while the technical quality of the tapestry is high , the style is rather coarse and there is an element of doubt as to its origin in the imperial workshops . the second object which may refer to an imperial triumph is the ivory casket now in the Cathedral Treasury at Troyes . on the sides the casket is remarkable for hunting scenes of considerable power and for phoenixes in the Chinese style ( fig 125 ) ; on the lid two mounted emperors placed symmetrically on either side of a town are offered a city-crown by a woman emerging from the gate followed by townsfolk ( fig 126 ) . it has been suggested that this last scene is related to the triumph of Basil 2 but , although undoubtedly portraying a victorious emperor , judging from the other scenes on the casket , it seems not to be connected with any particular event . a date , however , in the eleventh century is possible . more textiles may be assigned to the reign of Basil 2 . several fragments of silk woven in compound twill with representations of large stylized lions at Berlin , Du&quot;sseldorf , Krefeld and Cologne ( fig 127 ) bear inscriptions referring to the Emperors Constantine 8 and Basil 2 , the sovereigns who love Christ . Constantine 8 , younger brother of Basil 2 , idle and pleasure-loving like his father Romanus 2 , ruled jointly with the Bulgaroctonos between 976 and 1025 . earlier versions of this type of silk , however , were known at one time . in the Cathedral at Auxerre under Bishop St Gaudry ( 918-933 ) were two fragments of a lion silk bearing the inscription in the reign of Leo , the sovereign who loves Christ , which must refer to the Emperor Leo 6 ( 886-912 ) . at Siegburg another great lion silk , now destroyed , bore an inscription referring to Romanus 1 Lecapenus and his son Christopher , whose joint reign lasted from 921 to 923 . a number of reduced , coarser versions of these lion silks have survived but without inscriptions and in this case it is tempting to make a distinction between work done in the imperial factory and work done in the city . the magnificent elephant silk ( fig 128 ) , introduced into the tomb of Charlemagne at Aachen by the Emperor Otto 3 during the recognition of the year 1000 , must also date from the early part of the reign of Basil 2 and Constantine 8 , although the Greek inscription refers only to the fact that it was made under Michael , kitonite and eidikos , and Peter , archon of the Zeuxippos . in addition , two eagle silks may claim to have come from the imperial workshops under these emperors . the chasuble of St Albuin ( 975-1006 ) in the Cathedral Treasury at Brixen is made up from a silk compound twill woven with a pattern of large stylized eagles in dark green on a rose-purple ground with large dark green rosettes in the intervening spaces - eyes , beaks , claws , and the ring in the beak are yellow ( fig 129 ) . the shroud of St Germain in the Church of Saint-Eus&amp;egrave;be at Auxerre bears an identical pattern but in colours of dark blue , dark blue-green , and yellow , and the quality is finer than the Brixen silk . unfortunately neither of these superb silks bears an inscription . with the possible exception of the last two silks , which differ considerably from Islamic eagle silks that have survived , it may be said that Byzantine silk production of this time was heavily indebted to Persian and Abbasid models . the elephant silk is clearly based on a Buwaiyid model for its subject matter and particularly for the stylized tree and its foliage behind the elephant , though the border of the medallion contains more specifically Byzantine ornament . it may be that the introduction of the inscriptions referring to the emperors and used as part of the design is an adoption of Islamic tiraz protocol . later in the century , when a series of particularly subtle silks , known for convenience as incised twills because the pattern in a silk of one colour appears to be engraved , are known in several sequences , the problem of deciding which were made in the Byzantine world and which were made under Islam , or by Islamic craftsmen in the Byzantine empire , becomes acute . some bear fine Kufic inscriptions with the name of an Amir of Diyarbakr in northern Syria dating about 1025 , others bear polite wishes in Kufic , some have no inscriptions at all , and there is one remarkable silk , with the portrait of a Byzantine emperor , found in the tomb of St Ulrich of Augsburg ( d 955 ) , which seems to be without question of Greek manufacture . the textiles found in the tomb of Pope Clement 2 ( d 1047 ) at Bamberg , of which one is closely related to a silk from the tomb of King Edward the confessor ( d 1066 ) , present similar problems . there can be no doubt , however , that the imperial Byzantine silks have a power and a dignity , a feeling for design and texture , seldom rivalled in the history of textiles . there is little wonder that Bishop Liutprand of Cremona was tempted on his return from his unsatisfactory mission to the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas to smuggle imperial silks through the Byzantine customs . the mosaic panel in the south gallery of Agia Sophia at Constantinople with the portraits of the Emperor Constantine 9 Monomachos and the Empress Zoe standing on either side of the seated Christ presents certain problems ( fig 130 ) . it continues the tradition of ex-voto mosaic panels representing the Augusti bearing gifts familiar in San Vitale at Ravenna in the sixth century and panels of a less exalted nature in the Church of St Demetrius at Salonika in the seventh century . but in this panel all three heads and the inscriptions are substitutions . it is probable that the original mosaic was executed between 1028 and 1034 and it represented the Empress Zoe ( 1028-1050 ) , daughter of Constantine 8 , and her first husband Romanus 3 Argyrus ( 1028-1034 ) . there is no documentary evidence , incidentally , that the Empress Zoe was interested in patronizing large-scale works of art though she had a fancy for expensive trinkets and chemical experiments , but Romanus 3 instigated repairs to Agia Sophia and to the Church of St Mary at Blachernae . his name would seem to fit the space allowed for the inscription better than that of Michael his successor and , since he was unpopular , it was more likely to be excised than that of Michael 4 the Paphlagonian ( 1034-1041 ) , who was well liked and the uncle of Michael 5 Kalaphates ( 1041-1042 ) . Zoe , who was not fitted by temperament to govern , according to Michael Psellus , retained the affection of the people in spite of her eccentricities . she had lived in retirement during the later years of Michael 4&apos;s rule and had been persuaded to adopt his nephew as Emperor . Michael 5 , however , induced the Senate to banish Zoe as a nun to the island of Prinkipo . it was presumably at this time that the mosaic panel was defaced . Michael 5&apos;s triumph was brief . the people were not prepared to see a daughter born to the purple of the Macedonian house treated with such contumely and they rioted . the Empress was brought back from exile . she and her sister Theodora , who had long been a nun in the convent of the Petrion by the Phanar , were reinstated in the purple . Michael 5 was persuaded to leave the altar in the Church of St John of Studius where he had taken refuge , and was blinded in a street of the city . the two sisters , who had little love for one another , ruled for a few months as co-Empresses and coins were struck with their images ( fig 131 ) but later in the year of 1042 Zoe at an advanced age took another husband , Constantine Monomachos ( 1042-1055 ) , and Theodora was kept in the background of affairs . about this time the imperial portraits were restored . it is still far from clear , however , why it was necessary to restore the head of Christ . as opposed to the figures of Constantine and Justinian on the tympanum of Basil 2 ( fig 123 ) , which are seen in depth and modelled with some solidity , the bodies of the Augusti are little more than lay figures of imperial power . in contrast with the virgin in the south vestibule the drapery of Christ has become considerably more mannered with its cross-currents of folds and the face shows a marked difference of approach , more sketchy and schematic . but in view of the different styles current in Constantinople it would be rash to press these contrasts too far . the figures of Constantine and Justinian were probably copied from earlier imperial portraits , which would give them the definition that the Macedonian Augusti lack . the portrayal of the reigning Augusti behind a flat curtain of patterned dress and regalia establishes a convention of official portraiture which continued to the end . the heads in official portraiture , on the other hand , are presented in terms which presuppose recognition . while the restored heads in the Zoe panel have become considerably more conceptualized than all three heads in the tympanum of Basil 2 - the accentuation of the cheek-bones by circular devices , the broadening of the planes of the face - the Empress and her consort are rendered as plausible historic statements . Constantine 9 , brought back from exile in Mytilene to marry an aged Empress preoccupied with religion and making scents , flaunted a beautiful Caucasian mistress at public ceremonies , but for all his love of entertainment , he was by no means unaware of the responsibilities of his position . he built the church and convent of St George of the Manganes and founded the Nea Moni on Chios after the miraculous discovery of an icon by shepherds on Mount Privation . it is probable that mosaicists were sent from the capital to decorate the church on Chios . fragments of their work have survived including a virgin orans in the apse , a few angels and saints , and fourteen scenes ranging from the annunciation to the pentecost . but the sombre , forceful style of these mosaics has unfortunately no counterpart in the capital and contrasts strangely with the slightly inconclusive images of imperial power in Agia Sophia . the style at the Nea Moni does not resemble the work done at Osios Loukas in Phocis about the middle of the eleventh century , which seems to be the work of a provincial school , nor the uneven quality of the work done in Agia Sophia at Kiev about 1045 with the help of mosaicists sent from Constantinople . the style , moreover , contrasts with that of the mosaics executed in the narthex of the Church of the Dormition at Nicaea , now destroyed , under the patronage of the patrician Nicephorus after the earthquake of 1065 . this decoration consisted of a double cross against a ground of stars within a roundel in the centre of the vault surrounded by medallions containing the busts of Christ Pantocrator , St John the baptist , St Joachim and St Anne ; in the lunette over the door there was a bust of the virgin orans ; in the four corners of the vault there were the four evangelists . the meaning of this iconographical programme is far from clear and the absence of comparable programmes in the capital handicaps speculation . stylistically the forms are rather broad and heavy ; the face of the virgin orans in the lunette over the door seems to be a development of the virgin and child over the door in the south vestibule of Agia Sophia but the work , as far as one may judge from the photographs , seems coarser . in the portrayal of the evangelists the bodies tend to disintegrate under the pattern of folds ; in St Matthew , for example , the relationship of the upper part of the body to the lower is uneasy and the right thigh seems unwarrantably stressed - this figure executed during the reign of Constantine 10 Dukas ( 1059-1067 ) looks forward to late Comnene art ; St Luke , on the other hand , depends almost directly from the works executed in the palace scriptoria ; in all four figures , the tendency of the drapery to create its own pattern counter to the form it covers echoes one of the main features of middle Byzantine style . 