This book sets out a solid and systematic argument about the representation of the miracles of Christ on the walls of eight major Byzantine churches dating around 1300. The question that Maria Rossi sets out to answer might at first sight seem to be a purely art historical problem. Why do the church decorations she has selected as her focus all have one feature in common? This is that all eight represent a significant number of scenes of Christ’s miracles, yet no earlier churches have chosen to feature these scenes so prominently. But her circumstantial solution is that a careful analysis of the historical and ecclesiastical circumstances in Constantinople at that moment will fully explain these decorations and their intellectual power. She argues that only with an investigation into the politics of Byzantium and the consequences of the failure of the Union of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches declared at Lyons in 1274 can the message of these monuments be explained. The stages in her thesis are logical and carefully set out. It is very well argued, but not without leading to some possible doubts.

The monuments which are presented with diagrams of the decorations and good photographs are each described and analysed scene by scene. Her first monument is the Chora monastery in Constantinople (now the Kariye Camii), dating to 1316–20 and financed by the first minister to the emperor Andronikos ii Palaiologos, Theodore Metochites. The number of Christ’s miracles on the walls of the inner and outer narthexes is considerable at thirty-six episodes, and some seem chosen to reflect incidents in the life of Theodore himself and his relations. The next example is the small Parekklesion of St Euthymios added to the secular church of St Demetrios in Thessaloniki in 1303 by Michael Doukas Glabas Tarchaneiotes and his wife Maria. Michael was one of the most successful generals of Andronikos ii, and also the donor of the monastery of St Mary Pammakaristos in Constantinople. The wallpaintings of this chapel included nine scenes of Christ’s miracles and nine matched scenes of the miracles of the (little known) monastic saint Euthymios. Rossi does not engage with the fact that the church of St Demetrios already featured several conspicuous miracle scenes of Demetrios himself in its sixth- and seventh-century mosaics. The least studied of her examples are the wallpaintings of the church of St Catherine, Thessaloniki. Rossi accepts a dating between 1315 and 1320. There is no information about its patronage, but it may have been the katholikon of a monastery dedicated to Christ. It has ten (and possibly more) scenes of Christ’s miracles. The sequence of the dating of the wallpaintings of the Metropolis (St Demetrios) of Mystras is much more difficult to determine. Some date from the time of Theodosios (in office 1272 to 1283), who was a supporter of the Unionist policy of Michael viii, but these were partially obliterated by Nikephoros Moschopoulos (1288–1315), a supporter of the anti-Unionist policy of Andronikos ii. Rossi dates the miracle scenes in the north and south aisles to a monk, Therapon, during this period. More clearly fitting into Rossi’s thesis are the wallpaintings of the Katholikon of the Theotokos Hodegetria of the Brontochion Monastery at Mystras, dating around 1312 and produced for the abbot Pachomios, who significantly has close connections with Andronikos ii, which resulted in special privileges for the monastery from the emperor. Nine scenes of Christ’s miracles are found in the narthex. The wallpaintings of the Katholikon of the Protaton Monastery on Mount Athos (and therefore inaccessible to any female viewer) were possibly done with the sponsorship of Andronikos ii in the early fourteenth century. There are seven of Christ’s miracles. The surviving wallpaintings of the late thirteenth-century church of St George at Omorphokklesia near Kastoria include seven scenes of Christ’s miracles. The Church of the Theotokos Peribleptos (now St Clement) at Ohrid was dedicated in 1294/5 and its wallpaintings (signed by the artists Michael Astrapas and Eutychios, who painted several other churches in the region, including the Protaton) include twelve scenes of Christ’s miracles. Again, Rossi’s research demonstrates close connections between the archbishop of the region and the donor with Andronikos ii.

The extended descriptions and analysis of the visual evidence of these eight monumental decorations are the core of the book. The contention is that the prominence of Christ’s miracle scenes in church decoration is an innovation of the reign of Andronikos ii, who was supporting the Orthodox Church’s reaction against the unpopular pro-unionist policy of his predecessor Michael viii. She argues that by this new emphasis on linking biblical miracles with saint’s miracles and healing shrines (such as the Zoodochos Pege in Constantinople) could give the faithful ‘a sense of hope and set an inspirational example’. It is interpreted as a conscious action to influence Orthodox viewers in a set of newly decorated churches and is matched by an increase in texts which also focus on miracles.

Rossi’s thesis is fully set out from the environment of the Orthodox Church, but this is where the argument has its limitations. She does address possible objections or other explanations for the phenomenon. Several twelfth- and early thirteenth-century icons in the collection of the monastery of St Catherine at Sinai prominently feature saints and their miracles (like those of St Eustratios, St Catherine and others). These would seem to undercut the chronological context. As for the West, Duccio’s contemporary Maiestà altarpiece (1308–11) offers a similar interest in Christ’s miracles. How far was there a parallel Catholic interest in miracles at this period? Indeed, could one explanation be that the rise of mendicant, particularly Franciscan, orders and their emphasis on the miraculous was a simultaneous influence on both Eastern and Western churches at this period? This book rightly defines a new development of this period in Byzantium but its explanation solely in Constantinopolitan terms may need to be questioned.