PHIALAI ON MOUNT ATHOS:

THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE

PHIALAI ON MOUNT ATHOS:
ORIGINS OF THEIR USE,
FORM AND LOCATION
THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE ORIGINS
OF THEIR USE, FORM AND LOCATION*

NEBOJŠA STANKOVIĆ

A b s t r a c t. – Phialē is a water receptacle most commonly fashioned as a stone bowl

and used for the Blessing of the Waters. On Mount Athos, it is customarily set within a
baldachin-like kiosk, also called phialē, in the monastery’s yard. The oldest surviving
such installation, at Vatopedi, dates to the mid-14th century. The phialē at Great Lavra,
although constructed in 1635, most probably replaces and reproduces the original
one from 1060. Therefore, an outdoor phialē seems to have been a standard feature
of an Athonite monastery complex from the very beginning. The paper examines the
phialē’s notable location in the area between the church’s entrance and the refectory,
some elements of its design, and the outdoor position in relation to the supply of run-
ning water. Beyond these technical reasons, some functional (liturgical), symbolical
(theological), and historical aspects are also discussed as likely factors contributing
to the concept and use of this architectural feature in the Middle Byzantine period.
K e y w o r d s : Phialē, Blessing of the Waters, Mount Athos, Middle Byzantine
architecture, monastic ritual, spatial setting, water installations

I
In Byzantine tradition, the phialē (φιάλη, meaning ‘flat bowl or basin’) – also termed
λεκάνη (‘basin’) or λουτήρ (‘washing tub’)1 – was a water receptacle most commonly

* A shorter version of this paper, which stems
from my doctoral thesis entitled At the Threshold
of the Heavens. The narthex and adjacent spac-
es in Middle Byzantine churches of Mount Athos
(10th–11th centuries) – Architecture, function, and
meaning, Princeton University 2017, was present-
ed at the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine
Studies in Belgrade on 24 August 2016. Shortly
after, at a kind invitation by Dr. Vangelis Malada-
kis, whose trust and support I gratefully acknowl-
edge here, the paper was submitted and accepted
for publication in the Athōnika Tetradia. Unfor-
tunately, the prepared issue of this journal has
not been published for more than three years,
due to unexpected difficulties. Therefore, I had
to withdraw my contribution with regret and of-
fer it to Hilandarski zbornik. I thank its Editorial
23 Board, and Academician Mirjana Živojinović in
particular, for providing me with the opportuni-
ty to publish the paper in this journal. I am also
indebted to Erin Kalish for proofreading the ar-
ticle and helping me improve its language. The
final version of the paper was prepared as part
of the research project Serbian Medieval Art and
Its European Context, funded by the Ministry of
Education, Science, and Technological Develop-
ment of the Republic of Serbia (No 177036), and
during my tenure as a research associate at the
Institute for Art History, Faculty of Philosophy,
University of Belgrade.
1 For these words, see H. G. Liddell, R. Scott,
A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented
throughout by Sir H. Stuart Jones, with the assis-
tance of R. McKenzie, Oxford 1996, 1930, 1037,
1061, respectively.
fashioned out of stone in the shape of a bowl on a pillar-like stand. Permanently NEBOJŠA
STANKOVIĆ
fixed in the narthex, exonarthex, or outside the church, it was used for the Great
and Lesser Blessings of the Waters, hence the alternative term, hagiasma (ἁγίασμα,
lit. ‘something that is sanctified’, i.e. ‘holy water’).2 The former of the two rites is
conducted once a year, on the feast of Epiphany. The latter seems to have developed
from the former, as a way to secure a constant inflow of holy water throughout the
year since its availability was of particular importance in the monastic setting, due to
the great number of daily services and blessings, which required the use of holy water.
On Mount Athos, the customary venue for both rites has been a basin protected
within a freestanding baldachin-like pavilion in the monastery’s yard, and the entire
structure is also called phialē (fig. 1). The form of a ciborium and the presence of a
domical covering both provide an appropriate architectural and symbolically imbued
setting for the ritual action taking place underneath and underline its sacredness.3
This outdoor facility is commonly located in front of the katholikon or slightly to
the side, but within the church’s entrance zone. The great majority of existing phialai
were constructed in the 18th and 19th centuries. However, the core of the oldest sur-
viving phialē, that of the Vatopedi monastery (fig. 2), dates to the mid-14th century,
and the phialē of the Great Lavra monastery (fig. 1), although it was constructed in
1635, most probably replaces, reproduces, and perhaps incorporates some pieces
of the original one from 1060. Therefore, an outdoor phialē seems to have been a
standard asset of Athonite monasteries since the foundation of the earliest ones.
Yet, it is very likely that another water font was housed within the narthex. This is
suggested by both archaeological and artistic evidence, such as marble fonts, dated
to the late 10th or early 11th century, preserved at the monasteries of Vatopedi and
Pantokrator,⁴ as well as appropriate iconographic settings – a fresco of the Baptism of
Christ – found in the katholika of the monasteries of Chilandar (1321), Koutloumousiou
(1539/1540), and Stavroniketa (1545/1546, fig. 4).⁵ Except for the last one, which is the
2 Ibid., 9. l’Athos, Годишник на Софийския универси-
тет “Св. Климент Охридски”, Център за славя-
3 On the ciborium and its role in the creation of
но-византийски проучвания “Иван Дуйчев”
sacred space, see J. Bogdanović, The Framing of
93 [12] (София 2003) 87–93, 364–378, p. 89, with
Sacred Space. The canopy and the Byzantine church,
a photograph (fig. 14b). It has been dated to the
New York 2017, esp. 70–74 and 241–243, for dis-
10th–11th centuries: Γ. Πάλλης, Λίθινες φιάλες και
cussions on canopy-protected holy water fonts.
κολυμβήθρες με ανάγλυφο διάκοσμο της μέσης και
Further elaborations, particularly on the symbolical
ύστερης βυζαντινής περιόδου από την Ελλάδα,
dimension of the domed form and painted deco-
Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρίας
ration of the phialē in relation to its ritual use, can
[ΔΧΑΕ] 33 (Αθήνα 2012) 119–130, pp. 119–120.
be found in eadem, The Phiale as a Spatial Icon in
A large fragment of a similar marble font (38 cm
the Byzantine Cultural Sphere, Святая вода в ие-
in diameter) was discovered in the south church of
ротопии и иконографии христианского мира,
the Constantinopolitan Pantokrator Monastery, in
ред. А. М. Лидов, Москва 2017, 372–396.
a vault underneath the sanctuary floor – see A. H.
4 The Vatopedi font (55 cm in diameter and 26 S. Megaw, Notes on Recent Work of the Byzantine
cm in height) is described as a portable phialē and Institute in Istanbul, Dumbarton Oaks Papers [DOP]
is published in Treasures of Mount Athos, ed. A. A. 17 (Washington DC 1963) 333–371, 348, fig. 4.
Karakatsanis, Thessaloniki 1997), 243, entry 6.7
(Th. N. Pazaras). The original location of this piece 5 All these wall paintings are to be found on
is not specified, but its modest size suggests that the east walls of the narthexes. For their exact
it could not have been used in the open phialē in positions and dates of execution, see Ν. Τουτός,
front of the church, which would have required a Γ. Φουστέρης, Ευρετήριον της μνημειακής ζωγρα-
larger water receptacle. The font of Pantokrator φικής του Αγίου Όρους, 10ος – 17ος αιώνας, Αθήναι
is mentioned by P. Androudis, Nouvelles données 2010, 177, 186, 189 (Chilandar), 295, 305, 310
archeologiques sur les monastères abandonnés de (Koutloumousiou), and 375, 384 (Stavroniketa). 24
PHIALAI ON MOUNT ATHOS: sole phialē in the monastery, since its narrow courtyard would not have allowed for the
THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE
ORIGINS OF THEIR USE,
placement of an exterior facility,⁶ all of the other interior fonts are only secondary to
FORM AND LOCATION those in the outdoor pavilions. Today, they often serve as depositories for previously
blessed water.⁷ There are many other examples of fonts outside Mount Athos, also set
in the narthex, exonarthex, or adjacent rooms, acting as sole installations of the kind.
They are usually located in regions with harsh winters, such as Serbia, which justifies
the conflation of the two distinct pieces into a single setting. Also, they date from the
end of the 12th to the late 14th century, suggesting a somewhat later development.⁸
Athonite communities, instead, retained their courtyard phialai, which were – as
argued here – what was originally used as the primary, if not the only venue for
the Great Blessing of the Waters. As shown below, creating an outdoor facility for
this religious ritual seems to have been motivated by a prescribed procession out-
side the church on the feast of Epiphany, as well as by the location of a source or
container of water in the yard. An indoor font may have been used for the Lesser
Blessing and, only incidentally – in case of adverse weather conditions – for the
Great Blessing.⁹ However, a font housed indoors was primarily intended for storing
holy water after it had been blessed at the phialē in the courtyard, thereby making
it available to the monks after Holy Communion on Sundays and Feasts.1⁰ In this
article, through the pursuit of the original form and spatial contexts of a few outdoor
Athonite examples, I offer some considerations regarding their location, setting,
and use in the Middle Byzantine period.

T B   W

I start by calling to attention the very rite of the Great Blessing of the Waters on the
eve of the Epiphany, as described in the Rule of the Monastery of St. John Stoudios
in Constantinople (a text dated to after 842):11

6 See Ν. Σ. Χαρκιολάκης, Παράδοση και εξέ-
λιξη στην αρχιτεκτονική της Ιεράς Μονής Σταυ-
ρονικήτα Αγίου Όρους. Η παραδοσιακή εξέλιξη
εωός ζωντανού αρχιτεκτονικού μνημείου και τα
προβλήματα της αρχαιολογικής αντίληψης για
τη διατήρησή του σήμερα (Άγιον Όρος 1999),
fig. 3 on p. 87.
7 E.g. Chilandar (narthex) and Vatopedi (ex-
onarthex). These two indoor containers are made
of metal. However, in the view of the great num-
ber of surviving medieval fonts made of stone
throughout Byzantium and beyond (cf. Πάλλης,
Λίθινες φιάλες και κολυμβήθρες, for some items
found in Greece), it is conceivable that Athonite
narthexes were equipped with similar pieces,
placed there as permanent fixtures.
8 See O. Kandić, Fonts for the Blessing of the Wa-
ters in Serbian Medieval Churches, Зограф 27 (Бео-
град 1998–1999) 61–77, esp. 66–76, for a plethora
of Serbian examples dating to this period.
9 See V. Marinis, Architecture and Ritual in the
Churches of Constantinople. Ninth to fifteenth cen-
25 turies, Cambridge – New York 2014, 97, n. 136,
for euchologia containing rubrics for the cele-
bration of the rite either inside or outside the
church building.
10 See Kandić, Fonts, 66, for a contrary opinion
concerning Studenica, i.e. that its exterior phialē,
due to its openness, was used for the more fre-
quent Lesser Blessing of the Waters, whereas the
Great Blessing was performed inside the narthex,
at a font that has not survived. About the phialē
at Studenica, see below.
11 For the order of offices for the feast of the
Epiphany, see The Festal Menaion, trans. Mother
Mary, Kallistos Ware, London 1969, 295–387. For
the office of the Greater Blessing of the Waters,
see Π. Ν. Τρεμπέλας, Ἡ ἀκολουθία Μεγάλου Ἁγια-
σμοῦ, I–III, Θεολογία 21 (Αθήναι 1950), 385–399,
541–556, and Θεολογία 22 (Αθήναι 1951), 40–50,
and Православная энциклопедия IX, Москва
2005, 140–148, s. v. Водоосвящение (М. Жел-
тов) [hereafter Желтов, Водоосвящение], where
related rites and customs are discussed as well. For
the office’s history, see N. E. Denysenko, The Bless-
ing of Waters and Epiphany: The eastern liturgical
tradition (Farnham, Surrey–Burlington VT 2012).
 It should be known that on the vigil of the Feast of Epiphany after the dismissal of NEBOJŠA
the divine liturgy, […] the priest goes to the holy doors and, having offered a prayer, STANKOVIĆ

he exits to the fountain [in the atrium of the church] together with the brothers who
sing the troparion “The voice of the Lord on the waters” in the fourth mode. When
this has been chanted three times and the customary readings have been finished,
the deacon recites the synapte. When this is finished, the priest begins the prayer
of blessing [of the waters]. After the waters have been blessed, and the brothers
have been sprinkled, the troparion “While thou wert being baptized in the Jordan,
O Lord” is sung in the first mode.
After this troparion has been sung three times, we go into the church singing the
troparion “Today the Trinity in the unity of Divinity.” When this is sung three times,
the priest offers a prayer and the holy doxology is finished. Thereupon, the brothers
file out in order to the refectory.12
Because we lack a contemporary Athonite reference to the rite’s celebration, I use
this as an illustration of the most likely way this custom was performed on the pen-
insula during the Middle Byzantine period, since the Rule of St. Athanasius for Great
Lavra largely borrows from that of the Stoudios monastery.13 I would particularly
underline the inclusion of solemn processions out of the church to the phialē in the
courtyard and back as parts of the ritual pattern, which is still observed on Mount
Athos.1⁴ Interestingly, there is a second blessing of the waters on Epiphany, which
takes place on the very day of the feast. At the Chilandar monastery, for example,
it is performed at a stream outside the monastery, whereas the monks of Iveron
go in procession to the seashore.1⁵ In some other monasteries on the peninsula,
this blessing occurs at the phialē, whereas the blessing on the eve of the feast takes
place inside the katholikon, probably in the narthex.1⁶
It is worth mentioning that the modern Athonite liturgical practice also includes
the Lesser Blessing of the Waters, performed at the beginning of each month. It
can take place after the First Hour, Sixth Hour, or following the Divine Liturgy.1⁷
This office seems to have been constituted as late as the 11th–12th centuries.1⁸
It may also be performed in conjunction with a festal service, most typically on
the occasion of the church’s patronal feast.1⁹ There are, however, three feasts in
the Church calendar that have been traditionally associated with some source of
water or with a particular blessing involving the True Cross, and thus entail the
performance of the Lesser Blessing of the Waters. These are Bright Friday (Feast of

See also The Synaxarion of the Monastery of the
Theotokos Evergetis, I, ed. and trans. R. H. Jordan,
Belfast 2000, 414–421 (Greek text and English
translation), for a detailed description of the rite
of the Blessing of the Waters within a 12th-centu-
ry monastic context. This source shows that the
narthex was not the exclusive architectural setting
for this rite, which was celebrated wherever the
water basin was located, making the use of the
narthex only incidental (cf. Marinis, Architecture
and Ritual, p. 73).
12 Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents:
A Complete Translation of Surviving Founders’ Typ-
ika and Testaments, I, ed. J. Thomas, A. C. Hero,
Washington DC 2000 (this work cited herein-
after as BMFD), 115 (#A[38]), 113–114 (#B37).
The interpolations in square brackets are by trans-
lator, Timothy Miller.
13 See BMFD, I, 213–214.
14 Cf. Онуфрије Хиландарац, Светогорски
богослужбени устав, [Београд] 2004, 126–127.
15 Ibid., 127.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid., 187; cf. also 129, 137–138. For the office
of the Lesser Blessing of the Waters, see Π. Ν. Τρε-
μπέλας, Ἡ ἀκολουθία τοῦ Μικροῦ Ἁγιασμοῦ, I–II,
Θεολογία 22 (Αθήναι 1951), 226–241, 402–415.
18 See Желтов, Водоосвящение.
19 Ibid. 26
PHIALAI ON MOUNT ATHOS: the Theotokos the Life-Giving Spring), Mid-Pentecost (commemorating Christ’s
THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE
ORIGINS OF THEIR USE,
encounter and conversation with the Samaritan Woman on Jacob’s Well), and Pro-
FORM AND LOCATION cession of the Precious Wood of the Life-Giving Cross of the Lord on August 1st.2⁰
The usual venue for the blessing on all these occasions is the phialē. Originally it
may have been staged in the narthex or wherever the water basin was located, as
directed in a Constantinopolitan euchologion dated to 1027.21 Vasileios Marinis
is of the opinion, and I agree, that the Lesser Blessing, being performed more
frequently and less solemnly than the Great Blessing, may have been set in the
narthex out of convenience so as to avoid bringing the entire congregation to the
phialē located outside the church.22 This, together with the storing of holy water,
which on Mount Athos is commonly consumed immediately after the Divine
Liturgy, justifies the presence of two holy water fonts in a monastery complex.
The outdoor phialē is surely used in Athonite communities for the Lesser Blessing
of the Waters on more solemn occasions, such as the Feast of the Procession of
the Life-Giving Cross,23 when the rite takes place between Matins and Hours, as
part of a procession of the brethren out of the church and back in.2⁴ Moreover,
the considerable frequency of monthly performance of the Lesser Blessing at the
phialē has added further to the importance of this architectural installation and
made its use and iconic image deeply imprinted in the physical and mental layout
of the monastic space on Mount Athos.2⁵

C   ’ 

The outdoor phialē is most commonly positioned between the west façade of the
katholikon and the refectory, located farther to the west. This can be observed in
the three oldest and most eminent Athonite monasteries, Great Lavra, Vatopedi,
and Iveron (fig. 3) – which are discussed in greater detail in the next section of the
present study – as well as in the Koutloumousiou, Philotheou, and the St Panteleimon
monasteries. In addition to the pronounced position between the two arguably most
important structures in the monastic complex, other topographical elements suggest
the involvement of another spatial consideration: the areas where the phialai are
located also communicate closely with the main gates of the monastic complexes.

20 For the blessing of the waters on the former
two feasts and its symbolic and iconographic rela-
tionship with the architectural and painted setting
provided by a domed canopy, with the example of
the Post-Byzantine phialē at Great Lavra on Mount
Athos, see Bogdanović, The Phiale as a Spatial
Icon, 373–379; for the third feast and the develop-
ment of the associated blessing of the waters, see
Желтов, Водоосвящение (with older references).
A modern systematic overview of Athonite ritual
practices – Онуфрије Хиландарац, Светогорски
богослужбени устав – specifically provides in-
formation on the Lesser Blessing of the Waters on
1 August (p. 137) and allows its performance on
Mid-Pentecost (p. 176), while curiously missing to
mention it in relation to Bright Friday (cf. p. 173).
21 А. Дмитриевскій, Описаніе литургиче-
27 скихъ рукописей хранящихся въ библіотекахъ
православнаго Востока, II. Εὐχολόγια. Кіевъ
1901, 1051 (cited after Marinis, Architecture and
Ritual, 72, n. 51).
22 Marinis, Architecture and Ritual, 73. Cf. also
Г. Геров, Изображението на Кръщение Хри-
стово върху западната фасада на Боянска-
та църква – функция и контекст, Боянската
църква между Изтока и Запада в изкуството
на християнска Европа, ред. Б. Пенкова, Со-
фия 2011, 151–161 (pp. 152–153).
23 See note 20.
24 Онуфрије Хиландарац, Светогорски бого-
службени устав, 137–138.
25 Cf. Bogdanović, The Phiale as a Spatial Icon,
385–386, based on an account by Maximos the
Greek (ca. 1475–1556), Athonite monk and church
scholar active in Russia.
This was also the case in the Esphigmenou monastery in 1744, when the well-known NEBOJŠA
STANKOVIĆ
Russian monk and traveller, Vasiliĭ Grigorovich-Barskiĭ, visited the monastery and
recorded it in a drawing (fig. 5), and before the church and the greater part of the
monastery were rebuilt in the 19th century. The Chilandar, Zographou (fig. 6), Xe-
ropotamou, and the St Paul monasteries have their phialai placed to the north or
south of the katholika, which was certainly influenced by the lack of space between
the churches and refectories, but the phialai nonetheless maintain positions on the
way from the church to the monastery gate. Similarly, the spacious stone-paved
courtyard between the church, refectory, and the main gate at the monastery of Zy-
gou very likely may have been the site of a phialē.2⁶ In the Kellion of St Procopius, a
damaged monolithic bowl lies discarded in the yard west of the church’s entrance.2⁷
The form and relatively large size suggest that this was a holy water font and – if it
has not been moved far from its original location – that it was set within a phialē in
front of the church, again in keeping with the Athonite tradition.
Besides these considerations regarding the spatial organization and traffic paths,
there was a close association of the phialē with a source of water, since the basin
under the canopy often featured continuously running water. The most celebrated
case is found in Great Lavra, but there are a few other instances as well. Barskiĭ, for
example, saw a water fountain in a porch preceding the two narthexes of the old
katholikon of Philotheou, the building that was still in place at his visit in 1744.2⁸
However, his drawing of the monastery (fig. 7) does not show any porch. Yet, a
pyramidal roof of a square structure can be seen between the church’s west front
and the monastery’s west range. This edifice may in fact have been the “porch”
that he mentions and it may have enclosed a font and served as the hagiasma.
The modern phialē occupies exactly the same position. Barskiĭ’s drawing of the
Xenophontos monastery (fig. 8) shows a similar four-sided canopy protecting a
wellhead located just off the south entrance of the narthex, which in fact may have
provided the main access into the katholikon.2⁹ This canopy may have doubled as a
phialē, with the presence of a source of natural water likely dictating such a choice
for the structure’s location.3⁰ Additionally, situated on the major communication
axis between the monastery gate and the katholikon, it would conform to the spatial
pattern noted above and in other cases.31 As far as other known Middle Byzantine

26 See I. Ath. Papangelos, Das Athos-Kloster Zy-
gos, Thessaloniki 2005, fig. 9. It is tempting to see
the regular circular substructure located close to
the northwest corner of the exonarthex as the
foundation of one, but it has been identified as a
lime-kiln (ibid., No 13).
27 I observed it during my visit in 2008.
28 В. Григоровичъ-Барскій, Странствованія
Василья Григоровича-Барскаго по святымъ мѣ-
стамъ Востока съ 1723 по 1747 г., III. Вто-
рое посѣщеніе Святой Аѳонской горы (1744),
C.-Петербургъ 1887 [hereinafter Барскій, Вто-
рое посѣщеніе], 120.
29 The monastery gate was somewhere in the
southwest corner of the enceinte and, therefore,
the main approach to the katholikon was from the
south side (cf. P. L. Theocharides, Architectural
Organization of the Athonite Monasteries during
the Byzantine Period, Athos, la Sainte Montagne.
Tradition et renouveau dans l’art, éd. G. Galavaris,
Αθωνικά Σύμμεικτα 10 (Αθήνα 2007), 97–128,
pp. 105–106).
30 Similarly, the phialē at Docheiariou was
formed next to a well of natural water, the situa-
tion that explains its location north of the church,
against the north range of the monastery com-
plex (see below, in the section Concluding con-
siderations).
31 According to Barskiĭ’s renderings of the Xero-
potamou and Zographou monasteries (Барскій,
Второе посѣщеніе, plates between pp. 306–307
and 250–251, respectively), their phialai were sim-
ilarly situated on the way between the church and
the main monastery gate, east and north of the
main churches respectively (the latter still occupies 28
PHIALAI ON MOUNT ATHOS: churches of Mount Athos – those of Protaton, Ravdouchou, Kalamitsion, St Deme-
THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE
ORIGINS OF THEIR USE,
trius, Voroskopou, and Melissourgeiou – are concerned, no information is available
FORM AND LOCATION as to whether they had outdoor phialai, or where they may have been situated in
relation to churches. I will return to the location aspects after addressing the three
major cases and their forms.

M A    M B 

Despite dating to 1635 or slightly earlier,32 the phialē of Great Lavra (figs. 1, 9) was
almost certainly constructed in the place of the original 1060 phialē, repeating its
form and using some of its building elements.33 It is designed as an octagonal bal-
dachin, with a hemispherical dome supported by eight columns, protecting a large
monolithic circular basin in the centre (fig. 10). In the middle of the basin, there is
an elaborate water-spouting conduit (strobilion) made of bronze and decorated with
various animals arranged in three tiers.3⁴ The conduit dates to the Middle Byzantine
period, most likely standing in its original place as part of the 1060 installation.3⁵
This equipment testifies to the phailē having been envisaged as a fountain, with
constantly running water, as shown in a drawing by Barskiĭ (fig. 11). Six intercolum-
niations of the canopy are closed with decoratively carved marble parapet slabs in
such a manner that the remaining two without closures are situated on the opposite
sides of each other, suggesting a processional movement through the structure or,
at least, enabling the unimpeded circulation of a large number of attendants, such
as when they are sprinkled with the holy water and take sips of it. Conveniently,
one of the openings faces the main entrance of the katholikon, with a short covered
passageway connecting the two structures today, while the other opening directs to
the refectory’s entrance (see figs. 9, 1). In this way, a sequence of movements – from
the liturgical service in the church, through the blessing and consumption of the
holy water at the phialē, to the communal meal in the refectory – can progress in
a more or less straight line. Originally, when the church’s west façade was farther

the same position). On Xeropotamou’s original
layout, see P. L. Theocharides, Recent Research into
Athonite Monastic Architecture, tenth–sixteenth
centuries, Mount Athos and Byzantine monasti-
cism. Papers from the Twenty-eighth Spring Sym-
posium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March
1994, ed. A. Bryer, M. Cunningham, Aldershot
– Brookfield VT 1996, 205–221, fig. 16.3, and
idem, Architectural Organization, 104–105, fig. 5.
32 The frescoes in the dome of the phialē date
to 1635 (G. Millet, J. Pargoire, L. Petit, Recueil des
inscriptions chrétiennes de l’Athos. Première part-
ie, Paris 1904, 129, #391), but the very structure
could have been (re)built earlier, as early as the 16th
century – to which the canopy’s Ottoman capitals
can be attributed – perhaps following a strong
earthquake that took place in 1585 (cf. L. Bouras,
Some Observations on the Grand Lavra Phiale at
Mount Athos and its Bronze Strobilion, ΔΧΑΕ 8
(Αθήνα 1975–1976) 85–96, pp. 88, 94).
33 For this opinion, see Bouras, Some Obser-
29 vations, 86–88, 94; some additional remarks are
offered by Σ. Βογιατζής, Σκέψεις και εικασίες γύρω
από τη φιάλη της Ιέρας Μονής Μεγίστης Λαύρας
στο Άγιον Όρος, Είκοστο ένατο συμπόσιο Βυζα-
ντινής και Μεταβυζαντινής αρχαιολογιίας και
τέχνης, Αθήνα, 15, 16 και 17 Μαΐου 2009. Πρό-
γραμμα και περιλήψεις εισηγήσεων και ανακοι-
νώσεων (Αθήνα 2009), 26–27. The consecration
of a phialē in 1060 is known through an inscrip-
tion published in Millet–Pargoire–Petit, Inscrip-
tions chrétiennes de l’Athos, 107–108, #333. The
presence of running water (see below) and the
accompanying water supply system would not
allow for a major moving of the facility, if at all.
34 For a detailed description and photographs
of the strobilion and its analysis, see Bouras, Some
Observations, 88–94.
35 Ibid., 93. Only the eagle on the top seems
to have been added later, but certainly prior to
1744 (when it was depicted in a drawing by Bar-
skiĭ – see below), perhaps as part of the 1635 res-
toration (Bouras, Some observations, 93–94). It
was removed sometime in the later 20th century.
east,3⁶ the phialē had a more central position in the yard. It seems quite likely that NEBOJŠA
STANKOVIĆ
the present parapet slabs, three of which can be dated according to their stylistic
features to the 11th century,3⁷ belonged to the original protective canopy of a very
similar form and even took a role identical to the one they have today.3⁸
The core of Vatopedi’s phialē, which consists of a hemispherical dome raised on
eight slender pillars, protecting a marble font (fig. 12), apparently dates to the mid-
14th century.3⁹ It was initially a freestanding structure, erected at a short distance
from the southwest corner of the exonarthex, where some major communication
paths within the monastery meet (fig. 2). Upon the construction of the present
long, open porch at the end of the 17th century,⁴⁰ the gap between the phialē and
the church compound became awkwardly narrow. The architectural solution was
found by adding an envelope of a square plan around the original structure, as a
drawing by Barskiĭ documents (fig. 13). The canopy acquired its present form in a
partial rebuilding in 1810, when the envelope was restructured in a circular plan
and with sixteen colonnettes (fig. 12).⁴1 A barrel-vaulted ambulatory was formed
between the two rings of pillars. The result – a double-shelled pavilion – is unusual,
but is still in keeping with the basic concept of an open, domed canopy. The parapet
slabs close all but two openings of the outer circle. These two are situated at the
opposite ends: at the east, allowing access from the porch, and at the west, where
it opens to the courtyard (fig. 2). The same was the case with the structure Barskiĭ
saw (fig. 13). It should be noted that Barskiĭ’s drawing depicts a large and shallow
circular font, very similar to the one at Great Lavra. The present font, smaller and
square in shape, most likely replaced the original in the 1810 rebuilding.
The phialē of Iveron, located half-way between the katholikon and refectory, and
slightly off the axis formed by the two buildings due south (fig. 3), is in the form of
a marble baldachin consisting of ten columns capped with a regular hemispherical
dome. All but two intercolumniations, here situated at the north and south ends,
are closed with fretwork stone parapets. Interestingly, the two entrances feature
marble door frames with sculpted drawn-away curtains, a decorative feature that
may reflect some ancient custom of hanging curtains in the openings of a phialē.⁴2

36 See P. M. Mylonas, Le plan initial du catholi- 39 Σ. Β. Μαμαλούκος, Το Καθολικό της Μονής

con de la Grande-Lavra au Mont Athos et la genèse
du type du catholicon athonite, Cahiers archéolo-
giques 32 (Paris 1984) 89–112, esp. 95, fig. 6.b.
37 Bouras, Some Observations, 95–96. One of
the other three slabs has been compared to the
9th century sculptural material from Skripou (see
ibid., 88, n. 17).
38 Ibid., 95. S. Voyadjis, The Initial Phase of the
Katholikon of the Greatest Lavra Monastery, Mount
Athos through evidence of its phiale, Proceedings
of the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine
Studies, Sofia, 22–27 August 2011, III. Abstracts
of Free Communications, ed. I. Iliev, with the as-
sistance of E. Kostova and V. Angelov, Sofia 2011,
113, has argued that the parapet slabs were orig-
inally mounted in the sanctuary barriers of the
monastery’s main church and a chapel, as well as in
the katholikon’s 11th-century porch (exonarthex).
Βατοπεδίου. Ιστορία και αρχιτεκτονική, Αθήνα
2001, 211–212, 214, 219, and 391–392 (English
summary). The 14th-century date is based on
now-lost capitals once used in the domed core
of the phialē. They bore the monograms of the
Kantakouzenos family members. The dome was
painted in the second quarter of the 17th century
and the entire domed core remained unchanged
after the 1810 works, which consisted of recon-
figuring of the ambulatory from a square into a
circular plan. For the paintings in the dome, see
Τουτός, Φουστέρης, Ευρετήριον, 140–143.
40 The portico was built sometime between 1678
and 1704 (Μαμαλούκος, Το Καθολικό της Μονής
Βατοπεδίου, 214–215 and 392).
41 See above, note 39.
42 A similar stone frame, now missing, also ex-
isted in the phialē of Great Lavra, as recorded on 30
PHIALAI ON MOUNT ATHOS: The entire structure dates to 1863.⁴3 However, another one, apparently very sim-
THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE
ORIGINS OF THEIR USE,
ilar in form and located at the same place, or nearby, was recorded by Barskiĭ.⁴⁴
FORM AND LOCATION He mentions ten supporting pillars (the same number as in the present structure),
a lead-clad roof, and a marble water basin, “cut from clean and white marble, in the
likeness of a rose”, with a water spout in the middle.⁴⁵ With all these elements, the
structure observed by Barskiĭ was apparently not much different from the present
phialē. This evidence once again testifies to a strong respect for inherited facilities
and faithful adherence to older forms and solutions on Mount Athos. Therefore,
one can argue with great certainty that the present form of the phialē at Iveron can
be traced back to its medieval predecessor, even though its actual components and
materials are not original.
These three cases, even if expanded to include similar octagonal or circular phi-
alai that once stood at Zographou and Esphigmenou (figs. 5–6),⁴⁶ do not provide
sufficient information to establish what the standard form of Athonite phialai was
during medieval times. However, all other known examples from outside Mount
Athos and dating from the Middle Byzantine period seem to follow precisely the
same pattern, both in form and location, confirming that the ritual and architec-
tural schemes at the peninsula in this regard were part of a common tradition.
In the monastic complex of St George at Mangana, Constantinople (1042–1055),
in the centre of an atrium-like courtyard extending to the west of the church, ar-
chaeological excavations have revealed remains of a large and elaborate octagonal
structure, which likely was the protective canopy for a quatrefoil water basin.⁴⁷
The edifice was seen in 1403 by the Spanish ambassador Ruy González de Clavijo,
who described it as a canopy in the form of a dome set on eight columns, with “a
bathing font” underneath.⁴⁸ Another account of the same structure is contained
in the Anonymous description of Constantinople by a Russian pilgrim, dated to
1389–1391.⁴⁹ It adds a few more details on the appearance of the phialē, such as

Barskiĭ’s drawing of it (see fig. 11). The hanging
of real curtains was probably decorative and one
can picture them being used on festive occasions.
43 Millet–Pargoire–Petit, Inscriptions chrétiennes
de l’Athos, 87, #274.
44 Барскій, Второе посѣщеніе, 133–134; see
also Β. Γκρηγκορόβιτς Μπάρσκι, Τα ταξίδια του
στο Άγιον Όρος, 1725–1726, 1744–1745 [μετάφρ.
Ε. Στεργιοπούλου], φροντίδα και σχόλια του Π.
Μυλωνά, Θεσσαλονίκη, [Αθήνα] 2009, 332 (with
the appropriate commentaries by P. Mylonas on p.
622). According to Millet–Pargoire–Petit, Inscrip-
tions chrétiennes de l’Athos, 87, #273, this older phi-
alē was constructed in 1614 and restored in 1734.
45 According to P. Mylonas, the water basin has
been preserved, leaning against the wall of the
laundry, south of the refectory (Μπάρσκι, Τα τα-
ξίδια του στο Άγιον Όρος, 332, n. 475).
46 See Барскій, Второе посѣщеніе, plates be-
tween pp. 250–251, 220–221, respectively. The
undulated roofline of the phialē at Zographou
31 suggests that the building may have dated back to
the Byzantine times. The present structure seems
to occupy exactly the same location (cf. Π. Θεο-
χαρίδης, Ν. Μερτζιμέκης, Ι. Ταβλάκης, Ανασκα-
φική έρευνα στη μονή Ζωγράφου και στοιχεία για
την αναπαράσταση του παλιού περιβόλου της, Το
Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θρά-
κη 22 (Θεσσαλονίκη 2008, published in 2011),
443–452, fig. 5, plans 2, 3).
47 R. Demangel, E. Mamboury, Le quartier des
Manganes et la première région de Constantinople,
Paris 1939, 23–30; T. F. Mathews, The Byzantine
Churches of Istanbul: A photographic survey, Uni-
versity Park 1976, 200–205, plan on p. 203; Marin-
is, Architecture and Ritual, 96, 152–153 (with up-
dated bibliography).
48 C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire,
312–1453. Sources and documents, Englewood
Cliffs NJ 1972, 219. The attribute “bathing” may
have been used in reference to a large size of the
font.
49 G. P. Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constan-
tinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,
Washington DC 1984, 118 (with reference).
that the font was in the form of a stone cup on a column, the roof was lead-clad, NEBOJŠA
STANKOVIĆ
and, between the columns of the canopy, there were stone bars, decorated with
sculpted representations of the Evangelists and Apostles.⁵⁰ A similar “fountain
raised to a small height on a column” and enclosed with “a roof raised on eight
columns” stood in the courtyard of the Evergetis monastery in the early 13th cen-
tury; the dome was covered with lead plaques on its outer surface and painted on
the inner.⁵1 The Serbian monastery of Studenica, founded ca. 1186 and organized
after the Evergetis monastic model, also had an outdoor phialē. It was located at
a short distance from the katholikon’s west façade, south of the main portal, as
the archaeological remains witness (fig. 14). Again, the installation featured an
arrangement of eight marble columns, set on an eight-sided stepped platform and
supporting a protective covering for a marble cup-shaped font in the middle of
the platform.⁵2 It has been proposed that the phialē was constructed during the
abbacy of St Sava the Serbian (1206/1207–1216 or 1217), who moved to Studenica
from Chilandar.⁵3 This would explain its apparent emulation of Athonite models,
both in form and location.⁵⁴ In fact, the presence of such a facility, as well as its
form and location, likely combined two lines of influence – the Evergetine and
Athonite, which both stem from the same Stoudite monastic tradition. Upon the
addition of a spacious exonarthex to the church sometime between 1232 and 1234,
the phialē ended up being an indoor structure.⁵⁵ As such, it provided a model – in
terms of function, not design – for many similar interior solutions in later monastic
foundations in Serbia.
A few examples accompanying non-monastic churches are also known. First and
foremost, a large marble fountain with streaming water was situated in the middle
of Hagia Sophia’s atrium in 563.⁵⁶ The Nea Ekklesia (dedicated in 880) had two
lavish fountains in its western atrium.⁵⁷ In front of the basilica of St Demetrius in
Thessaloniki, a circular phialē with eight columns, which enclosed a monolithic font

50 Ibid., 138–140 (English), 139 (Russian); also
366–368 (text brought again, with analysis and
commentaries). The stone bars between the col-
umns may refer to either closures fashioned as a
fretwork, similar to the parapets of the phialē at
Iveron (see above), or bas-relief panels (as pro-
posed by G. Majeska – ibid., 368).
прошлост 12 (Краљево 2011), 99–110, where
the potential form of the canopy is discussed.
53 Kandić, Fonts, 66. For the dates of Sava’s ab-
bacy and his role in Studenica during that time,
see D. Obolensky, Six Byzantine Portraits, Oxford
1988, 136–143.

51 These fresco paintings were the subject of an
ekphrasis, translated and examined by P. Magdalino
(with an additional note by L. Rodley), The Ever-
getis Fountain in the Early Thirteenth Century. An
ekphrasis of the paintings in the cupola, Work and
Worship at the Theotokos Evergetis, 1050–1200,
ed. M. Mullett, A. Kirby, Belfast 1997, 432–447,
particularly 442–443 (for the passage describing
the structure in Greek and English), 436–437 (for
a hypothetical reconstruction based on the Great
Lavra phialē). The existence of an outdoor phialē
in the monastery is also mentioned in its Synax-
arion – see The Synaxarion of the Monastery of
the Theotokos Evergetis, I, 414.
52 See Kandić, Fonts, 65–66 (with earlier bibli-
ography), and Д. Љ. Маринковић, Циборијум
над фијалом у манастиру Студеници, Наша
54 The phialē’s position south of the main portal
calls to mind the same position of the phialē at
Vatopedi, the monastery where St. Sava spent his
formative monastic years (in the 1190s).
55 See М. Чанак-Медић, Ђ. Бошковић, Архи-
тектура Немањиног доба, I. Цркве у Топлици и
долинама Ибра и Мораве, Београд 1986, 92–94.
56 Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 85
(Paul Silentiarius’s ekphrastic poem dedicated to
Hagia Sophia, lines 590–616); see also Bogdano-
vić, The Framing of Sacred Space, 165–168, where
11th-, 14th-, and 15th-century written and graphic
records of the same (or similar) phialē are cited.
57 Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 194–
195 (from Vita Basilii, #85); see also Marinis,
Architecture and Ritual, 96, notes 126, 127. 32
FIG. 1. GREAT LAVRA, PHIALĒ AND KATHOLIKON VIEWED FROM THE WEST

FIG. 2. VATOPEDI, KATHOLIKON WITH PHIALĒ VIEWED FROM THE WEST

FIG. 3. IVERON, PHIALĒ BETWEEN THE KATHOLIKON AND THE REFECTORY, VIEWED FROM THE NORTH

FIG. 4. STAVRONIKETA, KATHOLIKON, EAST WALL OF THE NARTHEX, WITH A NICHE FOR A HOLY WATER FONT
FIG. 5. ESPHIGMENOU, KATHOLIKON AND PHIALĒ, DETAIL OF A BARSKIĬ’S DRAWING, 1744

FIG. 6. ZOGRAPHOU, PHIALĒ AND KATHOLIKON, DETAIL OF A BARSKIĬ’S DRAWING, 1744

FIG. 7. PHILOTHEOU, KATHOLIKON, DETAIL OF A BARSKIĬ’S DRAWING, 1744
FIG. 8. XENOPHONTOS, KATHOLIKON, DETAIL OF A BARSKIĬ’S DRAWING, 1744
FIG. 9. GREAT LAVRA, PHIALĒ VIEWED FROM THE SOUTH
FIG. 10. GREAT LAVRA, PHIALĒ, FONT VIEWED FROM THE WEST
FIG. 11. GREAT LAVRA, PHIALĒ, A BARSKIĬ’S DRAWING, 1744
FIG. 12. VATOPEDI, PHIALĒ, THE SECTION FACING
THE NORTH AND THE GROUND PLAN P. MYLONAS
FIG. 13. VATOPEDI, PHIALĒ, A BARSKIĬ’S DRAWING, 1744
FIG. 14. STUDENICA, KATHOLIKON, REMAINS OF A PHIALĒ IN THE EXONARTHEX VIEWED FROM THE NORTHWEST
FIG. 15. DOCHEIARIOU, PHIALĒ, THE SECTION FACING
THE NORTH AND THE GROUND PLAN P. MYLONAS
PHIALAI ON MOUNT ATHOS: dated to the 5th century⁵⁸ and was assembled in the 15th century with architectural
THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE
ORIGINS OF THEIR USE,
pieces that presumably belonged to an older phialē located in the same area,⁵⁹ stood
FORM AND LOCATION up to the early 20th century.⁶⁰ In Bogoliubovo, Russia, in front of a palatine church
that was constructed as part of a suburban residence of Andreĭ Bogoliubskiĭ, grand
prince of Vladimir (1157–1174), there are the remains of a canopy, which had eight
columns, and of a cup-like font in the middle, dated to the 12th century, possibly
1165.⁶1 The last two examples, as well as the one in Studenica, demonstrate that
the outdoor phialē was not exclusive to the capital, although its churches may have
constituted the major source of both the concept and form of the phialē during
the Middle Byzantine period. In light of this considerable amount of evidence,
it seems safe to say that an outdoor phialē was a standard feature of an Athonite
monastery complex from the very beginning and that it most often had the form
of an eight-columned ciborium.

C 
To conclude, I return to the location of the phialē outside the church, an issue that
deserves further attention. A supply of running water is a recurring element of
the facility and may have instigated its installation outside the church. In addition
to the above cases, there are a few more of them recorded in written sources.⁶2

58 The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, III, ed.
A. P. Kazhdan, New York – Oxford 1991, 1647–
1648, s. v. Phiale (L. Bouras).
59 Ch. Bakirtzis, Pilgrimage to Thessalonike. The
tomb of St. Demetrios, DOP 56 (Washington DC
2002), 175–192, p.188 (with further bibliography
on the issue of dating in n. 92).
60 See ibid., fig. 7, and Γ. & Μ. Σωτηρίου, Η Βα-
σιλική του Αγίου Δημητρίου Θεσσαλονίκης, Λεύ-
κωμα. Πίνακες αρχιτεκτονικής, γλυπτικής, ζωγρα-
φικής ευρήματων και αναστηλώσεως του μνημείου,
Αθήναι 1952, pl. 3.β.
61 Н. Н. Воронин, Зодчество северо-восточ-
ной Руси XII–XV веков, I, Москва 1961, 251–
258, figs. 119, 122, 123, 124 (for dating, see pp.
257–258). V. V. Sedov relied on the presence of a
phialē in the Bogoliubovo complex and analogous
examples preserved in contemporary Byzantine
and Serbian monasteries to put forward the hy-
pothesis that the complex was a monastery with
quarters where Andreĭ resided during his stays,
rather than simply being his suburban retreat
palace (В. В. Седов, Боголюбовский киворий.
Фиал и проблем интерпретации комплекса,
Святая вода в иеротопии и иконографии хри-
стианского мира, ред. А. М. Лидов, Москва
2017, 397–414). If this was indeed the case, this
open octagonal canopy protecting a holy water
font is yet another example of the architectural
form that seems to have been standard for Middle
Byzantine monastic phialai as much as it was for
33 contemporary and later Athonite cases.
62 One of them, the typikon of the Pantokra-
tor monastery in Constantinople (1136), re-
fers to two phialai located outside the Eleousa
church; their streaming water was available to
the lay attendants to quench thirst (BMFD, II,
754, #[29]). Although not explicitly mentioned,
one or both of these fountains could have been
used for the rite of the Blessing of the Waters,
in this case intended for the laity present at the
site. The main church, which serviced the mo-
nastic community, then must have had a sep-
arate facility for the rite. It may have stood at
the place today occupied by an Ottoman ayaz-
ma (hagiasma, i.e. a holy water source), located
just in front of the church’s southwest corner,
presently under a house (W. Müller-Wiener,
Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls: Byzanti-
on, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn
des 17. Jahrhunderts, Tübingen 1977, 215 (bibli-
ography); H. İ. Sayan, Eskiden Kilise Olan Mol-
la Zeyrek Camii, https://renklikalemler.org/
gezelim/bizim-buralar/eskiden-kilise-olan-
molla-zeyrek-camii/ (accessed on 5 Septem-
ber 2020)). Alternatively, it could have been fed
by one of three Byzantine cisterns that are to
be found a little farther away to the southwest
(Müller-Wiener, op. cit., 210 [fig. 237], 275,
marked D 5/1; K. Altuğ, İstanbul’da Bizans Dö-
nemi Sarnıçlarının Mimari Özellikleri ve Kentin
Tarihsel Topografyasındaki Dağılımı, Ph. D. dis-
sertation, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul
2013, 430–435, with earlier references; I thank
Ayşe Ercan-Kydonakis for the information on
the latter work).
This circumstance raises the question: Did the phialē always include a supply of NEBOJŠA
STANKOVIĆ
running water and was this one of the reasons to have the facility installed in the
courtyard instead of inside the church? I would contend that this was not a sufficient
reason, but the system of water supply certainly could have affected the location
of the holy water font, perhaps when there was no other way to channel natural
water. This may have been the case with the phialē of the Kecharitomene mon-
astery (1110–1116), thus necessitating its location in the inner narthex although
the church had an outer narthex.⁶3 Comparably, the phialē of the Docheiariou
monastery, Mount Athos, is built not between the katholikon and the refectory, as
seen in other cases, but in conjunction with the Ἁγίασμα τῶν Ἀρχαγγέλων (“Holy
Water of the Archangels”), a well of natural spring water (fig. 15). An inscription in
the phialē records that the spring miraculously appeared in 1300, spouting forth in
order to cure local monks who had become ill from drinking contaminated water
channeled from the hills above the monastery.⁶⁴ The present structure – whose core
has the form of an eight-sided ciborium and may be Late Byzantine – dates to 1765,
when the facility was fully renovated.⁶⁵ Cisterns and water wells at other places may
likewise have been coupled with phialai, as suggested above by the structure in the
form of a four-sided canopy over the wellhead at Xenophontos. Placing a cistern
under an open, paved yard would enable and facilitate its maintenance and repairs,
while the association of a phialē with the cistern would ensure the constant inflow
of water needed for the ritual blessings.
These technical prerequisites for the location of the phialē in the courtyard were
combined with considerations of a functional, symbolic, and historical nature.
A fountain was a common asset of church atria in earlier centuries. It was used
for preparatory ritual ablutions before entering the church.⁶⁶ Some important ear-
ly churches, like Hagia Sophia and, even more relevant for the monastic usage,
the Stoudios monastery, continued to use phialai in their atria during the Middle
Byzantine period, but solely for the rite of the Blessing of the Waters.⁶⁷ In this,
they may have provided functional, organizational, and architectural models for
monastic churches of the time. Moreover, the use of the atrium and the fountain
with running water located there did not result merely from the convenience of
the preexisting facility’s presence, but rather there was an incentive inherent to the
ritual to go outside and to evoke benediction upon the entire nature through the

63 See BMFD, II, 702–703 (#72, #73). This church
perhaps had a cistern forming or being part of its
substructures, similar to those found underneath
several other Constantinopolitan churches, such as
St George of Mangana, Theotokos Pammakaristos
(Fethiye Camii), Eski İmaret Camii, Kemankeş
Mustafa Paşa Camii (Odalar Mescidi), and Christ
of Chora (Kariye Camii), as well as to another two
cisterns that – judging from their plans – were
topped by churches (see Altuğ, op. cit. [previ-
ous note], 148–149, 392–393, 418–419, 448–449,
450–451, 282–283, and 366–367, respectively).
64 Γ. Ν. Πεντζίκης, Άγιον Όρος, II, Αθήνα 2003, 33.
65 Ibid.
66 The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, III, 1648;
Marinis, Architecture and ritual, 95–96.
67 The practice started as early as the 6th century
(Bouras, Some observations, 85; Marinis, Architec-
ture and ritual, 96, n. 133; Желтов, Водоосвяще-
ние, 142). For Hagia Sophia, see Le Typicon de la
Grande Église, I, éd. J. Mateos, Roma 1962, 182,
and T. F. Mathews, The Early Churches of Constan-
tinople: Architecture and liturgy, University Park
– London 1971, 89; for the Stoudios monastery,
see Theodore the Studite, Descriptio constitutionis
monasterii Studii, Patrologiae cursus completus,
Series graeca, XCIX, ed. J.-P. Migne, Paris 1860,
column 1717, #37; BMFD, I, 115 (#A[38]), 113–
114 (#B37); and Mathews, The Early Churches of
Constantinople, 21.
68 There is a theological meaning behind this
act. The dipping of a cross during the rite of the
Great Blessing of the Waters mystically repeats 34
PHIALAI ON MOUNT ATHOS: blessing of natural waters, as described above.⁶⁸ This, perhaps, explains the position
THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE
ORIGINS OF THEIR USE,
of the phialē along or close to the major route connecting the katholikon with the
FORM AND LOCATION monastery’s outer gate. However, the path between the church and the refectory
was not of lesser importance in deciding the location of the phialē. The water, either
continuously running in its basin or stored in an underground cistern, may have
been considered blessed and monks could take sips on their way from the church
to the trapeza, after the Divine Liturgy and before a communal meal, as it is still
customary. When spring water was not available and with some concerns that may
have arisen about the holiness of water exposed to elements, blessed water proba-
bly then started to be kept in closed containers within the narthex or exonarthex.
These rooms were conveniently situated between the church (naos), on one side,
and refectory and monastery gate, on the other, thus providing the same topo-
graphical setting that was also required of an outdoor phialē. Additionally, practical
concerns, such as limited space in the yard, inconvenient local climate, and lack of
resources, may have also influenced this shift.⁶⁹ However, the migration of the holy
water font to the narthex area was acceptable only due to the symbolic dimension
ascribed to this part of the church, that of the earthly realm.⁷⁰ Therefore, even the
staging of the rite of the Great Blessing of the Waters in the narthex was most likely
perceived as if were being performed outside the church. Nonetheless, Athonite
monasticism, through its assiduous preservation of tradition through practicing
it, has maintained the original outdoor facility intended for the ritual, an example
of Middle Byzantine microarchitecture, almost unaltered up to the present day.

Christ’s immersion into the Jordan in the Baptism.
Just like his sinless body sanctified the river, its
and all other waters, and the rest of the created
world, the cross – which often contains a particle
of the True Cross – brings (or renews) the blessings
upon nature (Bogdanović, The Framing of Sacred
Space, 70). Similarly, the Lesser Blessing of the
Waters on Bright Friday and Mid-Pentecost bears
a deeper meaning, as a symbolical reenactment
of the historic events, if performed on a source of
streaming, “living” water (see above and note 20).
69 Cf. S. Ćurčić, The Exonarthex of Hilandar.
The question of its function and patronage, Осам
векова Хиландара. Историја, духовни живот,
књижевност, уметност и архитектура, ур. В. Ко-
35 раћ, Београд 2000, 477–487 (p. 481), and Геров,
Изображението на Кръщение Христово, for
similar opinions.
70 Cf. Symeon of Thessaloniki, De sacra litur-
gia, Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca
posterior, CLV, ed. J.-P. Migne, Paris 1866, col-
umn 292A, #98, and his De sacro templo, ibid.,
column 704B, #4. For various uses of the narthex
in a monastic context and manifestations of its
symbolic role of the Earth or the ‘outer world’ in
the microcosm of the Byzantine church building,
see N. Stanković, At the Threshold of the Heavens:
The narthex and adjacent spaces in Middle Byz-
antine churches of Mount Athos (10th–11th centu-
ries) – architecture, function, and meaning, PhD
dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton NJ
2017, 183–258.
ФИЈАЛЕ НА СВЕТОЈ ГОРИ: СРЕДЊОВИЗАНТИЈСКО НЕБОЈША
СТАНКОВИЋ
ПОРЕКЛО ЊИХОВЕ УПОТРЕБЕ, ФОРМЕ И ЛОКАЦИЈЕ

Термином фијала, односно агијазма, у Византији се означавала посуда у којој

се вода освећивала на Богојављење или се чувала вода, освећена тада или
другом приликом. Најчешће је израђивана од камена, монолитно, у облику
велике чиније, уздигнуте на каменом стубу. На Светој Гори се може и данас
видети, обично постављена у оквиру отвореног киоска налик циборијуму,
који се такође назива фијалом, и који се налази у манастирском дворишту.
Најстарија таква фијала, она у Ватопеду, датира из средине XIV века. Међутим,
она није најранија. Фијала у Великој Лаври, иако је изграђена 1635. године, нај-
вероватније је настала као замена за оригиналну из 1060. године, понављајући
њен изглед. Стога се чини да је фијала на отвореном била уобичајен елемент
светогорских манастирских комплекса од самих њихових почетака. Међутим,
у унутрашњој или спољној припрати, по свој прилици, био је смештен још
један суд за освећену воду. На то упућују извесни археолошки остаци и зидно
сликарство у појединим црквама. Постоје и многи други слични примери
изван Свете Горе, такође смештени у припрати, трему или другде у улазној
зони цркве, који су представљали једина постројења за водоосвећење у тим
монашким обитељима. Податак да потичу из времена од XII до XIV столећа,
упућује на закључак да је положај фијале унутар црквене грађевине производ
нешто каснијег развоја, као и месних особености.
На Светој Гори фијала је и даље смештена споља, тачније у пределу између
улазâ у цркву и трпезарију, што је положај који одговара захтевима одређених
литија и обредних чинова. С друге стране, у суду унутар фијале у Великој
Лаври налази се бронзана млазница с више испуста за воду (грч. στροβίλιον)
из XI века и то отвара питање: да ли су фијале увек снабдеване текућом водом
и да ли је то био још један разлог да се поставе изван цркве? Неколико атон-
ских примера непосредно је повезано с бунаром или цистерном за воду, што
сведочи о важности сталног дотока воде. Истовремено, постављање цистерне
испод отвореног, поплочаног дворишта, омогућавало је и олакшавало њено
одржавање и поправке.
Поред ових техничких разлога, у опредељењу за спољну локацију фијале улогу
су имали и неки функционални (богослужбени), симболични (теолошки)
и историјски аспекти. Водоскок или чесма били су уобичајен саставни део
атријума рановизантијске цркве, који је обезбеђивао воду за припремна уми-
вања пре уласка у храм. Најважније и утицајне ране цркве које настављају да
користе ова постројења у средњовизантијском периоду, сада искључиво за
водоосвећење, могле су бити узор за планирање цркава у томе времену. Ту су
пре свега Света Софија и базилика Студијског манастира, чији је пример –
преко утицаја Студитског типика – још важнији за обичаје у монашком свету.
С друге стране, коришћење фонтане с текућом водом која се налази у дворишту
није проистекло из пуке погодности коју је пружало присуство већ постојећег
објекта, насталог у ранијем периоду. Наиме, сâм обред водоосвећења у себи
садржи предуслов да се изађе напоље и да се, преко освећења неке природне
воде, благослови целокупна природа. У том смислу, чак и постављање фијале
у припрати и извођење обреда у том простору сматрани су једнаким онима 36
ФИЈАЛЕ НА СВЕТОЈ ГОРИ: изван цркве (наоса). Препреке практичне природе, попут ограниченог про-
СРЕДЊОВИЗАНТИЈСКО
ПОРЕКЛО ЊИХОВЕ
стора у дворишту, оштрине локалне климе и недостатка материјалних ресурса,
УПОТРЕБЕ, ФОРМЕ могле су допринети оваквом решењу. Међутим, премештање водоосвећења
И ЛОКАЦИЈЕ
у припрату и чувања свете воде у томе простору било је прихватљиво само
захваљујући симболичкој димензији која се приписује овом делу цркве, а то
је земаљско и спољашње, насупрот небеском и посвећеном; ово друго налази
свој просторни и материјални израз у наосу.
На Светој Гори је сачувано само неколико агијазми у припратама, и чини се да
су оне искључиво секундарне у односу на оне у оквиру фијала на отвореном.
На основу тога и свега напред реченог, може се закључити да се уобичајено
решење на Атосу у средњем веку састојало из главног постројења за Велико
водоосвећење на Богојављење које се налазило у дворишту (фијала) и посуде
за чување освећене воде у припрати. Потоња се истовремено могла користити
за Мало водоосвећење, а само изузетно (на пример, у случају лоших времен-
ских услова) и за Велико водоосвећење. Оваква подела се одржала све до
данас и значај спољног модела наглашен је непромењеним коришћењем током
више векова, као и архитектонском формом куполног циборијума која није
напуштена и после многих урушавања, преправки, доградњи и подизања из
темеља. Тако је један пример средњовизантијске микроархитектуре, у служби
једног од богослужбених обреда, готово нетакнут преживео до наших дана
као део дубоке и чврсте монашке традиције на Светој Гори.

37