Post-Byzantine Cretan Icon Painting: Demand and Supply Revisited

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article focuses on a well known document from 1499, which has been frequently cited, though rarely investigated in depth. The author reconstructs its economic context and offers some interesting details as to the circumstances in which a huge number of icons made in different manners was produced in a workshop of Candia.

Anyway, the conclusions may be misleading for the reader. The author emphasizes the importance of icons circulating in Italy and Western Europe in the late 15th century and contrasts it rather generically with Vasari's misappreciation of Byzantine style. However, few efforts are made to explain what Vasari means when speaking of "Greek manner" and the extent to which this notion may be associated with our modern understanding of "Byzantine art". The wide appreciation of Cretan icons as efficacious devotional tools in the West, pace Vasari, has been often emphasized, but the author seems to thoroughly neglect this literature, e.g., A. Nagel and Christopher Wood, Anachronic Renaissance, New York 2010, and A.R. Casper, Art and the Religious Image in El Greco's Italy, University Park 2014; Michele Bacci, "On the Prehistory of Cretan Icon Painting", Frankokratia 1 (2020), pp. 108-164; and idem, "Images à la grecque et agentivité miraculeuse à l'époque moderne", in Nicolas Balzamo and Estelle Leutrat (eds.), L'image miraculeuse dans le Cristianisme occidental, Moyen Age - Temps modernes, Rennes 2020, pp. 131-148. Furthermore, the importance of icon trade has acquired a new dimension through the publication of evidence from the archives of the Crown of Aragon, which are not taken into account in the article: the author should integrate the information provided by D. Duran i Duelt, "Icons and Minor Arts: A Neglected Aspect of Trade between Romania and the Crown of Aragon", Byzantinische Zeitschrift 105 (2012), pp. 29-52. Finally, it is improper to say that the Virgin Hodegetria was an "acheiropoietos": acheiropoieta are miraculous imprints, not made by human hand, either appearing by God's will in a natural environment, or produced by physical contact with Christ's body, like the Mandylion or the Veronica. The Hodegetria was a sacred portrait made by a saintly, though thoroughly human hand: that of the Apostle Luke.

My suggestion is that the conclusion may be thoroughly reformulated and the missing information and references be integrated.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 1 as requested:

• Please accept my apologies, but I wonder how carefully the reviewer read my paper. Assessing what 'maniera Greca' is, does NOT form part of my aims here. The aims are made clear in reference 1 and I also cite clearly that the 'maniera greca' discussion has attracted a lot of attention and provided the latest bibliography (Drandaki, Gratziou, with a plethora of relevant bibliography). I can only hope that the reviewer read everything (?)
• I also cite bibliographical references where Nagel and Wood are referenced - and I will referain here from addressing this publication. 
• I am not sure what exactly is the relavence of the article the reviewer would like me to incorporate addressing icon trade between Romania and the Crown of Aragon, when the archival document I engage with here clearly addresses icon trade in Candia and the two dealers have nothing to do with either Romania or the Crown of Aragon? Citing bibliography for bibliography's sake, is not something I subscribe to - with apologies.
• Finally, I can only say that I respectfully disagree with the take on 'acheiropoietos' (and, once more, and with sincere apologies, I can only assume that the reviewer has no in depth knowldge of the use of the word in Medieval Greek?). Αχειροποίητος, does indeed imply the involvement of no hands - but Saint Luke, being a saint and the author of one of the 4 Gospels, is no ordinary human. Furthermore, his creation was through divine grace and approved by the Virgin herself, therefore, in essence no 'human hand' was involved in producing the Hodegetria icon, hence the miracoulous-ness of this image. Is the suggetion made here by the reviewer that, for example, the Church of the Virgin Acheiropoietos, the basilica in Thessaloniki, should be renamed, as (according to their present argument) the term is not correct?

I will ensure that both Introduction and Conclusion are clearly articulated for those who only plan to read the paper in haste.

Kind regards

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written and well-referenced text (additions to the bibliography: http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/id/1672575 , http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/id/2316843 , http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/id/1419138 ). It contains little that is new and, frankly, I do not quite see the point of publishing yet another study of a very well known document. The authors' ultimate conclusions (1) that the Cretan icons market was flourishing ca. 1500, (2) that Vasari was wrong, and (3) that El Greco was right, seem to me a bit trivial.

Fig. 2 shows a Russian icon. Why was it chosen to illustrate this article?

Some suggestions for improvement:

line 42: guaranteed overall political stability

line 96: the use of patterns

line 110: delete "Furthermore"

line 134: There is no indication of the measurements of these three types.

line 145: covers 100 %

line 160: but was somehow predetermined

line 161: of the first time had to be painted [no comma]

line 182: different value from its Cypriot counterpart

line 194: This could be corroborated

line 216: for the anonymous market

line 296: (see, for example, Baltoyanni

line 333: If these icons were indeed [no commas] intended for export

Author Response

Comments to Reviewer 2, as requested:

• I am really sorry that the reviewer fails to see the relevance of my paper - especially providing an open acess translation in English, and placing it within the wider monetary system of its time. I am not aware that any other publication thus far does this; and I assume the reviewer is not aware of one either, otherwise they would have quoted it here (?) I am also really sorry to assume that the reviewer does not value the close reading and translation of archival sources. I beg to differ.
• Fig. 2: According to Yanni from Axia who very kindly provided the icon, this is not Russian. But, even if it were, the point of the Hodegetria type for all Orthodox Christianity would include any representation. 
• Being a non-English native speaker, I welcome all editorial comments and I would like to profoundly thank the reviewer for taking the time to note them. I have applied all suggestions except: - line 96: the use of patterns (as this clashes with 'were used' mentioned in the line immediately below - and which the reviewer obviously missed; I have opted for 'application' here instead and I can only hopethe reviewer would approve.) line 216: for the anonymous market - I have kept 'speculative' and added 'anonymous' here, as I believe that 'speculative' reflects better the marketing approach of the two dealers. 
• The reviewer may well think that the conlcusions are trivial, but the point remains that modern scholarship has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate that Vasari was wrong and El Greco was right. Additionally, if we take into consideration the damage inflicted in viewing Byzantine art because of Vasari's uneducated verdict, then I would seriously question the issue of 'triviality' here. I will reformulate the conclusions to reflect my/this opinion (which, in turn, I hope it addresses 'trivial').