Jasmina S. Ćirić
(University of Belgrad, Serbia)

 
The Art of Exterior Wall ‘Decoration’ in Late Byzantine Architecture

“Whose picture and name are on it?”
Matthew 22:20

Marked as a period of “surprising vitality”, 1 it seems that Late Byzantine architecture most of all expressed itself on the surfaces of the walls. Vojislav Korać, considering the peculiar treatment of the facade area in Late Byzantine architecture, noted that “understanding the artistic conception of a monument includes the interior of the facade, the external appearance of the wholeness” 2 and that “the ornamentation of the facade is characterized by using bricks, stacking bricks with which the entire surface of the facade turns into a kind of tapestry” 3. On the other hand, despite the recognition of several symbolic ornaments on Late Byzantine facades, it also has been noted that “the patterns that appear on its surface are not organized in any particular direction and do not contribute to its articulation, but only to its decoration” 4. Taking into consideration that in Late Byzantine architecture particular attention was paid to detail as an axis of the entire wall idea, we have to put several questions in quite different ways: are there any elements organizing the facade (in any particular direction, by means of ars combinatoria), and do the ornaments contribute to facade’s articulation or is it just exterior decoration? Since the brickwork, as we already know, was one of the main facade articulation means, it’s useful to recall that brick as a material operates with signs. Although it was noticed that “architectural elements were used playfully and in exaggerated quantities”, at the same time these elements have been identified as part of “aniconic imagery” 5.
This paper will propose that construction and organization of Late Byzantine wall do not contain aniconic system of signs. First of all, although identical forms keep their shape, they change their quality depending on the material. “Le culte y associait tous les media“6 which means that a sign does not change because of materials on which it is represented, the material is just a support for the sign. In Late Byzantine church walls the brick is an element of life, it is the very heart of the design. Taking into consideration that the word icon/iconic originates from Greek εíκών (image), it is very important to stress that the term “aniconic” is methodologically inappropriate, since it implicates that something is non-pictorial. Aniconic ornament if not antropomorphic certainly is not and could not be non-figural, it is rather dehumanised. So, geometric and floral patterns certainly are not aniconic and are not a part of secondary iconography. They should be regarded as a part of the semiotic iconography which implicates “lecture symbolique”. Mentioning the sign and its iconism, it seems logical to mention at this point Alexander Soloviev, Russian historian and specialist in heraldry who wrote numerous articles concerning the heraldic signs and their appearance on medieval buildings.
As we already now, the use of heraldic emblems in cultural, religious, ideological heritage of Byzantium is a particularly complex and insufficiently understood phenomenon7. It is not without significance that Alexander Soloviev paid attention to misinterpretations of the origins of some heraldic emblems, especially, the double headed eagle, for which he emphasized that “it can be confirmed that the eagle was known as one of the Comnenus ornaments in the churches and as one of the court costume ornaments”8. So the eagle was recognized as a heraldic sign on the so called costume, but that recognition was not extended to the image on the south-eastern side of the church of Panagia Kosmosoteira in Pherrai, which was convincingly identified with the foundation of Isaac Comnenus, exiled son of the Byzantine emperor Alexios I. This motif was recognised as “unusual image of an eagle”9. Therefore, it is proper to ask another question: are there transcribed heraldic emblems presented in the material which configured the facade? In general, whether a certain heraldic emblem, as a codified sign which is not literally visible, appears as a significant element in the facade articulation in Late Byzantine Architecture?
In the cultural conventions of the mid-14th century Byzantine world, when heraldic signs have been used “également dans la noblesse grecque moyenne et aussi dans la petite noblesse”, these emblems were closely associated both with the emperor and with highranking aristocrats, such as despots or sebastokrators10. It is indicative that the concept of “conspicuous distinctiveness”11 is defined in the historiography in terms of personal identification, as a kind of visual code that bears an irrefutable message on the title, political identity and social affiliations of the ktetor12. Having in mind the foregoing, the use of such signs could be recognized on the portraits of Jovan Oliver on the north side of the nave, next to the entrance to the prothesis and in the lower zone of the northern wall of the narthex in the Archangel Michael church of Lesnovo Monastery13.
In her detailed analysis of historiography, history and iconography of the wall paintings in Lesnovo, Smiljka Gabelić noted that Jovan Oliver is “separated from the adjacent figure visually by stepping towards the viewer and is thus equated with the patron, the Archangel Michael”14. Also she emphasized that “Oliver wears a two-part blue dress, skirt in fact; its compounds are decorated with thin gold stripes and the upper part with short sleeves, with an ornament representing a group of tiny, white cross-like arranged spots. That part around the waist has several thin golden lines; on the edges of the sleeves and waist are the red gold embroidered stripes”15. As for the portrait in the narthex, it was noted that the ktetor was represented in “the same type of clothes but with different amounts and types of decorations, which are at the same time the indicators of his various titles”16. We can add further observations regarding the linear designs on the portraits in the nave and in the narthex. These are ornaments in gold embroidery studded with pearls on the stripes, or on the “rizai”, as they are called by Pseudo-Kodinos17. One ornament is formed by the two lines of equal length intersecting diagonally and the other ornaments are like a cross between two letters V. The same kinds of ornaments were used in the portrait in the narthex, but arranged in a different way. The ornaments on “rizai” on the portrait in the narthex are recognized in the literature on some other examples as “dynastic devices” 18. Pseudo-Kodinos in his text on the ceremonies of the Byzantine court says that the sebastokrators tunic looks like the despotic tunic, but “
νευ δέ ρ
ζων”19 (without the stripes). Jean Verpeaux, translator and editor of this capital source for the study of system functions and titles of the reign of Palaeologan dynasty, translated this as “mais sans broderies en rizai”20. It would signify that there is no gold embroidered ornaments on the stripes, which can bring confusion, especially if we take in consideration the conflicting opinions expressed about the title of Jovan Oliver on the portrait in the nave21. The concept of “conspicuous distinctiveness” of ornaments could clarify the possible reasons why the same ornaments in bricks are placed in the highest zone of the apse. The answer to the question of the chronological framework of the ornaments described above, two diagonally crossed lines and two crossed V, could be found in a few Late Byzantine surviving examples. It is well known that double headed eagles are depicted on the painted socle in the narthex of the church of the Mother of God Ljeviљka in Prizren. Fresco paintingin Prizren bishopric was characterized as a work which visually presented the adoption of the Byzantine court ceremonies by Serbian King Milutin (1282–1321), so he in the same time accepted “the Palaeologus emblem of double headed eagle”, and therefore “the rich draperies, decorated with double-headed eagle, stretched under the feet of bishops depicted in the sanctuary and under the portraits of Nemanjic dynasty”22. Linear ornament placed between the double-headed eagles remained unnoticed in the literature. It is the same motif of the two crossed diagonal lines that appears on the portraits of Jovan Oliver in Lesnovo, although in the Ljeviљka narthex it was combined, on the vertical axis, with two red points and, on the horizontal axis, with a sign resembling the letter V. Judging by these two diagonal cross lines depicted in the narthex where the patron is presented with his ancestors23, it could be assumed that this motif belonged to a group of dynastic emblems24. It is useful to recall that the adoption of Byzantine court ceremonials and acceptance of the emblems by King Milutin was also mentioned by his contemporary Theodore Metochites, stating that at his court everything was decorated “as far as possible as with the Byzantine nobility”25. We do not consider it random that the ornaments of two diagonally crossed lines are similar to the decorations on the remains of the sarcophagi dated to the end of the 13th century in the Monastery of Constantine Lips26, and also in the exonarthex of Monastery Chora in Constantinople27. Depicted on a chlamys of unknown saint in Chora exonarthex, this ornament is already recognized as “evidently a family emblem… also found on the coins of Andronikos II, and for decades both continue to be employed emblematically by the Paleologan dynasty in a variety of media, including sculpture”28. We recently discovered these ornaments in the mosaic of the south-eastern vault of Chora exonarthex, where red coloured tesserae29 next to the swastika combine with meander motif30. Bearing in mind that the use of these ornaments represents only one segment of registered Late Byzantine heraldic text, it should be stressed that the meaning of the sign could be changed, “the intentions suggested through the image, bearing in mind also the preciousness of the matter used, transformed in other materials”31.
The opinion has been expressed that “in articulation of the facade surfaces in Lesnovo the basic pictorial scheme of Late Byzantine architecture is evident” and that facade conception was based on “aesthetic and optical principle”32 in which “the details and the whole of the church have parallels in Thessaloniki”33. On the apse facade, which is the external image of the holiest compartment of the church34, below serrated brick cornice, there is a double Z meander ornamental brickwork cornice35. On the outside, the hexagonal apse, which is said to “originate from Thessaloniki”36, is vertically accentuated with pieces of bricks placed above and below the cornice as “zigzag belt ornaments in the form of a dog jump”37, so that one facet of the apse is divided into four almost equal registers. Opus is not uniformly implemented in all four sides. There are variations in the system of brick sequencing, setting up double Z meander vertically rather than diagonally, between the north-eastern and central side of the apse. Isolating the first register, the elements of the double Z meanders are formed not only by the two diagonal criss-cross lines but rather by the crossed V ornament, the same one as on the portraits of despot Jovan Oliver. This confirms the recently put forward opinion on the need for meticulous reading “des codes visuels impliquants le «regard de l’esprit»”38. In an effort to make this brick architecture “tremolo” more readable, it is necessary to point to some concerns regarding the other recently expressed opinions that such motives are placed on the facade as “purely ornamental” and “for decorative purposes”39. If the brick is placed directly below or above the arches presenting meticulously executed motifs like Arbor Vitae40 or fret patterns, could it be just l’art pour l’art or are these motives in the same time participating in the optical and the semantic conception of the facade, which requires reading and interpreting? As soon as one heraldic symbol is understood as a detail and as an organic part of double Z meander, this implies a visual unity between the two heraldic signs. By multiplication and combining, the two signs generally are transformed into a dynamic visual experience and become an instrument of artistic creativity of the facade. Symbol compiling thus creates a new discourse of observation of the horizontal axis of the apse structured so that the first sign, as an association of signifier and signified, is transformed synchronously into “a new component of the second sign”41. Containing in itself a sign of criss-cross, crossed V sign symbolizes the appropriation, or the ktetor’s personal aims and beliefs highlighted on the most sacred point of the temple42. The architectural features of Lesnovo church have revealed its close affiliation possibly with contemporary monuments of Constantinople, certainly of Thessaloniki and of some other centers of Late Byzantine building activity43.

Through the use of brick patterns the architect simulated the movement of the image which combines and modifies. “To see the walls that even today seem to descend on us and to close in on us, is to feel a sense of movement within ourselves, when we look at them from the outside, or from above, or to be drawn ineluctably in, as we find ourselves forced to move along with and within them”44. It should be added that the same is visible on the north-east side of the drum of the central dome of St. Elijah and on the two visually contrasting cornices on the apse of the Holy Apostles Church in Thessaloniki.
So, if the art of exterior wall decoration contributes to complexity of Late Byzantine architecture, and if it is not aniconic decoration, how shall we direct the process of artistic “décryptage” of the wall and “Whose picture and name are on it?” (Matthew 22:20). Heraldic symbols as part of appropriation signs marking the apse wall should not be considered as random, especially if we recall the comparisons set by St. Maximus the Confessor of the apse with the human soul, and of the altar area with the final point of spiritual ascent, a kind of spiritual omphalos 45.
What is more, this sign is indicative also of the deepest level of visual exegesis. Two heraldic emblems morphologically could be understood in eschatological terms, since they contain the letters Alpha and Omega. “The first and last is the Savior… If there are letters of God, as they are in reality, the saints knowing them affirm that they read them on the heavenly Tables — they are notional (letters) divided into minute parts, namely Alpha and so on down to Omega, which is the Son of God, Who is also the Beginning and the End”46. This results in iconic image, synchronized to other constituents of the apse facade screen, becoming the instrument of its transformation, the medium of appropriation, defining the ktetor’s place in the hierarchy of the celestial order. These signs are par excellence semiotic parameters for transchronological and transterritorial importance of Late Byzantine architectural activity.

1 R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, Harmondsworth 19651; 19752, p. 415.
2 В. Кораћ, Монументална архитектура у Византији и Србији у последњем веку Византије. Особена обрада фасадних површина, in Зборник радова Византолошког института 43 (2006), p. 209.
3 Ibid., p. 210.
4 J. Trkulja, The Façade Decoration of Byzantine Churches: Symbolic, Spatial and Performative Aspects, in Spatial Icons, A. Lidov ed., Moscow 2009, p. 20.
5 Ibid., p. 75.
6 J-C. Bonne, Y a-t-il une lecture symbolique de l’ ornament?, in Perspective 2010/2011, 1 (2010), p. 38.
7 For heraldic emblems cf. P. Magdalino, Byzantine Snobbery, in The Byzantine aristocracy, IX to XIII Centuries (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 221), M. Angold ed., Oxford 1984, pp. 58-78. It is affirmed, in particular, that “the use of heraldic insignia as a symbolic representation of families did not develop in Byzantium. The broad range of images (Christ, the Virgin, the cross, various saints) found on seals are personal rather than familial emblems. Certain “blazons” have, however, been interpreted by some scholars as official imperial or familial coats of arms”. See also A. Kazhdan, Coat of Arms, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, A. Kazhdan ed., New York 1991, p. 472. For heraldic depictions in this paper: B. Young, Needlework by Nuns: Medieval Religious Embroidery, in The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin n.s. 28/6 (Feb. 1970), pp. 263-277; W. H. Rüdt von Collenberg, Byzantinische Präheraldik des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts?, in Recueil du 12e Congrès International des Sciences Généalogique et Héraldique (Munich, 1974), Héraldique, Stuttgart 1978, pp. 197-181 (with literature, especially footnotes 8-14); G. Millet, Broderies religieuses de style byzantine, Paris 1947, pl. 51; D. Cernovodeanu, Contributions à l’étude de l’héraldique Byzantine et postbyzantine, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 32/2 (1982), pp. 409-422; C. Mango — E. J. W. Hawkins, Additional Finds at Fenari Isa Camii, Istanbul, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 22 (1968), pp. 177-184, in particular, p. 181; G. Vikan, Review of Hugo Buchtal and Hans Belting, Patronage in Thirteenth century Constantinople. An Atelier of Late Byzantine Book Illumination and Calligraphy, in Art Bulletin 63, 2 (1981), pp. 325-328, in particular, p. 326; M. Parsons Lillich, Early Heraldry: How to Crack the Code, in Gesta 30/1 (1991), pp. 41-47; В. Иванишевић, Развој хералдике у средњовековној Србији, in Зборник радова Византолошког института 41 (2004), pp. 213-234 (with further bibliography); R. S. Nelson, Heavenly Аllies at the Chora, in Gesta 43/1 (2004), pp. 31-40; Д. Ацовић, Хералдика и Срби, Београд 2008, pp. 31-33; R. Ousterhout, Symbole der Macht. Mittelalteriche Heraldik zwischen Ost und West, Lateinisch-griechischarabische Begegnungen: Kulturelle Diversität im Mittelmeerraum des spätmittelalters, herausgegeben von M. Mersch, V. Ritzerfeld, Berlin 2009, pp. 91-109.
8 А. Соловјев, Византијски хералдички амблеми и Словени, in Историја српског грба и други хералдички радови, прир. А. Палавестра, Београд 2000, p. 305 (= Les emblèmes héraldiques de Byzance et les Slaves, in Seminarium Kondakovianum 7, Prague 1935, pp. 119-164; cf. Б. Ферјанчић, Деспоти у Византији и јужнословенским земљама, Београд 1960, p. 24, fig. 91; about double-headed eagles next to tetragrams: D. Cernovodeanu, Contributions cit., pp. 414-419. For new interpretations see A. Muthesius, The Byzantine Eagle, in Studies in Silk in Byzantium, London 2004, pp. 227-236.
9 R. Ousterhout — Ch. Bakirtzis, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros / Meriç River Valley, Thessaloniki 2007, p. 62.
10 D. S. Kyritses, The Byzantine Aristocracy in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries, UMI Microform No 9721677, Ann Arbor MI 48103, p. 247.
11 M. Parsons Lillich, Early Heraldry cit., p. 41.
12 Ibid. Cf. similar remarks by Liz James: “The type of ornament used may also make points about wealth or political identity on the part of the patron of the building” (L. James, ’And shall these mute stone speaks‘: Text as Art, in Art and Text in Byzantine Culture, L. James ed., Cambridge 2007, p. 200).
13 Г. Томовић, Повеља манастира Леснова, in Историјски часопис 24 (1977), pp. 93-102; С. Габелић, Манастир Лесново. Историја и сликарство, Београд 1998, p. 113.
14 Ibid., p. 113.
15 Ibid., p. 114.
16 Ibid., p. 170. Descriptions of Oliver’s costume see in: Б. Поповић, Костим и инсигније српске властеле у средњем веку, M.A. dissertation, Belgrade University, 2006, pp. 42-44, 45-47, especially the chapter: О амблематском значају одеће, p. 106. Cf. M. G. Parani, Cultural Identity and Dress: The Case of Late Byzantine Ceremonial Costume, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 57 (2007), pp. 95-134.
17 Pseudo-Kodinos, Traité des offices, J. Verpaux ed., Paris 1966, pp. 147-148; E. Piltz, Le costume officiel des dignitaires byzantins à l’époque Paléologue, Uppsala 1994, pp. 13-14.
18 G. Vikan, Review of Hugo Buchtal and Hans Belting, Patronage in Thirteenth century Constantinople. An Atelier of Late Byzantine Book Illumination and Calligraphy, in Art Bulletin 63, 2 (1981), pp. 325-328, especially p. 326 with drawing of crisscross ornament on John III Dukas Vatats coins.
19 Pseudo-Kodinos, Traité des offices cit., p. 147.
20 Ibid.
21 The etimological origins of the term МММММ should be reconsidered; it could be connected with gold embroidered ornaments on the stripes. For opinion that all parts of the costume should be considered as insignia see: Б. Поповић — Б. Цветковић, Властеоски костим, Приватни живот у српским земљама средњег века, прир. С. Марјановић Душанић, Д. Поповић, Београд 2004, p. 379 (with literature); Габелић, Манастир Лесново cit., p. 116. Pseudo Kodinos mentioned that: “L’empereur Cantacuzène ayant honoré ses beaux-frères Jean et Manuel Asan du titre de sébastokratôr, leur donna le droit de porter des tamparia et des bas comme ceux des despotes. Ses chaussures sont bleues, elles ont des aigles brodées en fil d’or sur fond rouge, aux endroits indiqués pour le despote“ (Pseudo-Kodinos, Traite des offices cit., pp. 147-148). According to ktetors inscription under west church portal, the church was erected in 1340/41, precisely in the autumn of 1340, when John Oliver was Grand Duke by title. Габелић, Манастир Лесново cit., pp. 27, 28. Б. Тодић, Натпис уз Јована Оливера у наосу Леснова, in Зборник радова Византолошког института 38 (1999/2000), p. 381.
22 Д. Панић — Г. Бабић, Богородица Љевишка, Београд 1975, p. 61. I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to Mr Bojan Popovic, director of the Gallery of Frescoes in Belgrade for the loaned photograph.
23 Тодић, Натпис уз Јована Оливера cit., pp. 313- 314.
24 Two crossed V ornaments also could be found in Dečani Monastery fresco illustrating the 20th verse of Theotokos Akathistos. Cf. N. Patterson Ševcenko, Icons in the Liturgy, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 (1991), pl. 11; Б. Тодић — М. Чанак-Медић, Манастир Дечани, Београд 2005, p. 368; Ousterhout, Symbole der Macht cit., p. 100, note 45.
25 Византијски извори за историју народа Југославије VI, ур. Ф. Баришић, Београд 1986, pp. 111- 112. About the visual narrative in the exonarthex: “As a part of political negotiations with Serbia, in 1299 Metochites settled the marriage contract between Simonis, the five year old daughter of the Emperor Andronikos II, and King Milutin of Serbia, who was well into middle age at the time. An act of political disoperation, it checked the aggressive expansion of Serbia into Byzantine territory, and the negotiations required Metochites to travel five times to Serbia. The marriage raised eyebrows in Constantinople, including those of the Patriarch, but it affirmed important diplomatic ties between Byzantium and Serbia. Thus, in the mosaics of the Kariye, the Virgin is “entrusted” to Joseph, just as the young Simonis was entrusted to Milutin, who through the union became the son-in-law of the Byzantine emperor” (R. Ousterhout, The Art of the Kariye Camii, Istanbul 2002, p. 122). See also: R. S. Nelson, Heavenly Allies cit., p. 39, note 13.
26 C. Mango — E. J. W. Hawkins, Additional Finds at Fenari Isa Camii, Istanbul, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 22 (1968), p. 181 (with bibliography).
27 R. Ousterhout, The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, XXV), Washington D. C. 1987, pp. 70-71.
28 R. S. Nelson, Heavenly Allies cit., p. 34. Nelson recognized it as “saint with crossbars” (Ibid., p. 35).
29 About the significance of colours in Byzantine painting: U. M. Rüth, Die Farbegebung in der byzantinischen Wandmalerei der spätpaläologischen Epoche (1341-1453), Bonn 1977, pp. 770-775, 859- 867.
30 Swastica combined with meander motif looks like the same brickwork motif on the upper part of the south church apse of the monastery Contantine Lips in Constantinople. See Ј.С. Ћирић, Артикулација источне фасаде католикона манастира Константина Липса у Цариграду, in Ниш и Византија 5 (2007), pp. 315 –329. See also the forthcoming article by the same author about the south church apse of Constantine Lips Monastery and the transfiguration of its façade by optical illusion effects. In that context swastika combined with meander could be compared with the same motifs in Chora southeast vault mosaic, especially because in mosaic medium it could be seen that swastika and meander in the same time constitute the labyrinth image. The placement of double images implicates the effects which Herbert Kessler calls “capturing”, because of the necessity of beholding the images in continuo as the way of materializing the depiction (H. Kessler, Medieval Art as Argument, in Iconography at the Crossroads. Index of Christian Art, Princeton University, 23-24 March 1990, Princeton 1990; see also N. Isar, The Vision and Its “Exceedingly Blessed Beholder”: Of Desire and Participation in the Icon, RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 38 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 56-72, especially, p. 66: “to see the divine as something external is to be outside it; to become it is to be most truly in beauty: since sight deals with the external, there can here be no vision unless in the sense of identification with the object“.
31 D. Russo, H. L. Kessler, Les jeux du texte et de l’image. La libération du visuel dans l’art médiéval, in Revue de l’art 164 (2009), p. 71.
32 В. Кораћ, Споменици монументалне српске архитектуре XIV века у Повардару, Београд 2003, p. 176.
33 Ibid., p. 177.
34 E. J. Gerstle, Beholding the Sacred Mysteries: Programs of the Byzantine Sanctuary, Washington 1999.
35 The term used by Marcus Rautman in: M. L. Rautman, The Church of the Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki: A Study in Early Palaeologan Architecture, Ph.D., Indiana University 1984 (UMI Microform, Ann Arbor MI, OL17260050M), p. 194.
36 В. Кораћ — М. Шупут, Архитектура византијског света, Београд 1996, p. 351; В. Кораћ, Споменици монументалне српске архитектуре XIV века у Повардарју, Београд 2003, p. 166.
37 Ibid .
38 “Le décryptage d’une imagerie complexe“, from the view point of Herbert Kessler, Jean-Michel Spieser, Gerhard Wolf and Anne-Orange Poilpré, Le statut de l’image religieuse au Moyen Âge, entre Orient et Occident, in Perspective 1 (Mars, 2009), pp. 82-90, in particular, p. 88.
39 V. Marinis, The Monastery Tou Libos: Architecture, Sculpture and Liturgical Planning in Middle and Late Byzantine Constantinople, PhD Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign 2004, p. 248, note 88.
40 R. Bauerreiss, Arbor Vitae: Der ‘Lebensbaum’ und seine Verwendung in Liturgie, Kunst und Brauchtum des Abendlandes, Munich 1938. Arbor Vitae was often depicted in miniatures representing the walls of Zion, Nyssa, Caesarea, Nazareth, Alexandria (Athos, Vatopedi, Cod. 107, Fols. 47v, 203v, 136r, 82r, 227r). See G. Galavaris, The Illustrations of the Liturgical Homilies of Gregory Naziazenus, Princeton-New Jersey1969, pl. LXI-LXIV, especially the linear scheme of Pentecost on pl. LXIX from Athos, Dionysiou, Cod. 61, Fol. 21v.
41 Р. С. Нелсон, Апропријација, in Критички термини историје уметности, ed. Р.С. Нелсон, Р. Шиф, Нови Сад 2004, p. 211. The same exists in the narthex of Holy Virgin Ljeviska church.
42 “Kreuz-Swastikas finden sich jedenfalls im 14. Jahrhundert auch auf der Fasade der Profitis-Elias- Kirche in Thessaloniki. An dieser Kirche, die wahrscheinlich auf eine kaiserliche Gründung zurückgeht, steht die Kreuz-Swastika an einer Stelle, an der man eher das Monogramm des Kirchengründers erwarten würde” (Ousterhout, Symbole der Macht cit., pp. 100-101). Cf. Maximus the Confessor, The Church, the Liturgy and the Soul of Man: the Mystagogia of St. Maximus the Confessor, trans. Julian Stead, Still River Mass. 1982, p. 71.
43 Cf. R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, Harmondsworth 1979, pp. 453- 464; S. Ćurćić, The Architecture of Lesnovo in the Light of Political Realities in Mid-Fourteenth-Century Macedonia, in Byzantine Studies Conference Abstracts 14 (1988), p. 22; Id., The Role of Late Byzantine Thessalonike in Church Architecture in the Balkans, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 57 (2004), pp. 66-83 (with literature). Impacts of apse facade programs of St. Elijah or St. Apostles can be realized in some details of the apse of Lesnovo church, first of all, in the horizontal cornice of the apse. This case belongs to so called role models and building the model and deserves special examination. Cf.: R. Krautheimer, Introduction to an “Iconography of Medieval Architecture”, in Studies in Early Christian, Medieval and Renaissance Art, London-New York 1969, pp. 115-150.
44 D. Freedberg, Mouvement, Embodiment, Emotion, in Cannibalismes disciplinaires, Quand l’histoire de l’art et l’anthropologie se rencontrent: Actes du colloque Histoire de l’art et anthroplogie organisé par l’INHA et le musée du quai Branly (21 et 23 juin 2007), Paris 2010, p. 38.
45 Cf. Maximus the Confessor, The Church, the Liturgy and the Soul of Man cit., p. 71.
46 See Origen’s Commentary on the Revelation 8.11 and 22.13 (Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, acc. J.-P. Migne, Paris 1857-1866, 14, cols. 82-83) and also Clement of Alexandria: “…the sensible forms are a vowel, which explains why the Lord was known as the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. The sign AW is easily associated with Christ when one discovers a numerical equivalence with the name of the dove, another well-known Christian symbol” (quoted from: J. Drucker, The Alphabetic Labyrinth, the Letters in History and Imagination, London 1995, p. 87).