Vasileios Marinis - Architecture and Ritual in The Churches of Constantinople - Ninth To Fifteenth Centuries-Cambridge University Press (2014)

ARCHITECTURE AND RITUAL IN THE CHURCHES OF
CONSTANTINOPLE
This book examines the interchange of architecture and ritual in the

Middle and Late Byzantine churches of Constantinople (ninth to ifteenth
centuries). It employs archaeological and archival data, hagiographic and
historical sources, liturgical texts and commentaries, and monastic typika
and testaments to integrate the architecture of the Medieval churches of
Constantinople with liturgical and extraliturgical practices and their con-
tinuously evolving social and cultural context. The book argues against the
approach that has dominated Byzantine studies: that of functional deter-
minism, the view that architectural form always follows liturgical function.
Instead, proceeding chapter by chapter through the spaces of the Byzantine
church, it investigates how architecture responded to the exigencies of the
rituals and how church spaces eventually acquired new uses. The church
building is described in the context of the culture and people whose needs
it was continually adapted to serve. Rather than viewing churches as frozen
in time (usually the time when the last brick was laid), this study argues
that they were social constructs and so were never inished, but they were
continually evolving.
Vasileios Marinis is assistant professor of Christian art and architecture at

the Institute of Sacred Music and the Divinity School, Yale University.
Marinis has been the recipient of numerous grants and fellowships, includ-
ing the Aidan Kavanagh Prize for Outstanding Scholarship at Yale; a Junior
Fellowship at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, D.C.; the S. C. and P. C.
Coleman Senior Fellowship at the Metropolitan Museum of Art; and a
membership at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He has pub-
lished on a variety of topics, ranging from Early Christian tunics decorated
with New Testament scenes to Medieval tombs and Byzantine transvestite
nuns. Before coming to Yale he was the irst holder of the Kallinikeion
Chair of Byzantine Art at Queens College, CUNY.
ARCHITECTURE
AND RITUAL IN
THE CHURCHES OF
CONSTANTINOPLE
NINTH TO FIFTEENTH CENTURIES
VASILEIOS MARINIS
The Institute of Sacred Music, Yale University
32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473, USA
Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of
education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107040168
© Vasileios Marinis 2014
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2014
Printed in the United States of America
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data
Marinis,Vasileios, 1975–
Architecture and ritual in the churches of Constantinople: ninth to ifteenth centuries /
Vasileios Marinis, Assistant Professor of Christian Art and Architecture, The Institute of
Sacred Music,Yale University.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-107-04016-8 (hardback)
1. Architecture and society – Turkey – Istanbul – History – To 1500. 2. Liturgy and
architecture – Turkey – Istanbul – History – To 1500. 3. Church architecture – Turkey –
Istanbul – History – To 1500. 4. Architecture, Byzantine – Turkey – Istanbul. 5. Rites and
ceremonies – Byzantine Empire. 6. Istanbul (Turkey) – Buildings, structures, etc. I. Title.
NA 2543.S 6M 359 2013
726.5094961 – dc23 2013027342
ISBN 978-1-107-04016-8 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
URL s for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication
and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
Publication of this book has been aided by a grant from the Yale Institute of Sacred Music
and with the assistance of The Frederick W. Hilles Publication Fund at Yale University.
For Örgü
From these predecessors I learned that the right to heap immoder-
ate lyrical praise on Istanbul’s beauties belongs only to those who no
longer live there, and not without some guilt: for the writer who talks
of the city’s ruins and melancholy is never unaware of the ghostly
light that shines down on his life.
Pamuk 2006: 57
CONTENTS
List of Illustrations page ix

Acknowledgments xv
Map of Churches xvii
INTRODUCTION 1
1 LITURGICAL RITUAL: THE SHAPE AND DEVELOPMENT

OF THE BYZANTINE RITE 10
2 THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON 25
3 THE NAOS 49
4 THE NARTHEX AND THE EXONARTHEX 64
5 SUBSIDIARY SPACES: CHAPELS, OUTER AMBULATORIES,

OUTER AISLES, CRYPTS, ATRIA, AND RELATED SPACES 77
6 NONLITURGICAL USE OF CHURCHES 100
CONCLUSION 114
Appendix: Catalogue of Churches 119

Glossary of Terms 209
Bibliography 211
Index 235
vii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1 Hagia Sophia, plan page 12

2 Hagia Sophia, interior looking east 13
3 Distribution of monastic foundations in Constantinople,
330–550 17
4 Distribution of monastic foundations in Constantinople,
800–1204 18
5 Angels vested as clergy participating in the Great Entrance,
Church of the Peribleptos, Mystras 22
6 Tokalı Kilise, Cappadocia 38
7 Theotokos Skripou, Orchomenos 39
8 Pantokrator monastery, reconstruction of the templon of
south church 42
9 Katholikon of Hosios Loukas monastery, interior looking east 44
10 Fatih Camii, Trilye, plan 51
11 Theotokos Kamariotissa, Heybeliada, plan 53
12 Katholikon of Hosios Loukas, narthex, Christ washing the feet of
the Apostles 72
13 Frontispiece to the Hamilton Psalter 102
14 Chora, narthex, Deisis with Isaac Komnenos (left) and Maria
Palaiologina (right) 103
15 Monks in church, Cod. Sin. gr. 418, fol. 269r 107
I Hagios Andreas EN TE KRISEI (Koca Mustafa Paş a Cami̇i̇)

I-1 Hagios Andreas en te Krisei (Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii),
hypothetical reconstruction of the original plan 120
I-2 South façade 121
I-3 Interior of the naos looking east 121
I-4 View from the naos looking northwest 122
I-5 Interior of the narthex looking south 122
II Ati̇k Mustafa Paş a Cami̇i̇

II-1 Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii, hypothetical reconstruction of the
original plan 124
II-2 Longitudinal section 124
II-3 View from the southeast 125
II-4 View from the naos toward the bema 125
II-5 The southwest upper room 126
ix
x LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
III Ayakapi Church

III-1 Ayakapı Church, plan 127
III-2 View from the northeast 127
IV Beyazit Church D
IV-1 Beyazıt Church D, hypothetical reconstruction of the
original plan 128
V Boğ dan Saray i

V-1 Boğdan Sarayı, plan 130
V-2 View from the northeast 130
VI Christos tes Choras (Kari̇ye M ü zesi̇)

VI-1 Christos tes Choras (Kariye Müzesi), plan of the current state 133
VI-2 View from the west 134
VI-3 Interior of the main church looking east 134
VI-4 View of the main apse loor during excavations 135
VI-5 Interior of the narthex looking south 135
VI-6 Interior of the funerary chapel looking east 136
VI-7 The tomb of Michael Tornikes in the funerary chapel 136
VI-8 Southern apsidal room looking north 137
VI-9 Ground loor of the north annex looking east 137
VII Christos Pantepoptes (Eski̇ i̇maret Cami̇i̇)

- aret Camii), hypothetical
VII-1 Christos Pantepoptes (Eski Im
reconstruction of the ground plan during the Late Byzantine
period 139
VII-2 Hypothetical reconstruction of the plan at gallery level 140
VII-3 View from the southeast 140
VII-4 Interior looking west 141
VII-5 Interior of the narthex looking north 141
VII-6 Interior of the gallery looking south 142
VII-7 View toward the naos from the southern room of the gallery 142
VIII Christos Pantokrator (Zeyrek Cami̇i̇)

VIII-1 Christos Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii), plan 144
VIII-2 View of the complex from the east 145
VIII-3 South church, interior looking east 145
VIII-4 Remains of the synthronon in the apse of the south church 146
VIII-5 South church diakonikon, marble shelves 147
VIII-6 South church, remains of the south exterior aisle 147
VIII-7 South church, interior looking west 148
VIII-8 Outer narthex of the south church looking north 148
VIII-9 North church, interior looking west 149
VIII-10 North church, narthex gallery looking north 149
VIII-11 Chapel of Saint Michael, interior looking west 150
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xi
IX Emi̇nönü Church
IX-1 Eminönü Church, plan 151
IX-2 View of the main apse 151
X Hagios Georgios TON MANGANON

X-1 Hagios Georgios ton Manganon, plan 153
XI G ül Cami̇i̇
XI-1 Gül Camii, hypothetical reconstruction of the plan at
ground-loor level 155
XI-2 Hypothetical reconstruction of the plan at gallery level 155
XI-3 View from the northeast 156
XI-4 Interior looking east 156
XI-5 Interior looking north 157
XI-6 Prothesis 157
XI-7 South gallery from the west 158
XII Hagios Ioannes EN TO TROULLO (H i rami̇ Ahmet Paş a Cami̇i̇)

XII-1 Hagios Ioannes en to Troullo (Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii),
reconstruction of the original plan 159
XII-2 View from the southeast 160
XII-3 Interior looking east 160
XII-4 Interior looking north 161
XII-5 Diakonikon 161
XIII i̇sa Kapi Mesci̇di̇

XIII-1 İsa Kapı Mescidi, plan 162
XIII-2 View of the bema from the west 163
XIV Kalenderhane Cami̇i̇

XIV-1 Kalenderhane Camii, plan 164
XIV-2 View from the south 165
XIV-3 Interior looking south 165
XIV-4 Interior looking northeast 166
XIV-5 Melismos chapel 166
XV Kefeli̇ Mesci̇di̇
XV-1 Kefeli Mescidi, plan 168
XV-2 View from the northeast 168
XV-3 Interior looking north 169
XVI Manasti r Mesci̇di̇

XVI-1 Manastır Mescidi, hypothetical reconstruction of the
original plan 170
XVI-2 View from the southeast 170
XVI-3 Interior looking east 171
XVI-4 Interior of the narthex looking north 171
xii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
XVII Myrelaion (Bodrum Cami̇i̇)

XVII-1 Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii), plan of the church
(reconstruction) and substructure 172
XVII-2 View from the northwest 173
XVII-3 Interior looking east 173
XVII-4 Vaulting of the diakonikon 174
XVII-5 Interior of the substructure looking west 174
XVIII Odalar Cami̇i̇

XVIII-1 Odalar Camii, reconstructed plan of the irst church 176
XVIII-2 Reconstructed plan of the second church 176
XVIII-3 Plan of the crypt 176
XIX Sekbanbaş i Mesci̇di̇

XIX-1 Sekbanbaşı Mescidi, hypothetical reconstruction of the plan 178
XIX-2 View from the east 178
XX Si̇nan Paş a Mesci̇di̇

XX-1 Sinan Paşa Mescidi, view from the north 179
XX-2 View of the apse 180
XXI Si̇rkeci̇ Church

XXI-1 Sirkeci Church, plan 181
XXI-2 View of the site 181
XXII Ş eyh Murat Mesci̇di̇

XXII-1 Ş eyh Murat Mescidi, south façade 182
XXIII Theotokos TOU LIBOS and Hagios Ioannes Prodromos

TOU LIBOS(Fenari̇ i̇sa Cami̇i̇)
XXIII-1 Monastery tou Libos (Fenari İsa Camii), ground
plan of the complex 184
XXIII-2 Ground plan of the north church, reconstruction 185
XXIII-3 North façade of the north church, reconstruction 185
XXIII-4 Ground plan of the complex, reconstruction 186
XXIII-5 Plan of the complex at gallery level, reconstruction 186
XXIII-6 View of the complex from the northeast 187
XXIII-7 North church, part of the dedicatory inscription 187
XXIII-8 Main apse of the north church 188
XXIII-9 North church, vaulting of the prothesis 188
XXIII-10 North church, interior looking north 189
XXIII-11 Southeast roof chapel looking east 189
XXIII-12 Southwest roof chapel, apse 190
XXIII-13 South church, interior looking east 190
XXIII-14 West arm of the outer ambulatory looking north 191
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xiii
XXIV Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethi̇ye Cami̇i̇)

XXIV-1 Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii), plan
(reconstruction) 193
XXIV-2 General view of the complex from the southwest 194
XXIV-3 Interior of the main church looking west 194
XXIV-4 Northern arm of the outer ambulatory looking east 195
XXIV-5 Northern arm of the outer ambulatory, niche with shelves
at the north wall of the easternmost bay 195
XXIV-6 Interior of the funerary chapel, view toward the dome 196
XXIV-7 Interior of the funerary chapel looking north 197
XXIV-8 Funerary chapel, Deisis in the main apse 198
XXIV-9 Funerary chapel, gallery above narthex looking south 198
XXV Theotokos Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa

XXV-1 Theotokos Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa, plan
(reconstruction) 199
XXV-2 View from the east 200
XXV-3 Interior looking north 200
XXVI Theotokos Peribleptos

XXVI-1 Theotokos Peribleptos, plan of the substructures 202
XXVII Toklu Dede Mesci̇di̇

XXVII-1 Toklu Dede Mescidi, reconstructed plan 203
XXVII-2 South wall and apse 203
XXVIII Vefa Ki̇li̇se Cami̇i̇

XXVIII-1 Vefa Kilise Camii, plan 204
XXVIII-2 View from the east 205
XXVIII-3 View from the south 206
XXVIII-4 View from the north (base of the belfry tower) 206
XXVIII-5 Interior looking east 207
XXVIII-6 Exonarthex, interior looking south 207
XXIX Yeni̇kapi Church

XXIX-1 Yenikapı Church, view from the northeast 208
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
At the end of this arduous journey it is one of the most gratifying of pleasures to
look back and acknowledge those who lent a helping hand along the way. I have
beneited from the expertise of several colleagues: Alice-Mary Talbot, Helen C.
Evans, Georgi R. Parpulov, Kostis Kourelis, Ayça Tiryaki, Özgü Çömezoğlu,
Viktoria Kepetzi, Sarah T. Brooks, Günder Varinlioğlu, Matthew Savage, Deb
Brown, Marina Mihaljević, Ludmila Gordon, Sonja Anderson, Brandon Olson,
Nina Glibetić, and Robert Nelson. Stefanos Alexopoulos and Gabriel Radle
saved me from many errors in the irst chapter. I beneited tremendously from
the advice of Linda Safran, who was involved in this project from its incep-
tion. Slobodan Cur ́ čić read the inal manuscript and ofered many crucial sug-
gestions. Stavros Mamaloukos shared liberally his contagious enthusiasm for
Byzantine architecture. I am indebted to him, as well as to Christina Pinatsi,
for the drawings that accompany the Appendix. Joel Kalvesmaki taught me the
importance of clarity. Every single discussion, academic or otherwise, I have had
with Emmanuel Bourbouhakis has been illuminating; indeed, it was through
these that I crystallized my main arguments. Robert Ousterhout made me fall
in love with Istanbul – a perilous inheritance for sure, but most rewarding. This
book would have been very poor without his mentorship and generosity.
This project would not have been completed in a timely manner had it not
been for the delights and comforts of working at Yale. Christopher Beeley,
Chloë Faith Starr, Peter Hawkins, Thomas Troeger, Teresa Berger, Stephen
Davis, and Markus Rathey ofered sound advice, good cheer, and fruitful con-
versations. I am particularly indebted to Martin Jean, who has been an enthusi-
astic supporter of my research for many years and on many levels. Sally Promey,
my formidable faculty mentor, ofered unwavering guidance through this and
many other academic endeavors. I owe whatever I know about liturgy to my
continuing apprenticeship with Bryan Spinks, and I do hope that he inds
this book to his liking. The capable staf at Sterling Memorial Library and
the Divinity School Library always dealt with my requests – some admittedly
extravagant – in a timely and eicient manner. The ISM staf, particularly
Andrea Hart and Jacqueline Campoli, took care of many practical issues. Meg
Bernstein and Erik Yingling, my research assistants, helped considerably in the
last stages of this project.
xv
xvi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Research and ieldwork for the project were generously funded by

Dumbarton Oaks, the Pontiical Institute of Mediaeval Studies in Toronto, the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Institute of Sacred Music at Yale. I com-
pleted most of the writing while I was a member at the Institute for Advanced
Study in Princeton, where I beneited from exchanges with Yve-Alain Bois,
Angelos Chaniotis, and Irving Lavin. During that year and subsequently I
often took advantage of Ioannis Mylonopoulos’s acute intellect and encyclo-
pedic knowledge of Classical antiquity.
For permission to reproduce photographs I thank Thomas F. Mathews,
Catherine Jolivet-Lévy, Scott F. Johnson, and Ferudun Özgümüş, as well as
the staf at the Dumbarton Oaks Image Collection and Fieldwork Archives,
at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, and at the Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut in Istanbul.
Finally, I thank my extended family in Greece and Turkey for their contin-
uous enthusiasm and support. I am especially grateful to Eugenia Marini for
her uncompromising love, and to Kadriye Dalgıç for many brilliant moments
of respite. Daphne arrived after the completion of the manuscript but made
everything much more delightful. This book is for Örgü, my lovely and beau-
tiful companion.
V. M.
Map of Churches. I. Hagios Andreas en te Krisei (Koca Mustafa Pasça Camii); II. Atik Mustafa Pasça Camii;
III. Ayakapı Church; IV. Beyazıt Church D; V. Bog6dan Sarayı; VI. Christos tes Choras (Kariye Müzesi);
VII. Christos Pantepoptes (Eski I-maret Camii); VIII. Christos Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii); IX. Eminönü
Church; X. Hagios Georgios ton Manganon; XI. Gül Camii; XII. Hagios Ioannes en to Troullo (Hırami
Ahmet Pasça Camii); XIII. I-sa Kapı Mescidi; XIV. Kalenderhane Camii; XV. Kefeli Mescidi; XVI. Manastır
Mescidi; XVII. Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii); XVIII. Odalar Camii; XIX. Sekbanbasçı Mescidi; XX. Sinan
Pasça Mescidi; XXI. Sirkeci Church; XXII. Sçeyh Murat Mescidi; XXIII. Theotokos tou Libos and Hagios
Ioannes Prodromos tou Libos (Fenari I-sa Camii); XXIV. Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii); XXV.
Theotokos Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa; XXVI. Theotokos Peribleptos; XXVII. Toklu Dede Mescidi;
XXVIII. Vefa Kilise Camii; XXIX. Yenikapı Church.
xvii
INTRODUCTION
This book examines the interchange of architecture and ritual in the Middle
and Late Byzantine churches of Constantinople, those dating between the
ninth and ifteenth centuries. I begin with the obvious and perhaps for that
reason often misconstrued premise that because churches were constructed
primarily to house ecclesiastical services, knowledge of the latter is essential
to any interpretation of the former. The organizational layout of the parts that
composed a church corresponded on a basic level to the requirements of the
oicial rituals they housed. That said, the exact nature of the relationship of
architecture and liturgy is surprisingly diicult to pin down. Both buildings
and rites transformed over time, as did the interchange between them. Thus,
throughout the book I argue against the approach that has dominated the
study of Byzantine church architecture, namely, that of functional determin-
ism – the view that “form follows function,” that architectural form necessarily
follows the shape of the liturgy.
Proceeding chapter by chapter through the interior spaces of the Byzantine
church, I investigate how and why spaces were used. In doing so, I concentrate
on the diferent ways architecture responded to the exigencies of liturgical
rituals, but I am also concerned with how some parts of the church func-
tioned apart from the liturgy, occasionally acquiring new or diferent uses.
Architectural forms, along with evolutions in their use, were sometimes based
on developments in the Byzantine rite and sometimes not. Many factors might
have contributed to the form of the buildings as seen today: the symbolic
1
2 THE CHURCHES OF CONSTANTINOPLE
interpretation and signiicance of a space, the agenda and desires of founders

and patrons, and the needs of the community that used the church, not to
mention practicalities such as budget, availability of materials, or workshop
practices.Thus, rather than viewing church buildings as static structures, frozen
in time by the laying of last brick or tessera, I argue that Byzantine churches
were material as well as open-ended social constructs and so were never in-
ished, but they were continually in the process of becoming. This is apparent
not only in the written sources but also in the material evidence: interior
spaces were rearranged, their symbolism and importance changed, chapels and
ambulatories were added. Within that changing framework, the most funda-
mental way for a church to “become” remained the rituals, both liturgical and
nonliturgical, that developed in its spaces.
The thirty-odd surviving Medieval churches in Istanbul are the foundation
of these inquiries.1 They constitute the material context and, frequently, stand
as an expression of the rituals they housed. Although earlier buildings contin-
ued to function throughout the Byzantine period, I focus almost exclusively
on churches constructed after the ninth century, because they best embodied
contemporary ritual and relected architectural developments. I refer to pre-
ninth-century foundations only for the sake of contrast and comparison, with
the exception of Hagia Sophia (Figs. 1, 2).The Great Church stood at the cen-
ter of the ritual life of the city throughout its history, and both its architectural
presence and its recorded rites are essential components of my study.
When considering the hundreds of new foundations in Constantinople
known from the sources in the Middle (843–1261) and Late Byzantine periods
(1261–1453), the present sample may seem limited. Yet the variety in dates of
construction, types, sizes, interior arrangements, and functions does permit
some generalized, albeit cautious, conclusions. Nevertheless, the material evi-
dence remains problematic. The buildings have survived in various states of
preservation. Many are still standing, but others have become piteous ruins
or have completely disappeared and are known to us primarily through the
work of pioneer scholars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.2 Virtually
no building has remained in a state that would have been recognizable in the
Byzantine period. They now stand irremediably altered and out of context,
odd presences in the sprawling megalopolis of present-day Istanbul, devoid
of their original architectural and natural settings. After the Ottoman con-
quest of Constantinople in 1453, the vast majority of the churches were grad-
ually turned into mosques at some point or another. Because Muslim worship
required an interrupted uniied space, the interior arrangements were altered
1
I restrict myself to the buildings surviving in the historical peninsula because they constitute
a closed sample. However, I employ as parallels foundations in nearby areas.
2
See, for example, Boğdan Sarayı (V), Hagios Georgios ton Manganon (X), and Şeyh Murat
Mescidi (XXII).
INTRODUCTION 3
dramatically, often by the removal of columns or additions of galleries and

enclosed spaces for women.3 Domes and roofs have been replaced and rebuilt,
auxiliary spaces have been removed or added, windows and doors have been
blocked and new ones opened. With precious few exceptions, the painted,
mosaic, and sculptural programs, which did not simply adorn but invested the
interior of Byzantine churches with meaning, have been obliterated.The inte-
rior furnishings, such as altars and templon barriers, were long ago dismantled.
Both the continuous use and neglect of historic buildings have taken a heavy
toll.That many churches still lack a secure identiication and date of construc-
tion may be attributed, in part, to these accumulated factors.
However, the situation is not as disheartening as it might at irst seem. Even
though most foundations have disappeared, for many there exists enough phys-
ical and written information to reconstruct both spaces and rituals, if not in
their entirety then at least in certain noteworthy aspects.4 The profusion and
diversity of textual sources set Constantinople apart from any other region
in the empire and amply compensate for the loss of artistic and architectural
evidence. Furthermore, since the inception of Byzantine studies in the nine-
teenth century, Constantinople has rightly been considered both an origina-
tor and a broker of innovations and styles. Because so much seemed at stake,
the city’s monuments became the focus of considerable scholarly attention.
As a result, more than a century and a half of research has resulted in a more
or less accepted view of how the city’s ecclesiastical architecture developed.
Throughout the previous century and continuing today, ieldwork projects
have signiicantly extended our knowledge both in the details and in general
issues. Ongoing discoveries from excavations and surveys in Istanbul are adding
to the data, at once broadening and reining our understanding of urban and
architectural trends.5 Some of the major buildings, such as the monastery of
Chora (VI) and Kalenderhane Camii (XIV), have been the subjects of exem-
plary and exhaustive monographs.6 The intense interest of modern scholarship
in the city continues unabated, as the footnotes of this book testify.
Ritual constitutes the second component of this study. By ritual I mean
primarily liturgical ceremony, a series of codiied services that composed the
Byzantine rite. The most important of these services was the Divine Liturgy –
the Eucharist – which was performed with great frequency in both secular
and monastic churches throughout the year. It is for this reason that most of
3
The alterations in the interior of both churches in the monastery tou Libos (XXIII) typify this
process.
4
See, for example, the monasteries tou Libos (XXIII) and Pantokrator (VIII). Although the
monastery of Evergetis does not survive, its foundation and liturgical typika provide suf-
icient evidence for the general reconstruction of the physical spaces and a fairly detailed
understanding of the daily ecclesiastical rituals.
5
See, for example, Özgümüş 2000; 2004; Karamani Pekin 2007.
6
Ousterhout 1987; Striker and Kuban 1997–2007.
my discussion focuses on the Divine Liturgy. However, the Byzantine rite also
included a variety of regular services, such as the Hours, and special ones, such
as ordination, tonsure, and burial. I refer to those whenever I consider them
important for the interpretation of a space’s usage. The liturgical services were
the primary, but not sole, function of a Byzantine church. Because buildings
were part of a social and cultural nexus, the rituals that took place in them
could not always be conined in prescribed rubrics. Therefore, I include in my
discussion various nonliturgical activities that occurred in Byzantine churches,
pertaining typically, but not exclusively, to popular piety.
Given that we can no longer observe the Byzantine ritual in its Medieval
form, I rely most often on texts for its reconstruction. Liturgical sources per-
taining to the Constantinopolitan liturgy are abundant. A large number of
the surviving euchologia, the prayer books used by clergy, belong to the rite of
Constantinople. For some periods we know the structure of liturgical rituals
in great detail. The tenth-century Typikon of the Great Church describes the
services for each day of the year, along with the cycle of immovable feasts.The
eleventh-century Synaxarion of Evergetis details the liturgical rituals, hymns,
prayers, and processions of this monastic community throughout the year.
Commentaries such as the eleventh-century Protheoria and the treatises of
Symeon, archbishop of Thessalonike (d. 1429), explicate the symbolism of the
liturgical actions and, occasionally, of the church building. Monastic founders’
typika and testaments provide invaluable information about everyday life, both
liturgical and practical; they also inform us about diferent commemorative
rites, an issue of great concern throughout the period. The liturgical sources
are nicely complemented by the astounding wealth of other textual sources
on Constantinople.The city, its monuments, and its rituals were of great inter-
est to Byzantine and foreign authors. In addition, historical and hagiographic
sources, homilies and ekphraseis, canon law, as well as pilgrims’ and visitors’
accounts, assist us in integrating ecclesiastical architecture with liturgical and
extraliturgical practices and charting their continuously evolving social and
cultural context. Such texts provide a host of explicit and incidental, but always
essential, references to buildings and rituals. Often such references take us to
the realm of actual, everyday practice, even if the latter is projected through a
context in which the liturgical praxis itself is of lesser importance.
The amplitude of textual evidence relating to the Byzantine rite does not
provide facile answers. I consider many of the speciic issues – monastic ver-
sus episcopal practice, Constantinopolitan versus Hagiopolite tradition – in
Chapter 1. The rite has always been a living, continuously evolving tradition.
The indispensable work of such scholars as Miguel Arranz, Juan Mateos, and
Robert Taft has outlined developments and clariied details.Yet much remains
to be done, both in terms of editions of liturgical texts and in terms of inter-
preting the results in the context of Byzantine culture at large.
INTRODUCTION 5
An important problem concerns the nature of directives in liturgical texts.

The vast majority of euchologia contain nominal rubrics, consisting usually
of the title of the prayer and when it was to be said, but not exactly where.
Liturgical typika give the order of services, the lections for each day, as well as
the list of hymns and prayers, but provide only the most basic spatial informa-
tion. Liturgical commentaries are concerned mostly with the explication of
the ritual and interpret a church part only occasionally, in most cases without
indicating its speciic form. Only in the twelfth century do we get more com-
plete “choreographies” in the diataxeis, books of rubrics for the clergy.7 All in
all, the building itself is tantalizingly absent from texts associated with rituals
practiced in it.
In investigating architecture and ritual in Middle and Late Byzantine
Constantinople, one faces two kinds of evidence. On the one hand, there
are the standing buildings, all very much altered, having lost their original
appearance, decoration, and interior furnishings.A few other foundations now
destroyed are known suiciently from sources. On the other, there is a pleth-
ora of textual information pertaining to rituals and functions, from collections
of rubrics and prayers to descriptions of liturgical and nonliturgical practices
drawn from hagiography, histories, travel accounts, and other Byzantine texts.
This book attempts to wed for the irst time these two kinds of evidence
together in a coherent and comprehensive account.
For the particulars of this synthesis I rely on a combination and retooling of
earlier approaches. In a seminal article published in 1991, Cyril Mango iden-
tiies four methodologies used in the study of Byzantine architecture: typo-
logical, in which buildings are classiied according to type, elevation, masonry
technique, and so on; symbolic, which, according to Mango, has limited use-
fulness as it is rarely concerned with actual forms; functional, which interprets
architectural form as a response to the rituals it housed; and socioeconomic,
which places architecture in the context of general historical developments.8
In this book I am concerned primarily with function, but I arrive at my con-
clusions by engaging the other categories as well.The typological approach has
dominated the scholarship on the Medieval churches of Constantinople due
in large part to the city’s assumed role as a center of architectural innovation
and prestige.9 Despite Mango’s rather dismissive assessment, typology prompts
close attention to forms and, by extension, to documentation and to relation-
ships with other areas of the empire. I employ typology, or rather its results, in
order to make broader arguments about function. For example, the predomi-
nance of medium-sized churches with uniied naoi in the Middle Byzantine
7
There is evidence, however, that diataxeis might have existed as early as the tenth century; see
Taft 1978: xxxv-xxxviii.
8
Mango 1991. See also Johnson et al. 2012: 12–15.
9
See, most characteristically, Toivanen 2007.
period points to a ritual that was largely self-contained and practiced by small
congregations. Symbolism explains little about the speciics of architecture, yet
the symbolic interpretation of church spaces greatly afected their function.
From very early on the church building was associated with, compared to, and
contrasted to the Jerusalem Temple; it also adopted the Temple’s horizontal
gradation of spatial holiness, which progressed from the outside courts to the
Holy of Holies.10 As I will argue in Chapter 4, the narthex as a symbol for earth
accounts for its multitude of uses, including as a place for penitents and site
of burials – in contrast to the holier naos, which symbolized heaven, and the
holiest bema, which stood for the supercelestial realm. Mango himself utilized
the historical approach with great success. For example, he connected the
popularity of the cross-in-square type with the increase of monasteries inside
the city after the ninth century.11 The medium size of the surviving buildings,
in comparison with earlier churches, and the lack of internal divisions corre-
sponded to the needs of contemporary monastic communities, which in this
period were fairly small and restricted to one gender. I would take Mango’s
argument further and claim that such considerations applied not only to the
cross-in-square type but also to a large number of Medieval foundations that
had a uniied naos.
Thomas Mathews’s fundamental study on the early churches of Con-
stantinople best exempliies the functional approach.12 Using archaeological,
liturgical, and historical sources, Mathews argued that the architectural features
of Constantinople’s early churches (fourth to sixth centuries) were to a great
extent determined by the form of the pre-seventh-century Byzantine rite in
the city. Although Mathews never explicitly took the position that “form fol-
lows function,” this axiom was implied in his methodology and conclusions.
For example, the strong horizontal axes of the basilica, the most common
building type at that time, suited both the processional character of the liturgy
and the collective assembly of the congregation that witnessed it. The large
atrium, a standard feature in early Constantinopolitan churches, provided a
place for people to gather while awaiting the arrival of the solemn procession
that occasionally began far away. Mathews’s conclusions were widely accepted
with very few exceptions, and his methodology, or parts thereof, was applied in
other geographical regions and in later periods of Byzantine architecture.
Scholars have periodically employed the functional approach, in whole or
in part, to study the Medieval churches of Constantinople. They have often
concentrated on a speciic part of the building, usually the sanctuary. Often
10
Wilkinson 1982; Branham 1992; Ousterhout 2010a. The association between Temple and
church building continued throughout the Byzantine centuries; see, for example, the com-
ments of Symeon of Thessalonike in PG 155: 644–645.
11
Mango 1976a: 96–98.
12
Mathews 1971.
INTRODUCTION 7
the liturgical texts played a nominal role in these analyses, and developments
in other regions of the empire were used to explain Constantinopolitan prac-
tice. For example, the arrangement of the tripartite bema in Middle Byzantine
churches of Cappadocia, where the side apses did not communicate with the
central one and appear to have been independent chapels, was used as an argu-
ment for an identical function of these spaces in Constantinople. Making such
connections requires signiicant leaps of scholarly faith. Even beyond the basic
premise that masonry buildings in the capital may be compared with rock-cut
churches in a distant province, the side rooms in Constantinople did com-
municate with the main apse – their physical form and evidence for function
difer. Furthermore, liturgical rubrics for Constantinople, which assume that
the north room was used for the prothesis, the preparation of the Eucharistic
elements, nowhere say that it functioned as a chapel (for a complete discus-
sion of these issues, see Chapter 2). Thus, it is imperative to approach both
the material and textual evidence with caution. Nowadays, it is unfashionable
to speak about architectural “schools” in the way Gabriel Millet understood
workshop production at the beginning of the twentieth century.13 Yet no one
can reasonably deny that the diferent regions of the empire developed distinct
architectural styles, as recent scholarship has conirmed.14 The fundamental
work of Taft, Stefano Parenti, and others has proved beyond doubt that liturgi-
cal developments were similarly localized. Thus, just because something hap-
pened in Cappadocia or Southern Italy does not automatically mean that the
same thing occurred in Constantinople. I am not implying that in its architec-
ture and liturgy the empire was an agglomeration of island cultures that had
nothing to do with one another. Ideas and practices traveled, as evidenced in
the discussion of the development of the Byzantine rite in Chapter 1. Indeed,
I occasionally employ parallels from outside Constantinople, but only when
there is evidence to suggest that something similar occurred in the city. But I
proceed with caution, and I resist the uncritical application of parallels from
diferent times and disparate regions.
Liturgical ritual was to a large extent responsible for the general layout of a
Byzantine church.Yet if we consider the totality of usages, ritual cannot always
provide suicient reasons, either for the function of some spaces or even for
the motives for their existence. For example, how do we explain the appear-
ance of the galleries above the narthex? Some liturgical activity certainly took
place there, but nothing that would make these galleries an essential part of a
church. More likely they were places of honor where the imperial party or an
aristocratic founder attended services and thus were not necessary elements in
all churches. Subsidiary chapels are an even more telling case. Many conform
13
See Millet 1916.
14
Ćurčić 2010.
to essential liturgical requirements, having a space for the clergy separated

by a chancel barrier and a small area for the congregation. Yet, as I argue
in Chapter 5, they did not meet any more speciic liturgical need. Rather,
their construction was due in some cases to Byzantine concepts of a saint’s
role in a person’s salvation, in others to the desire for an appropriate burial
structure adjacent to a church, where the souls of the deceased would beneit
from continuous prayers by the congregation. In other words, how a church
space was used could vary widely and did not always depend exclusively on
liturgical ritual.
A formalist interpretation that neatly matches the exigencies of the ritual
to the form of the architecture, as in the early Byzantine period, has limited
application after the ninth century. I note this point tangentially throughout
the book and develop it explicitly in the Conclusion. Suice it to say that there
is only an approximate correspondence between form and function. After the
ninth century, churches in Constantinople comprised a sanctuary for the clergy,
a naos for the congregants, and a narthex, a liminal space between the outside
world and the church. This basic layout came in a variety of sizes, shapes, and
interior conigurations. A comparison between two roughly contemporary
buildings, Toklu Dede Mescidi (XXVII), a small single-nave church, and Gül
Camii (XI), a fairly large cross-domed church, clearly underscores this point.
There were many reasons that might afect the inal form and appearance of a
church.Yet such variety was possible because of the malleability and adaptabil-
ity of the Byzantine rite, which could be celebrated without any impact on its
eicacy, albeit without the same solemnity, in spaces small or large, in chapels
as well as in sizable monastic churches.
The following study is divided into six chapters.The irst surveys the devel-
opment of the Byzantine rite between the ninth and ifteenth centuries in
order to provide the context for the ensuing discussion. The second chapter
investigates the bema, the locus of most liturgical activity, and the templon, the
barrier that separated it from the rest of the church. I connect the emergence
of the tripartite sanctuary after the ninth century with signiicant changes in
the character of the Byzantine liturgy, namely, the abandonment of outdoor
processions, the predominance of monastic foundations, and the development
of a complex preparatory service for the Eucharistic elements, known as the
prothesis rite. In Chapter 3 I examine the naos, the space for the lay commu-
nity attending the services. In the Medieval period the naos was usually square
or rectangular without interior dividers. Its form accommodated the circular
route of the two major processions during the Divine Liturgy. The lack of
architectural divisions implies that the separation of sexes was not a concern,
and it may be attributed to the predominance of monastic foundations dur-
ing that time. Chapter 4 surveys the narthex and exonarthex, which over time
acquired a multitude of uses. I maintain that the reasons for this development
INTRODUCTION 9
lay in the symbolic interpretation of these spaces as being not quite as holy as
the rest of the church. In the ifth chapter I investigate subsidiary spaces, such
as chapels, galleries, and crypts, which were not essential parts of a Byzantine
church. Although the frequency of liturgical activity in them varied, their use
connected them with themes and concerns very close to those expressed in
liturgical texts. The last chapter deals with nonliturgical rituals performed
by both individuals and groups. Some of these related to the character of
the church as a holy space, while others pertained to the fact that churches
were integrated into a social and cultural nexus. The Appendix is a compre-
hensive catalogue of the surviving Middle and Late Byzantine churches of
Constantinople, along with some recorded earlier but which have since disap-
peared. Each entry focuses on aspects pertinent to the discussion, followed by
an essential bibliography. A detailed Glossary explicates many of the terms used
in the book.
Needless to say, this book does not purport to have answers to all possible
questions, but I hope to initiate a more critical discussion of how Byzantine
churches it within Byzantine society. It will certainly not be the last word on
the subject. New discoveries of monuments or texts could alter our discussion
in ways we cannot imagine. It is my sincere hope that this study will contrib-
ute, however modestly, to an increased and more nuanced understanding of the
several themes it investigates.
CHAPTER ONE
LITURGICAL RITUAL: THE SHAPE AND

DEVELOPMENT OF THE BYZANTINE RITE
The Byzantine rite, the liturgical system of the Byzantine Orthodox church,
consists of a series of services comprising the sacraments, such as Eucharist,
baptism, and ordination; the Divine Oice or the Oice of the Hours, the daily
corporate prayer services, such as Matins, Vespers, Compline; a cycle of ixed
feasts and saints’ days, such as Christmas and Epiphany, celebrated throughout
the liturgical year; a cycle of movable feasts, such as Easter; and occasional vigils
and lesser services.1
The Byzantine rite is a hybrid, having gone through many stages of evo-
lution and development. As a living tradition it is still evolving and chang-
ing, albeit less drastically after the inevitable standardization of printed texts.
Robert Taft has distinguished ive phases in the development of the Byzantine
rite: (1) the palaeo-Byzantine period up to 330, about which there is little
information; (2) the Imperial period, which lasted until the beginning of the
thirteenth century; (3) the Transitional period, from the beginning of the sev-
enth century to ca. 850; (4) the Stoudite synthesis, from ca. 800 to 1204; (5) and
the ensuing neo-Sabaitic synthesis, which began after 1261.2
1
For a succinct history of the Byzantine rite, see Taft 1992. See also Mateos 1971; Egender 1975;
Arranz 1976; Schulz 1986; Wybrew 1989; Rentel 2006; Taft 1978; 1980–1981; 1991; 1993:
273–291; 1997a: 203–232; 2000b; 2008a; 2008b; Parenti 2011. The majority of the following is
based on these texts. References to specialized studies will be given throughout this chapter.
2
Taft 1992: 16–21.
10
LITURGICAL RITUAL 11
The overlapping periodization is due to the coexistence of two practices:

the cathedral rite, observed in Hagia Sophia and in parochial and episcopal
churches, and the monastic rite.3 The two were not completely unconnected,
as I will discuss later. The major diferences between the two lay in the struc-
ture and content of the Oice of the Hours. Other aspects of the rite, such
as the Divine Liturgy, the sacraments, and benedictions, underwent second-
ary changes since the earliest surviving testimonies.4 In this chapter I pro-
vide an overview of these developments, focusing primarily on the parts that
had explicit bearing on church architecture: the Oice of the Hours and the
Divine Liturgy.
After the foundation of Constantinople the Byzantine rite became grad-
ually distinguished from other liturgical traditions. Between the fourth and
seventh centuries the rite underwent two important changes. First and most
important was the development of complex stational services, which included
processions throughout the city.5 In the years before Iconoclasm, stational
services were so important that sources are preoccupied almost exclusively
with them, but they provide little information about what occurred inside the
church buildings.6 Despite the gradual decline of outdoor processions after the
seventh century, the Byzantine rite still maintains its processional character.7
Second, the rite was enriched by imperial splendor and ceremony, especially
with the completion of Emperor Justinian’s Hagia Sophia in 537 (Figs. 1, 2).
The magniicence of Hagia Sophia’s interior demanded the development of
liturgical and other rituals that could ill the enormous space and embody the
notion of the church building as an image of the cosmos and of the earthly
liturgy as a relection of heavenly worship.8
The Transitional period, which included the years of the Iconoclastic con-
troversy, was one of relative continuity as well as adaptation and consolida-
tion of the Byzantine cathedral rite (we have little knowledge of monastic
practice before the ninth century).9 As Taft notes, “by the ninth century the
Great Church of Constantinople had evolved its complete cathedral liturgical
system.” The end result of this process can be seen in the Typikon of the Great
Church, which in its surviving form documents the practices of the ninth to
tenth centuries.10 The rite had its own sacraments and Liturgy, the latter based
on the anaphora of Basil, a church calendar (synaxarion) with an accompanying
3
For a detailed and nuanced discussion of this, see Taft 2005; Bradshaw 2003; Parenti 2011.
4
Arranz 1976: 50; 1979: 4.
5
On this, see Baldovin 1987: 167–226.
6
For exceptions see Taft 1992: 29 and n. 3, 4.
7
Mateos 1971; Taft 1997a: 203–232.
8
This trend is evident in the introduction of the Introit Prayer and the Cheroubikon hymn, as
well as in the Maximos Confessor. See also Taft 1992: 35–38; 2008a: 600–601; 2011a.
9
Taft 1992: 42–51.
10
Taft 1992: 45.
1. Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, Turkey, 532–537, plan (after Krautheimer).
lectionary system, and the cathedral Hours known as the Asmatike Akolouthia
(ἀσματικὴ ἀκολουθία, “Sung Oice”).11 These Hours included the two princi-
pal services at the beginning and end of the day (orthros, Matins, and lychnikon,
Vespers), and four shorter ones: the mesonyktikon (Midnight Oice), and the
Third, Sixth, and Ninth Hours.12 The Asmatike Akolouthia had a solemn char-
acter and required the participation of numerous clergy.13 It retained the pre-
dilection for sung biblical psalmody and contained very little hymnody, which
at the time was mostly found in the kontakia, a sermon in verse, sung on feast
days at the end of the pannychis (vigil). This cathedral rite remained in practice
until the beginning of the thirteenth century, when the Crusader conquest of
Constantinople interrupted the liturgical life of the city.
Alongside the cathedral rite, monastic practice underwent signiicant
developments starting in the ninth century. The monastery of Stoudios,
11
On the Asmatike Akolouthia, see Strunk 1956; Arranz 1971; 1971–1972; 1973; 1974–1975;
1976; 1977; 1978b; 1979; 1981b; Woolfenden 2004: 93–120; Andreou 2009.
12
Arranz 1976: 50; 1979: 10–19. Two additional occasional services were the tritoekti, which
replaced the Eucharistic liturgy on weekdays during Lent, and the pannychis.
13
Arranz 1976: 50–51.
2. Hagia Sophia, interior looking east (photo: author).
originally founded ca. 454, played a crucial role in deining the form of
the Byzantine rite during this period. Theodore of Stoudios (d. 826) and
his monks from Sakkoudion in Bithynia, a region of northwest Asia Minor,
revived the failing monastery.14 Between 798, when Theodore arrived in
Constantinople, and 815, the size and prestige of Stoudios grew expo-
nentially. The monastery headed a network of houses in Bithynia, several
dependencies, and other, independent foundations that were founded by
14
For Theodore, see Henry 1967.
Stoudites.15 Theodore was familiar with and adopted Palestinian hymnody,16

and he requested that Thomas, patriarch of Jerusalem (d. 821), send monks
to Constantinople to introduce Jerusalemite hymnody there.17 The so-called
Stoudite synthesis, which began with Theodore and was completed only in
the twelfth century, combined the Jerusalem or Sabaitic oice (the rite
followed in the Great Lavra of Saint Sabas) with the Asmatike Akolouthia.
This amalgamation resulted in a hybrid oice that married a Palestinian
Horologion (a book that contains the invariable or ordinary elements of
Byzantine monastic Hours) with litanies and prayers from the practices of
the Constantinopolitan euchologion, the prayer book used by clergy.18 The
main characteristics of the Stoudite synthesis were the introduction of an
abundance of hymns in the Hours, with the newly composed hymns even-
tually supplanting the Constantinopolitan kontakia; the adoption of the
Palestinian liturgical psalter instead of the antiphonarion, the liturgical psalter
of the cathedral oice;19 and the replacement of the Sabaitic all-night vigil
with Saturday to Sunday Compline, mesonyktikon, and Matins, a structure
more conducive to the coenobitic organization of the Stoudite monas-
teries.20 Stoudite practices spread beyond Constantinople to Mount Athos,
Kiev, Georgia, South Italy, and even Palestine.21 In Constantinople they
coexisted with the cathedral rite until the end of the thirteenth century.22
However, neither can be considered monolithic, because diverse liturgical
practices even within the same tradition were not uncommon23 and there is
evidence of mutual inluence.24
The Latin occupation (1204–1261) caused a severe disruption in
Constantinople and contributed to the inal victory of monastic practices
15
Hatlie 2007: 322–326. According to the sources, Stoudios had about 100 monks in 790 and
about 1,000 by ca. 815. Although the latter number is certainly an exaggeration, it is
indicative of the growth of this monastery.
16
Hannick 2001.
17
PG 99: 1160–1164. See also 1164–1168.
18
For a detailed description of the Stoudite synthesis, see Pott 2000: 99–129. See also Strunk
1956; Taft 1992: 52–77; 1993: 273–291; Egender 2001; Thomas 2001; Rentel 2006: 260–270,
comprising a useful exposition of the diferences of monastic and cathedral traditions. The
typikon of Stoudios, called Hypotyposis, was composed sometime after 842. There are two
recensions. See Hypotyposis Stoudiou.
19
For the diferences between these two liturgical psalters, see Mateos 1961: 18–19; Taft 1988:
181–182.
20
In contrast to the anchoritic and lavreotic organization of the Palestinian monks. See Taft
1988: 186–187. See also Arranz 1976: 53.
21
Taft 1988: 184.
22
Strunk 1956: 177.
23
Nikon of the Black Mountain in the eleventh century noticed discrepancies even among
typika of the Stoudite tradition. See Taktikon: 21–22; Taft 1988: 179. A note in an eleventh-
century euchologion comments on divergent practices regarding the Oice of Kneeling
Prayers for Pentecost; see Arranz 1996: 21.
24
Strunk 1956: 198; Arranz 1976: 52–53; Taft 1992: 56–57.
over the Asmatike Akolouthia of the Great Church, as noted by Symeon of

Thessalonike in the ifteenth century.25 The absence of Stoudite manuscripts
after the thirteenth century indicates that this tradition also sufered, even if
it did not disappear.26 In the years following the reestablishment of Byzantine
rule over Constantinople in 1261 by Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, yet
another synthesis occurred, beginning in Palestine, where monastic communi-
ties reworked the Stoudite typika.This process began in the early eleventh cen-
tury and is known as the neo-Sabaitic synthesis. Taft has outlined the various
diferences between Stoudite and neo-Sabaitic usage, such as the addition of
daily nine-ode canon in Matins and the substantial increase of psalmody. The
most important diference in the neo-Sabaitic typikon was the agrypnia, the
all-night vigil on the eve of Sundays and feast days, which became the primary
communal liturgical activity, instead of the Stoudite sequence of Compline,
mesonyktikon, and Matins.27 According to Symeon of Thessalonike, the neo-
Sabaitic rite was musically less complex and required fewer clergy – in fact, it
could be performed by just one person.28 Symeon certainly exaggerated those
diferences, as the performance of the agrypnia required several participants.29
It is through Mount Athos, whose lavriote ethos was much closer to that of
the Palestinian monks, that this new usage spread to Constantinople.30 It is
essentially this neo-Sabaitic typikon that is in use today in the churches of the
Byzantine tradition.
The most important element of the Byzantine rite was the Divine Liturgy.31
In the Early Christian period outdoor processions of the faithful, headed by
the bishop and the clergy and with the occasional participation of an impe-
rial party, preceded the main liturgical celebration of the city.32 Apart from
those rituals leading up to it, a series of solemn, mostly interior processions
known as “entrances” distinguished the Liturgy. The irst part of the service,
the Liturgy of the Word, started with the so-called First Entrance. People who
did not participate in the preliturgical procession awaited clerics and oicials
25
PG 155: 325. See also Arranz 1976: 46–47. The cathedral rite survived in Constantinople only
on Vespers on the eves of major feasts; see Lingas 2007: 217. In Thessalonike the Asmatike
Akolouthia was maintained in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia and nonmonastic churches until
the conquest of the city by the Ottomans in 1430; see PG 155: 328, 556, 624, 908.
26
Arranz 1976: 68.
27
For the history of the agrypnia, see Arranz 1980; Uspensky 1985. See also Taft 1988: 186;
Lingas 1996.
28
PG 155: 556, 661. See the excellent analysis in Lingas 2007: esp. 222–229.
29
Lingas 1996: 161.
30
Critical in this was the Diataxis tes Hierodiakonias, which details the celebration of the agryp-
nia, composed by Philotheos Kokkinos (d. 1377/8), abbot of the Great Lavra and then twice
patriarch of Constantinople; see Goar 1730: 1–8; PG 154: 745–766.
31
The form of the liturgy in Early Christian Constantinople is successfully reconstructed in
Mathews 1971.
32
Baldovin 1987: 167–226.
outside the church in its atrium, to the west of the narthex. As soon as the
procession arrived, clergy and laity solemnly entered the church building. The
celebrant bishop took his place on the throne in the center of the apse behind
the altar, with the rest of the clergy surrounding him, and the congregation
made their way into the naos, the main part of the church. The Liturgy of the
Word included readings from the Old Testament, the Acts or the Epistles, and,
most importantly, from the Gospels. These were followed by the sermon and
the dismissal of the catechumens, which concluded the irst part of the service.
The Liturgy proper began with the deacons transferring to the main altar the
Eucharistic gifts, bread and wine, from the skeuophylakion (lit. “the place to
keep the vessels”), which in Constantinople was usually nearby as a detached
building (Fig. 1). After the reading of the Eucharistic prayers and the consecra-
tion of the gifts by the clergy, the people received communion. The Liturgy
concluded with another procession of clergy, this time from inside the church
back to the skeuophylakion, where the leftover Eucharistic elements were
consumed and the clergy changed out of their liturgical dress.33
Elements of Early Christian church architecture in Constantinople corre-
sponded to the markedly processional character of the early Liturgy and indi-
cated the existence of an urban cathedral rite.The large atrium provided a place
for people to gather while awaiting the arrival of the solemn procession. The
multitude of entrances in early Constantinopolitan basilicas ofered easy access
to the faithful, who entered at the same time as the clergy. The basilica they
entered had a prominent longitudinal character, correlating with the longitu-
dinal course of the celebrants’ and the people’s procession during the Liturgy.
The ample narthexes were used for the preparation of the First Entrance. The
second-loor galleries were connected directly to the outside to permit the
catechumens, who were relegated there, to leave quietly after their dismissal at
the end of the Liturgy of the Word, without disturbing the congregation.
If the Divine Liturgy in Early Christian Constantinople and such other
major centers as Rome and Jerusalem can be characterized as public, corpo-
rate, and open, in the Middle Byzantine period the Eucharist became intro-
verted, compressed, and private. This happened in tandem with the gradual
change in the urban character of Constantinople. As Mango has argued, start-
ing already in the sixth century Constantinople was progressively transformed
into a Medieval city.34 One of the signiicant manifestations was the decay
33
Taft 2008a: 583–588.
34
Mango 2004. See also Magdalino 2002, 2010; Balicka-Witakowska 2010; Ljungkvist et al.
2010: esp. 379–382; Ousterhout 2010a. On the question of the transformation of public space
in Constantinople, see Brubaker 2001; Brubaker and Haldon 2011: 616–622. On the decline
of ancient urbanism in general, see Saradi-Mendolovici 1998; Liebeschuetz 2001; Ward-
Perkins 2005; Zavagno 2009. See also the useful overview in Brubaker and Haldon 2011:
531–572, with further bibliography.
3. Distribution of monastic foundations in Constantinople, 330–550 (after Varinlioğlu).
and obliteration of public, open spaces, one of the hallmarks of Late Antique
urban cities. This afected the public nature of Early Christian worship as well
as ecclesiastical architecture. Large urban basilicas, the most common build-
ing type before the seventh century, stopped being built. Moreover, changing
patterns of patronage and a predilection, more distinct than in earlier peri-
ods, toward “private” foundations that depended on a proprietor (ktetor), par-
ticularly monasteries at the expense of parish or episcopal churches, resulted
in a shift toward more compact churches.35 Monasteries became increasingly
prominent in the city. This was evident in their geographical distribution in
Constantinople (Figs. 3, 4). Up to the sixth century, monasteries were mostly
35
Mango 1976a: 108–110; Hatlie 2007: 330–334, and esp. n. 66; Ćurčić 2010: 271. For the private
foundations, see Thomas 1987.
4. Distribution of monastic foundations in Constantinople, 800–1204 (after Varinlioğlu).
located between the Constantinian and Theodosian walls, an area sparsely

populated and far from the city center. In contrast, during the Middle and Late
Byzantine periods, many were founded east of the Constantinian walls.36 The
monasticization of urban space and of church architecture relected a simi-
lar process in liturgical life. As far as we can judge from the surviving typika
and liturgical synaxaria, worship practices in monasteries were self-contained
and with few exceptions took place inside the conines of the foundation.
Outdoor processions were reduced in number and largely pertained to the
cathedral rite, as evidenced in the Typikon of the Great Church and in the Book
of Ceremonies. After the ninth century, in most cases the Liturgy was celebrated
without the patriarch or the emperor, and in monastic rather than cathedral or
36
The observations in Varinlioğlu 2005: 193–197 are particularly elucidating. See also Charanis
1971; Abrahamse 1985; Hatlie 2007.
parochial churches. Elements of the outdoor stational liturgy, such as the oice
of the three antiphons, were simply aixed at the beginning of the service.37
Between the ninth and ifteenth centuries there were three Divine Liturgies
celebrated in Constantinople.38 The Liturgy of Saint Basil of Caesarea39 was the
chief rite until the beginning of the tenth century, when the Liturgy of Saint
John Chrysostom replaced it.Thereafter Basil’s Liturgy was celebrated only ten
times a year: in the irst ive Sundays of Great Lent; on Holy Thursday; on the
eves of Christmas, Epiphany, and Easter; and on the feast day of Saint Basil on
January 1.40 In current practice the structure of the two Liturgies is virtually
identical, but the anaphoral prayers, which the priest or bishop recites inaudi-
bly, difer dramatically. The third rite was the Presanctiied Liturgy, essentially a
communion service followingVespers on days when there was no Eucharist.41
With the prevalence of the Stoudite typika, the Presanctiied Liturgy was lim-
ited to Wednesdays and Fridays of Great Lent and on Holy Monday, Tuesday,
and Wednesday.
Thus, for the period under consideration, it was the Divine Liturgy of
Chrysostom that was most often celebrated. It was the pinnacle of liturgical
activity and the most intricate in terms of the use of space.42 It was celebrated
with great frequency: on Saturdays, Sundays, and feast days, as well as daily in
some monasteries.43 As with every continuously practiced ritual, the Liturgy
evolved. Parts were added, others continued to expand or diminish, ritual acts
and practices changed. Yet the plentiful liturgical sources ofer a fundamental
armature onto which diferent parts were grafted. Early euchologia tended
to contain a bare minimum of rubrics, an indication that the particulars of
liturgical praxis were transmitted orally. Starting probably as early as the tenth
century, a new kind of book called the diataxis appeared, comprising litur-
gical directives for clergy.44 The most inluential of these was by Philotheos
Kokkinos (d. 1377/8), who wrote it while abbot of the Great Lavra on Mount
Athos (1342–1345).45 Others existed for both monastic and cathedral rites.46
The splendor of the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia, with the participation of
the patriarchal and imperial parties, outclassed the rites of a humble monastic
37
Taft 1997a: 210–215.
38
See the comments in Protheoria: 460.
39
For the text, see Brightman 1896: 309–344.
40
On this change, see Parenti 2001 and Alexopoulos 2006. Parenti attributed the change to the
Stoudite inluence toward daily Eucharist in monasteries. Alexopoulos argued that the shift
is due to the use of a particular phrase of Basil by iconoclasts in their theological argumenta-
tion. See also Radle 2011: esp. 178-180.
41
On the development of this rite, see Alexopoulos 2009.
42
PG 155: 253–256; Symeon of Thessalonike: 168.
43
Salaville 1947; Herman 1948; Taft 1997b; 2000a; 2004a.
44
ODB s.v. “Diataxis”; Taft 1978: xxxv-xxxviii; Rentel 2005.
45
Trempelas 1935: 1-16 (right column). This is diferent from the Diataxis tes Hierodiakonias.
46
For a list see Taft 1988: 192. See also Rentel 2005: 366–375.
church.47 Nevertheless, the essential aspects of the liturgical action remained

the same. Based on these sources I ofer a description of this frame, an out-
line of the basic elements of the Divine Liturgy, referencing both monastic
and patriarchal/pontiical practices.48 I emphasize the components and rit-
ual actions that are important for this architectural study: the prothesis rite,
the Little Entrance, the readings, the Great Entrance, Communion, and post-
Communion rites.
Some euchologia and monastic diataxeis begin with the priest and the dea-
con performing just outside the main door of the bema (sanctuary) a brief pre-
paratory service, which included genulections and the recitation of a prayer.49
This is the embryonic stage of a longer service in the present day occasionally
carried out during Matins. Subsequently they entered the sanctuary, vested,
and went to the prothesis room, usually located to the north of the main apse.50
The prothesis rite, the preparation of the elements before the beginning of the
Liturgy, was one of the most mutable components of the Byzantine rite after
the ninth century.51 It is also of great importance for the interpretation of the
function and symbolism of the sanctuary. At irst, the selection and preparation
of bread and wine (as well as their transfer to the altar) was a practical mat-
ter. The faithful deposited their gifts in the outside skeuophylakion and the
deacons chose the ones to be used. The Barberini Euchologion (written in
Southern Italy ca. 800, but certainly relecting earlier metropolitan practice)
preserves the earliest attestation of the ritualization of this operation in the
form of a single prayer to be read by a priest “in the skeuophylakion when
placing the loaves on the paten.”52 Sometime by the eleventh century at the
latest the outside skeuophylakion was abandoned, and the prothesis took place
inside the bema.53 The rite gradually grew and acquired a complex structure
47
Taft 1995: 17–18.
48
I do not wish to lay too much emphasis on the diferences between pontiical and monastic
practices, nor, by extension, on diferences between monastic and parochial or metropolitan
churches, as these were not isolated, shut-of worlds.The patriarch and bishop celebrated the
liturgy and other services in monasteries. And not all services in a metropolitan church were
celebrated by a bishop. Evidently the ritual actions were adapted to the available space and
the pertinent circumstances.
49
See, for example, Trempelas 1935: 1 (both columns); Krasnosel’tsev 1889: 18–19. The codex
Pyromalus, which describes a pontiical celebration of Basil, contains some similar rubrics;
see Goar 1730: 153. For the symbolism of this service, see Protheoria: 432.
50
Some liturgical rubrics indicate that the clergy put on and take of vestments in the “diakon-
ikon”; see Trempelas 1935: 200 (twelfth-century version of the Presanctiied): Ἀμφιασάμενος
ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐν τῷ διακονικῷ τὴν ἱερατικήν, ὡς ἔθος, στολὴν ἔρχεται κατενώπιον τῆς ἁγίας
τραπέζης. See also Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: I, 172. For the space called diakonikon, see
Chapter 2.
51
On the development of the prothesis rite, see Mandalà 1935; Descoeudres 1983: 85–126; Pott
2000: 169–196. For a detailed exposition of the development of this rite, see Chapter 2.
52
Eὐχὴ ἣν ποιεῖ ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐν τῷ σκευοφυλακίῳ ἀποτιθεμένου τοὺς ἄρτους ἐν τῷ δίσκῳ;
Euchologion Barberini: 57; Taft 1978: 274.
53
Taft 1978: 181–203; 2008a: 551.
of prayers and acts. These included the use of several prosphora (bread loaves
prepared for the Eucharist), each with its own prayer and purpose; the mul-
tiplication of oblation portions on the paten, the commemorations of saints
and faithful, both living and dead; and the covering of the elements with three
liturgical textiles. At the end of all this, the deacon censed the whole church
building and the congregation.54
The Divine Liturgy began with the Enarxis, the introductory service, which
contained a series of three litanies, antiphons, and collects, or short prayers.
The Enarxis became part of the Liturgy between the eighth and ninth cen-
turies.55 At the third (introit) antiphon, the First or Little Entrance took place.
When there was no bishop present, the deacon, followed by the priest, took
the Gospel from the altar and carried it in procession, exiting the bema “from
the north side.”56 They both stood “in the middle of the church” until the end
of the hymns chanted by the choir, at which point the deacon raised the Gos-
pel book and said “wisdom, let us be attentive,” and, while chanting a short
hymn of veneration, both he and the priest entered the bema and deposited
the Gospel on the altar. On nonstational days, when the patriarch or a bishop
participated, he, along with other clergy, would vest and wait for the beginning
of the First Entrance in the skeuophylakion, where, according to the tenth-
century sources, he read the prothesis prayer.57 When the skeuophylakion fell
out of use or when the church did not have one, the patriarch vested and
waited seated in the narthex. In a later development, which took place perhaps
in the ifteenth century, the patriarch waited in the naos, which is the present
practice.58 He and the other clergy would process, with the archdeacon carry-
ing the Gospel, from the narthex (or later the naos) to the bema, again at the
third antiphon.59 When the emperor was present, he would join the patriarch
in the narthex and process with him to the sanctuary, where he ofered gifts.60
Subsequently, a smaller procession took place during the reading from the
Praxapostolos (a lectionary containing all the nonevangelical lections from the
New Testament except Revelation), which was conducted by a layman before
the reading of the Gospel lection: the deacon again, preceded by acolytes car-
rying candelabra, exited from the northern door and carried the Gospel book
“to the middle of the church or the ambo,” from where he read the lection from
54
Trempelas 1935: 2–5.
55
Taft 1997a: 210–215; 1997–1998: 80.
56
Trempelas 1935: 6 (right column).
57
As described in the codex Pyromalus; see Goar 1730: 153.
58
Taft 1980b: 105–110. Compare the diataxis of Gemistos (ca. 1380), which places the patriarch
in the narthex with the Andreas Skete archieratikon (ifteenth century), in which the bishop
enters the naos during Matins; Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 304; I, 166–167. See also Symeon of
Thessalonike: 110–112.
59
Mateos 1971: 71–86; Taft 1980b: 105–110.
60
De Cerimoniis: 14–16, 64–65.
5. Angels vested as clergy participating in the Great Entrance, Church of the Peribleptos, Mystras, Greece,
ca. 1370s, fresco (photo: Collection chrétienne et byzantine EPHE-Phototèque Gabriel Millet).
the New Testament.61 The Old Testament reading had been dropped before
the eighth century.62 The lection was followed by psalmody and by further
litanies and prayers.63 While the cantors sang the Cherubic hymn, the deacon
censed the altar, the sanctuary, his fellow clergy, and inally the prothesis. Then
the Second, or Great Entrance took place (Fig. 5). The clergy transferred the
Eucharistic elements from the prothesis to the altar, following a “U” course
westward through the naos, sometimes as far as the narthex, turning laterally
to the center, then eastward back to the sanctuary, where they deposited them
on the altar. The deacon headed the procession with the aer, the largest of the
three liturgical veils that covered the elements, on his shoulder, the covered
paten on the top of his head, and the censer suspended from a inger of his
right hand.64 The priest followed carrying the covered chalice.65 The bishop,
61
Trempelas 1935: 8.
62
Mateos 1971: 131. On Old Testament lections in the early Byzantine rite, see Engberg 2006;
Taft 2011b.
63
Liturgical typika after the tenth century do not provide explicit rubrics about the delivery of
sermons; see Cunningham 2008; 2011.
64
Trempelas 1935: 9.
65
Perhaps as late as the twelfth century in Constantinople only deacons participated in the
Great Entrance; Taft 1978: 203–204.
whenever present, waited for the arrival of the gifts inside the sanctuary. After
the end of the Great Entrance several petitions were read, mostly by the dea-
con in the middle of the naos. The kiss of peace followed, which since the
eleventh century only the clergy performed inside the sanctuary. Subsequently,
during the recitation of the Creed, the elements were uncovered. The ana-
phora, or Eucharistic prayer, followed, which included a prayer of thanksgiv-
ing, the Words of Institution over the elements, the epiklesis (a prayer invoking
the Holy Spirit to come and sanctify the elements and the most dramatic
moment of the Liturgy), and the reading of the names of the living and dead
by the deacon from the Diptychs. The Precommunion rites followed. These
included the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, the elevation of the bread, the
fraction and comminution of the bread, and the commixture (or union) of
bread and wine in the chalice. The clergy received communion in the sanctu-
ary irst,66 then the people in front of the bema doors. Starting probably in the
eleventh century, laypeople communicated by intinction, with the elements
given to them by the clergy using a spoon from the chalice.67 After com-
munion the elements were returned to the altar and then, accompanied by
incense, to the prothesis. After some further petitions, antiphons, and prayers
(the most important of which was the opisthambonos, lit. “prayer behind the
ambo,” which the priest read in front of the doors to the bema from at least
the twelfth century),68 and the distribution of the antidoron (blessed but not
consecrated pieces from the prosphoron bread), the people were dismissed.69
The clergy consumed the remaining elements in the prothesis room, cleaned
the vessels,70 and undressed.71
In addition to the Divine Liturgy, a host of regular and intermittent services
were celebrated in both monastic and parochial churches. These would have
included Matins and Vespers, as well as some or, especially in monasteries, all
of the other Hours.72 Other services were read as the need arose.These ranged
from lengthy sacraments,73 such as baptism, ordination, and marriage, to simple
66
See the very detailed rubrics in Trempelas 1935: 13–14 (right column).
67
Taft 2008a: 262–315.
68
For the shift of the location of the opisthambonos to the area in front of the doors of the
bema, see Taft 2008a: 603–609.
69
For the antidoron, with a irst secure attestation in the twelfth century, see Taft 2008a: 699–719.
See also Galavaris 1970: 112–128. For its symbolism, see Symeon of Thessalonike: 156, 262.
70
Trempelas 1935: 15 (both columns).
71
When the skeuophylakion was still in use the clergy would process toward that building at
the end of the service.Then the so-called skeuophylakion prayer was read. In the Middle and
Late Byzantine periods the prayer retained its name but was read in the prothesis room; see
Taft 2004b. See also Chapter 2.
72
A liturgical synaxarion, such as the Synaxarion of Evergetis, exempliies the complexity of the
daily services, many of which included hymns, prayers, and readings drawn from a variety of
books. See Arranz 1976: 62–63.
73
The designation of just seven of these services as sacraments did not occur until the thir-
teenth century; ODB s.v. “sacraments.” See also Arranz 1982.
prayers that addressed very speciic needs, such as “prayer on the building of a
house” or “prayer for those who have fever.”74 Although complicated in their
structure and laden with theological meaning, none of these services entailed
the intricate choreography of the Divine Liturgy. Yet where some of them
were celebrated was signiicant as the symbolism of the space correlated with
the symbolism of the ritual. In subsequent chapters I discuss the distribution
of rituals in the church space and the reasons behind it.
The Byzantine rite consisted of an intricate array of services dedicated to
the praise and worship of God, the veneration of the Theotokos and saints,
the welfare of the living, and the commemoration of the dead.These concepts
were expressed in language, text, and song, but also in action and movement,
all of which took place in the architectural setting of the Byzantine church.
This coalescence of space and ritual enabled a multitude of further associations
that, although not always explicitly connected with the formal ritual, articu-
lated similar theological considerations. All these provide the context for the
interpretation of the function of church spaces that follows.
74
Arranz 1996: 362, 376.
CHAPTER TWO
THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON
The sanctuary was the most hallowed place within a Byzantine church.
According to Symeon, archbishop of Thessalonike, “the church is holy because
of the sanctuary.Without the sanctuary, it is not a church but rather a house of
prayer, partaking of sanctity only through prayers. It is not the dwelling place
of God’s glory, nor His abode.”1 The usual designation for the sanctuary was
τὸ ἅγιον βῆμα (“the holy bema”),2 and τὸ θυσιαστήριον3 (lit. “the place of
sacriices”). Less often it was called τὸ ἱερατεῖον (“sanctuary”)4 or τὰ ἄδυτα (lit.
“not to be entered”).5 The standard tripartite arrangement of the bema after
the ninth century difered substantially from that of earlier Constantinopolitan
churches, which had a single apse.6 The holiness of the bema was under-
scored both visually and symbolically and access to it was highly regulated and
restricted to members of the clergy with very few exceptions.7 It was sectioned
1
Καὶ διὰ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου ἅγιος ὁ ναός ἐστι· χωρὶς δὲ θυσιαστηρίου οὑ ναός, ἀλλὰ
προσευχῆς μόνον οἶκος, μετέχων τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν εὐχῶν μόνης ἁγιωσύνης, οὐ Θεοῦ δόξης
σκήνωμα, οὐδὲ κατοικητήριον τοῦτου; PG 155: 305. See also Kabasilas Vita in Christo: II, 12:
Ἐπεὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον πάσης ἐστὶν ἀρχὴ τελετῆς.
2
Trempelas 1935: 1 (left column); Meyendorf 1984: 60.
3
The word θυσιαστήριον could also designate the actual altar, although τράπεζα was more
common. Both Symeon of Thessalonike and Nicholas Kabasilas (n. 1, above) diferentiate
between θυσιαστήριον (sanctuary) and τράπεζα (altar).
4
Maximos Confessor: 15; Typikon of the Great Church: II, 298.
5
Pantokrator: 33, 67.
6
Mathews 1971: 105–107.
7
See, among others, the regulations in Syntagma: II, 466–467; IV, 404, 417–418.
25
of from the rest of the church by means of a barrier called a templon, which
eventually became taller and, with the addition of curtains and intercolumnar
icons, more opaque.The adoption of the tripartite arrangement and the devel-
opment of the templon came in tandem with changes in liturgical practice and
ethos in Constantinople.
Forms and Variants

The surviving buildings evince some standardization in form, with variations
in the particulars. The typical arrangement was symmetrical, composed of
three adjoining apsidal rooms: the central apse was always the most spacious
and communicated with the two identical side rooms through openings or
passageways.8 The interior of the apses was usually semicircular. All three apses
projected on the exterior, where they could be multifaceted, semihexagonal,
or, more rarely, semicircular. The interior articulation of the side rooms varied
considerably. In the tenth and eleventh centuries there was a partiality towards
trefoils (Myrelaion, XVII-1, 4; Vefa Kilise Camii, XXVIII-1) and quatrefoils
(Theotokos tou Libos, XXIII-1, 9; Eski I-maret Camii,VII-1). In many buildings
the side rooms were simple, apsed rectangular spaces.
There were some minor variations. In Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii the side
chambers did not communicate directly with the main apse (XII-1).9 Given
the small size of this building, it is likely that the sanctuary extended to include
the three eastern bays of the naos. In this case, the sanctuary would have incor-
porated the two eastern columns of the naos. A similar arrangement was found
in Sekbanbaşı Mescidi (XIX-1). In Gül Camii (XI) the passageways between
the main apse and the side rooms gave access to small rooms situated in the
thickness of the two eastern piers on a level higher than the loor of the
church (the purpose of these rooms remains unknown). In two other churches,
Kalenderhane (XIV-1) and Chora (VI-1, 3, 8), the irregular eastern end was
the result of diferent construction phases and the incorporation of preexisting
structures.
In some cases, such as in the church of Saint John tou Libos (XXIII),
the south church in Pantokrator (VIII), Peribleptos (XXVI), and
Kalenderhane (XIV), the loor of the whole sanctuary was higher than
the naos, thus creating a sort of stage, which, along with the sanctu-
ary barrier, further emphasized the character of the sanctuary as the holi-
est and most important part of the church.10 This loor was called κρηπίς
8
Odalar Camii in both its phases was a notable departure from the usual symmetry (XVIII-1, 2).
9
The plan in van Millingen 1912: 206 is incorrect in this respect. I thank Matthew Savage for
clarifying this aspect of the building.
10
According to Macridy 1964: 266 the loor of the bema in Saint John tou Libos was 35 cm
higher than the loor of the naos. In the south church of Pantokrator the central apse
THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON 27
(lit.“platform”).11 The platform extended into the naos. This raised area between
the bema and the naos was called σωλέας (soleas)12 and symbolized, according to
Pseudo-Sophronios, a river of ire separating the just from the sinners.13
Only a few of the surviving Medieval churches in Constantinople had a
single projecting apse instead of a tripartite bema.All these buildings belonged
to architectural types that were current before the ninth century: Sinan Paşa
Mescidi (XX), Boğdan Sarayı (V), and Toklu Dede Mescidi (XXVII) were sin-
gle-nave churches; Kefeli Mescidi a three-aisled basilica (XV); Mouchliotissa
a tetraconch (XXV). Thus, they should be considered survivals or revivals of
earlier architectural practices.
Rituals and Functions
The Central Apse and Altar

The central apse was the locus of the most signiicant liturgical activity because
it contained the altar where the Eucharist was celebrated. It was also where
clergy remained during most of the Liturgy. Other rites performed there, such
as the consecration and ordination of major orders of clergy (bishop, presby-
ter, deacon), underscored the central apse’s exceptional place within church
spaces.
The Eucharistic table was called βωμός,14 as well as θυσιαστήριον (“altar”),15
terms that continued the sacriicial language Late Antique authors used to
describe Christian worship.16 Very frequently the altar was referred to as ἡ ἁγία
or θεία τράπεζα (“the holy table”).17 Sources mention two distinct kinds of
altars: a monolithic “Roman-style” one and another type where the altar table
stood atop four small columns.18 The south church in the monastery tou Libos
was equipped with the latter type, as the round holes on the marble loor indi-
cate (XXIII-1).19 Little is known about altar tables. Only at Kalenderhane has
was raised with the use of two vaults, which acted as substructures; Megaw 1963: 347. For
Peribleptos, see Mango 1992: 476. For Kalenderhane, see Striker and Kuban 1971: 253.
11
See, for example, Euchologion Barberini: 143–144, 165; Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 310. See also
Meyendorf 1984: 60; and Pseudo-Sophronios: 3984: Τὸ βῆμα ἐστὶ τόπος ὑπόβαθρος.
12
The term soleas has been used to designate the raised corridor that connected the bema to
the ambo in Early Christian church architecture; see Orlandos 1952–1957: 535–538. However,
as Walter points out, the evidence for this is meager. The spelling of the word varies; see
Walter 1995: 99–100.
13
Pseudo-Sophronios: 3985.
14
Arranz 1996: 227.
15
Meyendorf 1984: 60.
16
Orlandos 1952–1957: II, 438.
17
Krasnosel’tsev 1885: 247; Trempelas 1935: 5; Meyendorf 1984: 58.
18
Arranz 1996: 227.
19
Macridy 1964: 266. For the diferent types of altar tables, see Kalopissi-Verti and Panagiotide-
Kesisoglou 2010: 349–350.
the original altar table been preserved, reused as a paving slab.20 In many cases a
κιβώριον (ciborium), a domed or pyramidal structure on columns, covered the
altar and visually enhanced its importance. Liturgical commentaries variously
interpret it as representing the sky or even Noah’s ark, although the Protheoria
notes that not every church has one.21 In Constantinople no ciborium has
survived intact or in place, but the foundations of the four columns of the
ciborium have been uncovered in Chora (VI).22
Another element of the central apse was the σύνθρονον (synthronon), one
or more benches arranged vertically in a semicircle behind the altar.23 It was
used for the seating of the clergy and had a bishop’s throne in the middle of
the uppermost tier. Such monumental multitier structures were common in
the early Christian churches of Constantinople,24 but it is unclear whether
this was continued in the Medieval period. Remains of a two-tier synthro-
non were uncovered only in the church of Christ at the Pantokrator mon-
astery (VIII-4).25 The typikon of this monastery mentions a synthronon in
both of its churches.26 It has been suggested that the synthronon fell out of
use, perhaps due to the decline in the number of liturgies celebrated with
multiple clergy, although textual evidence suggests that concelebrations were
rather commonplace.27 The synthronon continued to be used in churches that
had it. A twelfth-century diataxis detailing the patriarchal liturgy in Hagia
Sophia describes the ascent of the patriarch to the synthronon.28 Symeon of
Thessalonike comments on the synthronon’s symbolism: the steps relect the
angelic hierarchies, with the presbyters on the top, where the deacons are not
allowed.29
The central apse and the altar were the epicenter of the very elaborate
ritual of church consecration, called ἐγκαίνια (“dedication”) or καθιέρωσις
(“consecration”). During this the bishop consecrated the altar, a prerequisite
for the celebration of the Eucharist. The Second Council of Nicaea (787) for-
malized a centuries-old practice and stipulated that all church altars must be
20
Striker and Kuban 1971: 253 and ig. 5; Striker and Kuban 1997–2007: I, 108 and pl. 125;
Peschlow 2006a: 186. Peschlow dated this to the Latin period because the loculus for the relic
is on the altar table itself, something found “only in the Western church.”
21
Protheoria: 441–444; Pseudo-Sophronios: 3984.
22
Oates 1960: 228 and ig. 1.
23
For synthrona, see Altripp 2000: esp. 402–412.
24
Mathews 1971: 26–27, 66, 99, 109.
25
Megaw 1963: 339.
26
Pantokrator: 37, 73; BMFD: 740, 753. The existence of a synthronon in monastic katholika in
Constantinople and elsewhere (as in the eleventh-century katholikon of Hosios Loukas in
Steiris, Greece) precludes the notion that the synthronon indicates a cathedral or episcopal
church.
27
Mathews 1982: 127; Brakmann 1976; Taft 1980a: 311–313; 2010-2011: esp. 25-46.
28
Taft 1979: 288.
29
PG 155: 293. See also Pseudo-Sophronios: 3984.
consecrated with remains of martyrs.30 Eleventh-century Constantinopolitan

euchologia contained an almost fully ledged rite with detailed rubrics:31 the
archbishop who was to perform the consecration kept in a nearby church a
reliquary, which could be silver, copper, or stone,32 containing three “portions”
(μερίδες) of relics.The reliquary itself was placed on a paten, a lat plate, and cov-
ered with the asterisk, a raised metal star that supported a liturgical veil – very
much like the Eucharistic bread at the end of the prothesis ritual. Following
a vigil and the ritual preparation of the altar to be consecrated, the arch-
bishop, accompanied by clergy and laity, carried the relics to the new church.
Subsequently, the reliquary was inserted in a cavity, either under the altar or in
the eastern side of the altar foot, and was sealed with myron (fragrant oil), wax,
plaster, or even lead.33
The material evidence from Constantinopolitan churches relects closely the
rubrics of the consecration rite. In the church of Saint John tou Libos the exca-
vators discovered in the center of the apse loor a trapezoid cutting 1 m long
and 30 cm deep, evidently for the deposition of relics (XXIII-1).34 At Chora,
the 1957 excavations in the bema uncovered the foundations of the altar and
its ciborium. Beneath the loor level was a large, marble-lined loculus, and
against its eastern side a smaller marble-lined box, which contained an undis-
turbed lead reliquary (VI-4).The reliquary contained a few fragments of wood
and bone. The larger loculus likely dated from the Middle Byzantine church,
while the smaller loculus and the reliquary came from Theodore Metochites’s
rededication of the Chora in 1321. In the south church of Pantokrator monas-
tery, a marble-lined rectangular receptacle was located near the site of the altar.
A marble reliquary excavated in a debris layer nearby might have come from
there.35 Finally, the altar table discovered in the Kalenderhane apse has a rect-
angular hole in the middle for the insertion of the reliquary.36
The church of the Theotokos tou Libos preserved in its sanctuaries a fairly
unusual feature: in the center of each of the four surviving apses on the ground
loor and on the apses of the roof chapels, just above the loor, there are neat,
cross-shaped cuttings (XXIII-8). These would not have been visible after the
marble revetment was installed. The cuttings have been interpreted as recepta-
cles for decorative stone or metal crosses37 or for the installation of relics during
30
Syntagma: II, 580.
31
Arranz 1996: 227–251. Euchologion Barberini: 156–162 contains a simpler ritual. See also
Euthymios: 32–35 for description of the consecration of the church of the Anargyroi in
Psamatheia, which probably occurred in 890. For interpretations of the rite, see Kabasilas Vita
in Christo: II, 12–37; and PG 155: 305–361.
32
PG 155: 332.
33
Arranz 1996: 244.
34
Macridy 1964: 266.
35
Megaw 1963: 339, 348, igs. 1, 10.
36
Striker and Kuban 1971: 253 and ig. 5. See also n. 20 below.
37
Macridy 1964: 260.
the consecration of those spaces.38 In reality, they indicate that the monastery
tou Libos was a patriarchal or stauropegial monastery (from σταυροπήγιον, lit.
“the ixture of a cross”).39 The rubrics for the consecration of such a founda-
tion instruct that a wooden cross, inscribed with the names of the emperor, the
patriarch, and the date of dedication, should be placed “behind the holy altar,”
or “in the middle of the apse.”40
In addition to the consecration relics, other relics were occasionally located
in the main apse, although this was unusual. Most famously, the body of
Patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos (d. 1273) was placed to the north of the altar
of Hagia Sophia in 1284. Arsenios’s body was at least partly visible, as Ruy
González de Clavijo (d. 1412), the Spanish ambassador of Henry III, king of
Castile, commented on its good state of preservation.41 In the now-lost mon-
astery of the Saint Lazaros in the Topoi, probably built by emperor Leo VI, the
body of the saint was deposited to the left of the altar and the body of Saint
Mary Magdalene to the right, against the templon, in a silver coin.42 The lan-
guage of the relevant texts indicates a permanent installation of the two bodies,
apparently both in coins rather than in movable reliquaries. This was not an
exclusively Constantinopolitan practice.43
Lastly, the χειροτονία (lit. “stretching forth the hands,” ordination) was quite
appropriately performed inside the bema in front of the altar at various points
during the Divine Liturgy.44 In episcopal ordinations it took place after the
τρισάγιον (“the thrice-holy hymn,” Sanctus), whereas for presbyters it occurred
after the conclusion of the Great Entrance.45 The location of ordinations under-
scored the primary purpose and area of ministry of the ordinand, the altar.
The Side Rooms of the Sanctuary

In modern practice, the side rooms of the sanctuary have clearly deined func-
tions. The prothesis takes place in the north room, and the south room, called
the diakonikon, is used for the storage and safekeeping of vessels, vestments,
38
Teteriatnikov 2003: 77–78.
39
Marinis 2006. See also Troianos 1995.
40
Ποιοῦσι σταυρὸν ξύλινον· καὶ βάλλουσιν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ μέσῳ τῆς κόγχης. Or ὄπισθεν τῆς
ἁγίας τραπέζης; Goar 1730: 487–488.The church of Kurşunlu Manastır in Bithynia preserved
a similar cutting in the diakonikon; see Mango and Ševčenko 1973: 256–257 and ig. 113.
41
Clavijo: 75–76. See also Majeska 1984: 221–222.
42
κατὰ τοὺς τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἐμπροσθίους τοίχους; PG 147: 573. See also Brock 1967: 86. Leo VI
brought both bodies to Constantinople. For the monastery of Saint Lazaros, see Janin 1969:
298–300; Majeska 1984: 380–381. Some Russian pilgrims reported that the relics of Lazaros
and Mary Magdalene were sealed in a column.
43
For example, Saint Cyril (d. 869) was buried to the south of the main altar in the lower
church of San Clemente in Rome; Osborne 1981; Ćurčić 2000: 136.
44
See, for example, Arranz 1996: 142–157. See also Trempelas 1950–1955: I, 222–256;
Bradshaw 1990.
45
See, for example, Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 17–18.
portable reliquaries, and other related objects. This clarity is the end result of
a process, completed, as I will argue, by the eleventh century at the latest, that
entailed the abandonment of the outside skeuophylakion and the transfer of its
primary functions – the prothesis, the preparation of the Eucharistic elements,
and the safekeeping of liturgical objects – to the side rooms of the tripartite
bema. Although the general outlines of this process are known, the particulars
remain elusive.
The transition from the skeuophylakion to the tripartite bema did not hap-
pen abruptly; rather, according to the sources, the two practices coexisted for
quite some time.46 An interpolation in the eighth-century liturgical commen-
tary of Germanos I, patriarch of Constantinople (d. 730), clearly illustrates this:
“the preparation of the gifts which takes place in the [sanctuary or] the skeuo-
phylakion, stands for the place of Calvary.”47 In Hagia Sophia (and likely in
other early Constantinopolitan churches), the outside skeuophylakion contin-
ued to be used as the location of the prothesis rite perhaps as late as the tenth
century (Fig. 1).48 However, eleventh-century liturgical sources suggest that the
preparation of the elements occurred in the bema.49 A diataxis relecting the
eleventh-century Liturgy in Hagia Sophia omits any involvement of the patri-
arch in the prothesis rite, likely because it took place inside the church. For the
same reason, at the end of the Liturgy the patriarch did not have any part in
the consummation of the gifts.50 A prothesis room was certainly situated inside
the building in the fourteenth century, as indicated by a passage in Pseudo-
Kodinos describing the participation of the emperor in the Great Entrance.51
A number of other sources evidence that in the Medieval period the pro-
thesis rite took place inside the church. The typikon of the monastery of Saint
Mamas in Constantinople, composed in 1158, stipulated that:
At the beginning ... of the sixth hour both the priest and the deacon
who are on duty that day along with the assistant ecclesiarch must make
a genulection to the superior, and, while the former must enter into the
46
It is tempting to construct a narrative about the coexistence of two traditions, one conserva-
tive, practiced in parochial and cathedral churches, and another “progressive,” practiced in
monasteries, as in Descoeudres 1983: 149–159. This was probably the case during the early
development of the rite. However, some of the most important regulatory documents on the
prothesis, such as those of Nicholas III Grammatikos and the metropolitan Elias (see later),
come from patriarchal or episcopal circles and indicate that the prothesis rite was eventually
accepted universally.
47
Taft 1978: 186.
48
See, for example, the tenth-century codex Pyromalus; Goar 1730: 153. See also Taft 1978:
267–268.
49
For the abandonment of the skeuophylakion, see Taft 1978: 179–184, 200–203.
50
Taft 1980b: 99–100, 123–124. However, Anthony of Novgorod in 1200 calls the outside
skeuophylakion prothesis; Taft 1997–1998: I, 24–25.
51
Pseudo-Kodinos: 263–265;Taft 1978: 200–203.The emperor had to wait “outside the prothesis”
(ἔξω τῆς προθέσεως ἱστάμενος). Where the prothesis was located inside Hagia Sophia is
unknown; see Mathews 1971: 94.
holy bema to perform the proskomide [prothesis],52 the other must go of

to strike the large symantron.53
Diataxeis assume that the prothesis room was a separate space inside the bema.
In a late twelfth- or early thirteenth-century diataxis now in Athens, the
priest and the deacon, after putting on their vestments, depart (ἀπέρχονται)
for the prothesis.54 Pseudo-Sophronios outlines a close topographical relation-
ship between the altar and the prothesis room: “the holy altar manifests the
holy tomb, where he was buried; the holy prothesis is the place of the skull,
where he was cruciied.”55 Symeon of Thessalonike further expands on the
same idea:
The place of the skeuophylakion, which is also called prothesis, to the side
of the sanctuary [i.e., the main apse] signiies Bethlehem and the cave.
That way it is secluded and not far from the sanctuary, although it used
to be farther out in the large churches for the safekeeping of the vessels.
That it is secluded indicated the poverty of Jesus when he irst appeared,
and the poverty of the place, and the almost unnoticed and rough cave....
And it is close to the sanctuary because Bethlehem was close to Jerusalem
and the tomb of the Lord.56
The shifting of the location of skeuophylakion/prothesis from outside the

church to the bema relected changes in the nature of the Divine Liturgy, the
result of both the transformation of the urban character of Constantinople
during the so-called Dark Ages and the proliferation of monastic foundations.57
As Mathews has argued, in the Early Christian period the people did not
enter the church before the beginning of the Liturgy.58 Thus an outside space
where they could leave their gifts was necessary.With the eventual abandon-
ment of this practice even in Hagia Sophia, the gifts were ofered and the
Eucharistic elements were prepared inside the church, in the bema, during
the prothesis.
52
The term proskomide, originally referring to the anaphora, became synonymous with pro-
thesis starting in the twelfth century; see Taft 1978: 350–373.
53
καὶ τοὺς μὲν εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸ ἅγιον βῆμα ποιήσοντας τὴν θείαν προσκομιδήν; Mamas:
285; BMFD: 1015.
54
Trempelas 1935: 1–5 (left column).
55
Ἁγία τράπεζα δηλοῖ τὸ ἅγιον μνημεῖον, ἐν ᾧ ἐτάφη. Ἡ δὲ ἁγία πρόθεσις ὁ τοῦ Κρανίου
τόπος ἐν ᾧ ἐσταυρώθη; Pseudo-Sophronios: 3984.
56
Ὁ ἐκ πλαγίου δὲ τοῦ βήματος τοῦ σκευοφυλακίου τόπος, ὃς καὶ λέγεται πρόθεσις, τὴν
Βηθλεὲμ καὶ τὸ σπήλαιον διαγράφει. Ὅθεν καὶ ὡς ἐν γωνίᾳ ἐστὶ, καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου οὐ
πόῤῥω, εἰ καὶ ποῤῥωτέρω ποτὲ ἐν τοῖς μεγάλοις ἦσαν ναοῖς διὰ τὴν φυλακὴν τῶν σκευῶν.
Τὸ ἐν γωνίᾳ οὖν εἶναι τοῦτο δηλοῖ, τὴν τῆς πρώτης παρουσίας πτωχείαν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ
τὸ πενιχρὸν τοῦ χωρίου καὶ ἀφανὲς σχεδὸν τοῦ σπηλαίου καὶ αὐτοσχέδιον... Καὶ πλησίον
τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, ὅτι καὶ ἐγγὺς τῶν Ἰεροσολύμων καὶ τοῦ τάφου Κυρίου ἡ Βηθλεέμ; PG
155: 348.
57
See the Introduction and Chapter 1.
58
Mathews 1971: 155–162; Taft 1997–1998.
The prothesis rite acquired its present form over a period of several centuries.59
Its earliest known attestation is in the Barberini Euchologion, which contained
a single prayer to be read over the loaves.60 A ninth-century interpolation in
the liturgical commentary of Germanos I, patriarch of Constantinople (d. 730),
recounts a lance that was used to incise a cross in the oblation, the recitation of
biblical quotations (most notably Isaiah 53:7, ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἤχθη,
“he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,” which would become standard), the
mixing of wine and water in the chalice, and the censing at its completion.61 A
letter of Patriarch Kosmas I (1075–1081) instructs that the prothesis room sym-
bolizes Golgotha, but it describes a still fairly simple ritual.62 Leo Tuscus’s Latin
translation of the Liturgy of Chrysostom (ca. 1178) mentions the preparation
of the amnos (the central part of the bread symbolizing the body of Christ),
the preparation of the chalice with the mixing of wine and water, and censing
during the covering of the elements.63 For the rubrics in his translation Leo
likely used a diataxis of the tenth century.64 The exchange between a priest
and Elias, metropolitan of Crete (composed between 1111 and 1135), speaks of
commemorations of saints and faithful, both living and dead; multiplication
of the prosphora; and the multiplication of the bread parcels on the paten.65
This system is attributed to patriarch Nicholas III Grammatikos (d. 1111).66
The aforementioned diataxis in Athens includes all these parts as well as the
covering of the elements with three liturgical textiles. At the end of all this,
the deacon censed the whole church and the congregation.67 The fourteenth-
century diataxis of Philotheos Kokkinos contains rubrics for a lengthy and
ritually complex prothesis service that, with little variation, eventually became
standard in the Greek and Slavic world.68
The development of the rite was not linear and its adoption was not uni-
versal and synchronous throughout the empire. The prothesis rite acquired a
complex structure from early on, as already in the tenth century it contained
a series of ritualized actions and prayers. A shortened version of the ritual was
attached to the Liturgy of the Presanctiied as early as the eleventh century.69
59
For an overview of the prothesis rite, see Descoeudres 1983: 85–126; Pott 2000: 169–196.
60
Euchologion Barberini: 57; Taft 1978: 274.
61
Bornert 1966: 164–166; Meyendorf 1984: 72–73. The interpolation predates the end of the
ninth century, as it is included in Anastasius Bibliothecarius’s Latin translation of Ecclesiastical
History (869/870).
62
Novae Patrum Bibliothecae X, 2: 167–169.
63
Jacob 1966: 135–137.
64
Jacob 1969: 249–252; Taft 1978: xxxv.
65
Laurent 1958: 126–135.
66
Pott 2000: 184.
67
Trempelas 1935: 2–5 (left column).
68
Trempelas 1935: 1–16 (right column). See also Taft 1988: 192–194.
69
See the sources in Alexopoulos 2009: 325–328.
The rite was signiicant enough to merit about two dozen lines in a didac-
tic poem attributed to Michael Psellos, who said the space of the prothesis
symbolized Bethlehem.70 In the Protheoria, the prothesis is compared to both
Bethlehem and Nazareth.71 The multitude of references, instructions, and sym-
bolic interpretations of the prothesis service in liturgical books, commentaries,
and other related texts prove that beginning in the eighth century, and perhaps
earlier, some kind of ritualized preparation of the elements had become stan-
dard in Constantinople and at least some of the provinces. The almost simul-
taneous adoption and eventual standardization of the tripartite bema were
certainly interconnected phenomena.
As an architectural and liturgical unit, the tripartite bema had already existed
in the Balkans and the eastern provinces of the empire for centuries, where it
had a variety of functions.72 At what point a clear allocation of functions of the
side apses occurred in Constantinople has been a matter of debate. Georges
Descoeudres, working primarily from written sources, has concluded that this
took place no earlier than the fourteenth century, but it was more likely a
post-Byzantine phenomenon. Before then the side rooms did not have a spe-
ciic name or an exclusive function.73 Neslihan Asutay-Fleissig came to similar
conclusions.74 On the other hand, Michael Altripp has argued that the service
of the prothesis was in place by the tenth century at the latest and that the
architectural arrangement of the tripartite bema followed promptly. Altripp’s
thesis derived from his examination of the iconography of the north room in
Greek churches.75
The terminological ambiguity of the sources has been the cause of this con-
fusion. Some Middle and even Late Byzantine euchologia preserve the rubric
of a prayer read “in the skeuophylakion.”76 This, according to Descoeudres,
indicates the continuous use of an outside skeuophylakion throughout the
Byzantine period. However, the survival of such rubrics is due to the conser-
vatism of liturgical texts.77 This is clear, for example, in the pertinent rubrics
found in a ifteenth-century euchologion:“[the priest] enters the prothesis and
recites the following prayer [called] ‘prayer said in the skeuophylakion.’”78
70
Joannou 1958: 5–6. On this poem, see Bornert 1966: 207–210.
71
Protheoria: 429.
72
See Varalis 2006 for an overview of the pertinent bibliography. See also Stričević 1958–1959;
Descoeudres 1983: 127–159; Krautheimer 1986: 298–300; Ćurčić 2010, passim.
73
Descoeudres 1983: esp. 142–164.
74
Asutay-Fleissig 1998: 46–55.
75
Altripp 1998.
76
For example, Sinai gr. 962, Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 64. See also Descoeudres 1983: 149–
150. Some of the euchologia cited by Descoeudres are not Constantinopolitan.
77
See Pott 2000: 175–176.
78
καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν πρόθεσιν, λέγει τὴν εὐχὴν ταύτην. Εὐχὴ λεγομένη ἐν τῷ σκευοφυλακίῳ;
Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 614.
The inconsistent use of the terms other sources employ to describe the
bema and its parts expresses largely the same ambiguity and a process of
gradual terminological standardization. The words skeuophylakion and dia-
konikon, as well as diakonikon and prothesis, were used interchangeably in
some Middle Byzantine texts.79 The common term βήματα could refer to all
three apses,80 although the word had multiple meanings. In the singular, bema,
it most often described the sanctuary as a whole.81 The Protheoria instructed
that the “prosphora . . . is to be placed in what is called the prothesis,” as if this
were a recent occurrence.82 The typikon of the Pantokrator monastery called
the rooms “on either side of the main apse” diakonika.83 In the twelfth cen-
tury, two commentators on church legislation, Theodore Balsamon (d. after
1195) and John Zonaras (d. after 1159), still referred to the place of the prepa-
ration of the Eucharistic elements as the diakonikon.84 And in one of his let-
ters, George Bardanes (d. 1240) instructed that “at the time of the prothesis,”
the chalice was to be placed “on the table of the so-called diakonikon.”85
The explanation for this vagueness is simple. The safekeeping of liturgical
vessels and the preparation of the Eucharistic elements in the place called
skeuophylakion or diakonikon had been, from the beginning, the exclusive or
primary responsibility of the deacons,86 and this continued until the twelfth
century.87 When these functions were transferred to the side rooms of the
bema, so were the names. The contemporary terminological consistency is
a later development, although the assignment of speciic functions in the
side apses occurred much earlier. It is not until the thirteenth century that
79
For example, Moscow 27 (formerly Sevastianov 474, tenth century) mentions skeuophy-
lakion for the opening prayer and skeuophylakion (Basil) and diakonikon (Chrysostom) for
the closing. See Krasnosel’tsev 1885: 237, 279.
80
ὑπὸ βημάτων τριῶν; Giros 1992: 430.
81
It could also refer to a church, likely of a small size, as in De Cerimoniis: 534; or to diferent
altars, as in Theophanes Continuatus: 145; or to diferent chapels within the same building, as
in De Cerimoniis: 117.
82
καὶ τῇ λεγομένῃ προθέσει ἀντιθεμένην; Bornert 1966: 200 and n. 5.
83
Pantokrator: 39. Mistranslated in Pantokrator: 38 and BMFD: 741. Gautier’s text should be emended
to καὶ ἐν τοῖς διακονικοῖς παρ᾽ ἑκάτερα δὲ τοῦ σεπτοῦ θυσιαστηρίου λαμπάδες δύο.
84
Syntagma: III, 190.
85
Ἐπυνθάνετό μου τὸ γράμμα ὑμῶν, ὦ ἀδελφοί, ποῦ ποτε χρὴ τιθέναι τὸ τῆς εὐχαριστίας
ποτήριον, τῆς ἱερᾶς τῶν μυστηρίων τελουμένης προσκομιδῆς ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς προθέσεως,
ἐξ εὐωνύμων ἢ ἐκ δεξιῶν. καί φαμεν ὅτι ἡ ἐκ τῶν πατέρων καὶ διδασκάλων ἐς ἡμᾶς
κατιοῦσα παράδοσις ἐκ δεξιῶν ὁρίζει ποιεῖσθαι τὴν τοῦ θείου ποτηρίου παράστασιν ἐν
τῇ τραπέζῃ τοῦ λεγομένου διακονικοῦ; Bardanes: 208.
86
See, for example, the testimony from the seventh-century life of Saint Theodore of Sykeon:
“And since the time of the next day’s Eucharistic assembly was approaching, the archdeacon
brought forth the chalice to the diakonikon and uncovered it so he might show it to the
most holy [father, i.e., Theodore] and conduct the prothesis with it”; Theodore Sykeotes: 37.
Protheoria: 429 also indicates that the custom in Hagia Sophia in the eleventh century was for
the deacons to prepare the elements.
87
Laurent 1958: 135; Jacob 1966: 135–136.
the diataxeis call both the rite and the space “prothesis,” something that evi-
dently became widespread.88
But in which of the side rooms did the prothesis take place? With the excep-
tion of a short sentence in the writings of Symeon of Thessalonike,89 which
may give an episcopal perspective from the synthronon during the Liturgy90 or
be simply a lapsus calami, I am aware of no Byzantine text, liturgical or other-
wise, that speciies in which of the side rooms the prothesis took place.There is
no compelling reason to assume that in a tripartite sanctuary the prothesis rite
took place anywhere but in the north room, where it is still performed.91 The
site of the prothesis was never indicated in liturgical rubrics because evidently
there was never any confusion or uncertainty about it. Moreover, instructions
for the starting point of processions clearly support the idea that the Eucharistic
elements were prepared in the north room. The point of origin of the proces-
sions was of particular importance because the Great Entrance began from the
prothesis. In the Synaxarion of Evergetis, the rubrics for the beginning of the ser-
vice on Easter Sunday instructed that the priest, preceded by the deacon, exited
the bema in order to cense the entire church “from the northern part, through
which the processions take place.”92 The word used for processions (εἴσοδοι)
is a direct reference to the First and the Great Entrance. The same text ofers
similar rubrics for two processions of a True Cross reliquary that the monastery
possessed, on September 1493 and on the Third Sunday of the Great Lent.94 In
the Athens diataxis, during the reading from the Praxapostolos the deacon was
instructed to process to the middle of the church or the ambo from “the north-
ern part” of the sanctuary.95 Likewise, in the diataxis of Philotheos, the priest
and the deacon left for the irst entrance from “the northern part.”96 Similarly,
in Philotheos’s Diataxis tes Hierodiakonias (a text diferent from the previous
one), the priest and deacon began their procession to the narthex for the oice
of the Lite from the “north part.”97
88
Trempelas 1935: 1–5 (both columns). See also Symeon of Thessalonike: 226, 238, 240. The
diataxeis also require the presbyter to perform the prothesis rite with the assistance of the
deacon, reversing the previous arrangement.
89
PG 155: 308–309.
90
See the convincing arguments in Altripp 1998: 28–30. In another of his writings, when
describing matins, Symeon clearly considers the north room as the prothesis and the south as
the diakonikon; see Darrouzès 1976: 61.
91
Pace Descoeudres 1983: 142–164; Asutay-Fleissig 1998: 46–55.
92
ἔξεισι διὰ τοῦ βορείου μέρους δι’ οὗ καὶ αἱ εἴσοδοι γίνονται; Synaxarion of Evergetis:
II, 506.
93
Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 58.That the author refers to the bema from the point of view of the
congregation is indicated by the word ἔξωθεν. The course of the contemporary procession
on this day is virtually identical to that described here.
94
ἐξέρχεται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ βήματος; Synaxarion of Evergetis: II, 404.
95
ἐξέρχεται ... διὰ τοῦ βορείου μέρους; Trempelas 1935: 8 (left column).
96
ἐξελθόντες διὰ τοῦ βορείου μέρους ποιοῦσιν τὴν μικρὰν εἴσοδον; Trempelas 1935: 6 (right
column).
97
Goar 1730: 4.
The evidence of iconography from the Balkans, although of limited useful-

ness, largely corroborates that the prothesis rite took place in the northern
room. The iconography of the prothesis chamber, according to Altripp, pro-
vided a relection of the theological symbolism of the rite. Common themes
included the Hospitality of Abraham, with obvious ofertory and Eucharistic
overtones, the Akra Tapeinosis (“Man of Sorrows”), Christ the Anapeson (lit.
“the reclining one,” Christ asleep, awaiting resurrection) and, less often, Christ
Emmanuel.98 Dufrenne has connected the image of the Man of Sorrows,
which, beginning in the thirteenth century, appears often in the north cham-
ber, with the prayer Ἐν τάφῳ σωματικῶς (“Bodily in the Tomb”) recited at
the end of the prothesis by the deacon.99 Indeed this image was an appropriate
illustration of the sacriicial character and language of the rite, already evident
in the commentary of Germanos.100
In contrast to the north room of the Constantinopolitan church, the infor-
mation pertaining to the use of the south room, currently called diakonikon,
is scarce. The term appears in the fourth century, but it cannot be connected
with a speciic space inside the church.101 In all likelihood the south room
was used as a sacristy, a place for the safekeeping of liturgical vessels and vest-
ments.102 Vessels and related objects would have been kept in cupboards. The
south room of the south church in the Pantokrator monastery was outitted
with shelves likely for such a purpose (VIII-5).103 It seems, however, that in
many cases only some objects were kept in the bema – those in current use –
while the monastery’s sacristy was a secure room usually located outside the
bema or even outside the church. For example, Clavijo reported that in the
now-lost monastery of Saint John the Baptist in Petra the relics were preserved
in the “tower of the church” inside a sealed chest.104 Typika sometimes speak
98
Altripp 1998.
99
Dufrenne 1968.
100
Dufrenne 1968: 300.
101
See, for example, Syntagma:VI, 482–483.
102
Theodore Sykeotes: 36–38. The fourteenth-century writer Theodore Pediasimos writes that
the sacred vessels were kept in one of the spaces lanking the main apse in the metropolis of
Serres without, however, specifying which one. See Orlandos 1949: 268. According to some
rubrics clergy vested in the diakonikon; see Trempelas 1935: 200.
103
Megaw 1963: 340 and ig. A. Niches or recesses were a common feature in side rooms. In
their present state they fall roughly into two categories: niches that extend all the way to
the loor [e.g., in the side rooms of the Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII), and in the north and
south churches of Pantokrator (VIII)]; and those that end at about 50–60 cm from the loor
[e.g., the side rooms in Hırami Ahmed Paşa Camii (XII-5) and the north room in Manastır
Mescidi (XVI-3)]. Often their location is symmetrical in relation to the plan: there is one on
the north wall of the north room and a corresponding one in the south wall of the south
room [e.g., Hırami Ahmed Paşa Camii, Eski I-maret Camii (VII)]. Some of those in the proth-
esis rooms should also be understood as cupboards.The diataxeis, for example, call for several
prosphora to be used during the prothesis rite, and a niche such as the one in the north room
of the Eski I-maret Camii would have provided enough space for them.
104
Clavijo: 80–83. For church towers, see Chapter 5.
6. Tokalı Kilise, Cappadocia, Turkey, 9th and 10th centuries, plan (redrawn after Jerphanion).
of the “skeuophylakion of the monastery,”105 where objects were shut up and

sealed.106 This was certainly not the easily accessible south room of the bema.
Other uses of the diakonikon were possible. A rather enigmatic passage in
Symeon of Thessalonike implies that the deacons stood in the diakonikon
during the Liturgy.107 In some cases the diakonikon is named in a monastic
context as a place for hearing confessions108 and for a collation meal after com-
munion,109 although the use of the term does not necessarily imply the south
room of the bema.
The other function suggested for the side rooms in a tripartite sanctuary
is that of chapels. This was argued mainly by Mathews in connection with
Middle Byzantine rock-cut churches in Cappadocia and the tendency toward
private worship practices after the ninth century.110 For example, in the New
Church of Tokalı Kilise in Göreme (mid-tenth century), the sanctuary was
composed of three apses, which, however, did not communicate directly with
one another but were all accessed through a connecting corridor to the west
(Fig. 6). Each side apse was equipped with an altar and a presbyter’s seat and
105
Pantokrator: 127; Attaleiates: 77.
106
Kecharitomene: 65. The typikon and other important monuments from the monastery of
Mamas were to be deposited in the skeuophylakion of the monastery of Philanthropos; see
Mamas: 310.
107
PG 155: 345.
108
Irene of Chrysobalanton: 40; BMFD: 1137.
109
BMFD: 405.
110
Mathews 1982.
7. Theotokos Skripou, Orchomenos, Greece, 873–874, plan (redrawn after Krautheimer).
each had a prothesis niche associated with it, either on the north or east wall
of the corridor. Mathews argued that this was not merely a provincial monastic
practice; rather, single-apse sanctuaries, or sanctuary apses lanked by chapels,
were not uncommon even in Constantinople, as attested by the katholikon of
Chora (VI). Asutay-Fleissig has also suggested that in some Middle Byzantine
churches in Constantinople the side rooms of the bema were chapels.111 Finally,
Teteriatnikov argued that the semicircular elongated niches in the two rooms
that lanked the central apse of the Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII) were origi-
nally presbyters’ seats and therefore these side rooms were chapels.112
Mathews was certainly correct in his interpretation of the side apses in
Cappadocia. This arrangement, each apse with an altar and a dedicated proth-
esis niche, inds a close parallel in the church of the Theotokos of Skripou
(873/74) at Orchomenos, Greece (Fig. 7). According to the inscriptions on
the outside walls, the two side rooms were chapels, the north room dedicated
to Saint Paul, the south one to Saint Peter.113 All three apses had an altar made
of spoliated pieces and a prothesis niche on the eastern wall, and each had a
111
Asutay-Fleissig 1998: 46–55.
112
Teteriatnikov 1996: 65–66. For such niches, see n. 103.The evidence for this claim is tenuous.
Furthermore, it is unclear how the existence of a seat proves that the space was a chapel.
113
Papalexandrou 1988, esp. 60–77; 2001: 264–267.
sanctuary barrier separating it from the naos.114 Yet it is impossible to make an

overarching argument about the function of the side rooms in Constantinople
based on this evidence. Unambiguous cases such as that of Skripou are very
few and of disparate dates and locales.115 In terms of concept, design, and
function, the eastern end of the rock-cut Cappadocian churches is essentially
diferent from the tripartite bema of the masonry churches in the capital. In
contrast to Cappadocian examples, in Constantinople all three apses com-
municate with one another through doors or passageways, and there is no
connecting corridor in the west and no prothesis niches outside the chapel
proper. Furthermore, in the Constantinopolitan churches in which one or
both side rooms were evidently chapels, such as in the second phase of Odalar
Camii (XVIII-2), Kalenderhane Camii (XIV), and the fourteenth-century
phase of Chora (VI), the arrangement is markedly diferent from the usual
symmetrical tripartite bema; for example, the south room of Odalar Camii
(XVIII-2) was larger than the north and probably capped by a dome. Another
church, that of the Theotokos tou Libos, has played a central role for all those
who argue for the use of the side rooms as chapels.Yet there is one overlooked
but critical piece of evidence that decisively goes against such interpretation.
During his survey of the Libos complex, Theodore Macridy uncovered in the
loor of the southernmost exterior chapel of the Theotokos church the base
of the altar and the rectangular cutting for the consecration relics, which were
virtually identical to those of the roof chapels.116 However, the two rooms
l anking the central apse had no such liturgical furnishings and they were
not equiped for the celebration of the Liturgy (this is evident in Mamboury’s
plan, XXIII-1).
In the rare absence of a dedicated prothesis and diakonikon, other solutions
were available. In the fourteenth-century phase of Chora, the Eucharistic
elements were likely prepared in an arched niche set into the northeast side
of the main apse (VI-3). In Toklu Dede Mescidi, in the place of side rooms
the apse was lanked by two shallow niches inserted into the eastern wall
(XXVII-1).117 Similarly, in the Mouchliotissa the apse preserves three absidioles
in the wall, and the northern one likely functioned as the site of the prothesis
rite (XXV-1).
The tripartite bema, the place where the Eucharistic elements were prepared
and consecrated, was in theological and symbolic terms the holiest part of the
church. Its adoption in Constantinople marked the eventual abandonment of
114
Megaw 1966.
115
See Papalexandrou 1988: 259–287 for parallels, many of which, however, have a tenuous con-
nection to Skripou.
116
In the thirteenth century this chapel was incorporated into the church of Saint John and
used as the prothesis of this church.
117
Pasadaios 1969: ig. 3 indicates the existence of a stylobate.
earlier practices, but it also underlined the urgency with which architecture
evolved to accommodate the new ones. The signiicance of the bema was fur-
ther underscored by the sanctuary barrier, a structure that underwent signii-
cant development throughout the Medieval period.
The Sanctuary Barrier

The sanctuary barrier separated the area reserved for the clergy from the
nave and the lay congregation.118 It guaranteed a separate space for the rit-
ual actions that took place during the Liturgy and it facilitated decorum and
security.119 It had been employed as such well before the ninth century. In
the pre-Iconoclastic churches of Constantinople it was π-shaped or straight.
Originally low, the barrier eventually grew in height with the addition of
colonnettes and an architrave, without, however, impeding visual access to
the sanctuary.120
Byzantine sources used a variety of terms to designate the sanctuary
barrier.121 Κιγκλίδες (lit. “screen or partition”) was an ancient name found
already in Theodoret of Cyrrhus (d. ca. 466).122 A related term was κάγκελλα.123
A common designation in Middle Byzantine sources is τέμπλον, a loan word
from Latin, whose earliest attestation is in the seventh-century miracula of
Artemios.124 The term iconostasis is an English neologism.125
Reconstructing the forms of templa in Constantinople is diicult because
no sanctuary barrier has survived intact.The archaeological evidence is meager
and limited to cuttings on loors and walls and piecing together of stray inds.
Based on cuttings on the bema step and fragments of marble panels, Arthur
H. S. Megaw reconstructed the templon of the south church in the Pantokrator
monastery (VIII) as having four slender columns carrying an epistyle and
joined at the bottom with marble slabs,126 the latter spolia from the church of
Saint Polyeuktos (Fig. 8). Whether this should be dated to the twelfth century,
as Megaw suggested, or to after 1261, as argued by Ann Wharton Epstein, is
118
Meyendorf 1984: 62.
119
John Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople (d. 407), and others vividly describe the dis-
orderly conduct of congregations. For some examples, see Taft 2006b: 38–39.
120
Mathews 1971: 109–110.
121
For these, see Lazarev 1964–1965: 120–121; Walter 1995; Kalopissi-Verti and Panagiotide-
Kesisoglou 2010: 320, 403.
122
Theodoret: 312–313. It is also used to designate a barrier in front of a cultic statue in Greek
temples; see the remarks in Mylonopoulos 2011.
123
Meyendorf 1984: 62; Walter 1995: 97–98.
124
Mango 1979: 43. The word templon could refer to parts of the sanctuary barrier; see Walter
1995: 100–102.
125
In Byzantine sources it refers to an icon stand as in Pseudo-Kodinos: 189. See also Walter 1971:
251–252.
126
Megaw 1963: 344–346 and ig. E.
8. Pantokrator monastery, reconstruction of the templon of south church (after Megaw).
unclear.127 A section of the stylobate for the templon in Chora is still located
at the setback of the apse.128 Cyril Mango and Ernest J. W. Hawkins estimated
that the templon in the main apse of the Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII) had
three intercolumniations.129 Some of the stray marble fragments uncovered by
Macridy, including a peacock slab, certainly belonged to the templon.130 In the
church of Saint John tou Libos (XXIII), the stylobate of the templon was pre-
served in front of the apse.The cuttings indicate that the templon had four col-
umns in total, and each of the three intercolumnar spaces was approximately
one meter wide.131 Mango and Hawkins again discovered fragments of what
was likely the templon of the main apse in the katholikon of Pammakaristos
127
Megaw 1963: 346; Epstein 1981: 4. Parts of the Pala d’Oro in San Marco,Venice, supposedly
came from templon decoration in Pantokrator; see Epstein 1981: 5; and most recently Klein
2010: 193–209.
128
Ousterhout 1987: 44.
129
Mango and Hawkins 1964a: 305.
130
Grabar 1963: 107.
131
Macridy 1964: 266–267 and ig. 5. The central one, aligned with the doors to the naos, nar-
thex, and outer ambulatory, was open. The two side intercolumnar spaces were presumably
blocked with marble slabs, as was usual.
(XXIV).132 Finally, fragments of parapet slabs and of a templon post and col-
umn were discovered in Kalenderhane (XIV), although their condition did not
allow for a reconstruction.133
Despite the limitations of the evidence, it is safe to assume that the post-
Iconoclastic templon consisted of low or chest-high parapets surmounted by
columns that carried an architrave.Three intercolumniations were the norm for
the central apse, and a single pair of columns supporting an architrave the norm
for the side rooms. The central gateway usually had a pair of doors, of which
no examples survive from Constantinople.134 The templon in the katholikon of
Hosios Loukas monastery in Boeotia, a monument with Constantinopolitan
ties, ofers a visualization of what such structures would have looked like in
the capital (Fig. 9).135
Images in a variety of media were associated with sanctuary barriers at
an early date. From the description of Paul the Silentiarios we learn that the
epistyle of the sixth-century sanctuary barrier in Hagia Sophia carried sil-
ver repoussé images of Christ (in the middle), the Theotokos, apostles, and
prophets.136 Mango has reconstructed the templon of the main apse in the late
ifth- or early sixth-century church of Saint John in Oxeia as having images
on top of the epistyle: Christ in the middle, Artemios to the north, and John
the Baptist to the south.137 In one of his sermons Nikephoros I, patriarch
of Constantinople (d. 828), referred to sacred igures and animals decorating
templa.138 The Vita Basilii mentions that Christ’s image was represented “sev-
eral times” in enamel in or on the epistyle of the templon in the church of
Christ Savior in the Great Palace.139 Many surviving Medieval templon frag-
ments, especially epistyles, from throughout the empire were embellished with
sculpted sacred images, habitually with a Deisis,140 as well as animals, real and
fantastic. And there exist numerous examples of painted wooden epistyles dat-
ing to as early as the eleventh century adorned with various subjects, including
the so-called Twelve Feasts and episodes from lives of saints.141 Furthermore,
132
Mango and Hawkins 1964b: 331–332 and igs. 26–31. These included a small capital deco-
rated with busts of three apostles carved in relief and part of an epistyle with the bust of one
apostle. As these pieces date on stylistic grounds from ca. 1300, they belonged to a reconstruc-
tion of the bema barrier at that time; see Belting 1972: 70–73.
133
Striker and Kuban 1997–2007: I, 107.
134
ODB s.v. “Doors.” For a survey of the surviving evidence, see Gounaris 2010.
135
Unfortunately, the tenth-century barrier of the adjoining church of the Dormition has been
heavily reconstructed, but apparently it was of the same form.
136
Xydis 1947: esp. 8–11.
137
Mango 1979: 43. This church is known only from sources; see Janin 1969: 419–420.
138
PG 100: 464–465. See also Chatzidakis 1979: 160–161; Walter 1993: 207–208.
139
Vita Basilii: 284–286.
140
See, for example, the templon excavated in Xanthos and published in Sodini 1980, where
there is also a list of other examples.
141
Soteriou and Soteriou 1956–1958: I, 100–114; II, igs. 87–125; Lazarev 1964–1965; Weitzmann
1986. See also Walter 1993: esp. 214–223.
9. Katholikon of Hosios Loukas monastery, Steiris, Greece, 11th century, interior looking east
(photo: author).
the doors in the central part of the templon occasionally bore images, most
often of the Annunciation, as in the case of the silver doors in the monastery
of Kecharitomene, known from its typikon.142
Related to the templon were the so-called proskynetaria icons, framed images
in mosaic or fresco located on the western side of the eastern piers or pilas-
ters of the church.143 Because of their location, these should be regarded as
parts of the sanctuary barrier, or extensions thereof.144 Two Constantinopolitan
churches preserve such features. In Kalenderhane Camii only the frames
142
Kecharitomene: 154. See also Grabar 1961: 13–17. Grabar believed that sanctuary doors bearing
imagery began to appear in 1100 at the latest.
143
For the term “proskynetaria icons,” see Kalopissi-Verti 2006: 108. Such icons were found also
in the narthex, where they created sometimes a mimetic relationship with the templon; see
Kalopissi-Verti 2006: 123–131.
144
Ćurčić 2000; Kalopissi-Verti 2006.
survive, consisting of two sets of verde antico pilasters supporting two sculpted
beams (XIV-4).145 The frames, which should belong to the original thirteenth-
century furnishings of the church, likely held an image of Christ (south) and
the Theotokos Kyriotissa (north).146 In Chora the mosaic icons are still visible
(VI-3).147 Christ, in full igure, holding a Gospel book with his left hand and
blessing with his right, occupies the northern side; the Theotokos with Christ
child, inscribed “the Land of the Living,” is on the south pier.The latter’s elab-
orate frame, although in a fragmentary and mutilated state, is still in situ.
Proskynetaria icons were evidently more common than the surviving exam-
ples indicate. Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, in the only satisfactory interpretation of
instructions for lighting in the typika of the Pantokrator and Kecharitomene
monasteries, has argued that the instructions referred to proskynetaria icons.148
To this we should add the evidence from the earlier Evergetis typikon, where
the newly elected oikonomos (steward) was instructed to make three prostra-
tions in front of and near the bema and then to “kiss with piety the holy, divine,
and venerable icons of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the same the Mother of
God, who is above all saints, and the Benefactor of all.”149 Judging from surviv-
ing examples, mostly from outside Constantinople, Christ and the Theotokos
were the most common occupants of the proskynetaria. The church’s epon-
ymous saint could replace the Mother of God and assume her intercessory
functions.150
Portable icons eventually occupied the templon and the intercolumniations.
When this happened has been a matter of debate, with suggestions ranging
anywhere from the eleventh century to the post-Byzantine period.151 The dis-
jointed and at times contradictory nature of the evidence, both textual and
material, indicates that the transformation of the templon into the iconostasis
was gradual, localized, and became the norm at diferent times in diferent
places. Gordana Babic ́, André Grabar, Christopher Walter,152 and others have
remarked on the importance of masonry templa in providing a terminus ante
145
The southern upper beam has in the middle of a frieze of acanthus leaves an image of the
Hetoimasia with angels at the two extremities. Its counterpart in the north frame has the
same disposition, only with Christ in the middle.
146
Striker and Kuban 1997–2007: I, 104. Epstein dates the frames to a reconstruction in the late
thirteenth or early fourteenth century; Epstein 1981: 7–9.
147
Hjort 1979: 226–229.
148
149
Μετὰ τὴν ἀπόλυσιν τοῦ ὄρθρου καὶ τὴν συνήθη τοῦ ἱερέως εὐχήν, τρισαγίου παρὰ
πάντων γινομένου, ποιείτω τρεῖς βαθείας γονυκλισίας ἔμπροσθεν καὶ πλησίον τοῦ θείου
βήματος ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος, εἶτα καὶ αὐτὰ τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ θεῖα εἰκονίσματα καὶ σεβάσμια τοῦ τε
Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου καὶ κοινῆς Εὐεργέτιδος
εὐλαβῶς ἀσπαζέσθω; Evergetis: 49.
150
151
See, selectively: Grabar 1961; Lazarev 1964–1965; Babić 1975; Chatzidakis 1979; Epstein 1981;
Weitzmann 1986; Walter 1971 and 1993; Lidov 2000b; Gerstel 2006a.
152
Grabar 1961: 17–22; Babić 1975; Walter 1993: 212–213.
quem for the widespread difusion of the practice. Sharon E. J. Gerstel was
the irst to study these systematically.153 Based on the evidence from south-
ern Greece, the Aegean islands, and Serbia, she argued that in those regions
icons were commonly inserted in the intercolumnar spaces by the end of the
thirteenth century. She saw this as a development parallel to the proliferation
of bilateral icons in other parts of the empire and suggestive of the tendency,
manifested diferently in various regions, to place icons on the sanctuary bar-
rier.154 I would add that liturgical texts from this period onwards corroborate
this chronology. For example, the pertinent rubric in a late twelfth- or early
thirteenth-century diataxis reads:
When they are about to celebrate the Divine Eucharist the priest and the
deacon go in front of the holy doors and make three prostrations kissing
the holy icons and they bow down towards the choroi [i.e., the north and
the south side of the naos]. Then they enter the holy bema.155
The “holy icons” is likely a reference to intercolumnar icons because the

clergy stood in front of the doors of the bema (the practice remains identical
today). The inclusion of such a rubric in the diataxis indicates that such icons
were widespread.
However, this did not immediately become universal practice. In the patriarchal
diataxis of Demetrios Gemistos (ca. 1380), the rubrics for the First Entrance pre-
scribed that the clergy and patriarch kiss the “holy doors,” which presumably had
images on them, before entering the sanctuary.There is no mention of any other
icons in association with the sanctuary barrier.156 As late as the ifteenth century,
in his detailed description of the templon, Symeon of Thessalonike explicated
the symbolism of its columns and intercolumnar spaces, its veils, the epistyle, and
the Deisis image on top of the epistyle, but he made no mention whatsoever of
intercolumnar icons.157 Indeed, it is diicult to imagine which icons would have
been placed in the templon of a building like the Chora, given the prominence
of the two proskynetaria icons. Although the evidence from Constantinople is
circumstantial and ambiguous, it suggests that the templon remained transparent
until (and perhaps in some cases beyond) the thirteenth century, save for veils
that could be opened and closed at various points.
153
Gerstel 2006a.
154
Gerstel 2006a: 142.
155
Ἐν τῷ μέλλειν ἐκτελέσαι τὴν θείαν ἱερουργίαν ἀπέρχονται ὅ τε ἱερεὺς καὶ ὁ διάκονος
ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἁγίων θυρῶν καὶ ποιοῦσι μετανοίας τρεῖς ἀσπαζόμενοι τὰς ἁγίας εἰκόνας
καὶ εἰς τοὺς χοροὺς προσκυνοῦσι. Εἶτα εἰσέρχονται εἰς τὸ ἅγιον βῆμα; Trempelas 1935: 1
(left column). For this preparatory service, see Chapter 1. See also Dmitrievskii 1895–1917:
II, 170: [ὁ ἱερεύς] ἀπέρχεται εἰς τὰ ἅγια θύρια καὶ ποιεῖ μετανοίας γ´ καὶ ἀσπάζεται τὰς
ἁγίας εἰκόνας.
156
Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 305. The patriarch venerated other icons, presumably on icon
stands, somewhere in the naos.
157
PG 155: 345. Cf. Symeon of Thessalonike: 90. Symeon does mention intercolumnar icons in
other instances; see Darrouzès 1976: 49, 53.
What was the reason for the permanent closing of the sanctuary barrier?
Gerstel has suggested that this phenomenon afected and concerned mostly
the celebrant rather than the lay participants. She argued that by crossing this
sacred boundary, the priest underwent a spiritual transformation and became a
worthy celebrant.158 In addition to this, I would argue that reasons for making
the barrier more opaque had to do with developments in liturgical theology
that concerned primarily those standing in the naos.The progressively height-
ened sense of sacredness attached to the Eucharistic gifts and their “incompre-
hensible” consecration certainly contributed to this. That the mystery of the
Eucharist was entrusted only to the clergy was not a new idea,159 but it was
codiied and gained much wider currency and potency starting in the eleventh
century. Not only handling the elements, but even looking at them became
the prerogative of the clergy, whom the Holy Spirit cleansed and made ready
at their ordination.160 Laymen were not permitted to approach the sanctuary,
let alone cast their “impure gaze” on the mysteries. Niketas Stethatos (d. ca.
1090), a monk in the Stoudios monastery, recapitulated this in one of his let-
ters with remarkable exactitude: “[T]he ability to comprehend and see these
[mysteries] is ofered by God and the apostles only to the ofering priests.”161
He then quotes a variety of biblical and theological sources justifying his posi-
tion that the laity should keep their impure eyes away from the sanctuary;
indeed during the anaphora the laity should “close, as if doors, the senses.”The
closing of the templon doors during the anaphora thus acquired a symbolic
function: it encouraged the laity to “close-of all the doors of the senses so
that they [the senses] do not wander around” but instead concentrate on the
acts of the priests – which ironically they were not supposed to see – and on
thanksgiving.162 The symbolic and actual holiness of the consecrated elements
needs no explanation. When Balsamon was asked what should happen if the
elements were spilled, he replied that “the holies [the consecrated elements]
should be collected with every honor and the spot where they fell should
be puriied and altered with ire and water.”163 In the twelfth century, writer
Michael Glykas went so far as to claim that during the Eucharist Jesus really
158
Gerstel 2006a: 155.
159
It is found already in Pseudo-Dionysios; see PG 3: 424–425. See also Walter 1993: 205.
160
Cf. the prayer of the Cheroubikon: “Therefore I implore you [God], look upon me, your
sinful and unworthy servant, and cleanse my soul and heart from evil conscience. Enable me
by the power of your Holy Spirit so that, vested with the grace of priesthood, I may stand
before your holy table and celebrate the mystery of your holy and pure body and your pre-
cious blood.”
161
μόνης ἀφιερωθείσης τῆς αὐτῶν κατανοήσεως καὶ ὁράσεως πρὸς Θεοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων
αὐτοῦ τοῖς προσφέρουσιν ἱερεῦσιν; Niketas Stethatos: 280. For these texts, see also Taft 2006b:
45–46.
162
Niketas Stethatos: 282–286; see also 172. Symeon of Thessalonike: 132–134 echoes a similar
sentiment.
163
[Τ]ὰ μὲν ἅγια μετὰ πάσης τιμῆς συναχθήσονται, καὶ ὁ τόπος, εἰς ὅν πεπτώκασι, διὰ πυρὸς
καὶ ὕδατος σεβασθήσεται καὶ ἀλλοιωθήσεται; Syntagma: IV, 463–464.
was immolated.164 It is during the Middle Byzantine period that we have irm
testimonies about the use of veils and doors to block the view of the laity dur-
ing the Liturgy.165 In one of his letters, Niketas, a chartophylax and synkellos
of the Great Church in the eleventh century, wrote that in some places he
himself saw a curtain hanging in the bema at the time of the mysteries (i.e., at
the beginning of the anaphora), spread in such a way that the priests could not
be seen by those outside.166 The eleventh-century Protheoria (which frequently
referred to the liturgical practices of Constantinople) also mentioned the clos-
ing of the doors and the spreading of the katapetasma, the veil over the central
door separating the bema from the naos, but added that this was a monastic
custom.167 This last observation is of particular importance because it indicates
yet another practice that originated in monasteries.
Veils in the sanctuary were likely more common than is thought. A scholion
by the tenth-century bishop Arethas of Caesarea claimed that “what the veil
is in the churches, the same is vagueness for words.”168 It is worth noting that
such veils were sometimes decorated with images. In the inventory attached
to the typikon of Kecharitomene, directly after the description of the tem-
plon, it lists the following: “the curtains (πέπλα) of the four intercolumniations
(διαστύλων) bearing representation of the cross and igures of saints.”169 It is
impossible to know if the intercolumnar icons were the end result of a process
in which the templa veils decorated with images presented an intermediary
stage, but this is an attractive speculation.
Thus, the imagery on the templa had a twofold purpose: irst and fore-
most, it accentuated and reinforced the screen’s function as a sacred barrier
that was not to be crossed except by those who were supposed to cross it;
second, it provided a clear focal point for prayer by the laity during or outside
services. The iconography of the templon screens directed this contemplation
to salvation history through Christ (Twelve Feasts), to the power of and need
for the intercession by the Theotokos and other saints (Deisis, proskynetaria,
and intercolumnar icons), and saints as prototypes of a godly life (beams with
scenes from a saint’s life). The templon thus became an integral part of the
experience of the congregants who attended the services from the naos.
164
Jugie 1926–1935: III, 321–325.
165
On this topic, see Mathews 1971: 162–171; Taft 2006b: 44–49.
166
Niketas Stethatos: 232–234.
167
Protheoria: 445.
168
ὃ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ναοῖς τὸ καταπέτασμα, τοῦτο ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἡ ἀσάφεια; Arethas, sch. 22
line 17.
169
Kecharitomene: 154; BMFD: 716
CHAPTER THREE
THE NAOS
The naos (ναός), located between the bema and the narthex, was the central and
largest part of every Byzantine church.1 A space of the people and for the peo-
ple, its size, form, and decoration relected the community’s needs and were also
meant to guide and educate about proper emotional and spiritual engagement
with the performed rituals. Indeed, some of the more intricate liturgical acts,
such as the Little and Great Entrance, unfolded partly in the naos. The lay con-
gregation, which attended the majority of the services from there, participated
primarily through silent prayer.The cantors and choirs, also located in the naos,
vocalized responses and praise on their behalf. As the place of the people and
a space of almost uninterrupted prayer, the naos was used for permanent or ad
hoc exposition of relics and, eventually, for the placement of tombs.
The layout and appearance of a church and its naos at the time of comple-
tion depended on several factors. These included the desires and agenda of
the patron, the budget, availability of building materials, workshop practices,
decorative considerations, and the size and type of the community that was
expected to use the building.2 The speciics of these circumstances usually
elude us, because records of building activities are very scarce.3 Even when
1
The term could also refer to the building as a whole. It ultimately refers to the Jerusalem
Temple; see Wilkinson 1982: 558.
2
Marinis 2012.
3
On this topic, see Ousterhout 1999; Bouras 2002b; 2010.
49
we have information about the building process and relevant issues, it is often
distorted by personal biases. For example, Michael Psellos called the church
of Saint George ton Manganon (X) Constantine Monomachos’s worst “foolish
excess.” Psellos attributed the repeated false starts and the building’s size to
Constantine’s ambition “to rival all other buildings that had been erected and
to surpass them altogether.”4 Moreover, the loss of the vast majority of interior
decoration of Constantinopolitan churches, which might have accounted for
some architectural choices, further complicates these issues.
As a consequence, it is diicult to explain suiciently the diferences in size
and interior arrangements in the naoi of even more or less contemporary foun-
dations. Compare, for example, Saint George ton Manganon (X, 1042–1055),
a large cross-domed church measuring 21 × 17 m, with the late-eleventh-
century Eski İmaret Camii (VII), a cross-in-square measuring 10 × 11 m, and
the Mouchliotissa (XXV), a small, early eleventh-century tetraconch mea-
suring 12 × 12 m in its original form. Such contrasts cannot be attributed
to diferent purposes. Both Saint George and Mouchliotissa were monastic
foundations. Indeed, there were no speciic formal characteristics that would
distinguish a monastic from a parish church or palatial one. Nor is there any
reason to believe that the habitual services celebrated in one space were essen-
tially diferent from those taking place in another.Thus, the diferences, as well
as the similarities, should often be attributed to practical matters and aesthetic
preferences particular to each building type.
Cross-in-square churches (see, for example, VII, VIII, XII) constituted the
majority of the surviving structures, although only one, Manastır Mescidi
(XVI), can be dated with some certainty to the Late Byzantine period. The
naoi of those churches were continuous, uniied spaces with the exception
of the four columns in the corners of the central bay supporting the dome.
The process that led to the creation of the cross-in-square type is still under
debate, even though the paradigm of an evolutionary development with one
type morphing into another in neat succession has largely been abandoned.5
Cyril Mango has noted two signiicant characteristics of these churches: they
were small, housing few congregants, and they lacked any kind of internal
divisions that might imply the separation of genders during worship.6 Both
attributes made the type suitable for monastic communities, which in this
period were fairly small and single-gendered.7 Indeed, the earliest examples
4
Psellos: II, 61–62. Translated in Mango 1986: 218–219.
5
For a review of the various theories, see Lange 1986. See also Striker 2001.
6
Mango 1976a: 178–180.
7
For example, the typikon of Kecharitomene (1110–6) limits the number of nuns to 24;
Kecharitomene: 41; BMFD: 671. The typikon of the monastery of Pantokrator (1136) indi-
cates that there should be no fewer than 80 monks; Pantokrator: 61; BMFD: 749. And in the
monastery of Anargyroi (1294–1301) to 30; Anargyroi: 139; BMFD: 1292. Although the actual
THE NAOS 51
10. Fatih Camii, Trilye, Turkey, 8th century, plan (after Mamaloukos).
of the type were found in eighth-century monasteries near Trilye in Bithynia,

such as one known today as Fatih Camii (sometimes identiied with Hagios
Stephanos) (Fig. 10).8 The revival of monasticism in Bithynia in the eighth and
ninth centuries has been well documented, as has the movement of monastics
from Bithynia to Constantinople.9 The most celebrated such case was that of
Theodore of Stoudios and his monks from Sakkoudion, who moved to the
monastery of Stoudios in the late eighth century.10 It is conceivable that the
Bithynian monks brought with them, along with their liturgical practices, a
new kind of church architecture, one suited to self-dependent monasteries
rather than to urban ecclesiastical foundations. Several of the cross-in-square
churches in Constantinople, such as the north church tou Libos (XXIII-2)
and both churches in the Pantokrator monastery (VIII-1), belonged to mon-
asteries, although four-column buildings may also have been used in secular
contexts.11 The popularity of cross-in-square buildings might have been due to
practical matters as well. The type did not pose any signiicant structural chal-
lenges and could be replicated and repeated easily by masons who did not pos-
sess a sophisticated knowledge of architecture. In a city such as Constantinople
with an important Late Antique phase there was an abundance of matching
columns. The modest size matched the needs of monastic communities, the
numbers certainly luctuacted, they could not have been very diferent from those stated in
the typika.
8
Mango and Ševčenko 1973; Pekak 2009.
9
Kountoura-Galake 1996: 205–228.
10
Hatlie 2007: 322–326. See also Chapter 1.
11
Ćurčić 2010: 272.
group most served by this type. Finally, the elegant, unobstructed interior of a
cross-in-square church must have been appealing.
Cross-domed churches, with a chronological spread between the ninth and
the early thirteenth centuries, were also current. The dome was supported
by four substantial piers, which were L-shaped and created relatively iso-
lated corner rooms in the west side of the naos (Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii,
II; Kalenderhane Camii, XIV). The corresponding eastern rooms sometimes
became the side apses of the sanctuary (Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii, II; perhaps
Mangana, X). Because these were corner spaces, they did not dramatically dis-
rupt the unity of the naos, which, nevertheless, had a pronounced cruciform
footprint. As the height of the building did not depend on the size of avail-
able column shafts as in the cross-in-square, cross-domed churches could be
of considerable proportions. In all probability this type was meant for use by
large communities.
The so-called ambulatory churches presented a departure from the norm
in that the congregation’s space was fragmented.The four piers that supported
the dome and the columns between them divided the naos of the ambulatory
church into two distinct spaces: the central, domed bay, and the ambulatory that
enveloped it on three sides. Examples from both the Middle (Pammakaristos,
XXIV; probably Peribleptos, XXVI) and Late Byzantine periods (south church
in the monastery tou Libos, XXIII; and likely Hagios Andreas en te Krisei, I)
have survived. These interior arrangements were likely due to the funerary
function of those foundations.12
Other types were uncommon. New basilicas were rare during the Medi-
eval period and were smaller than their Early Christian antecedents.13 Kefeli
Mescidi (XV) likely dates to the Late Byzantine period. İsa Kapı Mescidi (XIII)
is of Palaiologan date. Two other buildings followed unique arrangements. In
the katholikon of Chora monastery, the naos had a cruciform footprint, which,
however, did not fragment the unity of the interior (VI-1, 3). The form of
the naos in the Chora was the result of a rebuilding undertaken in the early
twelfth century, when the original cross-in-square church was replaced with
the cruciform plan that was retained in the fourteenth-century reconstruc-
tion. Ousterhout has attributed this change to structural rather than liturgical
or functional concerns.14 In the Mouchliotissa (XXV), the center bay under
the dome opened to spacious conches on all four sides. Such quatrefoils were
unusual, although not unique as evidenced by the eleventh-century church of
Panagia Kamariotissa in nearby Heybeliada (Fig. 11).15
12
See the last few pages in this chapter.
13
Altripp 2013 appeared too late to be considered in this study.
14
Ousterhout 1987: 20–22.
15
On this church, see Mathews 1973. Churches that belonged to “uncommon” types certainly
existed. For example, the church in Küçükyalı on the Asian shore of the sea of Marmara
THE NAOS 53
All formal variations shared some characteristics. The

naos was almost always a uniied space without divisions,
allowing unimpeded visual access to the templon and
bema from all points.16 The columns or piers, in combina-
tion with the superstructure and the vaulting, made mani-
fest in the naos the symbol of the cross. The central bay
was almost always covered by a dome on a drum. All these
conformed with the symbolic interpretation of the domed
11. Theotokos Kamariotissa, Hey-
church as a microcosm and an image of the universe, an beliada,Turkey, 11th century, plan
idea evident already in Origen (d. ca. 254),17 which was (redrawn after Pasadaios).
made explicit in the seventh-century liturgical commen-
tary of Maximos the Confessor: “God’s holy church is a igure and image of
the whole visible and invisible universe.”18 The same idea continued to be
employed throughout the Byzantine period. In the ifteenth century Symeon
of Thessalonike wrote: “The comeliness of the church teaches the beauty of
the creation, and the hanging lights imitate the stars, and the dome imitates
the irmament.”19 The features of these churches also correspond to the general
outlines of the iconographic program as developed in the post-Iconoclastic
period, with Christ Pantokrator on the dome, the Great Feasts in the vaults,
and standing saints on the lower walls.20 Although no Byzantine church in
Constantinople has preserved the interior decoration of its naos intact, evi-
dence from literary sources conirms that such an arrangement was in place
already in the late ninth century. The description of Patriarch Photios (d. after
893) of the now-lost church of the Theotokos of the Pharos in the Great
Palace speaks of Christ on the dome, angels on the drum, the Virgin in the
apse, and images of apostles, martyrs, prophets, and patriarchs throughout the
church.21 Emperor Leo VI’s sermon on the consecration of a likely cross-in-
square church built by his father-in-law, Stylianos Zaoutzes (d. 899), describes
was a building with an octagonal central bay deined by thick piers, and lateral porches on
the north and south sides of the naos, on which, see Ricci 2008. Although Ricci is correct
that the remains belong to a church rather than the Bryas palace, the identiication with the
monastery of Satyros is tenuous and the proposed ninth-century date is uncertain. Indeed, the
architectural and sculptural parallels cited in Ricci 2011: 86–87 date to the tenth century.
16
There is some evidence for speciic interior divisions in Early Christian Constantinopolitan
basilicas, but the Medieval naoi lacked such features; Mathews 1971: 125; Peschlow
2006b: 54–55.
17
Bornert 1966: 99–100. See also McVey 1983, 2010; Saradi 2010: 98–105. The same symbolism
occurred in the Liturgy; see Taft 1992: 37–38.
18
τοῦ σύμπαντος κόσμου, τοῦ ἐξ ὁρατῶν καὶ ἀοράτων οὐσιῶν ὑφεστῶτος, εἶναι τύπον καὶ
εἰκόνα τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίαν; Maximos Confessor: 14–15.
19
τοῦ ναοῦ δὲ ἡ ὡραιότης τὴν τῆς κτίσεως διδάσκει καλλονήν, καὶ τὰ μὲν αἰωρημένα φῶτα
τοὺς ἀστέρας μιμεῖται, ὁ κύκλος δὲ τὸ στερέωμα; Symeon of Thessalonike: 94.
20
Demus 1976 remains the basic study of the arrangement of the monumental decoration in a
church.
21
Mango 1986: 186. For this church, see Janin 1969: 232–236.
Christ on the dome with angelic powers and prophets on the drum. The rest
of the church was decorated with “events of the Incarnation” (τῆς διὰ σαρκὸς
οἰκονομίας φέρει τὰ πράγματα), beginning with the Annunciation and ending
with the Ascension.22
The naos was above all the place from where the lay congregation attended
services. The people occupied parts or all of it as needed.23 Segregation of
sexes presumably occurred in secular churches, although neither gender seems
to have had a ixed location. Women often found themselves in galleries but
were not conined to them. Gender segregation was not relevant in monastic
churches, where members of the opposite sex were not allowed to enter the
monastery, with very few exceptions. Some theologians prescribed that people
stand in church according to a horizontal hierarchy: the higher the ecclesias-
tical or political rank, the closer to the sanctuary. This is relected in a letter of
Niketas Stethatos of Stoudios:
Know that during the holy anaphora, the place of the laity in the assem-
bly of the faithful is far from the divine altar. The interior of the holy
bema is reserved to the priests, deacons, and subdeacons alone; the area
outside near the bema to the monks and other ranks of our hierarchy;
behind them and their platform, the space is for the laity.24
Three centuries later, Symeon of Thessalonike promoted a similar arrange-

ment.25 How often these guidelines were observed is impossible to know.
Singers were a special component of the congregation and its only members
to have an assigned space, at least according to the written sources. Evangelia
Spyrakou has distinguished two major phases in the coniguration and place-
ment of choirs.26 In the irst, which pertains primarily to secular churches fol-
lowing the Asmatike Akolouthia, soloists occupied the area above and beneath
the ambo, an elevated platform in the middle of the naos common in early
Constantinopolitan churches.27 A larger choir was located directly in front of
22
Leo VI: 472–476. Translated in Mango 1986: 203–205. For this church, see Janin 1969: 132.
See also Leo VI’s description of the decoration of the church in the monastery of Kauleas in
Constantinople; Leo VI: 425–426.
23
On the location of people during the Liturgy, see Taft 1998.
24
Τῶν λαϊκῶν, ἴσθι, ὁ τόπος ἐν τῇ τῶν πιστῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ, τελουμένης τῆς ἁγίας ἀναφορᾶς,
μακράν ἐστι τοῦ θείου θυσιαστηρίου. Τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐντὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ βήματος μόνων τῶν
ἱερέων καὶ διακόνων καὶ ὑποδιακόνων ἐστί· τὰ δὲ ἐκτὸς καὶ πλησίον τοῦ βήματος, τῶν
μοναχῶν καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ταγμάτων τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἱεραρχίας· τὰ δὲ τούτων ὄπισθεν καὶ
τοῦ ὀκρίβαντος, τῶν λαϊκῶν; Niketas Stethatos: 282–284.
25
PG 155: 352.
26
Spyrakou 2008.
27
The ambo in the early Constantinopolitan churches was connected to the bema with a
pathway and was used, among other things, for the reading of the lections.Whenever present,
ambos continued to be used in the Middle and Late Byzantine period. This was certainly
the case in Hagia Sophia and Stoudios (BMFD: 100A); see also Kazhdan 1987; Dennert 1995:
esp. 143; Symeon of Thessalonike: 94, 246. Although there is archaeological evidence, primarily
THE NAOS 55
the bema in the solea.28 Sometimes this choir was divided into two smaller
ones. Starting as early as the twelfth century, with the dissemination and even-
tual dominance of monastic practices, the soloists were integrated into two
choirs, located on either side of the center of the naos.
Much has been said about the gradual separation of the congregation from
the liturgical action and the compartmentalization of worship in the Middle
and Late Byzantine periods. Starting as early as the eleventh century, the sanc-
tuary barrier became progressively more opaque with the introduction of cur-
tains and eventually permanently ixed icons.29 Yet, it is inaccurate to think
of the Medieval Byzantine liturgy as a mere stage performance attended by a
passive audience.The templon impeded only visual, not audial, access, and only
part of the time. The main doors of the bema were closed and curtains were
drawn only at the beginning of the anaphora, although even this was not a uni-
versal practice.30 The concealment of the “mysteries” was a symbolic act, meant
to underscore the sacredness of the Eucharist, not to keep it a secret or disas-
sociate the people from the liturgical action in the bema. The people would
certainly know what was going on, especially as parts of the anaphora were
read aloud. The auditory connection during the anaphora became important
in spite of, or rather because of, the absence of a visual one. Furthermore, sub-
stantial parts of the Divine Liturgy involved a dialogue between the celebrants
and the congregation, even if the response of the congregation was often sung
by cantors.
Although most of the liturgical action took place inside the bema, the clergy
frequently penetrated the naos. The most important instances during the
Divine Liturgy were the two entrances. In the Little Entrance the priest and
deacon would process through the naos, stand in the middle and, after a bless-
ing, enter the sanctuary.31 During the Great Entrance the clergy carried the
Eucharistic gifts from the prothesis through the naos and the narthex to the
altar. Clergy also would appear in the naos at several other points. A procession
from the altar to the middle of the naos preceded the reading of the Gospel.32
The deacon would cense the people on several occasions. Furthermore, he
from Asia Minor, for de novo construction of ambos early in the Middle Byzantine period, it
seems that they were rare; see Soteriou 1929: 302–304 for a Medieval ambo in Kalambaka,
Greece, reconstructed using older material; Dennert 1995; Pazaras 1994 for an ambo in
Verroia; Peschlow 1994; and Sodini 1994. Sodini is right in connecting the disappearance of
the ambo with the prevalence of monastic churches after the ninth century, as mentions of it
are virutally nonexistent in monastic typika.
28
For this term, see Chapter 2 and Walter 1995: 99–100. Symeon of Thessalonike assigns the
subdeacons and readers in the solea; see PG 155: 345.
29
See Chapter 2.
30
It is, for example, absent from the earlier diataxeis.
31
There were entrances, following approximately the same course, during Matins and Vespers;
see, for example, PG 155: 608–609; Phountoules 1976: 148.
32
Trempelas 1935: 8 (both columns).
would read many of his assigned petitions in front of the center door of the
templon.33 The laity received communion in front of the templon,34 again fol-
lowing a preestablished order of importance: irst the subdeacons, readers, and
cantors; then monastics; and inally the people, according to their rank.35
Even if they were not active participants, congregants engaged with the ritual
acts through contemplation. Middle and Late Byzantine liturgical commentar-
ies ofer insights on how the people understood (or ought to have understood)
the Liturgy.36 The exegetical models fall roughly into two categories: a spiritual
interpretation whereby the anagogical contemplation of the liturgical rituals
uncovers heavenly realities (θεωρία), and a historical explication in which the
Liturgy is a mimesis of Christ’s redemptive work on earth (ἱστορία).37 In sim-
pler terms, the Liturgy is most often interpreted as a relection and foretaste
of heavenly worship38 and a memorial and reenactment of Christ’s life, death,
and resurrection.39 The iconography of churches expressed the same ideas. In
the sanctuary such themes as the concelebrating saintly hierarchs and the com-
munion of the apostles became predominant by the eleventh century.40 And in
the naos the Christological scenes surrounding the faithful were liturgical in
that these scenes were reenacted with every celebration of the Liturgy.41 Visual
exegesis in liturgical rolls, manuscripts for the use of clergy, follows the same
patterns. The eleventh-century scroll Staurou 109, now in the library of the
Greek Patriarchate of Jerusalem, contains next to the liturgical prayers images
both pertaining of the heavenly Liturgy, including the Communion of the
Apostles, and to the life and ministry of Christ.42
Thus, the church building, its decoration, and the ritual actions of the clergy
enforced the idea of the whole community, laity and clergy, praising God and
participating in the Liturgy. The cruciform character of the naos signiied that
the people found themselves “bodily into the cross” and, during the Liturgy,
they participated in Christ’s sacriice on the cross.43 By reading petitions in the
33
See, for example, Trempelas 1935: 5 (right column), 6 (left column).
34
πρὸ τῶν ἱερῶν πυλῶν; Symeon of Thessalonike: 250.
35
Symeon of Thessalonike: 250.
36
On Byzantine liturgical commentaries, see the fundamental work of Bornert 1966.
37
These were essentially applications of patristic scriptural exegesis on the text and ritual of the
Liturgy.
38
I should note that, although this is the most prominent understanding, “heavenly realities”
could refer to a variety of other interpretations. Especially in Germanos of Constantinople
and the Protheoria, the Liturgy is seen as the fulillment of such Old Testament preigurations
as Melchisedech and Temple sacriices.These repeat patristic understandings of the Eucharist;
see Bornert 1966: 205–206.
39
Starting with Germanos, most authors combine the two exegetical approaches, usually favor-
ing one over the other.
40
Gerstel 1999: 5–67.
41
Kitzinger 1988: 53.
42
Grabar 1954: igs. 10, 12, 13, 14.
43
Mathews 1990: 191.
THE NAOS 57
naos about health, peace, salvation of souls, and even good crops, the deacon
became the voice of the congregation, expressing their needs, wishes, and con-
cerns. Germanos of Constantinople described the Little Entrance, in which
the Gospel book was processed around the naos, as symbolizing “the appear-
ance of the Son of God into this world,”44 when Christ lived among the peo-
ple. Signiicantly, the procession would stop briely under the dome, beneath
the image of Christ Pantokrator clasping the Gospel book.45 The presence of
a bishop in cases of pontiical liturgy further enhanced this symbolism. The
bishop joined the Little Entrance in the narthex, and in later years in the nave,
as a visible embodiment of Christ.46 The subsequent reading of the lection in
the middle of the naos signaled that God’s word was addressed to everybody.
Furthermore, on diferent occasions the deacon censed the church, its icons,
and inally, and most tellingly, the congregants. With this act, the participants
became part of the communion of saints on the walls of the church and in the
icon stands that surrounded them.47 The Great Entrance intensiied this notion
because it symbolized “the entrance of the saints and all the just, entering
together before the Cherubic powers and angelic hosts, invisibly going before
Christ the Great King.”48 Concomitantly, the people became “the greatest
crowd and the children of the Hebrews who sensibly praised him as king and
conqueror of death”49 when Christ arrived in Jerusalem.The communion and,
after the twelfth century, the distribution of the antidoron further underlined
the communal character of the worship.50
Many former Byzantine churches in Istanbul, most retroitted for Muslim
worship, barely relect the sometimes overwhelming richness of their original
interiors. In addition to the permanent wall decoration (marble revetment,
mosaic, fresco, and so on), the naos had a variety of decorative and liturgical
accoutrements that were portable and ephemeral. The inventory appended to
the typikon of the Kecharitomene monastery lists more than a dozen por-
table icons, six metal crosses, several sets of Eucharistic vessels, and liturgical
vestments and textiles, which were used depending on the occasion.51 The
skeuophylakissa (σκευοφυλάκισσα, lit. “the keeper of the vessels”) is instructed
44
Meyendorf 1984: 72, 74.
45
On this, see Mathews 1990, esp. 208–209.
46
Protheoria: 436–438. After the twelfth century with the introduction of igural embroidery of
vestments, the symbolism of the Liturgy as a reenactment of Christ’s life was further under-
scored; see Woodin 2011; 2012.
47
Mathews 1988: 14.
48
Meyendorf 1984: 86; Taft 1992: 47.
49
Protheoria: 441.
50
Although this was the ideal experience of the people, sources sometimes tell of less-than-
perfect deportment, including making noise, being dressed inappropriately, falling asleep, and
doing handiwork during the services; see Dubowchik 2003: 289–290; Taft 2006b: 38–39.
51
Kecharitomene: 152–155; BMFD: 714–717.
to “hand over to the ekklesiarchissa (ἐκκλησιάρχισσα)52 for the service of the

church both the things for daily use and the things used in the feasts, and when
it is time, receive these back again from her and guard them.”53 The typikon
of Pantokrator refers to “icons set out for veneration (προσκυνήσεις),” which
changed depending on the feast day.54 The same text contains detailed instruc-
tions concerning the lighting in all three churches. Just for the church of
Eleousa the typikon prescribes more than thirty lamps throughout the build-
ing, in the apse, the naos, the narthex, and in front of icons. Eight were to burn
continuously and the rest only during services. For the weekly Friday evening
procession an additional twenty-two lamps and several candles were to be
employed.55 Thus, the naos was a dynamic and ever-changing space where
objects were exposed for ad hoc veneration and were moved around, revealed,
and taken away.
In addition to icons, reliquaries, usually kept in sacristies and chapels, were
ofered for veneration in the naos on certain occasions. For example, in the
monastery of Evergetis on the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, as soon as
the singing of the canon started during Matins, the priest and deacon processed
around the church and deposited the cross on a decorated table that had been
placed in front of the templon on the right side. After the ritual of the exalta-
tion of the Cross, irst the abbot, and then everybody else in pairs, venerated the
cross. The relic remained there until the beginning of the Liturgy.56 In addition
to these programmatic expositions, reliquaries could be taken out for venera-
tion as needed. Ruy González de Clavijo (d. 1412), the Spanish ambassador,
visited the monastery of Saint John the Baptist in Petra in order to venerate the
monastery’s relics and speciically the Passion relics, which were transferred to
that foundation from the Mangana in the early ifteenth century.57 The monks
mounted the “tower of the church, where the relics were preserved” inside a
sealed chest.58 This they “carried down into the church and placed on a high
table which was spread with a silken coverlet.” Subsequently the monks pre-
sented, one by one, a formidable number of mostly Passion relics.59 A miniature
52
The nun who prepared the church for services.
53
Kecharitomene: 65; BMFD: 680–1. See also Mamas: 269; BMFD: 1002.
54
Pantokrator: 37; BMFD: 741. In the same text, Emperor John II Komnenos detailed his wish
that the icon of Hodegetria “be taken into the monastery on the days of our com-
memoration” and placed near the tombs in the chapel of Saint Michael; Pantokrator: 81–83;
BMFD: 756.
55
Pantokrator: 73–75; BMFD: 753–754.
56
Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 58–62. For a similar ritual in Hagia Sophia, see also Typikon of the
Great Church: I, 28–33; II, 40–47; De Cerimoniis: 538–541, 549–550.
57
Majeska 1984: 342–344.
58
The Russian anonymous reports a chest of relics in the monastery of Peribleptos; Majeska
1984: 146.
59
Clavijo: 80–83. Anthony of Novgorod described a similar exposition of relics on a table in the
monastery of the prophet Elijah; see Ehrhard 1932: 62.
THE NAOS 59
in the Menologion of Basil II (fol. 324r) of the veneration of the chains of Saint
Peter, kept in his eponymous eukterion close to Hagia Sophia, illustrates this
practice. The miniature shows the chains displayed on a table in the naos.60
As with other parts of the Byzantine church, the naos accommodated
permanent and semipermanent installations of sacred loci. For example, in
Mangana (X), the aforementioned chest with the Passion relics was located
“on the right side in front of the altar.”61 This chest was in all likelihood out-
side the bema, because pilgrims and visitors could venerate it, albeit not the
relics themselves. Similarly, the Russian Anonymous noted that in the naos of
Stoudios “there are two incorrupt bodies … Saint Sabas and Saint Solomonis
repose in the corner on the left side.”62 Similar practices are known from other
parts of the empire,63 although this appears to have been uncommon. It is often
unclear why these saints’ tombs were inside the naos rather than in a chapel or
a crypt, which was more common and precluded the circulation of pilgrims
during services.64 However, the physical presence of a saint would have been
especially signiicant during the Divine Liturgy, when his or her name would
have been invoked both during the prothesis rite and immediately after the
consecration of the Eucharistic gifts.The saint would join the congregation in
ofering praise and worship to God, especially if the saint’s image were pres-
ent on a wall or in a portable icon, while at the same time he or she would
dispense divine grace through his or her remains.
Not only saints but also laypeople could be buried in the naos, and several
existing churches preserve evidence for such burials. The inner ambulatory
in the naos of the Pammakaristos (XXIV) contained several tombs, most of
which belonged to the family of the founders.65 In the church of Saint John in
the monastery tou Libos (XXIII), nine tombs and two ossuaries were grouped
within the corridor created by the colonnaded ambulatory.66 The second
founder of the monastery, Theodora Palaiologina, and members of her family
occupied them.67 Such tomb placements were thought to be greatly beneicial
to the deceased, and this privilege was reserved for founders or benefactors of
the foundations, usually members of the imperial family and the aristocracy,
60
For this feast, see SynCP: January 16.
61
Majeska 1984: 140, 368–369.
62
Majeska 1984: 146.
63
For example, the oft-mentioned miracle-working tomb of Saint Nicholas may have been in
the lateral aisle of his church at Myra; see Borchhardt 1975: 349–351.
64
See Chapter 5.
65
For the list of the tombs, see Schreiner 1971. For the arrangement of the tombs, see Mango
et al. 1978: 6–9; Weissbrod 2003: 185–195; Efenberger 2007.
66
Marinis 2009.
67
Two further tombs were found in the north and south sides of the naos in the church of the
Theotokos tou Libos. In Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii (XII), two arcosolia in the north and south
walls of the naos also indicate the existence of tombs.
as well as for their families, a fact corroborated by sources on some now-lost

foundations.68 In the Constantinopolitan monastery of Saint Euphemia en to
Petrio the tomb of Pangalo, the mother of Emperor Basil I, lay in the north-
eastern part of the naos; the tombs of Basil’s brothers, Marianos and Symbatios,
were on the opposite side.69 Basil was the founder of this monastery.70 In the
naos of the church of the monastery ta Gastria in Constantinople lay the tombs
of Emperor Theophilos’s wife, Theodora, and her three daughters, as well as
that of Petronas, her brother.71 Theoktiste, the mother of Theodora, was the
founder of this monastery and was buried in the narthex.72 Burials in the
nave are also known in areas outside Constantinople. For example, the tomb
of the protospatharios Christopher is located in the middle of the north wall in
the nave of Panagia Chalkeon in Thessalonike (1028), a building with strong
Constantinopolitan ties.73
This textual and archaeological evidence contradicts imperial and ecclesi-
astical regulations that forbade burials inside churches.74 The ninth-century
collection of imperial laws known as the Basilika clearly dictated that “nobody
should bury the dead in a holy church.”75 When asked whether it is permissible
to bury the dead in a church or not, the twelfth-century canonist Theodore
Balsamon diferentiated between properly consecrated churches and the so-
called eukteria, in this context unconsecrated chapels.These lacked the relics of
martyrs placed under the altar; chrismation of the altar, which took place dur-
ing the consecration of the church; and a throne for the bishop.The main rea-
son that Balsamon ofers for the prohibition of burial in consecrated churches
was that “the body of a martyr [i.e., his or her relics] is buried there.”76
The desire to be buried inside a church proved stronger than canonical pro-
hibitions, however.77 What accounts for such a desire? Dimitrios Pallas, Nikos
Emmanoulidis, and others have argued that the appearance of tombs within
those foundations was essentially a continuation of ad sanctos burials, the result of
the transfer of relics to intra urbem churches, but this is not necessarily the case.78
68
For tombs of founders, see Popović 2006.
69
De Cerimoniis: 648.
70
Janin 1969: 127–129.
71
De Cerimoniis: 647.
72
Janin 1969: 67–68.
73
Tsitouridou 1982.
74
For an overview of this legislation, see Marinis 2009: 150.
75
Basilika: 5.1.2.
76
Οὐκ ἔξεστι θάπτειν τινὰ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐὰν δηλονότι μάρτυρος ἐκεῖσε σῶμα ἀπόκειται;
Syntagma: IV, 479. See also Pavlov 1897: 318–319; Emmanouilidis 1989: 219–221; Pitsakis 2005:
68–69.
77
For tombs in the narthex and exonarthex, for which the theological justiication is the same,
see Chapter 4.
78
Pallas 1950–1951: 176–180; Emmanouilidis 1989: 185–186, 189, 206–223; Laskaris 2000: 24–30.
Emmanouilidis 1989: 187–223 distinguishes between burials in monastic and secular churches.
However, the motives for pursuing a church burial in both cases were largely identical.
THE NAOS 61
Relics used in the consecration rite were just fragments placed in very small
reliquaries that were subsequently buried or sealed, thus becoming inacces-
sible.79 The name of the martyr to whom they belonged was rarely, if ever,
recorded. Thus consecration relics had a function diferent from that of other
relics kept in churches and monasteries, or, in the Early Christian period, in
martyria.80 Typika and other related documents make clear that the foremost
reason for establishing a foundation was the salvation of the soul of the patron,
in exchange for his or her commitment to glorify God through the foun-
dation.81 Intrinsically related to this were the continuous and regular prayers
and commemorations that the monastic community ofered on behalf of the
patron and his or her family. This idea was encapsulated in the testament (1232)
of presbyter Alexios Tesaites, who wrote: “Those who erect churches, they do
it for three reasons: irst, to praise God; second, to pray for the emperors; third,
to commemorate those who are buried there and the orthodox everywhere.”82
In the thirteenth century, Michael, bishop of Demetrias, in his discussion of
Nicholas/Ioasaph Maliasenos, expressed a similar sentiment: “Because, as I see,
many other chapels and pious institutions were founded by him [Ioasaph] for
the salvation of his soul and the continuous commemoration of the orthodox
emperors and of all Christians.”83 Most often, the obligation for perpetual
commemoration came as a bequest associated with a monetary endowment
or gift of land or property, as in the case of John Arbantenos, who was buried
in the monastery of Pantokrator (VIII). Arbantenos gave the monastery part
of his property in exchange for daily commemorations.84 Some documents,
such as the Testament of Constantine Akropolites, blatantly underlined the
binding nature of the exchange, buildings and property for commemorations:
“In view of my demands, it would be suicient to bind you with a reason-
able and acceptable oath.”85 Furthermore, the right to commemoration was
not restricted to the founder but extended to whoever made a donation. The
typikon of Kecharitomene instructed: “[The commemorations of those] who
79
See the discussion of the rite in Chapter 2.The relics of Euphemia in her martyrion near the
hippodrome, before they were thrown into the sea by Emperor Leo III, constituted a rare
exception. According to Constantine, bishop of Tios (ca. 800), Euphemia’s coin was placed
under the altar and had a sizable access hole; see Halkin 1965: 87.
80
Grabar 1943: I, 37–44, 385–393;Yasin 2009: 151–209.
81
On the obligations and rights of the founders of monasteries, see Konidares 1984: 36–43.
82
Οἱ θείους οἴκους ἀνεγείροντες ἐν τρισὶν ὑποθέσεσιν τοῦτο ποιοῦσι, τό μέν πρῶτον εἰς
τὸ ἐξυμνεῖσθαι τὸ θεῖον, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον εἰς τὸ ὑπερεύχεσθαι τοῦ κράτους τῶν βασιλέων,
τὸ τρίτον δὲ εἰς τὸ μνημονεύειν τοὺς ἐκεῖσε τεθαμμένους καὶ ἁπανταχοῦ ὀρθοδόξους;
Miklosich and Müller 1860–1890: IV, 58.
83
πολλὰ γὰρ, ὡς ὁρῶ, καὶ ἕτερα εὐκτήρια καὶ σεμνεῖα ἀνηγέρθησαν παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν
ψυχικῆς αὐτοῦ σωτηρίας καὶ μνημοσύνου διηνεκοῦς τῶν ὀρθοδόξων βασιλέων καὶ πάντων
τῶν χριστιανῶν; Miklosich and Müller 1860–1890: IV, 425.
84
Pantokrator: 45–47; BMFD: 743.
85
Ἤρκει μὲν οὖν ὅπερ ἔφην εἰς ὅρκωσιν εὔλογον τε καὶ εὐπαράδεκτον; Akropolites: 284;
BMFD: 1381.
were happy to ofer and dedicate something of their possessions will be con-
ducted in whatever way they see it from what they are given by them, that is,
in addition to what is decreed by us.”86 Such stipulations explain the tombs of
nonrelatives of the founders that were found in many monasteries, such as the
Chora. Both Middle and Late Byzantine typika included detailed instructions
regarding the commemoration of the founders, their families, and associates.87
The desire to place one’s tomb inside the church had little to do with the pres-
ence of relics under the altar, but a lot to do with the act of commemoration in
the Divine Liturgy, which occurred during the prothesis and the reading of the
diptychs after the consecration, in memorial services, and by the congregation
and visitors to the church.
The tombs were placed in a space of constant prayer and sacrament, a loca-
tion that was very beneicial even for the souls of the deceased. Nikolaos
Kabasilas, a fourteenth-century theologian, claimed that one needed not be
present physically, because the sanctiication that took place during the Liturgy
addressed only the soul. Kabasilas wrote:
But for those who are sanctiied, what are the reasons for sanctiication?
Perhaps the fact that one has a body, rushes to the altar, takes the holy gifts
in one’s hands, receives them in his mouth, eats them, or drinks them?
Not at all. Because many who had all of the above and thus approached
the mysteries gained nothing – rather they left being responsible for
larger evils. But what are the causes of sanctiication to those who are
sanctiied and what are those that Christ demands from us? The cleansing
of soul, the love of God, faith, desire for the mystery, eagerness for the
receiving of communion, fervent impulse, running with thirst. These are
what attract sanctiication…. But all these do not pertain to the body, but
depend solely on the soul. Therefore, nothing impedes the souls of the
dead, like those of the living, to achieve these.88
And he continues: “From all the above-said it is evident that everything in the
sacred rite is common to both the living and the departed. Since the causes of
sanctiication are spiritual goods, they pertain to both.”89
86
τῶν δὲ καί τι οἴκοθεν προσενέγκαι καὶ ἀφιερῶσαι γνώμῃ καὶ προαιρέσει οἰκείᾳ ἀσπασαμένων
καθὼς ἂν αὗται ἀπὸ τῶν παρ’ αὐτῶν διδομένων τυπώσαιεν εἰς προσθήκην δηλονότι τῶν
διωρισμένων παρ’ ἡμῶν; Kecharitomene: 133; BMFD: 705. Cf. BMFD: 548.
87
See, for example, Pantokrator: 41–47; BMFD: 742–743; Libos: 122–123; BMFD: 1274.
88
Ἀλλὰ τίνα τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ τὰ αἴτια τοῖς ἁγιαζομένοις; καὶ τίνα ἐστὶν ἂ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ Χριστὸς
ἀπαιτεῖ; Ψυχῆς κάθαρσις, ἀγάπη πρὸς Θεὸν, πίστις, ἐπιθυμία τοῦ μυστηρίου, προθυμία
πρὸς τὴν μετάληψιν, ὁρμὴ ζέουσα, τὸ διψῶντας δραμεῖν. Ταῦτά ἐστιν ἃ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν
ἐφέλκεται τοῦτον … Αλλὰ ταῦτα πάντα οὐ σωματικά, ἀλλὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐξήρτηται μόνης.
Οὐκοῦν οὐδὲν κωλύει καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ταῦτα δύνασθαι τῶν τεθνηκότων ὥσπερ τῶν ζώντων;
Kabasilas: 242.
89
Ἐκ δὴ τῶν εἰρημένων ἁπάντων ἐκεῖνο γίνεται δῆλον ὅτι πάντα ὅσα εἰς τὴν ἱερὰν ἥκει
τελετὴν κοινά ἐστι καὶ ζῶσι καὶ τεθνηκόσι. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὰ αἴτια τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ ψυχικὰ
ὄντα ἀγαθὰ καὶ ἀμφοτέροις πρόσεστι; Kabasilas: 248. See also 254–256.
THE NAOS 63
The tomb itself acted as a forced reminder of the obligation of commemo-

ration as it often included images of the deceased and epigrams that encour-
aged the viewer to pray on his or her behalf. In addition, entombment inside
a church or a monastery ofered protection, especially from tomb robbers,
something that was an evident concern.90 In the case of monasteries, the tombs
provided monks and nuns with a constant, physical reminder of death and the
futility of life, thus abetting their penitential exercises.91 Finally, tombs were
a source of revenue for monasteries. According to the ninth-century life of
Philaretos the Merciful (d. 792), the saint purchased a tomb in the monastery
of Saint Andrew en te Krisei (I).92
In Constantinople, the two churches that had tombs in the naos, Pammaka-
ristos (XXIV) and Saint John tou Libos (XXIII), belong to the ambulatory type
and are the only surviving examples of it. It is likely that the katholikon of
Peribleptos (XXVI) was also an ambulatory church. The tomb of its founder,
Emperor Romanos III Argyros, was located in the naos, in the north arm of
the ambulatory.93 Thus, there are good reasons to connect this type with a pre-
dominantly funerary function. These buildings presented the peculiarity that,
in contrast to the norm in this period, the naos was clearly divided into two
distinct zones: the central bay under the dome and the inner ambulatory that
surrounded it on three sides. Tombs were placed in the latter. Therefore, the
ambulatory plan, at least in Constantinople, should be interpreted as a solution
that accommodated the juxtaposition of liturgical and funeral spaces within the
same building. Following a process of creating zones of difering spiritual impor-
tance and function,94 the columns and piers that screen of the main bay serve
as interior separators of spaces in the naos with diferent purposes, one funerary
and the other liturgical. In that way the canonical prohibitions were liberally
interpreted (or circumvented) as referring not to the church as a whole but
rather to its liturgical center, the bema and the central bay of the naos.
In the ifteenth century, Symeon of Thessalonike described the naos as fol-
lows: “we say that the naos is in the place of heavens and the paradise of
Eden.”95 The faithful attending the services, along with the souls of those bur-
ied in the naos, joined the communion of saints, whose images were depicted
on the walls and whose relics were sometimes deposited in tombs, in ofer-
ing praise to God as he looked down from the apex of the dome. But before
reaching the naos, the people had to cross the narthex, an entrance porch with
diferent symbolism and functions.
90
Gerstel 2011: 136–143.
91
As argued in Gerstel 2011: 143–145.
92
Philaretos: 151, 161.
93
Mango 1986: 217–218.
94
On this, see Marinis 2009.
95
Οὐρανοῦ τάξιν φαμὲν καὶ τοῦ ἐν Ἐδὲμ παραδείσου τὸν θεῖον ἔχειν ναόν; PG 155: 708.
CHAPTER FOUR
THE NARTHEX AND THE EXONARTHEX
The narthex (νάρθηξ, πρόναος, and occasionally προτεμένισμα) was the nar-
row rectangular space running along the west side of the naos. At its most
essential, the narthex was an entrance vestibule, a liminal space that marked the
transition from the outside world to the paradisiacal visions of the naos and
the sanctuary. To this liminality the narthex owed its ambiguity as a space, not
quite as sacred as the rest of the church but at the same time an integral part
of it. This was expressed in both the narthex’s theological interpretation and
in the multitude of roles, some unrelated to liturgical ritual, that it acquired
after the ninth century. As a result the narthex became one of the most func-
tionally diverse spaces in a Byzantine church. A few churches were equipped
with a second structure alongside the western side, the so-called exonarthex
or outer narthex (ἐξωνάρθηξ, ἐξωάρθηξ).1 The exonarthex shared and extended
the form and functions of the narthex.
Forms
The narthex was a standard element of Constantinopolitan churches through-
out the Late Antique and Medieval periods, and with very few exceptions was
1
Kecharitomene: 83, 85. The exonarthex was diferent from an outer ambulatory, which envel-
oped the building on more than one side.
64
THE NARTHEX AND THE EXONARTHEX 65
part of the original design.2 Such churches as the Myrelaion (XVII-1) and Eski
İmaret Camii (VII-1) exemplify its harmonious integration with the rest of
the church. Usually, the narthex was as wide as the naos and communicated
with it through one, two, or three openings. One or three doors opened from
the narthex to the exterior or to an outer narthex or ambulatory. The narthex
could extend beyond the width of the naos in order to give access to lateral
aisles that lanked the building, as in the south church of the Pantokrator mon-
astery (VIII-1).3 Other variations of the narthex were due to the incorporation
of or connection with preexisting structures. For example, in the church of
Eleousa at the Pantokrator the narthex had an extra bay to the south, prob-
ably in order to connect with the narthex of the earlier Pantokrator church. In
Saint John tou Libos (XXIII) the narthex was originally truncated because the
building was constructed adjacent to the preexisting north church. Churches
without narthexes, such as Kefeli Mescidi (XV), were rare.
Exonarthexes were less common than narthexes.With the exception of that
in Kalenderhane (XIV), all surviving examples were built after the completion
of the main church. In Eski İmaret Camii (VII), the exonarthex was con-
structed in the Palaiologan period, replacing an open portico that was attached
to the main church sometime in the late eleventh or twelfth century.4 In the
south church of the Pantokrator monastery (VIII), the exonarthex, composed
of ive irregular bays, was added in the twelfth century in the inal phase of
the construction of the complex. Perhaps Gül Camii (XI) had an exonarthex,
of which only the north wall remains. In the Late Byzantine period additions
of subsidiary spaces to older churches became common. InVefa Kilise Camii a
ive-bay exonarthex with three domes was added, likely in the fourteenth cen-
tury (XXVIII-1, 6); it was wider than the original church.The outer narthex of
the Chora (VI), constructed during the renovations of Theodore Metochites,
had two extra bays to its south, connecting it to the chapel. Originally it was a
fairly open portico. Sources attest to the existence of an outer narthex in such
now-lost foundations as Evergetis5 and Saint Mamas;6 at Kecharitomene, this
addition was made of wood.7
In only a few medieval Constantinopolitan churches, such as Chora (VI-5)
and Kilise Camii (XXVIII), is the original narthex or exonarthex deco-
ration preserved even in fragments. Other few ensembles are known from
2
Mathews 1971: 108. Of the surviving buildings, the Mouchliotissa (XXV) is the only one
with a narthex postdating the construction of the main church.
3
In the second phase of Odalar Camii (XVIII-2), the narthex likely had an extra bay in the
north but not in the south side.
4
Ousterhout 1991–1992: 52–55.
5
Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 370.
6
Mamas: 291; BMFD: 1020.
7
Kecharitomene: 117, 126–127; BMFD: 699, 702.
texts.8 The dearth of iconographic evidence from Constantinople prohibits

any generalizations about its links to the narthex’s liturgical function. Indeed,
it appears that the iconographic programs in narthexes and exonarthexes were
never truly standardized,9 even if some scenes were inspired by activities that
occurred there. For example, George Gerov has argued that some iconographic
elements underscored the narthex as a place for penitents. On the whole, how-
ever, the analysis of isolated examples or groups of scenes has proved that nar-
thex programs had multivalent messages, both religious and political.10
Symbolism, Rituals, and Functions

Theological interpretations of the church building resulted in the construal
of a horizontal hierarchy of holiness.11 In this systematization the bema is the
most sacred part of the church and the narthex is the least holy.The distinction
is evident in the writings of Symeon of Thessalonike, who notes in his treatise
on the interpretation of the church building:
From another perspective, the whole divine temple can be perceived in
triadic terms – I mean the structures before the naos, and the naos, and
the sanctuary.This signiies the Trinity, and the triadically arranged orders
above, and the pious people divided into three. I mean the clergy, the
“perfect” faithful, and those in repentance. But the form of the divine
church symbolizes the things on earth and on heavens and those beyond
heavens. Thus, the narthex is the earth, the naos is the heavens, and the
most holy bema represents those things beyond heavens.12
In Symeon’s scheme the bema was the holiest of places, the space of the clergy
and a signiier for things beyond the heavens. At the other end, the narthex
symbolized the earth and served the needs of the repentant sinners, who were
not allowed in the church proper.13 The church’s architectural dividers – the
8
See, for example, Majeska 1984: 291–292 for the decoration of the narthexes in the Pantokrator
monastery.
9
See the brief overview in Siomkos 2006: 63–66. Tomeković 1988 argued for three principal
iconographic groups, but she cited evidence from disparate sources, locations, and periods.
10
See, for example, Ousterhout 1987: 122; 1995b; Nelson 1999a; 1999b; 2004.
11
See the Introduction. This is in addition to the related vertical hierarchy underscored by the
iconographic program.
12
Καὶ κατ᾽ ἄλλον δὲ σκοπὸν, ὁ θεῖος ἅπας ναὸς τριαδικῶς θεωρεῖται, τοῖς πρὸ τοῦ ναοῦ
φημί, καὶ τῷ ναῷ, καὶ τῷ βήματι. Ὃ δὴ καὶ τὴν Τριάδα σημαίνει, καὶ τὰς τάξεις τῶν ἄνω
τριαδικῶς τεταγμένας, καὶ τοὺς δήμους τῶν εὐσεβῶν εἰς τριάδα διαιρουμένους, ἱερωμένων
λέγω, καὶ πιστῶν τελείων, καὶ τῶν ὄντων ἐν μετανοίᾳ. Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἐν γῇ καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ,
καὶ τὰ ὑπεράνω τῶν οὐρανῶν, τοῦ θείου ναοῦ τοῦτο διδάσκει τὸ σχῆμα. Καὶ πρόναον
μὲν τά ἐν τῇ γῇ, ναὸς δὲ τὸν οὐρανὸν, τὰ ὑπερουράνια δὲ τὸ ἁγιώτατον βῆμα; Symeon
of Thessalonike: 90. Cf. PG 155: 337–340; Symeon of Thessalonike: 240. See also Constas 2006:
166–167.
13
Later in the same text, Symeon clearly stated that the “sinners” are not to cross into the
church but must stay in the narthex; see Symeon of Thessalonike: 94.
templon that separated the bema from the naos and the walls that divided the
naos from the narthex – further underlined these distinctions.
These interpretations evidently relected prevalent attitudes. Already in the
twelfth century Theodore Balsamon, expressing disdain for what appears to
be a common practice and belief during his lifetime, implicitly testiied that
the narthex was not considered as holy as the rest of the church. Commenting
on the second canon of Dionysios of Alexandria, which banned menstruating
women from attending services in the church, Balsamon wrote:
we see today, mostly in nunneries, such women [i.e., menstruating
women] standing without fear in the narthexes, which are beautiied with
holy icons and assigned to the praising of God. And when we ask how
is that allowed, we are answered that they are not in the church, which
is not what I think! Because the narthexes are not public spaces, like the
atria of the churches, but a part of them assigned to women who are not
impeded from attending the services. The same narthex is secondly the
place for repentance, called [the place] of the ones who listen. And in it
are not allowed to stand even men who were punished with a ban from
attending services, but they should stay outside and weep [during the
services]. But for the unclean women to stand in the narthex, it would
have been necessary for the narthex indeed not to fulill the role of the
church [in the way it does when] the priests go across it with the holy
gifts during the Cherubic Hymn [i.e., during the Great Entrance], and
maybe cense the tombs and saints that are located in them, and perform
services with holy prayers. Or at least, after [a decision] of a committee
of bishops such spaces [i.e., narthexes] should be set apart so that unclean
women can stand in them without committing a sin. But I saw such a
woman standing in the narthex and the bishop read for her the prayer of
the betrothal, something I was amazed at.14
Despite Balsamon’s protestations, people in his time assumed that stand-

ing in the narthex of the church was diferent from standing in the church.
Thus, menstruating women, otherwise banned from attending services, could
14
βλέπομεν σήμερον εἰς τὰ γυναικεῖα καὶ μᾶλλον μοναστήρια ἀδεῶς τοιαύτας ἱσταμένας
γυναῖκας εἰς τοὺς προνάους, παντοίαις ἁγίαις εἰκόσι κεκαλλωπισμένους, καὶ εἰς δοξολογίαν
Θεοῦ ἀπονεμηθέντας, καὶ ἐρωτῶντες ὅπως τοῦτο γίνεται, ἀκούομεν μὴ ἐκκλησιάζειν αὐτὰς,
ὅπερ ἐμοὶ τέως οὐ δοκεῖ. οὐ γάρ εἰσιν οἱ πρόναοι κοινοὶ, ὡς τὰ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν προαύλια,
ἀλλὰ μέρος αὐτῶν ἀπονεμηθὲν ταῖς γυναιξὶ ταῖς μὴ κωλυομέναις ἐκκλησιάζειν. ὃς δὴ
πρόναος, τόπος δεύτερός ἐστι μετανοίας, ὁ τῶν ἀκροωμένων λεγόμενος. καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ, οὐδὲ
ἀνδράσιν ἐφεῖται ἵστασθαι ἐπιτιμηθεῖσι μὴ ἐκκλησιάζειν, ἀλλὰ ἔξωθεν αὐτοῦ προσκλαίειν.
Ἔδει γοῦν τοὺς τοιούτους προνάους, εἰς οὓς αἱ τοιαῦται ἀκάθαρτοι γυναῖκες ἔμελλον
ἵστασθαι, μὴ ἀναπληροῦν τόπον ἐκκλησιῶν ἐξ ὀρθοῦ, ὥστε καὶ ἱερεῖς μετὰ τῶν θείων
ἀγιασμάτων διέρχεσθαι κατὰ τὸν χερουβικὸν ὕμνον, καὶ θυμιᾷν τοὺς ἐν τούτῳ ὄντας ἴσως
τάφους καὶ ἁγίους, καὶ τελετὰς ἁγίων εὐχῶν ποιεῖν. ἢ κἂν μετὰ ἐπισκοπικῆς ἐπιτροπῆς
τοὺς τοιούτους τόπους ἀφορίζεσθαι, ὥστε ἀποκριματίστως ἵστασθαι ἐν αὐτοῖς τὰς
ἀκαθάρτους γυναῖκας. Ἐγὼ δὲ εἶδον καὶ τοιαύτην γυναῖκα ἐπὶ τοῦ προνάου ἑστῶσαν, καὶ
εὐχὴν ἀῤῥαβῶνος, παρὰ ἀρχιερέως δεξαμένην, ὅπερ καὶ ἐθαύμασα; Syntagma: IV, 8–9. On this
text, see Taft 1978: 199–200; 1998: 50–55.
indisputably stand there. The last sentence indicates that this was a widely
held belief: even a bishop saw no problem in reading the prayer of betrothal
to a menstruating woman in the narthex. Interestingly, in commenting on the
seventy-second canon of the Council in Troullo, Balsamon contradicts himself
on this same point, as he claims that the narthex is not a church. The canon-
ist argues: “Because every space dedicated to the Lord is called Kyriakos, even
when it is not a church but maybe a narthex or another kind of holy space,
the canon dictates that people should not dine within churches and within
such spaces.”15 Later in the same commentary he makes this distinction clearer:
“Because there is a diference between churches and narthexes, along with
other spaces dedicated to the Lord.”16
This interpretive ambiguity is not uncommon. The layering of mean-
ings, some seemingly incongruous and even contradictory, is characteristic of
Byzantine liturgical commentaries.17 Contrasting interpretations, such as those
by Balsamon, relect the realities of practice and the contexts in which the nar-
thex and exonarthex were used.Textual and archaeological evidence attest to a
remarkable variety of both liturgical and extraliturgical rites.The frequency of
these rites, which ranged from daily to once a year, and their character, which
oscillated between informal and ceremonial, further relected the ambivalence
pertaining to the sanctity of these spaces.18
In the Divine Liturgy, the narthex played a signiicant role only in the irst
part of the service. In the Early Christian period it was used for the preparation
of the First Entrance, which at that time was a procession of clergy and people
from the atrium into the naos and the bema.19 During the Middle Byzantine
period, with the transfer of the whole of liturgical action to inside the church
and the abandonment of the external skeuophylakion, the patriarch or bishop
waited for the First Entrance seated in the narthex. It was from there that he
recited the introit prayer.20 Because of this shift in location, the ordination of
the minor orders, such as subdeacon and reader, which originally occurred
15
’Επεὶ οὖν πᾶς τόπος, τῷ Κυρίῳ ἀνατεθειμένος, Κυριακὸς λέγεται, κἂν μὴ ἐκκλησία ἐστὶν,
ἀλλὰ πρόναος τυχὸν, ἢ ἕτερόν τι ἱερὸν, διορίζεται ὁ κανὼν, μὴ συμποσιάζειν τινὰς ἐν
ἐκκλησίαις, ἢ ἐν τοιούτοις τόποις; Syntagma: II, 477.
16
ὥστε διαφορά ἐστιν ἐκκλησιῶν καὶ προνάων, καὶ ἄλλων Κυριακῶν τόπων; Syntagma:
II, 478.
17
Symeon of Thessalonike, for example, assigned no fewer than nine meanings to the altar table
and its form; see PG 155: 704–707; Symeon of Thessalonike: 90, 92.
18
The same ambivalence is evident in the nonliturgical uses of the narthex. For example, in
the tenth century, a certain monk Arsenios spread some grains to dry in the narthex of the
monastic church of Saint Mamas in Constantinople; see Symeon the New Theologian: 144. For
other informal uses of the narthex, see Chapter 6.
19
Mathews 1971: 108, 125–149. Exonarthexes appear to have been uncommon during the early
period.
20
Taft 1980b: 105–110. According to De Cerimoniis: 64–65, when the emperor participated, he
would join the patriarch and process with him. See also Chapters 1 and 2.
in the skeuophylakion, took place in the narthex.21 Furthermore, the narthex

was the place of penitents and other categories of people, such as menstruat-
ing women, who could not fully participate in the Liturgy.22 According to
Theodore Stoudite, those under “spiritual penalty” (ἐπιτιμία) should stay in the
narthex, along with the catechumens, during the celebration of the Liturgy.23
Both John Apokaukos (d. 1233) and the fourteenth-century canonist Matthew
Blastares directed that the ἀκροώμενοι, “the ones who listen,” as opposed to
those who participate in the service, should stay in the narthex.24
Additionally, the narthex was used for a multitude of daily services or parts
thereof. According to monastic sources, some of the Hours were read there.
In the typikon of the monastery of Mamas, for example, these comprised
the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Hours, as well as the Midnight Oice.25 Other
Constantinopolitan typika contained similar instructions.26 In cathedral prac-
tice, both the festive and the ferial Matins began in the narthex with the sing-
ing of the nocturnal psalmody and progressively moved toward the bema.27
Similarly, Vespers in Hagia Sophia began in the narthex.28 Monasteries fol-
lowed this practice on occasion; in Stoudios, the brotherhood assembled in
the narthex for the beginning of the Orthros throughout the year29 and in
the monastery of Evergetis on Easter Sunday.30 Another service that in some
places was celebrated in the narthex was the typika, a service of communion
conducted primarily in monasteries when a regular Divine Liturgy or the
Presanctiied Liturgy was not allowed.31
21
Taft 1997–1998: 79–81; 2008a: 556–559.
22
Syntagma: IV, 7–9.
23
Ὁ ἐν ἐπιτιμίᾳ ὤν, καὶ μὴ παριστάμενος μετὰ τῶν κατηχουμένων ἐν τῷ νάρθηκι τῆς
λειτουργίας ἐπιτελουμένης, μετανοίας βαλλέτω πεντήκοντα; PG 99: 1733. The meaning of
“catechumens” is unclear. It might refer to candidate monks rather than to unbaptized persons.
24
Apokaukos: 145 (epistle 91); Syntagma: IV, 363–364. See also PG 155: 357.
25
Mamas: 285, 299; BMFD: 1015, 1027.
26
In Pantokrator, the Midnight Oice was read there; Pantokrator: 31, 33; BMFD: 739. In the
Evergetis monastery, the Compline and the pannychis took place in the narthex on some
occasions (Synaxarion of Evergetis: II, 460, 712), whereas the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Hours
were sung there during the two lesser Lents, Christmas, and that preceding the feast of Saints
Peter and Paul on June 29; Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 198; II, 140.The typikon of Kecharitomene
is the only one that makes a distinction between the narthex and the exonarthex, although
the reasons for that are unclear: the mesoria of the First Hour, the Third Hour, and the Sixth
Hour, as well as Compline, were to be sung in the latter (Kecharitomene: 81, 83, 85; BMFD: 687,
688); the Midnight Oice was read in the former (Kecharitomene: 87; BMFD: 688).
27
Typikon of the Great Church: II, 309–310. Arranz 1971–1972: I, esp. 409–410; II, esp. 102; 1981b:
esp. 126. Anthony of Novgorod described this ritual in Hagia Sophia; see Ehrhard 1932: 56.
See also PG 155: 636–649.
28
Arranz 1978b: esp. 117.
29
PG 99: 1704–1705; Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: I, 225–226; BMFD: 98–99.
30
Synaxarion of Evergetis: ΙΙ, 506. Monastic typika from the periphery contained similar instruc-
tions; see, for example, Messina: 5–6; BMFD: 1133, 1135.
31
Kecharitomene: 83; BMFD: 687. For this service, see Mateos 1971: 68–71. PG 155: 593–596.
However, in Evergetis the typika were sung in the naos; Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 198; II, 690.
It is not entirely clear why some of the hours were performed in the nar-
thex or the exonarthex. In the monastic context it might have been a matter
of practicality, as it is today on Mount Athos, where many services of secondary
importance are celebrated there.32 Most such services were short and did not
require the use of the altar. The participants could be in and out of the church
quickly, and not everybody had to attend. The typikon of Kecharitomene
alluded to this in the rubrics for the First, Third, and Sixth Hours: these could
be performed either in the exonarthex or in the dormitory.33 Similarly, Symeon
of Thessalonike advised monastics to read some services, such as Compline,
in the privacy of their cells.34 Cases such as the Matins and Vespers in the
cathedral rite, when the services began in the narthex and moved progres-
sively toward the sanctuary, relected the ancient processional character of the
Byzantine rite. In this context, such processions symbolized the move from
the earthly narthex toward the heavenly sanctuary, where one had to shed any
earthly concerns and concentrate on praising God.35
A similar symbolic movement from earth to heaven was relected in the
tonsure rite for both the lesser and greater habit (σχῆμα), which according to
some sources took place during the celebration of the Liturgy of the Word.36
After the First Entrance, the candidate progressed toward the bema while the
choir chanted the following hymn:
Where is the attachment to the world, where is the fantasy of the passing
things? We see that everything turns into earth and ashes. Why then do
we work hard for nothing? Why don’t we abandon the world and do not
follow him who cries: whoever wants to follow me, he should take up my
cross and will inherit eternal life.37
On this occasion the service concluded with the catechesis of the candidate,
the cutting of his hair, and his ritual dressing.With this procession the soon-to-
be monk left the earth of the narthex and moved toward paradise, a symbolic
irst step in his abandonment of wordly afairs and a move in the direction of
salvation and everlasting life. According to other versions of the rite, the whole
community gathered in the narthex. After a series of exchanges among the
abbot, the sponsor, and the candidate, and following some catechetical prayers,
they all moved inside the naos and the service continued in the bema. Then
32
Cf. Krausmüller 1997: 324–325. Some Athonite katholika, such as that of Hilandar monastery,
feature a six-bay structure (rather than the usual three-bay narthex) called a lite.
33
Kecharitomene: 81, 83; BMFD: 687.
34
PG 155: 620. For other such directives, see Patterson Ševčenko 1991: 56 and n. 76.
35
See also the comments of Symeon of Thessalonike in PG 155: 357–360.
36
Arranz 1996: 402–418.
37
Ποῦ ἐστιν ἡ τοῦ κόσμου προσπάθεια/ποῦ ἐστιν ἡ τῶν προσκαίρων φαντασία/οὐκ
ἰδοὺ πάντα βλέπομεν γῆν καὶ σποδόν/τί οὖν κοπιῶμεν εἰς μάτην/τί δὲ οὐκ ἀρνούμεθα
κόσμον/καὶ ἀκολουθοῦμεν τῷ κράζοντι. Ὁ θέλων πορευθῆναι ὀπίσω μου/ἀναλαβέτω τὸν
σταυρὸν μου/καὶ ζωὴν κληρονομήσει τὴν αἰώνιον; Arranz 1996: 404–405.
the candidate was taken back to the narthex, where his hair was completely
shorn.The candidate waited there until he was escorted by the celebrant priest
to the bema during the First Entrance, which again relected a movement from
earth to heaven. After this the service was concluded with the ritual garbing.38
The rubrics for the tonsure of nuns were similar.39
The sources attest to other occasional uses of the narthex. Balsamon, in a
text mentioned earlier, said that “services of holy prayers” took place in the
narthex, evidently minor services and prayers found in euchologia for speciic
situations ranging from illness to betrothal.40 In a related practice, the thir-
teenth-century typikon of the monastery tou Libos instructed that the spiritual
father should meet each nun for confession in the narthex of one of the mon-
astery’s two churches,41 a directive repeated in the typikon of the monastery of
Anargyroi in Constantinople.42
In addition to such ritually simple services as the hours, or services that used
the narthex as a symbolic departure point, that space was used intermittently
for other, very solemn rites. Both the Typikon of the Great Church43 and the
monastic typikon of Kecharitomene44 instructed that the Washing of the Feet
on Holy Thursday take place in the narthex.45 During this service the presider,
usually the patriarch or an abbot or abbess, washed the feet of twelve partici-
pants.46 In Kecharitomene it was to be performed near an image of the event.
Indeed, in some katholika, such as those in the monasteries of Hosios Loukas
in Boeotia and Nea Moni in Chios, a mosaic of Christ washing the feet of the
apostles is found in the narthex (Fig. 12).47 Similar rubrics about the location
of this service in other parts of the Byzantine world, such as in Mount Athos48
and Cyprus,49 demonstrate that this was common practice.
Another important service that could take place in the narthex was that of
the Lesser Blessing of the Waters (μικρὸς ἁγιασμός, lit. “little blessing”).50 In a
38
Wawryk 1968: 6*–39*, esp. 6*, 13*, 31*, and passim. The cutting of the hair after the ini-
tial ritual cutting could also take place “in the diakonikon”; see Arranz 1996: 418. See also
Alivizatos 1953.
39
Wawryk 1968: 108*.
40
Syntagma: IV, 7–9.
41
Libos: 113; BMFD: 1269.
42
Anargyroi: 138–139; BMFD: 1292. Cf. BMFD: 1473.
43
Typikon of the Great Church: II, 72–75.
44
Kecharitomene: 125; BMFD: 702.
45
For the diferences in cathedral and monastic usage, see Taft 2005: 210–212.
46
For this service, see Petrides 1899–1900; Lossky 2001.
47
For the connection between the image and the service, see Tomeković 1988; Tronzo 1994;
Barber 2001.
48
Praxapostolos of the Panteleimon monastery (twelfth century); Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: I,
129, n. 1.
49
Typikon of the monastery of Saint John Chrysostomos in Koutsovendis (twelth century);
Papacostas 2007: 122.
50
For this service, see Trempelas 1951; 1950–1955: II, 45–74.
12. Katholikon of Hosios Loukas, narthex, Christ washing the feet of the Apostles, 11th century, mosaic
(photo: author).
Constantinopolitan euchologion dated 1027, the service was entitled “Another

service and order of the [lesser] blessing [of waters] taking place in various
churches on Sundays and on feast days in the narthex or also in another part
of the church where there is a phiale or a basin.”51 The rubric implies that
the usual, although not exclusive, location for this service was the narthex.
Some churches in Serbia and Macedonia have preserved evidence of such
basins in their narthexes, often associated with an image of the Baptism of
Christ,52 but nothing comparable has survived from Constantinople. The only
evidence comes from the typikon of Kecharitomene, which instructed that the
related Great Blessing of the Waters (μεγάλος ἁγιασμός), a service conducted
on Epiphany, be celebrated in the narthex “in which the phiale stands.”53
Presumably the same phiale would have been used for the Lesser Blessing
of the Waters. Finally, Symeon of Thessalonike instructs that this service take
place not in the outdoor phiale but in the narthex if the weather is wintry.54
51
Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 1051.
52
Ćurčić 1979 interpreted the ones from Serbia as baptismal fonts, but this was refuted by
Papazotos 1987, who claimed that they were used for the service of the Blessing of the Waters.
I would note that these uses were not exclusive of each other. See also Kandić 1998–1999.
53
Kecharitomene: 127; BMFD: 702
54
ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ἔξω ἐν τῇ φιάλῃ γίνεται, εἴτε εἰς τὸν νάρθηκα ἐὰν χειμὼν ᾖ; Phountoules
1976: 137.
The use of the narthex for the Washing of the Feet and the Blessing of the
Waters might have been incidental. According to the rubrics, neither service
was to be celebrated exclusively in the narthex. The image of the Washing
of the Feet was placed in the narthex not because of this ritual but because
it complemented a series of depictions inspired by the Passion cycle, as in
the katholikon of Hosios Loukas. The image created a desirable mimetic
relationship between the rite and its prototype, but this relationship was
not necessary for the performance or the eicacy of the rite. For example,
in Evergetis the Washing of the Feet took place inside the naos, with some
monks standing in the south aisle of the church.55 The rubrics pertaining to
the Blessing of the Waters again did not restrict the celebration of this rite
in a space other than the narthex. What was required was a basin for the
blessed water, whose location varied. One ixed permanently in the narthex
certainly would have been for a weekly ritual, such as the Lesser Blessing
of the Waters, more convenient than moving the whole congregation to an
outdoor phiale. In both cases, the selection of the narthex seemed to have
been based on circumstances rather than on rigid rubrics or theological
symbolism.
A widespread and constant function of the narthex and exonarthex through-
out the Middle and Late Byzantine periods was as a place for burials.56 The
archaeological evidence from Middle and Late Byzantine Constantinople about
this practice is abundant. In the church of the Theotokos tou Libos, which is the
earliest securely dated medieval church in the city, the excavators accidentally
discovered under the loor of the narthex ive marble sarcophagi, four single
ones and a double containing six bodies in total (XXIII-1).57 Underground
tombs also were found also in Kilise Camii (XXVIII).58 In some cases, such
as in Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii (XII),59 Manastır Mescidi (XVI-1, 4),60
55
Synaxarion of Evergetis: ΙΙ, 474. In Stoudios the location of the service is not speciied;
Hypotyposis Stoudiou [A]: 238; BMFD: 115.
56
The following expands on Marinis 2009; 2010. See also Bache 1989. For an overview of ear-
lier examples from the Aegean and Illyricum from the fourth to seventh centuries, see Sodini
and Kolokotsas 1984: II, 219–227.
57
Marinis 2009. All the sarcophagi were arrayed in pairs, situated in front of each of the three
doors leading to the naos. Four more sarcophagi were found just outside the narthex. Three
were in front of the church’s front door, under the tenth-century vaulted porch that was
destroyed when the complex was expanded. One, aligned with the south door, belonged to
a child. All tombs should date to the tenth century.
58
Mango 1990: 423–424. M. I. Nomidis’s investigation in the 1930s uncovered eight tomb sites:
two in the north annex, two in the exonarthex, two in the narthex, two in the naos – one in
the north aisle, and one in the southwest corner compartment of the naos. At least some of
those tombs contained multiple burials.
59
This narthex preserves four arcosolia.
60
Pasadaios 1965: 86.The narthex had two arcosolia on its north and south walls. Pasadaios sug-
gested that they were occupied by two anthropoid sarcophagi excavated nearby in the 1960s,
which were similar to those found in the north church of the monastery tou Libos.
and Pantokrator (VIII),61 arcosolia were part of the buildings’ original design.
The truncated narthex of Saint John tou Libos had three tombs and one ossu-
ary for secondary burials, all of Palaiologan date (XXIII-1). At Chora (VI) the
exonarthex contained three arcosolia,62 and the narthex had in its north wall
a single arcosolium. The narthex of the chapel in Pammakaristos (XXIV) had
two arcosolia in the east wall and a third on the west wall.63 Evidence from
Asia Minor, Greece, and the Balkans indicates that the practice of burying
the dead in narthexes was very common.64 The existence of sites of multiple
burials in at least three of the surviving Constantinopolitan buildings (Kilise
Camii, XXVIII; Saint John tou Libos, XXIII; and Chora,VI) shows that narthex
interment was common practice, relecting in part the popularity of in-church
burials throughout the Middle and Late Byzantine periods.65
Following patterns identical to those pertaining to tombs in the naos, such
burials were privileged and belonged to founders, patrons, as well as emi-
nent ecclesiastics, monastics, and lay people, the latter including members of
the imperial family and aristocrats.66 In the ninth century the narthex of the
church of the monastery ta Gastria laid a small reliquary with the remains of
Theoktiste, mother of Emperor Theophilos’s wife, Theodora.67 Theoktiste was
likely the founder of that monastery.68 The typikon of Kecharitomene stip-
ulated that any female relatives of the founder Irene Doukaina be buried in
the exonarthex, should they choose to become nuns in the monastery.69 This
practice became common in the Middle Byzantine period but it began earlier.
For example, in the seventh century the sarcophagus containing the bodies of
61
Megaw 1963: 343. Two arcosolia were originally located in the narthex of the south church
and were later converted to doors. Megaw suggested that the tomb of Irene, wife of Emperor
John II Komnenos and founder of the monastery, might originally have been in the southern
arcosolium.
62
Two arcosolia dated to the fourteenth century and one to the ifteenth. All were created after
walling up the originally open arcades of the western portico. Under the loor in front of the
so-called tomb E (located in the second to last bay of the exonarthex, counting from the south)
there was a vaulted tomb that accommodated multiple burials; Ousterhout 1987: 75–76.
63
Mango et al. 1978: 20.
64
For Asia Minor, see Teteriatnikov 1996: 165–182; Lightfoot and Ivison 2001: 374–379;
Weissbrod 2003. For Greece, see Laskaris 2000: 104–144. For the Balkans, see Ćurčić 1984;
Babić 1969: 94. See also Popović 2006.
65
On the topic of multiple burials, see Sodini and Kolokotsas 1984: II, 235–236; Laskaris 2000:
278, 280–282. Secondary burials were not unheard of, even for members of the imperial
family. For example, in the monastery of Saint Euphemia en to Petrio, a small sculpted ossuary
(larnakidion) contained the bones of the two daughters of Basil I, along with those of Zoe
Karbounopsina, mother of Constantine VII; see De Cerimoniis: I, 648–649. For this monastery,
see Janin 1969: 127–129.
66
For several examples, see Marinis 2009: 159–160. For tombs of founders, in the narthex and
elsewhere, see Popović 2006.
67
De Cerimoniis: 647–648. Theodora herself, along with her three daughters, was buried in the
southeastern side of the naos.
68
Janin 1969: 67.
69
Kecharitomene: 131; BMFD: 704.
Constantina, wife of Emperor Maurice, and their children was placed in the
left side of the narthex of the monastic church of Saint Mamas.70 The narthex
and exonarthex as places for tombs should be understood in the context of the
desire to be buried inside a church building but, due to canonical prohibitions,
outside its liturgical center.71 Thus, it was related to the practice of placing
burials in subsidiary chapels, outer ambulatories, and, more rarely, in the side
aisles of the naos. The narthex’s symbolic interpretation as not as holy as the
naos facilitated such attitudes. Indeed, burials in the narthex were much more
common than in the naos.
The existence of several tombs of saints in the narthex was not an indepen-
dent phenomenon; rather, it should be associated with the aforementioned
custom of burying there persons of distinction, including founders. Some of
these people were subsequently recognized as saints, although hagiographical
sources written after the events often blurred this distinction. Such was the
case of Nikephoros, the founder of the monastery tou Medikiou in Bithynia.
When he died in 813, his body was deposited in the church of the Archangel
Michael, in the left part of the narthex, where he had Arranged for his tomb.72
Similarly, Theodora of Arta (d. 1270) was buried in the south side of the nar-
thex of the monastic church of Saint George, which she had founded.73 There
are few instances of a person who had been recognized as a saint at the time of
his or her death being buried in the narthex. For example, in the tenth century,
George the Younger was placed in a marble tomb in the church of Saint John
en to Diippio,74 and Russian pilgrims reported that the body of the iconophile
martyr Andrew (d. ca. 767) was buried in the narthex of the monastery of Saint
Andrew en te Krisei (I).75
The funerary character of the narthex was underscored by the related rites
celebrated there. Pachymeres’s paraphrase of Pseudo-Dionysios instructed that
the funeral rites for a monk or layman76 be said in the narthex,77 something
attested also in Symeon of Thessalonike78 and in the life of Saint Lazaros of
Mount Galesion.79 Two euchologia ofered similar rubrics regarding members
of monastic communities.80 The typika of Kecharitomene and Mamas
70
De Cerimoniis: I, 647. The tombs were removed in the late tenth century during the renova-
tion of the monastery by abbot Symeon; see Symeon the New Theologian: 116.
71
On this, see Chapter 3.
72
Nikephoros of Medikion: 424.
73
Orlandos 1936.
74
SynCP: March 11. For this church, see Janin 1969: 264–267.
75
Majeska 1984: 314–315.
76
For the evolution of the funeral service for monks, see Galadza 2004.
77
PG 3: 573.
78
PG 155: 677.
79
AASS Nov. III: 587.
80
Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: 2, 135 (Sin. gr. 963, twelfth century);Velkovska 2001: 38 (Messina gr.
172, 1178–1179).
mandated that the “customary things” for the departed nuns or monks be said
in the exonarthex.81 In the latter foundation the usual commemorations on
the third, ninth, and fortieth day after a monk’s death were to be sung in the
narthex; each Friday all departed brothers were to be commemorated with a
canon for the dead and an ektenes prayer in the exonarthex.82 In addition to
the regular commemorations, shorter services would take place in front of the
tombs. In several instances the typikon of Evergetis dictated that the pannychis
on behalf of the deceased should be read “in the tombs of our holy fathers and
brothers,” and certainly every Friday evening during the Triodion period.83 A
short memorial service (trisagion) and pannychis were to take place daily and be
celebrated in front of the tombs in the chapel of Saint Michael in Pantokrator
(VIII).84 In the typikon of Kosmosoteira, Isaac Komnenos enjoined the abbot
and the rest of the brothers to enter the area of Isaac’s tomb after Vespers and
“in front of the holy icons standing there, to pronounce the trisagion and to say
a certain number of kyrie eleisons for mercy upon my soul.”85
In conclusion, after the ninth century the narthex acquired a variety of
functions, many of them due to its ambivalent status within the context of
the Byzantine church, and others for reasons of practicability. These uses, from
being a place of burials to one in which some of the Hours were read, had
little to do with the narthex’s architectural form but a great deal to do with
its symbolic interpretation as a space not quite equal in sanctity to the naos or
the bema. In addition to the narthex, a church was often surrounded by other
subsidiary structures that sometimes complemented its functions. Most, how-
ever, served other purposes.
81
Kecharitomene: 117; BMFD: 699; Mamas: 291; BMFD: 1020.
82
Mamas: 291; BMFD: 1020. The typikon of Heliou Bomon repeats these rubrics; see
BMFD: 1077.
83
Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 264; II, 90, 316. The Triodion is the period from the fourth Sunday
before the Great Lent to the Saturday before Easter.
84
Pantokrator: 81.
85
BMFD: 839. See also BMFD: 801. In Chora it has been suggested that the south bay of the
narthex was used for the commemoration of the former ktetors, Isaac Komnenos and Maria
Palaiologina, who are depicted there as part of a Deisis (Fig. 14, below). See Ousterhout 1987:
96–100. See also Teteriatnikov 1995; Schroeder 2009.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUBSIDIARY SPACES: CHAPELS, OUTER

AMBULATORIES, OUTER AISLES, CRYPTS,
ATRIA, AND RELATED SPACES
In addition to the standard core – bema, naos, narthex – many Byzantine

churches in Constantinople were equipped with one or more kinds of subsid-
iary structures.The forms of these spaces, their spatial relationships to the main
building, and their functions varied signiicantly. Some, such as outer aisles and
outer ambulatories, often complemented and extended the uses of the main
parts of the church. Others, such as chapels, were intended for a speciic pur-
pose, including the commemoration of deceased founders and patrons.
Chapels
The most common term for a chapel was εὐκτήριον or εὐκτήριος οἶκος (lit.
“a house of prayer”), although this could also refer to a small ecclesiastical
structure, either independent or attached to a private residence.1 In addition,
liturgical sources employed designations such as μαρτύριον (“house of a mar-
tyr”) and προφητεῖον (“house of a prophet”). Very often these terms were
followed by the words “inside” (ἔνδον, ἔνδοθεν) or “near” (πλησίον), plus the
name of the main church with which they were associated.2 The term parekkle-
sion rarely appears in Byzantine sources.3
1
Syntagma:VI, 262–263; II, 371. On this term, see Dagron 1989: 1080–1083.
2
SynCP: October 21; June 12, 25, 27; September 2. See also Babić 1969: 33–36.
3
See, for example, Acta Xeropotami: I, 84.
77
Subsidiary chapels in Constantinople fall roughly into two categories: those

that were part of the original construction (Theotokos tou Libos, XXIII-1, 2, 5;
Gül Camii, XI; Odalar Camii, XVIII-2; Peribleptos, XXVI) and those that
were added later (Pantokrator,VIII; Kalenderhane, XIV; Pammakaristos, XXIV;
Chora, VI). Chapels varied signiicantly in plan, dimensions, and relationship
to the main church.4 They could be cross-in-square spaces (XXIV-6), single-
aisle halls (VI-6, VIII-11), or small apsidal rooms. They were found on the
ground loor, in the galleries (XI-2), or even in the roof (XXIII-5).They could
be incorporated into the building or attached to the exterior of the main
church, on either or both sides. Some buildings, such as the Theotokos tou
Libos (XXIII), presented combinations of these conigurations.5
In her fundamental study on subsidiary chapels Gordana Babić proposed
three main purposes for them: commemorations of saints, deceased monks,
and deceased founders.6 Although the essence of these observations still stands,
Babić’s employment of evidence from a variety of locales and periods resulted
in a rather simpliied narrative in which the evidence was occasionally forced
to it the paradigms. In the following, I revisit these issues, focusing primar-
ily on Constantinople and ofer a more nuanced perspective on the use of
chapels.
It is not always easy to evaluate liturgical activity in chapels. According to
Balsamon, some eukteria were not properly consecrated and therefore were
not technically “churches.”7 Yet, there is archaeological evidence that some
chapels in Constantinople had a consecrated altar. For example, three of the
four roof chapels in the Theotokos tou Libos preserve parts of their original
sanctuary marble loor marked with a cutting for the foot of the altar, and
another covered cutting for the consecration relic (XXIII-11, 12). Holes in the
stylobate in front of the apse attest to the existence of some kind of barrier that
separated it from the main part of the chapel.8 In other cases, the performance
of the Liturgy in chapels can be deduced from the surviving accoutrements
and decoration. Both gallery chapels in Gül Camii (XI-2) have niches next
to the main apse, presumably for the prothesis rite. Similar niches are found
on the north walls of both apsidal spaces lanking the main apse in the four-
teenth-century phase of Chora (VI-8).9 In Kalenderhane Camii, sometime
4
The most important study of chapels in Byzantium is still Babić 1969. For a formalist analysis
of chapels attached to or incorporated into churches, see Ćurčić 1977.
5
In addition to chapels attached to churches, there remain small or medium-size structures,
such as Ayakapı, that were originally part of larger buildings that have now disappeared.
6
Babić 1969.
7
Syntagma: IV, 479.
8
Pace Taft 2006b: 39–40, who has argued that small private chapels did not have a sanctuary
barrier.
9
Ousterhout 1987: 47, 50. Both spaces have additional niches, which may have been used for
the storage of liturgical items. See the plan in Ousterhout 1987: ig. 9.
SUBSIDIARY SPACES 79
during the Palaiologan period, the apse of the space comprising the so-called
Melismos and Francis chapels was decorated with an image of the Theotokos
Blachernitissa over a depiction of the Melismos (lit. “fraction”), an image of
potent liturgical signiicance, which underscored that the bread and wine were
truly transformed into the body and blood of Christ (XIV-5).10 A wall niche
on the north side of the apse was decorated with the image of a deacon saint,
relecting the lasting importance of the deacon in the prothesis rite.
Although at least some chapels were consecrated, the character and fre-
quency of the Divine Liturgy in these spaces remain a matter of debate.
Mathews has argued that the multiplication of chapels, especially in cases such
as that of Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII), indicated a privatization of Byzantine
liturgy, with services performed only by a priest or bishop and with few, if any,
participants; these liturgies took place outside the parameters of the corporate
worship of a community, whether lay or monastic.11 Yet the textual evidence
provided by Mathews and others refers to oratories in episcopal or private
residences, where such activities were certainly not surprising.12 Although we
cannot exclude the use of subsidiary chapels for private devotions and rituals,13
sources attest that in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods they were used for
corporate worship. The tenth-century Typikon of the Great Church prescribed
that some oicial feast days were to be celebrated in chapels, with the patriarch
and signiicant numbers of people attending. For example, under October 23,
it reads:
On this day, the commemoration of the martyrdom of Saint James, the
brother of the Lord. And the feast of Saint Zachariah the priest, and
Symeon the Righteous. The feast is celebrated in the chapel of Saint
James, which is situated inside the venerable church of Panagia en tois
Chalkoprateiois.14
According to the Typikon, the chapel of Saint James was used again only two
other times during the liturgical year, on the second Saturday after Easter and
on April 30, both days dedicated to the memory of the saint.15
Other texts conirm corporate worship in subsidiary chapels. The typikon
of Pantokrator described the several services, including the Divine Liturgy
10
For this scene, see Garidis 1982; Gerstel 1999: 40–44; Konstantinide 2008.
11
Mathews 1982. Mathews’s interpretation of subsidiary chapels has been accepted without
much qualiication.
12
See also Alexopoulos 2001.
13
One such ritual would have been confession.Athanasios of Athos heard the confession of his
monks in the eukterion of the Forty Martyrs of Sebasteia, one of the chapels adjacent to the
katholikon of the Great Lavra; Athanasios of Athos: 40, 155.
14
Typikon of the Great Church: I, 74. For this chapel, parts of which still survive, see Mango
1969–1970: 369–372. See also Janin 1969: 237–242, 253–255.
15
Typikon of the Great Church: I, 112–114, 276.
three days a week, that the community, as well as clergy and people from the
outside, was to celebrate in the chapel of Saint Michael.16 The late thirteenth-
or early fourteenth-century Testament of Constantine Akropolites instructed
that the Divine Liturgy be celebrated three days a week in the chapel of Saint
Lazaros, which he had purchased for the monastery of the Resurrection in
Constantinople. The hours were read there regularly. The text explicitly men-
tions a “public congregation” attending services in this chapel.17 The life of
Michael Synkellos described a vigil celebrated by the whole community of
the monastery of Chora in the chapel of Saint Ignatios located in the church
of martyr Anthimos (this building does not exist anymore).18 Finally, the syn-
axarion of Evergetis instructed the following: “It should be known that during
the Great Lent both on weekdays and on Sundays the liturgy is celebrated in
the [main] church. But on Saturdays [it is celebrated] in the chapels.”19 It is
doubtful that all the monks of Evergetis could it inside a chapel. However, the
important point here is that the chapels accommodated communal services,
regardless of how many people actually attended. There are therefore good
reasons to assume that subsidiary chapels were used primarily for corporate
worship.
Babić has argued that multiple chapels appeared as a result of the prohibi-
tion against celebrating the Divine Liturgy twice on the same day on the same
altar, a rule especially upheld in the East.20 Yet the evidence for multiple litur-
gies on the same day is very limited. Detailed liturgical typika such as that of
Evergetis, a foundation that had at least two chapels in addition to the katho-
likon, made no mention of such practice.21 Moreover, this could not possibly
explain the need for six additional chapels in the church of the Theotokos tou
Libos (XXIII).
Multiple subsidiary chapels should be interpreted in the context of
Byzantine soteriology and the role of saints in a person’s life and salvation.
In Byzantine thought the heavenly court was constructed and understood as
a relection of the earthly one (although for the Byzantines the reverse was
true).22 Just as the emperor’s close associates could present a petition to him on
behalf of somebody else, the Theotokos, by virtue of her role as the Mother
of God; the saints, who were the “friends of God”; and even archangels, who
16
Pantokrator: 81, 83; BMFD: 756–757
17
οἱ συναθροιζόμενοι; Akropolites: 283; BMFD: 1380–1381. Cf. the similar rubrics for the cha-
pel of Saint John the Forerunner in the monastery of Machairas in Cyprus; Machairas: 58;
BMFD: 1162.
18
ἐκέλευσεν παννύχιον ἀγρυπνίαν γενέσθαι ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ εὐκτηρίῳ τῷ ὄντι ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ
ἁγίου ἱερομάρτυρος Ἀνθίμου; Michael Synkellos: 126. For this church, see Janin 1969: 34.
19
τοῖς δὲ σάββασιν ἐν τοῖς εὐκτηρίοις; Synaxarion of Evergetis: II, 380.
20
Babić 1969: 9–10.
21
Rodley 1994: 28. A third chapel was located in the cemetery.
22
Mango 1980: 151–159; Maguire 1997. See also Brubaker and Haldon 2011: 32–38.
comprised the leaders of the heavenly host, could all obtain favors from
Christ on behalf of their clients.23 This was due to their parrhesia (παρρησία,
lit. “freedom of speech”), a concept that communicated the conidence and
the liberty of approach toward God that the saints possessed.24 Very tellingly,
the ninth-century vita of Theodore of Stoudios called this saint, along with
Plato and Joseph the Stoudites,“providers and doctors of our souls and bodies,
and mediators before the holy, simple, uncreated, and consubstantial Trinity.”25
Symeon of Thessalonike explained that the priest commemorates the names
of the Theotokos and saints in the Liturgy “because having parrhesia towards
him who loves and is loved [i.e., Christ], they enable us to be reconciled and
unite with Him.”26 In a related text, Symeon claimed that “while they [the
saints] are directly sanctiied by God, by receiving gifts from us, they sanctify
us through them.”27 One would win favor with a saint through oferings and
gift-giving. In all cases, even for unremarkable gifts, a reward was expected.The
prayer read over the kolyva, simple boiled wheat ofered to the memory of a
saint, says: “[God] ... grant to those who brought [this boiled wheat] a heavenly
reward through the intercessions of our immaculate lady the Theotokos and
ever-virgin Mary, and of the Saint [name] whose memory we celebrate and all
your saints.”28 Such patterns of patronage and exchange, known from antiquity,
were still very much present in Byzantine society. The tenth-century vita of
Saint Basil the Younger explained the mechanics of this exchange. Gregory, the
author of the vita, wrote:
Often we see the same thing happening with the earthly emperor, that is
through the intercessions of his closest friends he forgives some people
of grave crimes and the responsibility for mistakes.... This is why each of
you who cannot keep the fast, mortify yourselves, keep vigils or do what-
ever we said above in order to save your soul, should acquire as friends
some of the saints. If it is not possible to acquire many, then a few; if not
a few, then two; if not two, even one. And if he [the saint] is still alive,
23
Peter Brown has shown that the belief that saints could act as intercessors gave rise to the cult
of saints and martyrs in late antiquity; see Brown 1981. See also the vita of Saint Daniel the
Stylite (d. 493, the vita is likely contemporary) in which after Daniel’s death “with screams
and tears [the people] required him to beseech God on everybody’s behalf ” [μετὰ κραυγῶν
καὶ δακρύων ἠξίουν πρεσβεύειν τὸν Θεὸν ὑπὲρ πάντων]; Delehaye 1923: 91.
24
For this term, see ODB, s.v. “Parrhesia”; Scarpat 2001.
25
ἵνα τούτους ἔχοντες προμηθέας καὶ ἰατροὺς τῶν τε ψυχῶν καὶ σωμάτων ἡμῶν, καὶ μεσίτας
πρὸς τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ ἁπλῆν καὶ ἄκτιστον καὶ ὁμοούσιον Τριάδα; PG 99: 328.
26
ὅτι παρρησίαν οὗτοι πρὸς τὸν φιλοῦντα καὶ φιλούμενον ἔχοντες, ἰσχύουσι καὶ ἡμᾶς αὐτῷ
καταλλάξαι τε καὶ ἑνῶσαι; Symeon of Thessalonike: 136.
27
αὐτοὶ μὲν γὰρ ἀμέσως ἁγιάζονται παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ· δεχόμενοι δὲ καὶ τὰ παρ᾽ ἠμῶν, δι᾽
αὐτῶν ἡμᾶς ἁγιάζουσι; Symeon of Thessalonike: 218.
28
Ὁ Θεός ... καὶ τοὺς προσενεγκότας μισθὸν οὐράνιον παράσχου πρεσβείαις τῆς ἀχράντου
Δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θεοτόκου καὶ ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου τοῦδε, οὗ καὶ τὴν
μνήμην ἐπιτελοῦμεν καὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων σου; Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 35; see also
112–113.
serve him by means of wealth not acquired unjustly, in order to provide

for the needs and the repose of his body. If you are indigent, serve him
with bodily servitude and obedience and humility. If he leaves this world,
[serve him] by commemorating him as much as possible and provide his
church with whatever is necessary, I mean oil, candles, as well as incense
and eucharistic oferings. And if his right hand is able and is wealthy, [he
should serve the saint] by feeding the poor and dressing the naked and
visiting those in jail and taking care of the sick according to God’s com-
mand and the warm love of the saint. And when such a person leaves
this world, the saint will receive him there [in heaven]. And during judg-
ment the saint will stand beside him in front of the Lord, pleading with
him to grant him pardon. And God, receiving the request of his servant,
will confer this to him as he had said beforehand and he [the saint’s
friend] will join the saint in eternal joy. Because the Lord says about this:
“whoever receives a prophet in the name of the prophet, will receive the
prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is
a righteous man, will receive a righteous man’s reward.”29
Although not mentioned explicitly here, the construction of a chapel com-

memorating a saint would have been another manifestation of the exchange
described by Gregory, an attempt to win a saint’s favor. In a text mentioned
earlier, Nicholas/Ioasaph Maliasenos is said to have founded many chapels
and pious institutions “for the salvation of his soul.”30 Founders’ inscriptions
explicated, in terms very similar to those of Gregory, that every pious founda-
tion, be it a church, a monastery, or a chapel, was foremost an ofering to God
or to a saint for the remission of the founder’s sins, assistance in this life, and
29
ὃ δὴ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐπιγείου βασιλέως ὁρῶμεν πολλάκις γινόμενον διὰ μεσιτείας τῶν
οἰκειοτάτων αὐτοῦ ἀφέοντος τισὶ μεγάλων ἐγκλημάτων καὶ σφαλμάτων εὐθύνας.... Διά τοι
τοῦτο δεῖ ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τῶν μὴ δυναμένων νηστείαν ἐπιτελέσαι, κακοπαθῆσαι, ἀγρυπνῆσαι,
ἤ τι τῶν προλεχθέντων ἐπιτελέσαι διὰ τὸ σῶσαι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν, κτήσασθαι ἑαυτῷ
φίλους τινὰς τῶν ἁγίων, εἰ οὐ δύναται πολλούς – κτήσασθαι ὀλίγους, εἰ οὐχὶ ὀλίγους –
δύο. Εἰ οὐ δύο – κἄν ἕνα. Καὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ἐξ ἀδικίας πλούτου αὐτοῦ θεραπευέτω αὐτόν,
εἰ μὲν ἔτι ὤν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐνταῦθα διὰ τῆς σωματικῆς αὐτοῦ χρείας καὶ ἀναπαύσεως. Εἰ
δ᾽οὐ παρῆν αὐτῷ τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν, θεραπευέτω αὐτὸν διὰ σωματικῆς δουλείας καὶ
ὑπακοῆς καὶ ταπεινότητος. Εἰ δὲ μετασταίη τῶν ὧδε διά τε τοῦ μνείαν αὐτοῦ ἐπιτελεῖν
ὅση δύναμις καὶ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ παρέχειν, λέγω δὴ ἔλαιον, κηροὺς μετὰ
θυμιάματος καὶ ἀναφορῶν. Καὶ εἰ δύναται καὶ ἡ τούτου δεξιὰ καὶ ἔνι τῶν εὐπορούντων
καὶ πένητας τρέφειν, καὶ γυμνοὺς ἐνδύειν, καὶ τοὺς ἐν φυλακαῖς ἐπισκέπτεσθαι, τοὺς ἐν
ἀσθενείας περιποιεῖσθαι, καὶ τοῖς πᾶσι τὰ πάντα παρέχειν διὰ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐντολὴν καὶ
τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου θερμὴν ἀγάπησιν. Καὶ ὅταν ὁ τοιοῦτος μετασταίη τῶν ὧδε, δέχεται αὐτὸν
ὁ ἅγιος ἐκεῖσε. Καὶ ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαι αὐτὸν παριστᾷ αὐτὸν τῷ Κυρίῳ, δεόμενος περὶ αὐτοῦ
χαρισθῆναι αὐτῷ τὸν τοιοῦτον. Δεχόμενος οὖν ὁ Θεὸς τὴν τοῦ θεράποντος Αὐτοῦ ἁγίαν
αἴτησιν, ἀποχαρίζεται αὐτὸν αὐτῷ καθὼς προείρηται καὶ ἔστι συνευφραινόμενος αὐτῷ εἰς
τοὺς ἀτελευτήτους αἰῶνας. Φησὶ γὰρ περὶ τοῦτο ὁ Κύριος ὁ δεχόμενος προφήτην εἰς ὄνομα
προφήτου μισθὸν προφήτου λείψεται. Καὶ ὁ δεχόμενος δίκαιον εἰς ὄνομα δικαίου μισθὸν
δικαίου λήψεται; Basil the Younger: 344–345. I am thankful to Alice-Mary Talbot for her help
with this translation.
30
Miklosich and Müller 1860–1890: IV, 425. See also Chapter 3.
reward in the afterlife. For example, in the ninth-century church of Skripou

in Orchomenos, Greece, each of the two side chapels, one dedicated to Saint
Paul, the other to Saint Peter, bears an inscription noting that the founder, the
protospatharios Leo, built them “for the deliverance and remission of his many
sins” (Fig. 7).31 Similarly, the inscription of Constantine Lips on the eastern
side of the Theotokos tou Libos beseeched the Mother of God to “prove him
... an inhabitant and citizen of shining heaven recompensing [his] resolution”
(XXIII-7).32 The inscription continued by addressing the apostles, to whom
some of the chapels were likely dedicated. This pervasive mentality continued
throughout the Byzantine period and was expressed in a variety of media.33
Although it did not pertain exclusively to chapels, these ofered the possibility
for an individual founder or a monastic community to “acquire many friends”
among the saints, as Gregory suggests. Moreover, dedications of chapels often
relected the personal preferences of the patron.The primary dedication of the
ninth-century Nea Ekklesia in the Great Palace was to the archangel Michael
and the prophet Elijah, both of whom Emperor Basil I, the Nea’s founder,
considered his protectors.34 Both saints had their own separate chapels in the
church.35
The predilection for saints who had a special signiicance for a patron or
a religious community is evident in the liturgical texts. In his interpretation
of the Divine Liturgy, Kabasilas explains that the recitation of saints’ names in
the Liturgy “puts them [the saints] forward as mediators.”36 And he continues,
“[during the Eucharist the whole of humankind] commemorates the Mother
of God as servants their mistress and asks to gain God’s grace and providence
through her prayers and those of the saints.”37 Saints’ names were invoked dur-
ing the prothesis service and after the consecration of the gifts, although the list
was not the same everywhere. Rubrics pertaining to the prothesis indicate that
the priest could recite “a variety of [saints’] names.”38 The prayer read after the
consecration said: “For Saint John the forerunner and baptist; for the holy and
most honorable Apostles; for Saint(s) [name(s)] whose memory we commem-
orate today; and for all Your saints, through whose supplications, O God, bless
31
ὑπὲρ λύτρου καὶ ἀφέσεως τῶν πολλῶν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτιῶν. For these inscriptions, see
Papalexandrou 1988: 129–137.
32
οὐρανίων φαέων οἰκήτορα καὶ πολιοῦχον τὸν δεῖξον, πανάχραντε, προαίρεσιν ἀντιμετροῦσα;
Mango and Hawkins 1964a: 300–301.
33
See, for example, the dedication miniatures in the Leo Bible; Canart 2011.
34
On this, see Magdalino 1987, 1988.
35
De Cerimoniis: 117, 120–121.
36
αὐτοὺς μᾶλλον προβάλλεται πρέσβεις; Kabasilas: 278. On this part of the Liturgy, which
presents some interesting theological challenges, see Phountoules 1984: 165–168.
37
καὶ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ Μητρὸς ὡς Δεσποίνης δοῦλοι μέμνηνται· καὶ ταῖς πρεσβείαις αὐτῆς καὶ τῶν
ἁγίων τῆς παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπισκέψεως καὶ προνοίας αἰτοῦνται τυχεῖν; Kabasilas: 282.
38
Trempelas 1935: 3 (left column).
us.”39 In both instances the saints’ names that the clergy would invoke depended
on the church or monastery in which the Liturgy was celebrated.They would
certainly include the patron saint, saints in whose honor the church or mon-
astery had chapels, and saints whose relics the church possessed. For example,
in the instructions for the prothesis rite in the diataxis of Philotheos, which
was redacted when he was abbot of the Great Lavra in Athos, the list included
names particular to that monastery, such as Athanasios of Athos.40 Thus, the
multiplication of chapels should be understood in the context of the need of
a community or an individual to summon many protectors in this life, and as
many advocates for the hour of judgment as possible.
Funerary and commemorative chapels were manifestations of this mental-
ity.41 In some cases they were originally conceived as mausolea for an imperial
or aristocratic family and, frequently, for their associates. Saint Michael in the
monastery of Pantokrator housed in its western bay several tombs, including
those of the emperors John II and Manuel I, along with their spouses and
members of their families (VIII-11).42 Michael Glabas Tarchaneiotes and his
wife, Maria, were buried in the chapel attached to the south side of the kath-
olikon of Pammakaristos (XXIV-7). And Theodore Metochites, along with
other members of the aristocracy, was buried in the funerary chapel of the
Chora (VI-6). The decoration of these chapels often relected their function.
Saint Michael had images of the Cruciixion, Resurrection, Christ appearing
to the Women, and the “Holy Tomb” (perhaps the Entombment of Christ).43
In Chora, two images, that of the Anastasis in the apse and the Last Judgment
on the domical vault of the eastern bay, dominate the iconographic program.
Other scenes, such as Lazaros in Abraham’s Bosom, expressed the hope for sal-
vation and admission to paradise.44
Tombs in chapels adjacent to a church were considered privileged and pre-
sented yet another way to circumvent the prohibition of burials inside church-
es.45 Furthermore, funerary chapels designed as such created a separate space
39
Euchologion Barberini: 79.
40
Trempelas 1935: 3 (right column).
41
Sinkević 2003 argued for the funerary function of western chapels in a variety of Middle and
Late Byzantine churches. However, many of the spaces she discussed lack any formal char-
acteristics of a chapel, such as an apse or an altar, and should be considered simply subsidiary
spaces.
42
Two Palaiologan emperors, Manuel II and John VIII, were also buried in Pantokrator, but the
location of their tombs is not known.
43
Pantokrator: 75; BMFD: 754. Ousterhout 2002: 10–12 has suggested that the decoration of the
space created an association between the chapel and the church of the Holy Sepulchre in
Jerusalem.
44
For the decoration of the Chora chapel, see Der Nersessian 1975; Ousterhout 1995a; Akyürek
1996; 2001; Gerstel 2011.
45
For this prohibition and for a discussion of tombs in the naos and narthex, see Chapters 3
and 4.
dedicated to the commemoration of the people buried in them. Through

text and image the chapels ampliied the need for commemoration; gloriied
the life and works of the people buried in them, especially patrons; and spelled
out their hopes for salvation. For example, in the chapel of Pammakaristos
the epigrams both inside and outside the building and other visual references
celebrated the life of Michael Tarchaneiotes and the patronage of his wife,
Maria.46 In the apse the Theotokos and the Forerunner were the visualiza-
tion of an eternal appeal to Christ the Supremely Good (ὁ ὑπεράγαθος),
punctuated by the framing epigram (XXIV-8). In Chora, the chapel was likely
dedicated to Archangel Michael, whom Metochites considered his personal
protector and who had a prominent place in the iconography of the space.
In addition, a separate funerary chapel was a statement of wealth and prestige,
more so than burial in a narthex or another subsidiary space. The aristocratic
funerary chapels of the Late Byzantine period aligned their inhabitants with
the tradition of burying emperors and members of their families in subsidiary
structures, a tradition that can be traced to the heroa of emperors Constantine I
and Justinian I in the church of the Holy Apostles47 through the intermediary
of Saint Michael in the monastery of Pantokrator, which the typikon called “a
chapel in the form of a heroon.”48
Tombs were also added to preexisting chapels. For example, Euthymios,
patriarch of Constantinople (d. 917), when asked about his burial arrange-
ments, replied that he wanted to be buried “in Psamathia ... in the chapel of the
Forerunner situated to the right of the holy church of Anargyroi.”49 Euthymios
was the founder of the monastery tou Euthymiou, where these structures were
located.50 The body of Irene of Chrysobalanton (d. ca. 940) was placed in a
new tomb in the chapel of the martyr Theodore adjacent to the main church
of her monastery.51 In the ninth century, the body of Theodore Stoudite and
the remains of his brother, Joseph of Thessalonike, were translated to Stoudios
46
Mango et al. 1978: 21–22.
47
See, for example, the list in De Cerimoniis: 642–645. See also Downey 1959; Grierson 1962. In
ancient Greece, a heroon was a structure used for the celebration of hero cults.
48
εὐκτήριον ἐν σχήματι ἡρῴου; Pantokrator: 73; BMFD: 753. Other imperial tombs in chapels
are known. For example, Emperor Staurakios (d. 811) and his wife, Theophano, were buried
in the chapel of Saint John Prodromos in the monastery ta Staurakiou; see De Cerimoniis: 647;
Janin 1969: 470–471. In the monastery of Saint Euphemia en to Petrio in a chapel again dedi-
cated to the Prodromos were the tombs of Anastasia, daughter of Emperor Basil I, along with
the remains of two of his other daughters, Anna and Helen, and Zoe, mother of Emperor
Constantine VII; see De Cerimoniis: 648–649. For this church, see also Chapter 3.
49
ἐν τῷ Ψαμαθίᾳ ἔφη πρὸς τῷ τῶν Ἀναργύρων ἱερῷ σηκῷ ἐν τῷ ἀπὸ δεξιᾶς Προδρομικῷ
εὐκτηρίῳ; Euthymios: 147. See also BMFD: 124.
50
Janin 1969: 116–117.
51
μετ᾽ ὀλίγον δε τάφον καινὸν εὐτρεπίσαντες ἐν εὐκτηρίῳ τοῦ χριστομάρτυρος Θεοδώρου
τῷ τῆς μονῆς συνημμέννῳ ναῷ ἐντίμως κατέθεντο; Irene of Chrysobalanton: 108–110. See also
Janin 1969: 540–541.
and placed in the same tomb as their uncle, Plato, inside a chapel dedicated
to “the martyrs” and located east of the main church.52 And in another, cele-
brated example, Athanasios of Athos (d. ca. 1001) was eventually buried in the
north chapel attached to the katholikon of Great Lavra on Mount Athos.53 As
with burials in the narthex, it is often diicult to discern whether the person
was buried in the chapel because he or she was a patron or eminent member
of the community, or because the individual was recognized as a saint at the
time of death. In the latter case the chapel provided an appropriate architec-
tural setting that facilitated the low of pilgrims and petitioners, who could
venerate the tomb without having to enter the naos and potentially interrupt
services there.
In addition to housing tombs of saints, chapels were often repositories of
reliquaries, either for their exhibition in an easily controlled environment or
for safekeeping. According to the typikon of the monastery tou Libos, the relics
of Saint Irene were located “in the chapel near the old church,” probably the
northeastern exterior chapel of the Theotokos church (XXIII-2).54 And in the
monastery of Theotokos Panachrantos, the head of Saint Basil of Caesarea was
kept in a chapel likely dedicated to the Three Hierarchs.55 This phenomenon
had its origins in the Early Christian period. In the Blachernai the Virgin’s
mantle was housed in the Hagia Soros (lit. “the holy reliquary”), a round cha-
pel built by Emperor Leo I in the ifth century. This chapel’s name and form
demonstrated that the structure itself was perceived as a reliquary. In a parallel
example, the chains of Saint Peter were kept in his eponymous eukterion near
Hagia Sophia.56 Yet, with very few exceptions, it is doubtful that the idea of
an architectural reliquary was carried over to the Medieval period. Rather, in
the Middle and Late Byzantine periods reliquaries, as well as tombs of saints,
were added to a chapel after its construction. It appears that the primary con-
cern was keeping the reliquaries safe and, by extension, controlling pilgrim
traic. For example, from the vita of Stephen the Younger we learn that after
the saint’s death in 764, part of his head was taken to the monastery ta Diou in
Constantinople, placed in a reliquary, and hidden inside the sanctuary of the
“right chapel” of the monastery dedicated to the protomartyr Stephen.57
In Constantinople chapels were built primarily as means for an individual
or a community to gain favor with a saint. In the same context, placing one’s
tomb in a chapel ensured the saint’s support and allowed the deceased to be
52
Van de Vorst 1913: 60. Likely remains of this chapel, whose surviving lower level may have
been a sort of hagiasma, still survive.
53
Babić 1969: 47.
54
Libos: 110; BMFD: 1267.
55
Janin 1969: 214–215; Majeska 1984: 377–379.
56
Janin 1969: 398–399.
57
Stephen the Younger: 173.
continuously near a house of prayer, something beneicial for his or her soul.
Chapels also provided an appropriate setting for tombs of saints, while at the
same time facilitating the circulation of visitors and pilgrims.
Outer Ambulatories
Outer ambulatories are continuous, oblong, and relatively narrow spaces
attached to the main core of a Byzantine church on two or three sides (north,
south, west).58 They are characteristic of Late Byzantine architecture, although
comparable structures existed earlier, and were especially favored in the
Balkans.59 In Constantinople, there are two extant outer ambulatories and in
both cases they postdate the construction of the main church. The irst, in
the monastery tou Libos, is attached to the southern and western side of the
complex; it was built shortly after the completion of the church of Saint John
(XXIII-1, 4, 14). The second, in the katholikon of Pammakaristos, envelops
the twelfth-century building on the northern, western, and, partially, southern
sides (XXIV-1, 4). It was added in stages: the north arm was constructed in
the late thirteenth century; the western and southern arms, which connected
it to Glabas’s funerary chapel, were built sometime in the fourteenth century
or even later.60
In Constantinople, outer ambulatories primarily accommodated tombs,
something also paralleled in areas such as Thessalonike and Mystras.61 In
the monastery tou Libos the outer ambulatory contained seven arcosolia.
In Pammakaristos, four arcosolia were found in the northern arm, as was a
vaulted tomb under the pavement at the north end of the western arm.62
In both cases the outer ambulatories expanded the funerary real estate of a
foundation.The reasons for this were both practical and symbolic. Several ear-
lier, twelfth-century burials occupied the inner ambulatory of the naos in
Pammakaristos. In Saint John tou Libos it is possible, although not entirely cer-
tain, that the outer ambulatory was constructed in order to provide space for
more tombs after the naos and narthex were illed. Moreover, the construction
of both outer ambulatories should be seen not only as the result of the desire
of wealthy donors to be buried inside the church, but also as a manifestation
of their eagerness to associate themselves with a venerable imperial (Libos) or
aristocratic (Pammakaristos) foundation. However, the horizontal hierarchy of
58
The most important study of ambulatories in the Late Byzantine architecture is Hadjitryphonos
2004. I adopt here a much stricter deinition of an outer ambulatory.
59
Hadjitryphonos 2004: 91–137.
60
Hallensleben 1963–1964: 173–192 and esp. 176.
61
Hadjitryphonos 2004: esp. 203–204.
62
It is unclear whether there were any other tombs in the western and southern arm of the
outer ambulatory. These might have been constructed in order to connect the northern arm
with the funerary chapel.
holiness, evident in the theological comparisons between the narthex and the
naos, applied here as well. There are indications that the tombs in the outer
ambulatories were not as prestigious as the ones in the naos. In the monas-
tery tou Libos, judging from the scanty remaining fragments, the arcosolia in
the naos were adorned with mosaics, while the ones in the outer ambulatory
were decorated with lower-cost frescoes. Furthermore, Pachymeres relates that
Constantine, the younger brother of Emperor Andronikos II, was buried in the
monastery tou Libos “like the common men in the outermost tombs,” a likely
reference to the outer ambulatory.63
Commemorative services in front of tombs would have been identical to
those described in previous chapters. The northern arm of the Pammakaristos
outer ambulatory likely contained a chapel at its east end. This would have
provided a site-speciic setting for the celebration of commemorative litur-
gies, especially on Saturdays. Such chapels are known from other areas, such as
Thessalonike.64
Manastır Mescidi was equipped with a related structure, although its form and
function difered from those of the examples discussed above (XVI-1). During
his investigation of this building Aristeides Pasadaios uncovered the remains of
a colonnaded portico that surrounded the building from the south, west, and
north sides. The southern arm of the portico ended in a closed space adjacent
to the diakonikon, probably a chapel. The portico lent a monumental aspect
to the building and provided a covered space for overlowing congregants. It is
unlikely that the portico in Manastır Mescidi accommodated tombs.
Outer Aisles
Outer aisles were rectangular spaces attached to the north and south sides
of the church building. They sometimes communicated with the naos and
the narthex through passageways. A few Middle Byzantine churches in
Constantinople have preserved traces of outer aisles. There was no standard-
ization of forms, building materials, or functions. For example, on the south
façade of Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii (II) there is evidence for a porch or outer
aisle, built perhaps built of wood, that connected the narthex to the western
and central bays.65 A corresponding structure probably existed along the north
wall. Both gave access to upper-story rooms that were located above the four
corner bays of the building (II-2).66 In the south church of the Pantokrator
monastery there are remains of an outer aisle of which only two groin vaults
63
κατὰ τοὺς πολλοὺς τοῖς ἐξωτάτω σορίοις ἐνταφιάζεται; Pachymeres: IV, 467.
64
See, for example, the church of the Holy Apostles; Hadjitryphonos 2004: 165–166.
65
Hawkins and Mathews 1985: 129.
66
Theis 2005: 53.
have survived (VIII-6).67 There was a corresponding structure on the north

side, which was destroyed with the addition of the funerary chapel. The north
façade of the Eleousa church had a portico instead, as indicated by a series of
still-surviving brackets.The typikon of Pantokrator also mentions the space. In
the section that provides directions for the illumination of the churches for the
regular Friday procession, the typikon indicates, “For the arrival of the holy
banners four large candles will be lit in those colonnades which are alongside
the public colonnade and are used both for the arrival and the departure of
these sacred icons.”68 From the wording of the passage and the three large
doors in the north façade of the Eleousa it is safe to assume that this was a fairly
open porch or portico, which in this instance was used for the preparations for
the arrival and departure of the processions.
Nicholas Brunov was the irst to discuss in a comprehensive way the issue
of outer aisles. He sought to investigate the origins and development of the
“ive-aisled, cross-in-square church” (“église à croix inscrite à cinq nefs,” or
“fünfschiige Kreuzkuppelkirche”), a plan best exempliied by the church of
Hagia Sophia in Kiev.69 His main argument, based on the presumption that
many Middle Byzantine churches in Constantinople originally had ive aisles,
was that the type was transferred from Constantinople to the Rus.70 Brunov’s
ideas gained some currency, yet his dogmatic insistence on assigning outer aisles
to almost every surviving Byzantine church in Constantinople, despite limited
evidence and with a disregard for formal and constructional variations, under-
mined the usefulness of his observations.71 Recently, Lioba Theis reintroduced
the idea of lateral spaces, such as outer aisles, along with porches or chapels, exist-
ing in most Middle Byzantine churches of Constantinople.72 In many cases such
structures ofered access to upper-level parts of the church, including chapels
and galleries.Theis suggested that outer aisles were a standard feature, now all but
lost, which hitherto scholars had missed or ignored. Whereas Theis was correct
in drawing attention to these spaces, her interpretation of construction phases
of some buildings was overly complicated and rested on tenuous evidence. For
example, Kalenderhane (XIV) had outer aisles on both north and south sides,
as did Odalar Camii in its second phase (XVIII-2). However, it is impossible
67
Megaw 1963: 340, ig. D.
68
Εἰς γὰρ τὴν ὑπαντὴν τῶν ἁγίων σίγνων ἀναφθήσονται λαμπάδες τέσσαρες εἰς τοὺς
ἐμβόλους τοὺς παρακειμένους τῷ δημοσίῳ ἐμβόλῳ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἄνοδον ὁμοῦ καὶ τὴν
κάθοδον τῶν τοιούτων ἁγίων εἰκόνων χρηματίζοντας; Pantokrator: 75; BMFD: 754.
69
Brunov 1927a; 1927b.
70
Brunov cited as other examples of the ive-aisle, cross-in-square type the following: Atik
Mustafa Paşa Camii, Kalenderhane Camii, Eski İmaret Camii, and Kilise Camii.
71
See, for example, Brunov 1967, 1968.
72
Theis’s catalogue comprises the following: the Nea Ekklesia, Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii,
Myrelaion, Eski I-maret Camii, Kilise Camii, Gül Camii, Pantokrator, Odalar Camii,
Kalenderhane Camii, and the north church in the monastery tou Libos.
in either case to determine their elevation with much accuracy. In Eski İmaret
Camii (VII), traces on the masonry of the south façade suggest the existence of
some kind of structure that likely gave access to the gallery over the narthex,
but this was not necessarily an outer aisle. For Gül Camii (XI) Theis suggested
that it originally had open one-story side aisles lanking the cross-domed nave
and tripartite sanctuary from north and south. During the Palaiologan period,
these were replaced with the two-story construction that envelops the core of
the church from the north, west, and south sides, creating a gallery.This chronol-
ogy was based on masonry of very uncertain date. Nineteenth-century draw-
ings of Kilise Camii show that there was a chapel or a colonnaded portico,
which has since disappeared, attached to the south side of the church.73 It was
accessed by the large tripartite opening, which is now blocked by masonry.There
is considerable disagreement about the date and form of this chapel. Brunov
saw the remains of the chapel’s apse, which in building technique was identi-
cal to the eleventh-century masonry, and he suggested that there was another
aisle to the north of the church even though he did not ind any evidence for
it.74 Hallensleben considered the structure a fourteenth-century addition to the
Palaiologan exonarthex.75 Mango originally argued for a tenth-century date but
later accepted that the portico was a Palaiologan addition.76 Theis argued that
the southern annex was built at the same time as the rest of the building and that
there was another structure attached to the north side, which was demolished
during the Palaiologan reconiguration of the church.77
The scarcity of archaeological and textual evidence pertaining to outer
aisles allows only for some conjectures about their functions.78 Because not a
single such structure has survived intact, it is likely that some were constructed
of less durable materials, such as wood, and that their purpose was primarily
utilitarian. They gave access to upper-story (Atik, II) and ground-loor chapels
(south aisle in Kalenderhane, XIV; perhaps Odalar Camii, XVIII-2), allowing
the visitor to access them without crossing the naos; as porticoes they added to
the monumentality of a façade while also ofering shelter for people attending
outdoor services and processions (Eleousa in Pantokrator monastery). In other
cases, such as the south church of the Pantokrator complex (VIII), the side
aisles might have functioned as a structurally uncomplicated means to expand
the square footage of the church.79
73
For these, see Theis 2005: pls. 60–67.
74
Brunov 1926c: 12–14; 1931–1932: 139–144.
75
Hallensleben 1965.
76
Mango 1965: 330; 1976a: 271.
77
Theis 2005: 83–98.
78
Theis 2005: 149–158 has several suggestions ranging from plausible (connecting corridors,
p. 152–153) to highly unlikely (spaces for temporary display of icons, p. 156).
79
Ousterhout 1999: 112 has suggested such an additive approach for several eleventh-century
churches in Kiev, including Hagia Sophia. It is unclear whether the outer aisles in Pantokrator
Galleries
At least ive Middle Byzantine churches in Constantinople had galleries80
in a variety of conigurations (Eski İmaret Camii, VII-2; both churches in
Pantokrator,VIII; Kalenderhane Camii, XIV; Gül Camii, XI-2, 7).81 Most often,
galleries were situated over the narthex (Kalenderhane had galleries over both
the narthex and exonarthex). In Gül Camii they extended over the side aisles
of the naos, and in Eski İmaret Camii the gallery gave access to two rooms
located over the two western bays of the naos. In all cases the galleries opened
to the naos, often through a tribelon, a tripartite window-like opening (VII-4,
VIII-7, 9). The most common designation of these spaces was κατηχούμενα
(also κατηχουμενεῖα, κατηχουμενία, lit. “the place of the catechumens”).82 Also
attested were the terms ὑπερῷα (“upper chambers”)83 and στοαί (colonnades),
although this last did not refer exclusively to galleries.84 The term γυναικίτης
(“place of women”) in reference to the galleries was rare.85
In the Early Christian churches of Constantinople, galleries were primarily
the place of the catechumenate, something relected in the most common term
(katechoumena) used in the sources for this space.86 As infant baptism became
prevalent, perhaps as early as the seventh century, this use was abandoned.87
Secondarily, the galleries were the place where the emperor and his retinue
attended services. According to the Book of Ceremonies, in sections that relected
protocols of the ninth and tenth centuries, the imperial party attended services
in the galleries of both secular and monastic churches; the emperor received
communion there in some cases.88 All the churches mentioned in the Book of
Ceremonies were ancient, venerable foundations, such as Hagia Sophia and the
Holy Apostles, although some, including Theotokos Pege and the church and
monastery of Saint Mokios, were renovated or rebuilt in the ninth and tenth
centuries. It is reasonable to assume that this practice was extended to newer
foundations, especially those, such as Pantokrator, established by the imperial
ended in chapels at their east end, but it is likely. Chapels lanking the tripartite bema were
not unusual in Middle Byzantine architecture, as was evident in the Theotokos tou Libos
(XXIII) and Peribleptos (XXVI).
80
Most of this section is based on Millet 1905: 91–93; Mathews 1971: 128–134; Ruggieri 1993;
Taft 1998: 59–60; Mamaloukos 2001: 154–155; Tantses 2008.
81
The funerary chapel of Pammakaristos also had a gallery over the narthex.
82
Mathews 1971: 125–130.
83
Novelles: nov. 73 uses both ὑπερῷα and κατηχούμενα to designate church galleries.
84
Mathews 1971: 128–129; Taft 1998: esp. 31.
85
Taft 1998: 31.
86
Mathews 1971: 125–130. For a diferent interpretation, see Tantses 2008: 108–109.
87
Mathews 1971: 128; ODB s.v. “Catechumenate.” Tantses 2008: 91–93, 108, rightly draws
attention to the fact that the term “katechoumena” becomes common quite late. However,
his explanation for the appearance of the term is unconvincing.
88
Mathews 1971: 132–134; Taft 1998: 39–47; Taft 2006a: 13–17.
family. It was certainly the case in Hagia Sophia as late as the fourteenth cen-
tury, when Patriarch Athanasios I (d. ca. 1315) mentions in one of his letters
the imperial retinue in the galleries.89 In another letter Athanasios says that this
retinue included noblewomen dressed, in his opinion, quite inappropriately.90
Because of their imperial associations, galleries were likely perceived as places
of honor and thus used by abbots and abbesses as well as by aristocratic found-
ers. The two small spaces over the western corner bays of the naos in Eski
İmaret Camii had a related function. Both have a large window in their eastern
wall that aforded an oblique view of the bema and naos (VII-2, 7). Thus, they
were probably private spaces from where a founder or other eminent mem-
ber of the monastic community attended the services, a practice known from
Constantinople (Chora,VI) and elsewhere.91
It appears that the imperial party did not occupy the whole of a gallery, but
rather spaces set apart for such a purpose. For example, according to tenth-
century sources, the church of Saints Sergios and Bakchos (originally built in
the sixth century) had in its katechoumena a loge, a metatorion, and a chapel
dedicated to the Theotokos, where the emperor received communion.92 The
church of Saint Mokios had in its galleries a box (called παρακυπτικόν, lit.
“observation post”) from which the emperor followed the Liturgy.93 The elegant
tribela in churches such as Eski İmaret Camii (VII-4) and Kalenderhane Camii
might be these imperial observation posts. This would have left the rest of the
gallery space for the use of the congregation.94 Indeed, George Pachymeres
(d. ca. 1310) mentions that the “whole people” attended a service in Hagia
Sophia from the galleries.95 Thus galleries expanded the capacity of a church,
especially in cases where the community was very large.
89
Athanasios I: 100–103.The emperor dined with the patriarch in the galleries of Saint Mokios;
Taft 1998: 45, 60 n. 155.
90
Athanasios I: 94.
91
For Chora, see later. Another such example was the hagiasterion in the hermitage of Saint
Neophytos in Cyprus; see Mango and Hawkins 1966: esp. 129, 134, 190. For an example in
Cappadocia; see Jolivet-Lévy 1997: 189. Paul, bishop of Monembasia (10th century), writes
that a certain abbess Martha received an older monk in the katechoumena, where she was
staying. The monk had to ascend (ἀνελθεῖν) to that space; Paul of Monembasia: 110.
92
Taft 1998: 46-47. Chapels are also attested in the katechoumena of Hagia Sophia, attributed
to Patriarch Sergios I (d. 638); Patria: II, 280. The gallery over the narthex in the church of
Saint Stephanos in Kastoria also has a chapel; Siomkos 2005: 100-114 (see also Chapter 6).
93
Taft 1998: 45. There is also mention of an imperial chamber, where the emperor vested,
accessed through the galleries. It is unclear whether this was a room located in the galleries or
attached to them. Similar rooms are attested in other foundations. The church of Pege con-
tained a dining room (τρίκλινος), a chamber (κοιτών), and a small metatorion (μητατωρίκιον).
There too the emperor received communion in the galleries, where two portable credences
(ἀντιμίσια) were set up. For all these terms, see Strube 1973: 72–86.
94
Mathews and Taft have dispelled the notion that galleries were the place of women; see
Mathews 1971: 130–134; Taft 1998: 87.
95
ἄνω δὲ τῶν κατηχουμενείων στάντες, καὶ βασιλεὺς καὶ ἄρχοντες καὶ πάντες λαὸς ἑώρων
τὰ τελούμενα; Pachymeres Historia brevis: II, 11.
According to the textual sources, galleries had a variety of other functions,

although none appears to have been consistent or widespread. They could be
used for parts of church services,96 ecclesiastical tribunals and synods,97 distri-
bution of clergy stipends, skeuophylakia, receptions, retreats for patrons,98 safe-
keeping of relics,99 and administration of loyalty oaths.100 One of the enduring
concerns of the church hierarchy were people who lived in the katechoumena,
presumably of secular churches.101
Crypts, Substructures, and Related Spaces

Crypts, chambers located under the main church, were found in some early
churches in Constantinople. Both the Stoudios and the Chalkoprateia basili-
cas had diminutive cruciform crypts in front of the main apses, accessed by a
small staircase.102 In all likelihood these were used for relics.103 The crypt in the
late ifth- or early sixth-century church of Saint John at Oxeia, which housed
the body of Saint Artemios, was certainly more spacious than the previous
examples.104 However, in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods such con-
igurations were unusual and in all known cases crypts accommodated sacred
loci. The monastery of Philanthropos incorporated a preexisting miraculous
fountain in a crypt,105 which constituted the main attraction of this foundation.
Water lew into a cistern on the beach nearby and pilgrims used the moistened
sand around the cistern for its curative powers.106 More often, crypts contained
tombs or relics of saints, relecting practices also known from other areas of
the empire.107 Odalar Camii in its irst phase (ninth to tenth centuries) had
96
As, for example, on the third Sunday of Great Lent when the palace clergy ascended to
the galleries of the Nea and sang hymns of the Cruciixion at the end of Orthros; see
De Cerimoniis: 549. This appears to have been a very short service.
97
See, for example, Theophanes: I, 461; Syropoulos: 134.
98
Ćurčić 1993.
99
Anthony of Novgorod reported relics of Saint Theodore Stratelates in the galleries of
Blachernai; Ehrhard 1932: 58.
100
The galleries in the Chalkoprateia were used in the ninth century for the oath of loyalty that
was administered to Michael III and Basil I by patriarch Photios; see Mathews 1971: 31–32.
101
Syntagma: II, 537; Athanasios I: 156.
102
Mathews 1971: 27, 32–33.
103
Sodini 1981: 454–458.
104
Mango 1979.
105
The pre-Palaiologan history of this monastery is unknown. See Janin 1969: 527–529; Majeska
1984: 371–374; Kidonopoulos 1994: 33–36.
106
Demangel and Mamboury 1939: 49–68 identiied as part the monastery of Philanthropos
some substructures and the remains of a hagiasma in the Mangana region. Whereas the gen-
eral location of the monastery is certain, the state of the remains does not allow for a secure
identiication of buildings.
107
The best surviving parallel is the eleventh-century crypt under the katholikon of Hosios
Loukas monastery in Greece.The connection between this crypt and much earlier Palestinian
foundations argued by Connor 1991: 72–76 rests on supericial categorial similarities.
a two-room structure under the bema, perhaps for the accommodation of a

Marian relic (XVIII-3). The early date of this structure might indicate a sur-
vival of Early Christian practices. In the monastery of Chora (VI), according
to the life of Michael Synkellos, the relics of Saint Babylas and the eighty-four
children who were martyred with him were kept inside coins (θήκας) in a
crypt called kataphyge located within the church of Saint Anthimos.108 Under
the naos of the existing church, excavators uncovered two underground burial
chambers; the lower of the two was tentatively dated to the ninth century
and might have been the kataphyge.109 In another foundation that has not
survived, the church of Saint Romanos, of unknown date, one accessed the
crypt by walking down twenty-ive steps. There lay the tombs of the prophet
Daniel, Saint Romanos, and Saint Niketas.110 As with subsidiary chapels con-
taining tombs and relics of saints, crypts ofered an appropriate setting and,
most importantly, enabled regulated but easy access to pilgrims.
Boğdan Sarayı (V) had a similar arrangement, although its lower level was
not technically an underground crypt.The building originally had two stories,
both above ground.111 The lower level certainly served as a burial space. An
illicit excavation at the beginning of the twentieth century uncovered three
sacrophagi there, although it did not clarify whether these were tombs of
saints.112 Similar two-story funerary structures are known from other regions.
The best-known extant parallel is the Bačkovo ossuary in Bulgaria (built
between 1074 and 1083), which contained the tomb of the monastery’s foun-
der along with several others on both levels.113 Because Boğdan Sarayı was part
of a larger structure, perhaps a monastic church, it likely functioned as a funer-
ary chapel along the lines of those at Chora and Pammakaristos. Two-story
churches were not unknown in Constantinople.The Sinan Paşa Mescidi (XX),
which in form was comparable to Boğdan Sarayı, also had a “large under-
ground chamber,” according to Paspates.114 Similarly, the now-lost church of
Christ Savior in the Chalke in the Great Palace, originally constructed by
Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos and subsequently enlarged by Emperor John
Tzimiskes, was a two-story structure. John placed his sarcophagus inside the
church, although its exact location is uncertain.115
108
Michael Synkellos: 124. According to the vita, Michael enters the church of Saint Anthimos
and descends to the crypt that was inside the church (κατέρχεται ἐν τῇ ἐκεῖσε λεγομένῃ
καταφυγῇ).
109
Ousterhout 1987: 14–15. The excavators reported inding fragments of bones and wheat
grains in this chamber.
110
Majeska 1984: 326–329. For this foundation, see Janin 1969: 85–86, 448–449.
111
Paspates 1877: 360.
112
Papadoulos 1920: 63–65.
113
For the Bačkovo ossuary, see Bakalova et al. 2003. For comparable, although not always
related, buildings, see Balş 1936.
114
μέγα ὑπόγειον; Paspates 1877: 384. He was not able to access it.
115
Mango 1959: 149–169; 1973: 130–132.
Another seemingly common practice was the conversion of originally utili-

tarian substructures into burial chambers.116 In the second phase of Odalar
Camii (XVIII-2) the earlier building was reconigured as the substructure of a
new cross-in-square church. Gradually, starting as early as the twelfth century
and continuing throughout the Byzantine period, parts of it were used for
burials. The Myrelaion exhibits a similar process of ritual reuse of a formerly
utilitarian space. The church itself stood on a substantial substructure whose
spatial coniguration relected that of the main church (XVII-1, 5). The origi-
nal purpose was to elevate the Myrelaion to the same level as the preexisting
Late Antique palace, to which the church was attached. In the Late Byzantine
period but before ca. 1300 the substructure was remodeled as a burial space.
Excavations in 1965 revealed a built ossuary and seven pseudo-sarcophagi, each
of which contained multiple burials. Such conversions both expanded the
availability of burials sites near a church and created a space aimed exclusively
at the commemoration of those buried in it in ways virtually identical to those
of funerary chapels. For example, in the Myrelaion substructure a fragmen-
tary fresco depicted a woman, certainly one of the deceased, approaching the
Theotokos and Christ in prayer.117
In addition to burial chambers, utilitarian substructures were used for site-
speciic purposes. For example, Anthony of Novgorod related that the Nea
Ekklesia had a crypt.When the emperor entered the church, attendants would
burn incense there; the smoke would rise from openings on the marble loor
and ill the church.118 Anthony likely referred to a substructure or lower story
meant to raise the Nea, which was, originally or subsequently, also used for
such theatrics.
Atria and PhialaI

An atrium (αἴθριον, αὐλή, προαύλια, and occasionally προτεμένισμα, among
other terms),119 a three- or four-sided rectangular courtyard preceding a church,
was a requisite part of ecclesiastical buildings in Constantinople in the ifth and
sixth centuries.120 It was where the people would await the arrival of the cel-
ebrants, as laypeople did not enter the church before the First Entrance.121 In
116
Many churches in Constantinople were built on substructures, including cisterns, due to the
hilly terrain of the city; see Strzygowski and Forchheimer 1893; Janin 1964: 201–215. In some
cases, the substructures performed no function other than elevating and giving prominence
to the building above.
117
Striker 1981: 30–31.
118
Ehrhard 1932: 57. Anthony mentions that this crypt was accessible to people.
119
For these terms, see Taft 1998: 51–52.
120
Mathews 1971: esp. 107–108. See also Pallas 1950: 279–289.
121
Mathews 1971: 145.
the middle of the atrium there was usually a fountain (φιάλη) used for prepa-
ratory ritual ablutions.122
In the Medieval period, with the signiicant curtailment of outdoor pro-
cessions culminating to the Liturgy, atria and phialai became less common.
However, archaeological and textual evidence does attest to their existence
in a number of primarily Middle Byzantine foundations. Saint George in
Mangana (X) preserved remains of a courtyard with an octagonal structure in
the middle, likely the canopy of the phiale.123 Clavijo describes it as “a bathing
font, very big and beautiful and above it is a cupola supported on eight pillars
of white marble carved with many igures,”124 which included the evangelists
and apostles.125 The Vita Basilii contains an extensive description of two foun-
tains in the western atrium of the Nea Ekklesia in the Great Palace.126 The
southern one was made of porphyry and decorated with carved “dragons.”127
Patriarch Photios’s description of the church of Pharos, also in the Great Palace,
exalted the beauty of the church’s atrium.128 The monastery of Evergetis had a
phiale outside its katholikon,129 and the church of Eleousa in Pantokrator had
two.130 In addition, the phialai of early foundations continued to be used in
the Middle and Late Byzantine periods. Such was the case in Hagia Sophia131
and Stoudios.132
The primary liturgical use of the atrium and phiale in the Medieval period
in both cathedral and monastic contexts appears to have been for the service of
the Great Blessing of the Waters on the eve of the feast of the Epiphany, a prac-
tice that had started already in the sixth century.133 The Synaxarion of Evergetis
described the ceremony in detail.134 In this foundation it began on the day of
the feast right after the opisthambonos prayer, with a procession to the phiale.
122
Millet 1905: 108; Mathews 1971: 21, 35, 89. Because of this, the atrium was called λουτήρ
(laver, pool) or φιάλη (fountain); see Taft 1998: 51–52.The latter word might refer to the struc-
ture that housed the fountain, the former to the actual basin; see, for example, Dmitrievskii
1895–1917: II, 150.
123
Demangel and Mamboury 1939: 23–30.
124
Mango 1986: 219.
125
As described by the Russian Anonymous; Majeska 1984: 366.
126
Vita Basilii: 276, 278.
127
This or a similar phiale is now in the exonarthex of Hagia Sophia, as suggested by Boura
1977: 65.
128
Jenkins and Mango 1956: 131. The relevant terms are προπύλαια and προτεμένισμα.
129
Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 414. See also Magdalino and Rodley 1997.
130
Pantokrator: 75; BMFD: 754.
131
Typikon of the Great Church: I, 182; Mathews 1971: 89.
132
BMFD: 113–114 [B], 115 [A].
133
For a history of the Blessing of Waters, see Trempelas 1950–1951; 1950–1955: II, 1–44; and
most recently Denysenko 2012. This rite already was part of the feast in the fourth century,
at least in Antioch.
134
Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 414–420. For a useful diachronic overview of the constituent parts
of the rite, see table 5.3 in Denysenko 2012: 74–75.
There were petitions and prayers and at the climax of the service the priest
dipped the “precious wood” (a cross-shaped reliquary of the True Cross) in the
water three times making the sign of the cross, and then blessed and sprinkled
the brothers. Subsequently everybody returned to the church for the comple-
tion of the Liturgy. However, an outside phiale was not a necessity; when one
was unavailable, the Blessing of the Waters took place elsewhere. For example,
in the monastery of Kecharitomene it was celebrated in the narthex, where a
phiale presumably smaller in size stood.135 Some euchologia provide rubrics for
the rite to be celebrated either inside the church or in an outdoor phiale.136
Beyond these services, phialai functioned mainly as distributors of water
“to quench the thirst of the passers-by,” according to the vita Basilii,137 and
“to refresh those who are weary from traveling,” according to the typikon of
Pantokrator.138
Bell Towers
The tolling of bells signaled the imminent beginning of the service.139 The
number of times the bells rang was an indication of the importance of the feast
(the more important the feast, the more tolls).140 No Byzantine bell tower has
survived in Constantinople but there is evidence for their existence in some
churches. In Hagia Sophia, where it was likely added in the thirteenth century,
the three-story bell tower projected from the west façade.141 In Pammakaristos
(XXIV) it was in the same location.142 The situation was diferent in Kilise
Camii, where the bell tower, surviving only on its ground loor, was located in
the southwestern corner of the building (XXVIII-4).143 In Chora it was situ-
ated over the southwest bay of the exonarthex (VI-1, 2).144 In Kalenderhane
(XIV) a tower was adjacent to the porch that preceded the exonarthex.145 In
the monastery tou Libos (XXIII) the tenth-century tower that gave access to
135
Kecharitomene: 127; BMFD: 702. See also Chapter 4.
136
See, for example, the ninth- or tenth-century Sinai 957 in Dmitrievskii 1895–1917: II, 7–8,
where there is also a rubric for the patriarch blessing the waters “in the palace.”
137
Vita Basilii: 278.
138
Pantokrator: 75; BMFD: 754.
139
See, for example, Darrouzès 1976: 47. Μετὰ τὸ σημᾶναι διὰ τῶν κωδώνων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐν
ἀρμοδίῳ καιρῷ ... συνάγονται ἐν τοῖς κατηχουμενίοις τῆς Ἁγίας Σοφίας οἵ τε σταυροφόροι
καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ κληρικοί.
140
Darrouzès 1976: 76; Phountoules 1976: 135 and passim.
141
Ousterhout 1987: 108 with relevant bibliography. See also Kafescioğlu 2009: 21 and ig. 7.
142
The base of the tower is now incorporated into the outer ambulatory. See Hallensleben
1963–1964: 186–190; Mango et al. 1978: 24–25. The dating of this tower is unclear.
143
Hallensleben 1965: 208–217.
144
Ousterhout 1987: 106–110.
145
Striker and Kuban 1997–2007: I, 70.
the roof chapels may have been turned into a belfry in the Late Byzantine
period. A tower in relationship to a church is mentioned by Clavijo in rela-
tion to the church of Saint John the Baptist in Petra, where it was used for the
safekeeping of relics.146
The mechanics of the introduction of bell towers to Byzantine archi-
tecture remain obscure. Gabriel Millet considered them Latin imports that
appeared after 1204,147 although there might have been earlier examples.148
Most recently, Slobodan Ćurčić suggested that they were independent archi-
tectural elements whose origins should be traced to Early Christian Syria.149
Based on monuments from the Balkans and Norman Sicily, Ćurčić argued
that bell towers were multistory structures that, beyond bells, incorporated
chapels and sometimes cells where a monastic could live in complete seclu-
sion. Known examples in Constantinople might have had similar functions,
although the dearth of archaeological and textual evidence precludes anything
beyond hypotheses.
Other Subsidiary Spaces

Two buildings, Chora and Kilise Camii, have a two-story annex. In Chora it
is attached to the north of the naos, running its entire length (VI-1, 9).150 The
lower story connects the narthex with the northern chapel. The upper story
is accessed by a staircase set in the thickness of the north wall. The function of
this annex is unclear. Underwood suggested that the lower story functioned
as a diakonikon after access from the main apse to the southern apsidal room
was blocked. A row of niches on its north wall may have been used for the
storage of vessels.151 Because the northern apsidal room was likely a chapel, the
lower story provided access to it independent of the naos, a function compa-
rable to that of outer aisles. Underwood suggested that the upper story may
have been a skeuophylakion or a library.152 These functions were not mutu-
ally exclusive, as liturgical manuscripts would have been kept in the skeuo-
phylakion.153 Windows provided ample natural light for reading. Furthermore,
there is evidence that skeuophylakia were sometimes located above ground, as
146
Clavijo: 80–83.
147
Millet 1916: 135–140. Earlier, the faithful were summoned to worship with a wooden or
metal gong (semantron); see ODB s.v. “Semantron.”
148
Bouras 2007: 110.
149
Ćurčić 2006; 2008; 2009a. See also Ćurčić 2009b and Popović 2000.
150
Ousterhout 1987: 51–54, 114–116.
151
Underwood 1966: I, 23.
152
For an overview of libraries as annexes to monastic churches, see Bakirtzis 2008.
153
Ousterhout 1987: 115.
in the monastery of Evergetis.154 At Chora, the window on the upper story’s

south wall ofered visual access to the naos and the services that took place
there.As in other instances in Constantinople and elsewhere, this arrangement
aforded the patron or the leader of the monastic community a space for pri-
vate devotions during the Liturgy. Vefa Kilise Camii has a similar two-story
annex attached to its northwestern corner (XXVIII-3).The form of this struc-
ture has been severely altered, but it likely served purposes analogous to those
at the Chora.
Subsidiary spaces presented ingenious solutions that addressed ritual, sym-
bolic, and soteriological concerns, always within the context of the Byzantine
church, whose core remained essentially unchanged during the Medieval
period. Although there was evident liberty regarding their form, they exclu-
sively functioned in relation to the main building. As a result, the church, with
its multitude of spaces, became a complex built landscape that was occupied
by the Byzantine rite. However, as the focus of social and religious life in
Constantinople, the church was also used for a variety of rituals that went
beyond the rubrics of liturgical books.
154
Synaxarion of Evergetis: I, 52. In the rubrics for September 14 the appointed priest, the sac-
ristan, and a deacon ascend to the skeuophylakion and then take the True Cross reliquary
down to the church: ἀνέρχεται ὁ ἐγκάθετος ἱερεὺς μετὰ τοῦ ἐκκλησιάρχου καὶ διακόνου ἐν
τῷ σκευοφυλακίῳ ἠλλαγμένοι καὶ καταβιβάζουσι τὸν τίμιον σταυρόν. For this feast, see also
Chapter 3.
CHAPTER SIX
NONLITURGICAL USE OF CHURCHES
The regular, often daily, liturgical services undeniably accounted for the most
conspicuous use of church space. However, a Byzantine church was the theater
for numerous nonliturgical activities as well. These took place inside sacred
spaces, yet had no basis in the the rubrics laid out in liturgical books. They
pertained especially to devotion to sacred objects, to healings and miracles, to
funerary rites, and to other functions.This chapter focuses on these acts, on the
behavior of their participants and beneiciaries, and on the user’s experience
of the space.
The study of nonliturgical behavior is a perilous enterprise.1 Because there
is no possibility of acquiring irsthand observation or empirical knowledge we
rely, of necessity, on secondary material that includes written sources, decora-
tive programs, and archaeological data.This evidence is frequently circumstan-
tial, indirect, and cryptic. For example, Anthony of Novgorod reported that
inside Hagia Sophia “to the right of the apse” painters “exchanged” icons, with
no further details.2 Furthermore, although the dichotomy between liturgical
and nonliturgical acts might be obvious at irst glance, in reality it is diicult,
and occasionally imprudent, to insist on completely separating the two. Take
the example of Anna, the mother of Saint Stephen the Younger, who addressed
her private prayers requesting a son to, and genulected in front of, the icon
1
See also the notes in Patterson Ševčenko 1991: 45–47.
2
Ehrhard 1932: 55.
100
NONLITURGICAL USE OF CHURCHES 101
of the Theotokos in the Blachernai during the Friday-night vigil. These were
acts of personal devotion but Anna performed them in the context of a service
and they were scripted, both literally and iguratively, by social and religious
conventions.3 And although hers was a private act, it was shared with a number
of coattendees who presumably behaved in a similar fashion. Nonliturgical
activity is usually taken to refer exclusively to private devotions, but there is
another, more elusive category of nonliturgical acts: the use of sacred space
for such informal occurrences as resting, sleeping, eating, and drinking. These
could be the result of circumstances – a weary traveler inds a church on his
way and rests there – or more institutionalized, such as the diaklysmos or colla-
tion partaken by monastics in the narthex.
Devotions
The most common nonliturgical activity4 took place when a person visited a
church in order to light candles, pray, and on occasion venerate (the usual word
describing this was προσκυνῶ) a holy object or objects – an icon, the bones of
a saint, a sliver of the true cross, even a piece of cloth.5 In the tenth-century life
of Saint Thomais of Lesbos we read that the saint frequented churches inces-
santly, stood near icons, and made her “customary prayers.”6 The frontispiece to
the Hamilton Psalter (ca. 1300) ofers a visualization of this: it depicts a family
venerating and praying to the icon of the Hodegetria (Fig. 13).7 The two parents
are kneeling and their children are standing, hands extended in supplication.8
Emperors habitually visited an important shrine and venerated an icon before
the beginning of a military campaign. A miniature in the fourteenth-century
Vatican Manasses (Vat. slav. 2, fol. 122v) depicts Emperor Herakleios venerating
an icon of the Hodegetria, which is set under a ciborium, before setting of for
his military campaign of 626.9
These devotions were often memorialized in monumental decoration,
where the supplicant was depicted either in proskynesis or in prayer next to
3
This is evident in the words used sometimes to describe such activity, οἱ συνήθεις εὐχές, “the
usual prayers,” or τὰ διορισμένα, “according to the prescriptions.” See, for example, AASS: IV,
238; Irene of Chrysobalanton: 62. On Anna, see later.
4
On devotions and popular piety in general, see Gerstel and Talbot 2006; Gerstel 2006b;Talbot
2006. The devotional acts and healings described in the following were also performed by
pilgrims, although the deinition of pilgrimage in Byzantium has proven problematic. On
this, see Carr 2002: 75–92, esp. 76–77.
5
See, for example, De Cerimoniis: 533, 554. Cf. also Scylitzes: 52.
6
Holy Women: 311. Michael Psellos also describes in some detail the piety of his deceased
daughter Styliane; see Kaldellis 2006: 122–123.
7
Evans 2004: 153–154, with earlier bibliography on the manuscript.
8
For a similar illustration in a psalter now at the Benaki Museum in Athens, see Cutler and
Carr 1976: 285–286.
9
Dujčev 1963: ig. 43.
13. Frontispiece to the Hamilton Psalter, Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett. 78.A.9, ca. 1300 (photo:
Art Resource, NY).
the image of the Theotokos or a saint or, less often, Christ (Fig. 14).10 Such
images of supplication had a variety of functions: they expressed the piety of
the depicted person and placed him or her under constant divine protection;
they guaranteed eternal prayer on his or her behalf; in conjunction with the
inscription and image, they engaged the viewers and made them part of this
prayer; and occasionally they ofered thanksgiving for a miracle.11 We can attri-
bute similar functions to the graiti that are found in abundance on the walls
and furnishings of Early Christian and Byzantine churches throughout the
provinces of the empire. These were produced by people who very likely did
not have any involvement in the construction or the decoration of the church
but who wanted to leave a permanent mark of their devotion within a sacred
space. These prayers often request salvation for the living or repose for the
dead.12 Other graiti are simply a mark of pious presence.
10
Stylianou and Stylianou 1960: 97–128; Kalopissi-Verti 1992: 27–28 and 94–102; Patterson
Ševčenko 1994.
11
See also Nelson 2007: 109–116.
12
A comprehensive treatment of Byzantine graiti does not exist. See Orlandos andVranouses
1973; Jolivet-Lévy 2008 with earlier bibliography on Cappadocia.
14. Chora, narthex, Deisis with Isaac Komnenos (left) and Maria Palaiologina (right), 14th cen-
tury, mosaic (photo: author).
Seeking and Securing Miracles
Healings
The veneration of holy objects is mostly connected, at least in the written
sources, to requests for a miracle, namely, supernatural assistance for a vari-
ety of issues ranging from infertility and the cure of a debilitating disease to
demonic possession or help with a military campaign.13, 14 The behavior of
supplicants in these circumstances depended on many factors: the architec-
tural arrangement of the church building, accessibility, availability of “proxy”
relics (such as oil from the saint’s lamp), the ways the icon or the saint was
expected to respond, the kinds of illnesses, and so on. The most common
acts included veneration; the smearing on the body of perfumed oil or con-
densed humidity from relics, an icon, or a tomb; and drinking water from a
13
The practice of visiting a site requesting healing has also been connected to pilgrimage. On
this, see the several essays in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56 (2002), esp. Carr 2002; Majeska 2002b;
Foss 2002; Talbot 2002.
14
For an extraordinary list of alictions mentioned in hagiographical sources from the eighth
to tenth centuries, see Talbot 1983: 17–18; 2002: 158–159.
holy spring.15 The Life of Saint Theodora of Thessalonike illustrates such behavior.
An Arab man of iconoclastic convictions named Elias lived in a village out-
side Thessalonike. He was encouraged by a friend to visit the shrine of Saint
Theodora in the monastery of Saint Stephen to see the perfumed oil that
lowed out from her icon:
And when [the heretic] entered and examined carefully the oil pouring
from the icon and felt it with his hands and was assured in his mind, he
knelt down and pressed his forehead to the ground; and after anointing
with the lowing oil his hip which pained him terribly and perceiving
the exceedingly swift succor of the blessed [Theodora], he uttered words
of thanksgiving.
After this, Elias kissed the icon, anointed his whole body with the oil, prayed,
and returned home.16 On occasion, a votive image of the ailing body part was
ofered either as a request for a cure or as thanksgiving, a practice that still
survives today.17
A very interesting case that merits a more detailed examination is the shrine
of Saint Artemios in Constantinople, even though our primary source comes
from the seventh century. The account of his miracles ofers enough informa-
tion to reconstruct a rough outline of the building and the rituals followed by
pilgrims.18 The relics of the saint, who was martyred in the fourth century dur-
ing the reign of Julian, were brought to Constantinople and deposited in the
church of Saint John in Oxeia, which was a three-aisled basilica with an atrium
and a narthex. Two staircases gave access to a crypt underneath the main altar
where the lead coin with the relics of the saint was located. Saint Artemios
specialized in curing hernias and genital diseases. According to the miracle
accounts, people habitually drank from the lamp that was located close to the
saint’s coin.19 In some cases the supplicant made a votive lamp, illed with oil
and wine, which was presumably left close to or even on the saint’s coin.20
Anointing an ailing body part with oil from those lamps, or with a wax salve
(called kerote), resulted in a cure.21 However, most visitors sought the saint’s
assistance through incubation. This was originally a pagan practice, associated
often with Asklepios, but it survived in Christianity. In pagan temples, sup-
plicants were provided with dormitories, but in the shrine of Saint Artemios
they slept inside the basilica of Saint John, usually in the north aisle, hoping to
15
For a detailed exposition of this, see Talbot 2002: 159–162.
16
Holy Women: 213–14. For a similar event, see Andrew the Fool: II, 108–10.
17
Kazhdan and Maguire 1991: 14. For a votive plaque with an image of Saint Hermolaos, see
Gerstel 2006b: 117 and ig. 5.5.
18
Artemios; Janin 1969: 419–420; Mango 1979.
19
Artemios: 104–105.
20
Artemios: 82–85, 138–139.
21
Artemios: 96–97, 122–123.
be visited in a dream by Artemios, who would perform the cure. The practice
of incubation is attested as late as the fourteenth century in Constantinople:
a man was healed of demon possession after sleeping next to the coin of
Patriarch Athanasios I, which was kept inside the church of Christ Savior in
Athanasios’s monastery at the Xerolophos in Constantinople.22
In the shrine of Saint Artemios, the miraculous healing did not always
happen immediately. Some people had to wait months or even years.23 The
area where supplicants stayed was fenced of during the night by metal
barriers, thus precluding them access to the rest of the church. How this
afected the regular services is uncertain, and the sources do not clarify how
the clients of Saint Artemios passed their time.24 The account includes ref-
erences to a vigil and a procession every Saturday, but this also was related
to the function of the shrine in that the healing wax salve was dispensed
during that vigil.
Hagiographical texts detail instances of nonliturgical use of a church that
amounted to what was essentially forced coninement.The Life of Saint Andrew
the Fool, which dates to the tenth century, contains one such story. Andrew, a
well-educated slave of a high court oicial in Constantinople, belongs to a spe-
cial category of saints who pretended to be deranged for reasons of humility.25
His admittedly outrageous acts caused his master to have him chained in the
church of the martyr Anastasia in order to be cured. Andrew spent four months
chained inside the church, where he had numerous visions. He was subse-
quently released as incurable.26 Saint Anastasia apparently specialized in the
healing of demoniacs27 and her tomb may have been located in a crypt under
the church in an arrangement similar to that of Saint John in Oxeia.28 In the
Life of Irene of Chrysobalanton another demoniac, a certain Nicholas who tended
the vineyard of Irene’s monastery, was also chained inside Saint Anastasia. The
martyr, however, refused to heal him because Irene herself was to perform the
miracle. The demoniac was then chained to one of the columns in the katho-
likon of Chrysobalanton and was subsequently healed.29
22
AASS: III, 886E-F; Talbot 1983: 78–80. İsa Kapı Mescidi (XIII) was likely part of this
monastery.
23
Artemios: 185–189.
24
On this, see Artemios: 23–25.
25
For such saints, see Ivanov 2006.
26
Andrew the Fool: II, 18–29. The chaining of demoniacs has biblical precedent; see Mark 5:1–5,
Luke 8:26–30. For another chained demoniac brought to a church and healed, see the Life of
Eustratios of Agauros in Papadopoulos-Kerameus 1856–1912: IV, 398.
27
This was probably the church of Saint Anastasia en tois Domninou embolois; see Rydén 1974:
198–201; Irene of Chrysobalanton: 62–64, 68. In addition to the two vitae mentioned here,
references to the same church are found in the Life of Saint Basil the Younger; see Rydén
1983: 581.
28
Irene of Chrysobalanton: 62.
29
Irene of Chrysobalanton: 66–74.
Conception and Childbearing

A special category of healings and miracles was connected with conception
and childbearing, both important concerns for Byzantine women. Infertility
often was a social stigma.30 As in all premodern societies, the rates of infant
mortality were high and giving birth posed risks due to the rudimentary med-
icine available.31 Women often requested divine help to address such issues,
most commonly, although not exclusively, from the Theotokos or from Anna,
her mother.32 One such case is recounted in the Life of Saint Stephen the Younger
(composed in 809), which is described here in detail, because it is represen-
tative of a person’s behavior when requesting a miracle regardless of his or
her predicament. Stephen’s mother, Anna, approaching menopause without
giving birth to a male child, frequented the sanctuaries of the Theotokos in
Constantinople and especially the Blachernai during the services held there
on Friday evenings. She stood in front of the icon of the Theotokos holding
Christ in her arms and submitted her request to the Mother of God in an
extemporaneous prayer. One night, after she repeated the prayer three times
and performed the “usual” genulection, she fell asleep and saw a vision of the
Theotokos, who struck her in the loins and told her that she would bear a
son.33 Anna returned to the Blachernai with her son forty days after the birth,
according to the custom, and again she stood in front of the icon and ofered
tearful praise to the Theotokos.34 Although the historicity of this account is
debatable, it does relect certain realities. Broadly speaking, Anna’s petitionary
behavior was typical: she ofered her private prayer in front of an icon, accom-
panying it with a genulection, and later she returned to ofer her thanksgiving.
The context of the irst prayer is signiicant, as Anna made her private devo-
tions during the vigil (that is, during a liturgical activity) at the church of the
Blachernai. Personal prayer during a service was certainly common. A min-
iature that accompanies the chapter “On Prayer” in a twelfth-century manu-
script of John Klimakos’s The Heavenly Ladder shows monks with raised hands
praying to icons of the Theotokos and Christ, while another monk is reading
from the Gospel lectionary on a lectern, evidently during a service (Fig. 15).35
Several hagiographical sources indicate that women requesting a child
would do so by staying for a considerable amount of time, with or with-
out their husbands, inside a church in an activity that resembled incubation.
For example, Paul and Dionysia, the parents of Saint Euthymios the Great
(d. 473), frequented a church dedicated to the martyr Polyeuktos in the city of
30
Congourdeau 2009.
31
Kalavrezou 2003: 275–281; Talbot 2009. See also Koukoules 1948–1957: IV, 9–42.
32
Gerstel and Talbot 2006: 88–89. See also Pitarakis 2005.
33
Stephen the Younger: 92–93. On this episode, see also Talbot 2006: 210–211.
34
Stephen the Younger: 94–95.
35
Martin 1954: 188. On the gesture of prayer in art, see Nelson 2007.
15. Monks in church, Cod. Sin. gr. 418, fol. 269r, 12th century (photo: Art Resource, NY).
Melitene, asking for a child. One of the nights they were informed through a
vision that the “chains of sterility were broken.”36
It has been suggested that the proliferation in churches of images of Anna
holding the infant Mary may be connected with devotional practices relating
to childbearing in general and to infertility in particular.37 That these images
were occasionally set apart in individual frames strengthens this hypothesis. An
exceptional case of devotion to Anna can be found in the church of Hagios
Stephanos in Kastoria, in northern Greece.38 Over the narthex, there is a sepa-
rate gallery overlooking the nave. Its iconography, which dates to the tenth
and thirteenth centuries, is dominated by images of maternity and healing –
three depictions of Anna and infant Mary, a female saint with two children,
36
Cyril of Skythopolis: II, 8–9. PG 114: 597. This incident is depicted in an early fourteenth-
century fresco in the eponymous chapel of Saint Euthymios adjacent to the basilica of Saint
Demetrios in Thessalonike; see Gouma-Peterson 1976: esp. 175 and ig. 10. Cf. also the vitae
of Saint Symeon the Stylite the Younger (sixth century) and Saint Michael Maleinos (tenth
century); Symeon the Younger: 3, 4; Michael Maleinos: 551–552.
37
Gerstel 1998: 89.
38
Gerstel 1998: 96–97; Siomkos 2005: 100–114.
and a panel with two saints, probably the doctors Kosmas and Damianos – and
clearly points to a devotional space dedicated to (and by?) women and their
concerns about childbearing. However, we do not know what kinds of acts
took place there. Should we imagine rites of individual (private) piety or of
corporate devotion? Were these structured or informal? At the south end of
the gallery there is a chapel equipped with a templon, an altar, and a prothesis
niche, so the Liturgy could have been performed there. This may indicate that
even specialized requests for divine intervention, such as to cure infertility,
were carried out in the context of a set ritual rather than individually.
Remembering the Dead

There are several extraliturgical rites associated with funerals and commemora-
tions at tombs, such as laments, beating of chests, and tearing of hair. Funerary
orations for eminent people were given near the tomb at the funeral, on the
occasion of a mnemosynon (memorial service), or at other places and times.39
Family members regularly visited tombs inside churches to ofer private prayers
on behalf of the deceased. Theodora Palaiologina’s typikon for the monastery
tou Libos stipulated the following:
No one except the emperor and the respectable and eminent members
of the emperor’s retinue are to enter the convent, except in the case of
one of my relatives who wishes to see and venerate the holy churches
in a pious manner, or to see the tombs of our dear departed out of love
for them.40
Such behavior was expected not only from relatives but also from visitors,
as funerary epigrams attest. These short poems were part of the carved deco-
ration of tombs exempliied by that of the megas kontostaulos Michael Tornikes
(d. ca. 1328) in the funerary chapel of the Chora monastery (VI-7). The
twenty-four-line poem directly addresses the viewer (who is called βέλτιστε,
“good friend”) and praises Tornikes’s life. However, the tone changes in the
last three lines:
But, O only living One and transformer of natures,
if by chance he did something that was not itting for him,
granting him pardon, give him Eden as his inheritance.41
39
Sideras 1994.
40
οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἄλλος βασιλέως χωρὶς καὶ τῶν σὺν βασιλεῖ μετρίων τούτων καὶ ἐκκρίτων
ἀνδρῶν τὴν μονὴν εἰσελεύσεται, εἰ μὴ τῶν προσγενῶν τις τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου ἰδεῖν τε θέλων
καὶ προσκυνῆσαι τοὺς θείους ἐξ εὐσεβείας νεὼς ἢ καὶ τοὺς τῶν μεταστάντων τάφους
πόθου χάριν τοῦ πρὸς ἐκείνους θεάσασθαι; Libos: 115; BMFD: 1270.
41
ἀλλ᾽ ὦ μόνε, ζῶν καὶ μεθιστῶν τὰς φύσεις, εἴ πού τι καὶ πέπραχεν αὐτῷ μὴ πρέπον λύσιν
παρασχὼν τὴν Ἐδὲν κλῆρον δίδου; Van Millingen 1912: 330; Talbot 1999: 79–80.
Another epigram, commissioned by Irene Palaiologina to decorate the

now-lost tomb of her deceased husband, John II Doukas Komnenos Angelos
(d. 1318), concludes:
but, O spectator, stay mourning here,

and ask from God that this despot
may ind henceforth another dignity in Heaven.42
Simply by reading these epigrams the viewer and visitor ofered (willingly
or not) a prayer on behalf of the deceased and thus became the “agent of the
commemoration.”43 It has been argued that these poems, along with monu-
mental inscriptions, were “performed” aloud,44 but the mechanics of recitation
are irrelevant because they did not inluence the efectiveness of the prayer.
The importance lay in the recitation itself, whether silent or audible.
Resting, Sleeping, and Eating

Resting and even sleeping inside a church, beyond incubation, was not unusual.
The Sixth Ecumenical Council (680–681) dictated that in case of emergency
a traveler was allowed to rest in a church along with his beast.45 On their way
back from Corinth, Saint Nikon and a priest entered “a very old church” one
evening in order “to relax a little from their weariness and to take a little sleep.”46
Similarly, Lazaros of Mount Galesion, on his way to the Holy Land, prayed and
then slept in a small chapel in the middle of the ields. Later he prayed and
slept in the narthex of the famous church of the Archangel in Chonai, where
he was inappropriately approached by a vision of a nun and ran away.47 Saint
Irene of Chrysobalanton and three of her nuns napped in the Blachernai, tak-
ing a break from an all-day prayer.48 The Life of Saint Theodora of Thessalonike
refers to nuns sleeping in the narthex, presumably between services.49 There
are several instances of people being healed after falling asleep in front of an
icon. Saint Theophano, for example, fell asleep before an icon of the Theotokos
in the monastery ton Bassou after venerating the icon for several hours (she
subsequently had a vision).50 Other hagiographic texts describe analogous
42
Πλὴν ὦ θεατά, στῆθι πενθῶν ἐνθάδε, καὶ τοῦτον αἰτοῦ πρὸς Θεοῦ τὸν δεσπότην, ἄλλην
ἄνω κάτωθεν εὑρεῖν ἀξίαν; translated in Brooks 2006b: 228–229.
43
On this topic, see Nelson 2007: 107–116; Papalexandrou 2007: 166–170.
44
Papalexandrou 2001.
45
Syntagma: II, 540–541.
46
Nikon: 143–145.
47
Lazaros of Mt. Galesion: 82–84.
48
Irene of Chrysobalanton: 56.
49
Holy Women: 199.
50
Theophano: 4.
events.51 We can again connect the use of the narthex for sleeping with the
interpretation of this space as not quite as holy as the rest of the church.52
This mentality resulted in some surprising uses. In monasteries the com-
munity occasionally used the narthex for informal eating and drinking, even
though canon law repeatedly prohibited eating in churches.53 The sources refer
to two related but distinct practices. In the irst, often called diaklysmos,54 wine
or water and bread were distributed at the end of the Liturgy. In the second,
the community received a collation (also bread and wine), usually on fast days,
when there was no meal in the refectory.55 The Synaxarion of Evergetis jux-
taposed the two practices in the rubrics for Christmas eve, when it fell on a
Saturday or Saturday:“after the morning liturgy we do not go to the refectory
… but after eating the blessed bread and washing the mouth from the divine
gift [i.e., the Eucharist] in the narthex, the cellarer distributes to each a piece
of bread and similarly a glass of wine as dictated by the abbot, but nothing
more.”56 According to the typikon of Evergetis, the diaklysmos after the Divine
Liturgy was “customary” and took place in the narthex while the monks waited
for the summons to the refectory,57 a rubric reproduced, sometimes with the
omission of the location, in typika from outside Constantinople.58 Mamas59
and Kecharitomene60 also included the Evergetis rubric but did not mention
the narthex. However, Mamas instructed that on Holy Saturday the diaklys-
mos should take place in the refectory.61 Stoudios did not specify the loca-
tion and restricted the diaklysmos to those who had received communion.62
Neither practice was a “ritualized” action;63 rather, both addressed practical
considerations. The distribution of bread and wine to those who had received
51
Kazhdan and Maguire 1991: 14. People falling asleep in church, especially during long vig-
ils, was a known issue. Athanasios of Athos even assigned monks “to awaken the brothers
throughout the church during the readings”; see Athanasios of Athos: 153.
52
See Chapter 4.
53
Syntagma: I, 131; II, 476–478; III: 407; V: 408; VI: 76.
54
For this term, see BMFD: 116–117, n. 27. Nikon of Black Mountain gave very speciic instruc-
tions; see BMFD: 405–406. See also Nicholl 1997; Talbot 2007: 112.
55
For a list of examples from outside Constantinople, see Marinis 2009: 155.
56
μετὰ δὲ τὴν τῆς πρωΐας λειτουργίαν οὐκ ἀπερχόμεθα ἐν τῇ τραπέζῃ … ἀλλὰ ἐν τῷ
νάρθηκι μετὰ τὸ φαγεῖν τὸ κατακλαστὸν καὶ διακλύσασθαι ἀπὸ τῆς ἁγίας δωρεᾶς διανέμει
ὁ κελλαρίτης πᾶσι πρὸς ἓν τεμάχιον ψωμόν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ πρὸς ἓν βαυκάλιον οἴνου ὡς ἂν
ὁρίσῃ ὁ προεστὼς καὶ πλεῖον οὐδέν; Synaxarion of Evergetis: II, 332.
57
Evergetis: 33. See also Evergetis: 43.
58
Nicholl 1997: 287–293.
59
Mamas: 273; BMFD: 1005.
60
Kecharitomene: 97; BMFD: 693. Kecharitomene repeats a rubric from Evergetis.
61
Mamas 276; BMFD: 1007.
62
Hypotyposis Stoudiou [A]: 288; BMFD: 115. The reference in Pantokrator: 89 is to commemo-
rative services on behalf of the founder and his family by the personnel and the patients of
the monastery’s hospital, without specifying a location. In this instance the word should be
translated as “quick meal” and does not relate to the monastic practices described here.
63
Pace Nicholl 1997.
communion was meant to ensure that no particle of the Eucharistic elements

remained in their mouths. On days when there was no meal in the refectory,
the collation provided quick sustenance to the monastics.This is evident in the
Rule of Athanasios of Athos:
On Holy Saturday in the middle of the twelfth hour we begin vespers,
and the dismissal will come at whatever time [the service is concluded],
but the refectory is not opened because the liturgy inishes so late and
because a large meal would weigh heavily on the stomach and on the
mind. We are content with the blessed bread and can partake of about
two servings of wine in the narthex.64
Beyond these light, informal meals, other, seemingly more formal afairs
took place in some churches. According to the Book of Ceremonies, the emperor
dined with the patriarch in the galleries of Saint Mokios.65 Patriarch Athanasios
I complained to the emperor that the imperial party went to the galleries of
Hagia Sophia not to pray but to indulge themselves with eating and drinking,
presumably during the meal following the end of the service.66 Anthony of
Novgorod reported that fruit was kept fresh in the cisterns of Hagia Sophia for
the consumption of the patriarch and the emperor.67
Festivals and Reenactments

Sometimes churches became part of celebrations that took place during popular
festivals. One such occasion was the female festival of Agathe in Constantinople,
which happened yearly on May 12 and is described by Michael Psellos.68 The
participants (female wool carders, spinners, and weavers) entered an unidenti-
ied church, whose doors were opened by priests.There the women venerated
icons set up by the clergy, decorated them with ornaments, and sang songs,
some of them old, others improvised on the spot. Another component of the
ceremony focused on a series of wall paintings depicting women making cloth,
likely located on the exterior walls of the aforementioned church. Psellos’s
description is vague, but it is clear that this was a secular celebration with
some religious overtones. Another festival revolved around the commemora-
tion of the Holy Notaries, Saints Markianos and Martyrios, appropriately the
patron saints of the guild of the notaries. On October 25, teachers and students
64
Τῷ δὲ ἁγίῳ σαββάτῳ μεσαζούσης τῆς ιβʹ ἀρχόμεθα τοῦ ἑσπερινοῦ καὶ ὅπου σώσει ἡ
ἀπόλυσις· ἡ δὲ τράπεζα οὐκ ἀνοίγει διὰ γὰρ τὸ βραδέως τὴν λειτουργίαν συμφθάζειν καὶ
τὸ μὴ κόρῳ τὴν γαστέρα καταβαρῦναι καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν· τῇ εὐλογίᾳ μόνῃ ἀρκούμεθα, ἀνὰ
βʹ κράσεων μεταλαμβάνοντες ἐν τῷ νάρθηκι; Rule of Athanasios: 138; BMFD: 226.
65
Taft 1998: 45, 60 n. 155.
66
Athanasios I: 100–103.
67
Ehrhard 1932: 58–59.
68
Sathas 1872–1894: V, 527–531, translated in Kaldellis 2006: 182–186. On this festival, see
Laiou 1986.
processed to the church of their patrons while performing comic sketches and
wearing, among other things, brilliant costumes, women’s clothes, and imita-
tions of imperial regalia.69
There are tantalizing allusions to people wearing costumes even inside
churches: the canonist Balsamon refers to priests who, on certain feast days,
appear in the middle of the church dressed as soldiers with sword in hand,
or as monks, or even as four-legged animals. He added that “choirmasters
click their ingers like charioteers, wear beards of seaweed and imitate female
occupations.”70 It appears that Patriarch Theophylaktos (d. 956) had introduced
some kind of mime or masquerade in Hagia Sophia in which priests par-
ticipated on the feasts of Christmas and Epiphany.71 The exact nature of these
practices is unclear. It is conceivable, however, that they were reenactments of
holy events rather than carnivalesque activities. In the Late Byzantine period
one such act is well attested in the “Service of the Furnace,” also known as the
“Service of the Three Children in the Furnace,” which was sung in the church
on the Sunday of the Forefathers, either between Orthros and the Divine
Liturgy or after the Liturgy.72 Variations of the service survive in ive man-
uscripts, the majority dating to the post-Byzantine period. Its performance
is attested by eyewitnesses73 and mentioned by Symeon of Thessalonike.74 It
included props – a furnace and an icon of an angel – and was performed
by three children and a choir. At the beginning of the service, the children
entered the furnace and they and the choir sang hymns. At some point the
angel descended and toward the end the children sang while dancing and
bowing and raising their arms. Whether this was a liturgical drama or a litur-
gical ritual is irrelevant; it probably was neither. Such reenactments were not
uncommon in Byzantium. For example, on Holy Thursday the patriarch in
Hagia Sophia or the abbot in some monastic foundations washed the feet of
twelve people, occasionally under an image of Christ washing the feet of the
apostles.75 There is also a cryptic reference by Liudprand, the tenth-century
Lombard envoy to the court of John Tzimiskes, that the Byzantines “celebrate
the ascension of the prophet Elijah to the heavens with stage performances”76
as well as a curious theatrical–religious piece, probably from Cyprus, on Christ’s
69
Described in Mitylenaios: poem 136.
70
Syntagma: II, 451; Mango 1981: 349–351; Garland 2006b: 171–172.
71
Syntagma: II, 449. See also Scylitzes: 243–244.
72
Velimirović 1962; Lingas 2010. On the question of theater in Byzantium, see Puchner 1981;
2002.
73
These are Ignatios of Smolensk, who visited Constantinople in 1389, and Bertrandon de la
Broquière, who was in Istanbul in 1433; see Majeska 1984: 100, 233–234; Kline 1988: 100.
74
PG 155:113–116; Phountoules 1976: 147.
75
Typikon of the Great Church: II, 72–75. BMFD: 652; Synaxarion of Evergetis: II, 474. See also
Chapter 4.
76
Liudprand: 257. On this, see also Baud-Bovy 1975: 329–333; Puchner 1981: 235–236.
passion.77 The “Service of the Furnace” again challenges the clear distinction
between liturgical and nonliturgical rites. Although not a typical ecclesiastical
service, the choir and the three children sang church hymns.
Byzantine churches were built primarily to house liturgical rituals, but at
the same time, because they were sacred spaces, a wide array of nonliturgical
activities took place in them. The majority of these were directly or indirectly
religious in nature, but not all. The uses of spaces described in this book call
into question our understanding of the church buildings as monuments of
liturgical glory, or, conversely, as a species in the architectural evolution of
types and masonry techniques. They are all that, certainly, but they should also
be viewed as part of the urban and social fabric, places that people visited and
used daily and over many centuries. A church did not have one single use and
one single purpose. Rather, it was the multitude of uses and functions that
constituted a Byzantine church.
77
Greek text and French translation in Vogt 1931.The text dates to the thirteenth or early four-
teenth century and according to some was inspired by Latin liturgical dramas. It is unclear
that it was performed inside a church; see Puchner 1981: 224–233.
CONCLUSION
The church building provided the setting for the many services of the
Byzantine rite.Yet how close was the relationship between the two? Was there
an interdependency between building design and the shape of the liturgy? If
we view this question from a modernist perspective, we would conclude that
architecture and liturgy, form and function, should be closely connected. This
was the case for the early churches of Constantinople, as Thomas Mathews
has convincingly demonstrated. However, as I have argued in this study, the
careful examination of the Middle and Late Byzantine periods paints a much
diferent picture.
There certainly was a correspondence between architectural form and the
exigencies of the ritual. The bema, which housed the altar in its main apse,
created the necessary separate area for the clergy. Its side rooms, now called
prothesis and diakonikon, inherited the functions of the outside skeuophy-
lakion. The squarish, undivided naos suited both the two main circular pro-
cessions of the Divine Liturgy, the First and the Great Entrance, and the
participation of the congregation, who thus had an unobstructed view of
the templon and sanctuary from everywhere they could stand. The narthex,
essentially an entrance porch, prepared the faithful for their arrival into the
main part of the church and became the place where people with spiritual
or physical impediments attended the Liturgy. These three parts – bema,
naos, narthex – served at once as an architectural and notional frame of
the ritual.
114
CONCLUSION 115
However, the inal form of a Byzantine church depended on several addi-

tional factors, many of which had little to do with the accommodation of the
rituals. According to the sources, the size and opulent decoration of such impe-
rial foundations as the church of the Peribleptos (XXVI) and Saint George ton
Manganon (X) were the result of their founders’ self-importance.1 Moreover,
architectural types often responded to practical problems.2 The form of the
twelfth-century cruciform naos in Chora (VI), for example, which replaced an
eleventh century cross-in-square, was a result of legitimate concerns about the
structural stability of the building.3 In addition, the numerous subsidiary spaces
served a variety of functions. Galleries could be places of honor for imperial
and aristocratic parties; conversely, they could signify that the building was an
imperial or aristocratic foundation. The funerary chapels at the Chora and
Pammakaristos (XXIV) served as sites of commemoration, as well as means
to support and control how those buried in them were remembered. In the
monastery tou Libos (XXIII), the outer ambulatory was added to provide space
for more burials. Certainly, commemorative rituals took place in chapels and
outer ambulatories in front of the tombs.Yet these were simple services, with-
out any spatial exigencies, that could be performed in a variety of places. In the
Myrelaion (XVII), for example, the purely utilitarian substructure was trans-
formed in the Late Byzantine period into a funerary chapel. In most subsidiary
structures the accommodation of rituals was often secondary to the space’s
original purpose.
When we consider all the functions of a church space, an explicit interde-
pendence of form and function dissipates. The narthex, for example, could
have been used for the reading of some of the Hours, funerals, commemorative
services, burials, parts or the whole of the service of tonsure, the ordination of
the minor orders, confessions, such occasional services as the Blessing of the
Waters and the Washing of the Feet, and quick meals on certain feast days. It
is impossible to connect any of these functions to the architectural form of
the narthex. Minor services were read there for practical reasons, as they were
short and did not require the use of the altar. Minor orders were ordained in
the narthex because the bishop, after the abandonment of the outside skeuo-
phylakion, waited there for the First Entrance. Tombs located there presented
an acceptable compromise between the desire to be buried in a spiritually
beneicial location and the canonical prohibition against burying the dead in
the church. And the service of the Washing of the Feet was celebrated in the
narthex because an image of Christ washing the feet of the apostles was often
found there. This variety of functions, some of them acquired long after the
1
Psellos: II, 61–64.
2
See the many examples in Ousterhout 1999: 86–126.
3
Oates 1960: 226–228; Ousterhout 1987: 20–22.
building was completed, contradicts the tacit assumption that the original pur-
pose of the space was also the most important one, an approach that treats the
building as frozen in time and disregards the fact that people continued to use
these churches for centuries after their construction.
Liturgical texts and commentaries relect the same lack of concern for the
relationship between architecture and ritual. In euchologia references to the
architectural context are scarce; more telling, perhaps, some are even anachro-
nistic. In Byzantine and even modern printed examples, one of the last prayers
of the Divine Liturgy is to be read, according to the rubrics, “behind the
ambo,” even though very few churches had one after the seventh century.
Indeed this prayer was read in front of the doors to the bema from at least the
twelfth century, if not earlier.4 Similarly, diataxeis, which contain very detailed
instructions about the performance of the Liturgy, treat the church building in
the vaguest of ways. For the First Entrance, for example, the clergy is instructed
to exit from the bema, circle the naos, and stand in the middle of it. Whether
the church was cross-in-square, cross-domed, or a basilica evidently had no
bearing on the essence of this procession. One might argue that there was
no need to provide any more precise spatial information because the clergy
would have learned the particulars of liturgical praxis from observation and
through a process of apprenticeship. This may hold some truth but it does not
explain why in liturgical commentaries, where we would have expected the
symbiosis between liturgical function and spatial form to be explicit, there is
almost nothing beyond some general attributions of symbolism. The Protheoria
intrerprets the altar as both the manger and the tomb of Christ, and the mar-
ble loors of Hagia Sophia as the river Jordan, but rarely does it discuss any
other parts of the church.5 Of the 110 paragraphs in Symeon of Thessalonike’s
Interpretation of the Divine Temple, only eleven discuss what we might consider
architectural elements per se.6 All of the elements discussed, such as the altar
and the templon, were common to all consecrated churches, and many, such
as the steps of the bema and the relics under the altar, were inconsequential to
the performance of the rite.
If liturgical commentaries were largely indiferent to the particulars of archi-
tectural form, the same holds true for the form of the Liturgy itself.Theologians
were not concerned with the route of a procession or how many clergy par-
ticipated in it; they were preoccupied with what the procession symbolized.
Such texts treated both the rite and the building in which it was celebrated
as eternal and unchanging signiiers. The conventional preoccupation with
symbolism resulted in the accumulation of layer upon layer of meanings, some
4
Jacob 1981; Taft 2008a: 603–609.
5
Protheoria: 421, 436.
6
Symeon of Thessalonike: 80–163.
CONCLUSION 117
complementary, some inconsistent. Both the prothesis room and the altar
could symbolize Christ’s manger.7 The naos could symbolize heaven, but earth
as well. The First Entrance signiied both a procession of angelic powers8 and
Christ’s coming into the world.9 The Great Entrance signiies both Christ’s
Second Coming and his burial.10 This multiplicity of interpretations was the
cause of some embarrassment to Nicholas of Andida.11 Any attempt to ind a
well-ordered exegetical typology may be futile and would be contrary to the
Byzantine mentality. Ritual acts and building parts could have multiple mean-
ings; it remained up to the participants, clergy and laity, to assign them in a
itting manner.
Consequently, the church building, its decoration, and the rituals it housed
became complex symbolic systems that enhanced one another’s meaning. The
Divine Liturgy mirrored the heavenly celebration that continuously took place
in God’s sanctuary, a concept found already in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
The Byzantine domed church presented a vision of the harmonious cosmic
hierarchy, a heaven in which this mystery was performed. Such images as the
concelebrating hierarch saints and the Melismos, common throughout the
empire and evidenced in Constantinople, further underscored this notion. At
the same time, the Liturgy was a iguration of Christ’s life and salviic work on
earth. The building provided the topography of this reenactment. According
to Symeon of Thessalonike, the prothesis room signiied the cave in which
Christ was born. It was close to the altar, which symbolized the tomb, because
Bethlehem was close to Jerusalem.12 Here, too, the iconographic program, with
scenes of the life of Christ from the Annunciation to the Ascension, enhanced
the symbolism of both building and ritual, as claimed in the Protheoria.13 The
Divine Liturgy was both a cosmos and a history. The same was true for the
building.
In light of such mutually reinforcing understandings, the interchange of
architecture and ritual in Constantinople cannot be distilled into a simple
question of how function afects form. Removing architecture and ritual from
their social and historical contexts forces a lengthy and complex process of
transformation to yield to inquiry a single, facile answer. It also implies a linear
7
Symeon of Thessalonike: 184; Protheoria: 421.
8
9
Meyendorf 1984: 72–74.
10
11
Protheoria: 421; cf. Protheoria: 437–440, where the author preempts objections to some of his
own interpretations by saying that no symbol can absolutely imitate the likeness of the things
it symbolizes: οὔτε αἴνιγμα οὔτε σύμβολον οὔτε παραβολὴ δύναται φυλάξαι ἀπαραλλάκτως
τῶν ὧν μιμεῖται πάντων τὴν ἐμφέρειαν. Cf. also Kabasilas: 62: ἀλλ᾽οὐδὲν κωλύει καὶ τοῦτο
κἀκεῖνο δύνασθαι.
12
PG 155: 348.
13
Protheoria: 420–421.
development and the existence of speciic times and places where these changes
took place, as well as a deciding agent who brought each change about. The
evidence, however, supports none of this. Rather, as long as a church building
continued to be used, the dialectic between architecture and ritual endured.
And this is at irst sight a paradox. For all the professed preoccupation of the
Byzantines with taxis and the rigidity that this concept implies, both space
and function show remarkable luidity. Although the irst purpose of a church
building was the celebration of the Liturgy,14 both the building and the Liturgy
entailed much more than that.We are thus left with a story, of sorts, whose plot
cannot be reduced to just a set of diachronic axioms. Rather, it is the story of
an architecture and a ritual continually in the process of becoming.
14
Mathews 1971: 177.
APPENDIX
CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES
This appendix furnishes details about the surviving Middle and Late Byzantine
churches in Istanbul, as well as some that were previously documented but
have now disappeared. Because many of these churches cannot be dated with
accuracy, the entries are arranged alphabetically by name, rather than chro-
nologically, thus following but augmenting Thomas Mathews, The Byzantine
Churches of Istanbul: A Photographic Survey (University Park, PA, 1976). The
accompanying description of each church addresses issues pertinent to the
main themes of this book, speciically planning, dimensions, dating, and iden-
tiication. For further information, the reader should consult items cited in
the References, listed chronologically at the end of each entry. All GPS coor-
dinates are approximate and locate, whenever possible, the western entrance
of the building.
I. Hagios Andreas EN TE KRISEI (Koca Mustafa Paş a Cami̇i̇)

Date: 1284–1300
Location: 41°0 12.20 N (latitude), 28°55 43.64 E (longitude), 40 m
(altitude)
Hagios Andreas en te Krisei is on the seventh hill in the neighborhood of
Kocamustafapaşa. The church likely belonged to the ambulatory type. Only
the two columns on the western side of the inner ambulatory have survived.
It has a tripartite sanctuary (the prothesis has been replaced by a domed room)
and a ive-bay narthex, which communicated with the naos and the side aisles
through three passageways. The shallow dome in the central bay of the nar-
thex is carried by four columns set against the walls, thus creating a kind of
baldachin.
Later interventions have altered the original form and obscured virtually all
the Byzantine fabric of this church. The main dome, the north and south half
domes, and the vaulting of parts of the ambulatory are Ottoman, as is the siz-
able portico that was added along the north side.The whole exterior is encased
in limestone, and the interior is plastered and painted; as a result, the identiica-
tion and the date of the building are uncertain. Ebersolt and Thiers’s proposed
119
120 APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES
sixth-century date has been rejected. The earliest references to this monastery
in the sources are from the eighth century. Eyice suggested that the present-day
structure is the result of a rebuilding by Theodora Raoulaina (ca. 1240–1300),
niece of Emperor MichaelVIII Palaiologos.This act was commemorated in an
epigram by Maximos Planoudes. This opinion has been generally accepted. It
is unclear whether Theodora restored the earlier foundation or built the cur-
rent structure de novo. The latter is more plausible, given the similarity of the
plan to the church of Saint John tou Libos (XXIII).
References
Paspates 1877: 318–320.
Van Millingen 1912: 106–121.
Ebersolt and Thiers 1913: 75–89.
Lambros 1916.
Janin 1933: 326–331.
Eyice 1955b: 184–190; 1963: 7–14.
Janin 1969: 28–31.
Mathews 1976: 3–14.
Müller-Wiener 1977: 172–176.
Kidonopoulos 1994: 9–10.
I-1. Hagios Andreas en te Krisei (Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii), hypothetical reconstruction of the
original plan. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912 and Ebersolt and Thiers 1913.
I-2. South façade (photo: Nicholas V. Artamonof. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image
Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).
I-3. Interior of the naos looking east (photo: author).
121
I-4. View from the naos looking northwest (photo: author).
I-5. Interior of the narthex looking south (photo: author).

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF CHURCHES 123
II. Ati̇k Mustafa Paş a Cami̇i̇

Date: Second half of the ninth century
Location: 41°2 19.27 N (latitude), 28°56 38.32 E (longitude), 7 m (altitude)
Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii is located in the Ayvansaray quarter at the northwest-
ern corner of the city, near the Theodosian walls. Its original form has been
signiicantly altered: the current low, windowless dome is of Ottoman date; a
porch with a minaret in its south side replaced the narthex; the exterior sur-
faces, especially the windows, have been thoroughly reworked; and the interior
has been plastered. Fourteenth-century frescoes depicting busts of saints were
uncovered in the niches of the triple arcade at the center of the south wall,
but these were immured. Undocumented restorations in recent decades have
destroyed much evidence. The date of the building’s construction is uncertain.
Mathews and Hawkins suggested the second half of the ninth century based
on the style of the architecture, especially the absence of decorative brickwork,
the details and similarities between the eastern apse, and such securely dated
monuments as the Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII) and the Myrelaion (XVII).
The building is of modest dimensions (ca. 15 × 17 m) and belongs to the
cross-domed type with a tripartite sanctuary (the narthex was removed during
the Ottoman period). The arms of the cross consist of four converging barrel
vaults, while the central bay is topped by a dome resting on four corner piers.
These L-shaped piers create four corner rooms, the ones in the east function-
ing as the side apses of the bema. According to Mathews, the building had on
its south side some kind of porch or outer aisle; it is likely that a similar struc-
ture existed along the north wall. Theis has argued these outer aisles probably
gave access to upper-story chapels that were located above the four corner
bays of the building.
Several identiications have been proposed. Patriarch Constantios argued
for the church of Saints Peter and Mark in the Blachernai. This was accepted
by Van Millingen, who also proposed a later rededication to Saint Anastasia
in Blachernai. Eyice identiied it with the church of Saint Thekla in the
Blachernai palace. Aran favored an identiication with the church of Saints
Kosmas and Damianos, which was rebuilt by Theodora Palaiologina, wife of
Emperor MichaelVIII. Finally, Hawkins and Mathews argued for an indentii-
cation with the church of Saint Elias in Petrion, rebuilt by Basil I.
References
Constantios 1846: 83.
Janin 1969: 402.
Mathews 1976: 15–22.

Aran 1977.
Hawkins and Mathews 1985.
Theis 2005: 40–55.
II-1. Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii, hypothetical reconstruction of the original plan. Redrawn after
Van Millingen 1912, Ebersolt and Thiers 1913, Hawkins and Mathews 1985, and observations by
Stavros Mamaloukos.
II-2. Longitudinal section.

II-3. View from the southeast (photo: Nicholas V. Artamonof . Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks,
Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).
II-4. View from the naos toward the bema (photo: author).
II-5. The southwest upper room (photo: author).
III. Ayakapi Church

Date: Eleventh or twelfth century
The remains of this modest structure, located near Ayakapı gate along the
Golden Horn, are currently incorporated into a carpentry shop, thus making
any detailed archaeological investigation impractical.The building’s similarities
with the masonry of the nearby Gül Camii (XI) suggest a date in the eleventh
or twelfth century. Ayakapı measured approximately 5 × 5 m and belonged to
the atrophied Greek-cross type. There was a narthex projecting beyond the
structure to the south. This feature, along with the indication of broken walls
on either side of the apse in Schneider’s plan, suggest that this was a chapel
attached to a larger building. Aran’s identiication of Ayakapı with the church
of Saint Theodosia seems therefore unlikely.
References
Mordtmann 1892: 74.
Schneider 1936: 53–54.
Mathews 1976: 23–24.
Müller-Wiener 1977: 97.
Aran 1979.
Özgümüş 2001: 148.
III-1. Ayakapı Church, plan. Redrawn after Schneider 1936.
III-2. View from the northeast (photo: DAI Istanbul).

IV. BeyaziT Church D

Date: Late eleventh century
Location: South of the intersection of Büyük Reşit Paşa Caddesi and
Vezneciler Caddesi
This church was uncovered in a salvage excavation in 1971 and was never
properly studied or published, with the exception of two short notices by
Mathews and Müller-Wiener. According to the former, pottery inds under
the foundation place it in the late eleventh century. Its dimensions were com-
parable to Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii (II). Mathews suggests that the building
could have been cross-domed, an opinion shared by Ćurčic .́
References
Mathews 1976: 34–35.
Ćurčic ́ 2010: 272–273.
IV-1. Beyazıt Church D, hypothetical reconstruction of the original plan. Redrawn after
Müller-Wiener 1977 and Ćurčic ́ 2010.
V. Boğ dan Saray i

Date: Fourteenth century
This church, located in the northwestern part of the city near Kefeli Mescidi
(XV), is today part of a tire store and survives in ruins. It was a single-nave struc-
ture with two stories, measuring approximately 9 × 4 m. Boğdan Sarayı is one
of the very few Medieval foundations that has a single apse instead of a tripar-
tite sanctuary. The apse points north.Van Millingen’s plan indicates two niches
in the interior right outside the apse itself, one on each side wall, which were
likely part of the original bema. The shallow dome visible in the early photo-
graphs was a later modiication, as in its original form the building had likely
a wooden roof. Three sarcophagi discovered under the loor of the lower level
suggest that it was a funerary chapel. Eyice dated the building to the Palaiologan
period. Indeed, the masonry – alternating bands of ashlar and brick – and the
multifaceted articulation of the apse corroborate this date and place the build-
ing at the beginning of the fourteenth century.
The current name derives from the fact that in the early sixteenth century
the chapel was part of the Moldavian (Turk. Boğdan) embassy to the Sublime
Porte and was dedicated to Saint Nicholas. Van Millingen found evidence in
the southeastern wall of the building that the chapel was originally attached
to the main embassy house, which was destroyed in a ire in 1784. Mordtmann
has identiied Boğdan Sarayı as belonging to the monastery of Saint John the
Baptist in Petra, an opinion shared by Van Millingen. However, this identiica-
tion was rejected by Janin. The original dedication of Boğdan Sarayı remains
unknown.
References
Mordtmann 1892: 7.
Papadopoulos 1920.
Janin 1969: 371.
Mathews 1976: 36–39.
V-1. Boğdan Sarayı, plan. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912.
V-2. View from the northeast (photo: Nicholas V. Artamonof. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks,
VI. Christos tes Choras (Kari̇ye M ü zesi̇)

Date: Late eleventh, early twelfth century, with changes and additions in the
early fourteenth century and later.
(altitude)
The katholikon of the Chora monastery, located near Edirne Kapı, is one
of the most famous Byzantine monuments in Istanbul, second only to
Hagia Sophia. Its celebrated mosaic and fresco decoration, preserved pri-
marily in the narthex, exonarthex, and funerary chapel, constitute the in-
est and most sophisticated examples of Late Byzantine monumental art in
Constantinople.
The building has had a very complex history. The substructures below the
main apse may date as early as the sixth century. The present naos has two
phases. The original building, sponsored by Maria Doukaina, mother-in-law
of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, was constructed ca. 1077–1081 and probably
belonged to the cross-in-square type, complete with a tripartite sanctuary
and a narthex. This naos collapsed, likely because of an earthquake. In the
early twelfth century it was replaced, under the auspices of sebastokrator Isaac
Komnenos, with the present one, which is of the atrophied Greek-cross plan
in which four substantial piers carry the dome. The monastery sufered dur-
ing the period of the Latin occupation. In ca. 1315 the statesman and scholar
Theodore Metochites, megas logothetes of Emperor Andronikos II, restored
the foundation: the main dome and the side rooms l anking the main apse
were rebuilt; a two-story annex was placed on the north side of the naos;
two narthexes were added to the west and an elongated funerary chapel to
the south; and the interior spaces were redecorated with marble revetments,
mosaics, and frescoes.
The eastern end of the main church presents several peculiarities. The cen-
ter apse dates to the twelfth century, whereas the two apsed rooms that lank
the bema were constructed in the fourteenth century, likely following the lines
of the twelfth-century ones. They difer in size, proportion, and method of
vaulting.The northern room, covered by a drumless gored dome, was accessed
from the central apse through a small and narrow door, but it did not com-
municate with the naos. Access to the southern room, which was topped by
an octagonal ribbed vault, was blocked in the fourteenth century, although it
communicated with the funerary parekklesion to the south. Given their rela-
tive isolation and the existence of domes in both spaces, the side rooms were
likely chapels. Niches, perhaps for the preparation of the Eucharistic elements,
were found on the north walls of both spaces.
The outer narthex of the Chora katholikon had two extra bays to the south,
connecting it to the funerary chapel. Originally it was a fairly open portico,
but eventually three of the ive passageways were closed up and turned into
arcosolia with tombs dating from the irst half of the fourteenth to the mid-
ifteenth centuries. The inner narthex contains a single arcosolium on its
north wall.
The funerary chapel adjoining the south side of the katholikon was one
of the additions made by Theodore Metochites in the irst quarter of the
fourteenth century. Probably inspired by the funerary chapel in Pantokrator
(VIII), it was an elongated two-bay apsidal hall with a pumpkin dome cov-
ering the western bay. Its main entrance was from the west, through the
two bays of the exonarthex. A narrow passageway on the north wall of the
chapel’s western bay connected it to the naos. The chapel had four arcosolia
containing tombs, two on each northern and southern wall. One further
tomb, located exactly at the center of the apse and oriented east–west, was
uncovered under the loor, although it might have been of post-Byzantine
date. The northwestern arcosolium has been identiied as housing the tomb
of Theodore Metochites. The corresponding tomb on the south wall con-
tained the remains of megas kontostaulos Michael/Makarios Tornikes and his
wife, Eugenia, whose double portraits, as laypeople and monastics, survive,
along with extensive sculptural decoration of the arch above the arcosolium.
The occupants of the northeast and southeast tomb cannot be identiied,
although the latter preserves the standing igures of a man and three women,
perhaps a family.
Two rectangular rooms lanked the passageway that connected the funerary
chapel to the naos. Underwood termed the one to the east “oratory” because
it was located behind the tomb of Metochites and had a small window in
its north wall that gave visual access to the naos. Such private rooms, from
which founders or monastic leaders presumably attended services, are known
from both Constantinople and elsewhere. As for the west room, the uninished
nature of the construction indicates, according to Ousterhout, that it had no
speciic function and perhaps was used as a storeroom.
A two-story annex is to the north of the naos. The lower story connects
the narthex with the northern chapel. The upper story, accessed by a staircase
set in the thickness of the north wall, might have been a skeuophylakion or a
library.
The name of the monastery, Chora (lit. “ield,” “country”), refers to the
rural character of the area throughout the Byzantine period. It was converted
into a mosque in 1511 and secularized in 1945.
References
Oates 1960.
Underwood 1966; 1975a.
Janin 1969: 531–538.
Mathews 1976: 40–58.
Ousterhout 1987.
Klein, Ousterhout, and Pitarakis 2007; 2011.
Jolivet-Lévy 2011.
Magdalino 2011a.
VI-1. Christos tes Choras (Kariye Müzesi), plan of the current state. Redrawn after Ousterhout 1987.
VI-2. View from the west (photo: Sebah and Joailler. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and
Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).
VI-3. Interior of the main church looking east (photo: author).

VI-4. View of the main apse loor during excavations (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy of
Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).
VI-5. Interior of the narthex looking south (photo: author).

135
VI-6. Interior of the funerary chapel looking east (photo: author).
VI-7. The tomb of Michael Tornikes in the funerary chapel (photo: author).
VI-8. Southern apsidal room looking north (photo: author).
VI-9. Ground loor of the north annex looking east (photo: Byzantine Insitute. Courtesy of Dumbarton
Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).
VII. Christos Pantepoptes (Eski̇ i̇maret Cami̇i̇)

Date: Late eleventh century
(altitude)
Eski İmaret Camii, located on the fourth hill, is a typical Constantinopolitan
cross-in-square church, with a nine-bay naos measuring 10 × 11 m, a tripar-
tite bema, a narthex, and an exonarthex. The latter dates to the Palaiologan
period, but it replaced an open portico that likely was constructed shortly
after the completion of the church in the late eleventh or twelfth century. Of
particular interest is the three-bay gallery situated above the narthex, which
opened to the naos through a tribelon. From the gallery one accessed two
rooms located over the two western bays of the naos; the loor of these rooms
was set higher than that of the gallery.The north and south walls of the gallery
had openings, windows or doors, that perhaps gave access to stairs or outside
structures.
The exterior of the building has been altered, and it is possible that some
modiications took place during the Byzantine period. The sloping roofs of
the side bema apses, much lower than those of the main apse, are perhaps such
an intervention. Theis has suggested that the church originally had two rooms
above the prothesis and diakonikon, corresponding to the ones above the west-
ern corner compartments of the naos, and external aisles communicating with
the naos through the large tripartite openings on the north and south sides.
The side aisles were demolished during the Palaiologan period. The evidence
for both eastern upper-level chapels and outer aisles is very limited due to
undocumented restorations in the second half of the twentieth century.
Eski İmaret Camii has been traditionally identiied with the monastery of
Christ Pantepoptes (“Christ the All-Seeing”), a foundation of Anna Dalassene
(ca. 1025–1100 or 1102), mother of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos. However,
Mango has argued that Pantepoptes should be placed in the area now occu-
pied by the mosque of Sultan Selim. More recently, Asutay-Efenberger and
Efenberger, based on topographical evidence, suggested that Eski İmaret
Camii should be identiied with the monastery of Saint Constantine built by
Theophano (ca. 875–895 or 896), irst wife of Emperor Leo VI, which would
place the building at the end of ninth or the beginning of tenth century.
However, regardless of the identiication, in terms of style Eski İmaret Camii
its well in the developments in Constantinopolitan architecture from the mid-
dle of the eleventh to the beginning of the twelfth century.
References
Brunov 1931–1932: 129–139.
Janin 1969: 513–15.
Mathews 1976: 59–70.
Ousterhout 1991–1992.
Mango 1998.
Theis 2005: 74–82.
Asutay-Efenberger and Efenberger 2008.
Flaminio 2008.
VII-1. Christos Pantepoptes (Eski İmaret Camii), hypothetical reconstruction of the ground
plan during the Late Byzantine period. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912, Ebersolt and Thiers
1913, Ousterhout 1991–1992, 1999, and observations by Stavros Mamaloukos.
VII-2. Hypothetical reconstruction of the plan at gallery level.
VII-3. View from the southeast (photo: DAI Istanbul).

VII-4. Interior looking west (photo: author).
VII-5. Interior of the narthex looking north (photo: author).

VII-6. Interior of the gallery looking south (photo: author).
VII-7. View toward the naos from the southern room of the gallery (photo: author).
VIII. Christos Pantokrator (Zeyrek Cami̇i̇)

Date: 1118–1136
(altitude)
Situated prominently on the fourth hill and still conspicious in the landscape
of Istanbul, the Pantokrator was constructed by Emperor John II Komnenos
between 1118 and 1136, at the initiative of his wife, Irene. The typikon of
the monastery also survives and provides a wealth of topographical, organi-
zational, and liturgical information. Megaw and more recently Ousterhout,
Ahunbay, and Ahunbay have elucidated the complicated construction his-
tory of the three-building complex. The monastic south church, dedicated to
Christ Pantokrator, was completed irst and served as the katholikon; the north
church of Theotokos Eleousa followed.The chapel of Archangel Michael, situ-
ated between the two churches, was begun after the Eleousa, but the two
were completed simultaneously. The south courtyard and the exonarthex of
the south church were added during this inal stage of construction. Both the
church of Christ and of Eleousa belong to the cross-in-square type, and each
has a tripartite bema, a nine-bay naos, and a spacious narthex (the south church
also has an exonarthex). Both churches had galleries over their narthexes that
opened toward the naos.To the south of the church of Christ there are remains
of an outer aisle, which communicated with the main church through three
doors. The church of Theotokos had some kind of portico attached to its
north façade.
The chapel of Saint Michael was an apsed hall composed of two bays,
each capped by an elliptical dome, ending in the sanctuary apse. It was con-
ceived as a place of burial and commemoration for the Komnenian family.
Although several arcosolia are still evident in the western bay, the identities of
their occupants remain unresolved, with the exception of Emperor Manuel I
(1118–1180), whose black marble sarcophagus was placed near the Stone of
Unction, located in the passageway from the south church to the chapel. The
two domes likely indicated two separate functions within the chapel, the one
in the east the liturgical area, and the western one, which was over the area
where the tombs congregated, a funerary space.
Fragmentary remains give us a glimpse of the buildings’ sumptuous original
decoration. The south church preserves marble revetment in the central apse
and a igural opus sectile loor, which includes scenes from the life of Samson.
Stained glass pieces, some of which were found by Megaw, likely decorated the
windows of the bema. In the north church large parts of the intricate sculp-
tural decoration, including cornices and capitals, remain in place.
References
Megaw 1963: 335–364.
Janin 1969: 175–176, 344, 515–523.
Mathews 1976: 71–101.
Ousterhout, Ahunbay, and Ahunbay 2000; 2009.
Ahunbay and Ahunbay 2001.
Ousterhout 2001a.
Theis 2005: 114–126.
Kaplan 2011.
VIII-1. Christos Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii), plan. Redrawn after Ousterhout 1999.
VIII-2. View of the complex from the east (photo: author).
VIII-3. South church, interior looking east (photo: Scott F. Johnson).

VIII-4. Remains of the synthronon in the apse of the south church (photo: Byzantine Institute.
Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).
VIII-5. South church diakonikon, marble shelves (photo: Mehmet Tunay. Courtesy of
VIII-6. South church, remains of the south exterior aisle (photo: Thomas Mathews. Courtesy of
VIII-7. South church, interior looking west (photo: Robert Ousterhout. Courtesy of
VIII-8. Outer narthex of the south church looking north (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy
of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).
VIII-9. North church, interior looking west (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy of
VIII-10. North church, narthex gallery looking north (photo: Dumbarton Oaks, Image
149
VIII-11. Chapel of Saint Michael, interior looking west (photo:Thomas Mathews. Courtesy of
IX. Emi̇nönü Church

Date: Middle Byzantine
The partial substructures of the tripartite bema and naos of this church are
located under Hoca Hamza Mescidi in Eminönü. Özgümüş’s dating of the
building to the Middle Byzantine period seems correct. However, the sug-
gestion that the church should be identiied either with the monastery tou
Kanikleiou or the church of Theotokos ta Karpianou is based on inconclusive
topographical evidence.
References
Özgümüş 2006: 528–529.
IX-1. Eminönü Church, plan. Redrawn after Özgümüş 2006.
IX-2. View of the main apse (photo: Ferudun Özgümüş).

X. Hagios Georgios TON MANGANON
Date: 1042–1055
Location: East end of the peninsula, near Topkapı Sarayı
The monastery of Saint George ton Manganon, located to the east of Hagia
Sophia, was one of the major foundations of the eleventh century. It was con-
structed by Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (r. 1042–1055), third hus-
band of Empress Zoe. Saint George quickly became one of the most important
monasteries in the capital. It included a hospital and a library rich in hold-
ings, and it held numerous famous relics. Constantine Monomachos was bur-
ied there, and a sarcophagus for his mistress, Skleraina, was placed close to
his tomb.
Reconstructions of this church are based primarily on its substructures,
exposed during a hasty excavation conducted in the 1920s. Saint George was
a large building, measuring approximately 27 × 33 m. Although a variety of
other conigurations have been proposed, it was likely cross-domed with an
inner ambulatory around the main bay. The dome had a diameter of 10 m
and was supported by four piers with curving inner corners, a feature indicat-
ing inluence from Armenian ecclesiastical architecture. The side rooms of the
tripartite bema were square and perhaps topped by domes. Signiicant parts
of the building’s plan remain speculative. An open portico was attached to the
north side (the north chapel indicated in the excavators’ plan is conjectural).
The church had a kind of a portico to the west of the narthex, which was
preceded by an atrium with a fountain in the middle.
The identiication of the ruins located about 250 meters northeast of Saint
George with the church of Christ Philanthropos, as suggested by Demangel,
is untenable.
References
Wulzinger 1925: 4–51.
Demangel and Mamboury 1939.
Bouras 1976.
Mathews 1976: 200–205.
Oikonomides 1980.
Pasinli and Cihat 1983.
X-1. Hagios Georgios ton Manganon, plan. Redrawn after Demangel and Mamboury 1939 and
Bouras 1976.
XI. G ül Cami̇i̇
Date: Late eleventh or early twelfth century
(altitude)
The imposing Gül Camii, located in the neighborhood of Fener near Ayakapı,
remains an archaeological puzzle because it was signiicantly altered in both
Byzantine and Ottoman times. It has traditionally been dated to the late elev-
enth or early twelfth century, based primarily on the existence of recessed-
brick technique in the masonry of the substructure and on sections of the
church proper. If this date is correct, Gül Camii was one of the largest Middle
Byzantine foundations in the capital. The church belongs to the cross-domed
type. The present windowless dome, which dominates the naos, is an Ottoman
construction that rests on four massive irregular piers. The eastern end of the
church is of particular interest. The passageways between the main and side
apses gave access to small rooms situated in the thickness of the two eastern
piers on a level higher than the loor of the church (the chamber in the north-
east pier is now inaccessible). Theis has suggested that originally the building
had open, one-story side aisles lanking the nave and sanctuary from north and
south. During the Palaiologan period these were replaced with the two-story
construction that envelops the core of the church from the north, west, and
south sides, creating a gallery.
The present gallery is situated over the narthex and extends over the side
aisles of the naos, ending in two chapels located atop the prothesis and dia-
konikon. Both chapels had an apse and were capped by a drumless dome.
Both now have windows overlooking the main apse, although their rectangu-
lar shape indicates that these were the result of Ottoman alterations.
Several identiications have been proposed for the building. Some early
scholars have proposed Saint Theodosia en tois dexiokratous, whereas Pargoire
suggested Saint Euphemia en to Petrio. Schäfer identiied it with the monas-
tery of Christ Evergetis, an opinion shared by Aran. None of these identiica-
tions can reconcile the date of the present building with information from the
sources.
References
Pargoire 1906.
Schäfer 1973.
Mathews 1976: 128–139.
Aran 1979.
Theis 2005: 99–113.
XI-1. Gül Camii, hypothetical reconstruction of the plan at ground-loor level. Redrawn after Van
Millingen 1912, Ebersolt and Thiers 1913, Schäfer 1973, and observations by Stavros Mamaloukos.
XI-2. Hypothetical reconstruction of the plan at gallery level.

XI-3. View from the northeast (photo: DAI Istanbul).
XI-4. Interior looking east (photo: author).

XI-5. Interior looking north (photo: author).
XI-6. Prothesis (photo: author).

XI-7. South gallery from the west (photo: DAI Istanbul).
XII. Hagios Ioannes EN TO TROULLO (H i rami̇ Ahmet Paş a Cami̇i̇)

Date: Middle Byzantine (probably ninth century)
(altitude)
Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii, located in the northwest part of the city on the
ifth hill, is a cross-in-square church with a tripartite bema and a narthex. Its
eastern end is unusual. All three apses of the bema are semicircular inside and
out, a feature uncommon in Constantinople (the other example is Sekbanbaşı,
XIX). Morever, the main apse does not communicate with the side rooms.
However, the bema likely extended west to include the three eastern bays of
the naos. The primary function of the building was funerary. The narthex has
at least four arcosolia for burials. Two more arcosolia were located in the naos,
each in the middle of the north and south walls.
The church has long been identiied with Saint John en to Troullo and
dated to the twelfth century, although neither the identiication nor the
date are secure. Buchwald has instead proposed a date to the ninth century
based on the circular unadorned apses and the circular drum of the dome,
which are used in the provinces in the ninth and tenth centuries but not
found in the capital. Furthermore, he considered the alternating bands of ashlar

and brick in this building typical of Constantinopolitan construction from the
eighth to the tenth centuries, but not thereafter.The absence of recessed-brick
masonry favors this date. More recently, Savage has also suggested a date in the
late ninth or early tenth century. In the 1960s, the building was the subject of
a heavy-handed restoration, during which large parts of the exterior masonry
were rebuilt. A renovation of the interior was undertaken in 2011.
References
Janin 1969: 441–442.
Mathews 1976: 159–167.
Buchwald 1977: 290, n. 95.
Savage 2010: 138–143 and n. 33.
XII-1. Hagios Ioannes en to Troullo (Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii), reconstruction of the origi-
nal plan. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912 with observations by Matthew Savage and Vasileios
Marinis.
XII-2. View from the southeast (photo: author).
XII-3. Interior looking east (photo: author).

XII-4. Interior looking north (photo: author).
XII-5. Diakonikon (photo: author).

XIII. İ sa Kapi Mesci̇di̇

Date: Late Byzantine
İsa Kapı Mescidi, located in the Cerrahpaşa district inside the courtyard of a
government building, is now a ruin. Only the eastern wall, parts of the apse,
a small part of the southern wall, and the eastern corner of the north wall
survive. The masonry of these parts is similar to Pammakaristos (XXIV) and
Chora (VI), placing its construction in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth
century. It was a single-aisle, wooden-roofed basilica, measuring 20 × 8 m,
with a wide and long projecting apse, which was lanked by a prothesis and
diakonikon. In ca. 1560, Mimar Sinan converted the church into a mescid and
built a medrese around it. A lat wall replaced the apse, a mihrab was built along
the southern wall, and the prothesis was walled of . Most of the building col-
lapsed in the earthquake of 1894.Traces of frescoes, noticed by earlier scholars,
have now all but disappeared. Ötüken’s identiication with the monastery tou
Iasitou remains speculative. On the other hand, Papazotos’s identiication with
the monastery of Patriarch Athanasios I seems correct. This would place the
construction of the building in the years between 1282 and 1289.
References
Alpatov and Brunov 1925.
Ötüken 1974.
Papazotos 1995.
XIII-1. İsa Kapı Mescidi, plan. Redrawn after Alpatov and Brunov 1925 and Ötüken 1974.
XIII-2. View of the bema from the west.
XIV. Kalenderhane Cami̇i̇

Date: Constructed between 1197 and 1204, with earlier phases
Kalenderhane Camii, located on the third hill and identiied with the katho-
likon of the Kyriotissa monastery, is one of the best-studied monuments in
Istanbul. In its present form, the large cross-domed church (called by the exca-
vators the Main Church), which dates to between 1197 and 1204, was deined
by four earlier buildings and incorporated parts of them: a bath (ca. 400), the
Aqueduct of Valens, and two churches, one dating to the last third of the sixth
century (North Church) and the other to the end of the seventh century
(Bema Church).
Kalenderhane is a large church, its naos measuring approximately 19 × 19
m. The dome, 8 m in diameter, rests on four massive piers that create four
isolated corner compartments. The building has a narthex and an exonar-
thex. There is also evidence for a fairly open entrance porch, which was
narrower and shorter than the narthex, and a tower in the northwest corner
abutting the narthex and the portico. Outer aisles, now destroyed, l anked
the naos on the north and south sides. Their original forms and functions
are debatable. Theis argued that they were two-storied and gave access from
the narthex to chapels above the eastern corner rooms and to the corre-
sponding rooms above the western corner compartments. Striker considered
XIV-1. Kalenderhane Camii, plan. Redrawn after Striker and Kuban 1997–2007.
them one-storied and timber-roofed, and he presented evidence that the

rooms over the corner compartments were not intended for use.
The inclusion of earlier structures explains the pecularities in Kalenderhane’s
plan, especially in the western and eastern ends. The central apse of the Bema
Church was preserved and used as the central apse of the Main Church, while
the apse of the North Church became the prothesis of the Main Church.
The so-called diakonikon complex is composed of two chapels (called the
Francis and Melismos chapels by the excavators) that were added at some point
between the sixth and tenth centuries, after the construction of the Bema
Church but before the Main Church. In the Palaiologan period, probably soon
after the reconquest of Constantinople in 1261, the diakonikon complex was
turned into a chapel. Both narthex and exonarthex had galleries over them
(now destroyed), connected through openings. The narthex gallery opened
through a large tribelon (now blocked) in its middle to the naos and gave way
to the two western galleries’ upper chambers.
XIV-2. View from the south (photo: DAI Istanbul).
XIV-3. Interior looking south (photo: author).

XIV-4. Interior looking northeast (photo: author).
XIV-5. Melismos chapel (photo: author).
166
References
Mathews 1976: 171–185.
Theis 2005: 134–147.
Striker and Kuban 1997–2007.
XV. Kefeli̇ Mesci̇di̇

Date: Late Byzantine (?)
(altitude)
Kefeli Mescidi is situated on the sixth hill, in the northwestern part of
Constantinople, a short distance from the monastery of Chora. As it sur-
vives today it is a rectangular apsed hall, measuring approximately 22 × 7 m.
Grossmann, who surveyed the building in the 1960s, found evidence of lateral
aisles, of which the end walls of the western one survive. The plan shows sev-
eral curious irregularities: the church points north, instead of the typical east;
the spacing of the arches in the main nave is irregular and aligned neither with
the windows above them nor from one side to the other; the apse has four
absidioles inscribed in the thickness of the wall; and inally, there were no side
apses. All these cast doubt on the identiication of the building as a church;
indeed, it might have been a refectory. A wooden roof currently covers the
nave, and the absence of any kind of springing for a vault indicates this was also
the original means of rooing. The masonry consists of alternating bands of
brick and ashlar. The exterior is marked by a series of heavy pilasters that ends
below the level of the clerestory windows.They were obviously supporting the
roof of the side aisles, which most likely was also wooden. Grossman dated the
building to the ninth century, although the multifaceted apse and the banded
masonry are characteristic of Late Byzantine buildings in Constantinople.
References
Grossman 1966.
Janin 1969: 320–322, 584.
Mathews 1976: 190–194.
XV-1. Kefeli Mescidi, plan. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912.
XV-2. View from the northeast (photo: DAI Istanbul).

XV-3. Interior looking north (photo: Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives,
Washington, D.C.).
XVI. Manasti r Mesci̇di̇

Date: Late Byzantine
Manastır Mescidi is located on the seventh hill close to the Topkapı Gate, the
former gate of Saint Romanos. Its doors and windows have been altered, and
the present wooden roof is a post-Byzantine modiication. The plan of the
building remains a mystery. Pasadaios, who studied it in the 1960s, discovered
foundations in the naos running east–west, evidently meant to support col-
umns. He favored a reconstruction as a vaulted basilica, although a cross-in-
square seems more likely.
Pasadaios’s careful study elucidated several other aspects of the building.
He found evidence of an open portico that surrounded the building on the
north, south, and west. To the south of the diakonikon, the portico ended in
an enclosed rectangular space that communicated directly with it. Pasadaios
dated the construction of the building between the eleventh and thirteenth
centuries.Yet, as both he and Mathews pointed out, the masonry and the mul-
tifaceted apses indicate a Palaiologan date. If this is true, then Manastır Mescidi
is the only surviving example of the cross-in-square type dating after the thir-
teenth century.
Pasadaios’s identiication of the building as belonging to the monastery of
Saints Menodora, Nymphodora, and Metrodora remains speculative.
References
Pasadaios 1965: 56–101.
Janin 1969: 195–199.
Mathews 1976: 195–199.
Kidonopoulos 1994: 146.
XVI-1. Manastır Mescidi, hypothetical reconstruction of the original plan. Redrawn after
Pasadaios 1965.
XVI-2. View from the southeast (photo: author).

XVI-3. Interior looking east (photo: Thomas Mathews. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image
XVI-4. Interior of the narthex looking north (photo: Thomas Mathews. Courtesy of
171
XVII. Myrelaion (Bodrum Cami̇i̇)

Date: ca. 920
(altitude)
The Myrelaion, constructed ca. 920 by Emperor Romanos I in the vicinity of
the Forum of Theodosios, is one of the few securely dated Middle Byzantine
churches. It was attached to Romanos’s urban palace, which rose on top of the
remains of an immense Late Antique rotunda. The complex was eventually
turned into a nunnery, and several members of Lekapenos’s family, including
his sons Christophoros and Constantine, were buried in it.
XVII-1. Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii), plan of the church (reconstruction) and substructure.
Redrawn after Striker 1981.
XVII-2. View from the northwest (photo: author).
XVII-3. Interior looking east (photo: author).

XVII-4. Vaulting of the diakonikon (photo: author).
XVII-5. Interior of the substructure looking west (photo: author).

Built entirely of brick, the Myrelaion is an elegant Constantinopolitan cross-

in-square church measuring roughly 10 × 17 m with a tripartite bema and a
three-bay narthex. Numerous windows originally pierced the long façades.The
Myrelaion stands on a large substructure that replicates the plan of the church
and was converted into a burial chamber in the Late Byzantine period.
A disastrous restoration in the 1960s signiicantly altered the exterior forms
of the building.
References
Janin 1969: 351–354.
Mathews 1976: 209–219.
Striker 1981.
XVIII. Odalar Cami̇i̇

Date: Ninth to tenth century (crypt); mid-twelfth century (upper church)
Odalar Camii was situated in the northwestern part of Constantinople, a short
walk from the monastery of Chora (VI). Today the building has almost disap-
peared, its few remains incorporated in the courtyards of adjacent houses. In
his meticulous study of the building, Westphalen distinguished two construc-
tion phases. Of the original church, dating to the ninth or tenth century, only
the tripartite east end could be reconstructed. The side rooms, slightly asym-
metrical, projected beyond the central apse. A two-chamber crypt was located
under the central apse and the south side room. A fresco of the Theotokos
and Christ child lanked by two angels decorated the apse of the north crypt
chamber, which might have contained a Marian relic. The south crypt cham-
ber lacked a masonry vault and communicated directly with the south side
room above, perhaps via a wooden loor. In the middle of the twelfth century,
the older building was reconigured to function as the substructure for the
new cross-in-square church on the upper level. Over time, starting as early as
the twelfth century and continuing throughout the Byzantine period, parts of
the substructure were used for burials and were decorated with frescoes. The
twelfth-century church had several curious features. In the tripartite sanctu-
ary, the south room was larger than the north and was probably capped with
a dome. It was decorated with a Marian cycle. All these indicate that it was a
separate chapel rather than a diakonikon. There is strong evidence that Odalar
XVIII-1. Odalar Camii, reconstructed plan of the irst church. Redrawn after West
phalen 1998.
XVIII-2. Reconstructed plan of the second church. Redrawn after Westphalen 1998.
XVIII-3. Plan of the crypt. Redrawn after Westphalen 1998.

had outer aisles, whose form and exact relationship with the naos and the
narthex remain uncertain. The nearby Kasım Ağa Mescidi, of Palaiologan date
judging from the masonry, was not a church but rather a utilitarian building,
possibly associated with Odalar Camii.
References
Brunov 1926a.
Mathews 1976: 220–224.
Westphalen 1998.
Dark and Özgümüş 1999: 12–13.
Theis 2005: 127–133.
XIX. Sekbanbaş i Mesci̇di̇

Location: Approximately 100 m north of the Aqueduct of Valens
This small church (10 × 9 m) was summarily recorded in the early twen-
tieth century and demolished in 1952. The recessed-brick masonry might
suggest a date in the Middle Byzantine period. This variation of the cross-
in-square type was rare in Constantinople. The naos did not have nine full
bays; instead, the tripartite sanctuary replaced the three eastern ones. A dis-
tinctive feature of Sekbanbaşı Mescidi was the form of the three apses of
the bema, which were rounded on the exterior, similar to Hırami Ahmet
Paşa Camii (XII).
As noted by Janin, the identiication of Sekbanbaşı Mescidi with the church
of Christ tes Kyra Marthas is untenable.
References
Gurlitt 1912: 43.
Schneider 1936: 61.
Janin 1969: 324–326, 544.
Mathews 1976: 237–241.
XIX-1. Sekbanbaşı Mescidi, hypothetical reconstruction of the plan. Redrawn after Schneider
1936 and Müller-Wiener 1977.
XIX-2. View from the east (photo: Nicholas V. Artamonof. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks,
XX. Si̇nan Paş a Mesci̇di̇

Date: Palaiologan
Location (approximate): 41°1 39.37 N (latitude), 28°57 17.18 E (longitude),
16 m (altitude)
Sinan Paşa Mescidi is located on the slope of the ifth hill. A lithograph in
Paspates shows that it was a long and tall, probably two-story absidal hall, an
arrangement similar to Boğdan Sarayı (V). The ceramoplastic decoration of the
apse closely resembles that of the church Saint John tou Libos (XXIII), thus plac-
ing the building in the late thirteenth century. Only a part of the foundation
survives today.
References
Paspates 1877: 384.
Mathews 1976: 260–261.
XX-1. Sinan Paşa Mescidi, view from the north (from Paspates 1877).
XX-2. View of the apse (photo: DAI Istanbul).
XXI. Si̇rkeci̇ Church

Location: Corner of Ankara Caddesi and Ebusuud Caddesi in Sirkeci
This previously unrecorded church was discovered in 2000 during construc-
tion work in the area. By the time archaeologists intervened, only parts of the
foundations and superstructure of the north room and central apse remained.
The recessed-brick masonry may indicate a date in the Middle Byzantine
period. According to Özgümüş, the building was originally as long as 19 m.
He also reported the inding of human remains in the apse, but from the pub-
lication it is unclear whether this was a tomb. The restored remains are now
incorporated into the basement of an oice building.
References
Özgümüş 2004.
XXI-1. Sirkeci Church, plan.
XXI-2. View of the site (photo: Ferudun Özgümüş).
XXII. Ş eyh Murat Mesci̇di̇

Date: Middle Byzantine with Palaiologan repairs
Location: Kopça sok. and Altı Pağa sok.
Ş eyh Murat Mescidi was located in the northwestern part of Constantinople,
close to Gül Camii, in the valley between the fourth and ifth hills. It has dis-
appeared since the late nineteenth century, but early documentation helps to
recreate parts of its construction history and plan. It measured roughly 15 × 13
m.The recessed-brick technique places the core of the building in the Middle
XXII-1. Ş eyh Murat Mescidi, south façade (from Paspates 1877).
Byzantine period. Photographic evidence studied by Ivison suggests that parts

of the church, speciically the narthex (which had three domes), western nave,
and sanctuary, were substantially rebuilt in the Palaiologan period. The only
information about the interior arrangement of Şeyh Murat Mescidi comes
from Paspates, who wrote that the building was “cruciform” (σταυροειδές),
perhaps implying a cross-domed disposition.
References
Paspates 1877: 382–383.
Mathews 1976: 313–314.
Ivison 1990.
XXIII. Theotokos TOU LIBOS and Hagios Ioannes Prodromos

TOU LIBOS (Fenari̇ i̇sa Cami̇i̇)
Date: 907 (north church); ca. 1280 (south church)

The complex of the monastery tou Libos is composed of two adjoined churches:
the north church, dedicated to the Mother of God and constructed in 907
under the auspices of Constantine Lips (l . 10th c.); and the south church
dedicated to Saint John the Forerunner and built in the late thirteenth century
by Theodora (ca. 1240–1303), wife of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos. In
the post-Byzantine period, the complex was repeatedly damaged by ires and
neglect. It was restored in the 1960s by the Byzantine Institute of America.
The north church in the monastery tou Libos is the earliest securely dated
Middle Byzantine church and the earliest example of the cross-in-square type
in Constantinople.The naos measures approximately 12 × 10 m and is divided
into nine bays. To the east of the naos is a tripartite bema and to the west
a three-bay narthex. A narrow exterior porch originally covered the main
entrance to the narthex. Megaw’s investigation of the building disproved both
Macridy’s suggestion that it was built on top of an earlier church and Brunov’s
theory that outer aisles lanked the naos. Theis recently reiterated the latter
proposition, based, however, on questionable evidence.
The most distinctive features of the north church were its six additional
chapels, all part of the original design. Two single-nave chapels lanked the
prothesis and diakonikon at ground level. The north one has disappeared, but
a portion of its apse foundation has been excavated. The southern chapel,
located next to the diakonikon, was incorporated in the thirteenth century
into the south church of Saint John to serve as its prothesis and thus was par-
tially preserved. Both chapels were slightly larger than the rooms to which they
were attached. On the roof of the north church are four chapels, which are not
visible from the interior. The two quatrefoil western chapels are situated over
the western corner bays of the naos. Two more chapels are located over the
diakonikon and prothesis at the east end of the building. Access to the roof was
through a staircase inside the tower south of the narthex.
Saint John is the earliest extant and one of the most important Palaiologan
foundations in Constantinople. Theodora Palaiologina added the new build-
ing alongside the preexisting north church. It belongs to the ambulatory type:
the central bay under the dome is separated from the rest of the church by
means of columns, thus creating a corridor surrounding the central bay on
three sides. Its plan has been afected by the fact that it was attached to a
preexisting building and incorporated parts of it. According to the typikon,
Saint John was constructed in order to provide an appropriate burial space
for Theodora and her family. The church and its auxiliary spaces were gradu-
ally illed with tombs. Archaeological investigations in the 1920s uncovered a
plethora of burials as well as three ossuaries in the inner ambulatory, narthex,
and outer ambulatory.
The outer ambulatory enveloped the two churches along the west and south
sides. Its masonry is virtually identical to the rest of the Palaiologan construc-
tion in the complex, namely, bands of thin and large bricks alternating with
single courses of ashlar. However, the juncture between the two is not bonded,
an indication that the outer ambulatory was added shortly after the comple-
tion of the church.
The north church preserves in situ elements of its superb sculptural dec-
oration characterized by orientalizing motifs. The sculpture in the church of
Saint John imitates, without much success, that of the Theotokos. In addition,
Macridy uncovered glazed tiles, which presumably decorated the walls of the
north church, as well as fragmentary inlaid icons.
References
Megaw 1963: 333–335.
Macridy 1964.
Megaw 1964.
Mango and Hawkins 1964a.
Janin 1969: 307–310, 417–418.
Gerstel and Laufenburger 2001: 189–195.
Marinis 2004.
Theis 2005: 56–64.
XXIII-1. Monastery tou Libos (Fenari İsa Camii), ground plan of the complex (after Mamboury).
XXIII-2. Ground plan of the north church, reconstruction. Redrawn after Macridy 1964
(Mamboury), Megaw 1964, Mango and Hawkins 1964a, and Marinis 2004.
XXIII-3. North façade of the north church, reconstruction. After Mamaloukos with observa-
tions by Vasileios Marinis.
XXIII-4. Ground plan of the complex, reconstruction. Redrawn after Macridy 1964
XXIII-5. Ground plan of the complex, reconstruction. Redrawn after Macridy 1964
186
XXIII-6. View of the complex from the northeast (photo: Thomas F. Mathews. Courtesy of Dumbarton
XXIII-7. North church, part of the dedicatory inscription (photo: author).

XXIII-8. Main apse of the north church (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy of Dumbarton
XXIII-9. North church, vaulting of the prothesis (photo: author).
188
XXIII-10. North church, interior looking north (photo: author).
XXIII-11. Southeast roof chapel looking east (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy of
XXIII-12. Southwest roof chapel, apse (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy of Dumbarton
XXIII-13. South church, interior looking east (photo: author).
190
XXIII-14. West arm of the outer ambulatory looking north (photo: DAI Istanbul).
XXIV. Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethi̇ye Cami̇i̇)

Date: Late eleventh or early twelfth century with late Byzantine additions
(altitude)
The katholikon of the monastery of Theotokos Pammakaristos, located in the
neighborhood of Çarşamba on Istanbul’s ifth hill, is a variant of the cross-
domed church with an inner ambulatory. The main church dates to the late
eleventh or early twelfth century. The founder was a certain John Komnenos
and his wife, Anna Doukaina, who used the church as their family’s mauso-
leum. The inner ambulatory was illed with the tombs of members of the
founders’ family, now all lost.
A second phase of building activity is associated with the protostrator Michael
Glabas Tarchaneiotes (b. ca. 1235, d. after 1304) and his wife, Maria, into whose
possession the monastery came after 1261. The irst four bays of the north arm
(counting from east to west) of the outer ambulatory were likely constructed
during his lifetime. The easternmost bay terminated in a now-destroyed apse

and was covered by a dome, indicating the existence of a chapel there. What
appears to be a prothesis niche is located in the north wall immediately adja-
cent to the apse. The rest of the bays are covered with domical vaults and all
are equipped with arcosolia. Mango suggested that this was the koimeterion
constructed by Michael Glabas Tarchaneiotes and mentioned in an epigram
by Manuel Philes. The construction of the western and southern arms of the
outer ambulatory postdated the funerary chapel, although their exact date
remains undecided.
Under the patronage of Maria, a chapel, likely dedicated to Christ, was
added in the south side of Pammakaristos to house the tomb of her husband
in ca. 1310. A series of epigrams both inside and outside the chapel glorify
Tarchaneiotes. The building was a full-ledged miniature cross-in-square with
an apse, a naos whose central bay was covered by a dome, and a narthex with
a gallery topped by two domes.The tomb of Tarchaneiotes was under an arco-
solium at the center of the naos’s north wall. His wife was buried in the same
tomb. There were four additional arcosolia in the narthex: one on the south
wall, one on the west wall, and two on the east wall on each side of the door.
Extensive parts of the interior’s opulent mosaic decoration, which included
scenes from the life of Christ, groups of saints, and a Deisis in the main apse,
have survived.
From 1455 until 1587 the monastery served as the seat of the Greek patri-
archate. At its subsequent conversion into a mosque the church was severely
modiied with the removal of the interior supports and the replacement of the
tripartite bema with a qibla wall.
References
Hallensleben 1963–1964.
Janin 1969: 208–213.
Mathews 1976: 346–365.
Mango, Mouriki, and Belting 1978.
Talbot 1999: 77–79.
Efenberger 2007.
XXIV-1. Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii), plan (reconstruction). Redrawn after Mango,
Mouriki, and Belting 1978 (Anderson).
XXIV-2. General view of the complex from the southwest (photo: Nicholas V. Artamonof .
XXIV-3. Interior of the main church looking west (photo: NicholasV.Artamonof . Courtesy
of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).
194
XXIV-4. Northern arm of the outer ambulatory looking east (photo: author).
XXIV-5. Northern arm of the outer ambulatory, niche with shelves at the north wall of the
easternmost bay (photo: Byzantine Institute. Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks, Image Collections
and Fieldwork Archives, Washington, D.C.).
195
XXIV-6. Interior of the funerary chapel, view toward the dome (photo: author).
XXIV-7. Interior of the funerary chapel looking north (photo: author).

XXIV-8. Funerary chapel, Deisis in the main apse (photo: author).
XXIV-9. Funerary chapel, gallery above narthex looking south (photo: Robert Ousterhout.
198
XXV. Theotokos Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa

Date: Beginning of eleventh century; narthex added in the late thirteenth
century
The church of Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa, located in the district of Fener,
is the only building in Istanbul in uninterrupted Christian use. Constructed in
the eleventh century as a male monastery, the building was originally a domed
tetraconch or quatrefoil measuring 12 × 12 m. Each of the four sides of the cen-
tral square, which is topped by an elegant dome, opened to semicircular apses,
each of them having three absidioles on the interior. A narthex was added in the
late thirteenth century under the auspices of Maria Palaiologina (d. ca. 1307),
daughter of Emperor Michael VIII, who refounded the monastery as a nunnery.
Mouchliotissa has been severely altered by several post-Byzantine expansions
and additions, especially on its southern and western sides. As a result, only the
eastern and northern apses and the two northern bays of the narthex survive
from the pre-1453 building. Although relatively uncommon, the quatrefoil was
not unknown in the areas around Constantinople, as evidenced by the elev-
enth-century church of Panagia Kamariotissa on Heybeliada.
References
Janin 1969: 213–214.
Mathews 1976: 366–375.
Bouras 2005.
Ryder 2009–2010.
XXV-1. Theotokos Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa, plan (reconstruction). Redrawn after Van

Millingen 1912 and Bouras 2005.
XXV-2. View from the east (photo: author).
XXV-3. Interior looking north (photo: author).

XXVI. Theotokos Peribleptos

Date: 1028–1034
Location: Near present-day Sulu Manastır
The monastery of Theotokos Peribleptos was constructed by Emperor
Romanos III Argyros (r. 1028–1034). Emperor Nikephoros III Botaneiates (r.
1078–1081) restored the foundation. Both rulers were buried in it. Soon after
the Ottoman conquest, the monastery served as the seat of the Armenian
patriarchate. The church itself disappeared after a ire in 1782 but its substruc-
tures were recently uncovered. The type of the building is still debated. The
two survey reports ofered difering reconstructions that do not seem plausible.
More recently, Dalgıç and Mathews argued that Peribleptos was a domed-
octagon building. However, Ruy González de Clavijo, the Spanish ambassa-
dor of Henry III of Castile who went to Constantinople in 1403 and visited
Peribleptos, mentioned that the church had ive altars and that its main “hall”
was round, an indication that the main bay of the naos was surrounded by col-
onnades in the manner of an ambulatory church. De Monconys (1648) noticed
that the Turks had removed six columns from the interior, a fact that again
suggests an ambulatory plan. The plan of the substructures indicates founda-
tions of chapels that lanked the bema in a manner similar to the church of the
Theotokos tou Libos (XXIII). If indeed there were adjoining chapels on two
levels, this would account for Clavijo’s ive altars.
References
Mango 1992.
Dark 1999.
Özgümüş 2000.
Dalgıç and Mathews 2010.
XXVI-1. Theotokos Peribleptos, plan of the substructures. Redrawn after Özgümüş 2000.
XXVII. Toklu Dede Mesci̇di̇

Date: Eleventh or twelfth century
Location: Northwest corner of the city
Toklu Dede Mescidi, of which very little remains, was located in the area of
Ayvansaray. Although the building was recorded when only parts of it were
standing, its original form can be reconstructed with some accuracy. It was a
single-nave structure measuring approximately 14 × 7 m. It had a single pro-
jecting apse lanked by two shallow niches inscribed in the eastern wall in place
of side rooms. The square naos was covered by a wide dome and preceded by
a spacious narthex. Thus, despite its unusual plan, Toklu Dede Mescidi pre-
sented all the standard features of a Middle Byzantine church. Pasadaios dated
the building to the ninth century. However, the exterior articulation of the
façades had similarities with buildings traditionally assigned to the late elev-
enth or early twelfth century, especially Vefa Kilise Camii (XXVIII). Fragments
of fresco decoration, dating to the fourteenth century, included busts of saints
and the Nativity in the sanctuary.
Paspates, Van Millingen, and Pasadaios identiied Toklu Dede Mescidi with
the church of Saint Thekla, which was located in the conines of the Blachernai
palace. This identiication has been challenged by Mathews.
References
Paspates 1877: 357–360.
Schneider 1936: 15–16.
Pasadaios 1969.
Mathews 1976: 376–382.
Dark and Özgümüş 1999: 11.
XXVII-1. Toklu Dede Mescidi, reconstructed plan. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912 and
Mathews 1976.
XXVII-2. South wall and apse (photo: NicholasV.Artamonof . Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks,
XXVIII. Vefa Ki̇li̇se Cami̇i̇

Date: Eleventh or twelfth century with Late Byzantine additions, especially
the outer narthex
Vefa Kilise Camii is a typical cross-in-square with a tripartite bema, a nine-bay naos
with the central bay topped by an elegant dome, and a three-bay narthex. It has
traditionally been dated to ca. 1100. Several additions were made in the Palaiologan
period, the most important of which was a ive-bay outer narthex with three
domes. A belfry, whose base survives, was added at the same period in the south-
western corner of the building. The two-story annex on the north side predates
the construction of the exonarthex. A similar structure is found in Chora (VI).
Nineteenth-century drawings show that there was a chapel or a colonnaded
portico, which has since disappeared, attached to the south of the church. It was
accessed by a large tripartite opening, which is now blocked by masonry.There
is considerable disagreement about the date of this structure. Brunov and Theis
considered it part of the original eleventh-century construction and assumed
that a corresponding outer aisle existed on the north side. Hallensleben and
Mango argued that it was a Palaiologan addition, which seems more likely.
The exonarthex preserves some of its original mosaic decoration. The
apex of the southern dome had an image of the Theotokos and Christ child
XXVIII-1. Vefa Kilise Camii, plan. Redrawn after Van Millingen 1912 and Ebersolt and
Thiers 1913.
with eight ancestors of Christ in the lutes of the dome (since replastered).
Fragmentary mosaics were also found in the central dome.
The traditional identiication of the building with the church of St.Theodore
is incorrect. Berger has suggested that Vefa Kilise Camii replaced the church of
St. Prokopios tes Chelones, while Efenberger identiies it with the main church
of the Bebaia Elpis monastery.
References
Brunov 1931–1932: 139–144.
Hallensleben 1965.
Mathews 1976: 386–401.
Berger 1988: 460–463.
Theis 2005: 83–98.
Efenberger 2006.
Sedov 2008.
XXVIII-2. View from the east (photo: Nicholas V. Artamonof . Courtesy of Dumbarton Oaks,
XXVIII-3. View from the south (photo: author).
XXVIII-4. View from the north (base of the belfry tower) (photo: author).
XXVIII-5. Interior looking east (photo: author).
XXVIII-6. Exonarthex, interior looking south (photo: author).
207
XXIX. Yeni̇kapi Church

Date: Middle Byzantine (?)
Location:Yenikapı, Theodosian harbor
This small church was uncovered during the recent excavations at Yenikapı. It
was originally a single-nave building measuring 9.5 × 11.45 m. At a later time,
two side aisles were added. Coins found at the site date to the late tenth or early
eleventh centuries. The published reports are lacking in details. For example,
the relationship between the structure and the twenty-three tombs that were
discovered inside and around it is unclear.Thus, the proposed date and the sug-
gestion that the church’s superstructure was wooden remain speculative.
References
Karamani Pekin 2007: 174–175, 233.
XXIX-1. Yenikapı Church, view from the northeast (photo: Istanbul Archaeological
Museum).
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
This glossary deines most of the unusual terms used in this book.When a term has multiple meanings,
only the ones pertinent to the main text are included.
AGRYPNIA In Palestinian and Neo-Sabaitic the naos and separated from it by a barrier
practice, a vigil on the eve of Sundays and called a templon. In the Medieval churches
major feasts comprising Vespers, the entire of Constantinople the bema was most often
Psalter, and Orthros. tripartite.
AMBULATORY CHURCH A church whose BOOK OF CEREMONIES Also known as De
central domed bay is separated from the rest cerimoniis aulae byzantinae. A tenth-century
of the church by columns and piers that create collection of court protocols attributed to
a corridor on three sides. Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos.
ANAPHORA The Eucharistic prayer, which Some of the included documents might date
accompanies the ofering of the elements, as early as the ifth century.
bread and wine. It is composed of several parts CIBORIUM A canopy made of a domed or
including a prayer of thanksgiving addressed pyramidal structure resting on four or six col-
to God the Father; a recounting of the salva- umns. This was usually erected in the bema
tion history in Jesus culminating in the Words over the altar, but could also be used to mark
of Institution; the epiklesis, during which God the tomb of a saint.
the Father is asked to send down the Holy CROSS-DOMED A church whose domed core
Spirit in order to change the elements into forms a cross created by four barrel vaults rest-
the body and blood of Christ; and the dip- ing on piers.
tychs and intercessions for the living and CROSS-IN-SQUARE A church whose naos
dead. Two main anaphoras were in used in is divided into nine bays. The center bay is
the Medieval period, one attributed to Saint capped by a dome carried by four columns.
Basil of Caesarea and the other to Saint John DIAKONIKON The sacristy, or place for the
Chrysostom. safekeeping of vessels and vestments. In pre-
APODEIPNON Compline, the last of the day- sent usage it refers to the southern room of
time Hours. the tripartite sanctuary.
ARCOSOLIUM An arched recess carved out or DIATAXIS ( pl. DIATAXEIS) A book of rubrics
set in front of a wall, usually for a tomb. for clergy regulating the celebration of the
ASMATIKE AKOLOUTHIA Lit. “the Sung Eucharist. These likely appeared as early as
Oice,” the cathedral Oice of the Hours in the tenth century, although the earliest
the rite of Constantinople. examples date to the twelfth century. The
BASILICA In church architecture, an oblong most important is the one by Philo-
building consisting of a nave lanked by two theos Kokkinos (d. 1377/78), patriarch of
or more aisles and terminating in an apse. Constantinople.
BEMA The part of the church containing ENKAINIA The rite of dedication and conse-
the altar. It is usually located to the east of cration of a church.
209
210 GLOSSARY
EUCHOLOGION The prayer book used by clergy, Eucharistic elements before the beginning of
containing all the services of the Byzantine rite. the liturgy, or to the room in which this rite
The earliest surviving example is the Barberini takes place. In modern usage this is identiied
Euchologion dating to the eighth century. with the north room in a tripartite bema.
HESPERINOS Vespers. Part of the Divine Oice, RECESSED-BRICK TECHNIQUE Also known
celebrated at sundown. as the concealed-course technique. An all-
HOROLOGION A liturgical book containing brick masonry method in which every alter-
the invariable parts of the Byzantine monas- nate course was recessed and concealed within
tic hours throughout the year. Originating in the mortar bed. Although appearing as early as
Palestine, the Byzantine Horologion com- the tenth century and surviving as late as the
bines Hagiopolite practices with elements of fourteenth, in Constantinople the recessed-
the cathedral rite. brick technique is found mostly in buildings
HOURS Also known as the Divine Oice. A set dating to the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
of daily prayers composed of Matins, Vespers, Furthermore, the tenth- to twelfth-century
Compline, mesonyktikon, the “Little Hours” – examples, with broad mortar joints illed with
First, Third, Sixth, Ninth – and occasional intact bricks, difer distinctively from the later
vigils. The actual number of hours varied in ones characterized by thinner mortar joints
the cathedral and monastic rite. illed with broken bricks.
KATHOLIKON The main church of a SKEUOPHYLAKION A sacristy. In the early
monastery. churches of Constantinople, such as Hagia
KONTAKION A sermon in verse sung on Sophia, the skeuophylakion was a separate
major feast and saints’ days, especially popular building. In the Medieval period the term
between the ifth and seventh centuries. likely refers to the south room of the tripartite
LYCHNIKON See HESPERINOS . bema, also known as the diakonikon.
NAOS The central and largest part of a Byzantine SYNTHRONON A structure composed of one
church, located between the bema and the or more benches for the use of clergy. It was
narthex. located in the main apse of the church behind
OPISTHAMBONOS EUCHE Lit. “prayer read the altar.
behind the ambo.” One of the inal prayers of TEMPLON A barrier or screen separating the
the Divine Liturgy. bema from the naos.
ORTHROS Matins. One of the principal hours TYPIKON, LITURGICAL A liturgical book
of the Divine Oice, celebrated at the begin- containing instructions for the celebration of
ning of the day. services for each day of the year, especially in
PANNYCHIS Lit. “all night.” A brief night ser- reference to the proper, or variable, elements.
vice that included Vespers with lections, anti- TYPIKON OF THE GREAT CHURCH The
phons, prayers, and litanies. liturgical typikon for the rite of Hagia Sophia
PRAXAPOSTOLOS A lectionary containing in Constantinople. It describes liturgical prac-
the New Testament readings from the Epistles tice in the capital in the ninth and tenth
and Acts of the Apostles for use during the centuries.
Divine Liturgy. TYPIKON, MONASTIC A generic term desig-
PRESANCTIFIED LITURGY A communion nating a variety of foundation documents, tes-
service for use on days when regular Eucharist taments, and rules. A typikon includes, among
was not allowed. others, regulations about the administrative
PROSPHORA Most commonly, the stamped organization of the monastery, behavior of the
loaves of bread of which parts are used in the monastics, and daily and occasional liturgical
Eucharist. observances.
PROTHESIS Lit. “ofering.” The term might TRISAGION Lit. “thrice-holy hymn,” sung at
refer to the rite of the preparation of the the beginning of the Eucharist.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES AND TRANSLATIONS Stories by an Anonymous Author of Seventh-

AASS Century Byzantium. Leiden and New York.
Acta Sanctorum. 1863–1940. Paris.
Athanasios I
Acta Xeropotami Alice-Mary Talbot, ed. 1975.The Correspondence
Jacques Bompaire, ed. 1964. Actes de Xéropotamou. of Athanasius I, Patriarch of Constantinople.
2 vols. Paris. Washington, DC.
Akropolites Athanasios of Athos

Hippolyte Delehaye, ed. 1933. “Constantini Jacques Noret, ed. 1982. Vitae Duae Antiquae
Acropolitae hagiographi byzantini epistu- Sancti Athanasii Athonitae. Turnhout.
larum manipulus.” Analecta Bollandiana 51:
279–284. Translated in BMFD: 1377–1382. Attaleiates
Paul Gautier, ed. 1981. “Le Diataxis de Michel
Anargyroi Attaliate.” Revue des études byzantines 39:
Hippolyte Delehaye, ed. 1921. Deux typica byz- 5–143.
antins de l’époque des Paléologues. Brussels, 136–
140. Translated in BMFD: 1290–1294. Bardanes
Raymond-Joseph Loenertz and Johannes Hoeck,
Andrew the Fool eds. 1965. Nikolaos-Nektarios von Otranto,Abt von
Lennart Rydén, ed. 1995. The Life of St. Andrew Casole: Beiträge zur Geschichte der ost-westlichen
the Fool. 2 vols. Uppsala. Beziehungen unter Innozenz III. und Friedrich II.
Ettal, 147–235.
Apokaukos
Nikos A. Bees. 1971–1974. “Unedierte Basil the Younger
Schriftstücke aus der Kanzlei des Johannes Sergei G.Vilinskii, ed. 1911–1913. Zhitie sv.Vasiliia
Apokaukos des Metropoliten von Naupaktos Novago v russkoi literaturie. Odessa.
(in Aetolien).” Byzantinisch-Neugriechische
Jahrbücher 21: 57–160. Basilika
H. J. Scheltema, and Nicolaas van der Wal, eds.
Arethas 1955. Basilicorum Libri LX. Gravenhage.
Michael J. Share, ed. 1994. Arethas of Caesarea’s
Scholia on Porphyry’s Isagoge and Aristotle’s BMFD
Categories. Athens, Paris, Brussels, 1–130. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero,
eds. 2000. Byzantine Monastic Foundation
Artemios Documents: A Complete Translation of the
Virgil S. Crisafulli and John W. Nesbitt, eds. 1997. Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments. 5 vols.
The Miracles of St.Artemios:A Collection of Miracle Washington, DC.
211
212 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clavijo Kabasilas Vita in Christo

Ruy González de Clavijo. 1928. Embassy to Marie-Hélène Congourdeau, ed. 1989–1990.
Tamerlane, 1403–1406. Trans. Guy Le Strange. Nicolas Cabasilas: La Vie en Christ (Livres I–VII).
New York. 2 vols. Paris, I: 74–357; II: 12–221.
Cyril of Skythopolis Kecharitomene

Eduard Schwartz, ed. 1939. Kyrillos von Skythopolis. Paul Gautier, ed. 1985.“Le typikon de laThéotokos
2 vols. Leipzig. Kécharitôménè.” Revue des études byzantines 43:
5–165. Translated in BMFD: 664–724.
De Cerimoniis
Johann Jacob Reiske, ed. 1829. Constantini Lazaros of Mt. Galesion
Porphyrogeniti imperatoris de cerimoniis aulae Richard P. H. Greenield. 2000. The Life of
Byzantinae libri duo. 2 vols. Bonn. Lazaros of Mt. Galesion: An Eleventh-Century
Pillar Saint. Washington, DC.
Euchologion Barberini
Stefano Parenti and Elena Velkovska, eds. 2000. Leo VI
L’eucologio Barberini gr. 336. 2nd ed. Rome. Theodora Antonopoulou, ed. 2008. Leonis
VI Sapientis Imperatoris Byzantini Homiliae.
Euthymios Turnhout.
Patricia Karlin-Hayter, ed. 1970. Vita Euthymii
Patriarchae CP. Brussels. Libos
Hippolyte Delehaye, ed. 1921. Deux typica byz-
Evergetis antins de l’époque des Paléologues. Brussels, 106–
Paul Gautier, ed. 1982. “Le typikon de la 136. Translated in BMFD: 1265–1286.
Théotokos Évergétis.” Revue des études byz-
antines 40: 5–101. Translated in BMFD: Liudprand
472–506. Paolo Squatriti. 2007. The Complete Works of
Liudprand of Cremona. Washington, DC.
Holy Women
Alice-Mary Talbot, ed. 1996. Holy Women Machairas
of Byzantium: Ten Saints’ Lives in English Ioannes Tsiknopoullos, ed. 1969. Κυπριακὰ τυπικά.
Translation. Washington, D.C. Nicosia, 3–68. Translated in BMFD: 1122–1175.
Hypotyposis Stoudiou Mamas

First recension [A]: Dmitrievskii 1895–1917, I: Sophronios Eustratiades, ed. 1928. “Τυπικὸν
224–238. τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει μονῆς τοῦ ἁγίου
Second recension [B]: Angelo Mai and Giuseppe μεγαλομάρτυρος Μάμαντος.” Ἑλληνικά 1: 256–
Cozza-Luzi eds. 1849. Nova patrum biblioth- 314. Translated in BMFD: 991–1041.
eca 5. Rome, 111–125. Reprinted in PG 99:
1704–1720. Maximos Confessor
Translated in BMFD: 97–115. Christian Boudignon, ed. 2011. Maximi Confessoris
Mystagogia: una cum Latina interpretatione
Irene of Chrysobalanton Anastasii Bibliothecarii. Brepols. Translated in
Jan Olof Rosenqvist, ed. 1986. The Life of St. Berthold 1985: 181–225.
Irene, Abbess of Chrysobalanton. Uppsala.
Messina
Kabasilas Miguel Arranz, ed. 1969. Le typicon du monastère
Sévérien Salaville, ed. 1967. Nicolas Cabasilas: du Saint-Sauveur à Messine, Codex Messinensis
Explication de la Divine Liturgie. 2nd ed. Paris. gr 115, A.D. 1131. Rome.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 213
Michael Maleinos Paul of Monembasia

Louis Petit. 1902.“Vie de Saint Michel Maléinos.” John Wortley, ed. 1987. Les récits édiiants de Paul,
Revue de l’Orient chrétien 7: 543–603. évêque de Monembasie, et d’autres auteurs. Paris.
Michael Synkellos PG
Mary B. Cunningham, ed. 1991. The Life of Jacques-Paul Migne, ed. 1857–1866. Patrologiae
Michael the Synkellos. Belfast. cursus completus, Series Graeca. Paris.
Mitylenaios Philaretos
Eduard Kurtz, ed. 1903. Die Gedichte des M.-H. Fourmy and M. Leroy, eds. 1934. “La Vie
Christophoros Mitylenaios. Leipzig. de S. Philarète.” Byzantion 9: 85–170.
Nikephoros of Medikion Protheoria

François Halkin, ed. 1960. “La Vie de saint PG 140: 417–468.
Nicéphore, fondateur de Médikion en
Bithynie.” Analecta Bollandiana 78: 396–430. Psellos
Émile Renauld, ed. 1926–1928. Michel Psellos
Niketas Stethatos Chronographie. 2 vols. Paris. Reprint 1967.
Jean Darrouzès, ed. 1961. Nicétas Stéthatos:
Opuscules et lettres. Paris. Pseudo-Kodinos
Jean Verpeaux, ed. 1966. Pseudo-Kodinos:Traité des
Nikon oices. Paris.
Denis Sullivan, ed. 1987. The Life of Saint Nikon:
Text, Translation, and Commentary. Brookline, Pseudo-Sophronios
MA. PG 87: 3981–4001.
Novelles Rule of Athanasios

Pierre Noailles and Alphonse Dain, eds. 1944. Philipp Meyer, ed. 1894. Die Haupturkunden für
Les Novelles de Léon VI, le Sage. Paris. die Geschichte der Athosklöster. Leipzig, 130–140.
Translated in BMFD: 221–231.
Pachymeres
Albert Failler, ed. 1984. Georges Pachymérès rela- Scylitzes
tions historiques. 5 vols. Paris. Hans Thurn, ed. 1973. Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis
historiarum. Berlin and New York.
Pachymeres Historia Brevis
Albert Failler, ed. 2001–2004. La version brève des Stephen the Younger
relations historiques de Georges Pachymérès. 3 vols. Marie-France Auzépy, ed. 1997. La vie d’ Étienne
Paris. le Jeune par Étienne le diacre. Aldershot and
Brookield,VT.
Pantokrator
Paul Gautier, ed. 1974. “Le typikon du Christ Symeon of Thessalonike
Sauveur Pantokrator.” Revue des études byz- Steven Hawkes-Teeples, ed. and trans. 2010.
antines 32: 1–145. Translated in BMFD: The Liturgical Commentaries: St. Symeon of
737–781. Thessalonika. Toronto.
Patria Symeon the New Theologian

Theodorus Preger, ed. 1901–1907. Scriptores Symeon P. Koutsas, ed. 1994. Βίος καὶ πολιτεία
Originum Constantinopolitanarum. 2 vols. τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Συμεὼν τοῦ Νέου
Leipzig. Reprint 1989. Θεολόγου. Nea Smyrne.
214 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Symeon the Younger Theophano

Paul van den Ven, ed. 1970. La vie ancienne de Eduard Kurtz, ed. 1898. Zwei griechische Texte über
S. Syméon Stylite le Jeune (591–592). 2 vols. die Hl. Theophano die Gemahlin Kaisers Leo VI.
Brussels. St. Petersburg.
Synaxarion of Evergetis Typikon of the Great Church

Robert H. Jordan, ed. and trans. 2000–2007. The Juan Mateos. 1962–1963. Le typicon de la Grande
Synaxarion of the Monastery of the Theotokos Église. 2 vols. Rome.
Evergetis. 3 vols. Belfast.
Vita Basilii
Ihor Ševčenko, ed. 2011. Chronographiae quae
SynCP
Theophanis continuati nomine fertur liber quo Vita
Hippolyte Delehaye, ed. 1902. Synaxarium
Basilii Imperatoris amplectitur. Berlin and New
ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae: Propylaeum ad
York.
Acta sanctorum Novembris. Brussels. Reprint
1985.
SECONDARY SOURCES
Syntagma Abrahamse, Dorothy. 1984. “Rituals of Death in

G. A. Ralles and M. Potles. 1852–1859. Σύνταγμα the Middle Byzantine Period.” Greek Orthodox
τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων. 6 vols. Athens. Theological Review 29: 125–134.
——. 1985. “Women’s Monasticism in the
Syropoulos Middle-Byzantine Period: Problems and
Vitalien Laurent. 1971. Les mémoires du grand Prospects.” Byzantinische Forschungen 9:
ecclésiarque de l’Église de Constantinople Sylvestre 35–58.
Syropoulos sur le Concile de Florence (1438–1439). Ahunbay, Metin, and Zeynep Ahunbay. 2001.
Rome. “Restoration Work at the Zeyrek Camii,
1997–1998.” In Necipoğlu 2001: 117–132.
Akent’ev, K. K., ed. 1995. Liturgy, Architecture, and
Taktikon
Art in Byzantine World. St. Petersburg.
Vladimir N. Beneshevich, ed. 1917. Taktikon
Akyürek, Engin. 1996. Bizans’ta Sanat ve Ritüel:
Nikona Chernogortsa. Petrograd.
Kariye Güney Şapelinin İkonograisi ve İşlevi.
Istanbul.
Theodore Sykeotes ——. 2001. “Funeral Ritual in the Parekklesion
André-Jean Festugière, ed. 1970. Vie de Théodore of the Chora Church.” In Necipoğlu 2001:
de Sykeôn. I: 1–161. Brussels. 89–104.
——. 2010. “Death in Byzantine Society.” In
Theodoret From Byzantion to Istanbul: 8000 Years of a
Léon Parmentier and Felix Scheidweiler, eds. Capital, 166–177. Istanbul.
1954. Theodoret, Kirchengeschichte. 2nd ed. Akyürek, Engin, and Robert Ousterhout.
Berlin. 2001. “The Church of the Transfiguration
on Burgazada.” Cahiers archéologiques
Theophanes 49: 5–14.
Carl de Boor, ed. 1883. Theophanis Chronographia. Alexiou, Margaret. 2002. The Ritual Lament in
2 vols. Leipzig. Greek Tradition. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD.
Alexopoulos, Stefanos. 2001. “The Life of
Theophanes Continuatus George of Amastris as a Source of Liturgical
Immanuel Bekker, ed. 1838. Theophanes Conti- Information: ‘Private’ Liturgy and Eucharistic
nuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Doctrine.” Byzantine Studies Conference
Georgius Monachus. Bonn. Abstracts of Papers 27: 8.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 215
——. 2006. “The Inluence of Iconoclasm in Armstrong, Pamela, ed. 2006. Ritual and Art:
Liturgy: A Case Study.” In Worship Traditions Byzantine Essays for Christopher Walter.
in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian London.
East, ed. Roberta R. Ervine, 127–137. Arranz, Miguel. 1971. “Les prières sacerdotales
Crestwood, NY. des vêpres byzantines.” Orientalia Christiana
——. 2009. The Presanctiied Liturgy in the Periodica 37: 85–124.
Byzantine Rite. Leuven. ——. 1971–1972. “Les prières presbytérales des
Alivizatos, Amilkas S. 1953. “Ἡ κουρὰ τῶν matines byzantines.” Orientalia Christiana
κληρικῶν καὶ μοναχῶν κατὰ τὸ Κανονικὸν Periodica 37 (I): 406–436; 38 (II): 64–135.
Δίκαιον τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.” Ἐπετηρὶς ἑταιρείας ——. 1973. “Les prières presbytérales des petites
βυζαντινῶν σπουδῶν 23: 233–239. heures dans l’ancien Euchologe byzantin.”
Alpatov,Mikhail,and Nicholas Brunov.1925.“Une Orientalia Christiana Periodica 39: 29–82.
nouvelle église de l’époque des Paléologues à ——. 1974–1975. “Les prières presbytérales de
Constantinople.” Echos d’Orient: 14–25. la <Pannychis> de l’ancien Euchologe et la
Altripp, Michael. 1998. Die Prothesis und ihre <Panikhida> des défunts.” Orientalia Christiana
Bildausstattung in Byzanz unter besonderer Periodica 40 (I): 314–343; 41 (II): 119–139.
Berücksichtigung der Denkmäler Griechenlands. ——. 1976. “Les grandes étapes de la litur-
Frankfurt am Main. gie byzantine: Palestine-Byzance-Russie:
——. 2000. “Beobachtungen zu Synthronoi essai d’aperçu historique.” In Liturgie de
und Kathedren in byzantinischen Kirchen l’église particulière, liturgie de l’église universelle:
Griechenlands.” Bulletin de correspondance hellé- 43–72. Rome.
nique 124: 377–412. ——. 1977. “Les prières presbytérales de la
——. 2002. “Liturgie und Bild in byzantinischen Tritoekti de l’ancien Euchologe byzan-
Kirchen: Korrespondenzen und Divergenzen.” tin.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 43: 70–93,
In Bildlichkeit und Bildorte von Liturgie: 335–354.
Schauplätze in Spätantike, Byzanz und Mittelalter, ——. 1978a.“Évolution des rites d’incorporation
ed. Rainer Warland, 115–124. Wiesbaden. et de réadmission dans l’Église selon
——. 2013. Die Basilika in Byzanz: Gestalt, l’Euchologe byzantin.” In Gestes et paroles
Ausstattung und Funktion sowie das Verhältnis dans les diverses familles liturgiques, 31–75.
zur Kreuzkuppelkirche. Berlin. Rome.
Altripp, Michael, and Claudia Nauerth, eds. ——. 1978b.“L’oice de l’Asmatikos Hesperinos
2006. Architektur und Liturgie: Akten des (‘vêpres chantées’) de l’ancien Euchologe
Kolloquiums vom 25. bis 27. Juli 2003 in Greifswald. byzantin.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 44:
Wiesbaden. 107–130, 391–419.
Andreou, Georgios. 2009. “Το χειρόγραφο με ——. 1979. “La liturgie des heures selon l’ancien
αριθμό 2047 της Εθνικής Βιβλιοθήκης των euchologe byzantin.” In Eulogia: Miscellanea
Αθηνών το οποίο αποδίδεται στο Συμεών liturgica in onore di P. Burkhard Neunheuser
Αρχιεπίσκοπο Θεσσαλονίκης: επαναπ O.S.B., 1–19. Rome.
ροσέγγιση της λεγομένης <<Ασματικής ——. 1980. “N. D. Uspensky: The Oice of All-
Ακολουθίας.>>” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Night Vigil in the Greek and in the Russian
Grottaferrata, 3rd ser., 6: 7–43. Church.” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 24:
Aran, Berge. 1977. “The Nunnery of the 83–113, 169–195.
Anargyres and the Atik Mustafa Pasha ——. 1981a. “La Liturgie des Présanctiiés de
Mosque (Notes on the Topography of l’ancien Euchologe byzantin.” Orientalia
Constantinople).” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Christiana Periodica 47: 332–388.
Byzantinistik 26: 247–53. ——. 1981b. “L’oice de l’Asmatikos Orthros
——. 1979. “The Church of St. Theodosia and (‘matines chantées’) de l’ancien Euchologe
the Monastery of Christ Euergetes.” Jahrbuch byzantin.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 47:
der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 28: 221–228. 122–157.
216 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arranz, Miguel. 1982.“Les sacrements de l’ancien Barber, Charles. 2001. “Mimesis and Memory in
Euchologe constantinopolitain (1): Étude pre- the Narthex Mosaics at Nea Moni, Chios.”
liminaire des sources.” Orientalia Christiana Art History 24:3: 323–337.
Periodica 48: 284–335. Barla, Charikleia N. 1959. Μορφὴ καὶ ἐξέλιξις τῶν
——. 1996. L’Eucologio constantinopolitano agli βυζαντινῶν κωδωνοστασίων. Athens.
inizi del secolo XI. Hagiasmatarion & Archieratikon Baud-Bovy, Samuel. 1975. “Le thêatre religieux,
(Rituale & Pontiicale) con l’aggiunta del Byzance et l’Occident.” Ἑλληνικά 28:
Leitourgikon (Messale). Rome. 328–349.
Asutay-Efenberger, Neslihan, and Arne Belting, Hans. 1972. “Zur Skulptur aus der
Efenberger. 2008. “Eski İmaret Camii, Zeit um 1300 in Konstantinopel.” Münchner
Bonoszisterne und Konstantinsmauer.” Jahrbuch Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst 23: 63–100.
der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 58: 13–44. Berger, Albrecht. 1988. Untersuchungen zu den
Asutay-Fleissig, Neslihan. 1998. Byzantinische Patria Konstantinupoleos. Bonn.
Apsisnebenräume: Untersuchung zur Funktion ——. 2001. “Imperial and Ecclesiastical
der Apsisnebenräume in den Höhlenkirchen Processions in Constantinople.” In Necipoǧlu
Kappadokiens und in den mittelbyzantinischen 2001: 73–87.
Kirchen Konstantinopels. Weimar. ——. 2002.“Straßen und Plätze in Konstantinopel
Babić, Gordana. 1969. Les chapelles annexes des als Schauplätze von Liturgie.” In Bildlichkeit und
églises byzantines. Fonction liturgique et pro- Bildorte von Liturgie: Schauplätze in Spätantike,
grammes iconographiques. Paris. Byzanz und Mittelalter, ed. Rainer Warland,
——. 1975. “La décoration en fresques des clô- 9–18. Wiesbaden.
tures de choeur.” Zbornik za likovné umĕtnosti Berthold, George, C. 1985. Maximus Confessor:
11: 3–49. Selected Writings. New York.
Bache, Florence. 1989. “La fonction funéraire du Bertonière, Gabriel. 1972. The Historical
narthex dans les églises byzantines du XIIe au Development of the Easter Vigil and Related
XIVe siècle.” Histoire de l’Art 7: 25–33. Services in the Greek Church. Rome.
Bádenas, Pedro. 2004. “L’évolution des idéaux Bogdanović, Jelena. 2008. “Canopies: The
de sainteté à Byzance.” In L’image et la parole. Framing of Sacred Space in the Byzantine
Recueuil à l’occasion du 60e anniversaire du prof. Ecclesiastical Tradition.” Ph.D diss., Princeton
Axinia Dzurova, 69–77. Soia. University.
Bakalova, Elka, Vassos Karageorghis, and Louisa Borchhardt, Jürgen, ed. 1975. Myra: eine lykische
Leventis, eds. 2003. The Ossuary of the Bachkovo Metropole in antiker und byzantinischer Zeit.
Monastery. Plovdiv. Berlin.
Bakirtzis, Nikolas. 2008. “Η βιβλιοθήκη ως Bornert, René. 1966. Les commentaires byzantins de
πρόκτισμα μοναστηριακών ναών στο la Divine Liturgie du VIIe au XVe siècle. Paris.
Βυζάντιο. Η περίπτωση του καθολικού Boura, Laskarina. 1975. “ Some Observations on
της μονής Τιμίου Προδρόμου Σερρών.” In the Grand Lavra Phiale at Mount Athos and Its
Karagianne 2008: 42–52. Bronze Strobilion.” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς
Baldovin, John F. 1987. The Urban Character of ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας 8: 85–96.
Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, Boura, Laskarina 1977. “Dragon Representations
and Meaning of Stational Liturgy. Rome. on Byzantine Phialae and Their Conduits.”
Balicka-Witakowska, Ewa. 2010.“Constantinople Gesta 16: 65–68.
in the Transition from Late Antiquity to the Bouras, Charalampos. 1976. “Τυπολογικὲς
Middle Ages.” In Sinclair et al. 2010: 329–363. παρατηρήσεις στὸ καθολικὸ τῆς μονῆς
Balş, Georges. 1936. “Contribution à la question τῶν Μαγγάνων στὴν Κωνσταντινούπολη.”
des églises superposées dans le domaine byzan- Ἀρχαιολογικὸν δελτίον 31:136–151.
tin.” Actes du IVe Congrès international des études ——. 2002a. “Aspects of the Byzantine City,
byzantines (Bulletin de l’institut archéologique bul- Eighth–Fifteenth Centuries.” In Laiou 2002:
gare 10) 2: 156–167. 497–528.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 217
——. 2002b. “Master Craftsmen, Craftsmen, and Brown, Peter. 1981. The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise
Building Activities in Byzantium.” In Laiou and Function in Latin Christianity. Chicago.
2002: 539–554. Brubaker, Leslie. 2001. “Topography and the
——. 2005.“Ἡ ἀρχιτεκτονικὴ τῆς Παναγίας τοῦ Creation of Public Space in Early Medieval
Μουχλίου στὴν Κωνσταντινούπολη.” Δελτίον Constantinople.” In Topographies of Power in
τῆς Χριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας 26: the Early Middle Ages, ed. F. Theuws, Mayke
35–50. De Jong, and Carine van Rhijn, 31–43.
——. 2007. “Architecture in Constantinople Leiden.
in the Thirteenth Century.” In Ἡ Βυζαντινὴ Brubaker, Leslie, and John F. Haldon. 2001.
τέχνη μετὰ τὴν Τέταρτη Σταυροφορία, 104– Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca 680–850):The
112. Athens. Sources. Aldershot and Burlington,VT.
——. 2010. Τρόποι ἐργασίας τῶν βυζαντινῶν ——. 2011. Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680–
ἀρχιτεκτόνων καὶ ἀρχιμαστόρων. Athens. 850: A History. Cambridge.
Bradshaw, Paul F. 1990. Ordination Rites of the Brunov, Nicolas. 1926a. “Die Odalar-Djami von
Ancient Churches of East and West. New York. Konstantinopel.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 26:
——. 2003. “Cathedral and Monastic: What’s in 352–372.
a Name.” Worship 77: 341–453. ——. 1926b. “Ein Denkmal der Hofbaukunst
Brakmann, Heinzgerd. 1976. “Kai anagignosk- von Konstantinopel.” Belvedere 51–52:
ousi pantes hoi hiereis tén eucharistérion euchén: 217–236.
Zum gemeinschaftlichen Eucharistiegebet ——. 1926c. “Rapport sur un voyage à
byzantinischer Konzelebranten.” Orientalia Constantinople.” Revue des études grecques
Christiana Periodica 42: 319–367. 39: 1–30.
Brandes, Wolfgang. 1999. “Byzantine Cities in ——. 1927a. “Die fünfschiige Kreuzkuppel-
the Seventh and Eighth Centuries: Diferent kirche in der byzantinischen Baukunst.”
Sources, Diferent Histories?” In Brogiolo and Byzantinische Zeitschrift 27: 63–98.
Ward-Perkins 1999: 25–57. ——. 1927b. “L’église à croix inscrite à cinq nefs
Branham, Joan R. 1992. “Sacred Space under dans l’architecture byzantine.” Échos d’Orient
Erasure in Ancient Synagogues and Early 26: 257–286.
Churches.” Art Bulletin 74: 375–394. ——. 1927–1928. “Die Panagia-Kirche auf
Brightman, Frank E. 1896. Liturgies, Eastern der Insel Chalki in der Umgebung von
and Western. Vol. 1: Eastern Liturgies. Oxford. Konstantinopel.” Byzantinisch-neugriechische
Reprinted as Eastern Liturgies, Piscataway, Jahrbücher 6: 509–520.
NJ, 2004. ——. 1929–1930. “Die Gül-Djami von
Brock, Sebastian. 1967. “A Medieval Armenian Konstantinopel.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30:
Pilgrim’s Description of Constantinople.” 554–560.
Revue des études arméniennes 4: 81–102. ——. 1931–1932. “Über zwei byzantinische
Brogiolo, Gian Pietro, and Bryan Ward-Perkins, Baudenkmäler von Konstantinopel aus dem
eds. 1999. The Idea and Ideal of the Town XI. Jahrhunderts.” Byzantinisch-neugriechische
Between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Jahrbücher 9: 129–144.
Ages. Leiden. ——. 1967. “Zum Problem des
Brooks, Sarah T. 2004 “Sculpture and the Late Kreuzkuppelsystems.” Jahrbuch der
Byzantine Tomb.” In Evans 2004: 94–103. Österreichischen Byzantinistik 16: 245–261.
——. ed., 2006a. Byzantium, Faith and Power ——. 1968. “K voprosu o srednevekovoi arkhi-
(1261–1557): Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art tekture Konstantinopolia.” Vizantiiskii vremen-
and Culture. New York. nik 28: 159–191.
——. 2006b. “Poetry and Female Patronage Buchwald, Hans. 1977. “Sardis Church E:
in Late Byzantine Tomb Decoration: Two A Preliminary Report.” Jahrbuch der
Epigrams by Manuel Philes.” Dumbarton Oaks Österreichischen Byzantinistik 26: 265–299.
Papers 60: 223–248. Reprinted in Buchwald 1999.
218 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Buchwald, Hans.1999. Form, Style and Meaning in ——. 1979. “The Original Baptismal Font of
Byzantine Church Architecture. Aldershot. Gračanica and Its Iconographic Setting.”
Canart, Paul, ed. 2011. La Bible du Patrice Léon, Zbornik radova Narodnog Muzeja 9–10:
Codex Reginensis Graecus 1: commentaire codi- 313–320.
cologique, paléographique, philologique et artistique. ——. 1980. “Architectural Reconsideration of
Vatican City. the Nea Ekklesia.” Byzantine Studies Conference
Carr, Annemarie Weyl. 2002. “Icons and the Abstracts of Papers 6: 11–12.
Objects of Pilgrimage in Middle Byzantine ——. 1984. “Medieval Royal Tombs in the
Constantinople.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56: Balkans: An Aspect of the ‘East or West’
75–92. Question.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review
Charanis, Peter. 1971. “The Monk as an Element 29: 175–194.
in Byzantine Society.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers ——. 1993. “What Was the Real Function of
25: 61–84. Late Byzantine Katechoumena?” Byzantine
Chatzidakis, Manolis. 1979. “L’évolution de Studies Conference Abstracts of Papers 19: 8–9.
l’icône aux 11e–13e siècles et la transforma- ——. 2000. “Proskynetaria Icons, Saints’ Tombs,
tion du templon.” In Actes du XVe Congrès and the Development of the Iconostasis.” In
international d’études byzantines, 3: 157–192. Lidov 2000a: 134–160.
Athens. ——. 2004. “Religious Settings of the Late
Chupungco, Anscar J., ed. 1997–2000. Handbook Byzantine Sphere.” In Evans 2004: 65–77.
for Liturgical Studies. 5 vols. Collegeville, ——. 2006.“Monastic Cells in Medieval Serbian
MN. Church Towers: Survival of an Early Christian
Congourdeau, Marie-Hélène. 2009. “Les Monastic Concept and Its Meaning.” In
variations du désir d’enfant à Byzance.” In Σοφία: Sbornik statei po iskusstvu Vizantii i
Papaconstantinou and Talbot 2009: 35–63. Drevnei Rusi v chest’ A.I. Komecha, 491–512.
Connor, Carolyn L. 1991. Art and Miracles in Moscow.
Medieval Byzantium: The Crypt at Hosios Loukas ——. 2008. “Church Towers.” In Karagianne
and Its Frescoes. Princeton, NJ. 2008: 103–113.
Constantios I, Patriarch of Constantinople. 1846. ——. 2009a. “Byzantine Aspects of Church
Constantiniade ou description de Constantinople Towers in Norman Sicily.” In Giorgio di
ancienne et moderne. Constantinople. Antiochia: L’arte della politica in Sicilia nel XII
Constas, Nicholas P. 2006. “Symeon of secolo tra Bisanzio e l’Islam. Atti del convegno
Thessalonike and the Theology of the Icon internazionale (Palermo, 19–20 Aprile 2007),
Screen.” In Gerstel 2006c: 163–183. Byzantino-Sicula 5, eds. Mario Re and Cristina
Cunningham, Mary B. 2008. “Homilies.” Rognoni, 65–85. Palermo.
In Jefreys, Haldon, and Cormack 2008: ——. 2009b. “Representations of Towers in
872–881. Byzantine Art: The Question of Meaning.”
——. 2011. “Messages in Context:The Readings In Byzantine Art: Recent Studies, ed. Colum
of Sermons in Byzantine Churches and Hourihane, 1–37. Princeton, NJ, and
Monasteries.” In Images of the Byzantine World: Tempe, AZ.
Visions, Messages and Meanings. Studies Presented ——. 2010. Architecture in the Balkans from
to Leslie Brubaker, ed.Angeliki Lymberopoulou, Diocletian to Süleyman the Magniicent. New
83–98. Farnham, Surrey. Haven, CT.
Ćurčić, Slobodan. 1971. “The Twin-domed ——. 2012. “Divine Light: Constructing the
Narthex in Paleologan Architecture.” Zbornik Immaterial in Byzantine Art and Architecture.”
radova Vizantološkog instituta 13: 333–344. In Wescoat and Ousterhout 2012: 307–337.
——. 1977. “Architectural Signiicance of Ćurčić, Slobodan, and Evangelia Hadjitryphonos,
Subsidiary Chapels in Middle Byzantine eds. 2010. Architecture as Icon: Perception and
Churches.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Representation of Architecture in Byzantine Art.
Historians 36: 95–110. Princeton, NJ.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 219
Ćurčić, Slobodan, and Doula Mouriki, eds. 1991. ——. 1976. “Sainte-Sophie de Thessalonique
The Twilight of Byzantium: Aspects of Cultural d’après un rituel.” Revue des études byzantines
and Religious History in the Late Byzantine 34: 45–78.
Empire. Princeton, NJ. Delehaye, Hippolyte, ed. 1923. Les saints stylites.
Curtis, Charles G., and Mary A. Walker. 1890. Brussels.
Broken Bits of Byzantium. London. Demangel, Robert, and Ernest Mamboury. 1939.
Cutler, Anthony, and Annemarie Weyl Le quartier des Manganes et la première région de
Carr. 1976. “The Psalter Benaki 34.3: An Constantinople. Paris.
Unpublished Illuminated Manuscript from Demus, Otto. 1976. Byzantine Mosaic Decoration:
the Family 2400.” Revue des études byzantines Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium. New
34: 281–323. Rochelle, NY.
Dagron, Gilbert. 1974. Naissance d’une capitale: Dennert, Martin. 1995. “Mittelbyzantinische
Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451. 2nd Ambone in Kleinasien.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen
ed. Paris, 1984. 45: 137–147.
——. 1977. “Le christianisme dans la ville byzan- ——. 2008. “‘Übersehene’ Kapitelle: Anmer-
tine.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31: 1–25. kungen zur mittelbyzantinischen Arch-
——. 1984a. Constantinople imaginaire: études sur itekturplastik aus Konstantinopel.” In Pennas
le recueil des Patria. Paris. and Vanderheyde 2008: 55–67.
——. 1984b. “Troisième, neuvième et quaran- Denysenko, Nicholas. 2012. The Blessing of Waters
tième jours dans la tradition byzantine: temps and Epiphany: The Eastern Liturgical Tradition.
chrétien et anthropologie.” In Le temps chrétien Farnham, Surrey.
de la in de l’antiquité au moyen-âge, IIIe-XIIIe Der Nersessian, Sirarpie. 1948. “Le décor des
siècles: Paris, 9–12 Mars 1981, 419–430. Paris. églises du IXe siècle.” In Actes du VIe Congrès
——. 1989. “Constantinople: les sanctuaires et international d’études byzantines, Paris, 27 Juillet-2
l’organization de la vie religieuse.” In Actes du Août, 1948, 2: 315–320. Paris.
XIe Congrès international d’archéologie chrétienne, ——. 1975. “Program and Iconography of the
1069–1085. Paris. Frescoes of the Parekklesion.” In Underwood
——. 2002. “Rélexions sur le cérémonial byz- 1975a: 305–349.
antin.” Palaeoslavica 10: 26–36. Descoeudres, Georges. 1983. Die Pastophorien im
Dalgıç, Örgü, and Thomas F. Mathews. 2010. “A syro-byzantinischen Osten: Eine Untersuchung zu
New Interpretation of the Church of Peribleptos architektur- und liturgiegeschichtlichen Problemen.
and Its Place in Middle Byzantine Architecture.” Wiesbaden.
In First International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Dmitrievskii, Aleksei. 1895–1917. Opisanie litur-
Symposium: Change in the Byzantine World in the gicheskikh rukopisei, khraniashchikhsia v bib-
Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, ed. A. Ödekan liotekakh pravoslavnago Vostoka. 3 vols. Kiev.
et al., 424–431. Istanbul. Reprint Hildesheim 1965.
Dalleggio d’Alessio, E. 1953. “Les sanctuaires Downey, Glanville. 1959. “The Tombs of the
urbains et suburbains de Byzance sous la Byzantine Emperors at the Church of the
domination latine, 1204–1261.” Revue des Holy Apostles in Constantinople.” The Journal
études byzantines 11: 50–61. of Hellenic Studies 79: 27–51.
Dark, Ken. 1999. “The Byzantine Church and Dubowchik, Rosemary. 2003. “Singing with the
Monastery of St. Mary Peribleptos in Istanbul.” Angels: Foundation Documents as Evidence for
The Burlington Magazine 141: 656–664. Musical Life in Monasteries of the Byzantine
Dark, Ken, and Ferudun Özgümüş. 1999. Istanbul Empire.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56: 277–296.
Rescue Archaeological Survey: The Districts of Dufrenne, Suzy. 1968. “Images du décor de
Balat and Ayvansaray. London. la prothèse.” Revue des études byzantines 36:
Darrouzès, Jean. 1974. “Nicholas d’Andida et 297–310.
les azymes.” Revue des études byzantines 32: Dujčev, Ivan. 1963. The Miniatures of the Chronicle
199–210. of Manasse. Soia.
220 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ebersolt, Jean. 1934. Monuments d’architecture byz- ——. 1963. Son Devir Bizans Mimarisi. Istanbul.
antine. Paris. Reprint 1980.
——. 1986. Constantinople byzantine et les voya- Flaminio, Roberta. 2008. “La decorazione scul-
geurs du Levant. London. torea della chiesa di Cristo Pantepoptes (Eski
Ebersolt, Jean, and Adolphe Thiers. 1913. Les Imaret Camii) a Costantinopoli.” In Pennas
églises de Constantinople. Paris. Reprint and Vanderheyde 2008: 39–53.
London 1979. Foss, Clive. 2002. “Pilgrimage in Medieval
Efenberger,Arne. 2006.“Die Klöster der beiden Asia Minor.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56:
Kyrai Martha und die Kirche des Bebaia 129–151.
Elpis-Klosters in Konstantinopel.” Millenium 3: Freely, John, and Ahmet S. Çakmak. 2004.
255–293. Byzantine Monuments of Istanbul. Cambridge.
——. 2007. “Zu den Gräbern in der Galadza, Peter. 2004. “The Evolution of Funerals
Pammakaristoskirche.” Byzantion 78: 170–196. for Monks in the Byzantine Realm: From the
Egender, Nicolas. 1975. “Introduction.” In La Tenth to the Sixteenth Century.” Orientalia
prière des Heures: Horologion (La prière des Églises Christiana Periodica 70: 225–257.
de rite Byzantin 1), 15–90. Chevetogne. Galavaris, George. 1970. Bread and the Liturgy:
——. 2001. “La formation et l’inluence du The Symbolism of Early Christian and Byzantine
Typikon liturgique de Saint-Sabas.” In Patrich Bread Stamps. Madison, WI.
2001: 209–216. Garidis, Miltos. 1982. “Approche ‘realiste’ dans
Ehrhard, Marcelle. 1932. “Le Livre de Pèlerin la representation du melismos.” Jahrbuch der
d’Antoine de Novgorod.” Romania 58: Österreichischen Byzantinistik 32 (5): 495–502.
44–65. Garland, Lynda. 2006a. Byzantine Women:Varieties
Elsner, Jas .́ 2012. “Material Culture and Ritual: of Experience 800–1200. Aldershot.
State of the Question.” In Wescoat and ——. 2006b. “Street-Life in Constantinople:
Ousterhout 2012: 1–26. Women and the Carnivalesque.” In Garland
Emmanouilidis, Nikos E. 1989.Το δίκαιο της 2006a: 163–176.
ταφής στο Βυζάντιο. Athens. Gedeon, Manuel I. 1915. “Θεοδώρου τοῦ
Engberg, Sysse Gudrun. 2006. “The Βαλσαμῶνος λύσεων κανονικῶν διάφοροι
Prophetologion and the Triple-Lection γραφαί.” Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἀλήθεια 39: 185–189.
Theory: The Genesis of a Liturgical Book.” Gerov, George. 2006. “The Narthex as Desert:
Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, 3rd The Symbolism of the Entrance Space in
ser., 3: 67–91. Orthodox Church Buildings.” In Armstrong
Epstein, Annabel Wharton. 1981. “The Middle 2006: 144–159.
Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier: Templon or Gerstel, Sharon E. J. 1998. “Painted Sources
Iconostasis?” Journal of the British Archaeological for Female Piety in Medieval Byzantium.”
Association 134: 1–28. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 52: 89–111.
Evans, Helen C., ed. 2004. Byzantium: Faith and ——. 1999. Beholding the Sacred Mysteries: Programs
Power (1261–1557). New York. of the Byzantine Sanctuary. Seattle.
Evans, Helen C., and William D. Wixom, eds. ——. 2006a. “An Alternate View of the Late
1997. The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture Byzantine Sanctuary Screen.” In Gerstel
of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843–1261. 2006c: 135–161.
New York. ——. 2006b. “The Layperson in Church.” In
Eyice, Semavi. 1955a. Istanbul: Petit guide à travers Krueger 2006: 102–123.
les monuments byzantins et turcs. Istanbul. ——. ed. 2006c. Thresholds of the Sacred:
——. 1955b. “Remarques sur deux anciennes Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical, and
églises Byzantines d’Istanbul:Koca Mustafa Paşa Theological Perspectives on Religious Screens, East
camii et l’église deYuşa tepesi.” In Πεπραγμένα and West. Washington, DC.
τοῦ 9ου Διεθνοῦς Βυζαντινολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου, ——. 2011. “The Chora Parekklesion, the
184–195. Athens. Hope for a Peaceful Afterlife, and Monastic
BIBLIOGRAPHY 221
Devotional Practices.” In Klein, Ousterhout, Grossmann, Peter. 1966. “Beobachtungen an

and Pitarakis 2011: 129–145. der Kefeli-Mescid in Istanbul.” Istanbuler
Gerstel, Sharon E. J., and Julie A. Laufenburger, Mitteilungen 16: 241–249.
eds. 2001. A Lost Art Rediscovered: The Guilland, Rodolphe. 1969. Études de topographie
Architectural Ceramics of Byzantium. de Constantinople byzantin. Amsterdam.
Baltimore. Gurlitt, Cornelius. 1912. Die Baukunst
Gerstel, Sharon E. J., and Robert S. Nelson, eds. Konstantinopels. 3 vols. Berlin.
2010. Approaching the Holy Mountain: Art and Hackel, Sergei, ed. 2001. The Byzantine Saint.
Liturgy at St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai. London.
Turnhout. Hadjitryphonos, Evangelia K. 2004. Το περίστωο
Gerstel, Sharon E. J., and Alice-Mary Talbot. στην υστεροβυζαντινή εκκλησιαστική
2006. “The Culture of Lay Piety in Medieval αρχιτεκτονική. Thessalonike.
Byzantium, 1054–1453.” In The Cambridge Hadjitryphonos, Evangelia K. and Flora
History of Christianity. Vol. 5: Eastern Christianity, Karagianne. 2006. Βυζαντινή αρχιτεκτονική και
ed. Michael Angold, 79–100. Cambridge. λατρευτική πράξη. Thessalonike.
Giros, Christophe. 1992. “Remarques sur Haldon, John F. 1999. “The Idea of the Town
l’architecture monastique en Macédoine ori- in the Byzantine Empire.” In Brogiolo and
entale.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Ward-Perkins 1999: 1–23.
116: 409–443. Halkin, François. 1965. Euphémie de Chalcédoine:
——. 2012. “Le statut de la donation à légendes byzantines. Brussels.
Byzance: rhétorique et actes de la pratique Hallensleben, Horst. 1963–1964. “Untersu-
(Xe-XVe siècle).” In Spieser and Yota 2012: chungen zur Baugeschichte der ehemaligen
97–106 Pammakaristoskirche, der heutigen Fethiye
Goar, Jacques. 1730. Εὐχολόγιον sive Rituale camii in Istanbul.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 13/14:
Graecorum. 2nd ed.Venice. Repr. Graz, 1960. 128–193.
Gouma-Peterson, Thalia. 1976. “The Pareccle- ——. 1965.“Zu Annexbauten der Kilise camii in
sion of St. Euthymios in Thessalonica: Art and Istanbul.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 15: 208–217.
Monastic Policy Under Andronikos II.” Art ——. 1966. “Byzantinische Glockentürme.”
Bulletin 58: 168–183. Kunstchronik 19: 309–311.
Gounaris, Georgios. 2010. “Byzantinische und Hannick, Christian. 1972. “Le texte de
nachbyzantinische Bematüren und ihre l’Oktoechos.” In Dimanche, oice selon les huit
Ikonographie.” In Griechische Ikonen: byzan- tons: Oktoechos (La prière des Églises de rite
tinische und nachbyzantinische Zeit, ed. Evgenia Byzantin 3), 37–60. Chevetogne.
Gerousi and Guntram Koch, 91–108. Athens. ——. 2001. “Hymnographie et hymnographes
Grabar, André. 1943. Martyrium: Recherches sur le sabaïtes.” In Patrich 2001: 217–228.
culte des reliques et l’art chrétien antique. 3 vols. Hatlie, Peter. 2007. The Monks and Monasteries of
Paris. Reprint London 1972. Constantinople, ca. 350–850. Cambridge.
——. 1954. “Un rouleau liturgique constanti- Hawkins, Ernest J. W., and Thomas F. Mathews.
nopolitain et ses peintures.” Dumbarton Oaks 1985. “Notes on the Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii
Papers 8: 163–199. in Istanbul and Its Frescoes.” Dumbarton Oaks
——. 1961. “Deux notes sur l’histoire de Papers 39: 125–134.
l’iconostase d’après des monuments de Henry, Patrick. 1967. “Theodore of Studios:
Yougoslavie.” Zbornik radova Vizantološkog Byzantine Churchman.” Ph.D. diss., Yale
instituta 7: 13–22. University.
——. 1963. Sculptures byzantines de Constantinople Herman, Emil. 1948. “Die häuige und tägli-
(IVe–Xe siècle). Paris. che Kommunion in den byzantinischen
Grierson, Philip. 1962. “The Tombs and Obits Klöstern.” In Mémorial Louis Petit: mélanges
of the Byzantine Emperors.” Dumbarton Oaks d’histoire et d’archéologie byzantines, 203–217.
Papers 16: 1–63. Bucarest.
222 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hjort, Øystein. 1979. “The Sculpture of the und der Traktat gegen die Vorbestimmung
Kariye Camii.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 33: der Todesstunde.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift
201–289. 51: 1–14.
Holmes, Catherine. 2006. “Constantinople Johnson, Mark J., Robert G. Ousterhout, and
in the Reign of Basil II.” In Jefreys 2006: Amy Papalexandrou, eds. 2012. Approaches to
326–339. Byzantine Architecture and Its Decoration: Studies
Ivanov, Sergei A. 2006. Holy Fools in Byzantium in Honor of Slobodan Cur ́ c ǐ ć. Farnham, Surrey.
and Beyond. Oxford. Jolivet-Lévy, Catherine. 1997. “Culte et iconog-
Ivison, Eric Addis. 1990. “The Ş eyh Murat raphie de l’archange Michel dans l’Orient
Mescidi at Constantinople.” Annual of the byzantin: le témoignage de quelques monu-
British School at Athens 85: 79–87. ments de Cappadoce.” Les Cahiers de Saint-
Jacob, André. 1966. “La traduction de la liturgie Michel de Cuxà 28: 187–198.
de saint Jean Chrysostome par Léon Toscan.” ——. 2008. “Invocations peintes et graiti dans les
Orientalia Christiana Periodica 32: 111–162. églises de Cappadoce (IXe–XIIIe siècle).” In Des
——. 1969. “La concélébration de l’anaphore à images dans l’histoire, ed. Marie-France Auzépy
Byzance d’après le temoignage de Léon Toscan.” and Joël Cornette, 163–178. Saint-Denis.
Orientalia Christiana Periodica 35: 249–256. ——. 2011. “Konstantinopolis’te Bizans Sanatının
——. 1981. “Où était récitée la prière de Son Pırıltıları: Hora Manastırı’nın (Kariye
l’ambon?” Byzantion 51: 306–315. Müzesi) Bezemeleri.” In Pralong 2011: 135–164.
Jacoby, David. 2001.“The Urban Evolution of Latin Jugie, Martin. 1926–1935. Theologia dogmatica
Constantinople.” In Necipoğlu 2001: 277–297. christianorum orientalium ab Ecclesia catholica dis-
James, Liz, ed. 2007. Art and Text in Byzantine sidentium. 5 vols. Paris.
Culture. Cambridge and New York. Kafescioğlu, Çiğdem. 2009. Constantinopolis/
Janeras, Sebastià. 1988. Le Vendredi-Saint dans la Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision,
tradition liturgique byzantine: structure et histoire and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital.
de ses oices. Rome. University Park, PA.
Janin, Raymond. 1933. “Monastères byzantins: Kalavrezou, Ioli, ed. 2003. Byzantine Women and
les couvents secondaires de Psamathia.” Echos Their World. Cambridge, MA.
d’Orient 32: 326–339. Kaldellis, Anthony. 2006. Mothers and Sons,
——. 1944. “Les sanctuaires de Byzance sous Fathers and Daughters: The Byzantine Family of
la domination latine, 1204–1261.” Revue des Michael Psellos. Notre Dame, IN.
études byzantines 2: 134–184. Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia. 1992. Dedicatory
——. 1964. Constantinople byzantine: développement Inscriptions and Donor Portraits in Thirteenth-
urbain et répertoire topographique. 2nd ed. Paris. Century Churches of Greece.Vienna.
——. 1969. La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire ——. 2006.“The Proskynetaria of theTemplon and
byzantin, I: Le siège Constantinople et le patriarcat Narthex: Form, Imagery, Spatial Connections,
oecuménique, 3: Les églises et les monastères. 2nd and Reception.” In Gerstel 2006c: 107–132.
ed. Paris. Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, and Maria Panagiotide-
Jefreys, Elizabeth M., ed. 2006. Byzantine Style, Kesisoglou, eds. 2010. Πολύγλωσσο
Religion and Civilization. Cambridge and εικονογραφημένο λεξικό όρων βυζαντινής
New York. αρχιτεκτονικής και γλυπτικής. Herakleion.
Jefreys, Elizabeth, John Haldon, and Robin Kandić, Olivera. 1998–1999. “Fonts for the
Cormack, eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Blessing of the Waters in Serbian Medieval
Byzantine Studies. Oxford. Churches.” Zograf 27: 61–77.
Jenkins, Romilly J. H., and Cyril Mango. 1956.“The Kaplan, Michel. 2002. “L’ensevelissement des
Date and Signiicance of the Tenth Homily of saints: rituel de création des reliques et sanc-
Photius.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9: 125–140. tiication à Byzance à travers les sources hagi-
Joannou, P. 1958. “Aus den unedierten Schriften ographiques (Ve–XIIe siècles).” Travaux et
des Psellos: das Lehrgedicht zum Messopfer Mémoires 14: 319–332.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 223
——. 2011. “Büyük Bir I-mparatorluk Vakfı: Kline, Galen R. 1988. The Voyage d’Outremer by
Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii).” In Pralong 2011: Bertrandon de la Broquière. New York.
118–134. Konidares, I. M. 1984. Νομική θεώρηση των
Karagianne, Flora, ed. 2008. Προσκτίσματα μοναστηριακών τυπικών. Athens.
των Παλαιοχριστιανικών, Βυζαντινών και Konstantinide, Chara. 2008. Ο Μελισμός. Oι
Μεταβυζαντινών ναών. Thessalonike. συλλειτουργούντες ιεράρχες και οι άγγελοι –
Karamani Pekin, Arzu, ed. 2007. Gün Işığ̆ında διάκονοι μπροστά στην αγία τράπεζα με
-
I stanbul’un 8000 Yılı: Marmaray, Metro, τα τίμια δώρα ή τον ευχαριστιακό Χριστό.
Sultanahmet Kazıları. Istanbul. Thessalonike.
Kazhdan, Alexander. 1987. “A Note on the Koukoules, Phaidon. 1948–1957. Βυζαντινῶν βίος
‘Middle-Byzantine’ Ambo.” Byzantion 57: καί πολιτισμός. 6 vols. Athens.
422–426. Kountoura-Galake, Eleonora. 1996. Ὁ βυζαντινὸς
Kazhdan, Alexander, and Henry Maguire. 1991. κλῆρος καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τῶν <<σκοτεινῶν
“Byzantine Hagiographical Texts as Sources αἰώνων.>> Athens.
on Art.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45: 1–22. Krasnosel’tsev, Nikolai Fomich. 1885. Svedeniia o
Kidonopoulos, Vassilios. 1994. Bauten in nekotorykh liturgicheskikh rukopisiakh Vatikanskoi
Konstantinopel, 1204–1328:Verfall und Zerstörung, Biblioteki. Kazan.
Restaurierung, Umbau und Neubau von Profan- ——. 1889. Materialy dlia istorii chinoposledovaniia
und Sakralbauten. Wiesbaden. liturgii sviatago Ioanna Zlatoustago. Kazan.
——. 2006. “The Urban Physiognomy of Krausmüller, Dirk. 1997. “Private vs Communal:
Constantinople from the Latin Conquest through Niketas Stethatos’s Hypotyposis for Stoudios,
the Palaiologan Era.” In Brooks 2006a: 98–117. and Patterns of Worship in Eleventh-Century
Kitzinger, Ernst. 1988. “Relections on the Feast Byzantine Monasteries.” In Mullett and Kirby
Cycle in Byzantine Art.” Cahiers archéologiques 1997: 309–328.
36: 51–73. Krautheimer, Richard. 1986. Early Christian and
Klein, Holger A. 2004a.“Constantine, Helena, and Byzantine Architecture. 4th ed. Harmondsworth
the Cult of the True Cross in Constantinople.” and New York.
In Byzance et les reliques du Christ, ed. Jannic Krueger, Derek, ed. 2006. Byzantine Christianity.
Durand and Bernard Flusin, 31–59. Paris. Minneapolis, MN.
——. 2004b. Restoring Byzantium: The Kariye Lafontaine-Dosogne, Jacqueline. 1975a.
Camii in Istanbul and the Byzantine Institute “Iconography of the Cycle of the Life of
Restoration. New York. the Infancy of Christ.” In Underwood 1975a:
——. 2010. “Refashioning Byzantium in Venice, 195–241.
ca. 1200–1400.” In San Marco, Byzantium, and ——. 1975b. “Iconography of the Cycle of the
the Myths of Venice, ed. Henry Maguire and Life of the Virgin.” In Underwood 1975a:
Robert S. Nelson, 193–225. Washington, DC. 161–194.
Klein, Holger A., Robert G. Ousterhout, and Laiou, Angeliki. 1986. “The Festival of ‘Agathe’:
Brigitte Pitarakis, eds. 2007. Kariye: Bir Anıt, Comments on the Life of Constantinopolitan
İki Anıtsal Kişilik. Theodoros Metokhites’ten Women.” In Byzantium: Tribute to Andreas N.
Thomas Whiteemore’a = Kariye: From Theodore Stratos, 1: 111–122. Athens.
Metochites toThomasWhittemore. One Monument, ——. 2002. The Economic History of Byzantium:
Two Monumental Personalities. Istanbul. From the Seventh Through the Fifteenth Century.
——, eds. 2011. Kariye Camii Yeniden/ The Kariye 3 vols. Washington, D.C.
Camii Reconsidered. Istanbul. Lambros, Spyridon P. 1916. “Ἐπιγράμματα
Klentos, John Eugene. 1995. “Byzantine Liturgy Μαξίμου Πλανούδη.” Νέος Ἑλληνομνήμων 13:
in Twelfth-Century Constantinople: An 414–421.
Analysis of the Synaxarion of the Monastery Lange, Dorothea.1986.“Theorien zur Entstehung
of the Theotokos Evergetis.” Ph.D. diss., der byzantinischen Kreuzkuppelkirche.”
University of Notre Dame. Architectura 16: 93–113.
224 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Larin,Vassa. 2010. The Byzantine Hierarchal Divine In Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after Anton
Liturgy in Arsenij Suxanov’s Proskinitarij. Rome. Baumstark (1872–1948): Acts of the International
Laskaris, Nikolaos G. 2000. Monuments funéraires Congress, Rome, 25–29 September 1998, ed.
paléochrétiens (et byzantins) de la Grèce. Athens. Robert F. Taft and Gabriele Winkler,
Laurent,Vitalien. 1958. “Le rituel de la proscomi- 809–832. Rome.
die et le métropolite de Crète Élie.” Revue des Macrides, Ruth. 1980. “The New Constantine
études byzantines 16: 116–142. and the New Constantinople – 1261?”
Lazarev, Viktor. 1964–1965. “Trois fragments Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 6: 13–42.
d’épistyles peintes et le templon byzantin.” Macridy, Theodore. 1929. “Les recéntes fouilles
Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς de Constantinople.” Archäologischer Anzeiger:
ἑταιρείας 4: 117–143. 343–358.
Lidov, Alexei, ed., 2000a. The Iconostasis: Origins, ——. 1964. “The Monastery of Lips (Fenari Isa
Evolution, Symbolism. Moscow. Camii) at Istanbul.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18:
——. 2000b. “Ikonostas: itogi i perspektivy issle- 249–277.
dovaniia.” In Lidov 2000a: 11–29. Magdalino, Paul. 1987. “Observations on the Nea
——, ed. 2003. Eastern Christian Relics. Moscow. Ekklesia of Basil I.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen
——. 2004.“Leo theWise and the Miraculous Icons Byzantinistik 37: 51–64. Reprinted in
in Hagia Sophia.” In Οι ήρωες της Ορθόδοξης Magdalino 2007b.
Εκκλησίας. Οι νέοι άγιοι, 8ος-16ος αι., ed. Eleonora ——. 1988. “Basil I, Leo VI, and the Feast of the
Kountoura-Galake, 393–432. Athens. Prophet Elijah.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen
——. ed.,2006.Hierotopy:The Creation of Sacred Spaces Byzantinistik 38: 193–196.
in Byzantium and Medieval Russia. Moscow. ——. 1996. Constantinople médiévale: études sur
Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. 2001. Decline and Fall of l’évolution des structures urbaines. Paris.
the Roman City. Oxford and New York. ——. 2002. “Medieval Constantinople: Built
Lightfoot, Christopher S., and Eric A. Ivison. Environment and Urban Development.” In Laiou
2001. “The Amorium Project: The 1998 2002: 529–537.
Excavation Season.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers ——. 2007a. “Medieval Constantinople.” In
55: 371–399. Magdalino 2007b.
Lingas, Alexander. 1996. “Hesychasm and ——. 2007b. Studies on the History and Topography
Psalmody.” In Mount Athos and Byzantine of Byzantine Constantinople. Aldershot.
Monasticism, ed. Anthony Bryer and Mary B. ——. 2010. “Byzantium = Constantinople.” In A
Cunningham, 155–168. Aldershot. Companion to Byzantium, Liz James, ed., 43–54.
——. 2007. “How Musical Was the ‘Sung Chichester.
Oice’? Some Observations on the Ethos of ——. 2011a. “Paleologoslar Döneminde Yaşanan
the Late Byzantine Cathedral Rite.” In The Bizans Rönesansı: Theodoros Metohites ve
Traditions of Orthodox Music: Proceedings of Kariye Manastırı.” In Pralong 2011: 165–181.
the First International Conference on Orthodox ——. 2011b. “Theodore Metochites, the Chora, and
Church Music, University of Joensuu, Finland Constantinople.” In Klein, Ousterhout, and
13–19 June 2005, ed. Ivan Moody and Maria Pitarakis 2011: 169–187.
Takala-Roszczenko, 217–234. Joensuu. Magdalino, Paul, and Lyn Rodley. 1997. “The
——. 2010. “Late Byzantine Cathedral Liturgy Evergetis Fountain in the Early Thirteenth
and the Service of the Furnace.” In Gerstel Century: An Ekphrasis of the Paintings in the
and Nelson 2010: 179–230. Cupola.” In Mullett and Kirby 1997: 432–437.
Ljungkvist, John, et al. 2010. “The Urban Maguire, Henry. 1997. “The Heavenly Court.” In
Anthropocene: Lessons for Sustainability from Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, ed.
the Environmental History of Constantinople.” Henry Maguire, 247–258. Washington, DC.
In Sinclair et al. 2010: 367–405. ——. 2011. “Rhetoric and Reality in the Art
Lossky, André. 2001. “La cérémonie du lave- of Kariye Camii.” In Klein, Ousterhout, and
ment des pieds: un essai d’étude comparée.” Pitarakis 2011: 57–69.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 225
Majeska, George P. 1977. “The Body of St. ——. 1991. “Approaches to Byzantine
Theophano the Empress and the Convent of Architecture.” Muqarnas 8: 40–44.
St. Constantine.” Byzantinoslavica 38: 14–21. ——. 1992.“The Monastery of St.Mary Peribleptos
——. 1984. Russian Travelers to Constantinople (Sulu Manastır) at Constantinople Revisited.”
in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. Revue des études arméniennes 23: 473–493.
Washington, D.C. ——. 1998. “Where at Constantinople Was the
——. 2002a. “A Description of the Sanctuary of Monastery of Christos Pantepoptes.” Δελτίον τῆς
St. Sophia in Constantinople from Medieval Χριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας 20: 87–88.
Rus’.” Palaeoslavica 10 [For Professor Ihor ——. 2004. Le développement urbain de
Ševc enko
̌ on his 80th Birthday]: 249–254. Constantinople, IVe–VIIe siècles. Paris.
——. 2002b. “Russian Pilgrims in Mango, Cyril, and Ernest J. W. Hawkins. 1964a.
Constantinople.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56: “The Monastery of Lips (Fenari Isa Camii) in
93–108. Istanbul: Additional Notes,” Dumbarton Oaks
Mamaloukos, Stavros. 2001. Το καθολικό Papers 18: 299–315.
της μονής Βατοπαιδίου. Ιστορία και ——. 1964b. “Report on Field Work in Istanbul
αρχιτεκτονική. and Cyprus, 1962–1963.” Dumbarton Oaks
Mandalà, Papàs M. 1935. La protesi della liturgia nel Papers 18: 319–340.
rito bizantino-greco. Grottaferrata. ——. 1966. “The Hermitage of St. Neophytos
Mango, Cyril. 1959. The Brazen House: A and Its Walls Paintings.” Dumbarton Oaks
Study of the Vestibule of the Imperial Palace of Papers 20: 119–206.
Constantinople. Copenhagen. ——. 1968.“Additional Finds at Fenari Isa Camii,
——. 1962. “Three Imperial Byzantine Istanbul.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 22: 177–184.
Sarcophagi Discovered in 1750.” Dumbarton Mango, Cyril, and Ihor Ševčenko. 1973. “Some
Oaks Papers 16: 397–402. Churches and Monasteries on the South
——. 1965. “Constantinopolitana.” Jahrbuch des Shore of the Sea of Marmara.” Dumbarton
deutschen archäologischen Instituts 80: 305–336. Oaks Papers 27: 235–277.
——. 1969–1970. “Notes on Byzantine Mango, Cyril, Doula Mouriki, and Hans
Monuments.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23–24: Belting. 1978. The Mosaics and Frescoes of St.
369–375. Mary Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul.
——. 1973. “A Note on Panagia Kamariotissa Washington, D.C.
and Some Imperial Foundations of the Tenth Marinčák, Šimon. 2010. “Byzantine Matins in
and Eleventh Centuries at Constantinople.” Fourteenth-Century Akolouthiai.” Logos 51:
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27: 128–132. 249–305.
——. 1976a. Byzantine Architecture. New York. Marinis, Vasileios. 2004. “The Monastery Tou
——. 1976b. “Les monuments de l’architecture Libos: Architecture, Sculpture, and Liturgical
du XIe siècle et leur signiication historique Planning in Middle and Late Byzantine
et sociale.” Travaux et Mémoires 6: 351–365. Constantinople.” Ph.D. diss., University of
——. 1979. “On the History of the Templon Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
and the Martyrion of St. Artemios at ——. 2006. “Παρατηρήσεις για την λειτουργία
Constantinople.” Zograf 10:40–43. και την αρχιτεκτονική στην μονή του Λιβός
——. 1980. Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome. στην Κωνσταντινούπολη.” In Hadjitryphonos
London. and Karagianne 2006: 57–62.
——. 1981. “Daily Life in Byzantium.” Jahrbuch ——. 2009.“Tombs and Burials in the Monastery
der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 31: 337–353. tou Libos in Constantinople.” Dumbarton Oaks
——. 1986. The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312– Papers 63: 147–166.
1453: Sources and Documents. Toronto. ——. 2010. “Deining Liturgical Space in
——. 1990. “The Work of M. I. Nomidis in the Byzantium.” In Stephenson 2010: 284–302.
Vefa Kilise Camii, Istanbul.” Μεσαιωνικά και ——. 2011a. “The Mosaics of Theotokos
Νέα Ελληνικά 3: 421–429. Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) in Istanbul.”
226 BIBLIOGRAPHY
In Mosaics of Anatolia, ed. Gürol Sözen, McVey, Kathleen E. 1983. “The Domed
321–332. Istanbul. Church as Microcosm: Literary Roots of an
Marinis, Vasileios. 2011b. “Some Notes on the Architectural Symbol.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers
Functional Approach in the Study of Byzantine 37: 91–121.
Architecture: The Case of Constantinople.” In ——. 2010. “Spirit Embodied: The Emergence
New Approaches to Medieval Architecture, ed. Robert of Symbolic Interpretations of Early Christian
Bork, William W. Clark, and Abby McGehee, and Byzantine Architecture.” In Ćurčić and
21–33. Farnham and Burlington,VT. Hadjitryphonos 2010: 39–71.
——. 2012. “Structure, Agency, Ritual, and Megaw, Arthur H. S. 1963. “Notes on Recent
the Byzantine Church.” In Wescoat and Work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul.”
Ousterhout 2012: 338–364. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17: 333–371.
Martin, John Rupert. 1954. The Illustration of the ——. 1964. “The Original Form of the
Heavenly Ladder of John Climacus. Princeton, Theotokos Church of Constantine Lips.”
NJ. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18: 279–298.
Mateos, Juan. 1961. “Quelques problèmes de ——. 1966. “The Skripou Screen.” The Annual of
l’orthros byzantin.” Proche-orient chrétien 11: the British School at Athens 61: 1–32.
17–35, 201–220. Meyendorf, Paul. 1984. St. Germanus of
——. 1967. “The Origins of the Divine Oice.” Constantinople on the Divine Liturgy. Crestwood.
Worship 41: 477–485. Mihaljevic´, Marina. 2010. “Constantinopolitan
——. 1970. “La synaxe monastique des vêpres Architecture of the Komnenian Era (1080–
byzantines.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 36: 1180) and Its Impact in the Balkans.” Ph.D.
248–272. diss., Princeton University.
——. 1971. La célébration de la parole dans la liturgie Miklosich, Franz, and Joseph Müller, eds. 1860–
byzantine: étude historique. Rome. 1890. Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et
——. 1973. “Ἡ μικρὰ εἴσοδος τῆς θείας profana. 6 vols.Vienna. Reprint Athens.
λειτουργίας.” Γρηγόριος ὁ Παλαμᾶς 56: Millet, Gabriel. 1905. “Recherches au Mont-
365–381. Athos.” Bulletin de Correspendance Hellénique
Mathews, Thomas F. 1971. The Early Churches 29: 55–98, 105–141.
of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy. ——. 1916. L’École grecque dans l’architecture byz-
University Park, PA. antine. Paris.
——. 1973. “Observations on the Church of Moran, Neil K. 1986. Singers in Late Byzantine
Panagia Kamariotissa on Heybeliada (Chalke), and Slavonic Painting. Leiden.
Istanbul.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27: 115–127. Mordtmann,August J. 1892. Esquisse topographique
——. 1976. The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul: A de Constantinople. Lille.
Photographic Survey. University Park, PA. Morris, Rosemary. 1984. “The Byzantine
——. 1982. “‘Private’ Liturgy in Byzantine Aristocracy and the Monasteries.” In The
Architecture.” Cahiers archéologiques 30: 125–138. Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to XIII Centuries, ed.
——. 1988. “The Sequel to Nicaea II in Michael Angold, 112–137. Oxford.
Byzantine Church Decoration.” Perkins Journal ——. 1985. “Monasteries and Their Patrons in
41: 11–21. Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” Byzantinische
——. 1990. “The Transformation Symbolism Forschungen 10: 185–231.
in Byzantine Architecture and the Meaning ——. ed. 1990. Church and People in Byzantium.
of the Pantokrator in the Dome.” In Morris Birmingham.
1990: 191–214. ——. 1995. Monks and Laymen in Byzantium,
——. 1997. “Religious Organization and Church 843–1118. Cambridge and New York.
Architecture.” In Evans and Wixom 1997: 21–35. Müller-Wiener, Wolfgang. 1977. Bildlexikon
Matschke, Klaus-Peter. 2001. “Builders and zur Topographie Istanbuls: Byzantion,
Building in Late Byzantine Constantinople.” Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn des 17.
In Necipoğlu 2001: 315–328. Jahrhunderts. Tübingen.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 227
Mullett, Margaret, and Anthony Kirby, eds. 1997. Orlandos, Anastasios K., and Leandros I.
Work and Worship at the Theotokos Evergetis, Vranouses. 1973. Τὰ χαράγματα τοῦ
1050–1200. Belfast. Παρθενῶνος. Athens.
Mylonopoulos, Joannis. 2011. “Divine Images Orlov, Mikhail I. 1909. Liturgiia sv.Vasiliia Velikago.
Behind Bars: The Semantics of Barriers St. Petersburg.
in Greek Temples.” In Current Approaches Osborne, John. 1981. “The Painting of the
to Religion in Ancient Greece, ed. Matthew Anastasis in the Lower Church of San
Haysom and Jenny Wallensten, 269–291. Clemente, Rome: A Re-Examination of the
Stockholm. Evidence for the Location of the Tomb of St.
Necipoğlu, Nevra, ed. 2001. Byzantine Cyril.” Byzantion 51: 255–287.
Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Ötüken,Yıldız. 1974. Isa kapi mescidi und medresesi
Everyday Life. Leiden. in Istanbul. Bonn.
Nelson, Robert S. 1999a. “The Chora and the Ousterhout, Robert. 1985. “The Byzantine
Great Church: Intervisuality in Fourteenth- Church at Enez: Problems in Twelfth-Century
Century Constantinople.” Byzantine and Architecture.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen
Modern Greek Studies 23: 67–101. Byzantinistik 35: 261–280.
——. 1999b. “Taxation with Representation: ——. 1987. The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in
Visual Narrative and the Political Field of the Istanbul. Washington, DC.
Kariye Camii.” Art History 22: 56–82. ——. 1991.“Constantinople,Bithynia,and Regional
——. 2004. “Heavenly Allies at the Chora.” Developments in Later Palaiologan Architecture.”
Gesta 43: 31–40. In Cuŕ čić and Mouriki 1991: 75–110.
——. 2007. “Image and Inscription: Pleas for ——. 1991–1992. “Some Notes on the
Salvation in Spaces of Devotion.” In James Construction of Christos ho Pantepoptes
2007: 100–119. (Eski Imaret Camii) in Istanbul.” Δελτίον τῆς
Nicholl, Gail. 1997. “A Contribution to the Χριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας 16: 47–56.
Archaeological Interpretation of Typika: The ——. 1995a.“Temporal Structuring in the Chora
Case of the Narthex.” In Mullett and Kirby Parekklesion.” Gesta 34: 63–76.
1997: 285–308. ——. 1995b. “The Virgin of the Chora.” In
Novae patrum bibliothecae. 1844–1905. Rome. Ousterhout and Brubaker 1995: 91–109.
Oates, David. 1960. “A Summary Report on ——. 1999. Master Builders of Byzantium.
the Excavations of the Byzantine Institute in Princeton, NJ.
the Kariye Camii: 1957 and 1958.” Dumbarton ——. 2000.“Contextualizing the Later Churches
Oaks Papers 14: 223–231. of Constantinople: Suggested Methodologies
Oikonomides, Nicolas. 1980. “St. George of and a Few Examples.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers
Mangana, Maria Skleraina, and the ‘Malyj 54: 241–250.
Sion’ of Novgorod.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers ——. 2001a. “Architecture, Art and Komnenian
34: 239–246. Ideology at the Pantokrator Monastery.” In
Orlandos, Anastasios K. 1936. “Ὁ τάφος τῆς Ἁγ. Necipoğlu 2001: 133–150.
Θεοδώρας.” Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Βυζαντινῶν μνημείων ——. 2001b. “The Architecture of Iconoclasm.”
τῆς Ἑλλάδος 2: 105–115. In Brubaker and Haldon 2001: 3–36.
——. 1939–1940. Ἡ Ἁγία Τριὰς τοῦ Κριεζώτη. ——. 2002. “Byzantine Funerary Architecture
Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Βυζαντινῶν μνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος of the Twelfth Century.” In Drevnerusskoe
5: 3–16. iskusstvo. Rus’ i strany vizantiiskogo mira XII vek,
——. 1949. “Ἡ Μητρόπολις τῶν Σερρῶν κατὰ 9–17. St. Petersburg.
τὴν ἔκφρασιν τοῦ Πεδιασίμου.” Ἐπετηρὶς ——. 2006. “Sacred Geographies and Holy
ἑταιρείας βυζαντινῶν σπουδῶν 19: 259–271. Cities: Constantinople as Jerusalem.” In Lidov
——. 1952–1957.Ἡ ξυλόστεγος παλαιοχριστιανικὴ 2006: 98–116.
βασιλικὴ τῆς μεσογειακῆς λεκάνης. 3 vols. ——. 2008. “Churches and Monasteries.” In
Athens. Jefreys, Haldon, and Cormack 2008: 353–372.
228 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ousterhout, Robert. 2010a. “Constantinople Children and Childhood in Byzantium.

and the Construction of a Medieval Urban Washington, DC.
Identity.” In Stephenson 2010: 334–351. Papacostas, Tassos. 2007. “The History and
——. 2010b. “New Temples and New Solomons: Architecture of the Monastery of Saint John
The Rhetoric of Byzantine Architecture.” Chrysostomos at Koutsovendis, Cyprus.”
In The Old Testament in Byzantium, ed. Paul Dumbarton Oaks Papers 61: 25–156.
Magdalino and Robert S. Nelson, 223–253. Papadopoulos, M. 1920. “Note sur quelques
Washington, D.C. découvertes récentes faites à Constantinople.”
——. 2011. “Reading Diicult Buildings: The Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Comptes
Lessons of the Kariye Camii.” In Klein, Rendues: 59–66.
Ousterhout, and Pitarakis 2007: 95–105. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Athanasios. 1856–1912.
Ousterhout, Robert, and Leslie Brubaker, Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς Σταχυολογίας. 5 vols.
eds. 1995. The Sacred Image East and West. St. Petersburg. Reprint Brussels 1963.
Urbana, IL. Papalexandrou, Amy. 1988. “The Church of the
Ousterhout, Robert, Zeynep Ahunbay, Virgin of Skripou: Architecture, Sculpture and
and Metin Ahunbay. 2000. “Study and Inscriptions in Ninth-Century Byzantium.”
Restoration of the Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul: Ph.D. diss., Princeton University.
First Report, 1997–98.” Dumbarton Oaks ——. 2001. “Text in Context: Eloquent
Papers 54: 265–270. Monuments and the Byzantine Beholder.”
——. 2009.“Study and Restoration of the Zeyrek Word and Image 17: 259–283.
Camii in Istanbul: Second Report, 2001–2005.” ——. 2007. “Echoes of Orality in the
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 63: 235–256. Monumental Inscriptions of Byzantium.” In
The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (ODB). 1991. James 2007: 161–187.
New York and Oxford. Papazotos, Thanasis. 1987. “Η λεκάνη αγιασμού
Özgümüş, Ferudun. 2000. “Peribleptos (Sulu) του καθολικού του Τιμίου Προδρόμου και
Monastery in Istanbul.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift συναφή παραδείγματα από τη Μακεδονία.”
93: 508–520. Οι Σέρρες και η περιοχή τους από την αρχαία
_____. 2001. “Fener, Ayakapı, Cibali, Unkapanı στη μεταβυζαντινή κοινωνία, II: 509–524.
2000 Yılı Yüzey Araştırması Raporu.” Araştırma Serres.
Sonuçları Toplantısı 19: 145–154. _____. 1995. “Το Isa Kapisi Mescidi στην
——. 2004. “A Byzantine Church at Sirkeci in Κωνσταντινούπολη, μονή του πατριάρχου
Istanbul.” Reading Medieval Studies 30: 1–15. Αθανασίου.” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς
——. 2006. “2005 Yılı İstanbul Çalışmaları ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας 18: 39–48.
Bilimsel Raporu.” In 24. Araştırma Sonuçları Parenti, Stefano. 2001. “La ‘vittoria’ nella
Toplantısı 2: 525–538. Chiesa di Constantinopoli della Liturgia
Pallas, Demetrios. 1950. “Ἀρχαιολογικά- di Crisostomo sulla Liturgia di Basilio.” In
λειτουργικά.” Ἐπετηρὶς ἑταιρείας βυζαντινῶν Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after Anton
σπουδῶν 20: 265–313. Baumstark (1872–1948): Acts of the International
——. 1950–1951. “Σαλαμινιακά.” Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Congress, Rome 25–29 September 1998., ed.
ἐφημερίς: 163–181. Robert F. Taft and Gabriele Winkler,
——. 1965. Die Passion und Bestattung Christi in 145–177. Rome.
Byzanz. Munich. ____ 2010. “Towards a Regional History of the
——. 1980. “L’édiice cultuel chrétien et la litur- Byzantine Euchology of the Sacraments.”
gie dans l’Illyricum oriental.” In Rapports pre- Ecclesia Orans 27: 109–121.
sentés au Xe Congrès international d’archéologie ____. 2011. “The Cathedral Rite of
chrétienne, 497–570. Thessalonike. Constantinople: Evolution of a Local
Pamuk, Orhan. 2006. Istanbul: Memories and the Tradition.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 77:
City. New York. 449–469.
Papaconstantinou, Arietta, and Alice-Mary Pargoire, Jules. 1906. “Constantinople: l’église
Talbot, eds. 2009. Becoming Byzantine: Sainte-Théodosie.” Echos d’Orient 9: 161–165.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 229
——. 1910. “Constantinople: Saint-André de 2e Éphorie des antiquités byzantines et l’École fran-
Crisis.” Echos d’Orient 13: 84–86. çaise d’Athènes (6–8 Septembre 2000). Athens.
Parry, Kenneth. 1996. Depicting the Word: Peschlow, Urs. 1994. “Der mittelbyzantinische
Byzantine Iconophile Thought of the Eighth and Ambo aus archäologischer Sicht.” Thymiama,
Ninth Centuries. Leiden. 1: 255–260.
Pasadaios, Aristeides. 1965. Ἐπί δύο Βυζαντινῶν ——. 2006a. “Altar und Reliquie: Form
μνημείων τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἀγνώστου und Nutzung des frühbyzantinischen
ὀνομασίας. Athens. Reliquienaltars in Konstantinopel.” In Altripp
——. 1969. “Τὸ φέρον τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν Τοκλοὺ and Nauerth 2006: 175–202.
Ἰμπραχὴμ Ντεντὲ Μεστζηντί.” Ἀρχαιολογικὴ ——. 2006b. “Dividing Interior Space in Early
ἐφημερίς: 80–124. Byzantine Churches: The Barriers between
——. 1973. ῾Ο κεραμοπλαστικός διάκοσμος τῶν the Nave and Aisles.” In Gerstel 2006c:
βυζαντινῶν κτηρίων τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. 53–71.
Athens. Petrides, S. 1899–1900. “Le lavement des pieds
Pasinli,Alpay, and Cihat Soyhan. 1983.“Manganlar le jeudi-saint dans l’église grecque.” Echos
Bölgesinde 1976 Yılında Yapılan Kurtarma d’Orient 3: 321–326.
Kazısına Ait Rapor.” Ayasofya Müzesi Yıllığı 9: Phountoules, Ioannes M. 1966. Τὸ λειτουργικὸν
54–66. ἔργον Συμεὼν τοῦ Θεσσαλονίκης.
Paspates, Alexandros G. 1877. Βυζαντιναὶ μελέται. Thessalonike.
Τοπογραφικαῖ καὶ ἱστορικαί. Constantinople. ——. 1976. “Μαρτυρίαι τοῦ Θεσσαλονίκης
Reprint Athens 1986. Συμεὼν περὶ τῶν ναῶν τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης.”
Patrich, Joseph, ed. 2001. The Sabaite Heritage in Ἐπιστημονικὴ ἐπετηρὶς τῆς Θεολογικῆς
the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to Σχολῆς τοῦ Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης 21:
the Present. Leuven. 123–186.
Patterson Ševčenko, Nancy. 1991. “Icons in the ——. 1984. “Ἑρμηνεία ἑπτὰ δυσκόλων σημείων
Liturgy.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45: 45–57. τοῦ κειμένου τῆς Θείας Λειτουργίας ἀπὸ τὸ
Reprinted in Patterson Ševčenko 2013. Νικόλαο Καβάσιλα.” In Πρακτικὰ θεολογικοῦ
——. 1994. “Close Encounters: Contact συνεδρίου εἰς τιμὴν καὶ μνήμην τοῦ σοφωτάτου
Between Holy Figures and the Faithful as καὶ λογιωτάτου καὶ τοῖς ὅλοις ἁγιωτάτου
Represented in Byzantine Works of Art.” In ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Νικολάου Καβάσιλα τοῦ
Byzance et les images, ed. André Guillou and καὶ Χαμαετοῦ, 157–172. Thessalonike.
Jannic Durand, 256–285. Paris. Reprinted in Pitarakis, Brigitte. 2005.“Female Piety in Context:
Patterson Ševčenko 2013. Understanding Developments in Private
——. 2006. “Art and Liturgy in the Later Devotional Practices.” In Images of the Mother
Byzantine Empire.” In Cambridge History of of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium,
Christianity. Vol. 5: Eastern Christianity, ed. ed. Maria Vassilaki, 153–166. London.
Michael Angold, 127–153. Cambridge. Pitsakis, Constantinos. 2005. “Θέματα δικαίου
——. 2013. The Celebration of the Arts in Byzantine τῆς ταφῆς στοὺς Θεσσαλονικεῖς νομικοὺς τῆς
Art and Liturgy. Farnham and Burlington,VT. ὕστερης βυζαντινῆς περιόδου.” In Χριστιανικὴ
Pavlov, Alexei S. 1897. Nomokanon pri Bol’shom Θεσσαλονίκη. Ταφὲς καὶ κοιμητήρια. ΚΘ´
Trebnikie. Moscow. Δημήτρια: Πρακτικὰ Η᾽ Ἐπιστημονικοῦ
Pazaras, Theochares. 1994. “Πρόταση αναπαρά- Συμποσίου. Ἱερὰ Μονὴ Βλατάδων, 6–8
στασης του άμβωνα της Παλαιάς Μητρόπολης Ὀκτωβρίου 1994, 65–90. Thessaloniki.
στη Βέροια.” Thymiama, 1: 251–254. Popović, Marko. 2006. “Les funérailles du ktitor:
Pekak, M. Sacit. 2009. Trilye (Zeytinbağı) Fatih aspect archéologique.” In Proceedings of the 21st
Camisi, Bizans Kapalı Yunan Hacı Planı. International Congress of Byzantine Studies, 1:
Istanbul. 99–130. London.
Pennas, Charalampos, and CatherineVanderheyde, Popović, Svetlana. 1997. “Are Typika Sources for
eds. 2008. La sculpture byzantine, VIIe-XIIe siè- Architecture? The Case of the Monasteries
cles: actes du colloque international organisé par la of the Theotokos Evergetis, Chilandari
230 BIBLIOGRAPHY
and Studenica.” In Mullett and Kirby 1997: and Eleventh-Century Monasticism, ed. Margaret
266–284. Mullett and Anthony Kirby, 17–29. Belfast.
——. 2000. “Pyrgos in the Late Byzantine Roussanova, Rossitza. 2005. “Painted Messages
Monastic Context.” In Manastir Žic a: ̌ Zbornik of Salvation: Monumental Programs of the
Radova, ed. Dragan Drasković and Slobodan Subsidiary Spaces of Late Byzantine Monastic
Ðordević, 95–107. Kraljevo. Churches in Macedonia.” Ph.D. diss.,
Popović,Svetlana.2006.“The Byzantine Monastery: University of Maryland.
Its Spatial Iconography and the Question of Ruggieri, Vincenzo. 1991. Byzantine Religious
Sacredness.” In Lidov 2006: 150–185. Architecture (582–867): Its History and Structural
——. 2007. “Dividing the Indivisible: The Elements. Rome.
Monastery Space – Secular and Sacred.” ——. 1993.“Katêchoumenon:uno spazio sociale.”
Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 44: 47–65. In EULOGĒMA: Studies in Honor of Robert
Pott,Thomas. 2000. La réforme liturgique byzantine: Taft, SJ, ed. Ephrem Carr, Stefano Parenti, and
Étude du phénomène de l’évolution non-spontanée Abraham Thiermeyer, 389–402. Rome.
de la liturgie byzantine. Rome. English trans. ——. 1995. L’architettura religiosa nell’Impero
Crestwood, NY, 2010. bizantino (ine VI-IX secolo). Soveria Mannelli.
Pralong, Annie, ed. 2011. Bizans:Yapılar, Meydan- Rydén,Lennart.1974.“A Note on Some References
lar,Yaşamlar. Istanbul. to the Church of St. Anastasia in Constantinople
Puchner, Walter. 1981. “Τὸ Βυζαντινὸ θέατρο. in the 10th Century.” Byzantion 44: 198–201.
Θεατρολογικὲς παρατηρήσεις στὸν ——. . 1983. “The Life of St. Basil the Younger
εὐρευνητικὸ προβληματισμὸ τῆς ὕπαρξης and the Date of the Life of St. Andreas Salos.”
θεάτρου στὸ Βυζάντιο.” Ἐπετηρὶς τοῦ κέντρου Harvard Ukrainian Studies [Okeanos. Essays
ἐπιστημονικῶν ἐρευνῶν 11: 169–274. Presented to Ihor Ševc enko]
̌ 7: 568–586.
——. 2002. “Acting in the Byzantine Theater: Ryder, Edmund C. 2009–2010. “The Despoina
Evidence and Problems.” In Greek and Roman of the Mongols and her Patronage at the
Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession, ed. Pat Church of the Theotokos ton Mougoulion.”
Easterling and Edith Hall, 304–324. Cambridge. Journal of Modern Hellenism 27: 71–102.
Radle,Gabriel.2011.“Sinai Greek NE/MΓ 22:Late Salaville, Sévérien. 1947. “Messe et Communion
9th/Early 10th Century Euchology Testimony d’après les typika monastiques byzantins du
of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and Xe au XIVe Siècle.” Orientalia Christiana
the Liturgy of the Presanctiied Gifts in the Periodica 13: 283–298.
Byzantine Tradition.” Bollettino della Badia Saradi, Helen. 2010.“Space in Byzantine Thought.”
Greca di Grottaferrata, 3rd ser., 8: 169–221. In Cur ́ čić and Hadjitryphonos 2010: 73–105.
Rentel, Alexander. 2005. “The Origins of the Saradi-Mendolovici, Helen. 1988. “The Demise
14th Century Patriarchal Liturgical Diataxis of the Ancient City and the Emergence of the
of Dimitrios Gemistos.” Orientalia Christiana Medieval City in the Eastern Roman Empire.”
Periodica 71: 363–385. Echos du Monde Classique 32: 365–401.
——. 2006.“Byzantine and Slavic Orthodoxy.” Sathas, Konstantinos N. 1872–1894. Μεσαιωνικὴ
In The Oxford History of Christian Worship, Βιβλιοθήκη. 7 vols.Venice.
ed. Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen B. Savage, Matthew. 2010. “Dome ‘Typology’ in
Westerfield Tucker, 254–306. Oxford . Byzantine Constantinople?” In Architecture of
Ricci, Alessandra. 2008. “Reinterpretation of Byzantium and Kievan Rus from the 9th to the
the ‘Palace of Bryas’: A Study in Byzantine 12th Centuries, 132–147. St. Petersburg.
Architecture, History and Historiography.” Scarpat, Giuseppe. 2001. Parrhesia greca, parrhesia
Ph.D. diss., Princeton University. cristiana. Brescia.
——. 2011. “Bizans’ta Kır Sevgisi: Schäfer, Hartmut. 1973. Die Gül Camii in
Konstantinopolis’in Asya Kıyısındaki Istanbul. Ein Beitrag zur mittelbyzantinischen
Banliyösü.” In Pralong 2011: 71–88. Kirchenarchitektur Konstantinopels. Tübingen.
Rodley, Lyn. 1994. “Evergetis: Where It Was and ——. 1973–1974. “Architekturhistorische
What It Looked Like.” In TheTheotokos Evergetis Beziehungen zwischen Byzanz und der Kiever
BIBLIOGRAPHY 231
Rus im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert.” Istanbuler Soteriou, Georgios A. 1929. “Βυζαντινὰ μνημεία
Mitteilungen 23–24: 197–224. τῆς Θεσσαλίας ΙΓ᾽ καὶ ΙΔ᾽ αἰῶνος.” Ἐπετηρὶς
Schazmann, Paul. 1935. “Die Grabung an ἑταιρείας βυζαντινῶν σπουδῶν 6: 291–315.
der Odalar Camii in Konstantinopel.” Soteriou, Maria, and Georgios A. Soteriou.
Archäologischer Anzeiger 50: 511–519. 1956–1958. Εἰκόνες τῆς Μονῆς Σινᾶ. 2 vols.
Schellewald, Barbara. 1984. “Zur Typologie, Athens.
Entwicklung und Funktion von Oberräumen Spieser, Jean-Michel. 1991. “Liturgie et pro-
in Syrien, Armenien und Byzanz.” Jahrbuch für grammes iconographiques.” Travaux et
Antike und Christentum 27/28: 171–218. Mémoires 11: 575–590.
Schneider, Alfons Maria. 1936. Byzanz: Vorar- ——. 1999. “Le développement du templon et
beiten zur Topographie und Archäologie der Stadt. les images de Douze Fêtes.” Bulletin de l’Institut
Berlin. historique belge de Rome 69: 131–164.
Schreiner, Peter. 1971. “Eine unbekannte Spieser, Jean-Michel, and Elisabeth Yota, eds.
Beschreibung der Pammakaristoskirche 2012. Donation et donateurs dans le monde
(Fethiye Camii) und weitere Texte zur byzantin: actes du colloque international de
Topographie Konstantinopels.” Dumbarton l’université de Fribourg 13–15 Mars 2008. Paris.
Oaks Papers 25: 216–248. Spyrakou, Evangelia. 2008. Οἱ χοροὶ ψαλτῶν
Schroeder, Rossitza. 2009. “Prayer and Penance κατὰ τὴν Βυζαντινὴ παράδοση. Athens.
in the South Bay of the Chora Exonarthex.” Stephenson, Paul, ed. 2010. The Byzantine World.
Gesta 48: 37–53. London.
Schulz, Hans-Joachim. 1986. The Byzantine Stričević, Ðorđe. 1958–1959. “Ðakonikon i pro-
Liturgy: Symbolic Structure and Faith Expression. tezis u ranohrišćjanskim crkvama.” Starinar
New York. 9–10: 59–66.
Sedov,Vladimir V. 2008. Kilise Dzhami: stolichnaia Striker, Cecil L. 1981. The Myrelaion (Bodrum
arkhitektura Vizantii. Moscow. Camii) in Istanbul. Princeton, NJ.
Sideras, Alexander. 1994. Die byzantinis- ——. 2001. “The Findings at Kalenderhane and
chen Grabreden: Prosopographie, Datierung, Problems of Method in the History of Byzantine
Überlieferung, 142 Epitaphien und Monodien aus Architecture.” In Necipoğlu 2001: 107–116.
dem byzantinischen Jahrtausend. Vienna. Striker, Cecil L., and Doğan Kuban. 1971. “Work
Sinclair, Paul J. J., et al., eds. 2010. The Urban at Kalenderhane Camii in Istanbul: Third and
Mind: Cultural and Environmental Dynamics. Fourth Preliminary Reports.” Dumbarton Oaks
Uppsala. Papers 25: 251–258.
Sinkević, Ida. 2003. “Western Chapels in ——. 1997–2007. Kalenderhane in Istanbul. 2 vols.
Middle Byzantine Churches: Meaning and Mainz.
Signiicance.” Starinar 52: 79–91. Strube, Christine. 1973. Die westliche Eingangsseite
Siomkos, Nikolaos. 2005. L’église Saint-Etienne à der Kirchen von Konstantinopel in justinianischer
Kastoria. Thessalonike. Zeit. Wiesbaden.
——. 2006. “Παρατηρήσεις στη λειτουργική Strunk, Oliver. 1956. “The Byzantine Oice
χρήση του νάρθηκα και των κατηχουμένων.” In at Hagia Sophia.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers
Hadjitryphonos and Karagianne 2006: 63–68. 9–10: 175–202. Reprinted in Oliver Strunk,
Sodini, Jean-Pierre. 1980. “Une iconostase byz- Essays on Music in the Byzantine World. New
antine à Xanthos.” In Actes du colloque sur la York, 1977.
Lycie Antique, 119–148. Paris. Strzygowski, Josef , and Philipp Forchheimer.
——. 1981. “Les cryptes d’autel paléochrétiennes: 1893. Die byzantinischen Wasserbehälter von
essai de classiication.” Travaux et Mémoires 8: Konstantinopel.Vienna.
437–458. Stylianou, Andreas, and Judith Stylianou. 1960.
——. 1994. “Les ambons médiévaux à Byzance: “Donors and Dedicatory Inscriptions,
vestiges et problèmes.” Thymiama, 1: 303–307. Supplicants and Supplications in the Painted
Sodini, Jean-Pierre, and K. Kolokotsas. 1984. Churches of Cyprus.”Jahrbuch der Österreichischen
Aliki II: la basilique double. 2 vols. Athens. Byzantinischen Gesellschaft 9: 97–128.
232 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Taft, Robert F. 1977. “How Liturgies Grow: The II.” Oriens Christianus 81: 1–35; 82: 53–87.
Evolution of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.” Reprinted in Taft 2001.
Orientalia Christiana Periodica 43: 355–378. ——. 1998. “Women at Church in Byzantium:
Revised version in Taft 1997a: 203–232. Where, When – and Why?” Dumbarton Oaks
Taft, Robert F. 1978. The Great Entrance:A History Papers 52: 27–87. Reprinted in Taft 2001.
of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Preanaphoral ——. 2000a. “The Frequency of the Eucharist
Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. 2nd in Byzantine Usage: History and Practice.”
ed. Rome. Studi sull’Oriente cristiano 4: 103–132.
——. 1979. “The Pontiical Liturgy of the Great ——. 2000b. The Precommunion Rites. Rome.
Church According to a Twelfth-Century ____ 2001. Divine Liturgies: Human Problems
Diataxis in Codex British Museum Add. 34060. I: in Byzantium, Armenia, Syria and Palestine.
Text.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 45: 279–307. Aldershot.
——. 1980a.“Ex oriente lux: Some Relections on ——. 2004a. “Changing Rhythms of Eucharistic
Eucharistic Concelebration.” Worship 54: 308– Frequency in Byzantine Monasticism.” In Il
325. Revised version in Taft 1997a: 111–132. Monachesimo tra eredità e aperture: atti del simpo-
——. 1980b. “The Pontiical Liturgy of the Great sio “Testi e temi nella tradizione del monachesimo
Church According to a Twelfth-Century cristiano” per Il 500 Anniversario dell’istituto
Diataxis in Codex British Museum Add. 34060. monastico di Sant’Anselmo, Roma, 28 maggio – 1
II: Commentary.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica giugno 2002, ed. Maciej Bielawski and Daniël
46: 89–124. Hombergen, 419–458. Rome.
——. 1980–1981. “The Liturgy of the Great ——. 2004b. “A Missing Procession in the
Church: An Initial Synthesis of Structure and Byzantine Divine Liturgy?” In L’image et la
Interpretation on the Eve of Iconoclasm.” parole. Recueuil à l’occasion du 60e anniversaire du
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34: 45–75. prof. Axinia Džurova, 397–406. Soia.
——. 1988. “Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in ——. 2005. “Cathedral vs. Monastic Liturgy in
the History of the Byzantine Rite.” Dumbarton the Christian East. Vindicating a Distinction.”
Oaks Papers 42: 179–194. Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, 3rd
——. 1990.“A Tale of Two Cities:The Byzantine ser., 2: 173–219.
Holy Week Triduum as a Paradigm of ——. 2006a. “The Byzantine Imperial
Liturgical History.” In Time and Community, Communion Ritual.” In Armstrong
ed. J. Neil Alexander, 21–41. Washington, DC. 2006: 1–27.
——. 1991. The Diptychs. Rome. ——. 2006b. “The Decline of Communion
——. 1992. The Byzantine Rite: A Short History. in Byzantium and the Distancing of the
Collegeville, MN. Congregation from the Liturgical Action: Cause,
——. 1993. The Liturgy of the Hours in East and Efect, or Neither?” In Gerstel 2006c: 27–50.
West. 2nd rev. ed. Collegeville, MN. ——. 2008a. The Communion, Thanksgiving, and
——. 1995. “Church and Liturgy in Byzantium: Concluding Rites. Rome.
The Formation of the Byzantine Synthesis.” ——. 2008b. “Liturgy.” In Jefreys, Haldon, and
In Akent’ev 1995: 13–29. Cormack 2008: 599–610.
——. 1997a. Beyond East and West: Problems ——. 2010. “Worship on Sinai in the First
in Liturgical Understanding. 2nd ed. Christian Millenium: Glimpses of a Lost
Washington, D.C. World.” In Gerstel and Nelson 2010:
——. 1997b. “The Frequency of the Eucharist 143–177.
throughout History.” In Taft 1997a: 87–110. ____. 2010–2011. “Eucharistic Concelebration
——. 1997c. “Über die Liturgiewissenschaft Revisited: Problems of History, Practice, and
heute.” Theologische Quartalschrift 177: 243–255. Theology in East and West I & II.” Orientalia
——. 1997–1998. “Quaestiones disputatae: Christiana Periodica 76: 277–313; 77: 25–80.
The Skeuophylakion of Hagia Sophia and ____. 2011a. “Is the Liturgy Described in the
the Entrances of the Liturgy Revisited I & Mystagogia of Maximus Confessor Byzantine,
BIBLIOGRAPHY 233
Palestinian, or Neither?” Bollettino della Badia ——. 1996. The Liturgical Planning of Byzantine
Greca di Grottaferrata, 3rd ser., 8: 223–270. Churches in Cappadocia. Rome.
____. 2011b. “Were There Once Old Testament ——. 2003. “Relics in the Walls, Pillars, and
Readings in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy? Columns of Byzantine Churches.” In Lidov
Apropos of an Article by Sysse Gudrun 2003: 77–92.
Engberg.” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Theis, Lioba. 2005. Flankenräume im mittelbyzan-
Grottaferrata, 3rd ser., 8: 271–311. tinischen Kirchenbau. Wiesbaden.
Talbot, Alice-Mary. 1983. Faith Healing in Late Thomas, John Philip. 1987. Private Religious
Byzantium: The Posthumous Miracles of the Foundations in the Byzantine Empire. Wash-
Patriarch Athanasios I of Constantinople by ington, D.C.
Theoktistos the Stoudite. Brookline, MA. ——. 2001.“The Imprint of Sabaitic Monasticism
——. 1992. “Empress Theodora Palaiologina, on Byzantine Monastic Typika.” In Patrich
Wife of MichaelVIII.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 2001: 73–83.
46: 295–303. Thymiama = Θυμίαμα στη μνήμη της Λασκαρίνας
——. 1993. “The Restoration of Constantinople Μπούρα. 1994. 2 vols. Athens.
under Michael VIII.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers Toivanen, Hanna-Riitta. 2007. The Inluence of
47: 243–261. Constantinople on Middle Byzantine Architecture
——. 1999. “Epigrams in Context: Metrical Insc- (843–1204): A Typological and Morphological
riptions onArt andArchitecture of the Palaiologan Approach at the Provincial Level. Helsinki.
Age.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 53: 75–90. Tomeković, Svetlana. 1988. “Contribution à
——. 2001.“Building Activity in Constantinople l’étude du programme du narthex des églises
Under Andronikos II: The Role of Women monastiques (XIe–première moitié du XIIIe
Patrons in the Construction and Restoration s.).” Byzantion 58: 140–154.
of Monasteries.” In Necipoğlu 2001: 329–343. Trempelas, Panagiotes N. 1935. Αἱ τρεῖς Λειτουργίαι
——. 2002. “Pilgrimage to Healing Shrines:The κατὰ τοὺς ἐν Ἀθήναις κώδικας. Athens.
Evidence of Miracle Accounts.” Dumbarton ——. 1950–1951. “Ἡ Ἀκολουθία τοῦ Μεγάλου
Oaks Papers 56: 153–173. Ἁγιασμοῦ.” Theologia 21: 387–393; 22:
——. 2006.“The Devotional Life of Laywomen.” 40–50.
In Krueger 2006: 201–220. ——. 1951. “Ἡ Ἀκολουθία τοῦ Μικροῦ
——. 2007. “Mealtime in Monasteries: The Ἁγιασμοῦ.” Theologia 22: 226–241, 402–415.
Culture of Byzantine Refectory.” In Eat, ——. 1950–1955. Μικρὸν εὐχολόγιον κατὰ τοὺς
Drink, and be Merry (Luke 12:19): Food and Wine ἐν Ἀθήναις κώδικας. 2 vols. Athens.
in Byzantium: Papers of the 37th Annual Spring Trkulja, Jelena. 2004. “Aesthetics and Symbolism
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, in Honour of of Late Byzantine Church Façades, 1204–
Professor A. A. M. Bryer, ed. Leslie Brubaker 1453.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University.
and Kallirroe Linardou, 109–125. Aldershot. Troianos,Spyridon N.1995.“Κανονικὰ δικαιώματα
——. 2009. “The Death and Commemoration ἐπὶ πατριαρχικῶν σταυροπηγιακῶν μονῶν.”
of Byzantine Children.” In Papaconstantinou In Χριστιανικὴ Θεσσαλονίκη: σταυροπηγιακὲς
and Talbot 2009: 283–308. καὶ ἐνοριακὲς μονές, 115–124. Thessalonike.
Tantses, Anastasios. 2008. “Το υπερώο στη Tronzo, William. 1994. “Mimesis in Byzantium:
Βυζαντινή ναοδομία.” Ph.D. diss., University Notes toward a History of the Function of
of Thessalonike. the Image.” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 25:
Teteriatnikov, Natalia. 1988.“Upper-story Chapels 61–76.
near the Sanctuary in Churches of the Christian Tsitouridou, Anna. 1982. “Die Grabkonzeption
East.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42: 65–72. des ikonographischen Programms der Kirche
——. 1995. “The Place of the Nun Melania (the Panagia Chalkeon in Thessaloniki.” Jahrbuch
Lady of the Mongols) in the Deesis Program of der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 32: 435–441.
the Inner Narthex of Chora, Constantinople.” Underwood, Paul Atkins. 1966. The Kariye Djami.
Cahiers archéologiques 43: 163–180. 3 vols. New York.
234 BIBLIOGRAPHY
——. ed. 1975a. The Kariye Djami. Vol. 4. ——. 1995. “The Byzantine Sanctuary: A Word
Princeton, NJ. List.” In Akent’ev 1995: 95–106.
Underwood, Paul Atkins. 1975b.“Some Problems Ward-Perkins, Bryan. 2005. The Fall of Rome and
in Programs and Iconography of Ministry the End of Civilization. Oxford.
Cycles.” In Underwood 1975a: 243–302. Ware, Kallistos. 1990. “The Meaning of the
Uspensky, Nicholas. 1985. Evening Worship in the Divine Liturgy for the Byzantine Worshipper.”
Orthodox Church. Crestwood, NY. In Morris 1990: 7–28.
Van de Vorst, Ch. 1913. “La translation de Wawryk, Michaël. 1968. Initiatio monastica in
S. Théodore Studite et de S. Joseph de liturgia Byzantina: oiciorum schematis monas-
Thessalonique.” Analecta Bollandiana 32: 27–62. tici magni et parvi necnon rasophoratus exordia et
Van Millingen, Alexander. 1912. Byzantine evolutio. Rome.
Churches in Constantinople. London. Weissbrod, Ursula. 2003. “Hier liegt der Knecht
Varalis, Yannis D. 2006. “Prothesis and Gottes…”: Gräber in byzantinischen Kirchen und
Diakonikon: Searching the Original Concept ihr Dekor (11. bis 15. Jahrhundert). Wiesbaden.
of the Subsidiary Spaces of the Byzantine Weitzmann, Kurt. 1986. “Icon Programs of the
Sanctuary.” In Lidov 2006: 282–298. 12th and 13th Centuries at Sinai.” Δελτίον τῆς
Varinlioğlu, Günder. 2005. “Urban Monasteries in Χριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας 12: 63–116.
Constantinople and Thessaloniki: Distribution Wescoat, Bonna D., and Robert G. Ousterhout,
Patterns in Time and Urban Topography.” In eds. 2012. Architecture of the Sacred: Space,
Archaeology in Architecture: Studies in Honor of Cecil Ritual, and Experience from Classical Greece to
L. Striker, ed. Judson J. Emerick and Deborah Byzantium. Cambridge and New York.
Mauskopf Deliyannis, 187–198. Mainz. Westphalen, Stephan. 1998. Die Odalar Camii in
Velenis, Georgios M. 1984. Ερμηνεία του Istanbul: Architektur und Malerei einer mittelbyz-
εξωτερικού διακόσμου στη Βυζαντινή antinischen Kirche. Tübingen.
αρχιτεκτονική. 2 vols. Thessalonike. Wilkinson, John. 1982. “Paulinus’ Temple at
Velimirović, Miloš M. 1962. “Liturgical Drama Tyre.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik
in Byzantium and Russia.” Dumbarton Oaks 32: 553–561.
Papers 16: 349–385. Woodin, Warren T. 2011. “Wall, Veil, and Body:
Velkovska, Elena. 2001. “Funeral Rites accord- Textiles and Architecture in the Late Byzantine
ing to the Byzantine Liturgical Sources.” Church.” In Klein, Ousterhout, and Pitarakis
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55: 21–51. 2007: 358–385.
Vocotopoulos, Panagiotes. 1979.“The Concealed ——. 2012. The Embodied Icon: Liturgical Vestments
Course Technique: Further Examples and a and Sacramental Power in Byzantium. Oxford.
Few Remarks.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Woolfenden, Gregory W. 2004. Daily Liturgical
Byzantinistik 28: 247–260. Prayer: Origins and Theology. Aldershot.
——. 1981. “The Role of Constantinopolitan Wulzinger, Karl. 1925. Byzantinische Baudenkmäler
Architecture during the Middle and Late zu Konstantinopel: auf der Seraispitze, die Nea, das
Byzantine Period.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Tekfur-serai und das Zisternenproblem. Hannover.
Byzantinistik 31: 551–573. Wybrew, Hugh. 1989. The Orthodox Liturgy: The
Vogt,Albert. 1931.“Études sur le théâtre byzantin. I: Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the
Un mystère de la passion.” Byzantion 6: 37–74. Byzantine Rite. London.
von Warsberg, Alexander Freiherrn. 1869. Ein Xydis, Stephen, G. 1947. “The Chancel Barrier,
Sommer im Orient.Vienna. Solea, and Ambo of Hagia Sophia.” Art Bulletin
Walter, Christopher. 1971. “The Origins of the 29: 1–24.
Iconostasis.” Eastern Churches Review 3: 251–267. Yasin, Ann Marie. 2009. Saints and Church Spaces
——. 1982. Art and Ritual of the Byzantine Church. in the Late Antique Mediterranean: Architecture,
London. Cult, and Community. Cambridge.
——. 1993. “A New Look in the Byzantine Zavagno, Luca. 2009. Cities in Transition: Urbanism
Sanctuary Barrier.” Revue des études byzantines in Byzantium between Late Antiquity and the
51: 203–228. Early Middle Ages (500–900 A.D.). Oxford.
INDEX
Note: Page numbers in italics indicate illustrations.
ad sanctos burials, 60 Apokaukos, John (d. 1233), 69

aer, 22 Apostles, church of the Holy, 85, 91
Agathe, festival of, 111 apse
agrypnia, 15, 209; see also vigils central, 26–30
Ahunbay, Metin, 143 terminology for parts, 35–36
Ahunbay, Zeynep, 143 tripartition, 34
aisles, outer, 88–90 Aran, Berge, 123, 126, 154
functions, 90 Arbantenos, John (l . 11th c.), 61
Akropolites, Constantine (d. ca. 1324), architecture
Testament of, 61, 80 four methodologies for studying, 5–6
altar, altars, 27; see also ciborium; synthronon relationship to ritual, 1, 6–8, 114–18
chapel, 78–79 arcosolia, 87, 209; see also tombs
consecration, 28–29, 30 Artemios, St., 104–05
in multiple apses, 39 Asklepios, 104
symbolism, 32, 117 Asmatike Akolouthia, 12, 14, 15, 209
Altripp, Michael, 34, 37 placement of choirs, 54
ambo, 54 asterisk, 29
ambulatories, outer, 88 Asutay-Efenberger (-Fleissig), Neslihan, 34,
ambulatory churches, 52, 63 39, 138
amnos, 33 Athanasios I (patriarch of Constantinople, d. ca.
anaphora, 23, 55, 209 1315), 92, 105, 111, 162
Anargyroi, monastery of, 85 Athanasios of Athos, St. (d. ca. 1001), 84, 86
narthex, 71 Rule, 111
Anastasia, St., 105 Athos, Great Lavra, prothesis rite, 84, 86
Andreas en te Krisei, Hagios (Koca Mustafa Paşa Athos, Mount, 15
Camii) (I), 119–22 Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii (II), 123–26
naos, 52 compared with Beyazıt Church D (IV), 128
narthex, 75 frescoes, 123
tombs, 63, 75 naos, 52
Andrew the Fool, St., 105 outer aisles, 88, 90, 123
Andrew, martyr (d. ca. 767), 75 atria, 16, 95–96
Angelos, John II Doukas Komnenos (d. 1318), 109 Autoreianos, Arsenios (patriarch of Constantinople,
Anna (mother of St. Stephen the Younger), d. 1273), 30
100–01, 106 Ayakapı Church (III), 126–27
Anna (mother of Theotokos)
images of, 107–08 Babić, Gordana, 45, 78, 80
supplication for conception and Bac ̌kovo ossuary, 94
childbearing, 106 Balsamon, Theodore (d. after 1195), 35, 47,
Anna Doukaina (wife of John Komnenos), 191 67–68, 71
annexes, 98–99 concerning burial regulations, 60
Annunciation, imagery on templon, 43–44 concerning chapels, 78
Anthony of Novgorod, 95, 100, 111 concerning priests wearing costumes, 112
antidoron, 23, 57 Barberini Euchologion, 20, 33
apodeipnon, 209 Bardanes, George (d. 1240), 35
235
236 INDEX
Basil I (r. 867–886), 60, 83, 123 comparative size, 50

Basil of Caesarea, St., head of, 86 gallery and adjoining structure, 90, 91, 92, 138
Basil the Younger, St., 81–82 naos, 50
basilicas, 16, 209 narthex, 65
end of new construction, 17, 52 niches, 37
Basilika, regulations on burials, 60 tribelon, 92
Bassou, monastery ton, 109 Christos Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii) (VIII),
bells/bell towers, 97–98 143–50
bema, 209; see also apse; sanctuary chapel (Archangel Michael), 76, 78, 79–80, 84,
symbolism, 66 85, 143
terminology, 35–36 compared with Christos tes Choras (Kariye
Bethlehem, symbolized by prothesis, 32, 34 Müzesi) (VI), 132
Beyazıt Church D (IV), 128 church, north (Theotokos Eleousa), 88–89, 143
Bible readings, 21–22 church, south (Christ Pantokrator), 26, 143
Bithynia, monasticism in, 50–51, 75 narthex, 65
Blachernai, church of, 86, 106 outer aisle, 88–89, 90
Hagia Soros, 86 reliquary, 29
icon of the Theotokos, 100–01 south room of apse, 37
nuns napping in, 109 synthronon, 28
Blastares, Matthew (d. after 1346), 69 templon, 41–42, 42
Blessing of the Waters, 71–72, 73, 96–97 decoration, 143
Bodrum Camii (XVII). See Myrelaion galleries, 91
Boeotia, 43 memorial services, 76
Boğdan Sarayı (V), 27, 129–30 niches, 37
compared with Sinan Paşa Mescidi (XX), 179 phiale, 96
lower-level funerary chapel and tombs, proskynetaria icons, 45
94, 129 tombs, 61, 74, 76, 143
Book of Ceremonies, 91, 111, 209 typikon, 35, 58, 89, 97
Brunov, Nicholas, 89, 90, 204 Christos tes Choras (Kariye Müzesi) (VI),
Buchwald, Hans, 158 131–37
burials. See tombs altar, 29
annex, 98–99, 131, 132
cantors and choirs, location, 49, 54–55 bell tower, 97
Cappadocian churches compared with change in form, 115
Constantinopolitan, 40 chapel, 78, 84, 85, 131, 132
catechumens, 16 ciborium, 28, 29
cathedral rite. See rite, Byzantine compared with I-sa Kapı Mescidi (XIII), 162
Chalkoprateia, basilica, crypt, 93 compared with Vefa Kilise Camii
chapels, 77–87 (XXVIII), 204
decoration, 78–79, 84 epigrams, 108–09
funerary, 84–86 icons, 46
liturgical use, 79–80 katholikon, 39, 131, 132
main purpose, 78, 80–82, 83, 86–87 main apse, 26, 131
repositories for relics, 86 mosaic, 103
side rooms of sanctuaries, 38–40 naos, 52, 131
unconsecrated, 60 narthexes, 65, 74, 131
Chora (VI). See Christos tes Choras niches (prothesis), 40, 131
Chora, monastery of, 80 private spaces, 92, 132
Anthimos, church of martyr, 80 proskynetaria icons, 45
crypt, 94 reliquary, 29
relics, 94 side rooms, 40, 131
Christ Savior, church of (Great Palace, templon, 42
Constantinople), 94 tombs, 62, 74, 132
templon, 43 churches; see also consecration, of church, and
Christ Savior, church of (Xerolophos, names of speciic churches
Constantinople), 105 ambulatory type, 52, 209
Christopher (protospatharios), 60 change of size over time, 17, 52
Christos Pantepoptes (Eski I-maret Camii) (VII), cross-domed type, 52, 209
138–42 cross-in-square type, 50–52, 89, 209
INDEX 237
diferentiated from eukteria, 60 as south room of apse, 37–38

hierarchy of holiness, 66–67 terminology, 35
inluencing factors in design, 49–50 diataxeis, 19, 209
nonliturgical use, 100–13 concerning patriarch ascending
parts. See chapels; exonarthex; naos; narthex; synthronon, 28
sanctuary concerning processions, 36
relationship to Byzantine rite, 114–18 concerning prothesis room, 32, 33
symbolism, 116–17 references to architectural context, 116
tombs in, 59–63 Diou, ta, monastery, 86
two-story, 94 domes, 52, 53
ciborium, 28, 209 iconographic program, 53
Clavijo, Ruy González de, 30, 37, 58, 96, 98, 201 liturgical function, 57
collation meal, location, 38 doors, narthex, 65
colonnades, 91 drama, liturgical, 112–13
columns, 53, 63 drinking in churches, 110–11
commemorations. See memorial services
communion, 23; see also Eucharist eating in churches, 110–11
location, 56, 91 Ebersolt, Jean, 119
marker of communal worship, 57 Efenberger, Arne, 138
order, 56 ekklesiarchissa, 57–58
compline. See apodeipnon Elias (metropolitan of Crete; l . 12th c.), 33
concealed-course. See recessed-brick technique Elias, church of St. (Petrion), 123
conception and childbearing, 106–08 Elijah, prophet, 83
confessions, location, 38, 71 festival celebrating ascension of, 112–13
coninement, churches used as, 105 Eminönü Church (IX), 150–51
congregation Emmanoulidis, Nikos, 60
participation in Eucharist, 55, 56–57 Enarxis (introductory service), 21
separation of, 54, 55 enkainia. See consecration, of church
consecration, of church (enkainia), 28–29, 30, 209 entrances, liturgical, 15–16, 21–23, 55–56
Constantina (wife of Emperor Maurice), 75 location, 36, 49
Constantine (brother of Andronikos II), 88 role of narthex, 68, 71
Constantine I, heroon, 85 symbolism, 57, 117
Constantine IX Monomachos (r. 1042–1055), epigrams, funerary, 108–09
152 epiklesis, 23, 209
Constantinople Eski I-maret Camii (VII). See Christos
changes in Middle Byzantine period, 16–19 Pantepoptes
churches, compared with Cappadocian, 40 Eucharist, 16, 23; see also communion
monasteries in, 17, 18, 51 increased sacralization, 47–48, 55
Constantios I, Patriarch, 123 preparation, 20
costumes, 112 sanctiication of souls living and dead, 62
courtyard. See atria table, 27
cross-domed churches, 52, 209 euchologia, 14, 210
cross-in-square churches, 50–52, 89, 209 Barberini, 20, 33
crypts, 93–95 concerning Blessing of the Waters, 71–72, 97
Ćurcic
̌ ́, Slobodan, 98, 128 concerning consecration, 29
concerning memorial services, 75
Dalassene, Anna (mother of Alexios I Komnenos; l . concerning skeuophylakion, 34
11th c.), 138 references to architectural context, 116
Dalgıç, Örgü, 201 Eugenia, wife of Michael/Makarios
De Monconys, Balthasar, 201 Tornikes, 132
dedication. See consecration eukteria, 77; see also chapels
Deisis, 43 diferentiated from churches, 60
Demangel, Robert, 152 Euphemia en to Petrio, monastery of St., 60, 154
demoniacs, 105 Euphemia, St., 61
Descoeudres, Georges, 34 Euthymios (patriarch of Constantinople, d.
devotion, personal, 100, 106 917), 85
diaklysmos, 110–11 Euthymios the Great, St. (d. 473), 106–07
diakonikon, 209; see also prothesis Euthymiou, tou, monastery, 85
modern use, 30–31 Evergetis (Christ) monastery, 154
238 INDEX
Evergetis (Theotokos) monastery Grammatikos, Nicholas III (patriarch of

Blessing of the Waters, 96–97 Constantinople, d. 1111), 33
chapels, 80 Great Lavra, prothesis rite, 84, 86
diaklysmos, 110 Gregory (author of vita of St. Basil the
exonarthex, 65 Younger), 81–82
feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, 58 Grossmann, Peter, 167
memorial services, 76 Gül Camii (XI), 153–58
narthex, 69 chapel, 78
phiale, 96 compared with Ayakapı Church (III), 126
skeuophylakion, 98–99 compared with Toklu Dede Mescidi
typikon, 45, 110 (XXVII), 8
Washing of the Feet, 73 exonarthex, 65
exonarthex, 64, 65 gallery, 91, 154
decoration, 65–66 main apse, 26, 154
practical advantages for services, 70
tombs, 73–76 Hagia Sophia, 12, 13, 86, 92
Eyice, Semavi, 123, 129 bell tower, 97
burials, 30
Fatih Camii, 50–51, 51 fruit kept in cisterns, 111
Fenari I-sa Camii (XXIII). See Theotokos tou phiale, 96
Libos and Hagios Ioannes Prodromos prothesis rite, 31
tou Libos skeuophylakion, 31
festivals in churches, 111–12 Hallensleben, Horst, 90, 204
Fethiye Camii (XXIV). See Theotokos Hamilton Psalter, 101, 102
Pammakaristos Hawkins, Ernest J. W., 42–43, 123
loor, 26–27 healings, 103–05
form, relationship to function, 1, 6, 114–18 Herakleios, Emperor (r. 610–641), 101
foundations, ecclesiastical, 19, 61–62, 82–83
fountains. See phialai heroa, 85
frescoes. See iconography/icons hesperinos, 210; see also Vespers
function hierarchy of church attendees, 54, 56
as methodology for studying architecture, 1–7 historical approach to architecture, 6
relationship to form, 1, 6, 114–18 Hırami Ahmet Paşa Camii (XII). See Ioannes en to
funerals. See memorial services Troullo, Hagios
Horologion, 14, 210
galleries, 91–93 Hours, Oice of, 12, 69, 210
place for women, 54 hymnody, 14, 15
Gastria, ta, monastery (Constantinople), 60, 74
Gemistos, Demetrios (d. ca. 1397), 46 Iasitou, tou, monastery, 162
gender. See sexes; women iconography/icons; see also under speciic churches
George the Younger, St., 75 Anna and Theotokos, 107–08
Georgios ton Manganon, Hagios (X), 152–53 chapels, 78–79, 84
comparative size, 50 devotions memorialized in, 101
courtyard, 96, 152 enhanced symbolism of building and ritual, 117
criticized by Psellos, 50 “exchange” of, 100
naos, 50, 52 exonarthex, 65–66
phiale, 96 miraculous, 104
relics, 58, 59, 152 naos, 53–54
size and decoration, 115 narthex, 65–66, 71, 72, 73
Germanos I (patriarch of Constantinople, d. 730), proskynetaria, 44–45
31, 33, 57 prothesis room, 37
Gerstel, Sharon E. J., 46, 47 purpose, 48
Glabas, Michael Tarchaneiotes (d. after 1304), 84, 85, relection of liturgy, 56
191, 192 substructure, 95
Glykas, Michael (l . 12th c.), 47–48 supplication, 101–02
Golgotha, symbolized by prothesis, 32 templon, 45
Göreme, 38, 39 on veils, 48
Grabar, André, 45 iconostasis; see also templon
graiti, prayers in, 102 English neologism, 41
INDEX 239
transformation of templon into, 45, 55 narthex, 97

incubation and sleep, 104–05, 106–07, 109–10 proskynetaria icons, 45
intercessory power of saints, 80–84 silver doors, 44
Ioannes en to Troullo, Hagios (Hırami Ahmet Paşa typikon, 61–62, 70
Camii) (XII), 158–61 Washing of the Feet, 71
compared with Sekbanbaşı Mescidi (XIX), 177 Kefeli Mescidi (XV), 167–69
exonarthex, 65 apse, 27
main apse, 26, 158 naos, 52
naos, 50 narthex, 65
narthex, 73–74 Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii (I). See Andreas en te
niches, 37 Krisei, Hagios
tombs, 73–74, 158 Kodinos, Pseudo-, 31
Ioannes Prodromos tou Libos, Hagios (XXIII). Kokkinos, Philotheos (patriarch of Constantinople,
See Theotokos tou Libos d. 1377/8), 19, 33, 209
Irene, St., 86 kolyva (boiled wheat), 81
Irene of Chrysobalanton (d. ca. 940), 85, 105, 109 Komnenian family, burials, 143
Irene Palaiologina, 109 Komnenos, Isaac (d. 1195/6), 76, 103, 131
I-sa Kapı Mescidi (XIII), 162 Komnenos, John, 191
naos, 52 kontakia, 12, 14, 210
Ivison, Eric, 182 Kosmas and Damianos, church of Sts., 123
Kosmas I (patriarch of Constantinople,
James, chapel of St., 79 1075–1081), 33
Janin, Raymond, 129, 177 Kosmosoteira, monastery of, memorial
John en to Diippio, church of St., 75 services, 76
John I Tzimiskes (r. 969–976), 94 Kyriotissa monastery, 163; see also
John II Komnenos (r. 1118–1143), 143 Kalenderhane Camii
John the Baptist, monastery of St. (Petra), 37, 58,
98, 129 lamps, 58
John tou Libos (XXIII). See Theotokos tou Libos votive, 104
John, church of St. (Oxeia), 43, 93, 104 Lazaros in the Topoi, monastery of St., 30
incubation, 104–05 Lazaros of Mount Galesion, St., 109
Joseph of Thessalonike, 85–86 lections, lectionaries, 21–22, 57
Justinian I, heroon, 85 Leo (protospatharios), 83
Leo I, chapel built by, 86
Kabasilas, Nikolaos (d. after 1391), 62, 83 Leo Tuscus (l . 12th c.), 33
Kalenderhane Camii (XIV), 26, 163–66 Leo VI (r. 886–912), 53–54
altar, 27–28, 29 library, 98
chapels, 78–79, 164 lighting, 58
gallery, 91, 164 Lips, Constantine, 83, 182
main apse, 26 liturgical drama, 112–13
naos, 52, 163 liturgical rolls, 56
narthex, 65 Liturgy of the Word, 16
outer aisles, 163–64 Liturgy, Divine, 15–23; see also rite, Byzantine
proskynetaria icons, 44–45 changes, 32
tower, 97 commentaries, 56, 68
tribelon, 92 references to architectural context, 116
Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, 45 compartmentalization, 55
Kariye Müzesi (VI). See Christos tes Choras in Constantinople, 19
kataphyge. See crypts directives (diataxeis), 19
katechoumena, 91 frequency, 79
people living in, 93 interpretation, 56–57
katholikon, 210 multiple on same day, 80
Kecharitomene, monastery of participation of congregation, 55, 56–57
Blessing of the Waters, 72, 97 Presanctiied, 19, 210,
burials, 74 prothesis rite, 33
diaklysmos, 110 privatization, 79
exonarthex, 65 references to architectural context, 116
inventory, 57–58 role of narthex, 68–69
memorial services, 75–76 role of saints and relics, 59, 83–84
240 INDEX
Liturgy, Divine (cont.) foundations, 61–62

of St. Basil, 19 revival, 51
of St. John Chrysostom, 19 stauropegial, 30
sanctiication of souls living and dead, 62 tonsure rite, 70–71
setting, 18–19 monastic rite. See rite, Byzantine
substituted by typika, 69 Monomachos, Constantine, criticized by Psellos, 50
symbolism, 116–17 Mordtmann, August J., 129
Liutprand (Lombard envoy, d. before 972), 112–13 Mouchliotissa (XXV). See Theotokos Panagiotissa
Loukas, Hosios, monastery (Boeotia), 44 Müller-Wiener, Wolfgang, 128
Washing of the Feet, 71, 72 Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii) (XVII), 172–74
lychnikon. See hesperinos burials, 95, 172, 175
chapel, 115
Macridy, Theodore, 40 compared with Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii
Maliasenos, Nicholas/Ioasaph, 61, 82 (II), 123
Mamas, monastery of St., 31–32, 69 fresco, 95
burials, 75 main apse, 26
diaklysmos, 110 narthex, 65
exonarthex, 65 substructure, 95, 115
memorial services, 75–76 myron (fragrant oil), 29
Manastır Mescidi (XVI), 169–71
naos, 50 naos, 49–63, 210
narthex, 73–74 ambulatory type, 52, 209
niches, 37 common characteristics, 53
portico, 169 cross-domed type, 52, 209
tombs, 73–74 cross-in-square type, 50–52, 209
Mango, Cyril, 5, 6, 16, 42–43, 50, 90, 138, 204 decorative and liturgical accoutrements, 57–58
mantle of the Theotokos, 86 division, 63
Manuel I Komnenos (r. 1143–1180), 143 iconographic program, 53–54
Maria (wife of Michael Glabas Tarchaneiotes), 84, symbolism, 53, 66, 117
85, 191, 192 tombs in, 59–60
Maria Doukaina (mother-in-law of Alexios I narthex, 64–76
Komnenos), 131 decoration, 65–66, 72, 73
Maria Palaiologina (daughter of Michael eating and drinking in, 110–11
VIII), 103, 199 forms, 64–66
Marianos (brother of Basil I), 60 function, 115
Markianos and Martyrios, Sts., 111–12 not considered as holy as rest of church, 67–68
Mary Magdalene, St., 30 practical advantages for services, 70
Mathews, Thomas F., 6, 38–39, 79, 114, 123, 128, role of Divine Liturgy, 68–69
201, 202 sleeping in, 109–10
Matins (Orthros), 69, 70, 210 symbolism, 66
Maximos the Confessor, 53 tombs, 73–76
Medikiou, tou, monastery (Bithynia), 75 nave. See naos
Megaw, A. H. S., 41, 143, 183 Nea Ekklesia (Great Palace)
Melismos, 117 chapels, 83
memorial services, 75–76, 88, 108–09, 115 crypt, 95
Menodora, Nymphodora, and Metrodora, phiale, 96
monastery of Sts., 169 Nea Moni, monastery (Chios), Washing of the
Menologion of Basil II, 58–59 Feet, 71
Metochites, Theodore (d. 1332), 84, 85, 131, 132 Nicaea, Second Council of (787), 28–29
Michael (bishop of Demetrias), 61 niches, 37
Michael, archangel, 83; see also Christos Nicholas of Andida (l . 11th c.), 117
Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii) (VIII) Nikephoros (founder of monastery tou Medikiou, l .
Millet, Gabriel, 98 8th c.), 75
Mimar Sinan, 162 Nikephoros I (patriarch of Constantinople,
miracles, 103–08 d. 828), 43
Mokios, St., church and monastery, 91, 92, 111 Nikephoros III Botaneiates (r. 1078–1081), 201
monasteries Niketas (chartophylax and synkellos of the Great
churches, 50–51 Church), 48
in Constantinople, 17–18, 19 Nikon, St., 109
INDEX 241
Notaries, Holy, commemoration of, 111–12 platform. See loor

Plato (uncle of Theodore of Stoudios), 86
Odalar Camii (XVIII), 175–76 porticoes, 88, 89
burials, 95, 175 praxapostolos, 210
chapel, 78, 175 prayers
outer aisles, 89, 90, 175–77 graiti, 102
relics, 93–94, 175 private, 100–01, 106
side rooms, 40 Presanctiied Liturgy. See under Liturgy, Divine
substructure, 93–94, 95 processions, 11, 15–16, 21–23
oil lowing from icons, 104 reduction in Middle Byzantine period, 18–19
opisthambonos euche, 23, 210 starting point in church, 36
Orchomenos, 39–40, 83 symbolism, 70
ordination, 30 proskynetaria icons, 44–45
location, 68–69 prosphora (Eucharist bread), 21, 23, 210
Origen, 53 Protheoria, 28, 35, 48, 116
Orthros, 210; see also Matins prothesis, 210; see also diakonikon
ossuaries, 59 commemorations during, 83–84
Ötüken,Yildiz, 162 niche, 38–39, 40
Ousterhout, Robert, 52, 132, 143 rite, 20–21, 31
Oxeia, 43 development, 33–34
Özgümüş, Ferudun, 150, 180 room, 20, 23
iconography, 37
Pachymeres, George, 88 location, 30–32, 36–37
concerning galleries, 92 symbolism, 32, 33, 34, 117
concerning memorial services, 75 terminology, 35–36
Pallas, Dimitrios, 60 psalmody, nocturnal, 69
Pammakaristos. See Theotokos Pammakaristos psalter, liturgical, 14
(Fethiye Camii) (XXIV) Psellos, Michael (d. after 1081), 34, 50
Panagia Chalkeon (Thessalonike), 60 public spaces, loss of in Middle Byzantine
Panagia Kamariotissa (Heybeliada), 53 period, 16–17
Pangalo (mother of Basil I), 60
pannychis, 210 Raoulaina, Theodora (ca. 1240–1300), 120
Pantokrator (VIII). See Christos Pantokrator recessed-brick technique, 210
Papazotos, Thanasis, 162 relics, reliquaries, 28–29, 61
Pargoire, Jules, 154 basis for prohibiting burials, 60
parrhesia, 81 use of chapels for, 86
Pasadaios, Aristeides, 88, 169, 202 use of crypts for, 93–94
Paspates, A. G., 182, 202 Resurrection, monastery of the, 80
paten, 29 rite, Byzantine, 10–24; see also under speciic liturgical
patronage and exchange, 80–84 elements
patrons, inluencing factors in church cathedral rite, 11–12, 14–15
building, 49–50 monastic rite, 12–15
Paul the Silentiarios, 43 neo-Sabaitic synthesis, 15
penitents, restricted to narthex, 67, 69 periodization, 10–15
Peribleptos, Church of the (Mystras, Greece), 22 relationship to architecture, 1, 6–8, 114–18
Peter and Mark, church of Sts. Stoudite synthesis, 14
(in Blachernai), 123 Romanos I Lekapenos (r. 920–944), 94, 172
Peter, chains of St., 58–59, 86 Romanos III Argyros (r. 1028–1034), 63, 201
Petronas (brother of empress Theodora), 60 Romanos, church of St., 94
Pharos, church of, atrium, 96
phialai (fountains), 95–97 sacristy, 37–38; see also diakonikon; skeuophylakion
Philanthropos, monastery of, crypt, 93 saints
Philaretos the Merciful (d. 792), 63 chapels constructed for, 80–84
Philes, Manuel, 192 intercessory power, 80–84
Philotheos (abbot of Great Lavra), 84 salvation, role of chapel construction in, 80–84
Photios (patriarch of Constantinople, d. after 893), sanctuary, 25–41; see also altar; apse; diakonikon;
53, 96 prothesis; skeuophylakion; templon
piers. See columns arrangement, 25, 26–27, 34
Planoudes, Maximos, 120 loor, 26–27
242 INDEX
sanctuary (cont.) concerning hierarchy, 54

name, 25 concerning memorial services, 75
rituals and functions, 27–41 concerning naos, 63, 66
side rooms as chapels, 38–40 concerning narthex, 66
Savage, Matthew, 159 concerning prothesis room, 32, 36
Schäfer, Harmut, 154 concerning reading of services, 70
Sekbanbaşı Mescidi (XIX), 177–78 concerning role of saints, 81
main apse, 26, 158, 177 concerning sanctuary, 25
Sergios and Bakchos, Sts., church of, 92 concerning Service of the Furnace, 112
Service of the Furnace, 112 concerning synthronon, 28
sexes, segregation of, 54 concerning templon, 46
SÇeyh Murat Mescidi (XXII), 181–82 interpretation of church building, 66–67
Sinan Paşa Mescidi (XX), 27, 179–80 synaxarion (church calendar), 11
underground chamber, 94 Synaxarion of Evergetis, 36, 96, 110
singing. See cantors and choirs synthronon, 28, 210
Sirkeci Church (XXI), 180–81
Sixth Ecumenical Council, 109 table. See altar
skeuophylakion, 16, 21, 210 Taft, Robert, 10, 11, 15
change in use, 20 Tarchaneiotes. See Glabas, Michael Tarchaneiotes
location, 34 templon, 25–26, 41–48, 210
prayer, 23 basis for iconostasis, 45, 55
terminology, 35 closing of, 47–48, 55
transition, 31–32 decoration and iconography, 43–46, 48
used as library, 98 icons on, 45–46
skeuophylakissa, 57–58 post-Iconoclastic, 43
Skleraina (mistress to Constantine IX terminology, 41
Monomachos), 152 veils on, 48
Skripou, church of the Theotokos (Orchomenos), Tesaites, Alexios (presbyter), 61
39–40, 83 Teteriatnikov, Natalia, 39
sleep. See incubation and sleep Theis, Lioba, 89, 123, 138, 154, 163, 183, 204
Sophronios, Pseudo-, 27, 32 Thekla, church of St. (in Blachernai), 123, 202
Spyrakou, Evangelia, 54 Theodora (wife of Theophilos, d. after 867), 60
stauropegial monastery, 30 Theodora of Thessalonike, St., 104
Staurou 109 (liturgical roll), 56 Theodora Palaiologina (wife of Michael VIII, d.
Stephanos, Hagios (Kastoria), 107–08 1303), 59, 108, 123, 183
Stephanos, Hagios (Trilye), 50–51 Theodore of Arta (d. 1270), 75
Stephen the Younger, St., 106 Theodore of Stoudios (d. 826), 13–14, 51, 69,
head of, 86 81, 85–86
Stethatos, Niketas (d. 1090), 47 Theodosia, church of St., identiied with Ayakapı
concerning hierarchy, 54 Church (III), 126
Stoudios, monastery of, 12–14, 15, 59 Theoktiste (mother of empress Theodora),
chapel, 85–86 60, 74
crypt, 93 Theophano (irst wife of Leo VI, d. 895 or 896),
diaklysmos, 110 109, 138
narthex, 69 Theophylaktos (patriarch of Constantinople, d.
phiale, 96 956), 112
tombs, 85–86 Theotokos of the Pharos (church in Great
typikon, 14 Palace), 53
Striker, Cecil L., 163 Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii)
Stylianos Zaoutzes (d. 899), 53–54 (XXIV), 191–98
substructures, 93–95 bell tower, 97
utilitarian, 95 chapel, 78, 84, 85, 88
Symbatios (brother of Basil I), 60 chapels, 115
symbolism, architectural, 6 compared with I-sa Kapı Mescidi (XIII), 162
Symeon of Thessalonike (d. 1429), 15, 116, 117 decoration, 192
concerning bema, 66 naos, 52
concerning Blessing of the Waters, 72 narthex, 74
concerning church symbolism, 53 outer aisles, 89, 90
concerning diakonikon, 38 outer ambulatories, 87, 88, 191–92
INDEX 243
side rooms, 40 exonarthex, 73–76

templon, 42–43 memorials services at, 108–09
tombs, 59, 63, 74, 191–92 motivation, 60–62, 73
Theotokos Panachrantos, monastery of, 86 narthex, 73–76
Theotokos Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa (XXV), in outer ambulatories, 87–88
27, 199–200 prohibitions and regulations, 60, 115
comparative size, 50 robbing, 63
naos, 50, 52 tonsure rite, 70–71
niches (prothesis), 40 Tornikes, Manuel (d. ca. 1328), 108, 132
Theotokos Pege, church of, 91 towers. See bells/bell towers
Theotokos Peribleptos (XXVI), 26, 201–02 tribelon, 91
chapels, 78, 201 Trilye (Bithynia), 50–51
katholikon, 63 Trinity
naos, 52 symbolized by church building, 66
size and decoration, 115 trisagion, 210
tombs, 63 typika (liturgical), 69, 210
Theotokos tou Libos and Hagios Ioannes Prodromos typika (monastic), 210
tou Libos (Fenari I-sa Camii) (XXIII), 182–91 Typikon of the Great Church, 11, 71, 79, 210
apses, 29–30 typology, architectural, 5–6
chapels, 78, 80, 83, 86, 183
church, north (Theotokos), 183 Underwood, Paul, 98, 132
apse, central, 39
inscription, 83 Van Millingen, Alexander, 123, 129, 202
templon, 42 Vatican Manasses (Vat. slav. 2), 101
church, south (St. John), 26, 183 vaults
altar, 27 iconographic program, 53
naos, 52 Vefa Kilise Camii (XXVIII), 204–07
compared with Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii annex, 99, 204
(II), 123 bell tower, 97, 204
compared with Sinan Paşa Mescidi (XX), 179 chapel, 90
compared with Theotokos Peribleptos compared with Toklu Dede Mescidi
(XXVI), 201 (XXVII), 202
decoration, 184 decoration, 204–05
narthex, 65, 71, 73–74 main apse, 26
niches, 37 narthex, 65, 73–74
outer ambulatory, 87–88, 115, 183 tombs, 73–74
relics, 29–30, 86 veils, templa, 48
side rooms, 40 Vespers, 69, 70, 210
similarity to Andreas en te Krisei, Hagios (Koca vesting, vestments, 20, 21, 23
Mustafa Paşa Camii) (I), 120 vigils, 14, 15, 209
tombs, 59, 63, 73–74, 183 Vita Basilii, 43, 96, 97
tower, 97–98 votive images, 104
Theotokos, supplicated for conception and
childbearing, 106 Walter, Christopher, 45
Thessalonike, 60 Washing of the Feet, 71, 73, 112
Thiers, Adolphe, 119 in narthex, 115
Thomais of Lesbos, St., 101 Westphalen, Stephan, 175
Thomas (patriarch of Jerusalem), 14 wheat (kolyva), 81
Tokalı Kilise, New Church (Cappadocia), women
38–39, 38 conception and childbearing, 106–08
Toklu Dede Mescidi (XXVII), 27, 202–03 place in churches, 54
compared with Gül Camii (XI), 8 restrictions on church attendance,
main apse, 26 67–68
niches (prothesis), 40 worship, compartmentalization, 55
tombs
beneit to community, 63 Yenikapı Church (XXIX), 208
in chapels, 84–86
in churches, 59–63, 115 Zeyrek Camii (VIII). See Christos Pantokrator
epigrams, 108–09 Zonaras, John (d. after 1159), 35

Vasileios Marinis - Architecture and Ritual in The Churches of Constantinople - Ninth To Fifteenth Centuries-Cambridge University Press (2014)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Vasileios Marinis - Architecture and Ritual in The Churches of Constantinople - Ninth To Fifteenth Centuries-Cambridge University Press (2014)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vasileios Marinis - Architecture and Ritual in The Churches of Constantinople - Ninth To Fifteenth Centuries-Cambridge University Press (2014)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARCHITECTURE AND RITUAL IN THE CHURCHES OF

This book examines the interchange of architecture and ritual in the

Vasileios Marinis is assistant professor of Christian art and architecture at

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

List of Illustrations page ix

1 LITURGICAL RITUAL: THE SHAPE AND DEVELOPMENT

2 THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON 25

4 THE NARTHEX AND THE EXONARTHEX 64

5 SUBSIDIARY SPACES: CHAPELS, OUTER AMBULATORIES,

6 NONLITURGICAL USE OF CHURCHES 100

Appendix: Catalogue of Churches 119

1 Hagia Sophia, plan page 12

I Hagios Andreas EN TE KRISEI (Koca Mustafa Paş a Cami̇i̇)

II Ati̇k Mustafa Paş a Cami̇i̇

III Ayakapi Church

V Boğ dan Saray i

VI Christos tes Choras (Kari̇ye M ü zesi̇)

VII Christos Pantepoptes (Eski̇ i̇maret Cami̇i̇)

VIII Christos Pantokrator (Zeyrek Cami̇i̇)

X Hagios Georgios TON MANGANON

XII Hagios Ioannes EN TO TROULLO (H i rami̇ Ahmet Paş a Cami̇i̇)

XIII i̇sa Kapi Mesci̇di̇

XIV Kalenderhane Cami̇i̇

XVI Manasti r Mesci̇di̇

XVII Myrelaion (Bodrum Cami̇i̇)

XVIII Odalar Cami̇i̇

XIX Sekbanbaş i Mesci̇di̇

XX Si̇nan Paş a Mesci̇di̇

XXI Si̇rkeci̇ Church

XXII Ş eyh Murat Mesci̇di̇

XXIII Theotokos TOU LIBOS and Hagios Ioannes Prodromos

XXIV Theotokos Pammakaristos (Fethi̇ye Cami̇i̇)

XXV Theotokos Panagiotissa or Mouchliotissa

XXVI Theotokos Peribleptos

XXVII Toklu Dede Mesci̇di̇

XXVIII Vefa Ki̇li̇se Cami̇i̇

XXIX Yeni̇kapi Church

Research and ieldwork for the project were generously funded by

interpretation and signiicance of a space, the agenda and desires of founders

dramatically, often by the removal of columns or additions of galleries and

An important problem concerns the nature of directives in liturgical texts.

to essential liturgical requirements, having a space for the clergy separated

LITURGICAL RITUAL: THE SHAPE AND

The overlapping periodization is due to the coexistence of two practices:

1. Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, Turkey, 532–537, plan (after Krautheimer).

2. Hagia Sophia, interior looking east (photo: author).

Stoudites.15 Theodore was familiar with and adopted Palestinian hymnody,16

over the Asmatike Akolouthia of the Great Church, as noted by Symeon of

3. Distribution of monastic foundations in Constantinople, 330–550 (after Varinlioğlu).

4. Distribution of monastic foundations in Constantinople, 800–1204 (after Varinlioğlu).

located between the Constantinian and Theodosian walls, an area sparsely

church.47 Nevertheless, the essential aspects of the liturgical action remained

THE SANCTUARY AND THE TEMPLON

Forms and Variants

Rituals and Functions

The Central Apse and Altar

consecrated with remains of martyrs.30 Eleventh-century Constantinopolitan

The Side Rooms of the Sanctuary