BOURAS The Soteira Lykodemou at Athens Architecture.pdf

8/13/2019 BOURAS The Soteira Lykodemou at Athens Architecture.pdf

1/15

The Soteira Lykodemou at Athens. Architecture

Charalambos BOURAS

(2004) . 11-24

2004


2/15

Charalambos ouras

THE SOTEIRA LYKODEMOU AT ATHENS.ARCHITECTURE*

A he architecture of the church of the Soteira Lykodemouat Athens, now known also as the Russian church (Fig. 1),has never been the subject of systematic scholarly investigation. The reason for this is clear: the damage it suffered during the Greek War of Independence and the drastic repair itunderwent just after 1850 gave rise to serious doubts as towhether it was an authentic Byzantine monument and deterred scholars from turning their attention to the question.It was in any case regarded as a published monument, sincefive drawings of the church, made, moreover, before 1840,appeared in A. Couchaud s now inaccessible book on theByzantine monuments of Greece1. Nothing published sincethat time is based on primary research2, with only a few exceptions: the two drawings of the modern condition of thechurch made by Schultz and Barnsley3and a few observations byA.H.S.Megaw seventy years ago4.The monument is, however, the largest church in ByzantineAthens and deserves to take its place in the history of Middle Byzantine Helladic architecture, the first step being toverify its disputed authenticity in terms both of the generaldesign and of individual parts and architectural forms. The

This paper was first presented in Greek language to the Annual Conference of the Christian Archaeological Society, on May 16, 2003. Iwould like to thank the Library of the Copenhagen s Academy of FineArts and the Hellenic Literary and Historical Archive (ELIA) for thepermission to reproduce the drawings, Figs. 4, 5, 6, and 7. I feel alsoindebted to Hel. Tsofopoulou-Ghini, Ephor of Byzantine Antiqui ties,A. Papanicolaou-Christensen, M. Charitatos and the architects M.Vournous, C. Koliopoulos and CI. Aslanides for their help. The paperwas translated by David Hardy.1. A. Couchaud, Choixd glisesbyzantines en Grce, Paris 1842, 18, pi.11-13.2. Like the A. Xyngopoulos extensive entry on the monument and theprevious bibliography, in theEureterion {EMME 1, 2, Athens 1928, 80-83). See also R. Janin,Les glisesetlesmonastresdesgrands centres byzantins, Paris 1975,320-322. R. Krautheimer, , Athens 1991,500,519,613,621. C. Mango,ByzantineArchitecture,New York 1976, 222, 224, 252. Ch. Bouras, Bv

fairly recent publication of old drawings made before thedamageand repair to thechurchofth eSoteira provides anopportunityfora preliminary approachtothisquestion.Afew pointsof clarification and references tomoreor lesswellknownmatters may be useful, if no t indispensable,atthispoint.First,the name.The nameHagiosNikodemosonceused ofthe churchis of modernorigins. Thechurch,probably thekatholikonof amonastery,honoursthenameof th eVirginas the Saviour (Soteira)of th eWorld5. Thenameof Lykodemosis probablytobeassociatedwithoneoft hefoundersof the monastery. Surnamescompoundedwith Lykos areknown in thesmallaristocracyofByzantine Athe ns6.Amongstth eakidographimata,or graffiti, ofthe churchcopiedbeforeitwas damaged and published by Antonin7, the name ismentionedof th eprotoktitor, Stephanos,who died in 1044an disbelieved8tohaveborn the nameLykos.T heword/?rotoktitorpossibly impliesthat therewas a second founder ofth eSoteira,before 1044.TheakidographimataTQCoilectionnotes of the churchwerevaluable in datingthe monument,sinceth eearliest ofthem

, Athens,2001,92,124, fig. 120.3.R.W. Schultz S.H. Barnsley,The Monastery of SaintLuke ofStiris,London1901,15, fig. 8.4.A.H.S.Megaw, The Chronology of S o m eMiddle ByzantineChurch-es inGreece,BSA 32 (193132), 9596,102104,115,116,118,120,122,124,126, pi. 31.5. The name Sotera iscommoninGreeceforc h urc h e salsodedicatedtoth eTransfiguration of th eSaviour.6. E. Granstrem 1 . MedvedevD.Papachryssanthou,Fragment d'unPraktikonde largion d Athnes, REB 34 (1976), 5-44, (p.30) and (p .36).7.A n to n i n , Drevnikh Kristianskikh Nadpis achuAfinakh, St. Peters-burg 1874,4 and facsimile, pi. Ill,n o.4. The same were published by K.PittakisinAEphem 1853,936938,nos. 15741589.8.D .K ambouroglou, ', ', Athens1890,282285.M .Chatzidakis,Athnesbyzantines,Athens 1958,11.

11


3/15

CHARALAMBO S BOURAS

Fig. 1. The north faade looking west.

9. Chatzidakis, ibid. N. Gioles, , Athens 1987,167an dXyngopoulos, op.cit.10.G .Millet,L colegrecque dansl architecture byzantine,Paris 1916, 7,n.1.Megaw, The Chronology, op.cit., 99. Unfortunately I did not examine the under dispute no. 8 graffiti, in the Antonin s fascimile publication.11 .M. Chatzidakis, propos de la date et du fondateur de Saint Luc,CahArch19 (1969), 129,140,141.12.A. Frantz, The Church of the Holy Apostles, The Athenian AgoraXX, Princeton, N.J. 1971,22, n.25 .See also p. 23,25, n. 11 andp .26.13.Kampouroglou, op.cit., A, Athens 1891,45.14.As of the east wall of the Athenian Acropolis. M. Korres, SeismicDamage to the Monuments of the Athenian Acropolis,Archaeoseismol-ogy(S. Stiros, R.E. Jones, eds), Athens 1996,73.15. N.N. Ambraseys, Material for the Investigation of the Seismicity ofCentral Greece, ibid., 26-27.16. S. Kalantzopoulou, '

12

provides aterminusantequernfor its erection of 10319or104410. The fact thatthe Soteira is a copy of th ekatholikonofHosios Loukas,whoseerectionwas alreadycompletedby1 0 1 1 1 1 ,also furnishes aterminuspostquern,and makes it al-most certain that the monument under examination waserectedbetween 1011 and 1031 (or 1044). Alison Fr ant z1 2datesit between 1000 and 1044.Apart fromtheakidographimata,n ootherByzantine literarysourcessurvivefort heSoteira.T heearliestinformationis tobe foundin theAnargyreiaApospasmata,a ndisunconnectedwith thearchitectureofthe church1 3.Theearthquakein theearly ninteenth century that damaged the m o n u m e n t1 4 isknown to haveoccurredon 3rd September 170515. It iscon-jectured thatjust after this there was extensive repair workan d the church was given new wallpainted decoration16,thoughaccording to the statements of An ton in1 7it had al-ready been abandoned in the seventeenth century and wassituatedin a deserted part ofAthens;this is also confirmedby thedepictionsof th eeast part of th ecity by foreign trav-ellers int heseventeentha ndeighteenth century1 8.During thesiegeof the Acropolis in 1821, according to astatementbyPittakis,abombdestroyed a large part19ofthedomeand thewest wall, that is the faade of the church,which had been on the point of collapse -....The vaults roofing the narthex, both on the groundfloor an dth eupperstorey, probably collapsedcompletelyorpartly.Itthus seems thatthechurchwas in a ruined state when itwas presented in 1847 to the Russian community ofAthens20 on condition that its old form should not bechangedduringth erepairs.T heverypoorstateoft hebuild

va Paul Durand (Ph.D.),Athens 2000, A,250251 (hereafter: ).1 7.A n ton i n A rc h i m a n d r ite , - ... xrj ,AEphem 1213(185657), 1449,note.1 8.J. Skene, 18381845,Athens1985,figs.15 and16.J . D e m a k o po ul o s,To Bassano (1670), , 58 (2001),60,63. ThomasH o p e , 18 ,At h e n s 1985, 87, fig. 24, p. 224. DeL a b o rd e ,Athnes au XVe, XVIe etXVIIe sicles,Paris 1854, v. II, pl. 48 .H.Omont, Athnes auXVIIe sicle,Paris1898, pl. XXXIV and XXXV.19. After Couchaud, Choix,op.cit., the two thirds of the dome were destroyed.20.C. Biris, ' 19 20 , Athens1966,142,143. Xyngopoulos,EM M E (n. 1),82.


4/15

ing is confirmed by the reports submitted by a committee oftechnical experts (Smolens, Riedl, Kaftantzoglou andSchiodel (?) on 12th April 1847) and also by Kaftantzoglouhimself,to the effect that ...the church, being in averyru-ined state, must be razed to the foundations and erectedanew... .This information is recorded for us forty years laterby G.Lambakis21, who appears to have derived it from themilitary architect responsible for th ework, Telemachos Vlasopoulos22, who was stillalivein 1894 at least23. In the end,th echurch was fortunately not demolished but radically re-paired, with parts of it being reconstructed. Lambakis, whowas not even born at this time 24, knew the plans that hadbeen drawn up by Vlasopoulos, one of which th esection ofthe dome he published(Fig.2 )25 .T hework was carried outbetween 1850 and 1855.T heseries of drawings, presumably based on measurementstakenof the Soteira, has been destroyed or mislaid. It washanded over to the Christian Archaeological Society, re-ceived into the collection assembled by Lambakis during histravels26, and displayed in the Zappeion in 189127. It is notknown whether the collection, or even alistof th edrawings,was ever published28. A. Xyngopoulos was presumably un-aware oftheirexistence in 1929. Questions aboutth erestora-tionoft heSoteira werefirstraised duringth e1890s,after therestoration of the dome of the Daphni monastery. This wasseverelycriticised by Lambakis29, who contrasted it with therestoration oft heSoteira, which he regarded as successful.Infact, only the parts in danger of imminent collapse thewestside and almost all the vaults seem to have been re

21 .G .Lampakis , , , 1885,557 f., 575.See also . PapageorgiouVenetas, , Athens1999,7577, D o c um e n tn o .4, St.Nikodimos, demolir.22 .See , ', Athens 1984,314.23 .G. Lampakis, AL , ' (1894), 63: , - - . .24 .G .Lampakis, 18541914.25 .Lampakis , ,op.cit., 475. Lampakis assertsas true that ... . . . and lets to concludethatthe new existingd o m eis in a great part the original one.26 .G .Lampakis, ,Athens 1891,41 f., 44 , no .27.27 .Ibid.28 .G. Lampakis in of the year 1885, 575 notes...

TH E SOTEIRA LYKODEMOU AT ATHENS

Fig. 2. Section of the original dome by T.Vlasopoulos, after Lam-bakis.

moved, including thedome.The entire east side and parts ofth enorthand south were preserved, allth ebearing elementsretained their original position, as did the lower parts of allth ewalls30,while the arches and vaults were restored, usingas a guide their springings, which were preserved in the sidewallsand in the area of the sanctuary and the eastwall(Fig.3). Unfortunately, Vlasopoulos removed all the internalnonbearingwalls,both original and later (whichwillbe dis-cussed in brief below),followingthe arbitrary interventionsinthe drawing by A. C o uchaud31 ,and this resulted in the de-teriorationof the interior space and thelossof the link be-tween function and spatial units inside thechurch.The newvaults, though retaining the springing of the original ones,had a different form32.T heelaborate doorways, window mullions and above all the

- . . . . See also D. Pallas, , ' (1936), ': 184 . .29 .Lampakis, ,op.cit. For his involvmentto the Dap h n i restorations debate in 1885, see also Elias Apostolidis, , Athens 1959,6971.30 .The fact is testified by the drawings of Co uc h a udand Lenoir, madebefore the intervention,as well as byt hebulky blocks att h elower part ofboth cornersoft h ewestfaade. See also Gioles, op.cit. (n. 9), 167, n. 12.31 .Couchaud, Choix(n. 1), 18. Dans les dessins que je donne de cetteglise toutes les ouvertures actuellement mures ont t indiques dansleur tat primitif. Obviously, he could not distinguish the original fromthe new walls. His drawing of the longitudinal section of the churchshows an evidently new wall, about which see below.32 . In fact, the existing now, new vaults do not have clear geometricforms; they are domed and defaced. Modern plasters and murals prevent the direct observation of their structure.

13


5/15

CHARALAMBO S BOURAS

Fig. 3. Isometric section of the church, showing the existing originalparis of the building, by C. Koliopoulos.

high chamfered marble crpis added by Vlasopoulos (Fig. 1)detracted from the monument s authenticity, and the oldmarble templon, the form of which is preserved by Lenoir 33,appears to have been carried off before the work began34.The almost total destruction of the wall-paintings in thechurch (which will be discussed below) confirms the greatscale of the removal of walls and vaults during Vlasopoulos sintervention.The excavations of Antonin brought to light the hypocaustsof a room in a Roman bathhouse35. They have no connection with the Middle Byzantine church with which we areconcerned. The much more recent excavations and repairscarried out by the 1st Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities36are also not relevant.

33 .A. Lenoir, Architecture Monastique,Paris 1856,343,no.238.Republished inEMME ( .2 ),81 ,fig. 80.34 .The marble templon is not represented in the D u r a n d drawingswhicharem a d esomeyears later.35. Antonin Archimandri te , , op.ci t . (n. 17), 14491456.JohnTravlos{PictorialDictionary of Ancient Athens, London1991,181)suggests thatthisroomwaspa r toft h ebathing com plexn o .L, probablybelongingt ot h egymnasiumof the ancientLykeion.Onanotheradjoin-ing bath see O. Zachariadou, , , exhibitioncatalogue,At h e n s2000,135.36 .P .Lazaridis, ,ADelt 16(1960),65;ADelt 23(1968),Chronika,114;ADelt 24(1969),Chronika,95.37 . Couchaud,Choix (n .1 ),pis.10,11 and 12.38 .Hegivesas reducing scale 9 mm .perm e trefor the elevations and

14

Inowturntoth evisualdocumentation th eplansan dfree-handdrawings of th eSoteira Lykodemouwhichwere madebefore th eradicalinterventionof 185055.A. Couchaud publishedfive drawings of the m o n u m e n t37(plan,section,andthreeelevations),four ofwhichwere re-published inE M M E in 1928. All these drawings are flawedbyageneralerrorregardingth edimensions38 and the monu-mentis shown asmuchsmallerthanit actually is. Worst ofall,however, the drawings published byCouchaudwere notof theconditionof thechurchat thetime,but of a recon-struction of what he believed the churchwould originallyhavebeen, a circumstance that makes the drawings com-pletelyunreliable.In histext,he statesthathe did not drawth elater walls, but he obviously also omitted the originalnonbearingwalls. He also failed to provide in the conven-tionalmannerprojectionsof groinsa ndinclinationsofarch-es oft hevaults, whichwere removedafew years later39.T heearliest of th e depictions,possibly dating from the be-ginning of the ninteenth century has recently been pub-lished.It was drawn by L. Fauvel and depicts the Soteirafrom the side facing the Lykeion ,thatis, from thenorth-

west40. The drawing is small but meticulouslyexecuted.Thedomeisdepictedintact,coveredbytiles.T hewest side ofthechurchis crowned by ahorizontal corniceand all the win-dows are shown walled u p.The upper part of on etwolightwindow onth enorthsideremainsunsealed,and aloopholehasbeen createdinth ebrickwork sealingth eother.The D anish architectM.G.Bindesbel41hasbequeathedus adrawing ofatransversesectiona ndtworoughsketches(Fig.4),which bear the title Byzantine churchinAthens .Thechurchisclearlyth eSoteira,sinceth edrawing showsth etwosquincheseither side of the east arm, the wide, low dome,and the templonwith its twocolumnsin front oft hesanctu-ary. The two sketches depict the apses of th eprothesis and

the section and4,5m m .perm e treforthe plan. Thegeneraldimensionsoft h ebuildingdiffer fromo n edrawing toanother.39 .We notethe different way of drawing of the west elevation of theSoteirawith simple lines and no shading(Couchaud,Choix,pi. 1 1 ,fig.1 ).This,may be anindication that Co uc h a udwould not like to repre-sentt h eoriginalform oft h efaade which was already in ruins.40. Byzance retrouve. Erudits et voyageurs franais XVI-XVIII sicles,Paris 2001, exhibition catalogue, 163, no. 91, fig. 96. Comments andBibliography byN.L. Demesnil.41 .M. Bendtsen, Sketches and Measurings, Danish Architects in Greece1818-1862,Copenhagen 1993, 305 no. G.B. 074 of 1835. The drawinghas not reducing scale and is limited to the central square of the church,not showing the thickness of the walls and the vaults.


6/15

diakonikon and can be identified from the iconographiethemes, which are known from Du rand 's drawings.From the same year, 1835, dates a drawing of a detail byChristian Hansen42 , which is not particularly useful, sincethe cufic decoration it depicts is still well preserved. Thedrawings by Lenoir were probably made in 1840, thoughthey were published only later43 . They preserve the form ofthe original (?) marble templon, a cavetto moulding withpainted cufic ornam ents, decorative brickwork in th e walls,and the arrangement of the wall-paintings of the dome.Len oir's drawings are not very reliable44 .The drawings in the collection of the University of Karlsruhe, which were mad e between 1842 and 184545, include aplan, longitudinal section and west elevation of the Sotei-ra and are still unpublished 46. Their anonymous compilerprobably copied Couchaud's drawings and made some minor corrections47 to them, after seeing the church for himself. The sketch made by L.A. Winstrup (Fig. 5)48 , also ofDen mark , depicts the east faade of the church, which is in avery good state of prese rvation, and is useful for the walled-up windows in this faade.The m ost valuable of the depictions of the Soteira before therepairs are the two drawings by Paul Durand , which have recently been published49. These are two perspective linedrawings showing the existing condition of the interior ofthe nave with unusu al accuracy50. The first (32/2) was taken

42 . Bendtsen, op.cit., 126 no. 88, p. 247. See also A . Papanicolaou-Christensen et al., ' 18181853. ,A th e n s 1885,86,fig. 93.43 .. Lenoir,Architecturemonastique,Paris1856,266,277,295,329no.230,343n o. 238, 369 n o.269.44. Ther e are some mistakes in the representation ofcertainelemen ts ofth e sanctuary, behind the templon. Two of the Lenoir drawings are re-published by Xyngopoulos inEM M E ( .2 ),83 ,fig. 78 andp .84, fig. 80).45 . S. S inos, Die sogenann te Kirche des Hagios El ias zu Athen ,B Z 64(1971), 352.46. I would like to thankprof. W. Schirm er, who kindly have sent m ephotocopiesof th e drawings.47. The orig inalwalls between the narthex and the central part o f thechurch ar e well indicated in his plan. They are missing from theCouchaud plan.48 .Bendtsen, op.cit., 126n o. 87 (LAW 094).49. Kalantzopoulou, , A, 3538,237251and B', pis.5463. T. Kalantzopou lou, - . Durand, A th e n s 2002 (ed.), 4251.50. It is almost sure that P a ulD u r a n d used a camera obscura with lensan d a transparent board. This is testified by the fact that almost all hisdrawings f rom Athens are made with penci l , on averythinand translu-cent paper consequently attached to a sheet of hard paper. Besides,

THE SOTEIRA LYKODEMOU AT ATHENS

\t

Fig. 4. M.G. Bindesbel. Athens, Byzantine Church, 1835. Library ofthe Copenhagen Academy ofFineArts, G.B. 074.

Fig. 5. LA. Winstrup. The Byzantine Church ofSotira Likodhimou.Library of the Copenhagen Academy of FineArts, LA W 094.

15


7/15

CHARALAMBOS BOURAS

Fig. 6.Interiorofnaosfacing southeast. P.Durand, no.32.2, Hel-lenicLiteraryandHistoric Archive().

from the level of an observer at the lower level, looking tot h esoutheast (Fig. 6). It depicts the south part of the sanc-tuary with its shallow apse and the corner of the nave. Thesecond (32/16) was taken from thelevelof thegalleries(Fig.7) and depicts the southwest corner and parts of th e ruinedwestarm and narthex, aswellas t he dome, which has partlycollapsed. Both these drawings, and indirectly the 22 othersdepicting wallpaintings51, provide a great deal of informa-t ion on the form of the Soteira after the Greek Uprising,which I shall try to exploit in whatfollows.Thea ttemp ted restorati on of the Soteira in the form it origi-nally had (Fig. 8) and in the form it received after the 1705

some of his subjects are represented in perspective, without sense (seee.g.Kalantzopoulou, op.cit.,70,85,140,145,146).51 .Kalantzopoulou, ,A,3538,237251 andB',pis.5462.52. Forth esection drawing ofth edome,see aboven .25.53.SchultzBamsley,op.cit.(n .3),15,fig.8.Thetwo drawings arerepub

Fig.7 Interiorofnaosfacing northwest.P.Durand, no.32.16, Hel-lenicLiteraryandHistoric Archive().

earthquake is based on the assumptions that the measureddrawing of the original dome by T. Vlasopoulos 52 was accu-rate and that the reconst ruct ion followed it faithfully. It isonly by making these assumptions that it is possible to use asabase t he much later drawings of the plan and section of thepresent form of the Soteira by R. Schultz and S. Barnsley53,which, when checked, proved to have a satisfactory degr eeof accuracy54.The dome, then, did not have an internal tympanum, andt h esixteen windows created around the edge of it penetrat-ed its hemisphere. There was a low tympanum only on theexterior. From Durand's drawing 32/16 it can be calculated

lished by O.Wulff,Das Katholikon von Hosios Lukas und verwandtebyzantinischeKirchenbauten,Die Baukunst,II ,11,1903,1213,figs.9,10,andE. Stikas,L'eg&ebyzantine deChristianou,Paris1951,fig.71.54. Curiously, in the SchuhsBarnsley section drawing of the churchthesquinches which supportth edomeare omited.

16


8/15

THE SOTEIRA LYKODEMOU AT ATHENS

that the two main axes of the nave coincided at the dom e notwith windows but with a section of wall between two windows. This feature further reveals the similarity of the dom eof the Soteira with that of the katholikon of the m onasteryofHosios Loukas. The breach created by the bomb must havebeen above the south-west pillar and, according to Cou-chaud , it destroyedtwothirds of the dome. There wasapainted strip above the window arches. In Durand's drawings,the thickness of the face of the arches bearing the do me canbe made out, as well as that of the unified surface of thecircumscribed sphere above them. Both were probablyequal to the length ofabrick.The m ajor p roblem in the reconstruction is the precise formtaken by the rest of the vaulting of the church. From Durand's drawing32/2it emerg es that the east armwascoveredby a cross-vault and from 32/16 that the west probably alsohad an elevated cross-vault orlowdomes carried on pend en-tives. All the othe r vaults in the drawings (8 and 9 are unaccompanied by any substantial information regarding theoriginal form.The galleries did n ot extend above the west arm of the cross,as erroneously indicated in a section drawing by Co uchaud 55.As in Hosios Lou kas, they were confined to the area abovethe narthex and the side aisles. This is clearly attested bythe chamfered cornice-cum-stylobate in Durand's drawing32/16. Here there was a colonnette on the axis which hadbeen replaced in this position by Vlasopoulos (Fig. 12). N either of the side openings of the galleries facing on to thewest arm were two-light windows with mullions, but plainarches, presumably with parapets at the bottom for safety reasons. A characteristic feature is that, as at HosiosLoukas, the galleries and the chamfered cornice were recessed by about 30 m. to the right and left above the twotransversearms,soasclearly to suggest the cruciform plan56 .The reconstruction of the original form of the west faade ofthe church presents a more difficult problem. Couchauddrew and explicitly referred to three doors, which have nofunction, given that another two opened on to the narthexfrom the sides. Windows can be seen in Fauvel's sketch,made before th e destruction, though higher than the arch of

55 .Correctly, Vlasopoulos did not rep eat this fault in the restoration ofthe church.56 .The architectural feature of the short retre at of the galleries at bothsides of the central square of the church can be connected with mucholder B yzantine monum ents as St Sophia in Thessaloniki, St Cleme nt inAnkara and the Dormition of the Virgin in Nicaea.57. In the Vlasopoulos restitution of the church, the gabled roofs were

the main door. It is equally probable, therefore, that therewere two windows, one either side of the door, as in thekatholikon of the monastery of Hosios Loukas. The upperline of all the faades is also unknow n. B oth Co uchaud andW instrup and Bindesbel drew a raised part with a flat roofinthe position of the arms, but it is virtually certain that theroofs were originally pitched57and covered the barrel vaultsor the cross vaults over the arms.The large openings on the lateral axis of the church 58 are1.83 m.wide on the ground floor. They presumably still havethe originalwidth,though thisisdispropo rtionately large forordinary windows59. The correspond ing openings on the upper storey are narrower. These, too, have presumably notbeen altered perceptibly, since the p oros imp osts of the pilasters at either side are stillin situ. The openings did nothave sills, like ordinary windows, but extended down to thefloor of the galleries. The marble columns on the axis of theupp er storey at present ap pear to be recon structed.It thus seems to be a reasonable hy pothesis that the architectural solution was similar to the one applied in the case ofthe katholikon of Hosios Loukas, with two vertically articulated windows on the sides. In this case they were two-lightwindows, instead of the three-light windows of Hosios Lo ukas. That is, the same principle was followed in the interiorof the church as in the opening on the axis of the gallery inside the church. The reconstruction above the two-light windows of the galleries is uncertain; here Couchaud drew asmall window, also with two lights, while in Fauvel's sketchthe tymp anum is solid.Similar questions arise in the case of the side opening s of thenarthex, both on the ground floor and in the galleries. Theyhave the same width: 1.41 m. The upper opening was converted by Vlasopoulos into a two-light window, while thelower one remains a disproportionately large door.All the roofs are assumed originally to have been tiled60.The reconstruction of the Soteira in the form it took afterthe repairs necessitated by the 1705 earthqu ake and beforethe Greek Uprising of 1821 (Fig. 9) is based on the samedocum entation, mainly on P. Du rand 's drawings.Both drawings testify to the fact that all the arches opening

restored, though, at least at the west faade, the form of its upper partwas unknown.58 .The width according to Couchau d was about 1,90 m.59 .M arble frames and arcs enclosing the doors, added in the Vlasop oulos restoration, redu ced in some way the great width of their ope nin g.60. In the 1855 restoration, the roofs of the church were covered withbronze sheets (Stikas, op.cit.. fig. 19) substituted later by tiles.

17


9/15

CH A RA LA MB O S B O U RA S

Fig.8.Reconstructionofthe churchinitsoriginalform.a.Planatgroundlevel, b.Planatgallerylevel,c.Lo ngitudinal section.

Fig. 9.Reconstructionof thechurchas in1820. a. Plan atgroundlevel, b.Plana tgallerylevel,c.Lo ngitudinal section.

L8


10/15

THE SOTEIRA LYKODEMOU ATATHENS

on the central squ are of the church were walled up from thelevel of the gallery up to their keystones and gave the impression of blind arches . Only the east side, facing the sa nctuary, remain ed free. It is evident from drawing 32/16 (Fig.7) that at the west the unified arm was bridged by an arch,above which the new wall was built. These actions, and thewalling up of all the external openings 61, were presumablydesigned to support the four large arches that carried thedome, and to strengthen the octagonal infrastructure ofboth the dom e and the e ntire building.Couchaud's section drawing confirms this interventionwhich, though intended as a rescue operation, completelydistorted62the interior of the monum ent. Theterminusantequernfor it is provided by the da te of the wall-paintings executed on thenewwalls63,whichwillbe discussed below.The preserved archways either side of the sanctuary on theupper floor parakyptika?)have also been walled up. Couchau d's plan shows reinforcing walls in front of the apses ofthe prothesis and diakonikon, though Dura nd's and B indes-bel's drawings of the wall-paintings indicate that th ese wallsdid not exist. The south-east side-chapel was isolated at thewest by a transversewall,in which a small door was c reated .Finally, the staircase at the south-west ex treme of the churchin Couchaud's plan, which pierced the corner vault, certainlydid not belong to th e original form of the building64 .Very little survives of the sculptural decoration of theSoteira. Mullions are all that remain in situof all the windows on the east side and of the two-light windows at theeast end of the galleries (Figs. 10-11). As no ted above, Vla-sopoulos's restoration respected the axial column with itsIonic capital integral with the impost block (Fig. 12), a formcommon in the Early Christian period65 though not unknown in the katholikon of the monastery of HosiosLoukas66. The decorative motifs of the capitals and impostblocks above the mullions are very simple and commonly found in the eleventh century (six-point rosettes and

61 .Commentsby N.L.Demensil,inByzance retrouve ( .40), p. 1 36.62. The first notion from the section drawing of Couchaud is thatSoteira had no galleries at all. See N. Gioles, ,At h e n s 1987,167. 12.63 . Kalantzopoulou, , A, 250.64. The access to thegalleries of all the known churches of thegreekcross octago n type is don e by external staircases.65 .A.C. Orlandos, , Ath ens 1954, ', 314325. V. Verni, L eschapi-teauxioniquesl poque palochrtienne,Paris 1989.66 .Schultz-Barnsley, op.cit. (n. 3), pi. 26a.

Fig. 10. The mullion capitals of the east faade windows. The im-posts aremodern 1850).

Fig. 11. The mullion capitals an d imposts of thetriple window of thebema apse.

19


11/15

CHARALAMBOS BOURAS

Fig. 12.Capital an d impost of thecolonette atthecais of thegallery.

crosses) (Fig. 13). Unfortunately, none of the marble doorframes of the church survives. They were probably rem ovedduring the long period ofitsabandonm ent. The bowls in thetympana of the three-light window of the bema apse havebeen replacedbylater small decorative disks.According to Lenoir's drawing, the templon of the Soteirahad two columns (presumablyspolia in second use), withCorinthian capitals, Ionic bases and shafts of coloured (?)marble, which supported a straight architrave with reliefdecoration67 . The closure slabs were of masonry, with theundulating lines familiar during the Ottoman period thatrepresent a nave imitation of marble slabs with colouredveins.The use of heavy columns in a templon is completelyinexplicable, particularly in the period at which the churchwasbuilt, and in Greec e.

67. Ou r research inorder toidentify this shafts an d capitals with othercolumnsin theByzantine MuseumofAthenswa sfruitless.68 .Xyngopoulos, EMME, A2 , 81, fig. 81.About th e unreasonable destructionofByzantinea ndPostbyzantine muralsinAthens,at themiddle of the ninteenth century,se ealso .. (Lyssandros Kaftantzoglou),,, of th e9th July 1 862.69 .Klantzopoulou, , A, 250.70. M. Chatzidakis, (1450

Fig. 13.Impost over modern mullion on the south faade.

Coucha ud notes that ...the icons that are still preservedhave dazzling colours and gildings . The publication by St.Klantzopoulou of18of Duran d's22drawings, has revealedthe wealth of the monumental painting of the Soteira, ofwhich all that now survives is the re pres entatio n of the bustof Christ and two angels in a blind arch on the south wall ofthe church68. Klantzopoulou proposed three painting phases in the m onument69 , none of which is the original and thelast of which is dated to the early eighteenth century, afterthe repair to the damage caused by the 1705 earthquake. Infact, the excellent drawings by Durand attest that many ofthe wall-paintings in the sanctuary had the iconograp hie discipline and also the elegance of the figures of the Cretanschool , which, particularly in Attica and Athe ns70 , experi

enced a fresh flowering at this late d ate, after th e vicissitudes

1830), Athens 1987, A , 102, 114-115. A. Xyngopoulos, , Athens1957, 284289. . Chatzidaki, - ' , Athens 2000,276,277, fig. 39 (Frescoes in the bema apse of the katholikon of Kaisarianimonastery. The iconographie program and thestylea revery closeto Soteira).

2


12/15

THE SOTEIRA LYKODEMOU ATATHENS

of the Venetian campaign. However, it could be agreed, onthe basis of purely iconographie evidence, that the wall-paintings in the dome belonged to the original painted decoration of the church in the eleventh century. The drawingsby Lenoir, Couchaud, and especially Durand confirm thatabove the zone of the windows (between which there wererepresentations of full-length prop hets) were depicted eightstanding frontal angels, who probably71supported the circular glory of the Pantok rator. Th e early date of the them e ofangels-caryatids is attested by its adoption in the church ofthe M etamorphosis at Korop i in Attica72, which is dated tothe third quarter of the tenth century73. The same rar e motifalso adorned the dome of another Athenian church of theSaviour74, now destroyed, of which almost no thingisknown.The exterior surfaces of the preserved original walls of theSoteira are adorned by pseudo-cufic ceramics (Fig. 14).Some of them are placed individually amongst the dressedstones of the masonry, which are separatedbydouble courses of bricks (Fig.15),and some ar e set in a continuou s friezeencircling three sides of the building at roughly the level ofthe springing of the window arches. An interesting technique is used in the frieze, which consists of clay plaqueswith champlev ornam ents and w ith the background filledwith white lime plaster (Fig.16).This isaversion in ch eapermaterials of the champlev technique used in MiddleByzantine sculpture.The cufic and p seudo-cufic motifs on thewallsof the S oteirahave been treated directly or indirectly by G. Sotiriou75 ,A.H.S. Megaw76, G. M iles77 , P. Vocotop oulos78 , A. Frantz79and N. Nikonanos80. Depictions of them have already beenpublishedbyChr. Hansen81 , A. Lenoir82and G. Lambakis83 .Despite the destruction of a large part of the ceramic decoration, itisimmediately ap paren t that the motifs of the individual cufic patterns and the system by which they were ap-

IQ I iY Fig. 14. Cut brick pseudocufic patterns.

Fig. 15.Detail of themasonry on thesouth faade.

71 .T henotesofPaul Durand assure thatt he figureso n this zone of thedome were those of angels. In hisdrawing no. 32/16 we see the lowerpartoftheir bodiesbut not theirhands. It issure thatt hehands wereextended towardsup.72. Ch.Bouras, , Ath ens 2001 ,71 , fig. 55.73 . A.C. Orlandos, ' - , ' (1961 ), 29,figs.9,15,18.74 . N.H.J. Westlake, On Some Ancient Paintings in Churches ofAthens,Archaeologia LI ,1888,173188.O. M .D al to n ,Byzantine Art andArchaeology,Oxford 191 1, 248, fig. 1 53. Kalant zopo ulou , ,', pi. 67 (34.1 ).75 .G . Soti riou, , ' (1936), 6465.

76. Megaw, op.cit.(n .4 ),103,104.77. G. Miles, Byzantium and theArabs. Relations in Greece and theAegean Area,DOP 18 (196 4), 332, fig. 24.78. P. Vocotopoulos, , ' (1969),163169.79 .Frantz,HolyApostles (n .1 2), 8, fig. 2, p. 25 n.1 1 , p .26.80. N. Nikonanos, , ' . ,Thessaloniki 1983,336338,fig. 3, dr. 24.81 .B endtsen, op.ci t.(n .41) , 1 26,247.82. Xyngopoulos,E M M E , A.2,83, fig. 78.83 . G Lampakis,Mmoire sur lesantiquits chrtiennes de la Grce,Athens 1902,42n. 55-67.

21


13/15

CHARALAMBOS BOURAS

Fig. 16.North faade. Detail of the frieze.

plied bear great similarity to those of the churches of thePanayia at Hosios Loukas and of the Hagioi Apostoloi in theAthenian Agora. The former monument is earlier and thelatter roughly contem porary w ith the Soteira.G. Millet84 and E. Stikas85 have written on the typologicalsimilarities of the church under examination and the k atho-likon of Hosios Loukas. The Soteira is clearly the earliestand m ost faithful copy of the great ch urch in Pho kis. As forthe morphology, the direct relationship with the churchesof Hosios Loukas was noted seventy years ago by A.H.S.Megaw86, who analysed the individual forms: the motifs ofthe cufic decorative brickwork, the courses of bricks in relation to the frieze, the dentil courses, the step pattern, thethree-light window with the lights of equal height and encircling arch, and finally th e filling of the tym pana of the windows. To the similarities with the katholikon of Hosios

84. G. Millet, L colegrecque dansl architecturebyzantine,Paris 1916,105-118,160n. 3.85. Stikas,Christianou (n. 53), 35-46.86 .Megaw, op.cit.(n. 4), 102-104,115,116,120,122,124,126and pi. 36no. 4.87. The span off the squinchesis alittle larger thant hespanof the fourmain arches.That means that th e octagon of thegeneral plan, i nboth

Loukas may be added those of the main dome (which havealready been discussed), the compo site windows at the endsof the arms of the cross, theparakyptikonfrom the galleriesto the sanctuary, the general tracing of the octagonal support of the dom e87and the existence of an arcosolium w ith atomb to the left as one en ters the nave. The champ lev technique used on relatively large surfaces recalls the elaboratedome88of the Panayia in the monastery.However, the most striking indication of the direct relationbetween the katholikon of Hosios Loukas and the SoteiraLykodemou consists of certain magnitudes of the centralcore of the church w hich are of decisive impo rtance . In fact,five basic dimen sions of the transve rse section of the chu rchof the Soteira are equal, with a satisfactory degree of approximation89, to three quarters of the corresponding dimensions of the katholikon.

Diameter of domeSide of centralsquareInternal heightof domeInternal heightof main arche sGeneralinternal width

Hosios Loukas8.625m .8.70 m .17.55 m.11.90 m.

15.80 m.

x6.468 m.6.525 m.13.16 m.8.925m .

11.85 m.

Soteira6.50 m.6.50 m .13.30 m.8.90 m .

11.90 m.

This observation attests both to the direct relationship between the two monuments and to the existence of a plan.The transfer and rep roduction to scale of the dimensions ofthe katholikon presupposes some plan of the original composition or measured drawings of the model. Furth er investigation ofthissubject would be of great in terest for th e history of Byzantine architecture.

cases, is notregular.88. L .Bouras, , A th e n s 1980,2234.89. We use the dimensions from the measured drawings of Schultz andBarnsley for both monu ments and we admitthat the height of th e d o m ewas no t changed in the restoration of 1 850.

22


14/15

TH E SOTEIRA LYKODEMOU AT ATHENS

A moregeneralquestion,equallyworthinvestigation,is thatof thelinksbetween the architecture of Athensjust after theyear 1000, particularly of the Hagioi Apostoloi and theSoteira Lykodemou, and the two churches of the great

X T 1850, , . ' : Cou c h a u d, , . E M M E 1928 - . , . , 10151031. 1 7 3 1705. . , - , - , .

monastery in Phokis, whichwerepioneering in their day andwhose decisiverole in the creation of the socalled HelladicScho ol is repeatedly con firmed 90.

( 1 852), (1891) , , . , - - . - - , 1 8 . - . - - - . , , -, . , .Du ra n d, , . - (. 8)

90. Bouras, op.cit. (n. 72),9294, 9698, 100, 101, 103110. Ch. and L.Bouras , 12 , Athens 2002,395,396,373n .94,398,403,600,601.

23


15/15

CHA R A LA MBO S BO UR A S

( . 9) , 1 852 : ) . Fauvel 19., ) M.G.Bindesbel, 1835, ) Chr. Hansen, 1835, ) .Du ra n d,18431844,) - , 18421849, ) . Lenoir,1840 (;) ) L.A. Winstrup, 1851. . Du -ra n d, Cou c ha u d - 1 8 , , -, - , . , ,

. . - ' ' , - . - - . ( A.H.S. Megaw) 1 000 ( - ) , -.

24

Documents

BOURAS The Soteira Lykodemou at Athens Architecture.pdf