Marcus L. Rautman

Ignatius of Smolensk and the Late Byzantine Monasteries ofThessalonikiIn: Revue des études byzantines, tome 49, 1991. pp. 143-169.

AbstractREB 49 1991 France p. 143-169M. L. Rautman, Ignatius of Smolensk and the Late Byzantine Monasteries of Thessaloniki. — The «Description of Thessaloniki»,written by the Russian pilgrim Ignatius of Smolensk c. 1405, is one of the earliest accounts by medieval travelers to the lateByzantine city and an important witness to its ecclesiastical landscape. Recently published documents and study of the survivingmonuments permit a reappraisal of the text within the architectural and historical context of early 15th- century Thessaloniki. Thisanalysis clarifies certain implicit limitations of the pilgrim's account and illustrates the problems of medieval topographic research.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Rautman Marcus L. Ignatius of Smolensk and the Late Byzantine Monasteries of Thessaloniki. In: Revue des étudesbyzantines, tome 49, 1991. pp. 143-169.

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1991_num_49_1_1838

IGNATIUS OF SMOLENSK

AND THE LATE BYZANTINE

MONASTERIES OF THESSALONIKI*

Marcus L. RAUTMAN

Crossroads of empire, queen of the Aegean, mother of all Macedonia, Thessaloniki has since its foundation stood poised between East and West, attracting visitors to its fairs and markets and forming a celebrated meeting ground for very different Mediterranean worlds. As the largest port and commercial center between Venice and Constantinople, Thessaloniki was an important stop for Western travelers on their way to the Byzantine court, and later to the Sublime Porte in Istanbul. The city was no less frequented by Eastern visitors, ranging from medieval pilgrims journeying to Constantinople and Mount Athos to Turkish sailors and geographers, from Piri Re'is to Hadji Chalfa and Evliya Çelebi. Common to the accounts of most visitors to Thessaloniki in medieval and early modern times are references to and at times even vivid recollections of the city, its setting, inhabitants and above all its architectural monuments, ranging from antiquity to the present day. Ringed by sturdy fortifications and overlooked by a steep citadel, medieval Thessaloniki continuously impressed its guests with its setting, people, markets, palaces, and especially its churches and monasteries, which were found in such numbers as to make the city a model of Orthodox piety.1

* My work with Ignatius and his "Description" of the monuments of Thessaloniki has benefited from helpful discussion with Prof. George P. Majeska, although I am responsible for any problematic interpretations that remain.

1. For a selection of medieval enkomia on Thessaloniki see V. Täpkova-Zaimova, La ville de Saint-Démétrius dans les textes Démétriens, Ή Θεσσαλονίκη μεταξύ 'Ανατολής xal Δύσεως (= Πρακτικά συμποσίου τεσσαρακονταετηρίδος της 'Εταιρείας Μακεδόνικων Σπουδών, 1980), Thessaloniki 1982, ρ. 21-30. The accounts of travelers to the city are discussed in K. Simopoulos, Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες στην 'Ελλάδα MV, Athens 1970-1979;

Revue des Études Byzantines 49, 1991, p. 143-169.

144 M. L. RAUTMAN

The historical value of such written sources for reconstructing a picture of medieval Thessaloniki can hardly be overstated. Together with the surviving monuments, travel accounts provide essential evidence for understanding the city's people and topography. Ottoman documents and later records survive in relative abundance, but the city is much less well represented among the preserved Byzantine sources.2 Amidst this dearth the testimony of the Russian pilgrim Ignatius of Smolensk assumes special significance, both for the timing of his record and for the contents of its abbreviated but important text.

Few details of Ignatius' life are known.3 Internal literary evidence in the three works attributed to him, the "Journey to Constantinople" (1389), the "Abbreviated Chronicle" (c. 1402) and the "Description of Thessaloniki and the Holy Mountain" (c. 1405), suggest that he came from western Russia, perhaps indeed Smolensk. He traveled to Constantinople in mid-1389 as part of the entourage of Bishop Michael, and remained in the capital through the 1390-1391 revolt and the coronation of Manuel II in February 1392. It is unclear whether Ignatius briefly returned to Russia or remained in the Balkans around the turn of the century: his "Abbreviated Chronicle" mentions both the 1396 earthquakes at Athos and a fire at the Great Lavra complex in 1404.

The text of the "Description" has been less thoroughly treated than those other accounts attributed to the pilgrim.4 Unlike the other

and across the province in J. Lefort, et al., Paysages de Macédoine. Leurs caractères, leur évolution à travers les documents et les récits des voyageurs, Paris 1986. General historical surveys remain Ο. Tafrali, Thessalonique, des origines au xiv siècle, Paris 1919; Idem, Thessalonique au quatorzième siècle, Paris 1913; A. Vacalopoulos, A History of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 1963; and recently A. Papagiannopoulos, History of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 1985.

2. The Ottoman sources are discussed by M. Kiel, Notes on the history of some Turkish monuments in Thessaloniki and their founders, Balkan Studies 11, 1970, p, 123-156; H. Lowry, Portrait of a city: The population and topography of Ottoman Selânik (Thessaloniki) in the year 1478, Δίπτυχα 2, 1980-1981, p. 254-293; B. Demetriades, Τοπογραφία της Θεσσαλονίκης κατά την εποχή της Τουρκοκρατίας 1430- 1912, Thessaloniki 1983.

3. For a recent appraisal see G. P. Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Washington 1984, p. 48-73.

4. The Russian text is published in Khozdenie Ignatiia Smolnianina, 1389-1405, ed. S. V. Arseniev, Pravoslavnyi Palestinskii Sbornik 12, IV, 3, St. Petersburg 1887. Early editions of Ignatius' "Description" are discussed by Majeska, Russian Travelers. The account is most widely known in the West by Mrs. B. de Khitrowo, Le pèlerinage d'Ignace de Smolensk, 1389-1405, Itinéraires russes en Orient, I, I, Geneva 1889, p. 127-164, at 147; reprinted in J. P. A. Van der Vin, Travellers to Greece and Constantinople: Ancient Monuments and Old Traditions in Medieval Travellers' Tales,

IGNATIUS OF SMOLENSK 145

manuscripts, it refers to Ignatii Smolnianin in the third person and places him in Thessaloniki in 1405. In further contrast to the detailed descriptions of places and monuments in Constantinople, the "Description" is a bare list of churches. Ignatius' discussion of Mount Athos includes the Great Lavra and 33 other chapels, which he notes with fair accuracy; yet his familiarity with the Athonite monasteries seems limited to the Lavra and its immediate dependencies.5 The section dealing with the monuments of Thessaloniki is even shorter:

In the year 1405 (6913) Ignatius of Smolensk was in Thessaloniki and venerated St. Demetrius and St. Theodora the myrrh exuding, receiving their holy myrrh, and toured the wondrous monasteries. These are: Vlatades (Vivlotades), and Isaak, Latomou (Elatomu), Akapnios (Apo- kniya), Nea Mone, Philokalous, metocheion Chortiates, Prodromos, Pantodynamos, Gorgoepekoos (Gorgoniko). The parish churches are: St. Sophia the Metropolis, Acheiropoietos (Akhironiti), and Holy Asomatoi and many others. The city itself is also very wondrous.

Ignatius' brevity has been ascribed to the incomplete state of his writings, to which he may have intended to return and elaborate at a later date. The textual tradition of the account, though, leaves little doubt that the extant text is that left by the Russian pilgrim c. 1405. 6

Even in its present laconic form, Ignatius' "Description" is one of the most important accounts documenting late Byzantine Thessaloni- ki's urban topography. The text dates from a critical and poorly understood period of the city's history immediately following Thessaloniki's first Ottoman occupation, which lasted from 1387 until the city was returned to Manuel II Palaeologos by treaty in 1403. 7

Leiden 1980, p. 599. The only systematic analysis of the "Description" is by M. Laskaris, Ναοί καΐ μοναί Θεσσαλονίκης το 1405 εις τό όδοιπορικόν τοϋ έκ Σμόλενσκ 'Ιγνατίου, Τόμος Κωνσταντίνου 'Αρμενοπούλου (= 'Επιστημονική Έπετηρίς της Σχολής Νομικών και Οικονομικών τοΰ 'Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης 6), Thessaloniki 1952, ρ. 315-344.

5. Majeska, Russian Travelers, p. 55-56. 6. The textual history of the "Description" has been extensively discussed by

K. D. Seemann, Zur Textüberlieferung der dem Ignatij von Smolensk zugeschriebenen Werke, Polychordia. Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburtstag, II (= Byzantinische Forschungen 2), Amsterdam 1967, p. 345-369, who answers some of the doubts concerning Ignatius' actual authorship of the "Description" raised by Laskaris, Ναοί και μοναί, ρ. 316-318.

7. Concerning the first occupation of Thessaloniki see G. T. Dennis, The second Turkish capture of Thessalonica, 1391, 1394, or 1430?, BZ 57, 1964, p. 53-61; Idem, The Byzantine-Turkish treaty of 1403, OCP 33, 1967, p. 72-88 (both reprinted in Byzantium and the Franks, London 1982); J. W. Barker, Manuel II Palaeologus (1391- 1425): A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship, New Brunswick/NJ 1969, p. 446-453; D. Balfour, Politico-Historical Works of Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica (1416/17- 1429), Vienna 1979, p. 113-116; and M. Delîlba§i, Selânik ve Yanya'da Osmanh Egemenliginin Kurulmasi, Turk Tarih Kurumu Belleten 199, 1987, p. 75-106, at 75-92.

146 M. L. RAUTMAN

At the time of Ignatius' supposed visit in 1405 Thessaloniki was a city of multiple identities, host to its Palaeologan overlords, Venetian merchants and Ottoman neighbors.8 Ignatius mentions none of this in his text, which exists in a social and historical vacuum. It simply records a number of the best known religious attractions in the city: the relics of St. Demetrius and St. Theodora, ten monasteries, and three parish churches. Little controversy surrounds the two famous saints of Thessaloniki. The city's patron saint is still to be found in his late 5th-century church located on the eponymous Odos H. Demetriou.9 The remains of St. Theodora formerly resided in the katholikon of the H. Theodora monastery, which is attested as late as 1669 and may have been located near the church of H. Sophia.10 The question of the parish churches, the metropolitan H. Sophia, the basilica of the Virgin Acheiropoietos and the Archangels, has been discussed extensively and with general agreement concerning their locations.11 The other monasteries mentioned by Ignatius are

8. For a recent overview see S. Vryonis, jr., The Ottoman conquest of Thessaloniki in 1430, Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society, Birmingham-Washington 1986, p. 281-321, esp. 282 n. 2, with further references.

9. P. Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des Miracles de Saint Démétrius et la pénétration des Slaves dans les Balkans, Paris 1979; and for the later sources, C. Walter, St. Demetrius: The Myroblytos of Thessalonika, Eastern Churches Review 5, 1973, p. 157-178 (Studies in Byzantine Iconography, London 1977). For the building see still G. and M. Soteriou, Ή βασιλική τοϋ Άγιου Δημητρίου Θεσσαλονίκης, Athens 1952; R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l'empire byzantin, II. Les églises et les monastères des grands centres byzantins, Paris 1975, p. 365-372; and now J.- M. Spieser, Thessalonique et ses monuments du IVe au ν Ie siècle. Contribution à l'étude d'une ville paléochrétienne, Paris 1984, p. 165-214.

10. P. N. Papageorghiou, Zur Vita der hl. Theodora von Thessalonike, BZ 10, 1901, p. 144-158; O. Tafrali, Topographie de Thessalonique, Paris 1913, p. 185, 199- 200, locates the monastery west of H. Sophia; Janin, Grands centres, p. 374-375. S. KlSSAS, Ή μονή της μικρής 'Αγίας Σοφίας στή Θεσσαλονίκη, Ή Θεσσαλονίκη 1, 1985, ρ. 325-340, proposes an identification with the "small H. Sophia monastery" known from a mid 16th-century Serbian source.

11. Anagnostes, Διήγησις περί της τελευταίας αλώσεως της Θεσσαλονίκης 20 (Bonn, ρ. 522-525); cf. Η. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, I, Munich 1978, p. 484-485. The topography of the monuments is discussed in T. L. F. Tafel, De Thessalonica ejusque agro dissertatio geographica, Berlin 1839, p. 107-136; M. Hadji Ioannou, Άστυγρχφία Θεσσαλονίκης, Thessaloniki 1880, p. 69; Tafrali, Topographie, p. 154-55; G. Tsaras, Ό τέταρτος καθολικός ναός τής Θεσσαλονίκης στό Χρονικό Ί. 'Αναγνώστη, Βυζαντινά 5, 1973, ρ. 167-184; Demetriades, Τοπογραφία, ρ. 35; and in general Vryonis, Ottoman conquest, p. 314-315. The church of the Asomatoi gave its name to the western quarter of the city near the Galerian Rotunda, even if the letter's dedication in late Byzantine times remains unsettled; see G. I. Theocharides, Ό ναός των 'Ασωμάτων και ή Rotonda τοϋ 'Αγίου Γεωργίου Θεσσαλονίκης, 'Ελληνικά 13, 1954, ρ. 24-70; cf. W. Ε. Kleinbauer, The original name and function of Hagios Georgios at Thessaloniki, CA 22, 1972, p. 55-60.

IGNATIUS OF SMOLENSK 147

more challenging to locate both among the written sources and within the urban topography. All underwent important changes during the city's 500 years of Turkish administration, with resulting alterations in vocables, traditions and use, as well as building forms. In an article written almost forty years ago Michael Laskaris first sought to identify the monuments mentioned by Ignatius.12 This pioneering study has remained central to all topographic exploration of late Byzantine Thessaloniki but can be expanded by the contributions of recent work with the Athonite archives and Turkish defterler. While the ongoing publication of important archival material will allow further refinements, these new resources can already be applied to Ignatius' document.

Vlatadon.

The monastery that heads Ignatius' list is one of the most securely identifiable. "Vivlotades" is an evident corruption of "Vlatades," the patrocinium of the monastery of Christ Pantokrator των Βλαττάδων, which still stands near the upper city walls overlooking modern Thessaloniki.13 The history of this venerable patriarchal foundation has recently been discussed in detail.14 Documents record that the monastery was established in the third quarter of the 14th century as an ex voto by two brothers, Markos and Dorotheos Vlates, the future metropolitan of the city.15 The foundation is often mentioned in late Byzantine written sources, indicating that the monastery was one of the best known in Thessaloniki in Ignatius' day.16 After a brief hiatus following the city's final Turkish capture in 1430, the foundation was reestablished in 1466 by a firman of Murad II.17 By the later 16th century the Vlatadon included the Lagoudiata, H. Athanasios,

12. Laskaris, Ναοί και μοναΐ. 13. Laskaris, Ναοί και μοναί, ρ. 320; Tafrali, Topographie, p. 192-193; Janin,

Grands centres, p. 356-358. 14. G. I. Theoch arides, Οί ίδρυταί της έν Θεσσαλονίκη μονής των Βλαττάδων,

Πανηγυρικός Τόμος τοϋ 'Εορτασμού της Έξακοσιοστης 'Επετείου τοϋ Θανάτου τοΰ Άγιου Γρηγορίου τοϋ Παλαμά, Thessaloniki 1960, ρ. 49-70; G. Α. Stogioglou, ' Η έν Θεσσαλονίκη πατριαρχική μονή των Βλατάδων, Thessaloniki 1971; and Janin, Grands centres, p. 356- 358.

15. MM, II, no. 661, p. 520-524 (= J. Darrouzès, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, I. Les actes des patriarches, VI. Les regestes de 1377 à 1410, Paris 1979, no. 3222, p. 444-445 [1401]); PLP 2, 1977, no. 2818-2819, p. 81.

16. P. N. Papageorghiou, Ή έν Θεσσαλονίκη μονή τών Βλαταίων και τα μετόχια αύτης, ΒΖ 8, 1899, ρ. 402-428, at 412; Stogioglou, Μονή τών Βλατάδων, ρ. 61-62.

17. Stogioglou, Μονή των Βλατάδων, ρ. 167-169; Janin, Grands centres, p. 357.

148 M. L. RAUTMAN

and H. Nikolaos Orphanos metocheia among its possessions.18 Travelers to Thessaloniki frequently mentioned the Çavus Monastir, as the Vlatadon monastery was known during the late medieval and early modern periods.19

In its late Byzantine state the Vlatadon monastery comprised a small katholikon set within a walled enclosure on the steep rocky slopes of the upper city. A cistern fed by springs outside the city walls provided the resident monks with a dependable supply of water.20 The katholikon was built on a reduced inscribed-cross plan using masonry piers in place of monolithic columns for interior support.21 Paired chapels flanked the sanctuary, connected by a continuous U-shaped ambulatory that opened outward in short, composed colonnades. The building has suffered considerable damage with time and its ambulatory was extensively rebuilt at the beginning of the 19th century.22 Recent excavations and study of the church have revealed that the building's foundations, the south parek- klesion's marble floor, and perhaps parts of the rising walls date from the late 13th or early 14th century. The structure was rebuilt on a similar plan and decorated at the time of the monastery's apparent refoundation by the brothers Vlates.23

Perivleptos.

The second monastery on Ignatius' inventory is also well attested in the medieval sources.24 The earliest known mention of a local foundation dedicated to the Theotokos Perivleptos occurs in two

18. I. K. Vasdbavelles, 'Ιστορικά Άρχει« ΜχκεΒονίχς Γ'. Άρχεϊον μονής Βλχττά8ων (1446-1839), Thessaloniki 1955, ρ. 2; Stogioglou, Μονή των Βλχτά8ων, ρ. 173-200.

19. Stogioglou, Μονή των Βλχτά8ων, ρ. 69-80; Demetriades, Τοπογρχφίχ, ρ. 265- 267.

20. Α. Xyngopoulos, Κινστέρνα και φρέαρ βυζαντινών χρόνων εις τήν Θεσσαλονίκη, 'Επιστημονική ΈπετηρΙζ της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής τοϋ 'Αριστοτελείου Πχνεπιστημίου Θεσσχλο- νίκης 7, 1957, ρ. 49-60.

21. Α. Xyngopoulos, Τέσσχρες μικροί vxol της Θεσσχλονίκης έκ των χρόνων των Πχλχιολόγων, Thessaloniki 1952, ρ. 49-62.

22. Xyngopoulos, Τέσσχρες μικροί νχοί, ρ. 56-60; Stogioglou, Μονή των Βλχτά8ων, ρ. 81-88.

23. Ε. Chatzetryphonos, Τό μαρμαροθετημένο δάπεδο στό νότιο παρεκκλήσιο τοΰ καθολικού της μονής Βλατάδων, Κληρονομίχ 14, 1982, ρ. 375-496; Ch. Mavropoulou- Tsioumi, Οι τοιχογραφίες της μονής Βλατάδων, τελευταία αναλαμπή της βυζαντινής ζωγραφικής στη Θεσσαλονίκη, Ή Θεσσχλονίκη 1, 1985, ρ. 231-254; D. Makropoulou, Από το υστεροβυζαντινό νεκροταφείο της μονής Βλατάδων, Ή Θεσσχλονίκη 1, 1985, ρ. 255-309; Ρ. Theodorides, Η στερέωση της μονής Βλατάδων (1981-1984), Ανχστυλώσεις βυζχντινών κχι μετχβυζχντινών μνημείων (= Πρακτικά του διεθνούς συμποσίου Θεσσαλονίκης 1985), Thessaloniki 1986, ρ. 105-122.

24. Laskaris, Ναοί καί μοναί, ρ. 320-321 ; Janin, Grands centres, p. 386-388.

IGNATIUS OF SMOLENSK 149

Middle Byzantine texts, cod. Vind. Theol. gr. 19 and cod. Viat. Ottob. 451. 25 An edition of Phötios' Bibliolheca annotated while in the Perivleptos library c. 1300 preserves an important note concerning the foundation: it was located έν μέση τη περιφηανεϊ πόλει Θεσσαλονίκη, and it was built, or more properly rebuilt, έξ αυτών κρηπιδών by its patron, Isaak.26 Theocharides has identified this donor with the city's metropolitan Iakovos, who assumed the monastic name Isaak upon retiring from church office c. 1300. 27

Occasional official references to the Perivleptos-Kyr Isaak monastery document its continued functioning into the early 15th century.28 The foundation was celebrated in a poem by Manuel Philes and in various letters by its residents and visitors.29 Thomas Magistros lived for a while at the monastery in the early 14th century, apparently while Isaak was still alive, and Matthew Vlastares retired there in 1335. 30 Ignatius' reference to the Perivleptos is the latest known mention of the foundation under this name.31

25. M. Vogel and V. Gardthausen, Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance, Leipzig 1909, p. 354, 379.

26. Marc. gr. 450-451. See E. Martini, Textgeschichte der Bibliotheke des Patriarchen Photios von Konstantinopel. I. Teil. Die Handschriften. Ausgaben und Übertragungen (= Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 28,6), Leipzig 1911, p. 16-19; for the date cf. F. Lenz, Die Aristidesexzerpte des Marcianus Graecus 451, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 11, 1934, p. 227-246, at 230-232 ("frühes 14, oder Uebergang vom 13. zum 14. Jahrhunderts").

27. G. I. Theocharides, Ό Ματθαίος Βλάσταρις και ή μονή τοϋ κύρ-Ίσαακ έν Θεσσαλονίκη, Byz. 40, 1970, ρ. 437-459, at 446-450; Ρ. Β. Paschos, Ό Ματθαίος Βλαστάρης χαί τό ύμνογραφικόν έργον του, Thessaloniki 1978, ρ. 51-60; and Μ. L. Rautman, Notes on the metropolitan succession of Thessaloniki, c. 1300, REB 46, 1988, p. 147-159, at 150-152.

28. L. Petit and V. Korablev, Actes de Chilandar, St. Petersburg 1911, no. 27, p. 59-64 (1314); P. Lemerle, et al., Actes de Laura, II. De 1204 à 1328, Paris 1977, no. 109, p. 220-278 (1321); Moscow cod. no. 236, Munich cod. no. 508 (Theocharides, Ό Ματθαίος Βλάσταρις, p. 439-441, with further references [1335]); N. Oikonomidès, Actes de Docheiariou, Paris 1984, no. 38, p. 218-221 (1366); MM, II, no. 481, p. 235 (= Darrouzès, Regestes, VI, no. 2982, p. 250-251 [1395]); MM, no. 670, p. 535-540 (= Darrouzès, Regestes, VI, no. 3231, p. 453-454 [1401]).

29. E. Miller, Manuelis Philae carmina, I, Paris 1855, p. 68-70; Markos in PLP 7, 1985, no. 17086, p. 123-124 (before c. 1312); R.-J. Loenertz, Gregorii Acindyni epistulae selectae IX, EEBS 27, 1957, p. 89-109, at no. 5, p. 97-101 and no. 8, p. 105- 107; Letters of Gregory Akindynos, ed. A. C. Hero, Washington 1983, no. 74, p. 294-298 (1347/48).

30. Letter to Isaak concerning an audience with Theodore Metochites c. 1314-1318 in M. Treu, Die Gesandtschaftsreise des Rhetors Theodulos Magistros, Festschrift C. F. W. Müller (= Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Suppl. 27), Leipzig 1902, p. 5- 30; also letter to Metochites as grand logothete (after 1321) concerning the monastery of Kyr Isaak in PG 145, 1865, cols. 419-424; cf. PLP 7, 1985, no. 17086, p. 123-124. For Vlastares see Hunger, Literatur, p. 71-72; Paschos, Ό Ματθαίος Βλαστάρης; PLP 2, 1977, no. 2808, p. 80.

31. Two manuscripts copied by Emmanuel Embaibenes in the mid-16th century

150 M. L. RAUTMAN

The written tradition surrounding the Perivleptos monastery reflects its prominence in late Byzantine Thessaloniki and helps account for Ignatius' inclusion of it in his list of the city's monasteries. The general topographic reference to the middle of the city encouraged Theocharides to identify the foundation with the building known in Ottoman times as the I§akiye Camii, the present H. Panteleimon.32 This building was apparently both built and decorated around 1300. In its original form the church presented an inscribed cross plan on four internal columns with a three-part sanctuary and domed narthex. A continuous ambulatory and second narthex with lateral domes, now lost, surrounded this building core and terminated in paired lateral chapels.33 Some of the monastic cells and parts of the enclosure wall survived into the early 20th century and the naos itself still stands in the lower city near the Rotunda34.

Lalomos.

The μονή του Λατόμου may be the oldest foundation mentioned by Ignatius.35 Dedicated to Christ του μεγάλου θεοϋ και Σωτήρος, the

monastery is mentioned as early as the 9th century in the Life of Joseph the Hymnographos.36 Its date of founding, however, may be

mention the Perivleptos monastery and its patron Isaak (cod. Ambr. gr. 885 and Monac. gr. 30), and led Theocharides to assume that the monastery still existed in 1548 (Theocharides, Ό Ματθαίος Βλάσταρις, p. 450-451). However, Demetriades, Τοπογραφία, ρ. 356-358 n. 95, has demonstrated that the texts were copied by Embaibenes from the Marc. gr. 450-451 manuscripts, which date from the time of Isaak and his refounding of the Perivleptos; see above, n. 26.

32. Theocharides, Ό Ματθαίος Βλάσταρις, ρ. 454-456. Recent objections to this identification raised by Demetriades focus on reference to the Perivleptos in the 11th and 12th centuries, and so overlook the common late Byzantine practice of monastic refoundation; cf. Rautman, Notes, p. 156-158. Demetriades' attempt to relocate the Perivleptos further south of the H. Panteleimon church relies on incomplete evidence involving the putative existence of an 'Αγία 'Ισαάκ συνοικία in 1478 (for an alternative reading of the disputed text see H. Lowry, Portrait of a city, p. 273-274) and its supposed topographic incompatibility with H. Panteleimon. For a detailed response see G. I. Theocharides, review of Demetriades, in Μακεδόνικα 23, 1983, p. 375-408, at 387-392.

33. The H. Panteleimon church still lacks a thorough published study; for now see Ch. Diehl, M. Le Tourneau and H. Saladin, Les monuments chrétiens de Salonique, Paris 1918, p. 167-175; and for the painting see A. Tsitouridou, Zidno slikarstvo Svetog Pantelejmona u Solunu, Zograf 6, 1975, p. 14-20. The traditional date c. 1300 accords with recent archaeological finds from the site; see Άρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 34, 1979, Β', ρ. 284.

34. Tafrali, Topographie, p. 178-179, 199. 35. Laskaris, Ναοί και μοναί, p. 321; Janin, Grands centres, p. 392-394. 36. Life of Joseph c. 830: PG 105, 1862, cols. 939-976, at 945; V. Grumel, La

mosaïque du 'Dieu Sauveur' au monastère du 'Latome' à Salonique, EO 29, 1930, p. 157-175, at 167-168.

IGNATIUS OF SMOLENSK 151

still earlier. The monastery appears only infrequently in later medieval sources. It is mentioned in the 11th-century diegesis of Ignatius, hegoumenos of the Akapnios monastery, who apparently describes its apse mosaic.37 Around 1277 the emperor Michael VIII gave the foundation and its possessions to his son as part of a larger endowment including the double monastery of the Theotokos Makrinitissa and the Nea Petros Prodromos.38 An act of 1369 names as witness a monk Kyros of the μονή του Λατόμου.39 The complex was taken for Turkish use as the Murad Camii shortly after the city's capture in 1430. 40

The location of the Latomos monastery was in the upper part of the city, not far below the Vlatadon monastery. Topographic and archival evidence associates the foundation with the small building known today as Hosios David, which still serves as the katholikon of a small convent. A remarkable apse mosaic dating from the 5th or 6th century survives within the present structure as well as a fragmentary cycle of middle Byzantine wall paintings.41

Akapnios.

The fourth monastery on Ignatius' list is also familiar from Byzantine sources. The μονή του Άκαπνίου was one of several establishments founded c. 1018 by St. Photios of Thessaly, who passed through Thessaloniki while accompanying Basil II on his campaigns of that year.42 The original dedication of the monastery was probably to Christ Soteros, although later sources are curiously

37. Diegesis of Ignatius: A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Varia sacra graeca, Sbornik greceskih neizdannih bogoslovskih tekstov. Recueil de textes théologiques grecs inédits du iv- v siècle, 1909, p. 120-113; C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1453, Englewood Cliffs/NJ 1972, p. 155-156; cf. Grumel, La mosaïque, p. 161.

38. MM, IV, no. 3, p. 336-339; F. Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches, III. Regesten von 1204-1282, 2nd ed. Munich 1977, no. 2031a, p. 132-133.

39. W. Regel, E. Kurtz, and B. Korablev, Actes de Zographou, St. Petersburg 1907, no. 44, p. 101-104, at 102. V. Grumel, Le fondateur et la date de fondation du monastère thessalonicien d'Acapniou, EO 30, 1931, p. 91-95.

40. Demetriades, Τοπογραφία, ρ. 319-320. 41. Tafrali, Topographie, p. 196-198; Janin, Grands centres, p. 393 n. 4, with

sources; and more recently P. Grossmann, Zur typologischen Stellung der Kirche von Hosios David in Thessaloniki, Felix Ravenna 127/130, 1984/1985, p. 253-260. For the mosaic see J. Snyder, The Meaning of the 'Majestas Domini' in Hosios David, Byz. 37, 1969, p. 143-152, 144-145 n. 3, with earlier references. The wall paintings have been discussed by E. N. Tsigaridas, Οι τοιχογραφίες της μονής Λατόμου Θεσσαλονίκης και η βυζαντινή ζωγραφική του 12ου αιώνα, Thessaloniki 1986.

42. Grumel, Le fondateur, p. 91-95; Laskaris, Ναοί καΐ μοναί, ρ. 321; Janin, Grands centres, p. 347-349.

152 M. L. RAUTMAN

silent.43 The monastery's common name comes from its patrons, members of the Akapnios family, who are known from middle Byzantine sources.44 The hegoumenos Ignatius wrote his diegesis that mentions the mosaic of the Latomos monastery in the 11th century.45 In 1154 another hegoumenos Nicetas attended the meetings held between Basil of Ohrid and Anselm of Havelberg.46 The prestige of the foundation in Thessaloniki is attested by the number of references to the monastery in later medieval texts. The Akapnios' renown extended as far as Rome during Thessaloniki's Latin occupation, when the monastery enjoyed special privileges under papal protection.47 Its name also occurs in numerous Greek texts from the late 13th and 14th centuries.48 As late as 1401 the house was disputing a property at Kollydros with the Nea Mone, an altercation that required patriarcal attention.49 The Akapnios is named in an inscribed book of 1404. 50 The liturgical works of Symeon, metropolitan of Thessaloniki from 1416/17 to 1429, mention relics and icons held by the monastery on the eve of the Turkish conquest.51 Despite this abundance of textual evidence, no known source helps locate the foundation within the city.52

43. Dedication to Christ mentioned in MM, I, no. 89, p. 191-194 (= J. Darrouzès, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, I. Les actes des patriarches, V, Les regestes de 1310 à 1376, Paris 1977, no. 2191, p. 146-148); also Janin, Grands centres, p. 349 n. 7.

44. G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l'empire byzantin, Paris 1884, p. 547. 45. Above n. 37. 46. J. Schmidt, Des Basilius aus Achrida Erzbischofs von Thessalonich, bisher

unedierle Dialog, Munich 1901, p. 34-35; Janin, Grands centres, p. 347. 47. Letter of Innocent III to the "abbati et conventui Acapni," PL 216, 1891,

no. 36, col. 227. 48. Collected in Janin, Grands centres, p. 347-349. Also Lemerle, et al., Actes de

Laura, II, no. 90, p. 77-95 (1300); no. 108, p. 180-219 (1321); D. Papachryssanthou, Actes de Xénophon, Paris 1986, no. 15, p. 137-140 (1321); no. 20, p. 162-166 (1324); no. 22, p. 169-173 (1333); no. 25, p. 184-197 (1338); Oikonomidès, Actes de Docheiariou, nos. 34-35, p. 205-213 (1361); nos. 43-44, p. 240-245 (1375); J. Lefort, Actes d'Esphig- ménou, Paris 1973, no. 30, p. 170-177 (1393).

49. MM, II, nos. 453-454, p. 200-203; no. 660, p. 518-520 (= Darrouzès, Regestes, VI, no. 2943-2944, p. 220-221 [1394], no. 3221, p. 442-444 [1401]).

50. Esphigmenou cod. 91; Ο. Volk, Die byzantinischen Kloslerbibliotheken von Konstantinopel, Thessalonike und Kleinasien, Munich 1955, p. 112-116 for other holdings. Cf. J. Darrouzès, Obits et colophons, Χαριστήριον εις Άναστάσιον Κ. Όρλάνδον, I, Athens 1965, ρ. 299-313, at 302, 309-310.

51. Janin, Grands centres, p. 349; I. M. Phountoules, Μαρτυρίαι τοϋ Θεσσαλονίκης Συμεών περί των ναών της Θεσσαλονίκης, 'Επιστημονική Έπετηρις της Θεολογικής Σχολής τοϋ 'Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης 21 , 1976, ρ. 125-186, at 167.

52. Tafrali, Topographie, p. 194; Janin, Grands centres, p. 347, speculates in the upper city.

IGNATIUS OF SMOLENSK 153

Nea M one.

The Nea Mone may be the most extensively documented of the late Byzantine monasteries of Thessaloniki. The foundation is first mentioned in a series of patriarchal letters of 1380-96 and appears in Palaeologan documents as late as the early 15th century.53 According to these sources the Nea Mone was founded c. 1360 by Makarios Choumnos, who dedicated the complex to the Theotokos.54 After Choumnos was called to Constantinople shortly before 1374, construction was continued by his pupil Gabriel, the future metropolitan of Thessaloniki (1397-1416/17). As the recipient of Constanti- nopolitan patronage and metropolitan support over a period of 300 years, the Nea must have been a major building project undertaken in the city at a time when little other construction activity is known. Occupied by 19 monks at the end of the 14th century, the Nea would have been a substantial late Byzantine establishment.55 Its power and growth in Palaeologan Macedonia are reflected in such contemporary documents as the Nea's seemingly endless disputes with the Akapnios monastery over properties in the village of Kollydros.56 A similar conflict between the Nea and the convent of the Anargyroi concerning possessions in Thessaloniki was

53. Laskaris, Ναοί και μοναί, p. 321-322; V. Laurent, Le métropolite de Thessalo- nique Gabriel (1397-1416/19) et le couvent de la ΝΕΑ ΜΟΝΗ, 'Ελληνικά 13, 1954, p. 241-255; Idem, Écrits spirituels inédits de Macaire Choumnos (f c. 1382), fondateur de la 'Nea Moni' à Thessalonique, 'Ελληνικά 14, 1955, p. 40-86; Idem, Une nouvelle fondation monastique de Choumnos, la Néa Moni de Thessalonique, BEB 13, 1955, p. 109-127; G. I Theocharides, Ή Νέα Μονή Θεσσαλονίκης, Μακεδόνικα 3, 1953-1955, ρ. 334-352; Idem, Δύο νέα έγγραφα αφορώντα εις τήν Νέαν Μονήν Θεσσαλονίκης, Μακεδόνικα 4, 1955-1960, ρ. 315-351; G. Τ. Dennis, The Beign of Manuel II Palaeologus in Thessalonica, 1382-1387, Rome 1960, p. 97-101; Janin, Grands centres, p. 398-399; A. Goulaki Voutira, Zur Identifizierung von Paläologenzeitlichen Kirchen in Saloniki, JOB 34, 1984, p. 255-264, at 256-257 n. 7.

54. On the name see R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l'empire byzantin, I. Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique, III. Les églises et les monastères, 2nd éd. Paris 1969, p. 365.

55. Laurent, Une nouvelle fondation, p. 116-117; P. Charanis, The monk as an element of Byzantine society, DOP 25, 1971, p. 63-84 (= Society, Economy and Political Life in the Byzantine Empire, London 1973), at p. 71-72, who finds the standard size of Byzantine monasteries to range from ten to twenty monks; cf. A. M. Bryer, The late Byzantine monastery in town and countryside, The Church in Town and Countryside (= Studies in Church History 16), Oxford 1979, p. 219-241, at 225-227.

56. MM, II, no. 660, p. 518-520 (= Darrouzès, Begestes, VI, no. 3221, p. 442-444 [1401]).

154 M. L. RAUTMAN

resolved by Manuel II in 1415. 57 The monastery apparently survived the second Turkish capture of the city in 1430 but is not securely attested after 1432. 58

This rich textual tradition preserves several clues to the location of the Nea. The most helpful is contained in an enkomion written by the Metropolitan Gabriel, who locates the monastery on the ruins of a palace: ό μέν ποιμήν τον κάλλιστον της πόλεως τόπον άπολεξάμενος, ινα δήποτε και βασίλεια ΐδρυτο.59 Throughout its history Thessaloniki had been blessed with numerous palaces. The best known is the complex built by the Tetrarchic emperor Galerius c. 300, which has been partially excavated in the Plateia Navarino in the eastern part of the lower city.60 Apart from the Rotunda, which was probably converted to ecclesiastical use around the mid-5th century, the Galerian complex with its triumphal arch, hippodrome and residential spaces remained in imperial use through the 6th century. Yet this complex was not the only such building in the medieval city. From the 5th century Thessaloniki apparently also possessed the residences of the Illyricum prefect, the vicar of Macedonia and the local archbishop.61 The imperial palaces are the best documented in the literary sources. John Kaminiates says that he served as a cleric and kouboukleisios τον εν τοις οϊκοις των βασιλείων at the time of the city's supposed Arab capture in 904. 62 In the 13th century the city enjoyed a special prominence as capital of the Kingdom of Thessaloniki, first under Boniface of Montferrat and later under Theodore and

57. P. Lemerle, Autour d'un prostagma inédit de Manuel II: l'aulè de sire Guy à Thessalonique, Silloge bizantina in onore di Silvio-Giuseppe Mercati (— Studi bizantini e neoellenici 9), Rome 1957, p. 271-286; P. Lemerle, et al., Ades de Lavra, III. De 1329 à 1500, Paris 1979, no. 163, p. 163-166 (1415).

58. Contract between the Nea Mone and Constantine Magklavites: P. Lemerle, et al., Ades de Lavra, III, no. 168, p. 183-185 (1432). A note in an as yet unpublished Athonite codex (Panteleimon no. 88, Athos 5594) mentions a foundation of this name dedicated to the Koimesis c. 1556, but its relevance to the Choumnene Nea is unclear; see Janin, Grands centres, p. 339.

59. Laurent, Le métropolite Gabriel, p. 253-254. 60. E. Dyggve, La région palatiale de Thessalonique, Ada Congressus Madvigiani,

I, Copenhagen 1958, p. 353-365; N. Moutsopoulos, Contribution à l'étude du plan de la ville de Thessalonique à l'époque romaine, Atti del XVI congresso di storia dell'architetlura, Alêne, 1969, Rome 1977, p. 186-264; M. Cagiano de Azevedo, II palazzo impériale di Salonico, Felix Ravenna 115, 1978, p. 7-28; cf. the recent overview by Spieser, Thessalonique et ses monuments, p. 97-123.

61. B. Croke, Thessalonika's early Byzantine palaces, Byz. 51, 1981, p. 475-483; cf. Spieser, Thessalonique et ses monuments, p. 99 n. 118.

62. Kaminiates, De expugnatione Thessalonicae, 55, 7, ed. G. Böhlig, Berlin-New York 1973, p. 48; cf. Hunger, Literatur, p. 357-359; and A. P. Kazhdan, Some questions addressed to the scholars who believe in the authenticity of Kaminiates' 'Capture of Thessalonica', BZ 71, 1978, p. 301-314, at 301.

IGNATIUS OF SMOLENSK 155

Michael II Angelos Doukas.63 The Palaeologan empress Eirene (Yolanda of Montferrat) stayed in Thessaloniki from 1303 to 1317, as later did Michael IX, co-emperor with Andronikos II, and Andronikos III.64 John Kantakouzenos refers to the palace destroyed in the Zealot Uprising of 1342-1349. 65 John V Palaeologos used Thessaloniki as his capital from 1350 to 1354, while Anna of Savoy resided as Augusta and Autokratorissa εις το Θεοφρούρητ(ον) παλάτιον between 1351 and 1365. 66 The city's episcopal residence is mentioned by Eustathios, Apokaukos, and the 15th-century Metropolitan Symeon.67 Ottoman Selânik possessed further palaces for the use of the city's Turkish officials. In 1521 the geographer Piri Re'is found the palace of Murad II in the eastern city near the Arch of Galerius.68 Related structures such as Caravansarays stood throughout the lower city and at the close of the Ottoman period the municipal Konak was found near the present Dioiketerion.69

In light of the abundance of ruined, former, and occupied palaces in medieval Thessaloniki, it is unsurprising to find more than one neighborhood toponym preserving such memories. In recent times at least two quarters still bore the name Balat, a common derivation of

63. Tafrali, Thessalonique, des origines, p. 212-231; D. M. INicol, The Despotate of Epiros, Oxford 1957, p. 103-140.

64. On Eirene's reign in Thessaloniki see Gregoras, Byzantina Historia 7,5-6 (Bonn, I, p. 233-249); Pachymeres, De Andronico Palaeologo 5,5 (Bonn, II, p. 378- 379); Kantakouzenos, Historia 1, 53-54 (Bonn, I, p. 271-273); H. Constantinidi- Bibicou, Yolande de Montferrat, impératrice de Byzance, L'Hellénisme contemporain 4, 1950, p. 425-442; Dennis, The Reign of Manuel II, p. 52.

65. Kantakouzenos, Historia 3,38 (Bonn, II, p. 232-237). 66. Kantakouzenos, Historia 4, 38-39 (Bonn, III, p. 275-290); Gregoras,

Byzantina Historia 29, 5 (Bonn, III, p. 226); Oikonomidès, Ades de Docheiariou, nos. 34-35, p. 205-213 (1361). Concerning Anna of Savoy's stay in Thessaloniki see R.-J. Loenertz, Chronologie de Nicolas Cabasilas, 1345-1354, OCP 21, 1955, p. 205- 231, at 215-220; D. Nicol and S. Bendall, Anna of Savoy in Thessalonica: The numismatic evidence, Revue numismatique 19, 1977, p. 87-102, at 92-93.

67. Eustathios, De Thessalonica urbe a Latinis capta narratio, 90, 96, ed. T. L. F. Tafel, Opuscula, Frankfurt 1832, p. 267-307; cf. ed. J. R. Melville Jones, Canberra 1988, p. 211, 213. Apokaukos in E. Bees-Sepherles, Aus dem Nachlass von N. A. Bees: Unedierte Schriftstücke aus der Kanzlei des Johannes Apokaukos des Metropoliten von Naupaktos (in Aetolien), BNJ 21, 1971-1976, Suppl., p. 1-243; cf. P. Magdalino, The literary perception of everyday life in Byzantium: Some general considerations and the case of John Apokaukos, Byzantinoslavica 48, 1987, p. 28-38, at 32-33; Phountoules, Μαρτυρίαι τοϋ Θεσσαλονίκης Συμεών, ρ. 173-174.

68. Piri Re'is Bahrije, Das türkische Segelhandbuch für das mittelländische Meer vom Jahre 1521, II, ed. P. Kahle, Berlin-Leipzig 1926, p. 25-26.

69. Demetriades, Τοπογραφία, ρ. 409-413; Theocharides, Τοπογραφία, ρ. 18, mentions the use of earlier spolia in the foundations of the Dioiketerion. For further discussion see M. L. Rautman, Observations on the Byzantine palaces of Thessaloniki, Byz. 60, 1990, p. 292-306.

156 M. L. RAUTMAN

παλάτιον. One neighborhood of this name stood in the lower city, just north of the Hamza Bey Camii. Another district, the synoikia Eski Serayi, was also known as Balal in the 19th century after lingering traditions surrounding the Eski Saray Camii.70 Today dedicated to the Prophetis Elias, the building is one of the largest churches built in the late Byzantine city. Its plan and building techniques bespeak a 14th-century date for its construction; moreover, its Turkish appellation suggestively links the building with the Nea Mone, as has been argued by Theocharides.71 Together with the monumental evidence of the late Byzantine church itself, the persistence of local tradition reinforces the identification of the Prophetis Elias with Makarios Choumnos' Nea Mone.

The architecture of the building remains largely unstudied. Mentioned only in passing by Texier and Diehl in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Prophetis Elias was extensively restored in the 1950s.72 Old photographs document the presence of substantial building remains beneath the south and east sides of the present church, which have been plausibly linked with the earlier palace mentioned in the literary sources. The church bears the stamp of Athonite design in its triconch plan on four columns.73 An elaborate two-story lite or narthex with flanking chapels and exterior portico

70. M. B. A. Hadji Chalfa, Bumeli und Bosna, geographisch beschrieben, trans. J. von Hammer, Vienna 1812, p. 77; Hadji Ioannou, Άστυγραφίχ Θεσσαλονίκη, ρ. 91; P. N. Papageorghiou, 'Αρχαία είκών τοϋ μεγαλομάρτυρος 'Αγίου Δημητρίου τοΰ πολιούχου Θεσσαλονίκης έπί έλεφαντοστέου, ΒΖ 1, 1892, ρ. 479-487, at 482-486; Tafrali, Topographie, p. 117; A. I. Adamantiou, Ή βυζαντινή Θεσσαλονίκη, Athens 1914, ρ. 125-126; Demetriades, Τοπογραφία, ρ. 301.

71. Theocharides, Δύο νέα έγγραφα, ρ. 343-351; Idem, Τοπογραφία και πολιτική ιστορία της Θεσσαλονίκης κατά τόν ΙΔ' αιώνα, Thessaloniki 1959, ρ. 17-18; Janin, Grands centres, p. 374, 399. This identification has found widespread acceptance; see C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture, New York 1974, p. 277; R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 4th ed., Harmondsworth 1986, p. 432. M. Vickers, A note on the Byzantine palace at Thessaloniki, Annual of the British School at Athens 66, 1971, p. 369-371, sought to identify the structure with the 5th- century praetorion on the basis of stamped bricks found by Texier in the mid-19th- century. In his attempt to relocate the Nea to the more southerly Balal quarter, Demetriades, Τοπογραφία, ρ. 302-303, overlooks the multiple palaces hosted by a city of Thessaloniki's administrative importance; see also Theocharides in Μακεδόνικα 23, 1983, p. 398-402. Traces of Christological frescoes discovered in the narthex do not preclude the building's dedication to the Theotokos.

72. BCH 82, 1958, p. 761; 83, 1959, p. 709 figs. 28-29. Ch. Texier and R. P. Pullen, Byzantine Architecture, London 1864, p. 150-151 (dated 11th century), pis. LII-LV; Diehl-Le Tourneau-Saladin, Les monuments chrétiens, p. 203-211.

73. A. K. Orlandos, Ή κάτοψις τοϋ Προφήτου Έλία της Θεσσαλονίκης, Άρχέϊον των βυζαντινών μνημείων της Έλλά8ος, Ι, 1935, ρ. 178-180; cf. P. Mylonas, Le plan initial du catholicon de la Grande-Lavra au Mont Athos, et la genèse du type du catholicon athonite, CA 32, 1984, p. 89-112.

IGNATIUS OF SMOLENSK 157

precedes the building and reflects the importance of late Byzantine monastic ritual in the building's design. Its colorful banded masonry and brickwork decoration are distinctive among Thessaloniki 's late Byzantine churches and characterize this last example of a millennium of Christian building in the city.

Philokalous.

The monastery of Christ Pantokrator του Φιλοκάλους is attested as early as 1112.74 According to tradition, St. Savas of Serbia made a donation to the monastery in 1202 and briefly resided there in 1219. Several texts testify to the foundation's prominence in the Latin period and under restored Byzantine rule. Patriarch Athanasios in 1304/05 wrote concerning the appointment of its abbot and Nikode- mos of Verroia visited there briefly before his death in 1307. The foundation apparently benefited from the patronage of the Serbian kral Milutin, who built a church dedicated to H. Nikolaos close to the monastery. Its renown extended to Manuel Philes, who praised its gold evangelary. The σεβάσμιας βασιλικής μονής τοϋ δεσπότου και σωτήρος υμών Χρίστου και έπικεκλημένης του Φιλοκάλου is also known to have possessed an hagiasma, whose desecration was the subject of a patriarchal synod in September 1325. 75 Philotheos Kokkinos was abbot of the monastery when he wrote Nikodemos' enkomion, before serving as hegoumenos of the Athonite Lavra c. 1346/47 and patriarch of Constantinople in 1353-1354 and 1364-1376. A decree of Matthew I in July 1401 designated the monastery's abbot as patriarchal exarch for Thessaloniki, Verroia, Larissa, and all lesser Thessaly.76 Its appearance in Ignatius's account is the last known reference to the foundation.

The location of the monastery remains unclear. Theocharides has suggested a location in the eastern part of town near the church

74. Oikonomidès, Actes de Docheiariou, no. 3, p. 60-73 (1112). For other sources see Tafel, De Thessalonica, p. 143; Laskaris, Ναοί και μοναί, ρ. 322-324; Janin, Grands centres, p. 418-419; A. Tsitouridou, Manastir Filokal u Solunu, Sava Njemanjic-sveti Sava. Istorija i predonje, Belgrade 1979, p. 263-268; and especially G. I. Theocharides, Μία έξαφανισθεϊσα σημαντική μονή της Θεσσαλονίκης. Ή μονή Φιλοκάλλη, Μκχε8ονιχά 21, 1981, ρ. 319-348, at 327-337, for the Philokales family.

75. MM, I, no. 64, p. 140-143 (= Darrouzès, Regestes, V, no. 2128, p. 96-97; H. Hunger and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, 1. Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1315-1331, Vienna 1981, no. 95, p. 534-541).

76. P. Magdalino, Some additions and corrections to the list of Byzantine churches and monasteries in Thessalonica, REB 35, 1977, p. 277-285, at 282. For the decree of Matthew see MM, II, no. 662, p. 524 (= Darrouzès, Regestes, VI, no. 3223, p. 445); Theocharides, Ή μονή Φιλοκάλλη, ρ. 326.

158 M. L. RAUTMAN

known today as H. Nikolaos Orphanos. The architecture and preserved fresco decoration of the Orphanos church date from the early 14th century, which would support its connection with Milutin's artistic patronage in the city.77

Chortiates.

The Chortiates is perhaps the only clearly dependent metocheion on Ignatius' list. This complex and its mother foundation are mentioned in a number of Byzantine sources.78 Two seals της μονής Χορταϊτου known from the 11th and 12th centuries carry images of the Virgin, orant and en buste with a medallion of the infant Christ, indicating the monastery's dedication to the Theotokos.79 Two letters of Innocent III refer to the "monasterii Sanctae Mariae de Chortato," which was briefly taken by Cistercian monks from Italy during Thessaloniki's Latin occupation.80 An act from the Athonite Iviron monastery mentions the monk Nicander, who was responsible for the metocheion του Χορταϊτου in the later 13th century.81 Chronicles and documents from the 14th century mention the foundation and made it clear that the principal house stood outside Thessaloniki with its dependencies located close to the city walls.82 The latter's general location near the acropolis can also be inferred

77. Tafrali, Topographie, p. 199; Tsitouridou, Manastir Filokal, p. 263-268; Theocharides, Ή μονή Φιλοκάλλη, p. 337-348. For the church of H. Nikoiaos Orphanos see also Xyngopoulos, Τέσσαρες μικροί ναοί, p. 29-44; Idem, Οι τοιχογραφίες τοϋ Άγιου Νικολάου 'Ορφανού Θεσσαλονίκης, Athens 1964; Idem, L'église de Saint-Nicolas Orphanos et les constructions du kral Miloutine à Thessalonique, Balkan Studies 6, 1965, p. 181- 185.

78. Tafel, De Thessalonica, p. 252-254; Laskaris, Ναοί και μοναί, ρ. 324-325; Janin, Grands centres, p. 414-415; Lowry, Portrait of a city, p. 271-272. Concerning the monastery see A. P. Vakalopoulos, Ή παρά τήν Θεσσαλονίκην βυζαντινή μονή τοϋ Χορταϊτου, EEBS 15, 1939, ρ. 280-287.

70. V. Laurent, Le corpus des sceaux de l'empire byzantin, V, 2. L'Église, Paris 1965, no. 1242, p. 164-165; V, 3. Supplément, Paris 1972, no. 1936, p. 241.

80. PL 216, 1891, n° 162, cols. 915-952; Laurent, Corpus, V, 2, p. 165. The monastery's ownership in the early 13th century and the date of its return to Orthodox use are disputed; cf. J.-M. Canivez, DHGE 12, 1953, col. 763.

81. Janin, Grands centres, p. 414 n. 7. 82. Gregoras, Byzantina Historia 8, 11 (Bonn, I, p. 351-359, at 356); Kantakouze-

nos, Historia 1, 31 and 53 (Bonn, I, p. 149-152 and 267-272); N. Oikonomidès, Actes de Kaslamonilou, Paris 1978, no. 3, p. 35-45 (1317); Petit-Korablev, Actes de Chilandar, no. 31 (1316), p. 71-73; no. 36 (1318), p. 83-84; no. 38 (1319), p. 87-91; no. 129 (1339), p. 269-272; Papachryssanthou, Actes de Xénophon, no. 28, p. 204-207 (1348); Regel- Kurtz-Korablev, Actes de Zographou, no. 44 (c. 1351), p. 101-104; Oikonomidès, Actes de Docheiariou, no. 35 (1361), p. 208-213; M. Gedeon, Πατριαρχικαι Έφεμερί8ες, Ι, Athens 1936, p. 45 (1369). For the village see Lefort, Paysages, p. 139.

IGNATIUS OF SMOLENSK 159

from Anagnostes' account of the city's capture in 1430, when the Turks are said to have attacked Thessaloniki between the Trigonian tower and ή μονή τυγχάνει του χορταίτου. In his account Ignatius clearly refers to an urban dependency standing immediately within or outside the upper city walls.83

Prodromos.

The monastery of the Prodromos was a well-known dependency of the Athonite Iviron monastery in the 14th century, although its proprietary status in Ignatius' day is less certain. A foundation of this name was established before 945 by the parents of Constantine VII; its early history is attested by two acts of 975 and 1059/74, and a praktikon of 1104.84 The foundation was also known in 10th-century sources as τήν μονήν του Λεοντίου, and passed into the hands of the newly established Iviron monastery around 980. 8δ A metocheion of the Prodromos figures prominently among the urban possessions of the Iviron as late as 1357. 86 Whatever its status at the end of the century, the foundation was well known among the citizens of Thessaloniki. Both Symeon and Anagnostes mention that a monastery of the Prodromos was one of those taken for Islam sometime during the Turkish occupation of 1387-1403, during which some of

83. Anagnostes, Διήγησις 11 (Bonn, p. 501-503). The sources do not make clear the number, exact locations, and changing status of the Chortiates' possessions around Thessaloniki; see Tafel, De Thessalonica, p. 138, 252-254; Tafrali, Topographie, p. 27; A. Vakalopoulos, 'Ιστορικές έρευνες έξω άπό τα τείχη της Θεσσαλονίκης, Μακεδόνικα 17, 1977, ρ. 1-39, at 12-13; Ν. Κ. Moutsopoulos, Monasteries outside the walls of Thessaloniki during the period of Slav raids, Cyrillomethodianum 11, 1987, p. 129-194, at 138-140.

84. F. Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches, I. Regesten von 565-1025, Munich-Berlin 1924, no. 652, p. 81; Idem, Ein Fall slavischer Einsiedlung im Hinterlande von Thessalonike im 10. Jahrhundert, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1952, 1, Munich 1952, p. 1-28, at 6-9; J. Lefort, et al., Ades d'Iviron, I, Paris 1985, no. 2, p. 109-113 (975); and II, Paris 1989, no. 32 (1059/74) and no. 52 (1104). Laskaris, Ναοί και μοναί, p. 325; Janin, Grands centres, p. 406; G. I. Theocharides, Μία έξαφανισθεϊσα μεγάλη μονή της Θεσσαλονίκης. Ή μονή τοϋ Προδρόμου, Μακεδόνικα 18, 1978, ρ. 1-26; and most recently J.-P. Grélois, À propos du monastère du Prodrome à Thessalonique, Byz. 59, 1989, p. 78-87.

85. Dölger, Ein Fall, p. 10-11 n. 4; Theocharides, Ή μονή τοϋ Προδρόμου, ρ. 6-12; Grélois, À propos du monastère, p. 83; cf. Janin, Grands centres, p. 394-395.

86. F. Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern des heiligen Berges, Munich 1948, no. 68/9, p. 198-202 (1317); no. 70/1, p. 202-204 (1320); no. 72/3, p. 204-205 (1341); no. 9, p. 43- 47 (1357). For other references to the Thessaloniki Prodromos see Lefort, Actes d'Esphigménou, no. 22, p. 139-143 (1346, apparently going back to the 13th century; cf. p. 24 n. 87, where located in quarter of the Asomatoi); Oikonomidès, Actes de Docheiariou, no. 35, p. 208-213 (1361).

160 M. L. RAUTMAN

the refugee Προδρομηνοΐς could be found at the Akapnios.87 Its prompt return to Orthodox use is attested by Ignatius as well as a chrysobull of John VII that mentions a σεβάσμιας και βασιλικής μονής of this dedication in 1407. Together with the church of the Virgin Acheiropoietos, the Prodromos is named by Anagnostes as the first monastery converted by Murad II upon the city's 1430 capture.88

The appearance of the monastery in the 12th century is known by a recently published praktikon of John Komnenos. The katholikon was built of brick and stone and covered by a tile roof. Preceded by a timber porch, the church had a two-storied narthex, a naos with four marble columns, and a sanctuary with three apses. The interior had a paved marble floor and was decorated with a stone templon with chancel screen and interior wall paintings. The monastery's conventual buildings were apparently built of stone and mudbrick and arranged about a series of courts, which included a well with notably brackish water.89 Theocharides first suggested a location near the Acheiropoietos basilica for the Prodromos, which he associated with 9th-century building remains excavated in the 1930s on the probable site of the Süleymaniye Camii. Topographic references in the 1104 praktikon reinforce the monastery's probable location at the center of lower Thessaloniki, a little below the Roman agora.90

Pantodynamos.

The monastery of Christ Pantodynamos mentioned by Ignatius is otherwise attested by only a single recently published document, the testament of Theodore Kerameas.91 Writing in 1284, the former

87. MM, II, no. 660, p. 518-520 (= Darrouzès, Ftegestes, VI, no. 3221, p. 442-444 [1401]); Anagnostes, Διήγησις 18 (Bonn, p. 518-520); Theocharides, Ή μονή τοϋ Προδρόμου, ρ. 5.

88. F. Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches, V. Regesien von 1341-1453, Munich 1964, no. 3209, p. 34; Lemerle, et al., Actes de Lavra, III, no. 159, p. 144-149; Anagnostes, Δι-ήγησις 18 (Bonn, p. 518-520); Balfour, Politico- Historical Works, p. 253.

89. For the praktikon see Lefort, et al., Actes d'Iviron, II, no. 52; Grélois, À propos du monastère, p. 81-87. For general considerations of late Byzantine residential architecture see D. Papachryssanthou, Maisons modestes à Thessalonique, Άμηταζ στή μνήμη Φωτίου Άποστολοπούλου, Athens 1984, ρ. 254-267.

90. Tafrali, Topographie, p. 95, sought to locate the monastery north of the church of H. Demetrios, while Demetriades, Τοπογραφία, ρ. 279-280, 309-310, proposes that the Prodromos was transformed into the small Fethiye Camii of the second Turkish occupation, which he locates further south. Cf. Theocharides, Ή μονή τοϋ Προδρόμου, p. 17-23; Grélois, À propos du monastère, p. 86-87. The excavations are discussed by D. Evangelides, Είκονομαχικα μνημεία έν Θεσσαλονίκη, 'Αρχαιολογική Έφημερίς, 1937, p. 341-351.

91. Lemerle, et al., Actes de Lavra, II, no. 75, p. 27-33; IV, p. 205.

IGNATIUS OF SMOLENSK 161

metropolitan of Thessaloniki Theodore endows this foundation which he had established several years earlier with a church of H. Nikolaos του Έξαπολίτου, several vineyards and a fishpond, and charges his brother Nikolaos Kerameas, grand domestic of the western themes, with completing work on the monastery. Nothing is known of Theodore as metropolitan of Thessaloniki; his absence from the official Synodikon suggests that he was deposed from office, probably by Manuel VIII.92 He apparently resided in Ohrid around 1272/73. 93 His metropolitan tenure in Thessaloniki, and thus the founding date of the Pantodynamos monastery, can be narrowed between these dates and 1284, when he wrote his Testament. As a metropolitan foundation that also benefited from imperial support, the Pantodyna- mos monastery deserves to be better known than these two texts allow.94

The testament of Theodore Kerameas offers no clues to the original location of the Pantodynamos. Writing before this document's publication, Laskaris and Janin confused this monastery with a local foundation of the Pantokrator.95 Vacalopoulos tried to link the Pantodynamos with the Soteros naiskos still standing near the Arch of Galerius.96 A more recent study sought to identify the Pantodyna- mos with the present church of H. Aikaterini on the basis of its preserved frescoes. While the building's paintings are too fragmentary to identify its original dedication to Christ, a more serious obstacle is the accepted dating of the building to c. 1300 or slightly later.97

Gorgoepekoos.

The final monastery on Ignatius' list is the "Gorgonikon," an evident corruption of Γοργοεπεκόου.98 Monasteries of this dedication to

92. Cf. J. Gouillard, Le Synodikon de l'Orthodoxie: Édition et commentaire, TM 2, 1967, p. 1-316, at 114.

93. Pachvmeres, De Michaele Palaeologo 4,32 (Bonn, I, p. 334-336). 94. For Theodore Kerameas see PLP 5, 1981, no. 11638, p. 172. J. P. Thomas,

Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Empire, Washington 1987, p. 250 n. 23, identifies Michael VIII as a co-founder of the Pantodynamos.

95. Laskaris, Ναοί και μοναί, p. 325-326; Janin, Grands centres, p. 416-417; cf. Tafrali, Topographie, p. 199.

96. A. Vakalopoulos, To έν Θεσσαλονίκη παρεκκλήσιον Παναγίας Έλεούσης και ό περί αυτό χώρος, EEBS 13, 1936, ρ. 239-259; for the building see Xyngopoulos, Τέσσαρες μιχροί ναοί, ρ. 67-75. It now appears that the church dates from the mid-14th century and was originally dedicated to the Virgin; see E. Kourkoutidou-Nikolaidou, To εγκαίνιο του ναού του Σωτήρος στη Θεσσαλονίκη, Ή Θεσσαλονίκη 1, 1985, ρ. 205-217.

97. GouLAKi VouTiRA, Zur Identifizierung, p. 260-261. The church of H. Aikaterini lacks a monograph; see Diehl-Le Tourneau-Saladin, Les monuments chrétiens, p. 179-186; H. Hallensleben, BZ 66, 1973, p. 120-132; Krautheimer, Architecture, p. 429-431.

98. Laskaris, Ναοί και μοναί, p. 326-327; Janin, Grands centres, p. 380;

162 M. L. RAUTMAN

the Virgin were not common in the Palaeologan period, although both Constantinople and Thessaloniki possessed a foundation of this name." Several other sources refer to the foundation in Thessaloniki. Among the witnesses Theodore Kerameas names in his testament of 1284 are several ecclesiastics from the see of Thessaloniki, including the hegoumenos Dionysios and an unnamed oikonomos, both of the μον(ής) της Γοργοεπηκόου.100 A slightly later document is a praktikon of the apographeos Demetrios Apelmene dating from March 1301, which mentions the properties of the Gorgoepekoos monastery at Ptelea.101 Neither of these documents indicates the location of the monastery within Thessaloniki. The continued existence of the foundation is attested as late as a 1361 horismos of Anna of Savoy.102 Xyngopoulos sought to tie the Gorgoepekoos with the well-known church of the HH. Apostoloi, which still stands near the city's western fortification wall, south of the Litea gate. As was the case with the Pantodyna- mos, however, the existence of late 13th-century texts precludes the identification with an early 14th-century building.103

Thessaloniki in 1405.

This provisional inventory of ten religious foundations in Thessalo- niki offers a representative sample of the physical and written sources attesting a centrally important facet of late Byzantine society. While the details of this reconstruction will be clarified by further

A. Xyngopoulos, Μονή των Άγιων 'Αποστόλων ή μονή της Θεοτόκου;, Προσφορά είζ Στίλπωνα Π. Κυριαχβψ (= Έλλψιχά. Παράρτημα 4), Thessaloniki 1953, ρ. 726-735.

99. V. Laurent, Une fondation monastique de Nicéphore Choumnos, Ή έν ΚΠ μονή της Θεοτόκου της Γοργοεπηκόου, BEB 12, 1954, ρ. 32-44; Janin, Le siège de Constantinople, p. 180; Idem, Grands centres, p. 380; Tafrali, Topographie, p. 194. A church of the Panagia Gorgoepekoos is known at Longos in Chalkidike by a 1341 act of the protokynegos John Vatatzes; see Oikonomidès, Actes de Docheiariou, no. 20, p. 148-158, at 152; cf. J. Köder, Die Metochia der Athos-Klöster auf Sithonia und Kassandra, JÖBG 16, 1967, p. 211-224, at 216.

100. Lemerle, et al., Ades de Lavra, II, no. 75, p. 27-33. 101. F. Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern, no. 66/7, p. 193-198 (1301); Idem, Sechs

byzantinische Praktika des 14. Jahrhunderts für das Athoskloster Iberon (= Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 28), Munich 1949; Magdalino, Some additions, p. 281-282.

102. Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern, no. 68/9, p. 198-202 (1317); no. 70/1, p. 202- 204 (1320); no. 72/3, p. 204-205 (1341); horismos of Anna of Savoy in Oikonomidès, Ades de Docheiariou, no. 35, p. 208-213 (1361).

103. Xyngopoulos, Μονή των 'Αγίων 'Αποστόλων; cf. Theocharides, Ή Νέα Μονή Θεσσαλονίκης, ρ. 345 η. 3; Goulaki Voutira, Zur Identifizierung, p. 259-260. The HH. Apostoloi church was built and decorated under the patronage of Niphon I, patriarch of Constantinople 1310-1314; see J.-M. Spieser, Inventaires en vue d'un recueil des inscriptions historiques de Byzance. I. Les inscriptions de Thessalonique, TM 5, 1973, p. 145-180, nos. 20-22 at 168-170.

IGNATIUS OF SMOLENSK 163

publication of primary sources and future archaeological excavations, certain larger patterns are already clear. The review of local monasteries mentioned by Ignatius suggests that the significance of his account is twofold. On the one hand it provides important testimony to the continued existence of certain foundations in the city c. 1405. On the other, its evident selectivity emphasizes several important methodological problems for medieval topographic research. Only through a combined recognition of both what is stated and what is left unsaid does the account's fuller significance emerge.

The positive evidence of Ignatius' list documents ten monasteries known to the author. These foundations range from those abundantly attested in written sources of the period (e.g., Akapnios, Philokalous and Prodromos) and archaeological remains (Vlatadon, Perivleptos, Latomos, and Nea) to the otherwise almost completely unknown (Pantodynamos). Two of the monasteries mentioned were still relatively youthful foundations in the Russian pilgrim's day: the Vlatadon had been re-established and the Nea founded in the third quarter of the 14th century. The other monasteries mentioned by Ignatius were of much greater antiquity and renown. Although only the Akapnios' foundation date (c. 1018) is known with any relative certainty, the earliest textual mentions of the other monasteries are evenly distributed among the middle and late Byzantine centuries (Table 1): the Latomos and Prodromos are known by the 10th century, the Akapnios, Philokalous and Perivleptos are first mentioned in the 11th or 12th centuries, and the Chortiates, Pantodynamos and Gorgoepekoos appear before the end of the 13th century. Of course, the individual monasteries could be much older than these documents suggest. Yet for five of the foundations, the Latomos, Philokalous, Perivleptos, Pantodynamos, and Gorgoepekoos, Ignatius seems to be the last Byzantine source to attest their existence, at least as functioning monasteries. In several cases the founders of the individual monasteries are known and often they are churchmen: St. Photios established the Akapnios, the Metropolitan Iakovos refounded the Perivleptos, and Theodore Kerameas apparently began work on the Pantodynamos while metropolitan of Thessaloniki. An increasingly important role of church authority in 14th-century monastic affairs is suggested by the links between the two youngest foundations noted by Ignatius and the future metropolitans Doro- theos Vlates (c. 1371-1378) and Gabriel (1397-1415/16).104

104. For the dates of Dorotheos and Gabriel in the city's metropolitan succession see now Balfour, Politico-Historical Works, p. 137, 194. Several of these monastic donors were also monks connected at one time or another with Mount Athos.

Lalomos

830 Prodrom

esAkapnios

Philokalom

PerivleptosChoriaites

Pantodynamos

GorgoepekoosVlatadon

Nea

946

1057 c. 1018 11th C.

1154

c. 1277 1300

1302 1317

1321 1321

1369

1346

1390s

1405- -1405- 1407

1430 c. 1420

1112

1202 1196

1210 1210 1219

1258 1294 1300

1304/05 c.1300

1317-21 1307-25

c. 1320 1324

1321 1333 1339

1346/47 1347/48

1361 1375 1393 1395

1395 1401

1401 1404 1405

1405 1405

1204/13 1213

1300 1315-18 1319-21 1339 1348 1361 1369

1405-

1277/84 1284

1284 1301 1317 1320 1341

1361

-1405- 1405-

1351/71

1400 1401 -1405-

1430

c. 1360 1384 1389 1392 1394

1401 ¦1405 1415 1416/19 1432

1446 1488 1532 (etc.)

Table 1. Selected testimonia for m

onasteries in Thessaloniki noted by Ignatius of Smolensk c. 1405

(re/foundation dates italicized)

IGNATIUS OF SMOLENSK 165

Yet these positive inferences do not fully recognize the limitations of Ignatius' account. When its contents are viewed within the larger context of late Byzantine Thessaloniki, the highly selective nature of his list becomes clear. In addition to the ten monasteries discussed by the pilgrim, written sources attest at least another twelve in the 15th century and ten or more monasteries in the 14th century (Table 2).105 Nor were these neglected foundations, which were located within the city or its immediate environs, unknown to Ignatius' contemporaries. The μονή της ύπεραγίας Θεοτόκου του Ύπομιμνήσκοντος was a 13th-century metropolitan foundation that survived into the 16th century.106 The monastery of Dovrosontos,

H. Anysia 1047 - 1357 H. Vasileios 12th C. - 1440 Theotokos/Kyr Ioel 12th C. - 1541 Vasilikon late 12th C. 1350/75 τοϋ Ύπομιμνήακοντος 13th C. 1503 Trinity 1240 1298 [ 1329] H. Démet. Kephalonia mid/late 13th C. τοϋ Άγιομαυρίτου 1294 HH.Theodoroi 14th C. 15th C. H. Georgios τοϋ Κανίτου 1300 1323 Kaisaros 1300 late 14th C. Dovrosontos 1301 1320 της Καντακουζηνός 1302 Exazenos 1304 1401 Anargyroi 1306 1415 Έξαπτερύγων 1309-1315 Η. Jerusalem c. 1310 HH. APOSTOLOI c. 1310114 - H. NICHOLAS ORPHANOS c. 1320 - --- H. AIKATERINI c. 1320 TAXIARCHAI c. 1320 Laurentios Kladon 1324 Kyr Maximos 1326 1401 Photis 1329 1498 H. Ioannes Theologos 1352/57 1392 Athanasios 1371/79 / /---1635 Gerontios 1383/89 Philanthropos 1400 Τεσσαράκοντα Μάρτυρες 1 400 1 420 Η. Laurentios 1405/06

Table 2. Attested monasteries in late Byzantine Thessaloniki not noted by Ignatius (excluding dependent metocheia; construction dates italicized)

105. Tafrali, Topographie, p. 192-201; Janin, Grands centres, p. 341-419; N. Moutsopoulos, Θεσσαλονίκη, 1900-1917, Thessaloniki 1980, p. 13-14, lists over 40 monasteries functioning in the late Byzantine city; cf. Thessaloniki and its Monuments (Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities), Thessaloniki 1985, p. 19-21.

106. The Hypomimneskontos is abundantly attested in the sources: Lemerle, et al., Ades de Laura, II, no. 90, p. 77-95 (1300); no. 108, p. 180-219 (1321); no. 109, p. 220- 278 (1321); III, no. 129, p. 39-42 (1350?); Oikonomidès, Actes de Docheiariou, no. 35,

166 M. L. RAUTMAN

like that of the present HH. Apostoloi church, enjoyed the support of the Patriarch Niphon as second donor.107 The Gerontios and Maximos monasteries stood under patriarchal control in the 15th century.108 The imperial Vasilikon was known as the largest convent in the late 14th-century city.109 The monastery of H. Vasileios was populated by 40 monks in the 15th century.110

It is equally difficult to determine the criteria that Ignatius used in identifying the most "wondrous" of Thessaloniki's monasteries. The patrocinia are split primarily between Christ (Vlatadon, Latomos, Philokalous, Pantodynamos, and probably Akapnios) and the Virgin (Perivleptos, Nea, Chortiates, and Gorgoepekoos), leaving only the Prodromos among other dedications. Four of the named monasteries survive in at least some form today, from the small Hosios David chapel of the Latomos, to the much altered katholika of the Vlatadon, Perivleptos, and Nea, but so do the three early 14th- century monastic churches (H. Aikaterini, HH. Apostoloi, and the Taxiarchai) ignored by Ignatius.111 The omission is most striking in the case of the HH. Apostoloi, a patriarchal refoundation that constituted one of the largest churches built in the late Byzantine empire.

The extent of Ignatius' selectivity is worth emphasizing since it appears as a necessary caveat in using his account to reconstruct Thessaloniki's medieval topography. The temptation to identify

p. 208-213 (1361); MM, II, no. 664, p. 525-527= Darrouzès, Regestes, VI, no. 3149, p. 388-389 (1400); N. Oikonomidès, Actes de Dionysiou, Paris 1968, no. 41, p. 190-193 (1502); no. 44, p. 195-199 (1503/04); Janin, Grands centres, p. 413-414.

107. For the Dovrosontos see Oikonomidès, Actes de Docheiariou, no. 35, p. 208- 213, at 211 (1361). The HH. Apostoloi is discussed in Spieser, Les inscriptions de Thessalonique, nos. 20-22 at 168-170.

108. The Gerontios and Maximos monasteries are attested by sources published in 'Εκκλησιαστικός Φάρος A, 1909, p. 99-101; 'Εκκλησιαστική 'Αλήθεια 31, 1911, ρ. 191; V. Laurent, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, I. Les actes des patriarches, IV. Les regestes de 1208 à 1309, Paris 1971, nos. 1530-1531, p. 321-322 (1389); MM, II, no. 605, p. 434-437 (= Darrouzès, Regesles, VI, nos. 3048-3049, p. 312-313 [c. 1391/97]); Janin, Grands centres, p. 358, 395.

109. For the monastery τό Βασιλικών see Migne, PG 151, 1865, col. 624; Oikonomidès, Actes de Kastamonitou, no. 3, p. 35-45 (1317); Magdalino, Some additions, p. 277- 279.

110. The μονή 'Αγίου Βασιλείου is known by the 12th-century Monacensis gr. 380 (BEB 35, 1977, p. 285); a synodal convocation of 1381/82 (Darrouzès, Regestes, VI, no. 2735, p. 51); a patriarchal letter of 1382 (MM, II, no. 354, p. 39-42 = Darrouzès, Regestes, VI, no. 2738, p. 52-54); a patriarchal decision of 1400 (MM, II, no. 664, p. 525- 527= Darrouzès, Regestes, VI, no. 3149, p. 388-389); and a papal encyclical of 1440 (K. D. Merzios, Μνημεία Μακεδόνικης 'Ιστορίας, Thessaloniki 1947, p. 94).

111. For another possible foundation overlooked by Ignatius see G. Velenis, Γύρω από ένα κατεστραμμένο βυζαντινό κτίριο της Θεσσαλονίκης, Άμητος. Τιμητικός τόμος γιά τον καθηγητή Μανώλη Ανδρόνικο, Ι, Thessaloniki 1987, ρ. 119-132.

IGNATIUS OF SMOLENSK 167

standing buildings with those mentioned by Ignatius presents special problems, for the pilgrim clearly omitted several otherwise attested foundations of comparable status. As the "Description" itself notes, there were also many other wondrous yet unmentioned churches in the city.112 For these reasons, his account must be used with caution.

One can only speculate on the reasons for Ignatius' selectivity. One possible explanation is simple arbitrariness, with Ignatius choosing at random from his experience of the city. In fact, one could argue that he may not have visited Thessaloniki at all and only mentioned those monasteries known among his hosts during his stay on Mount Athos.113 Another possibility assumes his limited experience of the city. The topographic distribution of identified monuments is concentrated in the northeastern part of town and describes a broad arc leading from the Vlatadon, Latomos and Nea in the άνω πόλις toward the probable locations of the Prodromos and Perivleptos in the lower eastern city (Fig. 1). Only the Nea lies slightly west of the Roman agora and H. Demetrios; the other foundations mentioned by Ignatius, including H. Sophia, the Acheiropoietos basilica and the probable site of H. Theodora, are scattered throughout the eastern city. The geographic limits of Ignatius' account become clearer in view of those overlooked surviving monuments that stand further west: the venerable churches of H. Menas and the Panagia Chalkeon as well as the early 14th-century katholika of H. Aikaterini and the HH. Apostoloi. In this light Ignatius' account resembles less a systematic excursion through the ecclesiastical landscape of 15th- century Thessaloniki than a haphazard tour through some eastern quarters of the medieval city.

In the final analysis, the "Description" must be evaluated within the framework of late Byzantine Thessaloniki. In sharp contrast with his accounts of Constantinople or even his descriptions of Mount Athos, Ignatius' recollections of the city comprise little more than a list of monuments. Its sparseness offers minimal information other than attesting the continued existence of certain foundations in the early 15th century. Despite the text's shortcomings, it nevertheless reflects in broad terms a general picture of Thessaloniki during its last years of Byzantine rule. When considered with other sources Ignatius' account suggests that the ecclesiastical structure of the city had changed little during the Zealot uprising and the first Turkish interlude of 1387-1403. For example, the only churches known to

112. The evidence for other, non-monastic churches in late Byzantine Thessaloniki is collected in Janin, Grands centres, p. 341-419.

113. Cf. Ignatius' myopic discussion of the Athonite monasteries, which appears limited to the Lavra and its immediate dependencies; see above, n. 5.

168 M. L. RAUTMAN

Suif at ThtuolenlH

Fig. 1. — Late Byzantine Thessaloniki (buildings attested or likely attested by Ignatius shaded)

have been taken by the Turks at that time, a church of Christ on the acropolis and a monastery dedicated to the Prodromos, are said to have returned to Orthodox use.114 This ecclesiastical continuity apparently extended to the city's late Byzantine monasteries, most of which survived into the early 15th century. Such testimony supports the view that the city's people and institutions survived intact the crises of the 14th century, with its Catalan depredations, Zealot

114. Balfour, Politico-Historical Works, p. 251-253. Cf. Laskaris, Ναοί και μοναί, p. 316; and Theocharides, Ή μονή Φιλοκάλλη, p. 326 n. 2.

IGNATIUS OF SMOLENSK 169

revolt and initial Ottoman capture, and directs attention to the years following 1405 as the critical period of urban transformation.115 For its monuments and citizens known to Ignatius, Thessaloniki's period of sharp decline was yet to come. Written near the turn of the century, this sketch of Thessaloniki still preserves a glimpse of a city once known for "the superlatively lovely and sacred shrines that are everywhere within it, of such size and in such profusion that there is nowhere else their like, neither in magnitude nor in multitude."116 His account heralds an age of travel writing and foreshadows the view of later visitors to the city, from the 15th century to modern times, that "the Christian churches, now turned into mosques, far surpass in interest everything else in Thessaloniki."117

Marcus L. Rautman Department of Art History and Archaeology University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri 65211

115. P. Charanis, A note on the population and cities of the Byzantine empire in the Thirteenth Century, Joshua Starr Memorial Volume, New York 1953, p. 135-Î48, at 140-141; Vryonis, Ottoman conquest, p. 320-321; cf. A. Bryer, The structure of the late Byzantine town: diokismoi and the mesoi, Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society (as n. 8), p. 263-279.

116. Kydones, Μονωδία επί τοις έν Θεσσαλονίκη πεσοϋσιν, in PG 109, 1863, cols. 639- 652; J. W. Barker, The 'Monody' of Demetrios Kydones on the Zealot rising of 1345 in Thessaloniki, Μελετήματα στή μνήμη Βασιλείου Λαούρ8α, Thessaloniki 1975, ρ. 285-300, at 292 (quoted here).

117. G. F. Bowen, Mount Athos, Thessaly and Epirus, Oxford 1852, p. 37.