"King's Painter" Tevdore and his Inscriptions

“King’s Painter” Tevdore and his inscriptions Nina Chichinadze* Ilia State University, Tbilisi UDC 003.623(=353.1):75.071.1Tevdore 75.052(479.22)”10/11” https://doi.org/10.2298/ZOG1842025C Оригиналан научни рад The paper deals with “King’s Painter” Tevdore and his inscriptions preserved in three churches of Upper Svaneti (northwestern highland region of Georgia) dated back to the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The textual and visual data allow us to reconstruct the status of the painter and his impact on the embellishment of these churches. The inscriptions are considered from various perspectives, with a special emphasis on their political and social context. Tevdore’s title stressing his ties with monarchic power aimed to extend the “royal presence” in Svaneti. The spatial constructs, creating semantic focuses for the display of authors’ inscriptions, permit an evaluation of his status and place in the given social system. Keywords: painters’ inscriptions, medieval Georgian art, David IV, Georgia, Svaneti, wall painting, King’s painter Tevdore Medieval Georgian monumental painting has preserved various types of artists’ inscriptions revealing a complex “communication system” developed within Orthodox Christian culture. Textual and visual materials demonstrate diverse forms and strategies applied by artists for their self-representation.1 In monumental * nino_chichinadze@iliauni.edu.ge 1 Inscriptions of medieval artists are the subject of numerous publications. Notable studies include: S. Kalopissi-Verti, Painters in Late Byzantine Society. The evidence of church inscriptions, CA 42 (1994) 139–157 (with earlier bibliography); eadem, Painters’ portraits in Byzantine art, DXAE 17 (1993/94) 129–143; See also eadem, Dedicatory inscriptions and donor portraits in thirteenth century churches of Greece, Vienna, 1992, 26, 82, 87, 90, Inscr. ns. A29, A35, A39a,b, A43; eadem, Painters’ information on themselves in Late Byzantine church inscriptions, in: L’artista a Bisanzio e nel mondo chirstiano-orientale, ed. M. Bacci, Pisa 2007, 55–70; I. Drpić, Painter as scribe. Artistic identity and the arts of graphê in late Byzantium, WI 29/3 (2013) 334–353; E. Qavelašvili, Mxeris eklesiis mxatvari, Sak‘art‘velos xelovnebis saxelmcip‘o muzeumis narkvvebi V (Tbilisi 1999) 96–100; N. Chichinadze, Self-representations of artists in medieval Georgia, in: Thematic sessions of free communications, Proceedings of the 23rd international congress of Byzantine studies, Belgrade, 2016, 586 (Abstract); eadem, Representing identities. The icon of Ioane Tokhabi from Sinai, Le Museon 130/3–4, 2017, 401–420; See also my on-going project “Masters of Medieval Georgia”: medart.iliauni.edu.ge. About inscriptions in Medieval material culture see: A. Papalexandrou, Text in context. Eloquent monuments and the Byzantine beholders, WI, vol. 17, N3, 2001, 259–283; Art and text in Byzantine culture, ed. L. James, Cambridge 2007 (henceforth Art and text); Viewing inscriptions in the Late Antique and Medieval World, ed. A. Eastmond, New York, 2015 (henceforth Viewing inscriptions); Writing matters. Presenting and perceiving monumental inscriptions in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, eds. I. Berti et al., Berlin–Boston 2017 (v. esp. A. Rhoby, Text as art? painting the identities of artists/masters are displayed not only in the verbal form – in texts inscribed on the works of art – but also by applying multiple tools involving a sophisticated interplay of inscriptions and imagery, spatial constructs, light and color. Painters’ inscriptions preserved in medieval Georgian churches vary in their character – some of them are brief modest invocations hardly visible to the beholders,2 while others are extensive, well discernable texts.3 Their layout, scale, content, literary style and “visibility” are directly connected to the painters’ status and their role in the embellishment of churches. Byzantine inscriptions and their display, 265–285 and G. Pallis, Messages from a sacred space. The function of the Byzantine sanctuary barrier inscriptions, 145–158); idem, Speaking decoration inscriptions on architectural sculpture of the Middle Byzantine church, in: Inscriptions in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine history and history of art, ed. Ch. Stavrakos, Wiesbaden 2016, 389–403. 2 In rock-cut churches (Nos. 7, 8) of Sabereebi, Davit Garedji desert, tenth century, there are surviving painters’ laconic inscriptions. One of them is located on the eastern wall of the north arm, another in the apse – between the feet of Christ. In Vardzia, a late twelfth-century painter’s inscription is inserted in the ornamental strip in the conch. Z. Sxirtlaże, Sabereebis p‘reskuli carcerebi, Tbilisi 1985, 67–68, 114–116; E. Privalova, Rospis’ Timotesubani, Tbilisi 1980, 129 (with earlier bibliography); Although inscriptions in Betania (late twelfth century) – one is inscribed in the floral ornament in the apse, above the altar, and another in the eastern jamb on the window in the south arm, hidden in the vegetation at the feet of Aaron– –– – do not indicate directly that they belong to painters, their location has led scholars to hypothesize that they are masters’ “autographs”. Eadem, Novye dannye o Betanii, in: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium of Georgian art, Tbilisi 1983, 16–17; The inscription inserted in the ornament of the apse of Ozaani church has also been attributed to its painter (N. Ch.?). Eadem, Rospis’ t͡serkvi “Voznesenii͡a” – “Amagleba” v Ozaani, Ars Georgica 9 (1987) 123–124 (with earlier bibliographic references). 3 Inscription of Michael Maglakeli in Matskhvarishi church, 1140 AD, is located in the spandrels of the east blind arch of the north wall; In the Archangels Church of Zemo Krikhi, the late thirteenthcentury renovator of the eleventh-century murals is mentioned in the inscription on the lower part of the north wall, in the composition with the ktetors; In the church of Sori, from the fourteenth century, an inscription belonging to two painters is written on the north wall. In Tsalenjikha church bilingual Greek and Georgian inscriptions are displayed on the western sides of the west piers. T. Virsaladze, Freskovai͡a rospis’ khudozhnika Mikaela Maglakeli v Mat͡skhvarishi, in: idem, Gruzinskai͡a srednevekovai͡a monumental’nai͡a zhivopis’, Tbilisi, 2007, 146; eadem, Freskovai͡a rospis’ v t͡serkvi Arkhangelov sela Zemo Krikhi, 35; I. Čičinaże, Soris moxatuloba, Tbilisi 1985, 8; KalopissiVerti, Painters in Late Byzantine society, 146–147, fig. 11 25 ЗОГРАФ 42 (2018) [25–36] 26 Fig, 1. Sts. Archangels Church, Iprari, chancel barrier with an inscription Chichinadze N.: “King’s Painter” Tevdore and his inscriptions Fig, 2. Sts. Archangels Church, Iprari, inscription, fragmnet The earliest painters’ inscriptions preserved in Georgia date back to the tenth century.4 From the eleventh-twelfth century onward painters’ “signatures” appear more frequently.5 During the fourteenth century and in subsequent periods, especially in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, artists’ inscriptions significantly increased in number.6 The “autographs” of artists occur elsewhere in the church interiors including apses, above entrance doors, or north and/or south and west walls, and on the piers of domed churches.7 Among the artists re4 Sabereebi churches Nos 7, 8; For bibliographic references v. footnote no 2. See also inscription with the painter’s name in the church of Nasguni: N. Aladashvili, G. Alibegashvili, A. Vol’skai͡a, Zhivopisnai͡a shkola Svaneti, Tbilisi 1983, 13–14 5 Inscriptions of Matskhvarishi, Vardzia, Betania, Ozaani (for bibliography v. footnote no. 2 and 3); v. also the painted inscription in the church of St. George in Tsvirmi, Upper Svaneti, twelfth century. Ek. T‘aqaišvili, Ark‘eologiuri ek‘spedicia leč‘xumsa da svanetši, Tbilisi 19912, 256 6 E. g. churches of Ubisi, Chule, Sori, Calenjikha, Mkher; See also artists’ inscriptions in the sixteenth-century murals of Tsitelkhevi, St. Elijah Church near Gelati, Ilemi, Obcha, etc. The artists’ inscriptions are presented in epigraphic material of the seventeenthcentury churches of Samtavisi, Ertatsminda, Svetitskhoveli, etc.; Sh. Amiranashvili, Georgian painter Damiane, Tbilisi 1974, 13; V. Beriże, Żveli k‘art‘veli ostatebi, Tbilisi 1967, 24, (with earlier bibliography) (in Georgian); Čičinadze, op.cit. 8; I. Xhuskivaże, K‘art‘ul eklesiat‘a gviani šua sukuneebis “xalxuri” moxatulobani, Tbilisi 2003, 75, 96, 111, 135; Kavlelashvili, op.cit., 96–100; G. Soxašvili, Samtavisi (in Georgian), Tbilisi 1973, 100, fig. 57; I. Mamasaxlisi, Ert‘acmindis tazris moxatulobis t‘ariġi da misi k‘titorebi, Religia 1 (2014) 32–33; Beriże, op.cit. 77–78; There is a number of inscriptions which preserved names of painters from important Byzantine artistic centers – from Constantinople, Mount Athos and Thessaloniki: painter Thimo[theos] is mentioned in the sixteenth-century frescoes of the catholicon of Gelati Monastery. Manuel Eugenikos from Constantinople was a master painter of the Tsalenjikha church (1384–1396). The Greek inscription on the west wall of the Archangels’ church in Gremi mentions hieromonk and protosyngelos [Za]kharia from Thessaloniki, sixteenth century, Paraskeva was mentioned in a now lost inscription in the chapel of Evdemon in Bichvinta cathedral, sixteenth century, St. John the Baptist Church in Bobnevi, seventeenth century, was embellished by the Athonite hieromonk Daniel, seventeenth century, [A]postole the zograph was a painter of templon in Tsinarekhi church, seventeenth century; Kalopissi-Verti, Painters in Late Byzantine cociety (with earlier bibliography) 146–147, fig. 11; T. Qauxč‘išvili, Berżnuli carcerebis korpusi,, Tbilisi 20093, 42, 157, inscr. N131, 322, inscr. N337, 42, 60–61, inscr.s N3, 44, 43, 206, iscr. N 179, 43–44. 7 Artists’ inscriptions are found in apses of the churches of Vardzia, Ubisi, above the entrance to the prothesis in Ertatsminda. They appear on the north wall in the churches of Matskhvarishi, Zemo Krikhi, Sori; On the southern face of the north pier in St. George church of Chule (for references v. n. 2, 6). corded in the painted inscriptions are both laymen and clergymen.8 Striking examples of an artist’s inscriptions are shown in the murals of painter Tevdore, who held the prestigious title of “King’s Painter”. His inscriptions clearly indicate, that between 1196–1130 AD he decorated three churches in Upper Svaneti, the northwestern highland region of Georgia.9 This paper will analyze the preserved textual and visual data and will attempt to reconstruct the status of the painter and his impact on the embellishment of these churches. It will also consider the functioning of these inscriptions from various perspectives, with a special emphasis on their political and social context. The earliest painting of Tevdore decorates the interior of the Archangels’ Church in Iprari. (fig. 1, 2) The twoline inscription (240X10 cm; letters 3–3.5 cm) was executed in the ancient Georgian uncial script “asomtavruli” in white paint against a dark green background. It runs across the top of the chancel barrier (entablature).10 The masonry structure with a central Royal Door and two lateral openings is a typical form of chancel barriers in Svaneti. The inscription reads: “Christ, this holy church was painted and adorned [for pray of aznaurs] of this khevi11, all minors and majors, for their children and for the souls of their deceased. 8 Obviously, Mikael Maglakeli, Giorgi Chari, Gerasime and Giorgi Jokhtoberidze were laymen, while the sanctuary apse of Samtavisi was painted by Meliton, bishop of Samtavisi, seventeenth century; St. Eustathios church in Ertatsminda was embellished by Meletios, the hieromonk of the Georgian monastery of the Cross in Jerusalem, [Za] charia hieromonk from Thessaloniki, hieromonk Deniel from Athos contributed to the embellishing of Georgian churches as well. For bibliographic references v. n. 6. 9 About Tevdore paintings v. Aladashvili, Alibegashvili, Vol’skai͡a, op.cit. 30–101 (with earlier bibliographic references). 10 The words of the text are separated by two or three white dots. The inscriptions use vertically elongated letters. This inscription has been published several times: Takaishvili, op.cit., 236; Sh. Amiranashvili, Istorii͡a gruzinskoĭ monumental’noĭ zhivopisi I, Tbilisi 1957, 134–135; Aladashvli, Alibegashvili, Vol’skai͡a, op.cit., 30–31, for bibliography v. ibid., 131–133; V. Silogava, Svanet‘is epigrap‘ikuli żeglebi v. 2, Tbilisi 1988, 70–71; My English translation of the texts follows readings of Georgian texts published in: Aladashvili, Alibegashvili, Vol’skai͡a, op. cit. 11 Aznauri – lower-ranking feudal elite in medieval Georgia; geographical term khevi – valley in Georgian, designated an administrative unit in medieval Georgia. For the administrative division of medieval Georgia v. N. Berżenišvili, Sak‘artvelos istoriis sakit‘xebi, Tbilisi 1990, 61–74 (in Georgian). 27 ЗОГРАФ 42 (2018) [25–36] Fig, 3. Sts. Cyricus and Julitta Church, Lagourka, inscription on the west wall Fig, 3a. Sts. Cyricus and Julitta Church, Lagourka, inscription on the west wall, detail Holy Archangels have mercy in both lives Amen. It was painted in the year kh since the Creation, koronikon12 tiv (316) (i.e. 780+316=1096) by the hand of Tevdore, the King’s Painter, saint Archangels. Have mercy.” Another church painted by Tevdore is dedicated to Sts. Cyricus and Julitta. (fig. 3, 3a) The painter’s inscription written in white paint on a dark blue background appears on the west wall, over the entrance (240X30 cm, letters 4.5–5 cm.). It states: “Christ, in the name of the Lord, this holy church of St. Cyricus was painted and adorned .......... for glorification and pray of aznaurs of this khevi ......... and for all those who build this holy church..........; Saint Cyricus exalt and forgive all of them. 28 12 Koronikon is a Georgian dating system used from the eighth century AD. Cf. V. Grumel, Traité d’études byzantines. La chronologie, Paris 1958, 146–153. Was painted in the year khghiv since the Creation (=1112), koronikon.........by the hand of Tevdore, the King’s Painter”13 The last painting of Tevdore dated to 1130 decorates St. George Church in Nakipari. (fig. 4) Like in the Iprari church, here Tevdore’s inscription runs across the upper part of the entablature of the templon (330X17cm; letters 5–7cm). (fig. 5) The white letters of the inscription are set against a dark green background: “Christ, in the name of the Lord this holy church of St. George was painted and adorned for glori[fication and pray for so]uls of all aznaurs of this khevi ......... Saint George, the great martyr, forgive and rise us up Painted in the year [khghld] since the Creation, koron13 Amiranashvili, Istorii͡a gruzinskoĭ monumental’noĭ zhivopisi, 38; Aladashvili, Alibegashvili, Vol’skai͡a, op.cit. 31; The fragmentary state of the inscription has led to various readings of the date. V. Silogava reads khghie and koriniko tiv (=1111); Silogava, op.cit. 73–74. Chichinadze N.: “King’s Painter” Tevdore and his inscriptions ikon tn (= 1130) by the hand of Tevdore, the King’s Painter.”14 These inscriptions are of great importance in many respects. First, they preserved the painter’s name, his title and the dates of execution of the murals. Moreover, these texts provide significant information about the painter’s social status, artistic patronage and the performative role of inscriptions. The mentioned supplicatory inscriptions record actors who took part in the creation of these works of religious art – the commissioners and the executor of the paintings. It is clear from the inscriptions that all three churches were decorated on the order of anonymous commissioners belonging to the lower-rank local feudal elite – the aznauri (major and minor) of khevi. Therefore, we are dealing here with collective patronage of art.15 It is noteworthy that the inscriptions do not reveal the commissioners’ names, but do record the painter’s name and his prestigious title “King’s Painter”. Such an attitude towards the painter, together with his association with the monarchy, stresses the importance of his participation in the embellishment of these churches in Svaneti and at the same time increases the commissioners’ prestige. These inscriptions reveal the complex interrelations between the commissioners and the painter, as well as the central power and the local feudal elite. Tevdore’s inscriptions also allow a retracing of the involvement of locals in the dynamic ongoing political processes of their time. As epigraphic material demonstrates, Tevdore was a prestigious figure and therefore his identity is specially stressed in the painted inscriptions. Regrettably, we have no other evidence about this painter. We know nothing about his provenance.16 It is unknown whether he worked in the royal workshops or any other advanced artistic centers of his time or which projects he may have been involved in between decorating the mentioned churches in Svaneti. The modest size of the churches leads us to suppose that their embellishment were not long-lasting projects, and that therefore Tevdore must have been involved in other artistic activities as well. What we know is that he held the title of “King’s Painter”, which is not recorded in any other sources.17 However, the title attests that by the end of the eleventh century Tevdore was already an acknowledged painter, whose professional skills were highly esteemed by the ruling elite. Tevdore is an original master, whose works are characterized by a particular monumentality, impressive, emotionally charged characters and epic visual narration. Well-organized compositions are united together on the basis of carefully thought-out theological programs. Tevdore’s visual language, powerful figures created by a dynamic linear treatment of forms, reveals the hand of a gifted master with a strongly pronounced indi14 Aladashvili, Alibegashvili, Vol’skai͡a, op.cit. 32. 15 As it becomes clear from the inscriptions, major and lesser aznaurs commissioned the tenth-century silver repoussé triptychs from Chukuli and Chikhareshi, a cross from Sakdari, Lower Svaneti. G. Chubinashvili, Gruzinskoe cheknnnoe iskusstvo, Tbilisi 1959, 409– 413, figs. 45–49; T‘aqaišvili, op.cit. 106. 16 Some scholars argue that he was local. Aladashvli, Alibegashvili, Volskaia, op.cit. esp. 99–100. 17 A distant parallel for Tevdore’s title could be found in the fourth-century Greek epitaph from Samtavro necropolis belonging to Aurelis Acholis “Archizographos and architect”. Qauxč‘išvili, op.cit. 256. Fig, 4. St. George Church, Nakipari, east facade vidual style.18 (fig. 6, 7) His style could be defined as “provincial” in relation to official “pro-Byzantine” paintings,19 but I am more inclined to attribute them to another “nonHellenized” visual tradition. His paintings greatly influenced the local artistic production. Some fresco cycles of the eleventh century of Svaneti demonstrate close stylistic affinities with his paintings.20 These written intercessions could be viewed in many ways, as their locations, size and content suggest that they fulfilled several goals. In order to better understand Tevdore’s identity, it is necessary to analyze the “topography” of his inscriptions in the sacred space, and their interaction with the entire decorative programs of the churches. The masonry chancel barrier of the Archangels’ church in Iprari has two low massive columns with capitals supporting three arches – the central wider arched opening, the Royal Door, leads to the sanctuary. Two much smaller (almost half the width) lateral round-headed openings end with a “tympanum“ decorated with vegetal ornamentation. The lower lateral parts of the screen 18 Compare with late eleventh-century paintings of Ateni Sion and the Archangels’ church of Zemo Krikhi, early 12th c. murals of St. George church of Bochorma, T. Virsalaże, Atenis sionis met‘ert‘mete saukunis moxatulobani, K‘art‘uli mxatvrobis istoriidan, Tbilisi 2007, 126–201; eadem. Freskovai͡a rospis’ v t͡serkvi Arkhangelov sela Zemo Krikhi, in: idem, Gruzinskai͡a srednevekovai͡a monumental’nai͡a zhivopis’, Tbilisi 2007, 25–95; A. Oqropiri‘ze, Bočormis cm. giorgis eklesiis moxatulobisat‘vis, Spek‘tri 2 (Tbilisi 1990) 75–82. 19 His murals drastically differ from the stylistic trends of the “official art” of this period, particularly from the murals decorating the narthex of the catholicon of the royal monastery of Gelati, founded by Davit IV as his dynastic mausoleum (1106 AD). Gelati frescoes (1125–1130) reveal distinctly featured “Hellenophile”, pro-Byzantine stylistic features; See also illustrations of Alaverdi and Gelati Gospels, respectively (respectively dated to 1054 and 12th c.) illustrations; For Gelati narthex paintings v. T. Virsaladze, Fragmenty drevneĭ freskovoĭ rospisi glavnogo gelatskogo khrama, in: idem, Gruzinskai͡a srednevekovai͡a monumental’nai͡a zhivopis’, Tbilisi 2007, 95–145; v. also A. Eastmond, Royal imagery in medieval Georgia, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1998, 62–67; For manuscript illuminations and related bibliography v. N. Kavt‘aria, Alaverdis ot‘xt‘avis (A–484) mxatvruli gap‘ormebisa t‘aviseburebani, Sak‘art‘velos siżveleni 9 (2006) 89–112; eadem, Gelat‘is ot‘xt‘avi, Sak‘art‘velos siżveleni 11 (2007) 59–78. 20 About these influences v. Aladashvili, Alibegashvili, Vol’skai͡a, op.cit. 102–119. 29 ЗОГРАФ 42 (2018) [25–36] Fig, 5. St. George Church, Nakipari, chancel barrier with an inscription have a painted ornamental pattern imitating precious textile. Over the lateral round-headed arches are two pairs of saints – the half-length frontal figures of Sts. Demetrios and Stephanos,,, the Protomartyr on the right side and Sts. Cyricus and Julitta on the left. At the edges of the screen are depicted large lit candles. The shallow sanctuary apse of the single nave church has a monumental half-length trimorphon, a “Deesis”, with Christ flanked by the supplicating Virgin and St. John the Forerunner in a conch and four standing figures of the church fathers flanked by the lit candles.21 The nave is decorated with three Evangelic scenes and individual figures of the Archangels and saints, depicted in two registers.22 The masonry screen covers an apsidal semi-cylinder and reveals to the viewers only the conch with the Deesis. 30 21 Ibid., 33 ff. fig. 11; V. also M. Qenia, Sitqvisa da gamosaxulebis mimart‘ebis sakit‘xisat‘vis k‘art‘ul moxatulobebši (Ip‘raris mxatvrobis magalit‘ze) Sakartvelos sizveleni, 4–5 (2003) 147–168. 22 Compositions and individual images are depicted in two registers on the vault and walls of this one-nave church. The Archangels’ hieratic monumental figures flanking the sanctuary are depicted in the upper register. Below them, on the north wall is St. Michael the Archangel with Joshua at his feet, the Virgin and Child accompanied by St. Anna on the south wall. The Annunciation is on the upper part of the west wall, the Nativity in the south vault and the Baptism on the north vault. The lower register displays Sts. George and Theodore on horseback. Although the Georgian inscription does not indicate Theodore’s title (stratelates, or tyron), his facial features allow his identification as St. Theodore Stratilates. The same is true for St. Theodore depicted in Lagurka and Nakipari. The female saints, Sts. Barbara and Catherine, are on the west wall, above the Annunciation. For the decoration of the church of Iprari v. Aladashvili, Alibegashvili, Vol’skai͡a, op.cit. 33–55, figs. 11–14; Qenia, op. cit. Therefore, the imagery and the inscription of the sanctuary screen are added to the dominant eschatological subject of the conch. The saints depicted on the screen could be perceived as intermediaries between Christ and the supplicants – the aznaurs and Tevdore. The candles depicted on the screen have numerous symbolic meanings in Christian church practice; they add to the semantics of the screen and reinforce the concept of supplication and salvation.23 Representations of lit candles have a liturgical connotation and allude to the Celestial Liturgy. The inclusion of candles in the iconographic programs of medieval Georgian churches (esp. in apse decoration and in the scenes of Hypapante) is explained by the Jerusalem liturgical practice followed by the Georgian church in the early stage of its history.24 However, it could be assumed that the lit candles depicted on the templon have both ritual and devotional connotations. They also visualize the practice of lighting candles during church services and prayers and therefore reinforce the supplicatory plea contained in the text. They could indicate the lighting of 23 In Christian worship candles were used on various occasions. Their function is rooted in the metaphor of light revealed in the Scripture. The light refers to Christ and eternal life (J 8,12; R 21, 23); On the use of candles in Byzantium v. “Candles” in: ODB I, 371–372 (R.F. Taft. A. Kazhdan). 24 Candles are depicted in the apses of Sts. Archangels’ church in Iprari, St. George church in Nakipari, the Saviour church in Tsvirmi: Aladashvili, Alibegashvili, Vol’skai͡a, op.cit., 33, 78, 103, figs. 11, 19, 23; V. also S. Duffrenne, Le cierge dans la scène de la Présentation du Christ au temple, in: IVe symposium inernational sur l’art géorgiene, Tbilisi 1983, 1–20. Chichinadze N.: “King’s Painter” Tevdore and his inscriptions Fig, 6. St. George Church, Nakipari, apse conch candles on behalf of others (the deceased) – the commissioners and the painter mentioned in the inscription. The eastern part of the church and, the decoration of the conch, chancel barrier and adjacent walls are perceived as an integral whole conveying a complex theological concept. The main eschatological idea manifested in the monumental Deesis of the conch is enriched with the images of saints depicted on the screen, and the Archangels of the upper register on the adjacent parts of the vault and walls. The “entablature” of the screen corresponds to the dividing strip of the conch and sanctuary wall as well as to the registers of the nave walls. Archangel Michael with Joshua at his feet and the Virgin and Child together with St. Anna become visually bound with the screen. The overall program of the sanctuary, involving both the conch composition and the chancel barrier imagery, underlines the concepts of intercession and salvation. For the viewers facing the church apse, the horizontally unrolled inscription on the top of the chancel barrier becomes visually and conceptually engaged in the “performative” space of the sanctuary. The apse window and the western door are the only sources of light in the dimly lit small one-nave church. Therefore, the templon is situated between two beams of light. The light coming from the western and only door flashes out the chancel barrier with the inscription and emphasizes its semantic value. The layout of the sanctuary and chancel barrier offers a wellorchestrated supplicatory iconographic scheme where the inscription becomes its integral focal part. The Nakipari inscription must be considered in this context as well. The structure of the Nakipari sanctuary screen differs from the Iprari sanctuary barrier– –– –– – three arches are supported by four columns with capitals. It has painted images of saints – St. Demetrios, the two Stylites and an unidentified young saint (Cyricus?).25 The monumental full-length “visionary Deesis” occupies the conch of the church. Traditional figures of bishops appear on the sanctuary walls. The upper, more important zone is occupied by Christological scenes, while the lower part of the north wall represents a heraldic composition of military saints on horseback – St. George slaying Diocletian and St. Theodore.26 St. Theodore is shown facing the West and St. George the East. Thanks to the juxtaposition of the warrior saints, Theodore, the namesake of the painter, faces the congregation standing before the templon. In the church of Nakipari a doorway in the south wall is added to the apsidal window and western door. The inscription, owing to its location at the top of the templon, the size of the letters and the white paint, attracts the beholders’ attention. In the church of Lagurka the artist’s inscription, which is located on the west wall, in the area between the door and window, is accompanied by images of saints – the window is flanked by the standing figures of Sts. Cyricus and Julitta. Sts. Barbara and Catherine are depicted on 25 R. Schmerling, Malye formy v arkhitekture srednevekovoĭ Gruzii, Tbilisi 1962, 228, 252. 26 The longitudinal walls show the Nativity, the Crucifixion, the Baptism and the Anastasis. The west wall and the lower register of the south wall are covered by the scenes from the hagiographic cycle of St. George. Aladashvili, Alibegashvili, Vol’skai͡a, op.cit, 77–83, figs. 19–22. 31 ЗОГРАФ 42 (2018) [25–36] Fig, 7. St. John the Baptist, Lagourka, Sts. Cyricus and Julitta Church each side of the entrance. A half-length Deesis is shown in the sanctuary conch, while the Church Fathers are portrayed in the next register. The principles and layout of mural decoration of the church of Lagurka show similarities with the Iprari church – four Evangelic scenes are depicted in the barrel vault and the walls, while the lower register is reserved for earthly saints.27 The arrangement of images on the west wall and the west part of the north wall suggests their interaction with the written supplication. St. Cyricus and his mother St. Julitta, together with popular female saints represented on the west wall, provide protection for the suppliants mentioned in the text.28 In the proximity of the west wall with the inscription are two Christological compositions – the Crucifixion and the Anastasis – alluding to the Salvation. It is also significant that the mounted warrior saints ride 32 27 On the south: the Nativity and the Crucifixion and martyrdom of titular saints – Sts. Cyricus and Julitta. On the north wall are displayed the Baptism and the Anastasis, on the lower zone of the north wall are Sts. George and Theodore on horseback. For the wall paintings of Lagurka v. Aladashvili, Alibegashvili, Vol’skai͡a, op.cit, 56–77, figs. 15–18. 28 Although Tevdore addresses St. Cyricus, his mother St. Julitta, also martyred for her faith, was equally popular. This pair of saints is highly venerated in Upper Svaneti. Their commemoration day, celebrated on 27th July, is one of the main feasts in this part of Georgia. About the feast of St. Cyricus v. G. Chubinashvili, Gruzinskoe cheknnnoe iskusstvo, 298–300 (with earlier bibliography); N. Ġambašiże, Kart‘uli xalxuri da saeklesio dġesascaulebi, Tbilisi 2011, 156–157. in opposite directions: St. George towards the East, while St. Theodore is headed to the West. The direction of St. Theodore could arguably be explained by his “special mission” to provide assistance and protection to Tevdore. It is clear that the location of the inscriptions within the sacred spaces was one of Tevdore’s main concerns. All three inscriptions have liminal locations – two of them are at the threshold of sanctuaries and the third demarcates the boundary of sacred space. It should be noted that the thresholds and liminal zones of sacred spaces regulated the social hierarchy within the feudal system. The chancel barrier, one of the focal points of the liturgical space, is faced by the congregation during the service and/or their individual prayers. Therefore, believers look straight at the supplicatory inscriptions mentioning anonymous donors and the painter’s name and his title. The liminal place of the dedicatory inscriptions on the sanctuary screen enhances the significance of those who are mentioned there. The chancel barrier, as a threshold between the earthly and heavenly realms or tangible and intangible worlds, has a polyvalent symbolic meaning. The sanctuary enclosure, among others, was a “place of prayer”.29 Thus the templon was an appropriate place for supplicatory inscriptions addressed to the Heavenly ruler.30 The theological interpretation of the sanctuary screen formulated later by Simeon of Thessaloniki (1386–1429) adds to the spiritual dimension of the structure: ”Hence the entablature above the columns maintains the bound of love and the union in Christ of the Saints on earth with (saints) in heaven” 31 Such interpretation echoes the iconography of the screens discussed in this article. The inscription on the west wall above the entrance in Lagurka attracts attention in its own way– –– –– – it is viewed when one leaves the church. The place of this inscription was also “semantically oriented” as the church doors symbolize Christ, who is an entryway to Paradise (J 10, 7 “.........I am the door of the sheep.........”; J 14, 6: “I am the way and the truth and life. No one comes to the Father, but through me”). The entryway to the church is understood as the way to Salvation and to Paradise accordingly. In the Church of Lagurka the inscription on the west wall facing the sanctuary is engaged with it in a spatial “dialogue”. The church door could be percieved as a semantic counterpart of a Royal Door, the central opening of the templon. Both serve as demarcating devices denoting the liminal zones.32 Such a shift in the placement of the supplicatory inscription is based on the mystagogical interpretation of a sacred space, where each component has multiple symbolic meanings and each part and structural element of a church is involved in a complex system of correlations.33 It also could be suggested that the place of the inscription between the window and entrance, on 29 Germanos of Constantinople, On the Divine Liturgy – http:// ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@texts/0720_germanus/02_div-liturgy.htm. 30 The templon as a traditional place of various types of inscriptions is considered in: Pallis, Messages from a sacred space, 145–158. About the templon v. Threshold of the sacred. Architectural, art historical, liturgical, and theological perspectives on religious screens. East and West, ed. Sh. Gerstel, Washington D.C. 2006 (with earlier bibliography) (henceforth: Threshold of the Sacred). 31 N. P. Constas, Symeon of Thessalonike and the theology of the icon screen, in: Threshold of the sacred 170. 32 See the tripartite division of a church by Symeon of Thessalonike, Constas, op.cit. esp. 166–167. 33 Ibid. Chichinadze N.: “King’s Painter” Tevdore and his inscriptions the western wall, was determined by the apotropaic function of inscriptions.34 The supplicatory inscriptions are placed in the vicinity of the images of patron saints, which virtually provide intercession and protection to the persons mentioned in the texts. In this respect, the west wall of Lagurka echoes the programs of the chancel screens of Iprari and Nakipari. The place and arrangement of Tevdore’s inscriptions create both visible and invisible links between various parts of the sacred space, suppliants and congregation, laymen and clerics, earthly and heavenly realms, tangible and intelligible. Tevdore, together with the aznaurs, appealing to the heavenly protection “virtually” (through their inscriptions), makes part of the congregation. The plea in written form is added to the pronounced prayers and supplications of the believers attending church services. The presence of saints on the altar screens and the west wall with Tevdore’s inscriptions enhances the meaning and power of the written prayer. In the “hierarchy of supplication” saints have an important role and the represented saints: stylites and female martyrs together with a child martyr (St. Cyricus) could be perceived as providers of assistance in ascen to Christ.35 As we have seen, in the discussed churches appear two different strategies of integration of written supplication into ongoing religious rites and rituals performed in the sacred space. The arrangement of inscriptions within the sacred space engages the audience – all three inscriptions are visible and readable and therefore the persons mentioned there are incorporated into the “social and spiritual commemoration”.36 In this respect it is worth mentioning the importance of the verbalization of texts in Byzantine practices. Hearing and seeing are intertwined in religious rites and therefore the supplicatory inscriptions correlate with the liturgical texts read during services and/or individual prayers of congregation members.37 In order to determine Tevdore’s status it is necessary to compare his inscription with painters’ autographs from other churches, which are also associated with royal power. In contrast to Tevdore, Mikael Maglakeli, the master painter of murals with the royal panel depicting King Demetre’s (r. 1125–1156), the son and heir of Davit IV Agmashenebeli (the Builder), girdling by two local eristavs (archonts), in the Savior church in Matskhvarishi (1140), presents himself in a rather humble form. His inscription in the spandrel on the north wall, in close proximity to the altar apse, reads: ”Painted in the fifteenth year of the reign of Demetre, by the hand of Mikael Maglakeli” (1140).38 This rather modest text does not attract the viewers’ attention. It mentions only the painter’s name and the time of 34 On the apotropaic function of inscriptions v. A. Walker, Pseudo-Arabic “Inscriptions” and the pilgrim’s path at Hosios Loukas, in: Viewing inscriptions in the Late Antique and Medieval world, ed. A. Eastmond, New York 2015, 106–107, (with bibliographic references). 35 The function of saints as intercessors was stated by the 2nd Church Council: Ch. Walter, Two notes on the Deesis, REB 36 (1968) 334 (with earlier bibliography) 36 R. Nelson, Image and inscription. Pleas for salvation in spaces and devotion, in: Art and text in Byzantine culture, ed. L. James, New York 2007, 110. 37 These issues are considered by A. Papalexandou, Text in context. Eloquent monuments and the Byzantine beholder, Word & Image: A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry 17/3, 2001, 259–283. 38 For the inscription v. Virsaladze, Freskovai͡a rospis’ khudozhnika Mikaela Maglakeli, 148. execution of the frescoes. The content and topography of Mikael’s inscription do not indicate his prominent social status or prestige. These murals must have been commissioned by the local elite – the eristavi of Svaneti, who are depicted together with King Demetre I although it could be assumed that the high-rank local governors – the eristavi, “entrusted” their commission to a well-known master of their time. According to the inscription Mikael is presented just as a humble master, who was only “technically” involved in the decoration of the church. Anyhow, the Matskhvarishi panel indicates the active engagement of art in the manifestation of official political life. Almost 50 years later, during the reign of King of Kings Tamar (r. 1184–1213) Giorgi Chari left his autograph in the north low part of the conch in the church of the Dormition in Vardzia.39 Here again we are dealing with a high-rank donor’s commission. Rati Surameli, eristavi of Tori, south Georgia, is depicted on the north wall, where King of Kings Tamar (r. 1184–1213) and her father King Giorgi III (r. 1156–1184) are portrayed.40 Although Giorgi is a great master, demonstrating the advanced, “aristocratic” stylistic trends of that time, his inscription is hardly visible from the nave of the church, as it is hidden in the background decorated with small flowers. However, the place of the painter’s signature on the right-hand, privileged side reserved for the righteous acknowledges that he is worthy to be “presented” in the heavenly realm. The “spatial hierarchy” of churches elaborated by Byzantine theologians correlates the places of supplicatory and dedicatory inscriptions with the social status and wealth of the people mentioned there. The prominent places of the inscriptions mentioning the anonymous commissioners – major and lesser aznaurs of khevi and the painter accompanied by his prestigious title – allow to make some suggestions about the painter’s identity. The title “King’s Painter”, referring to Tevdore’s prestige and his association with royal authority, could also indicate his economic status (his wealth). Therefore, it is plausible that together with the local nobility – the aznaurs mentioned in the inscriptions – he was a donor of the murals.41 Tevdore’s title, along with displaying his identity, conveys a wider political context and establishes links to monarchic power. Tevdore’s title – “kings’ painter” – raises a number of questions, which cannot be answered due to the lack of appropriate evidences. And yet some suggestions can be put forward. The title reveals the exceptional status of its bearer and indicates his association with royal power. The end of the eleventh – beginning of the twelfth century was a remarkable time in the history of Georgia – this is the period of the reign of King Davit IV the Builder (1073– 1125), who united Georgia and greatly expanded its territories. His brilliant victories over the Seljuks and domestic feudal rulers allowed him to consolidate the country and to increase its political and economic power. Davit’s active internal and foreign policy resulted in the creation of a powerful monarchic state, whose territories extended far beyond the earlier borders of the Georgian Kingdom.42 39 Privalova, Rospis’ Timotesubani, 129. 40 Eastmond, Royal imagery, 103–114 (with earlier bibliography) 41 On painters as donors see Kalopissi Verti, Painters in Late Byzantine society, 143, fig. 5, 145, notes no. 24–17 on p. 153. 42 On this subject v. I. Javaxisšvili, T‘xzulebani t‘ormet tomad II, Tbilisi, 1983, 192–222; Sakart‘velos istoriis narkvevebi III, eds. Z. Anč‘abaże, V. Gučua, Tbilisi 1979, 212–231. 33 ЗОГРАФ 42 (2018) [25–36] Svaneti was one of the principalities which played an important role in the defense of the kingdom, especially of its northern borders. Its significance was already well-known in the early medieval period, as Byzantium and Persia struggled for domination over its territories.43 There is extremely scarce historical evidence about interrelations between Svaneti and the central power in the following periods, and the epoch of Davit IV is not an exception in this regard. It has been suggested that Svans provided an important military service to the central authorities.44 It is significant that Vardan eristavi of Svaneti rose against George II (1072–1089), the father of Davit IV.45 Therefore, it is not surprising that the establishing and reinforcing of royal power in Svaneti was on Davit’s political agenda. One of the important instruments for establishing of a monarch’s authority was royal artistic patronage. Although, in our case, the king was not directly involved in the commissioning of the works of art, it could be assumed that his “envoy” was entitled to decorate the churches in alliance with the local nobility. The multi-facet interrelation between the central and local representatives of power is illustrated by the Matskhvarishi panel considered above. The political message conveyed by the royal panel is interpreted in a variety of ways,46 but it is obvious that church decoration was a part of the propaganda of royal authority and power in this strategically important highland region. The lack of evidences makes it impossible to establish what kind of relationship Tevdore had with the royal 43 About Svaneti v. Menander Protector, http://www.sasanika.org/ wp-content/uploads/Menander6–1.pdf; Sakart‘velos istoriis narkvevebi II, ed. Š. Mesxia, Tbilisi 1973, 161, 166–167, 268, 419. 44 Berżenišvili, op.cit., 427–429. 45 K‘art‘lis cxovreba I, ed. S. Qauxč‘išvili, Tbilisi 1955, 315–316 (in Georgian). 46 About the meaning of this panel v. Virsaladze, Freskovai͡a rospis’ khudozhnika Mikaela Maglakeli, 146–162; G. Abramishvili, Kidev ert‘xel atenis sionis moxatulobis t‘ariġisa da k‘titort‘a identip‘ikac‘iis šesaxeb, Narkvevebi (sak‘rtvelos xelovnebis saxelmcip‘o muzeumi) 5, Tbilisi (1999) 72–88, esp. 76–80 (in Georgian); Eastmond, Royal imagery, 73–83. court, the aznaurs, commissioners of the murals, and central power. The omission of a ruler’s name in the inscriptions is also quite significant. This could be explained by the commissioners’ intention to demonstrate their own power and the political significance of Svaneti, but at the same time, the inscriptions could be perceived as a declaration of loyalty to the royal power in the region and manifestation of the importance and “political weight” of this region and its nobility. As it has been demonstrated the inscriptions with the painter’s name had multiple facets, which were understandable to the contemporary audience. The place, content and pictorial setting of inscriptions communicate in verbal and non-verbal form important religious and non-religious concepts. The texts addressing the heavenly protectors are seen by both clergy and congregation. The considered inscriptions, demarcating transitional zones of the churches, convey religious, social and political messages. First of all, they represent the donors’ identity and ensure their permanent engagement in the services, as wells as their commemoration through the ages. It should be stressed that Tevdore is the only person whose name is mentioned in the inscription. This could be explained by his advanced social and presumably economic status. Due to Tevdore’s privileges implicitly indicated in the inscriptions (both in verbal and non-verbal form), he might have been of equal rank to the aznaurs – the commissioners of the paintings or have even exceeded their social status. The inscriptions permit us to re-contextualize Tevdore’s paintings: the painter’s high official title associated with monarchic power introduces political aspects to the religious context and adds to his authority. The engagement of the “King’s Painter” in the decoration of the churches of Svaneti, elevates the commissioners’ – the aznaurs of khevi– –– –– – prestige and brings them closer to royal power. Therefore, the churches decorated by the local elite acquire wider political meaning, involving a discourse of power and the role and importance of Svaneti in the construction of the unified kingdom of Georgia. ЛИСТА РЕФЕРЕНЦИ – REFERENCE LIST 34 Amiranashvili Sh., Georgian painter Damiane, Tbilisi 1974. Art and Text in Byzantine culture, ed. L. James, Cambridge 2007. Chichinadze N., Self-representations of artists in medieval Georgia, in: Thematic sessions of free communications, Proceedings of the 23rd international congress of byzantine studies, Belgrade 2016, 586. Chichinadze N., Representing identities. The icon of Ioane Tokhabi from Sinai, Le Museon 130/ 3–4, (2017) 401–42. Constas N. P., Symeon of Thessalonike and the theology of the icon screen, in: Threshold of the sacred. Architectural, art historical, liturgical, and theological perspectives on religious screens, East and West, ed. Sh. Gerstel, Washington D.C. 2006, 163–183. Drpić I., Painter as scribe. Artistic identity and the arts of graphê in late Byzantium, Word andimage 29/3 (2013) 334–353. Duffrenne S., Le cierge dans la scène de la Présentation du Christ au temple, in: IVe Symposium inernational sur l’art géorgien, Tbilisi 1983, 1–20. Eastmond A. Royal imagery in medieval Georgia, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1998. Grumel V., Traité d’études byzantines. La chronologie, Paris 1958. Kalopissi-Verti S., Dedicatory inscriptions and donor portraits in thirteenth century churches of Greece, Vienna 1992. Kalopissi-Verti S., Painters’ portraits in Byzantine art, Deltion tēs Christianikēs Archaiologikēs Etairias 17 (1994) 129–141. Kalopissi-Verti S., Painters in Late Byzantine society. The evidence of church inscriptions, Cahiers archeologiques 42 (1994) 139–157. Kalopissi-Verti S., Painters’ information on themselves in Late Byzantine church inscriptions, in: L’artista a Bisanzio e nel mondo chirstianoorientale, ed. M. Bacci, Pisa 2007, 55–70. Nelson, R., Image and inscription. Pleas for salvation in spaces and devotion, in: Art and text in Byzantine culture, ed. L. James, New York 2007, 100–119. The Oxford dictionary of Byzantium I, ed. A. P. Kazhdan, New York – Oxford 1991. Pallis G., Messages from a sacred space. The function of the Byzantine sanctuary barrier inscriptions, in: Writing matters. Presenting and perceiving monumental inscriptions in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, eds. I. Berti et al., Berlin–Boston 2017, 145–158. Chichinadze N.: “King’s Painter” Tevdore and his inscriptions Pallis G., Speaking decoration inscriptions on architectural sculpture of the Middle Byzantine church, in: Inscriptions in Byzantine and PostByzantine history and history of art, ed. Chr. Stavrakos, Wiesbaden, 2016, 389–403. Papalexandou A., Text in context. Eloquent monuments and the Byzantine beholder, Word & image. A journal of verbal/visual enquiry 17/ 3 (2001) 259–283. Rhoby A., Text as art? Byzantine inscriptions and their display, in: Writing matters. Presenting and perceiving monumental inscriptions in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, eds. I. Berti, K. Bolle, F. Opdenhoff, F. Stroth, Berlin – Boston 2017, 265–285. Threshold of the sacred. Architectural, art historical, liturgical, and theological perspectives on religious screens, East and West, ed. Sh. Gerstel, Washington D.C. 2006. Viewing inscriptions in the Late Antique and Medieval world, ed. A. Eastmond, New York 2015. Walker, A., Pseudo-Arabic “inscriptions” and the pilgrim’s path at Hosios Loukas, in:Viewing inscriptions in the Late Antique and Medieval world, ed. A. Eastmond, New York 2015, 99–114. Walter Ch., Two notes on the Deesis, Revue des études byzantines 36 (1968) 311–336. Writing Matters, Presenting and perceiving monumental inscriptions in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, eds. I. Berti, et al., Berlin – Boston, 2017. Aladashvili N., Alibegashvili G., Vol’skai͡a A., Zhivopisnai͡a shkola Svaneti, Tbilisi 1983. Amiranashvili, Sh. Istorii͡a gruzinskoĭ monumental’noĭ zhivopisi I, Tbilisi 1957. Virsaladze T., Freskovai͡a rospis’ khudozhnika Mikaela Maglakeli v Mat͡skhvarishi, in: idem, Gruzinskai͡a srednevekovai͡a monumental’nai͡a zhivopis’, Tbilisi, 2007,145–225. Virsaladze, T., Freskovai͡a rospis’ v t͡serkvi Arkhangelov sela Zemo Krikhi, in: idem, Gruzinskai͡a srednevekovai͡a monumental’nai͡a zhivopis’, Tbilisi 2007, 25–95. Virsaladze T., Fragmenty drevneĭ freskovoĭ rospisi glavnogo gelatskogo khrama, in: idem, Gruzinskai͡a srednevekovai͡a monumental’nai͡a zhivopis’, Tbilisi 2007 95–145. Privalova E., Rospis’ Timotesubani, Tbilisi 1980. Privalova E., Novye dannye o Betanii, in: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium of Georgian art, Tbilisi 1983 1–21. Privalova E., Rospis’ t͡serkvi “Voznesenii͡a” – “Amagleba” v Ozaani, Ars Georgica 9 (1987) 121–152. Schmerling R., Malye formy v arkhitekture srednevekovoĭ Gruzii, Tbilisi 1962. Chubinashvili G., Gruzinskoe cheknnnoe iskusstvo, Tbilisi 1959. Abramišvili G., Kidev ert‘xel atenis sionis moxatulobis t‘ariġisa da k‘titort‘a identip‘ikac‘iis šesaxeb, narkvevebi (sak‘rtvelos xelovnebis saxelmcip‘o muzeumi) 5, Tbilisi (1999) 72–88. Berżenišvili N, Sak‘artvelos istoriis sakit‘xebi, Tbilisi, 1990. Beriże V., Żveli k‘art‘veli ostatebi, Tbilisi 1967. Čičinaże I. Soris moxatuloba, Tbilisi 1985. Ğambašidze N., Kart‘uli xalxuri da saeklesio dġesascaulebi, Tbilisi 2011. K‘art‘lis cxovreba I, ed. S. Qauxč‘išvili, Tbilisi 1955. Javaxišvili I. T‘xzulebani t‘ormet tomad II, Tbilisi 1983. Kavlelašvili E. Mxeris eklesiis mxatvari, Narkvevebi (sak‘rtvelos xelovnebis saxelmcip‘o muzeumi) 5 (1999) 96–100. K‘avtaria N., Alaverdis ot‘xt‘avis (A-484) mxatvruli gap‘ormebisa t‘aviseburebani, Sak‘art‘velos siżveleni 9 (2006) 89–112. K‘avtaria N., Gelat‘is ot‘xt‘avi, Sak‘art‘velos siżveleni 11 (2007) 59–78. Mamasaxlisi I., Ert‘acmindis tazris moxatulobis t‘ariġi da misi k‘titorebi, religia, Tbilisi (2014). 31–40. Oqropiriże A. Bočormis cm. giorgis eklesiis moxatulobisat‘vis, Tbilisi spek‘tri 2 (1990) 75–82. Qauxč‘išvili T., Sak‘art‘velos berżnuli carcerebis korpusi, Tbilisi 2009.3 Qenia M., Sitqvisa da gamosaxulebis mimart‘ebis sakit‘xisat‘vis k‘art‘ul moxatulobebši (Ip‘raris mxatvrobis magalit‘ze) Sakartvelos sizveleni 4–5 (2003) 147–168. Sakart‘velos istoriis narkvevebi II, ed. Š. Mesxia v. II, Tbilisi 1973. Sakart‘velos istoriis narkvevebi III, eds. Z. Anč‘baże, V. Guč‘ua Tbilisi 1979. Silogava V., Svanet‘is epigrap‘ikuli żeglebi II, Tbilisi 1988. Soxašvili G., Sam‘tavisi, Tbilisi 1973. Sxirtlaże Z., Sabereebis p‘reskuli carcerebi, Tbilisi 1985. T‘aqaišvili Ek., Ark‘eologiuri ek‘spedicia leč‘xumsa da svanetši, Tbilisi 1991.2 Virsalaże T., Atenis sionis met‘ert‘mete saukunis moxatulobani, K‘art‘uli mxatvrobis istoriidan, Tbilisi 2007. Xuskivaże I., K‘art‘ul eklesiat‘a gviani šua sukuneebis “xalxuri” moxatulobani, Tbilisi 2003. „Краљев сликар” Теодор (Тевдоре) и његови натписи Нина Чичинадзе Државни институт Илиа, Тбилиси У средњовековном грузијском монументалном сликарству сачувани су разноврсни типови натписа уметника, који откривају сложен “систем комуникација” развијен унутар православне хрипћанске културе. Текстуалана и визуелна грађа показује разнолике облике и стратегије које су уметници примењивали зарад властите презентације. Натписи уметника варирају по свом карактеру – неки од њих су кратке скромне инвокације, једва приметне, док су други опширни, лако уочљиви текстови. Њихово место у простору, величина, сдржај, литерарни стил и “видљивост” непосредно су повезани са статусом сликара и њиховом улогом у украшавању цркава. Веома занимљиве примере натписа неког уметника садржи сликарство живописца Теодора, који је имао престижно звање “краљев сликар”. Из његових натписа је јасно је он између 1096. и 1130. осликао три цркве у Горњој Сванетији, северозападној планинској области Грузије. Молитвени натписи бележе учеснике у стварању поменутих дела црквене уметности – наручиоце и живописца. Захваљујући натписима сазанаје се да су све три цркве осликане по поруџбини анонимних ктитора који су припадали нижој локалној феудалној елити с титулом великих или малих азнаура кевија (кеви – долина на грузијском, термин којим се означавала административна јединица у средњовековној Грузији). 35 ЗОГРАФ 42 (2018) [25–36] Мада натписи не откривају имена наручилаца, бележе име сликара и његово звање. Такав став према сликару, заједно са његовим повезивњем с владарем, наглашава значај уметниковог учешћа у украшавању три цркве у Сванетији и у исто време доприносе престижу наручилаца, Ти натписи показују сложен међуоднос између наручилаца и сликара, централне власти и локалне феудалне елите. Теодорови натписи допуштају, такође, да се прати укључивање лoкалних достојанственика у динамичне политичке процесе који су се одвијали у њихово доба. Теодор је, како показује епиграфска грађа, био угледна личност и зато је његов идентитет био посебно истакнут у фреско-натписима. Уметниково звање потврђује да је Теодор крајем једанаестог века већ био познат сликар, чија је професионалне вештине високо ценила владајућа елита. Његова дела, као остварења оригиналаног мајстора, одликују посебна монументалност, импресивни карактери с емоционалним набијем и епска визуелна нарација. Теодорови натписи изведени су на олтарским преградама (цркве у местима Ипрари и Накипари) и на запарном зиду, изнад улаза у цркву (Лагурка). Место и поставка тих натписа остварују и видљиву и невидљиву везу између резличитих делова светог простора, приносилаца исписаних молитви и литургијске заједнице, лаика и клирика, земаљског и небеског цар- 36 ства, додирљивог и недодирљивог. Теодор, заједно са азнаурима, молећи небеску заштиту, чини “виртуелно” (преко натписа) део литургијске заједнице. С обзиром на “просторну хијерархију” унутар храмова, коју су разрадили византијски богослови, место на којем су исписани молитвени и ктиторски натписи зависило је од социјалног статуса и богатства личности поменитих у тим натписима. Истакнутост места на којима су изведени натписи с поменом анаонимних наручилаца – великих и мањих азанура кевија – и сликара почаствованог престижним звањем дозвољавају да се изнесу извесне сугестије о личности тог живописца. Звање “краљев сликар”, које упућује на Теодорову везу с краљевском влашћу, може такође указати на његов економски статус (имовинско стање). Зато је прихватљиво претпоставити да је заједно са локалним племством – азнаурима поменутим у натпису – он био ктитор зидног сликарства. Недостатак извора онемогућује сагледавање односа између Теодора, азнаура и краљевског двора. Изостављање владаревог имена може се објаснити намером азнаура да покажу властиту моћ и политички значај Сванетије, али, истовремено, натписи могу бити виђени као израз лојалности краљевској власти у региону и манифестација значаја и “политичке тежине” тог региона и његовог племства. Chichinadze N.: “King’s Painter” Tevdore and his inscriptions 37 ЗОГРАФ 42 (2018) [25–36] 38