STUDENICA.

ALL THINGS CONSTANTINOPOLITAN 93

Its primary origins and purpose, dating to 1186 and
the founding of the monastery, ultimately and cru-
cially, appear to be most closely associated with the
question of Nemanjas personal relations with high
ranking officials of the Byzantine Empire in the
central Balkans at the close of the 12
th
century, i.e.
determined by the complex nature and outcomes
of his political positioning within the Empire, and,
even more precisely, dependent on Nemanjas rela-
tions with the Bishopric of Ras.
2
held at the University of Cologne in December 2009 (forth-
coming).
2
J. Kali, Lepoque de Studenica dans lhistoire serbe,
in: 1200. ,
(. . ), 1988, 2534, especially 3032. In
this text J. Kali writes about Nemanjas activities after the
year 1180, as well as those related to the building of Stu-
denica, and states that they were oposed to the interests of
the bishop of Ras and the Archbishopric of Ohrid but also
states that there is no evidence in the sources which would
testify clearly of the status and nature of Nemanjas rela-
R
esults of recent (re)investigation of the cir-
cumstances surrounding the founding of the
monastery of Studenica and the raising of its
katholikon dedicated to the Virgin Evergetis indicate
the possibility of a new perspective of interpretation
of the primary i.e. original purpose for the raising of
this endowment of Stefan Nemanjas. They may, in
fact, suggest that the concept and function of Stu-
denica as the ultimate resting place of Nemanja,
center of dynastic cult and sacral focus of the inde-
pendent Nemanide state and autocephalous Serbian
church, was (chronologically) a secondary identity of
Studenica, one produced by Nemanjas son Rastko,
the monk Sava (as of 1219 the first archbishop of the
Serbian Orthodox Church), in circumstances either
immediately prior to Nemanjas passing away (1199)
or following that event and on the eve of the transla-
tion of his relics from Mt. Athos to Serbia (1207).
1

1
J. Erdeljan, Studenica. A New Perspective?, in: Serbien
und Byzanz Tagungsband, Papers from the Symposium
STUDENICA. ALL THINGS
CONSTANTINOPOLITAN
Jelena Erdeljan
This paper discusses the iconic image and visual identity of the church of the Virgin Evergetis at Studenica, its
identity as reliquary of the True Cross and repository of trademark Constantinopolitan Marian images of worship
and marble acheiropoitos eikon of the Incarnation, in the light of a new perspective of its origins determined by
the historic circumstances surrounding its founding and the nature of relations of its founder, Symeon Nemanja,
with the Archbishopric of Ohrid and the Byzantine court.
Key words: Studenica, Nemanja, St. Sava the Serbian, Archibishopric of Ohrid, Constantinople, New Jerusalem,
hierotopy, iconic image, marble
J. ERDELJAN 94
patrimonial lands, an area that was soon to become
the center of the young Nemanide state.
3
In the case of Nemanja, the basic governing
principles underlying the above described intercon-
nected and interest-based relations between Ser-
bian rulers, Byzantine emperors and high ranking
representatives of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, are
attested by contemporary 12
th
century sources and,
whats more, appear to have been the crucial ele-
ment in constructing his royal status and identity
and thus, logically, also his ktetorship. Moreover,
the key person in this matter was none other than
the archbishop of Ohrid himself, John (Adrian)
Komnenos (in office from 1140 to 1164) a mem-
ber of the innermost circle of the imperial house-
hold, nephew of emperor Alexios I and son of his
influential brother, protosebastos Isaac Komnenos,
thus first cousin of emperor John II and uncle of
emperor Manuel I.
4
A close study of 12
th
century
sources, namely the Russian Lavrentijevski chrono-
graph, offers proof that archbishop John was a part
of the imperial entourage accompanying Manuel
I on his way to negotiations with the Hungarians
held in Belgrade in 1163 regarding the marriage ar-
rangement between the emperors daughter Maria
and Bela, brother of king Stephen III. According to
Kinnamos, and confirmed also in Serbian sources,
on his way to Belgrade the emperor, and his suite,
stopped at Ni
5
where he met with Stefan Nemanja
of whose extraordinary prudence and humility he
had already heard and bestowed upon him some sort
of imperial office and a part of the imperial lands
in the region of Duboica.
6
Crucial evidence of his
virtue was obviously supplied by the archbishop of
Ohrid, John Adrian Komnenos, who was, moreo-
ver, personally present at the meeting in Ni as part
of the royal embassy, and who had previously obvi-
ously been well aware of Nemanjas activities and
qualities, who was the officiating archiereos of the
3
. , o .
(11431180), 2010, 208, 264 sq.; . ,
XII , passim.
4
. , op. cit., 201. For the source cf. G. Prinzing,
Wer war der bulgarische Bischof Adrian der Laurentinus-
Chronik sub anno 1164?, JbGOst 36 (1988), 552557.
5
. , op. cit., 201, with sources.
6
, () -
, in:
( .
), 1939, 169222, in particular 173; .
, op. cit., 204.
Ultimately, this is the question of relations of
(a) Serbian clan ruler(s) with the Archbishopric of
Ohrid as the highest instance of Byzantine ecclesi-
astic jurisdiction in the central Balkans established
following the destruction of the so-called Macedo-
nian empire of Samuilo in 1018 by emperor Basil
II. At that time the bishopric see at Ras became one
of the most significant bishopric sees within the
newly extablished Archbishopric of Ohrid, the juris-
diction of which spread over all the lands that had
once been under the rule of Samuilo and his heirs.
In this way Byzantium (re)gained an instrument of
high leverage of power deep inside the Balkan hin-
terland, in an area that was soon to become the new
center of the Serbian state which was ecclesiastical-
ly dependent, subjugated to the bishops of Ras who
lived along the Serbian jupans and were in constant
contact with them. It was that particular aspect of
Byzantine presence and influence that additionally
forged strong ties between the jupans of Ras with
Constantinople, reminding them of their common
confession along with the acknowledgment of high-
est power of the Byzantine emperor which was an
inextricable part of inclusion in the same confession
and of belonging to the Byzantine church organiza-
tion. Under such circumstances, the Bishopric of
Ras was equally significant for the Byzantines as a
means of drawing the Serbian rulers and population
into their fold, including them in the ecclesiastical
and confessional sphere of the Orthodox church
and drawing them away from the growing influ-
ence of the Catholic bishoprics in Duklja and Zeta,
as it was for certain branches of the Serbian ruling
family (as exemplified by the clash between Desa
and Uro) who found their new stronghold under
the protection of the emperor and bishops of Ras in
an area removed from the original nucleus of their
tions with those institutions. She points out that Studenica
was raised on purpose at a distance from the center of the
Bishopric of Ras, i.e. the church of SS. Peter and Paul near
Novi Pazar, as a sort of counter axis. On that subject cf. also
ead.,
1219. , in:
. (. . ), 1979,
2753. However, in view of the text and the 12
th
century
written sources published recently by the same author, cf.
ead., XII
, 441 (2007), 197208, these issues, which we
shall discuss further on in the text, can now be obseved
from an entirely different angle and against a much broader
horizon.
STUDENICA. ALL THINGS CONSTANTINOPOLITAN 95
or as the result of, the Council held at Ras against
Bogumil heretics, called by Nemanja and held in
the presence of bishop Eusthatios of Ras, whom the
sources refer to as his own archiereos.
9
It is also
highly significant to note that suppressing Bogumil
heresy ranked among top priorities in the diocese
of Ohrid already during the office of John Adrian
Komnenos.
10
By calling together this council and
by the fierce slaying of the enemies of Orthodoxy
and Byzantine taxis which ensued, Nemanja would,
thus, be once again confirmed as a soldier of tue
faith, a holy warrior, a new St. George slaying
the dragon of heresy, displaying the very virtues for
which he was recommended by John Adrian Kom-
nenos to the emperor Manuel I. Therefore, it ap-
pears that Studenica could indeed have been found-
ed by Nemanja, in correlation with the interests of
the bishops of Ras with whom he had noticeably
good relations, as an axial point in establishing the
triumph of Orthodoxy against the Manichean here-
sy of the Bogumils on the territory of the Bishopric
of Ras.
Studenica began its life and received its initial
identity under one set of circumstances and was
finalized under an entirely different political and
ecclesiastic situation. Its intrinsic symbolism of
triumph of Orthodoxy functioned unmistakeably
in conveying its message in both sets of circum-
stances and was, whatsmore, easily and naturally
transposed from one phase of its history to the next.
The initial idea and act of raising a church dedi-
cated to the Virgin, thus materializing iconic proof
of the dogma of incarnation,
11
was susequently
only amplified by the planting therein (1198 or
possibly earlier) of the Holy Wood,
12
thus defining
Nemanjas lands, or the territory under his control,
and at the same time the Bishopric of Ras, as a true
Paradise with the lifegiving tree as its axis, a New
Jerusalem, while likening the ktetor to archetypal
imperial personages associated with inventio and
9
. , op. cit., 174.
10
. , op. cit., 206.
11
B. Pentcheva, Visual Textuality: The Logos as Preg-
nant Body and Building, RES. Anthropology and Aesthetics
45 (2004), 225238.
12
. -,
, in: -
, , (. . ), 2000,
7787, especially, on the translation of the relic and the pec-
toral to Serbia, 81, with sources.
archdiocese within which Nemanja received his
second baptism in the cathedral church of SS. Peter
and Paul at Ras from the hand of bishop Leontios.
7

This baptism could indeed be interpreted as more
than just an act of personal devotion but rather as
a sign of fealty to the Byzantine church and the in-
fluential archbishopric of Ohrid which resulted in
the endorsement of Nemanjas position as opposed
to that of his brothers and, ultimately, his domi-
nation over Serbian lands as grand jupanus. With
such support, under the auspices of the bishop of
Ni, an exponent of ecclesiastical hierarchy of the
Archbishopric of Ohrid, Nemanja accomplished his
ktetorial building activities in Toplica which, as we
know from Serbian sources, resulted in animosi-
ties and open war between him and his brothers,
obviously because they demonstrated his chosen,
elevated status in the eyes of the Byzantine ec-
clesiastic and, ultimately, imperial establishment.
The raising of the monastery of St. George at Ras
(Djurdjevi Stupovi) was, finally, not only a sym-
bol of Nemanjas triumph and a votive offering to
the holy patron with whose aid he was freed from
imprisonment into which he had been cast by his
brothers but, ultimately, also a signum of his stead-
fastness in remaining the Empires key man in the
region.
8
In our opinion, the founding of Studenica was
likewise most deeply dependent on events resulting
from the above mentioned specific and mutually
significant relation between Nemanja and institu-
tions representing Byzantine power in the Balkans,
first and foremost the Archbishopric of Ohrid. It is
interesting to note that, chronologically, according
to the sources, i.e. the Vita of St. Symeon (Neman-
ja) composed by his son and heir, and as of 1217
the first crowned king of the Serbian Nemanide
state, Stefan Prvovenani, the founding and build-
ing of Studenica issued after, and in effect from
7
This second baptism could have taken place close to the
years 11581159, mentioned by Stefan Prvovenani in a
chapter of the Vita prior to the story of taking control over
the region of Rasina and Reke; . , op. cit.,
172; . , op. cit., 200.
8
For new perspective on the meaning and visual iden-
tity of the church and monastery of St. George at Ras cf.
I. Stevovi, Historical and Artistic Time in the Architecture
of Medieval Serbia: 12
th
Century, in: Architecture of By-
zantium and Kievan Rus from 9
th
to 12
th
Centuries, (ed. D.
Jolshin), LIII (2010),
148163.
J. ERDELJAN 96
kao neki neboparni orao, dran na zemlji eleznim
uzdama, a koji bi eleo, ako je mogue, da se is-
trgne i poleti na gore i da dodje do onoga besmrt-
noga izvora, i da vidi priee boastvenoga grada
vinjega Jerusalima, iji dostojni gradjanin po is-
tinitoj elji njegovog od Gospoda bi satvoren.
16
From the point of view of Domentijan, and the
ideology of mid 13
th
century Nemanide state which
he voices, the raising of Studenica, the reasons for
which are presented in the above stated manner,
was the logical and ultimate apogee and outcome
of Nemanjas chosen status. In the same text of his
vita, composed by the mentioned author, the struc-
turing of such an elect identity of this ruler is based
on a pointed and sophisticated, learned use of epi-
thets and topoi associated with his persona and life
works which are drawn from the millenium long
tradition of Byzantine rhetoric and imperial enco-
mia. In that respect it is highly indicative that in the
Vita composed by Domentijan Nemanja is referred
to as the one of who was positioned in the East,
spreading i.e. rising from the East, a New Adam,
the first born of Jerusalem on High, the one whose
earliest ktetorship in Toplica (churches of St. Nicho-
las and the Virgin) is regarded as an act of Divine
Providence and equalled to that of the Lord build-
ing Jerusalem in order to gather in it the dispersed
Isreael.
17
By relying on the topos of Oriens Augusti
and Anatoli tou Despotou, he is, therefore, desig-
nated as the new Sol Iustitiae, one vested in the man
whose name is Orient, i.e. a Christomimetic ruler
who is thus also sinanatolous with the Autocrator,
the sun which rises together and by the will of the
true Sun, the Logos, and triumphs over the demons
of the dark.
18
Not only was he synchronically made
a New Constantine diacrhronically, i.e. at a level
which was politically highly important and contex-
16
, , in:
, ( . ,
. ), 1988, 255. This pas-
sages translates as: Having directed all his mind towards
the One on High, he was like a sky-scraping eagle, pinned
on this earth by iron bonds, while desiring, if possible, to
break free and soar up and reach that eternal source and
witness the communion of the divine city of Jerusalem on
High, a worthy citizen of which, according to his own true
desire, he had been made by the Lord. (translated from
Serbian by J. Erdeljan).
17
, op. cit., 242.
18
E. H. Kantorowicz, Oriens Augusti. Lever du Roi, DOP
17 (1963), 117177.
exaltatio Crucis, Constantine and Heraclius.
13
This
identity was around the turn of the 13
th
century
easily employed as the basis of self-representation
and construction of identity of Nemanide dynastic
legitimity and continuity and as the nucleus from
which sprang the autocephalous Serbian church,
which became the new, natural and, whatsmore,
legitimate defender of True Faith, taking over that
position, even literally, from the Archbishopric of
Ohrid. Long after the establishing of the autocepha-
lous church Sava remained constant in maintaing
this line of domination of Orthodoxy and persever-
ing as a champion of the True Faith ultimately
presented in the Serbian version of the Synodicon
of Orthodoxy he composed and proclaimed at a
council held in ia in 1221.
14
We thus turn to the other side of the coin, natu-
rally dependent and interconnected indelibly with
the first, that is the issue of the image of Studenica
as it appeared and as it functioned after the trans-
lation and laying therein of the body of Nemanja
(St. Symeon) by Sava in 1207, and, finally, as of
12081209 and the completion of its program, the
finalization of construction and wall paintings. The
issue addressed in this case is the issue of the image
of Studenica as the Tabernacle of the Serbian peo-
ple, a New Jerusalem.
15
How, by what hierotopic
means was this achieved?
In the ideologically intoned work of Domentijan
(mid 13
th
century), Studenica is referred to directly
as the fruit of Nemanjas labor to create a God-cho-
sen and God-protected center of his state, a New
Jerusalem, for the gathering and salvation of his
people. Highly indicatively, in so doing, Domenti-
jan relies on the exact same phrases i.e. topoi used
already in the Vita of St. Symeon written by Stefan
Prvovenani: Sav um uperivi ka Vinjemu, bio je
13
On Nemanja as New Constantine, the development of
New Constantine rhetoric in Serbian written sources, hagi-
ographies and charters, cf. . -, -
. ,
1997, in particular 287302. On Heraclius and the
Exaltation of the Cross and the use of Heraclian imagery in
medieval rulers ideology East and West cf. B. Baert, A He-
ritage of Holy Wood, The Legend of the True Cross in Text
and Image, Leiden-Boston 2004.
14
. , , in: I,
315327, in particular 323324.
15
V. J. Djuri, Tabernacle du peuple serbe, in:
, (. . . ), 1988,
2025.
STUDENICA. ALL THINGS CONSTANTINOPOLITAN 97
tinopolitan monastery of the Virgin Evergetis who
comprised the core of the brethren at Studenica
upon its founding. Moreover, ktetors rights over
the Evergetis were granted to Sava and Nemanja by
the Byzantine emperor himself.
22
Studenica would
thus, in effect, become the New Evergetis which
would be fully functional and logical in establish-
ing it as a center of true orthodoxy, a monument of
triumph over the Bogumil heresy. Such a relation
with the leading Constantinopolitan monastic foun-
dation which is both high ranking in imperial ben-
efaction and the beacon of True Faith of the Studite
tradition and steadfastness, is the corner stone of
the translatio Constantinopoleos performed at Stu-
denica and presented with high impact by various
aspects of its visuality.
A tower of True Faith and focus of the dynastic
cult, the sacral contents of Studenica were a virtual
repository or display case, a treasure chest of all
things Constantinopolitan. The presence of defining
Constantinopolitan sacral contents and holy protec-
tors as crucial warrants of God chosen and God pro-
tected identity is demonstrated through relics and
trade-mark sacred images present at Studenica. We
have already mentioned that it was a reliquary of
the Holy Cross, the foremost relic of supernatural
protection of the capital of the Empire.
23
the advent
of a particle of the Holy Wood, incorporated into a
personal pectoral, sent from Mt. Athos to Studenica
by Nemanja in 1198 and, in the words of Stefan
Prvovenani, reposited in a place already prepared
for it in the church of the Virgin.
24
Studenica thus
effectively became a reliquary and a place of cult
of the Holy Cross to which the body of Nemanja
was introduced as the warrant of dynastic salvation
and the corner stone of its royal legitimity, which,
22
. . ,
, in: ,
1986, 6173; R. Jordan, The monastery of the The-
otokos Evergetis, its children and grandchildren, in: The
Theotokos Evergetis and eleventh-century monasticism (ed.
by M. Mullett A. Kirby), Belfast 1994, 215245.
23
N. Baynes, The Supernatural Defenders of Constantino-
ple, AnBoll LXVII (1949), 165177; A. Frolow, La relique
de la Vrai Croix, Recherches sur le dveloppement dun
culte, Paris 1961; P. J. Alexander, The Strength of Empire
and Capital as Seen through Byzantine Eyes, Speculum 37
(1962), 339357.
24
. -,
, 81; A. Eastmond, op. cit; D. Popovi, Relics and
Politics. The Serbian Approach, in:
, 161180.
tualized, he was thus also made a New Manuel I
(Emmanuel), the emperor by whose benevolence
Nemanja literally rose (anatoli) to power, one who
was extolled in encomiastic by Theodore Prodro-
mos as Helios Basileus.
19
In striving to gather Isra-
el in a Messicanic act and condition, Nemanja was
also following the ultimate goal and purpose of an
ideal Christian ruler, exempliefied above all others
by the Basileus ton Romaion, who strove to make
his land as heaven on earth in expectation of the
Second Coming, and, quite particularly, precisely
by Manuel I whose messianic profile was carefully
constructed by both his court rhetors and the em-
peror himself.
20
Thus, given the (possible) circumstances sur-
rounding its founding and subsequent contextu-
alization as the nucleus of the Nemanide cult and
the dynasty, state and church of his descendents, it
appears as no surprise that Nemanjas foundation
at Studenica, chronologically last in line in Serbia
proper, but foremost in future impact, a monument
of triumph of True Faith and victory over the Bogu-
mils, a reliquary of the True Cross and ultimately a
(dynastic, Nemanide) New Jerusalem, should be as-
sociated with Constantinopolitan, and whats more,
imperial foundations and cults.
21
To begin with, it
is dedicated to the Virgin Evergetis and is generi-
cally related, both ktetorially and liturgically, to the
monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis of Constan-
tinople. At the basis of this translatio is the typikon
of Studenica as well as monks from the Constan-
19
Ibid., 151152. On the court rhetors and encomiastic
texts addressed to emperor Manuel I cf. . ,
. -
, 2006, passim.
20
Ibid., P. Magdalino, Introduction, in: New Constantines:
rhytm of imperial renewal in Byzantium, 4
th
13
th
centuries,
(ed. P. Magdalino), Aldershot 1994, 19.
21
Furthermore, relying on Constantinopolitan model(s)
was a conditio sine qua non not (only) of Serbian but ex-
amples from the Christian Oikoumene East and West around
1200, in creating New Jerusalems; B. Flusin, Les reliques
de la Sainte-Chapelle et leur pass imprial Constanti-
nople, in: Le tresor de la Sainte-Chapelle, Paris 2001, 20
31; A. Eastmond, Byzantine identity and relics of the True
Cross in the thirteenth century, in:
(.-. . . ), 2003, 205
215; J. Erdeljan, Appropriation of Constantinopolitan iden-
tity in the late Middle Ages: the case of Trnovo and Bel-
grade, in: Proceedings of the 21
st
International Congress of
Byzantine Studies, Vol. III, Abstracts of Communications,
London 2006, 6768.
J. ERDELJAN 98
engaged phenomenon. More than that, however,
it is the (micro) hierotopical positioning of such
imagery that is clearly suggestive not only of the
general Byzantine framework of their operation but
more specifically Constantinopolitan, even precise-
ly Komnenian contextualization. This is especially
true of the funerary context of the Virgin Hodegetria
painted over the tomb of Anastasija in the narthex
of Studenica. It calls to mind the specific appro-
priatioon and dynastic use of the cult and rites of
the supreme protectress of the capital and the Em-
pire by the Komnenian dynasty, as proscribed by
the typikon of their dynastic foundation and mauso-
leum, the monastery of the Pantokrator in Constan-
tinople.
29
The same Constantinopolitan and Kom-
nenian background and allusiveness is true of the
Virgin Studenika painted on the western face of
the southwestern pilaster, above the abbots throne,
adjacent to the figure of St. Saba the Sanctified rep-
resented on the southern side of the same pilaster,
the namesake and supreme role model of Sava the
Serbian, and in close proximity to the ktetors com-
position. This image, from the hands of which the
abbots of Studenica symbolically received their of-
fice and insignia, is an appropriation of the Kyri-
otissa, the holy protectress of the imperial house
of the Komnenoi, represented in that vein as part
of their dynastic portrait on the southern gallery of
Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.
30
Although the above mentioned highly venerated
images of the Mother of God, of trade-mark Con-
stantinopolitan identity and provenance, date from
that final stage of production of Studenicas visual
identity, which began with the arrival of Neman-
jas pectoral containing the relic of Holy Wood and
was rounded off in 12081209, it is highly prob-
able, having in mind the historical and dogmatic
circumstances surround the founding of the mon-
astery, its dedication and deep connections with the
capital of the Empire, that at least two (Hodegetria,
Blachernitissa) if not all three (iconic) signoi of
Mary played a significant part in the hierotopy of
Studenica from the start. Whether they were part of
the first layer of frescoes, an intriuguing question in
29
On the litanies including both the Hodegetria and the
Blachernitissa and their connection to the monastery of
Christ Pantokrator in Constantinople see B. Pentcheva,
Icons and Power, 198 sq, with sources and extensive bib-
liography.
30
On the Kyriotissa as the iconographic type of the Virgin
of Studenica M. Tati-Djuri, op. cit., 199.
in turn, was placed under the protection of the Holy
Wood. That act was the initial and key element of
a program which revolved around the True Cross.
This is explicitly communicated by the dominant
image of the Crucifixion covering practically the
entire surface of the western wall of the naos and
positioned in direct proximity to Nemanjas funer-
ary structure in the church of the Virgin.
25
Moreover, it was also a repository of trademark
Constantinopolitan Marian images of worship. Im-
ages of most highly venerated and significant si-
gnoi of the Virgins blessings and protection over
her City
26
assume a prominent place in the program
of fresco paintings of the church of the Virgin at
Studenica and the services performed in the church
as a whole and its particular micro-spaces. An im-
age of the Virgin Hodegetria was painted on the
southern wall of the narthex, above a tomb ascribed
to Nemanjas wife Ana or Anastasija, as she was
known after the royal couple had decided to take
monastic wows. Now seen in the layer of frescoes
dating from the 16
th
century, it was doubtlessly a
part of the original program of decoration.
27
The
Blachernitissa is painted in the tympanon of the
doorway leading from the narthex to the naos.
28
In
Studenica, certainly, as in all Eastern Christendom
following the close of the Iconoclastic controver-
sy, these images were instrumental in conveying
the perenniel truth of Orthodox dogma pertaining
to the Incarnation of the Logos, which in itself, in
the particular case of Studenica, given its primary
purpose, is a highly contextualized and historically
25
The program of Studenica, doubtlessly fashioned by
Sava, is thus similar in structure and a true precursor to
that which he accomplished nearly three decades later and
realized to its full potential in the church of the Savior at
ia, the seat of the archbishopric and the crowning church
of Serbian kings, an axis of true faith and a New Jerusa-
lem. On the program surrounding Nemanjas grave cf. .
, , 1992, 3541;
ead., .
,
.
, 2006, 2740; ead.,
Sacrae reliquiae ,
, 207232.
26
B. Pentcheva, Icons and Power. The Mother of God in
Byzantium, The Pennsylvania State University Press 2006.
27
M. Tati-Djuri, Les icones de la Vierge a Studenica,
1200, 193203, in
particular 197198.
28
Ibid., 198199.
STUDENICA. ALL THINGS CONSTANTINOPOLITAN 99
Whats more, the very etymology of the toponym
of Studenica suggests the symbolic core identity of
marble that is the frozen, still Waters of the prime-
val Okeanos of All Creation
35
which are associated
with both the cult of the Virgin and the True Cross.
Moreover, its identity in marble could clearly visu-
alize the effect of the Epiphany, or Christianization
in general through Baptism, when, at the submer-
sion of the Cross (or, originally, Christ himself in
the waters of the Jordan which is often seen in
apocrypha, both Jewish and Christian, and even
in the folk legends of the late Middle Ages among
the Slavs, as the stream or source of Okeanos) the
waters stand still and demons of the deep are de-
stroyed.
36
In the case of Studenica, those could well
have been the wild beasts mentioned in the Vita
texts of Simeon Nemanja in the part refering to the
location at which the monastery was founded
37
and,
which, in the given historical conditions surround-
ing that particular act, could be identified with the
Bogumil heretics over whom Nemanja celebrated
victory as a miles Dei battling against the forces
of the dark on behalf of the Bishopric of Ras and
Archbishopric of Ohrid.
38
Such a contextualization of marble was based on
ancient and highly sophisticated readings of sym-
bolic qualities of this material present in Byzantine
mineralogy and employed in ekphrases of sacral
buildings, most prominently trade mark Constanti-
nopolitan landmarks such as Hagia Sophia and the
Virgin of Pharos. Marble, a more opaque cousin of
crystal, which, when polished, recovers its original
light in a surface slick, was regarded as a form of
ice, i.e. water, frozen by primordial cold suggest-
ing that light, the active principle of the Logos, was
frozen into its very fabric.
39
In ancient times the
marble that regularly impersonated water was Car-
cit, 199200. On marble as visualisation of the Virgin Oros
epithet B. Pentcheva, Visual Textuality, 229.
35
F. Barry, Walking on Water: Cosmic Floors in Antiquity
and the Middle Ages, ArtB LXXXIX4, (2007), 627656, in
particular 635.
36
S. Cristoforetti, Il fiume, la luce e lalbero della Croce,
in: Lalbero della Croce, Supplemento, Studi sullOriente
Cristiano 72, Roma 2003, 2947.
37
, op. cit., speaks of the characteristics of the
location on which Studenica was built as derelict hunting
ground of the wild beasts (translated by J. Erdeljan).
38
Cf. supra.
39
F. Barry, op. cit., 635.
itself the very existence and traces of which have
so far been mentioned only in conservation reports
by Djurdje Bokovi, will be a matter of future in-
vestigation.
31
Equally Constantinopolitan is the very material
of which the church was made. Studenicas specific
visual identity, defined by the trade-mark glistening
white marble facade, a novel and exceptional sight
in the broader milieu of its creation in the Balkans
around the year 1200, and unique in Serbian medi-
eval art, was, naturally, instrumental in creating and
conveying her particular statement. As a sign in its
own right, present before any of the many subse-
quently produced meanings had been read into it,
the marble nature of the church, or rather, the nature
and inherent symbolic meaning of the marble of
which the church was made, is deeply rooted in the
long and sophisticated tradition of Byzantine min-
erology and ekphrases of this precious material, im-
bued with knowledge inherited from the ancients.
32
From the very beginning, the acheiropitos quali-
ties and symbolic meaning of marble as the mate-
rial of choice for the body of this particular struc-
ture, must have been highly communicative and
suggestive in conveying an image of the Virgin, not
made by human hand, of the very seal of shekinah,
the mystery of the dogma of incarnation,
33
which
must have been an efficient sign of prevalence of
True Faith against (Bogumil) heresy. The gleaming
white stone of the marble church was certainly an
ultimate visualisation of the Virgin as Oros of God,
eptithets pertaining, very indicatively, to the high-
ly prominently positioned Blachernitissa painted
above the entrance to the naos, as one of the cen-
tral Marian images in the katholikon of Studenica.
34

31
Dj. Bokovi, Studenica. Reflections sur sa genese et ses
racines, in: 1200.
, 125132. It is also interesting to note that there
is no trace of the Virgin Evergetis in the preserved fresco
decoration of the church dedicated to her in Studenica. M.
Tati-Djuri, op. cit., 193194, suggests that an icon of the
Evergetis of the Abramiotissa type could have been part of
the original iconostasis of the church.
32
A. Mottana, Storia della mineralogia antica. I. La min-
eralogia a Bisanzio nel XI secolo D.C.: I poteri insiti nelle
pietre secondo Michele Psello, Roma 2005; R. Webb, The
Aesthetics of Sacred Space: Narrative, Metaphor, and Motion
in Ekphraseis of Church Buildings, DOP 53 (1999), 5974.
33
B. Pentcheva, Visual Textuality, 229230.
34
On the iconographic type of Blachernitissa as visualisa-
tion of the concept of Virgin as Oros cf. M. Tati-Djuri, op.
J. ERDELJAN 100
Studenica, could, in the eyes of the ktetors, Sava
above all, procure an image which was to suggest
that this Serbian New Jerusalem echoes the ulti-
mate universal Constantinopolitan new miracle
and example of New Jerusalem, the church of the
Virgin of Pharos, precisley for the purpose of dis-
playing the appropriation of dogmatic and ideologi-
cal ideas contained therein. It is a par excellance
Constantinopolitan means of visual representation
of the ultimate miracle of True Faith, the Resurrec-
tion, which indeed was experienced at the end of
the XII century as actually taking place within the
sacral space of the Pharos chapel, and of New Jeru-
salem status of this dynastic center.
44
Contrary to common knowledge and traditional
interpretation as an influence of Romanesque ten-
dencies reaching Serbia by way of the Adriatic lit-
toral, the marble clad facades of the church of the
Virgin appear to be most Constantinopolitan of all.
In view of all of the above, we must say that the
widely accepted and (curiously) never questioned
theory of Studenica as a Byzantine style structure
clad in Romanesque marble garb no longer seems
plausible. Reexamined in this context, the context
of Studenica as a New Evergetis, New Constantino-
ple, a New Jerusalem, a reliquary of the True Cross,
an iconic image of the Incarnation the issue of
Studenicas marble facades assumes an entirely dif-
ferent purpose and meaning. Thus, its identity in
marble appeared not because of the technical prow-
ess of skilled sculptors and stone masons from the
Adriatic littoral (although we can not and should
not dispute and refute their participation in the ac-
tual building process) but as an embodiment of a
Byzantine concept of this material expounded and
lauded in tratises on minerology and ekphrases and,
in a sense of making historical allusions pregnant
with theological and ideological meaning, as a pos-
sible echo of the ultimate and in that vein multiply
copied new miracle and New Jerusalem of Con-
stantiople, the Pharos chapel.
44
On New Jerusalem symbolics of the imperial church of
the Virgin of the Pharos from the Great Palace of Constanti-
nople and the epithet of new miracle, referring to the mir-
acle of the Resurrection, ascribed to it by patriarch Photios
in his homily on the consecration of the imperial chapel see
. . , . -
-
, in: : -
, 2005,
79108.
ystian from Euboea in Greece. Its marine veining
competed with the grey/green sea.
40
By the sixth
century, however, it was Proconnesian marble, of
which the flooring of Hagia Sophia was made, for
example, as well as its fittings, the ambo for one,
that had largely supplanted Carystian in its power
to epitomize the sea. When quarrying the stone, the
Byzantines sought out the facets streaked with dove
grey seams.
41
The aquatic symbolics of Proconne-
sian marble were augmented by anthropomorphic
readings, such as that by Michael the Deacon in
his ekphrasis on the ambo of Hagia Sophia.
42
Curi-
ous and highly indicative in attempts to understand
the true purpose and meaning of marble facading
of Studenica are the physical similarities in color
and texture between Proconnesian marble and stone
from the Radoelo quarries of which the Serbian
church was made white marked by broad grayish-
blue bands. In Studenica, as in Constantinople, the
anthropomorphic allusion of this material, similat-
ing human flesh and veins, as well as the effect of
flashing of white marble, is used to visualize the
ultimate truth as the reflection of light of God, light
uncreated unto light uncreated, the Virgin through
which shines the True Light of the World which,
through the Cross as its signum, is the vexillum of
triumph over all evil and demons of the deep in
Studenica historically contextualized as the Bogu-
mil heretics.
Later, when under the auspices of St. Sava it
was augmented against the backdop of a change
in wold order around 1204, into a sacral center of
the Nemanide state, a New Jerusalem with a pro-
nounced dynastic function, could not Studenica, as
the Ark of the Covenant and New Jerusalem,
43
have
been experienced as a new miracle founded by
Nemanja and conceptualized by Sava? Within the
new set of circumstances and new meanings in-
vested in Studenica following the watershed year
of 1204, the translation of Nemanjas body in 1207
and the establishing of his cult therein as the pivot
of Serbian identity of state and church, this peren-
nial symbolism of the refined, sophisticated mate-
rial, activated in synegy with the sacral contents of
40
Ibid., 632.
41
Ibid., 633.
42
C. MangoJ. Parker, A Twelfth-Century Description of
St. Sophia, DOP 14 (1960), 233145.
43
Cf. supra.
STUDENICA. ALL THINGS CONSTANTINOPOLITAN 101
-

-

, , -

,
-
,

() -
.
-



-
,

. -
() XII
, , I.


, -
, , ,
,

.