Architecture and Ritual in the Churches of Constantinople: Ninth to Fifteenth Centuries 1107040167, 9781107040168

Table of contents :
List of Illustrations ix
Acknowledgments xv
Map of Churches xvii
INTRODUCTION 1
1. LITURGICAL RITUAL: THE SHAPE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE BYZANTINE RITE 10
2. THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON 25
3. THE NAOS 49
4. THE NARTHEX AND THE EXONARTHEX 64
5. SUBSIDIARY SPACES: CHAPELS, OUTER AMBULATORIES, OUTER AISLES, CRYPTS, ATRIA, AND RELATED SPACES 77
6. NONLITURGICAL USE OF CHURCHES 100
CONCLUSION 114
Appendix: Catalogue of Churches 119
Glossary of Terms 209
Bibliography 211
Index 235

Citation preview

ARCHITECTURE AND RITUAL IN THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

This book examines the interchange of architecture and ritual in the Middle and Late Byzantine churches of Constantinople (ninth to ifteenth centuries). It employs archaeological and archival data, hagiographic and historical sources, liturgical texts and commentaries, and monastic typika and testaments to integrate the architecture of the Medieval churches of Constantinople with liturgical and extraliturgical practices and their continuously evolving social and cultural context. The book argues against the approach that has dominated Byzantine studies: that of functional determinism, the view that architectural form always follows liturgical function. Instead, proceeding chapter by chapter through the spaces of the Byzantine church, it investigates how architecture responded to the exigencies of the rituals and how church spaces eventually acquired new uses. The church building is described in the context of the culture and people whose needs it was continually adapted to serve. Rather than viewing churches as frozen in time (usually the time when the last brick was laid), this study argues that they were social constructs and so were never inished, but they were continually evolving. Vasileios Marinis is assistant professor of Christian art and architecture at the Institute of Sacred Music and the Divinity School, Yale University. Marinis has been the recipient of numerous grants and fellowships, including the Aidan Kavanagh Prize for Outstanding Scholarship at Yale; a Junior Fellowship at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, D.C.; the S. C. and P. C. Coleman Senior Fellowship at the Metropolitan Museum of Art; and a membership at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He has published on a variety of topics, ranging from Early Christian tunics decorated with New Testament scenes to Medieval tombs and Byzantine transvestite nuns. Before coming to Yale he was the irst holder of the Kallinikeion Chair of Byzantine Art at Queens College, CUNY.

ARCHITECTURE AND RITUAL IN THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE NINTH TO FIFTEENTH CENTURIES VASILEIOS MARINIS The Institute of Sacred Music, Yale University

32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473, USA Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107040168 © Vasileios Marinis 2014 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2014 Printed in the United States of America A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Marinis,Vasileios, 1975– Architecture and ritual in the churches of Constantinople: ninth to ifteenth centuries / Vasileios Marinis, Assistant Professor of Christian Art and Architecture, The Institute of Sacred Music,Yale University. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-107-04016-8 (hardback) 1. Architecture and society – Turkey – Istanbul – History – To 1500. 2. Liturgy and architecture – Turkey – Istanbul – History – To 1500. 3. Church architecture – Turkey – Istanbul – History – To 1500. 4. Architecture, Byzantine – Turkey – Istanbul. 5. Rites and ceremonies – Byzantine Empire. 6. Istanbul (Turkey) – Buildings, structures, etc. I. Title. NA 2543.S 6M 359 2013 726.5094961 – dc23 2013027342 ISBN

978-1-107-04016-8 Hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URL s for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Publication of this book has been aided by a grant from the Yale Institute of Sacred Music and with the assistance of The Frederick W. Hilles Publication Fund at Yale University.

For Örgü

From these predecessors I learned that the right to heap immoderate lyrical praise on Istanbul’s beauties belongs only to those who no longer live there, and not without some guilt: for the writer who talks of the city’s ruins and melancholy is never unaware of the ghostly light that shines down on his life. Pamuk 2006: 57

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations

page ix

Acknowledgments

xv

Map of Churches

xvii

INTRODUCTION 1

1

LITURGICAL RITUAL: THE SHAPE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE BYZANTINE RITE

10

2

THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON

25

3

THE NAOS

49

4

THE NARTHEX AND THE EXONARTHEX

64

5

SUBSIDIARY SPACES: CHAPELS, OUTER AMBULATORIES, OUTER AISLES, CRYPTS, ATRIA, AND RELATED SPACES

77

6

NONLITURGICAL USE OF CHURCHES

100

CONCLUSION

114

Appendix: Catalogue of Churches

119

Glossary of Terms

209

Bibliography

211

Index

235

vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1 Hagia Sophia, plan 2 Hagia Sophia, interior looking east 3 Distribution of monastic foundations in Constantinople, 330–550 4 Distribution of monastic foundations in Constantinople, 800–1204 5 Angels vested as clergy participating in the Great Entrance, Church of the Peribleptos, Mystras 6 Tokalı Kilise, Cappadocia 7 Theotokos Skripou, Orchomenos 8 Pantokrator monastery, reconstruction of the templon of south church 9 Katholikon of Hosios Loukas monastery, interior looking east 10 Fatih Camii, Trilye, plan 11 Theotokos Kamariotissa, Heybeliada, plan 12 Katholikon of Hosios Loukas, narthex, Christ washing the feet of the Apostles 13 Frontispiece to the Hamilton Psalter 14 Chora, narthex, Deisis with Isaac Komnenos (left) and Maria Palaiologina (right) 15 Monks in church, Cod. Sin. gr. 418, fol. 269r

I Hagios Andreas

EN TE KRISEI

page 12 13 17 18 22 38 39 42 44 51 53 72 102 103 107

(Koca Mustafa Paş a Cami˙˙i )

I-1 Hagios Andreas en te Krisei (Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii), hypothetical reconstruction of the original plan I-2 South façade I-3 Interior of the naos looking east I-4 View from the naos looking northwest I-5 Interior of the narthex looking south

120 121 121 122 122

II Ati˙ k Mustafa Paş a Cami˙˙i II-1 Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii, hypothetical reconstruction of the original plan II-2 Longitudinal section II-3 View from the southeast II-4 View from the naos toward the bema II-5 The southwest upper room

124 124 125 125 126 ix

x

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

III Ayakapi Church III-1 Ayakapı Church, plan III-2 View from the northeast

127 127

IV Beyazit Church D IV-1 Beyazıt Church D, hypothetical reconstruction of the original plan

128

V Boğ dan Saray i V-1 Boğdan Sarayı, plan V-2 View from the northeast

130 130

VI Christos tes Choras (Kari˙ ye M ü zesi˙ ) VI-1 VI-2 VI-3 VI-4 VI-5 VI-6 VI-7 VI-8 VI-9

Christos tes Choras (Kariye Müzesi), plan of the current state View from the west Interior of the main church looking east View of the main apse loor during excavations Interior of the narthex looking south Interior of the funerary chapel looking east The tomb of Michael Tornikes in the funerary chapel Southern apsidal room looking north Ground loor of the north annex looking east

133 134 134 135 135 136 136 137 137

VII Christos Pantepoptes (Eski˙ ˙i maret Cami˙˙i ) VII-1 Christos Pantepoptes (Eski Im - aret Camii), hypothetical VII-2 VII-3 VII-4 VII-5 VII-6 VII-7

reconstruction of the ground plan during the Late Byzantine period Hypothetical reconstruction of the plan at gallery level View from the southeast Interior looking west Interior of the narthex looking north Interior of the gallery looking south View toward the naos from the southern room of the gallery

139 140 140 141 141 142 142

VIII Christos Pantokrator (Zeyrek Cami˙˙i ) VIII-1 VIII-2 VIII-3 VIII-4 VIII-5 VIII-6 VIII-7 VIII-8 VIII-9 VIII-10 VIII-11

Christos Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii), plan View of the complex from the east South church, interior looking east Remains of the synthronon in the apse of the south church South church diakonikon, marble shelves South church, remains of the south exterior aisle South church, interior looking west Outer narthex of the south church looking north North church, interior looking west North church, narthex gallery looking north Chapel of Saint Michael, interior looking west

144 145 145 146 147 147 148 148 149 149 150

xi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

IX Emi˙ nönü Church IX-1 Eminönü Church, plan IX-2 View of the main apse

X Hagios Georgios

151 151

TON MANGANON

X-1 Hagios Georgios ton Manganon, plan

153

XI G ül Cami˙˙i XI-1 Gül Camii, hypothetical reconstruction of the plan at ground-loor level XI-2 Hypothetical reconstruction of the plan at gallery level XI-3 View from the northeast XI-4 Interior looking east XI-5 Interior looking north XI-6 Prothesis XI-7 South gallery from the west

XII Hagios Ioannes

EN TO TROULLO

155 155 156 156 157 157 158

(H i rami˙ Ahmet Paş a Cami˙˙i )

XII-1 Hagios Ioannes en to Troullo (Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii), reconstruction of the original plan XII-2 View from the southeast XII-3 Interior looking east XII-4 Interior looking north XII-5 Diakonikon

159 160 160 161 161

XIII ˙i sa Kapi Mesci˙ di˙ XIII-1 ˙Isa Kapı Mescidi, plan XIII-2 View of the bema from the west

162 163

XIV Kalenderhane Cami˙˙i XIV-1 XIV-2 XIV-3 XIV-4 XIV-5

Kalenderhane Camii, plan View from the south Interior looking south Interior looking northeast Melismos chapel

164 165 165 166 166

XV Kefeli˙ Mesci˙ di˙ XV-1 Kefeli Mescidi, plan XV-2 View from the northeast XV-3 Interior looking north

168 168 169

XVI Manasti r Mesci˙ di˙ XVI-1 Manastır Mescidi, hypothetical reconstruction of the original plan XVI-2 View from the southeast XVI-3 Interior looking east XVI-4 Interior of the narthex looking north

170 170 171 171

xii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XVII Myrelaion (Bodrum Cami˙˙i ) XVII-1 Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii), plan of the church (reconstruction) and substructure XVII-2 View from the northwest XVII-3 Interior looking east XVII-4 Vaulting of the diakonikon XVII-5 Interior of the substructure looking west

172 173 173 174 174

XVIII Odalar Cami˙˙i XVIII-1 Odalar Camii, reconstructed plan of the irst church XVIII-2 Reconstructed plan of the second church XVIII-3 Plan of the crypt

176 176 176

XIX Sekbanbaş i Mesci˙ di˙ XIX-1 Sekbanbaşı Mescidi, hypothetical reconstruction of the plan XIX-2 View from the east

178 178

XX Si˙ nan Paş a Mesci˙ di˙ XX-1 Sinan Paşa Mescidi, view from the north XX-2 View of the apse

179 180

XXI Si˙ rkeci˙ Church XXI-1 Sirkeci Church, plan XXI-2 View of the site

181 181

XXII Ş eyh Murat Mesci˙ di˙ XXII-1 Ş eyh Murat Mescidi, south façade

182

XXIII Theotokos TOU LIBOS and Hagios Ioannes Prodromos (Fenar˙i ˙i sa Cami˙˙i )

TOU LIBOS

XXIII-1 Monastery tou Libos (Fenari I˙sa Camii), ground plan of the complex XXIII-2 Ground plan of the north church, reconstruction XXIII-3 North façade of the north church, reconstruction XXIII-4 Ground plan of the complex, reconstruction XXIII-5 Plan of the complex at gallery level, reconstruction XXIII-6 View of the complex from the northeast XXIII-7 North church, part of the dedicatory inscription XXIII-8 Main apse of the north church XXIII-9 North church, vaulting of the prothesis XXIII-10 North church, interior looking north XXIII-11 Southeast roof chapel looking east XXIII-12 Southwest roof chapel, apse XXIII-13 South church, interior looking east XXIII-14 West arm of the outer ambulatory looking north

184 185 185 186 186 187 187 188 188 189 189 190 190 191

xiii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XXIV Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethi˙ ye Cami˙˙i ) XXIV-1 Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii), plan (reconstruction) XXIV-2 General view of the complex from the southwest XXIV-3 Interior of the main church looking west XXIV-4 Northern arm of the outer ambulatory looking east XXIV-5 Northern arm of the outer ambulatory, niche with shelves at the north wall of the easternmost bay XXIV-6 Interior of the funerary chapel, view toward the dome XXIV-7 Interior of the funerary chapel looking north XXIV-8 Funerary chapel, Deisis in the main apse XXIV-9 Funerary chapel, gallery above narthex looking south

193 194 194 195 195 196 197 198 198

XXV Theotokos Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa XXV-1 Theotokos Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa, plan (reconstruction) XXV-2 View from the east XXV-3 Interior looking north

199 200 200

XXVI Theotokos Peribleptos XXVI-1 Theotokos Peribleptos, plan of the substructures

202

XXVII Toklu Dede Mesci˙ di˙ XXVII-1 Toklu Dede Mescidi, reconstructed plan XXVII-2 South wall and apse

203 203

XXVIII Vefa Ki˙ li˙ se Cami˙˙i XXVIII-1 XXVIII-2 XXVIII-3 XXVIII-4 XXVIII-5 XXVIII-6

Vefa Kilise Camii, plan View from the east View from the south View from the north (base of the belfry tower) Interior looking east Exonarthex, interior looking south

204 205 206 206 207 207

XXIX Yeni˙ kapi Church XXIX-1 Yenikapı Church, view from the northeast

208

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

At the end of this arduous journey it is one of the most gratifying of pleasures to look back and acknowledge those who lent a helping hand along the way. I have beneited from the expertise of several colleagues: Alice-Mary Talbot, Helen C. Evans, Georgi R. Parpulov, Kostis Kourelis, Ayça Tiryaki, Özgü Çömezoğlu, Viktoria Kepetzi, Sarah T. Brooks, Günder Varinlioğlu, Matthew Savage, Deb Brown, Marina Mihaljević, Ludmila Gordon, Sonja Anderson, Brandon Olson, Nina Glibetić, and Robert Nelson. Stefanos Alexopoulos and Gabriel Radle saved me from many errors in the irst chapter. I beneited tremendously from the advice of Linda Safran, who was involved in this project from its inceṕ čić read the inal manuscript and ofered many crucial sugtion. Slobodan Cur gestions. Stavros Mamaloukos shared liberally his contagious enthusiasm for Byzantine architecture. I am indebted to him, as well as to Christina Pinatsi, for the drawings that accompany the Appendix. Joel Kalvesmaki taught me the importance of clarity. Every single discussion, academic or otherwise, I have had with Emmanuel Bourbouhakis has been illuminating; indeed, it was through these that I crystallized my main arguments. Robert Ousterhout made me fall in love with Istanbul – a perilous inheritance for sure, but most rewarding. This book would have been very poor without his mentorship and generosity. This project would not have been completed in a timely manner had it not been for the delights and comforts of working at Yale. Christopher Beeley, Chloë Faith Starr, Peter Hawkins, Thomas Troeger, Teresa Berger, Stephen Davis, and Markus Rathey ofered sound advice, good cheer, and fruitful conversations. I am particularly indebted to Martin Jean, who has been an enthusiastic supporter of my research for many years and on many levels. Sally Promey, my formidable faculty mentor, ofered unwavering guidance through this and many other academic endeavors. I owe whatever I know about liturgy to my continuing apprenticeship with Bryan Spinks, and I do hope that he inds this book to his liking. The capable staf at Sterling Memorial Library and the Divinity School Library always dealt with my requests – some admittedly extravagant – in a timely and eicient manner. The ISM staf, particularly Andrea Hart and Jacqueline Campoli, took care of many practical issues. Meg Bernstein and Erik Yingling, my research assistants, helped considerably in the last stages of this project. xv

xvi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Research and ieldwork for the project were generously funded by Dumbarton Oaks, the Pontiical Institute of Mediaeval Studies in Toronto, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Institute of Sacred Music at Yale. I completed most of the writing while I was a member at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, where I beneited from exchanges with Yve-Alain Bois, Angelos Chaniotis, and Irving Lavin. During that year and subsequently I often took advantage of Ioannis Mylonopoulos’s acute intellect and encyclopedic knowledge of Classical antiquity. For permission to reproduce photographs I thank Thomas F. Mathews, Catherine Jolivet-Lévy, Scott F. Johnson, and Ferudun Özgümüş, as well as the staf at the Dumbarton Oaks Image Collection and Fieldwork Archives, at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, and at the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Istanbul. Finally, I thank my extended family in Greece and Turkey for their continuous enthusiasm and support. I am especially grateful to Eugenia Marini for her uncompromising love, and to Kadriye Dalgıç for many brilliant moments of respite. Daphne arrived after the completion of the manuscript but made everything much more delightful. This book is for Örgü, my lovely and beautiful companion. V. M.

Map of Churches. I. Hagios Andreas en te Krisei (Koca Mustafa Pasça Camii); II. Atik Mustafa Pasça Camii; III. Ayakapı Church; IV. Beyazıt Church D; V. Bog6dan Sarayı; VI. Christos tes Choras (Kariye Müzesi); VII. Christos Pantepoptes (Eski I-maret Camii); VIII. Christos Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii); IX. Eminönü Church; X. Hagios Georgios ton Manganon; XI. Gül Camii; XII. Hagios Ioannes en to Troullo (Hırami Ahmet Pasça Camii); XIII. I-sa Kapı Mescidi; XIV. Kalenderhane Camii; XV. Kefeli Mescidi; XVI. Manastır Mescidi; XVII. Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii); XVIII. Odalar Camii; XIX. Sekbanbasçı Mescidi; XX. Sinan Pasça Mescidi; XXI. Sirkeci Church; XXII. Sçeyh Murat Mescidi; XXIII. Theotokos tou Libos and Hagios Ioannes Prodromos tou Libos (Fenari I-sa Camii); XXIV. Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii); XXV. Theotokos Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa; XXVI. Theotokos Peribleptos; XXVII. Toklu Dede Mescidi; XXVIII. Vefa Kilise Camii; XXIX. Yenikapı Church.

xvii

INTRODUCTION

This book examines the interchange of architecture and ritual in the Middle and Late Byzantine churches of Constantinople, those dating between the ninth and ifteenth centuries. I begin with the obvious and perhaps for that reason often misconstrued premise that because churches were constructed primarily to house ecclesiastical services, knowledge of the latter is essential to any interpretation of the former. The organizational layout of the parts that composed a church corresponded on a basic level to the requirements of the oicial rituals they housed. That said, the exact nature of the relationship of architecture and liturgy is surprisingly diicult to pin down. Both buildings and rites transformed over time, as did the interchange between them. Thus, throughout the book I argue against the approach that has dominated the study of Byzantine church architecture, namely, that of functional determinism – the view that “form follows function,” that architectural form necessarily follows the shape of the liturgy. Proceeding chapter by chapter through the interior spaces of the Byzantine church, I investigate how and why spaces were used. In doing so, I concentrate on the diferent ways architecture responded to the exigencies of liturgical rituals, but I am also concerned with how some parts of the church functioned apart from the liturgy, occasionally acquiring new or diferent uses. Architectural forms, along with evolutions in their use, were sometimes based on developments in the Byzantine rite and sometimes not. Many factors might have contributed to the form of the buildings as seen today: the symbolic 1

2

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

interpretation and signiicance of a space, the agenda and desires of founders and patrons, and the needs of the community that used the church, not to mention practicalities such as budget, availability of materials, or workshop practices.Thus, rather than viewing church buildings as static structures, frozen in time by the laying of last brick or tessera, I argue that Byzantine churches were material as well as open-ended social constructs and so were never inished, but they were continually in the process of becoming. This is apparent not only in the written sources but also in the material evidence: interior spaces were rearranged, their symbolism and importance changed, chapels and ambulatories were added. Within that changing framework, the most fundamental way for a church to “become” remained the rituals, both liturgical and nonliturgical, that developed in its spaces. The thirty-odd surviving Medieval churches in Istanbul are the foundation of these inquiries.1 They constitute the material context and, frequently, stand as an expression of the rituals they housed. Although earlier buildings continued to function throughout the Byzantine period, I focus almost exclusively on churches constructed after the ninth century, because they best embodied contemporary ritual and relected architectural developments. I refer to preninth-century foundations only for the sake of contrast and comparison, with the exception of Hagia Sophia (Figs. 1, 2).The Great Church stood at the center of the ritual life of the city throughout its history, and both its architectural presence and its recorded rites are essential components of my study. When considering the hundreds of new foundations in Constantinople known from the sources in the Middle (843–1261) and Late Byzantine periods (1261–1453), the present sample may seem limited. Yet the variety in dates of construction, types, sizes, interior arrangements, and functions does permit some generalized, albeit cautious, conclusions. Nevertheless, the material evidence remains problematic. The buildings have survived in various states of preservation. Many are still standing, but others have become piteous ruins or have completely disappeared and are known to us primarily through the work of pioneer scholars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.2 Virtually no building has remained in a state that would have been recognizable in the Byzantine period. They now stand irremediably altered and out of context, odd presences in the sprawling megalopolis of present-day Istanbul, devoid of their original architectural and natural settings. After the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the vast majority of the churches were gradually turned into mosques at some point or another. Because Muslim worship required an interrupted uniied space, the interior arrangements were altered 1

2

I restrict myself to the buildings surviving in the historical peninsula because they constitute a closed sample. However, I employ as parallels foundations in nearby areas. See, for example, Boğdan Sarayı (V), Hagios Georgios ton Manganon (X), and Şeyh Murat Mescidi (XXII).

INTRODUCTION

dramatically, often by the removal of columns or additions of galleries and enclosed spaces for women.3 Domes and roofs have been replaced and rebuilt, auxiliary spaces have been removed or added, windows and doors have been blocked and new ones opened. With precious few exceptions, the painted, mosaic, and sculptural programs, which did not simply adorn but invested the interior of Byzantine churches with meaning, have been obliterated.The interior furnishings, such as altars and templon barriers, were long ago dismantled. Both the continuous use and neglect of historic buildings have taken a heavy toll.That many churches still lack a secure identiication and date of construction may be attributed, in part, to these accumulated factors. However, the situation is not as disheartening as it might at irst seem. Even though most foundations have disappeared, for many there exists enough physical and written information to reconstruct both spaces and rituals, if not in their entirety then at least in certain noteworthy aspects.4 The profusion and diversity of textual sources set Constantinople apart from any other region in the empire and amply compensate for the loss of artistic and architectural evidence. Furthermore, since the inception of Byzantine studies in the nineteenth century, Constantinople has rightly been considered both an originator and a broker of innovations and styles. Because so much seemed at stake, the city’s monuments became the focus of considerable scholarly attention. As a result, more than a century and a half of research has resulted in a more or less accepted view of how the city’s ecclesiastical architecture developed. Throughout the previous century and continuing today, ieldwork projects have signiicantly extended our knowledge both in the details and in general issues. Ongoing discoveries from excavations and surveys in Istanbul are adding to the data, at once broadening and reining our understanding of urban and architectural trends.5 Some of the major buildings, such as the monastery of Chora (VI) and Kalenderhane Camii (XIV), have been the subjects of exemplary and exhaustive monographs.6 The intense interest of modern scholarship in the city continues unabated, as the footnotes of this book testify. Ritual constitutes the second component of this study. By ritual I mean primarily liturgical ceremony, a series of codiied services that composed the Byzantine rite. The most important of these services was the Divine Liturgy – the Eucharist – which was performed with great frequency in both secular and monastic churches throughout the year. It is for this reason that most of 3

4

5 6

The alterations in the interior of both churches in the monastery tou Libos (XXIII) typify this process. See, for example, the monasteries tou Libos (XXIII) and Pantokrator (VIII). Although the monastery of Evergetis does not survive, its foundation and liturgical typika provide suficient evidence for the general reconstruction of the physical spaces and a fairly detailed understanding of the daily ecclesiastical rituals. See, for example, Özgümüş 2000; 2004; Karamani Pekin 2007. Ousterhout 1987; Striker and Kuban 1997–2007.

3

4

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

my discussion focuses on the Divine Liturgy. However, the Byzantine rite also included a variety of regular services, such as the Hours, and special ones, such as ordination, tonsure, and burial. I refer to those whenever I consider them important for the interpretation of a space’s usage. The liturgical services were the primary, but not sole, function of a Byzantine church. Because buildings were part of a social and cultural nexus, the rituals that took place in them could not always be conined in prescribed rubrics. Therefore, I include in my discussion various nonliturgical activities that occurred in Byzantine churches, pertaining typically, but not exclusively, to popular piety. Given that we can no longer observe the Byzantine ritual in its Medieval form, I rely most often on texts for its reconstruction. Liturgical sources pertaining to the Constantinopolitan liturgy are abundant. A large number of the surviving euchologia, the prayer books used by clergy, belong to the rite of Constantinople. For some periods we know the structure of liturgical rituals in great detail. The tenth-century Typikon of the Great Church describes the services for each day of the year, along with the cycle of immovable feasts.The eleventh-century Synaxarion of Evergetis details the liturgical rituals, hymns, prayers, and processions of this monastic community throughout the year. Commentaries such as the eleventh-century Protheoria and the treatises of Symeon, archbishop of Thessalonike (d. 1429), explicate the symbolism of the liturgical actions and, occasionally, of the church building. Monastic founders’ typika and testaments provide invaluable information about everyday life, both liturgical and practical; they also inform us about diferent commemorative rites, an issue of great concern throughout the period. The liturgical sources are nicely complemented by the astounding wealth of other textual sources on Constantinople.The city, its monuments, and its rituals were of great interest to Byzantine and foreign authors. In addition, historical and hagiographic sources, homilies and ekphraseis, canon law, as well as pilgrims’ and visitors’ accounts, assist us in integrating ecclesiastical architecture with liturgical and extraliturgical practices and charting their continuously evolving social and cultural context. Such texts provide a host of explicit and incidental, but always essential, references to buildings and rituals. Often such references take us to the realm of actual, everyday practice, even if the latter is projected through a context in which the liturgical praxis itself is of lesser importance. The amplitude of textual evidence relating to the Byzantine rite does not provide facile answers. I consider many of the speciic issues – monastic versus episcopal practice, Constantinopolitan versus Hagiopolite tradition – in Chapter 1. The rite has always been a living, continuously evolving tradition. The indispensable work of such scholars as Miguel Arranz, Juan Mateos, and Robert Taft has outlined developments and clariied details.Yet much remains to be done, both in terms of editions of liturgical texts and in terms of interpreting the results in the context of Byzantine culture at large.

INTRODUCTION

An important problem concerns the nature of directives in liturgical texts. The vast majority of euchologia contain nominal rubrics, consisting usually of the title of the prayer and when it was to be said, but not exactly where. Liturgical typika give the order of services, the lections for each day, as well as the list of hymns and prayers, but provide only the most basic spatial information. Liturgical commentaries are concerned mostly with the explication of the ritual and interpret a church part only occasionally, in most cases without indicating its speciic form. Only in the twelfth century do we get more complete “choreographies” in the diataxeis, books of rubrics for the clergy.7 All in all, the building itself is tantalizingly absent from texts associated with rituals practiced in it. In investigating architecture and ritual in Middle and Late Byzantine Constantinople, one faces two kinds of evidence. On the one hand, there are the standing buildings, all very much altered, having lost their original appearance, decoration, and interior furnishings.A few other foundations now destroyed are known suiciently from sources. On the other, there is a plethora of textual information pertaining to rituals and functions, from collections of rubrics and prayers to descriptions of liturgical and nonliturgical practices drawn from hagiography, histories, travel accounts, and other Byzantine texts. This book attempts to wed for the irst time these two kinds of evidence together in a coherent and comprehensive account. For the particulars of this synthesis I rely on a combination and retooling of earlier approaches. In a seminal article published in 1991, Cyril Mango identiies four methodologies used in the study of Byzantine architecture: typological, in which buildings are classiied according to type, elevation, masonry technique, and so on; symbolic, which, according to Mango, has limited usefulness as it is rarely concerned with actual forms; functional, which interprets architectural form as a response to the rituals it housed; and socioeconomic, which places architecture in the context of general historical developments.8 In this book I am concerned primarily with function, but I arrive at my conclusions by engaging the other categories as well.The typological approach has dominated the scholarship on the Medieval churches of Constantinople due in large part to the city’s assumed role as a center of architectural innovation and prestige.9 Despite Mango’s rather dismissive assessment, typology prompts close attention to forms and, by extension, to documentation and to relationships with other areas of the empire. I employ typology, or rather its results, in order to make broader arguments about function. For example, the predominance of medium-sized churches with uniied naoi in the Middle Byzantine 7

8 9

There is evidence, however, that diataxeis might have existed as early as the tenth century; see Taft 1978: xxxv-xxxviii. Mango 1991. See also Johnson et al. 2012: 12–15. See, most characteristically, Toivanen 2007.

5

6

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

period points to a ritual that was largely self-contained and practiced by small congregations. Symbolism explains little about the speciics of architecture, yet the symbolic interpretation of church spaces greatly afected their function. From very early on the church building was associated with, compared to, and contrasted to the Jerusalem Temple; it also adopted the Temple’s horizontal gradation of spatial holiness, which progressed from the outside courts to the Holy of Holies.10 As I will argue in Chapter 4, the narthex as a symbol for earth accounts for its multitude of uses, including as a place for penitents and site of burials – in contrast to the holier naos, which symbolized heaven, and the holiest bema, which stood for the supercelestial realm. Mango himself utilized the historical approach with great success. For example, he connected the popularity of the cross-in-square type with the increase of monasteries inside the city after the ninth century.11 The medium size of the surviving buildings, in comparison with earlier churches, and the lack of internal divisions corresponded to the needs of contemporary monastic communities, which in this period were fairly small and restricted to one gender. I would take Mango’s argument further and claim that such considerations applied not only to the cross-in-square type but also to a large number of Medieval foundations that had a uniied naos. Thomas Mathews’s fundamental study on the early churches of Constantinople best exempliies the functional approach.12 Using archaeological, liturgical, and historical sources, Mathews argued that the architectural features of Constantinople’s early churches (fourth to sixth centuries) were to a great extent determined by the form of the pre-seventh-century Byzantine rite in the city. Although Mathews never explicitly took the position that “form follows function,” this axiom was implied in his methodology and conclusions. For example, the strong horizontal axes of the basilica, the most common building type at that time, suited both the processional character of the liturgy and the collective assembly of the congregation that witnessed it. The large atrium, a standard feature in early Constantinopolitan churches, provided a place for people to gather while awaiting the arrival of the solemn procession that occasionally began far away. Mathews’s conclusions were widely accepted with very few exceptions, and his methodology, or parts thereof, was applied in other geographical regions and in later periods of Byzantine architecture. Scholars have periodically employed the functional approach, in whole or in part, to study the Medieval churches of Constantinople. They have often concentrated on a speciic part of the building, usually the sanctuary. Often 10

11 12

Wilkinson 1982; Branham 1992; Ousterhout 2010a. The association between Temple and church building continued throughout the Byzantine centuries; see, for example, the comments of Symeon of Thessalonike in PG 155: 644–645. Mango 1976a: 96–98. Mathews 1971.

INTRODUCTION

the liturgical texts played a nominal role in these analyses, and developments in other regions of the empire were used to explain Constantinopolitan practice. For example, the arrangement of the tripartite bema in Middle Byzantine churches of Cappadocia, where the side apses did not communicate with the central one and appear to have been independent chapels, was used as an argument for an identical function of these spaces in Constantinople. Making such connections requires signiicant leaps of scholarly faith. Even beyond the basic premise that masonry buildings in the capital may be compared with rock-cut churches in a distant province, the side rooms in Constantinople did communicate with the main apse – their physical form and evidence for function difer. Furthermore, liturgical rubrics for Constantinople, which assume that the north room was used for the prothesis, the preparation of the Eucharistic elements, nowhere say that it functioned as a chapel (for a complete discussion of these issues, see Chapter 2). Thus, it is imperative to approach both the material and textual evidence with caution. Nowadays, it is unfashionable to speak about architectural “schools” in the way Gabriel Millet understood workshop production at the beginning of the twentieth century.13 Yet no one can reasonably deny that the diferent regions of the empire developed distinct architectural styles, as recent scholarship has conirmed.14 The fundamental work of Taft, Stefano Parenti, and others has proved beyond doubt that liturgical developments were similarly localized. Thus, just because something happened in Cappadocia or Southern Italy does not automatically mean that the same thing occurred in Constantinople. I am not implying that in its architecture and liturgy the empire was an agglomeration of island cultures that had nothing to do with one another. Ideas and practices traveled, as evidenced in the discussion of the development of the Byzantine rite in Chapter 1. Indeed, I occasionally employ parallels from outside Constantinople, but only when there is evidence to suggest that something similar occurred in the city. But I proceed with caution, and I resist the uncritical application of parallels from diferent times and disparate regions. Liturgical ritual was to a large extent responsible for the general layout of a Byzantine church.Yet if we consider the totality of usages, ritual cannot always provide suicient reasons, either for the function of some spaces or even for the motives for their existence. For example, how do we explain the appearance of the galleries above the narthex? Some liturgical activity certainly took place there, but nothing that would make these galleries an essential part of a church. More likely they were places of honor where the imperial party or an aristocratic founder attended services and thus were not necessary elements in all churches. Subsidiary chapels are an even more telling case. Many conform 13 14

See Millet 1916. Ćurčic´ 2010.

7

8

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

to essential liturgical requirements, having a space for the clergy separated by a chancel barrier and a small area for the congregation. Yet, as I argue in Chapter 5, they did not meet any more speciic liturgical need. Rather, their construction was due in some cases to Byzantine concepts of a saint’s role in a person’s salvation, in others to the desire for an appropriate burial structure adjacent to a church, where the souls of the deceased would beneit from continuous prayers by the congregation. In other words, how a church space was used could vary widely and did not always depend exclusively on liturgical ritual. A formalist interpretation that neatly matches the exigencies of the ritual to the form of the architecture, as in the early Byzantine period, has limited application after the ninth century. I note this point tangentially throughout the book and develop it explicitly in the Conclusion. Suice it to say that there is only an approximate correspondence between form and function. After the ninth century, churches in Constantinople comprised a sanctuary for the clergy, a naos for the congregants, and a narthex, a liminal space between the outside world and the church. This basic layout came in a variety of sizes, shapes, and interior conigurations. A comparison between two roughly contemporary buildings, Toklu Dede Mescidi (XXVII), a small single-nave church, and Gül Camii (XI), a fairly large cross-domed church, clearly underscores this point. There were many reasons that might afect the inal form and appearance of a church.Yet such variety was possible because of the malleability and adaptability of the Byzantine rite, which could be celebrated without any impact on its eicacy, albeit without the same solemnity, in spaces small or large, in chapels as well as in sizable monastic churches. The following study is divided into six chapters.The irst surveys the development of the Byzantine rite between the ninth and ifteenth centuries in order to provide the context for the ensuing discussion. The second chapter investigates the bema, the locus of most liturgical activity, and the templon, the barrier that separated it from the rest of the church. I connect the emergence of the tripartite sanctuary after the ninth century with signiicant changes in the character of the Byzantine liturgy, namely, the abandonment of outdoor processions, the predominance of monastic foundations, and the development of a complex preparatory service for the Eucharistic elements, known as the prothesis rite. In Chapter 3 I examine the naos, the space for the lay community attending the services. In the Medieval period the naos was usually square or rectangular without interior dividers. Its form accommodated the circular route of the two major processions during the Divine Liturgy. The lack of architectural divisions implies that the separation of sexes was not a concern, and it may be attributed to the predominance of monastic foundations during that time. Chapter 4 surveys the narthex and exonarthex, which over time acquired a multitude of uses. I maintain that the reasons for this development

INTRODUCTION

lay in the symbolic interpretation of these spaces as being not quite as holy as the rest of the church. In the ifth chapter I investigate subsidiary spaces, such as chapels, galleries, and crypts, which were not essential parts of a Byzantine church. Although the frequency of liturgical activity in them varied, their use connected them with themes and concerns very close to those expressed in liturgical texts. The last chapter deals with nonliturgical rituals performed by both individuals and groups. Some of these related to the character of the church as a holy space, while others pertained to the fact that churches were integrated into a social and cultural nexus. The Appendix is a comprehensive catalogue of the surviving Middle and Late Byzantine churches of Constantinople, along with some recorded earlier but which have since disappeared. Each entry focuses on aspects pertinent to the discussion, followed by an essential bibliography. A detailed Glossary explicates many of the terms used in the book. Needless to say, this book does not purport to have answers to all possible questions, but I hope to initiate a more critical discussion of how Byzantine churches it within Byzantine society. It will certainly not be the last word on the subject. New discoveries of monuments or texts could alter our discussion in ways we cannot imagine. It is my sincere hope that this study will contribute, however modestly, to an increased and more nuanced understanding of the several themes it investigates.

9

CHAPTER ONE

LITURGICAL RITUAL: THE SHAPE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE BYZANTINE RITE

The Byzantine rite, the liturgical system of the Byzantine Orthodox church, consists of a series of services comprising the sacraments, such as Eucharist, baptism, and ordination; the Divine Oice or the Oice of the Hours, the daily corporate prayer services, such as Matins, Vespers, Compline; a cycle of ixed feasts and saints’ days, such as Christmas and Epiphany, celebrated throughout the liturgical year; a cycle of movable feasts, such as Easter; and occasional vigils and lesser services.1 The Byzantine rite is a hybrid, having gone through many stages of evolution and development. As a living tradition it is still evolving and changing, albeit less drastically after the inevitable standardization of printed texts. Robert Taft has distinguished ive phases in the development of the Byzantine rite: (1) the palaeo-Byzantine period up to 330, about which there is little information; (2) the Imperial period, which lasted until the beginning of the thirteenth century; (3) the Transitional period, from the beginning of the seventh century to ca. 850; (4) the Stoudite synthesis, from ca. 800 to 1204; (5) and the ensuing neo-Sabaitic synthesis, which began after 1261.2

1

2

10

For a succinct history of the Byzantine rite, see Taft 1992. See also Mateos 1971; Egender 1975; Arranz 1976; Schulz 1986; Wybrew 1989; Rentel 2006; Taft 1978; 1980–1981; 1991; 1993: 273–291; 1997a: 203–232; 2000b; 2008a; 2008b; Parenti 2011. The majority of the following is based on these texts. References to specialized studies will be given throughout this chapter. Taft 1992: 16–21.

LITURGICAL RITUAL

The overlapping periodization is due to the coexistence of two practices: the cathedral rite, observed in Hagia Sophia and in parochial and episcopal churches, and the monastic rite.3 The two were not completely unconnected, as I will discuss later. The major diferences between the two lay in the structure and content of the Oice of the Hours. Other aspects of the rite, such as the Divine Liturgy, the sacraments, and benedictions, underwent secondary changes since the earliest surviving testimonies.4 In this chapter I provide an overview of these developments, focusing primarily on the parts that had explicit bearing on church architecture: the Oice of the Hours and the Divine Liturgy. After the foundation of Constantinople the Byzantine rite became gradually distinguished from other liturgical traditions. Between the fourth and seventh centuries the rite underwent two important changes. First and most important was the development of complex stational services, which included processions throughout the city.5 In the years before Iconoclasm, stational services were so important that sources are preoccupied almost exclusively with them, but they provide little information about what occurred inside the church buildings.6 Despite the gradual decline of outdoor processions after the seventh century, the Byzantine rite still maintains its processional character.7 Second, the rite was enriched by imperial splendor and ceremony, especially with the completion of Emperor Justinian’s Hagia Sophia in 537 (Figs. 1, 2). The magniicence of Hagia Sophia’s interior demanded the development of liturgical and other rituals that could ill the enormous space and embody the notion of the church building as an image of the cosmos and of the earthly liturgy as a relection of heavenly worship.8 The Transitional period, which included the years of the Iconoclastic controversy, was one of relative continuity as well as adaptation and consolidation of the Byzantine cathedral rite (we have little knowledge of monastic practice before the ninth century).9 As Taft notes, “by the ninth century the Great Church of Constantinople had evolved its complete cathedral liturgical system.” The end result of this process can be seen in the Typikon of the Great Church, which in its surviving form documents the practices of the ninth to tenth centuries.10 The rite had its own sacraments and Liturgy, the latter based on the anaphora of Basil, a church calendar (synaxarion) with an accompanying 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10

For a detailed and nuanced discussion of this, see Taft 2005; Bradshaw 2003; Parenti 2011. Arranz 1976: 50; 1979: 4. On this, see Baldovin 1987: 167–226. For exceptions see Taft 1992: 29 and n. 3, 4. Mateos 1971; Taft 1997a: 203–232. This trend is evident in the introduction of the Introit Prayer and the Cheroubikon hymn, as well as in the Maximos Confessor. See also Taft 1992: 35–38; 2008a: 600–601; 2011a. Taft 1992: 42–51. Taft 1992: 45.

11

12

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

1. Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, Turkey, 532–537, plan (after Krautheimer).

lectionary system, and the cathedral Hours known as the Asmatike Akolouthia (ἀσματικὴ ἀκολουθία, “Sung Oice”).11 These Hours included the two principal services at the beginning and end of the day (orthros, Matins, and lychnikon, Vespers), and four shorter ones: the mesonyktikon (Midnight Oice), and the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Hours.12 The Asmatike Akolouthia had a solemn character and required the participation of numerous clergy.13 It retained the predilection for sung biblical psalmody and contained very little hymnody, which at the time was mostly found in the kontakia, a sermon in verse, sung on feast days at the end of the pannychis (vigil). This cathedral rite remained in practice until the beginning of the thirteenth century, when the Crusader conquest of Constantinople interrupted the liturgical life of the city. Alongside the cathedral rite, monastic practice underwent signiicant developments starting in the ninth century. The monastery of Stoudios, 11

12

13

On the Asmatike Akolouthia, see Strunk 1956; Arranz 1971; 1971–1972; 1973; 1974–1975; 1976; 1977; 1978b; 1979; 1981b; Woolfenden 2004: 93–120; Andreou 2009. Arranz 1976: 50; 1979: 10–19. Two additional occasional services were the tritoekti, which replaced the Eucharistic liturgy on weekdays during Lent, and the pannychis. Arranz 1976: 50–51.

LITURGICAL RITUAL

2. Hagia Sophia, interior looking east (photo: author).

originally founded ca. 454, played a crucial role in deining the form of the Byzantine rite during this period. Theodore of Stoudios (d. 826) and his monks from Sakkoudion in Bithynia, a region of northwest Asia Minor, revived the failing monastery.14 Between 798, when Theodore arrived in Constantinople, and 815, the size and prestige of Stoudios grew exponentially. The monastery headed a network of houses in Bithynia, several dependencies, and other, independent foundations that were founded by 14

For Theodore, see Henry 1967.

13

14

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Stoudites.15 Theodore was familiar with and adopted Palestinian hymnody,16 and he requested that Thomas, patriarch of Jerusalem (d. 821), send monks to Constantinople to introduce Jerusalemite hymnody there.17 The so-called Stoudite synthesis, which began with Theodore and was completed only in the twelfth century, combined the Jerusalem or Sabaitic oice (the rite followed in the Great Lavra of Saint Sabas) with the Asmatike Akolouthia. This amalgamation resulted in a hybrid oice that married a Palestinian Horologion (a book that contains the invariable or ordinary elements of Byzantine monastic Hours) with litanies and prayers from the practices of the Constantinopolitan euchologion, the prayer book used by clergy.18 The main characteristics of the Stoudite synthesis were the introduction of an abundance of hymns in the Hours, with the newly composed hymns eventually supplanting the Constantinopolitan kontakia; the adoption of the Palestinian liturgical psalter instead of the antiphonarion, the liturgical psalter of the cathedral oice;19 and the replacement of the Sabaitic all-night vigil with Saturday to Sunday Compline, mesonyktikon, and Matins, a structure more conducive to the coenobitic organization of the Stoudite monasteries.20 Stoudite practices spread beyond Constantinople to Mount Athos, Kiev, Georgia, South Italy, and even Palestine.21 In Constantinople they coexisted with the cathedral rite until the end of the thirteenth century.22 However, neither can be considered monolithic, because diverse liturgical practices even within the same tradition were not uncommon23 and there is evidence of mutual inluence.24 The Latin occupation (1204–1261) caused a severe disruption in Constantinople and contributed to the inal victory of monastic practices 15

16 17 18

19

20

21 22 23

24

Hatlie 2007: 322–326. According to the sources, Stoudios had about 100 monks in 790 and about 1,000 by ca. 815. Although the latter number is certainly an exaggeration, it is indicative of the growth of this monastery. Hannick 2001. PG 99: 1160–1164. See also 1164–1168. For a detailed description of the Stoudite synthesis, see Pott 2000: 99–129. See also Strunk 1956; Taft 1992: 52–77; 1993: 273–291; Egender 2001; Thomas 2001; Rentel 2006: 260–270, comprising a useful exposition of the diferences of monastic and cathedral traditions. The typikon of Stoudios, called Hypotyposis, was composed sometime after 842. There are two recensions. See Hypotyposis Stoudiou. For the diferences between these two liturgical psalters, see Mateos 1961: 18–19; Taft 1988: 181–182. In contrast to the anchoritic and lavreotic organization of the Palestinian monks. See Taft 1988: 186–187. See also Arranz 1976: 53. Taft 1988: 184. Strunk 1956: 177. Nikon of the Black Mountain in the eleventh century noticed discrepancies even among typika of the Stoudite tradition. See Taktikon: 21–22; Taft 1988: 179. A note in an eleventhcentury euchologion comments on divergent practices regarding the Oice of Kneeling Prayers for Pentecost; see Arranz 1996: 21. Strunk 1956: 198; Arranz 1976: 52–53; Taft 1992: 56–57.

LITURGICAL RITUAL

over the Asmatike Akolouthia of the Great Church, as noted by Symeon of Thessalonike in the ifteenth century.25 The absence of Stoudite manuscripts after the thirteenth century indicates that this tradition also sufered, even if it did not disappear.26 In the years following the reestablishment of Byzantine rule over Constantinople in 1261 by Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, yet another synthesis occurred, beginning in Palestine, where monastic communities reworked the Stoudite typika.This process began in the early eleventh century and is known as the neo-Sabaitic synthesis. Taft has outlined the various diferences between Stoudite and neo-Sabaitic usage, such as the addition of daily nine-ode canon in Matins and the substantial increase of psalmody. The most important diference in the neo-Sabaitic typikon was the agrypnia, the all-night vigil on the eve of Sundays and feast days, which became the primary communal liturgical activity, instead of the Stoudite sequence of Compline, mesonyktikon, and Matins.27 According to Symeon of Thessalonike, the neoSabaitic rite was musically less complex and required fewer clergy – in fact, it could be performed by just one person.28 Symeon certainly exaggerated those diferences, as the performance of the agrypnia required several participants.29 It is through Mount Athos, whose lavriote ethos was much closer to that of the Palestinian monks, that this new usage spread to Constantinople.30 It is essentially this neo-Sabaitic typikon that is in use today in the churches of the Byzantine tradition. The most important element of the Byzantine rite was the Divine Liturgy.31 In the Early Christian period outdoor processions of the faithful, headed by the bishop and the clergy and with the occasional participation of an imperial party, preceded the main liturgical celebration of the city.32 Apart from those rituals leading up to it, a series of solemn, mostly interior processions known as “entrances” distinguished the Liturgy. The irst part of the service, the Liturgy of the Word, started with the so-called First Entrance. People who did not participate in the preliturgical procession awaited clerics and oicials 25

26 27

28 29 30

31

32

PG 155: 325. See also Arranz 1976: 46–47. The cathedral rite survived in Constantinople only on Vespers on the eves of major feasts; see Lingas 2007: 217. In Thessalonike the Asmatike Akolouthia was maintained in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia and nonmonastic churches until the conquest of the city by the Ottomans in 1430; see PG 155: 328, 556, 624, 908. Arranz 1976: 68. For the history of the agrypnia, see Arranz 1980; Uspensky 1985. See also Taft 1988: 186; Lingas 1996. PG 155: 556, 661. See the excellent analysis in Lingas 2007: esp. 222–229. Lingas 1996: 161. Critical in this was the Diataxis tes Hierodiakonias, which details the celebration of the agrypnia, composed by Philotheos Kokkinos (d. 1377/8), abbot of the Great Lavra and then twice patriarch of Constantinople; see Goar 1730: 1–8; PG 154: 745–766. The form of the liturgy in Early Christian Constantinople is successfully reconstructed in Mathews 1971. Baldovin 1987: 167–226.

15

16

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

outside the church in its atrium, to the west of the narthex. As soon as the procession arrived, clergy and laity solemnly entered the church building. The celebrant bishop took his place on the throne in the center of the apse behind the altar, with the rest of the clergy surrounding him, and the congregation made their way into the naos, the main part of the church. The Liturgy of the Word included readings from the Old Testament, the Acts or the Epistles, and, most importantly, from the Gospels. These were followed by the sermon and the dismissal of the catechumens, which concluded the irst part of the service. The Liturgy proper began with the deacons transferring to the main altar the Eucharistic gifts, bread and wine, from the skeuophylakion (lit. “the place to keep the vessels”), which in Constantinople was usually nearby as a detached building (Fig. 1). After the reading of the Eucharistic prayers and the consecration of the gifts by the clergy, the people received communion. The Liturgy concluded with another procession of clergy, this time from inside the church back to the skeuophylakion, where the leftover Eucharistic elements were consumed and the clergy changed out of their liturgical dress.33 Elements of Early Christian church architecture in Constantinople corresponded to the markedly processional character of the early Liturgy and indicated the existence of an urban cathedral rite.The large atrium provided a place for people to gather while awaiting the arrival of the solemn procession. The multitude of entrances in early Constantinopolitan basilicas ofered easy access to the faithful, who entered at the same time as the clergy. The basilica they entered had a prominent longitudinal character, correlating with the longitudinal course of the celebrants’ and the people’s procession during the Liturgy. The ample narthexes were used for the preparation of the First Entrance. The second-loor galleries were connected directly to the outside to permit the catechumens, who were relegated there, to leave quietly after their dismissal at the end of the Liturgy of the Word, without disturbing the congregation. If the Divine Liturgy in Early Christian Constantinople and such other major centers as Rome and Jerusalem can be characterized as public, corporate, and open, in the Middle Byzantine period the Eucharist became introverted, compressed, and private. This happened in tandem with the gradual change in the urban character of Constantinople. As Mango has argued, starting already in the sixth century Constantinople was progressively transformed into a Medieval city.34 One of the signiicant manifestations was the decay 33 34

Taft 2008a: 583–588. Mango 2004. See also Magdalino 2002, 2010; Balicka-Witakowska 2010; Ljungkvist et al. 2010: esp. 379–382; Ousterhout 2010a. On the question of the transformation of public space in Constantinople, see Brubaker 2001; Brubaker and Haldon 2011: 616–622. On the decline of ancient urbanism in general, see Saradi-Mendolovici 1998; Liebeschuetz 2001; WardPerkins 2005; Zavagno 2009. See also the useful overview in Brubaker and Haldon 2011: 531–572, with further bibliography.

LITURGICAL RITUAL

3. Distribution of monastic foundations in Constantinople, 330–550 (after Varinlioğlu).

and obliteration of public, open spaces, one of the hallmarks of Late Antique urban cities. This afected the public nature of Early Christian worship as well as ecclesiastical architecture. Large urban basilicas, the most common building type before the seventh century, stopped being built. Moreover, changing patterns of patronage and a predilection, more distinct than in earlier periods, toward “private” foundations that depended on a proprietor (ktetor), particularly monasteries at the expense of parish or episcopal churches, resulted in a shift toward more compact churches.35 Monasteries became increasingly prominent in the city. This was evident in their geographical distribution in Constantinople (Figs. 3, 4). Up to the sixth century, monasteries were mostly 35

Mango 1976a: 108–110; Hatlie 2007: 330–334, and esp. n. 66; Ćurčic´ 2010: 271. For the private foundations, see Thomas 1987.

17

18

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

4. Distribution of monastic foundations in Constantinople, 800–1204 (after Varinlioğlu).

located between the Constantinian and Theodosian walls, an area sparsely populated and far from the city center. In contrast, during the Middle and Late Byzantine periods, many were founded east of the Constantinian walls.36 The monasticization of urban space and of church architecture relected a similar process in liturgical life. As far as we can judge from the surviving typika and liturgical synaxaria, worship practices in monasteries were self-contained and with few exceptions took place inside the conines of the foundation. Outdoor processions were reduced in number and largely pertained to the cathedral rite, as evidenced in the Typikon of the Great Church and in the Book of Ceremonies. After the ninth century, in most cases the Liturgy was celebrated without the patriarch or the emperor, and in monastic rather than cathedral or 36

The observations in Varinlioğlu 2005: 193–197 are particularly elucidating. See also Charanis 1971; Abrahamse 1985; Hatlie 2007.

LITURGICAL RITUAL

parochial churches. Elements of the outdoor stational liturgy, such as the oice of the three antiphons, were simply aixed at the beginning of the service.37 Between the ninth and ifteenth centuries there were three Divine Liturgies celebrated in Constantinople.38 The Liturgy of Saint Basil of Caesarea39 was the chief rite until the beginning of the tenth century, when the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom replaced it.Thereafter Basil’s Liturgy was celebrated only ten times a year: in the irst ive Sundays of Great Lent; on Holy Thursday; on the eves of Christmas, Epiphany, and Easter; and on the feast day of Saint Basil on January 1.40 In current practice the structure of the two Liturgies is virtually identical, but the anaphoral prayers, which the priest or bishop recites inaudibly, difer dramatically. The third rite was the Presanctiied Liturgy, essentially a communion service followingVespers on days when there was no Eucharist.41 With the prevalence of the Stoudite typika, the Presanctiied Liturgy was limited to Wednesdays and Fridays of Great Lent and on Holy Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Thus, for the period under consideration, it was the Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom that was most often celebrated. It was the pinnacle of liturgical activity and the most intricate in terms of the use of space.42 It was celebrated with great frequency: on Saturdays, Sundays, and feast days, as well as daily in some monasteries.43 As with every continuously practiced ritual, the Liturgy evolved. Parts were added, others continued to expand or diminish, ritual acts and practices changed. Yet the plentiful liturgical sources ofer a fundamental armature onto which diferent parts were grafted. Early euchologia tended to contain a bare minimum of rubrics, an indication that the particulars of liturgical praxis were transmitted orally. Starting probably as early as the tenth century, a new kind of book called the diataxis appeared, comprising liturgical directives for clergy.44 The most inluential of these was by Philotheos Kokkinos (d. 1377/8), who wrote it while abbot of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos (1342–1345).45 Others existed for both monastic and cathedral rites.46 The splendor of the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia, with the participation of the patriarchal and imperial parties, outclassed the rites of a humble monastic 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46

Taft 1997a: 210–215. See the comments in Protheoria: 460. For the text, see Brightman 1896: 309–344. On this change, see Parenti 2001 and Alexopoulos 2006. Parenti attributed the change to the Stoudite inluence toward daily Eucharist in monasteries. Alexopoulos argued that the shift is due to the use of a particular phrase of Basil by iconoclasts in their theological argumentation. See also Radle 2011: esp. 178-180. On the development of this rite, see Alexopoulos 2009. PG 155: 253–256; Symeon of Thessalonike: 168. Salaville 1947; Herman 1948; Taft 1997b; 2000a; 2004a. ODB s.v. “Diataxis”; Taft 1978: xxxv-xxxviii; Rentel 2005. Trempelas 1935: 1-16 (right column). This is diferent from the Diataxis tes Hierodiakonias. For a list see Taft 1988: 192. See also Rentel 2005: 366–375.

19

20

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

church.47 Nevertheless, the essential aspects of the liturgical action remained the same. Based on these sources I ofer a description of this frame, an outline of the basic elements of the Divine Liturgy, referencing both monastic and patriarchal/pontiical practices.48 I emphasize the components and ritual actions that are important for this architectural study: the prothesis rite, the Little Entrance, the readings, the Great Entrance, Communion, and postCommunion rites. Some euchologia and monastic diataxeis begin with the priest and the deacon performing just outside the main door of the bema (sanctuary) a brief preparatory service, which included genulections and the recitation of a prayer.49 This is the embryonic stage of a longer service in the present day occasionally carried out during Matins. Subsequently they entered the sanctuary, vested, and went to the prothesis room, usually located to the north of the main apse.50 The prothesis rite, the preparation of the elements before the beginning of the Liturgy, was one of the most mutable components of the Byzantine rite after the ninth century.51 It is also of great importance for the interpretation of the function and symbolism of the sanctuary. At irst, the selection and preparation of bread and wine (as well as their transfer to the altar) was a practical matter. The faithful deposited their gifts in the outside skeuophylakion and the deacons chose the ones to be used. The Barberini Euchologion (written in Southern Italy ca. 800, but certainly relecting earlier metropolitan practice) preserves the earliest attestation of the ritualization of this operation in the form of a single prayer to be read by a priest “in the skeuophylakion when placing the loaves on the paten.”52 Sometime by the eleventh century at the latest the outside skeuophylakion was abandoned, and the prothesis took place inside the bema.53 The rite gradually grew and acquired a complex structure 47 48

49

50

51

52

53

Taft 1995: 17–18. I do not wish to lay too much emphasis on the diferences between pontiical and monastic practices, nor, by extension, on diferences between monastic and parochial or metropolitan churches, as these were not isolated, shut-of worlds.The patriarch and bishop celebrated the liturgy and other services in monasteries. And not all services in a metropolitan church were celebrated by a bishop. Evidently the ritual actions were adapted to the available space and the pertinent circumstances. See, for example, Trempelas 1935: 1 (both columns); Krasnosel’tsev 1889: 18–19. The codex Pyromalus, which describes a pontiical celebration of Basil, contains some similar rubrics; see Goar 1730: 153. For the symbolism of this service, see Protheoria: 432. Some liturgical rubrics indicate that the clergy put on and take of vestments in the “diakonikon”; see Trempelas 1935: 200 (twelfth-century version of the Presanctiied): Ἀμφιασάμενος ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐν τῷ διακονικῷ τὴν ἱερατικήν, ὡς ἔθος, στολὴν ἔρχεται κατενώπιον τῆς ἁγίας τραπέζης. See also Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: I, 172. For the space called diakonikon, see Chapter 2. On the development of the prothesis rite, see Mandalà 1935; Descoeudres 1983: 85–126; Pott 2000: 169–196. For a detailed exposition of the development of this rite, see Chapter 2. Eὐχὴ ἣν ποιεῖ ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐν τῷ σκευοφυλακίῳ ἀποτιθεμένου τοὺς ἄρτους ἐν τῷ δίσκῳ; Euchologion Barberini: 57; Taft 1978: 274. Taft 1978: 181–203; 2008a: 551.

LITURGICAL RITUAL

of prayers and acts. These included the use of several prosphora (bread loaves prepared for the Eucharist), each with its own prayer and purpose; the multiplication of oblation portions on the paten, the commemorations of saints and faithful, both living and dead; and the covering of the elements with three liturgical textiles. At the end of all this, the deacon censed the whole church building and the congregation.54 The Divine Liturgy began with the Enarxis, the introductory service, which contained a series of three litanies, antiphons, and collects, or short prayers. The Enarxis became part of the Liturgy between the eighth and ninth centuries.55 At the third (introit) antiphon, the First or Little Entrance took place. When there was no bishop present, the deacon, followed by the priest, took the Gospel from the altar and carried it in procession, exiting the bema “from the north side.”56 They both stood “in the middle of the church” until the end of the hymns chanted by the choir, at which point the deacon raised the Gospel book and said “wisdom, let us be attentive,” and, while chanting a short hymn of veneration, both he and the priest entered the bema and deposited the Gospel on the altar. On nonstational days, when the patriarch or a bishop participated, he, along with other clergy, would vest and wait for the beginning of the First Entrance in the skeuophylakion, where, according to the tenthcentury sources, he read the prothesis prayer.57 When the skeuophylakion fell out of use or when the church did not have one, the patriarch vested and waited seated in the narthex. In a later development, which took place perhaps in the ifteenth century, the patriarch waited in the naos, which is the present practice.58 He and the other clergy would process, with the archdeacon carrying the Gospel, from the narthex (or later the naos) to the bema, again at the third antiphon.59 When the emperor was present, he would join the patriarch in the narthex and process with him to the sanctuary, where he ofered gifts.60 Subsequently, a smaller procession took place during the reading from the Praxapostolos (a lectionary containing all the nonevangelical lections from the New Testament except Revelation), which was conducted by a layman before the reading of the Gospel lection: the deacon again, preceded by acolytes carrying candelabra, exited from the northern door and carried the Gospel book “to the middle of the church or the ambo,” from where he read the lection from 54 55 56 57 58

59 60

Trempelas 1935: 2–5. Taft 1997a: 210–215; 1997–1998: 80. Trempelas 1935: 6 (right column). As described in the codex Pyromalus; see Goar 1730: 153. Taft 1980b: 105–110. Compare the diataxis of Gemistos (ca. 1380), which places the patriarch in the narthex with the Andreas Skete archieratikon (ifteenth century), in which the bishop enters the naos during Matins; Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 304; I, 166–167. See also Symeon of Thessalonike: 110–112. Mateos 1971: 71–86; Taft 1980b: 105–110. De Cerimoniis: 14–16, 64–65.

21

22

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

5. Angels vested as clergy participating in the Great Entrance, Church of the Peribleptos, Mystras, Greece, ca. 1370s, fresco (photo: Collection chrétienne et byzantine EPHE-Phototèque Gabriel Millet).

the New Testament.61 The Old Testament reading had been dropped before the eighth century.62 The lection was followed by psalmody and by further litanies and prayers.63 While the cantors sang the Cherubic hymn, the deacon censed the altar, the sanctuary, his fellow clergy, and inally the prothesis. Then the Second, or Great Entrance took place (Fig. 5). The clergy transferred the Eucharistic elements from the prothesis to the altar, following a “U” course westward through the naos, sometimes as far as the narthex, turning laterally to the center, then eastward back to the sanctuary, where they deposited them on the altar. The deacon headed the procession with the aer, the largest of the three liturgical veils that covered the elements, on his shoulder, the covered paten on the top of his head, and the censer suspended from a inger of his right hand.64 The priest followed carrying the covered chalice.65 The bishop, 61 62

63

64 65

Trempelas 1935: 8. Mateos 1971: 131. On Old Testament lections in the early Byzantine rite, see Engberg 2006; Taft 2011b. Liturgical typika after the tenth century do not provide explicit rubrics about the delivery of sermons; see Cunningham 2008; 2011. Trempelas 1935: 9. Perhaps as late as the twelfth century in Constantinople only deacons participated in the Great Entrance; Taft 1978: 203–204.

LITURGICAL RITUAL

whenever present, waited for the arrival of the gifts inside the sanctuary. After the end of the Great Entrance several petitions were read, mostly by the deacon in the middle of the naos. The kiss of peace followed, which since the eleventh century only the clergy performed inside the sanctuary. Subsequently, during the recitation of the Creed, the elements were uncovered. The anaphora, or Eucharistic prayer, followed, which included a prayer of thanksgiving, the Words of Institution over the elements, the epiklesis (a prayer invoking the Holy Spirit to come and sanctify the elements and the most dramatic moment of the Liturgy), and the reading of the names of the living and dead by the deacon from the Diptychs. The Precommunion rites followed. These included the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, the elevation of the bread, the fraction and comminution of the bread, and the commixture (or union) of bread and wine in the chalice. The clergy received communion in the sanctuary irst,66 then the people in front of the bema doors. Starting probably in the eleventh century, laypeople communicated by intinction, with the elements given to them by the clergy using a spoon from the chalice.67 After communion the elements were returned to the altar and then, accompanied by incense, to the prothesis. After some further petitions, antiphons, and prayers (the most important of which was the opisthambonos, lit. “prayer behind the ambo,” which the priest read in front of the doors to the bema from at least the twelfth century),68 and the distribution of the antidoron (blessed but not consecrated pieces from the prosphoron bread), the people were dismissed.69 The clergy consumed the remaining elements in the prothesis room, cleaned the vessels,70 and undressed.71 In addition to the Divine Liturgy, a host of regular and intermittent services were celebrated in both monastic and parochial churches. These would have included Matins and Vespers, as well as some or, especially in monasteries, all of the other Hours.72 Other services were read as the need arose.These ranged from lengthy sacraments,73 such as baptism, ordination, and marriage, to simple 66 67 68

69

70 71

72

73

See the very detailed rubrics in Trempelas 1935: 13–14 (right column). Taft 2008a: 262–315. For the shift of the location of the opisthambonos to the area in front of the doors of the bema, see Taft 2008a: 603–609. For the antidoron, with a irst secure attestation in the twelfth century, see Taft 2008a: 699–719. See also Galavaris 1970: 112–128. For its symbolism, see Symeon of Thessalonike: 156, 262. Trempelas 1935: 15 (both columns). When the skeuophylakion was still in use the clergy would process toward that building at the end of the service.Then the so-called skeuophylakion prayer was read. In the Middle and Late Byzantine periods the prayer retained its name but was read in the prothesis room; see Taft 2004b. See also Chapter 2. A liturgical synaxarion, such as the Synaxarion of Evergetis, exempliies the complexity of the daily services, many of which included hymns, prayers, and readings drawn from a variety of books. See Arranz 1976: 62–63. The designation of just seven of these services as sacraments did not occur until the thirteenth century; ODB s.v. “sacraments.” See also Arranz 1982.

23

24

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

prayers that addressed very speciic needs, such as “prayer on the building of a house” or “prayer for those who have fever.”74 Although complicated in their structure and laden with theological meaning, none of these services entailed the intricate choreography of the Divine Liturgy. Yet where some of them were celebrated was signiicant as the symbolism of the space correlated with the symbolism of the ritual. In subsequent chapters I discuss the distribution of rituals in the church space and the reasons behind it. The Byzantine rite consisted of an intricate array of services dedicated to the praise and worship of God, the veneration of the Theotokos and saints, the welfare of the living, and the commemoration of the dead.These concepts were expressed in language, text, and song, but also in action and movement, all of which took place in the architectural setting of the Byzantine church. This coalescence of space and ritual enabled a multitude of further associations that, although not always explicitly connected with the formal ritual, articulated similar theological considerations. All these provide the context for the interpretation of the function of church spaces that follows.

74

Arranz 1996: 362, 376.

CHAPTER TWO

THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON

The sanctuary was the most hallowed place within a Byzantine church. According to Symeon, archbishop of Thessalonike, “the church is holy because of the sanctuary.Without the sanctuary, it is not a church but rather a house of prayer, partaking of sanctity only through prayers. It is not the dwelling place of God’s glory, nor His abode.”1 The usual designation for the sanctuary was τὸ ἅγιον βῆμα (“the holy bema”),2 and τὸ θυσιαστήριον3 (lit. “the place of sacriices”). Less often it was called τὸ ἱερατεῖον (“sanctuary”)4 or τὰ ἄδυτα (lit. “not to be entered”).5 The standard tripartite arrangement of the bema after the ninth century difered substantially from that of earlier Constantinopolitan churches, which had a single apse.6 The holiness of the bema was underscored both visually and symbolically and access to it was highly regulated and restricted to members of the clergy with very few exceptions.7 It was sectioned 1

2 3

4 5 6 7

Καὶ διὰ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου ἅγιος ὁ ναός ἐστι· χωρὶς δὲ θυσιαστηρίου οὑ ναός, ἀλλὰ προσευχῆς μόνον οἶκος, μετέχων τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν εὐχῶν μόνης ἁγιωσύνης, οὐ Θεοῦ δόξης σκήνωμα, οὐδὲ κατοικητήριον τοῦτου; PG 155: 305. See also Kabasilas Vita in Christo: II, 12: Ἐπεὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον πάσης ἐστὶν ἀρχὴ τελετῆς. Trempelas 1935: 1 (left column); Meyendorf 1984: 60. The word θυσιαστήριον could also designate the actual altar, although τράπεζα was more common. Both Symeon of Thessalonike and Nicholas Kabasilas (n. 1, above) diferentiate between θυσιαστήριον (sanctuary) and τράπεζα (altar). Maximos Confessor: 15; Typikon of the Great Church: II, 298. Pantokrator: 33, 67. Mathews 1971: 105–107. See, among others, the regulations in Syntagma: II, 466–467; IV, 404, 417–418.

25

26

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

of from the rest of the church by means of a barrier called a templon, which eventually became taller and, with the addition of curtains and intercolumnar icons, more opaque.The adoption of the tripartite arrangement and the development of the templon came in tandem with changes in liturgical practice and ethos in Constantinople.

Forms and Variants The surviving buildings evince some standardization in form, with variations in the particulars. The typical arrangement was symmetrical, composed of three adjoining apsidal rooms: the central apse was always the most spacious and communicated with the two identical side rooms through openings or passageways.8 The interior of the apses was usually semicircular. All three apses projected on the exterior, where they could be multifaceted, semihexagonal, or, more rarely, semicircular. The interior articulation of the side rooms varied considerably. In the tenth and eleventh centuries there was a partiality towards trefoils (Myrelaion, XVII-1, 4; Vefa Kilise Camii, XXVIII-1) and quatrefoils (Theotokos tou Libos, XXIII-1, 9; Eski I-maret Camii,VII-1). In many buildings the side rooms were simple, apsed rectangular spaces. There were some minor variations. In Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii the side chambers did not communicate directly with the main apse (XII-1).9 Given the small size of this building, it is likely that the sanctuary extended to include the three eastern bays of the naos. In this case, the sanctuary would have incorporated the two eastern columns of the naos. A similar arrangement was found in Sekbanbaşı Mescidi (XIX-1). In Gül Camii (XI) the passageways between the main apse and the side rooms gave access to small rooms situated in the thickness of the two eastern piers on a level higher than the loor of the church (the purpose of these rooms remains unknown). In two other churches, Kalenderhane (XIV-1) and Chora (VI-1, 3, 8), the irregular eastern end was the result of diferent construction phases and the incorporation of preexisting structures. In some cases, such as in the church of Saint John tou Libos (XXIII), the south church in Pantokrator (VIII), Peribleptos (XXVI), and Kalenderhane (XIV), the loor of the whole sanctuary was higher than the naos, thus creating a sort of stage, which, along with the sanctuary barrier, further emphasized the character of the sanctuary as the holiest and most important part of the church.10 This loor was called κρηπίς 8 9

10

Odalar Camii in both its phases was a notable departure from the usual symmetry (XVIII-1, 2). The plan in van Millingen 1912: 206 is incorrect in this respect. I thank Matthew Savage for clarifying this aspect of the building. According to Macridy 1964: 266 the loor of the bema in Saint John tou Libos was 35 cm higher than the loor of the naos. In the south church of Pantokrator the central apse

THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON

(lit.“platform”).11 The platform extended into the naos. This raised area between the bema and the naos was called σωλέας (soleas)12 and symbolized, according to Pseudo-Sophronios, a river of ire separating the just from the sinners.13 Only a few of the surviving Medieval churches in Constantinople had a single projecting apse instead of a tripartite bema.All these buildings belonged to architectural types that were current before the ninth century: Sinan Paşa Mescidi (XX), Boğdan Sarayı (V), and Toklu Dede Mescidi (XXVII) were single-nave churches; Kefeli Mescidi a three-aisled basilica (XV); Mouchliotissa a tetraconch (XXV). Thus, they should be considered survivals or revivals of earlier architectural practices.

Rituals and Functions The Central Apse and Altar The central apse was the locus of the most signiicant liturgical activity because it contained the altar where the Eucharist was celebrated. It was also where clergy remained during most of the Liturgy. Other rites performed there, such as the consecration and ordination of major orders of clergy (bishop, presbyter, deacon), underscored the central apse’s exceptional place within church spaces. The Eucharistic table was called βωμός,14 as well as θυσιαστήριον (“altar”),15 terms that continued the sacriicial language Late Antique authors used to describe Christian worship.16 Very frequently the altar was referred to as ἡ ἁγία or θεία τράπεζα (“the holy table”).17 Sources mention two distinct kinds of altars: a monolithic “Roman-style” one and another type where the altar table stood atop four small columns.18 The south church in the monastery tou Libos was equipped with the latter type, as the round holes on the marble loor indicate (XXIII-1).19 Little is known about altar tables. Only at Kalenderhane has

11

12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

was raised with the use of two vaults, which acted as substructures; Megaw 1963: 347. For Peribleptos, see Mango 1992: 476. For Kalenderhane, see Striker and Kuban 1971: 253. See, for example, Euchologion Barberini: 143–144, 165; Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 310. See also Meyendorf 1984: 60; and Pseudo-Sophronios: 3984: Τὸ βῆμα ἐστὶ τόπος ὑπόβαθρος. The term soleas has been used to designate the raised corridor that connected the bema to the ambo in Early Christian church architecture; see Orlandos 1952–1957: 535–538. However, as Walter points out, the evidence for this is meager. The spelling of the word varies; see Walter 1995: 99–100. Pseudo-Sophronios: 3985. Arranz 1996: 227. Meyendorf 1984: 60. Orlandos 1952–1957: II, 438. Krasnosel’tsev 1885: 247; Trempelas 1935: 5; Meyendorf 1984: 58. Arranz 1996: 227. Macridy 1964: 266. For the diferent types of altar tables, see Kalopissi-Verti and PanagiotideKesisoglou 2010: 349–350.

27

28

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

the original altar table been preserved, reused as a paving slab.20 In many cases a κιβώριον (ciborium), a domed or pyramidal structure on columns, covered the altar and visually enhanced its importance. Liturgical commentaries variously interpret it as representing the sky or even Noah’s ark, although the Protheoria notes that not every church has one.21 In Constantinople no ciborium has survived intact or in place, but the foundations of the four columns of the ciborium have been uncovered in Chora (VI).22 Another element of the central apse was the σύνθρονον (synthronon), one or more benches arranged vertically in a semicircle behind the altar.23 It was used for the seating of the clergy and had a bishop’s throne in the middle of the uppermost tier. Such monumental multitier structures were common in the early Christian churches of Constantinople,24 but it is unclear whether this was continued in the Medieval period. Remains of a two-tier synthronon were uncovered only in the church of Christ at the Pantokrator monastery (VIII-4).25 The typikon of this monastery mentions a synthronon in both of its churches.26 It has been suggested that the synthronon fell out of use, perhaps due to the decline in the number of liturgies celebrated with multiple clergy, although textual evidence suggests that concelebrations were rather commonplace.27 The synthronon continued to be used in churches that had it. A twelfth-century diataxis detailing the patriarchal liturgy in Hagia Sophia describes the ascent of the patriarch to the synthronon.28 Symeon of Thessalonike comments on the synthronon’s symbolism: the steps relect the angelic hierarchies, with the presbyters on the top, where the deacons are not allowed.29 The central apse and the altar were the epicenter of the very elaborate ritual of church consecration, called ἐγκαίνια (“dedication”) or καθιέρωσις (“consecration”). During this the bishop consecrated the altar, a prerequisite for the celebration of the Eucharist. The Second Council of Nicaea (787) formalized a centuries-old practice and stipulated that all church altars must be

20

21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29

Striker and Kuban 1971: 253 and ig. 5; Striker and Kuban 1997–2007: I, 108 and pl. 125; Peschlow 2006a: 186. Peschlow dated this to the Latin period because the loculus for the relic is on the altar table itself, something found “only in the Western church.” Protheoria: 441–444; Pseudo-Sophronios: 3984. Oates 1960: 228 and ig. 1. For synthrona, see Altripp 2000: esp. 402–412. Mathews 1971: 26–27, 66, 99, 109. Megaw 1963: 339. Pantokrator: 37, 73; BMFD: 740, 753. The existence of a synthronon in monastic katholika in Constantinople and elsewhere (as in the eleventh-century katholikon of Hosios Loukas in Steiris, Greece) precludes the notion that the synthronon indicates a cathedral or episcopal church. Mathews 1982: 127; Brakmann 1976; Taft 1980a: 311–313; 2010-2011: esp. 25-46. Taft 1979: 288. PG 155: 293. See also Pseudo-Sophronios: 3984.

THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON

consecrated with remains of martyrs.30 Eleventh-century Constantinopolitan euchologia contained an almost fully ledged rite with detailed rubrics:31 the archbishop who was to perform the consecration kept in a nearby church a reliquary, which could be silver, copper, or stone,32 containing three “portions” (μερίδες) of relics.The reliquary itself was placed on a paten, a lat plate, and covered with the asterisk, a raised metal star that supported a liturgical veil – very much like the Eucharistic bread at the end of the prothesis ritual. Following a vigil and the ritual preparation of the altar to be consecrated, the archbishop, accompanied by clergy and laity, carried the relics to the new church. Subsequently, the reliquary was inserted in a cavity, either under the altar or in the eastern side of the altar foot, and was sealed with myron (fragrant oil), wax, plaster, or even lead.33 The material evidence from Constantinopolitan churches relects closely the rubrics of the consecration rite. In the church of Saint John tou Libos the excavators discovered in the center of the apse loor a trapezoid cutting 1 m long and 30 cm deep, evidently for the deposition of relics (XXIII-1).34 At Chora, the 1957 excavations in the bema uncovered the foundations of the altar and its ciborium. Beneath the loor level was a large, marble-lined loculus, and against its eastern side a smaller marble-lined box, which contained an undisturbed lead reliquary (VI-4).The reliquary contained a few fragments of wood and bone. The larger loculus likely dated from the Middle Byzantine church, while the smaller loculus and the reliquary came from Theodore Metochites’s rededication of the Chora in 1321. In the south church of Pantokrator monastery, a marble-lined rectangular receptacle was located near the site of the altar. A marble reliquary excavated in a debris layer nearby might have come from there.35 Finally, the altar table discovered in the Kalenderhane apse has a rectangular hole in the middle for the insertion of the reliquary.36 The church of the Theotokos tou Libos preserved in its sanctuaries a fairly unusual feature: in the center of each of the four surviving apses on the ground loor and on the apses of the roof chapels, just above the loor, there are neat, cross-shaped cuttings (XXIII-8). These would not have been visible after the marble revetment was installed. The cuttings have been interpreted as receptacles for decorative stone or metal crosses37 or for the installation of relics during 30 31

32 33 34 35 36 37

Syntagma: II, 580. Arranz 1996: 227–251. Euchologion Barberini: 156–162 contains a simpler ritual. See also Euthymios: 32–35 for description of the consecration of the church of the Anargyroi in Psamatheia, which probably occurred in 890. For interpretations of the rite, see Kabasilas Vita in Christo: II, 12–37; and PG 155: 305–361. PG 155: 332. Arranz 1996: 244. Macridy 1964: 266. Megaw 1963: 339, 348, igs. 1, 10. Striker and Kuban 1971: 253 and ig. 5. See also n. 20 below. Macridy 1964: 260.

29

30

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

the consecration of those spaces.38 In reality, they indicate that the monastery tou Libos was a patriarchal or stauropegial monastery (from σταυροπήγιον, lit. “the ixture of a cross”).39 The rubrics for the consecration of such a foundation instruct that a wooden cross, inscribed with the names of the emperor, the patriarch, and the date of dedication, should be placed “behind the holy altar,” or “in the middle of the apse.”40 In addition to the consecration relics, other relics were occasionally located in the main apse, although this was unusual. Most famously, the body of Patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos (d. 1273) was placed to the north of the altar of Hagia Sophia in 1284. Arsenios’s body was at least partly visible, as Ruy González de Clavijo (d. 1412), the Spanish ambassador of Henry III, king of Castile, commented on its good state of preservation.41 In the now-lost monastery of the Saint Lazaros in the Topoi, probably built by emperor Leo VI, the body of the saint was deposited to the left of the altar and the body of Saint Mary Magdalene to the right, against the templon, in a silver coin.42 The language of the relevant texts indicates a permanent installation of the two bodies, apparently both in coins rather than in movable reliquaries. This was not an exclusively Constantinopolitan practice.43 Lastly, the χειροτονία (lit. “stretching forth the hands,” ordination) was quite appropriately performed inside the bema in front of the altar at various points during the Divine Liturgy.44 In episcopal ordinations it took place after the τρισάγιον (“the thrice-holy hymn,” Sanctus), whereas for presbyters it occurred after the conclusion of the Great Entrance.45 The location of ordinations underscored the primary purpose and area of ministry of the ordinand, the altar.

The Side Rooms of the Sanctuary In modern practice, the side rooms of the sanctuary have clearly deined functions. The prothesis takes place in the north room, and the south room, called the diakonikon, is used for the storage and safekeeping of vessels, vestments, 38 39 40

41 42

43

44

45

Teteriatnikov 2003: 77–78. Marinis 2006. See also Troianos 1995. Ποιοῦσι σταυρὸν ξύλινον· καὶ βάλλουσιν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ μέσῳ τῆς κόγχης. Or ὄπισθεν τῆς ἁγίας τραπέζης; Goar 1730: 487–488.The church of Kurşunlu Manastır in Bithynia preserved a similar cutting in the diakonikon; see Mango and Ševčenko 1973: 256–257 and ig. 113. Clavijo: 75–76. See also Majeska 1984: 221–222. κατὰ τοὺς τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἐμπροσθίους τοίχους; PG 147: 573. See also Brock 1967: 86. Leo VI brought both bodies to Constantinople. For the monastery of Saint Lazaros, see Janin 1969: 298–300; Majeska 1984: 380–381. Some Russian pilgrims reported that the relics of Lazaros and Mary Magdalene were sealed in a column. For example, Saint Cyril (d. 869) was buried to the south of the main altar in the lower church of San Clemente in Rome; Osborne 1981; Ćurčić 2000: 136. See, for example, Arranz 1996: 142–157. See also Trempelas 1950–1955: I, 222–256; Bradshaw 1990. See, for example, Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 17–18.

THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON

portable reliquaries, and other related objects. This clarity is the end result of a process, completed, as I will argue, by the eleventh century at the latest, that entailed the abandonment of the outside skeuophylakion and the transfer of its primary functions – the prothesis, the preparation of the Eucharistic elements, and the safekeeping of liturgical objects – to the side rooms of the tripartite bema. Although the general outlines of this process are known, the particulars remain elusive. The transition from the skeuophylakion to the tripartite bema did not happen abruptly; rather, according to the sources, the two practices coexisted for quite some time.46 An interpolation in the eighth-century liturgical commentary of Germanos I, patriarch of Constantinople (d. 730), clearly illustrates this: “the preparation of the gifts which takes place in the [sanctuary or] the skeuophylakion, stands for the place of Calvary.”47 In Hagia Sophia (and likely in other early Constantinopolitan churches), the outside skeuophylakion continued to be used as the location of the prothesis rite perhaps as late as the tenth century (Fig. 1).48 However, eleventh-century liturgical sources suggest that the preparation of the elements occurred in the bema.49 A diataxis relecting the eleventh-century Liturgy in Hagia Sophia omits any involvement of the patriarch in the prothesis rite, likely because it took place inside the church. For the same reason, at the end of the Liturgy the patriarch did not have any part in the consummation of the gifts.50 A prothesis room was certainly situated inside the building in the fourteenth century, as indicated by a passage in PseudoKodinos describing the participation of the emperor in the Great Entrance.51 A number of other sources evidence that in the Medieval period the prothesis rite took place inside the church. The typikon of the monastery of Saint Mamas in Constantinople, composed in 1158, stipulated that: At the beginning ... of the sixth hour both the priest and the deacon who are on duty that day along with the assistant ecclesiarch must make a genulection to the superior, and, while the former must enter into the 46

47 48

49 50

51

It is tempting to construct a narrative about the coexistence of two traditions, one conservative, practiced in parochial and cathedral churches, and another “progressive,” practiced in monasteries, as in Descoeudres 1983: 149–159. This was probably the case during the early development of the rite. However, some of the most important regulatory documents on the prothesis, such as those of Nicholas III Grammatikos and the metropolitan Elias (see later), come from patriarchal or episcopal circles and indicate that the prothesis rite was eventually accepted universally. Taft 1978: 186. See, for example, the tenth-century codex Pyromalus; Goar 1730: 153. See also Taft 1978: 267–268. For the abandonment of the skeuophylakion, see Taft 1978: 179–184, 200–203. Taft 1980b: 99–100, 123–124. However, Anthony of Novgorod in 1200 calls the outside skeuophylakion prothesis; Taft 1997–1998: I, 24–25. Pseudo-Kodinos: 263–265;Taft 1978: 200–203.The emperor had to wait “outside the prothesis” (ἔξω τῆς προθέσεως ἱστάμενος). Where the prothesis was located inside Hagia Sophia is unknown; see Mathews 1971: 94.

31

32

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

holy bema to perform the proskomide [prothesis],52 the other must go of to strike the large symantron.53

Diataxeis assume that the prothesis room was a separate space inside the bema. In a late twelfth- or early thirteenth-century diataxis now in Athens, the priest and the deacon, after putting on their vestments, depart (ἀπέρχονται) for the prothesis.54 Pseudo-Sophronios outlines a close topographical relationship between the altar and the prothesis room: “the holy altar manifests the holy tomb, where he was buried; the holy prothesis is the place of the skull, where he was cruciied.”55 Symeon of Thessalonike further expands on the same idea: The place of the skeuophylakion, which is also called prothesis, to the side of the sanctuary [i.e., the main apse] signiies Bethlehem and the cave. That way it is secluded and not far from the sanctuary, although it used to be farther out in the large churches for the safekeeping of the vessels. That it is secluded indicated the poverty of Jesus when he irst appeared, and the poverty of the place, and the almost unnoticed and rough cave.... And it is close to the sanctuary because Bethlehem was close to Jerusalem and the tomb of the Lord.56

The shifting of the location of skeuophylakion/prothesis from outside the church to the bema relected changes in the nature of the Divine Liturgy, the result of both the transformation of the urban character of Constantinople during the so-called Dark Ages and the proliferation of monastic foundations.57 As Mathews has argued, in the Early Christian period the people did not enter the church before the beginning of the Liturgy.58 Thus an outside space where they could leave their gifts was necessary.With the eventual abandonment of this practice even in Hagia Sophia, the gifts were ofered and the Eucharistic elements were prepared inside the church, in the bema, during the prothesis. 52

53

54 55

56

57 58

The term proskomide, originally referring to the anaphora, became synonymous with prothesis starting in the twelfth century; see Taft 1978: 350–373. καὶ τοὺς μὲν εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸ ἅγιον βῆμα ποιήσοντας τὴν θείαν προσκομιδήν; Mamas: 285; BMFD: 1015. Trempelas 1935: 1–5 (left column). Ἁγία τράπεζα δηλοῖ τὸ ἅγιον μνημεῖον, ἐν ᾧ ἐτάφη. Ἡ δὲ ἁγία πρόθεσις ὁ τοῦ Κρανίου τόπος ἐν ᾧ ἐσταυρώθη; Pseudo-Sophronios: 3984. Ὁ ἐκ πλαγίου δὲ τοῦ βήματος τοῦ σκευοφυλακίου τόπος, ὃς καὶ λέγεται πρόθεσις, τὴν Βηθλεὲμ καὶ τὸ σπήλαιον διαγράφει. Ὅθεν καὶ ὡς ἐν γωνίᾳ ἐστὶ, καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου οὐ πόῤῥω, εἰ καὶ ποῤῥωτέρω ποτὲ ἐν τοῖς μεγάλοις ἦσαν ναοῖς διὰ τὴν φυλακὴν τῶν σκευῶν. Τὸ ἐν γωνίᾳ οὖν εἶναι τοῦτο δηλοῖ, τὴν τῆς πρώτης παρουσίας πτωχείαν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τὸ πενιχρὸν τοῦ χωρίου καὶ ἀφανὲς σχεδὸν τοῦ σπηλαίου καὶ αὐτοσχέδιον... Καὶ πλησίον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, ὅτι καὶ ἐγγὺς τῶν Ἰεροσολύμων καὶ τοῦ τάφου Κυρίου ἡ Βηθλεέμ; PG 155: 348. See the Introduction and Chapter 1. Mathews 1971: 155–162; Taft 1997–1998.

THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON

The prothesis rite acquired its present form over a period of several centuries.59 Its earliest known attestation is in the Barberini Euchologion, which contained a single prayer to be read over the loaves.60 A ninth-century interpolation in the liturgical commentary of Germanos I, patriarch of Constantinople (d. 730), recounts a lance that was used to incise a cross in the oblation, the recitation of biblical quotations (most notably Isaiah 53:7, ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη, “he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,” which would become standard), the mixing of wine and water in the chalice, and the censing at its completion.61 A letter of Patriarch Kosmas I (1075–1081) instructs that the prothesis room symbolizes Golgotha, but it describes a still fairly simple ritual.62 Leo Tuscus’s Latin translation of the Liturgy of Chrysostom (ca. 1178) mentions the preparation of the amnos (the central part of the bread symbolizing the body of Christ), the preparation of the chalice with the mixing of wine and water, and censing during the covering of the elements.63 For the rubrics in his translation Leo likely used a diataxis of the tenth century.64 The exchange between a priest and Elias, metropolitan of Crete (composed between 1111 and 1135), speaks of commemorations of saints and faithful, both living and dead; multiplication of the prosphora; and the multiplication of the bread parcels on the paten.65 This system is attributed to patriarch Nicholas III Grammatikos (d. 1111).66 The aforementioned diataxis in Athens includes all these parts as well as the covering of the elements with three liturgical textiles. At the end of all this, the deacon censed the whole church and the congregation.67 The fourteenthcentury diataxis of Philotheos Kokkinos contains rubrics for a lengthy and ritually complex prothesis service that, with little variation, eventually became standard in the Greek and Slavic world.68 The development of the rite was not linear and its adoption was not universal and synchronous throughout the empire. The prothesis rite acquired a complex structure from early on, as already in the tenth century it contained a series of ritualized actions and prayers. A shortened version of the ritual was attached to the Liturgy of the Presanctiied as early as the eleventh century.69

59 60 61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

For an overview of the prothesis rite, see Descoeudres 1983: 85–126; Pott 2000: 169–196. Euchologion Barberini: 57; Taft 1978: 274. Bornert 1966: 164–166; Meyendorf 1984: 72–73. The interpolation predates the end of the ninth century, as it is included in Anastasius Bibliothecarius’s Latin translation of Ecclesiastical History (869/870). Novae Patrum Bibliothecae X, 2: 167–169. Jacob 1966: 135–137. Jacob 1969: 249–252; Taft 1978: xxxv. Laurent 1958: 126–135. Pott 2000: 184. Trempelas 1935: 2–5 (left column). Trempelas 1935: 1–16 (right column). See also Taft 1988: 192–194. See the sources in Alexopoulos 2009: 325–328.

33

34

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

The rite was signiicant enough to merit about two dozen lines in a didactic poem attributed to Michael Psellos, who said the space of the prothesis symbolized Bethlehem.70 In the Protheoria, the prothesis is compared to both Bethlehem and Nazareth.71 The multitude of references, instructions, and symbolic interpretations of the prothesis service in liturgical books, commentaries, and other related texts prove that beginning in the eighth century, and perhaps earlier, some kind of ritualized preparation of the elements had become standard in Constantinople and at least some of the provinces. The almost simultaneous adoption and eventual standardization of the tripartite bema were certainly interconnected phenomena. As an architectural and liturgical unit, the tripartite bema had already existed in the Balkans and the eastern provinces of the empire for centuries, where it had a variety of functions.72 At what point a clear allocation of functions of the side apses occurred in Constantinople has been a matter of debate. Georges Descoeudres, working primarily from written sources, has concluded that this took place no earlier than the fourteenth century, but it was more likely a post-Byzantine phenomenon. Before then the side rooms did not have a speciic name or an exclusive function.73 Neslihan Asutay-Fleissig came to similar conclusions.74 On the other hand, Michael Altripp has argued that the service of the prothesis was in place by the tenth century at the latest and that the architectural arrangement of the tripartite bema followed promptly. Altripp’s thesis derived from his examination of the iconography of the north room in Greek churches.75 The terminological ambiguity of the sources has been the cause of this confusion. Some Middle and even Late Byzantine euchologia preserve the rubric of a prayer read “in the skeuophylakion.”76 This, according to Descoeudres, indicates the continuous use of an outside skeuophylakion throughout the Byzantine period. However, the survival of such rubrics is due to the conservatism of liturgical texts.77 This is clear, for example, in the pertinent rubrics found in a ifteenth-century euchologion:“[the priest] enters the prothesis and recites the following prayer [called] ‘prayer said in the skeuophylakion.’”78

70 71 72

73 74 75 76

77 78

Joannou 1958: 5–6. On this poem, see Bornert 1966: 207–210. Protheoria: 429. See Varalis 2006 for an overview of the pertinent bibliography. See also Stričević 1958–1959; Descoeudres 1983: 127–159; Krautheimer 1986: 298–300; Ćurčić 2010, passim. Descoeudres 1983: esp. 142–164. Asutay-Fleissig 1998: 46–55. Altripp 1998. For example, Sinai gr. 962, Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 64. See also Descoeudres 1983: 149– 150. Some of the euchologia cited by Descoeudres are not Constantinopolitan. See Pott 2000: 175–176. καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν πρόθεσιν, λέγει τὴν εὐχὴν ταύτην. Εὐχὴ λεγομένη ἐν τῷ σκευοφυλακίῳ; Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 614.

THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON

The inconsistent use of the terms other sources employ to describe the bema and its parts expresses largely the same ambiguity and a process of gradual terminological standardization. The words skeuophylakion and diakonikon, as well as diakonikon and prothesis, were used interchangeably in some Middle Byzantine texts.79 The common term βήματα could refer to all three apses,80 although the word had multiple meanings. In the singular, bema, it most often described the sanctuary as a whole.81 The Protheoria instructed that the “prosphora . . . is to be placed in what is called the prothesis,” as if this were a recent occurrence.82 The typikon of the Pantokrator monastery called the rooms “on either side of the main apse” diakonika.83 In the twelfth century, two commentators on church legislation, Theodore Balsamon (d. after 1195) and John Zonaras (d. after 1159), still referred to the place of the preparation of the Eucharistic elements as the diakonikon.84 And in one of his letters, George Bardanes (d. 1240) instructed that “at the time of the prothesis,” the chalice was to be placed “on the table of the so-called diakonikon.”85 The explanation for this vagueness is simple. The safekeeping of liturgical vessels and the preparation of the Eucharistic elements in the place called skeuophylakion or diakonikon had been, from the beginning, the exclusive or primary responsibility of the deacons,86 and this continued until the twelfth century.87 When these functions were transferred to the side rooms of the bema, so were the names. The contemporary terminological consistency is a later development, although the assignment of speciic functions in the side apses occurred much earlier. It is not until the thirteenth century that 79

80 81

82 83

84 85

86

87

For example, Moscow 27 (formerly Sevastianov 474, tenth century) mentions skeuophylakion for the opening prayer and skeuophylakion (Basil) and diakonikon (Chrysostom) for the closing. See Krasnosel’tsev 1885: 237, 279. ὑπὸ βημάτων τριῶν; Giros 1992: 430. It could also refer to a church, likely of a small size, as in De Cerimoniis: 534; or to diferent altars, as in Theophanes Continuatus: 145; or to diferent chapels within the same building, as in De Cerimoniis: 117. καὶ τῇ λεγομένῃ προθέσει ἀντιθεμένην; Bornert 1966: 200 and n. 5. Pantokrator: 39. Mistranslated in Pantokrator: 38 and BMFD: 741. Gautier’s text should be emended to καὶ ἐν τοῖς διακονικοῖς παρ᾽ ἑκάτερα δὲ τοῦ σεπτοῦ θυσιαστηρίου λαμπάδες δύο. Syntagma: III, 190. Ἐπυνθάνετό μου τὸ γράμμα ὑμῶν, ὦ ἀδελφοί, ποῦ ποτε χρὴ τιθέναι τὸ τῆς εὐχαριστίας ποτήριον, τῆς ἱερᾶς τῶν μυστηρίων τελουμένης προσκομιδῆς ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς προθέσεως, ἐξ εὐωνύμων ἢ ἐκ δεξιῶν. καί φαμεν ὅτι ἡ ἐκ τῶν πατέρων καὶ διδασκάλων ἐς ἡμᾶς κατιοῦσα παράδοσις ἐκ δεξιῶν ὁρίζει ποιεῖσθαι τὴν τοῦ θείου ποτηρίου παράστασιν ἐν τῇ τραπέζῃ τοῦ λεγομένου διακονικοῦ; Bardanes: 208. See, for example, the testimony from the seventh-century life of Saint Theodore of Sykeon: “And since the time of the next day’s Eucharistic assembly was approaching, the archdeacon brought forth the chalice to the diakonikon and uncovered it so he might show it to the most holy [father, i.e., Theodore] and conduct the prothesis with it”; Theodore Sykeotes: 37. Protheoria: 429 also indicates that the custom in Hagia Sophia in the eleventh century was for the deacons to prepare the elements. Laurent 1958: 135; Jacob 1966: 135–136.

35

36

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

the diataxeis call both the rite and the space “prothesis,” something that evidently became widespread.88 But in which of the side rooms did the prothesis take place? With the exception of a short sentence in the writings of Symeon of Thessalonike,89 which may give an episcopal perspective from the synthronon during the Liturgy90 or be simply a lapsus calami, I am aware of no Byzantine text, liturgical or otherwise, that speciies in which of the side rooms the prothesis took place.There is no compelling reason to assume that in a tripartite sanctuary the prothesis rite took place anywhere but in the north room, where it is still performed.91 The site of the prothesis was never indicated in liturgical rubrics because evidently there was never any confusion or uncertainty about it. Moreover, instructions for the starting point of processions clearly support the idea that the Eucharistic elements were prepared in the north room. The point of origin of the processions was of particular importance because the Great Entrance began from the prothesis. In the Synaxarion of Evergetis, the rubrics for the beginning of the service on Easter Sunday instructed that the priest, preceded by the deacon, exited the bema in order to cense the entire church “from the northern part, through which the processions take place.”92 The word used for processions (εἴσοδοι) is a direct reference to the First and the Great Entrance. The same text ofers similar rubrics for two processions of a True Cross reliquary that the monastery possessed, on September 1493 and on the Third Sunday of the Great Lent.94 In the Athens diataxis, during the reading from the Praxapostolos the deacon was instructed to process to the middle of the church or the ambo from “the northern part” of the sanctuary.95 Likewise, in the diataxis of Philotheos, the priest and the deacon left for the irst entrance from “the northern part.”96 Similarly, in Philotheos’s Diataxis tes Hierodiakonias (a text diferent from the previous one), the priest and deacon began their procession to the narthex for the oice of the Lite from the “north part.”97 88

89 90

91 92

93

94 95 96

97

Trempelas 1935: 1–5 (both columns). See also Symeon of Thessalonike: 226, 238, 240. The diataxeis also require the presbyter to perform the prothesis rite with the assistance of the deacon, reversing the previous arrangement. PG 155: 308–309. See the convincing arguments in Altripp 1998: 28–30. In another of his writings, when describing matins, Symeon clearly considers the north room as the prothesis and the south as the diakonikon; see Darrouzès 1976: 61. Pace Descoeudres 1983: 142–164; Asutay-Fleissig 1998: 46–55. ἔξεισι διὰ τοῦ βορείου μέρους δι’ οὗ καὶ αἱ εἴσοδοι γίνονται; Synaxarion of Evergetis: II, 506. Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 58.That the author refers to the bema from the point of view of the congregation is indicated by the word ἔξωθεν. The course of the contemporary procession on this day is virtually identical to that described here. ἐξέρχεται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ βήματος; Synaxarion of Evergetis: II, 404. ἐξέρχεται ... διὰ τοῦ βορείου μέρους; Trempelas 1935: 8 (left column). ἐξελθόντες διὰ τοῦ βορείου μέρους ποιοῦσιν τὴν μικρὰν εἴσοδον; Trempelas 1935: 6 (right column). Goar 1730: 4.

THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON

The evidence of iconography from the Balkans, although of limited usefulness, largely corroborates that the prothesis rite took place in the northern room. The iconography of the prothesis chamber, according to Altripp, provided a relection of the theological symbolism of the rite. Common themes included the Hospitality of Abraham, with obvious ofertory and Eucharistic overtones, the Akra Tapeinosis (“Man of Sorrows”), Christ the Anapeson (lit. “the reclining one,” Christ asleep, awaiting resurrection) and, less often, Christ Emmanuel.98 Dufrenne has connected the image of the Man of Sorrows, which, beginning in the thirteenth century, appears often in the north chamber, with the prayer Ἐν τάφῳ σωματικῶς (“Bodily in the Tomb”) recited at the end of the prothesis by the deacon.99 Indeed this image was an appropriate illustration of the sacriicial character and language of the rite, already evident in the commentary of Germanos.100 In contrast to the north room of the Constantinopolitan church, the information pertaining to the use of the south room, currently called diakonikon, is scarce. The term appears in the fourth century, but it cannot be connected with a speciic space inside the church.101 In all likelihood the south room was used as a sacristy, a place for the safekeeping of liturgical vessels and vestments.102 Vessels and related objects would have been kept in cupboards. The south room of the south church in the Pantokrator monastery was outitted with shelves likely for such a purpose (VIII-5).103 It seems, however, that in many cases only some objects were kept in the bema – those in current use – while the monastery’s sacristy was a secure room usually located outside the bema or even outside the church. For example, Clavijo reported that in the now-lost monastery of Saint John the Baptist in Petra the relics were preserved in the “tower of the church” inside a sealed chest.104 Typika sometimes speak 98 99 100 101 102

103

104

Altripp 1998. Dufrenne 1968. Dufrenne 1968: 300. See, for example, Syntagma:VI, 482–483. Theodore Sykeotes: 36–38. The fourteenth-century writer Theodore Pediasimos writes that the sacred vessels were kept in one of the spaces lanking the main apse in the metropolis of Serres without, however, specifying which one. See Orlandos 1949: 268. According to some rubrics clergy vested in the diakonikon; see Trempelas 1935: 200. Megaw 1963: 340 and ig. A. Niches or recesses were a common feature in side rooms. In their present state they fall roughly into two categories: niches that extend all the way to the loor [e.g., in the side rooms of the Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII), and in the north and south churches of Pantokrator (VIII)]; and those that end at about 50–60 cm from the loor [e.g., the side rooms in Hırami Ahmed Paşa Camii (XII-5) and the north room in Manastır Mescidi (XVI-3)]. Often their location is symmetrical in relation to the plan: there is one on the north wall of the north room and a corresponding one in the south wall of the south room [e.g., Hırami Ahmed Paşa Camii, Eski I-maret Camii (VII)]. Some of those in the prothesis rooms should also be understood as cupboards.The diataxeis, for example, call for several prosphora to be used during the prothesis rite, and a niche such as the one in the north room of the Eski I-maret Camii would have provided enough space for them. Clavijo: 80–83. For church towers, see Chapter 5.

37

38

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

6. Tokalı Kilise, Cappadocia, Turkey, 9th and 10th centuries, plan (redrawn after Jerphanion).

of the “skeuophylakion of the monastery,”105 where objects were shut up and sealed.106 This was certainly not the easily accessible south room of the bema. Other uses of the diakonikon were possible. A rather enigmatic passage in Symeon of Thessalonike implies that the deacons stood in the diakonikon during the Liturgy.107 In some cases the diakonikon is named in a monastic context as a place for hearing confessions108 and for a collation meal after communion,109 although the use of the term does not necessarily imply the south room of the bema. The other function suggested for the side rooms in a tripartite sanctuary is that of chapels. This was argued mainly by Mathews in connection with Middle Byzantine rock-cut churches in Cappadocia and the tendency toward private worship practices after the ninth century.110 For example, in the New Church of Tokalı Kilise in Göreme (mid-tenth century), the sanctuary was composed of three apses, which, however, did not communicate directly with one another but were all accessed through a connecting corridor to the west (Fig. 6). Each side apse was equipped with an altar and a presbyter’s seat and 105 106

107 108 109 110

Pantokrator: 127; Attaleiates: 77. Kecharitomene: 65. The typikon and other important monuments from the monastery of Mamas were to be deposited in the skeuophylakion of the monastery of Philanthropos; see Mamas: 310. PG 155: 345. Irene of Chrysobalanton: 40; BMFD: 1137. BMFD: 405. Mathews 1982.

THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON

7. Theotokos Skripou, Orchomenos, Greece, 873–874, plan (redrawn after Krautheimer).

each had a prothesis niche associated with it, either on the north or east wall of the corridor. Mathews argued that this was not merely a provincial monastic practice; rather, single-apse sanctuaries, or sanctuary apses lanked by chapels, were not uncommon even in Constantinople, as attested by the katholikon of Chora (VI). Asutay-Fleissig has also suggested that in some Middle Byzantine churches in Constantinople the side rooms of the bema were chapels.111 Finally, Teteriatnikov argued that the semicircular elongated niches in the two rooms that lanked the central apse of the Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII) were originally presbyters’ seats and therefore these side rooms were chapels.112 Mathews was certainly correct in his interpretation of the side apses in Cappadocia. This arrangement, each apse with an altar and a dedicated prothesis niche, inds a close parallel in the church of the Theotokos of Skripou (873/74) at Orchomenos, Greece (Fig. 7). According to the inscriptions on the outside walls, the two side rooms were chapels, the north room dedicated to Saint Paul, the south one to Saint Peter.113 All three apses had an altar made of spoliated pieces and a prothesis niche on the eastern wall, and each had a 111 112

113

Asutay-Fleissig 1998: 46–55. Teteriatnikov 1996: 65–66. For such niches, see n. 103.The evidence for this claim is tenuous. Furthermore, it is unclear how the existence of a seat proves that the space was a chapel. Papalexandrou 1988, esp. 60–77; 2001: 264–267.

39

40

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

sanctuary barrier separating it from the naos.114 Yet it is impossible to make an overarching argument about the function of the side rooms in Constantinople based on this evidence. Unambiguous cases such as that of Skripou are very few and of disparate dates and locales.115 In terms of concept, design, and function, the eastern end of the rock-cut Cappadocian churches is essentially diferent from the tripartite bema of the masonry churches in the capital. In contrast to Cappadocian examples, in Constantinople all three apses communicate with one another through doors or passageways, and there is no connecting corridor in the west and no prothesis niches outside the chapel proper. Furthermore, in the Constantinopolitan churches in which one or both side rooms were evidently chapels, such as in the second phase of Odalar Camii (XVIII-2), Kalenderhane Camii (XIV), and the fourteenth-century phase of Chora (VI), the arrangement is markedly diferent from the usual symmetrical tripartite bema; for example, the south room of Odalar Camii (XVIII-2) was larger than the north and probably capped by a dome. Another church, that of the Theotokos tou Libos, has played a central role for all those who argue for the use of the side rooms as chapels.Yet there is one overlooked but critical piece of evidence that decisively goes against such interpretation. During his survey of the Libos complex, Theodore Macridy uncovered in the loor of the southernmost exterior chapel of the Theotokos church the base of the altar and the rectangular cutting for the consecration relics, which were virtually identical to those of the roof chapels.116 However, the two rooms l anking the central apse had no such liturgical furnishings and they were not equiped for the celebration of the Liturgy (this is evident in Mamboury’s plan, XXIII-1). In the rare absence of a dedicated prothesis and diakonikon, other solutions were available. In the fourteenth-century phase of Chora, the Eucharistic elements were likely prepared in an arched niche set into the northeast side of the main apse (VI-3). In Toklu Dede Mescidi, in the place of side rooms the apse was lanked by two shallow niches inserted into the eastern wall (XXVII-1).117 Similarly, in the Mouchliotissa the apse preserves three absidioles in the wall, and the northern one likely functioned as the site of the prothesis rite (XXV-1). The tripartite bema, the place where the Eucharistic elements were prepared and consecrated, was in theological and symbolic terms the holiest part of the church. Its adoption in Constantinople marked the eventual abandonment of 114 115

116

117

Megaw 1966. See Papalexandrou 1988: 259–287 for parallels, many of which, however, have a tenuous connection to Skripou. In the thirteenth century this chapel was incorporated into the church of Saint John and used as the prothesis of this church. Pasadaios 1969: ig. 3 indicates the existence of a stylobate.

THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON

earlier practices, but it also underlined the urgency with which architecture evolved to accommodate the new ones. The signiicance of the bema was further underscored by the sanctuary barrier, a structure that underwent signiicant development throughout the Medieval period.

The Sanctuary Barrier The sanctuary barrier separated the area reserved for the clergy from the nave and the lay congregation.118 It guaranteed a separate space for the ritual actions that took place during the Liturgy and it facilitated decorum and security.119 It had been employed as such well before the ninth century. In the pre-Iconoclastic churches of Constantinople it was π-shaped or straight. Originally low, the barrier eventually grew in height with the addition of colonnettes and an architrave, without, however, impeding visual access to the sanctuary.120 Byzantine sources used a variety of terms to designate the sanctuary barrier.121 Κιγκλίδες (lit. “screen or partition”) was an ancient name found already in Theodoret of Cyrrhus (d. ca. 466).122 A related term was κάγκελλα.123 A common designation in Middle Byzantine sources is τέμπλον, a loan word from Latin, whose earliest attestation is in the seventh-century miracula of Artemios.124 The term iconostasis is an English neologism.125 Reconstructing the forms of templa in Constantinople is diicult because no sanctuary barrier has survived intact.The archaeological evidence is meager and limited to cuttings on loors and walls and piecing together of stray inds. Based on cuttings on the bema step and fragments of marble panels, Arthur H. S. Megaw reconstructed the templon of the south church in the Pantokrator monastery (VIII) as having four slender columns carrying an epistyle and joined at the bottom with marble slabs,126 the latter spolia from the church of Saint Polyeuktos (Fig. 8). Whether this should be dated to the twelfth century, as Megaw suggested, or to after 1261, as argued by Ann Wharton Epstein, is 118 119

120 121

122

123 124

125

126

Meyendorf 1984: 62. John Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople (d. 407), and others vividly describe the disorderly conduct of congregations. For some examples, see Taft 2006b: 38–39. Mathews 1971: 109–110. For these, see Lazarev 1964–1965: 120–121; Walter 1995; Kalopissi-Verti and PanagiotideKesisoglou 2010: 320, 403. Theodoret: 312–313. It is also used to designate a barrier in front of a cultic statue in Greek temples; see the remarks in Mylonopoulos 2011. Meyendorf 1984: 62; Walter 1995: 97–98. Mango 1979: 43. The word templon could refer to parts of the sanctuary barrier; see Walter 1995: 100–102. In Byzantine sources it refers to an icon stand as in Pseudo-Kodinos: 189. See also Walter 1971: 251–252. Megaw 1963: 344–346 and ig. E.

41

42

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

8. Pantokrator monastery, reconstruction of the templon of south church (after Megaw).

unclear.127 A section of the stylobate for the templon in Chora is still located at the setback of the apse.128 Cyril Mango and Ernest J. W. Hawkins estimated that the templon in the main apse of the Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII) had three intercolumniations.129 Some of the stray marble fragments uncovered by Macridy, including a peacock slab, certainly belonged to the templon.130 In the church of Saint John tou Libos (XXIII), the stylobate of the templon was preserved in front of the apse.The cuttings indicate that the templon had four columns in total, and each of the three intercolumnar spaces was approximately one meter wide.131 Mango and Hawkins again discovered fragments of what was likely the templon of the main apse in the katholikon of Pammakaristos 127

128 129 130 131

Megaw 1963: 346; Epstein 1981: 4. Parts of the Pala d’Oro in San Marco,Venice, supposedly came from templon decoration in Pantokrator; see Epstein 1981: 5; and most recently Klein 2010: 193–209. Ousterhout 1987: 44. Mango and Hawkins 1964a: 305. Grabar 1963: 107. Macridy 1964: 266–267 and ig. 5. The central one, aligned with the doors to the naos, narthex, and outer ambulatory, was open. The two side intercolumnar spaces were presumably blocked with marble slabs, as was usual.

THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON

(XXIV).132 Finally, fragments of parapet slabs and of a templon post and column were discovered in Kalenderhane (XIV), although their condition did not allow for a reconstruction.133 Despite the limitations of the evidence, it is safe to assume that the postIconoclastic templon consisted of low or chest-high parapets surmounted by columns that carried an architrave.Three intercolumniations were the norm for the central apse, and a single pair of columns supporting an architrave the norm for the side rooms. The central gateway usually had a pair of doors, of which no examples survive from Constantinople.134 The templon in the katholikon of Hosios Loukas monastery in Boeotia, a monument with Constantinopolitan ties, ofers a visualization of what such structures would have looked like in the capital (Fig. 9).135 Images in a variety of media were associated with sanctuary barriers at an early date. From the description of Paul the Silentiarios we learn that the epistyle of the sixth-century sanctuary barrier in Hagia Sophia carried silver repoussé images of Christ (in the middle), the Theotokos, apostles, and prophets.136 Mango has reconstructed the templon of the main apse in the late ifth- or early sixth-century church of Saint John in Oxeia as having images on top of the epistyle: Christ in the middle, Artemios to the north, and John the Baptist to the south.137 In one of his sermons Nikephoros I, patriarch of Constantinople (d. 828), referred to sacred igures and animals decorating templa.138 The Vita Basilii mentions that Christ’s image was represented “several times” in enamel in or on the epistyle of the templon in the church of Christ Savior in the Great Palace.139 Many surviving Medieval templon fragments, especially epistyles, from throughout the empire were embellished with sculpted sacred images, habitually with a Deisis,140 as well as animals, real and fantastic. And there exist numerous examples of painted wooden epistyles dating to as early as the eleventh century adorned with various subjects, including the so-called Twelve Feasts and episodes from lives of saints.141 Furthermore, 132

133 134 135

136 137 138 139 140

141

Mango and Hawkins 1964b: 331–332 and igs. 26–31. These included a small capital decorated with busts of three apostles carved in relief and part of an epistyle with the bust of one apostle. As these pieces date on stylistic grounds from ca. 1300, they belonged to a reconstruction of the bema barrier at that time; see Belting 1972: 70–73. Striker and Kuban 1997–2007: I, 107. ODB s.v. “Doors.” For a survey of the surviving evidence, see Gounaris 2010. Unfortunately, the tenth-century barrier of the adjoining church of the Dormition has been heavily reconstructed, but apparently it was of the same form. Xydis 1947: esp. 8–11. Mango 1979: 43. This church is known only from sources; see Janin 1969: 419–420. PG 100: 464–465. See also Chatzidakis 1979: 160–161; Walter 1993: 207–208. Vita Basilii: 284–286. See, for example, the templon excavated in Xanthos and published in Sodini 1980, where there is also a list of other examples. Soteriou and Soteriou 1956–1958: I, 100–114; II, igs. 87–125; Lazarev 1964–1965; Weitzmann 1986. See also Walter 1993: esp. 214–223.

43

44

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

9. Katholikon of Hosios Loukas monastery, Steiris, Greece, 11th century, interior looking east (photo: author).

the doors in the central part of the templon occasionally bore images, most often of the Annunciation, as in the case of the silver doors in the monastery of Kecharitomene, known from its typikon.142 Related to the templon were the so-called proskynetaria icons, framed images in mosaic or fresco located on the western side of the eastern piers or pilasters of the church.143 Because of their location, these should be regarded as parts of the sanctuary barrier, or extensions thereof.144 Two Constantinopolitan churches preserve such features. In Kalenderhane Camii only the frames 142

143

144

Kecharitomene: 154. See also Grabar 1961: 13–17. Grabar believed that sanctuary doors bearing imagery began to appear in 1100 at the latest. For the term “proskynetaria icons,” see Kalopissi-Verti 2006: 108. Such icons were found also in the narthex, where they created sometimes a mimetic relationship with the templon; see Kalopissi-Verti 2006: 123–131. Ćurčić 2000; Kalopissi-Verti 2006.

THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON

survive, consisting of two sets of verde antico pilasters supporting two sculpted beams (XIV-4).145 The frames, which should belong to the original thirteenthcentury furnishings of the church, likely held an image of Christ (south) and the Theotokos Kyriotissa (north).146 In Chora the mosaic icons are still visible (VI-3).147 Christ, in full igure, holding a Gospel book with his left hand and blessing with his right, occupies the northern side; the Theotokos with Christ child, inscribed “the Land of the Living,” is on the south pier.The latter’s elaborate frame, although in a fragmentary and mutilated state, is still in situ. Proskynetaria icons were evidently more common than the surviving examples indicate. Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, in the only satisfactory interpretation of instructions for lighting in the typika of the Pantokrator and Kecharitomene monasteries, has argued that the instructions referred to proskynetaria icons.148 To this we should add the evidence from the earlier Evergetis typikon, where the newly elected oikonomos (steward) was instructed to make three prostrations in front of and near the bema and then to “kiss with piety the holy, divine, and venerable icons of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the same the Mother of God, who is above all saints, and the Benefactor of all.”149 Judging from surviving examples, mostly from outside Constantinople, Christ and the Theotokos were the most common occupants of the proskynetaria. The church’s eponymous saint could replace the Mother of God and assume her intercessory functions.150 Portable icons eventually occupied the templon and the intercolumniations. When this happened has been a matter of debate, with suggestions ranging anywhere from the eleventh century to the post-Byzantine period.151 The disjointed and at times contradictory nature of the evidence, both textual and material, indicates that the transformation of the templon into the iconostasis was gradual, localized, and became the norm at diferent times in diferent places. Gordana Babic ́, André Grabar, Christopher Walter,152 and others have remarked on the importance of masonry templa in providing a terminus ante 145

146

147 148 149

150 151

152

The southern upper beam has in the middle of a frieze of acanthus leaves an image of the Hetoimasia with angels at the two extremities. Its counterpart in the north frame has the same disposition, only with Christ in the middle. Striker and Kuban 1997–2007: I, 104. Epstein dates the frames to a reconstruction in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century; Epstein 1981: 7–9. Hjort 1979: 226–229. Kalopissi-Verti 2006: 108–109. Μετὰ τὴν ἀπόλυσιν τοῦ ὄρθρου καὶ τὴν συνήθη τοῦ ἱερέως εὐχήν, τρισαγίου παρὰ πάντων γινομένου, ποιείτω τρεῖς βαθείας γονυκλισίας ἔμπροσθεν καὶ πλησίον τοῦ θείου βήματος ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος, εἶτα καὶ αὐτὰ τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ θεῖα εἰκονίσματα καὶ σεβάσμια τοῦ τε Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου καὶ κοινῆς Εὐεργέτιδος εὐλαβῶς ἀσπαζέσθω; Evergetis: 49. Kalopissi-Verti 2006: 118–123. See, selectively: Grabar 1961; Lazarev 1964–1965; Babić 1975; Chatzidakis 1979; Epstein 1981; Weitzmann 1986; Walter 1971 and 1993; Lidov 2000b; Gerstel 2006a. Grabar 1961: 17–22; Babić 1975; Walter 1993: 212–213.

45

46

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

quem for the widespread difusion of the practice. Sharon E. J. Gerstel was the irst to study these systematically.153 Based on the evidence from southern Greece, the Aegean islands, and Serbia, she argued that in those regions icons were commonly inserted in the intercolumnar spaces by the end of the thirteenth century. She saw this as a development parallel to the proliferation of bilateral icons in other parts of the empire and suggestive of the tendency, manifested diferently in various regions, to place icons on the sanctuary barrier.154 I would add that liturgical texts from this period onwards corroborate this chronology. For example, the pertinent rubric in a late twelfth- or early thirteenth-century diataxis reads: When they are about to celebrate the Divine Eucharist the priest and the deacon go in front of the holy doors and make three prostrations kissing the holy icons and they bow down towards the choroi [i.e., the north and the south side of the naos]. Then they enter the holy bema.155

The “holy icons” is likely a reference to intercolumnar icons because the clergy stood in front of the doors of the bema (the practice remains identical today). The inclusion of such a rubric in the diataxis indicates that such icons were widespread. However, this did not immediately become universal practice. In the patriarchal diataxis of Demetrios Gemistos (ca. 1380), the rubrics for the First Entrance prescribed that the clergy and patriarch kiss the “holy doors,” which presumably had images on them, before entering the sanctuary.There is no mention of any other icons in association with the sanctuary barrier.156 As late as the ifteenth century, in his detailed description of the templon, Symeon of Thessalonike explicated the symbolism of its columns and intercolumnar spaces, its veils, the epistyle, and the Deisis image on top of the epistyle, but he made no mention whatsoever of intercolumnar icons.157 Indeed, it is diicult to imagine which icons would have been placed in the templon of a building like the Chora, given the prominence of the two proskynetaria icons. Although the evidence from Constantinople is circumstantial and ambiguous, it suggests that the templon remained transparent until (and perhaps in some cases beyond) the thirteenth century, save for veils that could be opened and closed at various points. 153 154 155

156

157

Gerstel 2006a. Gerstel 2006a: 142. Ἐν τῷ μέλλειν ἐκτελέσαι τὴν θείαν ἱερουργίαν ἀπέρχονται ὅ τε ἱερεὺς καὶ ὁ διάκονος ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἁγίων θυρῶν καὶ ποιοῦσι μετανοίας τρεῖς ἀσπαζόμενοι τὰς ἁγίας εἰκόνας καὶ εἰς τοὺς χοροὺς προσκυνοῦσι. Εἶτα εἰσέρχονται εἰς τὸ ἅγιον βῆμα; Trempelas 1935: 1 (left column). For this preparatory service, see Chapter 1. See also Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 170: [ὁ ἱερεύς] ἀπέρχεται εἰς τὰ ἅγια θύρια καὶ ποιεῖ μετανοίας γ´ καὶ ἀσπάζεται τὰς ἁγίας εἰκόνας. Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 305. The patriarch venerated other icons, presumably on icon stands, somewhere in the naos. PG 155: 345. Cf. Symeon of Thessalonike: 90. Symeon does mention intercolumnar icons in other instances; see Darrouzès 1976: 49, 53.

THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON

What was the reason for the permanent closing of the sanctuary barrier? Gerstel has suggested that this phenomenon afected and concerned mostly the celebrant rather than the lay participants. She argued that by crossing this sacred boundary, the priest underwent a spiritual transformation and became a worthy celebrant.158 In addition to this, I would argue that reasons for making the barrier more opaque had to do with developments in liturgical theology that concerned primarily those standing in the naos.The progressively heightened sense of sacredness attached to the Eucharistic gifts and their “incomprehensible” consecration certainly contributed to this. That the mystery of the Eucharist was entrusted only to the clergy was not a new idea,159 but it was codiied and gained much wider currency and potency starting in the eleventh century. Not only handling the elements, but even looking at them became the prerogative of the clergy, whom the Holy Spirit cleansed and made ready at their ordination.160 Laymen were not permitted to approach the sanctuary, let alone cast their “impure gaze” on the mysteries. Niketas Stethatos (d. ca. 1090), a monk in the Stoudios monastery, recapitulated this in one of his letters with remarkable exactitude: “[T]he ability to comprehend and see these [mysteries] is ofered by God and the apostles only to the ofering priests.”161 He then quotes a variety of biblical and theological sources justifying his position that the laity should keep their impure eyes away from the sanctuary; indeed during the anaphora the laity should “close, as if doors, the senses.”The closing of the templon doors during the anaphora thus acquired a symbolic function: it encouraged the laity to “close-of all the doors of the senses so that they [the senses] do not wander around” but instead concentrate on the acts of the priests – which ironically they were not supposed to see – and on thanksgiving.162 The symbolic and actual holiness of the consecrated elements needs no explanation. When Balsamon was asked what should happen if the elements were spilled, he replied that “the holies [the consecrated elements] should be collected with every honor and the spot where they fell should be puriied and altered with ire and water.”163 In the twelfth century, writer Michael Glykas went so far as to claim that during the Eucharist Jesus really 158 159 160

161

162

163

Gerstel 2006a: 155. It is found already in Pseudo-Dionysios; see PG 3: 424–425. See also Walter 1993: 205. Cf. the prayer of the Cheroubikon: “Therefore I implore you [God], look upon me, your sinful and unworthy servant, and cleanse my soul and heart from evil conscience. Enable me by the power of your Holy Spirit so that, vested with the grace of priesthood, I may stand before your holy table and celebrate the mystery of your holy and pure body and your precious blood.” μόνης ἀφιερωθείσης τῆς αὐτῶν κατανοήσεως καὶ ὁράσεως πρὸς Θεοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ τοῖς προσφέρουσιν ἱερεῦσιν; Niketas Stethatos: 280. For these texts, see also Taft 2006b: 45–46. Niketas Stethatos: 282–286; see also 172. Symeon of Thessalonike: 132–134 echoes a similar sentiment. [Τ]ὰ μὲν ἅγια μετὰ πάσης τιμῆς συναχθήσονται, καὶ ὁ τόπος, εἰς ὅν πεπτώκασι, διὰ πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος σεβασθήσεται καὶ ἀλλοιωθήσεται; Syntagma: IV, 463–464.

47

48

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

was immolated.164 It is during the Middle Byzantine period that we have irm testimonies about the use of veils and doors to block the view of the laity during the Liturgy.165 In one of his letters, Niketas, a chartophylax and synkellos of the Great Church in the eleventh century, wrote that in some places he himself saw a curtain hanging in the bema at the time of the mysteries (i.e., at the beginning of the anaphora), spread in such a way that the priests could not be seen by those outside.166 The eleventh-century Protheoria (which frequently referred to the liturgical practices of Constantinople) also mentioned the closing of the doors and the spreading of the katapetasma, the veil over the central door separating the bema from the naos, but added that this was a monastic custom.167 This last observation is of particular importance because it indicates yet another practice that originated in monasteries. Veils in the sanctuary were likely more common than is thought. A scholion by the tenth-century bishop Arethas of Caesarea claimed that “what the veil is in the churches, the same is vagueness for words.”168 It is worth noting that such veils were sometimes decorated with images. In the inventory attached to the typikon of Kecharitomene, directly after the description of the templon, it lists the following: “the curtains (πέπλα) of the four intercolumniations (διαστύλων) bearing representation of the cross and igures of saints.”169 It is impossible to know if the intercolumnar icons were the end result of a process in which the templa veils decorated with images presented an intermediary stage, but this is an attractive speculation. Thus, the imagery on the templa had a twofold purpose: irst and foremost, it accentuated and reinforced the screen’s function as a sacred barrier that was not to be crossed except by those who were supposed to cross it; second, it provided a clear focal point for prayer by the laity during or outside services. The iconography of the templon screens directed this contemplation to salvation history through Christ (Twelve Feasts), to the power of and need for the intercession by the Theotokos and other saints (Deisis, proskynetaria, and intercolumnar icons), and saints as prototypes of a godly life (beams with scenes from a saint’s life). The templon thus became an integral part of the experience of the congregants who attended the services from the naos.

164 165 166 167 168

169

Jugie 1926–1935: III, 321–325. On this topic, see Mathews 1971: 162–171; Taft 2006b: 44–49. Niketas Stethatos: 232–234. Protheoria: 445. ὃ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ναοῖς τὸ καταπέτασμα, τοῦτο ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἡ ἀσάφεια; Arethas, sch. 22 line 17. Kecharitomene: 154; BMFD: 716

CHAPTER THREE

THE NAOS

The naos (ναός), located between the bema and the narthex, was the central and largest part of every Byzantine church.1 A space of the people and for the people, its size, form, and decoration relected the community’s needs and were also meant to guide and educate about proper emotional and spiritual engagement with the performed rituals. Indeed, some of the more intricate liturgical acts, such as the Little and Great Entrance, unfolded partly in the naos. The lay congregation, which attended the majority of the services from there, participated primarily through silent prayer.The cantors and choirs, also located in the naos, vocalized responses and praise on their behalf. As the place of the people and a space of almost uninterrupted prayer, the naos was used for permanent or ad hoc exposition of relics and, eventually, for the placement of tombs. The layout and appearance of a church and its naos at the time of completion depended on several factors. These included the desires and agenda of the patron, the budget, availability of building materials, workshop practices, decorative considerations, and the size and type of the community that was expected to use the building.2 The speciics of these circumstances usually elude us, because records of building activities are very scarce.3 Even when

1

2 3

The term could also refer to the building as a whole. It ultimately refers to the Jerusalem Temple; see Wilkinson 1982: 558. Marinis 2012. On this topic, see Ousterhout 1999; Bouras 2002b; 2010.

49

50

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

we have information about the building process and relevant issues, it is often distorted by personal biases. For example, Michael Psellos called the church of Saint George ton Manganon (X) Constantine Monomachos’s worst “foolish excess.” Psellos attributed the repeated false starts and the building’s size to Constantine’s ambition “to rival all other buildings that had been erected and to surpass them altogether.”4 Moreover, the loss of the vast majority of interior decoration of Constantinopolitan churches, which might have accounted for some architectural choices, further complicates these issues. As a consequence, it is diicult to explain suiciently the diferences in size and interior arrangements in the naoi of even more or less contemporary foundations. Compare, for example, Saint George ton Manganon (X, 1042–1055), a large cross-domed church measuring 21 × 17 m, with the late-eleventhcentury Eski I˙maret Camii (VII), a cross-in-square measuring 10 × 11 m, and the Mouchliotissa (XXV), a small, early eleventh-century tetraconch measuring 12 × 12 m in its original form. Such contrasts cannot be attributed to diferent purposes. Both Saint George and Mouchliotissa were monastic foundations. Indeed, there were no speciic formal characteristics that would distinguish a monastic from a parish church or palatial one. Nor is there any reason to believe that the habitual services celebrated in one space were essentially diferent from those taking place in another.Thus, the diferences, as well as the similarities, should often be attributed to practical matters and aesthetic preferences particular to each building type. Cross-in-square churches (see, for example, VII, VIII, XII) constituted the majority of the surviving structures, although only one, Manastır Mescidi (XVI), can be dated with some certainty to the Late Byzantine period. The naoi of those churches were continuous, uniied spaces with the exception of the four columns in the corners of the central bay supporting the dome. The process that led to the creation of the cross-in-square type is still under debate, even though the paradigm of an evolutionary development with one type morphing into another in neat succession has largely been abandoned.5 Cyril Mango has noted two signiicant characteristics of these churches: they were small, housing few congregants, and they lacked any kind of internal divisions that might imply the separation of genders during worship.6 Both attributes made the type suitable for monastic communities, which in this period were fairly small and single-gendered.7 Indeed, the earliest examples 4 5 6 7

Psellos: II, 61–62. Translated in Mango 1986: 218–219. For a review of the various theories, see Lange 1986. See also Striker 2001. Mango 1976a: 178–180. For example, the typikon of Kecharitomene (1110–6) limits the number of nuns to 24; Kecharitomene: 41; BMFD: 671. The typikon of the monastery of Pantokrator (1136) indicates that there should be no fewer than 80 monks; Pantokrator: 61; BMFD: 749. And in the monastery of Anargyroi (1294–1301) to 30; Anargyroi: 139; BMFD: 1292. Although the actual

THE NAOS

10. Fatih Camii, Trilye, Turkey, 8th century, plan (after Mamaloukos).

of the type were found in eighth-century monasteries near Trilye in Bithynia, such as one known today as Fatih Camii (sometimes identiied with Hagios Stephanos) (Fig. 10).8 The revival of monasticism in Bithynia in the eighth and ninth centuries has been well documented, as has the movement of monastics from Bithynia to Constantinople.9 The most celebrated such case was that of Theodore of Stoudios and his monks from Sakkoudion, who moved to the monastery of Stoudios in the late eighth century.10 It is conceivable that the Bithynian monks brought with them, along with their liturgical practices, a new kind of church architecture, one suited to self-dependent monasteries rather than to urban ecclesiastical foundations. Several of the cross-in-square churches in Constantinople, such as the north church tou Libos (XXIII-2) and both churches in the Pantokrator monastery (VIII-1), belonged to monasteries, although four-column buildings may also have been used in secular contexts.11 The popularity of cross-in-square buildings might have been due to practical matters as well. The type did not pose any signiicant structural challenges and could be replicated and repeated easily by masons who did not possess a sophisticated knowledge of architecture. In a city such as Constantinople with an important Late Antique phase there was an abundance of matching columns. The modest size matched the needs of monastic communities, the

8 9 10 11

numbers certainly luctuacted, they could not have been very diferent from those stated in the typika. Mango and Ševčenko 1973; Pekak 2009. Kountoura-Galake 1996: 205–228. Hatlie 2007: 322–326. See also Chapter 1. Ćurčic´ 2010: 272.

51

52

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

group most served by this type. Finally, the elegant, unobstructed interior of a cross-in-square church must have been appealing. Cross-domed churches, with a chronological spread between the ninth and the early thirteenth centuries, were also current. The dome was supported by four substantial piers, which were L-shaped and created relatively isolated corner rooms in the west side of the naos (Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii, II; Kalenderhane Camii, XIV). The corresponding eastern rooms sometimes became the side apses of the sanctuary (Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii, II; perhaps Mangana, X). Because these were corner spaces, they did not dramatically disrupt the unity of the naos, which, nevertheless, had a pronounced cruciform footprint. As the height of the building did not depend on the size of available column shafts as in the cross-in-square, cross-domed churches could be of considerable proportions. In all probability this type was meant for use by large communities. The so-called ambulatory churches presented a departure from the norm in that the congregation’s space was fragmented.The four piers that supported the dome and the columns between them divided the naos of the ambulatory church into two distinct spaces: the central, domed bay, and the ambulatory that enveloped it on three sides. Examples from both the Middle (Pammakaristos, XXIV; probably Peribleptos, XXVI) and Late Byzantine periods (south church in the monastery tou Libos, XXIII; and likely Hagios Andreas en te Krisei, I) have survived. These interior arrangements were likely due to the funerary function of those foundations.12 Other types were uncommon. New basilicas were rare during the Medieval period and were smaller than their Early Christian antecedents.13 Kefeli Mescidi (XV) likely dates to the Late Byzantine period. I˙sa Kapı Mescidi (XIII) is of Palaiologan date. Two other buildings followed unique arrangements. In the katholikon of Chora monastery, the naos had a cruciform footprint, which, however, did not fragment the unity of the interior (VI-1, 3). The form of the naos in the Chora was the result of a rebuilding undertaken in the early twelfth century, when the original cross-in-square church was replaced with the cruciform plan that was retained in the fourteenth-century reconstruction. Ousterhout has attributed this change to structural rather than liturgical or functional concerns.14 In the Mouchliotissa (XXV), the center bay under the dome opened to spacious conches on all four sides. Such quatrefoils were unusual, although not unique as evidenced by the eleventh-century church of Panagia Kamariotissa in nearby Heybeliada (Fig. 11).15 12 13 14 15

See the last few pages in this chapter. Altripp 2013 appeared too late to be considered in this study. Ousterhout 1987: 20–22. On this church, see Mathews 1973. Churches that belonged to “uncommon” types certainly existed. For example, the church in Küçükyalı on the Asian shore of the sea of Marmara

THE NAOS

53

All formal variations shared some characteristics. The naos was almost always a uniied space without divisions, allowing unimpeded visual access to the templon and bema from all points.16 The columns or piers, in combination with the superstructure and the vaulting, made manifest in the naos the symbol of the cross. The central bay was almost always covered by a dome on a drum. All these conformed with the symbolic interpretation of the domed 11. Theotokos Kamariotissa, Heychurch as a microcosm and an image of the universe, an beliada,Turkey, 11th century, plan idea evident already in Origen (d. ca. 254),17 which was (redrawn after Pasadaios). made explicit in the seventh-century liturgical commentary of Maximos the Confessor: “God’s holy church is a igure and image of the whole visible and invisible universe.”18 The same idea continued to be employed throughout the Byzantine period. In the ifteenth century Symeon of Thessalonike wrote: “The comeliness of the church teaches the beauty of the creation, and the hanging lights imitate the stars, and the dome imitates the irmament.”19 The features of these churches also correspond to the general outlines of the iconographic program as developed in the post-Iconoclastic period, with Christ Pantokrator on the dome, the Great Feasts in the vaults, and standing saints on the lower walls.20 Although no Byzantine church in Constantinople has preserved the interior decoration of its naos intact, evidence from literary sources conirms that such an arrangement was in place already in the late ninth century. The description of Patriarch Photios (d. after 893) of the now-lost church of the Theotokos of the Pharos in the Great Palace speaks of Christ on the dome, angels on the drum, the Virgin in the apse, and images of apostles, martyrs, prophets, and patriarchs throughout the church.21 Emperor Leo VI’s sermon on the consecration of a likely cross-insquare church built by his father-in-law, Stylianos Zaoutzes (d. 899), describes

16

17

18

19

20

21

was a building with an octagonal central bay deined by thick piers, and lateral porches on the north and south sides of the naos, on which, see Ricci 2008. Although Ricci is correct that the remains belong to a church rather than the Bryas palace, the identiication with the monastery of Satyros is tenuous and the proposed ninth-century date is uncertain. Indeed, the architectural and sculptural parallels cited in Ricci 2011: 86–87 date to the tenth century. There is some evidence for speciic interior divisions in Early Christian Constantinopolitan basilicas, but the Medieval naoi lacked such features; Mathews 1971: 125; Peschlow 2006b: 54–55. Bornert 1966: 99–100. See also McVey 1983, 2010; Saradi 2010: 98–105. The same symbolism occurred in the Liturgy; see Taft 1992: 37–38. τοῦ σύμπαντος κόσμου, τοῦ ἐξ ὁρατῶν καὶ ἀοράτων οὐσιῶν ὑφεστῶτος, εἶναι τύπον καὶ εἰκόνα τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίαν; Maximos Confessor: 14–15. τοῦ ναοῦ δὲ ἡ ὡραιότης τὴν τῆς κτίσεως διδάσκει καλλονήν, καὶ τὰ μὲν αἰωρημένα φῶτα τοὺς ἀστέρας μιμεῖται, ὁ κύκλος δὲ τὸ στερέωμα; Symeon of Thessalonike: 94. Demus 1976 remains the basic study of the arrangement of the monumental decoration in a church. Mango 1986: 186. For this church, see Janin 1969: 232–236.

54

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Christ on the dome with angelic powers and prophets on the drum. The rest of the church was decorated with “events of the Incarnation” (τῆς διὰ σαρκὸς οἰκονομίας φέρει τὰ πράγματα), beginning with the Annunciation and ending with the Ascension.22 The naos was above all the place from where the lay congregation attended services. The people occupied parts or all of it as needed.23 Segregation of sexes presumably occurred in secular churches, although neither gender seems to have had a ixed location. Women often found themselves in galleries but were not conined to them. Gender segregation was not relevant in monastic churches, where members of the opposite sex were not allowed to enter the monastery, with very few exceptions. Some theologians prescribed that people stand in church according to a horizontal hierarchy: the higher the ecclesiastical or political rank, the closer to the sanctuary. This is relected in a letter of Niketas Stethatos of Stoudios: Know that during the holy anaphora, the place of the laity in the assembly of the faithful is far from the divine altar. The interior of the holy bema is reserved to the priests, deacons, and subdeacons alone; the area outside near the bema to the monks and other ranks of our hierarchy; behind them and their platform, the space is for the laity.24

Three centuries later, Symeon of Thessalonike promoted a similar arrangement.25 How often these guidelines were observed is impossible to know. Singers were a special component of the congregation and its only members to have an assigned space, at least according to the written sources. Evangelia Spyrakou has distinguished two major phases in the coniguration and placement of choirs.26 In the irst, which pertains primarily to secular churches following the Asmatike Akolouthia, soloists occupied the area above and beneath the ambo, an elevated platform in the middle of the naos common in early Constantinopolitan churches.27 A larger choir was located directly in front of 22

23 24

25 26 27

Leo VI: 472–476. Translated in Mango 1986: 203–205. For this church, see Janin 1969: 132. See also Leo VI’s description of the decoration of the church in the monastery of Kauleas in Constantinople; Leo VI: 425–426. On the location of people during the Liturgy, see Taft 1998. Τῶν λαϊκῶν, ἴσθι, ὁ τόπος ἐν τῇ τῶν πιστῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ, τελουμένης τῆς ἁγίας ἀναφορᾶς, μακράν ἐστι τοῦ θείου θυσιαστηρίου. Τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐντὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ βήματος μόνων τῶν ἱερέων καὶ διακόνων καὶ ὑποδιακόνων ἐστί· τὰ δὲ ἐκτὸς καὶ πλησίον τοῦ βήματος, τῶν μοναχῶν καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ταγμάτων τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἱεραρχίας· τὰ δὲ τούτων ὄπισθεν καὶ τοῦ ὀκρίβαντος, τῶν λαϊκῶν; Niketas Stethatos: 282–284. PG 155: 352. Spyrakou 2008. The ambo in the early Constantinopolitan churches was connected to the bema with a pathway and was used, among other things, for the reading of the lections.Whenever present, ambos continued to be used in the Middle and Late Byzantine period. This was certainly the case in Hagia Sophia and Stoudios (BMFD: 100A); see also Kazhdan 1987; Dennert 1995: esp. 143; Symeon of Thessalonike: 94, 246. Although there is archaeological evidence, primarily

THE NAOS

the bema in the solea.28 Sometimes this choir was divided into two smaller ones. Starting as early as the twelfth century, with the dissemination and eventual dominance of monastic practices, the soloists were integrated into two choirs, located on either side of the center of the naos. Much has been said about the gradual separation of the congregation from the liturgical action and the compartmentalization of worship in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods. Starting as early as the eleventh century, the sanctuary barrier became progressively more opaque with the introduction of curtains and eventually permanently ixed icons.29 Yet, it is inaccurate to think of the Medieval Byzantine liturgy as a mere stage performance attended by a passive audience.The templon impeded only visual, not audial, access, and only part of the time. The main doors of the bema were closed and curtains were drawn only at the beginning of the anaphora, although even this was not a universal practice.30 The concealment of the “mysteries” was a symbolic act, meant to underscore the sacredness of the Eucharist, not to keep it a secret or disassociate the people from the liturgical action in the bema. The people would certainly know what was going on, especially as parts of the anaphora were read aloud. The auditory connection during the anaphora became important in spite of, or rather because of, the absence of a visual one. Furthermore, substantial parts of the Divine Liturgy involved a dialogue between the celebrants and the congregation, even if the response of the congregation was often sung by cantors. Although most of the liturgical action took place inside the bema, the clergy frequently penetrated the naos. The most important instances during the Divine Liturgy were the two entrances. In the Little Entrance the priest and deacon would process through the naos, stand in the middle and, after a blessing, enter the sanctuary.31 During the Great Entrance the clergy carried the Eucharistic gifts from the prothesis through the naos and the narthex to the altar. Clergy also would appear in the naos at several other points. A procession from the altar to the middle of the naos preceded the reading of the Gospel.32 The deacon would cense the people on several occasions. Furthermore, he

28

29 30 31

32

from Asia Minor, for de novo construction of ambos early in the Middle Byzantine period, it seems that they were rare; see Soteriou 1929: 302–304 for a Medieval ambo in Kalambaka, Greece, reconstructed using older material; Dennert 1995; Pazaras 1994 for an ambo in Verroia; Peschlow 1994; and Sodini 1994. Sodini is right in connecting the disappearance of the ambo with the prevalence of monastic churches after the ninth century, as mentions of it are virutally nonexistent in monastic typika. For this term, see Chapter 2 and Walter 1995: 99–100. Symeon of Thessalonike assigns the subdeacons and readers in the solea; see PG 155: 345. See Chapter 2. It is, for example, absent from the earlier diataxeis. There were entrances, following approximately the same course, during Matins and Vespers; see, for example, PG 155: 608–609; Phountoules 1976: 148. Trempelas 1935: 8 (both columns).

55

56

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

would read many of his assigned petitions in front of the center door of the templon.33 The laity received communion in front of the templon,34 again following a preestablished order of importance: irst the subdeacons, readers, and cantors; then monastics; and inally the people, according to their rank.35 Even if they were not active participants, congregants engaged with the ritual acts through contemplation. Middle and Late Byzantine liturgical commentaries ofer insights on how the people understood (or ought to have understood) the Liturgy.36 The exegetical models fall roughly into two categories: a spiritual interpretation whereby the anagogical contemplation of the liturgical rituals uncovers heavenly realities (θεωρία), and a historical explication in which the Liturgy is a mimesis of Christ’s redemptive work on earth (ἱστορία).37 In simpler terms, the Liturgy is most often interpreted as a relection and foretaste of heavenly worship38 and a memorial and reenactment of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.39 The iconography of churches expressed the same ideas. In the sanctuary such themes as the concelebrating saintly hierarchs and the communion of the apostles became predominant by the eleventh century.40 And in the naos the Christological scenes surrounding the faithful were liturgical in that these scenes were reenacted with every celebration of the Liturgy.41 Visual exegesis in liturgical rolls, manuscripts for the use of clergy, follows the same patterns. The eleventh-century scroll Staurou 109, now in the library of the Greek Patriarchate of Jerusalem, contains next to the liturgical prayers images both pertaining of the heavenly Liturgy, including the Communion of the Apostles, and to the life and ministry of Christ.42 Thus, the church building, its decoration, and the ritual actions of the clergy enforced the idea of the whole community, laity and clergy, praising God and participating in the Liturgy. The cruciform character of the naos signiied that the people found themselves “bodily into the cross” and, during the Liturgy, they participated in Christ’s sacriice on the cross.43 By reading petitions in the 33 34 35 36 37

38

39

40 41 42 43

See, for example, Trempelas 1935: 5 (right column), 6 (left column). πρὸ τῶν ἱερῶν πυλῶν; Symeon of Thessalonike: 250. Symeon of Thessalonike: 250. On Byzantine liturgical commentaries, see the fundamental work of Bornert 1966. These were essentially applications of patristic scriptural exegesis on the text and ritual of the Liturgy. I should note that, although this is the most prominent understanding, “heavenly realities” could refer to a variety of other interpretations. Especially in Germanos of Constantinople and the Protheoria, the Liturgy is seen as the fulillment of such Old Testament preigurations as Melchisedech and Temple sacriices.These repeat patristic understandings of the Eucharist; see Bornert 1966: 205–206. Starting with Germanos, most authors combine the two exegetical approaches, usually favoring one over the other. Gerstel 1999: 5–67. Kitzinger 1988: 53. Grabar 1954: igs. 10, 12, 13, 14. Mathews 1990: 191.

THE NAOS

naos about health, peace, salvation of souls, and even good crops, the deacon became the voice of the congregation, expressing their needs, wishes, and concerns. Germanos of Constantinople described the Little Entrance, in which the Gospel book was processed around the naos, as symbolizing “the appearance of the Son of God into this world,”44 when Christ lived among the people. Signiicantly, the procession would stop briely under the dome, beneath the image of Christ Pantokrator clasping the Gospel book.45 The presence of a bishop in cases of pontiical liturgy further enhanced this symbolism. The bishop joined the Little Entrance in the narthex, and in later years in the nave, as a visible embodiment of Christ.46 The subsequent reading of the lection in the middle of the naos signaled that God’s word was addressed to everybody. Furthermore, on diferent occasions the deacon censed the church, its icons, and inally, and most tellingly, the congregants. With this act, the participants became part of the communion of saints on the walls of the church and in the icon stands that surrounded them.47 The Great Entrance intensiied this notion because it symbolized “the entrance of the saints and all the just, entering together before the Cherubic powers and angelic hosts, invisibly going before Christ the Great King.”48 Concomitantly, the people became “the greatest crowd and the children of the Hebrews who sensibly praised him as king and conqueror of death”49 when Christ arrived in Jerusalem.The communion and, after the twelfth century, the distribution of the antidoron further underlined the communal character of the worship.50 Many former Byzantine churches in Istanbul, most retroitted for Muslim worship, barely relect the sometimes overwhelming richness of their original interiors. In addition to the permanent wall decoration (marble revetment, mosaic, fresco, and so on), the naos had a variety of decorative and liturgical accoutrements that were portable and ephemeral. The inventory appended to the typikon of the Kecharitomene monastery lists more than a dozen portable icons, six metal crosses, several sets of Eucharistic vessels, and liturgical vestments and textiles, which were used depending on the occasion.51 The skeuophylakissa (σκευοφυλάκισσα, lit. “the keeper of the vessels”) is instructed

44 45 46

47 48 49 50

51

Meyendorf 1984: 72, 74. On this, see Mathews 1990, esp. 208–209. Protheoria: 436–438. After the twelfth century with the introduction of igural embroidery of vestments, the symbolism of the Liturgy as a reenactment of Christ’s life was further underscored; see Woodin 2011; 2012. Mathews 1988: 14. Meyendorf 1984: 86; Taft 1992: 47. Protheoria: 441. Although this was the ideal experience of the people, sources sometimes tell of less-thanperfect deportment, including making noise, being dressed inappropriately, falling asleep, and doing handiwork during the services; see Dubowchik 2003: 289–290; Taft 2006b: 38–39. Kecharitomene: 152–155; BMFD: 714–717.

57

58

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

to “hand over to the ekklesiarchissa (ἐκκλησιάρχισσα)52 for the service of the church both the things for daily use and the things used in the feasts, and when it is time, receive these back again from her and guard them.”53 The typikon of Pantokrator refers to “icons set out for veneration (προσκυνήσεις),” which changed depending on the feast day.54 The same text contains detailed instructions concerning the lighting in all three churches. Just for the church of Eleousa the typikon prescribes more than thirty lamps throughout the building, in the apse, the naos, the narthex, and in front of icons. Eight were to burn continuously and the rest only during services. For the weekly Friday evening procession an additional twenty-two lamps and several candles were to be employed.55 Thus, the naos was a dynamic and ever-changing space where objects were exposed for ad hoc veneration and were moved around, revealed, and taken away. In addition to icons, reliquaries, usually kept in sacristies and chapels, were ofered for veneration in the naos on certain occasions. For example, in the monastery of Evergetis on the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, as soon as the singing of the canon started during Matins, the priest and deacon processed around the church and deposited the cross on a decorated table that had been placed in front of the templon on the right side. After the ritual of the exaltation of the Cross, irst the abbot, and then everybody else in pairs, venerated the cross. The relic remained there until the beginning of the Liturgy.56 In addition to these programmatic expositions, reliquaries could be taken out for veneration as needed. Ruy González de Clavijo (d. 1412), the Spanish ambassador, visited the monastery of Saint John the Baptist in Petra in order to venerate the monastery’s relics and speciically the Passion relics, which were transferred to that foundation from the Mangana in the early ifteenth century.57 The monks mounted the “tower of the church, where the relics were preserved” inside a sealed chest.58 This they “carried down into the church and placed on a high table which was spread with a silken coverlet.” Subsequently the monks presented, one by one, a formidable number of mostly Passion relics.59 A miniature 52 53 54

55 56

57 58

59

The nun who prepared the church for services. Kecharitomene: 65; BMFD: 680–1. See also Mamas: 269; BMFD: 1002. Pantokrator: 37; BMFD: 741. In the same text, Emperor John II Komnenos detailed his wish that the icon of Hodegetria “be taken into the monastery on the days of our commemoration” and placed near the tombs in the chapel of Saint Michael; Pantokrator: 81–83; BMFD: 756. Pantokrator: 73–75; BMFD: 753–754. Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 58–62. For a similar ritual in Hagia Sophia, see also Typikon of the Great Church: I, 28–33; II, 40–47; De Cerimoniis: 538–541, 549–550. Majeska 1984: 342–344. The Russian anonymous reports a chest of relics in the monastery of Peribleptos; Majeska 1984: 146. Clavijo: 80–83. Anthony of Novgorod described a similar exposition of relics on a table in the monastery of the prophet Elijah; see Ehrhard 1932: 62.

THE NAOS

in the Menologion of Basil II (fol. 324r) of the veneration of the chains of Saint Peter, kept in his eponymous eukterion close to Hagia Sophia, illustrates this practice. The miniature shows the chains displayed on a table in the naos.60 As with other parts of the Byzantine church, the naos accommodated permanent and semipermanent installations of sacred loci. For example, in Mangana (X), the aforementioned chest with the Passion relics was located “on the right side in front of the altar.”61 This chest was in all likelihood outside the bema, because pilgrims and visitors could venerate it, albeit not the relics themselves. Similarly, the Russian Anonymous noted that in the naos of Stoudios “there are two incorrupt bodies … Saint Sabas and Saint Solomonis repose in the corner on the left side.”62 Similar practices are known from other parts of the empire,63 although this appears to have been uncommon. It is often unclear why these saints’ tombs were inside the naos rather than in a chapel or a crypt, which was more common and precluded the circulation of pilgrims during services.64 However, the physical presence of a saint would have been especially signiicant during the Divine Liturgy, when his or her name would have been invoked both during the prothesis rite and immediately after the consecration of the Eucharistic gifts.The saint would join the congregation in ofering praise and worship to God, especially if the saint’s image were present on a wall or in a portable icon, while at the same time he or she would dispense divine grace through his or her remains. Not only saints but also laypeople could be buried in the naos, and several existing churches preserve evidence for such burials. The inner ambulatory in the naos of the Pammakaristos (XXIV) contained several tombs, most of which belonged to the family of the founders.65 In the church of Saint John in the monastery tou Libos (XXIII), nine tombs and two ossuaries were grouped within the corridor created by the colonnaded ambulatory.66 The second founder of the monastery, Theodora Palaiologina, and members of her family occupied them.67 Such tomb placements were thought to be greatly beneicial to the deceased, and this privilege was reserved for founders or benefactors of the foundations, usually members of the imperial family and the aristocracy,

60 61 62 63

64 65

66 67

For this feast, see SynCP: January 16. Majeska 1984: 140, 368–369. Majeska 1984: 146. For example, the oft-mentioned miracle-working tomb of Saint Nicholas may have been in the lateral aisle of his church at Myra; see Borchhardt 1975: 349–351. See Chapter 5. For the list of the tombs, see Schreiner 1971. For the arrangement of the tombs, see Mango et al. 1978: 6–9; Weissbrod 2003: 185–195; Efenberger 2007. Marinis 2009. Two further tombs were found in the north and south sides of the naos in the church of the Theotokos tou Libos. In Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii (XII), two arcosolia in the north and south walls of the naos also indicate the existence of tombs.

59

60

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

as well as for their families, a fact corroborated by sources on some now-lost foundations.68 In the Constantinopolitan monastery of Saint Euphemia en to Petrio the tomb of Pangalo, the mother of Emperor Basil I, lay in the northeastern part of the naos; the tombs of Basil’s brothers, Marianos and Symbatios, were on the opposite side.69 Basil was the founder of this monastery.70 In the naos of the church of the monastery ta Gastria in Constantinople lay the tombs of Emperor Theophilos’s wife, Theodora, and her three daughters, as well as that of Petronas, her brother.71 Theoktiste, the mother of Theodora, was the founder of this monastery and was buried in the narthex.72 Burials in the nave are also known in areas outside Constantinople. For example, the tomb of the protospatharios Christopher is located in the middle of the north wall in the nave of Panagia Chalkeon in Thessalonike (1028), a building with strong Constantinopolitan ties.73 This textual and archaeological evidence contradicts imperial and ecclesiastical regulations that forbade burials inside churches.74 The ninth-century collection of imperial laws known as the Basilika clearly dictated that “nobody should bury the dead in a holy church.”75 When asked whether it is permissible to bury the dead in a church or not, the twelfth-century canonist Theodore Balsamon diferentiated between properly consecrated churches and the socalled eukteria, in this context unconsecrated chapels.These lacked the relics of martyrs placed under the altar; chrismation of the altar, which took place during the consecration of the church; and a throne for the bishop.The main reason that Balsamon ofers for the prohibition of burial in consecrated churches was that “the body of a martyr [i.e., his or her relics] is buried there.”76 The desire to be buried inside a church proved stronger than canonical prohibitions, however.77 What accounts for such a desire? Dimitrios Pallas, Nikos Emmanoulidis, and others have argued that the appearance of tombs within those foundations was essentially a continuation of ad sanctos burials, the result of the transfer of relics to intra urbem churches, but this is not necessarily the case.78 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

77

78

For tombs of founders, see Popović 2006. De Cerimoniis: 648. Janin 1969: 127–129. De Cerimoniis: 647. Janin 1969: 67–68. Tsitouridou 1982. For an overview of this legislation, see Marinis 2009: 150. Basilika: 5.1.2. Οὐκ ἔξεστι θάπτειν τινὰ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐὰν δηλονότι μάρτυρος ἐκεῖσε σῶμα ἀπόκειται; Syntagma: IV, 479. See also Pavlov 1897: 318–319; Emmanouilidis 1989: 219–221; Pitsakis 2005: 68–69. For tombs in the narthex and exonarthex, for which the theological justiication is the same, see Chapter 4. Pallas 1950–1951: 176–180; Emmanouilidis 1989: 185–186, 189, 206–223; Laskaris 2000: 24–30. Emmanouilidis 1989: 187–223 distinguishes between burials in monastic and secular churches. However, the motives for pursuing a church burial in both cases were largely identical.

THE NAOS

Relics used in the consecration rite were just fragments placed in very small reliquaries that were subsequently buried or sealed, thus becoming inaccessible.79 The name of the martyr to whom they belonged was rarely, if ever, recorded. Thus consecration relics had a function diferent from that of other relics kept in churches and monasteries, or, in the Early Christian period, in martyria.80 Typika and other related documents make clear that the foremost reason for establishing a foundation was the salvation of the soul of the patron, in exchange for his or her commitment to glorify God through the foundation.81 Intrinsically related to this were the continuous and regular prayers and commemorations that the monastic community ofered on behalf of the patron and his or her family. This idea was encapsulated in the testament (1232) of presbyter Alexios Tesaites, who wrote: “Those who erect churches, they do it for three reasons: irst, to praise God; second, to pray for the emperors; third, to commemorate those who are buried there and the orthodox everywhere.”82 In the thirteenth century, Michael, bishop of Demetrias, in his discussion of Nicholas/Ioasaph Maliasenos, expressed a similar sentiment: “Because, as I see, many other chapels and pious institutions were founded by him [Ioasaph] for the salvation of his soul and the continuous commemoration of the orthodox emperors and of all Christians.”83 Most often, the obligation for perpetual commemoration came as a bequest associated with a monetary endowment or gift of land or property, as in the case of John Arbantenos, who was buried in the monastery of Pantokrator (VIII). Arbantenos gave the monastery part of his property in exchange for daily commemorations.84 Some documents, such as the Testament of Constantine Akropolites, blatantly underlined the binding nature of the exchange, buildings and property for commemorations: “In view of my demands, it would be suicient to bind you with a reasonable and acceptable oath.”85 Furthermore, the right to commemoration was not restricted to the founder but extended to whoever made a donation. The typikon of Kecharitomene instructed: “[The commemorations of those] who 79

80 81 82

83

84 85

See the discussion of the rite in Chapter 2.The relics of Euphemia in her martyrion near the hippodrome, before they were thrown into the sea by Emperor Leo III, constituted a rare exception. According to Constantine, bishop of Tios (ca. 800), Euphemia’s coin was placed under the altar and had a sizable access hole; see Halkin 1965: 87. Grabar 1943: I, 37–44, 385–393;Yasin 2009: 151–209. On the obligations and rights of the founders of monasteries, see Konidares 1984: 36–43. Οἱ θείους οἴκους ἀνεγείροντες ἐν τρισὶν ὑποθέσεσιν τοῦτο ποιοῦσι, τό μέν πρῶτον εἰς τὸ ἐξυμνεῖσθαι τὸ θεῖον, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον εἰς τὸ ὑπερεύχεσθαι τοῦ κράτους τῶν βασιλέων, τὸ τρίτον δὲ εἰς τὸ μνημονεύειν τοὺς ἐκεῖσε τεθαμμένους καὶ ἁπανταχοῦ ὀρθοδόξους; Miklosich and Müller 1860–1890: IV, 58. πολλὰ γὰρ, ὡς ὁρῶ, καὶ ἕτερα εὐκτήρια καὶ σεμνεῖα ἀνηγέρθησαν παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ψυχικῆς αὐτοῦ σωτηρίας καὶ μνημοσύνου διηνεκοῦς τῶν ὀρθοδόξων βασιλέων καὶ πάντων τῶν χριστιανῶν; Miklosich and Müller 1860–1890: IV, 425. Pantokrator: 45–47; BMFD: 743. Ἤρκει μὲν οὖν ὅπερ ἔφην εἰς ὅρκωσιν εὔλογον τε καὶ εὐπαράδεκτον; Akropolites: 284; BMFD: 1381.

61

62

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

were happy to ofer and dedicate something of their possessions will be conducted in whatever way they see it from what they are given by them, that is, in addition to what is decreed by us.”86 Such stipulations explain the tombs of nonrelatives of the founders that were found in many monasteries, such as the Chora. Both Middle and Late Byzantine typika included detailed instructions regarding the commemoration of the founders, their families, and associates.87 The desire to place one’s tomb inside the church had little to do with the presence of relics under the altar, but a lot to do with the act of commemoration in the Divine Liturgy, which occurred during the prothesis and the reading of the diptychs after the consecration, in memorial services, and by the congregation and visitors to the church. The tombs were placed in a space of constant prayer and sacrament, a location that was very beneicial even for the souls of the deceased. Nikolaos Kabasilas, a fourteenth-century theologian, claimed that one needed not be present physically, because the sanctiication that took place during the Liturgy addressed only the soul. Kabasilas wrote: But for those who are sanctiied, what are the reasons for sanctiication? Perhaps the fact that one has a body, rushes to the altar, takes the holy gifts in one’s hands, receives them in his mouth, eats them, or drinks them? Not at all. Because many who had all of the above and thus approached the mysteries gained nothing – rather they left being responsible for larger evils. But what are the causes of sanctiication to those who are sanctiied and what are those that Christ demands from us? The cleansing of soul, the love of God, faith, desire for the mystery, eagerness for the receiving of communion, fervent impulse, running with thirst. These are what attract sanctiication…. But all these do not pertain to the body, but depend solely on the soul. Therefore, nothing impedes the souls of the dead, like those of the living, to achieve these.88

And he continues: “From all the above-said it is evident that everything in the sacred rite is common to both the living and the departed. Since the causes of sanctiication are spiritual goods, they pertain to both.”89 86

87 88

89

τῶν δὲ καί τι οἴκοθεν προσενέγκαι καὶ ἀφιερῶσαι γνώμῃ καὶ προαιρέσει οἰκείᾳ ἀσπασαμένων καθὼς ἂν αὗται ἀπὸ τῶν παρ’ αὐτῶν διδομένων τυπώσαιεν εἰς προσθήκην δηλονότι τῶν διωρισμένων παρ’ ἡμῶν; Kecharitomene: 133; BMFD: 705. Cf. BMFD: 548. See, for example, Pantokrator: 41–47; BMFD: 742–743; Libos: 122–123; BMFD: 1274. Ἀλλὰ τίνα τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ τὰ αἴτια τοῖς ἁγιαζομένοις; καὶ τίνα ἐστὶν ἂ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ Χριστὸς ἀπαιτεῖ; Ψυχῆς κάθαρσις, ἀγάπη πρὸς Θεὸν, πίστις, ἐπιθυμία τοῦ μυστηρίου, προθυμία πρὸς τὴν μετάληψιν, ὁρμὴ ζέουσα, τὸ διψῶντας δραμεῖν. Ταῦτά ἐστιν ἃ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν ἐφέλκεται τοῦτον … Αλλὰ ταῦτα πάντα οὐ σωματικά, ἀλλὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐξήρτηται μόνης. Οὐκοῦν οὐδὲν κωλύει καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ταῦτα δύνασθαι τῶν τεθνηκότων ὥσπερ τῶν ζώντων; Kabasilas: 242. Ἐκ δὴ τῶν εἰρημένων ἁπάντων ἐκεῖνο γίνεται δῆλον ὅτι πάντα ὅσα εἰς τὴν ἱερὰν ἥκει τελετὴν κοινά ἐστι καὶ ζῶσι καὶ τεθνηκόσι. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὰ αἴτια τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ ψυχικὰ ὄντα ἀγαθὰ καὶ ἀμφοτέροις πρόσεστι; Kabasilas: 248. See also 254–256.

THE NAOS

The tomb itself acted as a forced reminder of the obligation of commemoration as it often included images of the deceased and epigrams that encouraged the viewer to pray on his or her behalf. In addition, entombment inside a church or a monastery ofered protection, especially from tomb robbers, something that was an evident concern.90 In the case of monasteries, the tombs provided monks and nuns with a constant, physical reminder of death and the futility of life, thus abetting their penitential exercises.91 Finally, tombs were a source of revenue for monasteries. According to the ninth-century life of Philaretos the Merciful (d. 792), the saint purchased a tomb in the monastery of Saint Andrew en te Krisei (I).92 In Constantinople, the two churches that had tombs in the naos, Pammakaristos (XXIV) and Saint John tou Libos (XXIII), belong to the ambulatory type and are the only surviving examples of it. It is likely that the katholikon of Peribleptos (XXVI) was also an ambulatory church. The tomb of its founder, Emperor Romanos III Argyros, was located in the naos, in the north arm of the ambulatory.93 Thus, there are good reasons to connect this type with a predominantly funerary function. These buildings presented the peculiarity that, in contrast to the norm in this period, the naos was clearly divided into two distinct zones: the central bay under the dome and the inner ambulatory that surrounded it on three sides. Tombs were placed in the latter. Therefore, the ambulatory plan, at least in Constantinople, should be interpreted as a solution that accommodated the juxtaposition of liturgical and funeral spaces within the same building. Following a process of creating zones of difering spiritual importance and function,94 the columns and piers that screen of the main bay serve as interior separators of spaces in the naos with diferent purposes, one funerary and the other liturgical. In that way the canonical prohibitions were liberally interpreted (or circumvented) as referring not to the church as a whole but rather to its liturgical center, the bema and the central bay of the naos. In the ifteenth century, Symeon of Thessalonike described the naos as follows: “we say that the naos is in the place of heavens and the paradise of Eden.”95 The faithful attending the services, along with the souls of those buried in the naos, joined the communion of saints, whose images were depicted on the walls and whose relics were sometimes deposited in tombs, in ofering praise to God as he looked down from the apex of the dome. But before reaching the naos, the people had to cross the narthex, an entrance porch with diferent symbolism and functions. 90 91 92 93 94 95

Gerstel 2011: 136–143. As argued in Gerstel 2011: 143–145. Philaretos: 151, 161. Mango 1986: 217–218. On this, see Marinis 2009. Οὐρανοῦ τάξιν φαμὲν καὶ τοῦ ἐν Ἐδὲμ παραδείσου τὸν θεῖον ἔχειν ναόν; PG 155: 708.

63

CHAPTER FOUR

THE NARTHEX AND THE EXONARTHEX

The narthex (νάρθηξ, πρόναος, and occasionally προτεμένισμα) was the narrow rectangular space running along the west side of the naos. At its most essential, the narthex was an entrance vestibule, a liminal space that marked the transition from the outside world to the paradisiacal visions of the naos and the sanctuary. To this liminality the narthex owed its ambiguity as a space, not quite as sacred as the rest of the church but at the same time an integral part of it. This was expressed in both the narthex’s theological interpretation and in the multitude of roles, some unrelated to liturgical ritual, that it acquired after the ninth century. As a result the narthex became one of the most functionally diverse spaces in a Byzantine church. A few churches were equipped with a second structure alongside the western side, the so-called exonarthex or outer narthex (ἐξωνάρθηξ, ἐξωάρθηξ).1 The exonarthex shared and extended the form and functions of the narthex.

Forms The narthex was a standard element of Constantinopolitan churches throughout the Late Antique and Medieval periods, and with very few exceptions was

1

64

Kecharitomene: 83, 85. The exonarthex was diferent from an outer ambulatory, which enveloped the building on more than one side.

THE NARTHEX AND THE EXONARTHEX

part of the original design.2 Such churches as the Myrelaion (XVII-1) and Eski I˙maret Camii (VII-1) exemplify its harmonious integration with the rest of the church. Usually, the narthex was as wide as the naos and communicated with it through one, two, or three openings. One or three doors opened from the narthex to the exterior or to an outer narthex or ambulatory. The narthex could extend beyond the width of the naos in order to give access to lateral aisles that lanked the building, as in the south church of the Pantokrator monastery (VIII-1).3 Other variations of the narthex were due to the incorporation of or connection with preexisting structures. For example, in the church of Eleousa at the Pantokrator the narthex had an extra bay to the south, probably in order to connect with the narthex of the earlier Pantokrator church. In Saint John tou Libos (XXIII) the narthex was originally truncated because the building was constructed adjacent to the preexisting north church. Churches without narthexes, such as Kefeli Mescidi (XV), were rare. Exonarthexes were less common than narthexes.With the exception of that in Kalenderhane (XIV), all surviving examples were built after the completion of the main church. In Eski I˙maret Camii (VII), the exonarthex was constructed in the Palaiologan period, replacing an open portico that was attached to the main church sometime in the late eleventh or twelfth century.4 In the south church of the Pantokrator monastery (VIII), the exonarthex, composed of ive irregular bays, was added in the twelfth century in the inal phase of the construction of the complex. Perhaps Gül Camii (XI) had an exonarthex, of which only the north wall remains. In the Late Byzantine period additions of subsidiary spaces to older churches became common. InVefa Kilise Camii a ive-bay exonarthex with three domes was added, likely in the fourteenth century (XXVIII-1, 6); it was wider than the original church.The outer narthex of the Chora (VI), constructed during the renovations of Theodore Metochites, had two extra bays to its south, connecting it to the chapel. Originally it was a fairly open portico. Sources attest to the existence of an outer narthex in such now-lost foundations as Evergetis5 and Saint Mamas;6 at Kecharitomene, this addition was made of wood.7 In only a few medieval Constantinopolitan churches, such as Chora (VI-5) and Kilise Camii (XXVIII), is the original narthex or exonarthex decoration preserved even in fragments. Other few ensembles are known from

2

3

4 5 6 7

Mathews 1971: 108. Of the surviving buildings, the Mouchliotissa (XXV) is the only one with a narthex postdating the construction of the main church. In the second phase of Odalar Camii (XVIII-2), the narthex likely had an extra bay in the north but not in the south side. Ousterhout 1991–1992: 52–55. Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 370. Mamas: 291; BMFD: 1020. Kecharitomene: 117, 126–127; BMFD: 699, 702.

65

66

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

texts.8 The dearth of iconographic evidence from Constantinople prohibits any generalizations about its links to the narthex’s liturgical function. Indeed, it appears that the iconographic programs in narthexes and exonarthexes were never truly standardized,9 even if some scenes were inspired by activities that occurred there. For example, George Gerov has argued that some iconographic elements underscored the narthex as a place for penitents. On the whole, however, the analysis of isolated examples or groups of scenes has proved that narthex programs had multivalent messages, both religious and political.10

Symbolism, Rituals, and Functions Theological interpretations of the church building resulted in the construal of a horizontal hierarchy of holiness.11 In this systematization the bema is the most sacred part of the church and the narthex is the least holy.The distinction is evident in the writings of Symeon of Thessalonike, who notes in his treatise on the interpretation of the church building: From another perspective, the whole divine temple can be perceived in triadic terms – I mean the structures before the naos, and the naos, and the sanctuary.This signiies the Trinity, and the triadically arranged orders above, and the pious people divided into three. I mean the clergy, the “perfect” faithful, and those in repentance. But the form of the divine church symbolizes the things on earth and on heavens and those beyond heavens. Thus, the narthex is the earth, the naos is the heavens, and the most holy bema represents those things beyond heavens.12

In Symeon’s scheme the bema was the holiest of places, the space of the clergy and a signiier for things beyond the heavens. At the other end, the narthex symbolized the earth and served the needs of the repentant sinners, who were not allowed in the church proper.13 The church’s architectural dividers – the 8

9

10 11

12

13

See, for example, Majeska 1984: 291–292 for the decoration of the narthexes in the Pantokrator monastery. See the brief overview in Siomkos 2006: 63–66. Tomeković 1988 argued for three principal iconographic groups, but she cited evidence from disparate sources, locations, and periods. See, for example, Ousterhout 1987: 122; 1995b; Nelson 1999a; 1999b; 2004. See the Introduction. This is in addition to the related vertical hierarchy underscored by the iconographic program. Καὶ κατ᾽ ἄλλον δὲ σκοπὸν, ὁ θεῖος ἅπας ναὸς τριαδικῶς θεωρεῖται, τοῖς πρὸ τοῦ ναοῦ φημί, καὶ τῷ ναῷ, καὶ τῷ βήματι. Ὃ δὴ καὶ τὴν Τριάδα σημαίνει, καὶ τὰς τάξεις τῶν ἄνω τριαδικῶς τεταγμένας, καὶ τοὺς δήμους τῶν εὐσεβῶν εἰς τριάδα διαιρουμένους, ἱερωμένων λέγω, καὶ πιστῶν τελείων, καὶ τῶν ὄντων ἐν μετανοίᾳ. Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἐν γῇ καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ τὰ ὑπεράνω τῶν οὐρανῶν, τοῦ θείου ναοῦ τοῦτο διδάσκει τὸ σχῆμα. Καὶ πρόναον μὲν τά ἐν τῇ γῇ, ναὸς δὲ τὸν οὐρανὸν, τὰ ὑπερουράνια δὲ τὸ ἁγιώτατον βῆμα; Symeon of Thessalonike: 90. Cf. PG 155: 337–340; Symeon of Thessalonike: 240. See also Constas 2006: 166–167. Later in the same text, Symeon clearly stated that the “sinners” are not to cross into the church but must stay in the narthex; see Symeon of Thessalonike: 94.

THE NARTHEX AND THE EXONARTHEX

templon that separated the bema from the naos and the walls that divided the naos from the narthex – further underlined these distinctions. These interpretations evidently relected prevalent attitudes. Already in the twelfth century Theodore Balsamon, expressing disdain for what appears to be a common practice and belief during his lifetime, implicitly testiied that the narthex was not considered as holy as the rest of the church. Commenting on the second canon of Dionysios of Alexandria, which banned menstruating women from attending services in the church, Balsamon wrote: we see today, mostly in nunneries, such women [i.e., menstruating women] standing without fear in the narthexes, which are beautiied with holy icons and assigned to the praising of God. And when we ask how is that allowed, we are answered that they are not in the church, which is not what I think! Because the narthexes are not public spaces, like the atria of the churches, but a part of them assigned to women who are not impeded from attending the services. The same narthex is secondly the place for repentance, called [the place] of the ones who listen. And in it are not allowed to stand even men who were punished with a ban from attending services, but they should stay outside and weep [during the services]. But for the unclean women to stand in the narthex, it would have been necessary for the narthex indeed not to fulill the role of the church [in the way it does when] the priests go across it with the holy gifts during the Cherubic Hymn [i.e., during the Great Entrance], and maybe cense the tombs and saints that are located in them, and perform services with holy prayers. Or at least, after [a decision] of a committee of bishops such spaces [i.e., narthexes] should be set apart so that unclean women can stand in them without committing a sin. But I saw such a woman standing in the narthex and the bishop read for her the prayer of the betrothal, something I was amazed at.14

Despite Balsamon’s protestations, people in his time assumed that standing in the narthex of the church was diferent from standing in the church. Thus, menstruating women, otherwise banned from attending services, could 14

βλέπομεν σήμερον εἰς τὰ γυναικεῖα καὶ μᾶλλον μοναστήρια ἀδεῶς τοιαύτας ἱσταμένας γυναῖκας εἰς τοὺς προνάους, παντοίαις ἁγίαις εἰκόσι κεκαλλωπισμένους, καὶ εἰς δοξολογίαν Θεοῦ ἀπονεμηθέντας, καὶ ἐρωτῶντες ὅπως τοῦτο γίνεται, ἀκούομεν μὴ ἐκκλησιάζειν αὐτὰς, ὅπερ ἐμοὶ τέως οὐ δοκεῖ. οὐ γάρ εἰσιν οἱ πρόναοι κοινοὶ, ὡς τὰ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν προαύλια, ἀλλὰ μέρος αὐτῶν ἀπονεμηθὲν ταῖς γυναιξὶ ταῖς μὴ κωλυομέναις ἐκκλησιάζειν. ὃς δὴ πρόναος, τόπος δεύτερός ἐστι μετανοίας, ὁ τῶν ἀκροωμένων λεγόμενος. καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ, οὐδὲ ἀνδράσιν ἐφεῖται ἵστασθαι ἐπιτιμηθεῖσι μὴ ἐκκλησιάζειν, ἀλλὰ ἔξωθεν αὐτοῦ προσκλαίειν. Ἔδει γοῦν τοὺς τοιούτους προνάους, εἰς οὓς αἱ τοιαῦται ἀκάθαρτοι γυναῖκες ἔμελλον ἵστασθαι, μὴ ἀναπληροῦν τόπον ἐκκλησιῶν ἐξ ὀρθοῦ, ὥστε καὶ ἱερεῖς μετὰ τῶν θείων ἀγιασμάτων διέρχεσθαι κατὰ τὸν χερουβικὸν ὕμνον, καὶ θυμιᾷν τοὺς ἐν τούτῳ ὄντας ἴσως τάφους καὶ ἁγίους, καὶ τελετὰς ἁγίων εὐχῶν ποιεῖν. ἢ κἂν μετὰ ἐπισκοπικῆς ἐπιτροπῆς τοὺς τοιούτους τόπους ἀφορίζεσθαι, ὥστε ἀποκριματίστως ἵστασθαι ἐν αὐτοῖς τὰς ἀκαθάρτους γυναῖκας. Ἐγὼ δὲ εἶδον καὶ τοιαύτην γυναῖκα ἐπὶ τοῦ προνάου ἑστῶσαν, καὶ εὐχὴν ἀῤῥαβῶνος, παρὰ ἀρχιερέως δεξαμένην, ὅπερ καὶ ἐθαύμασα; Syntagma: IV, 8–9. On this text, see Taft 1978: 199–200; 1998: 50–55.

67

68

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

indisputably stand there. The last sentence indicates that this was a widely held belief: even a bishop saw no problem in reading the prayer of betrothal to a menstruating woman in the narthex. Interestingly, in commenting on the seventy-second canon of the Council in Troullo, Balsamon contradicts himself on this same point, as he claims that the narthex is not a church. The canonist argues: “Because every space dedicated to the Lord is called Kyriakos, even when it is not a church but maybe a narthex or another kind of holy space, the canon dictates that people should not dine within churches and within such spaces.”15 Later in the same commentary he makes this distinction clearer: “Because there is a diference between churches and narthexes, along with other spaces dedicated to the Lord.”16 This interpretive ambiguity is not uncommon. The layering of meanings, some seemingly incongruous and even contradictory, is characteristic of Byzantine liturgical commentaries.17 Contrasting interpretations, such as those by Balsamon, relect the realities of practice and the contexts in which the narthex and exonarthex were used.Textual and archaeological evidence attest to a remarkable variety of both liturgical and extraliturgical rites.The frequency of these rites, which ranged from daily to once a year, and their character, which oscillated between informal and ceremonial, further relected the ambivalence pertaining to the sanctity of these spaces.18 In the Divine Liturgy, the narthex played a signiicant role only in the irst part of the service. In the Early Christian period it was used for the preparation of the First Entrance, which at that time was a procession of clergy and people from the atrium into the naos and the bema.19 During the Middle Byzantine period, with the transfer of the whole of liturgical action to inside the church and the abandonment of the external skeuophylakion, the patriarch or bishop waited for the First Entrance seated in the narthex. It was from there that he recited the introit prayer.20 Because of this shift in location, the ordination of the minor orders, such as subdeacon and reader, which originally occurred 15

16

17

18

19

20

’Επεὶ οὖν πᾶς τόπος, τῷ Κυρίῳ ἀνατεθειμένος, Κυριακὸς λέγεται, κἂν μὴ ἐκκλησία ἐστὶν, ἀλλὰ πρόναος τυχὸν, ἢ ἕτερόν τι ἱερὸν, διορίζεται ὁ κανὼν, μὴ συμποσιάζειν τινὰς ἐν ἐκκλησίαις, ἢ ἐν τοιούτοις τόποις; Syntagma: II, 477. ὥστε διαφορά ἐστιν ἐκκλησιῶν καὶ προνάων, καὶ ἄλλων Κυριακῶν τόπων; Syntagma: II, 478. Symeon of Thessalonike, for example, assigned no fewer than nine meanings to the altar table and its form; see PG 155: 704–707; Symeon of Thessalonike: 90, 92. The same ambivalence is evident in the nonliturgical uses of the narthex. For example, in the tenth century, a certain monk Arsenios spread some grains to dry in the narthex of the monastic church of Saint Mamas in Constantinople; see Symeon the New Theologian: 144. For other informal uses of the narthex, see Chapter 6. Mathews 1971: 108, 125–149. Exonarthexes appear to have been uncommon during the early period. Taft 1980b: 105–110. According to De Cerimoniis: 64–65, when the emperor participated, he would join the patriarch and process with him. See also Chapters 1 and 2.

THE NARTHEX AND THE EXONARTHEX

in the skeuophylakion, took place in the narthex.21 Furthermore, the narthex was the place of penitents and other categories of people, such as menstruating women, who could not fully participate in the Liturgy.22 According to Theodore Stoudite, those under “spiritual penalty” (ἐπιτιμία) should stay in the narthex, along with the catechumens, during the celebration of the Liturgy.23 Both John Apokaukos (d. 1233) and the fourteenth-century canonist Matthew Blastares directed that the ἀκροώμενοι, “the ones who listen,” as opposed to those who participate in the service, should stay in the narthex.24 Additionally, the narthex was used for a multitude of daily services or parts thereof. According to monastic sources, some of the Hours were read there. In the typikon of the monastery of Mamas, for example, these comprised the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Hours, as well as the Midnight Oice.25 Other Constantinopolitan typika contained similar instructions.26 In cathedral practice, both the festive and the ferial Matins began in the narthex with the singing of the nocturnal psalmody and progressively moved toward the bema.27 Similarly, Vespers in Hagia Sophia began in the narthex.28 Monasteries followed this practice on occasion; in Stoudios, the brotherhood assembled in the narthex for the beginning of the Orthros throughout the year29 and in the monastery of Evergetis on Easter Sunday.30 Another service that in some places was celebrated in the narthex was the typika, a service of communion conducted primarily in monasteries when a regular Divine Liturgy or the Presanctiied Liturgy was not allowed.31 21 22 23

24 25 26

27

28 29 30

31

Taft 1997–1998: 79–81; 2008a: 556–559. Syntagma: IV, 7–9. Ὁ ἐν ἐπιτιμίᾳ ὤν, καὶ μὴ παριστάμενος μετὰ τῶν κατηχουμένων ἐν τῷ νάρθηκι τῆς λειτουργίας ἐπιτελουμένης, μετανοίας βαλλέτω πεντήκοντα; PG 99: 1733. The meaning of “catechumens” is unclear. It might refer to candidate monks rather than to unbaptized persons. Apokaukos: 145 (epistle 91); Syntagma: IV, 363–364. See also PG 155: 357. Mamas: 285, 299; BMFD: 1015, 1027. In Pantokrator, the Midnight Oice was read there; Pantokrator: 31, 33; BMFD: 739. In the Evergetis monastery, the Compline and the pannychis took place in the narthex on some occasions (Synaxarion of Evergetis: II, 460, 712), whereas the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Hours were sung there during the two lesser Lents, Christmas, and that preceding the feast of Saints Peter and Paul on June 29; Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 198; II, 140.The typikon of Kecharitomene is the only one that makes a distinction between the narthex and the exonarthex, although the reasons for that are unclear: the mesoria of the First Hour, the Third Hour, and the Sixth Hour, as well as Compline, were to be sung in the latter (Kecharitomene: 81, 83, 85; BMFD: 687, 688); the Midnight Oice was read in the former (Kecharitomene: 87; BMFD: 688). Typikon of the Great Church: II, 309–310. Arranz 1971–1972: I, esp. 409–410; II, esp. 102; 1981b: esp. 126. Anthony of Novgorod described this ritual in Hagia Sophia; see Ehrhard 1932: 56. See also PG 155: 636–649. Arranz 1978b: esp. 117. PG 99: 1704–1705; Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: I, 225–226; BMFD: 98–99. Synaxarion of Evergetis: ΙΙ, 506. Monastic typika from the periphery contained similar instructions; see, for example, Messina: 5–6; BMFD: 1133, 1135. Kecharitomene: 83; BMFD: 687. For this service, see Mateos 1971: 68–71. PG 155: 593–596. However, in Evergetis the typika were sung in the naos; Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 198; II, 690.

69

70

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

It is not entirely clear why some of the hours were performed in the narthex or the exonarthex. In the monastic context it might have been a matter of practicality, as it is today on Mount Athos, where many services of secondary importance are celebrated there.32 Most such services were short and did not require the use of the altar. The participants could be in and out of the church quickly, and not everybody had to attend. The typikon of Kecharitomene alluded to this in the rubrics for the First, Third, and Sixth Hours: these could be performed either in the exonarthex or in the dormitory.33 Similarly, Symeon of Thessalonike advised monastics to read some services, such as Compline, in the privacy of their cells.34 Cases such as the Matins and Vespers in the cathedral rite, when the services began in the narthex and moved progressively toward the sanctuary, relected the ancient processional character of the Byzantine rite. In this context, such processions symbolized the move from the earthly narthex toward the heavenly sanctuary, where one had to shed any earthly concerns and concentrate on praising God.35 A similar symbolic movement from earth to heaven was relected in the tonsure rite for both the lesser and greater habit (σχῆμα), which according to some sources took place during the celebration of the Liturgy of the Word.36 After the First Entrance, the candidate progressed toward the bema while the choir chanted the following hymn: Where is the attachment to the world, where is the fantasy of the passing things? We see that everything turns into earth and ashes. Why then do we work hard for nothing? Why don’t we abandon the world and do not follow him who cries: whoever wants to follow me, he should take up my cross and will inherit eternal life.37

On this occasion the service concluded with the catechesis of the candidate, the cutting of his hair, and his ritual dressing.With this procession the soon-tobe monk left the earth of the narthex and moved toward paradise, a symbolic irst step in his abandonment of wordly afairs and a move in the direction of salvation and everlasting life. According to other versions of the rite, the whole community gathered in the narthex. After a series of exchanges among the abbot, the sponsor, and the candidate, and following some catechetical prayers, they all moved inside the naos and the service continued in the bema. Then 32

33 34 35 36 37

Cf. Krausmüller 1997: 324–325. Some Athonite katholika, such as that of Hilandar monastery, feature a six-bay structure (rather than the usual three-bay narthex) called a lite. Kecharitomene: 81, 83; BMFD: 687. PG 155: 620. For other such directives, see Patterson Ševčenko 1991: 56 and n. 76. See also the comments of Symeon of Thessalonike in PG 155: 357–360. Arranz 1996: 402–418. Ποῦ ἐστιν ἡ τοῦ κόσμου προσπάθεια/ποῦ ἐστιν ἡ τῶν προσκαίρων φαντασία/οὐκ ἰδοὺ πάντα βλέπομεν γῆν καὶ σποδόν/τί οὖν κοπιῶμεν εἰς μάτην/τί δὲ οὐκ ἀρνούμεθα κόσμον/καὶ ἀκολουθοῦμεν τῷ κράζοντι. Ὁ θέλων πορευθῆναι ὀπίσω μου/ἀναλαβέτω τὸν σταυρὸν μου/καὶ ζωὴν κληρονομήσει τὴν αἰώνιον; Arranz 1996: 404–405.

THE NARTHEX AND THE EXONARTHEX

the candidate was taken back to the narthex, where his hair was completely shorn.The candidate waited there until he was escorted by the celebrant priest to the bema during the First Entrance, which again relected a movement from earth to heaven. After this the service was concluded with the ritual garbing.38 The rubrics for the tonsure of nuns were similar.39 The sources attest to other occasional uses of the narthex. Balsamon, in a text mentioned earlier, said that “services of holy prayers” took place in the narthex, evidently minor services and prayers found in euchologia for speciic situations ranging from illness to betrothal.40 In a related practice, the thirteenth-century typikon of the monastery tou Libos instructed that the spiritual father should meet each nun for confession in the narthex of one of the monastery’s two churches,41 a directive repeated in the typikon of the monastery of Anargyroi in Constantinople.42 In addition to such ritually simple services as the hours, or services that used the narthex as a symbolic departure point, that space was used intermittently for other, very solemn rites. Both the Typikon of the Great Church43 and the monastic typikon of Kecharitomene44 instructed that the Washing of the Feet on Holy Thursday take place in the narthex.45 During this service the presider, usually the patriarch or an abbot or abbess, washed the feet of twelve participants.46 In Kecharitomene it was to be performed near an image of the event. Indeed, in some katholika, such as those in the monasteries of Hosios Loukas in Boeotia and Nea Moni in Chios, a mosaic of Christ washing the feet of the apostles is found in the narthex (Fig. 12).47 Similar rubrics about the location of this service in other parts of the Byzantine world, such as in Mount Athos48 and Cyprus,49 demonstrate that this was common practice. Another important service that could take place in the narthex was that of the Lesser Blessing of the Waters (μικρὸς ἁγιασμός, lit. “little blessing”).50 In a 38

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

48

49

50

Wawryk 1968: 6*–39*, esp. 6*, 13*, 31*, and passim. The cutting of the hair after the initial ritual cutting could also take place “in the diakonikon”; see Arranz 1996: 418. See also Alivizatos 1953. Wawryk 1968: 108*. Syntagma: IV, 7–9. Libos: 113; BMFD: 1269. Anargyroi: 138–139; BMFD: 1292. Cf. BMFD: 1473. Typikon of the Great Church: II, 72–75. Kecharitomene: 125; BMFD: 702. For the diferences in cathedral and monastic usage, see Taft 2005: 210–212. For this service, see Petrides 1899–1900; Lossky 2001. For the connection between the image and the service, see Tomeković 1988; Tronzo 1994; Barber 2001. Praxapostolos of the Panteleimon monastery (twelfth century); Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: I, 129, n. 1. Typikon of the monastery of Saint John Chrysostomos in Koutsovendis (twelth century); Papacostas 2007: 122. For this service, see Trempelas 1951; 1950–1955: II, 45–74.

71

72

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

12. Katholikon of Hosios Loukas, narthex, Christ washing the feet of the Apostles, 11th century, mosaic (photo: author).

Constantinopolitan euchologion dated 1027, the service was entitled “Another service and order of the [lesser] blessing [of waters] taking place in various churches on Sundays and on feast days in the narthex or also in another part of the church where there is a phiale or a basin.”51 The rubric implies that the usual, although not exclusive, location for this service was the narthex. Some churches in Serbia and Macedonia have preserved evidence of such basins in their narthexes, often associated with an image of the Baptism of Christ,52 but nothing comparable has survived from Constantinople. The only evidence comes from the typikon of Kecharitomene, which instructed that the related Great Blessing of the Waters (μεγάλος ἁγιασμός), a service conducted on Epiphany, be celebrated in the narthex “in which the phiale stands.”53 Presumably the same phiale would have been used for the Lesser Blessing of the Waters. Finally, Symeon of Thessalonike instructs that this service take place not in the outdoor phiale but in the narthex if the weather is wintry.54 51 52

53 54

Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 1051. Ćurčić 1979 interpreted the ones from Serbia as baptismal fonts, but this was refuted by Papazotos 1987, who claimed that they were used for the service of the Blessing of the Waters. I would note that these uses were not exclusive of each other. See also Kandić 1998–1999. Kecharitomene: 127; BMFD: 702 ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ἔξω ἐν τῇ φιάλῃ γίνεται, εἴτε εἰς τὸν νάρθηκα ἐὰν χειμὼν ᾖ; Phountoules 1976: 137.

THE NARTHEX AND THE EXONARTHEX

The use of the narthex for the Washing of the Feet and the Blessing of the Waters might have been incidental. According to the rubrics, neither service was to be celebrated exclusively in the narthex. The image of the Washing of the Feet was placed in the narthex not because of this ritual but because it complemented a series of depictions inspired by the Passion cycle, as in the katholikon of Hosios Loukas. The image created a desirable mimetic relationship between the rite and its prototype, but this relationship was not necessary for the performance or the eicacy of the rite. For example, in Evergetis the Washing of the Feet took place inside the naos, with some monks standing in the south aisle of the church.55 The rubrics pertaining to the Blessing of the Waters again did not restrict the celebration of this rite in a space other than the narthex. What was required was a basin for the blessed water, whose location varied. One ixed permanently in the narthex certainly would have been for a weekly ritual, such as the Lesser Blessing of the Waters, more convenient than moving the whole congregation to an outdoor phiale. In both cases, the selection of the narthex seemed to have been based on circumstances rather than on rigid rubrics or theological symbolism. A widespread and constant function of the narthex and exonarthex throughout the Middle and Late Byzantine periods was as a place for burials.56 The archaeological evidence from Middle and Late Byzantine Constantinople about this practice is abundant. In the church of the Theotokos tou Libos, which is the earliest securely dated medieval church in the city, the excavators accidentally discovered under the loor of the narthex ive marble sarcophagi, four single ones and a double containing six bodies in total (XXIII-1).57 Underground tombs also were found also in Kilise Camii (XXVIII).58 In some cases, such as in Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii (XII),59 Manastır Mescidi (XVI-1, 4),60 55

56

57

58

59 60

Synaxarion of Evergetis: ΙΙ, 474. In Stoudios the location of the service is not speciied; Hypotyposis Stoudiou [A]: 238; BMFD: 115. The following expands on Marinis 2009; 2010. See also Bache 1989. For an overview of earlier examples from the Aegean and Illyricum from the fourth to seventh centuries, see Sodini and Kolokotsas 1984: II, 219–227. Marinis 2009. All the sarcophagi were arrayed in pairs, situated in front of each of the three doors leading to the naos. Four more sarcophagi were found just outside the narthex. Three were in front of the church’s front door, under the tenth-century vaulted porch that was destroyed when the complex was expanded. One, aligned with the south door, belonged to a child. All tombs should date to the tenth century. Mango 1990: 423–424. M. I. Nomidis’s investigation in the 1930s uncovered eight tomb sites: two in the north annex, two in the exonarthex, two in the narthex, two in the naos – one in the north aisle, and one in the southwest corner compartment of the naos. At least some of those tombs contained multiple burials. This narthex preserves four arcosolia. Pasadaios 1965: 86.The narthex had two arcosolia on its north and south walls. Pasadaios suggested that they were occupied by two anthropoid sarcophagi excavated nearby in the 1960s, which were similar to those found in the north church of the monastery tou Libos.

73

74

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

and Pantokrator (VIII),61 arcosolia were part of the buildings’ original design. The truncated narthex of Saint John tou Libos had three tombs and one ossuary for secondary burials, all of Palaiologan date (XXIII-1). At Chora (VI) the exonarthex contained three arcosolia,62 and the narthex had in its north wall a single arcosolium. The narthex of the chapel in Pammakaristos (XXIV) had two arcosolia in the east wall and a third on the west wall.63 Evidence from Asia Minor, Greece, and the Balkans indicates that the practice of burying the dead in narthexes was very common.64 The existence of sites of multiple burials in at least three of the surviving Constantinopolitan buildings (Kilise Camii, XXVIII; Saint John tou Libos, XXIII; and Chora,VI) shows that narthex interment was common practice, relecting in part the popularity of in-church burials throughout the Middle and Late Byzantine periods.65 Following patterns identical to those pertaining to tombs in the naos, such burials were privileged and belonged to founders, patrons, as well as eminent ecclesiastics, monastics, and lay people, the latter including members of the imperial family and aristocrats.66 In the ninth century the narthex of the church of the monastery ta Gastria laid a small reliquary with the remains of Theoktiste, mother of Emperor Theophilos’s wife, Theodora.67 Theoktiste was likely the founder of that monastery.68 The typikon of Kecharitomene stipulated that any female relatives of the founder Irene Doukaina be buried in the exonarthex, should they choose to become nuns in the monastery.69 This practice became common in the Middle Byzantine period but it began earlier. For example, in the seventh century the sarcophagus containing the bodies of 61

62

63 64

65

66

67

68 69

Megaw 1963: 343. Two arcosolia were originally located in the narthex of the south church and were later converted to doors. Megaw suggested that the tomb of Irene, wife of Emperor John II Komnenos and founder of the monastery, might originally have been in the southern arcosolium. Two arcosolia dated to the fourteenth century and one to the ifteenth. All were created after walling up the originally open arcades of the western portico. Under the loor in front of the so-called tomb E (located in the second to last bay of the exonarthex, counting from the south) there was a vaulted tomb that accommodated multiple burials; Ousterhout 1987: 75–76. Mango et al. 1978: 20. For Asia Minor, see Teteriatnikov 1996: 165–182; Lightfoot and Ivison 2001: 374–379; Weissbrod 2003. For Greece, see Laskaris 2000: 104–144. For the Balkans, see Ćurčić 1984; Babić 1969: 94. See also Popović 2006. On the topic of multiple burials, see Sodini and Kolokotsas 1984: II, 235–236; Laskaris 2000: 278, 280–282. Secondary burials were not unheard of, even for members of the imperial family. For example, in the monastery of Saint Euphemia en to Petrio, a small sculpted ossuary (larnakidion) contained the bones of the two daughters of Basil I, along with those of Zoe Karbounopsina, mother of Constantine VII; see De Cerimoniis: I, 648–649. For this monastery, see Janin 1969: 127–129. For several examples, see Marinis 2009: 159–160. For tombs of founders, in the narthex and elsewhere, see Popović 2006. De Cerimoniis: 647–648. Theodora herself, along with her three daughters, was buried in the southeastern side of the naos. Janin 1969: 67. Kecharitomene: 131; BMFD: 704.

THE NARTHEX AND THE EXONARTHEX

Constantina, wife of Emperor Maurice, and their children was placed in the left side of the narthex of the monastic church of Saint Mamas.70 The narthex and exonarthex as places for tombs should be understood in the context of the desire to be buried inside a church building but, due to canonical prohibitions, outside its liturgical center.71 Thus, it was related to the practice of placing burials in subsidiary chapels, outer ambulatories, and, more rarely, in the side aisles of the naos. The narthex’s symbolic interpretation as not as holy as the naos facilitated such attitudes. Indeed, burials in the narthex were much more common than in the naos. The existence of several tombs of saints in the narthex was not an independent phenomenon; rather, it should be associated with the aforementioned custom of burying there persons of distinction, including founders. Some of these people were subsequently recognized as saints, although hagiographical sources written after the events often blurred this distinction. Such was the case of Nikephoros, the founder of the monastery tou Medikiou in Bithynia. When he died in 813, his body was deposited in the church of the Archangel Michael, in the left part of the narthex, where he had Arranged for his tomb.72 Similarly, Theodora of Arta (d. 1270) was buried in the south side of the narthex of the monastic church of Saint George, which she had founded.73 There are few instances of a person who had been recognized as a saint at the time of his or her death being buried in the narthex. For example, in the tenth century, George the Younger was placed in a marble tomb in the church of Saint John en to Diippio,74 and Russian pilgrims reported that the body of the iconophile martyr Andrew (d. ca. 767) was buried in the narthex of the monastery of Saint Andrew en te Krisei (I).75 The funerary character of the narthex was underscored by the related rites celebrated there. Pachymeres’s paraphrase of Pseudo-Dionysios instructed that the funeral rites for a monk or layman76 be said in the narthex,77 something attested also in Symeon of Thessalonike78 and in the life of Saint Lazaros of Mount Galesion.79 Two euchologia ofered similar rubrics regarding members of monastic communities.80 The typika of Kecharitomene and Mamas 70

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

De Cerimoniis: I, 647. The tombs were removed in the late tenth century during the renovation of the monastery by abbot Symeon; see Symeon the New Theologian: 116. On this, see Chapter 3. Nikephoros of Medikion: 424. Orlandos 1936. SynCP: March 11. For this church, see Janin 1969: 264–267. Majeska 1984: 314–315. For the evolution of the funeral service for monks, see Galadza 2004. PG 3: 573. PG 155: 677. AASS Nov. III: 587. Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: 2, 135 (Sin. gr. 963, twelfth century);Velkovska 2001: 38 (Messina gr. 172, 1178–1179).

75

76

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

mandated that the “customary things” for the departed nuns or monks be said in the exonarthex.81 In the latter foundation the usual commemorations on the third, ninth, and fortieth day after a monk’s death were to be sung in the narthex; each Friday all departed brothers were to be commemorated with a canon for the dead and an ektenes prayer in the exonarthex.82 In addition to the regular commemorations, shorter services would take place in front of the tombs. In several instances the typikon of Evergetis dictated that the pannychis on behalf of the deceased should be read “in the tombs of our holy fathers and brothers,” and certainly every Friday evening during the Triodion period.83 A short memorial service (trisagion) and pannychis were to take place daily and be celebrated in front of the tombs in the chapel of Saint Michael in Pantokrator (VIII).84 In the typikon of Kosmosoteira, Isaac Komnenos enjoined the abbot and the rest of the brothers to enter the area of Isaac’s tomb after Vespers and “in front of the holy icons standing there, to pronounce the trisagion and to say a certain number of kyrie eleisons for mercy upon my soul.”85 In conclusion, after the ninth century the narthex acquired a variety of functions, many of them due to its ambivalent status within the context of the Byzantine church, and others for reasons of practicability. These uses, from being a place of burials to one in which some of the Hours were read, had little to do with the narthex’s architectural form but a great deal to do with its symbolic interpretation as a space not quite equal in sanctity to the naos or the bema. In addition to the narthex, a church was often surrounded by other subsidiary structures that sometimes complemented its functions. Most, however, served other purposes.

81 82

83

84 85

Kecharitomene: 117; BMFD: 699; Mamas: 291; BMFD: 1020. Mamas: 291; BMFD: 1020. The typikon of Heliou Bomon repeats these rubrics; see BMFD: 1077. Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 264; II, 90, 316. The Triodion is the period from the fourth Sunday before the Great Lent to the Saturday before Easter. Pantokrator: 81. BMFD: 839. See also BMFD: 801. In Chora it has been suggested that the south bay of the narthex was used for the commemoration of the former ktetors, Isaac Komnenos and Maria Palaiologina, who are depicted there as part of a Deisis (Fig. 14, below). See Ousterhout 1987: 96–100. See also Teteriatnikov 1995; Schroeder 2009.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUBSIDIARY SPACES: CHAPELS, OUTER AMBULATORIES, OUTER AISLES, CRYPTS, ATRIA, AND RELATED SPACES

In addition to the standard core – bema, naos, narthex – many Byzantine churches in Constantinople were equipped with one or more kinds of subsidiary structures.The forms of these spaces, their spatial relationships to the main building, and their functions varied signiicantly. Some, such as outer aisles and outer ambulatories, often complemented and extended the uses of the main parts of the church. Others, such as chapels, were intended for a speciic purpose, including the commemoration of deceased founders and patrons.

Chapels The most common term for a chapel was εὐκτήριον or εὐκτήριος οἶκος (lit. “a house of prayer”), although this could also refer to a small ecclesiastical structure, either independent or attached to a private residence.1 In addition, liturgical sources employed designations such as μαρτύριον (“house of a martyr”) and προφητεῖον (“house of a prophet”). Very often these terms were followed by the words “inside” (ἔνδον, ἔνδοθεν) or “near” (πλησίον), plus the name of the main church with which they were associated.2 The term parekklesion rarely appears in Byzantine sources.3 1 2 3

Syntagma:VI, 262–263; II, 371. On this term, see Dagron 1989: 1080–1083. SynCP: October 21; June 12, 25, 27; September 2. See also Babić 1969: 33–36. See, for example, Acta Xeropotami: I, 84.

77

78

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Subsidiary chapels in Constantinople fall roughly into two categories: those that were part of the original construction (Theotokos tou Libos, XXIII-1, 2, 5; Gül Camii, XI; Odalar Camii, XVIII-2; Peribleptos, XXVI) and those that were added later (Pantokrator,VIII; Kalenderhane, XIV; Pammakaristos, XXIV; Chora, VI). Chapels varied signiicantly in plan, dimensions, and relationship to the main church.4 They could be cross-in-square spaces (XXIV-6), singleaisle halls (VI-6, VIII-11), or small apsidal rooms. They were found on the ground loor, in the galleries (XI-2), or even in the roof (XXIII-5).They could be incorporated into the building or attached to the exterior of the main church, on either or both sides. Some buildings, such as the Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII), presented combinations of these conigurations.5 In her fundamental study on subsidiary chapels Gordana Babić proposed three main purposes for them: commemorations of saints, deceased monks, and deceased founders.6 Although the essence of these observations still stands, Babić’s employment of evidence from a variety of locales and periods resulted in a rather simpliied narrative in which the evidence was occasionally forced to it the paradigms. In the following, I revisit these issues, focusing primarily on Constantinople and ofer a more nuanced perspective on the use of chapels. It is not always easy to evaluate liturgical activity in chapels. According to Balsamon, some eukteria were not properly consecrated and therefore were not technically “churches.”7 Yet, there is archaeological evidence that some chapels in Constantinople had a consecrated altar. For example, three of the four roof chapels in the Theotokos tou Libos preserve parts of their original sanctuary marble loor marked with a cutting for the foot of the altar, and another covered cutting for the consecration relic (XXIII-11, 12). Holes in the stylobate in front of the apse attest to the existence of some kind of barrier that separated it from the main part of the chapel.8 In other cases, the performance of the Liturgy in chapels can be deduced from the surviving accoutrements and decoration. Both gallery chapels in Gül Camii (XI-2) have niches next to the main apse, presumably for the prothesis rite. Similar niches are found on the north walls of both apsidal spaces lanking the main apse in the fourteenth-century phase of Chora (VI-8).9 In Kalenderhane Camii, sometime 4

5

6 7 8

9

The most important study of chapels in Byzantium is still Babić 1969. For a formalist analysis of chapels attached to or incorporated into churches, see Ćurčić 1977. In addition to chapels attached to churches, there remain small or medium-size structures, such as Ayakapı, that were originally part of larger buildings that have now disappeared. Babić 1969. Syntagma: IV, 479. Pace Taft 2006b: 39–40, who has argued that small private chapels did not have a sanctuary barrier. Ousterhout 1987: 47, 50. Both spaces have additional niches, which may have been used for the storage of liturgical items. See the plan in Ousterhout 1987: ig. 9.

SUBSIDIARY SPACES

during the Palaiologan period, the apse of the space comprising the so-called Melismos and Francis chapels was decorated with an image of the Theotokos Blachernitissa over a depiction of the Melismos (lit. “fraction”), an image of potent liturgical signiicance, which underscored that the bread and wine were truly transformed into the body and blood of Christ (XIV-5).10 A wall niche on the north side of the apse was decorated with the image of a deacon saint, relecting the lasting importance of the deacon in the prothesis rite. Although at least some chapels were consecrated, the character and frequency of the Divine Liturgy in these spaces remain a matter of debate. Mathews has argued that the multiplication of chapels, especially in cases such as that of Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII), indicated a privatization of Byzantine liturgy, with services performed only by a priest or bishop and with few, if any, participants; these liturgies took place outside the parameters of the corporate worship of a community, whether lay or monastic.11 Yet the textual evidence provided by Mathews and others refers to oratories in episcopal or private residences, where such activities were certainly not surprising.12 Although we cannot exclude the use of subsidiary chapels for private devotions and rituals,13 sources attest that in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods they were used for corporate worship. The tenth-century Typikon of the Great Church prescribed that some oicial feast days were to be celebrated in chapels, with the patriarch and signiicant numbers of people attending. For example, under October 23, it reads: On this day, the commemoration of the martyrdom of Saint James, the brother of the Lord. And the feast of Saint Zachariah the priest, and Symeon the Righteous. The feast is celebrated in the chapel of Saint James, which is situated inside the venerable church of Panagia en tois Chalkoprateiois.14

According to the Typikon, the chapel of Saint James was used again only two other times during the liturgical year, on the second Saturday after Easter and on April 30, both days dedicated to the memory of the saint.15 Other texts conirm corporate worship in subsidiary chapels. The typikon of Pantokrator described the several services, including the Divine Liturgy

10 11

12 13

14

15

For this scene, see Garidis 1982; Gerstel 1999: 40–44; Konstantinide 2008. Mathews 1982. Mathews’s interpretation of subsidiary chapels has been accepted without much qualiication. See also Alexopoulos 2001. One such ritual would have been confession.Athanasios of Athos heard the confession of his monks in the eukterion of the Forty Martyrs of Sebasteia, one of the chapels adjacent to the katholikon of the Great Lavra; Athanasios of Athos: 40, 155. Typikon of the Great Church: I, 74. For this chapel, parts of which still survive, see Mango 1969–1970: 369–372. See also Janin 1969: 237–242, 253–255. Typikon of the Great Church: I, 112–114, 276.

79

80

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

three days a week, that the community, as well as clergy and people from the outside, was to celebrate in the chapel of Saint Michael.16 The late thirteenthor early fourteenth-century Testament of Constantine Akropolites instructed that the Divine Liturgy be celebrated three days a week in the chapel of Saint Lazaros, which he had purchased for the monastery of the Resurrection in Constantinople. The hours were read there regularly. The text explicitly mentions a “public congregation” attending services in this chapel.17 The life of Michael Synkellos described a vigil celebrated by the whole community of the monastery of Chora in the chapel of Saint Ignatios located in the church of martyr Anthimos (this building does not exist anymore).18 Finally, the synaxarion of Evergetis instructed the following: “It should be known that during the Great Lent both on weekdays and on Sundays the liturgy is celebrated in the [main] church. But on Saturdays [it is celebrated] in the chapels.”19 It is doubtful that all the monks of Evergetis could it inside a chapel. However, the important point here is that the chapels accommodated communal services, regardless of how many people actually attended. There are therefore good reasons to assume that subsidiary chapels were used primarily for corporate worship. Babić has argued that multiple chapels appeared as a result of the prohibition against celebrating the Divine Liturgy twice on the same day on the same altar, a rule especially upheld in the East.20 Yet the evidence for multiple liturgies on the same day is very limited. Detailed liturgical typika such as that of Evergetis, a foundation that had at least two chapels in addition to the katholikon, made no mention of such practice.21 Moreover, this could not possibly explain the need for six additional chapels in the church of the Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII). Multiple subsidiary chapels should be interpreted in the context of Byzantine soteriology and the role of saints in a person’s life and salvation. In Byzantine thought the heavenly court was constructed and understood as a relection of the earthly one (although for the Byzantines the reverse was true).22 Just as the emperor’s close associates could present a petition to him on behalf of somebody else, the Theotokos, by virtue of her role as the Mother of God; the saints, who were the “friends of God”; and even archangels, who 16 17

18

19 20 21 22

Pantokrator: 81, 83; BMFD: 756–757 οἱ συναθροιζόμενοι; Akropolites: 283; BMFD: 1380–1381. Cf. the similar rubrics for the chapel of Saint John the Forerunner in the monastery of Machairas in Cyprus; Machairas: 58; BMFD: 1162. ἐκέλευσεν παννύχιον ἀγρυπνίαν γενέσθαι ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ εὐκτηρίῳ τῷ ὄντι ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ ἁγίου ἱερομάρτυρος Ἀνθίμου; Michael Synkellos: 126. For this church, see Janin 1969: 34. τοῖς δὲ σάββασιν ἐν τοῖς εὐκτηρίοις; Synaxarion of Evergetis: II, 380. Babić 1969: 9–10. Rodley 1994: 28. A third chapel was located in the cemetery. Mango 1980: 151–159; Maguire 1997. See also Brubaker and Haldon 2011: 32–38.

SUBSIDIARY SPACES

comprised the leaders of the heavenly host, could all obtain favors from Christ on behalf of their clients.23 This was due to their parrhesia (παρρησία, lit. “freedom of speech”), a concept that communicated the conidence and the liberty of approach toward God that the saints possessed.24 Very tellingly, the ninth-century vita of Theodore of Stoudios called this saint, along with Plato and Joseph the Stoudites,“providers and doctors of our souls and bodies, and mediators before the holy, simple, uncreated, and consubstantial Trinity.”25 Symeon of Thessalonike explained that the priest commemorates the names of the Theotokos and saints in the Liturgy “because having parrhesia towards him who loves and is loved [i.e., Christ], they enable us to be reconciled and unite with Him.”26 In a related text, Symeon claimed that “while they [the saints] are directly sanctiied by God, by receiving gifts from us, they sanctify us through them.”27 One would win favor with a saint through oferings and gift-giving. In all cases, even for unremarkable gifts, a reward was expected.The prayer read over the kolyva, simple boiled wheat ofered to the memory of a saint, says: “[God] ... grant to those who brought [this boiled wheat] a heavenly reward through the intercessions of our immaculate lady the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, and of the Saint [name] whose memory we celebrate and all your saints.”28 Such patterns of patronage and exchange, known from antiquity, were still very much present in Byzantine society. The tenth-century vita of Saint Basil the Younger explained the mechanics of this exchange. Gregory, the author of the vita, wrote: Often we see the same thing happening with the earthly emperor, that is through the intercessions of his closest friends he forgives some people of grave crimes and the responsibility for mistakes.... This is why each of you who cannot keep the fast, mortify yourselves, keep vigils or do whatever we said above in order to save your soul, should acquire as friends some of the saints. If it is not possible to acquire many, then a few; if not a few, then two; if not two, even one. And if he [the saint] is still alive, 23

24 25

26

27

28

Peter Brown has shown that the belief that saints could act as intercessors gave rise to the cult of saints and martyrs in late antiquity; see Brown 1981. See also the vita of Saint Daniel the Stylite (d. 493, the vita is likely contemporary) in which after Daniel’s death “with screams and tears [the people] required him to beseech God on everybody’s behalf ” [μετὰ κραυγῶν καὶ δακρύων ἠξίουν πρεσβεύειν τὸν Θεὸν ὑπὲρ πάντων]; Delehaye 1923: 91. For this term, see ODB, s.v. “Parrhesia”; Scarpat 2001. ἵνα τούτους ἔχοντες προμηθέας καὶ ἰατροὺς τῶν τε ψυχῶν καὶ σωμάτων ἡμῶν, καὶ μεσίτας πρὸς τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ ἁπλῆν καὶ ἄκτιστον καὶ ὁμοούσιον Τριάδα; PG 99: 328. ὅτι παρρησίαν οὗτοι πρὸς τὸν φιλοῦντα καὶ φιλούμενον ἔχοντες, ἰσχύουσι καὶ ἡμᾶς αὐτῷ καταλλάξαι τε καὶ ἑνῶσαι; Symeon of Thessalonike: 136. αὐτοὶ μὲν γὰρ ἀμέσως ἁγιάζονται παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ· δεχόμενοι δὲ καὶ τὰ παρ᾽ ἠμῶν, δι᾽ αὐτῶν ἡμᾶς ἁγιάζουσι; Symeon of Thessalonike: 218. Ὁ Θεός ... καὶ τοὺς προσενεγκότας μισθὸν οὐράνιον παράσχου πρεσβείαις τῆς ἀχράντου Δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θεοτόκου καὶ ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου τοῦδε, οὗ καὶ τὴν μνήμην ἐπιτελοῦμεν καὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων σου; Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 35; see also 112–113.

81

82

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

serve him by means of wealth not acquired unjustly, in order to provide for the needs and the repose of his body. If you are indigent, serve him with bodily servitude and obedience and humility. If he leaves this world, [serve him] by commemorating him as much as possible and provide his church with whatever is necessary, I mean oil, candles, as well as incense and eucharistic oferings. And if his right hand is able and is wealthy, [he should serve the saint] by feeding the poor and dressing the naked and visiting those in jail and taking care of the sick according to God’s command and the warm love of the saint. And when such a person leaves this world, the saint will receive him there [in heaven]. And during judgment the saint will stand beside him in front of the Lord, pleading with him to grant him pardon. And God, receiving the request of his servant, will confer this to him as he had said beforehand and he [the saint’s friend] will join the saint in eternal joy. Because the Lord says about this: “whoever receives a prophet in the name of the prophet, will receive the prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man, will receive a righteous man’s reward.”29

Although not mentioned explicitly here, the construction of a chapel commemorating a saint would have been another manifestation of the exchange described by Gregory, an attempt to win a saint’s favor. In a text mentioned earlier, Nicholas/Ioasaph Maliasenos is said to have founded many chapels and pious institutions “for the salvation of his soul.”30 Founders’ inscriptions explicated, in terms very similar to those of Gregory, that every pious foundation, be it a church, a monastery, or a chapel, was foremost an ofering to God or to a saint for the remission of the founder’s sins, assistance in this life, and 29

30

ὃ δὴ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐπιγείου βασιλέως ὁρῶμεν πολλάκις γινόμενον διὰ μεσιτείας τῶν οἰκειοτάτων αὐτοῦ ἀφέοντος τισὶ μεγάλων ἐγκλημάτων καὶ σφαλμάτων εὐθύνας.... Διά τοι τοῦτο δεῖ ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τῶν μὴ δυναμένων νηστείαν ἐπιτελέσαι, κακοπαθῆσαι, ἀγρυπνῆσαι, ἤ τι τῶν προλεχθέντων ἐπιτελέσαι διὰ τὸ σῶσαι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν, κτήσασθαι ἑαυτῷ φίλους τινὰς τῶν ἁγίων, εἰ οὐ δύναται πολλούς – κτήσασθαι ὀλίγους, εἰ οὐχὶ ὀλίγους – δύο. Εἰ οὐ δύο – κἄν ἕνα. Καὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ἐξ ἀδικίας πλούτου αὐτοῦ θεραπευέτω αὐτόν, εἰ μὲν ἔτι ὤν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐνταῦθα διὰ τῆς σωματικῆς αὐτοῦ χρείας καὶ ἀναπαύσεως. Εἰ δ᾽οὐ παρῆν αὐτῷ τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν, θεραπευέτω αὐτὸν διὰ σωματικῆς δουλείας καὶ ὑπακοῆς καὶ ταπεινότητος. Εἰ δὲ μετασταίη τῶν ὧδε διά τε τοῦ μνείαν αὐτοῦ ἐπιτελεῖν ὅση δύναμις καὶ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ παρέχειν, λέγω δὴ ἔλαιον, κηροὺς μετὰ θυμιάματος καὶ ἀναφορῶν. Καὶ εἰ δύναται καὶ ἡ τούτου δεξιὰ καὶ ἔνι τῶν εὐπορούντων καὶ πένητας τρέφειν, καὶ γυμνοὺς ἐνδύειν, καὶ τοὺς ἐν φυλακαῖς ἐπισκέπτεσθαι, τοὺς ἐν ἀσθενείας περιποιεῖσθαι, καὶ τοῖς πᾶσι τὰ πάντα παρέχειν διὰ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐντολὴν καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου θερμὴν ἀγάπησιν. Καὶ ὅταν ὁ τοιοῦτος μετασταίη τῶν ὧδε, δέχεται αὐτὸν ὁ ἅγιος ἐκεῖσε. Καὶ ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαι αὐτὸν παριστᾷ αὐτὸν τῷ Κυρίῳ, δεόμενος περὶ αὐτοῦ χαρισθῆναι αὐτῷ τὸν τοιοῦτον. Δεχόμενος οὖν ὁ Θεὸς τὴν τοῦ θεράποντος Αὐτοῦ ἁγίαν αἴτησιν, ἀποχαρίζεται αὐτὸν αὐτῷ καθὼς προείρηται καὶ ἔστι συνευφραινόμενος αὐτῷ εἰς τοὺς ἀτελευτήτους αἰῶνας. Φησὶ γὰρ περὶ τοῦτο ὁ Κύριος ὁ δεχόμενος προφήτην εἰς ὄνομα προφήτου μισθὸν προφήτου λείψεται. Καὶ ὁ δεχόμενος δίκαιον εἰς ὄνομα δικαίου μισθὸν δικαίου λήψεται; Basil the Younger: 344–345. I am thankful to Alice-Mary Talbot for her help with this translation. Miklosich and Müller 1860–1890: IV, 425. See also Chapter 3.

SUBSIDIARY SPACES

reward in the afterlife. For example, in the ninth-century church of Skripou in Orchomenos, Greece, each of the two side chapels, one dedicated to Saint Paul, the other to Saint Peter, bears an inscription noting that the founder, the protospatharios Leo, built them “for the deliverance and remission of his many sins” (Fig. 7).31 Similarly, the inscription of Constantine Lips on the eastern side of the Theotokos tou Libos beseeched the Mother of God to “prove him ... an inhabitant and citizen of shining heaven recompensing [his] resolution” (XXIII-7).32 The inscription continued by addressing the apostles, to whom some of the chapels were likely dedicated. This pervasive mentality continued throughout the Byzantine period and was expressed in a variety of media.33 Although it did not pertain exclusively to chapels, these ofered the possibility for an individual founder or a monastic community to “acquire many friends” among the saints, as Gregory suggests. Moreover, dedications of chapels often relected the personal preferences of the patron.The primary dedication of the ninth-century Nea Ekklesia in the Great Palace was to the archangel Michael and the prophet Elijah, both of whom Emperor Basil I, the Nea’s founder, considered his protectors.34 Both saints had their own separate chapels in the church.35 The predilection for saints who had a special signiicance for a patron or a religious community is evident in the liturgical texts. In his interpretation of the Divine Liturgy, Kabasilas explains that the recitation of saints’ names in the Liturgy “puts them [the saints] forward as mediators.”36 And he continues, “[during the Eucharist the whole of humankind] commemorates the Mother of God as servants their mistress and asks to gain God’s grace and providence through her prayers and those of the saints.”37 Saints’ names were invoked during the prothesis service and after the consecration of the gifts, although the list was not the same everywhere. Rubrics pertaining to the prothesis indicate that the priest could recite “a variety of [saints’] names.”38 The prayer read after the consecration said: “For Saint John the forerunner and baptist; for the holy and most honorable Apostles; for Saint(s) [name(s)] whose memory we commemorate today; and for all Your saints, through whose supplications, O God, bless

31

32

33 34 35 36

37

38

ὑπὲρ λύτρου καὶ ἀφέσεως τῶν πολλῶν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτιῶν. For these inscriptions, see Papalexandrou 1988: 129–137. οὐρανίων φαέων οἰκήτορα καὶ πολιοῦχον τὸν δεῖξον, πανάχραντε, προαίρεσιν ἀντιμετροῦσα; Mango and Hawkins 1964a: 300–301. See, for example, the dedication miniatures in the Leo Bible; Canart 2011. On this, see Magdalino 1987, 1988. De Cerimoniis: 117, 120–121. αὐτοὺς μᾶλλον προβάλλεται πρέσβεις; Kabasilas: 278. On this part of the Liturgy, which presents some interesting theological challenges, see Phountoules 1984: 165–168. καὶ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ Μητρὸς ὡς Δεσποίνης δοῦλοι μέμνηνται· καὶ ταῖς πρεσβείαις αὐτῆς καὶ τῶν ἁγίων τῆς παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπισκέψεως καὶ προνοίας αἰτοῦνται τυχεῖν; Kabasilas: 282. Trempelas 1935: 3 (left column).

83

84

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

us.”39 In both instances the saints’ names that the clergy would invoke depended on the church or monastery in which the Liturgy was celebrated.They would certainly include the patron saint, saints in whose honor the church or monastery had chapels, and saints whose relics the church possessed. For example, in the instructions for the prothesis rite in the diataxis of Philotheos, which was redacted when he was abbot of the Great Lavra in Athos, the list included names particular to that monastery, such as Athanasios of Athos.40 Thus, the multiplication of chapels should be understood in the context of the need of a community or an individual to summon many protectors in this life, and as many advocates for the hour of judgment as possible. Funerary and commemorative chapels were manifestations of this mentality.41 In some cases they were originally conceived as mausolea for an imperial or aristocratic family and, frequently, for their associates. Saint Michael in the monastery of Pantokrator housed in its western bay several tombs, including those of the emperors John II and Manuel I, along with their spouses and members of their families (VIII-11).42 Michael Glabas Tarchaneiotes and his wife, Maria, were buried in the chapel attached to the south side of the katholikon of Pammakaristos (XXIV-7). And Theodore Metochites, along with other members of the aristocracy, was buried in the funerary chapel of the Chora (VI-6). The decoration of these chapels often relected their function. Saint Michael had images of the Cruciixion, Resurrection, Christ appearing to the Women, and the “Holy Tomb” (perhaps the Entombment of Christ).43 In Chora, two images, that of the Anastasis in the apse and the Last Judgment on the domical vault of the eastern bay, dominate the iconographic program. Other scenes, such as Lazaros in Abraham’s Bosom, expressed the hope for salvation and admission to paradise.44 Tombs in chapels adjacent to a church were considered privileged and presented yet another way to circumvent the prohibition of burials inside churches.45 Furthermore, funerary chapels designed as such created a separate space 39 40 41

42

43

44

45

Euchologion Barberini: 79. Trempelas 1935: 3 (right column). Sinkević 2003 argued for the funerary function of western chapels in a variety of Middle and Late Byzantine churches. However, many of the spaces she discussed lack any formal characteristics of a chapel, such as an apse or an altar, and should be considered simply subsidiary spaces. Two Palaiologan emperors, Manuel II and John VIII, were also buried in Pantokrator, but the location of their tombs is not known. Pantokrator: 75; BMFD: 754. Ousterhout 2002: 10–12 has suggested that the decoration of the space created an association between the chapel and the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. For the decoration of the Chora chapel, see Der Nersessian 1975; Ousterhout 1995a; Akyürek 1996; 2001; Gerstel 2011. For this prohibition and for a discussion of tombs in the naos and narthex, see Chapters 3 and 4.

SUBSIDIARY SPACES

dedicated to the commemoration of the people buried in them. Through text and image the chapels ampliied the need for commemoration; gloriied the life and works of the people buried in them, especially patrons; and spelled out their hopes for salvation. For example, in the chapel of Pammakaristos the epigrams both inside and outside the building and other visual references celebrated the life of Michael Tarchaneiotes and the patronage of his wife, Maria.46 In the apse the Theotokos and the Forerunner were the visualization of an eternal appeal to Christ the Supremely Good (ὁ ὑπεράγαθος), punctuated by the framing epigram (XXIV-8). In Chora, the chapel was likely dedicated to Archangel Michael, whom Metochites considered his personal protector and who had a prominent place in the iconography of the space. In addition, a separate funerary chapel was a statement of wealth and prestige, more so than burial in a narthex or another subsidiary space. The aristocratic funerary chapels of the Late Byzantine period aligned their inhabitants with the tradition of burying emperors and members of their families in subsidiary structures, a tradition that can be traced to the heroa of emperors Constantine I and Justinian I in the church of the Holy Apostles47 through the intermediary of Saint Michael in the monastery of Pantokrator, which the typikon called “a chapel in the form of a heroon.”48 Tombs were also added to preexisting chapels. For example, Euthymios, patriarch of Constantinople (d. 917), when asked about his burial arrangements, replied that he wanted to be buried “in Psamathia ... in the chapel of the Forerunner situated to the right of the holy church of Anargyroi.”49 Euthymios was the founder of the monastery tou Euthymiou, where these structures were located.50 The body of Irene of Chrysobalanton (d. ca. 940) was placed in a new tomb in the chapel of the martyr Theodore adjacent to the main church of her monastery.51 In the ninth century, the body of Theodore Stoudite and the remains of his brother, Joseph of Thessalonike, were translated to Stoudios

46 47

48

49

50 51

Mango et al. 1978: 21–22. See, for example, the list in De Cerimoniis: 642–645. See also Downey 1959; Grierson 1962. In ancient Greece, a heroon was a structure used for the celebration of hero cults. εὐκτήριον ἐν σχήματι ἡρῴου; Pantokrator: 73; BMFD: 753. Other imperial tombs in chapels are known. For example, Emperor Staurakios (d. 811) and his wife, Theophano, were buried in the chapel of Saint John Prodromos in the monastery ta Staurakiou; see De Cerimoniis: 647; Janin 1969: 470–471. In the monastery of Saint Euphemia en to Petrio in a chapel again dedicated to the Prodromos were the tombs of Anastasia, daughter of Emperor Basil I, along with the remains of two of his other daughters, Anna and Helen, and Zoe, mother of Emperor Constantine VII; see De Cerimoniis: 648–649. For this church, see also Chapter 3. ἐν τῷ Ψαμαθίᾳ ἔφη πρὸς τῷ τῶν Ἀναργύρων ἱερῷ σηκῷ ἐν τῷ ἀπὸ δεξιᾶς Προδρομικῷ εὐκτηρίῳ; Euthymios: 147. See also BMFD: 124. Janin 1969: 116–117. μετ᾽ ὀλίγον δε τάφον καινὸν εὐτρεπίσαντες ἐν εὐκτηρίῳ τοῦ χριστομάρτυρος Θεοδώρου τῷ τῆς μονῆς συνημμέννῳ ναῷ ἐντίμως κατέθεντο; Irene of Chrysobalanton: 108–110. See also Janin 1969: 540–541.

85

86

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

and placed in the same tomb as their uncle, Plato, inside a chapel dedicated to “the martyrs” and located east of the main church.52 And in another, celebrated example, Athanasios of Athos (d. ca. 1001) was eventually buried in the north chapel attached to the katholikon of Great Lavra on Mount Athos.53 As with burials in the narthex, it is often diicult to discern whether the person was buried in the chapel because he or she was a patron or eminent member of the community, or because the individual was recognized as a saint at the time of death. In the latter case the chapel provided an appropriate architectural setting that facilitated the low of pilgrims and petitioners, who could venerate the tomb without having to enter the naos and potentially interrupt services there. In addition to housing tombs of saints, chapels were often repositories of reliquaries, either for their exhibition in an easily controlled environment or for safekeeping. According to the typikon of the monastery tou Libos, the relics of Saint Irene were located “in the chapel near the old church,” probably the northeastern exterior chapel of the Theotokos church (XXIII-2).54 And in the monastery of Theotokos Panachrantos, the head of Saint Basil of Caesarea was kept in a chapel likely dedicated to the Three Hierarchs.55 This phenomenon had its origins in the Early Christian period. In the Blachernai the Virgin’s mantle was housed in the Hagia Soros (lit. “the holy reliquary”), a round chapel built by Emperor Leo I in the ifth century. This chapel’s name and form demonstrated that the structure itself was perceived as a reliquary. In a parallel example, the chains of Saint Peter were kept in his eponymous eukterion near Hagia Sophia.56 Yet, with very few exceptions, it is doubtful that the idea of an architectural reliquary was carried over to the Medieval period. Rather, in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods reliquaries, as well as tombs of saints, were added to a chapel after its construction. It appears that the primary concern was keeping the reliquaries safe and, by extension, controlling pilgrim traic. For example, from the vita of Stephen the Younger we learn that after the saint’s death in 764, part of his head was taken to the monastery ta Diou in Constantinople, placed in a reliquary, and hidden inside the sanctuary of the “right chapel” of the monastery dedicated to the protomartyr Stephen.57 In Constantinople chapels were built primarily as means for an individual or a community to gain favor with a saint. In the same context, placing one’s tomb in a chapel ensured the saint’s support and allowed the deceased to be 52

53 54 55 56 57

Van de Vorst 1913: 60. Likely remains of this chapel, whose surviving lower level may have been a sort of hagiasma, still survive. Babić 1969: 47. Libos: 110; BMFD: 1267. Janin 1969: 214–215; Majeska 1984: 377–379. Janin 1969: 398–399. Stephen the Younger: 173.

SUBSIDIARY SPACES

continuously near a house of prayer, something beneicial for his or her soul. Chapels also provided an appropriate setting for tombs of saints, while at the same time facilitating the circulation of visitors and pilgrims.

Outer Ambulatories Outer ambulatories are continuous, oblong, and relatively narrow spaces attached to the main core of a Byzantine church on two or three sides (north, south, west).58 They are characteristic of Late Byzantine architecture, although comparable structures existed earlier, and were especially favored in the Balkans.59 In Constantinople, there are two extant outer ambulatories and in both cases they postdate the construction of the main church. The irst, in the monastery tou Libos, is attached to the southern and western side of the complex; it was built shortly after the completion of the church of Saint John (XXIII-1, 4, 14). The second, in the katholikon of Pammakaristos, envelops the twelfth-century building on the northern, western, and, partially, southern sides (XXIV-1, 4). It was added in stages: the north arm was constructed in the late thirteenth century; the western and southern arms, which connected it to Glabas’s funerary chapel, were built sometime in the fourteenth century or even later.60 In Constantinople, outer ambulatories primarily accommodated tombs, something also paralleled in areas such as Thessalonike and Mystras.61 In the monastery tou Libos the outer ambulatory contained seven arcosolia. In Pammakaristos, four arcosolia were found in the northern arm, as was a vaulted tomb under the pavement at the north end of the western arm.62 In both cases the outer ambulatories expanded the funerary real estate of a foundation.The reasons for this were both practical and symbolic. Several earlier, twelfth-century burials occupied the inner ambulatory of the naos in Pammakaristos. In Saint John tou Libos it is possible, although not entirely certain, that the outer ambulatory was constructed in order to provide space for more tombs after the naos and narthex were illed. Moreover, the construction of both outer ambulatories should be seen not only as the result of the desire of wealthy donors to be buried inside the church, but also as a manifestation of their eagerness to associate themselves with a venerable imperial (Libos) or aristocratic (Pammakaristos) foundation. However, the horizontal hierarchy of 58

59 60 61 62

The most important study of ambulatories in the Late Byzantine architecture is Hadjitryphonos 2004. I adopt here a much stricter deinition of an outer ambulatory. Hadjitryphonos 2004: 91–137. Hallensleben 1963–1964: 173–192 and esp. 176. Hadjitryphonos 2004: esp. 203–204. It is unclear whether there were any other tombs in the western and southern arm of the outer ambulatory. These might have been constructed in order to connect the northern arm with the funerary chapel.

87

88

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

holiness, evident in the theological comparisons between the narthex and the naos, applied here as well. There are indications that the tombs in the outer ambulatories were not as prestigious as the ones in the naos. In the monastery tou Libos, judging from the scanty remaining fragments, the arcosolia in the naos were adorned with mosaics, while the ones in the outer ambulatory were decorated with lower-cost frescoes. Furthermore, Pachymeres relates that Constantine, the younger brother of Emperor Andronikos II, was buried in the monastery tou Libos “like the common men in the outermost tombs,” a likely reference to the outer ambulatory.63 Commemorative services in front of tombs would have been identical to those described in previous chapters. The northern arm of the Pammakaristos outer ambulatory likely contained a chapel at its east end. This would have provided a site-speciic setting for the celebration of commemorative liturgies, especially on Saturdays. Such chapels are known from other areas, such as Thessalonike.64 Manastır Mescidi was equipped with a related structure, although its form and function difered from those of the examples discussed above (XVI-1). During his investigation of this building Aristeides Pasadaios uncovered the remains of a colonnaded portico that surrounded the building from the south, west, and north sides. The southern arm of the portico ended in a closed space adjacent to the diakonikon, probably a chapel. The portico lent a monumental aspect to the building and provided a covered space for overlowing congregants. It is unlikely that the portico in Manastır Mescidi accommodated tombs.

Outer Aisles Outer aisles were rectangular spaces attached to the north and south sides of the church building. They sometimes communicated with the naos and the narthex through passageways. A few Middle Byzantine churches in Constantinople have preserved traces of outer aisles. There was no standardization of forms, building materials, or functions. For example, on the south façade of Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii (II) there is evidence for a porch or outer aisle, built perhaps built of wood, that connected the narthex to the western and central bays.65 A corresponding structure probably existed along the north wall. Both gave access to upper-story rooms that were located above the four corner bays of the building (II-2).66 In the south church of the Pantokrator monastery there are remains of an outer aisle of which only two groin vaults 63 64 65 66

κατὰ τοὺς πολλοὺς τοῖς ἐξωτάτω σορίοις ἐνταφιάζεται; Pachymeres: IV, 467. See, for example, the church of the Holy Apostles; Hadjitryphonos 2004: 165–166. Hawkins and Mathews 1985: 129. Theis 2005: 53.

SUBSIDIARY SPACES

have survived (VIII-6).67 There was a corresponding structure on the north side, which was destroyed with the addition of the funerary chapel. The north façade of the Eleousa church had a portico instead, as indicated by a series of still-surviving brackets.The typikon of Pantokrator also mentions the space. In the section that provides directions for the illumination of the churches for the regular Friday procession, the typikon indicates, “For the arrival of the holy banners four large candles will be lit in those colonnades which are alongside the public colonnade and are used both for the arrival and the departure of these sacred icons.”68 From the wording of the passage and the three large doors in the north façade of the Eleousa it is safe to assume that this was a fairly open porch or portico, which in this instance was used for the preparations for the arrival and departure of the processions. Nicholas Brunov was the irst to discuss in a comprehensive way the issue of outer aisles. He sought to investigate the origins and development of the “ive-aisled, cross-in-square church” (“église à croix inscrite à cinq nefs,” or “fünfschiige Kreuzkuppelkirche”), a plan best exempliied by the church of Hagia Sophia in Kiev.69 His main argument, based on the presumption that many Middle Byzantine churches in Constantinople originally had ive aisles, was that the type was transferred from Constantinople to the Rus.70 Brunov’s ideas gained some currency, yet his dogmatic insistence on assigning outer aisles to almost every surviving Byzantine church in Constantinople, despite limited evidence and with a disregard for formal and constructional variations, undermined the usefulness of his observations.71 Recently, Lioba Theis reintroduced the idea of lateral spaces, such as outer aisles, along with porches or chapels, existing in most Middle Byzantine churches of Constantinople.72 In many cases such structures ofered access to upper-level parts of the church, including chapels and galleries.Theis suggested that outer aisles were a standard feature, now all but lost, which hitherto scholars had missed or ignored. Whereas Theis was correct in drawing attention to these spaces, her interpretation of construction phases of some buildings was overly complicated and rested on tenuous evidence. For example, Kalenderhane (XIV) had outer aisles on both north and south sides, as did Odalar Camii in its second phase (XVIII-2). However, it is impossible 67 68

69 70

71 72

Megaw 1963: 340, ig. D. Εἰς γὰρ τὴν ὑπαντὴν τῶν ἁγίων σίγνων ἀναφθήσονται λαμπάδες τέσσαρες εἰς τοὺς ἐμβόλους τοὺς παρακειμένους τῷ δημοσίῳ ἐμβόλῳ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἄνοδον ὁμοῦ καὶ τὴν κάθοδον τῶν τοιούτων ἁγίων εἰκόνων χρηματίζοντας; Pantokrator: 75; BMFD: 754. Brunov 1927a; 1927b. Brunov cited as other examples of the ive-aisle, cross-in-square type the following: Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii, Kalenderhane Camii, Eski I˙maret Camii, and Kilise Camii. See, for example, Brunov 1967, 1968. Theis’s catalogue comprises the following: the Nea Ekklesia, Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii, Myrelaion, Eski I-maret Camii, Kilise Camii, Gül Camii, Pantokrator, Odalar Camii, Kalenderhane Camii, and the north church in the monastery tou Libos.

89

90

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

in either case to determine their elevation with much accuracy. In Eski ˙Imaret Camii (VII), traces on the masonry of the south façade suggest the existence of some kind of structure that likely gave access to the gallery over the narthex, but this was not necessarily an outer aisle. For Gül Camii (XI) Theis suggested that it originally had open one-story side aisles lanking the cross-domed nave and tripartite sanctuary from north and south. During the Palaiologan period, these were replaced with the two-story construction that envelops the core of the church from the north, west, and south sides, creating a gallery.This chronology was based on masonry of very uncertain date. Nineteenth-century drawings of Kilise Camii show that there was a chapel or a colonnaded portico, which has since disappeared, attached to the south side of the church.73 It was accessed by the large tripartite opening, which is now blocked by masonry.There is considerable disagreement about the date and form of this chapel. Brunov saw the remains of the chapel’s apse, which in building technique was identical to the eleventh-century masonry, and he suggested that there was another aisle to the north of the church even though he did not ind any evidence for it.74 Hallensleben considered the structure a fourteenth-century addition to the Palaiologan exonarthex.75 Mango originally argued for a tenth-century date but later accepted that the portico was a Palaiologan addition.76 Theis argued that the southern annex was built at the same time as the rest of the building and that there was another structure attached to the north side, which was demolished during the Palaiologan reconiguration of the church.77 The scarcity of archaeological and textual evidence pertaining to outer aisles allows only for some conjectures about their functions.78 Because not a single such structure has survived intact, it is likely that some were constructed of less durable materials, such as wood, and that their purpose was primarily utilitarian. They gave access to upper-story (Atik, II) and ground-loor chapels (south aisle in Kalenderhane, XIV; perhaps Odalar Camii, XVIII-2), allowing the visitor to access them without crossing the naos; as porticoes they added to the monumentality of a façade while also ofering shelter for people attending outdoor services and processions (Eleousa in Pantokrator monastery). In other cases, such as the south church of the Pantokrator complex (VIII), the side aisles might have functioned as a structurally uncomplicated means to expand the square footage of the church.79 73 74 75 76 77 78

79

For these, see Theis 2005: pls. 60–67. Brunov 1926c: 12–14; 1931–1932: 139–144. Hallensleben 1965. Mango 1965: 330; 1976a: 271. Theis 2005: 83–98. Theis 2005: 149–158 has several suggestions ranging from plausible (connecting corridors, p. 152–153) to highly unlikely (spaces for temporary display of icons, p. 156). Ousterhout 1999: 112 has suggested such an additive approach for several eleventh-century churches in Kiev, including Hagia Sophia. It is unclear whether the outer aisles in Pantokrator

SUBSIDIARY SPACES

Galleries At least ive Middle Byzantine churches in Constantinople had galleries80 in a variety of conigurations (Eski ˙Imaret Camii, VII-2; both churches in Pantokrator,VIII; Kalenderhane Camii, XIV; Gül Camii, XI-2, 7).81 Most often, galleries were situated over the narthex (Kalenderhane had galleries over both the narthex and exonarthex). In Gül Camii they extended over the side aisles of the naos, and in Eski ˙Imaret Camii the gallery gave access to two rooms located over the two western bays of the naos. In all cases the galleries opened to the naos, often through a tribelon, a tripartite window-like opening (VII-4, VIII-7, 9). The most common designation of these spaces was κατηχούμενα (also κατηχουμενεῖα, κατηχουμενία, lit. “the place of the catechumens”).82 Also attested were the terms ὑπερῷα (“upper chambers”)83 and στοαί (colonnades), although this last did not refer exclusively to galleries.84 The term γυναικίτης (“place of women”) in reference to the galleries was rare.85 In the Early Christian churches of Constantinople, galleries were primarily the place of the catechumenate, something relected in the most common term (katechoumena) used in the sources for this space.86 As infant baptism became prevalent, perhaps as early as the seventh century, this use was abandoned.87 Secondarily, the galleries were the place where the emperor and his retinue attended services. According to the Book of Ceremonies, in sections that relected protocols of the ninth and tenth centuries, the imperial party attended services in the galleries of both secular and monastic churches; the emperor received communion there in some cases.88 All the churches mentioned in the Book of Ceremonies were ancient, venerable foundations, such as Hagia Sophia and the Holy Apostles, although some, including Theotokos Pege and the church and monastery of Saint Mokios, were renovated or rebuilt in the ninth and tenth centuries. It is reasonable to assume that this practice was extended to newer foundations, especially those, such as Pantokrator, established by the imperial

80

81 82 83 84 85 86 87

88

ended in chapels at their east end, but it is likely. Chapels lanking the tripartite bema were not unusual in Middle Byzantine architecture, as was evident in the Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII) and Peribleptos (XXVI). Most of this section is based on Millet 1905: 91–93; Mathews 1971: 128–134; Ruggieri 1993; Taft 1998: 59–60; Mamaloukos 2001: 154–155; Tantses 2008. The funerary chapel of Pammakaristos also had a gallery over the narthex. Mathews 1971: 125–130. Novelles: nov. 73 uses both ὑπερῷα and κατηχούμενα to designate church galleries. Mathews 1971: 128–129; Taft 1998: esp. 31. Taft 1998: 31. Mathews 1971: 125–130. For a diferent interpretation, see Tantses 2008: 108–109. Mathews 1971: 128; ODB s.v. “Catechumenate.” Tantses 2008: 91–93, 108, rightly draws attention to the fact that the term “katechoumena” becomes common quite late. However, his explanation for the appearance of the term is unconvincing. Mathews 1971: 132–134; Taft 1998: 39–47; Taft 2006a: 13–17.

91

92

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

family. It was certainly the case in Hagia Sophia as late as the fourteenth century, when Patriarch Athanasios I (d. ca. 1315) mentions in one of his letters the imperial retinue in the galleries.89 In another letter Athanasios says that this retinue included noblewomen dressed, in his opinion, quite inappropriately.90 Because of their imperial associations, galleries were likely perceived as places of honor and thus used by abbots and abbesses as well as by aristocratic founders. The two small spaces over the western corner bays of the naos in Eski ˙Imaret Camii had a related function. Both have a large window in their eastern wall that aforded an oblique view of the bema and naos (VII-2, 7). Thus, they were probably private spaces from where a founder or other eminent member of the monastic community attended the services, a practice known from Constantinople (Chora,VI) and elsewhere.91 It appears that the imperial party did not occupy the whole of a gallery, but rather spaces set apart for such a purpose. For example, according to tenthcentury sources, the church of Saints Sergios and Bakchos (originally built in the sixth century) had in its katechoumena a loge, a metatorion, and a chapel dedicated to the Theotokos, where the emperor received communion.92 The church of Saint Mokios had in its galleries a box (called παρακυπτικόν, lit. “observation post”) from which the emperor followed the Liturgy.93 The elegant tribela in churches such as Eski ˙Imaret Camii (VII-4) and Kalenderhane Camii might be these imperial observation posts. This would have left the rest of the gallery space for the use of the congregation.94 Indeed, George Pachymeres (d. ca. 1310) mentions that the “whole people” attended a service in Hagia Sophia from the galleries.95 Thus galleries expanded the capacity of a church, especially in cases where the community was very large. 89

90 91

92

93

94

95

Athanasios I: 100–103.The emperor dined with the patriarch in the galleries of Saint Mokios; Taft 1998: 45, 60 n. 155. Athanasios I: 94. For Chora, see later. Another such example was the hagiasterion in the hermitage of Saint Neophytos in Cyprus; see Mango and Hawkins 1966: esp. 129, 134, 190. For an example in Cappadocia; see Jolivet-Lévy 1997: 189. Paul, bishop of Monembasia (10th century), writes that a certain abbess Martha received an older monk in the katechoumena, where she was staying. The monk had to ascend (ἀνελθεῖν) to that space; Paul of Monembasia: 110. Taft 1998: 46-47. Chapels are also attested in the katechoumena of Hagia Sophia, attributed to Patriarch Sergios I (d. 638); Patria: II, 280. The gallery over the narthex in the church of Saint Stephanos in Kastoria also has a chapel; Siomkos 2005: 100-114 (see also Chapter 6). Taft 1998: 45. There is also mention of an imperial chamber, where the emperor vested, accessed through the galleries. It is unclear whether this was a room located in the galleries or attached to them. Similar rooms are attested in other foundations. The church of Pege contained a dining room (τρίκλινος), a chamber (κοιτών), and a small metatorion (μητατωρίκιον). There too the emperor received communion in the galleries, where two portable credences (ἀντιμίσια) were set up. For all these terms, see Strube 1973: 72–86. Mathews and Taft have dispelled the notion that galleries were the place of women; see Mathews 1971: 130–134; Taft 1998: 87. ἄνω δὲ τῶν κατηχουμενείων στάντες, καὶ βασιλεὺς καὶ ἄρχοντες καὶ πάντες λαὸς ἑώρων τὰ τελούμενα; Pachymeres Historia brevis: II, 11.

SUBSIDIARY SPACES

According to the textual sources, galleries had a variety of other functions, although none appears to have been consistent or widespread. They could be used for parts of church services,96 ecclesiastical tribunals and synods,97 distribution of clergy stipends, skeuophylakia, receptions, retreats for patrons,98 safekeeping of relics,99 and administration of loyalty oaths.100 One of the enduring concerns of the church hierarchy were people who lived in the katechoumena, presumably of secular churches.101

Crypts, Substructures, and Related Spaces Crypts, chambers located under the main church, were found in some early churches in Constantinople. Both the Stoudios and the Chalkoprateia basilicas had diminutive cruciform crypts in front of the main apses, accessed by a small staircase.102 In all likelihood these were used for relics.103 The crypt in the late ifth- or early sixth-century church of Saint John at Oxeia, which housed the body of Saint Artemios, was certainly more spacious than the previous examples.104 However, in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods such conigurations were unusual and in all known cases crypts accommodated sacred loci. The monastery of Philanthropos incorporated a preexisting miraculous fountain in a crypt,105 which constituted the main attraction of this foundation. Water lew into a cistern on the beach nearby and pilgrims used the moistened sand around the cistern for its curative powers.106 More often, crypts contained tombs or relics of saints, relecting practices also known from other areas of the empire.107 Odalar Camii in its irst phase (ninth to tenth centuries) had 96

97 98 99

100

101 102 103 104 105

106

107

As, for example, on the third Sunday of Great Lent when the palace clergy ascended to the galleries of the Nea and sang hymns of the Cruciixion at the end of Orthros; see De Cerimoniis: 549. This appears to have been a very short service. See, for example, Theophanes: I, 461; Syropoulos: 134. Ćurčić 1993. Anthony of Novgorod reported relics of Saint Theodore Stratelates in the galleries of Blachernai; Ehrhard 1932: 58. The galleries in the Chalkoprateia were used in the ninth century for the oath of loyalty that was administered to Michael III and Basil I by patriarch Photios; see Mathews 1971: 31–32. Syntagma: II, 537; Athanasios I: 156. Mathews 1971: 27, 32–33. Sodini 1981: 454–458. Mango 1979. The pre-Palaiologan history of this monastery is unknown. See Janin 1969: 527–529; Majeska 1984: 371–374; Kidonopoulos 1994: 33–36. Demangel and Mamboury 1939: 49–68 identiied as part the monastery of Philanthropos some substructures and the remains of a hagiasma in the Mangana region. Whereas the general location of the monastery is certain, the state of the remains does not allow for a secure identiication of buildings. The best surviving parallel is the eleventh-century crypt under the katholikon of Hosios Loukas monastery in Greece.The connection between this crypt and much earlier Palestinian foundations argued by Connor 1991: 72–76 rests on supericial categorial similarities.

93

94

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

a two-room structure under the bema, perhaps for the accommodation of a Marian relic (XVIII-3). The early date of this structure might indicate a survival of Early Christian practices. In the monastery of Chora (VI), according to the life of Michael Synkellos, the relics of Saint Babylas and the eighty-four children who were martyred with him were kept inside coins (θήκας) in a crypt called kataphyge located within the church of Saint Anthimos.108 Under the naos of the existing church, excavators uncovered two underground burial chambers; the lower of the two was tentatively dated to the ninth century and might have been the kataphyge.109 In another foundation that has not survived, the church of Saint Romanos, of unknown date, one accessed the crypt by walking down twenty-ive steps. There lay the tombs of the prophet Daniel, Saint Romanos, and Saint Niketas.110 As with subsidiary chapels containing tombs and relics of saints, crypts ofered an appropriate setting and, most importantly, enabled regulated but easy access to pilgrims. Boğdan Sarayı (V) had a similar arrangement, although its lower level was not technically an underground crypt.The building originally had two stories, both above ground.111 The lower level certainly served as a burial space. An illicit excavation at the beginning of the twentieth century uncovered three sacrophagi there, although it did not clarify whether these were tombs of saints.112 Similar two-story funerary structures are known from other regions. The best-known extant parallel is the Bačkovo ossuary in Bulgaria (built between 1074 and 1083), which contained the tomb of the monastery’s founder along with several others on both levels.113 Because Boğdan Sarayı was part of a larger structure, perhaps a monastic church, it likely functioned as a funerary chapel along the lines of those at Chora and Pammakaristos. Two-story churches were not unknown in Constantinople.The Sinan Paşa Mescidi (XX), which in form was comparable to Boğdan Sarayı, also had a “large underground chamber,” according to Paspates.114 Similarly, the now-lost church of Christ Savior in the Chalke in the Great Palace, originally constructed by Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos and subsequently enlarged by Emperor John Tzimiskes, was a two-story structure. John placed his sarcophagus inside the church, although its exact location is uncertain.115 108

109

110 111 112 113

114 115

Michael Synkellos: 124. According to the vita, Michael enters the church of Saint Anthimos and descends to the crypt that was inside the church (κατέρχεται ἐν τῇ ἐκεῖσε λεγομένῃ καταφυγῇ). Ousterhout 1987: 14–15. The excavators reported inding fragments of bones and wheat grains in this chamber. Majeska 1984: 326–329. For this foundation, see Janin 1969: 85–86, 448–449. Paspates 1877: 360. Papadoulos 1920: 63–65. For the Bačkovo ossuary, see Bakalova et al. 2003. For comparable, although not always related, buildings, see Balş 1936. μέγα ὑπόγειον; Paspates 1877: 384. He was not able to access it. Mango 1959: 149–169; 1973: 130–132.

SUBSIDIARY SPACES

Another seemingly common practice was the conversion of originally utilitarian substructures into burial chambers.116 In the second phase of Odalar Camii (XVIII-2) the earlier building was reconigured as the substructure of a new cross-in-square church. Gradually, starting as early as the twelfth century and continuing throughout the Byzantine period, parts of it were used for burials. The Myrelaion exhibits a similar process of ritual reuse of a formerly utilitarian space. The church itself stood on a substantial substructure whose spatial coniguration relected that of the main church (XVII-1, 5). The original purpose was to elevate the Myrelaion to the same level as the preexisting Late Antique palace, to which the church was attached. In the Late Byzantine period but before ca. 1300 the substructure was remodeled as a burial space. Excavations in 1965 revealed a built ossuary and seven pseudo-sarcophagi, each of which contained multiple burials. Such conversions both expanded the availability of burials sites near a church and created a space aimed exclusively at the commemoration of those buried in it in ways virtually identical to those of funerary chapels. For example, in the Myrelaion substructure a fragmentary fresco depicted a woman, certainly one of the deceased, approaching the Theotokos and Christ in prayer.117 In addition to burial chambers, utilitarian substructures were used for sitespeciic purposes. For example, Anthony of Novgorod related that the Nea Ekklesia had a crypt.When the emperor entered the church, attendants would burn incense there; the smoke would rise from openings on the marble loor and ill the church.118 Anthony likely referred to a substructure or lower story meant to raise the Nea, which was, originally or subsequently, also used for such theatrics.

Atria and PhialaI An atrium (αἴθριον, αὐλή, προαύλια, and occasionally προτεμένισμα, among other terms),119 a three- or four-sided rectangular courtyard preceding a church, was a requisite part of ecclesiastical buildings in Constantinople in the ifth and sixth centuries.120 It was where the people would await the arrival of the celebrants, as laypeople did not enter the church before the First Entrance.121 In

116

117 118 119 120 121

Many churches in Constantinople were built on substructures, including cisterns, due to the hilly terrain of the city; see Strzygowski and Forchheimer 1893; Janin 1964: 201–215. In some cases, the substructures performed no function other than elevating and giving prominence to the building above. Striker 1981: 30–31. Ehrhard 1932: 57. Anthony mentions that this crypt was accessible to people. For these terms, see Taft 1998: 51–52. Mathews 1971: esp. 107–108. See also Pallas 1950: 279–289. Mathews 1971: 145.

95

96

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

the middle of the atrium there was usually a fountain (φιάλη) used for preparatory ritual ablutions.122 In the Medieval period, with the signiicant curtailment of outdoor processions culminating to the Liturgy, atria and phialai became less common. However, archaeological and textual evidence does attest to their existence in a number of primarily Middle Byzantine foundations. Saint George in Mangana (X) preserved remains of a courtyard with an octagonal structure in the middle, likely the canopy of the phiale.123 Clavijo describes it as “a bathing font, very big and beautiful and above it is a cupola supported on eight pillars of white marble carved with many igures,”124 which included the evangelists and apostles.125 The Vita Basilii contains an extensive description of two fountains in the western atrium of the Nea Ekklesia in the Great Palace.126 The southern one was made of porphyry and decorated with carved “dragons.”127 Patriarch Photios’s description of the church of Pharos, also in the Great Palace, exalted the beauty of the church’s atrium.128 The monastery of Evergetis had a phiale outside its katholikon,129 and the church of Eleousa in Pantokrator had two.130 In addition, the phialai of early foundations continued to be used in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods. Such was the case in Hagia Sophia131 and Stoudios.132 The primary liturgical use of the atrium and phiale in the Medieval period in both cathedral and monastic contexts appears to have been for the service of the Great Blessing of the Waters on the eve of the feast of the Epiphany, a practice that had started already in the sixth century.133 The Synaxarion of Evergetis described the ceremony in detail.134 In this foundation it began on the day of the feast right after the opisthambonos prayer, with a procession to the phiale. 122

123 124 125 126 127

128 129 130 131 132 133

134

Millet 1905: 108; Mathews 1971: 21, 35, 89. Because of this, the atrium was called λουτήρ (laver, pool) or φιάλη (fountain); see Taft 1998: 51–52.The latter word might refer to the structure that housed the fountain, the former to the actual basin; see, for example, Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 150. Demangel and Mamboury 1939: 23–30. Mango 1986: 219. As described by the Russian Anonymous; Majeska 1984: 366. Vita Basilii: 276, 278. This or a similar phiale is now in the exonarthex of Hagia Sophia, as suggested by Boura 1977: 65. Jenkins and Mango 1956: 131. The relevant terms are προπύλαια and προτεμένισμα. Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 414. See also Magdalino and Rodley 1997. Pantokrator: 75; BMFD: 754. Typikon of the Great Church: I, 182; Mathews 1971: 89. BMFD: 113–114 [B], 115 [A]. For a history of the Blessing of Waters, see Trempelas 1950–1951; 1950–1955: II, 1–44; and most recently Denysenko 2012. This rite already was part of the feast in the fourth century, at least in Antioch. Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 414–420. For a useful diachronic overview of the constituent parts of the rite, see table 5.3 in Denysenko 2012: 74–75.

SUBSIDIARY SPACES

There were petitions and prayers and at the climax of the service the priest dipped the “precious wood” (a cross-shaped reliquary of the True Cross) in the water three times making the sign of the cross, and then blessed and sprinkled the brothers. Subsequently everybody returned to the church for the completion of the Liturgy. However, an outside phiale was not a necessity; when one was unavailable, the Blessing of the Waters took place elsewhere. For example, in the monastery of Kecharitomene it was celebrated in the narthex, where a phiale presumably smaller in size stood.135 Some euchologia provide rubrics for the rite to be celebrated either inside the church or in an outdoor phiale.136 Beyond these services, phialai functioned mainly as distributors of water “to quench the thirst of the passers-by,” according to the vita Basilii,137 and “to refresh those who are weary from traveling,” according to the typikon of Pantokrator.138

Bell Towers The tolling of bells signaled the imminent beginning of the service.139 The number of times the bells rang was an indication of the importance of the feast (the more important the feast, the more tolls).140 No Byzantine bell tower has survived in Constantinople but there is evidence for their existence in some churches. In Hagia Sophia, where it was likely added in the thirteenth century, the three-story bell tower projected from the west façade.141 In Pammakaristos (XXIV) it was in the same location.142 The situation was diferent in Kilise Camii, where the bell tower, surviving only on its ground loor, was located in the southwestern corner of the building (XXVIII-4).143 In Chora it was situated over the southwest bay of the exonarthex (VI-1, 2).144 In Kalenderhane (XIV) a tower was adjacent to the porch that preceded the exonarthex.145 In the monastery tou Libos (XXIII) the tenth-century tower that gave access to

135 136

137 138 139

140 141 142

143 144 145

Kecharitomene: 127; BMFD: 702. See also Chapter 4. See, for example, the ninth- or tenth-century Sinai 957 in Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 7–8, where there is also a rubric for the patriarch blessing the waters “in the palace.” Vita Basilii: 278. Pantokrator: 75; BMFD: 754. See, for example, Darrouzès 1976: 47. Μετὰ τὸ σημᾶναι διὰ τῶν κωδώνων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐν ἀρμοδίῳ καιρῷ ... συνάγονται ἐν τοῖς κατηχουμενίοις τῆς Ἁγίας Σοφίας οἵ τε σταυροφόροι καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ κληρικοί. Darrouzès 1976: 76; Phountoules 1976: 135 and passim. Ousterhout 1987: 108 with relevant bibliography. See also Kafescioğlu 2009: 21 and ig. 7. The base of the tower is now incorporated into the outer ambulatory. See Hallensleben 1963–1964: 186–190; Mango et al. 1978: 24–25. The dating of this tower is unclear. Hallensleben 1965: 208–217. Ousterhout 1987: 106–110. Striker and Kuban 1997–2007: I, 70.

97

98

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

the roof chapels may have been turned into a belfry in the Late Byzantine period. A tower in relationship to a church is mentioned by Clavijo in relation to the church of Saint John the Baptist in Petra, where it was used for the safekeeping of relics.146 The mechanics of the introduction of bell towers to Byzantine architecture remain obscure. Gabriel Millet considered them Latin imports that appeared after 1204,147 although there might have been earlier examples.148 Most recently, Slobodan Ćurčić suggested that they were independent architectural elements whose origins should be traced to Early Christian Syria.149 Based on monuments from the Balkans and Norman Sicily, Ćurčić argued that bell towers were multistory structures that, beyond bells, incorporated chapels and sometimes cells where a monastic could live in complete seclusion. Known examples in Constantinople might have had similar functions, although the dearth of archaeological and textual evidence precludes anything beyond hypotheses.

Other Subsidiary Spaces Two buildings, Chora and Kilise Camii, have a two-story annex. In Chora it is attached to the north of the naos, running its entire length (VI-1, 9).150 The lower story connects the narthex with the northern chapel. The upper story is accessed by a staircase set in the thickness of the north wall. The function of this annex is unclear. Underwood suggested that the lower story functioned as a diakonikon after access from the main apse to the southern apsidal room was blocked. A row of niches on its north wall may have been used for the storage of vessels.151 Because the northern apsidal room was likely a chapel, the lower story provided access to it independent of the naos, a function comparable to that of outer aisles. Underwood suggested that the upper story may have been a skeuophylakion or a library.152 These functions were not mutually exclusive, as liturgical manuscripts would have been kept in the skeuophylakion.153 Windows provided ample natural light for reading. Furthermore, there is evidence that skeuophylakia were sometimes located above ground, as

146 147

148 149 150 151 152 153

Clavijo: 80–83. Millet 1916: 135–140. Earlier, the faithful were summoned to worship with a wooden or metal gong (semantron); see ODB s.v. “Semantron.” Bouras 2007: 110. Ćurčić 2006; 2008; 2009a. See also Ćurčić 2009b and Popović 2000. Ousterhout 1987: 51–54, 114–116. Underwood 1966: I, 23. For an overview of libraries as annexes to monastic churches, see Bakirtzis 2008. Ousterhout 1987: 115.

SUBSIDIARY SPACES

in the monastery of Evergetis.154 At Chora, the window on the upper story’s south wall ofered visual access to the naos and the services that took place there.As in other instances in Constantinople and elsewhere, this arrangement aforded the patron or the leader of the monastic community a space for private devotions during the Liturgy. Vefa Kilise Camii has a similar two-story annex attached to its northwestern corner (XXVIII-3).The form of this structure has been severely altered, but it likely served purposes analogous to those at the Chora. Subsidiary spaces presented ingenious solutions that addressed ritual, symbolic, and soteriological concerns, always within the context of the Byzantine church, whose core remained essentially unchanged during the Medieval period. Although there was evident liberty regarding their form, they exclusively functioned in relation to the main building. As a result, the church, with its multitude of spaces, became a complex built landscape that was occupied by the Byzantine rite. However, as the focus of social and religious life in Constantinople, the church was also used for a variety of rituals that went beyond the rubrics of liturgical books.

154

Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 52. In the rubrics for September 14 the appointed priest, the sacristan, and a deacon ascend to the skeuophylakion and then take the True Cross reliquary down to the church: ἀνέρχεται ὁ ἐγκάθετος ἱερεὺς μετὰ τοῦ ἐκκλησιάρχου καὶ διακόνου ἐν τῷ σκευοφυλακίῳ ἠλλαγμένοι καὶ καταβιβάζουσι τὸν τίμιον σταυρόν. For this feast, see also Chapter 3.

99

CHAPTER SIX

NONLITURGICAL USE OF CHURCHES

The regular, often daily, liturgical services undeniably accounted for the most conspicuous use of church space. However, a Byzantine church was the theater for numerous nonliturgical activities as well. These took place inside sacred spaces, yet had no basis in the the rubrics laid out in liturgical books. They pertained especially to devotion to sacred objects, to healings and miracles, to funerary rites, and to other functions.This chapter focuses on these acts, on the behavior of their participants and beneiciaries, and on the user’s experience of the space. The study of nonliturgical behavior is a perilous enterprise.1 Because there is no possibility of acquiring irsthand observation or empirical knowledge we rely, of necessity, on secondary material that includes written sources, decorative programs, and archaeological data.This evidence is frequently circumstantial, indirect, and cryptic. For example, Anthony of Novgorod reported that inside Hagia Sophia “to the right of the apse” painters “exchanged” icons, with no further details.2 Furthermore, although the dichotomy between liturgical and nonliturgical acts might be obvious at irst glance, in reality it is diicult, and occasionally imprudent, to insist on completely separating the two. Take the example of Anna, the mother of Saint Stephen the Younger, who addressed her private prayers requesting a son to, and genulected in front of, the icon 1 2

100

See also the notes in Patterson Ševčenko 1991: 45–47. Ehrhard 1932: 55.

NONLITURGICAL USE OF CHURCHES

of the Theotokos in the Blachernai during the Friday-night vigil. These were acts of personal devotion but Anna performed them in the context of a service and they were scripted, both literally and iguratively, by social and religious conventions.3 And although hers was a private act, it was shared with a number of coattendees who presumably behaved in a similar fashion. Nonliturgical activity is usually taken to refer exclusively to private devotions, but there is another, more elusive category of nonliturgical acts: the use of sacred space for such informal occurrences as resting, sleeping, eating, and drinking. These could be the result of circumstances – a weary traveler inds a church on his way and rests there – or more institutionalized, such as the diaklysmos or collation partaken by monastics in the narthex.

Devotions The most common nonliturgical activity4 took place when a person visited a church in order to light candles, pray, and on occasion venerate (the usual word describing this was προσκυνῶ) a holy object or objects – an icon, the bones of a saint, a sliver of the true cross, even a piece of cloth.5 In the tenth-century life of Saint Thomais of Lesbos we read that the saint frequented churches incessantly, stood near icons, and made her “customary prayers.”6 The frontispiece to the Hamilton Psalter (ca. 1300) ofers a visualization of this: it depicts a family venerating and praying to the icon of the Hodegetria (Fig. 13).7 The two parents are kneeling and their children are standing, hands extended in supplication.8 Emperors habitually visited an important shrine and venerated an icon before the beginning of a military campaign. A miniature in the fourteenth-century Vatican Manasses (Vat. slav. 2, fol. 122v) depicts Emperor Herakleios venerating an icon of the Hodegetria, which is set under a ciborium, before setting of for his military campaign of 626.9 These devotions were often memorialized in monumental decoration, where the supplicant was depicted either in proskynesis or in prayer next to 3

4

5 6

7 8

9

This is evident in the words used sometimes to describe such activity, οἱ συνήθεις εὐχές, “the usual prayers,” or τὰ διορισμένα, “according to the prescriptions.” See, for example, AASS: IV, 238; Irene of Chrysobalanton: 62. On Anna, see later. On devotions and popular piety in general, see Gerstel and Talbot 2006; Gerstel 2006b;Talbot 2006. The devotional acts and healings described in the following were also performed by pilgrims, although the deinition of pilgrimage in Byzantium has proven problematic. On this, see Carr 2002: 75–92, esp. 76–77. See, for example, De Cerimoniis: 533, 554. Cf. also Scylitzes: 52. Holy Women: 311. Michael Psellos also describes in some detail the piety of his deceased daughter Styliane; see Kaldellis 2006: 122–123. Evans 2004: 153–154, with earlier bibliography on the manuscript. For a similar illustration in a psalter now at the Benaki Museum in Athens, see Cutler and Carr 1976: 285–286. Dujčev 1963: ig. 43.

101

102

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

13. Frontispiece to the Hamilton Psalter, Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett. 78.A.9, ca. 1300 (photo: Art Resource, NY).

the image of the Theotokos or a saint or, less often, Christ (Fig. 14).10 Such images of supplication had a variety of functions: they expressed the piety of the depicted person and placed him or her under constant divine protection; they guaranteed eternal prayer on his or her behalf; in conjunction with the inscription and image, they engaged the viewers and made them part of this prayer; and occasionally they ofered thanksgiving for a miracle.11 We can attribute similar functions to the graiti that are found in abundance on the walls and furnishings of Early Christian and Byzantine churches throughout the provinces of the empire. These were produced by people who very likely did not have any involvement in the construction or the decoration of the church but who wanted to leave a permanent mark of their devotion within a sacred space. These prayers often request salvation for the living or repose for the dead.12 Other graiti are simply a mark of pious presence. 10

11 12

Stylianou and Stylianou 1960: 97–128; Kalopissi-Verti 1992: 27–28 and 94–102; Patterson Ševčenko 1994. See also Nelson 2007: 109–116. A comprehensive treatment of Byzantine graiti does not exist. See Orlandos andVranouses 1973; Jolivet-Lévy 2008 with earlier bibliography on Cappadocia.

NONLITURGICAL USE OF CHURCHES

14. Chora, narthex, Deisis with Isaac Komnenos (left) and Maria Palaiologina (right), 14th century, mosaic (photo: author).

Seeking and Securing Miracles Healings The veneration of holy objects is mostly connected, at least in the written sources, to requests for a miracle, namely, supernatural assistance for a variety of issues ranging from infertility and the cure of a debilitating disease to demonic possession or help with a military campaign.13, 14 The behavior of supplicants in these circumstances depended on many factors: the architectural arrangement of the church building, accessibility, availability of “proxy” relics (such as oil from the saint’s lamp), the ways the icon or the saint was expected to respond, the kinds of illnesses, and so on. The most common acts included veneration; the smearing on the body of perfumed oil or condensed humidity from relics, an icon, or a tomb; and drinking water from a

13

14

The practice of visiting a site requesting healing has also been connected to pilgrimage. On this, see the several essays in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56 (2002), esp. Carr 2002; Majeska 2002b; Foss 2002; Talbot 2002. For an extraordinary list of alictions mentioned in hagiographical sources from the eighth to tenth centuries, see Talbot 1983: 17–18; 2002: 158–159.

103

104

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

holy spring.15 The Life of Saint Theodora of Thessalonike illustrates such behavior. An Arab man of iconoclastic convictions named Elias lived in a village outside Thessalonike. He was encouraged by a friend to visit the shrine of Saint Theodora in the monastery of Saint Stephen to see the perfumed oil that lowed out from her icon: And when [the heretic] entered and examined carefully the oil pouring from the icon and felt it with his hands and was assured in his mind, he knelt down and pressed his forehead to the ground; and after anointing with the lowing oil his hip which pained him terribly and perceiving the exceedingly swift succor of the blessed [Theodora], he uttered words of thanksgiving.

After this, Elias kissed the icon, anointed his whole body with the oil, prayed, and returned home.16 On occasion, a votive image of the ailing body part was ofered either as a request for a cure or as thanksgiving, a practice that still survives today.17 A very interesting case that merits a more detailed examination is the shrine of Saint Artemios in Constantinople, even though our primary source comes from the seventh century. The account of his miracles ofers enough information to reconstruct a rough outline of the building and the rituals followed by pilgrims.18 The relics of the saint, who was martyred in the fourth century during the reign of Julian, were brought to Constantinople and deposited in the church of Saint John in Oxeia, which was a three-aisled basilica with an atrium and a narthex. Two staircases gave access to a crypt underneath the main altar where the lead coin with the relics of the saint was located. Saint Artemios specialized in curing hernias and genital diseases. According to the miracle accounts, people habitually drank from the lamp that was located close to the saint’s coin.19 In some cases the supplicant made a votive lamp, illed with oil and wine, which was presumably left close to or even on the saint’s coin.20 Anointing an ailing body part with oil from those lamps, or with a wax salve (called kerote), resulted in a cure.21 However, most visitors sought the saint’s assistance through incubation. This was originally a pagan practice, associated often with Asklepios, but it survived in Christianity. In pagan temples, supplicants were provided with dormitories, but in the shrine of Saint Artemios they slept inside the basilica of Saint John, usually in the north aisle, hoping to 15 16 17

18 19 20 21

For a detailed exposition of this, see Talbot 2002: 159–162. Holy Women: 213–14. For a similar event, see Andrew the Fool: II, 108–10. Kazhdan and Maguire 1991: 14. For a votive plaque with an image of Saint Hermolaos, see Gerstel 2006b: 117 and ig. 5.5. Artemios; Janin 1969: 419–420; Mango 1979. Artemios: 104–105. Artemios: 82–85, 138–139. Artemios: 96–97, 122–123.

NONLITURGICAL USE OF CHURCHES

be visited in a dream by Artemios, who would perform the cure. The practice of incubation is attested as late as the fourteenth century in Constantinople: a man was healed of demon possession after sleeping next to the coin of Patriarch Athanasios I, which was kept inside the church of Christ Savior in Athanasios’s monastery at the Xerolophos in Constantinople.22 In the shrine of Saint Artemios, the miraculous healing did not always happen immediately. Some people had to wait months or even years.23 The area where supplicants stayed was fenced of during the night by metal barriers, thus precluding them access to the rest of the church. How this afected the regular services is uncertain, and the sources do not clarify how the clients of Saint Artemios passed their time.24 The account includes references to a vigil and a procession every Saturday, but this also was related to the function of the shrine in that the healing wax salve was dispensed during that vigil. Hagiographical texts detail instances of nonliturgical use of a church that amounted to what was essentially forced coninement.The Life of Saint Andrew the Fool, which dates to the tenth century, contains one such story. Andrew, a well-educated slave of a high court oicial in Constantinople, belongs to a special category of saints who pretended to be deranged for reasons of humility.25 His admittedly outrageous acts caused his master to have him chained in the church of the martyr Anastasia in order to be cured. Andrew spent four months chained inside the church, where he had numerous visions. He was subsequently released as incurable.26 Saint Anastasia apparently specialized in the healing of demoniacs27 and her tomb may have been located in a crypt under the church in an arrangement similar to that of Saint John in Oxeia.28 In the Life of Irene of Chrysobalanton another demoniac, a certain Nicholas who tended the vineyard of Irene’s monastery, was also chained inside Saint Anastasia. The martyr, however, refused to heal him because Irene herself was to perform the miracle. The demoniac was then chained to one of the columns in the katholikon of Chrysobalanton and was subsequently healed.29 22

23 24 25 26

27

28 29

AASS: III, 886E-F; Talbot 1983: 78–80. I˙sa Kapı Mescidi (XIII) was likely part of this monastery. Artemios: 185–189. On this, see Artemios: 23–25. For such saints, see Ivanov 2006. Andrew the Fool: II, 18–29. The chaining of demoniacs has biblical precedent; see Mark 5:1–5, Luke 8:26–30. For another chained demoniac brought to a church and healed, see the Life of Eustratios of Agauros in Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1856–1912: IV, 398. This was probably the church of Saint Anastasia en tois Domninou embolois; see Rydén 1974: 198–201; Irene of Chrysobalanton: 62–64, 68. In addition to the two vitae mentioned here, references to the same church are found in the Life of Saint Basil the Younger; see Rydén 1983: 581. Irene of Chrysobalanton: 62. Irene of Chrysobalanton: 66–74.

105

106

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Conception and Childbearing A special category of healings and miracles was connected with conception and childbearing, both important concerns for Byzantine women. Infertility often was a social stigma.30 As in all premodern societies, the rates of infant mortality were high and giving birth posed risks due to the rudimentary medicine available.31 Women often requested divine help to address such issues, most commonly, although not exclusively, from the Theotokos or from Anna, her mother.32 One such case is recounted in the Life of Saint Stephen the Younger (composed in 809), which is described here in detail, because it is representative of a person’s behavior when requesting a miracle regardless of his or her predicament. Stephen’s mother, Anna, approaching menopause without giving birth to a male child, frequented the sanctuaries of the Theotokos in Constantinople and especially the Blachernai during the services held there on Friday evenings. She stood in front of the icon of the Theotokos holding Christ in her arms and submitted her request to the Mother of God in an extemporaneous prayer. One night, after she repeated the prayer three times and performed the “usual” genulection, she fell asleep and saw a vision of the Theotokos, who struck her in the loins and told her that she would bear a son.33 Anna returned to the Blachernai with her son forty days after the birth, according to the custom, and again she stood in front of the icon and ofered tearful praise to the Theotokos.34 Although the historicity of this account is debatable, it does relect certain realities. Broadly speaking, Anna’s petitionary behavior was typical: she ofered her private prayer in front of an icon, accompanying it with a genulection, and later she returned to ofer her thanksgiving. The context of the irst prayer is signiicant, as Anna made her private devotions during the vigil (that is, during a liturgical activity) at the church of the Blachernai. Personal prayer during a service was certainly common. A miniature that accompanies the chapter “On Prayer” in a twelfth-century manuscript of John Klimakos’s The Heavenly Ladder shows monks with raised hands praying to icons of the Theotokos and Christ, while another monk is reading from the Gospel lectionary on a lectern, evidently during a service (Fig. 15).35 Several hagiographical sources indicate that women requesting a child would do so by staying for a considerable amount of time, with or without their husbands, inside a church in an activity that resembled incubation. For example, Paul and Dionysia, the parents of Saint Euthymios the Great (d. 473), frequented a church dedicated to the martyr Polyeuktos in the city of 30 31 32 33 34 35

Congourdeau 2009. Kalavrezou 2003: 275–281; Talbot 2009. See also Koukoules 1948–1957: IV, 9–42. Gerstel and Talbot 2006: 88–89. See also Pitarakis 2005. Stephen the Younger: 92–93. On this episode, see also Talbot 2006: 210–211. Stephen the Younger: 94–95. Martin 1954: 188. On the gesture of prayer in art, see Nelson 2007.

NONLITURGICAL USE OF CHURCHES

15. Monks in church, Cod. Sin. gr. 418, fol. 269r, 12th century (photo: Art Resource, NY).

Melitene, asking for a child. One of the nights they were informed through a vision that the “chains of sterility were broken.”36 It has been suggested that the proliferation in churches of images of Anna holding the infant Mary may be connected with devotional practices relating to childbearing in general and to infertility in particular.37 That these images were occasionally set apart in individual frames strengthens this hypothesis. An exceptional case of devotion to Anna can be found in the church of Hagios Stephanos in Kastoria, in northern Greece.38 Over the narthex, there is a separate gallery overlooking the nave. Its iconography, which dates to the tenth and thirteenth centuries, is dominated by images of maternity and healing – three depictions of Anna and infant Mary, a female saint with two children, 36

37 38

Cyril of Skythopolis: II, 8–9. PG 114: 597. This incident is depicted in an early fourteenthcentury fresco in the eponymous chapel of Saint Euthymios adjacent to the basilica of Saint Demetrios in Thessalonike; see Gouma-Peterson 1976: esp. 175 and ig. 10. Cf. also the vitae of Saint Symeon the Stylite the Younger (sixth century) and Saint Michael Maleinos (tenth century); Symeon the Younger: 3, 4; Michael Maleinos: 551–552. Gerstel 1998: 89. Gerstel 1998: 96–97; Siomkos 2005: 100–114.

107

108

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

and a panel with two saints, probably the doctors Kosmas and Damianos – and clearly points to a devotional space dedicated to (and by?) women and their concerns about childbearing. However, we do not know what kinds of acts took place there. Should we imagine rites of individual (private) piety or of corporate devotion? Were these structured or informal? At the south end of the gallery there is a chapel equipped with a templon, an altar, and a prothesis niche, so the Liturgy could have been performed there. This may indicate that even specialized requests for divine intervention, such as to cure infertility, were carried out in the context of a set ritual rather than individually.

Remembering the Dead There are several extraliturgical rites associated with funerals and commemorations at tombs, such as laments, beating of chests, and tearing of hair. Funerary orations for eminent people were given near the tomb at the funeral, on the occasion of a mnemosynon (memorial service), or at other places and times.39 Family members regularly visited tombs inside churches to ofer private prayers on behalf of the deceased. Theodora Palaiologina’s typikon for the monastery tou Libos stipulated the following: No one except the emperor and the respectable and eminent members of the emperor’s retinue are to enter the convent, except in the case of one of my relatives who wishes to see and venerate the holy churches in a pious manner, or to see the tombs of our dear departed out of love for them.40

Such behavior was expected not only from relatives but also from visitors, as funerary epigrams attest. These short poems were part of the carved decoration of tombs exempliied by that of the megas kontostaulos Michael Tornikes (d. ca. 1328) in the funerary chapel of the Chora monastery (VI-7). The twenty-four-line poem directly addresses the viewer (who is called βέλτιστε, “good friend”) and praises Tornikes’s life. However, the tone changes in the last three lines: But, O only living One and transformer of natures, if by chance he did something that was not itting for him, granting him pardon, give him Eden as his inheritance.41

39 40

41

Sideras 1994. οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἄλλος βασιλέως χωρὶς καὶ τῶν σὺν βασιλεῖ μετρίων τούτων καὶ ἐκκρίτων ἀνδρῶν τὴν μονὴν εἰσελεύσεται, εἰ μὴ τῶν προσγενῶν τις τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου ἰδεῖν τε θέλων καὶ προσκυνῆσαι τοὺς θείους ἐξ εὐσεβείας νεὼς ἢ καὶ τοὺς τῶν μεταστάντων τάφους πόθου χάριν τοῦ πρὸς ἐκείνους θεάσασθαι; Libos: 115; BMFD: 1270. ἀλλ᾽ ὦ μόνε, ζῶν καὶ μεθιστῶν τὰς φύσεις, εἴ πού τι καὶ πέπραχεν αὐτῷ μὴ πρέπον λύσιν παρασχὼν τὴν Ἐδὲν κλῆρον δίδου; Van Millingen 1912: 330; Talbot 1999: 79–80.

NONLITURGICAL USE OF CHURCHES

Another epigram, commissioned by Irene Palaiologina to decorate the now-lost tomb of her deceased husband, John II Doukas Komnenos Angelos (d. 1318), concludes: but, O spectator, stay mourning here, and ask from God that this despot may ind henceforth another dignity in Heaven.42

Simply by reading these epigrams the viewer and visitor ofered (willingly or not) a prayer on behalf of the deceased and thus became the “agent of the commemoration.”43 It has been argued that these poems, along with monumental inscriptions, were “performed” aloud,44 but the mechanics of recitation are irrelevant because they did not inluence the efectiveness of the prayer. The importance lay in the recitation itself, whether silent or audible.

Resting, Sleeping, and Eating Resting and even sleeping inside a church, beyond incubation, was not unusual. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (680–681) dictated that in case of emergency a traveler was allowed to rest in a church along with his beast.45 On their way back from Corinth, Saint Nikon and a priest entered “a very old church” one evening in order “to relax a little from their weariness and to take a little sleep.”46 Similarly, Lazaros of Mount Galesion, on his way to the Holy Land, prayed and then slept in a small chapel in the middle of the ields. Later he prayed and slept in the narthex of the famous church of the Archangel in Chonai, where he was inappropriately approached by a vision of a nun and ran away.47 Saint Irene of Chrysobalanton and three of her nuns napped in the Blachernai, taking a break from an all-day prayer.48 The Life of Saint Theodora of Thessalonike refers to nuns sleeping in the narthex, presumably between services.49 There are several instances of people being healed after falling asleep in front of an icon. Saint Theophano, for example, fell asleep before an icon of the Theotokos in the monastery ton Bassou after venerating the icon for several hours (she subsequently had a vision).50 Other hagiographic texts describe analogous

42

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Πλὴν ὦ θεατά, στῆθι πενθῶν ἐνθάδε, καὶ τοῦτον αἰτοῦ πρὸς Θεοῦ τὸν δεσπότην, ἄλλην ἄνω κάτωθεν εὑρεῖν ἀξίαν; translated in Brooks 2006b: 228–229. On this topic, see Nelson 2007: 107–116; Papalexandrou 2007: 166–170. Papalexandrou 2001. Syntagma: II, 540–541. Nikon: 143–145. Lazaros of Mt. Galesion: 82–84. Irene of Chrysobalanton: 56. Holy Women: 199. Theophano: 4.

109

110

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

events.51 We can again connect the use of the narthex for sleeping with the interpretation of this space as not quite as holy as the rest of the church.52 This mentality resulted in some surprising uses. In monasteries the community occasionally used the narthex for informal eating and drinking, even though canon law repeatedly prohibited eating in churches.53 The sources refer to two related but distinct practices. In the irst, often called diaklysmos,54 wine or water and bread were distributed at the end of the Liturgy. In the second, the community received a collation (also bread and wine), usually on fast days, when there was no meal in the refectory.55 The Synaxarion of Evergetis juxtaposed the two practices in the rubrics for Christmas eve, when it fell on a Saturday or Saturday:“after the morning liturgy we do not go to the refectory … but after eating the blessed bread and washing the mouth from the divine gift [i.e., the Eucharist] in the narthex, the cellarer distributes to each a piece of bread and similarly a glass of wine as dictated by the abbot, but nothing more.”56 According to the typikon of Evergetis, the diaklysmos after the Divine Liturgy was “customary” and took place in the narthex while the monks waited for the summons to the refectory,57 a rubric reproduced, sometimes with the omission of the location, in typika from outside Constantinople.58 Mamas59 and Kecharitomene60 also included the Evergetis rubric but did not mention the narthex. However, Mamas instructed that on Holy Saturday the diaklysmos should take place in the refectory.61 Stoudios did not specify the location and restricted the diaklysmos to those who had received communion.62 Neither practice was a “ritualized” action;63 rather, both addressed practical considerations. The distribution of bread and wine to those who had received 51

52 53 54

55 56

57 58 59 60 61 62

63

Kazhdan and Maguire 1991: 14. People falling asleep in church, especially during long vigils, was a known issue. Athanasios of Athos even assigned monks “to awaken the brothers throughout the church during the readings”; see Athanasios of Athos: 153. See Chapter 4. Syntagma: I, 131; II, 476–478; III: 407; V: 408; VI: 76. For this term, see BMFD: 116–117, n. 27. Nikon of Black Mountain gave very speciic instructions; see BMFD: 405–406. See also Nicholl 1997; Talbot 2007: 112. For a list of examples from outside Constantinople, see Marinis 2009: 155. μετὰ δὲ τὴν τῆς πρωΐας λειτουργίαν οὐκ ἀπερχόμεθα ἐν τῇ τραπέζῃ … ἀλλὰ ἐν τῷ νάρθηκι μετὰ τὸ φαγεῖν τὸ κατακλαστὸν καὶ διακλύσασθαι ἀπὸ τῆς ἁγίας δωρεᾶς διανέμει ὁ κελλαρίτης πᾶσι πρὸς ἓν τεμάχιον ψωμόν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ πρὸς ἓν βαυκάλιον οἴνου ὡς ἂν ὁρίσῃ ὁ προεστὼς καὶ πλεῖον οὐδέν; Synaxarion of Evergetis: II, 332. Evergetis: 33. See also Evergetis: 43. Nicholl 1997: 287–293. Mamas: 273; BMFD: 1005. Kecharitomene: 97; BMFD: 693. Kecharitomene repeats a rubric from Evergetis. Mamas 276; BMFD: 1007. Hypotyposis Stoudiou [A]: 288; BMFD: 115. The reference in Pantokrator: 89 is to commemorative services on behalf of the founder and his family by the personnel and the patients of the monastery’s hospital, without specifying a location. In this instance the word should be translated as “quick meal” and does not relate to the monastic practices described here. Pace Nicholl 1997.

NONLITURGICAL USE OF CHURCHES

communion was meant to ensure that no particle of the Eucharistic elements remained in their mouths. On days when there was no meal in the refectory, the collation provided quick sustenance to the monastics.This is evident in the Rule of Athanasios of Athos: On Holy Saturday in the middle of the twelfth hour we begin vespers, and the dismissal will come at whatever time [the service is concluded], but the refectory is not opened because the liturgy inishes so late and because a large meal would weigh heavily on the stomach and on the mind. We are content with the blessed bread and can partake of about two servings of wine in the narthex.64

Beyond these light, informal meals, other, seemingly more formal afairs took place in some churches. According to the Book of Ceremonies, the emperor dined with the patriarch in the galleries of Saint Mokios.65 Patriarch Athanasios I complained to the emperor that the imperial party went to the galleries of Hagia Sophia not to pray but to indulge themselves with eating and drinking, presumably during the meal following the end of the service.66 Anthony of Novgorod reported that fruit was kept fresh in the cisterns of Hagia Sophia for the consumption of the patriarch and the emperor.67

Festivals and Reenactments Sometimes churches became part of celebrations that took place during popular festivals. One such occasion was the female festival of Agathe in Constantinople, which happened yearly on May 12 and is described by Michael Psellos.68 The participants (female wool carders, spinners, and weavers) entered an unidentiied church, whose doors were opened by priests.There the women venerated icons set up by the clergy, decorated them with ornaments, and sang songs, some of them old, others improvised on the spot. Another component of the ceremony focused on a series of wall paintings depicting women making cloth, likely located on the exterior walls of the aforementioned church. Psellos’s description is vague, but it is clear that this was a secular celebration with some religious overtones. Another festival revolved around the commemoration of the Holy Notaries, Saints Markianos and Martyrios, appropriately the patron saints of the guild of the notaries. On October 25, teachers and students 64

65 66 67 68

Τῷ δὲ ἁγίῳ σαββάτῳ μεσαζούσης τῆς ιβʹ ἀρχόμεθα τοῦ ἑσπερινοῦ καὶ ὅπου σώσει ἡ ἀπόλυσις· ἡ δὲ τράπεζα οὐκ ἀνοίγει διὰ γὰρ τὸ βραδέως τὴν λειτουργίαν συμφθάζειν καὶ τὸ μὴ κόρῳ τὴν γαστέρα καταβαρῦναι καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν· τῇ εὐλογίᾳ μόνῃ ἀρκούμεθα, ἀνὰ βʹ κράσεων μεταλαμβάνοντες ἐν τῷ νάρθηκι; Rule of Athanasios: 138; BMFD: 226. Taft 1998: 45, 60 n. 155. Athanasios I: 100–103. Ehrhard 1932: 58–59. Sathas 1872–1894: V, 527–531, translated in Kaldellis 2006: 182–186. On this festival, see Laiou 1986.

111

112

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

processed to the church of their patrons while performing comic sketches and wearing, among other things, brilliant costumes, women’s clothes, and imitations of imperial regalia.69 There are tantalizing allusions to people wearing costumes even inside churches: the canonist Balsamon refers to priests who, on certain feast days, appear in the middle of the church dressed as soldiers with sword in hand, or as monks, or even as four-legged animals. He added that “choirmasters click their ingers like charioteers, wear beards of seaweed and imitate female occupations.”70 It appears that Patriarch Theophylaktos (d. 956) had introduced some kind of mime or masquerade in Hagia Sophia in which priests participated on the feasts of Christmas and Epiphany.71 The exact nature of these practices is unclear. It is conceivable, however, that they were reenactments of holy events rather than carnivalesque activities. In the Late Byzantine period one such act is well attested in the “Service of the Furnace,” also known as the “Service of the Three Children in the Furnace,” which was sung in the church on the Sunday of the Forefathers, either between Orthros and the Divine Liturgy or after the Liturgy.72 Variations of the service survive in ive manuscripts, the majority dating to the post-Byzantine period. Its performance is attested by eyewitnesses73 and mentioned by Symeon of Thessalonike.74 It included props – a furnace and an icon of an angel – and was performed by three children and a choir. At the beginning of the service, the children entered the furnace and they and the choir sang hymns. At some point the angel descended and toward the end the children sang while dancing and bowing and raising their arms. Whether this was a liturgical drama or a liturgical ritual is irrelevant; it probably was neither. Such reenactments were not uncommon in Byzantium. For example, on Holy Thursday the patriarch in Hagia Sophia or the abbot in some monastic foundations washed the feet of twelve people, occasionally under an image of Christ washing the feet of the apostles.75 There is also a cryptic reference by Liudprand, the tenth-century Lombard envoy to the court of John Tzimiskes, that the Byzantines “celebrate the ascension of the prophet Elijah to the heavens with stage performances”76 as well as a curious theatrical–religious piece, probably from Cyprus, on Christ’s 69 70 71 72

73

74 75

76

Described in Mitylenaios: poem 136. Syntagma: II, 451; Mango 1981: 349–351; Garland 2006b: 171–172. Syntagma: II, 449. See also Scylitzes: 243–244. Velimirović 1962; Lingas 2010. On the question of theater in Byzantium, see Puchner 1981; 2002. These are Ignatios of Smolensk, who visited Constantinople in 1389, and Bertrandon de la Broquière, who was in Istanbul in 1433; see Majeska 1984: 100, 233–234; Kline 1988: 100. PG 155:113–116; Phountoules 1976: 147. Typikon of the Great Church: II, 72–75. BMFD: 652; Synaxarion of Evergetis: II, 474. See also Chapter 4. Liudprand: 257. On this, see also Baud-Bovy 1975: 329–333; Puchner 1981: 235–236.

NONLITURGICAL USE OF CHURCHES

passion.77 The “Service of the Furnace” again challenges the clear distinction between liturgical and nonliturgical rites. Although not a typical ecclesiastical service, the choir and the three children sang church hymns. Byzantine churches were built primarily to house liturgical rituals, but at the same time, because they were sacred spaces, a wide array of nonliturgical activities took place in them. The majority of these were directly or indirectly religious in nature, but not all. The uses of spaces described in this book call into question our understanding of the church buildings as monuments of liturgical glory, or, conversely, as a species in the architectural evolution of types and masonry techniques. They are all that, certainly, but they should also be viewed as part of the urban and social fabric, places that people visited and used daily and over many centuries. A church did not have one single use and one single purpose. Rather, it was the multitude of uses and functions that constituted a Byzantine church.

77

Greek text and French translation in Vogt 1931.The text dates to the thirteenth or early fourteenth century and according to some was inspired by Latin liturgical dramas. It is unclear that it was performed inside a church; see Puchner 1981: 224–233.

113

CONCLUSION

The church building provided the setting for the many services of the Byzantine rite.Yet how close was the relationship between the two? Was there an interdependency between building design and the shape of the liturgy? If we view this question from a modernist perspective, we would conclude that architecture and liturgy, form and function, should be closely connected. This was the case for the early churches of Constantinople, as Thomas Mathews has convincingly demonstrated. However, as I have argued in this study, the careful examination of the Middle and Late Byzantine periods paints a much diferent picture. There certainly was a correspondence between architectural form and the exigencies of the ritual. The bema, which housed the altar in its main apse, created the necessary separate area for the clergy. Its side rooms, now called prothesis and diakonikon, inherited the functions of the outside skeuophylakion. The squarish, undivided naos suited both the two main circular processions of the Divine Liturgy, the First and the Great Entrance, and the participation of the congregation, who thus had an unobstructed view of the templon and sanctuary from everywhere they could stand. The narthex, essentially an entrance porch, prepared the faithful for their arrival into the main part of the church and became the place where people with spiritual or physical impediments attended the Liturgy. These three parts – bema, naos, narthex – served at once as an architectural and notional frame of the ritual. 114

CONCLUSION

However, the inal form of a Byzantine church depended on several additional factors, many of which had little to do with the accommodation of the rituals. According to the sources, the size and opulent decoration of such imperial foundations as the church of the Peribleptos (XXVI) and Saint George ton Manganon (X) were the result of their founders’ self-importance.1 Moreover, architectural types often responded to practical problems.2 The form of the twelfth-century cruciform naos in Chora (VI), for example, which replaced an eleventh century cross-in-square, was a result of legitimate concerns about the structural stability of the building.3 In addition, the numerous subsidiary spaces served a variety of functions. Galleries could be places of honor for imperial and aristocratic parties; conversely, they could signify that the building was an imperial or aristocratic foundation. The funerary chapels at the Chora and Pammakaristos (XXIV) served as sites of commemoration, as well as means to support and control how those buried in them were remembered. In the monastery tou Libos (XXIII), the outer ambulatory was added to provide space for more burials. Certainly, commemorative rituals took place in chapels and outer ambulatories in front of the tombs.Yet these were simple services, without any spatial exigencies, that could be performed in a variety of places. In the Myrelaion (XVII), for example, the purely utilitarian substructure was transformed in the Late Byzantine period into a funerary chapel. In most subsidiary structures the accommodation of rituals was often secondary to the space’s original purpose. When we consider all the functions of a church space, an explicit interdependence of form and function dissipates. The narthex, for example, could have been used for the reading of some of the Hours, funerals, commemorative services, burials, parts or the whole of the service of tonsure, the ordination of the minor orders, confessions, such occasional services as the Blessing of the Waters and the Washing of the Feet, and quick meals on certain feast days. It is impossible to connect any of these functions to the architectural form of the narthex. Minor services were read there for practical reasons, as they were short and did not require the use of the altar. Minor orders were ordained in the narthex because the bishop, after the abandonment of the outside skeuophylakion, waited there for the First Entrance. Tombs located there presented an acceptable compromise between the desire to be buried in a spiritually beneicial location and the canonical prohibition against burying the dead in the church. And the service of the Washing of the Feet was celebrated in the narthex because an image of Christ washing the feet of the apostles was often found there. This variety of functions, some of them acquired long after the 1 2 3

Psellos: II, 61–64. See the many examples in Ousterhout 1999: 86–126. Oates 1960: 226–228; Ousterhout 1987: 20–22.

115

116

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

building was completed, contradicts the tacit assumption that the original purpose of the space was also the most important one, an approach that treats the building as frozen in time and disregards the fact that people continued to use these churches for centuries after their construction. Liturgical texts and commentaries relect the same lack of concern for the relationship between architecture and ritual. In euchologia references to the architectural context are scarce; more telling, perhaps, some are even anachronistic. In Byzantine and even modern printed examples, one of the last prayers of the Divine Liturgy is to be read, according to the rubrics, “behind the ambo,” even though very few churches had one after the seventh century. Indeed this prayer was read in front of the doors to the bema from at least the twelfth century, if not earlier.4 Similarly, diataxeis, which contain very detailed instructions about the performance of the Liturgy, treat the church building in the vaguest of ways. For the First Entrance, for example, the clergy is instructed to exit from the bema, circle the naos, and stand in the middle of it. Whether the church was cross-in-square, cross-domed, or a basilica evidently had no bearing on the essence of this procession. One might argue that there was no need to provide any more precise spatial information because the clergy would have learned the particulars of liturgical praxis from observation and through a process of apprenticeship. This may hold some truth but it does not explain why in liturgical commentaries, where we would have expected the symbiosis between liturgical function and spatial form to be explicit, there is almost nothing beyond some general attributions of symbolism. The Protheoria intrerprets the altar as both the manger and the tomb of Christ, and the marble loors of Hagia Sophia as the river Jordan, but rarely does it discuss any other parts of the church.5 Of the 110 paragraphs in Symeon of Thessalonike’s Interpretation of the Divine Temple, only eleven discuss what we might consider architectural elements per se.6 All of the elements discussed, such as the altar and the templon, were common to all consecrated churches, and many, such as the steps of the bema and the relics under the altar, were inconsequential to the performance of the rite. If liturgical commentaries were largely indiferent to the particulars of architectural form, the same holds true for the form of the Liturgy itself.Theologians were not concerned with the route of a procession or how many clergy participated in it; they were preoccupied with what the procession symbolized. Such texts treated both the rite and the building in which it was celebrated as eternal and unchanging signiiers. The conventional preoccupation with symbolism resulted in the accumulation of layer upon layer of meanings, some 4 5 6

Jacob 1981; Taft 2008a: 603–609. Protheoria: 421, 436. Symeon of Thessalonike: 80–163.

CONCLUSION

complementary, some inconsistent. Both the prothesis room and the altar could symbolize Christ’s manger.7 The naos could symbolize heaven, but earth as well. The First Entrance signiied both a procession of angelic powers8 and Christ’s coming into the world.9 The Great Entrance signiies both Christ’s Second Coming and his burial.10 This multiplicity of interpretations was the cause of some embarrassment to Nicholas of Andida.11 Any attempt to ind a well-ordered exegetical typology may be futile and would be contrary to the Byzantine mentality. Ritual acts and building parts could have multiple meanings; it remained up to the participants, clergy and laity, to assign them in a itting manner. Consequently, the church building, its decoration, and the rituals it housed became complex symbolic systems that enhanced one another’s meaning. The Divine Liturgy mirrored the heavenly celebration that continuously took place in God’s sanctuary, a concept found already in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Byzantine domed church presented a vision of the harmonious cosmic hierarchy, a heaven in which this mystery was performed. Such images as the concelebrating hierarch saints and the Melismos, common throughout the empire and evidenced in Constantinople, further underscored this notion. At the same time, the Liturgy was a iguration of Christ’s life and salviic work on earth. The building provided the topography of this reenactment. According to Symeon of Thessalonike, the prothesis room signiied the cave in which Christ was born. It was close to the altar, which symbolized the tomb, because Bethlehem was close to Jerusalem.12 Here, too, the iconographic program, with scenes of the life of Christ from the Annunciation to the Ascension, enhanced the symbolism of both building and ritual, as claimed in the Protheoria.13 The Divine Liturgy was both a cosmos and a history. The same was true for the building. In light of such mutually reinforcing understandings, the interchange of architecture and ritual in Constantinople cannot be distilled into a simple question of how function afects form. Removing architecture and ritual from their social and historical contexts forces a lengthy and complex process of transformation to yield to inquiry a single, facile answer. It also implies a linear 7 8 9 10 11

12 13

Symeon of Thessalonike: 184; Protheoria: 421. Symeon of Thessalonike: 115. Meyendorf 1984: 72–74. Symeon of Thessalonike: 126. Protheoria: 421; cf. Protheoria: 437–440, where the author preempts objections to some of his own interpretations by saying that no symbol can absolutely imitate the likeness of the things it symbolizes: οὔτε αἴνιγμα οὔτε σύμβολον οὔτε παραβολὴ δύναται φυλάξαι ἀπαραλλάκτως τῶν ὧν μιμεῖται πάντων τὴν ἐμφέρειαν. Cf. also Kabasilas: 62: ἀλλ᾽οὐδὲν κωλύει καὶ τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο δύνασθαι. PG 155: 348. Protheoria: 420–421.

117

118

THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE

development and the existence of speciic times and places where these changes took place, as well as a deciding agent who brought each change about. The evidence, however, supports none of this. Rather, as long as a church building continued to be used, the dialectic between architecture and ritual endured. And this is at irst sight a paradox. For all the professed preoccupation of the Byzantines with taxis and the rigidity that this concept implies, both space and function show remarkable luidity. Although the irst purpose of a church building was the celebration of the Liturgy,14 both the building and the Liturgy entailed much more than that.We are thus left with a story, of sorts, whose plot cannot be reduced to just a set of diachronic axioms. Rather, it is the story of an architecture and a ritual continually in the process of becoming.

14

Mathews 1971: 177.

APPENDIX

CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

This appendix furnishes details about the surviving Middle and Late Byzantine churches in Istanbul, as well as some that were previously documented but have now disappeared. Because many of these churches cannot be dated with accuracy, the entries are arranged alphabetically by name, rather than chronologically, thus following but augmenting Thomas Mathews, The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul: A Photographic Survey (University Park, PA, 1976). The accompanying description of each church addresses issues pertinent to the main themes of this book, speciically planning, dimensions, dating, and identiication. For further information, the reader should consult items cited in the References, listed chronologically at the end of each entry. All GPS coordinates are approximate and locate, whenever possible, the western entrance of the building.

I. Hagios Andreas

EN TE KRISEI

(Koca Mustafa Paş a Cami˙˙i )

Date: 1284–1300 Location: 41°0 12.20 N (latitude), 28°55 43.64 E (longitude), 40 m (altitude) Hagios Andreas en te Krisei is on the seventh hill in the neighborhood of Kocamustafapaşa. The church likely belonged to the ambulatory type. Only the two columns on the western side of the inner ambulatory have survived. It has a tripartite sanctuary (the prothesis has been replaced by a domed room) and a ive-bay narthex, which communicated with the naos and the side aisles through three passageways. The shallow dome in the central bay of the narthex is carried by four columns set against the walls, thus creating a kind of baldachin. Later interventions have altered the original form and obscured virtually all the Byzantine fabric of this church. The main dome, the north and south half domes, and the vaulting of parts of the ambulatory are Ottoman, as is the sizable portico that was added along the north side.The whole exterior is encased in limestone, and the interior is plastered and painted; as a result, the identiication and the date of the building are uncertain. Ebersolt and Thiers’s proposed 119

120

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

sixth-century date has been rejected. The earliest references to this monastery in the sources are from the eighth century. Eyice suggested that the present-day structure is the result of a rebuilding by Theodora Raoulaina (ca. 1240–1300), niece of Emperor MichaelVIII Palaiologos.This act was commemorated in an epigram by Maximos Planoudes. This opinion has been generally accepted. It is unclear whether Theodora restored the earlier foundation or built the current structure de novo. The latter is more plausible, given the similarity of the plan to the church of Saint John tou Libos (XXIII).

References Paspates 1877: 318–320. Van Millingen 1912: 106–121. Ebersolt and Thiers 1913: 75–89. Lambros 1916. Janin 1933: 326–331. Eyice 1955b: 184–190; 1963: 7–14. Janin 1969: 28–31. Mathews 1976: 3–14. Müller-Wiener 1977: 172–176. Kidonopoulos 1994: 9–10.

I-1. Hagios Andreas en te Krisei (Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii), hypothetical reconstruction of the original plan. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912 and Ebersolt and Thiers 1913.

I-2. South façade (photo: Nicholas V. Artamonof. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

I-3. Interior of the naos looking east (photo: author).

121

122

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

I-4. View from the naos looking northwest (photo: author).

I-5. Interior of the narthex looking south (photo: author).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

II. Ati˙ k Mustafa Paş a Cami˙˙i Date: Second half of the ninth century Location: 41°2 19.27 N (latitude), 28°56 38.32 E (longitude), 7 m (altitude) Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii is located in the Ayvansaray quarter at the northwestern corner of the city, near the Theodosian walls. Its original form has been signiicantly altered: the current low, windowless dome is of Ottoman date; a porch with a minaret in its south side replaced the narthex; the exterior surfaces, especially the windows, have been thoroughly reworked; and the interior has been plastered. Fourteenth-century frescoes depicting busts of saints were uncovered in the niches of the triple arcade at the center of the south wall, but these were immured. Undocumented restorations in recent decades have destroyed much evidence. The date of the building’s construction is uncertain. Mathews and Hawkins suggested the second half of the ninth century based on the style of the architecture, especially the absence of decorative brickwork, the details and similarities between the eastern apse, and such securely dated monuments as the Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII) and the Myrelaion (XVII). The building is of modest dimensions (ca. 15 × 17 m) and belongs to the cross-domed type with a tripartite sanctuary (the narthex was removed during the Ottoman period). The arms of the cross consist of four converging barrel vaults, while the central bay is topped by a dome resting on four corner piers. These L-shaped piers create four corner rooms, the ones in the east functioning as the side apses of the bema. According to Mathews, the building had on its south side some kind of porch or outer aisle; it is likely that a similar structure existed along the north wall. Theis has argued these outer aisles probably gave access to upper-story chapels that were located above the four corner bays of the building. Several identiications have been proposed. Patriarch Constantios argued for the church of Saints Peter and Mark in the Blachernai. This was accepted by Van Millingen, who also proposed a later rededication to Saint Anastasia in Blachernai. Eyice identiied it with the church of Saint Thekla in the Blachernai palace. Aran favored an identiication with the church of Saints Kosmas and Damianos, which was rebuilt by Theodora Palaiologina, wife of Emperor MichaelVIII. Finally, Hawkins and Mathews argued for an indentiication with the church of Saint Elias in Petrion, rebuilt by Basil I.

References Constantios 1846: 83. Van Millingen 1912: 191–195. Ebersolt and Thiers 1913: 131–136. Janin 1969: 402.

123

124

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

Mathews 1976: 15–22. Aran 1977. Müller-Wiener 1977: 82–83. Hawkins and Mathews 1985. Theis 2005: 40–55.

II-1. Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii, hypothetical reconstruction of the original plan. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912, Ebersolt and Thiers 1913, Hawkins and Mathews 1985, and observations by Stavros Mamaloukos.

II-2. Longitudinal section.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

II-3. View from the southeast (photo: Nicholas V. Artamonof . Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

II-4. View from the naos toward the bema (photo: author).

125

126

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

II-5. The southwest upper room (photo: author).

III. Ayakapi Church Date: Eleventh or twelfth century Location: 41°1 40.09 N (latitude), 28°57 22.05 E (longitude), 7 m (altitude) The remains of this modest structure, located near Ayakapı gate along the Golden Horn, are currently incorporated into a carpentry shop, thus making any detailed archaeological investigation impractical.The building’s similarities with the masonry of the nearby Gül Camii (XI) suggest a date in the eleventh or twelfth century. Ayakapı measured approximately 5 × 5 m and belonged to the atrophied Greek-cross type. There was a narthex projecting beyond the structure to the south. This feature, along with the indication of broken walls on either side of the apse in Schneider’s plan, suggest that this was a chapel attached to a larger building. Aran’s identiication of Ayakapı with the church of Saint Theodosia seems therefore unlikely.

References Mordtmann 1892: 74. Schneider 1936: 53–54. Mathews 1976: 23–24. Müller-Wiener 1977: 97. Aran 1979. Özgümüş 2001: 148.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

III-1. Ayakapı Church, plan. Redrawn after Schneider 1936.

III-2. View from the northeast (photo: DAI Istanbul).

127

128

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

IV. BeyaziT Church D Date: Late eleventh century Location: South of the intersection of Büyük Reşit Paşa Caddesi and Vezneciler Caddesi This church was uncovered in a salvage excavation in 1971 and was never properly studied or published, with the exception of two short notices by Mathews and Müller-Wiener. According to the former, pottery inds under the foundation place it in the late eleventh century. Its dimensions were comparable to Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii (II). Mathews suggests that the building could have been cross-domed, an opinion shared by Ćurčic .́

References Mathews 1976: 34–35. Müller-Wiener 1977: 72–73. Ćurčic ́ 2010: 272–273.

IV-1. Beyazıt Church D, hypothetical reconstruction of the original plan. Redrawn after Müller-Wiener 1977 and Ćurčic ́ 2010.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

V. Boğ dan Saray i Date: Fourteenth century Location: 41°1 49.24 N (latitude), 28°56 34.45 E (longitude), 33 m (altitude) This church, located in the northwestern part of the city near Kefeli Mescidi (XV), is today part of a tire store and survives in ruins. It was a single-nave structure with two stories, measuring approximately 9 × 4 m. Boğdan Sarayı is one of the very few Medieval foundations that has a single apse instead of a tripartite sanctuary. The apse points north.Van Millingen’s plan indicates two niches in the interior right outside the apse itself, one on each side wall, which were likely part of the original bema. The shallow dome visible in the early photographs was a later modiication, as in its original form the building had likely a wooden roof. Three sarcophagi discovered under the loor of the lower level suggest that it was a funerary chapel. Eyice dated the building to the Palaiologan period. Indeed, the masonry – alternating bands of ashlar and brick – and the multifaceted articulation of the apse corroborate this date and place the building at the beginning of the fourteenth century. The current name derives from the fact that in the early sixteenth century the chapel was part of the Moldavian (Turk. Boğdan) embassy to the Sublime Porte and was dedicated to Saint Nicholas. Van Millingen found evidence in the southeastern wall of the building that the chapel was originally attached to the main embassy house, which was destroyed in a ire in 1784. Mordtmann has identiied Boğdan Sarayı as belonging to the monastery of Saint John the Baptist in Petra, an opinion shared by Van Millingen. However, this identiication was rejected by Janin. The original dedication of Boğdan Sarayı remains unknown.

References Mordtmann 1892: 7. Van Millingen 1912: 280–287. Papadopoulos 1920. Janin 1969: 371. Mathews 1976: 36–39. Müller-Wiener 1977: 108.

129

130

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

V-1. Boğdan Sarayı, plan. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912.

V-2. View from the northeast (photo: Nicholas V. Artamonof. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

VI. Christos tes Choras (Kari˙ ye M ü zesi˙ ) Date: Late eleventh, early twelfth century, with changes and additions in the early fourteenth century and later. Location: 41°1 52.59 N (latitude), 28°56 19.77 E (longitude), 64 m (altitude) The katholikon of the Chora monastery, located near Edirne Kapı, is one of the most famous Byzantine monuments in Istanbul, second only to Hagia Sophia. Its celebrated mosaic and fresco decoration, preserved primarily in the narthex, exonarthex, and funerary chapel, constitute the inest and most sophisticated examples of Late Byzantine monumental art in Constantinople. The building has had a very complex history. The substructures below the main apse may date as early as the sixth century. The present naos has two phases. The original building, sponsored by Maria Doukaina, mother-in-law of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, was constructed ca. 1077–1081 and probably belonged to the cross-in-square type, complete with a tripartite sanctuary and a narthex. This naos collapsed, likely because of an earthquake. In the early twelfth century it was replaced, under the auspices of sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos, with the present one, which is of the atrophied Greek-cross plan in which four substantial piers carry the dome. The monastery sufered during the period of the Latin occupation. In ca. 1315 the statesman and scholar Theodore Metochites, megas logothetes of Emperor Andronikos II, restored the foundation: the main dome and the side rooms l anking the main apse were rebuilt; a two-story annex was placed on the north side of the naos; two narthexes were added to the west and an elongated funerary chapel to the south; and the interior spaces were redecorated with marble revetments, mosaics, and frescoes. The eastern end of the main church presents several peculiarities. The center apse dates to the twelfth century, whereas the two apsed rooms that lank the bema were constructed in the fourteenth century, likely following the lines of the twelfth-century ones. They difer in size, proportion, and method of vaulting.The northern room, covered by a drumless gored dome, was accessed from the central apse through a small and narrow door, but it did not communicate with the naos. Access to the southern room, which was topped by an octagonal ribbed vault, was blocked in the fourteenth century, although it communicated with the funerary parekklesion to the south. Given their relative isolation and the existence of domes in both spaces, the side rooms were likely chapels. Niches, perhaps for the preparation of the Eucharistic elements, were found on the north walls of both spaces.

131

132

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

The outer narthex of the Chora katholikon had two extra bays to the south, connecting it to the funerary chapel. Originally it was a fairly open portico, but eventually three of the ive passageways were closed up and turned into arcosolia with tombs dating from the irst half of the fourteenth to the midifteenth centuries. The inner narthex contains a single arcosolium on its north wall. The funerary chapel adjoining the south side of the katholikon was one of the additions made by Theodore Metochites in the irst quarter of the fourteenth century. Probably inspired by the funerary chapel in Pantokrator (VIII), it was an elongated two-bay apsidal hall with a pumpkin dome covering the western bay. Its main entrance was from the west, through the two bays of the exonarthex. A narrow passageway on the north wall of the chapel’s western bay connected it to the naos. The chapel had four arcosolia containing tombs, two on each northern and southern wall. One further tomb, located exactly at the center of the apse and oriented east–west, was uncovered under the loor, although it might have been of post-Byzantine date. The northwestern arcosolium has been identiied as housing the tomb of Theodore Metochites. The corresponding tomb on the south wall contained the remains of megas kontostaulos Michael/Makarios Tornikes and his wife, Eugenia, whose double portraits, as laypeople and monastics, survive, along with extensive sculptural decoration of the arch above the arcosolium. The occupants of the northeast and southeast tomb cannot be identiied, although the latter preserves the standing igures of a man and three women, perhaps a family. Two rectangular rooms lanked the passageway that connected the funerary chapel to the naos. Underwood termed the one to the east “oratory” because it was located behind the tomb of Metochites and had a small window in its north wall that gave visual access to the naos. Such private rooms, from which founders or monastic leaders presumably attended services, are known from both Constantinople and elsewhere. As for the west room, the uninished nature of the construction indicates, according to Ousterhout, that it had no speciic function and perhaps was used as a storeroom. A two-story annex is to the north of the naos. The lower story connects the narthex with the northern chapel. The upper story, accessed by a staircase set in the thickness of the north wall, might have been a skeuophylakion or a library. The name of the monastery, Chora (lit. “ield,” “country”), refers to the rural character of the area throughout the Byzantine period. It was converted into a mosque in 1511 and secularized in 1945.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

References Van Millingen 1912: 288–331. Oates 1960. Underwood 1966; 1975a. Janin 1969: 531–538. Mathews 1976: 40–58. Müller-Wiener 1977: 159–163. Ousterhout 1987. Kidonopoulos 1994: 19–25. Klein, Ousterhout, and Pitarakis 2007; 2011. Jolivet-Lévy 2011. Magdalino 2011a.

VI-1. Christos tes Choras (Kariye Müzesi), plan of the current state. Redrawn after Ousterhout 1987.

133

134

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

VI-2. View from the west (photo: Sebah and Joailler. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

VI-3. Interior of the main church looking east (photo: author).

VI-4. View of the main apse loor during excavations (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

VI-5. Interior of the narthex looking south (photo: author).

135

136

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

VI-6. Interior of the funerary chapel looking east (photo: author).

VI-7. The tomb of Michael Tornikes in the funerary chapel (photo: author).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

137

VI-8. Southern apsidal room looking north (photo: author).

VI-9. Ground loor of the north annex looking east (photo: Byzantine Insitute. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

138

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

VII. Christos Pantepoptes (Eski˙ ˙i maret Cami˙˙i ) Date: Late eleventh century Location: 41°1 17.66 N (latitude), 28°57 17.86 E (longitude), 47 m (altitude) Eski I˙maret Camii, located on the fourth hill, is a typical Constantinopolitan cross-in-square church, with a nine-bay naos measuring 10 × 11 m, a tripartite bema, a narthex, and an exonarthex. The latter dates to the Palaiologan period, but it replaced an open portico that likely was constructed shortly after the completion of the church in the late eleventh or twelfth century. Of particular interest is the three-bay gallery situated above the narthex, which opened to the naos through a tribelon. From the gallery one accessed two rooms located over the two western bays of the naos; the loor of these rooms was set higher than that of the gallery.The north and south walls of the gallery had openings, windows or doors, that perhaps gave access to stairs or outside structures. The exterior of the building has been altered, and it is possible that some modiications took place during the Byzantine period. The sloping roofs of the side bema apses, much lower than those of the main apse, are perhaps such an intervention. Theis has suggested that the church originally had two rooms above the prothesis and diakonikon, corresponding to the ones above the western corner compartments of the naos, and external aisles communicating with the naos through the large tripartite openings on the north and south sides. The side aisles were demolished during the Palaiologan period. The evidence for both eastern upper-level chapels and outer aisles is very limited due to undocumented restorations in the second half of the twentieth century. Eski I˙maret Camii has been traditionally identiied with the monastery of Christ Pantepoptes (“Christ the All-Seeing”), a foundation of Anna Dalassene (ca. 1025–1100 or 1102), mother of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos. However, Mango has argued that Pantepoptes should be placed in the area now occupied by the mosque of Sultan Selim. More recently, Asutay-Efenberger and Efenberger, based on topographical evidence, suggested that Eski I˙maret Camii should be identiied with the monastery of Saint Constantine built by Theophano (ca. 875–895 or 896), irst wife of Emperor Leo VI, which would place the building at the end of ninth or the beginning of tenth century. However, regardless of the identiication, in terms of style Eski I˙maret Camii its well in the developments in Constantinopolitan architecture from the middle of the eleventh to the beginning of the twelfth century.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

References Van Millingen 1912: 212–218. Ebersolt and Thiers 1913: 171–182. Brunov 1931–1932: 129–139. Janin 1969: 513–15. Mathews 1976: 59–70. Müller-Wiener 1977: 120–122. Kidonopoulos 1994: 28–30. Ousterhout 1991–1992. Mango 1998. Theis 2005: 74–82. Asutay-Efenberger and Efenberger 2008. Flaminio 2008.

VII-1. Christos Pantepoptes (Eski I˙maret Camii), hypothetical reconstruction of the ground plan during the Late Byzantine period. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912, Ebersolt and Thiers 1913, Ousterhout 1991–1992, 1999, and observations by Stavros Mamaloukos.

139

140

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

VII-2. Hypothetical reconstruction of the plan at gallery level.

VII-3. View from the southeast (photo: DAI Istanbul).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

VII-4. Interior looking west (photo: author).

VII-5. Interior of the narthex looking north (photo: author).

141

142

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

VII-6. Interior of the gallery looking south (photo: author).

VII-7. View toward the naos from the southern room of the gallery (photo: author).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

VIII. Christos Pantokrator (Zeyrek Cami˙˙i ) Date: 1118–1136 Location: 41°1 11.04 N (latitude), 28°57 26.29 E (longitude), 39 m (altitude) Situated prominently on the fourth hill and still conspicious in the landscape of Istanbul, the Pantokrator was constructed by Emperor John II Komnenos between 1118 and 1136, at the initiative of his wife, Irene. The typikon of the monastery also survives and provides a wealth of topographical, organizational, and liturgical information. Megaw and more recently Ousterhout, Ahunbay, and Ahunbay have elucidated the complicated construction history of the three-building complex. The monastic south church, dedicated to Christ Pantokrator, was completed irst and served as the katholikon; the north church of Theotokos Eleousa followed.The chapel of Archangel Michael, situated between the two churches, was begun after the Eleousa, but the two were completed simultaneously. The south courtyard and the exonarthex of the south church were added during this inal stage of construction. Both the church of Christ and of Eleousa belong to the cross-in-square type, and each has a tripartite bema, a nine-bay naos, and a spacious narthex (the south church also has an exonarthex). Both churches had galleries over their narthexes that opened toward the naos.To the south of the church of Christ there are remains of an outer aisle, which communicated with the main church through three doors. The church of Theotokos had some kind of portico attached to its north façade. The chapel of Saint Michael was an apsed hall composed of two bays, each capped by an elliptical dome, ending in the sanctuary apse. It was conceived as a place of burial and commemoration for the Komnenian family. Although several arcosolia are still evident in the western bay, the identities of their occupants remain unresolved, with the exception of Emperor Manuel I (1118–1180), whose black marble sarcophagus was placed near the Stone of Unction, located in the passageway from the south church to the chapel. The two domes likely indicated two separate functions within the chapel, the one in the east the liturgical area, and the western one, which was over the area where the tombs congregated, a funerary space. Fragmentary remains give us a glimpse of the buildings’ sumptuous original decoration. The south church preserves marble revetment in the central apse and a igural opus sectile loor, which includes scenes from the life of Samson. Stained glass pieces, some of which were found by Megaw, likely decorated the windows of the bema. In the north church large parts of the intricate sculptural decoration, including cornices and capitals, remain in place.

143

144

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

References Van Millingen 1912: 219–242. Ebersolt and Thiers 1913: 185–207. Megaw 1963: 335–364. Janin 1969: 175–176, 344, 515–523. Mathews 1976: 71–101. Müller-Wiener 1977: 209–215. Kidonopoulos 1994: 30–33. Ousterhout, Ahunbay, and Ahunbay 2000; 2009. Ahunbay and Ahunbay 2001. Ousterhout 2001a. Theis 2005: 114–126. Kaplan 2011.

VIII-1. Christos Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii), plan. Redrawn after Ousterhout 1999.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

VIII-2. View of the complex from the east (photo: author).

VIII-3. South church, interior looking east (photo: Scott F. Johnson).

145

146

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

VIII-4. Remains of the synthronon in the apse of the south church (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

147

VIII-5. South church diakonikon, marble shelves (photo: Mehmet Tunay. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

VIII-6. South church, remains of the south exterior aisle (photo: Thomas Mathews. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

148

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

VIII-7. South church, interior looking west (photo: Robert Ousterhout. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

VIII-8. Outer narthex of the south church looking north (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

VIII-9. North church, interior looking west (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

VIII-10. North church, narthex gallery looking north (photo: Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

149

150

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

VIII-11. Chapel of Saint Michael, interior looking west (photo:Thomas Mathews. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

IX. Emi˙ nönü Church Date: Middle Byzantine Location: 41°1 2.28 N (latitude), 28°57 59.27 E (longitude), 17 m (altitude) The partial substructures of the tripartite bema and naos of this church are located under Hoca Hamza Mescidi in Eminönü. Özgümüş’s dating of the building to the Middle Byzantine period seems correct. However, the suggestion that the church should be identiied either with the monastery tou Kanikleiou or the church of Theotokos ta Karpianou is based on inconclusive topographical evidence.

References Özgümüş 2006: 528–529.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

IX-1. Eminönü Church, plan. Redrawn after Özgümüş 2006.

IX-2. View of the main apse (photo: Ferudun Özgümüş).

151

152

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

X. Hagios Georgios

TON MANGANON

Date: 1042–1055 Location: East end of the peninsula, near Topkapı Sarayı The monastery of Saint George ton Manganon, located to the east of Hagia Sophia, was one of the major foundations of the eleventh century. It was constructed by Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (r. 1042–1055), third husband of Empress Zoe. Saint George quickly became one of the most important monasteries in the capital. It included a hospital and a library rich in holdings, and it held numerous famous relics. Constantine Monomachos was buried there, and a sarcophagus for his mistress, Skleraina, was placed close to his tomb. Reconstructions of this church are based primarily on its substructures, exposed during a hasty excavation conducted in the 1920s. Saint George was a large building, measuring approximately 27 × 33 m. Although a variety of other conigurations have been proposed, it was likely cross-domed with an inner ambulatory around the main bay. The dome had a diameter of 10 m and was supported by four piers with curving inner corners, a feature indicating inluence from Armenian ecclesiastical architecture. The side rooms of the tripartite bema were square and perhaps topped by domes. Signiicant parts of the building’s plan remain speculative. An open portico was attached to the north side (the north chapel indicated in the excavators’ plan is conjectural). The church had a kind of a portico to the west of the narthex, which was preceded by an atrium with a fountain in the middle. The identiication of the ruins located about 250 meters northeast of Saint George with the church of Christ Philanthropos, as suggested by Demangel, is untenable.

References Wulzinger 1925: 4–51. Demangel and Mamboury 1939. Bouras 1976. Mathews 1976: 200–205. Müller-Wiener 1977: 136–138. Oikonomides 1980. Pasinli and Cihat 1983. Kidonopoulos 1994: 39–41.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

153

X-1. Hagios Georgios ton Manganon, plan. Redrawn after Demangel and Mamboury 1939 and Bouras 1976.

XI. G ül Cami˙˙i Date: Late eleventh or early twelfth century Location: 41°1 36.93 N (latitude), 28°57 22.18 E (longitude), 14 m (altitude) The imposing Gül Camii, located in the neighborhood of Fener near Ayakapı, remains an archaeological puzzle because it was signiicantly altered in both Byzantine and Ottoman times. It has traditionally been dated to the late eleventh or early twelfth century, based primarily on the existence of recessedbrick technique in the masonry of the substructure and on sections of the church proper. If this date is correct, Gül Camii was one of the largest Middle Byzantine foundations in the capital. The church belongs to the cross-domed

154

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

type. The present windowless dome, which dominates the naos, is an Ottoman construction that rests on four massive irregular piers. The eastern end of the church is of particular interest. The passageways between the main and side apses gave access to small rooms situated in the thickness of the two eastern piers on a level higher than the loor of the church (the chamber in the northeast pier is now inaccessible). Theis has suggested that originally the building had open, one-story side aisles lanking the nave and sanctuary from north and south. During the Palaiologan period these were replaced with the two-story construction that envelops the core of the church from the north, west, and south sides, creating a gallery. The present gallery is situated over the narthex and extends over the side aisles of the naos, ending in two chapels located atop the prothesis and diakonikon. Both chapels had an apse and were capped by a drumless dome. Both now have windows overlooking the main apse, although their rectangular shape indicates that these were the result of Ottoman alterations. Several identiications have been proposed for the building. Some early scholars have proposed Saint Theodosia en tois dexiokratous, whereas Pargoire suggested Saint Euphemia en to Petrio. Schäfer identiied it with the monastery of Christ Evergetis, an opinion shared by Aran. None of these identiications can reconcile the date of the present building with information from the sources.

References Pargoire 1906. Van Millingen 1912: 164–182. Schäfer 1973. Mathews 1976: 128–139. Müller-Wiener 1977: 140–143. Aran 1979. Theis 2005: 99–113.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

155

XI-1. Gül Camii, hypothetical reconstruction of the plan at ground-loor level. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912, Ebersolt and Thiers 1913, Schäfer 1973, and observations by Stavros Mamaloukos.

XI-2. Hypothetical reconstruction of the plan at gallery level.

156

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XI-3. View from the northeast (photo: DAI Istanbul).

XI-4. Interior looking east (photo: author).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XI-5. Interior looking north (photo: author).

XI-6. Prothesis (photo: author).

157

158

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XI-7. South gallery from the west (photo: DAI Istanbul).

XII. Hagios Ioannes

EN TO TROULLO

(H i rami˙ Ahmet Paş a Cami˙˙i )

Date: Middle Byzantine (probably ninth century) Location: 41°1 40.49 N (latitude), 28°56 45.52 E (longitude), 63 m (altitude) Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii, located in the northwest part of the city on the ifth hill, is a cross-in-square church with a tripartite bema and a narthex. Its eastern end is unusual. All three apses of the bema are semicircular inside and out, a feature uncommon in Constantinople (the other example is Sekbanbaşı, XIX). Morever, the main apse does not communicate with the side rooms. However, the bema likely extended west to include the three eastern bays of the naos. The primary function of the building was funerary. The narthex has at least four arcosolia for burials. Two more arcosolia were located in the naos, each in the middle of the north and south walls. The church has long been identiied with Saint John en to Troullo and dated to the twelfth century, although neither the identiication nor the date are secure. Buchwald has instead proposed a date to the ninth century based on the circular unadorned apses and the circular drum of the dome, which are used in the provinces in the ninth and tenth centuries but not

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

found in the capital. Furthermore, he considered the alternating bands of ashlar and brick in this building typical of Constantinopolitan construction from the eighth to the tenth centuries, but not thereafter.The absence of recessed-brick masonry favors this date. More recently, Savage has also suggested a date in the late ninth or early tenth century. In the 1960s, the building was the subject of a heavy-handed restoration, during which large parts of the exterior masonry were rebuilt. A renovation of the interior was undertaken in 2011.

References Van Millingen 1912: 201–206. Janin 1969: 441–442. Mathews 1976: 159–167. Müller-Wiener 1977: 144–146. Buchwald 1977: 290, n. 95. Savage 2010: 138–143 and n. 33.

XII-1. Hagios Ioannes en to Troullo (Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii), reconstruction of the original plan. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912 with observations by Matthew Savage and Vasileios Marinis.

159

160

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XII-2. View from the southeast (photo: author).

XII-3. Interior looking east (photo: author).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XII-4. Interior looking north (photo: author).

XII-5. Diakonikon (photo: author).

161

162

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XIII. ˙I sa Kapi Mesci˙ di˙ Date: Late Byzantine Location: 41°0 17.28 N (latitude), 28°56 12.27 E (longitude), 40 m (altitude) ˙Isa Kapı Mescidi, located in the Cerrahpaşa district inside the courtyard of a government building, is now a ruin. Only the eastern wall, parts of the apse, a small part of the southern wall, and the eastern corner of the north wall survive. The masonry of these parts is similar to Pammakaristos (XXIV) and Chora (VI), placing its construction in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century. It was a single-aisle, wooden-roofed basilica, measuring 20 × 8 m, with a wide and long projecting apse, which was lanked by a prothesis and diakonikon. In ca. 1560, Mimar Sinan converted the church into a mescid and built a medrese around it. A lat wall replaced the apse, a mihrab was built along the southern wall, and the prothesis was walled of . Most of the building collapsed in the earthquake of 1894.Traces of frescoes, noticed by earlier scholars, have now all but disappeared. Ötüken’s identiication with the monastery tou Iasitou remains speculative. On the other hand, Papazotos’s identiication with the monastery of Patriarch Athanasios I seems correct. This would place the construction of the building in the years between 1282 and 1289.

References Alpatov and Brunov 1925. Ötüken 1974. Müller-Wiener 1977: 118–119. Papazotos 1995.

XIII-1. I˙sa Kapı Mescidi, plan. Redrawn after Alpatov and Brunov 1925 and Ötüken 1974.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XIII-2. View of the bema from the west.

XIV. Kalenderhane Cami˙˙i Date: Constructed between 1197 and 1204, with earlier phases Location: 41°0 47.15 N (latitude), 28°57 36.56 E (longitude), 51 m (altitude) Kalenderhane Camii, located on the third hill and identiied with the katholikon of the Kyriotissa monastery, is one of the best-studied monuments in Istanbul. In its present form, the large cross-domed church (called by the excavators the Main Church), which dates to between 1197 and 1204, was deined by four earlier buildings and incorporated parts of them: a bath (ca. 400), the Aqueduct of Valens, and two churches, one dating to the last third of the sixth century (North Church) and the other to the end of the seventh century (Bema Church). Kalenderhane is a large church, its naos measuring approximately 19 × 19 m. The dome, 8 m in diameter, rests on four massive piers that create four isolated corner compartments. The building has a narthex and an exonarthex. There is also evidence for a fairly open entrance porch, which was narrower and shorter than the narthex, and a tower in the northwest corner abutting the narthex and the portico. Outer aisles, now destroyed, l anked the naos on the north and south sides. Their original forms and functions are debatable. Theis argued that they were two-storied and gave access from the narthex to chapels above the eastern corner rooms and to the corresponding rooms above the western corner compartments. Striker considered

163

164

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XIV-1. Kalenderhane Camii, plan. Redrawn after Striker and Kuban 1997–2007.

them one-storied and timber-roofed, and he presented evidence that the rooms over the corner compartments were not intended for use. The inclusion of earlier structures explains the pecularities in Kalenderhane’s plan, especially in the western and eastern ends. The central apse of the Bema Church was preserved and used as the central apse of the Main Church, while the apse of the North Church became the prothesis of the Main Church. The so-called diakonikon complex is composed of two chapels (called the Francis and Melismos chapels by the excavators) that were added at some point between the sixth and tenth centuries, after the construction of the Bema Church but before the Main Church. In the Palaiologan period, probably soon after the reconquest of Constantinople in 1261, the diakonikon complex was turned into a chapel. Both narthex and exonarthex had galleries over them (now destroyed), connected through openings. The narthex gallery opened through a large tribelon (now blocked) in its middle to the naos and gave way to the two western galleries’ upper chambers.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XIV-2. View from the south (photo: DAI Istanbul).

XIV-3. Interior looking south (photo: author).

165

XIV-4. Interior looking northeast (photo: author).

XIV-5. Melismos chapel (photo: author).

166

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

References Mathews 1976: 171–185. Müller-Wiener 1977: 153–158. Kidonopoulos 1994: 79–80. Theis 2005: 134–147. Striker and Kuban 1997–2007.

XV. Kefeli˙ Mesci˙ di˙ Date: Late Byzantine (?) Location: 41°1 45.58 N (latitude), 28°56 29.79 E (longitude), 46 m (altitude) Kefeli Mescidi is situated on the sixth hill, in the northwestern part of Constantinople, a short distance from the monastery of Chora. As it survives today it is a rectangular apsed hall, measuring approximately 22 × 7 m. Grossmann, who surveyed the building in the 1960s, found evidence of lateral aisles, of which the end walls of the western one survive. The plan shows several curious irregularities: the church points north, instead of the typical east; the spacing of the arches in the main nave is irregular and aligned neither with the windows above them nor from one side to the other; the apse has four absidioles inscribed in the thickness of the wall; and inally, there were no side apses. All these cast doubt on the identiication of the building as a church; indeed, it might have been a refectory. A wooden roof currently covers the nave, and the absence of any kind of springing for a vault indicates this was also the original means of rooing. The masonry consists of alternating bands of brick and ashlar. The exterior is marked by a series of heavy pilasters that ends below the level of the clerestory windows.They were obviously supporting the roof of the side aisles, which most likely was also wooden. Grossman dated the building to the ninth century, although the multifaceted apse and the banded masonry are characteristic of Late Byzantine buildings in Constantinople.

References Van Millingen 1913: 253–261. Grossman 1966. Janin 1969: 320–322, 584. Mathews 1976: 190–194. Müller-Wiener 1977: 166–168.

167

168

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XV-1. Kefeli Mescidi, plan. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912.

XV-2. View from the northeast (photo: DAI Istanbul).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

169

XV-3. Interior looking north (photo: Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

XVI. Manasti r Mesci˙ di˙ Date: Late Byzantine Location: 41°1 2.32 N (latitude), 28°55 42.84 E (longitude), 61 m (altitude) Manastır Mescidi is located on the seventh hill close to the Topkapı Gate, the former gate of Saint Romanos. Its doors and windows have been altered, and the present wooden roof is a post-Byzantine modiication. The plan of the building remains a mystery. Pasadaios, who studied it in the 1960s, discovered foundations in the naos running east–west, evidently meant to support columns. He favored a reconstruction as a vaulted basilica, although a cross-insquare seems more likely. Pasadaios’s careful study elucidated several other aspects of the building. He found evidence of an open portico that surrounded the building on the north, south, and west. To the south of the diakonikon, the portico ended in an enclosed rectangular space that communicated directly with it. Pasadaios dated the construction of the building between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries.Yet, as both he and Mathews pointed out, the masonry and the multifaceted apses indicate a Palaiologan date. If this is true, then Manastır Mescidi is the only surviving example of the cross-in-square type dating after the thirteenth century. Pasadaios’s identiication of the building as belonging to the monastery of Saints Menodora, Nymphodora, and Metrodora remains speculative.

170

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

References Van Millingen 1912: 262–264. Pasadaios 1965: 56–101. Janin 1969: 195–199. Mathews 1976: 195–199. Müller-Wiener 1977: 184–185. Kidonopoulos 1994: 146.

XVI-1. Manastır Mescidi, hypothetical reconstruction of the original plan. Redrawn after Pasadaios 1965.

XVI-2. View from the southeast (photo: author).

XVI-3. Interior looking east (photo: Thomas Mathews. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

XVI-4. Interior of the narthex looking north (photo: Thomas Mathews. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

171

172

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XVII. Myrelaion (Bodrum Cami˙˙i ) Date: ca. 920 Location: 41°0 30.79 N (latitude), 28°57 19.94 E (longitude), 28 m (altitude) The Myrelaion, constructed ca. 920 by Emperor Romanos I in the vicinity of the Forum of Theodosios, is one of the few securely dated Middle Byzantine churches. It was attached to Romanos’s urban palace, which rose on top of the remains of an immense Late Antique rotunda. The complex was eventually turned into a nunnery, and several members of Lekapenos’s family, including his sons Christophoros and Constantine, were buried in it.

XVII-1. Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii), plan of the church (reconstruction) and substructure. Redrawn after Striker 1981.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XVII-2. View from the northwest (photo: author).

XVII-3. Interior looking east (photo: author).

173

174

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XVII-4. Vaulting of the diakonikon (photo: author).

XVII-5. Interior of the substructure looking west (photo: author).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

Built entirely of brick, the Myrelaion is an elegant Constantinopolitan crossin-square church measuring roughly 10 × 17 m with a tripartite bema and a three-bay narthex. Numerous windows originally pierced the long façades.The Myrelaion stands on a large substructure that replicates the plan of the church and was converted into a burial chamber in the Late Byzantine period. A disastrous restoration in the 1960s signiicantly altered the exterior forms of the building.

References Van Millingen 1912: 196–200. Ebersolt and Thiers 1913: 139–146. Janin 1969: 351–354. Mathews 1976: 209–219. Müller-Wiener 1977: 103–107. Striker 1981. Kidonopoulos 1994: 55–56.

XVIII. Odalar Cami˙˙i Date: Ninth to tenth century (crypt); mid-twelfth century (upper church) Location: 41°1 44.84 N (latitude), 28°56 22.68 E (longitude), 53 m (altitude) Odalar Camii was situated in the northwestern part of Constantinople, a short walk from the monastery of Chora (VI). Today the building has almost disappeared, its few remains incorporated in the courtyards of adjacent houses. In his meticulous study of the building, Westphalen distinguished two construction phases. Of the original church, dating to the ninth or tenth century, only the tripartite east end could be reconstructed. The side rooms, slightly asymmetrical, projected beyond the central apse. A two-chamber crypt was located under the central apse and the south side room. A fresco of the Theotokos and Christ child lanked by two angels decorated the apse of the north crypt chamber, which might have contained a Marian relic. The south crypt chamber lacked a masonry vault and communicated directly with the south side room above, perhaps via a wooden loor. In the middle of the twelfth century, the older building was reconigured to function as the substructure for the new cross-in-square church on the upper level. Over time, starting as early as the twelfth century and continuing throughout the Byzantine period, parts of the substructure were used for burials and were decorated with frescoes. The twelfth-century church had several curious features. In the tripartite sanctuary, the south room was larger than the north and was probably capped with a dome. It was decorated with a Marian cycle. All these indicate that it was a separate chapel rather than a diakonikon. There is strong evidence that Odalar

175

176

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XVIII-1. Odalar Camii, reconstructed plan of the irst church. Redrawn after West phalen 1998.

XVIII-2. Reconstructed plan of the second church. Redrawn after Westphalen 1998.

XVIII-3. Plan of the crypt. Redrawn after Westphalen 1998.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

had outer aisles, whose form and exact relationship with the naos and the narthex remain uncertain. The nearby Kasım Ağa Mescidi, of Palaiologan date judging from the masonry, was not a church but rather a utilitarian building, possibly associated with Odalar Camii.

References Brunov 1926a. Mathews 1976: 220–224. Müller-Wiener 1977: 188–189. Kidonopoulos 1994: 146–147. Westphalen 1998. Dark and Özgümüş 1999: 12–13. Theis 2005: 127–133.

XIX. Sekbanbaş i Mesci˙ di˙ Date: Middle Byzantine Location: Approximately 100 m north of the Aqueduct of Valens This small church (10 × 9 m) was summarily recorded in the early twentieth century and demolished in 1952. The recessed-brick masonry might suggest a date in the Middle Byzantine period. This variation of the crossin-square type was rare in Constantinople. The naos did not have nine full bays; instead, the tripartite sanctuary replaced the three eastern ones. A distinctive feature of Sekbanbaşı Mescidi was the form of the three apses of the bema, which were rounded on the exterior, similar to Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii (XII). As noted by Janin, the identiication of Sekbanbaşı Mescidi with the church of Christ tes Kyra Marthas is untenable.

References Gurlitt 1912: 43. Schneider 1936: 61. Janin 1969: 324–326, 544. Mathews 1976: 237–241. Müller-Wiener 1977: 196–197.

177

178

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XIX-1. Sekbanbaşı Mescidi, hypothetical reconstruction of the plan. Redrawn after Schneider 1936 and Müller-Wiener 1977.

XIX-2. View from the east (photo: Nicholas V. Artamonof. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XX. Si˙ nan Paş a Mesci˙ di˙ Date: Palaiologan Location (approximate): 41°1 39.37 N (latitude), 28°57 17.18 E (longitude), 16 m (altitude) Sinan Paşa Mescidi is located on the slope of the ifth hill. A lithograph in Paspates shows that it was a long and tall, probably two-story absidal hall, an arrangement similar to Boğdan Sarayı (V). The ceramoplastic decoration of the apse closely resembles that of the church Saint John tou Libos (XXIII), thus placing the building in the late thirteenth century. Only a part of the foundation survives today.

References Paspates 1877: 384. Mathews 1976: 260–261. Müller-Wiener 1977: 198–199. Kidonopoulos 1994: 147–148.

XX-1. Sinan Paşa Mescidi, view from the north (from Paspates 1877).

179

180

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XX-2. View of the apse (photo: DAI Istanbul).

XXI. Si˙ rkeci˙ Church Date: Middle Byzantine Location: Corner of Ankara Caddesi and Ebusuud Caddesi in Sirkeci This previously unrecorded church was discovered in 2000 during construction work in the area. By the time archaeologists intervened, only parts of the foundations and superstructure of the north room and central apse remained. The recessed-brick masonry may indicate a date in the Middle Byzantine period. According to Özgümüş, the building was originally as long as 19 m. He also reported the inding of human remains in the apse, but from the publication it is unclear whether this was a tomb. The restored remains are now incorporated into the basement of an oice building.

References Özgümüş 2004.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XXI-1. Sirkeci Church, plan.

XXI-2. View of the site (photo: Ferudun Özgümüş).

XXII. Ş eyh Murat Mesci˙ di˙ Date: Middle Byzantine with Palaiologan repairs Location: Kopça sok. and Altı Pağa sok. Ş eyh Murat Mescidi was located in the northwestern part of Constantinople, close to Gül Camii, in the valley between the fourth and ifth hills. It has disappeared since the late nineteenth century, but early documentation helps to recreate parts of its construction history and plan. It measured roughly 15 × 13 m.The recessed-brick technique places the core of the building in the Middle

181

182

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XXII-1. Ş eyh Murat Mescidi, south façade (from Paspates 1877).

Byzantine period. Photographic evidence studied by Ivison suggests that parts of the church, speciically the narthex (which had three domes), western nave, and sanctuary, were substantially rebuilt in the Palaiologan period. The only information about the interior arrangement of Şeyh Murat Mescidi comes from Paspates, who wrote that the building was “cruciform” (σταυροειδές), perhaps implying a cross-domed disposition.

References Paspates 1877: 382–383. Mathews 1976: 313–314. Müller-Wiener 1977: 202. Ivison 1990.

XXIII. Theotokos TOU LIBOS and Hagios Ioannes Prodromos TOU LIBOS (Fenari˙ ˙i sa Cami˙˙i ) Date: 907 (north church); ca. 1280 (south church) Location: 41°0 54.09 N (latitude), 28°56 37.10 E (longitude), 21 m (altitude) The complex of the monastery tou Libos is composed of two adjoined churches: the north church, dedicated to the Mother of God and constructed in 907 under the auspices of Constantine Lips (l . 10th c.); and the south church

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

dedicated to Saint John the Forerunner and built in the late thirteenth century by Theodora (ca. 1240–1303), wife of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos. In the post-Byzantine period, the complex was repeatedly damaged by ires and neglect. It was restored in the 1960s by the Byzantine Institute of America. The north church in the monastery tou Libos is the earliest securely dated Middle Byzantine church and the earliest example of the cross-in-square type in Constantinople.The naos measures approximately 12 × 10 m and is divided into nine bays. To the east of the naos is a tripartite bema and to the west a three-bay narthex. A narrow exterior porch originally covered the main entrance to the narthex. Megaw’s investigation of the building disproved both Macridy’s suggestion that it was built on top of an earlier church and Brunov’s theory that outer aisles lanked the naos. Theis recently reiterated the latter proposition, based, however, on questionable evidence. The most distinctive features of the north church were its six additional chapels, all part of the original design. Two single-nave chapels lanked the prothesis and diakonikon at ground level. The north one has disappeared, but a portion of its apse foundation has been excavated. The southern chapel, located next to the diakonikon, was incorporated in the thirteenth century into the south church of Saint John to serve as its prothesis and thus was partially preserved. Both chapels were slightly larger than the rooms to which they were attached. On the roof of the north church are four chapels, which are not visible from the interior. The two quatrefoil western chapels are situated over the western corner bays of the naos. Two more chapels are located over the diakonikon and prothesis at the east end of the building. Access to the roof was through a staircase inside the tower south of the narthex. Saint John is the earliest extant and one of the most important Palaiologan foundations in Constantinople. Theodora Palaiologina added the new building alongside the preexisting north church. It belongs to the ambulatory type: the central bay under the dome is separated from the rest of the church by means of columns, thus creating a corridor surrounding the central bay on three sides. Its plan has been afected by the fact that it was attached to a preexisting building and incorporated parts of it. According to the typikon, Saint John was constructed in order to provide an appropriate burial space for Theodora and her family. The church and its auxiliary spaces were gradually illed with tombs. Archaeological investigations in the 1920s uncovered a plethora of burials as well as three ossuaries in the inner ambulatory, narthex, and outer ambulatory. The outer ambulatory enveloped the two churches along the west and south sides. Its masonry is virtually identical to the rest of the Palaiologan construction in the complex, namely, bands of thin and large bricks alternating with single courses of ashlar. However, the juncture between the two is not bonded, an indication that the outer ambulatory was added shortly after the completion of the church.

183

184

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

The north church preserves in situ elements of its superb sculptural decoration characterized by orientalizing motifs. The sculpture in the church of Saint John imitates, without much success, that of the Theotokos. In addition, Macridy uncovered glazed tiles, which presumably decorated the walls of the north church, as well as fragmentary inlaid icons.

References Van Millingen 1912: 122–137. Ebersolt and Thiers 1913: 211–213. Megaw 1963: 333–335. Macridy 1964. Megaw 1964. Mango and Hawkins 1964a. Janin 1969: 307–310, 417–418. Müller-Wiener 1977: 126–131. Kidonopoulos 1994: 86–87. Gerstel and Laufenburger 2001: 189–195. Marinis 2004. Theis 2005: 56–64.

XXIII-1. Monastery tou Libos (Fenari I˙sa Camii), ground plan of the complex (after Mamboury).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XXIII-2. Ground plan of the north church, reconstruction. Redrawn after Macridy 1964 (Mamboury), Megaw 1964, Mango and Hawkins 1964a, and Marinis 2004.

XXIII-3. North façade of the north church, reconstruction. After Mamaloukos with observations by Vasileios Marinis.

185

XXIII-4. Ground plan of the complex, reconstruction. Redrawn after Macridy 1964 (Mamboury), Megaw 1964, Mango and Hawkins 1964a, and Marinis 2004.

XXIII-5. Ground plan of the complex, reconstruction. Redrawn after Macridy 1964 (Mamboury), Megaw 1964, Mango and Hawkins 1964a, and Marinis 2004.

186

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

187

XXIII-6. View of the complex from the northeast (photo: Thomas F. Mathews. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

XXIII-7. North church, part of the dedicatory inscription (photo: author).

XXIII-8. Main apse of the north church (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

XXIII-9. North church, vaulting of the prothesis (photo: author).

188

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XXIII-10. North church, interior looking north (photo: author).

XXIII-11. Southeast roof chapel looking east (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

189

XXIII-12. Southwest roof chapel, apse (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

XXIII-13. South church, interior looking east (photo: author).

190

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XXIII-14. West arm of the outer ambulatory looking north (photo: DAI Istanbul).

XXIV. Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethi˙ ye Cami˙˙i ) Date: Late eleventh or early twelfth century with late Byzantine additions Location: 41°1 45.14 N (latitude), 28°56 45.76 E (longitude), 58 m (altitude) The katholikon of the monastery of Theotokos Pammakaristos, located in the neighborhood of Çarşamba on Istanbul’s ifth hill, is a variant of the crossdomed church with an inner ambulatory. The main church dates to the late eleventh or early twelfth century. The founder was a certain John Komnenos and his wife, Anna Doukaina, who used the church as their family’s mausoleum. The inner ambulatory was illed with the tombs of members of the founders’ family, now all lost. A second phase of building activity is associated with the protostrator Michael Glabas Tarchaneiotes (b. ca. 1235, d. after 1304) and his wife, Maria, into whose possession the monastery came after 1261. The irst four bays of the north arm (counting from east to west) of the outer ambulatory were likely constructed

191

192

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

during his lifetime. The easternmost bay terminated in a now-destroyed apse and was covered by a dome, indicating the existence of a chapel there. What appears to be a prothesis niche is located in the north wall immediately adjacent to the apse. The rest of the bays are covered with domical vaults and all are equipped with arcosolia. Mango suggested that this was the koimeterion constructed by Michael Glabas Tarchaneiotes and mentioned in an epigram by Manuel Philes. The construction of the western and southern arms of the outer ambulatory postdated the funerary chapel, although their exact date remains undecided. Under the patronage of Maria, a chapel, likely dedicated to Christ, was added in the south side of Pammakaristos to house the tomb of her husband in ca. 1310. A series of epigrams both inside and outside the chapel glorify Tarchaneiotes. The building was a full-ledged miniature cross-in-square with an apse, a naos whose central bay was covered by a dome, and a narthex with a gallery topped by two domes.The tomb of Tarchaneiotes was under an arcosolium at the center of the naos’s north wall. His wife was buried in the same tomb. There were four additional arcosolia in the narthex: one on the south wall, one on the west wall, and two on the east wall on each side of the door. Extensive parts of the interior’s opulent mosaic decoration, which included scenes from the life of Christ, groups of saints, and a Deisis in the main apse, have survived. From 1455 until 1587 the monastery served as the seat of the Greek patriarchate. At its subsequent conversion into a mosque the church was severely modiied with the removal of the interior supports and the replacement of the tripartite bema with a qibla wall.

References Van Millingen 1912: 138–163. Ebersolt and Thiers 1913: 225–247. Hallensleben 1963–1964. Janin 1969: 208–213. Mathews 1976: 346–365. Müller-Wiener 1977: 132–135. Mango, Mouriki, and Belting 1978. Kidonopoulos 1994: 80–86. Talbot 1999: 77–79. Efenberger 2007.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

193

XXIV-1. Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii), plan (reconstruction). Redrawn after Mango, Mouriki, and Belting 1978 (Anderson).

XXIV-2. General view of the complex from the southwest (photo: Nicholas V. Artamonof . Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

XXIV-3. Interior of the main church looking west (photo: NicholasV.Artamonof . Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

194

XXIV-4. Northern arm of the outer ambulatory looking east (photo: author).

XXIV-5. Northern arm of the outer ambulatory, niche with shelves at the north wall of the easternmost bay (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

195

196

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XXIV-6. Interior of the funerary chapel, view toward the dome (photo: author).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XXIV-7. Interior of the funerary chapel looking north (photo: author).

197

XXIV-8. Funerary chapel, Deisis in the main apse (photo: author).

XXIV-9. Funerary chapel, gallery above narthex looking south (photo: Robert Ousterhout. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

198

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XXV. Theotokos Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa Date: Beginning of eleventh century; narthex added in the late thirteenth century Location: 41°1 46.89 N (latitude), 28°56 56.63 E (longitude), 34 m (altitude) The church of Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa, located in the district of Fener, is the only building in Istanbul in uninterrupted Christian use. Constructed in the eleventh century as a male monastery, the building was originally a domed tetraconch or quatrefoil measuring 12 × 12 m. Each of the four sides of the central square, which is topped by an elegant dome, opened to semicircular apses, each of them having three absidioles on the interior. A narthex was added in the late thirteenth century under the auspices of Maria Palaiologina (d. ca. 1307), daughter of Emperor Michael VIII, who refounded the monastery as a nunnery. Mouchliotissa has been severely altered by several post-Byzantine expansions and additions, especially on its southern and western sides. As a result, only the eastern and northern apses and the two northern bays of the narthex survive from the pre-1453 building. Although relatively uncommon, the quatrefoil was not unknown in the areas around Constantinople, as evidenced by the eleventh-century church of Panagia Kamariotissa on Heybeliada.

References Janin 1969: 213–214. Mathews 1976: 366–375. Müller-Wiener 1977: 204–205. Kidonopoulos 1994: 88–90. Bouras 2005. Ryder 2009–2010.

XXV-1. Theotokos Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa, plan (reconstruction). Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912 and Bouras 2005.

199

200

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XXV-2. View from the east (photo: author).

XXV-3. Interior looking north (photo: author).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XXVI. Theotokos Peribleptos Date: 1028–1034 Location: Near present-day Sulu Manastır The monastery of Theotokos Peribleptos was constructed by Emperor Romanos III Argyros (r. 1028–1034). Emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates (r. 1078–1081) restored the foundation. Both rulers were buried in it. Soon after the Ottoman conquest, the monastery served as the seat of the Armenian patriarchate. The church itself disappeared after a ire in 1782 but its substructures were recently uncovered. The type of the building is still debated. The two survey reports ofered difering reconstructions that do not seem plausible. More recently, Dalgıç and Mathews argued that Peribleptos was a domedoctagon building. However, Ruy González de Clavijo, the Spanish ambassador of Henry III of Castile who went to Constantinople in 1403 and visited Peribleptos, mentioned that the church had ive altars and that its main “hall” was round, an indication that the main bay of the naos was surrounded by colonnades in the manner of an ambulatory church. De Monconys (1648) noticed that the Turks had removed six columns from the interior, a fact that again suggests an ambulatory plan. The plan of the substructures indicates foundations of chapels that lanked the bema in a manner similar to the church of the Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII). If indeed there were adjoining chapels on two levels, this would account for Clavijo’s ive altars.

References Mango 1992. Kidonopoulos 1994: 91–93. Dark 1999. Özgümüş 2000. Dalgıç and Mathews 2010.

201

202

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XXVI-1. Theotokos Peribleptos, plan of the substructures. Redrawn after Özgümüş 2000.

XXVII. Toklu Dede Mesci˙ di˙ Date: Eleventh or twelfth century Location: Northwest corner of the city Toklu Dede Mescidi, of which very little remains, was located in the area of Ayvansaray. Although the building was recorded when only parts of it were standing, its original form can be reconstructed with some accuracy. It was a single-nave structure measuring approximately 14 × 7 m. It had a single projecting apse lanked by two shallow niches inscribed in the eastern wall in place of side rooms. The square naos was covered by a wide dome and preceded by a spacious narthex. Thus, despite its unusual plan, Toklu Dede Mescidi presented all the standard features of a Middle Byzantine church. Pasadaios dated the building to the ninth century. However, the exterior articulation of the façades had similarities with buildings traditionally assigned to the late eleventh or early twelfth century, especially Vefa Kilise Camii (XXVIII). Fragments of fresco decoration, dating to the fourteenth century, included busts of saints and the Nativity in the sanctuary. Paspates, Van Millingen, and Pasadaios identiied Toklu Dede Mescidi with the church of Saint Thekla, which was located in the conines of the Blachernai palace. This identiication has been challenged by Mathews.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

References Paspates 1877: 357–360. Van Millingen 1912: 207–211. Schneider 1936: 15–16. Pasadaios 1969. Mathews 1976: 376–382. Müller-Wiener 1977: 206–208. Dark and Özgümüş 1999: 11.

XXVII-1. Toklu Dede Mescidi, reconstructed plan. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912 and Mathews 1976.

XXVII-2. South wall and apse (photo: NicholasV.Artamonof . Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

203

204

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XXVIII. Vefa Ki˙ li˙ se Cami˙˙i Date: Eleventh or twelfth century with Late Byzantine additions, especially the outer narthex Location: 41°0 58.82 N (latitude), 28°57 36.13 E (longitude), 41 m (altitude) Vefa Kilise Camii is a typical cross-in-square with a tripartite bema, a nine-bay naos with the central bay topped by an elegant dome, and a three-bay narthex. It has traditionally been dated to ca. 1100. Several additions were made in the Palaiologan period, the most important of which was a ive-bay outer narthex with three domes. A belfry, whose base survives, was added at the same period in the southwestern corner of the building. The two-story annex on the north side predates the construction of the exonarthex. A similar structure is found in Chora (VI). Nineteenth-century drawings show that there was a chapel or a colonnaded portico, which has since disappeared, attached to the south of the church. It was accessed by a large tripartite opening, which is now blocked by masonry.There is considerable disagreement about the date of this structure. Brunov and Theis considered it part of the original eleventh-century construction and assumed that a corresponding outer aisle existed on the north side. Hallensleben and Mango argued that it was a Palaiologan addition, which seems more likely. The exonarthex preserves some of its original mosaic decoration. The apex of the southern dome had an image of the Theotokos and Christ child

XXVIII-1. Vefa Kilise Camii, plan. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912 and Ebersolt and Thiers 1913.

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

with eight ancestors of Christ in the lutes of the dome (since replastered). Fragmentary mosaics were also found in the central dome. The traditional identiication of the building with the church of St.Theodore is incorrect. Berger has suggested that Vefa Kilise Camii replaced the church of St. Prokopios tes Chelones, while Efenberger identiies it with the main church of the Bebaia Elpis monastery.

References Van Millingen 1912: 243–252. Ebersolt and Thiers 1913: 149–156. Brunov 1931–1932: 139–144. Hallensleben 1965. Mathews 1976: 386–401. Müller-Wiener 1977: 169–171. Berger 1988: 460–463. Theis 2005: 83–98. Efenberger 2006. Sedov 2008.

XXVIII-2. View from the east (photo: Nicholas V. Artamonof . Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).

205

206

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XXVIII-3. View from the south (photo: author).

XXVIII-4. View from the north (base of the belfry tower) (photo: author).

XXVIII-5. Interior looking east (photo: author).

XXVIII-6. Exonarthex, interior looking south (photo: author).

207

208

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES

XXIX. Yeni˙ kapi Church Date: Middle Byzantine (?) Location:Yenikapı, Theodosian harbor This small church was uncovered during the recent excavations at Yenikapı. It was originally a single-nave building measuring 9.5 × 11.45 m. At a later time, two side aisles were added. Coins found at the site date to the late tenth or early eleventh centuries. The published reports are lacking in details. For example, the relationship between the structure and the twenty-three tombs that were discovered inside and around it is unclear.Thus, the proposed date and the suggestion that the church’s superstructure was wooden remain speculative.

References Karamani Pekin 2007: 174–175, 233.

XXIX-1. Yenikapı Church, view from the northeast (photo: Istanbul Archaeological Museum).

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

This glossary deines most of the unusual terms used in this book.When a term has multiple meanings, only the ones pertinent to the main text are included. AGRYPNIA In Palestinian and Neo-Sabaitic

practice, a vigil on the eve of Sundays and major feasts comprising Vespers, the entire Psalter, and Orthros. AMBULATORY CHURCH A church whose central domed bay is separated from the rest of the church by columns and piers that create a corridor on three sides. ANAPHORA The Eucharistic prayer, which accompanies the ofering of the elements, bread and wine. It is composed of several parts including a prayer of thanksgiving addressed to God the Father; a recounting of the salvation history in Jesus culminating in the Words of Institution; the epiklesis, during which God the Father is asked to send down the Holy Spirit in order to change the elements into the body and blood of Christ; and the diptychs and intercessions for the living and dead. Two main anaphoras were in used in the Medieval period, one attributed to Saint Basil of Caesarea and the other to Saint John Chrysostom. APODEIPNON Compline, the last of the daytime Hours. ARCOSOLIUM An arched recess carved out or set in front of a wall, usually for a tomb. ASMATIKE AKOLOUTHIA Lit. “the Sung Oice,” the cathedral Oice of the Hours in the rite of Constantinople. BASILICA In church architecture, an oblong building consisting of a nave lanked by two or more aisles and terminating in an apse. BEMA The part of the church containing the altar. It is usually located to the east of

the naos and separated from it by a barrier called a templon. In the Medieval churches of Constantinople the bema was most often tripartite. BOOK OF CEREMONIES Also known as De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae. A tenth-century collection of court protocols attributed to Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. Some of the included documents might date as early as the ifth century. CIBORIUM A canopy made of a domed or pyramidal structure resting on four or six columns. This was usually erected in the bema over the altar, but could also be used to mark the tomb of a saint. CROSS-DOMED A church whose domed core forms a cross created by four barrel vaults resting on piers. CROSS-IN-SQUARE A church whose naos is divided into nine bays. The center bay is capped by a dome carried by four columns. DIAKONIKON The sacristy, or place for the safekeeping of vessels and vestments. In present usage it refers to the southern room of the tripartite sanctuary. DIATAXIS ( pl. DIATAXEIS) A book of rubrics for clergy regulating the celebration of the Eucharist. These likely appeared as early as the tenth century, although the earliest examples date to the twelfth century. The most important is the one by Philotheos Kokkinos (d. 1377/78), patriarch of Constantinople. ENKAINIA The rite of dedication and consecration of a church.

209

210

GLOSSARY

EUCHOLOGION The prayer book used by clergy,

containing all the services of the Byzantine rite. The earliest surviving example is the Barberini Euchologion dating to the eighth century. HESPERINOS Vespers. Part of the Divine Oice, celebrated at sundown. HOROLOGION A liturgical book containing the invariable parts of the Byzantine monastic hours throughout the year. Originating in Palestine, the Byzantine Horologion combines Hagiopolite practices with elements of the cathedral rite. HOURS Also known as the Divine Oice. A set of daily prayers composed of Matins, Vespers, Compline, mesonyktikon, the “Little Hours” – First, Third, Sixth, Ninth – and occasional vigils. The actual number of hours varied in the cathedral and monastic rite. KATHOLIKON The main church of a monastery. KONTAKION A sermon in verse sung on major feast and saints’ days, especially popular between the ifth and seventh centuries. LYCHNIKON See HESPERINOS . NAOS The central and largest part of a Byzantine church, located between the bema and the narthex. OPISTHAMBONOS EUCHE Lit. “prayer read behind the ambo.” One of the inal prayers of the Divine Liturgy. ORTHROS Matins. One of the principal hours of the Divine Oice, celebrated at the beginning of the day. PANNYCHIS Lit. “all night.” A brief night service that included Vespers with lections, antiphons, prayers, and litanies. PRAXAPOSTOLOS A lectionary containing the New Testament readings from the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles for use during the Divine Liturgy. PRESANCTIFIED LITURGY A communion service for use on days when regular Eucharist was not allowed. PROSPHORA Most commonly, the stamped loaves of bread of which parts are used in the Eucharist. PROTHESIS Lit. “ofering.” The term might refer to the rite of the preparation of the

Eucharistic elements before the beginning of the liturgy, or to the room in which this rite takes place. In modern usage this is identiied with the north room in a tripartite bema. RECESSED-BRICK TECHNIQUE Also known as the concealed-course technique. An allbrick masonry method in which every alternate course was recessed and concealed within the mortar bed. Although appearing as early as the tenth century and surviving as late as the fourteenth, in Constantinople the recessedbrick technique is found mostly in buildings dating to the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Furthermore, the tenth- to twelfth-century examples, with broad mortar joints illed with intact bricks, difer distinctively from the later ones characterized by thinner mortar joints illed with broken bricks. SKEUOPHYLAKION A sacristy. In the early churches of Constantinople, such as Hagia Sophia, the skeuophylakion was a separate building. In the Medieval period the term likely refers to the south room of the tripartite bema, also known as the diakonikon. SYNTHRONON A structure composed of one or more benches for the use of clergy. It was located in the main apse of the church behind the altar. TEMPLON A barrier or screen separating the bema from the naos. TYPIKON, LITURGICAL A liturgical book containing instructions for the celebration of services for each day of the year, especially in reference to the proper, or variable, elements. TYPIKON OF THE GREAT CHURCH The liturgical typikon for the rite of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. It describes liturgical practice in the capital in the ninth and tenth centuries. TYPIKON, MONASTIC A generic term designating a variety of foundation documents, testaments, and rules. A typikon includes, among others, regulations about the administrative organization of the monastery, behavior of the monastics, and daily and occasional liturgical observances. TRISAGION Lit. “thrice-holy hymn,” sung at the beginning of the Eucharist.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES AND TRANSLATIONS

AASS Acta Sanctorum. 1863–1940. Paris. Acta Xeropotami Jacques Bompaire, ed. 1964. Actes de Xéropotamou. 2 vols. Paris. Akropolites Hippolyte Delehaye, ed. 1933. “Constantini Acropolitae hagiographi byzantini epistularum manipulus.” Analecta Bollandiana 51: 279–284. Translated in BMFD: 1377–1382. Anargyroi Hippolyte Delehaye, ed. 1921. Deux typica byzantins de l’époque des Paléologues. Brussels, 136– 140. Translated in BMFD: 1290–1294. Andrew the Fool Lennart Rydén, ed. 1995. The Life of St. Andrew the Fool. 2 vols. Uppsala. Apokaukos Nikos A. Bees. 1971–1974. “Unedierte Schriftstücke aus der Kanzlei des Johannes Apokaukos des Metropoliten von Naupaktos (in Aetolien).” Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher 21: 57–160. Arethas Michael J. Share, ed. 1994. Arethas of Caesarea’s Scholia on Porphyry’s Isagoge and Aristotle’s Categories. Athens, Paris, Brussels, 1–130. Artemios Virgil S. Crisafulli and John W. Nesbitt, eds. 1997. The Miracles of St.Artemios:A Collection of Miracle

Stories by an Anonymous Author of SeventhCentury Byzantium. Leiden and New York. Athanasios I Alice-Mary Talbot, ed. 1975.The Correspondence of Athanasius I, Patriarch of Constantinople. Washington, DC. Athanasios of Athos Jacques Noret, ed. 1982. Vitae Duae Antiquae Sancti Athanasii Athonitae. Turnhout. Attaleiates Paul Gautier, ed. 1981. “Le Diataxis de Michel Attaliate.” Revue des études byzantines 39: 5–143. Bardanes Raymond-Joseph Loenertz and Johannes Hoeck, eds. 1965. Nikolaos-Nektarios von Otranto,Abt von Casole: Beiträge zur Geschichte der ost-westlichen Beziehungen unter Innozenz III. und Friedrich II. Ettal, 147–235. Basil the Younger Sergei G.Vilinskii, ed. 1911–1913. Zhitie sv.Vasiliia Novago v russkoi literaturie. Odessa. Basilika H. J. Scheltema, and Nicolaas van der Wal, eds. 1955. Basilicorum Libri LX. Gravenhage. BMFD John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero, eds. 2000. Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments. 5 vols. Washington, DC.

211

212

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clavijo Ruy González de Clavijo. 1928. Embassy to Tamerlane, 1403–1406. Trans. Guy Le Strange. New York.

Kabasilas Vita in Christo Marie-Hélène Congourdeau, ed. 1989–1990. Nicolas Cabasilas: La Vie en Christ (Livres I–VII). 2 vols. Paris, I: 74–357; II: 12–221.

Cyril of Skythopolis Eduard Schwartz, ed. 1939. Kyrillos von Skythopolis. 2 vols. Leipzig.

Kecharitomene Paul Gautier, ed. 1985.“Le typikon de laThéotokos Kécharitôménè.” Revue des études byzantines 43: 5–165. Translated in BMFD: 664–724.

De Cerimoniis Johann Jacob Reiske, ed. 1829. Constantini Porphyrogeniti imperatoris de cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae libri duo. 2 vols. Bonn. Euchologion Barberini Stefano Parenti and Elena Velkovska, eds. 2000. L’eucologio Barberini gr. 336. 2nd ed. Rome. Euthymios Patricia Karlin-Hayter, ed. 1970. Vita Euthymii Patriarchae CP. Brussels. Evergetis Paul Gautier, ed. 1982. “Le typikon de la Théotokos Évergétis.” Revue des études byzantines 40: 5–101. Translated in BMFD: 472–506. Holy Women Alice-Mary Talbot, ed. 1996. Holy Women of Byzantium: Ten Saints’ Lives in English Translation. Washington, D.C. Hypotyposis Stoudiou First recension [A]: Dmitrievskii 1895–1917, I: 224–238. Second recension [B]: Angelo Mai and Giuseppe Cozza-Luzi eds. 1849. Nova patrum bibliotheca 5. Rome, 111–125. Reprinted in PG 99: 1704–1720. Translated in BMFD: 97–115. Irene of Chrysobalanton Jan Olof Rosenqvist, ed. 1986. The Life of St. Irene, Abbess of Chrysobalanton. Uppsala. Kabasilas Sévérien Salaville, ed. 1967. Nicolas Cabasilas: Explication de la Divine Liturgie. 2nd ed. Paris.

Lazaros of Mt. Galesion Richard P. H. Greenield. 2000. The Life of Lazaros of Mt. Galesion: An Eleventh-Century Pillar Saint. Washington, DC. Leo VI Theodora Antonopoulou, ed. 2008. Leonis VI Sapientis Imperatoris Byzantini Homiliae. Turnhout. Libos Hippolyte Delehaye, ed. 1921. Deux typica byzantins de l’époque des Paléologues. Brussels, 106– 136. Translated in BMFD: 1265–1286. Liudprand Paolo Squatriti. 2007. The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona. Washington, DC. Machairas Ioannes Tsiknopoullos, ed. 1969. Κυπριακὰ τυπικά. Nicosia, 3–68. Translated in BMFD: 1122–1175. Mamas Sophronios Eustratiades, ed. 1928. “Τυπικὸν τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει μονῆς τοῦ ἁγίου μεγαλομάρτυρος Μάμαντος.” Ἑλληνικά 1: 256– 314. Translated in BMFD: 991–1041. Maximos Confessor Christian Boudignon, ed. 2011. Maximi Confessoris Mystagogia: una cum Latina interpretatione Anastasii Bibliothecarii. Brepols. Translated in Berthold 1985: 181–225. Messina Miguel Arranz, ed. 1969. Le typicon du monastère du Saint-Sauveur à Messine, Codex Messinensis gr 115, A.D. 1131. Rome.

213

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Michael Maleinos Louis Petit. 1902.“Vie de Saint Michel Maléinos.” Revue de l’Orient chrétien 7: 543–603.

Paul of Monembasia John Wortley, ed. 1987. Les récits édiiants de Paul, évêque de Monembasie, et d’autres auteurs. Paris.

Michael Synkellos Mary B. Cunningham, ed. 1991. The Life of Michael the Synkellos. Belfast.

PG Jacques-Paul Migne, ed. 1857–1866. Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca. Paris.

Mitylenaios Eduard Kurtz, ed. 1903. Die Gedichte des Christophoros Mitylenaios. Leipzig.

Philaretos M.-H. Fourmy and M. Leroy, eds. 1934. “La Vie de S. Philarète.” Byzantion 9: 85–170.

Nikephoros of Medikion François Halkin, ed. 1960. “La Vie de saint Nicéphore, fondateur de Médikion en Bithynie.” Analecta Bollandiana 78: 396–430.

Protheoria PG 140: 417–468.

Niketas Stethatos Jean Darrouzès, ed. 1961. Nicétas Stéthatos: Opuscules et lettres. Paris. Nikon Denis Sullivan, ed. 1987. The Life of Saint Nikon: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Brookline, MA. Novelles Pierre Noailles and Alphonse Dain, eds. 1944. Les Novelles de Léon VI, le Sage. Paris. Pachymeres Albert Failler, ed. 1984. Georges Pachymérès relations historiques. 5 vols. Paris. Pachymeres Historia Brevis Albert Failler, ed. 2001–2004. La version brève des relations historiques de Georges Pachymérès. 3 vols. Paris.

Psellos Émile Renauld, ed. 1926–1928. Michel Psellos Chronographie. 2 vols. Paris. Reprint 1967. Pseudo-Kodinos Jean Verpeaux, ed. 1966. Pseudo-Kodinos:Traité des oices. Paris. Pseudo-Sophronios PG 87: 3981–4001. Rule of Athanasios Philipp Meyer, ed. 1894. Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athosklöster. Leipzig, 130–140. Translated in BMFD: 221–231. Scylitzes Hans Thurn, ed. 1973. Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum. Berlin and New York. Stephen the Younger Marie-France Auzépy, ed. 1997. La vie d’ Étienne le Jeune par Étienne le diacre. Aldershot and Brookield,VT.

Pantokrator Paul Gautier, ed. 1974. “Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantokrator.” Revue des études byzantines 32: 1–145. Translated in BMFD: 737–781.

Symeon of Thessalonike Steven Hawkes-Teeples, ed. and trans. 2010. The Liturgical Commentaries: St. Symeon of Thessalonika. Toronto.

Patria Theodorus Preger, ed. 1901–1907. Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum. 2 vols. Leipzig. Reprint 1989.

Symeon the New Theologian Symeon P. Koutsas, ed. 1994. Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Συμεὼν τοῦ Νέου Θεολόγου. Nea Smyrne.

214

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Symeon the Younger Paul van den Ven, ed. 1970. La vie ancienne de S. Syméon Stylite le Jeune (591–592). 2 vols. Brussels.

Theophano Eduard Kurtz, ed. 1898. Zwei griechische Texte über die Hl. Theophano die Gemahlin Kaisers Leo VI. St. Petersburg.

Synaxarion of Evergetis Robert H. Jordan, ed. and trans. 2000–2007. The Synaxarion of the Monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis. 3 vols. Belfast.

Typikon of the Great Church Juan Mateos. 1962–1963. Le typicon de la Grande Église. 2 vols. Rome.

SynCP Hippolyte Delehaye, ed. 1902. Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae: Propylaeum ad Acta sanctorum Novembris. Brussels. Reprint 1985.

Vita Basilii Ihor Ševčenko, ed. 2011. Chronographiae quae Theophanis continuati nomine fertur liber quo Vita Basilii Imperatoris amplectitur. Berlin and New York. SECONDARY SOURCES

Syntagma G. A. Ralles and M. Potles. 1852–1859. Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων. 6 vols. Athens. Syropoulos Vitalien Laurent. 1971. Les mémoires du grand ecclésiarque de l’Église de Constantinople Sylvestre Syropoulos sur le Concile de Florence (1438–1439). Rome. Taktikon Vladimir N. Beneshevich, ed. 1917. Taktikon Nikona Chernogortsa. Petrograd. Theodore Sykeotes André-Jean Festugière, ed. 1970. Vie de Théodore de Sykeôn. I: 1–161. Brussels. Theodoret Léon Parmentier and Felix Scheidweiler, eds. 1954. Theodoret, Kirchengeschichte. 2nd ed. Berlin. Theophanes Carl de Boor, ed. 1883. Theophanis Chronographia. 2 vols. Leipzig. Theophanes Continuatus Immanuel Bekker, ed. 1838. Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus. Bonn.

Abrahamse, Dorothy. 1984. “Rituals of Death in the Middle Byzantine Period.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 29: 125–134. ——. 1985. “Women’s Monasticism in the Middle-Byzantine Period: Problems and Prospects.” Byzantinische Forschungen 9: 35–58. Ahunbay, Metin, and Zeynep Ahunbay. 2001. “Restoration Work at the Zeyrek Camii, 1997–1998.” In Necipoğlu 2001: 117–132. Akent’ev, K. K., ed. 1995. Liturgy, Architecture, and Art in Byzantine World. St. Petersburg. Akyürek, Engin. 1996. Bizans’ta Sanat ve Ritüel: Kariye Güney S¸apelinin I˙konograisi ve I˙¸slevi. Istanbul. ——. 2001. “Funeral Ritual in the Parekklesion of the Chora Church.” In Necipoğlu 2001: 89–104. ——. 2010. “Death in Byzantine Society.” In From Byzantion to Istanbul: 8000 Years of a Capital, 166–177. Istanbul. Akyürek, Engin, and Robert Ousterhout. 2001. “The Church of the Transfiguration on Burgazada.” Cahiers archéologiques 49: 5–14. Alexiou, Margaret. 2002. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD. Alexopoulos, Stefanos. 2001. “The Life of George of Amastris as a Source of Liturgical Information: ‘Private’ Liturgy and Eucharistic Doctrine.” Byzantine Studies Conference Abstracts of Papers 27: 8.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 2006. “The Inluence of Iconoclasm in Liturgy: A Case Study.” In Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East, ed. Roberta R. Ervine, 127–137. Crestwood, NY. ——. 2009. The Presanctiied Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite. Leuven. Alivizatos, Amilkas S. 1953. “Ἡ κουρὰ τῶν κληρικῶν καὶ μοναχῶν κατὰ τὸ Κανονικὸν Δίκαιον τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.” Ἐπετηρὶς ἑταιρείας βυζαντινῶν σπουδῶν 23: 233–239. Alpatov,Mikhail,and Nicholas Brunov.1925.“Une nouvelle église de l’époque des Paléologues à Constantinople.” Echos d’Orient: 14–25. Altripp, Michael. 1998. Die Prothesis und ihre Bildausstattung in Byzanz unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Denkmäler Griechenlands. Frankfurt am Main. ——. 2000. “Beobachtungen zu Synthronoi und Kathedren in byzantinischen Kirchen Griechenlands.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 124: 377–412. ——. 2002. “Liturgie und Bild in byzantinischen Kirchen: Korrespondenzen und Divergenzen.” In Bildlichkeit und Bildorte von Liturgie: Schauplätze in Spätantike, Byzanz und Mittelalter, ed. Rainer Warland, 115–124. Wiesbaden. ——. 2013. Die Basilika in Byzanz: Gestalt, Ausstattung und Funktion sowie das Verhältnis zur Kreuzkuppelkirche. Berlin. Altripp, Michael, and Claudia Nauerth, eds. 2006. Architektur und Liturgie: Akten des Kolloquiums vom 25. bis 27. Juli 2003 in Greifswald. Wiesbaden. Andreou, Georgios. 2009. “Το χειρόγραφο με αριθμό 2047 της Εθνικής Βιβλιοθήκης των Αθηνών το οποίο αποδίδεται στο Συμεών Αρχιεπίσκοπο Θεσσαλονίκης: επαναπ ροσέγγιση της λεγομένης ” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, 3rd ser., 6: 7–43. Aran, Berge. 1977. “The Nunnery of the Anargyres and the Atik Mustafa Pasha Mosque (Notes on the Topography of Constantinople).” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 26: 247–53. ——. 1979. “The Church of St. Theodosia and the Monastery of Christ Euergetes.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 28: 221–228.

215 Armstrong, Pamela, ed. 2006. Ritual and Art: Byzantine Essays for Christopher Walter. London. Arranz, Miguel. 1971. “Les prières sacerdotales des vêpres byzantines.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 37: 85–124. ——. 1971–1972. “Les prières presbytérales des matines byzantines.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 37 (I): 406–436; 38 (II): 64–135. ——. 1973. “Les prières presbytérales des petites heures dans l’ancien Euchologe byzantin.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 39: 29–82. ——. 1974–1975. “Les prières presbytérales de la de l’ancien Euchologe et la des défunts.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 40 (I): 314–343; 41 (II): 119–139. ——. 1976. “Les grandes étapes de la liturgie byzantine: Palestine-Byzance-Russie: essai d’aperçu historique.” In Liturgie de l’église particulière, liturgie de l’église universelle: 43–72. Rome. ——. 1977. “Les prières presbytérales de la Tritoekti de l’ancien Euchologe byzantin.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 43: 70–93, 335–354. ——. 1978a.“Évolution des rites d’incorporation et de réadmission dans l’Église selon l’Euchologe byzantin.” In Gestes et paroles dans les diverses familles liturgiques, 31–75. Rome. ——. 1978b.“L’oice de l’Asmatikos Hesperinos (‘vêpres chantées’) de l’ancien Euchologe byzantin.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 44: 107–130, 391–419. ——. 1979. “La liturgie des heures selon l’ancien euchologe byzantin.” In Eulogia: Miscellanea liturgica in onore di P. Burkhard Neunheuser O.S.B., 1–19. Rome. ——. 1980. “N. D. Uspensky: The Oice of AllNight Vigil in the Greek and in the Russian Church.” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 24: 83–113, 169–195. ——. 1981a. “La Liturgie des Présanctiiés de l’ancien Euchologe byzantin.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 47: 332–388. ——. 1981b. “L’oice de l’Asmatikos Orthros (‘matines chantées’) de l’ancien Euchologe byzantin.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 47: 122–157.

216

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arranz, Miguel. 1982.“Les sacrements de l’ancien Euchologe constantinopolitain (1): Étude preliminaire des sources.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 48: 284–335. ——. 1996. L’Eucologio constantinopolitano agli inizi del secolo XI. Hagiasmatarion & Archieratikon (Rituale & Pontiicale) con l’aggiunta del Leitourgikon (Messale). Rome. Asutay-Efenberger, Neslihan, and Arne Efenberger. 2008. “Eski ˙Imaret Camii, Bonoszisterne und Konstantinsmauer.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 58: 13–44. Asutay-Fleissig, Neslihan. 1998. Byzantinische Apsisnebenräume: Untersuchung zur Funktion der Apsisnebenräume in den Höhlenkirchen Kappadokiens und in den mittelbyzantinischen Kirchen Konstantinopels. Weimar. Babić, Gordana. 1969. Les chapelles annexes des églises byzantines. Fonction liturgique et programmes iconographiques. Paris. ——. 1975. “La décoration en fresques des clôtures de choeur.” Zbornik za likovné umĕtnosti 11: 3–49. Bache, Florence. 1989. “La fonction funéraire du narthex dans les églises byzantines du XIIe au XIVe siècle.” Histoire de l’Art 7: 25–33. Bádenas, Pedro. 2004. “L’évolution des idéaux de sainteté à Byzance.” In L’image et la parole. Recueuil à l’occasion du 60e anniversaire du prof. Axinia Dzurova, 69–77. Soia. Bakalova, Elka, Vassos Karageorghis, and Louisa Leventis, eds. 2003. The Ossuary of the Bachkovo Monastery. Plovdiv. Bakirtzis, Nikolas. 2008. “Η βιβλιοθήκη ως πρόκτισμα μοναστηριακών ναών στο Βυζάντιο. Η περίπτωση του καθολικού της μονής Τιμίου Προδρόμου Σερρών.” In Karagianne 2008: 42–52. Baldovin, John F. 1987. The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy. Rome. Balicka-Witakowska, Ewa. 2010.“Constantinople in the Transition from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages.” In Sinclair et al. 2010: 329–363. Balş, Georges. 1936. “Contribution à la question des églises superposées dans le domaine byzantin.” Actes du IVe Congrès international des études byzantines (Bulletin de l’institut archéologique bulgare 10) 2: 156–167.

Barber, Charles. 2001. “Mimesis and Memory in the Narthex Mosaics at Nea Moni, Chios.” Art History 24:3: 323–337. Barla, Charikleia N. 1959. Μορφὴ καὶ ἐξέλιξις τῶν βυζαντινῶν κωδωνοστασίων. Athens. Baud-Bovy, Samuel. 1975. “Le thêatre religieux, Byzance et l’Occident.” Ἑλληνικά 28: 328–349. Belting, Hans. 1972. “Zur Skulptur aus der Zeit um 1300 in Konstantinopel.” Münchner Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst 23: 63–100. Berger, Albrecht. 1988. Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos. Bonn. ——. 2001. “Imperial and Ecclesiastical Processions in Constantinople.” In Necipoǧlu 2001: 73–87. ——. 2002.“Straßen und Plätze in Konstantinopel als Schauplätze von Liturgie.” In Bildlichkeit und Bildorte von Liturgie: Schauplätze in Spätantike, Byzanz und Mittelalter, ed. Rainer Warland, 9–18. Wiesbaden. Berthold, George, C. 1985. Maximus Confessor: Selected Writings. New York. Bertonière, Gabriel. 1972. The Historical Development of the Easter Vigil and Related Services in the Greek Church. Rome. Bogdanović, Jelena. 2008. “Canopies: The Framing of Sacred Space in the Byzantine Ecclesiastical Tradition.” Ph.D diss., Princeton University. Borchhardt, Jürgen, ed. 1975. Myra: eine lykische Metropole in antiker und byzantinischer Zeit. Berlin. Bornert, René. 1966. Les commentaires byzantins de la Divine Liturgie du VIIe au XVe siècle. Paris. Boura, Laskarina. 1975. “ Some Observations on the Grand Lavra Phiale at Mount Athos and Its Bronze Strobilion.” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας 8: 85–96. Boura, Laskarina 1977. “Dragon Representations on Byzantine Phialae and Their Conduits.” Gesta 16: 65–68. Bouras, Charalampos. 1976. “Τυπολογικὲς παρατηρήσεις στὸ καθολικὸ τῆς μονῆς τῶν Μαγγάνων στὴν Κωνσταντινούπολη.” Ἀρχαιολογικὸν δελτίον 31:136–151. ——. 2002a. “Aspects of the Byzantine City, Eighth–Fifteenth Centuries.” In Laiou 2002: 497–528.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 2002b. “Master Craftsmen, Craftsmen, and Building Activities in Byzantium.” In Laiou 2002: 539–554. ——. 2005.“Ἡ ἀρχιτεκτονικὴ τῆς Παναγίας τοῦ Μουχλίου στὴν Κωνσταντινούπολη.” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας 26: 35–50. ——. 2007. “Architecture in Constantinople in the Thirteenth Century.” In Ἡ Βυζαντινὴ τέχνη μετὰ τὴν Τέταρτη Σταυροφορία, 104– 112. Athens. ——. 2010. Τρόποι ἐργασίας τῶν βυζαντινῶν ἀρχιτεκτόνων καὶ ἀρχιμαστόρων. Athens. Bradshaw, Paul F. 1990. Ordination Rites of the Ancient Churches of East and West. New York. ——. 2003. “Cathedral and Monastic: What’s in a Name.” Worship 77: 341–453. Brakmann, Heinzgerd. 1976. “Kai anagignoskousi pantes hoi hiereis tén eucharistérion euchén: Zum gemeinschaftlichen Eucharistiegebet byzantinischer Konzelebranten.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 42: 319–367. Brandes, Wolfgang. 1999. “Byzantine Cities in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries: Diferent Sources, Diferent Histories?” In Brogiolo and Ward-Perkins 1999: 25–57. Branham, Joan R. 1992. “Sacred Space under Erasure in Ancient Synagogues and Early Churches.” Art Bulletin 74: 375–394. Brightman, Frank E. 1896. Liturgies, Eastern and Western. Vol. 1: Eastern Liturgies. Oxford. Reprinted as Eastern Liturgies, Piscataway, NJ, 2004. Brock, Sebastian. 1967. “A Medieval Armenian Pilgrim’s Description of Constantinople.” Revue des études arméniennes 4: 81–102. Brogiolo, Gian Pietro, and Bryan Ward-Perkins, eds. 1999. The Idea and Ideal of the Town Between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Leiden. Brooks, Sarah T. 2004 “Sculpture and the Late Byzantine Tomb.” In Evans 2004: 94–103. ——. ed., 2006a. Byzantium, Faith and Power (1261–1557): Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture. New York. ——. 2006b. “Poetry and Female Patronage in Late Byzantine Tomb Decoration: Two Epigrams by Manuel Philes.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 60: 223–248.

217 Brown, Peter. 1981. The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity. Chicago. Brubaker, Leslie. 2001. “Topography and the Creation of Public Space in Early Medieval Constantinople.” In Topographies of Power in the Early Middle Ages, ed. F. Theuws, Mayke De Jong, and Carine van Rhijn, 31–43. Leiden. Brubaker, Leslie, and John F. Haldon. 2001. Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca 680–850):The Sources. Aldershot and Burlington,VT. ——. 2011. Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680– 850: A History. Cambridge. Brunov, Nicolas. 1926a. “Die Odalar-Djami von Konstantinopel.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 26: 352–372. ——. 1926b. “Ein Denkmal der Hofbaukunst von Konstantinopel.” Belvedere 51–52: 217–236. ——. 1926c. “Rapport sur un voyage à Constantinople.” Revue des études grecques 39: 1–30. ——. 1927a. “Die fünfschiige Kreuzkuppelkirche in der byzantinischen Baukunst.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 27: 63–98. ——. 1927b. “L’église à croix inscrite à cinq nefs dans l’architecture byzantine.” Échos d’Orient 26: 257–286. ——. 1927–1928. “Die Panagia-Kirche auf der Insel Chalki in der Umgebung von Konstantinopel.” Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 6: 509–520. ——. 1929–1930. “Die Gül-Djami von Konstantinopel.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30: 554–560. ——. 1931–1932. “Über zwei byzantinische Baudenkmäler von Konstantinopel aus dem XI. Jahrhunderts.” Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 9: 129–144. ——. 1967. “Zum Problem des Kreuzkuppelsystems.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 16: 245–261. ——. 1968. “K voprosu o srednevekovoi arkhitekture Konstantinopolia.” Vizantiiskii vremennik 28: 159–191. Buchwald, Hans. 1977. “Sardis Church E: A Preliminary Report.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 26: 265–299. Reprinted in Buchwald 1999.

218

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Buchwald, Hans.1999. Form, Style and Meaning in Byzantine Church Architecture. Aldershot. Canart, Paul, ed. 2011. La Bible du Patrice Léon, Codex Reginensis Graecus 1: commentaire codicologique, paléographique, philologique et artistique. Vatican City. Carr, Annemarie Weyl. 2002. “Icons and the Objects of Pilgrimage in Middle Byzantine Constantinople.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56: 75–92. Charanis, Peter. 1971. “The Monk as an Element in Byzantine Society.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 25: 61–84. Chatzidakis, Manolis. 1979. “L’évolution de l’icône aux 11e–13e siècles et la transformation du templon.” In Actes du XVe Congrès international d’études byzantines, 3: 157–192. Athens. Chupungco, Anscar J., ed. 1997–2000. Handbook for Liturgical Studies. 5 vols. Collegeville, MN. Congourdeau, Marie-Hélène. 2009. “Les variations du désir d’enfant à Byzance.” In Papaconstantinou and Talbot 2009: 35–63. Connor, Carolyn L. 1991. Art and Miracles in Medieval Byzantium: The Crypt at Hosios Loukas and Its Frescoes. Princeton, NJ. Constantios I, Patriarch of Constantinople. 1846. Constantiniade ou description de Constantinople ancienne et moderne. Constantinople. Constas, Nicholas P. 2006. “Symeon of Thessalonike and the Theology of the Icon Screen.” In Gerstel 2006c: 163–183. Cunningham, Mary B. 2008. “Homilies.” In Jefreys, Haldon, and Cormack 2008: 872–881. ——. 2011. “Messages in Context:The Readings of Sermons in Byzantine Churches and Monasteries.” In Images of the Byzantine World: Visions, Messages and Meanings. Studies Presented to Leslie Brubaker, ed.Angeliki Lymberopoulou, 83–98. Farnham, Surrey. Ćurčić, Slobodan. 1971. “The Twin-domed Narthex in Paleologan Architecture.” Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 13: 333–344. ——. 1977. “Architectural Signiicance of Subsidiary Chapels in Middle Byzantine Churches.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 36: 95–110.

——. 1979. “The Original Baptismal Font of Gračanica and Its Iconographic Setting.” Zbornik radova Narodnog Muzeja 9–10: 313–320. ——. 1980. “Architectural Reconsideration of the Nea Ekklesia.” Byzantine Studies Conference Abstracts of Papers 6: 11–12. ——. 1984. “Medieval Royal Tombs in the Balkans: An Aspect of the ‘East or West’ Question.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 29: 175–194. ——. 1993. “What Was the Real Function of Late Byzantine Katechoumena?” Byzantine Studies Conference Abstracts of Papers 19: 8–9. ——. 2000. “Proskynetaria Icons, Saints’ Tombs, and the Development of the Iconostasis.” In Lidov 2000a: 134–160. ——. 2004. “Religious Settings of the Late Byzantine Sphere.” In Evans 2004: 65–77. ——. 2006.“Monastic Cells in Medieval Serbian Church Towers: Survival of an Early Christian Monastic Concept and Its Meaning.” In Σοφία: Sbornik statei po iskusstvu Vizantii i Drevnei Rusi v chest’ A.I. Komecha, 491–512. Moscow. ——. 2008. “Church Towers.” In Karagianne 2008: 103–113. ——. 2009a. “Byzantine Aspects of Church Towers in Norman Sicily.” In Giorgio di Antiochia: L’arte della politica in Sicilia nel XII secolo tra Bisanzio e l’Islam. Atti del convegno internazionale (Palermo, 19–20 Aprile 2007), Byzantino-Sicula 5, eds. Mario Re and Cristina Rognoni, 65–85. Palermo. ——. 2009b. “Representations of Towers in Byzantine Art: The Question of Meaning.” In Byzantine Art: Recent Studies, ed. Colum Hourihane, 1–37. Princeton, NJ, and Tempe, AZ. ——. 2010. Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian to Süleyman the Magniicent. New Haven, CT. ——. 2012. “Divine Light: Constructing the Immaterial in Byzantine Art and Architecture.” In Wescoat and Ousterhout 2012: 307–337. Ćurčić, Slobodan, and Evangelia Hadjitryphonos, eds. 2010. Architecture as Icon: Perception and Representation of Architecture in Byzantine Art. Princeton, NJ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ćurčić, Slobodan, and Doula Mouriki, eds. 1991. The Twilight of Byzantium: Aspects of Cultural and Religious History in the Late Byzantine Empire. Princeton, NJ. Curtis, Charles G., and Mary A. Walker. 1890. Broken Bits of Byzantium. London. Cutler, Anthony, and Annemarie Weyl Carr. 1976. “The Psalter Benaki 34.3: An Unpublished Illuminated Manuscript from the Family 2400.” Revue des études byzantines 34: 281–323. Dagron, Gilbert. 1974. Naissance d’une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451. 2nd ed. Paris, 1984. ——. 1977. “Le christianisme dans la ville byzantine.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31: 1–25. ——. 1984a. Constantinople imaginaire: études sur le recueil des Patria. Paris. ——. 1984b. “Troisième, neuvième et quarantième jours dans la tradition byzantine: temps chrétien et anthropologie.” In Le temps chrétien de la in de l’antiquité au moyen-âge, IIIe-XIIIe siècles: Paris, 9–12 Mars 1981, 419–430. Paris. ——. 1989. “Constantinople: les sanctuaires et l’organization de la vie religieuse.” In Actes du XIe Congrès international d’archéologie chrétienne, 1069–1085. Paris. ——. 2002. “Rélexions sur le cérémonial byzantin.” Palaeoslavica 10: 26–36. Dalgıç, Örgü, and Thomas F. Mathews. 2010. “A New Interpretation of the Church of Peribleptos and Its Place in Middle Byzantine Architecture.” In First International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium: Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, ed. A. Ödekan et al., 424–431. Istanbul. Dalleggio d’Alessio, E. 1953. “Les sanctuaires urbains et suburbains de Byzance sous la domination latine, 1204–1261.” Revue des études byzantines 11: 50–61. Dark, Ken. 1999. “The Byzantine Church and Monastery of St. Mary Peribleptos in Istanbul.” The Burlington Magazine 141: 656–664. Dark, Ken, and Ferudun Özgümüş. 1999. Istanbul Rescue Archaeological Survey: The Districts of Balat and Ayvansaray. London. Darrouzès, Jean. 1974. “Nicholas d’Andida et les azymes.” Revue des études byzantines 32: 199–210.

219 ——. 1976. “Sainte-Sophie de Thessalonique d’après un rituel.” Revue des études byzantines 34: 45–78. Delehaye, Hippolyte, ed. 1923. Les saints stylites. Brussels. Demangel, Robert, and Ernest Mamboury. 1939. Le quartier des Manganes et la première région de Constantinople. Paris. Demus, Otto. 1976. Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium. New Rochelle, NY. Dennert, Martin. 1995. “Mittelbyzantinische Ambone in Kleinasien.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 45: 137–147. ——. 2008. “‘Übersehene’ Kapitelle: Anmerkungen zur mittelbyzantinischen Architekturplastik aus Konstantinopel.” In Pennas and Vanderheyde 2008: 55–67. Denysenko, Nicholas. 2012. The Blessing of Waters and Epiphany: The Eastern Liturgical Tradition. Farnham, Surrey. Der Nersessian, Sirarpie. 1948. “Le décor des églises du IXe siècle.” In Actes du VIe Congrès international d’études byzantines, Paris, 27 Juillet-2 Août, 1948, 2: 315–320. Paris. ——. 1975. “Program and Iconography of the Frescoes of the Parekklesion.” In Underwood 1975a: 305–349. Descoeudres, Georges. 1983. Die Pastophorien im syro-byzantinischen Osten: Eine Untersuchung zu architektur- und liturgiegeschichtlichen Problemen. Wiesbaden. Dmitrievskii, Aleksei. 1895–1917. Opisanie liturgicheskikh rukopisei, khraniashchikhsia v bibliotekakh pravoslavnago Vostoka. 3 vols. Kiev. Reprint Hildesheim 1965. Downey, Glanville. 1959. “The Tombs of the Byzantine Emperors at the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 79: 27–51. Dubowchik, Rosemary. 2003. “Singing with the Angels: Foundation Documents as Evidence for Musical Life in Monasteries of the Byzantine Empire.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56: 277–296. Dufrenne, Suzy. 1968. “Images du décor de la prothèse.” Revue des études byzantines 36: 297–310. Dujčev, Ivan. 1963. The Miniatures of the Chronicle of Manasse. Soia.

220

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ebersolt, Jean. 1934. Monuments d’architecture byzantine. Paris. ——. 1986. Constantinople byzantine et les voyageurs du Levant. London. Ebersolt, Jean, and Adolphe Thiers. 1913. Les églises de Constantinople. Paris. Reprint London 1979. Efenberger,Arne. 2006.“Die Klöster der beiden Kyrai Martha und die Kirche des Bebaia Elpis-Klosters in Konstantinopel.” Millenium 3: 255–293. ——. 2007. “Zu den Gräbern in der Pammakaristoskirche.” Byzantion 78: 170–196. Egender, Nicolas. 1975. “Introduction.” In La prière des Heures: Horologion (La prière des Églises de rite Byzantin 1), 15–90. Chevetogne. ——. 2001. “La formation et l’inluence du Typikon liturgique de Saint-Sabas.” In Patrich 2001: 209–216. Ehrhard, Marcelle. 1932. “Le Livre de Pèlerin d’Antoine de Novgorod.” Romania 58: 44–65. Elsner, Jas .́ 2012. “Material Culture and Ritual: State of the Question.” In Wescoat and Ousterhout 2012: 1–26. Emmanouilidis, Nikos E. 1989.Το δίκαιο της ταφής στο Βυζάντιο. Athens. Engberg, Sysse Gudrun. 2006. “The Prophetologion and the Triple-Lection Theory: The Genesis of a Liturgical Book.” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, 3rd ser., 3: 67–91. Epstein, Annabel Wharton. 1981. “The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier: Templon or Iconostasis?” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 134: 1–28. Evans, Helen C., ed. 2004. Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557). New York. Evans, Helen C., and William D. Wixom, eds. 1997. The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843–1261. New York. Eyice, Semavi. 1955a. Istanbul: Petit guide à travers les monuments byzantins et turcs. Istanbul. ——. 1955b. “Remarques sur deux anciennes églises Byzantines d’Istanbul:Koca Mustafa Paşa camii et l’église deYuşa tepesi.” In Πεπραγμένα τοῦ 9ου Διεθνοῦς Βυζαντινολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου, 184–195. Athens.

——. 1963. Son Devir Bizans Mimarisi. Istanbul. Reprint 1980. Flaminio, Roberta. 2008. “La decorazione scultorea della chiesa di Cristo Pantepoptes (Eski Imaret Camii) a Costantinopoli.” In Pennas and Vanderheyde 2008: 39–53. Foss, Clive. 2002. “Pilgrimage in Medieval Asia Minor.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56: 129–151. Freely, John, and Ahmet S. Çakmak. 2004. Byzantine Monuments of Istanbul. Cambridge. Galadza, Peter. 2004. “The Evolution of Funerals for Monks in the Byzantine Realm: From the Tenth to the Sixteenth Century.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 70: 225–257. Galavaris, George. 1970. Bread and the Liturgy: The Symbolism of Early Christian and Byzantine Bread Stamps. Madison, WI. Garidis, Miltos. 1982. “Approche ‘realiste’ dans la representation du melismos.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 32 (5): 495–502. Garland, Lynda. 2006a. Byzantine Women:Varieties of Experience 800–1200. Aldershot. ——. 2006b. “Street-Life in Constantinople: Women and the Carnivalesque.” In Garland 2006a: 163–176. Gedeon, Manuel I. 1915. “Θεοδώρου τοῦ Βαλσαμῶνος λύσεων κανονικῶν διάφοροι γραφαί.” Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἀλήθεια 39: 185–189. Gerov, George. 2006. “The Narthex as Desert: The Symbolism of the Entrance Space in Orthodox Church Buildings.” In Armstrong 2006: 144–159. Gerstel, Sharon E. J. 1998. “Painted Sources for Female Piety in Medieval Byzantium.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 52: 89–111. ——. 1999. Beholding the Sacred Mysteries: Programs of the Byzantine Sanctuary. Seattle. ——. 2006a. “An Alternate View of the Late Byzantine Sanctuary Screen.” In Gerstel 2006c: 135–161. ——. 2006b. “The Layperson in Church.” In Krueger 2006: 102–123. ——. ed. 2006c. Thresholds of the Sacred: Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical, and Theological Perspectives on Religious Screens, East and West. Washington, DC. ——. 2011. “The Chora Parekklesion, the Hope for a Peaceful Afterlife, and Monastic

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Devotional Practices.” In Klein, Ousterhout, and Pitarakis 2011: 129–145. Gerstel, Sharon E. J., and Julie A. Laufenburger, eds. 2001. A Lost Art Rediscovered: The Architectural Ceramics of Byzantium. Baltimore. Gerstel, Sharon E. J., and Robert S. Nelson, eds. 2010. Approaching the Holy Mountain: Art and Liturgy at St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai. Turnhout. Gerstel, Sharon E. J., and Alice-Mary Talbot. 2006. “The Culture of Lay Piety in Medieval Byzantium, 1054–1453.” In The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 5: Eastern Christianity, ed. Michael Angold, 79–100. Cambridge. Giros, Christophe. 1992. “Remarques sur l’architecture monastique en Macédoine orientale.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 116: 409–443. ——. 2012. “Le statut de la donation à Byzance: rhétorique et actes de la pratique (Xe-XVe siècle).” In Spieser and Yota 2012: 97–106 Goar, Jacques. 1730. Εὐχολόγιον sive Rituale Graecorum. 2nd ed.Venice. Repr. Graz, 1960. Gouma-Peterson, Thalia. 1976. “The Parecclesion of St. Euthymios in Thessalonica: Art and Monastic Policy Under Andronikos II.” Art Bulletin 58: 168–183. Gounaris, Georgios. 2010. “Byzantinische und nachbyzantinische Bematüren und ihre Ikonographie.” In Griechische Ikonen: byzantinische und nachbyzantinische Zeit, ed. Evgenia Gerousi and Guntram Koch, 91–108. Athens. Grabar, André. 1943. Martyrium: Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l’art chrétien antique. 3 vols. Paris. Reprint London 1972. ——. 1954. “Un rouleau liturgique constantinopolitain et ses peintures.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8: 163–199. ——. 1961. “Deux notes sur l’histoire de l’iconostase d’après des monuments de Yougoslavie.” Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 7: 13–22. ——. 1963. Sculptures byzantines de Constantinople (IVe–Xe siècle). Paris. Grierson, Philip. 1962. “The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16: 1–63.

221 Grossmann, Peter. 1966. “Beobachtungen an der Kefeli-Mescid in Istanbul.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 16: 241–249. Guilland, Rodolphe. 1969. Études de topographie de Constantinople byzantin. Amsterdam. Gurlitt, Cornelius. 1912. Die Baukunst Konstantinopels. 3 vols. Berlin. Hackel, Sergei, ed. 2001. The Byzantine Saint. London. Hadjitryphonos, Evangelia K. 2004. Το περίστωο στην υστεροβυζαντινή εκκλησιαστική αρχιτεκτονική. Thessalonike. Hadjitryphonos, Evangelia K. and Flora Karagianne. 2006. Βυζαντινή αρχιτεκτονική και λατρευτική πράξη. Thessalonike. Haldon, John F. 1999. “The Idea of the Town in the Byzantine Empire.” In Brogiolo and Ward-Perkins 1999: 1–23. Halkin, François. 1965. Euphémie de Chalcédoine: légendes byzantines. Brussels. Hallensleben, Horst. 1963–1964. “Untersuchungen zur Baugeschichte der ehemaligen Pammakaristoskirche, der heutigen Fethiye camii in Istanbul.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 13/14: 128–193. ——. 1965.“Zu Annexbauten der Kilise camii in Istanbul.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 15: 208–217. ——. 1966. “Byzantinische Glockentürme.” Kunstchronik 19: 309–311. Hannick, Christian. 1972. “Le texte de l’Oktoechos.” In Dimanche, oice selon les huit tons: Oktoechos (La prière des Églises de rite Byzantin 3), 37–60. Chevetogne. ——. 2001. “Hymnographie et hymnographes sabaïtes.” In Patrich 2001: 217–228. Hatlie, Peter. 2007. The Monks and Monasteries of Constantinople, ca. 350–850. Cambridge. Hawkins, Ernest J. W., and Thomas F. Mathews. 1985. “Notes on the Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii in Istanbul and Its Frescoes.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39: 125–134. Henry, Patrick. 1967. “Theodore of Studios: Byzantine Churchman.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University. Herman, Emil. 1948. “Die häuige und tägliche Kommunion in den byzantinischen Klöstern.” In Mémorial Louis Petit: mélanges d’histoire et d’archéologie byzantines, 203–217. Bucarest.

222

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hjort, Øystein. 1979. “The Sculpture of the Kariye Camii.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 33: 201–289. Holmes, Catherine. 2006. “Constantinople in the Reign of Basil II.” In Jefreys 2006: 326–339. Ivanov, Sergei A. 2006. Holy Fools in Byzantium and Beyond. Oxford. Ivison, Eric Addis. 1990. “The Ş eyh Murat Mescidi at Constantinople.” Annual of the British School at Athens 85: 79–87. Jacob, André. 1966. “La traduction de la liturgie de saint Jean Chrysostome par Léon Toscan.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 32: 111–162. ——. 1969. “La concélébration de l’anaphore à Byzance d’après le temoignage de Léon Toscan.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 35: 249–256. ——. 1981. “Où était récitée la prière de l’ambon?” Byzantion 51: 306–315. Jacoby, David. 2001.“The Urban Evolution of Latin Constantinople.” In Necipoğlu 2001: 277–297. James, Liz, ed. 2007. Art and Text in Byzantine Culture. Cambridge and New York. Janeras, Sebastià. 1988. Le Vendredi-Saint dans la tradition liturgique byzantine: structure et histoire de ses oices. Rome. Janin, Raymond. 1933. “Monastères byzantins: les couvents secondaires de Psamathia.” Echos d’Orient 32: 326–339. ——. 1944. “Les sanctuaires de Byzance sous la domination latine, 1204–1261.” Revue des études byzantines 2: 134–184. ——. 1964. Constantinople byzantine: développement urbain et répertoire topographique. 2nd ed. Paris. ——. 1969. La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, I: Le siège Constantinople et le patriarcat oecuménique, 3: Les églises et les monastères. 2nd ed. Paris. Jefreys, Elizabeth M., ed. 2006. Byzantine Style, Religion and Civilization. Cambridge and New York. Jefreys, Elizabeth, John Haldon, and Robin Cormack, eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. Oxford. Jenkins, Romilly J. H., and Cyril Mango. 1956.“The Date and Signiicance of the Tenth Homily of Photius.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9: 125–140. Joannou, P. 1958. “Aus den unedierten Schriften des Psellos: das Lehrgedicht zum Messopfer

und der Traktat gegen die Vorbestimmung der Todesstunde.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 51: 1–14. Johnson, Mark J., Robert G. Ousterhout, and Amy Papalexandrou, eds. 2012. Approaches to Byzantine Architecture and Its Decoration: Studies ́ c ǐ ć. Farnham, Surrey. in Honor of Slobodan Cur Jolivet-Lévy, Catherine. 1997. “Culte et iconographie de l’archange Michel dans l’Orient byzantin: le témoignage de quelques monuments de Cappadoce.” Les Cahiers de SaintMichel de Cuxà 28: 187–198. ——. 2008. “Invocations peintes et graiti dans les églises de Cappadoce (IXe–XIIIe siècle).” In Des images dans l’histoire, ed. Marie-France Auzépy and Joël Cornette, 163–178. Saint-Denis. ——. 2011. “Konstantinopolis’te Bizans Sanatının Son Pırıltıları: Hora Manastırı’nın (Kariye Müzesi) Bezemeleri.” In Pralong 2011: 135–164. Jugie, Martin. 1926–1935. Theologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium ab Ecclesia catholica dissidentium. 5 vols. Paris. Kafescioğlu, Çiğdem. 2009. Constantinopolis/ Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital. University Park, PA. Kalavrezou, Ioli, ed. 2003. Byzantine Women and Their World. Cambridge, MA. Kaldellis, Anthony. 2006. Mothers and Sons, Fathers and Daughters: The Byzantine Family of Michael Psellos. Notre Dame, IN. Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia. 1992. Dedicatory Inscriptions and Donor Portraits in ThirteenthCentury Churches of Greece.Vienna. ——. 2006.“The Proskynetaria of theTemplon and Narthex: Form, Imagery, Spatial Connections, and Reception.” In Gerstel 2006c: 107–132. Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, and Maria PanagiotideKesisoglou, eds. 2010. Πολύγλωσσο εικονογραφημένο λεξικό όρων βυζαντινής αρχιτεκτονικής και γλυπτικής. Herakleion. Kandić, Olivera. 1998–1999. “Fonts for the Blessing of the Waters in Serbian Medieval Churches.” Zograf 27: 61–77. Kaplan, Michel. 2002. “L’ensevelissement des saints: rituel de création des reliques et sanctiication à Byzance à travers les sources hagiographiques (Ve–XIIe siècles).” Travaux et Mémoires 14: 319–332.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 2011. “Büyük Bir I-mparatorluk Vakfı: Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii).” In Pralong 2011: 118–134. Karagianne, Flora, ed. 2008. Προσκτίσματα των Παλαιοχριστιανικών, Βυζαντινών και Μεταβυζαντινών ναών. Thessalonike. Karamani Pekin, Arzu, ed. 2007. Gün Işığ̆ında I stanbul’un 8000 Yılı: Marmaray, Metro, Sultanahmet Kazıları. Istanbul. Kazhdan, Alexander. 1987. “A Note on the ‘Middle-Byzantine’ Ambo.” Byzantion 57: 422–426. Kazhdan, Alexander, and Henry Maguire. 1991. “Byzantine Hagiographical Texts as Sources on Art.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45: 1–22. Kidonopoulos, Vassilios. 1994. Bauten in Konstantinopel, 1204–1328:Verfall und Zerstörung, Restaurierung, Umbau und Neubau von Profanund Sakralbauten. Wiesbaden. ——. 2006. “The Urban Physiognomy of Constantinople from the Latin Conquest through the Palaiologan Era.” In Brooks 2006a: 98–117. Kitzinger, Ernst. 1988. “Relections on the Feast Cycle in Byzantine Art.” Cahiers archéologiques 36: 51–73. Klein, Holger A. 2004a.“Constantine, Helena, and the Cult of the True Cross in Constantinople.” In Byzance et les reliques du Christ, ed. Jannic Durand and Bernard Flusin, 31–59. Paris. ——. 2004b. Restoring Byzantium: The Kariye Camii in Istanbul and the Byzantine Institute Restoration. New York. ——. 2010. “Refashioning Byzantium in Venice, ca. 1200–1400.” In San Marco, Byzantium, and the Myths of Venice, ed. Henry Maguire and Robert S. Nelson, 193–225. Washington, DC. Klein, Holger A., Robert G. Ousterhout, and Brigitte Pitarakis, eds. 2007. Kariye: Bir Anıt, I˙ki Anıtsal Kis¸ilik. Theodoros Metokhites’ten Thomas Whiteemore’a = Kariye: From Theodore Metochites toThomasWhittemore. One Monument, Two Monumental Personalities. Istanbul. ——, eds. 2011. Kariye Camii Yeniden/ The Kariye Camii Reconsidered. Istanbul. Klentos, John Eugene. 1995. “Byzantine Liturgy in Twelfth-Century Constantinople: An Analysis of the Synaxarion of the Monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis.” Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame.

223 Kline, Galen R. 1988. The Voyage d’Outremer by Bertrandon de la Broquière. New York. Konidares, I. M. 1984. Νομική θεώρηση των μοναστηριακών τυπικών. Athens. Konstantinide, Chara. 2008. Ο Μελισμός. Oι συλλειτουργούντες ιεράρχες και οι άγγελοι – διάκονοι μπροστά στην αγία τράπεζα με τα τίμια δώρα ή τον ευχαριστιακό Χριστό. Thessalonike. Koukoules, Phaidon. 1948–1957. Βυζαντινῶν βίος καί πολιτισμός. 6 vols. Athens. Kountoura-Galake, Eleonora. 1996. Ὁ βυζαντινὸς κλῆρος καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τῶν Athens. Krasnosel’tsev, Nikolai Fomich. 1885. Svedeniia o nekotorykh liturgicheskikh rukopisiakh Vatikanskoi Biblioteki. Kazan. ——. 1889. Materialy dlia istorii chinoposledovaniia liturgii sviatago Ioanna Zlatoustago. Kazan. Krausmüller, Dirk. 1997. “Private vs Communal: Niketas Stethatos’s Hypotyposis for Stoudios, and Patterns of Worship in Eleventh-Century Byzantine Monasteries.” In Mullett and Kirby 1997: 309–328. Krautheimer, Richard. 1986. Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture. 4th ed. Harmondsworth and New York. Krueger, Derek, ed. 2006. Byzantine Christianity. Minneapolis, MN. Lafontaine-Dosogne, Jacqueline. 1975a. “Iconography of the Cycle of the Life of the Infancy of Christ.” In Underwood 1975a: 195–241. ——. 1975b. “Iconography of the Cycle of the Life of the Virgin.” In Underwood 1975a: 161–194. Laiou, Angeliki. 1986. “The Festival of ‘Agathe’: Comments on the Life of Constantinopolitan Women.” In Byzantium: Tribute to Andreas N. Stratos, 1: 111–122. Athens. ——. 2002. The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh Through the Fifteenth Century. 3 vols. Washington, D.C. Lambros, Spyridon P. 1916. “Ἐπιγράμματα Μαξίμου Πλανούδη.” Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων 13: 414–421. Lange, Dorothea.1986.“Theorien zur Entstehung der byzantinischen Kreuzkuppelkirche.” Architectura 16: 93–113.

224

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Larin,Vassa. 2010. The Byzantine Hierarchal Divine Liturgy in Arsenij Suxanov’s Proskinitarij. Rome. Laskaris, Nikolaos G. 2000. Monuments funéraires paléochrétiens (et byzantins) de la Grèce. Athens. Laurent,Vitalien. 1958. “Le rituel de la proscomidie et le métropolite de Crète Élie.” Revue des études byzantines 16: 116–142. Lazarev, Viktor. 1964–1965. “Trois fragments d’épistyles peintes et le templon byzantin.” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας 4: 117–143. Lidov, Alexei, ed., 2000a. The Iconostasis: Origins, Evolution, Symbolism. Moscow. ——. 2000b. “Ikonostas: itogi i perspektivy issledovaniia.” In Lidov 2000a: 11–29. ——, ed. 2003. Eastern Christian Relics. Moscow. ——. 2004.“Leo theWise and the Miraculous Icons in Hagia Sophia.” In Οι ήρωες της Ορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας. Οι νέοι άγιοι, 8ος-16ος αι., ed. Eleonora Kountoura-Galake, 393–432. Athens. ——. ed.,2006.Hierotopy:The Creation of Sacred Spaces in Byzantium and Medieval Russia. Moscow. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. 2001. Decline and Fall of the Roman City. Oxford and New York. Lightfoot, Christopher S., and Eric A. Ivison. 2001. “The Amorium Project: The 1998 Excavation Season.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55: 371–399. Lingas, Alexander. 1996. “Hesychasm and Psalmody.” In Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism, ed. Anthony Bryer and Mary B. Cunningham, 155–168. Aldershot. ——. 2007. “How Musical Was the ‘Sung Oice’? Some Observations on the Ethos of the Late Byzantine Cathedral Rite.” In The Traditions of Orthodox Music: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Orthodox Church Music, University of Joensuu, Finland 13–19 June 2005, ed. Ivan Moody and Maria Takala-Roszczenko, 217–234. Joensuu. ——. 2010. “Late Byzantine Cathedral Liturgy and the Service of the Furnace.” In Gerstel and Nelson 2010: 179–230. Ljungkvist, John, et al. 2010. “The Urban Anthropocene: Lessons for Sustainability from the Environmental History of Constantinople.” In Sinclair et al. 2010: 367–405. Lossky, André. 2001. “La cérémonie du lavement des pieds: un essai d’étude comparée.”

In Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after Anton Baumstark (1872–1948): Acts of the International Congress, Rome, 25–29 September 1998, ed. Robert F. Taft and Gabriele Winkler, 809–832. Rome. Macrides, Ruth. 1980. “The New Constantine and the New Constantinople – 1261?” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 6: 13–42. Macridy, Theodore. 1929. “Les recéntes fouilles de Constantinople.” Archäologischer Anzeiger: 343–358. ——. 1964. “The Monastery of Lips (Fenari Isa Camii) at Istanbul.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18: 249–277. Magdalino, Paul. 1987. “Observations on the Nea Ekklesia of Basil I.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 37: 51–64. Reprinted in Magdalino 2007b. ——. 1988. “Basil I, Leo VI, and the Feast of the Prophet Elijah.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 38: 193–196. ——. 1996. Constantinople médiévale: études sur l’évolution des structures urbaines. Paris. ——. 2002. “Medieval Constantinople: Built Environment and Urban Development.” In Laiou 2002: 529–537. ——. 2007a. “Medieval Constantinople.” In Magdalino 2007b. ——. 2007b. Studies on the History and Topography of Byzantine Constantinople. Aldershot. ——. 2010. “Byzantium = Constantinople.” In A Companion to Byzantium, Liz James, ed., 43–54. Chichester. ——. 2011a. “Paleologoslar Döneminde Yaşanan Bizans Rönesansı: Theodoros Metohites ve Kariye Manastırı.” In Pralong 2011: 165–181. ——. 2011b. “Theodore Metochites, the Chora, and Constantinople.” In Klein, Ousterhout, and Pitarakis 2011: 169–187. Magdalino, Paul, and Lyn Rodley. 1997. “The Evergetis Fountain in the Early Thirteenth Century: An Ekphrasis of the Paintings in the Cupola.” In Mullett and Kirby 1997: 432–437. Maguire, Henry. 1997. “The Heavenly Court.” In Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, ed. Henry Maguire, 247–258. Washington, DC. ——. 2011. “Rhetoric and Reality in the Art of Kariye Camii.” In Klein, Ousterhout, and Pitarakis 2011: 57–69.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Majeska, George P. 1977. “The Body of St. Theophano the Empress and the Convent of St. Constantine.” Byzantinoslavica 38: 14–21. ——. 1984. Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. Washington, D.C. ——. 2002a. “A Description of the Sanctuary of St. Sophia in Constantinople from Medieval Rus’.” Palaeoslavica 10 [For Professor Ihor Ševc enko ̌ on his 80th Birthday]: 249–254. ——. 2002b. “Russian Pilgrims in Constantinople.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56: 93–108. Mamaloukos, Stavros. 2001. Το καθολικό της μονής Βατοπαιδίου. Ιστορία και αρχιτεκτονική. Mandalà, Papàs M. 1935. La protesi della liturgia nel rito bizantino-greco. Grottaferrata. Mango, Cyril. 1959. The Brazen House: A Study of the Vestibule of the Imperial Palace of Constantinople. Copenhagen. ——. 1962. “Three Imperial Byzantine Sarcophagi Discovered in 1750.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16: 397–402. ——. 1965. “Constantinopolitana.” Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts 80: 305–336. ——. 1969–1970. “Notes on Byzantine Monuments.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23–24: 369–375. ——. 1973. “A Note on Panagia Kamariotissa and Some Imperial Foundations of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries at Constantinople.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27: 128–132. ——. 1976a. Byzantine Architecture. New York. ——. 1976b. “Les monuments de l’architecture du XIe siècle et leur signiication historique et sociale.” Travaux et Mémoires 6: 351–365. ——. 1979. “On the History of the Templon and the Martyrion of St. Artemios at Constantinople.” Zograf 10:40–43. ——. 1980. Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome. London. ——. 1981. “Daily Life in Byzantium.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 31: 337–353. ——. 1986. The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312– 1453: Sources and Documents. Toronto. ——. 1990. “The Work of M. I. Nomidis in the Vefa Kilise Camii, Istanbul.” Μεσαιωνικά και Νέα Ελληνικά 3: 421–429.

225 ——. 1991. “Approaches to Byzantine Architecture.” Muqarnas 8: 40–44. ——. 1992.“The Monastery of St.Mary Peribleptos (Sulu Manastır) at Constantinople Revisited.” Revue des études arméniennes 23: 473–493. ——. 1998. “Where at Constantinople Was the Monastery of Christos Pantepoptes.” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας 20: 87–88. ——. 2004. Le développement urbain de Constantinople, IVe–VIIe siècles. Paris. Mango, Cyril, and Ernest J. W. Hawkins. 1964a. “The Monastery of Lips (Fenari Isa Camii) in Istanbul: Additional Notes,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18: 299–315. ——. 1964b. “Report on Field Work in Istanbul and Cyprus, 1962–1963.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18: 319–340. ——. 1966. “The Hermitage of St. Neophytos and Its Walls Paintings.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 20: 119–206. ——. 1968.“Additional Finds at Fenari Isa Camii, Istanbul.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 22: 177–184. Mango, Cyril, and Ihor Ševčenko. 1973. “Some Churches and Monasteries on the South Shore of the Sea of Marmara.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27: 235–277. Mango, Cyril, Doula Mouriki, and Hans Belting. 1978. The Mosaics and Frescoes of St. Mary Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul. Washington, D.C. Marinčák, Šimon. 2010. “Byzantine Matins in Fourteenth-Century Akolouthiai.” Logos 51: 249–305. Marinis, Vasileios. 2004. “The Monastery Tou Libos: Architecture, Sculpture, and Liturgical Planning in Middle and Late Byzantine Constantinople.” Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ——. 2006. “Παρατηρήσεις για την λειτουργία και την αρχιτεκτονική στην μονή του Λιβός στην Κωνσταντινούπολη.” In Hadjitryphonos and Karagianne 2006: 57–62. ——. 2009.“Tombs and Burials in the Monastery tou Libos in Constantinople.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 63: 147–166. ——. 2010. “Deining Liturgical Space in Byzantium.” In Stephenson 2010: 284–302. ——. 2011a. “The Mosaics of Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) in Istanbul.”

226

BIBLIOGRAPHY

In Mosaics of Anatolia, ed. Gürol Sözen, 321–332. Istanbul. Marinis, Vasileios. 2011b. “Some Notes on the Functional Approach in the Study of Byzantine Architecture: The Case of Constantinople.” In New Approaches to Medieval Architecture, ed. Robert Bork, William W. Clark, and Abby McGehee, 21–33. Farnham and Burlington,VT. ——. 2012. “Structure, Agency, Ritual, and the Byzantine Church.” In Wescoat and Ousterhout 2012: 338–364. Martin, John Rupert. 1954. The Illustration of the Heavenly Ladder of John Climacus. Princeton, NJ. Mateos, Juan. 1961. “Quelques problèmes de l’orthros byzantin.” Proche-orient chrétien 11: 17–35, 201–220. ——. 1967. “The Origins of the Divine Oice.” Worship 41: 477–485. ——. 1970. “La synaxe monastique des vêpres byzantines.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 36: 248–272. ——. 1971. La célébration de la parole dans la liturgie byzantine: étude historique. Rome. ——. 1973. “Ἡ μικρὰ εἴσοδος τῆς θείας λειτουργίας.” Γρηγόριος ὁ Παλαμᾶς 56: 365–381. Mathews, Thomas F. 1971. The Early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy. University Park, PA. ——. 1973. “Observations on the Church of Panagia Kamariotissa on Heybeliada (Chalke), Istanbul.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27: 115–127. ——. 1976. The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul: A Photographic Survey. University Park, PA. ——. 1982. “‘Private’ Liturgy in Byzantine Architecture.” Cahiers archéologiques 30: 125–138. ——. 1988. “The Sequel to Nicaea II in Byzantine Church Decoration.” Perkins Journal 41: 11–21. ——. 1990. “The Transformation Symbolism in Byzantine Architecture and the Meaning of the Pantokrator in the Dome.” In Morris 1990: 191–214. ——. 1997. “Religious Organization and Church Architecture.” In Evans and Wixom 1997: 21–35. Matschke, Klaus-Peter. 2001. “Builders and Building in Late Byzantine Constantinople.” In Necipoğlu 2001: 315–328.

McVey, Kathleen E. 1983. “The Domed Church as Microcosm: Literary Roots of an Architectural Symbol.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 37: 91–121. ——. 2010. “Spirit Embodied: The Emergence of Symbolic Interpretations of Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture.” In Ćurčić and Hadjitryphonos 2010: 39–71. Megaw, Arthur H. S. 1963. “Notes on Recent Work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17: 333–371. ——. 1964. “The Original Form of the Theotokos Church of Constantine Lips.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18: 279–298. ——. 1966. “The Skripou Screen.” The Annual of the British School at Athens 61: 1–32. Meyendorf, Paul. 1984. St. Germanus of Constantinople on the Divine Liturgy. Crestwood. Mihaljevic´, Marina. 2010. “Constantinopolitan Architecture of the Komnenian Era (1080– 1180) and Its Impact in the Balkans.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University. Miklosich, Franz, and Joseph Müller, eds. 1860– 1890. Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana. 6 vols.Vienna. Reprint Athens. Millet, Gabriel. 1905. “Recherches au MontAthos.” Bulletin de Correspendance Hellénique 29: 55–98, 105–141. ——. 1916. L’École grecque dans l’architecture byzantine. Paris. Moran, Neil K. 1986. Singers in Late Byzantine and Slavonic Painting. Leiden. Mordtmann,August J. 1892. Esquisse topographique de Constantinople. Lille. Morris, Rosemary. 1984. “The Byzantine Aristocracy and the Monasteries.” In The Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to XIII Centuries, ed. Michael Angold, 112–137. Oxford. ——. 1985. “Monasteries and Their Patrons in Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” Byzantinische Forschungen 10: 185–231. ——. ed. 1990. Church and People in Byzantium. Birmingham. ——. 1995. Monks and Laymen in Byzantium, 843–1118. Cambridge and New York. Müller-Wiener, Wolfgang. 1977. Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls: Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts. Tübingen.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mullett, Margaret, and Anthony Kirby, eds. 1997. Work and Worship at the Theotokos Evergetis, 1050–1200. Belfast. Mylonopoulos, Joannis. 2011. “Divine Images Behind Bars: The Semantics of Barriers in Greek Temples.” In Current Approaches to Religion in Ancient Greece, ed. Matthew Haysom and Jenny Wallensten, 269–291. Stockholm. Necipoğlu, Nevra, ed. 2001. Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life. Leiden. Nelson, Robert S. 1999a. “The Chora and the Great Church: Intervisuality in FourteenthCentury Constantinople.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 23: 67–101. ——. 1999b. “Taxation with Representation: Visual Narrative and the Political Field of the Kariye Camii.” Art History 22: 56–82. ——. 2004. “Heavenly Allies at the Chora.” Gesta 43: 31–40. ——. 2007. “Image and Inscription: Pleas for Salvation in Spaces of Devotion.” In James 2007: 100–119. Nicholl, Gail. 1997. “A Contribution to the Archaeological Interpretation of Typika: The Case of the Narthex.” In Mullett and Kirby 1997: 285–308. Novae patrum bibliothecae. 1844–1905. Rome. Oates, David. 1960. “A Summary Report on the Excavations of the Byzantine Institute in the Kariye Camii: 1957 and 1958.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 14: 223–231. Oikonomides, Nicolas. 1980. “St. George of Mangana, Maria Skleraina, and the ‘Malyj Sion’ of Novgorod.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34: 239–246. Orlandos, Anastasios K. 1936. “Ὁ τάφος τῆς Ἁγ. Θεοδώρας.” Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Βυζαντινῶν μνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος 2: 105–115. ——. 1939–1940. Ἡ Ἁγία Τριὰς τοῦ Κριεζώτη. Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Βυζαντινῶν μνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος 5: 3–16. ——. 1949. “Ἡ Μητρόπολις τῶν Σερρῶν κατὰ τὴν ἔκφρασιν τοῦ Πεδιασίμου.” Ἐπετηρὶς ἑταιρείας βυζαντινῶν σπουδῶν 19: 259–271. ——. 1952–1957.Ἡ ξυλόστεγος παλαιοχριστιανικὴ βασιλικὴ τῆς μεσογειακῆς λεκάνης. 3 vols. Athens.

227 Orlandos, Anastasios K., and Leandros I. Vranouses. 1973. Τὰ χαράγματα τοῦ Παρθενῶνος. Athens. Orlov, Mikhail I. 1909. Liturgiia sv.Vasiliia Velikago. St. Petersburg. Osborne, John. 1981. “The Painting of the Anastasis in the Lower Church of San Clemente, Rome: A Re-Examination of the Evidence for the Location of the Tomb of St. Cyril.” Byzantion 51: 255–287. Ötüken,Yıldız. 1974. Isa kapi mescidi und medresesi in Istanbul. Bonn. Ousterhout, Robert. 1985. “The Byzantine Church at Enez: Problems in Twelfth-Century Architecture.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 35: 261–280. ——. 1987. The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul. Washington, DC. ——. 1991.“Constantinople,Bithynia,and Regional Developments in Later Palaiologan Architecture.” ́ čić and Mouriki 1991: 75–110. In Cur ——. 1991–1992. “Some Notes on the Construction of Christos ho Pantepoptes (Eski Imaret Camii) in Istanbul.” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας 16: 47–56. ——. 1995a.“Temporal Structuring in the Chora Parekklesion.” Gesta 34: 63–76. ——. 1995b. “The Virgin of the Chora.” In Ousterhout and Brubaker 1995: 91–109. ——. 1999. Master Builders of Byzantium. Princeton, NJ. ——. 2000.“Contextualizing the Later Churches of Constantinople: Suggested Methodologies and a Few Examples.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54: 241–250. ——. 2001a. “Architecture, Art and Komnenian Ideology at the Pantokrator Monastery.” In Necipoğlu 2001: 133–150. ——. 2001b. “The Architecture of Iconoclasm.” In Brubaker and Haldon 2001: 3–36. ——. 2002. “Byzantine Funerary Architecture of the Twelfth Century.” In Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Rus’ i strany vizantiiskogo mira XII vek, 9–17. St. Petersburg. ——. 2006. “Sacred Geographies and Holy Cities: Constantinople as Jerusalem.” In Lidov 2006: 98–116. ——. 2008. “Churches and Monasteries.” In Jefreys, Haldon, and Cormack 2008: 353–372.

228

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ousterhout, Robert. 2010a. “Constantinople and the Construction of a Medieval Urban Identity.” In Stephenson 2010: 334–351. ——. 2010b. “New Temples and New Solomons: The Rhetoric of Byzantine Architecture.” In The Old Testament in Byzantium, ed. Paul Magdalino and Robert S. Nelson, 223–253. Washington, D.C. ——. 2011. “Reading Diicult Buildings: The Lessons of the Kariye Camii.” In Klein, Ousterhout, and Pitarakis 2007: 95–105. Ousterhout, Robert, and Leslie Brubaker, eds. 1995. The Sacred Image East and West. Urbana, IL. Ousterhout, Robert, Zeynep Ahunbay, and Metin Ahunbay. 2000. “Study and Restoration of the Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul: First Report, 1997–98.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54: 265–270. ——. 2009.“Study and Restoration of the Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul: Second Report, 2001–2005.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 63: 235–256. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (ODB). 1991. New York and Oxford. Özgümüş, Ferudun. 2000. “Peribleptos (Sulu) Monastery in Istanbul.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 93: 508–520. _____. 2001. “Fener, Ayakapı, Cibali, Unkapanı 2000 Yılı Yüzey Araştırması Raporu.” Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 19: 145–154. ——. 2004. “A Byzantine Church at Sirkeci in Istanbul.” Reading Medieval Studies 30: 1–15. ——. 2006. “2005 Yılı I˙stanbul Çalışmaları Bilimsel Raporu.” In 24. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2: 525–538. Pallas, Demetrios. 1950. “Ἀρχαιολογικάλειτουργικά.” Ἐπετηρὶς ἑταιρείας βυζαντινῶν σπουδῶν 20: 265–313. ——. 1950–1951. “Σαλαμινιακά.” Ἀρχαιολογικὴ ἐφημερίς: 163–181. ——. 1965. Die Passion und Bestattung Christi in Byzanz. Munich. ——. 1980. “L’édiice cultuel chrétien et la liturgie dans l’Illyricum oriental.” In Rapports presentés au Xe Congrès international d’archéologie chrétienne, 497–570. Thessalonike. Pamuk, Orhan. 2006. Istanbul: Memories and the City. New York. Papaconstantinou, Arietta, and Alice-Mary Talbot, eds. 2009. Becoming Byzantine:

Children and Childhood in Byzantium. Washington, DC. Papacostas, Tassos. 2007. “The History and Architecture of the Monastery of Saint John Chrysostomos at Koutsovendis, Cyprus.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 61: 25–156. Papadopoulos, M. 1920. “Note sur quelques découvertes récentes faites à Constantinople.” Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Comptes Rendues: 59–66. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Athanasios. 1856–1912. Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς Σταχυολογίας. 5 vols. St. Petersburg. Reprint Brussels 1963. Papalexandrou, Amy. 1988. “The Church of the Virgin of Skripou: Architecture, Sculpture and Inscriptions in Ninth-Century Byzantium.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University. ——. 2001. “Text in Context: Eloquent Monuments and the Byzantine Beholder.” Word and Image 17: 259–283. ——. 2007. “Echoes of Orality in the Monumental Inscriptions of Byzantium.” In James 2007: 161–187. Papazotos, Thanasis. 1987. “Η λεκάνη αγιασμού του καθολικού του Τιμίου Προδρόμου και συναφή παραδείγματα από τη Μακεδονία.” Οι Σέρρες και η περιοχή τους από την αρχαία στη μεταβυζαντινή κοινωνία, II: 509–524. Serres. _____. 1995. “Το Isa Kapisi Mescidi στην Κωνσταντινούπολη, μονή του πατριάρχου Αθανασίου.” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας 18: 39–48. Parenti, Stefano. 2001. “La ‘vittoria’ nella Chiesa di Constantinopoli della Liturgia di Crisostomo sulla Liturgia di Basilio.” In Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after Anton Baumstark (1872–1948): Acts of the International Congress, Rome 25–29 September 1998., ed. Robert F. Taft and Gabriele Winkler, 145–177. Rome. ____ 2010. “Towards a Regional History of the Byzantine Euchology of the Sacraments.” Ecclesia Orans 27: 109–121. ____. 2011. “The Cathedral Rite of Constantinople: Evolution of a Local Tradition.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 77: 449–469. Pargoire, Jules. 1906. “Constantinople: l’église Sainte-Théodosie.” Echos d’Orient 9: 161–165.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 1910. “Constantinople: Saint-André de Crisis.” Echos d’Orient 13: 84–86. Parry, Kenneth. 1996. Depicting the Word: Byzantine Iconophile Thought of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries. Leiden. Pasadaios, Aristeides. 1965. Ἐπί δύο Βυζαντινῶν μνημείων τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἀγνώστου ὀνομασίας. Athens. ——. 1969. “Τὸ φέρον τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν Τοκλοὺ Ἰμπραχὴμ Ντεντὲ Μεστζηντί.” Ἀρχαιολογικὴ ἐφημερίς: 80–124. ——. 1973. ῾Ο κεραμοπλαστικός διάκοσμος τῶν βυζαντινῶν κτηρίων τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Athens. Pasinli,Alpay, and Cihat Soyhan. 1983.“Manganlar Bölgesinde 1976 Yılında Yapılan Kurtarma Kazısına Ait Rapor.” Ayasofya Müzesi Yıllığı 9: 54–66. Paspates, Alexandros G. 1877. Βυζαντιναὶ μελέται. Τοπογραφικαῖ καὶ ἱστορικαί. Constantinople. Reprint Athens 1986. Patrich, Joseph, ed. 2001. The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present. Leuven. Patterson Ševčenko, Nancy. 1991. “Icons in the Liturgy.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45: 45–57. Reprinted in Patterson Ševčenko 2013. ——. 1994. “Close Encounters: Contact Between Holy Figures and the Faithful as Represented in Byzantine Works of Art.” In Byzance et les images, ed. André Guillou and Jannic Durand, 256–285. Paris. Reprinted in Patterson Ševčenko 2013. ——. 2006. “Art and Liturgy in the Later Byzantine Empire.” In Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 5: Eastern Christianity, ed. Michael Angold, 127–153. Cambridge. ——. 2013. The Celebration of the Arts in Byzantine Art and Liturgy. Farnham and Burlington,VT. Pavlov, Alexei S. 1897. Nomokanon pri Bol’shom Trebnikie. Moscow. Pazaras, Theochares. 1994. “Πρόταση αναπαράστασης του άμβωνα της Παλαιάς Μητρόπολης στη Βέροια.” Thymiama, 1: 251–254. Pekak, M. Sacit. 2009. Trilye (Zeytinbağı) Fatih Camisi, Bizans Kapalı Yunan Hacı Planı. Istanbul. Pennas, Charalampos, and CatherineVanderheyde, eds. 2008. La sculpture byzantine, VIIe-XIIe siècles: actes du colloque international organisé par la

229 2e Éphorie des antiquités byzantines et l’École française d’Athènes (6–8 Septembre 2000). Athens. Peschlow, Urs. 1994. “Der mittelbyzantinische Ambo aus archäologischer Sicht.” Thymiama, 1: 255–260. ——. 2006a. “Altar und Reliquie: Form und Nutzung des frühbyzantinischen Reliquienaltars in Konstantinopel.” In Altripp and Nauerth 2006: 175–202. ——. 2006b. “Dividing Interior Space in Early Byzantine Churches: The Barriers between the Nave and Aisles.” In Gerstel 2006c: 53–71. Petrides, S. 1899–1900. “Le lavement des pieds le jeudi-saint dans l’église grecque.” Echos d’Orient 3: 321–326. Phountoules, Ioannes M. 1966. Τὸ λειτουργικὸν ἔργον Συμεὼν τοῦ Θεσσαλονίκης. Thessalonike. ——. 1976. “Μαρτυρίαι τοῦ Θεσσαλονίκης Συμεὼν περὶ τῶν ναῶν τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης.” Ἐπιστημονικὴ ἐπετηρὶς τῆς Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς τοῦ Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης 21: 123–186. ——. 1984. “Ἑρμηνεία ἑπτὰ δυσκόλων σημείων τοῦ κειμένου τῆς Θείας Λειτουργίας ἀπὸ τὸ Νικόλαο Καβάσιλα.” In Πρακτικὰ θεολογικοῦ συνεδρίου εἰς τιμὴν καὶ μνήμην τοῦ σοφωτάτου καὶ λογιωτάτου καὶ τοῖς ὅλοις ἁγιωτάτου ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Νικολάου Καβάσιλα τοῦ καὶ Χαμαετοῦ, 157–172. Thessalonike. Pitarakis, Brigitte. 2005.“Female Piety in Context: Understanding Developments in Private Devotional Practices.” In Images of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. Maria Vassilaki, 153–166. London. Pitsakis, Constantinos. 2005. “Θέματα δικαίου τῆς ταφῆς στοὺς Θεσσαλονικεῖς νομικοὺς τῆς ὕστερης βυζαντινῆς περιόδου.” In Χριστιανικὴ Θεσσαλονίκη. Ταφὲς καὶ κοιμητήρια. ΚΘ´ Δημήτρια: Πρακτικὰ Η᾽ Ἐπιστημονικοῦ Συμποσίου. Ἱερὰ Μονὴ Βλατάδων, 6–8 Ὀκτωβρίου 1994, 65–90. Thessaloniki. Popović, Marko. 2006. “Les funérailles du ktitor: aspect archéologique.” In Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, 1: 99–130. London. Popović, Svetlana. 1997. “Are Typika Sources for Architecture? The Case of the Monasteries of the Theotokos Evergetis, Chilandari

230

BIBLIOGRAPHY

and Studenica.” In Mullett and Kirby 1997: 266–284. ——. 2000. “Pyrgos in the Late Byzantine Monastic Context.” In Manastir Žic a: ̌ Zbornik Radova, ed. Dragan Drasković and Slobodan Ðordević, 95–107. Kraljevo. Popović,Svetlana.2006.“The Byzantine Monastery: Its Spatial Iconography and the Question of Sacredness.” In Lidov 2006: 150–185. ——. 2007. “Dividing the Indivisible: The Monastery Space – Secular and Sacred.” Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 44: 47–65. Pott,Thomas. 2000. La réforme liturgique byzantine: Étude du phénomène de l’évolution non-spontanée de la liturgie byzantine. Rome. English trans. Crestwood, NY, 2010. Pralong, Annie, ed. 2011. Bizans:Yapılar, Meydanlar,Yaşamlar. Istanbul. Puchner, Walter. 1981. “Τὸ Βυζαντινὸ θέατρο. Θεατρολογικὲς παρατηρήσεις στὸν εὐρευνητικὸ προβληματισμὸ τῆς ὕπαρξης θεάτρου στὸ Βυζάντιο.” Ἐπετηρὶς τοῦ κέντρου ἐπιστημονικῶν ἐρευνῶν 11: 169–274. ——. 2002. “Acting in the Byzantine Theater: Evidence and Problems.” In Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession, ed. Pat Easterling and Edith Hall, 304–324. Cambridge. Radle,Gabriel.2011.“Sinai Greek NE/MΓ 22:Late 9th/Early 10th Century Euchology Testimony of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of the Presanctiied Gifts in the Byzantine Tradition.” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, 3rd ser., 8: 169–221. Rentel, Alexander. 2005. “The Origins of the 14th Century Patriarchal Liturgical Diataxis of Dimitrios Gemistos.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 71: 363–385. ——. 2006.“Byzantine and Slavic Orthodoxy.” In The Oxford History of Christian Worship, ed. Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen B. Westerfield Tucker, 254–306. Oxford . Ricci, Alessandra. 2008. “Reinterpretation of the ‘Palace of Bryas’: A Study in Byzantine Architecture, History and Historiography.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University. ——. 2011. “Bizans’ta Kır Sevgisi: Konstantinopolis’in Asya Kıyısındaki Banliyösü.” In Pralong 2011: 71–88. Rodley, Lyn. 1994. “Evergetis: Where It Was and What It Looked Like.” In TheTheotokos Evergetis

and Eleventh-Century Monasticism, ed. Margaret Mullett and Anthony Kirby, 17–29. Belfast. Roussanova, Rossitza. 2005. “Painted Messages of Salvation: Monumental Programs of the Subsidiary Spaces of Late Byzantine Monastic Churches in Macedonia.” Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland. Ruggieri, Vincenzo. 1991. Byzantine Religious Architecture (582–867): Its History and Structural Elements. Rome. ——. 1993.“Katêchoumenon:uno spazio sociale.” In EULOGĒMA: Studies in Honor of Robert Taft, SJ, ed. Ephrem Carr, Stefano Parenti, and Abraham Thiermeyer, 389–402. Rome. ——. 1995. L’architettura religiosa nell’Impero bizantino (ine VI-IX secolo). Soveria Mannelli. Rydén,Lennart.1974.“A Note on Some References to the Church of St. Anastasia in Constantinople in the 10th Century.” Byzantion 44: 198–201. ——. . 1983. “The Life of St. Basil the Younger and the Date of the Life of St. Andreas Salos.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies [Okeanos. Essays ̌ 7: 568–586. Presented to Ihor Ševc enko] Ryder, Edmund C. 2009–2010. “The Despoina of the Mongols and her Patronage at the Church of the Theotokos ton Mougoulion.” Journal of Modern Hellenism 27: 71–102. Salaville, Sévérien. 1947. “Messe et Communion d’après les typika monastiques byzantins du Xe au XIVe Siècle.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 13: 283–298. Saradi, Helen. 2010.“Space in Byzantine Thought.” ́ čić and Hadjitryphonos 2010: 73–105. In Cur Saradi-Mendolovici, Helen. 1988. “The Demise of the Ancient City and the Emergence of the Medieval City in the Eastern Roman Empire.” Echos du Monde Classique 32: 365–401. Sathas, Konstantinos N. 1872–1894. Μεσαιωνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη. 7 vols.Venice. Savage, Matthew. 2010. “Dome ‘Typology’ in Byzantine Constantinople?” In Architecture of Byzantium and Kievan Rus from the 9th to the 12th Centuries, 132–147. St. Petersburg. Scarpat, Giuseppe. 2001. Parrhesia greca, parrhesia cristiana. Brescia. Schäfer, Hartmut. 1973. Die Gül Camii in Istanbul. Ein Beitrag zur mittelbyzantinischen Kirchenarchitektur Konstantinopels. Tübingen. ——. 1973–1974. “Architekturhistorische Beziehungen zwischen Byzanz und der Kiever

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rus im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 23–24: 197–224. Schazmann, Paul. 1935. “Die Grabung an der Odalar Camii in Konstantinopel.” Archäologischer Anzeiger 50: 511–519. Schellewald, Barbara. 1984. “Zur Typologie, Entwicklung und Funktion von Oberräumen in Syrien, Armenien und Byzanz.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 27/28: 171–218. Schneider, Alfons Maria. 1936. Byzanz: Vorarbeiten zur Topographie und Archäologie der Stadt. Berlin. Schreiner, Peter. 1971. “Eine unbekannte Beschreibung der Pammakaristoskirche (Fethiye Camii) und weitere Texte zur Topographie Konstantinopels.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 25: 216–248. Schroeder, Rossitza. 2009. “Prayer and Penance in the South Bay of the Chora Exonarthex.” Gesta 48: 37–53. Schulz, Hans-Joachim. 1986. The Byzantine Liturgy: Symbolic Structure and Faith Expression. New York. Sedov,Vladimir V. 2008. Kilise Dzhami: stolichnaia arkhitektura Vizantii. Moscow. Sideras, Alexander. 1994. Die byzantinischen Grabreden: Prosopographie, Datierung, Überlieferung, 142 Epitaphien und Monodien aus dem byzantinischen Jahrtausend. Vienna. Sinclair, Paul J. J., et al., eds. 2010. The Urban Mind: Cultural and Environmental Dynamics. Uppsala. Sinkević, Ida. 2003. “Western Chapels in Middle Byzantine Churches: Meaning and Signiicance.” Starinar 52: 79–91. Siomkos, Nikolaos. 2005. L’église Saint-Etienne à Kastoria. Thessalonike. ——. 2006. “Παρατηρήσεις στη λειτουργική χρήση του νάρθηκα και των κατηχουμένων.” In Hadjitryphonos and Karagianne 2006: 63–68. Sodini, Jean-Pierre. 1980. “Une iconostase byzantine à Xanthos.” In Actes du colloque sur la Lycie Antique, 119–148. Paris. ——. 1981. “Les cryptes d’autel paléochrétiennes: essai de classiication.” Travaux et Mémoires 8: 437–458. ——. 1994. “Les ambons médiévaux à Byzance: vestiges et problèmes.” Thymiama, 1: 303–307. Sodini, Jean-Pierre, and K. Kolokotsas. 1984. Aliki II: la basilique double. 2 vols. Athens.

231 Soteriou, Georgios A. 1929. “Βυζαντινὰ μνημεία τῆς Θεσσαλίας ΙΓ᾽ καὶ ΙΔ᾽ αἰῶνος.” Ἐπετηρὶς ἑταιρείας βυζαντινῶν σπουδῶν 6: 291–315. Soteriou, Maria, and Georgios A. Soteriou. 1956–1958. Εἰκόνες τῆς Μονῆς Σινᾶ. 2 vols. Athens. Spieser, Jean-Michel. 1991. “Liturgie et programmes iconographiques.” Travaux et Mémoires 11: 575–590. ——. 1999. “Le développement du templon et les images de Douze Fêtes.” Bulletin de l’Institut historique belge de Rome 69: 131–164. Spieser, Jean-Michel, and Elisabeth Yota, eds. 2012. Donation et donateurs dans le monde byzantin: actes du colloque international de l’université de Fribourg 13–15 Mars 2008. Paris. Spyrakou, Evangelia. 2008. Οἱ χοροὶ ψαλτῶν κατὰ τὴν Βυζαντινὴ παράδοση. Athens. Stephenson, Paul, ed. 2010. The Byzantine World. London. Stričević, Ðorđe. 1958–1959. “Ðakonikon i protezis u ranohrišćjanskim crkvama.” Starinar 9–10: 59–66. Striker, Cecil L. 1981. The Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii) in Istanbul. Princeton, NJ. ——. 2001. “The Findings at Kalenderhane and Problems of Method in the History of Byzantine Architecture.” In Necipoğlu 2001: 107–116. Striker, Cecil L., and Doğan Kuban. 1971. “Work at Kalenderhane Camii in Istanbul: Third and Fourth Preliminary Reports.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 25: 251–258. ——. 1997–2007. Kalenderhane in Istanbul. 2 vols. Mainz. Strube, Christine. 1973. Die westliche Eingangsseite der Kirchen von Konstantinopel in justinianischer Zeit. Wiesbaden. Strunk, Oliver. 1956. “The Byzantine Oice at Hagia Sophia.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9–10: 175–202. Reprinted in Oliver Strunk, Essays on Music in the Byzantine World. New York, 1977. Strzygowski, Josef , and Philipp Forchheimer. 1893. Die byzantinischen Wasserbehälter von Konstantinopel.Vienna. Stylianou, Andreas, and Judith Stylianou. 1960. “Donors and Dedicatory Inscriptions, Supplicants and Supplications in the Painted Churches of Cyprus.”Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft 9: 97–128.

232

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Taft, Robert F. 1977. “How Liturgies Grow: The Evolution of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 43: 355–378. Revised version in Taft 1997a: 203–232. Taft, Robert F. 1978. The Great Entrance:A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Preanaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. 2nd ed. Rome. ——. 1979. “The Pontiical Liturgy of the Great Church According to a Twelfth-Century Diataxis in Codex British Museum Add. 34060. I: Text.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 45: 279–307. ——. 1980a.“Ex oriente lux: Some Relections on Eucharistic Concelebration.” Worship 54: 308– 325. Revised version in Taft 1997a: 111–132. ——. 1980b. “The Pontiical Liturgy of the Great Church According to a Twelfth-Century Diataxis in Codex British Museum Add. 34060. II: Commentary.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 46: 89–124. ——. 1980–1981. “The Liturgy of the Great Church: An Initial Synthesis of Structure and Interpretation on the Eve of Iconoclasm.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34: 45–75. ——. 1988. “Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42: 179–194. ——. 1990.“A Tale of Two Cities:The Byzantine Holy Week Triduum as a Paradigm of Liturgical History.” In Time and Community, ed. J. Neil Alexander, 21–41. Washington, DC. ——. 1991. The Diptychs. Rome. ——. 1992. The Byzantine Rite: A Short History. Collegeville, MN. ——. 1993. The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West. 2nd rev. ed. Collegeville, MN. ——. 1995. “Church and Liturgy in Byzantium: The Formation of the Byzantine Synthesis.” In Akent’ev 1995: 13–29. ——. 1997a. Beyond East and West: Problems in Liturgical Understanding. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C. ——. 1997b. “The Frequency of the Eucharist throughout History.” In Taft 1997a: 87–110. ——. 1997c. “Über die Liturgiewissenschaft heute.” Theologische Quartalschrift 177: 243–255. ——. 1997–1998. “Quaestiones disputatae: The Skeuophylakion of Hagia Sophia and the Entrances of the Liturgy Revisited I &

II.” Oriens Christianus 81: 1–35; 82: 53–87. Reprinted in Taft 2001. ——. 1998. “Women at Church in Byzantium: Where, When – and Why?” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 52: 27–87. Reprinted in Taft 2001. ——. 2000a. “The Frequency of the Eucharist in Byzantine Usage: History and Practice.” Studi sull’Oriente cristiano 4: 103–132. ——. 2000b. The Precommunion Rites. Rome. ____ 2001. Divine Liturgies: Human Problems in Byzantium, Armenia, Syria and Palestine. Aldershot. ——. 2004a. “Changing Rhythms of Eucharistic Frequency in Byzantine Monasticism.” In Il Monachesimo tra eredità e aperture: atti del simposio “Testi e temi nella tradizione del monachesimo cristiano” per Il 500 Anniversario dell’istituto monastico di Sant’Anselmo, Roma, 28 maggio – 1 giugno 2002, ed. Maciej Bielawski and Daniël Hombergen, 419–458. Rome. ——. 2004b. “A Missing Procession in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy?” In L’image et la parole. Recueuil à l’occasion du 60e anniversaire du prof. Axinia Džurova, 397–406. Soia. ——. 2005. “Cathedral vs. Monastic Liturgy in the Christian East. Vindicating a Distinction.” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, 3rd ser., 2: 173–219. ——. 2006a. “The Byzantine Imperial Communion Ritual.” In Armstrong 2006: 1–27. ——. 2006b. “The Decline of Communion in Byzantium and the Distancing of the Congregation from the Liturgical Action: Cause, Efect, or Neither?” In Gerstel 2006c: 27–50. ——. 2008a. The Communion, Thanksgiving, and Concluding Rites. Rome. ——. 2008b. “Liturgy.” In Jefreys, Haldon, and Cormack 2008: 599–610. ——. 2010. “Worship on Sinai in the First Christian Millenium: Glimpses of a Lost World.” In Gerstel and Nelson 2010: 143–177. ____. 2010–2011. “Eucharistic Concelebration Revisited: Problems of History, Practice, and Theology in East and West I & II.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 76: 277–313; 77: 25–80. ____. 2011a. “Is the Liturgy Described in the Mystagogia of Maximus Confessor Byzantine,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Palestinian, or Neither?” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, 3rd ser., 8: 223–270. ____. 2011b. “Were There Once Old Testament Readings in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy? Apropos of an Article by Sysse Gudrun Engberg.” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, 3rd ser., 8: 271–311. Talbot, Alice-Mary. 1983. Faith Healing in Late Byzantium: The Posthumous Miracles of the Patriarch Athanasios I of Constantinople by Theoktistos the Stoudite. Brookline, MA. ——. 1992. “Empress Theodora Palaiologina, Wife of MichaelVIII.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46: 295–303. ——. 1993. “The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47: 243–261. ——. 1999. “Epigrams in Context: Metrical Inscriptions onArt andArchitecture of the Palaiologan Age.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 53: 75–90. ——. 2001.“Building Activity in Constantinople Under Andronikos II: The Role of Women Patrons in the Construction and Restoration of Monasteries.” In Necipoğlu 2001: 329–343. ——. 2002. “Pilgrimage to Healing Shrines:The Evidence of Miracle Accounts.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56: 153–173. ——. 2006.“The Devotional Life of Laywomen.” In Krueger 2006: 201–220. ——. 2007. “Mealtime in Monasteries: The Culture of Byzantine Refectory.” In Eat, Drink, and be Merry (Luke 12:19): Food and Wine in Byzantium: Papers of the 37th Annual Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, in Honour of Professor A. A. M. Bryer, ed. Leslie Brubaker and Kallirroe Linardou, 109–125. Aldershot. ——. 2009. “The Death and Commemoration of Byzantine Children.” In Papaconstantinou and Talbot 2009: 283–308. Tantses, Anastasios. 2008. “Το υπερώο στη Βυζαντινή ναοδομία.” Ph.D. diss., University of Thessalonike. Teteriatnikov, Natalia. 1988.“Upper-story Chapels near the Sanctuary in Churches of the Christian East.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42: 65–72. ——. 1995. “The Place of the Nun Melania (the Lady of the Mongols) in the Deesis Program of the Inner Narthex of Chora, Constantinople.” Cahiers archéologiques 43: 163–180.

233 ——. 1996. The Liturgical Planning of Byzantine Churches in Cappadocia. Rome. ——. 2003. “Relics in the Walls, Pillars, and Columns of Byzantine Churches.” In Lidov 2003: 77–92. Theis, Lioba. 2005. Flankenräume im mittelbyzantinischen Kirchenbau. Wiesbaden. Thomas, John Philip. 1987. Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Empire. Washington, D.C. ——. 2001.“The Imprint of Sabaitic Monasticism on Byzantine Monastic Typika.” In Patrich 2001: 73–83. Thymiama = Θυμίαμα στη μνήμη της Λασκαρίνας Μπούρα. 1994. 2 vols. Athens. Toivanen, Hanna-Riitta. 2007. The Inluence of Constantinople on Middle Byzantine Architecture (843–1204): A Typological and Morphological Approach at the Provincial Level. Helsinki. Tomeković, Svetlana. 1988. “Contribution à l’étude du programme du narthex des églises monastiques (XIe–première moitié du XIIIe s.).” Byzantion 58: 140–154. Trempelas, Panagiotes N. 1935. Αἱ τρεῖς Λειτουργίαι κατὰ τοὺς ἐν Ἀθήναις κώδικας. Athens. ——. 1950–1951. “Ἡ Ἀκολουθία τοῦ Μεγάλου Ἁγιασμοῦ.” Theologia 21: 387–393; 22: 40–50. ——. 1951. “Ἡ Ἀκολουθία τοῦ Μικροῦ Ἁγιασμοῦ.” Theologia 22: 226–241, 402–415. ——. 1950–1955. Μικρὸν εὐχολόγιον κατὰ τοὺς ἐν Ἀθήναις κώδικας. 2 vols. Athens. Trkulja, Jelena. 2004. “Aesthetics and Symbolism of Late Byzantine Church Façades, 1204– 1453.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University. Troianos,Spyridon N.1995.“Κανονικὰ δικαιώματα ἐπὶ πατριαρχικῶν σταυροπηγιακῶν μονῶν.” In Χριστιανικὴ Θεσσαλονίκη: σταυροπηγιακὲς καὶ ἐνοριακὲς μονές, 115–124. Thessalonike. Tronzo, William. 1994. “Mimesis in Byzantium: Notes toward a History of the Function of the Image.” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 25: 61–76. Tsitouridou, Anna. 1982. “Die Grabkonzeption des ikonographischen Programms der Kirche Panagia Chalkeon in Thessaloniki.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 32: 435–441. Underwood, Paul Atkins. 1966. The Kariye Djami. 3 vols. New York.

234

BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. ed. 1975a. The Kariye Djami. Vol. 4. Princeton, NJ. Underwood, Paul Atkins. 1975b.“Some Problems in Programs and Iconography of Ministry Cycles.” In Underwood 1975a: 243–302. Uspensky, Nicholas. 1985. Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church. Crestwood, NY. Van de Vorst, Ch. 1913. “La translation de S. Théodore Studite et de S. Joseph de Thessalonique.” Analecta Bollandiana 32: 27–62. Van Millingen, Alexander. 1912. Byzantine Churches in Constantinople. London. Varalis, Yannis D. 2006. “Prothesis and Diakonikon: Searching the Original Concept of the Subsidiary Spaces of the Byzantine Sanctuary.” In Lidov 2006: 282–298. Varinlioğlu, Günder. 2005. “Urban Monasteries in Constantinople and Thessaloniki: Distribution Patterns in Time and Urban Topography.” In Archaeology in Architecture: Studies in Honor of Cecil L. Striker, ed. Judson J. Emerick and Deborah Mauskopf Deliyannis, 187–198. Mainz. Velenis, Georgios M. 1984. Ερμηνεία του εξωτερικού διακόσμου στη Βυζαντινή αρχιτεκτονική. 2 vols. Thessalonike. Velimirović, Miloš M. 1962. “Liturgical Drama in Byzantium and Russia.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16: 349–385. Velkovska, Elena. 2001. “Funeral Rites according to the Byzantine Liturgical Sources.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55: 21–51. Vocotopoulos, Panagiotes. 1979.“The Concealed Course Technique: Further Examples and a Few Remarks.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 28: 247–260. ——. 1981. “The Role of Constantinopolitan Architecture during the Middle and Late Byzantine Period.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 31: 551–573. Vogt,Albert. 1931.“Études sur le théâtre byzantin. I: Un mystère de la passion.” Byzantion 6: 37–74. von Warsberg, Alexander Freiherrn. 1869. Ein Sommer im Orient.Vienna. Walter, Christopher. 1971. “The Origins of the Iconostasis.” Eastern Churches Review 3: 251–267. ——. 1982. Art and Ritual of the Byzantine Church. London. ——. 1993. “A New Look in the Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier.” Revue des études byzantines 51: 203–228.

——. 1995. “The Byzantine Sanctuary: A Word List.” In Akent’ev 1995: 95–106. Ward-Perkins, Bryan. 2005. The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. Oxford. Ware, Kallistos. 1990. “The Meaning of the Divine Liturgy for the Byzantine Worshipper.” In Morris 1990: 7–28. Wawryk, Michaël. 1968. Initiatio monastica in liturgia Byzantina: oiciorum schematis monastici magni et parvi necnon rasophoratus exordia et evolutio. Rome. Weissbrod, Ursula. 2003. “Hier liegt der Knecht Gottes…”: Gräber in byzantinischen Kirchen und ihr Dekor (11. bis 15. Jahrhundert). Wiesbaden. Weitzmann, Kurt. 1986. “Icon Programs of the 12th and 13th Centuries at Sinai.” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας 12: 63–116. Wescoat, Bonna D., and Robert G. Ousterhout, eds. 2012. Architecture of the Sacred: Space, Ritual, and Experience from Classical Greece to Byzantium. Cambridge and New York. Westphalen, Stephan. 1998. Die Odalar Camii in Istanbul: Architektur und Malerei einer mittelbyzantinischen Kirche. Tübingen. Wilkinson, John. 1982. “Paulinus’ Temple at Tyre.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 32: 553–561. Woodin, Warren T. 2011. “Wall, Veil, and Body: Textiles and Architecture in the Late Byzantine Church.” In Klein, Ousterhout, and Pitarakis 2007: 358–385. ——. 2012. The Embodied Icon: Liturgical Vestments and Sacramental Power in Byzantium. Oxford. Woolfenden, Gregory W. 2004. Daily Liturgical Prayer: Origins and Theology. Aldershot. Wulzinger, Karl. 1925. Byzantinische Baudenkmäler zu Konstantinopel: auf der Seraispitze, die Nea, das Tekfur-serai und das Zisternenproblem. Hannover. Wybrew, Hugh. 1989. The Orthodox Liturgy: The Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite. London. Xydis, Stephen, G. 1947. “The Chancel Barrier, Solea, and Ambo of Hagia Sophia.” Art Bulletin 29: 1–24. Yasin, Ann Marie. 2009. Saints and Church Spaces in the Late Antique Mediterranean: Architecture, Cult, and Community. Cambridge. Zavagno, Luca. 2009. Cities in Transition: Urbanism in Byzantium between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (500–900 A.D.). Oxford.

INDEX

Note: Page numbers in italics indicate illustrations. ad sanctos burials, 60 aer, 22 Agathe, festival of, 111 agrypnia, 15, 209; see also vigils Ahunbay, Metin, 143 Ahunbay, Zeynep, 143 aisles, outer, 88–90 functions, 90 Akropolites, Constantine (d. ca. 1324), Testament of, 61, 80 altar, altars, 27; see also ciborium; synthronon chapel, 78–79 consecration, 28–29, 30 in multiple apses, 39 symbolism, 32, 117 Altripp, Michael, 34, 37 ambo, 54 ambulatories, outer, 88 ambulatory churches, 52, 63 amnos, 33 anaphora, 23, 55, 209 Anargyroi, monastery of, 85 narthex, 71 Anastasia, St., 105 Andreas en te Krisei, Hagios (Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii) (I), 119–22 naos, 52 narthex, 75 tombs, 63, 75 Andrew the Fool, St., 105 Andrew, martyr (d. ca. 767), 75 Angelos, John II Doukas Komnenos (d. 1318), 109 Anna (mother of St. Stephen the Younger), 100–01, 106 Anna (mother of Theotokos) images of, 107–08 supplication for conception and childbearing, 106 Anna Doukaina (wife of John Komnenos), 191 annexes, 98–99 Annunciation, imagery on templon, 43–44 Anthony of Novgorod, 95, 100, 111 antidoron, 23, 57 apodeipnon, 209

Apokaukos, John (d. 1233), 69 Apostles, church of the Holy, 85, 91 apse central, 26–30 terminology for parts, 35–36 tripartition, 34 Aran, Berge, 123, 126, 154 Arbantenos, John (l . 11th c.), 61 architecture four methodologies for studying, 5–6 relationship to ritual, 1, 6–8, 114–18 arcosolia, 87, 209; see also tombs Artemios, St., 104–05 Asklepios, 104 Asmatike Akolouthia, 12, 14, 15, 209 placement of choirs, 54 asterisk, 29 Asutay-Efenberger (-Fleissig), Neslihan, 34, 39, 138 Athanasios I (patriarch of Constantinople, d. ca. 1315), 92, 105, 111, 162 Athanasios of Athos, St. (d. ca. 1001), 84, 86 Rule, 111 Athos, Great Lavra, prothesis rite, 84, 86 Athos, Mount, 15 Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii (II), 123–26 compared with Beyazıt Church D (IV), 128 frescoes, 123 naos, 52 outer aisles, 88, 90, 123 atria, 16, 95–96 Autoreianos, Arsenios (patriarch of Constantinople, d. 1273), 30 Ayakapı Church (III), 126–27 Babić, Gordana, 45, 78, 80 Bac ̌kovo ossuary, 94 Balsamon, Theodore (d. after 1195), 35, 47, 67–68, 71 concerning burial regulations, 60 concerning chapels, 78 concerning priests wearing costumes, 112 Barberini Euchologion, 20, 33 Bardanes, George (d. 1240), 35

235

236

INDEX

Basil I (r. 867–886), 60, 83, 123 Basil of Caesarea, St., head of, 86 Basil the Younger, St., 81–82 basilicas, 16, 209 end of new construction, 17, 52 Basilika, regulations on burials, 60 Bassou, monastery ton, 109 bells/bell towers, 97–98 bema, 209; see also apse; sanctuary symbolism, 66 terminology, 35–36 Bethlehem, symbolized by prothesis, 32, 34 Beyazıt Church D (IV), 128 Bible readings, 21–22 Bithynia, monasticism in, 50–51, 75 Blachernai, church of, 86, 106 Hagia Soros, 86 icon of the Theotokos, 100–01 nuns napping in, 109 Blastares, Matthew (d. after 1346), 69 Blessing of the Waters, 71–72, 73, 96–97 Bodrum Camii (XVII). See Myrelaion Boeotia, 43 Boğdan Sarayı (V), 27, 129–30 compared with Sinan Paşa Mescidi (XX), 179 lower-level funerary chapel and tombs, 94, 129 Book of Ceremonies, 91, 111, 209 Brunov, Nicholas, 89, 90, 204 Buchwald, Hans, 158 burials. See tombs cantors and choirs, location, 49, 54–55 Cappadocian churches compared with Constantinopolitan, 40 catechumens, 16 cathedral rite. See rite, Byzantine Chalkoprateia, basilica, crypt, 93 chapels, 77–87 decoration, 78–79, 84 funerary, 84–86 liturgical use, 79–80 main purpose, 78, 80–82, 83, 86–87 repositories for relics, 86 side rooms of sanctuaries, 38–40 unconsecrated, 60 Chora (VI). See Christos tes Choras Chora, monastery of, 80 Anthimos, church of martyr, 80 crypt, 94 relics, 94 Christ Savior, church of (Great Palace, Constantinople), 94 templon, 43 Christ Savior, church of (Xerolophos, Constantinople), 105 Christopher (protospatharios), 60 Christos Pantepoptes (Eski I-maret Camii) (VII), 138–42

comparative size, 50 gallery and adjoining structure, 90, 91, 92, 138 naos, 50 narthex, 65 niches, 37 tribelon, 92 Christos Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii) (VIII), 143–50 chapel (Archangel Michael), 76, 78, 79–80, 84, 85, 143 compared with Christos tes Choras (Kariye Müzesi) (VI), 132 church, north (Theotokos Eleousa), 88–89, 143 church, south (Christ Pantokrator), 26, 143 narthex, 65 outer aisle, 88–89, 90 reliquary, 29 south room of apse, 37 synthronon, 28 templon, 41–42, 42 decoration, 143 galleries, 91 memorial services, 76 niches, 37 phiale, 96 proskynetaria icons, 45 tombs, 61, 74, 76, 143 typikon, 35, 58, 89, 97 Christos tes Choras (Kariye Müzesi) (VI), 131–37 altar, 29 annex, 98–99, 131, 132 bell tower, 97 change in form, 115 chapel, 78, 84, 85, 131, 132 ciborium, 28, 29 compared with I-sa Kapı Mescidi (XIII), 162 compared with Vefa Kilise Camii (XXVIII), 204 epigrams, 108–09 icons, 46 katholikon, 39, 131, 132 main apse, 26, 131 mosaic, 103 naos, 52, 131 narthexes, 65, 74, 131 niches (prothesis), 40, 131 private spaces, 92, 132 proskynetaria icons, 45 reliquary, 29 side rooms, 40, 131 templon, 42 tombs, 62, 74, 132 churches; see also consecration, of church, and names of speciic churches ambulatory type, 52, 209 change of size over time, 17, 52 cross-domed type, 52, 209 cross-in-square type, 50–52, 89, 209

237

INDEX

diferentiated from eukteria, 60 hierarchy of holiness, 66–67 inluencing factors in design, 49–50 nonliturgical use, 100–13 parts. See chapels; exonarthex; naos; narthex; sanctuary relationship to Byzantine rite, 114–18 symbolism, 116–17 tombs in, 59–63 two-story, 94 ciborium, 28, 209 Clavijo, Ruy González de, 30, 37, 58, 96, 98, 201 collation meal, location, 38 colonnades, 91 columns, 53, 63 commemorations. See memorial services communion, 23; see also Eucharist location, 56, 91 marker of communal worship, 57 order, 56 compline. See apodeipnon concealed-course. See recessed-brick technique conception and childbearing, 106–08 confessions, location, 38, 71 coninement, churches used as, 105 congregation participation in Eucharist, 55, 56–57 separation of, 54, 55 consecration, of church (enkainia), 28–29, 30, 209 Constantina (wife of Emperor Maurice), 75 Constantine (brother of Andronikos II), 88 Constantine I, heroon, 85 Constantine IX Monomachos (r. 1042–1055), 152 Constantinople changes in Middle Byzantine period, 16–19 churches, compared with Cappadocian, 40 monasteries in, 17, 18, 51 Constantios I, Patriarch, 123 costumes, 112 courtyard. See atria cross-domed churches, 52, 209 cross-in-square churches, 50–52, 89, 209 crypts, 93–95 Ćurcic ̌ ́, Slobodan, 98, 128 Dalassene, Anna (mother of Alexios I Komnenos; l . 11th c.), 138 Dalgıç, Örgü, 201 De Monconys, Balthasar, 201 dedication. See consecration Deisis, 43 Demangel, Robert, 152 demoniacs, 105 Descoeudres, Georges, 34 devotion, personal, 100, 106 diaklysmos, 110–11 diakonikon, 209; see also prothesis modern use, 30–31

as south room of apse, 37–38 terminology, 35 diataxeis, 19, 209 concerning patriarch ascending synthronon, 28 concerning processions, 36 concerning prothesis room, 32, 33 references to architectural context, 116 Diou, ta, monastery, 86 domes, 52, 53 iconographic program, 53 liturgical function, 57 doors, narthex, 65 drama, liturgical, 112–13 drinking in churches, 110–11 eating in churches, 110–11 Ebersolt, Jean, 119 Efenberger, Arne, 138 ekklesiarchissa, 57–58 Elias (metropolitan of Crete; l . 12th c.), 33 Elias, church of St. (Petrion), 123 Elijah, prophet, 83 festival celebrating ascension of, 112–13 Eminönü Church (IX), 150–51 Emmanoulidis, Nikos, 60 Enarxis (introductory service), 21 enkainia. See consecration, of church entrances, liturgical, 15–16, 21–23, 55–56 location, 36, 49 role of narthex, 68, 71 symbolism, 57, 117 epigrams, funerary, 108–09 epiklesis, 23, 209 Eski I-maret Camii (VII). See Christos Pantepoptes Eucharist, 16, 23; see also communion increased sacralization, 47–48, 55 preparation, 20 sanctiication of souls living and dead, 62 table, 27 euchologia, 14, 210 Barberini, 20, 33 concerning Blessing of the Waters, 71–72, 97 concerning consecration, 29 concerning memorial services, 75 concerning skeuophylakion, 34 references to architectural context, 116 Eugenia, wife of Michael/Makarios Tornikes, 132 eukteria, 77; see also chapels diferentiated from churches, 60 Euphemia en to Petrio, monastery of St., 60, 154 Euphemia, St., 61 Euthymios (patriarch of Constantinople, d. 917), 85 Euthymios the Great, St. (d. 473), 106–07 Euthymiou, tou, monastery, 85 Evergetis (Christ) monastery, 154

238

INDEX

Evergetis (Theotokos) monastery Blessing of the Waters, 96–97 chapels, 80 diaklysmos, 110 exonarthex, 65 feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, 58 memorial services, 76 narthex, 69 phiale, 96 skeuophylakion, 98–99 typikon, 45, 110 Washing of the Feet, 73 exonarthex, 64, 65 decoration, 65–66 practical advantages for services, 70 tombs, 73–76 Eyice, Semavi, 123, 129 Fatih Camii, 50–51, 51 Fenari I-sa Camii (XXIII). See Theotokos tou Libos and Hagios Ioannes Prodromos tou Libos festivals in churches, 111–12 Fethiye Camii (XXIV). See Theotokos Pammakaristos loor, 26–27 form, relationship to function, 1, 6, 114–18 foundations, ecclesiastical, 19, 61–62, 82–83 fountains. See phialai frescoes. See iconography/icons function as methodology for studying architecture, 1–7 relationship to form, 1, 6, 114–18 funerals. See memorial services galleries, 91–93 place for women, 54 Gastria, ta, monastery (Constantinople), 60, 74 Gemistos, Demetrios (d. ca. 1397), 46 gender. See sexes; women George the Younger, St., 75 Georgios ton Manganon, Hagios (X), 152–53 comparative size, 50 courtyard, 96, 152 criticized by Psellos, 50 naos, 50, 52 phiale, 96 relics, 58, 59, 152 size and decoration, 115 Germanos I (patriarch of Constantinople, d. 730), 31, 33, 57 Gerstel, Sharon E. J., 46, 47 Glabas, Michael Tarchaneiotes (d. after 1304), 84, 85, 191, 192 Glykas, Michael (l . 12th c.), 47–48 Golgotha, symbolized by prothesis, 32 Göreme, 38, 39 Grabar, André, 45 graiti, prayers in, 102

Grammatikos, Nicholas III (patriarch of Constantinople, d. 1111), 33 Great Lavra, prothesis rite, 84, 86 Gregory (author of vita of St. Basil the Younger), 81–82 Grossmann, Peter, 167 Gül Camii (XI), 153–58 chapel, 78 compared with Ayakapı Church (III), 126 compared with Toklu Dede Mescidi (XXVII), 8 exonarthex, 65 gallery, 91, 154 main apse, 26, 154 Hagia Sophia, 12, 13, 86, 92 bell tower, 97 burials, 30 fruit kept in cisterns, 111 phiale, 96 prothesis rite, 31 skeuophylakion, 31 Hallensleben, Horst, 90, 204 Hamilton Psalter, 101, 102 Hawkins, Ernest J. W., 42–43, 123 healings, 103–05 Herakleios, Emperor (r. 610–641), 101 heroa, 85 hesperinos, 210; see also Vespers hierarchy of church attendees, 54, 56 historical approach to architecture, 6 Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii (XII). See Ioannes en to Troullo, Hagios Horologion, 14, 210 Hours, Oice of, 12, 69, 210 hymnody, 14, 15 Iasitou, tou, monastery, 162 iconography/icons; see also under speciic churches Anna and Theotokos, 107–08 chapels, 78–79, 84 devotions memorialized in, 101 enhanced symbolism of building and ritual, 117 “exchange” of, 100 exonarthex, 65–66 miraculous, 104 naos, 53–54 narthex, 65–66, 71, 72, 73 proskynetaria, 44–45 prothesis room, 37 purpose, 48 relection of liturgy, 56 substructure, 95 supplication, 101–02 templon, 45 on veils, 48 iconostasis; see also templon English neologism, 41

239

INDEX

transformation of templon into, 45, 55 incubation and sleep, 104–05, 106–07, 109–10 intercessory power of saints, 80–84 Ioannes en to Troullo, Hagios (Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii) (XII), 158–61 compared with Sekbanbaşı Mescidi (XIX), 177 exonarthex, 65 main apse, 26, 158 naos, 50 narthex, 73–74 niches, 37 tombs, 73–74, 158 Ioannes Prodromos tou Libos, Hagios (XXIII). See Theotokos tou Libos Irene, St., 86 Irene of Chrysobalanton (d. ca. 940), 85, 105, 109 Irene Palaiologina, 109 I-sa Kapı Mescidi (XIII), 162 naos, 52 Ivison, Eric, 182 James, chapel of St., 79 Janin, Raymond, 129, 177 John en to Diippio, church of St., 75 John I Tzimiskes (r. 969–976), 94 John II Komnenos (r. 1118–1143), 143 John the Baptist, monastery of St. (Petra), 37, 58, 98, 129 John tou Libos (XXIII). See Theotokos tou Libos John, church of St. (Oxeia), 43, 93, 104 incubation, 104–05 Joseph of Thessalonike, 85–86 Justinian I, heroon, 85 Kabasilas, Nikolaos (d. after 1391), 62, 83 Kalenderhane Camii (XIV), 26, 163–66 altar, 27–28, 29 chapels, 78–79, 164 gallery, 91, 164 main apse, 26 naos, 52, 163 narthex, 65 outer aisles, 163–64 proskynetaria icons, 44–45 tower, 97 tribelon, 92 Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, 45 Kariye Müzesi (VI). See Christos tes Choras kataphyge. See crypts katechoumena, 91 people living in, 93 katholikon, 210 Kecharitomene, monastery of Blessing of the Waters, 72, 97 burials, 74 diaklysmos, 110 exonarthex, 65 inventory, 57–58 memorial services, 75–76

narthex, 97 proskynetaria icons, 45 silver doors, 44 typikon, 61–62, 70 Washing of the Feet, 71 Kefeli Mescidi (XV), 167–69 apse, 27 naos, 52 narthex, 65 Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii (I). See Andreas en te Krisei, Hagios Kodinos, Pseudo-, 31 Kokkinos, Philotheos (patriarch of Constantinople, d. 1377/8), 19, 33, 209 kolyva (boiled wheat), 81 Komnenian family, burials, 143 Komnenos, Isaac (d. 1195/6), 76, 103, 131 Komnenos, John, 191 kontakia, 12, 14, 210 Kosmas and Damianos, church of Sts., 123 Kosmas I (patriarch of Constantinople, 1075–1081), 33 Kosmosoteira, monastery of, memorial services, 76 Kyriotissa monastery, 163; see also Kalenderhane Camii lamps, 58 votive, 104 Lazaros in the Topoi, monastery of St., 30 Lazaros of Mount Galesion, St., 109 lections, lectionaries, 21–22, 57 Leo (protospatharios), 83 Leo I, chapel built by, 86 Leo Tuscus (l . 12th c.), 33 Leo VI (r. 886–912), 53–54 library, 98 lighting, 58 Lips, Constantine, 83, 182 liturgical drama, 112–13 liturgical rolls, 56 Liturgy of the Word, 16 Liturgy, Divine, 15–23; see also rite, Byzantine changes, 32 commentaries, 56, 68 references to architectural context, 116 compartmentalization, 55 in Constantinople, 19 directives (diataxeis), 19 frequency, 79 interpretation, 56–57 multiple on same day, 80 participation of congregation, 55, 56–57 Presanctiied, 19, 210, prothesis rite, 33 privatization, 79 references to architectural context, 116 role of narthex, 68–69 role of saints and relics, 59, 83–84

240

INDEX

Liturgy, Divine (cont.) of St. Basil, 19 of St. John Chrysostom, 19 sanctiication of souls living and dead, 62 setting, 18–19 substituted by typika, 69 symbolism, 116–17 Liutprand (Lombard envoy, d. before 972), 112–13 Loukas, Hosios, monastery (Boeotia), 44 Washing of the Feet, 71, 72 lychnikon. See hesperinos Macridy, Theodore, 40 Maliasenos, Nicholas/Ioasaph, 61, 82 Mamas, monastery of St., 31–32, 69 burials, 75 diaklysmos, 110 exonarthex, 65 memorial services, 75–76 Manastır Mescidi (XVI), 169–71 naos, 50 narthex, 73–74 niches, 37 portico, 169 tombs, 73–74 Mango, Cyril, 5, 6, 16, 42–43, 50, 90, 138, 204 mantle of the Theotokos, 86 Manuel I Komnenos (r. 1143–1180), 143 Maria (wife of Michael Glabas Tarchaneiotes), 84, 85, 191, 192 Maria Doukaina (mother-in-law of Alexios I Komnenos), 131 Maria Palaiologina (daughter of Michael VIII), 103, 199 Marianos (brother of Basil I), 60 Markianos and Martyrios, Sts., 111–12 Mary Magdalene, St., 30 Mathews, Thomas F., 6, 38–39, 79, 114, 123, 128, 201, 202 Matins (Orthros), 69, 70, 210 Maximos the Confessor, 53 Medikiou, tou, monastery (Bithynia), 75 Megaw, A. H. S., 41, 143, 183 Melismos, 117 memorial services, 75–76, 88, 108–09, 115 Menodora, Nymphodora, and Metrodora, monastery of Sts., 169 Menologion of Basil II, 58–59 Metochites, Theodore (d. 1332), 84, 85, 131, 132 Michael (bishop of Demetrias), 61 Michael, archangel, 83; see also Christos Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii) (VIII) Millet, Gabriel, 98 Mimar Sinan, 162 miracles, 103–08 Mokios, St., church and monastery, 91, 92, 111 monasteries churches, 50–51 in Constantinople, 17–18, 19

foundations, 61–62 revival, 51 stauropegial, 30 tonsure rite, 70–71 monastic rite. See rite, Byzantine Monomachos, Constantine, criticized by Psellos, 50 Mordtmann, August J., 129 Mouchliotissa (XXV). See Theotokos Panagiotissa Müller-Wiener, Wolfgang, 128 Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii) (XVII), 172–74 burials, 95, 172, 175 chapel, 115 compared with Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii (II), 123 fresco, 95 main apse, 26 narthex, 65 substructure, 95, 115 myron (fragrant oil), 29 naos, 49–63, 210 ambulatory type, 52, 209 common characteristics, 53 cross-domed type, 52, 209 cross-in-square type, 50–52, 209 decorative and liturgical accoutrements, 57–58 division, 63 iconographic program, 53–54 symbolism, 53, 66, 117 tombs in, 59–60 narthex, 64–76 decoration, 65–66, 72, 73 eating and drinking in, 110–11 forms, 64–66 function, 115 not considered as holy as rest of church, 67–68 practical advantages for services, 70 role of Divine Liturgy, 68–69 sleeping in, 109–10 symbolism, 66 tombs, 73–76 nave. See naos Nea Ekklesia (Great Palace) chapels, 83 crypt, 95 phiale, 96 Nea Moni, monastery (Chios), Washing of the Feet, 71 Nicaea, Second Council of (787), 28–29 niches, 37 Nicholas of Andida (l . 11th c.), 117 Nikephoros (founder of monastery tou Medikiou, l . 8th c.), 75 Nikephoros I (patriarch of Constantinople, d. 828), 43 Nikephoros III Botaneiates (r. 1078–1081), 201 Niketas (chartophylax and synkellos of the Great Church), 48 Nikon, St., 109

241

INDEX

Notaries, Holy, commemoration of, 111–12 Odalar Camii (XVIII), 175–76 burials, 95, 175 chapel, 78, 175 outer aisles, 89, 90, 175–77 relics, 93–94, 175 side rooms, 40 substructure, 93–94, 95 oil lowing from icons, 104 opisthambonos euche, 23, 210 Orchomenos, 39–40, 83 ordination, 30 location, 68–69 Origen, 53 Orthros, 210; see also Matins ossuaries, 59 Ötüken,Yildiz, 162 Ousterhout, Robert, 52, 132, 143 Oxeia, 43 Özgümüş, Ferudun, 150, 180 Pachymeres, George, 88 concerning galleries, 92 concerning memorial services, 75 Pallas, Dimitrios, 60 Pammakaristos. See Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) (XXIV) Panagia Chalkeon (Thessalonike), 60 Panagia Kamariotissa (Heybeliada), 53 Pangalo (mother of Basil I), 60 pannychis, 210 Pantokrator (VIII). See Christos Pantokrator Papazotos, Thanasis, 162 Pargoire, Jules, 154 parrhesia, 81 Pasadaios, Aristeides, 88, 169, 202 Paspates, A. G., 182, 202 paten, 29 patronage and exchange, 80–84 patrons, inluencing factors in church building, 49–50 Paul the Silentiarios, 43 penitents, restricted to narthex, 67, 69 Peribleptos, Church of the (Mystras, Greece), 22 Peter and Mark, church of Sts. (in Blachernai), 123 Peter, chains of St., 58–59, 86 Petronas (brother of empress Theodora), 60 Pharos, church of, atrium, 96 phialai (fountains), 95–97 Philanthropos, monastery of, crypt, 93 Philaretos the Merciful (d. 792), 63 Philes, Manuel, 192 Philotheos (abbot of Great Lavra), 84 Photios (patriarch of Constantinople, d. after 893), 53, 96 piers. See columns Planoudes, Maximos, 120

platform. See loor Plato (uncle of Theodore of Stoudios), 86 porticoes, 88, 89 praxapostolos, 210 prayers graiti, 102 private, 100–01, 106 Presanctiied Liturgy. See under Liturgy, Divine processions, 11, 15–16, 21–23 reduction in Middle Byzantine period, 18–19 starting point in church, 36 symbolism, 70 proskynetaria icons, 44–45 prosphora (Eucharist bread), 21, 23, 210 Protheoria, 28, 35, 48, 116 prothesis, 210; see also diakonikon commemorations during, 83–84 niche, 38–39, 40 rite, 20–21, 31 development, 33–34 room, 20, 23 iconography, 37 location, 30–32, 36–37 symbolism, 32, 33, 34, 117 terminology, 35–36 psalmody, nocturnal, 69 psalter, liturgical, 14 Psellos, Michael (d. after 1081), 34, 50 public spaces, loss of in Middle Byzantine period, 16–17 Raoulaina, Theodora (ca. 1240–1300), 120 recessed-brick technique, 210 relics, reliquaries, 28–29, 61 basis for prohibiting burials, 60 use of chapels for, 86 use of crypts for, 93–94 Resurrection, monastery of the, 80 rite, Byzantine, 10–24; see also under speciic liturgical elements cathedral rite, 11–12, 14–15 monastic rite, 12–15 neo-Sabaitic synthesis, 15 periodization, 10–15 relationship to architecture, 1, 6–8, 114–18 Stoudite synthesis, 14 Romanos I Lekapenos (r. 920–944), 94, 172 Romanos III Argyros (r. 1028–1034), 63, 201 Romanos, church of St., 94 sacristy, 37–38; see also diakonikon; skeuophylakion saints chapels constructed for, 80–84 intercessory power, 80–84 salvation, role of chapel construction in, 80–84 sanctuary, 25–41; see also altar; apse; diakonikon; prothesis; skeuophylakion; templon arrangement, 25, 26–27, 34 loor, 26–27

242

INDEX

sanctuary (cont.) name, 25 rituals and functions, 27–41 side rooms as chapels, 38–40 Savage, Matthew, 159 Schäfer, Harmut, 154 Sekbanbaşı Mescidi (XIX), 177–78 main apse, 26, 158, 177 Sergios and Bakchos, Sts., church of, 92 Service of the Furnace, 112 sexes, segregation of, 54 SÇeyh Murat Mescidi (XXII), 181–82 Sinan Paşa Mescidi (XX), 27, 179–80 underground chamber, 94 singing. See cantors and choirs Sirkeci Church (XXI), 180–81 Sixth Ecumenical Council, 109 skeuophylakion, 16, 21, 210 change in use, 20 location, 34 prayer, 23 terminology, 35 transition, 31–32 used as library, 98 skeuophylakissa, 57–58 Skleraina (mistress to Constantine IX Monomachos), 152 Skripou, church of the Theotokos (Orchomenos), 39–40, 83 sleep. See incubation and sleep Sophronios, Pseudo-, 27, 32 Spyrakou, Evangelia, 54 stauropegial monastery, 30 Staurou 109 (liturgical roll), 56 Stephanos, Hagios (Kastoria), 107–08 Stephanos, Hagios (Trilye), 50–51 Stephen the Younger, St., 106 head of, 86 Stethatos, Niketas (d. 1090), 47 concerning hierarchy, 54 Stoudios, monastery of, 12–14, 15, 59 chapel, 85–86 crypt, 93 diaklysmos, 110 narthex, 69 phiale, 96 tombs, 85–86 typikon, 14 Striker, Cecil L., 163 Stylianos Zaoutzes (d. 899), 53–54 substructures, 93–95 utilitarian, 95 Symbatios (brother of Basil I), 60 symbolism, architectural, 6 Symeon of Thessalonike (d. 1429), 15, 116, 117 concerning bema, 66 concerning Blessing of the Waters, 72 concerning church symbolism, 53 concerning diakonikon, 38

concerning hierarchy, 54 concerning memorial services, 75 concerning naos, 63, 66 concerning narthex, 66 concerning prothesis room, 32, 36 concerning reading of services, 70 concerning role of saints, 81 concerning sanctuary, 25 concerning Service of the Furnace, 112 concerning synthronon, 28 concerning templon, 46 interpretation of church building, 66–67 synaxarion (church calendar), 11 Synaxarion of Evergetis, 36, 96, 110 synthronon, 28, 210 table. See altar Taft, Robert, 10, 11, 15 Tarchaneiotes. See Glabas, Michael Tarchaneiotes templon, 25–26, 41–48, 210 basis for iconostasis, 45, 55 closing of, 47–48, 55 decoration and iconography, 43–46, 48 icons on, 45–46 post-Iconoclastic, 43 terminology, 41 veils on, 48 Tesaites, Alexios (presbyter), 61 Teteriatnikov, Natalia, 39 Theis, Lioba, 89, 123, 138, 154, 163, 183, 204 Thekla, church of St. (in Blachernai), 123, 202 Theodora (wife of Theophilos, d. after 867), 60 Theodora of Thessalonike, St., 104 Theodora Palaiologina (wife of Michael VIII, d. 1303), 59, 108, 123, 183 Theodore of Arta (d. 1270), 75 Theodore of Stoudios (d. 826), 13–14, 51, 69, 81, 85–86 Theodosia, church of St., identiied with Ayakapı Church (III), 126 Theoktiste (mother of empress Theodora), 60, 74 Theophano (irst wife of Leo VI, d. 895 or 896), 109, 138 Theophylaktos (patriarch of Constantinople, d. 956), 112 Theotokos of the Pharos (church in Great Palace), 53 Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) (XXIV), 191–98 bell tower, 97 chapel, 78, 84, 85, 88 chapels, 115 compared with I-sa Kapı Mescidi (XIII), 162 decoration, 192 naos, 52 narthex, 74 outer aisles, 89, 90 outer ambulatories, 87, 88, 191–92

243

INDEX

side rooms, 40 templon, 42–43 tombs, 59, 63, 74, 191–92 Theotokos Panachrantos, monastery of, 86 Theotokos Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa (XXV), 27, 199–200 comparative size, 50 naos, 50, 52 niches (prothesis), 40 Theotokos Pege, church of, 91 Theotokos Peribleptos (XXVI), 26, 201–02 chapels, 78, 201 katholikon, 63 naos, 52 size and decoration, 115 tombs, 63 Theotokos tou Libos and Hagios Ioannes Prodromos tou Libos (Fenari I-sa Camii) (XXIII), 182–91 apses, 29–30 chapels, 78, 80, 83, 86, 183 church, north (Theotokos), 183 apse, central, 39 inscription, 83 templon, 42 church, south (St. John), 26, 183 altar, 27 naos, 52 compared with Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii (II), 123 compared with Sinan Paşa Mescidi (XX), 179 compared with Theotokos Peribleptos (XXVI), 201 decoration, 184 narthex, 65, 71, 73–74 niches, 37 outer ambulatory, 87–88, 115, 183 relics, 29–30, 86 side rooms, 40 similarity to Andreas en te Krisei, Hagios (Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii) (I), 120 tombs, 59, 63, 73–74, 183 tower, 97–98 Theotokos, supplicated for conception and childbearing, 106 Thessalonike, 60 Thiers, Adolphe, 119 Thomais of Lesbos, St., 101 Thomas (patriarch of Jerusalem), 14 Tokalı Kilise, New Church (Cappadocia), 38–39, 38 Toklu Dede Mescidi (XXVII), 27, 202–03 compared with Gül Camii (XI), 8 main apse, 26 niches (prothesis), 40 tombs beneit to community, 63 in chapels, 84–86 in churches, 59–63, 115 epigrams, 108–09

exonarthex, 73–76 memorials services at, 108–09 motivation, 60–62, 73 narthex, 73–76 in outer ambulatories, 87–88 prohibitions and regulations, 60, 115 robbing, 63 tonsure rite, 70–71 Tornikes, Manuel (d. ca. 1328), 108, 132 towers. See bells/bell towers tribelon, 91 Trilye (Bithynia), 50–51 Trinity symbolized by church building, 66 trisagion, 210 typika (liturgical), 69, 210 typika (monastic), 210 Typikon of the Great Church, 11, 71, 79, 210 typology, architectural, 5–6 Underwood, Paul, 98, 132 Van Millingen, Alexander, 123, 129, 202 Vatican Manasses (Vat. slav. 2), 101 vaults iconographic program, 53 Vefa Kilise Camii (XXVIII), 204–07 annex, 99, 204 bell tower, 97, 204 chapel, 90 compared with Toklu Dede Mescidi (XXVII), 202 decoration, 204–05 main apse, 26 narthex, 65, 73–74 tombs, 73–74 veils, templa, 48 Vespers, 69, 70, 210 vesting, vestments, 20, 21, 23 vigils, 14, 15, 209 Vita Basilii, 43, 96, 97 votive images, 104 Walter, Christopher, 45 Washing of the Feet, 71, 73, 112 in narthex, 115 Westphalen, Stephan, 175 wheat (kolyva), 81 women conception and childbearing, 106–08 place in churches, 54 restrictions on church attendance, 67–68 worship, compartmentalization, 55 Yenikapı Church (XXIX), 208 Zeyrek Camii (VIII). See Christos Pantokrator Zonaras, John (d. after 1159), 35