The Middle-Byzantine Athenian Church of the Taxiarchs near the Roman Agora

Author(s): Charalambos Bouras

Source: British School at Athens Studies, Vol. 8, MOSAIC: Festschrift for A. H. S. Megaw
(2001), pp. 69-74
Published by: British School at Athens
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40960547 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 17:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to British School
at Athens Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.98 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:14:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 7
The Middle-Byzantine
AthenianChurchofthe
TaxiarchsneartheRomanAgora
Charalambos
Bouras

One of the most importantMiddle-Byzantine watercolours (groundplanand crosssections)and twoline

monuments inAthensdestroyed lastcentury was the drawingsinpencil(westandnorth face).Allthedrawings have
beenpublished.8The first threewerealready wellknown.9
ChurchoftheTaxiarchsalongsidetheRomanAgora.
4. J.SKENE, 1838. Viewofthemonument from thenorth-
The churchwasdemolished in 1850so thata newand west.Watercolour.10 Republished.11
largerparishchurch,completedin 1852, could take 5. W.COLE, 1835.Viewofthemonument from thenorth-
itsplaceat a timewhenAthens,capitalof thenewly west.Watercolour.12 Republished.13
establishedGreekkingdom,was witnessingrapid 6. A. COUCHAUD, 1842. Linedrawing oftheground plan,
sectionandelevations
longitudinal ofbothnarrow sidesofthe
populationgrowth.The site of the churchin the monument.14 The firsttwo were published by A.
'WheatMarket',thecommercial district of thetown Xyngopoulos.15
in thelaterOttomanperiod,as wellas itspositionin 7. ANONYMOUS,inthedrawing collectionoftheUniversity
theimmediate vicinityofthewestgateoftheRoman ofKarlsruhe.Twopencildrawings, ata scaleof1:75,ofthe
established the westand eastface,from1842-49.l6 Publishedalongwith
Agora, Taxiarchs,(along withthe
church of Profitis drawingsoftheneighbouring churchofProfitis Elias.a?
neighbouring Elias, likewisenow 8. T. DUMONCEL, 1845.18Perspective illustration
ofthe
as a
demolished), building readily accessible tovisitors churchfromthe south-west. Engraving. Repeatedly
fromabroad. This accountsfortherelatively large published.19
numberofillustrations andmeasureddrawings from 9. GAILHABAUD (published in 1853 and 1854).20
before1850 thatallowus todaytomakea satisfactory Perspectiveillustrationof thechurchfromthesouth-west
andtwolinedrawings
(engraving) oftheeastandwestfacesof
studyofthechurch'sarchitecture. Up tillthattime themainchurch, as ifthelaternarthexhadnotbeenadded.21
the church was in good condition, although All wererepublished byA. Xyngopoulos,22 wheretheyare
information doesexist1concerning a firethereduring mistakenlyattributed to an unknown demolished Athenian
theRevolutionary period. church.Bothlinedrawings havebeenrepublished elsewhere.23
a misunderstanding
Firstly, shouldbe clearedup: in
his to date unique catalogue of the medieval Thesedrawings andengravings naturally cannotallbe
monuments ofAthens,IndexofMedievalMonuments ofequalvalueas architectural evidence.Theirunique
in Greece,published in 1929, A. Xyngopoulos2 nature,however,makesthemusefulwhenstudied
classifiedthepresent churchoftheTaxiarchs amongst
togethersinceinformation canbe cross-checked prior
thoseByzantinebuildingsthathad been alteredby tobeingconfirmed orremaining doubtful.
repairs.Thismistaken viewwasrepeatedbyK. Biris3 No historicaltestimoniesexistconcerning thechurch
and indirectly byJ.Travlos.4The groundplan,the oftheTaxiarchs.24Today,thechurchalso bearsthe
dimensions, together withspecificinformation from
nameoftheVirginGregorousa.No scholarly interest
theGeneralStateArchives5 confirm thattheTaxiarchs has even been shown in the monument;only
wascompletely demolished in orderto provideroom references25havebeenmade,andan indefinite dateof
forthepresent church. the11thor 12thcentury26 hasbeensilently accepted.
To gleaninformation aboutthearchitecture of the
The monumentunderwentat least threebuilding
originalchurchof theTaxiarchs,we mustreferto phases:thefirstsawtheerectionofthemainchurch,
documentary evidence gathered priortoitsdemolition, thesecondtheadditionofthenarthex, and thethird
and searchformaterialremainsof the Byzantine probably belongs to theOttoman period.
church,nowincluded,thoughnotreadilynoticeable, In Couchaud'sgroundplans and sections,a line
in themodernchurch. Depictionsof the original dividingtheoriginal buildingandthenarthex isclearly
churchincludethefollowing: discernible,2?while Gailhabaud'sidea todraw theface
ofthemainchurchbyitself indicates thatheconsidered
1. C. HANSEN, 1833. Perspective pencildrawingof the thenarthex a lateraddition.The dividing linebetween
propylonof theArchegetis
Athena.In thebackground the thetwophasesdoesnotappearinBindesbell's
churchoftheTaxiarchs canbe discerned
to thesouth-west. drawing
of the northface,althoughit would appear that
Extensivelypublished.6
2. E. PEYTIER, 1833. Twowatercolourswithperspective structuralremains areevidentatthisparticular point28
viewsofthechurch fromthenorth-west.
Published.7 andconcealedthejoin. Finally, thebi-lobewindow of
3. M. G. BINDERSBELL, 1835.Threepencildrawings and thechurch'swestcross-arm, visibleinthelongitudinal

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.98 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:14:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70 CHARALAMBOS
BOURAS

sectionby Couchaud,wouldbe meaninglessif the Karlsruhearchives, it appearsthatverybulkyblocks

narthex wascontemporary withthemainchurch. wereused forthelowerpartsof thewallswhilethe
The simplebell-tower withits singlearch29was typicalcloisonne systemis developedfurther up. Of
addedtothewestarmofthenarthex, andis attributed intereston thelongsideswereonlythecross-arms,
tothethirdbuildingphase.The outerwall-paintings similartothoseofHagioiAsomatoiinTheseion.
oftheOttomanperiodwhichcoveredthefa?adeafter The threehorse-shoe archesat theentrances ofthe
the fillingof its bi-lobe windowswithmasonry30 mainchurchareveryreminiscent ofthesideentrances
indicatethattherewasoncea shelterhere,perhapsa to Kapnikarea40 and HagioiAsomatoiin Theseion.41
lightlyconstructed timber porch. They wereof porosstoneand concentric to others,
Typologically, Taxiarchsbelongsto theclassof
the madeofbrick.
domed cross-in-squaretwo-columnchurches,31 The dome was a representative exampleof the
without a narthex, andwitha slightly projecting semi- 'Atheniandome' withprotruding waterspoutsand
hexagonalsanctuary apse. Couchaud's groundplan marblecolonnettes atthecorners.It alsopreserved an
doesnotindicatehowthevaultswereconstructucted, archaising element (given that its originalmodel was
butBindesbell'sdrawingshowsthatthefourcorner thedomeoftheTheotokoschurchatHosiosLoukas):
compartments werecoveredwithcross- vaults;square thehorizontal marblestringcoursesat thespringing
to theeast and elongatedto the west. Couchaud's ofthewindows.42
sectionconfirms the existence,at leastin the west The dog-tooth cornicehad beendestroyed on the
compartments, of cross-vaults(thearchesofthevertical cross-arms, but not the
along long sides ofthechurch.43
faces),delineated slightly belowthespringings ofthe On thenarrow sidesofthebuilding itstransformation
vaultsofthecross-arms; thisresulted in the elevation to dog-toothfretsis once again reminiscent of the
of the interiorspace.32 The use of cross-vaults, Theotokosat HosiosLoukas. In thebi-lobewindow
furthermore, allowedthecornercompartments to be of the sanctuary, the dog-toothfretstoppedat the
coveredwithsingleslopingroofsofequalheightfrom height of the springing of itsarch,a feature likewise
theground.33The slightreductions of thickness in attestedinearliermonuments.44
thesidewallsattheextremities ofthetransverse vaults Formalfeatures thatappearonthefa9adeofthelater
ofthecrossare a commonphenomenon in cross-in- narthex areof a laterperiod:on theonehand,thetwo
squareMiddle-Byzantine churches.34 The useofcross- largewindowsflanking thedoorway(reminiscent of
vaultsabovecornercompartments,35 whilecommon thelikewise laterexonarthex of the katholikon atHosios
especiallyin the12thcentury, is also encountered in Loukas45), andon theotherthevividpresenceofthe
earlierexamples,36 suchas theTheotokoschurchat horizontal wallcrownconsisting ofa double(?) dog-
HosiosLoukasandHagiaAikaterini in Plaka,Athens. toothfretrunning uninterrupted alongtheentire width
As regards thelaternarthex, theuse ofcross- vaults ofthefa9ade.46
onthesideswasprobably dictatedbya wishtointegrate Naturally, theextantdrawings oftheChurchofthe
theroofsurfaces withthoseofthemainchurch.Other Taxiarchscannotthrowanylighton constructional
similarexamples, however, exist.37The existence of questionspertaining to themonument. According to
twosarcophagi underneath acrosoliaat thenorthand Bindesbell'ssectionplan, the interiorwas entirely
south ends of the narthex38 emphasizesthatthe coveredwithwall-paintings, althoughaccordingto
structure wasfunerary; itwasaddedchiefly to house Couchaud,onlyfragments hadsurvived. Ofthemarble
thetombsofimportant persons. templon,twoproskynetaria onthepillarswhichdivided
The churchof theTaxiarchsmaybe considereda thesanctuary from theside-chambers,47 alongwiththe
typicalAthenian Middle-Byzantine monument as far epistyle,48werestillinsitu.
as architecturalformsand decoration areconcerned. It wouldappearthatall thebuildingmaterial from
The marbleformalelements(doorframes withdeco- the demolishedByzantinechurchwas used in the
rativecornices,colonnettes withimpostson all the erectionof the modernChurchof the Taxiarchs.
windows, and interior columnswithcapitals)testify Certainmarblearchitectural elements fromtheolder
that,despite its small size,thiswas a carefully built, churchwere re-employed in such a manneras to
ornatechurch. Fromthe surviving depictions,the promotethemin one wayor another. These include
churchdoesnotseemto havehad a crepidoma.The thetwoimpostcapitalswhichnowcrownthecolumns
fa9adeof the firstphase consisted(accordingto of theportico,six double-colonnettes, threeimposts
Gailhabaud'sdrawing)of threeentrancesbetween fromdouble-colonnettes ofthebi-lobewindows (now
whichwell-built pillarshadbeenconstructed withlarge includedin theupperzone ofthepresentwestside),
blocks,reminiscent of those atthe HagioiApostoloi in andfinally a plaqueofa pseudo-sarcophagus included
the AthenianAgora.39 The three entrances are, withintheparapetofthegallery ofthemodern church.
furthermore, characteristic of otherearlyAthenian The simpleelongatedcolumncapitalsmeasure
churches (thekatholikon ofthePetraki monastery, Soter 67cmx49cmin plan and 18cmhigh. They maybe
of Lykodemos,Kapnikarea, and possiblyHagia characterised as impostcapitals, butfrom thesidethey
AikateriniinPlaka). Fromthedrawings ofthefa?ades are inscribedalonga curve. Whentheycameto be
byCouchaud,Gailhabaud, andthosepreserved inthe reused,theirlowersurfaces wereunskillfully cutaway.

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.98 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:14:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THEA THENIAN CHURCHOF THE TAXIARCHS 71

Theirnarrowsides are decoratedwithsmallfoliate andrinceaumotifs.

Greekcrossesinshallow a stylecommon
relief, to11th- Undoubtedly themostimportant of thepreserved
century Greece. These were certainly not older spolia, sculptural members is the plaque of the pseudo-
buthad beenfashioned specificallyfortheTaxiarchs sarcophagus, which may have gracedoneof
originally
church.49 thearcosoliaof the laternarthex(plate 74).50 Its
Five of the six solid double-colonnettes of the present dimensions are65x203011.The lowerzoneof
windows havebeenincludedinopenings ofthefacade, theframesurrounding themaindepictionhas been
and the sixthin the southface. All are perfectly cut away(giventhatthe plaque had to fitintothe
preserved andtheircapitals(solidwiththecolonnettes) parapetof thelatergallery);thusoriginally it would
aredecorated on threesideswithrosettes surrounded havebeensome15cmwideron thenarrow side.51
by bands to produce thewell-known lyre motif. The decorationof thisplaque, in shallowrelief,
The threeimpostswereplacedon topof thethree includesthreefoliatecrosses withinsquare com-
doublecolonnettes. Theirprotruding narrow surface partments delineatedwithtriplebands.Triplebands
is of a typicallyoblique,trapezoidalshape and is also definetheentirecentralmotifand are linkedto
perfectlypreserved. The firsttothenorth(plate 7.1) thefirstgroupof bandsand betweeneach othervia
is decoratedwitha foliatecross whose arms are circularknots.The lowerleavesof thefoliatecrosses
highlighted at theextremities withsimplerosettes, of each compartment are developedintoreflected
whilethespaceabovethecross-arms is filledbymore tendrilpatterns,whilethesquarespacescreatedabove,
rosettes,thistimestarshapedwitheightradials.The betweenthecrossarmsand theborderofeachcross,
middleimpost(plate 7.2) is adornedwitha Greek areadornedwithsmallmotifs (acanthus-likepalmettes
cross,theend ofeachof thearmscurvinginwardto forthesidecrosses,and radialrosettes forthemiddle
producetwofive-leaf palmettes, one on each side of one).
thecross. The thirdimpost(plate 7.3) is decorated The reflected tendrilpatternsare notall identical.
withfourcomplexpalmettes symmetrically positioned Twoindependent foliatemotifsaredepictedon either
intwogroups.The decoration ofall threeimpostsis sideofthegroupofcrosses.Eachconsists ofanupright
in shallowrelief,and is stylistically
typicalof 12th- palm leaf (?) and symmetrically arrangedsemi-
centurysculptureon the Greekmainlandwiththe palmettes. These two foliatemotifs do notentirely
groundcompletely coveredanda clearinterplay ofleaf match. The surfaceof the pseudo-sarcophagus is

plate 7.1: Athens,Taxiarchs.Thefirstimpost. plate 7.2: Athens,Taxiarchs.Thesecondimpost.

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.98 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:14:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72 CHARALAMBOS
BOURAS

of examplessurvive, and themotifis of littleuse in

helpingto date thearchitectural memberswhichit
adorns.Butitisnoteworthy thattheformandmanner
in whichour plaque is framedcloselyresembles the
pseudo-sarcophagus of the HagioiApostoloiin the
Agora,datedtothe12thcentury.59
Acanthus-like palmettes insmallbandedsquaresand
ina wholerangeofcombinations appeartohavebeen
a typicalmotifforsculptural decoration in the12th
century. Some examples include the doorframe ofthe
Lechobakatholikonf0 thetemplon epistyleof theSoter
churchat Amphissa,61various sculpturesin the
monasteryof Hosios Meletios,62doorframesand
closurepanels in Hagios Nikolaos of Mesaria on
Andros,63doorframesfromancient Corinth,64
doorframes fromtheAthenian Asclepieion65 andmany
others.A holywaterbasinatthemonastery ofHosios
Meletios,furthermore, bearsthemotifin thesquares
abovethearmsofa foliate cross,justas inourplaque.66
The ornatesarcophagus at theHagioiApostoloiin
theAgora67bears even closerresemblances to the
Taxiarchs'plaque in the formof the intertwining
pointedleavessprouting atthebaseofthecrosses,the
latentinclination towardsvarietymanifested by the
smallvariations of detailin thethreecrosses,and in
particular thegeneralstyleofthereliefwhichbetrays
maturity andskill.
It is clearthatall theformalelementsof themain
churchdatethefirst phaseoftheTaxiarchs tothe11th
PLATE7.3: Athens,Taxiarchs.The thirdimpost. century and perhapsto thefirsthalfof thatcentury.
The additionof thenarthex, on thebasisof certain
bordered bya tripartitezoneconsisting ofanastragalus, otherarchitectural formsmentioned above,musthave
a concavebandanda simpleouterframe. beenundertaken inthefollowing century. Ifthemarble
Clearly,thisplaquerepresents a distinguished and sarcophagus had beencontemporary to theaddition
originalworkof decorativesculptureforMiddle- ofthenarthex, thena dateofthemid-orsecondpart
ByzantineGreece,and deservesfurtherstudy,in ofthe12thcentury maybe possible.Thisaccordswith
particularof thedecorative motifs. a trend, attested in Byzantine Greeceduringthesame
the
Firstly, three crosses are quite common as main period, to erectfunerary chapels andnarthexes. This
motifson Middle-Byzantine or
sarcophagi pseudo- trend had a socialpurpose: to raisethe power of the
sarcophagi. The central cross is usuallydifferentiated local aristocracy by promoting the aristocraticfamilies
fromtheothertwo,no matterwhatformor styleis and theirmembersthroughdonations,building
employed. Of the that
many survive,52 some Athenian projectsand the constructionof luxuryfunerary
examples can be found at the church of the Hagioi monuments.
ApostoloiintheAgora,thechurchoftheHomologitai,
attheByzantine Museum(Athens)no.3i66,53andan National TechnicalUniversity ofAthens
unpublished example from the monastery of St. John
Kynegos.54
Cypress, palmleaf,palmormulti-ribbed leafmotifs
arealso frequent symmetrical decorative features on
sarcophagi,55 but also on closure panels.56 They
usuallysurroundthe crossesand probablyhave a
symbolical meaning.In ourplaque,theupright multi-
ribbed leaves sprout amongsttendril-likesemi-
palmettes57 withpointedtips,andareofa typewhich
mostapproaches an examplefromoutsideGreece.58
The astragalusborderof the sarcophagusis an
AncientGreekmotifthatsurvived or was revivedin
Middle-Byzantine Greeksculpture.A greatnumber

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.98 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:14:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THEA THENIAN CHURCHOF THE TAXIARCHS 73

PLATE74:
Athens,Taxiarchs.
Thepseudo-
sarcophagus.

NOTES XQOvoX6yr'ciqxfjc;MexanoQcpcoaecoc; too Icottjqoc;

1. A. Xyngopoulos, Ta fiv^avnvdxai rovgxixdjuvrifieia tqjv 'A0r|VG)v',
' 'mEniormovixri 'Ensrrigig
FFoXvrsxvixfjgZ%o'fjg
'Adnvebv, (EME l, B' Athens1928) 92. AqiototeXswvnavenwrriniovQecaaXovixr'g,5 (1971-
2. Ibid.,92-94. 2), Supplement, 7, fig.2. The lastpublication notesthatthe
Taxiarchs and the unknown church of Gailhabaud are one
3. K. Biris,Ai exxkr'oiai rcovnaXaicovA$r'v(Qv, (Athens
no. and Ai and thesame.
1940), 105 A&fjvai(Athens1966) 91.
4. J.Travlos,IJoAeoSofiixij e^eki^ig rcov'Adr'vcov, (Athens 24. D. Kambouroglous, (n.19) 143-4,w^h information on the
of the Wheat erectionofthenewchurch.
i960) 211, fig.140. Topographical diagram
MarketofAthensinOttomantimes,inwhichtheTaxiarchs 25. A. Xyngopoulos, (n.i). Couchaud(n.14) 20 providesbrief
isdrawnwithitspresent dimensions, x 20.00m. information on the conditionofthechurch.
namely 13.50
The originaldimensions were5.65 x 8.30m. 26. A. Xyngopoulos, (n.i).
5. Mrs. M. Adamisprovidedme withinformation fromthe 27. See A. Couchaud(n.14) 20 statesthatthelaterwallofthe
archivesofthereignofKingOttoabouta seriesofdocuments facadewasno different in stylefromtheoriginalfaceofthe
whichrefer tothedemolition oftheTaxiarchs churchin1850 church.
andtheerectionofthenewchurchin 1854 (see documents 28. In the1840 lithograph andthewatercolours ofJ.Skeneand
of Peytie, thetracesof housesthatonce abuttedthechurch
26/6/1850,24/8/1850,15/4/1852,1503 15/3/1852
andL.q>3ofMarch1852). can be discerned.The densityofhousingin thearea,long
6 M. Bendtsen, Sketches andMeasurings, (Copenhagen, before the Revolution of 1821, is noticeable in the
1993)
217, fig.62; A. Papanikolaou-Christensen, 'Atirjva1818- topographical planbyVerneda.See J.Travlos(n.4) 179,fig.
1853, "Egya Aavajv KaXXirexvcov (Athens1985) 104, fig. 117.
126;I. Haugsted,Ta eXXr'vixd rergdSiatoo agxirexrova 29. In BindesbelPs drawing, thebell-tower hastwoarches.This
must be a mistakesince all theother drawings showonearch.
Xq. Hansen,' AgxaioXoyia(1985) 17, fig.8.
7 S. PapadopoulosandA. Karakatsani, To Aevxcojua neons, Also,thepanoramaofAthensbyStademann (Munich1841)
(Athens1971) 90-1, pls.7, 9. showsthedomeand bell-tower of theTaxiarchs, thelatter
8. M. Bendtsen, (n.6) 304, fig.84, 85. likewisewithone arch.
9. A. Papanikolaou-Christensen, (n.6) pl. 141. 30. A. Xyngopoulos(n.i) 92. The wall-painting depictedthe
10. J. Skene,Mvjyueiaxai ronia rfjg'EXXddog, Last Judgement.Accordingto Couchaud(n.14) 20> they
1833-1845,
(Athens1985) fig.21. werecrudelyexecuted.
11. A. Kokkou,7///e£ ijiva yidrigdgxawrrfreg 31. See J.Travlosin Reallexikon zur byzantinishenKunst,col.
orr'v'EXXdSa,
(Athens1977) 113, fig.41. 382,Athens.
12. W.Cole,SelectViewsoftheRemains ofAncient Monuments in 32. The relatively tall columns,2.70m, permita cross-vault
Greece,(London,1835) no.4. arrangement. See S. Mamaloukos,TIo:QaTr|Qr|aei(; axr|v
13. M. Chatzidakis,Athenesbyzantines, (Athens1958) 56, 5iap.oQcpcoor|tg>v yroviaxaJvSiafieQiaudxov x©v
fig-55- 5ixiovicovoxai)Qoei5a>vvawvxfjq'EAAd5o<;', DChAE, 14
14. A. Couchaud, Choix a en
Eglisesbyzantines Grece,(Paris (1987-8) 194 ff,fig.5, andnote59, wheremention is made
1842) pl. 16. oftheTaxiarchs.
15. In EME 1, B', 92, fig.103 and95, fig.102. 33. Ibid.,195-7.
16. S. Sinos,Die sogenannte KirchedesHagiosElias zu Athen, 34. Asomatoiin Theseion, the katholikon of the Kaisariani
BZ 64(1971) 353- monastery, Hagios Thomas at Tanagra,the katholikon at
17. Ibid.,352, note7, pl.V,fig.3. Lechova,HagioiTheodoroiannexto theHosios Meletios
18. T. DuMoncel, Vuespittoresques des monuments dAthenes, monastery.
(Paris,1845) Pls-22~3- 35. An elementknownto haveoriginated in Constantinople.
K. Ai
19. J.Travlos,(n. 5) 169, fig.110; Biris, exxXrjaiai,(n. 36. See S. Mamaloukos (n.32) and M. Soteriou 'O
3), 40; Idem.Ai 'A&fjvai(n.3) 91; D. D. Kambouroglous, dQxix£xxovixo<;xutcoc;xou xa9oA.ixou Tr'c,Movfiq
MeXexaixai epeuvai (Athens1023) 21. nexQaxr) xai oi axauQoeiSeic; vaoixriq'EXXadoc,',
20. The perspective illustrationinMonuments anciensetmodernes, DChAE, 2 (1960-1) 114-27.
ii,part1,Arch.Eph.(1853) 864,andthelinedrawings ofthe 37. As in theSoterchurchatAmphissa.
elevationsin^architecture du Veau XVIIe siecle,(Paris1854)i. 38. Certifiedby BindesbelPsgroundplan and the sectionby
21. In EME, 1, B', (Athens1929), 93, fig.101 and 87, fig.91 Couchaud. Similarexamplescanbe foundat thechurchof
respectively. theHomologitaiand at HagioiApostoloiin theAthenian
22. Ibid.,87. Agora,theSoteratAmphissa,thePanayiaKrinaon Chios
23. H. Holtzinger, Altchristliche undbyzantinische Baukunst, etc.
3,
(Leipzig 1909) 169, figs.269-71, and L. Philippidou,'H 39 See A. Frantz,TheChurch oftheHolyApostles, (Princeton

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.98 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:14:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74 BOURAS
CHARALAMBOS

lQ7l)36,flg.l2,pls. 19b,25.
40. National Technical University,Bv^avnva Mvrmeia,
(Athens1970) pl. 18.
41. E. Stikas,'O vaoq xwv'Ayitov'Aocojidxcov ©r|aeiou',
DChAE, 1 (1959) 119, fig.3.
42. See L. Philippidou(n.23) 8, 9; L. Bouras,'0 ykvnroq
Sidxoojuogrod vaou rfjgFlavayiaq oro juovaoTijgirod
'OaiovAouxa, (Athens1980) 25, 26.
43. See thedrawing byBindesbell,northsideofthechurch.
44. See A. H. S. Megaw,The chronologyof some Middle-
Byzantine Churchesin Greece',BSA 32 (1931-2) 117.
45. See L. Philippidou-Bouras, 'O e£covaQ0r|xa<; tou
xaBoXixoutou'Ogiou Aouxa OcoxiSoq',DChAE 6 (1970-
2) 13-28. For previouslyunknowndepictionsof the
demolished exonarthex, seeM. Bendtsen(n.8) 395, fig.135.
46. This is clearin thedrawingofthefacadein theKarlsruhe
collection.On theemphasisofthehorizontal on thefaces
of Greekchurchesof the 12thcentury, see Ch. Bouras,
'Bo£avTive<;'dvayevvriGeK;' xat r) aQxixexrovixritou
liou xai 1201)aiwvoc;',DChAE,5 (1966-9) 262, 263.
47. Discerniblein thedrawings byBindesbelland Couchaud.
48. Discernible in the sectionbyCouchaud.
longitudinal
49. In Bindesbell'ssectionplan,one can discernthe original
positionof thesetwo columncapitalsfromtheirsmall
proportions.
50. In BindesbelPsgroundplan and Couchaud'ssection,the
plaque appearsto havea lengthof 2.05m. Accordingto
Couchaud(n.15), 20, the sarcophaguswas in its original
place,andusedforchildbaptisms.
51. The originaldimensions wouldhavebeen8ox2O3cm.
52. Th. Vazarzs/AvayAvcpeq aagxocpayoi xai eniracpieq
xai
nkaxeqrfjq^earig rfjgvoregriqPv(avTivfj<; negioSov
ornv'EXkaSa,(Athens1988).
53. Ibid.,on 46 (no.60), 46 (no.59), 47 (no. 62) respectively.
54. An intactplaque has been includedabovetheentranceto
thekatholikon.
55. Th. Pazaras(n.52) 103, 104 whereexamplesareprovided.
56. As in the'Peribleptos', nearPolitika,Euboea (Ch. Bouras,
inAg%ewvEvpo'ix&vMeXsrcov, 28 (1988-9), phot.5), the
katholikon of thePhaneromeni on Salamis(unpublished),
andtheSoterat Galaxidi(unpublished).
57. Perhapsno such otherexampleof similardecorationis
known.
58. A. Orlandos, 'XQiariavixct yXvuxa tou uouaeiou
XuuQvric;',Arch.Byz Mnem,3 (1937) 138, fig.11, no. 13.
The datingofthesculpture to the9thor 10thcentury may
be doubtful.
59. A. Frantz, (n.39), 13, 14; L. Bouras, 'Architectural
Sculpturesofthe12thandearly13thcenturies in Greece',
DChAE,9 (1977-9) 67, pl. 24, fig-8.
60. A. Orlandos,'Oi vaoi t©vTciqcivwvxai TfjqAexoPa<;",
Arch.Byz. Mnem.1 (1935) 96-8. The doorframe remains
unpublished.
61. A. Orlandos,O TiaQaxf)vAucpiooavvaoq tou L(arr'Qoq,
Arch.Byz.Mnem.1 (1935), 194, fig-H-
62. A. Orlandos,'H uovr| tou'Ooiou MeXeTiou xai to
TiaQaXauQiaauTfjc;',Arch.Byz. Mnem.^ (1939-40) 73>
fig.24, 97, fig-44-
63. A. Orlandos, 'Bu^avTivduvrpeia Tfjc;vAv8qou'Arch.Byz.
Mnem.,8 (1955-6) 57, fig-36>66>% 49-
64. R. L. Scranton,MediaevalArchitecture, {-Lonnth AVl)
(1957) nos.159, 160, 161.
65. A. Xyngopoulos, 'Xqiotiovixov AcxAr)7ueiov,Arch.Lph.
(1915) 63-4, fig.16.
66. A. Orlandos,(n.b2) 103, tig.51.
67. A. Frantz,(n.39).

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.98 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:14:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions