TOWARDS NEW DIRECTIONS

OF INVESTIGATION OF LATE BYZANTINE

ARCHITECTURE. VISUALISATION OF “TEXT”
ON THE FACADES OF THE CHURCH
OF THE VIRGIN IN KRINA (CHIOS)

Ivan Stevović

To sum up, what we are able to say about Byzantine building is

often limited by the questions we ask. If our analysis of a Byz-
antine church is restricted to typological analysis, or to the li-
turgical organization, or if it is simply presented as a backdrop
for historical events or in context of patronage, we have not
learned all we can from it. We should be able to read a building
just as we read a text, as a historical document, for it can tell
us much about the society that produced it.

(R. Ousterhout, 2000)

Instead of the long-present formalistic approach to Late Byzantine architecture, presented in the first part of the
text, based on the example of the church of the Virgin in Krina, this article offers a symbolical interpretation of
the motives found in its lunettes, showing the complexity of meaning of visual “language” used by contemporary
and, especially, later Byzantine master builders, in accordance with general transformations in articulation of
church exteriors.
Key words: Late Byzantine architecture, Virgin in Krina (Chios), historiography, facades, architectural symbolism

In historiography of Byzantine architecture, an appraisal of all the dimensions of the question

wherein the very word “methodology” is rarely
mentioned, while the subject itself is assesed or re-
viewed even less often, Robert Ousterhout’s text,
the closing sentences of which are cited above,
presents valuable guidelines for necessary future
directions of studying this subject matter.1 Oriented
towards an attempt to observe the sacral building
within its original authentic setting, as well as with-
in the framework of the society that created the ur-
ban environments marked by the buildings in ques-
tion, its scope did not by definition have to include
1 R. Ousterhout, Contextualizing the Later Churches of
Constantinople: Suggested Methodologies and a Few Ex-
amples, DOP 54 (2000), 241–250.
suggested by the title of this text. However, as is
usually the case with inspirational statements, they
can assume a life of their own, independent of the
author’s intentions, especially in cases where as-
sumptions of producing such reactions among the
reading public are clearly present in the lines writ-
ten. At first, the “echo” of this conclusion calls for
two necessary notes. Namely, even though it is
indisputably correct that each individual building
should be “read” as a “historical document”, it is
functional, in regard of the basic premise, to ask
whether such selectiveness in approach might not,
almost undetectably, lead precisely towards some of
the number of listed “one-dimensional projections”.
Moreover, if we strive to learn more about the mi-

TOWARDS NEW DIRECTIONS OF INVESTIGATION OF LATE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE 175

 lieu which produced the building, the question is
what exactly are we going to learn by analyzing its
architecture on any of the suggested micro-levels,
topographic, historical or constructive.2 If the first
note pertains to the sphere of sensitivity of meth-
odological “measuring instruments” which, ulti-
mately, are operated indiviaually by each particular
researcher, the second is an indirect announcement
of a new quality in the sphere of interpretation –
in view of the fact that, in historiography dedicated
to the Byzantine society, architecture has so far not
been observed from the proposed vantage points.3
Both are, however, united by the fact that the Byz-
antine church has its own, entirelly specific, multi-
layered historical source, within which the stratum
we call “art” is inherently present in and inextrica-
ble from any approach, including that which strives
reasonably to set down a documented relationship
between categories determined as “work of archi-
tecture” and “society”, since the totality of one re-
flects most directly the specific needs and achieve-
ments of the other. Society, to put it more simply,
was indeed a crucial factor, but not only in the act
of creating a work of architecture but also in the
work created with all its qualities, including those
pertaining to the artistic.4 At precisely that point of
examination, the contours of a phenomenon which,
paraphrasing Robert Nelson’s formulation,5 could
2 Ibid., 242 sq.
3 Cf. M. Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium under
the Comneni, 1081–1261, Cambridge University Press 1995;
Ch. Bouras, Aspects of the Byzantine City, Eighth-Fifteenth
Centuries, 497–528; Id., Master Craftsmen, Craftsmen and
Building Activities in Byzantium, 539–554, in: EHB, vol. 2
(ed. A. E. Laiou), Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C. 2002;
A Social History of Byzantium (ed. J. Haldon), Chichester
2009. On the other hand, although not the only papers on
the subject, texts from the symposium “Constantinople: The
Fabric of the City”, DOP 54 (2000), certainly offer signifi-
cant incentive for future research of this phenomenon in By-
zantium, for which we also find useful new insights and in-
terpretations on Roman architecture and urbanism, cf. Roman
Urbanism. Beyond the Consumer City (ed. H. M. Parkins),
London-New York 1997; E. Thomas, Monumentality and the
Roman Empire. Architecture in the Antonine Age, Oxford
University Press 2007; L. Revell, Roman Imperialism and
the Local Identities, Cambridge University Press 2009.
4 Still most instructive remarks on the art of the Late Byz-
antine era are found in the text by A. Grabar, The Artistic
Climate in Byzantium During the Palaeologian Period, in:
The Kariye Djami, vol. 4 (ed. P. A. Underwood), Princeton
University Press 1975, 1–16.
5 Cf. R. S. Nelson, To Say and to See: Ekphrasis and Vi-
sion in Byzantium, in: Visuality Before and Beyond the
176 I. STEVOVIĆ
be called the “Late Byzantine architectural para-
dox”, appear before the researcher. For if we permit
ourselves to change just one word of the mentioned
quotation, and read the syntagm “historical docu-
ment” as “artistic document”, when we step outside
the front door we shall, indeed, be completely lost,
but for reasons other than just those mentioned in
Osterhout’s text.6
In the search for the causes of this uneasy “feel-
ing” and ways of overcoming it, the scholar, should
he reach firstly for adequate literature, will quickly
establish that not only is he not alone in this sensa-
tion but also that there are symptomatic occasional
calls for methodological alertness in the study of
Late Byzantine architecture, expressed either in di-
rect connection with the subject matter or in the
form of valuable general suggestions offered in
reviews of medieval art in general, or those focus-
ing on the relationship between history of art and
history of architecture or history of art and visual
culture.7 Naturally, it is the former which deserve
our most direct attention. Beginning with 1965
and through the fourth, revised edition of “Early
Christian and Byzantine Architecture”, Richard
Krautheimer persistently held on to sentences in
his text which recapitulated the views on the sub-
ject, demonstrating how Late Byzantine architec-
ture gained or lost in the rating it was given by its
researchers in most direct dependence of the visual
habits of historiographic times and contemporane-
ous architectural production. Thus, Late Byzantine
architecture which is colourful, richly silhouetted
and complicated received superlative reviews at
the close of the 19th century and during the first
three decades of the 20th century only for it to be
determined that these qualities had less meaning
to a generation which grew up with Le Corbusier
and the Bauhaus or their followers, resulting in a
marked underrating of Late Byzantine architec-
Renaissance (ed. R. S. Nelson), Cambridge University Press
2000, 143 sq.
6 R. Ousterhout, op. cit., 241. For reasons of prominence
and better visibility, citations are given in italics.
7 Cf. M. Trachtenberg, Some Observations on Recent Ar-
chitectural History, ArtB vol. LXX–2 (1988), 208–241; H.
L. Kessler, On the State of Medieval Art History, ibidem
166–187; R. S. Nelson, Living on the Byzantine Borders of
Western Art, Gesta 35–1 (1996), 3–11; A. A. Payne, Archi-
tectural History and History of Art: A Suspended Dialogue,
JSAH 58–3 (1999), 292–299; D. Cherry, Art History Visual
Culture, AH 27–4 (2004), 479–493.
tural design.8 At that same time Vojislav Korać
concluded that la nouvelle historiographie compose
des aperçus de l’architecture byzantine, également
trop vastes et trop généralisés en particulier quand
elle traite de sa période tardive. Dans les histories
générales de l’art byzantine il est soit clairment
énoncé soit tacitement entendu que l’architecture
byzantine de cette epoque n’a pas de développe-
ment véritable [...] demeurant ‘pétrifiée’. Les prob-
lémes non résolus...sont devenus des circles vicieux
que seule peut résoudre [...] des conceptions nouv-
elle de son développement. On dirait que le dernier
siècle de l’architecture byzantine [...] est encore
l’object d’appréciations les moines adéquates.9 A
decade and a half later, Hans Buchwald delivered
a lecture on style in Byzantine architecture, con-
cluding his first section with the following words:
occasional observations concerning stylistic quali-
ties make no attempt to develop a comprehensive
concept of Byzantine architectural style. On the
contrary, they usually remain fragmentary and are
often used to establish chronological sequences.
The following section, and this is highly significant
for this work, he opened with a proposal for a fu-
ture method which primarily had to begin with an
observations of monuments themselves. These ob-
servations must be synthesized into succint units. A
clear terminology of style must be developed so that
these syntheses can be discussed meaningfully.10 In
1991 Slobodan Ćurčić contriubuted to the problem
discussed by a statement published in the form of a
summary,11 and that same year Cyril Mango sum-
marized the “model” of the research conducted to
that date as the present trend [...] is towards an
extremely meticulous, archaeological analysis of
buildings, coupled with a certain reserve as regards
the ‘big questions’ as they have been formulated
8 R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Archi-
tecture, The Pelican History of Art, Harmondsworth 19651;
19752, 440; 19793; 19864, 416.
9 V. Korać, Les origines de l’architecture de l’école de la
Morava, in: Моравска школа и њено доба (L’Ecole de
la Morava et son temps) (ed. V. J. Djurić), Beograd 1972,
157.
10 Communication held in 1986, entitled “The Concept
of Style in Byzantine Architecture”, was published in: H.
Buchwald, Form, Style and Meaning in Byzantine Church
Architecture, Ashgate Variorum 1999, VII (1–11), 4.
11 S. Ćurčić, The Significance and Sources of “Morava
School”Architecture, XVIIIth International Congress of Byz-
antine Studies, Summaries of Communications I, Moscow
1991, 258.
TOWARDS NEW DIRECTIONS OF INVESTIGATION OF LATE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE
in the past. It may well be that the big questions
have to be put differently, yet it is by reference to
them that detailed studies of individual monuments
acquire their significance.12 Two texts by R. Os-
terhout followed, united in their critical approach
towards the inadequate, linear perception of the de-
velopment of Byzantine architecture practiced by
some of the scholars and appropriated from the sys-
tem of perceiving building practice of the medieval
West, as well as in their striving to recognize the
“original” within the general framework of building
activity after Justinian, often interpreted in histori-
ography with oversight of the fact that buildings...
are works of art, the result of creative process,13
whereby byzantine architecture may be best viewed
as a dynamic interplay between elements that were
necessary and fixed by religious usage and elements
that were variable and introduced by the architect
for other than purely functional reasons.14 Follow-
ing that, starting with the very title of the chapter, a
turn in interpreting Late Byzantine architecture was
heralded by S. Ćurčić, who emphasised especially
that the contemporaneous religious setting implied
the church building as a three-dimensional form
with its own exterior aesthetic characteristic, along
with all other types of contents of each individual
building, stating that our task [...] requires that we
look at individual components of such entities, not
only outside their original settings but often sub-
stantionally removed from each other in time and
space. Combining these elements mentally into a
new ‘virtual’ entity, we can begin to appreciate the
vision expressed by the Byzantines in their church-
es.15 Finally, in 2005 Ousterhout’s views on con-
stituent elements of originality were critically ex-
panded or problematized by Charalambos Bouras,
claiming that adherence to typology, comparison
12 C. Mango, Approaches to Byzantine Architecture, Mu-
qarnas 8 (1991), 43.
13 R. Ousterhout, Beyond Hagia Sophia: Originality in Byz-
antine Architecture, in: Originality in Byzantine Literature,
Art and Music (ed. A. R. Littlewood), Oxbow Monograph
50 (1995), 167. It is useful and very instructive to compare
the viewpoints of R. Ousterhout with those presented in a
granted book published a year earlier by L. Rodley, Byzan-
tine Art and Architecture. An Introduction, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press 1994, 342–346.
14 R. Ousterhout, An Apologia for Byzantine Architecture,
Gesta 35–1 (1996), 25. See also in idem, Master Builders of
Byzantium, Princeton University Press 1999, 25–33.
15 S. Ćurčić, Religious Settings of the Late Byzantine
Sphere, in: Byzantium. Faith and Power (1261–1557), 65.
177
 of ground plans and the search for model in every
case [...] arrested any inclination to detect creativi-
ty, originality, or even improvisation. The excessive
importance attached to the role played by Constan-
tinople as the only artistic centre in the Middle and
Late Byzantine period is also unjustified, and is due
once more to the one-sided nature of the literary
sources of the period.16
One call for tracing new directions of investi-
gation could be seen as an exclusive farsighted
viewpoint of one scholar whereas two, made in an
interval of fifteen years, reflect the maturing of an
awareness of a method gradually showing signs of
exhaustion, while as much as three, the number cur-
rently explicitly present in the cited quotations, are
an indisputable sign of an identifiable crisis in the
general conceptual approach to the entire matter.
The big questions, as they were formulated by C.
Mango, inherently belong to big issues, and there
is no need for words to prove that Late Byzantine
architecture has, per se, always had that status.
However, the following lines reflect the reasons
why the outlines of the “Late Byzantine architec-
tural paradox” are gradually turning into clear cut
contours. Namely, the following quotations are to
be found on the very same pages as those previ-
ously cited. In the first two editions of Krautheim-
er’s book, we find the following sentences in direct
sequence quite possibly because of the visual hab-
its thus engendered, we now underrate the quality
of Late Byzantine architectural design. But it does
seem that late Byzantine building is rarely original.
Planning and design have their roots in the tradi-
tion of Middle Byzantine times, often as far back
as the early tenth century; parekklesia, nartex gal-
leries surmounted by twin domes, reapled eaves
lines, brick patterns, chirch plans. Nor does it seem
that the overall level of Byzantine building between
1200 and 1450 [...] is always of the highest. The
decoration is overplayed and the constituent forms
are of an undeniable sameness. And never is Late
Byzantine architecture monumental and never is it
great. So, it is to us no more than an epilogue, a
terminating chapter, albeit often attractive and at
times exciting.17 In the last edition, instead of rarely
original it is said that Late Byzantine builders de-
pended heavily on the tradition, overplayed deco-
ration has turned into decoration becomes a major
16 Ch. Bouras, Originality in Byzantine Architecture, TM
15 (2005) (Mélanges Jean-Pierre Sodini), 100.
17 R. Krautheimer, op. cit., 1975, 440.
178 I. STEVOVIĆ
concern; the vocabulary rich and varied, while no
more than an epilogue, a terminating chapter has
been replaced by an epilogue though it is, Late Byz-
antine architecture reveals surprising vitality.18 In
all editions, however, the note regarding the overall
level which is not always the highest has remained,
as has the composition of the text, divided into two
units, “Early Paleologian Architecture” and “High
Paleologian Architecture”, the titles of which are
too strikingly similar to an identical periodisa-
tion of Gothic architecture for it to be pure coin-
cidence.19 On the other hand, the emphasis placed
on the observation of monuments as the key pre-
condition of the new method resulted in views on
Late Byzantine architecture (Style IV) which are
basically identical to Krautheimer’s, while the justi-
fied instence on clear terminology was, albeit with
a small parenthesis,20 was reduced to the syntagm
nostalgic eclecticism as the stylistic common de-
nominator or the architecture of the epoch.21 Still,
if the mentioned authors had any doubts regarding
the nature, currents of formation and values of Late
Byzantine architectural production, they were en-
tirely dispersed at the very peak of historiography,
in a book that actually promoted the “historical ap-
proach” to the study of the subject. In all editions
of the renowned “Byzantine Architecture” it has
been recorded that the house of the Palaeologi has
given its name to the last phase of Byzantine his-
tory and art. The ‘Palaeologian renaissance’ is a
term that has often been used and may have some
justification in painting; it is hardly aplicable to
architecture. In the relatively short period between
1261 and about 1330 [...] some attractive structures
were erected in Constantinople and Thessalonica,
but they perpetuated the traditions of Middle Byz-
antine period without any attempt at reviving Early
Christian, let alone antique, forms.22 At precisely
this point a paradox appears in full view. The logi-
cal result of the sum of all quoted passages appears
18 Ibid., 1986, 416.
19
Ibidi, 1975, 440 sq.; ibid., 1986, 416 sq.
20 H. Buchwald, Western Asia Minor as a Generator of Ar-
chitectural Forms in the Byzantine Period, Provincial Back-
Wash or Dynamic Centre of Production?, JÖB 34 (1984)=
Form, Style and Meaning, V, 229.
21 Idem, The Concept of Style, 9. The phrase “nostalgic
eclecticism” was already drawn attention to by S. Ćurčić,
Religious Settings, 65.
22 C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture, Milan 1974; Lon-
don 1979. Quoted after the edition published in London
1986, 148.
to be a major contradiction contained in the search
for new methods of investigating a subject matter
which is, at the very same time, despite the vari-
ous euphemisms, being practically unisonly denied
any idyosyncracy whatsoever. We thus come to the
first “big question” of Late Byzantine architecture
which can freely be put as does it exist at all as a
unique, idiosyncratic entity by any of is traits, or is
it just a sequence of somewhat interconnected but
basically mutually independent, “smaller” archi-
tectures, united only by their “decorative” nature,
their indebtedness to tradition and the most general
chronological framwork of the epoch.
Although it arises mainly from the above ex-
pounded sedimentary confusion in historiography,
the question mentioned still has its own, clear, ob-
jective historical dimension, resulting from the real-
ities of the Late Byzantine world and from what has
survived of that world to this day in architecture.
However true it may seem at first glance that the
architectural production of the capital is at times as-
signed too much significance,23 the reasons behind
that are found in the fact that the greatest and most
long lasting unknowns are connected precisely to
that particular building practice, for it is very well
known that the lacuna in actual and documented
knowledge on the architecture of Constantnople
starts with the year 1204, continues on through
the reign of Michael VIII and, with an intermis-
sion of only a couple of decades during which the
monuments we know of today were built, lasts to
the “official” end of Byzantine history. This is the
picture we are presented with today, but surely not
the reality of the day which can be positively de-
termined, at least for the period of the reign of the
first Palaiologan emperor.24 That picture, however,
causes a chain reaction both in our appraisal of the
surviving buildings in the capital and in the percep-
tion of activities in other center, introducing a “sys-
temmatic” uncertainty to any attempt of producing
a more comprehensive assessment of Late Byzan-
tine architecture as a whole. For when after all the
investigation one casts a glance at the preserved
monuments in the capital a hesitation still remains
whether in their day those buildings represented the
architectural apogee within the framework of an
23
Cf. Ch. Bouras, Originality.
24 Cf. A.-M. Talbot, The Restoration of Constantinople un-
der Michael VIII, DOP 47 (1993), 243–261; cf. also V. Ki-
donopoulos, Bauten in Constantinopel 1204–1328. Verfall
und Zerstörung Restaurirring, Umbau und Neumbau von
Profan und Sakralbauten, Wiesbaden 1994.
TOWARDS NEW DIRECTIONS OF INVESTIGATION OF LATE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE
all-encompassing “renaissance”, were they the off-
spring delivered after the fundamental principles of
that creative process had already turned into stand-
ard routine, or was their emergence actually the last
note stuct in an accord of an active architectural
practice. The fact that the chronological framework
of their creation is relatively precisely determined
does not, however, reveal much about the currents
of development and paths of communication within
their “artistic” i.e. “architectural” time, and the only
approach which makes what meagre available reli-
able information there is even foggier is their intro-
duction into the surgical theatre of so-called univer-
sally applicable models of examination which, as
has long since been demonstrated, ultimately lead
to “model-solutions”.25 Judging by the mentioned
historiographic “turbulences”, it appears that the ar-
chitecture of the late epoch has long been subjected
to just that type of procedure. In other words, after
it had been established that the sacral architecture
of the day had in its nucleus its own idyosyncratic
type of church building, the pertaining, much too
long dominant approach to Byzantine architecture
which emphasized what is static rather than what
is dynamic,26 along with the use of the term “style”
perceived as an “index of rightness” of artistic per-
fection and thus also “peculiarity”,27 introduced to
historiography the problem of originality of Late
Byzantine architecture, as much generalized as
normatively connotated, which was, moreover, in-
stantly resolved from the perspective of six century
long hindsight. As a logical outcome of modes of
constructing “model-problems” the tribunal of his-
toriography has, with just one single explicit excep-
tion, decided to put the approach which had been
accorded the greatest attention, summed up by the
call for any study to begin with observations of
monuments themselves, as far away from the focus
of detailed analysis as possible. Namely, there is
just one single synthetic work in which statements
on decoration (which) becomes a major concern,
on application of rich façade articulation28, and at-
25 For the phenomena of “model-problems” and “model-
solutions” in general, cf. Th. Cuhn, The Structure of Scien-
tific Revolutions, Chicago 1970 (= Struktura naučnih rev-
olucija, Beograd 1974, 95 sq.).
26 R. Ousterhout, An Apologia, 23.
27 Cf. J. Białostocki, Historia sztuki wśród nauk human-
istycznych (= Povijest umjetnosti i humanističke znanosti,
Zagreb 1986, 50 sq.).
28 H. Buchwald, The Concept of Style, 9.
179
 tractive structures or surface ornamentation,29 have
been transposed into a clear and far-reaching no-
tion that the pronounced role of decoration, painted
and sculpted, had a certain effect, so that one could
say that (in the Late Byzantine epoch) architecture
began to be conceived of integrally, in an attempt
on the part of the master builders to establish an
equality in value of the interior and the exterior
space.30
When placed side by side, this and the passage
quoted at the beginning of this text, immediately
after its title, converge precisely at the level of “so-
ciety”, the different milieus which strove to create
works of architecture which by any and all param-
eters they found to be appropriate, all within the
framework of a given epoch. Therefore, questions
of Late Byzantine architecture can by no means be
resolved within the scope of an extremely abstract
and at the same time very binding concept of origi-
nality but rather by examining them from the point
of view of another, much more appropriate con-
cept, that of “diversity”.31 “Diversity” immediately
brings up the question of continuity; as a problem,
however, it does not appear in historical reality but
only in the construction of models of research be-
cause continuity does not preclude peculiarity, and
peculiarity, of architectural “dialects” in this case,
does in no way disturb the overall structure of the
discourse of Late Byzantine architecture. In other
words, despite their small numbers, inadequate
state of preservation and pretty uncertain chronol-
ogy, there is no reason to deny that solutions char-
acteristic of the architecture of the late epoch are
also to be seen on buildings raised in Constantino-
ple during the 11th and 12th centuries, or after 1204
in regions under the rule of the Lascarids.32 The
essence of the problem, however, is contained in
the question of both the sources and the intents by
29 R. Ousterhout, Master Builders, 194 sq.
30 В. Кораћ – М- Шупут, Архитектура Византијског
света (Architecture of Byzantine World), Београд 1996,
364; similar in tone are the remarks of the same authors in
ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΟ. ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΡΗΙΤΕΚΤΟΝΙΚΗ, Αθηνα 2004,
207–212; ВИЗАНТИЙСКИЙ МИР. Храмовая архитекту-
ра и живопись, Москва 2006, 509–512.
31 Cf. A. Cutler, Originality as a Cultural Phenomenon, in:
Originality in Byzantine Literature, 203.
32 H. Buchwald, The Concept of Style, 9; Id., Lascarid Ar-
chitecture, JŐB 28 (1979)= Form, Style and Meaning, VI,
passim; idem, Western Asia Minor, 230 sq; R. Ousterhout,
op. cit., 195–197.
180 I. STEVOVIĆ
which the gradual albeit evident change in syntax
of buildings as “historical/artistic text” appeared
and with what sort of intended meaning.
Naturally, understanding the text as a fundamen-
tal precondition implies the mastering of the mean-
ing of each individual word and because of the fact
that in architecture these words are expressed by
different signs, interpreting those signs constitutes
the first step in the feat of divulging both the proc-
ess of constucting and the meaning of the text in its
entirety.33 Although it is the research of this particu-
lar period that has, in certain cases, already yielded
valuable incentives,34 the conceptual re-orientation
of direction of study of Late Byzantine architec-
ture represents a subject matter the framework and
interpretative horizons of which outstretch by far
both the present results and the scope of this text.
The initial relevant methodological instrument,
however, is by no means novel; it is contained in
all the implications of Duby’s seasoned statement
that it is difficult [...] speak of works of art because
they were made to be observed.35 In those very
words lies the key to solution and also the nucleus
of all historiographic hesitancies, for how should
we actually observe the facades of Late Byzantine
churches so that we could truly see and understand
what their contemporaries saw and understood and
we would like to decipher today?
The example of three motifs more or less present
on the exteriors of walls of churches raised in dif-
ferent epochs, the continuity of “use” of which can
be observed from much older times, appears to
offer an instructive stimulus for a different mode
of their viewing altogether, as much as for a more
detailed analysis of the process by which “text” as
33 Cf. W. Whyte, How do Buildings Mean? Some Issues
of Interpretation in the History of Architecture, History and
Theory 45 (2006), 153–177 (with references).
34 R. Ousterhout, The Byzantine Heart, Зограф 17
(1986), 36–44; М. Шупут, Нова слика византијске
архитектуре у доба њене последње обнове (Nouvel as-
pect d’architecture byzantine à l’epoque de sa dernière ren-
aissance), Саопштења XXIX (1997), 81–88; ead., On the
“Immutability” of Byzantine Architecture, ΔΧΑΕ 4/20 1998
(1999), 105–110; R. Ousterhout, Symbole der Macht. Mitte-
lalterische Heraldik zwischen Ost und West, in: Lateinisch-
griechisch-arabische Begegnungen. Kulturelle Diversität im
Mittelmeerraum des Spätmittelalters (Herausgegeben von
M. Mersch – U. Ritzerfeld), Berlin 2009, 91–109.
35 G. Duby, Le Temps des cathedrals. L’art et la société
980–1420, Paris 1976 (quoted after Vreme katedrala. Umet-
nost i društvo 980–1420, Beograd 1989, 7).
Fig. 1. Chios, Virgin Krina, south facade, detail (M. Vournous)
a category in its own right was transposed into a
means of architectural visual discourse in order for
that very form to subsequently have the function of
remembrance of the written word.
At the close of the 12th or during the first dec-
ades of the following century both lunettes under the
dome of the Church of the Virgin in Krina on Chios
(Fig. 1) were filled with a number of different mo-
tifs, meander [...] below the spring line and above it
the centres of these lunettes are decorated by large
quatrefoils with recessed centers which are flanked
by a chevron on both sides.36 With a note regarding
36 H. Buchwald, Lascarid Architecture, 275 (quotation).
Opinions of researchers of the church vary regarding its
dating: H. Buchwald, op. cit., 292, is of the opinion that it
was built in the period “1225-about 1240 (perhaps imme-
diately after 1225)”; on the other hand, a several decades
earlier dating, end of XII century, has been suggested by
Ch. Pennas, Some Aristocratic Founders: the Foundation of
TOWARDS NEW DIRECTIONS OF INVESTIGATION OF LATE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE
the term “chevron”, originating from the glossary
of Romanesque architecture, which would be better
replaced by opus spicatum,37 and an additional note
that a) the quatrefoil is encircled by smaller radially
arranged bricks which furter emphasise its shape
and b) that bricks of various dimensions above
the zone of opus spicatum are positioned verti-
Panaghia Krena on Chios, in: Women and Byzantine Mo-
nasticism (ed. by J. Y. Perreault), Athens 1991, 61–65 (with
references), and later also by R. Ousterhout, Master Build-
ers, 198.
37 For “chevron” cf. J. Fleming – H. Honour – N. Pevsner,
The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture, Harmondsworth
19914, 91; for opus spicatum cf. J.-P. Adam, Roman Build-
ing. Materials and Techniques, London – New York 2005,
288 sq. The photograph published in this article was taken
by colleague Manolis Vournous, with the invaluable assist-
ance of Stavros Mamaloukos, Michalis Kappas and Nektar-
ios Zarras. I take this opportunity to offer my most sincere
gratitude to all four of them.
181
 cally, this description truly
reflects the intention to note
a series of individual particu-
lars. Should, however, the
particulars be viewed on the
whole, the desciption could
assume an entirely different
tone: around the quatrefoil,
filled with bricks positioned
exclusively horizontally and
laid out so that some appear
to the observer in full view
while the other can be seen
only in part, “disappearing”
under its lower sides, the ver-
tically positioned brickwork
and the opus spicatum are ar-
ranged in a manner indicating
the directions of spreading of
that which is found within the
recessed quatrefoil, one of
Fig. 2. Trabzon, Hagia Sophia, south porch, detail (photo in public domain)
which also leads in the direc-
tion of a meander. The sum of
individual motifs thus takes
very diversified, the quatrefoil is found in many
up the characteristics and relations typical of an
Byzantine illuminated manuscripts,41 and is repre-
image, and that contention calls for providing evi-
sents a motif commonly found in mosaics and in
dence and material to substantiate the allegation.
wall paintings,42 or in the repertoire of “actual” me-
In its basic form or its many modifications, the
quatrefoil motif has been present in every type of dieval sculpted decoration.43 Apart from the lateral
artistic creation since Antiquity.38 It lent its shape
to a great number of Early Christian baptisty 277–293; L. Török, Transfigurations of Hellenism. Aspects
piscinae,39 and the tetraconch, drawn from a quatre- of Late Antique Art in Egypt AD 250–700, Leiden – Boston
foil, was often the ground plan of both Early Chris- 2005, 304 sq (Abu Mena); C. Maranci, Byzantium through
40
tian and later medieval sacral structures. Visually Armenian Eyes: Cultural Appropriation and the Church
of Zuart’noc’, Gesta 40–2 (2001), 105–124; A. Frantz,
38 Cf. G. L. Brett, Formal Ornament on Late Roman and
The Church of the Holy Apostles, The Athenian Agora 20
(1977); Th. F. Matthews – C. Mango, Observations on the
Early Byzantine Silver, PBSR 15 (1939), 33–41; K. M. D. Church of Panagia Kamariotissa on Heybeliada (Chalke),
Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, Cam- Istanbul with a Note on Panagia Kamariotissa and Some
bridge University Press 1999, 294–298 (with references). Imperial Foundations of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries
39 Cf. A. Khatchatrian, Les baptistères paléochrétiens:
in Constantinople, DOP 27 (1973), 115–132.
plans, notices et bibliographie, Paris 1962, passim. It seems 41 Cf. H. Buchtal, Toward a History of Palaeologian Il-
especially significant that one of the first piscinae by the
lumination, in: The Place of Book Illumination in Byzantine
church of the Holy Sepulchre was precisely of this shape,
Art, Princeton University Press 1975, 156 (Figs. 16, 17),
cf. A. J. Wharton, The Baptistery of the Holy Sepulcher in
160 (fig. 23); R. S. Nelson, Palaeologian Illuminated Orna-
Jerusalem and the Politics of Sacred Landscape, DOP 46
(1992), 313–325. ment and the Arabesque, WJKg XLI (1988), 151 sq.
42 Among the many examples cf. N. Chatzidakis, Hosios
40 We list only the most significant examples: W. Eugene
Kleinbauer, The Origin and Functions of the Aisled Tetra- Loukas, Byzantine Art in Greece, Athens 1991, 12 (Fig.
conch Churches in Syria and Northern Mesopotamia, DOP 2); O. Demus, The Mosaics of San Marco in Venice, Vol.
27 (1973), 89–114; id., “Aedita inTurribus”: The Super- I: Plates, Chicago – London 1984, 147; id., Vol. II: Plates,
structure of the Early Christian Church of S. Lorenzo in 312. See also examples and pertaining bibliography in: On
Milan, Gesta 15–1/2 (1976), 1–9 (with references); id., The Water in Byzantium, Athens 2000.
Double-Shell Tetraconch Building at Perge in Pamphylia 43 M. R. Rickard, The Iconography of the Virgin Portal at
and the Origin of the Architectural Genus, DOP 41 (1987), Amiens, Gesta 22–2 (1983), 147–157; J. L. Ward, Disguised

182 I. STEVOVIĆ

Fig. 3. Lesnovo monastery, south facade, detail (J. Ćirić)
facades of the Virgin in Krina, in the architecture of
the period in question it also appears at the center
of the lunette of the south porch of St. Sophia in
Trebizond (Fig. 2) and on a similar position on the
north side of the church of St. John Aleitourgetos
in Mesembria, while on the monastery church of
Lesnovo it appears in the upper zone of the south
facade (Fig. 3).44 The composition of the whole en-
tity, however, fashioned in the manner it appears in
on the Chios church, is not be found anywhere else
which may speak of the “originality” of its ktetors
and builders but certainly testifies of the limitations
of taxonomy, a “tool” often used in the encounter
of historiography on Late Byzantine architecture
with those of its contents which were not expressed
Symbolism as Enactive Symbolism in Van Eyck’s Paintings,
Artibus et Historiae 15–29 (1994), 22 (Fig. 12).
44 Cf. A. Eastmond, Narratives of the Fall: Structure and
Meaning in the Genesis Frieze at Hagia Sophia, Trebi-
zond, DOP 53 (1999), 220 and Fig. 2; id., Art and Iden-
tity in Thirtheenth-Century Byzantium: Hagia Sophia and
the Empire of Trebizond, Ashgate Variorum 2004, 61 sq;
T. Tarandjieva, The Church of St. Jonhn Aleitourgetos in
Nesebăr and its Architectural Origins, UMI 3204538, Ann
Arbor MI (2006), 62, 124, 148; В. Кораћ, Споменици мо-
нументалне српске архитектуре XIV века у Повардарју
(Les Monuments de l’Architecture Serbe du XIV e Siècle
dans la Region de Povardarje), Београд 2003, 160, Pl. 6.
and Fig. 14.
TOWARDS NEW DIRECTIONS OF INVESTIGATION OF LATE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE
in codes of the narrative, in the
present sense of the term. For
the whole is, obviously, made
up of primarily geometric
motifs but its meaning is not
the result of the simple sum
of “some abstract mathemati-
cal construction”,45 but rather
contained in the allusive level
of communication of the indi-
vidual elements which, being
simultaneously organized in
mutual semantic interaction,
“can clarify or occlude other
elements in the same picture
or sentence”.46
The quatrefoil is one of a
number of quadripartite sche-
mata used extensively in the
Middle Ages as a basis upon
which the structure of multi-
ple visual exegesis is built. In
this process the importance of
the image is underlined as di-
dactic and even mystical aid.47 The multifold, multi-
faceted symbolism of the quatrefoil, one indicating
cosmic harmony and perfection (of paradise or the
Heavenly City) contained within divina quaternitas,
as well as anthropomorphic allusions, could convey
a number of meanings. Of course, its primary shape
indicates the cross, while the applied usage of such
forms as baptismal fonts, church ground plans,
fountains, vessels containing water, indicates the
sacrament of baptism.48 This is further visibly un-
derpinned in the case of the quatrefoil of Krina by
45 O. Grabar, The Mediation of Ornament, Princeton Uni-
versity Press 1992, 121.
46 A. Cutler, The Image of the Word in Byzantium and Is-
lam: An Essay in Art Historical Geodesy, in: Interpreting
Christian Art: Reflections on Christian Art (ed. H. J. Hornik
– M. C. Parsons), Mercer University Press 2003, 82.
47 A. C. Esmeijer, Divina Quaternitas: A Preliminary Study
in the Method and Application of Visual Exegesis, Amster-
dam 1978; see also the shape and inscription on the phylac-
tery from the Hermitage, analyzed by H. L. Kessler, Turning
a Blind Eye: Medieval Art and the Dynamics of Contempla-
tion, in: The Mind’s Eye: Art and Theological Argument in
the Middle Ages, Princeton University Press 2006, 413 sq.
48 Cf. R. Krautheimer, Introduction to an Iconography of
Medieval Architecture, JWCI 5 (1942), 20–33; P. A. Under-
wood, The Fountain of Life in Manuscripts of the Gospels,
DOP 5 (1950), 43–138.
183
 the mentioned horizontal bricks laid out inside the
recessed field of the form thereby suggesting wa-
ter contained within a vessel of quatrefoil form.49
Whatsmore, at the deepest level of visual exegesis
this sign is indicative also of the ur-icon of baptism,
the very moment of Epiphany whereby the waters
(of Jordan) became sanctified by the immersion of
the Logos and thus transformed into “living water”,
“a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John
4:9–14).50 Although there is a well-known negative
connotation to water in Christian interpretation,
seen as the “sea of this world”, or the sea of sin, it
49 Cf. the mosaic at Daphne (supra), and examples of the
so-called “wallpaper method” on Islamic mosaics and archi-
tecture analyzed by O. Grabar, op. cit., 139 sq.
50 Cf. S. Cristoforetti, Il fiume, la luce e l’albero della Cro-
ce, in: L’albero della Croce, Supplemento, Studi sull’Orien-
te Cristiano, 7–2, (a c. di R. Favaro), Roma 2003, 29–47.
Fig. 4. Amykles, St. Nicholas, Christ and the Samaritan
Woman (After On Water in Byzantium)
184 I. STEVOVIĆ
is certain that imagery such as the motif seen on the
facade of Krina is clearly a visualization of the exe-
gesis, such as that of St. Ambrose, which speaks of
water as an image of the teachings of the Church.51
It is interesting to note that in depicting the Par-
able of Christ and the Samaritan woman, which
speaks of the gift of the Spirit received through
baptism and the gospel of Christ as “living water”,
the well of Jacob, at the site of which the scene
takes place, in the example from the famous 11th
century hexaptych icon from Mount Sinai depicting
the various types of the Virgin, scenes from the life
of Christ and the menologion, takes on a quatrefoil
form.52 The same is also true of the scene in fresco
from church of St. Nicholas at Amykles (Laconia)
(Fig. 4).53 On the other hand, in Lesnovo, for ex-
ample, the disposition of this motif laid out in the
brickwork and stone of the lateral facade is corre-
spondent with the placement of the same scene on
the inner surface of the wall, in close proximity.54
The motif of life-giving, healing water contained
within a well or vessel of quatrefoil shape is found
not only in the scene of Christ’s conversation with
the Samaritan woman, but also in scenes of Christ’s
miracle of healing the blind, as in Iviron codex no.
5 (fol. 405r.)55 (Fig. 5), or, indeed, in scenes of the
Annunciation to Anne, as proven by the example
from Daphne (Fig. 6).56 The elaborate quatrefoil
fountain, depicted as having been made of lavish
marble and porphyry, overflowing with streams of
water collected in a basin and surrounded by lush
vegetation, is a sophisticated allegory prefigur-
ing the birth of Mary, and ultimately the incarnate
Logos, as the channel in which the living waters
of the spirit, as prophesied already by the prophet
Ezekiel (“I will pour out upon you, God says there,
clean waters and will put my spirit in the midst of
you.”, Ez. 36, 25–27), are brought to the surface for
the faithful to drink. In the context of the church in
51 L. Drewer, Fisherman and Fish Pond: From the Sea of
Sin to the Living Waters, ArtB 63–4 (1981), 533–547, espe-
cially 534–535.
52 G. Galavaris, An Eleventh Century Hexaptych of the
Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai, Venice – Ath-
ens 2009, 33.
53 On Water in Byzantium, 77, 108.
54 С. Габелић, Манастир Лесново. Историја и сликар-
ство (Тhe Monastery of Lesnovo), Београд 1998, 52, 91.
55 On Water in Byzantium, 93, 109.
56 Idem., 76, 108.

Fig. 5. Iviron monastery, cod. 5, fol 405r. (After On Water in Byzantium)
Fig. 6. Daphni monastery, Annunciation to Anne, detail
(After On Water in Byzantium)
TOWARDS NEW DIRECTIONS OF INVESTIGATION OF LATE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE
Krina, dedicated to the Virgin,
narrowed down with regard to
its dedication, the “reading”
of the quatrefoil could, thus,
most likely, be regarded as
part of the feat of constructing
and conveying visual exegesis
related to the Mother of God
and her role in the oikodo-
moia of Salvation. Within this
scope, the quatrefoil filled
with the aquatic motif could
have been interpreted as the
Source of Life, the vessel of
the Logos, the Zoodochos
Pege, whereby the “water” de-
picted within the vessel could
indicate the Logos, the “living
water”, contained within the
womb of Mary, Emmanuel.
Taking this examination of
visual exegesis a step further,
one could also see the opus spicatum in association
with the quatrefoil motif on either side of which
it is laid out, as reminiscent of the ancient Early
Christian motif of ίχθης57 combined with the sign
of the vessel containing life-giving water, as visual-
ization of the Logos contained within the Virgin, an
image of Chora tou Achoretou, as Mary is referred
to in the Akathistos hymn,58 a schemata identical in
symbolic meaning to the miraculous image of the
“usual miracle” at Blachernae and deeply imbued
with eucharistic connotations.59
Part of this broader picture is also the meander,
a motif of equally antique origin but incomparably
more commonly present in Byzantine art.60 In clas-
sifications of the very diverse variations of mean-
ders which can be seen on the facades of Byzan-
57 Cf. the example of “crossed” fish on the mosaic of the
Large basilica from Heraklea Lynkestis, in H. Maguire,
Earth and Ocean. The Terrestrial World in Early Byzantine
Art, The Pennsylvania State University Press 1987, Fig. 48.
58 L. M. Peltomaa, The Image of the Virgin Mary in the
Akathistos Hymn, Leiden-Boston 2001, passim (with refer-
ences).
59 On the iconography of the icon of the “usual miracle” at
Blachernae cf. B. Pentcheva, Icons and Power, The Mother
of God in Byzantium, The Pennsylvania State University
Press 2006, 145–165.
60 Extensive bibliography on the motif and its symbolism
from Antiquity to the Renaissance is given by E. Thomas,
Monumentality and the Roman Empire, 320.
185
 tine churches, starting with several basic forms to
the highly complex and at first hardly detectable
“constructions”,61 it has been concluded that the
motif developped from a “directional” meander,
flowing from left to right, which was modified in
time and also turned into a “nondirectional” mean-
der, “possibly to aid easier execution in brick, al-
though other factors could have contributed to this
developement as well.”62 Investigation along those
lines should certainly be further pusued and relat-
ed not only to other, highly significant, insights,63
but primarily in view of the fact that the striking
variations in the execution and disposition of the
motif on the facades, even when seen on the same
monument, must certainly have generis sui deeper
reasons stemming from the sphere of ideas.64 Get-
ting back to Krina, it is necessary to underline that,
apart from being obviously correlated with the
quatrefoil by virtue of the opus spicatum, the me-
ander is produced in a manner which, like in the
case of the “contents” of the quatrefoil, “tucks” the
bricks on either of its lateral ends under the pro-
truding moulding of the inner arch, suggesting to
the beholder that the band is actually not broken
off at that point but that it reappears, in an identi-
cal manner, construed “without beginning or end”
in the uppermost zone of the apse. The wealth of
external shapes of Krina accounts for this construc-
tion twist the reasons for the employ of which are
61 Cf. Х. Μπουρας – Λ. Μπουρα, Η ΕΛΛΑΔΙΚΗ ΝΑΟΔΟ-
ΜΙΑ κατά τόν 12ο αίώνα, ΑΘΗΝΑ 2002, 472–473 and 82
(Figs. 68, 69), 84 (71), 87 (75), 225 (252), 260 (298), 332
(386), 389 (412), 402 (423), 410 (438). Strikingly differ-
ent from all the examples from present day Greece is, for
example, the meander on the apse of the south church of
the monastery of Constantine Lips, the existence of which
is practically just noted by V. Marinis, The Monastery tou
Libos. Architecture, Sculpture and Liturgical Planning in
Middle and Late Byzantine Constantinople, UMI 3182324,
Ann Arbor MI (2004), 118–119.
62 Classification made by H. Buchwald, Sardis Church E
– a Preliminary Report, JŐB 26 (1977) = Form, Style and
Meaning, III, 283 sq, and adopted without further detailed
analysis by J. Trkulja, Aesthetic and Symbolism of Late Byz-
antine Church Façades, 1204–1453, UMI 3129125, Ann
Arbor, MI (2004), 65–68, quote from p. 68.
63 Cf. P. Reed Doob, The Idea of the Labyrinth: from Clas-
sical Antiquity through Middle Ages, Cornell University
Press 1990.
64 Compare the mentioned motif on the apse of the south
church of the monastery of Constantine Lips with the con-
temporaneous motif on the outer wall of the diaconicon of
the same building.
186 I. STEVOVIĆ
most clearly deciphered on facades of numerous
churches where the meander stretches continuously
along the lateral walls and the external face of the
holiest part of the building. As in Krina, the meander
is almost always found on the uppermost parts of the
walls,65 at times even on domes,66 and where it, al-
beit seldomly, appears in the lower zones, it is found
on the facades of the main apse or one of the lateral
units of the altar space.67 Since early Christian times
its meaning has been associated wth the topos of the
labyrinth,68 which in medieval times becomes the
ambience of homo viator whose soul sails through
the temptations and riddles of the terrestrial world
in search of its true spiritual essence, guided by the
words of Christ “All scripture [is] given by inspi-
ration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous-
ness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly
furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim. 3,16–17).69
Thus, the act of travelling and the act of writing are
inseparably connected, for the latter also signifies a
traversing of space of a kind and “the only way one
can even attempt to become aware of the limitations
of man’s perceptions of the divine.”70 Positioned in
65 Cf. examples listed in footnote 61.
66 H. Buchwald, Sardis Church E, 283 sq.
67 R. Ousterhout, The Byzantine Church at Enez: Prob-
lems in Twelfth-Century Architecture, JŐB 35 (1985), 264
and Fig. 6; the same also in R. Ousterhout-Ch. Bakirtzis,
The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley,
Thessaloniki 2007, 26–27; V. N. Papadopoulou, Byzantine
Arta and its Monuments, Athens 2007, 62–63 (Figs. 67–70),
125 (Fig. 145). For the meander on the church of the Holy
Apostles in Thessaloniki cf. M. L. Rautman, The Church of
the Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki: a Study in Early Palaeo-
logian Architecture, UMI 8417210, Ann Arbor MI (1984),
281 sq.
68 P. Reed Doob, op. cit., passim; on connecting the laby-
rinth with divine and royal prerogatives since Greek antiq-
uity cf. in particular P. Borgeaud, The Open Entrance to the
Closed Palace of the King: the Greek Labyrinth in Context,
History of Religions 14–1 (1974), 1–27.
69 Cf. G. Ladner, Homo Viator: Medieval Ideas on Aliena-
tion and Order, Speculum 42–2 (1967), 233–259;see also
P. Dinzelbacher, The Way to the Other World in Medieval
Literature and Art, Folclore 97–1 (1986), 70–87; P. Reed
Doob, op. cit, passsim.
70 O. Grabar, op. cit, 64; on the act of writing as “travel-
ling” R. Webb, The Aesthetic of Sacred Space: Narrative,
Metaphor and Motion in “Ekphraseis” of Church Buildings,
DOP 53 (1999), 59–74, esp. 67 sq; B. Pentcheva, Visual Tex-
tuality: the “Logos” as Pregnant Body and Building, RES:
Antrophology and Aesthetics 45 (2004), 225–238.
Fig. 7. Istanbul, Christ in Chora, inner nartex, southern wall and detail of Deesis (I. Stevović)
liminal spaces connecting the lower and the upper
zones of the church, the meander represented a syn-
desmos between the material and spiritual realm.
In all, the visual exegesis of this complex image,
including the quatrefoil, opus spicatum and mean-
der, could thus be associative of the salvific role of
the Virgin and the sacrament of Baptism, both of
which receive an even deeper meaning in the case
of the Virgin at Krina, a church raised for funer-
ary purposes.71 It is also a schemata representative
of the act of writing, of materializing of the Word
– Logos and its spreading through the teachings of
the Church.72 It is the Word at once spreading out
71
Ch. Pennas, op. cit., passim.
72 Cf. С. С. Аверницев, Поэтика Ранневизантийской
Литературьі, Москва 1977 (=Поетика Рановизантијске
књижевности, Београд 1982, 204–232); O. Grabar, loc.
cit; H. L. Kessler, Seeing Medieval Art, University of To-
ronto Press 2004, 87 sq, 151 sq; see also R. S. Nelson, Let-
ters and Language/Ornament and Identity in Byzantium and
Islam, in: The Experience of Islamic Art on the Margins of
Islam (ed. I. A. Bierman), University of California, Los An-
geles 2005, 61–88, as well as texts which, although focus-
TOWARDS NEW DIRECTIONS OF INVESTIGATION OF LATE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE
and drawing in from the world those thirsting for
the source of “living water” or “the fish that pass
through the paths of the sea” (Ps. 8,9).73 Let us
note here that the bathing vessel which received the
newly born Christ in the scene of the Birth of Christ
from Hosios Loukas, in which the horizontal stips
of silver-blue tesserae representing water, reminis-
cent in form of the bricklaying inside the recessed
inner shell of the quatrefoil at Krina, assume a visu-
ally prominent role suggesting a liturgical, sacra-
mental meaning announcing Baptism, is “decorat-
ed” with a meander motif.74 On the other hand, in
ing on “true” text, offer interpretations or raise a series of
questions relevant to this particular issue, in: Art and Text
in Byzantine Culture (ed. L. James), Cambridge University
Press 2007.
73 It is by relying on this quotation from the Psalms that
Paulinus of Nola, in his letter to the Bishop of Bordeaux,
refers to himself receiving the sacrament of baptism from
the hands of that ecclesiastic, L. Drewer, op. cit, 535, with
sources.
74 N. Chatzidakis, op. cit., 28 (Fig. 13).
187
 the scene of Moses at the Well in the church of San
Marco in Venice the font is precisely of quatrefoil
shape, just as in the visually somewhat more elabo-
rate rendering of Christ and the Samaritan Woman
in the same church.75 Considering the connotations
of Moses’ miracles with water as prefigurations of
Baptism, i.e. redemption of sin, this particular form
could be indicative not only of the specific and spe-
cial significance of “fonts” represented as quatre-
foils but also of the reasons behind the choice of
the same motif as the central image of the lunette of
the porch of the church of St. Sophia at Trebizond
which is decorated with a frieze depicting the cycle
of Creation.76
In closing, and in the context of interpretation
of the quatrefoil motif expounded above, it ap-
pears highly significant to point out that this im-
age assumes a prominent, intriguing and as yet lit-
tle studied place in the program of decoration of
the Constantinopolitan church of Christ in Chora.
It appears in the marble revetment surrounding the
passageway connecting the inner narthex with the
parekklesion raised by Theodore Metochites (Fig.
7). The two quatrefoils on either side of the opening
in the southern wall of the esonarthex are produced
as a result of carefully and meticulously planned
and executed laying down of finely cut marble pan-
els whereby the veining of the stone is arrayed in a
manner creating the motif. Whatsmore, the arrange-
ment of the marble slabs in the zones above and be-
low the quatrefoils and filling out the entire space
of the inner narthex, indeed, “spilling out” through-
out the entire interior of the church, produces an
undulating pattern of aquatic association. In effect,
the program of the marble revetment of the Chora
relies on the same imagery as that of the brickwork
façade of Krina. Having in mind the dedication
of the church to Christ amidst a monastery dedi-
cated to the Virgin, on the one hand, and the funer-
ary function of the parekklesion on the other, it is
also inspiring to ponder on the possibility that such
a choice of imagery was made for the purpose of
visual exegesis of the idea of the incarnation of the
Logos, the role of the Virgin in the oikodomoia of
salvation and the idea of baptism as prefiguration
75 Cf. footnote 42.
76 A. Eastmond, Narratives of the Fall, passim, describes
the cycle of scenes in detail but notes only in passing the
existence of the quatrefoil in the guise of a window. The
quatrefoil appears by Adam and Eve also on the paintings of
Van Eyck, cf. J. L. Ward, op. cit., 25 and footnote 43.
188 I. STEVOVIĆ
of the death of the corporeal body and the birth to
eternal life. Future investigation of the overall pro-
gram of the marble revetment of the Chora, cer-
tainly in relation to its mosaics and frescoes, should
offer deeper insight into this question.77
To conclude: however limiting the many ques-
tions raised and conclusions brought about so far
were in the feat of understanding Late Byzantine
architecture, it is just as true that “we should be able
to read a building, just as they”, its contemporaries,
did. Although the compositions in the lunettes of the
Chios church remained unique in their multilayered
meaning and conceptually accomplished message,
speaking from the point of view of the construction
of form they represent the sum of all the particulari-
ties of sacral architecture of the day in general. If
in the late epoch, as stated once, “painting became
independent”,78 architecture, judging by elementary
logic, reached the very same status. The “response”
of the builders, formed gradually and initiated, be-
yond doubt, in the preceding period, was primarily
artistic, based on an overall redefining of the posi-
tion of traditional architectural, visual elements and
their mutual relations, and creating new formations
in which the individual motif, treated as a recep-
tive focus which functions both in its own right and
as an organic part of the entity of the organism of
the building, played the crucial role creating, ulti-
mately, an incomparable visual effect of the facades
foremostly oriented towards accentuating move-
77 In the extensive bibliography on the monument, includ-
ing the the book by M. Greenhalagh, Marble Past, Monu-
mental Present. Building with Antiquities in the Mediaeval
Mediterranean, Leiden-Boston 2009, special research of
the motifs found in the marble revetment and their mean-
ing have never been carried out. More particular attention
to the matter is found only in R. G. Ousterhout, The Archi-
tecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul, DO Studies XXV,
Washington, D.C. 1984, 66–67 and in particular Fig. 113.
Most relevant for the question of dedication of the church
and reasons for particularities of its painted program of
decoration are still texts by id., The Virgin of the Chora:
An Image and Its Contexts, in: The Sacred Image East and
West (ed. R. Ousterhout – L. Brubaker), University of Il-
linois Press 1995, 91–109; id., Temporal Structuring in the
Chora Parekkelesion, Gesta 34–1 (1995), 63–76. For now,
it seems relevant to note that the complex meander, with the
“swastika” motif at its center, running above the Deesis by
the passage leading to the parekklesion is of the right to left
“direction”, that is it “originates” preciely from the direction
of the marble quatrefoils, cf. R. G. Ousterhout, The Archi-
tecture of the Kariye Camii, Fig. 110.
78 H. Buchwald, The Concept of Style, 9.
ment, a dynamic interplay realized by tridimension-
al modelling, directions of distribution of geometric
or geometricized motifs, polichromatic masonry in
various opus and materials, optical illusion.79 At the
same time, the entire repertoire of such architec-
tural expression was the product of further practical
elaboration of the fundamental idea of the Logos
incarnated in the temple; the late Byzantine builder
thus became an “illuminator” of a sort, quite like
the author the the famous, brilliantly analyzed
miniature of the Homilies of Gregory of Naziansus
(Sinai, Cod. Gr. 339, fol. 4v),80 and his construc-
tion a complex transmitter of visual codes which,
depending surely on the level of education of each
individual, in the mind of the beholder, in other
words in the minds of the constituents of Byzantine
society, were identified as “mental images” of vari-
ous contents and depth of meaning.81 Therefore, the
79 Although chronologically related to a considerably ear-
lier period, the study by F. Barry, Walking on Water: Cosmic
Floors in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, ArtB LXXXIX–4
(2007), 627–656 (with extensive bibliography and sources)
is highly significant for this frame of thought. On optical
illusion found in the often used motif of “chequer field” in
Late Byzanitne architecture cf. I. Stevović, Late Byzantine
Architectural Church Decoration as an Iconic Vision of
Heavenly Jerusalem: the case of Kalenić, in: NEW JERU-
SALEMS: Translation of Sacred Spaces in Christian Culture
(ed. A. Lidov), Moscow 2009, 585–606.
80 B. Pentcheva, op. cit., 235 sq.
81 Cf. R. S. Nelson, op. cit., 151 sq, and in general M.
Carruthers, The Poet as Master Builder: Composition and
КА НОВИМ ПУТЕВИМА ИСТРАЖИВАЊА ПОЗНОВИЗАНТИЈСКЕ
АРХИТЕКТУРЕ. ВИЗУАЛИЗАЦИЈА „ТЕКСТА“ НА ФАСАДАМА
ЦРКВЕ БОГОРОДИЦЕ КРИНЕ НА ХИОСУ
Иван Стевовић
Будући да у проучавањима византијске архитектуре
у области историје уметности доследни недостатак
представља непостојање општијих методолошких
расправа, у првом делу текста изложена је рекапи-
тулација ставова саопштаваних током последњих
деценија поводом њеног позног раздобља и, самим
тим, приступа овој тематици у магистралном току
истраживања, почев од релевантних навода из раз-
TOWARDS NEW DIRECTIONS OF INVESTIGATION OF LATE BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE
lunettes of the Virgin of Krina, from the point of
view of the purpose of the message, can not be
taken as any sort of standard for it is precisely the
presence or absence of any individual constituent
of the code that dictated the semantic change of all
others.82 In a word, future research of Late Byzan-
tine architecture will definitely have to step out of
any attempts of classification, it will definitively
have to truly face the society, also as a receptor of
the works produced, and to open its eyes to what
that society saw in those works, the study of which,
it appears, will methodologically be quite reminis-
cent of the activities of the wise men once gathered
at Bletchley Park.
Locational Memory in the Middle Ages, New Literary His-
tory 24–4 (1993), 881–904; ead., Mental Images, Memory
Storage, and Composition in the High Middle Ages, Das
Mittelalter 13 (2008), 63–79; A. Cutler, op. cit, 92; B.
Pentcheva, op. cit., 238. See also M. H. Caviness, Images
of Divine Order and the Third Mode of Seeing, Gesta 22–2
(1983), 99–120, as well as significant insights relevant for
future research presented in texts by N. Isar, Chorography
(Chôra, Chorόs)-a Performative Paradigm of Creation of
Sacred Space in Byzantium, in: Hierotopy. The Creation
of Sacred Spaces in Byzantium and Medieval Russia (ed.
A. Lidov), Moscow 2006, 59–82; ead., Chôra: Tracing the
Presence, Review of European Studies 1–1 (2009), 39–55;
ead., Chorography-A Space for Choreographic Inscrip-
tion, Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov 2–51
(2009), 263–268.
82 A. Cutler, op. cit., 82.
личитих издања књиге Ричарда Краутхајмера Early
Christian and Byzantine Architecture, па до исказа
присутних у новијој историoграфији. Из сабраних
цитата проистекао је закључак о дугом трајању
својеврсног „позновизантијског градитељског па-
радокса“, испољеног у чињеници да су претходни
проучаваоци углавном признавали различите ви-
дове уметничких особености и квалитета ове ар-
189
 хитектуре, истовремено јој, тумачећи споменике
путем традиционалних формалистичких модела и
категоризација, de facto одричући иста та својства.
Уместо таквог методолошког приступа, на приме-
ру мотива четворолиста, „рибље кости“ и меандра,
брижљиво сложених у бочним лунетама цркве
Богородице Крине на Хиосу, у овом раду „декора-
тивна обрада фасада“ позновизантијских храмова
потиснута је у корист тумачења збира наведених
мотива као целине односно слике. У њеном садр-
жају сваки наведени елемент има сасвим одређе-
но симболичко значење, како сам по себи, тако и
у оквиру целокупне композиције која прераста у
190 I. STEVOVIĆ
комплексну и по значењу вишеслојну визуелну по-
руку, ликовни еквивалент писаног текста, односно
градитељски начин саопштавања идеје Логоса ова-
плоћеног црквом. Уз то, околност да се ови мотиви
појављују и у ентеријерима позновизантијских цр-
кава, попут мраморне оплате и суседног мозаика
меандра који уоквирује представу Деизиса у нар-
тексу храма Христа Хоре у Цариграду, упућује на
даље путеве истраживања начина на који су гради-
тељи позне епохе уистину настојали на „успоста-
вљању једнаких вредности унутрашњег и споља-
шњег простора“ сакралне грађевине.