From the late thirteenth century onward, the art of illumination blossomed in the northern highlands of present-day Ethiopia and Eritrea. At least, this is the period from which its development is best known thanks to a much larger body of preserved manuscripts. For earlier periods, our knowledge of manuscript painting relies on two objects or groups of objects: the Four-Gospel Books I and III of the monastery of ʾAbbā Garimā, dated roughly to the fifth-seventh centuries through a combination of radiocarbon analysis and art-historical study (McKenzie and Watson 2016; Mercier 2021a),1 and the Four-Gospel Book of the church of ʾƎndā ʾabbā Maṭāʾ (also known as Dabra Libānos of Hām) with an inscription on its golden cover which gives a King Solomon as the commissioner of this binding. This king is generally identified as Ṭanṭawǝdǝm, who is himself hypothetically ascribed to the twelfth century, giving an indirect date for the manuscript (Derat 2018: 38–40; Bosc-Tiessé 2020: 345–47). The ornamentation of these manuscripts is furthermore limited. In the case of the first two, it comprises the Eusebian letter, the canon tables, the evangelist with two additional images of a temple and a circle. The illumination of the manuscript of ʾƎndā ʾabbā Maṭāʾ consists only of the Eusebian letter, the glorious cross, the canon tables, and a tempietto. The semicircular headpieces above the columns in the canon tables were left unadorned, suggesting that the project remained unfinished.From the last decades of the thirteenth century to the late fourteenth century, around fifty painted manuscripts or fragments of painted manuscripts—Gospel Books, with a few exceptions—are currently known. They are mostly preserved in Ethiopian and Eritrean churches, but are also held in libraries, museums, or private collections in Ethiopia, Europe, and the United States.2Suddenly, we are faced with a much larger number of painted manuscripts, raising the question of the conditions under which they were produced, especially since these manuscripts, when their provenance is known, are scattered throughout a territory that was being fought over by different powers. However, having a painted manuscript in a library remains exceptional, even more so a manuscript with a long series of images. Library inventories from that period do not specify whether manuscripts were illuminated, but when we do have information—albeit centuries later—it shows that the largest libraries held only two or three painted manuscripts at most at any one time and, at best, a ratio of one to twenty (Bosc-Tiessé 2008: 289). Furthermore, painted manuscripts have been subject to various types of covetousness and loss over the centuries. Yet, a taphonomic study of libraries—that is, an evaluation of the logic of preservation and the transformations of materials over time3—shows that such manuscripts have been preferentially preserved. For instance, while around a hundred books were donated by the abbots to the monastery of Ḥayq ʾƎsṭifānos between the 1280s and the 1340s— i.e., over nearly sixty years—only four are still preserved today, and three of those are illuminated (Bosc-Tiessé 2014: 10–12). Their preservation is due to the manuscripts' importance to the church for three main, nested reasons: the key place given to the Gospel as the princeps book; the notes regarding land donations, movable property, and organizational matters of the house recorded inside, in its blank pages;4 and the paintings enhancing the prestige and the symbolic, even economic, value of the object. We can also guess that, as much as the importance given to the Gospels protects the recorded acts, concretely and perhaps symbolically, the images themselves might reinforce this protective function (Bosc-Tiessé 2019).There is therefore a clear correlation between the importance—and length—of painted cycles and the number of pragmatic documents5 embedded in a Gospel manuscript. It is noteworthy that the development of illumination in the late thirteenth century coincides with the production of manuscripts conveying the richest historical information, even though these texts remain silent about the painters and the painting process. Historiography has so far mainly focused on Gospel iconography (e.g., Lepage 1987, 1997; Balicka-Witakowska 1997; Lepage and Mercier 2012; Gnisci 2017) and has mainly studied the links between manuscripts from a theoretical perspective, often without really anchoring them in the history of the places where they were produced, used, or preserved. This article instead proposes to examine how, and to what extent, we can tie the production of a manuscript to a specific place and how we can analyze both stylistic features and pragmatic literacy to better understand artistic transmission. Therefore, this article offers a reflection on the methods used to classify and organize objects, the circulation of motifs, and what these can additionally tell us about the government of the kingdom. This study then shifts the focus by concentrating on formal and decorative elements that may seemed secondary, and deepens the analysis of the documents of the pragmatic literacy preserved in illuminated manuscripts, in order to explore how a renewed understanding of historical events may also help us better grasp the interconnections between historical and artistic contexts. At a time when we still have little tangible information about the movement of people or the relationships between monasteries, the article seeks to interrogate the available traces and the clues they can be for art history as well as for history.6In situation of documentary scarcity, style remains one of our key points of entry into time—and possibly into location. How were artistic forms developed and shared? How did these forms endure over time, and how do we talk about them? Yet, writing a history of stylistic forms is a delicate task and the biases of art-historical methods deserve to be clarified. Our practices tend to sort painted manuscripts into schools, styles, workshops, or scriptoria, terms often used interchangeably without genuinely considering the organization of labor or the modalities of production they imply. Despite scholarly disagreements, “style” generally functions as the broadest category. It may be considered distinctive of an era, or sometimes more restrictively of a network of monasteries, or—implicitly—a specific slot of time (Bosc-Tiessé 2008: 40–45). “School” may sometimes be used as a synonym for “style,” though less rigorously.7 Going one step further, the terms “scriptorium” or “workshop” are used when a group of manuscripts can be linked to monastic movement, as for “style,” or to a specific place, as with the “Ḥayq scriptorium,” when several people were involved but no names are known or when it can be related to an emblematic figure, such as King Dāwit at the turn of the fifteenth century.This classificatory practice relies on analyzing similarities in form, ornamentation, or spatial and colored composition: the standard art-historical daily work which becomes tricky when trying to distinguish between works, measuring gaps and assessing what they were supposed to show: the different moments in a painter's life, the work of a student, that of an imitator, or a later inspiration, and so on, based on a necessarily fluid assessment of our criteria (Bosc-Tiessé and Mirabaud 2016).Then, looking more closely at the details, we can get bogged down when creating convenience names, “Masters of such and such,” naming them after a feature we highlight as distinctive to a particular hand. We acknowledge that such a “master” may not be a physical individual but indeed an aesthetic personality (Reynaud 1978). This personality can correspond to several people working in similar ways. This is finally close to the notion of a workshop, and we have only displaced and relocated the problem.This strategy aims to singularize the creative act and break, to some extent, from anonymity. In Ethiopian art history, adopting a name of convenience can be both a political and strategic gesture—against the assumption of collective or anonymous creation in Africa—and place African art, including Ethiopian art, on equal footing with European art. But, in a somehow harmful way, this strategy also risks importing some methodological traps of European art-historical studies, in the practices of for distinctive elements of an individual based on the of the a over the also from a of the of the and how the style is to without how the painting was by to the it its later This also both and with the methods of for by considering elements that are to as or which a might in the way, or that do with the such as a of when it to not to known painters but to creating “Masters of a no the of the but an even and, most of of different in Ethiopian art history, we have of a a and even a to the in the This is down as a further, but such can and the may then into the I on details, related to how painters not linked to an and which have been from one manuscript to and forms may not have been and that in may be a they be a of through painters in a of or through the the fifty books or fragments of manuscripts with paintings that be ascribed to the period from the late thirteenth to the late fourteenth century, only four are not Gospel for the a of three or long a of to the Eusebian letter, the canon tables or without the and the evangelist of these long cycles of which are in a points of of these manuscripts date not related to the of the painting at best, to the of the or its to a may also in notes the organization of the with or through the of a historical figure, most often a manuscripts series of the more they the more they are to a for the However, this may of several decades and only a on these manuscripts, dated or at in a specific time we can to the development and of forms in time and at the of considering them to be princeps We can first turn to the monastery of Ḥayq which at the of the thirteenth century on what was then the of the when the and the monastery and it a place in the government in the it also a for the of or texts into It is that we for the first time in Ethiopian history, three painted manuscripts, dated between and suggesting the of a painting workshop, its may have been (Bosc-Tiessé 2020: Four-Gospel Book on the order of who it to the church in currently painted But, at two, and possibly are so may have been or painted This Gospel Book the most of them They date to that time or around when King to have a cover and, at an to the first to as a (Bosc-Tiessé only illuminated manuscript of the thirteenth century that is not a The of the painted of them with for who as as close held by the abbots of Ḥayq from time between and The manuscript was therefore in this of the Gospel Book of and with painted Library of Ethiopia is in the by the only date we for when is in a by King in However, we do not when this when or We only that by was in we mainly that these three manuscripts to the in the of of the the of the and they a of perhaps painted over a period of roughly to sixty have been an of to between the first and manuscripts, and at twenty between the and manuscripts. Furthermore, is more stylistic between the first manuscript and the two we the of the and their the of the and even the more closely We also in that the of paintings in these two manuscripts is with the of the only We whether a is and how have while working at such a we the of any further, it is to the of the historical these and the it to the manuscripts in the of these into question and the of who in himself the date on which the of body to the This was with the of King name was to a in the Gospel Book of has been dated to However, these were only and no has been to the that this that was in This has a on the of earlier was considered to have between and but be by three or four this has no on the of the painted manuscripts this shows that the of these as can be This is furthermore not without since is as the of the and as the who in the development of the monastery of The date of for from a land recorded in the Gospel Book of Dabra Libānos of The of has been at on the of later the of and the of the in the century themselves based on earlier or to these for for between and of for from to and of for This us to the in which to the to in the Gospel Book of also with the events the of a and They any and may even have been in to gaps in the information available in the or it is that was on the in though that date is not necessarily the of one to the given in the is no that this is be no later also us to as the of as a date not into by who instead on the to We do not when or when that of in and remained in an far as did not any manuscripts. is from the collective in the Gospel Book by in the and himself The of have been to only to those as the only the first three and this for or for spatial was for that are currently later in of an additional the abbots of Ḥayq In this in the they are only in a as the were that this information from and of are In the collective is as held over left no in the notes of the Ḥayq manuscripts, as a an a in a as in two down only several centuries later In the in of is as the in the monastery of Dabra in the of the in the of becomes the one and in Dabra as a and In this to collective is therefore the of was really The of the and the may have to into their a known to them through this giving to an the may the of at an to and have as a for later dated information has been preserved the of the abbots of Ḥayq between and the only dated for we also in that only specific the one it is therefore that one or more abbots between and names have not down to the we might to the of the thirteenth century or the turn of the a of the political situation this less The in which is is a specific In King a long over of how or over how to Ḥayq that been by and how as well as that of this was in the Gospel Book of not in that of where the first only from the of when was no in most of the notes to be recorded in the Gospel of which remains the this also that the Gospel of did not in the the of may also help the of information about This the the monastery or to the of an who may have been a with an might whether at the of the thirteenth This the stylistic similarities with the of the from but the conditions do not to the production of a illuminated the production of a an illuminated such a of time in any case a which remains to be be a of the of the Gospel the of a illuminated manuscript may have been to highlight the of both Ethiopian and the government of the kingdom. In both this the of the Gospel Book of to after or even to the when the monastery of Ḥayq a of In this the of the abbots of Ḥayq can be at as of this the the series of illumination in the two Gospel Books of The Gospel of of which from the of the Gospel Book of with the of the of the and do not in manuscripts (Bosc-Tiessé stylistic analysis has focused on the features by these three manuscripts, since this us to a But, to the we to their as into the details, some elements In the Gospel the organization of the often the in the the a into two also their and in much more the manuscript of some of the are with or the of these remains they the of a and for instance, be with the decorative elements at the of the in a Gospel in in in Library they to and the the of a Gospel Book in and in in these manuscripts are later the the Ḥayq they may a about the of this of and they from the of from the two Ḥayq manuscripts, but in later manuscripts and in as be of a of the Gospel Book of on the Gospel of even as images were with to the of the the of the and the of the the painters of these two Gospel Books to have been different the of as the of the painting Furthermore, the time between the paintings in the of the by and those in the Gospel Book of remains an it be more to date it close to the of the thirteenth century, to the of the from However, as we have the of that period do not The of be more In this the of the manuscript may have the style of the or painters of the earlier manuscripts, a two illuminated Gospels that we of were in then on the of the of the king of This be in the of of for the manuscript of or of for the manuscript of Dabra both in as in the of the Gospel of the Ḥayq manuscripts, the dated illuminated manuscript known is the Four-Gospel Book of Dabra to its it was by and who was also the at the time of King the and The manuscript was on and donated to the monastery on It to a for the of a of this However, and that the four between the of the of the Gospel and its on the are the time when the paintings were no of the and considered that as and not as that Dabra was a they that the did not a but that may have some in in the in or ʾAbbā Garimā, where illuminated manuscripts are However, of them can be identified as a it remains that the were we have no better that they were the that is not any we the of the of Dabra given the of the forms of the four The of their the manuscript that it is more of a object. after of this the conditions for a manuscript of such importance seemed to be in the and at the to over At the of the fourteenth the including at its northern as a and under the of the of as later by of the of in the on an as by Gospel Book preserved This manuscript a long of painted for a of and pragmatic notes not only events related to the of the but also matters to the history of the Ethiopian kingdom. In a the of the this manuscript to the church of In the of the later of the who is to have held this under This information is by a from the time of King and under the ʾabbā of the Ethiopian It the to and at least, a (Bosc-Tiessé 2008: King is not given as the and, the case of the Ḥayq manuscripts, we have little information about the the Dabra this is a of not a and is also no information on where the manuscript was Yet, the notes preserved in this manuscript no monastery which that it was indeed for this place and, at least, was not from style as well as the of the to be from the Ḥayq manuscripts. few highlight both the by the of the manuscript after and the that might also have or indirect to the Gospels of from them some specific In the of the the specific of the that in the Gospel of but not of that in the one In the of the the between the Gospel and the The Gospel both it the of the first manuscript an additional of the may be for the of and the of in the manuscript of of the remain most of them are colored in that of and, in that of they are so In the the of these two images are with They are of an that has been possibly but not necessarily without understanding and into a In the Ḥayq manuscripts, they in the of the of was or to to In any distinctive have in or for to for this of paintings without clear It is also noteworthy that the of the Gospel was the first to on an the without the its and the and to this this manuscript might be as a for most of the Gospel Books, which some to a (Bosc-Tiessé 2008: the of the Gospel Book of with its of three they only of the of the However, we that manuscript is an and a development of these we this we can examine the and stylistic links of that the Four-Gospel Book of with several manuscripts that also long cycles of though of these is However, these can be in only three of The is in a private in Gnisci to the church of in (also given by a to the church for to a and in the as the and which we therefore can as have considered that this date from based on at the of the of the of I it the of which has been shows that this is much more and be at best this is a of an earlier that has and we do not This in the style of manuscripts, therefore not an do not in such manuscripts as those of and this of the of in provenance is the by then their the images to have as a or indirect for Gospel in at the order of as in its the name of the having been the style of this manuscript is specific in it the one in the of the as well as in specific above the of only by but at in a of the as a of the of The a date but also as King Dāwit and also the of i.e., of the later which at from and to name has been and the of the that a and even an the of these two that be identified with the name of of who in the of of Dabra that was also the of King was Furthermore, the name to have more this assumption us of a provenance for the Dabra between and a by the of King any a manuscript which used the place under the of one of its Yet, the who for was not the one who at the time for King Dāwit and on the manuscript by and a manuscript and by a and donated it to are to the and by King Dāwit in manuscripts to what is known as the style of that is (Bosc-Tiessé the painters by it to names that the importance to a considered as a or an also to the of the relationships between manuscripts. of a of over a century, which in by This only three manuscripts and the to a on understanding in Gospel iconography or their to this article first Ethiopian this it proposes a of which may at first with but which can also the knowledge of the painters and of objects and painters between they remain in the on which are not individual that a was and gives it a of physical by considering what may have these into stylistic history from a few and be in the to a of and Gospels Books, both and and the of in terms of inspiration, and working with these images us to texts that do not an to regarding the history of the kingdom. In the of Dabra and manuscripts were at the of their history, in a of political in some They then remained the Gospel of even At a time when were not painted manuscripts key to the history of the not for preservation of pragmatic literacy in painted but also for preservation of painted with history it to as with or as with the images. It also a to the order of which art-historical analysis in historical while images are sometimes the only to an that later texts to the of events has article was developed from the in and to the in and at the for at the of and as a at the in
Claire Bosc-Tiessé (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: