Ktetor portraits of church dignitaries in Serbian Post–Byzantine painting (part one) Miljana М. Matić* Museum of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Belgrade UDC 75.041.5:271.22-725.1/.2](497.11)”15/16” 338.246.027:34 DOI https://doi.org/10.2298/ZOG1842181M Оригиналан научни рад Church dignitaries were often represented as ktetors in Serbian nitaries, portraits are the most reliable and sometimes the painting of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, primarily only testimonies for the research of individual person- in wall paintings and on icons. The first part of this paper dis- alities, clothing, and insignia, giving information on the cusses twelve ktetor representations of Serbian patriarchs and appearance of the depicted archpriests and their rank in metropolitans. By analyzing the ktetoric projects of Orthodox 2 Serbs within the Ottoman Empire, the historical framework society. Thanks to the inscriptions accompanying ktetor and description of every portrait, it explores the questions re- portraits, they are considered to be a unique epigraphic garding not only the self-referentiality of the ktetors from the treasury and an important source for studying the titles of highest circles of the clergy under the Patriarchate of Peć, the Orthodox clergy, as well as for the history of some church patterns and ways they wanted to be represented and remem- monuments and icons.3 Portraits also provide valuable bered, but also the ideological and program context as well. testimonies of fundamental ideological, political and reli- Finally, this two-part study attempts to examine the question gious views of the depicted personalities and the environ- of individual and collective identity, imagery and ideas con- structing the visual culture of clerical ktetorship in Serbian ment in which they lived. The subject of this paper are the Post–Byzantine painting. ktetor portraits of Orthodox church dignitaries of vari- ous ranks in Serbian painting of the sixteenth and seven- Keywords: church dignitaries, ktetor portraits, Patriarchate of Peć, archbishops, metropolitans teenth centuries, which are here published and analyzed Portraits as historical sources and patronage of Symbols, meaning, belief: donor portraits in Byzantine art, London Orthodox Serbs in the Ottoman Empire 1992 (doctoral dissertation, Courtauld Institute of Art); S. Kalopis- si-Verti, Patronage and artistic production in Byzantium during the Ktetor portraits represent an important and dis- Palaiologan period, in: Byzantium: faith and power (1261–1557), ed. tinctive type of historical sources in Post-Byzantine art, H. C. Evans, New York 2006, 76–97; A. Weyl Carr, Donors in the 1 frames of icons. Living in the borders of Byzantine art, Gesta 45/2 which still remains understudied. Regarding church dig- (2006) 189–198; E. Dimitrova, The portal to Heaven – reaching the gates of immortality, Niš and Byzantium 5 (2007) 365–380; L. Saf- * [email protected] ran, Deconstructing „donors“ in medieval southern Italy, in: Female 1 Systematic overviews of ktetor portraits from the sixteenth founders in Byzantium and beyond, ed. L. Theis et al., Wien 2014, and seventeenth centuries have yet to be compiled, although major 135–151; T. Kambourova, Pouvoir et prière dans les images Byzan- progress has been made in the field of Post-Byzantine donor por- tines de don, Bulletin du Centre d’ études médiévales d’ Auxerre trait studies, especially regarding the Balkan Peninsula region. Sem- 12 (Auxerre 2008) 1–16; S. Kalopissi-Verti, Dedicatory inscriptions inal works in this extensive literature include: D. Vojvodić, Donor and donor portraits (7th–15th c.), in: Inscriptions in Byzantium and portraits and compositions, in: Hilandar Monastery, ed. G. Subotić, beyond. Methods – projects – case studies, ed. A. Rhoby, Vienna Belgrade 1998, 249–262 (257–259 seventeenth century portraits); 2015, 135–156; K. Kontopanagou, Donor portraits in the State of N. Dionisopulos, Ktitorski portreti XVI i XVII veka na freskama sve- Epirus. Aestetics, fashion, and trends in the late Byzantine period, in: togorskih manastira, Beograd 2002 (magister thesis, Belgrade Uni- The Balkans and the Byzantine world before and after the captures versity); A. S. Preobrazhenskiĭ, Ktitorskie portrety srednevekovnoĭ of Constantinople 1204 and 1453, ed. V. Stanković, Lanham 2016, Rusi. XI – nachalo XVI veka, Moskva 2010; idem, Russian images 59–68; R. Frances, Donor portraits in Byzantine art. The vicissitudes of a Greek donor in Thessaly and Venice. Two portraits of Arsenios, of contact between human and divine, Cambridge 2018. Archbishop of Elassona, in: Routes of Russian icons in the Balkans 2 LSSV, 555. About the donor portraits as mirror images re- (16th – early 20th centuries), ed. Y. Boycheva, Paris 2016, 51–68. Pub- flecting a person’s political, religious, economic and social status: T. lications analyzing images of donation in the middle ages are essen- Konstantellou, P. Papanikolaou, Byzantine donor portraits like mir- tial for comparative research: T. Velmans, Le portrait dans l’ art des ror images? Selected donor representations from Byzantine churches in Paléologues, in: Art et Société à Byzance sous les Paléologues, Venise Greece, in: Reality and illusion. Seeing through the „Byzantine mirage“, 1971, 93–148; I. Spatharakis, The portrait in Byzantine illuminated Oxford 2012, 19. manuscripts, Leiden 1976; M. Tatić-Đurić, L’ iconographie de la do- 3 J. Stylianou, Donors and dedicatory inscriptions, supplicants nation dans l’ ancien art Serbe, in: Actes du XIVe Congrès Interna- and supplications in the painted churches of Cyprus, JÖBG 9 (1960) 97– tional des études Byzantines III, ed. M. Berza, E. Stă nescu, Bucar- 128; A. S. Preobrazhenskiĭ, „Podnozhie nog Ego“ o votivnykh nadpisіִakh est 1971, 311–322; S. Kalopissi-Verti, Dedicatory inscriptions and na russkikh ikonakh Spasa na prestole XIV veka, Iskusstvoznanie 1–2 donor portraits in thirteenth-century churches of Greece, Wien 1992; (Moskva 2007) 25–53; Inscriptions in the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine N. P. Ševčenko, The representation of donors and holy figures on history and history of art, ed. Ch. Stavrakos, Wiesbaden 2016; I. Drpić, four Byzantine icons, ΔXAE 17 (1993–1994) 157–164; H. Franses, Epigram, art and devotion in later Byzantium, Cambridge 2016. 181 ЗОГРАФ 42 (2018) [181–208] collectively for the first time.4 Originating from the long burial and tomb in the endowment and panikhida.8 Nei- period of Ottoman rule in the former territories of medi- ther the loss of independence of the Serbian state nor the eval Serbian lands, these portraits were created under the deterioration of circumstances under Turkish administra- supervision and direct orders of the highest hierarchy of tion during the late Middle Ages put an end to the use of the Serbian Orthodox Church – the Patriarchate of Peć. these ktetoric rights by Serbian donors, including church In view of this fact, they represent authentic historical tes- dignitaries. There were periods when the ktetoric activity timonies coming from the most educated and influential of the clergy slightly decreased, especially between 1459 circles of the Serbian society of the time. The reliability and 1557, but it never ceased: patronage and donorship of the data provided by preserved compositions largely activities were not discontinued during the sixteenth and stems from the fact that these portraits had a public func- seventeenth centuries. After the restoration of the Patri- tion and were meant to „memorize“ certain property and archate of Peć, ktetoric activity emerged in its full scope, legal actions, but also some crucial church decisions and with the concept of more explicit expression of national historical events, and overall, the ktetoric act itself. and Orthodox consciousness, in a mission to preserve Out of the total of twenty-four preserved ktetor por- Orthodox and Serbian identity. Ktetor portraits of eccle- traits of church dignitaries of different ranks, there are six siastical dignitaries in Serbian Post–Byzantine painting portraits of the patriarchs of Peć, painted between 1565 during Turkish rule did not lose any of the features of and 1673/1674; six portraits of metropolitans, created the genre, nor did they fall behind the previous period by 9 between 1530 and 1683/1684; five portraits of hegume- number. They appear within compositions which include noi, dated between 1550 and 1667; three portraits of hi- patron saints, but also independently. Most of these por- eromonks from the period 1576–1594/1595; and four por- traits have been preserved in wall paintings, with only a 10 traits of monks, dated between 1592 and 1607/1608. The few on icons. first part of this study presents ktetor portraits of the high- est clergy – patriarchs and metropolitans. The second part The Patriarchate of Peć focuses on monastic ktetor portraits (hegumenoi, hiero- in the Ottoman Empire monks and monks), discussing at the end the issue of the category of ktetorship (founding, renovation, donorship) In June 1459, when Turks conquered Smederevo, the and the imagery and ideas constructing the visual culture seat of the Despotate, the Serbian state fell under Turkish of clerical ktetorship in Serbian Post–Byzantine painting. rule and lost its independence.11 The Orthodox Church A ktetor usually became the person who raised, no longer had its legitimate protectors – rulers and nobles restored, and financed the painting or made a signifi- – and therefore had to agree to the conditions of survival cant donation to a monastery or church.5 Restoration – under the new regime.12 Тhe territories of the Serbian a widespread form of patronage between 1557 and 1690 Orthodox Church and its dioceses were subjugated to the in the territory under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate authority of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the of Peć – essentially meant repair, expansion of the church and monastery buildings, frescoing or a donation that Marković, Ktitori, njihove dužnosti i prava, Prilozi za kulturu, jezik, is- could enable the financial upkeep or expansion of the toriju i filozofiju 5 (1925) 113–115; Troicki, Ktitorsko pravo 120–121; monastery’s properties.