STUDENICA. ALL THINGS CONSTANTINOPOLITAN 93

Its primary origins and purpose, dating to 1186 and the founding of the monastery, ultimately and cru-cially, appear to be most closely associated with the question of Nemanjas personal relations with high ranking officials of the Byzantine Empire in the central Balkans at the close of the 12th century, i.e. determined by the complex nature and outcomes of his political positioning within the Empire, and, even more precisely, dependent on Nemanjas rela-tions with the Bishopric of Ras.2

held at the University of Cologne in December 2009 (forth-coming).2 J. Kali, Lepoque de Studenica dans lhistoire serbe, in: 1200. , (. . ), 1988, 2534, especially 3032. In this text J. Kali writes about Nemanjas activities after the year 1180, as well as those related to the building of Stu-denica, and states that they were oposed to the interests of the bishop of Ras and the Archbishopric of Ohrid but also states that there is no evidence in the sources which would testify clearly of the status and nature of Nemanjas rela-

Results of recent (re)investigation of the cir-cumstances surrounding the founding of the monastery of Studenica and the raising of its katholikon dedicated to the Virgin Evergetis indicate the possibility of a new perspective of interpretation of the primary i.e. original purpose for the raising of this endowment of Stefan Nemanjas. They may, in fact, suggest that the concept and function of Stu-denica as the ultimate resting place of Nemanja, center of dynastic cult and sacral focus of the inde-pendent Nemanide state and autocephalous Serbian church, was (chronologically) a secondary identity of Studenica, one produced by Nemanjas son Rastko, the monk Sava (as of 1219 the first archbishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church), in circumstances either immediately prior to Nemanjas passing away (1199) or following that event and on the eve of the transla-tion of his relics from Mt. Athos to Serbia (1207).1

1 J. Erdeljan, Studenica. A New Perspective?, in: Serbien und Byzanz Tagungsband, Papers from the Symposium

STUDENICA. ALL THINGS CONSTANTINOPOLITAN

Jelena Erdeljan

This paper discusses the iconic image and visual identity of the church of the Virgin Evergetis at Studenica, its identity as reliquary of the True Cross and repository of trademark Constantinopolitan Marian images of worship and marble acheiropoitos eikon of the Incarnation, in the light of a new perspective of its origins determined by the historic circumstances surrounding its founding and the nature of relations of its founder, Symeon Nemanja, with the Archbishopric of Ohrid and the Byzantine court.

Key words: Studenica, Nemanja, St. Sava the Serbian, Archibishopric of Ohrid, Constantinople, New Jerusalem, hierotopy, iconic image, marble

J. ERDELJAN94

patrimonial lands, an area that was soon to become the center of the young Nemanide state.3

In the case of Nemanja, the basic governing principles underlying the above described intercon-nected and interest-based relations between Ser-bian rulers, Byzantine emperors and high ranking representatives of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, are attested by contemporary 12th century sources and, whats more, appear to have been the crucial ele-ment in constructing his royal status and identity and thus, logically, also his ktetorship. Moreover, the key person in this matter was none other than the archbishop of Ohrid himself, John (Adrian) Komnenos (in office from 1140 to 1164) a mem-ber of the innermost circle of the imperial house-hold, nephew of emperor Alexios I and son of his influential brother, protosebastos Isaac Komnenos, thus first cousin of emperor John II and uncle of emperor Manuel I.4 A close study of 12th century sources, namely the Russian Lavrentijevski chrono-graph, offers proof that archbishop John was a part of the imperial entourage accompanying Manuel I on his way to negotiations with the Hungarians held in Belgrade in 1163 regarding the marriage ar-rangement between the emperors daughter Maria and Bela, brother of king Stephen III. According to Kinnamos, and confirmed also in Serbian sources, on his way to Belgrade the emperor, and his suite, stopped at Ni5 where he met with Stefan Nemanja of whose extraordinary prudence and humility he had already heard and bestowed upon him some sort of imperial office and a part of the imperial lands in the region of Duboica.6 Crucial evidence of his virtue was obviously supplied by the archbishop of Ohrid, John Adrian Komnenos, who was, moreo-ver, personally present at the meeting in Ni as part of the royal embassy, and who had previously obvi-ously been well aware of Nemanjas activities and qualities, who was the officiating archiereos of the

3 . , o . (11431180), 2010, 208, 264 sq.; . , XII , passim.4 . , op. cit., 201. For the source cf. G. Prinzing, Wer war der bulgarische Bischof Adrian der Laurentinus-

Chronik sub anno 1164?, JbGOst 36 (1988), 552557.5 . , op. cit., 201, with sources.6 , () - , in: ( . ), 1939, 169222, in particular 173; . , op. cit., 204.

Ultimately, this is the question of relations of (a) Serbian clan ruler(s) with the Archbishopric of Ohrid as the highest instance of Byzantine ecclesi-astic jurisdiction in the central Balkans established following the destruction of the so-called Macedo-nian empire of Samuilo in 1018 by emperor Basil II. At that time the bishopric see at Ras became one of the most significant bishopric sees within the newly extablished Archbishopric of Ohrid, the juris-diction of which spread over all the lands that had once been under the rule of Samuilo and his heirs. In this way Byzantium (re)gained an instrument of high leverage of power deep inside the Balkan hin-terland, in an area that was soon to become the new center of the Serbian state which was ecclesiastical-ly dependent, subjugated to the bishops of Ras who lived along the Serbian jupans and were in constant contact with them. It was that particular aspect of Byzantine presence and influence that additionally forged strong ties between the jupans of Ras with Constantinople, reminding them of their common confession along with the acknowledgment of high-est power of the Byzantine emperor which was an inextricable part of inclusion in the same confession and of belonging to the Byzantine church organiza-tion. Under such circumstances, the Bishopric of Ras was equally significant for the Byzantines as a means of drawing the Serbian rulers and population into their fold, including them in the ecclesiastical and confessional sphere of the Orthodox church and drawing them away from the growing influ-ence of the Catholic bishoprics in Duklja and Zeta, as it was for certain branches of the Serbian ruling family (as exemplified by the clash between Desa and Uro) who found their new stronghold under the protection of the emperor and bishops of Ras in an area removed from the original nucleus of their

tions with those institutions. She points out that Studenica was raised on purpose at a distance from the center of the Bishopric of Ras, i.e. the church of SS. Peter and Paul near Novi Pazar, as a sort of counter axis. On that subject cf. also ead., 1219. , in: . (. . ), 1979, 2753. However, in view of the text and the 12th century written sources published recently by the same author, cf. ead., XII , 441 (2007), 197208, these issues, which we shall discuss further on in the text, can now be obseved from an entirely different angle and against a much broader horizon.

STUDENICA. ALL THINGS CONSTANTINOPOLITAN 95

or as the result of, the Council held at Ras against Bogumil heretics, called by Nemanja and held in the presence of bishop Eusthatios of Ras, whom the sources refer to as his own archiereos.9 It is also highly significant to note that suppressing Bogumil heresy ranked among top priorities in the diocese of Ohrid already during the office of John Adrian Komnenos.10 By calling together this council and by the fierce slaying of the enemies of Orthodoxy and Byzantine taxis which ensued, Nemanja would, thus, be once again confirmed as a soldier of tue faith, a holy warrior, a new St. George slaying the dragon of heresy, displaying the very virtues for which he was recommended by John Adrian Kom-nenos to the emperor Manuel I. Therefore, it ap-pears that Studenica could indeed have been found-ed by Nemanja, in correlation with the interests of the bishops of Ras with whom he had noticeably good relations, as an axial point in establishing the triumph of Orthodoxy against the Manichean here-sy of the Bogumils on the territory of the Bishopric of Ras.

Studenica began its life and received its initial identity under one set of circumstances and was finalized under an entirely different political and ecclesiastic situation. Its intrinsic symbolism of triumph of Orthodoxy functioned unmistakeably in conveying its message in both sets of circum-stances and was, whatsmore, easily and naturally transposed from one phase of its history to the next. The initial idea and act of raising a church dedi-cated to the Virgin, thus materializing iconic proof of the dogma of incarnation,11 was susequently only amplified by the planting therein (1198 or possibly earlier) of the Holy Wood,12 thus defining Nemanjas lands, or the territory under his control, and at the same time the Bishopric of Ras, as a true Paradise with the lifegiving tree as its axis, a New Jerusalem, while likening the ktetor to archetypal imperial personages associated with inventio and

9 . , op. cit., 174.10 . , op. cit., 206.11 B. Pentcheva, Visual Textuality: The Logos as Preg-nant Body and Building, RES. Anthropology and Aesthetics 45 (2004), 225238.12 . -, , in: -, , (. . ), 2000, 7787, especially, on the translation of the relic and the pec-toral to Serbia, 81, with sources.

archdiocese within which Nemanja received his second baptism in the cathedral church of SS. Peter and Paul at Ras from the hand of bishop Leontios.7 This baptism could indeed be interpreted as more than just an act of personal devotion but rather as a sign of fealty to the Byzantine church and the in-fluential archbishopric of Ohrid which resulted in the endorsement of Nemanjas position as opposed to that of his brothers and, ultimately, his domi-nation over Serbian lands as grand jupanus. With such support, under the auspices of the bishop of Ni, an exponent of ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Archbishopric of Ohrid, Nemanja accomplished his ktetorial building activities in Toplica which, as we know from Serbian sources, resulted in animosi-ties and open war between him and his brothers, obviously because they demonstrated his chosen, elevated status in the eyes of the Byzantine ec-clesiastic and, ultimately, imperial establishment. The raising of the monastery of St. George at Ras (Djurdjevi Stupovi) was, finally, not only a sym-bol of Nemanjas triumph and a votive offering to the holy patron with whose aid he was freed from imprisonment into which he had been cast by his brothers but, ultimately, also a signum of his stead-fastness in remaining the Empires key man in the region.8

In our opinion, the founding of Studenica was likewise most deeply dependent on events resulting from the above mentioned specific and mutually significant relation between Nemanja and institu-tions representing Byzantine power in the Balkans, first and foremost the Archbishopric of Ohrid. It is interesting to note that, chronologically, according to the sources, i.e. the Vita of St. Symeon (Neman-ja) composed by his son and heir, and as of 1217 the first crowned king of the Serbian Nemanide state, Stefan Prvovenani, the founding and build-ing of Studenica issued after, and in effect from

7 This second baptism could have taken place close to the years 11581159, mentioned by Stefan Prvovenani in a chapter of the Vita prior to the story of taking control over the region of Rasina and Reke; . , op. cit., 172; . , op. cit., 200.8 For new perspective on the meaning and visual iden-tity of the church and monastery of St. George at Ras cf. I. Stevovi, Historical and Artistic Time in the Architecture of Medieval Serbia: 12th Century, in: Architecture of By-zantium and Kievan Rus from 9th to 12th Centuries, (ed. D. Jolshin), LIII (2010), 148163.

J. ERDELJAN96

kao neki neboparni orao, dran na zemlji eleznim

uzdama, a koji bi eleo, ako je mogue, da se is-

trgne i poleti na gore i da dodje do onoga besmrt-

noga izvora, i da vidi priee boastvenoga grada

vinjega Jerusalima, iji dostojni gradjanin po is-

tinitoj elji njegovog od Gospoda bi satvoren.16

From the point of view of Domentijan, and the ideology of mid 13th century Nemanide state which he voices, the raising of Studenica, the reasons for which are presented in the above stated manner, was the logical and ultimate apogee and outcome of Nemanjas chosen status. In the same text of his vita, composed by the mentioned author, the struc-turing of such an elect identity of this ruler is based on a pointed and sophisticated, learned use of epi-thets and topoi associated with his persona and life works which are drawn from the millenium long tradition of Byzantine rhetoric and imperial enco-mia. In that respect it is highly indicative that in the Vita composed by Domentijan Nemanja is referred to as the one of who was positioned in the East, spreading i.e. rising from the East, a New Adam, the first born of Jerusalem on High, the one whose earliest ktetorship in Toplica (churches of St. Nicho-las and the Virgin) is regarded as an act of Divine Providence and equalled to that of the Lord build-ing Jerusalem in order to gather in it the dispersed Isreael.17 By relying on the topos of Oriens Augusti and Anatoli tou Despotou, he is, therefore, desig-nated as the new Sol Iustitiae, one vested in the man whose name is Orient, i.e. a Christomimetic ruler who is thus also sinanatolous with the Autocrator, the sun which rises together and by the will of the true Sun, the Logos, and triumphs over the demons of the dark.18 Not only was he synchronically made a New Constantine diacrhronically, i.e. at a level which was politically highly important and contex-

16 , , in: , ( . , . ), 1988, 255. This pas-sages translates as: Having directed all his mind towards the One on High, he was like a sky-scraping eagle, pinned on this earth by iron bonds, while desiring, if possible, to break free and soar up and reach that eternal source and witness the communion of the divine city of Jerusalem on High, a worthy citizen of which, according to his own true desire, he had been made by the Lord. (translated from Serbian by J. Erdeljan).17 , op. cit., 242.18 E. H. Kantorowicz, Oriens Augusti. Lever du Roi, DOP 17 (1963), 117177.

exaltatio Crucis, Constantine and Heraclius.13 This identity was around the turn of the 13th century easily employed as the basis of self-representation and construction of identity of Nemanide dynastic legitimity and continuity and as the nucleus from which sprang the autocephalous Serbian church, which became the new, natural and, whatsmore, legitimate defender of True Faith, taking over that position, even literally, from the Archbishopric of Ohrid. Long after the establishing of the autocepha-lous church Sava remained constant in maintaing this line of domination of Orthodoxy and persever-ing as a champion of the True Faith ultimately presented in the Serbian version of the Synodicon of Orthodoxy he composed and proclaimed at a council held in ia in 1221.14

We thus turn to the other side of the coin, natu-rally dependent and interconnected indelibly with the first, that is the issue of the image of Studenica as it appeared and as it functioned after the trans-lation and laying therein of the body of Nemanja (St. Symeon) by Sava in 1207, and, finally, as of 12081209 and the completion of its program, the finalization of construction and wall paintings. The issue addressed in this case is the issue of the image of Studenica as the Tabernacle of the Serbian peo-ple, a New Jerusalem.15 How, by what hierotopic means was this achieved?

In the ideologically intoned work of Domentijan (mid 13th century), Studenica is referred to directly as the fruit of Nemanjas labor to create a God-cho-sen and God-protected center of his state, a New Jerusalem, for the gathering and salvation of his people. Highly indicatively, in so doing, Domenti-jan relies on the exact same phrases i.e. topoi used already in the Vita of St. Symeon written by Stefan Prvovenani: Sav um uperivi ka Vinjemu, bio je

13 On Nemanja as New Constantine, the development of New Constantine rhetoric in Serbian written sources, hagi-ographies and charters, cf. . -, - . , 1997, in particular 287302. On Heraclius and the Exaltation of the Cross and the use of Heraclian imagery in medieval rulers ideology East and West cf. B. Baert, A He-ritage of Holy Wood, The Legend of the True Cross in Text

and Image, Leiden-Boston 2004.14 . , , in: I, 315327, in particular 323324.15 V. J. Djuri, Tabernacle du peuple serbe, in: , (. . . ), 1988, 2025.

STUDENICA. ALL THINGS CONSTANTINOPOLITAN 97

tinopolitan monastery of the Virgin Evergetis who comprised the core of the brethren at Studenica upon its founding. Moreover, ktetors rights over the Evergetis were granted to Sava and Nemanja by the Byzantine emperor himself.22 Studenica would thus, in effect, become the New Evergetis which would be fully functional and logical in establish-ing it as a center of true orthodoxy, a monument of triumph over the Bogumil heresy. Such a relation with the leading Constantinopolitan monastic foun-dation which is both high ranking in imperial ben-efaction and the beacon of True Faith of the Studite tradition and steadfastness, is the corner stone of the translatio Constantinopoleos performed at Stu-denica and presented with high impact by various aspects of its visuality.

A tower of True Faith and focus of the dynastic cult, the sacral contents of Studenica were a virtual repository or display case, a treasure chest of all things Constantinopolitan. The presence of defining Constantinopolitan sacral contents and holy protec-tors as crucial warrants of God chosen and God pro-tected identity is demonstrated through relics and trade-mark sacred images present at Studenica. We have already mentioned that it was a reliquary of the Holy Cross, the foremost relic of supernatural protection of the capital of the Empire.23 the advent of a particle of the Holy Wood, incorporated into a personal pectoral, sent from Mt. Athos to Studenica by Nemanja in 1198 and, in the words of Stefan Prvovenani, reposited in a place already prepared for it in the church of the Virgin.24 Studenica thus effectively became a reliquary and a place of cult of the Holy Cross to which the body of Nemanja was introduced as the warrant of dynastic salvation and the corner stone of its royal legitimity, which,

22 . . , , in: , 1986, 6173; R. Jordan, The monastery of the The-otokos Evergetis, its children and grandchildren, in: The Theotokos Evergetis and eleventh-century monasticism (ed. by M. Mullett A. Kirby), Belfast 1994, 215245.23 N. Baynes, The Supernatural Defenders of Constantino-ple, AnBoll LXVII (1949), 165177; A. Frolow, La relique de la Vrai Croix, Recherches sur le dveloppement dun

culte, Paris 1961; P. J. Alexander, The Strength of Empire and Capital as Seen through Byzantine Eyes, Speculum 37 (1962), 339357.24 . -, , 81; A. Eastmond, op. cit; D. Popovi, Relics and Politics. The Serbian Approach, in: , 161180.

tualized, he was thus also made a New Manuel I (Emmanuel), the emperor by whose benevolence Nemanja literally rose (anatoli) to power, one who was extolled in encomiastic by Theodore Prodro-mos as Helios Basileus.19 In striving to gather Isra-el in a Messicanic act and condition, Nemanja was also following the ultimate goal and purpose of an ideal Christian ruler, exempliefied above all others by the Basileus ton Romaion, who strove to make his land as heaven on earth in expectation of the Second Coming, and, quite particularly, precisely by Manuel I whose messianic profile was carefully constructed by both his court rhetors and the em-peror himself.20

Thus, given the (possible) circumstances sur-rounding its founding and subsequent contextu-alization as the nucleus of the Nemanide cult and the dynasty, state and church of his descendents, it appears as no surprise that Nemanjas foundation at Studenica, chronologically last in line in Serbia proper, but foremost in future impact, a monument of triumph of True Faith and victory over the Bogu-mils, a reliquary of the True Cross and ultimately a (dynastic, Nemanide) New Jerusalem, should be as-sociated with Constantinopolitan, and whats more, imperial foundations and cults.21 To begin with, it is dedicated to the Virgin Evergetis and is generi-cally related, both ktetorially and liturgically, to the monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis of Constan-tinople. At the basis of this translatio is the typikon of Studenica as well as monks from the Constan-

19 Ibid., 151152. On the court rhetors and encomiastic texts addressed to emperor Manuel I cf. . , . -

, 2006, passim.20 Ibid., P. Magdalino, Introduction, in: New Constantines: rhytm of imperial renewal in Byzantium, 4th13th centuries, (ed. P. Magdalino), Aldershot 1994, 19.21 Furthermore, relying on Constantinopolitan model(s) was a conditio sine qua non not (only) of Serbian but ex-amples from the Christian Oikoumene East and West around 1200, in creating New Jerusalems; B. Flusin, Les reliques de la Sainte-Chapelle et leur pass imprial Constanti-

nople, in: Le tresor de la Sainte-Chapelle, Paris 2001, 2031; A. Eastmond, Byzantine identity and relics of the True Cross in the thirteenth century, in: (.-. . . ), 2003, 205215; J. Erdeljan, Appropriation of Constantinopolitan iden-tity in the late Middle Ages: the case of Trnovo and Bel-

grade, in: Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Vol. III, Abstracts of Communications, London 2006, 6768.

J. ERDELJAN98

engaged phenomenon. More than that, however, it is the (micro) hierotopical positioning of such imagery that is clearly suggestive not only of the general Byzantine framework of their operation but more specifically Constantinopolitan, even precise-ly Komnenian contextualization. This is especially true of the funerary context of the Virgin Hodegetria painted over the tomb of Anastasija in the narthex of Studenica. It calls to mind the specific appro-priatioon and dynastic use of the cult and rites of the supreme protectress of the capital and the Em-pire by the Komnenian dynasty, as proscribed by the typikon of their dynastic foundation and mauso-leum, the monastery of the Pantokrator in Constan-tinople.29 The same Constantinopolitan and Kom-nenian background and allusiveness is true of the Virgin Studenika painted on the western face of the southwestern pilaster, above the abbots throne, adjacent to the figure of St. Saba the Sanctified rep-resented on the southern side of the same pilaster, the namesake and supreme role model of Sava the Serbian, and in close proximity to the ktetors com-position. This image, from the hands of which the abbots of Studenica symbolically received their of-fice and insignia, is an appropriation of the Kyri-otissa, the holy protectress of the imperial house of the Komnenoi, represented in that vein as part of their dynastic portrait on the southern gallery of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.30

Although the above mentioned highly venerated images of the Mother of God, of trade-mark Con-stantinopolitan identity and provenance, date from that final stage of production of Studenicas visual identity, which began with the arrival of Neman-jas pectoral containing the relic of Holy Wood and was rounded off in 12081209, it is highly prob-able, having in mind the historical and dogmatic circumstances surround the founding of the mon-astery, its dedication and deep connections with the capital of the Empire, that at least two (Hodegetria, Blachernitissa) if not all three (iconic) signoi of Mary played a significant part in the hierotopy of Studenica from the start. Whether they were part of the first layer of frescoes, an intriuguing question in

29 On the litanies including both the Hodegetria and the Blachernitissa and their connection to the monastery of Christ Pantokrator in Constantinople see B. Pentcheva, Icons and Power, 198 sq, with sources and extensive bib-liography.30 On the Kyriotissa as the iconographic type of the Virgin of Studenica M. Tati-Djuri, op. cit., 199.

in turn, was placed under the protection of the Holy Wood. That act was the initial and key element of a program which revolved around the True Cross. This is explicitly communicated by the dominant image of the Crucifixion covering practically the entire surface of the western wall of the naos and positioned in direct proximity to Nemanjas funer-ary structure in the church of the Virgin.25

Moreover, it was also a repository of trademark Constantinopolitan Marian images of worship. Im-ages of most highly venerated and significant si-gnoi of the Virgins blessings and protection over her City26 assume a prominent place in the program of fresco paintings of the church of the Virgin at Studenica and the services performed in the church as a whole and its particular micro-spaces. An im-age of the Virgin Hodegetria was painted on the southern wall of the narthex, above a tomb ascribed to Nemanjas wife Ana or Anastasija, as she was known after the royal couple had decided to take monastic wows. Now seen in the layer of frescoes dating from the 16th century, it was doubtlessly a part of the original program of decoration.27 The Blachernitissa is painted in the tympanon of the doorway leading from the narthex to the naos.28 In Studenica, certainly, as in all Eastern Christendom following the close of the Iconoclastic controver-sy, these images were instrumental in conveying the perenniel truth of Orthodox dogma pertaining to the Incarnation of the Logos, which in itself, in the particular case of Studenica, given its primary purpose, is a highly contextualized and historically

25 The program of Studenica, doubtlessly fashioned by Sava, is thus similar in structure and a true precursor to that which he accomplished nearly three decades later and realized to its full potential in the church of the Savior at ia, the seat of the archbishopric and the crowning church of Serbian kings, an axis of true faith and a New Jerusa-lem. On the program surrounding Nemanjas grave cf. . , , 1992, 3541; ead., . , . , 2006, 2740; ead., Sacrae reliquiae , , 207232.26 B. Pentcheva, Icons and Power. The Mother of God in Byzantium, The Pennsylvania State University Press 2006.27 M. Tati-Djuri, Les icones de la Vierge a Studenica, 1200, 193203, in particular 197198.28 Ibid., 198199.

STUDENICA. ALL THINGS CONSTANTINOPOLITAN 99

Whats more, the very etymology of the toponym of Studenica suggests the symbolic core identity of marble that is the frozen, still Waters of the prime-val Okeanos of All Creation35 which are associated with both the cult of the Virgin and the True Cross. Moreover, its identity in marble could clearly visu-alize the effect of the Epiphany, or Christianization in general through Baptism, when, at the submer-sion of the Cross (or, originally, Christ himself in the waters of the Jordan which is often seen in apocrypha, both Jewish and Christian, and even in the folk legends of the late Middle Ages among the Slavs, as the stream or source of Okeanos) the waters stand still and demons of the deep are de-stroyed.36 In the case of Studenica, those could well have been the wild beasts mentioned in the Vita texts of Simeon Nemanja in the part refering to the location at which the monastery was founded37 and, which, in the given historical conditions surround-ing that particular act, could be identified with the Bogumil heretics over whom Nemanja celebrated victory as a miles Dei battling against the forces of the dark on behalf of the Bishopric of Ras and Archbishopric of Ohrid.38

Such a contextualization of marble was based on ancient and highly sophisticated readings of sym-bolic qualities of this material present in Byzantine mineralogy and employed in ekphrases of sacral buildings, most prominently trade mark Constanti-nopolitan landmarks such as Hagia Sophia and the Virgin of Pharos. Marble, a more opaque cousin of crystal, which, when polished, recovers its original light in a surface slick, was regarded as a form of ice, i.e. water, frozen by primordial cold suggest-ing that light, the active principle of the Logos, was frozen into its very fabric.39 In ancient times the marble that regularly impersonated water was Car-

cit, 199200. On marble as visualisation of the Virgin Oros epithet B. Pentcheva, Visual Textuality, 229.35 F. Barry, Walking on Water: Cosmic Floors in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, ArtB LXXXIX4, (2007), 627656, in particular 635.36 S. Cristoforetti, Il fiume, la luce e lalbero della Croce, in: Lalbero della Croce, Supplemento, Studi sullOriente Cristiano 72, Roma 2003, 2947.37 , op. cit., speaks of the characteristics of the location on which Studenica was built as derelict hunting ground of the wild beasts (translated by J. Erdeljan).38 Cf. supra.39 F. Barry, op. cit., 635.

itself the very existence and traces of which have so far been mentioned only in conservation reports by Djurdje Bokovi, will be a matter of future in-vestigation.31

Equally Constantinopolitan is the very material of which the church was made. Studenicas specific visual identity, defined by the trade-mark glistening white marble facade, a novel and exceptional sight in the broader milieu of its creation in the Balkans around the year 1200, and unique in Serbian medi-eval art, was, naturally, instrumental in creating and conveying her particular statement. As a sign in its own right, present before any of the many subse-quently produced meanings had been read into it, the marble nature of the church, or rather, the nature and inherent symbolic meaning of the marble of which the church was made, is deeply rooted in the long and sophisticated tradition of Byzantine min-erology and ekphrases of this precious material, im-bued with knowledge inherited from the ancients.32

From the very beginning, the acheiropitos quali-ties and symbolic meaning of marble as the mate-rial of choice for the body of this particular struc-ture, must have been highly communicative and suggestive in conveying an image of the Virgin, not made by human hand, of the very seal of shekinah, the mystery of the dogma of incarnation,33 which must have been an efficient sign of prevalence of True Faith against (Bogumil) heresy. The gleaming white stone of the marble church was certainly an ultimate visualisation of the Virgin as Oros of God, eptithets pertaining, very indicatively, to the high-ly prominently positioned Blachernitissa painted above the entrance to the naos, as one of the cen-tral Marian images in the katholikon of Studenica.34

31 Dj. Bokovi, Studenica. Reflections sur sa genese et ses racines, in: 1200. , 125132. It is also interesting to note that there is no trace of the Virgin Evergetis in the preserved fresco decoration of the church dedicated to her in Studenica. M. Tati-Djuri, op. cit., 193194, suggests that an icon of the Evergetis of the Abramiotissa type could have been part of the original iconostasis of the church.32 A. Mottana, Storia della mineralogia antica. I. La min-eralogia a Bisanzio nel XI secolo D.C.: I poteri insiti nelle

pietre secondo Michele Psello, Roma 2005; R. Webb, The Aesthetics of Sacred Space: Narrative, Metaphor, and Motion

in Ekphraseis of Church Buildings, DOP 53 (1999), 5974.33 B. Pentcheva, Visual Textuality, 229230.34 On the iconographic type of Blachernitissa as visualisa-tion of the concept of Virgin as Oros cf. M. Tati-Djuri, op.

J. ERDELJAN100

Studenica, could, in the eyes of the ktetors, Sava above all, procure an image which was to suggest that this Serbian New Jerusalem echoes the ulti-mate universal Constantinopolitan new miracle and example of New Jerusalem, the church of the Virgin of Pharos, precisley for the purpose of dis-playing the appropriation of dogmatic and ideologi-cal ideas contained therein. It is a par excellance Constantinopolitan means of visual representation of the ultimate miracle of True Faith, the Resurrec-tion, which indeed was experienced at the end of the XII century as actually taking place within the sacral space of the Pharos chapel, and of New Jeru-salem status of this dynastic center.44

Contrary to common knowledge and traditional interpretation as an influence of Romanesque ten-dencies reaching Serbia by way of the Adriatic lit-toral, the marble clad facades of the church of the Virgin appear to be most Constantinopolitan of all. In view of all of the above, we must say that the widely accepted and (curiously) never questioned theory of Studenica as a Byzantine style structure clad in Romanesque marble garb no longer seems plausible. Reexamined in this context, the context of Studenica as a New Evergetis, New Constantino-ple, a New Jerusalem, a reliquary of the True Cross, an iconic image of the Incarnation the issue of Studenicas marble facades assumes an entirely dif-ferent purpose and meaning. Thus, its identity in marble appeared not because of the technical prow-ess of skilled sculptors and stone masons from the Adriatic littoral (although we can not and should not dispute and refute their participation in the ac-tual building process) but as an embodiment of a Byzantine concept of this material expounded and lauded in tratises on minerology and ekphrases and, in a sense of making historical allusions pregnant with theological and ideological meaning, as a pos-sible echo of the ultimate and in that vein multiply

copied new miracle and New Jerusalem of Con-stantiople, the Pharos chapel.

44 On New Jerusalem symbolics of the imperial church of the Virgin of the Pharos from the Great Palace of Constanti-nople and the epithet of new miracle, referring to the mir-acle of the Resurrection, ascribed to it by patriarch Photios in his homily on the consecration of the imperial chapel see . . , . - -

, in: : - , 2005, 79108.

ystian from Euboea in Greece. Its marine veining competed with the grey/green sea.40 By the sixth century, however, it was Proconnesian marble, of which the flooring of Hagia Sophia was made, for example, as well as its fittings, the ambo for one, that had largely supplanted Carystian in its power to epitomize the sea. When quarrying the stone, the Byzantines sought out the facets streaked with dove grey seams.41 The aquatic symbolics of Proconne-sian marble were augmented by anthropomorphic readings, such as that by Michael the Deacon in his ekphrasis on the ambo of Hagia Sophia.42 Curi-ous and highly indicative in attempts to understand the true purpose and meaning of marble facading of Studenica are the physical similarities in color and texture between Proconnesian marble and stone from the Radoelo quarries of which the Serbian church was made white marked by broad grayish-blue bands. In Studenica, as in Constantinople, the anthropomorphic allusion of this material, similat-ing human flesh and veins, as well as the effect of flashing of white marble, is used to visualize the ultimate truth as the reflection of light of God, light uncreated unto light uncreated, the Virgin through which shines the True Light of the World which, through the Cross as its signum, is the vexillum of triumph over all evil and demons of the deep in Studenica historically contextualized as the Bogu-mil heretics.

Later, when under the auspices of St. Sava it was augmented against the backdop of a change in wold order around 1204, into a sacral center of the Nemanide state, a New Jerusalem with a pro-nounced dynastic function, could not Studenica, as the Ark of the Covenant and New Jerusalem,43 have been experienced as a new miracle founded by Nemanja and conceptualized by Sava? Within the new set of circumstances and new meanings in-vested in Studenica following the watershed year of 1204, the translation of Nemanjas body in 1207 and the establishing of his cult therein as the pivot of Serbian identity of state and church, this peren-nial symbolism of the refined, sophisticated mate-rial, activated in synegy with the sacral contents of

40 Ibid., 632.41 Ibid., 633.42 C. MangoJ. Parker, A Twelfth-Century Description of St. Sophia, DOP 14 (1960), 233145.43 Cf. supra.

STUDENICA. ALL THINGS CONSTANTINOPOLITAN 101

- - , , - , - , () - . -

- , . - () XII , , I. , -, , , , .