Type and Archetype in Late Antique and Byzantine Art and Architecture

Art and Material Culture in

Medieval and Renaissance Europe

Edited by

Sarah Blick
Laura D. Gelfand

volume 19

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/amce

 Type and Archetype in
Late Antique and Byzantine
Art and Architecture

Edited by

Jelena Bogdanović
Ida Sinkević
Marina Mihaljević
Čedomila Marinković

LEIDEN | BOSTON
Cover Illustration: Christ Pantokrator with Prophets, dome of the former church of Theotokos
Pammakaristos, Istanbul (Constantinople), c.1310. © Photo: Marina Mihaljević

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Bogdanović, Jelena, 1973- editor. | Sinkević, Ida, 1960- editor. |

Mihaljević, Marina, 1960- editor. | Marinković, Čedomila, editor.
Title: Type and archetype in late antique and Byzantine art and
architecture / edited by Jelena Bogdanović, Ida Sinkević, Marina
Mihaljević, Čedomila Marinković.
Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2023] | Series: Art and material
culture in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, 2212-4187 ; volume 19 |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022060646 (print) | LCCN 2022060647 (ebook) |
ISBN 9789004527201 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004537781 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Art, Byzantine—Themes, motives. | Architecture, Byzantine. |
Architecture—Composition, proportion, etc. | Art,
Byzantine—Historiography. | Architecture, Byzantine—Historiography.
Classification: LCC N6250 .T97 2023 (print) | LCC N6250 (ebook) |
DDC 709.02/14—dc23/eng/20230103
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022060646
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022060647

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.

isbn 2212-4187
isbn 978-90-04-52720-1 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-53778-1 (e-book)

Copyright 2023 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink,
Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be
addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents

Acknowledgments vii
List of Illustrations ix
Notes on Contributors xv

Introduction 1
Jelena Bogdanović, Ida Sinkević, Marina Mihaljević,
and Čedomila Marinković

1 Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery in the

Central Balkans 15
Jelena Anđelković Grašar

2 The Hodegetriai: Replicating the Icon of the Hodegetria by Means of

Church Dedications 43
Anna Adashinskaya

3 The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 72

Ljubomir Milanović

4 From Earth to Heaven: Transcendental Concepts of Architecture in

Late Roman and Early Byzantine Art (c.300–700) 101
Cecilia Olovsdotter

5 Representation of the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah: Type or

Archetype? 144
Čedomila Marinković

6 Type and Archetype: Echoing Architectural Forms of the Church of

Nea Moni 163
Marina Mihaljević

7 In Search of Archetype: Five-Domed Churches in Middle and Later

Byzantine Architecture 189
Ida Sinkević
vi Contents

8 The Canopy as ‘Primitive Hut’ in Byzantine Architecture 210

Jelena Bogdanović

Conclusion: Highlighted Themes, Explanatory Terms, and

Critical Mechanisms 233
Jelena Bogdanović, Ida Sinkević, Marina Mihaljević, and
Čedomila Marinković

Bibliography 241
Index 288
Acknowledgments

This book is the result of collegiate friendship and shared long-term interests
in late antique and Byzantine art and architecture. Trained in various disci-
plines from art history to architectural engineering, we often have to deal with
the inconsistency of the terminology we use when discussing various kinds
of cross-cultural artistic accomplishments in the wider Mediterranean. Type
and Archetype in Late Antique and Byzantine Art and Architecture grew out of
a panel discussion about typology and meanings of relevant terms. The panel
was originally conceived in 2012 and presented within the communication ses-
sion at the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies, held in Belgrade,
Serbia, in August 2016. As often happens in academia, while some participants
at the conference were not able to continue the pursuit of publication of our
deliberations and findings due to family and professional obligations, other
contributors became involved. Years later, at the moment when this book is
approaching its publication, we would love to thank individuals and institu-
tions that provided stalwart support.
Our first thanks go to the conference participants and contributors to this
volume for their friendship, kindness, patience, collegiality, and expertise. We
also thank the organizers of the Congress of Byzantine Studies, who gave us
an opportunity to present the relevance of the topic of type and archetype
to the wider scholarly audience. Additional thanks are due to the leadership
of the College of the Liberal Arts and Sciences at Vanderbilt University for
logistic and financial support. Above all, we thank the Dean of the College
of Arts and Sciences, John G. Geer; Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs and
Finances, Kamal Saggi; Chair of Classical and Mediterranean Studies, William
Caferro; Chair of History of Art and Architecture, Kevin Murphy; and adminis-
trative coordinator Julia Kamasz. At Brill, we are immensely grateful to Sarah
Blick and Laura D. Gelfand, editors of the series Art and Material Culture in
Medieval and Renaissance Europe, Kate Hammond, acquisition editor, and
Marcella Mulder, editor. We cannot ever be grateful enough for their time,
focus, promptness, expertise, professionalism, cheer, and genuine support of
this project. The expert guidance of the editorial team at Brill, strengthened by
the erudite and constructive assessment by the anonymous reviewer, helped
us refine and prepare the manuscript for publication. Copyediting and vari-
ous stages of the book production were carried out by Joe Hannan, Marianne
Noble, and Fem Eggers. For illustrative material we thank the Blago Fund, the
Foundation of the Holy Monastery Hilandar, the Jewish Community of Bosnia
viii Acknowledgments

and Herzegovina, Nebojša Stanković, Alexandar (Alex) Blum, Ivan Drpić,

Joshua Schwartz, and Yehoshua Peleg. Our families supported this project with
grace and love.

Jelena Bogdanović, Ida Sinkević, Marina Mihaljević, and

Čedomila Marinković
September 2022
Illustrations

1.1 Felix Romuliana, imperial palace (1a) and imperial tumuli on the hill Magura
(1b). Photo: After Popović, “Sakralno-funerarni kompleks na Maguri” [Sacral
and funerary complex at Magura], fig. 105, and Milka Čanak-Medić and Brana
Stojković-Pavelka, Felix Romuliana—Gamzigrad (Belgrade: Arheološki institut,
2010), fig. 27 21
1.2 Jewelry (2a) and golden foils of the diadem (2b) from the crypt of the
mausoleum in Šarkamen. Photo: Nebojša Borić, documentation of the Institute
of Archaeology 22
1.3 Early Byzantine oil lamp from the Belgrade City Museum (Helena and
Constantine?). Photo: Documentation of the Belgrade City Museum 25
1.4 Aureus of Empress Galeria Valeria from the National Museum in Belgrade
(4a) and cameo with female bust from Horreum Margi (Galeria Valeria?) (4b).
Photo: After Anđelković Grašar, “Image as a Way of Self-Representation,”
figs. 1a and 1b 27
1.5 Cameos in medallions from Remesiana (Fausta?) (5a, 5b). Photo: After
Anđelković Grašar, “Image as a Way of Self-Representation,” figs. 2a and 2b 29
1.6 Steelyard weight from the National Museum in Belgrade (Ariadne?).
Photo: After Starinar 64/2014, book cover 32
1.7 Portrait of Byzantine empress (Euphemia?). Photo: Arheološko blago
Niša [Archaeological Treasure of Niš] (Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka
i umetnosti, 2004), inside book cover 34
1.8 Obverse of the coin of Emperor Justin II. Photo: Documentation of the
National Museum of Leskovac, Numismatics collection I/2 (inv. NI/2, 78) 36
3.1 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
viewed from the southwest. Photo: Ljubomir Milanović 73
3.2 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
sarcophagi in the west bay of the south aisle. Photo: Ljubomir Milanović 73
3.3 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
original iconostasis with fresco surrounding it and the coffin of Saint Stefan
Dečanski. Photo: Ljubomir Milanović 76
3.4 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
original iconostasis with fresco surrounding it and the coffin of Saint Stefan
Dečanski, oblique view. Photo: Ljubomir Milanović 84
3.5 Coffin of the holy king Stefan Dečanski, about 1340, Museum of the Serbian
Orthodox Church, Belgrade. Photo: Aleksandar Radosavljević 85
3.6 Coffin of the holy king Stefan Dečanski, about 1340, detail, Museum of the
Serbian Orthodox Church, Belgrade. Photo: Aleksandar Radosavljević 86
x Illustrations

3.7 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
old position of the reliquary, picture taken c.1941. Photo: After Petković and
Bošković, Dečani 87
3.8 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
relics of the holy king Stefan Dečanski. Photo: Dečani monastery (Serbian
Orthodox Church) 89
3.9 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
the holy king Stefan Dečanski, fresco, south face of the northeast pier.
Photo: Ljubomir Milanović 90
3.10 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
the holy king Stefan Dečanski, fresco, south face of the northeast pier, detail.
Photo: Ljubomir Milanović 92
3.11 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
holy king Stefan Dečanski, fresco, south face of the northeast pier, detail.
Photo: Ljubomir Milanović 93
3.12 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
Saint Stephen Protomartyr, fresco, west wall of the south bay of the naos.
Photo: Ljubomir Milanović 94
3.13 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century, Christ
Pantokrator from Deesis, fresco, west wall of the south bay of the naos. Photo:
Ljubomir Milanović 95
3.14 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
iconostasis, viewed from the back, picture taken c.1941. Photo: After Petković
and Bošković, Dečani 96
4.1 Consular diptych of Probus; Rome or northern Italy, 406; Aosta, Tesoro della
Cattedrale. Photo: Diego Cesare, Regione autonoma Valle d’Aosta, Archivi
dell’Assessorato Beni culturali, Turismo, Sport e Commercio della Regione
autonoma Valle d’Aosta—fondo Catalogo beni culturali 105
4.2 Consular diptych of Areobindus; Constantinople, 506; Paris, Musée national
du Moyen Âge—Cluny, inv. Cl. 13135. Photo: © RMN-Grand Palais (musée de
Cluny—musée national du Moyen Âge) / Thierry Ollivier 107
4.3 Consular diptych of Clementinus; Constantinople, 513; Liverpool, National
Museums Liverpool—World Museum, inv. M10036. Photo: Courtesy National
Museums Liverpool, World Museum 108
4.4 Christ and Mary diptych; Constantinople, mid-6th century; Berlin,
Staatliche Museen, Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische
Kunst, inv. 564–565. Photo: Fotonachweis: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,
Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst / Antje Voigt 111
4.5 Chronography of 354, fol. 7 Natales Caesarum; Rome, 354; Vatican, Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, inv. Romanus 1 MS, Barb.lat. 2154. Photo: © Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana 112
Illustrations xi

4.6 Rabbula Gospels, fol. 9v Matthew and John; Syria, 586; Florence, Biblioteca
Medicea Laurenziana inv. cod. Plut. I, 56. Photo: © Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea
Laurenziana, MS Plut. 1.56, f. 9v. Su concessione del MiC. È vietata ogni ulteriore
riproduzione con qualsiasi mezzo 116
4.7 Ashburnham Pentateuch, fol. 2r Genesis; Italy (Rome?), 6th century; Paris,
Bibliothèque nationale de France, inv. MS nouv. acq. lat. 2334. Photo:
Bibliothèque nationale de France 118
4.8 Ravennese sarcophagus, 3rd–4th century; Ravenna, Museo Arcivescovile.
Photo: After Kollwitz and Herdejürgen, Die Sarkophage, fig. 19.1, cat. A 49 120
4.9 Coptic funerary stela; Egypt, 5th–8th century; Los Angeles, Los Angeles County
Museum of Art, inv. 47.8.10. Photo: Museum Associates/LACMA 121
4.10 Silver plaque with representation of Saint Paul; Syria, 550–600; New York,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 50.5.1. Photo: Fletcher Fund, 1950 123
4.11 Ambo from Hagios Georgios; Thessaloniki, 500–550; Istanbul, İstanbul
Arkeoloji Müzeleri, inv. 1090 T. Photo: Cecilia Olovsdotter 125
4.12 Votive bronze situla; Constantinople (?), 6th century; Istanbul, İstanbul
Arkeoloji Müzeleri, inv. 852. Photo: Cecilia Olovsdotter 126
4.13 Gold bracelet with representation of a temple to Isis; Egypt (Alexandria?),
4th century; Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, inv. Seyrig.1972.1318.
Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France 128
4.14 Chronography of 354, fol. 13 Constantius II as consul; Rome, 354; Vatican,
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, inv. Romanus 1 MS, Barb.lat. 2154.
Photo: © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 130
4.15 Consular diptych of Boethius, Rome or northern Italy 487; Brescia, Museo di
Santa Giulia. Photo: Su concessione della Fondazione Brescia Musei 132
4.16 Consular diptych of Anastasius; Constantinople, 517; Paris, Bibliothèque
nationale de France, MMA, inv. 55. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale
de France 133
4.17 Funerary stela of a couple; Byzantium/Constantinople (?),
3rd–4th century; Istanbul, İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri (courtyard).
Photo: Cecilia Olovsdotter 136
4.18 Lead sarcophagus; Roman Syria (mod. Baabda), 3rd century; Istanbul, İstanbul
Arkeoloji Müzeleri, inv. 1149 M. Photo: Cecilia Olovsdotter 137
4.19 Silver missorium of Theodosius I; Constantinople (?), 388; Madrid, Real
Academia de la Historia. Photo: After Delbrueck, Die Consulardiptychen,
plate 62 140
4.20 ‘David’ silver plate, (3/9) David before Saul; Constantinople, 613/629–630;
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 17.190.397. Photo: Gift of
J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917 142
xii Illustrations

5.1 Representation of the Jerusalem Temple on the silver tetradrachm of Bar

Kochba, undated issue, year 134/5 CE. Obverse: representation of the Temple
with the rising star. Photo: Public domain Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.
http://www.cngcoins.com [Accessed June 16, 2022] 149
5.2 Synagogue, Dura-Europos, 3rd century. Torah Shrine. Photo: © Alamy 151
5.3 Hammat Tiberias 4–5th century synagogue. Detail of the mosaic floor depicting
the holy Ark surrounded by two large candelabra and other ceremonial objects.
Photo: Zev Radovan/Bible Land Pictures © Alamy 152
5.4 Representation of the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah (14th century CE),
National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Photo: © Jewish community of
Bosnia and Herzegovina 155
5.5 Tentative reconstruction of the Herodian Temple facade. Drawing: Schwartz
and Peleg, “Notes on the Virtual Reconstruction of the Herodian Period Temple
and Courtyards,” 81, illustration 7. Courtesy of Prof. Joshua Schwartz and
Yehoshua Peleg 157
6.1 Nea Moni, Chios, 11th century. Exterior view. Photo: Marina Mihaljević 164
6.2 Nea Moni, Chios, 11th century. Plan. Drawing: Marina Mihaljević 165
6.3 Nea Moni, Chios, 11th century. Reconstruction of the interior. Drawing: Marina
Mihaljević after Anastasios Orlandos (in Bouras, Nea Moni, figs. 57 and 78) 166
6.4 Nea Moni, Chios, 11th century. Reconstruction of the west elevation Drawing:
Marina Mihaljević (after Bouras, Nea Moni, figs. 104 and 115) 167
6.5 Nea Moni, Chios, 11th century. Reconstruction of the dome. Drawing: Marina
Mihaljević after Bouras, Nea Moni, figs. 89–90 and 107 168
6.6 Küçükyalı (Maltepe), 9th century, Istanbul (Constantinople). Plan of the
church. Drawing: Marina Mihaljević after Ricci, “Reinterpretation of the
‘Palace of Bryas’” 170
6.7a Panagia Mouchliotissa (Theotokos Panagiotissa), Istanbul (Constantinople),
10th–11th century. Drawing: Marina Mihaljević after Bouras, “Hē Architektonikē
tēs Panagias ton Mouchliou stēn Kōnstantinoupoli” [The architecture of
Panagia Mouchliou in Constantinople], figs. 8 and 43 171
6.7b Theotokos Eleousa, Veljusa, 11th century. Plan. Drawing: Marina Mihaljević 171
6.8 Theotokos Eleousa, Veljusa, 11th century. Domes. Photo: Marina Mihaljević 172
6.9 Panagia Mouchliotissa (Theotokos Panagiotissa), Istanbul (Constantinople),
10th–11th century. Dome. Photo: Marina Mihaljević 173
6.10 The Tomb and the Ascension of Christ, ivory, c.400, Bayerisches
Nationalmuseum, Munich, Inv. Nr. MA 157. Photo: Andreas Praefcke. Wikimedia
Commons, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reidersche_Tafel_c_400_AD.jpg
[Accessed July 9, 2022] 178
6.11 Tetradrachm of Bar Kochba, undated issue, year 134/5 CE. Obverse:
representation of the Temple with the rising star. Photo: Public domain
Illustrations xiii

Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. http://www.cngcoins.com [Accessed

June 9, 2022] 181
6.12 Synagogue, Dura-Europos, 3rd century. Torah Shrine. Photo: © Alamy 182
6.13 Surb Prkitch, Ani, 11th century. Exterior, from the south. Photo: Marina
Mihaljević 186
6.14 Surb Prkitch, Ani, 11th century. Interior from the southeast. Photo: Marina
Mihaljević 187
6.15 Pilgrim’s ampulla no. 18, reverse. Photo: © Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine
Collection, Washington, DC 188
7.1 Homilies of James Kokkinobaphos, Vat. gr. 1162, fol. 2v, 12th century.
Photo: © Universal History Archive/UIG/Bridgeman Images 192
7.2 Church of the Virgin Kosmosoteira, Pherrai, 1152, southwest view.
Photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monastery_of
_Panagia_Kosmosotira,_Ferres,_Evros.JPG [Accessed June 6, 2022] 195
7.3 Church of St. Panteleimon, Nerezi, 1164, south view. Photo: Ida Sinkević 195
7.4 Church of St. Panteleimon, Nerezi, 1164, floor plan. Drawing: Ida Sinkević 196
7.5 Church of St. Panteleimon, Nerezi, 1164, southeast dome, fresco, Ancient of
Days. Photo: Ida Sinkević 198
7.6 Church of St. Panteleimon, Nerezi, 1164, southwest dome, fresco, Christ Priest.
Photo: Ida Sinkević 199
7.7 Church of the Virgin of Ljeviška, 1306/1307, floor plan. Drawing: After Ćurčić,
Gračanica: King Milutin’s Church, fig. 101D 201
7.8 Church of the Mother of God, Gračanica monastery, 1321, floor plan
Drawing: After Ćurčić, Gračanica: King Milutin’s Church, fig. 101F 203
7.9 Church of the Mother of God, Gračanica monastery, 1321, central dome,
interior view. Photo: Courtesy BLAGO Fund, Inc. 205
7.10 Church of the Mother of God, Gračanica monastery, 1321, fresco, Evangelist
John, southeast dome. Photo: Courtesy BLAGO Fund, Inc. 207
7.11 Church of the Mother of God, Gračanica monastery, 1321, fresco, Evangelist
Luke, northeast dome. Photo: Courtesy BLAGO Fund, Inc. 208
7.12 Gospel Book, MS E.D. Clarke 10, f. 2v, 11th century, Oxford, Bodleian Library.
Photo: © Bodleian Library Oxford 209
8.1 Primitive hut, engraving, Charles Eisen, frontispiece of Marc-Antoine Laugier,
Essai sur l’architecture, 2nd ed., 1755. Photo: Public domain image from DOME,
digitized content from the MIT Libraries’ collections, dome.mit.edu [Accessed
June 3, 2022] 212
8.2 Presentation of Christ in the Temple, mosaic, katholikon of the Hosios
Loukas monastery, Greece, 11th century. Photo: Public domain image by
Hans A. Rosbach from Wikimedia commons https://commons.wikimedia
xiv Illustrations

.org/wiki/File:Hosios_Loukas_Katholikon_(nave,_North-West_squinch)
_-_Presentation_02.jpg [Accessed June 3, 2022] 221
8.3 Presentation of the Mother of God in the Temple (also known as the Entry of
the Ever Virgin Mary and Most Holy Mother of God Theotokos into the Temple;
Vavedenije), icon, Hilandar, Mt. Athos, 14th century. Photo: Courtesy of the
Foundation of the Holy Monastery Hilandar 222
8.4 Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, modern Istanbul, Turkey, 6th century, analysis
showing light penetration in the central canopy. Drawing: Alex Blum created by
using Rhinoceros, Autodesk Revit, and Photoshop 227
8.5 Process from volume to canopy to nine-square design based on canopied parti
in Byzantine churches. Drawing: Alex Blum created by using Autodesk Revit
and Adobe Illustrator 228
8.6 Five-domed katholikon of the Matejič monastery, Skopska Crna Gora, Northern
Macedonia, 14th century. Photo: Ivan Drpić 228
8.7 ‘Windblown’ capital with acanthus leaves, Hagios Demetrios, Thessaloniki,
Greece, 5th century. Photo: Nebojša Stanković 230
Notes on Contributors

Anna Adashinskaya
(PhD, Central European University, Budapest-Vienna) is a research fellow at
the Oriental Studies Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow.
Between 2020 and 2021, she was a postdoctoral member of the ERC proj-
ect Art Historiographies in Central and Eastern Europe: An Inquiry from
the Perspective of Entangled Histories. She completed her PhD in Medieval
Studies with a dissertation on practices of ecclesiastic foundation, sponsor-
ship, and patronage. Her main research interests concern monasticism in the
Balkans and the interaction between Slavic Balkan States and Byzantium dur-
ing the late medieval period.

Jelena Anđelković Grašar

(PhD, University of Belgrade) is a senior research associate at the Institute
of Archaeology in Belgrade, Serbia. Her research interests are the history of
art and visual culture in antiquity, late antiquity, early Christianity, and early
Byzantium, as well as gender studies and women’s history within these periods.
Her secondary field of interest is cultural heritage, its educational potential,
management, presentation, interpretation and popularization. Anđelković
Grašar is secretary of the editorial board of the journal Starinar. She was an
associate in several EU-funded projects and manager in three: TRAME—Tracce
di memoria (2020–2023) and COOLTOUR-Millennials for cultural heritage
(2022–2024) from the ERASMUS+ program and SHELeadrersVR (2022–2025)
from the Creative Europe program. She has co-organized international confer-
ences at Viminacium Archaeological Park, Serbia, the exhibition Itinerarium
Romanum Serbiae in Santiago de Chile, and was the president of the national
organization committee of the Fifteenth Annual International Conference
on Comparative Mythology—Sacred Ground: Place and Space in Mythology
and Religion held in Belgrade and Viminacium. She is the author of the book
Femina Antica Balcanica and numerous scholarly articles.

Jelena Bogdanović
(PhD, Princeton University) is Associate Professor at Vanderbilt University.
She specializes in cross-cultural and religious themes in the architecture of
the Balkans and Mediterranean. Among her authored and edited books are
The Framing of Sacred Space: The Canopy and the Byzantine Church (2017),
Icons of Space: Advances in Hierotopy (2021, paper edition 2023), Perceptions
of the Body and Sacred Space in Late Antiquity and Byzantium (2018, paper
xvi Notes on Contributors

edition 2020), Space of the Icon: Iconography and Hierotopy (2019, with Michele
Bacci and Vladimir Sedov), Political Landscapes of Capital Cities (2016, with
Jessica Christie and Eulogio Guzmán), and On the Very Edge: Modernism and
Modernity in the Arts and Architecture of Interwar Serbia (1918–1941) (2014, with
Lilien Robinson and Igor Marjanović).

Čedomila Marinković
(PhD, University of Belgrade) is an independent researcher from Belgrade.
Trained as an art and architectural historian, she specializes in Serbian medi-
eval and Byzantine art. Marinković has published several books including
monographs Petar Omčikus (1998), Slika podignute crkve [Image of the com-
pleted church] (2007), Jews in Belgrade 1521–1942 (2020), and Synagogues
in Vojvodina (2022). Among her publications are peer-reviewed articles:
“Founder’s Model—Representation of a Maquette or the Church?” (2007),
“A Live Craft: The Architectural Drawings on the Façade of the Church of
the Holy Virgin Evergetis in Studenica (Serbia) and the Architectural Model
from Červen (Bulgaria)” (2008), and “Principles of the Representation of
the Founder’s Architecture in Serbian Medieval and Byzantine Art” (2013).
Marinković’s second field of expertise is Jewish art. She is currently prepar-
ing for publication of her dissertation, “Constructing the Stage for Narrative:
Representations of Architecture in the Sarajevo Haggadah and Illuminated
Sephardic Haggadot of the 14th Century.” Marinković has received fellow-
ships and grants from the University of Belgrade, the Italian Government, and
Athens University, and was awarded the Ženi Lebl award for the best scientific
work on a Jewish topic for her PhD thesis.

Marina Mihaljević
(PhD, Princeton University) is Assistant Professor of Art and Architectural
History at the State University of Novi Pazar, Serbia. Her specialization is in
the field of architectural exchange within the broader Byzantine sphere, espe-
cially in the regions of the Balkans and the Mediterranean. She is the author of
several articles on Byzantine architecture, including “Religious Architecture”
(2021), “Change in Byzantine Architecture” (2016) and “Üçayak: A Forgotten
Byzantine Church” (2014).

Ljubomir Milanović
(PhD, Rutgers University) is a research associate at the Institute for Byzantine
Studies at the Serbian Academy for Sciences and Arts, Belgrade. Trained as an
art historian, he specializes in late antique, early Christian, and medieval art
Notes on Contributors xvii

with a focus on Byzantine and post-Byzantine production. Milanović is the

author of numerous articles and book chapters, including “On the Threshold
of Certainty: The Incredulity of Thomas in the Narthex of the Katholikon of
the Hosios Loukas Monastery” (2013), “Cover Girl: Envisioning the Veil in the
Work of Milena Pavlović-Barilli” (2014), “Illuminating Touch: Post-Resurrection
Scenes on the Diptych from the Hilandar Monastery” (2015), “The Path to
Redemption: Reconsidering the Role of the Image of the Virgin above the
Entrance to the Church of the Virgin Hodegetria” (2016), and “Delivering the
Sacred: Representing Translatio on the Trier Ivory” (2018). Milanović is cur-
rently preparing for publication of his dissertation, “The Politics of Translatio:
The Visual Representation of the Translation of Relics in the Early Christian
and Medieval Period, The Case of St. Stephen.” He has received fellowships and
grants from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the École française de Rome,
the Delaware Valley Medieval Association, and the Studenica Foundation.

Cecilia Olovsdotter
(PhD, University of Gothenburg) is a classical archaeologist and art historian
affiliated as senior research fellow to the Swedish Institute of Classical Studies
in Rome. She specializes in Roman and late antique art and architecture,
with an emphasis on triumphal iconographies of commemorative and reli-
gious art. Among her publications are The Consular Image: An Iconological
Study of the Consular Diptychs (2005), “Representing Consulship: On the
Conception and Meanings of the Consular Diptychs” (2011), “‘To Illustrate
the History of Art.’ John Brampton Philpot’s Photographic Collection and the
Study and Mediation of Late Antique Ivories in the Mid Nineteenth Century”
(2016), and the edited volume Envisioning Worlds in Late Antique Art: New
Perspectives on Abstraction and Symbolism in Late-Roman and Early-Byzantine
Visual Culture (2019), including her own contribution “Architecture and the
Spheres of the Universe in Late Antique Art.” She is currently finishing a mono-
graph on Victoria and the cosmic conception of victory in the art of the Late
Roman Empire.

Ida Sinkević
(PhD, Princeton University) is the Arthur J. ’55 and Barbara Rothkopf Professor
of Art History at Lafayette College, in Easton, Pennsylvania. Her research is
focused on Byzantine art and on the impact of medieval visual culture on later
periods. Her publications include a number of articles, a book on the church of
St. Panteleimon at Nerezi in the Republic of North Macedonia, and an edited
volume, Knights in Shining Armor: Myth and Reality 1450–1650 (2006).
Introduction
Jelena Bogdanović, Ida Sinkević, Marina Mihaljević, and
Čedomila Marinković

This book, Type and Archetype in Late Antique and Byzantine Art and Architec­
ture, aims to renew interest in typology within late antique and Byzantine art
and architectural history. In particular, it suggests paths for revising approaches
to typology as a way of organizing our knowledge about visual and represen-
tational aspects of art and architecture in the Mediterranean region. Instead
of aiming for a comprehensive treatment of historical developments of visual
types and their diversity, the authors focus rather on selected examples of art
and architecture that offer historical specificity and provide relevant frame-
works for a more nuanced understanding of concepts of type and archetype in
late antiquity and Byzantium as well as their relevance to typology as a schol-
arly method.
Art historians usually associate types with easily identifiable and visu-
ally recognizable artistic forms. In the medieval religious context, the most
prevalent typological investigations of art forms start with textual references
in the Bible, as, for example, in the work of the English monk and scholar
Bede (c.673–735).1 Biblical typology is framed by the relationship between the
Old and New Testaments and is articulated already in the texts of the New
Testament. In such a construct, Old Testament prophetic narratives and forms
are understood as types (τύπος, plural τύποι) which, based on some kind of
likeness, prefigure New Testament fulfillment in antitypes (ἀντίτυπα): as when
Adam is the type that prefigures Christ as antitype, or the human-made sanc-
tuary is the antitype of the true heavens (cf. Romans 5:14; Hebrews 9:24). Such
theological typology is highly suggestive of an analogue approach to contempo-
raneous religious visual arts and architecture.2 Even if not specifically named

1 See, for example, Bede, Bedae Venerabilis opera, Pars II: Opera exegetica, 2A: De Tabernaculo,
De Templo, In Ezram et Nehemian, ed. David Hurst (Turnhout: Brepols, 1969), and, in par-
ticular, the section on the Tabernacle and the Temple. Biblical typology is particularly dis-
cussed in Jean Danielou, From Shadows to Reality: Studies in Biblical Typology of the Fathers
(Westminster: Newman Press, 1960) and Leonhard Goppelt, Typos: Die typologische Deutung
des Alten Testaments im Neuen; Anhang, Apokalyptik und Typologie bei Paulus (1939; repr.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990).
2 See, for example, Sabine Schrenk, Typos und Antitypos in der frühchristlichen Kunst (Münster:
Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1995) and the review of her book by Albert Dietl,
“Sabine Schrenk, Typos und Antitypos in der frühchristlichen Kunst (Jahrbuch für Antike

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004537781_002

2 Bogdanović et al.

as such, visual typology became one of the major principles of representation

and referentiality in Judeo-Christian arts and has been particularly utilized in
iconographical studies.3 The repetitive use of various visual types and their
reproducibility solidify recognizable forms and confer familiar meanings that
point beyond themselves to the ultimate source: the archetype (ἀρχέτυπον).4
The universality of such an approach builds upon the idea of type as a fixed
expression of the all-encompassing action of God as the Creator. Yet, when
detailed through historical, regional, and cultural frameworks and investigated
through differing modes of creative expression, the typological method is com-
plicated. Defining and clearly classifying types and then studying them in a
systematic way proves to be inconsistent and quite complex.5

und Christentum, Erg.-Bd.21), Münster 1995,” Journal für Kunstgeschichte 2, no. 2 (1998),
121–25.
3 The visual typology of religious images is deeply rooted in the iconographical and icono-
logical studies prevalent in art historical scholarship. For good overviews, see Maria Cristina
Carile and Eelco Nagelsmit, “Iconography, Iconology,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its
Reception, vol. 12, ed. Constance Furey, Steven Linn McKenzie, Thomas Chr. Römer, Jens
Schröter, Barry Dov Walfish, and Eric Ziolkowski (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 778–783, and
Christine Hasenmueller, “Panofsky, Iconography, and Semiotics,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism 36, no. 3 (1978), 289–301. A plethora of art historical works approach visual typology
from within iconographical studies. One representative work that clearly presents the rel-
evance of typology for the systematization of knowledge about religious icons, even if again
not specifically using the term typology, is Alfredo Tradigo, Icons and Saints of the Eastern
Orthodox Church (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2006). Richard Krautheimer effectively
introduced iconographical studies and relevant methods of typology in medieval architec-
ture in Krautheimer, “Introduction to an ‘Iconography of Mediaeval Architecture’,” Journal
of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 5 (1942), 1–33, repr. in Krautheimer, Studies in Early
Christian, Medieval, and Renaissance Art (London: University of London Press, 1969), 115–150.
In another text, Krautheimer, “The Carolingian Revival of Early Christian Architecture,” Art
Bulletin 24, no. 1 (1942), 1–38, which can be understood as an attempt to provide an iconology
of architecture or to bridge the gap between formalist and sociopolitical studies of architec-
ture, Krautheimer aimed to contextualize the type of specific architectural form transmitted
by identifying the critical sociopolitical moments in their historical and cultural reception.
4 The philosophical considerations of type and archetype go back to Plato and his theory of
forms. Additional definitions of type and archetype can be found in the writings of Aristotle,
Plutarch, Polybius, Xenophon, Sophocles, Lucian, Cicero, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
to mention but a few. See Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), entries for “archetype” and “type,” also at http://www.perseus
.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da%29rxe%2
Ftupos and http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0
057%3Aentry%3Dtu%2Fpos (accessed January 22, 2021).
5 Architectural historians and theoreticians, who are often architects by training, are espe-
cially concerned with typology due to the rise of the sociopolitical history of art that aims to
supplant and to some extent simultaneously deny formalist studies that center on the role
of form and typology in architectural design. In his unpublished dissertation, “The Concept
Introduction 3

In this volume, we reassess methodologies that address type and arche-

type, as its ultimate source, by contextualizing questions of typology within
the scope of Judeo-Christian primary textual sources and evidence emerging
from selected art and architectural examples in the Mediterranean region.
Prevailing general definitions of type and typology distinguish between the
two related concepts, whereby a type is a grouping (class) based on common
features, while typology is the systematic classification of types according

of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into the Nature of Architectural Form,” (PhD diss., ETH
Zurich, 1995), Leandro Madrazo Agudin, details no less than twelve historical definitions of
type used in architecture and the theory of architecture. It seems relevant to enumerate all
twelve definitions of type, as defined by numerous intellectuals and practitioners from Plato
to Eisenman, which are extrapolated by Madrazo, and at the same time to acknowledge that
the list is not exhaustive. Madrazo highlights the following definitions of type relevant for
architectural studies: (1) as an ideal, primeval form; as archetype (Platonic idea); (2) as an idea
in the mind, with aesthetic, epistemological, and metaphysical connotations (Renaissance
idea, or disegno); (3) as an idea in the mind, with aesthetic and epistemological connotations
(Morris’s idea; Boullée’s conception of architectural form as geometric solids); (4) as a sensible
model; as prototype (Vitruvius’s wooden hut; Quatremère’s threefold model of hut, tent, and
cave; Quatremère’s modele); (5) as a fundamental principle inherent both to natural forms
and to art forms (Quatremère’s type); a variant of this is the idea of type as primitive principle
subjected to the influence of outward factors (Semper’s notion of type in the context of his
doctrine of style); (6) as a taxonomic category, used in classification of buildings according
to form, function, or other criteria (Durand’s diagrams; typological studies in the 1960s and
1970s; functional and morphological classifications in general); this approach includes the
notion of type as fundamental to the creation of an epistemology of architecture (Rossi’s
notion of type); (7) as a two-dimensional geometric figure or diagram (Serlio’s drawings of
temples; Palladio’s plan drawings of villas; Durand’s geometric diagrams); (8) as a geometric
solid (Boullée, Le Corbusier, Eisenman); (9) as a mental image (Laugier’s cabane; Arnheim’s
‘structural skeleton’); (10)  as a patterned process of design, amenable to systematization
(Durand’s method of composition; Eisenman’s transformational process); (11)  as a theme,
or conceptual space, which makes creativity possible (Leonardo’s sketches; Palladio’s villas;
Wright’s Prairie houses; Quatremère’s type; Arnheim’s ‘structural skeleton’; as well as con-
cepts formulated in the realms of information theory and artificial intelligence, like ‘frame,’
‘schema,’ ‘script,’ and others); and (12) as an impediment to creativity (Van Doesburg’s notion
of form-type; Alexander’s pattern theory; Eisenman’s transformational process). Madrazo
suggests that despite diverse and occasionally contrasting definitions, the type remains use-
ful for organizing the knowledge of architecture based on functional, morphological, or pro-
gressive forms in architecture. Additionally, according to Madrazo and other scholars, such
as Anthony Vidler and Werner Oechslin, type remains critical for the creation of an episte-
mology of architecture. See Anthony Vidler, “The Third Typology,” Oppositions 7 (1977), 13–16,
repr. in Architecture Theory Since 1968, ed. K. Michael Hays (Cambridge, MA/London: MIT
Press, 1998), 284–294; Anthony Vidler, “The Idea of Type: The Transformation of the Academic
Ideal: 1750–1830,” Oppositions 8 (Spring 1977), 95–115; and Werner Oechslin, “Premises for the
Resumption of the Discussion of Typology,” Assemblage 1 (1986), 36–53. See also Sam Jacoby,
“Typal and Typological Reasoning: A Diagrammatic Practice of Architecture,” The Journal of
Architecture 20, no. 6 (2015), 938–961. See also nn. 3 and 4 above.
4 Bogdanović et al.

to their shared characteristics.6 The typological approach in studies of late

antique and Byzantine visual arts and architecture predominantly stems from
taxonomic classification of formal, representational features of art and archi-
tecture. The methods of typological investigation are rooted in iconographical
studies, interchangeably used for the visual arts and architecture. By looking at
‘typical’ visual elements we discuss various types of images and icons, through
examination of their content, formal characteristics, inscriptions, placement,
or historical styles. Some art historians focus on shared iconographic, repre-
sentational, and above all visual features of various types of religious icons, as
when discussing various classes of saints—military saints, ascetic or monastic
saints.7 Yet, as scholars continually raise the question of likeness, Katherine
Marsengill effectively argues that Byzantine icons were true portraits that con-
formed to religious prototypes (from ancient Greek πρωτότυπον, meaning orig-
inal, primitive form), rather than actually resembling the person portrayed.8
These questions of likeness and mimetic qualities of types complicate the
applicability of iconographical methods within the considerations of typology
and its relevance within image theory.
Similarly, by examining ‘typical’ floor plans, construction techniques, stylis-
tic features, and functions of the buildings we study, we establish a variety of
architectural types. While iconographical approaches used for studying typol-
ogy in the visual arts are akin to those employed in architecture in consider-
ing shared representational and functional features of architectural examples,
they are also diverging. In prevailing studies of late antique and Byzantine
architecture, the type often encompasses the idea of a planning type—a dis-
tinct scheme of the building layout. This notion of architectural type includes
general outline and its proportions as well as the division of inner spaces of a
building by means of the masonry walls, masonry piers, or stone monoliths.

6 See, for example, definitions of type and typology at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/type and

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/typology (accessed April 12, 2022).
7 See, for example, Henry Maguire, The Icons of Their Bodies: Saints and Their Images in
Byzantium (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). See also n. 3 above.
8 Katherine Marsengill, “The Influence of Icons on the Perception of Living Holy Persons,”
in Perceptions of the Body and Sacred Space in Late Antiquity and Byzantium, ed. Jelena
Bogdanović (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018), 87–103. See also Marsengill, Portraits and Icons:
Between Reality and Spirituality in Byzantine Art (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013); Michele Bacci, The
Many Faces of Christ: Portraying the Holy in the East and West, 300 to 1300 (London: Reaktion
Books, 2014); Charles Barber, Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine
Iconoclasm (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002); and Hans Belting, Likeness and
Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Chicago University
Press, 1996).
Introduction 5

Accordingly, the basilica, one of the most common architectural types, can be
described as an oblong building divided in its interior by longitudinal rows
of columns placed symmetrically to the building major axis. The interior is
comprised of elongated subspaces—the middle space, the nave, is wider than
the lateral aisles. Because this type of building can accommodate large groups
of people, it was used in antiquity for civic structures and then reappropriated
for religious functions in late antiquity and medieval times. Among centrally
planned buildings, in which at least two sides are of equal length and the main
central space is symmetrical when bisected laterally and longitudinally, are
those based on the circle, the square, and polygons, often hexagons and octa-
gons. These centrally planned buildings were often used in late antiquity and
Byzantium for funerary and commemorative structures, such as mausolea and
martyria, as well as for baptisteries. An architectural planning type character-
istic of Middle Byzantine church architecture that developed after the mid-9th
century is the so-called cross-in-square. This architectural type represents the
building with a centralized, usually square, naos preceding the tripartite sanc-
tuary. The interior space of the naos is divided in nine equal portions by means
of four vertical columns which support the church’s upper structure.
The categorization of buildings presented here points to their horizontal
layout, but the ‘planning type’ unavoidably includes three-dimensional spatial
characteristics. In the case of churches of the basilican type, it is supposed that
the nave is not only wider but also higher than the lateral aisles. As a result, the
light is introduced into the interior of the building by a tier of openings, the
clerestory, placed in the masonry above the line of vertical supports between
the lower lateral and higher central roofs. In centrally planned structures, the
core space developed around its vertical axis is the major defining element in
understanding the structure. If it lacks openings and windows, the dark inte-
rior would be suggestive of tomb architecture as used in pagan traditions. If
the central open space is defined as light-filled by window openings, it would
indicate an early Jewish or Christian building, because light is an attribute of
God in these two monotheistic religions in the late antique Mediterranean.
Likewise, the four interior columns of the more complex cross-in-square
Byzantine churches carry the central dome. The dome is supported by penden-
tives (curved triangles) positioned between the barrel vaultings surmounting
the four arms of the cross bays. The corner compartments are much lower and
are frequently covered by domical or cross vaults. On the exterior, this system
bears the recognizable pyramidal composition of the main architectural vol-
umes, with the crowning dome above the central portion of the building, the
four cross arms just below the dome drum, and the lowest peripheral corner
6 Bogdanović et al.

compartments.9 In view of the close relationship between the ground plan and
the structural, three-dimensional appearance of the building, the term ‘struc-
tural type,’ is more pertinent to the idea of type in late antique and Byzantine
architecture and is practically interchangeable with the term ‘planning type.’
In religious architecture, the naos most often defines the type, while the
sanctuary and the narthex are secondary spaces in terms of architectural fea-
sibility. Symmetry emerges as critical for architectural and structural ordering.
For example, the tri-partite sanctuary of a distinctly Byzantine church has three
separate spaces of the prothesis, altar space and diaconicon, of which the first
two are actually required for the performance of liturgical rites. Likewise, the
narthex, the exonarthex, and other auxiliary spaces can be understood more
as additions rather than primary spaces in terms of defining the church type.
The advantages of utilizing typology as a major methodological device
in the study of church buildings had been justified by the correlation between
the changes in the predominant building types and the occurrence of new
ones in accordance with the liturgical changes that had affected the Byzantine
rite between the 7th and early 9th centuries.10 The changes in church architec-
ture and the appearance of the novel planning types in the Middle Byzantine
period has been seen as a result of the standardization of rite and related func-
tional demands.11 This in effect means that the typology has been considered
as concordant both with functional and chronological categories.12

9 For a characteristic Middle Byzantine composition of the church exterior, see Robert
Ousterhout, Master Builders in Byzantium (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1999), 112. Marina Mihaljević, “Constantinopolitan Architecture of the Komnenian Era
(1080–1180) and its Impact in the Balkans” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 2010), 123–124,
presents the hierarchical treatment of the church parts as a widely assimilated metropoli-
tan element in Byzantine architecture.
10 Richard Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 4th ed. (New Haven/
London: Yale University Press, 1986), 297–300. Vasileios Marinis, “Liturgy and Architecture
in the Byzantine Transitional Period (7th–8th centuries),” in Transforming Sacred Spaces:
New Approaches to Byzantine Ecclesiastical Architecture from the Transitional Period, ed.
Sabine Feist (Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2020), 189–198, analyses liturgical changes and
the architectural impact.
11 Marina Mihaljević, “Religious Architecture,” in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Art
and Architecture, ed. Ellen C. Schwartz (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2021),
307–328, esp. 312–314, outlines historical and cultural changes affecting Byzantine eccle-
siastical architecture.
12 For further remarks on the relationship between the typological and functional approach
to Byzantine architecture, see Cyril Mango, “Approaches to Byzantine Architecture,”
Muqarnas 8 (1991), 40–44, esp. 42–43; Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine
Architecture, 295–297; Hans Buchwald, “The Concept of Style in Byzantine Architecture,”
in Form, Style and Meaning in Byzantine Church Architecture (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999),
1–4; Robert Ousterhout, “The Architecture of Iconoclasm,” in Byzantium in the Iconoclastic
Introduction 7

In her work on the regional reception of Constantinopolitan 12th-century

architecture, Mihaljević elucidates the art historical constructs regarding
the much debated transition from the old to the new types in Byzantine
architecture.13 She analyzes methodological approaches to the category of
type in Middle Byzantine architecture, particularly the cross-in-square, which
had been evaluated as an ‘ideal’ type, fully concomitant not only with the
functional-ritual requirements but also with the other artistic and architec-
tural aspects of wider religious meanings, including the interior decorative
system and the exterior appearance of the church building.14
The fundamental change in the search for the ‘ideal’ church type that
affected building planning between the 7th and 9th centuries was in dramatic
opposition to the later continuation of the Middle Byzantine planning formu-
las, especially the cross-in-square architectural type.15 This example posits the
transition from the basilica to the centrally planned churches as a fundamen-
tal problem in tracing the historical development of Byzantine architecture.
The long-standing evolutionist approach involved preserved monuments
essentially being lined up and assigned a position in the sequence of the evo-
lution of the ideal cross-in-square church type.16 The so-called cross-domed
church type played a particularly important role in this methodological model,
because it was recognized as a turning point in the transition from axial to
centrally planned church types.17 In Byzantine architecture, the chronological

Era (ca. 680–850): The Sources, ed. Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon (Burlington, VT:
Ashgate, 2001), 3–36, esp. 16–17.
13 Mihaljević, “Constantinopolitan Architecture,” 16–23.
14 In his seminal study, “The Ideal Iconographic Scheme of the Cross-in-Square Church,”
in Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium (Boston:
Boston Book & Art Shop, 1955), 14–16, Otto Demus observes the ‘ideal’ Middle Byzantine
decorative programs as pertaining to the cross-in-square church type. For the analy-
sis of the church exterior hierarchical composition, in which the dome and the apse
received special treatment in accordance with the sanctity of the spaces, see Mihaljević,
“Constantinopolitan Architecture,” 47–49, 123–124, 197–199.
15 This narrative led to the depreciation of Late Byzantine architectural practice and its
omnipresent evaluation as non-innovative, which is a question beyond the scope of
this study. See Cyril Mango, Byzantine Architecture (New York: Rizzoli, 1985), 252–295;
Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 415–450.
16 For the evolutionist method, see Mihaljević, “Constantinopolitan Architecture,” 17–20.
17 The mid-8th-century reconstruction of Hagia Eirene in Constantinople, featuring the
cross-domed arrangement on the gallery level, is most often used as an example of
the cross-domed church: Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture,
285–300. More recently, see Sabine Feist, “The Impact of Late Antique Churches on
the Ecclesiastical Architecture during the Transitional Period: The Case Study of
St. Irene in Constantinople,” in Transforming Sacred Spaces: New Approaches to Byzantine
8 Bogdanović et al.

series, based primarily upon the church planning type, regularly included
the Constantinopolitan cross-domed churches today known as Gül and the
Kalenderhane Camii, which were long considered to be transitional monu-
ments in the period between the 7th and 9th centuries. The archaeological
discoveries in both edifices and the resulting redating of the churches to
the 12th century finally revealed the full scope of misconceptions inherent in
the linear, evolutionist approach in architectural typology.18 In his analysis
of the sustained use of basilica plans and adaptations of the cross-in-square
church type beyond Byzantine architecture in the territories of medieval
Bulgaria, Serbia, Rus’, the Vento, and the Norman Kingdom of southern Italy,
Mark Johnson additionally points to two major themes of hybridity of archi-
tectural types and relationships in architectural typology in religious and civic
architecture.19
It is not possible to distinguish the architectural type from the ground
plan (planar design) as it is inherently tied to the consideration of structure
and tectonic articulation, nor how the interior relates to the exterior of the
building. The building plan, stripped of other relevant architectural evidence,
often does not offer the possibility of recognizing the upper construction and
distinguishing the structural type. Byzantine buildings quite regularly dis-
play an incongruity in plans and structural systems of their substructure and
superstructure.20 Buildings known by their ground-level plans preserve only
fragmentary evidence about the overall design, which can be interpreted in
various ways.21 This is especially relevant for the distinction between massive

Ecclesiastical Architecture from the Transitional Period, ed. Sabine Feist (Wiesbaden:
Reichert Verlag, 2020), 129–145, esp. 132–139.
18 Cecil L. Striker, “The Findings at Kalenderhane and Problems of Method in the History
of Byzantine Architecture,” in Byzantine Constantinople, Monuments, Topography, and
Everyday Life, ed. Nevra Necipoğlu (Leiden/Boston/Cologne: Brill 2001), 107–116.
19 Mark Johnson, “Acceptance and Adaptation of Byzantine Architectural Types in the
‘Byzantine Commonwealth’,” in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Art and Architecture,
ed. Ellen C. Schwartz (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 373–388.
20 Örgü Dalgıç and Thomas F. Mathews, “A New Interpretation of the Church of Peribleptos
and Its Place in Middle Byzantine Architecture,” in The First International Sevgi Gönül
Byzantine Studies Symposium, Istanbul 2007 (Istanbul: Vehbi Koç Vakfı, 2010), 424–431,
esp. 426–429. Mihaljević, “Constantinopolitan Architecture,” 25–26 considers such a dis-
crepancy to be a result of the different function of the substructure spaces, and a rea-
sonable reduction of unnecessary construction expenses for the erection of the vaults of
great spans.
21 The archaeological evidence from many important Byzantine monuments, such as the
famous church of St. George in Mangana, introduces doubts about their structural system
despite substantial physical remains of their lower parts. Mihaljević, “Constantinopolitan
Architecture,” 26–28.
Introduction 9

structural walls and the linear supports, which in effect defines the difference
in architectural types in Byzantine architecture.
The prevailing typological approach in architecture has been broadened
and substituted by more nuanced approaches. A number of additional factors,
such as regional developments, also change the appearance of linear narra-
tive of late antique and Byzantine architecture.22 For example, the questions
of building scale and availability of construction materials can be connected
with the origins, dissemination, and endurance of particular planning types.23
Despite its historic grounding in the liturgical function of the church, the idea
of type in ecclesiastical architecture demonstrates only loose connections,
or even absolute disjunction, with the mimetic qualities and variety of func-
tions of church buildings—parish churches, cemetery churches, private cha-
pels, or monastic churches. Mihaljević emphasizes the flexibility of Byzantine
masters in resolving the particular structural, functional, and formal demands
of the architectural design of the church. She proposes that in the process
of design the Byzantine architects operated with spatial compartments, seg-
ments of the church building, and treated them as three-dimensional spatial
units—blocks—suitable for combining. Such a procedure in effect resulted in
myriad, ever-changing design solutions in Byzantine churches.24
In her previous work on architectural taxonomy, Bogdanović also offers
an alternative approach to the consideration of type in late antiquity and
Byzantium. She suggests a more plastic and integrated approach that starts
directly with the three-dimensional building type and an understanding of
architecture beyond the function of shelter to include the concept of the space
that a building frames. The plastic treatment of the interior space and the con-
sideration of light and acoustics as architectural elements of design suggest a
more integrated understanding of Byzantine architectural typology. Based on
the analysis of hundreds of churches, she reveals the relationships between
the three-dimensional module, the canopy, and the design of the Byzantine
church, most often recognized for its dome.25 Instead of following the prevailing

22 Striker, “The Findings at Kalenderhane,” 107–116; Robert Ousterhout, “Problems of Archi­

tectural Typology during the Transitional Period (Seventh to Early Ninth Century),” in
Transforming Sacred Spaces: New Approaches to Byzantine Ecclesiastical Architecture from
the Transitional Period, ed. Sabine Feist (Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2020), 147–158.
23 Slobodan Ćurčić, Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian to Süleyman the Magnificent
(New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2010), 328–337.
24 Marina Mihaljević, “Change in Byzantine Architecture,” in Approaches to Byzantine
Architecture and Its Decoration, ed. Mark Johnson, Robert Ousterhout, Amy Papalexandrou
(Farnham, Surrey/Burlington, VT: Ashgate 2012), 99–119.
25 Jelena Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred Space: The Canopy and the Byzantine Church
(Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).
10 Bogdanović et al.

typologies used to explain church design (such as the cross-in-square church),

this approach considers a generative but non-imitative system instead—the
nine-square grid design spatially articulated by a three-dimensional module
of a canopy, a four-columned structure with a domical roof.
Today recognized as cross-domed, cross-in-square, or domed-octagon
churches, these various building types associated with Byzantine architec-
ture were all achieved by utilizing the opportunities of the nine-square grid
diagram.26 The use of the canopied building module allowed for flexibility of
design and applications in various types of buildings, civic or religious, and
for various types of church, whether they were basilicas or more centralized
in plan. Such an approach also challenges the linear evolutionist narrative of
Byzantine architecture that positions the period between the 7th and 9th cen-
turies as a major historical threshold for the transition from longitudinal to
more centralized planning of churches.
The experimentations with the domical bay as a building module are high-
lights of 6th-century Byzantine architecture, as a point of mature transition
from late antique precedents.27 The paradigmatic canopied bay opened up
possibilities for technical and creative innovations, including the sophisti-
cated application of geometry and optics in architectural design beyond the
Constantinopolitan Hagia Sophia. The square-based domical bay of the Chalke
(Bronze) Gate is an exemplar of these experimentations. Emperor Justinian’s
historian Procopius described the Chalke Gate, once the main vestibule of the
Great Palace, in his invaluable text Buildings.28 The central structural part of
the Chalke Gate was a canopy-like structure with a dome on pendentives, a
key feature of Byzantine churches in 6th-century Constantinople. Procopius’s
description of the interior decoration of the Chalke Gate also summarizes the
major aesthetic principles of 6th-century architectural design, which were also
used and attested on a larger scale for numerous Byzantine church edifices.
All interior floors and vertical walls, up to the string course, were covered with
marble revetments, while arches and vaults were covered with mosaics.

26 Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred Space, 251–263.

27 Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred Space, 251–263. See also Ćurčić, Architecture in the
Balkans, 187–201, 231–238; Jelena Bogdanović, “Byzantine Constantinople: Architecture,”
in Routledge Handbook of Istanbul, ed. Kate Fleet (forthcoming).
28 Procopius, Buildings, trans. Henry Bronson Dewing and Glanville Downey, Loeb Classical
Library, vol. 7 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), I, x, 11–12; Bogdanović,
The Framing of Sacred Space, 243–251.
Introduction 11

Of the more than 20 churches and shrines Emperor Justinian rebuilt or built
in Constantinople, as mentioned by Procopius in his text, all three of the build-
ings which are still standing, Hagia Sophia, Hagia Eirene, and Ss. Sergios and
Bakkos, have a domed canopy as the central structural unit.29 These structures
are well lit and acoustically sound. The interior decoration of these buildings
includes delicate architectural sculpture, marble carvings, golden mosaics,
and monumental inscriptions with historical and religious content. These ele-
ments of architectural design and decoration, even if not always all used com-
prehensively, would remain aspirational criteria for numerous other Byzantine
accomplishments.
Bogdanović argues that the canopy was a guiding idea for architectural
design, which unified its material and non-material aspects, and that such an
approach supersedes the current typology used in Byzantine studies. The main
argument here is that diagrammatic reasoning is also typological and specific
for architectural theory.30 At the same time, the recognizable design principles
articulated in Byzantine architecture over a thousand years of its existence,
rather than geographical or chronological distinctions, characterize certain
accomplishments as late antique and Byzantine.
Again, as in the studies of visual arts, scholars occasionally delve into the
mechanisms of articulation and ultimate sources of architectural types beyond
somewhat generic, metaphoric, and metonymic references to the Heavenly
Jerusalem or biblical architecture mentioned in texts. By using iconographical
methodology, the architectural historian Richard Krautheimer linked an archi-
tectural structure, studied as a ‘type’ or a ‘copy,’ to its original, or architectural,
prototype.31 His initial analysis employed three major criteria—floor plan,
execution, and dedication of the building—which he derived from selected
medieval texts that discuss religious architecture and from actual architectural
examples.32 To test his thesis, for the major prototype of medieval religious
architecture he chose the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, because
as the most iconic building of medieval Christian world it was frequently
‘copied.’ He examined architectural reproductions of the Holy Sepulchre in
western European churches and baptisteries; two different types of build-
ings based on their function. Krautheimer concluded that medieval architects

29 Bogdanović, “Byzantine Constantinople: Architecture,” (forthcoming), with reference to

churches and shrines discussed by Procopius, Buildings, chapters 1–11.
30 See also relevant text by Jacoby, “Typal and Typological Reasoning: A Diagrammatic
Practice of Architecture,” 938–961.
31 Krautheimer, “Introduction,” 1–33.
32 Krautheimer, “Introduction,” 1–33, esp. 7, 16.
12 Bogdanović et al.

did not intend to imitate the likeness of the prototype, but to reproduce it
“typice and figuraliter [by type and symbolically—translation ours] as a
memento of a venerated site and simultaneously as a symbol of promised
salvation,” while maintaining “the relation between pattern and symboli-
cal meaning … as being determined by a network of reciprocal half-distinct
connotations.”33 As with recent studies focusing on the visual arts that ques-
tion the concept of likeness,34 further analysis of the mechanisms for the
transmission of the architectural form and meaning of the Holy Sepulchre
in Byzantium confirms that the emphasis was not on the mimetic qualities
nor on the reproduction of a likeness of the Holy Sepulchre. The prototype
for Byzantine religious architecture is not the Holy Sepulchre, but rather the
visionary architecture of several biblical constructs—the Ark of the Covenant,
the Tabernacle, and the Temple, as well as the Heavenly Jerusalem—while the
ultimate archetype is divine beauty, toward which humans reach by using vari-
ous material and non-material aspects of their creations.35
The type and extremely relevant archetype in late antique and Byzantine
contexts have proved to be critical concepts for understanding the mecha-
nisms of artistic creativity. However, they are largely undertheorized, and
discussions of them remain wrapped in inconsistent terminology. Should we
therefore abandon typological studies? And if so, what would be an alterna-
tive? Or should we revise current typological approaches, which privilege
and single out the concept of type at the expense of other inseparably related
and relevant concepts, above all, that of archetype? And if so, how should we
then consider typology? These are the main questions we raise in our investi-
gations, to ultimately suggest that typological approaches remain extremely
useful in studies of art and architecture but that innovative methodologies
beyond iconographical studies that rely heavily on formal and visual likeness
are needed. In order to propose scholarly approaches to understanding of type
and its ultimate source, the archetype, we turn to the definitions and use of
these concepts in late antique and medieval contexts in the Mediterranean and
investigate their referentiality.36 We reconsider the relevance of intellectual

33 Krautheimer, “Introduction,” citation notes on pp. 9 and 17.

34 See n. 8.
35 Jelena Bogdanović, “The Rhetoric of Architecture in the Byzantine Context: The Case
Study of the Holy Sepulchre,” Zograf 38 (2014), 1–21; Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred
Space, 266, 299; Filip Ivanović, “Images of Invisible Beauty in the Aesthetic Cosmology
of Dionysius the Areopagite,” in Perceptions of the Body and Sacred Space, ed. Jelena
Bogdanović (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018), 11–21.
36 This approach, which relates to the reasoning about type and archetype from within late
antique and Byzantine intellectual discourse, rather than considering them in retrospect
Introduction 13

theoretical discourse on type and archetype, whereby the selected case studies
test the applicability of proposed hypotheses.
Late antique and Byzantine theologians and philosophers discussed type
and archetype extensively. Starting with (Pseudo-)Dionysius the Areopagite,
self-identified student of the apostle Paul and an enigmatic intellectual,37 the
concepts of type (τύπος, model or pattern) and archetype (ἀρχέτυπον, the origi-
nal type from which the physical replicas are made) were recurringly used in
religious texts.38 As in Platonic tradition, within late antique and Byzantine
culture the type and archetype provide sophisticated tools for understanding
both idea (εἶδος, ἰδέα) and form (εἰκών, σχῆμα, μόρφωσις) in art and architec-
ture on multiple levels.39 Yet while related, the two notions are often different
and even opposing, though not necessarily mutually exclusive. What we find is
that the discourse articulated by members of the intellectual elite living in the
late antique and medieval Mediterranean permits a more nuanced approach
to their artistic and architectural expression.
The use of case studies in this volume needs clarification. The authors are
fully aware that the selected case studies presented here cannot be utilized to
extract universally shared collective forms in order to suggest historical trajec-
tories, and that neither can they be used without question as self-contained
entities that confirm comprehensively all conceptual aspects of typology.
Here, we mostly use case studies to understand individual examples of a type
within a given category and to provide insight into historical, geographical,
and cultural specificities of typology in the visual arts and architecture.

of the post-18th-century articulation of typology within epistemological theories, is a

critical premise in this volume.
37 On the polemical discussions about identity of (Pseudo-)Dionysius the Areopagite and
relevance of his texts for late antique and Byzantine studies, see Ronald F. Hathaway,
Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius: A Study in the Form
and Meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1969), 31–36,
and Maximos Constas, “Dionysius the Areopagite and the New Testament,” in The Oxford
Handbook of Dionysius the Areopagite, ed. Mark Edwards, Dimitrios Pallis, and Georgios
Steiris (New York: Oxford University Press, 2022), 48–63.
38 Dionysius Areopagita, Corpus Dionysiacum, 2 vols., ed. Beate Regina Suchla, Günter Heil,
and Adolf M. Ritter (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990–1991), including De coelesti hierarchia
(Celestial Hierarchy, henceforth CH), in which (Pseudo-)Dionysius the Areopagite defines
the terms of type and archetype.
39 Bogdanović touches upon this theme of type and archetype in architecture in Jelena
Bogdanović, “Rethinking the Dionysian Legacy in Medieval Architecture: East and West,”
in Dionysius the Areopagite: Between Orthodoxy and Heresy, ed. Filip Ivanović (Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2011), 109–134. See also chapter by Bogdanović in the
present volume.
14 Bogdanović et al.

In particular, in this volume on type and archetype in visual arts and archi-
tecture in late antiquity and Byzantium, the interrelations between the mate-
rial and non-material, the representational and conceptual are probed further.
There are two major goals. One is to investigate typology as a scholarly tool
used in visual arts and architecture, including whether and to what extent
the criteria used to approach typology can be interchangeably used in these
two artistic domains. The other is to provide a more nuanced comprehen-
sion of type and its ultimate source, the archetype, set against the cultural
and intellectual values that come from within late antique and Byzantine
medieval realms.
By focusing on selected examples of art and architecture from the late
antique and medieval Balkans and the wider Mediterranean, we consider
intellectual thought on type and archetype but start from the objects them-
selves and seek their ultimate archetypes. The notion of type and archetype is
related to objects of various physical scales, from recognizable visual elements
in icons, to architectural features of individual buildings (chapels, churches,
palaces), and to distinct aspects of built and natural environments. By juxta-
posing well-known and new material about icons and iconic imagery, religious
and civic structures, including churches built in late antiquity and Byzantium,
the book aims to initiate debate on methodological approaches that include
typology within Byzantine and Byzantine-related architecture, art, and archae-
ology. In the process, we additionally clarify the use of relevant terminology
associated with typological methodologies within the field of late antique and
Byzantine studies. Therefore, type and its derivative terms, such as archetype,
prototype, antitype, and stereotype, are all discussed. A particular emphasis is
placed on human scale and nonverbal communicative features employed in
the conceptual and actual designs of studied examples. Ultimately, enriched by
the theoretical framework that stems from within late antique and Byzantine
culture itself, this book aims to contribute to the research and methodologies
used in the broader field of Mediterranean studies and to contribute to image
theory and theory of architecture.
 Chapter 1

Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress

Imagery in the Central Balkans

Jelena Anđelković Grašar

1 Introduction

Located at the crossroads of different civilizations, the territory of the Central

Balkans displays rich and diverse cultural, social, and religious heritage. The
geopolitical complexity of the region shaped every aspect of its material cul-
ture and is also evident in the versatile types of visual representations of impe-
rial women. Usually based on the archetype of the divine heiress and intended
for imperial propaganda, the most common female imperial image types
include an empress as paired ruler, an independent sovereign, and a religious
figure evocative of a maternal or virginal ideal. Rooted in historical stereotypes
of noble women and based on the archetype of the divine one, empress image
types influenced representations of ordinary women and, as such, they con-
structed the idea of a prototype which it was desirable to imitate.1

1 Negative images of empresses of non-noble origin culminated in Procopius’s Sacred History,

and legends about the empress Theodora later continued to inspire the imaginations of
researchers and writers, and even today have remained present in academic research which
is oriented toward methodologies that can help in the creation of an accurate image of the
empress. Pauline Allen, “Contemporary Portrayals of the Byzantine Empress Theodora (of
AD 527–48),” in Stereotypes of Women in Power: Historical Perspectives and Revisionist Views,
ed. Barbara Garlick, Suzanne Dixon, and Pauline Allen (New York/London: Greenwood Press,
1992), 93–104; Leslie Brubaker, “Sex, Lies and Textuality: The Sacred History of Prokopios and
the Rhetoric of Gender in Sixth-Century Byzantium,” in Gender in the Early Medieval World:
East and West, 300–900, ed. Leslie. Brubaker and Julia M.H. Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004), 83–101. On the influence and mutual relationship between vari-
ous image types, specifically in the territory of the Central Balkans, see Jelena Anđelković
Grašar, Femina Antica Balcanica (Belgrade: Arheološki institut, Evoluta, 2020); Jelena
Anđelković Grašar, “Image as a Way of Self-Representation, Association and Type Creation
for Late Antique Women in the Central Balkans,” in Vivere Militare Est: From Populus to
Emperors—Living on the Frontier, vol. 1, ed. Snežana Golubović and Nemanja Mrđić (Belgrade:
Institute of Archaeology, 2018), 333–364.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004537781_003

16 Anđelković Grašar

2 Theoretical Background of Archetype and Type(s) in the Creation

of Empress Imagery

Among several possible uses of the archetype concept, in this study the most
important is the idea of the archetype developed from Jungian psychology,
because of its consideration of the collectively inherited unconscious idea, or,
in this case, an image universally present in the psyche of any individual. In
order to explore the archetypes and then types of an empress image, the image
should not be simplified to its iconic form, reduced to a representation mod-
elled in selected material,2 but rather considered as a mental image, shaped in
people’s minds and influenced by many social, cultural, religious, and politi-
cal factors.3 Mental images are related to mental models, which are personal,
internal representations of external reality; they are constructed by individuals
based on their unique life experiences, perceptions, and understandings of the
world.4 Thus mental images can be reshaped under other circumstances and
be subject to various interpretations over time and can be followed in their
recurring use in various forms of art.
The most prominent female archetype in psychoanalysis is the Great
Mother. Carl Gustav Jung and supporters of psychoanalysis considered the
Great Mother image as an archetype which appears in the human collective
unconscious realm and mythological patterns of Greek and Roman goddesses.5
Michael Carroll considers psychological archetypes of the Great Mother
as important factors in the creation of the Christian Marian (Theotokos) cult.6

2 The Latin terms typus, effigiesi, figura, forma, idolum, pictura, repraesentation can be related
to the English cognates depiction and representation.
3 The Latin term imago stands for the image related to imitate, imagine, an iconic mental rep-
resentation, or mental image.
4 Natalie A. Jones, Helen Ross, Timothy Lynam, Pascal Perez, and Anne Leitch, “Mental Models:
An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Theory and Methods,” Ecology and Society 16, no. 1 (2011), 46
[available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art46/].
5 Carl Gustav Jung, “Approaching the Unconscious,” in Man and His Symbols, ed. Carl Gustav
Jung (Garden City, NY: Doubleday 1964), 18–103; Carl Gustav Jung, Analytical Psychology:
Its Theory and Practice: The Tavistock Lectures (New York: Pantheon, 1968); Carl Gustav
Jung, “Psychological Aspects of the Mother Type,” in Collected Works of C.G. Jung, vol. 9:1,
The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, trans. R.F.C. Hull (London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1981), 75–110; Erich Neumann, The Great Mother: An Analysis of the Archetype,
trans. Ralph Mannheim (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970); Sylvia B. Perera,
Descent to the Goddess: A Way of Initiation for Women (Toronto: Inner City Books, 1981);
Edward C. Whitmont, Return of the Goddess (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1992);
David Adams Leeming and Jake Page, Goddess: Myths of the Female Divine (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1996).
6 Michael P. Carroll, The Cult of the Virgin Mary: Psychological Origins (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1992).
Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery 17

The archetype itself comprehends two sides of the ‘archetypal feminine’ provid-
ing its dual nature, i.e., maternal and virginal (spiritual) aspects to be identified
in the creation of goddess types. Based on archetypes well known in the spheres
of religion and various pagan cults, over time forms of the maternal—virginal
types of pagan goddesses—began to be transferred to the profane sphere
as well.7 In such a construct, various (anti)types of the late antique empress
images can be interpreted by using a classification—typology—which often
depends on the context, but the very same image might become the original
model—prototype—for late antique women of high social status.
Various typologies can be employed to recognize types in late antique
empress imagery. Although typologies of race, depending on the socio-
political context, can be considered outdated, anthropology can provide
thought-provoking insight towards some sort of typology of ‘otherness’ relating
to ancient cultures and people.8 Similarly, Jung’s personality typology based on
two attitudes and four functions can be helpful in the analysis of a particular
person, even a historic figure, but, as critics argue, there is no pure type but
rather a “conglomeration, an admixture of the attitudes and functions that in
their combination defy classification.”9 In considering a specific archaeological
artifact, archaeological or stylistic typology can be very helpful to determine
not only the object’s features but additional external factors which influenced
its shape, facture, color, and decoration, while ultimately keeping in mind that
no typology can be considered entirely consistent and final.10 According to the
philosophy of essentialism, an artifact’s form and attributes are seen as a con-
sequence of the imperfect realization of the template (exemplar type), which
is often attributed to differences in raw material properties or the creator’s

7 Anđelković Grašar, “Image as a Way of Self-Representation,” 333–364.

8 Goran Štkalj, Aleksandar Bošković, and Željka Buturović, “Attitudes of Serbian Biological
Anthropologists toward the Concept of Race,” Anthropologie LVII/3 (2019), 287–297;
Aleksandar Bošković, Kratak uvod u antropologiju [A brief introduction to anthropology]
(Zagreb: Naklada Jesenski i Turk, 2010), 19–37. Contemporary anthropology places the
question of identity at the center of its research, focusing on gender, race, and ethnic
identities. Ibid. 188–189.
9 Carl Gustav Jung, Collected Works of C.G. Jung, vol. 6, Psychological Types, trans. R.F.C. Hull
(Princeton: Princeton University Press [1921] 1976); Daryl Sharp, Personality Types: Jung’s
Model of Typology (Toronto: Inner City Books 1987), 89.
10 William Y. Adams, “Archaeological Classification: Theory Versus Practice,” Antiquity
62 (1988), 40–56; Robert Whallon and James A. Brown, eds., Essays on Archaeological
Typology (Evanston: Center for American Archaeology Press, 1982); William Y. Adams and
Ernest W. Adams, Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach
to Artifact Classification and Sorting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007);
John C. Whittaker, Douglas Caulkins, and Kathryn A. Kamp, “Evaluating Consistency in
Typology and Classification,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5, no. 2 (1998),
129–164.
18 Anđelković Grašar

individual technical competence.11 These essential forms are often consid-

ered as ‘mental templates’ similar to the mental images analyzed in this study,
which may be materialized more or less successfully. Typology in Christian
theology represents the theory of making connections between Old Testament
types and events or persons from the New Testament.12 Types as prefiguration
correspond to antitypes, events, or aspects of Christ in the New Testament.
The Virgin Mary within the holy marriage with the Holy Spirit refers to an old
sabbatical institution whereby she, as a figure for Israel, the representative of
God’s people, symbolizes their deepest hope for salvation which is about to be
realized.13 In considering the image of an empress, it can be said that in form-
ing a religious image of an emperor a similar concept of theological typology
was used whereby an earthly ruler becomes an antitype of the heavenly king.
The same type of associative relationships can be applied for the relationship
between the Queen of Heaven and a terrestrial empress.
Ideal type is the most important for the creation of an empress image and
its social recognition. According to Max Weber:

An ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more

points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete,
more or less present and occasionally absent concrete individual phe-
nomena, which are arranged according to those one-sidedly empha-
sized viewpoints into a unified analytical construct [German word
Gedankenbild—‘mental image’]. In its conceptual purity this mental
construct cannot be found empirically anywhere in reality. It is utopia.
Historical research faces the task of determining in each individual case
the extent to which this ideal-construct approximates to or diverges
from reality.14

11 Francis A. Grabowski, Plato, Metaphysics and the Forms (New York/London: Continuum
2008).
12 Patrick Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture: Two Volumes in One (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel
Publications, 1960); Leonhard Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old
Testament in the New (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1982); Piotr
Łabuda, “Typological Usage of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” The Person and
the Challenges 1, no. 2 (2011), 167–182.
13 Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture, 255–263; Sarah Jane Boss, Empress and Handmaid: On
Nature and Gender in the Cult of the Virgin Mary (London/New York: Cassel 2000), 217–218.
14 Max Weber, “Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy,” in The Methodology of the
Social Sciences, trans. and ed. E.A. Shils and H.A. Finch (Illinois: Free Press of Glencoe
1949), 90.
Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery 19

For Weber, mental images are directly linked with ideal types as ideal-
constructs, which do not have to be associated with any perfection or moral
ideals but rather the subjective accentuation of certain elements of the phe-
nomena in question.
Using typology in classification, analysis, and understanding of images can
be misleading, thus involving typification as a process of creating a standard
social construction based on assumptions, and even discrimination based
upon it, is known as typism.15 Closely related to typification is the stereotype,
which signifies something that lacks individual markers and generalization in
a social construction of reality, and is often associated with individuals belong-
ing to a particular group, often a social one.16 Stereotypes usually have a nega-
tive connotation which is based on prejudice and can lead to, for example,
racism or sexism. From the contemporary point of view, the latter can be easily
recognized in the ancient sources, especially those which provide testimonies
about imperial women.17

3 Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery

Depending on the idea and message to be communicated with the public,

there were various image types suitable for promoting imperial interests,
dynastic legitimacy, or religious notions, and among all of these types, two
figures are distinctive: empress as mother and empress as wife. The territory
of present-day Serbia is known as the homeland of 18 Roman emperors, and
during the Tetrarchy significant building activity is associated not only with
emperors, but with their mothers as well.18 An important aspect of the impact
of these women was their noble origin; if this was absent, it had to be fab-
ricated. For example, according to myth, the mother of the Roman emperor
Galerius (r. 305–311), Romula, conceived the divine son with the god Mars, thus
providing him with the noble origin which he did not have as the son of a

15 Kwang-ki Kim and Tim Berard, “Typification in Society and Social Science: The Continuing
Relevance of Schutz’s Social Phenomenology,” Human Studies 32, no. 3 (2009), 263–289.
16 C. Neil Macrae, Charles Stangor, and Miles Hewstone, eds., Stereotypes and Stereotyping
(New York/London: The Guilford Press, 1996).
17 Jelena Anđelković Grašar and Emilija Nikolić, “Stereotypes as Prototypes in the Perception
of Women: A Few Remarks from History and Folk Tradition,” Archaeology and Science 13
(2018), 89–107.
18 Aleksandar Jovanović, Tlo Srbije: zavičaj rimskih careva [Serbia: Homeland of the Roman
Emperors] (Belgrade: Princip-Bonart Press, 2006).
20 Anđelković Grašar

herdsman.19 Neglecting the figure of the father in favor of glorification of the

mother was important in the political ideology of the Tetrarchy. In the case of
Romula, this is indicated by the building of a residential palace in her honor,
named for her Felix Romuliana, as well as having her funerary tumulus next to
the emperor’s one (Figure 1.1).20 According to the archaeological excavations
conducted in Šarkamen, it seems that another woman from the Tetrarchy had
a prominent place in this imperial ideology. It is supposed that Maximinus
Daia (r. 310–313) followed Gаlerius’s example of glorification of the mother
figure when he started the construction of the palace, honoring the place of
his birth. A set of jewelry discovered during the excavations of the crypt of
the mausoleum located within the palatial complex suggests the funeral of a
female member of the imperial family (Figure 1.2),21 possibly the funeral of the
empress, the unknown mother of Maximinus Daia and sister of Galerius, who
was honored in Šarkamen together with her son.22
Unlike Romula, who directly influenced Galerius’s persecution of Christians
by worshiping mountain deities, the mother of Constantine the Great (r. 306–
337), Helena, followed the lead of her son in supporting Christians.23 Like

19 Through this legend Galerius glorified himself as the new Romulus or Alexander the Great.
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum,
vol. 19, ed. Samuel Brandt and Georgius Laubmann (Prague/Vienna/Leipzig: F. Tempsky,
G. Freytag, 1890), 9:9; Sexti Aurelii Victoris, Liber de Caesatibus, praecedunt Origogentis
Romanae et Liber de virisillustribusurbis Romae, subsequitur Epitome de Caesaribus, ed.
F. Pichlmayr (Leipzig: B.G. Teubneri, 1911), 40:16.
20 The idea that the architectural complex in Gamzigrad was actually sacred Romula’s
house was confirmed with the excavations conducted in 1984 when a fragment of the
archivolt with the inscription Felix Romuliana was discovered. Dragoslav Srejović, “Felix
Romuliana, Galerijeva palata u Gamzigradu” [Felix Romuliana, Galerius’s palace in
Gamzigrad], Starinar 36 (1985), 51, fig. 1; Dragoslav Srejović and Čedomir Vasić, “Diva
Romula—Divus Galerius, Imperial Mausolea and Consecration Memorials in Felix
Romuliana (Gamzigrad, East Serbia),” in The Age of Tetrarchs, ed. Dragoslav Srejović
(Belgrade: University of Belgrade, Centre for Archaeological Research, Faculty of
Philosophy, 1994), 141–156; Dragoslav Srejović, “Diva Romula—Divus Galerius. Poslednje
apoteoze u rimskom svetu” [Diva Romula—Divus Galerius. The last apotheoses in the
Roman world], Sunčani sat 5 (1995), 17–30; Ivana Popović, “Sakralno-funerarni kompleks
na Maguri” [Sacral and funerary complex at Magura], in Felix Romuliana—Gamzigrad,
ed. Ivana Popović (Belgrade: Arheološki institut, 2010), 141–158.
21 Ivana Popović, “The Find of the Crypt of the Mausoleum: Golden Jewellery and Votive
Plaques,” in Šarkamen (Eastern Serbia): A Tetrarchic Imperial Palace: The Memorial
Complex, ed. Ivana Popović (Belgrade: Arheološki institut, 2005), 59–82.
22 Miodrag Tomović, “Conclusion,” in Šarkamen (Eastern Serbia): A Tetrarchic Imperial
Palace: The Memorial Complex, ed. Ivana Popović (Belgrade: Archaeological Institute,
2005), 107–109.
23 De Vita Imp. Constantini, in “Eusebii Pamphili Caesareae Palaestinae Episcopi,” Opera
omnia quaeexistant, Tomus II (Paris: 1837), 3.47.
Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery 21

Figure 1.1 Felix Romuliana, imperial palace (1a) and imperial tumuli on the hill Magura (1b)
Photo: After Popović, “Sakralno-funerarni kompleks na Maguri”
[Sacral and funerary complex at Magura], fig. 105, and Milka
Čanak-Medić and Brana Stojković-Pavelka, Felix Romuliana—
Gamzigrad (Belgrade: Arheološki institut, 2010), fig. 27
22 Anđelković Grašar

Figure 1.2 Jewelry (2a) and golden foils of the diadem (2b) from the crypt of the mausoleum
in Šarkamen
Photo: Nebojša Borić, documentation of the Institute of
Archaeology
Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery 23

Galerius and Maximinus Daia, who dedicated their palaces to memories of

their mothers, Constantine had several cities renamed Helenopolis in honor
of his mother, Helena.24 Empress mother Helena gained the political verifica-
tion of power with the status nobilissima femina in 318 and the rank of Augusta
in 324. Alongside her social and political image, Helena also had a significant
reputation as a good Christian who was a patron and in Christian spirit took
care of poor people. Owing to this powerful religious image that was created,
all other Christian women during the Byzantine Empire were encouraged spir-
itually by the fact that Helena was the mother of the first Christian emperor.25
Helena Augusta is represented on the obverse side of the golden solidus that is
kept in the National Museum in Belgrade, minted in Thessaloniki in 324.26 The
reverse side reveals an image of Securitas, as is typical of empress gold coins,
implying an idea of the empress as SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE reminiscent of
former representations of PAX AUGUSTA.27 This symbol of imperial virtue aims
to emphasize the complex role of Helena as empress mother who, within the
empire in which her son is the supreme ruler, provides peace, security, and
happiness. The portrait of Helena is rendered in the style of Tetrarchian art,
where all forms are more abstract than realistic. Since the empress is depicted
with the diadem, many iconographical similarities between mother and son
are apparent when comparing this image with Constantine’s golden medal-
lion, also held in the National Museum in Belgrade.28

24 Cyril Mango, “The Empress Helena, Helenopolis, Pylae,” Travaux et Mémoires. Centre de
recherche d’histoire et civilisation byzantine 12 (1994), 143–158.
25 Julia Valeva, “Empresses of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries: Imperial and Religious
Iconographies,” in Niš I Vizantija 7, ed. Miša Rakocija(Niš: Kulturni centar Niša, 2009),
67–76.
26 Dragoslav Srejović, “Kasnoantički i ranovizantijski portret” [Late antique and early
Byzantine portrait] in Antički portret u Jugoslaviji, ed. Nenad Cambi, Emilio Marin, Ivana
Popović, Ljubiša B. Popović, and Dragoslav Srejović (Belgrade: Narodni muzej Beograd,
Muzeji Makedonije Skopje, Arheološki muzej Zagreb, Arheološki muzej Split, Narodni
muzej Ljubljana, 1987), 244, cat. 245; Angela Donati and Giovanni Gentili, eds., Constantino
Il Grande. La civiltà antica al bivio tra Occidente e Oriente (Milan: Silvana Editoriale, 2005),
cat. 17; Miloje Vasić, Gold and Silver Coins of Late Antiquity (284–450 AD) in the Collection
of National Museum in Belgrade (Belgrade: National Museum, 2008), cat. 242.
27 Patrick M. Bruun, “Constantine and Licinius A.D. 313–337,” in The Imperial Roman
Coinage 7, ed. Carol Humphrey, Vivian Sutherland, and Robert A. Carson (London: Spink
and Son Ltd., 1966), 323, 514 no. 134.
28 Cf. Srejović, “Kasnoantički i ranovizantijski portret,” 244, cat. 244, 245.
24 Anđelković Grašar

From the end of the 4th century, Helena’s name and religious type of image
were associated with the inventio crucis legend, as they are still.29 Iconography
of Helena and Constantine with the True Cross is suggestive; thus two fig-
ures with the motif of the cross between them on the discus of an early
Byzantine lamp from Singidunum are recognized as Helena and Constantine
(Figure 1.3).30 The figures are depicted schematically, in festive, imperial cos-
tume and in orans position, while the cross is placed between them with the
opening for oil above.31 In such a reduced scene, the figure of a woman is
recognizable only by the accentuated breasts.32 Representations of biblical
figures, as well as Christian symbols, on oil lamps have been known since the
4th century when they replaced mythological figures and scenes.33 As already
mentioned, the first source for this scene can be found in the legend of the
True Cross. Yet since artistic solutions in applied arts were based upon the

29 Jan Willem Drijvers, Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great, and the Legend
of her Finding of the True Cross (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 79–180; Jan Willem Drijvers, “Helena
Augusta: Cross and Myth. Some New Reflections,” in Millennium 8. Yearbook on the Culture
and History of the First Millennium C.E. ed. Wolfram Brandes (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton,
2011), 125–174; Barbara Baert, A Heritage of Holy Wood: The Legend of the True Cross in Text
and Image (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 15–41.
30 This oil lamp probably was produced in some local workshop in the period between the
6th and 9th century. Мarija Birtašević, “Jedan vizantijski žižak iza a rheološke zbirke
Muzeja grada Beograda” [An early Byzantine oil lamp from the archaeological collection
of the Belgrade City Museum], Godišnjak Muzeja grada Beograda 2 (1955), 43–46. Another
interpretation of the scene is that the figures represent Saint Thecla and Saint Menas. See
Branka Gugolj and Danijela Tešić-Radovanović, “A Lamp from the Belgrade City Museum
with a Representation of SS. Constantine and Helen,” in Symbols and Models in the
Mediterranean: Perceiving through Culture, ed. Aneilya Barnes and Mariarosaria Salerno
(Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2017), 124–135.
31 Decoration of imperial garments suggests loros which appeared on coins in the period
between the 7th and 9th century. Ornament on the head of the female figure indi-
cates stemma with pendilia, characteristic for representations of early Byzantine
empresses, and such an image could have been seen during official court ceremonies.
Ioannis Malalae, “Chronographia,” in Corpus Fontium Byzantinae 35, ed. Ioannes Thurn
(Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 17.9; Agathias, The Histories, in Corpus fon-
tium historiae Byzantinae 2A, trans. and ed. Joseph D. Frendo (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1975),
3.15; Maria Parani, Reconstructing the Reality of Images: Byzantine Material Culture and
Religious Iconography (11th–15th Centuries) (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 18–26.
32 The accentuated breasts on the female figure indicate the skill of the craftsman of the
local workshop and this type of ‘gender label’ is also known from a fresco-painted tomb
in Osenovo. Renate Pillinger, Vania Popova-Moroz, and Barbara Zimmermann, Corpus
der spätantiken und frühchristlichen Wandermalereien Bulgariens (Vienna: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999), 14, fig. 4.
33 Slavica Krunić, Antičke svetiljke iz Muzeja grada Beograda [Ancient lamps from the
Belgrade City Museum] (Belgrade: Muzej grada Beograda, 2011), 380–381.
Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery 25

Figure 1.3 Early Byzantine oil lamp from the Belgrade City Museum (Helena and
Constantine?)
Photo: Documentation of the Belgrade City Museum

iconographic patterns on coins, there was a considerable practice of depicting

co-rulers on coins during the 6th and 7th centuries, which often had the aim
of propaganda, supporting certain heirs to the throne. When women were rep-
resented, their images could be considered as those of real co-rulers, as is the
case with Empress Sophia, wife of Emperor Justin II (r. 565–574), or Empress
Martina, wife of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641), honored with these coins as
the mother who provided the succession of the imperial throne.34 The motif
of the cross on the coins between the imperial couple can be also considered
as a scepter, which from the 5th century onwards was a symbol of the source
of the ruler’s power; that is, coming from the God.35 Given the knowledge that
utilitarian objects were often used to promote imperial propaganda, it might
be possible that the iconographical pattern from coinage was transferred on
to the lamp.36 Because the figures are shown in orans position and the male

34 Philip Grierson, Byzantine Coinage (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library
and Collection 1982, 2nd edition, 1999), 25–27.
35 Grierson, Byzantine Coinage, 29; Suzanne Spain, “The Translation of Relics Ivory, Trier,”
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31(1977), 285.
36 The custom of representation of the imperial couple on coins meant the imitation of
imperial protocol, when the person with the higher rank stood on the right side of the one
with lower rank, i.e., from the perspective of an observer, the emperor would be on the left
and co-ruler on the right. If the couple is represented with the cross, the emperor would
26 Anđelković Grašar

figure with the nimbus, this representation possesses religious character and
eschatological significance. Thus this image can be understood as having the
function of honoring Helena and Constantine as saints, patrons of the True
Cross and protectors of the ideal state.37
Political interests often affected the choice of empress, and politically
arranged marriages were very common. Therefore, in search of noble origin,
Emperor Galerius gave a lot of respect to his wife Galeria Valeria, daughter of
Augustus Diocletian.38 Valeria was proclaimed Augusta in 308 even though she
was already an empress daughter and her influence on the dynastic propa-
ganda and ideology can be supposed with particular certainty. Hence Valeria’s
image was distinctive on coinage minted in her honor (Figure 1.4a).39 This
image type became the ideal and a sort of prototype in the creation of the
visual identity of noble Roman ladies of high social rank, who aspired to imi-
tate this paradigm of imperial appearance. Such an empress image can be seen
on a cameo made of two-layered agate and opal from the first decade of the
4th century from Horreum Margi (Figure 1.4b). Here, a female bust is depicted
in right profile, which could be associated with the image of Galeria Valeria.40
According to the stylistic characteristics which suggest the art of the Tetrarchic
period, this work of art can be dated to the period between 300 and 311. The
coiffure is characteristic of the 3rd century and can be seen on several repre-
sentations from the beginning of the 4th century as well, when it was worn
by Galeria Valeria, Helena, and Fausta.41According to the facial features, this

be to the right of the cross and the empress would be on the left side. Leslie Brubaker and
Helen Tobler, “The Gender of Money: Byzantine Empresses on Coins,” Gender & History
12, no. 3 (2000), 573–574; Grierson, Byzantine Coinage, 26. Since on this oil lamp the female
figure is positioned on the left, that could indicate Helena’s importance within the scene,
which is based on the legend, mostly associated with the empress.
37 Baert, A Heritage of Holy Wood, 125–126.
38 Timothy D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (London: Harvard
University Press, 1982), 38, 156.
39 Srejović, “Kasnoantički i ranovizantijski portret,” 242; Carol Humphrey and Vivian
Sutherland, The Roman Imperial Coinage 6 (London: Spink and Son Ltd., 1967), 562 br. 53.
40 Ivana Popović, Rimske kameje u Narodnom muzeju u Beogradu, [Roman cameos in the
National Museum Belgrade] (Belgrade: Narodni muzej Beograd, 1989), 36–37, cat. 49; Ivana
Popović, “Roman Cameos with Representation of Female Bust from Middle and Lower
Danube,” in Glyptique romaine, ed. Hélène Guiraud and Antony Andurand (Toulouse:
Presses Universitaires Mirail, 2010), No. 38, Pl. XIII, 38; Aleksandrina Cermanović-
Kuzmanović, “Jedna kameja iz Ćuprije” [A cameo from Ćuprija], Zbornik Filozofskog
fakulteta 7, no. 1 (1963), 119–125.
41 Angelina Raičković and Bebina Milovanović, “Development and Changes in Roman
Fashion Showcase Viminacium” Archaeology and Science 6 (2011), 83.
Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery 27

Figure 1.4
Aureus of Empress Galeria Valeria
from the National Museum in
Belgrade (4a) and cameo with
female bust from Horreum Margi
(Galeria Valeria?) (4b)
Photo: After Anđelković
Grašar, “Image as a Way of
Self-Representation,” figs. 1a
and 1b
28 Anđelković Grašar

portrait is recognized as Galeria Valeria owing to likenesses in engravings and

on coinage.42
Connections to the imperial origin did not help Empress Fausta to
escape damnatio memoriae, even though she was the daughter of Emperor
Maximianus, sister of Maxentius, wife of Constantine the Great and mother
of their three sons, future emperors Constantine II, Constantius II, and
Constans I. She married Constantine in 307, and this marriage was arranged
as a political alliance of the two emperors.43 Although she had the same titles
as Helena—nobillisima femina (318) and Augusta (324)—she was not remem-
bered in history, and not only because she was murdered in 32644 but because
traces of her were erased. The majority of representations of Fausta are associ-
ated with known types of public image on coins. After she gained the status
of Augusta, coins with this title were minted in the short period between 324
and 326. The empress is depicted on the obverse side in profile, according to
the fashion of the time, with characteristic coiffure, wavy hair and a bun at
the back. In these portraits, unlike those of Helena, Fausta is depicted with-
out a diadem, which some authors interpret as her inferiority with regard to
Helena’s stronger influence,45 while others consider this to be specificity of
adornments, with only practical significance.46
This iconographical pattern can be seen on two cameos from Remesiana
made in agate and opal, which are today housed in the National Museum in
Belgrade and generally accepted to represent portraits of Empress Fausta, pro-
duced around 320 (Figure 1.5a/b).47 Previous identifications were associated

42 For analogies, see Popović, Rimske kameje u Narodnom muzeju u Beogradu, 36–37; Popović,
“Roman Cameos,” 210–211.
43 Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, 42–43; Jan Willem Drijvers, “Flavia
Maxima Fausta: Some Remarks,” Historia 41 (1992), 501–503.
44 David Woods, “On the Death of the Empress Fausta,” Greece & Rome 45, no. 1 (1998), 70–86.
45 Patrick M. Bruun, “Constantine and Licinius A.D. 313–337,” in The Imperial Roman
Coinage 7, ed. Carol Humphrey, Vivian Sutherland, and Robert A. Carson (London: Spink
and Son Ltd., 1966), 45.
46 Drijvers, “Flavia Maxima Fausta: Some Remarks,” 503.
47 Ivana Kuzmanović Novović, “Portreti cara Konstantina i članova njegove porodice na
gliptici u Srbiji” [Portraits of Emperor Constantine and members of his family on glyp-
tic in Serbia], in Niš i Vizantija 7, ed. Miša Rakocija (Niš: Kulturni centar Niša, 2009),
85–86, fig. 20; Ivana Popović, “Inventar grobnica iz Dola kod Bele Palanke (Remesiana)”
[Inventory of tombs from Dol near Bela Palanka (Remesiana)], in Niš i Vizantija7, ed.
Miša Rakocija (Niš: Kulturni centar Niša, 2009), 56–61, figs. 1–5; Ivana Popović, “Kameje iz
kasnoantičke zbirke Narodnog muzeja u Beogradu” [Cameos from late antique collection
of the National Museum in Belgrade], Zbornik Narodnog muzeja 14, no. 1 (1992), 402–403,
cat. 1, 2; Popović, “Roman Cameos,” cat. 39, 40, pl. XIII; Ivana Popović, Kasnoantički
i ranovizantijski nakit od zlata u Narodnom muzeju u Beogradu [Late antique and early
Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery 29

Figure 1.5
Cameos in medallions from
Remesiana (Fausta?) (5a, 5b)
Photo: After Anđelković
Grašar, “Image as a Way
of Self-Representation,”
figs. 2a and 2b
30 Anđelković Grašar

with the empresses of the Antonine dynasty, namely Annia Galeria Faustina
(130–176) or Bruttia Crispina (164–188),48 but according to the archaeological
context of finds and Fausta’s image on coins, it is more likely that these are the
images of Constantine’s wife.49 The type of coiffure is characteristic of empress
images on coins, like the one seen on the bronze medallion minted in Sirmium
after 316/17 when Fausta was in the zenith of her beauty.50 This visual similar-
ity could be a confirmation of the relationship between this type of portrait
and its use for specific purposes. Craftsmen used direct models of portraits on
coinage, because often glyptic workshops were in the vicinity of court mints
and were probably moved in accordance with the mints. This analysis might
lead toward a conclusion that imperial representations on cameos, as on coins,
could express political ideas and purposes.
Empress Ariadne was on the imperial throne for more than 40 years, and
influenced political and state affairs, directly or otherwise, with her choices
and decisions. With a strong sense for imperial propaganda, she is one of
the most visually depicted empresses. Ariadne was the oldest daughter of
Emperor Leo I and Empress Verina, and after her father’s death in 474 she had
a crucial role in the inheritance of the imperial throne, first as an empress
mother of young Leo II and later as holder of the imperial throne.51After
the death of her first husband, Emperor Zeno, in 491, election of the new
emperor depended on the choice of Adriane’s new spouse, making Anastasius
emperor.52 Her image can be seen in various examples of official art through-
out the empire, on coins53 and on ivory consular diptychs,54 as well as in
sculpture.55 The image of the imperial couple on the reverse side of coins

Byzantine golden jewelry in the National Museum in Belgrade] (Belgrade: Narodni muzej
Beograd, 2001), cat. 71, 80; Dragoslav Srejović, ed., Rimski carski gradovi i palate u Srbiji
[Roman imperial towns and palaces in Serbia] (Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umet-
nosti, 1993), 81, cat. 119.
48 Popović, “Kameje iz kasnoantičke zbirke Narodnog muzeja u Beogradu,” 402–403;
Popović, “Roman Cameos,” 216.
49 Popović, “Inventar grobnica iz Dola kod Bele Palanke (Remesiana),” 55–66; Srejović,
Rimski carski gradovi i palate u Srbiji, 81.
50 Raissa Calza, Iconografia romana imperiale da Carausio a Giuliano (287–363 d. C.) (Rome:
L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1972), 248–256, 301, 304; Francesco Gnecchi, I medaglioni
romani I (Milan: Vlrico Hoepli, editore libraio della real casa, 1912), 22, table. 8, 10–12.
51 Cyril Mango and Roger Scott, trans., The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and
Near Eastern History AD 284–813 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), AM 5965, A.D. 472/73, 119.
52 Mango and Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, AM 5983, A.D. 490/91, 209.
53 Grierson, Byzantine Coinage, 176.
54 Diliana Angelova, “The Ivories of Ariadne and Ideas about Female Imperial Authority in
Rome and Early Byzantium” Gesta 43, no. 1 (2004), 1–15.
55 Anne McClanan, Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses: Image and Empire
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2002), 83–87, figs. 3.6–3.9.
Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery 31

and on consular diptychs assured the legitimacy of the inherited throne for
the new emperor, Anastasius, since Ariadne possessed the status of Augusta
and via marriage made Anastasius not only the August but, after her death,
the successor of the previous three emperors, Zeno, Leo II, and Leo I.56 On the
steelyard weight from the National Museum in Belgrade an early Byzantine
empress is depicted, and it could be Ariadne from the period of her reign with
Zeno (Figure 1.6).57 The plastically modeled bust of an empress is adorned with
rich imperial ornate detail, in one hand there is a scroll and the other hand is
in the gesture of blessing. Since the costume of the empress was in accordance
with that of the emperor, the purple chlamys-paludamentum and loros as well
were the most important parts of the imperial ceremonial ensemble, likewise
several examples of depictions of empresses from the 6th century testify that
golden embroidery on the palla and stola were part of the costume, although
these were mostly associated with the fashion of ladies of high social rank.58
This type of garment, along with the scroll in the hand and particular type of
crown (a tall hat with diadem, both decorated with jewels, pearls and precious
stones), can be seen in numerous depictions on steelyard weights from the
5th century from the territory of the eastern Mediterranean,59 with the steel-
yard weight held in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna60 being most sim-
ilar in manner and style to the one from Belgrade. Costume, crown, and facial
features can be associated with three marble sculptures of Empress Ariadne
from the Louvre, Lateran, and Capitoline museums, and they are different
from her depictions from diptychs where she is dressed in paludamentum with
fibula, richly adorned collar, and crown with pendilia, dated to the period of
her reign with Anastasius. Dating of the Belgrade weight can be assigned to the
period between 474 and 491, which is supported by the stylistic characteristics

56 Brubaker and Tobler, “The Gender of Money: Byzantine Empresses on Coins,” 580–582;
McClanan, Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses, 82.
57 Mirjana Tatić-Đurić, “Bronzani teg sa likom vizantijske carice” [Steelyard weight with
an image of Byzantine empress], Zbornik Narodnog muzeja 3 (1962), 115–126, Т. I, II а,
III b–g; Srejović, “Kasnoantički i ranovizantijski portret,” 248, cat. 254; Miroslav Vujović,
“Ranovizantijskik kantar iz Beograda” [Early Byzantine steelyard weight from Belgrade],
Starinar 64 (2014), 171–172, fig. 7а–g.
58 Maria Parani, “Defining Personal Space: Dress and Accessories in Late Antiquity,” in Objects
in Context, Objects in Use: Material Spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan, Ellen Swift,
and Toon Putzeys (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007), 510–511; Herbert Norris, Ancient European
Costume and Fashion (Toronto: J.M. Dent and Sons (1927), reissued Dover Publications,
1999), 148, 151–153.
59 Richard Delbrueck, Spätantike Kaiserportäts (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1933), 229–231,
pls. 122–123; McClanan, Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses, 29–64, figs. 2.3–2.8,
2.11–2.13, 2.16.
60 Rudolf Noll, Von Altertum zum Mittelalter (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1958), 14,
cat. 16.
32 Anđelković Grašar

Figure 1.6
Steelyard weight from the National
Museum in Belgrade (Ariadne?)
Photo: After Starinar 64/2014,
book cover

of dualism of late antique and early Byzantine art, halfway between Hellenistic
illusionism and oriental expressionism.61 Because of such a rendering, it should
be supposed that the artistic manner was not directed toward the copying of
a real portrait but rather the convincing expression of an idea of power and
authority that a specific person represents. Namely, the image of the empress
on this weight can be considered as belonging to the typified representations
which were in use within the imperial cult. Like bronze coins, oil lamps, and
other utilitarian objects, weights were useful for spreading imperial propa-
ganda and available to the wider audience throughout the empire. Since the
empress’s image was on the weights of small mass, it can be supposed that
they were used for measuring valuable goods, which could have represented
the figurative and spiritual presence of an empress, and her guaranty of good
measure and precise balance.62
The wife of Emperor Justin I, Empress Euphemia, was Byzantine empress
in the period between 518 and 523/524. Although in historical sources she was

61 Tatić-Đurić, “Bronzani teg sa likom vizantijske carice,” 118–122.

62 Judith Herrin, “The Imperial Feminine in Byzantium,” Past & Present 169 (2000), 9.
Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery 33

described as a prostitute,63 during her reign she was known as a pious and
honored Christian.64 According to Procopius, Empress Euphemia was not
involved in state affairs,65 which accounts for the absence of her image on
coins and the fact that only one representation associated with this empress
is preserved.66 A bronze portrait from Balajnac, now housed in the National
Museum in Niš, is considered to depict Euphemia (Figure 1.7).67 This head was
found in the center of the city’s square, in the place where the forum was
probably located, where Justinian erected statues of Justin I and Euphemia in
their honor.68 The portrait features asymmetry of face and neck, whereby the
head can be considered as part of a statue, which was not positioned frontally
but turned to the left, probably toward the imperial pair.69 Ornament on the
head suggests a stemma with pendilia, characteristic for the end of the 5th
and first half of the 6th century.70 The portrait is rendered idealistically with

63 Prokopije iz Cezareje [Procopius], Tajna istorija [Historia arcana], trans. Albin Vilhar, ed.
Radivoj Radić (Belgrade: Dereta, 2004), 6, 17.
64 Alexander A. Vasiliev, Justin the First: An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1950), 91.
65 Prokopije iz Cezareje [Procopius], Tajna istorija [Historia arcana], 9, 49.
66 A small gilded statue of Empress Euphemia was placed in the church of St. Euphemia,
which was founded by the empress and is the place of her burial. Vasiliev, Justin the
First, 91.
67 Srejović, “Kasnoantički i ranovizantijski portret,” 248, cat. 255; Dragoslav Srejović and
Aleksandar Simović, “Portret vizantijske carice iz Balajnca” [A portrait of a Byzantine
empress from Balajnac], Starinar 9–10 (1959), 77–86; Elisabeth Alföldi-Rosenbaum,
“Portrait Bust of a Young Lady of the Time of Justinian,” Metropolitan Museum Journal 1
(1968), 26, figs. 17, 18; , Kurt Weitzmann, ed., Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early
Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century (Catalogue of the exhibition at The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, November 19, 1977, through February 12 1978) (New York: The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 1979), 32, cat. 26. Some scholars believe this portrait represents Empress
Ariadne. McClanan, Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses, 87–88, fig. 3.10; Dagmar
Stutzinger, “Das Bronzbildnis einer spätantiken Kaiserin aus Balajncim Museum von Nis,”
Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 29 (1986), 146–165.
68 Srejović and Simović, “Portret vizantijske carice iz Balajnca,” 77, 85. Another opinion
considers the possibility that this head was part of some hoard. Mihailo Milinković,
“Neka zapažanja o ranovizantijskim utvrđenjima na jugu Srbije” [Some remarks on
early Byzantine fortresses in southern Serbia], in Niš i Vizantija 3, ed. Miša Rakocija (Niš:
Kulturni centar Niša 2005), 167.
69 Since the back of the sculpture was not finished in detail, it could be supposed that this
statue was placed in some sort of niche. Srejović and Simović, “Portret vizantijske carice
iz Balajnca,” 79–80. Group statues of early Byzantine empresses were placed all over
Constantinople. Averil Cameron and Judith Herrin, Constantinople in the Early Eighth
Century: The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 29–37.
70 Holes where pendilia were fastened can be seen behind the ears. Srejović and Simović,
“Portret vizantijske carice iz Balajnca,” 79. This type of ornament is very well known
from the representation of Empress Theodora from the church San Vitale. Аnn M. Stout,
“Jewelry as a Symbol of Status in the Roman Empire,” in The World of Roman Costume, ed.
34 Anđelković Grašar

Figure 1.7
Portrait of Byzantine empress
(Euphemia?)
Photo: Arheološko blago
Niša [Archaeological
Treasure of Niš]
(Belgrade: Srpska
akademija nauka I
umetnosti, 2004), inside
book cover

a spiritual facial expression, which is in accordance with the artistic manner

of early Byzantine art. The empress is represented as a younger woman and
according to the crown this portrait can be dated to between 520 and 530.71
Since the empress’s death had occurred during this period, and according to
Procopius she was raised to the imperial throne in 518, when she was in the late
years of life,72 it should be supposed that at the time of the portrait’s produc-
tion Euphemia was of a certain age, while the portrait from Balajnac represents
her as a young women.73 Identification of this portrait as Euphemia can be
supported by coins of Justin I and Justinian I discovered at the same site.74 The
youthfully rendered portrait testifies to the usual aspirations in early Byzantine
art. Idealized images of rulers were created, with individualism reduced on

Judith Lynn Sebesta and Larissa Bonfante (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press,
2001), 85–86.
71 Srejović and Simović, “Portret vizantijske carice iz Balajnca,” 85.
72 Prokopije iz Cezareje, Tajna istorija, 6, 17.
73 Weitzmann, Age of Spirituality, 32, cat. 26.
74 Milinković, “Neka zapažanja o ranovizantijskim utvrđenjima na jugu Srbije,” 166–167.
Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery 35

the details. Attention was paid instead to factors which accentuated imperial
dignity and improved the impression of the imperial cult image.
Empress Sophia, wife of Emperor Justin II, was on the throne between 565
and 578. As a niece of Empress Theodora, she considered herself an impor-
tant factor in inheritance of the imperial throne. From 565, she was under-
stood to be the emperor’s paired ruler and partner, while a relationship with
the previous empresses of the Theodosian dynasty was established via the
title Aelia.75 Sophia’s strong personality influenced public perception of her.
Unlike Theodora, she was supported and recognized as ruler by the citizens.
She actively participated in many state affairs, including financial and reli-
gious politics, as when she, together with Justin, strongly supported Chalcedon
Christianity.76 She expressed her power and influence very openly, especially
in the years after Justin became mentally ill and after his death.77 All these
circumstances led to her significant role in the choice of the new emperor.78
Sophia’s dominant personality can also be observed in visual culture of this
period. She was represented in a pair with the emperor, Justin, on public monu-
ments in Constantinople79 and, in light of her piety, on the reliquary cross Crux
Vaticana, again with Justin.80 Although Ariadne had an important role in state
politics, beyond those on diptychs, there are no surviving images where she is
represented on the throne.81 Empress Sophia was credited for everything that
occurred within the empire. Therefore, it was her privilege to be represented
on the throne and holding of one of the most important ruler’s insignia, the
globus cruciger. She is the first empress represented as the emperor’s co-ruler
in such a way, on the obverse side of bronze coins, as the most prominent and

75 Averil Cameron, “The Empress Sophia,” Byzantion 45 (1975), 5–21; Lynda Garland,
Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium, AD 527–1204 (London: Routledge,
1999), 40–42, 47.
76 Garland, Byzantine Empresses, 43–47.
77 John of Ephesus, Iohannis Ephesini Historiae Ecclesiasticae Pars Tertia, ed. Ernest Walter
Brooks, CSCO 106, Scr. Syr. 54–55 (Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1935–36, repr. 1952), 1.22, 2.4–7,
3.3.4; Evagrius, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius, ed. Joseph Bidez and Léon Parmentier
(London: Methuen, 1898, repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1964), 5.1, 5.11.
78 Since her son died in 565, the choice of new emperor depended on Sophia’s acts and
choices, this, firstly, was Tiberius and, after his death, Maurice. Mango and Scott, The
Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, AM 6061 (AD 568/9); John of Ephesus, Iohannis
Ephesini Historiae Ecclesiasticae Pars Tertia, 3.5; Evagrius, The Ecclesiastical History of
Evagrius, 5.13.
79 Averil Cameron, “The Artistic Patronage of Justin II,” Byzantion 50 (1980), 70–71.
80 McClanan, Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses, 163–168, fig. 7.5.
81 Although consular ivory diptychs are identified as Empress Ariadne in most of the cases,
there is also an opinion that these diptychs depict Empress Sophia. See McClanan,
Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses, 168–178, figs. 7.6, 7.7.
36 Anđelković Grašar

Figure 1.8 Obverse of the coin of Emperor Justin II

Photo: Documentation of the National Museum of Leskovac,
Numismatics collection I/2 (inv. NI/2, 78)

convenient medium for the spreading of imperial propaganda.82 The image

contributed to the dynastic legitimacy of inheritance of the imperial throne,
as well as the creation of associations with the most significant models for
Christian rulers—Constantine and Helena.83 This type of empress image can
be seen on five bronze half-folles minted in Thessaloniki, discovered within
the coin hoard in Caričin Grad-Iustiniana Prima (Figure 1.8),84 as well as on
copper coins minted in Nicomedia, from the same site.85

82 Grierson, Byzantine Coinage, 27.

83 This practice was continued by other imperial couples, such as Tiberius II Constantine
and Ino Anastasia, Maurice and Constantina, Phocas and Leontia, while with Heraclius
and Martina Caesars are depicted as well. Brubaker and Tobler, “The Gender of Money,”
583–587.
84 Vladimir Kondić and Vladislav Popović, Caričin Grad, utvrđeno naselje u vizantijskom
Iliriku [Caričin Grad, fortified settlement in the Byzantine Illyricum] (Belgrade: Srpska
akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1977), 226, cat. 189. Alfred R. Bellinger, Catalogue of the
Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, vol. 1,
Anastasius I to Maurice (491–602) (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1966), 221, no. 66.1;
22, no. 67. 1–3.
85 Miodrag Grbić, “Vizantijski novci iz Caričina Grada” [Byzantine coins from Caričin Grad],
Starinar 14 (1939), 109–110.
Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery 37

4 Conclusion

One of the best known and most intriguing archetypes is the one related to the
Mother of God. For decades, scholars have argued about the existence of this
religious archetype, which was supposedly spread throughout the prehistoric
world, as well as whether the majority of ancient goddesses have their origin
in this single figure and concept of the Mother of God.86 Common representa-
tions of empresses are depictions of her on the throne, as sole figure or together
with an emperor. The type of this representation might be based exactly on the
idea of the archetype of the enthroned goddess. The iconographic pattern of
the sitting goddess with child in her arms is known from the 5th millennium BC
in the art of prehistoric cultures of the Danube basin.87 Enthroned goddesses
are known during antiquity, with the trappings of maternity, but also without
a child. Among the most characteristic figures are Hera-Juno, Cybele, and most
specifically Isis. This type of representation remains significant for the rep-
resentation of the Byzantine Christian Theotokos (Mother of God) as well.88
Thus it is not surprising that this image type was desirable for the representa-
tion of an heiress in the terrestrial realm, as a reference to the divine ones. The
relationship sometimes went in the opposite direction, and it can be said that
the specific image type of the Virgin Mary known as Maria Regina was cre-
ated according to the iconography of early Byzantine empresses, represented

86 On the archetype of the goddess as source of life, death, and procreation, as a unique
entity of earth and nature, and her manifestations through goddesses from the period of
the Paleolithic to Greek and Roman goddesses, see Leeming and Page, Goddess: Myths of
the Female Divine. On the origin of the Thetokos cult and its connections with the arche-
type of the Mother of God, see Carroll, The Cult of the Virgin Mary; Johanna H. Stuckey,
“Ancient Mother Goddess and Fertility Cults,” Journal of the Association for Research on
Mothering 7, no. 1 (2005), 32–44, with bibliography. See also n. 5.
87 Dragoslav Srejović, Praistorija [Prehistory] (Belgrade: Izdavački zavod Jugoslavije, 1967),
5–23, figs. 1, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16–17, and 30.
88 Iconography of mother and child, from the earliest paintings in catacombs, and later of
the Theotokos and Christ on the throne, had in their focus the idea of maternity, which
became even more important in the context of Incarnation and in the period after
the Iconoclasm. Nikodim P. Kondakov, Iconographia Bogomateri, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg:
Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1914); Ioli Kalavrezou, “Images of the
Mother: When the Virgin Mary Became Meter Theou,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990),
165–172. On associations between Goddess Isis and the Theotokos, see Thomas F. Mathews
and Norman Muller, “Isis and Mary in Early Icons,” in Images of the Mother of God:
Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. Maria Vassilaki (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005),
3–12.
38 Anđelković Grašar

with rich imperial ornate detail.89 Over centuries, empresses had followed this
maternal, enthroned type of representation which reflected their ways of
life via imagery. For Christian empresses and especially for the iconography
of their religious image, models of exemplary religious image besides the
maternal type comprehended the idea of virginity, another important aspect
of the Theotokos, which were actually exalted functions of previous virginal
goddesses. For these reasons, the gesture of orans position can be associated
not only with ancient female prayers but also with the type of the Theotokos
and archetypes known from the iconography of ancient and prehistoric
goddesses.90 Relationships between empresses and goddesses, and later the
Theotokos, in order to express political and ideological messages as well as to
contribute to imperial and dynastic propaganda remained strong. These cer-
tainly resulted in the empress as antitype of this millennial heritage. Besides the
same or similar iconographic patterns, attributes, and symbols associated with
their images, connections between goddess and empress images were explicit,
especially on coins.91 The image of Galeria Valeria on the obverse side of coins
was paired with Venus Vitrix on the reverse side, indicating the empress’s role
as a good mother. Because her image can be seen on cameos from Horreum
Margi, it can be said that the important female role in the Tetrarchic system
was seen in this maternal type of women who were becoming mothers to
Augustus’s adopted sons—Caesars.92 Helena’s role as mother was strengthened

89 Bissera Pentcheva, Icons and Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium (University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010), 21–26; Maria Lidova, “The Earliest Images of
Maria Regina in Rome and the Byzantine Imperial Iconography,” in Niš i Vizantija 8, ed.
Miša Rakocija (Niš: Kulturni centar Niša, 2010), 231–243.
90 Virginal aspects are characteristic for Athena and Artemis, as well as Tyche-Fortuna,
which suggests protective functions, known from prehistoric cults of Near Eastern mother
goddesses, while the vestiges of cults of Tyche and the Mother of God can be found even
in the Akathist Hymn. Elizabeth A. Gittings, “Civic Life: Women as Embodiments of Civic
Life,” in Byzantine Women and Their World, ed. Ioli Kalavrezou (New Haven/London:
Yale University Press, 2003), 36–37; Vasiliki Limberis, Divine Heiress: The Virgin Mary
and the Making of Christian Constantinople (London: Routledge, 2002), 123–130; Bissera
Pentcheva, “The Supernatural Defender of Constantinople: The Virgin and Her Icon in
the Tradition of the Avar Siege,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 26 (2002), 2–41.
91 Another legend associated with Romula’s mausoleum in Gamzigrad, points to the
idea that Galerius created his relationship to the mother figure based on the model of
Dionysus, who divinized his mother, Semele. Maja Živić, “Umetnička ostvarenja u carskoj
palati” [Artistic achievements in the Imperial Palace], in Felix Romuliana—Gamzigrad,
ed. Ivana Popović (Belgrade: Arheološki institut, 2010), 117.
92 Srejović, “Kasnoantički i ranovizantijski portret,” 242, cat. 239; Popović, “Roman Cameos,”
220. On the relationship between empresses and the goddess Venus, as well as the
Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery 39

by her image associated with PIETAS AVGUSTES and SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE

on coins. These formulas emphasized the empress’s political power given to
her by her son as well as the complex role of the empress mother, who pro-
vides peace, security, and happiness in the state where her son is a ruler.93
Helena was honored as the greatest Christian mother. She became the model
for future Byzantine empresses, who through their acts and images aspired to a
resemblance and wished to become ‘New Helenas.’94 Just like Helena, Fausta’s
image was based on the maternal type, representing her as careful mother of
future emperors of the Constantine dynasty, with legends on coins such as
SALVS REIPVBLICAE, SPES REIPVBLICAE, or PIETAS AVGVSTAE.95 These leg-
ends were associated with the idea of hope, security, and safety, which had
been transferred via the empress’s maternal image type.96 In later times, these
epithets were superseded by those of eɅ�Ic (hope) or BEBAIA eɅ�Ic (certain
hope) and directly related to the Theotokos.97
Stereotypes of humble origins and negative attitudes toward empresses of
non-noble origin which were created in ancient sources were followed and
negated by glorification of the imperial maternal figure. This practice started
with Galerius. With Helena, the mother of the first Christian emperor, the

symbolism of maternity, see Julie Langford, Maternal Megalomania: Julia Domna and the
Imperial Politics of Motherhood (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013).
93 Kalavrezou, “Images of the Mother,” 166; John. P.C. Kent, Roman Coins (New York: Abrams,
1978), nos. 639–40, pl. 162; Drijvers, Helena Augusta, 41–42.
94 Jan Willem Drijvers, “Helena Augusta: Exemplary Christian Empress,” Studia Patristica
24 (1993), 85–90; Leslie Brubaker, “Memories of Helena: Patterns in Imperial Female
Matronage in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries,” in Women, Men and Eunuchs: Gender in
Byzantium, ed. Liz James (London/New York: Routledge, 1997), 52–75; Liz James, Empresses
and Power in Early Byzantium (London: Leicester University Press, 2001), 14, 149–150,
153–154; Lynda L. Coon, Sacred Fictions: Holy Women and Hagiography in Late Antiquity
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997), 97–103, 118–119, 134–135; Judith
Herrin, Women in Purple: Rulers of Medieval Byzantium (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2001), 1–2, 21. On Constantine as an ideal Christian emperor and about his image as
model for “New Constantines,” see Paul Magdalino, ed., New Constantines: The Rhythm of
Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th to 13th centuries: Papers from the Twenty-sixth Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St Andrews, March 1992 (Cambridge: Variorum, 1994).
95 Kent, Roman Coins, nos. 641–642, pl. 162; Maria R. Alföldi, Die constantinische Goldprägung:
Untersuchungen zu ihrer Bedeutung für Kaiserpolitik und Hofkunst (Mainz: Philipp von
Zabern, 1963), nos. 503, 506, pl. 10, figs. 153, 154.
96 Kalavrezou, “Images of the Mother,” 166.
97 Kalavrezou, “Images of the Mother,” 166.
40 Anđelković Grašar

practice had a new flywheel in Christian society.98 Empresses as spouses usu-

ally tried to discover ways of fighting these stereotypes.99
Stylized cameos of Fausta represent prototypes of empress images known
from the Danube region, and were probably made based on patterns cre-
ated in workshops along the Danube Limes.100 Prototype here refers to the
idea of the imperial mother or wife; both important for dynastic politics and
propaganda.101 Cameos, together with coins, remained as one of the most con-
venient means of promotion of the imperial cult. They are rendered in the
style of Roman classicism, referring to the models of the ‘good emperors,’ in
this case empresses like Faustina Minor, suggesting the relationship between
Constantine and Marcus Aurelius, and an idea that Constantine’s dynasty is
the legitimate successor of the glory of the previous ones.102
Likewise, successors of Constantine’s dynasty, empresses of the Theodosian
house, continued to be dominant female figures, not only in affairs associated
with the court and the Empire but mostly in religious issues.103 Like Helena,
they were considered models of exemplary Christian behavior. Their images
could have been seen throughout the Empire. These empresses are usually rep-
resented on steelyard weights. Moreover, such representations of empresses
from steelyard weights can be considered again as image (proto)types rather
than images of real persons and, together with images on coins, were sub-
jugated to the goal of promotion and spreading of the imperial cult. The
last empress who could possibly have been represented on these weights
is Ariadne, since after her reign minting of coins with the empress image

98 The gradual appearance of a female figure in politics, or in general public affairs within
the empire, could probably be interpreted as a reaction to the dominant male figure
and military atmosphere during the era of military emperors. Valeva, “Empresses of the
Fourth and Fifth Centuries: Imperial and religious iconographies,” 67–76. The negative
attitude of contemporaries to Constantine’s origins as “the son of a harlot” is evidenced
by the ridicule from rival Maxentius on being proclaimed Caesar. Noel Lenski, “The Reign
of Constantine,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, ed. Noel Lenski
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 59–90, 62.
99 For more on stereotypes in historical sources, see Anđelković Grašar and Nikolić, “Stereo­
types as Prototypes in the Perception of Women,” 89–95, 101–102.
100 Ivana Popović, “Jewellery as an Insigne of Authority, Imperial Donation and as Personal
Adornment,” in Constantine the Great and the Edict of Milan 313: The Birth of Christianity
in the Roman Provinces on the Soil of Serbia, ed. Ivana Popović and Bojana Borić-Brešković
(Belgrade: National Museum Belgrade, 2013), 188–195.
101 Anđelković Grašar, “Image as a Way of Self-Representation,” 333–364.
102 Popović, “Roman Cameos,” 220–221.
103 Kenneth G. Holum, Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Domination in Late
Antiquity (Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982).
Type and Archetype in Late Antique Empress Imagery 41

stopped, which corresponds to the end of the distribution of weights with the
empress image.104
An alleged monumental sculpture of Justin I and Euphemia, based on the
fragmented empress’s head, can be compared with fragments of the sculp-
ture that probably represented Emperor Justinian discovered at Caričin Grad,
and which possibly stood at the Roman forum.105 This find suggests that
after a time, in the territory of the central Balkans, monumental sculpture
appeared in the service of imperial propaganda, signifying Justinian’s golden
age—renovatio imperii. The visual poetics of the empress Euphemia’s face
confirms this hypothesis, since the youthful freshness could be transferred to
the image of an older empress during the restoration of the Roman Empire in
the first half of the 6th century. The ideal type of ruler is achieved by using the
ideology of rejuvenated emperors and empresses in visual arts, with the idea
that for the whole of humankind there began a new spring.106
One of the most important types of imperial image was the type of co-ruler,
as can be seen on coins of Justin II and Sophia. These coins represent the
only known instance of an emperor and an empress seated side by side on
a throne, with the globus cruciger and the scepter signifying Christian ruler-
ship and victory.107 Bronze coins with such an image were widely distributed
across the Empire, promoting the unity of this imperial couple. It was impor-
tant for empresses that in the eyes of the public they could be distinguished as
co-rulers. Hence, the type of Koinōnia (partner in the imperium) was created
via the use of imperial tokens such as the diadem, the imperial cloak, the scep-
ter, the globus cruciger, and the throne, implying that the empress’s authority
was comparable to that of a male co-emperor.108
Ultimately, it can be said that in the representation of the empress’s ide-
ological image, concepts of both type and archetype were important. The
archetype could be traced all the way back to the enthroned goddesses of the
prehistoric world. Via imperial attributes of the Greco-Roman goddesses it
was mutually intertwined with the image of the Theotokos, with both known
inherited aspects—maternal and virginal. Such a constructed empress image
could be considered as a sort of antitype which refers to the goddess archetype.

104 McClanan, Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses, 29–64.

105 Perica Špehar, “The Imperial Statue from Iustiniana Prima,” Archaeology and Science 9
(2014), 43–49.
106 Srejović, “Kasnoantički i ranovizantijski portret,” 102–103, 248–249, cat. 255.
107 Diliana Angelova, Sacred Founders: Women, Men, and Gods in the Discourse of Imperial
Founding, Rome through Early Byzantium (Berkeley: University of California Press,
2015), 191.
108 Angelova, Sacred Founders, 194.
42 Anđelković Grašar

Furthermore, it is clear that in accordance with dynastic legitimacy and impe-

rial propaganda, the ideal type was the most desirable for the imperial image
and as such it holds the right to promote only certain aspects of the ruler,
whether male or female. By neglecting non-desirable aspects and therefore
individualism, usually simplified, a unified ideal type can thus become the pro-
totype of an imperial image—an original model which can later be replicated
or imitated. The relationship between mental templates, mental models, and
mental images can be traced in a non-material model which, when it enters the
material world, may or may not follow the mental exemplar, as the variety in
the empress imagery confirms. Typification and stereotypes again depend on
the ‘other,’ or rather subjectification or generalization, which is directly linked
with the social construct, as is clearly visible in comparing historical sources
and visual testimonies about the late antique empresses. Despite the barri-
ers and derogatory stereotypes associated with female rulers in late antiquity,
images of empresses were so distinctive in terms of the ideas and ideals they
possessed in public that they became prototypes for representative images of
respectable noble women who wished to resemble the most important image
type—that of the empress.109

109 On empress type and prototype, see also Anđelković Grašar, Femina Antica Balcanica,
25–56, 153–160; Anđelković Grašar, “Image as a Way of Self-Representation,” 333–364;
Sofija Petković, Milica Tapavički-Ilić, and Jelena Anđelković Grašar, “A Portrait Oil Lamp
from Pontes—Possible Interpretations and Meanings within Early Byzantine Visual
Culture,” Starinar 65 (2015), 79–89.
 Chapter 2

The Hodegetriai: Replicating the Icon of the

Hodegetria by Means of Church Dedications

Anna Adashinskaya

To Dr. Alexei Lidov, my mentor and teacher

⸪
Being proud of their history and ancient church, the inhabitants of Vasilopoulo,
a village near Aetos, published on the webpage of RadioAetos1 the early
20th-century notes of the local priest George Papaspyros, collected by the vil-
lage schoolteacher Athanasios Tragomalos. Accordingly, the local Hodegetria
church, called Holy Tuesday (Agia Triti) and erected during the Byzantine
period, celebrated on the Holy Tuesday after Easter with a gathering of people
from all the neighboring villages. Legend explains this strange name in the
following way: More than a thousand years ago, there was a bishopric in the
town of Aetos and the local bishop discovered that his flock was extremely
illiterate, “distinguished from animals only by their ability to speak.” He tried,
therefore, to find a way to approach them and established a fair (panagyris),
where locals, occupied normally with pasturing and hunting, could come and
stay together. The fair started on the Holy Monday and continued until the
Holy Tuesday when the bishop came to preach and instruct his gathered flock.
Due to the multitude of people, a place slightly outside the village was chosen
for the fair, and because this was conducted by the bishop, the inhabitants
decided to build a church dedicated to the Hodegetria (the Virgin Guide), who
was supposed to “direct the flock” to the location of the fair. The church also

1 Athanasios Tragomalos, “Naos Panagias Odēgētrias sto Basilopoulo Xēromerou” [The Church
of Hodegetria at Basilopoulo Xeromerou] in XeromeroPress—https://xiromeropress.gr
/εντυπωσιακό-οδοιπορικό-αφιέρωμαναό/ (accessed November 7, 2021).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004537781_004

44 Adashinskaya

received the name “of the Holy Tuesday,” because of the time set for the gather-
ing, and it became famous for numerous miracles of curing blind people and
sterile women.
A fascinating mash-up of historical and invented elements, this folkloric
story nevertheless bears ancient motifs typically encountered in Byzantine
narratives associated with the miracle-working icon of the Hodegetria in
Constantinople.2 First, it recounts a fair held on a Tuesday due to a holy event,
which echoes the Tuesday miracle happening amidst a fair held next to the
walls of the Hodegon monastery in Constantinople. Further, the dedication
of the village church to the Hodegetria is explained through her guiding
qualities.3 Like its Constantinopolitan prototype, the Hodegetria sanctu-
ary in the village can cure blindness and sterility. Finally, the villagers’ col-
lective efforts to erect the church recall the brotherhood serving the icon in
the Hodegon.
The fame of the Constantinopolitan icon generated many replicas which
were venerated in a way similar to their prototype. The presence of these
Hodegetria copies in different provinces and towns of the Byzantine Empire
and beyond its borders led to the emergence of numerous Hodegetria-
dedicated foundations, which were usually described in sources as churches
or monasteries made “for the name of the Most Holy Mother of God
Hodegetria.” They were probably established for the purpose of imitating the
Byzantine capital’s veneration practices and for housing the copies of the
Constantinopolitan icon. This can be inferred on the basis of their dedica-
tion, which reflects a shift in the focus of the Hodegon cult from the curing
water-fountain to the icon, presumed to be painted by Evangelist Luke.4
Such foundations were aimed mainly at the transfer of a part of the
famous icon’s miracle-working power through the veneration of copies of

2 Of numerous studies dedicated to the Constantinopolitan Hodegetria and her venera-

tion, the most recent and significant are: Christine Angelidi and Titos Papamastorakis,
“The Veneration of the Virgin Hodegetria and the Hodegon Monastery,” in Mother of God:
Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine Art, ed. Maria Vassilaki (Athens: Benaki Museum,
2000), 373–387; Bissera Pentcheva, “The Activated Icon: The Hodegetria Procession and
Mary’s Eisodos,” in Images of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed.
Maria Vassilaki (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 195–208; Alexei Lidov, “The Flying Hodegetria. The
Miraculous Icon as Bearer of Sacred Space,” in The Miraculous Image in the Late Middle Ages
and Renaissance, ed. Erik Thunø and Gerhard Wolf (Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2004),
291–321; Bissera Pentcheva, Icons and Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium (University
Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006), 109–143.
3 In the Byzantine legends, the monastery of Hodegon received its name due to the guides who
directed the blind people to the miracle-working source, see Pentcheva, Icons and Power, 126.
4 Angelidi and Papamastorakis, “The Veneration of the Virgin Hodegetria,” 377–378.
The Hodegetriai 45

the icon and the imitation of rituals and religious practices associated with the
Hodegetria (confraternities, processions, etc.). The existing sources and monu-
ments more often than not offer only faint traces of these practices. The pres-
ent study therefore analyzes the sizeable amount of known evidence about
Hodegetria-associated foundations in an attempt to understand how the
transfer of the icon-veneration functioned.5 Moreover, this inquiry into the
connections between the miracle-working image and its various imitations
may shed some light on the understanding of the ‘archetype—prototype—
types’ relationship in Byzantine pious practices and icon veneration.
Scholars have often examined these relationships within the frame-
work of Byzantine image theory, influenced particularly by the iconoclasm
controversies.6 In fact, in the course of the controversies, the iconophiles—
represented by such theologians as John of Damascus, Theodore the Studite,
and Patriarch Nikephoros I—detailed particular argumentation regarding the
relationship between an icon and its holy prototype as grounded in the notion
of likeness. The resemblance to the prototype became the key factor for the
veneration of an image, since every icon was ultimately an imprint (typos) of
the holy figures depicted. Just as a wax seal is an impression of its seal matrix,
so an icon and its prototype shared a number of common properties (the
name, the appearance), though they differed in their essence.7 In this way,
the corporality of a holy figure contained all potential imprints made, whereas

5 A similar study concerning the Italian replicas of the Hodegetria was conducted by Michele
Bacci, “The Legacy of the Hodegetria: Holy Icons and Legends between East and West,” in
Images of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. Maria Vassilaki
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 321–336.
6 Marie-José Baudinet, “La relation iconique à Byzance au IXe siècle d’après les Antirrhétiques
de Nicéphore le Patriarche: un destin de l’aristotélisme,” Études philosophiques 1 (1978),
85–106; Hans Georg Thümmel, Bilderlehre und Bilderstreit: Arbeiten zur Auseinandersetzung
über die Ikone und ihre Begründung vornehmlich im 8. und 9. Jahrhundert (Würzburg:
Augustinus, 1991), esp. 46–51; Kenneth Parry, Depicting the Word: Byzantine Iconophile
Thought of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 1996), 22–43; Charles Barber,
Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2002); Kenneth Parry, “Theodore the Stoudite: The Most ‘Original’
Iconophile?” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik (2018), 261–75; Kenneth Parry, “The
Theological Argument about Images in the 9th Century,” in A Companion to Byzantine
Iconoclasm, ed. Mike Humphreys (Leiden/Boston: Brill), 425–463; Jaś Eisner, “Iconoclasm as
Discourse: From Antiquity to Byzantium,” The Art Bulletin 94, no. 3 (2012), 368–394; Bissera
Pentcheva, The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in Byzantium (University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014), 57–88.
7 Barber, Figure and Likeness, 78–80, 102, 121–123.
46 Adashinskaya

the imprints participated in the prototype’s grace which was mediated by their
likeness and could be venerated to honor the depicted figure.8
The iconophile grouping in the controversies, however, engineered a con-
cept of visual hierarchy that went beyond the relationship between the icons
and the holy figures, namely it pertained to the sacral superiority mani-
fested in some images in comparison to others. If, according to Patriarch
Nikephoros, “the prototypes are more honorable, and themselves are more
worthy of honor,”9 then the icons honored with divine grace through their
miracle-working power become the images, worthy of further multiplica-
tion. Thus, simultaneously with the theological development of image theo-
ries, the pious practices started to distinguish the visual objects for special
veneration.10 Usually, these were the images possessing the status of achei-
ropoieta11 or produced by the holy artists such as Evangelist Luke.12 If, in the
theological argumentation, Christ’s incarnation validated the production and
veneration of images, the miraculous abilities of some icons provided further
historical and physical proof for their participation in the divine grace. In
the attempt to acquire a part of the grace, these representations became the
subjects of reproduction, since copies could retain some spiritual power of
the original.
However, the Byzantines appreciated the verisimilitude of images in a differ-
ent manner from a postmodern beholder.13 The copies resembled the originals
via a number of portrait features, poses, or even their names and inscriptions,
whereas the actual media (wooden panel, mural painting) seemed to be irrele-
vant. Moreover, as the following investigation will detail, the concept of iconic
resemblance included not only, and not always, the replication of visual for-
mulas (i.e., iconography), but also the similarity of the devotional rituals, the
dedication of the church spaces, and the arrangement of other church images
entering into the interplay with the emulated miraculous icon. Thus the pres-
ent research delves into the non-iconographic means facilitating the spread of

8 Barber, Figure and Likeness, 121–123, 138–139; Parry, “The Theological Argument,” 438–441,
451.
9 Barber, Figure and Likeness, 99.
10 Hans Georg Thümmel, Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre: Texte und
Untersuchungen zur Zeit vor dem Bilderstreit (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1992), 174–198.
11 Michele Bacci, The Many Faces of Christ: Portraying the Holy in the East and West, 300 to
1300 (London: Reaktion Books, 2014), 30–46.
12 Michele Bacci, Il pennello dell’Evangelista (Pisa: GISEM, 1994), 33–96; Michele Bacci,
“With the Paintbrush of the Evangelist Luke,” in Mother of God: Representations of the
Virgin in Byzantine Art, ed. Maria Vassilaki (Athens: Benaki Museum, 2000), 79–89.
13 Alexander Kazhdan and Henry Maguire, “Byzantine Hagiographical Texts as Sources on
Art,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 (1991), 1–22.
The Hodegetriai 47

the Hodegetria veneration and enabling the imitation and veneration of the
famous prototype through its replicas.
The earliest and most famous case of veneration transfer is the Hodegetria
of Thessaloniki, a miraculous icon housed in a chapel of St. Sophia, which,
like its archetype, was taken daily in a solemn procession to the ambo of the
church for participation in the service, and became a palladium for the city,
possessing supernatural powers.14 During the Norman siege of 1185, the icon
alerted the citizens about the approaching conquest by refusing to return to
its chapel.15 In this episode, a brotherhood (η αδελφότης) carrying the icon
during the procession is also mentioned, making the similarity with the
Constantinopolitan prototype even closer.16 Thus the prototype and replica
shared a number of common features: participation in Tuesday processions,
the icon’s brotherhood, its function as a palladium, and its involvement in city
politics,17 as well as its miraculous powers.
Even though the Constantinopolitan veneration of the Hodegetria emerged
in the post-iconoclast period,18 it passed through several formative stages with

14 Jean Darrouzès, “Sainte-Sophie de Thessalonique d’après un rituel,” Revue des études byz-
antines 34 (1976), 45–78, concerning the placement of the chapel, see pp. 71–72. See also
Bacci, “The Legacy of the Hodegetria,” 323.
15 Patrologia Graeca (167 vols.), ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris, 1857–1866) [hereafter PG], 136, 125–127.
16 For the confraternity of the Hodegon, see Barbara Zeitler, “Cults Disrupted and Memories
Recaptured: Events in the Life of the Icon of the Virgin Hodegetria in Constantinople,” in
Memory and Oblivion: Proceedings of the XXIX International Congress of the History of Art,
ed. Wessel Reinink and Jeroen Stumpel (Amsterdam: Comité international d’histoire de
l’art, 1999), 701–708; Nancy Patterson Ševčenko, “Servants of the Holy Icon,” in Byzantine
East, Latin West: Art Historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, ed. Christopher Moss
and Katherine Kiefer (Princeton: Princeton University, 1995), 547–555.
17 Concerning politicians’ appeals to the abilities of the icon in Thessaloniki, see PG 136, 41.
As an expression of the political might of the icon and its protective power, Michael VIII
introduced the procession with the Hodegetria during the triumphal entrance in the
capital in 1261: George Pachymeres, Relations historiques, ed. Albert Failler and Vitalien
Laurent, vol. 1 (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1984), 216–217; Georgios Akropolites, Annales, ed.
Immanuel Bekker (Bonn: E. Weber, 1837), 196–197; Nikephoros Gregoras, Historia byzan-
tina, ed. Ludwig Schopen, vol. 1 (Bonn: E. Weber, 1829), 87–88. Annmarie Weyl Carr, “Court
Culture and Cult Icons in Middle Byzantine Constantinople,” in Byzantine Court Culture
from 829 to 1204, ed. Henry Maguire (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library,
1997), 97–99.
18 For the veneration of the Icon of the Hodegetria and its development during Palaiologan
times, see Gordana Babić, “Les images byzantines et leurs degrés de signification: l’exemple
de l’Hodigitria,” in Byzance et les images: Cycle de conferences organisé au musée du Louvre
par le Service culturel du 5 octobre au 7 décembre 1992, ed. André Guillou and Jannic Durand
(Paris: Musée du Louvre, 1994), 189–222; Angelidi and Papamastorakis, “The Veneration of
the Virgin Hodegetria,” 373–387; Christine Angelidi and Titos Papamastorakis, “Picturing
the Spiritual Protector: From Blachernitissa to Hodegetria,” in Images of the Mother of
48 Adashinskaya

emphases on different aspects of the veneration practices: a place centered

around the blindness-curing water source, the palladium-housing monastery,
or a pilgrimage center, where the brotherhood served the Virgin’s miraculous
image. During the Palaiologan period, the veneration of the Hodegetria icon
became widespread, the origin and supernatural power of the icon having been
described in a corpus of miracle stories.19 It is possible that after the dedication
of the month of August to the Hodegetria icon (1297) and the re-establishment
of its public cult under the Palaiologoi,20 the veneration of the image spread
throughout the empire, leading to the establishment of numerous churches
dedicated to the Hodegetria. These foundations varied in size and importance
from family chapels on the distant Byzantine periphery to rich and spacious
complexes as in Mystras.
It is impossible to consider all cases of churches dedicated to the Hodegetria
across the Byzantine Commonwealth within the framework of a single arti-
cle. Instead, I will analyze a number of selected examples representing the
Byzantine urban milieu and rural periphery, and the Serbian and Bulgarian
states, as well as foreign-ruled Greek territories. In doing so, I shall try to find
the motivations behind the practice of dedicating ecclesiastic institutions
to the Hodegetria.
The earliest monastery with such a dedication attested outside of Constan­
tinople is a convent in Jerusalem.21 Its dedication was first mentioned in 1353/
54 by an anonymous Byzantine pilgrim,22 who was also the first to account
for the holy event marked by this foundation, that is to say its establishment

God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. Maria Vassilaki (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2005), 209–223.
19 Published by Christine Angelidi, “Un texte patriographique et édifiant: Le ‘Discours nar-
ratif’ sur les Hodègoi,” Revue des études byzantines 52 (1994), 113–149.
20 On the dedication of the entire month of August to the Virgin, see Venance Grumel,
“Le mois de Marie des Byzantins,” Échos d’Orient 31 (1932), 257–269. The decree of
Andronikos II concerning this legislation came down to us from works of Nikephoros
Choumnos, see Jean François Boissonade, ed., Anecdota Græca e codicibus regiis descripsit
annotatione illustravit, vol. 2 (Paris: Ex Regio Typographeo, 1830), 107–136. Concerning the
veneration of the image in the Palaiologan era, see Angelidi and Papamastorakis, “The
Veneration of the Virgin Hodegetria,” 83–85.
21 Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. 3, The City of
Jerusalem (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 314–316.
22 Afanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus and Gabriil Destunis, “Kratkij rasskaz o svjatyh mes-
tah Ierusalima i o Strastjah Gospoda nashego Iisusa Hrista i o drugih bezymjannogo,
napisannyj v 1253/4 g.” [A short narration about the holy places of Jerusalem and about the
Passions of our Lord Jesus Christ and about other things, anonymous, written in 1253/4],
Pravoslavnyj palestinskij sbornik 40 (1895), 7. Translation in Denys Pringle, Pilgrimage to
Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187–1291 (New York: Routledge, 2012), 193.
The Hodegetriai 49

on the site where the Virgin stood during the Crucifixion.23 This is confirmed
by another anonymous Byzantine pilgrim, who visited the city between 1250
and 1350. This source is somewhat more specific about the place, calling it
the monastery “where the nuns are living” and ascertaining that it is found
at “one stadium from the holy Sepulcher.”24 In the 15th century, the Russian
deacon Zosima mentioned the church of the Hodegetria in Jerusalem, adding
that, in his time, it was situated inside a monastery inhabited by monks.25 A
number of 16th-century Greek travelers, namely the authors of the Narration
about the Holy Sepulchre, of the poetic Proskynetarion, and of the Narration
about Jerusalem, noted that the monastery was in fact a Greek nunnery placed
to the west of the Holy Sepulchre.26 They all confirmed that it was the place
from where the Theotokos viewed the Passion, and added that it was destroyed
by the Arabs in the middle of the 16th century. Nowadays, the place is asso-
ciated with the nunnery of Megale Panagia (Dair al-Banat), dedicated to the
Presentation of the Virgin.27 However, Gustav Kühnel28 has suggested that the
nunnery was dedicated initially to the Hodegetria as it might have had a copy
of the famous icon.
One fact should be underlined: the connection established between the
monastery’s dedication to the Hodegetria and the evangelic event commemo-
rated in that place of the Holy City. As all the pilgrims agree, the nunnery was
built on the spot from which the Virgin witnessed the suffering and death of
her son on Golgotha. According to Alexei Lidov’s observation, as a bilateral
icon with a Crucifixion on its back, the two images of the Constantinopolitan
Hodegetria merged during the Tuesday processions into a complex spatial

23 Information about the Greek monastery as standing on the place occupied by the Virgin
during the Crucifixion is given only by the authors belonging to the Orthodox tradition.
The Western travelers referred to the location of the Virgin during the Crucifixion as being
situated “on the very spot where the altar of the church” of Mary Latina is. See Saewulf’s
account in Robert Willis, The Architectural History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at
Jerusalem (London: Parker, 1849), 144–146. On the church of Mary Latina, see Pringle, The
Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. 3, 236–243.
24 PG 133, 981; Pringle, Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, 383.
25 Nikolai Prokofiev, ed., Kniga hozhenij. Zapiski russkih puteshestvennikov XI–XV vv. [The
book of pilgrimages. Narrations of the Russian travelers in the 14th to 15th centuries]
(Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984), 310.
26 Afanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Vosem’ grecheskih opisanij svjatyh mest XIV, XV i
XVI vv.” [Eight Greek descriptions of the holy places of the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries],
Pravoslavnyj palestinskij sbornik 56 (1903), 28, 71, 123.
27 Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. 3, 314.
28 Gustav Kühnel, Wall Painting of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Berlin: Mann Verlag,
1988), 27–28.
50 Adashinskaya

image perceived by beholders “as a single one.”29 This complex image served
as the model for several bilateral icons with the Hodegetria on the front panel
and the Crucifixion or the Man of Sorrows on the back.30
In this sense, one may suggest that the dedication to the Hodegetria of
the Jerusalem monastery was motivated by its legendary location inside the
city’s Bible-related topography (the place from where the Virgin witnessed
the Crucifixion), and by the link between this location and the theological
concept expressed by the double-sided icon of the Hodegetria (juxtaposition
of the Mother’s and Christ’s sacrifices). An earlier description of the Virgin’s
monastery in the same location, made in 1106 by the Russian abbot Daniel,31
coincides in all details with the known facts about the foundation; the only dif-
ference is that Daniel does not mention the Hodegetria dedication. This may
suggest that the Jerusalem convent received its appellation after the image
of Constantinople, between 1106 and 1253/54, on account of the similarity
between topographic and iconographic theological concepts.
A number of images bearing the epithet ‘Η ΟΔΗΓΗΤΡΙΑ’ (A Guide)
appeared in the empire’s different regions at about the same time as the icon
in Constantinople started to receive imperial and aristocratic donations, to
participate in royal commemorative ceremonies in the Pantokrator monastery,
to protect the capital’s walls, to witness imperial oaths, and to be considered

29 Lidov, “The Flying Hodegetria,” 286–288.

30 Demetrios Pallas, Die Passion und Bestattung Christi in Byzanz. Der Ritus—das Bild
(Munich: Institut für Byzantinistik und neugriechische Philologie der Universität, 1965),
308–323.
31 Gelian Prochorov, ed., “‘Hozhdenie’ igumena Daniila” [The ‘pilgrimage’ of the Hegoumenos
Daniil], in Pamjatniki literatury Drevnej Rusi. XII vek (Moscow: Chudozhestvennaya
Literatura, 1980), 25–114 (Published at Elektronnye publikacii Instituta russkoj literatury,
http://lib.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=4934# (accessed on June 16, 2021)):
“И ту есть мѣсто на пригории; … И пришедше на мѣсто то святаа Богородица, и узрѣ
с горы тоя сына своего распинаема на крестѣ, и видѣвши, ужасеся, и согнуся, и
сѣде, печалию и рыданиемъ одръжима бѣаше … И то мѣсто есть подаль от Распятия
Христова, яко полутораста сажень есть на запад лиць мѣсто то от Распятия Христова.
Имя мѣсту тому Спудий, иже ся протолкуеть Тщание Богородично. И есть на мѣстѣ
томъ нынѣ манастырь, церкви Святаа Богородица клѣтьски верхъ въсперенъ.”
Translation: “And here on a rise is the place … And when the holy mother of God came
to this place and saw from this hill her son crucified on a cross she was horror-stricken
at what she saw and sank down and was overcome with grief and sobbing … And this
place is a little way from the (place of) Christ’s crucifixion, about 150 fathoms to the west;
the name of the place is Spudii (gr. spoudē) which is translated as ‘the hastening of the
Mother of God.’ And there is now a monastery on that place and a very fine tall square
church built in honour of the holy Mother of God.” The translation is published in John
Wilkinson, Joyce Hill, and William Francis Ryan, eds., Jerusalem Pilgrimage, 1099–1185
(London: Hakluyt Society, 1988), 129–130.
The Hodegetriai 51

to have been painted by Evangelist Luke.32 It is precisely this shift from simple
replication of the icon in the same medium (wooden board) to the depiction of
Mary in mural decoration, labeled as Hodegetria, that indicates a new stage in
the cult’s development. This is when the Hodegetria icon started to be under-
stood not only as miracle-working object, but also as a concept, as a reference
to certain qualities of the Theotokos.
By the late 11th or early 12th century, both mural images and icons of the
Hodegetria were starting to be venerated in southern Italy. The crypt of Santa
Maria delle Grazie, situated below the Sicilian Cappella Palatina, dates back
to 1105–1130. It was the place of Roger II’s coronation as king of Sicily,33 but its
main purpose was to contain royal burials.34 The Enthroned Virgin with Child
on the northeastern wall is the only piece of original decoration.35 The Virgin’s
depiction bears the identifying inscription ‘Η ΟΔΗΓΙ[ΤΡΙΑ]’ and, stylistically,
belongs to Byzantine-Sicilian art of around 1100.
Bearing the same epithet, the image of the Virgin found its place among
the mosaic decoration in the upper chapel as well. On the northern side of
the eastern wall, above the balcony arranged by Roger II for himself in the
northern aisle, there is the standing figure of the Virgin Η ΟΔΗΓΗΤΡΙΑ with the
Child, whose blessing is addressed to Saint John the Baptist. The scroll in this
depiction with the text “Ίδε ό αμνός του Θ(εο)ύ ό αϊρων την άμαρτίαν του κόσμου”
(Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, Jh. 1:29)36 cre-
ates, thus, a kind of dialogue between these figures, which brings to mind the
sacrifice of Christ taking place in the proscomidion below.
Even though the two full-length images of the Virgin from the Cappella
Palatina do not strictly belong to the type of Hodegetria, they testify nonethe-
less to the presence of the veneration of this particular image in Sicily during
this period. The replica of the Hodegetria was brought there by Batholomew di

32 Angelidi and Papamastorakis, “The Veneration of the Virgin Hodegetriai,” 377–385.

33 Thomas Dittelbach, “La chiesa inferiore,” in La Cappella Palatina a Palermo, ed. Beat Brenk
(Modena: Panini Editore, 2010), 283–293, esp. 283, considers that the church was built
immediately after the royal court was moved from Messina to Palermo, while William
Tronzo, “L’architettura della Cappella Palatina,” in La Cappella Palatina a Palermo, ed. Beat
Brenk (Modena: Panini Editore, 2010), 79–99 argues for 1102–1115 as the construction dates
of the Palatine chapel.
34 Dittelbach, “La chiesa inferiorei,” 284, considers that it was intended for William II, while
Tronzo, “L’architettura,” 93, suggests that it was a burial place for Roger II.
35 Antonina Testa, “L’affresco dell’ Odigitria nella Cappella Palatina di Palermo,” Sicilia
archeologica 28, no. 87/88/89 (1995), 125–128.
36 Ernst Kitzinger, “The Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina in Palermo: An Essay on the Choice
and Arrangement of Subjects,” The Art Bulletin 31 (Dec. 1949), 269–292 (273, 285).
52 Adashinskaya

Simeri, who founded a monastery dedicated to the Hodegetria (Nea Odigitria)37

and placed it under Roger II’s royal patronage.38 Thus the appearance in the
royal frescoes and mosaics of the Virgin with this epithet was motivated by
the veneration of the mobile image which replicated the Constantinopolitan
prototype. Simultaneously, the Virgin’s epithet can be explained through the
theological understanding of the Hodegetria icon: in both the crypt and upper
chapel, the Hodegetria image is placed near the proskomedia, where prepara-
tion of bread and wine for liturgical sacrifice takes place. Hence, as pointed out
previously, the central concept of redemptive sacrifice unifies the iconography
of the Hodegetria with the rituals taking place in the prothesis.
The veneration of the Hodegetria in Cyprus, too, dates back to the 12th cen-
tury, when an image of the Virgin inscribed ‘Η ΟΔΙΓΙΤΡΗΑ’ appeared in the
murals of the church of St. Nicholas tis Stegis.39 Nowadays, there are no widely
venerated replicas of the Constantinopolitan icon in Cyprus, but traces of its
veneration are preserved in the dedications of churches, in icons belonging to
the Hodegetria iconographic type (e.g., the icon from the Panagia Moutoullas
church),40 and in a later veneration of the Kykkotissa icon,41 which was
invested with the Hodegetria’s power and meaning. In the 1422 narrative on
the Kykkos icon created by the Cypriot hieromonk Gregory of Kykkos, many
features and miracles echo the much-venerated Hodegetria.42
Even though it was built during the Lusignan and Venetian periods,43 the
main cathedral of the Orthodox population in Leukosia/Nicosia, known
today as Bedestan, was dedicated to the Hodegetria, starting at least from

37 Bacci, “The legacy of the Hodegetria,” 324; Walther Holtzmann, “Die altesten Urkunden
des Klosters S. Maria del Patir,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 26 (1926), 328–351.
38 Alessandro Pratesi, “Per un nuovo esame della ‘Carta di Rossano’,” Studi Medievali 11 (1970),
209–235, esp. 216–217.
39 Andreas Stylianou and Judith Stylianou, The Painted Churches of Cyprus: Treasures of
Byzantine Art (Nicosia: A.G. Leventis Foundation, 1985), 62.
40 Doula Mouriki, Thirteenth Century Icon Painting in Cyprus (Athens: Gennadius Library,
1986), 63ff. fig. 26.
41 The Kykkos icon’s cult was developed starting from the 15th century, though the icon itself
is mentioned for the first time in 1365. John Hackett, A History of the Orthodox Church
of Cyprus (London: Methuen and Co., 1901), 331–335; Annmarie Weyl Carr, “Reflections
on the Life of an Icon: The Eleousa of Kikkos,” Epetērida Kentrou Meletōn Ieras Monēs
Kykkou 6 (2004), 103–162.
42 Bacci, “With the Paintbrush of the Evangelist Luke,” 87.
43 Michalis Olympios, “Resting in Pieces: Gothic Architecture in Cyprus in the Long Fifteenth
Century,” in Medieval Cyprus: A Place of Cultural Encounter, ed. Sabine Rogge and Michael
Grünbart (Münster: Waxmann, 2015), 340–343; Tassos Papacostas, “In Search of a Lost
Byzantine Monument: Saint Sophia of Nicosia,” Epetērida tou Kentrou Epistimonikōn
Ereunōn 31 (2005), 11–37.
The Hodegetriai 53

the 14th century. The notes in the Parisinus graecus 1589 indicate that, dur-
ing the 14th century, the Greek Orthodox priests George, Basil, and Stylianos
Horkomosiates inherited the office in the cathedral of the Hodegetria in
Leukosia,44 whereas a note in the Vaticanus graecus 2194 testifies that the
Cathedral of the Hodegetria at about the same time also had its confraternity
(συναδέλφοι τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας),45 typically established in cases of veneration
of Hodegetria copies.46
The parochial church in Arediou, known as the church of the Hodegetria,
celebrates the Presentation of the Theotokos as its patron feast. Even though
no wooden icons of the Virgin are preserved in the church, there is a depiction
of a Hodegetria-type figure on the southern wall, which can be dated to the
14th century. This image reproduces the iconographic pattern of an earlier
fresco discovered underneath.47 As the focus of local veneration of the Virgin,
the church is surrounded by numerous folkloric legends associated with the
protection of Cyprus by the Mother of God.48 Similar legends are connected
with the 15th-century Hodegetria church in the village of Choli, which is
furnished with a contemporary icon of the Hodegetria type.49 Finally, a
16th-century chapel added to the 13th-century main church of Panagia
Katholiki in the village of Kouklia50 was possibly dedicated to the Hodegetria
as well.51

44 Jean Darrouzès, “Notes pour servir à l’histoire de Chypre (premier article),” Kypriakai
Spoudai 17 (1953), 89–90; Erich Trapp, Rainer Walther, and Christian Gastgeber, eds.,
Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, CD-Rom Version (Vienna: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2001) [hereafter PLP], nos. 21106, 21107,
21109.
45 Jean Darrouzès, “Notes pour servir à l’histoire de Chypre (deuxième article),” Kypriakai
Spoudai 20 (1956), 55.
46 Ševčenko, “Servants of the Holy Icon,” 547–551.
47 M. Loulloupis, Annual Report of the Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, for
the year 1988 (Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, 1990), 18.
48 Georgios Paganes, “Ekklesia tēs Panagias tēs Odēgētrias,” [Church of Panagia Hodegetria] at
Koinotiko Symboulio Aredou—http://arediou.com/portfolio-item/thriskeftiki-zoi/#toggle
-id-2 (accessed November 7, 2021).
49 Gwynneth der Parthog, Medieval Cyprus: A Guide to the Byzantine and Latin Monuments
(Lefkosia: Moufflon Publications, 2006), 101.
50 Stylianou and Stylianou, The Painted Churches of Cyprus, 233. The authors mention the
church under its present-day name as Panagia Katholikē and date it entirely within the
16th century. M. Loulloupis (Annual Report, 27) distinguishes several stages in the build-
ing of the church and dates the additional chapel to the 16th century.
51 The present-day tradition mentions that the chapel of the Katholikē church was associated
with the Hodegetria icon. See the official site of the Kouklia village—http://www.kouk
lia.org.cy/churches_odigitria.shtm (accessed June 14, 2021). However, the tradition also
mentions several other epithets for the venerated Virgin in this village: Chrysopolitissa,
54 Adashinskaya

Like Thessaloniki, the main urban centers of the Byzantine Empire must
have had their own replicas of the Protectress of the City, at least as it can be
understood from the known church dedications.
One of the most important Byzantine towns of the Palaiologan period,52
Mystras, had a katholikon of the Brontocheion monastery dedicated to the
Hodegetria. Initially, the monastery was dedicated to Sts. Theodores, whose
church was the first katholikon:53 in 1296, a note in the Parisinus graecus 708
mentions Pachomios,54 the future founder of the Hodegetria church, as the
hegoumenos of Sts. Theodores.55 The first mention of the Brontocheion monas-
tery as associated with the Virgin may have come from the period of the second
patriarchate of Athanasios I (1303–1309), when Pachomios received the titles
of archimandrite and protosynkellos.56 The note of Nikephoros Moschopoulos

Galaktophorousa, Aphroditissa (Franz Georg Maier and Vassos Karageorghis, Paphos:

History and Archaeology (Nicosia: A.G. Leventis Foundation, 1984), 354–355).
52 On the history and development of Mystras and its importance in the Palaiologan
epoch, see Manolis Chatzidakis, Mystras: The Medieval City and the Castle (Athens:
Ekdotikē Athenēs, 1981); Despoina Evgenidou, ed., The City of Mystras, Mystras,
August 2001–January 2002, exhibition catalogue (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture,
2001); Titos Papamastorakis, “Myzithras of the Byzantines  / Mistra to Byzantinists,” in
Byzantines poleis 8os–15os aiōnas. Prooptikes tēs ereunas kai nees ermēneutikes prosengi-
seis, ed. Tonia Kiousopoulou (Rethymnon: Panepistēmiou Krētēs, 2012), 277–196; Sophia
Kalopissi-Verti, “Mistra. A Fortified Late Byzantine Settlement,” in Heaven and Earth,
vol. 2, Cities and Countryside in Byzantine Greece, ed. Jenny Albani and Eugenia Chalkia
(Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2013), 224–239.
53 Anastasios Orlandos, “Daniēl o prōtos ktitōr tōn Hagiōn Theodōrōn tou Mystra,” [Daniel,
the first founder of Saints Theodore of Mystras], Epetēris Etaireias Byzantinōn Spoudōn 12
(1936), 443–448.
54 PLP, no. 22220.
55 Rhodoniki Etzeoglou, O naos tēs Odēgētrias tou Brontochiou ston Mystra. Oi toichographies
tou narthēka [The church of the Hodegetria of Vrontochion in Mystras. The murals of
the narthex] (Athens: Akademia Athenōn, 2013), 30. Pachomios is mentioned in the epi­
gram and dedicatory colophon of a manuscript with homilies by Saint John Chrysostom,
which was copied by the nomikos Basilakes in 1296, see Spyridon Lampros, “Lakedaimónioi
vivliográfoi kaí ktítores kodíkon katá toús mésous aiónas kaí epí tourkokratías”
[Lacedaemonian bibliographers and commissioners of codices during the Middle Ages
and Turkish domination], Neos Hellēnomnēmōn 4, no. 2 (1907), 152–187, 160–160b.
56 The sigillion of Athanasios is not preserved, but is mentioned in another document of
1366 (Vitalien Laurent, Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1, fasc. 4,
Les Regestes de 1208 à 1309 (Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1971), 464–465,
no. 1672; Franz Miklosich and Josef Müller, eds., Acta et Diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra
et profana (Vienna: Carolus Gerold, 1860), vol. 1, 479–483) with a possible quotation of the
earlier text, see Titos Papamastorakis, “Reflections of Constantinople: The Iconographic
Program of the South Portico of the Hodegetria Church, Mystras,” in Viewing the Morea:
Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, ed. Sharon Gerstel (Washington, DC:
Harvard University Press, 2013), 372–374; Etzeoglou, O naos tēs Odēgētrias, 31.
The Hodegetriai 55

on the Gospel book57 given to “the monastery of the Most Holy Theotokos
Brontocheion” can establish with certainty the year 1311 as the terminus ante
quem for the new dedication of the foundation. However, neither source refers
to Brontocheion as the Hodegetria monastery, but rather as a foundation dedi-
cated to the Virgin. Subsequently, the first reference to Brontocheion as the
monastery “ἐπ’ ὀνόματι … τῆς πανυπεράγνου ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου τής ὁδηγήτριας”
[in the name … of the most pure and holy Theotokos Hodegetria]58 appears in
the chrysobull of 1314–1315 by Andronikos II, which is inscribed on the wall of
the southern chapel of the church’s narthex.
Even though they are well preserved, the murals of the church do not con-
tain any image of the Virgin inscribed as Hodegetria. In the frescoes of the
narthex, there is a depiction of the Virgin belonging to the Zoodochos Pege
type,59 while in the southern gallery there are the extended cycles of Christ’s
Childhood and the Virgin’s Dormition.60 These may be associated with
the famous Constantinopolitan cults of the Virgin from Zoodochos Pege mon-
astery, Chalkoprateia, and Blachernai. There is also an image of the Virgin with
Child, both accepting the model of the foundation from the hands of a monk
(presumably Pachomios himself) in the arcosolium of the northern chapel.61
This funerary image of the Virgin preserves the iconographic type of the
Hodegetria, but it is not labeled in this way. One may, therefore, assume that

57 Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Nikēphoros Moschopoulos,” Byzantinische Zeit­

schrift 12 (1903), 220.
58 Gabriel Millet, “Inscriptions byzantines de Mistra,” Bulletin de correspondence hellénique
23 (1899), 102. For the same expression encountered in the chrysobulls of 1319, 1320, 1322,
see Millet, “Inscriptions byzantines de Mistra,” 108, 113, 114, 115, 116.
59 Rhodoniki Etzeoglou, “The Cult of the Virgin Zoodochos Pege at Mistra,” in Images of the
Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. Maria Vassilaki (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2005), 239–250.
60 Papamastorakis, “Reflections of Constantinople,” 371–395, proposes to date the frescoes of
the southern gallery to the same period as the frescoes of the chrysobull chapel, i.e., soon
after 1322. Chatzidakis, The Medieval City and the Castle, 67, proposed a date c.1366; while
Anastasios Tantsis (“Ē chronologēsē tou naou tēs Odēgētrias sto Mystra” [The dating of
the Hodegetria church in Mystras], Byzantiaka 31 (2014), 179–204) proposes to date the
entire gallery to c.1407.
61 Titos Papamastorakis, “Epitymbies parastaseis kata tē mesē kai ysterē byzantine peri-
odo” [Funeral representations in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods], Deltion tēs
Christianikēs Archaiologikēs Hetaireias 19 (1996–1997), 290–293; Ursula Weissbrod,
“Hier liegt der Knecht Gottes,” Gräber in byzantinischen Kirchen und ihr Dekor (11. bis 15.
Jahrhundert) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2003), 106–108. Rhodoniki Etzeoglou,
“Quelques remarques sur les portraits figurés dans les églises de Mistra,” Jahrbuch der
Österreichischen Byzantinistik 32, no. 5 (1982), 514–515. However, Anastasios Tantsis
(“Ē chronologēsē tou naou,” 190–193) considers that the depicted monk is the despotes of
Mystras Theodore I Palaiologos (PLP, no. 21460).
56 Adashinskaya

the katholikon was initially dedicated simply to the Virgin, and, perhaps, cele-
brated the Dormition as its patron feast, while the dedication to the Hodegetria
appeared around 1315. A possible explanation for this could be the presence of
a movable and much-venerated replica of the Constantinopolitan prototype,
which was kept in the katholikon, but is no longer preserved. Moreover, one
may even agree with the hypothesis of Elias Anagnostakis who, regarding one
case of litigation initiated by the nun Euphrosyne-Marina over a Hodegetria
icon, suggested that this icon (which was appropriated by Nikephoros
Moschopoulos) was housed in the Brontocheion monastery and prompted the
Hodegetria veneration there.62
The presence of a church dedicated to the Hodegetria in another important
urban center, Monembasia, is attested by several sources which call the foun-
dation ‘Η ΟΔΗΓΗΤΡΙΑ.’ The earliest mention of the church is found in the Life
of Saint Martha, the monastery’s hougoumene, written in the 10th century by
Archbishop Paul.63A note by Ioannes Likinios dated to 1606 in the Kutlumus
220 manuscript recounts that the Hodegetria church was then 456 years old
so, consequently, it was built in 1150.64 Finally, compiling in the 16th century
the genealogy of his wife, Carola Kantakouzene de Flory, Hugues Busac men-
tions that a certain ruler was buried in the Hodegetria church on the hill.65 One
can add to this the evidence of a graffito that Haris Kalligas suggested iden-
tified the Hodegetria church in Monembasia as the one currently dedicated
to Saint Sophia.66 According to local tradition preserved in the Synaxarion
of Zakynthos, Andronikos II sent a lavishly-decorated Hodegetria icon, later

62 Elias Anagnostakes, “Apo tēn eikona tēs monachēs Euphrosynēs ston bio tōn Hosiōn tou
Megalou Spēlaiou: Ē istoria mias kataskeuēs” [From the image of the nun Euphrosyne to
the Life of the saints of Megale Spelaion: The History of one foundation], in Monachismos
stēn Peloponnēso, 4os–15os ai. [The monasticism at Peloponnesus, the 4th to the 15th cen-
tury], ed. Boula Konti (Athens: Institute for Byzantine Research, 2004), 179–189. The
hypothesis is supported by Titos Papamastorakis (“Reflections of Constantinople,” 393).
63 “περί τῆς μακάριας Μάρθας, τῆς Ἡγουμένης τοῦ πανσέπτου ναοῦ τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου ἐν τῇ
θεοφρουρήτῳ πόλει Μονεμβασίας, κάτωθεν τῆς Όδηγητρίας τοῦ αὐτοῦ κάστρου”—Athanasios
Kominis, “Paolo di Monembasia,” Byzantion 29/30 (1959–1960), 247; Haris Kalligas, “The
Church of Haghia Sophia at Monemvasia: Its Date and Dedication,” Deltion tēs Christianikēs
Archailogikēs Hetaireias 9 (1977–1979), 218.
64 Peter Schreiner, Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae
12/1, vol. 1 (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1975), 320, no. 41.6.
65 “vasilef ehi enan thamenon is ton goulan tis Monovasias is tin Odiitrian eclisian
Omorfî”—Edith Brayer, Paul Lemerle, and Vitalien Laurent, “Le Vaticanus latinus 4789:
histoire et alliances des Cantacuzènes aux XIVe–XVe Siècles,” Revue des études byzantines
9 (1951), 71, 74.
66 Kalligas, “The Church of Haghia Sophia;” Haris Kalligas, Monemvasia: Byzantine City State
(London: Routledge, 2010), 19–21, 118–121.
The Hodegetriai 57

called ‘Monembasiotissa,’ to the city as its guardian in the absence of the

ruler.67 Therefore, the city had a church dedicated to the Hodegetria icon by
the second half of the 10th century. This church was probably rebuilt around
1150. It was used to house the copy of the Constantinopolitan palladium and it
contained at least one royal burial. The presence of the Hodegetria icon was a
matter of identity for the inhabitants of Monembasia. In the composite manu-
script Kutlumus 220 (its different parts are dated to the 15th–17th centuries)
dedicated in large part to the history of the city,68 one can find the narration
about Pulcheria and the discovery of the Hodegetria icon.69 This 10th-century
church which dominates the town from the top of a hill can be considered the
earliest known Hodegetria foundation. One cannot be sure that it was estab-
lished for housing an icon, as the latter appears only in a story from Palaiologan
times; however, it is possible to state that the legend of the miracle-working
palladium was a part of the self-identity of the inhabitants of Monembasia as
well as local history.
Even though no material evidence has yet been found, the Proceedings of
the Patriarchal Synod attest in 1340 that another important imperial town,
Didymoteichon,70 had its own monastery “in the glorious name of the Most
Holy Mistress and Mother of God Hodegetria.”71
The cult could be transferred from the center to the periphery by exiled
clergy and refugees. This was the case of Neilos Erichiotes, initially a monk
of the Stoudios monastery,72 who was forced to leave the capital after oppos-
ing the unionist policies of Michael VIII. After his pilgrimage to the Holy
Land, Neilos settled in Epiros, where he established a monastery dedicated to
the Hodegetria (Geromeri), as is testified by his last will of 1337, confirmed
by despotes John II Orsini.73 Replicating the setting of Constantinopolitan

67 Kalligas, Monemvasia, 32; Nikolaos Katramis, Philologika analekta ek Zakynthou [Philo­

logical collection from Zakynthos] (Zakynthos, 1880), 188.
68 For the history and composition of the manuscript, see Paul Lemerle, “La Chronique
improprement dite de Monemvasie: le contexte historique et légendaire,” Revue des
études byzantines 21 (1963), 6.
69 Spyridon Lampros, “Treis paradoxographikai diēseis” [Three Mirabilia narrations about
Peloponnesos], Neos Hellēnomnēmōn 4, no. 2 (1907), 129–151.
70 For the history and importance of the town, see Peter Soustal, Thrakien (Thrake, Rhodope
und Haimimontos) (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991),
240–244.
71 Miklosich and Müller, Acta et Diplomata, vol. 1, 198–199.
72 Donald M. Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros, 1267–1479: A Contribution to the History of Greece
in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 243–244.
73 Geromeri: Testament of Neilos Erichiotes for the Monastery of the Mother of God Hodegetria
in Geromeri, trans. George Dennis, in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A
58 Adashinskaya

veneration, he himself might have introduced a copy of the miracle-working

icon: judging by its double-sided format, the preserved 14th-century replica
inscribed as ‘Η ΟΔΗΓΗΤΡΙΑ,’74 was a processional icon. This icon is still vener-
ated in the katholikon dedicated to the Dormition of the Theotokos. In addi-
tion to the Dormition, the monastery also celebrates the Tuesday of the Holy
Week,75 which nowadays no longer has a connection with the Hodegetria (it
celebrates instead Ss. Raphael, Nicholas, and Eirine of Lesbos). Therefore,
the monastery preserved not only the dedication and replica of the icon but
also some pious customs connected with the Hodegetria prototype and the
Tuesday miracle.
The empire’s distant, rural areas developed their own practices associated
with the Hodegetria cult. There are two monasteries on Crete with this ded-
ication. The oldest one, dating back to the early 14th century, is situated in
the Asterousia Mountains and, besides its dedication, its mural decora-
tion reminds one of the power of the Hodegetria by showing the complete
Akathistos cycle, which depicts the icon’s miracles.76 The second founda-
tion, in Gonia, has a dedicatory inscription from 1634,77 but some of the icons
kept there are much older.78 The church in Meronas, dedicated nowadays to
the Dormition,79 was possibly once associated with the Hodegetria as well.
Here, the murals in the naos (northern nave) contain the Akathistos cycle,

Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments, ed. John Thomas
and Angela Constantinides Hero (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library,
2000) [hereafter BMFD], 1396–1403, esp. 1402.
74 Varvara Papadopoulou, “Amphigraptē eikona tou 14ou aiōna stē monē Gēromeriou
Thesprōtias” [A double-sided icon from the 14th century in the monastery of Geromerion,
Thesprotia], Byzantina 25 (2005), 375–389, esp. 389.
75 Selida tēs Ieras Monēs Gēromeriou sto Diadiktyo. Ē monē sēmera https://www.monigirome
riou.gr/el/shmera.htm (accessed November 7, 2021).
76 Ioannis Spatharakis, The Pictorial Cycles of the Akathistos Hymn for the Virgin (Leiden:
Alexandros Press, 2005), esp. 35–46. For the connection of the Akathistos with the mira-
cles of the Hodegetria, see Lidov, “The Flying Hodegetria,” 286–288, 291–321.
77 Giuseppe Gerola, Monumenti Veneti dell’isola di Creta, vol. 4 (Venice: Istituto Veneto di
Scienze, 1932), 412.
78 Manuel Chatzidakis and Manuel Borboudakis, Eikonēs tēs krētikēs technē: apo ton
Chandaka ōs tēn Moscha kai tēn Hagia Patroupolē [Icons of the Cretan School from Candia
to Moscow and St. Petersburg], exhibition catalogue (Herakleion: Vikelea Dimotiki vivlio-
thiki, 2004 [1993]), 126–127, no. 17.
79 Manuel Borboudakis, “Oi toichographies tēs Panaias tou Merōna kai mia synkekrimenē
tasē tēs krētikēs zōgraphikēs” [The murals of Panagia Meronas and one specific tendency
in Cretan painting], in Pepragmena E’ Diethnous Krētologikou Synedriou (Herakleion:
Hetairia Krētikōn Historikōn Meletōn, 1986), 396–412; Spatharakis, The Pictorial Cycles of
the Akathistos Hymn for the Virgin, 8–44.
The Hodegetriai 59

whereas the main icon of the church, dated to the middle of the 14th century,80
depicts the Hodegetria.
A small rural foundation on Chalki Island celebrates the Apodosis of the
Dormition (23 August) as its patron feast and is dedicated, according to its
inscription, to the Hodegetria.81 Painted in 1367, the church was the collec-
tive foundation of three men (Michael the deacon, kyr Niketas, and Manouel)
and two nuns (Agnese and Magdalene). They had such an extreme fascination
for the supernatural power of the famous Hodegetria that they ordered the
labeling of two different iconographies (the Blachernitissa in the apse and the
Brephokratousa on the northern wall)82 with the epithet ‘H ΩΔHHTPA.’
The same strategy was applied by the inhabitants of Tigani (Mesa Mani). Here,
in the Agitria (Hodegetria) Church, celebrating 23 August as its patron feast,
the villagers during the 13th century inscribed the Virgin of the Blachernitissa
in the apse and the Glykophilousa in the narthex with the Hodegetria
labels.83 This phenomenon of mislabeling the Hodegetria occurred in both
cases in village foundations in very remote areas. Moreover, the labeling pat-
tern is repeated in both cases: one image is in the altar and another one is
in the publicly accessible space. One may assume, therefore, that these poor
communities, not having been able to order adequate replicas of the icon in
Constantinople, used the murals produced by local masters to indicate the
presence of the miracle-working Virgin in the liturgical rite, as well as to dis-
play her image for public veneration.
The fame of the miracle-working icon spread beyond the borders of the
Byzantine Empire and reached the neighboring Orthodox states. One of the
most important examples is the Hodegetria church of the Peć Patriarchate,
built by the Serbian Archbishop Danilo II84 in 1332–1337 as a foundation for his
burial.85 After his visit to the Byzantine capital and in gratitude for delivering

80 Chatzidakis and Borboudakis, Eikonēs tēs krētikēs technē, 493, no. 137.
81 Maria Sigala, “Ē Panagia ē Odēgētria ē Enniameritissa stē Chalkē tēs Dōdekanēsou”
[Panagia Hodegetria Enniameritissa in Chalki, Dodecanese islands], Archaiologikon
Deltion 55, no. 1 (2000) [2004], 329–381, esp. 133.
82 Sigala, “Ē Panagia ē Odēgētria ē Enniameritissa,” 335, 362.
83 Nikolaos Drandakis, Byzantines toichografies tēs Mesa Manēs [Byzantine murals of Inner
Mani] (Athens: Archaiologikē Hetaireia, 1995), 238, 247 and 252, 254.
84 There is a solid corpus of literature devoted to this church, however, thanks to a recently
defended dissertation, Anđela Gavrilović, “Zidno slikarstvo crkve Bogorodice Odigitrije u
Peći” [Wall paintings of the church of the Virgin Hodegetria in Peć] (PhD diss., University
of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Art History Department, 2012), accessible at http://
doiserbia.nb.rs/phd/fulltext/BG20130419GAVRILOVIC.pdf, with older bibliography.
85 Gavrilović, “Zidno slikarstvo,” 37–42. On the iconographic features connected with the
allocation of the church for burial purposes, see Danica Popović, “Grob arhiepiskopa
60 Adashinskaya

him from many dangers,86 Danilo dedicated the church to ‘the Most Pure
Mother of God Hodegetria,’ as the inscription above the votive portrait
relates.87 In this composition situated on the western wall, the ktetor with the
church model is led by Prophet Daniel toward the depiction of the Enthroned
Virgin. Although the text above Danilo II’s portrait reads that the foundation
is brought to the Hodegetria, the image of the Virgin does not bear this label
and does not match the iconographic type. Vojislav Đurić noted that the icon-
ographic program of the church contains unusually numerous depictions of
the Virgin belonging to different iconographic types,88 which brings to mind
different aspects of the adoration of the Virgin, like the iconographic program
in the Hodegetria in Mystras.
The written sources confirm this hypothesis: according to the Life of
Danilo II written by one of his students, the ktetor established a Greek brother-
hood in the church and “ordered that at any time in that holy church parakle-
seis should be sung continuously on Tuesdays and Fridays.”89 It is precisely on
these same days that the two famous miracle-working icons of the Virgin,
i.e., the Hodegetria and the Blachernitissa in Constantinople, produced their
miracles.90 In this way, Danilo imitated the liturgical time of the Byzantine
capital in his Serbian church with prayers read in the Greek language.
Concerning the dedication of this church, the Life of Danilo II notes that
he “started to build a church in the name of the Most Holy One, who is called

Danila II” [The Tomb of the Archbishop Danio II], in Arhiepiskop Danilo II i njegovo
doba [The Archbishop Danilo II and His Time], ed. Vojislav Đurić (Belgrade: SANU, 1991),
329–344.
86 For motives for the foundation, see Gavrilović, “Zidno slikarstvo,” 29–32.
87 For the inscription and the discussion of the composition, see Gavrilović, “Zidno
slikarstvo,” 278–282.
88 Vojislav Đurić, “Sveti pokroviteli arhiepiskopa Danila II i njegovih zadužbina” [Holy
Patrons of the Archbishop Danilo II and his foundations], in Arhiepiskop Danilo II, 284.
89 Đure Dančić, ed., Životi kraljeva i arhiepiskopa srpskih napisao arhiepiskop Danilo i drugi
[The Lives of Kings and Archbishops, written by Archbishop Danilo and the Others]
(Zagreb: Svetozar Galec, 1866), 369—оустави же вь тои светѣи црькьви вь вьторьникь
и вь петькь вьсегда непрѣмѣно пѣти параклисы (the translation is mine).
90 For the discussion of the Friday miracle of the Blachernai icon, see Eustratios N.
Papaioanou, “The ‘Usual Miracle’ and an Unusual Miracle: Psellos and the Icons of
Blachernai,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 51 (2001), 177–188; Bissera
Pentcheva, “Rhetorical Images of the Virgin: The Icon of the ‘Usual Miracle’ at the
Blachernai,” Revue des études slaves 38 (2000), 35–54; Charles Barber, Contesting the Logic
of Painting: Art and Understanding in Eleventh-Century Byzantium (Leiden: Brill, 2007),
80–98. Concerning the Tuesday miracle of the Hodegetria icon, see Lidov, “The Flying
Hodegetria,” 291–321; Pentcheva, Icons and Power, 109–143.
The Hodegetriai 61

Hodegetria of Constantinople, namely, to the feast of Dormition.”91 This pas-

sage underlines two important points. First, by dedicating his foundation to
the Hodegetria, Danilo had in mind the Constantinopolitan monastery which
he wished to imitate. Second, the text equates the Hodegetria dedication of the
church with the feast of the Dormition, which was probably the patron feast of
the Hodegon katholikon.
Besides Danilo II, two other noblemen built Hodegetria churches in Serbia.
Jovan Dragoslav, the kaznac (treasurer) of King Milutin, erected a foundation
in Mušutište in 1315.92 In 1345, nobleman Rudl from Strumica decided to pass
the Hodegetria church he built and some nearby possessions to the Hilandar
monastery on Mount Athos.93
The capital of the Bulgarian Empire also replicated the famous Byzantine
foundation. However, there is no material evidence preserved from this insti-
tution, while the main source about the Hodegetria monastery in Veliko
Tarnovo94 is a Greek Life of Saint Romylos, written by his disciple Gregorios,95
and its Slavic translation.96 Composed about 20 years after the saint’s death in
1382–1391,97 the Greek text says that when Saint Romylos grew old enough to
leave his parents he “entered the fortified town called Trinovon in this same
province, and made his home in one of the monasteries there, and the
monastery had its name after the Mother of God and Hodegetria.” The only

91 Dančić, Životi kraljeva i arhiepiskopa, 368: “начеть здати црьковь вь име прѣсветыѥ яже
зовома Одигитрия цариградьска, праздьникь оуспениѥ.”
92 Branislav Todić, Serbian Painting: The Age of King Milutin (Belgrade: Draganić, 1999), 340
with older bibliography.
93 Information about the nobleman, his church, and property are given in a chrysobull
by Stefan Dušan of 1345 for Hilandar: Siniša Mišić, “Hrisovulja kralja Stefana Dušana
Hilandaru kojom prilaže vlastelina Rudla” [The chrysobull by King Stefana Dušana to
Hilandar, by which he endows the nobleman Rudle], Stari Srpski arhiv 9 (2010), 75–86.
94 Bistra Nikolova, Monasi, manastiri i manastirski zhivot v Srednovekovna Balgariya,
vol. 1, Manastirite [Monks, monasteries and monastic life in medieval Bulgaria, vol. 1,
Monasteries] (Sofia: Algraf, 2010), 453–456.
95 François Halkin, “Un ermite des Balkans au XIVe siecle. La vie grecque inedite de
St. Romylos,” Byzantion 31 (1961), 117: “καταλαμβάνει τὴν Ζαγοράν εἲς τε τὸ Τρίνοβον λεγόμενον
κάστρον τῆς αὐτῆς ἐπαρχίας εἰσὼν ἐν ἑνὶ τῶν ἐκεῖσε μοναστηρίων τὴν οἲκεσιν ἐποιήσατο, τῆς
θεομήτορος Ὁδηγητρίας τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν ἒχων τὸ μοναστήριον.”
96 Though the Slavic translation is preserved in the 16th-century manuscript, it was proba-
bly contemporary with the Greek original: “и постигзаеть загωрїе въ торвонь прѣж(д)е
гл(а)голѥмыи градь, иакиіаже трїновь тоеж(д)е епархїе въходить въ единь ωт иже
тамо монастыреи селѥнїе сътвараеть. Б(о)гом(а)тери и одигитрiе именованiе
имаше монастырь”—Polichronij Syrku, Monaha Grigorija zhitije prepodobnogo Romila
[The Life of venerable Romyl by Monk Gregory] (St. Petersburg: Tipografija Imperatorskoj
Akademii Nauk, 1900), 5.
97 Halkin, “Un ermite des Balkans,” 113.
62 Adashinskaya

information one can deduce from the text is that the foundation was situated
within the borders of Tarnovo city, close to the location of the Holy Mount.98
As in Slavic countries, the popularity of the Hodegetria continued in Greek-
inhabited territories under foreign rule. In 1311, Gregory Pachymeres,99 with
the help of his family members, built a church dedicated to the Hodegetria on
the island of Euboia (village of Spelies),100 a territory ruled by the Venetians
since 1204.101 Judging by its iconographic program, the church was intended
for burial purposes,102 precisely like the foundation of Serbian Archbishop
Danilo II. Likely during the Komnenian and Palaiologan periods, the Hodegon
monastery in Constantinople started to be used for private103 and royal104 buri-
als; in connection with this practice, the protective power of the Hodegetria
was understood as extending to the afterlife as well. This could explain both
the dedication of burial churches to the Hodegetria and the appearance of the
Hodegetria-like images of the Virgin in funerary portraits.105
Another aspect of the Constantinopolitan veneration, namely, the
Hodegetria’s confraternity, was also replicated in foreign-ruled territories. A

98 Syrku, Monaha Grigorija, xxv.

99 PLP, no. 22205.
100 The date, the name of the founder, and the original dedication of the church to the
Hodegetria survived in the dedicatory inscription, see Johannes Koder, Negroponte:
Untersuchungen zur Topographie und Siedlungsgeschichte der Insel Euboia während der
Zeit der Venezianerherrschaft (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
1973), 167. For discussion of the style and iconography of the murals, see Melita
Emmanuel, “Die Fresken der Muttergottes-Hodegetria-Kirche in Spelies auf der Insel
Euboia (1311). Bemerkungen zu Ikonographie und Stil,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 83, no. 2
(1990), 451–467.
101 Koder, Negroponte, 45–55.
102 Emmanuel, “Die Fresken der Muttergottes-Hodegetria-Kirche,” 459–461.
103 In the 12th century, Theodore Balsamon described at least two tombs situated on the
monastery’s territory (one of them belonged to Stephanos Komnenos), see Konstantin
Horna ed., “Die Epigramme des Theodoros Balsamon,” Wiener Studien 25 (1903), 181–183.
A donation act of the Sanianoi couple (1390) shows that even members of the low nobility
could expect to be buried in the Hodegon. Not having children, the Sanianoi passed to the
monastery their house in Constantinople expecting the brotherhood to build in return a
tomb for the couple and commemorate them twice a week. Albert Failler, “Une donation
des époux Sanianoi au monastère des Hodègoi,” Revue des études byzantines 34 (1976),
111–117.
104 According to the Short Chronicles, two emperors died inside of the Hodegon mon-
astery and were buried there, Andronikos III in 1341 (Schreiner, Die Byzantinischen
Kleinchroniken vol. 1, 64, 81; vol. 2, 251) and John V Palaiologos in 1391 (Schreiner, Die
Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken vol. 1, 69; vol. 2, 345).
105 For the funerary portraits with the Hodegetria-like iconographies, see Papamastorakis,
“Epitymbies parastaseis,” 285–304.
The Hodegetriai 63

church of the Hodegetria in Agraphoi (Corfu),106 was attested for the first time
by a document of 1286107 containing a dedicatory inscription listing 91 church
founders belonging to ten different neighboring villages. On the basis of this
and later documents attesting the activities of the Hodegetria confraternity
in Agraphoi, Spyros Karydis concluded that the confraternity was the initial
founder of this parochial church which later (in 1744) was converted into a
monastery. The members of the confraternity, who in a later document are
called brothers and founders,108 had rights for burial in the church or on its
grounds, and managed the income from the Hodegetria dependencies.109 As in
all other cases, the church is not called Hodegon in documents, but rather “of
the Mother of God Hodegetria” or “of the Mother of God called Hodegetria.”110
Finally, the support expressed by non-Greek rulers for the Hodegetria cult
may testify to their belief in the military and political power of the icon and
its replicas. According to the dedicatory inscription above the entrance gate,
the katholikon of the Hodegetria in Apolpaina (Leukas) was rebuilt by Jacopo
Ruffo or Rosso111 and his wife Zampia  (?) in 1449–1450.112 A close associate

106 Spyros Karydes, Ē Odēgētria Agraphōn Kerkyras. Psēphides apo tē makraiōnē istoria tēs
[The Hodegetria of Agraphoi in Kerkyra. Pieces of its long history] (Kerkyra/Corfu: Hieros
Naos Hyperagias Theotokou Hodegetrias Agraphon, 2011).
107 Karydes, Ē Odēgētria Agraphōn Kerkyras, 15–18. For publication of the document and the
discussion of its date, see Spyros Karydes, “Syllogikes Chorēgies stēn Kerkyra kata tēn
Prōimē Latinokratia. Epigrafika Tekmēria” [Collective sponsorship in Corfu during the
early Latin rule. Epigraphic evidence], Byzantina Symmeikta 26 (2016), 167–172.
108 Karydes, Ē Odēgētria Agraphōn Kerkyras, 109–111.
109 Karydes, Ē Odēgētria Agraphōn Kerkyras, 55–56, 101–106.
110 Karydes, Ē Odēgētria Agraphōn Kerkyras, 15–51.
111 Under 1436, a certain Jacobo Ruffo is mentioned as a governor of Leukas by Cyriacus
of Ancona, who spent some time with him in Aktio (Preveza) in 1436 (Erich Ziebarth,
“Kyriakos o ex Ankōnos en Ēpeirō” [Ciriaco of Ancona in Epirus], Ēpeirōtika Chrōnika 1
(1926), 114–115; Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros, 206). On the other hand, a certain Jacopo
Rosso is mentioned among governatori of Leonardo III Tocco in 1449 (Riccardo Predelli
and Pietro Bosmin, eds., I libri commemoriali della Republica di Venezia: Regestri,
vol. 5 (Venice: A spese della Società, 1901), 37, no. 96), precisely when the residence of
Leonardo was moved to Leukas after the fall of Arta (Walter Haberstumpf, “Dinasti ital-
iani in levante. I Tocco duchi di Leucade: regesti (secoli XIV–XVII),” Studi veneziani NS 45
(2003), 205).
112 Peter Soustal and Johannes Koder, Nikopolis und Kephallenia (Vienna: Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981), 162–163; Panos Rontogiannes, “Ē Christianikē
Technē stēn Leukada” [The Christian art in Lefkada], Epetēris Etaireias Leukadikōn
Meletōn 3 (1973), 27–57, esp. 29; Maro Philippa-Apostolou, “Ē Odēgētria tēs Leukadas,
istorikes phaseis” [The Hodegetria of Lefkada, historical phases], Praktika D’ Synedriou
“Eptanēsiakou Politismou,” Leukada 8–12 Septembriou 1993, ed. P. Rontogiannis (Athens:
Etaireia Leukadikōn Meletōn, 1996), 133–159.
64 Adashinskaya

of the Tocco family, Jacopo was Italian in origin; he nonetheless built, or

rather reconstructed, the monastery belonging probably to the Orthodox rite.
According to a colophon found in the manuscript Vaticanus graecus 2561, the
Hodegetria monastery existed on the island from the 11th century (1025?),113
but it was continuously supported, particularly in the turbulent 15th century.
After the marriage between Leonardo III Tocco and Milica Branković in 1463,
Helena, the daughter of the despotes of Mystras, Thomas Palaiologos, and wife
of the deceased despotes of Serbia Lazar Branković, accompanied Milica and
stayed on Leukas.114 After the death of her daughter, Helena Palaiologina set-
tled in the Hodegetria monastery, took the name Ypomone, and became the
hegoumene (until her death in 1474), also commissioning the mural decoration
of the church.115
In addition to preserved foundations, there are several churches and
monasteries of the Hodegetria which are known only from written sources.
From appeals made by the Metropolitans of Methymna and Mytilene to the
Patriarchal Court in 1331116 and 1324,117 respectively, one can find out about the
Hodegetria monasteries on Lesbos: one was situated inside the Agioi Theodoroi
kastron, and another, built by a certain Gidon, in the Mytilene metropolis.
A village church with the same dedication is known from the Menoikeion act
of 1321 as placed near the River Angista and the village of Kouvouklia,118 while
another Hodegetria church, with some houses in its possession, was ceded
in 1323 to Vatopedi by its founder, Sebastos Manouel Kourtikes.119 Around the
mid-14th century, a monk by the name of Ioannitzopoulos donated his own
foundation of the Hodegetria in Maurochorion, inside Palaiokastron (Lemnos),

113 Peter Schreiner, “Das Hodegetria-Kloster auf Leukas im 11 Jahrhundert: Bemerkungen zu

einer Notiz im Vat. Gr. 2561,” Byzantinische Forschungen 12 (1987), 57–64.
114 Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros, 211.
115 Immanuel Bekker, ed., Chronicon in Georgius Phrantzes, Joannes Cananus, Joannes
Anagnostes (Bonn: E. Weber, 1838), 450; Demetrio Petrizzopulo, Saggio storico sull’ et à di
Leucadia: sotto il dominio de’ Romani e successivi conquistatori (Florence: Stamp. di Piatti,
1814), 49–50; Philippa-Apostolou, “Ē Odēgētria tēs Leukadas,” 138ff.
116 Miklosich and Müller, Acta et Diplomata, vol. 1, 164–166, no. 73; Jean Darrouzès, Les
regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1, fasc. 5, Les regestes de 1310 à 1376
(Paris: Institute Français d’études Byzantines, 1977), 122–124, no. 2164.
117 Miklosich and Müller, Acta et Diplomata, vol. 1, 115–118, no. 59; Darrouzès, Les regestes,
vol. 1, fasc. 5, 88–89, no. 2118.
118 André Guillou, Les Archives de Saint-Jean-Prodrome sur le mont Mènécée (Paris: Presses
universitaires de France, 1955), 53–55, no. 9.
119 Actes de Vatopédi, vol. 1, des origines à 1329, ed. J. Bompaire, J. Lefort, V. Kravari and
Ch. Giros (Paris: Lethielleux, 2001), 327–332, no. 61.
The Hodegetriai 65

to the Athonite monastery of Lavra.120 Finally, the monastery of Xenophon

had a small metochion (eukterios) of the Hodegetria in Phournia (Longos).121
Such evidence indicates that the popularity of the Hodegetria was so immense
that this topographic attribute of the Virgin, connected with a precise loca-
tion, replaced those characteristic epithets, such as Eleousa, Kecharitomene,
etc. Consequently, the focus in the veneration of the Theotokos turned from
the speculative concepts of mercy, grace, and advocacy toward a more engag-
ing and material approach. Thus the veneration of the Hodegetria provided
believers with a material object (icon) invested with miraculous power, and
this object could be communicated with by addressing it or its replicas via a
number of prayers and pious actions.
In this sense, one document appears to be the most important for the pres-
ent investigation, as it demonstrates the mechanism of establishing a foun-
dation dedicated to the Hodegetria. It is a synodal decision of 1316122 given
on behalf of a Laconian nun, Euphrosyne-Marina. The nun addressed the
Patriarchal Synod concerning an icon of the Theotokos Hodegetria, which was
possessed in common by her and the deceased Bishop of Kernitsa, Malotaras.
However, Malotaras started to take more than half of the icon’s revenues, and,
despite an earlier court decision, he withheld the entire income. Malotaras
turned to the proedros of Lacedaimonia Metropolitan of Crete, Nikephoros
Moschopoulos,123 who initially decided to remove the icon from Euphrosyne,
but later regretted this and returned it to her.
The document reads further: “The nun, having received the icon of this
[Theotokos], built a holy church in her [the icon’s] name, and with no little
zeal and help provided for this deed by the beloved nephew of the mighty and
holy autokrator, kyr Andronikos Palaiologos Asanes,124 who happened to be
in the position of kephale of Peloponnese. And she held it having hired the
presbyters and giving to it [the icon] a proper holy veneration through them
[the priests].”125 Yet, circa 1315, the Metropolitan of Patras and proedros of
Lacedaimonia, Michael, took the icon from Euphrosyne again on the pretext

120 Actes de Lavra, vol. 3, de 1329 à 1500, ed. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos and
D. Papachryssanthou (Paris: Lethielleux, 1979), 57–66, esp. 62, no. 136.
121 Actes de Xénophon, ed. D. Papachryssanthou (Paris: Lethielleux, 1986), 36.
122 Darrouzès, Les regestes, vol. 1, fasc. 5, 45–46, no. 2064. Miklosich and Müller, Acta et
Diplomata, vol. 1, 52–53, no. 30.
123 PLP, no. 19376; on identification of the metropolitan of Crete, see Darrouzès, Les regestes,
vol. 1, fasc. 5, 46; Anagnostakes, “Apo tēn eikona tēs monachēs Euphrosynēs,” 172.
124 PLP, no. 1489; Erich Trapp, “Beiträge zur Genealogie der Asanen in Byzanz,” Jahrbuch der
Österreichischen Byzantinistik 25 (1976), 167.
125 Miklosich and Müller, Acta et Diplomata, vol. 1, 52.
66 Adashinskaya

that it was held by his predecessor. This fact made Euphrosyne address the
Synodal Court, which decreed that the icon should be returned to the church
built by the nun, and that its revenues should be divided between Euphrosyne
and the successors of Malotaras.126
Concerning this case,127 Elias Anagnostakis proposed several important
conclusions related to the persons involved, state policies, and ecclesiastic
foundations.128 He assumed that the church erected by Euphrosyne was the
monastery of Mega Spelaion in Kalavryta, while the time when the Metropoli­
tan of Patras took the icon coincided with the period when the Hodegetria
church was constructed in the Brontocheion monastery, and it might have
housed the contested icon.
It is important to underline, above all, the fact that the icon had its own
assets, even before being housed in a church. This indicates that the icon was
perceived as an independent, legal entity, a kind of ecclesiastic institution in
itself, supplied with the right of ownership. Moreover, Euphrosyne built the
church in the name (ἐπ’ ὀνόματι) of the Hodegetria icon itself, whereby the
clergy was hired to provide the proper veneration for the image. The majority
of churches dedicated to the Hodegetria in the Byzantine Commonwealth,
especially the parochial and rural ones, might have been organized on the
basis of a similar principle, i.e., they could have been built in order to house
a venerated image that was a copy or replica of the Constantinopolitan
miracle-working Virgin. Whenever local replicas of the Hodegetria became
famous and received their own, separate cults, secondary replicas emerged
and these bore names connected to the location of their prototypes, which
themselves were copies of the famous Constantinopolitan icon. These sec-
ondary replicas, although they received new names according to their derived
prototypes, preserved the iconography of the Hodegetria, as is the case of the
images of the Virgin Megaspelaiotissa.129
Not only documents but also ethnographic observations can assist with trac-
ing the spread of practices associated with the Hodegetria of Constantinople.
On the island of Kimolos, in its central village of Chorio, the main church was

126 For more details about identification of the actors and the chronology, see Anagnostakes,
“Apo tēn eikona tēs monachēs Euphrosynēs,” 171–182.
127 The case is also considered by Nicolas Oikonomides, “The Holy Icon as an Asset,”
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 (1991), 40.
128 Anagnostakes, “Apo tēn eikona tēs monachēs Euphrosynēs,” 178–179.
129 For more details about the image from the Mega Spelaion and its funereal use, see
Papamastorakis, “Epitymbies parastaseis,” 298–302; Weissbrod, “Hier liegt der Knecht
Gottes,” 137–138.
The Hodegetriai 67

renovated in 1867–1874 with funds collected from all the islanders130 and was
dedicated to the Hodegetria, celebrating the Presentation of the Virgin as its
patron feast. Even though the church building is relatively new (16th–17th cen-
tury), the church houses a Hodegetria icon that, under a 17th-century layer
of painting, preserves some features of its Byzantine base.131 Several legends
about personal recoveries of inhabitants and the salvation of the entire island
from death are associated with this image.132 The most striking element is the
custom of a festal procession carried out on the feast of the Presentation of the
Virgin with the participation of the local bishop, mayor, members of the coast
guard, and all the island’s clergy and laics. On this day, the icon is taken around
the entire village and followed by other adorned images of the Theotokos, in
the same way the Hodegetria was surrounded by other Marian icons, accord-
ing to the description from the 11th century.133
In connection with the phenomenon of the emergence of churches dedi-
cated to the Hodegetria, it is worth turning now to the question of the patron
feasts of these Hodegetria-dedicated foundations. The majority of churches
and monasteries which have survived until the present day celebrate as their
patron feast the Dormition of the Virgin (Choli, Kouklia, Geromeri, Agraphoi,
Peć, Asterousia, Gonia), its Apodosis (Enniameritissa on Chalki, Agitria
on Mesa Mani), or the Presentation of the Theotokos (Jerusalem, Arediou,
Kimolos). This means that the dedication of a foundation to the Hodegetria
is not equated with a precise feast or, better said, it implies several feasts asso-
ciated with the Virgin (the Dormition, its Apodosis, and the Presentation of
the Virgin).134 Theoretically, the day of the Hodegetria could coincide with
the memory of Empress Pulcheria, who was associated with the icon’s dis-
covery, and the miracle of the Virgin saving the capital from the Avar siege
(August 4, 626).135 However, the text of the Constantinopolitan Synaxarion
directly indicates that the celebration of this day happened in the Blachernai

130 Despoina Athanasiadou-Bentoure and Georgos Bentoures, Kimōlos: Ho topos. Hoi

ekklēsies. Hosia Methodia [Kimolos: The place. The churches. Holy Methodia] (Kimolos:
Dēmos Kimōlos, 2013), 5.
131 Ioannes Ramphos, “Ta christianika mnēmeia tēs Kimōlou kai tōn perix nēsidōn” [The
Christian monuments of Kimolos and the neighboring islands], Kimōliaka 2 (1972),
231–232, see also p. 204 for another Hodegetria icon from the same village, dated c.1500.
132 Ioannes Ramphos, Ta ‘Sōtēria’ tēs Kimōlou eis tēn Hagian Barbaran [The ‘Salvation’ of
Kimolos in Agia Varvara] (Athens: n.p., 1954), 5–6.
133 Pentcheva, “The ‘Activated’ Icon,”198–199.
134 Pentcheva, “The ‘Activated’ Icon,” 200–201; Pentcheva, Icons and Power, 136–143.
135 Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e Codice Sirmondiano Nunc Berolinensi, ed.
Hippolyte Delehaye (Brussels: Socios Bollandianos, 1902), cols. 872–876.
68 Adashinskaya

monastery (“and that’s why we all celebrate the present yearly commemora-
tion in Her venerable house in Blachernai”).136
Further, in the 14th-century Narration of the Hodegon Monastery, the anony-
mous author describes two icons of the Hodegetria: one in the naos of the
church, accessible to visitors,137 and the true Hodegetria icon, painted by Saint
Luke, set in the prothesis. The latter was probably isolated from the main
church space by a ciborium with a grille, as it is seen in the frontispiece of the
Hamilton Psalter.138 From this story, it appears that the icon being exhibited
in the naos, in a place typical for the patron icon of the church, is actually
an image of the Dormition.139 This seems to be supported by the example of
the Serbian Archbishop Danilo II, who dedicated his church to “Hodegetria of
Constantinople, namely, to the feast of Dormition.”140 One can inquire, there-
fore, what was the patron feast associated with the Hodegetria? The Dormition
or, maybe, the Presentation?
If one looked at regulations concerning patron feasts in the Byzantine
typika, one would discover that the celebration of a group of feasts associated
with a certain saint or a holy person was the most common practice and thus
the purpose of a dedication was to indicate the person of a holy patron, and
not a particular calendar feast.
Seemingly, the practice of establishing a certain patron feast started to
appear in the Palaiologan period, and foundations were generally dedi-
cated to a holy personage and celebrated all feasts connected with that indi-
vidual. However, precisely during this period, some monasteries started to
celebrate certain feasts more solemnly than others. In the typikon for the
monastery of the Archangel Michael on Mount Auxentios near Chalcedon,
Michael VIII pointed to the Synaxis of the Archangel Michael (November 8)
as the main feast (κυρία μέντοι τῶν ἑορτὼν); he also ordered the celebration of
the Miracle of the Archangel Michael at Colossae (September 6), however, less
splendidly.141 Similarly, in the typikon for the Machaira foundation (1210),
Neilos, the Bishop of Tamasia, appoints the Presentation of the Virgin at the

136 Synaxarium Ecclesiae, 876: Διὰ ταῦτα τὴν παροῦσαν ἀνάμνησιν ἐτησίως πανηγυρίζομεν ἐν τῷ
σεβασμίῳ αὐτῆς οἴκῳ, τῷ ὄντι ἐν Βλαχέρναις.
137 Angelidi, “Un texte patriographique et édifiant,” 139.
138 Helen C. Evans, ed., Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557) (New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 153–154 with older bibliography.
139 Angelidi, “Un texte patriographique et édifiant,” 130.
140 Dančić, Životi kraljeva i arhiepiskopa, 368.
141 Alexei Dmitrievsky, Opisanie liturgicheskih rukopisej, hranjashhihsja v bibliotekah
Pravoslavnogo Vostoka [Description of the liturgical manuscripts kept in the libraries of
the Orient], vol. 1, Typika (Kiev: Tipogrsfija Korchak-Novitskag, 1895), 788–789; BMFD,
1229–1230.
The Hodegetriai 69

Temple as the most splendid celebration, while the Dormition was slightly less
pompous, and other Marian feasts should be “lavishly feasted.”142 The monas-
tery of Theotokos Evergetis had the Dormition as “the feast of feasts and the
festival of festivals,” but other Marian days were to be celebrated “differently
from the rest.”143 The foundation of Empress Eirene Doukaina Komnene, dedi-
cated to the Theotokos Kecharitomene, emphasized the feast of the Dormition
in the same way as the Nativity, Epiphany, and Passion days, while the Birth
of the Virgin, Entry to the Temple, and Presentation of the Lord in the Temple
were holy days of second rank.144 Sebastokrator Isaak Komnenos ordered the
celebration of all feasts of the Mother of God with bell-ringing, hymnody, illu-
mination, and food distributions at the gates; however, he especially empha-
sized the preparations for the Dormition.145 John, the ktetor of St. John the
Forerunner Phoberos monastery, prescribed church illumination, hymns, and
psalmodies for all feasts associated with the monastery’s ‘patron’ (δεσπότης),
Saint John the Baptist.146
Yet, several of the typika’s festival regulations remained outside of this para-
digm. The foundation of the 11th century dedicated to the Virgin Eleousa cel-
ebrated the Entrance of the Virgin to the Temple as the most solemn feast.147
The monastery of the Mother of God tou Roidiou had the Dormition as “the
feast that it is the custom to celebrate.”148 Similarly, the foundation of the
Synadenoi family, the Bebaia Elpis monastery, had only the Dormition to be
celebrated in a special manner,149 which is called by the foundress Theodora
“The feast of the Virgin.” In connection with the last example, one shouldn’t
forget that it was precisely the Dormition which was considered the main
Marian feast in the Palaiologan period, since the Decree of Adronikos II of
1297150 established the month-long celebration of the Dormition, which should

142 BMFD, 1132.

143 Paul Gautier, “Le typikon de la Théotokos Évergétis,” Revue des études byzantines 40 (1982),
45; BMFD, 482.
144 Gautier, “Le typikon de la Théotokos Kécharitôménè,” 109–111; BMFD, 696–697.
145 Louis Petit, “Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152),” Izvestiya
Russkogo arheologicheskogo instituta v Konstantinopole 13 (1908), 23–25; BMFD, 802–803.
146 Afanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Noctes Petrapolitana [The nights of Petropolis]
(St. Petersburg: Tip. V.F. Kirshbauma, 1913), 50; BMFD, 918.
147 Louis Petit, “Le monastère de Notre-Dame de Pitié en Macédoine,” Izvestiya Russkogo
arheologicheskogo instituta v Konstantinopole 6 (1900), 86; BMFD, 184.
148 BMFD, 433.
149 Hippolyte Delehaye, Deux typica byzantins de l’époque des Paléologues (Brussels:
M. Lamertin, 1921), 79–80, 99; BMFD, 1555, 1565.
150 Grumel, “Le mois de Marie des Byzantins,” 257–269; Boissonade, Anecdota Græca, 107–136.
70 Adashinskaya

“begin on the beginning and the first day of the month in which this mystery is,
and is prolonged to the end, and ends at the very end of the month.”151
Taking the above into consideration, one may assume that generally foun-
dations dedicated to the Virgin named with different epithets (Eleousa,
Kecharitomene, Hodegetria, etc.) celebrated all Marian feasts, with particu-
lar attention given to one or two of them (usually the Dormition and the
Presentation). However, in conjunction with the special emphasis on the
Dormition in Constantinople during the Palaiologan era, this feast started to
dominate among Marian days. Consequently, modern-day patron feasts in
historical foundations dedicated to the Hodegetria can vary within the frame-
work of Marian celebrations, which does not indicate any deviation from the
initial concept of replicating the Constantinopolitan sanctuary.

…
In conclusion, I underline several important aspects of the dedications of
ecclesiastic foundations to the Virgin Hodegetria. It is not always a particular
icon that was the object of imitation, but a complex set of pious practices, ritu-
als, beliefs, and customs associated with the Hodegetria, which could be bor-
rowed wholesale or in part. Specifically, this set of practices consisted of the
miracle-working image of the Virgin, a foundation dedicated to this particular
image of the Virgin, a confraternity serving the image, weekly processions with
the image, visual recollection of the icon’s story in murals (Akathistos cycle), a
patron feast celebrating the Virgin and her advocacy, and private veneration of
the icon and/or images of the Virgin bearing the same designation in funeral
contexts. All or only some of these aspects could be imitated in order to invoke
the Virgin in her quality of conductress and protectress in a particular founda-
tion, as well as to denote the presence of the miracle-working power primarily
associated with the venerated image in the Byzantine capital.
If one returns to the very beginning of this study, to the case of the village
of Vasilopoulou, one would discover that the venerated image of the Virgin
occurs neither in the legendary narrative, nor in the veneration practices of
the foundation, but at the same time other features such as celebration of the
Holy Tuesday, the holding of a fair together with the pious event, the miracles
which occurred, the dedication of the church and its patron feast are enough
to recreate, at least in part, the image of the Constantinopolitan icon, its cult
and its shrine.

151 Boissonade, Anecdota Græca, 126.

The Hodegetriai 71

In some other cases, like in the story of the nun Euphrosyne-Marina, the
replica of the Hodegetria plays the main role in the organization of the cult.
The recognition of the icon’s importance and its spiritual and economic power
determined the erection of a foundation and the establishment of an orga-
nized veneration. Moreover, being perceived as an entity, the icon may gain
the right of possession (as in the Euphrosyne-Marina story), it can participate
in dialogue relations, as happened between the Thessalonikian Hodegetria
and the city’s inhabitants, or it can ‘attend’ services and respond to the prayers
of its worshippers, as happened on the island of Kimolos.
The theological meaning concentrated in the visual program of the image
(the Mother’s sacrifice juxtaposed with the sacrifice of Christ) could also
prompt the use of the icon’s designation as ‘the Hodegetria’ in the develop-
ment of an iconographic or hierotopic program, as was the case in Jerusalem
and the Cappella Palatina.
The practice of veneration of the Hodegetria by organized confraternities
could additionally prompt some church dedications (Agraphoi, Leukosia) as an
economically acceptable strategy for communal ecclesiastic establishments.
The choice of the dedication of an important urban foundation to the
Hodegetria can be a matter of recreating the topography and political might
of the capital in the competing provincial centers of the Empire (Monem-
basia, Thessaloniki, Mystras, Didymoteichon) and the neighboring states
(Bulgaria, the Crusader entities), while ktetors of numerous small private foun-
dations could bring them under the auspices of the Hodegetria, expecting Her
guidance and protection in earthly matters and the afterlife.
Thus the relationship between the Constantinopolitan Hodegetria and its
replicas cannot be explained simply in terms of iconographic method and
the ‘original-copies’ paradigm. As the examples brought forth suggest, the
veneration of the Hodegetria can appear in different forms and employ
numerous and various practices. Simultaneously, one can see that in Byzantine
cases the replication of images is performed in terms of the relationship
between an archetype and its embodiment, when a miraculous image retains
some of its original characteristics after replication. In this way, the resem-
blance between the prototype (the miraculous image) and its imprints (cop-
ies) went beyond the visual characteristics and encompassed the names, the
devotional practices, the similarity of locations, and the dedication of the
sacral space.
 Chapter 3

The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype

Ljubomir Milanović

King Stefan Uroš III Dečanski (1321–1331) began the construction of his endow-
ment, the church dedicated to Christ Pantokrator in Dečani, in 1327 (Figure 3.1).1
Following the example set by his ancestors, he created a place for his remains
and hoped thereby to gain spiritual salvation.2 The ideological conception
of his royal tomb was modeled after the Studenica monastery, the prototype
for all the mausoleums of the Nemanjić dynasty.3 Here, the tomb of Stefan
Nemanja, the founder of the holy Nemanjić dynasty, was marked by a sar-
cophagus located in a western bay of the church.4 Where Dečani differs from
the Studenica model is in the placement of the tomb in the southwest part
of the nave as a freestanding structure, which is unique among Serbian sep-
ulchres (Figure 3.2).5 According to Danica Popović, the freestanding position

1 For the date of the construction of the monastery and its architecture, see Vladislav R. Petković
and Đurđe Bošković, Dečani (Belgrade: Academia Regalis Serbica, 1941), vol. 1, 19–37; Bratislav
Pantelić, The Architecture of Dečani and the Role of Archbishop Danilo II (Wiesbaden:
Reichert, 2002), 25; Branislav Todić and Milka Čanak-Medić, Manastir Dečani [Dečani
monastery] (Priština: Muzej u Prištini, 2005), 17 with extended bibliography. See also Milka
Čanak-Medić, Manastir Dečani. Saborna crkva. Arhitektura [Dečani monastery. Cathedral
church. Architecture] (Belgrade: Republički zavod za zaštitu spomenkika kulture Beograd,
2007), 19ff. Early sources recorded two dedications of the church, both to Christ Pantokrator
and to the Ascension of Christ. For the double dedication, see Todić and Čanak-Medić,
Manastir Dečani, 19, n. 24. On the completion of the church construction, see Todić and
Čanak-Medić, Manastir Dečani, 28.
2 In the founding charter of the monastery of Dečani (1330), the king expresses his desire to
continue the tradition of building monasteries as a final resting place established by his
forefathers. See Pavle Ivić and Milica Grković, Dečanske hrisovulje [Charters from Dečani]
(Novi Sad: Institut za lingvistiku, 1976), 304; see also Arhiepiskop Danilo, Životi kraljeva i arhi-
episkopa srpskih [Lives of Serbian kings and archbishops], trans. Lazar Mirković (Belgrade:
Srpska književna zadruga, 1935), 151–156.
3 Todić and Čanak Medić, Manastir Dečani, 22.
4 Danica Popović, “Grob svetog Simeona u Studenici” [The tomb of St. Simeon in Studenica],
in Osam vekova Studenice. Zbornik radova, ed. Episkop Žički Stefan et al. (Belgrade: Sveti arhi-
jerejski sinod srpske pravoslavne crkve, 1986), 155–166. On royal tombs in medieval Serbia,
see Danica Popović, Srpski vladarski grob u srednjem veku [The Serbian ruler’s tomb in the
Middle Ages] (Belgrade: Institut za istoriju umetnosti, Filozofski fakultet, 1992), 175–187.
5 Following the tradition of the royal tombs established by Stefan Nemanja in Hilandar mon-
astery and developed by Saint Sava in the Studenica monastery, the body of the ruler was

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004537781_005

The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 73

Figure 3.1 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century, viewed
from the southwest
Photo: Ljubomir Milanović

Figure 3.2 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
sarcophagi in the west bay of the south aisle
Photo: Ljubomir Milanović
74 Milanović

of the tomb in Dečani reflects a new royal ideology that emphasized, as she
puts it, “a strengthening of dynamic self-consciousness.”6
According to the early 15th-century biography of Grigorije Camblak (Gregory
Tsamblak), Stefan Dečanski received a formal burial organized by his son,
King Stefan Uroš IV Dušan (1331–1355), who moved his father’s body from
Zvečan, where he died, to the Dečani monastery.7 Dečanski’s relics were ele-
vated and King Stefan Uroš III was canonized c.1343.8 After the invention and

placed in a prepared underground tomb in the southwestern corner of the church nave on
top of which a sarcophagus would be placed with its rear end against the wall. On the tomb
of Stefan Nemanja in Hilandar Monastery, see Danica Popović, “Sahrane i grobovi u srednjem
veku” [Burials and graves in the Middle Ages], in Manastir Hilandar, ed. Gojko Subotić
(Belgrade: Publikum, 1998), 205–214; Jelena Bogdanović, “The Original Tomb of St Simeon
and its Significance for the Architectural History of Hilandar Monastery,” Hilandarski zbornik
12 (2008), 35–56; see also Dimitrije Bogdanović, Vojislav J. Đurić, and Dejan Medaković,
Manastir Hilandar [Hilandar monastery] (Belgrade: Jugoslovenska revija, 1997). For the
Studenica monastery, see Popović, “Grob svetog Simeona u Studenici,” 155–166; Popović,
Srpski vladarski grob, 176–278. See also Todić and Čanak-Medić, Manastir Dečani, 22.
6 Danica Popović, “Srednjovekovni nadgrobni spomenici u Dečanima” [Medieval tombstones
in Dečani], in Dečani i vizantijska umetnost sredinom XIV veka: međunarodni naučni skup
povodom 650 godina manastira Dečana, ed. Vojislav J. Ðurić (Belgrade: Srpska akademija
nauka i umetnosti, 1989), 225–237, 236. For more on the use of freestanding sarcophagi as
grave markers, especially in the West, see Josef Deér, The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs of the
Norman Period in Sicily (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), 27–41.
7 Grigorije Camblak, “Žitije Stefana Dečanskog” [The Life of Stefan Dečanski], in Grigorije
Camblak, Književni rad u Srbiji, trans. Lazar Mirković (Belgrade: Prosveta, 1989), 49–87, 72. On
the king’s death in Zvečan, see Pantelić, The Architecture, 23. Many scholars have proposed a
date for the translation of the king’s body from Zvečan to Dečani as having occurred in 1332.
Dušan Korać has suggested that the translation could not have taken place before the monas-
tery church was completed and consecrated, which, according to the inscription, happened
in 1334–1335. For other opinions and a recent bibliography on this topic, see Dušan Korać,
“Kanonizacija Stefana Dečanskog i promene na vladarskim portretima u Dečanima” [Stefan
Dečanski’s canonization and changes in the ruling portraits in Dečani], in Dečani i vizanti-
jska umetnost sredinom XIV veka: međunarodni naučni skup povodom 650 godina manastira
Dečana, ed. Vojislav J. Ðurić (Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1989), 287–295,
290–291.
8 Aleksandar Solovjev first proposed the date of the canonization and translation of the king’s
body to the reliquary casket broadly as between 1339 and 1343. He based his conclusion on
literary sources, especially late ones such as that of the king’s biographer Grigorije Camblak
and Konstantin Mihajlović iz Ostrovice from the 17th century. Both biographies placed the
translation of the king’s body at seven and nine years, respectively, after his burial. If the
burial occurred in 1331 or 1332, as Solovjev has suggested, a date falling between 1339 and 1341
may be taken as the terminus post quem. Korać, however, has argued for a canonization date
in 1343 based on the preamble in the charter issued by King Stefan Dušan to the monastery of
Saints Peter and Paul on the River Lim in Debreštu near Prilep on October 25, 1343 in which
King Stefan Dečanski was described as holy for the first time. Korać pointed out that the
king’s body could not have been laid in the prepared tomb in the Dečani before the end of
The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 75

elevation, the body of the king was translated in a solemn ceremony, depos-
ited in a wooden coffin, and placed in a prominent place in the church to be
venerated.9 Unfortunately, we have no recorded evidence as to the original
position of King Stefan’s shrine after it was displayed in the church. Today, the
reliquary is located in front of the icon of Christ, perpendicular to the iconos-
tasis (Figure 3.3).
Relics and icons have a long history of association.10 While theologians and
scholars have largely used theories of archetype or prototype to understand
the origin of icons, this is not the case with the origin of relics. According
to theologian John of Damascus (c.675–749), a defender of icons during the
iconoclastic controversies, icons are representations of the invisible, intan-
gible models of incomprehensible essence that bring man closer to the glory
of God.11 The question of the origin of icons is directly connected with the
dogmatic question of Christ’s Incarnation. As Vladimir Lossky has stated, “it
is in the context of the Incarnation (say rather: it is by the fact, by the event
of the Incarnation) that the creation of man in the image of God receives
all its theological value.”12 The Incarnation of the Son of God is at the core
of Damascus’s thought, which justifies the representation of Christ’s human
figure.13 Worshipping representations of Christ was not idolatry since, in the

1334 or the beginning of 1335, when construction of the church was completed. Based
on the date of the second burial of the king, the date of canonization should be in 1343,
which corresponds to the date found in the literary sources, see Aleksandar Solovjev, “Kad
je Dečanski proglašen za sveca? Kralja Dušanova povelja Limskom manastiru” [When
was Dečanski declared a saint? King Dušan’s charter to the Lim monastery], Bogoslovlje 4
(1929), 284–298; Korać, “Kanonizacija Stefana Dečanskog,” 290–291. For the charter, see
Žarko Vujošević, “Hrisovulja kralja Stefana Dušana manastiru Sv. Petra i Pavla na Limu”
[The Chrysobull of King Stefan Dušan to the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul on Lim],
Stari srpski arhiv 3 (2004), 45–69. For the literary sources, see Konstantin Mihajlović iz
Ostrovice, Janičarove uspomene ili turska hronika [Janissary’s memories or Turkish chron-
icle] (Belgrade: Prosveta, 1986), 95–96.
9 Camblak, “Žitije Stefana Dečanskog,” 73.
10 This relationship between icons and relics was especially an issue during the iconoclas-
tic controversies, see John Wortley, “Icons and Relics: A Comparison,” Greek, Roman and
Byzantine Studies 43 (2002–2003), 161–174; Ljubomir Milanović, “Encountering Presence:
Icon/Relic/Viewer,” in Icons of Space: Advances in Hierotopy, ed. Jelena Bogdanović
(Abingdon, Oxon/New York: Routledge, 2021), 239–259.
11 Patrologia Graeca (167 vols.), ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris, 1857–1866) [hereafter PG], 94,
1232–1420. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, trans. Andrew Louth
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003), 19–59, esp. 21–23.
12 Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, trans. John Erickson, Thomas E. Bird,
intro. John Meyendorff (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974), 136.
13 Jelena Bogdanović, “The Performativity of Shrines in a Byzantine Church: The Shrine
of St. Demetrios Performativity in Byzantium and Medieval Russia,” in Spatial Icons:
76 Milanović

Figure 3.3 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century, original
iconostasis with fresco surrounding it and the coffin of Saint Stefan Dečanski
Photo: Ljubomir Milanović
The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 77

words of Basil of Caesarea (330–379) “the honor given to the image [the Son]
passes to the prototype [the Father].”14
Through icons, one can recognize the human impulse to materialize the
ineffable and make it available to the senses. The Incarnation was the founda-
tion for the contemplation of the archetype and the miracles that took place
by means of icons were, for the faithful, evidence of the omnipresence of
God. Likewise, saints’ bodies were materialized evidence through which the
believer was able to address a glorified saint and, by extension, God. Through
divine grace, bodies became similar to the archetypal body of Christ, immortal
and incorruptible.15 In this manner, the body of Christ can be viewed as the
archetype of all bodily relics.
Byzantine commentaries likened altars to the holy tomb of Christ. The plac-
ing of the body of the saint in proximity to the altar materialized this connec-
tion between the body of the saint and the body of Christ.16 Some theologians
believed that the body of Christ was a holy relic during the three days it spent
in the tomb and, consequently, was a prototype for holy relics.17 Because
Christ’s body did not decay while entombed, the uncorrupted bodies of the
saints likewise took on special meaning and were treated as being blessed with
divine power.18 According to the first letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians
(1 Cor. 15:53), the earthly body of a saint was sanctified or transfigured: “For this
corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortal-
ity.” Thiofrid of Echternach, an early 12th-century monastic writer on relics,
stated that, because of the merits achieved during the saint’s lifetime, their

Performativity in Byzantium and Medieval Russia, ed. Alexei Lidov (Moscow: Indrik, 2011),
275–301, 298–299.
14 Saint Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
1980), 18.45, 72.
15 Elizabeth A. Fisher, “Life of the Patriarch Nicephoros I of Constantinople,” in Byzantine
Defenders of Images: Eight Saints’ Lives in English Translation, ed. Alice-Mary Talbot
(Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1998), 25–143, 54–56; Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus
Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture (New Haven/London: Yale
University Press, 1999), 87.
16 In his interpretation of the liturgy of the altar, Saint Germanus, the Patriarch of
Constantinople (d. 733) said that it corresponded with the Holy Grave of Christ, see Saint
Germanus of Constantinople, On the Divine Liturgy, trans. Paul Meyendorff (Crestwood,
NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1999), 59.
17 Sergius Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles: Two Theological Essays, trans. Boris Jakim (Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011), 1–43.
18 Arnold Angenendt, “Relics and Their Veneration,” in Treasures of Heaven: Saints, Relics,
and Devotion in Medieval Europe, ed. Martina Bagnoli et al. (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2011), 19–29, 19.
78 Milanović

bodies were considered bodies in Christ who “transmitted His own incorrupt-
ibility to their dead flesh.”19
Before turning to the main theme of this chapter, to better grasp the con-
nection between Christ’s body and that of a saint it is important to understand
the nature of saints’ bodies. As relics, saints’ bodies provided material evidence
through which we are able to address a glorified saint. The efficacy of a given
saint’s relics depended on Christian faith; they were the medium through
which saints interceded on behalf of humanity. The veneration of saints’ relics
and their frequent discovery in an uncorrupted state affirms that the physical
world has the potential for being transfigured and resurrected, as it partici-
pates in the restoration of humanity to the beauty of the divine image and like-
ness.20 The notion that God was able to preserve the bones or the entire corpse
of a saint led to the legend of the indestructible life, according to which the

19 Thiofrid of Echternach, Flores epytaphii sanctorum 1.3, in Corpus Christianorum.

Continuatio Mediaevalis 133 (Turnholt: Brepols, 1996), 16, l. 23 and 1. 4, 20, l. 80, see also
Angenendt, “Relics and Their Veneration,” 22; Julia M.H. Smith, “Relics: An Evolving
Tradition in Late Christianity,” in Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium
and Beyond, ed. Cynthia Hahn and Holger A. Klein (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection, 2015), 41–60, 52.
20 On relics and the development of their cult, see Hippolyte Delehaye, The Legends of the
Saints (London: Longman, 1907); André Grabar, Martyrium. Recherches sur le culte des rel-
iques et l’art Chrétien antique (Paris: Collège de France, 1946); Andrey Frolow, La relique de
la Vraie Croix. Recherches sur le développement d’un culte (Paris: Institut français d’études
byzantines, 1961); Nicole Herrmann-Mascard, Les reliques des saints. Formation coutu-
mière d’un droit (Paris: Klincksieck, 1975); Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and
Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1981); Sergei Hackel, ed.,
The Byzantine Saint (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001); David Sox, Relics
and Shrines (London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1985); Barbara Abou-El-Haj, The Medieval Cult of
Saints: Formations and Transformations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994);
Anton Legner, Reliquien in Kunst und Kult: zwischen Antike und Aufklärung (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995); Godefridus J.C. Snoek, Medieval Piety from
Relics to the Eucharist: A Process of Mutual Interaction (Leiden/New York: E.J. Brill,
1995); Arnold Angenendt, Heilige und Reliquien. Die Geschichte ihres Kultes vom frühen
Christentum bis zur Gegenwart (Munich: Nikol, 1997); Edina Bozóky and Anne-Marie
Helvétius, eds., Les reliques: objets, cultes, symboles: actes du colloque international de
l’Université du Littoral-Côte d’Opale, Boulogne-sur-Mer, 4–6 septembre 1997 (Turnhout:
Brepols, 1999); James Howard-Johnston and Paul Antony Hayward, eds., The Cult of the
Saints in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Essays on the Contribution of Peter Brown
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Anneke B. Mulder-Bakker, ed., The Invention of
Saintliness (London/New York: Routledge, 2002); Alexei Lidov, ed., Vostochnokhristianskie
relikvii [Eastern Christian relics] (Moscow: Progress-traditsiia, 2003); Irina A. Shalina,
Relikvii v vostochnokhristianskoĭ ikonografii [Relics in Eastern Christian iconography]
(Moscow: Indrik, 2005); Martina Bagnoli et al., eds., Treasures of Heaven: Saints, Relics,
and Devotion in Medieval Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011); Cynthia Hahn
and Holger A. Klein, eds., Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and
Beyond (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015).
The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 79

bodies of the martyred were miraculously restored, and the bodies of certain
saints remained in an incorrupt state.21 The phenomenon of the whole and
uncorrupted body rested on sporadic cases of bodies remaining intact long
after burial.
That the power of the saints was still active even after their death gave them
a paradoxical status of being neither fully dead nor alive. This allowed them
to continue to remain an active presence in everyday life. As Caroline Bynum
has observed, “the saints do not decay, in life or in death. They appear to us
in visions, whole and shining …”22 Every saint has already begun the process
of sanctification once they make a place for God in themselves.23 This is best
explained by Saint Paul, who writes to the Corinthians (2 Cor.3:18): “But we all
with open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into
the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” For Paul,
Christ endowed saints’ bodies with His power, and by creating a sanctified
body at the moment of death, inanimate flesh was given new, immortal life.
Christ experienced death. Luke the Evangelist (Luke 23:46) described His
soul departing His body as the giving of His spirit to the Father: “Father into
thy hands I commend my spirit.” However, the decomposition of His body
was prevented by its connection with the divine spirit. In the words of Sergius
Bulgakov, Christ’s body did not see corruption “but found itself, as it were, in
the state of a sleep.”24 Similarly, saints’ relics sanctified by the divine spirit were
akin to Christ’s body during its three days and nights as a holy relic, which
would be resurrected. This correlation makes Christ’s body an archetype of the
saintly body, a proto relic. As we have seen, by taking on human flesh God gives
an ontological foundation for the sanctification of man and thereby estab-
lishes a basis for the veneration of relics. Saints’ holy bodies preserve the divine
power that dwelt in them and become a model of universal resurrection.
As holy relics, the uncorrupted bodies of saints became conduits between
earth and heaven, humanity and the divine. In the words of Gregory of
Nazianzus (c.329–390): “The bodies of the martyrs have the same power as
their holy souls, whether one touches them or just venerates them.”25 Thus

21 Arnold Angenendt, “Corpus incorruptum: Eine Leitidee der mittelalterlichen Reliquien­

verehrung,” Saeculum 42 (1991), 320–346.
22 Caroline W. Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336 (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1995), 220.
23 Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, 21.
24 Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, 103.
25 Gregory of Nazianzus, Against Julian 1 (Oration 4) 69, as cited by Derek Kruger; see Derek
Kruger, “The Religion on Relics in Late Antiquity and Byzantium,” in Treasures of Heaven:
Saints, Relics, and Devotion in Medieval Europe, ed. Martina Bagnoli et al. (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2011), 5–17, 5.
80 Milanović

saints were able to intercede with God on behalf of humankind since there was
continuous communication between saints in heaven and Christians on earth.
Theologians often refer to a saint’s death as being a transitional phase,
which they liken to falling asleep. Confirming their ambivalent status of
being in a liminal state of living death, Saint Jerome (347–420) wrote: “The
truth is that the saints are not called dead, but are said to be asleep. Wherefore
Lazarus, who was about to rise again, is said to have slept.”26 Paulinus of Nola
(c.354–431) considered Saint Felix “buried, but not dead” and claimed that from
his “temporary tranquil sleep” in his “gleaming” tomb, the saint monitored the
courtyard of his church and delighted in the crowd who came to visit.27
Glorified bodies of saints that had already been transfigured were under-
stood as altars on the earth, while according to the Book of Revelation (Rev. 6:9)
their souls were placed under heavenly altars.28 In order to establish the link
between heaven and earth, and to connect bodies under earthly altars with
souls under their heavenly counterparts, it was necessary for saints’ relics to be
placed either beneath, or in close proximity to, an altar.29
The translation of relics is a crucial element in scholarly studies analyzing
the cult of relics and their function.30 In the West, Ambrose (337/340–397),
bishop of Milan, was a pioneer in the discovery and translation of saints’ bod-
ies to the altar of a church.31 A 4th-century translation ceremony is described
in a hymn that celebrates the memory of three martyrs—Felix, Victor, and
Nabor—who were Moorish soldiers belonging to the garrison of Milan.32

26 Saint Jerome, Against Vigilantius, 6 in St. Jerome: Letters and Selected Works. A Select
Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd series, vol. 6, trans.
W.H. Fremantle, G. Lewis and W.G. Martley, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York:
The Christian Literature Company, 1893), 419.
27 Paulinus of Nola, The Poems of St. Paulinus of Nola, trans. P.G. Walsh (New York: Newman
Press, 1975), 194.
28 Alan T. Thacker, “The Making of a Local Saint,” in Local Saints and Local Churches in the
Early Medieval West, ed. Alan Thacker and Richard Sharpe (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002), 45–75, 51; see also, Richard Krautheimer, Rome: Profile of a City, 312–1308
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 112–113.
29 Bulgakov, Relics and Miracles, 29.
30 On the translation of relics with a detailed bibliography, see Ljubomir Milanović, “The
Politics of Translatio: The Visual Representation of the Translation of Relics in the Early
Christian and Medieval Period, The Case of St. Stephen” (PhD diss., Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, 2011), 8–58.
31 Patricia Cox Miller, “Figuring Relics: A Poetics of Enshrinement,” in Saints and Sacred
Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, ed. Cynthia Hahn and Holger A. Klein
(Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015), 99–109, 100.
32 Ambrose, Hymns X, “Victor Nabor Felix pii.” For a French translation with commentary,
see Pierre Dufraigne, Adventus Augusti, Adventus Christi: recherche sur l’exploitation
idéologique et littéraire d’un cérémonial dans l’Antiquité tardive (Paris: Institut d’études
augustiniennes, 1994).
The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 81

They were executed in Lodi in 304, during the great persecution of Diocletian.
Their bodies were returned to this city under the episcopate of Maternus
between the years 316 and 328 in what was, as far as we know, the first official
translation.33 The Second Council of Nicaea of 787 insisted, with special
urgency, that relics were to be used in the consecration of churches and
that their absence was to be remedied if any church had been consecrated
without them.34
One of the important stages in the translation of relics was the relics’ eleva-
tion. Elevatio was usually performed after the invention of relics in preparation
for the moving of the body to a new location. It routinely took place inside the
church and involved the disinterment of a saint from his tomb and relocation
to the most prominent position in the building. The coffin was placed on an
elevated platform behind the altar and oriented at right angles to it. The saint’s
head therefore came to lie in the west, in order that he would face Christ as He
came again from the east.35 This kind of solemn translation (elevatio corpo-
ris) was treated as the outward recognition of sanctity and was analogous to
canonization in the period prior to the 13th century, when the Holy See in the
West reserved for itself the passing of a final judgement upon the merits of the
deceased servants of God.36
Following the 13th century, translations usually occurred only after offi-
cial papal canonization.37 The opening of the saint’s tomb was preceded by
a three-day fast since the clergy who were to carry out the ceremony required
abundant spiritual preparation for the task ahead. Sometimes, as part of the
preliminaries, the tomb was opened in private the night before the translation
so that the bones could be inspected and old rotten garments replaced by new
wrappings.38 In the East, official canonization required the vigorous examina-
tion of the saint in the late 13th and early 14th centuries. The earliest records

33 Alban Butler, The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and Other Principal Saints, vol. 1 (Dublin:
H. Coyne, 1833), 94; Pierre Dufraigne, Adventus Augusti, Adventus Christi, 298.
34 Snoek, Medieval Piety, 185.
35 Arnold Angenendt, “Zur Ehre der Altäre erhoben: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Reliquien­
verehrung,” Römishe Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde 89 (1994), 221–244.
36 Milanović, “The Politics of Translatio,” 30.
37 In the early Middle Ages, a bishop and synod controlled canonization. Around 1200,
the Pope asserted exclusive rights for the canonization of saints. Jill Raitt, ed., Christian
Spirituality: High Middle Ages and Reformation, in collaboration with Bernard McGinn
and John Meyendorff (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 94.
38 Ronald C. Finucane, “Sacred Corpse, Profane Carrion: Social Ideals and Death Rituals in
the Later Middle Ages,” in Mirrors of Mortality: Studies in the Social History of Death, ed.
Joachim Whaley (London: Europa, 1981), 53.
82 Milanović

of the ritual date from this period.39 According to the historian Pachymeres
(1242–c.1310) in his De Michaele et Andronico Paleologis, the uncorrupted relics
of the patriarch of Constantinople Arsenius were translated to Constantinople
in 1284 and deposited in the Hagia Sophia in a coffin placed to the right of the
bema.40 Pachymeres reports that the emperor, senate, patriarch, and clergy
sang hymns and pronounced panegyrics at the ceremony.41
Once translated, saints’ relics were deposited and presented in differ-
ent ways. According to early Christian sources, relics were placed within
the altar during its consecration. This, however, made them inaccessible for
veneration.42 There were other places in Western and Byzantine churches des-
ignated for saints’ relics. Smaller reliquaries, containing body fragments, were
usually kept inside the bema, on the altar, or nearby.43 Intact bodies were posi-
tioned so that they were easily accessible for veneration on a daily basis.44
There are few surviving sources about the translation of relics and their
location and display in medieval Serbia.45 Existing sources emphasize the
signs by which sanctity might be recognized, such as the working of miracles,

39 Ruth Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood in the Early Palaiologan Period,” in The Byzantine
Saint, ed. Sergei Hackel (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 67–88,
83–87. See also Alice-Mary Talbot, “The Relics of New Saints: Deposition, Translation,
and Veneration in Middle and Late Byzantium,” in Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of
Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, ed. Cynthia Hahn and Holger A. Klein (Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015), 215–231, esp. 218.
40 For the translation of relics, see George Pachymeres, De Michaele et Andronico Palaeologis
libri tredecim, ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn: 1835), ii. 83.14–84.7; for more details on the
translation of Patriarch Arsenius, see Macrides, “Saints and Sainthood,” 73–79.
41 Pachymeres, De Mich. ii. 84.18–85.14.
42 See n. 26. See also Vasileios Marinis and Robert Ousterhout, “‘Grant Us to Share a Place
and Lot with Them,’ Relics and the Byzantine Church Building (9th–15th Centuries),” in
Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, ed. Cynthia Hahn
and Holger A. Klein (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection,
2015), 153–173, esp. 154–155.
43 Marinis and Ousterhout, “Grant Us to Share a Place,” 153–173, esp. 154–155, 160–161, with
older bibliography.
44 Talbot, “The Relics of New Saints,” 216.
45 Lazar Mirković, “Uvrštenje despota Stefana Lazarevića u red svetitelja [Inclusion of
Despot Stefan Lazarevic in the order of saints],” Bogoslovlje 2 (1927), 163–177; Vladimir
Ćorović, “Prilog proučavanju načina sahranjivanja i podizanja nadgrobnih spomenika u
našim krajevima u srednjem veku” [Contribution to the study of the method of burial
and erecting of gravestones in our region in the Middle Ages], Naše starine 3 (1956),
127–147. Đorđe Trifunović, “Stara srpska crkvena poezija” [Old Serbian church poetry],
in O Srbljaku, ed. Dimitrije Bogdanović et al. (Belgrade: Srpska književna zadruga, 1970),
11–17; Danica Popović, “Srpska vladarska translatio kao trijumfalini adventus” [The Serbian
ruler’s translatio as triumphant adventus], in Pod okriljem svetosti, Kult svetih vladara i
relikvija u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji (Belgrade: Balkanološki institut SANU, 2006), 233–253.
The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 83

incorruption of the body, exudation of oil (myron), or the emission of a fra-

grant odor.46 Most likely, there was no formal canonization of the saints in the
Serbian medieval state. Sainthood was achieved by living a life with holiness
and virtue. The opening of the grave and the finding of an uncorrupted body
was one of the conditions for the recognition of a saint.47
The tradition of moving saints’ bodies in medieval Serbia probably started
in the first half of the 13th century with the body of Saint Sava at Mileševa mon-
astery. In his biography of Saint Sava, Domentijan describes the invention of
his body after its burial in Mileševa.48 Saint Sava appears in a dream to a monk,
demanding the removal of his body and that it be placed in a wooden reliquary
“in the middle of the church, for everyone to behold.”49 After the translation of
Saint Sava’s relics, the body was placed in a prominent place “in the midst of
the holy and great church,” a location now unknown to us.50
Depositing of the relics before the chancel barrier and in front of the icon of
Christ seems not to have been established until the 14th century. According to
the Serbian Archbishop Danilo II (1324–1337), the body of the Serbian queen,
Helen (d. 1314), was removed from her tomb in the 14th century and displayed
in a wooden coffin in front of the altar screen, below the icon of Christ the
Savior, in the church of the Holy Virgin in the Gradac monastery.51 The same
source informs us that the relics of King Milutin (1282–1321) were transferred
from his tomb in the Banjska monastery and placed in a wooden reliquary
before the icon of Christ on the chancel barrier, outside the royal doors.52
I will now return to the case of King Stefan Dečanski and his relics in the
church of Christ Pantokrator in Dečani. The Dečani monastery is the only
Serbian royal mausoleum in which the material traces of the cult of Stefan

46 Mirković, “Uvrštenje despota Stefana Lazarevića,” 168.

47 Trifunović, “Stara srpska crkvena poezija,”12.
48 Domentijan, Životi Sv. Save i Sv. Simeona [The Lives of St. Sava and St. Simeon], trans.
Lazar Mirković (Belgrade: Srpska književna zadruga, 1938), 27–221, 216–217.
49 Domentijan, Životi Sv. Save i Sv. Simeona, 217.
50 Translation in Pantelić, The Architecture, 31, n. 105. On the location of Saint Sava’s original
tomb, see Popović, Srpski vladarski grob, 55–57; Danica Popović, “Mošti Svetog Save” [The
relics of Saint Sava], in Pod okriljem svetosti, Kult svetih vladara i relikvija u srednjovekovnoj
Srbiji (Belgrade: Balkanološki institut SANU, 2006), 75–97, esp. 85–88.
51 According to Archbishop Danilo II, the elevation of the queen occurred in 1317, three
years after her death. The relics were moved from the sarcophagus tomb in the southwest
corner of her mausoleum church at the Gradac monastery to their new position near the
altar, see Arhiepiskop Danilo, Životi kraljeva, 75–76.
52 Arhiepiskop Danilo, Životi kraljeva, 120–121.
84 Milanović

Figure 3.4 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century, original
iconostasis with fresco surrounding it and the coffin of Saint Stefan Dečanski,
oblique view
Photo: Ljubomir Milanović

Dečanski are well preserved.53 Currently, his relics are displayed on the north-
east side, in front of the icon of Christ and perpendicular to the iconostasis
(Figure 3.4). The king’s face is oriented toward the altar and the east. The reli-
quary is positioned on an elevated platform, allowing visitors to lie under his
sarcophagus in order to receive a blessing from the saint. During the Middle
Ages, however, the reliquary of the body of Saint Stefan Dečanski was in a dif-
ferent location.
As we have seen, the elevation and translation of the king´s body occurred
in the summer or autumn of 1343 and was an official translation in the pres-
ence of church dignitaries and other nobility.54 The body was placed in a

53 Danica Popović, “Sveti kralj Stefan Dečanski” [Holy king Stefan Dečanski], in Pod okriljem
svetosti. Kult svetih vladara i relikvija u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji (Belgrade: Balkanološki
institut SANU, 2006), 143–183, 156; Smilja Marjanović-Dušanić, Sveti kralj [Holy king]
(Belgrade: Clio, 2007), 342.
54 The accepted terminus post quem for the portraits is the spring or summer of 1343; as we
have seen, the king is identified as holy in the inscription. The year 1345 may be taken as a
terminus ante quem because in the inscription of prayer, Dušan is called a young king, and
the last written charter bearing his signature dates back to 1345. Gojko Subotić, “Prilog
The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 85

Figure 3.5 Coffin of the holy king Stefan Dečanski, about 1340, Museum of the Serbian
Orthodox Church, Belgrade
Photo: Aleksandar Radosavljević

specially prepared reliquary for the occasion. The Dečani monastery preserves
a reliquary casket from the first half of the 14th century (Figure 3.5).55 The cof-
fin is rectangular, with a lid in the shape of a hipped roof. This reliquary is
made of wood and was covered in layers of gesso before being painted. The
front, right side, and lid of the coffin are decorated with a relief of interlaced,
predominantly floral motifs. The central rectangular panel on the front side
depicts interwoven animals with ornamental forms (Figure 3.6). The frames
that surround the decoration may have once been sheathed with gilded
silver.56 The lavish design indicates its precious contents. Notably, the addition
of the silver framing evokes paradise as an ideal final resting place for the body

hronologiji dečanskog zidonog slikarstva” [Contribution to the chronology of Dečani wall

paintings], Zbornik radova vizantološkog instituta 20 (1981), 111–138, 124; Dragan Vojvodić,
“Portreti vladara, crkvenih dostojanstvenika i plemića u naosu i prirpati” [Portraits of rul-
ers, ecclesiastical dignitaries and noblemen in the naos and narthex], in Zidno slikarstvo
manastira Dečana: građa i studije, ed. Vojislav J. Ðjurić (Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka
i umetnosti, 1995), 265–298, 278–280.
55 For more about the reliquary, see Petković and Bošković, Dečani, 105–106; Mirjana Ćorović-
Ljubinković, Srednjovekovni duborez u istočnim oblastima Jugoslavije [Medieval woodcut
sculpture in the eastern regions of Yugoslavia] (Belgrade: Arheološki institut-posebna
izdanja 5, 1965), 54–59; Mirjana Šakota, Dečanska riznica [Treasury of Dečani monas-
tery] (Belgrade: BIGZ, 1984), 287–289; Todić and Čanak-Medić, Manastir Dečani, 32–33,
235–236; Danica Popović, “Shrine of King Stefan Uroš III Dečanski,” in Byzantium: Faith
and Power (1261–1557), ed. Helen C. Evans (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
2004), 114–115; Miljana Matić, “Kivot za mošti svetog kralja Stefana Dečanskog” [Kivot
with the remains of the holy king Stefan Dečanski], in Srpsko umetničko nasleđe na
Kosovu i Metohiji. Identitet, značaj, ugroženost, ed. Miodrag Marković and Dragan Vojvodić
(Belgrade: SANU, Kragujevac: Grafostil, 2017), 414–415.
56 There are traces of nails that probably held silver decoration that is now lost. Ćorović-
Ljubinković, Srednjovekovni duborez, 56.
86 Milanović

Figure 3.6 Coffin of the holy king Stefan Dečanski, about 1340, detail, Museum of the
Serbian Orthodox Church, Belgrade
Photo: Aleksandar Radosavljević

of the deceased.57 It is possible that this reliquary chest, carefully preserved

to the present day, was the original in which the body of Stefan Dečanski was
placed after being removed from its tomb. If that is the case, according to
scholars who have based their arguments upon the fact that the coffin was
only decorated on two sides, it was likely positioned with its longer side to the
northeast of the iconostasis and its left side to the south face of the northeast
pillar (Figure 3.7).58
Establishing the cult of a saint starts with his or her death, which signifies
the beginning of a new transcendental existence and requires the writing of an

57 On the paradisiacal symbolism of metal, see Gerhart B. Ladner, God, Cosmos, and
Humankind: The World of Early Christian Symbolism (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1995), 110, 133. See also Popović, Srpski valdarski grob, 108; Jaś Elsner, “Relic, Icon
and Architecture: The Material Articulation of the Holy in Early Christian Art,” in Saints
and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, ed. Cynthia Hahn and
Holger A. Klein (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection,
2015), 13–41, 16.
58 Ćorović-Ljubinković, Srednjovekovni duborez, 55; Todić and Čanak-Medić, Manastir
Dečani, 32.
The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 87

Figure 3.7 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
old position of the reliquary, picture taken c.1941
Photo: After Petković and Bošković, Dečani

appropriate Life as well as offices and hymns.59 The first Life of Stefan Dečanski
was written during the period of the reign of King Stefan Dušan and was

59 Leontije Pavlović, Kultovi lica kod Srba i Makedonaca [The cult of individuals among Serbs
and Macedonians] (Smederevo: Narodni muzej, 1965), 99–109; Popović, “Sveti kralj Stefan
Dečanski,”147.
88 Milanović

compiled by Danilo’s continuer, likely between 1337 and 1340.60 This Life does
not give much information on the translation of the king’s body to the reli-
quary, nor does it give accounts of his saintliness. It takes the form of a histori-
ography rather than a hagiography.61
The most comprehensive information on King Dečanski’s translation and
canonization comes from the writings of Grigorije Camblak at the begin-
ning of the 15th century.62 In his narrative, which may have originated from
living memory or a now lost source, Camblak describes the invention, eleva-
tion, and translation of the king’s body using standard hagiographic models
based on the usual topoi of the saint.63 Camblak states that seven years after
the body of the king was placed in his final grave in Dečani, the king appeared
on three occasions in a dream of a sacristan demanding the disinterment of
his remains. Only after the same dream was experienced by the hegumenos of
the monastery did the officiating bishop assemble a council of archpriests as
well as of members of the clergy. After the stone was removed from the king’s
grave, the entire church and surrounding area was filled with a fragrant odor
and they discovered the saint’s uncorrupted body; all present were convinced
of his royal holiness. The body was lifted and translated into a new, specially
made reliquary casket (Figure 3.8).64 Camblak describes the miraculous power
of the king’s relics in detail. The narrative proceeds by offering testimony of a
number of miraculous healings that occurred before the saint’s relics.65
The posthumous portrait of Saint Stefan Dečanski appears on the south
face of the northeast pier, just above the reliquary with the king´s body

60 Danilov nastavljač, “Kralj Stefan Uroš Treći” [King Stefan Uroš the Third], in Danilovi
nastavljači. Danilov učenik, drugi nastavljači Danilovog zbornika, ed. Dimitrije Bogdanović
et al. (Belgrade: Prosveta, 1989), 27–67; Gordon L. Mak Daniel, “Prilozi za istoriju ‘Života
kraljeva i arhiepiskopa srpskih’ od Danila II” [Contributions to the history of the life of
the kings and the archbishop of the Serbs by Danilo II], Prilozi za književnost jezik istoriju
i folklor 46, 1–4 (1980–1984), 42–52; Popović, “Sveti kralj Stefan Dečanski,” 144.
61 Popović, “Sveti kralj Stefan Dečanski,” 150. The primary document for information regard-
ing the canonization of Stefan Dečanski and elevation of his body is the charter issued to
the monastery of Saints Peter and Paul on the River Lim by King Stefan Dušan in 1434 in
which King Dušan mentions God’s blessing having been bestowed on the body of his holy
father, see Vujošević, “Hrisovulja kralja Stefana,” 49, 53.
62 Camblak was responsible for creating the image of King Stefan Dečanski as a martyred
king. For the life of Grigorije Camblak, see Damnjan Petrović, “Camblakova literarna
delatnost u Srbiji [Camblak’s literary activity in Serbia],” in Grigorije Camblak, Književni
rad u Srbiji, trans. Lazar Mirković et al. (Belgrade: Prosveta, 1989), 9–45, esp. 10–19.
63 Popović, “Sveti kralj Stefan Dečanski,” 155.
64 Camblak, “Žitije Stefana Dečanskog,” 73.
65 Camblak, “Žitije Stefana Dečanskog,” 74–82.
The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 89

Figure 3.8 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century, relics of
the holy king Stefan Dečanski
Photo: Dečani monastery (Serbian Orthodox Church)

beside the iconostasis (Figure 3.9).66 This example of a posthumous portrait

of a saint as material evidence of his cult is unique in Serbian medieval art.
The portrait, probably executed soon after the translation of the king’s body
c.1343, depicts Stefan Dečanski in three-quarter view, holding a model of his
foundation.67 The model does not resemble the existing architectural structure
and is shown such that the southern parecclesion dedicated to Saint Nicholas
is emphasized.68 Stefan Dečanski is dressed in royal clothing and bowing

66 On the portrait, see Svetozar Radojčić, Portreti srpskih vladara u srednjem veku [Portraits
of Serbian rulers in the Middle Ages] (Skoplje: Muzej Južne Srbije u Skoplju, 1934), 45–47;
Ivan M. Đorđević, “Predstava Stefana Dečanskog uz oltarsku pregradu u Dečanima” [The
representation of Stefan Dečanski near the altar partition in Dečani], Saopštenja 15 (1983),
35–42; Vojvodić, “Portreti vladara,” 278–280; Popović, “Sveti kralj Stefan Dečanski,” 158;
Todić and Čanak-Medić, Manastir Dečani, 34–35; Dragana Pavlović, “Kralj Stefan Uroš III
Dečanski” [King Stefan Uroš the Third Dečanski], in Srpsko umetničko nasleđe na Kosovu
i Metohiji. Identitet, značaj, ugroženost, ed. Miodrag Marković and Dragan Vojvodić
(Belgrade: SANU, Kragujevac: Grafostil, 2017), 382–383.
67 For the dates of the painting in Dečani, see Subotić, “Prilog hronologiji,” 111–136.
68 Vladimir Petković was the first to notice this on the model, see Petković and Bošković,
Dečani, 23; see also, Đorđević, “Predstava Stefana Dečanskog,” 35.
90 Milanović

Figure 3.9 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
the holy king Stefan Dečanski, fresco, south face of the northeast pier
Photo: Ljubomir Milanović
The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 91

slightly toward the bust of Christ who blesses from above (Figure 3.10).69 Next
to the head of the king an inscription identifies him as “The Holy King, enlight-
ened by God, Stefan Uroš III, the founder of this holy church.” Under the model
of the church is a brief inscription highlighting the king’s prayers to the Savior:

Receive, Lord the Pantokrator, this gift and my prayers, of your servant
Stefan the king, for I, with my Son, King Stefan, offer you a divine church.
I look upon my corruptible body, standing over my grave, and I fear your
judgment. I belong to you, Pantokrator, have mercy on me on judgment
day. (Figure 3.11)70

Though the location of the inscribed prayer below the model of the church is
unusual, it is reminiscent of some representations of the Virgin which include
a scroll with an intercessory prayer.71 The content of the prayer certainly has
parallels in Byzantine as well as in Serbian medieval painting.72
Gordana Babić was the first to observe the interesting correspondence
between the posthumous portrait of Stefan Dečanski and the rest of the
painted church program, especially the king’s patron saints, Saint Nicholas
and Saint Stephen Protomartyr, the patron saints of the house of Nemanjić
(Figure 3.12). She also identified the portrait as being part of the larger escha-
tological program represented in the eastern part of the naos where Christ the
Pantokrator is depicted surrounded by the Virgin and John the Baptist in the
form of a Deesis (Figure 3.13).73
The location of the portrait next to the iconostasis is the result of the trans-
fer of the royal relics.74 The stone chancel barrier in Dečani was part of the
general architectural conception of the church and its interior decoration,
dating from 1327 to 1335 (Figure 3.14). Branislav Todić has noted that it was
not designed with the intention of placing icons in its intercolumns; rather, as
was the case in most Byzantine churches, its intercolumns were covered with

69 For a detailed description of King Stefan Dečanski’s portrait, see Đorđević, “Predstava
Stefana Dečanskog,” 35; Vojvodić, “Portreti vladara,” 278.
70 For the original text of the inscription with the king’s supplication to Christ, see Subotić,
“Prilog hronologiji,” 124. For a translation of the texts, see Todić and Čanak-Medić,
Manastir Dečani, 34.
71 Vojvodić, “Portreti vladara,” 278.
72 Đorđević, “Predstava Stefana Dečanskog,” 40; Vojvodić, “Portreti vladara,” 278.
73 Gordana Babić, “O živopisanom ukrasu oltarskih pregrada” [On the painted ornamenta-
tion of altar screens], Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 11 (1975), 3–41, 35, see also Popović,
Srpski vladarski grob, 111–112, 185.
74 Đorđević, “Predstava Stefana Dečanskog,” 37.
92 Milanović

Figure 3.10 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century, the
holy king Stefan Dečanski, fresco, south face of the northeast pier, detail
Photo: Ljubomir Milanović
The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 93

Figure 3.11 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century, holy
king Stefan Dečanski, fresco, south face of the northeast pier, detail
Photo: Ljubomir Milanović
94 Milanović

Figure 3.12 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
Saint Stephen Protomartyr, fresco, west wall of the south bay of the naos
Photo: Ljubomir Milanović
The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 95

Figure 3.13 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
Christ Pantokrator from Deesis, fresco, west wall of the south bay of the naos
Photo: Ljubomir Milanović
96 Milanović

Figure 3.14 Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Pantokrator, Serbia, 14th century,
iconostasis, viewed from the back, picture taken c.1941
Photo: After Petković and Bošković, Dečani

curtains. For Todić, the key reason for the change from curtains to the icons of
Saint Nicholas, the Virgin and Child, Christ, and Saint John the Baptist, was the
transfer of the relics of King Stefan Dečanski into the altar area in 1343.75
The portrait and its inscription has been the subject of much scholarly
debate. A majority of scholars have noted that in the written text the saint
prays for his salvation and that these words are not what one expects to hear
from a saint. They have concluded that observing one’s own perishable body,
expressing fear of the Last Judgement, or requesting pardon, is contrary to the
theological understanding of sainthood during the Middle Ages.76 This has led
many to conclude that the portrait was painted in an early stage of his saintly

75 He based his opinion on the absence of traces of grooves or evidence of anything that
might have been used for fixing the icons on the iconostases on either the colonnettes or
on the upper edges of the parapets. Branislav Todić, “Ikonostas u Dečanima—prvobitni
slikani program i njegove poznije izmene” [Iconostasis in Dečani—original painting pro-
gram and its later changes], Zograf 36 (2012), 115–129, 115–116.
76 Popović, “Sveti kralj Stefan Dečanski,” 150–158, Todić and Čanak-Medić, Manastir Dečani,
34–35; Marjanović-Dušanić, Sveti kralj, 360; Todić, “Ikonostas u Dečanima,” 116.
The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 97

cult, before it was fully formed, before Dečanski received an office or a real
hagiography.77
Other scholars, however, have pointed out that the portrait, accompanied
by its inscription, underlined the relationship between the founder and Christ.
This relationship is expressed, on one hand, by the prayer of Stefan Dečanski
and, on the other, by the blessing of Christ. This is the only inscription of this
kind found in medieval Serbian wall painting, which reveals much about the
beliefs of the founder.78 Scholars have argued that the portrait indicates that,
after Dečanski was canonized, he came to stand directly before Christ as an
intercessor, not only for his own soul, but also for that of his son, King Dušan,
as well. This portrait therefore represents Stefan Dečanski’s future appearance
at the Last Judgement.79
Prior scholars have not focused on the connection of the body of the saint
and the altar, which represents the symbolic tomb of Christ in which His body
remained for three days. There are multiple ways by which a saint’s body may
be recognized as a relic within the Christian tradition.80 Some saints become
holy during their lifetime, and some at the moment of their death.81 For others,
years of miracles and wonders, or the discovery of their uncorrupted bodies
are required as proof of holiness.82 In the case of Dečanski, as we have seen,
his body was found to be incorrupt. This means that his body was transfig-
ured with God’s grace and its state of incorruptibility was material proof of the
saint’s full theosis. Though the portrait inscription mentions the saint’s per-
ishable body, this in fact gestures to his humility.83 That is to say, the king’s

77 Popović, “Sveti kralj Stefan Dečanski,” 161.

78 Đorđević, “Predstava Stefana Dečanskog,” 36. Lazar Mirković has noted that the explana-
tion for the text of the prayer should be sought in the Dečani charter, see Lazar Mirković,
“Da li na freskama u niškoj grobnici (kraj IV) veka imamo portrete sahranjenih u njoj?”
[Do we have the portraits of those buried in Niš mausoleum (end of 4th century) repre-
sented in its frescoes?], Zbornik Narodnog muzeja 5 (1967), 227–229.
79 Đorđević, “Predstava Stefana Dečanskog,” 42; Vojvodić, “Portreti vladara,” 279.
80 Michel Kaplan, “De la dépouille à la relique: formation du culte des saints à Byzance
du Ve au XIIe siècle,” in Les reliques. Objets, cultes, symboles: Actes du colloque interna-
tional de l’Université du Littoral-Côte d’Opale (Boulogne-sur-Mer), 4–6 septembre 1997, ed.
Edina Bozóky and Anne Marie Helvétius (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), 19–38; Michel Kaplan,
“L’ensevelissement des saints: rituels de création des reliques et sanctification à Byzance
d’après les sources hagiographiques,” in Mélanges Gilbert Dagron (Paris: Association des
amis du Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance, 2002), 319–332.
81 Katherine Marsengill, Portraits and Icons: Between Reality and Spirituality in Byzantine Art
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 271–277.
82 Talbot, “The Relics of New Saints,” 211–219.
83 Ivan M. Đorđević, “Dve Molitve Stefana Dečanskog pre bitke na Velbuždu i njegov odjek u
umetnosti” [Two prayers of Stefan Dečanski before the Battle of Velbuzd and his echo in
art], Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 15 (1979), 135–150.
98 Milanović

body should be viewed as a body sanctified by God, but still connected to

the earth while the soul of the saint has already joined God in heaven. While
the soul is able to traverse the two worlds, the body is still bound to Earth.84
The Resurrection will reunite the soul with the body. By mentioning the Last
Judgement and his fear of it, Stefan Dečanski was pointing to the final resurrec-
tion when both his body and soul would be reunited with Christ.
The juxtaposition between the Dečanski portrait on the northeast pier and
the reliquary casket has been seen as mirroring the position of the founder
portrait of King Stefan Uroš III on the south wall in relation to his first tomb.85
Ivan Đorđević has noted that the king’s posthumous portrait differs from
that on the south wall of the naos by showing the gradual change in facial
color between the portrait of the king and the portrait of the saint.86 This is
explained by the words of John of Damascus who said that “The saints, in
their lifetime, were filled with the Holy Spirit and when they are no more, His
grace abides with their spirits and with their bodies in their tombs, and also
with their likeness and sacred icons, not by nature but by grace and divine
power …”87 For Damascus, the connection between the type and the prototype
lies in likeness, meaning that through the type we convey the prototype. Thus
both the king’s body and his posthumous portrait emanate the grace of God
embedded in them. Katherine Marsengill has observed that the sanctification
of the soul is expressed in the body and becomes visible through the portrait
of the person.88
The connection between the saint’s body and Christ’s body as its prototype
is perhaps best illustrated in the story of the stylite Lazaros of Galesion. The
occasion described in his Life concerns the removal of his dead body from a
pillar. In the words of the saint’s biographer, “they had lifted up Lazaros’ body
on the pillar and let it hang suspended in order to bring it down … nothing
else could be seen among them at the time except for woe and lamentation
and inconsolable weeping. Moreover, [the image of] my Jesus was reproduced
again at the sight of that sacred body, and it really seemed as if He could be

84 Marsengill, Portraits and Icons, 275.

85 Todić, “Ikonostas u Dečanima,” 118.
86 Đorđević, “Predstava Stefana Dečanskog,” 41. On the portrait of Stefan Dečanski on the
south wall of the naos and its controversies, see Vojvodić, “Portreti vladara,” 265–275, with
older bibliography.
87 John of Damascus, Or. I, De Imaginibus, PG 94, 1249D. For an English translation see
Mary H. Allies, trans., St. John Damascene on Holy Images (London: Thomas Baker,
1898), 22.
88 Marsengill, Portraits and Icons, 260.
The Body of Christ as Relic Archetype 99

seen being taken down from the cross once more.”89 This example clearly
shows the perception of onlookers who were able to recognize the prototype
in the transfigured body of the holy.
The commemorative portrait of the king, as well as his holy body, were
placed in close proximity to the iconostasis which represents the boundary
between visible and invisible worlds.90 It conceals the altar from the viewer,
but at the same time, reveals heavenly witnesses represented on the icons
of saints as well as of the Virgin Mary and Christ.91 The figure of King Stefan
Dečanski should be seen as another witness, who in the company of other
saints, serves as a guide for the faithful to a vision of the Divine Kingdom.
As intercessors, saints become gateways for prayers for the salvation of the
human race, prayers which will only be fulfilled at the Last Judgement. The
bodies of saints become a source of faith and reassurance of resurrection; pow-
erful examples that should be followed.92 The iconostasis reveals the heavenly
realm and makes it spiritually visible, but only to those enlightened by God.93
As part of the iconostasis, icons are functionally connected to the altar space,
the symbolism of which points to the dogma about the redemption of sins.94
Juxtaposing the portrait of Saint Stefan Dečanksi and his holy body in front
of the iconostasis gave the faithful a model to follow, while the inscription on
the portrait warns them that nothing is certain until the Last Judgement and
resurrection.

89 Gregory the Cellarer, The Life of Lazaros of Mt. Galesion, Chapter 251. For an English trans-
lation, see Gregory the Cellarer, The Life of Lazaros of Mt. Galesion: An Eleventh-Century
Pillar Saint, intro. and trans. Richard P.H. Greenfield (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks,
2000), 360. Saint Lazaros died in 1053 and his Life was composed soon after by one of his
followers, Gregory the Cellarer, see Marsengill, Portraits and Icons, 274.
90 Nicholas P. Constas, “Symeon of Thessalonike and the Theology of the Icon Screen,”
in Threshold of the Sacred, ed. Sharon E.J. Gerstel (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection, 2006), 163–185. For the iconostasis in Byzantine churches,
see Christopher Walter, “The Origin of the Iconostasis,” Eastern Churches Review 3 (1971),
251–267, 262–263; also Babić, “O živopisanom ukrasu,” 14–20.
91 On the theological meaning of the iconostasis, see Pavel Florensky, Iconostasis, trans.
Donald Sheehan and O. Andrejev (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
2000), 62.
92 Wendy Mayer, “Introduction,” in St. John Chrysostom: The Cult of the Saints, intro. and
trans. Wendy Mayer and Bronwen Neil (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
2006), 11–35, 30.
93 Slobodan Ćurčić, “Architecture as Icon,” in Architecture as Icon. Perception and
Representation of Architecture in Byzantine Art, ed. Slobodan Ćurčić and Evangelia
Hadjitryphonos (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 3–39, 26–29.
94 Babić, “O živopisanom ukrasu,” 9.
100 Milanović

The displaying of relics before the iconostasis, as is the case in Dečani,

should be viewed in light of the symbolic meaning of the chancel barrier, and
as a link between type and archetype; between the saintly relics and Christ’s
body. The iconostasis was the barrier between the earthly (present) and the
heavenly (future) realms. Placing the uncorrupted body of the saint next to
the heavenly realm emphasized his intercessory role in the Second Coming
of Christ. The juxtaposition of the king’s body and the icon of Christ aligned
with the altar in Dečani provides insight into the relationship between icons
and bodily relics more broadly. As demonstrated in this essay, icons and rel-
ics are both imbued with holiness and are also evidence of the miracle of the
Incarnation, and thus linked to its archetypal form, the body of Christ.

Acknowledgements

This text is part of the research supported by the Ministry of Education,

Science, and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. I would
like to thank to my dear friend Dr. Allan Doyle, Assistant Professor at Parsons
School of Design and The New School, New York City, for his close reading of
the text, helpful suggestions, and corrections.
 Chapter 4

From Earth to Heaven: Transcendental Concepts

of Architecture in Late Roman and Early Byzantine
Art (c.300–700)
Cecilia Olovsdotter

This chapter considers the use of architectural motifs as symbolic concepts in

Late Roman and Early Byzantine art.1 Although formally, functionally, and con-
textually related to built counterparts, the visual constructions dealt with here
do not, or only in limited and ambiguous ways, represent ‘real’ monumental
architecture. Late antique art is rich in what may be called architectural imag-
ery, i.e. figural compositions where an architectural structure provides a visu-
ally prominent and regularizing element. Arches, portals, pedimented fronts,
aedicules, and domes certainly appeared in Greco-Roman art before late antiq-
uity, but much less frequently, and for the most part in funerary works. The sig-
nificant increase in and formal and contextual diversification of architectural
motifs in the visual culture of late antiquity can perhaps chiefly be explained
by their suitability for the hieratic and abstracted mode of representation that
was developed in this period, i.e., their usefulness in the creation of symbolic
art, but they would arguably also have reflected an expanded visual concep-
tion of architecture in general, and of certain architectural types and themes
as bearers of abstract meaning in particular.2 Indeed, late antique pictorial
or imaged architecture may be considered as graphic illustrations of the ide-
ational superstructures attached to actual or built architecture in this period:
physical architecture and imaged architecture were part of the same language

1 I am indebted to several institutions for their support of my research on imaged architec-

ture in late antique visual culture, of which this chapter is one result: the Swedish Research
Institute in Istanbul; the Swedish Institute of Classical Studies at Rome; the Royal Swedish
Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities; the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation;
the Fondazione Famiglia Rausing (Rome); the Enbom Foundation (Stockholm); the Torsten
and Ingrid Gihl Foundation (Stockholm); the Lars Hierta Memorial Foundation (Stockholm);
and the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg.
2 Cf. Bandmann’s notion that the allegorical or metaphoric meanings attached to certain
typologized architectural motifs (“building components”) generated abstracted pictorial
forms (ergo that imaged architecture encapsulated and conveyed the symbolic meanings
associated with its built prototypes); Günter Bandmann, Early Medieval Architecture as
Bearer of Meaning, trans. Kendall Wallis (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 67.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004537781_006

102 Olovsdotter

of forms, constituting mutually reflective articulations of one universal archi-

tectural perception. As a visual technique and means of expression essentially
unconstrained by the physical laws of tectonics, imaged architecture allowed
for near limitless variation, modification, and synthesis of established archi-
tectural types and elements. The resulting creations range from the reductively
abstract to the imaginatively fantastical, often architectonically illogical and
sometimes seemingly nonsensical, yet systematic analysis of them reveals
clear and consistent patterns not only in terms of their conceptual construc-
tion but also of their contextual application and relevance.3 Generally speak-
ing, the function and meaning of architectural motifs in late antique art were
to define and glorify man in his different roles and fields of action, and to give
visual form to prevailing ideas and beliefs about the nature and composition
of society, the world, and the cosmos.4

3 A monographic study of imaged architecture in Late Roman and Early Byzantine visual cul-
ture is under preparation by the present author.
4 Although this understanding of the nature and applications of imaged architecture in late
antiquity can neither be considered far-fetched nor inconsequential, such meaningful con-
notations have only fleetingly been touched upon in the literature; indeed the very prolif-
eration and systematic modes of application of architectural motifs in art in this specific
period seems largely to have gone unobserved. Any interest shown has typically been of a
purely formal nature, either aesthetic (as ornamental frameworks or space-fillers) or archae-
ological (as representations or even depictions of specific buildings, viz. a priori identifiable
and genealogically traceable architectural prototypes), but either way essentially devoid of
intrinsic meaning. A different, but likewise formal, analysis is offered by Paul Lampl in his
brief but seminal article on architectural representations in early medieval Christian art,
where it is held that such representations were not inspired by any built or “real” architec-
ture, whether specific or typological, but entirely dictated by “the mind of the late antique
artist,” thus suggesting a disassociation between architectural forms/types and any symbolic
associations tied to them, and also (somewhat astonishingly) that early medieval architects
and image makers originated their architectural schemes independently from each other;
Paul Lampl, “Schemes of Architectural Representation in Early Medieval Art,” Marsyas 9
(1961), 6–13, esp. 7–10. More in line with my understanding of imaged architecture as a bearer
of contextual meaning is Günter Bandmann’s idea that certain primitive architectural forms
typified, as visual forms, in antiquity and “received”—viz. continued, adapted, and in some
cases attributed more definite or new meanings and functions—in Christian late antiquity
and the Early Middle Ages as inherently denotative of a “higher content,” i.e., specific ideas
and associations related to cultural context (history, tradition, religion, social and political
circumstances, and concepts); Bandmann, Early Medieval Architecture, 15–27, 30, 55, 59–70.
For a concise critical survey of the extant literature on architectural motifs in Roman and
late antique art, see Cecilia Olovsdotter, “Architecture and the Spheres of the Universe in
Late Antique Art,” in Envisioning Worlds in Late Antique Art: New Perspectives on Abstraction
From Earth to Heaven 103

The most widely employed architectural types—in the archetypal sense—

for late antique imaged architecture were monumental portals and gates
(notably city gates and triumphal arches), the pedimented fronts of temples
and shrines, and the composite arched and prostyle front variously referred
to as the arched, Syrian, or (in the late antique context particularly) palatial
fastigium.5 The common denominators of these three building types—in sim-
plified terms gate, temple, and palace—were their liminal quality, whether it
denoted the passage between exterior and interior spheres and/or the meet-
ing place of human and divine, and that they were inherently designed for
ritual or ceremonial purposes. As conceptual forms they had since ancient
times been associated with certain occurrences, practices, and concepts, such
as boundary, arrival, entry, passage, triumph, the divine house, the house of
the dead, the heavenly sphere, the seat of power, elevated status, majesty,
apotheosis, etc., and a rich visual record testifies that these associations were
further strengthened and sublimated in late antiquity. In imagery, the func-
tions and meanings associated with certain architectural types and structures
were habitually articulated through the addition of cosmic (earthly, heavenly,
transcendental) symbols, selected and applied according to principles of rel-
evance and synergy of meaning. Together, architecture and symbols provided
frameworks that variously specified and universalized the meaning of the
main theme and purpose(s) of an image or visual program.6 The material,
contextual, and geographical diffusion of such architectural configurations
throughout late antique art, and the consistency with which they were real-
ized, suggest a period-specific collective tendency or ‘mindset’ to conceptu-
alize the world—phenomena, relationships, temporal sequences, atemporal
states and dignities—in terms of structural form (formal type), connectivity,
organization, and containment. In what follows I will concentrate on the late
antique use of the arch and the pedimented front as means for visualizing
transcendence and immortality.

and Symbolism in Late-Roman and Early-Byzantine Visual Culture (c. 300–600), ed. Cecilia
Olovsdotter (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2019), 138–139, n. 4.
5 For the different denominations of the arched fastigium, and its predominantly palatial
usage in late antiquity, see nn. 75 and 77.
6 For a presentation of the symbols most frequently combined with imaged architecture in late
antiquity, and the principles that guided their selection and distribution on/around it, see
Olovsdotter, “Architecture and the Spheres,” 150–154.
104 Olovsdotter

1 The Arch

The arch was an established and widely employed motif of transition in Roman
architecture and art, and in late antiquity it had evidently come to be regarded
as a theme with many adaptations. The notions of movement, arrival, entry,
and passage with which the arch was traditionally associated provided relevant
and effective metaphors for a number of occurrences and acts customarily cel-
ebrated through architecture and art. Most prominent of these was victory, a
concept absolutely central to Roman power politics, religion, and historiogra-
phy, around which a whole civilization and cosmology were constructed.7
In the two panels of a commemorative ivory diptych commissioned by
Probus in connection with his Western consulship in 406 (Figure 4.1)8 we
find a classically Roman example of the arch as a symbol of passage. The
arch accompanies the full-figure representation of the consul’s appointer, the
emperor Honorius (384–423), who poses as if having just entered through it,
wearing the costume and attributes of a victorious Roman general and world
ruler (Gorgon-adorned cuirass, spear, shield, victoriola-surmounted orb).
Understood contextually, and following a string of conventional Roman asso-
ciations, this arch may be read in several interconnected ways, none of which
is referable to any historical event or physical place: as a reference to the adven-
tus of the victorious emperor through a city gate and/or his passing through a
triumphal arch as part of a triumphal procession (processus triumphalis); as
an allusion to the idea of imperial victory as the beginning of a new prosper-
ous cycle in the history of Rome;9 and, given that the diptych commemorates
a consulship, as a reference to the beginning of a new annual cycle (novus
annus) through the consul’s taking of office on the New Year, the apparatus,

7 For useful analyses of the Roman victory concept and its manifestations in all major areas of
Roman and late antique society, see Hendrik Simon Versnel, Triumphus: An Inquiry into the
Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph (Leiden: Brill, 1970); J. Rufus Fears,
“The Theology of Victory at Rome: Approaches and Problems,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der
Römischen Welt 2.17:2 (Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1981), 736–826; and Michael McCormick,
Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Mediaeval
West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).
8 Rome or northern Italy, 406; Aosta, Tesoro della Cattedrale. Richard Delbrueck, Die
Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler (Berlin/Leipzig: De Gruyter, 1929), no. 1;
Wolfgang Fritz Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters (Mainz:
Philipp von Zabern, 1976), no. 1; Cecilia Olovsdotter, The Consular Image: An Iconological
Study of the Consular Diptychs (Oxford: John and Erica Hedges, 2005), esp. 168, plate 14.
9 Cf. Versnel’s interpretation of the triumphator; Versnel, Triumphus, 356–396.
From Earth to Heaven 105

Figure 4.1 Consular diptych of Probus; Rome or northern Italy, 406; Aosta, Tesoro della
Cattedrale
Photo: Diego Cesare, Regione autonoma Valle d’Aosta, Archivi
dell’Assessorato Beni culturali, Turismo, Sport e Commercio
della Regione autonoma Valle d’Aosta—fondo Catalogo beni
culturali

procedure, and ideological construct of which were directly modelled on those

of the Roman triumph.10

10 Versnel, Triumphus, 95–98, 129–131, 302f–303, 356–380, 371–373; Sabine G. MacCormack,

Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley/London: University of California Press,
1981), 52–55; McCormick, Eternal Victory, esp. 84–91; Ernst Künzl, Der römische Triumph.
Siegesfeiern im antiken Rom (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1988), 106, 129; Jörg Rüpke, Domi militiae.
106 Olovsdotter

The arch remained a recurrent motif in the consular diptychs, which were
an important category of commemorative artwork commissioned and dis-
tributed in multiples by the annually appointed consuls (consules ordinarii)
of Rome and Constantinople from the late 4th century to 542, when Justinian
abolished this highest and most ancient of Roman state offices.11 Although
long since emptied of executive power, and consisting only of ceremonial and
pecuniary obligations (processions, the giving of games, the public distribution
of largesse), the last centuries of the consulate’s existence saw its resurgence
as the most prestigious position in the Roman civil career (cursus honorum),12
a resurgence very much evidenced by the consular diptychs themselves,
which, in adherence to long-established ideals and practices of Roman com-
memorative art, served to advertize and glorify their honorands’ status and the
superior merits and virtues by which they had earned it.13 In some diptychs
commissioned by Areobindus (Figure 4.2)14 and Clementinus (Figure 4.3)15

Die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1990), 231; Stéphane
Benoist, Rome, le prince et la Cité. Pouvoir impérial et cérémonies publiques (1er siècle
av.–début du IVe siècle apr. J.-C.) (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2005), 195–308;
and Olovsdotter, The Consular Image, esp. 184–189. For the period of Honorius specifically,
see also Claudianus, Panegyricus de quarto consulatu Honorii Augusti, 361–425 (relating
Honorius’s consular adventus into Rome in 404).
11 The motivation behind the suspension of the ordinary consulate by Justinian in 542 was
that it competed unacceptably with the imperial status in the public arena; e.g., Christian
Courtois, “Exconsul. Observations sur l’histoire du consulat à l’époque byzantine,”
Byzantion 19 (1949), 37–58, esp. 54; Roger S. Bagnall, Alan D.E. Cameron, Seith R. Schwartz,
and Klaas A. Worp, Consuls of the Later Roman Empire (Atlanta: American Philological
Association, 1987), 10–12.
12 For the Late Roman consulate (ordinary, imperial, suffect, honorary, and ex-), see
Courtois, “Exconsul;” Rodolphe Guilland, “Études sur l’histoire administrative de l’empire
byzantin. Le consul, ο υπατος,” Byzantion 24 (1954), 545–578; and Bagnall et al., Consuls of
the Later Roman Empire. As documented through the consular diptychs: Delbrueck, Die
Consulardiptychen, 3–80; and Olovsdotter, The Consular Image, esp. 68–92. For a concise
presentation of the Late Roman consulate, see also Elisabetta Ravegnani, Consoli e dittici
consolari nella tarda antichità (Rome: Arcane, 2006), 21–107.
13 On the characterization, functions, and dissemination of the consular diptychs in the
period of their production (c.370–541), see Delbrueck, Die Consulardiptychen, 3–22;
Anthony Cutler, “The Making of Justinian’s Diptychs,” Byzantion 54 (1984), 75–115, esp.
105–108; Olovsdotter, The Consular Image, esp. 1–10; and Cecilia Olovsdotter, “Anastasius’
I Consuls: Ordinary Consulship and Imperial Power in the Consular Diptychs from
Constantinople,” Valör. Konstvetenskapliga studier 1–2 (2012), 33–47.
14 Constantinople, 506. E.g., Paris, Musée du Moyen-Âge—Cluny, inv. Cl. 13135; Delbrueck,
Die Consulardiptychen, no. 11; Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten, no. 10; Olovsdotter, The Consular
Image, no. 9 C; see also Olovsdotter, “Architecture and the Spheres,” 142–143 with fig. 7.4.
15 Constantinople, 513; Liverpool, National Museums Liverpool—World Museum, inv.
M10036. Delbreuck, Die Consulardiptychen, N 16; Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten, no. 15;
Olovsdotter, The Consular Image, no. 10.
From Earth to Heaven 107

Figure 4.2
Consular diptych of Areobindus;
Constantinople, 506; Paris, Musée national
du Moyen Âge—Cluny, inv. Cl. 13135
Photo: © RMN-Grand Palais (musée
de Cluny—musée national du
Moyen Âge) / Thierry Ollivier

in Constantinople in the first decades of the 6th century, the tectonically

abridged and spatially ambiguous arched structures that enclose the consuls’
figures cannot be linked to any specific type of building or ceremony but serve
as suitably monumental and symbol-laden visual frames for the consuls as
they solemnly pose at their ceremonial entry into office on the New Year,16

16 On the increasingly synthetical ‘three-into-one’ mode adopted in the consular dip-

tychs, especially in Constantinople, for representing the opening procession (processus
108 Olovsdotter

Figure 4.3 Consular diptych of Clementinus; Constantinople, 513; Liverpool, National

Museums Liverpool—World Museum, inv. M10036
Photo: Courtesy National Museums Liverpool, World Museum
From Earth to Heaven 109

thereby ‘triumphally’ opening a new annual cycle in the history of Rome17

and ‘forever’ entering their names in her public annals.18 The columnar arch
framing Areobindus is rather plain and generic, whereas that accompanying
Clementinus is elaborated to evoke a triumphal arch, with an inscribed entab-
lature consisting of the consul’s tabula ansata, and an attic displaying figural
reliefs in the form of a cross flanked by the imagines clipeatae of the appointing
emperor, Anastasius I (491–518), and his empress, Ariadne, in a visual formula
signifying the joint and harmonious rulership in Christ of the divine imperial
couple.19 That the arch had become an established visual symbol for the con-
sular status and ceremonial is compellingly demonstrated by two minuscule
insets on the perpendicular center-fold of Areobindus’s toga, which show a
consul standing hieratically in a columnar arch. The concept returns in a more
elaborate form in the mid-6th-century ‘Christ and Mary’ diptych in Berlin

consularis), the giving of/presiding over of games in the circus/hippodrome and

amphitheater, and the distribution of largesse—ceremonies which were all (naturally)
enacted against monumental architectural backdrops in the city centers of Rome and
Constantinople designated for them, see Olovsdotter, The Consular Image, 68–71.
17 On the association of consulship with Roman victory and triumph, and the formula-
tion of the consul’s public success in terms of victory, see notably Versnel, Triumphus,
356–397; McCormick, Eternal Victory, 82–83 (discussing the relationship between
imperial-dynastic victory and consular victory); and Olovsdotter, The Consular Image,
132–148 and esp. 184–198. Traditionally and ideally, a consular appointment was received
in reward for a victory or other achievement in war, the idea being that proven victory
and successfulness (a god-given quality) could thus be channeled into civil society for the
benefit of the state and civil society; Versnel, Triumphus, 377–378. For the continuance of
the practice of appointing military generals to the consulate in the late antique period,
see Bagnall et al., Consuls of the Later Roman Empire, 4–6.
18 The Fasti consulares, so termed for the two annually appointed consuls whose names
headed each year, had since the consulate’s institution with the Roman Republic
(c.509 BCE) served as the official record against which the Romans measured time and
registered historical events. On the association of the consulate with the concept of
continuity in late antiquity, see, e.g., Josef Engemann, “Ein Missorium des Anastasius.
Überlegungen zum ikonographischen Programm der ‘Anastasius’-Platte aus dem Sutton
Hoo Ship-burial,” in Festschrift für Klaus Wessel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Marcell Restle
(Munich: Editio Maris, 1988), 103–115, esp. 111–112; Kim Bowes, “Ivory Lists: Consular
Diptychs, Christian Approbation and Polemics of Time in Late Antiquity,” Art History 24,
no. 3 (2001), 338–357, esp. 347–353; and Olovsdotter, The Consular Image, 197–202.
19 The concord in Christ between the ruling couple was thought to establish and maintain
harmony and unity on all planes of existence; see notably Robert Grigg, “Symphonian
aeido tes basileias. An Image of Imperial Harmony on the Base of the Column of Arcadius,”
Art Bulletin 59 (1977), 469–482, esp. 476–478; in the consular context, see Olovsdotter, The
Consular Image, 149 and 151 esp. and Olovsdotter, “Anastasius’ I Consuls,” 37–39.
110 Olovsdotter

(Figure 4.4),20 which represents each of the godlike dignitaries—Christ as

teacher of God’s law (Christus Doctor), Mary as Theotokos with the Christ-child
on her lap—each presiding like a Roman magistrate in front of a columnar
arch complemented, beneath the archivolt and between the column capitals,
with a concha (scallop shell), a symbol of immortality and divinity occurring
widely in art and architecture from the late 3rd century,21 and closed curtains
(vela) announcing the sacrosanctity of the couple and screening the mysti-
cal sphere to which they belong from the eyes of the viewer. In the spandrels
of the arch, the busts of Luna and Sol denote the cosmic and eternal nature
of that sphere, and the cosmic and regenerational power of the Mother and
Son through whom it might be accessed.22
The Romans’ associations of the arch with victory and its vital function in
the cyclic renewal of the cosmic forces was richly visualized in the Chro­no­
graphy of the year 354,23 a work in which fantastical architectural frames

20 Constantinople, mid-6th century; Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Skulpturensammlung

und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst, inv. 564–565. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten, no. 137;
Danielle Gaborit-Chopin, Elfenbeinkunst im Mittelalter (Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1978), cat. 24;
and Robert Cormack and Maria Vassilaki eds., Byzantium 330–1453. Royal Academy of Arts,
London, 25 October 2008–22 March 2009 (London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2008), no. 25.
21 The significance of the concha motif in Roman art, notably sepulchral, has plausibly
been related to the myth of Aphrodite-Venus’s birth from the sea (generation, divin-
ity) and with the passage of the spirits of the dead across the water to the Blessed Isles
(apotheosis, immortality); see, e.g., Roger Stuveras, Le putto dans l’art romain (Brussels:
Latomus, 1969), 153–154; Friedrich Matz, “Stufen der Sepulkralsymbolik in der Kaiserzeit,”
Archäologischer Anzeiger (1971), 102–116, esp. 105–106 (alternatively interpreting the shell
clipeus on Roman sarcophagi as a symbol for epiphany); Josef Engemann, Untersuchungen
zur Sepulchralsymbolik der späteren römischen Kaiserzeit (Münster: Aschendorff, 1973),
65–67, 88–89; Donatella Scarpellini, Stele romane con “imagines clipeatae” in Italia (Rome:
“L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1987), 89–90; Thelma K. Thomas, Late Antique Egyptian
Funerary Sculpture: Images for this World and the Next (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 2000), 79; and Olovsdotter, The Consular Image, 144–145, 152–155.
22 A traditional motif category of Roman triumphal art, Sol and Luna (in figural and sign
form) continued to appear through the Late Roman and Early Byzantine period, Sol
specifically being associated with the emperor in his divine and triumphal aspect, and,
reflexively, with Christ; for the latter development, see notably Martin Wallraff, “Christus
verus sol.” Sonnenverehrung und Christentum in der Spätantike (Münster: Aschendorff,
2001). For the personified Sun and Moon in Late Roman and Byzantine Jewish art, see
Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1988), 116–127.
23 Rome, 354; Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, inv. Romanus 1 MS, Barb.lat. 2145. The
well-known calendar created by the scribe Filolacus on commission from the Roman
Valentinus (as indicated by the dedicatory frontispiece, fol. 1) is only preserved through
some 16th- and 17th-century copies, the most complete of which is the Vatican Barberini
version (inv. as above) copied for Peiresc in 1620 from the then still extant Carolingian
Codex Luxemburgensis; see Henri Stern, Le calendrier de 354. Étude sur son texte et sur ses
From Earth to Heaven 111

Figure 4.4 Christ and Mary diptych; Constantinople, mid-6th century; Berlin, Staatliche
Museen, Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst,
inv. 564–565
Photo: Fotonachweis: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,
Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst / Antje
Voigt

constituted a visually prominent ingredient throughout. The composition

that framed the list of imperial birthdays, Natales Caesarum, in the seventh
folio (Figure 4.5) of the calendar was shaped like a triumphal double arch

illustrations (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1953), 14–41; and Michele Renee Salzman, On
Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity
(Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), 70–73.
112 Olovsdotter

Figure 4.5 Chronography of 354, fol. 7 Natales Caesarum; Rome, 354; Vatican, Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, inv. Romanus 1 MS, Barb.lat. 2154
Photo: © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
From Earth to Heaven 113

superimposed by a segmental pediment enclosing an imperial bust; the

crowning cornice was rendered as a geometricized version of the star-spangled
intrados of a triumphal arch, a scheme designed to evoke the heavenly vault,24
the destination of all victors.25 Framed by this heavenly vault, the emperor
appeared in godlike state, right hand raised in the gesture of supreme power,26
and with attributes similar to those of Sol Invictus, the sun god in his tri-
umphal, unconquered aspect, with whom Late Roman emperors associated
themselves:27 the nimbus and the orb of world rulership crowned by the

24 E.g., Karl Lehmann, “The Dome of Heaven,” Art Bulletin 27 (1945), 1–27; Bernhard
Schleißheimer, “Kosmas Indikopleustes, ein altchristliches Weltbild” (diss., University
of Munich, 1959), 16–24 (on the celestial interpretation of the dome and barrel-vault
among early Christian writers); Sigfried Giedion, Architecture and the Phenomena of
Transition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971), 150–154; and André Grabar,
“L’iconographie du ciel dans l’art chrétien de l’antiquité et du haut Moyen-Âge,” Cahiers
archéologiques 30 (1982), 5–24, esp. 5–16. On the immortal, divine, and eternal sym-
bolism of the star motif (including radiate, spiral, rosette (petalled, acanthus-leafed),
diamond-shaped, crossed, etc., variants), see G.W. Elderkin, “Architectural Detail and
Antique Sepulchral Art,” American Journal of Archaeology 39 (1935), 518–525, esp. 523–525;
Hélène Danthine, “L’imagerie des trônes vides et des trônes porteurs de symboles dans le
Proche-Orient ancien,” in Mélanges syriens offerts à René Dussaud, vol. 2 (Paris: Librarie
Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1939), 861; Jürgen Thimme, “Chiusinische Aschenkisten
und Sarkophage der hellenistische Zeit,” Studi Etruschi 23 (1954), 25–147, esp. 60–63;
Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, 122–123; Bente Kiilerich, “Representing an Emperor: Style
and Meaning on the Missorium of Theodosius I,” in El disco de Teodosio, ed. Martín
Almagro-Gorbea, José M. Álvarez Martínez, José M. Blázquez Martínez, and Salvador
Rovira (Madrid: Real Academia de la historia, 2000), 273–280, esp. 280; and Olovsdotter,
“Architecture and the Spheres,” 150–151.
25 On heaven and the apotheotic beliefs of the Roman elites, see notably Simon R.F. Price,
“From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: The Consecration of Roman Emperors,” in Rituals
of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, ed. David Cannadine and
Simon R.F. Price (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 56–105; on the percep-
tion of heaven as the sphere of immortality in antiquity, see also Goodenough, Jewish
Symbols, 127–134.
26 On the raised right hand gesture with palm turned outwards and fingers kept together as
a gesture of divine or supreme power in Roman art, see notably Richard Brilliant, Gesture
and Rank in Roman Art (New Haven: Academy, 1963), 96–102, 196.
27 On the solar association of late imperial power and ceremonial, see, e.g., Gaston
Halsberghe, The Cult of Sol Invictus (Leiden: Brill, 1972); also Salzman, On Roman Time,
149–153; Antonio Carile, “Credunt aliud Romana palatia caelum. Die Ideologie der
PALATIUM in Konstantinopel, den Neuen Rom,” in Palatia. Kaiserpaläste in Konstantinopel,
Ravenna und Trier, ed. Margarethe König, Eugenia Bolognesi Recchi-Franceschini, and
Ellen Riemer (Trier: Rheinisches Landesmuseum, 2003), 27–32, esp. 27 and 30; Stephan
Berrens, Sonnenkult und Kaisertum von den Severen bis zu Constantin I. (193–337 n. Chr.)
(Stuttgart: Steiner, 2004); and Wolfgang Löhr, “Konstantin und Sol Invictus in Rom,”
Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 50 (2007), 102–110; in late antique visual culture, see,
114 Olovsdotter

phoenix, the latter proclaiming the cosmic regeneration effected by genera-

tions of victorious Roman rulers.28 Imperial victory as such was represented by
two Victoriae standing on the inscribed imposts that supported the heavenly
vault, a scheme evidently inspired by the pairs of Victoriae traditionally orna-
menting the spandrels of triumphal arches. Very similar conceptions appear
in some frontispieces of 6th-century illuminated Christian manuscripts, such
as in folio 129v of the Italian St Augustine Gospels,29 where the figure of Luke
presides in a shrine composed as a triumphal arch with columned piers orna-
mented with figural friezes (compare the Arch of Septimius Severus in the
Forum Romanum (203)), a segmental pediment crowned by a star-patterned
archivolt, and the evangelist’s tetramorph image (the bust of a winged ox) as
‘pedimental sculpture.’ The arch-framed canon tables in the Syrian Rabbula

e.g., Hans Peter L’Orange, Studies in the Iconography of Cosmic Kingship in the Ancient
World (Oslo: Aschehoug, 1953) and Petra Matern, Helios und Sol: Kult und Ikonographie des
griechischen und römischen Sonnengottes (Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2002).
28 On the orb as a symbol of world or cosmic rulership (orbis terrarum, orbis caelestis)
and its application as an insignium in late antique imperial and official art, see, e.g.,
Josef Deér, “Der Globus der spätrömischen und byzantinischen Kaisers. Symbol oder
Insignie?,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 54 (1961), 291–318; Tonio Hölscher, Victoria Romana.
Archäologische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Wesensart der römischen Siegesgöttin
von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 3. Jhs.n.Chr. (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1967),
23–46; Klaus Wessel, “Insignien,” in Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, 3 (Stuttgart:
A. Hiersemann, 1978), 369–498, esp. 403–407; Marcell Restle, “Herrschaftszeichen,”
Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 14 (1988), 937–966, esp. 946; Olovsdotter, The
Consular Image, 98–113; also Pascal Arnaud, “L’image du globe dans le monde romain:
science, iconographie, symbolisme,” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité 96,
no. 1 (1984), 53–116, esp. 102–111. On the association of the phoenix, ancient Egyptian sym-
bol of death and rebirth, with the Late Roman emperor as eternal victor and with the
resurrected Christ, including solar associations, see notably Roel van den Broek, The Myth
of the Phoenix According to Classical and Early Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 1972),
esp. 146–304 and 423–458; also Robin Margaret Jensen, Understanding Early Christian Art
(New York/London: Routledge, 2000), 159–160; and Maurizio Chelli, Manuale dei simboli
nell’arte. L’era paleocristiana e bizantina (Rome: EdUP, 2008), 60.
29 Italy, possibly Rome, 6th century; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College Library, MS 286.
Francis Wormald, The Miniatures of the Gospels of St. Augustine, Corpus Christi College
ms. 286. (facs.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954), 3–5, 26 esp., plates II,
VII (somewhat irrelevantly deriving the arch from the porta regia of the Roman scae-
nae frons); André Grabar, L’età d’oro di Giustiniano. Dalla morte di Teodosio all’Islam. trans.
G. Veronesi (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1966), 212–214 with color plate 239; Kurt Weitzmann, Late
Antique and Early Christian Book Illumination (New York: Braziller, 1977), 114–115 with
plate 42; Dorothy Verkerk, “Biblical Manuscripts in Rome 400–700 and the Ashburnham
Pentateuch,” in Imaging the Early Medieval Bible, ed. John Williams (University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999), 97–120.
From Earth to Heaven 115

Gospels30 follow similar principles, but with more abstracted and imaginative
results. Whilst the canon table in, for example, folio 431 conforms to what was
then becoming a standard ‘Eusebian’ scheme for framing harmonized sections
of the Gospels—four tall and narrow archlets gathered beneath a greater arch
profusely ornamented with celestial and paradisaic symbols to indicate the
eternal life that awaited those who followed the four paths in one indicated by
the Gospels32—the arch that encloses two concordant sections from Matthew
and John in folio 9 (Figure 4.6) is a modified version of the basic quadripartite
scheme, its outer column shafts having been reshaped into arched aedicules
enclosing the named evangelists in full figure. The rise of the right archlet is
filled by an externally coffered dome, a cosmic motif33 which in an ecclesiasti-
cal context would naturally be associated with the domed spaces and cibo-
ria of the Christian church; the figure of Matthew seated in state beneath this
celestial dome as he reads, right hand raised in the formal gesture of speech
from his own Gospel, presented a meta-image for the priestly reader-viewer of
the folio as he preached the Gospel to his congregation in church. The archi-
volt of the left archlet encloses a segmental tympanum or lunette conceived

30 Syria, 586; Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, inv. cod. Plut. I, 56.
31 Reproduced in, e.g., Weitzmann, Book Illumination, 69–70 with plate 34.
32 Cf. Olovsdotter, “Architecture and the Spheres,” 145. For a liturgy-oriented variant of this
interpretation, see Savary Gohar Grigoryan, “The Roots of Tempietto and its Symbolism
in Armenian Gospels,” Iconographica 13 (2014), 11–24, esp. 21. Other interpretations of the
architectural frameworks in late antique canon tables include the tomb Aedicula in the
church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (Carl Nordenfalk, Die spätantiken Kanontafeln.
Kunstgeschichtliche Studien über die eusebianische Evangelien-Konkordanz in den vier
ersten Jahrhunderten ihrer Geschichte (Gothenburg: Isacsons, 1938); Paul A. Underwood,
“The Fountain of Life in Manuscripts of the Gospels,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950),
41–138, esp. 110–118); the Christian church or a church portal (Günter Bandmann,
“Beobachtungen zum Etschmiadzin-Evangeliar,” in Tortulae. Studien zu altchristlichen
und byzantinischen Monumenten, ed. Walter Nikolaus Schumacher (Rome: Herder, 1966),
11–29, esp. 16–17 and 23); and (within the Armenian context specifically) a ciborium-like
‘dwelling’ for the biblical salvation mysteries (Thomas F. Mathews and Avedis K. Sanjian,
Armenian Gospel Iconography: the Tradition of the Glajor Gospel. (Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1991), esp. 173–174).
33 Lehmann, “Dome of Heaven;” Louis Hautecoeur, Mystique et architecture: symbolisme
du cercle et de la coupole (Paris: Picard, 1954); E. Baldwin Smith, Architectural Symbolism
of Imperial Rome and the Middle Ages (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956),
71–94; Giedion, Architecture and the Phenomena of Transition, 79, 150–154 esp.; Bandmann,
Early Medieval Architecture, 185–186; also Otto Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und
Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell (Jena: W. Biedermann, 1938),
esp. 57–58; and Olovsdotter, “Architecture and the Spheres,” 147–150, 159–160; in the
Byzantine context especially, notably Jelena Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred Space:
The Canopy and the Byzantine Church (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).
116 Olovsdotter

Figure 4.6 Rabbula Gospels, fol. 9v Matthew and John; Syria, 586; Florence, Biblioteca
Medicea Laurenziana inv. cod. Plut. I, 56
Photo: © Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, MS
Plut. 1.56, f. 9v. Su concessione del MiC. È vietata ogni ulteriore
riproduzione con qualsiasi mezzo
From Earth to Heaven 117

as a concha, with its characteristically radiating striation rendered as a minus-

cule arcade, thus merging the immortality symbolism of the scallop shell34
with the ceremonial connotations of the arcade (for the ceremonial interpre-
tation of the arcade motif, see further below). A simpler, yet equally signifi-
cant, version of an arch is found in the frontispiece to the Genesis, folio 2r,
of the Ashburnham Pentateuch (Figure 4.7).35 It is formed of two pairs of
coupled colonnettes spanned by a slender archivolt ornamented with a geo-
metricized roses-and-lilies version of the star-spangled vault, and a keystone
shaped as the central medallion of a corona laurea triumphalis; an inverted,
distinctly dome-shaped concha is suspended from the crown of the arch, and
the intercol­umniation is hung with curtains parted to reveal an inscriptional
tablet listing the first five books of the Old Testament in Latin and Hebrew.
Two paradisaic birds are perched atop the arch’s extrados. The scheme could
simultaneously be understood as an opening onto the mystery of creation and
a triumphal entrance into the sacred history of the world and mankind.
In late antique funerary art, the arch was frequently used as a visual symbol
for the passage between life and afterlife, similar to the door motif that often
appeared on Roman funerary monuments but more abstract and cosmic in
meaning: whereas the door, closed or partially open, essentially referred to the
grave context, indicating the earthly passage of the deceased from the world
of the living into the liminal station of the tomb (domus aeterna, Hades),36
the arch’s openness and celestial-triumphal connotations would have sug-
gested a transcendental passage from one cosmic sphere to another. The
arch as a transcendental gateway is visualized with exemplary clarity on the

34 See n. 21.
35 Alternatively the Tours Pentateuch; Italy, c.600 (in my view the most plausible attribu-
tion; other suggestions include North Africa and Spain); Paris, Bibliotheque nationale
de France, inv. MS nouv. acq. lat. 2334: Weitzmann, Book Illumination, 118–125 with
plates 44–47; Verkerk, “Biblical Manuscripts in Rome,” esp. 117; Dorothy Verkerk, Early
Medieval Bible Illumination and the Ashburnham Pentateuch (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004), 44–45, 54–55.
36 Cf. Britt Haarløv, The Half-Open Door: A Common Symbolic Motif within Roman Sepulchral
Sculpture (Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 1977), esp. 86–87; Glenys
Davies, “The Door Motif in Roman Funerary Sculpture,” in Papers in Italian Archaeology, 1.
The Lancaster Seminar: Recent Research in Prehistoric, Classical, and Medieval Archaeology,
ed. Hugo McK. Blake, Timothy W. Potter and David B. Whitehouse (Oxford: John and Erica
Hedges, 1978), 203–226.; and Verity Platt, “Framing the Dead on Roman Sarcophagi,” in The
Frame in Classical Art: A Cultural History, ed. Verity Platt and Michael Squire (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2017), 353–381, esp. 363–375; also (concerning Roman-Judaic
funerary art specifically), Bernard Goldman, The Sacred Portal (Detroit: Wayne State
University Press, 1966), 101–124.
118 Olovsdotter

Figure 4.7 Ashburnham Pentateuch, fol. 2r Genesis; Italy (Rome?), 6th century; Paris,
Bibliothèque nationale de France, inv. MS nouv. acq. lat. 2334
Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France

center-front of a mid-4th-century ‘Passion’ sarcophagus from the catacombs

of Domitilla in Rome.37 Ornamented with a concha (symbol of immortality)

37 Rome, c.350; Vatican, Musei Vaticani (Museo Pio Cristiano), inv. 31525; see for example
Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann, Giuseppe Bovini and Hugo Brandenburg, Repertorium
der christilich-antiken Sarkophage, 1. Rom und Ostia (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag,
1967), 48–49 cat. 49, Pl. 16, 49; for a good photographic reproduction of the motif see also
From Earth to Heaven 119

beneath the archivolt and the busts of Sol and Luna (symbols of cosmic regen-
eration) in the spandrels, it encloses a pseudo-scenic visualization of Christian
victory over death composed around a large cross (prime symbol of Christian
victory) crowned by a triumphal laurel wreath (insignium of the victor)38
encircling the Chi-Rho (Christian victory sign) held in the beaks of two doves
(Christian symbol of the resurrected spirit)39 and an eagle (imperial symbol
of apotheosis);40 flanking the cross on the groundline are two of the Roman

https://www.museivaticani.va/content/museivaticani/it/collezioni/musei/museo-pio
-cristiano/sarcofagi-_a-colonne/sarcofago-con-scene-della-passione-di-cristo.html
[Accessed September 13, 2022].
38 The triumphator’s laurel wreath (corona laurea triumphalis) and its garland counter-
part (corona longa triumphalis), both set with a central jewel or medallion, are amply
attested in Roman visual culture; e.g., August Friedrich Pauly and Georg Wissowa, Real-
Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1893–1978), vol. 13.2
(1927), 1440–1441f s.v. “Lorbeer” (A. Steier); Helmut Kruse, Studien zur offiziellen Geltung
des Kaiserbildes im römischen Reiche (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1934), 24–48;
Andreas Alföldi, “Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 50 (1935), 1–171, esp. 36–39; Theodor
Klauser, “Aurum Coronarium,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologische Instituts,
Römische Abteilung 59 (1944), 129–153; Versnel, Triumphus, 56f, 72–77, 378f with n. 4;
MacCormack, Art and Ceremony, 174, 195, 243–246; McCormick, Eternal Victory, 82, 86;
Künzl, Der römische Triumph, 86–88; Restle, “Herrschaftszeichen,” 951; Jutta Rumscheid,
Kranz und Krone. Zu Insignien, Siegespreisen und Ehrenzeichen der römischen Kaiserzeit
(Tübingen: E. Wasmuth Verlag, 2000); and Olovsdotter, The Consular Image, esp. 138–142.
39 In Greco-Roman art the dove was, along with other small birds, ususally part of vegetal
compositions, typically picking at plants or drinking from cups, and thus associated with
fruitfulness and regeneration; transposed into the Christian context it became associ-
ated with the Holy Ghost and the human spirit as released from the body (Matthew 3:16;
Luke 3:22), but also, as is well known, with peace.
40 In antiquity, the eagle (aquila) was an attribute of the high gods Zeus and Jupiter, and sub-
sequently of the Roman emperor as Jupiter’s chosen representative on Earth; as a symbol
of Jovian and imperial power and warfare, the aquila appeared on the ceremonial scepter
of the Roman triumphator, consul, emperor, and on Roman legionary standards (signa);
Pauly and Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie, vol. 1.1 (1894), 375 s.v. “Adler” (E. Oder); Pauly and
Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie, vol. 2 A.1 (1921), 1335–1336f s.v. “Signa” (J.W. Kubitschek);
Fears, “Theology of Victory,” esp. 744; Hans Rupprecht Goette, “Corona spicea, corona civ-
ica und Adler. Bemerkungen zu drei römischen Dreifussbasen,” Archäologischer Anzeiger
(1984), 573–589, esp. 586–589; Javier Arce, Funus imperatorum. Los funerales de los emper-
adores romanos (Madrid: Alianza, 1988), 131–140; Olovsdotter, The Consular Image, 76–79,
111–114, 155–157. The eagle’s transcendental function was also linked to the Roman conse-
cratio, the funerary cremation ritual by which, according to Roman belief, the soul of the
deceased emperor (and later any members of the elite) was released and conducted to
heaven by one or two eagles; MacCormack, Art and Ceremony, 99–101, 112; Goette, “Corona
spicea,” 586 with n. 34. Visual testimonies to the psychopomp eagle are the apotheosis
relief on the column base of Antoninus Pius and Faustina in Rome (161 CE; Vatican,
Musei Vaticani), the so-called Consecratio ivory panel (Rome, c.400; London, British
Museum, inv. 1857, 10–13), a number of funerary monuments from the 2nd century CE
120 Olovsdotter

Figure 4.8 Ravennese sarcophagus, 3rd–4th century; Ravenna, Museo Arcivescovile

Photo: After Kollwitz and Herdejürgen, Die Sarkophage, fig. 19.1,
cat. A 49

soldiers guarding Christ’s tomb, hunched on boulders suggestive of the rocky

site of the Sepulchre and/or Golgotha, the place of the Resurrection. Other
funerary versions of the transcendental arch range from minimalistic, sign-like
conceptions such as the pair of columnar arches flanking a tabula ansata on
a 3rd-century Ravennese sarcophagus later reinscribed for the Theodorican
courtier Seda (Figure 4.8)41 and their more elaborated Ravennese counterparts
with or without conchae and framing Christian transcendence symbols such
as the Golgotha cross or the Agnus Dei,42 to the complex and endlessly varied
compositions characteristic of Coptic stelae, where arches form part of intri-
cate architectural constellations suffused with Egyptian, Roman, and Christian
transcendence symbols. One of many such constellations is witnessed on a
stela in Los Angeles (Figure 4.9)43 displaying a two-registered composition
dominated by an arch enclosing a syncretic conflation of the falcon-headed
Horus (Egyptian sky god) and the ascending eagle (Roman symbol of triumph
and apotheosis); the arch is formed of a looped interlace border (an ‘eternal’
pattern) and filled in its entirety by an oblong concha (symbol of immortal-
ity) against which the Horus-eagle stands as if in a niche shrine. In an arched

(apotheotic significance), and the consular diptychs from the late 5th century (triumphal
significance).
41 Limestone sarcophagus (front); Ravenna, 3rd century; Ravenna, Museo Arcivescovile.
E.g. Johannes Kollwitz and Helga Herdejürgen, Die Sarkophage der westlichen Gebiete
des Imperium Romanum, vol. 2, Die ravennatischen Sarkophage (Berlin: Mann, 1979),
fig. 19,1–2, cat. A 49–50.
42 A representative range of 5th-century Ravennese sarcophagi featuring tripartite archi-
tectural compositions with arches and gabled aediculae on their fronts are illustrated in
Kollwitz and Herdejürgen, Die Sarkophage, plates 11–92.
43 Egypt, 5th to 8th century; Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, inv. 47.8.10.
From Earth to Heaven 121

Figure 4.9 Coptic funerary stela; Egypt, 5th–8th century; Los Angeles, Los Angeles County
Museum of Art, inv. 47.8.10
Photo: Museum Associates/LACMA
122 Olovsdotter

‘celestial’ register above the arch is a cross (symbol of Christian victory over
death) set against a radiate background (a solar motif) and flanked by a con-
fronted lion and stag (Coptic symbols of power and victory).44 In this scheme
of layered and intertwined symbolisms, the arch presents a gateway to apo-
theosis, eternity, and victory over death.
The arch as a more universal topos for Christian transcendence, and the
immortalized state of Christian apostles and saints, can be exemplified by
a late 6th-century silver book-cover plaque from Syria (one of a pair) in the
Metropolitan Museum of Art (Figure 4.10).45 It shows an official-looking Saint
Paul standing within a columnar arch with an archivolt conceived as a trium-
phal laurel wreath—a reference to Paul’s triumph over death—and with pea-
cocks (symbols of apotheosis and paradise)46 perched in the spandrels above
the extrados.
The transitional associations of the arch made it well suited for ceremonial
representations involving several figures or scenes, as is demonstrated by the
many arcades—the arch multiplied—that appear on late antique triumphal
monuments, sarcophagi, church ambones, reliquaries, pyxides, cups, and other
liturgical and devotional objects of an elongated, polygonal, or rounded for-
mat. The regularizing and monumentalizing framework provided by an arcade
helped lend unity and clarity to complex figure constellations and to emphasize
directional, chronological, and hierarchical differentiations. The widespread

44 For the symbolic meanings associated with the combination of lion and deer/stag and
with the confronted or heraldic scheme with two animals symmetrically flanking a cross
in Coptic art, see Linda Evans, “Animals in Coptic Art,” Göttinger Miszellen 232 (2012),
63–73, esp. 64–66.
45 Embossed with details picked out in gold leaf; Kaper Koraon or Antioch (Syria), 550–600;
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 50.5.1 (a pendant plaque, inv. 50.5.2, shows
Saint Peter). Margaret English Frazer, “Pair of Book Covers with Peter and Paul,” in
Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century, ed.
Kurt Weitzmann (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1979), 618–619, no. 554;
Margaret English Frazer, “Early Byzantine Silver Book Covers,” in Ecclesiastical Silver Plate
in Sixth-Century Byzantium: Papers of the Symposium Held May 16–18, 1986, at the Walters
Art Gallery, Baltimore, and Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, organized by Susan A. Boyd,
Marlia Mundell Mango, and Gary Vikan, vol. 3, ed. Susan A. Boyd and Marlia Mundell
Mango (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1992), 71–76,
esp. 72–73, fig. 7 (and 4); and Marlia Mundell Mango, Silver from Early Byzantium: The
Kaper Koraon and Related Treasures (Baltimore, MD: Walters Art Gallery, 1986), 199–205,
nos. 44–45 (Paul and Peter).
46 In antiquity the peacock was an attribute of the high goddesses Hera and Juno and the
symbol of apotheosis for Roman empresses (equivalent to the emperor’s eagle), and
in its Christian adaptation a symbol of resurrection, paradise, and eternal beatitude
(Augustinus, De civitate Dei, 21.4); see, e.g., Dietrich Boschung, Antike Grabaltäre aus den
Nekropolen Roms (Bern: Stämpfli, 1987), 51; Jensen, Understanding Early Christian Art, 159;
and Chelli, Manuale dei simboli, 77–78.
From Earth to Heaven 123

Figure 4.10 Silver plaque with representation of Saint Paul; Syria, 550–600; New York,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 50.5.1
Photo: Fletcher Fund, 1950
124 Olovsdotter

use of the arcade, notably in artworks of a ceremonial character and/or con-

text, would doubtless have reflected the functions served by arcades and
porticoes as backdrops for ceremonial action—triumphal adventi and rediti,
religious processions, etc.—in the imperial palaces, church basilicas, and
urban centers of the period,47 which were, generally speaking, also the con-
texts where such art objects were used. An epitomic visual testimony to the
arcade’s ceremonial connotations is found on the so-called Trier ivory plaque,
representing, in dense and complex abbreviation, the adventus procession of
a relic through a Constantinopolitan cityscape defined by the triple-tiered
arcaded portico against and inside which the procession and its numerous
spectators appear.48 Another, more symbolic, example of how the arcade
could be used in late antique art is a monumental marble ambo from Hagios
Georgios in Thessaloniki (Figure 4.11),49 where the scheme encloses a repre-
sentation of the Nativity: the announcing angel, the magi, and the shepherd,
each framed by an arch, are rendered in clockwise movement towards Mary
Theotokos enthroned at the front-right. Here the arcade takes the form of a
niche arcade with conchae, suggesting the scene takes place in a transcen-
dental sphere, and its ceremonial character is further emphasized by parted
curtains in some of the intercolumniations, a motif associated with sacred

47 Cf. Olovsdotter, “Architecture and the Spheres,” 145. On the functions of the porticoed
street in late antique urban centers and in visual representations, see notably Hendrik
W. Dey, The Afterlife of the Roman City: Architecture and Ceremony in Late Antiquity and
the Early Middle Ages (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 65–126; for the
cityscape as backdrop for triumphal and religious processions, see also, e.g., Franz Alto
Bauer, Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike: Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung des
öffentlichen Raums in den spätantiken Städten Rom, Konstantinopel und Ephesos (Mainz:
Philipp von Zabern, 1996), 380–388.
48 Probably from a reliquary; Constantinople, 5th to 7th century; Trier, Domschatz. E.g.
Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten, no. 143; Suzanne Spain, “The Translation of Relics Ivory,
Trier,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31 (1977), 281–304; Kenneth G. Holum and Gary Vikan,
“The Trier Ivory, Adventus Ceremonial, and the Relics of St. Stephen,” Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 33 (1979), 113–133; John Wortley, “The Trier Ivory Reconsidered,” Greek, Roman and
Byzantine Studies 21 (1980), 381–394; Laurie J. Wilson, “The Trier Procession Ivory: A New
Interpretation,” Byzantion 54 (1984), 602–614; and Leslie Brubaker, “The Chalke Gate, the
Construction of the Past, and the Trier Ivory,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 23
(1999), 258–285, esp. 270–281 (proposing, unconvincingly I think, a redating of the ivory
to the 9th or early 10th century).
49 Constantinople or Thessaloniki, 450–550; Istanbul, İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri, inv. 1090
T. The most thorough analysis of this ambo’s iconographic programme is offered by War-
land; Rainer Warland, “Der Ambo aus Thessaloniki. Bildprogramm—Rekonstruktion—
Datierung,” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Institut 109 (1994), 371–385.
From Earth to Heaven 125

Figure 4.11 Ambo from Hagios Georgios; Thessaloniki, 500–550; Istanbul, İstanbul
Arkeoloji Müzeleri, inv. 1090 T
Photo: Cecilia Olovsdotter

boundaries and imperial ceremonial, and as such suitable for the represen-
tation of divine royalty.50 A more abstracted version of the arcade design is

50 The motif of the curtain or veil (velum, vela), closed or open, is common in late antique
art, secular as well as sacral (polytheistic, Christian, Judaic), where it serves as a ceremo-
nial, mystical, and variously concealing and revealing or ‘unveiling’ demarcator between
two spheres, in general terms between outer-worldly and inner-otherworldly/sacred.
The motif’s applications in art seem largely to have corresponded with contempo-
rary uses of curtains in public and religious contexts. On the palatial use of curtains to
screen off the sacrosanct imperial person from his subjects, see Treitinger, Oströmische
Kaiser- und Reichsidee, 55–56; Frank von Unruh, “Unsichtbare Mauern der Kaiserpaläste.
Hofzeremonien in Rom und Byzanz,” in Palatia. Kaiserpaläste in Konstantinopel, Ravenna
126 Olovsdotter

Figure 4.12 Votive bronze situla; Constantinople (?), 6th century; Istanbul, İstanbul
Arkeoloji Müzeleri, inv. 852
Photo: Cecilia Olovsdotter

found on a 6th-century votive bronze situla originating from the late antique
church at Kale-e Zerzevan in southeastern Anatolia (Figure 4.12),51 around the

und Trier, ed. Margarethe König, Eugenia Bolognesi Recchi-Franceschini, and Ellen
Riemer (Trier: Rheinisches Landesmuseum, 2003), 33–48, esp. 36; J. Michael Featherstone,
“De Cerimoniis and the Great Palace,” in The Byzantine World, ed. Paul Stephenson
(London/New York: Routledge, 2010), 162–174, esp. 165–166 and 169. For the use of
curtains in the Early and Middle Byzantine church, see notably Robert F. Taft, “The
Decline of Communion in Byzantium and the Distancing of the Congregation from the
Liturgical Action: Cause, Effect, or Neither?,” in Thresholds of the Sacred: Architectural, Art
Historical, Liturgical, and Theological Perspectives on Religious Screens, East and West, ed.
Sharon E.J. Gerstel (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection,
2006), 27–50, esp. 40–49; on the religious (Judeo-Christian) use of the curtain as a screen
for the sacred, a cosmic or mystical veil, and a veil between life and afterlife in art, see
notably Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, 141, 146, 203–204, 212–214.
51 With tin plating and punched motifs and inscription; Syria (?), 450–550; Istanbul, İstanbul
Arkeoloji Müzeleri, inv. 852. Marlia Mundell Mango, Cyril Mango, Angela Care Evans, and
From Earth to Heaven 127

body of which runs a continuous arcade framing jeweled crosses ornamented

inside and out with flower-shaped stars (or vice versa) to suggest a heavenly
and paradisaic sphere, and a triumphal-wreath motif decorating the archi-
volts as a reference to victory in its Christian interpretation of triumph over
death. As indicated by the accompanying inscription, the vessel was offered to
give thanks for the salvation (from illness and death, presumably) of the giver
Antipatros and his household.52

2 The Pedimented Front

The pedimented front, or columned fastigium, was almost as frequent an occur-

rence as the arch in late antique visual culture. Indeed, the two motifs would
often appear together in one and the same composition, as their functions and
symbolisms complemented and to some extent overlapped with one another,
with the given distinction that the front signified an enclosed space (the space
within or beyond) and therefore ‘dwelling’ or ‘state,’ not ‘passage’ or ‘move-
ment.’ The quintessential visual formula for ‘pedimented front’ is eminently
exemplified by temple representations on Roman coin reverses, and can be
described as a reductive, frontally rendered structure raised on a podium—the
classic prostyle Roman temple—with columns clustered to the sides to reveal
the deity in the cella, some simple device on the triangular tympanum and/or
as roof acroteria, and the occasional inscription on the entablature.53 These
numismatic temples display few and modest variations, and their distinctive
elements would not necessarily have reflected those of their prototypes: for

Michael Hughes, “A 6th-Century Mediterranean Bucket from Bromeswell Parish, Suffolk,”

Antiquity 63 (1989), 295–311, esp. 301; Javier Arce, “Un grupo de situlas decoradas del la
Antigüedad tardía: función, cronología, significado,” Antiquité tardive 13 (2005), 141–158,
esp. 150 with fig. 15.
52 The Greek inscription along the rim translates as “In fulfillment of a vow and for the salva-
tion of Antipatros and all his house / [May] the Lord protect you.”
53 On the non-specific and symbolic character of Late Roman coin types, see Philip V. Hill,
“Buildings and Monuments of Rome on Coins of the Early 4th Century, AD 294–313,”
Numismatica e antichità classiche 13 (1984), 215–227; Elisha Ann Dumser, “The AETERNAE
MEMORIAE Coinage of Maxentius: An Issue of Symbolic Intent,” Journal of Roman
Archaeology Suppl. 61 (2006), 106–118; and Nathan T. Elkins, Monuments in Miniature:
Architecture on Roman Coinage (New York: American Numismatic Society, 2015), esp.
131–140. Valuable contributions on architectural representations on Roman coins are also
offered by Günter Fuchs, Architekturdarstellungen auf römischen Münzen der Republik
und der frühen Kaiserzeit (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969), esp. 47–129; Paul Zanker, “In Search
of the Roman Viewer,” in The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome,
ed. Diana Buitron-Oliver (Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art/University Press of
New England, 1997), 179–191, esp. 179–183.
128 Olovsdotter

Figure 4.13 Gold bracelet with representation of a temple to Isis; Egypt (Alexandria?),
4th century; Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, inv. Seyrig.1972.1318
Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France

the sake of visual clarity (and because the building’s identity could be stated by
a legend) the number of columns could be reduced, the pedimental sculpture
exchanged for some more rudimentary centerpiece—disc, patera, wreath, an
indeterminate blob or cluster—that might have alluded to some attribute or
function of the resident deity, as might the occasional inclusion of acroterial
figures, or just the general idea of pedimental/roof sculpture, but, intrinsically
always to the pediment’s correspondence to the heavenly sphere of the gods.54
An evocative late antique rendering of the concept is witnessed on an Egyptian
openwork gold bracelet with a central motif in the form of a tetrastyle temple
to Isis-Fortuna (Figure 4.13).55 The miniature figure of the goddess, displaying
the mixed attributes of Isis and her Roman sister goddess of fortune and pros-
perity, is frontally enthroned in the central intercolumniation to indicate her
dwelling inside the cella; a concha is attached to the top of her head to signal

54 For the celestial interpretation of the pediment and tympanum, see notably Peter
Hommel, “Giebel und Himmel,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 7 (1957), 11–55.
55 Gold worked in opus interrasile; Egypt (Alexandria?), 300–425; Paris, Bibliothèque
Nationale de France, inv. Seyrig.1972.1318.
From Earth to Heaven 129

her divinity, the special symbol of Isis—the horned headdress cradling the sun
disc—ornaments the tympanum, and the podium bears the legend ‘EYTOKIS’
(‘give birth happily’), thus indicating a talismanic function of the bracelet.
With its simplicity and clarity of form, this imaged temple front constitutes
an exemplary illustration of the structural disposition of the pedimented front
as a visual archetype. Integrating the principle of centrality with a triple cross-
ing of the lateral and vertical axes (center-left-right, middle-lower-upper), it
provided the optimal framework for the kind of centralized, symmetrical,
stratified, and hierarchical image compositions that became the norm in late
antiquity.
Like their predecessors on the Roman throne, the Christian rulers of the
Late Roman Empire claimed divine status, but an emperor’s image enframed
by a pedimented front is a rare occurrence in the period’s art; the arch and
the arched or palatial fastigium were clearly regarded as more appropri-
ate architectural types for expressing prevailing conceptions of imperial
power—absolute and everlasting victoriousness, legitimacy, authority, and
stability56—than the simple pedimented and prostyle temple since ancient
times associated with resident divinity.57 The same may be said for the figure
of Christ, whose iconography was strongly influenced by imperial (and con-
sular) models in the first centuries of the Christian Empire. One exception to
what, judging by the state of the evidence, seems to have been a general pattern
could once be found in folios 13 and 14 of the Chronography of 354 (Figure 4.14),
where Constantius II Augustus and Constantius Gallus Caesar posed as impe-
rial consuls between the open curtains of a pedimented aedicule,58 thereby
announcing the solemn opening of a new annual cycle. The divine status
attributed to the imperial persons naturally required visualization irrespective

56 See further next section.

57 See Boschung’s discussion of the symbiosis between temple and cult statue, the house
and the deity’s “dwelling presence” inside, in Roman visualizations of temples; Dietrich
Boschung, “Kultbilder als Vermittler religiöser Vorstellungen,” in Kult und Kommunikation:
Medien in Heiligtümern der Antike, ed. Christian Frevel and Henner von Hesberg
(Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2007), 63–87, esp. 69–70 and 82–83.
58 Constantius and Gallus displayed the gem-incrusted imperial variant of the trium-
phal ornatus, which also included the diadem. The triumphal toga costume (vestis tri-
umphalis), whether worn by a triumphator, consul, or imperial consul, replicated the
star-patterned (cosmic) costume of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in his Capitoline temple in
Rome. On the divine origin and cosmic symbolism associated with the triumphal ornatus,
see, e.g., Versnel, Triumphus, 57–58, 77, 83–84, 89–93, 126–131, 302–303; and Künzl, Der
römische Triumph, 85–129; also Olovsdotter, The Consular Image, esp. 71–74.
130 Olovsdotter

Figure 4.14 Chronography of 354, fol. 13 Constantius II as consul; Rome, 354; Vatican,
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, inv. Romanus 1 MS, Barb.lat. 2154
Photo: © Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
From Earth to Heaven 131

of context, and so they were presented like gods inside their temples,59 the
nimbi (Late Roman solar attribute of imperial divinity) encircling their heads
signaling their manifest presence (di(v)i praesentes), holding in their left
hand the scepter of dominion, and in their extended right an attribute or gift
bestowed on their worshippers and subjects—in the case of Constantius II a
cascade of coins in sign of his supreme bounty, in the case of Gallus a victoriola
in sign of his imperial victoriousness. Palatial associations were, however, not
lacking: the tympana of these ‘imperial cult temples’ each enclosed an arched
niche conch in what may well have been intended as an abstracted reference
to the arched pediment of the palatial fastigium, the stylized scallop shell fill-
ing the conchs combining with the nimbi to announce the immortal status of
the living ruler, while two radiate discs suspended in space above the building
indicated the heavenly realm and the solar association of imperial power.
A shrine-like front also appears in some consular diptychs. In the diptych
of Boethius, consul of the West in 487 (Figure 4.15),60 the honorand poses cer-
emonially in front of a tall and narrow aedicule with an inscribed architrave
beneath a triangular tympanum with a triumphal wreath encircling the family
monogram of the gens Boethii as pedimental sculpture. The structure can be
interpreted as a symbolic frame for the consular status, institution, and cer-
emonial in general, and in particular as a shrine to the victoria of the Boethii,
i.e., to their accumulated success and prominence in Roman public life and,
hence, to their immortality in the collective memory of Rome.61 The immor-
tal glory of family (gloria stemmatis, fortuna genitatis)62 is fundamentally also
what the aedicule framing Flavius Anastasius, consul of the East in 517, in his
commemorative diptychs is about (Figure 4.16),63 even if its placement and

59 Compare Stern, Le calendrier de 354, 310–311.

60 Brescia, Museo di Santa Giulia. Delbrueck, Die Consulardiptychen, no. 7; Volbach,
Elfenbeinarbeiten, no. 6; Olovsdotter, The Consular Image, no. 6.
61 The Boethii belonged to the high aristocracy of Rome and counted several high office
holders among their members and ancestors; John Robert Martindale, The Prosopography
of the Later Roman Empire, II. A.D. 395–527 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1980), 231–233; S.J.B. Barnish, “Transformation and Survival in the Western Senatorial
Aristocracy, c. A.D. 400–700,” Papers of the British School at Rome 56 (1988), 120–155, esp.
125–126; Olovsdotter, The Consular Image, 139–140, 177, 204.
62 Cassiodorus, Variae, 1.42.1; also Beat Näf, Senatorisches Standesbewusstsein in spätrö-
mischer Zeit (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1995), 206–207; and Olovsdotter, The Consular
Image, esp. 172 and 204.
63 Constantinople, 517; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MMA, inv. 55. Delbrueck,
Die Consulardiptychen, no. 21; Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten, no. 21; Olovsdotter, The Consular
Image, no. 11 A.
132 Olovsdotter

Figure 4.15 Consular diptych of Boethius, Rome or northern Italy 487; Brescia, Museo di
Santa Giulia
Photo: Su concessione della Fondazione Brescia Musei

function in the panels’ compositions can visually and contextually also be

associated with the tribunal in the hippodrome or amphitheater from whence
the consul presided over his inaugural games (here represented in separate
registers below the consul). The aedicule is rendered as a miniature Roman
temple with pedimental sculpture and acroteria: the former is constituted by
From Earth to Heaven 133

Figure 4.16 Consular diptych of Anastasius; Constantinople, 517; Paris, Bibliothèque

nationale de France, MMA, inv. 55
Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France
134 Olovsdotter

a concha that has been subtly shifted downwards from the center of the tym-
panum to cup around the consul’s head, thus blurring the natural boundaries
between man and architecture, and between man and effigy; the latter by three
imperial imagines clipeatae representing the appointing emperor Anastasius I
(apex), the empress Ariadne (lower right), and an ex-consul of the Anastasian
house (lower left).64 The emperor’s image is supported on a laurel garland
or ‘long triumphal wreath’ (corona longa triumphalis)65 held by two winged
and smiling erotes and Victoriae standing in dancing strides on the simae in a
constellation that concisely and efficiently proclaims the transcendent victo-
riousness, prosperity, and happiness of the emperor and his dynasty.66 In the
Roman tradition, the imago clipeata was regarded as an apotheotic portrait
form suitable for depicting persons of ancestral and immortal status,67 and
here the dynastic trio and the consul did indeed all belong to the same family,
the consul being great-nephew to his imperial namesake.68

64 Delbrueck, Die Consulardiptychen, 124; Alan D.E. Cameron, “The House of Anastasius,”
Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 19 (1978), 259–276, esp. 263; Olovsdotter, The Consular
Image, 48–55, 116–117.
65 The garland variant of the corona laurea triumphalis; see supra n. 38.
66 The eros, or putto, is a figure with a long tradition in Greek, Etruscan, and Roman visual
culture, where it generally signifies perennial or eternal prosperity and happiness. It is a
standard feature of triumphal art, where its function is to illustrate the superior prosperity
and happiness brought by imperial victory ( felicitas temporum, ‘happiness of the times’),
whereas its role in funerary art is to indicate the regeneration and abundant pleasure
that await the dead in the afterlife; see notably Stuveras, Le putto romain, 85–107, 138–144,
165–171 esp.; also Franz Cumont, Recherches sur le symbolisme funéraire des romains (Paris:
Geuthner, 1942), e.g., 7, 46, 340–349, 398–410, 452 and 496–497 with figs. 77, 97 and 104;
John Boardman ed., Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae III.2 (1986), 683–726
s.v. “Eros/Amor, Cupido,” nos. 61–702 (N. Blanc & F. Gury); and Olovsdotter, The Consular
Image, 129–131 with references.
67 Plinius, Naturalis historia, 35.4–11; (typological) Johannes Bolten, Die Imago Clipeata.
Ein Beitrag zur Porträt- und Typengeschichte (Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1937); (histori-
cal, contextual) Rudolf Winkes, Clipeata imago. Studien zu einer römischen Bildnisform
(Bonn: R. Habelt, 1969) and Rudolf Winkes, “Pliny’s Chapter on Roman Funeral Customs
in the Light of Clipeatae Imagines,” American Journal of Archaeology 83 (1979), 481–484;
(funerary) Scarpellini, Stele romane; (official) Olovsdotter, The Consular Image, 110–112
and 116–117 esp. The imago clipeata can be seen as a portait variant of the clipeus virtutis
(‘shield of virtue’), an honorific emblem awarded to Roman citizens for military or civilian
excellence under the Republic and early Empire (e.g., Hölscher, Victoria Romana, 102–107;
and Winkes, Clipeata imago, 18–43), and a recurrent motif in imperial and official art until
Justinian (e.g., Olovsdotter, The Consular Image, esp. 110–111). On the recurrent use of the
imago clipeata in late antique imaged architecture, see Olovsdotter, “Architecture and the
Spheres,” 153.
68 Anastasius I favored family members, among which a number were (mostly adopted)
nephews, as appointees to the ordinary consulate, and he also appointed himself to it
From Earth to Heaven 135

In Greek as well as in Roman funerary culture, the pedimented front had

long been used as a solemn frame for the commemorated dead, notably on ste-
lae, the shape of which—a rectangular, upright block of stone—lent itself well
to gabled structures, whether elaborated with reliefs to resemble a real building
or kept to its most basic shape, the silhouette of a pedimented facade.69 A mar-
ble stela displayed in the courtyard of the Archaeological Museums in Istanbul
(Figure 4.17)70 is in the best tradition of such sepulchral fronts, carved in the
semblance of an aedicular shrine with Ionian columns supporting a triangu-
lar pediment beneath which, heads framed by a voussoir arch, the full-figure
images of the commemorated couple stand like statues on a podium formed of
an inscribed tabula ansata.71 On the pediment are two Gorgon heads flanked
by dolphins (apotropaic figures of protection and safe guidance),72 and in the
spandrels between archivolt and architrave are winged erotes lifting ampho-
rae (symbolizing regeneration, happiness, and the fulfilment of funerary rites
by the living to sustain the dead in afterlife).73 This imaged temple-tomb
or tomb-shrine, like its numerous counterparts from around the Roman
Mediterranean, represented the dwelling place of the departed between this

three times; Attilio Degrassi, I fasti consolari dell’impero romano dal 30 avanti Cristo al 613
dopo Cristo (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1952), 285 (index); Carmelo Capizzi,
L’imperatore Anastasio I (491–518). Studio sulla sua vita, la sua opera e la sua personalità
(Rome: Pont. Institutum orientalum studiorum, 1969), 43–44; Cameron, “The House of
Anastasius,” 261–262; Martindale, Prospography, 82–83, 96–99, 143, 796; Olovsdotter, The
Consular Image, 79 and 117 esp.; and Olovsdotter, “Anastasius’ I Consuls.”
69 The stela as a form of funerary monument was gradually discontinued in the 4th century,
as the growing Christian community, who practiced inhumation, preferred to be buried
in sarcophagi.
70 Byzantium or Constantinople (?), 3rd to early 4th century; Istanbul, İstanbul Arkeoloji
Müzeleri (courtyard).
71 The tabula ansata, a dovetail-handled tablet, was a widespread form of Roman commem-
orative and votive plaque, also in late antiquity, and not only in the funerary context.
72 In Rome, as earlier in Greece, the gorgoneion or Gorgon head was used as an apotropaic,
victory-inducing sign by the army (e.g. Pauly and Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie, VII.2 (1912),
1650f s.v. “Gorgo” (B. Niese)), and it decorated the breastplate of Mars (Ultor), the Roman
emperor (see, e.g., Honorius’s cuirass in the consular diptych of Probus (fig. 1)), and
gladiators. For the apotropaic significance of the Gorgon head in sepulchral art, see, e.g.,
Cumont, Recherches sur le symbolisme, 339; for the dolphin as a conveyor of souls to the
Isle of the Blessed in Etrusco-Italic funerary art, see Thimme, “Chiusinische Aschenkisten,”
158–159; for Gorgons in Christian art, see James Hall, Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols
in Art (London: J. Murray, 1979), 105–106 (a symbolic prefiguration of Christ’s death and
resurrection through the saving of Jonah from the whale); Jensen, Understanding Early
Christian Art, 159; and Chelli, Manuale dei simboli, 58.
73 For the eros or putto in Roman funerary art, see note 66.
136 Olovsdotter

Figure 4.17 Funerary stela of a couple; Byzantium/Constantinople (?), 3rd–4th century;

Istanbul, İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri (courtyard)
Photo: Cecilia Olovsdotter
From Earth to Heaven 137

Figure 4.18 Lead sarcophagus; Roman Syria (mod. Baabda), 3rd century;
Istanbul, İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri, inv. 1149 M
Photo: Cecilia Olovsdotter

world and the next, a place where their manes or shades continued to dwell to
receive the veneration of the living. Another conception of a sepulchral front,
reduced to its most elementary and symbolic shape, is found on a cast lead sar-
cophagus of what is commonly referred to as the Tyre type (Figure 4.18),74 the
abstracted relief ornamentation of which characteristically combines archi-
tectural, cosmic, and apotropaic motifs. The tripartite relief composition on
the front of this particular sarcophagus consists of a larger ‘celestial’ unit of
rosette-stars set in a coffer-like grid, flanked to the sides by two smaller archi-
tectural units enclosing aedicules conceived of two twisted columns joined by
twisted raking simae. Centered inside each aedicule is an apotropaic Gorgon
head, and rosette-stars are arranged above the simae and between the column
bases. In all its simplicity, the scheme represents the two stages of the precari-
ous journey beyond death: the tomb and heaven.

3 Arch and Pedimented Front Combined

The combination or conflation of an arch with a pedimented front is a fairly

frequent occurrence in late antique art, the Syrian, arched, or palatial fas-
tigium being the most notable and formalized example of this.75 From the

74 Roman Syria (mod. Baabda, Lebanon), 3rd century (?); Istanbul, İstanbul Arkeoloji
Müzeleri, inv. 1149 M.
75 The arched fastigium is an achitecural scheme with many denominations, including
Syrian fastigium or pediment (the motif regularly appears on temples in Roman Syria and
Asia from the 1st century onwards), palatial and ceremonial fastigium, arched pediment,
arcuated entablature, Syrian arch-gable, Syrian entablature, arcuated lintel, serliana
(from the Italian Renaissance architect Sebastiano Serlio). For a general overview of the
138 Olovsdotter

1st century CE, this characteristic tetrastyle scheme with an arcuated, usually
wider, central intercolumniation76 began to appear on religious buildings,
imperial monuments, and in the minor arts, from the Roman provinces of
Syria and Asia in the East to Italy and Gaul in the West, but it was not until
late antiquity, when it became firmly integrated into palatial architecture,
that it developed into a more contextually circumscribed and symbolically
defined motif. The tetrastyle front that still dominates the inner prostyle court
of Diocletian’s palatial complex in Split (Spalato) (c.300) set the standard for
a scheme that would be reproduced in imperial palaces and church basili-
cas throughout the empire.77 Combining an arched portal with a columned
fastigium, raised like a Roman temple on a stepped podium, and provided
with a tribunal in front of the central arch, the palace fastigium in Split, and

various terms traditionally and currently in use for the motif, see Manuel Parada López
de Corselas, “La arquitectura de poder y su recepción: la ‘serliana.’ ¿Viaje de formas, viaje
de contenidos?,” in Ver, viajar y hospedarse en el mundo romano, ed. Gonzalo Bravo and
Raúl González Salinero (Madrid/Salamanca: Signifer Libros, 2012), 561–582, esp. 182–186.
76 Triple-arched varieties also occur, as notably exemplified by the Theodorican palatium
mosaic in Ravenna; see further n. 77.
77 Besides the palatium at Split, the arched fastigium was incorporated in the imperial pal-
aces of Ravenna and Constantinople, located within the palace compounds and fronted
by peristyle courts. The Ravennese fastigium is documented through the well-known
PALATIVM mosaic decorating the nave wall of Sant’ Apollinare Nuovo (Ostrogothic
original c.505, Justinianic modification 547), and the tribunal or ceremonial porch
(Delphax) of the Great Palace in Constantinople more lately graphically reconstructed
as part of the Byzantium 1200 project (2003–2010; A. Tayfun Öner; http://www.byzan-
tium1200.com/greatpalace.html reproducing in detail the Split fastigium in its current,
partially modified, state, and attributing it to the Constantinian palace (‘Daphne’)). On
the forms and functions of the tertrastyle and arched fastigium in late antique palatia,
see, e.g., Bandmann, Early Medieval Architecture, 113–115; and Dey, The Afterlife of a Roman
City, esp. 49–52. The arched fastigium was also used as a monumentalizing gateway into
or inside imperial church basilicas: in the Constantinian Lateran basilica in Rome it
took the form of a statued screen between nave and apse (for visual reconstructions, see
Molly Teasdale Smith, “The Lateran Fastigium, a Gift of Constantine the Great,” Rivista
di archeologia cristiana 46 (1970), 149–175, esp. fig. 3; and Sible de Blaauw, “Imperial
Connotations in Roman Church Interiors. The Significance and Effect of the Lateran
Fastigium,” in Imperial Art as Christian Art—Christian Art as Imperial Art. Expression and
Meaning in Art and Architecture from Constantine to Justinian, ed. J. Rasmus Brandt and
Olaf Steen (Rome: Bardi, 2001), 137–146, esp. figs. 1–2); in the Theodosian basilica of Hagia
Sophia in Constantinople it served as an imperial propylaeum to the basilica from the
west (reconstructions based on remains on the site include those of Grabar, L’età d’oro
di Giustiniano, 82 fig. 87; Wolfgang Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls:
Byzantion-Konstantinopolis-Istanbul bis zum Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen:
Verlag Ernst Wasmuth, 1977), 84–86; and Ken R. Dark and Jan Kostenec, Hagia Sophia
Project: 2004–2007 Survey Seasons (Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 2012) with figs. 1–2, avail-
able online at http://ukar.ff.cuni.cz/node/160).
From Earth to Heaven 139

subsequently Constantinople and Ravenna, served the double function of a

monumental entrance to the inner sanctum of the imperial residence and an
elevated place from whence the emperor could appear in state before his court
and subjects. The double association of the arched pediment with a triumphal
arch and a temple78 made it an eminent vehicle for propagating the divine sta-
tus and superior victoriousness of the imperial person, and in its imaged form
it came to be used as a visualization of imperial power, authority, and dynasty
residing in its sacral palatial setting, the sacrum palatium or domus divina.79
Thus, famously, the motif has been employed on the silver missorium of
Theodosius I in Madrid (Figure 4.19), created in celebration of that emperor’s
10th anniversary on the Eastern throne in 388.80 Its relief represents the father
of the Theodosian dynasty presiding in godlike majesty beneath the central
arch of a palatial fastigium, accompanied in the side intercolumniations by his
co-emperors at the time—Valentinian II (left), Arcadius (right)—and attended
by military guards as he ceremonially confers a codicil of appointment on an
official approaching him humbly with veiled hands from below-left, each fig-
ure carefully sized and positioned according to his place in the courtly hier-
archy. The functions and meanings of this Theodosian palatial fastigium are
several and intertwined: on a ‘real’ or physical level it provides a proper palatial
setting for a formal act of state (the appointment of an official) whilst affirm-
ing Theodosius’s primacy within the Roman empire, state, and army; on a

78 On the association of the late imperial palace with a temple, the sacrality of the impe-
rial palace, and the cultic status of the residing emperor, see Andreas Alföldi, “Die Aus-
gestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells am römischen Kaiserhof,” Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 49 (1934), 1–118, esp. 32;
Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee, 50–51; Smith, Architectural Symbolism,
180–181 esp.; MacCormack, Art and Ceremony, 25, 296; Klaus-Peter Matschke, “Sakralität
und Priestertum des byzantinischen Kaisers,” in Die Sakralität von Herrschaft. Herrschafts-
legitimierung im Wechsel der Zeiten und Räume. Fünfzehn interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu
einem weltweiten und epochenübergreifenden Phänomen. ed. Franz-Reiner Erkens (Berlin:
Akademie Verlag, 2002), 143–149; Carile, “Credunt aliud Romana palatia,” 27–28; Unruh,
“Unsichtbare Mauern,” 34, 36–38; and Bandmann, Early Medieval Architecture, esp. 130.
79 Jochen Martin, “Das Kaisertum in der Spätantike,” in Usurpationen in der Spätantike.
Akten des Kolloquiums “Staatsreich und Staatlichkeit,” 6.–10. März 1996, Solothurn/Bern,
ed. François Paschoud and Joachim Szidat (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997), 47–62,
esp. 48–49; Matschke, “Sakralität und Priestertum des byzantinischen Kaisers,” 151–155; on
the association of the imperial palace with a temple, see also Treitinger, Die oströmische
Kaiser- und Reichsidee, 50–51; MacCormack, Art and Cermony, 25, 269.
80 Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia; Constantinople (?), 388. The Latin legend inscribed
along the rim translates as “Our lord Theodosius, emperor in perpetuity, on the very felici-
tous day [of the] ten[th year of his reign].”
140 Olovsdotter

Figure 4.19 Silver missorium of Theodosius I; Constantinople (?), 388; Madrid, Real

Academia de la Historia
Photo: After Delbrueck, Die Consulardiptychen, plate 62

symbolic level it proclaims the victoriousness, order, harmony, and continuity

of Theodosian dynastic rule, and—as illustrated on the ‘ground’ in the exergue,
where the Venus-like figure of Tellus reclines luxuriously amidst flowers, grain,
and joyfully fluttering erotes—its favorable influence on the prosperity and
regeneration of the earth ( felicitas temporum, ‘happiness of the times’).81

81 See n. 66. On the related concept of felicitas imperatoria, which may be translated as
the imperial quality of prosperity- and peace-bringing victoriousness, see notably Erik
Wistrand, Felicitas imperatoria (Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1987).
From Earth to Heaven 141

The arched fastigium, with its associations with the divine ruler and his sacred
palace, was also considered well suited for framing biblical royalty, as is evoca-
tively demonstrated by the so-called David plates: a set of nine figural silver
plates created in Constantinople in the first decades of the 7th century, and
narrating the early life of King David, with the combat against Goliath as cen-
terpiece.82 Illustrated here is the third plate in the sequence (Figure 4.20),
showing the young David appearing before King Saul in a scheme very similar
to that of Theodosius’s missorium. As on the other three ‘architectural’ plates
in the set, the image is composed around an abstracted version of a palatial
fastigium: four columns supporting a centrally arcuated architrave conceived
as a corona longa triumphalis with a central medallion as keystone. Beneath
the arch a nimbate Saul presides in the formal stance and costume of an
Early Byzantine emperor as he addresses/blesses David, likewise nimbate,
approaching his throne from the left, while a senior dignitary (Samuel?) stands
to the right; armed guards flank the group to the sides, and in the ‘earthly’
compartment of the exergue are motifs of abundance and largesse (a fruit- or
grain-filled basket and two coin-sacks standing among growing flowers). The
common denominator of the four architectural David plates is their ceremo-
nial theme, each of them picturing a rite of passage performed at the palace of
Saul as David gradually progresses towards kingship. The relevance of a ‘victor’s
fastigium’ for the David cycle, which in a paraphrase on the paradigmatic rise
of a Roman emperor to power83 is centered around the deeply Roman idea of
victory, power, and immortality as the rewards of superior virtue, is evident.

82 David plate 3, “David before Saul”; Constantinople, 613/629–630; from the second
Lambousa treasure, Cyprus; New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 17.190.397. See
further Kurt Weitzmann ed., Age of Spirituality, Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third
to Seventh Century (Catalogue of the exhibition at The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
November 19, 1977, through February 12 1978) (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of
Art, 1979), 475–483, nos. 425 and 427 esp.; Suzanne Spain Alexander, “Heraclius, Byzantine
Imperial Ideology and the David Plates,” Speculum 52:2 (1977), 217–237; Ruth E. Leader,
“The David Plates Revisited: Transforming the Secular in Early Byzantium,” Art Bulletin
82, no. 3 (2000), 407–427; Ruth E. Leader-Newby, Silver and Society in Late Antiquity.
Functions and Meanings of Silver Plate in the Fourth to Seventh Centuries (Aldershot:
Routledge, 2004), 173–219; Cormack and Vassilaki, Byzantium 330–1453, 385, nos. 30–32,
86–87, plate 30–32; and Helen C. Evans and Brandie Ratliff eds., Byzantium and Islam:
Age of Transition (7th–9th Century) (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2012), 16–17,
no. 6A–F.
83 Control-stamped with the sign of the emperor Heraclius (610–641) in Constantinople,
it has plausibly been suggested that the David plates were commissioned by Heraclius
or someone of his house to celebrate the Persian victory and recapture of Jerusalem in
628–629; notably Leader, “David Plates Revisited.”
142 Olovsdotter

Figure 4.20 ‘David’ silver plate, (3/9) David before Saul; Constantinople, 613/629–630;
New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 17.190.397
Photo: Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917

4 Conclusion

The examples I have considered here represent but a very small fraction of
the rich and manifold corpus of late antique and early medieval artworks with
architectural motifs that have been preserved, yet they give a clear idea of the
conceptual and symbolic qualities that were associated with certain architec-
tural types in late antique culture—in this case the arch and the pedimented
front—and how these qualities were consciously, consistently, and creatively
brought into play in its art. In the strongly public-minded Late Roman and
Early Byzantine society, every man’s status and successes were to be promoted
and every man’s hoped-for attainment of immortality after death affirmed,
From Earth to Heaven 143

and a monumental architectural frame conveying notions of transcendence

well rooted in belief, tradition, and practice, and furnished with a relevant
constellation of articulating symbols, could lend such accomplishments and
aspirations a universal, even cosmic, significance—in art as in life. As func-
tional constructions, the arch and the pedimented front were designed to
separate, interconnect, and contain; as symbolic motifs, they could be used
to distinguish and connect outer and inner spheres, here and beyond, earth
and heaven, the physio-temporal and eternal. Their centralized and stratified
structures were clearly perceived by the Romans and early Byzantines as opti-
mal tools for visualizing the cosmic order they imagined and aspired toward:
the physical and vegetal world below, the human state and the physical mani-
festation of the divine in the middle, and the superior and otherworldly sphere
of heaven or paradise, the gods or Christ—the destination of every man in
his quest for immortality—above. The visual systems constructed with and
around the arch and the pedimented front were thus simultaneously designed
to express the completeness, containment, and permanence of the cosmic
order, and to define man’s movement within and between its levels or spheres
as dictated by the cosmic laws of transition and regeneration.
 Chapter 5

Representation of the Temple in the Sarajevo

Haggadah: Type or Archetype?

Čedomila Marinković

Following the four-year-long Jewish rebellion against the Romans, on the ninth
day of the Jewish month of Av in the year 3831 after the Creation, i.e., in the
summer of 70 CE, Roman legions under the command of the emperor Titus
destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the Second Temple, thus putting an end
to the political and religious independence of Jews in their land. This was
the turning point in Jewish history: a traumatic event, a national catastrophe
that changed the lives of Jews for good, marking the beginning of almost two
millennia of Jewish galut (diaspora). In the centuries that followed, religious
life, once defined by the Temple existence, underwent serious changes too.
The practice of sacrifice ceased and was replaced with the study of the Holy
Scriptures and performing of mitzvot (good deeds). The Temple as a gather-
ing place was replaced with the synagogue. The reconstruction of the (future)
Third Temple became an important aspect of messianic expectation and
Temple-related imagery soon developed into one of the dominant themes of
Jewish art.1
As Jews became an often persecuted minority, the cultural strategies used
in the approach to Jewish art should be different from those used for Christian
art. Jewish figural art was influenced by varying dynamics of acculturation
within a non-Jewish environment.2

1 Helen Rosenau, Vision of the Temple: The Image of the Temple of Jerusalem in Judaism and
Christianity (London: Oresko Books, 1974); Elisabeth Revel-Neher, L’arche d’alliance dans
l’art juif et chrétien du second au dixième siècles. Le Signe de la Rencontre (Paris: Association
des amis des études archéologiques du monde byzantino-slave et du christianisme orien-
tal, 1984); Vanessa Crosby, “Imagined Architectures and Visual Exegesis: Temple Imagery in
the Illuminated Manuscripts of the Iberian Jews,” Journal of the Australian Early Medieval
Association 2 (2006), 43–55; Katrin Kogman-Appel, “The Temple of Jerusalem and the
Hebrew Millennium in a Thirteenth-Century Jewish Prayer Book” in Jerusalem as Narrative
Space, ed. Anette Hoffmann and Gerhard Wolf (Leiden: Brill 2012), 187–208.
2 Living as a minority and adapting to the new conditions of the exile, Jewish religious authori-
ties developed sophisticated strategies of coping with either Christian or Muslim visual cul-
ture around them translating outside artistic models into a specific Jewish idiom. See Katrin
Kogman-Appel, “Jewish Art and Non-Jewish Culture: The Dynamics of Artistic Borrowing

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004537781_007

Representation of the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah 145

In this chapter, I address some questions concerning the representation of

the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah. Is this representation narrative or sym-
bolic, and what layers of meaning does it convey? How original or isolated is it,
and are there any differences between the Temple representation in Sephardic
and in Ashkenazi visual imagery? What can we deduce from comparing them?
And, finally, to keep within the larger framework of this book, is the represen-
tation of the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah type or archetype?
How to address these questions? Utilizing architecture as an epistemo-
logical tool, it is possible to examine the ‘rhetoric of architecture,’ as recently
shown by Robert Ousterhout and Jelena Bogdanović.3 In his discussion on the
topic of Solomon’s Temple in Byzantine art, Ousterhout distinguishes between
word-driven (or metaphoric) and image-driven (or symbolic) meanings
of architectural forms. Bogdanović presents the rhetoric of architecture as
codified visual and architectural conventions that frame specific meanings
beyond the visible and spatial. Textual referentiality is especially relevant for
Jewish studies.

1 Some Methodological Remarks

Jews are the people of the book. First Moses on Mount Horeb, and later all
Jews, heard their God instead of seeing him. Jews built their knowledge
of the world by listening to God, not by seeing him. This vocative character
of Judaism is emphasized by the basic prayers—‫( ְש ַמע יִ ְש ָר ֵאל‬Listen Israel)
(Deuteronomy 6:4). The view that pagans see their gods and that Jews hear
him represents a well-known topos in academic discourse.4

in Medieval Hebrew Manuscript Illumination,” Jewish History 15 (2001), 188–189; Katrin

Kogman-Appel, “Jewish Art and Cultural Exchange: Theoretical Perspectives,” Medieval
Encounters 17 (2011), 1–26.
3 Robert Ousterhout, “New Temples and New Solomons” in The Old Testament in Byzantium,
ed. Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks research Library
and Collection, 2010), 223–253; Jelena Bogdanović, “The Rhetoric of Architecture in the
Byzantine Context: The Case Study of the Holy Sepulchre,” Zograf 38 (2014), 1–21.
4 Heinrich Graetz, The Structure of Jewish History and other Essays, trans. and ed. I. Schorsch
(New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1975), 68–69; Thorleif Bowman,
Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek (London: SCM Press, 1960), 113–122; Susan Handelman,
The Slayers of Moses: The Emergence of Rabbinic Interpretation in Modern Literary Theory
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982), 33; Kalman Bland, “Medieval Jewish
Aesthetics: Maimonides, Body, and Scripture in Profiat Duran,” Journal of the History of Ideas
54 (1993), 533–559, esp. 535; Lionel Kochan, Beyond the Graven Image: A Jewish View (New
York: New York University Press, 1997).
146 Marinković

The second divine commandment defines the whole attitude of Jews

towards art.5 Jewish traditional education, unlike its Christian counterpart,
avoids the use of visual language as a didactic resource and establishes a clear
hierarchy by which the written text has been and remains the supreme source
of knowledge and truth. Despite this fundamental standpoint, the visual arts
have been present in Jewish life since biblical times. The Bible gives us plenty
of information about the visual arts, especially architecture. It describes the
construction of Noah’s Ark (Genesis 6: 14–16) and the building of the Tower of
Babel (Genesis 11: 3–4). After the Exodus from Egypt, in five chapters and more
than 125 verses, the ‫( ִמ ְש ָכן‬the Tabernacle, Exodus 26: 1–30) is described, with
even the name of its builder specified (Exodus 31: 1–6). The Bible also describes
the shape and decoration of the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25: 10–40),
and the garments of the kohen hagadol (high priest) (Exodus 28: 4–42) as well
as the building of the First Temple, Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings, 6: 1–38).
During the Middle Ages, the Jewish relationship with the visual changed,
as can be seen from the numerous testimonies of applied art, illuminated
manuscripts, and the remaining synagogal architecture. It is certain that,
from that period on, visual arts became an integral part of Jewish life that
was particularly strong in certain periods and in specific communities. From
the 12th century onwards, the Jewish relationship with the visual is particu-
larly elaborate. The visions of sages like Maimonides, Rashi, Rabbi Solomon
ben Meir, Judah Halevi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and Rabbi Jacob ben Reuben rep-
resent the starting point for a lively discussion on this subject.6 Polemicists
encouraged an attack on Christian images.7 Kabbalists enriched the debate
with theological complexities and iconographic symbolism.8 Talmudists
watched that nobody transgressed the boundary between permissible and
prohibited visual idolatry. But as Bland recently showed, no matter how many
pictures were produced, none of these thinkers and undoubtedly great author-
ities advocated either an aniconic or iconoclastic attitude.9 Their affirmative

5 “Thou shalt not make yourself a carved image, nor any image of what is in heaven above, or
on earth beneath or in the water under the earth,” (Exodus 20:4).
6 Kalman Bland, The Artless Jew: Medieval and Modern Affirmation and Denial of the Visual
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 109–141.
7 Sefer ha Brit by Jozeph Kimhi was written in 1170. It served to help the Jews in their frequent
polemics with Christians. Sefer Josef Ha Mequane by Joseph ben Nathan provided general
guidelines for Jews on how to deal with the Christian dogma. See Katrin Kogman-Appel,
“Coping with Christian Pictorial Sources: What Did Jewish Miniaturists Not Paint?” Speculum
75, no. 4 (2000), 819.
8 Michael A. Batterman, “The Emergence of the Spanish Illuminated Haggadah Manuscripts,”
(PhD diss., Northwestern University, Illinois, 2000).
9 Bland, The Artless Jew, 141.
Representation of the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah 147

attitude towards visual arts confirms the artistic practice of Jewish commu-
nities in the Middle Ages. Decorated synagogues rose up across Europe and
pilgrims were amazed by architectural monuments they encountered during
their travels.10 Illuminations adorned Bibles, haggadot (illustrated books for
Pesach), mahzorim (prayer books), and ketubot (marriage contracts); tomb-
stones were carved with symbols; judaica such as menorot (ritual candelabras),
keter torahs (Torah crowns), rimonim (finials adorning the Torah scrolls), and
yadaim (Jewish ritual pointers) were made in metal; and talismans and amu-
lets were decorated, as well as textiles like meils (Torah mantles) and parohets
(curtains that cover the Torah Ark), pottery dishes for Shabbat and Pesach,
glass kiddush cups (wine goblets used for the Sabbath), clothes and jewelry.
Works of visual art were omnipresent in medieval Jewish culture.
Within this culture, the Bible definitely sets the boundaries of what idolatry
is but does not see all works of art as a threat. Bland humorously observes, “in
the context of medieval Jewish culture, the Bible is not understood as an icon-
oclastic manifesto.”11 Regardless, opinion on Jewish ‘artlessness’—the preju-
dice accepted and widespread in the mid-19th century in Protestant Germany,
in which the Jewish aniconism opposed pagan visuality—has remained
until the present time the dominant belief among scholars and, above all, in
non-academic circles, regardless of whether they are distinctly anti-Semitic or
even philo-Semitic.12

10 Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela left an account in 1176 of the most important works of art
of Spain, southern France, Italy, Greece, Asia Minor and Africa. Among them are the
descriptions of Constantinople’s monumental architecture. See Rabbi Benjamin of
Tudela, The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, critical text, translations and commentaries
by Marcus N. Adler (New York: Feldheim, 1907). This document is available as an elec-
tronic book within the Gutenberg project: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14981/.
11 Bland, The Artless Jew, 140. On medieval halachic legislation concerning visual arts, see
ibid., 152.
12 This topic was extensively and provocatively addressed by Michael A. Batterman,
“Genesis in Vienna: The Sarajevo Haggadah and the Invention of Jewish Art,” in Image:
Manuscripts, Artists, Audiences: Essays in Honor of Sandra Hindman, ed. David S. Areford
and Nina Rowe (London: Ashgate, 2004), 309–327, 316. See Kochan, Beyond the Graven
Image; Richard I. Cohen, Jewish Icons: Art and Society in Modern Europe (Berkeley/Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 1998), 3; Anthony Julius, Idolizing Pictures: Idolatry,
Iconoclasm and Jewish Art (London: Thames & Hudson 2000); Margaret Olin, The
Nation Without Art: Examining Modern Discourses on Jewish Art (Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 2001). Ruth Mellinkoff’s standpoint on this issue is particularly indicative.
According to her, the images that appear in medieval Jewish manuscripts “were taken
from the stereotypical anti-Jewish image as the Jews lacked the tradition of representing
human figures,” and that “patrons, despite the obvious negativity of the featured char-
acters, and great prices they had to pay for the paintings, accepted these manuscripts
because they were accustomed to watching without seeing.” Ruth Mellinkoff, Outcasts:
148 Marinković

Unlike in Christian art, where the connection with the Second Temple was
more metaphoric, expressed through words, ceremonies, and relics,13 in Jewish
art it was mimetic, referring directly to the outer appearance of the Temple, the
basic features of which were known mainly from literary sources14 and various
illustrations on coins and in frescoes, mosaics, manuscripts, and applied arts.
But how was the Temple depicted in these representations?
Usually, the Second Temple imagery depicts an imposing tetra-style struc-
ture with architectural motifs (bases, capitals) typical of pagan (Roman
or Greek) temples of those times,15 with huge doors and triangular gable.
Sometimes there is a large curtain tied in a knot hanging over the central part
of the door.
If we examine these representations, we are faced with some striking ques-
tions. Of the whole Temple why is only the facade represented? And why is the
main portal so exaggerated in size? As Ousterhout recently emphasized, it was
important that the interior of the Temple was off limits for the great majority
of the public, and most ceremonies took place outside the temple, in front of
the facade where the main altar stood.16 Also, the symbolic significance of the
entrance door points towards the logical answer about the importance of the
Temple facade.
Since medieval art is anti-illusionist in its character, there were certain basic
principles of architectural schematization that are valid for the representa-
tion of the architecture. In the mind of the medieval beholder, these princi-
ples certainly would not affect the idea of the ‘reality’ of the type of building
understood as a sensible model or pattern of the building as it actually was. As
I have argued elsewhere, the principles of elimination of volume of the build-
ing (eliminatio angoli), enlargement of certain features (augmentatio), reduc-
tion in number or alternation of shape (reductio numeri, reductio formae) or

Signs of Otherness in Northern European Art of the Late Middle Ages (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1994), 84.
13 See Ousterhout, “New Temples and New Solomons,” 223–253, esp. 252.
14 Josephus Flavius, “Jewish Wars,” in Internet Sacred Texts Archive, http://sacred-texts
.com/jud/josephus/war-5.htm; Josephus Flavius, “Antiquities of the Jews,” in Internet Sacred
Texts Archive, http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-15.htm (accessed January 10,
2017). Mishnah Middot 4:7, https://www.sefaria.org/topics/second-temple?tab=sources
(accessed August 3, 2022).
15 The Herodian Temple, stricto senso, was stylistically a Hellenistic structure. See Michael
Avi-Yonah, “The Facade of Herod’s Temple: An Attempted Reconstruction,” in Religions in
Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. Jacob Neusner (Leiden:
Brill, 1968), 326–335.
16 Ousterhout, “New Temples,” 227.
Representation of the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah 149

Figure 5.1 Representation of the Jerusalem Temple on the silver tetradrachm of Bar
Kochba, undated issue, year 134/5 CE. Obverse: representation of the Temple
with the rising star
Photo: Public domain Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.
http://www.cngcoins.com [Accessed June 16, 2022]

replacement of some elements (inversio)17 were very often applied in architec-

tural representations of the medieval period, in both Christian and Jewish art.
These illustrative formulae can be revealed in Jewish fine arts starting
from the schematic model, originally on the silver tetradrachm coins from
the period of the second Jewish revolt under Simon Bar Kochba (132–135 CE)
(Figure 5.1), through the fresco decoration of synagogues in Dura-Europos

17 Čedomila Marinković, “Principles of the Representation of the Founder’s (ktetor’s)

Architecture,” in Serbia and Byzantium: Proceedings of the International Conference
Held on 15 December 2008 at the University of Cologne, ed. Mabi Angar and Claudia Sode
(Frankfurt: PL Academic Research, 2013), 57–73, esp. 67–72.
150 Marinković

(Figure 5.2), catacombs of Rome and Bet Shearim and objects of applied art, to
the splendid mosaic floors of numerous synagogues built in the Galilee region
between the 4th and 6th centuries like on the floor mosaic in Hammat Tiberias
(Figure 5.3).
To such representations of the Temple an obvious messianic, symbolic
meaning was added through representation of the Ark of the Covenant.18 The
Tabernacle and the Ark are displayed in the same way: placed between the two
central columns of the Temple facade just as the statue of a Roman god stood
in pagan temples, a frontal view of a box with rounded tips that form the wings
of the cherubim is represented. They were made “according to the pattern that
was shown to you on the mountain.”19 The sanctuary and the recipients are
symbolic representations of Creation and a mystical dwelling place of God’s
presence—Shekhinah.20
Katrin Kogman-Appel posits that early Christendom did not develop any
art prior to approximately 200 CE and that early Christian art grew out of the
Jewish religion.21 Therefore, the attitude of early Christians to the image and
to figural art may quite naturally have been similar to that of the Jews.22 From
the 5th century on, signs of Christian image worship increased and became
firmly established and accepted around the last decades of the 6th century.
Somewhere around c.550, Jews ceased to commission, create, or use figural
art.23 For almost seven centuries after that, Jews employed only aniconic

18 One of the greatest mysteries of the Bible is the disappearance of the Ark of the Covenant.
The Ark is mentioned as being placed in the First Temple (1 Kings: 8 3–8) but does not
appear in the dedication ceremony of the Second Temple (Ezra 3). See Theodore E. Ehrlich,
“The Disappearance of the Ark of the Covenant,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 40, no. 3 (2012),
174–178.
19 Exodus, 25:40.
20 Few subjects in Judaism are as central as the notion of God’s presence, ‘dwelling’ in
the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. See Mordechai Cohen, “Interpreting the Resting of the
Shekhinah: Exegetical Implications of the Theological Debate among Maimonides,
Nahmanides and Sefe Ha-Hinnukh,” in The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses to Messiah,
ed. Steven Fine (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 237–275.
21 Katrin Kogman-Appel, “Christianity, Idolatry, and the Question of Jewish Figural Painting
in the Middle Ages,” Speculum (2009), 75–107, 87. Floor mosaics produced in the land
of Israel from the 3rd to 6th centuries CE do not differ much from the visual language of
church and synagogues, for example, the Temple representation on the mosaic floor of
the synagogue in Sepphoris. If there were no menorahs and the Hebrew and Aramaic
inscriptions, the mosaic could be mistaken for a church mosaic. See Steven Fine, “Art and
Liturgical Context of the Sepphoris Synagogue,” in Galilee through Centuries: Confluences
of Cultures, ed. Eric M. Meyers (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 232.
22 Fine, “Art and Liturgical Context of the Sepphoris Synagogue,” 232.
23 It was most probably the development of the Christian worship of icons that led to the
abandonment of figural art among Jews around that time. See Kogman-Appel, “Jewish
Figural Painting,” 83.
Representation of the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah 151

Figure 5.2 Synagogue, Dura-Europos, 3rd century. Torah Shrine

Photo: © Alamy
152 Marinković

Figure 5.3 Hammat Tiberias 4–5th century synagogue. Detail of the mosaic floor depicting
the holy Ark surrounded by two large candelabra and other ceremonial objects
Photo: Zev Radovan/Bible Land Pictures © Alamy

models of decoration.24 Jewish figurative art eventually reappeared around the

year 1290, in the decoration of illuminated manuscripts. This change was due
to an altered Jewish perception of Christianity.25

24 Katrin Kogman-Appel, Jewish Book Art Between Islam and Christianity: The Decoration of
Hebrew Bibles in Medieval Spain (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
25 Rashi (Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac, 12th century) was the first to observe such a change, stat-
ing that contemporary gentiles are not “skilled in idolatry ‘beki ʿin’” as Talmud referred to.
The transition from “not skilled” to “not adherent” is the first sign of this shift in percep-
tion. At the same time, the Christian attitude toward Jews changed too. During the first
half of the 13th century, Christian theologians became increasingly interested in Jewish
postbiblical law, i.e., Talmud. Contemporary Jews—as opposed to biblical Jews—had
developed anti-Christian attitudes, which is believed to be rooted in Talmud. This devel-
opment led to a series of public trials, like the two Paris Talmud trials (1240 and 1269),
the Barcelona trial (1263), and the burning of rabbinical texts in 1242 in Paris. Ultimately,
these events led to a cultural paradox—at a time of the lowest possible mutual relation-
ship, Jewish-Christian cultural exchange was at a peak. See more in Kogman-Appel,
“Jewish Figural Painting,” 92.
Representation of the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah 153

The first examples of Hebrew illuminated manuscripts appeared around

the same time in southern Germany.26 Later, during the first decades of the
14th century, Jews in Spain also began to use figurative art in religious books.
The shift in the Jewish perception of Christians was an influential factor in the
development of Jewish figurative art, and it enabled borrowings of Christian
motifs, models, and symbols, thus leading to the creation of Jewish medieval
illuminated haggadot, the prayer book for Pesach Seder.27
Representations of the Temple are not common in haggadot, but we have
some important exceptions from Ashkenaz and Sfarad. In the Jewish post-
Temple art tradition, both literary and visual, Jerusalem and the Temple rep-
resent the focus of messianic hopes. These two are often combined into one
because it was thought that the reconstruction of Jerusalem means the starting

26 It is believed that the oldest illuminated haggadah—the Birds’ Head Haggadah (Israel
Museum Jerusalem, MS 180/57)—was created in the region of Mainz in Germany around
the year 1300. See Michael М. Epstein, The Medieval Haggadah, Art: Narrative, Religious
Imagination (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), 5 (with an extensive overview of the
older literature). Katrin Kogman-Appel, however, moves this dating and considers that
the year 1290 can be taken as the year of creation of the illuminated haggadah, quoting
British Library MS. Or 2737 as a first Illuminated haggadah. Cf. Katrin Kogman-Appel,
Illuminated Haggadot from Medieval Spain (University Park: Pennsylvania State Uni­
versity Press, 2006), 81; Kogman-Appel, “Jewish Figural Painting,” 76. On the Ashkenazi
school of haggadot, see Вezalel Narkiss, Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts (Jerusalem:
Leon Amiel 1969), 42–56; Katrin Kogman-Appel, Die zweite Nürnberger und die Jehuda
Haggada: Jüdische Illuminatoren zwischen Tradition und Fortschriftt (Frankfurt: Peter
Lang 1999); Katrin Kogman-Appel, “Sephardic Ideas in Ashkenaz—Visualizing the
Temple in Medieval Regensburg,” Simon Dubnow Institute Yearbook 8 (2009), 245–277;
Sarit Shalev-Eyni, Jews among Christians: Hebrew Book Illumination from Lake Constance
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2010).
27 Jewish medieval book art has been linked to the development of urban Christian lay work-
shops in the 13th century. Early Medieval Christian scriptoria were exclusively monastic
and therefore inaccessible to Jews. Only in secular workshops, the byproduct of urban
development, could Jews acquire painting techniques, purchase, or borrow model books
and commission manuscript decoration. In the following decades it became increasingly
customary for wealthy Jews of Germany and northern France to have their Bibles, prayer
books and other texts adorned with figurative miniatures. There is no evidence that there
was any kind of figurative Jewish art prior to 1290. During the early part of the 14th cen-
tury, a new tradition of illuminating haggadot became widespread in Spain also. Most of
the surviving haggadot originated in Catalonia where some wealthy communities existed.
Their status declined during the second half of that century but remained fairly decent
till the pogroms of 1391. The sumptuous Spanish haggadot, mostly commissioned by the
wealthy members of the community, open with a cycle of full-page miniatures preceding
the text. Iconographical cycles usually include scenes from Exodus relating to the exile
from Egypt. See Batterman, “Spanish Illuminated Haggadah.”
154 Marinković

point of the Temple rebuilding. In the Middle Ages, those hopes were associ-
ated with Passover, the feast that celebrates liberation from slavery in Egypt.

2 Temple Representation in the Sarajevo Haggadah

Probably the best-known and certainly the most original of all Sephardic hag-
gadot is the Codex 4436 known as the Sarajevo Haggadah, today kept in the
National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo.28 It contains the
most extensive cycle of all Sephardic haggadot, with 34 pages full of illumina-
tions. A good deal of recent scholarship has been devoted to the imagery and
iconographic program of the Sarajevo Haggadah, but none of it has addressed
representation of the Temple.29
Compared to other Sephardic haggadot, the usual iconographic program of
the introductory cycle of the Sarajevo Haggadah was extended, with the inclu-
sion of the representation of the Temple towards the very end of the open-
ing illustrations (Figure 5.4). This illustration continues the biblical Exodus
cycle and is followed by the ritual Pesach scenes and representation of the
synagogue. For the ‘designers’ of the Sarajevo Haggadah, the Passover salva-
tion does not end with the Exodus from Egypt—as is the case in most of the
haggadot—but with the return of the chosen people to Israel and the building
of the Temple. However, the Temple represented in the Sarajevo Haggadah
does not indicate the ancient Temple of Jerusalem but a future, eschatological
Third Temple, further stressed by the caption located below ‫ֵבית ַה ִמ ְק ָדש ַיִבנֶ ה‬
ָ ‫( ִב ְמ ֵה ַרה‬temple to be built soon, in our time).30
‫וא ֶמן‬

28 Library of the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, C 4436.

29 Cecil Roth, The Sarajevo Haggadah and its Significance in the History of Art (Belgrade:
Jugoslavija 1973); Herbert Broderick, “Observation on the Creation Cycle of the Sarajevo
Haggadah,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 47 (1984), 320–332; Shulamit Laderman and
Katrin Kogman-Appel, “The Sarajevo Haggadah: The Concept of Creatio Ex-Nihilo and
the Hermeneutical School Behind It,” Studies in Iconography 25 (2004), 89–127; Kogman-
Appel, Illuminated Haggadot, 99–109.
30 ‫וא ֶמן‬
ָ ‫( ֵבית ַה ִמ ְק ָדש ַיִבנֶ ה ִב ְמ ֵה ַרה‬trans. beit ha migdaš i bane bimera veamem). Tractate
Taanit, chapter IV, ends with a similar statement: “This is the temple that will be built
in our time.” See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/taanit4.html
(accessed August 14, 2013). According to some scholars, this addition to the usual hag-
gadah cycle has parallels in Christian Psalters that have Christ’s Second Coming as the
closing scenes. See Sarit Shalev-Eyni, “Jerusalem and the Temple in Hebrew Illuminated
Manuscripts: Jewish Thought and Christian Influence,” in L’interculturalita dell’ebraismo,
ed. Mauro Perani (Ravenna: Longo, 2004), 175.
Representation of the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah 155

Figure 5.4 Representation of the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah (14th century CE),
National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Photo: © Jewish community of Bosnia and Herzegovina
156 Marinković

The Temple of the Sarajevo Haggadah is represented using an architec-

tural structure that resembles a fortified city, with the Temple and the Ark
of the Covenant within. Two gates with large arched openings and gabled
roofs on both sides and crenellated walls that connect them with visually
accented masonry work push to the limits of the depicted zone, not leaving
any unpainted space. Under the central arch, flanked by two tall, roofed struc-
tures with open, oversized doors, one can see the facade of the Temple: two
golden pillars with capitals and distinct lintels around a huge door and, inside,
the most sacred part of the Temple, kodesh haKodashim (Holy of Holies), wide
open. Inside, represented on the blue background luhot a brit, are the Table
of (easily legible) Commandments and the wings of the two cherubim above.
While in Jewish art in late antiquity (3rd–6th century) the messianic
Temple is symbolically represented as the Ark of the Covenant, during the
medieval period the patrons and the artists preferred to express messianic
hope through the representation of the Temple utensils. This kind of represen-
tation is common in the decoration of Sephardic Bibles, and gave rise to the
conclusion that—in the absence of the actual Temple in Jerusalem—an illu-
minated Bible was considered a ‘small temple.’ That is why, from the 14th cen-
tury on in Spain, it became common to call the Bible the mikdashyah—shrine,
Temple of the Lord.31
Basically, representations of the Temple from the Sarajevo Haggadah ren-
der the appearance of the western facade of the Temple, as reconstructed by
Schwartz and Peleg, seen from the (opened) Nikanor Gate (Figure 5.5). In the
center there is a Temple facade of unusual height, with crenellation on the roof.
Underneath there are five openings.32 The main entrance has a semi-circular
arch in the form of a seashell and a huge door opening carved in marble and
flanked with two golden columns with elaborated bases and Corinthian capi-
tals. The texture of the Temple is realistically suggested with meticulously
painted masonry work.33 Besides that, the Nikanor Gate is flanked by a pair of

31 Joseph Gutmann, “Masora Figurata in the Mikdashyah: The Messianic Solomonic Temple
in a 14th-Century Spanish Hebrew Bible Manuscript” in 8th International Congress of
Masoretic Studies Chicago 1988, ed. E.J. Revell (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1990), 71–77;
Kogman-Appel, Jewish Book Art.
32 Although these openings do not exist on the Schwartz and Peleg ideal reconstruction,
we know from written sources that there were many chambers in the main building
and that their openings were necessary for lighting and ventilation. Joshua Schwartz and
Yehoshua Peleg, “Notes on the Virtual Reconstruction of the Herodian Period Temple and
Courtyards,” in The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses to Messiah, ed. Steven Fine (Leiden:
Brill, 2011), 69–89.
33 From Josephus we know that the “Temple was built of hard, white stones, each of which
was 25 cubits in length.”
Representation of the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah 157

Figure 5.5 Tentative reconstruction of the Herodian Temple facade

Drawing: Schwartz and Peleg, “Notes on the Virtual
Reconstruction of the Herodian Period Temple and Courtyards,”
81, illustration 7. Courtesy of Prof. Joshua Schwartz and Yehoshua
Peleg

two-storey towers with huge doors.34 All the above-mentioned architectural

elements—bases and capitals of the flanking columns, semi-arch above the
entrance, and rows of stone in the facade—produce some degree of physical
reality which is not shared by other late antique or medieval Jewish represen-
tations of the Temple. Comparing it to the Schwartz and Peleg ideal model
of the Temple, the Sarajevo Haggadah’s Temple representation displays only a
few discrepancies: openings on the main buildings and towers flanking the
Nikanor Gate are either non-existent, in the case of the former, or fewer,
in the case of latter.35 Roofs are not represented as flat as they are in the
reconstruction,36 and the function of the two buildings adjacent to the main

34 I here refer to Michael Avi-Yonah’s reconstruction of the Courtyards of the Second Temple
and especially the Nikanor Gate. See Michael Avi-Yonah, Pictorial Guide to the Model of
Ancient Jerusalem at the Time of the Second Temple (Jerusalem: Palphot, 2003), 24–25.
35 Omissions of this kind are not rare in representations of architecture in medieval art. See
Čedomila Marinković, Slika podignute crkve [Image of the completed church] (Belgrade:
PB Press, 2007), 45–49.
36 Although the roof in the ideal reconstruction is represented as flat, there is certainly
doubt about it. In many other existing examples, roofs are represented schematically.
Marinković, Slika podignute crkve, 45–49.
158 Marinković

facade is not clear. Even the golden and yellowish colors of the pillars and
facade are based on textual sources.37
This representation of the Temple is not simply schematic and stereotypical
but is a multi-layered architectural symbol. It is very hard to make any com-
parison with the structure of the Herodian Temple that once existed on the
Temple Mount because nobody really knows what the Second Temple looked
like. Although today there are several hundreds of reconstructions of it, many
of them are no more than religious imaginings.38 There is no archaeological
evidence of the Herodian Temple, and there are only three reliable written
sources that one can base the reconstruction upon. The major written sources
for the description of Herodian Temple appear in two sections in Flavius
Josephus’ Jewish Wars and in Antiquities of the Jews, written some 20 years
later.39 The other significant description in written sources is found in Mishnah
Middot, chapters 1–5.40 Altogether they provide a very scant source of informa-
tion about the outer appearance of the Temple, especially its facade. Recently,
Schwartz and Peleg suggested a new, scientifically based, reconstruction of the
Temple.41 Comparing this reconstruction to the Sarajevo Haggadah’s Temple
representation, one can find some striking similarities. Even at the time
of the preparation of the Sarajevo Haggadah, the archaeological material for
the reconstruction of the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem was lacking. How
then was this representation conceived? Was it made based on model books,
memory, or written sources, on the basis of the word-driven (or metaphorical)
meaning, or was it based on image-driven (or symbolic) meaning?
There is no clear consensus on the provenance of the overall cycle of the
Sarajevo Haggadah. Scholars have pointed to similar visual models—French,

37 Josephus tells us that the exterior of the building was covered with massive plates of
gold. But there was “one gate … which was of Corinthian brass.” Josephus Flavius, “Jewish
Wars” 5, 3.
38 The best-known and most widespread is the famous Michael Avi-Yonah reconstruction
that was made in 1962–1966 for the Holyland Hotel in Jerusalem and was later moved
to the Israeli Museum in 2005–2006. See Maya Balakirtsky-Katz, “Avi Yonah’s Model of
Second Temple Jerusalem and the Development of Israeli Visual Culture,” in The Temple
of Jerusalem: From Moses to Messiah, ed. Steven Fine (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 349–365.
39 Josephus’s literary work was already widespread in Christian Europe in late antiquity.
Karen M. Kletter, “The Christian Reception of Josephus in Late Antiquity and the Middle
Ages,” in A Companion to Josephus, ed. Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers
(Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2015).
40 Hugues Vincent, “Le temple hérodien d’après la Mišnah,” Revue Biblique 61, 5–35, 398–418.
41 Schwartz and Peleg, “Notes on the Virtual Reconstruction,” 69–89.
Representation of the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah 159

Spanish or even Byzantine.42 For the time being, and in accordance with the
most recent research by Kogman-Appel, the conclusion is that the artist of the
Sarajevo Haggadah developed “numerous original schemes … and the result
was an almost fully independent cycle.”43
In order to understand more clearly the specific architectural representa-
tion in the Sephardic Sarajevo Haggadah, we shall consider one Ashkenazi
haggadah which dates from about the period of our consideration. It is the
Birds’ Head Haggadah, illuminated probably in Mainz around the year 1300,
which is now kept in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem (MS 180–57).44 This man-
uscript consists of 47 folia, of which only two are full pages of illuminations,
while the rest are distributed as marginal illustrations within the text or as
bas de page on 33 pages. On the closing miniature on fol. 47 r, instead of the
representation of the Jerusalem Temple as in the Sarajevo Haggadah, we have
one with the Renewed Jerusalem. Here, the standard topos of architectural
representation is used for Jerusalem, that is to say, the heavenly city is repre-
sented in terms of a splendid Gothic structure: a pair of two-storey towers with
crenellation flank the gabled gate, decorated with a trefoil Gothic frame. The
Temple and the city are descending together from the heavens, while four peo-
ple stand below, raising their hands and pointing to them in veneration. The
texture of the roof and the construction method are particularly pronounced.
The right-side label clearly identifies the city as Jerusalem.
Given the context of the haggadah text in which it occurs, as presented
here, Jerusalem bears the same messianic idea as the Temple in the Sarajevo
Haggadah. However, these two representations are completely different. Why
does the change in visualization of the same messianic ideas occur in the

42 There were attempts to connect certain iconographical features of the Sarajevo

Haggadah introductory cycle with the St. Louis Psalter (Paris, Bibilotheque nationale de
France, MS Latin 10525, made between 1253 and 1270), Vienna Bible moralisée (Vienna,
Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 2554 from around 1220) as well as with Byzantine
Octateuch manuscripts, for example, the one that is kept in the Vatican (Biblioteca
Apostolica, cod. Gr. 746, fol. 194 v). For more, see Kogman-Appel, Illuminated Haggadot,
9–109, and Kurt Weitzmann and Massimo Barnabo, The Byzantine Octateuchs (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1999), fig. 711. However, this Byzantine influence was
recently questioned by Lowden. See John Lowden, “Illustrated Octateuch Manuscripts:
A Byzantine Phenomenon” in The Old Testament in Byzantium, ed. Paul Magdalino and
Robert Nelson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 107–153.
43 Kogman-Appel, Illuminated Haggadot, 107.
44 Moshe Spitzer, ed., The Bird’s Head Haggadah of the Bezalel National Art Museum in
Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Tarshis Books, 1965–1967), 2:15–19; Meyer Schapiro, “The Bird’s
Head Haggada: An Illustrated Hebrew Manuscript of ca. 1300,” in Late Antique, Early
Christian and Medieaval Art, selected papers (New York: George Braziller, 1993), 380–388.
160 Marinković

Ashkenazi haggadah, and what is the meaning that is suggested by this archi-
tectural representation?
Sarit Shalev-Eyni argues, most plausibly, that this imagery was inspired by
the Christian perception of the Heavenly Jerusalem as referred to in the book
of Revelation.45 Ashkenazi messianic expectation had an explicit apocalyptic
character going back to late antiquity.46 According to this, the Third Temple
will descend miraculously from the heavens upon the city of Jerusalem. This
is based on the Redemption Midrashim (midrashei geʾulah), a group of early
medieval texts based on late antique apocalyptic texts.47
In contrast, these ideas didn’t flourish in Spain, where, under the strong
influence of Maimonides, the messianic attitude was more naturalistic.
Maimonides elaborated the description and comments on the Temple and
its implements. In both the Mishneh Torah and the Commentary on Mishneh,
Maimonides wrote at length about the Temple.48 Manuscripts of the latter
even contain the plan of the sanctuary, meant to function as instructive infor-
mation, not as a decoration. There were even Maimonides’s sketches for the
future Temple.49
There is good reason to assume that the choice of a particular compositional
scheme for the representation of the Temple both in the Sarajevo Haggadah
and the Birds’ Head Haggadah had much to do with the beliefs and the mes-
sianic concepts of those who designed it. Both Spanish and German Jewish
art of illuminated manuscripts were informed to various degrees by Christian
visual culture. The artists of haggadot adopted the Christian pictorial method
and gave it a different meaning. Ashkenazi imagery depended less on Christian
sources, whilst the art of Sephardic haggadot exhibits various ways of interac-
tion with Christian art.50

45 Sarit Shalev-Eyni, “Jerusalem and the Temple,” 173–191.

46 One of the very first examples one can find is in Enoch 90:29.
47 This idea that the Third Temple “will descend fully formed from heaven” was further
adopted by Rashi in his commentary to the Sukkat Treatise of Babylonian Talmud (41a).
Quotation is after Sarit Shalev-Eyni, “Jerusalem and the Temple,” 177.
48 Maimonides declared that the Third Temple “will be built by the human hands of
Messiah” (Code of Law, Sefer Mishpatim, 11:1) and “if he did and succeeded and built the
Temple, he is certainly Messiah.” Sarit Shalev-Eyni, “Jerusalem and the Temple,” 178.
49 Oxford, Bodleian library, MS Poc. 295. Maimonides “Commentary to the Mishnah,”
fol. 295r., produced in Spain or Egypt in the second half of the 12th century; for a good
photographic reproduction of the sketches see also https://hebrew.bodleian.ox.ac.uk
/catalog/manuscript_430 [Accessed June 12, 2022]. See Kogman-Appel, “Jewish Book Art,”
75–82.
50 Kogman-Appel, “Jewish Figural Painting,” 77.
Representation of the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah 161

However, the Renewed Jerusalem, illustrated in the Birds’ Head Haggadah

as descending from the heavens, is almost a replica of the Christian Gothic
type of the Heavenly Jerusalem whilst, on the other hand, in Sephardic art,
which in general depended more on Christian models, nothing of that kind
was ever represented. In the history of Jewish art, similar models existed only
prior to the 6th century and it is highly speculative whether the designer
of our haggadah could have known any of this.51 Furthermore, if one seeks
Byzantine influence, it was very unlikely for the ‘designer’ of the Sarajevo
Haggadah, not only because there is no documentation of cultural relations
between 14th-century Barcelona and Byzantium but particularly considering
the views of Rabbi Eliezer ben Nathan (d. 1170), who stated that, due to their
icon worship and the whole Eastern visual culture, Byzantines, among all other
Christians, were “faithful idolaters.”52
Despite different social circumstances, philosophical and theological
schools, and artistic influences, topoi of architectural representations move
from one area to another, changing cultures, and even crossing the very well-
maintained religious boundaries. The topoi carried their narrative potential
and established their own autonomous visual language, a lingua franca of
architectural representation basically understandable to a medieval audience
either Jewish, Christian, or Byzantine.
Representation of the Temple from the Sarajevo Haggadah, being a specific
addition to its iconographic program, wasn’t made after any known visual
model, either Christian or Jewish, Eastern or Western. Referring above all and
to a great extent to the Temple, a very physical reality—as described in written
sources—the (as yet) unknown but unusually creative and insightful artist of
the Sarajevo Haggadah wished above all to convey the real appearance of the
Temple of Jerusalem in terms of the expectation of the approaching messianic
era. This messianism, however, was not the mystic, apocalyptic one promoted
by the Tosafists but the realistic and naturalistic approach to messianism that
was developed by Sephardic philosophers during the lifetime of Maimonides.

51 Almost all the examples from Israeli synagogues were rediscovered either at the begin-
ning or at the end of the 20th century: Dura-Europos and Hammat Tiberias in 1920,
El Kirbeh in 1990 and Sepphoris in 1993.
52 This statement refers to Byzantine icon worship, saying that “In Russia and the lands
of Greece they are certainly skilled (in idolatry) as they put (objects of) idolatry on all
their gates, doors, houses and walls of the houses.” Jews of that period were thus aware
of the cultural difference between Latin and Greek Christendom regarding icon worship.
For them, all Christians were idolaters but Byzantines were so to speak ‘faithful idola-
ters’ whereas Western Christians had become negligent. Kogman-Appel, “Jewish Figural
Painting,” 95.
162 Marinković

In the present state of research, it appears that the representation of the

Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah is a unique representation and rare exam-
ple of creatio ex nihilo (to borrow the expression from Kogman-Appel and
Laderman’s famous study53) of an artist who basically relayed his own creativ-
ity. This proves that the rhetoric of the architecture as a universal epistemolog-
ical method that combines word-driven (or metaphorical) and image-driven
(or symbolic) meaning produced architectural forms that were not only very
powerful carriers of messages but at the same time also a very important form
of mnemonic image—in this case of the Temple in Jerusalem. As such, the rep-
resentation of the Temple from the Sarajevo Haggadah, with its recognizable
form and acquired familiar meaning, is pointing beyond itself, to the archetype
of Temple representation in Jewish art and basis of the reconstruction of the
(future) Third Temple itself.

Acknowledgements

The text is dedicated to Prof. Ivana Marcikić with my warmest gratitude for her
insightful suggestions.

53 Kogman-Appel and Laderman, “The Sarajevo Haggadah,” 89–128.

 Chapter 6

Type and Archetype: Echoing Architectural Forms

of the Church of Nea Moni

Marina Mihaljević

The subject of this paper, the church of Nea Moni situated on the Aegean
island of Chios, was built by Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (1042–
1055). By virtue of its exquisite mosaic decoration and imposing architecture,
it certainly represents one of the finest Byzantine churches (Figure 6.1).1 The
church of Nea Moni includes a simple square naos surmounted by a large
dome over the octagonal transitional zone comprised of eight tall squinches
(Figure 6.2). The lower square and the upper octaconch zones were masterfully
connected by the insertion of double colonnettes, which accorded the notable
impression of circularity to the naos of the church (Figure 6.3). Therefore, it is
not surprising that a later local tradition mentions the church as an imitation
of the centrally planned mausoleum of Constantine the Great in the complex
of the Constantinopolitan church of the Holy Apostles.2
In its exterior appearance, the design of the church is overwhelmingly dom-
inated by a large dome (Figure 6.4).3 Besides its substantial size, the dome orig-
inally exhibited yet another significant aspect, namely, the corners of its drum
incorporated two-tiered marble colonnettes, doubled in their lower zone in a
manner reflecting the arrangement in the interior of the church (Figure 6.5).
The drum design with double colonnettes was also prominently featured in

1 Doula Mouriki, The Mosaics of Nea Moni on Chios, vols. 1–2 (Athens: The Commercial Bank of
Greece, 1985) and Charalambos Bouras, Nea Moni on Chios: History and Architecture (Athens:
The Commercial Bank of Greece, 1982) remain seminal studies on the church of Nea Moni.
For new results on its building history, see Sotiris Voyadjis, “The Katholikon of Nea Moni in
Chios Unveiled,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 59 (2009), 229–242.
2 As recorded by the 19th century, the church was a copy of the “plan of Holy Apostles the
small, that is, the smaller Church of the Holy Apostles.” For a broader interpretation, see
Bouras, Nea Moni on Chios, 139–145.
3 Nea Moni’s dome was inaccurately rebuilt after being destroyed in the 1881 earthquake.
Fortunately, two photographs of the dome taken after the earthquake but before the rebuild-
ing have facilitated a reconstruction of its original appearance.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004537781_008

164 Mihaljević

Figure 6.1 Nea Moni, Chios, 11th century. Exterior view

Photo: Marina Mihaljević
Type and Archetype 165

Figure 6.2 Nea Moni, Chios, 11th century. Plan

Drawing: Marina Mihaljević

later replicas of the church of Nea Moni: the church of Panagia Krina at Vavily
and Hagioi Apostoloi at Pyrgi on the island of Chios.4
Due to its novel structural solution, which has been considered to be a
pre-model for a distinct—standard—Middle Byzantine structural type, the
so-called Greek octagon, the typological approach was predominant in studies
of Nea Moni’s architecture.5 In the scholarly search for the origins of the domed

4 The dome of the church at Pyrgi still preserves the circle of double colonnettes between
the dome windows. The paired colonnettes are also clearly visible on the fresco model of
the church in the narthex of Panagia Krina. Bouras, Nea Moni on Chios, 109, figs. 91–94. Also
Charalambos Bouras, Chios (Athens: National Bank of Greece, 1974), 30ff.
5 For the standard Middle Byzantine plan types and their evolution, see Richard Krautheimer,
Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 4th ed. (New Haven/London: Yale University
Press, 1986), 354–369. The churches of the so-called Greek octagon type are first known
from the Greek mainland, and later on revived in several churches on the island of Chios:
Charalambos Bouras, “Twelfth and Thirteenth Century Variations of the Single Domed
166 Mihaljević

Figure 6.3 Nea Moni, Chios, 11th century. Reconstruction of the interior
Drawing: Marina Mihaljević after Anastasios Orlandos (in Bouras,
Nea Moni, figs. 57 and 78)

octagon and the subsequent Greek octagon type, the presence of Nea Moni’s
double colonnettes has played a surprisingly significant role. Specifically, the
paired colonnettes have been compared with similar stylistic elements evident
in Armenian architecture in order to support the argument for the Armenian
provenance of this structural type.6

Octagon Plan,” Deltion tēs Christianikēs Archailogikēs Hetaireias 9 (1977–1979), 21–32. In

fact, when applied here, the term domed octagon is somewhat misleading since in reality
the church’s upper part possesses an octaconch arrangement. Bouras, Nea Moni on Chios,
133–138, refutes earlier theories about the derivation of Nea Moni’s structural type from the
plan of Hosios Loukas (‘mainland complex/cross-domed octagon’) and stresses the unique-
ness of Nea Moni’s upper octaconch arrangement.
6 Thomas F. Mathews, “Observations on the Church of Panagia Kamariotissa on Heybeliada
(Chalke), Istanbul,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27 (1973), 126–127. The idea of the Armenian ori-
gin of the domed octagon has long been present in studies of Byzantine architecture: Gabriel
Millet, L’École grecque dans l’architecture byzantine (Paris: E. Leroux, 1916), 105–118; Eustathios
Stikas, L’église byzantine de Christianou en Triphylie (Pélponnèse) et les autres édifices de même
Type and Archetype 167

Figure 6.4 Nea Moni, Chios, 11th century. Reconstruction of the west elevation
Drawing: Marina Mihaljević (after Bouras, Nea Moni, figs. 104
and 115)

Apart from the aforementioned discussion, the double colonnettes and the
mirroring of the interior design elements on the exterior of the church have
escaped further attention. A scholarly approach based upon typological and
stylistic concerns thus set the stage for the potential narrative significance
of church’s architecture being overlooked.7 Recently, Nea Moni’s marble

type (Paris: Boccard, 1951), 34ff; Bouras, Nea Moni on Chios, 151, disregards the relationship of
Nea Moni’s features with similar double and triple dome colonnettes that are common sty-
listic traits in Armenian architecture, and rejects the idea that this can be an extra argument
for the proposed Armenian origin of the Nea Moni’s architecture.
7 See the seminal introductory study on the transfer of meaning in architecture: Richard
Krautheimer, “Introduction to an ‘Iconography of Medieval Architecture’,” Journal of the
Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 5 (1942), 1–33. See also Günter Bandmann, Early Medieval
Architecture as Bearer of Meaning, trans. Kendall Wallis (New York: Columbia University
168 Mihaljević

Figure 6.5 Nea Moni, Chios, 11th century. Reconstruction of the dome
Drawing: Marina Mihaljević after Bouras, Nea Moni,
figs. 89–90 and 107

colonnettes were considered within the context of the rhetoric of Byzantine

architecture and related to the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.8
This chapter revisits the occurrence of these architectural elements with the
addition of several notes regarding the architectural references to the Holy
Sepulchre in Middle Byzantine architecture, and additionally explores their
eventual repercussions for re-examining and establishing a more nuanced
view of ‘type’ in Byzantine architecture.
Indeed, the interest of Nea Moni’s builders in the centrally planned or,
to rephrase it, ‘circular’ naos is not unusual within the context of Middle

Press, 2005). For recent comments on Krautheimer’s study, see Robert Ousterhout, “New
Temples and New Solomons,” in Old Testament in Byzantium, ed. Paul Magdalino and Robert
Nelson (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010), 228–229.
8 Jelena Bogdanović, “The Rhetoric of Architecture in the Byzantine Context: The Case Study
of the Holy Sepulchre,” Zograf 38 (2014), 1–21, defines rhetoric of architecture as “codified
visual and architectural conventions as a series of transpositions that frame specific mean-
ings other than and beyond visible and spatial.”
Type and Archetype 169

Byzantine architecture.9 In addition to Nea Moni, several other Middle

Byzantine examples demonstrate the same concern. For instance, one of
the most evocative earlier examples is the church discovered at the site of
Küçükyalı (Maltepe) in Istanbul on the Asia Minor shore of the Bosporus.10
The church includes a finely planned narthex and an elaborate sanctuary on its
west and east ends, which is more or less typical of Middle Byzantine churches
(Figure 6.6). Its naos, however, presents an unusual interior arrangement: a
regular octagon inscribed within a square external outline.
In the region of the Balkans, the church of the Theotokos Eleousa (1080),
situated in the village of Veljusa, North Macedonia, presents yet another illus-
trative example. It is a small, intricately planned building with a narthex and
an attached southern chapel (Figure 6.7b).11 Its founder, Bishop Manuel, was
presumably buried in the domed narthex of the church.12 The church’s naos
is centrally planned and features an expanded cruciform arrangement with a
central domed unit and four terminating conchs. The southern parekklesion
is a miniature replica of the main church with a somewhat simplified central
plan and a similar exterior treatment. The three domes of the Eleousa church
exhibit a distinct exterior design. As was the case with Nea Moni’s dome, their
polygonal drums are accentuated by stepped masonry around the windows
and engaged double colonnettes at the angles between the facets (Figure 6.8).
The dome of the only quatrefoil church in the capital, the Panagia
Mouchliotissa (Theotokos Panagiotissa), possibly erected during the 11th or

9 Marina Mihaljević, “Constantinopolitan Architecture of the Komnenian Era (1080–1180)

and its Impact in the Balkans,” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 2010), 28–33, for the
broader context of Middle Byzantine architecture.
10 The site was identified and often discussed as recent archaeological excavations uncov-
ered the church building built above a large substructure, previously regarded as the
Palace of Bryas, built by Emperor Theophilos before 843. See Alessandra Ricci, “The
Road from Baghdad to Byzantium and the Case of the Bryas Palace,” in Byzantium in
the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive? ed. Leslie Brubaker (Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate,
1997), 131–149. Alessandra Ricci, “Reinterpretation of the ‘Palace of Bryas’: A study in
Byzantine Architecture, History and Historiography” (PhD diss., Princeton University,
2008), 175–178, suggests identification of the church as the katholikon of the monastery of
Satyros, built by Ignatios, patriarch of Constantinople, between 867 and 877, during his
second appointment to the patriarchal throne.
11 Mihaljević, Constantinopolitan Architecture, 66–73, for detailed analyses of Veljusa’s archi-
tecture with earlier bibliography. See also Slobodan Ćurčić, “Architectural Significance
of the Subsidiary Chapels in Middle Byzantine Churches,” Journal of the Society of
Architectural Historians 36, no. 3 (1977), 97–99, for the satellite arrangement of the subsid-
iary chapels.
12 Petar Miljković-Pepek, Veljusa (Skopje: Folozofski fakultet, 1981), 86.
170 Mihaljević

Figure 6.6 Küçükyalı (Maltepe), 9th century, Istanbul (Constantinople). Plan of the
church
Drawing: Marina Mihaljević after Ricci, “Reinterpretation of
the ‘Palace of Bryas’”

even 10th century, exhibits a similar feature (Figure 6.7a).13 The drum of its
dome preserves a sequence of external blind arches, which presumably

13 Recently several scholars have challenged the 13th century dating of the church.
Charalambos Bouras, “Hē Architektonikē tēs Panagias ton Mouchliou stēn Kōnstanti­
noupoli,” [The architecture of Panagia Mouchliou in Constantinople], Deltion tēs
Christianikēs Archailogikēs Hetaireias 4, no. 26 (2005), 35–50, proposed the early 11th cen-
tury for the construction of the church. Vitalien Laurent, Les corpus des sceaux de l’empire
byzantine, vol. 5, 2 (Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1965), 94–96,
points to the evidence that the church and the monastery of the Panagiotissa was in exis-
tence as early as the 11th or even the 10th century. See also Paul Magdalino, Constantinople
médiévale: Études sur l’évolution des structures urbaines (Paris: Boccard 1996), 97–98.
Type and Archetype 171

Figure 6.7a Panagia Mouchliotissa (Theotokos Panagiotissa), Istanbul

(Constantinople), 10th–11th century
Drawing: Marina Mihaljević after Bouras, “Hē
Architektonikē tēs Panagias ton Mouchliou stēn
Kōnstantinoupoli” [The architecture of Panagia
Mouchliou in Constantinople], figs. 8 and 43

Figure 6.7b Theotokos Eleousa, Veljusa, 11th century. Plan

Drawing: Marina Mihaljević
172 Mihaljević

Figure 6.8 Theotokos Eleousa, Veljusa, 11th century. Domes

Photo: Marina Mihaljević

indicate the original presence of paired colonnettes (Figure 6.9).14 It is remark-

able for this study that all three mentioned Middle Byzantine examples—Nea
Moni, Mouchliotissa and Veljusa—combine two common features: circular
naoi and double colonnettes on their domes.15
Yet the supremacy of Nea Moni’s dome over the exterior of the church is
rather exceptional. Its great dimensions, both its width and its height, created
an impression of a monumental canopy surmounting the church. Moreover,
the insistent correspondence between Nea Moni’s interior and exterior
designs, both featuring the use of paired colonnettes, seems to have no parallel
in Byzantine architecture. In light of this, it is reasonable to ask whether there

14 Bouras, “Panagias ton Mouchliou,” 43, fig. 9, with further analysis of the church’s archi-
tecture and the reconstruction of its original plan. Similar design with the double colon-
nettes appears on the main dome of the katholikon of the Athonite monastery of Vatopedi,
dated to the very end of the 10th century. Stavros V. Mamaloukos, To Katholiko tēs monēs
Vatopediou, Historia kai arhitektonikē [The katholikon of the Vatopedi monastery, his-
tory and architecture] (Athens: Ethniko Metsovio Polytechneio, Tmēma Architektonōn,
Spoudastērio Historias tēs Architektonikēs, 2001) ascribes the architecture of the Vatopedi
church to the Constantinopolitan sphere of influence.
15 Mihaljević, Constantinopolitan Architecture, 66–73, provides a broader discussion of the
similarities between Veljusa, Mouchliotissa, and Nea Moni.
Type and Archetype 173

Figure 6.9 Panagia Mouchliotissa (Theotokos Panagiotissa), Istanbul (Constantinople),

10th–11th century. Dome
Photo: Marina Mihaljević
174 Mihaljević

was any particular reason, other than the general concerns of Byzantine archi-
tecture, that could have inspired the highlighted design of Nea Moni’s dome.
Several scholars have noted that the mosaic program of the church of Nea
Moni has pronounced imperial connotations.16 The portrayal of King Solomon
as a bearded man in the representation of the Anastasis bears a resemblance to
Emperor Constantine IX, the ktetor of the church.17 In a manner known from
Byzantine culture, the emperor was thus celebrated as the New Solomon.18 In
modern scholarship, Constantine IX has been credited with the reconstruction
of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, which makes this praise more pertinent
as it recalls the emperor’s pious endeavors at the principal Christian shrine.19
Extending the message communicated by the mosaic decoration, the
unusual architectural conception of the church of Nea Moni could possibly
also be intended to honor the emperor as the New Solomon, by underscoring
his building accomplishments.20 The emperor’s reputation as a great builder,

16 Mouriki, The Mosaics of Nea Moni, 137–138; Henry Maguire, “The Mosaics of Nea Moni:
An Imperial Reading,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46, 207–213; Ousterhout, “New Temples,”
249–250; Robert Ousterhout, “Originality in Byzantine Architecture: The Case of Nea
Moni,” The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 51, no. 1 (1992), 59.
17 Anna Karzonis, Anastasis: The Making of an Image (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1986), 216; Mouriki, The Mosaics of Nea Moni, 137–138. In the 11th century, a similar image
was represented in the apse of the Anastasis Rotunda. See Alan Borg, “The Lost Mosaic of
the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem,” in The Vanishing Past: Studies in Medieval Art, Liturgy and
Metrology Presented to Christopher Hohler, ed. Alan Borg and Andrew Martindale (Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports, International Series 111, 1981), 7–12.
18 Robert Ousterhout, “New Temples,” 226, points to Eusebius’s address to Paulinus, Bishop
of Tyre, in the dedicatory speech at the cathedral of Tyre, as the first mention of the later
common Byzantine topos. For a broader discussion, see Claudia Rapp, “Old Testament
Models for Emperors in Early Byzantium,” in Old Testament in Byzantium, ed. Paul
Magdalino and Robert Nelson (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection, 2010), 175–198.
19 Based on the record of local tradition made by William of Tyre in c.1165, the reconstruction
of the Holy Sepulchre has usually been assigned to Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos.
Recently, Martin Biddle, The Tomb of Christ (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1999), 74–88, esp.
77–81, suggested the patronage of Michael IV the Paphlagonian (1034–1041). It is certain
that the rebuilding started soon after the demolition of the church in 1009. After 1012,
several subsequent Byzantine rulers were involved in its reconstruction. Biddle’s remarks
leave the possibility that the scope of Monomachos’s involvement in the reconstruction of
the church should be re-examined, and notes that his works were “at most second phase
of an operation which began 1012.” In both cases, it is interesting to examine whether the
architectural conception of the church of Nea Moni may be germane to revealing the
emperor’s relationship with the holy shrine.
20 Bouras, Nea Moni on Chios, 23–24. The emperor’s major Constantinopolitan founda-
tion was the monastery of St. George in Mangana with the sumptuous katholikon
and surrounding buildings. According to Psellus, the monastery was built with great
Type and Archetype 175

as much as his probable engagement in Jerusalem, supports the idea that

the model for his new foundation of Nea Moni was the church of the Holy
Sepulchre. Yet the question remains: what architectural devices were used in
an effort to achieve such a likeness?
With respect to their architecture, the two churches, Nea Moni and the
church of the Holy Sepulchre, differ significantly.21 The perplexing nature of
medieval architectural copies and the modes of reiterations of the specific
architectural forms have received much scholarly attention.22 Krautheimer’s
seminal study on this topic introduces a number of medieval buildings built to
resemble the Holy Sepulchre.23 These buildings bear various degrees of simi-
larity with the physical appearance of the Holy Sepulchre and present differ-
ent approaches to achieving the desired likeness. Nevertheless, the centrality
of the interior has been one of their recurring features.24 Bearing this in mind,

expenditure due to the constant enlargements and changes of plan: Michael Psellus,
Fourteen Byzantine Rulers: The Chronographia of Michael Psellus, trans. Edgar R.A. Sewter
(London: Penguin Books, 1966), 6.55: 182; 6.185: 250–251. For further information regard-
ing the contents and operation of Monomachos’s foundation in Mangana, see Nicolas
Oikonomides, “St. George of Mangana, Maria Skleraina, and the ‘Malyj Sion’ of Novgorod,”
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34–35 (1980–1981), 239–246. For archaeological remains, see
Robert Demangel and Ernest Mamboury, Le quartier des Manganes et la première region
de Constantinople (Paris: Boccard, 1939), 23–36, pls. IV–V.
21 Robert Ousterhout, “Rebuilding the Temple: Constantine Monomachus and the Holy
Sepulchre,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 48 (1989), 66–78, for a review
of the Holy Sepulchre’s construction phases.
22 Krautheimer, “Introduction,” 1–33.
23 The earliest known replica of the Holy Sepulchre, the church of St. Michael in Fulda,
was erected in the 9th century. Subsequent architectural studies expanded the scope of
Krautheimer’s study by including wider topographical, artistic, and functional aspects of
medieval copies. See Robert Ousterhout, “The Church of Santo Stefano: A ‘Jerusalem’ in
Bologna,” Gesta 20, no. 2 (1981), 311–321. The question of religious ideas associated with the
construction of the architectural replicas of the Holy Sepulchre in medieval Europe was
also further explored by Robert Ousterhout, “Loca Sancta and the Architectural Response
to Pilgrimage,” in Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. Robert Ousterhout (Urbana, Chicago, IL:
University of Illinois Press, 1990), 108–137. Recently, Kathryn Blair Moore, The Architecture
of the Christian Holy Land: Reception from Late Antiquity through the Renaissance
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), examined architectural replicas of the
Holy Sepulchre within a broader context of interrelationships between Christians, Jews,
and Muslims.
24 Ousterhout, “Loca Sancta,” 110–111, specifically mentions a central round, or polygonal,
core, with or without the outer ambulatory present in a great number of medieval cop-
ies of the church. Two Byzantine examples, both with uncertain identification, were
mentioned as being erected in the form of the Holy Sepulchre. The substructure found
below the church of Hagios Menas, identified as the martyrium of Karpos and Papylos
(4th century), and the building known as the Balaban Ağa Mescidi, recognized as the
176 Mihaljević

the manifest effort to centralize Nea Moni’s interior is noteworthy. The double
colonnettes appear to be an important architectural device in the attempt to
achieve this. Their introduction in the interior of the square naos not only pro-
vided a means of connecting the two disjointed architectural registers—the
lower square and the upper octaconch—but they effectively took a primary
role in space articulation by making the square base of the lower zone second-
ary in comparison to the central octagonal arrangement above it.25 Still, we
may wonder whether the choice of paired colonnettes has a particular signifi-
cance in the design of the church.
In modern architecture theory, Anthony Vidler recognizes the so-called
‘third’ typology of architecture, which proposes that an architectural element—
type—selected for replication or reinterpretation, cannot be divorced from its
original meaning, which remains its diachronic constitutive element.26 For our
consideration, it is important to note that, due to its general remoteness and
the political situation in the 11th century, the Byzantines were mostly unable
to visit the holy shrine. In large part, the understanding of the Holy Sepulchre’s
physical appearance relied exclusively on written descriptions and circulated
visual representations.27 Effectively, the modeling of Nea Moni’s dome was
presumably conducted without any insight into the factual appearance of the
church of the Holy Sepulchre.
One may assume that the written records, recounting a range of devotional
practices and describing their sensory aspects, were certainly a very powerful

Theotokos tou Kouratoros (5th century), both have central arrangements. The former
was probably a rotunda with a surrounding C-shaped ambulatory and a wide altar space,
whereas the latter was set as a hexagonal building with six stepped rectangular exedras
incorporated within the depth of its perimeter walls. See Wolfgang Müller-Wiener,
Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls (Tübingen: Verlag Ernst Wasmuth, 1977), 98–99;
186–187; Thomas F. Mathews, The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul: A Photographic Survey
(University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1976), 25–27, 206–208, for a
review of scholarly research, plans, and earlier bibliography.
25 Ousterhout, “Originality in Byzantine Architecture,” 48–60, interprets the incongruities
of Nea Moni’s structural system as a result of the alteration of the plan from the initial
cross-in-square to domed octagon.
26 Anthony Vidler, “The Third Typology,” Oppositions 7 (Winter 1977), reprinted in Archi­
tecture Theory Since 1968, ed. K. Michael Hays (Cambridge, MA/London, GB: MIT Press,
1998), 284–294.
27 The written records are collected and translated in John Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims
Before the Crusades (Jerusalem: Ariel Publishing House, 1977). For visual sources, see
Biddle, The Tomb of Christ, 20–28, with systematic and comprehensive review of the
visual records of the Aedicula of Christ and the surrounding rotunda. See also Gary Vikan,
Early Byzantine Pilgrimage Art, rev. ed. (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine
Collection, 2011).
Type and Archetype 177

medium in transferring pilgrimage experience.28 Art representations known

from various devotional objects might have considerably supplemented the
texts and played a crucial role in visualizing the physical settings of the holy
sites. This is especially valid if we take into account the relative consistency in
their constituent iconographic schemes. Therefore, it is quite possible that the
visual representations of the Holy Sepulchre could have played a significant
role in providing a model for the design of the church of Nea Moni.
Indeed, the correspondence between the design of Nea Moni’s dome
and the architectural representation in the famous Munich Ascension ivory
(c.400) has been noted.29 In short, the Sepulchre is depicted there as a cubical
structure with a circular aedicula outlined by a ring of double columns, strik-
ingly similar to Nea Moni’s dome (Figure 6.10). This correspondence has been
strictly rejected by researchers of the church and evaluated as irrelevant due
to the significant chronological separation.30 If, however, we take into account
the relative frequency and dissemination of this design, and consider Vidler’s
precept on meaning in architectural type, it is worth reconsidering whether
this parallel may in fact hold a certain significance despite the difference in the
dates of their creation.
As scholars have already noted, in Byzantine art the church of the Holy
Sepulchre and the Aedicula of Christ were often conflated.31 The columns,
present in both structures, were instrumental in merging their representations
into a single exchangeable image. Even with such an ambiguity, the Munich
ivory stands in contrast to more specific early pilgrimage representations and
textual descriptions, which do not indicate the presence of double columns

28 Moore, The Architecture of the Christian Holy Land, 6–8, for the importance of pilgrim-
age records. For the religious experience of pilgrimage sites, see Jonathan Sumption,
Pilgrimage: an Image of Mediaeval Religion (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1976),
89–94; John Wilkinson, “Early Christian Pilgrimage,” in Egeria’s Travels, ed. John Wilkinson
(Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1999), 4–34. For the sensory aspects of religious experience,
see Béatrice Caseau, “The Senses in Religion: Liturgy, Devotion, and Deprivation,” in
A Cultural History of the Senses in the Middle Ages, ed. Richard G. Newhauser (Oxford:
Bloomsbury Academic, 2014), 89–110; Emma J. Wells, “Overview: The Medieval Senses,”
The Oxford Handbook of Later Medieval Archaeology in Britain, ed. Christopher Gerrard
and Alejandra Gutiérrez (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 681–696.
29 Bayerisches Nationalmuseum, Munich (Inv. No. MA 157). See Robin Margaret Jensen,
Understanding Early Christian Art (New York/London: Routledge, 2000), 156–166; Herbert
L. Kessler, “Narrative Representations,” in The Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early
Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century, ed. Kurt Weitzman (New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 1979), 454–455.
30 Bouras, Nea Moni on Chios, 151.
31 Robert Ousterhout, “The Temple, the Sepulchre, and the Martyrion of the Savior,” Gesta
29, no. 1 (1990), 44–53, esp. 48.
178 Mihaljević

Figure 6.10 The Tomb and the Ascension of Christ, ivory, c.400, Bayerisches
Nationalmuseum, Munich, Inv. Nr. MA 157
Photo: Andreas Praefcke. Wikimedia Commons, https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reidersche_Tafel_c_400
_AD.jpg [Accessed July 9, 2022]
Type and Archetype 179

either on the aedicula or in the rotunda of the Holy Sepulchre.32 Nevertheless,

the tradition of representing the double columns within the context of the
Holy Sepulchre has a long legacy in Christian art.33 The 14th-century Vatican
manuscript with a representation of The Descent of the Holy Fire prominently
features a canopy with paired columns over the Tomb of Christ.34 This practice
goes beyond the Middle Ages, when the paired columns appear relatively often
in visual representations of the Holy Sepulchre.35
Now, if we consider the symbolic references pertinent for the formation of
the particular visual identity of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, we find that
its textual association with the Temple may have played a significant role. From
its erection in the 4th century, Christian writers, primarily Eusebius, commonly
promoted a symbolic association between the church of the Holy Sepulchre
and the Temple.36 It is not surprising, then, that this intangible−ideological

32 John Wilkinson, “The Tomb of Christ: An Outline of Its Structural History,” Journal of the
Council for British Research in the Levant 4, no. 1 (1972), 83–97; Biddle, The Tomb of Christ,
65–73, 81–88, with extensive discussion of the original appearance and Byzantine phases
of the Aedicula of Christ.
33 Biddle, The Tomb of Christ, 85, mentions the possibility that the double columns were
incorporated in the hexagonal ciborium over the tomb chamber during the 11th century,
however, without any substantiating record.
34 The Descent of the Holy Fire, illuminated manuscript, 14th century, Biblioteca Vaticana,
cod. Urb.lat.1362, f. 1v.; for a good photographic reproduction of the folio see https://digi
.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Urb.lat.1362 [Accessed September 21, 2022].
35 Biddle, The Tomb of Christ, 29–52, for a review and discussion of representations of the
aedicula from the 12th century to the present day. Biddle points to the wide dissemination
and reworking due to the introduction of printing, which recommends scrutiny in the
evaluation of independent evidential value. Some of these representations also include
the depiction of the church. For example, several preserved wooden models of the church
of the Holy Sepulchre that can be disassembled to reveal a model of the aedicula were
produced in late 17th or early 18th century for the Franciscan monasteries in the Holy
Land as souvenirs for rich pilgrims or presentable gifts. They often display the paired col-
umns both in the apse of the Crusader’s church and at the drum of the dome surmount-
ing the aedicula. Depending on the quality of the model, the former are often rendered
as the two-tiered columns. See Michele Piccirillo, La Nuova Gerusalemme, Artigianato
Palestinese al servizio dei Luoghi Santi (Bergamo: Edizioni Custodia di Terra Santa, 2007);
Biddle, The Tomb of Christ, 42–44, figs. 44–45.
36 Kathleen E. McVey, “Spirit Embodied: The Emergence of Symbolic Interpretations of
Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture,” in Architecture as Icon, ed. Slobodan Ćurčić
and Evangelia Hadjitryphonos (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 45–50, provides
a detailed discussion of Eusebius’s speech delivered on the occasion of the dedication of
the church at Tyre in 315 CE. His evocations of the Temple were used as an efficient rhetor-
ical device in authorizing the status of holiness to the church building. Ousterhout, “The
Temple,” 44–46, 49–50, emphasizes Eusebius’s desire to link Christianity with the idea of
the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy. This symbolic parallel possibly found its
reflection in the correspondence between the Holy Sepulchre’s liturgical service and the
180 Mihaljević

concord finds physical expression in the art representations of the church. In

its formative stage, thus, the visual identity of the church of the Holy Sepulchre
was heavily informed by the imagery associated with the Temple, presumably
coming from early Jewish representations.37 Within a group of surviving early
Jewish examples, there are several representations of the Temple that display
paired columns as an important architectural aspect. For instance, an early
representation of the Temple on the tetradrachm of Bar Kochba (undated
issue, year 3–134/5 CE) prominently features four double columns adorn-
ing its porch (Figure 6.11).38 Similarly, the famous architectural representa-
tion of the Temple on the tympanon of the Torah Shrine in the synagogue of
Dura-Europos shows two paired columns flanking the representation of the
inner Ark (Figure 6.12). One can find an identical feature at the synagogue
at Capernaum, where two paired columns adorn the frames of the southern
windows.39 It is important to note that the Temple had already been destroyed
before the creation of the mentioned early Jewish examples, so these images
bear witness to a collective memory record, which influenced and shaped
subsequent iconography of the Temple. In view of this, one can rightfully ask
whether the established identity in the Jewish visual records may have influ-
enced the physical appearance of the original aedicula.
Portable objects, pilgrimage souvenirs—flasks, lamps, and the like—appear
to have played manifold devotional roles, as they effectively acquired and
transmitted the blessings of the original sacred sites.40 In the same manner,
the Holy Land buildings themselves carried a similar devotional weight as they

service in the Temple. See also Ousterhout, “New Temples,” 223–253, for appropriation of
ideas related to the Temple in Byzantine architecture.
37 This correspondence effectively resulted in interchangeable images, where both the Holy
Sepulchre and the Temple were represented as large structures on columns sheltering a
smaller one, i.e., the Aedicula of Christ and the Ark of the Covenant respectively. Robert
Ousterhout, “The Temple,” 47–48. See Helen Rosenau, Vision of the Temple: The Image of
the Temple of Jerusalem in Judaism and Christianity (London: Oresko Books, 1979), 20–21,
for a comprehensive review of visual representations dating from the Bar Kochba revolt
of 132–135 CE to contemporary religious architecture.
38 Bar Kochba Revolt coinage was issued by the Judean rebel state, headed by Simon Bar
Kochba, during the Bar Kochba revolt against the Roman Empire of 132–135 CE.
39 Robert Ousterhout, “The Temple,” fig. 7, 48–49, notes that the Capernaum columns are
spiraled. This is often both in representations of the rotunda and the aedicula, due to the
tradition stating that the spiral columns of the shrine of Saint Peter in Rome originated
from the Temple of Jerusalem.
40 Vikan, Early Byzantine Pilgrimage Art; Cynthia Hahn, “Loca Sancta Souvenirs: Sealing the
Pilgrim’s Experience,” in Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. Robert Ousterhout (Urbana, Chicago,
IL: University of Illinois Press, 1990), 85–96.
Type and Archetype 181

Figure 6.11 Tetradrachm of Bar Kochba, undated issue, year 134/5 CE. Obverse:
representation of the Temple with the rising star
Photo: Public domain Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.
http://www.cngcoins.com [Accessed June 9, 2022]

were venerated as witnesses to holy persons and events.41 It is thus apparent

that the visual representations empowered with the credibility of the authen-
tic records of the holy events represented the true image of the holy buildings
in the human imagination.42 In view of this, it is not difficult to imagine that

41 Moore, The Architecture of the Christian Holy Land, 21–52, for a mechanism in symboliza-
tion; the Holy Land buildings as substitutes for the missing principal relics—the bodies
of Christ and the Virgin Mary. See also Ousterhout, “Loca Sancta,” 108–137, for a parallel
function of portable objects and architecture.
42 Slobodan Ćurčić, “Architecture as Icon,” in Architecture as Icon, ed. Slobodan Ćurčić (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 9–26, parallels the role of architectural representa-
tions with the images of saints depicted on icons as primary objects of religious venera-
tion and conduits to the heavenly domains.
182 Mihaljević

Figure 6.12 Synagogue, Dura-Europos, 3rd century. Torah Shrine

Photo: © Alamy
Type and Archetype 183

the shapes of the buildings that recalled the image of the Holy Sepulchre were
also informed by the iconographic elements perpetuated in art representa-
tions. Apparently, the physical appearance of these replicas was not exclusively
adjusted to some form of the factual knowledge of the inaccessible church but
frequently to the mental image promoted by long-lasting ‘authentic’ art (and
architectural) conceptions.43
Therefore, there is a possibility that the unusual design of the church of Nea
Moni stems from the circulating visual ideas that had been reassigned to the
church of the Holy Sepulchre from the older representational tradition related
to the Temple. In the particular case of Nea Moni, such an association affirms
that the ideological — imperial narrative recognized in its mosaic decoration
also informed the architecture of the church. Much in the same vein as Nea
Moni’s fresco decoration, the architectural features of the church were shaped
to convey the image of the devout emperor by highlighting his building enter-
prises, and presumably acclaiming his connection with Jerusalem’s holy sites.
It may also be reasonable to compare the emperor’s achievements with
the replicas of the Holy Sepulchre known from the Christian West. In schol-
arly discussions about the various motivations for the erection of these cop-
ies, the response to a pilgrimage is particularly pronounced.44 The recreation
of loca sancta comes either as a means of memorialization and recreation of
the visit to and impact of the holy place, or an enhancement to a pilgrimage
site. In addition, the funerary function of such replicas is also very frequent.
Both of the mentioned examples, the churches in Veljusa and Mouchliotissa,
were erected to shelter the tombs of their founders, which parallels Western
examples and justifies the connection of their features—double colonnettes
and the circular plan—to the church of the Holy Sepulchre.45 Among the rea-
sons stated for the erection of Holy Sepulchre replicas in the medieval West,
the closest in motivation to our example in Nea Moni are perhaps the round

43 Bogdanović, “The Rhetoric of Architecture,” 11–21, on the examples of famous Byzantine

descriptions of the Holy Sepulchre written by Patriarch Photios (9th c.) and Abbot
Daniel (12th c.) acknowledges the practice of ars memoriae, and proposes its critical role
both in forming the collective memory of the buildings and in their actual architectural
reconstructions.
44 Geneviève Bresc-Bautier, “La dévotion au Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem en Occident: imita-
tions, invocation, donations,” Cahiers de Saint-Michel de Cuxa 38 (2007), 95–106. See also
Ousterhout, “Loca Sancta,” 108–137.
45 Miljković-Pepek, Veljusa, 86, for Veljusa; Semavi Eyice, “Les églises byzantines à plan
central d’Istanbul,” Corso di cultura sulle’arte ravennate e byzantina 26 (1979), 115–149, for
Mouchliotissa.
184 Mihaljević

churches erected by various knightly orders as a signal of their intention to

protect and maintain the holy sites.46
Notwithstanding the different motivation for the erection of the church of
Nea Moni, a comparison with the devotional practices related to the Western
copies of the Sepulchre is not irrelevant. In addition, the mentioned particu-
larity of interior and exterior design is important.47 The dome, as an exterior,
public statement, not only manifestly recaptures the form of the Aedicula of
Christ but also, as in many Western replicas intended for or linked to a previ-
ous pilgrimage, Nea Moni’s interior could evoke in visitors to the church the
‘true experience’ of the sacred site as an involved participant. In securing the
potency of religious experience, the church’s interior created a physical set-
ting for the visitor’s active attendance, thus emphasizing the primary architec-
tural intention and reinforcing the desired ideological message. In this case,
the validity of architectural settings assured that the builder of Nea Moni was
legitimately lauded as the New Solomon.48
It has been noted that in such instances, the messages expressed by art and
architecture were fostered by an appropriate laudatory text. Because there is
no such text in the case of Nea Moni, the question remains as to whether the
concord of art and architectural settings of the church communicated the
idea of the Holy Sepulchre to contemporaries in a comprehensible manner.
Judging by the dissemination and diversity of the above-mentioned examples,
the answer is affirmative.
The same pattern can be recognized in architecture of Byzantine neigh-
bors. For instance, if we return to Armenian architecture, mentioned at the
beginning of this article, we will find an especially relevant contemporaneous
example. The church of Surb Prkitch in Ani (Holy Savior) was erected in 1035
by Prince Ablgharib Pahlavid to house a relic of the True Cross.49 Accordingly,
its design was clearly appropriated to evoke the Holy Sepulchre. The interior

46 Robert Ousterhout, “Loca Sancta,” 116–117.

47 Ćurčić, “Architecture as Icon,” 23–26, interprets the duality in the Byzantine understand-
ing of the architecture of the church building, where the beauty of the exterior allows for
its visual perception, in contrast to the beauty of the interior, which can only be compre-
hended spiritually.
48 Jaś Elsner, “The Rhetoric of Buildings in the De Aedificiis of Procopius,” in Art and Text
in Byzantium, ed. Liz James (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 33–57, esp.
39–49, for Procopius’s use of architectural descriptions as imperial panegyric. In his rhet-
oric, the buildings stand for and effectively endorse the virtues of the emperor.
49 Armen Kazaryan, İsmail Yavuz Özkaya, and Alin Pontioğlu, “The Church of Surb Prkich
in Ani (1035). Part 1: History and Historiography—Architectural Plan—Excavations of
2012 and Starting of Conservation,” Journal of the International Association of Research
in History of Art 0143 (15 November 2016), https://www.riha-journal.org/articles/2016
Type and Archetype 185

of the church is arranged as an octaconch with a large main apse (Figure 6.13).
Its exterior is almost round, rendered as a nineteen-sided polygon. It is sur-
mounted by an enormous, only slightly narrower, dome. Both exterior reg-
isters, the base and the drum of the dome, are decorated by arcades resting
on paired colonnettes (Figure 6.14).50 Moreover, the interior is articulated by
a row of non-structural columns placed in contact with the walls between
the apsidioles.
In terms of any of the common criteria of architectural typology, the two
churches, Nea Moni and the church of the Holy Savior, are apparently very dif-
ferent. Their plans, their architectural style, and their intended functions sig-
nificantly differ. If, however, we observe their architecture from a conceptual,
rather than typological, perspective, the proximity of architectural ideas is
striking. Both churches display an inclination toward the centrality of the inte-
rior, their domes are remarkably large, and the columns and colonnettes are
conspicuously present in the exterior and within the interior. In view of this,
it is striking that the previously mentioned, much smaller, Constantinopolitan
church of Mouchliotissa also incorporates all these elements: a central plan,
double colonnettes on the exterior of the dome, and the interior columns
placed in contact with the walls.51 All these elements, manifestly present in
our examples, the churches of Nea Moni and Surb Prkitch, suggest that the
church of Mouchliotissa (Theotokos Panaiotissa) was originally erected with
the intention to replicate the church of the Holy Sepulchre. Moreover, I would
argue that in all their aspects—the significant size of the dome, and the com-
parably structured interior with exposed columns—the churches of Nea Moni
and Surb Prkitch were actually inspired by the patterns known from the cir-
culating representations of the church of the Holy Sepulchre. Their architec-
ture, in effect, faithfully recollects the image of the huge domed and columned
church of the Holy Sepulchre nesting the similarly shaped Aedicula of Christ
that was already established in pilgrimage art (Figure 6.15).
It is clear that the architectural features of Nea Moni and other mentioned
churches reveal Byzantine architects to be capable of formally conceptualizing
and embedding architectural forms with highly sophisticated theological and
ontological ideas. The repeated conceptual similarity in all these instances,

/0143-kazaryan-ozkaya-pontioglu. Due to the possession of such an important devotional

object, the church became an important pilgrimage site.
50 From this, we may maintain the fact that doubled colonnettes are a common stylistic
feature in Armenian architecture. Yet our further analyses will open the question of their
conceptual derivation, and the possible meaning in their architectural appropriation.
51 Supra, n. 15. Today, only two of the columns, hidden by a modern iconostasis, are pre-
served in the church.
186 Mihaljević

Figure 6.13 Surb Prkitch, Ani, 11th century. Exterior, from the south
Photo: Marina Mihaljević
Type and Archetype 187

Figure 6.14 Surb Prkitch, Ani, 11th century. Interior from the southeast
Photo: Marina Mihaljević
188 Mihaljević

Figure 6.15 Pilgrim’s ampulla no. 18, reverse

Photo: © Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine Collection,
Washington, DC

despite their geographic, stylistic, and structural characteristics, certainly

brings to mind the idea of ‘type.’ If we acknowledge the potent role of archi-
tecture in the perpetuation of memoriae by its physical presence as well, our
examples radically change the perception of type in Byzantine architecture
as the synchronic, codified assembly of particular physical characteristics.
Notwithstanding their differences, our examples appear to be representatives
of a distinct ‘genre,’ one that cannot be delineated by chronological or geo-
graphical boundaries but is rather conceptualized around the meaningful con-
tent assigned to the elements of Byzantine architecture.
 Chapter 7

In Search of Archetype: Five-Domed Churches in

Middle and Later Byzantine Architecture

Ida Sinkević

Five-domed churches are a small but distinct group of edifices that were built
in Byzantium from at least the 6th century.1 They are found across the empire
and its borderlands, in the capital city of Constantinople as well as in remote
places in Greece, Italy, Russia, Serbia, and Armenia. Although only a few have
been preserved, they have been studied extensively by scholars. Significant
differences in their structural and compositional features, however, have pro-
voked a wide range of methodological approaches. A number of scholars have
recognized five-domed churches as a separate architectural type, and some
have even attempted to establish formal and structural criteria for their typo-
logical identification and evolution.2 Conversely, several scholars have pointed
out notable variations in the disposition of the domes, as well as in the plan-
ning and spatial articulation of these churches, concluding that they should be
studied as a part of general architectural and structural trends from a distinct

1 This study is a revised and expanded version of the paper presented at the 23rd International
Byzantine Studies Conference (Belgrade, Serbia, August 2016) in the session on Type and
Archetype in Byzantine Cultural Landscape. It builds upon my previous research published
in Ida Sinkević, The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi: Architecture, Programme, Patronage
(Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2000) and Ida Sinkević, “Formation of Sacred Space in Later Byzantine
Five-Domed Churches: A Hierotopic Approach,” in Hierotopy. The Creation of Sacred Spaces
in Byzantium and Medieval Russia, ed. Alexei Lidov (Moscow: Indrik, 2006), 260–276. I am
grateful to Professor Jelena Bogdanović, the co-chair of the session, for inviting me to partici-
pate and to Professor Diane Cole Ahl for her insightful comments and editorial remarks.
2 See Evangelia Hadžitrifonos, “Pristup tipologiji petokupolnih crkava u vizantijskoj arhitek-
turi” [Approaches to typology of five-domed churches in Byzantine architecture], Saopštenja
22/23 (1990–1991), 41–76; Stefanos Sinos, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira)
(Munich: Beck, 1985), 211–222; Horst Hallensleben, “Untersuchungen zur Genesis und
Typologie des ‘Mystratypus’,” Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 18 (1969), 105–118;
and Slobodan Nenadović, Bogorodica Ljeviška: njen postanak i njeno mesto u arhitekturi
Milutinovog vremena [The Mother of God Ljeviška: The origin and place in the architecture
of Milutin’s time] (Belgrade: Narodna knjiga, 1963), 119–135.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004537781_009

190 Sinkević

period and/or location. Thus the latter group has subordinated the presence of
domes to the overall architectural planning of edifices.3
This essay aims at approaching five-domed churches from a different per-
spective. Rather than seeing them as a complex organism of different formal
elements, an important point that earlier scholars have capably addressed,
I will examine five-domed churches through the lens of a Byzantine beholder.
In so doing, I will focus on the five-domed churches from the Middle and Late
Byzantine periods that feature four domed compartments symmetrically
placed around the cruciform core of the church.4 Similar in shape, size, and
exterior decoration, these subsidiary domes are in most instances the result of
the initial planning of a church and not an afterthought.5
Five-domed churches are visually striking. With all five domes projecting
upwards and outwards in balance, symmetry, and harmony, these edifices are
significantly different from other Byzantine churches. This distinction hardly
went unnoticed by contemporary Byzantine beholders; it seems almost certain
that they were already perceived as an individual type at that time. Moreover,
their multi-dome configuration likely suggested a symbolic meaning too, since
conceptual and metaphorical interpretations permeated Byzantine culture.
Firstly, five-domed churches evoked the idea of heaven on earth to the faithful.
They perpetuated the notion recorded in the writings of the early Christian
bishop and scholar Eusebius of Caesarea (c.260–340) that Christian worship in
an earthly church echoes the angelic worship in the heavenly temple.6 In addi-
tion, the presence of many domes could be associated with multiple churches
and ultimately connected to the Heavenly Jerusalem, the capital of the eternal

3 For a discussion and bibliography, see Slobodan Ćurčić, Architecture of the Balkans from
Diocletian to Süleyman the Magnificent (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2010),
273–275, 409–410, 645–646, 662–666.
4 Five-domed churches from earlier periods are mostly destroyed and known only from liter-
ary sources that are often ambiguous in discussing specific architectural features. Many of
these monuments, such as Justinian’s church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, dated
to the 6th century, appear to have exhibited subsidiary domes on the arms of the cross; see
Richard Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (4th ed. revised by Richard
Krautheimer and Slobodan Ćurčić) (New York: Yale University Press, 1986), 241–244. However,
the exact number of domes is somewhat problematic; see Ćurčić, Architecture of the Balkans,
200–201. For a discussion about typology of these early monuments, see Hadžitrifonos,
“Pristup tipologiji petokupolnih crkava,” 42–45.
5 The intentionality of planning, uniformity of shape, size, and decoration, as well as their
symmetrical disposition in relation to the central dome, separates five-domed churches from
other multi-domed edifices.
6 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2, trans. J.E.L. Oulton, Loeb Classical Library 265
(Cambridge, MA, 2000 [1932 edition]), 10.4.21–26; see also Allan Doig, Liturgy and Architecture:
From Early Church to Middle Ages (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008).
In Search of Archetype 191

Messianic Kingdom. As the eschatological city with a multitude of churches

and a place of perpetual liturgy, the Heavenly Jerusalem appears to be illus-
trated as a five-domed church in the frontispiece miniature of the 12th-century
Homilies of James Kokkinobaphos, Vat. gr. 1162, fol. 2v (Figure 7.1).7 Could a
concept, an association with Jerusalem, rather than a physical and/or material
object, represent a model, an archetype, for the five-domed church?
A more formal definition, generally accepted in architectural theory, main-
tains that each architectural type exhibits not only common characteristics
but also has a common model—an archetype—from which copies are made.8
Following that pattern, Middle Byzantine five-domed churches were believed
to have been related to the famous, albeit now lost, five-domed church, the
Nea Ekklesia, the New Church. Built in c.880 in close proximity to the impe-
rial palace in Constantinople, commissioned by the Byzantine emperor Basil I
(867–886), and glorified in texts, the Nea Ekklesia showcased a novel architec-
tural structure.9 According to a lengthy description of the church preserved
in an ekphrasis, the Vita Basilii (c.950),10 the Nea was a five-domed edifice
with a roof that “gleams with gold and is resplendent with beautiful images as
with stars, while on the outside it is adorned with brass that resembles gold.”11

7 For a discussion of the manuscript, see Alexei Lidov, “Heavenly Jerusalem: the Byzantine
Approach,” in Jewish Art 23/24, 1997/98, 341–353. The literature on the significance and
symbolic implication of the Holy City of Jerusalem is vast. Among more recent publi-
cations, see Maria Cristina Carile, The Vision of the Palace of the Byzantine Emperors as
a Heavenly Jerusalem (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo,
2012); J. Goudeau, M. Verhoeven, and W. Weijers, eds., Imagined and Real Jerusalem in Art
and Architecture (Leiden: Brill, 2014); Jelena Erdeljan, Chosen Places. Constructing New
Jerusalems in Slavia Orthodoxa (Leiden: Brill, 2017).
8 For a discussion and definition of terms (type, archetype, prototype, typology, etc.), I have
relied mostly on Paul-Alan Johnson, The Theory of Architecture: Concepts, Themes, and
Practices (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1994), 288–292. Definitions, however, vary
throughout history. See Jelena Bogdanović, “Rethinking the Dionysian Legacy in Medieval
Architecture: East and West,” in Filip Ivanović, ed., Dionysius the Areopagite: Between
Orthodoxy and Heresy (Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2011), 109–134; Rafael
Moneo, “On Typology,” Oppositions 13 (1978), 23–45; Anthony Vidler, “The Idea of Type:
The Transformation of the Academic Ideal: 1750–1830,” Oppositions 8 (1977), 95–115.
9 Ćurčić, Architecture of the Balkans, 273–275; Robert Ousterhout, Master Builders in
Byzantium (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 36–37; and Paul Magdalino,
“Observations on the Nea Ekklesia of Basil I,” JÖB 37 (1987), 51–63.
10 The text was believed to have been written by Constantine VII; see Theophanes
Continuatus, ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn: Weber, 1838), 211–355, esp. 325–327; trans. in
Cyril Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–1453: Sources and Documents (Engelwood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972), 192–193.
11 Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 194. For later medieval descriptions, see
George P. Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
192 Sinkević

Figure 7.1 Homilies of James Kokkinobaphos, Vat. gr. 1162, fol. 2v, 12th century
Photo: © Universal History Archive/UIG/Bridgeman Images
In Search of Archetype 193

Each of the domed chapels had a separate dedication: to Christ, the Archangel
Gabriel, the Prophet Elijah, the Virgin and Saint Nicholas. Multiple dedications
recall multiple churches and ultimately a resonant archetypal memory of the
Heavenly Jerusalem.
The original appearance of the lost church is recorded in a few summary
drawings; its five-domed composition has been compared to another early
post-iconoclastic church in the capital, the North Church of Constantine Lips
also known as the Fenari Isa Camii (10th century).12 It has also been suggested
that the Nea featured a cross-domed plan, although the presence of such plan-
ning is ambiguous in the textual evidence.13 The church of Constantine Lips,
which was also five-domed and may have been influenced by the Nea, was a
two-storied, cross-in-square building with four lateral domes crowning the
upper-level chapels and symmetrically disposed around the central dome.14
In addition to influencing the churches of the capital, the Nea has also been
identified as a model for a new type of five-domed church that appeared on
the periphery of the empire. Paul Magdalino’s seminal study on the meaning
and significance of this church argues convincingly that the Nea was singled
out for its imperial connotations.15 As a foundation of Basil I, its consecration
ceremony was appropriated to honor him. Moreover, the selection of relics
kept in the church revealed Basil’s wish to be associated both with the first
Christian emperor, Constantine I, and with the Old Testament King Solomon.
Furthermore, Magdalino brought to our attention the importance of the num-
ber five in the symbolic interpretation of the monument. The five dedica-
tions of the five domes might have been introduced to underscore the idea of
ecclesiastic pentarchy: the ecclesiastic and political ambitions to unify the five
patriarchates of the church after the Iconoclasm. As stated by Magdalino, “its

Centuries (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1984), 37,
247; and Anthony of Novgorod, in Sofija Khitrovo, Itinéraires russes en Orient (Geneva:
Fick, 1889), 98–102.
12 For a discussion and bibliography, see Ćurčić, Architecture of the Balkans, 273–275.
13 A reconstruction of the Nea as a ‘cross-domed’ type church with four, symmetrically
placed corner domed compartments had been proposed by Ćurčić in 1980 and repeated
in his monumental study on the architecture of the Balkans. See Slobodan Ćurčić,
“Architectural Reconsideration of the Nea Ekklesia,” Byzantine Studies Conference
Abstracts 6 (1980), 11–12; and Ćurčić, Architecture of the Balkans, 274–275; 854–55, n. 37.
For a more tentative reconstruction and a brief but useful discussion about Byzantine
texts as a source for understanding buildings (with bibliography), see Ousterhout, Master
Builders, 35–37 (especially n. 47).
14 Ćurčić, Architecture of the Balkans, 274–275.
15 Magdalino, “Observations on the Nea Ekklesia,” 51–63.
194 Sinkević

five gleaming domes were a visible expression of the ecumenical concord that
the council of 879 was called to restore.”16
All of these concepts seemingly contributed to the perception and the
reception of this monument throughout the empire and its borderland. The
Nea was considered an icon of imperial power which was copied and repeated
in a variety of ways in provincial settings. It may also have served as a model
for Middle Byzantine five-domed churches as discussed above. However, if
we define archetype as “the original pattern from which copies are made,” as
has been done in contemporary theory of architecture, the Nea would hardly
pass the test.17 This is apparent when we consider, for example, the two most
prominent Middle Byzantine five-domed churches which reflect close associa-
tions with the capital due to their imperial patronage, the church of the Virgin
Kosmosoteira in Pherrai (1152) in Western Thrace, founded by Isaak Komnenos
(Figure 7.2), and the church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi (1164) in North
Macedonia, commissioned by Alexios Angelos Komnenos (Figure 7.3).18 Both
churches are in a provincial location, both were commissioned by a member
of the imperial family, both are five-domed, and both are the main church or
katholikon of their respective monasteries. However, with regard to their size,
architectural planning, decoration, and spatial articulation, the two churches
are significantly different. To start with, the church at Pherrai, measuring
18.5 × 23.5 meters, is much larger than Nerezi (9.5 × 16 meters). The large size
and the system of proportions of the Pherrai church reveal Constantinopolitan
building practices of the time. A close architectural relationship between the
church at Pherrai and the buildings of the capital is also seen, for example, in
the scalloping shape of the interior of the domes, in the use of brick, and in the
large, high-shouldered triple windows.19 Quite the opposite of Pherrai, while
also exhibiting five domes, Nerezi is small and reveals an archaic planning for-
mula with full walls separating western chapels from the naos (Figure 7.4).20
The five-domed churches from the later Byzantine periods have even
less in common with the Nea. The planning and spatial articulation of the
interior of these churches represent a striking departure from the Middle
Byzantine monuments, as will be discussed later in this paper. Their outside

16 Magdalino, “Observations on the Nea Ekklesia,” 57.

17 Johnson, The Theory of Architecture, 288–292.
18 For Nerezi, see Sinkević, The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi. For Kosmosoteira, see
Sinos, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira) and Ousterhout, Master Builders,
122–126.
19 Discussed by Ćurčić, Architecture of the Balkans, 408–409.
20 For a discussion of the architectural features of Nerezi, see Sinkević, The Church of
St. Panteleimon at Nerezi, especially pp. 11–16.
In Search of Archetype 195

Figure 7.2 Church of the Virgin Kosmosoteira, Pherrai, 1152, southwest view
Photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monastery
_of_Panagia_Kosmosotira,_Ferres,_Evros.JPG [Accessed June 6, 2022]

Figure 7.3 Church of St. Panteleimon, Nerezi, 1164, south view

Photo: Ida Sinkević
196 Sinkević

Figure 7.4 Church of St. Panteleimon, Nerezi, 1164, floor plan

DRAWING: Ida Sinkević
In Search of Archetype 197

appearance, such as the verticality of the composition of exterior forms exhib-

ited in the 14th-century church of the Dormition of the Virgin, the katholikon
of the Gračanica monastery and the sense of squeezed domes apparent in the
14th-century church of the Virgin of Ljeviška, Prizren (see Figure 7.7),21 reflects
a complex set of circumstances that includes the individual desires of the
patron, limitations imposed by the topography of the site itself, and a vari-
ety of functional concerns. Moreover, the connection with the capital is also
tenuous since, despite the popularity of the Nea, very few imperial churches in
Constantinople were in fact five-domed.22
In my view, the establishment of a common denominator that brings
these five-domed churches into a coherent group goes beyond any systematic
examination of individual formal, aesthetic, and structural elements. Rather
it requires an investigation into the ways in which the domes were perceived
by a contemporary beholder. When Byzantines looked at the dome(s), they
were unlikely to have thought of structural elements, pendentives, systems of
proportions, laws of statics, or any other formal and/or structural concerns.
Symbolically, however, a dome was more than a ‘pile of bricks,’ as it recalled
the image of Christ, the ruler, the judge, and/or benefactor of all mankind, as
well as a plethora of dogmatic messages embellishing the domical vault. The
synergistic effect of the physical shape of the dome and its metaphysical con-
tent perpetually evoked the cosmic dimension and reverberated with spiritual
messages. Thus, rather than providing an artificial division between form and
content, I propose to examine the relationship between architectural articula-
tion and painted decoration of domes in five-domed churches.
Over a decade ago, in an article that surveyed the decoration of five-domed
churches, I looked into the role of the five domes in the formation of sacred
space in Middle and Late Byzantine churches.23 My investigation focused on
the selection of images displayed in subsidiary domes and their relationship
to the program of the central dome. I concluded that the repertory of images

21 Both Gračanica monastery and the church of the Virgin of Ljeviška are located in the
disputed territory of Kosovo. Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in
2008, but international recognition of Kosovo has been mixed and the international com-
munity continues to be divided on the issue. The Republic of Serbia continues to view
Kosovo (which it refers to as Kosovo and Metohija) as part of its territory, but it has no de
facto rule in the province, which is protected by the United Nations peacekeeping force
(UNMIK).
22 Ousterhout, Master Builders, 26–38, draws the same conclusion regarding cross-in-square
churches, which were commonly associated with imperial patronage. Yet there were
many other church types commissioned by members of the royal family.
23 See Sinkević, “Formation of Sacred Space in Later Byzantine Five-Domed Churches,”
260–276.
198 Sinkević

Figure 7.5 Church of St. Panteleimon, Nerezi, 1164, southeast dome, fresco, Ancient of Days
Photo: Ida Sinkević

in subsidiary domes expands and/or repeats those in the central dome, that
domical vaults of five-domed churches display a very similar program to those
seen in single and other multi-domed churches, and that the uppermost level
of five-domed churches displays a significant programmatic connection to the
central dome, thus expanding the uppermost horizontal stratum of the church.
Traditionally, the program of subsidiary domes has been studied only in
relation to the images below. This vertical connection, while important, fos-
tered the idea of spatial segregation. However, the fusion of carefully planned,
symmetrically articulated, and stylistically unified features of the exterior of
domes suggests that a parallel synthesis likely occurred in their interior deco-
ration as well. Embraced in this carefully designed harmony of a painted image
and its architectural setting, the Byzantine beholder was comforted and led
into the world of sacred messages. This is evident in both Nerezi and Pherrai.
The subsidiary domes at Nerezi display four images of Christ: as Emmanuel; as
the Ancient of Days (Figure 7.5); as Priest (Figure 7.6); and as a mature man.
Images of angels are represented in all four drums. The central dome has been
repainted but, judging by iconographic practices of the time, likely exhibited
Christ Pantokrator.24 The images of Christ in subsidiary domes at Nerezi are

24 Sinkević, The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi, 39–44.

In Search of Archetype 199

Figure 7.6 Church of St. Panteleimon, Nerezi, 1164, southwest dome, fresco, Christ Priest
Photo: Ida Sinkević

symbolic of the Incarnation (Emmanuel); the terrestrial life of Christ, which

embodies His suffering (mature man, Pantokrator); His victory over death (as
the Ancient of Days); and His priesthood. The image of Christ Priest empha-
sizes Christ’s role as the one who established the sacrament of the Eucharist,
who officiates as heavenly priest, and whose actions are recreated in the ter-
restrial rite. The symbolic meaning of these images is also recollected in the
secret prayer recited by a priest while the choir sings the Cherubikon, a hymn
commonly sung at the Great Entrance during the Eucharistic liturgy. It reads:

Nevertheless, through Thine unspeakable and boundless love for man-

kind, Thou didst become man, yet without change or alteration, and as
Ruler of All didst become our High Priest, and didst commit to us the
ministry of this liturgical and bloodless sacrifice. For Thou alone, O Lord
our God, rulest over those in Heaven and on earth; who are borne on the
throne of the Cherubim.25

25 C.E. Hammond, Liturgies Eastern and Western, ed. F.E. Brightman, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1965),
377, 15–25; translated in The Orthodox Liturgy, 107–108; cited in Sinkević, The Church of
St. Panteleimon at Nerezi, 42.
200 Sinkević

The prayer recollects the terrestrial life of Christ, referring to the main stages of
His life, and includes the importance of His function as a priest in the economy
of human salvation. Thus it expresses in text the same messages that are visu-
ally connected through the images in the domical vaults at Nerezi.
Similar messages are also displayed in the domes at Pherrai, with the
Pantokrator in the central dome, archangels hovering over the eastern chapels
and the Virgin and a mature Christ topping the western domes. And so in both
the Nerezi and Pherrai churches the images of the subsidiary domes closely
connect to the program of the central dome.26 Despite the architectural differ-
ences noted above, these two churches display similar selections of images in
their domical vaults. It is also important to note that the selection of images
and the messages of the program in the subsidiary domes of Nerezi and Pherrai
compare closely to the iconography of central domes of 11th- and 12th-century
churches in other regions of the empire, such as Macedonia, Cyprus, and
Russia.27 For example, in the 11th-century Virgin of Eleousa at Veljusa near
Strumica (North Macedonia), a small, domed quatrefoil church with a domed
narthex and a domed subsidiary chapel, the central dome reveals the image of
the Pantokrator surrounded by the Virgin and archangels, as seen in the domes
at Pherrai. Its subsidiary domes feature images of Emmanuel and the Ancient
of Days as at Nerezi.28
A very similar iconographic arrangement to that of Nerezi is seen later in
the early 14th-century church of the Virgin of Ljeviška (1306/1307) in Kosovo.29
The Virgin of Ljeviška is a transitional monument which both iconographi-
cally and architecturally provides a link between the Middle Byzantine and
Palaeologan periods (Figure 7.7). It is also one of the earliest five-domed
churches in which the program has been preserved in both the central
and subsidiary domes. The decoration of the central dome at Ljeviška dis-
plays the image of the Pantokrator surrounded by angels; prophets are
depicted in the drum and evangelists in the pendentives. In the summit of

26 Sinkević, “Formation of Sacred Space,” 265–267.

27 For a discussion about programs in the domes, see Sinkević, “Formation of Sacred Space,”
265–267. See also Nikolaos Gkioles, O Byzantinos Troulos kai to eikonografiko tou pro-
gramma [On the Byzantine dome and the iconography of its program] (Athens: Ekdoseis
Kardamitsa, 1990); and Annemarie Weyl Carr, “The Thirteenth-Century Murals of Lysi,”
in A Byzantine Masterpiece Recovered: the Thirteenth-Century Murals of Lysi, Cyprus, ed.
Annemarie Weyl Carr and Laurence J. Morrocco (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991),
15–113; and Tania Velmans, “Quelques programmes iconographiques de coupoles chypri-
otes du XIIe au XVe siècle,” Cahiers archéologiques 32 (1984), 137–162.
28 Petar Miljković-Pepek, Veljusa (Skopje: Filozofski fakultet, 1981), 192–196, 204–206.
29 Draga Panić and Gordana Babić, Bogorodica Ljeviška [The Mother of God Ljeviška]
(Belgrade: Srpska književna zadruga, 1975).
In Search of Archetype 201

Figure 7.7 Church of the Virgin of Ljeviška, 1306/1307, floor plan

Drawing: After Ćurčić, Gračanica: King Milutin’s Church, fig. 101D
202 Sinkević

the subsidiary domes, one finds four medallions of Christ—as Emmanuel,

the Ancient of Days, Christ Priest, and an image of the mature Christ that
resembles the Pantokrator—thus recalling the iconography of subsidiary
domes seen in the Middle Byzantine church of Nerezi. As discussed earlier,
the images of Christ in the subsidiary domes are connected to the central dome
in that they expand upon the meaning and significance of the centrally located
Pantokrator. The connection between the central and subsidiary domes of the
church of the Virgin of Ljeviška is further strengthened by the portrayal of
prophets in the side domes. They extend a procession represented in the drum
of the central dome.30
Architecturally, the church of the Virgin at Ljeviška displays subsidiary
domes squeezed between the arms of the cross of the naos, as seen in Middle
Byzantine churches (figs. 4, 7).31 Departing from earlier tradition, at Ljeviška
one observes the development of additional spaces that envelop the cruciform
core of the church. Known as narthexes, ambulatory wings, and peristöon, these
additional spaces became an integral component of five-domed churches in
Palaeologan times.32 However, during this period, the subsidiary domes in
five-domed churches migrated to the outermost compartments of the edi-
fice, as seen in the church of the Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki (1310–1314) and
at Gračanica (1318–1321).33 In the Palaeologan period, the auxiliary domes at
the outermost compartment of the edifice are associated with three types of
church plan. They are seen in churches with additional components envelop-
ing the naos, such as at Gračanica (Figure 7.8), in churches of tri-conchal plan
mostly located on Mount Athos and in Serbia, such as Manasija, and in several
churches at Mystras that display a basilican plan in the lower part of the build-
ing and cross-in-square on the upper story, as seen in Aphendiko (c.1310) and
Pantanassa (consecrated in 1428).34

30 Sinkević, “Formation of Sacred Space in Later Byzantine Five-Domed Churches,” 268.

31 For a discussion, see Slobodan Ćurčić, Gračanica. Istorija i arhitektura [Gračanica. History
and architecture] (Belgrade: Cicero, 1999), 95–129; also available in English, Slobodan
Ćurčić, Gračanica: King Milutin’s Church and Its Place in Late Byzantine Architecture
(University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1979), 70–90. See also
Nenadović, Bogorodica Ljeviška.
32 For the genesis of late Byzantine architecture see Ćurčić, Gračanica: King Milutin’s
Church, 70–90. For a discussion of terminology, see Evangelia Hadjitryphonos, “Peristöon
or Ambulatory in Byzantine Church Architecture,” Saopstenja 34 (2002), 131–145.
33 For Holy Apostles, see Marcus Rautman, “The Church of Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki: A
Study in Early Palaeologan Architecture,” (PhD diss., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN,
1984), 20–27; see also Ćurčić, Gračanica: King Milutin’s Church, 85–90, figs. 9–11, 101.
34 For Gračanica, see Ćurčić, Gračanica: King Milutin’s Church, 31–70; for the five-domed
churches of tri-conchal plan, see Vojislav Korać and Marica Šuput, Arhitektura vizantijskog
In Search of Archetype 203

Figure 7.8 Church of the Mother of God, Gračanica monastery, 1321, floor plan
DRAWING: After Ćurčić, Gračanica: King Milutin’s Church, fig. 101F

In all three types of church, subsidiary domes are placed far away from the cen-
tral dome and pulled to the extreme corners of the building, quite unlike their
Middle Byzantine predecessors which exhibit a close structural relationship
between side domes and the central dome. Indeed, in five-domed churches
that resemble the plan of Gračanica, the domes are completely disassociated

sveta [Architecture of the Byzantine world] (Belgrade: Vizantološki institut, SANU, 1998),
357–399; for Mystras, see Hallensleben, “Untersuchungen zur Genesis und Typologie des
‘Mistratipus’,” 105–118. See also Sinkević, “Formation of Sacred Space in Later Byzantine
Five-Domed Chruches,” 268–270.
204 Sinkević

from the naos, since they cover the chapels on the east side and the narthex
on the west.35
However, the 12th-century repertory of images, with the Pantokrator almost
invariably represented in the central dome and images of the Virgin, Christ,
and angels in subsidiary domes, has commonly been retained in these later
monuments. For example, the images of Christ, seen in western subsidiary
domes of the Holy Apostles, and the appearance of archangels, the Ancient
of Days, Emmanuel, and the Virgin in the 14th-century Ravanica Monastery
in Serbia recall similar selections of images at Nerezi, Pherrai and the church
of the Virgin of Ljeviška.36 Thus, despite their physical distance, the pro-
grammatic unity of a select repertory of images encircled in medallions in
five-domed churches reserved exclusively for domical vaults was retained in
the Palaeologan period.
At this time, a new theme was introduced in the central dome: the Divine
Liturgy. And with this introduction, the liturgical tendencies evident in many
12th-century domes were fully realized. Following the concept that the terres-
trial rite is but a mirror image of the rite performed in the heavenly sphere,
the Divine Liturgy is the celestial equivalent of the liturgical procession of the
Great Entry.37 Christ is shown as heavenly priest celebrating the liturgy with a
host of His heavenly associates, the angels who approach Him in procession, as
the deacons approach the minister in the terrestrial rite. They are sometimes
dressed in imperial garb as seen in the early rendition of the theme in the kath­
olikon of the Panagia Olympiotissa Monastery in Elassona, Greece (14th cen-
tury), or shown wearing the robes of deacons, and carrying a large variety
of liturgical vessels and implements, such as candles, fans, and Eucharistic
bread and wine, as seen at Gračanica (Figure 7.9).38 The presence of the altar

35 For a discussion, see Ćurčić, Gračanica: King Milutin’s Church, 70–80.

36 For Holy Apostles, see Christine Stephan, Ein byzantinisches Bildensemble: Die Mosaiken
und Fresken der Apostolkirche zu Thessaloniki (Worms: Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft,
1986) and Andreas Xyngopoulos, “Les fresques de l’église des Sts. Apôtres à Thessalonique,”
in Art et société a byzance sous les Paléologues: Actes du Colloque de Venise, Septembre 1968
(Venice: Institut hellénique d’études byzantines et post-byzantines, 1971), 83–89. For
Ravanica, see Vojislav J. Djurić, “Ravanički živopis i liturgija” [The murals and liturgy of
Ravanica], in Manastir Ravanica—spomenica o šestoj stogodišnjici, ed. Branislav Živkovic
(Belgrade: Izdanje Manastira Ravanice, 1981), 60–75.
37 On the Divine Liturgy, see Ashton L. Townsley, “Eucharistic Doctrine and the Liturgy
in Late Byzantine Painting,” Oriens christianus 58 (1974), 58–61 and Ioan D. Stefanescu,
L’illustration des liturgies dans l’art de Byzance et de l’Orient (Brussels: Institut de philolo-
gie et d’histoire orientales, 1932).
38 Efthalia C. Constantinides, The Wall Paintings of the Panagia Olympiotissa, 2 vols. (Athens:
Canadian Institute of Archeology in Athens, 1992), vol. 2, plates 6–13. Branislav Todić,
In Search of Archetype 205

Figure 7.9 Church of the Mother of God, Gračanica monastery, 1321, central dome,
interior view
Photo: Courtesy BLAGO Fund, Inc.

signifies Christ’s ministry as well as His sacrifice. Sacrificial aspects are par-
ticularly emphasized at Gračanica by the presence of two altars, one of which
displays Christ as Eucharistic host. Like the deacons in the terrestrial rite, the
angels are approaching the altar in a ceremonial motion. While specific icono-
graphic elements vary from one church to another, the parallelism between
terrestrial and celestial liturgies remains a standard feature.
The presence of the Divine Liturgy in the dome alludes to Christ’s incarna-
tion and explains the secrets of mystical re-enactment of His sacrifice in the

Gračanica. Slikarstvo [Gračanica, Painting] (Pristina: Muzej u Prištini, 1999), 138–140;

figs. 6–25.
206 Sinkević

liturgy. Thus the concepts of incarnation, salvation, divine and human nature,
and the priesthood of Christ, implied in the images displayed traditionally in
subsidiary domes, are encompassed in the new scene surrounding the image
of the Pantokrator in the central dome. As a result, the space of the subsidiary
domes was opened for iconographic innovations.
For example, at Gračanica and in St. George church at Staro Nagoričino
(North Macedonia) we see the images of the evangelists in the summit of sub-
sidiary domes (Figures 7.10 and 7.11). The evangelists, like the other images
seen in the domes, testify to Christ’s incarnation as they were witnesses of
His epiphany, His life, and His salvific mission. Iconographically, they were no
strangers to the decoration of domical vaults. We see them already, in their
symbolic guise, in Early Byzantine churches, such as the Mausoleum of Galla
Placidia (c.430–450) and in the Archbishop’s Chapel (Cappella Arcivescovile,
494–519) in Ravenna. In later Byzantine monuments, the images of evange-
lists are allocated to pendentives, supporting the heavenly realm of the church,
that is to say its central dome, both physically and symbolically. However, in
single-domed churches, they appear sporadically in the central dome, as seen,
for example, in the late 10th- to early 11th-century church of the Metamorphosis
at Koropi in Greece. Therefore, the presence of evangelists in subsidiary domes
is by no means surprising, since they harmonize thematically with the con-
cepts presented in the central dome.
This programmatic unity of the uppermost level of five-domed churches
was seemingly intended to overcome architectural barriers and emphasize the
omnipresence of Christ throughout the entire space of the edifice. It appears
that at least conceptually, if not physically, to the mind of Byzantine beholders,
the church evoked a unified sphere, a huge domed interior with the image of
Christ in its center, His various functions in concentric circles, and evangelists
at the corners, as seen at Gračanica. Revealed in a diagram-like manner, such
a composition is apparent in the preface miniature of the Gospel Book, MS
E.D. Clarke 10, f. 2v from the Bodleian Library, Oxford (Figure 7.12).
The emphasis upon placing side domes at the outermost corners of the
buildings, seen in both Middle Byzantine and Palaeologan five-domed
churches, may be explained as a formal and structural concern. After all, espe-
cially in Palaeologan architecture, the domed compartments are small and
high, and the domes themselves are remote. The images within these domes
are often obscured by light and very difficult to see. Essentially, their accessibil-
ity is predicated mostly on the faith of the beholder. However, very few, if any,
compositional elements in Byzantium, architectural or decorative, express
purely formal and aesthetic concerns. Rather, the placement of subsidiary
domes at the outermost corners of the building, along with a clearly expressed
 In Search of Archetype

Figure 7.10 Church of the Mother of God, Gračanica monastery, 1321, fresco, Evangelist John,
southeast dome
207

Photo: Courtesy BLAGO Fund, Inc.

208 Sinkević

Figure 7.11 Church of the Mother of God, Gračanica monastery, 1321, fresco, Evangelist
Luke, northeast dome
Photo: Courtesy BLAGO Fund, Inc.

programmatic unity of the images in the domes, suggests that the five domes
are not to be viewed as five isolated segments of heaven but as a single unit,
for there is only one celestial sphere and it is not fragmented. Thus, rather than
copying one or any specific edifice as a model, the five-domed churches reflect
the prototype of a dome, domical vault, or a heavenly canopy.39

39 The connotations of canopy as an architectural type are explored in this volume by Jelena
Bogdanović. See also Jelena Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred Space: The Canopy and the
Byzantine Church (New York, 2017).
In Search of Archetype 209

Figure 7.12 Gospel Book, MS E.D. Clarke 10, f. 2v, 11th century, Oxford, Bodleian Library
Photo: © Bodleian Library Oxford
 Chapter 8

The Canopy as ‘Primitive Hut’ in Byzantine

Architecture

Jelena Bogdanović

One of the central ‘type and archetype’ concepts in architectural theory and
practice is the primitive hut, the first, essential, and original architectural unit.
The primitive hut, as both an intellectual exercise and a design principle in
architecture, has been utilized when addressing the fundamental relationship
between architecture and nature, for devising architectural typology, and for
organizing architectural knowledge.1 It continues to be discussed in architec-
tural practice. First outlined by Vitruvius, a Roman architect and engineer in the
1st century BCE, the paradigm of the ancient wooden hut has, since its incep-
tion, been both a historical and a theoretical principle.2 Most likely influenced
by ancient Greek philosophers who reasoned about the arts of humankind,
Vitruvius presented the ‘hut,’ within the context of the origin and invention of
architecture, as the first building, a model for architecture that could be passed
on through generations, a model deeply rooted in nature and its primordial
first principles (earth, air, fire, and water).3 These first principles—attributed
to the Pythagoreans and summarized by Empedocles and Aristotle—defined
a holistic system to explain and utilize the properties of both animate and
inanimate objects and a variety of phenomena in the Aristotelian universe
which included both the terrestrial and celestial domains.4 Vitruvius applied
this philosophical system to architecture, and in particular to building mate-
rials, masonry, and building types, as well as their fitting properties.5 He

1 On the role of type in ideation design practices, see Joori Suh, “An Interactive Generative
Abstraction System for the Archetype-Based Pre-Ideation Process (IGATY),” Design Science 3,
e9 (2017), 1–30, with extensive bibliographical references on scholarship about type and
archetype.
2 Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, trans. Ingrid D. Rowland, commentary and illustrations
Thomas Noble Howe, with additional commentary by Ingrid D. Rowland and Michael J. Dewar
(Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), bk. 2, chaps. 1–2.
3 Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, bk. 2, chap. 2.
4 Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, bk. 2, chap. 2, with additional commentaries by Rowland
and Dewar on pp. 173–178.
5 Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, bk. 2, chap. 2, discusses the composition of the building
materials and ratios of first elements within them, as well as the presence or absence of the
elements, and explains physical properties such as hardness, moistness, or temperature.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004537781_010

The Canopy as ‘ Primitive Hut ’ in Byzantine Architecture 211

then expanded upon related properties of an architectural construction at a

given locale topographically, environmentally, and culturally. Vitruvius’s hut,
therefore, elevated the role of architecture beyond shelter to that of a powerful
mediator between humankind and nature. The hut simultaneously framed a
theoretical investigation on the purpose of architecture as a discipline.
Scholarship on the primitive hut usually picks up on Vitruvius’s text and its
reception in the rationalist philosophy of the Enlightenment.6 The primitive
hut was theorized by Marc-Antoine Laugier in the 18th century as a rational
and honest expression of structure. He argued for the primitive hut, which he
calls the ‘rustic hut,’ as a means for moving away from representational quali-
ties and superfluous stylistic features in architecture. Laugier’s critical Essai
sur l’architecture, in its second edition in 1755, presented the much reproduced
and discussed allegorical engraving of the Vitruvian hut.7 This edition of the
essay also initiated positivistic studies of typology in architecture that reflect
the rational order of nature. The frontispiece of Laugier’s text, illustrated by
Charles Eisen, effectively summarized the idea of the hut in architecture. In
a bucolic, Arcadian setting, architecture, depicted as a young woman, leans
against the broken pieces of a stylized Hellenistic pediment and Ionic capital.
Inspired by her creative muse, here represented by a childish putto, she points
to the wooden hut as the essence of architecture that grows in harmony with
nature (Figure. 8.1). At the time Laugier wrote his radical piece, he was dis-
gruntled by the failures of Baroque and Neoclassical architecture because, he
argued, they focused on architectural surface and its representation. His return
to the notion of the primitive hut was a revolutionary call to go back to the ori-
gins and essence of architecture. The origin of each architectural element was
in nature; the architectural structures comprised of such elements ultimately
resulted from nature and its ordering.8 Hence the primitive hut came to be
understood not necessarily as a historical example—a specific building
open to empirical and archaeological scrutiny—but rather as a quasi-natural

6 Marc-Antoine Laugier, An Essay on Architecture (Los Angeles: Hennessey and Ingalls, [2009]
1977), translation of the original text Marc-Antoine Laugier, Essai sur l’architecture (Paris:
Duchesne, 1755). Among critical texts on type and typology in theory of architecture as related
to the idea of the hut are the 1962 essay by Argan reproduced in Gulio Carlo Argan, “On the
Typology of Architecture,” in Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, ed. Kate Nesbitt (New
York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), 242–246; Anthony Vidler, “The Third Typology,”
Oppositions 7 (1977), 13–16; Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture:
An Inquiry into the Nature of Architectural Form,” (PhD diss., Zurich ETH, 1995). See also
Richard Weston, 100 Ideas that Changed Architecture (London: Lawrence King Publishers,
[2015] 2011), sv. “hut” on p. 79; “type” on p. 175; Paul-Alan Johnson, The Theory of Architecture:
Concepts, Themes, and Practices (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1994), 288–295.
7 Laugier, Essai sur l’architecture.
8 Vidler, The Third Typology, 13–16; Madrazo, “The Concept of Type,” 36, 81–82, 172–176.
212 Bogdanović

Figure 8.1 Primitive hut, engraving, Charles Eisen, frontispiece of Marc-Antoine

Laugier, Essai sur l’architecture, 2nd ed., 1755
Photo: Public domain image from DOME, digitized
content from the MIT Libraries’ collections,
dome.mit.edu [Accessed June 3, 2022]
The Canopy as ‘ Primitive Hut ’ in Byzantine Architecture 213

structure made of four tree trunks growing to a roughly rectangular plan, with
logs for lintels and branches for an elementary pitched roof. The hut conveys
the generic idea of architecture as the first human-made shelter and basic spa-
tial unit, which can be creatively recreated as an architectural principle of a
functional and formally sound structure.
In the 19th century, Quatremère’s threefold model of the hut, tent, and cave
further elaborated on Vitruvius’s wooden hut as a sensible model, or a pro-
totype, and a fundamental principle inherent to both natural forms and art
forms derived from nature.9 Quatremère’s elaboration of the architectural type
based on the hut, tent, and cave pointed to a diverse cultural understanding
of architecture closely associated with climate, location, and economy, while
additionally offering itself to typological studies in architecture.10 Type, more
an idea than a physical model, became a creative theme, conceptual space,
and a process in architectural design. As such, it allowed for a broader under-
standing of typology in architectural design. Architects and architectural
theorists Anthony Vidler and Leandro Madrazo subsequently even pro-
posed a search for “progressive forms” of community generated by its built
environment.11
Yet the majority of scholars rarely consider architectural type—particularly
the origins and reception of Vitruvius’s concept in architectural thought in
religious contexts. An exception to this is Joseph Rykwert, who does so in
meaningful and much-needed detail. He traces the primitive hut back to the
Old Testament narrative of the paradisiac house in his seminal text On Adam’s
House in Paradise.12 In the process, he highlights how intentionality and

9 Madrazo, “The Concept of Type,” 179–202; Werner Oechslin, “Premises for the Resumption
of the Discussion of Typology,” Assemblage 1 (1986), 36–53.
10 Madrazo, “The Concept of Type,” 179–202; Oechslin, “Premises,” 36–53; Jonathan Noble,
“The Architectural Typology of Antoine Chrysostome Quatremère de Quincy (1755–1849),”
Edinburgh Architectural Research 27 (2000), 145–159.
11 Vidler, The Third Typology, 13–16, on p. 13 calls this paradigm in the work of Le Corbusier
the “second typology.” See also Madrazo, “The Concept of Type,” 316–323 and Leandro
Madrazo, “Durand and the Science of Architecture,” Journal of Architectural Education 48,
no. 1 (1994), 12–24, where he highlights the relevance of typological methods for episte-
mology of architecture.
12 Joseph Rykwert, On Adam’s House in Paradise: The Idea of the Primitive Hut in Architectural
History (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1972). See also Michael W. Meister and Joseph
Rykwert, “Afterword: Adam’s House and Hermit’s Huts: A Conversation” in Ananda
K. Coomaraswamy, Michael W. Meister, and Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts,
Ananda K. Coomaraswamy: Essays in Early Indian Architecture (New Delhi: Indira Gandhi
National Centre for the Arts, 1992), 125–131, where Rykwert further elaborates on the hut
as a principle for justification of design and conceptual form-giving element in architec-
ture. I thank Tracy Miller for calling my attention to this text.
214 Bogdanović

metaphor are inherent in architecture. In his summary of Gothic church archi-

tecture, he describes it as a kind of primitive hut with origins in a rustic form of
roofing and tree symbols of the Cross as the tree of life and the Tree of Jesse.13
In my opinion, Rykwert rightly refocuses his discussion of the hut within the
performative contexts of religious traditions. He highlights the strong relation-
ships between the hut and the world, as well as between the hut and the body,
which are repeatedly reinforced in Judeo-Christian ritual processions and
services.14 Rykwert uses Psalm 117 (118): 26–27 to sum up the essence of the
procession related to Tabernacle celebrations in synagogues and the Temple
service: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; we blessed you
from the house of the Lord. God is the Lord, and He revealed Himself to
us; Appoint a feast for yourselves, decked with branches, Even to the horns
of the altar.” This very psalm is still sung daily in Byzantine-rite churches at
the Orthros, the last night service.15 In the Byzantine-rite church, the psalm
abounds with architectural references that identify the Tabernacle (tent) with
the Temple, and the Temple with salvation in paradise and in the body of the
omnipresent Christ:

The Lord is my strength and song, and is become my salvation. The voice
of rejoicing and salvation is in the tabernacles (tents) of the righteous …
Open to me the gates of righteousness; I will go into them … This gate
of the Lord into which the righteous shall enter … the stone which the
builders refused is become the head stone of the corner … Blessed is he
who comes in the name of the Lord …
Ps 118 (117): 14–26

Such a strong ontological argument that presupposes the existence of

God eventually refocuses the question of nature as discussed in Vitruvius’s
primitive hut to the justification of architecture through nature as absolute
and divine.
Even though the medieval copies of Vitruvius’s texts are well attested
to, it is generally assumed that medieval architects did not engage with the
idea of the hut.16 However, scholars of medieval literature did address and

13 Rykwert, On Adam’s House, 100–101.

14 Rykwert, On Adam’s House, 141–192.
15 Rykwert, On Adam’s House, 183–184.
16 Carol Herselle Krinsky, “Seventy-Eight Vitruvius Manuscripts,” Journal of the Warburg and
Courtauld Institutes 30 (1967), 36–70, discusses 78 Vitruvius texts recovered in western
Europe and dated to between the 8th and 15th centuries.
The Canopy as ‘ Primitive Hut ’ in Byzantine Architecture 215

reaffirm the reception of Vitruvius during the Middle Ages.17 Ann Raftery
Meyer convincingly pointed to close references between Vitruvius’s discussion
on the signified and signifier in architecture and Bede’s (c.673–735) exegesis of
biblical architecture of the Tabernacle and Temple by rereading his texts De
tabernaculo (c.721–725) and De templo (c.729–731) which highlight analogies
between divine creation and human artistry.18 She and a few other scholars
further implied that the 6th-century Hagia Sophia in Constantinople is the
most cited architectural example, which confirms the medieval notion that the
Tabernacle-Temple typifies the Christian church. This is additionally attested
to in the legendary account that the Byzantine emperor Justinian exclaimed
upon the construction of the church: “Solomon, I have outdone thee!”19 Yet the
role of the primitive hut in the medieval domain is generally left out of major
architectural debates. Without going into a detailed examination of whether
this results from our limited understanding of medieval primary sources on
the role of type in architecture, or from the strong positivistic scholarship that
prevailed over time and, in the search for the indisputable laws in architecture,
restricted the scholarly methods used in studies of medieval architecture, or
even from the difficulties in elaborating on architecture in medieval times with
regard to which our knowledge of architectural practices and training remains
severely limited, it is worth acknowledging a few points. Namely, the two most
critical references to the importance of the primitive hut for medieval archi-
tects are related to the relatively open definition of the primitive hut, which
spans the range between sensible model and abstract concept, as well as to
the controversial use of the notion of the primitive hut in polemical texts and
design practices.

17 On the medieval reception of Vitruvius, see Kenneth J. Conant, “The After-Life of

Vitruvius in the Middle Ages,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 27, no. 1
(1968), 33–38; Nadine Schibille, “Astronomical and Optical Principles in the Architecture
of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople,” Science in Context 22, no. 1 (2009), 27–46; Wim
Verbaal, “The Vitruvian Middle Ages and Beyond,” Arethusa 49/2 (2016), 215–225, with
older bibliography.
18 Ann Raftery Meyer, Medieval Allegory and the Building of the New Jerusalem (Woodbridge:
Boydell and Brewer, 2003), 14–17. For original texts by Bede, see Bede, Bedae Venerabilis
opera. Paris II: Pera exegetica, 2A: De Tabernaculo. De Templo. In Ezram et Neemiam, ed.
David Hurst (Turnhout: Brepols, 1969).
19 Meyer, Medieval Allegory and the Building of the New Jerusalem, 15–16. See also Robert
Ousterhout, “New Temples and New Solomons: The Rhetoric of Byzantine Architecture,”
in The Old Testament in Byzantium, ed. Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson (Washington,
DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010), 223–253; Jelena Bogdanović,
The Framing of Sacred Space: The Canopy and the Byzantine Church (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2017), 267–273, with older references.
216 Bogdanović

The frontispiece of Laugier’s text proved how effectively the primitive hut
and its visual representation communicates the meaning of architecture
among scholars, practitioners, and architectural enthusiasts, widely and across
different times and geographies. Yet beyond its relatively simple geometry and
rationalized formal elements paradigmatically illustrated there, the primitive
hut is a deeply philosophical construct, and is constantly both specific and
vague. It is specific in its definition as an enclosed three-dimensional space
and a comprehensible image of a generic human dwelling. At the same time,
it remains vague. Ancient Greek philosophy places it somewhere between a
sensible model (prototype) and a principle inherent to natural and art forms
in Aristotelian terms. Platonic philosophy, on the other hand, places it as an
abstract idea or form as it appeared to the divine mind prior to creation, i.e.,
the ideal principle (archetype).20
Then again, archetype and type are found in the writings of early Christian
philosophers such as Dionysius the Areopagite and Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons.
Dionysius actually defined the terms and concepts of the type and arche-
type as we use them today. In his Celestial Hierarchy, focusing on angelic
hierarchy, Dionysius the Areopagite, whose preserved writings can be dated
to the 6th century at the latest, introduces the type (τύπος) and archetype
(ἀρχέτυπον).21 In this construct, type is a model, a pattern, while archetype is the
original type from which physical replicas are made. The type and archetype
explained in Celestial Hierarchy, I would argue, provide a sophisticated tool for
understanding both idea (εἶδος, ἰδέα) and form (εἰκών, σχῆμα, μόρφωσις) in archi-
tecture. Type emerges as a balanced understanding of a model invested with

20 Quatremère employs both an Aristotelian and a Platonic approach. Madrazo, “The

Concept of Type,” 179–202 emphasizes Plato’s influences above all. Erwin Panofsky, Idea:
A Concept in Art Theory, trans. Joseph J.S. Peake (New York/London: Harper & Row, 1968),
33–43, 191–201, considers both Platonic and Aristotelian approaches towards idea as a the-
oretical concept in medieval art. Because medieval architects do not build houses derived
from natural phenomena, but rather from the divinely inspired images architects carry
within themselves, as suggested by those following the thinking of Aristotle, Augustine,
and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Panofsky subsequently proposed the seemingly non-existent
ties between cause and effect in architectural production and suggested the lack of archi-
tectural theory in the medieval context. I thank Ida Sinkević for discussing Panofsky’s
work with me.
21 Dionysius Areopagita, Corpus Dionysiacum, 2 vols. ed. Beate Regina Suchla, Günter Heil,
and Adolf M. Ritter (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990–1991) [including De coelesti hierarchia
(Celestial Hierarchy), henceforth CH], CH II. See also n. 6 above and Introduction to this
volume. On the dating of the texts attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite and about the
author’s identity, see Ronald F. Hathaway, Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the
Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius: A Study in the Form and Meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian
Writings (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1969), 31–36.
The Canopy as ‘ Primitive Hut ’ in Byzantine Architecture 217

both sensible and ideal properties.22 The idea and form, in the context of the
type and archetype that Dionysius postulated, could have been contemplated
through material entities: “Holy contemplations can therefore be derived from
all things [emphasis mine], and the above-names incongruous similitudes can
be fashioned from material things to symbolize that which is intelligible and
intellectual, since the intellectual has in another manner what has been attrib-
uted differently to the perceptible.”23
If we apply the concept of type and archetype to canopies, which generi-
cally stood for the essence of sacred architecture in the Byzantine context,24
Dionysius the Areopagite’s reason for creating material types for the typeless
archetypes explains how the canopy of Byzantine architecture can be related
to the sacred:

But if one looks at the truth of the matter [emphasis mine], the sacred wis-
dom of scripture becomes evident, for, when the heavenly intelligences
are represented with forms, great providential care is taken to offer no
insult to the divine powers, as one might say, and we ourselves are spared
a passionate dependence upon images which have something lowly and
the vulgar about them. Now, there are two reasons for creating types for
the typeless, for giving shape to what is actually without shape [emphasis
mine]. First, we lack the ability to be directly raised up to conceptual
contemplations. We need our own upliftings that come naturally to us
and which can raise before us the permitted forms of the marvelous and
unformed sights. Second, it is most fitting to the mysterious passages
of scripture that the sacred and hidden truth about the celestial intel-
ligences be concealed through the inexpressible and the sacred and be
inaccessible to the hoi polloi. Not everyone is sacred, and, as scripture
says, knowledge is not for everyone.25

Materiality emerges as a critical feature of the type in order to communicate

the truth. Yet the divide between the immaterial archetype and material type
within architecture would remain pervasive. This dichotomy between the
immaterial and material aspects of architecture, embodied in the primitive

22 I touched upon this theme of the relationship between type and archetype in Jelena
Bogdanović, “Rethinking the Dionysian Legacy in Medieval Architecture: East and West,”
in Dionysius the Areopagite: Between Orthodoxy and Heresy, ed. Filip Ivanović (Newcastle
Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2011), 109–134.
23 CH II.
24 Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred Space, esp. 295–299.
25 CH 140A–B.
218 Bogdanović

hut, additionally points to the divide between the noetic and iconic features of
architecture. Dionysius the Areopagite explains: “Using matter, one may be lifted
up to the immaterial archetypes [emphasis mine]. Of course, one must be care-
ful to use the similarities as dissimilarities, as discussed, to avoid one-to-one
correspondences, to make the appropriate adjustments as one remembers the
great divide between the intelligible and the perceptible.”26
Irenaeus, in his work Against Heresies (c.180), enriched the ontological con-
cept of the type when he directly associated the Ark, as the essential bibli-
cal architectural creation, with a type of the body of Christ and elaborated
the two-fold and coeval nature of a type as being simultaneously physical and
spiritual.27 Irenaeus broadened a hypothesis on the architectural type of the
Ark, usually represented as a chest or canopy in visual arts,28 as being closely
knit with the idea of the heavenly Temple, “received by way of type, as it was
shown to Moses on the Mount [of Sinai].”29
In the 8th century, in his Ecclesiastical History and Mystical Contemplation,
Germanus, the patriarch of Constantinople (d. 733), additionally promoted
a strongly interconnected relationship between the church, the Temple, the
Tabernacle (from Latin tabernaculum, meaning tent or hut), the Ark, and the
church altar ciborium. The latter was interpolated with the Christian mean-
ings of the Tomb of Christ, whereas a canopy as the generic type for all these
holy structures remained simultaneously architecturally and ontologically
connected to the body of Christ and the Christian community:

The church is the temple of God [emphasis mine] (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10–17;
2 Cor. 6:16), a holy place, a house of prayer (cf. Isa. 56:7; Matt. 21:13;
Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46), the assembly of the people, the body of Christ
(cf. 1 Cor. 3:10–17, 12:27; Col. 1:24; Eph. 2:19–22).
The church is an earthly heaven, where the heavenly God dwells and
walks about (2 Cor. 6:16; Lev. 16:12; Deut. 23:5). It represents the crucifix-
ion, the burial and the resurrection of Christ [emphasis mine]. It is glo-
rified more than the tent of witness [tabernacle] of Moses, in which are
the mercy seat and the Holy of Holies (cf. Exod. 25–27). It is prefigured
by the patriarchs, foretold by the prophets, founded by the apostles (cf.
Eph. 2:19), adorned by the hierarchs, and fulfilled by the martyrs….

26 CH 144B–C.
27 Irenaeus, Against Heresies in Five Books of S. Irenaeus: Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies
(Charlton, SC: Nabu Public Domain Reprints, 2010; originally published by Oxford in
1872), 558–559.
28 Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred Space, 19–20, with further bibliographical references.
29 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 361–362.
The Canopy as ‘ Primitive Hut ’ in Byzantine Architecture 219

The ciborium [canopy] represents here the place where Christ was cruci-
fied [emphasis mine]; for the place where He was buried was nearby
and raised on a base. It is placed in the church to represent the crucifixion,
burial, and resurrection of Christ [emphasis mine].
It similarly corresponds to the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord [emphasis
mine], which is called the Holy of Holies and His holy place. Next to it
God commanded that two Cherubim of hammered work be placed on
either side (cf. Exod. 25:18)—for KIB is the ark, and OURIN is the efful-
gence, or the light, of God.30

In the 13th century, theorist of canon law William Durandus (c.1230–1296), in

his architectural treatise The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments
(1286), connected architectural symbolism directly back to Dionysius’s work,
and more specifically connected type and its derivative archetype and antitype
with architectural typology inclusive of its physical aspects.31
The canopy as an architectural type in the Byzantine context remained
inseparable from its divinely inspired archetype. I concur with Perl, who dem-
onstrated that, in both philosophical Neoplatonic and religious Judeo-Christian
contexts, the archetype stood equally for the idea and the form of the divine
mind prior to creation.32 Open to noetic contemplation, the archetype never-
theless remains relatively independent, often different from, though not mutu-
ally exclusive of, the antitype, which is foreshadowed and identified by the
type. In the Christian context, therefore, Old Testament concepts and forms of
the Tabernacle and the Holy of Holies of the Jewish Temple become the type of
the Christian sanctuary.33 As I have already demonstrated, this hypothesis has
crucial consequences, because it defines the Christian church not as an anti-
type of a synagogue or pagan basilica but in continuity with the Jewish Temple

30 Saint Germanus of Constantinople, On the Divine Liturgy, ed. Paul Meyendorff (Crestwood,
NY, 1984), 57–59.
31 William Durandus, The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments: A Translation of
the First Book of the Rationale Divinorum Officiorum (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1893), chap. 6. Inductive argument, lxiv–lxvi. On the importance of Durandus’s treatise
on architecture, see “William Durandus from The Symbolism of Churches and Church
Ornaments (1286),” in Architectural Theory, vol. 1., An Anthology from Vitruvius to 1870, ed.
Harry Francis Mallgrave (Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 24–25. See
also my discussion in Bogdanović, Rethinking the Dionysian Legacy, 109–134, esp. 125–126.
32 Eric D. Perl, Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 2007), 5.
33 Margaret Barker, The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Theology (London
and New York: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2003) also investigates the roots of Christian sanc-
tuary in the Temple tradition.
220 Bogdanović

as its prototype.34 Moreover, in such a context, the archetype is not a specific

building, a historical example one can identify in the physical world, but rather
an intellectual concept and design principle, which strongly resonates with the
notion of the primitive hut in architecture, as established by Vitruvius and his
intellectual followers.
Though the term ‘hut’ did not itself remain apparent in the scantly pre-
served and relevant writings of Byzantine authors, the basic architectural idea
of the ‘hut-canopy’ was pervasive in depictions of the Ark and the Temple as
models for Byzantine architecture and its humanistic value, where the role of
the human body and thought remained inseparable from architecture. This
can be effectively illustrated by the numerous images of the Presentation of
Christ in the Temple, including the famous 11th-century golden mosaic from
the Hosios Loukas monastery (Figure 8.2), where the Temple takes the shape of
a four-columned hut, with three depicted columns and the fourth being Christ,
and assumes its new role as ‘being-place’ within the Christian context.35 The
paradoxical two fold and coeval nature of Christ as being both human and
divine is further complicated by Byzantine interest in the role of Mary, the
Mother of God.
The 14th-century icon from the monastery of Hilandar on Mount Athos
points to one of the countless images of the Temple as depicted in Byzantine
and Byzantine-inspired religious icons (Figure 8.3).36 The icon shows the
Presentation of the Mother of God in the Temple, also known in Byzantine
scholarship as the Entry of the Ever Virgin Mary and Most Holy Mother of
God-Theotokos into the Temple, and in Slavic studies as Vavedenije (The
Entry). The image of the Temple in this icon strongly resembles the widely rec-
ognized hut from the famous frontispiece from Laugier’s book (cf. Figure 8.1).
Against the golden background that conventionally represents the sacred, the
wooden hut-like canopy rests on four slender columns with quasi-Corinthian
capitals, upon which four arches support a wooden pyramidal roof. The some-
what surprising but recurring depiction of the Temple as a humble hut reveals
the visual language of the Eastern Christians, where the hut-like canopy
simultaneously stands for the generic depiction of the Temple, the Ark, and

34 Bogdanović, “Rethinking the Dionysian Legacy,” 109–134, esp. 125–126, supported by argu-
ments from Durandus’s treatise.
35 I discuss the canopies in Hosios Loukas in greater detail in Jelena Bogdanović, “Framing
Glorious Spaces in the Monastery of Hosios Loukas,” in Perceptions of the Body and
Sacred Space in Late Antiquity and Byzantium, ed. Jelena Bogdanović (New York/London:
Routledge, 2018), 166–189.
36 On the icon, see Dimitrije Bogdanović et al., Chilandar (Belgrade: Monastery of Chilandar
in cooperation with Jugoslovenska revija, 1997), 86.
The Canopy as ‘ Primitive Hut ’ in Byzantine Architecture 221

Figure 8.2 Presentation of Christ in the Temple, mosaic, katholikon of the Hosios Loukas
monastery, Greece, 11th century
Photo: Public domain image by Hans A. Rosbach from Wikimedia
commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hosios_Loukas
_Katholikon_(nave,_North-West_squinch)_-_Presentation_02.jpg
[Accessed June 3, 2022]

the church sanctuary.37 The purple-red curtain that partially covers the pyra-
midal roof of the canopy recalls the Tabernacle and the desert tent made of
cloth, as recorded in the biblical passages.38 At the same time, the curtain sug-
gests the Lord’s cloak and Christ Himself, the garments of salvation from the
Vision of Isaiah (cf. Isa. 61:10).39 Additionally, I agree with the suggestion that
the curtain, stretching between the roofs of the canopy and the partially vis-
ible architectural structure, indicates that the scene is taking place inside the
Temple.40 Therefore, the image effectively highlights the potential of a canopy
as a structure to balance the coexistence of the interior and exterior space.
It also evokes interiority as a sense of inner being, presence, and life, and exte-
riority as life in the material world.

37 Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred Space, 295–299.

38 On the cloth for the biblical tent made of blue, purple, and scarlet threads, see Exodus 26.
39 Alfredo Tradigo, Icons and Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty
Museum, 2006), 98–100.
40 Tradigo, Icons and Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, 98–100.
222 Bogdanović

Figure 8.3 Presentation of the Mother of God in the Temple (also known as the Entry of
the Ever Virgin Mary and Most Holy Mother of God Theotokos into the Temple;
Vavedenije), icon, Hilandar, Mt. Athos, 14th century
Photo: Courtesy of the Foundation of the Holy Monastery
Hilandar

The icon from Hilandar follows a recognizable iconographic convention

for the Presentation of the Mother of God in the Temple which is attested to
in the 2nd-century account of the Protoevangelion (Infancy Gospel) of James,
which problematized her role in the paradoxical coexistence of the Savior’s
human and divine natures.41 This scene of the Presentation of the Mother

41 Following the 2nd-century narratives from the Protoevangelion of James, patristic writ-
ings of the 4th and 5th centuries elaborated the spiritual importance of the life of Mary,
The Canopy as ‘ Primitive Hut ’ in Byzantine Architecture 223

of God in the Temple had been visualized in the Christian East by the late
10th century.42 The Hilandar icon shows the child Mary brought by her parents,
Joachim and Anna, to the high priest Zacharias. Standing at the open doors of
the Temple sanctuary, the high priest is welcoming Mary to the most sacred
space. Two additional scenes frame this central event of the Presentation. On
the left-hand side, the red curtain of the doors of a towering building is tied in
the middle and pushed aside, as the seven maidens, following Mary, have just
come in. Seven daughters of Zion adorned by seven virtues accompany Mary
and offer her as a sacrifice to God. On the right-hand side behind Zacharias, the
Virgin’s future life in the Temple is depicted. Mary is sitting on top of a stepped
platform in the inner sanctum, the upper room and heart of the Temple. Fed
with the bread of contemplation by an angel, the Virgin receives the divine
nourishment.
The repeating pattern of the canopy highlights important features of the
primitive hut in the Christian context. With all its architectural elements,
the canopy on the icon represents the Temple and also resembles a canopy,
the actual piece of church furnishing found in Byzantine-rite churches. In the

Mother of God. Tradigo, Icons and Saints, 98–100; Bissera V. Pentcheva, Icons and Power:
The Mother of God in Byzantium (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University
Press, [2014] 2006), chap. 1. The Patristic writings on Mary are immense. For a con-
densed overview in English, see Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of
the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1 of The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600)
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, [1991] 1975), 241–242, 259–265, 270–271, 276–277,
289, and 314. On the Marian feasts, see Martin Jugie, “La première fête mariale en Orient
et en Occident, l’avent primitif,” Échos d’Orient 22 (1923), 129–152. On the visual repre-
sentations of the Life of the Virgin the most exhaustive study is offered by Jacqueline
Lafontaine-Dosogne, “Iconography of the Cycle of the Virgin,” in Kariye Djami, 4 vols.,
ed. P.A. Underwood (London: Routledge, 1966), vol. 4, 163–193, 197–241; Jacqueline
Lafontaine-Dosogne, Iconographie de l’enfance de la Vierge dans l’Empire byzantin et en
Occident, vol. 1 (Bruxelles: Académie Royale de Belgique, 1992). On the visual representa-
tions of Mary according to the Apocrypha, see David R. Cartlidge and J.K. Elliott, Art of
Christian Legend: Visual Representations of the New Testament Apocrypha (London/New
York: Routledge, 2001), 21–46. Among Byzantine hymnographers highlighting the Entry
of the Virgin into Temple in their texts are works by Tarasius of Constantinople or George
(Gennadius) Scholarius. Tarasius of Constantinople, In SS. Dei Matrem in Templum
Deductam [On the Entry of the Theotokos in the Temple] in Patrologia Graeca (167 vols.),
ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris, 1857–1866) [henceforth PG], 98, 1481–1496; George (Gennadius)
Scholarius, In festum ingressus beatae Virginis Mariae in templum [On the Feast of the
Entry of the Virgin Mary in the Temple], in Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca, ed. François
Halkin (Brussels: Société des Bollanistes, 1957), 1147. See also Jaakko Olkinuora, Byzantine
Hymnography for the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos (Helsinki: Picaset Oy, 2015).
42 The apocryphal Protoevangelion of James referring to the Entry/Presentation of the
Virgin received its visual counterparts as early as the late 10th century, judging by the
image of the Presentation of the Virgin in the Menologion of Basil II gr. 1613, fol. 198, illu-
minated in Constantinople between 976 and 1025. Pentcheva, Icons and Power, 138–140.
224 Bogdanović

foreground, in the center of the icon, the arms and bodies of Mary’s parents
and the high priest Zacharias form yet another canopy, a ‘living’ canopy. The
man-made sanctuary canopy simultaneously frames the altar table and fore-
shadows the ‘living’ canopy, the one over the small figure of Mary surrounded
by the towering figures of her parents and the high priest.43 The two canopies
are depicted with similar size and form, and balance not only the composition
of the icon, but also its content and meaning. The ‘living’ canopy draws atten-
tion to Mary as the source of life, as the most sacred vessel, chosen by God
to be His Mother.44 The altar ciborium simultaneously emphasizes Christian
beliefs in the girl’s ultimate destiny and her role in the salvation of humankind.
For those who accepted the Byzantine doctrine of the Incarnation, the Virgin
and the Temple were identified with one another, since “Mary lives inside the

43 Though we cannot observe an altar table in the icon from Hilandar, other images depict-
ing the Presentation of the Virgin often show tables covered in red cloths, providing a
powerful and suggestive imagery of altar tables. Thus, even when an altar table is not
depicted, the repetitive and conventional imagery of the same subject influenced the
beholders to connect the canopy from the Presentation of the Virgin with the familiar
images of altar canopies.
44 Mary as a living Temple and the living Ark was explained in numerous sources known
to the Byzantines: Protoevangelion of James; Tarasius of Constantinople, In SS. Dei
Matrem in Templum Deductam [On the Entry of the Theotokos in the Temple], 1481–1496;
Saint Germanus of Constantinople, In Praesentationem SS. Deipare [Homily on the
Presentation] PG 98, 290–320; George (Gennadios) Scholarios, In festum ingressus beatae
Virginis Mariae in templum [On the Feast of the Entry of the Virgin Mary in the Temple],
1147; Acts of the Third Ecumenical Council, in Giovanni Domenico Mansi, Sacrorum con-
ciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vols. 4, 5, 6 and 9 (Paris, Leipzig, 1901–1927) [hereafter
Mansi], vol. 4, 580E, 1253A/C, 1256B; Epiphanius of Cyprus, In laudes S. Mariae deiparae
(dubia) [In Praise of Mary, the Mother of God], PG 43, 488CD, 492B/D, 496D; Andrew
of Crete, In nativitatem B. Mariae [On the Nativity of the Supremely Holy Theotokos],
PG 97, 868C, Canon in B. Annae conceptionem [Canon on the Blessed Anne’s Conceiving],
PG 97, 1316AB. References to Christ building His temple, i.e., His body from His mother’s
flesh in: Acts of the Third Ecumenical Council, Mansi, vol. 4, 613A, 624D, 633D, 656A,
Mansi, vol. 5, 24C, 40C, 292BC, 305B; Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Mansi,
vol. 6, 669B, 736B; Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, Mansi, vol. 9, 584E; Cyril of
Alexandria, Festal Letters, 1–12, ed. John J. O’Keefe, trans. Philip R. Amadon (Washington,
DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009), letters V.7:90–91 and VIII.6:69–76;
Andrew of Crete, In nativitatem B. Mariae II/IV, PG 97:883A, 868B; Patriarch Photios,
Epistulae, 3 vols., ed. B. Laourdas and L.G. Westerink (Leipzig: Teubner, 1983–1985), III,
35 (epistle 284:1303–1308). These references to primary sources are compiled from works
by Doula Mouriki, “The Octateuch Miniatures of the Byzantine Manuscripts of Cosmas
Indicopleustes” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 1970), 124; Maria Evangelatou, “The
Illustration of the Ninth-Century Byzantine Marginal Psalters: Layers of Meaning and
Their Sources” (PhD diss., University of London, 2002), n. 706; and Michel van Esbroeck,
“The Virgin as the True Ark of the Covenant,” in Images of the Mother of God, ed. Maria
Vassilaki (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 63–68.
The Canopy as ‘ Primitive Hut ’ in Byzantine Architecture 225

sanctuary just as Jesus will live inside her body; Christ’s divinity thus is entirely
hidden within his humanity.”45 Together, the two canopies in the icon integrate
the events of the entry of the Mother of God into the Temple. The upper room
of the inner sanctuary where she receives the divine nourishment of heavenly
bread, furthermore, foreshadows the liturgical and Eucharistic events wit-
nessed in the actual church during liturgical rites.46 The suggestive realism of
the ‘living’ canopy, based on the evocative depiction of the human encounter
between Mary, her parents, and the high priest, as well as the realism of the
man-made canopy depicted as an altar canopy, complement the devotional
and liturgical response of the Byzantines and those embracing their tradition.
The presence of Mary, the Mother of God, as represented twice in relation to
the canopy, suggests a spatio-temporal reality and the essence of a Byzantine
church that grows in harmony with the divine plan, or to put it in Vitruvius’s
terms, in harmony with nature as an absolute order of life. This multilayered
Marian concept of ‘Ark-Virgin-Church’ highlights the highly developed archi-
tectural and ontological construct of the Byzantine canopy as a ‘primitive hut’
in the person of Mary. The ontological complexity is achieved via the early
Christian construct of the Ark and Christ, as already elaborated by Irenaeus
in the 2nd century, and by the inauguration of the feast of the Presentation of
the Virgin in the Temple in the 6th century47 that celebrated her dedication to
God and her future vocation as a living Temple, the living Ark, and Mother of
the incarnate Lord.48
The canopy as a design and building module invested with biblical,
Christological, or Marian meanings was widely used in Byzantine architecture.
In my research of canopies examined from archaeological and architectural

45 Tradigo, Icons and Saints, 98.

46 The upper room is emphasized by the fact that the Virgin is seated on the stepped base of
the inner sanctum, occasionally also sheltered by a canopy.
47 On November 21, 543, Byzantine emperor Justinian I instituted the public celebration
of the Marian feast of the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple. The feast day later
spread to Constantinople, presumably at some point in the 7th or 8th century, and later
on throughout the Byzantine Empire. Tradigo, Icons and Saints, 98.
48 The typological association of the Virgin and the Tabernacle is illustrated by an image of
the Smyrna Octateuch, fol. 81v, in which the Virgin and Child are enclosed within a double
frame decorated with pearls and stones and in a shell-like niche. Mouriki, “Octateuch
Miniatures,” 124; Elisabeth Revel-Neher, “On the Hypothetical Models of the Byzantine
Iconography of the Ark of the Covenant,” in Byzantine East, Latin West: Art Historical
Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, ed. Doula Mouriki et al. (Princeton: Department of
Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, 1995), 405–414. On the related liturgical refer-
ences, see Festal Menaion, ed. Mother Mary and Bishop Kallistos Ware (South Canan, PA:
St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1998), 51–52.
226 Bogdanović

perspectives, a particular focus was placed on canopies as liturgical furnish-

ings and the basic structural units of the Byzantine church—a four-columned
structural core with a dome and vaulted bays.49 The relationship between the
‘ideal structures’ understood as ‘primitive huts’ of different sizes and scales
and how they achieved different forms and were materialized in Byzantine
churches, I argue, allow us to discuss canopies as basic units for the definition
of various Byzantine architectural ‘types.’50 Inaugurated by the Hagia Sophia as
a huge canopy set as a central core of the basilica, the plasticity and monumen-
tality of the canopied Byzantine-rite church has been reaffirmed in numer-
ous examples of centrally planned canopied churches, as well as various types
of cross-inscribed and cross-in-square churches. All are essentially composed
around the central domical canopied core within a nine-square grid, as can
be shown in the example of 14th-century Byzantine-rite church of the Matejič
monastery (Figures 8.4, 8.5, and 8.6).
While I have demonstrated how numerous Byzantine churches were built
by utilizing the canopy as an architectural parti, an overall design principle,
it seems appropriate to highlight once again the inseparable performativity
of the canopy as a hut experienced within liturgical rites.51 In her analysis of
nature and the sacred in the Byzantine context, Veronica della Dora explains
effectively how liturgy “did not speak of things, but from things.”52 Indeed, the
beginning of the liturgical day in the Byzantine-rite church opens with the
Orthodox vesper services and a hymn composed by King David. The psalm
by King David—which is chanted while the priest stands outside the closed
Royal Doors, the central sanctuary doors of the templon screen, named as
such because it potentially carried related associations with the Temple
architecture53 celebrates divine creation: “Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord
my God … Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment; who stretchest out

49 Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred Space, 264–294.

50 Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred Space, 251–263.
51 Bogdanović, “The Domed Canopy in Byzantine Church Design,” Sacred Architecture
Journal 37 (Spring 2020), 11–15, also online https://www.sacredarchitecture.org/articles
/the_domed_canopy_in_byzantine_church_design; Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred
Space, 264–294.
52 Veronica della Dora, Landscape, Nature, and the Sacred in Byzantium (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2016), 88.
53 Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred Space, 216–229, with references to Cyril Mango, “On
the History of the Templon and the Martyrion of St. Artemios at Constantinople,” Zograf
10 (1979), 40–43, Christopher Walter, “New Look at the Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier,”
Revue des études byzantines 51 (1993), 203–228; Vasileios Marinis, Architecture and Ritual
in the Churches of Constantinople. Ninth to Fifteenth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2014), 41.
The Canopy as ‘ Primitive Hut ’ in Byzantine Architecture 227

Figure 8.4 Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, modern Istanbul, Turkey, 6th century, analysis
showing light penetration in the central canopy
Drawing: Alex Blum created by using Rhinoceros, Autodesk Revit,
and Photoshop

the heavens like a curtain (tent) [emphasis mine]; Who layeth the beams of his
chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon
the wings of the wind: Who maketh his angels spirits (winds, pneumata-πνεύματα)
[emphasis mine]; his ministers a flaming fire: Who laid the foundations of the
earth, that it should not be removed for ever” (Ps 104 (103):1–5). Veronica della
Dora rightly highlights that, “as the psalm reverberates within the church’s
walls, pillars become trees, domes a starry heaven, the floor the earth.”54
I would further add that the psalm simultaneously reaffirms the church as
a primitive hut, with strong reference to Vitruvius’s hut as visualized in the

54 Della Dora, Landscape, Nature, and the Sacred, 88.

228 Bogdanović

Figure 8.5 Process from volume to canopy to nine-square design based on canopied parti in
Byzantine churches
Drawing: Alex Blum created by using Autodesk Revit and Adobe
Illustrator

Figure 8.6 Five-domed katholikon of the Matejič monastery, Skopska Crna Gora, Northern
Macedonia, 14th century
Photo: Ivan Drpić
The Canopy as ‘ Primitive Hut ’ in Byzantine Architecture 229

Byzantine imagery of the Ark, the Tabernacle (tent-hut), the Temple, and the
church, and even stretches forward towards the depiction of Laugier’s hut.
The psalm echoes within the Stoic philosophical system, upon which rests the
intellectual reasoning of Vitruvius’s hut as simultaneously a micro- and a mac-
rocosmic creation, being rooted in nature and its primordial elements—earth,
air, fire and water.55 Stoic philosophy established active elements around fire
and air “which together constituted the divine pneuma, the life force that
bound together the entire world and existed in eternity.”56 Bissera Pentcheva
has already demonstrated how the divine pneuma in the Byzantine-rite church
is the creative force and vital spirit of the church that fills matter so that the
inert (church) becomes alive.57 She broadened the meaning of pneuma in par-
ticular, with an emphasis on the wind-like movement of the incense and the
sound of the hymns of liturgical performance in the activated space of the
church building itself.58 Curiously enough, in a few illustrated medieval copies
of Vitruvius’s text, including the oldest preserved 9th-century British Museum
Harley 2767, the illustrations most often show the wind diagram.59 Windblown
leaves and vegetal motifs of the capitals of the columns of the Byzantine

55 See above, n. 3. On the role of fire, water, earth, and air in the creation of sacred space, see
also edited volumes by Alexei Lidov: Lidov, ed. Hierotopy of Light and Fire in the Culture
of the Byzantine World [Iyerotopiya ognya i sveta v kul’ture vizantiyskogo mira] (Moscow:
Theoria, 2017); Lidov, ed. Holy Water in the Hierotopy and Iconography of the Christian
World [Svyataya Voda v iyerotopii i ikonografii khristianskogo mira] (Moscow: Theoria,
2017); Lidov, ed. The Hierotopy of Holy Mountains in Christian Culture [Iyerotopiya svyatoy
gory v khristianskoy kul’ture] (Moscow: Theoria, 2019); Lidov, ed. Air and Heavens in the
Hierotopy and Iconography of the Christian World [Vozdukh i nebesa v iyerotopii i ikono-
grafii khristianskogo mira] (Moscow: Theoria, 2019).
56 Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, bk. 2, chap. 2, with additional commentaries by
Rowland and Dewar on Stoic philosophy in Vitruvius’s text on p. 178. On the role of Stoic
philosophy and the pneuma in Byzantium see, for example, Troels Engberg-Pederson,
“A Stoic Understanding of the Pneuma and Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15,” and Troels
Engberg-Pederson, “The Bodily Pneuma in Paul,” in Cosmology and the Self in the Apostle
Paul: The Material Spirit (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 8–74. Katerina
Ierodiakonou, “The Greek Concept of Sympatheia and Its Byzantine Appropriation
in Michael Psellos,” in The Occult Sciences in Byzantium, ed. Paul Magdalino and Maria
Mavroudi (Geneva: La Pomme d’Or, 2007), 97–117, esp. 100–103.
57 Bissera Pentcheva, Hagia Sophia: Sound, Space, and Spirit in Byzantium (University Park,
PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2017) and Bissera Pentcheva, Sensual Icon: Space,
Ritual, and Senses in Byzantium (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press,
2013), 45–48.
58 Pentcheva, Hagia Sophia: Sound, Space, and Spirit in Byzantium and Pentcheva, Sensual
Icon: Space, Ritual, and Senses in Byzantium.
59 Krinsky, Seventy-Eight Vitruvius Manuscripts, 36–70, esp. 41.
230 Bogdanović

Figure 8.7 ‘Windblown’ capital with acanthus leaves, Hagios Demetrios, Thessaloniki,
Greece, 5th century
Photo: Nebojša Stanković

churches activated by pneuma (Figure 8.7),60 in my opinion, only reinforce the

complexity of the Byzantine church as a material, sensible manifestation of
the primitive hut and the adaptation of Vitruvius’s reasoning on architecture
within a Christian context.

…
In conclusion, I would like to propose that the Byzantine ‘primitive hut’
decipherable in the form and idea of a canopied parti, as a basic spatial and
symbolic unit of the Byzantine-rite church, undeniably rests on a robust
intellectual concept. The formal appearance of the canopy as the ‘hut’ in the
Byzantine context is related to the process of mimesis and transposition of
meanings as a catalyst that informs the generative design process rather than

60 Eugene W. Kleinbauer, “The Iconography and the Date of the Mosaics of the Rotunda of
Hagios Geiorgios, Thessaloniki,” Viator 3 (1972) 27–108, discusses early use of windblown
capitals in a variety of Early Christian and Byzantine churches on pp. 104–106.
The Canopy as ‘ Primitive Hut ’ in Byzantine Architecture 231

a dogmatic formula or a direct structural model that would eventually simplify

and replace the complexities of the design process. It also positions the canopy
as a theoretical house, relevant for architectural taxonomy. Simultaneously,
the canopy in Byzantine architecture is strongly relatable to the primitive hut
as postulated by Vitruvius and enriched with Judeo-Christian philosophies,
and much less with the hut theorized by the architectural scholars of the
Enlightenment, who recurrently mistook the hut for a dogma of rational and
structural purity in architecture that can be positively affirmed by archaeo-
logical evidence from classical Greek temples.61 The canopy, a generic and gen-
erative architectural form which can be effectively reconstructed in people’s
imagination and creatively recreated both as an ideal, universal building, and
a historical object, played a major role in Byzantine-rite churches.62 Not only
did the canopied bay constitute the major building module of the Byzantine
church, but, when executed on different scales, it most closely related the form
and meaning of the architectonics of the altar canopy (ciborium) and church
core, as evidenced in Byzantine religious texts, images, and buildings. Echoing
Vitruvius’s primitive hut, when compared to rational, positivist architectural
theory based on Laugier’s and Quatremère’s elaboration of it, the origins of
the Byzantine canopy—both the hut and the tent—cannot be found in nature
and natural phenomena, however, but in nature as absolute, in divine cre-
ation. Yet both the Byzantine canopy and the primitive hut of Laugier promote
the pursuit of the truth in the matter by giving type (shape) to the typeless
(shapeless) archetype, which is the basis of the tectonics in architecture
between its physical and metaphysical realms.63 Moreover, the Byzantine
canopy as primitive hut instigates consideration of Byzantine architectural
typology within a more plastic (tectonic) approach, beyond two-dimensional
representations such as floor plans, cross-sections, and elevations. Confirmed

61 See excellent discussion of the role of the Greco-Roman concept of the hut as postu-
lated by Vitruvius and used in theories of architecture around the 1750s in Barry Bergdoll,
European Architecture 1750–1890 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 10–12 and
Christopher Drew Armstrong, “French Architectural Thought and the Idea of Greece,” in
A Companion to Greek Architecture, ed. Margaret Melanie Miles (Chichester, West Sussex:
John Wiley and Sons, 2016), 487–506.
62 Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred Space, 264–294; Rykwert, On Adam’s House, 183–184;
Tim Adams, “Benoît Goetz: A French Reader of Rykwert’s on Adam’s House in Paradise,”
Interstices: A Journal of Architecture and Related Arts 10 (2009), 87–96.
63 Robert Maulden, “Tectonics in Architecture: From Physical to the Meta-Physical,”
(MArch thesis, MIT, 1986); Kenneth Frampton, Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics
of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture (Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1995).
232 Bogdanović

by texts, visual and spatial models, and specific architectural solutions, both
the primitive hut of Vitruvius, Laugier, and Quatremère, on the one hand, and
the canopy of the Byzantines, on the other, reaffirm an intellectual approach
towards architecture. By recognizing conceptual design thinking and by
acknowledging the role of the primitive hut in Byzantine architectural design,
it is possible to build a long overdue bridge between ancient and early modern
architectural theories.
Conclusion: Highlighted Themes, Explanatory
Terms, and Critical Mechanisms

Jelena Bogdanović, Ida Sinkević, Marina Mihaljević, and

Čedomila Marinković

The essays in this volume demonstrate that typology in visual arts and archi-
tecture is a vital topic in late antique and Byzantine studies. Starting with the
premise that pictorial arts and architecture constitute two distinct artistic
forms, the volume as a whole reveals that a dialogue between type and arche-
type goes well beyond issues of formalism and representational themes. By
addressing fundamental questions about the role and meaning of type and its
ultimate source, this project presents a nuanced study of the applicability of
typology as a systematic and systemic classification of types in what we today
recognize as the separate artistic endeavors of architecture and visual arts in
the Mediterranean culture.
In the opening essay, Jelena Anđelković Grašar considers questions of type
and archetype in the creation of the empress imagery of the late antique
Balkans. Anna Adashinskaya delves into typological investigations of imagery
in religious icons of the Byzantines and their referentiality in the medieval
context of the Balkans and southern Mediterranean. Ljubomir Milanović clari-
fies the typological relationship between relics and icons. Cecilia Olovsdotter
argues for the relevance of actual architectural accomplishments for the devel-
opment of visual architectural types in late antique and Early Byzantine visual
arts. Čedomila Marinković looks at an independent line of development in
Jewish visual art by examining the typological concepts relevant to the picto-
rial representation of the Temple in the Sarajevo Haggadah. Marina Mihaljević,
Ida Sinkević, and Jelena Bogdanović focus on Byzantine ecclesiastical archi-
tecture and through selected case studies propose a revised approach to type
and archetype in Byzantine architecture. Previous research on architecture has
too often relied heavily on iconographical methods in the visual arts and in
the process undermined the complexities of architecture as a separate artistic
expression. In their essays, Mihaljević, Sinkević, and Bogdanović highlight the
importance of diagrammatic reasoning in architecture as a theoretical model
and its relevance for architectural practice. At the same time, they point to
the congruence of typological and diagrammatic principles in architecture,
whereby the conceptual and formal aspects of types are distinct but intricately
intertwined rather than separated. Specifically, post-18th-century theories

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004537781_011

234 Bogdanović et al.

of typology posit that even if the diagram connects it also essentially sepa-
rates two modes of thinking in architecture: conceptual (typal) and formal
(typological).1 By extension, abstraction achieved by using diagrams is recur-
rently seen as a precondition for the separation of mimetic formal elements
from conceptual features in the production of architecture, for the disengage-
ment of historicism from architectural practice, and for distinguishing history
from theory. This volume addresses this overarching premise by highlighting
that type remains inseparable from its conceptual and formal aspects. This
book emphasizes not the dichotomy between typal and typological thought
but rather the major relevance of pairing type and archetype, which is per-
tinent to contemporaneous late antique and Byzantine intellectual thought.
As Marinković additionally enriches the discourse on abstraction in both
visual arts and architecture, she clarifies how in medieval Jewish and Christian
art the representation of architecture in pictorial terms was never naturalis-
tic or realistic. The digression of painted architecture from the appearance
of the real building, and their general, almost diagrammatic similarities could
be the consequence of various factors. Among them are the painter’s lack of
skill, adherence to certain cultural or stylistic choices, the main stylistic trends
of the epoch, and the technical manner of artistically conveying the model.
In each case, these aspects point to the ways in which the type was communi-
cated rather than to its essence, to the archetype.
Especially important is the mode of transfer between the archetype and
type, between the ultimate model and its actual realization in type. In
late antique and Byzantine art and architecture, the copy of the arche-
type was not understood mimetically: only the basic idea of archetype was
adopted—sometimes reduced to the sign, frequently not even including many
morphological elements. Moreover, the archetype was never transmitted
in toto but only partially.
Working independently around inconsistent typological terminology and
its applicability in the context of the material culture of the late antique and
Christian Balkans, the contributors ultimately agree on definitions of these
critical terms as follows: The type is a model, a pattern; archetype its essence,
the foremost, original type. Prototype is a generic and generative, sensible
model; stereotype its fixed but oversimplified version; antitype its future,
dynamic counterpart. Such definitions, consistent with more recent definitions
of these terms, are engaged with the contemporaneous intellectual reasoning.

1 Sam Jacoby, “Typal and Typological Reasoning: A Diagrammatic Practice of Architecture,”

The Journal of Architecture 20, no. 6 (2015), 938–961.
Conclusion 235

As we additionally show in this book, they are consistent with investigations of

specific case studies and their culturally conditioned referentiality to type and
archetype constructs.
Thematically speaking, the essays examine type and archetype within holy
and royal imagery,2 as well as between the buildable and unbuildable.3 Several
recurrent topics emerge as especially relevant for understanding typology
in the late antique and Byzantine Mediterranean. The sociopolitical histori-
cal framework and modern constructs of center and periphery transpire to
be relevant for a more nuanced understanding of typology in both the visual
arts and architecture, and its relevance for historical and theoretical studies.4
Typology thus presented complicates the evolutionist narratives that group
surviving artistic and architectural accomplishments based on similarity of
formal features and assign them a chronological sequence in the evolution of
the type and larger developments in the arts and architecture. The ontological
difference between the image and its space, and related questions of mecha-
nisms of describing and accessing the transcendental are likewise highlighted
in this volume, contributing to both image and architectural theories.5
The broad spectrum of themes presented in the essays also expands the
boundaries of the conventional understanding of type and archetype and pro-
poses new methods for assessing, analyzing, and explaining the complex rela-
tionships between the type as pattern, action, or model and its initiator and
ultimate source and essence, the archetype. In her essay, Anđelković Grašar
clarifies the complex mechanisms of the construction of the ideal image of
the empress in late antique society and its ultimate source in the non-material
world. Adashinskaya explains how the fame of the miracle-working icon
known as the Hodegetria, associated with the Constantinopolitan monastery
Hodegon, generated many replicas, which were venerated in a way similar to
their prototype. She elucidates the indexicality and referentiality of specific
types of icons of the Mother of God in the medieval Balkans, whereby the
church dedication to the ‘icon’ essentially refers to transposition of the mean-
ing of the icon as participatory presence of the holy person depicted, rather
than the image itself. The Hodegetria icon should be understood not only as

2 See chapters by Anđelković Grašar, Adashinskaya, Milanović, Olovsdotter, Mihaljević, and

Sinkević in the present volume.
3 See chapters by Adashinskaya, Milanović, Olovsdotter, Marinković, Mihaljević, Sinkević, and
Bogdanović in the present volume.
4 Sociohistorical contexts are especially highlighted in the essays by Anđelković Grašar,
Adashinskaya, Milanović, Mihaljević, and Sinkević in the present volume.
5 Ontological themes related to the type-and-archetype constructs are prominent in the texts
by Adashinskaya, Milanović, Marinković, Mihaljević, and Bogdanović in the present volume.
236 Bogdanović et al.

miracle-working object or proactive template, but also as a concept, as a ref-

erence to certain qualities of its ultimate source, the Theotokos, Mother of
God. Visuality and beauty remain critical aspects of such type and archetype
relationships in iconographical studies, but physical likeness as a guiding prin-
ciple, beyond its role for organizing our knowledge about the sacred, should
be reconsidered.
Similarly, we propose studies of late antique and Byzantine architec-
tural typology within a more plastic (tectonic) approach, beyond the two-
dimensional representations of the floor plans, cross-sections, and elevations
that are currently seen as critical for reproducibility and referentiality in archi-
tecture. Mihaljević demonstrates how the type-and-archetype relationship
is not limited to the actual reliance on and replication of a specific physical
model. In her study of the architectural forms of the church of Nea Moni in
Greece, she looks at physical features, or rather distinct architectural patterns,
such as the double colonnettes, and argues that by its actual form this feature
contributed to the molding of the church interior into a centralized structure
to evoke the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem as its architectural prototype, one
that over time became identified as the archetypical building in medieval
Christendom. Indeed, the physical model is not necessary, although it is often
included in the scholarly definitions and use of archetype. Sinkević shows that
five-domed churches may be related to the image of the Heavenly Jerusalem
because many domes reflect many churches. Yet Sinkević further elucidates
that their symmetrical disposition and synergic relationship between exterior
articulation and interior decoration actually reveal an architecturally segre-
gated but conceptually unified domical space that finds its origin in a canopied
primitive hut, the perennial structure of Byzantine architecture, as discussed
in Bogdanović’s paper.
The representations of specific architectural elements, such as the arch and
the pediment, while potent in their individual symbolic meanings, can be bet-
ter understood when contextualized in the broader conceptual paradigms of
life, death, cosmic cycles, and spirituality, as Olovsdotter argues in her text.
The geometric, almost abstract, forms of the arch and pediment also relate
to an architectural type that can generate more elaborate architectural forms.
This topic of geometry and form as relevant for identification of architec-
tural type is also touched upon in the essays by Mihaljević and Bogdanović,
who look at the simple three-dimensional geometry of rounded spaces and
four-columned canopies and their potential to designate type and prototype
(fully defined physical models) in Byzantine religious architecture. Even when
the elements of real architecture are clearly represented and their archetypal
significance is culturally well defined, as Olovsdotter details through the
Conclusion 237

examples of late antique and early Christian monumental architecture—

portals and gates, notably city gates and triumphal arches, the pedimented
fronts of temples and shrines, and the composite arched fronts of the gates,
temples, and palaces—these elements repeatedly relate to well-known exam-
ples of specific architectural accomplishments and clearly established concep-
tual relationships with their prototypes.
The image drawn from memory, a mnemonic reconstruction, or, specifi-
cally, a construction of the third Temple based on archetypal associations
drawn from both literature and imagination, is discussed by Marinković in her
chapter on the visual representations of the Temple of Jerusalem. She details
her analysis based on the unique iconography of the Temple in the Sarajevo
Haggadah and suggests that, despite being unique in its pictorial appearance,
it nonetheless points to the archetypical Temple of Jerusalem. Indeed, the
return to the archetype can be defined not only by the physical likeness, but
also, and even more so, by performative aspects of the image and its func-
tionality, as Adashinskaya similarly discusses in her analysis of what it meant
to replicate the icon of the Virgin (Mother of God) by using specific church
dedications.
Archetype can be recalled through arrangement, the installation in which
the relationship between the body of a saint and the body of Christ is acknowl-
edged in the complex relationship of conceptual, architectural, and artistic
means, as Milanović elaborates. The connection can be drawn through the
positioning of the remains-relics of the saint vis-à-vis his or her portrait. The
templon screen which, when bearing icons, literally becomes the iconostasis,
the wall separating the sanctuary from the church space populated by the
faithful, thus successfully maintains the close connection between the body,
image, and burial of the saint and the body of Christ conceptualized through
the performative liturgical services at the altar in the sanctuary space, just
behind the iconostasis. Therefore, while the relationship between the type
and archetype is known through literature and theological writings, Milanović
effectively elucidates how it was creatively realized and visualized. Images and
objects and their location are contextualized and specified through the entire
installation of the iconostasis, coffin, and iconic images; their salvific messages
further enhanced by rituals performed within the space of the church.
The origins of late antique and Byzantine types should not be searched for
in the natural world, however, but in nature as absolute, in divine creation,
confirming the ontological difference between the type and its archetype.
Bogdanović hypothesizes in her essay that the four-columned canopy can
be studied as a kind of ‘primitive hut’ in Byzantine architectural typology.
She clarifies that in its own definition and meaning the concept of ‘primitive
238 Bogdanović et al.

hut’ remains vague: ancient Greek philosophers place it somewhere between

a sensible model (prototype) and a principle inherent to natural and art
forms in Aristotelian terms, while Platonists see it as an abstract idea or form
as it appeared to the divine mind prior to creation, i.e., the ideal principle
(archetype).6 Indeed, in his Celestial Hierarchy, focusing on angelic hierarchy,
Dionysius the Areopagite, proponent of critical philosophical reasoning on
typology in the wider Mediterranean cultural context, introduces the termi-
nology we use today in typological studies. The type (τύπος) is a model, a pat-
tern, and archetype (ἀρχέτυπον) is the original type from which the physical
replicas are made, but he does not imply that archetype is material or physi-
cal in nature. This is perhaps the reason for the occasionally interchangeable
use of archetype and prototype (sensible model) in many current discussions
of typology in the visual arts and architecture.7 Moreover, the reasoning on
ontological difference between the type and its archetype aligns with classical
philosophical thought on authority and universality. This thinking points to
the major difference between late antique and Byzantine architectural theory
and that devised by the late 18th century which undermined claims on univer-
sality and positioned them as critical for disengagement with history and his-
toricism and equally important for the establishment of restrictively defined
epistemological argument in architectural theory.8
In this volume, the contributors agree that within the late antique and
Byzantine cultural landscape, inclusive of its material culture and aesthetic
phenomena, Dionysius the Areopagite’s reasoning led toward the creation of
material types for the essentially typeless, shapeless, immaterial archetypes,

6 See the chapter by Bogdanović in this volume, where she further highlights the role of both
Aristotelian and Platonic thinking in addressing typology in the Byzantine context.
7 The interchangeable use of prototype and archetype for representations that aim to convey
universal ideas, the rejection of ontological aspects of typology immanent in Plato’s philoso-
phy, and the overall development of positivistic studies that reject sensible models as imped-
iments for rational procedures of taxonomy are prominent in Kant’s work. See, for example,
James J. DiCenso, “The Concept of Urbild in Kant’s Philosophy of Religion,” Kant-Studien 104,
no. 1 (2013), 100–132. On ontological difference, that between being and beings, see the criti-
cal work by Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson
(London: SCM Press, 1962). Significantly, the establishment of typology in art and architec-
ture as a scholarly method coincides with the Enlightenment period and its intellectual
framework, as articulated by Erwin Panofsky, the major proponent of iconographical studies.
See Panofsky’s analysis of archetype as the idea created by God in the works of medieval
philosophers in Erwin Panofsky, Idea: A Concept in Art Theory, trans. Joseph J.S. Peake (New
York/London: Harper & Row, 1968), 33–43, 191–201.
8 Jacoby, “Typal and Typological Reasoning,” 938–961, summarizes relevant aspects of reason-
ing about type within post-18th-century architectural theory.
Conclusion 239

which can be accessed and contemplated through material types. With no

direct physical references, communicative tools for facilitating the meanings
of the type-and-archetype constructs range from texts and diagrams to evoca-
tive imagery and nonverbal and nonfigurative participatory experiences, as
detailed in the essays presented here. Such an implied dichotomy between the
immaterial and material aspects of the visual arts and architecture addition-
ally points to the divide between the noetic and iconic features of arts and
architecture. Dionysius the Areopagite even verbalized this construct by say-
ing that “Using matter, one may be lifted up to the immaterial archetypes.”9
In their essays, the contributors independently point to an important divide
between intelligible and perceptible aspects of the type-and-archetype con-
structs, which opens up pathways for theorizing late antique and Byzantine art
and architecture. As argued by Sam Jacoby when discussing architecture and
typological tools, the persistence of such constructs over a prolonged period
of time gives them almost “ahistorical” qualities and allows for the abstraction
of a series of material accomplishments deriving from them.10 In this book,
we show that the material evidence of select examples, set against the intel-
lectual and creative thoughts of the period and communicative tools for facili-
tating the meanings of type and archetype, confirms the great importance of
type-and-archetype constructs and their applicability for theoretical discourse
about both architecture and visual arts in late antiquity and Byzantium.
Consequently, as Jacoby also emphasizes when discussing “primitive ideas” as
being critical for theory and practice in architecture, such type-and-archetype
constructs “allow for typological analysis and a judgement of individual forms
against a theoretical possibility of a form (type).”11 In our work, the possi-
bility for simultaneous theoretical and historical analysis of form as well as
distinguishing aspects of cultural synthesis of the historical and conceptual
knowledge derived from type-and-archetype constructs emerges as especially
relevant.
This book ultimately argues that the late antique and Byzantine cultural
landscape is rooted in highly conceptual approaches to its rich visual and
material culture whereby the material and immaterial aspects of its type-and-
archetype constructs are inseparable. Such holistic type-and-archetype

9 Dionysius Areopagita, Corpus Dionysiacum, 2 vols. ed. Beate Regina Suchla, Günter Heil,
and Adolf M. Ritter (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990–1991) [including De coelesti hierarchia
(Celestial Hierarchy) hereafter CH], CH 144B–C.
10 Jacoby, “Typal and Typological Reasoning,” 938–961.
11 Jacoby, “Typal and Typological Reasoning,” 938–961, citation on 946.
240 Bogdanović et al.

constructs reveal comprehensive philosophical questions about their meanings,

referentiality, and temporality. Rather than drawing on unsustainable socio-
political, historicist, and evolutionist narratives based on formalism and typol-
ogy, the book advocates for revised systemic studies and a fuller understanding
of individual artistic forms and their theoretical possibilities. Above all, this
book highlights the relevance of pairing type and archetype in refining archi-
tecture and image theories.
Bibliography

Primary Sources

Actes de Lavra. Vol. 3, de 1329 à 1500. Ed. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, and
D. Papachryssanthou. Paris: Lethielleux, 1979.
Actes de Vatopédi. Vol. 1, des origines à 1329. Ed. J. Bompaire, J. Lefort, V. Kravari, and
Ch. Giros. Paris: Lethielleux, 2001.
Actes de Xénophon. Ed. D. Papachryssanthou. Paris: Lethielleux, 1986.
Agathias. The Histories. In Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 2A, trans. and ed.
Joseph D. Frendo. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1975.
Akropolites, Georgios. Annales. Ed. I. Bekker. Bonn: E. Weber, 1837.
Allies, Mary H., trans., St. John Damascene on Holy Images. London: Thomas Baker, 1898.
Andrew of Crete. Canon in B. Annae conceptionem. In Patrologia Graeca (PG) 97, ed.
J.-P. Migne, 1305–1316. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857.
Andrew of Crete. In nativitatem B. Mariae. In Patrologia Graeca (PG) 97, ed. J.-P. Migne,
809–880. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857.
Andrew of Crete. Magnus canon. In Patrologia Graeca (PG) 97, ed. J.-P. Migne, 806–1386.
Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857.
Basil the Great, Saint. On the Holy Spirit. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
1980.
Bede. Bedae Venerabilis opera. Pars II, Opera exegetica. 2A, De Tabernaculo. De Templo.
In Ezram et Neemiam. Ed. David Hurst. Turnhout: Brepols, 1969.
Bekker, Immanuel, ed. Georgius Phrantzes, Joannes Cananus, Joannes Anagnostes.
Bonn: E. Weber, 1838.
Benjamin of Tudela, Rabbi. The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela. Critical text, transla-
tions and commentaries by Marcus N. Adler. New York: Feldheim, 1907.
Boissonade, Jean François, ed. Anecdota Græca e codicibus regiis descripsit annotatione
illustravit, vol. 2. Paris: Ex Regio Typographeo, 1830.
Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving
Founders’ Typika and Testaments. Ed. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero.
Vols. 1–5. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000.
Community Council of Kouklia. The Official Site of the Kouklia Village. http://www
.kouklia.org.cy/churches_odigitria.shtm. Accessed June 14, 2017.
Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis 133. Turnholt: Brepols, 1996.
Cyril of Alexandria. Festal Letters, 1–12. Ed. John J. O’Keefe, trans. Philip R. Amadon.
Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009.
Dančić, Đuro, ed. Životi kraljeva i arhiepiskopa srpskih napisao arhiepiskop Danilo i
drugi [The lives of kings and archbishops, written by Archbishop Danilo and the
others]. Zagreb: Svetozar Galec, 1866.
242 Bibliography

Danilo, Arhiepiskop. Životi kraljeva i arhiepiskopa srpskih [Lives of Serbian kings and
archbishops]. Trans. Lazar Mirković. Belgrade: Srpska književna zadruga, 1935.
Danilov nastavljač. “Kralj Stefan Uroš Treći” [King Stefan Uroš the Third]. In Danilovi
nastavljači. Danilov učenik, drugi nastavljači Danilovog zbornika, ed. Dimitrije
Bogdanović et al. Belgrade: Prosveta, 1989.
De Vita Imp. Constantini. In “Eusebii Pamphili Caesareae Palaestinae Episcopi,” Opera
omnia quaeexistant, Tomus II, Paris: Migne, 1837.
Delehaye, Hippolyte. Deux typica byzantins de l’époque des Paléologues. Brussels:
M. Lamertin, 1921.
Dionysius Areopagita. Corpus Dionysiacum. 2 vols. Ed. Beate Regina Suchla, Günter
Heil, and Adolf M. Ritter. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990–1991.
Dmitrievsky, Alexei. Opisanie liturgicheskih rukopisej, hranjashhihsja v bibliotekah
Pravoslavnogo Vostoka [Description of the liturgical manuscripts kept in the librar-
ies of the Orient]. Vol. 1, Typika. Kiev: Tipogrsfija Korchak-Novitskago, 1895.
Domentijan. Životi Sv. Save i Sv. Simeona [The Lives of St. Sava and St. Simeon]. Trans.
Lazar Mirković. Belgrade: Srpska književna zadruga, 1938.
Epiphanius of Cyprus. In laudes S. Mariae deiparae (dubia). In Patrologia Graeca (PG)
43, ed. J.-P. Migne, 485–501. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1864.
Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 2. Trans. J.E.L. Oulton. Loeb Classical Library 265.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000 [1932 edition].
Evagrius. The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius. Ed. Joseph Bidez and Léon Parmentier.
London: Methuen, 1898, repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1964.
Festal Menaion. Ed. Mother Mary and Bishop Kallistos Ware. South Canan, PA:
St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1998.
Gautier, Paul. “Le typikon de la Théotokos Évergétis.” Revue des études byzantines 40
(1982): 5–101.
Gautier, Paul. “Le typikon de la Théotokos Kécharitôménè.” Revue des études byzantines
43 (1985): 109–111.
George (Gennadius) Scholarius. In festum ingressus beatae Virginis Mariae in templum.
In Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca, ed. François Halkin. Brussels: Société des
Bollanistes, 1957.
George Pachymeres. De Michaele et Andronico Palaeologis libri tredecim. Ed. Immanuel
Bekker, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantina. Bonn: E. Webber, 1835.
George Pachymeres. Relations historiques. Ed. A. Failler and V. Laurent. Vol. 1. Paris:
Belles Lettres, 1984.
Germanus of Constantinople, Saint. In Praesentationem SS. Deipare. In Patrologia
Graeca (PG) 98, ed. J.-P. Migne, 290–320. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1865.
Germanus of Constantinople, Saint. On the Divine Liturgy. Trans. Paul Meyendorff.
Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1999 [1984].
Bibliography 243

Geromeri: Testament of Neilos Erichiotes for the Monastery of the Mother of God
Hodegetria in Geromeri. Trans. George Dennis. In Byzantine Monastic Foundation
Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments,
ed. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero, 1396–1403. Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library, 2000.
Gregoras, Nikephoros. Historia byzantine. Ed. L. Schopen. Vol. 1. Bonn: E. Weber, 1829.
Gregory the Cellarer. The Life of Lazaros of Mt. Galesion: An Eleventh-Century Pillar
Saint. Intro. and trans. Richard P.H. Greenfield. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks,
2000.
Grigorije Camblak. Književni rad u Srbiji [Literary work in Serbia]. Trans. Lazar
Mirković. Belgrade: Prosveta, 1989.
Halkin, François. “Un ermite des Balkans au XIVe siècle. La vie grecque inédite de
St. Romylos.” Byzantion 31 (1961): 111–147.
Holy Monastery of Giromeri. Internet Page of the Holy Monastery of Giromeri on the
Internet. The monastery today [Σελίδα της Ιεράς Μονής Γηρομερίου στο Διαδίκτυο.
Η μονή σήμερα]. https://www.monigiromeriou.gr/el/shmera.htm. Accessed June 13,
2017.
Horna, Konstantin, ed. “Die Epigramme des Theodoros Balsamon.” Wiener Studien 25
(1903): 181–183.
Ioannis Malalae. “Chronographia.” In Corpus Fontium Byzantinae 35, ed. Ioannes Thurn.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.
Irenaeus. Against Heresies in Five Books of S. Irenaeus: Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies.
Charlton, SC: Nabu Public Domain Reprints, 2010 [originally published by Oxford
in 1872].
Jerusalem Pilgrimage, 1099–1185. Trans. John Wilkinson, Joyce Hill, and William Francis
Ryan. London: Hakluyt Society, 1988.
John of Damascus. Three Treatises on the Divine Images. Trans. Andrew Louth.
Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003.
John of Ephesus. Iohannis Ephesini Historiae Ecclesiasticae Pars Tertia. Ed. Ernest
Walter Brooks, Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 106, Scr. Syr. 54–55.
Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1935–36, repr. 1952.
Josephus Flavius. “Antiquities of the Jews.” In Internet Sacred Texts Archive, http://
sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-15.htm. Accessed January 10, 2017.
Josephus Flavius. “Jewish Wars.” In Internet Sacred Texts Archive, http://sacred-texts
.com/jud/josephus/war-5.htm. Accessed January 4, 2017.
Khitrovo, Sofija. Itinéraires russes en Orient. Geneva: Fick, 1889.
Konstantin Mihajlović iz Ostrovice. Janičarove uspomene ili turska hronika [Janissary’s
memories or Turkish chronicle]. Belgrade: Prosveta, 1986.
244 Bibliography

Lactantius. De mortibus persecutorum. In Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latino­

rum, vol. 19, ed. Samuel Brandt and Georgius Laubmann. Prague/Vienna/Leipzig:
F. Tempsky; G Freytag, 1890.
Majeska, George P. Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Centuries. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1984.
Mango, Cyril, and Roger Scott, trans. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine
and Near Eastern History AD 284–813. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Mansi, Giovanni Domenico, ed. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collection.
Vols. 4, 5, 6, and 9. Paris, Leipzig, 1901–1927.
Miklosich, Franz, and Joseph Müller, eds. Acta et diplomata Graeca medii aevi: sacra et
profana, collecta et edita. Vol. 1. Vienna: Carolus Gerold, 1860.
Millet, Gabriel. “Inscriptions byzantines de Mistra.” Bulletin de correspondence hellé-
nique 23 (1899): 97–156.
Mishnah Middot 4:7. https://www.sefaria.org/topics/second-temple?tab=sources.
Accessed 3 August 3, 2022.
Mišić, Siniša. “Hrisovulja kralja Stefana Dušana Hilandaru kojom prilaže vlastelina
Rudla” [The chrysobull by King Stefana Dušana to Hilandar, by which he endows
the nobleman Rudle]. Stari Srpski arhiv 9 (2010): 75–86.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Afanasios, ed. “Vosem’ grecheskih opisanij svjatyh mest
XIV, XV i XVI vv.” [Eight Greek descriptions of the holy places of the 14th, 15th and
16th centuries]. Pravoslavnyj palestinskij sbornik 56 (1903): 1–291.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Afanasios, and Gabriil Destunis. “Kratkij rasskaz o svjatyh
mestah Ierusalima i o Strastjah Gospoda nashego Iisusa Hrista i o drugih bezymjan-
nogo, napisannyj v 1253/4 g.” [A short narration about the holy places of Jerusalem
and about the Passions of our Lord Jesus Christ and about other things, anonymous,
written in 1253/4]. Pravoslavnyj palestinskij sbornik 40 (1895): 1–30.
Patriarch Photios. Epistulae. 3 vols. Ed. B. Laourdas and L.G. Westerink. Leipzig:
Teubner, 1983–85.
Paulinus of Nola. The Poems of St. Paulinus of Nola. Trans. P.G. Walsh. New York:
Newman Press, 1975.
Petit, Louis. “Le monastère de Notre-Dame de Pitié en Macédoine.” Izvestiya Russkogo
arheologicheskogo instituta v Konstantinopole 6 (1900): 1–153.
Petit, Louis. “Typikon du monastère de la Kosmosotira près d’Aenos (1152).” Izvestiya
Russkogo arheologicheskogo instituta v Konstantinopole 13 (1908): 17–77.
Predelli, Riccardo, and Bosmin Pietro, eds. I libri commemoriali della Republica di
Venezia: Regestri. Vol. 5. Venice: A spese della Società, 1901.
Prochorov, Gelian, ed. “‘Hozhdenie’ igumena Daniila” [The ‘pilgrimage’ of the
Hegoumenos Daniil]. In Pamjatniki literatury Drevnej Rusi. XII vek (Moscow:
Chudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1980), 25–114 (Published at Elektronnye publikacii
Bibliography 245

Instituta russkoj literatury, http://lib.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=4934#.

Accessed 16 June 2021).
Procopius. Buildings. Trans. Henry Bronson Dewing and Glanville Downey. Loeb
Classical Library, vol. 7. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.
Prokofiev, Nikolai, ed. Kniga hozhenij. Zapiski russkih puteshestvennikov XI–XV vv. [The
book of pilgrimages. Narrations of the Russian travelers in the 14th to 15th centu-
ries]. Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984.
Prokopije iz Cezareje [Procopius]. Tajna istorija [Historia arcana]. Trans. Albin Vilhar,
ed. Radivoj Radić. Belgrade: Dereta, 2004.
Psellus, Michael. Fourteen Byzantine Rulers: The Chronographia of Michael Psellus.
Trans. Edgar R.A. Sewter. London: Penguin Books, 1966.
Schreiner, Peter. Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken. Corpus Fontium Historiae
Byzantinae XII/1, vol. 1. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
1975.
Schreiner, Peter. Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken. Corpus Fontium Historiae
Byzantinae XII/2, vol. 2. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
1977.
Sexti Aurelii Victoris. Liber de Caesatibus, praecedunt Origo gentis Romanae et Liber de
viris illustribus urbis Romae, subsequitur Epitome de Caesaribus, ed. F. Pichlmayr.
Leipzig: B.G. Teubneri, 1911.
St. Jerome: Letters and Selected Works. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
of the Christian Church. 2nd series, vol. 6. Trans. W.H. Fremantle, G. Lewis and
W.G. Martley, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. New York: The Christian Literature
Company, 1893.
Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e Codice Sirmondiano Nunc Berolinensi. Ed.
Hippolyte Delehaye. Brussels: Socios Bollandianos, 1902.
Syrku, Polichronij, ed. Monaha Grigorija zhitije prepodobnogo Romila [The Life of ven-
erable Romyl by Monk Gregory]. St. Petersburg: Tipografija Imperatorskoj Akademii
Nauk, 1900.
Tarasius of Constantinople. In SS. Dei Matrem in Templum Deductam. In Patrologia
Graeca (PG) 98, ed. J.-P. Migne, 1481–1496. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1865.
Theophanes Continuatus. Ed. Immanuel Bekker (Bonn: Weber, 1838), 211–355, trans.
Cyril Mango, in The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–1453: Sources and Documents,
192–193. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972.
Tractate Taanit. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/taanit4.html.
Accessed August 14, 2013.
Vitruvius. Ten Books on Architecture. Trans. Ingrid D. Rowland, commentary and illus-
trations Thomas Noble Howe, with additional commentary by Ingrid D. Rowland
and Micheal J. Dewar. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
246 Bibliography

William Durandus. The Symbolism of Churches and Church Ornaments: A Translation of

the First Book of the Rationale Divinorum Officiorum. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1893 [also “William Durandus from The Symbolism of Churches and Church
Ornaments (1286)” in Architectural Theory, vol. 1., An Anthology from Vitruvius
to 1870, ed. Harry Francis Mallgrave (Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,
2006), 24–25].

Secondary Literature

Abou-El-Haj, Barbara. The Medieval Cult of Saints: Formations and Transformations.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Adams, Tim. “Benoît Goetz: A French Reader of Rykwert’s on Adam’s House in
Paradise.” Interstices: A Journal of Architecture and Related Arts 10 (2009): 87–96.
Adams, William Y. “Archaeological Classification: Theory Versus Practice.” Antiquity 62
(1988): 40–56.
Adams, William Y., and Ernest W. Adams. Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality:
A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007.
Alexander, Suzanne Spain. “Heraclius, Byzantine Imperial Ideology and the David
Plates.” Speculum 52, no. 2 (1977): 217–237.
Alföldi, Andreas. “Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells am römischen
Kaiserhof.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung
49 (1934): 1–118.
Alföldi, Andreas. “Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser.” Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 50 (1935): 1–171.
Alföldi, Maria R. Die constantinische Goldprägung: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Bedeutung
für Kaiserpolitik und Hofkunst. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1963.
Alföldi-Rosenbaum, Elisabeth. “Portrait Bust of a Young Lady of the Time of Justinian.”
Metropolitan Museum Journal 1 (1968): 19–40.
Allen, Pauline. “Contemporary Portrayals of the Byzantine Empress Theodora (of
AD 527–48).” In Stereotypes of Women in Power: Historical Perspectives and Revision­
ist Views, ed. Barbara Garlick, Suzanne Dixon, and Pauline Allen, 93–104. New
York/London: Greenwood Press, 1992.
Anagnostakes, Elias. “Apo tēn eikona tēs monachēs Euphrosynēs ston bio tōn
Hosiōn tou Megalou Spēlaiou: Ē istoria mias kataskeuēs” [From the image of nun
Euphrosyne to the Life of the saints of Megale Spelaion: The history of one foun-
dation]. In Monachismos stēn Peloponnēso, 4os–15os ai., ed. Boula Konti, 171–189.
Athens: Institute for Byzantine Research, 2004.
Bibliography 247

Anđelković Grašar, Jelena. Femina Antica Balcanica. Belgrade: Arheološki institut,

Evoluta, 2020.
Anđelković Grašar, Jelena. “Image as a Way of Self-Representation, Association and
Type Creation for Late Antique Women in the Central Balkans.” In Vivere Militare
Est: From Populus to Emperors—Living on the Frontier, vol. 1, ed. Snežana Golubović
and Nemanja Mrđić, 333–364. Belgrade: Institute of Archaeology, 2018.
Anđelković Grašar, Jelena, and Emilija Nikolić. “Stereotypes as Prototypes in the
Perception of Women: A Few Remarks from History and Folk Tradition.” Archaeol­
ogy and Science 13 (2018): 89–107.
Angelidi, Christine. “Un texte patriographique et édifiant: Le ‘Discours narratif’ sur les
Hodègoi.” Revue des études byzantines 52 (1994): 113–149.
Angelidi, Christine, and Titos Papamastorakis. “Picturing the Spiritual Protector: From
Blachernitissa to Hodegetria.” In Images of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the
Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. Maria Vassilaki, 209–223. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
Angelidi, Christine, and Titos Papamastorakis. “The Veneration of the Virgin
Hodegetria and the Hodegon Monastery.” In Mother of God: Representations of the
Virgin in Byzantine Art, ed. Maria Vassilaki, 373–387. Athens: Benaki Museum, 2000.
Angelova, Diliana. “The Ivories of Ariadne and Ideas about Female Imperial Authority
in Rome and Early Byzantium.” Gesta 43, no. 1 (2004): 1–15.
Angelova, Diliana. Sacred Founders: Women, Men, and Gods in the Discourse of Imperial
Founding, Rome through Early Byzantium. Berkeley: University of California Press,
2015.
Angenendt, Arnold. “Corpus incorruptum: Eine Leitidee der mittelalterlichen
Reliquienverehrung.” Saeculum 42 (1991): 320–346.
Angenendt, Arnold. Heilige und Reliquien. Die Geschichte ihres Kultes vom frühen
Christentum bis zur Gegenwart. Munich: Nikol, 1997.
Angenendt, Arnold. “Relics and Their Veneration.” In Treasures of Heaven: Saints, Relics,
and Devotion in Medieval Europe, ed. Martina Bagnoli et al., 19–29. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2011.
Angenendt, Arnold. “Zur Ehre der Altäre erhoben: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Reliquien­
verehrung.” Römishe Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde 89 (1994): 221–244.
Arce, Javier. Funus imperatorum. Los funerales de los emperadores romanos. Madrid:
Alianza, 1988.
Arce, Javier. “Un grupo de situlas decoradas del la Antigüedad tardía: función, cro-
nología, significado.” Antiquité tardive 13 (2005): 141–158.
Argan, Gulio Carlo. “On the Typology of Architecture.” In Theorizing a New Agenda
for Architecture, ed. Kate Nesbitt, 242–246. New York: Princeton Architectural Press,
1996.
248 Bibliography

Armstrong, Christopher Drew. “French Architectural Thought and the Idea of Greece.”
In A Companion to Greek Architecture, ed. Margaret Melanie Miles, 487–506.
Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, 2016.
Arnaud, Pascal. “L’image du globe dans le monde romain: science, iconographie, sym-
bolisme.” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité 96, no. 1 (1984): 53–116.
Athanasiadou-Bentoure, Despoina, and Georgos Bentoures. Kimōlos: Ho topos. Hoi
ekklēsies. Hosia Methodia [Kimolos: The Place. The Churches. Holy Methodia].
Kimolos: Dēmos Kimōlos, 2013.
Avi-Yonah, Michael. “The Facade of Herod’s Temple: An Attempted Reconstruction.”
In Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed.
Jacob Neusner, 326–335. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
Avi-Yonah, Michael. Pictorial Guide to the Model of Ancient Jerusalem at the Time of the
Second Temple. Jerusalem: Palphot, 2003.
Babić, Gordana. “O živopisanom ukrasu oltarskih pregrada” [On the painted ornamen-
tation of altar screens]. Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 11 (1975): 3–41.
Babić, Gordana. “Les images byzantines et leurs degres de signification: l’exemple de
l’Hodigitria.” In Byzance et les images: Cycle de conferences organise au musee du
Louvre par le Service culturel du 5 octobre au 7 decembre 1992, ed. A. Guillou and
J. Durand, 189–222. Paris: Musée du Louvre, 1994.
Bacci, Michele. Il pennello dell’Evangelista. Pisa: GISEM, 1994.
Bacci, Michele. “The Legacy of the Hodegetria: Holy Icons and Legends between East
and West.” In Images of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium,
ed. Maria Vassilaki, 321–336. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
Bacci, Michele. The Many Faces of Christ: Portraying the Holy in the East and West,
300–1300. London: Reaktion Books, 2014.
Bacci, Michele. “With the Paintbrush of the Evangelist Luke.” In Mother of God:
Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine Art, ed. Maria Vassilaki, 79–89. Athens:
Benaki Museum, 2000.
Baert, Barbara. A Heritage of Holy Wood: The Legend of the True Cross in Text and Image.
Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Bagnall, Roger S., Alan D.E. Cameron, Seith R. Schwartz, and Klaas A. Worp. Consuls of
the Later Roman Empire. Atlanta: American Philological Association, 1987.
Bagnoli, Martina, et al., eds. Treasures of Heaven. Saints, Relics, and Devotion in Medieval
Europe. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.
Balakirtsky-Katz, Maya. “Avi Yonah’s Model of Second Temple Jerusalem and the
Development of Israeli Visual Culture.” In The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses to
Messiah, ed. Steven Fine, 349–365. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Bandmann, Günter. “Beobachtungen zum Etschmiadzin-Evangeliar.” In Tortulae.
Studien zu altchristlichen und byzantinischen Monumenten, ed. Walter Nikolaus
Schumacher, 11–29. Rome: Herder, 1966.
Bibliography 249

Bandmann, Günter. Early Medieval Architecture as Bearer of Meaning, trans. Kendall

Wallis. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
Barber, Charles. Contesting the Logic of Painting: Art and Understanding in Eleventh-
Century Byzantium. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Barber, Charles. Figure and Likeness: On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine
Iconoclasm. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Barker, Margaret. The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Theology. London/
New York: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2003.
Barnes, Timothy D. The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. London: Harvard
University Press, 1982.
Barnish, S.J.B. “Transformation and Survival in the Western Senatorial Aristocracy,
c. A.D. 400–700.” Papers of the British School at Rome 56 (1988): 120–155.
Batterman, Michael A. “The Emergence of the Spanish Illuminated Haggadah
Manuscripts.” PhD dissertation, Northwestern University, Illinois, 2000.
Batterman, Michael A. “Genesis in Vienna: The Sarajevo Haggadah and the Invention
of Jewish Art.” In Image: Manuscripts, Artists, Audiences: Essays in Honor of Sandra
Hindman, ed. David S. Areford and Nina Rowe, 309–327. London: Ashgate, 2004.
Baudinet, Marie-José. “La relation iconique à Byzance au IXe siècle d’après les Antir­
rhétiques de Nicéphore le Patriarche: un destin de l’aristotélisme.” Etudes philos-
ophiques 1 (1978): 85–106.
Bauer, Franz Alto. Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike: Untersuchungen zur
Ausstattung des öffentlichen Raums in den spätantiken Städten Rom, Konstantinopel
und Ephesos. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1996.
Bellinger, Alfred R. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection
and in the Whittemore Collection. Vol. 1, Anastasius I to Maurice (491–602).
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1966.
Belting, Hans. Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image Before the Era of Art. 2nd ed.
Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1996.
Benoist, Stéphane. Rome, le prince et la Cité. Pouvoir impérial et cérémonies publiques
(1er siècle av.–début du IVe siècle apr. J.-C.). Paris: Presses universitaires de France,
2005.
Bergdoll, Barry. European Architecture 1750–1890. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Berrens, Stephan. Sonnenkult und Kaisertum von den Severen bis zu Constantin I.
(193–337 n. Chr.). Stuttgart: Steiner, 2004.
Biddle, Martin. The Tomb of Christ. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1999.
Birtašević, Marija. “Jedan vizantijski žižak iz arheološke zbirke Muzeja grada Beograda”
[An early Byzantine oil lamp from the archaeological collection of the Belgrade City
Museum]. Godišnjak Muzeja grada Beograda 2 (1955): 43–46.
Bland, Kalman. The Artless Jew: Medieval and Modern Affirmation and Denial of the
Visual. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
250 Bibliography

Bland, Kalman. “Medieval Jewish Aesthetics: Maimonides, Body, and Scripture in Profiat
Duran.” Journal of the History of Ideas 54, no. 4 (1993): 533–559.
Bogdanović, Dimitrije, et al. Chilandar. Belgrade: Monastery of Chilandar in coopera-
tion with Jugoslovenska revija, 1997.
Bogdanović, Dimitrije, Vojislav J. Djurić, and Dejan Medaković. Manastir Hilandar
[Hilandar monastery]. Belgrade: Jugoslovenska revija, 1997.
Bogdanović, Jelena. “Byzantine Constantinople: Architecture.” In Routledge Handbook
of Istanbul, ed. Kate Fleet (forthcoming).
Bogdanović, Jelena. “Framing Glorious Spaces in the Monastery of Hosios Loukas.”
In Perceptions of the Body and Sacred Space in Late Antiquity and Byzantium, ed.
Jelena Bogdanović, 166–189. New York/London: Routledge, 2018.
Bogdanović, Jelena. The Framing of Sacred Space: The Canopy and the Byzantine Church.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Bogdanović, Jelena. “The Original Tomb of St Simeon and its Significance for the
Architectural History of Hilandar Monastery.” Hilandarski zbornik 12 (2008): 35–56.
Bogdanović, Jelena. “The Performativity of Shrines in a Byzantine Church: The Shrine
of St. Demetrios Performativity in Byzantium and Medieval Russia.” In Spatial
Icons: Performativity in Byzantium and Medieval Russia, ed. Alexei Lidov, 275–301.
Moscow: Indrik, 2011.
Bogdanović, Jelena. “Rethinking the Dionysian Legacy in Medieval Architecture: East
and West.” In Dionysius the Areopagite: Between Orthodoxy and Heresy, ed. Filip
Ivanović, 109–134. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2011.
Bogdanović, Jelena. “The Rhetoric of Architecture in the Byzantine context: The Case
Study of the Holy Sepulchre.” Zograf 38 (2014): 1–21.
Bolten, Johannes. Die Imago Clipeata. Ein Beitrag zur Porträt- und Typengeschichte.
Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1937.
Borboudakis, Manuel. “Oi toichographies tēs Panaias tou Merōna kai mia synke­
krimenē tasē tēs krētikēs zōgraphikēs” [The murals of Panagia Meronas and one
specific tendency in Cretan painting]. In Pepragmena E’ Diethnous Krētologikou
Synedriou, 396–412. Herakleion: Hetairia Krētikōn Historikōn Meletōn, 1986.
Borg, Alan. “The Lost Mosaic of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem.” In The Vanishing Past:
Studies in Medieval Art, Liturgy and Metrology Presented to Christopher Hohler, ed.
Alan Borg and Andrew Martindale, 7–12. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports,
International Series 111, 1981.
Boschung, Dietrich. Antike Grabaltäre aus den Nekropolen Roms. Bern: Stämpfli, 1987.
Boschung, Dietrich. “Kultbilder als Vermittler religiöser Vorstellungen.” In Kult und
Kommunikation: Medien in Heiligtümern der Antike, ed. Christian Frevel and
Henner von Hesberg, 63–87. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2007.
Bošković, Aleksandar. Kratak uvod u antropologiju [A brief introduction to anthropol-
ogy]. Zagreb: Naklada Jesenski i Turk, 2010.
Bibliography 251

Boss, Sarah Jane. Empress and Handmaid: On Nature and Gender in the Cult of the
Virgin Mary. London: Cassel, 2000.
Bouras, Charalambos. Chios. Athens: National Bank of Greece, 1974.
Bouras, Charalambos. “Hē Architektonikē tēs Panagias ton Mouchliou stēn Kōnstan­
tinoupoli” [The architecture of Panagia Mouchliou in Constantinople], Deltion tēs
Christianikēs Archailogikēs Hetaireias 4, no. 26 (2005): 35–50.
Bouras, Charalambos. Nea Moni on Chios: History and Architecture. Athens: The
Commercial Bank of Greece, 1982.
Bouras, Charalambos. “Twelfth and Thirteenth Century Variations of the Single
Domed Octagon Plan.” Deltion tēs Christianikēs Archailogikēs Hetaireias 9 (1977–79):
21–32.
Bowes, Kim. “Ivory Lists: Consular Diptychs, Christian Approbation and Polemics of
Time in Late Antiquity.” Art History 24/3 (2001): 338–357.
Bowman, Thorleif. Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek. London: SCM Press, 1960.
Bozóky, Edina, and Anne-Marie Helvétius, eds. Les reliques: objets, cultes, symboles: actes
du colloque international de l’Université du Littoral-Côte d’Opale, Boulogne-sur-Mer,
4–6 septembre 1997. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999.
Brayer, Edith, Paul Lemerle, and Vitalien Laurent. “Le Vaticanus latinus 4789: histoire
et alliances des Cantacuzènes aux XIVe–XVe Siècles.” Revue des études byzantines 9
(1951): 47–105.
Bresc-Bautier, Geneviève. “La dévotion au Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem en Occident:
imitations, invocation, donations.” Cahiers de Saint-Michel de Cuxa 38 (2007):
95–106.
Bresc-Bautier, Geneviève. “Les imitations du Saint-Sepulcre de Jerusalem (IXe–XVe
siècles): archéologie d’une devotion.” Revue d’histoire de la spiritualite 50 (1974):
319–342.
Brilliant, Richard. Gesture and Rank in Roman Art. New Haven: Academy, 1963.
Broderick, Herbert. “Observation on the Creation Cycle of the Sarajevo Haggadah.”
Zeitschrift zu Kunstgeschichte 47, no. 3 (1984): 320–332.
Broek, Roel van den. The Myth of the Phoenix According to Classical and Early Christian
Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Brown, Peter. The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Brubaker, Leslie. “The Chalke Gate, the Construction of the Past, and the Trier Ivory.”
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 23 (1999): 258–285.
Brubaker, Leslie. “Memories of Helena: Patterns in Imperial Female Matronage in the
Fourth and Fifth Centuries.” In Women, Men and Eunuchs: Gender in Byzantium, ed.
Liz James, 52–75. London/New York: Routledge, 1997.
Brubaker, Leslie. “Sex, Lies and Textuality: The Sacred History of Prokopios and the
Rhetoric of Gender in Sixth-Century Byzantium.” In Gender in the Early Medieval
252 Bibliography

World: East and West, 300–900, ed. Leslie Brubaker and Julia M.H. Smith, 83–101.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Brubaker, Leslie, and Helen Tobler. “The Gender of Money: Byzantine Empresses on
Coins.” In Gender & History 12, no. 3 (2000): 572–594.
Bruun, Patrick M. “Constantine and Licinius A.D. 313–337.” In The Imperial Roman
Coinage 7, ed. Carol Humphrey, Vivian Sutherland, and Robert A. Carson. London:
Spink and Son Ltd., 1966.
Buchwald, Hans. “The Concept of Style in Byzantine Architecture.” In Form, Style and
Meaning in Byzantine Church Architecture. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999.
Bulgakov, Sergius. Relics and Miracles: Two Theological Essays. Trans. Boris Jakim.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011.
Butler, Alban. The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and Other Principal Saints. Vol. 1. Dublin:
H. Coyne, 1833.
Bynum, Caroline W. The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
Calza, Raissa. Iconografia romana imperiale da Carausio a Giuliano (287–363 d. C.).
Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1972.
Cameron, Alan D.E. “The house of Anastasius.” Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 19
(1978): 259–276.
Cameron, Averil. “The Artistic Patronage of Justin II.” Byzantion 50 (1980): 62–84.
Cameron, Averil. “The Empress Sophia.” Byzantion 45 (1975): 5–21.
Cameron, Averil, and Judith Herrin. Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: The
Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai. Leiden: Brill, 1984.
Čanak-Medić, Milka. Manastir Dečani. Saborna crkva. Arhitektura [Monastery Dečani.
Cathedral church. Architecture]. Belgrade: Republički zavod za zaštitu spomenkika
kulture, 2007.
Capizzi, Carmelo. L’imperatore Anastasio I (491–518). Studio sulla sua vita, la sua opera e
la sua personalità. Rome: Pont. Institutum orientalum studiorum, 1969.
Carile, Antonio. “Credunt aliud Romana palatia caelum. Die Ideologie der PALATIUM
in Konstantinopel, den Neuen Rom.” In Palatia. Kaiserpaläste in Konstantinopel,
Ravenna und Trier, ed. Margarethe König, Eugenia Bolognesi Recchi-Franceschini,
and Ellen Riemer, 27–32. Trier: Rheinisches Landesmuseum, 2003.
Carile, Maria Cristina. The Vision of the Palace of the Byzantine Emperors as a Heavenly
Jerusalem. Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 2012.
Carile, Maria Cristina, and Eelco Nagelsmit. “Iconography, Iconology.” In Encyclopedia
of the Bible and Its Reception, vol. 12, ed. Constance Furey, Steven Linn McKenzie,
Thomas Chr. Römer, Jens Schröter, Barry Dov Walfish, and Eric Ziolkowski, 778–783.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016.
Bibliography 253

Carr, Annmarie Weyl. “Court Culture and Cult Icons in Middle Byzantine Constan­
tinople.” In Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, ed. Henry Maguire, 81–99.
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library, 1997.
Carr, Annmarie Weyl. “Reflections on the Life of an Icon: the Eleousa of Kikkos.”
Epetērida Kentrou Meletōn Ieras Monēs Kykkou 6 (2004): 103–162.
Carr, Annemarie Weyl. “The Thirteenth-Century Murals of Lysi.” In A Byzantine Master­
piece Recovered: the Thirteenth-Century Murals of Lysi, Cyprus, ed. Annemarie
Weyl Carr and Laurence. J. Morrocco, 15–113. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991.
Carroll, Michael P. The Cult of the Virgin Mary: Psychological Origins. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1992.
Cartlidge, David R., and J.K. Elliott. Art of Christian Legend: Visual Representations of
the New Testament Apocrypha. London/New York: Routledge, 2001.
Caseau, Béatrice. “The Senses in Religion: Liturgy, Devotion, and Deprivation.” In
A Cultural History of the Senses in the Middle Ages, ed. Richard G. Newhauser, 89–110.
Oxford: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014.
Cermanović-Kuzmanović, Aleksandrina. “Jedna kameja iz Ćuprije” [A cameo from
Ćuprija]. Zbornik filozofskog fakulteta 7, no. 1 (1963): 119–125.
Chatzidakis, Manolis. Mystras: The Medieval City and the Castle. Athens: Ekdotike
Athenes, 1981.
Chatzidakis, Manuel, and Manuel Borboudakis, Eikonēs tēs krētikēs technē: apo ton
Chandaka ōs tēn Moscha kai tēn Hagia Patroupolē [Icons of the Cretan School from
Candia to Moscow and St. Petersburg]. Exhibition catalogue (Herakleion: Vikelea
Dimotiki vivliothiki, 2004 [1993]).
Chelli, Maurizio. Manuale dei simboli nell’arte. L’era paleocristiana e bizantina. Rome:
EdUP, 2008.
Cohen, Mordechai. “Interpreting the Resting of the Shekhinah: Exegetical Implications
of the Theological Debate among Maimonides, Nahmanides and Sefe Ha-Hinnukh.”
In The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses to Messiah, ed. Steven Fine, 237–275. Leiden:
Brill, 2011.
Cohen, Richard I. Jewish Icons: Art and Society in Modern Europe. Berkeley/Los Angelеs:
University of California Press, 1998.
Conant, Kenneth J. “The After-Life of Vitruvius in the Middle Ages.” Journal of the
Society of Architectural Historians 27, no. 1 (1968): 33–38.
Constantinides, Efthalia C. The Wall Paintings of the Panagia Olympiotissa. 2 vols.
Athens: Canadian Institute of Archeology in Athens, 1992.
Constas, Maximos. “Dionysius the Areopagite and the New Testament.” In The Oxford
Handbook of Dionysius the Areopagite, ed. Mark Edwards, Dimitrios Pallis, and
Georgios Steiris, 48–63. New York: Oxford University Press, 2022.
254 Bibliography

Constas, P. Nicholas. “Symeon of Thessalonike and the Theology of the Icon Screen.”
In Threshold of the Sacred, ed. Sharon E.J. Gerstel, 163–185. Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2006.
Coon, Lynda L. Sacred Fictions: Holy Women and Hagiography in Late Antiquity.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997.
Cormack, Robert, and Maria Vassilaki, eds. Byzantium 330–1453. Royal Academy of Arts,
London, 25 October 2008–22 March 2009. London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2008.
Ćorović, Vladimir. “Prilog proučavanju načina sahranjivanja i podizanja nadgrobnih
spomenika u našim krajevima u srednjem veku” [Contribution to the study of the
method of burial and erecting of gravestones in our region in the Middle Ages].
Naše starine 3 (1956): 127–147.
Ćorović-Ljubinković, Mirjana. Srednjovekovni duborez u istočnim oblastima Jugoslavije
[Medieval woodcut sculpture in the eastern regions of Yugoslavia]. Belgrade:
Arheološki institut-posebna izdanja 5, 1965.
Courtois, Christian. “Exconsul. Observations sur l’histoire du consulat à l’époque byz-
antine.” Byzantion 19 (1949): 37–58.
Cox Miller, Patricia. “Figuring Relics: A Poetics of Enshrinement.” In Saints and
Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, ed. Cynthia Hahn and
Holger A. Klein, 99–109. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection, 2015.
Crosby, Vanessa. “Imagined Architectures and Visual Exegesis: Temple Imagery in
the Illuminated Manuscripts of the Iberian Jews.” Journal of the Australian Early
Medieval Association 2 (2006): 43–55.
Cumont, Franz. Recherches sur le symbolisme funéraire des romains. Paris: Geuthner,
1942.
Ćurčić, Slobodan. “Architectural Reconsideration of the Nea Ekklesia.” Byzantine
Studies Conference Abstracts 6 (1980): 11–12.
Ćurčić, Slobodan. “Architectural Significance of the Subsidiary Chapels in Middle
Byzantine Churches.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 36, no. 3
(1977): 94–110.
Ćurčić, Slobodan. “Architecture as Icon.” In Architecture as Icon: Perception and
Representation of Architecture in Byzantine Art, ed. Slobodan Ćurčić and Evangelia
Hadjitryphonos, 3–39. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.
Ćurčić, Slobodan. Architecture of the Balkans from Diocletian to Süleyman the
Magnificent. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2010.
Ćurčić, Slobodan. Gračanica. Istorija i arhitektura [Gračanica. History and architec-
ture]. Belgrade: Cicero, 1999.
Ćurčić, Slobodan. Gračanica: King Milutin’s Church and Its Place in Late Byzantine
Architecture. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1979.
Cutler, Anthony. “The Making of Justinian’s Diptychs.” Byzantion 54 (1984): 75–115.
Bibliography 255

Dalgıç, Örgü, and Thomas F. Mathews. “A New Interpretation of the Church of Peri­
bleptos and Its Place in Middle Byzantine Architecture.” In The First International
Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium, Istanbul 2007, 424–431. Istanbul: Vehbi
Koç Vakfı, 2010.
Danielou, Jean. From Shadows to Reality: Studies in Biblical Typology of the Fathers.
Westminster: Newman Press, 1960.
Danthine, Hélène. “L’imagerie des trônes vides et des trônes porteurs de symboles
dans le Proche-Orient ancient.” In Mélanges syriens offerts à René Dussaud, vol. 2,
857–866. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1939.
Dark, Ken R., and Jan Kostenec. Hagia Sophia Project: 2004–2007 Survey Seasons.
Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 2012. http://ukar.ff.cuni.cz/node/160.
Darrouzès, Jean. “Notes pour servir à l’histoire de Chypre (deuxième article).” Kypriakai
Spoudai 20 (1956): 31–63.
Darrouzès, Jean. “Notes pour servir à l’histoire de Chypre (premier article).” Kypriakai
Spoudai 17 (1953): 89–90.
Darrouzès, Jean. Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople. Vol. 1, fasc. 5,
Les regestes de 1310 à 1376. Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1977.
Darrouzès, Jean. “Sainte-Sophie de Thessalonique d’après un rituel.” Revue des études
byzantines 34 (1976): 45–78.
Davies, Glenys. “The Door Motif in Roman Funerary Sculpture.” In Papers in Italian
Archaeology, 1. The Lancaster Seminar: Recent Research in Prehistoric, Classical,
and Medieval Archaeology, ed. Hugo McK. Blake, Timothy W. Potter, and David B.
Whitehouse, 203–226. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges, 1978.
De Blaauw, Sible. “Imperial Connotations in Roman Church Interiors. The Significance
and Effect of the Lateran Fastigium.” In Imperial Art as Christian Art—Christian Art
as Imperial Art. Expression and Meaning in Art and Architecture from Constantine
to Justinian, ed. J. Rasmus Brandt and Olaf Steen, 137–146. Rome: Bardi, 2001.
Deér, Josef. “Der Globus der spätrömischen und byzantinischen Kaisers. Symbol oder
Insignie?” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 54 (1961): 291–318.
Deér, Josef. The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs of the Norman Period in Sicily. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1959.
Degrassi, Attilio. I fasti consolari dell’impero romano dal 30 avanti Cristo al 613 dopo
Cristo. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1952.
Deichmann, Friedrich Wilhelm, Giuseppe Bovini and Hugo Brandenburg. Reperto­
rium der christlich-antiken Sarkophage, 1. Rom und Ostia. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner
Verlag, 1967.
Delbrueck, Richard. Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler. Berlin/Leipzig:
De Gruyter, 1929.
Delbrueck, Richard. Spätantike Kaiserportäts. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1933.
Delehaye, Hippolyte. The Legends of the Saints. London: Longman, 1907.
256 Bibliography

della Dora, Veronica. Landscape, Nature, and the Sacred in Byzantium. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Demangel, Robert, and Ernest Mamboury. Le quartier des Manganes et la première
region de Constantinople. Paris: Boccard, 1939.
Demus, Otto. “The Ideal Iconographic Scheme of the Cross-in-Square Church.” In
Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium, 14–16.
Boston: Boston Book & Art Shop, 1955.
der Parthog, Gwynneth. Medieval Cyprus: A Guide to the Byzantine and Latin Monu­
ments. Lefkosia: Moufflon Publications, 2006.
Dey, Hendrik W. The Afterlife of the Roman City: Architecture and Ceremony in Late
Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
DiCenso, James J. “The Concept of Urbild in Kant’s Philosophy of Religion.” Kant-
Studien 104, no. 1 (2013): 100–132.
Dietl, Albert. “Sabine Schrenk, Typos und Antitypos in der frühchristlichen Kunst
(Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Erg.-Bd.21), Münster 1995.” Journal für
Kunstgeschichte 2, no. 2 (1998): 121–125.
Dittelbach, Thomas. “La chiesa inferiore.” In La Cappella Palatina a Palermo, ed.
Beat Brenk, 283–293. Modena: Panini Editore, 2010.
Djordjević, Ivan M. “Dve Molitve Stefana Dečanskog pre bitke na Velbuždu i njegov
odjek u umetnosti” [Two prayers of Stefan Dečansky before the Battle of Velbuzd
and his echo in art]. Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 15 (1979): 135–150.
Djordjević, Ivan M. “Predstava Stefana Dečanskog uz oltarsku pregradu u Dečanima”
[The representation of Stefan Dečanski near the altar partition in Dečani].
Saopštenja 15 (1983): 35–42.
Djurić, Vojislav J. “Ravanički živopis i liturgija” [The murals and liturgy of Ravanica]. In
Manastir Ravanica—spomenica o šestoj stogodišnjici, ed. Branislav Živković, 60–75.
Belgrade: Izdanje Manastira Ravanice, 1981.
Djurić, Vojislav. “Sveti pokroviteli arhiepiskopa Danila II i njegovih zadužbina” [Holy
Patrons of the Archbishop Danilo II and his foundations]. In Arhiepiskop Danilo II i
njegovo doba, ed. Vojislav Djurić, 281–294. Belgrade: SANU, 1991.
Doig, Allan. Liturgy and Architecture: From Early Church to Middle Ages. Burlington,
VT: Ashgate, 2008.
Donati, Angela, and Giovanni Gentili, eds. Constantino il Grande. La civiltà antica al
bivio tra Occidente e Oriente. Milan: Silvana Editoriale, 2005.
Drandakis, Nikolaos. Byzantines toichografies tēs Mesa Manēs [Byzantine murals of
Inner Mani]. Athens: Archaiologiki Etaireia, 1995.
Drijvers, Jan Willem. “Flavia Maxima Fausta: Some Remarks.” Historia 41, no. 4 (1992):
500–506.
Drijvers, Jan Willem. “Helena Augusta: Cross and Myth. Some New Reflections.” In
Millennium 8. Yearbook on the Culture and History of the First Millennium C.E., ed.
Wolfram Brandes, 125–174. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2011.
Bibliography 257

Drijvers, Jan Willem. “Helena Augusta: Exemplary Christian Empress.” Studia Patristica
24 (1993): 85–90.
Drijvers, Jan Willem. Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great, and the
Legend of her Finding of the True Cross. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Dufraigne, Pierre. Adventus Augusti, Adventus Christi: recherche sur l’exploitation
idéologique et littéraire d’un cérémonial dans l’Antiquité tardive. Paris: Institut
d’études augustiniennes, 1994.
Dumser, Elisha Ann. “The AETERNAE MEMORIAE Coinage of Maxentius: An Issue of
Symbolic Intent.” Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 61 (2006): 106–118.
Ehrlich, Theodore E. “The Disappearance of the Ark of the Covenant.” Jewish Bible
Quarterly 40, no. 3 (2012): 174–178.
Elderkin, G.W. “Architectural Detail and Antique Sepulchral Art.” American Journal of
Archaeology 39 (1935): 518–525.
Elkins, Nathan T. Monuments in Miniature: Architecture on Roman Coinage. New York:
American Numismatic Society, 2015.
Elsner, Jaś. “Iconoclasm as Discourse: From Antiquity to Byzantium.” The Art Bulletin
94, no. 3 (2012): 368–394.
Elsner, Jaś. “Relic, Icon and Architecture: The Material Articulation of the Holy in
Early Christian Art.” In Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and
Beyond, ed. Cynthia Hahn and Holger A. Klein, 13–41. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015.
Elsner, Jaś. “The Rhetoric of Buildings in the De Aedificiis of Procopius.” In Art and Text
in Byzantium, ed. Liz James, 33–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Emmanuel, Melita. “Die Fresken der Muttergottes-Hodegetria-Kirche in Spelies auf
der Insel Euboia (1311). Bemerkungen zu Ikonographie und Stil.” Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 83, no. 2 (1990): 451–467.
Engberg-Pederson, Troels. Cosmology and the Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material
Spirit. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Engemann, Josef. “Ein Missorium des Anastasius. Überlegungen zum ikonogra-
phischen Programm der ‘Anastasius’-Platte aus dem Sutton Hoo Ship-burial.” In
Festschrift für Klaus Wessel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Marcell Restle, 103–115. Munich:
Editio Maris, 1988.
Engemann, Josef. Untersuchungen zur Sepulchralsymbolik der späteren römischen
Kaiserzeit. Münster: Aschendorff, 1973.
Epstein, Michael М. The Medieval Haggadah: Art, Narrative, Religious Imagination.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.
Erdeljan, Jelena. Chosen Places: Constructing New Jerusalems in Slavia Orthodoxa.
Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Esbroeck, Michel van. “The Virgin as the True Ark of the Covenant.” In Images of the
Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. Maria Vassilaki, 63–68.
Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
258 Bibliography

Etzeoglou, Rhodoniki. “The Cult of the Virgin Zoodochos Pege at Mistra.” In Images
of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. Maria Vassilaki,
239–250. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
Etzeoglou, Rhodoniki. O naos tēs Odēgētrias tou Brontochiou ston Mystra. Oi toichogra-
phies tou narthēka [The Church of the Hodegetria of Vrontochion in Mystras. The
murals of the narthex]. Athens: Akademia Athenon, 2013.
Etzeoglou, Rhodoniki. “Quelques remarques sur les portraits figurés dans les églises
de Mistra.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 32, no. 5 (1982): 514–515.
Evangelatou, Maria. “The Illustration of the Ninth-Century Byzantine Marginal
Psalters: Layers of Meaning and Their Sources.” PhD diss., University of London,
2002.
Evans, Helen C., ed. Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557). New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.
Evans, Helen C., and Brandie Ratliff, eds. Byzantium and Islam: Age of Transition
(7th–9th Century). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2012.
Evans, Linda. “Animals in Coptic Art.” Göttinger Miszellen 232 (2012): 63–73.
Evgenidou, Despoina, ed. The City of Mystras. Mystras, August 2001–January 2002.
Exhibition Catalogue. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2001.
Eyice, Semavi. “Contributions à l‘histoire de l‘art byzantin: quatre edifices inédits ou
mal connus.” Cahiers archéologiques 10 (1959): 245–250.
Eyice, Semavi. “Les églises byzantines à plan central d’Istanbul.” Corso di cultura
sulle’arte ravennate e byzantina 26 (1979): 115–149.
Failler, Albert. “Une donation des époux Sanianoi au monastère des Hodègoi.” Revue
des études byzantines 34 (1976): 111–117.
Fairbairn, Patrick. Typology of Scripture: Two Volumes in One. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel
Publications, 1960.
Fears, J. Rufus. “The Theology of Victory at Rome: Approaches and Problems.” In
Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 2.17:2, 736–826. Berlin/New York:
De Gruyter, 1981.
Featherstone, J. Michael. “De Cerimoniis and the Great Palace.” In The Byzantine World,
ed. Paul Stephenson, 162–174. London/New York: Routledge, 2010.
Feist, Sabine. “The Impact of Late Antique Churches on the Ecclesiastical Architecture
during the Transitional Period: The Case Study of St. Irene in Constantinople.” In
Transforming Sacred Spaces: New Approaches to Byzantine Ecclesiastical Architecture
from the Transitional Period, ed. Sabine Feist, 129–145. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag,
2020.
Fine, Steven. “Art and Liturgical Context of the Sepphoris Synagogue.” In Galilee
through Centuries: Confluences of Cultures, ed. Eric M. Meyers, 227–237. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999.
Bibliography 259

Finucane, Ronald C. “Sacred Corpse, Profane Carrion: Social Ideals and Death Rituals
in the Later Middle Ages.” In Mirrors of Mortality: Studies in the Social History of
Death, ed. Joachim Whaley, 40–60. London: Europa, 1981.
Fisher, Elizabeth A. “Life of the Patriarch Nicephoros I of Constantinople.” In Byzantine
Defenders of Images: Eight Saints’ Lives in English Translation, ed. Alice-Mary Talbot,
25–143. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1998.
Florensky, Pavel. Iconostasis. Trans. Donald Sheehan and O. Andrejev. Crestwood, NY:
St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2000.
Frampton, Kenneth. Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth
and Twentieth Century Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
Frazer, Margaret English. “Early Byzantine Silver Book Covers.” In Ecclesiastical Silver
Plate in Sixth-Century Byzantium: Papers of the Symposium Held May 16–18, 1986, at
the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, and Dumbarton Oaks, Washington DC, organized
by Susan A. Boyd, Marlia Mundell Mango, and Gary Vikan, vol. 3, ed. Susan A. Boyd
and Marlia Mundell Mango, 71–76. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Reserarch
Library and Collection, 1992.
Frazer, Margaret English. “Pair of Book Covers with Peter and Paul.” In Age of
Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh century, ed. Kurt
Weitzmann, 618–619. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1979.
Frolow, Andrey. La relique de la Vraie Croix. Recherches sur le développement d’un culte.
Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1961.
Fuchs, Günter. Architekturdarstellungen auf römischen Münzen der Republik und der
frühen Kaiserzeit. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969.
Gaborit-Chopin, Danielle. Elfenbeinkunst im Mittelalter. Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1978.
Garland, Lynda. Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium, AD 527–1204.
London: Routledge, 1999.
Gavrilović, Anđela. “Zidno slikarstvo crkve Bogorodice Odigitrije u Peći” [Wall paint-
ings of the Church of the Virgin Hodegetria in Peć]. PhD diss., University of
Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Art History Department, 2012. http://doiserbia
.nb.rs/phd/fulltext/BG20130419GAVRILOVIC.pdf.
Gerola, Giuseppe. Monumenti Veneti dell’isola di Creta. Vol. 4. Venice: Istituto Veneto di
Scienze, 1932.
Giedion, Sigfried. Architecture and the Phenomena of Transition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1971.
Gittings, Elizabeth A. “Civic Life: Women as Embodiments of Civic Life.” In Byzantine
Women and Their World, ed. Ioli Kalavrezou, 35–42. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2003.
Gkioles, Nikolaos. O Byzantinos Troulos kai to eikonografiko tou programma [On the
Byzantine dome and the iconography of its program]. Athens: Ekdoseis Kardamitsa,
1990.
260 Bibliography

Gnecchi, Francesco. I medaglioni romani I. Milan: Vlrico Hoepli, editore libraio della
real casa, 1912.
Goette, Hans Rupprecht. “Corona spicea, corona civica und Adler. Bemerkungen zu
drei römischen Dreifussbasen.” Archäologischer Anzeiger (1984): 573–589.
Goldman, Bernard. The Sacred Portal. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1966.
Goodenough, Erwin Ramsdell. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988.
Goppelt, Leonhard. Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the
New. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1982.
Goudeau, J., M. Verhoeven, and W. Weijers, eds. Imagined and Real Jerusalem in Art and
Architecture. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Grabar, André. L’età d’oro di Giustiniano. Dalla morte di Teodosio all’Islam. Trans.
G. Veronesi. Milan: Feltrinelli, 1966.
Grabar, André. “L’iconographie du ciel dans l’art chrétien de l’antiquité et du haut
Moyen-Age.” Cahiers archéologiques 30 (1982): 5–24.
Grabar, André. Martyrium. Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l’art Chrétien antique.
Paris: Collège de France, 1946.
Grabowski, Francis A. Plato, Metaphysics and the Forms. London: Continuum, 2008.
Graetz, Heinrich. The Structure of Jewish History and Other Essays. Trans. and ed.
I. Schorsch. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1975.
Grigg, Robert. “Symphonian aeido tes basileias. An Image of Imperial Harmony on the
Base of the Column of Arcadius.” Art Bulletin 59 (1977): 469–482.
Grigoryan, Savary Gohar. “The Roots of Tempietto and Its Symbolism in Armenian
Gospels.” Iconographica 13 (2014): 11–24.
Grumel, Venance. “Le mois de Marie des Byzantins.” Échos d’Orient 31 (1932): 257–269.
Gugolj, Branka, and Danijela Tešić-Radovanović. “A Lamp from the Belgrade City
Museum with a Representation of SS. Constantine and Helen.” In Symbols and
Models in the Mediterranean: Perceiving through Culture, ed. Aneilya Barnes
and Mariarosaria Salerno, 124–135. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, 2017.
Guilland, Rodolphe. “Études sur l’histoire administrative de l’empire byzantin. Le con-
sul, ο υπατος.” Byzantion 24 (1954): 545–578.
Guillou, André. Les Archives de Saint-Jean-Prodrome sur le mont Mènécée. Paris: Presses
universitaires de France, 1955.
Gutmann, Joseph. “Masora Figurata in the Mikdashyah: The Messianic Solomonic
Temple in a 14th-Century Spanish Hebrew Bible Manuscript.” In 8th International
Congress of Masoretic Studies Chicago 1988, ed. E.J. Revell, 71–77. Missoula: Scholars
Press, 1990.
Haarløv, Britt. The Half-Open Door: A Common Symbolic Motif within Roman Sepulchral
Sculpture. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 1977.
Bibliography 261

Haberstumpf, Walter. “Dinasti italiani in levante. I Tocco duchi di Leucade: regesti

(secoli XIV–XVII).” Studi veneziani NS 45 (2003): 165–211.
Hackel, Sergei, ed. The Byzantine Saint. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
2001.
Hackett, John. A History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus. London: Methuen and Co.,
1901.
Hadjitryphonos, Evangelia. “Peristöon or Ambulatory in Byzantine Church Architec­
ture.” Saopštenja 34 (2002): 131–145.
Hadžitrifonos, Evangelia. “Pristup tipologiji petokupolnih crkava u vizantijskoj arhi-
tekturi” [Approaches to typology of five-domed churches in Byzantine architec-
ture]. Saopštenja 22/23 (1990–1991): 41–76.
Hahn, Cynthia. “Loca Sancta Souvenirs: Sealing the Pilgrim’s Experience.” In Blessings
of Pilgrimage, ed. Robert Ousterhout, 85–96. Urbana, Chicago, IL: University of
Illinois Press, 1990.
Hahn, Cynthia, and Holger A. Klein, eds. Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in
Byzantium and Beyond. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection, 2015.
Hall, James. Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art. London: J. Murray, 1979.
Hallensleben, Horst. “Untersuchungen zur Genesis und Typologie des ‘Mistratipus’.”
Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 18 (1969): 105–118.
Halsberghe, Gaston. The Cult of Sol Invictus. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Hammond, C.E. Liturgies Eastern and Western. Ed. F.E. Brightman, 2 vols. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1965.
Handelman, Susan. The Slayers of Moses: The Emergence of Rabbinic Interpretation in
Modern Literary Theory. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982.
Hasenmueller, Christine. “Panofsky, Iconography, and Semiotics.” The Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism 36, no. 3 (1978): 289–301.
Hathaway, Ronald F. Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-
Dionysius: A Study in the Form and Meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings. The
Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1969.
Hautecoeur, Louis. Mystique et architecture: symbolisme du cercle et de la coupole. Paris:
Picard, 1954.
Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson.
London: SCM Press, 1962.
Herrin, Judith. “The Imperial Feminine in Byzantium.” Past & Present 169 (2000): 3–35.
Herrin, Judith. Women in Purple: Rulers of Medieval Byzantium. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 2001.
Herrmann-Mascard, Nicole. Les reliques des saints. Formation coutumière d’un droit.
Paris: Klincksieck, 1975.
262 Bibliography

Hill, Philip V. “Buildings and Monuments of Rome on Coins of the Early Fourth Century,
AD 294–313.” Numismatica e Antichità Classiche 13 (1984): 215–227.
Hölscher, Tonio. Victoria Romana. Archäologische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
und Wesensart der römischen Siegesgöttin von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 3.
Jhs.n.Chr., Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1967.
Holum, Kenneth G. Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Domination in Late
Antiquity. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982.
Holum, Kenneth G., and Gary Vikan. “The Trier Ivory, Adventus Ceremonial, and the
Relics of St. Stephen.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 33 (1979): 113–133.
Holtzmann, Walther. “Die altesten Urkunden des Klosters S. Maria del Patir.”
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 26 (1926): 328–351.
Hommel, Peter. “Giebel und Himmel.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 7 (1957): 11–55.
Howard-Johnston, James, and Paul Antony Hayward, eds. The Cult of the Saints in Late
Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Essays on the Contribution of Peter Brown. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999.
Ierodiakonou, Katerina. “The Greek Concept of Sympatheia and Its Byzantine
Appropriation in Michael Psellos.” In The Occult Sciences in Byzantium, ed. Paul
Magdalino and Maria Mavroudi, 97–117. Geneva: La Pomme d’Or, 2007.
Ivanović, Filip. “Images of Invisible Beauty in the Aesthetic Cosmology of Dionysius
the Areopagite.” In Perceptions of the Body and Sacred Space in Late Antiquity and
Byzantium, ed. Jelena Bogdanović, 11–21. Abingdon: Routledge, 2018.
Ivić, Pavle, and Milica Grković. Dečanske hrisovulje [Charters from Dečani]. Novi Sad:
Institut za lingvistiku, 1976.
Jacoby, Sam. “Typal and Typological Reasoning: A Diagrammatic Practice of Architec­
ture.” The Journal of Architecture 20, no. 6 (2015): 938–961.
James, Liz. Empresses and Power in Early Byzantium. London: Leicester University
Press, 2001.
Jensen, Robin Margaret. Understanding Early Christian Art. New York/London:
Routledge, 2000.
Johnson, Mark. “Acceptance and Adaptation of Byzantine Architectural Types in
the ‘Byzantine Commonwealth’.” In The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Art and
Architecture, ed. Ellen C. Schwartz, 373–388. New York: Oxford University Press,
2021.
Johnson, Paul-Alan. The Theory of Architecture: Concepts, Themes, and Practices. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1994.
Jones, Natalie A., Helen Ross, Timothy Lynam, Pascal Perez, and Anne Leitch. “Mental
Models: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Theory and Methods.” Ecology and Society
16, no. 1: 46, 2011. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art46/.
Jovanović, Aleksandar. Tlo Srbije: zavičaj rimskih careva [Serbia: Homeland of the
Roman Emperors]. Belgrade: Princip-Bonart Press, 2006.
Bibliography 263

Jugie, Martin. “La première fête mariale en Orient et en Occident, l’avent primitif.”
Échos d’Orient 22 (1923): 129–152.
Julius, Anthony. Idolizing Pictures: Idolatry, Iconoclasm and Jewish Art. London: Thames
& Hudson, 2000.
Jung, Carl G. Analytical Psychology: Its Theory and Practice: The Tavistock Lectures. New
York: Pantheon, 1968.
Jung, Carl G. “Approaching the Unconscious.” In Man and His Symbols, ed. Carl G. Jung,
18–103. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964.
Jung, Carl G. Collected Works of C.G. Jung. Vol. 6, Psychological Types. Trans. R.F.C. Hull.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, [1921] 1976.
Jung, Carl G. “Psychological Aspects of the Mother Type.” In Collected Works of
C.G. Jung, vol. 9:1, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Trans. R.F.C. Hull,
75–110. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981.
Kalavrezou, Ioli. “Images of the Mother: When the Virgin Mary Became Meter Theou.”
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990): 165–172.
Kalligas, Haris. “The Church of Haghia Sophia at Monemvasia: Its Date and Dedication.”
Deltion tēs Christianikēs Archailogikēs Hetaireias 9 (1977–1979): 217–222.
Kalligas, Haris. Monemvasia: Byzantine City State. London: Routledge, 2010.
Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia. “Mistra: A Fortified Late Byzantine Settlement.” In Heaven
and Earth. Vol. 2, Cities and Countryside in Byzantine Greece, ed. Jenny Albani and
Eugenia Chalkia, 224–239. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2013.
Kaplan, Michel. “De la dépouille à la relique: formation du culte des saints à Byzance du
Ve au XIIe siècle.” In Les reliques. Objets, cultes, symboles: Actes du colloque interna-
tional de l’Université du Littoral-Côte d’Opale (Boulogne-sur-Mer), 4–6 septembre 1997,
ed. Edina Bozóky and Anne-Marie Helvétius, 19–38. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999.
Kaplan, Michel. “L’ensevelissement des saints: rituels de création des reliques et
sanctification à Byzance d’après les sources hagiographiques.” In Mélanges Gilbert
Dagron, 319–332. Paris: Association des amis du Centre d’histoire et civilisation de
Byzance, 2002.
Karydes, Spyros. Ē Odēgētria Agraphōn Kerkyras. Psēphides apo tē makraiōnē istoria tēs
[The Hodegetria of Agraphoi in Kerkyra. Pieces of its long history]. Kerkyra/Corfu,
2011.
Karydes, Spyros. “Syllogikes Chorēgies stēn Kerkyra kata tēn Prōimē Latinokratia.
Epigrafika Tekmēria” [Collective sponsorship in Corfu during the Early Latin rule.
Epigraphic evidence]. Byzantina Symmeikta 26 (2016): 167–172.
Karzonis, Anna. Anastasis: The Making of an Image. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1986.
Katramis, Nikolaos. Philologika analekta ek Zakynthou [Philological collection from
Zakynthos]. Zakynthos, 1880.
264 Bibliography

Kazaryan, Armen, İsmail Yavuz Özkaya, and Alin Pontioğlu. “The Church of Surb Prkich
in Ani (1035). Part 1: History and Historiography—Architectural Plan—Excavations
of 2012 and Starting of Conservation.” Journal of the International Association of
Research in History of Art 0143 (15 Nov. 2016). http://www.riha-journal.org/articles
/2016/0143-kazaryan-özkaya-pontioğlu.
Kazhdan, Alexander, and Henry Maguire. “Byzantine Hagiographical Texts as Sources
on Art.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 (1991): 1–22.
Kent, John P.C. Roman Coins. New York: Abrams, 1978.
Kessler, Herbert L. “Narrative Representations.” In The Age of Spirituality: Late Antique
and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century, ed. Kurt Weitzman, 454–455. New
York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1979.
Kiilerich, Bente. “Representing an Emperor: Style and Meaning on the Missorium of
Theodosius I.” In El disco de Teodosio, ed. Martín Almagro-Gorbea, José M. Álvarez
Martínez, José M. Blázquez Martínez, and Salvador Rovira, 273–280. Madrid: Real
Academia de la historia, 2000.
Kim, Kwang-ki, and Tim Berard. “Typification in Society and Social Science: The
Continuing Relevance of Schutz’s Social Phenomenology.” Human Studies 32, no. 3
(2009): 263–289.
Kitzinger, Ernst. “The Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina in Palermo: An Essay on the
Choice and Arrangement of Subjects.” Art Bulletin 31, no. 4 (1949): 269–292.
Klauser, Theodor. “Aurum Coronarium.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologische
Instituts, Römische Abteilung 59 (1944): 129–153.
Kleinbauer, Eugene W. “The Iconography and the Date of the Mosaics of the Rotunda
of Hagios Geiorgios, Thessaloniki.” Viator 3 (1972): 27–108.
Kletter, Karen M. “The Christian Reception of Josephus in Late Antiquity and the
Middle Ages.” In A Companion to Josephus, ed. Honora Howell Chapman and
Zuleika Rodgers, 368–381. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
Kochan, Lionel. Beyond the Graven Image: A Jewish View. New York: New York University
Press, 1997.
Koder, Johannes. Negroponte: Untersuchungen zur Topographie und Siedlungsgeschichte
der Insel Euboia während der Zeit der Venezianerherrschaft. Vienna: Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1973.
Kogman-Appel, Katrin. “Christianity, Idolatry, and the Question of Jewish Figural
Painting in the Middle Ages.” Speculum 84 (2009): 75–107.
Kogman-Appel, Katrin. “Coping with Christian Pictorial Sources: What Did Jewish
Miniaturists Not Paint?” Speculum 75, no. 4 (2000): 816–858.
Kogman-Appel, Katrin. Die zweite Nürnbergerund die Jehuda Haggada. Jüdische
Illuminatoren zwischen Tradition und Fortschriftt. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1999.
Kogman-Appel, Katrin. Illuminated Haggadot from Medieval Spain. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006.
Bibliography 265

Kogman-Appel, Katrin. “Jewish Art and Cultural Exchange: Theoretical Perspectives.”

Medieval Encounters 17 (2011): 1–26.
Kogman-Appel, Katrin. “Jewish Art and Non-Jewish Culture: The Dynamics of Artistic
Borrowing in Medieval Hebrew Manuscript Illumination.” Jewish History 15 (2001):
187–234.
Kogman-Appel, Katrin. Jewish Book Art Between Islam and Christianity: The Decoration
of Hebrew Bibles in Medieval Spain. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Kogman-Appel, Katrin. “Sephardic Ideas in Ashkenaz—Visualizing the Temple in
Medieval Regensburg.” Simon Dubnow Institute Yearbook 8 (2009): 245–277.
Kogman-Appel, Katrin. “The Temple of Jerusalem and the Hebrew Millennium in
a Thirteenth-Century Jewish Prayer Book.” In Jerusalem as Narrative Space, ed.
Anette Hoffmann and Gerhard Wolf, 187–208. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Kogman-Appel, Katrin, and Shulamit Laderman. “The Sarajevo Haggadah: The Con­
cept of Creatio Ex-Nihilo and the Hermeneutical School Behind It.” Studies in
Iconography 25 (2004): 89–127.
Kollwitz, Johannes, and Helga Herdejürgen. Die Sarkophage der westlichen Gebiete des
Imperium Romanum. Vol. 2, Die ravennatischen Sarkophage. Berlin: Mann, 1979.
Kominis, Athanasios. “Paolo di Monembasia.” Byzantion 29/30 (1959–1960): 231–248.
Kondakov, Nikodim P. Iconographia Bogomateri. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg: Typography of
the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1914.
Kondić, Vladimir, and Vladislav Popović. Caričin Grad, utvrđeno naselje u vizantijskom
Iliriku [Caričin Grad, fortified settlement in the Byzantine Illyricum]. Belgrade:
Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1977.
Korać, Dušan. “Kanonizacija Stefana Dečanskog i promene na vladarskim portretima
u Dečanima” [Stefan Dečanski’s canonization and changes in the ruling portraits in
Dečani]. In Dečani i vizantijska umetnost sredinom XIV veka: međunarodni naučni
skup povodom 650 godina manastira Dečana, ed. Vojislav J. Ðurić, 287–295. Belgrade:
Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1989.
Korać, Vojislav, and Marica Šuput. Arhitektura vizantijskog sveta [Architecture of the
Byzantine world]. Belgrade: Vizantološki institut, SANU, 1998.
Krautheimer, Richard. “The Carolingian Revival of Early Christian Architecture.” Art
Bulletin 24, no. 1 (1942): 1–38.
Krautheimer, Richard (with Slobodan Ćurčić). Early Christian and Byzantine Architec­
ture. 4th ed. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1986.
Krautheimer, Richard. “Introduction to an ‘Iconography of Mediaeval Architecture’.”
Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 5 (1942): 1–33; reprinted in Studies in
Early Christian, Medieval and Renaissance Art (1969): 115–150.
Krautheimer, Richard. Rome: Profile of a City, 312–1308. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1980.
266 Bibliography

Krinsky, Carol Herselle. “Seventy-Eight Vitruvius Manuscripts.” Journal of the Warburg

and Courtauld Institutes 30 (1967): 36–70.
Kruger, Derek. “The Religion on Relics in Late Antiquity and Byzantium.” In Treasures
of Heaven: Saints, Relics, and Devotion in Medieval Europe, ed. Martina Bagnoli et al.,
5–17. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.
Krunić, Slavica. Antičke svetiljke iz Muzeja grada Beograda [Ancient lamps from the
Belgrade City Museum]. Belgrade: Muzej grada Beograda, 2011.
Kruse, Helmut. Studien zur offiziellen Geltung des Kaiserbildes im römischen Reiche.
Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1934.
Kühnel, Gustav. Wall Painting of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Berlin: Mann Verlag,
1988.
Künzl, Ernst. Der römische Triumph. Siegesfeiern im antiken Rom. Munich: C.H. Beck,
1988.
Kuzmanović Novović, Ivana. “Portreti cara Konstantina i članova njegove porodice na
gliptici u Srbiji” [Portraits of Emperor Constantine and members of his family on
glyptic in Serbia]. In Niš i Vizantija 7, ed. Miša Rakocija, 77–86. Niš: Kulturni centar
Niša, 2009.
Łabuda, Piotr. “Typological Usage of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” The
Person and the Challenges 1, no. 2 (2011): 167–182.
Ladner, Gerhart B. God, Cosmos, and Humankind: the World of Early Christian
Symbolism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.
Lafontaine-Dosogne, Jacqueline. Iconographie de l’enfance de la Vierge dans l’Empire
byzantin et en Occident. Vol. 1. Bruxelles: Académie Royale de Belgique, 1992.
Lafontaine-Dosogne, Jacqueline. “Iconography of the Cycle of the Virgin.” In Kariye
Djami, 4 vols., ed. Paul A. Underwood, vol. 4, 163–93, 197–241. London: Routledge,
1966.
Lampl, Paul. “Schemes of Architectural Representation in Early Medieval Art.”
Marsyas 9 (1961): 6–13.
Lampros, Spyridon. “Lakedaimónioi vivliográfoi kaí ktítores kodíkon katá toús mésous
aiónas kaí epí tourkokratías” [Lacedaemonian bibliographers and commission-
ers of codices during the Middle Ages and Turkish domination]. Neos Hellēno-
mnēmōn 4, no. 2 (1907): 152–187.
Lampros, Spyridon. “Treis paradoxographikai diēseis” [Three mirabilia narrations
about Peloponnesos]. Neos Hellēnomnēmōn 4, no. 2 (1907): 129–151.
Langford, Julie. Maternal Megalomania: Julia Domna and the Imperial Politics of
Motherhood. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.
Laugier, Marc-Antoine. An Essay on Architecture. Los Angeles: Hennessey and Ingalls
[2009] 1977. [Translation of the original text Marc-Antoine Laugier, Essai sur
l’architecture. Paris: Duchesne, 1755].
Bibliography 267

Laurent, Vitalien. Les corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantine. Vol. 5, 2. Paris: Centre
national de la recherche scientifique, 1965.
Laurent, Vitalien. Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople. Vol. 1, fasc. 4,
Les Regestes de 1208 à 1309. Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1971.
Leader, Ruth E. “The David Plates Revisited: Transforming the Secular in Early
Byzantium.” Art Bulletin 82, no. 3 (2000): 407–427.
Leader-Newby, Ruth E. Silver and Society in Late Antiquity: Functions and Meanings of
Silver Plate in the Fourth to Seventh Centuries. Aldershot: Routledge, 2004.
Leeming, David Adams, and Jake Page. Goddess: Myths of the Female Divine. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1996.
Legner, Anton. Reliquien in Kunst und Kult: zwischen Antike und Aufklärung. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995.
Lehmann, Karl. “The Dome of Heaven.” Art Bulletin 27 (1945): 1–27.
Lemerle, Paul. “La Chronique improprement dite de Monemvasie: le contexte histo-
rique et légendaire.” Revue des études byzantines 21 (1963): 5–49.
Lenski, Noel. “The Reign of Constantine.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Age of
Constantine, ed. Noel Lenski, 59–90. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Lidov, Alexei, ed. Air and Heavens in the Hierotopy and Iconography of the Christian
World [Vozdukh i nebesa v iyerotopii i ikonografii khristianskogo mira]. Moscow:
Theoria, 2019.
Lidov, Alexei. “The Flying Hodegetria: The Miraculous Icon as Bearer of Sacred Space.”
In The Miraculous Image in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance, ed. Erik Thunø
and Gerhard Wolf, 286–288, 291–321. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 2004.
Lidov, Alexei. “Heavenly Jerusalem: The Byzantine Approach.” Jewish Art 23/24
(1997/98): 341–353.
Lidov, Alexei, ed. The Hierotopy of Holy Mountains in Christian Culture [Iyerotopiya
svyatoy gory v khristianskoy kul’ture]. Moscow: Theoria, 2019.
Lidov, Alexei, ed. Hierotopy of Light and Fire in the Culture of the Byzantine World
[Iyerotopiya ognya i sveta v kul’ture vizantiyskogo mira]. Moscow: Theoria, 2017.
Lidov, Alexei, ed. Holy Water in the Hierotopy and Iconography of the Christian World
[Svyataya Voda v iyerotopii i ikonografii khristianskogo mira]. Moscow: Theoria,
2017.
Lidov, Alexei, ed. Vostochnokhristianskie relikvii [Eastern Christian relics]. Moscow:
Progress-traditsiia, 2003.
Lidova, Maria. “The Earliest Images of Maria Regina in Rome and the Byzantine
Imperial Iconography.” In Niš i Vizantija 8, ed. Miša Rakocija, 231–243. Niš: Kulturni
centar Niša, 2010.
Limberis, Vasiliki. Divine Heiress: The Virgin Mary and the Making of Christian
Constantinople. London: Routledge, 2002.
268 Bibliography

Löhr, Wolfgang. “Konstantin und Sol Invictus in Rom.” Jahrbuch für Antike und
Christentum 50 (2007): 102–110.
L’Orange, Hans Peter. Studies in the Iconography of Cosmic Kingship in the Ancient
World. Oslo: Aschehoug, 1953.
Lossky, Vladimir. In the Image and Likeness of God. Trans. John Erickson and Thomas
E. Bird, intro. John Meyendorff. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974.
Loulloupis, Michael. Annual Report of the Director of the Department of Antiquities,
Cyprus, for the year 1988. Nicosia: Dept. of Antiquities, Cyprus, 1990.
Lowden, John. “Illustrated Octateuch Manuscripts: A Byzantine Phenomenon.” In
The Old Testament in Byzantium, ed. Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson, 107–153.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.
MacCormack, Sabine G. Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. Berkeley/London:
University of California Press, 1981.
Macrae, C. Neil, Charles Stangor, and Miles Hewstone, eds. Stereotypes and Stereo­
typing. New York: The Guilford Press, 1996.
Macrides, Ruth. “Saints and Sainthood in the Early Palaiologan Period.” In The
Byzantine Saint, ed. Sergei Hackel, 67–88. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 2001.
Madrazo, Leandro. “Durand and the Science of Architecture.” Journal of Architectural
Education 48, no. 1 (1994): 12–24.
Madrazo Agudin, Leandro. “The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into the
Nature of Architectural Form.” PhD diss., Zurich ETH, 1995.
Magdalino, Paul. Constantinople médiévale: Études sur l’évolution des structures
urbaines. Paris: Boccard, 1996.
Magdalino, Paul, ed. New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium,
4th to 13th centuries: Papers from the Twenty-sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine
Studies, St Andrews, March 1992. Cambridge: Variorum, 1994.
Magdalino, Paul. “Observations on the Nea Ekklesia of Basil I.” Jahrbuch der Öster­
reichischen Byzantinistik 37 (1987): 51–63.
Maguire, Henry. The Icons of Their Bodies: Saints and Their Images in Byzantium.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Maguire, Henry. “The Mosaics of Nea Moni: An Imperial Reading.” Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 46 (1992): 205–214.
Maier, Franz Georg, and Vassos Karageorghis. Paphos: History and Archaeology. Nicosia:
A.G. Leventis Foundation, 1984.
Mak Daniel, Gordon L. “Prilozi za istoriju ‘Života kraljeva i arhiepiskopa srpskih’ od
Danila II” [Contributions to the history of the life of the kings and the archbishop of
the Serbs by Danilo II]. Prilozi za književnost jezik istoriju i folklor 46, 1–4 (1980–1984),
42–52.
Bibliography 269

Mamaloukos, Stavros V. To Katholiko tēs monēs Vatopediou, Historia kai arhitektonikē

[The katholikon of the Vatopedi Monastery, history and architecture]. Athens:
Ethniko Metsovio Polytechneio, Tmēma Architektonōn, Spoudastērio Historias tēs
Architektonikēs, 2001.
Mango, Cyril. “Approaches to Byzantine Architecture.” Muqarnas 8 (1991): 40–44.
Mango, Cyril. Byzantine Architecture. New York: Rizzoli, 1985.
Mango, Cyril. “The Empress Helena, Helenopolis, Pylae.” Travaux et Mémoires. Centre
de recherche d’histoire et civilisation byzantine 12 (1994): 143–158.
Mango, Cyril. “On the History of the Templon and the Martyrion of St. Artemios at
Constantinople.” Zograf 10 (1979): 40–43.
Marinis, Vasileios. Architecture and Ritual in the Churches of Constantinople. Ninth to
Fifteenth Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Marinis, Vasileios. “Liturgy and Architecture in the Byzantine Transitional Period
(7th–8th centuries).” In Transforming Sacred Spaces: New Approaches to Byzantine
Ecclesiastical Architecture from the Transitional Period, ed. Sabine Feist, 189–198.
Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2020.
Marinis, Vasileios, and Robert Ousterhout. “‘Grant Us to Share a Place and Lot with
Them,’ Relics and the Byzantine Church Building (9th–15th Centuries).” In Saints
and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia Hahn
and Holger A. Klein, 153–173. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library
and Collection, 2015.
Marinković, Čedomila. “Principles of the Representation of the Founder’s (ktetor’s)
Architecture.” In Serbia and Byzantium: Proceedings of the International Conference
Held on 15 December 2008 at the University of Cologne, ed. Mabi Angar and
Claudia Sode, 57–73. Frankfurt: PL Academic Research, 2013.
Marinković, Čedomila. Slika podignute crkve [Image of the completed church].
Belgrade: PB Press, 2007.
Marjanović-Dušanić, Smilja. Sveti kralj [Holy king]. Belgrade: Clio, 2007.
Marsengill, Katherine. “The Influence of Icons on the Perception of Living Holy
Persons.” In Perceptions of the Body and Sacred Space in Late Antiquity and Byzantium,
ed. Jelena Bogdanović, 87–103. Abingdon: Routledge, 2018.
Marsengill, Katherine. Portraits and Icons: Between Reality and Spirituality in Byzantine
Art. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013.
Martin, Jochen. “Das Kaisertum in der Spätantike.” In Usurpationen in der Spätantike.
Akten des Kolloquiums “Staatsreich und Staatlichkeit,” 6.–10. März 1996, Solothurn/
Bern, ed. François Paschoud and Joachim Szidat, 47–62. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner
Verlag, 1997.
Martindale, John Robert. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, II. A.D. 395–527.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
270 Bibliography

Matern, Petra. Helios und Sol: Kulte und Ikonographie des griechischen und römischen
Sonnengottes. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2002.
Mathews, Thomas F. The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul: A Photographic Survey.
University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1976.
Mathews, Thomas F. “Observations on the Church of Panagia Kamariotissa on
Heybeliada (Chalke), Istanbul.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27 (1973), 117–127.
Mathews, Thomas F., and Avedis K. Sanjian. Armenian Gospel Iconography: The
Tradition of the Glajor Gospel. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library
and Collection, 1991.
Mathews, Thomas F. and Norman Muller. “Isis and Mary in Early Icons.” In Images of
the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. Maria Vassilaki,
3–12. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2005.
Matić, Miljana. “Kivot za mošti svetog kralja Stefana Dečanskog” [Kivot with the
remains of the holy king Stefan Dečanski]. In Srpsko umetničko nasleđe na Kosovu i
Metohiji. Identitet, značaj, ugroženost, ed. Miodrag Marković and Dragan Vojvodić,
414–415. Belgrade: SANU, Kragujevac: Grafostil, 2017.
Matschke, Klaus-Peter. “Sakralität und Priestertum des byzantinischen Kaisers.” In
Die Sakralität von Herrschaft. Herrschaftslegitimierung im Wechsel der Zeiten und
Räume. Fünfzehn interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu einem weltweiten und epochenüber-
greifenden Phänomen, ed. Franz-Reiner Erkens, 143–149. Berlin: Akademie Verlag,
2002.
Matz, Friedrich. “Stufen der Sepulkralsymbolik in der Kaiserzeit.” Archäologischer
Anzeiger (1971): 102–116.
Maulden, Robert. “Tectonics in Architecture: From Physical to the Meta-Physical.”
MArch thesis MIT, 1986.
Mayer, Wendy. “Introduction.” In St. John Chrysostom: The Cult of the Saints, intro.
and trans. Wendy Mayer and Bronwen Neil, 11–35. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 2006.
McClanan, Anne. Representations of Early Byzantine Empresses: Image and Empire.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2002.
McCormick, Michael. Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium,
and the Early Mediaeval West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
McVey, Kathleen E. “Spirit Embodied: The Emergence of Symbolic Interpretations
of Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture.” In Architecture as Icon, ed.
Slobodan Ćurčić and Evangelia Hadjitryphonos, 39–71. Princeton: Princeton
University Art Museum, 2010.
Meister, Michael W., and Joseph Rykwert. “Afterword: Adam’s House and Hermit’s
Huts: A Conversation.” In Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, Michael W. Meister, and
Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, Ananda K. Coomaraswamy: Essays in
Bibliography 271

Early Indian Architecture, 125–131. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the
Arts, 1992.
Mellinkoff, Ruth. Outcasts: Signs of Otherness in Northern European Art of the Late
Middle Ages. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.
Meyer, Ann Raftery. Medieval Allegory and the Building of the New Jerusalem.
Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2003.
Mihaljević, Marina. “Change in Byzantine Architecture.” In Approaches to Byzantine
Architecture and Its Decoration, ed. Mark Johnson, Robert Ousterhout, and Amy
Papalexandrou, 99–119. Farnham, Surrey/Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012.
Mihaljević, Marina. “Constantinopolitan Architecture of the Komnenian Era
(1080–1180) and its Impact in the Balkans.” PhD diss., Princeton University, 2010.
Mihaljević, Marina. “Religious Architecture.” In The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine
Art and Architecture, ed. Ellen C. Schwartz, 307–328. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2021.
Milanović, Ljubomir. “Encountering Presence: Icon/Relic/Viewer.” In Icons of Space:
Advances in Hierotopy, ed. Jelena Bogdanović, 239–259. Abingdon, Oxon/New York:
Routledge, 2021.
Milanović, Ljubomir. “The Politics of Translatio: The Visual Representation of the
Translation of Relics in the Early Christian and Medieval Period, The Case of
St. Stephen.” PhD diss., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, 2011.
Milinković, Mihailo. “Neka zapažanja o ranovizantijskim utvrđenjima na jugu Srbije”
[Some remarks on Early Byzantine fortresses in southern Serbia]. In Niš i Vizantija 3,
ed. Miša Rakocija, 163–182. Niš: Kulturni centar Niša, 2005.
Miljković-Pepek, Petar. Veljusa. Skopje: Filozofski fakultet, 1981.
Millet, Gabriel. L’École grecque dans l’architecture byzantine. Paris: E. Leroux, 1916.
Miodrag, Grbić. “Vizantijski novci iz Caričina Grada” [Byzantine coins from Caričin
Grad]. Starinar 14 (1939): 109–110.
Mirković, Lazar. “Da li na freskama u niškoj grobnici (kraj IV) veka imamo portrete
sahranjenih u njoj?” [Do we have the portraits of those buried in Nis mausoleum
(end of 4th century) represented in its frescoes?]. Zbornik Narodnog muzeja 5
(1967): 227–229.
Mirković, Lazar. “Uvrštenje despota Stefana Lazarevića u red svetitelja” [Inclusion of
Despot Stefan Lazarevic in the order of saints]. Bogoslovlje 2 (1927): 163–177.
Moneo, Rafael. “On Typology.” Oppositions 13 (1978): 23–45.
Moore, Kathryn Blair. The Architecture of the Christian Holy Land: Reception from Late
Antiquity through the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Mouriki, Doula. The Mosaics of Nea Moni on Chios, I–II. Athens: The Commercial Bank
of Greece, 1985.
Mouriki, Doula. “The Octateuch Miniatures of the Byzantine Manuscripts of Cosmas
Indicopleustes.” PhD diss., Princeton University, 1970.
272 Bibliography

Mouriki, Doula. Thirteenth Century Icon Painting in Cyprus. Athens: Gennadius Library,
1986.
Mulder-Bakker, Anneke B., ed. The Invention of Saintliness. London/New York:
Routledge, 2002.
Müller-Wiener, Wolfgang. Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls: Byzantion-
Konstantinopolis-Istanbul bis zum Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts. Tübingen: Verlag
Ernst Wasmuth, 1977.
Mundell Mango, Marlia. Silver from Early Byzantium: The Kaper Koraon and Related
Treasures. Baltimore, MD: Walters Art Gallery, 1986.
Mundell Mango, Marlia, Cyril Mango, Angela Care Evans, and Michael Hughes. “A
6th-Century Mediterranean Bucket from Bromeswell Parish, Suffolk.” Antiquity 63
(1989): 295–311.
Näf, Beat. Senatorisches Standesbewusstsein in spätrömischer Zeit. Freiburg: Uni­
versitätsverlag, 1995.
Narkiss, Bezalel. Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts. Jerusalem: Leon Amiel, 1969.
Nenadović, Slobodan. Bogorodica Ljeviška: njen postanak i mesto u arhitekturi Milutino­
vog vremena [The Mother of God Ljeviška: The origin and place in the architecture
of Milutin’s time]. Belgrade: Narodna knjiga, 1963.
Neumann, Eric. The Great Mother: An Analysis of the Archetype. Trans. Ralph Mannheim.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970.
Nicol, Donald M. The Despotate of Epiros, 1267–1479: A Contribution to the History of
Greece in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Nikolova, Bistra. Monasi, manastiri i manastirski zhivot v Srednovekovna Balgariya.
Vol. 1, Manastirite [Monks, monasteries and monastic life in medieval Bulgaria. Vol. 1,
Monasteries]. Sofia: Algraf, 2010.
Noble, Jonathan. “The Architectural Typology of Antoine Chrysostome Quatremère de
Quincy (1755–1849).” Edinburgh Architectural Research 27 (2000): 145–159.
Noll, Rudolf. Von Altertum zum Mittelalter. Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1958.
Nordenfalk, Carl. Die spätantiken Kanontafeln. Kunstgeschichtliche Studien über
die eusebianische Evangelien-Konkordanz in den vier ersten Jahrhunderten ihrer
Geschichte. Gothenburg: Isacsons, 1938.
Norris, Herbert. Ancient European Costume and Fashion. Toronto: J.M. Dent and Sons
(1927), reissued Dover Publications, 1999.
Oechslin, Werner. “Premises for the Resumption of the Discussion of Typology.”
Assemblage 1 (1986): 36–53.
Oikonomides, Nicolas. “The Holy Icon as an Asset.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 (1991):
35–44.
Oikonomides, Nicolas. “St. George of Mangana, Maria Skleraina, and the ‘Malyj Sion’ of
Novgorod.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34–35 (1980–1981): 239–246.
Bibliography 273

Olin, Margaret. The Nation Without Art: Examining Modern Discourses on Jewish Art.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2001.
Olkinuora, Jaakko. Byzantine Hymnography for the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos.
Helsinki: Picaset Oy, 2015.
Olovsdotter, Cecilia. “Anastasius’ I Consuls: Ordinary Consulship and Imperial Power
in the Consular Diptychs from Constantinople.” Valör. Konstvetenskapliga studier
1–2 (2012): 33–47.
Olovsdotter, Cecilia. “Architecture and the Spheres of the Universe in Late Antique
Art.” In Envisioning Worlds in Late Antique Art: New Perspectives on Abstraction
and Symbolism in Late-Roman and Early-Byzantine Visual Culture (c. 300–600), ed.
Cecilia Olovsdotter, 137–177. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2019.
Olovsdotter, Cecilia. The Consular Image: An Iconological Study of the Consular
Diptychs. Oxford: John and Erica Hedges, 2005.
Olympios, Michalis. “Resting in Pieces: Gothic Architecture in Cyprus in the Long
Fifteenth Century.” In Medieval Cyprus: A Place of Cultural Encounter, ed. Sabine
Rogge and Michael Grünbart, 340–343. Münster: Waxmann, 2015.
Orlandos, Anastasios. “Daniēl o prōtos ktitōr tōn Hagiōn Theodōrōn tou Mystra”
[Daniel, the first founder of Saints Theodors of Mystras]. Epetirís Etaireías
Vyzantinón Spoudón 12 (1936): 443–448.
Ousterhout, Robert. “Architecture as Relic and the Construction of Sanctity: The
Stones of the Holy Sepulchre.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 62,
no. 1 (2003): 4–23.
Ousterhout, Robert. “The Architecture of Iconoclasm.” In Byzantium in the Iconoclastic
Era (ca. 680–850): The Sources, ed. Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon, 3–36.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2001.
Ousterhout, Robert. “The Church of Santo Stefano: A ‘Jerusalem’ in Bologna.” Gesta 20,
no. 2 (1981): 311–321.
Ousterhout, Robert. “Loca Sancta and the Architectural Response to Pilgrimage.”
In Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. Robert Ousterhout, 108–137. Urbana, Chicago, IL:
University of Illinois Press, 1990.
Ousterhout, Robert. Master Builders in Byzantium. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1999.
Ousterhout, Robert. “New Temples and New Solomons.” In Old Testament in Byzantium,
ed. Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson, 223–253. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection, 2010.
Ousterhout, Robert. “Originality in Byzantine Architecture: The Case of Nea Moni.” The
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 51/1 (1992): 48–60.
Ousterhout, Robert. “Problems of Architectural Typology during the Transitional
Period (Seventh to Early Ninth Century).” In Transforming Sacred Spaces: New
274 Bibliography

Approaches to Byzantine Ecclesiastical Architecture from the Transitional Period, ed.

Sabine Feist, 147–158. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2020.
Ousterhout, Robert. “Rebuilding the Temple: Constantine Monomachus and the Holy
Sepulchre.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 48 (1989): 66–78.
Ousterhout, Robert. “The Temple, the Sepulchre, and the Martyrion of the Savior.”
Gesta 29, no. 1 (1990): 44–53.
Paganes, Georgios. “Ekklesia tēs Panagias tēs Odēgētrias” [Church of Panagia
Hodegetria]. At Koinotiko Symboulio Aredou—http://arediou.com/portfolio-item
/thriskeftiki-zoi/#toggle-id-2. Accessed June 6, 2017.
Pallas, Demetrios. Die Passion und Bestattung Christi in Byzanz. Der Ritus—das Bild.
Munich: Institut für Byzantinistik und neugriechische Philologie der Universität,
1965.
Panić, Draga, and Gordana Babić. Bogorodica Ljeviška [The Mother of God Ljeviška].
Belgrade: Srpska književna zadruga, 1975.
Panofsky, Erwin. Idea: A Concept in Art Theory. Trans. Joseph J.S. Peake. New York/
London: Harper & Row, 1968.
Pantelić, Bratislav. The Architecture of Dečani and the Role of Archbishop Danilo II.
Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2002.
Papacostas, Tassos. “In Search of a Lost Byzantine Monument: Saint Sophia of Nicosia.”
Epetirída tou Kéntrou Epistimonikón Erevnón 31 (2005): 11–37.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Athanasios. “Nikēphoros Moschopoulos.” Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 12 (1903), 215–223.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Athanasios. Noctes Petrapolitana [The nights of Petropolis].
St. Petersburg: Tip. V.F. Kirshbauma, 1913.
Papadopoulou, Varvara. “Amphigraptē eikona tou 14ou aiōna stē monē Gēromeriou
Thesprōtias” [A double-sided icon from the 14th century in the monastery of
Geromerion, Thesprotia]. Byzantina 25 (2005): 375–389.
Papaioanou, Eustratios N. “The ‘Usual Miracle’ and an Unusual Miracle: Psellos and the
Icons of Blachernai.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 51 (2001): 177–188.
Papamastorakis, Titos. “Epitymbies parastaseis kata tē mesē kai ysterē byzantine peri-
odo” [Funeral representations in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods]. Deltion
tēs Christianikēs Archailogikēs Hetaireias 19 (1996–1997): 290–304.
Papamastorakis, Titos. “Myzithras of the Byzantines  / Mistra to Byzantinists.” In
Vyzantinés póleis, 8os–15os aiónas. Prooptikés tis érevnas kai nées ermineftikés
prosengíseis, ed. Tonia Kiousopoulou, 277–196. Rethymnon: Panepistiemiou Kritis,
2012.
Papamastorakis, Titos. “Reflections of Constantinople: The Iconographic Program
of the South Portico of the Hodegetria Church, Mystras.” In Viewing the Morea:
Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, ed. Sharon Gerstel, 372–374.
Washington, DC: Harvard University Press, 2013.
Bibliography 275

Parada López de Corselas, Manuel. “La arquitectura de poder y su recepción: la ’serli-

ana.’ ¿Viaje de formas, viaje de contenidos?” In Ver, viajar y hospedarse en el mundo
romano, ed. Gonzalo Bravo and Raúl González Salinero, 561–582. Madrid/Salamanca:
Signifer Libros, 2012.
Parani, Maria. “Defining Personal Space: Dress and Accessories in Late Antiquity.” In
Objects in Context, Objects in Use: Material Spatiality in Late Antiquity, ed. Luke Lavan,
Ellen Swift, and Toon Putzeys, 497–529. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Parani, Maria. Reconstructing the Reality of Images: Byzantine Material Culture and
Religious Iconography (11th–15th Centuries). Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Parry, Kenneth. Depicting the Word: Byzantine Iconophile Thought of the Eighth and
Ninth Centuries. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Parry, Kenneth. “Theodore the Stoudite: The Most ‘Original’ Iconophile?” Jahrbuch der
Österreichischen Byzantinistik (2018): 261–275.
Parry, Kenneth. “The Theological Argument about Images in the 9th Century.” In A
Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm, ed. M. Humphreys, 425–463. Leiden: Brill, 2021.
Pavlović, Dragana. “Kralj Stefan Uroš III Dečanski” [King Stefan Uroš the Third
Dečanski]. In Srpsko umetničko nasleđe na Kosovu i Metohiji. Identitet, značaj,
ugroženost, ed. Miodrag Marković and Dragan Vojvodić, 382–383. Belgrade: SANU,
Kragujevac: Grafostil, 2017.
Pavlović, Leontije. Kultovi lica kod Srba i Makedonaca [The cult of individuals among
Serbs and Macedonians]. Smederevo: Narodni muzej, 1965.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600). Vol. 1, The Christian
Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Chicago: University Of Chicago
Press [1975] 1991.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture. New
Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1999.
Pentcheva, Bissera. “The ‘Activated’ Icon: The Hodegetria Procession and Mary’s
Eisodos.” In Images of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium,
ed. Maria Vassilaki, 195–208. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
Pentcheva, Bissera. Hagia Sophia: Sound, Space, and Spirit in Byzantium. University
Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2017.
Pentcheva, Bissera. Icons and Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium. University Park,
PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006.
Pentcheva, Bissera. “Rhetorical Images of the Virgin: The Icon of the ‘Usual Miracle’ at
the Blachernai.” Revue des études slaves 38 (2000): 35–54.
Pentcheva, Bissera. Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and Senses in Byzantium. University
Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.
Pentcheva, Bissera. “The Supernatural Defender of Constantinople: The Virgin and
Her Icon in the Tradition of the Avar Siege.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
26 (2002): 2–41.
276 Bibliography

Perera, Sylvia B. Descent to the Goddess: A Way of Initiation for Women. Toronto: Inner
City Books, 1981.
Perl, Eric D. Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite. Albany:
State University of New York Press, 2007.
Petković, Sofija, Milica Tapavički-Ilić, and Jelena Anđelković Grašar. “A Portrait Oil
Lamp from Pontes—Possible Interpretations and Meanings within Early Byzantine
Visual Culture.” Starinar 65 (2015): 79–89.
Petković, Vladislav R., and Đurđe Bošković. Dečani. Vols. 1–2. Belgrade: Academia
Regalis Serbica, 1941.
Petrizzopulo, Demetrio. Saggio storico sull’ et à di Leucadia: sotto il dominio de’ Romani
e successivi conquistatori. Florence: Stamp. di Piatti, 1814.
Petrović, Damnjan. “Camblakova literarna delatnost u Srbiji” [Camblak’s literary activ-
ity in Serbia]. In Grigorije Camblak, Književni rad u Srbiji, trans. Lazar Mirković
et al., 9–45. Belgrade: Prosveta, 1989.
Philip, Grierson. Byzantine Coinage. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection 1982, 2nd ed., 1999.
Philippa-Apostolou, Maro. “Ē Odēgētria tēs Leukadas, istorikes phaseis” [The
Hodegetria of Lefkada, historical phases]. In Praktika D’ Synedriou “Eptanēsiakou
Politismou,” Leukada 8–12 Septembriou 1993, ed. P. Rontogiannis, 133–159. Athens:
Etaireia Leukadikon Meleton, 1996.
Piccirillo, Michele. La Nuova Gerusalemme, Artigianato Palestinese al servizio dei
Luoghi Santi. Bergamo: Edizioni Custodia di Terra Santa, 2007.
Pillinger, Renate, Vania Popova-Moroz, and Barbara Zimmermann. Corpus der
spätantiken und frühchristlichen Wandermalereien Bulgariens. Vienna: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999.
Platt, Verity. “Framing the Dead on Roman Sarcophagi.” In The Frame in Classical
Art: A Cultural History, ed. Verity Platt and Michael Squire, 353–381. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Popović, Danica. “Grob arhiepiskopa Danila II” [The tomb of the archbishop
Danilo II]. In Arhiepiskop Danilo II i njegovo doba, ed. Vojislav Đurić, 329–344.
Belgrade: SANU, 1991.
Popović, Danica. “Grob svetog Simeona u Studenici” [The tomb of St. Simeon in
Studenica]. In Osam vekova Studenice. Zbornik radova, ed. Episkop Žički Stefan
et al., 155–166. Belgrade: Sveti arhijereski sinod srpske pravoslavne crkve, 1986.
Popović, Danica. “Mošti Svetog Save” [The relics of Saint Sava]. In Pod okriljem svetosti,
Kult svetih vladara i relikvija u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji, 75–97. Belgrade: Balkanološki
institut SANU, 2006.
Popović, Danica. “Sahrane i grobovi u srednjem veku” [Burials and graves in the Middle
Ages]. In Manastir Hilandar, ed. Gojko Subotić, 205–214. Belgrade: Publikum, 1998.
Bibliography 277

Popović, Danica. “Shrine of King Stefan Uroš III Dečanski.” In Byzantium: Faith and
Power (1261–1557), ed. Helen C. Evans, 114–115. New York: The Metropolitan Museum
of Art, 2004.
Popović, Danica. “Srednjovekovni nadgrobni spomenici u Dečanima” [Medieval tomb-
stones in Dečani]. In Dečani i vizantijska umetnost sredinom XIV veka: međunarodni
naučni skup povodom 650 godina manastira Dečana, ed. Vojislav J. Ðurić, 225–237.
Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1989.
Popović, Danica. “Srpska vladarska translatio kao trijumfalni adventus” [The Serbian
ruler’s translatio as triumphant adventus]. In Pod okriljem svetosti, Kult svetih
vladara i relikvija u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji, 233–253. Belgrade: Balkanološki institut
SANU, 2006.
Popović, Danica. Srpski vladarski grob u srednjem veku [The Serbian ruler’s tomb in
the Middle Ages]. Belgrade: Institut za istoriju umetnosti, Filozofski fakultet, 1992.
Popović, Danica. “Sveti kralj Stefan Dečanski” [Holy king Stefan Dečanski]. In Pod
okriljem svetosti. Kult svetih vladara i relikvija u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji, 143–183.
Belgrade: Balkanološki institut SANU, 2006.
Popović, Ivana. “Sakralno-funerarni kompleks na Maguri” [Sacral and funerary com-
plex at Magura]. In Felix Romuliana—Gamzigrad, ed. Ivana Popović, 141–158.
Belgrade: Arheološki institut, 2010.
Popović, Ivana. “The Find of the Crypt of the Mausoleum: Golden Jewellery and Votive
Plaques.” In Šarkamen (Eastern Serbia): A Tetrarchic Imperial Palace: The Memorial
Complex, ed. Ivana Popović, 59–82. Belgrade: Arheološki institut, 2005.
Popović, Ivana. “Inventar grobnica iz Dola kod Bele Palanke (Remesiana)” [Inventory
of tombs from Dol near Bela Palana (Remesiana)]. In Niš i Vizantija 7, ed. Miša
Rakocija, 55–66. Niš: Kulturni centar Niša, 2009.
Popović, Ivana. “Jewellery as an Insigne of Authority, Imperial Donation and as
Personal Adornment.” In Constantine the Great and the Edict of Milan 313: The Birth
of Christianity in the Roman Provinces on the Soil of Serbia, ed. Ivana Popović and
Bojana Borić-Brešković, 188–195. Belgrade: National Museum in Belgrade, 2013.
Popović, Ivana. “Kameje iz kasnoantičke zbirke Narodnog muzeja u Beogradu”
[Cameos from late antique collection of the National Museum in Belgrade]. Zbornik
Narodnog muzeja 14, no. 1 (1992): 401–412.
Popović, Ivana. Kasnoantički i ranovizantijski nakit od zlata u Narodnom muzeju u
Beogradu [Late antique and Early Byzantine golden jewelry in National Museum in
Belgrade]. Belgrade: Narodni muzej Beograd, 2001.
Popović, Ivana. Rimske kameje u Narodnom muzeju u Beogradu [Roman cameos in the
National Museum in Belgrade]. Belgrade: Narodni muzej Beograd, 1989.
Popović, Ivana. “Roman Cameos with Representation of Female Bust from Middle and
Lower Danube.” In Glyptique romaine, ed. Hélène Guiraud and Antony Andurand,
203–224. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires Mirail, 2010.
278 Bibliography

Pratesi, Alessandro. “Per un nuovo esame della ’Carta di Rossano’.” Studi Medievali 11
(1970): 209–235.
Price, Simon R.F. “From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: The Consecration of Roman
Emperors.” In Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, ed.
David Cannadine and Simon R.F. Price, 56–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1987.
Pringle, Denys. The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Vol. 3, The City of
Jerusalem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Pringle, Denys. Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187–1291. New York:
Routledge, 2012.
Radojčić, Svetozar. Portreti srpskih vladara u srednjem veku [Portraits of Serbian rulers
in the Middle Ages]. Skoplje: Muzej Južne Srbije u Skoplju, 1934.
Raičković, Angelina, and Bebina Milovanović. “Development and Changes in Roman
Fashion Showcase Viminacium.” Archaeology and Science 6 (2011): 77–107.
Raitt, Jill, ed. Christian Spirituality: High Middle Ages and Reformation. In collaboration
with Bernard McGinn and John Meyendorff. New York: Crossroad, 1987.
Ramphos, Ioannes. “Ta christianika mnēmeia tēs Kimōlou kai tōn perix nēsidō” [The
Christian monuments of Kimolos and the neighboring islands]. Kimōliaka 2 (1972):
183–299.
Ramphos, Ioannes. Ta “Sōtēria” tēs Kimōlou eis tēn Hagian Barbaran [The “salvation” of
Kimolos in Agia Varvara]. Athens: n.p., 1954.
Rapp, Claudia. “Old Testament Models for Emperors in Early Byzantium.” In Old Testa­
ment in Byzantium, ed. Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson, 175–198. Washington,
DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010.
Rautman, Marcus. “The Church of Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki: A Study in Early
Palaeologan Architecture.” PhD diss., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 1984.
Ravegnani, Elisabetta. Consoli e dittici consolari nella tarda antichità. Rome: Arcane,
2006.
Restle, Marcell. “Herrschaftszeichen.” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 14 (1988):
937–966.
Revel-Neher, Elisabeth. L’arche d’alliance dans l’art juif et chrétien du second au
dixième siècles. Le Signe de la Rencontre. Paris: Association des amis des études
archéologiques du monde byzantino-slave et du christianisme oriental, 1984.
Revel-Neher, Elisabeth. “On the Hypothetical Models of the Byzantine Iconography
of the Ark of the Covenant.” In Byzantine East, Latin West: Art Historical Studies in
Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, ed. Christopher Moss and Katherine Kiefer, 405–414.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.
Ricci, Alessandra. “Reinterpretation of the ‘Palace of Bryas’: A study in Byzantine
Architecture, History and Historiography.” PhD diss. Princeton University, 2008.
Bibliography 279

Ricci, Alessandra. “The Road from Baghdad to Byzantium and the Case of the Bryas
Palace.” In Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive? ed. Leslie Brubaker,
131–149. (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 1997).
Rontogiannes, Panos. “Ē Christianikē Technē stēn Leukada” [The Christian art in
Lefkada]. Epetēris Etaireias Leukadikōn Meletōn 3. Athens: Etaireia Laukadikon
Meleton, 1974.
Rosenau, Helen. Vision of the Temple: The Image of the Temple of Jerusalem in Judaism
and Christianity. London: Oresko Books, 1979.
Roth, Cecil. The Sarajevo Haggadah and its Significance in the History of Art. Belgrade:
Jugoslavija, 1973.
Rumscheid, Jutta. Kranz und Krone. Zu Insignien, Siegespreisen und Ehrenzeichen der
römischen Kaiserzeit. Tübingen: E. Wasmuth Verlag, 2000.
Rüpke, Jörg. Domi miliitae. Die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom. Stuttgart:
F. Steiner, 1990.
Rykwert, Joseph. On Adam’s House in Paradise: The Idea of the Primitive Hut in
Architectural History. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1972.
Šakota, Mirjana. Dečanska riznica [Treasury of Dečani Monastery]. Belgrade: BIGZ,
1984.
Salzman, Michele Renee. On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms
of Urban Life in Late Antiquity. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press,
1990.
Scarpellini, Donatella. Stele romane con “imagines clipeatae” in Italia. Rome: “L’Erma”
di Bretschneider, 1987.
Schapiro, Meyer. “The Birds Head Haggada: An Illustrated Hebrew Manuscript of ca.
1300.” In Late Antique, Early Christian and Medieval Art, Selected Papers, 380–386.
New York: George Braziller, 1993.
Schibille, Nadine. “Astronomical and Optical Principles in the Architecture of Hagia
Sophia in Constantinople.” Science in Context 22, no. 1 (2009): 27–46.
Schleißheimer, Bernhard. “Kosmas Indikopleustes, ein altchristliches Weltbild.” Diss.,
Munich University, 1959.
Schreiner, Peter. “Das Hodegetria-Kloster auf Leukas im 11 Jahrhundert: Bemerkungen
zu einer Notiz im Vat. Gr. 2561.” Byzantinische Forschungen 12 (1987): 57–64.
Schrenk, Sabine. Typos und Antitypos in der frühchristlichen Kunst. Münster:
Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1995.
Schwartz, Joshua, and Yehoshua Peleg. “Notes on the Virtual Reconstruction of the
Herodian Period Temple and Courtyards.” In The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses
to Messiah, ed. Steven Fine, 69–91. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Ševčenko, Nancy Patterson. “Servants of the Holy Icon.” In Byzantine East, Latin
West: Art-Historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, ed. Christopher Moss and
Katherine Kiefer, 547–551. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.
280 Bibliography

Shalev-Eyni, Sarit. “Jerusalem and the Temple in Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts:

Jewish Thought and Christian Influence.” In L’interculturalita dell’ebraismo, ed.
Mauro Perani, 173–191. Ravenna: Longo, 2004.
Shalev-Eyni, Sarit. Jews among Christians: Hebrew Book Illumination from Lake
Constance. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.
Shalina, Irina A. Relikvii v vostochnokhristianskoĭ ikonografii [Relics in Eastern Christian
iconography]. Moscow: Indrik, 2005.
Sharp, Daryl. Personality Types: Jung’s Model of Typology. Toronto: Inner City Books,
1987.
Sigala, Maria. “Ē Panagia ē Odēgētria ē Enniameritissa stē Chalkē tēs Dōdekanēsou”
[Panagia Hodegetria Enniameritissa in Chalki, Dodecanese islands]. Archaiologikon
Deltion 55, no. 1 (2000) [2004]: 329–381.
Sinkević, Ida. The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi: Architecture, Programme,
Patronage. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2000.
Sinkević, Ida. “Formation of Sacred Space in Later Byzantine Five-Domed Chruches: A
Hierotopic Approach.” In Hierotopy: The Creation of Sacred Spaces in Byzantium and
Medieval Russia, ed. Alexei Lidov, 260–276. Moscow: Indrik, 2006.
Sinos, Stefanos. Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira). Munich: Beck, 1985.
Smith, E. Baldwin. Architectural Symbolism of Imperial Rome and the Middle Ages.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956.
Smith, Julia M.H. “Relics: An Evolving Tradition in Late Christianity.” In Saints and
Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, ed. Cynthia Hahn
and Holger A. Klein, 41–60. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library
and Collection, 2015.
Snoek, Godefridus J.C. Medieval Piety from Relics to the Eucharist: A Process of Mutual
Interaction. Leiden/New York: Brill, 1995.
Solovjev, Aleksandar. “Kad je Dečanski proglašen za sveca? Kralja Dušanova povelja
Limskom manastiru” [When was Dečanski declared a saint? King Dušan’s charter
to the Lim monastery]. Bogoslovlje 4 (1929): 284–298.
Soustal, Peter, and Johannes Koder. Nikopolis und Kephallenia. Vienna: Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1981.
Soustal, Peter. Thrakien (Thrake, Rhodope und Haimimontos). Vienna: Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991.
Sox, David. Relics and Shrines. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1985.
Spain, Suzanne. “The Translation of Relics Ivory, Trier.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31
(1977): 279–304.
Spatharakis, Ioannis. The Pictorial Cycles of the Akathistos Hymn for the Virgin. Leiden:
Alexandros Press, 2005.
Špehar, Perica. “The Imperial Statue from Iustiniana Prima.” Archaeology and Science 9
(2014): 43–49.
Bibliography 281

Spitzer, Moshe, ed. The Bird’s Head Haggadah of the Bezalel National Art Museum in
Jerusalem, 15–19. Jerusalem: Tarshis Books, 1965–67.
Srejović, Dragoslav. “Diva Romula-Divus Galerius. Poslednje apoteoze u rimskom
svetu” [Diva Romula-Divus Galerius. The last apotheoses in the Roman world].
Sunčani sat 5 (1995): 17–30.
Srejović, Dragoslav. “Felix Romuliana, Galerijeva palata u Gamzigradu” [Felix
Romuliana, Galerius’s palace in Gamzigrad]. Starinar 36 (1985): 51–67.
Srejović, Dragoslav. “Kasnoantički i ranovizantijski portret” [Late antique and Early
Byzantine portrait]. In Antički portret u Jugoslaviji, ed. Nenad Cambi, Emilio Marin,
Ivana Popović, Ljubiša B. Popović, and Dragoslav Srejović, 95–104. Belgrade: Narodni
muzej Beograd, Muzeji Makedonije Skopje, Arheološki muzej Zagreb, Arheološki
muzej Split, Narodni muzej Ljubljana, 1987.
Srejović, Dragoslav. Praistorija [Prehistory]. Belgrade: Izdavački zavod Jugoslavije, 1967.
Srejović, Dragoslav ed. Rimski carski gradovi i palate u Srbiji [Roman imperial towns
and palaces in Serbia]. Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1993.
Srejović, Dragoslav, and Aleksandar Simović. “Portret vizantijske carice iz Balajnca”
[A portrait of a Byzantine empress from Balajnac]. Starinar 9–10 (1959): 77–87.
Srejović, Dragoslav, and Čedomir Vasić. “Diva Romula—Divus Galerius, Imperial
Mausolea and Consecration Memorials in Felix Romuliana (Gamzigrad, East
Serbia).” In The Age of Tetrarchs, ed. Dragoslav Srejović, 141–156. Belgrade: University
of Belgrade, Centre for Archaeological Research, Faculty of Philosophy, 1994.
Stefanescu, Ioan D. L’illustration des liturgies dans l’art de Byzance et de l’Orient. Brussels:
Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales, 1932.
Stephan, Christine. Ein byzantinisches Bildensemble: Die Mosaiken und Fresken der
Apostolkirche zu Thessaloniki. Worms: Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1986.
Stern, Henri. Le calendrier de 354. Étude sur son texte et sur ses illustrations. Paris:
Imprimerie nationale, 1953.
Stikas, Eustathios. L’église byzantine de Christianou en Triphylie (Pélponnèse) at les
autres édifices de même type. Paris: Boccard, 1951.
Štkalj, Goran, Aleksandar Bošković, and Željka Buturović. “Attitudes of Serbian
Biological Anthropologists toward the Concept of Race.” Anthropologie LVII/3
(2019): 287–297.
Stout, Аnn M. “Jewelry as a Symbol of Status in the Roman Empire.” In The World of
Roman Costume, ed. Judith Lynn Sebesta and Larissa Bonfante, 85–86. Madison:
The University of Wisconsin Press, 2001.
Striker, Cecil L. “The Findings at Kalenderhane and Problems of Method in the History
of Byzantine Architecture.” In Byzantine Constantinople, Monuments, Topography,
and Everyday Life, ed. Nevra Necipoğlu, 107–116. Leiden/Boston/Cologne: Brill, 2001.
Stuckey, Johanna H. “Ancient Mother Goddess and Fertility Cults.” Journal of the
Association for Research on Mothering 7, no. 1 (2005): 32–44.
282 Bibliography

Stutzinger, Dagmar. “Das Bronzbildnis einer spätantiken Kaiserin aus Balajnc im

Museum von Nis.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 29 (1986): 146–165.
Stuveras, Roger. Le putto dans l’art romain. Brussels: Latomus, 1969.
Stylianou, Andreas, and Judith Stylianou. The Painted Churches of Cyprus: Treasures of
Byzantine Art. Nicosia: A.G. Leventis Foundation, 1985.
Subotić, Gojko. “Prilog hronologiji dečanskog zidonog slikarstva” [Contribution to the
chronology of Dečani wall paintings]. Zbornik radova vizantološkog instituta 20
(1981): 111–138.
Suh, Joori. “An Interactive Generative Abstraction System for the Archetype-Based
Pre-Ideation Process (IGATY).” Design Science 3, e9 (2017): 1–30.
Sumption, Jonathan. Pilgrimage: An Image of Mediaeval Religion. Totowa, NJ: Rowman
and Littlefield, 1976.
Sutherland, Carol, and Vivian Humphrey. The Roman Imperial Coinage 6. London:
Spink and Son Ltd., 1967.
Taft, Robert F. “The Decline of Communion in Byzantium and the Distancing of the
Congregation from the Liturgical Action: Cause, Effect, or Neither?” In Thresholds
of the Sacred: Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical, and Theological Perspectives on
Religious Screens, East and West, ed. Sharon E.J. Gerstel, 27–50. Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2006.
Talbot, Alice-Mary. “The Relics of New Saints: Deposition, Translation, and Veneration
in Middle and Late Byzantium.” In Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in
Byzantium and Beyond, ed. Cynthia Hahn and Holger A. Klein, 215–231. Washington,
DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015.
Tantsis, Anastasios. “Ē chronologēsē tou naou tēs Odēgētrias sto Mystra” [The dating
of the Hodegetria Church in Mystras]. Byzantiaka 31 (2014): 179–204.
Tatić-Đurić, Mirjana. “Bronzani teg sa likom vizantijske carice” [Steel yard weight
with an image of Byzantine empress]. Zbornik Narodnog muzeja 3 (1962): 115–126.
Teasdale Smith, Molly. “The Lateran Fastigium, a Gift of Constantine the Great.” Rivista
di archeologia cristiana 46 (1970): 149–175.
Testa, Antonella. “L’affresco dell’ Odigitria nella Cappella Palatina di Palermo.” Sicilia
archeologica 28, nos. 87/88/89 (1995): 125–128.
Thacker, Alan T. “The Making of a Local Saint.” In Local Saints and Local Churches in the
Early Medieval West, ed. Alan Thacker and Richard Sharpe, 45–75. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2002.
Thimme, Jürgen. “Chiusinische Aschenkisten und Sarkophage der hellenistische Zeit.”
Studi Etruschi 23 (1954): 25–147.
Thomas, Thelma K. Late antique Egyptian Funerary Sculpture: Images for this World and
the Next. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.
Bibliography 283

Thümmel, Hans Georg. Bilderlehre und Bilderstreit: Arbeiten zur Auseinandersetzung

über die Ikone und ihre Begründung vornehmlich im 8. und 9. Jahrhundert. Würzburg:
Augustinus, 1991.
Thümmel, Hans Georg. Die Frühgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre: Texte und
Untersuchungen zur Zeit vor dem Bilderstreit. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1992.
Todić, Branislav. Gračanica, Slikarstvo [Gračanica, Painting]. Pristina: Muzej u Prištini,
1999.
Todić, Branislav. “Ikonostas u Dečanima—prvobitni slikani program i njegove poznije
izmene” [Iconostasis in Dečani—original painting program and its later changes].
Zograf 36 (2012): 115–129.
Todić, Branislav. Serbian Painting: The Age of King Milutin. Belgrade: Draganić, 1999.
Todić, Branislav, and Milka Čanak-Medić. Manastir Dečani. Pristina: Muzej u Prištini,
2005.
Tomović, Miodrag. “Conclusion.” In Šarkamen (Eastern Serbia): A Tetrarchic Imperial
Palace: The Memorial Complex, ed. Ivana Popović, 107–109. Belgrade: Archaeological
Institute, 2005.
Townsley, Ashton L. “Eucharistic Doctrine and the Liturgy in Late Byzantine Painting.”
Oriens christianus 58 (1974): 58–61.
Tradigo, Alfredo. Icons and Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Los Angeles:
J. Paul Getty Museum, 2006.
Tragomalos, Athanasios. “Naos Panagias Odēgētrias sto Basilopoulo Xēromerou” [The
Church of Hodegetria at Basilopoulo Xeromerou] in Xeromero Press—https://
xiromeropress.gr/εντυπωσιακό-οδοιπορικό-αφιέρωμαναό/. Accessed June 13, 2017.
Trapp, Erich. “Beiträge zur Genealogie der Asanen in Byzanz.” Jahrbuch der Öster­
reichischen Byzantinistik 25 (1976): 163–177.
Trapp, Erich, Rainer Walther, and Christian Gastgeber, eds. Prosopographisches
Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit. Vols. 1–12, Add. 1–2, CD-ROM-Version, Vienna: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2001.
Treitinger, Otto. Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im
höfischen Zeremoniell. Jena: W. Biedermann, 1938.
Trifunović, Djordje. “Stara srpska crkvena poezija” [Old Serbian church poetry]. In
O Srbljaku, ed. Dimitrije Bogdanović et al., 11–17. Belgrade: Srpska književna zadruga,
1970.
Tronzo, William. “L’architettura della Cappella Palatina.” In La Cappella Palatina a
Palermo, ed. Beat Brenk, 79–99. Modena: Panini Editore, 2010.
Underwood, Paul A. “The Fountain of Life in Manuscripts of the Gospels.” Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 5 (1950): 41–138.
284 Bibliography

Unruh, Frank von. “Unsichtbare Mauern der Kaiserpaläste. Hofzeremonien in Rom

und Byzanz.” In Palatia. Kaiserpaläste in Konstantinopel, Ravenna und Trier, ed.
Margarethe König, Eugenia Bolognesi Recchi-Franceschini, and Ellen Riemer,
33–48. Trier: Rheinisches Landesmuseum, 2003.
Valeva, Julia. “Empresses of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries: Imperial and Religious
Iconographies.” In Niš i Vizantija 7, ed. Miša Rakocija, 67–76. Niš: Kulturni centar
Niša, 2009.
Vasić, Miloje. Gold and Silver Coins of Late Antiquity (284–450 AD) in the Collection of
National Museum in Belgrade. Belgrade: National Museum, 2008.
Vasiliev, Alexander A. Justin the First: An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950.
Velmans, Tania. “Quelques programmes iconographiques de coupoles chypriotes du
XIIe au XVe siècle.” Cahiers archéologiques 32 (1984): 137–162.
Verbaal, Wim. “The Vitruvian Middle Ages and Beyond.” Arethusa 49, no. 2 (2016):
215–225.
Verkerk, Dorothy. “Biblical Manuscripts in Rome 400–700 and the Ashburnham
Pentateuch.” In Imaging the Early Medieval Bible, ed. John Williams, 97–120.
University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999.
Verkerk, Dorothy. Early Medieval Bible illumination and the Ashburnham Pentateuch.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Versnel, Hendrik Simon. Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and
Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Vidler, Anthony. “The Idea of Type: The Transformation of the Academic Ideal:
1750–1830.” Oppositions 8 (Spring 1977): 95–115.
Vidler, Anthony. “The Third Typology.” Oppositions 7 (1977): 13–16; reprinted in
Architecture Theory Since 1968, ed. K. Michael Hays, 284–294. Cambridge, MA and
London: MIT Press, 1998.
Vikan, Gary. Early Byzantine Pilgrimage Art. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks Byzantine Collection, 2011.
Vincent, Hugues. “Le temple Hérodien d`après la Mišnah.” Revue Biblique 61 (1954):
5–35, 398–418.
Vojvodić, Dragan. “Portreti vladara, crkvenih dostojanstvenika i plemića u naosu i pri-
prati” [Portraits of rulers, ecclesiastical dignitaries and noblemen in the naos and
narthex]. In Zidno slikarstvo manastira Dečana: građa i studije, ed. Vojislav J. Ðjurić,
265–298. Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1995.
Volbach, Wolfgang Fritz. Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters.
Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1976.
Voyadjis, Sotiris. “The Katholikon of Nea Moni in Chios Unveiled.” Jahrbuch der
Österreichischen Byzantinistik 59 (2009): 229–242.
Bibliography 285

Vujošević, Žarko. “Hrisovulja kralja Stefana Dušana manastiru Sv. Petra i Pavla na
Limu” [The Chrysobull of King Stefan Dušan to the monastery at St. Peter and Paul
on Lim]. Stari srpski arhiv 3 (2004): 45–69.
Vujović, Miroslav. “Ranovizantijski kanatar iz Beograda” [Early Byzantine steel yard
weight from Belgrade]. Starinar 64 (2014): 161–183.
Wallraff, Martin. “Christus verus sol.” Sonnenverehrung und Christentum in der
Spätantike. Münster: Aschendorff, 2001.
Walter, Christopher. “New Look at the Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier.” Revue des études
byzantines 51 (1993): 203–228.
Walter, Christopher. “The Origin of the Iconostasis.” Eastern Churches Review 3 (1971):
251–267.
Warland, Rainer. “Der Ambo aus Thessaloniki. Bildprogramm—Rekonstruktion—
Datierung.” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Institut 109 (1994): 371–385.
Weber, Max. “Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy.” In The Methodology of the
Social Sciences, ed. and trans. E.A. Shils and H.A. Finch, 50–112. Illinois: Free Press
of Glencoe, 1949.
Weber, Winfried. “Die Reliquienprozession auf der Elfenbeintafel des Trierer
Domschatzes und das kaiserliche Hofzeremoniell.” Trierer Zeitschrift für Geschichte
und Kunst des Trierer Landes und seiner Nachbargebiete 42 (1979): 135–151.
Weissbrod, Ursula. “Hier liegt der Knecht Gottes …” Gräber in byzantinischen Kirchen
und ihr Dekor (11. bis 15. Jahrhundert). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2003.
Weitzmann, Kurt. ed. Age of Spirituality, Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to
Seventh Century (Catalogue of the exhibition at The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
November 19, 1977, through February 12 1978). New York: The Metropolitan Museum
of Art, 1979.
Weitzmann, Kurt. Late Antique and Early Christian Book Illumination. New York:
Braziller, 1977.
Weitzmann, Kurt, and Barnabo Massimo. The Byzantine Octateuchs. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1999.
Wells, Emma J. “Overview: The Medieval Senses.” In The Oxford Handbook of Later
Medieval Archaeology in Britain, ed. Christopher Gerrard and Alejandra Gutiérrez,
681–696. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Wessel, Klaus. “Insignien.” In Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst 3, 369–498. Stuttgart:
A. Hiersemann, 1978.
Weston, Richard. 100 Ideas that Changed Architecture. London: Lawrence King
Publishers, [2015] 2011.
Whallon, Robert, and James A. Brown, eds. Essays on Archaeological Typology.
Evanston: Center for American Archaeology Press, 1982.
Whitmont, Edward C. Return of the Goddess. New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1992.
286 Bibliography

Whittaker, John C., Douglas Caulkins, and Kathryn A. Kamp. “Evaluating Consistency
in Typology and Classification.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5, no. 2
(1998): 129–164.
Wilkinson, John. “Early Christian Pilgrimage.” In Egeria’s Travels, ed. John Wilkinson,
4–8. Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1999.
Wilkinson, John. Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades. Jerusalem: Ariel Publishing
House, 1977.
Wilkinson, John. “The Tomb of Christ: An Outline of its Structural History.” The Journal
of the Council for British Research in the Levant 4, no. 1 (1972): 83–97.
Willis, Robert. The Architectural History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem.
London: Parker, 1849.
Wilson, Laurie J. “The Trier Procession Ivory: A New Interpretation.” Byzantion 54
(1984): 602–614.
Winkes, Rudolf. Clipeata imago. Studien zu einer römischen Bildnisform. Bonn:
R. Habelt, 1969.
Winkes, Rudolf. “Pliny’s Chapter on Roman Funeral Customs in the Light of Clipeatae
Imagines.” American Journal of Archaeology 83 (1979): 481–484.
Wistrand, Erik. Felicitas imperatoria. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis,
1987.
Woods, David. “On the Death of the Empress Fausta.” Greece & Rome 45, no. 1 (1998):
70–86.
Wormald, Francis. The Miniatures of the Gospels of St Augustine, Corpus Christi College
ms. 286. Facs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954.
Wortley, John. “Icons and Relics: A Comparison.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
43 (2002–2003): 161–174.
Wortley, John. “The Trier Ivory Reconsidered.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 21
(1980): 381–394.
Xyngopoulos, Andreas. “Les fresques de l’église des Sts. Apôtres à Thessalonique.” In
Art et Société à Byzance sous les Paléologues. Actes du Colloque de Venise, Septembre
1968, 83–89. Venice: Institut hellénique d’études byzantines et post-byzantines, 1971.
Zanker, Paul. “In Search of the Roman Viewer.” In The Interpretation of Architectural
Sculpture in Greece and Rome, ed. Diana Buitron-Oliver, 179–191. Washington, DC:
National Gallery of Art/University Press of New England, 1997.
Zeitler, Barbara. “Cults Disrupted and Memories Recaptured: Events in the Life of
the Icon of the Virgin Hodegetria in Constantinople.” In Memory and Oblivion:
Proceedings of the XXIX International Congress of the History of Art, ed. W. Reinink
and J. Stumpel, 701–708. Amsterdam: Comité international d’histoire de l’art, 1999.
Ziebarth, Erich. “Kyriakos o ex Ankōnos en Ēpeirō” [Ciriaco of Ancona in Epirus].
Ēpeirōtika Chrōnika 1 (1926): 110–119.
Bibliography 287

Živić, Maja. “Umetnička ostvarenja u carskoj palati” [Artistic achievements in the

imperial palace]. In Felix Romuliana—Gamzigrad, ed. Ivana Popović, 107–140.
Belgrade: Arheološki institut, 2010.
Index

Illustrations are denoted by italics. archaeological artifacts

evolutionist approach to architectural
Ablgharib Pahlavid, prince 184 typology and 8
Abrahim Ibn Ezra 146 typology of 17–18
Aedicula of Christ, church of the Holy Archangel Michael on Mount Auxentios,
Sepulchre, Jerusalem 115, 177, 179, 180, monastery 68
184, 185 arched fastigium 137–141
Aetos, Greece 43 archetype
Against Heresies (Irenaeus) 218 of bodily relics, body of Christ as 75,
Agia Triti (Holy Tuesday), church, 77–79, 100
Vasilopoulo 43 definition of 2, 12–14, 191, 194, 216–220,
Agioi Theodoroi monastery 64 213, 233–240
Agitria, church, Mesa Mani 59, 67 of the divine heiress (empress) 15–42
Agraphoi, church 63, 67, 71 five-domed churches 191, 194
Akathist Hymn 38n90 the Great Mother 16–17
Akathistos cycle 58, 70 Hodegetria icon as 45, 47, 71
Alexios Angelos Komnenos 194 goddesses as 16–17, 37–38, 41
Ambrose, Saint 80 Jungian psychology and 16
Anagnostakis, Elias 56, 66 likeness and 237
Anastasius I, emperor 30–31, 109, 134 mental image and 16, 18–19, 42
Andronikos II, emperor 56, 69 primitive hut as 210–232
Andronikos III, emperor 62n104 Theotokos, the 37, 38, 51
Andronikos Palaiologos Asanes 65 type and 12–14, 100, 145, 191, 210, 216–217,
aniconism, in Jewish art 147, 150, 161 231, 233–239
Annia Galeria Faustina, empress 30 architectural motifs in imagery 101–103,
Antiquities of the Jews (Josephus) 158 236–237
antitype 1, 2n5, 18, 38, 41, 219, 234 See also arcade; arch; arched fastigium;
Aphendiko, church, Mystras 202 pediment; portico
Apolpaina, church 63–64 architectural types 2n5, 4–11, 103, 168,
apotheosis, symbols of 103, 110n21, 119, 120, 176–177, 188–191, 210, 211, 213–220, 231,
122, 134 233–240
arcade 117, 122, 124–127 See also planning types
Arcadius, emperor 139 architecture, rhetoric of 145, 168
arch 103–127, 105, 107, 108, 111, 112, 116, 118, 120, Arediou, church 53, 67
121, 123, 125, 126, 236 Areobindus, consul 106, 107, 109
on ‘Christ and Mary’ diptych 109–110, 111 Ariadne, empress 30–32, 32, 33n67, 35,
on consular diptychs 104–109, 105 40–41, 109, 134
in funerary art 117–122, 120, 121, 123 Aristotle 210, 216, 238
passage, symbol of 104, 117 Ark of the Covenant 12, 146, 150, 156,
pediment and 127 180n37, 218, 219, 220, 224n44, 225, 229
as transcendental gateway 103, 117–120, Armenian origins of domed octagon
122, 124 structural type 166, 184–185
triumph, as symbol of 103, 104–105, Arsenius, patriarch 82
109–117, 119, 122–124 Artemis, goddess 38n90
over death 120–122, 126–127 Ascension ivory, Munich 177, 178
Index 289

Ashburnham Pentateuch 117, 118 Cappella Palatina, Palermo 51, 71

Ashkenazi haggadot, representation of the Caričin Grad-Iustiniana Prima 36, 41
Temple in 153, 159–161 Carroll, Michael 16
Athanasios I, patriarch 54 Celestial Hierarchy (Dionysius the
Athena, goddess 38n90 Areopagite) 216–219, 238 239
Augustine, Saint 216n20 centrally planned church type 5, 7, 10, 163,
168–169, 175–176, 185, 226, 236
Babić, Gordana 91 Chalke Gate 10
Balaban Ağa Mescidi, mosque 175n24 Chalkoprateia, church, Constantinople 55
Balajnac, bronze portrait from 33–34, 34 Choli, church 53, 67
Bandmann, Günter 101n2, 102n4 Chorio, church 66–67, 71
bar Kochba, Simon 149, 180 Christ, body of 77–79, 100
Bar Kochba Revolt silver coinage 149, 149, ‘Christ and Mary’ diptych 109–110, 111
180 Christ Pantokrator, church of See Dečani
Bartholomew di Simeri 51 monastery, church of the Christ
Basil I, emperor 191, 193 Pantokrator
basilica, building type 5, 7, 8, 10, 202, 226 Chronography of 354 110–111, 112, 129, 130
Basilakes Nomikos 54n55 church buildings
Bebaia Elpis monastery 69 changes in 6–9
Bede 1, 215 decorative programs of 7n14, 197–200,
Bedestan, church, Nicosia 52 202, 204–208
Benjamin of Tudela, Rabbi 147n10 evolutionist approach to typology
bilateral icons 49–50 of 7–8, 10, 235
Birds’ Head Haggadah 153n26, 159–161 liturgical changes and 6–7, 204–206
Blachernai monastery 55, 60n90, 67 See also planning types
Blachernitissa icon 59, 60 ciborium, as canopy 218–226, 231
Bland, Kalman 146, 147 Clementinus, consul 106, 108, 109
Boethii, the 131 coins
Boethius, consular diptych of 131, 132 Bar Kochba Revolt silver coinage 149,
Bogdanović, Jelena 9, 11, 145, 168n8 149, 180
Brephokratousa icon 59 empress imagery on 23, 24n31, 25–26,
Brontocheion monastery 54–56, 66, 71 27, 28, 35, 36, 36, 38–41
Bruttia Crispina, empress 30 images of pediments on 127
Bryas, Palace of 169n10 Commentary on Mishneh (Maimonides) 160
Buildings (Procopius) 10, 11 colonnettes, double
Bulgakov, Sergius 79 as architectural feature 163, 165n4,
Busac, Hugues 56 166–169, 172, 176
Bynum, Caroline 79 in representations of the church of the
Holy Sepulchre 176–177, 179–180,
Capernaum, synagogue 180 185, 236
canopy concha, symbolism of 110, 117, 118, 120, 124,
altar 223–225 128, 131, 134
dome as 9, 10, 11, 172, 208, 226, 227, 228 consul, Roman office of 106, 109n17, n18,
as representative of religious 134n68
structures 217–221, 223–224 consular diptychs
as unit of design 9, 10, 11, 208n39, arches on 104–109, 105
217–221, 225–226, 230–232 empress imagery on 30–31, 35
See also ‘living’ canopy pedimented front on 129, 131–134, 132, 133
Cappella Arcivescovile, Ravenna 206 Constantine VII, emperor 191n10
290 Index

Constantine IX Monomachos, emperor 163, domes

174 See canopy; cross-domed church type;
Constantine the Great, emperor 20, 23, 28, domed octagon church type; five-
36, 193 domed churches
mausoleum of 163 Domitilla catacombs, ‘Passion’
Constantine Lips, North Church of, sarcophagus 118–119
Constantinople 193 Dormition of the Virgin, church, Gračanica
Constantius II Augustus 28, 129, 130, 131 monastery 197, 203, 205
Constantius Gallus Caesar 129, 131 door motif on funerary monuments 117
Coptic stelae 120, 121 Dura-Europos, synagogue in 149, 151, 161n51,
cross-domed church type 7–8, 10, 193 180, 182
cross-in-square church type 5, 7–8, 10, Đurić, Vojislav 60
176n25, 193, 197n22, 202, 226
curtains, symbolism of 110, 117, 124–125, 148, eagle, symbolism of 119, 120, 122n46
221, 227 Ecclesiastical History and Mystical
Cybele, goddess 37 Contemplation (Germanus) 218
Cyriacus of Ancona 63n111 elevatio corporis 81
empress imagery
Daniel, Russian abbot 50 antitype 18, 38, 41
Danilo II, archbishop 59–61, 62, 68, 83, 88 Annia Galeria Faustina 30
Life of 60–61 archetypes of 15, 16–17, 37–38, 41
David, king Ariadne 30–32, 32, 33n67, 35, 40–41,
plates 141, 142 109, 134
psalm 226–227, 229 Christian iconography and 23–26, 35–36
Dečani monastery, church of the Christ Christian typology and 18
Pantokrator 72, 73, 74–75, 76, 83–100, 84, on cameos 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 38, 40
85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 on coins 23, 24n31, 25–26, 27, 28, 35, 36,
decorative programs of churches 7n14, 36, 38–41
197–200, 202, 204–208 on consular diptychs 30–31, 35
della Dora, Veronica 226–227 co-rulers 25, 35–36, 41
De Michaele et Andronico Paleologis empress as mother 19–25, 36, 38–39, 41
(Pachymeres) 82 empress as wife 19, 25–35, 40
Descent of the Holy Fire 179 Euphemia 32–34, 34, 41
De tabernaculo (Bede) 215 Fausta 26, 28, 29, 30, 39, 40
De templo (Bede) 215 Galeria Valeria 26, 27, 28, 38
diadem, in imperial imagery 22, 23, 28, 31, Goddess archetype 16–17, 37–38, 41
41, 129n58 Helena, mother of Constantine the
Didymoteichon, monastery 57, 71 Great 20, 23–24, 25, 26, 28, 36, 38–39,
Diocletian, palatial complex of in Split 138 40
Dionysius the Areopagite 13, 216–219, ideal type 18, 26, 34–35, 41, 42
238–239 imperial garments on 24n31, 31, 33, 41
Dionysus 38n91 as imperial propaganda 15, 19, 25–36,
Divine Liturgy, the, in decorative programs of 40–42
church domes 204–206 maternal type 15, 17, 38–39, 41
dolphin, symbolism of 135 Mother of God archetype and 16–17,
domed octagon church type 10, 163, 37–38
165–166, 176 mothers of emperors, glorification
Domentijan, author of Life of Saint Sava 83 of 19–23, 39–40
on oil lamps 24–25, 25
Index 291

empress imagery (cont.) Nea Ekklesia church as archetype 191,

as prototype 15, 17, 26, 40, 42 193–194, 197
religious archetypes 15, 16, 18, 37–38 St. Panteleimon, church, Nerezi 194, 195,
Romula, mother of Roman emperor 196, 198–200, 198, 199, 202, 204
Galerius 19–20, 21, 38n91 subsidiary domes, placement of 202–
sculptures of 33–34, 34, 41 206, 203
Sophia 25, 35, 41 symbolism of 190–191, 193, 197, 208
Theodora 15n1, 33n70, 35 Virgin Kosmosoteira, church,
on steelyard weights 31–32, 32, 40–41 Pherrai 194, 195, 198, 200, 204
Eirene Doukaina Komnene, empress 69 Virgin of Ljeviška, church, Prizren 197,
Eisen, Charles 211, 212 200, 201, 202, 204
Eliezer ben Nathan, Rabbi 161 Flavius Anastasius, consul 131–134, 133
Empedocles 210 funerary art
Enniameritissa, church, Chalki 59 arches in 117–122, 120, 121, 123
Enlightenment, architectural scholars of pediments in 134n66, 135–137
the 211–213, 231
Entry of the Ever Virgin Mary and Most Galla Placidia, mausoleum of 206
Holy Mother of God Theotokos 220, Galeria Valeria, empress 26, 27, 28, 38
222–225, 222 Galerius, emperor 19–20, 23, 26, 38n91, 39
erotes, symbolism of 134n66, 134, 135, 140 Gamzigrad (architectural complex) 20n20,
Essai sur l’architecture (Laugier) 211, 212, 21, 38n91
216, 220, 229, 231, 232 Gedankenbild 18
essentialism, philosophy of 17–18 Germanus, Saint 77n16, 218
Euphemia, empress 32–34, 34, 41 Geromeri monastery 57–58, 67
Euphrosyne-Marina, nun 56, 65–66, 71 Gonia monastery 58
Eusebius of Caesarea 174n18, 179, 190 Gorgon head 135, 137
evolutionist approach in architectural Gospel Book, MS E.D. Clarke 206, 209
typology 7, 8, 10, 235, 240 Gračanica monastery 197, 201, 202–206, 203,
205, 207, 208
Fasti consulares 109n18 Gradac monastery 83
fastigium Great Mother, the, archetype 16–17
columned fastigium See pedimented front Greek octagon church type 165–166
palatial fastigium See arched fastigium Gregorios, author of Life of Saint
Syrian fastigium See arched fastigium Romylos 61
See also Ravennese fastigium Gregory of Kykkos 52
Fausta, empress 26, 28, 29, 30, 39, 40 Gregory of Nazianzus 79
Felix, Saint 80 Gregory Pachymeres 62, 82
Felix Romuliana, imperial palace 20, 21 Grigorije Camblak (Gregory Tsamblak) 74,
First Temple 145, 146, 150n18 88
five-domed churches Gül, church, Constantinople 8
approaches to 189–190
Byzantine perceptions of 190, 197, 198, haggadot, illuminated 145, 153–162
206 Hagia Eirene, church, Constantinople 7n17,
Constantine Lips, North Church of 193 11
decorative program of 197–200, 202, Hagia Sophia, church, Constantinople 10,
204–208 11, 82, 138n77, 215, 226, 227
Heavenly Jerusalem as archetype 190– Hagioi Apostoloi, church, Chios 165
193, 192, 236 Hagios Demetrios, church, Thessaloniki,
‘windblown’ capitals 230
292 Index

Hagios Georgios, church, Thessaloniki, St. Nicholas tis Stegis, church,

marble ambo 124, 125 Cyprus 52
Hagios Menas, church, St. Sophia, church, Thessaloniki 47,
Constantinople 175n24 71
Hamilton Psalter 68 Strumica, church 61
Hammat Tiberias, synagogue mosaic Veliko Tarnovo, monastery 61
floor 150, 152, 161n51 Xenophon monastery 65
Heavenly Jerusalem 11, 12, 160, 161, 190–193, copies of 44–47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57,
192 58, 59, 66, 70, 71, 237
Helen, Serbian queen 83 development of the cult of 43–67, 70–71
Helena, empress, mother of Constantine funerary role of 62
the Great 20, 23–24, 25, 26, 28, 36, likeness 46
38–39, 40 miracle-working powers of 44, 45, 46,
Helena Palaiologina 64 47, 48, 51, 52, 58, 60, 67, 70
Hera-Juno, goddess 37, 122n46 mislabeling of 59
Heraclius, emperor 25, 36n83, 141n83 patron feasts of Hodegetria-dedicated
Herodian Temple See Second Temple foundations 67–70
Hodegetria icon political powers of 47n17
confraternities of 44, 47, 48, 53, 60, as prototype 44–47
62–63, 71 veneration transfer and 45–48, 66, 71,
foundations dedicated to 43–45, 47–66 235–236, 237
Agioi Theodoroi monastery 64 Hilandar monastery 61, 72n5
Agitria, church, Mesa Mani 59, 67 icon showing the Presentation of the
Agraphoi, church 63, 67, 71 Mother of God in the Temple 220,
Apolpaina, church 63–64 222–225, 222
Arediou, church 53, 67 Hodegon monastery 44, 47n16, 61, 62, 68,
Bedestan, church, Nicosia 52–53, 71 235
Brontocheion monastery 54–56, Holy Apostles, church, Constantinople 163,
66, 71 190n4
Cappella Palatina, Palermo 51, 71 Holy Apostles, church, Thessaloniki 202,
Choli, church 53, 67 204
Chorio, church 66–67, 71 Holy Sepulchre, church, Jerusalem
Didymoteichon, monastery 57, 71 Aedicula of Christ and, conflation
Enniameritissa, church, Chalki 59 of 177, 185
Geromeri monastery 57–58, 67 Constantine IX Monomachos and 174
Gonia monastery 58 copies of 11, 168, 175–177, 183–188
Hodegetria cathedral, Nicosia 52–53, as model for the church of Nea
71 Moni 168, 175–177, 183–184, 236
Jerusalem monastery dedicated to the as prototype 11–12, 168, 236
Hodegetria 48–50, 67, 71 reconstruction of 174
Kouklia, church of Panagia Temple, associations with 179–180
Katholiki 53, 67 visual representations of 176–181, 178,
Kouvouklia, church 64 183, 185
Maurochorion, church 64 Holy Tuesday 43–44, 70
Meronas, church 58 Homilies of James Kokkinobaphos 191, 192
Monembasia, church 56–57, 71 Honorius, emperor 104, 105n10, 135n72
Mušutište, church 61 Horreum Margi, cameos from 26, 27, 38
Mytilene, monastery 64 Horus, god 120
Peć, church 59–60, 67 Hosios Loukas monastery 165n5, 220, 221
Spelies, church 62
Index 293

Ioannitzopoulos, monk of foundation of the Jacopo Ruffo/Rosso 63–64

Hodegetria in Maurochorion 64 Jerome, Saint 80
iconoclasm 45–46, 75, 146, 147, 193–194 Jerusalem
iconographical studies 2, 4 See Heavenly Jerusalem; Holy Sepulchre;
iconographical approaches to Renewed Jerusalem
architecture 2n3, 11–12 Jewish art
iconophiles, visual hierarchy and 45–46 aniconism in 147, 150, 161
iconostasis Ark of the Covenant in 146, 150, 156,
Dečani monastery 75, 76, 84, 84, 86, 89, 180n37
91, 96, 99–100 development of 144–148, 150, 152–153
symbolism of 99–100, 237 floor mosaics 150, 152
icons, religious illuminated manuscripts 145, 153–162
architectural representations Jewish attitudes to Christians and 150,
and 181n42 152–153, 160
John of Damascus on 45, 75, 98 perceptions of Jewish artlessness 147
likeness and 4, 45–46 Temple representation in 148–150, 149,
miracle-working powers of 44, 45, 46, 151, 153–162, 155
47, 48, 51, 52, 58, 60, 67, 70, 77 visions of sages and 146
prototypes and 4, 44–47, 75, 77 word-driven imagery 145–147, 162
origins of 75 Jewish Wars (Josephus) 158
relics and 75, 77, 98, 100 John, ktetor of St. John the Forerunner
typology and 4, 14 Phoberos monastery 69
visual hierarchy of 46 John Chrysostom, Saint 54n55
See also aniconism, in Jewish art; John of Damascus 45, 75, 98
bilateral icons; Blachernitissa John II Orsini 57
icon; Brephokratousa icon; John V Palaiologos 62n104
Hodegetria icon; Kykkotissa Johnson, Mark 8
icon; Megaspelaiotissa icon; Josephus Flavius 156n33, 158
Monembasiotissa icon; Presentation Jovan Dragoslav, kaznac 61
of the Mother of God in the Judah Halevi 146
Temple Jung, Carl Gustav 16–17
ideal type 18–19, 42 Justin I, emperor 32, 33, 34, 41
church 7 Justin II, emperor 25, 35, 36, 41
empresses 18, 26, 34–35, 41, 42 Justinian, emperor 10, 11, 33, 34, 41, 106,
Ignatios, patriarch of 134n67, 190n4, 215
Constantinople 169n10
Ioannes Likinios 56 Kale-e Zerzevan votive bronze situla 126,
imaged architecture 101–103 126–127
See also arcade; arch; arched fastigium; Kalenderhane Camii, church,
pedimented front; portico Constantinople 8
image theory 4, 45–46 Kalligas, Haris 56
imago clipeata 134 Karydis, Spyros 63
inventio crucis See True Cross, legend of the Kogman-Appel, Katrin 150, 153n26, 159, 162
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons 216, 218, 225 Koinōnia type 41
Isaak Komnenos 69, 194 Korać, Dušan 74n7, n8
Isis-Fortuna, goddess 37, 128–129, 128 Kouklia, church of Panagia Katholiki 53, 67
Kouvouklia, church 64
Jacob ben Reuben, Rabbi 146 Krautheimer, Richard 2n3, 11–12, 175
Jacoby, Sam 239 Küçükyalı, church 169, 170
294 Index

Kühnel, Gustav 49 Meronas, church 58

Kutlumus 220 manuscript 56, 57 Metamorphosis, church of the, Koropi 206
Kykkotissa icon 52 Meyer, Ann Raftery 215
Michael, metropolitan of Patras 65–66
Laderman, Shulamit 162 Michael IV the Paphlagonian 174n19
Lampl, Paul 102n4 Michael VIII, emperor 47n17, 57, 68
Laugier, Marc-Antoine 2n5, 211, 212, 216, Michael Psellos 174n20
220, 229, 231, 232 Mihaljević, Marina 9
Lavra monastery 65 Mihajlović iz Ostrovice, Konstantin 74n8
Lazaros of Galesion, Saint 98, 99n89 Mileševa monastery 83
Le Corbusier 2n5, 213n11 Milica Branković 64
Leo I, emperor 30–31 Milutin, king See Stefan Uroš II Milutin
Leo II, emperor 30–31 Mishnah Middot 158
Leonardo III Tocco 63n111, 64 Mishneh Torah (Maimonides) 160
Lidov, Alexei 49 Monembasia, church 56–57, 71
likeness in typology 1, 4, 11–12, 45–46, 71, 98, Monembasiotissa icon 57
236, 237 Mother of God archetype 16–17, 37–38
lion, symbolism of 122 Mother of God in the Temple, Presentation
‘living’ canopy 224–225 of the, icon 220, 222–225, 222
Lossky, Vladimir 75 Mother of God tou Roidiou monastery 69
Luke the Evangelist, Saint 44, 46, 51, 68, 79, mothers of emperors, glorification of 19–23
114, 208 Munich Ascension ivory 177, 178
Luna, symbolism of 110, 119 Mušutište, church 61
Mytilene, monastery, Lesbos 64
Machaira monastery 68
Madrazo Agudin, Leandro 2n5, 213, 216n20 naos
Magdalino, Paul 193 impression of circularity of 163, 168–169,
Maimonides, Moses 146, 160, 161 172, 176
Malotaras, bishop of Kernitsa 65–66 placement of domes and 194, 202,
Manasija monastery 202 203–204
Manouel Kourtikes, Sebastos 64 planning type and 5, 6
Manuel, bishop, founder of Theotokos Narration of the Hodegon Monastery 68
Eleousa, Veljusa 169 Nea Ekklesia, church, Constantinople 191,
Maurochorion, church 64 193–194, 197
Maria Regina type of the Virgin Mary 37 Nea Moni, church, Chios 164, 165, 166, 167,
Marsengill, Katherine 4, 98 168
Martina, empress, wife of Heraclius 25, double colonnettes of 163, 166, 168, 172,
36n83 176, 179
Martha, Saint, Life of 56 Holy Sepulchre, resemblance to 168,
Mary Latina, church, Jerusalem 49n23 175–177, 179–184, 236
Matejič monastery 226, 228 imperial associations of 174, 183
Maximinus Daia, emperor 20, 23 impression of circularity of 163, 168–169,
Megale Panagia, nunnery, Jerusalem 49 172, 176
Mega Spelaion monastery 66 as prototype for Greek octagon
Megaspelaiotissa icon 66 type 165–166
Mellinkoff, Ruth 147n12 replicas of 165
Menologion of Basil II 223n42 Neilos, bishop of Tamasia 68
mental image, and archetypes 2n5, 16, 18, Neilos Erichiotes, founder of Geromeri
42, 183 monastery 57
Index 295

Nemanjić dynasty 72, 91 Pentcheva, Bissera 229

Nerezi, church of St. Panteleimon 194, 195, Perl, Eric 219
196, 198–200, 198, 199, 202, 204 personality, typology of (Jung) 17
New Solomon, the 174, 184, 215 Pherrai, Virgin Kosmosoteira, church 194,
Nicholas, Saint 89, 91 195, 198, 200, 204
Nikanor Gate 156, 157 phoenix, symbolism of 114
Nikephoros I, patriarch 45, 46 pilgrimage, copies of the Holy Sepulchre as a
Nikephoros Moschopoulos 54, 56, 65 response to 177, 180, 183–185
nimbus, symbolism of 26, 131, 141 planning types 4–11
basilica 5, 7, 8, 10, 202, 226
centrally planned church 5, 7, 10, 163,
Octateuch manuscripts 159n42, 225n48 168–169, 175–176, 185, 226, 236
oil lamps, Christian iconography on 24, 25 cross-domed church 7–8, 10, 193
On Adam’s House in Paradise cross-in-square church 5, 7–8, 10,
(Rykwert) 213–214 176n25, 193, 197n22, 202, 226
orans position, significance of 24, 25, 38 domed octagon church 10, 163, 165–166,
orb, symbolism of 114n28 176
‘otherness’, typology of 17 Greek octagon church 165–166
Ousterhout, Robert 145, 148, 174n18, 175n24, nine-square grid design 10, 226, 228
176n25, 179n36, 180n39, 197n22 pneuma 227, 229–230
portico 124
Pachomios, founder of Hodegetria church of Popović, Danica 72
Brontocheion monastery 54, 55 Presentation of Christ in the Temple 220
Panagia Krina, church, Chios 165 Presentation of the Mother of God in the
Panagia Moutoullas, church, Cyprus, icon Temple, icon 220, 222–225, 222
from 52 primitive hut, the 210–232, 212, 237–238
Panagia Mouchliotissa (Theotokos Probus, emperor 104, 105, 135n72
Panagiotissa), church, Procopius
Constantinople 169, 170n13, 171, 172, on architecture 10, 11, 184n48
173, 183, 185 on empresses 15n1, 33
Panagia Olympiotissa monastery 204 Protoevangelion (Infancy Gospel) of
Panofsky, Erwin 216n20, 238n7 James 222, 223n42
Pantanassa, church, Mystras 202 prototypes
Paulinus of Nola, Saint 80 architectural 2n5, 11–12, 101n2, n4,
Paulinus of Tyre 174n18 127–128, 237
Paul, archbishop 56 Ark of the Covenant as 12, 220
Paul, Saint 77, 79, 122, 123 body of Christ as 77, 98
peacock, symbolism of 122 definition of 2n5, 11–12, 91, 234, 238
Peć, church 59–60, 67 empress images as 15, 17, 26, 40, 42
pediment Heavenly Jerusalem as 12
arch and 127 Holy Sepulchre as 11–12, 168, 236
on consular diptychs 129, 131–134, 132, 133 icons and 4, 44–47, 75, 77
as exemplified by Roman temples 127– John of Damascus on 45, 75, 98
131, 128 likeness and 12, 45–46, 71, 98
in funerary art 134n66, 135–137 primitive hut as 213, 216, 238
on Roman coins 127 relics and 77, 98–99
symbolism of 101, 103, 127, 129, 131, Tabernacle as 12, 220
142–143, 236 Temple as 12, 219–220
Peleg, Yehoshua 156, 157, 157, 158 type and 14, 98, 238
Pulcheria, empress 57, 67
296 Index

Quatremère de Quincy, Antoine- Sava, Saint 72n5, 83

Chrysostome 2n5, 213, 216n20, 231, Schwartz, Joshua 156–158, 157
232 Shalev-Eyni, Sarit 160
Second Temple 144, 148, 150n18, 157n34,
Rabbula Gospels 114–115, 116 157, 158
race, typology of 17 Seda, Theodorican courtier 120, 120
Rashi (Solomon ben Isaac) 146, 152n25, Semele, mother of Dionysus 38n91
160n47 Sephardic haggadot, representation of the
Ravanica monastery 204 Temple in 145, 153–162, 155
Ravenna, Cappella Arcivescovile 206 Sepphoris, synagogue floor mosaic 150n21,
Ravennese fastigium 138n76, n77, 139 161n51
Ravennese sarcophagus 120, 120 Septimius Severus, arch of 114
Redemption Midrashim 160 Smyrna Octateuch 225n48
relics Sol, symbolism of 110, 119
icons and 75, 77, 83, 84, 100 solar motifs, symbolism of 113n27, 114n28,
of saints 122, 131
body of Christ and 77–79, 100 Sol Invictus 113
canonization and 74, 81, 82–83, Solomon, king 174, 193, 215
86–88, 97 Solomon ben Meir, Rabbi 146
as conduit between heaven and Solomon’s Temple See First Temple
earth 79–80 Solovjev, Aleksandar 74n8
development of cult of 78n20, 80 Sophia, empress, wife of Justin II 25, 35, 41
elevation of 74–75, 81 Spelies, church 62
incorruptibility 77–80 Ss. Sergios and Bakkos, church,
positioning of 72, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, Constantinople 11
83, 84, 86, 91, 96, 98, 99–100, 237 stag/deer, symbolism of 122
translation of 74–75, 80–83, 84–85, stars, symbolism of 113, 127, 137
88 St. Augustine Gospels 114
Remesiana, cameos from 28, 29 Stefan Nemanja 72
Renewed Jerusalem 159–161 Stefan Uroš II Milutin, king 83
rhetoric of architecture 145, 168n8 Stefan Uroš III Dečanski, king
Roger II, king 51–52 canonization of 74, 86–88, 96–97
Romula, mother of Roman emperor Life of 87–88
Galerius 19–20, 21, 38n91 portrait of 88–89, 90, 91, 92, 96–99
Romylos, Saint, Life of 61–62 prayer of 91, 93, 96–97, 99
Rudl, nobleman of Strumica 61 relics of 72, 74–75, 76, 83–89, 84, 85, 86,
Rykwert, Joseph 213–214 87, 89, 91, 96–100
reliquary of 84–86, 85, 86, 87, 88, 98
Sacred History (Procopius) 15n1 translation of 74–75, 84–85, 86, 88
saints, establishing the cults of 86–88, 97 Stefan Uroš IV Dušan, king 74, 84n54,
saints’ relics See relics 88n61, 97
Santa Maria delle Grazie, crypt of Sicilian stelae 120, 121, 135, 136
Capella Palatina 51 Stephanos Komnenos 62n103
Sarajevo Haggadah, representation of the Stephen Protomartyr, Saint 91, 94
Temple in 145, 154–162 stereotype
Šarkamen mausoleum 20, 22 definition of 19, 42, 234
Satyros monastery 169n10 empress imagery and 15, 19, 39, 40, 42
Saul, king 141, 142 St. Euphemia, church, Rovini 33n66
Index 297

St. George monastery, Constantinople 8n21, Theodora, foundress of Bebaia Elpis

174n20 monastery 69
St. George, church, Staro Nagoričino 206 Theodore Balsamon 62n103
St. John the Forerunner Phoberos Theodore I Palaiologos 55n61
monastery 69 Theodore the Studite 45
St. Louis Psalter 159n42 Theodosius I, silver missorium of 139, 140,
St. Michael, church, Fulda 175n23 141
St. Nicholas tis Stegis, church, Cyprus 52 Theophilos, emperor 169n10
Stoic philosophy 229 Theotokos Eleousa, church, Veljusa 169, 171,
Stoudios monastery 57 171, 172, 183, 200
St. Panteleimon, church, Nerezi 194, 195, Theotokos Evergetis monastery 69
196, 198–200, 198, 199, 202, 204 Theotokos Kecharitomene monastery 69
St. Sophia, church, Thessaloniki 47, 71 Theotokos tou Kouratoros, church,
Sts. Theodores, church of the Brontocheion Constantinople 175n24
monastery 54 Thessaloniki, Hodegetria icon of 47
structural type See planning types Thiofrid of Echternach 77–78
Studenica monastery 72 Third Temple 144, 154, 160, 162, 237
Surb Prkitch, church, Ani 184–185, 186, 187, Thomas Aquinas, Saint 216n20
188 Titus, emperor 144
Symbolism of Churches and Church Todić, Branislav 91–92
Ornaments, The (Durandus) 219 Tosafists 161
Synaxarion (Constantinopolitan) 67 Trier ivory plaque 124
Synaxarion of Zakynthos 56 triumph, arch as symbol of 103, 104–105,
109–117, 119, 122–124
Tabernacle 12, 146, 150, 214–215, 218, 219, 221, over death 120–122, 126–127
225n48, 229 triumphal laurel wreath, in imagery 119,
Talmud 153n25 122, 127, 134, 141
Temple triumphal ornatus 129nn58
Ark of the Covenant and 150, 156, 218, True Cross, legend of the 24, 25
220 Tyche-Fortuna, goddess 38n90
canopy as 220, 221, 223 type
Christian church and 215, 218, 219–220 in architecture 2n5, 4–11, 103, 168,
as model for Byzantine architecture 12, 176–177, 188–191, 210, 211, 213–220, 231,
220 233–240
as primitive hut 220, 229 definition of 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 213, 234, 238
representations of in Jewish art 144–145, and archetype 12–14, 100, 145, 191, 210,
148–150, 151, 152, 153–162, 155, 180, 234, 216–217, 231, 233–239
237 and prototype 14, 98, 238
Holy Sepulchre and 179–180, 183 and typology 3–4
primitive hut and 214–215, 229 See also antitype; archetype; ideal type;
as representation of messianic prototype; stereotype
hope 144, 150, 153, 156, 159–160, 161 typism 19, 42
representation of by Schwartz and typology
Peleg 156–158, 157 approaches to 1–14
Tabernacle and 214–215, 218 of archaeological artifacts 17–18
Virgin Mary as living 223–225 architectural types See planning types
See First Temple; Second Temple; Third of architecture 2n5, 103, 168, 176–177,
Temple 188–191, 210, 211, 213–220, 231, 233–240
Theodora, empress 15n1, 33n70, 35 biblical/theological 1–3, 11, 18
298 Index

typology (cont.) Virgin Mary

iconographical studies and 2, 4 life of 222–223, 222
of personality (Jung) 17 as living Temple 224–225
of ‘otherness’ 17 See also Mother of God archetype
of race 17 visual typology 1–2
visual 1–2 Vita Basilii 191
Tyre type sarcophagus 137, 137 Vitruvius
primitive hut 2n5, 210–214, 212, 220, 227,
Valentinian II, emperor 139 229, 230, 231, 232
Vasilopoulo, Greece 43, 70 reception of 214–215
Vatopedi monastery 64, 172n14
Vavedenije 220, 222–225, 222 Weber, Max 18–19
Veliko Tarnovo, monastery 61 William Durandus 219
Veljusa, Theotokos Eleousa, church 169, 171, William of Tyre 174n19
171, 172, 183, 200 ‘windblown’ capitals 229, 230
Venus, goddess 38n92
Venus Vitrix 38 Xenophon monastery 65
Vidler, Anthony 2n5, 176, 177, 213
Virgin Kosmosoteira, church, Pherrai 194, Zakynthos, Synaxarion of 56
195, 198, 200, 204 Zeno, emperor 30–31
Virgin of Ljeviška, church, Prizren 197, 200, Zoodochos Pege monastery 55
201, 202, 204 Zosima, Russian deacon 49