Branislav Cvetković-Sovereign Portraits at Markov Manastir Revisited

UDK:

Branislav Cvetković

Sovereign Portraits at Markov Manastir Revisited

Branislav CvetkovićRegional Museum Jagodina, Serbia

[email protected]@gmail.com

The article challenges the long existing interpretation of the royal portrait of King Mark from the south gate of the Mark’s monastery near Skopje. The curved object he holds in his right arm is usually identiied as anointment horn, and this unique iconography is accordingly explained as his being New David. However, the frescoes in monastery Jošanica ofer another possibility in that the identical object represents a trumpet instead, therefore enabling diferent interpretation of the royal

imagery.

Key words: Balkans, medieval Serbia, Markov manastir, iconography, portraits, horn, trumpet

The monastery of St Demetrios in the village of Sušica, near Skopje, better known as the Markov manastir

(Mark’s Monastery), forms central part of the large complex of churches and is undoubtedly one of the most in-

triguing sacred places of the medieval Balkans (ig. 1).1 Erection of the katholikon began as early as 1344/5 on the

ancient cultic site, but the walls received frescoes only in 1376/7; almost fully extant painted programme is very

well known to scholars for its complex structure, high quality, and unique iconography.2

The phases of this church’s completion witnessed military and political demise of the Serbian Empire, but

more importantly the upheavals coming with change of dynasty relected in the well preserved donor inscription

(ig. 2); its irst part states the monastery was renewed by King Vukašin, his wife, Queen Helen, and their four sons,

the eldest being emphasized as “the beloved irstborn and in Christ faithful King Marko”.3 It is important to note

that King Vukašin chose St Demetrios for the patron of his foundation (ig. 3),4 and that in an Athonite source he

is mentioned as “King Demetrios” which when put together sheds more light to ideological importance of the

dedication itself.5 The second part of this highly signiicant text has it that the church was begun during the reign

of Emperor Stefan Uroš IV Dušan and of King Vukašin, and inished in the reign of King Mark, Vukašin’s heir. What

makes this inscription into the political statement par excellence is that it omits Emperor Stefan’s son and heir,

Emperor Stefan Uroš V, the one who had installed Vukašin to status of the king and the coruler, and it also makes

construction that Vukašin had already had the king title at Dušan’s reign, but the only one he had at that time

was that of a župan; this clearly signiies something huge stood behind such an intervention into obvious facts

of political reality of the time.6

The damaged donors’ and royal portraits, painted in the western part of the northern wall of the narthex,

follow this very line of reasoning by staging the ruling King Mark along his parents, who are shown holding model

of their foundation (ig. 4).7 They announce change of dynasties since Emperor Uroš was childless, which is why

Vukašin took over. His rise had provoked opposition by aristocracy from the north of the state, which led to civil

war the main battle of which was fought in 1369 at the Kosovo ield, where King Vukašin triumphed.8 The joint

portraits of Uroš and Vukašin in Psača, painted in 1365/6, stress their being corulers at one point,9 but there are

also data conirming King Vukašin took all the power immediately after his Kosovo victory, when he had Emperor

IKON, 5-2012 Cvetković, Sovereign Portraits at Markov Manastir Revisited

Uroš taken prisoner since he was the ally of the defeated party of the nobility from the region of Raška.10 There-

fore, the irst direct proof of Vukašin’s new status is the charter for Dubrovnik he issued on April 5th, 1370 and

signed by him alone, not mentioning Emperor Uroš at all.11

The fragments of choros from Mark’s monastery, dispersed today between museums in Soia, Skopje, Istan-

bul and Belgrade, also prove King Vukašin becoming sole ruler since he installed medallions into the chandelier

for his foundation with only his own royal title.12 It is known that in September 1371 King Vukašin perished in the

major clash with the Ottomans at the Marica battle, while Emperor Uroš died in December that same year.13 Be-

ing their only rightful successor, King Mark in his extant oicial images is represented along with his late father,

in which way he built his own legitimacy on undisputed Vukašin’s royal title obtained by the Nemanid holy em-

perors.14

Special place of Mark’s monastery amongst sacred places of the time is obvious since its erection by King

Vukašin and his sons was recorded even by medieval chronicles.15 Given its known dating due to the preserved

donor inscription, the unusual fresco programme can be understood only in appropriate context. Another set of

royal portraits, painted above the south gate, can help (ig. 5).16 The portraits comprise igures of Kings Vukašin

and Mark who lank bust of St Demetrius,17 painted under an arch covered with various saints in dense symbolical

structure.18 After their discovery in 1964, V. J. Djurić proposed that a curved, horn-like object held by King Mark

in his right hand probably stood for an anointment horn, symbolizing his being New David (ig. 6); he believed

that King Mark, although legitimate ruler, had to grasp for additional ideological support in order to strengthen

his own political position in view of inimical aristocrats against whom his father had already fought.19 The only

similar object, the attribute of prophet Samuel, Djurić found on lost royal portrait of Manuel I Grand Komnenos,

the Emperor of Trebizond, known only from a 19th Century drawing (ig. 7).20

Since the proposition issued by Djurić, a number of scholars have published their own variants explaining

King Mark’s igure,21 all built on the notion that the curved object should be identiied as anointment horn, like

the one usually held by Samuel.22 But what does make problem with identifying the object in King Mark’s hand

with the horn of anointment and him as being New David on this very basis, is not so much that there are no cap-

tions in Mark’s monastery or in Trebizond proving it, but much more the fact David is never shown holding a horn,

because this was Samuel’s attribute, since the prophet was the one anointing Saul and David with holy chrism.23

One more fact raises suspicion since King Mark was designated the heir as rex junior long before he actually suc-

ceeded to the throne and any special emphasis on his being anointed had no real purpose.24

But recently published frescoes in the monastery Jošanica from ca 1430 ofer one more possibility which

may help in establishing more precise interpretation of Mark’s unique portrait.25 The two-domed church in

Jošanica is the only known example which displays identical curved object, similar to the one from Mark’s mon-

astery, in both domes but with diferent meanings. In the nave dome there is a igure of the prophet Samuel hold-

ing the horn (ig. 8),26 the common attribute of this prophet,27 but among the prophets in the narthex dome there

is another one, perhaps Joshua, holding in his right hand one identical curved object (ig. 9).28 While in the nave

the object obviously signiies anointment horn since it is being held by Samuel, in the narthex it can be easily

identiied as the trumpet due to inscription on a scroll held in the prophet’s left hand (ig. 10).29 The inscribed text

uses Slavonic term truba,30 the Greek salpinx,31 as one of the symbols of the Virgin whose bust is surrounded by a

number of prophets organized in the symbolical theme Prophets have announced you from above.32

Is it, therefore, possible that the curved object held by King Mark represents not the anointment horn, but

a trumpet instead?33 Its form is clearly distinct from a cornus copiae,34 while the term trumpet makes it diferent

from horns encountered in triumphal or theological symbolism.35 A number of examples from hymnography

show that trumpet has often been used as the symbol.36 What is more important even in context of David imag-

ery trumpets are much more present than horn of anointment, as witnessed by the miniatures from the Khludov

Psalter, from the opening folio,37 or from the folio with igure of a trumpeter (ig. 11), which follows Psalm 80 (81),

1. Church of St Demetrios, Markov manastir, 1346-1376/7

2. Donors’ Inscription, Markov manastir (nave), 1376/7

3. St Demetrios as Patron, Markov manastir (nave), 1376/7

4. Donors’ Portraits, Markov manastir (narthex north wall), 1376/7

5. Royal Portraits, Markov manastir (south door), ca 1380

6. King Mark, Markov manastir (south door), ca 1380


4: “Blow the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn day”.38 In the case of King Mark’s

igure, the outright allusion to royalty sustained by God’s power from Psalm 46 (47) also uses image of trumpet,

stressing the role of the earthly power as shield given from God.39 It is also known that among the Old Testament

relics in the Nea church in Constantinople there was at least one of the trumpets of Jericho, along the horn of

Abraham’s ram and the horn with which Samuel anointed David, so trumpet as relic did have major ideological

meaning as other objects of similar form.40 Regarding its practical role in ceremonies, both Antique and Early

Christian examples disclose wide triumphal usage of trumpets, as can be seen on reliefs showing Battle at the

Milvian bridge from Constantine’s Arch in Rome,41 or in the coronation miniature from Tomić Psalter, Pharaoh

investing Joseph with insignia (ig. 12).42

The “exegetical” trouble in identifying the igure holding trumpet in the narthex dome in Jošanica is evi-

dent since the saintly igure lost the captions. Considering that in the patristic writings trumpet is used quite

often with St Paul, one has to be cautious.43 On the other hand, the igure with trumpet in Jošanica does have fea-

tures of Joshua, and if it were Joshua, the trumpet may have been used here as an allusion to the Jericho episode,

apart from the scroll with inscribed text referring to Mary as the “God-voiced trumpet”.44 Therefore, if the object

held by King Mark stands for trumpet and not the anointment horn, then much more plausible explanation both

for King Mark and Manuel in Trebizond comes to the fore, since Joshua was often chosen as model saint for suc-

cessful warrior rulers.45 As the victory symbol the trumpet its the belicose character of the latter’s reign, and the

triumphal iconography of the former’s church.46 If the object held by Manuel is also trumpet as victory symbol,

it too its the igure of St Evgenios, the warrior saint on horseback embroidered on his chest.47 Since raison d’être

of any rule was to be victorious and successful, the trumpet, especially in King Mark’s hands who ruled in volatile

times, may have had special importance.48

According to recent research of Mark’s reign it can be concluded that exact date of his becoming the Ot-

toman vassal cannot be ascertained precisely, but that it surely did not take place in immediate aftermath of the

Marica battle.49 Therefore, the King obviously regained his father’s realm minting coinage as an independent

ruler.50 The fact that he alone founded the church of St Kiriake in Prizren in 1371 as lord rex junior also strengthens

his legitimacy even before he had became sole ruler.51 This does not support any need for him to emphasize in

imagery his anointed self, since there were no reasons for his royal status to be questioned, not during his life

nor after, as witnessed by the sources.52 If object held by King Mark is the trumpet of victory, it may open new

perspective towards precise dating of the portraits on the south gate regarding their style, distinct from frescoes

in the nave, especially in light of newly cleaned icons from the templon.53 These have recently been ascribed to

the same artists who painted the portraits and were dated to 1389, the year of the Kosovo battle when Prince

Lazar, Mark’s main opponent from north of the state was slain in this renowned clash.54 The unusual iconography

of Mark’s portrait from Sušica helps in better understanding his personal reign since before he became Ottoman

vassal he had resisted them militarily in 1385 at Prilep and Berat, long after the Marica battle.55 Since the lands

of the Byzantines and of the Dragaš stood between Mark’s realm and the territories already occupied by the Ot-

tomans (one must keep in mind that after the Marica battle the Byzantines had Serres repossessed), it all makes

date of Mark becoming Sultan’s vassal be much later.56 Therefore, longer periods of resistance were proper back-

ground for oicial imagery of the King who was being successful in challenging both the rivals in his own realm

and the inidels intruding from the East.57

Mark’s military and diplomatic successes may have instigated unusual iconography in subsequently deco-

rated south gate. The other parts of this unique programme are needed to be put under scrutiny in order to

understand the whole in a proper way. Corresponding to Mark’s holding horn-trumpet in his right hand, the

deceased King Vukašin is represented with his left arm raised high, though this part of the fresco has been much

damaged (ig. 5). Vukašin may have been painted holding a martyr’s cross or a cruciform scepter in his raised

hand alluding to his death in the battle against the inidels.58 The raised hand as the gesture for the royalty was

7. Manuel I Grand Komnenos, St Sophia, Trebizond (after Gagarin) ca 1250

8. Prophet Samuel, Jošanica (nave dome), ca 1433

9. Prophets, Jošanica (narthex dome), ca 1433

10. Caption on the Scroll, Jošanica (narthex dome), ca 1433

11. Trumpeter, Khludov Psalter (fol. 81v), ca 843

12. Pharaoh Crowns Joseph, Tomić Psalter (fol. 179r), ca 1360


often used in oicial imagery,59 while the gesture itself reminds of Moses who, according to the known Biblical ac-

count, held his arms high while defeating Amalic.60 This symbolism of Moses as model for warrior rulers was much

used in medieval Serbian ideology and art as well.61 If King Mark holds a trumpet as an allusion to Joshua and his

conquering of Jericho, so Vukašin’s raised hand may in this sense have symbolized his being New Moses, in the

same manner as the Serbian King Stefan III was referred to in sources and even shown with his arms raised on an

icon representing his victorious battle at Velbužd, won in 1330.62 As motif, the trumpets of Jericho were used in

medieval Serbian hymnography as well; the text describing Translation of the relics of St Apostle Luke compares

ceremonial litany that carried St Luke’s relics bypassing the fortiied walls of Smederevo, the last Serbian capital,

to trumpeters who once bypassed the walls of Jericho.63

The reference to Moses might have been established through a number of appropriate verses from Psal-

ter, as was the Psalm 89 (90), 1: “A Prayer of Moses the Man of God. Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all

generations.” It is illustrated in Tomić Psalter, and it clearly alludes to lineage important for dynastic reasons.64 If

proposed way of seeing the royal portraits is the right one, they functioned in displaying ideology with father

and son, based on established Old Testament models of New Moses and New Joshua who ight the enemies and

obtain well-being for the nation. This symbolism may have been strenghtened by the verses of Psalm 111 (112),

2-6: “His seed shall be mighty upon earth; the generation of the upright shall be blessed. Wealth and riches shall

be in his house: and his righteousness endureth for ever… the righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance.”

The royal portraits of Mark and Vukašin do it triumphal iconography of equestrian St Demetrius, the pa-

tron icon painted above the west portal of Mark’s monastery, where he is shown invested with all possible sorts

of arms and armour coming from Heavens (ig. 13).65 One more way the new dynasty had itself represented in

their main foundation, stressing Mark as the New Constantine, is seen in the north-west corner of the narthex

where igures of King Mark and of St Constantine stand one beside the other (ig. 4).66 The fresco programme of

the church is reminiscent to sacriice and the heavenly court, alluding to historical context and the ktetor’s fate.67

The central part of this iconography displays the Royal Deesis painted in front of the templon (ig. 14),68 facing the

south gate, which may have had special importance in royal entrances since portraits’ display above it.69 Iconog-

raphy of the gate and of ceremonial entrances with trumpets may well have been inspired by appropriate verses,

for instance, from the Psalm 105, 21: “He made him lord of his house, and ruler of all his substance”, which are

exactly the ones illustrated by already mentioned miniature of the Pharaoh crowning Joseph from Tomić Psalter,

with trumpets involved (ig. 12).70

Other parts of the fresco programme in this church abound with royal overtones. The most conspicuous,

with connotations reminiscent of the Byzantine imperial court, are painted in the altar in well known last scenes

of the Akathistos cycle (ig. 15).71 On the other hand, the allusions to lineage are recognizable in unique appear-

ance of the calendar, conceived as the continuous foliate zone circumscribing the nave (ig. 16),72 as well as in

similarly structured composition of Christ the Vine with twelve apostles that covers the arch between the narthex

and the nave (ig. 17).73

The saints painted above the royal igures are intended to accomplish this overall message too. The Virgin

of the Passion (ig. 5) with Archangel Gabriel who holds instruments of passion are painted on summit of the

arch.74 This special type of the Virgin is linked to iconography of the interior through direct allusions to sacriice,

while elongated igures of holy women and hermits are inside the arch. On the left side, above King Mark’s igure,

are busts of prophet David, St Stephen the Protomartyr and St Catherine, all apparently chosen as protectors of

the new ruler, King Mark.75 On the right side of the arch, above the igure of the late King Vukašin, again as speciic

protectors, are busts of prophet Solomon and St Anastasia Pharmakolytria, the former most probably referring to

monastery ktetor, while the latter, according to her homonymic link to Resurrection (Anastasis), as saint stressing

the deceased King’s redemption among the resurrected and the righteous.76 The programme of the south gate

with the Virgin of the Passion and of Christ Child positioned in the axis of the door also recalls the Psalm 117 (118),

13. St Demetrios as Patron, Markov manastir (west door), 1376/7 14. Royal Deesis, Markov manastir (nave north wall), 1376/7

15. Akathistos Scenes, Markov manastir (altar north wall), 1376/7 16. Illustrated Calendar, Markov manastir (nave south wall), 1376/7

17. Christ the Vine, Markov manastir (arch to the nave), 1376/7


19-23: “Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the Lord. This gate of the Lord,

into which the righteous shall enter. I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation. The

stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvellous

in our eyes.” This symbolism in a vivid way encompasses ideas of royalty and of ceremonial signiicance of the gate

adorned by royal imagery.

The royal imagery at the south gate is not only built on theological and political basis, but it also relects

general feelings of the time. For the contemporaries it inevitably expressed what was obviously crucial in praxis

and ideology of the patrons of the images. King Mark as historical igure was later transformed into the most

important mythical character shared by all of the Balkan nations, in a number of epic poems known as Kraljević

Marko, the hero who ights iercely the Ottomans and all other enemies, and cares for the needy.77 The title of

“kraljević”, a young king, is the same one his younger brother Andreaš was mentioned within the charter for his

own foundation, monastery church of St Andrew at the Treska.78 In many instances it has been said that Mark’s

portrait from Sušica had some inluence in creation of his epic character, in fact construct of various traditional

mythic personae, including Thracian Rider.79 In that sense it has also been proposed that the patron icon of St

Demetrius riding a dappled horse, painted above the main portal, may have been seen by wider populace as the

likeness of Mark himself, and that it too inluenced dissemination of epic, which names this horse exactly as the

dappled one.80

What historians note is huge discrepancy between the heroic Mark in the epic poetry and the one present-

ed by historiography, as the Ottoman vassal and weak, almost insigniicant ruler.81 The scholarship has long been

unable to explain this distinction, since it was wrongly believed King Mark had accepted vassalage right after the

Marica battle.82 But, better insight into the sources and proper understanding of royal imagery disclose rather dif-

ferent situation. King Mark obviously ruled his realm in the way it had brought him fame during his lifetime and

even more beyond.

Contemporary sources may best shed more light on this reign. A sheer comparison of these does uncover

very distinct angles typical for any assessment of historical events. For instance, a passage from Vita of despot

Stefan, describing the Battle of Rovine in 1395, where both King Mark and lord Konstantin Dejanović were killed

ighting as vassals on the Ottoman side against Wallachian duke Mircea, ofers a realistic picture since Serbian

despot himself was with the two. Thus, the author of the Vita explains they all fought for the Ottoman cause not

because they wanted it, but because they were compelled to. He even quotes dramatic last words of King Mark: “I

say, and I pray to the Lord to assist Christians and that I may be the irst among the dead in this war”.83 In his own

account Orbini presents a balanced estimation of reign of Mark and his father: “Even though their subjects were

satisied with the way they ruled their realm from the beginning, their enemies would not let them enjoy this for

long”.84 On the other hand, the source produced in realm of the main opponents of Mark and his father is more

than severe in judgment; describing the fate of King Mark’s father, killed in the war against Ottomans it stresses:

“Having dared to lay his hands on Empire, he was not worried about the curse of St Sava”, thus clearly disputing

both the royal titles and position of the new dynasty although installed by the reigning Nemanid Emperor.85 With

such distinct views of the contemporaries, the royal imagery in Mark’s monastery received unusual form obvi-

ously based on well known models used for centuries in the Byzantine oicial art. It is well known that Niketas

Choniates in his famous History, while lamenting the loss of Constantinople to the Crusaders, in expectation of

the city’s recapture wrote that “some (new) Moses” will make it possible.86

The apparent emphasized symbolography of the royal images in Mark’s monastery most probably had

several purposes, as polisemy was typical for a medieval mind. By staging himself along his deceased father, Mark

aimed at promoting not only himself being the kingly heir of the previous ruler, but also his father as the martyr

who died ighting the inidels as St Demetrius. It is not known today if a demolished chapel covering the south

gate had stood on the site of an older paraclesis, mostly referred to in scholarly literature as baptistery.87 What is

though known is that the original font for the blessing of the waters from 1393 was discovered here.88 If paraclesis

had existed, this tiny building may have functioned for special services, mostly commemoration of the deceased

ktetors.89 As such it may have been ideal space for commemoration of King Vukašin killed in the battleield, and

even promoting his and the cult of King Mark himself.90 In the period of general retreat, the imagery as in Mark’s

monastery functioned as the proliic ideological tool announcing both political agendas and proclaiming stately

manifestos.91

The blurred image between a likeness of king holding a charter and igures of prophets may easily have

been read by onlookers as direct cultic promotion of the former.92 King Mark had himself represented with his

father King Vukašin both in Sušica and in Prilep holding charters on their portraits, painted on red fresco back-

ground, the most powerful way in emphasizing one’s royal position. Reality was though much diferent and there

were other political centres taking over leadership in the coming years. Propaganda imagery did not work for long.

1 This article is an augmented version of the main part of the paper “The Sovereign in Eastern Christendom: Images of

Earthly Power and Celestial Agency”, presented on May 27th, 2011 in Opatija, during the Fifth International Confe-

rence of Iconographic Studies “Sovereign and Iconography of Political Power and Representation”, organized by the

University of Rijeka and the Catholic University of Leuven.

2 For basic literature, see L. MIRKOVIĆ, Ž. TATIĆ, Markov manastir, Novi Sad, 1925; L. MIRKOVIĆ, Da li se freske Markovog

manastira mogu tumačiti žitijem sv. Vasilija Novog, in: Starinar, n. s. 12, Beograd, 1961, pp. 77-88; G. MILLET, T. VEL-

MANS, La peinture du Moyen âge en Yougoslavie IV, Paris, 1969, pp. IV, XXV-XXXIII, igs. 73-108; V.J. DJURIĆ, Markov

manastir – Ohrid, in: Zbornik za likovne umetnosti Matice srpske, 8, Novi Sad, 1972, pp. 129-162; idem, Vizantijske

freske u Jugoslaviji, Beograd, 1974, pp. 80-83, 218-219; C. GROZDANOV, Novootkrivene kompozicije Bogorodičinog

akatista u Markovom manastiru, in: Zograf, 9, Beograd, 1978, pp. 37-41; idem, Iz ikonograije Markovog manastira,

in: Zograf, 11, Beograd, 1980, pp. 83-93; Z. GAVRILOVIĆ, The Wall Paintings at the Monastery of Marko, 1376-77, in:

Serbian Studies, 13, 1, Bloomington IN, 1999, pp. 145-159; S. ĆURČIĆ, Architecture in the Balkans from Diocletian to

Süleyman the Magniicent, Princeton, 2010, pp. 640-642, igs. 748-749.

3 For transliteration and calque of the inscription, see : C. GROZDANOV, G. SUBOTIĆ, Crkva Svetog Djordja u Rečici kod

Ohrida, in: Zograf, 12, Beograd, 1981, pp. 73-74, ig. 17 (= C. GROZDANOV, Études sur la peinture d’Ohrid, Skopje, 1990,

pp. 123-124, ig. 26).

4 On St Demetrios the Myroblytos, see C. WALTER, The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition, Ashgate, 2003, pp.

67-93 (with bibliography). On importance of cult of St Demetrios for the state ideology in the medieval Bulgaria, see

D. OBOLENSKY, The Cult of St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki in the History of Byzantine-Slav Relations, in: Balkan Studies,

15, Thessaloniki, 1974, pp. 19-20; J. ERDELJAN, Trnovo. Principi i sredstva konstruisanja sakralne topograije srednjove-

kovne bugarske prestonice, in: Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta, XLVII, Beograd, 2010, pp. 199-214; E. RUSSELL,

St Demetrius of Thessalonica: Cult and Devotion in the Middle Ages, Peter Lang, 2010, pp. 15-16.

5 I. DJURIĆ, Pomenik svetogorskog Protata s kraja XIV veka, in: Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta, XX, Beograd,

1981, p. 160.

6 Istorija srpskog naroda II, S. ĆIRKOVIĆ (ed.), Beograd, 1982, pp. 21-54; S.M. ĆIRKOVIĆ, The Serbs, Wiley-Blackwell, 2004,

pp. 77-80.

7 On this damaged fresco see N. NOŠPAL-NIKULJSKA, Za ktitorskata kompozicija i natpisot vo Markoviot manastir – selo

Sušica, Skopsko, in: Glasnik Institut za nacionalna istorija, 2, Skopje, 1971, pp. 225-238.

8 R. MIHALJČIĆ, Kraj Srpskog Carstva, Beograd, 1975, pp. 125-137.

9 For diferent interpretation of the portraits see I. M. DJORDJEVIĆ, Zidno slikarstvo srpske vlastele u doba Nemanjića,

Beograd, 1994, p. 173, igs. 26-27; Z. RASOLKOSKA-NIKOLOVSKA, O istorijskim portretima u Psači i vremenu njihovog

nastanka, in: Zograf, 24, Beograd, 1995, pp. 38-43, igs. 1-4.


10 Recounted also by Mauro Orbini, see M. ORBIN, Kraljevstvo Slovena, Beograd, 1968, pp. 53-54.

11 S. ĆIRKOVIĆ, Povelja kralja Vukašina Dubrovniku kojom potvrdjuje povelje ranijih srpskih vladara, in: Stari srpski arhiv,

4, Beograd, 2005, pp. 161-172.

12 D. TODOROVIĆ, Polijelej u Markovom manastiru, in: Zograf, 9, Beograd, 1978, pp. 28-36; idem, Medallions from a Han-

ging Lamp (Choros), in: Byzantium. Faith and Power (1261-1557), H.C. EVANS (ed.), New York, 2004, p. 126, igs. 61 A,B.

13 R. MIHALJČIĆ, Marička i Kosovska bitka. Početak kraja srpsko-vizantijskog suparništva, in: idem, Prošlost i narodno

sećanje, Beograd, 1995, pp. 18-28.

14 For those in Sts Archangels monastery in their capital Prilep, see B. CVETKOVIĆ, Christianity and Royalty: The Touch of

the Holy, in: Byzantion, LXXII/2, Bruxelles, 2002, p. 364, ig. 7.

15 Stari srpski rodoslovi i letopisi, LJ. STOJANOVIĆ (ed.), Sremski Karlovci, 1927, p. 36.

16 D. BALABANOV, Novootkriveni portreti kralja Marka i kralja Vukašina u Markovom manastiru, in: Zograf, 1, Beograd,

1966, pp. 28-29. Also, see S. MARJANOVIĆ-DUŠANIĆ, Vladarske insignije i državna simbolika u Srbiji od XIII do XV veka,

Beograd, 1994, pp. 30, 58, 64-65, 132-134, 147, 157; S. RADOJČIĆ, Portreti srpskih vladara u srednjem veku, Beograd,

1996, pp. 62, 124, 227-228, igs. 78-79; Z. RASOLKOSKA-NIKOLOVSKA, Ktitorskiot portret vo sidnoto slikarstvo vo Ma-

kedonija, in: eadem, Srednovekovnata umetnost vo Makedonija. Freski i ikoni, Skopje, 2004, pp. 297-298.

17 V.J. DJURIĆ, Portraits of Byzantine and Serbian Rulers Granting Charters, in: The Esphigmenou Charter of Despot Dju-

radj, P. IVIĆ, V.J. DJURIĆ, S. ĆIRKOVIĆ (eds.), Beograd-Smederevo, 1989, pp. 92-93, igs. 32-33.

18 On these igures, see Z. GAVRILOVIĆ, op. cit., p. 147.

19 V.J. DJURIĆ, Tri dogadjaja u srpskoj državi XIV veka i njihov odjek u slikarstvu, in: Zbornik za likovne umetnosti Matice

srpske, 4, Novi Sad, 1968, pp. 87-97.

20 A. EASTMOND, Art and Identity in Thirteenth-Century Byzantium. Hagia Sophia and the Empire of Trebizond, Ashgate,

2004, pp. 144-145 accepts this proposal and by himself identiies the object held by Manuel as the anointment horn.

On the other hand, Scot Redford has recently argued that the object resembles a cup.

21 Z. GAVRILOVIĆ, The Portrait of King Marko at Markov Manastir (1376-1381), in: Byzantinische Forschungen, XVI, Am-

sterdam, 1990, pp. 415-428 (= eadem, Studies in Byzantine and Serbian Medieval Art, London, 2001, pp. 146-163); I.M.

DJORDJEVIĆ, Predstava kralja Marka na južnoj fasadi crkve Svetog Dimitrija u Markovom manastiru, in: Kralot Marko

vo istorijata i vo tradicijata, V. DESPODOVA (ed.), Prilep, 1997, pp. 299-308; S. MARJANOVIĆ-DUŠANIĆ, Rex imago Dei:

o srpskoj preradi Agapitovog vladarskog ogledala, in: Treća jugoslovenska konferencija vizantologa. Zbornik radova,

LJ. MAKSIMOVIĆ, N. RADOŠEVIĆ, E. RADULOVIĆ (eds.), Beograd-Kruševac, 2002, pp. 135-147 (apart from the Agapete’s

Mirror of Princes from the National library in Soia published in this study, there is also one other in the National

library in Belgrade, contemporary to the frescoes of Mark’s monastery; for this see: LJ. ŠTAVLJANIN-DJORDJEVIĆ, M.

GROZDANOVIĆ-PAJIĆ, L. CERNIĆ, Opis ćirilskih rukopisa Narodne biblioteke Srbije. Knjiga prva, Beograd, 1986, p. 51);

I. SINKEVIĆ, Representing without icon: presence and image of king Marko in the church of St Demetrios near Sušica,

in: Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London, 21-26 August, 2006, vol. III, Abstracts

of Communications, Aldershot-Burlington VT, 2006, pp. 317-318; E. DIMITROVA, The Portal to Heaven: Reaching the

Gates of Immortality, in: Niš & Byzantium, V, Niš, 2007, pp. 378-379, ig. 11.

22 For Samuel in Markov monastery see Z. GAVRILOVIĆ, op. cit., 1990, ig. 7. For iconography of Samuel, see Hermeneia

tes zograikes technes, A. PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEOS (ed.), en Petroupoli, 1909, p. 76; M. MEDIĆ, Stari slikarski pri-

ručnici III, Beograd, 2005, pp. 238-239; D. VOJVODIĆ, O likovima starozavetnih prvosveštenika u vizantijskom zidnom

slikarstvu s kraja XIII veka, in: Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta, 37, Beograd, 1998, pp. 130-131.

23 On David as model, see H. BUCHTAL, The Exaltation of David, in: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 37, Lon-

don, 1974, pp. 330-333; M. MUNDELL MANGO, Imperial Art in the seventh century, in: New Constantines: The Rhythm

of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Century, P. MAGDALINO (ed.), Variorum, 1994, pp. 109-138; I. ŠEVČENKO,

Captions to a David Cycle in the Tenth-Century Oxford Auct. D. 4. 1, in: Polypleuros nous: Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner

zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, C. SCHOLZ, G. MAKARIS (eds.), München-Leipzig, 2000, pp. 324-339; R.E. LEADER, The David

Plates Revisited: Transforming the Secular in Early Byzantium, in: The Art Bulletin, LXXXII, 5, New York, 2000, pp. 407-427;

E. BAKALOVA, King David as a Model for the Christian Ruler: Some Visual Sources, in: The Biblical Models of Power and

Law, I. BILIARSKY, R.G. PANU (eds.), Peter Lang, 2008, pp. 93-131; C. RAPP, Old Testament Models for Emperors in Early

Byzantium, in: The Old Testament in Byzantium, P. MAGDALINO, R. NELSON (eds.), Washington D. C., 2010, pp. 175-197.

24 On anointment issues, see s.v. Anointing, in: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 1, New York-Oxford, 1991, p. 107; D.M.

NICOL, Kaisersalbung. The Unction of Emperors in Late Byzantine Coronation Ritual, in: Byzantine and Modern Greek

Studies, 2, Birmingham, 1976, pp. 44-45; C. WALTER, The Signiicance of Unction in Byzantine Iconography, in: ibid., pp.

70-71; I. GIARENIS, The unction and the basileus: patterns of imperial ideology in the exile of Nicaea, in: Proceedings

of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London 21-26 August 2006, vol. III, Abstracts of Communica-

tions, Aldershot-Burlington VT, 2006, pp. 20-21.

25 D. MILISAVLJEVIĆ, Jošanica. Drawings of Frescoes, in: Monuments of Serbian Medieval Painting, 13, Belgrade, 2007; B.

CVETKOVIĆ, I. STEVOVIĆ, J. ERDELJAN, Monastery Jošanica, Belgrade, 2008.

26 D. MILISAVLJEVIĆ, op. cit., p. 12, ig. I-7.

27 On horn as symbol and preiguration of the Virgin also see s.v. keras, in: S. EUSTRATIADOU, He Theotokos en te hymno-

graia, Paris – Chennevières-sur-Marne, 1930, p. 34.

28 D. MILISAVLJEVIĆ, op. cit., pp. 30-31, ig. VI-9.

29 Ibid., p. 37 (VI-9); B. CVETKOVIĆ, I. STEVOVIĆ, J. ERDELJAN, op. cit., p. 40, ig. 23.

30 s.v. trouba, in: Staroslavjanskij slovar (po rukopisjam X-XI vekov), E. BLAGOVA, R. M. CEITLIN, S. GERODES (et all eds.),

Moskva, 1999, p. 707.

31 s.v. salpinx, in: Grčko-hrvatski ili srpski rječnik, O. GORSKI, N. MAJNARIĆ (eds.), Zagreb, 1983, p. 374.

32 On this fresco programme see: B. CVETKOVIĆ, Bogorodičine praslike u kupolama crkve manastira Jošanice, Saopšte-

nja, XLIII, Beograd, 2011 (forthcoming).

33 The issue raised in B. CVETKOVIĆ, A Royal Portrait at Markov Manastir: Horn of Anointment or Trumpet of Victory?, in:

Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Soia, 22-27 August 2011, vol. III, Abstracts of

Free Communications, Soia, 2011, p. 340.

34 H.C. EVANS, Two Bifolia from the Canon Tables of the Zēytun Gospels, in: The Glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture of

the Middle Byzantine Era A.D. 843-1261, H.C. EVANS, W.D. WIXOM (eds.), New York, 1997, p. 363, no. 243.

35 For instance, J. STRZYGOWSKI, Die Miniaturen des serbischen Psalters der Kögl. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in München,

Wien, 1906, T. XLVIII, p. 112; Der Serbische Psalter, Faksimile-Ausgabe des Cod. Slav. 4 der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek

München, H. BELTING (ed.), Wiesbaden, 1978-1983, fol. 60 r.

36 See for example, Canon on Dormition, ifth and seventh odes; On the Dormition of Mary: early patristic homilies, B.E.

DALEY (trans. and ed.), St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998, pp. 104, 106, 123, 244, 249.

37 M.V. SHCHEPKINA, Miniatjuri Hludovskoi psaltiri, Moskva, 1977, fol. 1r; R. CORMACK, Byzantine Art, London, 2000, p.

100, ig. 55.

38 M.V. SHCHEPKINA, op. cit., fol. 81v.

39 For one extraordinary example of usage of the trumpet in monumental painting, see E. KOURKOUTIDOU-NIKOLAI-

DOU, The Church of the Saviour: Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 2008, pp. 52, 57, ig. 50.

40 On this see G. DAGRON, Emperor and Priest. The Imperial Oice in Byzantium, Cambridge, 2003, p. 210.

41 P. PIERCE, The Arch of Constantine: Propaganda and Ideology in Late Roman Art, in: Art History, 12, 4, Oxford, 1989, ig.

10.

42 A. DŽUROVA, Tomičov psaltir. Tom vtori, in: Monumenta slavico-byzantina et mediaevalia europensia, vol. I, Soia,

1990, Т. 48, fol. 179r.

43 For instance, see M.M. MITCHELL, The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostome and the art of Pauline interpretation,

Tübingen, 2000, p. 76 et passim.

44 s.v. Joshua, in: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 2, pp. 1075-1076.

45 On this see V.J. DJURIĆ, Novi Isus Navin, in: Zograf, 14, Beograd, 1983, pp. 5-15; D. POPOVIĆ, Predstava vladara nad

„carskim vratima“ crkve Svetih Arhandjela kod Prizrena, in: Saopštenja, XXVI, Beograd, 1994, pp. 25-36; S. MARJANO-

VIĆ-DUŠANIĆ, Vladarska ideologija Nemanjića. Diplomatička studija, Beograd, 1997, pp. 222-233.

46 For Manuel I’ reign see A. EASTMOND, op. cit., pp. 139-151.

47 On St Evgenios see A. EASTMOND, op. cit., pp. 55, 57, 146; G. PEERS, Art and Identity in an Amulet Roll from Fourte-

enth-Century Trebizond, in: Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East, B.T. HAAR

ROMENY (ed.), Brill, 2009, pp. 153-178.


48 On ideological basis of victory see M. McCORMICK, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium

and Early Medieval West, Cambridge, 1986.

49 C. GROZDANOV, Maričkata bitka, vazalitetot na Kral Marko (Marko Krale) i živopisot na Markoviot manastir, in: Preda-

vanja na XXIV megunaroden seminar za makedonski jazik, literatura i kultura. Ohrid, 2-21 VIII 1991 godina, Skopje,

1992, pp. 117-121.

50 V. IVANIŠEVIĆ, Novčarstvo srednjovekovne Srbije, Beograd, 2001, pp. 142, 147, 149, 157-159.

51 M. IVANOVIĆ, Natpis mladog kralja Marka sa crkve Sv. Nedelje u Prizrenu, in: Zograf, 2, Beograd, 1967, pp. 20-21.

52 R. MIHALJČIĆ, Titule kraljevića Marka, in: idem, Vladarske titule oblasnih gospodara. Prilog vladarskoj ideologiji u sta-

rijoj srpskoj prošlosti, Sabrana dela, VI, Beograd, 2001, pp. 247-263.

53 P. MILJKOVIĆ PEPEK, Quleques icônes nouvellement découvertes, in: XXe Congrès International des Études Byzan-

tines, Collège de France-Sorbonne, 19-25 août 2001. Pré-actes. III. Communications libres, Paris, 2001, p. 349; idem,

Nepoznat trezor ikoni, Skopje, 2001, pp. 66-70.

54 E. DIMITROVA, op. cit., p. 379.

55 M. BLAGOJEVIĆ, Jedinstvo i podvojenost srpskih zemalja pre bitke na Kosovu, in: Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta, A XVIII,

Beograd, 1994, p. 75; H. MATANOV, Knyazhestvoto na Dragashi. Kûm istoriata na Severoiztochna Makedonia v predo-

smanskata epoha, Soia, 1997, pp. 111, 118, 142, 149, 152, 192, 264.

56 G. OSTROGORSKI, La prise de Serrès par les Turcs, in: Byzantion, XXXV, Bruxelles, 1965, p. 302-319; idem, Serska oblast

posle Dušanove smrti, Beograd, 1965.

57 For king Mark’s realm and reign, see N. OVCHAROV, Istorija i arheologija na Vardarska Makedonija prez XIV v., Soia,

1996, pp. 25-28; H. MATANOV, op. cit., passim.

58 B. CVETKOVIĆ, Intentional Asymmetry in Byzantine Imagery: The Communion of the Apostles in St Sophia in Ohrid

and Later Instances, in: Byzantion, LXXVI, Bruxelles, 2006, pp. 90-92, ig. 7.

59 On this see H.P. ORANGE, Studies in the Iconography of Cosmic Kingship in the Ancient World, Oslo, 1953, p. 139; C.

MANGO, Justinian’s Equestrian’s Statue, in: The Art Bulletin, 41, New York, 1959, pp. 351-356.

60 Exodus 17, 8-16.

61 For New Moses see S. MARJANOVIĆ-DUŠANIĆ, op. cit., 1997, pp. 218-222.

62 V.J. DJURIĆ, Icône du saint roi Stefan Uroš III avec des scènes de sa vie, in: Balkan Studies, 24, Thessaloniki, 1983, pp.

373-401; idem, Ikona svetog kralja Stefana Dečanskog, Beograd, 1985, pp. 18-19, ig. 3.

63 T. SUBOTIN-GOLUBOVIĆ, Sveti apostol Luka – poslednji zaštitnik srpske Despotovine, in: Čudo u slovenskim kultura-

ma, D. AJDAČIĆ (ed.), Beograd -Novi Sad, 2000, p. 176.

64 A. DŽUROVA, op. cit., Т. 41, fol. 155r.

65 On this wall painting see N. NOŠPAL-NIKULJSKA, Novonastanatite istoriski uslovi vo Makedonija izrazeni na edna

kompozicija od freskite vo Markov manastir – Božijata znamenija prineseni na dar na sv. Dimitrija, in: Mélanges Dimče

Koco, B. ALEKSOVA (ed.), Skopje, 1975, pp. 171-179; Z. GAVRILOVIĆ, op. cit., 1999, p. 149, ig. 7.

66 On the New Constantine symbolism in the medieval Serbian art see S. MARJANOVIĆ-DUŠANIĆ, op. cit., 1997, pp. 287-

302; V.J. ĐURIĆ, Le nouveau Constantin dans l’art serbe médiéval, in: Lithostroton. Studien zur byzantinischen Kunst

und Geschichte. Festschrift für Marcel Restle, T. STEPPAN ed., Stuttgart, 2000, pp. 55-64.

67 GROZDANOV, Iz ikonograije Markovog manastira, 87-93.

68 GROZDANOV, Iz ikonograije Markovog manastira, 92-93, igs. 5, 7.

69 I. SINKEVIĆ, The Royal Doors at Marko’s Monastery, in: 33rd Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, University of Toron-

to, October 11-14 2007, Abstracts, p. 33.

70 DŽUROVA, op. cit., Т. 48, fol. 179r.

71 A. GRABAR, L’Odigitria et L’Eléousa, in: Zbornik za likovne umetnosti Matice srpske, 10, Novi Sad, 1974, pp. 3-14, igs.1-

2; M. TOMIĆ-DJURIĆ, Predstave poslednjih strofa Bogorodičinog akatista u srpskom zidnom slikarstvu XIV veka i kult

Bogorodice Odigitrije, in: Niš & Byzantium, IX, Niš, 2011, pp. 359-375.

72 LJ. MANOJLOVIĆ-RADOJČIĆ, Ilustrovani kalendar u Markovom manastiru, in: Zbornik za likovne umetnosti Matice

srpske, 9, Novi Sad, 1973, pp. 61-80.

73 Z. GAVRILOVIĆ, op. cit., 1999, ig. 3.

74 D.I. PALLAS, Passion und Bestattung Christi in Byzanz, der Ritus – das Bild, München, 1965, pp. 175-180; N. PATTERSON

ŠEVČENKO, Virgin of the Passion, in: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 3, p. 2176. For analogies see M. TATIĆ-DJURIĆ,

Bogorodica Strasna u Žiči, in: Le monastère de Žiča. Recueil des travaux, G. SUBOTIĆ (ed.), Kraljevo, 2000, pp. 149-164;

S. GABELIĆ, The Monastery of Konče, Belgrade, 2008, pp. 152-158, igs. 24, XXVIII; M. VASSILAKI, N. TSIRONIS, Represen-

tations of the Virgin and Their Association with the Passion of Christ, in: Mother of God. Representations of the Virgin

in Byzantine Art, M. VASSILAKI (ed.), Athens, 2000, pp. 453-463.

75 s.v. David, in: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 1, pp. 588-589; D. VOJVODIĆ, Prilog poznavanju ikonograije i kulta sv.

Stefana u Vizantiji i Srbiji, in: Zidno slikarstvo manastira Dečana. Građa i studije, V.J. ĐURIĆ (ed.), Beograd, 1995, pp.

537-565; s.v. Catherine of Alexandria, in: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 1, pp. 392-393.

76 s.v. Solomon, in: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 3, p. 1925; D. VOJVODIĆ, Kult i ikonograija svete Anastasije Farmako-

litrije u zemljama vizantijskog kulturnog kruga, in: Zograf, 21, Beograd, 1990, pp. 32, 34, ig. 1. See also A.D. KARTSO-

NIS, Anastasis. The Making of an Image, Princeton, 1986.

77 Marko the Prince, A. PENNINGTON, S. KOLJEVIĆ (eds.), P. LEVI (trans.), London, 1984; T. POPOVIĆ, Factual and Fictional

Images of Prince Marko, in: eadem, Prince Marko: the Hero of South Slavic Epics, New York, 1988, pp. 15-28.

78 J. PROLOVIĆ, Die Kirche des heligen Andreas an der Treska. Geschichte, Architektur und Malerei einer palaiologenzei-

tlichen Stiftung des serbischen Prinzen Andreaš, Wien, 1997, pp. 31-32, ig. 2.

79 For a detailed analysis of the mythic character of king Mark in epics see N. LJUBINKOVIĆ, Transpozicija istorijskih činje-

nica u epsko i mitsko tkivo epske legende – legenda o Kosovskome boju, legenda o Marku Kraljeviću, in: Liceum, 2,

Kragujevac, 1996, pp. 24-51.

80 Z. GAVRILOVIĆ, op. cit., 1999, pp. 146, 149-150, ig. 7.

81 Idem, op. cit., 1990, p. 152.

82 For instance, see V. DJURIĆ, Pesme o Marku Kraljeviću, in: Antologija narodnih junačkih pesama, Beograd, 1990, pp.

50-63.

83 KONSTANTIN FILOZOF, Žitije despota Stefana Lazarevića, G. JOVANOVIĆ (ed.), Beograd, 1989, p. 90.

84 M. ORBIN, op. cit., p. 54.

85 Danilovi nastavljači, G. MAK DANIJEL (ed.), Beograd, 1989, pp. 129-130.

86 NIKETAS CHONIATES, Historia, J.-L. VAN DIETEN (ed.), Berlin, 1975, pp. 576.1-578.44.

87 V.R. PETKOVIĆ, Stari srpski spomenici u južnoj Srbiji, Beograd-Zemun, 1924, p. 10; Ž. TATIĆ, Markov manastir i njegova

okolina, in: Tragom velike prošlosti, Beograd, 1929, p. 164, igs. 101-103, 107-108; V. KORAĆ, Markov manastir, in: Les

monuments de l’architecture serbe du XIVe siècle dans la region de Povardarje, Belgrade, 2003, p. 280.

88 L. MIRKOVIĆ, Još nešto iz Markova manastira kod Skoplja, in: Glasnik Skopskog Naučnog Društva, I, 1, Skoplje, 1925,

pp. 301-302; G. TOMOVIĆ, Morfologija ćiriličkih natpisa na Balkanu, Beograd, 1974, p. 89; O. KANDIĆ, Fonts for the

Blessing of the Waters in Serbian Medieval Churches, in: Zograf, 27, Beograd, 1998-1999, p. 73, ig. 24.

89 For various issues on lateral chapels see G. BABIĆ, Les chapelles annexes des églises byzantines. Fonction liturgique et

programmes iconographiques, Paris, 1969.

90 For the so-called interrupted cults both of king Mark and of his uncle, despot Jovan Uglješa, who was killed in the

Marica battle alongside his brother, king Vukašin, see L. PAVLOVIĆ, Kultovi lica kod Srba i Makedonaca. Istorijsko-et-

nografska rasprava, Smederevo, 1965, pp. 239-241.

91 V.J. DJURIĆ, Slika i istorija u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji, in: Glas Srpske Akademije Nauka i Umetnosti, CCCXXXVIII, Beograd,

1983, pp. 131.

92 Cf. A. EASTMOND, Between Icon and Idol: The uncertainty of imperial images, in: Icon and Word: the Power of Images

in Byzantium. Studies presented to Robin Cormack, A. EASTMOND, L. JAMES (eds.), Aldershot, 2003, pp. 73-85.

IKON, 5-2012

Documents

Branislav Cvetković-Sovereign Portraits at Markov Manastir Revisited