Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Κωνσταντινούπολη ΙΔΡΥΜΑ ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ
z
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Αναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΑΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΒΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΓΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΔΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΕΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΖΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΗΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΘΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΙΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΚΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΛΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΜΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΝΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΞΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΟΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΠΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΡΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΣΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΤΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΥΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΦΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΧΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΨΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα Ω

Late Byzantine religious architecture in Constantinople

Συγγραφή : Bogdanović Jelena (4/3/2008)

Για παραπομπή: Bogdanović Jelena , "Late Byzantine religious architecture in Constantinople", 2008,
Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Κωνσταντινούπολη
URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=10893>

Late Byzantine religious architecture in Constantinople (28/6/2007 v.1) Υστεροβυζαντινή ναοδομία στην Κωνσταντινούπολη (11/2/2009 v.1) 
 

1. Introduction

Chronologically, Late Byzantine religious architecture in Constantinople is framed by two historical events: the Byzantine re-conquest of the city on August 15th, 1261 after the Latin occupation (1204-61), and the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks on May 29th, 1453.1 Late Byzantine architecture in Constantinople is also known as Palaeologan architecture after the last Byzantine imperial dynasty.2 The majority of Late Byzantine buildings were built during the first sixty years after the re-conquest of Constantinople, during the reigns of Byzantine emperors Michael VIII (r. 1261-82) and Andronikos II (r. 1282-1328), because the civil wars of the 1320s and 1340s virtually ended building activities in Constantinople.3 The restoration of city walls, imperial palace and other secular and public edifices were of prime concern for Michael VIII, while religious architecture was mostly built during the reign of his son, Andornikos II. At the same time, it is worth noting that not a single extant church can be associated with the patronage of either Michael VIII or Andronikos II.

Most projects of religious architecture undertaken in Late Byzantine Constantinople were private foundations, many founded by women from imperial and aristocratic families.4 Because the city of Constantinople had suffered looting, physical abuse and neglect during the Latin rule,5 Late Byzantine architectural projects were related to repair, rebuilding, and addition to the existing structures.6 Thus, for example, the largest church building programs of the 14th century were the buttressing of Hagia Sophia after 1317 and the rebuilding of its dome and eastern semi-dome after the earthquake of 1346.7 Besides the refurbishing of existing churches, a number of structures, often in the form of parekklesia (lateral church buildings, usually funerary chapels), were also constructed. These peripheral additions to the older church were often connected by the enveloping U-shaped ambulatory, a recognizable feature of the Late Byzantine church.

2. Imperial foundations

The only positively confirmed imperial foundation, and the oldest extant Late Byzantine church in Constantinople, is the south church of the famous Lips Monastery (Fenarî Isa Camii) commissioned by Empress Theodora, wife of Michael VIII and mother of Andronikos II.8 Built some time between 1282 and 1303, when Theodora died, and dedicated to St. John the Forerunner, the church was built as an imperial mausoleum, with the last member of Palaeologan dynasty buried there in 1406.9 The south church was built as an addition to the much older church of the Theotokos (Fig. 1). Such a cluster of churches within the Monastery of Lips seemingly emulated similar complexes, like the Pantokrator Monastery built under Komnenian dynasty. Moreover, rich architectural decoration of the south church of the Lips monastery strongly resembles Komnenian mausolea.10 By the 1460-80s all furnishings including tomb markers were destroyed and church interiors of the Lips monastery were significantly altered to serve as a mosque.11

Very little is known of the monastery of Christ Philanthropos, located along the sea walls near now lost Middle Byzantine monastery of St. George of Mangana. The katholikon was presumably built by Eirene Choumnaina, widow of John Palaiologos (son of Andronikos II) ca. 1308.12 The only surviving portion of the church’s substructure of originally substantial dimensions, however, shares architectural decoration with the South church of the monastery of Constantine Lips and suggests imperial patronage (Fig. 2).

Another Late Byzantine church, which may be connected with the imperial family is a small church known as Panagia Mouchliotissa, originally Theotokos Panagiotissa, also known as St. Mary of the Mongols (Fig. 3).13 The church was originally built in early 13th century on the site of an earlier monastic foundation, but was purchased and remodeled ca. 1285 by Maria Palaiologina, later nun Martha, either the sister Michael VIII or his natural daughter,14 also known as «Lady of the Mongols».15 Panagia Mouchliotissa is one of only two churches in Constantinople that had never been appropriated for the Muslim religious buildings.16 This tiny, centrally planned church, originally a tetraconch in ground plan, is today heavily restored, but the northern and eastern of the four conches along with the central domed core over the square bay have survived (Fig. 4). Remaining conches, which are polygonal externally and semi-circular internally with semicircular niches in the interior walls, recall spatial organization of earlier imperial buildings – Late Antique mausolea and centrally planned Middle Byzantine churches.

3. Larger private foundations

Among larger private foundations in Constantinople, which are still extant, are remodeling of the monasteries of St. Andrew in Krisei (Koca Mustafa paşa camii), Pammakaristos (Fethiye camii), Christ in the Chora (Kariye camii), as well as additions to Kilise camii, a Byzantine church of today unknown dedication.

St. Andrew in Krisei, dedicated to St. Andrew of Crete, was restored and enlarged by Theodora Raoulaina (d. 1300), niece of Michael VIII.17 This huge (~15 m x 30 m) cross-in-square, but relatively low building with a dome over the central bay, was converted into mosque ca. 1486-91, and heavily restored under the Turks and after the earthquake of 1765.18 Today, its architectural features of a Late Byzantine church are not immediately apparent, yet, essentially Byzantine interior, sophisticated architectural sculpture on doorways, 5th- and 6th-century Byzantine capitals, columns with Byzantine inscriptions and other Byzantine spolia still witness the building practices in Late Byzantine Constantinople.

The parekklesion of Virgin Pammakaristos was built by an aristocratic lady, Maria Doukaina Branaina, as a mausoleum for her husband, protostrator Michael Doukas Glabas Tarhaneiotes and other family members (Fig. 5).19 After her husband’s death around 1310, Maria supervised the building of this tiny three-domed chapel.20 Essentially a self-contained church, the parekklesion was attached to the southeast corner of the older, probably 12th-century church. Subsequently, an exonarthex enveloped the entire complex by connecting the west and south sides of the original church to the parekklesion (Fig. 6). The long inscriptions executed in brick and carved on the marble stringcourse, commemorate the foundation of this Late Byzantine building.21 In the mid-15th century Genadios II Scholarios chose the monastery of Pammakaristos as the seat of the Greek Patriarchate.22 The complex retained this function until 1587 when it was converted into mosque.

By 1316-21, the megas logothetes Theodore Metochites, one of the most educated and influential people on the court of Andronikos II, remodeled the ruined Middle Byzantine monastery of Christ in the Chora.23 Theodore Metochites enlarged the main church and added the funerary chapel to the south (Fig. 7). He also built two nartheces, a belfry, and a two-storey annex to the north of the original church, which might have served as a library. The church was converted into mosque in 1453, when it lost its liturgical and other church furnishing, yet its monumental decoration comprised of architectural sculpture, mosaics and frescoes, dominated by an elaborate and sophisticated depiction of the Resurrection, still witness the splendor of funerary settings for the wealthy aristocrats (Fig. 8).24

Another Middle Byzantine church today known as Kilise camii was also enlarged during the 1320s, when it acquired a two-storey northern annex, southern portico with a chapel and a belfry (?), and a three-domed exonarthex (Fig. 9).25 Nothing is known of its founder, original dedication and function of these 14th-century additions, but the architectural program strongly resembles the one from the Chora and points to wealthy donors.

4. Smaller private foundations

A number of smaller foundations share recognizable architectural design and vocabulary with other Late Byzantine buildings in Constantinople: Balaban Aĝa mescidi, late 13th c, Esa Kapisi mescidi, late 13th or early 14th c; Boğdan sarayı, 14th c (?); Sinan Paşa mescidi, first half of the 14th c; Sancaktar mescidi, 14th c (?); Toklu dede mescidi, 14th c (?); Hagios Demetrios kananu, 1334, and Manastir mescidi, 11th-century building, which was most likely restored in the 14th c.26 However, these buildings are either heavily remodeled or remain in ruins, their original dedications, functions, and programs are often unknown, and thus, unfortunately of unverifiable significance for deeper understanding of Late Byzantine architecture in Constantinople and Late Byzantine architecture in general.

5. Stylistic characteristics of Late Byzantine architecture in Constantinople

Generally the “Constantinopolitan Middle Byzantine scheme,” characterized by cross-in-square plan and imperial, late antique design principles of structural consistency, was superseded in Late Byzantine churches, which are without structural consistency and with generally small-scale formal relationships of architectural elements.27 Although those surviving Late Byzantine churches in Constantinople seemingly emulated earlier Byzantine building practices, the external articulation of buildings did not reflect the internal structural and spatial solutions.28 The decorative principles, often based on asymmetry and seemingly random application of decorative elements, prevailed over structural composition of the church walls.

Late Byzantine religious architecture in Constantinople is characterized by employment of brick and stone for massive walls, featuring elongated arched niches in several tiers, with a thick band of decorative brick patterns above them, especially in the apsidal area. The south church of the monastery of Lips, the substructure of Christos Philanthropos and the parekklesion of Virgin Pammakaristos effectively exemplify colorful and vivid cloisonné masonry featuring alternating bands of multiple courses of brick and small stones, the use of marble string courses consisted of trochilus, torus and prismatic profiles, engaged half-columns, and multiple motifs, such as meander, «hearts», «sun-bursts», accomplished in rich brick designs that articulate wall surfaces (Figs. 2, 10, 11). Windows and decorative niches on the façades are usually of various shapes and sizes even within the same church. The lunettes of the arched niches are usually reserved for checkerboard, weaving, cross-stitch, opus reticulatum, or similar patterns. An ogee arch, usually associated with Islamic architecture, can be seen on the exterior walls of the parekklesion of Virgin Pammakaristos (Fig. 12) and Christ in the Chora. Occasionally, commemorative texts and epigrams as long band inscriptions executed in brick or engraved in marble run along the church walls, as in Pammakaristos.

Surviving Constantinopolitan churches constructed after Byzantine re-conquest of 1261 show limited stylistic coherence. It has been proposed to group them, however, into those built until 1300 and those built between 1300 and 1330.29 Nevertheless, distinctively new aesthetic appeal, which these buildings demonstrate, is undeniable.

6. The Role of Constantinopolitan Late Byzantine Architecture

Without denying the important role of Late Byzantine architecture in Constantinople, its significance for understanding Byzantine architecture and culture is still understudied. Usually the entire Byzantine tradition is studied through the focus of a single city, Constantinople, and yet it should be emphasized that religious architecture ceased in Constantinople after 1330, due to the civil wars, and economic and building decline. The limited wealth of imperial and aristocratic patrons accounts for recent reconsideration of the role of Late Byzantine Constantinople as the major if not the exclusive generator of artistic influences.30 The possibility that Constantinople could had been also a recipient and that other centers of artistic developments may have also existed, is often obscured,31 although the role of concurrent architecture in western Asia Minor and Nicaea (modern Iznik), center of Byzantine government in exile before the re-conquest of 1261, has been put forward.32

Another problem in understanding Late Byzantine religious architecture in Constantinople is its overshadowing by the more studied and praised Late Byzantine mosaics and frescoes. Most often scholars try to determine the date or level of skill used for a particular group of monuments or parallel development of architecture and monumental painting.33 Understanding of Late Byzantine architecture is often borrowed from non-Byzantine architecture or from the other arts and literature, and consecutively, such an approach leads often to the untenable assumption that the styles of Byzantine art and architecture developed simultaneously.34

We are certain, however, that the majority of religious buildings in Late Byzantine Constantinople were special structures for funerary purposes. Most of church furnishings, tomb arcosolia and other grave markers were desecrated and removed from Constantinopolitan churches after the Ottoman conquest. Occasionally preserved monumental programs, like the one in the chapel of Christ in the Chora, with the finest preserved Constantinopolitan frescoes of the Resurrection and the Last Judgment, as well as of the Mother of God as the caretaker of the Christian souls, still witness the culture’s preoccupation with eschatological themes, with death and the afterlife.35

1. S. Ćurčić, “Religious Settings of the Late Byzantine Sphere,” in H. C. Evans (ed.), Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261-1557) (New York and New Haven 2004), p. 65.

2. R. Krautheimer (rev. R. Krautheimer and S. Ćurčić), Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (New Haven and London 1986), p. 413-50 (pt. 7).

3. S. Ćurčić, “Religious Settings of the Late Byzantine Sphere,” in H. C. Evans (ed.) Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261-1557) (New York and New Haven 2004), pp. 65-94; S. Ćurčić, “Architecture,” in Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 1 (New York-Oxford 1991) pp. 157-59; esp. “Seventh Period (14th to 15th C) on p. 159; K.-P. Matschke, “Builders and Building in Late Byzantine Constantinople,” in N. Necipoglu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople. Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, (Leiden-Boston-Cologne 2001), pp. 315-28.

4. On the role of women patrons: A.-M. Talbot, “Building activity in Constantinople under Andronikos II: The Role of Women Patrons in the Construction and Restoration of Monasteries,” in N. Necipoglu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople. Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, (Leiden-Boston-Cologne 2001), pp. 329-43.

5. D. Jacoby offers an alternative view in “The Urban Evolution of Latin Constantinople (1204-1261),” in N. Necipoglu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople. Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, (Leiden-Boston-Cologne 2001), pp. 277-97, though he recognizes the departure of the building activities undertaken by the Franks from the idioms of Byzantine architecture.

6. S. Ćurčić, “Religious Settings of the Late Byzantine Sphere,” in H. C. Evans (ed.), Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261-1557) (New York and New Haven 2004), pp. 65-94, with references to works on late Byzantine architecture in Constantinople by R. Ousterhout, “Constantinople, Bythinia, and Regional Developments in Later Palaeologan Architecture,” in S. Ćurčić and D. Mouriki (eds), The Twilight of Byzantium (Princeton 1991), pp. 75-91; and E. Zanini, “Materiali e techniche costruttive nell’architettura paleologa a Constantinopoli: Un approccio archeologico,” in A. Iacobini - M. Della Valle (eds.), L’arte di Bisanzio al tempo dei Paleologi, 1261-1453 (Rome 1999), pp. 301-320.

7. Recently on the topic: S. Ćurčić, “Some Reflections on the Flying Buttresses of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul,” Sanat Tarihi Defterleri 8 (2004), pp. 7-22; K.-P. Matschke, “Builders and Building in Late Byzantine Constantinople,” in N. Necipoglu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople. Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life (Leiden, Boston, Cologne 2001), p. 322 for buttressing of Hag. Sophia and pp. 319-322 for rebuilding of the dome of Hag. Sophia.

8. Th. Macridy at al., “The Monastery of Lips and the Burials of the Palaeologi,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18 (1964), pp. 253-277.

9. Th. Macridy at al., “The Monastery of Lips and the Burials of the Palaeologi,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18 (1964), pp. 253-277; W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbul : Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn d. 17. Jh. (Tübingen 1977), pp. 126-31.

10. S. Ćurčić, “Religious Settings of the Late Byzantine Sphere,” in H. C. Evans (ed.), Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261-1557) (New York and New Haven 2004), pp. 65-94, with reference to work by Pasadaios, A., Ο κεραμοπλαστικός διάκοσμος των βυζαντινών κτιρίων της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (Athens 1973).

11. Th. Macridy at al., “The Monastery of Lips and the Burials of the Palaeologi,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18 (1964), pp. 253-277; W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbul : Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn d. 17. Jh. (Tübingen 1977), pp. 126-31.

12. W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbul : Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn d. 17. Jh. (Tübingen 1977), p. 109; S. Eyice, Son Devir Byzans Mimârisi. Istanbul’da Palaiologos’lar Devri Antilari (Istanbul 1980), pp. 72-8, and pls. 123-30.

13. W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbul : Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn d. 17. Jh. (Tübingen 1977), pp. 204-5.

14. W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbul : Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn d. 17. Jh. (Tübingen 1977), p. 204 suggests that Maria is natural daughter of E. Michael VIII, while A.-M. Talbot, “The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993), p. 256, states that Maria is the sister of E. Michael VIII.

15. On the historical references to Maria Palaeologina and her marriage with the Mongol Khan Hulagu or Abagu, see also official web-site of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul: http://www.ec-patr.org/afieroma/churches/show.php?lang=en&id=03 [Accessed February 2008]

16. Besides Hagia Eirene, the Church of St. Mary of the Mongols (Panagia Mouchliotissa) was the church which long remained in the possession of the Christians. It was situated in the Phanar quarter, today between the Megale Schole and the Joachimian Girls School, which was left to the Greeks following the Ottoman conquest. Sultan Mehmet II made a present of the church to the Greek architect Christodoulos, as a reward for the construction of the Mosque of the Conqueror (Fethiye Camii) at the site of the demolished church of the Holy Apostles. The firman issued by Mehmet the Conqueror saved the church from being converted into a mosque under Selim I, and Panagia Mouchliotissa has remained an Orthodox church to this day. More in: http://www.ec-patr.org/afieroma/churches/show.php?lang=en&id=03 [Accessed February 2008]; S. Kirimtayif, Converted Byzantine churches in Istanbul: their transformation into mosques and masjids (Istanbul 2001).

17. W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbul : Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn d. 17. Jh. (Tübingen 1977), pp. 172-76; A. Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople: Their History and Architecture (London 1912), pp. 106-121.

18. W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbul : Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn d. 17. Jh. (Tübingen 1977), pp. 172-76; A. Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople: Their History and Architecture (London 1912), pp. 106-21.

19. H. Hallensleben, “Untersuchungen zur Baugeschichte der ehemahligen Pammakaristoskirche, der heutigen Fethiye camii in Istanbul,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 13-14 (1963-64), pp. 128-93; W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbul : Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn d. 17. Jh. (Tübingen 1977), pp. 132-35; A. Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople: Their History and Architecture (London 1912), pp. 138-63; C. Mango “Pammakaristos, Church of Hagia Maria,” in Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 3 (New York-Oxford 1991), pp. 1567-68.

20. On the development of double-domed narthex see: S. Ćurčić, “The Twin-domed Narthex in Paleologan Architecture,” Zbornik radova vizantološkog instituta 13 (1971), pp. 333-344.

21. A.-M. Talbot, “Epigrams in Context: Metrical Inscriptions on Art and Architecture of the Palaiologan Era,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 53 (1999), pp. 75-90. On the funerary epigram cut in marble stringcourse and attributed to Manuel Philes, see also: J. Ebersolt, J. and A. Thiers, Les églises de Constantinople (London 1979), p. 228-30.

22. C. Mango, “Pammakaristos, Church of Hagia Maria,” in Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 3, (Oxford - New York 1991), pp. 1567-68.

23. R. Ousterhout, The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul. Dumbarton Oaks Studies 25 (Washington D.C. 1987); S. Ćurčić, “Religious Settings of the Late Byzantine Sphere,” in H. C. Evans (ed.) Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261-1557) (New York and New Haven 2004), pp. 65-94.

24. Ø. Hjort, “The Sculpture of Kariye Camii.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 33 (1979), pp. 199-289; R. Ousterhout, The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul. Dumbarton Oaks Studies 25 (Washington D.C. 1987); P. Underwood, The Kariye Djami 1 (New York 1966).

25. W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbul : Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn d. 17. Jh. (Tübingen 1977), pp. 169-71; H. Hallensleben, “Zur Annexbauten der Kilise Camii in Istanbul,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 15 (1965), pp. 323-30.

26. W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbul : Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn d. 17. Jh. (Tübingen 1977), pp. 79-80; 98; 110; 118-19; 184-85; 194-95; 198-99; 206-08; A. Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople: Their History and Architecture (London 1912), pp. 280-87.

27. About the classical principles of the Middle Byzantine church design and its reflections in the Palaeologan architecture: S. Ćurčić, “Articulation of Church Façades during the First Half of the Fourteenth Century,” in S. Petković (ed.), Vizantijska umetnost sredinom XIV veka, (Beograd 1978), pp. 17-27.

28. S. Ćurčić, “Articulation of Church Façades during the First Half of the Fourteenth Century,” in S. Petković (ed.), Vizantijska umetnost sredinom XIV veka, (Beograd 1978), pp. 17-27; J. Trkulja, Aesthetics and symbolism of Late Byzantine church façades, 1204-1453. (Dissertation at Princeton Univ, 2004).

29. S. Ćurčić, “Religious Settings of the Late Byzantine Sphere” in H. C. Evans (ed.), Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261-1557) (New York and New Haven 2004), pp. 65-94, with references to S. Eyice, Son Devir Byzans Mimârisi. Istanbul’da Palaiologos’lar Devri Antilari (Istanbul 1980).

30. S. Ćurčić, “Religious Settings of the Late Byzantine Sphere” in H. C. Evans (ed.), Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261-1557) (New York and New Haven 2004), pp. 65-94.

31. Recently, H. Buchwald and S. Ćurčić recovered interest in style and regional characteristics of Late Byzantine church architecture, while acknowledging some flaws in the current state of research and need for improved approaches: H. Buchwald, Form, Style and Meaning in Byzantine Church Architecture (Aldershot-Brookfield 1999); S. Ćurčić, Middle Byzantine Architecture on Cyprus: Provincial or Regional? (Nicosia 2000); S. Ćurčić “The Role of Late Byzantine Thessaloniki in Church Architecture in the Balkans,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 57 (2003), pp. 65-84.

32. H. Buchwald, “Lascarid Architecture,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 28 (1979), pp. 261-296.

33. On the problems recently: R. Ousterhout, “Contextualizing the Later Churches of Constantinople; Suggested Methodologies and a Few Examples,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54 (2000), pp. 241-50.

34. See, for example: R. Ousterhout, “An Apologia for Byzantine Architecture,” Gesta 35.1 (1996), pp. 21-33.

35. See, for example: R. Ousterhout, The Art of the Kariye Camii (London-Istanbul 2002); S. D. Nersessian, “Program and Iconography of the Frescoes of the Parekklesion” in P. Underwood, The Kariye Djami (New York 1966), pp. 303-49.

     
 
 
 
 
 

Δελτίο λήμματος

 
press image to open photo library
 

>>>