of this seventh-century narrative that exists today. Volan, 145.
26
Marc. Gr. VII, 22: Fol. 1r. “Tou~ e0n a0gioj patroj h9mw~n meqodiou e0piskopou
patarwn~ lo\goj h0kribwmenoj peri\ ta\j basilei\aj tw~n e0qnw~n”.
27
PsM, 1:1-2. The expulsion and labors of Adam and Eve, Paliouras has pointed
out, follows the same formulaic model as the Genesis cycles in Byzantine painting and
Western monumental art. For example, see Paliouras’ comparison of the figure of Adam
tilling the soil (fol. 1r) and a similar image in a Raphael Sadeler engraving series of 1583.
Paliouras, 160. Volan adds that Klontas’ monochrome hatch-work technique imitates
the stylistic effect of western etchings and woodcuts. Volan, 148.
12
Nimrod (Fol. 6r), who constructed the Tower of Babel.28 The relationship between text
and image in this section introduces the precedence given by Klontzas to the visual field
for the narration of events.29
Klontzas leaves the Pseudo-Methodios apocalypse on folio 6v with the birth of
Nebuchadnezzar.30 The next thirty-two folia (6v-22v) are quoted from the Book of
Daniel, which is substituted for the various Babylonian conquests mentioned in Chapters
4 and 5 of the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios.31 This alteration by Klontzas allows him
28
PsM, 4:3; 6:2.
29
For example, the bottom image on folio 1v, illustrating the death of Abel by
Cain, depicts four events at once conflating both spatial and temporal distance within
the frame. In this scene, one witnesses the first distinctive priority given to the visual
account over the textual, as the line from Methodios reads: “And in the hundredth year
of Adam’s life Cain slew his brother and Adam made lament over his murder one
hundred years.” The events are expanded according to the biblical narrative in the
image below, situated counterclockwise in chronological order: (1) the sacrifice of Cain,
depicted in the upper left corner (2) the sacrifice of Abel (3) the murder of Cain by Abel
(4) God addressing Cain (5) the lament over the body of Abel by the first family (6)
Deborah and Kalama’s lament, depicted in the bottom left corner. Therefore, within this
singular image, Klontzas successfully expands upon Methodios’ brief mention of the
event, depicts multiple events occurring simultaneously (the sacrifices of Cain and Abel
and the laments of Adam and the sisters), and presents a complex rendering of
chronological events.
30
Nativity scenes are frequently used in the Chronographia to introduce notable
figures into the historical record. See, for example, the birth of John the Baptist (Fol.
31v), Christ (Fol. 32v), Mohammed (38v), Murad I (Fol. 67r), and the Antichrist (Fol.
178v).
31
The Book of Daniel is quoted in the following manner on these folia: Fol. 7r
(Daniel, 3:1); 7v (1: 1-2); 8r (1: 3-6); 8v (1:6-16); 9r (1: 17-21); 9v (2:1); 10r (2: 29-35); 10v
(2: 7-10); 11r (2:12); 11v (2:1); 12r (2: 25-30); 13r (2: 31-35); 13v (2: 36-49); 18r (3: 31 –
4: 11); 19r (4: 11-27); 19v (4: 28-33); 20r (4: 34-37); 21r (5: 1-16); 22r (5: 17-30); 23v (10:
1-18); 24r-25r (10: 18, 11); 25v (12: 1-7); 26r (12: 7-13); 26v (7:2); 27r (7: 3); 27v (7:4);
13
to emphasize the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which is otherwise mentioned only briefly in
Methodios’ text.32 In drawing on the biblical source, Klontzas is also able to introduce
the importance of prophetic “visions” as a theme within the manuscript. Four prophetic
visions of Daniel are mentioned in this section of the manuscript: The two Dreams of
Nebuchadnezzar (Fols. 13r-13v and 18v-19v),33 the Dream of Belshazzar concerning
Darius (Fols. 20v-21r)34 and Daniel’s vision of the Four Beasts of the Apocalypse (Fols.
26v-28v). These visions introduce the four world kingdoms of Babylon, Persia,
Alexandria and Rome. 35
After a brief account of the Incarnation of Christ quoted from the Gospel of Luke
(fols. 29r-33r),36 Klontzas returns to the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios with the birth
of Alexander the Great on folio 33v.37 Here, Klontzas illustrates a legend from the
28r (7: 7-11); 28v (7: 11-28). The New American Bible (New York: Benziger Inc., 1970); ff.
22v-23v quote PsM, ch. 5.
32
Volan notes that even though the Book of Daniel excerpts are substituted for
Chapters 4 and 5 of the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios, it merely gives a different
account of event from the fourth millennium. Therefore, its inclusion in no way disrupts
the temporal progression of the Methodios text, which resumes its construction of
ancient history after the anachronistic quotation from the Gospel of Luke. Volan, 153.
33
Daniel, 2: 31-39; 3:31-4: 33.
34
Daniel, 5: 1-16.
35
Daniel, 7: 2-28.
36
The Gospel of Luke is quoted on the following folia: 29v (Luke, 1:23-28); 30v
(1: 39-47); 31r (1:57-62).
37
PsM, 8: 1-4. Methodios Legends = ff. 33v-38r; Quotations occurs as follows –
33v (PsM 8: 1-4); 34r (8: 6-8); 34v (8: 10; 9: 1); 35r (9: 1); 35v (9: 2-4); 36r (9: 4); 36v (9:
5-7); 37r (9: 8-9; 10: 1); 37v (10: 1-5); 38r (10: 6; 11: 1).
14
conquests of Alexander the Great concerning the “unclean people” of the East, the
nations of Gog and Magog.38 In the illustration, Klontzas show Alexander on horseback
in front of a mountainous landscape, wherein the kings of the nations of Gog and Magog
are trapped by the erection of a golden gate. Although, according to legend, Alexander
trapped the kings of these nations in the mountains of the north, the prophet Ezekiel
(Ez. 38-39) predicted their return at the end of time.39 The apocalyptic myth of Gog and
Magog is repeated in the final portion of the Chronographia, which will be discussed in
more detail below.
In the next portion of the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios, the author sets up
an important defining feature of his apocalyptic narrative, namely the Legend of the Last
Emperor. According to Methodios’ prophecy, a Last Emperor of the Romans (Byzantium)
would drive the Ishmaelites out of the Christian kingdom and bring forth an era of peace
until the end of time.40 The nations of Gog and Magog would come forth during his
reign, at which point the Last Emperor would lay down his crown at Golgotha to signal
the Second Coming of Christ.41 Although a literal handing over of power was
prophesized by David in Psalm 68: 31, the prophet predicted that this deed would be
38
Fol. 34r, PsM, 8: 6-8. On the Legend of Gog and Magog in Byzantine
apocalyptic tradition, see Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, 185-192.
39
Fol. 34v. The biblical prophecy predicts the nations of Gog, of the land of
Magog, will invade a “land of unwalled villages,” or a peaceful land. Ezekiel 38: 11, New
American Standard Bible (New York: Benzinger Inc., 1970).
40
PsM, 13: 10. Quoted on folio 151v of the Chronographia
41
PsM, 10:8.
15
performed by the kingdom of Ethiopia (the Cushites): “let Cush extend its hands to
God”.42 To correct this discrepancy, Pseudo-Methodios introduces a second marriage of
Alexander’s mother, Chouseth, the daughter of the king Phol (or Cush) of Ethiopia, to
the founder of Byzantium, Byzas.43
The Christian kingdoms of Byzantium and Rome are thus introduced into
Pseudo-Methodios’ apocalyptic narrative with the child of Chouseth and Byz, Byzantia
on folio 36r.44 Byzantia is then married to Romulus and they have three children.45
Therefore, according to Pseudo-Methodios, the Ethiopians were subdued by the Greeks
and the Greeks were subdued by the Romans. “The offspring of Chouseth,” Methodios
claims, “daughter of Phol, king of Ethiopia, prevailed over the kingdom of the
Macedonians and Romans and Greeks throughout the centuries, for the kingdom of the
Greeks – that is, the Romans – are from the seed of Ethiopia, and this kingdom will
‘stretch forth her hand to God’ in the Last Days, according to the prophetic
revelation…”.46 After Pseudo-Methodios’ survey of ancient history, Klontzas leaves the
42
Psalm 68: 31. Translation from Alexander, 42.
43
Ibid., 22.
44
PsM, 9:4.
45
Fol. 36v, PsM, 9:4-7. Romulus and Byzantia have three sons: Armaleus,
Urbanus, and Claudius. Armaleus (Armaleo) ruled Rome, Urbanus ruled Byzantium (the
city of his mother), and Claudius ruled Alexandria.
46
PsM, 9: 7.Translation from Alexander, 42.
16
source completely, returning only to the Apocalypse in the final section of the
Chronographia.
2.2.2. The History of Islam: Mohammed to Murad III (folia 38v-141v)
The history of Islam is introduced on folio 38v with the life of Mohammed.47 This
section serves primarily to introduce the nation of Islam as the prophesized descendents
of Ishmael and thus the enemy of Christianity.48 The connection between Islam,
Mohammed and Ishmael is made through the quotation of Saint John of Damaskos’
101st Heresy concerning the Ishmaelites, which is narrated and illustrated on folia 42r
to 44v.49 The first conflict with Christianity is introduced with the Arab-Muslim wars of
47
Klontzas mentions four different author portraits in this text. A certain John
the Deacon is pictured on folio 38v, but there are no quotations of this source after the
authorial pronouncement. The second author portrait points to Giacomo da Voragine.
Although Voragine mentions Mohammed in his Vita of Pope Pelagius II, this is not the
text quoted in this section on the life of Mohammed. Therefore, the source of this
section remains obscure. The only fully quoted source is Saint John of Damascus’ 101st
heresy concerning the Ishmaelites, quoted on folia 43v-45r. For an English translation of
the text, see, The Fathers of the Church, A New Translation: Saint John of Damascus,
Writings: [The Fount of Knowledge] Vol. 37. F. Chase, trans. (New York: Fathers of the
Church, 1958), 153-160.
48
An image on folio 42v depicts an archangel approaching Hagar, with her son
Ishmael. The text between them records what is spoken between them. Hagar says,
“because Sarah sent me away.” The archangel delivers a prophecy regarding the
Ishmaelites to Sarah that is recorded in Genesis, 16: 11-12.
49
See note 50, above.
17
the seventh-century.50 Although the wars took place years after the death of the
prophet,51 Mohammed is depicted leading the Muslim army in a number of battles that
culminate on folio 54v with the 717 siege of Constantinople.52
Having established this thread regarding Christianity’s conflicts with Islam, a brief
section of the Chronographia is devoted to historical moments in Byzantium. Beginning
with the iconoclastic Emperor Theophilos (829-842) and the triumph of Orthodoxy at
the Council of Jerusalem in 843, this short section ends with the Latin conquest of
Constantinople in 1204 and the reign of Michael Palaiologos beginning in 1261.
Therefore, in seven folia, the author covers half a millennium of Byzantine history. The
internal religious conflicts of Byzantium and conflicts with the Latin Empire do not
receive much attention in the Chronographia because these would detract from the
essential dichotomy presented in this narrative, between Islam and Christianity.
Klontzas introduces the second Islamic threat to Christianity with the rise of the
Ottoman Empire in the thirteenth-century. From folio 62r to 78v, Klontzas traces the
foundation of the Empire, from the reign of the first sultan Orchan (Ghazi, 1326-1359) to
Murad II (1421-1451), and the emergence of a new threat to the kingdom of Christianity
50
Fols. 51v-54r. For a general survey of these wars, see W. E. Kaegi, Byzantium
and the Early Islamic Conquests (Cambridge: University Press, 1992). The Byzantine
Empire, in these invasions, lost Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Armenia.
51
Mohammed died in 632. Ibid., 67.
52
Ibid., 248. This was the first siege of Constantinople by an Arab Muslim force.
It was the first use of Greek fire, an igneous petroleum substance used to destroy fleets
of ships. The second Arab Muslim siege occurred in 717 and marked the zenith of the
Empire. Klontzas does not distinguish which siege is presented on folio 54v.
18
directed specifically at the seat of the Byzantine Empire in Constantinople.53 In this
section, the artist also introduces an important pictorial theme that divides the
historical narrative by the lives of the Ottoman sultans. Each sultan is thus introduced
with an imperial portrait, such as the portrait of Orchan I on folio 64v (Fig. 7a), and ends
with a tomb portrait (Fig. 7b). This section on the rise of the Ottoman Empire between
Orchan I and Murad II contains no oracular or prophetic texts. It is simply history and as
such reiterates that our manuscript is as much historical as prophetic in its contents.
History, its beginning and its end, is as important to the overall message of Klontzas’
manuscript as the end of time and the Second Coming.
After the reign of Murad I, there is a significant break in the historical narrative.
Here, Klontzas introduces the Oracles of Leo the Wise, the second major apocalyptic
source after the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios in the Chronographia.54 On folio 79v,
the artist depicts the two pseudonymous authors of these texts within a vast library. The
text below states: “the most wise emperor of Constantinople, Leo” whose enigmatic
writings are “explained by the pious archbishop Methodios of Patara”.55 Since there are
53
For the historical background of this period, see S. Shaw, History of the
Ottoman Empire, 13-54.
54
For the text of the Oracles of Leo the Wise, see PG 107, 1129-1140. For the
tradition of the oracles, see C. Mango, “Legend of Leo the Wise,” (1960); K. Kyriakou, Oi9
i9storhme/noi xrhsmoi\ tou~ Le/ontoj tou~ Sofou~. Xeiro/grafh para/dosh kai\
e0kdo/seij kata\ tou\j ie/ -iq/ ai0w~nej. (Athens, 1995);
55
Marc. Gr. VII, 22. Fol. 79v. “o9 sofw/tatoj le/wn basileu\j th~j
kwnstantinoupo/lewj…meqodi/ou a0rxh e0pisko/pou pata/rwn…”
19
no commentaries by Methodios on Leo’s oracles, we might assume Klontzas means
these oracles will be illuminated by the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios when
incorporated in the Chronographia. The Oracles of Leo the Wise are incorporated into
the reigns of the last six Ottoman sultans, between Mehmed II (1444-46, 1451-1481),
the son of Murad II, and Murad III (1574-1595). Folia 89r-148v are dedicated to the
historical period of the Ottoman expansion in the late fifteenth and sixteenth century,
and will be the central focus of the present study.
Mehmed II (called “the conqueror”) is introduced with sword in hand in an
imperial portrait on folio 89r.56 The fall of Constantinople is illustrated on folio 90r, in an
elaborate full-page scene with Christ depicted, hands outstretched in benediction,
above the chaos below. Coupling this with the words “this terrible revenge”, 57 Klontzas
intended to show the attack of Constantinople as God delivering his people to the
enemy as retribution for their sins. The Fall of Constantinople marks an important
turning point in the historical narrative. The events of 1453 are presented by the
author/artist Klontzas as the beginning of the Ishmaelite domination prophesized in the
Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios, which is quoted directly after the image on folio 90r.58
Therefore, the historical narrative from this point on has been predetermined in the
Chronographia to end with the coming of a Last Emperor and the expulsion of the
56
The reign of Mehmed II is narrated across Fols. 89r-97v
57
Fol. 90r: a2skeimoj h9 edi/khsij au6thj
58
PsM. 11:1-13:10. In the Chronographia, the text is narrated across folia 90v-
91v.
20
Ishmaelites. A survey of historical events continues after the Fall of Constantinople,
through the reigns of Bayezid I (1481-1512),59 Selim I (1512, 1517-1520),60 Suleyman I
(1520-1566),61 Selim II (1566-1574),62 and Murad III.63
In this section, the historical narrative of the Ottoman expansion is framed not
only by the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios but also by the Oracles of Leo the Wise.
Both of these texts, I will argue, come to fulfillment in the historical Battle of Lepanto,
presented on folia 140v-141r. In the larger historical survey of the Chronographia, all of
the events, from the birth of Mohammed to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, are
presented as fulfillments of apocalyptic or oracular prophecies. The last of these
historical fulfillments is represented by the Battle of Lepanto, leading one to ask, “What
happens after Lepanto”?
2.2.3. Prophetic Future Events (folia 141v-204r)
Klontzas does not give a clear answer to this question. Instead, he offers a
number of possible end-time scenarios, many of which mirror events that have already
come to pass. All of these independent narratives, which include the Legend of the Last
59
Mar. Gr. VII, 22. Fols. 98r-112r
60
Ibid., Fols. 112r-119v.
61
Ibid., Fols. 120r-128v
62
Ibid., Fols. 129r-145r
63
Ibid., Fols. 145v-150r
21
Emperor,64 the invasion of Gog and Magog65 and the reign of the Antichrist,66 usher in
the Second coming of Christ (fol. 196v) and the Last Judgment (ff. 199r-200v). This final
act gives the Chronographia a sense of closure, necessitated by the fact that time has a
finite beginning in the manuscript (fol. 1r) and must therefore have a finite end. Yet this
entire section of prophetic future events is characterized by a sense of chronological
uncertainty, beginning with the reign of Murad III.
As the manuscript was produced within the reign of Murad III, the sultan’s tomb
portrait is not included and the narrative transitions into the coming of a Last Emperor
soon after an aerial image of Candia on ff. 148v-149r.67 A sixteenth-century paraphrase
of the Legend of the Last Emperor is quoted in full and illustrated on ff. 153v-156v.68
64
65
Ibid., Fols., 176r-178r
66
67
Fols. 151r-152r are dedicated to oracle IX. Within a large frame the artists
depicts a cross spanning the vertical axis of the frame with four figures behind it – a fox
and three Christian soldiers/generals. This same conception of the oracle appears in the
Barrocc. 170 (fol. 12v) and the Codex Bute (fol. 11v), discussed below in Chapter 4,
Section 1. This oracle predicts the formation of a coup or “League” which comes
together against a common enemy but after confusion only one king remains. This is
justified in the next folio, 151v, where the image of an enthroned king is framed at the
top of the page. This king is predicted to bring about the final expulsion of the enemies
(who remain unidentified). PG 107: pp. 1129-1140
68
The anonymous paraphrasis, called by Alexander the Cento of the True
Emperor is first narrated in full across ff. 152v – 154r, and then followed by illustrations
on ff. 155r – 163v. It is reprinted in Migne, PG 107. 1141-50.The text is considered by
Alexander to be an independent work that draws together many sources from Jewish,
early Christian and Byzantine traditions on the expected coming of a Messianic ruler.
22
According to the legend, a sleeping king would be awoken from outside the gates of
Constantinople, gather a great army and expel the Ishmaelites from the kingdom of
Christianity. Klontzas depicts these wars led by the Last Emperor across ff. 157v-159v.69
However, within this last section, the Ishmaelites are expelled from the kingdom of
Christianity at least twice: once prior to the Legend of the Last Emperor, with the
imperial comeback of an anonymous Christian ruler (fol. 151v) and a second time with
the wars of the Last Emperor (ff. 157v-159v). This sense of repetition and chronological
uncertainty characterizes all of the events in this last section of the manuscript.
Klontzas uses a number of diverse sources to construct the sequence of events
following the abdication of the Last Emperor on folio 163v, including another division of
the Christian Empire on fol. 164r,70 the reign of a mythical Konon, 71 who is a precursor
See Alexander, “The Last Emperor and Messianic Origins,” JWCI 41 (1978): 1-15; Ibid.,
Byzantine Apocalyptic, 130-141.
69
The wars are purely Klontzas’ interpretation. Although Pseudo-Methodios and
others mention the Last Emperor’s wars against the Ishmaelites, they never provide a
description of them. Therefore, the images may be meant to signify events that have
already occurred and are thus being configured by Klontzas in visual form. In Pseudo-
Methodios, the True Emperor lays down his crown at Golgotha following the expulsion
of the infidels, but this does not occur in the Chronographia.
70
On folio 164v-165r the kingdom of the Last Roman Emperor is divided among
four Tetrarchs who go to war with one another, visualized symbolically on folio 164v
and literally on 165r. The illustration on 164r, entitled meri/moj (division), depicts three
figures positioned on a globe which is partially obscured to focus only upon Europe and
the Mediterranean region. Four winds blow from the mouths of personified cherub
figures and intersect at a point in the center which has been designated by two crossed
lines. The source for this specific event is unknown, but the artist’s allusion to the
Oracles of Leo the Wise, specifically referring to the oracle of Murad III (fol. 146r)
suggests a cyclical pattern within the narration of end-time scenarios.
23
to the Antichrist, and finally the coming of a Silver-haired king (ff. 169v-171r), who
resembles the Last Emperor. After the death of this silver-haired king, Constantinople is
destroyed by an apocalyptic flood on folio 173r, from which only the altar of the Hagia
Sophia is saved and lifted up in a cloud by angels. Klontzas’ inconsistent sequence of
events continues on folio 175 recto and verso with the release of Gog and Magog from
their captivity in the Northern Mountains. An image shows a decrepit Alexander looking
down upon the events from a throne in the sky. The following pictorial narrative
visualizes the tortuous actions of these kings, which includes cannibalism that causes all
Christians to flee to caves in the mountains.72 On folio 176, the Lord sends one of his
archangels to destroy these kings and their followers in a single moment.73 In the
Apocalypse, it is the invasion of these tribes that leads the Last Emperor to lay down his
crown and cross at Golgotha, at which point “son of perdition will be appear.”74 The
Antichrist appears immediately after the destruction of Gog and Magog in the
Chronographia, thereby illustrating another chronological change by Klontzas in this last
section.
The reign of the Antichrist is introduced on folio 174v, with the prophecies of
Jeremiah and Moses concerning the origin of the Antichrist in the tribe of Dan. The
71
Marc. Gr. VII, 22: ff. 165v-169r
72
PsM, 13:19
73
PsM, 13: 21
74
PsM, 14: 2
24
author/artist returns to Pseudo-Methodios on 174v, wherein the letter of Paul to the
Thessalonians concerning the Antichrist is quoted and accompanied by the author
portrait of the Apostle.75 Klontzas continues quoting the Apocalypse in the first three
depictions of the Antichrist on folia 178v, 179r and 179v, wherein the text recounts the
three woes to the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, from which the
76
Antichrist will be born, raised and reign respectively. Folia 180v-183r consist of the
textual narrative of the Antichrist in full in the Apocalypse, although it is attributed to
the theologian John Chrysostom and is thus most likely a later redaction of the text
edited most recently by Vasiliev.77
After this narrative, Klontzas quotes another source for the remainder of the
Chrongraphia, specifically an eschatological tract attributed pseudonymously to
Hippolytus of Rome entitled De consummatione mundi concerning the life, reign and fall
of the Antichrist.78 The Hippolytus tract segues into the Second Coming of Christ on folio
196v and ends on folio 203r. The last three folia of the Chronographia are dedicated to
75
II Thessalonians 2:1-8. It is quoted in the Chronographia as it appear in PsM.
76
PsM, 14: 1. The three woes are mentioned in the Gospels of Matthew (11:21-
24) and Luke (10: 13-15)
77
A. Vasiliev, Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina (Moscow: Universitas Caesarea, 1893),
33-38.
78
The Greek text referred to here was printed in PG 10: 913A-C; see also: A.
Whealey, “De consummatione mundi of Pseudo-Hippolytus: Another Byzantine
apocalypse from the early Islamic period,” Byzantion 69 (1996): 461-469
25
an acrostic poem from the Sybilline Oracles, spelling out “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saves
on the Cross”.79
79
J. Geffcken, Die Oracula Sibyllina. Leipzig: J.C. Henrichs, 1902: pp. 153-157
26
CHAPTER 3:
THE LIFE AND WORK OF GEORGIOS KLONTZAS
According to a timeline compiled by Paliouras from notarial records in the
Archivo di Stato in Venice, Klontzas was born into a middle class Candian family, married
his first wife, Ergina, in 1562, and had three sons, Nicholas, Maneas, and Luke, all three
of whom would become painters as well.80 Paliouras noted a number of notarial
signatures attributed to Klontzas,81 the most significant of which was a 1566 appraisal
by the artist of a work by Domenikos Theotokopoulos (called El Greco).82 Although we
have no record of his first wife’s death or divorce, Klontzas remarried in 1587 and the
same year purchased a painting studio in the Piazza San Marco in Candia. 83 The artist’s
death is recorded in 1608.84 His will, written in 1597, lists an illuminated manuscript
given to his son, Luke.85 Since the Chronographia is recorded in the possession of the
Archdeacon John Trulino of the Church of the Hodegetria in Candia, the family’s church,
80
Paliouras, 25-26.
81
Notarial documents I-XII, see Ibid., 28-58
82
Ibid., 39.
83
Ibid., 287.
84
Ibid., 287.
85
Ibid., 287.
27
where it remained until the Ottoman occupation of the island in 1669, it is possible that
the illuminated manuscript listed in the will is his universal chronicle, Marc. Gr. VII, 22.86
Although the present study is concerned with Klontzas as a miniaturist, he was
renowned in his own time for his work as an icon-painter on Crete in the later sixteenth-
century.87 His painted icons and triptychs, which have been extensively analyzed
analyzed by Paliouras and Manoulis Chatzidakis, can be found in Athens, 88 Venice,89
Zakynthos,90 Corfu,91 and Mount Sinai,92 among other locations. His painted icons, like
86
Ibid., 62. For a complete provenance, see Ibid., 64-67.
87
For the Cretan school, see R. Cormack, Painting the Soul: Icons, Death Masks,
and Shrouds (London: Reaktion Books, 1997), 202; See also, Paliouras, 2-24; N.
Chatzidakis, “Icon Painting in Crete during the fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” in
Greek Frescoes and Icons from Byzantium to El Greco, M Chatzidakis, ed. catalogue of
exhibition held at the Royal Academy of Arts, London, 27 th March – 21st June, 1987
(Athens: Greek Ministry of Athes; Byzantine Museum of Athens, 1987): 48-50.
88
There are a number in Athens, among which is a triptych in the Benaki
museum. A. Sungoupoulou, Sxedi/asma, 175.
89
There are three icons in the Hellenic Institute of Venice. M. Chatzidakis, Icons
of Patmos (Athens: National Bank of Athens, 1985), 74-81.
90
Ntinou Konomou, To\ Mousei~o Zaku/nqou (Athens, 1967), 7, 23, fig. 43.
91
M.S. Axeimastou, Ei0kw\n th~j Deute/raj Parousi/aj e0k thj~ Su/mhj,”
Delti/on th~j Xristianikh~j 0Arxaiologijh~j 0Etaipei/aj 4, no. 5 (1969), 217, figs. 90b-
95b.
92
There are three icons at Mount Sinai. K. Amantou, Sinaitika\ mnhmei~a
a0ne/kdota (Para/rthma tou~ periodikou~ “Ellhnika/”) (Athens, 1928), 52.
28
the miniatures in the Chronographia, show a knowledge of and interest in Italian
Renaissance, notably Mannerist, style and compositional techniques.93
Klontzas had also established himself as a miniaturist prior to the production of
the Chronographia. He was commissioned by the Creto-Italian humanist Francesco
Barozzi (1537-1604) to provide the illustrations for two companion manuscripts of the
Oracles of Leo the Wise.94 These commissions also linked Klontzas to a circle of
renowned humanists, as Barozzi, having studied mathematics at the University of
Padua, founded a Neoplatonic Academy in Reythmno, the Accademia dei Vivi, in 1561.95
A monograph on the earlier of these two manuscripts, the Codex Bute, dated to
around 1575 and now in a private collection in Paris, was recently published by Jeaninne
Vereecken and Lydie Hadermann-Misguich.96 The second manuscript, which provides an
exact date of 1577, is now held in the Barozzi collection of the Bodleian Library in Oxford
93
While other Cretan artists, like Michael Damaskinos and El Greco, travelled
directly to Italy to learn from the Venetian masters Titian and Veronese, Klontzas,
having remained in Candia, picked up Renaissance and mannerist trends from the
engravings circulating at this time.
94
Francesco Barozzi, as a respected Neo-Platonist was part of a movement that
sought to combine Platonic theory with other major philosophies of antiquity, including,
one might purport, the oracular traditions of the pseudonymous Leo the Wise. For
Barozzi, see Les Oracles de Leon le Sage illustres par Georges Klontzas: La version Barozzi
dans le Codex Bute, J. Vereecken and L. Hadermann-Misguich, eds. (Venice: the Hellenic
Institute of Venice and the Vikelaia Municiple Library of Herakleion, 2000), 61-65.
95
Ibid., 61.
96
Vereecken and Hadermann-Misguich, op. cited. In this publication, Vereecken
and Hadermann-Misguich provide an interpretation of the individuals oracles and an
extensive introduction concerning the political, religious and scientific life of Barozzi.
29
under the label Bodleian Baroccianus 170. This version of the oracles was most recently
published by Antonio Rigo, along with a discussion of Klontzas’ use of the oracles in the
Chronographia.97 Both Barozzi manuscripts include the Greek Oracles and a Latin
translation. The oracular images executed by Klontzas in both manuscripts bear close
resemblance to the oracular images in the Chronographia. This similarity can be
recognized in the illustration of the second oracle in all three manuscripts, as all three
shows a large snake vertically extended with two ravens attacking it from both sides.
(Fig. 8a-c) However, one quickly recognizes certain differences in the Chronographia’s
fictive landscape and the use of elaborate frames in the Barocc. 170. These slight
modifications give each version of the oracles, all executed by the same artist, Klontzas,
their own unique character.
The Chronographia, however, expands the Oracles of Leo the Wise far beyond
the framework of Barozzi’s manuscripts. The use of the Oracles in the Chronographia is
unique, as it is situated, on the one hand, within the historical narrative of the Ottoman
sultans, and, on the other, within the narrative of the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios.
In the present thesis, I will argue that these alternative conceptions of time are
deliberately juxtaposed in the pictorial narrative of the Ottoman expansion to bring
attention to the role of the artist in producing meaning from historical events.
In section 4.1, I will argue that the author, in the composite image on folio 140r,
makes an explicit reference to two symbolic systems, or structures of symbols, that
97
I. Hutter, Corpus der Byzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften. Vol. 2 (Stuttgart:
Hiersemann, 1977), 80-85. Rigo, Oracula Leonis, 17-48.
30
furnish the descriptive context of his pictorial narrative of the Ottoman expansion. The
first is the Oracles of Leo the Wise and the second is the Apocalypse of Pseudo-
Methodios. Having located these systems and discussed the degree to which they frame
the Battle of Lepanto, section 4.2 will discuss these systems as symbolic articulations, or
configurations, of time. The Oracles of Leo, on the one hand, represent cyclical time,
while the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios, represents linear time. Both, however, are
grouped as allegorical conceptions of the past. Historical time, in contrast, does not
place symbolic forms onto time, as allegorical structures do. Instead, historical time
forms structures out of individual episodes. This third conception of time will be
examined in section 4.3, through an analysis of the pictorial narrative of the Ottoman
expansion. The configuration of time and construction of meaning from the past is
placed wholly within the command of the artist. Section 4.3 will thus outline Klontzas’
unique configuration of time, but distinguishing four different types. Finally, section 4
will take up the question, “What happens after Lepanto?” Certain elements of the
pictorial narrative point to a distinctive commentary by the artist regarding his role in
the memory of the past time, the expectation of the future time, and the experience of
the present.
31
CHAPTER 4:
THE PICTORIAL NARRATIVE OF THE OTTOMAN EXPANSION IN THE CHRONOGRAPHIA
4.1. Visualizing Lepanto as the fulfillment of history
4.1.1. The Battle of Lepanto
The composite image on folio 140r is the frontispiece to a two-page rendering of
the Battle of Lepanto and will act as a point of departure for my analysis of the
intertwining of history and prophecy in the Chronographia. Labeled “the greatest victory
of Christianity,”98 Klontzas underscores the centrality of this battle between Christianity
and Islam within the greater apocalyptic narrative of the manuscript.
The Battle of Lepanto, as mentioned in the introduction to the present study,
marked the end of the Ottoman threat in the Mediterranean and Western Europe.
Although the Turks were a constant threat to Western Europe after the capture of
Constantinople, Selim II’s conquest of Venetian-held Cyprus in 1571 caused the
Venetian Doge Alvise Mocenigo to take action by forming a unified Christian defensive
attack against the powerful Islamic Empire.99 The Republic, which had remained largely
98
Marc. Gr. VII, 22. Fol. 141r, “e9dw~ ei0nai me/galwtath bi/twriaj tw~n
xristianw~n.”
99
P.B. Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries (New York: William Morrow and
Company, 1977): 260-263. The Turks landed on the shores of Cyprus in Winter of 1570
and promptly took the entire island save the capital, Famagusta. This too fell after the
Venetian general Marc Antonio Bragadin, seeking surrender on hospitable terms, was
flayed alive and his body, stuffed with straw, paraded through the city. On Venice, see F.
32
neutral in the ‘holy war’ against the Turks, had now lost a key defensive and trading post
in the Mediterranean, and Doge Mocenigo could foresee an imminent threat to the
island of Crete, now left vulnerable to attacks from the east. Mocenigo thus appealed to
Pope Pius V for aid. The Pope had been leading the call for a holy war against the Turks
and was quick to accept the Doge’s pleas.100 Having beseeched Philip II of Spain to aid in
the Crusade, the Holy League was thus formed and a large fleet was assembled. Don
Juan of Austria, the illegitimate brother of the former Emperor Charles V ( was made
head commander of the combined Christian armada, who confronted the Turks at
Lepanto on October 7th, 1571, with 208 galley ships on the Christian side and 230 on the
Turkish side. The Christian won a decisive victory, having lost only 10 ships in
comparison to the 200 ships lost on the Ottoman side.101 The defeat was a major, if
temporary, blow to the Ottoman Empire. It gave the Holy League temporary control of
the Mediterranean, protected Rome from invasion and, for the time being, prevented
the Ottomans from advancing into Western Europe.
In the composite image on folio 140r, one can readily discern the figures of the
Pope and the Doge, and, although illustrated with a bull-head, the sultan Selim II. The
Christian rulers, as mentioned above, flank the figure of an angel who hands a palm to
the Doge and the Staff of the True Cross to the Pope, thus signifying the Holy League
Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Meditterranean World in the Age of Philip II, Vol. II
(1995): 1078-80; K. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, Vol. 4 (1984), 932.
100
Braudel, 1029; On the crusading rhetoric of Pius V, see Setton, 993-994.
101
Braudel, 1102.
33
victory. The Sultan, on the other hand, clasps the right hand of death, signified by the
skeleton dressed in military costume. His robes are furthermore being devoured by a
winged Lion, signifying the Lion of Saint Mark, the symbol of the Republic of Venice. This
iconography symbolizes the Ottoman defeat, which is further emphasized by the
skeletal figure wearing an olive wreath and carrying a scythe that stands behind the
sultan. The iconography of the central group in this composition thereby points to the
Holy League victory at Lepanto. History, however, only partially illuminates the meaning
of this frontispiece.
In the following iconographic explication of this frontispiece to the Battle of
Lepanto, I will distinguish the fictive layers of meaning, referred to here as
“prefigurations” of time that are presented in the composite image as coming to
fulfillment, or brought to actuality, in the Battle of Lepanto. Within the interests of the
present study, these imaginary referents, which exist outside of time as ways of
understanding the past, link together the artist’s present with his memory of the past
and expectation for the future. In other words, by remembering Lepanto as the
fulfillment of the symbolic oracular and apocalyptic prefigurations mentioned below,
Klontzas’ experience of present time, two decades after the event, will be characterized
by a sense of uncertainty and the anxious anticipation of the near future.
34
4.1.2. The Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios
“And they (the Ishmaelites) will blaspheme and say: There is no

deliverer for the Christians. Then suddenly there will be awakened
perdition and calamity as those of a woman in travail, and a king of the
Greeks will go forth against them in great wrath, and he will be aroused
against them like a man who shakes off his wine, and who [plots] against
them as if they were dead men. He will go forth against them …and the
[allies] of the king of Greece will seize the places of the desert and will
destroy with the sword the remnant that is left of them in the land of
promise.”102
This passage from Chapter 9 of the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios predicts the
coming of a messianic Last Emperor that will drive the descendants of Ishmael, who
103
have reigned for seven years of weeks, out of the kingdom of Christianity. It comes
after a long detailed passage concerning the horrible persecution of the Christian people
by the Ishmaelites. The Last Emperor’s coming will furthermore signal a new era of
peace, until the release of Gog and Magog from their mountainous prison, at which
point the Emperor will lay down his crown and the True Cross at Golgotha, signaling the
Second Coming of Christ.104 In the composite image on folio 140r, certain iconographic
characteristics present the combined forces of the Holy League as the fulfillment of this
prophecy concerning the coming of the Last Emperor and his expulsion of the
Ishmaelites.
102
Ps.M, 12: 7. Translation in Alexander, 48.
103
seven years of weeks = 49 years. See Alexander, “Medieval Apocalypses as
Historical Sources,” American Historical Review 72 (1968): 990.
104
PsM, 13:17-18.
35
Methodios’ work, and the tradition of Byzantine apocalyptic literature that
followed, provided Klontzas with the basic plot of the Chronographia, a preordained
conflict between Christianity and its Arab-Muslim enemies that could be measured and
incorporated into a universal history of the world. A reconstruction of the historical-
social context from which the original text emerged will further illuminate how the
Apocalypse is incorporated in the Chronographia, as both were produced in reaction to,
and consolation for, the rapid rise and spread of Islam into the Christian world. Ernst
Sackur placed the historical origins of the Apocalypse in seventh-century, while Paul
Alexander locates its geographical origins in the Byzantine colonies of Syria that had
recently been occupied by the newly formed Islamic state.105 Alexander situated the
text in the seventh-century Arab occupations of Byzantine Syria by distinguishing where
the “historical” portions of the apocalypse (vaticania ex eventu, or historical events

106
couched in prophetic language) ended and the true prophetic narrative begins. He
claims, “a safe terminus post quem is the Moslem invasion of the Near East that began
in AD 634, for it is clearly known to the author, and his prophecies concerning it are to a
large extent vaticania ex eventu”.107
105
E. Sackur, Sibyllische Texte, 70. Quoted in Alexander, The Byzantine
Apocalyptic Tradition, 16, no. 49.
106
Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, 24.
107
Ibid. Alexander goes on to give a range between 644 and 678. He claims
Pseudo-Methodios must have witnessed the first navy of the Islamic state, built under
the khalif of Uthman (644-656), from the passage “And in vessels of wood they flew
over the waves of the sea and the went to the lands of the West and came as far as the
great Rome.” (fol. 121v) The terminus post quem is 678 since the author makes no
36
The Ishmaelite invaders mentioned in the Apocalypse are thus, as Alexander has
suggested, identified with the Arab invaders of the seventh-century and Pseudo-
Methodios’ text is a contemporary record of the deep impression the Arab conquest of
Syria made upon its Christian inhabitants.108 The interpolation of the Apocalypse of
Pseudo-Methodios is, therefore, one way in which Klontzas weaves the Ottoman
expansion into an apocalyptic narrative. It provided the author with a theme of
Byzantine wars against an enemy of the Empire while grouping the historical enemies,
the Turks, Persians, Saracens and Arabs, together as the descendents of Ishmael, the
son of Hagar and Abraham, the “wild ass of the desert” who “will live in hostility toward
all of his brothers” as is prophesized in Gen. 16, 11-12, thereby accounting for their
hatred of Christianity. 109
reference to the failed Arab siege of Constantinople in this year, which would have been
“grist to his mill”. Alexander, 24-25.
108
Pseudo-Methodios was not the only one to make these comparisons. For
other apocalyptic works, see W. Kaegi, “Initial Byzantine Reactions to the Arab
Conquest,” Church History 38, vol. 2 (June 1969), 139-149. The first person to connect
Ishmaelites with Islam in writing is John Damaskos, whose text, the 101 st heresy, is
quoted in the Chronographia in discussion of the life of Mohammed.
109
M. B. Ogle, “Petrus Comestor, Methodios and the Saracens, “ in Speculum 21
(July 1946), 320-322; The Syriac Pseudo-Methodios is concerned with the Arab Muslims,
the author of the Third Greek redaction identifies the Saracens with the sons of Ishmael,
and the Persians, under Cyrus, in the Syriac version are likewise enemies of the Empire.
The identification of the Saracens with the sons of Ismael is found in the third Greek
redaction of the Revelations, edited by Istrin (57): a0nasthsontai a0nasth\sontai a0n
tau~thj kata\ th~j tw~n 9Rwmai~wn oi9 ui9oi 0Isma/hl oi9 lego/menoi Sarakh\noiThe
editor, unfortunately, takes this to mean the text was composed in twelfth century
during the Crusades when “the Saracens were on everyone’s mind.” (99).
37
The symbolic prefiguration of an Ishmaelite invasion and the Crusade of the Last
Emperor in the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios are incorporated by Klontzas into the
narrative of the Ottoman expansion in the Chronographia. The first prophecy of
Methodios, concerning the punishment of the Greeks, is presented in the
Chronographia as having been fulfilled with the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. Klontzas
cites the passage concerning this event in Pseudo-Methodios following a full-page
illustration of the event 90r.110 This specific alignment with the Pseudo-Methodios
narrative in the Chronographia sets up a chain of events that will, either historically or
prophetically, end in the final expulsion of the Ishmaelites from the kingdom of
Christianity. This expulsion, I will suggest, occurs with the Holy League victory at
Lepanto. The fulfillment of this prophecy is supported by iconographic details in the
composite image on folio 140r.
Although originating in the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios, the Legend of the
Last Emperor became an important motif in the Byzantine apocalyptic literature.111 A
sixteenth-century paraphrasis, included in the prophetic section of the Chronographia,
expanded the allusion to this messianic figure in Pseudo-Methodios, specifically
including his mysterious revelation, instructions given to him by an angel sent from God,
110
Marc. Gr. VII, 22: Fol. 90v.
111
For a general overview of the Last Emperor Legend in Byzantine apocalyptic,
see Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic, 151-183; see also, Ibid., “Byzantium and the
Migration of Literary Works and Motifs: The Legend of the Last Emperor,” Medievalia et
Humanistica, no. 2 (1971), 47-68.
38
and his physical characteristics.112 From here the narrative continues in keeping with the
Pseudo-Methodios prophecy: the emperor gathers a great army, defeats the
Ishmaelites, and introduces a new era of peace and prosperity to the kingdom of
Christianity. In the Chronographia, however, the artist’s quotation of the paraphrasis in
the last portion of the manuscript gives Klontzas the opportunity to visualize a number
of the Last Emperor’s attributes. Apart from his physical characteristics, the Last
Emperor is depicted with a standard of the True Cross, given to him in the first image on
folio 155r by an angel of God. (Fig. 9a) In the pictorial narrative from this point on, the
Last Emperor is shown bearing the standard of the True cross in religious procession on
folio 157r (Fig. 9b)and carrying it into battle against the Ishmaelites on ff. 157v-159r.
(Fig. 9c)This visualization of the Last Emperor in the prophetic future section of the
Chronographia establishes the connection between the Apocalypse of Pseudo-
Methodios and the Battle of Lepanto as the Pope is shown being handed a standard of
the True Cross in the composite image on folio 140r. The positioning of the Angel
between the Pope and the Doge implies the Holy League, verses one individual,
symbolizes the Last Emperor, being the archetypal figure of Christian unity.
112
PG 107, 1141-1150. Narrated in its entirety in the Chronographia on ff. 152v-
154v.
39
4.1.3. The Oracles of Leo the Wise
The anthropomorphic figure of Selim II in the composite image of folio 140r is
likewise the product of a pattern of prediction and fulfillment in the Chronographia. On
folio 140r, this connection is signaled through his fantastic depiction and the label at the
top of the page that reads: “Here is the fulfillment of the oracle of Leo the Wise, where
he speaks of Selim”.113
The Oracles of Leo the Wise contain a series of six poems accompanied with
symbolic images. Each oracle corresponds to a different ruler within a dynasty and is
accompanied by a titulus characterizing their time in power. According to the Lambicius
edition of the oracles in PG 107, the oracles and their tituli appear in the following
order: (1) a bear feeding cubs, with no title114 (2)meta/noiaj (repentance), a winged-
115
serpent attacked by two ravens (3) e0pi/boulou (treachery), an eagle with a cross in
its beak116 (4) tomh\ (cut), a kingly figure holding a scythe and a rose/rose-bush117 (5)
113
See above, note 16.
114
PG 107, 1129
115
Ibid., 1129. In the Lambecius edition of the oracles, the first two oracles are
conflated, as they are in the Chronographia, since the image of the bear feeding cubs
had been lost to its source. This explains the lack of any tituli accompanying the first
oracle.
116
Ibid., 1129-1132.
117
Ibid., 1132-1133
40
e1parsij (ruin), a kingly figure riding a bull flanked on either side by decapitated
bodies118 (6) melismo\j (dismemberment/division), another bear feeding cubs.119
Although these oracles have existed, in either written or oral tradition, since the
twelfth century, they reached their greatest diffusion and received the common
iconography described above in the sixteenth-century, when they were associated with
the Ottoman sultans.120 The iconic images mentioned above are depicted by Klontzas at
the beginning of the reign of each sultan since the Fall of Constantinople: Mehmed II is
the first bear (Fig. 10a),121 Bayezid II is the serpent attacked by ravens (Fig. 8c),122 Selim I
is the eagle and the unicorn (Fig. 10b),123 Suleyman I is the figure with the scythe and
rose (Fig. 10c),124 Selim II is the figure on the bull with severed heads (Fig. 10d),125 and
Murad III, who was still reigning at the time of the manuscript’s production is the second
118
Ibid., 1133
119
Ibid., 1133
120
Mango lists a number of other versions of the Oracles with citations of their
critical editions. Ibid., 79, nos. 109-130.
121
Fol. 89r.
122
Fol. 98v.
123
Fol. 112v.
124
Fol. 120r.
125
Fol. 129r.
41
bear (Fig. 10e).126 These images frame the pictorial narrative of the Ottoman expansion,
by introducing and closing the reign of each sultan in an imperial and tomb portrait.127
Klontzas was not the first to associate the first six oracles of Leo the Wise with
the Ottoman sultans from Mehmed II to Murad III, although he was certainly the first to
incorporate the oracular text into an extensive historical chronicle. Other manuscripts
produced in the late sixteenth century included the Oracles of Leo the Wise as a singular
entity and made reference to historical figures through labels and historical allusions.
The former practice is exemplified in a Venetian manuscript, Marcianus Graecus VII,
3.128 The fourth oracle in this manuscript (Fig. 11) depicts a kingly figure holding a rose
and a scythe and is labeled Sulta\n Sulehma/nhj to associate the oracle and image with
the reign of the sultan Suleyman I. In contrast, the illustration of the fourth oracle in the
Codex Bute (Fig. 12a) and the Bodleian Barozzi 170 (Fig. 12b), both executed by
Klontzas, show an Ottoman sultan, verses the archetypal king, holding the same
attributes and standing atop a pile of dead soldiers. This image, reproduced by Klontzas
in the Chronographia on folio 120r, connects the Sultan Suleyman with the oracle
through costume and historical allusion, specifically by referencing the capture of
Rhodes by the sultan in 1522. The verbal similarities between Rose and Rhodes further
validate the oracle by recognizing its historical fulfillment.
126
Fol. 145v.
127
Murad III is the only sultan without a tomb portrait.
128
Lambros, Ne/oj 9Ellhnomnh/mwn 19 (1925), 110-113. Reproduced in Rigo,
Oracula Leonis, 73-99.
42
In Klontzas’ visual interpretation of the oracles, historic and oracular figures are
conflated in a similar manner to the figure of Selim II in the composite image on folio
140r. Having been familiar with the prototypes from the Barozzi commissions, Klontzas
orchestrates this juxtaposition of history and oracle in the images to validate the
position of the former at the end of an apocalyptic narrative. On folio 129r, the sultan is
shown riding atop a bull with two severed heads on either side. While the severed
heads are explained on the next page by the sultan’s execution of his brothers, the bull
figured is explained in the oracular text below the image: “the bull is the fifth and the
last of the bear feeders”.129 The Oracles of Leo the Wise thus predict that a bull-like king
will be the fifth and last ruler of the dynasty. This prophecy, which associates Selim II
chronologically with the fifth oracle, explains the sultan’s anthropomorphic appearance
in the composite image. Moreover, the oracle of Selim II, stating his reign will mark the
end of the dynasty, is fulfilled in the crushing defeat of the Ottoman navy by the Holy
League at the Battle of Lepanto.
4.1.4. The Xerolophus Column
Another aspect of the composite image, specifically the column along the left
border, borrows from the established iconography of the Oracles of Leo the Wise and
supports a reading of the Battle of Lepanto as fulfilling the destiny of a prefigured
temporal order. The column appears in the same fictive landscape, standing atop the
129
Marc. Gr. VII, 22. Fol. 129r. “H bou~j de\ pe/mpton kai\ te/loj a0rktotro/fou to\
sxh~ma fai/nei kai\ to\n to/pon kai\ to\n tro/pon”.
43
open tomb of a dead king and in front of a walled city, within an illustrated series of the
Oracles of Leo the Wise in the Bodleian Library (Bodl. Barocc. 145). 130 (Fig. 13) According
to Imgard Hutter, the manuscript took its final form under the commission of Francesco
Barozzi prior to the Barocc. 170 completed in 1577.131 She attributes a terminus ante
quem of 1573/1575 to this manuscript.132 The illustrator is unknown, but, I propose,
given the similar composition of the column image, that Klontzas had access to this
manuscript and thus used it as a source for his own illustrations in the Barocc. 170 and
the Chronographia.
The artist of Barocc. 145 renders the column in the same manner as it is
presented in the Chronographia, with five central figures surrounding a snake and seven
more figures split between the top and bottom portions of the column. A versified
oracle, accompanying the image in the Bodleian manuscript and translated from the
original Greek by Cyril Mango, explains the allusive iconography:
“There is a column in Constantinople, and it stands in a place

called Xerolophus. It is a piece of carved white marble, most beautiful,
and it has all the oracles that were made there by the son of Basil the
Macedonian, Leo the most-wise, the great emperor. For he says that five
kings descended from Hagar will, by the dispensation of God, our Master
and Lord, rule this city – I mean Constantinople – and dominate it with
great might. He has these kings carved on the column, and in their hands
they hold bared swords; and in the midst of the five rulers stands an
130
On Baroccianus 145, see Hutter, pp. 74-79 and figs. 585-620. The image of the
Xerolophus column is fig. 619, and appears on folio 257v of the manuscript.
131
I. Hutter, 74.
132
Ibid. 74.
44
upright snake, most savage of aspect. And of the fifth he says that he will
forthwith come to an end, and a Christian emperor will once more rule
this city…”133
The fifth sultan following the capture of Constantinople in 1453 was Selim II (1566-
1574), and the mention of descendents from Hagar thus definitively points to a
sixteenth-century conception of the oracles as referring to the Ottoman Sultans. The
mention of the descendents of Hagar furthermore connects the Oracles of Leo the Wise
to the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios, since the later established the conflict between
Christianity and the Ishmaelites.
The reference to the Ottoman sultans is emphasized further by a list of the
Ottoman sultans, from Orchan I to Murad III, which is written to the right of the column.
134
Furthermore, beneath the names of Suleyman and Selim II, the author/artist has
written epithets concerning the historical takeovers of Rhodes and Cyprus. In the Codex
Bute, which has been attributed a contemporaneous date of composition, and Barocc.
170, these two historical Ottoman victories are emphasized by Klontzas in the oracular
133
Barocc. 145, Fols. 257r-257v. Mango translates this oracle from a fragment in
Berlin (Staatliche Bibl. 297): Ibid. 79, no. 109. N.A. Bees, Peri\ tou~ i9storhme/nou
xrhsmologi/ou th~j Kratikh~j Biblioqh/khj tou~ Beroli/nou (Codex Graecus fol.
62=297) kai\ tou~ qru/lou tou~ “marmarwme/nou basili~a”, in Byzantinisch-
Neugriechische Jahrbucher 13 (1936/37), 242-244a. The image in the Berlin manuscript
is very similar to the Barocc. 145 image, thereby pointing to an established iconographic
tradition. However, the Berlin manuscript, although alluding to the Turkish sultans in the
oracle, depicts western kings on its shaft, rather than sultans.
134
This list, however, must have been a later edition, since the text was
composed prior to the reign of Murad III. However, it is interesting that the author/artist
of this image refers to the capture of Cyprus as the defining event in the reign of Selim II
instead of the Battle of Lepanto, since the latter validates the prophecy of Leo the Wise.
45
images. In addition to the historical allusion in the oracular image of Suleyman
mentioned above, the traditional iconography of the fifth oracle is depicted atop a
cartographic landscape outlining the island of Cyprus. (Fig. 14a,b) It should be noted
that only these two oracular images in the two Barozzi commissions illustrated by
Klontzas make reference to an historical event, thus strengthening the comparison
between these manuscripts and the Barocc. 145.
The tradition of a column that stands on the Xerolophus has a long tradition in
Byzantine apocalyptic and historical literature.135 The Xerolophus (“dry hill”) was located
in southwest Constantinople and was called the seventh hill of the city. In the Byzantine
apocalyptic tradition, the Xerolophus hill is said be the only dry spot to remain following
135
See, for example, a short history of the Xerolophus column, written by
Manuel Malaxos, is included in Barocc. 145 following the Oracles of Leo the Wise. In it,
Malaxos outline an ancient tradition claiming these oracles, or some version of them,
were deciphered by the Emperor Leo VI, the wise, from cryptic inscriptions written on
the column since the reign of Septimius Severus.135 According to Malaxos, the Roman
Emperor Septimius Severus when attempting to capture the city of Byzantium set up a
camp atop the Xerolophus hill. Frustrated by the resilience of the Byzantine people who
were staunchly defending their city, Severus consulted an astrologer and philosopher by
the name of John to predict the outcome of the war. The astrologer, having consulted
the horoscope of the night sky, predicted the city would be the capital of the Roman
Empire for a number of years. The stars, the author claims, gave the names of the
Emperors who would reign from the city up to the coming of the Antichrist. Severus, in
commemoration of this fortunate prediction, erected a column upon the Xerolophus hill
and sculpted the names of the emperors up to the end of time upon its shaft. However,
when the city became the capital of the Roman Empire, under Constantine I, after much
inquiry, Malaxos states, the names or images inscribed upon the column could not be
interpreted. (lns. 139-55) A number of other attempts to interpret the figures on the
column are listed, but none were successful until the reign of Leo VI. Thus one reaches
the origin, according to the author, of the Oracles of Leo the Wise, which, he claims, are
the wise Emperor’s interpretation of the symbols carved into the Xerolophos column. G.
Dagron and J. Paramellem “Un texte patriographique: “Le recit merveilleux, tres beau et
profitable sur la colonne du Xerlophus’ (Vindob. Suppl. gr. 172, fol. 43v-63v),” Travaux et
Memoires 7 (1979): 491-523.
46
a great flood at the end of time, thus drawing upon its etymological origin (chro/j=dry).
The author of the Visions of Daniel mentions the Xerolophus as the only beacon
remaining after an apocalyptic flood, signaling the location of the great city now covered
with water.136 Klontzas alludes to the Xerolophus column as it is described in the Visions
of Daniel on folio 173r in the Chronographia, when he depicts the aftermath of a great
flood with only one column remaining in the sea. The figure below the column in the
Barocc. 145 and the Chronographia points to another tradition, regarding a legendary
column built by Constantine in 330 in commemoration of the new capital, which
likewise held a piece of the true cross believed to have been discovered by his mother,
Helena.137 The body of the Emperor is said to have been buried beneath this column,
thereby explaining the iconography of the entombed king in the composite image. The
figure of the Last Emperor, in Byzantine apocalyptic tradition, is closely linked to the
Constantine through the attribute of the True Cross. The illustrations of the prophetic
figure in the Chronographia, who carries a standard of the True Cross into battle, are
certainly meant to be compared with the image of Constantine at the Battle of the
Milvian bridge on folio 84v (Fig. 15).138
136
Vasilakis, 44: “…kai\ eu0qu\j seisqh/setai h9 e9pta/lofoj kai\
katapontisqh/setai su/myuxoj e0n buqw~| kai\ mo/noj o9 chro/lafoj e2stai
faino/menoj,…”. Istrin, 138, ln. 9, 141, ln. 34.
137
Ryden, Andreas Salos, 211, ln. 288, quoted in Rigo, no. 24.
138
The author of the Sybilline Oracles refers to the Last Emperor as Constans.
Alexander, 166.
47
I have left the Xerolophus column to the end of this iconographic explication
because it creates a bridge, both visually and traditionally, between the Apocalypse of
Pseudo Methodios and the Oracles of Leo the Wise. On the visual level, Klontzas,
although drawing upon previous depictions of the column in illustrated version of the
Oracles, places historical figures and their oracular and apocalyptic symbols within the
once open fictive landscape. In doing so, Klontzas is able to emphasize the mutual
fulfillment of all three. On an interpretive level, the oracle accompanying the
Xerolophus image specifically refers to the sons of Hagar. Additionally, previous
depictions likewise presented a tomb of the “Last Emperor” at the bottom of the
column. Therefore, this aspect of the composite image’s iconography specifically points
to the artist’s intention to conflate both traditions within a single event and upon a
single abstracted landscape.
4.2. Cyclical, Linear and Historical Time
The Oracles of Leo the Wise and the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios signify
different symbolic systems of understanding events as they occur in time. 139 The also
signify two different conceptions of time in the Chronographia: cyclical and linear. In the
present thesis, both will be understood as eschatological, in that the former points to
time in eternity while the latter necessitates a definitive end of time. Linear
139
E. Cassirer, The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1965). Cassirer distinguished six basic symbolic systems of time; myth, language,
science, religion, art and history.
48
eschatological time is shaped by the Judeo/Christian belief in a finite beginning and end
of time. As mentioned above, Pseudo-Methodios’ Apocalypse situates the beginning of
time in 5500, in the first millennium, and is constantly spinning toward the end, the
apocalypse and the Second Coming. By incorporating the Ottoman expansion into this
apocalyptic narrative, Klontzas presents a layer of linear eschatological time in this
section of the Chronographia. Cyclical eschatological time, on the other hand, views
time in terms of nature, the cosmos, and the stages of human life. This latter conception
of time has many forms, among which is the natural cycle of growth, maturity and
decay, and the cosmic cycle typified by the months and seasons. The Oracles of Leo the
Wise conceptualize time as a cyclical pattern, as they predict the growth, maturity and
decay of a dynasty. Following the fifth oracle, which predicted the end of the dynasty,
the sixth Leonine oracle, associate in the Chronographia with Murad III, predicts a time
of transition and confusion after which a new order of time, an eternal peace, will
commence.140 Time, in the Oracles of Leo the Wise, does not proceed toward a finite
end, but rather toward new beginnings.
A third level of time, namely historical time, is represented in the composite
image on folio 140r in the figures of Selim II, Alvise Mocenigo and Pope Pius V. On a
basic level, the historical narrative of the Chronographia offers a view of the real-life
events that these apocalyptic and oracular texts supposedly predict. As such, the
pictorial narrative of the historical Ottoman expansion has been largely overlooked, as
140
PG 107, 1133: “natural time is aborted for it is predestined (to occur) at the
end of time.”
49
previous interpreters of the manuscript have been unable to separate it from the
oracles framing the lives of the sultans or the apocalyptic narrative of Pseudo-
Methodios. In her dissertation, Angela Volan distinguishes this third conception of time
as existing apart from the eschatological or oracular portions of the text. However, she
argues that it is derived from the contemporary genre of Italian humanist
historiography, thereby giving no thought to the carefully constructed pictorial
narrative.141
It is thus not surprising that previous studies of the Chronographia have
dismissed the two-page aerial projection of Crete on folia 149v-150r. (Fig. 16a)They
have thus failed to recognize the distinct message presented in the triad of symbolic
figures: the horoscope, the anagram, and the apocalyptic messengers of God. This
image of the capital of Crete, Candia, will be the focus of the following discussion of
time in the visual narrative of the Ottoman expansion. In the middle of the image
situated above the cityscape the artist has included a circular anagram with the letters
GRNMKPLO and beneath these the letters DOUK.(Fig. 16b) Paliouras offers a
convincing interpretation of this anagram as referring to the Duke of Crete, Geronimo
Kapello (1590-92).142 As the last historical allusion in the Chronographia, we can
141
Volan takes the position, furthermore, that the author is unknown, that
Klontzas was merely the scribe and illustrator. This allows her to imagine the manuscript
be created by whomever she wants, such as Francesco Barozzi. see Volan, 255-258.
142
Palioras, 140.
50
confidently interpret this image as a representation of present time – the artist’s own
time and his own Candia.
Two set of images framing the anagram point to linear and cyclical eschatological
conceptions of time in the manuscript. In the upper left corner, the artist depicts a
series of astrological figures, (Fig. 16c) of which only Scorpio and Gemini can be readily
distinguished. These symbols do not reproduce the horoscope in its proper order and
thus can be said to serve only as representation of the cyclical nature of time tied to the
movement of the constellations. A third order of time, namely the eschatological
conception, is represented in the upper right corner with an angel bearing a sword and
scales of judgment and a dark wingless figure holding a scythe. (Fig. 16d) The
apocalyptic nature of these two enigmatic figures has led Paliouras to suggest this
image, with the masses of dead bodies depicted below, depicts a plague. However, the
ambiguous nature of the cityscape below appears to have detracted from an important
message presented quite clearly by the artist. Three orders of time, distinguished by
general representative forms, are depicted on the same level in this image.
In Chapter 4 Section 1, two orders of prefigured time have been distinguished in
the frontispiece to the battle of Lepanto, namely oracular/cyclical and
apocalyptic/linear. By means of Klontzas’ interpretation, as both author and artist, these
prefigurations come to fulfillment in this historical event. In Time and Narrative, Paul
Ricouer explains such a moment of synchronicity as “the destiny of a prefigured time
51
that becomes a refigured time through the mediation of a configured time.” 143 In the
Chronographia, Klontzas’ interpretation (configured time) of the Apocalypse of Pseudo-
Methodios and the Oracles of Leo the Wise (prefigured time) comes to fulfillment in the
Battle of Lepanto (refigured time). This three-part process is made all the more explicit
when the third order of time, namely historical, presented in the panoramic view of
Crete on ff. 149v-150r, is taken into account.
4.3. Configurations of Time in the Pictorial Narrative
Paul Ricouer assigns history, like oracular and prophecy, to symbolic discourse as
a prefiguration of time.144 Accordingly, the pictorial narrative of the Ottoman expansion
will by analyzed as a configuration of prefigured time, just as the Oracles of Leo the Wise
and the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios are incorporated into this section of the
Chronographia. However, oracles and apocalyptic are both allegorical conceptions of
time, while history, being composed of real events, is in a classification of its own.
Klontzas’ depiction of history, although framed (sometimes literally) by cyclical/oracular
and linear/apocalyptic time, is not guided by either of them. In the following analysis of
the pictorial narrative of the Ottoman expansion, time, bound by neither linear nor
cyclical patterns, will be revealed as the malleable tool of the artist utilized in various
ways to present his own conception of history.
143
P. Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, 54.
144
Ibid., 57-59.
52
The following analysis of the pictorial narrative will begin by recognizing the
basic unifying features of the visual field, specifically noting the artist’s employment of
an abstracted cartographic landscape and the block-formation of the army.145 This
abstraction of the visual field mirrors the process of translating historical fact or event
into narrative form.146 The cartographic landscape, on the one hand, reflects the use of
symbolic structures (myths, allegories, oracles) through, or upon, which action is
narrated. On the other hand, the abstracted geometric figuration of the army allows
Klontzas to depict this body of men as an extenuation of the sultan, whom they follow.
Accordingly, the artist is able to articulate the actions of the sultan through the direction
of the abstracted army. These compositional devices, moreover, highlight the extent to
which Klontzas’ historical narrative is a carefully constructed visual interpretation of
events. Although the contents of the pictorial narrative are real events, the form in
which these historical events present themselves is constructed by the artist.
4.3.1. Unifying Compositional Strategies
The abstracted landscape which time is grafted upon by the artist emulates a
cartographic model, labeled as such because of its resemblance to the minimalistic
145
On the map as a temporal, ideological and spatial construct at this time, see
B. Wilson, 157-161.
146
H. White, The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical
Representation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), 47. “The only logic
presiding over the transition from fact/event to narrative,” White states,“is that of
figuration, or tropology.”
53
coastlines depicted in early atlases. Topographic particulars, both physical and
geopolitical, are abstracted so as to provide a uniform landscape upon which the artist
can construct his visual narrative free of spatial constraints. The recognition of this
unifying spatial feature will thus be crucial for an understanding of the way time is
presented, or “mapped out”, by Klontzas in the pictorial narrative.
The successful legibility of the composite image on folio 140r is due in large part
to the singular landscape employed by the artist that acts as a unified surface against
which characters and events, although separated spatially and temporally, may be read
as a whole. The artist uses a similar technique in the pictorial narrative of the Ottoman
expansion. On folio 102v, (Fig. 17) for example, Klontzas depicts Bayezid II’s campaigns
in Albania along the Dalmation coast, showing the sultan and his armies twice, once in
the upper portion of the abstracted cartographic coastline approaching the city of
Durazzo and again in the lower portion approaching the city of Aulon. 147 Another similar
composition, also occurring in the reign of Bayezid II, is depicted on folio 106v (Fig. 18),
in the sultan’s capture of two strategic Venetian ports on the Adriatic, Modon and
148
Coron. In both instances, space and time are collapsed through the minimalistic
topography as only the shoreline of the region is delineated. The artist, Klontzas, thus
147
Bayezid’s Albanian campaign to Durazzo (August 14, 1501). Shaw, 75.
148
Shaw, 63. The “eyes of the Republic”, as they were called, Modon and Coron
were captured by Bayezid in 1500, thus forcing the Venetians to seek peace with the
Ottoman sultan.
54
employs the abstracted cartographic landscape to emphasize the overarching program
of the Ottoman sultans and to unify the conception of individual historical events.
The cartographic model thus abstracts real time and real space so that narrative
time, controlled by Klontzas, might follow movement from place to place and event to
event.149 The cartographic landscape remains a tool of the artist through which he is
able to conceptualize the history of the Ottoman expansion in visual form.
The abstracted figuration of the Ottoman army in these scenes serves a similar
mechanical function in the unification of the pictorial narrative as the cartographic
model, as both features serve to compress time and space and reinforce the principle
action within the visual field. In the cartographic examples mentioned above, specifically
on folio 92v and 102v, the presence of the abstracted block formation of the Ottoman
army is emphasized by the birds-eye view perspective. As seen from above, the strategic
positioning of this body of men is primarily visualized as the strong arm of the sultan,
either reinforcing his advances from behind or foreshadowing the direction of his
offences in front.
In these images, the procession of the Ottoman army outlines the artist’s
intended line of vision with the sultan or the city situated at its axis. The geometric
directional purpose of this abstracted group is emphasized on folio 127v, (Fig. 19) as the
army, surrounding the sultan, Suleyman, creates a clear arrow-head in the direction of
advancement, or on folio 106v where the distant image of the army in the upper
149
See Wilson’s discussion of cartographic allegories in Venice. The World in
Venice, 153.
55
portions of the visual field tapers off in the direction of a port city on the island of
Moron. These abstract vectors created by the geometric block formation of the army
thus lead direction of the action across the abstracted landscape.
4.3.2. Configurations of Time
Armed with the basic structures of the visual field, we might turn to how time is
figured in the pictorial narrative. Paul Ricouer distinguishes two parts to the historical
narrative: the episodic dimension and the configurational dimension. 150 The latter of
these two elements incorporates plot structures so that significant wholes may be
construed out of scattered, episodic, events. Klontzas’ depiction of historical time in the
pictorial narrative can be divided into four configurations: a series of images that give
the illusion of linear progression; highly abstracted landscapes depicting multiple
episodes in a totality; bird’s eye view battle scenes; and two-page panoramic images.
Although only a few representative examples of each will be analyzed, all four ways of
depicting time are utilized multiple times by the artist in variation.
The first configuration of time in the pictorial narrative mirrors a familiar
conception of time as progressing linearly through space. An example of a pictorial
sequence in the Ottoman expansion where time is conceived in this linear fashion
occurs when the author wishes to emphasize the Ottoman navy’s campaigns in the
Mediterranean. Klontzas shows the Ottoman navy leaving Berna on folia 95r (Fig. 20a)
150
Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, 67.
56
and sailing across the page to their destination at Otranto on 95v, (Fig. 20b) emphasizing
their forward progression by the homologous direction of the sails. 151 The armada again
transgresses frame and page across folia 138r – 139r (Fig. 21 a-c) as they island hop
between Souda, Tzanes, and Corfu, leaving a path of destruction in their wake. 152
A similar configuration occurs between ff. 121v and 123r. In these miniatures,
Klontzas narrates the military expedition of Ferhad Pasha, the Grand Vizier of Suleyman
I (1520-1566), sent by the sultan to quell an Anti-Ottoman revolt in Beirut led by the
governor Jambardi (also called “Cambardi”) al-Ghazali. 153 The situation is outlined in the
lower paragraph of folio 121r, beneath which is an imperial portrait of Suleyman holding
a sword and a shield. The actions, however, are visualized across the next three folia, as
Suleyman gives orders to Ferhad in the upper framed image on 121v and we see Ferhad
leaving on horseback below. (Fig. 22a) Ferhad continues on his journey on folio 122r,
(Fig. 22b) here without an army, travelling over an abstracted cartographic landscape
that the author has left free of explanatory labels (i.e cities, countries, regions). 154 The
only identifying label is an abbreviation of fara\t, written above the vizier. On folio
151
The Historical episode illustrated here occurred in 1480. Paliouras, 119. On
the Ottoman invasion of Otranto, see Shaw, 69-70.
152
On these Mediterranean raids prior to Lepanto, see Ibid., 178.
153
D. E. Pitcher, An Historical geography of the Ottoman empire: from the
earliest of times to the end of the sixteenth century. (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 110.
154
According to Pitcher (110), Grand Vizier Ferhad Pasha traveled to Belgrade via
Filibe and Nis. The text explaining the image on folio 122r is completely obstructed.
57
122v (Fig. 22c) Ferhad continues his journey, now accompanied by an army of soldiers
arranged to allow strategic mobility and protect the general/vizier out front. A large
Islamic flag waves above the soldiers’ heads. No explanatory text is offered above or
within the framed image. The Ottoman army arrives in Beirut and a battle is depicted on
folio 123r (Fig. 22d) wherein this linear figuration of time is by a battle scene. By
abstracting the landscape in these images, Klontzas is able to collapses the distance,
spatial and temporal, between Ferhad’s departure from Constantinople and his final
destination in Beirut.
A second configuration of time occurs in images when the artist wishes to
present a number of events, separated by time and geographical location, within the
context of a larger military campaign or a specific narrative of events. In both of these
instances, Klontzas uses the cartographic landscape, mentioned above, and aerial
perspective. Through the employment of these compositional devices, the artist is
afforded the opportunity to see the coherence of the whole while, at the same time,
selecting the parts that constitute it. On folio 92v (Fig. 23), for example, the artist shows
Mehmed II and his army strategically capturing the Morea (Peloponnese) and its
surrounding islands.155 Klontzas’ use of aerial perspective and an abstracted
cartographic landscape allows him to present Mehmed’s campaigns in the
155
Shaw, 63 and 69. Conquest of the Morea (July, 1460, recaptured Spring,
1464), of Lemon (1456, recaptured by the Venetians in 1469), Negroponte (1470),
Mytilini (July 3, 1462). The campaign illustrated by Klontzas is thus probably the
Ottoman-Venetian war that began in September of 1463 and ended with a peace treaty
signed in Constantinople on June 25, 1479.
58
Mediterranean as a whole, rather than a series of individual takeovers. These four
conquests of Mehmed II represent the Ottoman-Venetian War that began in September
of 1463 and ended with a peace treaty in Constantinople on June 25, 1479. The
historical meaning of these events is thereby created by the artist, as he organizes them
within a single visual field. However, the totalizing effect of these compositional devices
also permits Klontzas to select the specific conquests he wishes to call attention to.
Therefore, the artist is able to emphasize the rapid geopolitical expansion of the
Ottoman Empire following Constantinople, a theme that will develop throughout the
pictorial narrative.
Another example of multiple episodes depicted within a single frame, occurs on
folio 101v (Fig. 24), where the artist shows the flight of Bayezid II’s brother Cem from
Asia to Rome.156 This image differs from those images where Klontzas’ wishes to
emphasize an entire military campaign, mainly because of the inclusion of a plot
structure. By showing multiple events upon an abstract landscape in aerial perspective,
Klontzas presents Cem’s flight as a story, with a beginning, middle and end. The
episodes on folio 101v are meant to be read in a backwards S pattern from left to
right.157 The textual commentary in the image is more detailed than simple geographical
156
For a historical account of these events and the situation between Bayezid
and his brother Cem, see Shaw, 71-72.
157
Once this configuration is realized, then the events proceed thusly from top
to bottom: Cem escapes Asia on a ship and sails to Rhodes where a label claims “the
island of Rhodes where Cem came” (“to\n h9si/on th~j r9o/dou o4pou h0lqen o9 geme”); Cem
sails to Rome, “the ship that carried Cem to Rome” (“to\ karabi o4pou feren to\n gene
59
labels, as it traces the route of Cem from his escape in Asia. Both text and image show
Cem leaving Asia by ship to the island of Rhodes. Proceeding to the left, a ship leaves
Rhodes for Rome where he is shown bowing to the pope, Innocent III.158 To the right of
this is a funerary portrait of Cem, likewise identified by a label.159 The abstracted
landscape and perspective fills in the temporal and spatial gaps between the beginning,
middle and end of Klontzas’ narrative.
The third configuration is the most frequently employed by the artist in the
pictorial narrative and is reserved for full page renderings of single battles. These images
are presented in a bird’s eye view perspective, where, due to a high horizon line, the
artist is able to devote the entire graphic field to the representation of multiple
moments in battle. Although, technically, these images depict one historical event, the
artist delineates separate episodes within the course of the battle or occurring in
ei0j to\n r0wman”); Cem arrives in Rome which is signified by the depiction of his
presentation to the Pope. Then the narrative proceeds to the right, with the “Death of
Cem” (“o9 qa/natoj tou~ geme”). For a historical account of these events and the
situation between Bayezid and his brother Cem, see Creasy, 120.
158
This image references the historical account of Cem’s arrival in Rome, where
he refused to kneel before the pope
159
What is neither shown nor narrated in the paragraph below are the
circumstances of Cem’s death. Alexander Borgia succeeded Pope Innocent I and tried to
make a deal with Bayezid I, who had previously paid Pope Innocent III to keep Cem in
Italy, that, if the sultan would pay a larger amount, the Borgia Pope would simply
execute the prince. Traditions differ, but most agree that Bayezid gave no answer, and,
when transferring the prince from Rome to France, the brother of the sultan died
mysteriously in Naples. Bayezid pronounced three days of mourning after the death of
his brother, but traditions question if he actually had Cem poisoned and the mourning
was just for show. Creasy, 120.
60
consequence by situating them vertically within a hierarchical temporal arrangement.
The height of battle is always depicted in the center of the image, while a cityscape is
depicted above and the aftermath below. On folio 93r (Fig. 25) two episodes can be
distinguished within the frame, a battle taking place above where canons blast out a
defensive wall that has apparently been breached by the opposing army, and the public
beheading of a leader below, with the sultan enthroned to his right ordering his
assassination. Labels identify the figures in the bottom scene as Mehmed II and the
leader of the Serbians, and the text above identifies the city in the background as
Bosnia. From the text above and the labels, we can interpret this scene as depicting the
Ottoman invasion of Bosnia in 1462-66 and its aftermath, specifically the assassination
of the last Bosnian king, Stephan, which occurred in Constantinople three years later.160
Although occurring at different times and in different locations, these two episodes are
brought together by the artist within a single frame and positioned in a vertical
hierarchical arrangement so that the liminal periods within the narrative, or those years
occurring between the battle and the execution, are eliminated.
A similar composition occurs on folio 103r, (Fig. 26) which depicts the Ottoman
victory over the Mamluk sultan of Egypt. Like the image on folio 93r, the battle occurs in
the middle and its aftermath, which occurred some years later, is depicted along the
160
On the invasion of Bosnia and the assassination of the last king of Bosnia, see,
Kinross, 132-33. King Stephan agreed to capitulate if the sultan’s Grand Vizier, Mahmud
Pasha, would agree to spare his life. Mahmud agreed to this, but when Mehmed II
learned of his leniency he was furious. The sultan thus ordered Stephan’s execution,
three years later, in Constantinople. Kinross mentions that some say the sultan
beheaded the king himself.
61
bottom.161 In the reign of Selim I the Ottomans were once again forced to quell an
uprising against the Mamluks, and Klontzas utilizes the same vertical compositional
structure as he had in the previous battles.162 At the bottom of folio 118r, (Fig. 27) the
sultan Selim orders the Mamluk leader, Tamun Bey, to be executed by hanging, while
two other episodes from this historical conflict are depicted above, with the battle at
Cairo occurring in the middle of the image and the escape of Tamun Bey over a river in
the upper right corner. It should be noted that these two events occurred
simultaneously, but the artist makes full use of the space allotted by the framed image
by depicting the escape above and labeling it “when Tamun Bey traversed the river”.163
The final presentation of time, the two-page aerial view, is actually distinguished
for the lack of temporal action delineated in these images by the artist. Here, Klontzas’
extreme distance from the ground turns the subject into abstracted topographic
symbols upon a cartographic projection of space. All of these images, of which there are
only five, are situated around the Battle of Lepanto. Beginning with the capture of
Cyprus, they all depict events that either led to or were a result of the Holy League
victory at Lepanto.
161
In the image on folio 103r, when compared to the image on folio 93r, instead
of ordering the execution of the leader of the opposing army, Bayezid II is shown to be
much more diplomatic than his father, as he is shown pardoning the Egyptian sultan
below, thus making Egypt a vassal state to the Ottoman Empire.
162
On the Mamluk uprising, led by Tamun Bey, in 1517, see Shaw, 170.
163
Marc. Gr. VII, 22. Fol. 118r. o3tan e0pe/rasen o9 to/monmpeij.
62
The first of these images is occurs in the artist’s conception of the capture of
Famagusta, the capital of Cyprus, on folia 131v-132r. (Fig. 28) Klontzas labels the Turkish
armada leaving port from Constantinople in the upper right corner, their arrival at the
port of Cyprus in the upper right of the island and the upper left at Famagusta, and their
decent into the interior of the island from both ports. Another two-page aerial scene is
depicted on the next folia, across 132v-133r. The scene shows the Cypriot refugees
arriving by ship to Crete, specifically the port of Heraklion, as the general Bragundino
had arranged following a siege of three months with the Ottoman general Mustafa. 164 In
the upper right the artist depicts the island of Rhodes, from which the Turkish fleet was
dispatched to Cyprus to retrieve the refugees of Nicosia. Here, Klontzas highlights the
extent to which Crete was involved in the Ottoman expansion within the
Mediterranean, although remaining a Venetian colony. The island became a safe haven
and a gathering place for displaced Greeks as it had been after the fall of
Constantinople. The text below labels the scene: to\ ka/stron th~j Krh/thj. The Battle
of Lepanto (1571) is depicted in a two-page aerial image on folia 140v-141r, followed by
a similar aerial image of the capture of Modon on folia 141v-142r. The last of these two-
page aerial views is reserved for the image of Crete, discussed above, on folia 149v-
150r.
There are at least two possible reasons for the artist’s detachment from
narrating the historical progression of events. The first comes from the fact that these
164
Kinross, 266.
63
are events that took place in Klontzas’ own time and they had an immediate impact on
his own island, Crete. These are thus visual descriptions of events that have been well
documented by witnesses as well as historians. This left very little room for temporal
manipulation. The second reason refers back to the image of Crete on folia 149v-150r,
where all three structural systems of time (Cyclical, historical and eschatological) are
shown together in the sky above Candia. The harmony of these symbolic figurations of
time mirrors their mutual fulfillment at the Battle of Lepanto. The distance of Klontzas
from the landscape might further reflect the location of historical time as it is visualized
by the artist in the image of Crete. Therefore, this perspectival shift, when combined
with the conflation of time and space in the composite image on folio 140r, suggests
that historical, oracular and eschatological time all come to fulfillment in the
Chronographia in the Holy League victory at Lepanto. The historical events depicted
after the battle, including the capture of Modon and the panoramic image of Crete, are
likewise projected through 2-page aerial views, suggesting the continuation of this
harmony of temporal configurations up to the final historical allusion in the manuscript.
4.4. After Lepanto
Having recognized the different conceptions of time utilized by the artist in the
Chronographia, the final section of this study will return to the panoramic image of
Crete on folia 149v-150r to pose the question “What happens after Lepanto?” The three
conceptions of time presented in the upper portion of the image can now be seen as an
extension of the conflation of all three in the composite image on folio 140r. However,
64
this does not account for the massive amounts of dead bodies in Candia being moved
outside the walls of the city. Rigo, Volan and Paliouras have all suggested that this image
represents a plague. However, the present study will offer a different interpretation of
this image, drawing upon a statement made by the artist on folio preceding it. It is not
what is depicted in this image that gives insight into the artist’s goal in composing this
universal chronicle of world history. Rather, it is what is not depicted, namely any
reference to one of the many end-time scenarios offered by the artist following this
transitional image.
The frontispiece to Lepanto presents the battle as the fulfillment of Pseudo-
Methodios’ prophecy concerning the coming of a Last Emperor and the expulsion of the
Ishmaelites, underscored by the fulfillment of the Oracles of Leo the Wise concerning
the end of a great dynasty. Through the reference made to the Xerolophus column,
these two symbolic prefigurations come together. The Ottoman Empire, under the fifth
sultan Selim II, is the historical realization of the sons of Hagar, the Ishmaelites, and
after his expulsion a Christian king will once again reign in Constantinople. History,
however, defies the artist’s multi-layered pronouncement of a new era of Christian
domination.
On folio 148r, Klontzas gives insight into his interpretation of what happens after
Lepanto. He states:
“…and thus I put this down on paper, desiring to write

about the conclusion of the destruction of the kingdom of the
that one (Murad III), so that this oracle will also be fulfilled which
the wisest Emperor Leo made, saying: ‘in the eighty-first year
Ishmael will be expelled from the city of seven hill,’ and again
65
elsewhere this Emperor Leo said: ‘It is written at the end of
time’.”
This statement implies that oracle, which is actually a conflation of quotes from the
Apocalypse and the Oracles, will be fulfilled if Klontzas writes it down. Accordingly, the
panoramic image on the folia following this last statement of the artist visualizes this
oracular pronouncement and situates its fulfillment within the years 1590-1592, while
Gironimo Capello was Duke of Candia. The structures of time represented in the
Chronographia and discussed in the present study are thus, in this singular
pronouncement, on the one hand, reduced to being mere tools of the artist and author,
Klontzas, while, on the other hand, apparently maintaining the ability to dictate the
order of time.
It is not goal of the present study to speculate on the meaning of this image. Nor
is it possible within the boundaries of this inquiry to suggest the greater metaphysical
message of Klontzas’ final historical allusion, just as I do not attempt to understand the
nature of the final end-time scenarios presented in the last section of the
Chronographia. What this statement does show, however, is a distinctive commentary
by Klontzas concerning the role of the artist in the configuration of time.
66
CONCLUSION
The Chronographia of Georgios Klontzas is a product of its own time. The late
sixteenth-century was a time of geographical, astronomical, religious, historical and
artistic exploration. The union of these inquiries led to a radical reconceptualization of
man’s relationship to the world around him. Humanity began to seek truth in time,
rather than in a divine authority. Rather than look to the future for an end of time as
apocalyptic would entail, time was seen as subordinated to the historical narration of
the past. At the same time, the late sixteenth-century witnessed a resurgent interest in
oracles as a means of ordering the past and foretelling the future. Klontzas, a Greek
living in Venetian Crete, identified with all three of these conceptualizations of time: the
apocalyptic tradition of his Byzantine ancestors, the oracular tradition popularized
among Veneto-Cretans like Francesco Barozzi, and the historical past, memorialized in
the Fall of Constantinople and the Battle of Lepanto.
The goal of the present study has been to recognize the different conceptions of
time utilized by the artist in the recollection of the past and his visualization of the
present. I have begun with the composite image on folio 140r because the artist frames
the Battle of Lepanto as a point of convergence between two interpretive modes of
conceptualizing the past: allegorical (oracular and apocalyptic) and historical. While the
two allegorical modes, oracular and apocalyptic, are structured by a divine authority,
67
historical time is given form in the pictorial narrative by the artist. All three of these
conceptions of time represent symbolic systems, or prefigurations, which receive
meaning only when configured by the artist into a narrative. All three orders come to
fulfillment at the Battle of Lepanto, as it is visualized in the composite image on folio
140r. However, in the final historical allusion on folio 149v-150r, Klontzas suggests that
the entire pictorial narrative of the Ottoman expansion will come to an end, or be
fulfilled, only when he declares it to be so, specifically by writing and visualizing the final
oracle/prophecy. Just as allegory and history must be configured into a narrative by the
artist to have meaning, so too must all three conceptions of time presented in this
thesis, as individual aspects of the narrative, be refigured as a whole by the artist in their
final fulfillment. Klontzas’ Candia, depicted on folio 149v-150r, is therefore sacrificed by
the artist for the sake of historical and thus narrative fulfillment. The pictorial narrative
of the Ottoman expansion in the Chronographia is a locus for the Klontzas’ own
commentary regarding the role of the artist in visualizing the past, the present, and the
anticipated future. The answer to the question posed in the title of the present thesis,
“What happens after Lepanto?” is, therefore, whatever the author/artist Klontzas
envisions will occur.
68
APPENDIX:
FIGURES
69
Figure 1. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, folio 140r [after Rigo, Oracula, 61]
70
Figure 2. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, folia 140v-141r [after Rigo, Oracula, 62-63]
71
Figure 3. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22. Leather Cover [ after Paliouras, 61]
Figure 4. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, folio 74v [after Rigo, Oracula, 52]
72
Figure 5. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 120r [after Rigo, Oracula, 58]
Figure 6a. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, fol. 3r [microfilm: Marciana Library]
Figure 6b. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 78r [microfilm: Marciana Library]
73
Figure 7a. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, Fol. 64v [microfilm: Marciana Library]
Fig. 7b. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, Fol. 65v [microfilm: Marciana Library]
74
Figure 8a. Paris, Private Collection, Codex Bute, fol. 5v [after Vereecken and Hadermann-
Misguich, Les Oracles, Pl. VIII]
Figure 8b. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 170, fol. 6v [after Rigo, Oracula, 20]
75
Figure 8c. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, folio 98r. [after Rigo, Oracula Leonis, 54]
Figure 9a. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 155v [microfilm: Marciana Library]
76
Figure 9b. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 157r (detail)
[microfilm: Marciana Library]
Figure 9c. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 158v (detail)
[microfilm: Marciana Library]
77
Figure 10a. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 89r (detail) [after Rigo, Oracula, 51]
Figure 10b. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 112v (detail) [after Rigo, Oracula, 56]
78
Figure 10c. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 120r [after Rigo, Oracula, 58]
79
Figure 10d. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 129r [after Rigo, Oracula, 59]
Figure 10e. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 145v. [after Rigo, Oracula, 64]
80
Figure 11. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 3, fol. 3v [after Rigo, Oracula, 80]
81
Misguich, Les Oracles, Pl. X]
82
Figure 13. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 145, fol. 257v [after Hutter, Corpus der
byzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften, Vol. 2, fig. 619]
Misguich, Les Oracles, Pl. XI]
83
Figure 15. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, fol. 84v [microfilm: Marciana Library]
84
Figure 16. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII, 22, folia 148v-149r [microfilm: Marciana Library]
85
86
87
Figure 20a. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 9 [microfilm: Marciana Library]
Figure 20b. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 95v [microfilm: Marciana Library]
88
Figure 21a. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 138r [microfilm: Marciana Library]
Figure 21b. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 138v [microfilm: Marciana Library]
89
Figure 21c. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 139r [microfilm: Marciana Library]
Figure 22a. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, folio 121v [microfilm: Marciana Library]
90
Figure 22b. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, folio 122r [microfilm: Marciana Library]
Figure 22c. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 122v [microfilm: Marciana Library]
91
Figure 22d. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 123r [microfilm: Marciana Library]
Figure 23. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 92v [microfilm: Marciana Library]
92
Figure 24. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 101v [microfilm: Marciana Library]
Figure 25. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, fol. 93r [microfilm: Marciana Library]
93
94
Figure 28. Venice, Marciana Library, ms. gr. VII. 22, [microfilm: Marciana Library]
95
WORKS CITED
Aaerts, W.J and G.A.A. Kortekaas. Die Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodios die Ältesten
Griechischen und Lateinischen Übersetzungen. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium, vol. 569-570. Subsidia t. 97. Lovanii:Peeters, 1998.
Alexander, Paul J. “Byzantium and the Migration of Literary Works and Motifs: The
Legend of the Last Emperor,” Medievalia et Humanistica, no. 2 (1971): 47-68.
Alexander, Paul J. “The Last Emperor and its Messianic Origins,” JWCI 41 (1978): 1-15.
Alexander, Paul J. The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition. Dorothy deF. Abrahamse, ed.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.
Amantou, K. Sinaitika\ mnhmei~a a0ne/kdota (Para/rthma tou~ periodikou~

“Ellhnika/”). Athens, 1928.
Axeimastou, M.S. “ Ei0kw\n th~j Deute/raj Parousi/aj e0k thj~ Su/mhj,” Delti/on th~j
Xristianikh~j 0Arxaiologijh~j 0Etaipei/aj 4, no. 5 (1969).
Bees, Nikos A. “Peri\ tou~ i9storhme/nou xrhsmologi/ou th~j Kratikh~j Biblioqh/khj

tou~ Beroli/nou (Codex Graecus fol. 62=297) kai\ tou~ qru/lou tou~
“marmarwme/nou basili~a”, in Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbucher 13
(1936/37): 203-244.
Bicheno, Hugh. The Crescent and the Cross: The Battle of Lepanto, 1571. London: Cassell,
2003.
Blunt, Anthony. “El Greco’s ‘Dream of Philip II’: an Allegory of the Holy League,” JWCI 3
(1939-1940): 58-69.
Braudel , Fernand. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip
II, Vol. II (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 1027-1139
Chatzidakis, Manoles. Icons of Patmos: questions of Byzantine and post-Byzantine

painting. Thetis Xanthaki, trans. Athens: National Bank of Athens, 1985.
Chatzidakis, N. “Icon Painting in Crete during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,” in
Greek Frescoes and Icons from Byzantium to El Greco. Manoulis Chatzidakis, ed.
Catalogue of Exhibition held at the Royal Academy of Arts, London, 27thMarch –
21st June, 1987. Athens: Greek Ministry of Athens; Byzantine Museum of Athens,
1987.
96
Cormack, Robert. Painting the Soul: Icons, Death Masks, and Shrouds. London: Reaktion
Books, 1997.
Dagron, G. and Paramelle, M. “Un texte patriographique: “Le recit merveilleux, tres
beau et profitable sur la colonne du Xerlophus’ (Vindob. Suppl. gr. 172, fol. 43v-
63v),” Travaux et Memoires 7 (1979): 491-523.
Geffcken, J. Die Oracula Sibyllina. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902.
Gombrich, Ernst. “Celebrations in Venice of the Holy League and the Victory of
Lepanto,” in Studies in Renaissance and Baroque Art Presented to Anthony Blunt.
London: Phaidon, 1967.
Hadermann-Misguich, Lydie. “Le livres d’oracles illustres par Georges Klontzas. Leur
chronologie”, Zographe 26 (1997) [1998]: 133-138.
Hutter, Imgard. Corpus Byzantinischen Miniaturehandschriften. Vol. 2. Stuttgart:

Hiersmann, 1977.
Istrin, V.A. “Otrovenie Mefodiia Patarskago I Apokrificheskiia Videniia Daniila v

Vizantiiskoi I Slaviano-Russkoi Literaturakh,” Chteniia v Imperatorskom
Obshchestvie Istorii I Drevnostei Rossiiskikh pri Moskovskom Universitete. 2 Vols.
Moscow, 1897.
John of Damaskos. The Fathers of the Church, A New Translation: Saint John of
Damascus, Writings, Vol. 37. F. Chase, trans. New York: The Fathers of the
Church, 1958.
Kaegi, Walter E. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. Cambridge: University
Press, 1992.
Kaegi, Walter E. “Initial Byzantine Reactions to the Arab Conquest,” Church History 38.
Vol. 2 (June, 1969): 139-149.
Kinross, Patrick Balfour (Lord). The Ottoman Centuries: the rise and fall of the Turkish
empire. New York: William Morrow and company, 1977.
Konomou, Ntinou. To\ Mousei~o Zaku/nqou. Athens, 1967.
Kyriakou, Katerina. Oi9 i9storhme/noi xrhsmoi\ tou~ Le/ontoj tou~ Sofou~. Xeiro/grafh
para/dosh kai\ e0kdo/seij kata\ tou\j ie/ -iq/ ai0w~nej. Athens, 1995.
Lambros, Syridon. “9O Markiano\j kw~dic tou~ Krhto\j Gewrgi/ou Klo/ntza” Ne/oj
9Ellhnomnh/mwn 12 (1915): 41-52.
97
Laordas, Vasileos. “0O Markiano\j kw~dic tou~ Gewrgi/ou Klo/ntza kai\ oi9 peri\ Krh/thj
xrhsmoi/,” Krhtika\ Xronika\ 5 (1951): 231-245.
Lolos, Anastasios. Die Apocalypse des Pseudo-Methodios. Beiträge zur klassischen

Philologie, Heft 83. Meisenheim am Glan: 1975.
Mango, Cyril. “The Legend of Leo the Wise,” Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta 6
(Belgrade, 1960): 59-93. Reprinted in Ibid., Study XVI, Byzantium and its Image.
London: Variorum, 1984.
Mioni, Elpido. Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum Codices Graeci manuscript. 3 vols.
Rome: Librerio di Stato, 1960.
Murrin, Michael. History and Warfare in the Renaissance Epic. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1994.
Ogle, M.B. “Petrus Comestor, Methodios and the Saracens,“ Speculum 21 (July 1946):
318-324.
Paliouras, Athanasios. 9O Zwgra/foj Gew/rgioj Klo/ntzaj kai\ ai3 Mikrografi/ai tou~

Kw/dikoj au0tou~. Athens: Ekdoseis Gregore, 1977.
Pitcher, Donald Edgar. An Historical geography of the Ottoman empire: from the earliest
of times to the end of the sixteenth century. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
Reinink, G.J. Die Syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius. 2 vols. Corpus Scriptorium
Orietnalium, v. 540-541, Scriptores Syri, vol. 220-221. Louvain: Peeters, 1993.
Rigo, Antonio. Oracula Leonis: Tre manoscritti Greco-veneziani degli oracoli attribuiti
all’imperatore bizantino Leone il Saggio (Bodl. Baroc. Marc. gr. VII. 22, Marc. gr.
VII.2). Venice: Studio Editoriale Programma, 1988.
Ricoeur, Paul. Time and Narrative. Vol. 1. Kathleen McLaughlin and David Pellauer,
trans. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Setton, Kenneth M. The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571). Philadelphia: American
Philosophical Society, 1976.
Shaw, Stanford. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. 2 Vols. Cambridge:
University Press, 1976.
Vassiliev, A. Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina. Moscow: Universitas Caesarea, 1893.
98
Vereecken, Jeaninne and Lydie Hadermann-Misguich, eds. Les Oracles de Leon le Sage
illustres par Georges Klontzas: La version Barozzi dans le Codex Bute. Venice: the
Hellenic Institute of Venice and the Vikelaia Municiple Library of Herakleion,
2000.
Volan, Angela. “Last Judgments and Last Emperors: Illustrating Apocalyptic History in
Late and Post-Byzantine Art,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2005).
Whealey, Alice. “De consummatione mundi of Pseudo-Hippolytus: Another Byzantine

apocalypse from the early Islamic period,” Byzantion 69 (1996): 461-69.
White, Hayden. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical
Representation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 47.
Wilson, Bronwen. The World in Venice: Print, the City, and Early Modern Identity.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005.
99

Chronographia

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Chronographia

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

AFTER LEPANTO:

VISUALIZING TIME, HISTORY, AND PROPHECY IN THE CHRONOGRAPHIA OF GEORGIOS

Submitted to the Graduate School

of the University of Notre Dame

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Charles Barber, Director

Department of Art, Art History and Design

Notre Dame, Indiana

1.1. The Chronographia of Georgios Klontzas…………………………………………………………..2

1.2. An Allegory of the Battle of Lepanto…………………………………………………………………..6

Chapter 2: The Marcianus Codex cl. VII, 22 (=1466)……………………………………………………………....9

2.1. General Characteristics…………………………………………………………………………………......9

2.2. The Contents of the Manuscript…………………………………………………………………........10

2.2.1. Biblical and Legendary Past (ff. 1r-38r)…………………………………..............12

2.2.2. History of Islam: Mohammed to Murad III (ff. 38v-141v)……………........17

2.2.3. Prophetic Future Events (ff. 141v-204r)………………………………………........22

Chapter 3: The Life and Work of Georgios Klontzas…………………………………..............................27

Chapter 4: The Pictorial Narrative of the Ottoman Expansion…………………………………..............32

4.1. Visualizing Lepanto as the Fulfillment of History………………………………………..........32

4.1.1. The Battle of Lepanto……………………………………………………………………......32

4.1.2. The Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios………………………………………………..35

4.1.3. The Oracles of Leo the Wise………………………………………………………………...40

4.1.4. The Xerolophus Column………………………………………............................. ..43

4.2. Cyclical, Linear and Historical Time……..................................................................48

4.3. Configurations of Time in the Pictorial Narrative………………………………………….......52

4.3.1. Unifying Compositional Strategies………………........................................54

4.3.2. Configurations of Time……………………………………………………...................56

4.4. After Lepanto…………………………………………………………………………….........................64

Figure 8a: Paris, Private Collection, Codex Bute, fol. 5v [after

Figure 8b: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barocci 170, fol. 6v [after

in 1573 and the Holy League disbanded soon after.4

1.1. The Chronographia of Georgios Klontzas

When the Cretan icon-painter and miniaturist Georgios Klontzas (1540-1608)

understand their own temporality.

Ishmaelites. This account, attributed pseudonymously to the Bishop Methodios of

Ottoman Empire into a longer narrative of the divinely-ordered process of Christian

Klontzas’ manuscript is astonishing and has certainly not received sufficient

Subsequent literature has framed narrow aspects of the manuscript.13 Most

Emperor, an important feature of the Byzantine apocalyptic tradition, in the

Chronographia.14 Volan’s goals did not include a comprehensive analysis of the

the sixteenth-century, with the Chronographia merely offering a contemporary example

the text and miniatures are incorrect.15

1.2. An allegory of the Battle of Lepanto

skeletal figure of another king.

skeleton dressed in courtly/military garb and a bull dressed in an Ottoman sultan’s

concerning the sultan Selim II.

2.1. General Characteristics

The manuscript of Klontzas’ universal history is now held in the Bibliotheca

2.2. Contents of the Manuscript

Folia 1r-204v of the manuscript are dedicated to the Chronographia, which

manuscript is based upon a seventh-century Byzantine apocalyptic text attributed to

2.2.1. Biblical and Legendary Past (folia 1r-38r)

As mentioned above, the Chronographia is a universal history composed largely

from traditional Byzantine apocalyptic texts. Of these the Apocalypse of Pseudo-

for the narration of events.29

Klontzas leaves the Pseudo-Methodios apocalypse on folio 6v with the birth of

4 and 5 of the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios.31 This alteration by Klontzas allows him

Nebuchadnezzar (Fols. 13r-13v and 18v-19v),33 the Dream of Belshazzar concerning

Alexandria and Rome. 35

more detail below.

In the next portion of the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodios, the author sets up

Emperor. According to Methodios’ prophecy, a Last Emperor of the Romans (Byzantium)