The so-called “Athonite” type of church and two shrines of the Theotokos in Constantinople* Anastasios Tantsis** University of Thessaly in Volos, Faculty of Architecture UDC 726.033(495.631):72.012 271.2–526.7(560):739.033 DOI 10.2298/ZOG1034003T Originalan nau~ni rad The textual descriptions of alterations carried in the two one, created by copying a known prototype, making thus the most important Theotokos’ churches in Constantinople, the new church look like an older one.6 Blachernae and the Theotokos in Chalkoprateia, focus on the addition of lateral apses to the buildings. This type is very The study of the so-called “Athonite” type of church of- likely the source of influence and also the basis for the fers a telling example of the problems that occur when analys- transference of the concept of lateral apses in Athonite ka- ing typology, even in cases where matters seem at first “sim- . tholika ple” (fig. 1).7 A major difficulty has to do with the very defini- Keywords: Byzantine architecture, Mt. Athos, katholikon, tion of the type.8 Some scholars tend to think of it as a complex Constantinople, Chalkoprateia, Blachernae structure, including all features and details usually found in an Athonite katholikon: the main church, as a cross-in-square domed structure expanded with two lateral apses-choroi, an Typology is a major instrument for the classification extended narthex (a “lite”) and one or more parecclesia.9 Yet and understanding of Byzantine church architecture. It is vir- tually impossible to talk of Byzantium's churches without * The article was first presented as a paper under a similar title in the any reference to the established types of ecclesiastic build- 31st annual Symposium of the Christianike Archaiologike Etaireia in Athens ings. To describe briefly a church, one usually refers to the on May 2010. I would like to thank the scholars who commented on it and known architectural types or the ways it differs from them.1 especially professor S. Mamaloukos and dr Phountas for their comments re- However, this kind of classification poses certain problems garding Athonite architecture. , **Anastasios Tantsis, Vas. Georgiou 4, 54640 Thessaloniki, Greece; of method especially when trying to examine questions of [email protected] origin of a specific type. In such cases the usual iconographic 1 C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture, New York 1976, 7–8. R. approach, of comparing forms of plans, leads into inquiries Ousterhout (Master Builders of Byzantium, Princeton 1999, 10–14 and between buildings that usually have no historic relation.2 25–32) discusses also methodological problems. Still this approach is referred to in study guides as in C. Barber, Art history, in: Palgrave advances in Following a specific type is a characteristic of By- Byzantine history, ed. J. Harris, New York 2005, 147–156, esp. 150. zantine churches. The repeated construction of buildings 2 As commented by C. Mango (op. cit., 96). with plans of similar layout, suggests that the application of 3 Cf. infra. 4 On the type v. R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Ar- types was a basic trend of Byzantine ecclesiastic architec- chitecture, New Haven 19864, 336–344; Mango, op. cit., 96–98; Ouster- ture, evident both to us and more importantly to the people of hout, Master Builders of Byzantium, 25–32, among many. the time.3 The recurrence of specific building types is mainly 5 Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 336; N. due to the symbolic content of their layout, even if this is not Gkiolej, Buzantinh Naodomia (600–1204), Aqhna 1987, 17–22, 49–61. - 6 For the special value of the term “basilica” even before Christian- clearly evident in their geometry The so called “cross in- . , - ity cf G Downey The Architectural Significance of the Use of the Words square” type is a form whose symbolic layout is apparent in Stoa and Basilike in Classical Literature, American Journal of Archaeology the articulation of its volumes rather than its plan.4 Whether 41 (1937) 194–211 and, more recently, D. Kinney, The church basilica, in: inscribed in the plan or formed in the gabled roofs projecting Imperial art as Christian art — Christian art as imperial art: Expression , ’ and meaning in Art and Architecture from Constantine to Justinian, ed. J. R. from the central dome the type s basic feature is the forming , . , 2001 ‰ , : . Brandt O Steen Oslo Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam of the main Christian symbol the cross hence the name On pertinentia XV (n.s. 1)Š, 115–136, who stretches the cultural significance of the other hand though, the ever-popular type of the basilica the term. seems to have retained its validity as a church-type through- 7 The historiography of the “Athonite” type is too extensive to be re- out the period, due more to its cultural associations than to corded here. Cf. P. Mylonas, Le plan initial du catholicon de la Grande . Lavra, CA 32 (1984) 89–112, for a short introduction and annotation into the symbolic content of its form It is a type applied to church the bibliography. V. also Th. Steppan, Die Athos — Lavra und der trikon- buildings and remained in use because of its name and the chale Kuppelnaos in der byzantinischen Architektur, Munchen 1995, fact that it was connected to some of the most popular and 87–119 and, more recently, S. Mamaloukoj, To kaqoliko thj Monhj venerated ecclesiastical institutions of the era.5 Thus another Batopediou: Istoria kai arcitektonikh, Aqhna 2001, 138–152. 8 The problem as it appears in scholarship has been summarised in: mode of standardizing and perpetuating a certain type is not Mamaloukoj, op. cit., 140–144. due to its symbolic content but because of an association: a 9 Mamaloukoj, op. cit., esp. 140–142; Krautheimer, Early Chris- linguistic one, as in the case of the term “basilica” or a formal tian and Byzantine Architecture, 374–375. 3 ZOGRAF 34 (2010) ‰3–11Š Fig.2.Iveron katholikon. Section and Plan (after: Mylonas, Atlas) Fig.1.Great Lavra katholikon. Section and plan with the lateral apses shown as additions (after: P. Mylonas, Atlas of the Twenty the trends of ecclesiastic architecture of the time. Yet they do Sovereign Monasteries. Topography and Historical Architecture, not offer an explanation for the origin of the influences re- I, Wasmuth 2000) sponsible for the alterations in the type. Lastly, supporters of the “triconch” definition seem to be more occupied with other scholars have noted that the Athonite katholikon cannot defining the specific current of influences that led into the be discussed as a group of several buildings. It would be creation of the “Athonite” type and more than usually this ap- more helpful, when investigating its origin, to accept a de- proach leads into an expansion of the time and space that the — . scription based only on the main church building its core theory covers, when inquiring the origin of the type’s proto- But even this is not an easy type to define as it has been type.13 viewed, in modern scholarship, either as a cross-in-square , enlarged with lateral apses-choroi10 or as a triconch.11 The The second approach appears to be better balanced yet “triconch” approach stretches its complete difference from seems to overemphasize certain aspects of the problem while . the accepted norm of the cross-in-square and the fact that its oversimplifying others Its main difficulty is the fact that all main characteristic is its core with three great conches. its followers are ready to accept one answer as to why this type came to be: the lateral apses were added to the What is of interest is that by following one of these approaches scholars seem to predefine the different train of 10 For example cf. Gkiolej, Buzantinh Naodomia, 101–103; C. thought, regarding the origin of the type, they adopt or pro- Mpouraj, Istoria thj arcitektonikhj,2:Arcitektonikh sto pose. Thus adherents of the complex definition of the type Buzantio, to Islam kai thn Dutikh Eurwph kata ton mesaiwna, h 1994, 211–212. (extended cross-in-square with lite and parecclesia) tend to Aq na 11 Most notably: Steppan, Die Athos — Lavra, but also Mango, stretch its connection with Athonite monasticism regardless Byzantine Architecture, 118–120. of the specific trends or details that led to its inception or the 12 Gkiolej, Buzantinh Naodomia, 103–104; Mamaloukoj, To fact that it was probably formulated in successive building kaqoliko thj Monhj Batopediou, 142–143. 13 .12 - - The Georgian (or Armenian) element was noted by many schol- phases Followers of the theory that it is a cross in square . u , . ., 144–145; . a , h h - ars Cf Mamalo koj op cit P Mulwn j H arcik morf expanded with lateral apses choroi, seem to accept its evolu- tou kaqolikou thj Megisthj Lauraj. Anaqewrhsh orismenwn 4 tion as a solution specific for Athonite monasticism within qewriwn gia thn proeleush tou tupou, Arcaiologia 1 (1983) 54–56. Tantsis A.: The so-called “Athonite” type of church Fig.4.Protaton. Plan without the hypothetical piers in the cross- ing shown in the original drawing. All shading conjectural (after: C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture, New York 1976) probably there is room for a reevaluation of the data available and the approach followed. There is no reason to doubt that the first Athonite katholikon configured with lateral apses is that of the Great . ’ , .3. Lavra Mylonas theory of an “enlargement” carried out by Fig Vatopedi katholikon Plan with the lateral apses shown as , additions (after: Mylonas, Atlas) Athanasios mentioned in his Vitae and connected by the same scholar to the addition of lateral apses-choroi to a cross-in-square core in order to accommodate the group of cross-in-square church, has been questioned and its proof chanters or choroi-hence the name,14 an arrangement at- presupposes extended archaeological investigation in the tested for Athonite katholika from the Middle Ages up to this building itself.19 Until further evidence though, we can ac- day.