Rebuilding the Temple: Constantine Monomachus and the Holy Sepulchre Author(s): Robert Ousterhout Reviewed work(s): Source:

Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Mar., 1989), pp. 6678 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/990407 . Accessed: 30/04/2012 17:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Society of Architectural Historians are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.

http://www.jstor.org

Rebuilding the
Constantine
ROBERT

Temple:
and

Monomachus
OUSTERHOUT

the

Holy

Sepulchre

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

The reconstruction the Churchof the Holy Sepulchre Jerusalem in of c. 1042-1048 by the Byzantine EmperorConstantineIX Monomachus an marks important in turningpoint thehistory thebuilding. of An analysis of the survivingremainsof this phase of construction that the suggests theplanwasdetermined an architectfrom Byzantine by and the construction carried by two teamsof masons. was out capital, was One workshop apparentlyfrom and Constantinople, theotherwas trainedlocallyin or aroundJerusalem. analysisof wall and vault An construction bearsout this conclusion.
THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE inJerusalem was one of the most important buildings of the Middle Ages, marking the traditional sites of Christ's Crucifixion, Entombment and Resurrection (Figs. 1 and 2). Its position was regarded as the center of the world, as the events it commemorated were central to Christian thought. It was the object of countless pilgrimages and the ultimate inspiration for the Crusades. The significance of the site has guaranteed the Holy Sepulchre a tumultuous history, affected by the religious zeal of both its and supporters opponents, as well as by numerousdisputesamong Christian communities. Moreover, the church has been in almost continuous usage since the early 4th century. It is perhaps because of the continued religious importance of the site that the architecturalhistory of the Holy Sepulchre remains poorly known, and its influence on the architectureof the Middle Ages has not been properly assessed. To compound matters, when one speaks of the medieval Church of the Holy Sepulchre, one is actually referring to three distinct phases of construction, with each phase including a complex of several buildings. Much of the scholarship concerning the early history of the

building has been based on the literary evidence.' Numerous descriptions of the church survive from the Middle Ages, but in these writings the literary or spiritualconcerns of the authors take precedence, and the physical aspects of the building are presented selectively and often in a random manner.2The late 7th-century plan of the Holy Sepulchre complex drawn by Arculf (Fig. 3) suggests the level of distortion possible in a medieval description when compared with a restored plan of the early complex (Fig. 4).3 Lacking a clear understanding of the physical evidence, scholars have been led to no end of conjecture about the architecturalcharacterof the medieval building.4The recent archaeologicalinvestigations at the Holy Sepulchre have clarified much of the medieval history of the building and have invalidated much of the speculation.5 However, an architecturalhistory of the building remains to be written.

1. Most notably,L. H. Vincentand F.-M. Abel,Jrusalem Nouvelle,

Kircheam Heiligen II, Paris, 1914; also E. K. H. Wistrand, Konstantins Grabnachden iltestenliterarischen G6teborgs Hogskolas AarZeugnissen,

skrift58, Giteborg,1952.

of translations J. 1955 (reprint 1982), 617-705; see alsothe annotated

the Warminster, 1977. Wilkinson,JerusalemPilgrimsbefore Crusades,

Locorum 2. For texts, see D. Baldi, Enchiridion Sanctorum, Jerusalem,

3. Wilkinson,Jerusalem 193-196, has collatedthe plans Pilgrims, that in Arculfmanuscripts versions appear Bede's with fromthe various De locis thesedatefromthe 9th throughthe 11th centuries. sanctis; The 1972, London,1974, fig. 1, for some Jerusalem, SchweichLectures of reconstructions the 4th-century amusing18th- and 19th-century fanciful reconstructions. and monument, pls.7, 8,15,17, forCoiiasnon's der Formorerecentflightsof fancy,seeE. Dyggve,"Die Frage 'basilica
Anastasis,'" Berichtiber den VI Internationalen KongressfurArchdologie, in 4. See for example C. Coiiasnon, The Churchof theHoly Sepulchre

et Berlin, 1940, 585-587; A. Piganiol."L'hemisphairion l'omphalos Cahiers des LieuxSaints," I, 1945, 7-14; K. J. Conant, archeologiques, at "TheOriginal inJerusalem," Speculum, Buildings the Holy Sepulcher
XXXI, 1956, 3ff.; R. Krautheimer, Early Christianand Byzantine Ar-

in Research Jerusalem by duringthe summerof 1984 was supported of Board the University Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign. of the Research comand to I am grateful the GreekOrthodox,Franciscan, Armenian munitiesfor allowing me accessto portionsof the Holy Sepulchre normallyclosed to the public.My studybenefittedfrom discussions with Denys PringleandJohn Wilkinsonat the BritishSchoolof Arassisted and VirgilioCorbo.AmyCassens chaeology with the Reverend at of Ancestors this paperwere presented the 1983 with the drawings. in ByzantineStudiesConference Durham,N.C., and the 1986 Interin national D.C., bothwith published Congress Washington, Byzantine abstracts. 66

1965, fig. 16. The lattertwo have had reHarmondsworth, chitecture, excavation in markable results-upcurrency, spiteof well-publicized text-and the outdated editionsof Krautheimer's datedin successive in of haveappeared avariety architectural history surveys published plans in this countryduringthe last five years.Even V. C. Corbo,II Santo di 1981, II, fig. 3, attemptsa reconJerusalem, Sepolcro Gerusalemme, in described Eusebius, spite struction the enigmatichemisphairon of by evidenceandthe inconsistencies of the completelackof archaeological of his solutionwith the plan of the basilica.This featurehas been in eliminated this article's 4. fig. see 3 5. Corbo,SantoSepolcro, vols., is the most authoritative; also JSAH XLVIII:66-78. MARCH 1989

OUSTERHOUT:

CONSTANTINE

MONOMACHUS

AND THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

67

View fromsoutheast. Fig. 1. Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre.

1. Patriarchate 2 Anastasis Rotunda 3. Tomb Aedicula Choir 4. Crusader of 5. Chapel St. Mary 6. Baptistery Wing
7. Holy Prison

K . _. . .[ of o,s1 l lUI |11.

8. Ambulatory of 9. Crypt St. Helena of 10. Crypt the Invention the Cross of Calvary 12-Entrance

Planof presentcomplex(redrawn afterCorbo). Fig. 2. Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre. Of the three major phases of construction from the Middle Ages, the first, initiated by Constantine the Great in the 4th century, remains the most famous, although archaeologically the least well known (Fig. 4). The vast complex of buildings included an atrium that connected the complex with the main the ofteninaccurate account Coiiasnon, of Church theHolySepulchre; of the latterwas reviewed V. C. Corbo,"Problemi SantoSepolcro sul by di Gerusalemme unarecentepubblicazione," Annuus, in Liber XXIX, 1979, 279-292. street to the east, a five-aisled basilica with its apse in the west, a porticoed courtyard containing the Rock of Calvary in the southeastcorner,the greatRotundaof the Anastasis which housed the aedicula of the Tomb of Christ, and numerous ancillary structuresincluding the residence of the patriarch.6Following 6. The last word in this debateis that by Corbo,SantoSepolcro, I, 223-228. MorerecentlyCorbo'swork hasbeen 51-137, summarized criticizedby R. Ousterhout, JSAH, XLIII, 1984, 266-267; and D. ChurchMarkthe Burialof Jesus?" Bahat,"Does the Holy Sepulchre Biblical XII, 3, 1986, 26-45. Review, Archaeology

68

JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

1. Patriachate 2. Anastasis Rotunda 3. Tomb Aedicula

4. Courtyard 5. Omphalos

Fig. 3. Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre. Plan c. 670 by Arculf (Vindobonensis 458).

6, Holy Prison 7. Chapel of the Flagellation 8. Chapel of the Crown of Thorns 9. Chapel of the Division of the Garments 10. Crypt of the Invention of the Cross 11. Calvary 12. Chapel of St. Mary 13. Baptistery Wing

Fig. 5. Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre. Reconstructedplan of 1 lth-century complex, ground level (redrawn after Corbo).

Fig. 4. Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre. Reconstructed plan of 4th-century complex (redrawn after Corbo).

the in and significant damage repair the 7th and 10th centuries, was destroyed orderof the fanaticCalif al-Hakim by complex reconstructed the Byzantine in 1009. It was subsequently by IX between 1042 (?) and Constantine Monomachus Emperor and 1048 (Figs.5, 6, and7). At thattime, only the rotunda the court were rebuilt,and numerousannexedchapels porticoed were addedto the eastside of the courtandto the southflank of the rotunda. completionof Finally,following the successful and in the FirstCrusade 1099, the courtyard its chapelswere and by a domedtransept pilgrimagechoir. Dedicated replaced church had a curious,double-ended in 1149, the Crusaders' form that is substantially today. The buildingwas preserved work at by damaged a firein 1808, andthe restoration severely to the site has continued the present.Forthe modernvisitor,a formof the buildingis also of clearunderstanding the medieval of the partitioning the interior,dividedbetween by hampered

that communities occupythe site. The Christian the numerous the in of spaces no way reflects compartmentalizationthe major formof the medievalbuilding. Of the three medievalphases,the 11lth-century Byzantine has receivedthe least attention.Although considerable form evidencesurvives,much of it remainsunpubarchaeological was The ByzantineHoly Sepulchre short-lived, lished.7 lasting it at most 70 or 80 years.Nevertheless, is of greatsignificance for to the historyof medievalarchitecture a varietyof reasons. the formof the Crusaders' On a locallevel,it helpedto establish and buildingand suggesteda numberof structural decorative

Nousee 7. Forthe published accounts, VincentandAbel,Jerusalem Church the 54-57; Corbo, II, velle, 218-242; Coiiasnon, of HolySepulchre, 229-231. Santo I, Sepokro, 145-181, summarized

OUSTERHOUT: CONSTANTINE MONOMACHUS AND THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

69

^^

3
FJ n r mil r

6}| I J |_~~~ L_^^^^

5__i rt 4

1. Patriarchate
^jig2.
4.

5L3 | r
7
E m

Anastasis Rotunda Gallery 3- NorthGallery and Chapel South Gallery 5. Chapel of Melchisedech 6. Treasury 7. Domed Chapel

Reconstructed of 11th-cenFig. 6. Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre. plan afterCorbo). turycomplex,gallerylevel (redrawn

details for the 12th-century additions. In relationship to western European architecture, the Byzantine Holy Sepulchre corresponded with a period of considerablecontact between Palestine and the West. Seen by participantsof pilgrimages and the First Crusade, it inspired the numerous memento Holy Sepulchres that were constructed in the 11th and 12th centuries, such as S. Stefano in Bologna and the Holy Sepulchre in Cambridge, England.8 The building is also significant for the history of Byzantine architecture.Masons and probably the head architect for the reconstruction were sent from Constantinople. The patron, Constantine Monomachus, was a noted builder; a better understanding of the Holy Sepulchre helps to clarify developments in Byzantine architecture in the mid-llth century. Finally, the building offersa special example of liturgical planning. The medieval Typikon of Jerusalem survives, and the Easter Week ceremonies it specifies are closely paralleledby the 1 lthcentury form of the building. The disastrousevents of the early 11th century brought to a close a chapterin the history of the Holy Sepulchre and signaled the beginning of another, effectively marking the transition from Early Christian to medieval in the form of the building. The actions by al-Hakim were presaged by political developments in the 10th century. In 966, apparently as a response to Byzantine military victories against the Arabs,rioters murdered the patriarch and set fire to the doors and woodwork of the Holy Sepulchre.9In the ensuing conflagration,the roofs of both the basilica and the Anastasis Rotunda were destroyed. It took 10 years to reconstruct the roof of the Anastasis Rotunda, and the basilica was said to have remained uncovered for 20 years. A 8. See R. Ousterhout, "The Churchof SantoStefano: 'Jerusalem' e in Bologna," Stefano GerusaXX, Gesta, 1981,311-321;idem,"Santo
di lemme," Stefaniana:Contributi la storiadel complesso S. Stefanoin per Dodi Patria le Province Romagna, di Bologna,Deputazione Storia per cumenti e studi, XVII, 1985, 131-358. 9. Vincent and Abel, Jerusalem Nouvelle, II, 248-249, with further references.

of courtesy the BritishAcademy). complex(Coiiasnon,

Fig. 7. Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre. Reconstructedview of 1 lth-century

Matters went from bad to worse with the accession of Calif al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (ruling 996-1021), who exhibited a clearly hostile attitude toward the Christians. He ordered random arrests,executions, and the destruction of churches as early as 1001. In 1004 he decreed that the Christianscould no longer celebrate Epiphany or Easter. Finally, on 18 October 1009, alHakim ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and dependent buildings, apparentlyoutraged by what he regarded as the fraud practiced by the monks in the "miraculous" Descent of the Holy Fire, celebrated annually at the church during the Easter Vigil.10 According to the chronicler Yahia, only those things that were too difficult to demolish were spared." Processions were prohibited, and a few years later all of the convents and churches in Palestine were said to have been destroyed or confiscated. Something of a reconstruction was allowed at the Holy Sepulchre in 1012 by the Bedouin emir Mufarridjben alDjarrah,for a time the effective ruler in Palestine.12 As relations remained precarious,it is assumed that this restorationwas provisional and small in scale: the site is afterward referred to as

10. M. Canard, destruction l'eglisede la Resurrection le "La de par de du CalifeHikimet l'histoire la descente feusacre," XXXV, Byzantion,
1965, 16-43. 11. For text, see Baldi, Enchiridion,652-653; Vincent and Abel,Jerusalem Nouvelle,II, 245-247.

"Destruction l'eglise,"26. 12. Above,n. 11; also Canard, de

70

JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

-,I

of lookInterior Anastasis Rotunda, Fig. 8. Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre. ing southeast.

lookof Interior Anastasis Rotunda, Holy Sepulchre. Fig.9. Jerusalem, 1681. ing northwest, Lebrun, by tine nobleman, Ioannes Karianitis,who had retiredin Jerusalem, acted as the intermediaryto obtain the necessarysubsidies from the imperial fisc. This information is provided by William of Tyre, who records the rededication of the building in 1048, 51 years before the Crusaders'liberation of the city.17 As rebuilt, the Byzantine Holy Sepulchre was much more modest than the 4th-century ensemble. The large, five-aisled basilica constructedby Constantine the Great was never rebuilt. The Rotunda of the Anastasishad been damaged, but the walls still stood to gallery level. The reconstruction appearsto have adhered closely to the form of the 4th-century rotunda. It assumed the role of the main church for the worship service, and a projecting bema and apse were added to the eastern facade, correcting the reversed orientation of the original. The apse is known only from partial excavations; it was removed by the Crusaders in the following century.18Curiously, there is no evidence for flanking pastophoria,standardfeaturesin Byzantine sanctuarydesign. The columns that separatedthe central space from the ambulatory were reerected on high bases, probably Thinner, coupled columns repeating the original proportions.19 were added flanking the arched opening to the new apse (Fig. 8). These were heart-shapedin plan and were topped by reused Byzantine capitals. The gallery of the rotunda was rebuilt with an odd, alternating pattern of piers and columns, perhaps re-

thechurch and (Resurrection) itsruins,asit appears ofal-Qiyama in the edict of protectionissuedin 1020.13 in deathof al-Hakim 1021, a peace Followingthe mysterious was betweenthe Byzantine Romanus treaty negotiated Emperor III and Daher,son of al-Hakim,and concludedin 1030. The allowedfor the reconstruction the Holy Sepulchre, of but treaty thatthe basileus shouldrebuild churchat his own the stipulated and However,delaysoccurred, the fundswere not expense.14 immediately forthcoming.To compoundmatters,in 1034 an the was churches earthquake saidto have destroyed remaining
of the city.15But there is no indication of action until the reign

of Constantine Monomachus. IX of Constantine Monomachus becameemperor Byzantium in 1042 by marrying reigningEmpress the Zoe. He ruledfor 12 yearsuntil his deathin 1055. A notedpatronof architecture and religiousestablishments, reconstruction the Holy the of to appears havebeenamonghis firstbuilding Sepulchre projects. locatedbeyondthe boundaries the empire,suchan of Although accorded with Constantine's desireto beundertaking apparent come the ecumenical protectorof the faith in the mannerof his illustrious the Constantine GreatandJustinipredecessors, an.16 wasprovided fromConstantinople, a Byzanand Funding
13. Above, n. 11; also Vincent and Abel, Jrusalem Nouvelle,II, 250. 14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.
16. See CharalambosBouras, Nea Moni on Chios:Historyand Architecture, Athens, 1982, 24. For a general discussion of the period, with further references, see G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, New Brunswick, 1969, 316-341; and more recently, A. P. Kazhdan and A. W. Epstein, Changein ByzantineCulturein theEleventh Twelfth and Centuries, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1985. R. Cormack, Writingin Gold: Byzantine Societyand Its Icons, London, 1985, 182-194, has recently discussedthe patronage of Constantine IX, concluding that the purpose of his numerous donations to religious foundations was "to guarantee his salvation at all costs" (p. 193). 17. Baldi, Enchiridion,653.

in 18. The remains the apseareillustrated plan,but not discussed of

II, by Corbo, Santo Sepolcro, pl. 4. 19. Coiiasnon, Church of the Holy Sepulchre,27-32, envisions the original columns as twice as tall as the present rather stubby supports, believing that the change occurredin the 1 lth-century rebuilding. This interpretation is criticized-probably correctly-by Corbo, Santo Sepolcro,I, 69-71, who insists that the short columns on high bases are part of the 4th-century endeavor, the shafts being spoliafrom the earlier Roman temple on the site, cut in half for the original rotunda.

OUSTERHOUT: CONSTANTINE MONOMACHUS AND THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

71

rr--i

r-i

*i-*---:

:' .iN.'

U \\
I

.
=

North colonnade 11th-century of Fig. 10. Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre.

triporticus, looking west.

sulting from a dearth of the latter. The clerestory zone was apparentlyeliminated or blocked in the process of construction. Mosaics decorated the niches of this zone and can still be detected in the 1681 view of the interior by LeBrun (Fig. 9). Illumination was provided by the oculus in the conical roof and perhapsby a window in the apse. This portion of the Constantine Monomachus building project was not substantiallyaltered by the Crusaders,and survived relatively intact until the fire of 1808. The porticoed courtyard also followed the plan of the 4thcentury triporticus. A small section of the colonnade survives in the north transept of the Crusader church, hidden behind the larger, 12th-century supports (Figs. 10 and 5). At the center of the courtyard was the omphalosmarking the center of the earth, and along the eastern perimeter a series of chapels commemorated the events of Christ's Passion, incorporating relics brought from elsewhere in the city.20As early as the 9th century, the room in the northeast corner had been identified as the Prison of Christ.21 The chapels between the Prison and Calvary were dedicated to the Flagellation, the Crown of Thorns, and the Division of the Garments, forming a sort of Via Dolorosa
20. Vincent and Abel,Jerusalem Nouvelle, II, 255-256. 21. Vincent and Abel,Jerusalem Nouvelle,II, 255.

-I B M o,

IIE

. .

..

- .

I -10m

Fig. 11. Constantinople, Theotokos of Lips, c. 907. Plan at ground and

gallerylevels (Curcic).

in miniature.22 This portion of the complex is known only from medieval descriptions; it was replaced with the addition of the Crusaders'pilgrimage choir which included radiating chapels of the same dedications. Further to the east lay the ruins of the 4th-century basilica. Stairsled down to a rock-cut chapel, identified as the site of the Invention of the Cross. This was expanded into the chapel of St. Helena in the following century.23The courtyard also included elevated chapels on the north and south sides, corresponding to the gallery level of the rotunda. Three chapels survive in the southeast corner above Calvary, although their original purpose and dedications are uncertain. One of these

22. Vincent and Abel, Jerusalem Nouvelle,II, 256.

23. The 11th-century grottowas not the sameas the chapelof St. as Helena,norwas it the cryptof the basilica, assumed Vincentand by
Nouvelle,II, 256 and fig. 123; for clarification,see Corbo, Abel,Jerusalem Santo Sepolcro, 168-174. I,

72

JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

of view, Theotokos Lips,c. 907. Reconstructed Fig. 12. Constantinople, of fromnorthwest Oaks). (Megaw,courtesy Dumbarton detailof 1ltheast Rotunda facade, Holy Sepulchre. Fig. 13. Jerusalem, centurymasonry.

was identified by Horn as the chapel of Melchisedech and AbraAnother now serves as ham, part of a small Greek monastery.24 a treasury and is inaccessible, and the third is covered by an exposed dome. To the north of the rotunda, a chapel dedicated to St. Mary was added, sandwiched between the 4th-century walls of the Anastasistransept and the patriarchate.A symmetrical counterpartwas constructed to the south, dedicated to St. John the Evangelist; the apse of this chapel still appearsbelow the Crusaders'belfry. Two additional chapels were added to this: a large baptisteryand a chapel dedicated to St. James. The three chapels were connected by a western narthex. If we make allowances for the unique nature of the site and the reuse of the 4th-century elements, the restoration of the Holy Sepulchre fits well into our picture of middle Byzantine architecture. In this respect, the abandonment of the Early Christianbasilicais not surprising:churches generally decreased in size in the Byzantine period. Still, the Holy Sepulchre was huge by Byzantine standards.Although covered by a wooden roof, the 21 m. span of the rotunda probably caused some consternationfor the Byzantine builders who were used to working on a much smaller scale. The chapels, dwarfed by the rotunda, are each comparable in size to a normal Byzantine church of the period. The baptistery, for example, measures about 9 m. across, and is thus slightly larger than the contemporaneous naos of Nea Moni on Chios. Several elements of the plan of the Holy Sepulchre may be compared to middle Byzantine architecture. Although the courtyardwas taken over from the Early Christian building, its use as an organizational focus for a complex of buildings is similar to St. Nicholas at Myra (9th century and later) and St. The forGeorge of Mangana (1042-1055) in Constantinople.25
Sanctae(1724-1744), Terrae Monumentorum 24. E. Horn, Ichnographiae 1962, 92-94 and fig. 13; also Corbo, Santo Sepokro,II, pl. Jerusalem, 34. 25. For St. Nicholas, see U. Peschlow, in J. Borchhardt et al., Myra,

of mal incorporation annexedchapelsinto the overalldesign The satellitearreflectsa commonmiddleByzantinepractice. of rangement chapelsflankingthe main churchmay be comwith the churchat YilancaBayir(9th century?) outjust pared or side Constantinople, the Theotokos of Lips (c. 907) in with of (Figs.11 and12).26The alignment apses Constantinople also evidentat the reflectsa commonpractice, the east faSade Theotokosof Lips and the Pantokrator Monastery(c. 1118of the Similarly, formalincorporation 1136)in Constantinople. likethoseaboveCalvary, alsobe compared elevated may chapels, with the Theotokosof Lips, where domed, elevatedchapels were reached a walkwayon an upperlevel. The numerous by or suggestthat an architectfrom Constantinople comparisons of with the architecture thatcitywasresponsible atleastfamiliar for the plan. this of An analysis the construction techniquesupports sugwith Constana directconnection indicating gestion,similarly portionsof the buildingareexecutedin the tinople.Substantial courses in bricktechnique, which alternating recessed so-called behindwhat and of brickaresetbackfromthe surface concealed

IstanbulerForschungen 30, Berlin, 1975, 303-359; for St. George, see des R. Demangel and E. Mamboury, Le quartier Manganeset la premiere regionde Constantinople, Paris, 1939, 19-37. 26. For these and other examples of the formal incorporation of subsidiarychapels in the period, see S. Curcic, "Architectural Significance of SubsidiaryChapels in Middle Byzantine Architecture,"JSAH, XXXVI, 1977, 94-110, with further references. For a more detailed discussionof the Theotokos of Lips, see A. H. S. Megaw, "The Original Oaks Form of the Theotokos Church of Constantine Lips," Dumbarton Papers,XVIII, 1964, 278-298. For questions of function and iconogFonction annexesdes eglisesbyzantines; raphy, see G. Babic, Les chapelles et Paris, 1969. iconographiques, liturgique programmes

OUSTERHOUT: CONSTANTINE MONOMACHUS AND THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

'o
.I
1 )^

73

~~u;,KiIhf i uEF, liii4L~ >r,ir?

-cL

!*?

Elevated Holy Sepulchre. chapels,fromsoutheast. Fig. 14. Jerusalem,

Holy Sepulchre.Rotunda,north facade,gallery Fig. 15. Jerusalem, windows. In addition to the construction technique, a number of decorative details also compare favorably with Constantinopolitan architecture. On the drum of the dome of one of the elevated chapels, triangularand semicircularpilaster strips are combined at the angles (Fig. 14). The same combination of forms appears articulatingthe atrium walls of St. George of Mangana. Similar details also appearon the faSade of S. Marco in Venice (1064) and on the apse of the cathedral of Chernigov (c. 1036), both presumably constructed under Constantinopolitan influence.30 On the north faSade of the rotunda transept, decorative brick patternsappearin the spandrelsbetween the round-headedwindows (Fig. 15). Although somewhat clumsily executed, both the position and patterns correspond with numerous 1 lth- and 12th-century buildings from Constantinople, such as the Pantepoptes, the Kilise Camii (c. 1100?) and the substructureof the Philanthropos Monastery (12th century), as well as the Kosmosoteira Monastery at Pherrai (c. 1152), built by masons from the capital. In the windows at the Holy Sepulchre, the arches include setbacks, and there is an attempt to align the radiating brick voussoirs through the setbacks. These features are also common in the Constantinopolitan architecture of the same
period.31

The brick conappear to be exceedingly wide mortarbeds.27 struction often alternates with bands of stone, and the broad mortarbeds are incised along the brick courses (Fig. 13). In addition, coupled vertical incisions appearin the mortar,perhaps imitating the joints between bricks. The recessedbrick technique was a hallmark of Constantinopolitan construction in the 11th and 12th centuries, and it appears in numerous buildings in the capital and related centers, as at St. George of Manganaand Christos ho Pantepoptes (before 1087) in Constantinople and H. Sophia in Nicaea (additions after 1065). Incisedjoints were also common.28Moreover, brick constructionis extremely rarein the Holy Land.Although bricks had been produced in Palestine since Roman times, cut stone construction was far more common. According to Corbo, brick is used only in the 1 lth-century portions of the Holy Sepulchre, and all of it appearsto have been produced locally.29 is bricktechnique extenon recessed 27. The literature the so-called "The ConcealedCourse sive; see most recentlyP. L. Vocotopoulos, der and Further Examples a Few Remarks,"JahrbuchOsterTechnique: reichischen XXVIII, 1979, 247-260, with furtherreferByzantinistik, in Isa und also Bonn, ences; S. Y. Otiiken, KapiMescidi MedresesiIstanbul, are the 1974, 105-117. At the Holy Sepulchre, bricks 4.5 cm. to 5 cm. is thick,while thejoints are9 cm. to 12 cm. thick;the mortar greyish, brick. but includessomecrushed of of as 28. For illustrations, well as a discussion the transmission Bethis techniqueto Russia,see H. Schafer,"Architekturhistorische ziehungenzwischenByzanzund der KieverRus im 10 and 11 JahrIstanbuler XXIII-XXIV, 1973-1974, 197-224. hundert," Mitteilungen, 146-147 fortheincised Santo Note alsoCorbo, III, Sepolcro, photographs Otiikenhas on mortarbeds the elevated chapeldome,beforerepointing. to in a prepared study of incisedmortarbeds Byzantineconstruction on this subject. V. fromthe excavator, C. Corbo.Brickhad information 29. Verbal sinceat leastRoman beenproduced a limitedbasisin Palestine on times; see N. Avigad, 1980, 207 andfig. 255: Jerusalem, DiscoveringJerusalem, both the Tenth Legionmanufactured roofingtiles andbricksbearing of Brickwas also employedin the construction identification stamps. see the Nea Churchbuiltby Justinian; Avigad,229-246 andfig. 289.
Dergisi;I am grateful to her for discussions appearin RoleveveRestorasyon

at of analysis the brickconstruction the Holy Althougha moredetailed evidencewas lost was Sepulchre impossible-and much construction in the recentrestoration-the brickmay represent spoliafrom other
Jerusalem churches in ruins in the 11th century. des 30. For St. George, see Demangel and Mamboury, Quartier Manganes,figs. 21 and 22; for S. Marco, see F. Zuliani, "Considerazioni sul Arte Veneta, lessico architettonicodella San Marco Contariniana," XXIX, 1975, 50-59, fig. 6; for Chernigov, see Schafer, "Architekturhistorische Beziehungen," pl. 91. 31. For illustrations, see T. F. Mathews, The Byzantine Churchesof A Istanbul: Photographic Survey,University Park, Pa., 1976, 62-64 (Pantepoptes); 202-204 (Philanthropos); Schifer, "Architekturhistorische der Beziehungen," pl. 90 (Kilise Camii); S. Sinos, Die Klosterkirche Kosin mosoteira Bera (Vira), Byzantinisches Archiv 16, Munich, 1985, pls.

74

JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

terior,lookingnorthwest.

Fig. 17. Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre. Elevated chapel, vaulting of in-

Fig. 16. Jerusalem, Holy Sepulchre. Chapel of Golgotha, looking southeast.

be noted that this detail was ultimately part of the architectural heritage of ancient Rome. Intriguingly, banded voussoirs were also employed in the 3d-century Roman construction of the Qasr ash-Sham at Cairo (Fig. 18).33 Could surviving Roman masonry similar to this have provided the inspiration for the banded arches at the Holy Sepulchre? On the other hand, it appears that supplies of brick were extremely limited in the construction of the Holy Sepulchre-quite possibly the brick
represents spolia taken from other ruined churches of the city.

In this case the use of such banding may indicate an attempt at the conservation of building materials. Another feature, although part of the Byzantine decorative Not all of the 1 th-century Holy Sepulchre was built in the is somewhat enigmatic. In the chapel of Golgotha vocabulary, recessed brick technique, however, as an examination of the voussoirs are employed, aland in the elevated chapel, banded baptistery wing illustrates (Fig. 19). Here one finds roughly ternatingbrick and stone elements in the archconstruction (Figs. 16 and 17). Common in late Byzantine architecture, banded squaredstone construction in the walls, as well as slightly pointed arches. These featurescorrespondmore closely to the Islamic voussoirs are somewhat unusual in the mid 11th century, alarchitectureof the region, as for example at the cistern at Ramla, though similarly banded voussoirs appearat Backovo, Nesebar, from the late 8th century.34 and Cappadocia in buildings of an 11th-century date. Perhaps Denys Pringle has recently indicated that Christian architecturewas being constructed in and around most significantly, bandedvoussoirswere employed in the katholikon of Nea Moni on Chios, a building contemporaneous with Jerusalemduring the 11th century by a local workshop strongly influenced by the Muslim architecture of the region. Thus, the Holy Sepulchre and also built by Constantinopolitan masons better comparisons may be made with the local Christian arunder the patronage of Constantine Monomachus.32It should chitecture, for example the Monastery of the Cross, locatedjust outside Jerusalem. The church is dated 1038-1056 and is conof For 70-88 (Pherrai). furthercommentson the construction arches tou in the recessed bricktechnique, G. Velenis,Hermeneia Exoterikou temporaneouswith this phase of the Holy Sepulchre (Fig. 20).35 see
Diakosmouste ByzantineArchitektonike, Thessaloniki, 1984, 65ff. 4th 32. R. Krautheimer, Early Christianand Byzantine Architecture,

and references. revised edition,1986,442,with further examples further see Kilise in the Peristrema For the Karagedik valley of Cappadocia, in Chios show bandedvoussoirs the archesof the naos;see J. StrzyZeitschrif, V, 1896, pls. gowski, "Nea Moni auf Chios," Byzantinische

ViArchitektur M. Restle, Studienzur friihbyzantinischen Kappadokiens, enna, 1979, I, 83; II, fig. 147. Older photographs of Nea Moni on

S. "Ne6tera stoicheia tenoikodomike 2-4; morerecently, Vogiatzes, gia tes istoriatou katholikou Neas MonesChiou,"Ogdoo ByzanSymposio
kai tineskai Metabyzantines Athens, 1988, 33-34. Archaiologias Technes,

33. K. A. C. Creswell, TheMuslimArchitectureofEgypt, Oxford, 1952, fig. 23. 34. K. A. C. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture, Oxford, 1969, II, 161-164, pl. 33. 35. D. Pringle, "Church-Building in Palestine before the Crusades," ed. in CrusaderArt theTwelfthCentury, byJ. Folda, British Archaeological Reports International Series 152, Oxford, 1982, 5-46, esp. 12-13, fig. 1.12, pls. 1.7 and 1.8. Pringle suggests that the cross-in-squareplan of the church at Monastery of the Cross, as well as at St. John of 'Ain

OUSTERHOUT: CONSTANTINE MONOMACHUS AND THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

75

''f''g'
8-~i ?
. '

''I
4~ e 1 w

*_t_
c"?Z,r r? ? i

f*g='

Aw,=S?? )
t
_r"*

s z -t

~
>

~
,Z*?lr \
7 ..............................

-~~
~~..
X

L~?

r?. -

wing, eastfacade. Holy Sepulchre. Baptistery Fig. 19. Jerusalem,

--eXdX;
-'r ' '' h _

:-@>ALi'

Fig. 18. Cairo, Qasr ash-Sham, Late Roman wall (Creswell).

The assumption a local workshopwas involvedin the that of reconstruction the Holy Sepulchreis reinforced an exby amination the vaulting.The most commonform is a groin of vaultusedin series,as maybe seenin the galleryof the rotunda andin the northportico(Figs.21 and 10). While groinvaults arecommonin Byzantine their architecture, use in seriesis not. Both this aspectandthe rubble construction closely correspond with the Monastery the Cross. of Two of the 11th-centurychapelswere topped by domed for one octagons.Conveniently our discussion, was apparently builtby the masons fromConstantinople; otherby the local the conworkshop.An elevatedchapelaboveCalvaryis partially in the recessed structed bricktechniqueand employstrumpet for to squinches the transition, comparable thoseat HosiosLoukas(Fig. 17). Eventhe chevronpattern the squinches of betrays construction Constantinopolitan practices.36

the At the baptistery, domeis now missing,anda lowerroof zone still level was addedat a laterdate.But the intermediate survives.In contrastto the elevatedchapel, the transitionto is Construction of stone; octagonfollows Islamicprototypes. archesareslightlypointed;andratherthantrumpet squinches, expandedcornerconches are employed(Fig. 22). These are in at semicircular plan with setbacks the cornice.The form is almostidenticalto the slightly earlierdome abovethe mihrab of the al-HakimMosquein Cairo(Fig. 23), and to numerous In fromthe sameperiod.37 thebaptistery, otherIslamic examples the corner conches alternate eitherwindowsor smallniches with of above the cornice.The construction the small niches also indicatesthe Islamicheritage.In these, the conchesare conof from a central,semicirthat radiate structed stonevoussoirs This form is uncularstone,creatinga sortof sunrisepattern. as in but appears severalearlierIslamicmonuments, in usual, of the thronenicheat Kirbat or in the calidarium the al-Mafjar, Hammam as-Sarakh 24), both fromthe early8th century, (Fig. No of andat the laterMasshad HusaynatAleppo.38 doubtcloser will be found. examples From our examination,the 11th-centuryHoly Sepulchre emergesas the productof two teamsof masonsunderthe dithat fromConstantinople. appears It rectionof a headarchitect for the most part. the two workshops operated independently built eachgroupof masons Oncethe planhadbeendetermined, in the technique materials with which it was mostfamiliar. and In addition,it would seem that eachworkshopwas left to determinethe ultimateformof vaulting,hencethe two different

was or kterion architects Athens, Karim, builtby Byzantine brought sentto Palestine byzantinon tesKonstantinoupoleos, 1973,pls. 11-14,for the of the numerous also "Sardis E-A PrelimChurch following treaty 1036.Whilethe planmaybe imported, examples; H. Buchwald, and forms certainly to construction are der Osterreichischen XXVI, inary indigenous technique vaulting Report,"Jahrbuch Byzantinistik, 1977, with discussion theorigin suchforms. of of Palestine; as-Sarakh, 24. 290-291,fora theoretical fig. compare theHammam 37. Creswell, 36. SeeG. Millet,L'ecole Muslim Architecture 63-106. dans Paris, ofEgypt, grecque I'architecture byzantine, 38. Creswell, Muslim for a For and I, 498-502,fig. 554;5451916,105ff., the "eglise trompes Architecture, d'angle." thechevron Early Ho W-chevron see diakosmos ton 577,fig.618;II, 109,fig. 100. forms, A. Pasadaios, keramoplastikos

76

JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

Rotunda gallery,lookingwest. Holy Sepulchre. Fig. 21. Jerusalem,

.,:

'-

of of looking Monastery the Cross.Interior church, Fig.20. Jerusalem,

southwest, c. 1038-1056 (Pringle).

lookingsoutheast. Holy Sepulchre. Baptistery, Fig. 22. Jerusalem,

types of domed octagons within the same complex. In general the construction of each team can be isolated on technical grounds. There are a few places in the building, however, where both teams apparently worked. In the gallery of the rotunda, for example, the reconstruction was begun in Byzantine recessed brickwork. But it was completed in squaredstone, and the gallery was covered with groin vaults in series-features that may be associatedwith the local workshop (Fig. 21). In the elevated chapel above Calvary, the transition to octagon and the construction technique are clearly Constantinopolitan, but the uppermost stages are decidedly un-Byzantine: the transition from octagon to circle is made by means of corbels, in a manner more closely akin to Islamicworkmanship, as at the al-Hakim mosque. In fact, this may represent a later reconstruction. In both areas of the gallery level, it may be that construction was begun by

the Constantinopolitan team but completed by the local team, perhaps after the departureof the former. In addition, Vincent and Abel recorded some brick detail in a niche of the baptistery wing, an area that would otherwise appearto be the product of the local workshop. Unfortunately from the drawing it is impossible to determine if this representsrecessed brick construction or alternating brick and stone.39In any case, we are left with the question of how much interaction and interchange occurred between the two workshops. It should be noted that the quality of the reconstruction is quite uneven. Some partsare extremely fine in design and detail, such as the dome of the elevated chapel; other areas, such as the triportico, are of rather sloppy workmanship. In most in39. Vincent and Abel,Je'rusalem Nouvelle, II, 139-140; figs. 93 and 94.

OUSTERHOUT: CONSTANTINE MONOMACHUS AND THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

77

r~~~~~~~~--i V:I
;. .t f ?a,' , ,

-~

Fig. 24. Hammam as-Sarakh,8th century. Niche in calidarium (Creswell). sader rebuilding of the Holy Sepulchre begin to make sense if we assume some local continuity between the mid-1 lth-century building and the early 12th-century reconstruction. For exFig. 23. Cairo, Mosque of al-Hakim, 990-1013. Transept dome (Creswell). stances, the awkwardness of the forms seems to be the result of working with marble spolia. All of the marble in the building appears to be reused, with columns and capitals poorly matchedoccasionally with bases used as capitals. This indicates that supplies were limited. New marbles were apparently not available for the reconstruction, forcing the masons to make do with what they could find among the ruined churches of Jerusalem. In any event, while funding and workmen were sent from Constantinople, evidently building materials were not imported.40 The same reuse of materials may be seen in the surviving "cosmatesque" floor mosaics which still preserve many Early Christian fragments.41 As suggested by Pringle, the identification of a local workshop of masons in Jerusalem has important implications in the study of Crusader architecture.42 Indeed, certain features in the Cruample, the Crusaders' ambulatory and gallery are covered by groin vaults in series, constructed of rubble. Only by context can these be distinguished from the 11th-century vaults. In addition, the semicircular niches in the Crusaders' dome were constructed with radial stone conches, like those in the baptistery.43 This analysis of the Holy Sepulchre also helps to broaden our understanding of Byzantine architecture in the 11th century. The situation of Constantinopolitan masons working in the provinces alongside a local workshop, all under the direction of a master from the capital, is similar to Constantine Monomachus's other surviving provincial foundation, Nea Moni on Chios, and to Hosios Loukas-the latter occasionally and probably incorrectly attributed to Constantine IX.44 Moreover, the exposure of Byzantine masons to Islamic architectural forms at the Holy Sepulchre may have some implications in our under-

40. This contradicts the suggestion I made prior to my visit in 1984 that the brick used in this phase of the building may have been imported: R. Ousterhout, "The Byzantine Holy Sepulchre," Byzantine Studies Abstracts Papers,IX, 1983, 61-62. There are also Arabic Conference: of records of gifts from the Byzantine court in this period; see al Qadi alRashid ibn al-Zubayr, Kitab al-Dhakha'irWa al-Tuhaf, ed. by Muhammad Hamid Allah, Kuwait, 1959, 74-76, for gifts from Constantine IX to al-Mustansiras a part of the renewal of a truce; and by Michael VI to al-Mustansir, as well as gifts sent by Michael VII to the Holy Sepulchre. All were ostentatious, and the latter's gifts-gold, jewels, liturgical objects, chandeliers, vestments, "and other things of that sort that one finds in churches"-certainly outshine the rather miserable building materials available in Jerusalem. My thanks to Oleg Grabar for this reference and to Mohammad Al-Asad for the translation. 41. Corbo, Santo Sepolcro, photographs 153-157. III, 42. Pringle, "Church-Building in Palestine," 5-46. A study of the masons'marksfrom Crusaderchurch buildings suggests a heterogeneous

workforce; see R. D. Pringle, "Some Approaches to the Study of Crusader Masonry Marks in Palestine," Levant,XIII, 1981, 173-199. 43. Unfortunately these details from the Crusaders'additions to the Holy Sepulchre remain unpublished. Rubble groin vaults in series also appear at a number of other Crusader sites, for example, Krak des Chevaliers, the crypt of Abou Gosh, and St. Anne in Jerusalem; see P. Deschamps, TerreSainte romane,La nuit de temps XXI, Yonne, 1964, pls. 27, 35, 55-56, 68-70. at 44. It is generally agreed that the design of the katholikon Hosios Loukas originated in Constantinople; see Krautheimer, Early Christian and ByzantineArchitecture, (4th rev. ed.), 508 n. 45. E. Stikas, To oikotes domikonchronikon HosiouLoukaPhokidos,Athens, 1970, 13ff., attributes the construction to Constantine IX, based on the account of the 15th-century traveler, Cyriacus of Ancona, who claimed to have read in a "very old book" kept in the church that it was built by the emperor Monomachus. While the evidence is equivocal, most scholars prefer the earlier date of 1011 or 1022 proposed by M. Chatzidakis, "Apropos de la date et du fondateur de Saint-Luc," Cahiersarcheologiques, XIX, 1969, 127-150; for more recent comments on patronage, C. Connor, at "A Monastic Group Portrait: Therapeia Hosios Loukas," Byzantine Abstracts Papers,XII, 1986, 28-29. StudiesConference: of

78

JSAH, XLVIII:1, MARCH 1989

standingof the sourcesand development of the Byzantine domedoctagon plan in the 11th century. While the architectureof the Caucasus is normally cited as the inspiration for this building form, a possible Arabcontribution to the development must also be considered. The situation of Constantinopolitan masons working in the Holy Land alongside and interacting with a locally trained workshop provides a possible source of influence from Arab architecture at the highest level of patronage.45 It has often been suggested that through its decorative program a Byzantine church could be interpreted topographically, that is, conceived as an image of-and, thus, magically identified with-the places sanctified by Christ's earthly life.46Decorated with frescoes or mosaics representing the miracles and Passion of Christ, the Byzantine church "became"Jerusalem. In a like manner, through its Byzantine reconstruction the Holy Sepulchre was transformed into a Christian microcosm, the distilled essence of the Jerusalem experienced by Christ, with sites and relics from throughout the city incorporated into the complex. The "sites" of the Prison, the Flagellation, the Crown of Thorns, and the Division of the Garments were apparently transferredinto the Holy Sepulchre because of the difficulties encountered with Christian worship elsewhere in the city, and their inclusion allowed them to be assigned a liturgical role in the services of the complex.47In the version of the Typikonof Jerusalem employed during the 11th century, verses read in the courtyard during the Good Friday service refer specifically to each event, and the proximity of the chapels and relics to the worshippers would have heightened the sense of the real presence of the commemorated events.48 Set against this backdrop, the service occasionally introduced a dramaticrecreation of the events of the Passion. For example, at one point the patriarchassumed the role of Christ, carrying the timionstavron-either a relic of the True Cross or a jeweled cross-on his shoulder, and by means of a cord around his neck he was led to his imprisonment and subsequently to Calvary.49 It appearsthat the architectural setting did not just house the

liturgical celebration, it affected the shape of the ceremonies as well. The Byzantine Holy Sepulchre thus representsa remarkable interaction of a special liturgy and a special setting, and the symbolic content of both was enhanced by this relationship. In another vein, the medieval Holy Sepulchre could also be interpreted as the New Temple of Jerusalem, replacing the Temple of Solomon, the great work of the prototypal builder of the Old Testament.50In Byzantine literature, it was a common motif to compare a prolific builder to Solomon. Legend attributes to Justinian the boast, "Solomon, I have outdone Thee!" at the dedication of H. Sophia in Constantinople.51Like his imperial predecessors, Constantine the Great and Justinian, Constantine Monomachus also had grand architectural ambitions, as his biographer, Michael Psellos, testified.52As the rebuilder of the New Temple ofJerusalem, he could also be hailed as a New Solomon. But the Byzantine texts are curiously silent about this part of his building program. In the mosaics of Nea Moni on Chios, the contemporaneous work of Constantine Monomachus, the figure of Solomon in the Anastasisis given the facial characteristicsof its founder.53 Texts indicate that the same scene was represented in the apse of the 11th-century Anastasis Rotunda, and the subject was repeatedin the Crusaders'choir.54We cannot know if and how Monomachus was represented at the Holy Sepulchre-one wonders if the mosaic of Constantine the Great in the drum of the rotunda may have carriedhis features as well. At Nea Moni the mosaic portrait-included in the scene most strongly associated with the Holy Sepulchre-could be interpreted as a visual lauding of the emperor as the New Solomon. Perhaps no more eloquent testimony survives to the patronage of Constantine Monomachus.

Influences the EarlyChristian on Rite 165-166;J. Wilkinson,"Jewish

of Jerusalem," Le Museon,XCII, 1979, 347-360. The ring of Solomon was one of the relics seen by medieval pilgrims at the Holy Sepulchre; see Wilkinson,JerusalemPilgrims,59. 51. The famous quote comes from the Narratiode aedificatione templi SanctaeSophiae,by Pseudo-Codinus, Bonn Corpus,Bonn, 1843, 143. 52. M. Psellus, Chronographia, trans. by E. R. A. Sewter, Fourteen Rulers,Harmondsworth, 1966, 250, regardedbuilding as the Byzantine worst example of "the emperor's foolish excesses." 53. A Kartzonis, Anastasis:The Makingof an Image,Princeton, 1986, 216, discusses the problems with the identification of the figure as the donor. The present author first associated the portrait of Constantine IX at Nea Moni with the reconstruction of the Holy Sepulchre in a paper given at the Byzantine Studies Conference in 1983; D. Mouriki, The Mosaicsof Nea Moni on Chios, Athens, 1985, 137-138, offers the same interpretation. 54. A. Borg, "The Lost Apse Mosaic of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem," The VanishingPast: Studiesin Medieval Art, LiturgyandMetrology Presented Christopher to Hohler,ed. by A. Borg and A. Martindale,British Archaeological Reports International Series 111, 1981, 7-12.

50. See J. Wilkinson, Egeria'sTravels theHoly Land,London, 1981, to

du de 45. C. Mango,"Lesmonuments l'architecture XIe siecle et et et sociale,"Travaux Mimoires, 1976, leur signification VI, historique or sourcefor the octagonan 351-365, supports Armenian Georgian and domeplan,whilemorerecently Krautheimer, Christian ByzanEarly "Domeson corner ... tine 340, Architecture, comments, squinches could as from Islamiccountries into havepenetrated Byzantineconstruction well as fromArmenia." in Byzantium, London,1948, andNew Rochelle,1976, 6-7, 15.
47. As noted by Vincent and Abel,JerusalemNouvelle,II, 255. Art 46. 0. Demus, ByzantineMosaicDecoration: Aspects Monumental of

see 48. Ibid.,255-256; forthe text of the Typikon, A. Papadopoulosesp. 144-147. 49. Papadopoulos-Kerame6s,146-147. II,
II, Kerame6s, AnalektaIerosolymitikes Stachyologias, St. Petersburg, 1894,