The Church of St. Panteleimon at NereziArchitecture, Programme, Patronage

Ida Sinkevi

Reichert

Ida Sinkevi The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi

SPTANTIKE - FRHES CHRISTENTUM - BYZANZ

KUNST IM ERSTEN JAHRTAUSEND

Herausgegeben von Beat Brenk, Johannes G. Deckers,

Arne Effenberger, Lieselotte Ktzsche

Reihe B: Studien und Perspektiven

Band 6

The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi by

Ida Sinkevi

REICHERT VERLAG WIESBADEN 2000

Ida Sinkevi

The Church of St. Panteleimon at NereziArchitecture, Programme, Patronage

R EICHERT VERLAG WIESBADEN 2000

With the subvention of The Publications Commitee,

Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Sinkevi, Ida:The church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi : architecture, programme, patronage / Ida Sinkevic. -

Wiesbaden : Reichert, 2000 (Sptantike - frhes Christentum - Byzanz : Reihe B, Studien und Perspektiven ; Bd. 6)

Zugl. : Princeton, Univ., Diss., 1994 ISBN 3-89500-129-5

2000 Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag Wiesbaden Das Werk einschlielich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschtzt.

Jede Verwertung auerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulssig und strafbar.

Das gilt insbesondere fr Vervielfltigungen, bersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Speicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.

Printed in Germany

This book is dedicated to my mother Nataa, my brother Kolja,

and to the memory of my father Jura

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XI

ABBREVIATIONS XII

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS XIII

MAP OF THE BALKANS XVI

INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER I: ALEXIOS AND HIS CHURCH 4Who Was Alexios Angelos Komnenos? 4

1. Alexios Inscription 42. Alexios Family 5

Alexios Decision to Build Nerezi and the Importance of the Region for Byzantium 51. The Balkan Peninsula 52. Macedonia 53. Manuel I in Macedonia 64. Major Towns in the Region 7

Did Alexios Reside in Skopje? 71. History of Skopje 72. Skopje as an Ecclesiastical Center 83. Alexios Relatives in and around Skopje 84. Alexios and His Cousin Manuel I 8

Why Would Alexios Choose a Provincial Location for his Foundation? 91. Komnenian Aristocratic Foundations in the Provinces 92. Financing Nerezi 103. The Importance of Provincial Foundations 10

CHAPTER II: ARCHITECTURE llIntroduction l lPlan and Spatial Articulation l l

1. Naos: Analysis l l1.1. Segregation of the Naos 121.2. Twelfth-Century Revival of Cruciform Churches 131.3. Naos: Summary 13

2. Sanctuary: Analysis 142.1. Tri-Partite Organization 142.2. Fusion of the Bema Bay With the Eastern Arm of the Cross 15

3. Narthex: Analysis 153.1. Subsidiary Chapels and the Narthex at Nerezi 163.2. Liturgical Furnishings and Painted Programs of Subsidiary Chapels 173.3. Liturgical Furnishings and Painted Programs of Narthexes 183.4. Could Western Chapels be considered as a Separate Entity? 19

4. Summary 19Restorations and the Original Form of the Exterior 19Exterior: Analysis 20

1. Composition and Technique 201.1. Compositional Aspects 201.2. Building Materials 211.3. Facade Articulation and Decorative Aspects 211.4. Constantinopolitan and Regional Features of the Exterior 21

VIII Table of Contents

1.5. Summary 232. Five-Domed Structure 23

2.1. Middle Byzantine Five-Domed Churches in Constantinople 242.2. Middle Byzantine Five-Domed Churches Outside of Constantinople 25

2.2.1. Russia 252.2.2. Armenia 252.2.3. Greece 252.2.4. Italy 26

2.1. Analysis of Middle Byzantine Five-Domed Churches 262.2. Symbolic Significance of Five-Domed Churches 27

Summary 28

CHAPTER III: PAINTED DECORATION 29Introduction 29Bema 30

1. Program: General Observations 302. The Communion of the Apostles 30

2.1. Symbolic and Liturgical Significance of the Scene 312.2. The Kiss of the Apostles 32

2.2.1. The Kiss of Sts. Peter and Paul 332.2.2. The Meaning of the Kiss at Nerezi 332.2.3. The Choice of St. Luke and St. Andrew 332.2.4. Political Implications 34

3. The Officiating Bishops 353.1. The Hetoimasia 353.2. Liturgical Character of the Scene 363.3. The Church Councils 37

3.3.1. The Major Sessions 373.3.2. Heretical Attacks 373.3.3. The Church Council of 1156/57 383.3.4. The Texts of Church Fathers in the Acts of the Council 383.3.5. The Anathemas 393.3.6. The Church Councils and the Painted Program of the Bema 39

Cupolas 391. The Procession of Angels 402. Images of Christ 40

2.1. Christ Priest 412.2. The Significance of the Images of Christ in the Domes 42

3. The Origin of the Iconography of the Domes 434. A Possible Reconstruction of the Program of the Central Dome 43

Eastern Chapels 441. The Prothesis 442. The Diakonikon 45

2.1. The Holy Physicians 463. Thematic Concerns 47

Naos: Scenes 471. The Annunciation 472. The Presentation and the Threnos 48

2.1. The Presentation: Origin, Meaning, and Visual Representations 482.2. The Presentation: Iconographic Innovations and Their Significance 492.3. The Presentation and the Church Councils 502.4. The Threnos: Origin, Meaning, and Visual Representations 502.5. The Threnos: An Icon of Sorrow 512.6. The Juxtaposition of the Threnos and the Presentation 522.7. Summary 53

3. The Transfiguration and the Deposition 533.1. The Deposition: Another Emotionally Charged Icon at Nerezi 533.2. The Transfiguration 54

Table of Contents IX

3.3. The Juxtaposition of the Transfiguration and the Deposition 544. The Juxtaposition of the Resurrection of Lazarus and the Entry into Jerusalem 545. The Marian Cycle 566. Spatial Relations of the Scenes: Meaning and Significance 567. The Theme of Passion 57

7.1. Social and Cultural Trends 577.2. Alexios' Concerns 58

Sanctoral Cycle 581. Introduction 582. Military Saints 593. Martyrs 604. Holy Monks 605. Hymnographers 61

5.1. St.Theodore of Stoudios 625.2. St.John of Damascus and St. Kosmas the Hymnographer 625.3. St.Theophanes Graptos 645.4. St. Joseph of Sicily 655.5. The Importance of Hymnographers 65

6. St. Panteleimon 667. Grouping of Saints 66

Narthex 661. Introduction 662. The Deesis 673. The Cycle of St. Panteleimon 68

3.1. The Life of St. Panteleimon 683.2. The Scenes: East Wall 683.3. The Scenes: South Wall 693.4. The Scenes: North Wall 693.5. Hagiographic Cycles of St. Panteleimon 703.6. Passion and Intercession 70

Western Chapels 711. Introduction 712. North-West Chapel 71

2.1. Five Martyrs of Armenia 712.2. St. Menas, St. Viktor, St.Vikentios 722.3. St.Tryphon, St.Blasios, St. Mamas 73

3. Summary 73Painted Cycle: Concluding Remarks 73

1. Alexios 732. Church Councils 743. Legacy 74

CHAPTER IV: ARTISTS AND THEIR LEGACY 76Style and Iconography 76Composition 77

1. Compositional Integration of the Program as a Whole 772. Compositional Integration of Individual Scenes 773. Sources 78

Figures 781. Proportions 782. Linearism 793. Color and Line 794. Faces 79

The Origins of Nerezis Style 80Linearism: Constantinopolitan or Provincial? 81Artists, Attribution 81Nerezi and Twelfth-Century Style 82

1. The Church of the Transfiguration, Chortiatis 83

X Table of Contents

2. The Church of Hosios David, Thessaloniki 833. Chortiatis, Hosios David, and Nerezi 84

Summary 84

CHAPTER V: SCULPTURE 86Introduction 86Description 87Analysis: Technique, Iconography, Style 88

1. Constantinople as a Source 882. The Provinces and Neighboring Countries as a Source 883. Macedonia as a Source 89

The Original Form of the Iconostasis 901. The Proskynetaria Icons 912. The Icons Above the Architrave 923. Intercolumnar Icons 92

3.1. Controversy About Their Existence 923.2. Textual Evidence 933.3. Archaeological Evidence 93

Summary 93

CHAPTER VI: EPILOGUE. NEREZI AFTER ALEXIOS 95History 95

1. Nerezi as a Metoch of the Monastery of St. George-Gorgos 951.1. The Monastery of St. George-Gorgos before 1376/77 951.2. The Monastery of St. George-Gorgos as a Metoch of Chilandar 96

2. Nerezi After the Turkish Conquest of Skopje 96Post-Byzantine Paintings 97

1. Introduction 972. Bema 973. Central Cupola 984. Naos 985. Analysis of the Sixteenth-Century Cycle 986. Nineteenth-Century Paintings 997. Nerezi Today 99

CONCLUSION 100

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 102

INDEX 110

FIGURES 119

PLATES 189

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book has grown out of my Ph. D. dissertation completed at Princeton University under the supervision of Prof. Slobodan uri. As a mentor, colleague, and friend, Prof. uri contributed numerous remarkable insights, offered guidance, and enthusiastically encouraged me to publish it. The manuscript benefited from his support in so many ways, that my debt and gratitude can never be adequately expressed.

To Dr. Lois Drewer of the Index of Christian Art at Princeton University, who generously shared her expertise, read this manuscript at every stage of its existence, and provided invaluable advice and assistance I express my deepest gratitude. Many times, her faith in my work helped sustain mine. I am greatly indebted to Prof. Annemarie Weyl Carr, who was my M. A. adviser at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, for suggesting the topic of Nerezi. I also thank her for her knowledgeable comments and her enthusiastic encouragement which inspired many aspects of this book.

Many other colleagues and friends helped bring this manuscript to completion. My colleagues at the Institute for the Protection of Monuments in Skopje facilitated my work at the site, granted me access to documents, and let me use their archival photographs of the church. My on site research also benefited from the help of Prof. Petar Miljkovi-Pepek, Professor Dime Koco, and my friends Dafina Gerasimova and Rumen amilov who helped in surveying and photographing the church.

I am also grateful for advice and council of the late Prof. Gordana Babi, Prof. Judith Herrin, Prof. Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, Dr. Alexei Lidov, and Prof. Cecil Lee Striker. My thanks are extended to colleagues and friends at Lafayette College, Prof. Diane Cole Ahl, Prof. Robert S. Mattison, and Prof. Edward J. Kerns for their encouragement and their interest in my work.

The final draft of the manuscript benefited from advice of my readers, Prof. Beat Brenk and Prof. J. G. Deckers to whom I offer my thanks. I am also grateful to Prof. Beat Brenk for his generosity and willingness to offer his wonderful photographs and slides of Nerezi for this book. My thanks are extended to my publisher for the help and enthusiasm with which they enhanced and improved the manuscript.

My research was supported in part by the Haakon Fellowship awarded to me at Southern Methodist University, by Stanley J. Seeger Fellowship, Hellenic Studies, Princeton University and by several Mellon fellowships I received at Princeton University and at Lafayette College. I am also indebted to the Publications Committee of the Department of Art and Archaeology at Princeton University for their subvention which helped increase the number of color photographs considerably.

Last but not least I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my family, my late father Jura, my mother Nataa, my brother Kolja, and my husband Ivan, for their help, support, and willingness to share with me the joy and hardship of this project. To them I dedicate this book.

ABBREVIATIONS

ABME

ABBFBHG

BNJBZCADeltion

DOPEOGSNDIRAIK

JB

JSAH

LCI

Archeion tn Byzantinn Mnm ein tsHelladosArt BulletinByzantinische Forschungen Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca, ed. by F. Halkin, 3 Vols. (Brussels, 1957) Byzantinisch-neugriech ische Jahrb ch er Byzantinische Zeitschrift Cahiers archologiques Deltion t s Christianiks Archaiologiks HetaireiasDumbarton Oaks Papers chos d O rientGlasnik Skopskog naunog drutva Izvestiia Russkogo A rkheologicheskogo Instituta v Konstantinopole Jahrbuch d er sterreich ischen Byzantinistik Before 1969 - Jahrbuch d er sterreich ischen byzantinischen G esellschaft Journa l o f th e Society o f Architectural HistoriansLexikon d er christlichen Ikonographie, ed. by E. Kirschbaum and W. Braunfels,8 Vols. (Rome, Freiburg, Basel, Vienna, 1968-1976)

Mansi G. D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova etamplissima co llectio , 53 Vols. (Paris- Leipzig, 1901-27)

OCP Orientalin christiana period icaOC Oriens christianusODB Oxford D ictionary o f Byzantium , ed. by

A. Kazhdan et al. (Washington, 1991)PG Patrologiae cursus completus: Series Graeca,

ed. J. P. Migne. 161 Vols, in 166 pts. (Paris, 1857-1866)

Praktika Praktika tou p r tou d ie th n ou s k yp ro lo g i- 1972 kou s y n ed r io u 3 Vols. (Nicosia, 1972)RBK Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, ed.

by K. Wessel, 4 Vols. (Stuttgart, 1966-1984) REB R evue des tudes byzantinesSynaxarium Synaxarium ecclesia e Constantinopolitanae:

Propylaeum ad Acta sanctorum N ovembrisy ed. by H. Delehaye (Brussels, 1902)

TM Travaux et m m oiresVizVrem Vizantiski vrem ennik ZLU Zbornik za likovne um etnostiZRVI Zbornik radova Vizantolokog institutaXVe congrs XVe congrs international des tudes

byzantines, Rapports et co-rapports, III:Art et arch o logie (Athens, 1976)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Photographic credits:

Skopje, Institute for the Protection of Monuments: figs. 1 -17; 26; 36-45; 47-49; 75, 78, 79-82, 84-88. Professor Beat Brenk: figs. XIX, XXXVI, XLVIII; 63, 76, 77, 83.All other photographs are by the author.

Color figures

Fig. I Exterior: east facadeFig. II Exterior: south facadeFig. III Exterior: south facade, central sectionFig. IV Exterior: south facade, detail with crossFig. V Exterior: north facade, meander patternFig. VI Exterior: domesFig. VII Interior: east viewFig. VIII Interior: west viewFig. IX Interior: central domeFig. X Interior: north sideFig. XI Interior: south sideFig. XII Bema and central domeFig. XIII Bema: general viewFig. XIV Bema: officiating priestFig. XV Bema: apseFig. XVI Bema: apse, Communion of the

ApostlesFig. XVII Bema: apse, Communion of the

Apostles, northFig. XVIII Bema: apse, Communion of the

Apostles, southFig. XIX Bema: Communion of the Apostles,

north wallFig. XX Bema: apse, HetoimasiaFig. XXI North-east cupola: EmmanuelFig. XXII South-east cupola: Ancient of DaysFig. XXIII North-west cupola: PantokratorFig. XXIV North-west cupola: Pantokrator

with AngelsFig. XXV South-west cupola: Christ-PriestFig. XXVI Prothesis: general viewFig. XXVII Prothesis: St.ModestosFig. XXVIII Passageway from the Prothesis into

the bema: St. SpyridonFig. XXIX Diakonikon: general viewFig. XXX Diakonikon: east wall, upper zone,

unidentified bishopFig. XXXI Diakonikon, south wall, lower zone:

unidentified saintFig. XXXII Passageway from the diakonikon into

the naos, north wall: St. DamianosFig. XXXIII Passageway from the diakonikon into

the naos, south wall: St. Kosmas

Fig. XXXIV Naos: east wallFig. XXXV Naos, east wall: archangel from

the AnnunciationFig. XXXVI Naos, east wall: the Virgin from

the AnnunciationFig. XXXVII Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall:

the PresentationFig. XXXVIII Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall:

the Presentation, Anna and the VirginFig. XXXIX Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall:

the Presentation, the Virgin and SymeonFig. XL Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall:

the TransfigurationFig.XLI Naos, south wall: the Resurrection of

LazarusFig.XLII Naos, west wall: the Birth and the

Presentation of the VirginFig. XLIII Hosios David, Thessaloniki: detail from

the NativityFig. XLIV Naos, north wall: the Entry into

JerusalemFig. XLV Naos, north arm of the cross, west wall:

the DepositionFig. XLVI Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall:

the ThrenosFig. XLVII Hosios David, Thessaloniki: the BaptismFig. XLVIII Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall:

the Threnos, detailFig. XLIX Naos, east wall: St. PanteleimonFig. L Naos, east wall: Virgin and Christ-ChildFig. LI Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall:

St. Anthony, St. Paul of Thebes,St. Euthymios, St. Sabas, and an unidentified monk

Fig. LII Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall: St. Arsenios and unidentified monks

Fig. LIII Naos, south wall: St. George, St. Demetrios, St. Nestor

Fig. LIV Naos, west wall: Holy MartyrsFig. LV Naos, north wall: St.Theodore Teron,

St. Theodore Stratelates, St. ProkopiosFig. LVI Naos, north arm of the cross, west wall:

St. Makarios and unidentified monks

XIV List of illustrations

Fig. LVII Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St. Kosmas the Hymnographer, St.John of Damascus, St. Theodore of Stoudios, St.Theophanes Graptos, St. Joseph of Sicily

Fig. LVIII Narthex: interior viewFig. LIX Narthex: main portal with inscriptionFig. LX Narthex, east wall: St. Symeon StyliteFig. LXI Narthex, east wall: Deesis.Fig. LXII Narthex: south-east cornerFig. LXIII Narthex, south wall: St. Hermolaos,

St. Hermippos, and St. Hermokrator before Maximian

Fig. LXIV Narthex, south wall: Execution of St. Hermolaos and Burial of St. Hermolaos, St. Hermippos, and St. Hermokrator

Fig. LXV North-west chapel, north wall: St. Mamas

Fig. LXVI North-west chapel, north wall: St. Blasios

Fig. LXVII North-west chapel, west wall: St. Mardarios

Fig. LXVIII Iconostasis: detail of the architrave

Black and white figures

Fig. 1 Exterior: from north-east, c. 1900Fig. 2 Exterior: from south-east, during the restoration

in 1937-38Fig. 3 Exterior: from south-west, after the restoration in

1937-38Fig. 4 Exterior: south-east view, after the restoration in

1958-59Fig. 5 Exterior: from south-west, after the restoration

in 1970sFig. 6 Exterior: east facade during the restoration in

1937-38Fig. 7 Exterior: east facade during the restoration in

1958-59Fig. 8 Exterior: north facade during the restoration in

1937-38Fig. 9 Exterior: north facade after 1937-38 restorationFig. 10 Exterior: narthex during the restoration in

1958-59Fig. l l Exterior: narthex during the restoration in

1958-59Fig. 12 Exterior: south-east dome, installation of the

lead roofFig. 13 Bema, apse: Virgin, 16th centuryFig. 14 Bema, apse: Communion of the Apostles, ChristFig. 15 Bema, apse: Communion of the Apostles, St. PaulFig. 16 Bema, south wall: Communion of the ApostlesFig. 17 Bema and prothesis during the restoration in

1958-59. St. Gregory Thaumaturge and St.John the Theologian in the bema, and St. Modestos in the prothesis

Fig. 18 Bema, north wall: St. Gregory ThaumaturgeFig. 19 Bema, north wall: St. Epiphanios of CyprusFig. 20 Bema, north wall: St.John the TheologianFig. 21 Bema, apse: St.John ChrysostomFig. 22 Bema, apse: St. Basil the GreatFig. 23 Bema, south wall: St. AthanasiosFig. 24 Bema, south wall: St. Gregory of NyssaFig. 25 Bema, south wall: St. Nicholas of MyraFig. 26 Bema, apse: angel flanking the Hetoimasia to the

northFig. 27 Prothesis, east wall: the Virgin

Fig. 28 Prothesis, south wall, above the entrance to the bema: unidentified bishop

Fig. 29 Prothesis, west wall, flanking the entrance to the naos: St. Polykarpos

Fig. 30 Prothesis, passageway from the prothesis into the naos, north wall: St. Antipas

Fig. 31 Diakonikon, east wall: St.John the BaptistFig. 32 Diakonikon, east wall: deacon flanking St.John to

the northFig. 33 Diakonikon, west wall, above the entrance to the

naos: St. KyrosFig. 34 Diakonikon, north wall, above the entrance to the

bema, St.JohnFig. 35 Passageway from the diakonikon into the bema,

west wall: St. SampsonFig. 36 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall:

the Presentation, St. AnnaFig. 37 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall:

the Presentation, VirginFig. 38 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall:

the Presentation, SymeonFig. 39 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall:

the Presentation, JosephFig. 40 Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall:

the Transfiguration, St. PeterFig. 41 Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall,

the Transfiguration, St.JohnFig. 42 Naos, south wall: the Resurrection of Lazarus,

LazarusFig. 43 Naos, west wall: the Birth of the Virgin, maidsFig. 44 Naos, north wall: the Entry into Jerusalem, group

of JewsFig. 45 Naos, north arm of the cross, west wall:

the Deposition, Virgin and ChristFig. 46 Veljusa, Church of the Virgin of Eleousa: ChristFig. 47 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall:

the Threnos, Virgin and ChristFig. 48 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall:

the Threnos, detailFig. 49 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall:

the Threnos, St.John

List of illustrations XV

Fig. 50 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: St. Anthony

Fig. 51 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: St. Paul of Thebes

Fig. 52 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: St. Euthymios

Fig. 53 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: St. Sabas

Fig. 54 Naos, south arm of the cross, south wall: unidentified saint

Fig. 55 Naos, south arm of the cross, west wall: St. Arsenios

Fig. 56 Naos, south wall: St. GeorgeFig. 57 Naos, south wall: St. DemetriosFig. 58 Naos, south wall: St. NestorFig. 59 Naos, west wall: martyrs, northFig. 60 Naos, north wall: St. ProkopiosFig. 61 Naos, north wall: St.Theodore StratelatesFig. 62 Naos, north wall: St.Theodore TeronFig. 63 Naos, north wall: St.Theodore Teron, detailFig. 64 Naos, north arm of the cross, west wall:

St. MakariosFig. 65 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall:

St.Joseph of SicilyFig. 66 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall:

St. Theophanes GraptosFig. 67 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall:

St.Theodore of Stoudios

Fig. 68 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St.John of Damascus

Fig. 69 Naos, north arm of the cross, north wall: St. Kosmas the Hymnographer

Fig. 70 South-west chapel, east wall: MartyrFig. 71 North-west chapel, north wall: St.TryphonFig. 72 North-west chapel, south wall: St. MenasFig. 73 North-west chapel, east wall: St. OrestesFig. 74 North-west chapel, west wall: St. Viktor and

St.VikentiosFig. 75 Roman steleFig. 76 Reconstructed iconostasisFig. 77 Reconstructed iconostasis, south sideFig. 78 Parapet panel which belonged to the original

iconostasis; photographed in 1920Fig. 79 Fragment of the original panel of the iconostasisFig. 80 Fragment of the original panel of the iconostasisFig. 81 Fragment of the original colonnette of the

iconostasisFig. 82 Iconostasis : detail of the original colonnetteFig. 83 South proskynetarion frame, St. PanteleimonFig. 84 Bema, vault: Sixteenth-century Ancient of DaysFig. 85 Bema, vault: Sixteenth-century Annunciation

(Archangel) and Christ with Samaritan WomanFig. 86 Dome: Sixteenth-century Divine Liturgy, detailFig. 87 Dome: Sixteenth-century ProphetFig. 88 South arm of the cross, south wall: Washing of

the Feet

Plates

Pl.l PlanPl. 2 Plan at the level of the springing point of

the archesPl. 2a Plan of the domesPl. 2b Plan of the lead roof coverPl. 3 Longitudinal sectionPl. 3a Longitudinal section with chapelsPl. 4 Transverse sectionPl. 4a Transverse section with chapelsPl. 5 North-west chapel: arcosolium, sectionPl. 6 South-west chapel: plan and section of the pitPl. 7 South FacadePl. 7a North FacadePl. 7b East FacadePl. 7c West facadePl. 8 IconostasisPl. 8a Diagram showing distribution of paintings on the

north wallsPl. 8b Diagram showing distribution of paintings on the

south wallsPl. 9 Bema: apse

Pl. 10 Bema: north wallPl. l l Bema: south wallPl. 12 North-east chapelPl. 13 North-east chapel: passageways; chapel/bema

(upper); chapel/naos (lower)Pl. 14 South-east chapelPl. 15 South-east chapel: passageways; chapel/naos

(upper); chapel/bema (lower)Pl. 16 Naos: south arm of the cross, south wallPl. 17 Naos: south arm of the cross, west wallPl. 18 Naos: south wallPl. 19 Naos: west wallPl. 20 Naos: north wallPl. 21 Naos: north arm of the cross, west wallPl. 22 Naos: north arm of the cross, north wallPl. 23 Narthex: north wallPl. 24 Narthex: east wallPl. 25 Narthex: south wallPl. 26 North-west chapelPl. 27 South-west chapel

NOTE: Pls. 1-7: Lew Minter (revised from original drawings kept at the Institute for the Protection of Monuments in Skopje). Pl. 8: Lew Minter (after G. Babi, O ivopisanom ukrasu oltarskih pregrada). Pls. 8a, 8b: Lew Minter (revised from R. Hamman-Mac Lean). Pl. 4a: Dr. Svetlana Popovi. Pls. 9-27: after original drawings kept in the Institute for the Protection of Monuments, Skopje.

XVI

Map

of the

Balk

ans

(Rev

ised

from

D. O

bolen

sky,

The

Byza

ntin

e C

omm

onwe

alth

)

INTRODUCTION

The church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi is one of the major surviving monuments of twelfth-century Byzantium. Commonly referred to simply as Nerezi, the church was built by a member of the imperial family, decorated by some of the best artists of the period, and crowned by five domes in emulation of famous buildings of the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. Thus, although located on the Byzantine periphery, in what is now the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Nerezi stands as an important testimony to twelfth-century Constantinopolitan artistic and architectural trends. Its significance becomes even greater considering that, uniquely among its contemporaries, Nerezi is preserved virtually intact.

As indicated by the dedicatory inscription, Nerezi was commissioned in 1164 by the aristocrat Alexios Angelos Komnenos, a member of the famous Komnenian dynasty that ruled Byzantium during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The church attests the ample resources and the high aesthetic standards of its founder. Nerezi is one of a very few surviving five-domed buildings, and so illuminates this important, but scarcely preserved architectural type. Moreover, the church still contains its architectural sculpture, which gives us valuable information on liturgical furnishings of the twelfth century, and especially on the structure of the iconostasis. Above all, Nerezi is distinguished for the extreme elegance and beauty of its painted cycle. Since almost all monumental cycles from the mid-twelfth century in the Byzantine capital have been destroyed, Nerezi preserves a record of artistic tendencies in the monumental art of Constantinople. At the same time, because many of its artisans must have been local, it also provides evidence for the high quality of regional painters, sculptors and builders active in the province.

Although Nerezi is recognized by scholars as one of the major surviving monuments of Byzantine art, it lacks a scholarly monograph, and large portions of its architecture and ornament remain unknown and inaccessible even to scholars.1 Its architectural design has not been examined at all. Its important ensemble of Middle Byzantine sculp

ture is not available for study in published form. Most importantly, its extensive cycles of mural painting are known only through a few images that have been published repeatedly, almost always in black-and-white.2 The building thus cries out for a full, monographic treatment. This book endeavors to answer this need.

This book represents the first effort to study Nerezi comprehensively. In successive chapters it examines different aspects of the building: its historical and social context, its architectural design, its sculpture, and its cycle of mural painting. In addressing these varied facets, the book attempts to relate the different components of the building both to one another, and to the relevant contemporary Byzantine monuments. The book does it with two goals. First, as the pioneering study of this major monument, it seeks to provide clear data on it: its measurements, materials, inscriptions, furnishings, and imagery. Second, the book uses this data as a way to gain access to the figure of the patron, the Komnenian aristocrat Alexios Angelos Komnenos. Reading in its structural, programmatic, and aesthetic choices the characteristics of the buildings patron, the book raises broader questions about the role which a Komnenian aristocrat and his church played in Nerezis provincial setting.

Thus, in its scope, the book extends the boundaries of a traditional monograph and encompasses both the study of the church and a contextual analysis of the historic, social and cultural trends of the period. In addition, this study introduces the complete visual documentation of the church. A series of architectural diagrams, drawings and photographs of the decoration, as well as documentary evidence related to the restoration of Nerezi, are presented here for the first time.

The book is divided into six chapters that cover the history, architecture, iconographic and aesthetic considerations of the painted decoration, sculpture, and post- Byzantine phase of the church. The first chapter, which discusses the historical aspects of Nerezi, represents a pioneering attempt to relate facts about the history of the region to the extant information about the church and its

1 The bibliography on Nerezi is surprisingly small. For a listing of bibliography, see T. Vitlarski, Bibliografija za crkvata Sv. Pantelejmon - Nerezi, Likovna umetnost 12/13 (1989): 83-123; S. uri, Art and Architecture in the Balkans: An Annotated Bibliography (Boston, 1984), p. 51, no. 123; p. 136, no. 177; p. 168, no.239; p.200, no.405; pp.306-307, nos. 944-951; V. Djuri, Vizantijske freske u Jugoslaviji (Belgrade, 1975), pp. 182-183; and V. Lazarev, Zhivopis X I-X II vekov v Makedonii, in: Actes du XIIe congrs international des tudes byzantines (Belgrade, 1962), pp. 105-134.

2 Most of the studies on Nerezi are brief, providing only elementary information about the church. See A. Frolow and G. Millet, La peinture du moyen ge en Yougoslavie (Paris, 1954), Vol. 1, pls. 15-21. P. Miljkovi-Pepek, Nerezi (Belgrade, 1966); Idem, Crkvata Sv. Pantelejmon vo seloto Nerezi, in: Spomenici za srednovekovnata i ponovata istorija na Makedonija (Skopje, 1975), Vol. 1, pp. 89-94; Idem, Prilozi za prouavanje crkve manastira Nerezi, ZLU 10 (1974): 313-322; Idem, Jedna realistika osobenost na freskama Nereza i Studenice, Zograf 2 (1968): 4 -5 . R. Hamann-Mac Lean, Grundlegung zu einer Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Monumentalmalerei in Serbien und Makedonien (Giessen, 1976), pp. 261-276; and R. Hamann-Mac Lean and H. Hallensieben, Die Monumentalmalerei in Serbien und Makedonien vom l l . bis zum frhen 14. Jahrhundert (Giessen, 1963), pp. 16-17; pls. 6-7.

2 Introduction

patron.3 The chapter explains what can be deduced about the patrons life and aspirations; what being in Macedonia and in the town of Skopje implied; how far away, in cultural terms, both the capital and other major cities were; and what major political and ecclesiastical events of the time might have influenced the patrons decision to build a church in Macedonia. The answers to these questions, in turn, provide a basis for our understanding of many important features of Nerezis art and architecture. Built at a time when the presence of the most distinguished members of the ruling family of the Komnenoi was strongly felt in Macedonia, and located in a region of the utmost strategic importance for the Empire, the church stands as a testimony to the twelfth-century political and cultural relationship between the Byzantine capital and its province.

The second chapter addresses the architecture of the church.4 This chapter engages in a careful analysis of Nerezis plan and spatial articulation, as well as in the examination of the structural and decorative features of its exterior. The aim of the chapter is to introduce the major identifying features of the architecture of the church and to place it within the context of other Middle Byzantine monuments. Careful analysis of the church shows that the architecture of Nerezi represents a unique marriage of Constantinopolitan and local traditions. A comparative

survey indicates that Nerezi shares a number of characteristics with contemporary monuments in its own region, thus pointing to the existence of major architectural trends in this geographic area during the twelfth century. In conclusion, the chapter points out a number of peculiar architectural solutions at Nerezi which reveal the aims and aspirations of its patron, Alexios.

The input of the patron is most evident in the painted decoration of Nerezi. The examination of the painted decoration, which is the subject of chapters three and four, contains the first complete analysis of the twelfth-century images that are preserved at Nerezi.5 The third chapter examines the ico- nographic program of Nerezi as a whole for the first time.6 It relates the well known and widely published major icons of Nerezi to the unpublished images, such as those on the lower walls with their distinctive choice and grouping of saints, those in the narthex, and in the four side chapels. As a result, the cycle at Nerezi can be singled out for its innovative iconography, for the emotive richness of its content, and for its political message. All of these features are intended to emphasize the human and emotional features of the cycle and to provoke a participatory response from the viewer.

The fourth chapter examines the aesthetic qualities of the paintings at Nerezi.7 The chapter questions the tradi-

3 The studies relevant to the history of this monument were written in the first decades of this century, and are exclusively focused on the identity of the patron. The inscription found in the church identifies one Alexios Angelos Komnenos, a son of Theodora Porphyrogenneta, as the patron of the church. The information in this inscription misled some scholars, such as N. P. Kondakov and I. Snegarov, into believing that the patron of Nerezi was the son of the emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180): either the illegitimate son with his niece Theodora, or the child from his second marriage with Mary of Antioch who later became emperor Alexios II Komnenos (1180-1183). V. Markovi and I. Ivanov, however, disputed those conclusions. Markovi offered a number of hypotheses, but concluded that it was impossible to identify the patron of Nerezi, while Ivanov stated that the real patron of the church was actually Alexios Angelos, whose mother was Theodora Porphyrogenneta, a daughter of the emperor Alexios I Komnenos. Ivanovs view was further supported in an illuminating article by G. Ostrogorski on the family of the Angeli. Ostrogorski maintains that the emperor Alexios II Komnenos was born only in 1169, and that his mother was Mary of Antioch, facts which contradict the information given in the inscription, and thus preclude the possibility of his involvement in Nerezi. Moreover, he also points out, that although the mother of the illegitimate son of Manuel I was named Theodora, she was not of imperial descent, that is not a porphyrogenneta, thus again contradicting the inscription. Ostrogorskis convincing analysis establishes Alexios Angelos, the grandson of the emperor Alexios I Komnenos, as the patron of Nerezi beyond any doubt. See N. P. Kondakov, Makedoniia. Arkheologicheskoe puteshestvie (Saint Petersburg, 1909), pp. 174-176; I. Snegarov, Istoriia na Okhridskata Arkhiepiskopiia (Sofia, 1924), Vol. 1, p. 87; V. Markovi, Pravoslavno monatvo i manastiri u srednjevekovnoj Srbiji (Sremski Karlovci, 1920), p. 22; I. Ivanov, Blgarski starini iz Makedoniia (Sofia, 1970), pp. 116-118; and G. Ostrogorski, Vozvyshenie roda Angelov, in: Iubileny sbomik Russkogo arkheologicheskogo obshestva v Korolovstve Iugoslavii (Belgrade, 1936), pp. 111-129.Other information about the history of Nerezi is mostly collected from the compilations of monastic inscriptions, such as Lj. Stojanovi, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi (Belgrade, 1902-1926; reprint 1986-1987), and Ivanovs, Blgarski starini iz Makedoniia. These sources, however, do not tell us more than that the church actually existed and functioned as a monastery in post-Byzantine times.

4 Information about the architecture of Nerezi is mostly confined to brief discussions of its basic features in general studies on Byzantine architecture, and tangential treatment of a few select aspects of the architecture of the church in works on other monuments. See R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1986), pp. 376-377; C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture (New York, 1976), p. 308; S. Nenadovi, Bogorodica Ljevika. Njen postanak i njeno mesto u arhitekturi Milutinovog vremena (Belgrade, 1963), pp. 107-109; and S. uri, Architectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels in Middle Byzantine Churches, JSAH 36/2 (1977): 94-110.

5 The painted decoration is the most commonly discussed aspect of the church. Since the twelfth-century cycle was discovered and published by N. Okunev in 1926, it has received wide scholarly attention. It is important to note, however, that the earliest accounts of the program, such as those by N. Okunev, F. Messesnel, and M. Fauchon, became rather standard and were often repeated in later works. See N. Okunev, Les peintures de lglise de Nrz et leur date, in: Actes du IIIe congrs international des tudes byzantines (Athens, 1932), pp. 247-248; Idem, La dcouverte des anciennes fresques du monastre de Nrz, Slavia 6 (1927): 603-609; F. Mesesnel, Najstariji sloj fresaka u Nerezima, GSND 7/8 (1929-1930): 119-132; and M. Fauchon, Les peintures du monastre St. Panteleimon de Nrz, L'Art Sacr 6 (1938): 213-217.

6 Although iconographie features of the Nerezi cycle as a whole have not been examined, some of the images have been discussed; see G. Babi, Les discussions christologiques et le dcor des glises byzantines au XIIe sicle, Frhmittelalterliche Studien 2 (1968): 368-386; H. Maguire, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium (Princeton, 1981), pp. 53-68, 91-108; and C. Charalampidis, The Importance of the Threnos in the Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi, Cyrillomethodianum 3 (1975): 149-162. The study of D. B. Trajkovska, Za tematska programa na ivopisot vo Nerezi, Kulturno nasledstvo 22/23 (1995-1996): 7-25, appeared too late to be considered for this study.

7 Although the style of Nerezi paintings has attracted considerable scholarly attention, published studies commonly see Nerezi as a source of influence on later art, rather than as an important phenomenon per se. See Lazarev, Zhivopis XI-XII vekov v Makedonii (see footnote 1), pp. 110-115;

Introduction 3

tional concept of stylistic analysis and claims a close association between aesthetic and iconographie features of the scenes and images, both of which aimed at underlining the message of the program. While accepting the traditional opinion that the style of Nerezis paintings originated in early twelfth-century Constantinopolitan art, this chapter introduces the idea that the aesthetics of the capital had already been imported into the Balkans by the middle of the century. A close comparative analysis between Nerezi and monuments which are located in its vicinity indicates that Constantinopolitan artists were very active in Macedonia and that a number of different workshops from the capital likely resided in the region at that time and trained local artists to continue their tradition. The presence of these artists is explained through the importance that Macedonia had for twelfth-century Byzantium.

The impact of the Constantinopolitan artistic tradition is also seen in the sculpture, which is analyzed in chapter five. The sculpture at Nerezi is mostly confined to the iconostasis, reconstructed from the remains found in situ at the beginning of this century.8 The analysis of the sculpture offered here differs from earlier scholarship in the identification of the sources which may have influenced the sculpture at Nerezi.9 Close examination of the preserved sculptural fragments, including stylistic and iconographic analysis, establishes them as prime examples of the artistic tradition which originated in the capital and was widespread in the region by the twelfth century. This chapter also attempts to reconstruct the shape and form of the original iconostasis at Nerezi by comparing it to other examples of iconostases which are preserved in contemporary churches.

A brief account of the destiny of the church following the death of its patron, Alexios, is presented in chapter six, the epilogue. Turbulent historical circumstances in Macedonia, as well as a series of natural disasters necessitated several restorations of the church. These restorations resulted in a number of new painted layers, none of which

matched the beauty, prestige, and programmatic unity of the original, twelfth-century cycle. With the loss of its distinguished patron, Nerezi also lost its distinguished status in the cultural history of the region.

In concluding the discussion of Nerezi, one theme, the relationship between Constantinopolitan and provincial artistic traditions, evident in its architecture, sculpture, and paintings, deserves special attention. Previous scholars who have touched upon that problem were apparently influenced by the current geopolitical structure of the region. For example, in determining the origin of the art of Nerezi, various scholars claim that it stands as a representative of the Thessalonikan school, as an example of local artistic trends, as a distinctive Bulgarian monument, or as an example of the Constantinopolitan tradition.10

A careful examination of all aspects of the church, undertaken in this study, establishes Nerezi as the prime example of the assimilation of local and Constantinopolitan artistic trends. It seems that the military, political, and cultural expansion of Byzantium in the Balkans in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, discussed in the first chapter, affected the artistic production. Constantinopolitan artistic workshops were active in the region and trained local artists to continue their tradition. Their impact is evident in the five-domed structure of Nerezi, which clearly recalls Constantinopolitan buildings, as well as in the refinement and beauty of the style of the paintings and sculpture. Constantinopolitan artists, architects, and artisans, however, encountered a strong local tradition, evident in some aspects of architectural planning and the programmatic messages at Nerezi. Thus, rather than promoting a particular national school or artistic current, the uniqueness of Nerezi lies in the way in which different traditions are combined. The significance of this monument goes beyond its artistic merits, as structural, aesthetic, and programmatic features of Nerezi reflect both the current political and social conditions in twelfth-century Macedonia, and the identity of its patron, Alexios.

V. Djuri, La peinture murale byzantine XIIe et XIIIe sicle, in: XVe congrs, pp. 1 -96 ; L. Hadermann-Muisguich, La peinture monumentale tardo-comnne et ses prolongements au XHIe sicle, in: XVe congrs, pp. 99-127; and M. Rajkovi, Iz likovne problematike nereskog ivopisa, ZRVI 3 (1955): 195-206.

8 Like the paintings, the sculptural fragments of the iconostasis were also first discovered by N. Okunev; they were mostly scattered around the church. See N. Okunev, Altarnaia pregrada XII vieka v Nerezie, Seminarium Kondakovianum 3 (1929): 5 -23 . Subsequently, the iconostasis was reconstructed under the supervision of Dj. Bokovi. See Dj. Bokovi, La restauration rcente de l'iconostase lglise de Nerezi, Seminarium Kondakovianum 6 (1933): 157-159; Idem, Arhitektonski izvetaji. Obnova ikonostasa u Nerezima, GSND l l (1932): 221-223; Idem, Izvetaj i kratke beleke s putovanja, Starinar 6 (1931): 182-183.

9 Following the reconstruction in the early thirties, very little has been said about this sculpture. Apart from K. Petrovs study and a brief analysis by I. Nikolajevi-Stojkovi and A. Grabar, the sculpture of Nerezi is scarcely noted. See K. Petrov, Kon neispitanata protoistorija na lokalitetot Sv. Pantelejmon vo Nerezi, Godisen zbornik na Filozofskiot fakultet 7 (1981): 172-186, and Idem, Dekorativna plastika vo Makedonija vo XI i XII vek, Godisen zbornik na Filozofskiot fakultet 12 (1962): 161-168; I. Nikolajevi-Stojkovi, Prilog prouavanju vizantiske skulpture od 10. do 12. veka iz Makedonije i Srbije, ZRVI 44 (1955): 182-184; and A. Grabar, Sculptures byzantines du moyen ge (Paris, 1976), pp. 105-106. These studies postulate a wide variety of sources for the style and iconography of Nerezis sculpture: from Early Christian to Islamic art.

10 A. Xyngopoulos, Thessalonique et la peinture macdonienne (Athens, 1980), pp. 15-20; Miljkovi-Pepek, Crkvata Sv. Pantelejmon (see footnote 2), pp. 89 -91 ; and Ivanov, Blgarski starini iz Makedoniia (see footnote 3), pp. 116-118.

CHAPTER I ALEXIOS AND HIS CHURCH

WHO WAS ALEXIOS ANGELOS KOMNENOS?

The church of St. Panteleimon reflects the ambition, political aspirations, and aesthetic choices of its patron, Alexios Angelos Komnenos. Although little mentioned in written sources, either medieval or modern, Alexios was a man of significant status in twelfth-century Komnenian society. He was a grandson of the founder of the Komnenian dynasty, Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118), and he would seem to have been a twelfth-century intellectual.1

The sparse mention of Alexios in modern scholarly literature reflects the paucity of evidence about him in Byzantine sources. In fact, the only written records of his activity are the dedicatory inscription in his church, and the documents of the Church Council of 1166.2 Both sources are rather brief. However, when considered within the general context of the period, they provide answers to questions concerning the significance of Alexios as a patron of art, the importance of his foundation, and Alexios reasons for building his church in the Byzantine province of Macedonia.

1. Alexios Inscription

Alexios inscription has been preserved on the marble architrave above the main entrance into the naos of Nerezi (fig.LIX). It reads:

.3

The church o f the ho ly and ren ow n ed grea t-m artyr Panteleim on was em bellish ed w ith the contribution o f Lord Alexios Komnenos, son o f the purple-born Theodora, in the month o f September; indiction 13, 1164, Ioannikios the monk being h egoum enos.4

The inscription informs us that the church was dedicated to St. Panteleimon and decorated at the expense of Alexios Angelos Komnenos, in September of the thirteenth indiction of the year 6673 (1164), when the hegoumenos was the monk Ioannnikios. The mention of the hegoumenos (abbot) indicates that the church was part of a monastic complex, probably its katholikon.

The inscription also reveals important information about the social status and aspirations of Alexios. According to historians, Alexios Angelos Komnenos was one of five children of a military aristocrat, Konstantine Angelos, and the youngest daughter of the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, Theodora.5 The fact that Alexios mentioned only his maternal lineage in the inscription is peculiar, yet by no means surprising. During the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the traditional family structure in Byzantium changed, giving an increasing prominence to women.6 Moreover, it was also the time when lineage became a rather important factor in determining the individuals status and power. As a result, it was quite common, especially among the aristocracy, for children to use their mothers name - particularly so when the female ancestry was more distinguished than the male one.7

1 For the identity of the patron and the history of the family, see G. Ostrogorsky, Vozvyshenie roda Angelov, in: Iubileny sbornik Russkogo arkhe- ologicheskogo obshtestva v Korolovstve Iugoslavii (Belgrade, 1936), pp. I ll -129. Some limited information about Alexios can be found in K. Barzos, H genealogia tn Komnnn, 2 Vols. (Thessaloniki, 1984), Vol. 1, pp. 664-665. About Alexios activity as a Komnenian intellectual, see I. Sinkevi, Alexios Angelos Komnenos, A Patron Without History?, Gesta 35/1 (1996): 34-43.

2 For the mention of Alexios in the documents of the Church Council, see PG, s.v. Nicetae Choniate, 140, col. 253.Scholars have tentatively attributed three additional monuments to Alexios patronage. He might have been the owner of a twelfth-century seal, although this attribution remains tentative. See, G. Zacos and A. Veglery, Byzantine Lead Seals (Basel, 1972), pp. 1526-1527. Also, the controversially dated Panagiarion from Mount Athos was attributed to Alexios on the bases of its inscription. See Iu. A. Piatnickii, Alekse Angel Komnin-za- kazchik panagiara hranivshegosia v Panteleimonovskom monastyre na Afone, in: Vizantiia i vizantiskie tradicii (St. Petersburg, 1996), pp. 75-84. In addition, M. Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium Under the Comneni, 1081-1261 (Cambridge, 1995), pp.299-300, suggests that Alexios may have been the founder of the monastery of the Prodromos near Thermopylae. These contentions still need to be substantiated by more evidence.

3 TOY () () ()

4 My translation represents a revised version of the translation provided in A. J. Wharton, Art of Empire. Painting and Architecture of the Byzantine Periphery. A Comparative Study of Four Provinces (University Park, PA, 1988), p. 118. The problematic word is , translated by Wharton as to make beautifully. According to dictionaries, the word also means to make beautiful, and is translated by G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961), as to embellish. While the word embellish does not indicate that the patron actually built the church, its use in surviving dedicatory inscriptions suggests that it denoted both the building and the decoration of the church, such as is a case, for example, at Skripou; see A. C. Papalexandrou, The Church of the Virgin of Skripou: Architecture, Sculpture and Inscriptions in Ninth-Century Byzantium (Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton 1998), pp. 129-132.

5 Ostrogorsky, Vozvyshenie (see footnote 1), pp. 111 -129; and Barzos, He genealogia tn Komnnn (see footnote 1), Vol. 1, p. 665.6 See A. Laiou, The Role of Women in Byzantine Society, JOB 31/1 (1981): 233-260; and A. P. Kazhdan and A. W. Epstein, Changes in Byzantine

Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Berkeley, 1985), pp. 74-110.7 Kazhdan and Epstein, Ibid. (see footnote 6), pp. 102-104; and P. Magdalino, Byzantine Snobbery, in: The Byzantine Aristocracy IX to XIII Cen

turies, ed. by M. Angold (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 221, Oxford, 1984), pp.48-69.

Chapter I 5

2. Alexios Family

In Alexios case, a discrepancy between paternal and maternal family background is obvious. While his mother, Theodora, was a direct descendant of the imperial family, Alexios father, Konstantine, was of a rather undistinguished background.8 In fact, he received recognition and the title pansebastohypertatos only through his marriage to the princess.9 As the twelfth-century historian, Niketas Choniates, informs us, Konstantine was from Philadelphia, but was not descended from a very eminent and noble family. Robust in stature and graced with a handsome bloom on his face, Angelos took to wife Theodora (begotten to Emperor Alexios, Manuels grandfather), fortunate in having his comeliness serve as matchmaker.10

The marriage between the princess and a man of an undistinguished background did not receive much sympathy at the time. Konstantine was looked down on by the members of the imperial family and he never received the same honors as other imperial sons-in-law who were of a more distinguished descent. Even Theodora herself suffered from the unwise choice of a husband. In terms of honors and gifts she was placed much lower than other imperial daughters.11

Largely ignored during the reign of Alexios I (1081 1118) and John II (1118-1143), Alexios father, Konstantine, became an important military official during the reign of Manuel I (1143-1180). Konstantines major activity was in the Balkans.12 Three of his sons, John, Andronikos, and Isaak are also mentioned in the sources for their military involvement. Even the son of Konstantines daughter, Manuel, was known for taking a part in battles.13

No preserved written accounts indicate that Alexios, Konstantines fourth son and the patron of Nerezi, was a soldier too. Nonetheless, the presence of his church near Skopje indicates that he, like his father and brothers, might as well have resided in Macedonia. Macedonia was a region of major strategic importance to Byzantium during the decades of Alexios maturity. A brief survey of its role within the political and military economy of the Komnen- ian empire will clarify the presence there of both Alexios himself and his religious foundation.

ALEXIOS DECISION TO BUILD NEREZI AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REGION FOR BYZANTIUM

1. The Balkan Peninsula

During the eleventh and twelfth centuries the Balkan peninsula was established as a key strategic and economic region of Byzantium.14 Growth of the Byzantine economy was based mainly on agriculture, and the empire largely depended on the agricultural wealth of Greece, Macedonia, and Thrace.15 Moreover, the Balkan peninsula was also very important for communication with Western Europe, both through its seaports, such as Dyrrachium and Thessaloniki and via its major land routes; the most important highway was Via Egnatia, the road which linked the Adriatic port of Dyrrachium with Ohrid, Thessaloniki, and Constantinople (Map, p. XI). The geo-political position and its natural resources made the Balkans important to Byzantium; it was thus the preeminent goal of all Kom- nenian emperors to keep it under tight control. This is particularly true of the reign of Manuel I. While mainly concerned about the re-conquest of Asia Minor at the beginning of his reign, Manuel had focused his attention on Western Europe since the outbreak of the Second Crusade. Manuels major interests were related to South Italy and the Balkans. However, while he mostly relied on his generals and used his diplomatic connections in dealing with South Italy, Manuel was personally involved in military campaigns in the Balkans.16

2. Macedonia

Byzantine conquest of the Balkan peninsula had started in Macedonia. The battle on Mount Belaica in July 1014, in which the Byzantine Emperor Basil the Bulgar-Slayer (Bulgaroctonus) defeated the Bulgarian tzar Manuel, marked the incorporation of Macedonia into the Byzantine Empire.17 Basils victory also opened the doors for the Byzantine expansion in the Balkans, and newly acquired Byzantine territories spread from the middle and lower

8 See Ostrogorsky, Vozvyshenie (see footnote 1), pp. 113-118.9 Pansebastohypertatos was a title awarded to an imperial son-in-law. See D. Nicol, The Prosopography of the Byzantine Aristocracy, in: The

Byzantine Aristocracy IX to XIII Centuries (see footnote 7), pp. 84-85.10 See N. Choniates, O City of Byzantium. Annals of Niketas Choniates, tr. by H. J. Magoulias (Detroit, 1984), p. 55 [95].11 Ostrogorsky, Vozvyshenie (see footnote 1), pp. 113-114.12 Ibid., pp. 114-118.13 Ibid.14 The bibliography on Byzantine expansion in the Balkans is rather large. For the most important studies and a comprehensive listing of bibliography,

see P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 27-109; J. Ferluga, Byzance et les Balkans vers la fin du XIIe sicle, in: Studenica i vizantijska umetnost oko 1200 godine (Belgrade, 1988), pp. 17-24; Idem, Byzantium on the Balkans. Studies on the Byzantine Administration and the Southern Slavs from the VIIth to the XI I h Centuries (Amsterdam, 1976); J. V. A. Fine, Early Medieval Balkans (Ann Arbor, MI, 1983); R. Browning, Byzantium and Bulgaria (Berkeley, 1975); A. R. Lewis, The Danube Route and Byzantium 802-1195, in: Actes du XlVe congrs international des tudes byzantines (Bucharest, 1974), pp. 359-369; M. Dini, The Balkans, 1018-1400, in: Cambridge Medieval History. Vol. IV/1: The Byzantine Empire, ed. by J. M. Hussey (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 519-539; Andrew B. Urbansky, Byzantium and the Danube Frontier (New York, 1968); and G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, 1969), pp. 351 -418.

15 M. F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300-1450 (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 44-58.16 Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 14), p. 105.17 Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (see footnote 14), pp. 309-310.

6 Chapter I

Danube to the southern tip of Peloponnesos, and from the Black Sea to the confines of Istria. Although Byzantium did not succeed in bringing all the lands of the Balkan Peninsula under its immediate control, it maintained its dominance in the Balkans until the partition of the Empire by Latins, Bulgars, Serbs, Seljuk Turks and local Greek dynasts in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century.18

3. Manuel I in Macedonia

Komnenian emperors expended considerable efforts to consolidate the external Balkan frontier, to keep Serbia and Hungary under control, and to restore imperial rule in Dalmatia.19 Thus, the crisis which occurred on the peninsula around the middle of the twelfth century provoked Manuel I s immediate response. On the one hand, Manuel was facing a serious Norman threat by Roger II s invasion of Corfu, Corinth and Thebes in 1147.20 These towns were known as the wealthiest cities in Greece and centers of the Byzantine silk industry. On the other hand, the situation was even more alarming on the western front. The stabilized relationship with Hungary and Serbia, following the war of 1127-29, was seriously challenged by the Serbian revolt backed by Hungarians in 1149.21 The imminent threat of this upheaval was both territorial loss and the fear that Serbs and Hungarians would make alliances with his significant western rival, Frederick Barbarossa. In addition, there were rumors about the possible invasion of Epirus in 1162.22

In order to establish sovereignty in the Balkans, Manuel spent extended periods of time there in the years between 1149 and 1172. He was personally involved in many military campaigns, particularly those related to Hungary and Serbia.23 Manuels victories in the campaigns against Serbs

and Hungarians helped him maintain a powerful image as a leader; they also prevented military advancement of western European armies.

In between the battles, Manuel and his army seemingly found a safe-haven in Macedonia.24 Staying in Macedonia made Manuel close enough to the capital to follow its affairs; at the same time, the location gave him an opportunity to make quick moves to settle Serbian and Hungarian unrest as needed.25 Moreover, Manuel must have felt at home in Macedonia. By the time of Manuels rule, Byzantine political and cultural dominance was well established in Macedonia. In fact, from the ninth century onward, Macedonia represented the threshold through which Byzantines introduced not only their political, but also their cultural dominion into the Balkans.26

Like most of the conquered territories, following the defeat of 1004, Macedonia became integrated into the Byzantine Empire and divided into a number of smaller administrative units, known as themes.27 A centralized bureaucracy with a considerable military force was successfully maintained there. In order to strengthen their power within Macedonian themes, the Komnenian rulers appointed people from their own clan to the highest ecclesiastical and administrative posts.28

According to sources, Manuels favorite residence in Macedonia was the military camp in the town of Pelagonia (Bitola).29 As written by Niketas Choniates, Pelagonia for Manuel was ... an appropriate base of operations, with its flat plains suited for both an encampment and cavalry maneuvers; moreover, it was well suited for acquiring information and observing the actions of the nations with whom he was contending.30 In addition, Pelagonia was conveniently located on Via Egnatia, thus enabling Manuel to communicate efficiently both with the capital, and with the western world.

18 See footnote 14.19 See Urbansky, Byzantium and the Danube Frontier (see footnote 14), pp. 51-131; and Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote

14), pp.78-108.20 See J. Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, tr. by C. M. Brand (New York, 1976), p. 74-76; Choniates, O City of Byzantium (see foot

note 10), pp.43-47; F. Chalandon, Jean II Comnne et ManuelI Comnne, 2 Vols. (Paris, 1912), Vol. 1, pp. 317-321.21 Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus (see footnote 20), pp. 92-93; Choniates, O City of Byzantium (see footnote 10), pp. 72-78; and

Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (see footnote 14), p. 383.22 Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 14), p. 86.23 Urbansky, Byzantium and the Danube Frontier (see footnote 14), pp. 67-112; and Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 14),

pp. 78-108.24 This text refers to Macedonia as a geographic region, occupying what is now northern Greece, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, eastern

Albania, and western Bulgaria. The Byzantine thema Macedonia had different geographic boundaries. See N. Koledarov, Obrazuvane na tema Makedoniia v Trakiia, Izvestiia na Instituta za istoriia 21 (1970): 219-243; and J. Ferluga, Les insurrections des Slaves de la Macdoine au Xle sicle, in: Byzantium on the Balkans (see footnote 14), pp. 379-399.

25 Choniates, O City of Byzantium (see footnote 10), pp. 52, 58,120.26 For discussion and bibliography, see Wharton, Art of Empire (see footnote 4), pp. 91-126.27 The fragmentation of the themes which started in the eleventh century reduced some themes to the size of a town and its surrounding territories. It

was particularly the case in western Macedonia, where themes like Veroia, Skopje, and Servia were created. See Hendy, Studies (see footnote 15), pp. 429-431; and Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 14), pp. 233-234.For the development of the system of themes in the Balkans, see J. Ferluga, Quelques aspects du dveloppement du systme des thmes dans la pninsule des Balkans, in: Byzantium on the Balkans (see footnote 14), pp. 1 -2 1 ; and Idem, Ladministration byzantine en Dalmatie, in: Byzantium on the Balkans (see footnote 14), pp. 141-150.

28 Sinkevi, Alexios Angelos Komnenos (see footnote 1), p. 40.29 Manuel spent extensive periods of time in Pelagonia in 1149, 1150, and 1153. For Manuels stays in Pelagonia, see Kinnamos, Deeds of John and

Manuel Comnenus (see footnote 20), pp. 125-127; p. 246, n. 40; and Choniates, O City of Byzantium (see footnote 10), pp. 89, 91,101, 104, 211.30 See Choniates, O City of Byzantium (see footnote 10), p. 58.

Chapter I 7

4. Major Towns in the Region

Pelagonia was also in close proximity with major towns in the region, such as Skopje, Ohrid, and Thessaloniki (Map, p. XI). All three towns were located on major routes. Skopje was the most important settlement on the Naissus - Thessaloniki route, an extension which branched off from the major north-south route that linked Belgrade to Constantinople. Ohrid and Thessaloniki were located on Via Egnatia, to the west and east of Pelagonia, respectively. During the twelfth century Via Egnatia was Byzantiums major communication route with western Europe. It was used by Crusaders, Venetian merchants and western ambassadors. Even Manuels bride came by that route in 1142.31

Both Thessaloniki and Ohrid had a long history of Byzantine involvement and had undergone a significant process of Byzantine acculturation by the twelfth century. Thessaloniki was the largest port-town in Macedonia and the only megalopolis in Byzantium apart from Constantinople. The theme of Thessaloniki had existed since the ninth century, and represented an important military and political bastion for Byzantium since that time.32 The city was one of a select few which escaped the great expansion of the First Bulgarian Empire, and remained in Byzantine hands.33 As a means of strengthening their rule, Byzantines also made a significant cultural impact in the region; an affinity with artistic tendencies from the capital has been well established in Thessaloniki and its environs much before the arrival of the Komnenian clan.34

Ohrid was another important Byzantine town, located only about 125 miles north-west of Thessaloniki (Map, p. XI). The seat of the Bulgarian patriarch during Bulgarian rule, Ohrid revived the status of an autocephalous archbishopric under Byzantine rule. Byzantines, however, made sure that the archbishops chair was filled by clergy from Constantinople. Thus, Ohrid represented the most important ecclesiastical center which promoted Byzantine religious and cultural ideals in the region.35

While both Ohrid and Thessaloniki had a long history of Byzantine involvement and represented centers of Byzantine culture prior to the Komnenian rule, Skopje

was a small provincial town, distinguished much more for its administrative functions than for its cultural heritage. Throughout the Middle Ages, it was the fate of Skopje to constantly change its rulers. Between the fourth and sixth centuries, the region was invaded by Goths, Bulgarians and Slavs. Subsequently, the city was ruled by Bulgarians, Byzantines and Serbs, until its fall to Turks in 1391. An important economic and ecclesiastical center of the Bulgarian Empire in the tenth and eleventh centuries, Skopje was also the capital of the Serbian state under Tzar Duan who was crowned emperor there in 1346, and whose legal code was proclaimed in Skopje in 1349.36

DID ALEXIOS RESIDE IN SKOPJE?

1. History of Skopje

Skopje became an important town during Byzantine rule. In fact, it was the victory in the battle on the river Vardar, not far from Skopje, that gave Basil II a decisive impetus in capturing most of Samuels territory.37 Due to the betrayal of the strategos of Skopje, Romanos, Skopje, the capital of the Bulgarian State and the seat of the dux of the theme Bulgaria, fell into Byzantine hands in 1004.38 Its increased importance is evident from the fact that shortly after the Byzantine conquest, Skopje and its surroundings received a status of a theme, still attested in sources in 1198.39 The town became a seat of the autokrator strategos, to be later raised to a catepanate, and then to a duchy (ducatus). As far as its military importance is concerned, the town became an important strategic point in battles with neighboring Raka, and the emperor Alexios I Komnenos spent some time in the city on his campaigns against the Serbian neighbors.40

Apart from short periods of unrest provoked both by local upheavals under Petar Deljan in 1040 and George Vojteh in 1072, and by the Norman intrusion in 1082, the eleventh and twelfth centuries were marked by the growth and prosperity of the town.41 The Arabian geographer Idrisi, who visited Skopje around 1153, described it as a

31 Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 14), pp. 135-136.32 Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (see footnote 14), p. 194, n. 4.33 Ibid., p. 301.34 See Wharton, Art of Empire (see footnote 4), pp. 92,104-111.35 See I. Snegarov, Istoriia na Okhridskata Arkhiepiskopiia (Sofia, 1924).36 For geographic characteristics and history of Skopje and its region, see V. Kravari, Villes et villages de Macedoine occidental (Paris, 1989), pp. 142,

160-161; I. Mikulik, Skopje so okolnite tvrdini (Skopje, 1982), pp. 13-17; T. Tomoski, Skopska oblast od XI do XIV vek, in: Spomenici za sred- novekovnata i ponovata istorija na Makedonija. Vol. 1 (Skopje, 1975), pp. 54-74; and A. Deroko, Srednjevekovni grad Skoplje, Spomenik 70 (1971): 1-17.

37 Vizantijski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije. Vol. 3 (Belgrade, 1966), pp. 101 -103.38 Ibid., p. 104.39 The first known dux of Skopje was John Taroneites. See Theophylacti Achridensis Epistulae, ed. by P. Gautier (Thessaloniki, 1980), pp. 126-129. For

the development of the city of Skopje into a separate administrative unit and for earlier bibliography, see Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (see footnote 14), pp. 311 -312 ; and J. Nesbitt and N. Oikonomides, Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art (Washington, 1991), Vol. 1, p. 98.

40 Vizantijski izvori (see footnote 37), pp. 386, 388.41 For Petar Deljan, see Vizantijski izvori (see footnote 37), p. 144; for George Vojteh, see ibid., pp. 184,237-239; for Norman intrusion, see ibid., p. 381.

8 Chapter I

famous town with developed agriculture and commerce.42 Moreover, Macedonian towns, Skopje included, were very likely a place of commerce for Venetian merchants, as can be seen from the Charter signed by Emperor Alexios III and given to Venice in 1198. In that Charter, Alexios III grants the right to Venetian merchants to develop commerce with Byzantine themes, including Prounicia Scopie cum episkepsi Coriton.43

Skopje in the twelfth century was thus a significant enough town to attract a member of the imperial family, such as the patron of Nerezi, Alexios Angelos Komnenos. Located only 4 miles south-west of the town of Skopje, in the village Gorno Nerezi (Upper Nerezi), Alexios church represents one of several ecclesiastical foundations built in Skopje and its vicinity during the Komnenian era.

2. Skopje as an Ecclesiastical Center

During the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Skopje was the center of the eparchy which occupied the territory of Skopje Valley, Pinja Valley, and probably some territory of Upper Morava Valley.44 Under the jurisdiction of the autocephalous archbishopric of Ohrid, the eparchy of Skopje seemingly witnessed considerable building activity during the Komnenian period. According to sources, the major cathedral church of the eparchy, the Church of the Three-Handed Virgin, was built after the Byzantine conquest in the eleventh century.45 The church is last mentioned in sources in the seventeenth century.46 Other churches built during the eleventh and twelfth century were the Monastery of St. George-Gorgos, the church of St. Michael, and the church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi.47 Among them, only Nerezi is still extant. The preserved portions of the Typicon of the monastery of St. George- Gorgos, however, indicate that churches and monasteries in Skopje received considerable attention from members of the Byzantine imperial family during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The Typicon of the Monastery indicates

that Byzantine Emperors, Manuel I included, endowed the monastery with generous gifts of money, land and tax privileges.48

3. Alexios Relatives in and Around Skopje

The growth of Skopje during the Komnenian period, and imperial involvement in the region, make Alexios presence in Skopje and its environs quite probable. After all, Alexios would have been only one of many members of the Komnenian family who either lived or spent extensive periods of time in Macedonia during Manuels rule. The emperors cousin and Alexios close relative, Adrian-John Komnenos, was the archbishop of Bulgaria with his seat in Ohrid.49 In addition, Manuels brother-in-law, John Dalassenos Rogerios, who had a high administrative rank of a Caesar, was in charge of the theme Strumica and most lands east of the Vardar river.50 There is even a hypothesis that Alexios brother, John Angelos, was a duke of Skopje around the middle of the twelfth century and at the time when Alexios built his church.51 Moreover, as mentioned earlier, Manuel himself spent considerable time in the region.

4. Alexios and His Cousin Manuel I

Alexios presence in Skopje could also be suggested through his close association with his cousin, emperor Manuel I. Unlike his brothers who were fighting for the emperor with arms and weapons, Alexios most likely offered his support to his cousin, Manuel I, in the matters of learning and politics. The program of Alexios church, as well as his presence during the Church Council of 1166,52 testify to his intense participation in the emperors affairs, particularly those related to matters of the highest intellectual and political importance for the emperor.

42 B. Nedkov, Bulgaria i susednite zemji prez XII vek spored Idrisi (Sofia, 1960), p. 37.43 Koriton was located to the south-east of Skopje and was added to the theme Skopje in the twelfth century. See Tomoski, Skopska oblast od XI do

XIV vek (see footnote 36), p. 58, n. 14.44 Snegarov, Istoriia na Okhridskata Arkhiepiskopiia (see footnote 35), p. 476; and R. M. Gruji, Skopska mitropolija (Skopje, 1935), pp. 1 -4 .45 The church was first dedicated to the Virgin; the dedication to the Three-Handed Virgin happened in c. 1230, and is related to the miraculous icon

of the Three-handed Virgin which St. Sava brought from Jerusalem and gave to the cathedral church of Skopje (Gruji, Skopska mitropolija (see footnote 44), p. 34). The earliest source which mentions the cathedral of Skopje as the church of the Three-handed Virgin is the Charter issued by King Milutin to the monastery of St. George-Gorgos; see V. Moin et al. Gramota na krai Milutin, in: Spomenici za sre dnov ekovnata iponovata istorija na Makedonija (Skopje, 1975), p. 214 (ll).

46 Deroko, Srednjevekovni grad Skopje (see footnote 36), p. 10.47 See Idem; see also V. Markovi, Pravoslavno monatvo i manastiri u srednjevekovnoj Srbiji (Sremski Karlovci, 1920), pp. 21 -24.48 The Typicon of St. George-Gorgos has been published in V. Moin et al. Gramoti na manastirot Sv. Georgi-Gorg Skopski, in: Spomenici za sred-

novekovnata iponovata istorija na Makedonija, pp. 97-241. For a discussion about this monastery, see R. Gruji, Vlastelinsto Svetog Djordja kod Skoplja od X I-X V veka, GSND 1 (1925): 45-75; see also K. Petrov, Pregled na sakralnite spomenici vo Skopje i okolinata od XI do XIX vek, in: Spomenici za sre dnov ekovnata i ponovata istorija na Makedonija, p. 76.

49 M. Angold, Church and Society Under the Comneni (see footnote 2), pp. 173-174; and H. Gelzer, Der Patriarchat von Achrida. Geschichte und Urkunden (Leipzig, 1902), pp. 8 -9 .

50 B. Ferjani, Apanani posedi kesara Jovana Rogerija, ZRVI 12 (1983): 193-201; and E. Jeffreys, Western Infiltrations of the Byzantine Aristocracy: Some Suggestions, in: The Byzantine Aristocracy (see footnote 7), pp. 202-211.

51 M. Bokoski, Vizantijski peat Jovana Komnina, duksa Skopja, ZRVI 22 (1983): 38-40. This view was, however, opposed by Oikonomides. See Nesbitt and Oikonomides, Catalogue of Byzantine Seals, Vol. 1, p. 98.

52 See footnotes 1, 2 above.

Chapter I 9

Manuel I Komnenos was distinguished both as a statesman and as an emperor who took an exceptionally active role in church affairs. Unlike his predecessors, Manuel not only involved himself in questions related to political aspects of the church, but expressed significant interest and claimed competence in the issues concerning dogmatic questions of the Orthodox faith. His involvement in the questions of Christian dogma is particularly evident in the documents of the Church Councils of Constantinople held between 1154 and in 1166.53 The Councils, in a general sense, dealt with the controversy related to the consub- stantial nature of Christ and to the questions of hypostatic union. During these Councils, Manuel took an active role in arguing the dogma, presiding over sessions, and anathematizing his opponents. In fact, in the case of the Council of March 2, 1166, Manuel convened the Council, imposed his views upon the majority of participants, and countered opposition with an imperial edict which legally demanded adherence to his theological views.54 What is more, in the absence of public support, Manuel brought members of his own family to help promulgate his ideas. According to the sources, the room was filled with the members of the Komnenian family.

The documents of the Council of 1166 indicate that the patron of Nerezi, Alexios Angelos Komnenos, was present in support of the Emperor during the Council. That Alexios was more than a mere Komnenian family partisan at the Council is shown by the cycle he installed in his church. The painted program of Nerezi is distinguished for its political content which reveals many of the ideas promulgated by the emperor, as will be discussed in subsequent chapters. While Manuel took a rather aggressive approach in church debates of his time, Alexios, most likely, propagated his cousin s ideas in the church. Macedonia, a region of utmost strategic and economic importance for the empire, where Byzantines manifested both their political and their cultural influence, and where Manuel spent long periods of time, surrounded both by the members of his army and his family, certainly was a good location for such a monument.

WHY WOULD ALEXIOS CHOOSE A PROVINCIAL LOCATION FOR HIS FOUNDATION ?

1. Komnenian Aristocratic Foundations in the Provinces

The presence of an aristocratic foundation in the province, far remote from the capital, is by no means unusual during the Komnenian era. Komnenian rule marked the rise of aristocracy in Byzantium. Aristocratic monastic foundations, in general, were a distinguished sign of social prestige. At the same time, they granted spiritual awards to their founders, assuring the patron and his family of well being and forgiveness of all sins in the afterlife. This is at least suggested by the surviving Typica which constantly emphasize the importance of the prayers for and commemoration of the lay patrons by the monks serving the monasteries.55 Aristocratic foundations were equally popular in the capital and in the provinces.

The expansion of provincial aristocratic foundations during the reign of the Komneni, however, is also related to political and economic reasons. Komnenian rulers paid particular attention to providing resources for the members of the imperial clan. A very popular way in which this goal was achieved was awarding of control over large estates, especially in the provinces, to family members. The members of the clan were provided with a share of the revenues of the state, most commonly by being given the authority to collect the state taxation over defined areas.56 The gift of land to a member of the family took care of the support of the clan, kept wealth within the family, while at the same time maintaining the state control over the resources in the provinces.

Due to its important geo-political status for the empire, and its natural resources, Macedonia had a significant concentration of large estates during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.57 It is well known, for example, that Manuel gave Kastoria to his cousin Andronikos (1153), and that he presented his son-in-law, John Renier, with considerable properties of the theme Thessaloniki.58

Equally important were the gifts of estates to distinguished members of the military aristocracy, in return for their service to the country. For example, a military com-

53 For the text of the Synodikon and discussion about the Councils, see J. Gouillard, Le Synodikon de lOrthodoxie: dition et commentaire, TM 2 (1967): 1-298; See also Choniates, O City of Byzantium (see footnote 10), pp. 119-121; Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus (see footnote 20), pp. 135-136; Chalandon,Jean II Comnne et Manuel I Comnne (see footnote 20), pp. 640-643, 646-652.

54 See C. Mango, The Concilar Edict of 1166, DOP 17 (1963): 317-330.55 For a discussion on aristocratic monastic patronage and extensive bibliography, see J. P. Thomas, Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Em

pire (Washington, D. C., 1987), pp. 167-244; Angold, Church and Society Under the Comneni (see footnote 2), pp. 265-385; Epstein and Kazhdan, Change in Byzantine Culture (see footnote 6), pp. 103-104; and R. Morris, The Byzantine Aristocracy and the Monasteries, in: The Byzantine Aristocracy (see footnote 7), pp. 158-173.For a discussion on the Typica, see C. Galatariotou, Byzantine Ktetorika Typika: A Comparative Study, REB 45 (1987): 77-138.

56 Hendy, Studies (see footnote 15), pp. 85-90.57 Ibid., pp. 85-86. Hendy, however, questions whether the sources indicate the theme Macedonia or the geographic region, since the two did not co

incide in the twelfth century. Hendys conclusions about the distribution of magnates are questioned by Magdalino, who claims that Hendy placed too much emphasis upon the number of large estates in the Balkans and believes that similar estates existed in other regions of the empire. See Magdalino, Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (see footnote 14), pp. 160-171.

58 Hendy, Studies (see footnote 15), p. 88.

10 Chapter I

mander and diplomat, George Palaiologos, received some property in Constantinople,59 and the grand domestic, George Pakourianos, the commander-in-chief during the reign of Alexios I Komnenos, received large estates in Bulgaria.60

Commonly, newly awarded land-owners would choose to build or restore monasteries on their estates. For example, George Palaiologos built the monastery of St. Demetrios in Constantinople; general Manuel Boutoumites founded and supported the Kykko monastery on Cyprus; and George Pakourianos founded and richly endowed the monastery of Theotokos Petritzi- otissa near Philippopolis.61 In addition, well known among the provincial imperial foundations is the Church of the Virgin Kosmosoteira in Pherrai, founded by Isaak Komnenos, a son of the emperor Alexios I.62 Nerezi was also most likely built on the estate given to its patron by the emperor. That is at least suggested by the fact that it is mentioned as episkepsis in the territorial descriptions in the Byzantine-Venetian Treaty of 1198.63 The term episkepsis was applied in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries to an estate that belonged to the state or under the governance of a member of the imperial clan, yet to a certain degree possessed an independent status.64

2. Financing Nerezi

Like many ecclesiastical buildings in Macedonia, Nerezi too was most likely supported by imperial resources. Manuel I was extremely generous to provincial foundations throughout the Empire, and his lavish contributions to monasteries, especially those in the Holy Land, have been discussed by scholars.65 Considering Macedonia, Manuel only continued the benevolent practices of his predecessors. The Typicon of the monastery of Virgin Eleousa at Veljusa and the Charters issued by emperors Alexios I Komnenos and Manuel I, indicate that Manuel granted considerable gifts to the monastery, not only financial donations, but also land, tax privileges, and legal rights.66 The sources also inform us that Manuel generously endowed the Archbishopric of Ohrid, a fact which should not be sur

prising considering that the archbishop of Ohrid, Adrian- John Komnenos, was Manuels cousin. It has also been noted earlier that Manuel granted many rights and privileges to the Monastery of St. George-Gorgos near Skopje.

3. The Importance of Provincial Foundations

The imperial generosity towards provincial foundations illuminates the importance of provincial religious establishments. As has been pointed out by scholars, the church was an important factor in disseminating and maintaining Byzantine authority. Ecclesiastical authority in the provinces provided an element of continuity in the governing structure of Byzantium, and thus represented a well known means of strengthening imperial power in the provinces. While tenure of secular authorities was limited to only several years, most of the ecclesiastical authorities held life-long appointments, giving the church a prominent status in the Byzantine provinces.67

Imperial donations to provincial ecclesiastical foundations certainly helped strengthen the benevolent spirit of ecclesiastical circles and the faithful towards the ruling family. That benevolence was further supported by the presence of high church officials and active lay patrons who were important members of the imperial clan, such as Alexios and his cousins. Thus, Alexios decision to built a monastery away from the capital is by no means surprising.

As an aristocratic foundation in a Byzantine province, Nerezi reflects a trend which was common during Kom- nenian period. Much more interesting than its geographic location are Alexios aesthetic and programmatic choices seen in the architecture and painted decoration of the church. The sheer beauty and provocative content of the painted decoration, contained within the small, intimate interior of the church, reflect Alexios high social status, his refined intellect, and above all, his familiarity with the politics of Manuel I. It will be the task of the subsequent chapters to examine the ways in which Alexios aspirations and ideals reverberated before the eyes of contemporary beholders.

59 Angold, Church and Society under the Comneni (see footnote 2), p. 299.60 For the actual value of the property, see Hendy, Studies (see footnote 15), pp. 212-216.61 For a brief discussion and extended bibliography, see Angold, Church and Society under the Comneni (see footnote 2), pp. 274, 30362 Ibid., p. 286.63 G. L. F. Tafel and G. M. Thomas, Urkunden zur lteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig, 3 Vols. (Vienna, 1956-57), Vol. 1,

pp. 258-72.64 Hendy, Studies (see footnote 15), p. 89.65 See A. W. Carr, The Mural Paintings of Abu Ghosh and the Patronage of Manuel Comnenus in the Holy Land, in: Crusader Art in the Twelfth

Century, ed. by J. Folda (BAR International Series, 152, 1982), pp. 215-243.66 See L. Petit, Le monastre de Notre Dame de Piti en Macdoine, IRAIK 6 (1900): 1-153; and P. Miljkovi-Pepek, Veljusa: Manastir Sv. Bo

gorodica Milostiva vo seloto Veljusa kraj Strumica (Skopje, 1981).67 J. Herrin, Realities of Byzantine Provincial Government: Hellas and Peloponnesos 1180-1205, DOP 29 (1975): 253-284.

CHAPTER II ARCHITECTURE

INTRODUCTION

Nerezi is a small, cruciform church, 15.90 m long by 9.60 m wide (pls. 1 -7c; figs. I-VI; 1-12). Irregular in its layout, the church is of a rhomboidal, rather than a standard rectangular form (pi. I).1 The interior of Nerezi is composed of a cruciform naos, a bema, a narthex and four side chapels located between the arms of the cross. Its exterior, considerably restored since the erection of the church in the twelfth century, displays an odd combination of a variety of building techniques which, in turn, reveal more about the history of the structure than about the initial appearance of the church (figs. I-VI; 1-11). Only the presence of five domes, which crown the church and represent its most distinguished architectural feature, seemingly recall the original intent of its builder (pi. 2 a; fig. VI). A hallmark of Constantinopolitan architecture, the constellation of five domes relates Nerezi to some of the famous imperial churches of the Byzantine capital.

In discussing the architecture of the church, the various components of the building will be examined on an individual basis, beginning with an analysis of the interior spaces. Subsequently, we will examine the exterior articulation of the church, techniques and materials used in its construction, and the decorative elements on the facades. Moreover, since the eastern side chapels represent a part of the sanctuary and the western chapels show a close spatial and. functional relationship to the narthex, the chapels will be considered integrally with those larger entities.

PLAN AND SPATIAL ARTICULATION

1. Naos: Analysis

The naos, in a manner characteristic of Byzantine architecture, occupies the central part of the church (pis. 1, 2;

figs. VII-VIII). To the east, it communicates with the sanctuary; to the west, it opens into the narthex. The naos consists of 4 bays: the central, domed bay and three barrel- vaulted arms of the cross. The central bay of the naos is square, measuring 3.80 m by 3.80 m, while the north, south, and west arms of the cross measure 3.80 m by 2.20 m. The eastern arm of the cross is incorporated into the sanctuary and is separated from the