Bogdanovic regional schools_of_late_byzantine_architecture

BYZANTINOSLAVICA

LXIX 20111--2

REVUE INTERNATIONALE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

B Y Z A N T I N O S L A V I C AREVUE INTERNATIONALE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

fondée en 1929

TOME LXIX (2011) 1-2, 3 supplementum

Publiée parl’Institut slave de l’Académie des sciences de la République Tcheque

sous la direction de

LUBOMÍRA HAVLÍKOVÁ

Comité de rédaction

Petr BALCÁREK, Vlastimil DRBAL, Julie JANČÁRKOVÁ, Markéta KULHÁNKOVÁ, Kateřina LOUDOVÁ, Pavel MILKO, Štefan PILÁT

Comité international de lecture

Stefan ALBRECHT (Mainz), Michail V. BIBIKOV (Moscou), Růžena DOSTÁLOVÁ (Prague),Axinia DŽUROVA (Sofia), Simon FRANKLIN (Cambridge), Wolfram HÖRANDNER (Vienne),Michel KAPLAN (Paris), Taxiarchis KOLIAS (Athenes), Ljubomir MAKSIMOVIĆ (Belgrade),

Paolo ODORICO (Paris), Jonathan SHEPARD (Oxford)

Prière d’adresser toute correspondance, ainsi que les manuscrits, les revues enéchange et les livres pour compte-rendu, à la rédaction de la revue à l’adresse

BYZANTINOSLAVICASlovansk˝ ˙stav AV »R, v. v. i.

Valentinská 1, 110 00 Praha 1, »esk· republikae-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

http://www.slu.cas.cz/byzantinoslavica.html

Conditions d’abbonement:La diffusion en République Tchèque et en République Slovaque est assurée par

EUROSLAVICA – distribuce publikací, e-mail: [email protected]

La diffusion dans tous les autres pays est assurée parKubon & Sagner Buchexport-import GmbH, Abonement "Byzantinoslavica",

D-80328 München; fax: +49(0) 89 54218-218, e-mail: [email protected]

La revue paraît dans la maison d’éditionEUROSLAVICA, Celetná 12, CZ-110 00 Praha 1

ISSN 0007–7712 Registrováno u MK ČR pod č. E 1092

© Slovansk˝ ˙stav AV »R, v. v. i. 2011

B Y Z A N T I N O S L A V I C AREVUE INTERNATIONALE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

Publiée parl’Institut slave de l’Académie des sciences de la République Tcheque

sous la direction de

LUBOMÍRA HAVLÍKOVÁ

Comité de rédaction

Petr BALCÁREK, Vlastimil DRBAL, Julie JANČÁRKOVÁ, Markéta KULHÁNKOVÁ, Kateřina LOUDOVÁ, Pavel MILKO, Štefan PILÁT

Comité international de lecture

Stefan ALBRECHT (Mainz), Michail V. BIBIKOV (Moscou), Růžena DOSTÁLOVÁ (Prague),Axinia DŽUROVA (Sofia), Simon FRANKLIN (Cambridge), Wolfram HÖRANDNER (Vienne),Michel KAPLAN (Paris), Taxiarchis KOLIAS (Athenes), Ljubomir MAKSIMOVIĆ (Belgrade),

Paolo ODORICO (Paris), Jonathan SHEPARD (Oxford)

La revue Byzantinoslavica est citée par ERIH et Scopus

LXIX / 1-2

PRAGUE 2011

© Slovanský ústav AV ČR, v. v. i., 2011

T A B L E D E S M A T I E R E SET RÉSUMÉS DES ARTICLES

d e l a L X I X eme a n n é e ( 2 0 1 1 / 1 - 2 )

Milada Paulová – 120e anniversaire de sa naissance (L. H a v l í ko v á ) . . . . 9

a r t i c l e s

Alenka CEDILNIK (Ljubljana)Der römisch-gotische Friedensschluss im Jahre 382 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Adam IZDEBSKI (Warsaw)The Slavs’ political institutions and the Byzantine policies (ca. 530-650) . . 50

Elena Ene D-VASILESCU (Oxford)A Face to Face Encounter: The God-Humanity relationship as reflected in the icons of the Eastern Christian (Orthodox) Church . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Efi RAGIA (Athens)The geography of the provincial administration of the Byzantine empire (ca. 600-1200): I. 2. Apothekai of the Balkans and of the islands of the Aegean Sea (7th-8th c.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Maciej KOKOSZKO ñ Katarzyna GIBEL (£Ûdü)Photius and Eustathius of Thessalonica on Greek cuisine intricacies, or a few words on abyrtake (PâõñôÜêç) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Regina KOYCHEVA (Sofia)Traces de la langue des deux saints égaux aux Apôtres, Cyrille etMéthode, et leurs élèves (Nouveaux fragments de l’acrostiche du canon funèbre en ancien bulgare du sixième ton) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Marek MEŠKO (Bratislava – Princeton)Notes sur la chronologie de la guerre des Byzantins contre lesPetchénègues (1083-1091) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Angeliki PAPAGEORGIOU (Athens)ïj äc ëýêïé ©ò ÐÝñóáé: The image of the “Turks” in the reign of John II Komnenos (1118-1143) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149

Ioannis POLEMIS (Athens)Notes on the Inaugural Oration of the Patriarch Michael of Anchialos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Elisabeth PILTZ (Uppsala)King (kralj) Milutin and the Paleologan tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Georgi ATANASOV (Silistra)Les monastères rupestres le long de la rivière Suha, dans la région de Dobrudja de Sud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Jelena BOGDANOVI∆ (Greenville)Regional Developments in Late Byzantine Architecture and the Question of “Building Schools”. An Overlooked Case of the Fourteenth-Century Churches from the Region of Skopje . . . . . 219

Walter K. HANAK (Shepherdstown)Bucharest ms. No. 1385 and The Tale of Constantinople, 1453: Some Reconsiderations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

é d i t i o n c r i t i q u eßâîð ĚČËŇĹÍÎÂ (Ńîôč˙)

Ńëŕâ˙íńęčé ďĺðĺâîä Ńëîâŕ Čîŕííŕ Çëŕňîóńňŕ De sancto hieromartyre Phoca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

c o m p t e s - r e n d u s Procopius Gazaeus. Opuscula rhetorica et oratoria (R. S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . . . . 369Ph. B. PERRA, FÏ ËÝùí díáíôßïí ôyò ½ìéóåëÞíïõ. FÏ ðñþôïò âåíåôï-ïèùìáíéê’ò ðüëåìïò

êár ½ êáôÜëçøç ôï™ eëëáäéêï™ ÷þñïõ (1463-1479) (R. S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . . . 372Palimpsestes et éditions de textes: les textes littéraires (R. S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . 374Greek Manuscripts at Princeton, Sixth to Nineteenth Century. A Descriptive

Catalogue (R. S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377L’éducation au gouvernement et à la vie. La tradition des „Règles de vie“

de l’antiquité au moyen âge (R. D o s t á l o v á / Praha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380Anthony KALDELLIS, Hellenism in Byzantium. The transformation of Greek Iden-

tity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition (R. D o s t á l o v á / Praha) . 382Petr BALCÁREK | »eskÈ zemÏ a Byzanc. Problematika byzantskÈho umÏlecko-

historickÈho vlivu [Die böhmischen Länder und Byzanz. Problematik des byzantinischen kunsthistorischen Einflusses] (S. A l b r e c h t / Mainz) . . 384

King or Steward: leadership and diplomacy in late Byzantium. Tonia KIOUSSOPOULOU,Basileus ê oikonomos: politikê exousia kai ideologia prin tên Alôsê [Basileus or Oikonomos. Political Authority and Ideology Before the Fall (of Constantinople)] (E. R u s s e l l / London) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386

Martin DIMNIK – Julijan DOBRINI∆, Medieval Slavic Coinages in the Balkans:Numismatic History and Catalogue (R. Z a o r a l / Praha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

n o t e s i n f o r m a t i v e sÂ. ŇÚĎĘÎÂŔ-ÇŔČĚÎÂŔ | “Áúëăŕðč ðîäîě...”. Ęîěčňîďóëčňĺ â ëĺňîďčńíŕňŕ

č čńňîðčîăðŕôńęŕňŕ ňðŕäčöč˙ (M. R a e v / Cambridge) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391Steven RUNCIMAN | The Lost Capital of Byzantium. The History of Mistra

and the Peloponnese (M. K o n e Ë n ˝ / Košice) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392

publ icat ions reçues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

l iste des col laborateurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400

r é s u m é s d e s a r t i c l e s

Milada Paulová. To the 120 Paulová’s birthday anniversaryLubomíra HAVLIKOVÁ (Praha)Historian and Byzantologist Milada Paulová (1891-1970) devoted her profes-sional career and scientific work to the history of Southeast Europe, particular-ly the South Slavic world. She mainly dealt with the modern period (World WarI and Czech-South Slavic relations) and the Middle Ages (the history ofByzantine Empire). Of great importance in Paulová’s life was her meeting J.Bidlo, professor of the medieval history at Charles University in Prague. MiladaPaulová defended her habilitation thesis on general history of Eastern Europeand the Balkans at Prague Philosophical Faculty in 1925 and became the firstfemale Docent in Czechoslovakia. Ten years later, in 1935 she became the firstextraordinary female Professor and was granted full professorship in 1945 expost from 1939. As a Professor of Byzantology at Charles University in Prague,she wrote many world-renowned studies. As the editor of the journalByzantinoslavica, she deserved credit for its post-war revival and its reputationas an international journal, and also for the Byzantological bibliography that itincluded.

Roman-Gothian peace treaty signed in the year 382 Alenka CEDILNIK (Ljubljana)Dealing with the course of events which led to the peace treaty signed byTheodosius and the Goths on October 3rd 382, the author seeks to call attentionto the possibilities raised by the available sources but so far left unexamined andindicates some possible interpretations, which, however, can not be proved withno more certainty than the prevailing view. It is first of all a question of thepeace treaty offered by Gratianus not only to the Therving group governed byFritigern but also to the Greuthungi, Huns and Alans of Alatheus and Saphrax’group shortly after the crushing defeat suffered by the Roman army in the Battleof Adrianople, that means as early as 378, of the attack of Alatheus and Saphrax’group on Athanaric, who was staying with his Thervingi in the Carpathian area,before the attack of the same group on Pannonia in the spring of 380, and ofthe possibility, that the peace treaty signed by Theodosius and the Goths in 382was concluded not only by the Therving group of Fritigern but also by theGreuthungi, Huns and Alans of Alatheus and Saphrax’ group.

The Slavs’ political institutions and the Byzantine policies (ca. 530-650)Adam IZDEBSKI (Warsaw)The recent ethno-historical research on the Germanic and Slavic political tradi-tions allowed the author to reconstruct the early Slavs’ political institutions withthe use of the Byzantine sources. The role of the assembly (wiec) and leadershippatterns are discussed. Then, the Byzantine incapability of dealing with the earlySlavs is compared to the Frankish successes. Finally, the implications of histori-cal genetics for the study of the early Slavs are considered.

A Face to Face Encounter: The God-Humanity relationship as reflected in the icons of the Eastern Christian (Orthodox) ChurchElena Ene D-VASILESCU (Oxford)This paper explores the theory of participation expressed by, among others, Ss.Athanasius (c. 295-373), Basil the Great (c. 330-379), Maximus the Confessor (c. 5

580-662) and, in the twentieth century, the theologian Dumitru Stãniloae (1903-1993). It presents one way in which participation happens, and states that thefact that God works in the world through His energies carried out by the HolySpirit makes possible a ‘face to face encounter’ between Him and humankind.One way in which this process is concretised in Eastern Orthodox Christianity isthrough the practice of honouring icons. The text explains the ‘devices’ activein the respective liturgical art during this God-humankind encounter. Amongthese are the model of Trinitarian love and a compositional technique that pro-duces in the viewer ‘simultaneity of seeing’.

The geography of the provincial administration of the Byzantine empire (ca. 600-1200): I. 2. Apothekai of the Balkans and of the islands of theAegean Sea (7th-8th c.)Efi RAGIA (Athens) This contribution examines the geographic distribution of the warehouses andvassilika kommerkia of the European provinces of the Empire. In administrativeterms the model that was already in use in Asia Minor was transferred to theBalkans. The fact that the events had resulted into the collapse of the LaterRoman administrative model in the north Balkans is the apparent reason whyinstead of warehouses of provinces there appear to have functioned only ware-houses of cities. The geographic pattern of the Balkan warehouses indicates thatByzantium held dominion of the provinces of the south, of Hellas, Crete and ofthe province of Nesoi.

Photius and Eustathius of Thessalonica on Greek cuisine intricacies, or afew words on abyrtake (PPââõõññôôÜÜêêçç)Maciej KOKOSZKO – Katarzyna GIBEL (Łódź)The present commentary is aimed at elucidating the terms made use of byPhotius in the entry abyrtake (PâõñôÜêç) included in his Lexicon (ËÝîåùíóõíáãùãÞ). The authors of the study maintain that abyrtake was a sauce of Medic(i.e. Persian) origin, which might have been known to the Greeks even before the6th century but eventually became popular in the 4th BC. It was a luxury dishconsisting of vinegar (—îïò), cress (êÜñäáìïí), garlic (óêüñïäïí), mustard (óßíáðõ),raisins (óôáößäåò) and salted capers (êÜððÜñéò).

A Trace of the Language of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Equal to theApostles, and Their Disciples (Newly Found Fragments of the Acrostic ofthe Old Bulgarian Funeral Canon on the Sixth Tone)Regina KOYCHEVA (Sofia)The article announces unknown fragments of the acrostic of the Slavonic funer-al canon found by P. Penkova. These passages are the first actual proof that thecopies of the canon really bear traces of an original (non-translated) Slavonicchant. The acrostic fragments display both language tendencies young for theninth century (when the canon was probably written) and archaic features possi-bly leading back to the Mission of St. Cyril and St. Method in Great Moravia.

Notes on the Chronology of the Byzantine-Pecheneg War (1083-1091)Marek MEŠKO (Bratislava – Princeton)More than a century ago a German scholar K. Dieter published an incentive arti-cle about the chronology of the Byzantine-Pecheneg war during the reign of theemperor Alexius I Comnenus. Due to the patchy character of the evidenceinherent in the Alexiad written by his daughter Anna Comnena some fifty years6

Résumés des articles

later, a reassessment of this chronology is extremely intricate. With the help ofnew evidence (e.g. including research of the astronomical data connected withthe partial solar eclipse in 1087 carried out by K. F. D’Occhiepo), the more like-ly data of the beginning of this conflict – in 1083 rather than in 1086 – could beintroduced. In addition a more reliable chronology of the events during theyears 1088-1090 (e.g. the well known passage of the count Robert of Flanders)could be established.

ïïjj ääcc ëëýýêêïïéé ©©òò ÐÐÝÝññóóááéé: The image of the “Turks” in the reign of John IIKomnenos (1118-1143)Angeliki PAPAGEORGIOU (Athens)The aim of this paper is to study the image of the Turks during the reign of JohnII Komnenos. Among the various terms used by the Greek sources to character-ize the Turks may be found very common ones (e.g. barbarians) as well as oneor two that could be considered unicum for the period in question (such us thecomparison of the Turks to the wolves, which forms the core of the paper). Theauthor concludes that the image of the Turks was created mainly on the battle-field and also stemmed from their moral qualities (as perceived by theByzantines), qualities that were often portrayed by comparison to animals andphysical phenomena. The image of the Turks is more complete than that ofother peoples; however, despite the existence of a few positive traits that arementioned in the sources, the main Byzantine perception of the Turks duringthe period in question is clearly negative.

Notes on the Inaugural Oration of the Patriarch Michael of AnchialosIoannis POLEMIS (Athens)A new date for the Inaugural Oration of Michael of Anchialos, published by R.Browning, is put forward on the basis of a new investigation of the historicalevents recorded in the text: the Lecture in question was delivered not in1165/1167, as scholars had maintained so far, but a short time after 1151. Someechoes from the works of Philo Judaeus in the text are also detected.

King (kralj) Milutin and the Paleologan traditionElisabeth PILTZ (Uppsala)During the period of kralj Milutin´s reign in Serbia the relations with Byzantiumwere very vivid. He married the infant Simonis of five years and was favoured byemperor Andronikos II Paleologos and especially by his wife, the mother ofSimonis. Important Byzantine artists worked in Serbia and represented Milutinand his consort as a Byzantine despot with Byzantine insignia. Important werethe legations of Great logothete Theodor Metochites who has written reports ofthese events.

Rock Monasteries on the Souha River in the South DobroudjaGeorgi ATANASOV (Silistra)Within the confines of the Dorostol eparchy south of the Gollesh stronghold andalong the banks of the Souha River was conducted exploration on a colony ofrock monasteries. The center of the monks’ colony is represented by the “GyaurEvleri” monastery in proximity to the late-antique castle by the village of Ballick(the late-antique Adinna), at the foots of which there are well manifested cultur-al layers from the 5th-6th and 10th c. The big monasteries around Ballick attrib-uted to the 5th-6th c. are explicitly cynobian with expressive allusions to Syrianinfluences in the architectural plans as well as the liturgical performance. Those 7


situated to the north, like Gollesh, Brestnitsa and Onnogur, as well as some tothe south, like the Hittovo monastery, are small cloisters of the skit type relatedto the monastic center of “Gyaur Evleri”. There are also some documented her-mit and recluse cells. The colony was deserted simultaneously with the nearbycastles toward the end of the 6th and fully abandoned in the 7th c. but life inthese parts was revived in the period of the First Bulgarian Kingdom during the10th c.

Regional Developments in Late Byzantine Architecture and the Question of “Building Schools”. An Overlooked Case of the Fourteenth-CenturyChurches from the Region of SkopjeJelena BOGDANOVIĆ (Greenville)The parallel existence of several centers as the generators and recipients of archi-tectural influence in the wider region of Byzantine Macedonia, such asThessaloniki and Ohrid, obscured the significance of the city of Skopje, whichflourished as a short-lived imperial city for almost 50 years (1346-1392). In thispaper a number of post-1330 churches from the region of Skopje, F.Y.R. ofMacedonia ñ St. Nicholas in Ljuboten; the Holy Saviour (later the Presentation ofthe Virgin) in KuËeviöte; St. Nicholas in äiöevo; the Assumption of the Virgin inMatejiË; St. Demetrios at Markov Manastir, in Suöice; Assumption of the Virgin inMatka; St. Andrew on the Treska; and now ruined churches at DeviË and Modriöteon the Treska ñ are grouped because of related stylistic features and proportions.The churches comprise an overlooked paradigmatic ìbuilding schoolî significantfor further understanding of questions of style and building workshops in theregional developments of Late Byzantine architecture (ca. 1261-1453) and, espe-cially after the 1330s, marked by a building decline in Constantinople.Contextualizing this ìbuilding schoolî locates the path of the development of theso-called ìMorava Schoolî (ca. 1370s-1459), the final phase of Byzantine archi-tecture, through Skopje.

Bucharest ms. No. 1385 and The Tale of Constantinople, 1453: SomeReconsiderationsWalter K. HANAK (Shepherdstown)The Bucharest ms. No. 1385, The Tale of Constantinople, in a number passagesstands in marked contrast to the several Slavonic renditions, the Troitse-SergievLavra ms. No. 773, Hilandar Slavic ms. 280, and the Chronograph Redaction of1512. This study contrasts the accounts concerning a patriarch, Justinian, a wife,and the death of Constantine XI, comparing the similarities and differencesamong the passages. The author posits that the Bucharest ms. is a late seven-teenth-century rendition.

é t u d e c r i t i q u e

The Slavonic Translation of St. John Chrysostom´s Homily De sancto hieromartyre PhocaYavor MILTENOV (Sofia)The Slavonic version of St. John Chrysostom’s homily De sancto hieromartyrePhoca (BHG 1537, CPG 4364) emerged in the beginning of the 10th c. inBulgaria and came to us in the longer redaction of the Zlatostruy (Chrysorrhoas)collection. The present study is devoted to a comparison of the witnesses, build-ing a stemma codicum and identifying the characteristics of the Slavonic arche-type. Attached, an edition of the Slavonic version (according to seven copies)and parallel Greek text is being included.8


Regional Developments in LateByzantine Architecture and theQuestion of “Building Schools”An Overlooked Case of the Fourteenth-CenturyChurches from the Region of Skopje *

Jelena BOGDANOVI∆ (Greenville)

The question of style has been marginalized in modern scholarshipon architectural history and, in particular, in general studies of Byzantinearchitecture, where the chronological-historical approach prevails.1Though the chronological-historical overview of the architectural her-itage is documentary and perhaps the most acceptable way of presentingthe plethora of material, it often fails to provide subtle insights into archi-tectural and functional qualities as well as contextual realities. More than

* This article is an expanded and revised version of papers ìThe Role of Mid-Fourteenth Century Skopje in the Development of Byzantine Church Archi-tectureî and ìThe Church of the Assumption of the Virgin at MatejiË. RegionalRe-interpretation of Middle Byzantine Constantinopolitan Architecture in thePalaeologan Era?î given at the Round Table on Palaeologan Culture organized byProf. Elizabeth Jeffereys at Oxford University and at the 29th Annual ByzantineStudies Conference (now Byzantine Studies Association of North America) inJune and October of 2003, respectively. I benefited from valuable comments fromthe audience at these public presentations. My work on regional building schoolsstarted in Prof. Slobodan ∆urËiÊí seminar Late Byzantine Architecture: Questions ofStyle and Regionalism at Princeton University in fall 2002. In addition to Prof.∆urËiÊ, for their support, critical advice, and for sharing with me their biblio-graphical and photo documentation I also owe debt of gratitude to Dr. Ljubica D.Popovich, Dr. Ida SinkeviÊ, Dr. Milan Radujko, Dr. Ivan DrpiÊ, Dr. Ljubomir Mila-noviÊ, Nebojöa StankoviÊ, Dr. Marina MihaljeviÊ, Dr. Jelena Trkulja, Dr. KateLaMere, Dr. Duöan DaniloviÊ, Vojislav BogdanoviÊ, Erin Kalish, Joyce Newman,Dr. Dorothy Muller, Dr. Erguen Lafli, and Linda Ratliff. Any potential mistakes,however, are unintentional and remain my responsibility.1 R. KRAUTHEIMER with S. ∆UR»I∆ in a seminal book, Early Christian and ByzantineArchitecture, New Haven-London 1986 [1965] organized the corpus of Byzantinearchitecture chronologically-historically, geographically, and typologically. Theapproach is encyclopedic and empirical, in its essence descriptive, and oftendetached from the particular objects and their artistic context. The architecturalmaterial is usually divided into clearly formulated chronological groups, definedby historically documented events. The geographical distribution of the monu-ments and architectural building types re-group the material on a sublevel.Chapter five, Church Building after Justinian and its integral parts The Cross-DomedChurch, and The Borderlands, Mesopotamia and the Tur Abdin, Egypt and Nubia, TheBalkans, Bulgaria, Armenia and Georgia, illustrate the approach. C. MANGO, Byzan-tine Architecture, New York 1976 introduces a thematic approach in the two chap-ters dealing with building materials and techniques and cities, while the essentialparts of the work follow the chronological-historical approach as in Krautheimerís 219

a millennium-long Byzantine tradition is often studied through the focuson a single city, Constantinople. Other centers of architectural produc-tion, if acknowledged, are considered tangential and provincial. Althoughnot comprehensive, the contextualized studies of regional architecturaldevelopments, however, can enhance and replenish our understanding ofByzantine architecture.2 Often hidden under the titles of ìregionalî orìbuilding schools,î these alternative approaches are based on stylisticanalysis.3 Regional architectural developments in the Late Byzantine peri-od are especially revealing because Constantinopolitan architecture neverfully recovered its glory after the Latin occupation (1204-1261).4 After the

book. L. RODLEY, Byzantine Art and Architecture, Cambridge 2001 [1994] organizesarchitecture, sculpture, monumental arts, minor arts, and illuminated manu-scripts chronologically, and concludes about the arts of the given period at theend of each chapter. Categories such as Armenian art and architecture or By-zantine ceramics comprise the appendices since they did not fit the general out-line of the book. For an overview of prevalent typological, functional, symbolic orideological, and socio-economic methodological approaches in Byzantine ar-chitecture see: C. MANGO, Approaches to Byzantine Architecture, Muqarnas 8 (1991)40-44. 2 While acknowledging flaws in research and need for its improvement, archi-tectural historians recovered interest in style in Byzantine church architecture:H. BUCHWALD, Lascarid Architecture, J÷B 28 (1979) 261-296; id., Form, Style andMeaning in Byzantine Church Architecture, Aldershot ñ Brookfield, Vt. c. 1999;R. OUSTERHOUT, Constantinople, Bithynia, and Regional Developments in Later Palaeo-logan Architecture, in: The Twilight of Byzantium, eds. S. ∆urËiÊ ñ D. Mouriki,Princeton 1991, 75-91; S. ∆UR»I∆, Middle Byzantine Architecture on Cyprus: Provincialor Regional? Nicosia 2000; id., The Role of Late Byzantine Thessalonike in ChurchArchitecture in the Balkans, DOP 57 (2003) 65-84. Detailed studies on urban andartistic life in Constantinople are promising further contributions in stylisticanalysis of Byzantine architecture: P. MAGDALINO, Studies on the History andTopography of Byzantine Constantinople, Aldershot ñ Brookfield, Vt. 2007; ByzantineConstantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life. Papers from theInternational Workshop held at Bog¢aziçi University, Istanbul, 7-10 April 1999,ed. N. Necipog¢ lu, Leiden ñ Boston 2001; Constantinople and Its Hinterland. Papersfrom the Twenty-Seventh Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, April1993, eds. C. Mango ñ G. Dagron, Aldershot ñBrookfield, Vt. 1995. 3 Functional, symbolic, iconographic, socio-economic, socio-politic, and otherapproaches deriving from disciplines other than art and architectural historyoccasionally provide astonishing, but certainly not comprehensive and finalresults. Despite encouraging results which these alternative approaches pro-duced, scholars remain skeptical about fruitful contributions from stylistic analy-ses of Byzantine arts: A. P. KAZHDAN, Style, in: ODB 3, Oxford 1991, 1970. A par-ticular problem with the concept of style in studies of Byzantine architecture isthat it is often borrowed from non-Byzantine architecture or from the other artsand literature. Conclusively, such an approach leads to the untenable assumptionthat the styles of Byzantine art and architecture developed simultaneously. Theapproach has been predominantly used to determine the date or level of skillused for a particular group of monuments or parallel development of architec-ture and monumental painting. See: R. OUSTERHOUT, An Apologia for ByzantineArchitecture, Gesta 35/1 (1996) 21-33; id., Contextualizing the Later Churches ofConstantinople. Suggested Methodologies and a Few Examples, DOP 54 (2000) 241-250.4 Though surviving Constantinopolitan churches constructed after theByzantine re-conquest of 1261 show limited stylistic coherence, it has been pro-posed to group them into those built until 1300 and those built between 1300 and220

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Fig. 1 Map of the Balkans with the location of civic and artistic centers in theLate Byzantine period (Drawing J. BogdanoviÊ)

1330s significant construction projects in Constantinople virtually ceased.Wealthy patrons of architecture who supported the taste for Constan-tinopolitan ideals were not in Constantinople any more. Royal and aristo-cratic patrons in the Balkans, who gained their wealth mostly throughtrade and the exploitation of local mines, emerged as an elite affluentenough to build in Constantinopolitan styles. Yet, contested borderingterritories and language barriers often preclude the larger image ofregional architectural developments in the late medieval Balkans.5Several geographically-related centers existed in the wider region ofByzantine Macedonia (Fig. 1). Thessaloniki and Ohrid were the genera-

1330: S. ∆UR»I∆, Religious Settings of the Late Byzantine Sphere, in: Byzantium: Faithand Power (1261-1557), ed. H. C. Evans, New York ñ New Haven 2004, 65-94, withreferences to S. EYICE, Son Devir Byzans Mim‚risi. Istanbulída Palaiologosílar DevriAntilari, Istanbul 1980; J. BOGDANOVI∆, Late Byzantine religious architecture inConstantinople / ÕóôåñïâõæáíôéíÞ íáïäïìßá óôçí Êùíóôáíôéíïýðïëç, in: Encyclopaediaof the Hellenic World, Constantinople (2008) URL: <http://kassiani.fhw.gr/l.aspx?id=10893, with older references.5 Millet defined various ìregional schoolsî in the Balkans, originally in refer-ence to painting and then to architecture: G. MILLET, Reserches sur líiconographie delí…vangelie, Paris 1916; id., LíÈcole grecque dans líarchitecture byzantine, Paris 1916; id.,Líancient art serbe. Les Èglises, Paris 1919. With the 19th-century emergence of newcountries in the Balkans, as well as after the latest wars in the late 20th century,the concept of the ìregional schoolsî was linked with the topic of ìnationalschoolsî and subsequently obscured with notions of national and nationalisticidentities, with aggravating negative overtones. This underestimates the crucial 221

Regional Developments in Late Byzantine Architecture and the Question...

tors and recipients of architectural influence, which obscured the signifi-cance of Skopje, another city in the region located on the road connect-ing Serbia to the north and Thessaloniki to the south.6 This paper recon-siders the question of regional developments in Late Byzantine architec-ture in the Balkans and identifies a number of post-1330 churches fromthe region around Skopje, F.Y.R. of Macedonia as an overlooked paradig-matic ìbuilding school.î

The churches of St. Nicholas in Ljuboten; the Holy Saviour (later thePresentation of the Virgin) in KuËeviöte; St. Nicholas in äiöevo; theAssumption of the Virgin in MatejiË; St. Demetrios at Markov Manastir, inSuöice; Assumption of the Virgin in Matka; St. Andrew on the Treska, andtwo small-scale now ruined churches at DeviË and Modriöte on the banksof the river Treska, have received only sporadic scholarly attention (Tab.1).7 Often praised for their high-quality paintings, these churches have

recognition of the active processes of architectural achievements as discursive out-comes between the affluent patrons and workshops. See B. PANTELI∆, The Creationof Style in Serbian Architecture and Its Political Implications, JSAH 56/1 (1997) 16-41. 6 ∆UR»I∆, Late Byzantine Thessalonike (as in note 2 above) 65-84, suggested thatSkopje was major center of regional architectural production after the 1340s.

7 Pre-Second World War archeological and preservation work on the churchesresulted in several scattered articles and reports: P. J. POPOVI∆, Prilog za studijustare srpske arhitekture, Starinar 3 (1923) 103-104; é. TATI∆, Arhitektonski spomenici uSkopskoj Crnoj Gori, GSND 1 (1926) 351-364; id., Arhitektura Sv. Nikole kod Ljubotena,GSND 2 (1927) 109-124; id., Tragom velike proölosti: Svetogorska pisma i monografskestudije stare srpske arhitekture, Beograd 1929; id., Arhitektonski spomenici u skopskojCrnoj Gori ñ Sv. Nikita, GSND 12 (1933) 127-134; id., 1337-1937. Arhitektura iûivopis hrama Sv. Nikole, kod sela Ljubotena (Skopska Crna Gora), Skoplje 1937; N.OKUNEV, Gradja za istoriju srpske umetnosti ñ Crkva Svete Bogorodice ñ MateiË, GSND7-8 (1930) 89-113; Dj. BOäKOVI∆, Opravka MetejiÊa, GSND 9 (1932) 220-221; id.,Sruöena je i stara kapela u MetejiÊu, Starinar 14 (1939) 153-156; A. DEROKO, MatejËa,Starinar 8-9 (1933-1934) 84-89; F. MESESNEL, Stari srpski spomenici, in: Spomenicadvadestpetogodiönjice oslobodjenja Srbije 1912-1937, ed. A. JovanoviÊ, Skoplje1937, 361-385; R. LJUBINKOVI∆, Srpski crkveni spomenici u klisuri reke Treske, Skopje1940.

Since the Second World War, these churches have been examined primarily onaccount of their high-quality painting: V. R. PETKOVI∆, Pregled crkvenih spomenikakroz povesnicu srpskog naroda, Beograd 1950; M. ∆OROVI∆-LJUBINKOVI∆, Crkva SveteNedelje nad klisurom Treske i problem njenog datovanja, ZZSK 2/1 (1952) 95-106; A.DEROKO, Monumentalna i dekorativna arhitektura u srednjevekovnoj Srbiji[Líarchitecture monumentale et dÈcorative dans la Serbie du Moyen Age] Beograd 1953;Spomenici za srednovekovnata i ponovata istorija na Makedonija 1, ed. V. Moöin,Skopje 1975; Z. RASKOLSKA-NIKOLOVSKA, O ktitorskim portretima u crkvi Svete Bogo-rodice u KuËeviötu, Zograf 16 (1985) 41-54; I. DJORDJEVI∆, Zidno slikarsvo srpskevlastele u doba NemanjiÊa, Beograd 1994; S. CVETKOVSKI, Za ktitorskata kompozicija odMatejËe, in: Godishen zbornik na Filozofskiot fakultet na Univerzitetot ÑSv. Kiril iMetodijì vo Skopje (1996) 525-537; V. J. DJURI∆ ñ G. BABI∆-DJORDJEVI∆, Srpska umet-nost u srednjem veku II, Beograd 1997; J. PROLOVI∆, Die Kirche des Heiligen Andreas ander Treska: Geschichte, Architektur und Malerei einer palaiologenzeitlichen Stiftung des ser-bischen Prinzen Andreas, Wien 1997; E. DIMITROVA, MatejËe, Skopje 2002;M. RADUJKO, éivopis proËelja i linete juûnog ulaza Svetog Nikole u Ljubotenu, Zograf 32(2009) 101-116.The monograph about Markov Manastir published in 1925 remains the only com-prehensive architectural study of the churches mentioned: L. MIRKOVI∆ ñ é.TATI∆, Markov Manastir, Novi Sad 1925. D. CORNAKOV, Makedonski manastiri222

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Table 1 Comparative List of ìSkopjeî Churches (J. BOGDANOVI∆)

223


Date Place Dedication Donor Plan SectionJ

1337 Ljuboten /BardovciSkopska CrnaGora,F.Y.R.O.M.13km Skopje

Sv. Nikola

St. Nicholas

LadyDanica

c. 1330 37 Ku evišteSkopska CrnaGora,F.Y.R.O.M.16km Skopje

HolySaviour

Presentationof theVirgin

LadyMarenawithchildren:Arsen,VladislavaRadoslav

c. 1334

b.1380

Šiševo / NirTreskaSkopska CrnaGora,F.Y.R.O.M.

Sv. NikolaŠiševski

St. Nicholas

King DušanlaterKing Marko

~1346destr. in16th c.

SkopjeF.Y.R.O.M.

Vavedenje

Presentationof theVirgin

KingMilutin/

King Dušan? ?

c. 1350 MatejiSkopska CrnaGora,F.Y.R.O.M.

UspenjeBogorodice

Assumptionof theVirgin

EmpressJelena,

wife ofEmperorDušan

1346/7

c. 1371

MarkovManastirSušiceF.Y.R.O.M.17km Skopje

Sv. Dimitrije

St.Demetrios

KingVukašin/

KingMarko

b. 1371 Matka /GlumovoTreskaF.Y.R.O.M.12km Skopje

UspenjeBogorodice

Assumptionof theVirgin

NoblemanBojko, sonof ladyDanica (cf.Ljuboten)

1389 TreskaF.Y.R.O.M.18km Skopje

Sv. Andreja

St. Andrew

PrinceAndreja,KingMarko’sbrother

?

probablyafter 1350

Devi ,F.Y.R.O.M.

?

PrincessDeva,KingMarko’ssister

?

?

probablyafter 1350

ModrišteF.Y.R.O.M.

? ?

?

never been considered as a unique architectural group. KRAUTHEIMER

does not mention any of these churches in his book on Byzantine archi-tecture, while Mango discusses the churches in MatejiË and Ljuboten asarchitecturally unimpressive illustrations of ìseparatist tendencies whichled to the disintegration of the ephemeral ëEmpire of the Serbs and theGreeksí.î8 A number of architectural historians assessed the architecture

[Macedonian Monasteries], Skopje 1995 provides an overview of the monasteries ofMarko, St. Andrew, and MatejËe within a selected number of other medievalmonasteries in the territories of F.Y.R. of Macedonia. V. KORA∆, Spomenici monu-mentalne srpske arhitekture XIV veka u Povardarju [Les monuments de líarchitecture serbedu XIVe siècle dans la région de Povardarje], Beograd 2003 selects churches built bythe Serbian patrons in the region of the river Vardar and examines in great detailthe unique architectural features of the churches in Ljuboten, the Presentationof the Virgin in KuËeviöte, MatejiË, Markov Manastir in Suöice, and St. Andrew onthe Treska. 8 KRAUTHEIMER, Early (as in note 1 above); MANGO, Byzantine (as in note 1above), 319.

Fig. 2 Church of the Dormition, GraËanica monastery near Priötina, 1311-1321, southern faÁade and floor plan (S. ∆UR»I∆, GraËanica, King

Milutinís Church and Its Place in Late Byzantine Architecture, University Park ñLondon 1979, Figs. 4, 10)

224

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

of these churches, however.9 If mentioned within any stylistic group, thesechurches have been placed within the so-called ìSerbo-Byzantine school,îa general classification for the emulation of the art and architecture ofConstantinople by the Serbs introduced by Gabriel MILLET, a pioneer inByzantine studies.10 ìSerbo-Byzantine schoolî has been applied ever sinceto almost all churches built during the reign of King Stefan Uroö IIMilutin (1282-1321) and his successors. An example of the ìSerbo-Byzantineî architecture is the church at GraËanica monastery nearPriötina (1311-1321) (Fig. 2).11 As the extension of the ìSerbo-Byzantineîstyle, MILLET also defined ìMorava schoolî (ca. 1370s-1459) as a distinctivenational style of medieval Serbian architecture built before the Ottomanconquest.12 Examples of the ìMoravaî architecture are the churches of St.Stephen in Kruöevac and of the Ascension at Ravanica, both built byPrince Stefan Lazar HrebeljanoviÊ (1370-1389). Lavishly decorated instone sculpture on the exterior, these churches in the Morava valley aretriconch in plan (Figs. 3-4). MILLET studied geographic locations where tri-conch churches prevailed and suggested that the developmental path ofLate Byzantine architectural styles in the region should connect Mt. Athosat the south and the Morava valley on the north, via Skopje.13

MILLETís study of regional schools, thus, emphasized the typologicalapproach, which remains an important methodological approach fororganizing larger numbers of Byzantine churches. In this paper, however,the consistent yet unique use of anachronistic stylistic features, along withcommon proportions and volumetric relations, defines a new proposedarchitectural group, temporarily entitled ìSkopjeî churches. TheìSkopjeî churches are grouped via four distinct stylistic characteristics: 1)

9 POPOVI∆, Prilog (as in note 7 above) 103-104; OKUNEV, Gradja (as in note 7above) 89-113; N. MAVRODINOV, Ednokorabnata i krstovidnata crkva po bulgarskite zemido kraja na XIV v., Sofija 1931, 108-109; DEROKO, MatejËa (as in note 7 above), 84-89; id., Monumentalna (as in note 7 above), 181, 189; BOäKOVI∆, Opravka MetejiÊa(as in note 7 above), 220-221; id., Sruöena je (as in note 7 above), 153-156;PETKOVI∆, Pregled (as in note 7 above), 184-188; W. SAS-ZALOZIECKY, Die byzantini-sche Baukunst in den Balkanl‰ndern und ihre Differenzierung unter abendl‰ndischen undislamischen Mitwirkungen, M¸nchen 1955, 57-58; S. NENADOVI∆, Arhitektura u sred-njovekovnoj Srbiji, Srpska pravoslavna crkva 1219-1969, Beograd 1969, 88; S. ∆UR»I∆,Articulation of Church FaÁades during the First Half of the Fourteenth Century, in:Vizantijska umetnost sredinom XIV veka, ed. S. PetkoviÊ, Beograd 1978, 17-27; id.,GraËanica, King Milutinís Church and Its Place in Late Byzantine Architecture,University Park ñ London 1979; id., Architecture in the Byzantine Sphere of Influencearound the Middle of the Fourteenth Century, in: DeËani i vizantijska umetnost sredi-nom XIV veka, ed. V. J. DjuriÊ, Beograd 1989, 55-68; DIMITROVA, MatejËe (as innote 7 above); KORA∆, Spomenici (as in note 7 above).10 MILLET, Líancient art serbe (as in note 5 above) esp. chap. 2 and chap. 3 for-mulated the ìSchool of Raöka,î the ìSerbo-Byzantine school,î and the ìMoravaschoolî as three large groups of architectural monuments built under the Serbiandomain. 11 ∆UR»I∆, GraËanica (as in note 9 above).12 MILLET, Líancient art serbe (as in note 5 above), chap. 3 ìLíÈcole de Morava.î 13 MILLET, Líancien art serbe (as in note 5 above), 152-153. 225


additive and modular design with the gradual clustering of architecturalvolumes and the structural use of the ìtriumphal archî tectonics;14

2) stone and brick construction; 3) geometric articulation of the faÁadesthrough the use of pilasters, stone string courses, and niches on the exte-rior; and 4) additional decorative features such as the moderate brickfaÁade decoration, the use of architectural sculpture, as well as plasteringand painting of the faÁades in emulation of building techniques. By con-textualizing the ìSkopjeî churches associated with the ìSerbo-Byzan-tineî style, this paper investigates the role of the ìSkopjeî churches as thedistinctive precursors of the so-called ìMorava schoolî churches and

14 I borrow the phrase ìtriumphal arch systemî from ∆UR»I∆, Articulation (as innote 9 above), 17-27.226

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Fig. 3 Church of St. Stephen, Kruöevac built by Prince Lazar (Stefan)HrebeljanoviÊ ca. 1375, western faÁade and triconch floor plan with proportionalanalysis (Photo of the faÁade D. DaniloviÊ. Drawing of the floor plan V. RISTI∆,

Lazarica i kruöevaËki grad, Beograd 1989, Fig. 5)

their significance in the development of Late Byzantine architecture afterthe 1330s.

The Architecture of the ìSkopjeî Churches after the 1330s

Founded by the members of the emerging local aristocracy, thechurches of St. Nicholas in Ljuboten and the Presentation of the Virgin inKuËeviöte represent ìSkopjeî churches in the making (Tab. 1).15 Built inthe 1330s within 15 kms from Skopje, both these small-scale, cross-in-square churches have approximately the same dimensions ñ 12 m x 7.8 m.These measurements and design plans associate these churches with someearlier fourteenth-century small-scale churches in the region. For exam-ple, St. Nikita at »uËer in Skopska Crna Gora (b.1307) founded by KingMilutin, has dimensions of approximately 11.5 m x 7.65 m.16 The church-es at »uËer, Ljuboten and KuËeviöte similarly use alternate bands of mul-

15 The church at KuËeviöte was presumably built in the 1320s-30s during thereign of King Milutinís son, King Stefan Uroö III DeËanski (1321-1331). Aristo-cratic donors presiding in the area, one Lady Marena with her children Arsen,Vladislava, and Radoslav supported fresco decoration of the church in 1337. Thechurch of St. Nicholas was built by a certain Lady Danica by 1337 and painted in1343-1345. LJUBINKOVI∆, Crkva Svete Nedelje (as in note 7 above), 95-106;RASKOLSKA-NIKOLOVSKA, O ktitorskim portretima (as in note 7 above), 41-54; TATI∆,Arhitektura i ûivopis (as in note 7 above); id., Arhitektura Sv. Nikole (as in note 7above), 109-124; DJORDJEVI∆, Zidno slikarstvo (as in note 7 above), 131-134; 145-147; RADUJKO, éivopis (as in note 7 above), 101-116.16 TATI∆, Arhitektonski spomenici (as in note 7 above), 127-134. 227


Fig. 4 Church of the Ascension at Ravanica, built by Prince Lazar (Stefan)HrebeljanoviÊ ca. 1375, exterior view from the south (S. ∆UR»I∆, GraËanica, King

Milutinís Church and Its Place in Late Byzantine Architecture, University Park ñLondon 1979, Fig. 126)

tiple courses of brick and stone for massive walls, stilted arched nicheswith a broad band of decorative brick patterns above them on the mainapse, and all-brick construction of the dome (Plates 1, 2; fig. 5).

While inheriting some aspects of the earlier local building traditionunder the influence of Thessaloniki, typified by the church of the HolyApostles (ca. 1310-1314) (Fig. 6), the ìSkopjeî churches in Ljuboten andKuËeviöte additionally have seemingly unique features related to theirstructural and tectonic integrity.17 By the Late Byzantine period manychurches in the Balkans lost the structural consistency, where exteriorarticulation indicated the interior organization of the building.18 Middle

17 ∆UR»I∆, Late Byzantine Thessalonike (as in note 2 above), 65-84, has hypothe-sized that after the 1330s many Thessalonian builders flocked to Serbia. The workof Thessalonian painters Astrapas (Michael) and Eutychios in the church of St.Nikita in »uËer is historically proven. References to fresco-painters coming fromOhrid to decorate churches in the region of Skopje (St. Nicholas at Ljuboten,Assumption of the Virgin at MatejiË, St. Nicholas äiöevski) reveal established artis-tic ties between Skopje and other centers in the region. Unfortunately, no histor-ical data confirms the origin of the building workshops. The indirect data pro-vides limited information on the subject matter: OKUNEV, Gradja (as in note 7above), 89-113; P. MILJKOVI∆-PEPEK, Crkvata sv. Nikita vo Skopska Crna Gora kakoistorisko-umetniËki spomenik, in: Spomenici za srednovekovnata i ponovata istorijana Makedonija 1, ed. V. Moöin, Skopje 1975, 379-386. 18 ∆UR»I∆, Articulation (as in note 9 above), 17-27; id., Religious Settings (as innote 4 above), 65-94; BOGDANOVI∆, Late Byzantine (as in note 4 above).228

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Fig. 5 Church of St. Nicholas, Ljuboten, 1337, western faÁade (V. KORA∆, Spome-nici monumentalne srpske arhitekture XIV veka u Povardarju, Beograd 2003, Fig. 9)

Byzantine church design reflected the internal disposition of the cross-in-square unit in elevations via a ìtriumphal arch system.î FaÁades were artic-ulated with three arches, the central one broader and taller than the lat-eral two, visible at the same level on all four sides. This design was subse-quently used in Late Byzantine architecture but, in contrast to MiddleByzantine design, the exterior wall articulation no longer reflected inter-nal spatial organization.19 However, ìSkopjeî churches, although builtduring the Late Byzantine period, anachronistically and conservativelyemployed structural consistency and a ìtriumphal arch systemî that is typ-ically associated with Middle Byzantine churches epitomized byConstantinopolitan churches of Christ Pantepoptes (Eski Imaret Camii)(b. 1087) and churches at the monastery of the Pantokrator (Figs. 7, 8).The church core of ìSkopjeî church visually resembles a canopy-like struc-ture consisting of a dome with an elongated drum set on a low prismaticbase, the so-called tambour carrÈ, which frames the structural pendentivesthat rise from four columns.20 The exterior pilasters are more-or-less cor-related with the interior structural space, emphasizing the tectonic quali-ties of the design (Plates 5, 6, 7). The gradual clustering of architecturalvolumes built around a building core and the tectonic integrity ofìSkopjeî churches built after the 1330s reflect an anachronistic MiddleByzantine building tradition, here reinterpreted as a regional idiom.

19 About the classical principles of the Middle Byzantine church design and usein Late Byzantine architecture: ∆UR»I∆, Articulation (as in note 9 above), 17-27.20 MILLET, Líancient art serbe (as in note 5 above) chap. 3 coined the term tamburcarrÈ. Construction of an elevated dome drum resting on stone columns insteadon piers is an unknown practice in earlier architecture in Byzantine Macedonia,including both Thessaloniki and Ohrid, and should not be related to these twobuilding traditions. See: ∆UR»I∆, Architecture in the Byzantine Sphere (as in note 9above), 55-68. 229


Fig. 6 Holy Apostles, Thessaloniki ca. 1310-1314, eastern faÁade and floor plan(E. KOURKOUTIDOU-NIKOLAIDOU ñ A. TOURTA, Wandering in Byzantine Thessaloniki,

Athens 1997, Figs. 139-140)

The largest surviving church in the region, which may be understoodas a prototype for a ìSkopjeî church, is the Assumption of the Virgin(Uspenje Bogorodice) in MatejiË, near Kumanovo in Skopska Crna Gora(Plate 5).21 The church is associated with ìSerbo-Byzantineî style becauseit was built under King Milutinís grandson, King and later Emperor StefanUroö IV Duöan (1331-1355), his Empress Jelena, and their son Stefan UroöV (1355-1371). The exact date of the church in MatejiË has not been pre-served in the surviving historical documents but the church can be tenta-

21 DIMITROVA, MatejËe (as in note 7 above), 39-40 records the lack of the appro-priate technical documentation and partial conservation and restoration worksbetween 1926 and 1986.230

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Fig. 8 Pantokrator monastery (Zeyrek Camii), Constantinople, ca. 1118-1136,exterior view from the east and floor plan of the church complex (Photo J. BogdanoviÊ. Drawing of the floor plan R. OUSTERHOUT,

Master Builders of Byzantium, Princeton 1999, Fig. 78). See also Plate 4

Fig. 7 Christ Pantepoptes (EskiImaret Camii), Constantinople, b.

1087, exterior view from the southeastand floor plan (Photo J. BogdanoviÊ.

Drawing of the floor plan A. VANMILINGEN, Byzantine Churches in

Constantinople, London 1912, Fig. 73).See also Plate 3

tively dated around 1350.22 The original function of the church remainsunconfirmed, but it almost certainly served as a mausoleum.23 Althoughthe church at MatejiË lost much of its original appearance through sever-al reconstructions in the early twentieth century, the basic geometric tec-tonic principles of the church are still apparent.

22 Predominantly on the basis of its painting, the church has been dated quitedifferently ñ from the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th centuries to var-ious dates immediately after and before Emperor Duöanís death in 1355. R.GRUJI∆, Pravoslavna srpska crkva, Beograd 1921, 11 suggested the early 14th-centu-ry date of the church. Okunev proposed 1356-1357 as years of the fresco paintingof the church according to the white veil that Empress Jelena has in a donoríscomposition, which was interpreted as her sorrow for a deceased husband.Okunevís conclusion about dating the church after 1355 was subsequently adopt-ed by a number of scholars: ∆UR»I∆, Articulation (as in note 9 above), 17-27;DEROKO, MatejËa (as in note 7 above), 84-89; BOäKOVI∆, Opravka MetejiÊa (as innote 7 above), 220-221; OKUNEV, Gradja (as in note 7 above), 89-113. DIMITROVA,MatejËe (as in note 7 above), 263 dated the fresco painting of the church between1348 and 1352. In the spring of 1348, after a great wave of the plague had sub-sided in the Balkans, Emperor Duöan and his family returned to Skopje from Mt.Athos, where they had been sequestered for over a year. A church fresco showingthe officiating archbishop dressed in polystavrion and accompanied by St. JohnProdromos is providing further insight into the dating of the church. Dimitrovaidentified the image with the first Serbian Patriarch Joanikije, who held the seatof patriarch from 1346 until 1354. CVETKOVSKI, Za ktitorskata (as in note 7 above),525-537, however, identifies the image with the Archbishop of Skopje Jovan(John), who was active around 1347-1350. I am grateful to I. DrpiÊ, who is of theopinion that the fresco represents Archbishop Jovan, for calling my attention tothe dating of the frescoes at MatejiË. In any case, since the walls of the churchshould have been left to consolidate at least one working season prior to thebeginning of fresco painting, the construction of the church at MatejiË can betentatively dated to around 1350, and possibly to some years earlier. 23 Several 19th-century written accounts mentioned two tombs in the churchinterior ñ a large one near the northeast pier, almost in the center of the churchand a smaller one marked by a marble slab with a representation of a double-headed eagle, located somewhere along the southern wall of the naos. A legendascribes the latter tomb to Empress Jelena. P. SRE∆KOVI∆, Grob carice Jelene, putniËkebeleöke, Bratstvo 2 (1888) 125-137, esp. 132 and J. HADûI-VASILJEVI∆, Po kumanovskoji skopskoj okolini, Bratstvo 5 (1892) 182-189, esp. 184, 187. Serbian royal tombswere frequently located in the southwestern corners of mausolea churches, as wasalso the case with the tomb of Emperor Duöan in his own mausoleum of the HolyArchangels (1343-52) near Prizren: S. ∆UR»I∆, Medieval Royal Tombs in the Balkans:An Aspect of the ëEast or Westí Question, GOTR 29/2 (1984) 175-194. The dispositionof the southern tomb in the church at MatejiË would, therefore, have corre-sponded to the already established tradition of royal burials in medieval Serbia.In the 1938-restoration of the church many remains, including a small chapel,most probably an older Byzantine structure, as well as the original marble floorwere destroyed. This restoration work done without proper technical documen-tation has eliminated evidence of the mentioned tombs. On the basis of the char-acteristic funerary conception of its frescoes and a donorsí composition depictingEmperor Duöan, his Empress Jelena and their son King Uroö, Dimitrova convinc-ingly suggested that the church at MatejiË was built as the mausoleum and spec-ulated that it was most probably built for Empress Jelena: DIMITROVA, MatejËe (asin note 7 above), 267-271. Indeed, although the funerary role of the monumen-tal church at MatejiË cannot be proven, it is plausible to hypothesize that thechurch at MatejiË was built as the mausoleum for the members of EmperorDuöanís family. 231


Built as an imperial foundation, this large-scale building by LateByzantine standards (23.5 m x 14.5 m) has highly sophisticated five-domed design. The cross-in-square plan with related ìtriumphal arch sys-tem,î a traditionally recognized Middle Byzantine stylistic feature, isapplied consistently at MatejiË (Plate 5). The floor plan is organized on aìconcentric squareî principle. The church core, formed by the placementof four stone piers that supported four pendentives upon which rested thedrum crowned by a dome, is in the geometric center of the structure. Thesquare-like naos area is concentrically placed surrounding the central vol-ume. This ìdouble squareî geometric principle, known from bothByzantine Macedonia and Constantinople and exemplified by eleventh-century churches in Strumica and Christ Pantepoptes, monastic churchesof Constantine Lips (907-the 1280s) and the church of Hagia Aikateriniin Thessaloniki (possibly ca. 1315) (Plate 3, 8; fig. 10), is even more aus-terely employed in the church of St. Demetrios at Markov Manastir (Fig.11). Founded by Emperorís Duöanís noblemen, King Vukaöin MrnjavËeviÊ(1365-1371) and his son King Marko (1371-1395), who continued to rulethe region of Skopje after Emperorís Duöanís death, the church at MarkovManastir was erected some time after 1346 and painted by 1371.24

The elongated altar space at MatejiË is the result of connecting thealtar apse with the eastern arm of the inscribed cross by means of an inter-polated bay. An interpolated bay, a recognized Middle ByzantineConstantinopolitan feature, is used in the churches at »uËer, Ljuboten,

24 About the church of St. Demetrios at Markov Manastir, its donor inscriptionreferring to Emperor Duöan and stating the date of the completion of the works:MIRKOVI∆ ñ TATI∆, Markov (as in note 7 above), N. NOäPAL-NIKULJSKA, Markoviotmanastir ñ monument kako dokument niz istorijata, in: Spomenici za srednovekovna-ta i ponovata istorija na Makedonija 1, ed. V. Moöin, Skopje 1975, 401-415.232

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Fig. 9 Monastery of Constantine Lips (Fenari Isa Camii), Constantinople, NorthChurch, 907, South Church, ca. 1280, exterior view from the east and floor plan

(Photo J. BogdanoviÊ. Drawing of the floor plan after A. VAN MILLINGEN,Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, London 1912, Fig. 44). See also Plate 8

and KuËeviöte (Tab. 1). The placement of protruding pilaster strips atappropriate structural points on both the exterior and interior alsoreflects the Middle Byzantine style, but not the Late Byzantine architec-tural traditions of either Macedonia or Constantinople.25 The same use ofpilasters can be seen in other ìSkopjeî churches, Matka, DeviË, andModriöte (Tab. 1). All three churches were presumably built by the localaristocracy on their estates along the river Treska between the 1350s andthe 1370s. Closer examination reveals the use of pilasters even in the tri-conch church of St. Andrew on the river Treska, which was built some timebefore 1389 (Plate 9). The geometric, presumably structural use ofpilasters is apparent in the Western building traditions of Romanesqueand Proto-Gothic architecture in the Eastern Mediterranean, and thisarchitectural feature most likely came to the region of Skopje not fromeastern Byzantine domains, but rather from the Adriatic Littoral throughPrizren, another important center of Medieval Serbia and occasionally itscapital.26

At MatejiË the gradual architectural clustering, the defining charac-teristic of ìSkopjeî churches, is expanded. The two symmetrical domedside chapels, north and south of the sanctuary are structurally, volumetri-cally, and proportionally balanced by the two domed bays of the narthex(Plate 5).27 The layout of the church at MatejiË is, in a way, a ìmodularî

25 ∆UR»I∆, Articulation (as in note 9 above), 17-27.26 On the significance of building tradition in Prizren influenced by the build-ing trends on the Adriatic Littoral: V. KORA∆, Graditeljska ökola Pomorja, Beograd1965, 24-27; ∆UR»I∆, Articulation (as in note 9 above), 17-27; id., Architecture in theByzantine Sphere (as in note 9 above), 55-68. 27 On the formal role of the twin-domed narthex in the Late Byzantine periodwith its related Constantinopolitan counterparts such as the narthex of the Choramonastery (Kariye Cammi c. 1316-1321): S. ∆UR»I∆, The Twin-domed Narthex in 233


Fig. 10 Church of Hagia Aikaterini in Thessaloniki, possibly ca. 1315, exterior view and floor plan (Photo J. BogdanoviÊ.. Drawing J. BogdanoviÊ

after S. ∆UR»I∆, GraËanica, King Milutinís Church and Its Place in Late ByzantineArchitecture, University Park ñ London 1979, Fig. 107)

re-configuration of some earlier schemes of Middle and Late Byzantinefive-domed churches. Lateral chapels and a twin-domed narthex aroundthe church core form an enveloping ambulatory in a number of earlierchurches in the Balkans, such as at GraËanica monastery near Priötina(1311-1321) and in the Hagia Aikaterini in Thessaloniki (possibly ca.1315) (Figs. 2, 10). At MatejiË, the domed compartments attached to thechurch core used the Middle Byzantine principles of symmetry and bal-ance resembling the Constantinopolitan schemes of the north church ofthe monastery of Constantine Lips (907) and of the Christ Pantepoptes(b. 1087) (Figs. 7, 9).28

A similar approach towards initial architectural layout can be identi-fied in yet another church founded by Emperor Duöan, the HolyArchangels near Prizren (1343-1352). Built as Emperor Duöanís mau-soleum, this supposedly five-domed church (Fig. 12) is associated with theso-called ìRaöka School,î characterized by a blend of Romanesque ele-ments, notably in the treatment of the gable-tops, fenestration, arcadingand exterior sculptural decoration with Byzantine domes and internaldecoration.29 The formal analysis of the layouts of the two churches atMatejiË and Prizren reveals that they have essentially the same outline,

Paleologan Architecture, ZRVI 13 (1971) 333-344; id., Architectural Significance ofSubsidiary Chapels in Middle Byzantine Churches, JSAH 36 (1977) 94-110; id.,GraËanica (as in note 9 above), 76.28 ∆UR»I∆, Architectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels (as in note 27 above), 94-110.29 S. NENADOVI∆, Duöanova zaduûbina. Manastir svetih arhandjela kod Prizrena,Beograd 1967.234

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Fig. 11 Comparative analysisof the floor plans of MatejiË,near Kumanovo in SkopskaCrna Gora, ca. 1350 and of

the church of St. Demetrios, Markov Manastir, Suöice, ca.after 1346 and before 1371,

floor plan (Drawing J. BogdanoviÊ)

except that the church of the Holy Archangels also has an exonarthex(outer narthex) (Fig. 13). The spatial counterpart of the exonarthex of theHoly Archangels is the narthex at MatejiË, which corresponds to the west-ernmost half of the western bays of the church of the Holy Archangels, asif the exonarthex ìenteredî the church and became the narthex.30 The pro-portionally very shallow narthex at MatejiË, which function is not easilyexplainable, tectonically and in its materialization looks like a ìpatchî tothe western faÁade. Therefore, I propose that the narthex at MatejiË wasan afterthought in design, which was better spatially resolved by anexonarthex at the Holy Archangels near Prizren. These two churches atMatejiË and Prizren, founded by the same family within related territorialdomains of Medieval Serbia, deserve further analysis.

Closer examination of the five domes at MatejiË reveals importantstylistic characteristics. The twelve-sided drum of the main dome31 and

30 KORA∆, Spomenici (as in note 7 above), 230 reached the same conclusion aboutthe relation between the exonarthex at the Holy Archangels and the narthex atMatejiË.31 The huge twelve-sided drum of the main MatejiË dome is unique among thesurviving ìSkopjeî churches. 235


Fig. 12 Church of the HolyArchangels near Prizren, 1343-1352,

hypothetical reconstruction(S. ∆UR»I∆, GraËanica, King MilutinísChurch and Its Place in Late Byzantine

Architecture, University Park ñ London1979, Fig. 125

Fig. 13 Comparative floor plans ofMatejiË, near Kumanovo in Skopska Crna Gora, ca. 1350 and of the HolyArchangels near Prizren, 1343-1352.

(Drawing J. BogdanoviÊ)

eight-sided drums of the two smaller domes placed over the eastern sidechapels are built in the opus listatum technique with alternating bands ofbrick and stone. The opus listatum building technique follows Constanti-nopolitan imperial architectural vocabulary exemplified by the preservedMiddle Byzantine dome drum of the Vefa Kilise (Plate 5, 10). Engagedhalf-colonnettes between double-recessed arches are also made of alter-nating stone and brick courses. The building technique of the three domedrums at MatejiË differs from the technique of the two small domes overthe narthex that follow the practice of all-brick dome construction estab-lished in Thessaloniki in the early decades of the fourteenth century(Plate 11).32 The building technique of the main and eastern domes typ-ifies common dome execution in the ìSkopjeî churches. The differencein building techniques of the western domes from the main and easterndomes reflects the building phases in the spatial organization of thechurch at MatejiË, where the narrow twin-domed narthex was incorporat-ed into the developing design of the ìSkopjeî churches. Furthermore, thevolume of the narthex, which is slightly shorter than the church core, dis-torted the classical ìtriumphal archî system of the south and north faÁadeelevations, only partially reflecting the internal disposition of the cross-in-square unit. This stylistic blend is a product of at least two different build-ing traditions, one spreading from Constantinople via Thessaloniki andthe other coming from the Adriatic Littoral via Prizren.

Some observations on the design process give further support to sucha hypothesis. Byzantine builders commonly used the so-called ìquadratu-ra,î a geometric approach to design that utilized a square. A square, delin-eated by the location of the four columns or piers which support themajor church dome, was a basic design module.33 Expressed numerically,the quadratura and modular relations used by the Byzantines most oftenresulted in the arithmetic proportions of 1:1 and 1:2. The builders of LateByzantine churches, including those in Thessaloniki, often used the arith-metic proportions of 1:2:1. Based on the principal modular measure ofthe main dome at MatejiË, I propose that the builders utilized the com-plex composition of the geometrical proportional systems 2:3:2 and 1:√√

ñ5

for establishing the internal dimensions of the church plan (Figs. 14 ñ15).34 The harmonic proportion 2:3:2, based on the combination of thefirst four numeric ratios of the harmonic musical scale 1:2:3:4, indicates abuilding tradition other than the one that spread from Constantinople viaThessaloniki. The proportional systems 2:3:2 and 1:√√

ñ5 were common in

32 ∆UR»I∆, Late Byzantine Thessalonike (as in note 2 above), 65-84.33 R. OUSTERHOUT, Master Builders of Byzantium, Princeton 1999, chap. 3 esp. 58,75-79, with further references.34 Potentially, the proportional analysis could have been applied to the verticalmeasures of the church. In this paper this is avoided intentionally because it ismore difficult to acquire precise vertical dimensions without appropriate equip-ment and because the vertical dimensions tend to be distorted by structural andother deformations, such as the loss of original floor elevation during the pro-longed use of churches. 236

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

thirteenth- and fourteenth-century churches of the Adriatic Littoral, suchas the church of Ss. Sergius and Bachus on the river Bojana.35 Moreover,the same proportional system seems to have been employed in the churchof the Holy Archangels at Prizren. Later on, the application of these geo-metrical proportional systems could be detected in some early ìMoravaSchoolî churches, exemplified by the church of St. Stephen in Kruöevac(Fig. 3), thus indicating the path of the use of harmonic proportional sys-tems in church design in the western Balkans from the Adriatic Littoral,via Prizren, Skopje, and towards the northern inland areas.36

If my hypothesis is correct, then the proportion of 1:√√ñ5 , relative to

the main dome with the inner diameter of approximately 5.2 m, providedthe dimensions for the smaller domes at MatejiË, approximately 2.2-2.3 min diameter, or 2.3 ≈1:√√

ñ5 ◊ 5.2 m.37 Moreover, the diameter of these small-

er domes correlates to the domes of some other contemporary churches

35 The church was rebuilt under Stefan Duöanís great-grandmother QueenJelena and grandfather, King Milutin in 1290 and 1318 respectively, confirminglong-lasting connections of the Serbian royal family and their foundations in thewider region: KORA∆, Graditeljska (as in note 26 above), 17-33, 164-169.36 V. RISTI∆, Lazarica i kruöevaËki grad, Beograd 1989, 35-37.37 This use of the proportional system should be taken as employed in terms ofgeometrical relations, probably set on site, and not as arithmetical or ìscientificîcalculations. Scholars still debate about the architectural training and buildingpractice of the Byzantine builders and neither suggestion has been proved yet. O.GRABAR, The Mediation of Ornament, Princeton 1992, 174-178 concluded that ourinability to confirm systematic architectural education in the Mediterranean basinafter the 7th century points to the nonexistence of architectural drawings.OUSTERHOUT, Master Builders (as in note 33 above), 58 suggested that no archi-tectural drawings existed. I concur with S. NENADOVI∆, Gradjevinska tehnika u sred-njevekovnoj Srbiji, Beograd 2003, 46-49 who claimed that preparatory models andschemes were used within the Byzantine realm. Architectural drawings had beenused in Western Europe and potentially in the Byzantine periphery on the bor-ders with the West, at least since the 13th century. 237


Fig. 14 ñ 15 Comparative floor plans of MatejiË, near Kumanovo in Skopska Crna Gora, ca. 1350 and of the Holy Archangels near Prizren, 1343-1352,

proportional analysis (Drawing J. BogdanoviÊ)

in the region. The domes of the churches in äiöevo and DeviË measure 2.1m and 2.5 m respectively, pointing to the use of similar units of measure.These basic geometric constructions generated other architectural forms.The volume of a bay compartment with a small dome at MatejiË corre-sponds in size and proportions to the small-scale churches in äiöevo andDeviË, relative to the harmonic proportion 2:3:2. Consequently, a large-scale ìSkopjeî church such as the one at MatejiË could be perceived ashaving been assembled from smaller church-modules, i.e. virtual and realside chapels, clustered around the main church core (Fig. 16, 17). Such ahypothesis about the design process postulates that the builders were ableto use proportional, modular, and additive systems of design without typo-logical restraints, while keeping the structural and formal relationship ofthe constitutive elements under control.

The resemblance between the plan designs of the churches at MatejiËand Prizren is once again evident in their measurements and proportions.38

238

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Fig. 17 Comparativefloor plans of MatejiË,

near Kumanovo inSkopska Crna Gora, ca.

1350 and of St. Nicholas,äiöevo, 1334, before 1380 (Drawing J. BogdanoviÊ)

Fig. 16 Compa-rative floor plansof MatejiË, nearKumanovo in

Skopska Crna Gora,ca. 1350 and of

church in DeviË,probably after 1350

(Drawing J.BogdanoviÊ)

The internal dimensions of the two churches are similar: ~21 m x 12 m forthe church at MatejiË and 24 m x 14 m, excluding the exonarthex, for thechurch at Prizren (Fig. 13). The two churches shared the same initial lay-out, while, I advocate, the difference in absolute measurements resultedfrom a different foot dimensions chosen as a measure unit: ~29-30 cm forthe church at MatejiË and ~32 cm for the church at Prizren.39 As has beenalready discussed, both churches were probably designed as large-scale five-domed cross-in-square edifices, with characteristic tectonic external andinternal use of pilaster strips.40 In addition, both had pentagonal apse exte-riors, and both, most likely, had twelve-sided dome drums.

Apart from similar plans, however, the two churches differed in exe-cution and stylistic features. The faÁades of the church of the HolyArchangels were faced in stone. The remnants of architectural sculptureconfirm that the church was built in a manner consistent with the recog-nizable Romanesque architectural tradition from the Adriatic Littoral(Plate 12). In contrast, the use of uneven, almost crude, alternating bandsof multiple courses of brick and field stone, coupled with the use of band-ed voussoirs in the arches at MatejiË, St. Nicholas äiöevski, and otherìSkopjeî churches (Plates. 5, 6, 9), confirms that the building techniqueof ìSkopjeî churches derived from the Byzantine, and more precisely,from imitation of Constantinopolitan tradition (cf. plate 10).41

The exterior of the altar apse at MatejiË is articulated by four deepsemi-circular niches in emulation of Constantinopolitan practice in theLate Byzantine period, as can be seen at the south church in themonastery of Constantine Lips, dedicated to St. John the Forerunner (b.1282), the Parekklesion of the Pammakaristos complex (c. 1310), and theParekklesion of the Chora monastery (c. 1316-1321).42 The churches at

38 V. KORA∆, Smisao gradjenja po uzoru. Primeri u srpskoj arhitekturi XIV veka, ZRVI41 (2004) 205-212; J. BOGDANOVI∆, The Church of the Assumption of the Virgin atMatejiË. Regional Re-interpretation of Middle Byzantine Constantinopolitan Architecturein the Palaeologan Era? in: BSCAbstr 29 (2003) 18-19. 39 The conclusion about the absolute foot dimensions ñ ~29-30 cm for thechurch at MatejiË and ~32 cm for the church at Prizren ñ resulted from suggest-ed proportional relations. Although these approximate measures allude toRoman (~29.4 cm) and Byzantine imperial feet (31.23 cm), I propose that thedecision on foot dimensions was either made on the site or determined accord-ing to some kind an ìetalonî measure used by a particular workshop. KORA∆,Spomenici (as in note 7 above), 229, however, proposes the arithmetic proportionsbased on a square, ìquadratura,î as often used in the Byzantine buildings but alsosubsequently suggests that the foot dimension used at MatejiË was ~30 cm.40 ∆UR»I∆, Architecture in the Byzantine Sphere (as in note 9 above), 55-68.41 BOGDANOVI∆, Church of the Assumption (as in note 38 above), 18-19. The use ofbanded voussoirs for arches, a distinctive decorative feature common for post-1330s Skopje churches, resembles an architectural vocabulary known from con-temporary churches in Messembria (modern Nessebar, Bulgaria) and from late13th-century Tekfur Saray in Constantinople. S. ∆UR»I∆, Late Medieval FortifiedPalaces in the Balkans: Security and Survival, Mnimio kai Perivallon 6 (2001) 11-48. 42 ∆UR»I∆, Architecture in the Byzantine Sphere (as in note 9 above), 55-68.Curiously, such semi-circular niches can be also observed at some churches today 239


KuËeviöte and MatejiË have four such niches in their altar apses, thoughthe niches are employed neither in the upper part of the apse nor in thebottom-most part of the ìpedestal-likeî segment of the apse, as inConstantinople (Plates 2, 8, 13, fig. 18). The flatness of the wall surfacebelow and above the central apsidal facet with windows is closer to theThessalonian design in the church of the Holy Apostles (Fig. 6). Twoadditional semi-circular niches flank the western entrances of the church-es at KuËeviöte, DeviË, and Markov Manastir (Plate 14). Similar articula-tion of the western faÁade is again visible in the church of the HolyApostles in Thessaloniki, but this design feature seems to have been wide-ly used in the Balkans, judging by the western faÁade of the fourteenth-century churches of the Holy Archangels and Christ Pantokrator inMessembria (modern Nessebar), on the Black Sea coast in Bulgaria(Plates 15, 16).43 However, the architectural articulation of the faÁades ofthe Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki coupled with the assumption of aThessalonian origin for the general plan design for the church atKuËeviöte, suggests that the use of such niches in the region of Skopjecame directly from Byzantine Macedonia. Semi-circular niches flankingthe western portal also became a recognizable tectonic feature of thesomewhat later ìMorava Schoolî (Fig. 3).

acknowledged as Middle-Byzantine (sic?) churches, including the already men-tioned church of Christ Pantepoptes. On the possibility that new research andarcheological works may alter the ìfirmlyî established typology and chronology ofchurches in Constantinople see: MAGDALINO, Studies (as in note 2 above), xi.43 Field notes J. BogdanoviÊ.240

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Fig. 18 MatejiË, near Kuma-novo in Skopska Crna Gora,ca. 1350, niche in the altar

apse (V. KORA∆, Spomenici mon-umentalne srpske arhitekture XIV

veka u Povardarju, Beograd2003, fig. 20)

241


Plate 1 St. Nikita,»uËer, b. 1307, exte-

rior view from thesouthwest (Photo

N. StankoviÊ)

Plate 2 Church of thePresentation of the Virgin,KuËeviöte, ca. 1330-1337,

exterior view from the north-east (Photo N. StankoviÊ)

242

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Plate 3 Christ Pantepoptes (Eski Imaret Camii), Constantinople, b. 1087, exterior view from the southeast, see also Fig. 9 (Photo J. BogdanoviÊ, Byzantine

Churches in Constantinople, London 1912, Fig. 73)

Plate 4 Pantokrator monastery (Zeyrek Camii), Constantinople, ca. 1118-1136,exterior view from the east, see also Fig. 10 (Photo J. BogdanoviÊ, Master

Builders of Byzantium, Princeton 1999, Fig. 78)

243


Plate 5 MatejiË, nearKumanovo in SkopskaCrna Gora, ca. 1350,

exterior view (E.DIMITROVA, MatejËe,

Skopje 2002, Plate II)

Plate 6 Church of St. Nicholas in äiöevo,ca. 1334, western faÁade

(Photo in the public domain, author: A.Grant)

244

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Plate 7 St. Demetrios,Markov Manastir, Suöice,

after 1346 and before1371, exterior view fromthe southeast (Photo I.

DrpiÊ)

Plate 8 Monastery of Constantine Lips (Fenari Isa Camii), Constantinople,North Church, 907, South Church, ca. 1280, exterior view from the east (Photo

J. BogdanoviÊ, see also Fig. 14; Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, London1912, Fig. 44)

245


Plate 9 Church of St. Andrew on theriver Treska, before 1389,

exterior view from the southeast(Photo N. StankoviÊ)

Plate 10 Vefa Kilise (Molla Gurani), (Church of St. Theodore?), ca. 1000, exterior view from the south (Photo N. StankoviÊ)

246

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Plate 11 MatejiË, near Kumanovo inSkopska Crna Gora, ca. 1350,

exterior view from northwest (D.CORNAKOV, Makedonski manastiri

[Macedonian Monasteries] Skopje 1995)

Plate 12 Holy Archangels near Prizren, 1343-1352 (Photo in the public domain, author: M. JovanoviÊ-MarkoviÊ)

247


Plate 13 Parekklesion of theChora monastery,

Constantinople, c. 1316-1321(Photo J. BogdanoviÊ)

Plate 14 St. Demetrios, Markov Manastir, Suöice, after 1346 and before 1371, western faÁade (Photo N. StankoviÊ)

248

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Plate 15 Holy Apostles,Thessaloniki ca. 1310-1314,

western faÁade (A. PAPA-GIANNOPOULOS, Monuments ofThessaloniki, Thessaloniki n.d.

Fig. on p. 73)

Plate 16 Church of ChristPantokrator, Messembria

(modern Nessebar, Bulgaria), 14th c, western

faÁade (Photo J. BogdanoviÊ)

249


Plate 17 St. Demetrios, Markov Manastir, Suöice, after 1346 and before 1371,architectural decoration in ìdog-toothî string course, banded voussoirs, rosette

(Photo I. DrpiÊ)

Plate 18 Mother of God Perivleptos, Ohrid, the 1290s, ìdog-toothî stringcourses (Photo I. DrpiÊ)

250

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Plate 19 Church of St. Andrewon the river Treska,

before 1389, exterior view from the south,detail (Photo N. StankoviÊ)

Plate 20 Church of St. Stephen, Kruöevac, ca. 1375, rosette (Photo D. DaniloviÊ)

251


Plate 21 Church ofProphetes Elias,

Thessaloniki, ca. the1360s-70s, exterior

of the sanctuary apse(Photo I. DrpiÊ)

Plate 22 Church of St. Andrew on the river Treska, before 1389,

exterior of the sanctuary apse (Photo N. StankoviÊ)

252

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Plate 23 The GreatMeteoron monastery, late

14th c., refectory (Photo J. BogdanoviÊ)

Plate 24 The Great Meteoron monastery, late 14th c., segment of the walls (Photo J. BogdanoviÊ)

The analysis of the secondary architectural articulation of the faÁadesprovides further glimpses into Late Byzantine architectural development,with particular reference to the ìMorava School.î The church of St.Demetrios at Markov Manastir perhaps best illustrates the connectionbetween these two ìbuilding schools.î The wall texture of the church ofSt. Demetrios at Markov Manastir, similar to other ìSkopjeî churches, isìflattened,î marked only by pilasters and arches (Plate 7). Continuoushorizontal stone string courses divide the main wall surface into well-bal-anced zones. Along with the use of the classical ìtriumphal archî system,these string courses actually form a ìgrid,î which, as has been demon-strated, enabled geometrical control of architectural decoration of thewall surfaces both vertically and horizontally. The same design principleis also applied in the ìMoravaî churches (Figs. 3, 4).44

String courses consisting of trochilus, torus, and prismatic stone pro-files had been employed already in the fourteenth-century churches ofHagia Aikaterini in Thessaloniki and at the katholikon (main church) ofHilandar monastery, Mt. Athos (possibly 1311-1316).45 A particular stonestring course, consisting of a slab-like top and torus-shaped bottom andused as a capping of the tall dado zone at Markov Manastir, is a practicethat builders, particularly those working in or around Prizren, could haveacquired from the Adriatic Coast (Plate 12, fig. 19).46 Then again, the use

44 J. TRKULJA, Aesthetics and Symbolism of Late Byzantine Church FaÁades, 1204-1453,Ph.D. Diss., Princeton University 2004, chap. 1.45 On the date of Hilandar katholikon: M. MARKOVI∆ ñ W. T. HOSTETTER, Priloghronologiji gradnje i oslikavanja hilandarskog katolikona, HilZb 10 (1998) 201-220; M.»ANAK-MEDI∆, Sto godina prouËavanja arhitekture manastira Hilandara, in: Osamvekova Hilandara, Beograd 2000, 447-456.46 Strong connections between Skopje and Prizren under Stefan Duöan werepondered by ∆UR»I∆, Articulation (as in note 9 above), 17-27. The connectionsremained intensive during the reign of King Marko. See J. KALI∆, Srbi u poznomsrednjem veku, Beograd 1994, 14f. 253


Fig. 19 St. Demetrios, MarkovManastir, Suöice, after 1346

and before 1371, string course(Photo I. DrpiÊ)

of the so-called ìdog-toothî string courses made of the same type of bricksas the main walls at Markov Manastir points to the same design at churchof Mother of God Perivleptos in Ohrid, built by the 1290s, therefore sug-gesting a possible connection of Skopje with Ohrid building workshops(Plates 17, 18). The design of the church faÁades at Markov Manastir isenriched by the use of engaged half-columns. This practice can be tracedto Thessaloniki as in Hagia Aikaterini and farther back to Constantinopleas in the Chora. At Markov Manastir the aesthetically consistent applica-tion of the secondary architectural features of apparently varied stylisticorigins reminiscent of Thessalonian, Epirote, Constantinopolitan, andRomanesque paradigms, therefore, matured into an organic mixture ofthese older paradigms and generated a new decoration model.

Markov Manastir set the precedent for the subsequent architecturaldecoration of the ìMoravaî churches. The remnants of paint on thefaÁades of the church in Markov Manastir suggest that these surfaces wereplastered over and painted (Plate 14).47 This may seem surprising con-sidering the high quality of execution of the exterior wall surfaces. Theremnants of plaster with painting emulating the cloisonnÈ building tech-nique and decorative brick patterns have been observed on several otherìSkopjeî churches, specifically those at MatejiË, Andreaö, and DeviË (Fig.18, plate 19).48 Since the practice of faÁade painting is a Middle Byzantinephenomenon, common in Byzantine Macedonia and elsewhere,49 it canbe speculated that all faÁades of ìSkopjeî churches were initially plasteredand painted. Noteworthy is that the faÁades of ìMoravaî churches werealso commonly plastered and painted, imitating building techniques anddecorative checkerboard, cross-stitch, opus reticulatum, or similar brick pat-terns. These common solutions for faÁade decoration suggest an uninter-rupted tradition of faÁade painting in Byzantine Macedonia that wasappropriated in Serbian medieval territories.

The carved low-relief architectural decoration recorded in thechurch at Ljuboten, where a sculpted rosette may once have existed,exemplifies the sculpted architectural articulation of the ìSkopjeî church-es.50 Similar rosettes occur in the churches of St. Nicholas äiöevski,

47 Site reports by Lj. MilanoviÊ and I. DrpiÊ who courteously gave me theirphoto documentation. 48 Site reports by S. ∆urËiÊ, who called my attention to the painted faÁades inthe Balkan churches. RADUJKO, éivopis (as in note 7 above), 101-116, discussed thepainting of church faÁades in the region of Macedonia, the tradition attested atleast from the 12th century. See also: F. MESESNEL, Izveötaj o prouËavanju juûne Srbijena Terenu: Topografske beleöke o nekim crkvenim spomenicima u PoreËu, in: Spomenicadvadestpetogodiönjice oslobodjenja Srbije 1912-1937, ed. A. JovanoviÊ, Skoplje1937, 361-385; KORA∆, Spomenici (as in note 7 above), 334 fig. 15, 337 fig. 24.49 Among the best-known examples are the painted faÁades of the Virgin Eleusachurch in Veljusa, F.Y.R.O.M. dated in 1080. On the phenomenon: ∆UR»I∆,Middle Byzantine Cyprus (as in note 2 above), 23f, with references.50 K. PETROV, Pregled na sakralnite spomenici vo Skopje i okolinata od XI do XIX vek.So osvrt na gramotite, zapisite i natpisite, in: Spomenici za srednovekovnata i pono-vata istorija na Makedonija 1, ed. V. Moöin, Skopje 1975, 75-88.254

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

MatejiË, Markov Manastir, Matka, and St. Andrew on the Treska (Fig, 5,plates 5, 6, 9, 11, 17, 19).51 The central rosettes are often placed high onthe exterior wall surfaces below the central ìtriumphal arch,î reflectingthe classical design principle for the use of round windows, which is notrecorded in Late Byzantine Thessaloniki and Constantinople.52

Remnants of plastic architectural decoration found in Skopje53 possiblybelonged to a rosette from an unidentified ìSkopjeî church (Fig. 20).Other sculpted decorations, like stone decoration with foliage and pal-mette motifs, still remain on the lunette over the western portal at MarkovManastir. Therefore, the sculpted architectural decoration of theìSkopjeî churches potentially provides the immediate source for plasticdecoration of later ìMoravaî churches, exemplified by the rosette on thechurch of St. Stephan in Kruöevac (Plate 20).54

A comparative analysis of characteristic stylistic features of all men-tioned ìSkopjeî churches indicates that they belong to the same group(Tab. 2). The group shows consistent gradual clustering of architectural

51 MILLET, Líancient art serbe (as in note 5 above), figs. 128, 133, 135; KORA∆,Spomenici (as in note 7 above), 219.52 The rounded oculus-type brick decoration is visible in the south wall of theparekklesion of the church of S. Mary Pammakaristos (ca. 1315) in Constantinople.However, it was placed in the exterior seemingly un-related to the overall wallarticulation and certainly not following its desired central location of ìclassicalîdesign principles, just below the arched segment of the wall. J. TRKULJA, RoseWindow: A Feature of Byzantine Architecture? in: BSCAbstr 30 (2004) 107-109, sug-gests that the use of round oculus windows in Late Byzantine architecture waswidely spread practice, which resulted from increased interest in architecturalstyles of Late Antiquity.53 ∆urËiÊ called my attention to the line drawing of a sculptural decoration, pos-sibly part of a rosette of unidentified provenance but found in the region ofSkopje and recorded in: MILLET, Líancient art serbe (as in note 5 above), 152.54 TRKULJA, Aesthetics and Symbolism (as in note 44), 68-73; id., Rose Window (as innote 52 above), 107-109. 255


Fig. 20 Drawing of architectural sculpture, potentially of a rosette from an unidentified ìSkopjeî church (Drawing G. MILLET,

Líancient arte serbe. Les Èglises, Paris 1919, Fig. on p. 152)

256

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Date

Place

Elongated

Dome

Stone

Half

Pilastersin

Semi

Semi

Semi

Stone

Sculpted

Plaster

Church

ded

ication

altarspace

withan

interpolated

bay

executed

inopus

listatum

technique

columns

engaged

columns

the

exterior

and

interior

circular

niches

on

the

western

façade

circular

niches

intheexterior

oftheap

se

circular

niches

elsewhere

strings

architectural

decoration

and

painted

remnan

tsem

ulating

building

technique

1337

Ljuboten

St.N

icholas

XX

XX

?

c.1330/37

Kuevište

Holy

Saviour/

Presentationof

theVirgin

XX

XX

??

c.1334

b.1380

St.N

icholas

Šiševski

XX

XX

?

~1346

destr.in

16thc.

Skopje

Presentationof

theVirgin

??

??

??

??

??

?

c.1350

Mateji

Assumptionof

theVirgin

XX

XX

XX

XX

1346/7

c.1371

Markov

Man

astir

St.D

emetrios

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

b.1371

Matka

Assumptionof

theVirgin

XX

XX

XX

?

1389

Treska

St.A

ndrew

XX

XX

X

after

1350?

Devi

??

??

XX

??

X

after

1350?

Modrište

??

??

X?

??

Tab

le 2

C

ompa

rati

ve A

nal

ysis

of

the

Para

digm

atic

Arc

hit

ectu

ral F

eatu

res

of ì

Skop

jeî

Ch

urch

es (

J. B

OG

DA

NO

VI∆

)

volumes around the towering canopy-like church core, revealing the hightechnical and architectural skills of the builders. Made of stone and brickwith relatively flat wall surfaces, the churches acquired their secondaryarticulation through the application of essentially geometric principlesbased on symmetry and the structural use of ìtriumphal archî tectonics,reminiscent of architectural achievements of the classical past. Thepilasters, stone strings, exterior niches and window lunettes with moder-ate but diversified brick decoration, plastering and painting of the faÁadesin emulation of building techniques, and the accentuated use of low-reliefarchitectural sculpture and round windows are all recognizable stylisticfeatures of the group. Simultaneously, some distinctive features illustratedifferences among analyzed ìSkopjeî churches. Above all, there is a typo-logical inconsistency: cross-in-square ñ five-domed, and single-domedchurches, without or with later built exonartheces ñ and the triconch churchof St. Andrew on the Treska.55 Such a variety of church plans can be par-tially explained by the proposed ìmodular systemî design process whichallowed structurally the more-or-less consistent application of differenttypological systems. Additionally, I would suggest, some differences infunctional requirements of the analyzed churches may have resulted in aselective presence of certain architectural spaces, and, in particular, ofnartheces.56 Because most of the churches were initially built as aristocrat-ic endowments and mausolea, only subsequently, if at all, would they havebeen appropriated for extensive monastic use, which would require archi-tecturally well-defined nartheces.57

Skopje as a Building Center

The historical context of the proposed building group illuminates thequestion of the ìSkopje building schoolî further. Members of the SerbianNemanjiÊ dynasty and its aristocracy supported an extensive building pro-gram in Skopje and its surroundings starting in 1282, when King Milutinconquered and proclaimed Skopje the capital of the medieval SerbianState.58 King Milutin donated and built numerous churches in the region:

55 Because of its triconch plan, Millet considered the church of St. Andrew on theTreska as the example of ìMorava Schoolî church: MILLET, Líancient art serbe (asin note 5 above), 133. The church of St. Andrew at Treska is potentially amongthe youngest buildings in the proposed group, revealing a potentially differentconcept, close to Athonite examples. The application of the same stylistic quali-ties in the faÁade decoration seen in the ìSkopjeî churches, however, connects St.Andrew on the Treska to the ìSkopjeî group stylistically. 56 On the function of nartheces in the Late Byzantine period: E. HADJITRYPHONOS,Peristoon in the Late Byzantine Church Architecture (= Meletes 1), Thessalonike 2004.57 On the similar problem of nartheces in ìMoravaî churches: Dj. STRI»EVI∆,Hronologija ranih spomenika Moravske ökole, Starinar 5-6 (1956) 115-127. N.STANKOVI∆í dissertation work in progress, Framing Monastic Ritual: Architecture andLiturgy of the Byzantine Narthexes on Mount Athos, Princeton, promises furtherinsight into the questions of nartheces and their function.58 The Byzantines never recovered Skopje. The fear that Thessaloniki might fallto the Serbs led Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II Palaeologos (1282-1328) to 257


the churches of Ss. Constantine and Helena, St. George, St. JohnProdromos, St. Nicholas on the Serava River, St. Procopius on the Vardar(Axios) River, and the church of Holy Saviour.59 King Milutinís son, KingStefan DeËanski founded the church of St. Demetrios in Skopje, where hissecond wife Queen Maria Palaeologina, daughter of John Palaeologos,was entombed. During the economic and cultural prosperity under KingMilutinís grandson, Stefan Duöan, prominent church founders were themembers not only of the ruling family but also of the emerging aristocra-cy. This resulted in further flourishing of architectural enterprises. Afterthe death of Emperor Stefan Duöan, architectural development of Skopjecontinued under Kings Vukaöin and Marko MrnjavËeviÊ, Prince LazarHrebeljanoviÊ, and their nobility.

Skopje, which prospered as the new imperial city for almost 50 yearsbetween 1346 and 1392 when it was lost to the Ottoman Turks, probablywas the center for church architecture in the region.60 Unfortunately,none of the churches in the city have survived.61 The coronation churchof the Presentation of the Virgin ìTrojeruËica,î (Triherousa, Three-Handed),potentially the most important church for a better understanding of theìSkopjeî paradigm, was destroyed in the sixteenth century.62 This is the

arrange a diplomatic marriage between King Milutin and his daughter Simonis in1299. Simonisí dowry included all of the Byzantine territories north of the Ohrid-Prilep-ätip line, including already-lost Skopje. Marital ties with the Palaeologandynasty fostered the imperial pretensions of the Serbs and resulted in strong cul-tural connections with Constantinople. The impregnation of Serbian withByzantine culture dominated the policy of Stefan Duöan in the creation of theideal of Slavo-Byzantine Empire. G. OSTROGORSKY, History of the Byzantine State,New Brunswick 1969, 466f; D. M. NICOL, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453, Cambridge 1993 [1972], 119-120; V. MARKOVI∆, Pravoslavno monaötvo i man-astiri u srednjevekovnoj Srbiji, Gornji Milanovac 2002 [1920], 23; KALI∆, Srbi (as innote 44 above), 14f, 32f. 59 On the architecture in the region: Dj. BOäKOVI∆, Problem manastira Sv. Djordjañ ëGorgaí na Seravi, Starinar 5-6 (1954-1955) 73-82; A. DEROKO, Srednjovekovni gradSkoplje ñ S. NENADOVI∆, Konaci manastira Hilandara, Beograd 1971, 10; PETKOVI∆,Pregled (as in note 7 above); PETROV, Pregled (as in note 50 above), 75-88; KORA∆,Spomenici (as in note 7 above).60 The proclamation of the ìEmpire of the Serbs and Greeksî in 1346 was themost decisive event that took place in the Balkans in the middle of the 14th cen-tury. On Easter day, King Stefan Duöan was crowned the ìEmperor of the Serbsand the Greeksî in front of Bulgarian Patriarch Simeon, Archbishop of OhridNikola, the first Serbian Patriarch Joanikije, and monastic representatives from Mt.Athos. The event took place in the now lost church of the Presentation of theVirgin ìTrojeruËicaî in Skopje. On the same occasion the Serbian Orthodox Arch-Episcopate was raised into the level of a Patriarchate. K. JIRE»EK, Istorija Srba,Beograd 1952, 222f; S. M. ∆IRKOVI∆, Srbija i carstvo, Glas SANU, Odeljenje istori-jskih nauka 10 (1998); MARKOVI∆, Pravoslavno (as in note 58 above), 23; NICOL, Last(as in note 58 above), 119-120; OSTROGORSKY, History (as in note 58 above), 490. 61 Destructions of Skopje caused by several major earthquakes, systematic dev-astation, urban re-shaping and constant rebuilding, resulted in this poor rate ofsurvival of its 14th-century architecture. 62 On the written testimony to the utmost importance of the TrojeruËicachurch: PETROV, Pregled (as in note 50 above), 75-88. 258

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

main reason why the role of medieval Skopje in the development of LateByzantine architecture has been essentially overlooked.

An identification of the key monuments of the ìSkopjeî group and itsplace within the development of Late Byzantine architecture cannot bedenied, even though some questions remain unresolved due to lack ofarchitectural data. Because of the lack of any surviving church in the cityitself, the significance of the ìSkopjeî churches has to be interpolatedthrough surviving royal and aristocratic foundations on the outskirts ofthe city, which were predominantly built as family mausolea. The analyzedsurviving churches in the environs of Skopje built during the reign ofStefan Duöan (1331-1355) and his immediate successors (1355s-80s) pre-sent important, although fragmentary, information on the missingìSkopjeî churches and suggest their relationship to regional architectur-al developments during the Late Byzantine period after the 1330s, whenarchitectural activities ceased in Constantinople,63 and in particular forthe development of ìMoravaî churches north of the Skopje region.Skopje at its apogee under the reign of Stefan Duöan during the 1331s-55s, concurrent with a noticeable building decline in Constantinople,might have played a role similar to early fourteenth-century Thessalonikias a locus for intersections of different cultural trends with long-lastingconsequences.64 During the reign of Stefan Duöan, Skopje prospered andmaintained particularly sound relationships with Mt. Athos, Ohrid, andConstantinople itself. In addition, even though the fourteenth-centurySerbian state, with Skopje as its capital, expanded geographically into theByzantine territories, Serbian connections with her Western neighborsnever stopped. The analysis of the architectural features of the ìSkopjeîchurches suggests that Skopje could have attracted the best builders fromvarious regional centers ñ Thessaloniki, Ohrid, and, above all, Prizren,which had been in the Serbian territories before and after the conquestof Skopje. In all probability, the first generation of local builders, trainedin the Thessalonian ìbuilding school,î worked on the churches inLjuboten and KuËeviöte. Yet, these churches show not only the influenceof Thessaloniki but also stylistic features unique to the ìSkopjeî paradigmsuch as symmetrical ìtriumphal archî tectonics and architectural decora-tion.

The employment of particular building workshops is crucial forunderstanding the distinctiveness of this new ìbuilding school.î Judgingby the quality of execution, well-balanced tectonics, use of building tech-niques, and architectural decoration, the building group(s), working onMatejiË and certainly on some other churches in the region were capableof providing innovative ideas that resulted in the unique combination of

63 BOGDANOVI∆, Late Byzantine (as in note 4 above) with further references. 64 Minting of coins in Skopje during Stefan Duöan confirms the economic pros-perity and vitality of the city. On the significance of Skopje as civic center:DEROKO, Skoplje (as in note 59 above), 11; KALI∆, Srbi (as in note 46 above), 32f;NICOL, Last (as in note 58 above), 119-120; OSTROGORSKY, History (as in note 58above), 490. 259


260

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Date Place Dedication Donor Protomaster /Design Builders

1337 Ljuboten /BardovciSkopska CrnaGora,F.Y.R.O.M.13km Skopje

Sv. Nikola

St. Nicholas

Lady Danica Local builder,trained inThessaloniantradition

Local builders,possibly the 1st

generation

c. 1330 37 Ku evišteSkopskaCrna Gora,F.Y.R.O.M.16km Skopje

Sv. Spas/Sv.Bogorodica

Holy Saviour/Presentationof the Virgin

Lady Marena

with children: Arsen,Vladislava, Radoslav:exonarthex

Builder trained inThessaloniantradition

Local builders,possibly the 1st

generation

c. 1334

b.1380

Šiševo / NirTreskaSkopskaCrna Gora,F.Y.R.O.M.

Sv. NikolaŠiševski

St. Nicholas

King Dušan/

King Marko

Western training,acquainted with thebuilding of Mateji

Local builders,possibly the samewho worked onMateji

~1346

destr. in16th c.

SkopjeF.Y.R.O.M.

Vavedenje

Presentationof the Virgin

King Milutin/

King Dušan? ?

c. 1350 MatejiSkopskaCrna Gora,F.Y.R.O.M.

UspenjeBogorodice

Assumptionof the Virgin

Empress Jelena ?wife of EmperorDušan

Expert acquaintedwith the bestbuilding practices atthe Western AdriaticLittoral and with thebest Byzantinebuilding idioms

Local builders

1346/7

c. 1371

MarkovManastirSušiceF.Y.R.O.M.17km Skopje

Sv. Dimitrije

St.Demetrios

King Vukašin/

KingMarko

Local builder,acquainted with theThessalonian andWestern buildingtradition

Local and possiblywestern builders

b. 1371 Matka /GlumovoTreskaF.Y.R.O.M.12km Skopje

UspenjeBogorodice

Assumptionof the Virgin

Nobleman Bojko,son of lady Danica

Western buildingtradition related tothe Adriatic Littoral

Local builders

1389 TreskaF.Y.R.O.M.18km Skopje

Sv. Andreja

St. Andrew

Prince Andreja,King Marko’sbrother

Local master? Local builders

?probablyafter 1350

DeviTreskaF.Y.R.O.M. ?

Princess Deva,King Marko’s sister

Western buildingtradition related tothe Adriatic LittoralWorked on Mateji ?

Local builders,possibly the samewho worked onMateji

?probablyafter 1350

ModrišteTreskaF.Y.R.O.M.

? ?Western buildingtradition related tothe Adriatic Littoral

?

Table 3 Hypothesis About Building Workshops for ìSkopjeî Churches(J. BOGDANOVI∆)

architectural features in the proposed ìSkopjeî paradigm (Tab. 3).65

Attempted reconstruction of the building process for two crucial endow-ments by the same family, the churches at MatejiË and of the HolyArchangels near Prizren, offers further insights into the development ofregional idioms in Byzantine architecture. Favorable economic circum-stances in medieval Serbia under Stefan Duöan presumably promptedthe engagement of the best available builders for both churches. The factthat by the early 1350s the same royal family simultaneously finished twomonumental structures with similar plans and proportional and struc-tural systems suggests that the master builder(s) who laid out the twochurches might have been either the same individual(s) or at least fromthe same workshop. Distinctive design features ñ the use of pilaster strips,the 1:√√

ñ5 and 2:3:2 proportional systems ñ indicate that the master

builder(s) had training fostered along the Adriatic Littoral. Once hebecame an emperor, Stefan Duöan definitely wished to partake inByzantine imperial art and commissioned his churches as replicas of thegreat imperial predecessors from the city of Constantinople, whichremained the symbol of the empire. Moreover, because Emperor Duöanspent his youth in the Cosmopolitan monastery of Pantokrator,66 it canbe speculated that he proposed specific Constantinopolitan examples tohis master builder(s). It has already been suggested that the church ofthe Holy Archangels in Prizren was built to resemble the south church ofthe Pantokrator monastery.67 If not based on the Pantokrator itself,Emperor Duöanís foundations could have been modeled after someother illustrious examples from Constantinople.68 The master builder(s)may even have observed them directly in Constantinople, just as todayarchitects often travel to learn about famous architectural enterprises.The Constantinopolitan churches remained crucial throughout the LateByzantine period, functioning as models for imperial mausolea and civiccenters elsewhere. Such a hypothesis partially explains why the masterbuilder(s) of MatejiË at that time used architectural features essential toMiddle Byzantine Constantinopolitan design that were already anachro-nistic.

65 On thought-provoking questions considering Byzantine architectural prac-tice, particularly questions of architectural design, building workshops, and mas-ter builders and their apprentices: S. ∆UR»I∆, ëRenewed from the Very Foundations:íThe Question of the Genesis of the Bogorodica Ljeviöka in Prizren, in: Archaeology inArchitecture: Studies in Honor of Cecil L. Striker, eds. J. J. EMERICK ñ D. M.DELIYANNIS, Mainz 2005, 23-35.66 S. ∆IRKOVI∆, Istorija srpskog naroda I, Beograd 1981, 464.67 V. KORA∆, Sveti Arhandjeli, Duöanov carski mauzolej, Glas SANU, Odeljenjeistorijskih nauka 10 (1998) 191-201.68 At MatejiË the principles of balance, symmetry, and highly sophisticated cross-in-square design were complemented by the use of the twelve-sided dome, anelongated altar space, and a horizontal zone of semi-circular niches in the wall ofthe main apse, still recognizable at the churches of the Pantokrator and nearbyPantepoptes monasteries (Figs. 9-10). 261


Although the same master builder(s) might have provided basicschemes for Emperor Duöanís foundations at both MatejiË and Prizren,different building groups were responsible for their materialization.Judging by the building technique employed at MatejiË, the masons wereacquainted with Byzantine building practices spreading from Constan-tinople via Thessaloniki and Byzantine Macedonia to the region ofSkopje. These local building groups were obviously capable of providinginnovative solutions that resulted from unique combinations of paradig-matic architectural features. The main dome of the MatejiË church, exe-cuted in the opus listatum technique, and a big oculus, incorporated as alow-relief rosette in the western tympanum, both anticipated the idiosyn-cratic elements of the ìMorava School.î Indeed, if we accept the proposeddating of the church at MatejiË to be around 1350, then the time spanbetween the 1330s and the 1350s coincides with Stefan Duöanís reign andcorresponds to a single generation of builders that gathered in the regionof Skopje during a major architectural boom. Judging by the buildingtechnique employed, the masons were most likely local builders.Potentially, the same group(s) of builders also worked on St. Nicholasäiöevski, founded by King Duöan himself ca. 1334 and finished under KingMarko before 1380, and on the church at DeviË, founded by King Markoíssister, Princess Deva and roughly dated after 1350. The master builder ofthe church at DeviË might even have been an apprentice of the MatejiËprotomaster.69 The architectural accomplishments of this new generationof builders could have provided the foundations for the development ofthe ìMorava Schoolî in the final stage of Byzantine architecture.

After the death of Emperor Stefan Duöan in 1355 and especially afterthe 1370s, Skopje underwent a process of steady decline.70 Local buildingworkshops from Skopje most likely dispersed in search for work. Some ofthe workshops potentially moved south. A heavily restored triconch churchof unknown original dedication, today known as Prophetes Elias inThessaloniki, was presumably built in the 1360s-70s (Fig. 21).71 Uniqueamong Late Byzantine Thessalonian churches, this five-domed churchshows the gradual and tectonic architectural clustering of virtually foursmaller ìchurchesî around the main church core, strikingly similar to thealready analyzed five-domed church at MatejiË, and in general to thearchitectural clustering of ìSkopjeî churches. The church of ProphetesElias has Constantinopolitan features such as a huge sixteen-sided dome,two rows of niches in the apsidal zone, a stone string course, and a friezeof pendant triangles below the roof line in the conches (Fig. 9, plates 8,

69 The use of pilaster strips, proportional system1:√√ñ5, and consistent propor-

tional and structural reduction of the large scale building into small scale arecommon features of both churches at MatejiË and DeviË.70 See: KALI∆, Srbi (as in note 46 above), 15. 71 T. PAPAZOTOS, The Identification of the Church of ìProfitis Eliasî in Thessaloniki,DOP 45 (1991) 121-127; ∆UR»I∆, Late Byzantine Thessalonike (as in note 2 above),65-84.262

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

21). The two registers of niches and stone string courses are noticable incontemporary ìSkopjeî churches and, in particular, in Markov Manastir,finished by the 1370s (Plate 7). Though significantly smaller in scale, thetriconch St. Andrew on Treska built by the 1380s is another comparableexample of similar concurrent trends in the region of Skopje (Plate 22).The Great Meteoron monastery in Thessaly, approximately 200 km south-west of Thessaloniki, was founded by St. Athanasios and the last memberof NemanjiÊ dynasty, king and later monk Ioannis-Ioasaph UroöPalaeologos (1370-1373, d. 1387/88).72 Though not studied extensively,some of the segments of the church and apse facets of the refectory canbe dated to the late fourteenth century. The two buildings exemplify thestylistic features of the ìSkopjeî churches ñ stone and brick construction,ìtriumphal archî tectonics seen on the side wall of the church as well astwo rows of niches, with semicircular niches in the second row above thewindows, which were decorated with different brick patterns in thelunetes of the apse of the refectory (Plates 23, 24).73

Other building groups who worked on the ìSkopjeî churches mostlikely traveled north and reached the valley of Morava, where Prince LazarHrebeljanoviÊ and some other Serbian nobility moved in front of the

72 Field notes J. BogdanoviÊ. ∆UR»I∆, Late Byzantine Thessalonike (as in note 2above), 65-84.73 ∆UR»I∆, Late Byzantine Thessalonike (as in note 2 above), 65-84, focused on theeastern part of the katholikon presumably the oldest surviving segment of thechurch, built in the late 1380s, after the Ottoman conquest of Thessaloniki in1387, and suggested that the Thessalonian building workshop built its all-brickeastern dome. However, other architectural segments of the entire monasticcomplex as well as patronage point to ìSkopianî and subsequently ìMoravaSchoolî idioms. 263


Fig. 21 Church of Prophetes Elias, Thessaloniki, ca. the 1360s-70s, exterior view and floor plan (E. KOURKOUTIDOU-NIKOLAIDOU ñ A. TOURETA,

Wandering in Byzantine Thessaloniki, Athens 1997, Figs. 127-128)

Ottoman threat.74 In that region the so-called ìMorava Schoolî eventual-ly emerged, according to MILLET, inexplicably.75 ∆UR»I∆, VULOVI∆, andKORA∆ have considered links between architecture in Prizren and theìMorava School.î76 In his study of the origins of ìMoravaî churches,RISTI∆ included architectural features from some of the proposedìSkopjeî churches, although he didnít explicitly emphasize Skopje as apotential center of influence.77

The stylistic characteristics of the ìSkopjeî churches, with particularreferences to MatejiË and Markov Manastir, which matured as a ìtransi-tionalî type of ìSkopjeî church, suggests that the path of development ofthe ìMorava Schoolî was through Skopje. The church at Markov Manastiris an apparent chronological and architectural prototype for ìMoravaSchoolî churches. Markov Manastir defines the ìSkopje paradigmî of themid-1350s with its ìtriumphal archî tectonics, highly-developed geometry,and strong structural correlations between its interior and exterior. At thesame time, other noticeably ìSkopjeî features of the church at MarkovManastir ñ sophisticated building techniques in brick and stone, alongwith already familiar secondary architectural elements of double stonestring courses, engaged half-colonnettes, semi-circular niches, and paint-ed and sculpted decorative patterns applied on well-defined surface zonesñ clearly anticipated new practices that yielded the ìMorava Schoolî man-ifestation after 1350, recognizable from its exuberant architectural deco-ration (Figs. 3-4, plate 7).

MILLETís observation that the origins of the ìMorava schoolî typifiedby its triconch plan should be sought in the region of Skopje and fartheron Mt. Athos, though essentially correct, deserves a modification.78 Theproposed revision of the typological categories in architecture wouldsimultaneously explain ìatypical,ì non-triconch Morava churches exempli-fied by the church of St. Stephen originally dedicated to the HolyArchangels (?) in the monastery Koporin possibly built around 1405 inthe vicinity of Smederevo (Fig. 22).79 The church founded by DespotStefan LazareviÊ (1389-1427), son of Prince Stefan Lazar HrebeljanoviÊ,

74 On the formation of the Serbian state in the Morava valley: KALI∆, Srbi (as innote 46 above), 15.75 MILLET, Líancient art serbe (as in note 5 above), 196-198.76 The churches of the Holy Archangels and St. Nicholas near Prizren, bothStefan Duöanís foundations with their peculiar combination of Byzantine andRomanesque characteristics, might have been the starting point for the ìMoravaSchool.î See: ∆UR»I∆, Articulation (as in note 9 above), 17-27, with references toearlier studies by VuloviÊ and KoraÊ. 77 V. RISTI∆, Moravska arhitektura, Kruöevac 1996, 64-65, 81-88, 107-108, 144-157considers Matka, KuËeviöte, MatejiË, and Markov Manastir when discussing theorigins of architectural features of the Morava churches. 78 MILLET, Líancien art serbe (as in note 5 above), 152-153. 79 M. RADUJKO, Koporin, Beograd 2006, 67-112, with references to other single-naved, non-triconch Morava churches at Jeöevac, RamaÊa, Joöanica, äatronja,Kastaljan, and Slavkovica. 264

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

shares all essential stylistic and proportional features of the proposedìSkopjeî building group. These examples show that the questions of styleand building workshops can be studied independently of typological andconceptual questions, which do not always and unquestionably overlap.The short-term, punctual outbursts of creative efforts by builders toaccomplish the consistent architectural expression of a particular build-ing program and to please the taste of an elite group of donors, allow theexistence of several centers as generators and recipients of architecturalinfluence within a given region, and certainly do not indicate a simple lin-ear path of architectural developments. The eclecticism and choice offorms from the Byzantine imperial past definitely had an aura of tradition,but there was also an active process of arriving at certain architectural

265


Fig. 22 Church of St. Stefan (Holy Archangels (?)), Koporin monastery near Smederevska Palanka, ca. 1405, southern faÁade and floor plan

(M. RADUJKO, Koporin, Beograd 2006, Pl. 5 and Fig. 19)

solutions. The stylistic characteristics of churches in the region of Skopjederived from multiple sources. On one side, Byzantine architecturaldevelopments reached ìSkopjeî churches from Constantinople via geo-graphically-closer Byzantine Thessaloniki. On the other side, Roma-nesque and proto-Gothic architectural developments in the AdriaticLittoral influenced building of churches for the Orthodox rite in Prizren,another important medieval center geographically and culturally associ-ated with Skopje. The contextual analysis on the example of ìSkopjeîchurches suggests a more comprehensive understanding of complexregional architectural developments of ìbuilding schoolsî in the LateByzantine period.

The following abbreviations are used in the article:

BSCAbstr Byzantine Studies Conference Abstracts of PapersDOP Dumbarton Oak PapersGOTR Greek Orthodox Theological ReviewGSND Glasnik Skopskog nauËnog druötvaHilZb Hilandarski zbornik J÷B Jahrbuch der ÷sterreichischen ByzantinistikJSAH Journal of the Society of Architectural HistoriansODB Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 3 vols. (A. Kazhdan,

New York ñ Oxford 1991)SANU Srpska Akademija nauka i umetnostiZRVI Zbornik radova Vizantoloökog institutaZZSK Zbornik zaötite spomenika kulture

266

Jelena BogdanoviÊ

Education

Bogdanovic regional schools_of_late_byzantine_architecture