The Hodegetria -Aphendiko
Thanks to Sharon Gerstal
.
The church of the
Virgin Hodegetria was built between 1310
and 1315 by its abbot, Pachomios, to be the new Katholikon of the Brontochion
Monastery. Pachomios was no ordinary cleric; he was cosmopolitan, a book
collector, an intellectual, and not only well-to-do but well connected. In imperial
circles one meant the other.
Immediately prior to
the construction of this church Pachomios visited Constantinople where he
circulated with other ecclesiastical movers and shakers and was well enough
known to be referred to by the court poet as “the pride of the Dorians” a
pretty reference to ancient Sparta.
He obviously soaked up more than just the
atmosphere of the capital because, when he returned and built the elegant
Virgin Hodegetria, many of the capital’s architectural touches were included in
its design. Pachomios had every reason to be pleased with Constantinople. He
had come back with one of many future Chrysobulls,
(documents signed and authenticated by the emperor’s famous gold seal) which
endowed his monastery with enough land, mills, and land laborers (peasants called
paroikoi) and with an all important exemption from taxes to ensure its future independence,
wealth, and prestige.
A
typical Chrysobull. Some were fancier. All had the gold seal and the emperor’s
signature in cinnabar, a colour only he could use.
Just what services this
dynamic abbot had rendered to the empire is not clear, but that the Byzantine
court regarded him as ‘their man in Mystras is. The monastery acquired and continued
to acquire so many resources in the area of Sparta and elsewhere in the
Peloponnese, that it was virtually a self sufficient fief and so wealthy that the new church came to be referred to by
locals simply as the Aphendiko (the ‘head man’ or ‘boss’).
Pachomios was one
of the most prominent members of local society until his death in 1322 and his
monastery became the richest of all the monasteries in Mystras.
For the Hodegetria’s
design he took a page from the much larger church of Agia Ireni in the capital
and built a five domed cross-square
church that instead of having the dome resting on four pillars, had the entire
elegant superstructure laid out upon on the base of a three aisled basilica.
This design so impressed his fellow citizens that two other churches in Mystras
would copy it and it has become known as the Mystras style.
Before the days of
reinforced concrete, the construction of this multi-domed wonder would have
been a tricky enough using four pillars. His effort was an even more complex undertaking
because of weight distribution issues. The three columned aisles of the
basilica below would bear the brunt of the roof and gallery.
The three
aisled basilica base with the saucer domes indicated
So, to help, tall, thin
vertical buttresses were added to the north and south façade as supports and in
the side aisles downstairs saucer domes were used to create a sturdy enough ceiling to support the gallery and roof.
Here
you can see the vertical buttresses on the north
façade of the main church
www.culture.gr
The roof with a large
dome in the center, four others on the corners, and barrel vaulted arches for
the arms of the cross was as elegant as it was complex:
And when the rounded
roofs of the side chapels plus the domed narthex on the west were added to the
mix, it was truly impressive.
A plan of the
Hodegetria showing its porticos, chapels, narthex and square bell tower
This imposing
church was dedicated to the Virgin Hodegetria (She who shows the way) the famous
icon of Mary that was the protectress of Constantinople(1);
it was both a compliment to the capital and a statement in stone that Mistras
was no longer just a provincial stronghold against the Franks, but had the
potential to become much more –an echo, even if pocket sized, of the big city
on the Bosphorus. That would seem like a
ridiculous claim if it had not almost happened…
Aside from the basic
design, many details of this church were a nod to Constantinople: from the high
apses with the ‘blind windows”
to the use of exterior
colonnades or porticos outside. These elegant porticos are no longer in place (just
three columns on the north side remain – see above picture). But the Aphendiko was
the ‘boss’ in another way as well. If its architecture was a nod to the
capital’s style, then the Aphendiko itself was the source of many design
details seen today on many of the churches in Mystras. In the eyes of the
townspeople, it was simply the best.
A Last Comment on the Exterior
The
Aphendiko departed from its Peloponnesian predecessors in one startling way: It
abandoned the usual Byzantine cloisonné masonry and most of the other frills we
associate with Byzantine churches (see Agioi Theodoroi built 40 years earlier
for the same monastery) and used ordinary albeit carefully cut stone for all
exterior surfaces except the Bell tower.(2)
Builders broke the monotony subtly with narrow rows of horizontal bricks. I am
not sure why the usual Byzantine folderol was abandoned (shortage of the proper
stone?) but the effect is strangely harmonious. Rubble masonry was often used
for the sides of Byzantine churches which did not ‘show’ (see the south side of
Agioi Theodorioi), but the Aphendiko’s masonry is much more elegant than that;
the same technique was employed in the narthex and chapels which are
contemporary with the main church. So, in the end it is the cloisonné masonry
of the bell tower that seems out of place.
A look at the apses of
the two churches of the same monastery shows the difference:
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiL18ioQVRCYwuheHKGK0CyleAYzklpFQvF4InXA6HhDZcaKbxeLRny92CH3fC4_cUX-eg6Ddx6cQN8TuMHs4d_3IxNEROuvwPbOr06hOPlIFnV5VVl5yDDmfGu5jb0owjt_YRznObxs336/s280/%CF%83%CE%AC%CF%81%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B70060.jpg)
Clearly the Aphendiko was a departure no matter how
you look at it:
Western facade
southern facade
Bell Tower
Inside
When you enter the
nave, the effect of those low ceilinged saucer-domed side aisles only
emphasizes the height of the central space of the nave as it rises to the
gallery and domes above. The height of the central apse –extending
uninterrupted to the height of the roof, helps to emphasizes the effect.
The inside
was built to impress. Originally the walls of the nave and narthex were lined
with marble. Marble revetments were an expensive undertaking and harkened back
to early Christian churches and Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. To be able to
even do this in 1310 in the provinces shouted out the wealth of the monastery. Frescoes
of standing saints were framed in polychrome and placed in each marble segment.
This marble has disappeared, giving the lower floors of the church a bare bones
look and making it hard to appreciate the intended effect:
Sadly
shorn…
Thanks to Sharon Gerstal
Here are marble
revetments in Agios Andreas in Patras
The Aphendiko’s were
even fancier. In both the narthex and main church arched frames with lots of
coloured marble bits surrounded the standing saints (dust in the wind now) on
the revetments and in the sanctuary the church fathers were framed in the same
way. You can hunt for vestiges, but very little remains…
One
saint without his marble frame
Wiki
commons
In better times, this marble
revetment would have called for
mosaics above but even the abbot’s budget had its limits and the Aphendiko made
do with frescoes.
The Frescoes
This is either the
boring part or the whole point of the visit, depending on your interests. Compared to other churches, the main church
offers slim pickings because the missing revetments leave just a few bits in
the sanctuaries, some martyrs on in the tympana under the arches of the
columns, and various saints and cherubs in the domes of the side aisles – all
pretty much what you would expect. This church has no surprising deviations
from the iconic program. The narthex has more to see. The galleries have even more
(Parts of the Twelve Feasts remain) but are harder to discern since you are not
allowed upstairs. Opera glasses and a flashlight never go amiss at Mystras. In
the small domes upstairs are the seventy apostles, and on the domes of the
corner chapels Biblical patriarchs and prophets surrounded by cherubim and seraphim. My own strategy is to look for favorites and
see what has been done.
General Characteristics
of the Wall Paintings
Those who know
mention the broad and sure brush strokes
of the painters, the pastel colours, the way complimentary colours have been
placed side by side for dramatic effect, and the simplicity of the colours used
. The style is impressionistic and lively because of this use of colour and
modeling.
The Much More
Interesting Side Chapels off the Narthex
The South Chapel
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6zJs0ifKi1pFGKHXi9fLFr5a4mVp1-61rTeJvZaNKSlsKspZDy8cMeOB32X9PBKi6WIY9bY3JoYh9n6YasXI9pjqnjv_9KWYKZGuHZJ5-uyWnU7yRJW7cQNoUxa54SYwMmwsPB3Tbhyphenhyphen7E/s280/15-3e0e2485begerstal3.jpg)
North
wall of the south chapel, (thanks to Sharon Gerstal)
The south chapel off
the narthex has a firmly shut glass door which is a pity because it is the most
interesting chapel of all. It contains
the stairs to the upper gallery which, apparently when the monastery was a
going concern, held administrative offices. Written on all four walls are white
scrolls all with copious writing about two centimeters high, all unfolding from “Heaven” above
and guarded by angels. Originally Christ would have been in the dome and
from the mandorla surrounding him a ray reaches out down each wall with an
ethereal ‘hand’ at the end holding a
scroll. This is not subtle symbolism. It
simply shouts out: from the hand of God
via the hand of the emperor to Pachomios. Pachomios recorded here for all to see a record of each and every Chrysobull
in the monastery’s possession and therefore of each and every holding to which the
monastery had rights.
This was not merely to boast although that
element is there – he must have loved the flattering references to himself and
his ‘boundless efforts” - but to create a more permanent record of the
monastery’s holdings than ephemeral parchment. In this he was proved right –
the only record still extant is in these painted Chysobulls. They provide the
information we have today about the wealth of the monastery and about the
feudalistic system under which the locals tied to the monastery worked.
No one entering the
Katholikon with business upstairs could avoid passing this visible testament of
the monastery’s holdings and its standing with the emperor. I am not sure if
this was the first effort of an abbot to immortalize and sanctify (those heavenly
rays!) his holdings in quite this way; in the Metropolis, for example, the bishop
had already carved the monastery’s holdings in stone on a pillar, a testament
that just may have given Pachomios the idea.
Successive bishops would continue to carve their holdings on the pillars
of the Metropolis and on one, a curse is offered to anyone trying to alter the
holdings bestowed. It suggests that there was a fierce rivalry for imperial
favours and that there was also a pattern of gaining and losing holdings over time.
(3)
After all, Mystras was a relatively small
enclave and resources were not infinite. (At times monasteries were even granted
holdings that were in the hands of the enemy on the theory that they would
ultimately be obtained). The bishop of
Mystras must have felt especially resentful of his rich neighbor next
door. Remember that monasteries in Mystras tried and often succeeded in
ensuring that their holdings came from the Patriarch or Emperor in the capital,
thus making them completely independent of the local bishop’s control. This meant the local bishop would lose
revenues to the monasteries and have to accomplish what he could all the while knowing
that he did not have the ‘meson” (pull) of these more favoured institutions.
Painting or carving the
monastery’s rights for all to see was one way to claim that any gains made were
‘forever’. Closing the
room with a glass door and not providing good lighting is the Byzantine Ephorate’s
effort to see that they do.
The North Chapel
The north chapel off
the narthex was for burials of
important personages. Pachomios himself is buried here. Unlike his desert
forebear who started ascetic monasticism, our urbane Pachomios fully intended
to be buried in style in ‘his’ church with a fitting epitaph and a lot of painted
saints for company.
He was eventually joined by Theodore II (Despot
from 1407-1443). Theodore had spent his last years here as a monk either in
piety or expiation, or maybe both. It
was common Byzantine practice for leaders if they lived long enough. It is very
difficult for me to attribute any real sincerity to an emperor or despot who in the last years of his life after having no doubt done some of the
terrible things that rulers did in those
days to remain in power, decided on monkish seclusion in preparation for the
Final Judgment. I suspect the effort was most likely more sincere than my more
cynical side wants to allow! These were different times…
This chapel extends upward
two floors and is still decorated with many frescoes. The Pantocrator is in the
dome. There is a Deesis high up and Christ enthroned in glory as a judge –
fitting depictions for a funeral chapel. On the lower walls is a parade of
prophets, Apostles, patriarchs, martyrs and ascetics, all walking from right to
left the very people those buried here would want to be with for the wait until
the Second Coming.
Wiki Commons
An inscription begs the
Virgin, the Baptist, and all the saints for mercy and the salvation of the
souls buried here.
Footnotes
(1)
When the Byzantine’s
had recaptured Constantinople from the Latins in 1261, the icon of the Virgin
Hodegetria, said to have been painted by the Apostle Luke, had lead the victory parade back to Hagia
Sophia. By naming his church the Hodegetria,
Pachomios was tying his monastery even closer to Her protection as well as to the capital's aura, if you will.
Wiki Commons
Apparently the
original was a standing figure,
but most later representations are like this 14th century version, -
from the waist up with Mary showing the Christ child as ‘the way’:
(2) I am
not sure if the original bell tower is actually a true replica of the original.
Its top was rebuilt by Professor Orlando when the church was restored in 1838. The new bit looks out of place- to me anyway.
(3) I am completely indebted to Sharon Gerstal for
this interesting idea. Her wonderful and lucid article on this chapel can be
found at
http://www.academia.edu/3688211/Gerstel_Mapping_the_Boundaries_of_Church_and_Village_in_Viewing_the_Morea She
kindly gave permission for me to use some of her illustrations.
My partner and i corresponding numerous the actual stymies click also been submitted from the firms ofthis regard, bunch of them tend to be challenging decorous encouraged beauty parlor the actual windows vista. διπλωμα κλαρκ
ReplyDelete