The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi Architecture, Programme, Patronage
Ida Sinkević
Reichert
Ida Sinkević The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi
SPÄTANTIKE - FRÜHES CHRISTENTUM - BYZANZ KUNST IM ERSTEN JAHRTAUSEND Herausgegeben von Beat Brenk, Johannes G. Deckers, Arne Effenberger, Lieselotte Kötzsche
Reihe B: Studien und Perspektiven Band 6 The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi by Ida Sinkević
REICHERT VERLAG WIESBADEN 2000
Ida Sinkević
The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi Architecture, Programme, Patronage
R EICHERT VERLAG WIESBADEN 2000
With the subvention of The Publications Commitee, Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Sinkević, Ida: The church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi : architecture, programme, patronage / Ida Sinkevic. Wiesbaden : Reichert, 2000 (Spätantike - frühes Christentum - Byzanz : Reihe B, Studien und Perspektiven ; Bd. 6) Zugl. : Princeton, Univ., Diss., 1994 ISBN 3-89500-129-5
© 2000 Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag Wiesbaden Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Speicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany
This book is dedicated to my mother Nataša, my brother Kolja, and to the memory of my father Jura
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ABBREVIATIONS
XI XII
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
XIII
MAP OF THE BALKANS
XVI
INTRODUCTION
1
CHAPTER I: ALEXIOS AND HIS CHURCH Who Was Alexios Angelos Komnenos? 1. Alexios’ Inscription 2. Alexios’ Family Alexios’ Decision to Build Nerezi and the Importance of the Region for Byzantium 1. The Balkan Peninsula 2. Macedonia 3. Manuel I in Macedonia 4. Major Towns in the Region Did Alexios Reside in Skopje? 1. History of Skopje 2. Skopje as an Ecclesiastical Center 3. Alexios’ Relatives in and around Skopje 4. Alexios and His Cousin Manuel I Why Would Alexios Choose a Provincial Location for his Foundation? 1. Komnenian Aristocratic Foundations in the Provinces 2. Financing Nerezi 3. The Importance of Provincial Foundations
4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 10 10
CHAPTER II: ARCHITECTURE Introduction Plan and Spatial Articulation 1. Naos: Analysis 1.1. Segregation of the Naos 1.2. Twelfth-Century Revival of Cruciform Churches 1.3. Naos: Summary 2. Sanctuary: Analysis 2.1. Tri-Partite Organization 2.2. Fusion of the Bema Bay With the Eastern Arm of the Cross 3. Narthex: Analysis 3.1. Subsidiary Chapels and the Narthex at Nerezi 3.2. Liturgical Furnishings and Painted Programs of Subsidiary Chapels 3.3. Liturgical Furnishings and Painted Programs of Narthexes 3.4. Could Western Chapels be considered as a Separate Entity? 4. Summary Restorations and the Original Form of the Exterior Exterior: Analysis 1. Composition and Technique 1.1. Compositional Aspects 1.2. Building Materials 1.3. Facade Articulation and Decorative Aspects 1.4. Constantinopolitan and Regional Features of the Exterior
ll ll ll ll 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21
VIII 1.5. Summary 2. Five-Domed Structure 2.1. Middle Byzantine Five-Domed Churches in Constantinople 2.2. Middle Byzantine Five-Domed Churches Outside of Constantinople 2.2.1. Russia 2.2.2. Armenia 2.2.3. Greece 2.2.4. Italy 2.1. Analysis of Middle Byzantine Five-Domed Churches 2.2. Symbolic Significance of Five-Domed Churches Summary CHAPTER III: PAINTED DECORATION Introduction Bema 1. Program: General Observations 2. The Communion of the Apostles 2.1. Symbolic and Liturgical Significance of the Scene 2.2. The Kiss of the Apostles 2.2.1. The Kiss of Sts. Peter and Paul 2.2.2. The Meaning of the Kiss at Nerezi 2.2.3. The Choice of St. Luke and St. Andrew 2.2.4. Political Implications 3. The Officiating Bishops 3.1. The Hetoimasia 3.2. Liturgical Character of the Scene 3.3. The Church Councils 3.3.1. The Major Sessions 3.3.2. Heretical Attacks 3.3.3. The Church Council of 1156/57 3.3.4. The Texts of Church Fathers in the Acts of the Council 3.3.5. The Anathemas 3.3.6. The Church Councils and the Painted Program of the Bema Cupolas 1. The Procession of Angels 2. Images of Christ 2.1. Christ Priest 2.2. The Significance of the Images of Christ in the Domes 3. The Origin of the Iconography of the Domes 4. A Possible Reconstruction of the Program of the Central Dome Eastern Chapels 1. The Prothesis 2. The Diakonikon 2.1. The Holy Physicians 3. Thematic Concerns Naos: Scenes 1. The Annunciation 2. The Presentation and the Threnos 2.1. The Presentation: Origin, Meaning, and Visual Representations 2.2. The Presentation: Iconographic Innovations and Their Significance 2.3. The Presentation and the Church Councils 2.4. The Threnos: Origin, Meaning, and Visual Representations 2.5. The Threnos: An Icon of Sorrow 2.6. The Juxtaposition of the Threnos and the Presentation 2.7. Summary 3. The Transfiguration and the Deposition 3.1. The Deposition: Another Emotionally Charged Icon at Nerezi 3.2. The Transfiguration
Table of Contents 23 23 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 27 28 29 29 30 30 30 31 32 33 33 33 34 35 35 36 37 37 37 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 41 42 43 43 44 44 45 46 47 47 47 48 48 49 50 50 51 52 53 53 53 54
Table of Contents 3.3. The Juxtaposition of the Transfiguration and the Deposition 4. The Juxtaposition of the Resurrection of Lazarus and the Entry into Jerusalem 5. The Marian Cycle 6. Spatial Relations of the Scenes: Meaning and Significance 7. The Theme of Passion 7.1. Social and Cultural Trends 7.2. Alexios' Concerns Sanctoral Cycle 1. Introduction 2. Military Saints 3. Martyrs 4. Holy Monks 5. Hymnographers 5.1. St.Theodore of Stoudios 5.2. St.John of Damascus and St. Kosmas the Hymnographer 5.3. St.Theophanes Graptos 5.4. St. Joseph of Sicily 5.5. The Importance of Hymnographers 6. St. Panteleimon 7. Grouping of Saints Narthex 1. Introduction 2. The Deesis 3. The Cycle of St. Panteleimon 3.1. The Life of St. Panteleimon 3.2. The Scenes: East Wall 3.3. The Scenes: South Wall 3.4. The Scenes: North Wall 3.5. Hagiographic Cycles of St. Panteleimon 3.6. Passion and Intercession Western Chapels 1. Introduction 2. North-West Chapel 2.1. Five Martyrs of Armenia 2.2. St. Menas, St. Viktor, St.Vikentios 2.3. St.Tryphon, St.Blasios, St. Mamas 3. Summary Painted Cycle: Concluding Remarks 1. Alexios 2. Church Councils 3. Legacy CHAPTER IV: ARTISTS AND THEIR LEGACY Style and Iconography Composition 1. Compositional Integration of the Program as a Whole 2. Compositional Integration of Individual Scenes 3. Sources Figures 1. Proportions 2. Linearism 3. Color and Line 4. Faces The Origins of Nerezi’s Style Linearism: Constantinopolitan or Provincial? Artists, Attribution Nerezi and Twelfth-Century Style 1. The Church of the Transfiguration, Chortiatis
IX 54 54 56 56 57 57 58 58 58 59 60 60 61 62 62 64 65 65 66 66 66 66 67 68 68 68 69 69 70 70 71 71 71 71 72 73 73 73 73 74 74 76 76 77 77 77 78 78 78 79 79 79 80 81 81 82 83
X
Table of Contents 2. The Church of Hosios David, Thessaloniki 3. Chortiatis, Hosios David, and Nerezi Summary
83 84 84
CHAPTER V: SCULPTURE Introduction Description Analysis: Technique, Iconography, Style 1. Constantinople as a Source 2. The Provinces and Neighboring Countries as a Source 3. Macedonia as a Source The Original Form of the Iconostasis 1. The Proskynetaria Icons 2. The Icons Above the Architrave 3. Intercolumnar Icons 3.1. Controversy About Their Existence 3.2. Textual Evidence 3.3. Archaeological Evidence Summary
86 86 87 88 88 88 89 90 91 92 92 92 93 93 93
CHAPTER VI: EPILOGUE. NEREZI AFTER ALEXIOS History 1. Nerezi as a Metoch of the Monastery of St. George-Gorgos 1.1. The Monastery of St. George-Gorgos before 1376/77 1.2. The Monastery of St. George-Gorgos as a Metoch of Chilandar 2. Nerezi After the Turkish Conquest of Skopje Post-Byzantine Paintings 1. Introduction 2. Bema 3. Central Cupola 4. Naos 5. Analysis of the Sixteenth-Century Cycle 6. Nineteenth-Century Paintings 7. Nerezi Today
95 95 95 95 96 96 97 97 97 98 98 98 99 99
CONCLUSION
100
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
102
INDEX
110
FIGURES
119
PLATES
189
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This book has grown out of my Ph. D. dissertation com pleted at Princeton University under the supervision of Prof. Slobodan Ćurčić. As a mentor, colleague, and friend, Prof. Ćurčić contributed numerous remarkable insights, offered guidance, and enthusiastically encouraged me to publish it. The manuscript benefited from his support in so many ways, that my debt and gratitude can never be ade quately expressed. To Dr. Lois Drewer of the Index of Christian Art at Princeton University, who generously shared her expertise, read this manuscript at every stage of its existence, and pro vided invaluable advice and assistance I express my deepest gratitude. Many times, her faith in my work helped sustain mine. I am greatly indebted to Prof. Annemarie Weyl Carr, who was my M. A. adviser at Southern Methodist Univer sity, Dallas, TX, for suggesting the topic of Nerezi. I also thank her for her knowledgeable comments and her enthu siastic encouragement which inspired many aspects of this book. Many other colleagues and friends helped bring this manuscript to completion. My colleagues at the Institute for the Protection of Monuments in Skopje facilitated my work at the site, granted me access to documents, and let me use their archival photographs of the church. My on site research also benefited from the help of Prof. Petar Miljković-Pepek, Professor Dimče Koco, and my friends Dafina Gerasimova and Rumen Ćamilov who helped in surveying and photographing the church.
I am also grateful for advice and council of the late Prof. Gordana Babić, Prof. Judith Herrin, Prof. Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, Dr. Alexei Lidov, and Prof. Cecil Lee Striker. My thanks are extended to colleagues and friends at Lafayette College, Prof. Diane Cole Ahl, Prof. Robert S. Mattison, and Prof. Edward J. Kerns for their encourage ment and their interest in my work. The final draft of the manuscript benefited from advice of my readers, Prof. Beat Brenk and Prof. J. G. Deckers to whom I offer my thanks. I am also grateful to Prof. Beat Brenk for his generosity and willingness to offer his won derful photographs and slides of Nerezi for this book. My thanks are extended to my publisher for the help and enthusiasm with which they enhanced and improved the manuscript. My research was supported in part by the Haakon Fellowship awarded to me at Southern Methodist Uni versity, by Stanley J. Seeger Fellowship, Hellenic Studies, Princeton University and by several Mellon fellowships I received at Princeton University and at Lafayette College. I am also indebted to the Publications Committee of the Department of Art and Archaeology at Princeton Univer sity for their subvention which helped increase the number of color photographs considerably. Last but not least I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my family, my late father Jura, my mother Nataša, my brother Kolja, and my husband Ivan, for their help, sup port, and willingness to share with me the joy and hard ship of this project. To them I dedicate this book.
ABBREVIATIONS
ABME AB BF BHG BNJ BZ CA Deltion DOP EO GSND IRAIK JÖB
JSAH LCI
A rcheion tōn Byzantinōn Mnēm eiōn tēs H ellados Art Bulletin Byzantinische Forschungen Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca, ed. by F. Halkin, 3 Vols. (Brussels, 1957) B yzantinisch-neugriechische Jah rbü ch er Byzantinische Zeitschrift Cahiers archéologiques D eltion tēs Christianikēs Archaiologikēs H etaireias D um barton Oaks Papers Échos d ’O rient Glasnik Skopskog naučn og društva Izvestiia Russkogo A rkheologicheskogo Instituta v K onstantinopole Jahrbuch d er österreichischen Byzantinistik Before 1969 - Jahrbuch d er österreichischen byzantinischen G esellschaft Journal o f the Society o f A rchitectural Historians Lexikon d er christlichen Ik onographie, ed. by E. Kirschbaum and W. Braunfels, 8 Vols. (Rome, Freiburg, Basel, Vienna, 1968-1976)
Mansi
OCP OC ODB PG
Praktika 1972 RBK
G. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 53 Vols. (ParisLeipzig, 1901-27) Orientalin christiana periodica Oriens christianus Oxford D ictionary o f Byzantium , ed. by A. Kazhdan et al. (Washington, 1991) Patrologiae cursus com pletus: Series G raeca, ed. J. P. Migne. 161 Vols, in 166 pts. (Paris, 1857-1866) Praktika to u p r ō to u d ieth n o u s k y p ro lo g ik ou sy n e d r io u 3 Vols. (Nicosia, 1972)
Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, ed. by K. Wessel, 4 Vols. (Stuttgart, 1966-1984) REB R evu e des études byzantines Synaxarium Synaxarium ecclesiae C onstantinopolitanae: P ropylaeum ad Acta sanctorum N ovem brisy ed. by H. Delehaye (Brussels, 1902) TM Travaux et m ém oires VizVrem Vizantiĭskiĭ vrem ennik ZLU Zbornik za lik ovne um etnosti ZRVI Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta XVe congrès XVe congrès international des études byzantines, Rapports et co-rapports, III: Art et arch éologie (Athens, 1976)
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Photographic credits: Skopje, Institute for the Protection of Monuments: figs. 1-17; 26; 36-45; 47-49; 75, 78, 79-82, 84-88. Professor Beat Brenk: figs. XIX, XXXVI, XLVIII; 63, 76, 77, 83. All other photographs are by the author.
Color figures Fig. I Fig. II Fig. III Fig. IV Fig.V Fig. VI Fig. VII Fig. VIII Fig. IX Fig.X Fig. XI Fig. XII Fig. XIII Fig. XIV Fig. XV Fig. XVI Fig. XVII Fig. XVIII Fig. XIX Fig. XX Fig. XXI Fig. XXII Fig. XXIII Fig. XXIV Fig. XXV Fig. XXVI Fig. XXVII Fig. XXVIII Fig. XXIX Fig. XXX Fig. XXXI Fig. XXXII Fig. XXXIII
Exterior: east facade Exterior: south facade Exterior: south facade, central section Exterior: south facade, detail with cross Exterior: north facade, meander pattern Exterior: domes Interior: east view Interior: west view Interior: central dome Interior: north side Interior: south side Bema and central dome Bema: general view Bema: officiating priest Bema: apse Bema: apse, Communion of the Apostles Bema: apse, Communion of the Apostles, north Bema: apse, Communion of the Apostles, south Bema: Communion of the Apostles, north wall Bema: apse, Hetoimasia North-east cupola: Emmanuel South-east cupola: Ancient of Days North-west cupola: Pantokrator North-west cupola: Pantokrator with Angels South-west cupola: Christ-Priest Prothesis: general view Prothesis: St.Modestos Passageway from the Prothesis into the bema: St. Spyridon Diakonikon: general view Diakonikon: east wall, upper zone, unidentified bishop Diakonikon, south wall, lower zone: unidentified saint Passageway from the diakonikon into the naos, north wall: St. Damianos Passageway from the diakonikon into the naos, south wall: St. Kosmas
Fig. XXXIV Fig. XXXV
Naos: east wall Naos, east wall: archangel from the Annunciation Fig. XXXVI Naos, east wall: the Virgin from the Annunciation Fig. XXXVII Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: the Presentation Fig. XXXVIII Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: the Presentation, Anna and the Virgin Fig. XXXIX Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: the Presentation, the Virgin and Symeon Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall: Fig. XL the Transfiguration Naos, south wall: the Resurrection of Fig.XLI Lazarus Fig.XLII Naos, west wall: the Birth and the Presentation of the Virgin Hosios David, Thessaloniki: detail from Fig. XLIII the Nativity Fig.XLIV Naos, north wall: the Entry into Jerusalem Fig.XLV Naos, north arm of the cross, west wall: the Deposition Fig.XLVI Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: the Threnos Fig. XLVII Hosios David, Thessaloniki: the Baptism Fig. XLVIII Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: the Threnos, detail Fig.XLIX Naos, east wall: St. Panteleimon Fig. L Naos, east wall: Virgin and Christ-Child Fig. LI Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: St. Anthony, St. Paul of Thebes, St. Euthymios, St. Sabas, and an unidentified monk Fig.LII Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall: St. Arsenios and unidentified monks Fig.LIII Naos, south wall: St. George, St. Demetrios, St. Nestor Fig.LIV Naos, west wall: Holy Martyrs Fig. LV Naos, north wall: St.Theodore Teron, St. Theodore Stratelates, St. Prokopios Fig. LVI Naos, north arm of the cross, west wall: St. Makarios and unidentified monks
XIV Fig.LVII
Fig. LVIII Fig.LIX Fig. LX Fig.LXI Fig.LXII Fig. LXIII
List of illustrations Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St. Kosmas the Hymnographer, St.John of Damascus, St. Theodore of Stoudios, St.Theophanes Graptos, St. Joseph of Sicily Narthex: interior view Narthex: main portal with inscription Narthex, east wall: St. Symeon Stylite Narthex, east wall: Deesis. Narthex: south-east corner Narthex, south wall: St. Hermolaos, St. Hermippos, and St. Hermokrator before Maximian
Fig. LXIV
Fig. LXV Fig. LXVI Fig. LXVII Fig. LXVIII
Narthex, south wall: Execution of St. Hermolaos and Burial of St. Hermolaos, St. Hermippos, and St. Hermokrator North-west chapel, north wall: St. Mamas North-west chapel, north wall: St. Blasios North-west chapel, west wall: St. Mardarios Iconostasis: detail of the architrave
Black and white figures Fig. 1 Exterior: from north-east, c. 1900 Fig. 2 Exterior: from south-east, during the restoration in 1937-38 Fig. 3 Exterior: from south-west, after the restoration in 1937-38 Fig. 4 Exterior: south-east view, after the restoration in 1958-59 Fig. 5 Exterior: from south-west, after the restoration in 1970’s Fig. 6 Exterior: east facade during the restoration in 1937-38 Fig. 7 Exterior: east facade during the restoration in 1958-59 Fig. 8 Exterior: north facade during the restoration in 1937-38 Fig. 9 Exterior: north facade after 1937-38 restoration Fig. 10 Exterior: narthex during the restoration in 1958-59 Fig. ll Exterior: narthex during the restoration in 1958-59 Fig.12 Exterior: south-east dome, installation of the lead roof Fig. 13 Bema, apse: Virgin, 16th century Fig. 14 Bema, apse: Communion of the Apostles, Christ Fig. 15 Bema, apse: Communion of the Apostles, St. Paul Fig. 16 Bema, south wall: Communion of the Apostles Fig. 17 Bema and prothesis during the restoration in 1958-59. St. Gregory Thaumaturge and St.John the Theologian in the bema, and St. Modestos in the prothesis Fig. 18 Bema, north wall: St. Gregory Thaumaturge Fig. 19 Bema, north wall: St. Epiphanios of Cyprus Fig. 20 Bema, north wall: St.John the Theologian Fig. 21 Bema, apse: St.John Chrysostom Fig. 22 Bema, apse: St. Basil the Great Fig. 23 Bema, south wall: St. Athanasios Fig. 24 Bema, south wall: St. Gregory of Nyssa Fig. 25 Bema, south wall: St. Nicholas of Myra Fig. 26 Bema, apse: angel flanking the Hetoimasia to the north Fig. 27 Prothesis, east wall: the Virgin
Fig. 28 Prothesis, south wall, above the entrance to the bema: unidentified bishop Fig. 29 Prothesis, west wall, flanking the entrance to the naos: St. Polykarpos Fig. 30 Prothesis, passageway from the prothesis into the naos, north wall: St. Antipas Fig. 31 Diakonikon, east wall: St.John the Baptist Fig. 32 Diakonikon, east wall: deacon flanking St.John to the north Fig. 33 Diakonikon, west wall, above the entrance to the naos: St. Kyros Fig. 34 Diakonikon, north wall, above the entrance to the bema, St.John Fig. 35 Passageway from the diakonikon into the bema, west wall: St. Sampson Fig. 36 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: the Presentation, St. Anna Fig. 37 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: the Presentation, Virgin Fig. 38 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: the Presentation, Symeon Fig. 39 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: the Presentation, Joseph Fig. 40 Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall: the Transfiguration, St. Peter Fig. 41 Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall, the Transfiguration, St.John Fig. 42 Naos, south wall: the Resurrection of Lazarus, Lazarus Fig. 43 Naos, west wall: the Birth of the Virgin, maids Fig. 44 Naos, north wall: the Entry into Jerusalem, group of Jews Fig. 45 Naos, north arm of the cross, west wall: the Deposition, Virgin and Christ Fig. 46 Veljusa, Church of the Virgin of Eleousa: Christ Fig. 47 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: the Threnos, Virgin and Christ Fig. 48 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: the Threnos, detail Fig. 49 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: the Threnos, St.John
XV
List of illustrations Fig. 50 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: St. Anthony Fig. 51 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: St. Paul of Thebes Fig. 52 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: St. Euthymios Fig. 53 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: St. Sabas Fig. 54 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: unidentified saint Fig. 55 Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall: St. Arsenios Fig. 56 Naos, south wall: St. George Fig. 57 Naos, south wall: St. Demetrios Fig. 58 Naos, south wall: St. Nestor Fig. 59 Naos, west wall: martyrs, north Fig. 60 Naos, north wall: St. Prokopios Fig. 61 Naos, north wall: St.Theodore Stratelates Fig. 62 Naos, north wall: St.Theodore Teron Fig. 63 Naos, north wall: St.Theodore Teron, detail Fig. 64 Naos, north arm of the cross, west wall: St. Makarios Fig. 65 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St.Joseph of Sicily Fig. 66 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St. Theophanes Graptos Fig. 67 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St.Theodore of Stoudios
Fig. 68 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St.John of Damascus Fig.69 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St. Kosmas the Hymnographer Fig. 70 South-west chapel, east wall: Martyr Fig. 71 North-west chapel, north wall: St.Tryphon Fig.72 North-west chapel, south wall: St. Menas Fig.73 North-west chapel, east wall: St. Orestes Fig. 74 North-west chapel, west wall: St. Viktor and St.Vikentios Fig.75 Roman stele Fig. 76 Reconstructed iconostasis Fig. 77 Reconstructed iconostasis, south side Fig. 78 Parapet panel which belonged to the original iconostasis; photographed in 1920 Fig. 79 Fragment of the original panel of the iconostasis Fig. 80 Fragment of the original panel of the iconostasis Fig. 81 Fragment of the original colonnette of the iconostasis Fig. 82 Iconostasis : detail of the original colonnette Fig.83 South proskynetarion frame, St. Panteleimon Fig. 84 Bema, vault: Sixteenth-century Ancient of Days Fig. 85 Bema, vault: Sixteenth-century Annunciation (Archangel) and Christ with Samaritan Woman Fig. 86 Dome: Sixteenth-century Divine Liturgy, detail Fig. 87 Dome: Sixteenth-century Prophet Fig. 88 South arm of the cross, south wall: Washing of the Feet
Plates Pl.l Plan Pl. 2 Plan at the level of the springing point of the arches Pl. 2a Plan of the domes Pl. 2b Plan of the lead roof cover Pl. 3 Longitudinal section Pl. 3a Longitudinal section with chapels Pl. 4 Transverse section Pl. 4a Transverse section with chapels Pl. 5 North-west chapel: arcosolium, section Pl. 6 South-west chapel: plan and section of the pit Pl. 7 South Facade Pl. 7a North Facade Pl. 7b East Facade Pl. 7c West facade Pl. 8 Iconostasis Pl. 8a Diagram showing distribution of paintings on the north walls Pl. 8b Diagram showing distribution of paintings on the south walls Pl. 9 Bema: apse
Pl. 10 Pl. ll Pl. 12 Pl. 13 Pl. 14 Pl. 15 Pl. 16 Pl. 17 Pl. 18 Pl. 19 Pl. 20 Pl. 21 Pl. 22 Pl. 23 Pl. 24 Pl. 25 Pl. 26 Pl. 27
Bema: north wall Bema: south wall North-east chapel North-east chapel: passageways; chapel/bema (upper); chapel/naos (lower) South-east chapel South-east chapel: passageways; chapel/naos (upper); chapel/bema (lower) Naos: south arm of the cross, south wall Naos: south arm of the cross, west wall Naos: south wall Naos: west wall Naos: north wall Naos: north arm of the cross, west wall Naos: north arm of the cross, north wall Narthex: north wall Narthex: east wall Narthex: south wall North-west chapel South-west chapel
NOTE: Pls. 1-7: Lew Minter (revised from original drawings kept at the Institute for the Protection of Monuments in Skopje). Pl. 8: Lew Minter (after G. Babić, “O živopisanom ukrasu oltarskih pregrada”). Pls. 8a, 8b: Lew Minter (revised from R. Hamman-Mac Lean). Pl. 4a: Dr. Svetlana Popović. Pls. 9-27: after original drawings kept in the Institute for the Protection of Monuments, Skopje.
Map of the Balkans (Revised from D. Obolensky, The Byzantine C om m onwealth)
XVI
INTRODUCTION
The church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi is one of the major surviving monuments of twelfth-century Byzan tium. Commonly referred to simply as Nerezi, the church was built by a member of the imperial family, decorated by some of the best artists of the period, and crowned by five domes in emulation of famous buildings of the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. Thus, although located on the Byzantine periphery, in what is now the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Nerezi stands as an important testimony to twelfth-century Constantinopolitan artistic and architectural trends. Its significance becomes even greater considering that, uniquely among its contempo raries, Nerezi is preserved virtually intact. As indicated by the dedicatory inscription, Nerezi was commissioned in 1164 by the aristocrat Alexios Angelos Komnenos, a member of the famous Komnenian dynasty that ruled Byzantium during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The church attests the ample resources and the high aesthetic standards of its founder. Nerezi is one of a very few surviving five-domed buildings, and so illumi nates this important, but scarcely preserved architectural type. Moreover, the church still contains its architectural sculpture, which gives us valuable information on liturgi cal furnishings of the twelfth century, and especially on the structure of the iconostasis. Above all, Nerezi is distinguished for the extreme elegance and beauty of its painted cycle. Since almost all monumental cycles from the mid-twelfth century in the Byzantine capital have been destroyed, Nerezi preserves a record of artistic ten dencies in the monumental art of Constantinople. At the same time, because many of its artisans must have been local, it also provides evidence for the high quality of regional painters, sculptors and builders active in the province. Although Nerezi is recognized by scholars as one of the major surviving monuments of Byzantine art, it lacks a scholarly monograph, and large portions of its architec ture and ornament remain unknown and inaccessible even to scholars.1Its architectural design has not been examined at all. Its important ensemble of Middle Byzantine sculp
ture is not available for study in published form. Most im portantly, its extensive cycles of mural painting are known only through a few images that have been published re peatedly, almost always in black-and-white.2 The building thus cries out for a full, monographic treatment. This book endeavors to answer this need. This book represents the first effort to study Nerezi comprehensively. In successive chapters it examines differ ent aspects of the building: its historical and social context, its architectural design, its sculpture, and its cycle of mural painting. In addressing these varied facets, the book at tempts to relate the different components of the building both to one another, and to the relevant contemporary Byzantine monuments. The book does it with two goals. First, as the pioneering study of this major monument, it seeks to provide clear data on it: its measurements, ma terials, inscriptions, furnishings, and imagery. Second, the book uses this data as a way to gain access to the figure of the patron, the Komnenian aristocrat Alexios Angelos Komnenos. Reading in its structural, programmatic, and aesthetic choices the characteristics of the building’s patron, the book raises broader questions about the role which a Komnenian aristocrat and his church played in Nerezi’s provincial setting. Thus, in its scope, the book extends the boundaries of a traditional monograph and encompasses both the study of the church and a contextual analysis of the historic, social and cultural trends of the period. In addition, this study introduces the complete visual documentation of the church. A series of architectural diagrams, drawings and photographs of the decoration, as well as documentary evidence related to the restoration of Nerezi, are presented here for the first time. The book is divided into six chapters that cover the history, architecture, iconographic and aesthetic consid erations of the painted decoration, sculpture, and postByzantine phase of the church. The first chapter, which discusses the historical aspects of Nerezi, represents a pioneering attempt to relate facts about the history of the region to the extant information about the church and its
1 The bibliography on Nerezi is surprisingly small. For a listing of bibliography, see T. Vitlarski, “Bibliografija za crkvata Sv. Pantelejmon - Nerezi”, Likovna umetnost 12/13 (1989): 83-123; S. Ćurčić, Art and Architecture in the Balkans: An Annotated Bibliography (Boston, 1984), p. 51, no. 123; p. 136, no. 177; p. 168, no.239; p.200, no.405; pp.306-307, nos. 944-951; V. Djurić, Vizantijske freske u Jugoslaviji (Belgrade, 1975), pp. 182-183; and V. Lazarev, “Zhivopis’ X I-X II vekov v Makedonii”, in: Actes du XIIe congrès international des études byzantines (Belgrade, 1962), pp. 105-134. 2 Most of the studies on Nerezi are brief, providing only elementary information about the church. See A. Frolow and G. Millet, La peinture du moyen âge en Yougoslavie (Paris, 1954), Vol. 1, pls. 15 -2 1. P. Miljković-Pepek, Nerezi (Belgrade, 1966); Idem, “Crkvata Sv. Pantelejmon vo seloto Nerezi”, in: Spomenici za srednovekovnata i ponovata istorija na Makedonija (Skopje, 1975), Vol. 1, pp. 89 -9 4 ; Idem, “Prilozi za proučavanje crkve manastira Nerezi”, ZLU 10 (1974): 313-322; Idem, “Jedna realistička osobenost na freskama Nereza i Studenice”, Zograf2 (1968): 4 -5 . R. Hamann-Mac Lean, Grundlegung zu einer Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Monumentalmalerei in Serbien und Makedonien (Giessen, 1976), pp. 261-27 6; and R. Hamann-Mac Lean and H. Hallensieben, Die Monumentalmalerei in Serbien und Makedonien vom l l. bis zum frühen 14. Jahrhundert (Giessen, 1963), pp. 16-17; pls. 6-7.
2 patron.3 The chapter explains what can be deduced about the patrons life and aspirations; what being in Macedonia and in the town of Skopje implied; how far away, in cultur al terms, both the capital and other major cities were; and what major political and ecclesiastical events of the time might have influenced the patrons decision to build a church in Macedonia. The answers to these questions, in turn, provide a basis for our understanding of many im portant features of Nerezi’s art and architecture. Built at a time when the presence of the most distinguished mem bers of the ruling family of the Komnenoi was strongly felt in Macedonia, and located in a region of the utmost strate gic importance for the Empire, the church stands as a testi mony to the twelfth-century political and cultural rela tionship between the Byzantine capital and its province. The second chapter addresses the architecture of the church.4 This chapter engages in a careful analysis of Nerezis plan and spatial articulation, as well as in the examination of the structural and decorative features of its exterior. The aim of the chapter is to introduce the major identifying features of the architecture of the church and to place it within the context of other Middle Byzantine mon uments. Careful analysis of the church shows that the architecture of Nerezi represents a unique marriage of Constantinopolitan and local traditions. A comparative
Introduction survey indicates that Nerezi shares a number of character istics with contemporary monuments in its own region, thus pointing to the existence of major architectural trends in this geographic area during the twelfth century. In conclusion, the chapter points out a number of peculiar architectural solutions at Nerezi which reveal the aims and aspirations of its patron, Alexios. The input of the patron is most evident in the painted decoration of Nerezi. The examination of the painted decora tion, which is the subject of chapters three and four, contains the first complete analysis of the twelfth-century images that are preserved at Nerezi.5The third chapter examines the iconographic program of Nerezi as a whole for the first time.6 It relates the well known and widely published major icons of Nerezi to the unpublished images, such as those on the lower walls with their distinctive choice and grouping of saints, those in the narthex, and in the four side chapels. As a result, the cycle at Nerezi can be singled out for its innovative iconography, for the emotive richness of its content, and for its political message. All of these features are intended to emphasize the human and emotional features of the cycle and to provoke a participatory response from the viewer. The fourth chapter examines the aesthetic qualities of the paintings at Nerezi.7 The chapter questions the tradi-
3 The studies relevant to the history of this monument were written in the first decades of this century, and are exclusively focused on the identity of the patron. The inscription found in the church identifies one Alexios Angelos Komnenos, a son of Theodora Porphyrogenneta, as the patron of the church. The information in this inscription misled some scholars, such as N. P. Kondakov and I. Snegarov, into believing that the patron of Nerezi was the son of the emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180): either the illegitimate son with his niece Theodora, or the child from his second mar riage with Mary of Antioch who later became emperor Alexios II Komnenos (1180-1183). V. Markovič and I. Ivanov, however, disputed those con clusions. Markovič offered a number of hypotheses, but concluded that it was impossible to identify the patron of Nerezi, while Ivanov stated that the real patron of the church was actually Alexios Angelos, whose mother was Theodora Porphyrogenneta, a daughter of the emperor Alexios I Komnenos. Ivanov’s view was further supported in an illuminating article by G. Ostrogorski on the family of the Angeli. Ostrogorski maintains that the emperor Alexios II Komnenos was born only in 1169, and that his mother was Mary of Antioch, facts which contradict the information given in the inscription, and thus preclude the possibility of his involvement in Nerezi. Moreover, he also points out, that although the mother of the illegiti mate son of Manuel I was named Theodora, she was not of imperial descent, that is not a “porphyrogenneta”, thus again contradicting the inscrip tion. Ostrogorski’s convincing analysis establishes Alexios Angelos, the grandson of the emperor Alexios I Komnenos, as the patron of Nerezi be yond any doubt. See N. P. Kondakov, Makedoniia. Arkheologicheskoe puteshestvie (Saint Petersburg, 1909), pp. 174-176; I. Snegarov, Istoriia na Okhridskata Arkhiepiskopiia (Sofia, 1924), Vol. 1, p. 87; V. Markovič, Pravoslavno monaštvo i manastiri u srednjevekovnoj Srbiji (Sremski Karlovci, 1920), p. 22; I. Ivanov, Bŭlgarski starini iz Makedoniia (Sofia, 1970), pp. 116-118; and G. Ostrogorski, “Vozvyshenie roda Angelov”, in: Iubileĭnyĭ sbomik Russkogo arkheologicheskogo obshestva v Korolovstve Iugoslavii (Belgrade, 1936), pp. 111-129. Other information about the history of Nerezi is mostly collected from the compilations of monastic inscriptions, such as Lj. Stojanović, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi (Belgrade, 1902-1926; reprint 1986-1987), and Ivanov’s, Bŭlgarski starini iz Makedoniia. These sources, however, do not tell us more than that the church actually existed and functioned as a monastery in post-Byzantine times. 4 Information about the architecture of Nerezi is mostly confined to brief discussions of its basic features in general studies on Byzantine architecture, and tangential treatment of a few select aspects of the architecture of the church in works on other monuments. See R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1986), pp. 376-377; C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture (New York, 1976), p. 308; S. Nenadović, Bogorodica Ljeviška. Njen postanak i njeno mesto u arhitekturi Milutinovog vremena (Belgrade, 1963), pp. 107-109; and S. Ćurčić, “A r chitectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels in Middle Byzantine Churches”, JSAH 36/2 (1977): 94-110. 5 The painted decoration is the most commonly discussed aspect of the church. Since the twelfth-century cycle was discovered and published by N. Okunev in 1926, it has received wide scholarly attention. It is important to note, however, that the earliest accounts of the program, such as those by N. Okunev, F. Messesnel, and M. Fauchon, became rather standard and were often repeated in later works. See N. Okunev, “Les peintures de l’église de Nérèz et leur date”, in: Actes du IIIe congrès international des études byzantines (Athens, 1932), pp. 247-248; Idem, “La découverte des anciennes fresques du monastère de Nérèz”, Slavia 6 (1927): 603-609; F. Mesesnel, “Najstariji sloj fresaka u Nerezima”, GSND 7/8 (1929-1930): 119-132; and M. Fauchon, “Les peintures du monastère St. Panteleimon de Nérèz”, L'Art Sacré 6 (1938): 213-217. 6 Although iconographie features of the Nerezi cycle as a whole have not been examined, some of the images have been discussed; see G. Babič, “Les discussions christologiques et le décor des églises byzantines au X IIe siècle”, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 2 (1968): 368-386; H. Maguire, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium (Princeton, 1981), pp. 53-68, 91-10 8 ; and C. Charalampidis, “The Importance of the Threnos in the Church of St. Pan teleimon at Nerezi”, Cyrillomethodianum 3 (1975): 149-162. The study of D. B. Trajkovska, “Za tematska programa na živopisot vo Nerezi”, Kul turno nasledstvo 22/23 (1995-1996): 7 -25 , appeared too late to be considered for this study. 7 Although the style of Nerezi paintings has attracted considerable scholarly attention, published studies commonly see Nerezi as a source of influence on later art, rather than as an important phenomenon per se. See Lazarev, “Zhivopis’ XI-XII vekov v Makedonii” (see footnote 1), pp. 110-115;
Introduction tional concept of stylistic analysis and claims a close asso ciation between aesthetic and iconographie features of the scenes and images, both of which aimed at underlining the message of the program. While accepting the traditional opinion that the style of Nerezi’s paintings originated in early twelfth-century Constantinopolitan art, this chapter introduces the idea that the aesthetics of the capital had already been imported into the Balkans by the middle of the century. A close comparative analysis between Nerezi and monuments which are located in its vicinity indicates that Constantinopolitan artists were very active in Mace donia and that a number of different workshops from the capital likely resided in the region at that time and trained local artists to continue their tradition. The presence of these artists is explained through the importance that Macedonia had for twelfth-century Byzantium. The impact of the Constantinopolitan artistic tradition is also seen in the sculpture, which is analyzed in chapter five. The sculpture at Nerezi is mostly confined to the iconostasis, reconstructed from the remains found in situ at the beginning of this century.8The analysis of the sculp ture offered here differs from earlier scholarship in the identification of the sources which may have influenced the sculpture at Nerezi.9 Close examination of the pre served sculptural fragments, including stylistic and icono graphic analysis, establishes them as prime examples of the artistic tradition which originated in the capital and was widespread in the region by the twelfth century. This chapter also attempts to reconstruct the shape and form of the original iconostasis at Nerezi by comparing it to other examples of iconostases which are preserved in contempo rary churches. A brief account of the destiny of the church following the death of its patron, Alexios, is presented in chapter six, the epilogue. Turbulent historical circumstances in Mace donia, as well as a series of natural disasters necessitated several restorations of the church. These restorations re sulted in a number of new painted layers, none of which
3
matched the beauty, prestige, and programmatic unity of the original, twelfth-century cycle. With the loss of its dis tinguished patron, Nerezi also lost its distinguished status in the cultural history of the region. In concluding the discussion of Nerezi, one theme, the relationship between Constantinopolitan and provincial artistic traditions, evident in its architecture, sculpture, and paintings, deserves special attention. Previous scholars who have touched upon that problem were apparently in fluenced by the current geopolitical structure of the re gion. For example, in determining the origin of the art of Nerezi, various scholars claim that it stands as a represen tative of the Thessalonikan school, as an example of local artistic trends, as a distinctive Bulgarian monument, or as an example of the Constantinopolitan tradition.10 A careful examination of all aspects of the church, un dertaken in this study, establishes Nerezi as the prime ex ample of the assimilation of local and Constantinopolitan artistic trends. It seems that the military, political, and cultural expansion of Byzantium in the Balkans in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, discussed in the first chap ter, affected the artistic production. Constantinopolitan artistic workshops were active in the region and trained lo cal artists to continue their tradition. Their impact is evi dent in the five-domed structure of Nerezi, which clearly recalls Constantinopolitan buildings, as well as in the re finement and beauty of the style of the paintings and sculpture. Constantinopolitan artists, architects, and arti sans, however, encountered a strong local tradition, evi dent in some aspects of architectural planning and the programmatic messages at Nerezi. Thus, rather than pro moting a particular national school or artistic current, the uniqueness of Nerezi lies in the way in which different tra ditions are combined. The significance of this monument goes beyond its artistic merits, as structural, aesthetic, and programmatic features of Nerezi reflect both the current political and social conditions in twelfth-century Macedo nia, and the identity of its patron, Alexios.
V. Djurić, “La peinture murale byzantine X IIe et X IIIe siècle”, in: XVe congrès, pp. 1 -9 6 ; L. Hadermann-Muisguich, “La peinture monumentale tardo-comnène et ses prolongements au XHIe siècle”, in: XVe congrès, pp. 99-127; and M. Rajkovič, “Iz likovne problematike nereskog živopisa”, ZRVI 3 (1955): 195-206. 8 Like the paintings, the sculptural fragments of the iconostasis were also first discovered by N. Okunev; they were mostly scattered around the church. See N. Okunev, “Altarnaia pregrada XII vieka v Nerezie”, Seminarium Kondakovianum 3 (1929): 5 -2 3 . Subsequently, the iconostasis was reconstructed under the supervision of Dj. Bošković. See Dj. Bošković, “La restauration récente de l'iconostase à l’église de Nerezi”, Seminarium Kondakovianum 6 (1933): 157-159; Idem, “Arhitektonski izveštaji. Obnova ikonostasa u Nerezima”, GSND ll (1932): 2 21-223; Idem, “Izveštaj i kratke beleške s putovanja”, Starinar 6 (1931): 182-183. 9 Following the reconstruction in the early thirties, very little has been said about this sculpture. Apart from K. Petrov’s study and a brief analysis by I. Nikolajević-Stojković and A. Grabar, the sculpture of Nerezi is scarcely noted. See K. Petrov, “Kon neispitanata protoistorija na lokalitetot Sv. Pantelejmon vo Nerezi”, Godisen zbornik na Filozofskiot fakultet 7 (1981): 172-186, and Idem, “Dekorativna plastika vo Makedonija vo XI i XII vek”, Godisen zbornik na Filozofskiot fakultet 12 (1962): 161-168; I. Nikolajević-Stojković, “Prilog proučavanju vizantiske skulpture od 10. do 12. veka iz Makedonije i Srbije”, ZRVI 44 (1955): 182-184; and A. Grabar, Sculptures byzantines du moyen âge (Paris, 1976), pp. 105-106. These studies postulate a wide variety of sources for the style and iconography of Nerezi’s sculpture: from Early Christian to Islamic art. 10 A. Xyngopoulos, Thessalonique et la peinture macédonienne (Athens, 1980), pp. 1 5-20 ; Miljković-Pepek, “Crkvata Sv. Pantelejmon” (see foot note 2), pp. 8 9 -9 1 ; and Ivanov, Bŭlgarski starini iz Makedoniia (see footnote 3), pp. 116-118.
CHAPTER I ALEXIOS AND HIS CHURCH
WHO WAS ALEXIOS ANGELOS KOMNENOS? The church of St. Panteleimon reflects the ambition, polit ical aspirations, and aesthetic choices of its patron, Alexios Angelos Komnenos. Although little mentioned in written sources, either medieval or modern, Alexios was a man of significant status in twelfth-century Komnenian society. He was a grandson of the founder of the Komnenian dy nasty, Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118), and he would seem to have been a twelfth-century intellectual.1 The sparse mention of Alexios in modern scholarly lit erature reflects the paucity of evidence about him in Byzantine sources. In fact, the only written records of his activity are the dedicatory inscription in his church, and the documents of the Church Council of 1166.2 Both sources are rather brief. However, when considered within the general context of the period, they provide answers to questions concerning the significance of Alexios as a patron of art, the importance of his founda tion, and Alexios’ reasons for building his church in the Byzantine province of Macedonia.
1. Alexios’ Inscription Alexios’ inscription has been preserved on the marble architrave above the main entrance into the naos of Nerezi (fig.LIX). It reads: Ἐϰαλλιεϱγήθη ὁ ναὸς του ἁγίου ϰαὶ ἐνδόξου μεγαλομάϱτυϱος Παντελεήμονος ἐϰ συνδϱομῆς ϰυϱοῦ
’Αλεξίου τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ καὶ υἱοῦ τής πορφυρογεννήτης κυϱᾶς Θεοδώρας μηνί Σεπτεμβρίῳ ἰνδιϰτιῶνος ῖγ ἔτους ΣΧΟΓ ἡγουμενεύοντος Ἰωαννιϰίου μονάχοῦ.3 The church o f the h oly and ren ow n ed great-m artyr P anteleim on was em bellished w ith the contribution o f Lord Alexios K om nenos, son o f the purple-born Theodora, in the m onth o f Septem ber; indiction 13, 1164, Ioannikios the monk bein g h egou m en os.4 The inscription informs us that the church was dedi cated to St. Panteleimon and decorated at the expense of Alexios Angelos Komnenos, in September of the thir teenth indiction of the year 6673 (1164), when the hegoumenos was the monk Ioannnikios. The mention of the hegoumenos (abbot) indicates that the church was part of a monastic complex, probably its katholikon. The inscription also reveals important information about the social status and aspirations of Alexios. According to historians, Alexios Angelos Komnenos was one of five chil dren of a military aristocrat, Konstantine Angelos, and the youngest daughter of the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, Theodora.5The fact that Alexios mentioned only his mater nal lineage in the inscription is peculiar, yet by no means sur prising. During the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the tradi tional family structure in Byzantium changed, giving an increasing prominence to women.6Moreover, it was also the time when lineage became a rather important factor in deter mining the individuals status and power. As a result, it was quite common, especially among the aristocracy, for chil dren to use their mother’s name - particularly so when the female ancestry was more distinguished than the male one.7
1 For the identity of the patron and the history of the family, see G. Ostrogorsky, “Vozvyshenie roda Angelov”, in: Iubileĭnyĭ sbornik Russkogo arkheologicheskogo obshtestva v Korolovstve Iugoslavii (Belgrade, 1936), pp. I ll -129. Some limited information about Alexios can be found in K. Barzos, Hē genealogia tōn Komnēnōn, 2 Vols. (Thessaloniki, 1984), Vol. 1, pp. 664-665. About Alexios’ activity as a Komnenian intellectual, see I. Sinkević, “Alexios Angelos Komnenos, A Patron Without History?”, Gesta 35/1 (1996): 34-43. 2 For the mention of Alexios in the documents of the Church Council, see PG, s.v. “Nicetae Choniate”, 140, col. 253. Scholars have tentatively attributed three additional monuments to Alexios’ patronage. He might have been the owner of a twelfth-century seal, al though this attribution remains tentative. See, G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals (Basel, 1972), pp. 1526-1527. Also, the controversially dated Panagiarion from Mount Athos was attributed to Alexios on the bases of its inscription. See Iu. A. Piatnickii, “Alekseĭ Angel Komnin-zakazchik panagiara hranivshegosia v Panteleimonovskom monastyre na Afone”, in: Vizantiia i vizantiĭskie tradicii (St. Petersburg, 1996), pp. 75-84. In addition, M. Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium Under the Comneni, 1081-1261 (Cambridge, 1995), pp.299-300, suggests that Alexios may have been the founder of the monastery of the Prodromos near Thermopylae. These contentions still need to be substantiated by more evidence. 3 ΕΚΑΛΙΕΡΓΗΘΗ Ο ΝΑΟΣ TOY ΑΓΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΕΝΔΟΞΟΥ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΜΑΡΤΥΡΟΣ ΠΑΝΤΕ(Λ)ΕΗΜΟΝΟΣ ΕΚ ΣΥΝΔΡΟΜΗΣ ΚΥΡΟΥ ΑΛΕΞΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΚΟΜΝΗΝΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΥΙΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΠΟΡΦΥΡΟΓΕΝΝΗΤΗΣ ΚΥΡΑΣ ΘΕΟΔΩΡΑΣ ΜΗ(ΝΙ) ΣΕΠΤΕΜΒΡΙΩ ΙΝΔ(ΙΚΤΙΩΝΟΣ) ΙΓ ΕΤΟΥΣ ΣΧΟΓ ΗΓΟΥΜΕΝΕΥΟΝΤΟΣΙΩΑΝΝΙΚΙΟΥ ΜΟΝΑΧΟΥ 4 My translation represents a revised version of the translation provided in A. J. Wharton, Art of Empire. Painting and Architecture of the Byzantine Periphery. A Comparative Study of Four Provinces (University Park, PA, 1988), p. 118. The problematic word is ϰαλλιεϱγώ, translated by Wharton as “to make beautifully.” According to dictionaries, the word also means “to make beautiful”, and is translated by G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961), as “to embellish.” While the word embellish does not indicate that the patron actually built the church, its use in surviving dedicatory inscriptions suggests that it denoted both the building and the decoration of the church, such as is a case, for example, at Skripou; see A. C. Papalexandrou, The Church of the Virgin of Skripou: Architecture, Sculpture and Inscriptions in Ninth-Century Byzantium (Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton 1998), pp. 129-132. 5 Ostrogorsky, “Vozvyshenie” (see footnote 1), pp. 111 -129; and Barzos, He genealogia tōn Komnēnōn (see footnote 1), Vol. 1, p. 665. 6 See A. Laiou, “The Role of Women in Byzantine Society”, JOB 31/1 (1981): 233-260; and A. P. Kazhdan and A. W. Epstein, Changes in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Berkeley, 1985), pp. 74-110. 7 Kazhdan and Epstein, Ibid. (see footnote 6), pp. 102-104; and P. Magdalino, “Byzantine Snobbery”, in: The Byzantine Aristocracy IX to XIII Cen turies, ed. by M. Angold (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 221, Oxford, 1984), pp.48-69.
Chapter I 2. Alexios’ Family In Alexios’ case, a discrepancy between paternal and maternal family background is obvious. While his mother, Theodora, was a direct descendant of the imperial family, Alexios’ father, Konstantine, was of a rather undistin guished background.8 In fact, he received recognition and the titlepansebastohypertatos only through his marriage to the princess.9 As the twelfth-century historian, Niketas Choniates, informs us, Konstantine was from Philadel phia, “but was not descended from a very eminent and no ble family. Robust in stature and graced with a handsome bloom on his face, Angelos took to wife Theodora (begot ten to Emperor Alexios, Manuels grandfather), fortunate in having his comeliness serve as matchmaker.”10 The marriage between the princess and a man of an undistinguished background did not receive much sympa thy at the time. Konstantine was looked down on by the members of the imperial family and he never received the same honors as other imperial sons-in-law who were of a more distinguished descent. Even Theodora herself suf fered from the unwise choice of a husband. In terms of honors and gifts she was placed much lower than other im perial daughters.11 Largely ignored during the reign of Alexios I (1081 — 1118) and John II (1118-1143), Alexios’ father, Konstantine, became an important military official during the reign of Manuel I (1143-1180). Konstantine’s major activity was in the Balkans.12Three of his sons, John, Andronikos, and Isaak are also mentioned in the sources for their military involvement. Even the son of Konstantine’s daughter, Manuel, was known for taking a part in battles.13 No preserved written accounts indicate that Alexios, Konstantine’s fourth son and the patron of Nerezi, was a soldier too. Nonetheless, the presence of his church near Skopje indicates that he, like his father and brothers, might as well have resided in Macedonia. Macedonia was a region of major strategic importance to Byzantium during the decades of Alexios’ maturity. A brief survey of its role within the political and military economy of the Komnenian empire will clarify the presence there of both Alexios himself and his religious foundation.
5 ALEXIOS’ DECISION TO BUILD NEREZI AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REGION FOR BYZANTIUM 1. The Balkan Peninsula During the eleventh and twelfth centuries the Balkan peninsula was established as a key strategic and economic region of Byzantium.14Growth of the Byzantine economy was based mainly on agriculture, and the empire largely depended on the agricultural wealth of Greece, Macedo nia, and Thrace.15Moreover, the Balkan peninsula was also very important for communication with Western Europe, both through its seaports, such as Dyrrachium and Thes saloniki and via its major land routes; the most important highway was Via Egnatia, the road which linked the Adri atic port of Dyrrachium with Ohrid, Thessaloniki, and Constantinople (Map, p. XI). The geo-political position and its natural resources made the Balkans important to Byzantium; it was thus the preeminent goal of all Komnenian emperors to keep it under tight control. This is particularly true of the reign of Manuel I. While mainly concerned about the re-conquest of Asia Minor at the be ginning of his reign, Manuel had focused his attention on Western Europe since the outbreak of the Second Crusade. Manuel’s major interests were related to South Italy and the Balkans. However, while he mostly relied on his gen erals and used his diplomatic connections in dealing with South Italy, Manuel was personally involved in military campaigns in the Balkans.16
2. Macedonia Byzantine conquest of the Balkan peninsula had started in Macedonia. The battle on Mount Belašica in July 1014, in which the Byzantine Emperor Basil the Bulgar-Slayer (Bulgaroctonus) defeated the Bulgarian tzar Manuel, marked the incorporation of Macedonia into the Byzan tine Empire.17Basil’s victory also opened the doors for the Byzantine expansion in the Balkans, and newly acquired Byzantine territories spread from the middle and lower
8 See Ostrogorsky, “Vozvyshenie” (see footnote 1), pp. 113-118. 9 Pansebastohypertatos was a title awarded to an imperial son-in-law. See D. Nicol, “The Prosopography of the Byzantine Aristocracy”, in: The Byzantine Aristocracy IX to X III Centuries (see footnote 7), pp. 84-85. 10 See N. Choniates, O City of Byzantium. Annals of Niketas Choniates, tr. by H. J. Magoulias (Detroit, 1984), p. 55 [95]. 11 Ostrogorsky, “Vozvyshenie” (see footnote 1), pp. 113-114. 12 Ibid., pp. 114-118. 13 Ibid. 14 The bibliography on Byzantine expansion in the Balkans is rather large. For the most important studies and a comprehensive listing of bibliography, see P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 114 3 -118 0 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 27-109; J. Ferluga, “Byzance et les Balkans vers la fin du X IIe siècle”, in: Studenica i vizantijska umetnost oko 1200 godine (Belgrade, 1988), pp. 17-24; Idem, Byzantium on the Balkans. Studies on the Byzantine Administration and the Southern Slavs from the VIIth to the X I I h Centuries (Amsterdam, 1976); J. V. A. Fine, Early Medieval Balkans (Ann Arbor, MI, 1983); R. Browning, Byzantium and Bulgaria (Berkeley, 1975); A. R. Lewis, “The Danube Route and Byzantium 802-1195”, in: Actes du XlVe congrès international des études byzantines (Bucharest, 1974), pp. 359-369; M. Dinić, “The Balkans, 1018-1400”, in: Cambridge Medieval History. Vol. IV/1: The Byzantine Empire, ed. by J. M. Hussey (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 519-539; Andrew B. Urbansky, Byzantium and the Danube Frontier (New York, 1968); and G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, 1969), pp. 351 -418. 15 M. F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300-1450 (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 44-58. 16 Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 14), p. 105. 17 Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (see footnote 14), pp. 309-310.
6 Danube to the southern tip of Peloponnesos, and from the Black Sea to the confines of Istria. Although Byzantium did not succeed in bringing all the lands of the Balkan Pen insula under its immediate control, it maintained its dom inance in the Balkans until the partition of the Empire by Latins, Bulgars, Serbs, Seljuk Turks and local Greek dy nasts in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century.18
3. Manuel I in Macedonia Komnenian emperors expended considerable efforts to consolidate the external Balkan frontier, to keep Serbia and Hungary under control, and to restore imperial rule in Dalmatia.19 Thus, the crisis which occurred on the penin sula around the middle of the twelfth century provoked Manuel I ’s immediate response. On the one hand, Manuel was facing a serious Norman threat by Roger II’s invasion of Corfu, Corinth and Thebes in 1147.20 These towns were known as the wealthiest cities in Greece and centers of the Byzantine silk industry. On the other hand, the situation was even more alarming on the western front. The stabi lized relationship with Hungary and Serbia, following the war of 1127-29, was seriously challenged by the Serbian revolt backed by Hungarians in 1149.21 The imminent threat of this upheaval was both territorial loss and the fear that Serbs and Hungarians would make alliances with his significant western rival, Frederick Barbarossa. In addi tion, there were rumors about the possible invasion of Epirus in 1162.22 In order to establish sovereignty in the Balkans, Manuel spent extended periods of time there in the years between 1149 and 1172. He was personally involved in many mili tary campaigns, particularly those related to Hungary and Serbia.23 Manuel’s victories in the campaigns against Serbs
Chapter I and Hungarians helped him maintain a powerful image as a leader; they also prevented military advancement of wes tern European armies. In between the battles, Manuel and his army seemingly found a safe-haven in Macedonia.24 Staying in Macedonia made Manuel close enough to the capital to follow its affairs; at the same time, the location gave him an oppor tunity to make quick moves to settle Serbian and Hungar ian unrest as needed.25 Moreover, Manuel must have felt at home in Macedonia. By the time of Manuel’s rule, Byzan tine political and cultural dominance was well established in Macedonia. In fact, from the ninth century onward, Macedonia represented the threshold through which Byzantines introduced not only their political, but also their cultural dominion into the Balkans.26 Like most of the conquered territories, following the defeat of 1004, Macedonia became integrated into the Byzantine Empire and divided into a number of smaller administrative units, known as themes.27 A centralized bu reaucracy with a considerable military force was success fully maintained there. In order to strengthen their power within Macedonian themes, the Komnenian rulers ap pointed people from their own clan to the highest ecclesi astical and administrative posts.28 According to sources, Manuel’s favorite residence in Macedonia was the military camp in the town of Pelagonia (Bitola).29 As written by Niketas Choniates, Pelagonia for Manuel was “... an appropriate base of operations, with its flat plains suited for both an encampment and cavalry maneuvers; moreover, it was well suited for acquiring in formation and observing the actions of the nations with whom he was contending.”30 In addition, Pelagonia was conveniently located on Via Egnatia, thus enabling Manuel to communicate efficiently both with the capital, and with the western world.
18 See footnote 14. 19 See Urbansky, Byzantium and the Danube Frontier (see footnote 14), pp. 5 1-13 1; and Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 14), pp.78-108. 20 See J. Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, tr. by C. M. Brand (New York, 1976), p. 74-76; Choniates, O City of Byzantium (see foot note 10), pp.4 3-47; F. Chalandon, Jean II Comnène et ManuelI Comnène, 2 Vols. (Paris, 1912), Vol. 1, pp. 317-321. 21 Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus (see footnote 20), pp. 9 2 -9 3 ; Choniates, O City of Byzantium (see footnote 10), pp. 72-78; and Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (see footnote 14), p. 383. 22 Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 14), p. 86. 23 Urbansky, Byzantium and the Danube Frontier (see footnote 14), pp. 67-112; and Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 14), pp. 78-108. 24 This text refers to Macedonia as a geographic region, occupying what is now northern Greece, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, eastern Albania, and western Bulgaria. The Byzantine thema Macedonia had different geographic boundaries. See N. Koledarov, “Obrazuvane na tema ‘Makedoniia’ v Trakiia”, Izvestiia na Instituta za istoriia 21 (1970): 2 19-243; and J. Ferluga, “Les insurrections des Slaves de la Macédoine au Xle siècle”, in: Byzantium on the Balkans (see footnote 14), pp. 379-399. 25 Choniates, O City of Byzantium (see footnote 10), pp. 52, 58,120. 26 For discussion and bibliography, see Wharton, Art of Empire (see footnote 4), pp. 91-126. 27 The fragmentation of the themes which started in the eleventh century reduced some themes to the size of a town and its surrounding territories. It was particularly the case in western Macedonia, where themes like Veroia, Skopje, and Servia were created. See Hendy, Studies (see footnote 15), pp. 429-431; and Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 14), pp. 233-234. For the development of the system of themes in the Balkans, see J. Ferluga, “Quelques aspects du développement du système des thèmes dans la péninsule des Balkans”, in: Byzantium on the Balkans (see footnote 14), pp. 1 - 2 1 ; and Idem, “L’administration byzantine en Dalmatie”, in: Byzan tium on the Balkans (see footnote 14), pp. 141-150. 28 Sinkević, “Alexios Angelos Komnenos” (see footnote 1), p. 40. 29 Manuel spent extensive periods of time in Pelagonia in 1149, 1150, and 1153. For Manuel’s stays in Pelagonia, see Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus (see footnote 20), pp. 125-127; p. 246, n. 40; and Choniates, O City of Byzantium (see footnote 10), pp. 89, 91,101, 104, 211. 30 See Choniates, O City of Byzantium (see footnote 10), p. 58.
7
Chapter I 4. Major Towns in the Region Pelagonia was also in close proximity with major towns in the region, such as Skopje, Ohrid, and Thessaloniki (Map, p. XI). All three towns were located on major routes. Skopje was the most important settlement on the Naissus - Thessaloniki route, an extension which branched off from the major north-south route that linked Belgrade to Constantinople. Ohrid and Thessaloniki were located on Via Egnatia, to the west and east of Pelagonia, respectively. During the twelfth century Via Egnatia was Byzantium’s major communication route with western Europe. It was used by Crusaders, Venetian merchants and western am bassadors. Even Manuel’s bride came by that route in 1142.31 Both Thessaloniki and Ohrid had a long history of Byz antine involvement and had undergone a significant pro cess of Byzantine acculturation by the twelfth century. Thessaloniki was the largest port-town in Macedonia and the only megalopolis in Byzantium apart from Constan tinople. The theme of Thessaloniki had existed since the ninth century, and represented an important military and political bastion for Byzantium since that time.32 The city was one of a select few which escaped the great expansion of the First Bulgarian Empire, and remained in Byzantine hands.33 As a means of strengthening their rule, Byzan tines also made a significant cultural impact in the region; an affinity with artistic tendencies from the capital has been well established in Thessaloniki and its environs much before the arrival of the Komnenian clan.34 Ohrid was another important Byzantine town, located only about 125 miles north-west of Thessaloniki (Map, p. XI). The seat of the Bulgarian patriarch during Bul garian rule, Ohrid revived the status of an autocephalous archbishopric under Byzantine rule. Byzantines, however, made sure that the archbishop’s chair was filled by clergy from Constantinople. Thus, Ohrid represented the most important ecclesiastical center which promoted Byzantine religious and cultural ideals in the region.35 While both Ohrid and Thessaloniki had a long history of Byzantine involvement and represented centers of Byzantine culture prior to the Komnenian rule, Skopje
31 32 33 34 35 36
37 38 39
40 41
was a small provincial town, distinguished much more for its administrative functions than for its cultural heritage. Throughout the Middle Ages, it was the fate of Skopje to constantly change its rulers. Between the fourth and sixth centuries, the region was invaded by Goths, Bulgarians and Slavs. Subsequently, the city was ruled by Bulgarians, Byzantines and Serbs, until its fall to Turks in 1391. An im portant economic and ecclesiastical center of the Bulgarian Empire in the tenth and eleventh centuries, Skopje was also the capital of the Serbian state under Tzar Dušan who was crowned emperor there in 1346, and whose legal code was proclaimed in Skopje in 1349.36
DID ALEXIOS RESIDE IN SKOPJE? 1. History of Skopje Skopje became an important town during Byzantine rule. In fact, it was the victory in the battle on the river Vardar, not far from Skopje, that gave Basil II a decisive impetus in capturing most of Samuel’s territory.37 Due to the betrayal of the strategos of Skopje, Romanos, Skopje, the capital of the Bulgarian State and the seat of the dux of the theme Bulgaria, fell into Byzantine hands in 1004.38 Its increased importance is evident from the fact that shortly after the Byzantine conquest, Skopje and its surroundings received a status of a theme, still attested in sources in 1198.39 The town became a seat of the autokrator strategos, to be later raised to a catepanate, and then to a duchy (ducatus). As far as its military importance is concerned, the town became an important strategic point in battles with neighboring Raška, and the emperor Alexios I Komnenos spent some time in the city on his campaigns against the Serbian neigh bors.40 Apart from short periods of unrest provoked both by local upheavals under Petar Deljan in 1040 and George Vojteh in 1072, and by the Norman intrusion in 1082, the eleventh and twelfth centuries were marked by the growth and prosperity of the town.41 The Arabian geographer Idrisi, who visited Skopje around 1153, described it as a
Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 14), pp. 135-136. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (see footnote 14), p. 194, n. 4. Ibid., p. 301. See Wharton, Art of Empire (see footnote 4), pp. 92,104-111. See I. Snegarov, Istoriia na Okhridskata Arkhiepiskopiia (Sofia, 1924). For geographic characteristics and history of Skopje and its region, see V. Kravari, Villes et villages de Macedoine occidental (Paris, 1989), pp. 142, 160-161; I. Mikulčik, Skopje so okolnite tvrdini (Skopje, 1982), pp. 13-17; T. Tomoski, “Skopska oblast od XI do XIV vek”, in: Spomenici za srednovekovnata i ponovata istorija na Makedonija. Vol. 1 (Skopje, 1975), pp. 54-74; and A. Deroko, “Srednjevekovni grad Skoplje”, Spomenik 70 (1971): 1-17. Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije. Vol. 3 (Belgrade, 1966), pp. 101 -103. Ibid., p. 104. The first known dux of Skopje was John Taroneites. See Theophylacti Achridensis Epistulae, ed. by P. Gautier (Thessaloniki, 1980), pp. 126-129. For the development of the city of Skopje into a separate administrative unit and for earlier bibliography, see Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (see footnote 14), pp. 311 -3 12 ; and J. Nesbitt and N. Oikonomides, Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art (Washington, 1991), Vol. 1, p. 98. Vizantijski izvori (see footnote 37), pp. 386, 388. For Petar Deljan, see Vizantijski izvori (see footnote 37), p. 144; for George Vojteh, see ibid., pp. 184,237-239; for Norman intrusion, see ibid., p. 381.
8 famous town with developed agriculture and commerce.42 Moreover, Macedonian towns, Skopje included, were very likely a place of commerce for Venetian merchants, as can be seen from the Charter signed by Emperor Alexios III and given to Venice in 1198. In that Charter, Alexios III grants the right to Venetian merchants to develop com merce with Byzantine themes, including “Prounicia Scopie cum episkepsi Coriton.”43 Skopje in the twelfth century was thus a significant enough town to attract a member of the imperial family, such as the patron of Nerezi, Alexios Angelos Komnenos. Located only 4 miles south-west of the town of Skopje, in the village Gorno Nerezi (Upper Nerezi), Alexios’ church represents one of several ecclesiastical foundations built in Skopje and its vicinity during the Komnenian era.
2. Skopje as an Ecclesiastical Center During the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Skopje was the center of the eparchy which occupied the territory of Skopje Valley, Pčinja Valley, and probably some territory of Upper Morava Valley.44 Under the jurisdiction of the autocephalous archbishopric of Ohrid, the eparchy of Skopje seemingly witnessed considerable building activity during the Komnenian period. According to sources, the major cathedral church of the eparchy, the Church of the Three-Handed Virgin, was built after the Byzantine con quest in the eleventh century.45 The church is last men tioned in sources in the seventeenth century.46 Other churches built during the eleventh and twelfth century were the Monastery of St. George-Gorgos, the church of St. Michael, and the church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi.47 Among them, only Nerezi is still extant. The preserved portions of the Typicon of the monastery of St. GeorgeGorgos, however, indicate that churches and monasteries in Skopje received considerable attention from members of the Byzantine imperial family during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The Typicon of the Monastery indicates
Chapter I that Byzantine Emperors, Manuel I included, endowed the monastery with generous gifts of money, land and tax privileges.48
3. Alexios’ Relatives in and Around Skopje The growth of Skopje during the Komnenian period, and imperial involvement in the region, make Alexios’ pres ence in Skopje and its environs quite probable. After all, Alexios would have been only one of many members of the Komnenian family who either lived or spent extensive periods of time in Macedonia during Manuel’s rule. The emperor’s cousin and Alexios’ close relative, Adrian-John Komnenos, was the archbishop of Bulgaria with his seat in Ohrid.49 In addition, Manuel’s brother-in-law, John Dalassenos Rogerios, who had a high administrative rank of a Caesar, was in charge of the theme Strumica and most lands east of the Vardar river.50 There is even a hypothesis that Alexios’ brother, John Angelos, was a duke of Skopje around the middle of the twelfth century and at the time when Alexios built his church.51 Moreover, as mentioned earlier, Manuel himself spent considerable time in the region.
4. Alexios and His Cousin Manuel I Alexios’ presence in Skopje could also be suggested through his close association with his cousin, emperor Manuel I. Unlike his brothers who were fighting for the emperor with arms and weapons, Alexios most like ly offered his support to his cousin, Manuel I, in the matters of learning and politics. The program of Alexios’ church, as well as his presence during the Church Coun cil of 1166,52 testify to his intense participation in the emperor’s affairs, particularly those related to matters of the highest intellectual and political importance for the emperor.
42 B. Nedkov, Bulgaria i susednite zemjiprez X II vek spored Idrisi (Sofia, 1960), p. 37. 43 Koriton was located to the south-east of Skopje and was added to the theme Skopje in the twelfth century. See Tomoski, “Skopska oblast od XI do XIV vek” (see footnote 36), p. 58, n. 14. 44 Snegarov, Istoriia na Okhridskata Arkhiepiskopiia (see footnote 35), p. 476; and R. M. Grujič, Skopska mitropolija (Skopje, 1935), pp. 1 -4 . 45 The church was first dedicated to the Virgin; the dedication to the Three-Handed Virgin happened in c. 1230, and is related to the miraculous icon of the Three-handed Virgin which St. Sava brought from Jerusalem and gave to the cathedral church of Skopje (Grujić, Skopska mitropolija (see foot note 44), p. 34). The earliest source which mentions the cathedral of Skopje as the church of the Three-handed Virgin is the Charter issued by King Milutin to the monastery of St. George-Gorgos; see V. Mošin et al. “Gramota na krai Milutin”, in: Spomenici za srednov ekovnata iponovata istorija na Makedonija (Skopje, 1975), p. 214 (ll). 46 Deroko, “Srednjevekovni grad Skopje” (see footnote 36), p. 10. 47 See Idem; see also V. Marković, Pravoslavno monaštvo i manastiri u srednjevekovnoj Srbiji (Sremski Karlovci, 1920), pp. 21 -24. 48 The Typicon of St. George-Gorgos has been published in V. Mošin et al. “Gramoti na manastirot Sv. Georgi-Gorg Skopski”, in: Spomenici za srednovekovnata iponovata istorija na Makedonija, pp. 97-241. For a discussion about this monastery, see R. Grujić, “Vlastelinsto Svetog Djordja kod Skoplja od X I-X V veka”, GSND 1 (1925): 45-75; see also K. Petrov, “Pregled na sakralnite spomenici vo Skopje i okolinata od XI do XIX vek”, in: Spomenici za srednov ekovnata i ponovata istorija na Makedonija, p. 76. 49 M. Angold, Church and Society Under the Comneni (see footnote 2), pp. 173-174; and H. Gelzer, Der Patriarchat von Achrida. Geschichte und Urkunden (Leipzig, 1902), pp. 8 -9 . 50 B. Ferjančič, “Apanažni posedi kesara Jovana Rogerija”, Z R V I 12 (1983): 193-201; and E. Jeffreys, “Western Infiltrations of the Byzantine Aristoc racy: Some Suggestions”, in: The Byzantine Aristocracy (see footnote 7), pp. 202-211. 51 M. Boškoski, “Vizantijski pečat Jovana Komnina, duksa Skopja”, ZRVI 22 (1983): 38-40. This view was, however, opposed by Oikonomides. See Nesbitt and Oikonomides, Catalogue of Byzantine Seals, Vol. 1, p. 98. 52 See footnotes 1, 2 above.
Chapter I Manuel I Komnenos was distinguished both as a states man and as an emperor who took an exceptionally active role in church affairs. Unlike his predecessors, Manuel not only involved himself in questions related to political as pects of the church, but expressed significant interest and claimed competence in the issues concerning dogmatic questions of the Orthodox faith. His involvement in the questions of Christian dogma is particularly evident in the documents of the Church Councils of Constantinople held between 1154 and in 1166.53The Councils, in a general sense, dealt with the controversy related to the consubstantial nature of Christ and to the questions of hypostatic union. During these Councils, Manuel took an active role in arguing the dogma, presiding over sessions, and anathe matizing his opponents. In fact, in the case of the Council of March 2, 1166, Manuel convened the Council, imposed his views upon the majority of participants, and countered opposition with an imperial edict which legally demanded adherence to his theological views.54 What is more, in the absence of public support, Manuel brought members of his own family to help promulgate his ideas. According to the sources, the room was filled with the members of the Komnenian family. The documents of the Council of 1166 indicate that the patron of Nerezi, Alexios Angelos Komnenos, was pre sent in support of the Emperor during the Council. That Alexios was more than a mere Komnenian family partisan at the Council is shown by the cycle he installed in his church. The painted program of Nerezi is distinguished for its political content which reveals many of the ideas promulgated by the emperor, as will be discussed in sub sequent chapters. While Manuel took a rather aggressive approach in church debates of his time, Alexios, most likely, propagated his cousin s ideas in the church. Mace donia, a region of utmost strategic and economic impor tance for the empire, where Byzantines manifested both their political and their cultural influence, and where Manuel spent long periods of time, surrounded both by the members of his army and his family, certainly was a good location for such a monument.
9 WHY WOULD ALEXIOS CHOOSE A PROVINCIAL LOCATION FOR HIS FOUNDATION ? 1. Komnenian Aristocratic Foundations in the Provinces The presence of an aristocratic foundation in the province, far remote from the capital, is by no means unusual during the Komnenian era. Komnenian rule marked the rise of aristocracy in Byzantium. Aristocratic monastic founda tions, in general, were a distinguished sign of social prestige. At the same time, they granted spiritual awards to their founders, assuring the patron and his family of well being and forgiveness of all sins in the afterlife. This is at least suggested by the surviving Typica which constantly em phasize the importance of the prayers for and commemo ration of the lay patrons by the monks serving the monas teries.55 Aristocratic foundations were equally popular in the capital and in the provinces. The expansion of provincial aristocratic foundations during the reign of the Komneni, however, is also related to political and economic reasons. Komnenian rulers paid particular attention to providing resources for the mem bers of the imperial clan. A very popular way in which this goal was achieved was awarding of control over large es tates, especially in the provinces, to family members. The members of the clan were provided with a share of the rev enues of the state, most commonly by being given the au thority to collect the state taxation over defined areas.56 The gift of land to a member of the family took care of the support of the clan, kept wealth within the family, while at the same time maintaining the state control over the re sources in the provinces. Due to its important geo-political status for the empire, and its natural resources, Macedonia had a significant con centration of large estates during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.57 It is well known, for example, that Manuel gave Kastoria to his cousin Andronikos (1153), and that he presented his son-in-law, John Renier, with considerable properties of the theme Thessaloniki.58 Equally important were the gifts of estates to distin guished members of the military aristocracy, in return for their service to the country. For example, a military com-
53 For the text of the Synodikon and discussion about the Councils, see J. Gouillard, “Le Synodikon de l’Orthodoxie: édition et commentaire”, TM 2 (1967): 1-2 9 8 ; See also Choniates, O City of Byzantium (see footnote 10), pp. 119-121; Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus (see foot note 20), pp. 135-136; Chalandon,Jean II Comnène et Manuel I Comnène (see footnote 20), pp. 640-643, 646-652. 54 See C. Mango, “The Concilar Edict of 1166”, DOP 17 (1963): 317-330. 55 For a discussion on aristocratic monastic patronage and extensive bibliography, see J. P. Thomas, Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Em pire (Washington, D. C., 1987), pp. 167-244; Angold, Church and Society Under the Comneni (see footnote 2), pp. 265-385; Epstein and Kazhdan, Change in Byzantine Culture (see footnote 6), pp. 103-104; and R. Morris, “The Byzantine Aristocracy and the Monasteries”, in: The Byzantine Aristocracy (see footnote 7), pp. 158-173. For a discussion on the Typica, see C. Galatariotou, “Byzantine Ktetorika Typika: A Comparative Study”, REB 45 (1987): 77-138. 56 Hendy, Studies (see footnote 15), pp. 85-90. 57 Ibid., pp. 85-86. Hendy, however, questions whether the sources indicate the theme Macedonia or the geographic region, since the two did not co incide in the twelfth century. Hendy’s conclusions about the distribution of magnates are questioned by Magdalino, who claims that Hendy placed too much emphasis upon the number of large estates in the Balkans and believes that similar estates existed in other regions of the empire. See Mag dalino, Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 14), pp. 160-171. 58 Hendy, Studies (see footnote 15), p. 88.
10 mander and diplomat, George Palaiologos, received some property in Constantinople,59 and the grand domestic, George Pakourianos, the commander-in-chief during the reign of Alexios I Komnenos, received large estates in Bul garia.60 Commonly, newly awarded land-owners would choose to build or restore monasteries on their estates. For example, George Palaiologos built the monastery of St. Demetrios in Constantinople; general Manuel Boutoumites founded and supported the Kykko monastery on Cyprus; and George Pakourianos founded and richly endowed the monastery of Theotokos Petritziotissa near Philippopolis.61 In addition, well known among the provincial imperial foundations is the Church of the Virgin Kosmosoteira in Pherrai, founded by Isaak Komnenos, a son of the emperor Alexios I.62 Nerezi was also most likely built on the estate given to its patron by the emperor. That is at least suggested by the fact that it is mentioned as episkepsis in the territorial descriptions in the Byzantine-Venetian Treaty of 1198.63 The term episkepsis was applied in the twelfth and thirteenth cen turies to an estate that belonged to the state or under the governance of a member of the imperial clan, yet to a cer tain degree possessed an independent status.64
2. Financing Nerezi Like many ecclesiastical buildings in Macedonia, Nerezi too was most likely supported by imperial resources. Manuel I was extremely generous to provincial foundations throughout the Empire, and his lavish contributions to monasteries, especially those in the Holy Land, have been discussed by scholars.65 Considering Macedonia, Manuel only continued the benevolent practices of his predeces sors. The Typicon of the monastery of Virgin Eleousa at Veljusa and the Charters issued by emperors Alexios I Komnenos and Manuel I, indicate that Manuel granted con siderable gifts to the monastery, not only financial dona tions, but also land, tax privileges, and legal rights.66 The sources also inform us that Manuel generously endowed the Archbishopric of Ohrid, a fact which should not be sur
59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
Chapter I prising considering that the archbishop of Ohrid, AdrianJohn Komnenos, was Manuels cousin. It has also been noted earlier that Manuel granted many rights and privileges to the Monastery of St. George-Gorgos near Skopje.
3. The Importance of Provincial Foundations The imperial generosity towards provincial foundations illuminates the importance of provincial religious estab lishments. As has been pointed out by scholars, the church was an important factor in disseminating and maintaining Byzantine authority. Ecclesiastical authority in the provinces provided an element of continuity in the gov erning structure of Byzantium, and thus represented a well known means of strengthening imperial power in the provinces. While tenure of secular authorities was limited to only several years, most of the ecclesiastical authorities held life-long appointments, giving the church a promi nent status in the Byzantine provinces.67 Imperial donations to provincial ecclesiastical founda tions certainly helped strengthen the benevolent spirit of ecclesiastical circles and the faithful towards the ruling family. That benevolence was further supported by the presence of high church officials and active lay patrons who were important members of the imperial clan, such as Alexios and his cousins. Thus, Alexios’ decision to built a monastery away from the capital is by no means sur prising. As an aristocratic foundation in a Byzantine province, Nerezi reflects a trend which was common during Komnenian period. Much more interesting than its geographic location are Alexios’ aesthetic and programmatic choices seen in the architecture and painted decoration of the church. The sheer beauty and provocative content of the painted decoration, contained within the small, intimate interior of the church, reflect Alexios’ high social status, his refined intellect, and above all, his familiarity with the politics of Manuel I. It will be the task of the subsequent chapters to examine the ways in which Alexios’ aspirations and ideals reverberated before the eyes of contemporary beholders.
Angold, Church and Society under the Comneni (see footnote 2), p. 299. For the actual value of the property, see Hendy, Studies (see footnote 15), pp. 212-216. For a brief discussion and extended bibliography, see Angold, Church and Society under the Comneni (see footnote 2), pp. 274, 303 Ibid., p. 286. G. L. F. Tafel and G. M. Thomas, Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig, 3 Vols. (Vienna, 1956-57), Vol. 1, pp. 258-72. Hendy, Studies (see footnote 15), p. 89. See A. W. Carr, “The Mural Paintings of Abu Ghosh and the Patronage of Manuel Comnenus in the Holy Land”, in: Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, ed. by J. Folda (BAR International Series, 152, 1982), pp. 215-243. See L. Petit, “Le monastère de Notre Dame de Pitié en Macédoine”, IRAIK 6 (1900): 1-153 ; and P. Miljković-Pepek, Veljusa: Manastir Sv. Bo gorodica Milostiva vo seloto Veljusa kraj Strumica (Skopje, 1981). J. Herrin, “Realities of Byzantine Provincial Government: Hellas and Peloponnesos 1180-1205”, DOP 29 (1975): 253-284.
CHAPTER II ARCHITECTURE
INTRODUCTION Nerezi is a small, cruciform church, 15.90 m long by 9.60 m wide (pls. 1-7c; figs. I-VI; 1-12). Irregular in its layout, the church is of a rhomboidal, rather than a standard rectangular form (pi. I).1The interior of Nerezi is composed of a cruci form naos, a bema, a narthex and four side chapels located be tween the arms of the cross. Its exterior, considerably restored since the erection of the church in the twelfth century, dis plays an odd combination of a variety of building techniques which, in turn, reveal more about the history of the structure than about the initial appearance of the church (figs. I-VI; 1-11). Only the presence of five domes, which crown the church and represent its most distinguished architectural fea ture, seemingly recall the original intent of its builder (pi. 2 a; fig. VI). A hallmark of Constantinopolitan architecture, the constellation of five domes relates Nerezi to some of the fa mous imperial churches of the Byzantine capital. In discussing the architecture of the church, the various components of the building will be examined on an indi vidual basis, beginning with an analysis of the interior spaces. Subsequently, we will examine the exterior articu lation of the church, techniques and materials used in its construction, and the decorative elements on the facades. Moreover, since the eastern side chapels represent a part of the sanctuary and the western chapels show a close spatial and. functional relationship to the narthex, the chapels will be considered integrally with those larger entities. PLAN AND SPATIAL ARTICULATION 1. Naos: Analysis The naos, in a manner characteristic of Byzantine architec ture, occupies the central part of the church (pis. 1, 2;
figs. VII-VIII). To the east, it communicates with the sanctuary; to the west, it opens into the narthex. The naos consists of 4 bays: the central, domed bay and three barrelvaulted arms of the cross. The central bay of the naos is square, measuring 3.80 m by 3.80 m, while the north, south, and west arms of the cross measure 3.80 m by 2.20 m. The eastern arm of the cross is incorporated into the sanctuary and is separated from the naos by the iconos tasis. Thus, the functional space of the naos is reduced to the shape of the letter T.2 The naos of Nerezi is rather isolated (pis. 1, 2). Defined by the walls of the cross arms, it barely communicates with other components of the church. Full walls separate it from the western chapels, a 0.90 m wide and 2.00 m high portal is the only opening into the narthex, and tiny nar row passages are the sole means of communication with the eastern chapels. The entry into the north-east chapel is 0.66 m wide and 2.11 m high; the entry into the south-east chapel is 0.70 m wide and 2.37 m high. The only compo nent of the church which today interlocks spatially with the naos proper is the bema (pis. 1, 2, 4; fig. VII). The original relationship between the naos and the bema, however, is difficult to determine and largely de pends on the degree of openness of the original iconosta sis.3 Whether the present airy structure with four parapet slabs supporting colonnettes and an architrave was all that stood for a sanctuary enclosure in the twelfth century is impossible to determine today (pi. 8). However, even if the intercolumnar spaces were closed, the upper sections of the eastern arm of the cross surely merged spatially with the naos proper. The most prominent feature of the naos is its dome. Capping the central bay of the naos, the dome is raised on a drum and supported by pendentives and full walls (pis. 3, 4; figs. VII, IX, XII). Semi-circular in the interior and octa-
1 The irregular layout of the church was not unusual and may have been necessitated by the configuration of the terrain on which it is built. Other ex amples of irregular layout are found in the church at Vinica, Preslav, at the Katholikon of the Monastery of St. Meletios on Mount Kithairon, at the Theotokos Church of the Monastery of Hosios Loukas at Stiris, and at the church of the Virgin at Apollonia, to mention the best known ones. For Vinica, see K. Miiatev, Arkhitekturata v srednovekovna Bŭlgariia (Sofia, 1965) p. 120, fig. 13; for the Katholikon of the Monastery of St. Meletios on Mount Kithairon, see C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture (New York, 1976) fig. 158; for the Theotokos Church of the Monastery of Hosios Loukas at Stiris, see P. Mylonas, “The Complex of St. Luke of Stiris”, Archaeologia 36 (1990): 6 -3 0 ; and for the church of the Virgin at Apollonia, see G. Koch, Albanien. Kulturdenkmäler eines unbekannten Landes aus 2200 Jahren (Marburg, 1985), pp. 48-54. 2 The term T-shaped naos is not commonly used in the literature about cruciform churches; yet in the instances where the eastern arm of the cross is incorporated into the bema proper, the space of the naos reserved for congregation is reduced to the shape of the letter T. The T-shaped naos, con sisting of the domed central bay and three projecting arms of the cross, has a long history in Byzantine architecture and characterizes cruciform churches of the Middle Byzantine period, too. For a general discussion of cruciform churches, see R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Harmondsworth, 1986), pp. 285-300. For a discussion of the revival of this church type in the twelfth century, see R. Ousterhout, “The Byzantine Church at Enez: Problems in Twelfth-Century Architecture”, JOB 35 (1985): 261-280. 3 For discussions on the structure of the Middle Byzantine iconostasis, see C. Walter, “The Origins of Iconostasis”, Eastern Churches Review 3 (1971): 251-267, reprinted in Studies in Byzantine Iconography (London, 1977), No. 3; Idem, “A New Look at the Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier”, REB 51 (1993): 203-228; A. W. Epstein, “The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier: Templon or Iconostasis”, Journal of the British Archaeological Associa tion 134 (1981): 1 -2 7 ; M. Chatzidakis, “L’évolution de l’icone aux lle -1 3 e siècles et la transformation du templon”, in: XVe congrès, pp. 159-191; T. Velmans, “Rayonnement de l'icone au X IIe et au début du X IIIe siècle”, in: XVe congrès, pp. 195-227; and G. Babić, “O živopisanom ukrasu oltarskih pregrada”, ZLU ll (1975): 3 -4 5 .
Chapter II
12 gonal on the exterior, the drum is pierced by eight win dows which are the main source of light for the naos. The naos is also lit by two two-light windows in the upper reg isters of the southern and northern arms of the cross, by the three-light window of the bema, and by the main en trance to the church (pis. 3, 4; figs. VII-IX). Other important features of the naos of Nerezi are its small, intimate scale and its squat proportions. Upon entering the naos, the eye ascends from the low springing points of the barrel vaults of the arms of the cross at the height of 3.80 m to the springing point of the dome at 5.60 m and ends at its apex at the height of 10.20 m. The proportions of the arms of the cross are squat. The width of the arm of the cross to the height of the apex of the bar rel vault gives the ratio of 1: 1.42. The proportions of the central bay are also squat: the side of the bay to its height at the apex of the dome is 1: 2.77. Consequently, the inte rior produces no sense of dramatic movement either verti cally or horizontally. The transverse axis is as pronounced as the vertical one and the space at Nerezi appears static. The spatial articulation and structural elements of the naos at Nerezi exhibit a combination of Constantinopolitan and regional characteristics. Differences between the two building traditions are particularly revealed in the proportions of the bay, segregation of the naos, and in the elements supporting the central dome. Concerning the el ements supporting the central dome, they were either piers, or full walls, or a combination of the two. While piers were most commonly used in the twelfth-century cruciform churches of the capital,4 a combination of piers
and full walls or just full walls as at Nerezi, were popular in provincial monuments.5 1.1. Segregation of the Naos Segregation of the naos is another feature of the design of Nerezi which may be considered provincial. Although spatial segregation of architectural components commonly characterizes cruciform churches, in the monuments in which piers support the central dome, the naos communi cates with the side chapels.6 According to the surviving monuments, examples of a complete separation between the chapels and the naos, such as is exhibited in the pair of western chapels at Nerezi, are found exclusively in the Byzantine provinces. The churches of St. Nicholas, Aulis in Beotia, St. Demetrios, Varassova on the Gulf of Korinth, or at Manolada Palaiopanagia in Elis, all exhibit the naos completely separated from the western chapels.7 In addi tion to these Peloponnesian examples, one finds the same design in Epirus, such as, for example, in the church of the Virgin at Kosine.8 This type of planning is also found in Macedonia. The naos of the churches at Mordoviz, at Kale, Krupište, and at Kula, Petričko, all dated to the ninth-tenth centuries, com pares to Nerezi in terms of the segregation of the naos from the western chapels.9 If these three churches ante date Nerezi, the church of Sedam Prestola, Bulgaria is probably contemporaneous or built shortly after it.10 Thus, in terms of planning, Nerezis builders apparently did not go beyond the local tradition.11
4 Columns, which were traditionally used in Constantinopolitan monuments as a means of support of the central dome, were replaced by piers in the twelfth century. The piers are, for example, used in some of the major Middle Byzantine foundations in Constantinople, such as the Kalenderhane Camii, Kariye Camii, and Gül Camii. For plans, discussion, and bibliography, see See R. Ousterhout, The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istan bul (Washington, 1987) pp.22-2 4 , and Idem, “Byzantine Church at Enez” (see footnote 2), pp.271-272. F. T. Mathews, The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul: A Photographic Survey (University Park, PA, 1976), pp. 4 0 -5 8 , 128-131, 171-175; and A. Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople: Their History and Architecture (London, 1912), pp. 138-164, 164-182, 288-321. 5 A combination of piers and full walls may be seen, for example, in the church at Kale, Krupište (9th-1 0 th c.). In Kale, piers support the central dome at the east end; to the west, the dome is supported by full walls. Although more elongated in its plan, the church at Kale also resembles Nerezi in the segregation of its side chapels and in the design of its narthex. See B. Aleksova, Episkopija na Bregalnica (Prilep, 1989), fig. 4; and P. Miljković-Pepek, “L’architecture chrétienne chez les Slaves macedoniens à partir d’avant la motie du X Ie siècle jusqu’à la fin du X IIe siècle”, in: The 17th International Byzantine Congress (Washington, 1986), p. 491, pl. 2. Closely resembling Nerezi, for example, is the church at Manolada, Palaiopanagia, in Elis, built in 1143, in which the central dome is also supported by full walls. For the plan and bibliography on this church, see Ch. Bouras, “He Palaiopanagia stē Manolada”, in: ’Epetēris tēs Polytechnikēs Scholēs tou Aristoteleiou Panepistēmiou Thessalonikēs (Thessaloniki, 1969), Vol. 4, pp. 233-266. 6 See, for example, plan of the Gül Camii in Constantinople, in: Mathews, Byzantine Churches of Istanbul (see footnote 4), pp. 128-131. 7 The church of St. Nicholas is now destroyed. It is known to us only from drawings, photographs, and hypothetical reconstructions. See Ch. Bouras, “Symplērōmatika stoicheia gia ena katestrammeno nao tes Boiotias”, Deltion 4 (1964-65): 227-244; and S. Ćurčić, “Architectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels in Middle Byzantine Churches”,JSAH 36/2 (1977): 101-102. For plan, discussion and bibliography on the Varassova church, see A. K. Orlandos, “Ho Ag. Dēmētrios tes Varasovas”, ABME 1 (1935): 105-120. 8 The church was reconstructed and now exhibits two piers and two columns as means of support. According to this reconstruction, the walls which separate western chapels from the naos are later additions. However, the basis for this reconstruction is unclear. There is no evidence to suggest that either piers or columns were originally used instead of walls. For a reconstruction, see Koch, Albanien (see footnote 1), pp. 36-37. 9 For plans and discussion, see Aleksova, Episkopija na Bregalnica (see footnote 5), pp. 8 1-8 5 , figs. 4, 12; and Miljković-Pepek, “L’architecture chretienne chez les Slaves macedoniens” (see footnote 5), pl. 2. 10 See Miiatev, Arkhitekturata v srednovekovna Bŭlgariia (see footnote 1), pp. 187-188. The author argues that the church belongs to the Palaiologan period. However, his argument is based on the date of the painted program of the church. In my view, the architectural features of this church, such as its cruciform plan, the segregation of architectural units, and its elongated design, compare much more closely to the Middle Byzantine monu ments than to later ones. 11 However, it is interesting to note that the plan of Nerezi closely compares to the upper structure of early Middle Byzantine churches in the capital, such as Bodrum Camii and Fenari Isa Camii. For Bodrum Camii, see C. L. Striker, The Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii) in Istanbul (Princeton, 1981); For Fenari Isa Camii, see C. Mango and E. J. W. Hawkins, “Additional Finds at Fenari Isa Camii”, DOP 22 (1968): 177-185; Idem, “Additional Notes on the Monastery of Lips”, DOP 18 (1964): 299-319; and A. H. S. Megaw, “The Original Form of the Theotokos Church of Constantine Lips”, DOP 18 (1964): 292-296.
13
Chapter II That this tradition had a long history in the region is perhaps best exemplified by the church of Hosios David, Thessaloniki, dated in the last third of the fifth century.12 The reconstruction of its initial shape indicates that Hosios David, like Nerezi, exhibited a T-shaped naos flanked by considerably segregated subsidiary chambers to the west; to the east, the naos was preceded by the bema and two apsed side rooms. Hosios David and Nerezi are also com parable in their size, in function - both are monastic churches, in the proportions of their interior, and in styl istic features of their twelfth-century paintings, as will be seen in Chapter Four. 1.2. Twelfth-Century Revival of Cruciform Churches While the segregation of architectural components at Nerezi compares closely to provincial monuments, its spatial articulation is quite in line with contemporary churches in Constantinople. The twelfth century witnessed a revival of various types of cruciform churches, such as cross-domed, Greek Cross, or atrophied cross. As pointed out by scholars, this revival may have been a reaction to the historic circumstances.13 At the time when the empire was threatened by both the Catholic West and the Muslim East, the reversion to older building traditions may have represented a conscious attempt to “maintain certain forms that were thought to be truly Orthodox and Byzan tine.”14 It should also be noted, however, that the twelfth century was a time when financial resources of the Empire were largely exhausted and when the renovation of old churches outnumbered new foundations. Thus, a large number of churches of a cruciform plan may not be new foundations, but reconstructed old monuments instead. Important examples for such practice are provided by some of the major twelfth-century churches in Constan tinople, such as the Kalenderhane Camii and the core of the Kariye Camii.15 The major distinguishing feature of cruciform churches of the twelfth century was the enlargement of the central bay and broadening of the side bays of the naos. This fea ture is particularly prominent in the churches of the capi tal. In the Kariye Camii and Gül Camii, the dome spans al
most the entire space of the naos. It measures 8.50 m in diameter in the Gül Camii, and 7.45 m in the Kariye Camii. At Kalenderhane Camii, in plan more closely related to Nerezi, the central dome measures 7.99 m in diameter.16 The ratio between the width of the central bay and its height is approximately 1: 2.55, and the ratio between the depth of the arms of the cross to their width is 1: 1.87. En largement of domes and broadening of bays enhanced the unification and monumentality of the naos. Churches in the orbit of the capital or influenced by Constantinopolitan building tradition, such as the mon astery church of St. Abercius at Kurçunlu (Elegmi) on the south shore of the sea of Marmara (1162), and the church of St. Nicholas in Kursumlija in Serbia, although smaller in size, have domes spanning almost the entire space of the naos.17 Moreover, the sense of the wide interior is further enhanced by the squat proportions of these monuments. The ratio of the width of the central dome to its height ranges between 1: 2.3 and 1: 2.6.18 1.3. Naos: Summary Nerezi compares to Constantinopolitan monuments in the proportions of its interior. It exhibits the same tend ency towards widening of the central bay at the expense of the depth of the cross arms. This tendency is evident in the relationship between the width of the central bay to its height in Nerezi which gives the ratio of 1: 2.5; it is thus quite comparable to cruciform monuments of the capital. This feature distinguishes Nerezi from other provincial monuments which, in most instances, have small central bays and deep cross arms, like the church of St. Demetrios, Varassova or the church of Sedam Prestola in Bulgaria.19 In sum, while many of the components of its planning, such as the T-shaped naos and segregation of its architec tural components compare closely to provincial monu ments, the proportions of the church and the desire for a broad interior reflect planning principles of Constanti nople.20 Thus, as a cruciform church, Nerezi echoes main tendencies from the capital while retaining planning prin ciples of its own region.
12 Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (see footnote 2), pp. 239-241; and P. Grossmann, “Zur typologischen Stellung der Kirche von Hosios David in Thessalonike”, Felix Ravenna 128-130 (1984-1985): 253-260, with earlier bibliography. 13 See Mango, Byzantine Architecture (see footnote 1), p. 137; and Ousterhout, The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul (see footnote 4), pp. 22-24. 14 Mango, Byzantine Architecture (see footnote 1), p. 137. 15 See C. L. Striker and Y. D. Kuban, eds., Kalenderhane Camii in Istanbul The Buildings, Their History, Architecture, and Decoration (Mainz, 1997), pp. 58-72; and Ousterhout, Kariye Camii (see footnote 4), pp. 22-24. 16 Striker and Kuban, Kalenderhane Camii (see footnote 15), p. 67. 17 For St. Abercius, see C. Mango, “The Monastery of St. Abercius at Kurşunlu (Elegmi) in Bithynia”, DOP 22 (1968): 169-176; For St. Nicholas, see M. Č anak-Medić, M. and Dj. Bosković, Arhitektura Nemanjinog doba, Vol. 1. Crkve u Toplici i dolinama Ibra i Morave, Spomenici srpske arhitekture srednjeg veka, Korpus sakralnih gradjevina (Belgrade, 1986), pp. 55-76. 18 In Kariye Camii it is 1: 2.55, in Kalenderhane it is 1: 2.37, in St. Nicholas, Kuršumlija, 1: 2.5. In the Gül Camii it is now 1: 2.55, but that is inaccurate for there is evidence that the height of the dome was tampered with in Turkish times. 19 For the church of Sedam Prestola, see Miiatev, Arkhitekturata v srednovekovnata Bŭlgariia (see footnote 1), p. 187, fig. 214. 20 For a more comprehensive discussion on the system of proportions used in Byzantine churches, see H. Buchwald, “Sardis Church E - A Prelimi nary Report”, JOB 28 (1979): 26 1-2 96 ; and N. K. Moutsopoulos, “Harmonische Bauschnitte in den Kirchen vom Typ kreuzförmigen Innenbaus im griechischen Kernland”, BZ 55 (1962): 274-291.
Chapter II
14 2. Sanctuary: Analysis The sanctuary is the eastern extension of the naos and con sists of three parts: the bema, the prothesis (north chapel), and the diakonikon (south chapel). It is on the same level and has the same width as the naos with which it shares lateral walls (pl. 1). The bema consists of three bays: the semi-dome of the apse, the 1.00 m x 2.80 m bay in between the apse and the eastern arm of the cross, and the 2.10 m x 3.80 m bay of the eastern arm of the cross. The apse is polygonal on the outside and semi-circular in the interior (pl. 1; fig. I). At the height of approximately 1.30 m, its wall is pierced by a three-light window, divided by two mullions (pl. 3; fig. I). The bema communicates with the side chapels (prothe sis and diakonikon) by means of single openings in its north and south walls (pl. 1, fig. 17). These openings are 2.41 m high, 0.63 m wide, and 0.96 m deep for the di akonikon, and 2.30 m high, 0.62 m wide and 0.77 m deep for the prothesis. The prothesis, 1.20 m long and 1.30 m wide, features a dome, an apse in the east wall, and a small niche and a win dow in the north wall (pls. 1, 12; fig. XXVI). It communi cates with the naos by means of a 2.11 m high, 0.66 m wide, and 0.83 m deep opening pierced in its west wall. The eastern apse, polygonal on the outside, accommodates an altar niche, set 1.00 m above the floor and measuring 2.37 m in height, 0.85 m in width, and 0.48 m in depth. The niche features a window, 0.70 m high, 0.23 m wide, and 0.53 m deep. In addition to the altar niche, the prothesis exhibits a small niche, 1.10 m high, 0.55 m wide, and 0.33 m deep, within the thickness of the north wall at the height of 0.65 m (fig. XXVII). Above the small niche, at the height of 2.50 m, the northern wall of the prothesis is pierced by a small window, measuring 0.65 m in height and 0.40 m in width. The main feature of the prothesis, however, is the dome. Supported on pendentives and raised on a drum, it caps the chapel. The diakonikon appears to be a mirror image of the prothesis; yet differences in detail are significant (pls. 1 , 14; fig. XXIX). The altar apse, reduced to a niche in the inte rior of the prothesis, is cut within the thickness of the wall from the floor level and up to the height of 3.05 m. It is 0.55 m deep and features a narrow window, 0.85 m high, 0.21 m wide, and 0.47 m deep. An unusual feature of the diakonikon are the three pilasters in its south-east, south west, and north-east corners (fig. XXIX).21 They measure 0.15 m by 0.18 m and reach to the height of 2.70 m. Instead
of an actual pilaster, the north-west corner displays a painted imitation of approximately the same dimensions, which terminates with a now broken bracket (fig. XXIX). It is painted red and white, emulating marble. Probably the architect had in mind some kind of a baldachin structure; yet, it is unclear exactly what effect was originally in tended. Another anomaly is seen in the south wall. The window in the south wall of the diakonikon is visible only on the exterior of the chapel; from within, it is blocked and covered with paintings (pls. 7, 14; figs. II, XXIX,). The sanctuary is enclosed on the west side, and thus sepa rated from the naos, by a templon (pls. 4, 8; fig. XXXIV). It is important to note that this enclosure extends from the north to the south wall of the church. Thus the sanctuary proper abuts the domed bay of the naos directly and is not separated by an additional bay commonly found in Byzan tine architecture of this period. The templon has been re constructed from its remaining parts. Since the templon is distinguished for its sculptural decoration, it will be de scribed and discussed separately in Chapter V. The harmonious relationship between the height and width of the naos bays is also evident in the bema. The height of the bema decreases gradually: the apex of the bay of the eastern arm of the cross is at 5.80 m; the apex of the bay which links the semi-dome of the apse with the east ern arm of the cross is at 5.40 m; and the apex of the semi dome of the apse is at 5.20 m (pl. 3). In plan, the width of the bema narrows: the bay of the eastern arm of the cross is 3.80 m wide, the adjacent bay is only 3. 00 m wide, while the bay of the apse itself is 2.40 m wide (pl. 1). The side chapels, however, are much steeper (pls. 3 a, 4 a). Reaching the height of 8.00 m and measuring 1.20 m x 1.30 m in plan, they display the width-to-height ratio of 1: 6. Small as they are, they hardly allow a visitor to concentrate on any thing else but the image of Christ displayed in the center of the dome - and that only with an effort. The paintings in the upper zones of the walls are virtually inaccessible due to the impossible angles at which they have to be viewed. 2.1. Tri-Partite Organization The analysis of the sanctuary of Nerezi will focus on its most distinguished features: the fusion of the bema bay with the eastern arm of the cross, and its tri-partite organi zation (pl. 1). The tri-partite organization of the sanctuary is a formula commonly, although not always, employed in Middle Byzantine churches.22 One of the major character istics of the tri-partite sanctuary is the functional integra tion of the eastern chapels and the bema proper. This inte-
21 These rather unusual pilasters are not shown on the plan of the church. 22 A number of churches of that period display a triple sanctuary - an arrangement in which chapels flank the bema bay, yet without the same function al implications. While the chapels adjacent to the bema function as prothesis and diakonikon in the tri-partite sanctuary, their function in the triple sanctuary is varied and not necessarily related to the liturgical rites performed in the sanctuary of the church. For a discussion on the Middle Byzan tine sanctuary, see S. (Ćurčić, “St. Mary’s of the Admiral: Architecture”, in: E. Kitzinger, The Mosaics of St. Mary's of the Admiral in Palermo (Wash ington, 1990), pp. 2 9 -3 1 ; Idem, “Architectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels” (see footnote 7), pp. 99 -10 1; T. F. Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy (University Park and London, 1971), pp. 105-107; Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Archi tecture (see footnote 2), pp. 298-299; and G. Babić, Les chapelles annexes des églises byzantines. Function liturgique et programmes iconographique (Paris, 1969), pp.6 1-6 5 , 105-125.
15
Chapter II gration, evident at Nerezi, is related to the development of Eucharistic liturgy in the post-iconoclastic period.23 More specifically, the structuring of the tri-partite sanctuary is probably a consequence of the changes which occurred within the rituals of the Small and the Great Entrance, that is the transfer of the Gospel (Small Entrance) and the Eu charistic Host (Great Entrance) from the chapels where they were kept to the altar where the liturgy was per formed.24 Quite unlike in Early Christian times, when the litur gical host was carried through the church and the whole ceremony had a rather processional and public character, in post-iconoclastic times the liturgy was reduced from public ritual to a series of appearances. The proximity of the side chapels to the altar space, and their communica tion with both the naos and the bema thus helped this cause. The priest and deacons would appear from the north chapel carrying the liturgical host and reciting prayers. Subsequently they would disappear into the altar space where the mystical rite would take place. The En trances no longer moved from along the longitudinal axis through the church; “now they proceeded from di akonikon and prothesis - the Lesser entrance from the for mer, the Great Entrance from the latter - to the chancel, moving briefly into the naos in order to exhibit the gospel and the Eucharistic elements to the faithful.”25 The tri partite sanctuary, although known in the provinces, is ac tually a hallmark of Constantinopolitan architecture. 2.2. Fusion of the Bema Bay With the Eastern Arm of the Cross Another important feature of the sanctuary of Nerezi is the fusion of the bema bay with the eastern arm of the cross. This feature is exhibited in cruciform churches since Early Christian times, and is seen, for example, in the church of Hosios David in Thessaloniki.26 While examples of such planning exist in the Middle Byzantine buildings of the cap ital, as evident in the Kalenderhane Camii and Atik Mustafa Pasa Camii, it is more frequently found in the provinces. As pointed out by R. Krautheimer, the fusion of the bema bay and eastern arm of the cross is a rather promi nent feature of Greek architecture from the eleventh cen tury onwards.27 This was achieved in three variants: either the eastern corner bays and the bays in front of them merged into one barrel-vaulted rectangular bay as was the
case in the church of Kaiseriani Monastery, Hymettos; or they were “contracted into a square bay and covered by a groin or barrel vault”28, as exhibited at St. John the The ologian, Hymettos. The fusion went even further at H. Yoannis, Ligourio. There the eastward columns of the naos were lost, and the piers or walls of the eastern corner bays became the eastern supports of the center bay.29 The most reduced solution, seen at Ligourio, is also apparent at Nerezi. Thus, while it is Constantinopolitan in its tri-par tite composition, the fusion of the spaces and immediate proximity of the naos and sanctuary proper at Nerezi agree more with provincial planning characteristics.
3. Narthex: Analysis The western end of Nerezi is U-shaped in plan (pl. 1). Its main component is the rectangular narthex extended with two chapels at its north and south ends respectively. The main body of the narthex measures 8.30m x 3.05 m in plan (pl. 1). Most of its present form, however, is the result of a recon struction carried out in the 1950s (figs. II; 3,5,8,10,11 ). In fact, all that remains from the original building are its eastern wall and portions of the lateral walls (figs. 10, ll). The west wall as well as the vaulting, consisting of a cross-vaulted central bay flanked by two barrel vaults, are products of the above men tioned reconstruction. On the basis of his examination of the remains of the vaulting on the north and south walls, F. Mesesnel claimed that the original narthex was structurally bonded with the main body of the church.30 Unfortunately, none of the photographs illustrate these remains, and Meses nel s suggestion has to be accepted at its face value. K. Petrov, on the other hand, views the narthex as a separate entity, most likely added in the course of the twelfth century. While it would be difficult to prove, this claim should be noted.31 As it stands today, the main body of the narthex is acces sible from the outside on three sides : through the central door and by two lateral doors (pl. 1; figs. II, 5). Two windows, to the south and north of the western door respectively, and a small window on the eastern side of the north wall provide additional light to the narthex. The south bay of the narthex is distinguished by a narrow bench, 0.45 m high and 0.65 m wide running along the western and southern walls (fig. LVIII).32Along the western wall, the bench is topped by a Roman stele whose provenance is unknown (fig. 75).33 All of these features belong to the modern reconstruction.
23 See Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (see footnote 2), p. 299; and Mathews, Early Churches of Constantinople (see footnote 22), pp. 105-107. 24 Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (see footnote 2), p. 299. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid., pp.239-240. 27 Ibid., pp. 390-393. 28 Ibid., p. 390. 29 Ibid. 30 F. Mesesnel, Vizantiski Spomenici (Skopje, 1937), p. 348. 31 K. Petrov, “Kon neispitana protoistorija na lokalitetot sv. Pantelejmon vo Nerezi”, Godišen zbornik 7 (1981): 153-189. 32 Such benches were used for church councils. For a discussion, see Ćurčić, “St. Mary’s of the Admiral” (see footnote 22), pp. 5 1-5 2 , n. 106; and M. Šuput, “Arhitektura Pećke priprate”, ZLU 13 (1977): 66-67. 33 For a discussion about this stele, see Chapter V on sculpture.
16 To the east, the narthex opens into the naos through the main portal, and into two small domed lateral chapels to the north and the south respectively (pl. 1). Like the eastern chapels, the western chapels are also small (1.40 m by 1.50 m in plan), feature a dome, and display the same sense of verticality. These chapels are accessible by means of small, narrow, openings measuring 2.00 m x 0.45 m (figs. LVIII, LXII). The two chapels share the lateral walls with the main body of the church. It is important to note that while the south entrance is set flush with the south wall, the entrance to the north chapel is perfo rated c. 0.40 m from the north-east corner of the narthex (pl. 4a). If indeed the narthex was a later addition, the asymmetrical entrances to the side chapels would have looked awkward on the main facade of the church. The floor of the north chapel is 0.40 m beneath the floor level of the main narthex chamber and is reached by two descending steps. It is distinguished by a partly damaged tomb (pl. 5). The tomb consisted of two parts: the lower, which represented an actual burial place, 1.90 m long, 0.68 m wide and 0.86 m deep; and an upper section in the shape of an arcosolium with a diameter of 1.14 m; it is 0.86 m deep on its west side and 0.92 m on its east side. The height of the arcosolium arch is 0.96 m. The tomb was built within and is supported by the north foundation wall. It is contemporaneous with the church. The cover slab of the tomb and its front are missing. Furthermore, no archaeo logical material, such as skeletal bones or any offerings were found in the tomb. The north wall is pierced by a win dow, 0.90 m high, 0.40 m wide and located at the height of 3.80 m (pl. 26). The south-west chapel compares closely to the north west chapel. Its floor, however, is at the same level as the floor of the church. It has neither a tomb nor an ar cosolium. However, it once featured a pit in the shape of a pithos dug into its center (pl. 6). This “pithos” is now covered. The pit was of an elliptical shape with diameters of 0.75 m and 0.85 m. The upper portion of this pit was c. 0.85 m beneath the floor level, while its bottom was at the depth of 2.29 m.34The center of the bottom of this pit was somewhat higher and exhibited a convex stone bulge at the depth of 2.05 m. The window on the south wall is blocked up and is covered with wall paintings. 3.1. Subsidiary Chapels and the Narthex at Nerezi The compositional arrangement and furnishing of the western chapels at Nerezi appear to have been necessi
Chapter II tated by functional needs, because these chapels likely provided additional space for the liturgical rites per formed in the narthex.35 In Middle Byzantine times, and particularly in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, many churches had separate chapels adjacent to the narthex in a variety of designs. For example, the chapels are either occupying the place between the arms of the cross as at Nerezi; or flanking the main chamber of the narthex and expanding laterally beyond the body of the church as in the Katholikon of the Lavra monastery on Mount Athos; or flanking the main chamber, yet integrated within the body of the narthex, as seen in the Cathedral of the Assumption in the Yeletsky monastery in Cher nigov.36 The design of Nerezi, with subsidiary chapels placed be tween the arms of the cross and spatially integrated with the narthex, is commonly found in cruciform churches. A group of churches which, like Nerezi, have a T-shaped naos segregated from the western chapels, such .as the churches at Mordoviz, the church at Kale, Krupište, the church of St. Demetrios, Varassova, the church of St. Nicholas, Aulis, and the church of the Virgin in Kosine, Epirus, all have the western end comparable to that of Nerezi.37 Their western chapels are segregated from the naos and communicate with the rectangular chamber of the narthex. Thus, in terms of its design, the western end of these churches acquires the shape of the letter U. A similar layout also appears in octagonal churches, such as in the twelfth-century church of the Holy Apostles, Athens.38 The western chapels in the church of the Holy Apostles communicate with both the naos and the narthex; however, their western openings are much larger and thus provide an easier access to the narthex. Thus, al though considered by scholars as separate entities, these chapels exhibit both spatial and functional tendencies to integrate with the narthex proper. The idea of connecting the narthex with subsidiary chapels, seen at Nerezi, is also apparent in the layout of churches with differently designed western ends, such as in the Katholikon of the Lavra Monastery and in the church of the Assumption, of the Yeletsky monastery. In these churches, as in the cruciform ones, the chapels are mostly segregated from the naos and communicate freely only with the narthex. Moreover, although most of the fur nishing and painted programs in these chapels are gone, what has remained suggests that they were used either for funerary services or for baptismal rites and the rites of the benediction of water.
34 Whether the floor of the south-west chapel was at the same level in the original church as it is now is impossible to say. 35 See I. Sinkević, “Middle Byzantine Narthexes with Adjacent Chapels”, Byzantine Studies Conference: Abstracts (Princeton, 1993), p. 12. 36 For Lavra monastery, see Ćurčić, “Architectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels” (see footnote 7), pp. 97-98, fig. 5; for Yeletsky monastery, see H. Faensen and V. Ivanov, Early Russian Architecture (London, 1975), p. 337. Other prominent types of chapels include gallery chapels and chapels flanking the naos. While their examination goes beyond the scope of this study, it is important to note that these types beg for further scholarly attention. For some important remarks, see S. Ćurčić, “The Twin-Domed Narthex in Paleologan Architecture”, ZRVI 13 (1971): 313-323; and T. F. Mathews, “Liturgy in Byzantine Architecture: Toward a Re-apprisal”, CA 30 (1982): 125-138. 37 See p. 12. 38 See A. Frantz, The Church of the Holy Apostles (Princeton, 1971), fig. 8 g.
Chapter II 3.2. Liturgical Furnishings and Painted Programs of Subsidiary Chapels The liturgical furnishings at Nerezi also suggest that its chapels might have been used for funerary rites and per haps for rites connected with the benediction of water. The arcosolium in its north-west chapel indicates that some kind of a funerary rite was performed there. Con sidering the small size of this chapel, the only rite which is related to funerary services and which could have been performed there is the pannychis, a rite performed at the tombs of the dead, especially of the founders or the monks of monasteries.39 Meant to honor the deceased, the pannychis was celebrated by a church official who led the liturgical procession and conducted the service by chanting in the cemetery chapel.40 The same rite could have been performed in the south-west chapel, provided that the hole in the shape of a pithos actually was meant for burial. However, the “pithos” could also have been used for keeping sanctified water as will be discussed be low. Chapels which were adjacent to the narthex and con tained arcosolia were very common in Middle Byzantine times. We find them, for example, in the Lavra monastery on Mount Athos, in the Gate Church of the Holy Trinity Monastery of the Caves (north-west chapels) in Russia, and in a number of Cappadocian churches.41 Moreover, the south bay of the inner narthex of Kariye Camii was conceived as a separate chapel used for funerary services. This chapel, although a result of the campaign of Theodore Metochites, was designed according to the Middle Byzan tine tradition.42 Another ceremony performed in chapels adjacent to the narthex was the benediction of water for Baptism and other rites.43 This is testified both by literary evidence and by preserved baptismal fonts in the chapels, such as those
17 in the cathedral of the Assumption of Yeletsky Monastery, in the cathedral of St. Sophia, Kiev, and in the Katholikon of Hosios Loukas.44 The Katholikon of Hosios Loukas in Phocis is the main preserved example which testifies that both the rite of the benediction of water and funerary rites were per formed in the western chapels. Although these chapels communicate with the naos, their painted program clearly distinguishes them as separate units. Moreover, the chapels are screened off from the main body of the church. These chapels compare to the western chapels of Nerezi in their relation to the narthex and, most likely, in their function. As at Nerezi, the north-west chapel in Hosios Loukas contains an arcosolium, thus indicating its funerary function. A small baptismal basin found within the south-west chapel suggests that some kind of a cere mony involving sanctified water was performed there. The function of these two chapels is further made clear by the painted program. The north-west chapel exhibits themes associated with Death and Resurrection, such as the Crucifixion, the Transfiguration and the Ascension of Elijah.45 The program of the south-west chapel of Hosios Loukas is related to Baptism. Particularly interesting is the scene of the Meeting of Christ and St. John the Bap tist before the Baptism, for the text inscribed within the scene is connected with the liturgical ceremony of the benediction of water.46 This rite, known from Early Christian times and meant to purify, bless, and con secrate holy water of the Baptism, gained a special promi nence and developed during Middle Byzantine times.47 If the “pithos” of Nerezi was not used for a funerary func tion, then it is quite likely that it contained holy water; in that event, the southwest chapel of Nerezi could have housed the ceremony of the benediction of water, thus
39 There were three types of pannychis rites performed at the time. For a discussion, see M. Arranz, “Les prières presbytérales de la ‘Pannychis’ de l’an cien Euchologe byzantin et la ‘Panikhida’ des défunts”, OCP 40 (1974): 119-122; 41 (1975): 119-139. For a general discussion about the pannychis within the context of other funerary rites, see C. L. Connor, Art and Miracles in Byzantium (Princeton, 1991), pp. 83-93. 40 Babić, Les chapelles annexes (see footnote 22), pp. 162-165. 41 For the Lavra Monastery, see G. Millet, “Recherches au Mont Athos”, Bulletin de correspondence Hellénique 29 (1905): 7 2 -9 8 ; for the Holy Trin ity, see Faensen and Ivanov, Early Russian Architecture (see footnote 36), p. 339; For Cappadocian examples, see N. B. Teteriatnikov, The Liturgical Planning o f Byzantine Churches in Cappadocia (Rome, 1996); and Idem, “Burial Places in Cappadocian Churches”, The Greek Orthodox Theolog ical Review 29/2 (1984): 151-153. 42 See Ousterhout, Kariye Camii (see footnote 4), pp. 98-100. For the listing of other churches with chapels containing arcosolia, see Th. ChatzidakisBacharas, Les peintures murales de Hosios Loukas: les chapelles occidentales (Athens, 1982), p. 112, n. 484. 43 According to the liturgy of the Orthodox Church, there are three ceremonies related to the blessing of water: the blessing of water to be used for the sacrament of Baptism; the great blessing of water performed at the feast of the Epiphany; and the lesser blessing of water performed for the feast of the procession of the Holy Cross (Aug. 1) and whenever the need for additional blessed water may arise. For a discussion on the meaning of water in the Orthodox Church, see A. Schmemann, O f Water and the Spirit (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974); and A. Yavornitzky, Holy Water in Liturgy and Life (M. A. Thesis, St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1983), pp. 19-29. 44 For a discussion about literary sources, see G. Millet, “Recherches au Mont Athos”, Bulletin de correspondence Hellénique 29 (1905): 72-98. For a discussion on baptismal fonts and their placement, see Ćurčić, “St. Mary’s of the Admiral” (see footnote 22), p. 45, n. 82. For Yeletsky Monastery, see Faensen and Ivanov, Early Russian Architecture (see footnote 36), p. 337; for St. Sophia, see N. Okunev, “Un type de baptistère byzantin”, Revue biblique 31 (1922): 583-589; and A. Powstenko, The Cathedral of St. Sophia of Kiev (New York, 1954), pp. 58, 64; for Hosios Loukas, see Chatzidakis-Bacharas, Les peintures murales (see footnote 42), pp. 113-118. 45 T. Chatzidakis-Bacharas, Les peintures murales (see footnote 42), pp. 39-82, 111-113. 46 Ibid., pp. 8 3 -1 0 2 , 113-118. 47 See J. Goar, Euchologion sive rituale Graecorum (Graz, 1960), pp. 449, 463, 464; Millet, “Recherches au Mont Athos” (see footnote 44), pp. 105-123; and Chatzidakis-Bacharas, Les peintures murales (see footnote 42), pp. 114-117.
18 comparing in its function to the south-west chapel at Hosios Loukas.48 3.3. Liturgical Furnishings and Painted Programs of Narthexes Funeral rites and the rites of the benediction of water, per formed in the chapels adjacent to the narthex, were also commonly officiated in the narthexes of Middle Byzantine churches.49 This is suggested by surviving archaeological evidence, literary sources, and painted programs. Remains of burial sites in the narthexes of Middle Byzan tine churches are found throughout the empire.50The prac tice was particularly popular in the capital, as can be seen, for example, in the Pantokrator Monastery. The narthex of the South Church of the Pantokrator Monastery originally consisted of five bays, with the outer two projecting be yond the width of the naos. As pointed out by Megaw, the outer bays of the narthex did not originally have portals in their west walls, but instead contained arcosolia.51 Shortly after its construction, the north arcosolium was destroyed to create an entrance to the mausoleum chapel attached to the north flank. The south arcosolium of the narthex, how ever, remained, and was, according to Megaw, the burial site of Empress Irene who died in 1124. The increased impor tance of the narthexes as burial sites is also seen in later monuments, such as in the North and the South church of the Lips Monastery, in the parekklesion of the Pammakaristos, and in the Kariye Camii.52
Chapter II Few narthexes of Middle Byzantine churches have pre served liturgical furnishings related to the benediction of water. Among them, the most important are baptismal fonts in the church of the Holy Apostles, Athens, pro bably from around 1000, the twelfth-century font from the south church of the Pantokrator Monastery in Constan tinople, and the twelfth-century font from the church of St. M ary’s of the Admiral in Palermo.53 The placement of fonts and the performance of the rites of the benediction of water in Middle Byzantine church narthexes is attested by literary sources, such as the Typicon of Irene from 1027.54 Moreover, the same information is found in several Typica from monastic foundations on Cyprus, such as the Typicon of the Monastery of Makhaeras, Ritual Ordinance of St. Neophytos, and the Typicon of the Monastery of St. John of Koutsovendis.55 Typica also maintain that the rite performed in the narthex was the benediction of waters. Among other rites allocated to the narthex, according to a number of Typica, were the funerary rites of pannychis. Thus, as suggested by the written sources, the rites performed in the narthexes correspond to those which took place in the western chapels of Hosios Loukas and, most likely, at Nerezi. Painted programs of Middle Byzantine churches con firm that the rites related to the sanctified water and funer ary services were allocated to the narthex proper. Frescoes of Baptism are displayed in the narthexes of Panagia ton Chalkeon, Thessaloniki, in H. Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi, Kastoria, and St. Peter of Kalyvia.56 The themes of death
48 Considering the small size of Nerezi’s chapel, it could have housed the rite of the lesser blessing of water which most commonly involved only one celebrant. However, the water from the pit could have been used also for other rites including the Baptism, since by the twelfth century baptismal fonts became small and portable and the rite could have been performed anywhere within the church. See Chatzidakis-Bacharas, Les peintures murales (see footnote 42), p. 116; and Millet, “Recherches au Mont-Athos” (see footnote 44), pp. 110-116. It is also possible that the pit was used as some kind of storage. According to recent excavations in Serbian monasteries, the pits found at various ar eas of churches might have been used as treasuries. It is quite possible that the “pithos” at Nerezi was used for that purpose at least at some points of the turbulent history of the monastery. However, I doubt that storage was its initial use, since the regularity of the shape of the “pithos” at Nerezi is not found in other monuments; also other pits are apparently of later date. I am grateful to Dr. Svetlana Popović for bringing the results of these excavations to my attention. 49 These rites were performed in the narthexes since Early Christian times. See Chatzidakis-Bacharas, Les peintures murales (see footnote 42), p. 114, n. 492; and J. Jelčić, “Le narthex dans l’architecture paléochrétienne sur le territoire oriental de l’Adriatique”, Prilozipovijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji 23 (1972): 23-39. 50 For the studies which link the development of the narthex with commemorative services in the Middle and Late Byzantine architecture, see A. Papageorgiou, “The Narthex of the Churches of the Middle Byzantine Period in Cyprus”, in: Hommage a la mémoire de Charles Delvoye (Brussels, 1992), pp.437-438; Ćurčić, “Twin-Domed Narthex” (see footnote 36), pp. 333-344; Teteriatnikov, “Burial Places in Cappadocian Churches” (see footnote 41), pp. 143-148; Ousterhout, Kariye Camii (see footnote 4), pp. 97-100; and B. Vulović, Ravanica: njeno mesto i njena uloga u sakralnoj arhitekturi Pomoravlja (Belgrade, 1966), pp. 67-71. 51 See A. H. S. Megaw, “Notes on Recent Work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul”, DOP 17 (1963): 335-364; and Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches (see footnote 4), pp. 219-242, figs. 79, 80. 52 For the Lips Monastery, see Th. Macridy et al., “The Monastery of Lips (Fenari Isa Camii) at Istanbul”, DOP 18 (1964): 265-72; for Pammakaristos, see C. Mango, H. Belting and D. Mouriki, The Mosaics and Frescoes of St. Mary Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul (Washington, D. C., 1978), pp. 3 -3 9 ; for the Kariye Camii, see Ousterhout, Kariye Camii (see footnote 4), pp. 98-99. 53 For Holy Apostles, see Frantz, The Church of the Holy Apostles (see footnote 38), p. 17, pl. 10. For the Pantokrator Monastery, see Megaw, “Notes on Recent Work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul” (see footnote 51), p. 348, fig. 4; for St. Marys, see Ćurčić, “St. Mary’s of the Admiral” (see footnote 22), pp. 45-46. 54 See A. Dmitrievskii, Opisanie liturgicheskikh rukopisei, 3 Vols. (Kiev, 1895-1917), Vol. 2, p. 1051. The rite of the blessing of the water is discussed in Millet, “Recherches au Mont Athos” (see footnote 44), p. 116. 55 For Koutsovendis Typica, see C. Mango, “The Monastery of St. Chrysostomos at Koutsovendis, and its Wall Paintings. Part I: Descriptions”, DOP 44 (1990): 6 3 -9 4 ; for St. Neophytos and the monastery of Makhareas Typica, see Papageorgiou, “The Narthex of the Churches in Cyprus”, p. 447. Although the Typica from Cypriot monasteries date in the 13th century, they most likely refer to earlier practices too. For example, the Typicon of the Monastery of St. John is a copy of the Typicon of St. Sabas. 56 This scene, placed in the north-east wall of the narthex is now destroyed in Panagia ton Chalkeon; see A. Tsitouridou, Hē Panagia tōn Chalkeōn (Thessaloniki, 1975), pp. 4 5 -4 8 ; pls. 7,8; for H. Nikolaos, see M. Chatzidakis (ed.), Kastoria (Athens, 1985), p. 65, pl. 20; and for St. Peter, see N. Coumbaraki-Panselinou, Saint-Pierre de Kalyvia-Kouvara et la chapelle de la Vierge de Mérenta (Thessaloniki, 1976), pp. 58-59, pl. 29.
19
Chapter II and burial are also prominent. The Last Judgment is the principal theme of the narthexes of St. Stephen, Kastoria, Panagia ton Chalkeon, Hagios Stratigos, Mani, and Mavriotissa, Kastoria.57 Other themes relevant to the death and burial of Christ, such as the Crucifixion, the Betrayal, the Washing of Feet, are also displayed in the narthexes of Hosios Loukas, Nea Moni, Chios, Daphni, and H. Anargyroi, Kastoria.58 3.4. Could the Western Chapels be Considered as a Separate Entity? The foregoing discussion has demonstrated that the narthex and the chapels adjacent to it were related architecturally and that they housed related functions. It is thus possible to assume that the chapels formed an integral part of the narthex in Middle Byzantine times. This notion becomes even more plausible when one considers the relationship between the narthex and its chapels in later times. Palaiologan monuments, indeed, display further structuring of the narthex. The functional and programmatic integration between the chapels and the main body of the narthex be came more apparent at that time, as seen, for example, in the thirteenth-century churches with twin-domed narthex59. One of the best examples which illustrates this develop ment is seen at the fourteenth-century church of Christ the Pantokrator at Dečani.60 Here, the narthex is in a shape of a large rectangular chamber with four free-standing columns.61The painted program, however, clearly indicates that it consists of two separate chapels flanking the central space.62The north portion of the narthex in Decani is dom inated by a large scene of the Church Fathers Officiating before the dead Christ on the east wall. Although there are no niches in the east wall, the scene of the Bishops Officiat ing is as a rule depicted only in the main apse, where it is relevant to its liturgical function. Its placement elsewhere in the church clearly alludes to the liturgical aspects of the architectural space. If the imagery of death and burial relate to funerary rites, the huge Nemanjić Dynastic Tree and the baptismal font displayed in the south portion of the narthex are to be associated with the Baptism.63 Thus, a process of integration of the subsidiary chapels with the narthex, which is fully developed in the narthex of
Decani, actually began in Middle Byzantine times. This in tegration of the architectural units of the western end of the church likely paralleled the development of the sanctu ary. As has been pointed out by scholars, the pastophoria were integrated with the sanctuary and their function was defined at the beginning of the Middle Byzantine period.64 The integration of the pastophoria was by and large influ enced by the development of the Eucharistic liturgy. It is thus plausible that the architectural and functional integra tion of the western end, seen in a number of Middle Byzantine churches, was necessitated by the development and increased importance of funerary rites and the rites of the benediction of water at that time. The architectural de sign of the western end of Nerezi represents an important stage in that development.
4. Summary In conclusion, a few remarks about the articulation of the interior of Nerezi as a whole are in order. Despite the fact that Nerezi is commonly classified as a quincunx church,65 its spatial articulation, as seen above, defies classification. The naos of a quincunx church is distinguished by nine bays. Commonly, the side chapels are marked off by piers or columns which support the central dome. While distin guishing the chapels from the central space, the dome sup ports also allow free communication between the two. In Nerezi, however, as discussed above, the western chapels are completely separated from the naos, and the eastern chapels communicate with the naos only by means of small openings (pls. 1, 2). Thus, the segregation of archi tectural components of the church is the most distin guishing feature of the interior composition of Nerezi.
Restorations and the Original Form of the Exterior The exterior of Nerezi is distinguished by five domes (figs. VI; 5). The central dome is elevated on an octagonal drum and reaches the height of 11.70 m. The four subsi diary domes are raised on cubical drums, reaching the
57 For St. Stephen and Mavriotissa, see Chatzidakis, Kastoria (see footnote 56), pp.6 -2 2 ; 66-84. For Panagia ton Chalkeon, see Tsitouridou, Hē Panagia tōn Chalkeōn (see footnote 56), pp. 45-49. 58 For H. Anargyroi, see Chatzidakis, Kastoria (see footnote 56), pp. 2 2 -5 0 ; for Hosios Loukas, Nea Moni, and Daphni, see E. Diez and O. Demus, Byzantine Mosaics in Greece: Hosios Lucas and Daphni (Cambridge, Mass., 1931), pls. 119-121. 59 See Ćurčić, “The Twin-domed Narthex” (see footnote 36), pp. 333-344. 60 For the most recent study on this monument and earlier bibliography, see D. Popović, Srpski vladarski grob u srednjem veku (Belgrade, 1992), pp. 101-113. 61 In its layout, the narthex of Dečani is very close to liti. For a discussion on the liti and bibliography, see P. Mylonas, “Gavits Armeniens et Litae Byzantines”, CA 38 (1990): 101-119. 62 See S. Ćurčić, “Late Byzantine Loca Sancta? Some Questions Regarding the Form and Function of Epitaphioi”, in The Twilight of Byzantium, ed. by S. Ćurčić and D. Mouriki (Princeton, 1990), pp. 251 -2 61. 63 See Popović, Srpski vladarski grob u srednjem veku (see footnote 60), pp. 101-113; Idem, “Srednjovekovni nadgrobni spomenici u Dečanima”, Decani i vizantijska umetnost sredinom X IV veka (Belgrade, 1989), pp. 185-192; and S. Ćurčić, “The Original Baptismal Font in Gračanica and Its Iconographic Setting”, Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja u Beogradu 9/10 (1979): 313-323. 64 See pp. 14-15. 65 See Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (see footnote 2), pp. 376-377.
Chapter II
20 height of 9.00 m. The drums are perforated by single-light windows on each of their faces (fig. VI). The lower portion of the building is enlivened by perforations, projecting apses and recessed blind niches. The north and south fa cades each feature a three-light window in the lower regis ter topped by a two light window in the upper register (pls. 7, 7a; figs. II, III, V). The east facade is distinguished by the three-light window of the central apse and the two single-light windows of the side apses (pl. 7b; fig. I). The west facade displays the main entry flanked by the two sin gle-light windows on the north and south sides (pl. 7c; fig. 5). The lowest portion of the church, the dado zone, is barely distinguishable. In its present form, Nerezi represents a twentieth-century interpretation of an original Byzantine church (figs. 1-12). The sixteenth-, nineteenth-, and twentieth-century earthquakes took their toll on the building and neces sitated a number of reconstructions. In consequence, the church now incorporates considerable reconstructions and newly added portions executed in modern materials, all of which obscure its original shape. The restorations of previous centuries are difficult to de tect because there are no written records and we must de pend solely on the physical evidence of the building and on a few archival photographs. The photographs taken early in this century indicate that the narthex of the original church was almost completely destroyed, probably due to the sixteenth- or nineteenth-century earthquakes. All that remained are the west wall and small portions of the south and north walls. Sometimes prior to 1900, the narthex was rebuilt and covered with a slanted roof (figs. 2, 8). Since 1900, the church was restored several times: in 1937/38; in 1958-59; and in 1970-1975.66 The conse quences of these restorations will be discussed below. Judging by the photographs from the 1937/38 restoration, the church was in a poor state of preservation at that time (figs. 2,6, 8). Its facades and upper structure had cracks and holes, and the south and east facades were buried approx imately 1 m below grade (figs. 2, 6). Moreover, many fea tures of the building were rather different than now. The roof was covered by tiles, and the three-light windows on the north and south facades were very likely completely blocked, their upper halves exhibiting blind niches and probably some ornamental brick patterns (figs. 2-9). Also closed were the windows of the west side chapels. Perhaps blocking of the windows on the exterior coincided with their enclosure in the interior of the church in 1164. During the 1937/1938 restoration campaign, the soil cov ering the lower portion of the south and east facades was re moved and the areas around the church were cleaned and paved (figs. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9). Also, the cracks and holes on the facades and on the roof of the church were repaired and windows were restored to what is believed to have been
their original shape: the three-light windows on the exte rior of the north and south facades, and the single-light windows on the exterior of the chapels (figs. 2,3,6, 8, 9). In 1958-59, the narthex was reconstructed (figs. 10, ll). Despite remains of the original, twelfth-century narthex, the appearance of the facades and the form of the initial narthex remains a mystery. Both the construction materi als and the “modified cloisonné” technique used in this re construction is a free, modern interpretation (fig. 5). The earthquake of 1963 caused yet another restoration campaign in the early 1970s. The major consequence of this restoration was the replacement of the tile roof by lead sheathing; it was set over a 0.30 m thick layer of cement mortar applied at that time (pl. 2b; figs. I, II; 5 , 12). Conse quently, the side domes were somewhat sunken into the body of the roof, thus seriously affecting the composi tional character of the upper part of the structure. More over, the layer of cement mortar and lead sheathing of the roof also partially obscured the once rather pronounced undulating eaves line of the domes. This becomes particu larly apparent when comparing the photographs of the church before and after the reconstruction (figs. 4, 5). As a result, the roofline is deprived of its original plasticity. In the light of a number of alterations throughout the history of the monument and on account of poor docu mentation, my further analysis of the church will depend largely on its present state.
EXTERIOR: ANALYSIS 1.
Composition and Technique
1.1. Compositional Aspects The major distinguishing feature of the exterior of Nerezi is the interplay of semi-circular and cubical forms; or of rectilinear and curvilinear surfaces. Every facade exhibits a tri-partite division, clearly suggesting the articulation of the spaces within (pls.7-7c; figs. I, II; 5, 8). On the south and the north facades, the arched arm of the cross is flanked by two rectangular surfaces thus distinguishing the cross of the naos from the side chapels (fig. II). On the east facade, the tri-partite division suggests a contrast be tween the bema and the pastophories by means of the three projecting apses, the large central apse of the bema, and the considerably smaller apses of the side chapels (fig. I). On the west side, if the present restoration is correct, the cen tral section - that is the western arm of the cross - is marked by the main entrance portal which is flanked by two rectangular side sections of the wall (fig. 5). The tri partite division evident on the facades is present in the up-
66 The information about the restorations of 1930s and 1950s is available in the unpublished report kept at the Institute for the Protection of Monu ments in Skopje. This report also includes the results of the archaeological excavations of the church which took place in 1967. I am grateful to my colleagues from the Institute for bringing this report to my attention. Partial information about restorations is also available in S. Spirovski, “Konz ervatorski raboti na živopisot vo crkvata sveti Pantelejmon, selo Nerezi-Skopsko”, Kulturno nasledstvo 7 (1961): 107-113. Although mainly dedi cated to the restoration of painted decoration, this article discussed the architectural restorations, too.
21
Chapter II per part of the structure, too. As is customary in Middle Byzantine five-domed churches, each elevation displays three domes (figs. I, II). The exterior of the church, however, exhibits many irregularities. First of all, the dado zone is clearly distin guishable only within the arched bay on the south facade and on the south and north flanks of the narthex (fig. III). On the south facade it is c. 0.35 m high and 0.11 m deep; in the narthex, it is 0.30 m high and 0.11 m deep. As far as the rest of the dado zone is concerned, it can be dis cerned only sporadically by virtue of a rougher texture and sloppier technique. However, as indicated by archival photographs, the original lowest sections of the church were below grade until the beginning of this century and some damage to the base is likely to have occurred as a result. Another irregular feature of the exterior is the lack of alignment of the windows. It is apparent both horizontally and vertically. The two small windows of the side chapels on the north and south flanks are one course above the three-light window both in terms of its apex and in terms of the broken chamfered capitals of the mullions (pls. 7, 7a; figs. II, 5). Moreover, while the two-light window is cen tered above the three-light window on the north facade, on the south facade the two windows are not aligned (fig. III). Furthermore, the small cubical domes are placed too close to the central dome (pls. 2a, 7-7c; fig. VI). Thus, the com position of the upper structure lacks spatial clarity. The domes almost appear as an afterthought, since the win dows of the side domes which face the central dome are walled up and obscured (fig. VI). 1.2. Building Materials Major building materials used in Nerezi are brick, stone and mortar. Although damage and restorations prevent us from producing a comprehensive account of either the building materials or the facade decoration, some remarks can be made on the basis of what has been preserved. The structure, in fact, cap be divided into three different sections according to the materials used: the foundations, the lower, cubical portion of the building, and the upper structure. The foun dations were built mainly of irregularly shaped limestone and mortar. The foundation walls reach the depth of 0.62 0.64 m on the south side, and 1.32-1.44 m on the north side (this difference is explained by the slope of the terrain). The facades show different materials and are smoother in execution than the foundations. The major building materials of the facades are limestone, poros, brick and mortar. The photographs taken during the restorations of the church indicate that Nerezi once displayed a pattern of horizontal stone-block courses separated vertically by two to four horizontally layered courses of brick embedded in thick mortar. At occasional intervals several horizontal brick courses separated stone courses (figs. 2, 3, 4, 8). However, this pattern was not consistently applied. For example, portions of the south facade show blocks of ir regularly hewn stone randomly set between the courses of
horizontally layered brick (fig. 2). The inconsistency of building patterns, evident in these photographs, certainly gave a somewhat clumsy and rough look to the original facades of the church. This effect was not much improved in the restoration of 1970’s, when thick layers of mortar, often covering several brick courses, were irregularly applied to the facades (figs. III; 5). The upper structure of the church is its most refined as pect. All domes were built entirely of brick and mortar. Al ternate brick courses are slightly recessed from the wall plane and are covered by mortar; as a result, the joints ap pear much thicker than they actually are (figs. VI; 4, 12). This technique is known as the “recessed-brick” technique. 1.3. Facade Articulation and Decorative Aspects As it appears today, the facade decoration of Nerezi is ra ther sparse and unimaginative. In fact, it is reduced to a dog-tooth frieze, brick colonnettes, and traces of brick or nament. The dog-tooth frieze marks the roof line of both the lower structure and the domes. Although it is likely that it originally existed there, the present frieze is by and large the product of the 1970 reconstruction campaign (figs. 5, 12). Double and triple recessed arches frame the north and south arms of the cross (double) and windows of the domes (triple arches), and radially laid bricks encir cle all windows of the lower section of the church (figs. III; 5). Colonnettes, made of semi-circular decorative brick, mark the corners of the domes (fig. 4). A preserved portion of the brick ornament is revealing of the original decorative system. A cross made of brick and ceramoplastic jugs and placed to the west of the win dow of the southwest chapel is the best preserved (figs. IV; 5). As documented by photographs, that cross was re moved during the restoration of the narthex in the 1950’s (fig. ll). Both the ceramoplastic jugs and the bricks of the cross appear to have belonged to the original building; they were reinserted in the fresh mortar during the 1950’s reconstruction (figs. IV; 4, ll). Another interesting feature is a meander pattern. It is now preserved only above the three-light window of the north facade at the level of the springing point of the arches on the east side of the north facade of the narthex (pl. 7a; figs.V; 8, 9). It is quite likely that this decorative band once ran all the way around the church, actually pro viding a horizontal alignment for the small windows of the side chapels and the three light windows on the north and south facades. That would at least explain their disposition which now looks somewhat awkward. Thus, despite its present state, Nerezi may once have been much more in teresting architecturally, both in terms of its spatial articu lation, and in terms of the decoration of its facades. 1.4. Constantinopolitan and Regional Features of the Exterior The exterior articulation of Nerezi, like other aspects of its architecture, exhibits both Constantinopolitan and local
22 features. If the composition of its facades, design of its windows, and the building technique of the upper struc ture recall the Capital, the sloppiness of the execution of the facades is most likely indebted to a local tradition. Concerning the composition of the facades, the tri-partite division of Nerezi, which closely corresponds to the interior planning of the church, is a rather prominent fea ture of Middle Byzantine architecture. The central part of the side facades, which is arched, corresponds to the cen tral space of the naos; the flanking, often rectangular sur faces, relate to the side compartments of the cross-in square or cruciform structures. Such composition of the facades, as well as their correspondence with the interior, characterizes most of the Middle Byzantine monuments in the Capital, as seen, for example in the Bodrum Camii (c. 920), Eski Imaret Camii (1081-1087), or the Kalenderhane Camii (12th c.) - although these are much larger in size and differ from Nerezi in terms of perforations, build ing technique, and exterior decoration.67 The exteriors of these Constantinopolitan monuments also exhibit polygonal apses projecting from the eastern end. Both the tri-partite facades and polygonal apses ap pear in the monuments of Byzantine provinces as a reflec tion of exterior design in the Capital. The presence of these features in Nerezi attests to the influence which the center had on the provinces at that time. The three-light windows are another feature of the exte rior of Nerezi which was influenced by the Capital.68 Each light is arched separately in brick and divided by marble mullions. According to Megaw, this type of window re calls the window arcades of early Christian basilicas. The use of similar windows at Skripou establishes the continu ity of the tradition.69 The arcade type seems to be fre quently used in Greek churches during the early years of the eleventh century, but towards its close it tended to dis appear.70This type of window, however, remained popular
Chapter II throughout the Middle Byzantine period in Constantino ple. We find it in the monuments immediately following iconoclasm, such as the Atik Mustafa Pasa Camii, and it seems to have been particularly popular during the twelfth century, appearing, for example, in the major foundations of the time, such as the Kalenderhane Camii and the Pantokrator Monastery.71 This type of window can also be seen in Byzantine provincial churches, particularly those which show other aspects of Constantinopolitan architec ture. One such example is the twelfth-century church of the Transfiguration at Chortiatis near Thessaloniki.72 A third Constantinopolitan feature on the exterior of Nerezi is the recessed brick technique used in its super structure.73 This building technique originated in the ca pital and spread throughout Byzantium during Middle Byzantine times.74Among provincial monuments, the ear liest extant examples are found in Russia: in the Desiatinnaia church in Kiev, 996 (rebuilt in 1039 after a disastrous fire); in St. Sophia in Kiev, 1037; and in the church of the Transfiguration in Chernigov c. 1036.75 It also occurs in many churches in Greece, particularly in Macedonia, Thrace, Epirus and the Peloponnesos. We find it, for ex ample, at Panagia ton Chalkeon, Thessaloniki; the church of the Transfiguration, Chortiatis; and Nea Moni on Chios.76 The only extant monument which preserves this technique in Serbia is the church of St. Nicholas at Kuršumlija.77 The central dome of Nerezi is also built following the Constantinopolitan tradition. Although it was likely re stored in the sixteenth century due to an earthquake, the hypothesis that it was completely rebuilt at that time can not be accepted for two reasons.78 First, to my knowledge, we do not have a single preserved monument built in the sixteenth century which shows any resemblance to the dome at Nerezi.79 Second, the shape and the proportions of the Nerezi dome, as well as its brick colonnettes which
67 For the Eski Imaret Camii, see Mathews, Byzantine Churches of Istanbul (see footnote 4), pp. 5 9 -6 3 ; for the Kalenderhane Camii, see Striker and Kuban, Kalenderhane Camii (see footnote 15), on p.7, the main church was dated in 1195-1204; for Bodrum Camii, see Striker, Bodrum Camii (see footnote ll). 68 See Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (see footnote 2), pp. 361-362. 69 A. H. S. Megaw, “The Chronology of Some Middle-Byzantine Churches”, in: Annual of the British School at Athens (London, 1931-1932), pp. 120-122. 70 See Megaw, ibid.; and G. Millet, L’école grecque dans Varchitecture byzantine (Paris, 1916), pp. 202-213. 71 See Mathews, Byzantine Churches of Istanbul (see footnote 4), pp. 71-73, 83-85. 72 For Chortiatis, see N. Nikonanos, “Hē Ekklēsia tēs Metamorphōsēs tou Sōtēros sto Chortiatē”, Kernos (Thessaloniki, 1972), pp. 102-111. 73 For a discussion on this technique and an extensive bibliography, see P. L. Vocotopoulos, “The Concealed Course Technique: Further Examples and a Few Remarks”, J ÖB 28 (1979): 247-260, and C. Mango, “The Date of the Narthex Mosaics of the Church of the Dormition at Nicea”, DOP 13 (1959): 249-250. 74 Despite some theories that this technique may have originated in Russia, Anatolia, or Thessaloniki, the fact that the largest number of monuments which exhibit it are preserved in Constantinople testifies to its Constantinopolitan origin. For the Russian and Anatolian origin, see H. Schafer, “Architekturhistorische Beziehungen zwischen Byzanz und der Kiever Rus im 10. und ll. Jahrhundert”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 23/24 (1973-74): 19 8-2 10,218-220. For a view that Thessaloniki may have been as important for the development of this technique as Constantinople, see N. Niko nanos, Byzantinoi Naoi tes Thessalias (Athens, 1979), p. 175. For a list of Byzantine monuments which exhibit this technique, see Vocotopoulos, “Concealed Course Technique” (see footnote 73), p. 248, n. 14. 75 Vocotopoulos, “The Concealed Course Technique” (see footnote 73), p. 248. 76 Ibid., pp. 248-260. 77 Čanak-Medić and Bošković, Arhitektura Nemanjinog doba (see footnote 17), pp. 55-76. 78 This idea was proposed by P. Miljkovic-Pepek, “Crkvata Sveti Pantelejmon vo seloto Nerezi”, in: Spomenici za srednevekovnata i ponovata istorija na Makedonija (Skopje, 1975), Vol. 1, pp. 89-97. 79 See Ch. Bouras, “The Byzantine Tradition in Church Architecture of the Balkans in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, in: The Byzantine Tradition After the Fall of Constantinople, ed. by J. J. Yiannias (Charlottesville, 1991), pp. 107-149.
Chapter II separate the faces of the drum, correspond closely to the Middle Byzantine domes built in Constantinople and its orbit of influence. Concerning Constantinople, one of the many monuments which should be cited is the Kalenderhane Camii. As far as the provinces are concerned, the church of Kosmosoteira at Pherrai, and the church of St. Nicholas at Kuršumlija, both built under the influence of the Capital, closely compare to the dome of Nerezi.80 The lower portion of Nerezi, however, seems to be the work of a local school. It is evident both in a poor quality of its execution and in the choice of building technique. An al teration of three to five horizontal brick courses with a course of hewn stone blocks is commonly found in thir teenth- and fourteenth-century churches in Macedonia, Epirus, and Thessaly.81 Among the monuments contempo rary to and geographically related with Nerezi, this tech nique is found, for example, in the church of H. Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi in Kastoria and in portions of the church of the Transfiguration at Chortiatis, near Thessaloniki.82 Most of the church at Chortiatis, however, like the up per structure of Nerezi, exhibits the recessed brick tech nique. The comparison between the two churches can also be made on the basis of their openings, particularly the three-light windows separated by mullions. In light of this, despite the differences in planning, the two churches may have been built by the same workshop. 1.5 Summary In sum, both local and Constantinopolitan features of the exterior articulation of Nerezi were known in Macedonian churches contemporaneous with or preceding Nerezi. A peculiar discrepancy between a rough execution of facades and a much more refined technique of the upper structure is also not unprecedented. The practice of paying special attention to the execution of vaulting while disregarding the quality of the lower portions of edifices is frequently found in both Macedonia and in other Byzantine provinces. For example, in Kastorian churches, such as the Koumbelidiki and Taxiarches, the walls are built in mixed media, while the vaults are made solely of brick - a more expensive and more prestigious material.83 An example in which the exterior appearance of the dome reveals a more
23 refined technique than the walls, as at Nerezi, is seen in the church of St. Andrew at Peristerai near Thessaloniki. While the walls of St. Andrew are built of mortared rub ble, re-used brick is interpolated in its domes.84 An even greater discrepancy in the quality of execution between the lower and upper structure of the edifice, quite comparable to Nerezi, is evidenced in the five-domed Catholica at Stilo. The facades of this church display brick-faced mor tar rubble; the faces of the drums of the domes, however, are tiled, thus acquiring a much more refined appearance.85 A discrepancy in the quality of execution between upper and lower segments of these Middle Byzantine churches may be explained as a consequence of both practical and thematic considerations. For example, it is quite possible that separate groups of builders were employed to execute domical vaults, since they are structurally more complex and require greater expertise. It is also very likely that building imperfections of the walls at Nerezi and other re lated churches were once concealed by plaster and/or paint. Instances of plastered and painted facades are com mon in Macedonia, as seen for example on the facades of Kurbinovo and Veljusa.86 One should not, however, disre gard the possibility that Byzantine builders and their pa trons were much more concerned about the iconographic significance of the domes than has been suggested by scholars thus far. The accentuated beauty of the domes might have been intended to harmonize with the message apparent in their interior decoration, both communicating the special significance of the cosmic realm which they symbolize. That iconographic significance might have been attached to the appearance of domical vaults becomes apparent from the examination of the constellation of five domes at Nerezi.
2. Five-Domed Structure The most distinguishing feature of the exterior of Nerezi is the constellation of its five domes. That feature places Nerezi within a small distinctive group of preserved By zantine five-domed churches. Studies of five-domed churches generally fall into two categories: those which attempt to survey and classify
80 For St. Nicholas, see Čanak-Medić and Bošković, Arhitektura Nemanjinog doba (see footnote 17), pp. 55-76 ; for Pherrai, see S. Sinos, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira) (Munich, 1985), fig. 10 81 See P. L. Vocotopoulos, He ekklēsiastikē architektonikē eis tēn dytikēn sterean Ellada kai tēn Epeiron, Vol. 2 (Thessaloniki, 1975), fig. 18 b; and Nikonanos, Byzantinoi Naoi tēs Thessalias (see footnote 74), pls. 18, 40, 66, 67. 82 The facades of the church of Hagios Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi, despite their customary interpolation of Greek characters made in brick, exhibit an al teration of stone separated by horizontally layered chips of brick. This is particularly visible in the lower portions of the central apse. See N. K. Moutsopoulos, Ekklesiēs tēs Kastorias 9os - l l os aiōnas (Thessaloniki, 1992), pp. 401-406. For Chortiatis, see G. Velenis, Ermēneia tou exōterikou diakosmou stē Byzantinē Architektonikē (Thessaloniki, 1984), pl. 38 b. 83 For a discussion on building techniques and bibliography, see A. Wharton Epstein, “Middle Byzantine Churches in Kastoria: Dates and Implica tions”, AB 62/2 (1980): 190-207; see also J. B. Ward-Perkins, “Notes on the Structure and Building Methods of Early Byzantine Architecture”, in: D. Talbot-Rice (ed.), The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors (Edinburgh, 1958), pp. 52-70. 84 See A. K. Orlandos, “To katholikon tēs para tēn Thessalonikēn monēs Peristerōn”, ABME 7 (1951): 146-167; and A. Wharton, Art of Empire. Paint ing and Architecture of the Byzantine Periphery. A Comparative Study of Four Provinces (University Park, PA, 1988), p. 102. 85 See Wharton, Art of the Empire (see footnote 84), pp. 140-142. 86 For a discussion on painted facades, see the first of a series of studies by S. Ćurčić, Cypriot Byzantine Architecture: the Question of Regionalism (Na tional Bank of Cyprus Cultural Foundation 1997 Annual lectures, forthcoming); L. Hadermann-Misguich, “Une longue tradition byzantine: La dé coration extérieure des églises”, Zograf 7 (1977): 5 -1 0 ; and M. Čanak-Medić, “Slikani ukras na crkvi Sv. Ahilija u Arilju”, Zograf 9 (1978): 5-12.
24 monuments and those that attempt to explain the genesis of this architectural type.87 Both are handicapped by the small number of surviving monuments and by their often insecure dating: the latter is particularly true of the Middle Byzantine monuments. Moreover, a large majority of studies of five-domed churches treat the surviving monu ments as a separate phenomenon within Byzantine archi tecture as a whole. However, as will be discussed below, each period brought different features and problems re lated to this architectural type. Thus, in attempting to place Nerezi in the context of the five-domed churches, we will focus our attention on the Middle Byzantine group in order to find answers to several questions. What are the major distinguishing features of Middle Byzantine fivedomed churches? What is their significance, and why were they five-domed? Finally, how do they relate to other fivedomed Byzantine churches? 2.1. Middle Byzantine Five-Domed Churches in Constantinople The earliest known five-domed church from the Middle Byzantine period is the Nea of Basil I.88 Consecrated in 881, the church is known to us only from the written sources and a few summary drawings.89 They inform us that the Nea was a lavishly decorated palatine church. Its interior displayed mosaics, marble, gilded silver and pre cious stones. On the exterior, the church was preceded by an atrium with fountains to the west, and was flanked by barrel-vaulted porticos to the north and the south. It is also conjectured from the texts that the church had a fivedomed naos built either on a cross-in-square or a cruci form plan.90 As a symbol of imperial wealth and affluence, the church impressed travelers for many centuries.91 It is thus by no means surprising that the church may have ex erted much influence both on the architecture of Constan
Chapter II tinople and on the provinces.92 One of its aspects, its five domed scheme, apparently spread throughout the Empire. The church of St. George, Mangana, is another Constantinopolitan monument which is believed to have been five-domed.93 Like the Nea, the church of St. George was an imperial foundation. It was built in the middle of the eleventh century (1042-1055) by the Emperor Constan tine IX Monomachos as the Katholikon of the monastery of Mangana. The church is known both from contempo rary literary sources and from the remains of its substruc ture revealed in 1921 and 1922 during the excavations car ried out by Demangel and Mamboury.94 The architectural type of the church has been a subject of a scholarly debate, and the church has been reconstructed as octagon-domed, as cross-shaped, and most recently as an ambulatory church.95 For our purposes, however, it is important to note that all of the reconstructions assumed that it was a five-domed church. A third Constantinopolitan monument which is recon structed as having been five-domed is the Theotokos Church (North Church) of the Monastery of Constantine Lips.96 Preserved only in ruins, the church is of an elon gated cross-in-square plan. It has been suggested that it once had five domes, the subsidiary domes rising over the four roof chapels placed at the extreme corner bays of the church - two over the narthex and two over the pastophoria. The existence of western domes has been questioned by scholars.97 Apart from these three churches, no other five-domed churches are known to have existed in the Capital in Mid dle Byzantine times. There are, however, several surviving churches with five domes in the provinces and neighbor ing lands. These churches are: the Spaso-Preobrazhenskii Sabor at Chernigov and the Uspenskii Sabor at Vladimir, in Russia; the church of the Holy Apostles at Ani in
87 Among the studies which deal with the classification of the five-domed churches, see E. Hadžitrifonos, “Pristup tipologiji petokupolnih crkava u vizantijskoj arhitekturi”, Saopštenja 22/23 (1990-1991): 4 1-7 6 ; A. K. Orlandos, “Palaiochristianika kai Byzantina mnēmeia Tegeas-Nykliou”, ABME 12 (1973): 141-158; and Idem, “Hē Pantanassa tēs Monembasias”, ABME 1 (1935): 141-151. For the genesis of this architectural type, see Sinos, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira (see footnote 80), pp.211 -2 2 2 ; S.Ćurčić, Gračanica: King Milutin’s church and Its Place in Late Byzan tine Architecture (University Park, PA, 1979), pp. 85 -8 8 ; Idem, “Subsidiary Chapels”, pp. 101 -104; H. Buchwald, “Sardis Church E. A Preliminary Report”, J ÖB 26 (1977): 27-283; H. Hallensleben, “Untersuchungen zur Genesis und Typologie des ‘Mystratypus’”, JÖB 26 (1977): 105-118; and S. Nenadović, Bogorodica Ljeviška: njen položaj i njeno mesto i uloga u arhitekturi Milutinovog vremena (Belgrade, 1963), pp. 119-135. 88 See S. Ćurčić, “Architectural Reconsideration of the Nea Ekklesia”, in: Byzantine Studies Conference: Abstracts 6 (1980), pp. 11-12 ; and C. Mango and I. Ševčenko, “Some Churches and Monasteries on the Southern Shore of the Sea of Marmara”, DOP 27 (1973): 235-277. 89 For descriptions, see G. P. Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Washington, 1984), pp. 37, 247; C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1453: Sources and Documents (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1972), p. 194; and Anthony of Novgorod in S. Khitrovo, Itinéraires russes en Orient (Geneva, 1889), pp. 98-102. 90 See Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (see footnote 2), p. 356. 91 For a discussion and summary of the impact of the church on the visitors, see Majeska, Russian Travelers (see footnote 89), pp. 37, 247; and P. Magdalino, “Observations on the Nea Ekklesia of Basil I,” J ÖB 37 (1987): 5 1-6 4 . 92 For a discussion about its influence, see Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (see footnote 2), p. 356. 93 See Ch. Bouras, “Typologikes paratērēseis sto Katholiko tēs Monēs tōn Manganōn stēn Kōnstantinoupolē”, Deltion 31 (1976): 136-153 with earlier bibliography; Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (see footnote 2), p. 349, n. 16; and Mango and Ševčenko, “Some Churches and Monasteries on the Southern Shore of the Sea of Marmara” (see footnote 88), pp. 253-255. 94 See R. Demangel and E. Mamboury, Le Quartier des Manganes et la premier région de Constantinople (Paris, 1939), pp. 19-37. 95 For discussion and earlier bibliography, see Bouras, “Typologikes paratērēseis sto Katholiko tēs Monēs tōn Manganōn” (see footnote 93), pp. 136-153. 96 See A. H. S. Megaw, “The Original Form of the Theotokos Church of Constantine Lips”, DOP 18 (1964): 292-296; Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (see footnote 2), pp. 358-359; and Buchwald, “Sardis Church E” (see footnote 87), pp. 278-280. 97 See Ćurčić, “Architectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels” (see footnote 7), p. 109, n. 55.
Chapter II Armenia; the churches of Palaea Episkopi at Tegea and Geroumena, Monemvasia, on Peloponnesos, in Greece; and the church of San Marco and the Catholica at Stilo in Calabria. We will now turn our attention to those churches.
25 earlier examples of Armenian five-domed churches, S. Ćurčić suggested that the solution at the Holy Apostles probably represents a continuation of an earlier Middle Byzantine practice.101 2.2.3. G reece
2.2. Middle Byzantine Five-Domed Churches Outside of Constantinople 2.2.1. Russia The Spaso-Preobrazhenskii Sabor at Chernigov, dated in 1036, is one of the oldest surviving five-domed churches.98 It is a cross-domed (ambulatory) church, its inner space di vided into three aisles by piers. The small domes are placed between the arms of the cross: the western domes at the westernmost corners of the naos, the eastern domes over the eastern corners of the naos. As a result of the latter arrangement, the pastophoria are not domed, as was cus tomary in other spheres of Byzantine influence. All domes are raised upon cylindrical drums. The drums of the small domes are pierced by eight tall arched windows, while that of the central dome displays an alternation of six windows and six blind niches. Side domes are placed close to the central dome and rise straight from the roof. Another Russian Middle Byzantine church with five domes is Uspenskii Sabor at Vladimir.99 Here, however, the domes appear to have been an afterthought. The church was built in 1158-1160 as a cross-in-square with a central dome. Due to a fire, the ambulatory wings and four subsidiary domes were built in 1185-1189. The cylindrical shape and attenuated proportions of the dome drums com pare to Chernigov and other Russian churches, their de sign and proportions representing a local trend. 2.2.2. Armenia With regard to Armenia, the only church which has been reconstructed as having been five-domed is the church of the Holy Apostles at Ani, dated in the first quarter of the eleventh century.100 It displays a complex plan with a quatrefoil naos surrounded by four symmetrically arranged elaborate chapels; the chapels were originally covered by domes elevated on tall drums. Since we have no
In Greece, two regions still preserve their Middle Byzan tine five domed churches: the Peloponnesos and Thrace. Geographically separated, the five-domed churches of these two regions display different characteristics. The Thracian example, the church of the Virgin Kosmosoteira at Pherrai, is a large monument built in 1152 by Isaak Komnenos, a son of Alexios I Komnenos.102 An impe rial foundation, the church follows Constantinopolitan models as far as its architecture is concerned. It is a variant of a cross plan on piers. The central dome is supported in an unusual way, on two masonry piers to the east and two pairs of marble columns to the west.103 On the exterior, the central dome is built of brick, it is twelve-sided, and its faces are separated by brick colonnettes similar to those at Nerezi. Such colonnettes are also used on the side domes; yet, the side domes are considerably smaller and are eight sided. Compared to Pherrai, the Peloponnesian churches are considerably smaller in size; the shape of their domes and the design of their plans differ too. Two five-domed churches preserved on Peloponnesos from the Middle Byzantine period are the church at Tegea and the church of Pantanassa near Monemvasia.104 Both exhibit a cross-in square plan. Moreover, both have four piers supporting the central dome characterized by a cylindrical drum. The church at Tegea is most likely from the late tenth /early eleventh century.105 Its present shape is, by and large, a re sult of a reconstruction in the late nineteenth century. Yet, it is important to note that the drums of the subsidiary domes are elevated on cubical bases, thus giving the church a more attenuated silhouette. Such a practice is seen, among Middle Byzantine monuments, only in the church of Panagia ton Chalkeon in Thessaloniki; it became more common in Palaiologan times.106 Cubical bases supporting drums are absent from another five-domed Peloponnesian church, the Pantanassa near Monemvasia.107This church is also characterized by cylindrical side domes; yet four
98 See A. I. Komech, Drevnerusskoe zodchestvo kontsa X-nachala XII v. (Moscow, 1987), pp. 135-168, and N. Brunov et al., Istoriia russkoi arkhitektury (Moscow, 1956), p. 26. 99 See A. V. Vlasov et al., Vseobshchaia istoriia arkhitektury. Vol. 3, in: I. S. Iaralov et al ., Arkhitektura Vostochnoi Evropy (Moscow, 1966), pp. 606-607. 100 See N. M. Tokarskii, Arkhitektura Armenii IV -X IV v. (Erevan, 1961), p. 112. 101 Ćurčić, “Architectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels” (see footnote 7), pp. 103-104. 102 For a discussion and bibliography, see Sinos, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira (see footnote 80). 103 For a discussion, see ibid., pp. 222-232. 104 For Tegea, see Orlandos, “Palaiochristianika kai Byzantina mnēmeia Tegeas-Nykliou” (see footnote 87), pp. 141-152 ; for Monemvasia, see Idem, “Hē Pantanassa tēs Monembasias” (see footnote 87), pp. 141 -151. 105 See Orlandos, “Palaiochristianika kai Byzantina mnēmeia Tegeas-Nykliou” (see footnote 87), pp. 141 -152; and A. H. S. Megaw, “Byzantine Retic ulate Revetments”, in: Charisterion eis Anastasion K. Orlandon (Athens, 1965), p. 17, pl. III; for a dating in the 12th century, see Sinos, Die Kloster kirche der Kosmosoteira (see footnote 80), pp. 211 -212. 106 For Panagia ton Chalkeon, see Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (see footnote 2), p. 374, fig. 329; for Palaiologan examples, see Ćurčić, Gračanica (see footnote 87), pp. 114-116. 107 See Orlandos, “Hē Pantanassa tēs Monembasias” (see footnote 87), pp. 141-151.
26 stone colonnettes make the otherwise small domes appear cubical, like the domes at Nerezi. The central dome is polygonal. 2.2.4. Italy Scholars argued that these two Peloponnesian churches significantly influenced the two five-domed Calabrian churches: the church of San Marco at Rossano, and the Catholica at Stilo.108Both churches are of a small size, both are cross-in-square, and both exhibit cylindrical domes. It is interesting to point out that drums of the side domes in those two churches are equal in size to the central dome, a characteristic not seen in any of the Byzantine monu ments. Perhaps it is their small size - these two churches are the smallest among the surviving five-domed monu ments - that accounts for this anomaly. The two churches have been dated differently, anywhere from the tenth to twelfth centuries.109 It has been proposed by G. Capelli that San Marco should be identified as the oratory of the convent of St. Athanasia mentioned in the Vitae of St. Neilos of Rossano.110The circumstances of the founda tion of Stilo are unknown; the church, however, is dis tinguished by refinement of execution. Four spoliate columns, instead of the piers and brick masonry seen in Rossano, support the central dome.111 2.3. Analysis of Middle Byzantine Five-Domed Churches Compared to the five domed churches discussed above, Nerezi is a unique creation. Both its exterior and its interior differ from other surviving five-domed Middle Byzantine churches as can be seen in its plan, the shape of its drums, and the means of support of its domes. However, this uniqueness is not particular to Nerezi only. It seems that all of the surviving Middle Byzantine five-domed churches dif fer from each other in the composition of the plan, the shape of the drums, and the means of support of the domes. Concerning their planning, among the surviving monu ments, Nerezi and Ani are the only examples of cruciform churches. Chernigov is cross-domed, and the remaining churches belong to different variants of the cross-in-square type. Variation in their planning is further stressed by dif ferent means of dome supports. For example, the central dome is supported by full walls in Nerezi, by piers in Pantanassa, by columns in Stilo, and by an alteration of piers and engaged columns in Pherrai. As far as the exterior shape of their domes is concerned, Nerezi exhibits cubical side 108 109 110 111 112
Chapter II domes; they are octagonal in Pherrai, and cylindrical in Pantanassa, Tegea, and the Calabrian churches. Moreover, while the majority of surviving monuments shows a great difference in size between the central and side domes, Stilo and Rossano display five domes of an equal size. All these differences clearly indicate that it is impossible to place the surviving five-domed churches into any kind of categories as has been occasionally attempted by schol ars.112 What can be perceived from the above analysis is that affinities between the five-domed churches are most ly of a regional character, as demonstrated by planning and decoration of Peloponnesian and Calabrian examples. If one disregards for a moment the five domes, the Pan tanassa and Tegea display planning principles and building materials and techniques characteristic of Peloponnesian architecture, the two-column support of the central dome of Pherrai finds many parallels on the Greek mainland, and the compartmentalization of spaces at Nerezi, as mention ed earlier, recalls earlier monuments in Macedonia.113 Thus, five-domed churches can not be viewed as a separate phenomenon; rather, they are to be seen as a part of gen eral development of Middle Byzantine architecture. This becomes apparent when one examines features which those churches have in common. Despite many differences, the surviving Middle Byzan tine five-domed churches all feature four domed compart ments placed symmetrically around the cruciform core. The addition of subsidiary chapels to the building core is a process which took place in the Middle Byzantine period and was an important characteristic of the architecture of this period. These chapels exhibit a tendency to harmonize with the principle cruciform structure and take a vital role in the formal and structural modulation of the churches.114 The chapels also extend the liturgical space of the church, allowing for more functions to be performed. When domed, these chapels are further distinguished on both the exterior and the interior of the church. In the interior, they provide a space which, in terms of its meaning, recalls the central portion of the church. Also, having a larger surface than a simple vault, they provide more space for the painted program. Concerning the exterior, four small sub sidiary domes complement the central dome, adding vital ity to the compositional aspects of the upper structure. Another common feature of the Middle Byzantine fivedomed churches is a close correspondence between the in terior and the exterior of the church. Domes distinguish compartments of specific liturgical function both in the in terior and the exterior of the church. The central dome distinguishes the major space for the congregation and is,
For a discussion and bibliography, see Sinos, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira (see footnote 80), p. 212. Ibid. B. Capelli, “Rossano bizantina minore”, Archivo storico per la Calabria e la Lucania 24 (1955): 3 1-5 3 . See É. Bertaux, L’art dans l ’Italie mériodinale (Rome, 1978), Vol. 4, pp. 303-310. For a thorough discussion about a variety of categories of five-domed churches established by scholars see Hadžitrifonos, “Pristup tipologiji petokupolnih crkava” (see footnote 87), pp. 41 -76. 113 For Tegea and Pantanassa, see Orlandos, “Palaiochristianika kai Byzantina mnēmeia Tegeas-Nykliou” (see footnote 87), pp. 141 -152; for Pherrai, see Sinos, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira (see footnote 80), pp. 222-231. 114 Ćurčić, “Architectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels” (see footnote 7), pp. 94-110.
Chapter II except for the Calabrian churches, much larger than the side domes. The eastern domes are commonly placed above the pastophoria, functionally related to the Eucharistic services, while the western domes cap chapels that were most likely used for funerary rites and the rites of Baptism and the benediction of water. A third aspect which is common to five-domed churches of the Middle Byzantine period is the close prox imity of the side domes and the central dome. Thus, as a means of vaulting, they are related to the central space. In the later monuments, as can be seen already at the Sardis (Church E) and in the later Palaiologan monuments, such as the Holy Apostles at Thessaloniki, or at Gračanica, domes cover compartments which are distant from the central space.115 At the same time, the correspondence be tween the interior and the exterior, which so emphatically distinguishes Middle Byzantine monuments, is lost in later architecture. Palaiologan churches witnessed an accretion of spaces and their incorporation into a unified organism. Side domes, placed at the extreme points of the church did not, however, cover the pastophoria anymore. Thus, instead of having a cluster of domes drawn tightly against the central dome, as in the Middle Byzantine fivedomed churches, most of the Palaiologan monuments ex hibit a carefully organized upper structure which lost its correspondence with the interior, yet acquired a new com positional quality. Compositional, rather than functional aspects gained prominence.116This is carried to an extreme in the later Russian monuments, such as the sixteenth-century Cathedral in Suzdal and St. Michaels in Moscow, where domes became a decorative feature; they com pletely lost communication with the organization of the interior.117 A development from the dome as an architec tural element which designated a chapel with a specific function to a dome as a purely decorative feature is, in my view, the major distinguishing feature of the development of the five-domed churches. The origin of the Middle Byzantine five-domed church is somewhat difficult to determine. Prior to Middle By zantine times, five-domed churches exhibited different plans and different disposition of the side domes; they were placed either on the arms of the cross, or along the
27 nave, as seen in the sixth-century churches of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, and of St. John at Ephesos.118 What brought about the shifting of the domes is difficult to determine.119 However, the majority of scholars agree that the ultimate model for the five-domed church in the Middle Byzantine period was the Nea of Basil I. That the Nea or any other five-domed Constantinopolitan church may have indeed served as a model for the Middle Byzantine five-domed churches is possible. The question is how and to what extent did these Constantinopolitan churches exercise their influence? On the one hand, the Middle Byzantine five-domed churches share several characteristic which indicate that they may have a common source. They all exhibit four subsidiary domes drawn tightly and somewhat clumsily to the central dome. In addition, subsidiary domes are related to the central space in terms of their vaulting. Moreover, domes cover chapels of a particular liturgical function. The functional aspect seems to be the major determining principle which governs the organization of the domes; hence the corre spondence between the interior and the exterior. On the other hand, however, as seen in earlier discus sion, surviving five domed monuments show different fea tures concerning their planning and the shapes and sizes of their domes. This variety makes it quite clear that those features are not derived from the Nea or from any other Constantinopolitan church, but from local traditions and are thus a regional consequence. Thus, given the preserv ed evidence, all we can assume is that it was most likely the symbolic value of the five-domed churches - that is their immediate association with the capital - rather than exact structural features, that attracted provincial build ers. 2.4. Symbolic Significance of Five-Domed Churches A study of five-domed churches in Middle Byzantine times provides a good test case for our understanding of the phenomenon of the five-domed churches in Byzan tium. Instead of seeing them as a separate entity, they are to be considered as a generic part of the development of Byzantine architecture. Hence, the typologies estab-
115 If Megaw’s hypothesis that the North Church of the Fenari Isa Camii had domes above the narthex is correct, than these later monuments would have found a precedent in Constantinopolitan architecture. It should be noted, however, that even if Fenari Isa had domes, they were located over the gallery chapels which, as far as the planning is concerned, differs considerably from the Palaiologan examples. For the question of galleries and a discussion of the relationship between the domes and the vaulting of the churches, see Sinos, Die Kloserkirche der Kosmosoteira (see footnote 80), pp.210-222. However, it should be noted that Sinos took cross-in-square monuments with vaulted side compartments as a part of the phenome non of the development of the five-domed churches, a hypothesis which is difficult to accept. 116 The transition from the Middle Byzantine five-domed church to the Palaiologan is best seen in the church of Bogorodica Ljeviska. The side domes in Bogorodica Ljeviska are placed in the corners between the arms of the cross, as was a practice in the Middle Byzantine monuments; the church, however, is enveloped with ambulatory wings. See S. Nenadović, Bogorodica Ljeviška. Njen postanak i njeno mesto u arhitekturi Milutinovog vremena (Belgrade, 1963), pp. 119-135. 117 For a discussion, see Sinos, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira (see footnote 80), p. 221. 118 See Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (see footnote 2), pp. 240-245. 119 The change of the disposition of domes is likely related to the shift of emphasis in planning, from the longitudinal to a centralized, cruciform, or cross-in-square design in Middle Byzantine times. Thus, the genesis of the five-domed churches could be understood only if the origin and devel opment of the cross-in-square church in Middle Byzantine times was fully explained. For some suggestions about this development, see R. P. Bergman, “Byzantine Influence and Private Patronage in a Newly Discovered Medieval Church in Amalfi: S. Michele Arcangelo in Pogerola”, JSAH 50/4 (Dec. 1991): 421-4 45 ; D. Lange, “Theorien zur Entstelhung der byzantinischen Kreuzkuppelkirche”, Architectura 16 (1986): 93-113 (with an extensive bibliography).
28 lished thus far fail. To put the Pantanassa, Mystra and Nerezi in the same type just because both have domes drawn in a tight cluster is unacceptable. Functionally, these two churches answer different needs and compositionally imply different principles. Rather than that, we must be aware that as far as the planning is concerned, Justinianic, Middle Byzantine and Palaiologan fivedomed churches imply different principles, just like the rest of the architecture from these respective periods. Even within similar planning principles, a shift from the dome as an iconographic element to its more decorative application is an important development which separates Middle Byzantine from the later five-domed churches. Moreover, as apparent from the previous discussion, the regionalism, so pronounced in Middle Byzantine time, persists, and is even more prominent in Palaiologan than in Middle Byzantine times. One aspect of five-domed churches, however, likely re mained throughout its history - recalling the capital even when it was long gone. That can at least explain the per sistence of this building type long after Byzantium dis solved. The iconographic significance of five domes may also explain their appearance at Nerezi. Despite many imperfections in their structural aspects, the constellation of five domes at Nerezi relates this small, provincially located church to major imperial foundations of the cap ital; in doing so, it also reveals intentions of the patron, Alexios.
Summary Alexios’ intention to relate Nerezi to major Constantinopolitan churches is also apparent - although in a more subtle a manner - in many other architectural solutions at Nerezi. In his study on the role of Constantinopolitan ar chitecture, P. L. Vocotopoulos points out that the only Constantinopolitan feature of Nerezi is its recessed-brick technique.120The foregoing discussion, however, indicates that Nerezi owes much more to the capital. The form of its central dome, the composition of the facades, the decora tive patterns, as well as the proportions of its interior, all indicate strong impact from the capital. Moreover, al though as has been pointed out, the segregation of the in terior has a long tradition in Macedonia, in the case of Nerezi it may not be solely a result of regional tendencies. Some practical considerations, particularly a desire to ac commodate as many paintings as possible, may account for the erection of full walls between the naos and the wes
Chapter II tern chapels. Considering the sloppy facades, they may have been the work of poorly trained builders. Also, they may reflect many restorations necessitated by earth quakes. The use of mixed materials can also be explained as a practical consideration, such as financial limitations, since limestone was much more available than brick in that region. After all, there is no way of proving that such structures did not exist in the capital. Thus, a close analysis of architectural principles em ployed at Nerezi reveals a familiarity with Constantinop olitan building practices. Whom Alexios commissioned to execute his foundation is, however, a more complex ques tion. Constantinopolitan impact, evident in the architec tural features of Nerezi, is also seen in other eleventh- and twelfth-century churches in the region. For example, the plan and the recessed-brick technique of the church of Panagia ton Chalkeon, Thessaloniki, the triple recessed brick arches and two-story niches on the facades of the church of the Virgin of Eleousa, Veljusa, and recessed brick and broad interior of the church of the Transfigura tion at Chortiatis, all testify to Constantinopolitan influ ence in the region at the time. It is thus quite possible that Alexios relied on local masters, who were familiar with, or even trained in the workshops of the capital. In sum, the analysis of the architecture of Nerezi indi cates that rather than seeing the church as a poor recepta cle for its painted program, we have to consider it as a monument which expresses an assimilation of Constanti nopolitan and local traditions. This assimilation is likely a result of the political and cultural expansion of Byzantium in that region during the eleventh and twelfth century. Al though we do not know enough about Constantinopolitan workshops in Macedonia and about the degree of their in volvement, Nerezi and related monuments suggest that highly skilled builders from the Capital worked and left their impact in the region. Met by regional traditions and probably financial constraints, they nonetheless trained local artisans and produced works which unmistakably re flect current tendencies of the Capital. A distinct presence of Constantinopolitan features at Nerezi also indicates that Alexios was capable of finding masters - local and/or metropolitan - who were skilled enough to erect an edifice which made his imperial con nection as apparent architecturally as it was made literally, in the wording of his dedicatory inscription. The extent to which Alexios used his church as a statement of personal prestige and as an expression of his loyalty to the imperial clan is best seen in the painted decoration of Nerezi to which we will now turn.
120 P. L. Vocotopoulos, “The Role of Constantinopolitan Architecture During the Middle Byzantine and Late Byzantine Period”, J ÖB 31 (1981): 551-573.
CHAPTER III PAINTED DECORATION
INTRODUCTION The sheer beauty, vibrancy, and elegance of the paintings at Nerezi overwhelm the viewer (figs. VII - XIII). An expanse of soothing blue background alters one’s vision of reality, while at the same time setting the stage for elegant, yet frag ile and almost surreal figures, carefully orchestrated through a linear play of white, pink, pastel green, ocher, and purple. The elegant pictorial language transcends the do main of aesthetic experience, enfolding the viewer in a pow erful image of Christian identity. The participatory imme diacy, emotional intensity, and persuasive imagery of the Christological stories and holy images construct a space that embraces the worshiper in a self-contained sphere of Christian existence. It is this carefully conceived spatial wedding of the power of ideological statement and the power of beauty that overwhelms the viewer and worship per alike and makes Nerezi both unique and intriguing. The interior of Nerezi, as it appears today, is composed of two distinct groups of paintings: the post-Byzantine cy cle in the upper portions of the church, and the original, twelfth-century paintings on the walls (pls. 8a, 8b). Due to earthquakes of the sixteenth and early nineteenth centuries most of the upper areas of the church lost their original decoration and were re-painted. Moreover, in 1884, the preserved twelfth-century cycle, confined to the lower portions of the church, was covered with new paintings, apparently much inferior in their quality than the earlier layers.1 Thus, until the late 1920s, the church was known to us only for its post-Byzantine decoration. In 1926/27, Nikolas Okunev, a Russian art historian who surveyed Byzantine monuments in Macedonia, came across original paintings by accidentally scratching the surface of the inte rior wall.2 Subsequent restorations revealed large portions of the twelfth-century cycle. Excited by the existence of an early medieval layer of paintings, however, restorers ignored the importance of the later paintings and simply destroyed them. Thus, the post-Byzantine paintings of Nerezi are preserved only in the upper sections of the church. While harmonized with the original paintings in their Christian content, the later paintings display differ ent aesthetic values and a different ideological concept, and will be discussed in the final chapter which examines Nerezi after the twelfth century. The original, twelfth-century paintings dominate the church and are responsible for the impact of its interior. They have been preserved, with minor losses, in all four subsidiary
chapels, and in the naos and the bema up to the level of the springing point of the arches (pls. 8a - 27). Even the narthex which, as mentioned in the previous chapter, was largely re built, displays fragments of the original decoration on its east, north and south walls (pls. 23-25; figs. LVIII-LXIV). While too damaged for the purposes of stylistic analysis, the decoration of the narthex is sufficiently preserved to indicate the programmatic solutions of the cycle. The twelfth-century frescoes are distinguished as ex quisite examples of Komnenian art, attributed to Constan tinopolitan masters, and mentioned as such in almost every book on Byzantine art.3 Moreover, since no painted cycle from the middle of the twelfth century has been pre served in the capital, Nerezi assumes an important role in our understanding of twelfth-century Byzantine painting in general. On the most basic level, the painted program at Nerezi follows the pattern of decoration traditionally used in cross-in-square and cruciform churches of the Middle Byzantine period (figs. VII-XII). The scenes at Nerezi ex hibit hierarchical arrangement in zones and correspond to architectural units. Thus, the liturgical scenes are placed in the bema, the cycle of the life of Christ and the images of saints are depicted in the naos, and the scenes from the life of the patron saint occupy the narthex. Also traditional at Nerezi is the vertical hierarchy. The image of Christ (re painted in the sixteenth century) occupies the central cupola; the scenes of the life of Christ are placed in the up per zone of the walls; and the lower zone of the walls dis plays the images of saints (figs. VII-IX). Within these regularities, however, Nerezi displays new iconographic and stylistic solutions evident both within individual scenes and images and in their arrangement. One of the most distinguished characteristics of the painted decoration is its relationship with the architecture. The painted cycle at Nerezi violates spatial divisions of ar chitectural components and constructs a programmati cally unified pictorial space. The dominance of the painted decoration over the architectural divisions is particularly evident in the strong programmatic relationship between the naos and eastern chapels and the narthex and western chapels. Although clearly separated by full walls, these ar chitectural units at Nerezi are united in their common iconography. The decision to impose pictorial over archi tectural space is confirmed by the closure of the three-light windows in the naos and the lunette above the main en trance of the church discussed in the previous chapter. While not uncommon in Byzantine churches, a decision to
1 See F. Mesesnel, “Kako da se sačuva i obnovi crkva Sv. Pantelejmona iz 12. veka kod sela Nerezi?”, GSND 2 (1929): 299-304. 2 N. Okunev, “La découverte des anciennes fresques du monastère de Nérèz et leur date”, Slavia (1927): 603-609. 3 Their fame is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that Nerezi is included in one of the most popular surveys on Renaissance art, F. Hartt, History of Italian Renaissance: Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, 4th ed. (New York, 1994), p. 46.
Chapter III
30 transform the architectural space of the interior is particu larly carefully and coherently developed in Nerezi. The thematic unity of the program is further emphasized through the spatial relationship established between scenes and images. Instead of giving a sequential presentation of ideas successively developed along the walls, the painters at Nerezi communicated their major messages in space. They did so through a series of paired images and scenes which echo each other across the facing walls. The impact of mes sages communicated in space is further enhanced by a vir tual absence of any decorative elaboration. While a wide range of psychologically suggestive figures dominates the space, the ornament is significantly underplayed, and by and large reduced to several pieces of painted textile.4 Nothing obscures the impact of the juxtaposed images and scenes. Facing each other across the naos, the scenes and images enclose the entire space of the church and create an environment which embraces and immerses the beholder both spiritually and emotionally. Thus the thematically unified program is also participatory in its character. Both stylistic and iconographic conventions are effec tively combined to underscore the unified messages of the cycle, focused on traditional Christian stories while at the same time addressing contemporary Byzantine reality. Flat and outlined in thick and colored lines, yet wrapped in agitated, colorful draperies, the figures vibrate before the eyes of the beholder, familiar in their realistic, human appearance, yet distant in their anatomical inaccuracies and abstract, elongated proportions (figs. X -X I). Their individual treatment and often emotionally charged ex pressions and gestures appeal to beholders, inviting their awe, inspiring their faith, and promising a path for their salvation. Visually conceived dogmatic messages also pro vide an important insight into the historical circumstances which surrounded the execution of the church, and in the ideological considerations of the patron who most likely designed the program. This carefully designed parallelism of the constant and the ephemeral - that is of dogmatic and political - distinguishes the cycle at Nerezi and is most overtly expressed in the program of the bema.
BEMA 1. Program: General Observations The bema at Nerezi follows the traditional iconographic formula established in the post-iconoclastic period. The
timeless image of the Virgin and Child occupies the conch of the apse, the middle zone of the apse and the walls of the bema display the Communion of the Apos tles, while the images of bishops decorate the lowest zone of the sanctuary (pls.8a, 8b, 9-11; fig.XIII).5 Within these conventions, however, Nerezi’s painters developed a sophisticated program, liturgical in its content, parti cipatory in its character, and political in its message. Both stylistic and iconographic means were used to achieve this goal. The most distinguished and innovative features of the program are the processional representation of apostles that expands along the lateral walls, the inclu sion of the Kiss of the Apostles within the scene of the Communion, and the rendition of a liturgically potent scene of eight bishops who officiate before the Hetoimasia (figs. XIII, XV, XIX; 17-25). All these novelties re flect current social and ecclesiastical events and thus iden tify the patron of Nerezi as an active participant in these events. The twelfth-century painted program of the bema has suffered some losses. The scenes depicted in the vault, five apostles from the Communion, as well as the image of the Virgin in the conch were re-painted in the sixteenth-century (pls. 8a, 8b). While the scenes and images in the vault significantly depart from the twelfthcentury programmatic and stylistic norm and will be treated in the separate chapter, the sixteenth-century artists made a considerable effort to recreate the origi nal, twelfth-century program of the conch and the walls of the bema. The image of the Virgin with Christ Child, a potent symbol of Incarnation, was regularly depicted in the apse since iconoclasm, and it is quite certain that it occupied the same position at Nerezi. Whether the sixteenth-century Platytera, currently displayed in the church, mimics the original twelfth-century icono graphic type of the Virgin is, however, impossible to say (figs. XV; 13).6
2. The Communion of the Apostles The intent to preserve the original programmatic solution is even more emphatically stated in the sixteenth-century restoration of the apostles in the Communion scene. The sixteenth-century apostles are distinguished not only by the style of their execution, but also by being placed somewhat higher than the original apostles; the frag ments of the lower robes of the twelfth-century apostles
4 Small sections of ornamented surfaces also frame the windows and distinguish the subsidiary domes; yet they are discreet and reduced to a well es tablished vocabulary of stylized palmettes, rinceau, and acanthus leaves. Only the stucco frame of the icon of St. Panteleimon is richly ornamented and prominent within the church; it will be discussed separately in the chapter on sculpture. 5 For the study on the system of Middle Byzantine decoration, see O. Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration (New York, 1976), especially pp. 3-4 3 . Many of his views were, however, questioned by T. Mathews, “The Sequel to Nicea II in Byzantine Church Decoration”, Perkins Journal of Theol ogy 41/3 (1988): ll -2 1 ; reprinted in Art and Architecture in Byzantium and Armenia. Liturgical and Exegetical Approach (Variorum, 1995), No. 12; and E. Kitzinger, “Reflections of the Feast Cycle in Byzantine A rt”, CA 36 (1988): 51 -73. 6 If the twelfth-century Virgin was indeed the Platytera, it would have been one of the earliest known examples in surviving monumental art after the church of Panagia Theotokos at Trikomo. For the development and significance of this type of the Virgin, see A. W. Carr, “The Thirteenth-Century Murals of Lysi, Cyprus”, in: A. W. Carr and L. J. Morrocco, A Byzantine Masterpiece Recovered, the Thirteenth-Century Murals of Lysi, Cyprus (Austin, 1991), pp. 4 3-48, fig. 15.
Chapter III remain beneath the sixteenth-century figures (pls. 10, ll; fig. 16)7 Wearing their traditional chitons and himations, apos tles approach the central table of the Communion in two processional files rendered on the north and south walls of the bema respectively. St. Peter (north) and St. Paul (south) lead the procession and receive Eucharistic bread and wine from Christ, who is depicted twice as performing his priestly duty (pl. 9; figs. XVI-XVIII; 14, 15).8 Christ is assisted by four angel-deacons,9 two placed at his side, and two flanking the ciborium which rises above the central altar, covered with a richly ornamented cloth (figs. XVI- XVIII).10 The altar displays liturgical vessels, two patens with blessed bread and a chalice. The apostles are inclined, stepping towards the central altar in a proces sional motion. The processional approach of the apostles is interrupted only by candelabra represented on the recesses of the walls, and by the embrace and the kiss exchanged by St. Andrew and St. Luke on the north wall (pl. 9; figs. XIII, XV - XIX; 16). 2.1. Symbolic and Liturgical Significance of the Scene The rendition of the Communion of the Apostles is based on the biblical account about the Last Supper which Christ had with his apostles.11 It symbolizes both the sacrifice of Christ and the union with Christ achieved through faith.
31 The experiential character of the event was visualized through ceremonial iconography which mimicked actual liturgical actions performed by the clergy and faithful. Since its earliest visual representations in the manuscripts and sumptuary objects of the Early Christian period, the scene of the Communion displayed apostles, either in groups or in procession, as receiving the Eucharist from Christ; hence it clearly alludes to the manner in which the actual rite is performed in the church.12 The inclusion of the scene in the program of the bema coincided with the establishment of the Eucharist as the central doctrine of the Orthodox church following the iconoclastic contro versy.13The representation of the Communion in the bema was a consequence of the intense effort to structure the program of the bema as a reflection of contemporary litur gy. The iconography and style of the bema at Nerezi made a significant contribution to that process. The emphasis on the liturgical character of the Commu nion at Nerezi is evident in many iconographic novelties and stylistic peculiarities. To begin with, the procession of apostles expands along the entire length of the lateral walls of the bema (pis. 9-11; fig. XIII). This unusual arrange ment was most likely intended to harmonize the proces sion of apostles with the file of officiating bishops ren dered below. Thus, both thematic and formal links between the biblical event - the Last Supper represented as the Communion - and the actual rite which celebrates it -
7 It is, however, quite obvious that the sixteenth-century artist disregarded iconographic accuracy, since the tonsure, facial type, and incipient beard of the sixteenth-century apostle on the north wall identify him as St. Luke, who was already present in the original, twelfth-century portion of the scene, as exchanging the embrace with St. Andrew. 8 The remaining twelfth-century apostles are not inscribed, yet can be identified on the basis on their physiognomies which were well established at the time. For the facial types of apostles, see O. Demus, The Mosaics of San Marco in Venice, 2 Vols. (Chicago, 1984), Vol. 2, pp. 8-10, pls. 3, la, 3 -1 1. St. Peter, dressed in purple chiton with white clavus, and an ocher himation shaded with olive-green is followed by St. Matthew who wears a blue chiton and white himation highlighted with pink lines, and shaded with mauve. Only the feet of the original image of the third apostle have remained. The next two apostles on the north wall are St. Andrew, wearing a green himation and an ocher chiton streaked with gray-blue and white; and St. Luke, dressed in a cherry-red chiton and a white himation shaded with red and blue. The last apostle on the north wall is young, resembling the fea tures of either St. Philip or St. Thomas. He is dressed in a white chiton streaked with bluish-green lines and patches, and a red himation outlined in white. Upper portions of his back, fragments of his forehead, and his hands are obliterated. St. Paul, who leads the procession of apostles on the south wall, is dressed in white robes streaked with different shades of blue. He is followed by St. John, dressed in a dark-blue chiton and a white himation shaded with murky gray; a fragment of his himation at the back is damaged. The three subsequent apostles were re-painted in the sixteenth century; only the lower portions of their robes are remaining. The last apostle on the south wall is young, either St. Philip or St. Thomas, and he is wearing a purple chiton and a white himation. 9 The angels standing behind the altar are shown as half figures, holding liturgical fans and wearing a dark mauve robe under a white sticharion; traces of the orarion are still visible on their left arms. The angels assisting Christ are shown full length, their bodies mostly obscured by Sts. Peter and Paul; they are wearing white sticharia. To the north of the altar, the facial features of the angel assisting Christ are mostly obliterated, and the crack in the wall running across the scene as a sinuous wide line from the three-light window up to the image of the Virgin partially damaged the wings of the angel holding the liturgical fan. 10 The altar is covered with a richly ornamented purple cloth decorated with blue medallions composed of concentric circles, displaying palmettes and fleurs-de-lis in the wide bands, and small circles in the narrow ones. The spherical areas between the circles are also filled with stylized composite flowers. Medallions encircling floral ornaments were frequently used as ornamental patterns on textiles during the twelfth century, as seen from their appearance, for example, on the textiles in the churches of St. George in Kurbinovo, Sts. Anargyroi in Kastoria, and the Holy Apostles at Perachorio. See L. Hadermann-Misguich, Kurbinovo. Les fresques de Saint-Georges et lapeinture byzantine du XIIe siècle (Brussels, 1975), pp. 3 12-313; figs. 29, 105, 108, 112,126, and 146; S. Pelekanidis and M. Chatzidakis, Kastoria (Athens, 1985), p. 37, figs. 12, 19; and A. H. S. Megaw and E. J. W. Hawkins, “The Church of the Holy Apostles at Perachorio, Cyprus, and Its Frescoes”, DOP 16 (1962), fig. 42. 11 Mt. 26, 2 0 -3 0 ; Mk. 14, 17-26; Lk. 22, 14 -3 9; and I Cor. ll, 23-26. 12 The earliest representations of the Communion are found already in sixth-century sumptuary objects and manuscripts, such as the Rossano Gospels, fols. 2v, 3r; the Rabula Gospels, fol. llv ; and the patens from Stuma and Riha. For Rossano Gospels, see Codex Purpureus Rossanensis (Graz, 1985), at folio number. For Rabula Gospels, see C. Cecchelli et al., The Rabula Gospels: Facsimile Edition of the Miniatures of the Syriac Manuscript Plut. I, 56 in the Medicaean-Laurentian Library (Lausanne, 1959) at folio number. For the patens, see V. H. Elbern, “Altar Implements and Liturgical Ob jects”, in: Age of Spirituality. Late Antique and Early Christian Art: Third to Seventh Century, ed. by K. Weitzmann (Princeton, 1979), pp. 611-612. 13 For the development of the Eucharistic liturgy and the inclusion of the scene of the Communion in the bema, see C. Walter, Art and Ritual of the Byzantine Church (London, 1982), pp. 188-189; and S. Gerstel, Beholding the Sacred Mysteries: Programs of the Byzantine Sanctuary (Seattle, Wash., 1999).
32 the Eucharistic liturgy represented through the officiating bishops - was established. Another motif which heightens the liturgical content of the Communion is the multiplication of angels. In addi tion to two angel-deacons, standing behind the altar and holding liturgical fans, as was customary in the twelfth century, the painter at Nerezi depicted two more angels standing beside Christ and assisting him in his ministry (figs. XVI-XVIII).14 The liturgical function of the dea cons at Nerezi may also be suggested by a rather unusual portrayal of the paten and chalice twice: once in the center of the table, where the angels are officiating above it with liturgical fans, and the second time as administered by Christ with the help of the angels. The presence of angeldeacons reflects the actual ceremony, in which deacons both keep the Eucharistic gifts and assist the priest. Also adding to the ceremonial character of the scene is the in clusion of candelabra. They too reflect liturgical practice, since candelabra may be associated with the idea of divine light and are placed on both sides of the sanctuary during the liturgical rite. 2.2. The Kiss of the Apostles Most strikingly adding to the liturgical character of the scene is the Kiss of the Apostles (pi. 10; fig. XIX). Accord ing to surviving evidence, the Kiss of the Apostles in the scene of the Communion appears for the first time at Nerezi. Peculiarly enough, the kiss has survived in only a few later, thirteenth-century monuments: the church of St. John the Theologian at Veroia, the church of St. Con stantine in Svekani, the church of St. Nicholas at Manastir, and probably in the church of St. John at Kaneo, Ohrid, all of which are located in Macedonia.15
Chapter III The Kiss of the Apostles at Nerezi most likely repre sents the Kiss of Peace, an ancient ritual which originally symbolized fraternal love of the participants in Christian service.16 In the liturgy of the Orthodox Church, the Kiss of Peace is exchanged among the clergy at the end of the Offertory prayer when the priest turns towards the con gregation and says “Peace unto all,” to which the faithful respond “And unto thy spirit.” Subsequently, the deacon proclaims, “Let us love one another that with one mind we may confess,” and it is the moment when the clergy ex changes the Kiss.17 In the twelfth century, the Trinitarian Confession, “The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Trinity consubstantial and undivided,” recited by the choir in response to the deacon’s words, was most likely in cluded in the liturgy, immediately before the exchange of the Kiss.18Thus, in addition to symbolizing fraternal love, the Kiss also introduced the recollection of the consub stantial and divine nature of the Holy Trinity, a notion which carries particular significance within the program of Nerezi, as will be discussed later. While the representation of the Kiss of the Apostles is new within the context of the scene of the Commu nion, the kissing gesture has a long tradition in medieval art and was likely familiar to the contemporary beholder. Be it in a political context, such as the representation of the embrace of emperors during the Tetrarchic period, or in a religious context, such as the embrace of Joachim and Anna or of Mary and Elizabeth, the embrace symbolizes unity, peace, and harmony.19 Among the apostles, the representation of the embrace is commonly associated with Sts. Peter and Paul. Although it was first introduced in the West, the examples of Byzantine renditions indi cate that it was an image well known to Byzantine artists.20
14 Two angel-deacons are seen, for example, in St. Sophia, Kiev, and regularly depicted in twelfth-century monuments, such as in the Ossuary Church in Bačkovo, in Holy Apostles in Perachorio, and in Archangel Michael in Kiev. For Kievan churches, see V. Lazarev, Old Russian Murals and Mosaics: from the X I to the XVI Centuries (London, 1966), pp. 3 8 -4 1 , 68; for Backovo, see E. Bakalova, Bachkovskata Kostnica (Sofia, 1977), pp. 76-77; for Perachorio, see Megaw and Hawkins, “Holy Apostles at Perachorio” (see footnote 10), figs. 21 -25. 15 For Veroia, see M. Mïchailidis, “Les peintures murales de l’église de Saint-Jean le Théologien à Véria”, in: XVe congrès, p. 487, figs. 19, 20, 22. For Manastir, see P. Miljković-Pepek and D. Koco, Manastir (Skopje, 1958), pp.4 8 -5 1 , table XIV; for Svekani and Kaneo, see P. Miljković-Pepek, “Crkvata Sv. Konstantin od selo Svekani”, in: Simpozium 1100. godišnina od smrtata na K iril Solunski (Skopje, 1970), Vol. 1, pp. 149-162. 16 During the actual liturgical rite in the twelfth century, the clergy exchanged the Kiss twice: before the anaphora - the Kiss of peace - and at the mo ment when the priest receives the Communion - the aspasmos. Both rituals were most likely performed at the time Nerezi was decorated. The rep resentation of the Kiss thus comforted the beholder with another pictorial representation of the actual liturgical action, while at the same time em phasizing the reality of the ritual performed in the church. S. E. J. Gerstel, “Apostolic Embraces in Communion Scenes of Byzantine Macedonia”, CA 44 (1996): 144-146, argues that the Kiss of the Apostles at Nerezi represents the aspasmos of the clergy, and explains it as a sign of anti-Latin sentiments. Her claim, however does not relate either to the historical circumstances surrounding the decoration of the church, or to the meaning of the motif within the context of the iconographic message of Nerezis decoration. 17 In earlier forms of celebration, the entire congregation would exchange the Kiss, too. However, some sources suggest that it became limited to clergy only by the end of the eleventh century. See R. F. Taft, The Great Entrance. A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Pre-Anaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Rome, 1978), pp. 395-396. 18 Ibid., pp. 374-396. 19 The representation of the embracing apostles originated in the early Christian apocryphal account of the meeting of the two apostles in Rome. See H. L. Kessler, “The Meeting of Peter and Paul in Rome. An Emblematic Narrative of Spiritual Brotherhood”, DOP 41 (1987): 267. 20 For the Kiss of the Apostles in Byzantium see M. Constantoudaki-Kitromilides, “Concordia Apostolorum: The Embrace of Saints Peter and Paul, A Paleologan Icon in Bologna”, in: Byzantium. Identity, Image, Influence (XIX International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Copenhagen, 1996), No. 5213; M. Vassilaki, “A Cretan Icon in the Ashmolean: The Embrace of Peter and Paul”, J ÖB 40 (1990): 405-422; and K. Kreidl-Papadopoulos, “Die Ikone mit Petrus und Paulus in Wien. Neue Aspekte zur Entwicklung dieser Rundkomposition”, Deltion 10 (1980-1981): 344-356.
33
Chapter III 2.2.1. The Kiss o f Sts. P eter and Paul The Kiss of Sts. Peter and Paul acquired different meaning depending on the context in which it was represented.21 When detached from the narrative, the image acquired poli tical potency, denoting the importance of the fraternal recon ciliation and Ecumenical unity of the Christian Church.22 In Byzantium, following the Schism of 1054, the image of the embracing apostles was seemingly understood in a broa der context, as a symbol of brotherly love and union of the leaders of the Eastern and Western churches.23 This mean ing may have been implied in the image of the embracing apostles in the twelfth-century Psalter in Athens (Athens, National Library, Cod. 7, fol. 2r), which most likely refers to Psalm 132 (133): “How good and how pleasant it is for brethern to dwell in unity;” the same meaning has been as signed to a number of the late fourteen- and fifteenth-cen tury icons.24 In all these instances, the image reflects the in tensified interest of the members of the Byzantine church in achieving union with the Latin West.25 2.2.2. The M eaning o f the Kiss at N erezi The pro-uniate tendencies are likely implied in the image of the embracing apostles at Nerezi, as suggested by the histo rical circumstances, and by the close ties which existed be tween the emperor Manuel I and the patron of Nerezi. As demonstrated by scholars, Manuel I had a huge political am bition to become the new Roman Emperor, assuming power over both Byzantium and the Latin West.26A path to his suc cess required, as an important pre-requisite, the union of the two churches, which he attempted at several instances and in many negotiations with both Western emperors and popes.27 His wish to bridge the gap between the two ecclesiastical traditions opened him considerably to Western theological
concepts. It is well known that, as of the early sixties, his ad visor on matters of faith was a Westerner, Hugo Etherien from Pisa.28Moreover, it was the impact of Western theolog ical concepts, and Manuel’s eagerness to accept them, which led to heated debates and culminated in the Church Council held in his palace in Constantinople in 1166.29The patron of Nerezi, Alexios, supported his cousin, the emperor, and was present at that Council, as mentioned earlier.30The inclusion of the Kiss at Nerezi might thus represent one of many as pects of the close cooperation between the two Komnenian cousins, evident in other aspects of the decoration of Nerezi as will be shown later in this chapter. Although the embracing apostles at Nerezi are St. Andrew and St. Luke, their portrayal is strikingly similar to images of the embrace of Sts. Peter and Paul.31 The rushing step, inter twined arms, and the closeness of faces of Sts. Andrew and Luke closely resemble the iconographic formula of the em brace of apostolic princes.32 Further correspondence is seen in the physiognomies of the apostles. Like St. Peter, St. An drew features white hair and beard, while St. Luke assumes the characteristics of St. Paul, by being slightly taller than the other apostle and by having dark brown hair and beard (al though his hairline is not receding). It is apparent that the painters at Nerezi intentionally used the pre-existing icono graphic formula of the embrace of Sts. Peter and Paul to suit their own needs. Thus, the symbolic meaning of the em brace, the notion of brotherly reconciliation and the need for Ecumenical unity, were communicated through the familiar iconography, despite the identity switch. 2.2.3. The C hoice o f St. Luke and St. A ndrew The switch of the apostles at Nerezi may have been dic tated by the iconography of the Communion which invariably required the presence of St. Peter by the altar.33
21 In the West, the scene is commonly found in a narrative context, relating the lives of the two apostles. See Kessler, “The Meeting of Peter and Paul in Rome” (see footnote 19), pp. 265-275. 22 The notion of Ecumenical unity is also emphasized in liturgical sources, in the Troparion read on the feast of the Apostles on June 29. 23 Constantoudaki-Kitromilides, “Concordia Apostolorum” (see footnote 20), N o.5213; Vassilaki, “Cretan Icon” (see footnote 20), pp.408-409, 416-420; and Kreidl-Papadopoulos, “Die Ikone mit Petrus und Paulus”, pp. 346-356. 24 For the image in the Psalter, see A. Cutler, The Aristocratic Psalters in Byzantium (Paris, 1984), fig. 3; for the meaning of the image, see Constantoudaki-Kitromilides, “Concordia Apostolorum” (see footnote 20), No. 5213. 25 See Constantoudaki-Kitromilides, “Concordia Apostolorum” (see footnote 20), No. 5213; and Vassilaki, “Cretan Icon” (see footnote 20), pp. 416-420. 26 For a comprehensive study and bibliography on Manuel’s political ambitions, see P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 27-109. 27 Ibid. 28 Manuel’s ambition to bridge the gap between Orthodox East and Latin West becomes quite apparent when one considers that one of the tasks he as signed to Hugo was to defend the Latin position on the Filioque question by using writings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church. See M. V. Anastasos, “Some Aspects of Byzantine Influence on Latin Thought”, in: Twelfth-Century Europe and the Foundations of Modern Society (Proceed ings of a Symposium, Madison, WI, 1957), pp. 131-189; A. Dondaine, “Hugues Éthérien et Léon Toscan”, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et litteraire du moyen âge 19 (1952): 67-134; and Idem, “Hugues Éthérien et le concile de Constantinople de 1166”, Historisches Jahrbuch 77 (1958): 473-483. 29 For a discussion on the emperor’s approval of Western theological concepts and his forceful implementation of these concepts, see Dondaine, “Hugues Éthérien et le concile de Constantinople de 1166” (see footnote 28), pp. 473-483; P. Classen, “Das Konzil von Konstantinopel 1166 und die Lateiner”, BZ 48 (1955): 339-368; C. Mango, “The Concilar Edict of 1166”, DOP 17 (1963): 317-330. 30 See Chapter I, pp. 8 -9 . 31 That has been mentioned, although briefly, by R. Hamann-Mac Lean, Grundlegung zu einer Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Monumentalmalerei in Serhien und Makedonien (Giessen, 1976), p. 264. 32 A close parallel is seen if one compares, for example, other twelfth-century representations of the Kiss of the Apostles, such as in Monreale (E. Kitzinger, The Mosaics of Monreale [Palermo, 1960], pl. 80); the Capella Palatina, Palermo (O. Demus, The Mosaics of Norman Sicily [London, 1949], fig. 43 a); and the above mentioned Psalter from the National Library in Athens (see footnote 24). 33 St. Paul was also commonly represented; yet he was sometimes replaced by St. John, as in the churches of the Panagia Phorbiotissa at Asinou and in the Holy Apostles at Perachorio. For Asinou, see M. Sacopoulo, Asinou en 1106 et sa contribution a l'iconographie (Brussels, 1966), pl.XXd; for Perachorio, see Megaw and Hawkins, “Holy Apostles at Perachorio” (see footnote 10), fig. 24.
Chapter III
34 However, the choice of St. Luke and particularly St. An drew was not incidental.34The apostles were related to Sts. Peter and Paul, and they held special significance both for Byzantium and, more significantly for the region of Mace donia. St. Andrew was the older brother of St. Peter, and St. Luke, along with St. Linus and St. Timothy, accompa nied St. Paul in Rome as his secretary. Moreover, both St. Andrew and St. Luke were held in high regard in Byzantium, because their relics were brought to the Byzantine capital, Constantinople, and kept in the church of the Holy Apostles. Above all, Byzantines were firm in their belief that the apostolic see of Constantinople was founded by St. Andrew, a fact which significantly influ enced the growth of St. Andrew’s legend in Byzantium.35 Although the legend of St. Andrew lost its popularity in Byzantium as a whole by the time of Manuel I, the cult of the apostle held special significance and remained popular in Macedonia. Apostle Andrew was believed to have been a missionary in Macedonia where he spent a considerable amount of time traveling and preaching.36 St. Andrew’s activity in and associations with Macedonia figured very prominently in the ecclesiastical politics of the region. They provided the basis and served as a potent argument in the attempt of the clergy of Ohrid to claim the apostolic character and autocephalous status of their church since the time of Tzar Samuel (976-1014).37 Once incorporated in the idea of national integrity, the cult of St. Andrew became connected with the concept of religious and national independence and pride. As such, it remained popular in Macedonia throughout Byzantine rule. The importance of the cult of St. Andrew in Macedo nia is seen in many aspects of the cultural tradition of the region. A church dedicated to St. Andrew was built at Peristerai, near Thessaloniki in 870/871.38 In c. 900, St. Naum, a brother of St. Clement, and a translator of the Bible from Greek to Old Church Slavonic, wrote a special Kanon dedicated to the apostle Andrew.39 Moreover, St. Andrew was given a special prominence in art of the re gion. For example, he is represented along with another
unidentified, dark-haired apostle, in the lunette of the west facade of the cathedral church of St. Sophia in Ohrid prob ably at the time of the archbishop Leo (1040-45);40 his portrait is both unusual and distinguished in the scene of the Ascension in the church of St. George in Kurbinovo, where he is shown holding a cross, as a missionary;41 and most interestingly, in the church of the Virgin Peribleptos in Ohrid (1295), St. Andrew is shown next to St. Peter, the founders of the two prominent apostolic sees facing the representatives of the Ohrid autocephalous church, St. Clement of Ohrid and archbishop St. Constantine Cabasilas.42 Thus the prominent position given to St. Andrew within the scene of the Communion at Nerezi is by no means sur prising and can be explained through the popularity of the cult of the apostle and his important function in the eccle siastical politics of the region of Macedonia. The choice of St. Luke could also be related to local cult. In addition to his close association with St. Paul, according to some legends St. Luke was also believed to have been born in Macedonia.43 He is probably the unidentified apostle fac ing St. Andrew in the lunette of the west facade of St. Sophia in Ohrid.44 St. Luke is also chosen as a pair to St. Andrew in the representation of the Kiss of Apostles in the scene of the Communion, in the church of St. John the Theologian, in Veroia. In the broader picture, it should be noted that Luke (Chrysoberg ) was also the name of the current patriarch of Constantinople (1157-1170) who sup ported the emperor in his pro-Western orientation. While the connection between the choice of St. Luke at Nerezi and the current Constantinopolitan patriarch is impossible to prove, the play with the pun of the name was very pop ular during the reign of the Komnenian rulers. 2.2.4. Political Im plications The inclusion of the Kiss of the Apostles in the scene of the Communion may be thus understood as a very clever po litical maneuver. The idea of the union of Eastern and
34 The representation of the embrace of Sts. Andrew and Luke at Nerezi is the earliest surviving visual example of the idea of brotherly love expressed through a different choice of apostles. Literary evidence, however, suggests that the practice of switching apostles to represent the same idea existed in earlier periods, too. For example, the ninth-century Constantinopolitan patriarch, Photius, used the metaphor of the brotherly love of St. Peter, the founder of the Roman See, and St. Andrew, the founder the Constantinopolitan See, in his attempts to emphasize the importance of union and good understanding between Eastern and Western churches during the short period of reconciliation around 880. See F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), p. 233. 35 According to Byzantine sources, St. Andrew was often seen as equal to the prince of apostles, St. Peter, since Peter founded Rome, and Andrew foun ded the apostolic see in the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. The life of St. Andrew was included in the Synaxaria since the 10th century, and the story of his life is included in the Menologion of Basil I. For the importance of St. Andrew in Byzantium see Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium (see footnote 34). 36 For the popularity of the cult of St. Andrew in Macedonia, see P. Miljković-Pepek, “Najstarite svetitelski kultovi vo Makedonija, temeli za samostojnata Samoilova crkva i avtokefalnost na Ohridskata arhiepiskopija”, Zbornik. Muzej na Makedonija 1 (1993): 11-35. 37 Ibid., p. 28. 38 See A. K. Orlandos, “To katholikon tēs para tēn Thessalonikēn monēs Peristerōn”, ABME 7 (1951): 146-167; and C. Mauropoulou-Tsiume and A. Kuntura, “Ho naos tou hagiou Andrea stēn Peristera”, Klēronomia 13 (1981): 487-507. 39 Miljković-Pepek, “Najstarite svetitelski kultovi” (see footnote 36), p. 28. 40 Ibid., pp. 28-29. 41 Hadermann-Misguich, Kurbinovo (see footnote 10), p. 167; fig. 82. 42 P. Miljković-Pepek, Deloto na zografite Mihailo i Eutihij (Skopje, 1966), pp. 2 8-30. 43 Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium (see footnote 34), p. 215. 44 It is at least suggested by the description of the apostle and a drawing in Miljković-Pepek, “Najstarite svetitelski kultovi” (see footnote 36), p. 28, fig. 10, pl. 9.
Chapter III Western churches, as seen by Manuel I, was based on tolerance, particularly related to the frequently disputed difference in Eucharistic rituals. By including the Embrace of the Apostles, the symbol of Ecumenical unity, in the rendition of one of the most debated rituals, the patron of Nerezi clearly suggested the possibility of harmonious existence of the two churches despite the ideological differences in their respective liturgical practices. The Kiss of the Apostles at Nerezi, however, also re flects the ability of Byzantine patrons to manipulate the popularity of local cults in order to promulgate the ideol ogy of the capital. The Kiss of the Apostles within the scene of the Communion is an extremely potent image, participatory in its character and polyvalent in its meaning. On one level, it represents the actual liturgical action, familiar to the beholder from contemporary practice. The gestures, postures, and physical appearances of the apostles, however, recall the features of the renditions of the embrace of Sts. Peter and Paul, the symbol of brotherly reconciliation and Ecumenical unity reiterated in the liturgical readings, and most likely also familiar to the beholder. The choice of Sts. Andrew and Luke, the apostles dear and popular to the local audience was likely intended to make the idea of ecclesiastical unity more agreeable. While pro-uniate tendencies were popular in the imperial circles, they were much less agreeable to the general populace frightened by Crusader missions. The Kiss of the Apostles within the scene of the Com munion survives in only four churches, all of which are lo cated in close proximity to one another in the region of Macedonia. The church at Veroia, decorated only half a century after Nerezi, reflects its direct influence. Although the two later monuments, the church of St. Constantine in the village of Svekani, and the church of St. Nicholas at Manastir exhibit a different choice of apostles who are em bracing,45 the appearance of this scene in Macedonia seem ingly relates to the importance of Nerezi and the ability of Byzantine patrons to capitalize on the popularity of local cults. The change of the apostles in later monuments likely reflects the degree of influence which Nerezi had on the
35 later monuments in Macedonia. While the iconography remained the same, the meaning was modified due to changed political circumstances. The preservation of form with changed content occurred frequently in Byzantium. The iconographic innovations in the scene of the Com munion at Nerezi reflect the current tendencies of the Byzan tine court. Alexios Angelos Komnenos supported his cousin emperor by creating visual propaganda for imperial political ideas in a region of the utmost importance for the Empire. In doing so, he chose popular local cults and touched upon the local situation in order to make his images communi cate with a broader audience and with greater efficiency.
3. The Officiating Bishops Political overtones and liturgical character are also evident in the scene of the officiating bishops. Eight bishops, four on each wall of the bema, are depicted holding inscribed liturgi cal scrolls with both hands, while walking and inclined to wards the central image of the scene, the Hetoimasia (pls. 9 11,13,15; figs. XIII-XV, XX; 17-26). The bishops are well preserved, identified by inscriptions, and dressed in ceremo nial costumes consisting of sticharion, phelonion or polystavrion, omophorion, epitrachelion, epimanikia, and encherion.46 3.1. The Hetoimasia The Hetoimasia, or the prepared throne, represents the focal point of the procession of bishops (pl. 9; fig. XX). It is located beneath the three-light window in the apse and flanked by two angel-deacons inclined towards the throne. Lavishly ornamented with gold and precious stones, the throne is topped by a purple pillow and covered by two cloths - blue and white.47 It displays the Gospels, a dove, a double cross with a crown of thorns hung on it, and two spears, the instruments of Christ’s Passion. The Hetoimasia, an image of the prepared throne, acquires a variety of meanings depending on its icono graphic features and on the context in which it is repre-
45 St. Simon and St. Bartholomew are represented at Manastir; see Miljković-Pepek and Koco, Manastir (see footnote 15), pp. 49-50. The apostles in Svekani have not been identified; see Miljković-Pepek, “Crkvata Sv. Konstantin” (see footnote 15), pp. 149-162. 46 The bishops on the south wall are (from east to west): St. Basil, inscribed as ό ἃγιος Βασίλειος; St. Athanasios, inscribed as ὁ ἅγιος ’Αθανάσιος; St. Gregory of Nyssa, inscribed as ὁ ἅ(γιος) Γϱηγόριος ὁ Νύσ(σ)ης; and St. Nicholas of Myra, inscribed as ὁ ἅγιος Νικόλαος. The bishops on the north wall are: St. John Chrysostom, inscribed as ὁ ἅγιος Ἰω(άννης) ὁ Χϱυ(σόστο)μος; St. John the Theologian, inscribed as ὁ ἅγιος (Ἰ ωάννη)ς ὁ Θεολόγος; St. Epiphanios of Cyprus, inscribed as ὁ ἅγιος Έπιφάνιος ἅ Κύπϱου; and St. Gregory Thaumaturge, inscribed as ὁ ἅ(γιος) Γϱηγόϱιος ὁ Θαυματουργός. Five bishops, St. Basil, St. Athanasios, St. John Chrysostom, St. John the Theologian, and St. Epiphanios are shown with the poly stavrion, while others wear the phelonion. The polystavrion of St. John Chrysostom, St. Athanasios and St. Epiphanios is decorated with the cross inscribed in a square - the gammatia pattern. For episcopal costume, see C. Walter, Art and Ritual of the Byzantine Church (London, 1982), pp. 9 -2 6 . (The author, on p. 15, wrongly attributes the polystavrion to St. Gregory of Nyssa; at Nerezi, he is wearing a phelonion); P. Johnstone, The Byzan tine Tradition in Church Embroidery (Chicago, 1967), pp. 12-19; P. Bernadakis, “Les ornaments liturgiques chez les Grecs”, EO 5 (1902): 129-139; T. Papas, Geschichte der Messgewänder (Munich, 1965); and N. Thierry, “Les costumes épiscopal byzantin du 9e au 13e siècle d’après les peintures datées”, REB 24 (1966): 308-331. 47 The white textile resembles an altar-cloth. The blue cloth, however, is trapezoid in its shape, and may be associated with Christ’s garment, such as the one represented in the dome of Elasson, yet this interpretation must remain tentative. See E. C. Constantinides, The Wall Paintings of the Panagia Olympiotissa at Elasson in Northern Thessaly (Athens, 1992), p. 97, pl. 11. A blue cloth covering the altar similar to that at Nerezi is found in the dome of the church at Lysi. See Carr, “The Thirteenth-Century Murals of Lysi” (see footnote 6), figs. 2 0 -2 1 . 48 For the meaning of the Hetoimasia, see A. L. Townsley, “Eucharistie Doctrine and the Liturgy in Late Byzantine Painting”, OC 58 (1974): 138-153; T. von Bogyay, “Zur Geschichte der Hetoimasie”, in: Akten des XL intemationalen Byzantinistenkongresses (Munich, 1958), pp. 5 8 -6 1 ; P. Franke, “Marginalien zum Problem der Hetoimasie”, BZ 65/2 (1972): 375-378; Carr, “The Thirteenth-Century Murals of Lysi” (see footnote 6), pp. 52-54. The appearance of the blue cloth in the renditions of the Hetoimasia requires further scholarly attention.
36 sented.48 When the attributes of Christ, such as the Gospel Book, the cross, and the crown of thorns appear alone, the Hetoimasia symbolizes the throne which belongs to Christ only. By the Middle Byzantine period, such representations of the Hetoimasia were understood as the throne prepared for the second coming of Christ. It was popularly used both within the context of Last Judgment scenes, and as a sepa rate icon. However, when the dove, the symbol of the Holy Spirit, is added to the attributes of Christ, as is the case at Nerezi, the Hetoimasia symbolizes the Holy Trinity.49 3.2. Liturgical Character of the Scene The Hetoimasia at Nerezi also acquires very strong litur gical connotations. It is the focus and an integral part of the scene of officiating bishops, shown as inclined towards the Hetoimasia and thus offering their prayers simultaneously to all members of the Holy Trinity, indivisible and divine. The scene of the bishops officiating before the Hetoimasia appeared for the first time at the end of the eleventh cen tury. Prior to Nerezi, this scene is depicted in only two preserved monuments: the Church of St. John Chry sostom in Koutsovendis, Cyprus (1110-1118), and the Church of the Virgin Eleousa at Veljusa, Macedonia (c. 1080).50 In both renditions we see two bishops holding an opened liturgical roll before the Hetoimasia: St. Basil and St. Gregory at Koutsovendis, and St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom, flanked by two other bishops carrying books and shown frontally, at Veljusa. Thus, compared to Nerezi, the rendition of bishops in the two earlier monu ments lacks the immediacy of action and the emphasis on ritual. For the first time at Nerezi, the number of bishops is multiplied to eight and they are all shown inclined, in motion, as if performing the actual liturgical rite.51
Chapter III The transformation of bishops from a static series to a dynamic procession at Nerezi is due as much to the new iconography as to new stylistic characteristics. The in clined position of all eight bishops creates a rhythm of cur vatures which adhere to the architectural form of the bema and create a rhythmical succession of parallel shapes (figs. XIII; 17-25). The same rhythm of parallel shapes is developed through the corresponding forms, sizes and position of their rolls. Elongated, flat and abstract in their appearance, the bishops are also lacking the facial anima tion and psychological characterization evident in other figures at Nerezi. The somewhat monotonous appearance of the bishops has been blamed on the lesser skills of the artist who worked in the sanctuary.52 It is also possible, however, that the uniformity of form, gestures, and facial types of the bishops may have been intentional. After all, if the faces in the bema were as distinct as those elsewhere in the church, the visual appearance of each individual par ticipant would distract from the attention given to the group as a whole. No visual variation, except the crosses on the polystavria, was allowed to disturb the processional movement of the bishops. The bishops at Nerezi are shown as enacting the liturgy. They incline towards the prepared throne in the same manner in which the actual priest bows before the real altar in the sanctuary, thus assuming the position of concele brants in the actual liturgy (fig. XIV).53 Moreover, the type of scrolls which they carry resemble those used during the liturgical celebration,54 and the inscriptions on the bish ops’ scrolls display the secret prayers recited by the priest before the Great Entrance (figs. 17-25).55 However, while the priest offers his prayers to the liturgical host, the bish ops offer it to the symbols of His sacrifice - the cross, the crown of thorns, the lances - and to the agent of mystical
49 Ibid. 50 For Koutsovendis, see C. Mango, “The Monastery of St. John Chrysostomos at Koutsovendis and Its Wall Paintings”, DOP 44 (1990): 77, pls. la, b; and A. Stylianou and J. A. Stylianou, The Painted Churches of Cyprus (London, 1985), pp. 4 61-462; for Veljusa, see P. Miljković-Pepek, Veljusa: Manastir Sv. Bogorodica Milostiva vo selo Veljusa kraj Strumica (Skopje, 1981), p. 156. 51 The bishops are also shown as a little inclined and carrying liturgical scrolls in the church of the Virgin Kosmosoteira at Pherrai; yet the focal point of their liturgical action, the Hetoimasia, is missing. See S. Sinos, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira) (Munich, 1985), pls. 1 3 , 111-115. 52 The faces of St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa, as well as those of St. John the Theologian and St. Athanasios are virtually identical. 53 For the arrangement of the priest and concelebrants in the actual liturgy, see R. Taft, Great Entrance (see footnote 17), p. 388. 54 For the resemblance between scrolls carried by bishops and actual liturgical scrolls, see S. Gerstel, “Liturgical Scrolls in the Byzantine Sanctuary”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 35/2 (1995): 195-204. 55 St. Gregory of Thaumaturge’s scroll exhibits text from the Prayer of the Catechumens recited by the priest before the Anaphora according to the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: Κύριε ὁ Θεòς ήμών, ὁ ἑν ὑψηλοΐς ϰατοίϰῶν ϰαὶ τὰ ταπεινὰ ἐφοϱων, ό τὴν σωτηϱίαν τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθϱώπων (F. Ε. Brightman, ed. Liturgies Eastern and Western, 2 Vols. [Oxford, 1965], Vol. 1, p. 315,12-14). St. Epiphanios’ text exhibits the beginning of the Prayer of the Trisagion from the Liturgy of St. Basil: Ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ἅγιος, ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις ἀναπαυόμενος (Ibid., p. 313, 4 - 5 ). St. John the Theologian’s scroll exhibits the text from the Prayer of the Proskomidie from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, recited quietly by the priest after he has placed the gifts on the altar: Κύϱιε ὁ Θεός ό Παντοκϱάτῶϱ ὁ μόνος ἅγιος ὁ δεχόμενος θυσίαν αἰνέσεως (Ibid., p. 319, lines 6-8). St. John Chrysostom’s scroll exhibits texts from the Prayer of the Prothesis from the Liturgy of St. Basil: Ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὁ τὸν οὐϱάνιον ἄρτον τὴν τϱοφὴν τοῦ παντός ϰὸσμου τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν (Ibid., p. 309, lines 8-11). St. Basil’s inscription is from the secret prayer which the priest recites during the chanting of the Cherubicon hymn: Οὐδεὶς ἄξιος τῶν συνδεδεμένων ταῖς (σα)ρκικαῖς (ἐ)πιθυμίαις (ϰαὶ ἡδοναῖς) (Ibid., p. 318, lines 4 -5 ). St. Athanasios’ inscription displays the Prayer of the Little Entrance from the Liturgy of St. Basil: Δέσποτα Κύριε ὁ Θεός ἡμών ὁ ϰαταστήσας ἐν οὐϱανοῖς τάγματα ϰαί στρατιάς (’Αγγέλων καὶ ’Α ϱχαγγέλων) (Ibid., p. 312, lines 15-18). St. Gregory of Nyssa’s inscription is from the Prayer of the first antiphon of the Liturgy of St. Basil: Κύϱιε ὁ Θεός ἡμῶν, οὗ τὸ ϰράτος ἀνεί(ϰα)στον, καί ἡ δόξα ἀϰατάληπτος, οὗ τὸ έλεος ἀμέτϱητον (Ibid., p. 310, lines 16-19). St. Nicholas’ inscription is from the Prayer of the second antiphon: Κύϱιος ὁ Θεός ἡμῶν σῶσον τὸν Λαόν σου (Ibid., p. 311, lines 5-6). For inscriptions on bishops’ scrolls in the sanctuary, see G. Babić and C. Walter, “The Inscriptions upon Liturgical Rolls in Byzantine Apse Deco ration”, REB 34 (1976): 270-273.
37
Chapter III transformation of the liturgical host - the Holy Spirit (pl. 9; figs. XV, XX). The images of the Holy Spirit, the Cross and the Throne itself also symbolize the Holy Trin ity, implying that Christ, who offered His sacrifice as human is nonetheless a consubstantial member of the Holy Trinity. Consequently, the Eucharistic sacrifice, which re-enacts His salvific mission, is offered to the en tire Holy Trinity, consubstantial and divine.56 3.3. The Church Councils The association of the Hetoimasia at Nerezi with the Holy Trinity, has been interpreted by scholars as a consequence of theological debates carried out during many sessions of Church Councils in the late eleventh and throughout the twelfth century.57 I believe, however, that the dogmatic disputes and political overtones of the Church Councils made a much stronger impact on the program of Nerezi than has been established thus far. In fact, the emphasis on the realism of liturgical action, evident in the ritualistic gestures of the apostles in the Communion, in the proces sional appearance of the bishops, and in the Eucharistie as pects of the Hetoimasia, is most likely a consequence of the theological debates formulated in the Church Councils of the second half of the twelfth century. 3.3.1. The M ajor Sessions The major sessions of the Constantinopolitan Councils took place in 1156, 1157, and 1166.58 The core of the argu ments formulated at these three Councils, and discussed intensely during the entire decade when Nerezi was under construction, was the dual nature of Christ and His status as a member of the Holy Trinity in the Eucharist. In its popularity, the debate transcended church spheres and in volved both the Emperor and his clan. While the Council of 1156 was convened by a church dignitary, the newly ap
pointed Kievan Patriarch Constantine, its extension, the Council session of 1157, was organized by the emperor Manuel himself and held in the Blachernai palace. More over, as the issues became more political and Manuel lost the support of the majority of clergy, he not only organized the Council of 1166 in his palace, but actually presided over it and took the liberty to personally anathematize his opponents.59 Disregarding the opposition, Manuel brought in the entire Komnenian clan for the specific pur pose of supporting his ideas at the Council.60The presence of the patron of Nerezi at this Council is by no means surprising, since his involvement in current theological debates becomes apparent in the decoration of his church. The ideas discussed at the two sessions of the first Council, the first of which started on January 26,1156, and the second organized on May 12-13,1157, made a particu larly strong impact on the painted decoration of Nerezi.61 The debates of this Council were mainly focused on ques tions related to the Eucharist. Unlike the theological de bates of the eleventh century, however, which were mainly concerned with the substance and nature of the Eucharistic host, such as for example the Azyme Controversy of 1054,62 the disputes of the second half of the twelfth cen tury were more philosophical and challenged the very essence of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Thus, the Council of 1156/57 found it necessary to reestablish the Orthodox position on the actual nature, substance, as well as the meaning and veracity of the sacrifice of Christ and of its perpetual re-enactment in the Eucharistic liturgy. 3.3.2. H eretical Attacks The need to reestablish the traditional Orthodox view on the essential nature of the Eucharistic celebration was ne cessitated by various heretical attacks, which spread in the eleventh century, and became particularly intense in the twelfth. For example, the heretical movement of the Bo-
56 The liturgical action of the bishops is made even more realistic by the inclusion of angels who flank the Hetoimasia, hold liturgical fans, and assume the function of deacons in their dress, attributes, and action. 57 See Townsley, “Eucharistic Doctrine” (see footnote 48), pp. 138-155; G. Babić, “Les discussions christologiques et le décor des églises byzantines au XII siècle”, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 2 (1968): 368-386; Walter, Art and Ritual (see footnote 46), pp. 198-199; and N. Gkioles, O byzantinos troullos kai to eikonographiko tou programma (Athens, 1990), pp. 24-27. 58 For the sources on the Council of 1156/57, see PG 140, cols. 148-201; Patmiake Bibliothekey ed. by I. Sakkellion (Athens, 1890), pp. 316-328; and J. Gouillard, “Le Synodikon de l’orthodoxie: édition et commentaire”, TM 2 (1967): 72-74; 210-215. For a discussion on the Council, see P. Cheremuchin, “Konstantinopol’skii Sobor 1157 g. i Nikolai, episkop Mefonskiĭ”, Bogoslovskie Trudy 1 (1960): 87-109; and F. Chalandon, Jean II Comnène et Manuel I Comnène, 2 Vols. (Paris, 1912), Vol. 1, pp. 640-643. For the Council of 1166, see PG 140, cols. 202-282; Gouillard, “Synodikon” (see above), pp.7 6 -8 0 ; 216-226; and S. N. Sakkos, “Hē en Konstantinoupolei synodos tou 1170”, in: Theologikon Symposion in Honor of P. Chrestou (Thessaloniki, 1967), pp. 313-352; for a discussion, see P. Classen, “Das Konzil von Konstantinopel 1166 und die Lateiner”, BZ 48 (1955): 339-368; G. Thetford, “The Christological Councils of 1166 and 1170 in Constantinople”, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 31 (1987): 143-161; Dondoine, “Hugues Ethérien et le concile” (see footnote 28), pp. 473-483; C. Mango, “The Concilar Edict of 1166”, DOP 17 (1963): 317-330; and Chalandon, Jean II Comnène et Manuel I Comnène (see above), pp. 646-652. For contemporary sources, see N. Choniates, O City of Byzantium. Annals of Niketas Choniates, tr. by H. J. Magoulias (Detroit, 1984), pp. 119-121; and J. Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, tr. by C. M. Brand (New York, 1976), pp. 135-136. For general discussion about both Councils, see M. Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium Under the Comneni 1081-1261 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 8 2 -86; Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 26), pp. 366-382; A. P. Kazh dan, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Berkeley, 1985), pp. 158-162; J. M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford, 1986), pp. 151 -154; and Idem, Church and Learning in the Byzantine Empire 867-1185 (Oxford, 1937), pp. 89-181. 59 See Gouillard, “Synodikon” (see footnote 58), pp.216-226. 60 For the list of church dignitaries present at the Council, see PG 140, cols. 257-262, 279-292. 61 For the dates of the sessions and the scholarly dispute surrounding them, see Cheremuchin, “Konstantinopol’skii Sobor 1157” (see footnote 58), pp. 88-89. 62 For the Azyme Controversy, see M. H. Smith, And Taking Bread... Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054 (Paris, 1977).
Chapter III
38 gomils became widespread throughout the empire at this time.63 In addition to proclaiming dualism, the Bogomils also challenged the celebration of the Eucharist; they de nied the need to celebrate the liturgy and claimed that it had nothing to do with individual salvation. Their ideas were condemned at the special Council held in 1143.64 Another attack on the validity of Eucharistic celebration came from the circles of intellectuals in the capital. The class of intellec tuals which flourished around the Patriarchal school of Con stantinople already in the eleventh century, expressed a great interest in ancient literature, philosophy, and science.65 While their academic activities planted the seeds and were important factors in the formation of what is now known as the twelfth-century renaissance, their rational thinking and skepticism questioned traditional church doctrines and had both theological and political implications. 3.3.3. The Church C ouncil o f 1156/57 The debates of the Church Council of 1156/57 were initi ated by distinguished members of the Constantinopolitan school of rationalists, Nikephoros Basilakes, Michael the Rhetor, and Soterichos Panteugenes.66 They questioned the meaning of the concluding verses of the Cherubicon prayer recited silently by the priest during the singing of the Cherubicon hymn: “For thou art both he that offereth and he that is offered. Thou dost receive and art given, O Christ our God, and unto thee we ascribe glory together with thine eternal Father, and by thy most holy, gracious and life-giving spirit; now and forever.”67 The rationalists, and particularly Panteugenes, attacked the essential meaning of these verses and thus the validity of the Eucharistic sacrifice in general. They claimed that it is impossible for Christ to be simultaneously rendered as victim, priest - that is officiant - and as a receiver. In their view, the Father and Son were differentiated, not only in form but also in substance. Thus the Eucharistic sacrifice could be offered only to the Father, and perhaps to the Holy Spirit. If Eucharistic sacrifice was to be offered to the Son, than this very action would divide Christ in two hypostases and, in doing so, conform with Nestorian heresy. In another words, Panteugenes denied Christs in separable, dual nature and his consubstantiality with other members of the Holy Trinity.68 By negating the notion that Eucharistic sacrifice is of fered to Christ, Panteugenes also denied the correlation 63 64 65 66 67 68
69 70 71
between the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice of Christ. For him, the Eucharist is not a sacrifice at all, but only a commemoration of the event from the past, the par taking of the host being simply a historical memento of the Last Supper. Consequently, the words “he who offers and is offered” became irrelevant. Thus, in addition to attack ing the dual nature of Christ, one of the central concepts of Christian dogma, Panteugenes also challenged the essence of the Eucharist by completely disregarding its central event, the transubstantiation. That Panteugenes acquired a large number of supporters and that his views were quite threatening for the church be comes apparent when one considers the force with which the emperor and the members of the church anathematized both him and his supporters during the second session of the Council in 1157. In defending traditional, Orthodox views, the Church used texts of famous Church fathers, such as St. John of Damascus, St. John Chrysostom, St. An drew of Crete, and St. Maximus the Confessor. The selected texts were focused on doctrinal aspects of the Eucharist and testifying to the notion that Christ’s priestly sacrifice was offered to all members of the Holy Trinity, consubstantial and divine.69 The excerpts from the texts explicitly state that Eucharistic sacrifice is not performed in memory, but as a true re-enactment of Christs sacrifice which happens every time the liturgy is performed. 3.3.4. The Texts o f Church Fathers in the Acts o f the C ouncil The passages quoted in the Acts of the Council are both poetical and persuasive. For example, the text of Cyril of Alexandria instructs the faithful to drink His holy blood for the purification of our sins and for participation in His Resurrection, and to believe that “he alone is the priest and the sacrificed, the one who is offered and who offers and who receives and distributes, not dividing in two hypo stasis, divine, and divinely indivisible.”70 The quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem says "When he became a man, he acted as a priest, offering his priestly sacrifice not only to God, but to Himself and to the Father.”71 And the Orthodox position on the validity of the Eucharist is summarized in the quote from the Fourth Book of De Fide O rthodoxa by John of Damascus: "The bread and wine are not a figure of the body and blood of Christ - God forbid! - but the actual deified body
For Bogomils, see M. Loos, Dualist Heresy in the Middle Ages (Prague, 1974); and D. Obolensky, The Bogomils (Cambridge, 1948). Les regestes des actes du Patriarchat de Constantinople, ed. by V. Laurent and J. Darrouzes (Paris, 1932-1979), Part 3, nos. 1011, 1012, 1014. See R. Browning, “The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century”, Byzantion 32 (1962): 167-202; 33 (1963): 11-40. Soterichos Panteugenes, who was a deacon of St. Sophia and about to become the patriarch-elect of Antioch, joined the debate later, but became its main proponent. Brightman, Liturgies (see footnote 58), p. 378, 5-13. The text composed by Panteugenes is unfortunately lost, and known to us only through the writings of his opponents, particularly bishop Nicholas of Methone. For a discussion, see Cheremuchin, “Konstantinopol’skii Sobor 1157” (see footnote 58), pp. 98-109; and A. Angelou, “Nicholas of Methone: The Life and Works of a Twelfth-Century Bishop”, in: Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, ed. by M. Mullet and R. Scott (Birming ham, 1981), pp. 143-148. For the texts of the church fathers, see PG 140, cols. 155-178. PG 140, col. 166, 3. PG 140, col. 166, 4.
39
Chapter III of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: ‘This is my body’; not ‘a figure of my body’ but ‘my body,’ and not ‘a figure of my blood’ but cmy blood.’ Even before this He had said to the Jews: ‘except you eat of the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (John 6, 54-56). For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.’ And again: ‘He that eateth me, shall live ... [It was with bread and wine that Melchisedech, the priest of the most high God, received Abraham, when he was returning from the slaughter of the alien tribes. That altar prefigured this mystical altar, even as that priest was a type and figure of the true Archpriest who is Christ. For ‘thou,’ He says ‘art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech. This bread was figured by the loaves of proposition.] This is quite plainly the pure and unbloody sacrifice which the Lord, through the mouth of the Prophet, said was to be offered to Him ... Moreover, al though some may have called the bread and the wine anti types of the body and blood of the Lord, as did the inspired Basil (in the epiclesis), they did not say this as referring to after the consecration, but to before the consecration, and it was thus that they called the offertory bread itself.”72 3.3.5. The Anathemas The position of the Orthodox Church was formulated in four anathemas included in the Synodikon of Ortho doxy.73 The anathemas clearly and explicitly state that the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered to the Holy Trinity, indivis ible and divine; that the sacrifice performed during the Eu charist is not a memory of a historical event, but a true re enactment of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. In addition, the decisions of the Council also explain redemption as achieved through the economy of salvation, and primarily through the Passion of Christ, who became a priest for hu manity. Thus God incarnate is both one who offers and who is offered; he offers under the aspect of His Incar nation, is offered as the flesh, and received as deity. 3.3.6. The Church Councils and the Painted Program o f the Bema The decisions of the Council were very likely echoed in the stylistic and iconographic novelties of the bema at Nerezi. The newly introduced processional character of both bishops and apostles, as well the insistence on liturgi cal realism for the first time so expressly conveyed at Nerezi, conform with the Orthodox position on the truth fulness and verism of Eucharistic action. Moreover, the Eucharistie and Trinitarian symbolism introduced to the
image of the Hetoimasia clearly states that Christ is consubstantial with other members of the Trinity, and that the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered to the entire Holy Trinity, indivisible and divine. The Trinitarian concept is alluded to once again, with the inclusion of the Kiss of the Apostles in the scene of the Communion, a liturgical action which coincides with the proclamation of the Trinitarian Confes sion. The notion about the dual nature of Christ who of fers in human form as priest and is offered as divine and consubstantial with other members of the Trinity is un derlined in the images along the vertical axis of the bema. The Incarnation of Christ is symbolized through the im age of the Virgin with Christ Child; His human sacrifice, and His offering as priest are suggested through the cere monially represented scene of the Communion; the pro cession of bishops, enacting liturgy before the Eucharistically charged image of the Holy Trinity, allude to Christ’s divinity as a state through which he is received during the Eucharistic rite. The impact of church debates and the official position of the Orthodox church is also formulated in the program of other areas of the church; it initiated many iconographic and stylistic novelties, as is evident from the decoration of the domical vaults to which we will now turn.
CUPOLAS The twelfth-century decoration of the central cupola at Nerezi was completely destroyed and subsequently re painted in the sixteenth century, due to earthquake damage (figs. VIII, IX, XII; 84 - 87). The loss of the original decoration in the central cupola presents a serious obstacle in understand ing both the program of the church and, on a more general level, the development of iconographic programs of twelfthcentury cupolas. Some elements of its decoration, however, can be deduced from the well preserved decoration of the four subsidiary cupolas topping the side chapels. The subsidiary cupolas are programatically unified, and it is quite plausible that they were related to the iconography of the central dome. Each of the subsidiary cupolas displays a medallion with the bust of Christ in the dome and a choir of angels carry ing censers and liturgical gifts in the drum (pls. 12,14, 26, 27; figs. XXI-XXV). While the angels show correspond ing features in all four chapels, Christ is represented in dif ferent forms: Emmanuel (north-east dome); Ancient of Days (south-east dome); Mature Christ resembling the Pantokrator (north-west dome); and Priest (south-west dome).74 The program of the subsidiary cupolas at Nerezi
72 PG 140, col. 158, 2; translated in St. John of Damascus. Writings, tr. by F. H. Chase, Jr. (New York, 1958), pp. 359-361. 73 Gouillard, “Synodikon” (see footnote 58), pp. 72-74. 74 Each image of Christ is encircled with a medallion displaying stylized red acanthus leaves set against the blue background. The medallion of Em manuel is largely damaged; he is identified by the lower half of his golden robe and by the fact that he is blessing with both hands. See Constantinides, Olympiotissa (see footnote 47), p. 183. The medallion seemingly deteriorated since its discovery, because it was identified as Emmanuel in early reports, such as F. Mesesnel, “Najstariji sloj fresaka u Nerezima”, GSND 7/8 (1929/30): 119-132. The Ancient-of-Days is well preserved and shown as blessing with his right hand, while holding a closed book in his left. Although portions of the ornamental foliage encircling the image of the ma ture Christ, as well as most of his robes are damaged, the facial features clearly distinguish him as a mature man, with straight brown hair and beard. The image of Christ-Priest is well preserved; only small portions of the ornament are somewhat damaged. He is dressed in purple robes, and shown as holding a scroll in his right hand while blessing with the left.
Chapter III
40 is both novel and unique. Particularly innovative is the portrayal of angels with liturgical utensils, and the repre sentation of Christ as Priest (pls. 12, 14, 26, 27; fig. XXV). Both angels and the image of Christ-Priest are liturgical in their origin, meant to stress the realism of the actual ritual performed in the church.
content evident in the attire, attributes, and the proces sional motion of the angels at Nerezi is unprecedented in monuments antedating Nerezi; it became a popular fea ture in the later, Palaiologan iconography of Byzantine domes.77
2. Images of Christ 1. The Procession of Angels Each drum at Nerezi displays four angels in a procession. While the angels in the east cupolas split in pairs of two on the east side and meet on the west, the angels in the west ern domes split on the west side and meet on the east (pls. 12, 14, 26, 27; fig. XXIV). Thus, the procession of an gels in all four domes is oriented towards the central dome. The angels are dressed in deacons’ vestments, the white sticharion, which provides a strong contrast to their wings, streaked in red and outlined in black. They carry censers in their right hands, while holding a pyxis with the Eucharistic host in the left.75 Each angel also carries two cloths: the white cloth veils the hand, while the red covers the pyxis. The two cloths are also likely related to liturgy. The white cloth may refer to the veil which covers the Eucharistic gifts - the aer - and was traditionally carried by the dea cons, while the red cloth was spread around the deacon’s arm to protect the host at the moment shortly preceding the Communion, when the priest displays the host.76 Representations of the angels who surround Christ are commonly found in the central domes of the post-iconoclastic period. Their popularity is particularly noticeable, and their function distinctly diverse, in the churches of the twelfth century. However, the pronounced liturgical
The four images of Christ represented in medallions of the subsidiary domes also relate to the liturgy. The representa tions of Emmanuel, Ancient of Days, and Pantokrator have a long history in Byzantine art, appearing in manu scripts and icons since the pre-iconoclastic period, and be coming particularly prominent during the twelfth century. Emmanuel, an image of the youthful Christ, is a type known to us from both literary and visual sources (fig. XXI).78 According to Isaiah 7, 14 and Matthew 1, 20-23, Emmanuel means God-with-us, and he is particu larly associated with Christ in the context of Incarnation and Salvation. Thus, Emmanuel stresses the dual nature of Christ and the Incarnation as the crucial step in the econ omy of Salvation. Moreover, literary sources also maintain that Emmanuel is the son of God and the second person of the Holy Trinity; this concept is repeatedly mentioned in the liturgical readings.79 Like the Emmanuel, the Ancient of Days is also a divine manifestation of God. Following the text of Daniel 7, 9, the Ancient of Days is represented as an old man with longish white hair and beard (fig. XXII). The image became popu lar in the post-iconoclastic period, and it appears both individually and in a variety of scenes, such as the Last Judgment, the Hetoimasia, the Annunciation and the
75 For the liturgical use of the pyxis, see A. Saint-Clair, “The Visit to the Tomb: Narrative and Liturgy on three Early Christian Pyxides”, Gesta 18 (1979): 127-135. 76 For a discussion on the usage of the red cloth, see A. Grabar, “Un rouleau liturgique constantinopolitain et ses peintures”, DOP 8 (1954): 163-199. 77 The earliest representations of angels in the dome mainly displayed the angels raising their hands in adoration and often relating to the theme of the Ascension. The angels in the twelfth-century domes, however, display a considerable variety of postures, gestures, and costumes - from deacon’s vestments to imperial attire. In addition, the angels in twelfth-century domes are shown either alone and surrounding the image of Christ Pantokra tor, or in the company of other holy personages, such as the Virgin, St. John, as well as apostles and prophets. Moreover, in many instances, the Hetoimasia or the Prepared Throne is also included. Apart from the image of Christ Pantokrator (enthroned or in medallion), who is most frequently rendered in the center of the dome, the twelfth-century domes do not exhibit a single dominant iconographic type, a feature which clearly indicates that the period under consideration is characterized by a great experimentation and re-structuring of the iconography of domical vaults. For the iconography of post-iconoclastic domes, see Gkioles, O byzantinos troullos (see footnote 57); S. Dufrenne, “Les programmes iconographique des coupoles dans les églises du monde byzantin et postbyzantin”, L’information de l ’histoire de l ’art 10-12 (1965-67): 185-199; O. Demus, “Prob lème byzantinischer Kuppel-Darstellungen”, CA 25 (1976): 101-108; T. Velmans, “Quelque programmes iconographiques de coupoles chypriotes du X IIe au XVe siècle”, CA 32 (1984): 137-159. For the programmes of twelfth-century domes, see Carr, The Thirteenth-Century Murals of Lysi (see footnote 6), pp. 4 8 -5 4 ; H. Grigoriadu, “Affinités iconographiques de décors peints en Chypre et en Grèce au X IIe siècle”, Praktika 1972, Vol. 2, pp.3 7 -4 1; pls. 6 -1 1 ; and L. Hadermann-Misguich, “Fresques de Chypre et de Macédoine dans la seconde moitié du X IIe siècle”, Praktika 1972, Vol.2, pp.4 3 -4 9 ; pls. 12-13. 78 The title Emmanuel has been inscribed on a variety of images since early Christian times, such as on the scene of the Adoration of Magi on several ampoulae from Monza, on the Coptic icon from the Benaki Museum in Athens, where the title accompanies the portrait of a young man, or on an icon from Mount Sinai which displays Christ with white hair and beard. For ampoulae, see A. Grabar, Ampoules de Terre Sainte (Paris, 1958), pls. 2, 8,10; for the Coptic icon, see M. Chatzidakis, “An Encaustic Icon of Christ at Sinai”, AB 49 (1967): 197-208, fig. 19; for the Sinai icon, see K. Weitzmann, The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Icons, I. From the Sixth to the Tenth Century (Princeton, 1976), pp. 41 -4 3 ; pl. XVIII, B. 16. Portraits of a youthful Christ labeled Emmanuel, which are visually close to the medallion at Nerezi are, however, a post-iconoclastic inven tion. See C. H. W. Wendt, “Das Christus-Immanuel Bild der Osterkirche”, Zeitschrift f ür Kunstwissenschaft 4 (1950): 284-287. This type of Christ became particularly popular in the twelfth century appearing, for example, at Monreale, at H. Anargyroi in Kastoria, as well as on the coinage of Manuel I. See O. Demus, The Mosaics of Norman Sicily (London, 1949), p. 244; M. Chatzidakis, ed., Kastoria (Athens, 1985), p. 34, fig. 13; and M. F. Hendy, Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire 1081-1261 (Washington, 1969), p. 126, pis. 2 -13 . 79 For the meaning of the Emmanuel and for texts related to the image, see G. Millet, La dalmatique du Vatican (Paris, 1945), pp. 6 1 -8 1 . For bibliog raphy and a list of representations of this type, see “Emmanuel” in LCI, Vol. 1, pp. 390-392; and “Emmanuel” in RBK, Vol. 1, cols. 1008-1010.
Chapter III Adoration of the Magi.80 Depending on the context, the image assumes a variety of meanings. It is most commonly used to emphasize the theophanic character, dual nature, and the eternity of God.81 The Ancient of Days also em phasizes the notion of Christ as the savior of the faithful, particularly so when he appears within scenes of the Last Judgment and the Deesis. The image of the mature Christ with dark hair and beard, which resembles the type of Christ Pantokrator in the north-west chapel at Nerezi, complements the images of youthful Christ - Emmanuel - and old Christ - the Ancient of Days, by representing yet another life stage of Christ (figs. XXIII, XXIV).82 The representations of three stages of the life of Christ became popular in Byzantium since the eleventh century.83 According to patristic writ ings and the liturgy, the three different appearances of Christ were symbolic of the Incarnation (Emmanuel), the terrestrial life of Christ which embodies his sufferings (Pantokrator), and His victory over death (Ancient of Days). For example, during the ceremony of the Creed, when the priest lifts the large veil, raising it up and down over the Holy gifts, both the priest and the faithful say to themselves: “I believe in one God ... of one essence with the Father ...; who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Vir gin Mary, and became man. And he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And on the third day he rose again ... and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father.84 The triple images of Christ symbolize the major events from the terrestrial life of Christ. In addition, they also emphasize that Christ is polymorphous, distinguished by His dual nature, and consubstantial with other members of the Holy Trinity. The portrayal of different images of Christ thus relate to the major points of the current theo
41 logical disputes which, as discussed earlier, dealt exten sively with the nature and status of Christ both in the Eucharist and in relation to other members of the Holy Trinity. 2.1. Christ Priest The impact of the contemporary church Councils is par ticularly evident in the inclusion of the image of ChristPriest in the south-west dome (fig. XXV). The ChristPriest at Nerezi, shown with short, thick, dark hair and a short, thin beard and tonsure, represents the earliest sur viving image of this type of Christ in the dome.85 The im age of Christ-Priest is based on an Early Christian apoc ryphal text which explains the election of Christ, by a general vote, to the Council of twenty-two priests of the temple of Jerusalem.86The choice was made on the basis of the miraculous conception and on the notion that Christ, although appearing as human, is divine: a manifestation of God. The text most likely originated in the pre-Justinianic period, but became popular after iconoclasm, to fall out of use because of serious suspicions regarding its orthodoxy during the thirteenth century.87 Prior to Nerezi, the Christ-Priest in a medallion is found only on the eastern transverse arch of the eleventh century church of St. Sophia in Kiev.88 In the twelfth cen tury, besides Nerezi, this type of Christ is found only in the apse of the church of Nereditsa (1199).89 If the repre sentations of Christ-Priest with tonsure and in a medallion appear relatively rarely in Byzantium, the concept of His priesthood gained in popularity after the iconoclastic con troversy. This is particularly evident in the renditions of the scenes of the Communion of the Apostles. For exam ple, in the ninth-century Chludov Psalter (fol. 115), rather than illustrating Psalm 33, 8, “Taste and see that the Lord is good,” as was customary, the portrayal of the Commu-
80 The earliest preserved renditions of the Ancient of Days identified with an inscription is found in ninth-century manuscripts, such as the Sacra Parallela (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, gr. 923, fol. 40r); see K. Weitzmann, The Miniatures of the Sacra Parallela, Parisinus Graecus 923 (Princeton, 1979), p. 190, fig. 490. Ancient of Days appears in the Deesis in the church of Hagios Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi, Kastoria; in the Annunciation in Hagioi Anargyroi, Kastoria; in the story of the Three Magi, in Taphou 14 (Jerusalem, Greek Patriarchal Library, fol. 106v). For Kastoria, see Pelekanides and Chatzidakis, Kastoria (see footnote 10), p. 64, fig. 17; and S. Pelekanides, Kastoria (Thessaloniki, 1953), pl. 14a. For Taphou 14, see T. Avner, “The Impact of the Liturgy on Style and Content”, JOB 32/5 (1982), fig. 1. 81 For the meanings of the image, see Millet, La dalmatique (see footnote 79), pp. 4 2 -4 4 ; J. Radovanović, “Ikonografija fresaka protezisa crkve svetih Apostola u Peći”, ZLU 4 (1968): 2 8 -6 3 ; and A. Grabar, “La représentation de l’intelligible dans l’art byzantin du Moyen Âge”, in: Actes du Ve con grès international des études byzantines, II (Paris, 1948), pp. 52-57. 82 A distinction between the Christ Pantokrator and the image of the mature Christ which appears in the subsidiary dome of Nerezi, is drawn because the Pantokrator in the central dome had a different impact on the viewer than the same image within the subsidiary domes. See D. Panić and G. Babić, Bogorodica Ljeviška (Belgrade, 1975), pp. 4 1-4 3 . 83 For a discussion and bibliography, see Avner, “The Impact of the Liturgy on Style and Content” (see footnote 80), pp. 459-467; S. Tsuji, “The Head piece Miniatures and Genealogy Pictures in Paris gr. 74”, DOP 29 (1975): 165-205; and R. Hamann-MacLean, Grundlegung (see footnote 31), pp. 47-53. 84 Brightman, Liturgies (see footnote 58), p. 383; cited in Avner, “The Impact of the Liturgy on Style” (see footnote 80), p. 463; translated in The Orthodox Liturgy (Oxford, 1982), pp. 69-70. 85 For other representations of this type of Christ, see V. Lazarev, Old Russian Murals and Mosaics: From the X I to the XVI Centuries (London, 1966), p. 225. 86 The text of the apocrypha was published by A. Vasiliev, Anecdota graeco-bizantina (Moscow, 1893), pp. 58-72. The appearance of this image in art was first interpreted by D. V. Ainalov, “Novyï ikonograficheskiĭ obraz’ Khrista”, Seminarium Kondakovianum 2 (1928), pp. 19-23. 87 For a discussion about the text, see Ainalov, “Novyĭ ikonograficheskiĭ obraz’ Khrista” (see footnote 86), and A. M. Lidov, “Khristos-sviashennik’ v ikonograficheskih programmakh X I-X II vekov”, VizVrem 55 (1994): 187-193. 88 See Lazarev, Old Russian Murals and Mosaics (see footnote 85), p. 225; and Idem, Mozaiki SofiïKievskoi (Moscow, 1960), pp. 31-32 . 89 Ibid. Lazarev also claims that Christ-Priest was once depicted in the refectory of the monastery at Bertubani (1213-1222), yet that notion has been disputed.
Chapter III
42 nion accompanies Psalm 109, 4, “Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek.”90 Moreover, in the late eleventh/early twelfth-century liturgical scroll from Jerusalem, Staurou 109, Christ is rendered as priest, cele brating the Eucharist and assisted by angel-deacons.91 He is flanked by two angel-deacons holding liturgical fans and two additional angel-deacons who are carrying the liturgi cal utensils: a censer and a paten. The angel-deacons in the manuscript are comparable to the angel-deacons who sur round the image of Christ at Nerezi, and may be con sidered as among their prototypes. In addition, following iconoclasm, a priestly attribute is also found in the representations of the Christ-Child. For example, the Child held by the enthroned Virgin in the eleventh-century image in the conch of the apse of the Cathedral church of St. Sophia in Ohrid wears a version of a stole wrapped around his shoulders, an attribute inter preted as a symbol of Christ’s priesthood.92 The same at tribute, designating the priestly function of Christ, is seen in the images of Christ surrounded by apostles in the church of Çanli Kilise in Cappadocia, in the image of Christ-Child held by the Virgin in the niche above the main entrance to the church of Monreale, and in the scene of the Annunciation at Lagoudera on Cyprus.93 Thus, while the image of Christ-Priest at Nerezi is rare in its form, it nonetheless represents a popular choice in terms of its meaning. The popularity of the concept of Christ’s priesthood in the post-iconoclastic period has been explained through historical circumstances. V. Lazarev claims that the repre sentation of Christ as priest may have been occasioned by the local struggle of the church against the early eleventhcentury heretical tendency to deny the ecclesiastical hier archy.94 A. Lidov takes the issue further and explains the importance which the true priesthood of Christ had within the context of the polemics about the leavened and unleav ened bread, one of the major controversial issues during the Schism of 1054.95 Not withstanding the validity of both arguments for the appearance of Christ-Priest in the eleventh-century monuments, the inclusion of ChristPriest in the twelfth century has to be studied contextually, considering both the placement of the image within the church and general historical and social trends.
2.2. The Significance of the Images of Christ in the Domes At Nerezi, the image of Christ-Priest is related to the rep resentations of Christ in the other domes. The image of Christ-Priest, as suggested by the apocryphal text from which it originated, stresses the dual nature of Christ, the notion implied in the Emmanuel - Ancient of Days - Pantokrator triad discussed above. Moreover, as a priest, Christ is both the one who offers and who is offered. He is the one who established the sacrament of the Eucharist, who officiates as a heavenly Priest, and whose actions are mimicked in the terrestrial rite. Like other appearances of Christ, Christ as Priest is mentioned in the Eucharistic liturgy. In fact, in the secret prayer recited by the priest during the choir’s singing of the Cherubicon, the priestly function of Christ is recollected along with other major events of His terrestrial life. The prayer reads: “... Nevertheless through Thine unspeakable and bound less love for mankind, Thou didst become man, yet without change or alteration, and as Ruler of All didst become our High Priest, and didst commit to us the ministry of this liturgical and bloodless sacrifice. For Thou alone, O Lord our God, rulest over those in Heaven and on earth; who art borne on the throne of the Cherubim ... ” 96 The prayer recollects the terrestrial life of Christ refer ring to the main stages of His life discussed earlier, while at the same time including the importance of Christ’s func tion as a priest in the economy of human salvation. It is also important to note that this prayer represents the only instance in the liturgical readings which recollects the four appearances of Christ represented in the domes at Nerezi. It is thus possible that the program of the subsidiary domes at Nerezi may be intended as the illustration of this prayer. This contention becomes even more plausible when one considers that it is the same prayer which con tains the verses: “Thou art both he that offereth and he that is offered. Thou dost receive and art given.”97 These were the verses, as mentioned earlier, which stirred up contro versy and resulted in the Church Council of 1156. The decision to represent the four images of Christ, re counted in the secret prayer of the Cherubicon, may have been intended as a response to current theological dis-
90 For illustration of the Communion scene in the Chludov Psalter (Moscow, Historical Museum, cod. 129), see M. V. Shchepkina, Miniatĭury Khludovskoĭ Psaltyri (Moscow, 1977), fol. 115. For a discussion, see Walters, Art and Ritual (see footnote 46), p. 191. 91 Staurou 109 contains two images of the Communion. While one represents Christ twice, flanking the text and distributing wine and bread to apos tles, the other occupies the full width of the text and displays the image of Christ as priest behind the altar blessing with his right hand and holding the roll in his left. The scene illustrates Christ in his priestly function celebrating the Eucharistic Liturgy in Heaven, and accompanied by angeldeacons. For the scroll, see Grabar, “Un rouleau liturgique” (see footnote 76), pp. 163-199. 92 See Walter, Art and Ritual (see footnote 46), p. 194; and A. Lidov, “Obraz ‘Khrista-arkhiereia’ v ikonograficheskoĭ programme Sofii okhridskoĭ”, Zograf 17 (1987): 5 -2 0 . For a different opinion, see A. Epstein, “The Political Content of the Paintings of Saint Sophia at Ohrid”, JOB 29 (1980): 319. 93 For these examples and for a comprehensive analysis of images of Christ-Priest in Byzantium, see Lidov, “Hristos-sviashennik” (see footnote 87), pp. 187-193; Idem, “Obraz ‘Khrista-arkhiereia” (see footnote 92), pp. 5 -2 0 ; Idem, “Skhizma i vizantiĭskaia hramovaia dekoraciia”, in: A. M. Lidov, ed., Vostochnokhristianskiĭ kbram. Liturgiia i iskusstvo (St. Petersburg, 1994), pp. 17-27; and Idem, “L’Image du Christ-prélat dans le programme iconographique de Sainte Sophie d’Ohride”, Arte Cristiana 79 (1991): 245-250. 94 Lazarev, Old Russian Murals and Mosaics (see footnote 85), p. 225. 95 See footnote 93. 96 Brightman, Liturgies (see footnote 58), p. 377,15-25; translated in: The Orthodox Liturgy, pp. 107-108. 97 Brightman, Liturgies (see footnote 58), p. 378, 5 -1 3 ; translated in The Orthodox Liturgy, p. 108.
43
Chapter III putes. The notion that Christ is polymorphous, divine even in his human appearance, and consubstantial with other members of the Holy Trinity, clearly communicated through the four medallions which crown the subsidiary domes at Nerezi, certainly underscores the major deci sions of the Council as declared in the Synodikon.98 More over, by representing angels as actually enacting liturgy led by Christ, the designer of the program at Nerezi stressed the notion of liturgical realism - the sacrifice which hap pens here and now - a point so fervently argued by the ma jority of clergy and the Emperor at the Council of 1156/57.
3. The Origin of the Iconography of the Domes The origin of the program of the subsidiary domes at Nerezi is difficult to establish. Among the five-domed churches, only the twelfth-century church of the Virgin Kosmosoteira (c. 1152) at Pherrai antedates Nerezi and has preserved most of its decoration in the subsidiary domes.99 However, the images of archangels rendered in the medallions of its eas tern domes, and the Virgin and Christ in the western lack the liturgical realism represented at Nerezi.100 Moreover, the considerable losses of the programmatic units in this church prevent the contextual analysis of these images.101 If one considers, on the other hand, surviving examples of the dif ferent images of Christ represented in the domical vaults prior to Nerezi, such as those at Veljusa, or in Hagios Ste phanos in Kastoria, they too lack the liturgical realism of the iconography at Nerezi.102 In addition, none of the above mentioned examples includes the image of Christ-Priest. Rather than in the domical vaults, the iconography of the subsidiary domes at Nerezi may have originated in the sanctuaries of eleventh-century churches. The liturgical content of the sanctuaries was one of the major develop ments of the church decoration in the post-iconoclastic pe riod, as has been mentioned earlier. Particularly close to Nerezi are the programs of the bema in the churches of St. Sophia in Kiev and in Ohrid. The bema at Ohrid, like the domes at Nerezi, represent Christ as polymorphous.103 He is represented as Emmanuel in the conch, as a mature man in the Communion, as eternal cosmic ruler and sup reme divine being in the Ascension in the vault, and as Pantokrator on the piers flanking the entrance to the sanc tuary. In addition, His priesthood is implied in the stole wrapped around Emmanuel’s chest, and in his performing the Communion. The concept of Christ who is perform 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
ing the Celestial Liturgy is further emphasized through a portrayal of the procession of angels in the upper zone of the walls of the bema.104 In the bema in the church of St. Sophia in Kiev, the litur gical connotations are stressed by the inclusion of angeldeacons who are shown holding liturgical fans and assis ting Christ. In addition, as mentioned earlier, Christ is also rendered as priest in the medallion on the transverse arch between the bema and the dome. Thus, Christ-Priest in Kiev serves as a linking point between the programs of the bema and the dome.105 The bema at Nerezi is also highly liturgical in its content. However, unlike these earlier monuments, the two spheres of liturgical action, the terrestrial and the celestial, are clear ly separated at Nerezi. While the program of the bema at Nerezi emphasizes the terrestrial rite, particularly evident in the inclusion of the procession of officiating bishops, the domes are dedicated solely to the liturgy performed in the celestial sphere. A clear distinction between the two realms in which liturgical action happens, apparent at Nerezi, be came a standard feature of later, Palaiologan art, thus estab lishing the impact of Nerezi’s innovative iconography.
4. A Possible Reconstruction of the Program of the Central Dome The liturgically charged and unified iconography of the subsidiary cupolas at Nerezi suggests that the central cupola, too, was liturgical in its content. This is further confirmed by the composition of the angels, since they are all oriented towards the central cupola. Although its exact iconography is impossible to reconstruct, some elements of the decoration of the central cupola can be deduced from the program of the subsidiary domes and from the iconography of the surviving twelfth-century domes in Byzantium. In the majority of the twelfth-century Byzan tine domes, the central medallion displays either the Pan tokrator, or the image of the enthroned Christ. Judging solely on the basis of the available space at Nerezi, the choice of the Pantokrator, similar to the one re-painted in the sixteenth century, seems more plausible (pls. 8a, 8b; figs. VIII, IX). The angels, too, were a common choice at the time. Shown in a variety of attires - from white robes which recall deacons’ sticharia, to imperial garbs - the an gels are shown in a variety of postures, alone or aided by the presence of the Virgin and St. John.106The Hetoimasia,
Gouillard, “Synodikon” (see footnote 58), pp. 72-74. See Sinos, Die Klosterkirche (see footnote 51), pl. 13; figs. 141-145. See Sinos, Die Klosterkirche (see footnote 51), pl. 13; figs. 141-145. The appearance of the archangels and the image of the Virgin Orans may suggest Last Judgment or Deesis connotations as was popular at the time; yet it is tentative. For Veljusa, see Miljković-Pepek, Veljusa (see footnote 50), pp. 192-196, 204-206. For H. Stephanos, see Pelekanides and Chatzidakis, Kastoria (see footnote 10), p. 8, figs. 9, 18, 19. For a discussion and earlier bibliography, see Lidov, “L’Image du Christ-prélat” (see footnote 93), pp. 245-250. See ibid. For the relationship between twelfth-century domical vaults and the bema programs, see also Hadermann-Misguich, “Fresques de Chypre” (see footnote 77), pp. 43-49. Lidov, “L’Image du Christ-prélat” (see footnote 93), pp. 245-250. For bibliography, see footnote 77.
Chapter III
44 or the prepared Throne, is also frequently a part of the twelfth-century domical decoration. On the basis of indi vidual iconographic features, the programs of the domes have been interpreted either as referring to the Last Judg ment or, when the prepared Throne is included, as sym bolizing the prayer of the anamnesis.107 Explicit liturgical action, and clear references to the Divine Liturgy are, however, conspicuously absent in the surviving twelfthcentury monuments. It is quite possible that liturgy was actually represented in the central cupola at Nerezi. The processional motion and liturgical attributes of the angels in the subsidiary domes, suggest that angels enacting liturgy were also rep resented in the central dome. Moreover, since the proces sions of the angels in the side domes are oriented towards the central dome, the central cupola at Nerezi most likely once defined the focus of the angels’ action and the mo ment of the liturgy which they were celebrating. After all, if the subsidiary domes at Nerezi rendered the highest de gree of liturgical realism known thus far to Byzantium, the central dome must have done it too. Thus, the central dome at Nerezi may have represented the unique example and a significant stage in the development of the scene of the Divine Liturgy, unseen in any of the surviving twelfthcentury domes, yet popular in later, Palaiologan monu ments. The bema and the domes at Nerezi functioned in tan dem, an illustration of the Byzantine belief that the ter restrial liturgy represents a mirror image of the sacred cos mic rite, presided over by Christ himself. The program of the subsidiary domes at Nerezi is also intimately related to the images represented on the walls of their respective chapels to which we will now turn.
arches which emulate marble, and occupying the entire width of their respective walls (pls. 12, 14; fig. XXX). The attire of bishops in the side chapels compares to that of the bishops in the bema; however, they are carrying closed books, and are shown frontally, still and iconic in their appearance.108 The prominence given to bishops in the eastern chapels provides a link with the program of the bema. Placed both in the chapels, and in the passages linking the bema with subsidiary chapels, the bishops in the side chapels expand the procession of the bema (Pls. 13, 15; figs. XXVIII; 17, 28-30). For example, the medallion of the bust of the frontally shown St. Spyridon, located on the west wall of the passage from the bema into the prothesis, faces the standing figure of St. Epiphanios of Cyprus who is offici ating in the procession (pl. 13; figs. 19, XXVIII).109 A decision to use the passageways to extend the proces sion of officiating bishops while at the same time intro ducing the still, iconic images in the side chapels is intrigu ing. On the one hand, the iconic images of bishops in the passageways indicate that the liturgical procession of bish ops in the bema is brought to a halt in the side chapels. If the bema is the place of action, the postures and gestures of the bishops in the side chapels suggest the place for con templation. On the other hand, however, the prominence given to holy bishops in the side chapels suggests that they may have been used to further the ideological statement clearly communicated in the bema. The doctrinal challenge imposed by heretics during the Church Councils was, after all, defended and formulated by the church fathers. One is thus tempted to speculate that numerous bishops portrayed in the sanctuary, selected from various sees, and led by the two supremely honored authors of the liturgy, St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom, were intended to per suade the viewer of the eternal strength and unity of the Byzantine church.
EASTERN CHAPELS The eastern chapels form the prothesis (north-east) and diakonikon (south-east) of the sanctuary, and are spatially and programmatically connected with each other and with the bema. The chapels exhibit similar iconography (pls. 12, 14; figs. XXVI-XXXI; 27-35). Unified through the litur gical themes of their cupolas, both chapels also exhibit a large number of bishops and focus the viewer’s attention on the images represented in the eastern niches: the Virgin in the pro thesis and St. John the Baptist in the diakonikon (figs. XXVI; 27, 31). The arrangement of the bishops in the uppermost zone of the chapels is identical. They are shown as larger than life-size figures, standing beneath painted
1. The Prothesis The presence of the bishops is made particularly promi nent in the prothesis (pl. 12; figs. XXVI-XXVIII; 28-30). With the exception of the dome and the eastern niche, all of the images in the prothesis display holy bishops. While the standing bishops in the uppermost zone have been considerably damaged, the remaining seven bishops are well preserved, portrayed as busts, and carefully framed. St. Modestos is represented in a separate niche on the north wall (fig. XXVII), and St. Spyridon (fig. XXVIII), St. Antipas of Pergamos (fig. 30), St. Eleutherios, St. Par-
107 Ibid. 108 None of the bishops in the prothesis is fully preserved. The bishop on the west wall is completely obliterated, and only portions of the garments of the other bishops have been preserved. In the diakonikon, the bishops on the north and south walls are fully preserved, the head of the bishop on the east wall is missing, and only the bottom of the phelonion and epitrachellion of the bishop on the west wall is preserved. The preserved bish ops are shown as blessing with the right hand, while holding a closed book in the left. The arches framing their heads are decorated with heartshaped stylized palmettes. 109 St. Spyridon, inscribed as ὁ ἅγιος Σπυϱίδων, is shown against an ocher medallion, dressed in a bishop’s attire, holding a closed book, and wearing his distinctive attribute, a mat-rush shepherd’s cap.
Chapter III thenios, and two unidentified bishops are represented in medallions (pls. 12, 13; fig. 28, ).110 Most notably, the busts of St. Polycarpos of Smyrna and of an unidentified bishop are enclosed in small, rectangular frames with a painted hook at the top resembling actual hanging icons (pl. 12; fig. 29).111 A distinctive framing of bishops with arcades (upper most zone), medallions, and small rectangular frames, cer tainly distinguishes their importance. Although all three methods of framing originated in ancient and Hellenistic art and were adopted in the decoration of Byzantine churches, frequent occurrence of painted rectangular icons is a characteristic of the post-iconoclastic period. These painted icons imitate the portable panel paintings, such as actual icons of the holy bishops, which were attached to the walls of the sanctuary. Exhibiting holy bishops, or other important holy dignitaries, painted icons were fre quently displayed in the bema.112Aware of the original lo cation of these icons, the patron of Nerezi seemingly de cided to display the hanging portraits of the bishops in the prothesis in order to establish yet another link between the two architectural sections of the church, the bema and the side chapels. Another link between the bema and the prothesis is es tablished through the portrayal of the Virgin. Distin guished by the placement in the niche on the east wall, the Virgin is depicted as a youthful, half-length figure, dressed traditionally in a blue robe and purple maphorion; her arms are raised in prayer, resembling the type of the Virgin Orans (figs. XXVI; 27). It is Emmanuel, God-with-us, de picted in the summit of the chapel, who accepts the prayers of the Virgin and, consequently, of the entire choir of bish ops (fig. XXI). The hopes for salvation expressed in secret prayers portrayed on the scrolls of the officiating bishops in the bema, are to be fulfilled through the intercessory powers of the Virgin. The link between Emmanuel and the Virgin is further stressed through the portrayal of deacons who, like the angel-deacons above, carry censers in their right hands, and a pyxis with the liturgical host in the left (pl. 12). In earlier programs, prior to the introduction of the proces sion of officiating bishops, deacons commonly accom panied the standing bishops in the bema. Thus, their rendi
45 tion in the side chapels further emphasizes the link be tween the two architectural units. Notably distinguishing the program of the bema and the domes from that of the side chapels, however, is the dynamics of action. While the frontal and still images of the Virgin, deacons, and the bishops in the side chapels only symbolize the liturgical rite, the angels in the drums, and the apostles and the bish ops in the bema are enacting it. The static character of im ages in the prothesis is intentional. The timeless image of the Virgin works as intercessor between the realm of hu man and divine, and her still, frontal, and iconic appearance emphasizes the notion of prayer and contemplation as an avenue to salvation.
2. The Diakonikon The same message and the same distinction between sym bolic and ritualistic is seen in the iconography of the di akonikon. The diakonikon appears to be a mirror image of the prothesis. However, the medallion of the dome ex hibits the image of the Ancient of Days, the eastern niche displays St. John the Baptist, and the representations of bishops are combined with the images of holy physicians (pls. 14,15; figs. XXIX-XXXIII; 31-35). All these iconographic differences further emphasize the theme of inter cession. The focus of the decoration of the lower section of the diakonikon, the image of St. John the Baptist in the eastern niche, provides a parallel to the Virgin in the prothesis (pl. 14; fig. 31). Representing the last prophet of the Old Testament, and the first saint of the New Testament, St. John is assigned a high position within the celestial hi erarchy. He is the one who announced Christ and who baptized him. Moreover, according to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, it is St. John who, along with the Virgin, intercedes before Christ on behalf of mankind on the day of the Last Judgment. Consequently, St. John the Baptist is commonly represented several times within church programs, his images included in scenes such as the Deesis, the Last Judgment, and the Baptism, and promi nently displayed as separate icons in liturgically important sections of the church, such as the sanctuary chapels.113
110 St. Modestos, inscribed as ὁ ἅ(γιος) Μόδεστος, is set against a blue background and distinguished by ornament. St. Antipas (green medallion), in scribed as ὁ ἅγιος Ά ντίπας, and St. Eleutherios (ocher medallion), inscribed as ό άγιος Ἐ λευθέϱιος, are depicted as facing each other on the north and south walls of the passageways which link the prothesis with the naos. Of the three medallions within the chapel, only bishop Parthenios of Lampsacos (ocher medallion) is identified by an inscription; it reads ὁ ἅγιος Πα(ϱ)θέν(ιος). The two anonymous bishops, shown as old men against ocher and green backgrounds on the east and south walls, respectively, are well preserved. 111 The image of the unidentified bishop is considerably damaged; remaining are only a small portion of his face, his attire, and three letters of his name in the inscription: ὁ ἅγιος Πα (.)τ(...); St. Polycarpos of Smyrna is fully preserved and set against a deep red background. His inscription reads ὁ ἅ(γιος) Πολύϰαϱπος. 112 Examples are found in St. Sophia, Ohrid, Monastery of St. Cyril, Kiev, Bačkovo, Djurdjevi Stubovi, Studenica, as well as in the churches of Geor gia and Mistra. For a discussion and examples of painted icons, see E. C. Schwartz, “Painted Pictures of Pictures: The Imitation of Icons in Fresco”, in: Fourth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. Abstracts (Ann Arbor, MI, 1978), pp. 3 3 -3 4 ; I. Akrabova, “Za ‘okachenite portreti’ v zhivopista na edna crkva ot XII vek”, Razkopki i prouchvanii 4 (1949): 1 -1 6 ; I. Djordjević, “O fresko ikonama kod Srba u srednjem veku”, ZLU 14 (1978): 77-99; A. Grabar, Lapeinture religieuse en Bulgarie (Paris, 1928), p.59; and T. Velmans, “Rayonnement de ľicone au X IIe et au début du X IIIe siècle”, in: XVe congrès, pp.200-204. 113 Among the churches antedating Nerezi which show St. John in the sanctuary chapels are St. Sophia in Ohrid where he is depicted in the diakonikon, and Daphni, which exhibits his image in the prothesis. For a discussion on the cult of St. John, see M. Tatić-Djurić, “Ikona Jovana Krilatog iz Dečana”, Zbornik Narodnog muzeja 7 (1973): 3 9 -5 1.
46 At Nerezi, St. John is represented as a hermit, with long brown hair, dark beard, and a camel-hair costume (fig. 31). He is flanked by two deacons (figs. 31, 32), older in their appearance, yet having the same function, holding the same liturgical objects and vested comparably to the deacons who surround the Virgin in the prothesis. The inscription on St. John’s roll is from Mt. 3, 2; it reads: “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”114 The inscription on St. Johns roll appears, among the extant monuments, for the first time at Nerezi; it has became standard in later art, however.115 The choice of the text from St. Matthews Gospel on St. John’s roll becomes more meaningful when viewed within its context. While the placement of St. John in the vicinity of the sanctuary and below the image of Christ in the dome emphasizes his role as the one who announced the first coming of Christ, the verses on his scroll remind us of the Second Coming and the Last Judgment. Know ing the high ranking of St. John in the celestial hierarchy, the inclusion of the text which recalls his divine powers, amplifies the notion of the intercessory role of the saint. The intercessory powers of St. John, communicated in the diakonikon at Nerezi, relate to the role of the Virgin Orans in the prothesis. United in their supplicatory prayers before Christ, the two images transcend the architectural barriers of the sanctuary, forming the iconography of the Deesis.116 2.1. The Holy Physicians The theme of intercession is further emphasized in the di akonikon through the inclusion of the holy physicians.
Chapter III Apart from the bishops in the upper zone and a full length standing figure of an unidentified saint on the south wall (fig. XXXI),117the remaining saints are all known for their healing skills (figs. XXXII, XXXIII; 33-35). All of the physicians are rendered in medallions. The medallions of St. Kyros and St. John are located above the passages on the north and west walls respectively (pl. 14; figs. 33, 34); the medallions of St. Kosmas and St. Damianos are shown as facing each other on the walls of the passages between the diakonikon and the naos (pl. 15; figs. XXXII, XXXIII); and the medallion of St. Sampson is placed on the west wall of the passageway between the diakonikon and the bema (pl. 15; fig. 35).118 While Sts. Kosmas, Damianos, Kyros and John were well known for their miraculous cures, St. Sampson was supposedly a priest, the founder of a Constantinopolitan hospital in the sixth century, and the patron of physicians in Byzantium.119The holy physicians are located in close proximity to the patron saint of the church, St. Panteleimon, also renowned for his miraculous cures and represented on the proskynetarion flanking the south side of the iconostasis (figs. XXXIV, XLIX; 83). The placement of physician saints in sanctuaries is un usual in Byzantine art. Prior to Nerezi, holy physicians are found only in the bema of Panagia ton Chalkeon, Thessa loniki, and in the diakonikon of the church of St. Sophia, Ohrid.120The prominent placement of the holy physicians in Macedonian churches suggests their popularity in the region. Holy physicians were particularly venerated by St. Clement of Ohrid, an important Macedonian writer and clergyman, who built churches in their honor and had their portraits painted in his foundations.121 Thus, as with
114 Μετανοεῖτε; ἤγγικεν (γὰϱ ἡ Βασιλεία τῶν οὐϱανῶν ). 115 The text from the Gospel of St. John 1 , 2 was much more prominent in earlier art; it has been frequently inscribed on the scroll of St. John since the tenth century. See Tatić-Djurić, “Ikona Jovana Krilatog” (see footnote 113), pp. 3 9 -5 1. 116 The image of the Deesis acquired a number of meanings in Byzantium. Within the context of the decoration of Nerezi, its intercessory connota tions are apparent. For the intercessory and other meanings of the Deesis, see A. Cutler, “Under the Sign of the Deesis: On the Question of Rep resentativeness in Medieval Art and Literature”, DOP 41 (1987): 145-154; C. Walter, “Two Notes on the Deesis”, REB 26 (1968): 3 11-336; Idem, “Further Notes on the Deesis”, REB 28 (1970): 161 -187; and A. W. Carr, “Gospel Frontispieces from the Comnenian Period”, Gesta 21/1 (1982): 6-7. 117 The unknown saint is shown as a full length, standing figure, occupying the width of the entire south wall. He is portrayed as a mature man with brownish-gray hair and a short oval beard, dressed in priestly robes consisting of a sticharion, a light brown phelonion, epitrachelion and epimanikia. He carries a gold-ornamented book in his left hand, while blessing with the right. 118 St. Kyros, inscribed as ὁ ἅγιος Κῦϱος, is dressed in a grayish-white tunic and a green cloak decorated - unusually so - with fur at the borders; he holds a white jar in his left hand, and his medallion is ocher. St. John, inscribed as O A IOO, that is ὁ ἅ(γιος) Ἰ ω(άννης), is dressed in martyr’s at tire, consisting of a white tunic with ornamented cuffs, another, looser, light-blue tunic, richly ornamented with golden embroidery around the neck and shoulders, and a red chlamys tied on his arm with a brooch. He is holding a cross in his right hand and a medical box in the left; his medallion is green. His identifying inscription displays two Greek letters Omicron (OO) instead of Omega (Ω). The two Omicrons are joined together, re sembling the form of the Omega as written in miniscule bookhands. For the bibliography on the saints, see ODB, Vol. 1, p. 1164. St. Damianos, iden tified by inscription as ὁ ἅγιος Δαμιανὸς, is represented against a brick-colored background, holding a scroll with both hands. His attire ressembles the priestly robes of the unidentified saint on the south wall and of St. Sampson. He wears a red tunic with golden ornamented cuffs, an epitrachellion; a white robe with wide sleeves over the tunic; and a grayish-green mantle. St. Kosmas, identified as ὁ ἅγιος Κοσμᾶς, exhibits simi lar facial features and the attire as St. Damianos, except that both his tunic and his mantle are brownish-purple and he is set against a green back ground; the lower parts of his medallion, however, are destroyed. There were three pairs of Sts. Kosmas and Damianos: from Asia (Nov. 1); from Arabia (October 17); and from Rome (July 1). The iconographic features of the saints at Nerezi distinguish them as the brothers from Asia. For a discussion and bibliography, see ODB, Vol. 2, p. 1151; A. Xyngopoulos, “To Anaglyphon tōn Hagiōn Anargyrōn eis ton Hagion Markon tēs Venetias”, Deltion 20 (1965): 8 4 -9 5 ; and Hadermann-Misguich, Kurbinovo (see footnote 10), pp.240-243. For the attire worn by physician saints, see D. Mouriki, The Mosaics of Nea Moni on Chios, 2 Vols. (Athens, 1985), Vol. 1, pp. 151-152. 119 St. Sampson, identified as ὁ ἅγιος Σαμψών, is dressed in a yellow sticharion, ornamented epitrachelion, and a brown mantle; he is placed against a green background. 120 For St. Sophia, see Miljković-Pepek, “Najstarite svetitelski kultovi vo Makedonija” (see footnote 36), p. 22. In Panagia ton Chalkeon, the holy physicians are placed above the bishops; see K. Kreidl-Papadopoulos, Die Wandmalereien des l l. Jahrhunderts in derKirche Panagia ton Chalkeon in Thessaloniki (Graz, 1966), pp. 3 4 -3 5 ; fig. 19; and A. Tsitouridou, He Panagia tōn Chalkeōn (Thessaloniki, 1975), fig. 33. 121 See Miljković-Pepek, “Najstarite svetitelski kultovi vo Makedonija” (see footnote 36), pp. 11-35.
Chapter III the choice of embracing apostles in the scene of the Com munion, the patron of Nerezi, Alexios, appealed yet one more time to the sentiments of the local audience.
3. Thematic Concerns The prominence given to physicians also reveals the pri vate nature of the quest for intercession. While St. John the Baptist and the Virgin traditionally intercede on behalf of all mankind on the day of the Last Judgment, the holy physicians suited both the regional taste and the individual hope for salvation of the patron. By placing holy physi cians in close proximity to St. Panteleimon, Alexios clearly honored not only his holy protector, but also the profes sion to which he belongs. In return, Alexios most likely expected the forgiveness of sins and eternal happiness in the afterlife, a concept common to Byzantine aristocratic patrons at the time. The theme of intercession, communicated through the iconography of the side chapels, emphasizes the experien tial character of the program of the sanctuary and invites the viewer to participate in the acts portrayed. Reflecting the program of the bema, the bishops in the prothesis address the Emmanuel, wGod with us,” in the flesh, channeling their prayers through the Virgin Orans. Also responding to the notion of the bema that the flesh of the Eucharist, the Emmanuel, is the flesh which was born, died, resurrected and ascended into heaven, is the image of the Ancient of Days, prefiguring the Second Coming of Christ in the diakonikon. He is addressed on behalf of humankind by St. John the Baptist, and by four holy physicians, whose importance is distinguished by their grouping within the chapel and by their proximity to the patron saint of the church. Both the prominence given to the intercessory powers of the Virgin, Christ, and holy physicians, and the em phasis on the salvific mission of Christ, reflect the per sonal desires and aspirations of the patron. On the one hand, the program reflects Alexios as a private individual, a typical member of Komnenian aristocracy who placed his eternal destiny into the hands of the protector saint of his foundation as was customary at the time. On the other hand, the concept that Christ is both human “Godwith-us,” in the Eucharist, and divine member of the Holy Trinity in the Heaven, emphasized through the in clusion of the two hypostasis of Christ - Emmanuel and Ancient of Days - reflects the most recent theological de bates and distinguishes both Alexios’ intellectual pre occupations and his close link with his cousin, emperor Manuel I. The consequences of the close association between the emperor and his cousin are also reflected in the program of the naos.
47 NAOS: SCENES The preserved Christological cycle of the naos at Nerezi is composed of nine monumental scenes, displayed above the zone of the saints and reaching up to the springing point of the arches (pl . 8a, 8b; figs.VII, VIII, XXXVXLII, XLIV-XLVI, XLVIII). Most of the surviving scenes at Nerezi occupy the entire width of their respec tive walls.122 Carefully coordinated with each other and in tegrated with the architecture, the preserved scenes make the upper zone of the naos complete. They are confined to their respective walls and appear like monumental icons, almost overwhelming the modest dimensions of the inte rior. The imposing size and prominent position of these scenes within the church suggests that they were the carri ers of the iconographic message of the naos. Thus, despite the loss of the program in the uppermost areas of the church, the preserved scenes provide a significant insight into interpreting the message of the cycle. The distribution of scenes follows the chronological order, starting with the events from Christ’s childhood on the south wall and progressing clockwise, as was custom ary at the time. The selection and composition of the scenes, however, are governed by programmatic concerns, more precisely by the intention to unify the space around the theme of the human sacrifice of Christ announced in the sanctuary. The unified message of the program of the naos is achieved through a powerful compositional device: the juxtaposition of scenes across the facing walls. The pairs of monumental scenes echo one another across the naos, creating a spiritual environment, Christological in its content and participatory in its nature. Thus, instead of ex amining the scenes in a successive manner, as has tradi tionally been done in scholarship, I will follow the intent of the designer of the program and examine the painted cy cle in the naos as it develops in space.
1. The Annunciation The Christological cycle opens, as was customary at the time, with the scene of the Annunciation (figs. XXXIVXXXVI). Its main protagonists, the Virgin and the arch angel Gabriel, are rendered at the outermost fringes of the east wall. Thus, the Annunciation, a potent image of the Incarnation of Christ, almost serves as a m ise-en-scène for the central icon of Christ’s humanity, the timeless image of the Virgin and Christ represented in the center of the bema. The Virgin and the archangel are shown wide apart from each other, separated by the iconostasis and the proskynetaria icons (fig. XXXIV). The physical distance between the two is, however, bridged by their motions and gestures. The preserved fragments of the archangel re veal fluttering drapery and motion towards the Virgin
122 Only the Birth and the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple share the space of the west wall; yet they are no smaller than the majority of other scenes. All scenes are framed with a red border.
Chapter III
48 (fig. XXXV).123 Although represented frontally and erect, the Virgin, standing before a throne and in front of a building, is placed slightly off-center to the south side of the designated field, her head leaning towards Gabriel (fig. XXXVI).124The gesturing of Mary and Gabriel is jux taposed to the still symmetry of the en fa ce proskynetaria icons, emphasizing the communication between the figures and, despite the spatial gap, giving unity to the scene. In its basic iconography, the scene of the Annunciation corresponds to other contemporary renditions of the scene. The spatial unity established between the figures be came a familiar device by the twelfth century. Also com mon at the time is the Virgins submission to the divine calling and the intimacy of the scene.125 The Virgin’s submissive attitude is evident from the inscription (Lk. 1, 38), “Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be unto me ac cording to thy word.”126 It is also visually accented by her gesture, the Virgin’s right hand resting on her chest with open palm, while she passively holds the distaff in the left. The formality of the standing Virgin, characteristic of post-iconoclastic renditions, is softened by the inclusion of a genre element, a small woven basket filled with a distaff and purple wool and placed near the Virgin’s foot stool. Incidentally, a very similar basket is represented in the scenes of the Deposition and the Threnos, the latter re vealing, however, the instruments of Christ’s Passion (fig. 48). One wonders whether this iconographie detail was intentionally represented to emphasize the redemp tive significance of the Incarnation by associating Christ’s Incarnation with His sacrifice. The major iconographic novelty of the Annunciation at Nerezi is the representation of a garden, shown as two stylized trees enclosed in a white fence. Based on the Song of Solomon (4,12) and representing a metaphor of beauty, the “closed garden” was related to Mary of the Annuncia tion as a symbol of her Virginity.127The motif of the closed garden appears for the first time in the surviving monu
mental art of Byzantium at Nerezi.128 The depiction of the closed garden epitomizes the poetic mood introduced in twelfth-century art in general and sets the tone of the pro gram of the naos at Nerezi as will be shown below.
2. The Presentation and the Threnos While the Annunciation appears to be confined to mar ginal points of the church, the scenes of the Presentation and the Threnos cover the most extensive wall surfaces, the entire upper zone of the south and north walls of the arms of the cross respectively (pls. 8 a, 8 b, 16, 22; VIII, X, XI). Corresponding in their shape, size, and theological mes sage, these two scenes dominate and unify the space of the naos. In their message, the scenes develop important no tions about the inseparable, dual natures of Christ, who offers and is offered in the Eucharist, and whose sacrifice is re-enacted throughout the liturgy. These were the con cepts fervently argued in contemporary theological dis putes. 2.1. The Presentation: Origin, Meaning, and Visual Representations The Presentation, as narrated by St. Luke, concerns the meeting in the Temple between the Holy Family and the priest Symeon. Symeon was inspired by the Holy Ghost to recognize the Child as the Savior sent by God, and his song of praise was followed by the witness of the aged prophetess Anna.129St. Luke’s story relates to the Old Tes tament. In conformity with the Jewish tradition by which the first-born belongs to Yahweh and his consecration is to be accompanied with the offerings of animals, Jesus was presented to the Lord, and sacrificial pigeons offered to re lease him from service in the Temple.130Moreover, St. Luke also combines the presentation of the child with the pu rification of the mother, a rite which according to the Law
123 Only three fragments have been preserved from the figure of the archangel: 1) his right hand and arm and a small segment of the torso with the upper part of his right leg veiled in drapery; 2) a small segment of his agitated drapery surrounded with blue background; 3) and his right foot par tially covered with his robes and set against the green background. The stretches of the red border which once designated the rectangular field oc cupied by the angel are also discernible. The preserved fragments indicate that the archangel was rendered in profile, the agitation of his drapery, the positioning of his foot, as well as the gesture of his right hand revealing that he was once shown as moving towards the Virgin. 124 The upper portions of the scene, as well as most of the head of the Virgin is missing. Damage was also inflicted on the lower portions of her robe and surrounding architecture. The Virgin, standing on the footrest of the throne, is dressed in a blue robe and a purple maphorion. Behind her are the richly ornamented backless throne, topped with a purple pillow and covered with a white cloth which hides a large portion of the throne. Behind and to the south of the Virgin is the facade of a building, now discernible through its ornamented reddish base, the purple curtain tied at the south side of the entrance, a portion of the architrave decorated with a pyramidal ornament, and a small section of a green tympanum; the upper portions of the building are defaced. To the north of the Virgin is a wall topped with a white fence made of crossed bars which encloses two stylized trees. 125 For the general development of the iconography of the Annunciation and other Christological scenes at Nerezi, see appropriate entries in ODB, RBK, Millet, Recherches sur ľiconographie de l’evangelie aux XIVe, XVe et XVIe siècles (Paris, 1960), and G. Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, 2 Vols. (Greenwich, CT, 1971-1972). For the major characteristics of the representations of the Annunciation in the twelfth century, see Hadermann-Misguich, Kurbinovo (see footnote 10), pp. 96-103; and H. Maguire, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium (Princeton, 1981), pp. 44-52. 126 The inscription, once located in the upper-left corner of the composition is almost entirely lost. The remaining letters, MOI KA(T)ATO P(HMA) Σ(Ο)Υ, indicate a verse from St. Luke 1, 38, “ἰδού ἡ δούλη κυϱίου’ γένοιτό μοι ϰατὰ τό ῥῆμά σου.” 127 For the impact of the Song of Solomon on the portrayal of the closed garden see S. Radojčić, “Odjek ‘Pesme nad pesmama’ u srpskoj umetnosti XIII veka”, in: Odabrani članci i studije 1933-1978 (Belgrade, 1982), pp. 230-232. 128 For the appearance of this motif in art, see Maguire, Art and Eloquence (see footnote 125), pp. 48-52. 129 Lk. 2, 29-39. 130 Ex. 13 ,2 ,12 -1 4 ; Nm. 18, 15.
Chapter III of Moses was to be performed on the fortieth day after the birth of the child.131 The multiplicity of ideas contained in this important event provided rich soil for a variety of visual representa tions. During the Middle Byzantine period, the composi tion commonly included only the main protagonists, that is Joseph with sacrificial pigeons, the Virgin holding the Christ Child, the priest Symeon, and the prophetess Anna. Moreover, as of the eleventh century, the altar gained cen tral position within the scene, separating Christ’s parents from the priest and the prophetess, and giving a sense of strict symmetry to the composition.132 The most innova tive characteristic of the twelfth century, however, is the transfer of the Christ Child into the hands of Symeon accompanied by the sorrowful gesture of the Virgin which foreshadows her grief at her son’s death.133The cen tralized position of the altar, the representation of Christ in Symeon’s arms, as well as the sorrowful gesture of the Virgin have a common goal: they emphasize the drama of the event by relating the revelation of the divinity of Christ to his sacrifice. The visual connection between the presentation of Christ and his sacrificial death is based on homiletic liter ature often included in the liturgy. For example, in the Kanon read on the feast of the Presentation, the text of Kosmas the Hymnographer reads: “Symeon announced to the Mother of God, ‘And a sword will pass through your heart, Immaculate one, when you see your son on the cross.’”134 The twelfth-century taste for expressing senti ments and humanizing religious experience, emerging first in the homiletic literature and liturgical readings, was thus reflected in art, too. While the emotive content plays the major role in the program of Nerezi, the sentimentally potent image of ten der embrace between Christ Child and old Symeon is con spicuously absent. In fact, in its basic outline, the Presen tation at Nerezi appears archaic. Inheriting the major characteristics of the eleventh-century representations, the
49 scene displays four major protagonists, symmetrically dis tributed around the altar, with the Christ Child held firmly by the Virgin (pl. 16; figs.XXXVII-XXXIX; 36-39).135 Thus, it compares closely to the monuments of the previ ous century, where the emphasis lies on the ritualistic sac rifice by the parents which accompanies the birth of the first-born, as seen, for example in the rendition of the scene in Nea Moni.136 The archaism of the scene at Nerezi is, however, deceptive, as suggested by the placement of the scene and by its iconographic and stylistic subtleties. 2.2. The Presentation: Iconographic Innovations and Their Significance Compared to similar renditions of the scene, the Presenta tion at Nerezi displays several unique and novel features. First of all, it is distinguished for its solemn, processional character. The elegant, elongated figures create a rhythm of pronounced verticals.137 Moreover, the scene at Nerezi represents a unique example of gender symmetry: the women are shown on the east side of the altar and men on the west (figs. XXXVII, XXXVIII). Thus, prophetess Anna stands behind the Virgin, as opposed to her common position behind Symeon. In addition, for the first time in Byzantine monumental art, judging by surviving monu ments, Anna is represented with her scroll opened and ex hibiting the text of her prophecy (fig. XXXVIII; 36), “This infant consolidated heaven and earth.”138 Above all, the most distinctly innovative feature of the Presentation at Nerezi is seen in the robes of the Christ Child. Although considerably damaged, His attire reveals traces of a stole, a piece of Christ’s clothing associated, as discussed above, with Christ’s function as a priest (fig. 37).139 All these iconographic innovations at Nerezi are meant to stress one important aspect of the Presentation: the dra matic and emotional moment when both Christ’s divinity and his future sufferings were recognized. The drama of the event is communicated by both style and iconography.
131 Lv. 12. 132 For the iconographic development of the scene see note 125 and D. C. Shorr, “The Iconographic Development of the Presentation in the Temple”, AB 28 (1946): 17-32. For the renditions of the scene in the Middle Byzantine period, see Maguire, Art and Eloquence (see footnote 125), pp. 87-90; Idem, “The Iconography of Symeon with Christ Child in Byzantine A rt”, DOP 3 4 -3 5 (1980-81): 2 6 1-2 7 1; Hadermann-Misguich, Kurbinovo (see footnote 10), Vol. 1, pp. 118-122; and S. Boyd, “The Church of the Panagia Amasgou, Monagri, Cyprus, and Its Wall Paintings”, DOP 28 (1974): 294-296. 133 See Maguire, Art and Eloquence (see footnote 125), pp. 87-90; Idem, “The Iconography of Symeon with Christ Child” (see footnote 132), pp.261-271. 134 In addition, the text of the sermon on the Presentation attributed to George of Nikomedeia reads: “Mary presses Symeon to explain the meaning of the prophecy that he makes to her in St. Luke’s Gospel (2, 35) ‘and a sword will pierce your own soul also’... Symeon gives Mary a full summary of the events of Christ’s forthcoming Passion, concluding with the lament for the death of her son.” See Maguire, Art and Eloquence (see footnote 125), pp. 87-90; Idem, “The Iconography of Symeon with Christ Child” (see footnote 132), pp. 261 -2 7 1. 135 Damage inflicted likely from humidity obliterated the upper portions of the scene above and to the west of the figures of Symeon and Joseph, small segments of the ciborium and Symeon’s hands, and the lower parts of the bodies of the Virgin and Christ. 136 See Mouriki, Nea Moni (see footnote 118), pp. 120-121; pls. 15, 143. 137 The architecture in the scene is reduced to a low parapet wall painted in imitation of marble, the ciborium marking the center of the composition, and the two buildings flanking the composition; the building behind Joseph is almost entirely destroyed. 138 The text reads: τοῦτο τὸ παιδίον οὐϱανόν ϰαί γῆν ἐστερέωσεν. It is also found in twelfth-century manuscripts, such as the Psalter of Queen Melisende, and in churches post-dating Nerezi, such as Hagioi Anargyroi and Hagios Stephanos in Kastoria, and at Monreale. See H. Buchthal, Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Oxford, 1957), p. 4, pl. 3a; Pelekanides, Kastoria (see footnote 80), pls. 16 b, 92 b; and O. Demus, The Mosaics of Norman Sicily (London, 1949), fig. 62 b. 139 The stole, as it appears today, is wrapped around Christs waist and tied in a knot with triple ending. For a discussion, see Lidov, “L’Image du Christprélat” (see footnote 93), pp. 245-250.
Chapter III
50 Despite their processional and solemn character, the partic ipants of the Presentation are invigorated through a careful psychological characterization. The submissive, intro spective expression of Joseph (fig. 39), projecting through his melancholic, watery eyes, and his peaceful stance, contrasts with the tremor in the appearance of Anna and Symeon (figs. 36, 38), the wrinkles on their faces expressing both age and tension.140 The face of the Virgin, on the other hand, while rendered in perfectly smooth planes reflecting her young age, lacks the calm and confi dence exhibited in her portrait in the prothesis (figs. 27, 37). The tightened lips, concerned look, and slightly slanted eyebrows reveal her concern, while the unnaturally twisted head of the Child who tightly grabs his mother’s neck, anticipates the climax of the drama (fig. XXXVIII).141 The drama of the event is defined in Anna’s scroll which emphatically proclaims Christ’s divinity. Her placement within the composition is significant, too. As opposed to her regular location behind Symeon, Anna is brought close to Christ. Thus, Christ is placed between Anna and Sy meon, the people who recognized His divinity as a Child. Standing behind Symeon, Joseph appears to be included mostly for the accuracy of the story and the balance of the composition. The custom of bringing sacrificial animals to the church for the first-born child is as peripheral for the message communicated in the Presentation at Nerezi, as is Joseph’s actual position within the scene.
Another issue debated at the Councils and represented in the scene of the Presentation at Nerezi, can be discerned from the traces of the stole, which recalls the priestly func tion of Christ. While appearing within the rendition of the Presentation for the first time at Nerezi, the notion of the priesthood of the Child who is presented in the temple is also found in later twelfth-century art, such as at Lagoudera.143 As discussed earlier, the notion of Christ Priest im plies that He is the one who sacrifices and is sacrificed, a concept fervently argued at the Council of Constantinople in 1156/57. Thus the scene at Nerezi, like the literary sources on which it was based, unites the themes of Christ’s divine revelation with his sacrificial death. This theme is further stressed through the juxtaposition of the Presentation with the scene of the Threnos represented on the facing wall. The connection established between the scenes of the Presentation and the Threnos at Nerezi is derived from the same sources and has the same meaning as the new iconog raphy of Christ held by Symeon. Both are based on the vast homiletic literature which relates to Symeon’s prophecy (Lk. 2, 35) “and the sword will pierce your own soul also,” and both explore the depth of human sorrow by comparing the mother’s joy with the newborn son, with her grief at the time of His death. The power with which these sentiments are visualized at Nerezi is un precedented in Byzantium.
2.3. The Presentation and the Church Councils
2.4. The Threnos: Origin, Meaning, and Visual Representations
The composition of the figures at Nerezi and the text inscribed on Anna’s scroll are both intended to empha size the notion that Christ, in his human appearance, is a divine manifestation of God - a concept argued during the Church Councils in Constantinople. While the em phasis on Christ’s divinity appears so powerfully within the scene of the Presentation for the first time at Nerezi, it becomes prominent in later art, as evident from the renditions of the scene in the thirteenth- and fourteenthcentury churches of Panagia Olympiotissa at Elasson, Protaton on Mount Athos, and the King’s church in Studenica.142
The Threnos at Nerezi represents one of the most emo tional renditions of human pain in Byzantium (pl. 22; figs.XLVI, XLVIII; 47-49). Nowhere else in Byzantine art are the depth of the Mother’s grief and her closeness to her son conveyed in artistically so articulate and per suasive a manner as at Nerezi. Saturated with beauty and sentiments, it reverberates both in later Byzantine monu ments and in the art of the West all the way to the Re naissance, as has been often pointed out by scholars.144 Iconographic parallels for this scene are found in both earlier and later art. However, the powerful, dramatic im-
140 Anna is dressed in a yellow robe and a green mantle and shown as descending the steps, her drapery flowing, while pointing towards Christ with her raised right hand; she holds the roll in her left hand. Joseph is also shown descending steps, yet not in as energetic a manner as Anna. He is dressed in a blue chiton and a white himation, and carrying two sacrificial doves in a cage. Symeon, his hair messy, as if blown by a wind, is dressed in a grayish-green chiton and a white himation enlivened with purple and blue. 141 The Virgin is dressed, as elsewhere in the church, in a purple maphorion and a now mostly destroyed blue robe. 142 In order to emphasize the moment of the recognition of Christ’s divinity, the artists in these later churches also adjusted the composition and switched the order of figures. Thus, the composition became asymmetrical, with Anna, placed either before the Virgin (Olympiotissa), or behind her (Studenica) on one side of the altar, and Symeon, alone, on the other. In all these instances, Joseph is at the periphery of the composition. See Constantinides, Olympiotissa (see footnote 47), pp. 115-117; figs. 36a; 236; G. Babić, Kraljeva crkva u Studenici (Belgrade, 1987), pp. 143-146; figs. 97-98; and G. Millet, Monuments de l’Athos (Paris, 1927), pl. 10, 3. 143 For Lagoudera, see Stylianou and Stylianou, Painted Churches of Cyprus (see footnote 50), p. 160; fig. 160; for a discussion, see Lidov, “L’image du Christ-prélat” (see footnote 93), pp. 245-250. The association between the event of the Presentation and Christ’s priesthood has been drawn in the liturgical scroll from the Patriarchal Library in Jerusalem, Staurou 109, where the image of the Presentation illustrates the verses “You yourself are the sacrificing priest and the sacrificial gift; you yourself accept the sacrifice, and are the same time the sacrificial food, Christ our God ...” For the image, see Grabar, “Un rouleau liturgique” (see footnote 76), fig. 8; for a discussion, see H. J. Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy (New York, 1986), p. 84. 144 The impact of the Threnos at Nerezi has been traced all the way to Giotto’s Lamentation in the Arena Chapel in Padua. See F. Hartt, History of Italian renaissance: Painting, Sculpture, Architecture 4th ed. (New York, 1994), p. 46. For Byzantine influence on the western images of Passion see A. Derbes, Picturing the Passion in Late Medieval Italy: Narrative Painting, Franciscan Ideologies, and the Levant (Cambridge, 1996).
Chapter III pact of Nerezi’s scene is unprecedented. It was the genius of Nerezi’s master who created a refined rhythm of curvilinear forms and subtle coloristic effects which en hanced the emotional content of the scene. All available formal modes of expression in this scene were put in function of its meaning. The Threnos is the scene which belongs to the cycle of the Passion of Christ, referring to the lament of the Virgin over the death of her Son.145 Occurring after the Deposition and before the burial of Christ, the Threnos is not, however, mentioned in the synoptic writings. In stead, its textual bases may be found in the apocryphal Gospels of Nicodemus and in the vast homiletic lite rature.146 The iconography of this scene closely corre sponds to the sermon of George of Nikomedeia on the burial and death of Christ, included in the liturgy and read on the eve of Good Friday.147 The sermon gives a vivid description of the Virgin’s grief, stating that the Virgin actually fell upon the body of Christ and “bathed it with warmest tears,” and emphasizes her suffering by recalling the Virgin’s role during her son’s infancy in say ing “I am now holding him without breath whom lately I took in my arms.”148 Imbued with feeling and concen trating on the image of the Virgin lamenting over the dead body of her son, the Threnos imposed upon the viewer further proof of the physical humanity of Christ (fig.47). The basic iconography of the Threnos at Nerezi corre sponds very closely to earlier depictions of the scene seen, for example, in the late eleventh-century Gospel Lectionary, Vatican gr. 1156 (folio 194 v), and in the cemetery chapel of the Saviour of the monastery of St. John Chrysostom, at Koutsovendis (1110-1118).149 The scene is anchored by the prominent image of the mother embrac ing and lamenting over her dead son, who is displayed as lying on a burial shroud decorated with diamond-shaped pattern (pl. 22; fig. XLVI).150 Other participants include St. John who is holding Christ’s hand (fig. 49), Joseph and Nicodemus who are holding his feet, mourning women (only one has been preserved), and half-length figures of four angels.151 The action takes place in a barren landscape, as suggested by homiletic texts.152
51 2.5. The Threnos: An Icon of Sorrow While the rendition of the Threnos at Nerezi adheres to es tablished iconography, the emphasis upon the mother’s grief and a comparison between her holding the dead Christ with the same passion with which she held him as a child is more fully explored than in earlier art. The most notable iconographic novelties at Nerezi are the inclusion of the instruments of Christ’s Passion, the multiplication of angels, and the relocation of the Holy Women. All these innovations were meant to emphasize the human drama. The inclusion of two lances placed horizontally besides the body of Christ and resembling those of the Hetoimasia, the pitcher with ointment, and a woven basket, reminis cent of that of the Annunciation, yet displaying pliers, hammer, and nails of the Crucifixion, are all meant to re call the sacrificial deeds and salvific mission of Christ (fig. 48). The multiplication of angels, shown with slanted eyebrows and deeply shaded under-eye areas shaped as teardrops, emphasize the ritual aspect of the scene;153 compositionally, they also direct viewer’s eyes to the central image - the mother holding her dead son (figs. XLVIII; 47). The changed location of the mourning women, from the composition’s right as they appear in the earlier mon uments, to the composition’s left, as at Nerezi, also appears to be a powerful formal device. By flanking the compo sition to the left, the holy woman at Nerezi are not only onlookers; they are active participants, facing the tragic moment and contributing to the unity of the scene. The viewer’s attention is also directed towards the cen tral image through another powerful and innovative com positional device: a complex rhythm of curvilinear forms which define action and unite all of the participants. The descending outline of the hill represented to the west of the composition echoes the inclined posture of a holy woman, and the bent, kneeling bodies of Nicodemus and Joseph. Moreover, the bowing figure of St. John acquires the form of an elegant arch, his himation descending towards the neck in the form of an arrow (fig. 49); the curvature is further extended by the hand of Christ, directing eyes towards the emotional center of the composition the overlapping faces of the Virgin and her dead son
145 For the meaning of the Threnos, see H. Belting, The Image and Its Public in the Middle Ages. Form and Function of Early Paintings of the Passion (New Rochelle, NY, 1990), pp. 9 1-12 9; and Idem, “An Image and Its Function in the Liturgy: The Man of Sorrows in Byzantium”, DOP 34/35 (1980-81): 1-17. 146 See Belting, The Image and Its Public (see footnote 145), pp. 99-103; and Maguire, Art and Eloquence (see footnote 125), pp. 96-101. 147 Ibid. 148 Maguire, Art and Eloquence (see footnote 125), p. 98. 149 For the iconographic development of the scene of the Threnos, see K. Weitzmann, “The Origin of the Threnos”, in: Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky, 2 Vols., ed. by M. Meiss (New York, 1961), Vol. 1, pp.476-491. For Vatican gr. 1156, see ibid., Vol.2, p. 166, fig. 16; for the chapel, see Stylianou and Stylianou, Painted Churches on Cyprus (see footnote 50), p. 464, figs. 277-278. 150 Despite damage in the upper-west and easternmost sections, the scene is relatively well preserved with all major iconographic constituencies intact. Missing are only the uppermost portions of the hill with a cave, small segments of Nicodemus and Joseph, the fourth angel discernible only through a small segment of robes, and portions of two mourning women. The Virgin is dressed in a blue robe and a purple maphorion; Christ wears only a loin cloth which reaches to his knees. 151 St. John is dressed in grey, blue, and white robes. Nicodemus is wearing a blue garment; Joseph is dressed in a yellow chiton and a blue himation. The most seriously damaged are the two figures of the mourning women, only a fragment of the reddish robe surviving from the left figure. 152 For symbolism of the barren landscape, see Maguire, Art and Eloquence (see footnote 125), pp. 96-101. 153 Only two angels are shown in the earlier renditions of the scene.
52 (figs. XLVI, XLVIII; 47). The whole group is arranged in a dynamic pattern, with all figures firmly interlocked. For the first time in surviving renditions of the scene, the participants of the Threnos at Nerezi are unified in their gesture, posture, and tragedy. The portrayal of the mourning mother represents the emotional pinnacle of the scene. Her pain is visualized with such persuasiveness that it transcends the realm of the psychological and acquires a physical dimension, too. The grief of the Virgin is accentuated through the juxtaposition of her dramatic appearance - her eyebrows slanted, her face wrinkled in pain, and the shadows underneath the eyes forming teardrops - with the peaceful, relaxed, and emotionally detached appearance of Christ (fig. 47). The peacefulness of death and the horror of mourning are fur ther juxtaposed through the body language (fig. XLVI, XLVIII). Crawling strenuously, in a physically impossible posture, with her legs wrapped around the body of Christ while she embraces him tenderly, the Virgin supports the weight of Christ’s languid, elongated and relaxed body only by the tips of her feet and knee. The powerful image of mothers grief depicted at Nerezi would have appealed to contemporary audiences, as it was - and still is - a part of actual funerals in the Balkans.154 In that part of the world, the Laments are not only written, spoken, and read as a part of the ritual. Rather, they are acted out, painfully loud and intensely emotional - just as is the image at Nerezi. 2.6. The Juxtaposition of the Threnos and the Presentation The tender embrace of the mother and her dead Son in the Threnos is directly related to the image of the mother holding her young infant in the scene of the Presentation. It is almost certain that the somewhat archaic iconography of Christ being held by Mary in the Presentation was in tended to emphasize the dramatic connection between the two major events of the life of Christ, liturgical in their ori gin, yet deeply human, engaging, and dramatic in their content. The parallel between the two events is broadened by the re-location of the holy woman at Threnos at Nerezi. Flanking the left side of the composition, the holy woman in the Threnos correspond to the unusual arrange ment of Anna and the Virgin across the nave in the scene of the Presentation (figs. VII, VIII, X, XI). The contrast between the mother’s joy with the new born and her sorrow at His death is further deepened by pictorial means, particularly by a meaningful use of colors. The Presentation at Nerezi is one of the most intensively colored scenes (fig. XXXVII). From the blue background pop up huge blotches of bright colors of the figures and furnishings. In the center, a large surface of red of the altar
Chapter III table is contrasted with a green baldachino and dark red steps; to the compositions right, the yellow robe of St. Anna is juxtaposed with the purple of the Virgin’s robe; to the left, Joseph’s cobalt blue chiton contrasts with his green, ocher, and white garb. Moreover, green ornamented accessories, pink buildings, black, white and green marble, all create a lively coloristic scheme, adding dynamics to this rather solemn composition. The tension between the joy of bringing the firstborn into the temple, and the sor row foreshadowed in the event, is made manifest through the contrast of a solemn composition and a vivid coloristic treatment. While coloristic contrasts characterize the majority of the scenes at Nerezi, the Threnos as well as the Deposition are executed by means of tonal gradations (figs.XLV, XLVI). The palette in these two scenes is much more sub dued and monochromatic than in the rest of the program. Ocher, gray-blue, and pastel-blue are dominant colors, oc casionally so little saturated that they give a water-color effect, underlining the somber mood of the event. The sor row is not creating tension any more as in the Presenta tion; it is made manifest, in action and in color, contri buting to the dramatic impact of the event. A peculiar instance of coloristic contrast in the rendition of the Threnos is provided by the red shoes of the Virgin. While commonly covering the feet of the Virgin, the shoes in the Threnos at Nerezi acquire special significance. Heavily saturated, and strikingly red, they are the only coloristic element which considerably disturbs the tonal harmony and an almost water-color appearance of the scene. The color of the Virgin’s shoes in Byzantium com monly varies from purple to cherry-red retaining, how ever, the same iconographic significance. Thus, the Nerezi artist was free to chose any shade and any value of purple or red for the shoes and easily incorporate them in the coloristic treatment of the scene. However, he decided to accentuate them - by simply using the heavily saturated, bright, red which jumps straight at viewers eyes.155 The accentuated red of the shoes becomes an icono graphic element in the Threnos at Nerezi, borrowed from real life and adding to the meaning of the scene. According to literary sources, a new custom was likely introduced in the courtly rituals during the time of Manuel I. The birth of the imperial son was proclaimed, among other things, by displaying purple shoes in the windows of the baby’s room, to inform the members of the community of this important event.156 It is thus quite plausible that the un usual emphasis on the shoes of the Virgin actually related to the newly established court-ceremony, using yet an other visual convention to connect the birth of the new born with His death. Whether provincial audience knew about this custom is impossible to say; the ritual was, how ever, certainly well known to the patron and his associates.
154 See M. Alexiou, “The Lament of the Virgin in Byzantine Literature and Modern Greek Folk-Song”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 1 (1975): 111-140. 155 The effect of this accent of red is difficult to perceive in the photographs. 156 The display of the infant’s shoes is first attested for the birth of Manuel I himself (1118); see Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 26), p. 244.
Chapter III 2.7. Summary The Threnos at Nerezi terminates the narrative cycle of the church, bringing the Christological cycle to its emo tional peak, with human emotion overshadowing dogma. And the spectator is left to wonder what the artist, or more likely, the patron of the church, had in mind. Was the Threnos meant only to educate and persuade the viewer by projecting the idea of redemption achieved through the sacrificial death of Christ? Or was it also intended to make the viewer pause, “to give the viewer an opportunity for contemplative absorption, for meditations on the Passion which grew out of an intensified piety, and for identifica tion with the spiritual demeanor of the persons depicted,” as did the successor of the Threnos, the Western image of the Pietà, so beautifully described by G. Schiller.157 The Threnos and the Presentation at Nerezi function both as static icons, and as active agents transferring the message through the space of the beholder. Hovering over the central area of the naos, the two scenes create a visual environment which humanizes dogmatic teachings by bringing them close to the sentiments of the beholders. At the same time, the close bond between the two scenes summarizes the economy of salvation, by expressly showing that Christ, who offered sacrifice, was also sacrificed as human for our sake, a notion repeatedly mentioned in the liturgy and firmly established in the Synodikon of the Church Councils at Constantinople. The persuasiveness of the drama, human, emotional, and liturgical, appealed to human senses. It persuaded worshipers in the realism of liturgical re-enactment, while at the same time visually manifesting the interpretation of the liturgy as prescribed by the church fathers in Constantinople. 3. The Transfiguration and the Deposition The unified message of the central area of the church has been re-enforced by the parallelism established between the scenes of the Transfiguration and the Deposition on the west walls of the south and north arms of the cross re spectively (pls. 8 a, 8 b, 17, 21; fig. VIII). 3.1. The Deposition: Another Emotionally Charged Icon at Nerezi The Deposition is another emotionally charged icon at Nerezi (pl. 21; figs.XLV; 45). Its inclusion in the limited
53 number of monumental scenes in the upper zone of the walls of the naos is significant, suggesting that the Deposi tion was given a priority over the canonical scenes belong ing to the cycle of the Twelve Festivals, such as the Crucifix ion.158 The reason for such a choice is apparent. The building of emotional tension, evident in the narrative cycle at Nerezi, required a scene which harmonized in its inti macy with the climaxing image of the program, the lamen ting Virgin of the Threnos. By choosing to give prominence to the Deposition, the artist relieved himself from the limi tations imposed by canonical writings, and used all available visual means to emphasize the drama of Christ’s sacrifice. The Deposition carried important significance within the context of the program at Nerezi. Briefly mentioned in the synoptic writings, and included in liturgical texts only as a sermon read during the Liturgy on Good Friday, the Depo sition was not introduced in Byzantine art until the second half of the ninth century.159The appearance of the scene co incided with the restoration of Orthodoxy; it was used against the iconoclastic opposition to fi gural representa tions of Christ. The church fathers who defended icons at tached special significance to the humanity of Christ, using his sacrificial death as their chief argument.160The emotion ally saturated image of Christs Passion, the Deposition, served as a persuasive vehicle in communicating their teach ings. The humanity of Christ was attacked again, though differently, in the twelfth-century church disputes. Again, as evident at Nerezi, the image of the Deposition, experien tial and painfully real, provided a powerful visual proof of the truthfulness and immediacy of Christs human sacrifice. While the iconography of the Deposition at Nerezi ad heres to earlier representations, the scene is distinguished from its predecessors by its intensely emotional impact. Retaining the major participants of the Crucifixion, as was customary, the scene at Nerezi displays a limited number of participants (pl. 21; fig.XLV).161 Joseph of Arimathea and the Virgin are holding the body of the dead Christ (figs. XLV; 45), while the nails from his feet are detached by Nicodemus, and his hand is held by St. John.162The details in the scene include the woven basket which will be filled with nails in the Threnos, and Joseph’s sandals. The angels and Holy Women, evident in many contemporary repre sentations of the scene, such as in Kurbinovo, St. Neophytos, and Monreale are, however, absent at Nerezi;163 the narrative content of the event is thus suppressed.
157 Schiller, Iconography (see footnote 125), Vol. 2, p. 174. 158 The Crucifixion was most likely included in the program; yet, judging by the available space, it was given a secondary position. 159 The Deposition of Christ is mentioned in Mt. 27, 59; Mk. 15, 46; Lk. 25, 53; Jn. 19, 38-40. For its inclusion in the liturgy, see Belting, “An Image and Its Function in the Liturgy” (see footnote 145), pp. 4 - 6 ; and Weitzmann, “The Origin of the Threnos” (see footnote 149), p. 480. 160 See J. R. Martin, “The Dead Christ on the Cross in Byzantine A rt”, in: Late Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, J r., ed. by K. Weitzmann (Princeton, 1955), pp. 189-196; and H. Maguire, “The Depiction of Sorrow in Middle Byzantine A rt”, DOP 31 (1977): 162. 161 The scene is well preserved. The cracks in the wall obliterated only a portion of the Virgins face, small segments of Christs chest and right leg, St. John’s left eye, and Joseph’s face. The scene was once inscribed in the upper right corner as ἀποϰαθήλωση; only three letters, ΘΗΛ, remain. Christ’s monogram, IC XC, still remains above the right arm of the cross. 162 Christ is wearing only a grayish-white loin-cloth as in the Threnos; his armpits reveal traces of hair. The Virgin is wearing her traditional blue robe and a purple maphorion. St. John is dressed in white robes; Joseph wears a blue chiton and an ocher himation streaked in brown and white; Nicodemus is dressed in an olive-green robe with his left arm and leg exposed. 163 For Kurbinovo, see Hadermann-Misguich, Kurbinovo (see footnote 10), fig. 72; for St. Neophytos, see R. Cormack, Writing in Gold: Byzantine Society and Its Icons (New York, 1985), fig. 98; for Monreale, see Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily (see footnote 138), pl. 71B.
Chapter III
54 The emotional impact of the Deposition at Nerezi is en hanced through pictorial devices and through the body language of the participants. The Virgin in the Deposition at Nerezi is not only holding Christ’s torso, as was cus tomary in earlier art. She is actually embracing Christ, while pressing her cheek against Christ’s as if she were kissing her dead son (fig. 45).164 The tender embrace be tween mother and her child recalls the powerful image of the Threnos, and incorporates the iconic appearance of the Virgin Eleousa - the Virgin of Sorrow - exhibited for ex ample, in the famous icon of the Our Lady of Vladimir in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow.165 The lyrical mood of the composition is also evident in a subtle gesture of St. John, his cheek pressing against Christ’s hand, while his hands hold it with palpable tenderness, made manifest through the transparent drapery (fig.XLV). The elegant and elongated body of St. John also creates the curvature of the arch which in a refined manner, comparable to that of the Threnos, unifies the composition; it also directs viewer’s eyes towards the emotional center of the scene, the interlocked heads of the mother and her dead son. The coloristic treatment of the scene further accentuates the somber mood of the event (fig.XLV). The tonal arrangement of deep blue, mauve, brown, and olive-green is accented only by the beige tone of the body, yellow haloes, and grayish-white of the draperies. Thus, like the Threnos on the neighboring wall, the Deposition enabled the artist to display the image of the dead body of Christ, a visualization of His mortality imposing upon the viewer a persuasive image of His human existence. The divine na ture of Christ, however, is emphasized through the pairing of the Deposition with the Transfiguration, the theophanic icon par excellence (fig. VIII). 3.2. The Transfiguration The story of the Transfiguration, as narrated in the synop tic Gospels, relates Christ’s divine revelation to his future sufferings, as particularly evident in Mt. 17, 22-23. “The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him ...”166 Fulfilling the Old Testament prophecy by revealing His divinity, Christ in the Transfig uration also looks forward to His suffering, the idea visu alized at Nerezi through the spatial parallelism established with the scene of the Deposition. The Transfiguration at Nerezi displays traditional iconography (pl. 17; figs. XL; 40, 41).167 Symmetrically composed, the scene is anchored by the central image of 164 165 166 167
Christ in a mandorla, shown standing on the summit of the central hill and flanked by the prophets Moses and Elijah.168 At the foot of the hills, Christ’s theophany is witnessed by three apostles, St. Peter to the composition’s right, St. John in the center, and St. James to the left (figs. 40,41 ).169Desig nated as a source of light through the sparkling white of his robes and the outer circle of the mandorla, Christ emanates rays of light and bestows them upon all participants. The dramatic impact of the event is manifested in the excited fa cial expressions and swift movements of the three apostles, their heads turned towards Christ, and their bodies unbal anced by the sudden motion. Unlike the barren landscape of the Deposition, the joyous spirit of the Transfiguration is visualized through sparse, yet lively vegetation. In addi tion, the subdued tonality of the Deposition is abandoned in favor of bright red, yellow, and green accented by lumi nous white. Thus the contrast between Christ’s majestic revelation and his suffering death is made as strong visually as it is emphasized dogmatically. 3.3. The Juxtaposition of the Transfiguration and the Deposition The scenes of the Transfiguration and the Deposition face the archangel and the Virgin of the Annunciation (pls. 8 a, 8b; figs.VII, VIII), the pairing of the scenes reiterating major ideas communicated in the central area of the church. The visual connection established with the Virgin of the Annunciation emphasizes the notion of the divinity of Christ in his human appearance. In addition, the juxtaposi tion of the Deposition with the angel of the Annunciation and the proskynetarion icon of the Virgin and Christ Child in the north arm of the cross, illustrate the notion that Christ was Incarnated and he suffered for our sake. Above all, this juxtaposition also enhances the emotionally charged contrast between Virgin’s role during her son’s in fancy and her grief at her son’s death, a powerful dramatic concept which dominates the central area of the church.
4. The Juxtaposition of the Resurrection of Lazarus and the Entry into Jerusalem The ideas communicated through the juxtaposition of scenes surrounding the domical vault are echoed in other areas of the naos. The western arm of the cross is domi nated by the facing scenes of the Resurrection of Lazarus (south wall) and the Entry into Jerusalem (north wall).170
For the iconographic sources of this gesture, see Maguire, “The Depiction of Sorrow” (see footnote 160), pp. 162-164. For a discussion, see Idem, Art and Eloquence (see footnote 125), p. 102, figs. 95, 97. The story is narrated in Mt. 17, 1 - 12; Mk. 9, 2 -1 3 ; Lk. 9, 2 8 -4 1. The entire upper-south section of the scene is defaced, damaging the upper portion of the figure of Elijah and the head and portions of the chest of Christ. 168 Christ is dressed in luminous white garments streaked in pink. A portion of his monogram, XC, still remains besides a preserved fragment of his halo. Elijah, represented to the right of Christ is seen only through a remaining portion of his ocher-gray garments. Moses, flanking Christ to the left is shown as a young, beardless man, dressed in a white chiton streaked in green and a red himation shaded with white. 169 St. Peter is wearing yellow and blue robes; St. Johns garments are white and brown; and St. James is dressed in blue robes, heavily highlighted with white. 170 Both scenes are considerably damaged in their western sections. In the Entry into Jerusalem, Christs disciples, as well as the upper body and face of Christ are destroyed. In the Resurrection, almost the entire figures of Christ and his disciples and most of the hill are obliterated.
Chapter III Both scenes are traditional in appearance (pls. 8 a, 8 b, 18, 20; figs. XLI, XLIV; 42, 44). Clearly, the artist was focused on establishing the parallelism between the two events, rather than attracting the viewer with their individual iconographic peculiarities. Unlike the majority of scenes at Nerezi which display a limited number of participants, the Resurrection of Lazarus exhibits a narrative character (pl. 18; figs. XLI; 42). In addition to Lazarus, Martha, Mary and Christ, the scene also displays three servants, a group of Jews, and the disciples of Christ.171 Although customary at the time, the multiplication of figures in the portrayal of the Resurrection of Lazarus at Nerezi has a special significance, as it resonates with the crowd which met Christ and his disciples at the gates of Jerusalem de picted across the naos.172 A number of compositional devices were employed in the Resurrection of Lazarus and Entry into Jerusalem to strengthen the parallelism between the two scenes. For ex ample, in the Resurrection, Lazarus is placed to the right side of the composition and approached by Christ from the left (fig. XLI). More frequently, Christ is depicted on the opposite side, as seen in other twelfth-century monu ments, such as in H. Anargyroi in Kastoria, at Kurbinovo, or at Backovo.173The placement of Christ on the right side was seemingly intended to provide a closer link between the Resurrection of Lazarus and the facing icon of the En try into Jerusalem. As a result of the switched locations, the images of Christ once faced each other across the naos (pls. 18, 20; figs. VII, XLI, XLIV). Also facing each other are the groups of Jews who watch Christs miracle and those who witness his triumphal entry. The visual parallel recalls St. John’s Gospel, which maintains that the same people who saw Christ raising Lazarus welcomed him to Jerusalem.174 The parallelism between the two scenes is evident in many other details: the prostrated posture of the Lazarus’ sisters is echoed across the nave in the children who are spreading the carpet to greet Christ; Christ in both scenes was once accompanied by apostles; and even the hills in the two scenes compare in their form, size, and color. Moreover, the drama of both events is accentuated by a dominating diagonal line created by the outlines of the corresponding hills, and separating the world of the divine
55 from mortals. The parallelism between the two events was thus undoubtedly intentional. The reason for the pairing of the Resurrection of Lazarus and the Entry into Jerusalem becomes apparent when viewed within the context of the program of the church as a whole. The story of the Resurrection of Lazarus is found only in the Gospel of St. John, where St.John reports that Christ accepted the invitation of Mary and Martha to come to Bethany, revealed himself as the resurrection of life to Martha, and raised Lazarus from the grave.175 Celebrating the power of Christ over death, prefiguring the Resurrection of Christ and the resurrec tion of the dead at the time of the Last Judgment, and em bodying the people’s hopes of the resurrection and eternal life, the Raising of Lazarus is considered one of the most significant miracles performed by Christ.176Within the se lected number of scenes displayed in the upper zone of the walls at Nerezi, this event epitomizes all of Christ’s mirac ulous deeds. The Entry into Jerusalem, on the other hand, is an nounced by the prophet Zechariah (Zec 9, 9), alluded to in Psalm 118, 25, and mentioned in all four Gospels.177 According to the evangelists, six days prior to his death, Christ, in the company of His disciples, entered Jerusalem on an ass, and was welcomed by the citizens of the town, who greeted Him and spread their garments on His path. The Gospels also associate Christ’s triumphal entry with His passion by maintaining that at the time of His entry, Christ was inspired with the consciousness of His Mes sianic mission and the awareness of His approaching death. The association between the two scenes at Nerezi is thus extremely potent in its meaning. As elsewhere in the church, this parallel is intended to emphasize the sacrificial aspect of Christ’s life, designating the Raising of Lazarus not only as an example of the supernatural power of Christ, but also as an event which stands as the harbinger of the future sufferings of Christ, inaugurated by the Sa vior’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. On a more subtle note, the established parallel is also meant to involve the viewer personally in the projected message. The hopes of Resurrection, implied through Christ’s raising of Lazarus, are made possible through Christ’s sacrifice. The paral lelism of the two scenes thus reaffirms the ideas repeatedly
171 A segment of Christ’s lower robes reveals that he was dressed in a purple chiton and a blue himation; his disciples wore ocher, green and pink gar ments. Mary and Martha, prostrated before Christ, were once dressed in green and purple robes, although the color of their clothing is mostly oblit erated. The right portion of the composition is dominated by the figure of Lazarus, wrapped in burial bandages, and wearing a garment with a hood, decorated with a red-dotted pattern of circles. Lazarus is assisted by a gray-haired and bearded man, dressed in a short green robe, dark gray pan taloons bound near the bottom with bandages, and white shoes. Two more servants surround Lazarus: one is shown as kneeling, dressed in a short white tunic, and removing the marble cover of the grave; the other is unfolding Lazarus’ bandages while holding a cloth to his nose. All that has re mained from the group of Jews who were standing to the west of Lazarus are portions of their garments. A garment which covers the head and upper body of Lazarus is characteristic of the twelfth-century renditions. See Sacopoulo, Asinou (see foot note 33), pp. 25-26. 172 For the iconographic development of the scene, see note 4; and E. Mâle, “La résurrection de Lazare dans l’art”, La revue des arts 1 (1951): 44-46. 173 For Bačkovo, see Bakalova, Bachkovskata Kostnica (see footnote 14), p. 179; fig. 147; for Kurbinovo, see Hadermann-Misguich, Kurbinovo (see footnote 10), fig. 57; for H. Anargyroi, see Pelekanidis and Chatzidakis, Kastoria (see footnote 80), p. 33, fig. ll. 174 Jn. 12,17. 175 Jn. 12, 1-4 5 . 176 For the liturgical celebration of the feast, see R. P. F. Mercenier, La prière des églises de rite Byzantin, 3 vols. (Chevetogne, Belgium, 1940-53), Vol. 2/2, p. 39. 177 Mt. 21, 1-16 ; Mk. ll, 1 -1 1 ; Lk. 19, 2 9 -4 0 ; and Jn. 12, 12-19.
Chapter III
56 stressed throughout the program of the church: the dual nature of Christ and the reality of His sacrifice continu ously re-enacted through the Eucharist.
the two scenes across the church, like the pairing of the Presentation and the Threnos, encompassed the terrestrial life of Christ, didactic in their message and striking in their intimate appeal and realistic appearance.
5. The Marian Cycle The narrative cycle of the upper zone of the naos at Nerezi is completed by the display of the scenes from the Marian cycle on the west wall (pl. 19; figs. XLII, 43). The Nativity of the Virgin and the almost completely destroyed Pre sentation in the Temple were most likely topped by the Koimesis, as was customary in Byzantium.178The Nativity of the Virgin at Nerezi very closely resembles major iconographic features of the period.179 In the twelfth cen tury, the traditional portrayal of the reclining Anna, the procession of women, and the two maids bathing the in fant Virgin was enriched by other attendants, the effect of the scene ranging from a private ceremony to a public spectacle. The scene at Nerezi remains an image of a private event, reduced only to the main protagonists and recalling the earlier, eleventh-century renditions of the event. Only the girl holding Anna’s arm, obscure in origin, enriches the group of the traditional attendants.180 The prominence given to the Marian cycle at Nerezi re flects the Virgin’s popularity in the region.181 The location of the Nativity of the Virgin within the church, however, resonates the major messages of the program, while span ning the space of the naos along its east-west axis. Placed in the second tier of the west wall, the Nativity at Nerezi faces the scene of the Communion of the Apostles, dis played in the corresponding tier of the apse (figs.VII, VIII). While the Birth of the Virgin prefigured the Incar nation of Christ, it was the Communion of the Apostles which announced His sacrificial death. Thus, the pairing of
6. Spatial Relations of the Scenes: Meaning and Significance The cycle at Nerezi is intended to evoke a participatory re sponse, engaging the viewer emotionally in the acts and events depicted in the scenes. Governing the selection, disposition, and emotionally heightened motives in individual scenes is the use of juxtapositions and spatial relations of the scenes, especially in pairs, to amplify the emotive content of the cycle and emphasize its unified message. The logic of the pairing seems apparent when one considers that the scenes of the Incarnation, Theophany, and miracles of Christ, such as the Annunciation, the Presentation, the Resurrection of Lazarus, and the Nativity of the Virgin, are spatially related to scenes which either anticipate or actually portray Christ’s sacrificial death. Such pairing clearly unifies the program of Nerezi around the theme of the Passion, while emphasizing the human and emotive content of the cycle. With scenes spanning the entire space of the church, the beholders are not only viewers of isolated symbols of the dogma, but rather participants in an action which is happening in the realm of their space. The juxtaposition of isolated scenes and images, while known since Early Christian times, entered church deco ration following the iconoclastic controversy, and became a particularly popular compositional device in the second half of the twelfth century.182 The scenes which echo each other across the space of the church allowed the artist to
178 The Koimesis is seen, for example, in Hagioi Anargyroi and Hagios Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi in Kastoria, and in Kurbinovo. See Pelekanides and Chatzidakis, Kastoria (see footnote 80), pp. 24, 52; and Hadermann-Misguich, Kurbinovo (see footnote 10), Vol. 2, fig. 90. It was also re-painted at Nerezi in the sixteenth century (see pls. 8a, 8b). 179 For the iconography of the scenes, see J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, Iconographie de l’enfance de la Vierge dans l’empire Byzantin et en Occident, 2 Vols. (Brussels, 1964), Vol. 1, pp. 89-105. 180 The entire upper-south and central portions of the scene are damaged. Thus, the gray building to the south of the composition has mostly disap peared and the face of the maid with a pitcher is obliterated. The maid bathing the infant Virgin in a large ocher vessel which resembles the shape of an amphora is fully preserved; she is wearing a green apron and a white, short-sleeved dress, her hair covered with a white scarf. The central por tion of the scene displays the reclining Anna, leaning against the white pillows and covered with a grayish-green blanket. The bed is decorated with a purple cloth ornamented in gold, and a folded purple curtain above. Of the four maids, only the one supporting Anna’s arm, and a woman car rying a vessel and stepping into the doorway are fully preserved. Both are shown in profile, the woman at the door distinguished for the awkward positioning of her left arm, which appears detached from her body as if amputated; she is dressed in a white robe with a purple mantle. The head of the third maid, dressed in white and standing behind Annas bed is partly obliterated. Only a portion of white robes streaked in pink have re mained from the fourth maid. The Presentation of the Virgin is now almost entirely lost. Remaining from this scene is only a narrow strip at the left, which shows Anna dressed in blue garment and purple maphorion, followed by a group of young women. 181 The scenes from the life of the Virgin were prominently displayed in many regional monuments, both those dedicated to the Virgin, such as the churches of the Virgin of Eleousa at Veljusa, and those which are not, such as the Cathedral church of St. Sophia in Ohrid. The cult of the Virgin was particularly popular in the Strumica region. See P. Miljković-Pepek, Kompleksot crkvi vo Vodoča (Skopje, 1975), pp. 52-53. 182 On this relationship, see Maguire, Art and Eloquence (see footnote 125). On the Early Christian examples of juxtaposition, see also A. Grabar, Christian Iconography: A Study of Its Origin (Princeton, 1980), pp. 136-137, who gives an excellent example of Early Christian juxtaposition in his analysis of the sarcophagus at S. Ambrogio in Milan; there, Christ is represented with apostles in one register, and as the Lamb with sheep on the register below. Grabar, however, decided that it is an isolated phenomenon and looked at other juxtapositions only through the established relationship between the Old and New Testament. E. Kitzinger, “Reflections on the Feast Cycle in Byzantine A rt”, CA 36 (1988): 5 1 -6 1 , also provides useful information for the study of Early Christian juxtaposition of images and its origins. See also L. Hadermann-Misguich, “Aspects de Pambiguïté spatiale dans la peinture monumentale byzantine”, Zograf 22 (1992): 5-13.
57
Chapter III emphasize the specially significant moments of the events portrayed, and thus unify the program around desired themes. For example, the parallelism between the scenes of the Nativity of Christ and the Dormition, seen at the Martorana in Palermo, emphasized the notion of Christ’s in carnation.183 By the same token, the juxtaposition of the image of Virgin with Christ Child and the scene of the Last Judgment, seen at Asinou on Cyprus (12th century), and the Church of the Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki (14th century), amplifies the paradox of the dual nature of Christ,184while a comparison between the Lamentation or Crucifixion with the Presentation, enhance the notion of human sufferings of Christ as a crucial step in the economy of salvation.185While appearing for the first time at Nerezi, the comparison between the scenes portraying the Passion of Christ and Christ’s Presentation in the Temple, is also seen in later twelfth-century monuments, such at H. Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi in Kastoria and at St. George in Kurbinovo.186 The source of the juxtaposition of scenes as a meaning ful compositional device is most likely found in Byzantine literature. In his illuminating study on the relationship be tween Byzantine art and literature, H. Maguire drew per suasive parallels between the rhetorical devices of descrip tion, antithesis, hyperbole and lament used in Byzantine liturgical hymns and homilies, and their visualization in art.187For example, as H. Maguire pointed out, Mary’s rec ollection of the childhood of Christ in the sermons on the Lamentation, intensifies the pathos and suffering of the mourning mother by providing a series of contrasts be tween past and present, birth and death, and happiness and sorrow. Known since antiquity, the rhetorical device of the antithesis is explored in the visual renditions of the Lament during the late eleventh and throughout the twelfth cen tury, as it appealed to the sentiments of the beholders and aroused their piety. The rhetorical devices which were used in literature and liturgy were familiar to a Byzantine audience, who were thus susceptible to accept them in art.188 This influence of rhetoric was strong throughout Byzantium, but it became particularly pronounced in the twelfth century, as the relationship between the two media grew closer. The iconography and spatial articulation of scenes reflect this relationship.
While the spatial parallelism in all of the above men tioned monuments remained limited to a pair or, at most, several pairs of images, at Nerezi, for the first time in Byzantium, the juxtaposition of scenes and images gov erns the composition of the entire Christological cycle. Moreover, the ultimate result of these juxtapositions, the unified message of the cycle which focuses on the Passion and sacrifice of Christ, so carefully articulated at Nerezi, is unprecedented. Rather than telling a narrative in a chrono logical manner, the juxtaposed pairs of scenes connect messages and timeless truths about Christian faith. Such structure of space coincides with the Byzantine concep tion of liturgy. While events from Christ’s life are recalled during the Liturgy, they are all nonetheless united through the idea of redemption in the one act - the Eucharistic con secration which celebrates Christ’s sacrificial deeds.189
7. The Theme of Passion 7.1. Social and Cultural Trends The emphasis on the scenes of the Passion at Nerezi, evi dent in the aesthetic, compositional and iconographic character of the program, can be interpreted as a conse quence of liturgical developments, current political events, and the social and cultural climate of the period. On the most general level, the program of.the Christological cycle at Nerezi can be related to the growing interest in explor ing human emotions and individual psychological treats evident in all aspects of Byzantine culture of the period.190 The twelfth-century, often referred to as yet another Medieval renaissance, witnessed the renewal of humanistic concerns which penetrated a large cross-section of the society: from secular education to monastic circles. The vernacular entered literature, poetic verses became the favorite vehicle of expression, and tragedy and romance became popular literary genres.191 The shift towards hu man behavior, pathos, and appeal towards the sentiments, which occurred in twelfth-century literature, is also seen in the art of the period. With a wide array of formal means, such as elongated proportions, vibrant coloristic effects, expressive gestures, and psychological characterizations of
183 See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily (see footnote 138), p. 73. For a discussion, see Maguire, Art and Eloquence (see footnote 125), pp. 59-68. 184 The Virgin in the narthex at Asinou is from the twelfth century; the Deesis, however, is from the late thirteenth century. For Asinou, see D. Win field, “Hagios Chrysostomos, Trikomo, Asinou. Byzantine Painters at Work”, in: Praktika 1972y pp.2 8 5-91. For Holy Apostles, see A. Xyngopoulos, “Les fresques de l’église des Saints-Apôtres à Thessalonique”, in: Art et société à Byzance sous les Paléologues (Venice, 1971), figs. 1, 18. For a discussion, see Maguire, Art and Eloquence (see footnote 125), pp. 53-59. 185 Maguire, Art and Eloquence (see footnote 125), pp. 91-108. 186 For Kurbinovo, see C. Grozdanov and L. Hadermann-Misguich, Kurbinovo (Skopje, 1991), pp.42-45. 187 Maguire, Art and Eloquence (see footnote 125), pp. 91-108. 188 Ibid, p. 110. 189 M. M. Solovey, The Byzantine Divine Liturgy, tr. by D. E. Wysochansky (Washington, 1970), p. 269. 190 For discussion and bibliography, see A. P. Kazhdan and A. W. Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Berkeley, 1985), pp. 207-208. 191 The new humanistic tendencies of the twelfth century are well summarized in A. Kazhdans comparison of the two descriptions of the painted dec oration of the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, one by the twelfth-century writer Nicholas Mesarites and the other by the ninthcentury Constantine of Rhodes: “The same Christological images that Constantine saw as flat emblems of truth, Nicholas described as emotion ally charged fragments of time. He not only saw Lazarus’s body brought out of its tomb by Christ, he even smelled its rotting flesh.” See Kazhdan and Epstein, Change in the Byzantine Culture (see footnote 190), p. 224.
Chapter III
58 figures, artists provided visual definition of the complexity of human nature. A more specific source for the prominence given to the theme of the Passion at Nerezi is found in current liturgi cal trends. Liturgy, like other aspects of human activity, answered the pulse of cultural trends in Byzantium. Al though hymnography declined in quality and production in the twelfth century, the lyrical verses of pre-iconoclastic religious poets became particularly appealing to the con temporary audience, remained an important component of liturgical readings, and became a rich resource of the new iconographic and aesthetic features of art. Their impact at Nerezi is above all evident in the emotionally charged themes of the Deposition and the Threnos, discussed ear lier. Moreover, judging by the surviving Typica, such as the Typicon of the Evergetis monastery in Constantinople (11th century) and the Typicon of the monastery of Savior in Messenia (1131) new offices were introduced in the cel ebration of the Passion Week.192 The offices which com memorated the events on the cross, the Deposition, the Lamentation, and the Entombment were included in the liturgy of Good Friday, and the solemn entry into the church which resembled a procession to Christ’s tomb, be gan developing in the ceremonies of the Holy Saturday.193 Thus, in its emphasis on the Passion of Christ, the cycle at Nerezi provided a powerful answer to current cultural and liturgical trends and consequently appealed to a contem porary audience. 7.2. Alexios’ Concerns The innovative nature of the program at Nerezi is also in timately related to the wishes and aspirations of its patron, Alexios. The choice of the Passion as the unifying theme of the Christological cycle, is in tune with the theme of the intercession, another subject powerfully illustrated at Nerezi, and seen for example in the prominence given to the patron saint and to the holy physicians. The emphasis on the themes of Passion and intercession at Nerezi indicates that thoughts about death and the wish for safe passage into the next world were very much on the mind of the patron Alexios. Along with the presence of the tomb in the north-west chapel, the references to death evident in programmatic structure of the program, suggest that the patron may have intended the church as a place of his own burial. Above all, the compositional, aesthetic, and formal nov elties of the Christological cycle at Nerezi also confirm Alexios’ involvement in current theological disputes, sug gested in other areas of the church. As discussed earlier, the disputes during the Church Councils challenged both the dual nature of Christ and the validity of the Eucharistic rite. The program of the Christological cycle at Nerezi an
swered both challenges. The paradox of Christ’s human and divine nature is constantly re-iterated in juxtaposed scenes and images. Moreover the realism of Christ’s sacri fice and the need for its perpetual liturgical re-enactment, so strongly supported by the defenders of the faith during the Councils, was persuasively visualized by formal and aesthetic devices. The redemptive powers of Christ’s Pas sion, explained by the Church Fathers, defended during the Church Councils, and celebrated in the liturgy, found their visual identity on the walls of the naos at Nerezi. In their persuasive visualization of human sentiment, the artists at Nerezi created a pinnacle of emotionally charged image and space. The programmatic concerns and their superb pictorial translation related to the general tendencies of the period, revealed the aspirations of the patron, and went far beyond established artistic clichés, providing a visual paradigm for centuries to come.
SANCTORAL CYCLE 1.Introduction The sanctoral cycle at Nerezi complements the program of the church both in its message and in its aesthetics. The twenty-seven saints displayed in the lower zone of the naos are all depicted only about 60 centimeters above the floor level as life-size, standing figures with rather distinc tive, portrait-like facial features (pls. 16-22; figs. LI-LVII; 50-69).194 They were all once identified with inscriptions and many were shown as carrying inscribed scrolls. The choice and disposition of saints reveal the function of the church, personal choices of its patron, and liturgical prac tices of the period. The most striking features of the sanc toral cycle at Nerezi are the arrangement of saints ac cording to their respective categories (figs. VII, VIII), the appearance of the group of five hymnographers (fig. LVII), and the intimate connection which the images of saints have both with the Christological scenes above and with the beholder (figs. X, XI). The saints at Nerezi are carefully organized. Placed symmetrically on opposing walls and, in most instances, vivaciously gesturing towards one another, the saints are brought into rhythmic relationship among themselves. The saints, like the scenes in the upper zone, integrate the space of the church both across the naos and along the ver tical axis. The majority of the saints from the lower zone correspond to the major accents in the narrative scenes above, and thus the entire wall becomes compositionally unified. Moreover, the saints look in a number of direc tions, their gazes intersecting within the space of the naos and meeting with the eyes of the beholder.
192 See M. Arranz, Le Typicon du Monastère du St. Sauveur à Messine. Cod. Messinesis Gr. 115 A.D. 1131 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 185, Rome, 1969), pp. 236-240; and A. Dmitrievskii, Opisanie liturgicheskikh rukopisei, 3 Vols. (Kiev, 1895-1917), Vol. 1, p. 550. 193 The fully developed ritual of Epitaphios Threnos, however, appears only in the 14th century. See D. I. Pallas, Die Passion und Bestattung Christi in Byzanz: Der Ritus-Das Bild (Munich, 1965), pp. 42-4 6 , 231; and Belting, The Image and Its Public (see footnote 145), pp. 100-103. 194 The height of the zone of the saints is 1.65 m, and the height of figures is approximately 1.55 m.
59
Chapter III The choir of saints at Nerezi also re-enforces the partic ipatory character of the program, evident throughout the church. Accessible to the beholder by their physical close ness and interactive stances, the saints at Nerezi are also highly individualized. They are distinguished by their facial types, and special attention was given to emphasiz ing different categories of saints, not only through cos tumes and attributes, but also through their careful arrangement. The use of identifying inscriptions and at tires, seen at Nerezi, was a common characteristic of saints since the end of iconoclasm. The emphasis on precise iden tifications of saints corresponded to a growing need of the faithful to channel their prayers through a particular holy individual, vested with special protective powers.195 The spatial distribution of saints according to their respective categories, however, is unprecedented in Byzantium. For the first time in extant Byzantine monumental painting, each category of saints in the naos of Nerezi is represented on a separate wall, the saints of the same class echoing each other across the naos. Thus, the north and south walls are devoted to warrior saints (pls. 18, 20), the west wall exhibits holy martyrs (pl. 19), and the walls of the arms of the cross display holy monks (pls. 16, 17, 21); the north wall of the north arm of the cross is dedicated ex
clusively to holy poets (pl. 22). The most significant posi tion within the choir of saints is given to St. Panteleimon (figs. XXXIV, XLIX; 83). Prominently displayed under the richly ornamented south proskynetarion frame, St. Panteleimon provides a pendant to the icon of the Virgin and Christ which flanks the iconostasis to the north (figs. XXXIV, L). The arrangement of saints according to their respective categories indicates that the choir of saints at Nerezi was not meant to introduce any temporal re ferences, since the order of saints does not even attempt to follow the Menologia sequence. Rather, the arrangement reveals that saints are distinguished for specific skills of their class, and trusted for their intercessory powers.
2. Military Saints Upon entering the church, the visitor is surrounded by six famous holy warriors, all dressed in military costumes as was customary at the time (pls. 18, 20; figs.LIII, LV).196 Looking from east to west, St. George (fig. 56),197 St. Demetrios (fig. 57),198 and St. Nestor (fig. 58),199 displayed on the south wall, are facing St. Theodore Teron (fig. 62),200 St. Theodore Stratelates (fig. 61),201 and St. Prokopios
195 For the shift in portrayals of saints following the iconoclastic controversy, see H. Maguire, The Icons of Their Bodies. Saints and Their Images in Byzantium (Princeton, 1996), especially pp. 5 -4 8 . 196 The costume consisting of tunic, cuirass, and chlamys was a common attire of Byzantine military saints since at least the eleventh century. For details of the costume, see P. Underwood, The Kariye Djami, 3 Vols. (New York, 1966), Vol. 1, pp. 252-258. 197 St. George is well preserved, only his facial features appear somewhat faded. He is dressed in a blue tunic with hem ornamented in gold, which covers his knees; a cuirass displaying a scale-armor pattern of brown and beige squares; a white breast band across his chest which holds the cuirass; flaps (pteryges), which resemble the pattern of the cuirass; a girdle which supports a blue sash with golden borders knotted at its center; a red chlamys pinned at the right shoulder with a fibula; and dark-blue tightly-fitted pantaloons (anaxyrides) bound near the bottom with white ban dages. He holds the spear in his right hand, and touches a white shield with the left. For bibliography on St. George and other saints, see appropriate entries in ODB. In addition, for representations in art, see T. Mark-Weiner, Narrative Cycles of the Life of St. George in Byzantine Art (Ph. D. dissertation, New York University, 1977). For the life of the saint, see K. Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg in der griechischen Überlieferung (Munich, 1911); for popularity of the saint, see D. Howel, “St. George as Intercessor”, Byzantion 39 (1969): 131-136. 198 Lower portions of St. Demetrios, including his feet, are damaged. He is dressed in a red tunic with golden embroidered hem, a gray and brown scale cuirass, pteryges of the same color as the cuirass, a brown band, a girdle decorated with beads, and a long blue chlamys tied at the right shoulder with a fibula. He holds the hilt of a partially drawn sword in the left hand and its scabbard in the right. A white heart-shaped shield with a border ornamented with stylized acanthus is depicted behind the saint. For representations of St. Demetrios in art, see E. Smirnova, “Culte et image de St. Démètre dans la principauté de Vladimir à la fin du XIIe-début du X IIIe siècle”, in: Diethnes Symposio. Byzantinē Makedonia 324-1430 (Thessaloniki, 1995), pp. 267-277; A. Xyngopoulos, Ho eikonographikos kyklos tēs zonēs tou Hagiou Demetriou (Thessalonike, 1970); C. Walter, Studies in Byzantine Iconography (London, 1977), pp. 157-78; and A. Grabar, “Quelques reliquaires de saint Démétrios et le martyrium du saint à Salonique”, DOP 5 (1951): 1-2 9 . For literature, see P. Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de Saint-Démétrius et la pénétration des Slaves dans les Balkans, 2 vols. (Paris, 1979-81). 199 St. Nestor is well preserved; two letters of his identifying inscription, NE of Νέστωρ, have remained. He is dressed in a short gray tunic streaked with white and ornamented with golden embroidery at the hem; a scale cuirass and pteryges, both displaying a pattern of brown and beige circles; dark-brown anaxyrides and white boots; and a red chlamys tied at the right shoulder with a fibula. He holds a spear with the right hand and a cir cular shield rendered in profile, its border decorated with vermiculated arabesque in his left hand. For representations in art, see Constantinides, Olympiotissa (see footnote 47), pp. 246-247. 200 The saint is well preserved, only his feet are missing. He is dressed in a long, metallic-blue tunic, richly embroidered with gold at the hems; green and white scales of the armor cuirass with pattern of circles; brown pteryges and brown girdle; and a mantle which is tied at the center and also flips over his right arm, displaying a tablion and an ornamental pattern of floral design enclosed in a circle, similar to the altar-cloth in the bema (see foot note 10). He holds a spear in his left hand and a heart-shaped shield in the right. For the enkomion, see PG 46, cols. 736-748. For representations in art, see Constantinides, Olympiotissa (see footnote 47), pp. 209-210. 201 St. Theodore Stratelates is the most elaborately dressed in the group. His tunic is red, hemmed with golden embroidery; his cuirass and pteryges are very similar to those worn by St. George. The front of the cuirass is, however, covered with his blue chlamys, tucked under the chest band, flipped over, and forming the shape of an arrow, decorated with the tablion and the same floral pattern as that of St. Theodore Teron. While his left hand rests on his hip, he holds a sword in his right hand. A heart-shaped shield, displaying heraldic blue and red fields, is placed behind him. For this unusual appearance of the coat-of-arms at Nerezi, see M. Ćorović-Ljubinković, “Predstave grbova na prstenju i drugim predmetima materi jalne kulture u srednjevekovnoj Srbiji”, in: O Knezu Lazaru (Belgrade, 1971), p. 174. For texts, see BHG, nos. 1750-1753m. For representations in art, see L. Mavrodinova, “Sv. Teodor-razvitie i osobenosti na ikonografskija mu tip u srednovekovnata zhivopis”, Bulletin de ľlnstitut des Arts 13 (1969): 3 3 -5 2 ; and Th. Chatzidakis-Bacharas, Les peintures murales de Hosios Loukas: les chapelles occidentales (Athens, 1982), pp. 69-70.
Chapter III
60 (fig. 60), on the north.202The selection of warrior saints was clearly governed by their popularity. As a group, they rep resented recognized leaders of the army of holy martyrs and defenders of the faith, their lively gestures and vivid stances communicating the energy and strength with which they accomplished their divine mission. As individual icons, they appealed to a wide audience, offering an avenue for private prayer and meditation. Judging by both literary and visual sources, the lives and deeds of these holy war riors were well known to contemporary worshipers, and their images were frequently exhibited in all media.203 With regard to the twelfth century, the same triad of Sts. George, Demetrios, and Nestor is seen, for example, in Cefalù, while the selection of warrior saints at Nerezi fully resem bles that of the church of H. Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi in Kas toria.204 Moreover, the pairing of saints seen at Nerezi had become common by the twelfth century. Particularly com monly paired were the two Theodores,205 as well as Sts. Demetrios and Nestor,206 who were martyred together in the third century, during the prosecution of the emperor Maximian.207
3. Martyrs The four martyrs are also displayed in pairs (pl. 19, figs. LIV; 59). They flank the entrance to the church and occupy the entire first zone of the west wall. They are dressed in courtly costumes consisting of a long tunic, richly ornamented around the collar, cuffs, and at the hem; and a mantle (chlamys), tied by a fibula on the right shoulder and partially obscuring the tunic. Con siderable damages to the pair of martyrs to the north of the entrance and the missing inscriptions of the martyrs to the south conceals their identity.208 Thus, in the pre sent state of preservation, the martyrs in the naos are distinguished only as representatives of their respective class.
4. Holy Monks The major prominence in the sanctoral cycle at Nerezi is given to the holy monks. Out of twenty-seven saints dis played in the first zone, sixteen, that is almost two thirds, are monks. Moreover, they occupy all the walls of the arms of the cross, thus dominating the most important section of the church, the central area under the dome (pls. 16, 17, 21, 22; figs. LI, LII, LVI, LVII; 50-55, 64-69).209 The ma jority of monks are clad in their traditional attire, consis ting of a long tunic, a scapular, and a mantle (mandyas). The prominence given to this class of saints, as well as their distribution, reveals significant information about the function of the church, as well as about its patron. The sheer number of the holy monks represented at Nerezi and their placement in the central area of the church, support the notion, implied thus far only in the mention of the hegoumenos in the inscription, that Nerezi indeed was a monastic church. Since the congregation con sisted mostly, although not exclusively, of the members of the monastic community, the prevalent presence of the monastic saints had a rather important didactic function. It is the virtue of their holy predecessors that the monks of the community are instructed to follow, and it is by virtue of the intercessory powers of these holy monks that their terrestrial followers will achieve salvation for themselves and for the people on whose behalf they conduct numer ous daily prayers. The function of the holy monks at Nerezi is further emphasized by the now defaced inscribed liturgical scrolls carried by the monks. From a few pre served lines, it is clear that the scrolls once displayed in structive notices, advising monks about the necessity of good Christian life.210 The choir of the holy monks is led by St. Anthony the Great (figs. LI; 50), represented as the eastern-most saint on the south wall of the south arm of the cross under the scene of the Presentation. The father of monastic life and the most prominent figure of fourth-century asceticism in
202 St. Prokopios is dressed in a short green tunic and a green cuirass with brown pteryges mostly obscured by his agitated red mantle and a white circular shield which he holds under his right arm. He also wears dark pantaloons and white boots. For the life of the saint, see H. Delehaye, Les légendes grecques des saints militaires (Paris, 1909), pp. 214-233. For other texts, see BHG, nos. 1576-1584. For representations in art, see D. Mouriki, “Four Thirteenth-Century Sinai Icons by the Painter Peter”, in: Studenica i vizantijska umetnost oko 1200. godine (Belgrade, 1988), pp. 329-349. 203 For the popularity of a select group of holy warriors, see Underwood, Kariye Djami (see footnote 196), pp. 253; and Mouriki, Nea Moni (see foot note 118), p. 143. 204 The only difference in the Kastorian church is that St. Merkourios is added as the fourth saint, standing besides St. Nestor. For Kastoria, see Pelekanides and Chatzidakis, Kastoria (see footnote 80), pp. 6 0 -6 1 ; for Cefalù, see E. Borsook, Messages in Mosaic: the Royal Programmes of Nor man Sicily (1130-1187) (Oxford, 1990), fig. 9. 205 One of the oldest examples of the pairing of the two Theodores appears at Nea Moni, Chios. See Mouriki, Nea Moni (see footnote 118), p. 143. 206 For their common appearance as a pair, since at least the eleventh century, see Constantinides, Olympiotissa (see footnote 47), pp. 247-248. 207 The link between the two martyrs became popular since the tenth century. The legend about their martyrdom is included in the story about the passion of St. Demetrios. See Synaxariumy cols. 163-170; PG 116, cols. 1185A, 1192-1202. 208 The head and upper chest of the martyr standing next to the north wall is defaced; only the lower portion of his white and green tunic and red chlamys is visible. The head of a martyr standing to the north of the door is also missing, with only a portion of his halo remaining. He is dressed in a red tunic and a white and green chlamys, the golden-embroidered tablion decorating his chest. The two martyrs to the south of the door are well preserved, only the lower portions of the robes of the martyr standing next to the door are faded. He is dressed in a red chlamys and a gray ish-white tunic, richly embroidered with gold at the collar and hems; a golden-embroidered ribbon with cufic letters is represented on his sleeves. The martyr standing next to him wears similar garments, except that both his tunic and his chlamys are red. 209 For the importance of this area, see T. F. Mathews, “The Sequel to Nicea”, pp. 191 -214. 210 Only a few lines are still legible, but similar practices are seen in other monastic churches, such as at St. Neophytos on Cyprus; see C. Mango and J. W. Hawkins, “The Hermitage of St. Neophytus and Its Wall Paintings”, DOP 20 (1966): 119-207.
Chapter III Egypt is easily recognized by his physical features: an old man with wrinkled face, short, forked beard and covered head.211 Other monks on the south wall are also singled out for their important role in the history of monasticism and portrayed according to well established visual conven tions. St. Anthony is accompanied (from east to west) by St. Paul of Thebes (figs. LI; 51), a distinguished Egyptian ascetic, easily identified by his brown and ochre striped straw garment;212 St. Euthymios (figs. LI; 52), the father of Palestinian monasticism, known especially for his defense of the dogma of the two natures of Christ, and portrayed as a bald man with white beard reaching below his belly;213 St. Sabas (figs. LI; 53), an important representative of sixth-century Palestinian monastic life;214 and an ano nymous monk (figs. LI; 54).215 Except for St. Makarios (fig. 64),216 represented first on the south side of west wall of the north arm of the cross, and St. Arsenios (fig. 55), an Egyptian monk who abandoned the life of luxury to be come an anchorite, the saints on the west walls of the arms of the cross cannot be identified with certainty; however, judging by the group on the south wall, they too were popular figures in the history of Byzantine monasticism (figs. LII, LVI).217 The five ascetic saints of the south wall of the south arm of the cross resonate with the solemn processional figures of the scene of the Presentation above (pl. 16; fig. XXXVII). They also provide a powerful parallel to the group of five holy poets represented across the naos, on the north wall of the north arm of the cross (pl. 22; fig.XLVI). While holy monks were a popular icono graphic subject in post-iconoclastic art, the isolation
61 of hymnographers at Nerezi represents the first such grouping in Byzantine monumental art.218 It also reveals important information about the church, its patron, and twelfth-century Byzantine society in general.
5. Hymnographers Despite the loss of identifying inscriptions, the distinctive physiognomies and attributes of hymnographers, as well as the fully preserved texts on their scrolls, reveal five famous Byzantine poets (from east to west): St. Kosmas the Hymnographer (figs. LVII; 69), St. John of Damascus (figs. LVII; 68), St. Theodore of Stoudios (figs. LVII; 67), St. Theophanes Graptos (figs. LVII; 66), and St. Joseph of Sicily (figs. LVII; 65).219 Like the ascetics on the opposite wall, the holy poets accent the major iconographic ele ments in the scene of the Lamentation above (pl. 22; fig.XLVI). St. Joseph of Sicily is placed right under the entrance to the cave, St. Theophanes Graptos is aligned with the emotionally charged face of the mother and her dead son, St. Theodore of Stoudios accentuates the dra matic curvature of St. John’s body, St. John of Damascus is placed right under Nicodemus and Joseph, while St. Kosmas once anchored the group of the holy women. The connection between the hymnographers and the scene illustrated above is not only formal. As discussed above, the rendition of the Lamentation was based on re ligious hymns and sermons, written by Byzantine poets, included in the liturgy, and known to a contemporary be holder.
211 The lower portions of St. Anthony’s legs are defaced; he is dressed in a yellow tunic, brown mantle, and a dark-blue cowl decorated with white stripes. His scroll still displays several words ΑΔΕΛΦΟ[Ι] ΤΗΝ ΘΑΙΨΙΝ ΑΓΑΠΗΣΑΤΕ INA ΕY ΡΗΤΕ; For the life of St. Anthony, see PG 26, cols. 836-978; for English translation, see R.T. Meyer, The Life of St. Anthony (Westminster, MD, 1950); for representations in art, see Mouriki, Nea Moni (see footnote 118), p. 160. 212 St. Paul of Thebes, like the remaining four saints on the same wall, have been preserved only above the waist. For representations in art and bibli ography, see Constantinides, Olympiotissa (see footnote 47), p. 221. 213 He is dressed in a white tunic, greenish-blue mantle, and a dark-gray scapular. For his life, see PG 114, cols. 596-733; for texts, see BHG, nos. 647-650d. 214 Shown as an old, balding, man with characteristic gray beard which parts at the chin; dressed in a yellow mantle tied with a fibula at the chest. For his life, see Kyrillos von Skythopolis, ed. by E. Schwartz (Leipzig, 1939), pp. 85-200; For texts, see BHG, nos. 1608-1610. For representations in art, see Sacopoulo, Asinou (see footnote 33), pp. 106-108; and Mouriki, Nea Moni (see footnote 118), pp. 166-167. 215 The monk is gray-haired with a long, squarish beard and delicate facial features. He is dressed in a blue tunic, purple mantle, and scapular with its color faded. The first word of his scroll, ΩΣΠΕΡΩ, is still legible. The same word marks the beginning of the inscription of an unidentified saint with corresponding facial features at Asinou; see Sacopoulo, Asinou (see footnote 33), p. 107. 216 St. Makarios, distinguished for his long gray hair which falls over his shoulders in strands, and his long beard which reaches below his knees, is dressed in a gray tunic, brown mantle, and scapular mostly obscured by his beard. He holds a now defaced scroll in his left hand. 217 St. Arsenios is the southern-most monk on the west wall of the south arm of the cross. He is represented, as was customary, with white, curly hair and white beard divided in strands; he wears a light-blue tunic, gray and white mantle, and scapular. His scroll is defaced too. The enkomion of the saint was written by Theodore of Stoudios; see T. Nissen, “Das Enkomion des Theodores Studites auf den heiligen Arsenios”, Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 1 (1920): 2 4 1-6 2 ; for texts, see BHG, nos. 167y-169c; for representations in art, see Mouriki, Nea Moni (see footnote 118), pp. 159-161. Standing next to St. Arsenios is a saint with a head covered with hood and wearing a brown mantle, greyish tunic, and a scapular. A third saint on the wall is bald, with long, pointed gray beard, and dressed in a yellow tunic, and a dark-green mantle. Accompanying St. Makarios on the west wall of the north arm of the cross, are a saint wearing a brown tunic and an ocher mantle tied in two knots below the waist, his hair covered with a scarf; and a balding, gray bearded saint wearing a grayish-blue tunic, brown mantle, and a black scapular. The few visible letters on his scroll are a conse quence of restoration and illegible. 218 Holy poets appear as a group in twelfth-century musical manuscripts, however. See A. W. Carr, “Illuminated Musical Manuscripts in Byzantium. A Note on the Late Twelfth Century”, Gesta 28/1 (1989): 4 1-5 3 . 219 For the representations of hymnographers in art, see G. Babic, “Les moines-poètes dans ľéglise de la Mere de Dieu à Studenica”, in: Studenka i vizantijska umetnost oko 1200. godine (Belgrade, 1988), pp.205-217.
Chapter III
62 5.1. St. Theodore of Stoudios The most prominent position among the hymnographers is given to St. Theodore of Stoudios (759-826). He is the central figure on the wall, dressed in an elaborate attire, and shown frontally, unlike the other poets who are repre sented in a three-quarter profile (figs. LVII; 67). While all other monks at Nerezi wear the modest monastic clothing, Theodore is clad in a richly ornamented, vividly colored attire which combines monk’s habit with patriarchal vest ments. The pinkish tones of his tunic highlighted with white are juxtaposed to a dark blue phelonion embroi dered with gold at its hem. Under the phelonion, he wears the epitrachellion and encherion, both richly embroidered with golden ornament. The elaborate attire and the central position of St. Theodore signifies his importance.220 Theodore is distin guished for his important role in reforming the Stoudios monastery, a leading Constantinopolitan center of Byzan tine monasticism established in 462. Under his guidance, from the beginning of the ninth century, the Stoudios monastery became an important stronghold of Orthodoxy, an active agent in the iconoclastic controversy, and a distin guished center of Byzantine hymnography.221 St. Theodore was a writer of liturgical hymns, homilies, and panegyrics, as well as a theologian, famous for his veneration of icons, particularly those representing the human appearance of Christ.222 It is thus interesting that he is portrayed right across from St. Euthymios, another fervent supporter of the notion of the inseparable, dual nature of Christ. The inscription on St. Theodore’s scroll is from the sec ond antiphon recited in the Orthros of the first Sunday after the Pentecost, known as the Sunday of All Saints. It reads (fig. 67): “Let my heart be sheltered with the fear of Thee, in humble-mindedness, lest, by being exalted, it fall away from Thee, O All-compassionate. He that hath hope in the Lord shall not be afraid, when with fire and torments he shall judge all things.”223 The choice of this inscription may have been based on the fact that a large part of the hymnographical material of the Triodion and the Pentecostarion is usually attributed to Theodore of Stoudios.224 The choice of this particular verse becomes more meaning ful, however, when considered in the context. The choice of verses read on the Day of All Saints seems appropriate for the scroll of one of the most distinguished figures in the sanctoral cycle. After all, the liturgy of the All Saint’s day commemorates the sacrificial lives of all the saints represented on the walls of the church; it celebrates
their triumph over physical death and their eternal life achieved through the salvific deeds of Christ. The texts read during the liturgy of that day are, above all, focused on faith as the avenue for salvation achieved through the sacrifice of Christ. For example, the Gospel lesson from Matthew (10, 32-33; 10, 37-38; 19, 27-30) indicates that faith is not merely a personal emotion, but requires dedi cation not only through words, but also through deeds. St. Matthew says: “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me ... And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.” (Matt. 10, 37-38). And the ultimate cause for salvation is offered in the readings from St. Paul: “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12, 2).225 The messages of the Gospel readings for the day are summarized in the poetic, lyrical, verses inscribed on St. Theodore’s scroll. The verses profess profound faith in the power and compassion of Christ, who will bring sal vation to the faithful on the day of the Last Judgment. What the text on the scroll expressed in an eloquent, al though probably elite manner, the actual choir of saints at Nerezi maintained. The saints, like the members of the congregation, owe their eternal life to sacrificial deeds of Christ powerfully illustrated on the walls above. The im ages, like the text, inspired the faithful to obedience and surrendering of one’s life. Neither the words alone, nor the faith alone have a power to save. Rather, it is obedience, surrendering of one’s life, and the self denial which means that “we shall take up our cross and follow after him who ‘for the joy that was set before him endured the cross’ as the liturgy of the day reads after the Epistle.”226 5.2. St. John of Damascus and St. Kosmas the Hymnographer The importance of faith in Christ and the remembrance of His sacrificial life is further elaborated on the verses in scribed on the scrolls of the other hymnographers, partic ularly St. John of Damascus and his adopted brother St. Kosmas the Hymnographer who are represented to the left of St. Theodore (figs. LVII; 68, 69). Both St. John and St. Kosmas were distinguished members of St. Sabas monastery in Palestine, another stronghold of medieval orthodoxy; they were also leading eight-century hym nographers, praised particularly for the mastery of their
220 St. Theodores life is preserved in several versions. See PG 99, cols. 113-232, 233-328; and B. Latyshev, “Vita S. Theodori Studitae in codice Mosquensi musei Rumianzoviani no.520”, VizVrem 21 (1914), pp.258-304. 221 See E. Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography (Oxford, 1961), pp. 229-231. 222 His role as a defender of icons, especially the icon of Christ, is also seen in Nea Moni where he is represented near the image of Christ in the lunette above the entrance to the naos. Mouriki, Nea Moni (see footnote 118), pp. 162-163. 223 The text on the scroll reads: Ἠ ϰαϱδία μου τῷ φόβῷ σου σκεπέσθω,ταπεινοφϱονοῦσα· μὴ ὑψωθεῖσα ἀποπέση, ἐϰ σου πανοικτίϱμον. (Ἐ π ί τόν ὁ ἐσχηκώς έλπίδα, οὐ δείδει τότε, ὅτι πυϱί τὰ πάντα, ϰϱίνεῖ ϰ ί κολάσει). I am grateful to Dr. Despina Kontostergion for her help with this translation. 224 See D. Mouriki, “The Portraits of Theodore Studites in Byzantine A rt”, JOB 20 (1971): 261. 225 G. Barrois, Scripture Readings in Orthodox Worship (Crestwood, NY, 1977), pp. 119-122. 226 Ibid., p. 122.
Chapter III Kanons.227 Their common origin, family ties, and poetic activity inspired artists to represent them together in many works of art.228 St. John of Damascus (c. 675 -749) was both a monk and a priest, a distinguished theologian, and a famous poet (figs. LVII; 68).229 He lived during the first period of the iconoclastic controversy and became famous for refuting iconoclastic heresy,230 just like St. Theodore who suc ceeded his work in the subsequent century and is repre sented near him. The writings of St. John of Damascus provided the basis for the consolidation of Orthodoxy, particularly the three apologetic orations, De imaginibus, and his famous text, De fid e orthodox y characterized as the ‘greatest theological effort of Eastern scholasticism’.231 In fact, his position in the Eastern church has been com pared to that which Thomas Aquinas held in the West.232 St. John of Damascus also stands out as one of the lead ing hymnographers. The prominent role which he has in the history of Byzantine liturgy is by and large due to his work on compiling the Octoechos, an editorial task which he shared with St. Joseph Hymnographer represented as the westernmost poet on the wall. In addition, St. John, along with his foster brother, St. Kosmas, was one of the leading writers of Kanons, a type of Byzantine liturgical poem which flourished in the monastery of St. Sabas. Among the famous Kanons written by St. John, is the so called “Golden Kanon,” the Resurrection Kanon read on the Easter Day.233 The verses inscribed on his scroll at Nerezi, however, are taken from his Second Kanon, chanted during the Orthros of the feast of the Nativity of
63 Christ on December 25th. The verses at Nerezi are from the hirmos of the ninth Ode, dedicated to the Virgin. They read (fig. 68): “It would be easier for us, because free from all danger, To keep silence in fear: While it is hard indeed, O Virgin, in love to devise songs harmoniously put to gether. But do thou, O Mother, Give us strength so we may fulfill our good intent. Today the Master is born as a babe of a Virgin Mother.”234 Beautifully wrapped in lyrical tones, the verses thus represent the powerful pro clamation of the Incarnation of Christ. It is through His incarnation, after all, that the salvation was granted to human kind. The theme of incarnation is also apparent is the verses written on the scroll of John’s foster brother, a holy monk, a poet, and a defender of Orthodoxy, St. Kosmas the Hymnographer (675-752).235 The verses on his scroll are from the Kanon sung during the Vespers on January 4 and, as slightly modified, during the Orthros of the Forefeast of Nativity on December 22 (fig. 69). On January 4, they read, “The Wisdom of God [Jesus Christ], containing the uncontainable, suspending water in the heavens, reigning in the abyss, and holding back the seas, runs to the Jordan [river]; [and] receives Baptism from the hand of a ser vant.236 On December 22, the ending verses are slightly modified for the feast of the Nativity. While beginning with the same verses as those inscribed at Nerezi, the con cluding lines read: “... and holding back the seas Thou de scended into a Virgin’s womb,” and in some recensions end with “from which (the Virgin’s womb) Thou now comst forth to be born in two natures, O God and
227 Byzantine hagiography ascribes the invention of the Kanon to Andrew of Crete (660-740). The first school of Kanon-poets, however, flourished in the monastery of St. Sabas in the middle of the 8th century. St. John of Damascus and St. Kosmas are recognized as leading masters of this poetic genre. See Wellesz, Byzantine Music and Hymnography (see footnote 221), pp. 204-229. 228 They are represented together in art since the tenth century. In twelfth-century monumental art they are seen, for example, in Bačkovo, where they flank the scene of the Dormition; at Bojana, as a part of the early leyer of paintings, where they originally flanked the scene of the Crucifixion; and at Lagoudera, where they flank the Mandylion. In the early thirteenth-century church of Panagia Amasgou at Monagri they are painted under the scene of the Presentation of the Virgin. For Bačkovo, see Bakalova, Bachkovskata Kostnica (see footnote 14), pp. 8 3 -8 4 ; for Bojana, see Idem, “Za konstantinopolskite modeli v Boianskata crkva”, Problemi na izkustvoto 1 (1995): 10-22 ; for Lagoudera, see Stylianou and Stylianou, Painted Churches on Cyprus (see footnote 50), p. 182, fig. 101; for Monagri, see Boyd, “The Church of Panagia Amasgou, Monagri” (see footnote 132), fig. 46. For a discussion, see Babić, “Les moines-poetes” (see footnote 219), pp. 2 0 7 -2 0 8 .1 am grateful to Prof. Elka Bakalova for bringing the ap pearance of these saints at Bojana to my attention. 229 The figure of the saint is damaged, a vertical crack in the wall obliterating most of his face and portions of his attire. He is dressed in a light blue and pink tunic, dark-green mantle, and a black cowl which covers his head. 230 The Vitae of the saint was written either by John VIII Chrysostomites, patriarch of Jerusalem, or by John IX; see J. M. Hoeck, Lexikon fu r The ologie und Kirche 5, cols. 1023-26. For his role as a defender of icons, see T. F. X. Noble, “John Damascene and the History of the Iconoclastic Controversy”, in: Religion, Culture, and Society in the Early Middle Ages: Studies in Honor of Richard E. Sullivan (Kalamazoo, 1987), pp. 95-116. For the texts, see BHG, nos. 884-885m. 231 Wellesz, Byzantine Music and Hymnography (see footnote 221), p. 206. St. John’s works are published in PG 94-96. For English translations, see W. H. Chase, Writings (Washington, DC, 1958); and D. Anderson, On the Divine Images (Crestwood, NY, 1980). 232 Wellesz, Byzantine Music and Hymnography (see footnote 221), pp. 206-207. 233 Ibid., p. 206. 234 Στέϱγειν μὲν ἡμᾶς, ὡς άκίνδυνον φόβῳ, Ῥᾶον σιωπήν· τῷ πόθῳ δὲ, παρθένε, Ὕμνους ὑφαίνειν συντόνως τεθηγμένους Ἐ ϱγῶδές ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ ϰαί, μῆτερ, σθένος, Ὃ ση πέφυκεν ἡ πϱοαίϱεσις, δίδου. Translated in: The Festal Menaion, tr. by Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware (London, 1969), p. 283. 235 St. Kosmas the Hymnographer is also known as St. Kosmas of Maiouma, a monastery near Gaza where he was elected as a bishop. See BHG, nos. 394-395; and Th. Detorakes, Kosmas ho Melodos (Thessaloniki, 1979). He is represented as wearing a yellowish-white tunic, purple mantle, and a cowl on his head. 236 The text on the scroll reads: Ή τὸ ἄσχετον ϰϱατοῦσα, ϰαί υπεϱῷον έν αίθέϱι ὕδωϱ, ή άβύσσους χαλινοῦσα, καί θαλάσσας... On December 22, it continues: ἀναχαιτίζουσα, θεοῦ Σοφία, ώς ὑετὸς έν πόϰῳ ϰαταβᾶσα, μήτϱαν Παϱθένου ᾤϰησε. On January 4th, it continues: ἀναχαιτίζουσα, Θεοῦ Σοφία, μολεῖ πϱός Ίοϱδάνην Βάπτισμα δέ δέχεται, χειϱός εκ δούλου.
64 man.”237 The verses inscribed at Nerezi were most like ly intended to recall both uses. If the Baptism of Christ represents His Epiphany, the manifestation of Christ and the Holy Trinity, the Nativity symbolizes the salvific promise manifest through Incarnation of God who be came man, containing qualities of both his human and di vine natures. 5.3. St. Theophanes Graptos The inseparable, dual nature of Christ and his consubstantiality with other members of the Holy Trinity is also em phasized in the inscription preserved on the scroll of St. Theophanes Graptos (c. 778-845).238 His placement to the right of St. Theodore of Stoudios suggests his promi nent role in the development of Byzantine monasticism, for it was Theophanes Graptos who transmitted the litur gical practices of St. Sabas monastery to Stoudios monastery (figs. LVII; 66). Thus, the sense of continuity, from Palestinian monastic liturgy, represented through the two foster brothers shown to the right of St. Theodore, to Constantinopolitan monastic liturgy, evident in the presence of St. Theodore of Stoudios and St. Joseph the Hymnographer, is established by the positioning of St. Theophanes within the file of hymnographers. As other hymnographers represented at Nerezi, Theophanes too was involved in defending icons, and was tortured by having his provocative verses tattooed on his forehead; hence the name Graptos which means “marked with writ ing.” At St. Sabas monastery, St. Theophanes was first a monk and then a priest; following the iconoclastic contro versy, Theophanes became the archbishop of Nicaea.239 The inscription on Theophanes’ scroll reads (fig. 66): “Theophanes Graptos, the first Angelic Hymn.”240 Most likely, the inscription refers to the Trisagion, as it is the first angelic hymn.241 The words ‘Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy upon us’ are repeatedly chanted three times both during the Eucharistic Liturgy and during every Divine Office. In fact, it is one of the most frequently chanted of all Byzantine hymns. The ori gin of the hymn has been discussed by many theologians, including St. John of Damascus, and it is still disputed. In all explanations, however, the Thrice-Holy-Hymn is said to have been divinely inspired and revealed to people as the
Chapter III authentic text of the hymn sung by the angels in heaven.242 As such, the Trisagion was included in Constantinopolitan liturgy in the fifth century.243 The hymn celebrates the Holy Trinity and its Trinitarian connotations were explained and established already in the writings of St. John of Damascus and later elaborated in the fourteenth century by Nicholas Cabasilas.244 In fact, ac cording to one legend about its origin, the hymn was in vented for a refutation of the Monophysite doctrine which denied the dual nature of Christ and claimed that Christ is only divine and that consequently God himself suffered and died in the Passion of Christ.245 Thus, the words of the hymn stressed the dual nature of Christ and his consubstantiality with other members of the Holy Trinity by praising God as ‘mighty’ and ‘immortal’ even in the Passion and death of Christ. The legend hardly provides a reliable source for establishing the origin of the hymn. But the con nection between the Trisagion hymn and the heretical at tempts to deny the dual nature of Christ is historically es tablished. In fact, the hymn is first mentioned in the acts of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 where the bishops actually sung the hymn as an argument against the Monophysites.246 Although no written evidence exists to confirm any similar gesture of church dignitaries at the twelfth-century Church Councils, the questions dealing with the two natures of Christ and the hypostatic union were at the core of the disputes and the appearance of the Trisagion on the walls of Nerezi is by no means surprising. It is, however, quite puzzling that the hymn which was composed in the fifth century, is alluded to in the inscrip tion of the ninth-century hymnographer. Such a discrep ancy certainly raises the question about the importance which was assigned to the accurate attribution of a text to its author. It is, however, possible that the first angelic hymn on St. Theophanes’ scroll refers not to the actual hymn, but to its commentary, poetic verses read at Vespers Services of the Pentecost: “Holy God, who created all things through the Son and the Holy Spirit; Holy Mighty One, through whom we know the Father, and the Holy Spirit came into the world; Holy Immortal One, the Spirit of Joy, who comes from the Father and rests in the Son, Holy Trinity, Glory be to you.”247 These verses may well have been attributed to Theophanes at the time; yet it is tentative.
237 For adaptation of verses to suit the specific feast, see F. Barišić, “Grčki natpisi na monumentalnom živopisu”, Z R V I 10 (1967), pp. 47-59, especially pp. 55-56. 238 He is clad in a bright yellow tunic shaded with green, and a dark purplish-brown mantle. Theophanes Graptos was a brother of Theodore Graptos; they were known both as poets and as fervent defenders of icons. For the life of the saint, see PG 116, cols. 653-684; for texts, see BHG, nos. 1745z-1746a, 1793. 239 PG 116, cols. 670-684. 240 Θεοφάνης ὁ Γϱαπτός ὁ πϱῶτος ἀγγέλων ὕμνος. It is interesting that in this inscription, as in the inscription of St. John in the diakonikon, the artists writes ΑΓΓΕΛΟΟΝ with two Omicrons instead of Omega. 241 I am grateful to Dr. Despina Kontostergion for bringing this to my attention. 242 For the origin of the hymn, see N. K. Moran, The Ordinary Chants of the Byzantine Mass (Hamburg, 1975), pp. 57-65. 243 D. G. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (London, 1978), p. 451; and H. Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy (New York, 1986), pp. 22-25. 244 For John of Damascus, see PG 95, cols. 2 1 - 6 1 ; for Cabasilas, see PG 150, cols. 412-416. 245 For the text of the legend, see F. Nau, Nestorius, Le livre d’Héraclide de Damas (Paris, 1910), pp. 318-323. 246 Mansi, Vol. 6, 936. 247 M. M. Solovey, The Byzantine Divine Liturgy, tr. by D. E. Wysochansky (Washington, 1970), p. 187.
Chapter III 5.4. St. Joseph of Sicily The fifth Hymnographer, standing next to Theophanes Graptos, is another Studite monk and poet, St. Joseph of Sicily (c. 812-886), also known as the Hymnographer (figs. LVII; 65).248 He was a famous Kanon writer, distin guished for his contribution to the transformation of this poetic genre.249 Among his Kanons, the most recognized were those dedicated to the Virgin. The verses inscribed on his scroll read: “Accept, O Lord, all our hymns ...”250 5.5. The Importance of Hymnographers The file of hymnographers communicates many potent messages. First of all, the writers of the holy poems are dis played under the most lyrical and emotionally charged scene in the church, the Lamentation. Thus, although the texts on the scrolls do not refer directly to the scene, one is drawn to establish a visual parallel between the poetic im age and the poetry which inspired it. Moreover, the selec tion of the holy poets is revealing. They are representatives of two important centers of Byzantine monasticism: St. Sabas’ monastery near Jerusalem, represented through St. Kosmas and St. John of Damascus; and Stoudios monastery, the stronghold of ninth-century Constanti nopolitan monasticism, exemplified through St. Theo phanes and and led by St. Theodore of Stoudios. The cen tral position given to St. Theodore suggests an inclination to emphasize the importance of Byzantine monastic circles from the capital, the Palestinian hymnographers confirm ing its legitimacy and its long history.251 Moreover, Byzan tine monasteries took their liturgy from Jerusalem, the pro-Palestinian elements becoming particularly promi nent after iconoclasm.252 It is also important to note that the hymnographers rep resented at Nerezi were distinguished theologians, some even taking a prominent role in defending icons during the iconoclastic controversy. Thus, on the one hand, the sheer appearance of the holy poets recalls their deeds in provid ing spiritual guidance and inspiration for the monks of their respective communities, as well as for those who lived at Nerezi. On the other hand, the appearance of the group of theologians who fought fervently against the op position to representing Christ as human, legitimizes the realism with which the artists at Nerezi represented the Passion of Christ. As defenders of true Orthodoxy, the hymnographers also supported the traditional dogma about the inseparable, dual nature of Christ which was
65 challenged during the twelfth-century Church Councils; hence their appearance at Nerezi is by no means sur prising. The choice of the verses inscribed on the scrolls of the holy poets is also significant, since it clearly indicates no in tention to glorify the individual creative spirit of a particu lar poet. If an individual poet was to be honored, St. John of Damascus would have been most likely distinguished with his most famous work, the Golden Kanon, and Theo phanes Graptos would display verses from the poems which were clearly his. No individual identity or glory, however, is fostered through the images of hymnographers at Nerezi. Their individualized portraiture and identifying inscription served most likely only to distinguish them as members of a group, important for writing liturgical po etry. The role of hymnographers thus, in some way, com pares to the role of the artists at Nerezi. Both composed works of extraordinary formal and dogmatic value, yet they were both, as Wellesz put it “humble artisans, whose talent sufficed for the unobtrusive adornment of the liturgy.”253 Nerezi artists remained anonymous. The indi vidual creative power of the hymnographers is also consid erably underplayed. Rather than glorifying the individual, the poetic verses on their scrolls communicate a unified theological message. Christ, who is the supreme judge, as indicated by St. Theodore’s scroll, was Incarnated and as sumed human flesh for our sake (John of Damascus); yet, despite his suffering as human he is nonetheless at the same time divine (Kosmas), and a consubstantial member of the Holy Trinity (Theophanes), as celebrated in the liturgy. The emphasis upon the dual nature of Christ and the Trinitarian concept, evident in the inscribed scrolls, recalls the major debates of the Church Councils and, as else where in the church, implicates the patron. Who else, but a highly educated member of the court aristocracy could have designed such an intellectually potent icon? The idea to isolate hymnographers as a separate group, the choice of hymnographers, and their relationship to other images, clearly define Alexios as a well read and a well educated in tellectual. The connections between the current ecclesias tical debates and the images in his church serve as a con stant reminder about his personal preoccupations and his close connections with the emperor. The liturgical content of these images confirms that he was quite versatile in the ological matters, thus further distinguishing him as a mem ber of the Constantinopolitan intellectual elite. The hymnographers at Nerezi are an elitist group, dis tinguished for their theological education and activity, as
248 He is wearing a dark-brown tunic, olive-green mantle, black scapular and a cowl. For biography, see E. Tomadakes, Iōsēph ho Hymnographos (Athens, 1971). For texts, see BHG, cols. 944-947b. 249 See Wellesz, Byzantine Music and Hymnography (see footnote 221), pp. 234-236. 250 Δέχοιο, Χϱιστέ, τούς δε τούς ἐμούς ὕμνους. I was not able to find the source for this inscription in Paraklētikē syn Tbeō Agiō (Rome 1738), cited in Babić, “Les moines-poètes” (see footnote 219), p. 207, n. 12. 251 The fifth hymnographer, St. Joseph, was also a representative of the Constantinopolitan school; he founded the monastery of St. Bartholomew in Constantinople. 252 R. Taft, The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Pre-Anaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Rome, 1975). 253 Wellesz, Byzantine Music and Hymnography (see footnote 221), p. 158.
Chapter III
66 well as for their contribution to Byzantine hymnography and liturgy. They are also to be understood as the leaders of the monastic community, since both their lives and their songs glorify and praise God, and thus inspire the con gregation to follow them. The inscriptions on the scrolls of other holy monks confirm this notion. While the holy monks at Nerezi display the texts which give instruction about the daily behavior of the monastic community, the lyrical verses on the hymnographers’ scrolls give the immediate reason for such behavior, by glorifying the savior and His deeds.
6. St. Panteleimon The most prominent position within the choir of saints at Nerezi is given to the patron saint, St. Panteleimon (figs. XXXIV, XLIX; 83).254 As was customary for patron saints at the time, St. Panteleimon is raised above the dado zone, and painted in an ornate proskynetarion frame distinguished for its marble frame and elaborate stucco reliefs.255 Moreover, unlike the dynamic choir of saints, St. Panteleimon is a still, iconic image, shown frontally. In addition, while other saints communicate with each other through body language and spatial pairing, St. Pantelei mon is detached from their company. He is paired with the image of the Virgin and Christ Child on the opposite side of the iconostasis (figs. XXXIV, L).256 In a way, thus, St. Panteleimon represents a separate category in the strictly organized classes of saints at Nerezi, especially trusted for his intercessory powers.
as was customary before, but also apostles, church fathers, all holy hierarchs, warrior saints, holy ascetics, holy physi cians, etc.257 The literary basis for this development can be found already in the writings of the fourth-century hermit, St. Ephraim, who wrote a list of saints, divided in their re spective categories, who were interceding for people on the day of the Last Judgment.258 While the spatial grouping of saints according to their re spective categories is conspicuously absent in monumental painting before Nerezi, it appears in twelfth-century man uscripts.259 That is at least suggested by the illumination of the Homilies of James of Kokkinobaphos (Vat. gr. 1162, fo lio 5), which represents the convocation of saints who cele brate the feast of the Nativity of the Virgin.260The grouping of saints according to their respective categories in the illu mination has been explained as an early version of the icon of All Saints, used for the celebration of the feast and par ticularly popular in the post-Byzantine period.261 One is thus left to wonder whether the feast of All Saints may have been recalled through this particular arrangement of the sanctoral cycle in the naos. The possibility becomes more realistic when one considers that the text on the scroll of St. Theodore of Stoudios, the most elaborately portrayed of all the holy monks, refers to the same feast. In sum, the sanctoral cycle at Nerezi is liturgical in its ori gin and dogmatic in its content. It adheres to the realism ev ident in other areas of the church in order to maintain the po sition of the Church on the true re-enactment of the liturgy. It also more intimately reflects the personal aspirations and wishes of the patron, through its intellectual content, politi cal connotations, and intercessory themes. The themes of passion and intercession developed in the naos, are also firmly interlocked in the painted decoration of the narthex.
7. Grouping of Saints The grouping of different categories of saints on separate walls most likely represents a consequence of liturgical de velopments, particularly the development of the prothesis rite. While previously mentioned only as a group, separate classes of saints were invoked during the late eleventh cen tury in the prothesis rite. Thus, a series of commemorative prayers that were recited during the breaking of the bread included not only the Theotokos and St. John the Baptist,
NARTHEX 1.Introduction While the painted program of the main areas of Byzantine churches acquired established, canonically imposed fea tures by the middle of the twelfth century, the selection
254 The image is in a good condition, only its lower portion is damaged, obliterating St. Panteleimon’s feet and a portion of his thighs. St. Panteleimon is shown as a full-size standing figure, dressed in a white tunic decorated with golden cuffs and collar; above it, he wears a looser white tunic, streaked with green, and ornamented with gold embroidery at the shoulders; a dark-gray scapular with a golden border; and a white epitrachellion decorated with gold. He is holding a medical box and a scalpel in left hand and pointing towards it with the right. The frame is decorated in stucco reliefs and will be discussed in the chapter on sculpture. For the representations of the saint in art, see Hadermann-Misguich, Kurbinovo (see foot note 186), Vol. 1, pp. 243-245; and Mouriki, Nea Moni (see footnote 118), Vol. l , pp. 151 -152. For the life of the saint, see the section on the narthex. 255 The prominent position given to the patron saint at Nerezi was standard in twelfth-century art; see S. Tomeković, “Les répercussions du choix du saint patron sur le programme iconographique des églises du 12e siècle en Macédoine et dans le Péloponnèse”, Zograf 12 (1981): 25-43. 256 The upper portion of the icon of the Virgin and Christ Child is entirely lost, and the heads of both figures are obliterated. The remaining portion of the icon reveals that Christ was dressed in yellow robes and shown as blessing with his right hand, while holding a scroll in the left. The Virgin, standing on a platform, wears her traditional blue robe and a purple maphorion, the gesture of her hand identifying her as Hodegetria. 257 For the development of the rite, see Walter, Art and Ritual (see footnote 46), pp. 232-238. 258 For a discussion, see T. Velmans, “Le dimanche de tous saints et l’icone exposée à Charleroi”, Byzantion 53 (1983): 17-35, particularly p. 18. 259 Ibid. 260 Ibid., fig. 2, and I. Hutter, Das Marienhomiliar des Mönchs Jakobos von Kokkinobaphos: Codex vaticanus graecus 1162 (Zurich, 1991), at folio num ber. 261 Velmans, “Le dimanche de tous saints” (see footnote 258), pp. 17-35.
Chapter III and organization of images and scenes represented in the narthex do not reveal any standardized pattern.262 Thus, relieved from programmatic limitations, the patron of Nerezi, Alexios, most likely imprinted a private quest for his own salvation on the choice of images and scenes dis played in the narthex. The paintings in the narthex are poorly preserved and completely missing on the ceiling and on the west wall.263 The remaining scenes and images are comprised of the Deesis, placed above the main entrance (pl. 24, fig. LXI); the hagiographic cycle of St. Panteleimon depicted on con siderable portions of the north, south and east walls (pls. 23-25; figs. LXII-LXIV); and individual saints ren dered both in the main area of the narthex and in adjacent chapels (pls.24, 26, 27; figs.LX, XLV-LXVII; 70-74). While a peculiar selection of individual saints most likely represents the personal preferences of the patron, the choice of the Deesis and the scenes from the life of his pro tector saint indicate Alexios’ appropriation of St. Pantelei mon’s intercessory powers.
2. The Deesis The Deesis, rendered above the arched tympanum of the main entrance to the church, has been preserved only in fragments (pl. 24, fig. LXI).264 Still visible at the summit of the arch is a portion of the head of Christ, displaying prominent eyes, longish, white hair and beard, and a cruciform halo. To the north of Christ is a fragment of the Virgin, identified by the remaining portions of her halo and the blue maphorion which covers her head and upper torso. The Virgin is shown in a three-quarter profile, probably addressing Christ; yet, her facial features are now faded. Standing to the right of Christ was either an archangel or an angel, presently known only by surviving segments of the blue wings and by the contours of the drapery.265 The iconography of the Deesis is unusual. First, if Christ was originally shown with longish, white hair and
67 beard, then the Deesis at Nerezi represents a rare, although not unique version of the scene with the Ancient of Days.266 The appearance of different types of Christ in the art of the post-iconoclastic period in general, and their association with the interpretation of the Eucharist in the twelfth century in particular, has been discussed above.267 Within the context of the Deesis, the Ancient of Days recalls the concept of Christ’s divinity in His human ap pearance, a paradox seriously argued during the Church Councils in Constantinople. Thus, the appearance of the Ancient of Days at Nerezi complies with the main programmatic orientation of the painted decoration seen elsewhere in the church. Another unusual, although not entirely unknown feature of the Deesis at Nerezi is the substitution of the traditional image of St. John the Baptist with an angel or archangel. As pointed out by scholars, St. John’s place was occasionally occupied by images of apostles, monastic saints, or even the figures of the bishops or the donor.268 The appearance of angels and archangels is also seen, for example, in the twelfth-century Skylitzes manuscript (Madrid, Bib. Nacional, cod. vitr. 26-2, fol. 64v), the mar ble reliefs at Topkapi in Istanbul tentatively dated in the twelfth century, and the epistyle of the templon in Blachernae church at Arta.269 The meaning of the Deesis in the narthex of Nerezi becomes apparent only when viewed in context. The im age of the Ancient of Days emphasizes Christ’s eternal divinity, manifest in His human appearance. In addition, the Deesis at Nerezi may also acquire an eschatological significance since the choice and arrangement of the scenes from the hagiographic cycle of St. Pante leimon emphasize the themes of the passion. The pres ence of the tomb in the north-west chapel, which, as discussed earlier, was included in the functional space of the narthex, also suggests that an intercessory role was most likely assigned to the Deesis; that at least agrees with the notion that the scene commonly acquired intercessory meaning within the context of funerary chapels.270
262 G. Babić, “Ikonografski program živopisa u pripratama crkava kralja Milutina”, in: Vizantijska umetnost početkom X IV veka (Belgrade, 1978), pp. 105-126; and S. Tomeković, “Contribution à l’étude du programme du narthex des églises monastiques (XIe-première moitié du X IIIe s.)”, Byzantion 58 (1988): 140-154. 263 The ceiling and the west wall were completely reconstructed, as discussed in Chapter II. 264 Fragments of the Deesis above the main entrance were concealed beneath the eighteenth-century icon of St. Nicholas, and were not discovered until the restoration of the monument in 1970s. See P. Miljković-Pepek, “Prilozi proučavanju crkve manastira Nerezi”, ZLU 10 (1974): 314. 265 The iconography of the Deesis at Nerezi may have been extended by inclusion of additional figures. This is at least suggested by the presence of a standing figure who flanks the entrance door to the north. The figure, wearing a long robe and carrying a now defaced scroll in his left hand, while the right rests on the chest, has been identified as either St. Peter or St. Paul by Hamann-Mac Lean, Grundlegung (see footnote 31), p. 270. His at tribution is, however, tentative, since the inscription on the scroll is illegible, and the head of the figure is lost. 266 The damage inflicted on the fragment of Christ’s head make it impossible to decide whether we are presently looking only at underpainting, or at the actual color of his hair and beard. The speckles of white color detected upon close inspection, however, indicate that the identification of the type of Christ as the Ancient of Days is very likely. The Deesis with the Ancient of Days is also found in the narthex of the twelfth-century church of H. Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi; see Pelekanides and Chatzidakis, Kastoria (see footnote 80), p. 52, no. 69. 267 See pp. 39-44. 268 For examples and discussion, see Cutler, “Under the Sign of the Deesis” (see footnote 116), pp. 148-153; and C. Pennas, “An Unusual ‘Deesis’ in the Narthex of Panagia Krena, Chios”, Deltion 17/4 (1993-94): 193-198. 269 For a discussion and bibliography, see Cutler, “Under the Sign of the Deesis” (see footnote 116), p. 151, n. 48. 270 See Walter, Art and Ritual (see footnote 46), pp. 183-184; and G. Babić, Les chapelles annexes des églises byzantines. Fonction liturgique et pro grammes iconographiques (Paris, 1969), pp. 162-173.
Chapter III
68 3. The Cycle of St. Panteleimon The hagiographic cycle of St. Panteleimon is preserved mostly in fragments and distributed along the east, south, and north walls of the narthex (pls. 23-25; figs.LXIILXIV). Of the eight scenes rendering the life of St. Pan teleimon and his companions, Hermolaos, Hermippos, and Hermokrates, six are dedicated to their sacrificial life, passion, and burial. Moreover, despite considerable losses, the size, location, and distribution of the preserved scenes indicate that preoccupation with the themes of death gov erned the selection and composition of the hagiographic cycle.
3.1. The Life of St. Panteleimon The story of the life of St. Panteleimon follows the gen eral conventions of Byzantine hagiographic narrative. St. Panteleimon was a late third/early fourth-century physician saint born in Nikomedeia, Asia Minor (died c. 305).271 He was raised by a Christian mother, Evula, and a pagan father, Eustrogios, who was a senator. Pantelei mon received early medical instructions from a pagan physician, and upon his meeting with the Christian priest Hermolaos, he converted from paganism to Christianity. Moreover, under the spiritual guidance of Hermolaos, Panteleimon became one of the famous Christian physi cians. On the general level, the Christian life of St. Pantelei mon parallels that of Christ, while particular events often recall other Biblical figures. L ike Christ, St. Panteleimon performed miracles, and was betrayed, tried, tortured, and killed by his adversaries. Miraculous deeds and the begin ning of the passion of St. Panteleimon also recall the life of Christ. The saint is said to have healed the blind, helped the poor, and resurrected a dead child who was bitten by a snake. After being betrayed, he was tried by Emperor Maximian, the Emperor assuming the role of Pilate. Following his trial, St. Panteleimon, like Daniel, was thrown among wild animals and, like Peter, was saved from drowning; Christ, appearing as St. Hermolaos, saved St. Panteleimon. Among other tortures, St. Panteleimon was stretched on the wheel, thrown into boiling wax, and beaten while his body was hung upside-down from an olive tree. After the first attempt to kill him ended unsuccessfully, since the sword with which he was to be beheaded turned into wax and melted, St. Panteleimon was executed according to his own wish: while in prayer. Incorporated in the story of the passion of St. Panteleimon is also the trial and the
beheading of his friends, Hermolaos, Hermippos, and Hermokrates.272 Like the narrative, the visual portrayals of the life of St. Panteleimon relied on the pre-existent compositional formula of Biblical events. The borrowing of the Gospel formulas to illustrate the life of a saint served to assimilate the events in the saint’s life even more closely to those of the life of Christ; that, in turn, enabled the viewer to recog nize and grasp the significance of the image, even if unfa miliar with the literary background.273 Following the same order as the cycle in the naos, the scenes of the life of St. Panteleimon begin on the east wall and develop chronologically along the south and north walls, ending with the burial of the saint on the eastern section of the north wall. Although largely damaged, the majority of the scenes can be identified. 3.2. The Scenes: East Wall The most tentative identification concerns the opening scene of the cycle. Located in the northern-most section of the east wall and above the entry to the north-west chapel is a fragment of the base of a throne and a small segment of a purple robe decorated with precious stones and pearls (pl. 24). According to R. Hamann-Mac Lean, the remaining fragments may have once belonged to the scene of the presentation of the saint to the Emperor Maximian; yet his claim is unsubstantiated.274 Fragments of two scenes have been preserved on the south side of the east wall (pl. 24; fig. LXII): one above the entrance to the south-west chapel, and another in the first zone and to the left of the entrance to the south-west chapel, the latter showing only the lower half of a brown wheel. A segment above the entrance to the south-west chapel is split by a red border line into two sections, display ing, therefore, remaining parts of two scenes. The upper section reveals a small arched brick structure with an opening. The structure itself may be interpreted as a cave. According to R. Hamann-Mac Lean, this could have been either a part of the scene depicting the arrest of the saint, or a part of the scene showing the betrayal of the hiding-place of St. Panteleimon and his friends.275 The lower part of the fragment shows the heads of two young figures, their faces drawn tightly together and rendered in profile. Since the heads are filling the space between the upper red border and the entrance to the south-west chapel, they might have once belonged to the scene which was depicted in the area below, and which exhibited a brown wheel. The wheel is related to the torturing of the saint by Maximian, which his profound Christian faith enabled him to overcome. Although tied
271 For the life of St. Panteleimon by Symeon Metaphrastes, see PG 115, cols. 448-477; see also, V. V. Latyshev, Neizdannye grecheskie agiograficheskie teksty (St. Petersburg, 1914), pp.40 -7 5; and Synaxarium, cols. 848-852. For other texts, see BHG, nos. 1412z-1418c. 272 PG 115, cols. 468-477. 273 For discussion on the comparisons of the hagiographic literature and art to biblical characters, see N. P. Ševčenko, The Life of Saint Nicholas in Byzantine Art (Torino, 1983), p. 172; and H. Maguire, “The Art of Comparing in Byzantium”, AB 70 (1988): 93-103. 274 See Hamann-Mac Lean, Grundlegung (see footnote 31), p. 271. 275 Ibid., p. 272.
69
Chapter III to the wheel and pushed down a hill, the saint remained unhurt.276 3.3. The Scenes: South Wall The south wall of the narthex exhibits three scenes, two occupying the entire height of the wall and depicted to the left and to the right of the entrance door, and the third displayed in the eastern section of the vault (pl. 25; figs. LXII - LXIV). All that has remained from the scene in the vault are lower portions of two figures who are walk ing on the water (pl. 25; fig. LXII).277 The steps of the fig ures and the agitation of their draperies indicate that both images were once rendered as running. Although there are no surviving portrayals of this scene, the written sources make it clear that the scene depicted in Nerezi illustrates the miracle at the sea. Challenging the saint’s faith, Em peror Maximian ordered that Panteleimon be thrown in the sea with a stone hanging from his neck. Nonetheless, Panteleimon was saved by Christ who, in the person of Hermolaos, led the saint across the water.278 The remaining scenes are large, occupy the entire height of the north and south walls, respectively, and are placed to the east and west of the side entrances to the narthex. These scenes are dedicated to the prosecution, execution, and bur ial of St. Panteleimon and his friends. The best preserved im age in the narthex is the scene portraying the friends of St. Panteleimon who are condemned and sentenced to die by
the Emperor Maximian because of their faith (figs. LXII, LXIII).279 Located beneath the miracle at the sea, the scene renders Hermolaos, Hermippos, and Hermokrates, brought before Maximian by two soldiers. Although no surviving renditions of the life of St. Panteleimon portray this event, it can be identified on the basis of the literary accounts.280 The punishment ordered by Maximian is carried out on the west side of the wall. Preserved only in fragments, the scene shows two events: the beheading of Hermolaos and the burial of Hermolaos, Hermippos, and Hermokrates (fig. LXIV).281 The decision to squeeze two consecutive events, the burial and the beheading of the saint, within one scene, is intrigu ing.282 Nowhere else in the church has the painter done this. Moreover, there certainly was enough space to depict the two events separately. The reasons for combining the execu tion and the burial become apparent only when viewed within the context of the scenes of the execution and burial of St. Panteleimon depicted on the facing wall. 3.4. The Scenes: North Wall The Execution of St. Panteleimon occupies the western section of the north wall and is directly juxtaposed with the execution and the burial of his friends (pl. 23). The pairing of these two scenes emphasizes the theme of pas sion. Remaining only in its basic outlines, the scene shows the kneeling Panteleimon who is just about to be decapi tated by a sword.283 Although severely damaged, the scene
276 A similar scene has been preserved in the Church of Sanť Angelo in Formis and on an icon from Sinai. See, S. Tomeković, “Les cycles hagiographiques de Sanť Angelo in Formis: recherche de leur modèles”, ZLU 24 (1988): 2 - 8 , fig. 1; and The Glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era A. D. 843-1261 (Exhibition Catalogue, Metropolitan Museum of Art), ed. by H. C. Evans and W. D. Wixom (New York, 1997), pp. 378-79; no. 249. The portrayal of this event in Sant’ Angelo in Formis is particularly helpful in reconstructing the scene in Nerezi. The two heads above the entry of the chapel in Nerezi are most likely those of the witnesses of the event, since they are also depicted in Sanť An gelo in Formis, and the patches of green and brown color certainly indicate landscape. Moreover, the scene in Nerezi probably represents the af termath of the event, since no traces of the body of St. Panteleimon remain on the wheel. It is plausible, therefore, that the saint was once repre sented as standing alive beside the wheel, as is the case with the rendition in Sanť Angelo in Formis. 277 To the left, one sees the lower half of a barefoot figure, the remaining bottom part of its transparent drapery revealing the legs and suggesting that the figure was once dressed in a green robe with gold-ornamented borders. Preceding that figure was another one, known at present only by his feet and by the lower half of the purple drapery. Depicted around the legs of the figures are fishes, locating the event in water. 278 Synaxarium, col. 848, lines 13-15. 279 The scene exhibits Maximian, enthroned, crowned, dressed in purple robes, and placed in front of a gable-roofed building with a green portal and a white marble column. Maximian is approached by Panteleimons friends: Hermolaos, shown as the oldest of the three, carrying a book, and dressed in a yellow tunic and a red mantle ornamented in gold; Hermippos, and Hermokrates, who follow Hermolaos, are clad in red and green robes, and rendered with curly, brown hair and short, brown beards; they are both pointing their hands towards Maximian. Maximian’s soldiers are both dressed in military costumes, consisting of a short blue tunic and a yellow cuirass. 280 Hamann-Mac Lean, Grundlegung (see footnote 31), p. 272. 281 Although the uppermost and the bottom parts of the scene are now lost, both the iconography of the scene and the remaining parts of the inscrip tion make this identification certain. Inscribed on the left side of the composition are four lines which identify the saints as Hermolaos, Hermip pos, and Hermokrates, and the action of the scene as their execution. The inscription reads: [EP]M[Ο]AA[Ο S], (Έ ϱμόλαος), for Hermolaos; [ΕΡΜ]ΙΠΟς, Έ ϱμιππος, for Hermippos; [Ε]ΡΜΟΚΡΑΤΗς, Έ ϱμοκϱάτης, for Hermokrates; and ΤΕΛΕ(ΙΟΥ)ΤΑΙ, τελειοῦται, a passive of τελειόω, which can be translated as “to become a perfect Christian.” The three saints are nimbed and rendered in the upper part of the scene as reposing in a reddish, marble coffin. They are wrapped in burial shrouds, and exhibit facial features which resemble the physiognomies of the saints depicted in the preceding scene. St. Hermolaos is shown in the lower portion of this scene as a nimbed, kneeling figure; above him is a now head less standing figure of his executioner, dressed in a military costume and shown as holding a sword. The scene has been wrongly identified as the execution of St. Panteleimon by R. Hamman-Mac Lean and H. Hallensleben, Die Monumentalmalerei in Serbien und Makedonien vom 11. bis zum f r ühen 14. Jahrhundert (Giessen, 1963), fig. 45, pl. 7a. 282 I have not been able to find a visual parallel for this scene. 283 The pigments of colors are detectable only in traces. St. Panteleimon is identified by the three remaining letters of the inscription, [ΠΑΝΤΕΛΕ]ΗΜΩ[Ν], Παντελεήμων, and by his facial features. The saint is nimbed, depicted as he is elsewhere in the church as a young man with short brown hair, and dressed in a green robe with gold-ornamented borders, the paint remaining only on the lower parts of his robe. He is kneeling, with his hands and head touching the ground, and his face shown en face and parallel to the picture plane. The contours of the figure of the executioner, which is all that remains of him today, reveal that he is standing behind St. Panteleimon and holding a sword above the saints head. That the event is taking place in the landscape is indicated by a stretch of now largely faded green color at the bottom of the scene.
Chapter III
70 at Nerezi corresponds to other surviving renditions of the beheading of St. Panteleimon, such as those in the eleventh-century Moscow Menologion (folio 101r), the late twelfth/early thirteenth-century icon from Sinai, a steatite plaque in the Vatican, and the Menologion from Jerusalem, Saba 208 (folio 110v).284 The concluding scene of the cycle, the burial of St. Pan teleimon, is depicted on the east section of the north wall (pl. 23), facing the sentencing of his friends. The scene, al most completely faded, dispays a nimbed saint, wrapped in the burial shroud, and placed lying on a bed once deco rated with floral ornament. Attending the death-bed of the saint are three figures: two young men who are standing by his feet, and a figure which was once placed above the head of the saint. On the basis of the portrayal of the burial of Saint Panteleimon on the icon from Sinai, the figure once standing above the head of the deceased saint could be identified as a bishop. 3.5. Hagiographic Cycles of St. Panteleimon The earliest surviving portrayals of the hagiographic cycle of St. Panteleimon have been ascribed to the twelfth cen tury. Preserved from before the twelfth century are only portrayals of isolated events of the saint’s life, such as a scene which shows Panteleimon healing a blind man in the church of St. Crisogono, Rome (10th cent.); a scene of his encounter with the wild animals, depicted in Pantokrator 61 (folio 182r); and two scenes depicting the resurrection of the child bitten by a snake, and the beheading of the saint in the Moscow Menologion (folio 101r).285 In the twelfth century, several scenes from the life of this saint have survived on the steatite plaque from Rome, in the manuscript from Jerusalem, Saba 208, on the icon from Mount Sinai (12th-13th cents.), and at Sant’ Angelo in Formis.286 The variety of scenes included within each particular cycle clearly indicates that there was no established iconographic pattern for the representations of the hagiographic cycle of the saint. While the icon and the plaque display scenes which encompass the entire life of the saint, the selection of scenes in the manuscript and at Nerezi is mostly limited to his passion.287 Moreover, while the
steatite icon and the narthex of Nerezi exhibit an abbrevi ated version of their respective themes, the number of events is considerably multiplied on the icon. Above all, several of the scenes depicted at Nerezi, as evident from the earlier discussion, do not appear in any other surviving cycles. This leads us to a conclusion that the selection and the number of the scenes of the cycle of St. Panteleimon exclusively depended on the context in which they were placed (as was the case with other hagiographic cycles), and that they most likely reflected the wish and the mes sage of its patron. Hagiographic cycles displayed in twelfth-century churches almost invariably portrayed the life of the saint to whom the church was dedicated.288 The selection of the saint was most likely inspired by his/her importance for the patron. For example, a patron might consecrate his foundation to St. George in the hope of a military victory, or in gratitude for success in a war, while he/she might de vote the church to the holy physicians for the purpose of seeking or showing gratitude for healing or recovery.289 The latter is evident from the literary sources. For example, Michael Psellos’ account of Emperor Michael IV informs us that the Emperor built the Church of H. Anargyroi to honor the saints, as well as to “propitiate the ‘Servants of God’; perchance they might heal his affliction.”290 A pa tron’s dedication to the saint of his choice was certainly in tensified by representing not only an iconic image of a par ticular saint, but a pictorial glorification of the saint’s life as well. In this context, a portrayal of the supernatural deeds accomplished by the saint served as a further promise of his aid to those who placed their trust in his power of in tercession before Christ. 3.6. Passion and Intercession Alexios’ homage to his holy protector is emphasized in the narthex of Nerezi through the selection and composition of scenes. The scenes of the life of St. Panteleimon are mostly devoted to the passion of the saint. Considering that the narrative cycle of the life of Christ displayed in the naos also highlights the Passion and sacrificial aspects of His life, the patron’s intent to honor his saint by relating him to Christ, becomes readily apparent. At Nerezi, this
284 For the Moscow Menologion (State Historical Museum, Moscow, Cod. gr. 9), see N. Ševčenko, Illustrated Manuscripts of the Metaphrastian Meno logion (Chicago, 1990), p. 68, fiche 2A 10; for a discussion, see K. Weitzmann, The Selection of Texts for Cyclic Illustration in Byzantine Manuscripts (Washington, 1975), p. 85; fig.22. For the icon, see Glory of Byzantium (see footnote 276), pp. 378-379; no.249; for the steatite plaque, see I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, Byzantine Icons in Steatite, 2 Vols. (Wien, 1985), Vol. 1, pp. 127-129; Vol.2, pls.20- 21; for the Jerusalem manuscript (Jerusalem, Library of Greek Orthodox Church, Saba 208, folio 110v), see A. W. Carr, Byzantine Illumination 1150-1250: The Study of a Provin cial Tradition (Chicago, 1987), p. 231. 285 For St. Crisogono, see Hamann-Mac Lean, Grundlegung (see footnote 31), pp.268-269; for Pantokrator 61 (Athos, cod. 61), see S. Dufrenne, L’illustrations des psautiers grecs du moyen-âge (Paris, 1966), pl. 58. 286 For a discussion on some of these examples, see Tomeković, “Les cycles hagiographiques” (see footnote 276), pp. 1- 8. 287 Although the present arrangement of the scenes on the plaque is not chronological, a fact which resulted from later intervention, the original orga nization of the events most likely followed the chronology of the life of the saint; see Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, Byzantine Icons in Steatite (see foot note 284), Vol. 1, p. 128. 288 This largely applies to later times as well. One notable exception is found in the fourteenth-century Markov Manastir, Macedonia. Although de voted to St. Demetrios, the church displays a hagiographic cycle of St. Nicholas; see Ševčenko, Life of Saint Nicholas (see footnote 273), p. 156. 289 For a discussion, see S. Tomeković, “Les répercussions du choix du saint patron sur le programme iconographique des églises du 12e siècle en Macé doine et dans le Péloponnèse”, Zograf 12 (1981): 25-43. 290 Michael Psellus, Fourteen Byzantine Rulers, tr. by E. R. A. Sewter (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1966), pp. 105-106.
71
Chapter III parallelism between the life of Christ and the life of St. Panteleimon is further stressed through the composi tion of scenes. As in the naos, the scenes in the narthex are also juxtaposed, communicating their message about the human sacrifice in space. Formally, thematic parallels between the two sections of the church contribute to the unity of its overall program. On a more subtle level, however, by relating the life of the saint to the life of Christ the patron emphasized his appre ciation for, as well as his expectations from, the intercessor in whom he placed his trust.291 Alexios’ hopes are further clarified by the inclusion of the image of the Deesis. By placing his private holy protector in close proximity to the holy personages who intercede before Christ on behalf of the entirety of human kind, Alexios made a clear request that St. Panteleimon protect him both during and after his terrestrial life.292
WESTERN CHAPELS 1. Introduction The scenes in the narthex relate closely to the pair of chapels adjacent to it. As we have already seen, the architectural findings and comparative analysis indicate that the western chapels were most likely used for funer ary rites (north-west) and for thes rites of the benediction of water (south-west). Consequently, the scenes of the ex ecution and death of St. Panteleimon are portrayed in proximity to the burial chapel, while the scene with water precedes the chapel which might have been used for the benediction of water.293 The images within the chapels, however, are comprised of single saints, whose selection and identity in most instances remains puzzling. This is especially true of the south-west chapel, which exhibits a medallion of Christ-Priest in the dome and eight saints distributed in two registers on the walls (pl. 27; figs. XXV; 70). While the inclusion of Christ in his priestly function indicates the liturgical connotations of the program, the
damages inflicted upon the figures of the saints prevent us from any more specific conclusions about its meaning.294
2. North-West Chapel The saints in the north-west chapel are better preserved (pl. 26; figs. LXV-LXVII; 71-74). The opening into the chapel is flanked by an image of St. Symeon the Stylite rep resented on the east wall of the narthex (figs. LX).295 Orig inating in Late Antique art, the representations of stylite saints were most often placed on triumphal arches, pillars, or the walls around entrances; they were commonly used to announce important sections of the church (bema, chapels, naos).296 The prominent positions of these saints within the church are related to the moral values attached to them. According to Orthodox teachings, the column on which one of these saints lived represented not only his home but also his strength and his Christian virtues. More over, the steady column was also compared with man’s submission to God. We read in the Letters of John the Cli macus that monks in prayer should have a posture of a still column, showing therefore their strengths, virtues, and faith.297 Consequently, the presence of the stylite saint in a close proximity to the chapel certainly emphasizes the Christian virtues of the deceased. With the image of the Pantokrator in the dome, the north-west chapel assumes the character of a mini-church, and it has a tomb (pl. 26; figs. XXIII, XXIV). One would like very much to be able to read in its painted decoration the chapel’s purpose, above all to know whether this was Alexios’ own tomb. Only with effort can the surviving images be made to yield messages, however. One can note, nonetheless, that healing saints are again prominent, suggesting that the chapel participates in broader themes of the program as a whole. 2.1. Five Martyrs of Armenia The saints depicted on the walls of the north-west chapel are well preserved and identifiable either by an inscription
291 See Maguire, “The Art of Comparing in Byzantium” (see footnote 273), pp. 94-99. 292 For the intercessory and other meanings of the Deesis, see Cutler, “Under the Sign of the Deesis” (see footnote 116), pp. 145-155; C. Walter, “Two Notes on the Deesis”, REB 26 (1968): 311-336; Idem, “Further Notes on the Deesis”, REB 28 (1970): 161-187; and A. W. Carr, “Gospel Fron tispieces from the Comnenian Period”, Gesta 21/1 (1982): 6-7. 293 See Chapter II, pp. 16-19. 294 All of the saints in this chapel occupy the entire width of the wall and are shown as life-size standing figures. The identity of these saints, however, re mains unknown since none of the inscriptions has survived. The four saints depicted in the first zone exhibit strikingly similar facial features, all ap pearing as young, beardless men with longish brown hair. Moreover, the saints are paired according to their costumes and their gestures. The saints on the north and south walls are dressed in purple robes decorated with golden ornament and partially covered with green chlamys, while the saints on the east and the west walls wear green robes, which are also decorated with golden borders, and covered with green chlamys. Further uniformity is achieved by showing the figures on the north and east walls holding and pressing crosses to their chests, while the south and west images are shown without crosses, but displaying similar gestures. While these four saints are probably martyrs, their individual identities remain obscure. The standing figures beneath the arcades in the upper zone are mostly lost. The saint on the west wall is fully preserved, but lacking an identifying inscription. He is shown as a youthful man with brown hair and a small oval beard, dressed in a green robe and purple mantle. The other three saints are known on the basis of the lower portions of their faded garments. 295 His inscription is preserved; it reads Συμεὼν ὁ Στυλίτης. 296 For a discussion of the features of the stylite saints and their origin, see I. M. Djordjević, “Sveti stolpnici u srpskom zidnom slikarstvu”, ZLU 18 (1982): 4 1 -5 2 ; and Idem, “Die Säule und die Säulenheiligen als hellenistisches Erbe in der byzantinischen und serbischen Wandmalerei”, JÖB 32/5 (1982): 93-100. 297 See J. R. Martin, The Illustration of the Heavenly Ladder of John Climacus (Princeton, 1954), pp. 150-163.
Chapter III
72 or by facial features (pl. 26; figs. LXV-LXVII; 71-74).298 Most notable damages are seen in the upper-most register. Of the four figures rendered as standing underneath painted arcades, only those on the west and on the north walls remain intact.299 The saint on the west wall may be identified as St. Mardarios (fig. LXVII), portrayed as an old man with short gray hair and curly oval beard. He is wearing a red hat, a short white tunic and a white mantle, and his legs are wrapped in white strips of cloth.300 The presence of St. Mardarios suggests that the remaining saints in the zone may have been other martyrs of Arme nia. The notion becomes more plausible when one consid ers that the facial features of a young warrior with curly, longish brown hair, who is represented in the lower regis ter of the east wall, closely compare to representations of St. Orestes (fig. 73).301 He holds a shield in his left hand while triumphantly raising the spear in his right as if to demonstrate his well renowned skill in spearmanship. If indeed the five martyrs of Armenia were represented at Nerezi, the gray-haired and bearded saint on the upper section of the north wall could be identified as Auxentios, as he is the oldest of the group.302 The two missing saints under the arcades would thus have been St. Eugenios and St. Eustratios (pl.26).303 The five Martyrs of Armenia were popular saints in Byzantium, commonly represented in Byzantine churches since the eleventh century. They are seen in manuscripts, icons, as well as in major monastic foundations of the eleventh century, such as Nea Moni, Daphni, and Hosios Loukas, where they are depicted twice (in the naos and in the north-west chapel). A wide dissemination of these saints made scholars suggest that the popularity of their cult must have been associated with Constantinople and the imperial family.304 Moreover, the sources inform us that the emperor Basil II donated the head of St. Eustratios
as a relic to the monastery of Great Lavra on Mount Athos.305 Although tentative, the imperial associations with the cult of these saints may have been intended at Nerezi.306 The choice of these five saints at Nerezi is most likely re lated to their healing powers. Like St. Panteleimon, the Five martyrs of Armenia were also included among the anargyroi saints, the holy physicians respected for their miraculous cures.307 Moreover, they are frequently in cluded within the context of funerary chapels, such as is a case in Hosios Loukas, where they are placed underneath the images of the Crucifixion and archangel Michael.308 Thus, by choosing to represent the Five Martyrs of Arme nia, the patron of Nerezi has honored the profession of his holy protector in the same manner in which he had done so by the inclusion of a group of four holy physicians in the diakonikon. However, while Alexios’ quest for the saints’ intervention is only suggested in the diakonikon, it is made much more personal in the north-west chapel with the presence of a tomb which the patron, as mentioned earlier, may have intended for his own burial. 2.2. St. Menas, St. Viktor, St. Vikentios Another group of saints represented in the north west chapel are St. Menas, St. Viktor, and St. Vikentios (figs. 72, 74).309 St. Menas is represented as a standing figure on the south wall, characteristically carrying the medallion with the bust of Christ on his chest, while the busts of Sts. Viktor and Vikentios are rendered as rectan gular painted icons placed above the entrance on the west wall. Although the feast of the three saints was celebrated on the same day, November ll, their martyrdom oc curred in different countries. St. Menas was martyred in Egypt, St. Viktor in Italy, and St. Vikentios in Spain.310
298 Only two saints, placed in rectangular frames and flanking the entrance into the chapel, cannot be identified. The head of the upper saint is destroyed; only a fragment of his upper torso, revealing that he once carried a book, has reamined. The lower saint, shown as carrying a cross, and dressed in a green tunic and a purple mantle, is inscribed as ΑΛΕΣ[Α]ΝΔΡΟς, Ἀ λέξανδϱος. Unfortunatelly, it is impossible to determine which Alexander is depicted there, since there were several martyrs by that name. 299 The images on the east and south walls are now known to us only by the lower portions of their ornamented garments. 300 The facial features of the saint resemble his portraits in Nea Moni, Chios, Panagia ton Chalkeon, Thessaloniki, and the north-west chapel of Hosios Loukas. For representations of St. Mardarios, see Mouriki, Nea Moni (see footnote 118), pp. 143-46; fig. 62; and T. Chatzidakis-Bacharas, Le pein tures murales de Hosios Loukas (Athens, 1982), pp. 74-76; fig. 12. 301 At Nerezi, Orestes is dressed in a short blue tunic embroidered in gold at the hem, green cuirass, yellow pteryges, and a blue chlamys. For other portrayals of St. Orestes, see Mouriki, Nea Moni (see footnote 118), p. 144. 302 He is dressed in a richly ornamented long red tunic, golden tablion, and blue chlamys. 303 For discussion, bibliography, and representation of the Five martyrs of Armenia in art, see Mouriki, Nea Moni (see footnote 118), pp. 143-46; K. Weitzmann, “Illustrations of Five Martyrs of Sebaste”, DOP 33 (1979): 99-111; Chatzidakis-Bacharas, Les Peintures Murales de Hosios Loukas (see footnote 300), pp.7 4 -8 1 ; and Constantinides, Olympiotissa (see footnote 47), pp. 199-200. 304 For their association with the imperial family, see Chatzidakis-Bacharas, Les Peintures Murales de Hosios Loukas (see footnote 300), pp. 7 4 -81. 305 P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, D. Papachryssanthou, Actes de Lavra (Paris, 1970), Vol. 1, pp. 46, 114. 306 Mouriki, Nea Moni (see footnote 118), p. 147, however, pointed out, that there are no indications of special veneration of these saints in Constan tinople. 307 For a listing of anargyroi saints, see Dionysios of Fourna, Hermeneia tēs zōgraphikēs technēs, ed. by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus (Saint Petersburg, 1909), p. 278. A hagiographic text also informs us that miraculous cures take place at St. Eustratios’ martyrion; see F. Halkin, “Ľépilogue d’Eusèbe de Sébastée à la passion de S. Eustrate et de ses compagnons”, Analecta Bollandiana 88 (1970): 279-283. 308 Chatzidakis-Bacharas, Le Peintures Murales de Hosios Loukas (see footnote 300), sch. VI. 309 All three saints are well preserved. St. Menas, is dressed in a red tunic and a blue chlamys. St. Viktor, inscribed as (ἅγιος) Βίϰτωϱ, is portrayed as a young man with brown hair and pointed beard, dressed in a green tunic and a richly ornamented chlamys tied with a fibula at the right arm. St. Vikentios, inscribed as ὁ ἅγιος Βιϰέντιος, is distinguished for his straight brown hair and oval beard; he is dressed in white garments, most of which are destroyed. 310 Synaxarium, cols. 211 -214.
Chapter III The three saints are represented together in a number of twelfth-century churches, such as at Asinou and Lagoudera.311 The reasons for their invocation are unknown, although it could be that Menas, Viktor, and Vikentios, due to their different nationalities, respond to another theme enunciated in the program as a whole: that of ecumenism.312 2.3. St. Tryphon, St. Blasios, St. Mamas The most prominently displayed triad of saints are St. Tryphon, St. Blasios, and St. Mamas, otherwise rarely depicted in Byzantine churches (figs.LXV, LXVI; 71 ).313 They are located above the arcosolium and distinguished by their frames. The image of St. Tryphon is displayed in a brick-colored medallion and it occupies the entire width of the north wall (fig. 71); the painted icons of St. Blasios and St. Mamas are flanking the window above St. Tryphon’s medallion (figs.LXV, LXVI).314 Even in the small size of the chapel, the artists used the juxtaposition of images, a compositional formula applied throughout the church, to assign a special prominence to the triad. The image of St. Tryphon is facing directly the medallion of Christ displayed on St. Menas’ chest (fig. 72), a spatial parallel stressing the emphasis placed upon the interces sory power of St. Tryphon and the triad as a whole. Like the holy physicians, St. Tryphon, St. Blasios and St. Ma mas are saints of poverty; their patronage, however, is re lated to agriculture. All three saints are considered to be protectors of shepherds, as indicated by a shepherds crook which they carry. In addition, Sts. Blasios and Mamas are particularly venerated by cattle-breeders, and St. Tryphon is worshipped by gardeners and vinegrowers. Thus, the protection and intercessory powers of these saints were important for the well being of the monastic community. The fact that St. Tryphon is mentioned in the funerary liturgy, further explains his prominent position within the chapel.
3. Summary Although the painted decoration of the chapel does not give any information about the identity of the deceased, the selection of saints communicates his major concerns and can be related to Alexios. While the triad of Sts. Menas, Viktor and Vikentios indicates Alexios’ political ideals, the choice of agricultural saints expresses his concern for the monastic community, and most likely his own lands. More over, the presence of the five martyrs of Armenia confirms
73 Alexios’ trust in the intercessory powers of the class of saints to which his personal protector, St. Panteleimon, be longs. The narthex at Nerezi thus provides both an insight into the personality of the patron, and an introduction to the program of the main area of the church. The themes of the passion and intercession, which dominate the naos of Nerezi, are clearly announced in the narthex. However, freed from programmatic constraints, Alexios chose to in troduce the two themes by glorifying the sacrificial life of his own protector saint. The scenes dedicated to the pas sion and burial of St. Panteleimon adhere to the major the matic and compositional tendencies of the main areas of the church; yet they nonetheless reveal Alexios’ intention to give prominence to the saint whose intercessory powers were important for his personal salvation. By the same token, the selection of other saints, particularly those in the north-west chapel, expresses Alexios’ personal con cerns. While the selection of individual saints in the naos was mainly intended to appeal to the needs of the general audience, and focused on popular imagery, the saints in the north-west chapel reveal Alexios’ personal desire to ensure eternal well being to his country, his land, and his own soul.
PAINTED CYCLE: CONCLUDING REMARKS 1. Alexios In sum, the examination of the painted cycle in the bema, naos, narthex, and side chapels of Nerezi reveals a signifi cant number of new iconographic features, innovative compositional solutions, and a bold pictorial articulation of architectural space. All these innovations reflect the identity of the patron: his political views and aspirations, and his private desires. As a private individual, Alexios shared the common need of Byzantine aristocrats to embellish his foundation with images which provided a powerful avenue for personal salvation. This is at least suggested by the prominence which Alexios gave to his patron saint whose image, life, and profession are glorified throughout the church. The special importance which Nerezi held for Alexios is also suggested through the presence of a tomb and the emphasis on the themes of passion and intercession; they all indicate that Alexios may have intended the church as a place of his own burial. While unusual in their iconographic and compositional solutions, both the images dedicated to the patron saint
311 For Asinou and Lagoudera, see Stylianou and Stylianou, Painted Churches on Cyprus (see footnote 50), pp. 132, 182. 312 For a discussion about the ecumenical symbolism related to these three saints, and for their representation in art, see Constantinides, Olympiotissa (see footnote 47), pp. 236-38. 313 For a study on these three saints, see S. Gabelić, “Contribution to the Iconography of Saint Mamas and Saints with Attributes”, in: Praktika B’ Diethnous kypriologikou synedriou (Levkosia, 1986), pp. 577-581. 314 St. Tryphon, inscribed as ὁ ἅγιος ΤΡΥΦΟΝ, instead of Τϱύφων, is shown, as was traditional, as a young, beardless man dressed in a white tunic and a brown mantle. St. Blasios, inscribed ὁ ἅγιος Βλάσιος ὁ βουϰόλος, is also young and beardless, and dressed in a white tunic and a brown mantle, while St. Mamas, notable for his longish, curly brown hair, wears a white tunic and a green mantle; his inscription reads: ὁ ἅ(γιος) Μάμας.
Chapter III
74 and the funerary themes are found in other twelfthcentury aristocratic foundations.315
2. Church Councils The innovative aspects of the painted decoration at Nerezi, however, go beyond common twelfth-century trends, and reflect Alexios’ concern for and his ties with imperial poli cies. For example, as shown in the earlier discussion, the introduction of new liturgical scenes and motifs, such as the Kiss of the Apostles, the procession of bishops and, above all, the choir of angel-deacons who carry liturgical implements and surround the images of Christ in the domes reflect the imperial point of view in the current the ological disputes. The impact of these disputes is also evi dent in the emphasis given to the priestly function of Christ, implied not only through the scene of the Com munion, but also in the rare image of Christ-Priest in the dome, and in the priestly function assigned to the Christ-Child in the Presentation. The messages from the Church Councils, stressing the dual nature of Christ, His consubstantiality with the other members of the Holy Trinity, and His human sacrifice perpetually re-enacted in the liturgy, found their echo even in the rendition of the choir of saints, as evident from the selection, grouping and inscriptions of the highly original group of hymnogra phers. The impact of the Church Councils is, above all, skill fully and uniquely articulated in carefully selected, emo tionally saturated, and compositionally related scenes and images from the terrestrial life of Christ. The selection, prominent position, and artistically eloquent rendition of the scenes of the Deposition and the Threnos set the tone of the program, focused on the human sacrifice of Christ and its dogmatic implications. The emphasis on the passion is further articulated through the compositional parallelism of juxtaposed scenes and images which face one another across the space. Introduced in the hagiographic cycle in the narthex, this compositional arrangement is fully developed in the main area of the edifice occupied by the congregation, the naos. With Christological images bridging the space, the faithful are not only instructed about individual aspects of the Christian dogma; they are drawn and immersed into the realm of the spiritual world, comforting, realistic, beautiful, and thus overwhelmingly persuasive. Alexios’ intent to persuade the local audience of the current dogmatic messages emanating from the capital is also evident in the prominence he gave to the saints who were especially venerated in Macedonia, such
as St. Andrew and a number of anargyroi saints, including his own holy protector, St. Panteleimon. The immediacy, urgency, and persuasiveness with which the program at Nerezi captures an important moment of Byzantine ecclesiastical history gives a specially distin guished status to Alexios’ church within the context of twelfth-century monumental art. Visualized in an elegant, poetic, and refined pictorial language, the painted program at Nerezi also reflects the close bond between the mem bers of the Komnenian imperial clan and the importance which the region of Macedonia held at the time. Above all, the painted decoration at Nerezi reveals the intellectual and financial resources, as well as the importance of its patron. Forgotten in literary sources, a distinguished member of the Komnenian aristocratic clan, Alexios An gelos Komnenos, left an important legacy in Byzantine civilization through his foundation.
3. Legacy The impact of the novel and distinguished program at Nerezi, however, continued to reverberate throughout Byzantium long after Alexios was gone and the twelfthcentury theological disputes became obsolete. This is evi dent in a number of iconographic scenes and motives which appeared for the first time at Nerezi and were adopted and developed in later art. Due to many losses of monumental cycles in Constantinople and elsewhere, we can not reconstruct the patterns of transmission of these innovations with exactitude. However, although in most instances the direct influence of Nerezi can not be estab lished, it is apparent that a number of its novel icono graphic features remained popular in Byzantium. While some new motifs, such as the embracing Apostles in the Communion, left an impact on local art, as seen in their rendition in later Macedonian churches, many others, such as the officiating bishops, angels in the dome, and a group of Byzantine hymnographers, became wide spread in Byzantium. For example, the novel, proces sional arrangement of the bishops officiating before the Hetoimasia, introduced at Nerezi, became a standard fea ture of the programs of the Byzantine bema both during the Middle-Byzantine, and later, Palaiologan periods. Moreover, the liturgical connotations included in the im age of the Hetoimasia at Nerezi, seemingly served as a springing point for the development of the Eucharistic image of Christ-Amnos, the image of Christ in the flesh represented on the altar, prominently displayed in later Byzantine monuments. Above all, the choir of angels in
315 No recurrent or canonical scheme of imagery has been identified as yet in Byzantium that would permit us to identify particular programs with certainty as funerary. Thus each program, Nerezi’s included, has to be examined in its own right to ascertain the likelihood of its funerary implica tions. For example, a considerable effort has been made by scholars to identify the representation of the Deesis in the apse as “funerary.” See N. Thierry, “A propos des peintures d’Ayvali köy, Cappadocie: Programmes absidaux a trois registres avec Deisis en Cappadocie et en Georgie”, Zograf 5 (1974): 5 -2 2 ; and G. Babić, “Les programmes apsidaux en Géorgie et dans les Balkans entre le X Ie et le X IIIe siècle”, in: L’arte georgiana, dal I X a l X IV secolo. Atti del terzo Simposio internazionale sull’arte georgiana, Bari-Lecce, 1 4 - 1 8 ottobre 1980 (Galatina, 1980), Vol. 1, pp. 117-136. An instance in which the particular characteristics of the imagery clearly invite a funerary interpretation is evident in the Chora Parekklesion. See R. Ousterhout, “Temporal Structuring of the Chora Parekklesion”, Gesta 34/1 (1995): 66-76.
75
Chapter III the cupolas, rendered in procession and with liturgical utensils, most likely represents incipient stages of the scene of the Divine Liturgy, fully developed in fourteenth century domes. It should also be noted that the distin guished grouping of hymnographers, as well as the un usual emphasis on the divinity of Christ within the scene of the Presentation, is encountered in later art, as seen in the Christos Church at Veroia, Virgins Church in Studenica, and Panagia Olympiotissa. The legacy of Nerezi may be also detected in the com positional arrangements of scenes in later monuments. The juxtaposition of scenes which, as the governing organiza tional principle appears for the first time at Nerezi (in the preserved cycles), gained considerably in popularity in the monuments post-dating Nerezi. As a fully developed or ganizational system, it is encountered in later art, as seen in the painted cycle of the thirteenth-century church of the
Virgin of Ljeviška.316 Even the unusual emphasis on the Passion of Christ, carefully achieved through a number of devices in the naos of Nerezi, may find a distant echo in the later, processional renditions of His burial cortege, seen, for example in the fourteenth-century Markov Manastir. Both programs were most likely inspired by the funerary symbolism attached to the liturgical rite of the Great Entrance, and articulated by Church Fathers, such as Theodore of Mopsuestia, Germanus I, Pseudo-Sophronius, and Nicholas Cabasilas.317 While still symbolic at Nerezi, the visualization of Christ’s Passion and his sacrificial death became ceremonial in the Markov Monastery, reflecting contemporary liturgical develop ments. The distinguished status which Nerezi’s painted cycle had in Byzantine art is, above all, evident in the re finement and beauty of its execution, to which we will now turn.
316 Personal observation. For illustrations, see Babić and Panić, Bogorodica Ljeviška (see footnote 82), drawings of frescoes. 317 For interpretations of the liturgy in mystagogical writings, see R. F. Taft, The Byzantine Rite: a Short History (Collegeville, Minn., 1992).
CHAPTER IV
ARTISTS AND THEIR LEGACY
Nerezi was painted by at least four different artists. Dis tinguished by their individual expressions, which will be discussed below, the artists of Nerezi are nonetheless uni fied in the refinement and high aesthetic achievement of their style. The style of Nerezi’s paintings has been the most discussed and the most praised aspect of this monu ment.1 It is characterized by the elegance and sophisti cation of the figures, by their psychological differentia tion, by dramatic coloristic effects, and above all, by the masterful handling of line (figs. X, XI). Line defines fig ures, creates their draperies and physiognomies, articulates movement and emotional content, facilitates tonal grada tion, and unifies figures into larger compositional groups. While the linearity of images at Nerezi complies with the stylistic koine of twelfth-century art, the high quality of its execution, as scholars have pointed out, suggests Constan tinople as a source of influence. Moreover, since no painted cycle from the middle of the twelfth century has been pre served in the capital, Nerezi assumes an important role in our understanding of the stylistic development of twelfthcentury Byzantine painting in general.
STYLE AND ICONOGRAPHY The refinement of Nerezi’s style has been emphasized in numerous studies. Another important aspect of the style at Nerezi, its close bond with iconography, is still to be ex plored. The contribution of visual modes of expression to the meaning of the image in Byzantine art in general has been discussed in the scholarly literature.2 The close rela tionship between style and iconography in the art of the twelfth century, however, is still to be explained. On the most general level, this relationship is seen in the corre spondence between the popularity of the new ascetic ideal of the holy man in twelfth-century Byzantine society, and the introduction of flat, linearly conceived, incorporeal images in the art of that period. This contention, while probably apparent in many instances, carries little, if any significance at Nerezi. It is true that images at Nerezi are slender, linear, and deprived of any corporeal substance. Such treatment of figures, however, does not reveal more than that Nerezi’s artists followed a general trend of the
Komnenian stylistic koine prominent throughout Byzan tium. The qualities of “hesychia” and “apathia,” however, so much valued by asceticism, are absent at Nerezi. In stead, all formal means of expression are focused on stress ing the iconographic message of the cycle. A deep appreci ation for the humanity of God and the physical reality of the Eucharist, enhanced through the emotive and partici patory nature of the program, is achieved by both icono graphic and stylistic means. The impact of the formal, visual means (style) on the meaning of the cycle (iconographic message), and the extent to which the combination of the two unifies the program is evident throughout the church. It is perhaps best exemplified in the scene of the Threnos (figs. XLVI, XLVIII). The Threnos at Nerezi has been recognized as one of the most distinguished scenes of Byzantine art. Iconographic parallels for this scene are found in both ear lier and later art, as demonstrated in the foregoing discus sion. However, the powerful, dramatic impact of Nerezi’s scene is unprecedented. It was the genius of Nerezis mas ter to have created a refined rhythm of curvilinear forms and vivacious coloristic effects that enhanced the emo tional content of the scene. All available formal elements in this scene are expressive of its meaning. A clear demarcation line between style and iconography is difficult to establish. The unnaturally strenuous posture of the Virgin, her legs spread around Christs body and supporting its weight only by the tips of one knee and toes, may be considered as an iconographic feature. Its impact on the compositional arrangement of the scene, however, forces us to perceive it as a powerful visual device; it ac centuates the dynamic pattern of the composition and thus contributes to the dramatic impact of the scene. Whether this attempt at compositional integration is to be seen as an iconographic or as a stylistic feature is difficult to say; in fact, it seems that in some instances it is impossible to distinguish between the two. That style, as much as iconography, was the conveyer of the meaning of Nerezi’s painted cycle is evident from all aspects of the formal articulation of images and scenes, such as the composition of the program as a whole, the composition of individual scenes, psychological character ization and drapery formations of figures, as well as the expressive use of colors.
1 The earliest discussion of the style of Nerezi’s paintings is by N. Okunev, who actually discovered and first published the twelfth-century cycle; see N. Okunev, “La découverte des anciennes fresques de Nérez”, Slavia 6 (1927): 603-609. Subsequently, a description and stylistic analysis of the select number of paintings appeared in F. Mesesnel, “Najstariji sloj fresaka u Nerezima. Stilska studija”, GSND 7/8 (1930): 119-133; M. Rajković, “Iz likovne problematike nereskog živopisa”, ZRVI 3 (1955): 195-206; and P. Miljković-Pepek, Nerezi (Belgrade, 1966). It is also important to note that the style of Nerezi’s paintings has been discussed in almost all studies dealing with Byzantine painting of the twelfth century. 2 For a discussion and earlier bibliography, see H. Maguire, “Disembodiment and Corporality in Byzantine Images of the Saints”, in: Iconography at the Crossroads, ed. by B. Cassidy (Princeton, 1993), pp.76 -8 3 ; Idem, “Style and Ideology in Byzantine Imperial A rt”, Gesta 28/2 (1989): 217-231; and A. P. Kazhdan and A. W. Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Los Angeles, 1985), pp. 206-220.
Chapter IV COMPOSITION The formal integration of the scenes and images at Nerezi, a powerful compositional device which considerably con tributed to the unity of the programmatic message of the cycle, has been discussed in the previous chapter. Monu mental scenes, as well as single images, are carefully coor dinated with one another, integrated with the architecture, and formally unified through their corresponding shape, size and figure formation.
77 twelfth century. We see it, for example, in Monreale, at the Martorana in Palermo, and in the church of Spas Nereditsa.6 In these monuments, the borders framing the scenes have been eliminated, and the scenes flow into each other as a strip narrative. However, the number of characters within each particular scene is multiplied, and the monumental, symbolic concept of Nerezi is replaced by an emphasis on narrative. Thus, the compositional integration of the program at Nerezi reflects a tendency seen in the mid-twelfth century; although modified, this tendency made an impact on later monuments.
1. Compositional Integration of the Program as a Whole
2. Compositional Integration of Individual Scenes
The unification of the scenes and single figures at Nerezi represents a departure from the earlier pictorial traditions of late eleventh/early twelfth-century monumental art. For example, in the early twelfth-century painted cycles at Pskov, Cefalu, and Asinou, the actors of the scenes are no tably segregated from one another and from the archi tectural framework. 3 Even at the church of the Virgin Kosmosoteira at Pherrai, dated c. 1152 and stylistically re lated to Nerezi by scholars, the formal integration of the scenes and images, so much emphasized at Nerezi, appears to be absent. For example, the Annunciation at Pherrai, as at Nerezi, is divided by the full width of the cross-armed vault. Yet, at Pherrai, no attempt was made to bridge the gap by accentuating the interaction between the two fig ures. The integrity of architectural division was thus main tained. The static rendition of the Annunciation and the numerous wall apertures which would make an attempt to spatially relate scenes difficult, suggest that paintings at Pherrai most likely represent the painted style which pre ceded Nerezi; yet, due to considerable losses, conclusions about the composition of the scenes remain tentative.4 Similar efforts to unite the program as at Nerezi are seen in the mosaic cycle of the eastern portion of the Cappella Palatina, Palermo.5As at Nerezi, the scenes in the Cappella Palatina impose upon the architecture, their size, corre sponding shapes and motifs on the facing walls, as well as their iconographic relationship correlating all parts of the decoration into a coherent whole. The close formal and programmatic relationship be tween the scenes, evident at Nerezi and in the Cappella Palatina, becomes widespread in the latter half of the
The same tendency to unify, seen in the design of the pro gram as a whole, is employed in the composition of single scenes. The scenes at Nerezi are characterized by a small number of participants who are closely related to each other and to the background. A variety of compositional formulae is used to achieve different psychological effects and to communicate a wide range of different moods. The solemn, processional character of the Presentation in the Temple is achieved by the rhythm of pronounced verticals (fig. XXXVII), the diagonal lines in the Entry Into Jeru salem emphasize the drama of the events to come (fig. XLIV), while the curvature of the intertwined bodies in the Deposition and the Threnos emphasizes emotional content and human suffering (figs. XLV, XLVI). In all these instances, the choice of compositional pattern is intended to elucidate the meaning of the scene. That Nerezi’s artists intended to emphasize the mes sage of the program not only through its iconography, but also through formal, compositional means, becomes apparent from their choice of novel, psychologically powerful compositional devices. For example, while the compositional formulae of the Presentation and the Entry into Jerusalem are known from earlier Byzantine art, the refined rhythm of curvilinear forms in the Depo sition and the Threnos is unique. In both the Deposition and the Threnos, the figures are combined in an arched composition leaning towards the circle of the heads of the Virgin and Christ which almost overlap in their closeness (figs. XLV, XLVIII; 45, 47). The whole group is arranged in a dynamic pattern, with all the figures firmly inter locked.
3 For Pskov, see V. Lazarev, Old Russian Murals and Mosaics: From X I to the XVI Centuries (London, 1966), pp. 99 - 108 ; for Cefalu, see O. Demus, The Mosaics of Norman Sicily (London, 1949), pp. 14-2 5 ; for Asinou, see A. H. S. Megaw, “Byzantine Architecture and Decoration in Cyprus: Met ropolitan or Provincial”, DOP 28 (1974): 8 1-8 4 ; M. Sacopoulo, Asinou en 1106 (Brussels, 1966); D. C. Winfield and E. J. W. Hawkins, “The Church of Our Lady at Asinou, Cyprus”, DOP 21 (1967): 261 -26 5 ; and D. Mouriki, “Stylistic Trends in Monumental Painting in Greece during the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries”, DOP 34/35 (1982): 100- 101. 4 The Annunciation at Pherrai is placed on the eastern side of the west piers of the naos; see S. Sinos, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira) (Munich, 1985), pp. 177-206; pl. 13; figs. 136-138; and Mouriki, “Stylistic Trends” (see footnote 3), pp. 103-105. 5 Its execution apparently took place in two phases, one in the forties, the other in the sixties of the twelfth century. See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily (see footnote 3), pp. 2 5 -4 6 ; E. Kitzinger, “The Mosaics of Cappella Palatina in Palermo. An Essay on the Choice and Arrangement of Sub jects”, AB 31 (1949): 269-292. For general views of the interior mosaic decoration, see E. Borsook, Messages in Mosaic: The Royal Programmes of Norman Sicily, 11 3 0 -118 7 (Oxford, 1988), figs. 17-19, 25, 26. 6 For Monreale, see E. Kitzinger, The Mosaics of Monreale (Palermo, 1960), pp. 140-144; and Borsook, Messages in Mosaic (see footnote 5), figs. 62, 64, 68, 69; for Cappella Palatina, see E. Kitzinger, I mosaici del periodo normanno in Sicilia. Fasc. 2. La Cappella Palatina di Palermo (Palermo, 1992), figs. 25, 26; for Nereditsa, see Lazarev, Old Russian Murals and Mosaics (see footnote 3), pp. 116-133.
Chapter IV
78 Landscape and architecture further contribute to the unity of the scenes. Both are very limited. Little effort was made either to construct the space or to specify the place of action. Even a distinction between exterior and interior is hardly discernible. Except for the Presentation, where the interior is distinguished by a marble pavement, in all other scenes the figures are placed against two strips of light and dark green which reach the height of approxi mately 30-40 cm. Above it, and covering most of the space of the scene, is a deep blue background. Although architecture and landscape are occasionally used to distribute figures in different planes, the artists in terest in creating a sense of depth is minimal. This conser vatism in the rendering of space seems to be intentional. Instead of narrating, the artist is more interested in com municating the symbolic impact of the event. Thus, archi tecture and landscape are used as compositional devices, meant to emphasize individual actors. In the Presentation, the use of similar columns on the ciborium and on the flanking buildings accentuates the vertical rhythm of the figures (fig. XXXVII). The hills in the Transfiguration amplify the curvature of the bent bodies of the apostles (fig. XL), and the slanting hill in the Threnos frames and emphasizes the contours of the group formed by the out stretched body of Christ upheld by the Virgin (fig. XLVI). As O. Demus pointed out, the figures and landscape are so interlocked that no single motif has an isolated existence. Each composition is an indivisible unit.7
3. Sources The compositional sources of individual scenes at Nerezi may be found in twelfth-century manuscripts from Constan tinople.8The integration of composition through the curvi linear outlines of landscape is evident, for example, in the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus, Mount Sinai, cod. 339.9 In the Nativity of Christ, (fol. 91r), the groups of figures are unified into a coherent composition by the curvilinear pat tern of the hills in the background. The tight cluster of figures evident at Nerezi, however, is not achieved in these minia tures. The golden ground intervenes between the characters, and the dynamic tension, which so strongly characterizes the groups of figures at Nerezi, is absent in these miniatures. More closely comparable to Nerezi are the illustrations of the Homilies of James Kokkinobaphos, preserved today in two manuscripts, Vat. gr. 1162 and Paris, gr. 1208, and
the scenes represented in the Gospel Book, Vat. Urb. gr. 2. The illuminations in these manuscripts exhibit a close relationship between groups of figures, especially those of attendants and choruses.10 Moreover, figures in these manuscripts, like the figures at Nerezi, are framed by larger forms which repeat their contours. If one considers, for example, the scene of the Baptism in Vat. Urb. gr. 2 (fol. 109 v), one sees that the participants are correlated by their dynamic gestures; the groups of attendants are carefully framed by an arched mountain, while the zig-zag contours of the river echo the rhythm of their gestures.11
FIGURES Twelfth-century Constantinopolitan manuscripts provide a source for tracing the origin of Nerezi’s figures, both in terms of their proportions and in terms of their psycho logical characterization. Figures at Nerezi are character ized by the sophistication and elegance of their postures and gestures, by elongated proportions, and by linear ar ticulation of forms. They are flat and outlined in thick col ored lines. It is by means of lines that bodies acquire vol ume and faces gain psychological characterization.
1. Proportions The proportions of figures at Nerezi vary according to their postures, gestures, and the context is which they are represented. Most figures exhibit the classical canon of pro portions measuring seven heads to the body.12That canon was commonly used during the eleventh century, such as in the majority of images in the mosaics of Hosios Loukas, Nea Moni and Daphni. It continued to be popular in the twelfth century, as seen in the Cappella Palatina, at Cefalu, and in St. Stephen at Kastoria. In some instances, however, the painters of Nerezi continued the trend toward increas ing elongation apparent already in the Constantinopolitan manuscripts of the first half of the century. For example, in Vat. Urb. gr. 1162, a number of figures are elongated, ex hibiting 7.5 or even 8 heads to the body.13 Following that trend, most of the standing saints at Nerezi contain 8 heads to the body (figs. 50 - 62,64-70); Christ in the Threnos has 8.5 heads to the body (fig. XLVI), and St. John in the De position even measures 9 heads to the body (fig. XLV).
7 O. Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, pp. 419-420. 8 J. Anderson, An Examination of Two Twelfth-Century Centers of Byzantine Manuscript Production (Ph. D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1976). 9 See K. Weitzmann and G. Galavaris, The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Illuminated Greek Manuscripts (Princeton, 1991), Cat. No. 56, pp. 140-153, fig. 479; and J. Anderson, “Illustration of Cod. Sinai, Gr. 339”, AB 61 (1979): pp. 167-185. 10 See I. Hutter, ed., Das Marienhomiliar des Mönchs Jakobos von Kokkinobaphos (Zurich, 1991); for a discussion, see J. Anderson, “The Illustrated Sermons of James the Monk: their Dates, Order, and Place in the History of Byzantine A rt”, Viator 22 (1991): 69-120. For Vat. Urb. gr. 2, see C. Stornajolo, Miniature delle omilie di Giacomo monaco (cod. Vatic, gr. 1162) e dell’ evangeliario greco urbinate (cod. Vatic. Urbin. gr. 2) (Rome, 1910). 11 Stornajolo, Miniature delle omilie di Giacomo monaco (see footnote 10), p. 86; and J. M. Plotzek and U. Surmann, eds., Biblioteca Apostolica Vati cana: Liturgie und Andacht im Mittelalter (Exhibition Catalogue, Stuttgart, 1992), No. 24, pp. 138-141. 12 For a discussion of proportions in Byzantine art, see J. and D. Winfield, Proportions and Structure of the Human figure in Byzantine Wall-Painting and Mosaic (Oxford, 1982), pp. 60-66. 13 Monastic saints in Vat. Urb. gr. 1162, (fol. 5) show 7.5 heads to the body, and St. Anna in the Return of St. Joachim, (fol. 16v), has 8 heads to the body.
79
Chapter IV While the canon of seven heads to the body was used commonly in the monuments of the first half of the twelfth century, beginning with Nerezi a canon of more than seven heads becomes predominant. It is found, for example, in the churches of St. George at Staraya Ladoga, Panagia tou Arakou at Lagoudera, and St. George at Kurbinovo, where the majority of figures feature proportions of eight, nine or even ten heads to the body.14 The elongated figures at Nerezi lack anatomical accuracy. For example, feet are often painted sketchily, like tiny patches, such as the Virgins feet in the Threnos (fig. XLVIII), or Joseph’s in the Deposition (fig. XLV). Also, the muscula ture of exposed portions of bodies is shown schematically, as can be seen in the image of Joseph of Arimathea in the Depo sition or Christ’s figure in the Threnos. Perhaps the most ob vious example that shows the extent to which the painter of Nerezi ignored anatomy is seen in the image of Salome in the Birth of the Virgin (fig. 43). Her left arm has no organic link with the body and appears to be an independent member added to support the vase with offerings. 2. Linearism Instead of anatomical accuracy, the figures at Nerezi are modeled by the linear patterns of their draperies. Draperies define bodies, articulate movements, and serve as composi tional devices having a life of their own. They envelop fig ures with a number of folds which fall in complex designs circular, meander, serpentine - modeled by bundled lines and patches. The effect is one of a dynamic, richly articu lated surface having an almost low-relief-like quality. The linear, almost calligraphic treatment of draperies adds vitality to the figures. The rhythmical pattern of diag onals and zig-zag lines of the upper mantle of St. John in the Deposition extends the curvature of his body and directs the movement towards the emotional center of the composition - to the figures of the Virgin and dead Christ (figs. XLV; 45). Likewise, the dramatic impact of Christ’s Entry into Jerusalem is further accentuated by his swirling drapery executed in a bundle of calligraphic lines which form zig-zag patterns, knots, V-shapes, meanders and diag onals (fig. XLIV). It appears as though the wind, emanating from some unknown source, has agitated it. The same effect is achieved in the drapery of Christ in the Transfiguration (fig. XL), and on the garment of St. Prokopios (fig. 60). In all these instances, drapery is executed as calligraphic bun dles which fly without rhyme or reason, accentuating the dramatic appearance of the figures, while at the same time adding energy and vibrancy to the entire scene. 3. Color and Line The vibrancy of figures at Nerezi is further enhanced by colors. A gamut of different shades of blue, ocher, pink,
pastel and olive green is applied in lines which cover draperies in a web-like tracery. The use of white is partic ularly important. Lines and patches of white are employed to highlight facial features and draperies, isolate shadows, and soften coloristic contrasts. White is also used in tonal gradation of colors. Multiplication of tones, meant to render new nuances, is extensively developed at Nerezi. In addition to three tones within the same color range, widespread in the majority of Byzantine churches, Nerezi exhibits a bold association of four or even five tones. There are a number of instances where shade and light are of a different color than the base. For example, the garment of St. John in the Threnos is pale blue and the shades of violet are illuminated by large zones of white (fig. XLVI). The drapery of the female saint in the Threnos has an even more complex combination. Her mantle is green and the base is shaded in a lighter green. Her undergarment is rouge, and the light is composed of two blues of differing intensities. Both coloristic and tonal principles are employed at Nerezi. As far as the coloristic principle is concerned, the Presentation and the Transfiguration are the most intense of the scenes (figs. XXXVII, XL). Bold combinations of red, green, yellow, pink, orange, purple, and white create a lively coloristic scheme, adding drama and vitality to these compositions. While contrasts characterize the majority of the scenes at Nerezi, the Deposition and the Threnos were executed by means of tonal gradations (figs. XLV, XLVI). The palette in these two scenes is much more subdued and monochromatic than in the rest of the program. Ocher, gray-blue, and pastel green are dominant colors, occasion ally with an almost watercolor effect, underlining the somber mood of the event. As discussed in the previous chapter, the colors, much like the other elements of Nerezi’s style, adhere and contribute to the emotional content and the dramatic impact of the scenes.
4. Faces The faces at Nerezi, like the draperies, are modeled by col oristic, linear patterns. They are distinguished for their in dividuality and expressiveness. The painters of Nerezi were seemingly interested in portraying different emo tional conditions and character through the physiog nomies of their actors. The expressiveness and psycholog ical characterization of the faces of Nerezi, in their realistic appearance, were also most likely intended to appeal to the contemporary beholder, thus contributing to the human and persuasive nature of the program. The artists’ interest in showing psychological condi tions and emotional stages of the characters is best seen in the figures which recur within the program, such as the image of the Virgin. In the prothesis her face is smooth, her eyebrows arched high above the almond-shaped eyes, her
14 For the proportions in these monuments, see L. Hadermann-Misguich, Kurbinovo. Les fresques de Saint-Georges et la peinture byzantine du X IIe siècle (Brussels, 1975), pp. 371 -375.
Chapter IV
80 lips full; everything about her indicates serenity, youth and authority with which she conducts a prayer on behalf of both painted saints and physically present beholders (fig. 27). Already in the Presentation, the slanting eye brows and the shadows underneath the Virgin’s eyes, indi cate her worry through the anticipation of forthcoming sorrow and suffering foreshadowed in the event (fig. 37). In the Threnos, everything about the Virgin expresses her pain (fig.47). The Virgins eyes and eyebrows are slanted, her lips are reduced to a thick line, and her face is textured with a number of thick white lines. The expression of emo tional struggle and pain agrees with her posture, her legs wrapping around the body of Christ in an unnatural way (fig. XLVI). The Virgin’s human, sorrowful expression is juxtaposed with the serene, relaxed face of Christ, his eyes closed, his eyebrows arched and symmetrical, his mouth closed. This juxtaposition represents one of the highest dramatic contrasts in Byzantine art (figs. XLVIII; 47). The faces at Nerezi are also distinguished by a great variety of facial types. On the one hand, Nerezi’s painters adhere to the general trends in Komnenian art by drawing oblong faces with almond shaped eyes and aquiline noses. Within this convention, however, the painter uses many variations. The oblong shapes receive a more angular treat ment, as in the faces of St. Sampson and St. John the The ologian (figs. 20, 35); or more triangular, as in the holy warriors (figs. 56-58; 60-63); or somewhat rounded, as in the face of St. Tryphon (fig. 71). Moreover, variations in the treatment of facial features, different noses, chins, eye brows, and beards, create a whole gallery of human phys iognomies, particularly apparent in the treatment of the saints in the lower zone. In faces, as in the draperies, the line, applied either in thin strokes, almost calligraphically, or in thick, strong, gestural strokes, breaks the surface and serves as a major means of expression. If one considers, for example, some of the most successful faces at Nerezi, such as St. Pantelei mon’s (figs.XLIX; 83), St. Tryphon’s (fig. 71), St. Kosmas’ (fig. XXXIII), St. Damianos’ (fig. XXXII), and St. Symeon’s (fig. 38), the capacity of Nerezi’s painters to use a wide variety of means in portraying different characters becomes readily apparent. In the portraits of Sts. Kosmas and Damianos, their facial features and hair are heavily outlined and characterized by thick, well defined lines and patches, strong shading, wide strokes of brown and rouge, and bright linear highlights (figs. XXXII, XXXIII). On the other hand, the face of St. Panteleimon has a soft, lyrical expression, achieved by a masterful handling of a series of delicate, rouge and white lines, drawn in an almost calli
graphic manner (figs. XLIX; 83). St. Tryphon is also char acterized by a soft, almost lyrical expression; yet the brush strokes are thicker, white highlights more pronounced, and the face is treated in a more summary fashion than St. Panteleimon’s (fig. 71). Quite unlike these faces, the por trait of St. Symeon shows almost fragmented facial planes (fig. 38). Thus, in creating physiognomies, the artist ex plored expressive qualities of line and color to the fullest.
THE ORIGINS OF NEREZI’S STYLE The vibrancy of images at Nerezi achieved by ‘nervous’ line which animates the faces, translates emotions, and gives a characteristic instability to the postures and agita tion to draperies finds no parallel in earlier art. Several works of art, mostly of Constantinopolitan provenance, however, anticipate the style of Nerezi. The paintings at Pherrai exhibit most of the basic conventions of the Kom nenian style. Line is used not only for outlining but also for describing the drapery, the modeling of the face is elab orate, with extensive use of shading, and the artist took an ornamental approach to garments. Certain parallels in figure style between Pherrai and Nerezi are noticeable. For example, the warriors in both churches share similar costumes and physical types, as can be exemplified by comparing representations of St. Theodore at Nerezi and at Pherrai (figs. 62, 63).15 There can be no doubt that both are products of the same metropolitan tradition. Nevertheless, the figures at Pherrai do not posses the ex traordinary expressiveness and intricate web of highlights of the actors in the scenes at Nerezi. The linear effect is subdued by tonal modeling, there is no fragmentation of volumes, and the drapery acquires a sculpted appearance. Such an approach is closer to the paintings of the first half of the century, such as those at Cefalu, than it is to Nerezi. Similarities in facial types suggest that the artists from the two churches may have shared the same prototypes or model books, both of which, in all likelihood, originated from the same Constantinopolitan source.16 The elongated, elegant and refined forms of the figures at Nerezi have a closer parallel in the mosaic of Emperor John II Komnenos and his wife Irene in the south gallery of Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, 1118-1122.17Facial features delicately delineated by tiny lines in Hagia Sophia are simi lar to faces at Nerezi. Particularly close are the faces of Irene and St. Panteleimon, both exhibiting an oval shape, a stylized curvilinear pattern which defines eyes, nose and
15 For the image of St. Theodore at Pherrai, see Sinos, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira (see footnote 4), fig. 123. 16 The paintings at Nerezi have been also compared to Pskov. Linear stylization of figures, the web of lines which intersects and divides draperies and faces, the apparent flatness of images, as well as the individualization of faces, led V. Lazarev to associate the painted cycle of Pskov with the Nerezi master. While the linear treatment of both draperies and faces at Pskov anticipates similar mannerisms at Nerezi, the rigidity of this style, as well as its provincial quality, still separate these paintings from Nerezi. Moreover, the figures at Pskov are fairly static, the drapery lacks the fluffiness and softness of that at Nerezi, and despite the artist’s attempt to show psychological characterization of figures, they are still schematic. See Lazarev, Old Russian Murals and Mosaics (see footnote 3), pp. 99-108. 17 C. Mango, Materials for the Study of the Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul (Washington, 1962), p. 23; and T. Whittemore, The Mosaics of Hagia Sophia at Istanbul. The Imperial Portraits of the South Gallery (Boston, 1942).
Chapter IV mouth (both have a thin mouth and slightly open eyes), and a subtly outlined series of parallel, calligraphic, rouge lines on their cheeks. Moreover, both are lacking psychological animation; instead, they are iconic, authoritative and force ful appearances. Yet, the vitality emanating from St. Pan teleimon is conspicuously absent from the image of Irene. The swiftly moving figures, agitated, wind blown draperies with an ornamental and sometimes repetitive elaboration of detail apparent in Nerezi are anticipated in the icons of the Annunciation from Ohrid (1108 — 1120) and the Tretiakov Gallery, Moscow (1120-1130), and in the twin manuscripts of the Homilies of James Kokkinobaphos.18Moreover, differentiation of facia types, so dominant at Nerezi, is rather pronounced in the Con stantinopolitan manuscripts. The groups of saints in Vat. gr. 1162, fol. 5 are distinguished for their pronounced facial features, monastic saints being particularly close to those represented at Nerezi.19 Incipient stages of the emotional content of Nerezi’s im agery are found, for example, in the icon of the Virgin of Vladimir.20 The faces of mother and Child drawn closely together with their cheeks pressed against each other, echo similar groupings at Nerezi. Moreover, the chrysographic treatment of Christ’s drapery, with a network of sharp, golden lines, anticipates the vibrancy of Nerezi’s imagery.21
LINEARISM: CONSTANTINOPOLITAN OR PROVINCIAL? The foregoing discussion has established the Constanti nopolitan provenance of many stylistic elements at Nerezi, such as the psychological characterization of figures, their elongated proportions, as well as the compositional pat terns employed in individual scenes. The origin of the ex pressive, nervous linearism of the draperies, however, is somewhat more difficult to establish. On the one hand, it could be interpreted as a regional version of the style which originated in the capital. Such interpretation would at least conform with the label of provincial mannerism assigned to the dynamic linear style which developed in the provincial monuments of the late twelfth century; it is seen, for exam ple, in Kurbinovo and Lagoudera. Within that context,
81 Nerezi would represent an initial stage in the development of the regional interpretation of the metropolitan style. The •loss of mid-twelfth-century cycles from the capital, how ever, as well as the virtual absence of Macedonian monu ments which exhibit linear tendencies and precede Nerezi, present danger for any such claim. Dynamic linearism of the later half of the twelfth century might indeed represent a provincial feature. This feature, especially in Macedonian monuments, such as Kurbinovo, might have been devel oped under the influence of Nerezi. On the other hand, however, linear tendencies define the style of the later half of the century and are evident in Con stantinopolitan icons, mosaics and manuscripts. Studied by a number of scholars, linearism and humanistic tenden cies were distinguished as the most important features of artistic production under the Komnenian dynasty both in the capital and in the provinces.22 In all of these studies, Nerezi is distinguished as the prime monument: it absorbs and formulates the artistic trends of earlier metropolitan art while providing, at the same time, a rich legacy for artistic developments of the later half of the century. How much of its fame is a consequence of stylistic trends devel oped in its own region is, however, impossible to say due to the absence of evidence. The Constantinopolitan origin of many features of Nerezi’s style does not necessarily imply that the artists were imported from the capital, too. On the contrary, the high quality and Constantinopolitan provenance of many features in the churches geographically and chronologi cally related to Nerezi, such as the church of Hosios David in Thessaloniki and the church of the Transfiguration at Chortiatis, suggest that a team of highly skilled artists exis ted in the region at the time when Nerezi was built.
ARTISTS, ATTRIBUTION The style of Nerezi’s paintings shows that the same tenden cies were developed throughout the church. The quality of execution, however, reveals that at least four painters worked there. Moreover, preserved twelfth-century paintings in the south porch of the church of the Virgin Eleousa, Veljusa, and H.Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi, Kastoria, indicate that Nerezis painters perpetuated this tradition in Macedonia.23
18 For the Annunciation from Ohrid, see K. Weitzmann, M. Chatzidakis, and S. Radojčić, Icons (New York, Belgrade, 1980), pp. 158-159, 228; for a discussion, see P. Miljković-Pepek, “La collection Macedonienne d’icones du X Ie au commencement du XVe siècle”, Corso di cultura sulVarte Ravennate e Bizantina 33 (1986): 311-334, fig. 3; for Moscow icon, see Katalog drevnoerusskoi zhivopisi. Vol. 1 X I - nachalo XVI veka, ed. by V. I. Antonova and N. E. Mneva (Moscow, 1963), figs. 19 -2 1. 19 Stornajolo, Miniature delle omilie di Giacomo monaco (see footnote 10), p. 3. 20 For a discussion and photograph, see H. Belting, “An Image and Its Function in the Liturgy: The Man of Sorrows in Byzantium”, DOP 34/35 (1980-81): 1-17, fig. 12. 21 It is possible that this technique, often used in miniatures and icons, actually influenced monumental art. For a discussion on the use of chrysography, see A. W. Carr and L. J. Morrocco, A Byzantine Masterpiece Recovered. The Thirteenth-Century Murals of Lysi, Cyprus (Austin, 1991), pp.70-71. 22 For discussions on the stylistic features of twelfth-century art and earlier historiography, see Mouriki, “Stylistic Trends” (see footnote 3), pp. 100-124; V. Djuric, “La peinture murale byzantine X IIe et X IIIe siècles”, in: XVe congrès, pp. 1 -9 6 ; L. Hadermann-Misguich, “Lapeinture mon umentale tardo-comnéne et ses prolongements au XlIIe siècle”, in: XVe congrès, pp. 99-127; and Lazarev, “Zhivopis’ X I-X II vekov v Makedonii”, in: XVe congrès, pp. 105-134. 23 For Veljusa, see P. Miljković-Pepek, Veljusa. Manastir Sv. Bogorodica Milostiva vo seloto Veljusa kraj Strumica (Skopje, 1981), pp. 230-233; for Hagios Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi, see S. Pelekanides and M. Chatzidakis, Kastoria (Athens, 1985), pp. 50-66.
Chapter IV
82 The major artist of Nerezi, judging by the refined features of his style, was likely trained in the Constanti nopolitan tradition, either in Constantinople itself, or by a Constantinopolitan master who resided in the region (figs.XLV, XLVI, XLVIII-L). It seems that he painted most of the figures and scenes in the naos. He uses quick brush strokes, applies white in thick, almost relief-like lay ers, and achieves a high linear stylization in the treatment of draperies. His draperies are fluffy, with soft shadings and vibrating lines. The major artist is also very skilled in applying white, which has an almost metallic quality, giving crispness to the folds. The lines are of varied thick ness, from wide strokes to the thin, calligraphic ones seen in the face of St. Panteleimon (fig. XLIX). His contours are soft, shadows thin, and images are modeled with more subtlety than in any other parts of the church. The painter who worked in the sanctuary is distin guished for geometrically conceived faces. The faces are covered with white shadows which are distributed in a schematic manner, acquiring a mask-like quality. His con tours are strong and outlines thick, revealing a thicker brushstroke than that of the major artist (figs. XV-XIX; 17-26). It is in the draperies that this artist reveals his in feriority to the major master of Nerezi. His draperies are lacking the fluffiness of those painted by the main master, and his colors are not as vibrant as those in the naos. In addition, his white lacks that crisp, metallic quality, characteristic of figures done by the main artist. Two additional artists executed most of the images in the narthex and in the western side chapels. One is distinguished for a more coloristic treatment of faces, particularly evident in red patches applied to cheeks, as can be seen in the images of the martyrs in the south-west chapel, or St. Symeon the Stylite on the east wall (figs. LX; 70). The other relies on lin ear expression, but his faces are rougher and done in thick lines with heavy contours (fig. LXV, LXVI; 72). Moreover, his characters are lacking the intensity and psychological in dividualization so apparent in other parts of the church. In the work of these two artists, the geometry of faces is very pronounced, and instead of using a network of lines which model the face, they work with patches, thick brush strokes, and often somewhat dull colors. The workshop of Nerezi most likely continued to be active in Macedonia and may have executed the twelfthcentury paintings in the south porch of the church of the Virgin Eleousa, Veljusa. What has remained to the present are fragments of a scene from the life of St. Onufrios on the north wall, a partially preserved image of a bishop in the niche on the east wall, and a portion of the figure of Christ on the eastern part of the north wall.24 The execution of figures compares closely to the images of Nerezi. Al though the facial features of St. Onufrius are now obliter 24 25 26 27 28
ated, his slender, linearly treated body, dynamic gesture, as well as his gray hair built of a network of thin, calligraph ically drawn lines, may be compared to images at Nerezi. The face of Christ, however, is much more telling in re vealing the hand of the artist (fig. 46). Christs arched eye brows, thickly outlined eyes with shadows which follow the contour of eye sockets, aquiline nose, as well as the de sign of his hairdress with thin parallel yellow highlights, compare closely to the image of Christ in the Deposition scene at Nerezi (figs. 45, 46). Moreover, according to P. Miljković-Pepek, the size of the head and dimensions of facial features, equal the head of Christ at Nerezi.25 Al though the image is too damaged to analyze the coloristic gamut, the shade of ocher which is preserved on Christs halo at Veljusa is surprisingly close to that at Nerezi. It seems that scholars are correct in assuming that the pre served paintings at Veljusa were executed by the main artist of Nerezi.26 The style of the wall paintings in the church of H. Niko laos tou Kasnitzi in Kastoria also reveals kinship to Nerezi.27 Despite its inferior quality, the cycle of H. Niko laos exhibits compositional arrangement of the scenes, modeling of figures, and facial types which compare to Nerezi. A particularly good example is provided by the scene of the Transfiguration. Postures of figures and their gestures, the patterns of folds of their draperies, as well as the facial features of the participants and the treatment of landscape, look as though they were copied directly from Nerezi. Facial features, costumes, and postures of warrior saints, the image of St. Menas, as well as the treatment of draperies and design of folds of the angels in the apse are also similar in the two churches. Although Nerezi may have served as a model for the painted cycle of H. Nikolaos, the artists had much inferior skills. This is indicated by the dryness of line, monotonous linear stylization, lack of fluency in movement and imme diacy of gesture, as well as in boldly juxtaposed, yet dull colors which characterize scenes at H. Nikolaos. The re finement, elegance and fluency of Nerezis imagery is ab sent in the Kastorian church. Thus, the paintings of H. Nikolaos represent an example of the dissemination of the style of Nerezi and its interpretation by a local workshop.
NEREZI AND TWELFTH-CENTURY STYLE Without repeating the analyses of Komnenian art formu lated in a number of studies,281 will attempt to define the importance of the style of Nerezi within the context of monuments which are stylistically closely related to Nerezi, yet were not painted by the same workshop. Inci-
Miljković-Pepek, Veljusa (see footnote 23), figs. 72, 73; pl. 16. Ibid., p. 232. Ibid., p. 232; and Hadermann-Misguich, “La peinture monumentale” (see footnote 22), p. 103. Pelekanides and Chatzidakis, Kastoria (see footnote 23), pp. 50-66. See footnote 22.
Chapter IV dentally, these monuments, the church of Hosios David in Thessaloniki and the church of the Transfiguration at Chortiatis near Thessaloniki, are also located in the vicin ity of Nerezi. Although little studied and dated differently by scholars, the painted programs of these two churches were, in my view, contemporaneous with Nerezi and they provide good comparanda for elucidating the significance of Nerezi both regionally and within the monumental art of Byzantium.29
1. The Church of the Transfiguration, Chortiatis The painted cycle of the church of the Transfiguration, Chortiatis, near Thessaloniki is only partially preserved. The fragmentary state of preservation of its paintings does not allow us to comment about the layout of the program as a whole and limits the analysis of their style, too. A number of single figures of saints and bishops and the frag ments of two scenes of the cycle of the Virgin, however, in dicate that stylistic features of this church are related to Nerezi.30The remaining portions of the scenes of the Birth and the Presentation of the Virgin suggest that their painter was interested in integrating his figures into a co herent composition. For example, in the Presentation in the Temple, Joachim and Anna are brought close together, forming a group closely bound by gestures and postures.31 Further resemblance between Nerezi and Chortiatis are seen in the representation of figures. The figures at Chortiatis, as at Nerezi, have elongated proportions and are executed with a careful balance between the linear and the painterly. Moreover, draperies at Chortiatis, although somewhat bulky, are nonetheless treated in a refined, linear manner, and are comparable to those at Nerezi. In addition, the major characteristic of the images at Chorti atis is their expressiveness and psychological characteri zation. This is particularly evident in the image of St. Anna in the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple. Executed in a delicate, linear manner, the face of St. Anna shows that inner anxiety so characteristic of the Nerezis images, and so prominent in the latter half of the cen tury.32 Above all, a close stylistic affinity between the two monuments is seen in the relationship between an unidentified saint from Chortiatis and St. Panteleimon (fig. XLIX).33 Both have somewhat triangular-oval faces, widely arched brows, oval eyes, little mouth, and delicate web of thin lines on the cheeks. The hairdress of the two saints compares too.
83 2. The Church of Hosios David, Thessaloniki The paintings at Hosios David are also very closely related to Nerezi. While Chortiatis manifests the tendencies of mid-twelfth century art through the elegance of its atte nuated figures and facial expressions, the paintings at Hosios David exhibit an advanced linearism, agitation, and color range which closely compares to Nerezi. A deep, cobalt blue background, a careful gradation of green from pastel to olive tones, juxtaposition of mauve, blue and ocher, and use of white as highlights which intersect faces and draperies while accentuating at the same time tonal gradation are strikingly similar in the two monuments. Only two scenes are fully preserved at Hosios David: the Baptism and the Birth of Christ (fig. XLIII, XLVII). They occupy the eastern and western halves of the south barrel vault, respectively. Below the Baptism, there are fragments of the Presentation in the Temple; the Trans figuration was once rendered on the tympanum of the south barrel vault.34 The treatment of figures at Hosios David and at Nerezi is also similar. In both churches draperies envelope and ag itate figures, having a rich textural appearance achieved by their linear treatment. A variety of patterns in the two churches is comparable. The trapezoidal spread of folds on the Virgin’s robe may be compared to the similarly shaped folds on the garments of St. John in the Deposition at Nerezi (fig. XLV).35 Moreover, the figures compare in their postures too, a particularly good example of this being the posture of Christ’s body in the Baptism at Hosios David. In its sinuous shape it is very close to the figure of Christ in the Threnos at Nerezi (figs. XLVI, XLVII). The facial types in the two churches are also similar. The woman bathing Christ in the Birth of Christ at Hosios David compares closely to the lady holding a water jug in the Birth of the Virgin at Nerezi, and the freshness of her painterly conceived face finds a parallel in the face of the Virgin in the same scene at Nerezi (figs. XLII, XLIII). Par ticularly striking in comparing the two churches is the face of St. Joseph in the Birth of Christ in Hosios David. His intense dynamic expression achieved by a careful linear and coloristic effects is similar to the same principles used in achieving psychological characterization of the faces at Nerezi (fig. XLIII). Moreover, the scenes at Hosios David are compositionally integrated. In the Birth of Christ, isolated groups of figures are related to one another by the landscape. The curvilinear pattern of hills follows and outlines the con-
29 The paintings of Hosios David were dated to the middle of the twelfth century by E. Tsigaridas, Oi toichographies tēs Monēs Latomou Tbessalonikēs kai ē Byzantinē zōgraphikē tou 12ou aiōna (Thessaloniki, 1986), p. 68; and M. Panayotidi, “The Wall Paintings in the Church of the Virgin Kosmosoteira at Ferai (Vira) and Stylistic Trends in 12th Century Painting”, BF 14/2 (1989): 460. Mouriki, “Stylistic Trends”, pp. 119-123, dates them, however, in the late twelfth/ early thirteenth century. Similarly, while Mouriki dates the paintings of Chortiatis in the middle of the twelfth century, Djuric, “La peinture murale byzantine” (see footnote 22), p. 61, dates them in the early thirteenth century. 30 Mouriki, ibid., figs. 50-53. 31 Ibid., fig. 53. 32 Ibid. 33 For the saint in Chortiatis, see ibid., fig. 50. 34 Ibid., p. 119-122; n. 135; figs. 8 8 -9 1 ; 93-96. 35 For Hosios David, see ibid., fig. 90.
Chapter IV
84 tours of figures, as is particularly evident in the figure of St. Joseph and the group of maids bathing Christ. The hills extend above the Virgin, echoing the articulation of the lower portion of the scene, and wrapping up the com ponents of the scene into a coherent whole. The basic compositional arrangement of this scene compares to the Nativity of Christ depicted in the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus, Mount Sinai, cod. 339 (fol. 107).36 An empha sis on compositional unity is also seen in the Baptism (fig. XLVII). The figures of Christ, St. John, and the angels are closely related to one another through their gestures and postures. The relationship between these figures, as well as the iconography of the scene are comparable to the same scene depicted in Vat. Urb. gr. 2 (fol. 109v).
3. Chortiatis, Hosios David, and Nerezi The effort to create compositionally integrated scenes, seen both at Hosios David and at Chortiatis, is similar to the compositional principles used at Nerezi. The landscape which echoes the shapes of the figures while at the same time connecting them, as well as the corresponding gestures and postures which relate individual actors, are common compositional principles in all three churches. Moreover, both Nerezi and the two Thessalonikan monuments appar ently use Constantinopolitan manuscripts of the first half of the century as their source. Thus, although the composi tion of the scenes in Hosios David and Chortiatis is lacking the dynamic quality of Nerezi groups, they are nonetheless representative of the same artistic tradition. Both Hosios David and Chortiatis, however, exhibit features which differ from Nerezi. Concerning Chortiatis, the figures are more monumental and their draperies bulkier than those at Nerezi. The figures at Hosios David share the monumentality evident at Chortiatis. However, their proportions are somewhat squat and lacking the elongation so prominent at both Nerezi and Chortiatis. Moreover, a feeling of space and atmosphere in these paintings also distinguishes them from the other two mon uments. These features have led scholars to date the paint ings of Hosios David and Chortiatis anywhere from the sixth decade of the twelfth century to the beginning of the thirteenth century.37 In my view, a tendency towards com positional integration, similar coloristic patterns, as well as a comparable portrayal of human figure chronologically relate both Hosios David and Chortiatis to Nerezi. The monumentality of figures at Hosios David and at Chortiatis, which has led scholars to date them in the thir teenth century, finds parallels in earlier art, such as in the 36 37 38 39
painted program at Pherrai. Moreover, the muscular body of Christ, the plastic quality of the figure of the Virgin, as well as the treatment of space at Hosios David, relate to Constantinopolitan manuscript production of the mid twelfth century. Despite the actual size of figures, and an attempt to portray landscape, the figures at Hosios David are lacking the comfortable spatial arrangements of thir teenth-century art.38 The three Macedonian churches, Chortiatis, Hosios David, and Nerezi, exhibit seeds of the major stylistic ten dencies developed in the third quarter of the twelfth cen tury. A similar coloristic gamut, similar ways of conceiving figures, and similar facial types seen in these three churches suggest their common prototypes and chronological closeness. Moreover, a high quality of execution in all three, as well as their kinship to Constantinopolitan works of art, suggest that the capital of the Empire had an impor tant impact on monumental art in Macedonia at that time. These three churches, in fact, reflect pluralistic tendencies apparent in Constantinople throughout the twelfth cen tury. A combination of elegant, slender, yet agitated and somewhat robust figures like those of Chortiatis is found at St. Neophytos on Cyprus, at Djurdjevi Stupovi, and at Backovo.39 The monumental, linearly conceived figures at Hosios David anticipate the paintings of the Church of the Virgin, Patmos, while images of Nerezi lead, on the one hand, to the agitated figures of Kurbinovo and St. George, Staraya Ladoga; on the other hand, they anticipate the re strained and elegant images at Lagoudera and even on the Annunciation icon from Sinai.40 While it is certain that these Macedonian churches did not make a direct impact on the geographically dispersed later monuments, the de gree to which Nerezi, Hosios David, and Chortiatis pre suppose later artistic tendencies, suggests Constantinople as the source of their style.
SUMMARY The analysis of the style of Nerezi testifies to the long established hypothesis about the stylistic koine of the Komnenian period. Linearism, flattening of figures, and their agitation are common features evident in monuments throughout the empire. Although no painted cycle sur vives from the capital at this time, Constantinopolitan manuscripts, icons, and other minor arts of the period in dicate that the center of the Empire provided the source from which these stylistic tendencies were disseminated. It is quite likely that artists from the capital traveled and left
Anderson, “Illustration of Cod. Sinai, Gr. 339” (see footnote 9), pp. 167-185. See footnote 29. Mouriki, “Stylistic Trends” (see footnote 3), pp. 119-123, dates them in the early thirteenth century based on these features. For St. Neophytos, see Mango and Hawkins, “The Hermitage of St. Neophytos”, DOP 20 (1966): 119-207; for Djurdjevi Stupovi, see J. Nešković, “Djurdjevi Stupovi u Starom Rasu,” Raška Bastina 1(1975); for Backovo, see E. Bakalova, Bachkovskata Kostnica (Sofia, 1977), pp. 118-157. 40 For Patmos, see E. Kollias, “Wall Paintings”, in: Patmos. Treasures of the Monastery, ed. by A. D. Kominis (Athens, 1988), pp. 5 9 -6 3 ; for Staraya Ladoga, see V. Lazarev, Freski Staroi Ladogi (Moscow, 1960); for Sinai, see K. Weitzmann, The Icon. Holy Images Sixth to Fourteenth Century (Lon don, 1978), pl. 27.
Chapter IV their impact in the provinces. Many examples of such ac tivities can be pointed to; Nerezi is one of them. In sum, the most distinguished characteristics of the style at Nerezi are the sheer beauty and eloquence which relate it to Constantinople, and the extent to which it is ex pressive of the iconographic content of the program. As discussed in the previous chapter, the novel iconography of the painted program at Nerezi has been enhanced by the artists’ effort to communicate messages in the most effec
85 tive and aesthetically pleasing manner. Since the content of the program clearly indicates extensive involvement of the patron, the high aesthetic quality of its execution is also to be understood as his deed. After all, it was most likely Alexios who had chosen, commissioned and paid the artists, their superb skills revealing the patrons distingui shed taste. Alexios’ capability to summon the best artists available in the region is also apparent from the refinement of the sculptural ensemble to which we will now turn.
CHAPTER V
SCULPTURE
INTRODUCTION The survey of the sculpture at Nerezi reveals the sad state of preservation of this art medium in general. Since their discovery and publication by N. Okunev in 1929, the sculptural fragments of Nerezi have been decimated, their loss unaccounted for.1Most of the preserved pieces survive in their original locations. The high quality of execution of the sculptural fragments at Nerezi suggests that they were carved by exceptionally skilled artists. From the evidence in situ it is clear that sculpture was not a dominant art medium in the church.2 In fact, it was con fined to the iconostasis (pl. 8). In addition, several earlier
pieces, a couple of Roman funerary stele, an Ionic capital, and two fragments of a marble panel were also found in the church. Only a Roman funerary stele can still be seen (fig. 75); it tops a low bench constructed against the east wall of the narthex (fig. LVIII).3 The Ionic capital, the other stele, and a marble panel, once displayed in the museum in Skopje, are either lost or are hidden away from public view.4Since the provenance of this early sculpture, as well as their location and function within the church are un known, we will focus on the twelfth-century fragments of the iconostasis. A description of the twelfth-century sculp ture will be followed by an iconographic and stylistic analy sis and by an attempt to reconstruct the original iconostasis.
1 N. L. Okunev, “Altarnaia pregrada XII vieka v Nerezie”, Seminarium Kondakovianum 3 (1929): 5 -2 3 . 2 For a complete list of the twelfth-century sculptural fragments found in Nerezi, see Okunev, ibid.; Dj. Bošković, “Izveštaj i kratke beleške s puto vanja”, Starinar 6 (1931): 181-183; Idem, “Arheološki izveštaji”, GSND 5 (1932): 22 1-2 23 ; and Idem, “La restauration récente de l’iconostase à l’église de Nerezi”, Seminarium Kondakovianum 6 (1933): 157-159. 3 The stele, 1.50 m tall, 0.63 m wide, and 0.09 m deep, is made of marble. Its upper portion displays a reclining figure in the center flanked by the seated woman to the right and a man standing and holding a vessel to the left. The lower portion of the stele has a rectangular hole, suggesting that it may once have been used as a construction element, perhaps as a beam support. When it was transfered to its present location in the narthex is not known. The inscription on the lower portion of the stele indicates that the “famous” Maximus who lived for 50 years was buried there and that the stele was made by efforts of people whose names are cited. It reads: D(is) m(anibus) ///// Max[i m] u[s v] ixit an(nis) L h(ic) s(itus) e(st) Val(erius) Eupor q(ui) et Maximus fil(ius) et L. Mani(ius) Va lentin[u] s col(libertus) et Servie ... vive b(ene) m(erenti) f(aciendum) c(uraverunt) The insciption is taken from N. Vulić, Antički spomenici naše zemlje, Spomenik 71, (Belgrade, 1931), p. 214, no. 571. The stele was first published by A. Evans, Antiquarian Researches in Illiricum, Parts III and IV, Archaeologia, 49 (Westminster, 1875), p. 124, No. CLIII 8223. 4 The Ionic capital, measuring 0.40 m in diameter at the top and 0.30 m in diameter at its botom, was found near the church and is now lost. We know about it from the photograph published by S. Radojčić, Starine crkvenog muzeja u Skoplju (Skopje, 1941), p. 82. Its dating is a subject of a scholarly debate. S. Radojčić, ibid.; and I. Nikolajević-Stojković, “Jonski impost-kapiteli iz Makedonije i Srbije”, ZR V I 21 (1952): 177-178, fig. 13, date it in the twelfth century. K. Petrov, “Dekorativna plastika vo Makedonija vo XI i XII vek”, Godisen zbornik na Filozofskiot fakultet 12 (1962): 161 -162; and Idem, “Kon neispitana protoistorija na lokalitetot Sv. Panteleimon vo Nerezi”, Godisen zbornik na Filozofskiot fakultet 33 (1981): 172-186 claims that it is an Early Christian capital. The other Roman stele was never published. It is mentioned only in the unpublished Report on the archaeological work at Nerezi undertaken in 1967 which was kindly brought to my attention by the members of the staff of the Institut for the Protection of Monuments in Skoplje. The report speci fies that the stele, 1.27 m tall, 1.80 m wide, and 0.09 m deep, was found in the naos, under the central dome, turned face down. It has a Latin inscrip tion which reads: G(aius) Val (erius) Valens vix(it) an(nis) XVII et G(aius) Val(erius) Maximus vix(it) an(nis) XVIII h(ic) s(iti) s(unt) G(aius) Val(erius) Lucius pater et Caelia Veneria mater fili(i) s at spem Vite studiis perductis in qua fortuna et fato deceptis f(aciendum) c(uravit) The text indicates that the stele was made at the request of the mourning parents, Gaius Valerius Lucius, the father, and Caelia Veneria, the mother, to honor their sons Gaius Valerius Valens who lived 17 years, and Gaius Valerius Maximus, who lived 18 years. The marble panel was first published by Vulić, Spomenik (see footnote 3), p. 214, no. 572. It was later dated in the Early Christian period and hypo thetical allocated to the sanctuary barrier of an Early Christian basilica on the site of or nearby Nerezi, by Petrov, “Kon neispitana protoistorijata” (see footnote 3), pp. 159-171.
Chapter V DESCRIPTION The iconostasis which is in the church now represents an eclectic reconstruction of the original fragments and rela tively accurate copies of the original pieces executed in 1930-1931 (pl. 8; figs. XXXIV; 76, 77).5 It measures 3.60 m x 2.30 m and consists of four parapet slabs and four colonnettes which connect the slabs and support an archi trave. The lower portion of the colonnettes, up to the height of parapet slabs (1.00 m) is rectangular; their upper portion is octagonal and topped by capitals. The panels are of differing lengths: those flanking the entrance are 0.90 m wide, while those close to the wall are 0.30 m wide. To the north and south respectively, the iconostasis is flanked by proskynetaria icons, 1.30 m wide and 2.50 m tall. The inner colonnettes, the architrave, and the tri-lobe frame of the south proskynetarion, are original, twelfth-century pieces (pl. 8; figs.XLIX, 76, 77, 82). The north proskynetarion frame (fig. L), the parapet panels and the molding covering them, as well as the outer colonnettes, were made in 1930-1931 on the basis of the preserved original elements (figs. 76, 77). The frame of the south proskynetarion is the most impressive original sculpted piece at Nerezi (pl. 8; figs.XLIX; 83). It is executed in stucco, unlike the rest of the sculpture which is carved in marble. The inner side of the frame is tri-lobed and decorated by a bead-and-reel pattern and a braid of four interlaced triple bands. The ornament within the frame consists of two pheasants flanking the central vase from which emerge vine stems in terwoven with a stylized palmette. The frame is topped by an architrave which projects outwards at an angle of 30 degrees and is decorated by a heart-shaped palmette separated by a double lily. The sides of the frame are flanked by colonnettes topped by small capitals with palmette decoration. The upper part of the proskynetarion is supported by double colonnettes topped by cubical capitals. The capitals are decorated with palmette motifs in the upper half and acanthus leaves in the lower portion. Only one capital has been preserved from the north proskynetarion frame. In its shape, size, and decoration, it resembles the capitals of the south proskynetarion frame. The architrave which is in situ is completely original (pi. 8; figs. XXXIV, LXVIII, 76). Although once in frag ments which were scattered around the church, it was
87 nonetheless reassembled and placed in its original location. The architrave of the iconostasis displays the same motif of heart-shaped palmette separated by a lily seen on the architrave of the proskynetaria. The inner colonnettes of the iconostasis are also from the twelfth century (figs. 76, 77, 82). On the side facing the naos, the colonnettes display a braid of two triple bands in the upper, octagonal portion, and a braid of four triple bands in the lower section. Added to the inner colonnettes, and also rectangular in shape, are the door posts (figs. 76, 77, 82). It is unlikely that actual royal doors were attached to them, since they do not reveal any markings which would indicate where and how the door might have been attached.6 Like the colonnettes, the marble posts are deco rated only on the side facing the naos. They are topped by marble spheres and display grapes and leaves interwoven with vine. The parapet panels and the outer colonnettes of the pre sent iconostasis are copies of the original fragments found in situ by N. Okunev.7 The larger panels are based on the original piece found on the south side of the iconostasis; its fragments are now kept in the Archaeological Museum in Skopje (pl. 8; figs. 76, 77, 78).8 The original panel is divided in sixteen rectangular fields framed by double-knotted bands (fig. 78). The rectangular fields exhibit little birds, rabbits, disks, leaves and a rosette.9 The back of the panel is decorated with a foliated cross in its center, as well as with wide intersecting bands which form a large central circle, four smaller circles with palmette on the vertical and horizontal axis, and four guilloches on the diagonal axis (fig. 79). Only one fragment is preserved of the north panel, indi cating that it too was divided in rectangular fields deco rated with various motifs. The preserved fragment shows a disk and a rosette. The back of the fragment is comparable to the south panel.10 The modern copies of the north and south panels, which form a part of the reconstructed iconostasis, resemble the basic decorative principles of the original pieces; yet, they differ in the selection of images represented within the rectangular fields, and their back side is not carved (figs. 76-79). Concerning the smaller, side panels, only one fragment survives. Like the larger panels, it was divided into rectan gular fields and decorated with a star, a cross, a rosette, and a disk (fig. 80). Its copy, which decorates the present iconostasis, thus differs considerably from the original
5 The iconostasis was reconstructed under the supervision of Dj. Bošković (see note 2). The new pieces were carved by the sculptor Nestor Aleksijevic. The project was executed under the auspices of the Institute for the Protection of Monuments in Skopje. The original, twelfth-century com ponents of the iconostasis are easily differentiated from the new pieces on figs. 76, 77, because the original marble is considerably darker. 6 For the placement and decoration of the royal door within the iconostasis, see A. Grabar, “Deux notes sur l’histoire de l’iconostase d’aprés des monuments de Yugoslavie”, Z RVI 7 (1961): 13-23. 7 Okunev, “Altarnaia pregrada” (see footnote 1), pp. 9 -2 0 . 8 This panel was, according to Okunev, in one piece in 1921; in 1922 he found it broken in five pieces. In 1990,1 was able to see only three fragments of this panel in the Archaeological Museum of Skoplje. 9 The four uppermost fields are decorated with birds, all turned towards the center; underneath are rabbits eating grapes, a pigeon, and an eagle; the third row from the top is flanked by two leaves inclined towards the center, and by two sun disks in the center. At the bottom, we see two stars and two rosettes. 10 Despite all my efforts, I was not able to see this fragment, and my description of it is based on earlier publications by Okunev and Bošković (see foot note 2).
Chapter V
88 panel (figs. 76, 80).11 The side colonnettes of the current iconostasis are also having little in common with the orig inal ones. The fragments of the original colonnettes display a braid of two triple bands in the upper half, and palmette interwoven with vine in the lower portion (fig. 81).12 The modern reconstruction, however, repeats the pattern of the inner colonnettes with a braid of triple bands decorating both lower and upper sections (fig. 76).
ANALYSIS: TECHNIQUE, ICONOGRAPHY, STYLE The technique of the preserved fragments at Nerezi, their style and iconography make it clear that all of them were products of the same campaign and were executed by the same artisan. Although the proskynetaria frames were ex ecuted in stucco, while the remaining portion of the iconostasis was carved in marble, the repertoire of orna ment, such as braids, animals, and palmette, appears on both marble and stucco pieces, indicating that they were a result of the same concept (pl. 8; figs.XLIX; 76-83).13 Moreover, considering the technique, most of the pre served sculpture exhibits crisp carving with sharp edges. It seems that the craftsman first opened the drill holes which he used later as guiding points; subsequently, he removed the ground, thus creating a relief-like surface, and finished by opening sharp ridged grooves over the ornamented sur face.14 That at least explains drilled holes seen both in the stucco frame and on the fragments of the iconostasis. Stylistic and iconographic features of the sculpture at Nerezi were often interpreted as a result of influences from both western and Islamic art.15 This is particularly true of a division of panels into rectangular fields, intricate carving of the proskynetarion frame, and its tri-lobed form. However, by the eleventh and twelfth centuries, most of these features were already assimilated into Byzantine art production, and the sculpture of Nerezi finds many parallels in contemporary works of art. The extremely high quality of carving with minute
attention given to details and rich surface modeling of the sculpture at Nerezi, compares closely in its refinement to contemporary sculptural fragments found in the capital and its orbit of influence. It also finds many parallels in the high-quality works in the provinces.
1. Constantinople as a Source The elegant, crisp carving of Nerezis fragments compares to the eleventh and twelfth-century sculpture in the major Constantinopolitan monuments, such as Kariye Camii, the Pantokrator monastery, and Fethiye Camii.16Moreover, in addition to stylistic and technical affinities, iconographic parallels with the capital also exist. The lily and palmette frieze ornaments of the cornices in the nave and the main dome of the Fethiye Camii, probably constructed in the second half of the eleventh century, as well as the frieze on the lower cornice of the early twelfth century Eleousa church in the Pantokrator Monastery, compare to the iconostasis architrave and the proskynetarion frame at Nerezi.17 Motifs of animals eating grapes interwoven with vine leaves, seen on Nerezis fragments, are also found in Constaninople as, for example, on the ornamentation of the carved slab now displayed in the exonarthex of Hagia Sophia, on a capital from Constantinople now in the Staatliche Sammlungen, Berlin, and on a twelfth-century capital from the south church of the Pantokrator Monastery.18
2. The Provinces and Neighboring Countries as a Source Sculpture from the eleventh- and twelfth-century monu ments in Italy, Russia, and in the Balkans, also provides many parallels to the fragments of Nerezi. For example, a number of panels now in the narthex of San Marco, Venice, and originally belonging to its iconostasis, show con fronted animals, such as peacocks, deer, or lions, set sym metrically around the vase surrounded by a vine interlace, palmette, or acanthus.19 The rectangles on panels often
11 See Bošković, “La restauration récente de l’iconostase” (see footnote 2), pp. 157-159. 12 Bošković, “Arheološki izveštaji” (see footnote 2), p. 221, fig. 15. 13 The use of stucco for the proskynetaria frames is not unusual; we find it, for example, on the sculptural fragments on the exterior of the church of the Virgin at Hosios Loukas; see L. Bouras, “Architectural Sculptures of the Twelfth and the Early Thirteenth Centuries in Greece”, Deltion 9 (1977-1979): 66; and A. Grabar, Sculptures byzantines du moyen âge (Paris, 1976), pp. 50-60. 14 For a discussion on this technique, see Bouras, “Architectural Sculptures” (see footnote 13), pp. 65-66. 15 See Grabar, Sculptures byzantines (see footnote 13), pp. 105-106; Petrov, “Dekorativna plastika vo Makedonija” (see footnote 4), pp. 151-180; and Okunev, “Altarnaia pregrada” (see footnote 1), pp. 10- 20. 16 For Kariye Camii, see Ø . Hjort, “The Sculpture of the Kariye Camii”, DOP 33 (1979): 199-289; and D. Oates, “A Summary Report on the Exca vations of the Byzantine Institute in the Kariye Camii, 1957-1958”, DOP 14 (1960): 223-231. For the Pantokrator Monastery, see A. H. S. Megaw, “Notes on the recent work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul”, DOP 17 (1963): 33 5 -62 ; R. M. Harrison and N. Firatli, “Excavations at Sarachane in Istanbul: Fourth Preliminary Report”, DOP 2 1 (1967): 276. For Fethiye Camii, see C. Mango and E. J. W. Hawkins, “Report on Field Work in Istanbul and Cyprus”, DOP 18 (1964): 319-340. 17 In the Pantokrator Monastery, however, a more complex rhythm has been introduced in a number of places, by subdividing the palmette into a smaller lily and two smaller palmettes. The same motif was used on a number of San Marco capitals of the late eleventh century. See H. Buchwald, “The Carved Stone Ornament of the High Middle Ages in San Marco, Venice”, J ÖB 13 (1964): 157-159, figs. 40-42. 18 H. Buchwald, “The Carved Stone Ornament of the High Middle Ages in San Marco, Venice”, J ÖB 11/12 (1962-1963): 162-163, fig. 58, n. 106; and R. M. Harrison, “A Constantinopolitan Capital in Barcelona”, DOP 27 (1973): 297-300. 19 Buchwald, “The Carved Stone Ornament, 1962-1963” (see footnote 18), pp. 185-197, figs.22-29.
89
Chapter V have their borders ornamented in braided bands, palmette, or bead-and-reel ornament, all of which are also found at Nerezi. Similar panels are found on the parapet screen in the Cathedral of Torcello.20 Although executed in the eleventh century and differing in their technique, the iconography and composition of these panels can be asso ciated with the Nerezi fragments. Among the Russian examples, the closest to the sculp ture of Nerezi are the eleventh-century panels from the church of St. Sophia at Kiev, and from the eleventh-century cathedral at Chernigov. A whole series of panels found in the church of St. Sophia, Kiev, serve as a gallery balustrade.21 Two of the panels show divisions in rectan gular fields separated, as at Nerezi, by interlaced bands, and filled with images of stylized flowers, disks, and ani mals.22 Other panels show a wide interlace of double band which forms circles containing single eagles, flowers, crosses or disks; their style compares closely to the back of the larger panels at Nerezi. The eleventh-century panels from the north tribunes of the cathedral at Chernigov also show a pattern of wide intersecting bands which encircle various motifs, such as disks, flowers and crosses.23 In the Balkans, close parallels to Nerezi are found in a number of monuments. For example, a division of panels into rectangular fields filled with animals, birds, and styl ized flowers, seen at Nerezi, is also exhibited on the panels of the phiale of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos, and on the twelfth-century iconostasis of the church of Hosios Meletios, near Megara.24 Other motifs found at Nerezi, such as the foliated crosses, palmette within a vine, paired birds surrounded with foliage, also find many parallels in the twelfth-century. Some examples are provided by sar cophagi panels in the churches of St. Nicholas, Porta Pili, and Panagia, Episkopi, Ano Voulou.25 All of these panels also exhibit the crisp carving style which, in terms of its technique, compares to the sculptural fragments of Nerezi. With regard to style, however, Nerezi finds its closest parallels in the fragments of the epistyle found in the church of the Taxiarches at Andros, Mesaria (1158), as well as on the sarcophagus slabs found in Athens, near the church of the Holy Apostles, attributed to the third quar 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
ter of the twelfth century.26 These examples, like Nerezi, are characterized by richly modeled organic details and the fleshy, supple carving of motifs which are vividly ani mated, vigorous, and geometrically curved.
3. Macedonia as a Source Despite many parallels throughout the Byzantine world, the style and the iconography of Nerezi sculpture adheres most closely to contemporary sculpture of its own region. A number of finely carved sculptural pieces and ensembles which have been preserved in Macedonia from the eleventh and twelfth centuries, testifies that highly skilled artists were active in that province. Among the many ex amples, particularly interesting are sarcophagus panels from Veroia, Serres, and Mikra Prespa; sculptural frag ments found in Chortiatis and White Tower, Skopje; the door lintel of the church of H. Anargyroi, Kastoria; as well as the iconostasis of the church of St. Sophia in Ohrid, the church of the Virgin of the Eleousa at Veljusa, and the church of the Forty martyrs of Sebaste at Bansko.27 With regard to the sarcophagi, those found in the church of St. Nicholas at Veroia, and dated to eleventh/twelfth century, exhibit, as do the fragments at Nerezi, sharp-edge palmettes, broad intersecting bands forming circles, as well as geometrically treated birds, dense grapes, braids, and palmettes interlaced with vines.28 A pheasant, similarly articulated to that at Nerezi, yet in this instance eating grapes, as well as a palmette springing from a vine and encircling a bird, are also found on an eleventh-century sarcophagus plaque from the Rotunda of St. George in Thessaloniki.29 In addition to comparable iconography, those plaques also compare to Nerezi’s sculpture in their crisp carving style, and in the tendency towards obscuring the central motif with ornamental foliage. The pattern of intersecting, smoothly carved broad bands, which encircle a variety of motifs seen on the back of the panel at Nerezi, finds its close iconographic, sty listic, and technical parallel in the eleventh-century frag ment from the church of Metropolis at Serres and on the
Buchwald, ibid., pp. 197-199, fig. 38. Grabar, Sculptures byzantines (see footnote 13), p. 84, pl. 59. Ibid., pl. 59 c. Ibid., pl. 60. Ibid., pls. 40; 74-76. See Th. Pazaras, Anaglyphes sarkophagoi kai epitaphiesplakes tēs mesēs kai ysterēs Byzantinēs periodou stēn Ellada (Athens, 1988), pl. 30, a, b. See Bouras, “Architectural Sculptures in Greece” (see footnote 13), pp. 63-67. For the sarcophagi, see Pazaras, Anaglyphes sarkophagoi (see footnote 25), pls. ll a; 6 a, b; 12 a; 22 c; 23 a, b, c; for White Tower, see G. Millet, L’ancient art serbe (Paris, 1919), pp. 149-150, figs. 169-172; and I. Nikolajević-Stojković, “Prilog proučavanju vizantiske skulpture od 10. do 12. veka iz Makedonije i Srbije”, ZRVI 49 (1955): 183; for H. Anargyroi, see N. K. Moutzopoulos, Ekklesies tēs Kastorias 9os-llos aiōnas (Thessaloniki, 1992): 401 -406; for St. Sophia, see Nikolajević-Stojković, ibid., pp. 171 -174; for Veljusa, see P. Miljković-Pepek, Veljusa. Manastir Sv. Bogorodica Milostiva vo seloto Veljusa kraj Strumica (Skopje, 1981), pp. 134-138; for Bansko, see A. Cicimov, “Mermernata oltarska pregrada vo crkvata Sv. četirieset sevastiski mačenici vo Bansko”, in: Zbornik na trudovi. Zavod za zaštita na spomenicite na kulturata, prirodnite retkosti i muzej - Stru mica (Strumica, 1989), pp. 101 -103. The panel from the church of the Transfiguration at Chortiatis is set in the floor of the church and has not been published. 28 Pazaras, Anaglyphes sarkophagoi (see footnote 25), pls. 6 : a,b; 10 a. 29 For the Rotunda, see Pazaras, ibid., pl. 18: a, b. Pheasants were a popular motif in Macedonia. Although differing in their style and techniqe from the fragments at Nerezi, the pheasant with an eagle appears, for example, on the eleventh-century sarcophagus from St. Achileos, Micra Prespa (Pazaras, ibid., pl. 12a).
Chapter V
90 portal of the church of H. Anargyroi in Kastoria.30 More over, such a design is also found on the eleventh-century fragments from the crypt of St. Demetrios in Thessaloniki, and on a panel now imbedded in the floor of the twelfthcentury church of the Transfiguration at Chortiatis.31 Very close to the sculpture of Nerezi, both iconographically and stylistically, are fragments from the portal found at White Tower in Skopje. These fragments represent fan tastic animals in action set in rectangular fields and par tially obscured by acanthus leaves. The ornamented bor ders of these fragments exhibit geometrically conceived palmette and acanthus, reminiscent both stylistically and iconographically of the colonnettes at Nerezi.32 The treat ment of animals and their execution also closely compare to the images at Nerezi. Both show sharp edges and geo metric treatment of the images and ornament. The tri-lobe shape of the Nerezi’s proskynetarion has often been explained as a consequence of Islamic or Dal matian influence. However, a tri-lobe window was also ex cavated in the White Tower, thus indicating that at the time when Nerezi was built, this type of frame acquired local popularity. The extent of its prominence in Macedonia in the twelfth century is also seen in the church of H. Niko laos tou Kasnitzi at Kastoria.33 There, probably in the ab sence of funds for a more expensive materials, a tri-lobe frame is painted above the image of Christ as if imitating a marble proskynetarion. Preserved fragments from the iconostasis at Ohrid, Veljusa, and at Bansko are particularly important for our understanding of the stylistic and iconographic origin of the sculpture of Nerezi’s iconostasis. These fragments sug gest that by the twelfth century, the iconostases in Mace donia became, to a certain degree, standardized. The com position and repertoire of ornaments carved on the iconostasis of the church of St. Sophia, Ohrid is so similar to that of Nerezi, that it is tempting to suggest St. Sophia as a source of inspiration of Nerezi’s sculptors.34 The pal mette, vine, encircled stylized flowers and knotted bands on the colonnettes, as well as the wide interlaced bands which divide the surface into circles and contain birds, disks, crosses and stars on panels, are all found on the iconostasis at St. Sophia. Moreover, the arch which now frames a window on the north wall of St. Sophia, and
which may have once belonged to the iconostasis exhibits, just like the proskynetarion at Nerezi, a braid, bead-and reel ornament, and birds drinking from a vase. The iconostases from the church of the Virgin Eleousa at Veljusa, (11th century) and from the church of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste at Bansko (11th-12th century), also correspond closely to Nerezi. As at Nerezi, the iconostases in both of these churches exhibit an architrave decorated with a pattern of crisply carved palmette and lily frieze.35 Moreover, fragments of parapet panels from Bansko show a pattern of intersecting bands similar to those at the back of the panel at Nerezi. These three iconostases also compare closely to Nerezi in terms of their design. All of them ex hibit colonnettes which are rectangular in the lower por tion and octagonal in the upper one; they are divided by parapet panels and supporting an architrave. Thus, in look ing for the models of the iconostasis of Nerezi, as far as sculptural decoration and form are concerned, one does not have to go any further than the region around Nerezi. The correspondences between the sculpture at Nerezi and other Byzantine regions, however, is important since it testifies that Macedonia in Middle Byzantine times followed the trends set by the capital, Nerezi being a very important representative of that trend.36
THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE ICONOSTASIS The iconostasis which is now displayed at Nerezi repre sents a close replica of the twelfth-century original. Its shape and dimensions were reconstructed on the basis of the existing members which have been preserved in situ, fragments which were scattered around the church, and marks of the original iconostasis detected on the floor and flanking walls. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the decora tion of the twentieth-century elements of the iconostasis constitutes an accurate copy of the original fragments. The form of the iconostasis of Nerezi, that is a screen of low parapet slabs with colonnettes supporting an archi trave, was rather prominent in Middle Byzantine times.37 Similar iconostases likely existed in the major Middle
30 For Serres, see Pazaras, ibid., pls. 3, 4; for H. Anargyroi, see Moutsopoulos, Ekklesies tēs Kastorias (see footnote 27), pl. 22, figs. 300-315. 31 For Thessaloniki, see Pazaras, Anaglyphes sarkophagoi (see footnote 25), pl. 23 b. The panel from Chortiatis has not been published. 32 These fragments were first published by G. Millet, L’ancient art Serbe (Paris, 1919), p. 151, figs. 169-172. Although Millet dates them in the four teenth century, Nikolajević-Stojković, “Prilog proučavanju” (see footnote 27), pp. 182-184, compares them to the fragments at Nerezi and dates them in the twelfth century. 33 For H. Nikolaos, see S. Pelekanides and M. Chatzidakis, Kastoria (Athens, 1985), p. 52. 34 See Nikolajević-Stojković, “Prilog proučavanju” (see footnote 27), pp. 170-174. 35 For Veljusa, see Miljković-Pepek, Veljusa (see footnote 27), pp. 134-138; for Bansko, see Cicimov, “Mermernata oltarska pregrada” (see footnote 27), pp. 101-117. 36 For examples of similar iconostases in Greece, see Th. Pazaras, “Ho glyptos diakosmos tou palaiou katholikou tēs monēs Xenophōntos sto ‘Hagion Horos”, Deltion 14 (1987-1988): 33-48. 37 For the most recent discussion of the development of the iconostasis, and for earlier bibliography, see C. Walter, “The Origins of Iconostasis”, Eastern Churches Review 3 (1971): 251-267; reprinted in Studies in Byzantine Iconography (London, 1977), No. 3; Idem, “A New Look at the Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier”, REB 51 (1993): 203-228; M. Chatzidakis, “L’évolution de l’icone aux l i e -13e siècles et la transformation du templon’\ in: XVe congrès, pp. 159-191; T. Velmans, “Rayonnement de Picone au X IIe et au début du X IIIe siècle”, in: XVe congrès, pp. 195-227; G. Babić, “O živopisanom ukrasu oltarskih pregrada”, ZLU ll (1975): 3 -4 5 ; and A. W. Epstein, “The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier: Templon or Iconostasis”, Journal of the British Archaeological Association 134 (1981): 1 -27.
Chapter V Byzantine foundations of the capital, such as the Pantokrator Monastery, the North Church of the Monastery of Constantine Lips, and the church of Theotokos Pammakaristos.38 Such a form of iconostasis is also at tested to by archaeological findings and written records in the provinces.39 Concerning the presence of the icons on the iconostasis at Nerezi, we will first consider the origin and meaning of the proskynetaria, and subsequently turn to a more speculative discussion about the possible exis tence of an epistyle and inter-columnar icons.
1. The Proskynetaria Icons The proskynetaria icons flanking the iconostasis, as seen at Nerezi, became a regular feature in twelfth-century churches. According to surviving monuments, the earliest proskynetaria date from the tenth and eleventh centuries.40 They are found, for example, in the church of the Koimesis at Nicea, where the mosaic icons of Christ-Antiphonis and the Virgin Eleousa were represented beside the iconostasis,41 and in St. Sophia at Ohrid, where the two eastern piers display paired images of the Virgin.42 On the basis of the remaining fragments of the marble frame, which are preserved on the piers beside the iconostasis, proskynetaria are also seen to have existed in the tenthcentury church of the Panagia in the monastic complex of Hosios Loukas, Phocis, at Protaton on Mount Athos (c. 961), and in Kiliçlar Kilise in Cappadocia.43 Proskynetaria icons seem to have become particularly po pular in twelfth-century churches. In Constantinople, frag ments of the frames testify to the presence of proskynetaria in the Kalenderhane Camii, and the Typicon of the Pantokrator Monastery indicates that they were probably exhib
91 ited in this largest monastic foundation of the time.44 Most likely reflecting the practice of the capital, the proskynetaria are also displayed in other twelfth-century churches, such as at Daphni, at Lagoudera, at Samari on Peloponnesos, at Kurbinovo, and at H. Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi in Kastoria.45 The inclusion of the proskynetaria in Kurbinovo and in H. Nikolaos particularly indicates the importance which those icons had at the time. The fact that eastern piers flanking the iconostasis were omitted in these two churches did not pre vent the patron from demanding proskynetaria. On the con trary, in those two churches proskynetaria are painted on the eastern section of the north and south walls and, like the icons on the piers, they are distinguished from other saintly images by virtue of their framing. All of the surviving proskynetaria exhibit several cor responding features. First, the proskynetaria always rep resent important figures of the celestial hierarchy: Christ, the Virgin, and the patron saint. Christ is paired with the Virgin at Nicea, at Daphni, and at Lagoudera, while ei ther Christ or the Virgin are displayed with the saint to whom the church is devoted on the proskynetaria at Kurbinovo, at Kastoria, and at Nerezi.46 In addition, the proskynetaria images differed from other representations of saints by virtue of their setting. As evident from the surviving monuments, they were framed with decorated marble architraves supported by colonnettes. Even when the church was not rich enough to supply real marble, the framing of the icon was painted in imitation of marble, as can be seen at Kurbinovo, at H. Nikolaos, and at Lagoudera. Above all, proskynetaria were important for their function. As is evident from their name, the proskynetaria represent devotional images of the holy persons whom the patron of the church selected to inter cede on his behalf and for his well-being.47 It is particu-
38 For Pantokrator Monastery, see P. Gautier, “Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantocrator”, REB 32 (1974): 33, 35, 37, 39; Megaw, “Notes on the re cent work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul” (see footnote 16), pp. 33 5-62; and Harrison and Firatli, “Excavations at Sarachane” (see footnote 16), p. 276. For the Constantine Lips, North Church, see Grabar, Sculptures byzantines (see footnote 13), pp. 100-105.; T. Macridy, “The Monastery of Lips and the Burials of Palaeologi”, DOP 18 (1964): 249-279; A. H. S. Megaw, “The Original Form of the Theotokos Church of Constanin Lips”, DOP 18 (1964): 279-299; and C. Mango and E. J. W. Hawkins, “Additional Notes on the Monastery of Lips”, DOP 18 (1964): 299-315; For the church of Theotokos Pammakaristos, see U. Peschlow, “Architectural Sculpture”, in: C. L. Striker and Y. Dogan Kuban, eds., Kalenderhane in Istan bul. The Buildings, Their History, Architecture, and Decoration (Mainz, 1997), pp. 101 - 111; and H. Belting, “Zur Skulptur aus der Zeit um 1300 in Konstantinopel”, Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 23 (1972): 70-73. 39 See Epstein, “The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier” (see footnote 37), pp. 10-25. 40 The written evidence provided by the life of St. Artemios, however, indicates that proskynetaria may have existed already in pre-iconolastic times. The image of Christ allocated to the space above the diakonikon in this text may have been an early version of a proskynetarion. See C. Mango, “On the History of the Templon and the Martyrion of St. Artemios at Constaninople”, Zograf 10 (1979): 40-4 4 . 41 The dating of those icons is disputable, scholars debating whether they are from the tenth or from the eleventh century. For a discussion and bibli ography, see Babič, “O živopisanom ukrasu oltarskih pregrada”, p. 14. 42 The Virgin Eleousa is represented on the north pier, and the enthroned Theotokos is displayed on the south pier. See Petar Miljkovik-Pepek, “La fresque de la Vierge avec le Christ du pilier situé au nord de l’iconostase de Sainte Sophie à Ohrid”, in: Akten des XI. Internationalen Byzantinistenkongresses (Munich, 1958), pp.388-391. 43 See Babić, “O živopisanom ukrasu oltarskih pregrada” (see footnote 37), pp. 16-18. 44 See Epstein, “The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier” (see footnote 37), pp. 2 - 8. 45 Ibid., pp. 10-23. 46 The selection of proskynetaria images seems to be largely dependent on the dignitary to whom the church is devoted. The image of the Virgin is usu ally paired with Christ in the churches devoted to the Virgin, such as Nicea and Lagoudera. In the churches which are devoted to the saints, such as Kurbinovo, H. Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi, or Nerezi, it is the image of the patron saint which is displayed on proskynetaria. Moreover, the pairing of the patron saint with either Christ or the Virgin seems to depend on the nature of the saint, Christ being more suitable for the military saints such as St. George, and the Virgin corresponding to the saints of poverty such as St. Panteleimon. 47 See Chatzidakis, “L’évolution de l’icone aux lle -1 3 e siècles” (see footnote 37), pp. 161-163; Velmans, “Rayonnement de l’icone” (see footnote 37), pp.204-208; Babić, “O živopisanom ukrasu oltarskih pregrada” (see footnote 37), pp. 14-21;and Epstein, “The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Bar rier” (see footnote 37), p. 24.
Chapter V
92 larly evident from the proskynetaria at Kurbinovo and at Lagoudera. At Kurbinovo, Christ, who is paired with St. George, is also surrounded by St. John the Baptist and by the Virgin, who holds a scroll with a Salvation prayer. At Lagoudera, the image of the Virgin paired with Christ, is also accompanied by St. John. The iconography of the Deesis, clearly incorporated in the rendition of the proskynetaria in those two churches, seemingly further emphasized the theme of the intercession, since the Deesis most likely acquired its intercessory content by the twelfth century.48 The features of proskynetaria icons have led scholars to believe that they originated from well known, and partic ularly venerated, miraculous icons, which were carried in processions, and exhibited both in the churches and in the imperial court during special ceremonies.49 Like the proskynetaria, the miraculous icons showed important figures of the celestial hierarchy. Moreover, when dis played, those icons were set on a small altar with a bal dachin, a structure which resembles the frames of the proskynetaria, and which is, like the framing of the proskynetaria, meant to distinguish the importance of the personages depicted.50 It is therefore quite possible, as suggested by G. Babić, that “at times when the patrons were unable to acquire the celebrated miracle-icons which were treasured in Constantinopolitan churches, they requested their artists to reproduce the prototypes of those icons on the walls of their churches.”51 It is also possible, however, that while adopting a format of the mobile miraculous icons, the proskynetaria actually orig inated from Byzantine votive imagery exhibited in churches of pre-iconoclastic times, as pointed out by T. Velmans. Velmans maintains that pre-iconoclastic images of St. Demetrios in the company of bishops in the Church of St. Demetrios, Thessaloniki, as well as the im age of Leo VI in St. Sophia, Constantinople, seem to rep resent the embryonic form of the theme of intercession, which was later developed in the proskynetaria.52 An ornate and meticulously carved frame which distin guishes these especially Venerated icons is thus by no means surprising at Nerezi.
2. Icons Above the Architrave The presence of other icons on Nerezi’s iconostasis is possi ble. According to the text on the Martyrion of St. Artemios, icons appear on the iconostasis since pre-iconoclastic times.53 Although no physical evidence testifies to the exis tence of icons on the iconostasis before iconoclasm, this text mentions that the images of St. John, St. Artemios, and Christ were displayed on the templon; the exact position of these icons, however, is not clarified in the text. Concerning the Middle Byzantine period, both physical evidence and written sources indicate that icons were dis played above the architrave. Most likely that was the case with the Pantokrator iconostasis, as well as with the iconostasis in the Fethiye Camii in Constaninople.54 In addition, six wooden epistyle beams dated between the eleventh and thirteenth century are found at St. Cather ine’s on Mount Sinai.55 Evidence for the common place ment of icons above the architrave in the Middle Byzan tine iconostasis from the capital and the provinces makes it quite possible to assume that the iconostasis at Nerezi fea tured them too.
3. Intercolumnar Icons 3.1. Controversy About Their Existence Whether the intercolumnar spaces of the iconostasis at Nerezi were enclosed is difficult to determine. The ap pearance of intercolumnar icons, which obviously turned an open screen of the templon into an opaque barrier, has been a subject of a scholarly debate. While some scholars, such as Mango, Chatzidakis, and Weitzmann propose a tenth- or eleventh-century date for the introduction of in tercolumnar icons, others, including Ouspensky, Lazarev, Walter, and Epstein believe that it was either a late Byzan tine or a post-Byzantine phenomenon.56 Given the surviving evidence, the degree to which the iconostasis was closed at the time when Nerezi was erected is difficult to determine. There is no explicit evidence, ei-
48 For a discussion of the meanings of the Deesis, see Chapter III, n. 116. 49 See Babic, “O živopisanom ukrasu oltarskih pregrada” (see footnote 37), pp. 14-16. 50 No such installations survive, but visual examples are found in the manuscripts, e. g. on the frontispiece of the miniature from the Gospel Book of Melbourne (MS 710/5), which exhibits the famous icon of the Virgin Hodegetria represented as a full-size, standing figure beneath the baldachin. See Byzantine Art an European Art (Athens, 1964), pp. 316-317, fig. 311. 51 Babić, “O živopisanom ukrasu oltarskih pregrada” (see footnote 37), p. 14. 52 Velmans, “Rayonnement de l’icone” (see footnote 37), pp. 206-208. 53 Mango, “On the History of the Templon” (see footnote 37), pp. 43-44. 54 For the Pantokrator Monastery and Fethiye Camii, see footnote 38. In addition, K. Weitzmann also proposed that a number of icons scattered around Europe likely belonged to the iconostasis of an unknown church in Constantinople. See K. Weitzmann, “An Ivory Plaque with Two of the Fourty Martyrs of Sebaste in the Glencairn Museum, Bryn Athyn, PA.”, in: Euphrosynon: aphierōma ston Manolē Chatzēdakē (Athens, 1992), pp. 704-712; Idem, Ivories and Steatites, Catalogue of Byzantine and Early Medieval Antiquites in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (Washington, 1972),Vol. 3,101 -105; Idem, “Diptikh slonovoĭ kosti iz Ėrmitazha, otnosiashchiĭsia k krugu imperatora Romana”, VizVrem 32 (1971): 142-156; and Idem, “Die byzantinischen Elfenbeine eines Bamberger Graduale und ihre ursprüngliche Verwendung”, in: Festschrift fü r K. H. Usener (Marburg, 1967), pp. l l- 2 0 . 55 See G. and M. Sotiriou, Ikones tēs Monēs Sinai (Athens, 1958), pp. 102-110. K. Weitzmann, “Icon Programs of the 12th and 13th Centuries at Sinai”, Deltion 12/4 (1984): 63-116; and Idem, “A group of Early Twelfth-Century Sinai Icons Attributed to Cyprus”, in: Studies in memory of David Talbot Rice, ed. by G. Robertson and G. Henderson (Edinburgh, 1975), pp. 47-63. 56 See footnote 37.
Chapter V ther literary or physical, which helps in determining the existence of intercolumnar icons in the Middle Byzantine period. Moreover, we also do not know whether the iconostasis was closed by any other means, such as, for ex ample, curtains. Most of what can be said is based on spec ulation and different scholarly interpretations of texts and archaeological evidence.57 3.2. Textual Evidence Among the texts, particularly important are the Typica of the Pantokrator Monastery, of Backovo monastery, and the inventory of the church of the Theotokos tēs Koteinēs near Philadelphia in Asia Minor. The Typicon of the Pan tokrator Monastery in Constantinople is vague and men tions an iconostasis only in the sections relevant to the censing and lighting of the church.58 While the Typicon informs us about the existence of icons on the iconostasis, it does not give any information about their location. Two other texts, however, are more puzzling. The Typ icon of Backovo states, “We are obliged to set out lights burning day and night in the following way: three lamps before the image of the Holy Mother of God, one lamp in the great bema, one lamp before the holy bema on the chancel (screen) in front of the Crucifixion, one lamp be fore the image of St. Michael [?], and three lamps at the tomb.”59 The inventory of the church of the Theotokos in Asia Minor also mentions a number of small icons and “large images of Proskynesis.”60 Whether the large icons mentioned in the church from Asia Minor, and the Crucifixion and Archangel Michael of Backovo refer to the proskynetaria panels flanking the ico nostasis, as suggested by A. Epstein, or were they actually intercolumnar icons, as claimed by M. Chatzidakis, is dif ficult to say.61 The icons are not preserved, thus preventing any definite conclusions about their placement.
93 should be noted, however, that according to reports, no re mains of holes or clamps that would keep the intercolumnar icons in place have been observed. Even if intercolumnia were enclosed only by curtains, as has been suggested by some scholars, traces of attachments should be visible.62 The provincial monuments, however, are more perplex ing. For example, in a large number of Cappadocian chur ches, an opaque barrier built of masonry separates the sanctuary from the naos proper.63 Although the same re gion provides examples of low sanctuary barriers too, the notion of complete separation should not be disregarded. The churches of Cyprus also provide some controversial evidence. For example, in the church of Panagia tou Arakou at Lagoudera, in addition to proskynetaria, two icons of the Virgin and of Christ are attached to the later ico nostasis. Since those icons were executed by the same artists who painted the church, Chatzidakis’ claim that they indeed once decorated the original iconostasis is rather plausible.64 Another church on Cyprus, the Enkleistra of St. Neophytos, near Paphos, also has retained the icons of the Vir gin and Christ on the iconostasis. These icons are dated to the end of the twelfth century and are thus contemporary with the paintings in the church. The processional charac ter of these icons led some scholars to believe that they were not affixed to intercolumnar spaces, but rather placed there temporarily, or placed on separate frames in front of the templon; their mobile character, however, does not preclude the possibility that they enclosed the intercolum nar spaces and belonged to the iconostasis proper.65 Thus, the question of the enclosure of intercolumnar spaces must be left open to further consideration and we must remain alert to any type of fragmentary remains which could shed light on this problem in the future.
3.3. Archaeological Evidence
SUMMARY
The same dilemma is encountered when one examines the archaeological evidence. Concerning Constantinople, the archaeological information on the iconostasis from the Middle Byzantine period is too incomplete to allow any conclusions about the presence of intercolumnar icons. It
Since the Typikon of Nerezi has not survived, the re maining fragments of iconostasis colonnettes do not show traces of any attachments, and no contemporary icons are preserved in the church, the existence of intercolumnar icons is highly uncertain. All we can say in reconstructing
57 The different size of intercolumnar spaces at Nerezi would require two large and two narrow icons; the effect would have been somewhat akward. 58 For the Pantokrator Typikon, see Gautier, “Le typikon du Christ Sauveur” (see footnote 38), pp. 33, 35, 37, 39; and Epstein, “The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier” (see footnote 37), pp. 2 - 6. 59 L. Petit, “Typicon de Grégoire Pacourianos pour le Monastère de Pètritzos (Backovo) en Bulgarie”, VizVrem ll (1904): 28, translated in: Epstein, “The Middle Byzanitne Sanctuary Barrier” (see footnote 37), p. 22. 60 Epstein, ibid., p. 22. 61 Ibid., p. 22, n. 87; and Chatzidakis, “L’évolution de l’icone” (see footnote 37), pp. 165-169. 62 For the use of curtains, see Epstein, “Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barriers” (see footnote 37), p. 26; and Mango, “On the History of the Templon” (see footnote 40), p. 43, n. 1. 63 For a discussion on the sanctuary barriers in Cappadocia and bibliography, see Epstein, “Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barriers”, pp. 15 -19 ; and N. Asutay, Byzantinische Apsisnehenräume: Untersuchung zur Funktion der Apsisnehenräume in den Höhlenkirchen Kappadokiens und in den mittelbyzantinischen Kirchen Konstantinopels (Weimar, 1998). 64 For bibliography and discussion, see Chatzidakis, “L’évolution de l’icone aux lle -1 3 e siècles” (see footnote 37), p. 166; and Epstein, “Middle Byzan tine Sanctuary Barriers” (see footnote 37), pp. 19 -2 1. 65 Ibid.
94 the original iconostasis is that it consisted of parapet slabs separated by panels and surmounted by an architrave sup ported by colonnettes. In its shape it resembles similar iconostases both in the capital and in the province of Mace donia. That the master of Nerezi did not have to go far to find a model for his iconostasis is obvious also from the stylistic and iconographic similarities between the sculp tural fragments of Nerezi and those of other Macedonian
Chapter V churches. Their close affinity with the sculpture of the cap ital suggests that a workshop of highly skilled sculptors was active in this province at the time. The high quality of the sculpture at Nerezi also reveals that the patron, Alexios, was sufficiently ambitious and capable to find a workshop or a single sculptor who was skilled enough to produce an iconostasis which in its beauty and in its form matched the famous examples from Constantinople.
CHAPTER VI
EPILOGUE. NEREZI AFTER ALEXIOS
HISTORY
1.1. The Monastery of St. George-Gorgos Before 1376/77
The monastic community at Nerezi remained active until the beginning of this century. Following the death of its founder, Alexios, however, the monastery lost its prestige and the church underwent a number of restorations. In formation about the later medieval history of Nerezi can be deduced only from two monastic Charters issued by Serbian rulers: the Charter of King Milutin issued to the monastery of St. George-Gorgos in Skopje in 1300; and the Charter issued by Vuk Branković to Chilandar Monastery in 1376/77.1
Subsequent medieval history of Nerezi was connec ted with the events surrounding its head monastery of St. George-Gorgos. According to written sources which have been preserved from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the monastery of St. George was the best orga nized, richest, and the most reputable monastic foundation in the eparchy of Skopje.5 Although the eparchy, like the region itself, frequently changed rulers, a practice of grant ing gifts and legal rights to this monastery, established by Byzantine emperors, continued throughout the Middle Ages.6 For example, shortly after the death of Manuel I Komnenos in 1180, Byzantine emperor, Isaak II Angelos, confirmed the holdings and privileges to the monastery of St. George.7 Moreover, when Skopje came under the brief Serbian rule in 1189-89, Grand Zupan of Rascia, Stefan Nemanja, granted the monastery of St. George all of its possessions and legal immunity.8 His action was repeated by other rulers who conquered Skopje and its environs, such as the Bulgarian Tsar Kalojan I (1197-1207); the ruler of Epiros Theodore Angelos Doukas Komnenos when Skopje fell under the rule of the Epirote Principality (1215-30); Bulgarian Tsars, Ivan Asen II (1218- 1241) and Koloman Asen (1241-1246); Nicean Tsar John III Doukas Vatatzes who ruled Skopje in 1246; Bulgarian Tsar Konstantine Tich in c. 1256; and Serbian Tsar Uroš I in 1258/59 when the region was re-conquered by the Serbs in 1258-1259.9 In 1259 Skopje was taken over by the Nicean emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos.10 The Charter of King Milutin mentions that another Byzantine emperor, An-
1. Nerezi as a Metoch of the Monastery of St. George-Gorgos King Milutin’s Charter informs us that the monastery of St. Panteleimon and the surrounding lands were given as a metoch to the monastery of St. George-Gorgos in Skopje, an eleventh-century foundation of the Byzantine emperor Romanos III Argyros (1028-1034), generously endowed by Komnenian emperors.2 According to the Charter of King Milutin, Nerezi and its monastic properties became a possession of St. George’s monastery and changed status from an imperialpronoia to a monasticp ronoia.3 While de based in its status and power, Nerezi was most likely still distinguished for its properties, since the Charter includes vineyards of Nerezi in the specially protected lands, off limits for everybody but the monastic communities of St. George.4
1 For the edited text of King Milutin’s Charter, see V. Mošin, “Gramota na kral Milutin”, in: Spomenici za srednovekovna iponovata istorija na Make donija (Skopje, 1975), Vol. 1, pp. 205-238; for Nerezi, see p. 219, no. 28. For the commentary and text of the Charter issued by Vuk Branković, see Idem, “Gramota na Vuk Brankovik”, in: Spomenici za srednovekovna i ponovata istorija na Makedonija (Skopje, 1975), Vol. 1, pp. 239-241. 2 For the history and significance of this monastery see R. Grujić, “Vlastelinstvo Svetog Djordja kod Skoplja od X I-X V veka”, GSND 1 (1925): 45-75. 3 The term pronoia, in its administrative-fiscal meaning, refers to a grant of a certain amount of tax revenues from specific property, which has been compared with the western term fief. The term and concept of pronoia was appropriated by the Latin and Serbian authorities in the Balkans. See ODB, Vol. 3, pp. 1733-1734. 4 According to the Charter, the King ordered that anybody outside of the monastic community, who dared use these lands, was to be fined. See Grujić, “Vlastelinstvo” (see footnote 2), p. 71. 5 The information about the monastery of St. George-Gorgos has been preserved in three monastic Charters: the Charter of the Bulgarian Tsar Konstantine Asen from 1258, the Charter of the Serbian King Milutin of 1300, and the Charter of Vuk Branković from 1376/77. For the text of these Char ters and commentary, see V. Mošin et al., “Gramoti na manastirot Sv. Georgi-Gorg Skopski”, in: Spomenici za srednovekovnata i ponovata istorija na Makedonija (Skopje, 1975), Vol. 1, pp. 97-242. 6 According to preserved monastic charters, the monastery of St. George was granted considerable legal, administrative, and military priviledges. For the text of these Charters and commentary, see V. Mošin et al., “Gramoti na manastirot Sv. Georgi-Gorg Skopski” (see footnote 5), pp. 97-242. For a discussion about the legal and other privileges of the monastery see Grujić, “Vlastelinstvo” (see footnote 2), pp. 59-73. For a general discussion about monastic rights and priviledges in Byzantium, see J. P. Thomas, Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Empire (Washington, 1987), pp. 214-244. 7 Indicated in the monastic Charter of Konstantine Asen; see V. Mošin et al., “Gramota na car Konstantin Asen”, in: Spomenici za srednovekovna i ponovata istorija na Makedonija (Skopje, 1975), Vol. 1, p. 185, n. 15. 8 This information is repeated in Charters of both Konstantine Asen and Milutin; for Konstantine’s Charter, see ibid., p. 185, n. 16; for the Charter of King Milutin see Idem, “Gramota na kral Milutin”, in: Spomenici za srednovekovna iponovata istorija na Makedonija (Skopje, 1975), Vol. 1, p. 210, n. 8. 9 This information is provided in both Charters; see ibid., pp. 185, 211. 10 Grujić, “Vlastelinstvo” (see footnote 2), p. 49.
96 dronikos II Palaiologos (1282-1328), who ruled Skopje in 1282-83, also granted privileges to the monastery of St. George.11 Skopje was re-conquered by King Milutin in 1283, and it became the capital of Serbia.12At that time, the eparchy of Skopje was included into the archbishopric of Žiča-Peć, and remained its integral part until the Turkish siege of Skopje in 1392.13 Despite the frequent change of its rulers, and the shift ing of the authority over the eparchy of Skopje between Serbian, Byzantine and Bulgarian archbishoprics, the monastery of St. George preserved its full legal immunity granted to it by its initial founder, Romanos III Argyros, in the eleventh century. Its monastic holdings, however, deteriorated. From the 47 villages, initially granted to the monastery by its founder, the fourteenth-century monas tic Charter of King Milutin mentions only 18, that is roughly a third of its original possessions.14Milutin added four new villages to the monastery, Vodno, Nerezi, and two newly established villages: one near the monastery and the other, Dubravica near the Katlanovo lake.15 1.2. The Monastery of St. George as a Metoch of Chilandar Thus, following the year 1300, Nerezi lost its distinctive status of an independent aristocratic foundation with direct links to the imperial family, to become a much less significant monastic house ruled by the head monastery of St. George. Moreover, when the monastery of St. George, with all its lands became a metoch of the Chilandar mon astery in 1376/77, Nerezi too found itself a part of the larger monastic house.16According to the Charter issued by Vuk Branković, who ruled Skopje, Drenice, Kosovo Polje and surrounding regions in the period between 1376/77, Vuk gave the monastery of St. George with all its lands and pos sessions to Chilandar monastery at the request of his brother, a Chilandar monk, Gerasim.17 The Charter also informs us that this change of ownership meant that the monastery of St. George was required to contribute one half of its income in money and goods to Chilandar.18 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Chapter VI The Charter of Vuk Brankovič is the last known docu ment which mentions the monastery of St. George. It is thus quite possible that this monastery lost its possessions and lands as a consequence of the Turkish invasions of Skopje in 1392. The extent of the decline of the monastery of St. George is best seen from the fact that even its foun dations are now gone and its actual location remains ob scure, raising a number of scholarly debates.19
2. Nerezi After the Turkish Conquest of Skopje The status of Nerezi, following the destruction of St. George’s monastery and throughout the Turkish rule, is difficult to establish. According to sources, from the Turkish conquest of Skopje in 1392 until the restoration of the Patriarchate of Peć, Nerezi was under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Ohrid.20 Subsequently, in 1766, both the Patriarchate of Peć and the Patriarchate of Ohrid came under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Con stantinople until 1920 when they were included into the renewed Serbian church.21 The Eparchy of Skopje was in corporated within the Serbian church until the establish ment of the independent Macedonian Orthodox church in 1974.22 Preserved documents testify to monastic activity at Nerezi until the later half of the nineteenth century. The inscription in the Triodion (c. 1535), kept now in the Bul garian National Library in Sofia, indicates that the Trio dion was given to Nerezi by some Philip during the time of metropolitan Theophanos on the day of St. Pantelei mon, on July 27 1672 (according to the old calendar).23 In 1688, the monastery is mentioned in an Octoechos.24 In the nineteenth century, the monastery is mentioned twice, in the Russian book which belonged to the monastery and was a gift given to the monastery in December of 1842 and during the time of hegoumenos Seraphim, archiman drite;25 and in the Trebnik of the monastery from 1856.26 The Trebnik mentions that the monastery is located about two hours away from Skopje (likely referring to a walking
Mošin, “Gramota na kral Milutin” (see footnote 8), p. 211, n. 15. Grujić, “Vlastelinstvo” (see footnote 2), p. 50. M. Grujić, Skopska mitropolija (Skopje, 1935), p. 87. Mošin, “Gramota na kral Milutin” (see footnote 8), pp.214-228. Ibid., pp.219-220. See Mošin et al., “Gramota na Vuk Branković” (see footnote 1), p. 240. It is, however, interesting to point out that many monasteries in the Eparchy of Skopje were given to Chilandar during the Serbian rule. In fact, during Serbian rule, Chilandar acquired six smaller and nine larger monastic houses in this region. See Grujić, Skopska mitropolija (see footnote 13), pp. 145-158. Gerasim held considerable properties in the Ohrid region prior to his becoming a monk at Chilandar. See Grujič, Skopska mitropolija (see footnote 13), p. 145-147. See Mošin et al., “Gramota na Vuk Branković” (see footnote 1), p. 241. For a discussion and bibliography, see K. Petrov, “Gramotite na manastirot Sv. Georgi Gorgos i obid za iznaoganje na negoviot lokalitet”, in: Spomenici za srednovekovna i ponovata istorija na Makedonija (Skopje, 1975), Vol. 1, pp. 242-251. Grujić, Skopska mitropolija (see footnote 13), pp. 190-234. Ibid. See S. Dimevski, Istorija na makedonska pravoslavna crkva (Skopje, 1989), pp. 785-1137. Lj. Stojanović, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi 6 Vols. (Belgrade, 1902-26, reprint 1986-87), Vol. 6, no. 6989, and Vol. 6, no. 10180. Ibid., Vol. 1, no. 2065. The type of the book in question is not identified in the source; see Ibid., Vol. 5, no. 9242. Ibid., Vol. 5, no. 9293.
Chapter VI distance), and that there is a source of healing water not far from the monastery, called Sultan’s Water. In addition, several notes found in manuscripts and inscriptions on the exterior walls mention that the church was frequented by high church dignitaries until the later half of the nineteenth century.27 When the monastic community seized to exist, however, is difficult to determine. By the time the Russian art historian, Nikolas Okunev, visited the church in 1925, the monastery was deserted and its church dilapidated.
POST-BYZANTINE PAINTINGS 1. Introduction As discussed in the chapter on architecture, the physical appearance of Nerezi is shaped more by natural disasters than by historical circumstances. Judging by archaeologi cal evidence, the restorations of the painted cycle were by and large a consequence of the damages inflicted by several earthquakes and by the sliding of the terrain on which the church is erected. Thus, following the original decoration in the twelfth century, portions of the church were re painted in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and nineteenth cen turies. According to written evidence, it seems that the twelfth-century decoration was intact until the earthquake in 1555.28 This is at least suggested by a written record from the Triodion of 1535 which mentions that the church was in good shape, although some other churches in the vicinity of Skopje were destroyed at the time.29 Thus, the sixteenth-century restoration of the painted decoration most likely coincided with the restorations of the architec ture of the church. Structural damage of the vaults inflicted by the 1555 earthquake resulted in the complete loss of the twelfthcentury cycle in the upper zones of the church and in some small scale damages on the walls of the sanctuary. Judging by what has been preserved up to the present day, the sixteenth-century artists were highly skilled restorers with solid knowledge of medieval programs and painting tech niques. This is particularly apparent when one considers the interventions which they have made within the exis ting, twelfth-century scenes. For example, the care with which they re-painted the damaged apostles within the Communion scene clearly suggests that the artists were 27 28 29 30 31
97 concerned about preserving the original decorative ideas of the twelfth-century program. Instead of completely masking the damaged portions of the twelfth-century apostles, the artists painted sixteenth-century substitutes slightly above the remains of the original apostles (pis. 10, l l ; fig. 16).30 2. Bema The artists’ effort to preserve the original iconographic concept of the cycle is also seen in the image of the Virgin painted in the conch of the apse and in the scene of the Koimesis placed on the west wall above the twelfth-cen tury scenes from the life of the Virgin (pls. 8a, 8b; figs. VIII, XV; 13). While both images were common in the sixteenth century, the context of the program at Nerezi suggests that they most likely recreated the original, twelfth-century iconography. The Koimesis, located at the summit of the western wall, would have represented a common pendant to other twelfth-century Marian scenes at Nerezi, and the image of the Virgin and Child, as dis cussed earlier, was regularly rendered in the conch of the apse since the iconoclasm. In choosing the iconography for the vaults, however, sixteenth-century artists showed very little respect for the original decoration, their images often repeating the ones from the twelfth-century depicted elsewhere in the church. For example, in the eastern vault of the bema, the sixteenth-century painter represented the image of the An cient of Days; it duplicates the twelfth-century image in the dome of the diakonikon (pls. 8a, 8b; figs. XXII, 84).31 The sixteenth-century Ancient of Days is shown holding an open book with the text of the prayer of the Trisagion (Isaiah 6, 3; Rev. 4, 8): Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Host.32 The image of the Ancient of Days is flanked by scenes depicting Christ with the Samaritan Woman (north) and the Miracle at the Tiberian Sea (south).33 Underneath these two scenes, at the springing point of the vault, one sees the Annunciation, another scene which duplicated the twelfth-century rendition (pls. 8a, 8b; fig. 85). It shows Archangel Gabriel on the north and the Virgin on the south side of the vault, respectively. The western vault is occupied by the scene of the Ascension of Christ and flanked by the Birth of Christ to the south; the north side of this vault is mostly defaced.
Ibid. Vol. 1, nos. 1694, 1897; Vol. 6, nos. 10181, 10183, 10184. See P. Miljković-Pepek, “Prilozi proučavanju crkve manastira Nereza”, ZLU 10 (1074): 38. For a discussion and bibliography, see Grujić, Skopska mitropolija (see footnote 13), p. 198. See Chapter III, pp. 30 -3 1. The image is inscribed in Old Church Slavonic as Ӏс Х с с а в а [ѡ] т ь . It was wrongly identified by Hamman-Mac Lean as the image of St. Sava. See R. Hamman-Mac Lean and H. Hallensleben, Die Monumentalmalerei in Serbien und Makedonien vom 11. bis zum frühen 14. Jahrhundert (Giessen, 1963), pls. 6 - 7 .I am grateful to Asen Kirin for his help with Old Church Slavonic inscriptions.
32 с т ь с т ь с т ь гн с а в а ѡ т н спа [...]
33 Both scenes are inscribed. North: прндн іс кд са м р е и н и а
South: г ла[ г о л а ] ше н м анапоутнпрБнж и сп асе в к с к с з
98
Chapter VI
3. Central Cupola
5. Analysis of the Sixteenth-Century Cycle
Destroyed by the earthquake, the central cupola was entirely repainted in the sixteenth century. It exhibits Christ Pantokrator in the dome, the Divine Liturgy in the upper concentric circle of the drum, and a series of prophets between the windows (pls. 8a, 8b; figs. IX, XII; 86, 87). The image of the Pantokrator is surrounded by the text of the prayer which paraphrases Psalm 101/102, 19-21. “For he hath look ed dow n fro m the h eigh t o f his sanctuary; fro m h eaven did the Lord b eh old the earth; To hear the groaning o f the prisoner; to loose those that are ap p oin ted to death; To declare the nam e o f the Lord in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem ... ”34 The cupola is supported by pendentives, decorated, as was customary since the Byzantine era, with the images of evangelists (figs. IX, XII). The sixteenth-century decora tion of the dome might have repeated some of the original, twelfth-century iconography. Although the domical vault is completely covered by the sixteenth-century paintings, and no evidence permits the reconstruction of the original program, the central medallion of Christ Pantokrator and the liturgical content of the dome might have been based on the twelfth-century concepts, as discussed in Chapter III. In their present form, however, they adhere to the iconographic model established in Byzantium since the fourteenth century.
The analysis of the sixteenth-century cycle suggests that artists were inconsistent in their attitude towards the orig inal, twelfth-century painted cycle: in some instances they were very precise in their reconstructive efforts, while in others they have completely disregarded it. It appears that when the original layer was almost fully preserved, artists were very keen on preserving its twelfth-century iconog raphy, as seen, for example, on the walls of the bema. In the instances when large areas of painted decoration were de stroyed, however, the sixteenth-century artists took the liberty of creating their own programmatic solutions. In doing so, they completely disregarded the original cycle, and simply duplicated a number of scenes, such the An nunciation, the Presentation, the Transfiguration, and the Entry into Jerusalem (pls. 8a, 8b). The attitude of Nerezi’s painters is not unusual in the post-Byzantine period. As evident from many examples, artists often indulged both in precise and in arbitrary reconstructions, as seen, for ex ample, in the narthex of Gračanica, naos and inner narthex of Studenica, and at Morača.35 The sixteenth-century restorations of Nerezi most likely coincided with the increased level of artistic activity in the region following the restoration of the Patriarchate in Peć in 1557.36 The style of Nerezis paintings, however, has very little in common with the majority of Serbian monuments on the territory of the Patriarchate which were painted at the time, such as the inner narthex and por tions of the Church of the Virgin in Studenica (1568), Mileševa (1568), narthex of Gračanica (1570), and narthex of the church of St. Nicholas Dabarski.37 On the contrary, located close to the borders of the Patriarchate, Nerezi shows stylistic affinities with other monuments on the pe riphery, notably with the Church of St. Petka at Vukovo in what is now western Bulgaria.38 The closeness of the styl istic features of the two churches becomes particularly ap parent when one compares the figures of the Virgin in the conch and the scene of the Ascension of the Virgin in the two churches (fig. 13).39 The physiognomy of the image of Ancient of Days at Nerezi is also similar to the face of Christ in the Ascension of the Virgin at Vukovo. The tri angular shape of Christs face and the use of geometrically shaped white shades to accentuate cheeks and forehead is comparable in the two monuments (fig. 81).40 Since Nerezi and Vukovo are geographically, chronologically, and stylistically related, it is quite possible that they were painted either by the same group of artists or by the group
4. Naos The remains of the sixteenth-century cycle in the naos reveal scenes dedicated to the life and the Passion of Christ. The south lunette of the south arm of the cross dis plays the Baptism to the east of the two-light window and the Washing of the Feet to the west, while the scenes of the Presentation, the Resurrection of Lazarus, and the Prayer at Gethsemane are represented in the vault (pl. 8 b; fig. 88). The north arm of the cross exhibits the scenes of Christ be fore Pilate (west) and the Women at the Tomb of Christ (east) in the lunette, and the Arrest of Christ and the Cru cifixion in the vault (pl. 8 a). The Transfiguration and the Entry into Jerusalem are represented on the west vault. The sixteenth-century scenes are separated from the twelfth-century ones by a gallery of saints painted in medallions as became customary in Byzantium since the Palaiologan period (pls. 8 a, 8 b). 34 гь сь иБе ид з e м Лю п р н з р ѣ сл ы ш д тн в ь з д ы [ Хдиiе ] ѡ кoвд ин ы н [ X ь ] - р д з д рѣ Шнтн с и ы of м р Ѱ o o у л ѣ NнIн Х ь * в ь з в ѣ c т н т н вь с iѡ и ѣ нм ҝ г н ҝ гн гн пр н зр ы сь нБы [? в н ] жДь Н п o с ѣ т ы в н и o т р [† ]
35 36 37 38 39 40
The last sentence from this inscription is not from a Psalm, and can be translated as “Oh Lord, Lord look, see, and come.” For the sixteenth-century paintings and discussion, see V. Petkovič, Zidno slikarstvo Pećke patrijaršije, 1557-1614 (Novi Sad, 1965), pp. 109-118. Petković, Slikarstvo Pećke patrijaršije (see footnote 35), pp. 118-130. Ibid. E. Floreva, Srednovekovni stenopisi. Vukovo. 1598 g. Crkvata ‘Sv. Petka’ (Sophia, 1987). For Vukovo, see ibid, figs. 18, 20, 48. Ibid.
Chapter VI of artists trained in the same tradition. The origin of artists of Nerezi and Vukovo is somewhat difficult to determine; the eloquent execution of the images in both churches, however, indicates that they were well trained and highly skilled.41 Although the sixteenth-century paintings at Nerezi ex hibit refined style and high quality of execution, they are nonetheless lacking the exquisiteness and prime status of their twelfth-century predecessors. The quality of exe cution seemingly further deteriorated in the painted layers of the subsequent centuries. All that has remained from the seventeenth century is the fresco-icon of archangel Michael which flanks the south side of the main portal (fig. LVIII); hence the extent of the seventeenth-century re-painting remains unknown. The archangel is repre sented as carrying an inscription which identifies its donor as a man by the name of Stojko.
6. Nineteenth-Century Paintings The church was re-painted again in the nineteenth century, but that layer has been removed, as mentioned earlier. Written records about the nineteenth-century paintings are scarce and far from complimentary. For example, the art historian F. Mesesnel characterized the nineteenthcentury painted layer as dilettante and aesthetically offen sive.42 Rebecca West, in her book about travel through the Balkans, describes the paintings as showing “tight, round, pink little people chubbily doing quite entertaining things, as you see them represented in the paintings of merry-go-
99 rounds and advertising boards of French fairs, and ex ploited in the pictures of Marc Chagall and his kind; and it would be pity to destroy them if they were not covering fine medieval frescoes.”43 Interestingly enough, West refers to these paintings as ‘peasants’ frescoes, which the local population liked more than the old ones.44 It is thus apparent that by the nineteenth century Nerezi completely lost the sophistication of its initial patron and distinctive eloquence of the initial artists which he commissioned.
7. Nerezi Today Nerezi, however, never lost its faithful worshippers. Al though it currently has a status of a monument of art and is not functioning as a church, the mass which is celebrated only once a year, on the day of the patron saint, draws a large number of people from all surrounding villages and from the city of Skopje (fig. XIV). Thus Nerezi remains popular among the local population up to the present day. Moreover, following the discovery of the twelfth-century paintings, the church’s distinctive status and Alexios’ am bitious achievements have been revived. While the local population crowds the church with pride and reverence on the feast of the patron saint, tourists and scholars pay their homage to this unique monument daily. The initial glory of the church is, above all, preserved in its numerous men tion in both scholarly and popular literature about Byzan tium and the region of Skopje. It was a goal of this book to pay yet another tribute to the fame of this exquisite mon ument of Byzantine civilization.
41 Historical circumstances suggest that these artists were of Greek origin, or under the Greek influence. As pointed out by scholars, following the Turkish conquest, the Archbishopric of Ohrid promoted the activity of Greek painters in the newly-acquired northern regions inhabited by Slavs. Although Serbian church organization was restored in 1557, and the activity of Greek painters was considerably diminished within the territory of the Patriarchate, they or their tradition nonetheless seemingly remained popular on the periphery. This topic, however, requires a more extensive study. For a discussion on the relationship between the Greek and Serbian painting during the post-Byzantine period, see S. Petković, “Iconographic Similarities and Differences Between Serbian and Greek Painting From the Middle of the Fifteenth to the End of the Seventeenth Centuries”, in: Euphrosynon: aphierōma ston Manolē Chatzēdakē, Vol.2 (Athens, 1992), pp. 517-523. 42 See F. Mesesnel, “Kako da se sačuva i obnovi crkva Sv. Pantelejmona iz 12. veka kod sela Nerezi?” GSND 2 (1929): 299-304. 43 R. West, Black Lamb and Gray Falcon (New York, 1941), p. 689. 44 Ibid.
CONCLUSION
A discussion about Nerezi would be incomplete without a reassessment of its relationship with Constantinople. Nerezi’s links with the Byzantine capital are most clearly established through the Constantinopolitan origin of its patron, Alexios. The decision of this Komnenian prince to build his church in the province of Macedonia has been ex plained through the importance the region held for Byzantium and through the omnipresence of the highest ranking members of the Komnenian family, the emperor included, in the region. Specific information about the role which this particular church played in Macedonia, and in twelfth-century Byzantium in general, emerges through a contextual analysis of its structural and decorative features. The most distinguished characteristic of Nerezi is the exceptional beauty and powerful ideological message of its painted decoration. The new iconographic features as well as the innovative compositional arrangement of scenes and images reveal both the political views and private desires of the patron; they also exhibit Alexios’ loyalty to the Komnenian family in general, and to his cousin, emperor Manuel I, in particular. Alexios’ loyalty to the Komnenoi is particularly evident in the significant role which the de bates of the current Church Councils of Constantinople presided over and judged by the emperor himself - played in the formation of the novel iconography of the church. As the analysis of the painted decoration revealed, the in troduction of new liturgical scenes, such as the Kiss of the Apostles, the procession of bishops officiating before the Hetoimasia, and the choir of angels in the domes, reflects the imperial point of view in the current ecclesiastical de bates. Alexios’ intent to persuade the local audience in the current dogmatic and political messages emanating from the capital is also seen in the participatory nature of the program. While the homage paid to the cults of local saints, such as Sts. Andrew and Luke, and H. Anargyroi, created a familiar setting for the beholder, the emotionally saturated cycle, focused on the passion and sacrifice of Christ and His saints, humanized religious experience and appealed to the sentiments of the congregation. Enclosed in a carefully articulated space, governed by juxtaposed scenes and images, the faithful was overwhelmed by and immersed into, the powerful effect of both the beauty and the spiritual message of the scenes and images. The sheer beauty of the painted decoration, while sig nificant in itself, also contributed to the persuasive nature of the program. The elegance, sophistication, and refine ment of the cycle must have appealed to the local audience then, as it does to us now. Moreover, the quality of execu tion of these paintings, like the content of their messages, immediately drew one’s mind to the Byzantine capital as a source.
The strong associations which these paintings have with the best art of the capital undermine the importance of the question about the actual origins of the artists. In fact, the high quality of execution of painted programs in contem porary churches located in the vicinity of Nerezi, particu larly these in Thessaloniki, suggest that Alexios, in all likelihood, did not need to import his masters from Con stantinople. A skilled group of masters might have already resided in the region when he arrived. However, it is im portant to emphasize that even if Alexios relied on artists who were available in the region, he made sure that their training and skills were sufficiently advanced to associate their work with the best art of the capital. The same intention, to recreate the immediate associa tion with Constantinople, is also seen in the architecture and in the sculpture of the church. As with painted decora tion, the question of the origin of the actual architectural and sculptural workshops bears little significance com pared to the quality of and the messages implied in their work. When choosing his sculptors, Alexios did not have to reach beyond the regional frontiers, since highly skilled artists were already present in Macedonia. Matching, in the high quality of their work, the best examples of Constanti nopolitan sculpture, the sculptural fragments of Nerezi also closely correspond to contemporaneous Macedonian production in this medium. Thus, it is quite possible that rather than fussing over the origin of his sculptors - a method apparently more particular to current scholars than to twelfth-century patrons - Alexios was essentially con cerned about their skills. He clearly wanted a finely carved iconostasis which in its form and in its beauty would be fit for any contemporary Constantinopolitan church. A clear intention to recall the capital in the appearance of Nerezi is also apparent in the architecture of the building. Despite many imperfections and regionalisms, which might have been a consequence of practical matters, such as resources, structure of the terrain, and availability of mate rials, significant features of the spatial articulation of Nerezi and, above all, the constellation of its five domes, immediately draw one’s mind to Constantinople. Thus, one governing principle, the idea to recall the Byzantine capital in the hinterlands, ruled all aspects of the erection and decoration of Nerezi. Differently expressed, as re quired partly by specific characteristic of the medium and partly by practical considerations, this concept gave Nerezi its distinguished status in the history of Byzantine civiliza tion. Although most powerfully and most elegantly ex pressed in the painted decoration of Nerezi, a connection with Constantinople also reverberates through the archi tectural design and the sculptural ensemble of the church. The breath of Constantinopolitan culture which perme ates Nerezi also helps in reconstructing the identity of its
Conclusion patron, Alexios. In building Nerezi, a private aristocratic monastic church, Alexios exhibited his own need for both personal salvation and self-glorification - a gesture com mon in Komnenian aristocratic circles. His choice to dis tinguish his connections with the imperial circles of the Byzantine capital in this provincially located church, how ever, also reflects Alexios’ personal aspirations and his loy alty to the Komnenian clan. On the one hand, the dedica tory inscription which stresses Alexios’ imperial lineage, along with the Constantinopolitan features of his church, signify the distinguished status and social prestige which Alexios must have enjoyed in Macedonia. On the other hand, the Constantinopolitan appearance of the church also made the Komnenian presence in the region manifest. Thus, Nerezi represents an important symbol of the po tent political and cultural dominion which the Komnenoi established in twelfth-century Macedonia. A discrepancy between the consistency of Alexios’ met ropolitan concept, and many regional solutions evident in various aspects of his church, calls for a re-examination of the current methodology employed in labeling a monument as either ‘provincial’ or ‘Constantinopolitan’. Without un derplaying the importance of a careful formal analysis of all aspects of a monument as the major tool in elucidating its meaning and significance, the case of Nerezi indicates that a process of systematic addition of meticulously analyzed
101 parts does not always - if ever - resolve the puzzle. In other words, neither the provincial solution of the full walls which support the domes at Nerezi, nor the regional origin of the sculptors who executed the iconostasis, provide enough ev idence to label the church as ‘provincial’. As the foregoing discussion has shown, the provincially conceived segrega tion of architectural space at Nerezi, has been overcome by the spatially integrated painted program. Many factors, such as the mentality of culture, the socio-political circumstances in the region, as well as the goals and aspirations of the individuals who invested themselves in their buildings, should be taken into consid eration. Thus Nerezi, like any other monument, has to be viewed both integrally and contextually. Once Alexios placed five domes on his foundation, in the mind of a Byzantine beholder, educated in the visual environment of symbolically potent signs and images, the church was re lated to major imperial foundations of the capital. After all, the meaning and the significance of the building, both inside and outside, is in the eye of the twelfth-century be holder - rather than in the mind of the twentieth-century scholar. Following that logic, one has to accept that Alex ios brought his concept to fruition. Despite all of its im perfections and provincialisms, Nerezi still recalls the highest achievements of the capital of a long gone empire and its lost monuments.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. H istory
Fine, J. V. A., Early M edieval Balkans (Ann Arbor, MI, 1983).
Angold, M., Church and Society in Byzantium U nder the Comneni, 1081-1261 (Cambridge, 1995). -., (ed.), The Byzantine A ristocracy IX to XIII C enturies, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 221 (Oxford, 1984).
Gautier, P. (ed.), T heophylacti Achridensis Epistulae (Thes saloniki, 1980). Gelzer, H., D er Patriarchat von Achrida. G eschichte und Urkunden (Leipzig, 1902).
Antoljak, S., S rednovek ovna M akedonija (Skopje, 1985).
Gouillard, J., “Le Synodikon de l’Orthodoxie: édition et commentaire”, Travaux et m ém oires 2 (1967): 1-298.
Barzos, K., Hē gen ea logia tē n K om nēnōn, 2 Vols. (Thessa loniki, 1984).
Grujić, M., Skopska m itropolija (Skopje, 1935).
Boškoski, M., “Vizantijski pečat Jovana Komnina, duksa Skopja”, ZRVI22 (1983): 38-40. Browning, R., Byzantium and Bulgaria (Berkeley, 1975).
Hendy, M. F., Studies in the Byzantine M onetary E conomy c. 300-1450 (Cambridge, 1985). -., C oinage and M oney in the Byzantine Empire 1081-1261 (Washington, 1969).
Chalandon, F., Jean II C om nène et M anuel I C om nè n e, 2 Vols. (Paris, 1912).
Herrin, J., “Realities of Byzantine Provincial Govern ment: Hellas and Peloponnesos, 1180-1205”, DOP 29 (1975): 253-285.
Cheremuchin, P., “Konstantinopol’skiĭ Sobor 1157 g. i Nikolaĭ, episkop Mefonskiĭ”, B ogoslovskie Trudy 1 (1960): 87-109.
Hussey, J. M., The O rthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford, 1986).
Choniates, N., O City o f Byzantium. Annals o f Niketas C honiates, tr. by H. J. Magoulias (Detroit, 1984).
Kazhdan, A. P. and Epstein, A. W., C hange in Byzantine C ulture in the E leventh and Twelfth C enturies (Los Angeles, 1985).
Chrisophilopoulou, Aik., “Byzantine Byzantina 12 (1983): 9-63.
Khitrovo, S., Itinéraires russes en O rient (Geneva, 1889).
Makedonia”,
Classen, P., “Das Konzil von Konstantinopel 1166 und die Lateiner”, BZ 48 (1955): 339-368.
Kinnamos, J., D eeds o f Joh n and M anuel C om nenus, tr. by C. M. Brand (New York, 1976).
Deroko, A., “Srednjevekovni grad Skopje”, Spomenik 70 (1971): 1-17.
Koledarov, N., “Obrazuvane na tema ‘Makedoniia’ v Trakiia”, Izvestiia na Instituta za istoriia 21 (1970): 219-243.
Dinič, M, “The Balkans, 1018-1499”, in: C am bridge M e d ieva l H istory Vol. IV/1: The Byzantine Empire, edited by J. M. Hussey (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 519-539.
Kravari, V., Villes et villages de M acédoine occidentale (Paris, 1989). Ivanov, I., Bŭlgarski starini iz M akedoniia (Sofia, 1970).
Dondaine, A., “Hugues Éthérien et Léon Toscan”, A rchives d ’histoire doctrinale et litteraire du m oyen â ge 19 (1952): 67-134. -., “Hugues Éthérien et le concile de Constantinople de 1166”, H istorisches Jahrbuch 77 (1958): 473-483.
Loos, M., Dualist H eresy in the M iddle Ages (Prague, 1974).
Dvornik, F., The Idea o f A postolicity in Byzantium (Cam bridge, Mass., 1958).
Magdalino, P., The Empire o f M anuel I K om nenos 1143-1180 (Cambridge, 1993).
Ferjančić, B., “Apanažni posedi kesara Jovana Rogerija”, ZRVI 12 (1983): 193-201.
Mango, C., The Art o f the Byzantine Empirey 312-1453: Sources and D ocum ents (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1972). -., “The Concilar Edict of 1166”, DOP 17 (1963): 317-330.
Ferluga, J., “Byzance et les Balkans vers la fin du XIIe siè cle”, in: Studenica i vizantijska um etnost oko 1200 g o dine (Belgrade, 1988), pp. 17-24. -., Byzantium on the Balkans. Studies on the Byzantine Administration and the Southern Slavs fro m the VIIth to the XIIth C enturies (Amsterdam, 1974).
Kondakov, N. P., Makedoniia. A rkheologicheskoe p u teshestvie (Saint Petersburg, 1909).
Marković, V., P ravoslavno m onaštvo i manastiri u sredn jevek ovn oj Srbiji (Sremski Karlovci, 1920). Mikulčik, I., Skopje so okolnite tvrdini (Skopje, 1982).
Selected Bibliography
103
Mošin, V. (ed.), Spom enici za srednovek ovnata ip on ova ta istorija na M akedonija (Skopje, 1975).
-., “Sardis Church E -A Preliminary Report”, JO B 26 (1977): 271 -280.
Nesbitt, J. and Oikonomides, N., C atalogue o f Byzantine Seals at D um barton Oaks and in the F ogg M useum o f Art (Washington, 1991).
Čanak-Medić, M. and Bošković, Dj., Arhitektura N em anjinog doba, 1. Crkve u Toplici i dolinam a Ibra i M orave (Belgrade, 1986).
Obolensky, D., The Byzantine C om m onw ealth (Crestwood, NY, 1982).
Thetford, G., “The Christological Councils of 1166 and 1170 in Constantinople”, St. Vladimir’s T heological Q uarterly 31 (1987): 143-161.
Ćurčić, S., “St. Mary’s of the Admiral: Architecture”, in: E. Kitzinger, The Mosaics o f St. M ary’s o f the Admiral in Palerm o (Washington, 1991). -., “Late Byzantine Loca Sancta? Some Questions Re garding the Form and Function of Epitaphoi”, in: The Twilight o f Byzantium , edited by S. (Ćurčić and D. Mouriki (Princeton, 1990). -., Art and A rchitecture in the Balkans: An A nnotated Bib liography (Boston, 1984). -., “Medieval Royal Tombs in the Balkans: An Aspect of the ‘East or West’ Question”, The Greek Orthodox T heological R eview 29 (1984): 175-195. -., Gračanica: K ing Milutin’s Church and Its Place in Late Byzantine A rchitecture (University Park, PA, 1979). -., “Architectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels in Middle Byzantine Churches”, JSAH 36/2 (1977): 94-110. -., “Twin-Domed Narthex in Palaeologan Architecture”, ZRVI13 (1971): 333-344.
Thomas, J. P., P rivate R eligious Foundations in Byzantine Empire (Washington, D. C., 1987).
Faensen, H. and Ivanov, V., Early Russian A rchitecture (London, 1975).
Urbansky, A. B., Byzantium and the D anube Frontier (New York, 1968).
Frantz, A., The Church o f the H oly Apostles (Princeton, 1971).
IL A rchitecture
Grossmann, P., “Zur typologischen Stellung der Kirche von Hosios David in Thessalonike”, Felix R avenna (1984-1985): 253-260.
Ostrogorski, G., H istory o f the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, NJ, 1969). -., “Vozvyshenie roda Angelov”, lu h ileĭn yĭ sbornik Russkogo ark heologichesk ogo obshestva v K orolovstve Iugoslavii (Belgrade, 1936), pp. Ill -129. Sakkos, S. N., “Hē en Kōnstantinoupolei synodos tou 1170”, in: Theologikon Symposion in H onor o f P. C hrestou (Thessaloniki, 1967), pp. 313-352. Snegarov, I., Istoriia na Okhridskata Arkhiepiskopiia (Sofia, 1924). Stojanović, Lj., Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi (Belgrade, 1902-1926; reprint 1986-87).
Aleksova, B., Episkopija na Bregalnica (Prilep, 1989). Bergman, R. P., “Byzantine Influence and Private Patron age in a Newly Discovered Medieval Church in Amalfi: S. Michele Arcangelo in Pogerola”, JSAH 50/4 (Dec. 1991): 421-455. Bouras, Ch., “The Byzantine Tradition in Church Archi tecture of the Balkans in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, in: The Byzantine Tradition After the Fall o f C onstantinople, edited by J. J. Yiannias (Char lottesville, 1991), pp. 107-149. -., “Typologikes Paratērēseis sto Katholiko tēs Monēs tōn Manganōn stēn Kōnstantinoupolē”, D eltion 31(1976): 136-153. -., “Hē Palaiopanagia stē Manolada”, in: Epetē ris tēs P olytechnikēs Scholēs tou A ristoteleiou Panepistē m iou Thessalonikēs, Vol. 4 (Thessaloniki, 1969). -., “Symplērōmatika stoicheia gia ena katestrammeno nao tēs Boiotias”, D eltion 4 (1964-65): 227-244. Brunov, N., “Zum Problem des Kreuzkuppelsystems”, Jahrbuch der österreichischen byzantinischen G esellschaft 16 (1967): 245-261. Buchwald, H., “Lascarid Architecture”, J ÖB 28 (1979): 261-297.
Hadžitrifonos, E., “Pristup tipologiji petokupolnih crkava u vizantijskoj arhitekturi”, Saopštenja 22/23 (1990-91): 41-76. Hallensleben, H, “Untersuchungen zur Genesis und Ty pologie des ‘Mystratypus’”,J ÖB 26 (1977): 105-118. Iaralov, I. S. et al., Arkhitektura vostoch n oi Evropy srednie veka (Moscow, 1966). Koch, G., Albanien. K ulturdenkm äler eines unbekannten Landes aus 2200 Jahren (Marburg, 1985). Komech, A. I., D revnerusskoe zodchestvo kontsa Xnachala XII veka (Moscow, 1987). Krautheimer, R., Early Christian and Byzantine A rchitec ture (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1986). Lange, D., “Theorien zur Entstehung der byzantinischen Kreuzkuppelkirche”, A rchitectura 16 (1986): 93-113. Magdalino, P., “Observations on the Nea Ekklesia of Basil I”, JÖB 37 (1987): 51-64. Mango, C., Byzantine A rchitecture (New York, 1976). -., “The Monastery of St. Abercius at Kurşunlu (Elegmi) Bithynia”, DOP 22 (1964): 169-176.
Selected Bibliography
104 Mango, C. and Hawkins, E. J. W., “Additional Finds at Fenari Isa Camii”, DOP 22 (1968) 177-185. Mathews, F. T., “Liturgy in Byzantine Architecture: Toward a Re-apprisal”, CA 30 (1982): 125-138. -., The Byzantine C hurches o f Istanbul: A P hotographic S urvey (University Park, PA, 1976). -., The Early C hurches o f Constantinople. A rchitecture and Liturgy (University Park, PA, 1971). Mathews, F. T. and Hawkins, E. J. W., “Notes on the Attik Mustafa Pasa Camii in Istanbul and Its Frescoes”, DOP 39 (1985): 125-134. Megaw, A. H. S., “Byzantine Architecture and Decoration in Cyprus: Metropolitan or Provincial?”, DOP 28 (1974): 59-88. -., “Byzantine Reticulate Revetments”, in: Charisterion eis A. K O rlandon, Vol. 3 (Athens, 1966), pp. 10-22. -., “The Original Form of the Theotokos Church of Con stantine Lips”, DOP 18 (1964): 253-280. Megaw, A. H. S., and Hawkins, E. J. W., “The Church of the Holy Apostoles at Perachorio, Cyprus, and Its Frescoes”, DOP 16 (1962): 313. Miiatev, K., Arkhitekturata v srednovek ovna Bulgaria (Sofia 1965). Millet, G., L’ancient art Serbe. Les Églises (Paris, 1919). -., L’école grecq u e dans l’architecture byzantine (Paris, 1916). Mindrinos, M. E., Die K irche von Episkopi a u f Santorini (Athens, 1989). Mylonas, P., “The Complex of St. Luke of Stiris”, Archaeologia 36 (1990): 6-30. -., “Gavits Armeniens et Litae Byzantines”, CA 38 (1990): 101-119. Nenadovic, S., B ogorodica Ljeviska. N jenpostanak i njeno m esto u arhitekturi M ilutinovog vrem en a (Belgrade, 1963). Nikonanos, N., Byzantinoi Naoi tēs Thessalias (Athens, 1979). -., “Hē Ekklēsia tēs Metamorphōsēs tou Sōtēros sto Chortiatē”, in: K ernos (Thessaloniki, 1972), pp. 102-110. Orlandos, A. K., “Palaiochristianika kai Byzantina mnēmeia Tegeas-Nykliou”, ABME 12 (1973): 141-176. -., “To katholikon tēs para tēn Thessalonikēn monēs Peristerōn”, ABME 7 (1951): 146-167. -., “Ho Ag. Dēmētrios tēs Varassovas”, ABME 1 (1935): 105-120. -., “Hē Pantanassa tēs Monembasias”, ABME 1 (1935): 141-151. Ousterhout, R. G., The A rchitecture o f the K ariye Camii in Istanbul (Washington, 1987). -., “The Byzantine Church at Enez: Problems in TwelfthCentury Architecture”, J ÖB 35 (1985): 251-261.
Papageorgiou, A., “The Narthex of the Churches of the Middle Byzantine Period in Cyprus”, in: H om m age à la m ém oire de Charles D elvoye (Brussels, 1982), pp. 437-449. Petrov, K., “Novi rezultati od istražuvanjata na crkvata Sv. Pantelejmon vo Nerezi”, G odisen zbornik 8 (1982): 153-189. -., “Kon neispitanata protoistorija na lokalitetot Sv. Pante lejmon vo Nerezi”, Godišen zbornik 7 (1981): 153-189. Popović, D., Srpski vladarski grob u srednjem veku (Bel grade, 1992). Sinos, S., Die K losterkirche d er K osm osoteira in Bera (Vira) (Munich, 1985). Striker, C. L., The M yrelaion (Bodrum Camii) in Istanbul (Princeton, 1981). Striker, C. L. and Kuban Y. D. (eds.), K alenderhane Camii in Istanbul. The Buildings, Their H istory, A rchitecture, and D ecoration (Mainz, 1997). Striker, C. L., and Kuban, Y. D., “Work in Kalenderhane Camii in Istanbul: Third and Fourth Preliminary Re ports”, DOP 25 (1971): 251 -259. Šuput, M., “Arhitektura Pećke priprate”, ZLU 13 (1997): 64-73. Teteriatnikov, N., The L iturgical Planning o f Byzantine Churches in Cappadocia (Rome, 1996). Van Millingen, A., Byzantine C hurches in C onstantinople: Their H istory and A rchitecture (London, 1912). Velenis, G. M., Ermēneia tou exō terikou diakosmou stē n Byzantinē Architektonikē (Thessaloniki, 1984). Vocotopoulos, P. L., “The Role of Constantinopolitan Architecture during the Middle and Late Byzantine Period”, J ÖB 31 (1981): 551-573. -., “The Concealed Course Technique. Further Examples and a Few Remarks”, J ÖB 28 (1979): 241 -261. -., Hē ekklēsiastikē architektonikē eis tē n dytikē n sterean Ellada kai tēn Epeiron (Thessaloniki, 1975). Vulović, B., R avanica: njeno m esto i njena uloga u sakralnoj arhitekturi P om oravlja (Belgrade, 1966). III. Painted D ecoration Aĭnalov, D. V., “Novyĭ ikonograficheskiĭ obraz’ Khrista”, Seminarium K ondakovianum 2 (1928): 19-23. Avner, T., “The Impact of the Liturgy on Style and Con tent”, J ÖB 32/5 (1982): 459-467. Babić, G., “Les moines-poètes dans l’église de la Mère de Dieu à Studenica”, in: Studenica i vizantijska um etnost oko 1200. G odine (Belgrade, 1988), pp. 205-219. -., “Ikonografski program živopisa u pripratama crkava kralja Milutina”, in: Vizantijska um etnost početk om XIV veka (Belgrade, 1978), pp. 105-126.
Selected Bibliography -., Les Chapelles annexes des églises byzantines. Fonction liturgique et program m es iconographiques (Paris, 1969). -., “Les discussions christologiques et le décor des églises byzantines au XII siècle”, Frühm ittelalterliche Studien 2 (1968): 368-386. Babić, G., Korać, V., and Ćirković, S., Studenica (Belgrade, 1986). Babić, G., and Walter, C., “The Inscriptions upon Liturgi cal Rolls in Byzantine Apse Decoration”, REB 34 (1976): 269-280. Bakalova, E., Bachkovskata Kostnica (Sofia, 1977). Belting, H., The Im age and Its Public in the M iddle Ages. Form and Function o f Early Paintings o f the Passion (New Rochelle, NY, 1990). -., “An Image and Its Function in the Liturgy: The Man of Sorrows in Byzantium”, DOP 34/35 (1980-81): 1-17. Borsook, E., M essages in Mosaic: the R oyal P rogram m es o f Norman Sicily (1130-1187) (Oxford, 1990). Brightman, F. E. (ed.), Liturgies Eastern and Western, 2 Vols. (Oxford, 1965). Buckler, W. H., “The Church of Asinou, Cyprus, and Its Frescoes”, A rchaeologia 83 (1933): 327-350. Carr, A. W., “The Thirteenth-Century Murals of Lysi, Cyprus”, in: A. W. Carr and L. J. Morrocco, A Byzan tine M asterpiece R ecovered, the T hirteenth-C entury Murals o f Lysi, Cyprus (Austin, 1991), pp. 15-115. -., “Illuminated Musical Manuscripts in Byzantium. A Note on the Late Twelfth Century”, Gesta 28/1 (1989): 41-53. -., Byzantine Illum ination 1150-1250: The Study o f a P rovincial Tradition (Chicago, 1987). -., “Gospel Frontispieces from the Comnenian Period”, Gesta 21/1 (1982): 3-20. Chatzidakis, M. (ed.), Kastoria (Athens, 1985). Chatzidakis-Bacharas, Th., Les peintures m urales de Hosios Loukas: les chapelles occidentales (Athens, 1982). Charalampidis, C., “The Importance of the Threnos in the Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi”, C yrillom ethodianum 3 (1975): 149-162. Christ, W., and Paranikas, M. (eds.), A nthologia Graeca Carminum Christianorum (Hildesheim, 1963). Connor, C. L., Art and M iracles in Byzantium (Princeton, 1991).
105 In flu en ce (XIX International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Copenhagen, 1996), No. 5213. Cutler, A., “Under the Sign of the Deesis: On the Ques tion of Representativeness in Medieval Art and Litera ture”, DOP 41 (1987): 145-154. The Aristocratic Psalters in Byzantium (Paris, 1984). Demus, O., The Mosaics o f San Marco in Venice, 2 Vols. (Chicago, 1984). -., Byzantine M osaic D ecoration (New York, 1976). -., The Mosaics o f N orman Sicily (London, 1949). Demus, O. and Diez, E., Byzantine Mosaics in G reece: Hosios Lucas and Daphni (Cambridge, Mass., 1931). Der Nersessian, S., Uillustration des psautiers grecs du m oyen â ge, 2 Vols. (Paris, 1970). Derbes, A., Picturing the Passion in Late M edieval Italy: N arrative Painting, Franciscan Ideologies, and the L ev ant (Cambridge, 1996). Dix, D. G., The Shape o f the Liturgy (New York, 1982). Djordjević, M. I., “Die Säule und die Säulenheiligen als Hellenistisches Erbe in der Byzantinischen und Serbis chen Wandmalerei”, J ÖB (1982): 93-100. Djurić, V., Vizantijske fresk e u Ju gosla viji (Belgrade, 1975). -., “La peinture murale byzantine XIIe et XIIIe siècle,” in: XV con grès, pp. 1-96. Dufrenne, S., L’illustrations des psautiers grecs du m oyen âge (Paris, 1966). Epstein, A., “The Political Content of the Paintings of Saint Sophia at Ohrid”, J ÖB 29 (1980): 319. Evans, H. C. and Wixom, W. D. (eds.), The G lory o f Byzantium. Art and Culture o f the M iddle Byzantine Era A.D. 843-1261 (New York, 1997). Follieri, H. (ed.), Initia H ym norum Ecclesiae G raecae, 6 Vols. (Vatican, 1961). Franke, P., “Marginalien zum Problem der Hetoimasie”, BZ 65/2 (1972): 375-378. Frolow, A., and Millet, G., La pein tu re du m oyen â ge en Y ougoslavie, 3 Vols. (Paris, 1954). Gerstel, S., B eholding the Sacred M ysteries: Program s o f the Byzantine Sanctuary (Seattle, Wash., 1999). Gkioles, N., O Byzantinos troullos kai to eikonographiko tou program m a (Athens, 1990).
Cormack, R., Writing in G old (New York, 1985).
Grabar, A., Christian Icon ography: A Study o f Its O rigin (Princeton, 1980). -., “Un rouleau liturgique constantinopolitain et ses pein tures”, DOP 8 (1954): 163-199. -., La pein tu re religieuse en Bulgarie (Paris, 1928).
Constantoudaki-Kitromilides, M., “Concordia Apostolorum: The Embrace of Saints Peter and Paul, A Paleologan Icon in Bologna”, in: Byzantium. Identity, Im age
Grigoriadu, H., “Affinités iconographiques de décors peints en Chypre et en Grèce au XIIe siècle”, in: Prak tika 1972, pp. 37-41.
Constantinides, E. C. The Wall Paintings o f the Panagia O lympiotissa at Elasson in N orthern Thessaly (Athens, 1992).
106 Hadermann-Misguich, L., “Influence de miniatures Constantinopolitaines sur les peintures murales des SaintsAnargyres de Castoria et de Saint-Georges de Kurbinovo”, D iethnes Symposio. Byzantine Make do ma 324-1430 m. Ch. (Thessaloniki, 1995). -., “Aspects de l’ambiguïté spatiale dans la peinture mon umentale byzantine”, Z ogra f 22 (1992): 5-13. -., “Fresques de Chypre et de Macédoine dans la se conde moitié du XIIe siècle”, in: Praktika 1972, pp. 43-49. -., K urbinovo. Les fresq u es de Saint-G eorges et la peintu re byzantine due XIIe siècle (Brussels, 1975). Hadermann-Misguich, L. and Grozdanov, C., K urbinovo (Skopje, 1990). Hamann-Mac Lean, R., G rundlegung zu einer G eschichte der m ittelalterlichen M onum entalm alerei in Serbien und M akedonien (Giessen, 1976). Hamann-Mac Lean, R., and Hallensleben, H., Die M onu m entalm alerei in Serbien und M akedonien vom 11. bis zum frü h en 14. Jahrhundert (Giessen, 1963). Hutter, I. (ed.), Das M arienhomiliar des M önchs Jakobos von Kokkinobaphos: Codex vaticanus graecus 1162 (Zurich, 1991). James, M. R., The Apocryphal N ew Testament (Oxford, 1966). Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, I., B yzantine Icons in Steatite, 2 Vols. (Vienna, 1985). Kessler, H. L., “The Meeting of Peter and Paul in Rome. An Emblematic Narrative of Spiritual Brotherhood”, DOP 41 (1987): 265-275. Kitzinger, E., I m osaici d el period o norm anno in Sicilia, Fase. 2. La Capella Palatina di Palerm o (Palermo, 1992). -., “Reflections of the Feast Cycle in Byzantine Art”, CA 36 (1988): 51-73. -., The Mosaics o f M onreale (Palermo, 1960). Kreidl-Papadopoulos. K., Die W andmalereien des 11.Jahr hunderts in der K irche Panagia tōn Chalkeōn in Thessa loniki (Graz, 1966). Lafontaine-Dosogne, J., Iconographie de Venfance de la Vierge dans l ’em pire Byzantin et en O ccident, 2 Vols. (Brussels, 1964). Lazarev, V., Storia della pittura bizantina (Turin, 1967). -., O ld Russian Murals and Mosaics: From the XI to the XVI C enturies (London, 1966). -., Mozaiki Sofiĭ K ievskoi (Moscow, 1960). -., “Zhivopis’ X I-XII vekov v Makedonii”, in: XVe con grès (Belgrade, 1962), pp. 105-134. Lidov, A. M., “‘Khristos-sviashennik’ v ikonograficheskih programmakh XI-XII vekov”, VizVrem 55 (1994): 187-193. -., “Skhizma i vizantiĭskaia hramovaia dekoraciia”, in: A. M. Lidov (ed.), Vostochnokhristianskiĭ khram. Liturgiia i iskusstvo (St. Petersburg, 1994), pp. 17-27.
Selected Bibliography -., “L’Image du Christ-prélat dans le programme icono graphique de Sainte Sophie d’Ohride”, Arte Cristiana 79 (1991): 245-250. -., “Obraz ‘Khrista-arkhiereia’ v ikonograficheskoĭ pro gramme Sofii okhridskoi”, Z ograf 17 (1987): 5-20. Ljubinković-Ćorović, M., “Živopis crkve svetoga Petra kod Novog Pazara”, Starinar 20 (1970): 35-49. Maguire, H., The Icons o f Their Bodies. Saints and Their Im ages in Byzantium (Princeton, 1996). -., “Disembodiment and Corporality in Byzantine Images of the Saints”, in: B. Cassidy (ed.), Icon ography at the Crossroads (Princeton, 1993), pp. 75-90. -., “Style and Ideology in Byzantine Imperial Art”, Gesta 28/2 (1989): 217-231. -., “The Art of Comparing in Byzantium”, AB 70 (1988): 88-103. -., Art and E loquence in Byzantium (Princeton, 1981). -., “The Iconography of Symeon with the Christ Child in Byzantine Art”, DOP 34/35 (1980-81): 261-271. -., “The Depiction of Sorrow in Middle Byzantine Art”, DOP 31 (1977): 123-175. -., “Truth and Convention in Byzantine Descriptions of Works of Art”, DOP 28 (1974): 111-141. Male, E., “La résurrection de Lazare dans l’art”, La R evue des arts 1 (1951): 44-52. Malmquist, T., Byzantine 12th C entury Frescoes in Kasto ria: Agioi A nargyroi and Agios Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi (Uppsala, 1979). Mango, C., “The Monastery of St. John Chrysostomos at Koutsovendis (Cyprus) and Its Wall Paintings”, DOP 44 (1990): 63-94. -., “The Date of the Narthex Mosaics of the Church of the Dormition at Nicea”, DOP 13 (1959): 245-252 Mango, C., Belting, H., and Mouriki, D., The Mosaics and Frescoes o f St. Mary Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul (Washington, D. C., 1978). Mango, C., and Hawkins, E. J. W., “The Hermitage of St. Neophytus and Its Wall Paintings”, DOP 20 (1966): 119-207. Mark-Weiner, T., N arrative C ycles o f the Life o f St. G eorge in Byzantine Art (Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University, 1977). Martin, J. R., “The Dead Christ on the Cross in Byzantine Art”, in: K. Weitzmann (ed.), Late Classical and M edie v a l Studies in H onor o f Albert Mathias Friend, J r (Princeton, 1955), pp. 189-196. -., The Illustration o f the H eavenly L adder o f Joh n Cli m acus (Princeton, 1954). Mathews, T., “The Sequel to Nicea II in Byzantine Church Decoration”, in: Art and A rchitecture in Byzantium and Armenia. L iturgical and Exegetical Approach, No. 12. (Variorum, 1995).
Selected Bibliography Megaw, A. H. S. and Hawkins, E. J. W., “The Church of the Holy Apostoles at Perachorio, Cyprus, and Its Frescoes”, DOP 16 (1962): 277-348. Mercenier, R. P. F., La p rière des églises de rite Byzantin, 3 Vols. (Chevetogne, Belgium, 1940-1953). Mesesnel, F., “Kako da se sačuva i obnovi crkva Sv. Pantelejmona iz 12. veka kod sela Nerezi?”, GSND 2 (1929/30): 299-304. Miljković-Pepek, P., Veljusa: Manastir Sv. B ogorodica M ilostiva v o seloto Veljusa kraj Strumica (Skopje, 1981). -., Kompleksot crkvi v o Vodoča (Skopje, 1975). -., “Prilozi proučavanju crkve manastira Nerezi”, ZLU 10 (1974): 313-322. -., “Crkvata Sv. Konstantin od selo Svekani”, in: Simpozium 1100. godisnina od smrtata na Kiril Solunski (Skopje, 1970), pp. 150-180. -., “Jedna realistička osobina na freskama Nereza i Studenice”, Z ograf 2 (1968): 4-5 . -., N erezi (Belgrade, 1966). Miljković-Pepek, P. and Koco, D., Manastir (Skopje, 1958). Millet, G., M onum ents d e l’Athos (Paris, 1927). -., R echerches sur l ’iconographie de l’éva n gile aux XIVe, XVey et XVIe siècles (Paris, 1916). -., “Recherches au Mount Athos”, Bulletin de correspon d en ce H ellénique 29 (1905): 72-98. Mouriki, D., “Four Thirteenth-Century Sinai Icons by the Painter Peter”, in: Studenica i vizantijska um etnost oko 1200. G odine (Belgrade, 1988). -., The Mosaics o f Nea M oni on Chios (Athens, 1985). -., “Stylistic Trends in Monumental Paintings of Greece during the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries”, DOP 34-35 (1980-81): 77-123. -., “The Portraits of Theodore Studites in Byzantine Art”, J ÖB 20 (1971): 249-280. Nelson, R. S., The Icon ography o f P reface and M iniature in the B yzantine G ospel Book (New York, 1980). Okunev, N., “Les peintures de l’église de Nérèz et leur date”, in: Actes du III e congrès international d ’études byzantines (Athens, 1932), pp.247-248. -., “La découverte des anciennes fresques du monastère de Nérèz et leur date”, Slavia 6 (1927): 603-609. Pallas, D. I., Die Passion und Bestattung Christi in Byzanz: D er Ritus-Das Bild (Munich, 1965). Panayotidi, M., “The Wall Paintings in the Church of the Virgin Kosmosoteira at Ferai (Vira) and Stylistic Trends in 12th Century Painting”, B F 14/2 (1989): 459-484. Pelekanides, S., and Chatzidakis, M., Kastoria (Athens, 1985). Petković, V., “Iconographic Similarities and Differences Between Serbian and Greek Painting From the Middle of the Fifteenth to the End of the Seventeenth Cen
107 turies”, in: Euphrosynon: aphierō ma ston M anolē Chatzē dakē (Athens, 1992), pp. 517-523. Zidno slikarstvo Pečke patrijaršije, 1557-1614 (Novi Sad, 1965). Radojčić, S., O dabrani članci i studije 1933-1978 (Bel grade, 1982). -., “Prilozi za istoriju najstarijeg ohridskog slikarstva”, ZRVI 8/2(1964): 347-354. Rajković, M., “Iz likovne problematike nereskog živopisa”, ZRVI 3 (1955): 195-206. Restle, M., Byzantine Wall Painting in Asia M inor, 3 Vols. (Greenwich, Ct., 1968). Sacopoulo, M., Asinou en 1106 et sa contribution à l’iconographie (Brussels, 1966). Shchepkina, M. V., Miniatĭury K hludovsk oĭ Psaltyri (Moscow, 1977). Schiller, G., Icon ography o f Christian Art, 2 Vols, (trans lated by J. Seligman) (Greenwich, Ct., 1971-1972). Ševčenko, N. P., Illustrated Manuscripts o f the M etaphrastian M enologion (Chicago, 1990). -., “The Tomb of Isaak Komnenos at Pherrai”, The Greek O rthodox T heological R eview 29 (1984): 135-140. Shorr, D. C., “The Iconographic Development of the Pre sentation in the Temple”, AB 28 (1946): 17-32. Sinos, S., Die K losterkirche d er K osm osoteira in Bera (Vira) (Munich, 1985). Skawran, K. M., The D evelopm en t o f M iddle Byzantine Fresco Painting in G reece (Pretoria, 1982). Smirnova, E., “Culte et image de St. Démètre dans la prin cipauté de Vladimir à la fin du XIIe - début du XIIIe siècle”, in: D iethnes Symposio. Byzantinē M akedonia 324-1430 m. Ch. (Thessaloniki, 1995), pp. 267-277. Spirovski, S., “Konzervatorski raboti na živopisot vo crkvata sveti Pantelejmon, selo Nerezi-Skopsko”, K ul turno nasledstvo 7 (1961): 107-113. Stylianou, A. and Stylianou, J. A., The Painted C hurches o f Cyprus (London, 1985). Taft, R. F., The Great Entrance: A H istory o f the Transfer o f Gifts and O ther Preanaphoral Rites o f the L iturgy o f St. Joh n C hrysostom (Rome, 1978). Tatić-Djurić, M., “Ikona Jovana Krilatog iz Dečana”, Zbornik N arodnog M uzeja 7 (1973): 39-51. Tomeković, S., “Contribution à l’étude du programme du narthex des églises monastiques (XIe - première moitié du XIIIe s.)”, Byzantion 58 (1988): 140-154. -., “Les répercussions du choix du saint patron sur le pro gramme iconographique des églises du 12e siècle en Macédoine et dans le Péloponnèse”, Z ograf 12 (1981): 25-43.
Selected Bibliography
108 Townsley, A. L., “Eucharistic Doctrine and the Liturgy in Late Byzantine Painting”, OC 58 (1974): 138-153.
-., “Hagios Chrysostomos, Trikomo, Asinou. Byzantine Painters at Work”, in: Praktika 1972, pp.285-291.
Tsigaridas, E., Oi toichographies tēs M onēs Latomou Thessalonikēs kai ē Vyzantinē zōgraphikē tou 12ou aiōna (Thessaloniki, 1986).
Xyngopoulos, A., Thessalonique et la pein tu re m acédoni en n e (Athens, 1975).
Tsitouridou, A., Hē Panagia tōn Chalkeōn (Thessaloniki, 1975).
III. Sculpture
Underwood, P., The K ariye Djami 3 Vols. (New York, 1966). Vassilaki, M., “A Cretan Icon in the Ashmolean: The Em brace of Peter and Paul”, J ÖB 40 (1990): 405-422. Velmans, T., “Rayonnement de l’icone au XIIe et au début du XIIIe siècle”, in: XVe con grès, pp. 195-227. -., “Le dimanche de tous saints et l’icone exposée à Charleroi”, Byzantion 53 (1983): 17-35. Walter, C., Art and Ritual o f the Byzantine Church (Lon don, 1982). -., “Further Notes on the Deesis”, REB 28 (1970): 161-187. -., “Two Notes on the Deesis”, REB 26 (1968): 311-336. Weitzmann, K., Byzantine L iturgical Psalters and Gospels (London, 1980). -., The M iniatures o f the Sacra Parallela, Parisinus Graecus 923 (Princeton, 1979). -., “Illustrations of Five Martyrs of Sebaste”, DOP 33 (1979): 99-111. -., The Icon. H oly Im ages: Sixth to Fourteenth C entury (London, 1978). -., The M onastery o f Saint C atherine at M ount Sinai: The Icons, I. From the Sixth to the Tenth C entury (Prince ton, 1976). -., “Byzantium and the West Around the Year 1200”, in: The Year 1200: A Symposium (New York, 1975), pp. 53-93. -., “The Selection of Texts for Cyclic Illustration in Byzantine Manuscripts”, in: Byzantine Books and Bookm en (Washington, 1975), pp. 69-109. -., “Loca Sancta and the Representational Arts of Pales tine”, DOP 28 (1974): 31-55. -., “The Origin of the Threnos”, in: M. Meiss (ed.), Essays in H onor o f Erwin Panofsky (New York, 1961), pp.476-491. Wetzmann, K. and Galavaris, G., The M onastery o f St. C atherine on M ount Sinai: The Illum inated Greek Manuscripts (Princeton, 1991). Wellesz, E., A H istory o f Byzantine Music and H ym no graphy (Oxford, 1961).
Babić, G., “O živopisanom ukrasu oltarskih pregrada”, ZLU ll (1975): 3-45. Belting, H., “Zur Skulptur aus der Zeit um 1300 in Kon stantinopel”, M ünchner Jahrbuch d er bildenden Kunst 23 (1972): 70-73. Bošković, G., “La restauration récente de l’iconastase à l’église de Nerezi”, Seminarium K ondakovianum 6 (1933): 157-159. -., “Arhitektonski izveštaji. Obnova ikonostasa u Nerezima”, GSND ll (1932): 221-223. Bouras, L., “Architectural Sculptures of the Twelfth and Early Thirteenth Centuries in Greece”, D eltion 9 (1977): 59-66. Buchwald, H., “The Craved Stone Ornament of the High Middle Ages in San Marco, V enice”, Jahrbuch der öster reichischen byzantinischen G esellschaft 13 (1964): 137-170. -., “The Carved Stone Ornament of the High Middle Ages in San Marco, Venice”, Jahrbuch der österreichischen byzantinischen G esellschaft 11/12 (1962/63): 169-211. Chatzidakis, M., “L’évolution de l’icone aux 11e -13e siè cles et la transformation du templon”, in: XVe con grès, pp. 159-191. Cicimov, A., “Mermernata oltarska pregrada vo crkvata Sv. četirieset sevastiski mačenici vo Bansko”, in: Zbornik na trudovi. Z avod za zaštita na spom enici na kulturata, prirodnite retkosti i m uzej - Strumica (Strumica, 1989). Epstein, A. W., “The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier: Templon or Iconostasis?”, Jou rn al o f the British Ar cha eological Association 134 (1981): 1-28. Grabar, A., Sculptures byzantines du m oyen â ge (Paris, 1976). -., “Deux notes sur l’histoire de l’iconostase d’aprés des monuments de Yugolslavie”, ZRVI7 (1961): 13-23. Harrison, R. M., “A Constantinopolitan Capital in Barcelona”, DOP 27 (1973): 297-300. Hjort, Ø., “The Sculpture of the Kariye Camii”, DOP 33 (1979): 199-289.
Wharton, A. J., Art o f Empire. Painting and A rchitecture o f the Byzantine Periphery. A C om parative Study o f Four P rovinces (University Park, PA, 1988).
Macridy, T., “The Monastery of Lips and the Burials of Palaeologi”, DOP 18 (1964): 249-279.
Winfield, D., Proportions and Structure o f the Human Figure in Byzantine Wall-Painting and M osaic (Ox ford, 1982).
Mango, C., “On the History of Templon and the Martyrion of St. Artemios at Constantinople”, Z ograf 10 (1979): 40-44.
Selected Bibliography Moutsopoulos, N. K, Ekklesies tēs Kastorias 9 o s -11os aiōnas (Thessaloniki, 1992). Nikolajević-Stojković, I., “Prilog proučavanju vizantiske skulpture od 10-12 veka iz Makedonije i Srbije”, ZRVI 44(1955): 182-194. -., “Jonski impost-kapiteli iz Makedonije i Srbije”, ZRVI 21 (1952): 169-179. Oates, D., “A Summary Report on the Excavations of the Byzantine Institute in the Kariye Camii, 1957-1958”, DOP 14 (1960): 223-231. Okunev, N., “Altarnaia pregrada XII vieka v Nerezie”, Seminarium K ondakovianum 3 (1929): 5-23. Peschlow, U., “Architectural Sculpture”, in: C. L. Striker and Y. D. Kuban (eds.), K alenderhane in Istanbul The Buildings, Their H istory, A rchitecture, and D ecoration (Mainz, 1997), pp. 101-111. Pazaras, Th., A naglyphes sarkophagoi kai epitaphies plakes tēs m esēs kai ysterēs Byzantinēs period ou stē n Ellada (Athens, 1988). -., “Ho glyptos diakosmos tou palaiou katholikou tes Monēs Xenophōntos sto ‘Hagion Horos’”, D eltion 14 (1987-88): 33-48.
109 Petrov K., “Kon neispitana protoistorijata na lokalitetot Sv. Pantelejmon vo Nerezi”, Godišen zbornik na Filozofskiot fak ultet 33 (1981): 172-186. -., “Dekorativna plastika vo Makedonija vo XI i XII vek”, Godišen zbornik na Filozofskiot fak ultet 12 (1962): 161-168. Radojčić, M., Starine crk ven og m uzeja u Skoplju (Skopje, 1941). Walter, C., “The Origins of Iconostasis”, in: Studies in Iconography (London, 1997), No. 3. -., “A New Look at the Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier”, REB 51 (1993): 203-228. Weitzmann, K., “An Ivory Plaque with Two of the Fourty Martyrs of Sebaste in the Glencairn Museum, Bryn Athyn, PA”, in: Euphrosynon aphierō ma ston M anolē Chatzē dakē (Athens, 1992), pp.704-712. -., Ivories and Steatites. C atalogue o f Byzantine and Early M edieval Antiquities in the D um barton Oaks C ollec tion (Washington, 1972). -., “Diptikh slonovoĭ kosti iz Ermitrazha, otnosiashchiĭsia k krugu imperatora Romana”, VizVrem 32 (1971): 142-156. -., “Die byzantinischen Elfenbeine eines Bamberger Graduale und ihre ursprüngliche Verwendung”, in: Festschrift fü r K. H. Usner (Marburg, 1967).
INDEX
General Index Adrian-John Komnenos, archbishop of Ohrid, 8, 10 Alexios I Komnenos, emperor, 2 n. 3, 4, 5, 10, 25; in Skopje, 7 Alexios II Komnenos, emperor, 2 n. 3 Alexios III Angelos, emperor, 8 Alexios Angelos Komnenos: at Council of 1166, 9, 33; family of, 4 -5 ; and painted decoration of the naos, 58; as patron of Nerezi, 1, 3 , 28, 47,65, 67, 70-71, 72, 73, 85, 94, 95, 99, 100, 101; relatives in Macedonia, 8; and Em peror Manuel I Komnenos, 35, 65, 74 anathemas, 39 Andrew, saint, apostle, cult in Macedonia, 34, 100 Andrew of Crete, saint, 38 Andronikos Angelos, son of Konstantine Angelos, 5 Andronikos II Palaiologos, emperor, 95-96 Andros, Mesaria, church of the Taxiarches, 89 Ani, Holy Apostles church, 24-25, 26 Apollonia, church of the Virgin, irregular layout, 11 n. 1 architecture (Nerezi), 2, 3 , 100,101; exterior, 11, 19-23; ir regular layout, 11 and n. 1; see also bema, cupolas, naos, narthex, restorations, sanctuary architecture, churches: cross-in-square, 24, 25, 26; cruci form, 11, 12, 13, 15,16, 22, 26, 29; five-domed, 3, 11, 21, 23-24, 25, 26, 2 7 -2 8 , 100 arcosolium, 16, 17, 18, 73 aristocracy, Byzantine, 9 Artemios, Martyrion of St., 92 artists of Nerezi, 3, 76, 81-82, 100; sixteenth century, 97 Asinou, church of the Panagia Phorbiotissa, 33 n. 33, 73, 77; Last Judgment, 57; Virgin with Christ Child, 57 Athanasia, convent of St., 26 Athens: church of the Holy Apostles, 16, 18, 89; National Library, cod. 7 (Psalter), 33 Athos, Mount: Chilandar monastery, 95, 96; Great Lavra, 16, 17, 72, 89; Pantokrator, cod. 61, 70; Protaton monastery, 50, 91 Aulis, church of St. Nicholas, 12, 16 Azyme Controversy of 1054, 37 Babić, G., 92 Bačkovo, Ossuary church, 32, 55, 84 Balkan peninsula, 5 -6 Bansko, church of the Forty martyrs of Sebaste, 89, 90 baptismal fonts, 17, 18 Basil II (Bulgaroctonus), emperor, 5, 72 Belašica, Mount, battle of, 5 Belgrade, 7 bema, 11, 14; exterior, 20; fusion of the bema bay with east ern arm of cross, 14, 15; repainted in sixteenth century, 30
bema, major scenes and images: Bishops Officiating, 30, 35, 36, 39, 45, 74; Communion of the Apostles, 30-32, 35, 39, 45, 47, 74; Hetoimasia, 36, 37 n. 56, 39, 74; St.John the Theologian, 80; Kiss of the Apostles, 30, 32-35, 39, 47, 74; Virgin with Christ Child, 30, 39 benediction of water, 16, 17, 18, 19, 27, 71 Berlin, Staatliche Sammlungen, 88 Black Sea, 6 Bogomils, 37-38 Bulgaria, 8; church of Sedam Prestola, 12, 13; theme, 7, 10 Calabria, churches in, see Stilo, Rossano Capelli, G., 26 Cappadocia, churches of, 17; Çanli Kilise, 42; Kiliçlar Kilise, 91 Cefalù, 60, 77, 78 ceramoplastic jugs, 21 chancel, see iconostasis chapel, north-east, see prothesis chapel, north-west, 17; tomb, 16, 58, 67, 73-74 chapel, north-west, major scenes and images: Five Martyrs of Armenia, 71, 72, 73; St. Blasios, 73; St. Mamas, 73; St. Menas, 72-73, 82; St.Tryphon, 73, 80; St.Vikentios, 72-73; St. Viktor, 72-73 chapel, south-east, see diakonikon chapel, south-west: function, 18 n.48, 71; pit („pithos“), 16, 17 chapels, 19,28; exterior, 20, 21, 26; function, 16,17,26; seg regation of, 16, 17; types, 16 n. 36 chapel, south-west, major scenes and images: martyrs, 82 Chatzidakis, M., 92, 93 Chernigov: Spaso-Preobrazhenskii Sabor, 24, 25, 26; Transfiguration church, 22; Yeletsky monastery, cathe dral of the Assumption, 16, 17, 89 Cherubicon prayer and hymn, 38, 42 Chios, Nea Moni, 19, 22, 49, 60 n. 205, 72, 78 Chludov Psalter, see Moscow, State Historical Museum Chortiatis, church of the Transfiguration, 22, 23, 28, 81, 83-84, 89, 90 church councils, 37-39, 44, 50, 53, 58, 65, 67, 74; Acts of, 38; Council of Chalcedon, 64; Council of 1143, 38; Council of 1156/57, 37, 38-39, 42, 43, 50; Council of 1166, 4, 8, 9, 33, 37; and Eucharist, 37-39; and heretical attacks, 37-38; and sacrifice of Christ, 37-38 church fathers, 38, 75; see also individual saints Clement of Ohrid, saint, 34, 46 colonnettes, brick, 21 Communion of the Apostles: biblical account, 31-32; his tory, 31; liturgical character, 31-32; sixteenth-century apostles, 30-31; symbolic meaning, 31 Constantine IX Monomachos, emperor, 24 Constantine, patriarch of Kiev, 37
111
Index Constantine of Rhodes, 57 n. 191 Constantinople, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 100; Atik Mustafa Pasa Camii, 15, 22; Blachernai palace, 37; Bodrum Camii, 12 n. 11, 22; St. Demetrios monastery, 10; Eski Imaret Camii, 22; Evergetis monastery, 58; Fenari Isa Camii, 12 n. 11; St. George Mangana, 24; Gül Camii, 12 n. 4 , 3; Hagia Sophia, 80, 88, 92; church of the Holy Apostles, 27, 57 n. 191; Kalenderhane Camii, 12 n .4 , 13,15, 22, 23, 91; Kariye Camii, 12 n .4 , 13,17,18, 88; Lips monastery, 18, 24, 91; Nea Ekklesia of Basil I, 24, 27; Pantokrator monastery, 18, 22, 88, 91, 92; Stoudios monastery, 62, 64, 65; church of Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii), 17, 88, 91, 92 Constantinople, patriarchate of, 96; Patriarchal school, 38 Corinth, 6 cupola, central, 11, 19,22, 25, 26, 27,44; architectural form, 28; building technique, 23; and liturgy, 44; and Middle Byzantine domes, 23; painted decoration, 39; recon struction of the painted program, 43; repainted in six teenth century, 98 cupolas, subsidiary, 11, 14,19-20, 25, 26; origin of iconog raphy, 43; spatial articulation, 27 cupolas, subsidiary, major scenes and images: Ancient of Days, 39, 40-41, 42, 45, 47; Angels, 39-40; ChristPriest, 39, 41, 71; Emmanuel, 39, 40, 41, 42, 47; Pan tokrator, 39, 40, 41, 42, 71 cupolas, symbolic significance of, 23 Ćurčić, S., 25 Cyprus: Kykko monastery, 10; Ritual Ordinance of St.Neophytos, 18; Typicon of St.Johns monastery, Koutsovendis, 18; Typicon of Makhaeras monastery, 18; see also Asinou, Koutsovendis, Lagoudera Cyril of Alexandria, saint, 38 Cyril of Jerusalem, saint, 38 Danube, 6 Daphni monastery, 19, 72, 78 Dečani, church of Christ the Pantokrator, 19; Nemanjić Dynastic Tree, 19 Demangel, R., 24 diakonikon, 11, 14, 24 diakonikon, major scenes and images: bishops, 44, 45; St. Damianos, 46, 80; holy physicians, 45, 47, 72; St. John, physician saint, 46; St.John the Baptist, 44, 4546, 47; St. Kosmas, 46, 80; St. Kyros, 46; St. Sampson, 46, 80 dog-tooth frieze, 21 domes, see cupolas Dubravica, village, 96 Dušan, tzar, 7 Dyrrachium, 5 earthquakes and reconstructions, 20, 28, 29, 39, 97, 98; see also restorations Elasson, church of the Panagia Olympiotissa, 50, 75 Elis, Manolada Palaiopanagia church, 12 Ephesos, St.John the Theologian church, 27 Epirus, 6
episkepsis, 10 Episkopi, Ano Voulou, church of the Panagia, 89 epistyle beams, 92 Epstein, A., 92, 93 Eucharist, 37, 38-39 Filioque question, 33 n. 28 fonts, baptismal, 18 Formis, church of Sant’ Angelo, 70 foundations: aristocratic, 9; provincial, 10 Frederick Barbarossa, 6 funerary rites, 16, 17, 18, 19, 71 George of Nikomedeia, 49 n. 134, 51 George Palaiologos, military commander and diplomat, 9-10 George Pakourianos, grand domestic, 10 George Vojteh, 7 Gerasim, Chilandar monk, 96 Germanus I, patriarch of Constantinople, 75 Gorno Nerezi, village, 8 Gračanica, 27, 98 Great Entrance, 36 Greece, 5, 6 heretical attacks, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, 37-38 Holy Land, monasteries, 10 Holy Spirit, 38 Holy Trinity, 38, 39, 41, 64, 74 Homilies of James Kokkinobaphos, 66, 78, 81 Hugo Etherien, 33 Hungary, 6 Hymettos: St.John the Theologian church, 15; Kaiseriani monastery, 15 hypostatic union, 9 iconostasis, 3 , 14,15,46, 47, 86, 90; architrave, 11, 87, 90,92, 94; colonnettes, 11, 87-88, 90, 93-94; door posts, 87; icons, 91, 92, 93; intercolumnar spaces, 11, 92, 93; para pet panels from Bansko, 90; parapet slabs, 87, 94; re construction of, 87 icons: hanging, painted on the walls, 45; proskynetaria, see proskynetaria icons Idrisi, Arabian geographer, 7-8 inscription, dedicatory (Nerezi), 2 n. 3, 4, 28, 101 intercession, theme of, 46, 47, 58, 60, 66, 67, 71, 73 Ioannikios, hegoumenos, 4 Ionic capital, 86 Isaak Angelos, son of Konstantine Angelos, 5 Isaak II Angelos, emperor, 95 Isaak Komnenos, son of Emperor Alexios I, 10, 25 Istria, 6 Ivan Asen II, Bulgarian tzar, 95 Ivanov, I., 2 n. 3 Jerusalem, Greek Patriarchal Library: cod. Sabas 208, 70 (Menologion); cod. Staurou 109, 42, 50 n. 143; cod. Taphou 14, 41 n. 80
112 John II Komnenos, emperor, 5 John III Doukas Vatatzes, Nicean emperor, 95 John Angelos, son of Konstantine Angelos, 5, 8 John Chrysostom, saint, 38 John Dalassenos Rogerios, brother-in-law of Manuel I Komnenos, 8 John of Damascus, saint, 38-39 John Renier, son-in-law of Manuel I Komnenos, 9 John the Climacus, 71 Kale, Krupište, church at, 12, 16 Kalojan I, Bulgarian tzar, 95 Kalyvia, church of St. Peter, 18 Kastoria, 9; Hagioi Anargyroi, 19, 41 n. 80, 55, 56 n. 178, 70, 90; Koumbelidiki, 23; Mavriotissa church, 19; Hagios Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi, 18,23, 41 n. 80, 56 n. 178, 57, 60, 81, 82, 90, 91; church of St. Stephen, 19, 43, 78; Taxiarches, 23 Katlanovo lake, 96 Kiev: church of Archangel Michael, 32 n. 14; Desiatinnaia church, 22; Gate church, Holy Trinity Monastery of the Caves, 17; church of St. Sophia, 17, 22, 32 n. 14, 41, 43, 89 Kithairon, Mount, katholikon of St. Meletios monastery, irregular layout, 11 n. 1 Koloman Asen, Bulgarian tzar, 95 Kondakov, N. P., 2 n. 3 Konstantine Angelos, father of Alexios Angelos Kom nenos, 4, 5 Konstantine Asen, tzar, charter issued to the monastery of St. George-Gorgos, 95 Konstantine Tich, Bulgarian tzar, 95 Koriton, 8 n. 43 Kosine (Epirus), church of the Virgin, 12, 16 Koutsovendis, monastery of St.John Chrysostom, 36, 51 Krautheimer, R., 15 Kula, Petričko, church at, 12 Kurbinovo, church of St. George, 23, 34, 53, 55, 56 n. 178, 57, 79, 81, 84, 91, 92 Kuršumlija, St. Nicholas church, 13, 22, 23 Kurşunlu (Elegmi), St. Abercius monastery church, 13 Lagoudera, church of the Panagia Arakiotissa, 42, 50, 73, 79, 81, 92, 93 Lazarev, V., 92 Ligourio, church of St.John the Theologian, 15 Linus, saint, apostle, 34 liturgy, in central cupola, 44 Luke, saint, apostle, cult in Macedonia, 34, 100 Luke Chrysoberg, patriarch of Constantinople, 34 Macedonia, 1- 4 , 23, 28, 74, 101; church architecture in, 12, 23, 26; cult of St. Andrew and St. Luke, 34, 100; iconos tases in, 90, 94; influence of Nerezi on later monuments in, 35; painting tradition in, 32, 81, 82, 84; residence of Manuel I Komnenos, 6; sculpture preserved in, 89; strategic importance of, 5 -7, 9 , 100; theme, 6 n. 24
Index Macedonian Orthodox church, 96 Maguire, H., 57 Mamboury, E., 24 Manastir, church of St. Nicholas, 32, 35 Mango, C., 92 Mani, Hagios Stratigos church, 19 Manuel I Komnenos, 2 n. 3, 5, 33, 47, 52, 95, 100; bride of, 7; in Macedonia, 6; patron of provincial foundations, 8, 10; role in church affairs and councils, 9, 37; and union of the churches, 35 Manuel Boutoumites, general, 10 Marković, V., 2 n. 3 Maximus the Confessor, saint, 38 meander pattern, 21 Megara, church of Hosios Meletios, 89 Megaw, A. H. S., 18, 22 Mesesnel, E, 15, 99 Messenia, monastery of the Savior, 58 Michael IV Paphlagon, emperor, 70 Michael VIII Palaiologos, emperor, 95 Michael Psellos, 70 Michael the Rhetor, 38 Mikra Prespa, sarcophagus panels, 89 Miljković-Pepek, P., 82 Milutin, Serbian king, 8 n. 45, 96; charter for monastery of St. George-Gorgos, 95-96 Monemvasia: church of Geroumena, 25; church of the Pantanassa, 25-26 Monreale, 33 n. 32, 42, 53, 77 Moraca, 98 Mordoviz, church at, 12, 16 Moscow, church of St. Michael, 27 Moscow, State Historical Museum: cod. gr. 9 (Menolo gion), 70; cod. gr. 129 (Chludov Psalter), 41, 42 n. 90 Moscow, Tretiakov Gallery: Annunciation icon, 81; Virgin of Vladimir icon, 54, 81 Naissus, 7 naos, 16; proportions, 12, 13; segregation of, 11, 12, 13; Tshaped, 11 n.2, 13, 16 naos, major scenes and images: Annunciation, 47-48; Christological cycle, 47, 58; Deposition, 48, 53-54, 74, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83; Entry into Jerusalem, 54-55, 77, 79; holy monks, 60-61, 66; holy physicians, 66; holy poets (hymnographers), 61-65, 74, 75; holy warriors, 80; Nativity of the Virgin, 79, 83; St.Panteleimon, 46, 47, 66, 74, 80, 82, 83; Presentation of Christ in the Temple, 48-50, 52, 53, 60-61, 74, 77, 80; Resurrec tion of Lazarus, 54-55; saints, categories of, 58-59; Threnos, 48, 50-53, 54, 61, 65, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83; Transfiguration, 53, 54, 79, 82; warrior saints, 59-60, 66 narthex, 11; exterior, 21; function, 18, 19; in Palaiologan monuments, 19; reconstruction, 20; twin-domed, 19; U-shaped, 15-16 narthex, major scenes and images: Deesis, 67, 71; St.Pan teleimon, 67, 68-71; St. Symeon the Stylite, 71 Naum of Ohrid, saint, 34
Index Neilos of Rossano, saint, Vitae, 26 Nereditsa, church of, 41, 77 Nicea, church of the Koimesis, 91 Nicholas Cabasilas, 64, 75 Nicholas Mesarites, 57 n. 191 Nicholas of Methone, bishop, 38 n. 68 Nikephoras Basilakes, 38 Niketas Choniates, 5, 6 Ohrid, 5, 7; Annunciation icon, 81; archbishopric of, 7, 8, 10, 96, 99 n. 41; church of St.John at Kaneo, 32; church of St. Sophia, 34, 43, 46, 56 n. 181, 90; church of the Vir gin Peribleptos, 34 Okunev, Nikolas, 29, 86, 87, 97 Ostrogorski, G., 2 n. 3 Ouspensky, F., 92 painted decoration (Nerezi), 2 -3 , 100, 101; church coun cils reflected in the bema, 39; compositional unity, 77, 78; juxtaposition of images and scenes, 30,47,50, 52, 54, 55, 56-57, 58,69, 71, 73, 74, 75, 80; relationship with ar chitecture, 23, 29, 45, 47, 48, 53, 54, 56, 58, 74; style and iconography, 76, 77; thematic unity, 30, 47, 56 Palaiologan monuments, 19, 25, 27, 44, 74; art, 43, 98; see also individual churches Palermo: Capella Palatina, 33 n.32, 77, 78; Martorana (St. Mary’s of the Admiral), 18, 57, 77 Palestine, St. Sabas monastery, 62, 63 n. 227, 64, 65 pannychis, 17, 18 pansebastohypertatos, 5 Panteleimon, saint, 4, 96 Paphos, monastery of St.Neophytos, 53, 84, 93 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale: gr. 923 (Sacra Parallela), 41 n. 80; gr. 1208 (Homilies of James Kokkinobaphos), 78, 81 Passion of Christ, theme of, 51, 53, 56, 57-58, 64, 67, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 98 pastophoria, 19, 25, 27; exterior, 20; see also diakonikon, prothesis Peć, patriarchate of, 96, 98 Pelagonia, 6-7 Peloponnesos, 6 Perachorio, church of the Holy Apostles, 32 n. 14, 33 n. 33 Peristerai, church of St. Andrew, 23, 34 Petar Deljan, 7 Petrov, K., 15 Pherrai, church of the Virgin Kosmosoteira, 10, 23, 25, 26, 36 n. 51, 43, 80, 84 Philadelphia, church of the Theotokos tes Koteines, 93 Philippopolis, Theotokos Petritziotissa monastery, 10 Phocis, Hosios Loukas monastery, 72, 78; church of the Theotokos (Panagia), 91; Theotokos church, irregular layout, 11 n. 1; katholikon, 17-18 Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, 34 n. 34 pit („pithos“), 16, 17 „pithos,“ see pit Porta Pili, church of St. Nicholas, 89 Preslav, church at Vinica, irregular layout, 11 n. 1
113 Prizren, church of the Virgin Ljeviška, 75 proskynetaria icons, 46, 47, 48, 87, 92, 93; frames, 59, 88 n. 13; selection of proskynetaria images, 91 prothesis, 11, 14, 24 prothesis, major scenes and images: St. Antipas of Pergamos, 44, 45 n. 110; bishops, 44, 45, 47; St. Eleutherios, 44, 45 n. 110; St. Modestos, 44, 45 n. 110; St. Parthenios of Lampsacos, 44-45, 45 n. 110; St.Polycarpos of Smyrna, 45 n. 111; St. Spyridon, 44; Virgin, 44,45,46,47, 79 Pskov, 77 Raška, 7 recessed-brick technique, 21, 22, 23, 28 renaissance, Medieval, 57 restorations (Nerezi), 1, 3; of architecture, 20,21,28, 97; of painting, 3 39, 97-98 Roman funerary stele, 15, 86 Romanos III Argyros, emperor, 95, 96 Rome, church of St. Crisogono, 70 Rome, Vatican Library: Urb. gr.2 (Gospels), 78, 84; Vat. gr. 1156 (Gospel Lectionary), 51; Vat. gr. 1162 (Homilies of James Kokkinobaphos), 66, 78, 81 Rossano, church of San Marco, 25, 26 Samari, Peloponnesos, 91 Samuel, Bulgarian tzar (976-1014), 7, 34 sanctuary, 11, 14,19; of eleventh-century churches, 43; fu sion of the bema bay with eastern arm of cross, 14, 15; painted decoration, 30, 36, 44, 82; see also bema, proth esis, diakonikon Sardis, Church E, 27 Sava, saint, 8 n. 45 Schism of 1054, 33, 42 sculptors of Nerezi, 3, 94, 100 Sedam Prestola (Bulgaria), church of, 12, 13 Serbia, 6 Serres, church of Metropolis, 89; sarcophagus panels, 89 Sinai, Mount, St.Catherines monastery: cod. 339 (Homi lies of Gregory of Nazianzus), 78, 84; epistyle beams, 92; icon with hagiographic cycle of St. Panteleimon, 70 Skopje, Archaeological Museum, 86, 87 Skopje, eparchy of: St. George-Gorgos monastery, 8, 10, 95-96; church of St. Michael, 8; church of the ThreeHanded Virgin, 8; White Tower, 90 Skopje, eparchy of, political and economic history, 7-8, 95-96, 99; theme, 7, 8 n.43; Turkish conquest, 96 Skripou, church of the Virgin, 22 Snegarov, I., 2 n. 3 Sofia, Bulgarian National Library, 96 Sophronius, Pseudo-, 75 Soterichos Panteugenes, 38 Staraya Ladoga, church of St. George, 79, 84 Stari Ras, church of Djurdjevi Stupovi, 84 Stefan Nemanja, grand župan, 95 Stilo, Catholica, 23, 25, 26 Strumica, 8 stucco, 87, 88
114 Studenica: Kings church, 50; church of the Virgin, 75, 98 style (Nerezi), see u nder painted decoration Suzdal, cathedral, 27 Svekani, church of St. Constantine, 32, 35 Synodikon of Orthodoxy, 39, 43, 53 Tegea, Palaea Episkopi, 25, 26 templon, see iconostasis, 14 Theodora, mother of Alexios Angelos Komnenos, 2 n. 3, 4, 5 Theodore Angelos Doukas Komnenos, ruler of Epiros, 95 Theodore Metochites, 17 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 75 Thessaloniki, 5, 100; church of St. Demetrios, 90, 92; church of St. George, Rotunda, 89; church of the Holy Apostles, 27, 57; church of Hosios David, 13, 15, 81, 83-84; Panagia ton Chalkeon, 18, 19, 22, 25, 28, 46; theme, 7, 9 Thrace, 5 Timothy, saint, apostle, 34 Torcello, Cathedral, 89 Trisagion, 64, 97 Turkish conquest, 96, 99 n.41 Typicon, 18; of Backovo monastery, 93; of Evergetis monastery, Constantinople, 58; of Irene (1027), 18; of the monastery of the Savior, Messenia, 58; of Pantokra tor monastery, Constantinople, 91, 93
Index unity, ecumenical, 33, 34-35 Uroš I, Serbian tzar, 95 Varassova, St. Demetrios church, 12, 13, 16 Vardar river, 8 Veljusa, church of the Virgin Eleousa, 10, 23, 28, 36, 43, 56 n. 181, 81, 82, 89, 90 Velmans, T., 92 Venetian merchants, 8 Venice, San Marco, 88 Veroia: Christos church, 75; church of St.John the The ologian, 32, 34, 35; church of St. Nicholas, sarcophagus panels, 89 Via Egnatia, 5, 6, 7 Vladimir, Uspenskii Sabor, 24, 25 Vocotopoulos, P. L., 28 Vodno, village, 96 Vuk Branković, charter issued to Chilandar monastery, 95, 96 Vukovo, church of St. Petka, 98-99 Walter, C., 92 Weitzmann, K., 92 Wellesz, E., 65 West, R., 99 Žiča-Peć, archbishopric, 96
Index Iconographic Index Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to the church of St. Panteleimon, Nerezi. acanthus, 30 n. 4, 87 Adoration of the Magi, in post-iconoclastic period, 41 anargyroi saints, see physicians, holy Ancient of Days, see under Christ Andrew, St., apostle, 31, 33-34, 35, 74; in the scene of the Ascension, paired with St. Luke, in the church of St. George, Kurbinovo, 34 angel-deacons, 31, 32, 35, 45, 74; in the church of St. Sophia, Kiev, 43 angels: in the Ascension, 40; in the central cupola, 43; in the Communion of the Apostles, 32; in the cupolas, 74, 100; in the Deesis, 67; at Hosios David, Thessaloniki, 84; in procession, 40, 44; in subsidiary cupolas, 39-40, 45; in the Threnos, 51 Anna, mother of the Virgin, 56, 83 Anna, prophetess, 48-49, 50, 52; text on the scroll, 49 Annunciation, 56, 98; closed garden, 48; inscription, 48; in post-iconoclastic period, 40, 48; of the sixteenth cen tury, 97; in the Virgin Kosmosoteira, Pherrai, 77; and the Virgin with Christ Child in the bema, 47 Anthony the Great, St., 60-61; text on the scroll, 61 n.211 Antipas of Pergamos, St., bishop, 44, 45 n. 110 apostles, 55; in commemorative prayers, 66; in the Deesis, 67 Arrest of Christ, 98 Arsenios, St., 61 Ascension, 97; in the church of St. George, Kurbinovo, 34; theme of, 40 n. 77 Ascension of Elijah, in Hosios Loukas, Phocis, 17 Ascension of the Virgin, 98 Athanasios, St., bishop, 35 n. 46; inscription on the scroll, 36 n. 55 Auxentios, St., 72 Baptism of Christ: at Hosios David, Thessaloniki, 83, 84; and St.John the Baptist, 45; in the narthexes of the Panagia ton Chalkeon, Thessaloniki, H. Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi, Kastoria, and St. Peter of Kalyvia, 18; in Vat. Urb. gr. 2, 78 Bartholomew, St., 35 n. 45 Basil, St., bishop, 35 n.46, 44; in the church of St.John Chrysostom, Koutsovendis, 36; in the church of the Vir gin Eleousa, Veljusa, 36; inscription on the scroll, 36 n. 55 Betrayal of Christ, in the narthexes of Hosios Loukas, Phocis, Nea Moni, Chios, Daphni, and H. Anargyroi, Kastoria, 19 Birth of Christ, see Nativity of Christ Birth of the Virgin, see Nativity of the Virgin bishop: in the burial of St. Panteleimon, 70; at the church of the Virgin Eleousa, Veljusa, 82 Bishops: in the bema, 30; in the church of the Transfigura tion, Chortiatis, 83; in the Deesis, 67; in eastern chapels, 44; in the prothesis, 47; in side chapels, 45
115 Bishops Officiating, 35-36, 45, 74, 100; in procession, 36, 39, 44, 45; inscriptions on the scrolls, 36; in the narthex of Decani, 19 bishops, costume of: encherion, 35; epimanikia, 35; epitrachellion, 35, 44 n. 108; omophorion, 35; phelonion, 35, 44 n. 108; polystavrion, 35; sticharion, 35 Blasios, St., 73 candelabra, 31, 32 censers, 40 chalice, 31, 32 chlamys, see under saints, costume of Christ: Ancient of Days, 39, 40-41, 42, 45, 47; Ancient of Days, in the Deesis, 67; Ancient of Days, sixteenth-century, 97, 98; in the Ascension, at St. Sophia, Ohrid, 43; in the Ascension of the Virgin, church of St. Petka, Vukovo, 98; in the Baptism at Hosios David, Thessa loniki, 84; Christ Amnos, 74; Christ Antiphonis in the church of the Koimesis, Nicea, 91; Christ Priest, 39-40, 41, 42, 50, 71, 74; Christ-Priest, at St.Sophia, Kiev, 43; at the church of the Virgin Eleousa, Veljusa, 82; in the Communion of the Apostles, 31, 32; in the Communion of the Apostles, St. Sophia, Ohrid, 43; in the cupolas, 74; in the Deesis, 41, 67; in the Deposition, 53-54, 79; in the Deposition and at the church of the Virgin Eleousa, Veljusa, 82; Emmanuel, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47; Emmanuel at St.Sophia, Ohrid, 43; at St. George, Kurbinovo, 92; in the Last Judgment, 40, 41; at the monastery of St.Neophytos, Paphos, 93; at the Panagia Arakiotissa, Lagoudera, 92, 93; Pantokra tor, 39, 40, 41, 42, 71; Pantokrator in twelfth-century Byzantine domes, 43; Pantokrator, sixteenth century, 98; proportions in the Threnos, 78; on proskynetaria, 91; in the Resurrection of Lazarus, 55; with the Samar itan Woman, 97; in subsidiary cupolas, 14; in the Threnos, 51, 52, 54, 78, 79, 80; in the Threnos compared with Christ in the Baptism at Hosios David, Thessa loniki, 83; in the Transfiguration, 54, 79; wearing a stole in the Presentation in the Temple, 49, 50 Christ before Pilate, 98 Christological cycle, 57-58 ciborium, 31 Clement of Ohrid, St., in the church of the Virgin Peribleptos, Ohrid, 34 coat-of-arms, 59 n.201 Communion of the Apostles, 30-35, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 74; St.Andrew, 31; St.John, 31 n. 8; St. Luke, 31; St. Matthew, 31 n. 8; and the Nativity of the Virgin, 56; St. Paul, 31; St. Peter, 31; St. Philip, 31 n. 8; procession of Apostles, 31; sixteenth-century apostles, 30-31, 97; St. Thomas, 31 n. 8 Constantine Cabasilas, St., archbishop, in the church of the Virgin Peribleptos, Ohrid, 34 Crucifixion, 51, 53, 57, 72, 98; in the narthexes of Hosios Loukas, Phocis, Nea Moni, Chios, Daphni, and H. Anargyroi, Kastoria, 19; in the north-west chapel of Ho sios Loukas, Phocis, 17; in the Typicon of Bačkovo, 93 cuirass, see u nder saints, costume of
116 Damianos, St., 46, 80 Deesis, 67, 71; at St. George, Kurbinovo, and at the Pana gia Arakiotissa, Lagoudera, 92; and St.John the Baptist, 45, 46 Demetrios, St., 59, 60 Deposition, 48, 51, 74, 78, 79, 82; and the Annunciation, 54; colors, 52, 54, 79; composition, 54, 77; St.John in, 79, 83; and liturgy, 58; and Transfiguration, 53, 54 Divine Liturgy, 44, 75, 98 Dormition of the Virgin, at the Martorana, Palermo, 57 Eleutherios, St., bishop, 44, 45 n. 110 Elijah, prophet, 54 Emmanuel, see under Christ encherion, see u nder bishops, costume of Entombment, and liturgy, 58 Entry into Jerusalem, 79, 98; composition, 55, 77; and the Resurrection of Lazarus, 54-55 Ephraim, St., hermit, 66 epimanikia, see u nder bishops, costume of Epiphanios of Cyprus, St., bishop, 35 n. 46,44; inscription on the scroll, 36 n. 55 epitrachellion, see under bishops, costume of Eugenios, St., 72 Eustratios, St., 72 Eustrogios, father of St. Panteleimon, 68 Euthymios, St., 61, 62 evangelists, 98 Evula, mother of St. Panteleimon, 68 fibula, see under saints, costume of Five Martyrs of Armenia, 71 -72, 73; see also St. Auxentios, St. Eugenios, St. Eustratios, St. Mardarios, St. Orestes flaps (pteryges), see under saints, costume of fleur-de-lis, 31 n. 10 Gabriel, archangel: in the Annunciation, 47-48, 54; in sixteenth-century Annunciation, 97 George, St., 59, 60, 70; at St. George, Kurbinovo, 92 girdle, see under saints, costume of Gregory of Nyssa, St., bishop, 35 n. 46; in the church of St.John Chrysostom, Koutsovendis, 36; inscription on the scroll, 36 n. 55 Gregory Thaumaturge, St., bishop, 35 n. 46; inscription on the scroll, 36 n. 55 Hermippos, St., 68 Hermokrates, St., 68 Hermolaos, St., 68 Hetoimasia, 30, 35-36, 37 n. 56, 39, 74, 100; in the central cupola, 43; liturgical connotations, 36, 39; in post-icon oclastic period, 40 Holy Spirit, 37 Holy Trinity, 36, 37, 39 hymnographers, see poets, holy James, St., apostle, 54 Joachim, father of the Virgin, 83
Index John, St., physician, 46 John Chrysostom, St., bishop, 35 n. 46,44; in the church of the Virgin Eleousa, Veljusa, 36 John of Damascus, St., 61, 62-63, 65; text on the scroll, 63 n.234 John the Baptist, St.: in commemorative prayers, 66; in the Deesis, 67; in the diakonikon, 44, 45; at St. George, Kurbinovo, 92; inscription, 46; and the Last Judgment, 45-46, 47; at the Panagia Arakiotissa, Lagoudera, 92 John the Theologian, St., bishop, 35 n. 46; in the central cupola, 43; in the Deposition, 53, 54; at Hosios David, Thessaloniki, 84; inscription on the scroll, 36 n. 55; pro portions in the Deposition, 78, 79, 83; in the Threnos, 51, 61, 79, 80; in the Transfiguration, 54 Joseph, St., 49, 50, 52, 61; at Hosios David, Thessaloniki, 83, 84 Joseph of Arimathea, 53; in the Deposition, 79 Joseph of Sicily, St., 61, 63, 64, 65; inscription on the scroll, 65 n. 250 Joseph the Hymnographer, St., see Joseph of Sicily, St. Kiss of the Apostles, 30, 32-35, 47, 74, 100; aspasmos, 32 n. 16; explained by Photius, patriarch of Constantino ple, 34 n. 34; in Macedonia, 35; inclusion in the scene of the Communion of the Apostles, 34-35, 39; Kiss of Peace, 32; Kiss of Sts. Andrew and Luke, 33-34; Kiss of Sts. Peter and Paul, 32-33; meaning at Nerezi, 35; symbol of brotherly love, 33, 34 n. 34; symbol of ecu menical unity, 33, 35 Koimesis, 56, 97 Kosmas, St., physician, 46, 80 Kosmas the Hymnographer, St., 61, 62-63, 65; text on the scroll, 63 n. 236 Kyros, St., 46 Lamentation, 57; and liturgy, 58; sermons on, 57. See also Threnos Last Judgment, 36; in the church of the Panagia Phorbiotissa, Asinou, 57; in the central dome, 44; at the Holy Apostles, Thessaloniki, 57; in the narthexes of St. Stephen, Kastoria, Panagia ton Chalkeon, Thessa loniki, Hagios Stratigos, Mani, and Mavriotissa, Kasto ria, 19; in post-iconoclastic period, 40; and St.John the Baptist, 45, 46 Last Supper, 31 Lazarus, 55 Luke, St., apostle, 31, 33-34, 35 Makarios, St., 61 Mamas, St., 73 mantle (mandyas), see u nder saints, costume of Mardarios, St., 72 Marian cycle, 56 Martha, daughter of Lazarus, 55 martyrs, holy, see under saints, categories of Mary, daughter of Lazarus, 55 Meeting of Christ and St.John the Baptist, in the south west chapel at Hosios Loukas, Phocis, 17
Index Menas, St., 72-73, 82 Merkourios, St., in H. Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi, Kastoria, 60 n.204 Michael, archangel, 72; seventeenth-century fresco-icon, 99; in the Typicon of Bačkovo, 93 military saints, see warrior saints Miracle at the Tiberian Sea, 97 Modestos, St., bishop, 44, 45 n. 110 monks, holy, see u nder saints, categories of Moses, prophet, 54 Nativity of Christ, 97; in the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus (Sinai, cod. 339), 78; at Hosios David, Thes saloniki, 83; at the Martorana, Palermo, 57 Nativity of the Virgin, 47 n. 122, 56, 79, 83; in the church of the Transfiguration, Chortiatis, 83 ; and Communion of the Apostles, 56 Nestor, St., 59, 60 Nicholas of Myra, St., bishop, 35 n. 46; inscription on the scroll, 36 n. 55 Nicodemus, 53, 61 omophorion, see under bishops, costume of Onufrios, St., at the church of the Virgin Eleousa, Veljusa, 82 Orestes, St., 72 palmettes, 30 n. 4, 31 n. 10, 44 n. 108, 87, 88, 90 pantaloons (anaxyrides), see under saints, costume of Panteleimon, St., 46,47,72,73,74; arrest of the saint, 68; be heading of Hermolaos, 69; beheading of the saint on a steatite plaque from the Vatican, 70; burial of Hermo laos, Hermippos, and Hermokrates, 69; burial of the saint, 70; composition of hagiographic cycle, 71; Execu tion of St.Panteleimon, 69-70; facial features, 80, 82; hagiographic cycle, 67,68, 70; hagiographic cycle on the icon from Sinai, 70; life of, 68; miracle at the sea, 69; and the mosaic of Emperor John II Komnenos and Empress Irene, 80 - 81 ; presentation of the saint to Emperor Maximian, 68; on proskynetarion icon, 59, 66; and a saint from the church of the Transfiguration, Chortiatis, 83; sentencing of the saints friends, 69; torture on the wheel, 68-69 Pantokrator, see under Christ Parthenios of Lampsacos, St., bishop, 44-45, 45 n. 110 patens, 31, 32 Paul, St., apostle, 31, 32, 33-35 Paul of Thebes, St., 61 Peter, St., apostle, 31, 32, 33-35; in the Transfiguration, 54 phelonion, see under bishops, costume of; saints, costume of physicians, holy (anargyroi), see St. Damianos, St.John, physician, St. Kosmas, St. Kyros, St. Panteleimon, St. Sampson, saints, categories of Pietà, 53 poets, holy (hymnographers), see St.John of Damascus, St. Joseph of Sicily, St. Kosmas the Hymnographer, St. Theodore of Stoudios, St.Theophanes Graptos, saints, categories of
117 Polycarpos of Smyrna, St., bishop, 45 polystavrion, see u nder bishops, costume of Prayer at Gethsemane, 98 Presentation of Christ in the Temple, 56, 57, 60, 61, 74, 75, 78, 80, 98; and church councils, 50; colors, 52, 79; at Hosios David, Thessaloniki, 83; red shoes of the Virgin, 52; solemn character of, 49, 77; solemnity of partici pants, 50; and Threnos, 48, 50, 52, 53 Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple, 47 n. 122, 56; in the church of the Transfiguration, Chortiatis, 83 Prokopios, St., 59-60, 79 prophets, 98 pyxis, 40 Resurrection of Lazarus, 56, 98; and Entry into Jerusalem, 54-55 rinceau, 30 n. 4 Sabas of Palestine, St., 61 saints, categories of, 59; holy martyrs, 59, 60, 82; holy monks, 59, 60-61, 66; holy physicians, 45, 46-47, 58, 66, 70, 72, 73, 74; holy poets (hymnographers), 58, 59, 61-65, 74, 75; holy warriors, 59-60, 66, 80 saints, costume of: chlamys, 59 n. 196, 60, 72 n. 302; cuirass, 59 nn. 196-201, 60 n. 202; encherion, 62 (see also under bishops, costume of); epitrachellion, 62, 66 n. 254 (see also un der bishops, costume of); fibula, 59 nn. 197-98, 60, 61 n.214, 72 n.309; flaps (pteryges), 59 n. 197, n. 200, 60 n. 202; girdle, 59 nn. 197-98, n. 200; mantle (mandyas), 60, 61 n. 217; pantaloons (anaxyrides), 59 n. 197, 60 n. 202; phelonion, 62 (see also u nder bishops, costume of); scale armor, 59 n. 197; scapular, 60, 61 nn. 213, 215-17, 66 n. 254; tablion, 60 n. 208, 72 n. 302; tunic, 59 nn. 196-200, 60, 60 nn. 202, 208, 61 nn. 211, 213, 215, 216-17, 62, 66 n. 254, 72 n. 302 Sampson, St., 46, 80 scale armor, see u nder saints, costume of scapular, see under saints, costume of Simon, St., at Manastir, 35 n. 45 Spyridon, St., bishop, 44 sticharion, see u nder bishops, costume of stole, 49, 50 Symeon, priest, 48-49, 50 Symeon the Stylite, St., 71, 80, 82 tablion, see under saints, costume of Theodore of Stoudios, St., 61, 62, 63, 64, 65; text on the scroll, 62, 66 Theodore Stratelates, St., 59, 60 Theodore Teron, St., 59, 59 n. 201, 60, 80 Theophanes Graptos, St., 61, 64, 65; inscription on the scroll, 64 n. 240 Threnos, 54, 58, 61, 65, 74, 78, 79, 83; colors, 52, 79; com position, 51, 77; St.John in the Threnos, 79; and Pre sentation of Christ in the Temple, 48, 50, 52, 53; Virgin in the Threnos, 80
118 Transfiguration, 79, 82, 98; and Annunciation, 54; colors, 54, 79; and Deposition, 53, 54; at Hosios David, Thes saloniki, 83; at Hosios Loukas, Phocis, 17 Tryphon, St., 73, 80 tunic, see under saints, costume of Vikentios, St., 72-73 Viktor, St., 72-73 Virgin: in the Annunciation, 47-48, 54; in the Annuncia tion, sixteenth century, 97; in the bema, 97; in the cen tral cupola, 43; and Christ Child on proskynetarion icon, 59,66; with Christ Child, at Holy Apostles, Thes saloniki, and Panagia Phorbiotissa, Asinou, 57; with Christ Child in the bema, 30, 39, 47; with Christ Child in the bema, St. Sophia, Ohrid, 42; with Christ Child in the Presentation in the Temple, 49, 50; in the church of the Transfiguration, Chortiatis, 83; in the Deesis, 67; in the Deposition, 54, 79; Eleousa, 54; Eleousa, church of the Koimesis, Nicea, 91; at St. George, Kurbinovo, 92;
Index Hodegetria icon (Gospel Book of Melbourne, MS 710/5), 92 n. 50; as infant in the Nativity of the Virgin, 56; intercessory role, 45, 47; and the Last Judgment, 45; Orans, 45, 46, 47; at the monastery of St. Neophytos, Paphos, 93; at the Panagia Arakiotissa, Lagoudera, 92, 93; Platytera, 30; in the Presentation in the Temple, 52, 80; on proskynetaria, 91; in the prothesis, 44, 45, 46, 79; at St. Sophia, Ohrid, 91; as Theotokos in commem orative prayers, 66; in the Threnos, 51-52, 53, 79, 76, 80. See also Birth of the Virgin, Presentation of the Vir gin warrior saints, see St. Demetrios, St. George, St. Nestor, St. Orestes, St.Prokopios, St.Theodore Stratelates, St. Theodore Teron, and saints, categories of Washing of the Feet, 98; in narthexes of Hosios Loukas, Phocis, Nea Moni, Chios, Daphni, and H. Anargyroi, Kastoria, 19 Women at the Tomb of Christ, 98
Figures
Fig. I Exterior: east facade
121
Fig. II Exterior: south facade
Fig. III Exterior: south facade, central section
122
Fig. IV Exterior: south facade, detail with cross
Fig. V Exterior: north facade, meander pattern
Fig. VI Exterior: domes
123
Fig. VII Interior: east view
124
Fig. VIII Interior: west view
Fig. IX Interior: central dome
125
126
Fig. X Interior: north side
127
Fig. XI Interior: south side
Fig. XII Bema and central dome
128
Fig. XIII Bema: general view
129
Fig. XIV Bema: officiating priest
Fig. XVI Bema: apse, Communion of the Apostles
130
Fig. XV Bema: apse
131
Fig. XVII Bema: apse, Communion of the Apostles, north
Fig. XIX Bema: Communion of the Apostles, north wall
132
Fig. XVIII Bema: apse, Communion of the Apostles, south
Fig. X X Bema: apse, Hetoimasia
133
Fig. XXI North-east cupola: Emmanuel
Fig. XXII South-east cupola: Ancient of Days
134
Fig. XXIII North-west cupola: Pantokrator
Fig. XX IV North-west cupola: Pantokrator with Angels
Fig. X X V South-west cupola: Christ-Priest
135
Fig. XXVI Prothesis: general view
Fig. XXVII Prothesis: St. Modestos
Fig. XXVIII Passageway from the Prothesis into the bema: St. Spyridon
136
Fig. X X IX Diakonikon: general view
Fig. X X X Diakonikon: east wall, upper zone, unidentified bishop
137
Fig. XXXI Diakonikon, south wall, lower zone: unidentified saint
Fig. XXXII Passageway from the diakonikon into the naos, north wall: St. Damianos
Fig. XXXIII Passageway from the diakonikon into the naos, south wall: St. Kosmas
138
Fig. X X X IV Naos: east wall
Fig. X X X V Naos, east wall: archangel from the Annunciation
Fig. X XXVI Naos, east wall: the Virgin from the Annunciation
139
Fig. XXXVII Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: the Presentation
Fig. XXXVIII Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: the Presentation, Anna and the Virgin
140
Fig. X X X IX Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: the Presentation, the Virgin and Symeon
Fig. XL Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall: the Transfiguration
141
Fig. XLI Naos, south wall: the Resurrection of Lazarus
Fig. XLII Naos, west wall: the Birth and the Presentation of the Virgin
142
Fig. XLIII Hosios David, Thessaloniki: detail from the Nativity
Fig. XLIV Naos, north wall: the Entry into Jerusalem
143
Fig. X LV Naos, north arm of the cross, west wall: the Deposition
Fig. XLVI Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: the Threnos
144
Fig. XLVII Hosios David, Thessaloniki: the Baptism
Fig. XLVIII Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: the Threnos, detail
145
Fig. L Naos, east wall: Virgin and Christ-Child
Fig. XLIX Naos, east wall: St. Panteleimon
Fig. LI Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: St. Anthony, St. Paul of Thebes, St. Euthymios, St. Sabas, and an unidentified monk
146
Fig. LII Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall: St. Arsenios and unidentified monks
Fig. LIII Naos, south wall: St. George, St. Demetrios, St. N estor
Fig. LIV Naos, west wall: Holy Martyrs
147
Fig. LV Naos, north wall: St. Theodore Teron, St. Theodore Stratelates, St. Prokopios
Fig. LVI Naos, north arm of the cross, west wall: St. Makarios and unidentified monks
Fig. LVII Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St. Kosmas the Hymnographer, St. John of Damascus, St. Theodore of Stoudios, St. Theophanes Graptos, St. Joseph of Sicily
148
Fig. LVIII Narthex: interior view
Fig. LIX Narthex: main portal with inscription
Fig. LX Narthex, east wall: St. Symeon Stylite
Fig. LXI Narthex, east wall: Deesis
149
Fig. LXII Narthex: south-east corner
Fig. LXIII Narthex, south wall: St. Hermolaos, St. Hermippos, and St. Hermokrator before Maximian
Fig. LXIV Narthex, south wall: Execution of St. Hermolaos and Burial of St. Hermolaos, St. Hermippos, and St. Hermokrator
150
Fig. LXV North-west chapel, north wall: St. Mamas
Fig. LXVI North-west chapel, north wall: St. Blasios
Fig. LXVIII Iconostasis: detail of the architrave
Fig. LXVII North-west chapel, west wall: St. Mardarios
151
Fig. 1 Exterior: from north-east, c. 1900
153
Fig. 2 Exterior: from south-east, during the restoration in 1937-38
Fig. 3 Exterior: from south-west, after the restoration in 1937-38
154
Fig. 4 Exterior: south-east view, after the restoration in 1958-59
Fig. 5 Exterior: from south-west, after the restoration in 1970’s
155
Fig. 6 Exterior: east facade during the restoration in 1937-38
Fig. 7 Exterior: east facade during the restoration in 1958-59
156
Fig. 8 Exterior: north facade during the restoration in 1937-38
Fig. 9 Exterior: north facade after 1937-38 restoration
157
Fig. 10 Exterior: narthex during the restoration in 1958-59
Fig. 11 Exterior: narthex during the restoration in 1958-59
158
Fig. 12 Exterior: south-east dome, installation of the lead roof
Fig. 13 Bema, apse: Virgin, 16th century
159
Fig. 14 Bema, apse: Communion of the Apostles, Christ
Fig. 16 Bema, south wall: Communion of the Apostles
160
Fig. 15 Bema, apse: Communion of the Apostles, St. Paul
Fig. 17 Bema and prothesis during the restoration in 1958-59. St. Gregory Thaumaturge and St. John the Theologian in the bema, and St. Modestos in the prothesis
Fig. 18 Bema, north wall: St. Gregory Thaumaturge
161
Fig. 19 Bema, north wall: St. Epiphanios of Cyprus
Fig. 21 Bema, apse: St. John Chrysostom
Fig. 20 Bema, north wall: St. John the Theologian
162
Fig. 23 Bema, south wall: St. Athanasios
Fig. 22 Bema, apse: St. Basil the Great
Fig. 24 Bema, south wall: St. Gregory of Nyssa
163
Fig. 25 Bema, south wall: St. Nicholas of Myra
Fig. 26 Bema, apse: angel flanking the Hetoimasia to the north
164
Fig. 28 Prothesis, south wall, above the entrance to the bema: unidentified bishop
Fig. 27 Prothesis, east wall: the Virgin
Fig. 29 Prothesis, west wall, flanking the entrance to the naos: St. Polykarpos
Fig. 30 Prothesis, passageway from the prothesis into the naos, north wall: St. Antipas
165
Fig. 31 Diakonikon, east wall: St. John the Baptist
Fig. 32 Diakonikon, east wall: deacon flanking St. John to the north
Fig. 33 Diakonikon, west wall, above the entrance to the naos: St. Kyros
166
Fig. 35 Passageway from the diakonikon into the bema, west wall: St. Sampson
Fig. 34 Diakonikon, north wall, above the entrance to the bema, St. John
167
Fig. 36 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: the Presentation, St. Anna
Fig. 37 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: the Presentation, Virgin
168
Fig. 38 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: the Presentation, Symeon
Fig. 39 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: the Presentation, Joseph
169
Fig. 40 Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall: the Transfiguration, St. Peter
Fig. 42 Naos, south wall: the Resurrection of Lazarus, Lazarus
Fig. 41 Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall, the Transfiguration, St. John
170
Fig. 43 Naos, west wall: the Birth of the Virgin, maids
Fig. 44 Naos, north wall: the Entry into Jerusalem, group of Jews
171
Fig. 45 Naos, north arm of the cross, west wall: the Deposition, Virgin and Christ
Fig. 46 Veljusa, Church of the Virgin of Eleousa: Christ
Fig. 47 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: the Threnos, Virgin and Christ
172
Fig. 48 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: the Threnos, detail
Fig. 49 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: the Threnos, St. John
173
Fig. 50 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: St. Anthony
Fig. 51 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: St. Paul of Thebes
Fig. 52 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: St. Euthymios
174
Fig. 54 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: unidentified saint
Fig. 53 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: St. Sabas
Fig. 55 Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall: St. Arsenios
175
Fig. 56 Naos, south wall: St. George
Fig. 57 Naos, south wall: St. Demetrios
Fig. 58 Naos, south wall: St. Nestor
176
Fig. 60 Naos, north wall: St. Prokopios
Fig. 59 Naos, west wall: martyrs, north
Fig. 61 Naos, north wall: St. Theodore Stratelates
177
Fig. 62 Naos, north wall: St. Theodore Teron
Fig. 63 Naos, north wall: St. Theodore Teron, detail
178
Fig. 65 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St. Joseph of Sicily
Fig. 64 Naos, north arm of the cross, west wall: St. Makarios
Fig. 66 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St. Theophanes Graptos
179
Fig. 67 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St. Theodore of Stoudios
Fig. 68 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St. John of Damascus
Fig. 69 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St. Kosmas the Hymnographer
180
Fig. 71 North-west chapel, north wall: St. Tryphon
Fig. 70 South-west chapel, east wall: M artyr
181
Fig. 72 North-west chapel, south wall: St. Menas
Fig. 73 North-west chapel, east wall: St. Orestes
182
Fig. 74 North-west chapel, west wall: St. Viktor and St. Vikentios
Fig. 75 Roman stele
183
Fig. 76 Reconstructed iconostasis
Fig. 77 Reconstructed iconostasis, south side
184
Fig. 79 Fragment of the original panel of the iconostasis
Fig. 78 Parapet panel which belonged to the original iconostasis; photographed in 1920 Fig. 80 Fragment of the original panel of the iconostasis
Fig. 82 Iconostasis: detail of the original colonnette
Fig. 81 Fragment of the original colonnette of the iconostasis
185
Fig. 83 South proskynetarion frame, St. Panteleimon
Fig. 84 Bema, vault: Sixteenth-century Ancient of Days
186
Fig. 85 Bema, vault: Sixteenth-century Annunciation (Archangel) and Christ with Samaritan Woman
Fig. 86 Dome: Sixteenth-century Divine Liturgy, detail
187
Fig. 87 Dome: Sixteenth-century Prophet
Fig. 88 South arm of the cross, south wall: Washing of the Feet
188
Plates
Pl. 1 Plan
Pl. 2 Plan at the level of the springing point of the arches
190
Pl. 2a Plan of the domes
Pl. 2b Plan of the lead roof cover
191
Pl. 3 Longitudinal section
Pl. 3a Longitudinal section with chapels
192
Pl. 4 Transverse section
Pl. 4a Transverse section with chapels
193
Pl. 5 North-west chapel: arcosolium, section
PL 6 South-west chapel: plan and section of the pit.
194
Pl. 7 South Facade
Pl. 7a North Facade
195
Pl. 7b East Facade
Pl. 7c West facade
196
197
Pl. 8 Iconostasis
198
Pl. 8a Diagram showing distribution of paintings on the north walls
199
Pl. 8b Diagram showing distribution of paintings on the south walls
200
Pl. 9 Bema: apse
Pl. 10 Bema: north wall
201
Pl. 11 Bema: south wall
Pl. 12 North-east chapel
202
Pl. 13 North-east chapel: passageways; chapel/bema (upper); chapel/naos (lower)
Pl. 14 South-east chapel
203
Pl. 16 Naos: south arm of the cross, south wall
Pl. 15 South-east chapel: passageways; chapel/naos (upper); chapel/bema (lower)
204
Pl. 17 Naos: south arm of the cross, west wall
Pl. 18 Naos: south wall
205
Pl. 20 Naos: north wall
Pl. 19 Naos: west wall
206
Pl. 21 Naos: north arm of the cross, west wall
Pl. 22 Naos: north arm of the cross, north wall
207
Pl. 25 Narthex: south wall
Pl. 23 Narthex: north wall
208
Pl. 24 Narthex: east wall
209
Pl. 27 South-west chapel
Pl. 26 North-west chapel
Spätantike - Frühes Christentum - Byzanz Kunst im ersten Jahrtausend Reihe B: Studien und Perspektiven
Herausgegeben von Beat Brenk, Johannes G. Deckers, Arne Effenberger und Lieselotte Kötzsche
Band 1: Innovation in der Spätantike
Band 4: San Salvatore in Spoleto
Kolloquium Basel 6./7. Mai 1994
Studien zur spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Architektur Italiens
Hg. von Beat Brenk 1996.8°. 480 Seiten, ca. 200 s/w-Abb., gebunden DM 148,-(3-88226-879-4)
Von Carola Jäggi 1998. 8°. 472 Seiten, 125 Tafeln mit 183 s/w-Abb., 2 Falttafeln, gebunden,
Band 2: Sukzession und Gegenwart
Band 5: Spätantike Stifter im Heiligen Land
Zu theoretischen Äußerungen über bildende Künste und Musik von Basileios bis Hrabanus Maurus
Darstellungen und Inschriften auf Bodenmosaiken in Kirchen, Synagogen und Privathäusern Von Peter Baumann 1999. 8°. 460 Seiten, 20 Tafeln mit 48 s/w-Abb., 6 Karten, 5 Plänen, 14 Zeichungen, 5 Falttafeln, geb., D M 98,- (3-89500-103-1)
Von Pascal Weitmann 1997. 8°. 357 Seiten, 12 Tafeln mit 24 s/w-Abb., gebunden, DM 78,- (3-88226-954-5)
Band 3: Spätantike korinthische Säulen kapitelle in Rom
Band 6: The church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi
Bei S. Paolo fuori le mura, in S. Maria in Domnica und andere
Architecture, Programme, Patronage
Von Joachim Kramer 1997.8°. 178 Seiten, 63 s/w-Abb., gebunden, DM 92,(3-88226-926-X)
By Ida Sinkević 2000.4°. 228 Seiten mit 88 s/w- und 68 Farbabbildungen auf 88 Tafeln, gebunden (3-89500-129-5)
Reichert Verlag • Wiesbaden
TÜBINGER ATLAS DES VORDEREN ORIENTS (TAVO) BEIHEFTE ZUM THEMA SPÄTANTIKE
UND CHRISTLICHER ORIENT
B 12 Die antiken Synagogen in Israel Von Frowald Hüttenmeister und Gottfried Reeg 2 Bände mit zus. 774 S., 5 Karten, kartoniert, (3-920153-68-5) DM 98,-
B 41 Das christlich-koptische Ägypten in ara bischer Zeit Von Stefan Timm Teil 1 bis Teil 6 (A-Z) pro Band ca. 520 S., kartoniert
B 93 Siedlungen Palästinas in griechischrömischer Zeit: Ostjordanland, Negeb und (in Auswahl) Westjordanland Von Götz Schmitt 1995. 8°. 371 S., mit 1 Karte, kartoniert, (3-88226-820-4) DM 72,(vgl. Karte B V 18 und B V I 10)
B 100 Jerusalem. Baugeschichte der Heiligen Stadt von der Frühbronzezeit bis zum Beginn der osmanischen Herrschaft
B 49 Ein indirektes Zeugnis der Makkabäer kämpfe Von Götz Schmitt 1983. 8°. 80 S., kartoniert, (3-88226-157-9) D M 36,-
Von Klaus Bieberstein und Hanswulf Bloedhorn 1994. 8°. Drei Bde., 1249 S., 1 Karte, kartoniert, (3-88226-671-6) D M 158,-
TAVO Karten
B 51 Die Ortsnamen Israels Von Gottfried Reeg 1989. 8°. 696 Seiten, kartoniert, (3-88226-456-X) DM 120,-
B V I 1, Östlicher Mittelmeerraum und Meso potamien. Die Neuordnung des Orients in diokletianisch-konstantinischer Zeit (284 - 337 n. Chr.) 1 :4 Mio.; 8. Lfg. 1984
B 72 Studien zur Chronologie und Siedlungs archäologie des Karmel (Israel) zwischen Hellenismus und Spätantike Von Hans-Peter Kuhnen 1989. 4°. 398 S., 84 Taf. und 27 Beil., kartoniert, (3-88226-419-5) DM 328,-
B 77 The Geography of Ananias of $irak Von Robert H. Hewsen 1992. 4°. XII, 467 S., mit 27 Karten, kartoniert, (3-88226-485-3) DM 252,-
B 80 Die Diadochenzeit im Spiegel der Histo rischen Geographie. “Diadochenreiche um 303 v. Chr.”
B V I 2, Östlicher Mittelmeerraum. Das Christentum bis zum Konzil von Nikaia (325 n. Chr.), 1 :4 Mio.; 8. Lfg. 1984
B V I 4, Östlicher Mittelmeerraum und Meso potamien. Spätrömische Zeit (337-527 n. Chr.), 1 : 4 Mio.; 9. Lfg. 1984
B V I 8, Kleinasien. Das Byzantinische Reich (7. - 9. Jh. n. Chr.), 1 :2 Mio.; 16. Lfg. 1988
B V I 12, Kleinasien. Kirchliche Organisation des Byzantinischen Reiches (4. - 15. Jh. n. Chr.), 1 : 2 Mio.; 18. Lfg. 1989
B V I 14, Armenien und Georgien. Christen tum und Territorialentwicklung vom 4. bis zum 7. Jahrhundert
Von Wolfgang Orth 1993. 8°. XII, 174 S., kartoniert (3-88226-581-7) DM 60,-
1 : 2 Mio.; 15. Lfg. 1987
B 88 Jewish Settlement in Palestine 634-1882 By Alex Carmel, Peter Schäfer and Yossi Ben-Artzi 1990.8°. 184 S., kartoniert (3-88226-479-9) D M 58,-
B V II 18, Kleinasien. Die Erweiterung des Byzantinischen Reiches im 10. und 11. Jahr hundert 1 : 4 Mio.; 17. Lfg. 1988
Reichert Verlag • Wiesbaden
