Branislav Cvetković

Imago leonis in Despot Stefan’s Iconography

UDK/UDC: Branislav Cvetković Regional Museum, Jagodina, Serbia branicvet@ptt.rs

The article discusses two leonine images from the 15th c. monumental art of Serbia. The first is in the Resava monastery, the burial church of despot Stefan Lazarević. The lions adorning the ruler’s cushion are interpreted as being part of the entrance iconography near the despot’s portrait (Christ Anapeson, God’s Hand, David and Solomon), in that the lions allude to the virtuous ruler who is compared to the whelp of the tribe of Judas. The second is in the Kalenić monastery. There the apse window contains relief representing a bicephalous eagle and a man fighting a lion. In resolving the meaning of the relief the analysis centred on the ancient form of the monastery name (Kalinik), its derivation from Greek kallinikos, to kallinikon (glorious victory), and to the martyr St Kallinikos. The conclusion is that the relief possibly stands for the victorious ruler disguised as Herakles Kallinikos, and that the church commemorates the battles of Ankara and Gračanica (1402), crucial for despot Stefan’s rule and the independence of his state, as dates of both of the battles are reflected in the dedication of the church and of the feastday of St Kallinikos, who was martyred also at Ankara.

Key words: medieval art, Byzantium, Serbia, despot Stefan Lazarević, Resava, Kalenić, lion

The true meaning of animal motifs, though reflections of medieval beliefs and aesthetics, has long been a matter of various interpretations.1 It is especially so with the art of Serbia, which was influenced both by the West and by Byzantium.2 The images of lions can be seen in full sculpture already in the 12th c. at Studenica, and some 150 years later also at Dečani, as part of complex floral and geometric reliefs.3 The lions under the Christ’s throne at Dečani fit the Gospels prologue of Irenaeus, that the lion presents the royal and most imperial power of God and the Lord,4 as in Martial: the lions know whom they serve.5 Apart from monumental art of medieval Serbia, the feline masks appear even on relic boxes, profane and sacred silks, which all belonged to the court context.6 Here I shall analyze leonine images in Resava and Kalenić, the monasteries built and frescoed ca. 1420. The first was con-ceived as the burial church of despot Stefan Lazarević (1389-1427), one of the most influential statesmen of late medieval Europe.7 Intended to be the cultic center within a huge fortified monastery, it was part of a much larger project which included rebuilding of Belgrade, the new capital of Serbian Despotate.8 Konstantin of Kostenec, the author of despot’s Vita, refers that the city structures and the sophisticated decoration of the five-domed Trinity church employ the New Jerusalem symbolism.9 He says that Stefan built the Resava monastery in imitation of and as a path to the Heavenly Jerusalem..., because he desired to dwell and talk with the hermits.10

Stefan’s lavish portrait reflects much more than the standard ruler’s likeness. He is presenting his founda-tion to the Trinity residing at the New Sion. The animal figures on his suppedion, previously thought to be wolves or griffins, are only recently identified as lions.11 The curved body line and mane are characteristic for heraldic lions en passant. Given that in Byzantium suppedia normally had bicephalous eagles, the Resava example is al-most unique. So, what did the embroidered lions stand for? Do they reflect Stefan’s western liaisons, since as the Knight of the Dragon’s Order he was the ally of the Hungarian court?12 But, one has to remember that his father, Prince Lazar, had himself owned a costume adorned with leonine figures.13 The cushion with the lions under his foot may recall the Psalm 90,14 and the mosaic in the Archbishopric chapel, Ravenna, where Christ is shown tram-

IKON, 2-2009

pling snake and lion under foot.15 According to Theophanes, this old gesture was used at triumph celebrations: so, when Justinian II trampled Leontius’ neck, the usurper’s very name had made the crowd utter: You will tread on the lion and the adder, the young lion and the serpent you will trample under foot.16 Though tempting it may be, this ancient formula does not really match iconography of despot’s portrait, and the heraldic form of the lions is similar to Bosnian and western gisant tombs and royal seals.17 They do not fit either depiction of a fierce lion upon a man, as in the Khludov Psalter, which follows typology of the roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter, 8),18 or of a benign lion in the Munich Psalter, which belongs to paradisiacal context.19 The Resava lions also prevent any connection to the liturgical overtones, as in the Mass for St Prince Lazar, although one finds there direct references to the Sultan who is: the wild beast and great enemy devouring everything, Murad and his son, the offspring of aspis, basilisk’s whelp and lion.20 I would argue instead the possible model is Byzantine, and the only known analogy so far is the portrait of John II Komnenos, in the manuscript Urb. gr. 2, whose suppedion is also adorned with lions.21 Unlike possible negative allusions, as in the last miniature in the Munich Psalter, the Resava lions must certainly be explained as part of the entrance iconography.22 That broad context opens up in the lunette frescoes flanking despot’s portrait, as are the Anapeson, God’s Hand with souls of the righteous, David and Solomon. The importance of the prophets is explained by the despot’s Vita, where its author made multiple comparisons of Stefan to both David and Solomon. It is noteworthy that Solomon is twice more often referred to than David, and the statistics is in accordance with the fact that the former is painted nearer the ruler.23 Given that despot’s suppedion and the cushion of Christ Anapeson have identical form, fabric and colour, it was the way the painter sent a message hidden in the intertwined threads linking triumphal iconography of despot’s portrait and the profound theological structure of the Anapeson theme. Being inspired by the liturgical, exegetical and homiletic texts, and on the Old Testament and Psalms, the Anapeson implies comparison of Christ to the whelp of Judas.24 Therefore, the suppedion adorned with the lions and despot’s royal dress embroidered with bicephalous eagles, clearly point to him as the God-loving monarch who belongs to the righteous tribe of Judas.

The second prominent leonine feature in the Serbian monumental art of the 15th c. is a low relief sculpted above the altar window of the monastery church in Kalenić. It renders a man killing a lion and the heraldic bi-cephalous eagle, the stately symbol of all medieval Serbian dynasties.25 Kalenić was probably the joint foundation of despot Stefan and of his high court official, protovestiarios Bogdan.26 The emphasized triumphal iconography of both the painted and sculpted programs can help date the erection of Kalenić to the period following decisive victories over the Ottoman Turks.27 The church’s dedication is the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple; its rich façades recreate Heavenly Jerusalem, as recently shown.28 The historic portraits comprise both Bogdan’s family and despot himself. The Virgin’s cycle in the narthex is adapted to suit special ideas, with deliberate exclusion of the Massacre of the Innocents, and the emphasis put on the Flight into Egypt and on the Enrollment for Taxation. The former is painted in the zone above the portraits, as an authentic expression of the ktetors’ faith, while the lat-ter brings forth the set of ideas from the iconography of Akathistos hymn, the homilies of George of Nicomedia, and from the Epistles, all building on the open scroll as the symbol of Logos, and recalling words of Jesus rejoice that your names are written in heaven (Luke 10, 20).29 The both scenes operate with political overtones in compar-ing despot to the models of perfect rulers. In the first one, the personification of Egypt, dressed as an Emperor and superposing the ruler’s figure, makes direct comparison of despot to the Pharaoh Ptolemy Philadelph. It is founded on Stefan’s love of books and on his own literary achievements, which is why the intellectuals of the time, Gregorios of Chilandari, Dositheos, and Konstantin of Kostenec, use the same motif and compare him to Ptolemy, who was renowned for having the Bible translated.30 In the Enrollment for Taxation there is another com-parison, now with the Emperor Augustus, in that he was given despot’s facial features. Representing Augustus instead of Kyrenius, the painter had not the Gospel story in mind, but Byzantine legendary accounts on Augustus as the crypto Christian Emperor,31 but also the old Serbian chronicles with imagined genealogy of despot, ex-tending to Constantine and Augustus, in which way the Serbs were included into the world history.32 This context

Cvetković, Imago leonis in Despot Stefan’s Iconography

1. Monastery Resava, 1418.

2. Despot Stefan, Resava, 1418.

3. Lion on the suppedion, Resava, 1418.

4. Urb. gr. 2, fol. 10v, ca. 1128.

5. Lunette of the nave, Resava, 1418.

IKON, 2-2009

6. Monastery Kalenić, ca. 1420.

7. North wall of the narthex, Kalenić, ca. 1420.

8. Emperor Augustus, Kalenić, ca. 1420.

leads towards the real meaning of the relief of a man killing a lion on the apse window, sculpted with the heraldic bicephalous eagle. Though it lacks an inscription, it is rarely identified as Samson kills the lion.33 This hypothesis is not without logic, since for his courage despot is indeed compared to Samson in his Vita,34 while the Samson tale is widely present in imperial iconography, from the floor mosaics in the Pantokrator monastery in Constantinople and in Mopsuestia, to the imaginary palace of Digenes Akrites, and the famous Samson silks.35 The same model stands for David, who was the lion killer too, as witnessed by the David plates, connected to the Persian victory of the Emperor Heraclius.36 But the most notorious among the lion killers is Herakles, and his Slaying of the Nemean lion is by far the best known version.37 According to the Vita Basilii, the Herculean deeds of the Emperor Basil II were once painted on the Kainourgion ceiling in Constantinople, and Manuel Chrysoloras says that Herakles cycle in marble plaques adorned the Golden Gate of the Imperial Palace.38 But what makes problem of precise iden-tification of the Kalenić relief more difficult is existence of parallels such is the one in Par. gr. 36, which possibly represents personification of the Force.39

What may help is the monastery’s name. The oldest sources and the early 19th c. inscriptions on the tem-plon refer to Kalinik, which is a derivative from Greek kallinikos and to kallinikon, meaning gloriously victorious, glorious victor.40 As a calque this adjective appears already in the Vita of St Symeon Nemanja, but it has not been noted so far.41 However, it was the most frequently used epithet of Herakles (Kallinikos).42 Is it, then, possible to identify the Kalenić relief with Herakles? One has to recall despot Stefan’s legendary genealogy stretching back to Constantine I,43 who had himself believed to descend from Herakles.44 Moreover, the Serbian chronicles and the despot’s Vita present much more data on his presumed ancestors among whom, besides Constantine I, one finds Maximian Herculius, who too descended from the lordship of the famous Augustus the Caesar, in whose time Christ was born as the man.45 What may point to the resolution of this rather complex problem is the martyr St Kallinikos, whose relics had been cherished among medieval Serbs and Bulgars.46 It would appear both cult of St Kallinikos and the Herakles’ victorious epithet are preserved in the actual name of Kalenić. But how? The answer lies within the calendar, or more precisely, in the paramount significance of the two major military clashes which eventually led to the establishment of the personal reign of despot Stefan and to the independence of his Serbian despotate: the battle of Ankara, named by the chronicles the Timur’s war, took place on the eve of St Kallinikos’ feastday, July 28/29, 1402, and also the subsequent battle of Gračanica, named the Despot’s war, took place on November 21, 1402, i.e. the feastday of the Virgin’s Presentation in the Temple, the dedication of Kalenić.47 The far reaching consequences of the major Ottoman defeat at Ankara, the fact that St Kallinikos’ martyrdom took place at Ankara, and the battle of Gračanica as the crucial victory Stefan won on domestic soil in the aftermath of the Ankara onslaught – all these must have been more than a fertile ground for an exegesis, as such a coincidence by medieval standards was only understood as direct proof of God’s mercy. Put in other way, the Kalenić monastery probably commemorated the glorious events of which despot’s charters abound with a number of references.48 The church might have been the place of special veneration of a miraculous icon, the war banners, or the relics connected to the outcome of the military campaigns which brought liberation from the Ottomans. Specially composed encomium by Demetrius Chrysoloras for the annual commemoration of the Ankara battle is the best proof of the importance of the Turkish disaster, and of the general feeling of the Byzantines.49 It is possible a mi-raculous icon of the Virgin with the relics of St Kallinikos may have been the cultic focus which gave the name to the monastery.50 But, whoever stood behind the iconography of the apse window, he must have been aware not of the political circumstances only, but also of the many rhetorical devices in promoting despot Stefan. If the sculp-tor had been instructed to depict the victorious ruler disguised as Herakles Kallinikos, it is the despot’s Vita that corroborates the thesis as there Stefan is compared to Herakles in a totally overlooked passage which covers the battles of Ankara and of Gračanica.51 Konstantin of Kostenec takes combined episodes from Homer, Pindar and Apollodorus of the hero’s conquer of Troy, and of his fight against Ares and Cycnus, with the literal translation of the famous Greek proverb: not even Herakles against two.52 This not only points to the high level of Konstantin’s

IKON, 2-2009

education, but adds new information on presence of the Herakles theme in medieval art and literature. The same proverb was used in an epigram on St Theodores icon, composed by Manuel Philes for Theodore Komnenos Palaiologos: I painted the champions (Theodores) armed, so that Satan, humbled, may turn his back and may not assault us boldly, because not even Hercules, they say, is a match for two.53 At the time, Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palailogos compared himself in one of his famous letters to Alexander the Great,54 while the epithet kallinikos was widely used in Byzantine hymnography as well.55

The analogies for the victory symbol on the apse window in the Kalenić monastery recall the well known fact that medieval art was always imbued with meaning and symbolism.56 The unprecedented richness of ar-chitecture and a number of triumphal features in painting and sculpture reveal Kalenić as the commemorative church with powerful political statements.57

9. Apse window, Kalenić, ca. 1420.

10. Par. gr. 36, fol. 94v, ca. 1400.

Cvetković, Imago leonis in Despot Stefan’s Iconography

1 Cf. ODB, 1, p. 101; H. MAGUIRE, The Profane Aesthetics in Byzantine Art and Literature, in: DOP, 55, Washington D.C., 1999, pp. 189-205.

2 For a survey, cf. J. MAKSIMOVIĆ, Srpska srednjovekovna skulptura, Novi Sad, 1972.3 Cf. J. MAGLOVSKI, Studenički južni portal. Prilog ikonologiji studeničke plastike, in: Zograf, 13, Beograd, 1982, pp. 13-27;

ID, Znamenje Judino na studeničkoj trifori, in: Zograf, 15, Beograd, 1984, pp. 51-58; ID, Dečanska skulptura - program i smisao, in: Dečani i vizantijska umetnost sredinom XIV veka. Beograd, 1989, pp. 193-223. The antagonistic qualities of the lion symbol are founded on the Physiologos: Fisiolog. M. LAZIĆ ed., Beograd, 1989, p. 31; ODB, 3, p. 1674. Cf. W. DEONNA, Salve me de ore leonis, in: Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire, 28, Bruxelles, 1950, pp. 479-511.

4 R. NELSON, The Iconography of Preface and Miniature in the Byzantine Gospel Book, New York, 1980, pp. 25-26. Cf. LCI, 3, cols. 112-119; ODB, 2, pp. 1231-1232.

5 E.P. EVANS, Animal Symbolism in Ecclesiastical Architecture, London, 1896, p. 19.6 Cf. D. POPOVIĆ, Shrine of King Stefan Uroš III Dečanski, in: Byzantium. Faith and Power (1261-1557), New York, 2004,

pp. 114-115; W. T. WOODFIN, Embrodiered Belt, in: Ibid, p. 310; S. MILEUSNIĆ, Pall for the Face of Prince Lazar (Jefimija’s Embroidery), in: Ibid, pp. 320-321.

7 B. TODIĆ, Manastir Resava. Beograd, 1995 (with bibliography).8 M. POPOVIĆ, Beogradska tvrdjava, Beograd, 2006.9 Cf. J. ERDELJAN, Beograd kao Novi Jerusalim. Razmišljanja o recepciji jednog toposa u doba despota Stefana Lazarevića,

in: ZRVI, 43, Beograd, 2006, pp. 97-109.10 Konstantin Filozof i njegov Život Stefana Lazarevića despota srpskoga, in: Glasnik SUD, XLII, Beograd, 1875, p. 288. On

topoi, cf. N. RADOŠEVIĆ, Laudes Serbiae. The Life of Despot Stephan Lazarević by Constantine the Philosopher, in: ZRVI, 24-25, Beograd, 1986, pp. 445-451.

11 B. CVETKOVIĆ, Vladar kao slika Boga: primer Resave, in: Koreni, V, Jagodina, 2007, pp. 13-24. Cf. S. TOMIĆ – R. NIKOLIĆ, Manasija. Istorija – živopis, in: Saopštenja, VI, Beograd, 1964, p. 55, T. VIII/8 (wolf ); S. TODIĆ, Manastir Resava, p. 100 (grif-fin).

12 Cf. M. ANTONOVIĆ, Despot Stefan Lazarević i Zmajev red, in: Istorijski glasnik, 1-2, Beograd, 1990-1992, pp. 15-24.13 D. STOJANOVIĆ, Tkanine, in: Istorija primenjene umetnosti kod Srba I, Beograd, 1977, pp. 296-299. Textiles with leo-

nine images are mentioned already in the Vita of St Sava, cf. B. MILJKOVIĆ, Žitija Svetog Save kao izvori za istoriju sred-njovekovne umetnosti, Beograd, 2008, pp. 145-146.

14 Cf. B. POPOVIĆ, Ornament sa živopisa uz oltarski prozor Banje Pribojske. Dvoglavi orao i lav u krugovima, in: Mileševski zapisi, 6, Prijepolje, 2005, pp. 101-108.

15 V.N. LAZAREV, Istoria vizantiiskoi zhivopisi, Moskva, 1986, p. 43.16 M. McCORMICK, Eternal victory. Triumphal rulership in late antiquity, Byzantium, and the early medieval West, Cambridge

University Press, 1986, p. 74.17 D. POPOVIĆ, Srpski vladarski grob u srednjem veku, Beograd, 1992, pp. 131-134; P. ANDJELIĆ, Historijski spomenici Konji-

ca i okoline I, Konjic, 1975, pp. 313-314.18 M. V. SHCHEPKINA, Miniatury Chludovskoi psaltiri, Moskva, 1977, fol. 5 verso.19 J. MAKSIMOVIĆ, Srpske srednjovekovne minijature, Beograd, 1983, fig. 44.20 Spisi o Kosovu, M. GRKOVIĆ ed., Beograd, 1993, p. 123, 155.21 J. C. ANDERSON, The Gospels of John II Komnenos, in: The Glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine

Era A.D. 843-1261, New York, 1997, pp. 209-210. Cf. I. SPATHARAKIS, The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts, Leiden, 1976, p. 81, fig. 46 says that the lions are hindquarters of two animals, while L. HADERMANN-MISGUICH, Tissus de pouvoir et de prestige sous les Macédoniens et les Comnènes. A propos des coussins-de-pièds et de leur representations, in: DChAE, 4, Athens, 1994, p. 128, misidentifies them for cats.

22 For colour plate, cf. MAKSIMOVIĆ, op. cit, fig. 51; B. CVETKOVIĆ, Model and Message: On the Usage of Art, in: XXe Congrès International des Études Byzantines, III. Paris, 2001, p. 407.

23 CVETKOVIĆ, Vladar kao slika Boga: primer Resave, pp. 17-18.24 B. TODIĆ, Anapeson. Iconographie et signification du theme, in: Byzantion, LXIV/1, Bruxelles, 1994, pp. 134-165.25 For the bicephalous eagles, cf. A. MUTHESIUS, The Byzantine Eagle, in: EAD, Studies in Silk in Byzantium, London, 2004,

pp. 227-236 (with reference to earlier literature).

26 B. CVETKOVIĆ, Gerasimov zapis i ktitori Kalenića, in: Saopštenja, XXIX, Beograd, 1997, pp. 107-122; I. KOLOVOS, A Biti of 1439 from the Archives of the Monastery of Xeropotamou (Mount Athos), in: Hilandarski zbornik, 11, Beograd, 2004, pp. 295-305.

27 Cf. I. STEVOVIĆ – B. CVETKOVIĆ, The Monastery of Kalenić, Beograd, 2007; B. CVETKOVIĆ, Reljefna predstava Bogorodice s Hristom u Kaleniću, in: Glasnik DKS, 32, Beograd, 2008, pp. 90-92.

28 I. STEVOVIĆ, Kalenić. Bogorodičina crkva u arhitekturi poznovizantijskog sveta, Beograd, 2006.29 Cf. B. CVETKOVIĆ, Some Hierotopical Aspects of the New Jerusalem Programs in the Fifteenth-Century Serbia, in: New Je-

rusalems. The Translation of Sacred Space in Christian Culture. Material from the International Symposium, Moscow, 2006, pp. 133-135 (despot’s comparison to Daniel, too).

30 Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi, M. PAVIĆ ed., Beograd, 1986, pp. 95-98, 101-102; KONSTANTIN FILOZOF, Povest o slovima (Skazanije o pismeneh) – izvodi, Beograd, 1989, p. 49, 52.

31 Ž. DAGRON, Car i prvosveštenik. Studija o vizantijskom “cezaropapizmu”, Beograd, 2001, p. 32, 153, 161, 185, 225, 313, 368; A. KAZHDAN, “Constantin Imaginaire.” Byzantine Legends of the Ninth Century about Constantine the Great, in: By-zantion, 57, Bruxelles, 1987, pp. 196-250.

32 Stari srpski rodoslovi i letopisi, LJ. STOJANOVIĆ ed., Sr. Karlovci, 1927, no. 3, 419.33 Cf. STEVOVIĆ, op.cit., p. 176.34 Konstantin Filozof i njegov Život, p. 327.35 R. OUSTERHOUT, Architecture, Art and Komnenian Ideology at the Pantokrator Monastery, in: Byzantine Constantinople.

Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, Leiden-Boston-Köln, 1997, pp. 133-150; E. KITZINGER, Observations on the Samson Floor at Mopsuestia, in: DOP, 27, Washington D.C, 1973, pp. 133-144; C. MANGO, The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453. Sources and Documents, Englewood Cliffs, 1972, p. 216; A. MUTHESIUS, Byzantine Silk Weaving AD 400 to AD 1200, Vienna, 1997, pp. 67-68, 213-214.

36 H. MAGUIRE, The Art of Comparing, in: Art Bulletin, 70, New York, 1988, pp. 93-94; M. MUNDELL MANGO, Imperial art in the 7th century, in: New Constantines. The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium 4th-13th centuries, Aldershot, 1994, pp. 122-131.

37 See the silver platter in Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, cf. F. GUIRAND, Greek Mythology, in: New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, New York, 1968, p. 174.

38 MANGO, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, pp. 196-197, 251. Also, see ODB, 2, pp. 917-918.39 A. XYNGOPOULOU, Fortitudo, in: Zograf, 10, Beograd, 1979, pp. 92-93.40 Grčko-hrvatski ili srpski rječnik, Zagreb, 1983, p. 212. Cf. B. CVETKOVIĆ, Ikonostas u hramu manastira Kalenića, in:

Saopštenja, XXXIX, Beograd, 2007, pp. 229-246.41 As ”dobropobedno telo,” in: Stefan Prvovenčani, Sabrani spisi, Beograd, 1988, p. 99; Staroslavianski slovar, Moskva,

1999, p. 191. Cf. DJ. DANIČIĆ, Rječnik iz književnih starina srpskih I, Beograd, 1863, p. 281 (instead of Greek, here is only a Latin reference - victor egregius).

42 Cf. Th. PANOFKA, Zeus Basileus und Herakles Kallinikos, in: Siebentes Programm zum Berliner Winckelmansfeste, Berlin, 1847, pp. 3-12. Also, see: S. WEINSTOCK, Victor and Invictus, in: Harvard Theological Review, 50, Cambridge MA, 1957, pp. 211-247, and G.K. GALINSKY, The Herakles Theme. The Adaptations of the Hero in Literature from Homer to the Twen-tieh Century, Oxford, 1972.

43 On St Constantine’s relics in Serbia, cf. E. A. MORSHAKOVA, Reliquary of the Right Hand of St. Constantine the Great, in: Christian Relics in the Moscow Kremlin, Moscow, 2000, pp. 126-128.

44 PL, VII /VI/ 2, 5; F. DVORNIK, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy. Origins and Background I, Washington D.C., 1966, p. 172; B. KRSMANOVIĆ – N. RADOŠEVIĆ, Legendarne genealogije vizantijskih careva i njihovih porodica, in: ZRVI, 41, Beograd, 2004, pp. 71-94.

45 Konstantin Filozof i njegov Život, p. 256; Cf. R. REES, The Emperors’ New Names: Diocletian Jovius and Maximian Herculius, in: Herakles and Hercules. Exploring A Graeco-Roman Divinity. The Classical Press of Wales, 2005, pp. 223-239.

46 Syn CP, col. 854; E. BAKALOVA, Rilskata chudotvorna ikona-relikvarii, Konstantinopol i Mara Brankovich, in: Bulgaria i Srbia v konteksta na vizantijskata civilizacia, Sofia, 2005, pp. 193-228.

47 Stari srpski rodoslovi i letopisi, pp. 220-221; G. ŠKRIVANIĆ, Angorska bitka (28. jula 1402), in: Vojnoistorijski glasnik, XV, 2, Beograd, 1964, pp. 53-76; ODB, 1, p. 102.

Cvetković, Imago leonis in Despot Stefan’s Iconography

48 A. MLADENOVIĆ, Povelje i pisma despota Stefana. Tekst, komentari, snimci, Beograd, 2007, p. 184, 185, 296, 299, 347, 352, 362, 408.

49 P. GAUTIER, Action de grâces de Démétrius Chrysoloras a la Théotokos pour l’anniversaire de la bataille d’Ankara (28. juillet 1403), in: REB, 19, Paris, 1961, pp. 340-357.

50 On late medieval icons containing relics, cf. BAKALOVA, op. cit., pp. 193-228.51 K. KUEV – G. PETKOV, Sbrani schinenia na Konstantin Kostenecki. Sofia, 1986, p. 390, 457, the editors misidentify Herak-

les (Araklia) for Heraclea Lincestis, antique name of the town Bitola.52 Homeri Illias, 5. 640-2; APOLLODORUS, Library and Epitome. J. G. FRAZER ed., Cambridge MA-London, 1921, pp. 245-

246; GALINSKY, op. cit, p. 15, 20, n. 19.53 Manuelis Philae Carmina. E. MILLER ed., Amsterdam, 1967, p. CLXXI, 1-4; Cf. S. T. BROOKS, Intaglio Gemstone with Saint

Theodore Teron, in: Byzantium. Faith and Power, pp. 239-240.54 MANUEL II PALAEOLOGUS, The Letters, G. T. DENNIS ed., Washington D.C., 1977, no. 59; N. RADOŠEVIĆ, Pisma Manojla

II Paleologa u okviru vizantijske književnosti XV veka, in: Srpska književnost u doba Despotovine, Despotovac, 1998, p. 181.

55 Cf. E. FOLIERI, Initia hymnorum ecclesiae grecae, Vol. II. Città del Vaticano, 1961, pp. 258-259; M. GLIGORIJEVIĆ - MAKSI-MOVIĆ, Slikarstvo XIV veka u manastiru Treskavcu, in: ZRVI, XLII, Beograd, 2005, p. 97.

56 Cf. J - P. ROUX, Le Taureau sauvage maitrisé, in: Syria, XLVIII, Beirut, 1971, pp. 187-201; C. JOLIVET, L’Ideologie princiere dans les sculptures d’Aghtamar, in: The Second International Symposium on Armenian Art, III, Yerevan, 1978, pp. 86-94; L. JONES, The Church of the Holy Cross and the Iconography of Kingship, in: Gesta, XXXIII/2, New York, 1994, pp.104-117; EAD, Between Islam and Byzantium. Aght’amar and the Visual Construction of Medieval Armenian Rulership, Ashgate, 2007.

57 Cf. C. L. CONNOR, Hosios Loukas as a Victory Church, in: Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33/3, Durham NC, 1992, pp. 293-308.