Source: https://docslide.us/documents/the-church-of-kapnikarea-in-athensn-gkioles.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 11:03:36+00:00

Document:
exonarthex, probably dating from the beginning of the 12th century, and the smaller, northern church dedicated to St.
Barbara, built during the Ottoman epoch.
1 D. Gr. Kambouroglou, . . , 14581687, Athens 1889, 226ff; idem, , Athens 1929, 241244; C. Biris, a , Athens 1940, 18; A. Xyngopoulos, , 2 (1929) 69ff; G. Soteriou, 4 (19371938), cf. for p. 168; I. Travlos, , Athens 1993, 244; M. Chatzidakis, Das Byzantinische Athen, Athens s. a., 910; T. Fourtouni, F. Stavroulaki, .
The church of Kapnikarea was given over to the National and Capodistrian University of Athens under a law passed in 1931, preceded by the Professor of Theology, Amilkas Alivizatos, preparatory action. After the completion of necessary restoration works, it has been functioning as a University church since 1935.2 A tradition has called it the Princess church ( ), in an attempt to link the monument with one of the two Byzantine empresses originating from Athens. In the course of the 19th century, the church had also been referred to as The Virgin Mary of Prentzas ( ) the latter being a member of the family of a 1821-Revolution chieftain. Two things associated the name of Prentzas with this church: first, the renovation of the adjacent chapel of St Barbara and, second, the dedication of a precious icon of Virgin Mary to the Kapnikarea church. The name, however, of Kapnikarea3 prevailed after the end of the 1821 Greek War of Independence, so still standing today.
, Athens 2001; St. Mamaloukos, , in: , (journal issued as part of the newspaper Kathimerini, Sunday, the 24th of December, 1995) 1112; E. Kounoupiotou-Manolessou, , in: ibid., 14; N. Gkioles, , , in: , (Sunday, the 22nd of September 2002) 1011; N. Panselinou, Byzantine Athens, Athens 2004, 5455.2 A. Alivizatos, , - 4 (19371938) 169188; G. C. Efthymiou, , 36 (2001) 872.3 For further variants of the name v. Kambouroglou, , 242.
The Kapnikarea church must have originally been the Katholikon of a Monastery. Today, the building 4 A. Christophilopoulou, 1 (610867), Athens 1981, 150, 166171, 325326; P. E. Niavis, The reign of the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus I (A.D. 802811), Athens 1987, 9899.
consists of a complex of three different units joined together; these units were built successively: the most sizeable southern church dedicated to the Presentation of Mary to the Temple, the chapel of St Barbara to the north and the exonarthex with the propylon which are today to the west (Fig. 1).
5 In this particular type of religious building the cross, which is the nucleus of the church, is inscribed in a square. The cross-square, of which consists the naos, is complete; to this an adjacent oblong struc-ture is added, which is roofed at a slightly lower level than the cen-tral square and which constitutes, together with the three apses, the tripartite bema. Cf. A. Orlandos, , 5 (19391940) 316; M. Soteriou, , 4/2 (19601961) 114; N. Gkioles, - (6001204), Athens 1992, 117118.
by early-Christian capitals. Three of these capitals are simple Corinthian ones, whereas one is Corinthian-like with rising reed leaves on the upper zone and acanthus leaves on the lower zone. These capitals can be dated in the early 5th century.6 The slightly elongated angle chambers are roofed by ellipsoid-shaped calottes. Round-shaped-calotte roofs have been associated to the architectural tradition of Constantinople:7 such roofs already appeared in the Middle-Byzantine Katholikon of Petraki Monastery in Athens as early as ca. A.D. 10008 (that is a Katholikon of a form similar to Kapnikareas, except for the angle chambers being perfect squares). As far as ellipsoid-shaped calottes are concerned, these were used to cover oblong rectangular spaces principally in monuments of the Greek School, such as the church of St Thomas at Tanagra;9 at Kapnikarea we meet some of the earliest examples of this roofing. For the roofing of the tripartite bema, at Kapnikarea, the customary solution of using oblong barrel-vaults was preferred.
6 The lower band of acanthus leaves of the SE capital has been hewn out. Due to the limitations in size of this study, the very interest-ing sculptures of the church, most of which have been being re-used, will not be discussed here. They will be considered in a following study. The present study, therefore, refers only to the history, typolo-gy and morphology of the monument. It is unfortunate that the plans of the building published by the National and Metsovion Polytech-nic University in Athens, Department of Architectural Morphology and Rythmology (Collection and Archives of Architectural Research. Byzantine Monuments. Churches in Attica, Athens, June 1970, nos. 1222) are inaccurate in several aspects, especially when it comes to the plotting of the masonry. The plan of the church presented here is based on that of the pre-mentioned publication ; there has, moreover, been made an attempt to correct it under the guidance by my col-league Aphrodite Passali, architect, to whom I seize this opportunity to express my warmest thanks. At the bases of the pendentives which are formed between the barrel-vaults that support the dome there are the holes of the outlets of the built-in sound vessels. For literature about the latter v. K. Tsouris, - , 30, 2 (1999) 275, n. 58.7 St. Mamaloukos, , 4/14 (19871988) 194.8 Soteriou, , fig. 1.9 Mamaloukos, , 194, 198, n. 67, fig. 3; Ch. Bouras - L. Boura, 12 , Athens 2002, 514; A. M. Simakou, B. Christodoulopoulou, , in: . II, Athens 2003, 746, fig.2.10 Soteriou, , 103, fig. 1.11 Gkioles, , fig. 66.
12 Xyngopoulos, , figs. 107, 108.13 Ibid., figs. 7983; Gkioles, , 167168, fig. 85; Ch. Bouras, The Soteira Lykodemou at Athens. Architecture, 4/25 (2004) 1123. Evidence for dating are among other features the burial inscriptions the latest of which dates to the year 1031; about these v. Archimandrite Antonin, O drevnich christianskich nadpis-jach u Afinach, St Petersburg 1884, 1ff; G. Millet, Lcole grecque dans larchitecture byzantine, Paris 1916, 7, n. 1.14 Gkioles, , fig. 66. For the relation of this mon-ument in Athens with that at Phokis v. Ch. Bouras, - . , in: . , Athens 2003, 7374; idem, The Soteira Lykodemou, 2123.
The thin, oblique-cut stone cornices on the facades are limited to the offing height of the semi-dome of the apse, the dome drum and the edges of the pilasters on which the arches stand. Considered to have continued an 15 A. K. Orlandos, - III, Athens 1933, 164, fig. 219.16 E. Stikas, , Ath-ens 19741975, fig. 12; Gkioles, , fig. 86.17 Bouras-Boura, , 325327, fig. 381.18 Ibid., 8185, fig. 70; Gkioles, , fig. 70.19 Gkioles, , fig. 88. For the theme v. Bouras-Boura, , 358359 (with several examples).20 N. Cambi, Triconch churches on Eastern Adriatic, in: 10 I, Thessaloniki 1984, 52; A. H. S. Megaw, A cemetery church with trefoil sanctuary in Crete, in: ibid., II, 321329; I. Stollmyer, Sptantike Trikonchoskirch-en, ein Baukonzept?, Jahrbuch fr Antike und Christentum 42 (1999) 116157; I. D. Varalis, Deux glises choeur trfl de lIllyricum orien-tal. Observations sur leur type architectural, BCH 123, 1 (1999) 195225.21 A. van Millingen, Byzantine churches in Constantinople, London 1912, 242, fig. 77, p. 119, fig. 37, p. 136, fig. 44; Gkioles, , figs. 5054, 57, also correlate fig. 63; J. Morganstern, The Byzantine church at Dereagzi and its decoration, Tbingen 1983, 89, 272.
The narthex has a cross-vaulted roof. Here, the sense of elongation is partly inhibited by the middle barrel-vault, elevated on the axis of the western entrance gate, whose roof stands on a lower level than the one of the western barrel-vault of the church. The middle part is covered by a saddle roof, whereas the lateral parts by sloping roofs leaning to the west. This roofing of the narthex appears to have become the usual one by the middle of the 10th century, in monuments which nowadays meet exclusively in Greece.26 The type of narthex that has its own lower roof which is clearly distinct from the western barrel-vault of the church, is the most wide-spread as well as constant in time.
, 4/1 (1960), fig. 2, pl. 40 (drawing by A. Couchaud, Choix dglises byzantines en Grce, Paris 1842, pls. 41, 42); Panselinou, Byzantine Athens, pls. 1617).28 A. K. Orlandos, , 11 (1935) 411ff; G. Miles, Byzantium and the Arabs: Relations in Crete and the Aegean Area, DOP 18 (1964) 28ff; Bouras-Boura, - , 466.29 P. L. Vokotopoulos, 10 , in: - , Athens 1989, 213; idem, E -, 151.30 Hayer, Saint-Georges, 284285; Vokotopoulos, N - , 163.
feature of partial retreat of the window lights brick-arch, during the first half of the 11th century, as we can see at the Katholikon of Hosios Loukas Monastery, Phokis and at the church of Soteira Lykodemou in Athens.31 It would prevail in architecture after the middle of the 11th century, as it happened in several double-light windows of the church of St Theodores at Klafthmonos Square (ca. A.D. 1065) in Athens.32 The windows of the Athenian type-cupola are single-light ones where the brick step frame is confined to the lights arches (Figs. 4, 5), something common in the 11th century. Whilst at the casing of the two single-light windows at the southern angle chambers, the brick step frame goes down to the sill, as we may see at two churches in Athens: St Nicolas Ragavas at Plaka33 (second half of the 11th century) and St Theodores at Klafthmonos Square34 (ca. A.D. 1065). If we considered the monument from the point of view of window-form-evolution, we could date it in the first years of the second half of the 11th century.
31 H. Megaw, The chronology of some middle-Byzantine churches, ABSA 32 (19311932) 121122; G. Velenis, , Thessaloniki 1984, 113.32 Megaw, Chronology, 120122; Gkioles, , 128; P. L. Vokotopoulos, , 24 (1969) 208, n. 17; E. Kounoupiotou-Manolessou, . , 4/24 (2003) 57. For more examples in Attica v. Velenis, , 113, n. 2.33 Kounoupiotou-Manolessou, , fig. 5.34 Chatzidakis, Byzantinische Athen, fig. 24; Gkioles, -, fig. 47.
35 Megaw, Chronology, 90ff; Vokotopoulos, N , 160ff; Gkioles, , 119ff.36 Gkioles, , 125.37 G. Hadji-Minaglou, Le grand appareil dans les glises des XIXIIe sicles de la Grce du sud, BCH 118 (1994) 161197; E. Stikas, LEglise byzantine de Christianou, Paris 1951, 50, fig. 88; Bouras, Boura, - , 462463.38 Hadji-Minaglou, Le grand appareil, 176, pl. 2, 2; Gkioles, , 121.39 A. H. S. Megaw, Byzantine reticulate revetments, in: . III, Athens 1966, 72ff; N. Nikonanos, , in: , - 1988, 330351; G. Miles, Classification of islamic elements in Byzantine architectural ornaments in Greece, in: Actes du XIIe Congrs International dEtudes Byzantines III, Belgrade 1963, 281ff; idem, Byzantium and the Arabs, 20ff; Gkioles, , 123125.
falling thereafter gradually into decline. At Kapnikarea this sort of brickwork meets at only five points, where simple patterns are visible nowadays in vertical joints of the walls: three of those are at the middle apse (Figs. 6, 7) while two at the south cross-arm.40 As an architectural element used for dating, the advanced decrease of pseudo-kufic patterns in the vertical joints of the walls dates the monument, on the one hand, after the Athenian monuments of Holy Apostles Solaki in the Ancient Forum (ca. A.D. 1000) (where pseudo-kufic patterns are dominant),41 of Soteira Lykodemou at Philhellinon street (ca. A.D. 10151031) and of the destructed church of Prophet Elias at Staropazaro42 (where the use of pseudo-kufic patterns has become limited),43 and on the other hand, before the church of St Theodores at Klafthmonos Square (ca. A.D. 1065)44 (where pseudo-kufic patterns no longer meet at the joints since they are confined to the lunettes of the three-light windows). At this same place (i.e. at the lunettes of the three-light windows of the south and west cross-arms) pseudo-kufic patterns also meet at Kapnikarea. That is, if we follow the declining course of this brickwork decorative pattern, we should place the construction of Kapnikarea somewhat earlier than that of the St Theodores church at Klafthmonos. Certainly, this type of decoration of both the joints and the window-lunettes is what we meet quite simplified, it is true at the churches of St Catherine and St Nicolas Ragavas at Plaka (last quarter of the 11th century). Still, in these last cases, these decorative elements appear in parallel to new, simpler, kufic-like ones, consisting of single bricks and placed under the cornices of the gables, as we shall see later in this study. The latter does not occur at the original church at Kapnikarea.
40 Gkioles, , 137.41 Frantz, The church of Holy Apostles; Gkioles, , 156158.42 St. Sinos, Die sogenannte Kirche des Hagios Elias zu Athen, BZ 64 (1971) 351ff, pl. VI; Nikonanos, -, 344.43 Xyngopoulos, , 8082; Chatzi-dakis, Byzantinische Athen, figs. 1720; Gkioles, -, 167168.44 Xyngopoulos, , 73ff, figs. 6166; Chatzidakis, Byzantinische Athen, figs. 2225; H. Megaw, The date of H. Theodoroi at Athens, ABSA 33 (19321933) 163ff; Gkioles, , 153154.
45 Vokotopoulos, N , 164.46 Gkioles, , 126127.47 Chatzidakis, Byzantinische Athen, figs. 58, 130; A. Vassilaki-Ka-rakatsani, , Athens 1971, pl. 1.48 Vokotopoulos, N , 165.49 Velenis, , 46ff.50 Ibid., fig. 20; Gkioles, , pl. 52.
51 L. Boura, - , Athens 1980, figs. 1, 2. For the relation between the two monuments v. Bouras, - , 7374; idem, The Soteira Lykodemou, 2123. At the church of Panagia the cornice lays at the offing-height of the win-dows arches; this one is chronologically the first example ever in Greece (v. Velenis, , 49).52 Chatzidakis, Byzantinische Athen, fig. 23; Ch. Bouras, Middle-Byz-antine Athens: planning and architecture, in: Athens from the Classi-cal period to the present day (5th century B.C. A.D. 2000), Athens 2000, fig. 8.53 Chatzidakis, Byzantinische Athen, fig. 69.54 Ibid., figs. 40, 51.55 Bouras, Middle-Byzantine Athens, fig. 10. For more examples v. P. L. Vokotopoulos, , 4/21 (2000) 22; Bouras, Boura, , 388, figs. 5, 40, 63, 71, 88, 104, 127, 140, 186, 189, 230, 231, 257, 411.56 Velenis, , 53.57 Ibid., 53; Bouras, Boura, , figs. 23, 40, 71, 187, 410.58 Chatzidakis, Byzantinische Athen, figs. 109, 111, 46.
A new sort of brickwork, originating from Greek decorative themes, also appears for the first time at Kapnikarea. We may attribute this to the phenomenon of a general spirit of classicism prevailing in the Greek School of architecture at this time. The new brickwork theme consists of a gradual decorative pattern,59 a sort of simple meander. We may see this pattern repeatedly at the window lunette of the middle apse of the bema at Soteira Lykodemou church.60 At Kapnikarea, the theme ends in a short band crowning the horseshoe arch of the south entrance gate (Fig. 2) as well as the arch of the double-light window of the prothesis apse.61 This theme, used in either a simple or a more complex way, became quite popular in later years and ended up used with intensively eccentric intentions during the 12th century.62 At Kapnikarea, a similar pattern was used extensively to decorate the posterior exonarthex walls.
59 Megaw, Chronology, 118120, fig. 5A; Nikonanos, - , 348, pl. 9. 60 Megaw, Chronology, 118, pl. 31, 4; Nikonanos, , 348.61 Megaw, Chronology, 118, figs. 5B5H; Nikonanos, - , 348. At the prothesis, it is in most part spoiled; it survives best at its southern starting point. 62 Megaw, Chronology, 118, fig. 5A; Nikonanos, , 348, pl. 9.63 Megaw, Chronology, 131132; L. Philipidou, , - 5 (1970) 8485; Boura, , 2225.64 Boura, , 3940, figs. 56, 61, 62.
The Kapnikarea dome is clearly more simple than that of St Theodores at Klafthmonos Square. In fact, at Kapnikarea, an effort is revealed to adapt the Athenian type of dome to the limited potential of the masons at the Theme of Hellas. Double-light windows have become single-light and waterspouts become especially slender, having now lost the organic connection with the arches among which they come in. They have also lost the naturalism of the Panagia chucrh lion-heads and they are sustained by undecorated dosseret-like capitals. Such capitals, at the church of St Theodores at Klafthmonos Square, still maintain one champlev schematized palmette. Still, the latter monument was the work of a superior military officer (a spatharocandidatos)68 who could probably afford the large expense, unlike the donor of Kapnikarea whose possibly limited finances dictated the limitation of carved ornaments to the most conspicuous marble architectural parts laying at the lower zones of the church. The light and elegant dome of Kapnikarea would serve as model for the posterior examples of the same type.
65 Ibid., figs. 3642.66 Frantz, The church of the Holy Apostles, pls. 8, 24, 25; Boura, , fig. 55; Gkioles, , 131132, pls. 47, 49.67 Boura, , 22ff.68 Xyngopoulos, , 73.69 Sinos, Die sogenannte Kirche des Hagios Elias, 351ff; Nikonanos, , 344.
The church has been planed and constructed with care and interest for a use of new distinct architectural elements introduced in Attica by the Soteira Lykodemou. However it was, successfully adjusted to the local architectural traditions which were being molded in Central Greece at that time. The latter monument, which is closely related to the definitely imperial foundation of the Hosios Loukas Monastery at Phokis, seems to have been also closely related to the government. It could be related to the interest which was demonstrated again by the imperial family on the, at that time, politically and economically unimportant medieval town of Athens.72 Moreover, the town of Athens seems to have always been carrying the baggage of its brilliant spiritual past which distinguished it from other Greek settlements and which the educated Byzantines never ceased to be conscious. As C. Mango noted, the Byzantines never acknowledged an interruption in continuity with the antique civilization.73 The interest now shown on Athens by Constantinople came, on the one hand, from political expediency related to the fact that the Balkans and especially the area of contemporary Greece was becoming strategically important at that time in a way to serve as barrier for the continuously increasing economic power of the West; which was soon to turn out to be the biggest menace to Byzantium, with the Norman raids and the Crusades. On the other hand, that interest was not devoid of 70 Kounoupiotou-Manolessou, , 5758, fig. 6; Megaw, Chronology, fig. 27, 1; Nikonanos, - , fig. 10.71 Kounoupiotou-Manolessou, , 5758; Philipidou, , 8789; Bouras, Boura, -, 52, 3536; Stikas, , 122; Nikonanos, , 346348; Gki-oles, , 126. For the function of these new ele-ments v. Velenis, , 254255; C. Tsouris, -, Kavala 1988, 138139.72 For a similar phenomenon of the 5th century v. J. Burman, The Athenian Empress Eudocia, in: Post-Herulian Athens. Aspects of life and culture in Athens (A.D. 267529), ed. P. Castrn, Helsinki 1994, 80ff; A. Karivieri, The so-called Library of Hadrian and the Tetra-conch church in Athens, in: Post-Herulian Athens, 11112. 73 C. Mango, Antique statuary and the byzantine beholder, DOP 17 (1963) 69. Cf. H. G. Beck, , transl. D. Kourtovik, Athens 1992, 15ff.
74 A. Christophilopoulou, B 2 (8671081), Ath-ens 1989, 172173.75 Cf. Bouras, Middle-Byzantine Athens, 223ff.
the impression of calm spaciousness and employs the predominance of curves to embrace the faithful with intimacy in its bosom, to calm their souls and bring them to discreetly approach God who is always their supporter and never awe-inspiring. The exterior of the monument exudes grace and harmony and light uplift, with the help of the small successive roofs and the alternation of straight and dominating curved lines.
Most probably in the early 12th century, an oblong open portico with double- or single-light openings was added all along the west side of the south church and the adjacent chapel of St Barbara. The openings were defined by wall-piers at the ends and by piers and unfluted columns at the center (Figs. 8, 9).76 The portico was roofed by four saddle-roofs covering an equal number of vaults of which three were transverse barrel-vaults while the second from the south was a cross-vault.
76 Xyngopoulos, , 69ff, figs. 5557; Megaw, Chronology, 107108, 112, 118, 120, 129; Nikonanos, - , 339340, figs. 4, 5, drawing 5; Bouras, Boura, , 4950, 363364, 396, 468, figs. 28, 29, 398, 400.
up with a glass partition in the upper part, thus being transformed in an exonarthex.
The addition of an open portico to the older church may be included in the broader renaissance spirit of the times of emperors of the Macedonian and Comnenian Dynasties. This spirit became more intensive in architecture from the second half of the 11th century onwards and, at the same time, it was lent a mannerist nuance. In this specific case, this appeared with the architectural composition parts presenting a tendency for self-existence; this is also characteristic of antique art. The use of columns and old carved architectural members in the exterior of the church which is quite emphasized at the Kapnikarea portico and will reach a peak a bit later, at the church of Gorgoepikoos;77 the underlined straight lines, the emphasized use of pointed gables, the symmetrical and harmonic arrangement of the openings; last but not least, the interest for a very well-looked-after external brickwork decoration the themes of which were inspired by the Greek decorative arts. The complete degeneration of the eastern pseudo-kufic brickwork decorative patterns which were predominant from the second half of the 10th century:78 all the above reveal intensive extroversion, which appertains to the antique art, a pursuing of perfection and an abandonment, to some degree, of the Byzantine graphic irregularity.
According to the remarks of Ch. Bouras,79 the open porticoes principally on the Greek Byzantine churches western facades constitute a new typological feature of the 12th century. Two more examples with similar arrangement, dating in the 12th century, survive in Attica: at the Monasteries of Daphni and Hosios Meletios.80 Among these monuments, the most impressive, beautiful and light, as well as distinguished for its intense decorative strain aiming to set off the churchs facade is that of Kapnikarea. The other two have simpler facades, due to a lack of windows, while the addition of an upper floor makes them somewhat heavier and gives them more of a functional character.
Large ashlar-blocks coming from ancient building material have been used for the construction of the lower parts of the porticos wall-piers and piers a common practice during the Middle-Byzantine period (Fig. 9). A particularly well-done cloisonn masonry has been employed for the upper part of the portico, starting at the offing-point of the openings lights and going as far up as the roof. Brickwork covers the surfaces which lay under the arches in a skillful and carefully symmetrical way where ashlars would be difficult to use. It also decorates the lateral semi-arches which frame the lobed windows of the gables at their base (Fig. 10).
77 Bouras, Middle-Byzantine Athens, fig. 11.78 Cf. Ch. Bouras, 11 12 , E 4/5 (19661969) 262ff.79 Bouras, Boura, , 363.80 Ibid., 114117, fig. 110, pp. 232235, fig. 262, pp. 363398.81 Millet, Lcole grecque, 207ff; Megaw, Chronology, 126128; Vele-nis, , 262ff.
and artistry. Semi-circular lateral arches at both sides of openings first appeared in Athens at the west gable of Soteira Lykodemou;82 there, they lay at a lever higher than the sill of the opening. Likewise, at the south and west cross-arms of St Theodores at Klafthmonos Square where they are, moreover, placed higher, touching the sloping cornice of the roof and covering the triangular void spaces at both sides of the window. Their quadrant tympanum is filled in with single bricks which either form angles or are arranged in successive horizontal bands83 accordingly.
At the exonarthex of Kapnikarea the lateral semi-arches are arranged on the same line as the window-sills84 and lay in perfect harmony with the accommodating triangular spaces. Still, here one might observe stronger intentions for a decorative role of the lateral semi-arches, since, laying at a certain distance from the sloping roof, they do not serve any structural purpose for completing the triangular void spaces at both sides of the windows. Instead, the void spaces have been completed to a large extent by bricks arranged horizontally or vertically in a way to form successive angles. In a more recherch way here they fill in their quadrant tympana either with successive bands of simple bricks or with degenerated kufic-like patterns.
Certain of these pseudo-kufic patterns recall those of the south church (Fig. 7). Here, moreover, one may notice a rather more advanced tendency for sophistication, refinement and degeneration of older traditional themes. More visible triangular or quadrangular ends are added to the five patterns that look more like those of the church thus making appear new elaborate S-shaped patterns.85 The step pattern, similar to that of the church, occupies more space here, over the double-light openings. At the top of gables there also appear bricks cut in a decorative way, a common practice from the end of the 11th century. All the above, in conjunction with the rest of the classicizing mannerist features that we have already discussed here, allow a dating of the exonarthex much later than the completion of the south church, most probably in the early-12th century.
82 Velenis, , 265266, pl. 87.83 Chatzidakis, Byzantinische Athen, fig. 24; Megaw, Chronology, 127, pl. 31, 3; G. Velenis, , 266.84 Ibid., 266, pl. 87; Megaw, Chronology, 127128, pls. 31.12; Chatz-idakis, Byzantinische Athen, fig. 27; Bouras, Boura, -, fig. 29.85 Cf. Tsouris, , 138.86 Velenis, , 268, n. 1; Bouras, Boura, , 4950, 365366, 411, figs. 28, 29, 439; Bouras, -, 264, n. 98.87 Bouras, Boura, , 365366. For large and more complex propyla v. ibid., 366367; N. Gkioles, - , 5 (19841985) 71ff.
door. The west part of the porticos south wall, which ends at about a half-meter distance from the porticos ceiling thus forming a step, is contemporary to the west wall-pier of the portico. There also was a similar step at the north edge of the portico wall, on which the more recent lobed belfry rests today. There, too, alike the south edge, the roof of the contemporary exonarthex stops slightly further inside in relation to the edge of the chapel wall.
At the SW corner of the building, one may indeed notice a problem when it comes to the effort for a harmonious joining of three different buildings; this resulted to the creation of an inelegant step at the SW edge and to the concealment of parts of the lateral arches of the propylon (Figs. 8, 9). It remains uncertain if there was an according propylon also at the north wall of the portico, which was later ruined together with the north chapel. The similarity in masonry between the propylon and the portico, as well as the way their walls interlace, both provide good grounds for assuming their contemporary construction.
The unfluted thin columns and the small cubic (6th century) capitals which crown them and whose dentelated decoration is cut off at their upper parts, as well as the ones that were used as bases, are all spolia. They probably come from early-christian ciboria. On the capitals rest two marble corbels, each side of which is built in the south wall of the portico.
The propylon has three small brick arches the southernmost of which is wider and slightly horseshoe-shaped so as to harmonize with the one at the southern gate, walled in today, of the church. On the contrary, a similar propylon that meets at the Hagia Moni Areias, outside Nafplion (A.D. 1149),88 has a double poros arch according to a general tendency of the 12th century to substitute stone arches and cornices for brick ones. This in conjunction with the rest of structural and morphological features of the portico indicating that the propylon of Kapnikarea was somewhat anterior to the one of Hagia Moni Areias, during the early-12th century. We may notice the existence of a brick dentil cornice under the buildings intensely sloping five-part-roof that forms gables in three of its four facades. In the inside, the ceiling is a pendentive dome.
It remains strange why the propylon was placed at one of the narrow sides of the portico, framing a new and especially arranged imposing entrance gate, instead of framing the nearby older gate at the south side of the church. Its possible that the portico was originally closed-up serving as an exonarthex since the latter was funtionally necessary in Monasteries Katholika.
88 Bouras-Boura, , 8185, figs. 70, 70, 71, 396, 440.
if not in the late Ottoman period then even more probably shortly after the Liberation of Greece definitely before the 1836-aquarelle, mentioned above, was painted (since in that, the chapel is clearly seen). The tradition suggesting that the 1821-Revolution chieftain, P. Prendzas89 was the donor of the chapel could be based on a fact. It possibly is not unreasonable to suppose that the destruction of the original chapel was caused by a bomb which fell from the Acropolis during its siege by the Turks in the years 18261827 during the Greek War of Independence, as was the case with the church of Soteira Lykodemou.
The above observations allow the assumption that the erection of the north chapel was contemporary with the completion of the south church. The construction of the south church appears to have been interrupted at the offing-height of the apses windows lights and of the lowest dentil course at the south side. Shortly after, when the construction works were resumed, the addition of the north chapel must have been decided. Considerable evidence to support this assumption is conveyed by the difference in the two mortars composition: this of the lower parts of the north church consists of lime, crushed brick and sand and is thick-grained, while that of the upper parts of the south church and of the surviving original wall of the north chapel is of a similar consistence but fine-grained.
After the coating of the western wall of the chapel had been removed to the offing-point of the western openings arch, this wall proved to have been built probably in its whole extent in a Middle-Byzantine cloisonn masonry, similar to that of the surviving piece of masonry at the east side.
89 Kambouroglou, , 244.90 Stikas, , 117, fig. 2; Hadji-Minaglou, Le grand appareil, 176, pl. 2.1.91 Cf. G. Babi, Les chapelles annexes des glises byzantines. Fonction liturgique et programmes iconographiques, Paris 1969, 40ff; S. uri, Architectural significance of subsidiary chapels in Middle-Byzantine churches, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 36 (1977) 94ff; R. G. Ousterhout, The architecture of Kariye Camii in Istanbul, Washington D.C. 1987, 110ff.
The contemporary marble screen was built in 1961/1962, as an imitation of the Middle-Byzantine one (of which one panel was found),92 in order to replace the former high wooden screen dating in 1937/1938.93 The marble shrines in relief on the sanctuary piers, which frame the two despotic icons of Christ and the Virgin, must belong to the same period of 1961/1962.
92 Lazarides, (19611962), , 50, pl. 52.93 Chatzidakis, Byzantinische Athen, fig. 30; Alivizatos, , 177178, figs. 12, 13.94 Those were N. Papanikolaou and G. Karpodinis, whose inscrip-tions survive in the diakonikon. 95 N. Zias, , Athens 1991, 110111, 128129, figs. 290, 291, 293, 382385.96 Ibid., 110, n. 3; Alivizatos, , 177178 (here, it is incor-rectly stated that the sketch was made by the artist Stergiadis (?); , 1620 , Athens 1997 (entry Voila-Laskari, Elli); for the mosaic at Hosios Loukas cf. M. Chatzidakis, , Athens 1996, fig. 32.
- , , . XIX . 1935. . - () . - , .
, , - XI . - - . - XII . , . XI . 1961. , .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.