Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T03:11:11.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Date of H. Theodoroi at Athens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

H. Megaw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In my study on the chronology of Middle-Byzantine churches after considering the contrary evidence I accepted the dated inscription in the west front of H. Theodoroi at Athens as a record of the erection of the present building. In an additional note reference was made to an article by Xyngopoulos, published after my own had gone to press. To support his dating of the church in the twelfth century he introduces new arguments which I suggested demanded a re-examination of the evidence. More recently Laurent has dealt conclusively with some of the points in connection with the inscriptions raised by the Greek scholar. But, while his verdict on their content may be accepted with confidence, for the archaeologist the question is not yet closed. Laurent's main theses are that in the first place the date on the smaller stone should be reckoned by the Byzantine era and interpreted as 1049, and, secondly, that the metrical inscription should be attributed to the eleventh century, if not earlier, in preference to the twelfth. However, of the relation of the two stones to one another and to the church into which they are built he speaks with less conviction. He favours the prima facie view that the present building was erected by Kalomalos in 1049, but, if the church is shewn on stylistic grounds to be of later date, he is prepared to dissociate both the dated and the metrical inscription from the foundation and to place the latter in the tenth century or even earlier (p. 82).

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 33 , November 1933 , pp. 163 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 163 note 1 The Chronology of Some Middle-Byzantine Churches (B.S.A. xxxii) 96–97Google Scholar.

page 163 note 2 ( 10, 1933, 450 ff.)Google Scholar.

page 163 note 3 Laurent, V.Nicholas Kalomalos et l'église des Saints Théodores à Athènes (Ἑλληνικα 7, 1934, 72 ff.)Google Scholar.

page 163 note 4 He points out a mathematical error which led Xyngopoulos to reckon by the Alexandrian system. I was persuaded by Xyngopoulos' conviction into accepting his conclusion without confirming his method.

page 163 note 5 He adduces the philological evidence and the probability that the office of Spatha-rocandidatos, which Kalomalos held, disappeared with the eleventh century. This is convincing and the evidence of epigraphic style, which he does not consider, is equally conclusive.

page 164 note 1 Lykodemou—Kapnikarea—K. Exo-narthex—Theodoroi—Daphni.

page 164 note 2 Chron. Mid.-Byz. Churches 93–94.

page 165 note 1 Other ecclesiastical titles occur in the inscriptions, λειτουργός (nos. 5 and 6) and ἱε(ρεύς) (no. 8), and evidently the laymen and women whose names are here recorded also had a close connection with the church. It is more than likely that they contributed towards its erection and in any case they were among its first supporters. It is therefore significant that of the twelve dated epitaphs that of Stephanos is the earliest, all the others, with one exception, falling between the years 1051 and 1071. This is at least a further indication that at the time of his death (1044) the church had not long been completed. Cf. Antonin, , O Drevnikh Kristianskikh Naspis'ach v Afinakh (St. Petersburg, 1874) 1 ffGoogle Scholar. and pl. iii ff.; Millet, L'École grecque 7Google Scholar.

page 165 note 2 Lykodemou c. 1035.

Aikaterine c. 1045.

Kapnikarea c. 1050.

Exo-narthex c. 1060.

Theodoroi c. 1070.

Daphni c. 1080.

page 165 note 3 Megaw Byz. Architecture in Mani supra 139 ff.

page 165 note 4 Vamvaka, north and south gables; Athens, apses and dome.

page 165 note 5 Vamvaka, west gable; Athens, gables and north and south windows of Narthex.

page 166 note 1 Cf. Byz. Architecture in Mani, supra 156–157.

page 166 note 2 The dome windows of Hagia Mone and Merbaka are also double, but the cornices of these Argolis churches being horizontal they are not strictly comparable, while their stone window-dressings put them in quite a different class.

page 166 note 3 Megaw, B.S.A. xxxii 97Google Scholar; Laurent op. cit. 81.

page 166 note 4 Xyngopoulos op. cit. 451.

page 166 note 5 Op. cit. 82.

page 166 note 6 Konstantopoulos, Journ. Int. d'Archéol. Numismatique II (1899) 127Google Scholar; Xyngopoulos op. cit. 453.

page 167 note 1 Inscriptiones Antiquae (Oxford, 1774) 58, xlixGoogle Scholar. His copy gives ΚΑΛΟΜΑΛΟΣ which settles the dispute as to the proper restoration of the name, of which only the first four letters survive.

page 167 note 2 Lambros, ( II, 1878, 70–73)Google Scholar.

page 167 note 3 Pittakis', Hence curious version: Ἐφημ. 38 (1854) no. 2447Google Scholar.

page 167 note 4 Probably before 1889 when Neroutsos published it correctly and complete for the first time (Δελτ. Ἱστ Ἐθν. Ἑτ. III 94)Google Scholar.

page 167 note 5 Constantinides, (Athens, 1876, 295)Google Scholar claimed that the church was restored in 1558. He arrived at that year, as Lambros has pointed out, by mistaking the first letter of the date on the small stone and reckoning it from the Creation.

page 167 note 6 A.J.A. xxxiii (1929) 534 fig. 8Google Scholar.

page 167 note 7 Δελτ. 3 (1917) 206 fig. 150, 6Google Scholar.

page 168 note 1 Op. cit. 18: ‘l'inscription en litige ne peut très vraisemblement pas être postérieure au Xe siècle.’

page 168 note 2 This is surely final proof that the dated stone does not refer to the present church. Were it so a regular rectangular panel would certainly have been cut to fill exactly the space it was to occupy. The stone was in a damaged condition when it was built in, since when it has not been disturbed.

page 168 note 3 Lambros op. cit. 72.