International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Nebojša Stanković
Princeton University, Princeton NJ, United States; 
[e-mail]
Dwelling within the Holy: Accommodation of a Monastic Cell in the 
atēchoumena at Great Lavra (Mount Athos) and Other Middle Byzantine 
Monasteries
To Prof. Slobodan Ćurčić, for his 75
th
birthday 
The gallery above the narthex, usually referred to as 
katēchoumena
or, alternatively and less 
frequently, 
hyperōa
, is often included in monastic churches of the Middle Byzantine period, notably 
those of Mount Athos. They still exist in the 
katholika
of Ivērōn and Vatopedi, and once existed at the 
Great Lavra and St. Procopius, and most likely at St. Demetrius and Voroskopou. In a series of his 
articles and focusing on few Late Byzantine cases, Slobodan Ćurčić has shown that upper chambers 
were “specially made in churches as eventual retreats for their patrons […] who aspired to a monastic 
form of retirement and eventual burial within their own foundations.” The 
katēchoumena
’s resident 
could live and pray in seclusion and, in the same time, follow or even control everything done inside 
the church. However, due to the cell’s position, the seclusion was never complete. The habitation 
inside the 
katholikon
manifested an importance of the constant presence and occasional apparition 
of a revered spiritual figure during the communal liturgical services. On the other hand, an elevated 
place of 
askēsis
, which recalled pillars of the stylite saints, but was located inside the church, points 
to a type of asceticism and seclusion permissible within the coenobitic community and inside the 
confines of the monastery, even within the very 
katholikon
. 
Agreeing with Ćurčić’s conclusions and arguments, I here use Athonite and some other contemporary 
examples, such as Theotokos tou Libos and Eski İmaret Camii in the capital, Çanlı Kilise near Çeltek and 
Karagedik Kilise near Belisırma, both in Cappadocia, and a few churches of the Old Rus’, which confirm 
the existence of the same concept in the Middle Byzantine period, to further explore, turn attention to 
additional features and aspects, and propose origins and meaning of such accommodation within the 
church building. Special emphasis is put on the presence of a chapel in the 
katēchoumena
, its liturgical 
features or the lack thereof, and coupling with a monastic cell and, occasionally, 
skeuophylakion
. These 
are examined in relation to the apparent sanctification of the gallery space, which equates the monastic 
habitation there with the dwelling within the holy. Such a meaning seems to have developed gradually, 
as a way to justify the presence and living of a monk within the church, and was reinforced by the 
elevated position of these chambers. But the actual origins can be traced in the exclusivity of galleries, 
particularly in the example set by the imperial usage in certain Constantinopolitan churches. 

---

761
In the Late Byzantium, there are fewer examples featuring the 
katēchoumena
, perhaps witnessing 
to the gradual discontinuation of their use by founders. But those that exist, witness to further merging 
of a cell with a chapel. Certain functional alternatives were provided by chambers flanking the 
bēma
.
They assume the role of either 
skeuophylakia
or, in some cases, monastic cell-cum-chapels. Both 
alternatives, with their association with the sanctuary, testify to the eventual prevalence of the sacred 
over the profane component in these functional features and their dissociation from the narthex area.
And exactly the previous balance of the sacred and profane in them most likely was what recommended 
their accommodation in the over-narthex in the Middle Byzantine period.