The so-called “ Athonite ” type of church and two shrines of the Theotokos in Constantinople *

Typology is a major instrument for the classification and understanding of Byzantine church architecture. It is virtually impossible to talk of Byzantium's churches without any reference to the established types of ecclesiastic buildings. To describe briefly a church, one usually refers to the known architectural types or the ways it differs from them.1 However, this kind of classification poses certain problems of method, especially when trying to examine questions of origin of a specific type. In such cases the usual iconographic approach, of comparing forms of plans, leads into inquiries between buildings that usually have no historic relation.2

Typology is a major instrument for the classification and understanding of Byzantine church architecture.It is virtually impossible to talk of Byzantium's churches without any reference to the established types of ecclesiastic buildings.To describe briefly a church, one usually refers to the known architectural types or the ways it differs from them. 1 However, this kind of classification poses certain problems of method, especially when trying to examine questions of origin of a specific type.In such cases the usual iconographic approach, of comparing forms of plans, leads into inquiries between buildings that usually have no historic relation. 2ollowing a specific type is a characteristic of Byzantine churches.The repeated construction of buildings with plans of similar layout, suggests that the application of types was a basic trend of Byzantine ecclesiastic architecture, evident both to us and more importantly to the people of the time. 3The recurrence of specific building types is mainly due to the symbolic content of their layout, even if this is not clearly evident in their geometry.The so called "cross-in--square" type is a form whose symbolic layout is apparent in the articulation of its volumes rather than its plan. 4Whether inscribed in the plan or formed in the gabled roofs projecting from the central dome, the type's basic feature is the forming of the main Christian symbol, the cross: hence the name.On the other hand though, the ever-popular type of the basilica seems to have retained its validity as a church-type throughout the period, due more to its cultural associations than to the symbolic content of its form.It is a type applied to church buildings and remained in use because of its name and the fact that it was connected to some of the most popular and venerated ecclesiastical institutions of the era. 5 Thus another mode of standardizing and perpetuating a certain type is not due to its symbolic content but because of an association: a linguistic one, as in the case of the term "basilica" or a formal one, created by copying a known prototype, making thus the new church look like an older one. 6e study of the so-called "Athonite" type of church offers a telling example of the problems that occur when analysing typology, even in cases where matters seem at first "simple" (fig.1). 7A major difficulty has to do with the very definition of the type. 8Some scholars tend to think of it as a complex 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 extended narthex (a "lite") and one or more parecclesia. 9Yet other scholars have noted that the Athonite katholikon cannot be discussed as a group of several buildings.It would be more helpful, when investigating its origin, to accept a description based only on the main church buildingits core.But even this is not an easy type to define as it has been viewed, in modern scholarship, either as a cross-in-square enlarged with lateral apses-choroi 10 or as a triconch. 11The "triconch" approach stretches its complete difference from the accepted norm of the cross-in-square and the fact that its main characteristic is its core with three great conches.
What is of interest is that by following one of these approaches scholars seem to predefine the different train of thought, regarding the origin of the type, they adopt or propose.Thus adherents of the complex definition of the type (extended cross-in-square with lite and parecclesia) tend to stretch its connection with Athonite monasticism regardless of the specific trends or details that led to its inception or the fact that it was probably formulated in successive building phases. 12Followers of the theory that it is a cross-in-square expanded with lateral apses-choroi, seem to accept its evolution as a solution specific for Athonite monasticism within the trends of ecclesiastic architecture of the time.Yet they do not offer an explanation for the origin of the influences responsible for the alterations in the type.Lastly, supporters of the "triconch" definition seem to be more occupied with defining the specific current of influences that led into the creation of the "Athonite" type and more than usually this approach leads into an expansion of the time and space that the theory covers, when inquiring the origin of the type's prototype. 13e second approach appears to be better balanced, yet seems to overemphasize certain aspects of the problem while oversimplifying others.Its main difficulty is the fact that all its followers are ready to accept one answer as to why this type came to be: the lateral apses were added to the cross-in-square core in order to accommodate the group of chanters or choroi-hence the name, 14 an arrangement attested for Athonite katholika from the Middle Ages up to this day.Even suggestions of the lateral apses as places for distinguished church-goers retain a similar approach that of form-follows-function. 15Moreover this theory is not irrelevant to the details of the construction history of the first Athonite katholika, the ones responsible for establishing the type: those of Great Lavra, Iveron (fig.2) 16 and Vatopedi (fig.3). 17.The theory would be better validated if a reference could be found for defining the influences responsible for the inception of the type's main characteristic, the lateral apses or the triconch layout, whatever the name. 18There is indeed some truth in all the theories proposed up to now, although 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 Lavra.Mylonas' theory of an "enlargement", carried out by Athanasios, mentioned in his Vitae and connected by the same scholar to the addition of lateral apses-choroi to a cross-in-square church, has been questioned and its proof presupposes extended archaeological investigation in the building itself. 19Until further evidence though, we can accept that the Great Lavra katholikon was constructed with lateral apses in its main cross-in-square domed core by Athanasios around 963 and that the "enlargement" mentioned in the texts has to do with expanding some other part of the katholikon complex.20 Moreover Mylonas' argument that the basic layout of the Protaton church in Karyes (fig.4) shows a similar approach with the triconch plan of the 'Athonite' churches remains valid, despite the fact that it has been proved that it was built like this from the start.21Thus we can retain that the layout of the Protaton could well be the first church in the Athos peninsula to incorporate lateral spaces in a concentric plan and that the Great Lavra katholikon was 14 The most exhaustive presentation of the argument can be found in both Mylonas' articles regarding the Great Lavra katholikon.It is based on the use of the word "choroi", meaning group of chanters that can be found in a text earlier or about the time of the katholikon, yet that doesn't mean that the lateral apses were called thus from that period.In any case even if called like this it doesn't mean their inception included the terminology.Cf. most probably the first cross-in-square with lateral apses-choroi. 22ylonas insisted on the development of the "athonite" type first in the Protaton and more clearly in the Great Lavra katholikon, his main argument based on the notion that the whole process was an answer to a specific functional problem of the monastic office, the accommodation of the chanters. 23Although this cannot actually be proved for any of the churches, it doesn't mean that their design wasn't born out of a similar train of thought. 24he actual problem of this theory is the notion that such a process of development in Byzantine church architecture presupposes supremacy of functionality over considerations of form.Yet this approach defies the very notion of Byzantine architecture, whose strict formality is clearly evident in the recurrent application of well defined building types. 25Easy classification into certain types provides serious evidence that in church architecture of the Byzantine world form was in fact the major concern.The more since we can discern a double symbolic content in any given type: in the layout of the plan and the way that the volumes are articulated, forms of special meaning are apparent: the cross, both in plan and in the roofs' layout, the tripartite chancel, the five-domed arrangement etc.Moreover, the hierarchical arrangement of the main features stretches the form's symbolic meaning, as in the case of the dome in the center and the highest point of the inscribed cross, the narthex as the symmetrical antithesis of the chancel and also with the way that these spaces are decorated according to their place in the spatial hierarchy.
All these considered, typological classification of Byzantine churches seems to be a useful tool for analyzing and understanding them, yet the strict application of certain types can only mean that these concepts (symbolism and artistic value of building types) were understood by the Byzantines as well.Thus the basic concept of typification was perceived then the same way as it is now: Byzantine churches followed identifiable types in order to be easily recognised and appreciated by their users. 26oreover it can be argued that the continued application of certain types was a way to spread architectural ideas between places and eras in the form of prototypes and copies, while allowing for innovations and alterations.Most building types can be summarized into a basic geometric form whose layout can be described easily using words.These words could be transferred as orders or concepts from a patron to the team of construction workers and be comprehensible.It is clear though that verbal description is more selective than architectural plans.Thus descriptions using words can focus into specific details of importance ignoring the overall scheme.This means that the verbal description of a church is possible to contain only selected characteristics, those most recognisable.Nevertheless, they could be transferred into virtually any type of building as references to a prototype.
Scholars have stretched the fact that there has not been any found example of a building or group of buildings to clearly act as a prototype for the "Athonite" type in its complex or simpler definition. 27The only reference cited are the triconch buildings in their simple form: a single space with three apses stemming from it comprising integral components of the design, often called a "trefoil". 28On the contrary in the case of the "Athonite" type the three apses are in reality the chancel's main apse and the other two are lateral extensions of an otherwise typical cross-in-square layout.In the case of the Protaton the ends of a transverse arm of a cross-basilica seem to be able to function as choroi too.Some churches from far away Georgia that only bear a passing resemblance with their polyconch plans and strict formalism 29 have been regarded as suitable for comparison and references of inspiration for the inception of the "Athonite" type of church. 30This theory has been backed by the historic information regarding Saint Athanasios' birthplace or that of the people responsible for founding of Iveron monastery, another candidate for being the prototype in the Athonite katholika tradition.
Yet this inquiry is haunted by the way scholars perceive architectural types and their characteristics, mainly identified in the geometry of plans and other drawings.It might be easier and more fruitful if we start searching for a prototype as a cultural reference and not as a source of geometric analogies.
The idea came from information gathered from texts regarding the history of the two most popular Theotokos' churches in Constantinople, namely the Virgin's most important shrine, the Blachernae complex 31 and the church known as "Theotokos at the Chalkoprateia". 32The importance of both institutions for the religious history of Constantinople can hardly be overestimated.Yet it is a pity that the archaeological record for both of them is either very scanty or completely lacking.
The origin of both complexes is set back to the fifth century at the time of the sacralization of urban space in the New Capital and the establishing of the Theotokos as one of the main persons in the spiritual life of the City. 33The question of their founder is still open to suggestions with main candidates being the famous Pulcheria, sister of Theodosios II, the infamous Verina, wife of Leo I and the industrious Justinian.Both shrines where major proskynemata because they housed important relics: several of the Virgin's garments.Both complexes besides the main church comprised also of structures housing these relics.These annexes were called in either case "Soros", a reference apparently to the fact that since there was no case of acquiring the Virgin's physical remains, her garments were the next best souvenir from her earthly presence.Although the question of the founder of these complexes has not been solved, there is ample evidence to suggest that both were formulated over a period of time, comprising more of churches with major annexes and certainly not solitary buildings, a fact that could be the source of the confusion in the sources regarding the identity of the patron. 34It seems probable that some parts of each were constructed by one of the candidates while others were either constructed anew or renovated under another.
The main church at the Chalkoprateia was a basilica with three aisles, a narthex and galleries over the sides and narthex, resembling in size and layout the basilica of Stoudios and the Acheiropoieitos in Thessaloniki.It was also in the vicinity of the Great Church, so it seems that the identification of a major basilica, whose remains have been found in Hagia Sophia's neighborhood, with the much venerated Chalkoprateia is quite sound. 35Most of the details about the church though can be gathered from information in texts.
The Blachernae complex is less easy to describe since no actual remains have been discovered yet.The main or "Great Church" was gravely restored or built anew under Justinian, who was greatly involved with Marian churches all over the empire, if we are to believe what Procopius delivers regarding the emperor's building activity.According to Procopius' description it was a three aisled basilica with a transverse element, possibly a crossing aisle.It was built with fittings of Parian marble and had nave as well as narthex galleries. 36The structure housing the main relic was a concentric building of double floor plan and there was also a separate yet connected structure related to a source of holy water and used as a ritual bath, known as "Lou(s)ma".Mango, who dealt extensively with unraveling the patron question of the complex, suggested also a possible plan that more or less schematizes the scattered pieces of evidence already mentioned (fig.5), yet seems improbable. 37It appears quite possible that we can get a better notion, regarding the Blachernae complex's layout, from a building still standing, namely the group of buildings known as the Virgin Katopoliani in Paros (fig.6). 38They comprise a complex consisting of 34 This is the way that things are stated in the mostly disreputed Patria.For the Blachernae church: "Ton de naon ton megan twn Blacernwn Markianoj kai Poulceria anhgeiren kosmhsaj auton dia polutelwn marmarwn poikilwn•…Thn de agian soron anhgeiren Lewn Makellhj, dioti en toij cronoij autou thj qeotokou efanhsan icnh polla kai qaumata gegonasin eij plhqoj.O autoj de ektisen kai to louma kai epekurwsen kthmata polla kai skeuh kai keimhlia crusa te kai argura", cf.Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, ed.Th.Preger, fs. 2, Leipzig 1907 (repr.1975), 3. 41. 35 Kleiss, Neue Befunde zur Chalkopratenkirche, 587-594.
Be that as it may, what makes both Marian churches in the Capital relevant to our inquiry is the fact that at some point in their history they were altered and expanded to incorporate lateral apses in the main churches.The fact has been recorded by several records in various texts.
Regarding the church of the Theotokos in Blachernae, Theophanes in his chronography states: "In this year (Justin II)…added to the church of the Holy Theotokos of the Blachernae the two apses, the one to the north and the one to the south, in the Great Church and he turned it into a cross-like shape". 39Years later Zonaras recounts of the modifications carried by Justin II: "…and he added anew the apses in both sides of the Blachernae church so that it becomes a cross-like form". 40At roughly the same time Kedrenos summarizes the work carried out as follows: "(Justin II) added also in the church of the Blachernae the two apses and made it into a cross-shape". 41The work described in these passages is recorded also in the so-called "Palatine Anthology" in verses which apparently were inscribed inside the church, commemorating Justin II's offering. 42The epigram only refers to the apses through its placing there, despite the chronographers' comment on them as the most evident part of the work.This could mean a number of things and justified variously.What seems important for the question in hand is the fact that Justin II's involvement in the work done in the Blachernae church complex is commemorated into historiography in a different way (recorded by the chronographers) from what were the intentions of the ktetor proper (recorded in the Palatine Anthology).The epigram inscribed on the building speaks of "enlargement and solidification and of beautifying it more than ever", whereas the chronographers repeat specifically the addition of the lateral apses and speak of them as something that is commonly observed.Of importance also is the fact that the description of the work executed is summarised precisely into the addition simply of the lateral apses.The words of the chronographers seem to act simply as an explanation of this special feature which probably was a striking one, characterising the church building and the fact that the intention mentioned behind the addition of the apses is the creation of the cross like shape.It is more than evident that in this case all three writers stretch a notion that relates to the alteration with a motive that has to do with the form of the building and especially its symbolic content resembling a cross.This is in contrast with the epigram's verses that speak of motives quite different.It is safe to deduce that the most important Marian church of the Capital, early in its history, acquired a shape that was easily comprehensible and acknowledged, so that if one spoke of "the apses added" and that "thus it became like a cross", he would certainly be understood.
When some time later Basil I sponsored construction work done in the other famous Marian shrine, the church of the Theotokos at the Chalkoprateia, the description of the work carried out projects a striking resemblance to the one related for Justin II and the Blachernae.The chronographer George the Monk writes: "…and the other (church) of the mostly venerated Theotokos, the holy shrine that is close to the Chalkoprateia, of the ever-blessed and saintly Soros, he (Basil I) saw as humble and darkly, (so he) constructed light-bearing apses and he raised the roof higher so to bring more light appropriately and made (it) beautiful with rays of light". 43In this reference the motives for the building's alteration are closer to what was said about the Blachernae in the Palatine Anthology.Whatever the motives or their expression might be, one finds it irresistible not to relate the addition of apses to the church at the Chalkoprateia 44 to the similar work carried some two hundred years before in the most venerated of the Theotokos' shrines in the Capital, the Blachernae.Therefore even if not stated by George the Monk, one might easily summon that what was apparent in the case of the final form of the Blachernae was apparent in that of the Chalkoprateia as well, after Basil's alterations: the two buildings had lateral apses and thus resembled a cross. 45 we have already seen the creation of the so-called "Athonite" type of church has been variously described as a cross-in-square church with lateral apsesthe choroi.It seems that the inception of this layout in the plan could be understood as a process of incorporating into the established type of the cross-in-square church, 46 selected for the katholikon of the Great Lavra, two lateral apses as a specific reference to the two holiest of the Theotokos' shrines in the Capital.As we have already noted both churches were perceived by contemporary and later writers as characterised exactly by this feature: the lateral apses added to them.
It is exactly this repetition of the description in the various chronographies that seems to have already turned this architectural feature, the addition of two lateral apses to make a church look like a cross, into a verbal type, a typical phrase of words frequently repeated and easily understood.This could have played an instrumental part into transferring the architecdes XII.Internationalen Kongresses fur christliche Archaologie (Bonn 22.-28.September 1991), II, Munster -Citta del Vaticano 1995, 727-733.
43 "…kai ton eteron de thj panumnhtou qeotokou, ton en toij Calkoprateioij qeion naon thj panseptou kai agiaj sorou, tapeinon idwn kai afwtiston, kai fwtodocaj ekaterwqen anasthsaj ayidaj kai to tegoj metewrisaj uyei euprepeiaj kathugasen kai marmarugaij fwtoj kathglaise.",cf.Theophanes continuatus: Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius monachus, ed.I. Bekker, Bonn 1838, 339. 44It is not perfectly clear whether the reference is to the main church basilica or the so called 'Soros', if it actually was a different structure.The question cannot be analysed here and actually plays little part in the argument formulated herein. 45Notwithstanding that it might be actually the Soros building that was altered in the Chalkoprateia complex.The intention and final effect though remain the same.
46 Despite its divergences from the type's standardized layout.
tural idea behind it.The addition of lateral apses into a church seems thus to be able to appear as a phrase that could be used in order to convey the specific feature into any given building.By constructing the apses they remained evident, still being able to be described by the same phrase and thus referring also to the same source of inspiration where the initial description came from.If two buildings shared the same description, even if only partially, regarding what was thought to be their main feature, they could be perceived as related.This doesn't mean that in the Athonite katholika the lateral apses were a feature added after the initial construction.It relates more to the inception of adding a specific feature into an established type of building that could be decided upon its construction as a reference to a prototype, even if the prototype was a totally different type of building.And indeed one might visualise the same process behind the plan of the Protaton even though at first glance it seems a completely different church.Despite all the alterations it underwent, it is evident that its cruciform plan 47 with the transverse arms just in front of the chancel retains a reference to a layout that resembles the Great Lavra katholikon at least in the way it functioned.Mylonas in trying to reconstruct the history of both buildings commented upon the fact that they both seem to reproduce a similar layout, the one in a cross-in-square plan the other into a cruciform basilica. 48It should be noted as well that both churches are dedicated to the Theotokos, as is the whole Athos peninsula, marking thus even better the need to reproduce a prototype of Marian connection especially eloquent in the case of the two most important shrines of the Theotokos in the Theotokoupolis that the Capital had become.
Especially for the Protaton the description found for the alterations carried by Basil I's initiative into the Chalkoprateia church seems to fit perfectly since it is evident that the transverse element found into the otherwise cross-basilical plan of the Protaton as is developed into the building's volumes, with the high walls and roof at the end of the crossing, create exactly the layout necessary in order to provide these spaces (the transverse square choroi) 49 with more light.
If we accept that Athanasios was responsible for constructing the Protaton church in the plan known today and also the Great Lavra katholikon with lateral apses from the start, then it appears very likely that he transferred the basic feature of the two Marian churches of the Capital in a verbal description like the one found repeated in the chronographies describing the alterations carried out for both of them.These descriptions appear to carry the form of the two churches into a verbal type and it seems that any layout that could be described similarly was able to be associated with the two churches in Constantinople with a reference to the same prototype.Since this verbal description incorporates also the symbolic content adherent to the layout, it is easy to understand the process of creating a new prototype.Thus we can see the creation of a series of buildings which do not conform totally to a form down to its details but to a type that shares only the features found in the verbal description: literally the lateral apses and the cross-like shape.
It is precisely this element of verbal descriptions of buildings that needs to be stretched as setting the limits within which the specific features are found.They are the ones responsible for conveying the basic elements of the prototype and its character.They also allow us to evaluate the variety of forms that could possibly satisfy the same description retaining the reference to the same prototype even when that is not clear when comparing plans or other drawings.It seems possible thus that even churches that appear to us, who compare the geometry of the plans or the articulation of volumes, irrelevant could turn out to have only a number of shared features that connect to the layout of a prototype without reproducing it down to its details.Therefore it appears that the comprehension of the way typology worked in the transference of prototypes in the church architecture of Byzantium is far more complicated than what is usually anticipated.
For example the church known as Hagios Titos in Gortyna (fig.7) in Crete seems to have acquired a form of a transverse aisle with lateral apses at its ends. 50The layout of the plan seems to have initiated from a basilical form and could be dated roughly at the time of Justin II, thus it is quite probable that it might carry a reference to the alterations made in the Blachernae church as described in the texts mentioned.Yet even a seemingly irrelevant church like the Virgin in Skripou 51 (fig.8) is a building with a decidedly cross-shaped plan, whose transverse arms can be viewed as lateral "enlargements", a layout that could well refer to the description of the works carried out under Basil I in the Chalkoprateia church.
It is easy to see that we have to come a long way still in order to understand how typology worked for the Byzantines, despite of how we perceive it.Even though the history of both the Protaton church and the Great Lavra katholikon might be quite different from what Mylonas has argued, one thing seems to remain valid: What begun as minor modifications into two existing buildings in the Capital resulted in the creation of a new church type in the middle Byzantine period and beyond. 52akozvani atonski tip crkve i dva svetili{ta Bogorodice u Carigradu Anastasios Tancis Na~in na koji je tzv."atonski" tip crkve definisan u savremenoj nauci pri~iwavao je odre|ene te{ko-}e u istra`ivawu wegovog porekla.U ovom tekstu autor zastupa gledi{te po kome je pomenuti tip gra|evine najboqe posmatrati kao crkvu upisanog krsta uve}anu dvema bo~nim apsidama.