Vaphiades Konstantinos M., The frescoes in the Protaton church on Mount Athos. In search of the origins of the Palaiologan painting
The frescoes in the Protaton Church constitute a landmark in the history of Byzantine art. Numerous studies have been, and continue to be, devoted to them and distinguished researchers continue to grapple with the truly endless theological, historical and artistic questions that are posed by this splendid creation. As is well known, the painted decoration of the Protaton has been attributed to the painter Manuel Panselinos, despite the lack of evidence concerning his activity and identity. he latter has been the subject of heated debate and differences of opinion since as far back as the late 19th century. However, the time has inally come for the true identity of the painter of the Karyes church to be revealed, together with his contribution to the development of Palaiologan art. During the course of the conservation work on the frescoes, beneath the igure of St. Merkourios, four letters were uncovered (…YTYX…) that form the name “ΕΥΤΥΧΙΟΣ” (Eutychios). Another inscription fragment survives below the igure of St. Eustathios, for which the following interpretation has been proposed: [ΧΕΙ]Ρ ΜΙΧ[ΑΗΛ] (by the hand of Michael). It is clear that these are the names of the painters who decorated the Peribleptos Church in Ohrid (1295/6), Eutychios and Michael Astrapas, whose style – as is well known – matches that of the frescoes in the Protaton. Nevertheless, the question remains: Which of these two is the main painter of the frescoes in the Athonite monument? In my opinion, this painter can be none other than Michael Astrapas. In this case, the name preserved beneath the igure of St. Merkourios should be in the genitive case, i.e. [Ε]ὐτυ[χίου] (of Eutychios). his, moreover, would be in keeping with Michael Astrapas’s habit of signing his works as ‘Μιχαήλ [υἱὸς τοῦ] Εὐτυχίου’ (Michael [son] of Eutychios) (according to M. Marković). Also, the fact that the artistic idiom of the Protaton frescoes matches that of the frescoes in the monuments decorated by Michael leads to the conclusion that the decoration of the Protaton is also his work. However, the identiication of the painter does not resolve all the issues posed by the monument at Karyes. For example, should the Protaton frescoes be dated to before or ater those in the Chapel of St. Euthymios in hessaloniki (1302/3)? Who commissioned the frescoes, given Michael Astrapas’s relations with both the Byzantine aristocracy and the Serbian king Milutin? To which painter should the monuments previously ascribed to Manuel Panselinos – i.e. the Chapel of St. Euthymios and the exonarthex of the katholikon of Vatopedi Monastery – be attributed? What other artists contributed to the painted decoration of the Protaton and the other ensembles executed by Michael Astrapas and what were the consequences of each of the workshop’s compositions? Finally, how did the name ‘Manuel Panselinos’, and not that of Michael Astrapas, come to be preserved on Mount Athos as the name of the painter who decorated the Protaton Church? he present paper aims to address these questions.
