UDC: 726.7(497.115):235.3:929

SLOBODAN ]UR^I] (Princeton)

GRA^ANICA AND THE CULT OF THE SAINTLY PRINCE LAZAR

The article explores a virtually unknown episode in the history of Gra~anicaMonastery, a late nineteenth-century restoration of the monastery church. The resultsof this undertaking were still visible during the conservation of the church conducted inthe 1960s and early 1970s. At that time the nineteenth-century interventions were onlypartially recorded before some of them were removed and permanently lost. The nine-teenth-century refurbishing of the frescoes in the main dome was signed by one MihailIourokosk Debrel and is dated 1898. More significant, now lost and hitherto unpub-lished, was the refurbishing probably by the same Mihail, of an arcosolium in the southwall of the church. This arcosolium, whose original function is unknown, was paintedand inscribed with a lengthy inscription indicating that the remains of Prince Lazar(who died in the Battle of Kosovo, on June 15, 1389) was temporarily deposited in thistomb before being moved to the monastery of Vrdnik — Ravanica on Fru{ka Gora.While the content of the inscription is a total fabrication, its implications are nonethe-less interesting in several ways. The mastermind behind the project was probably theMetropolitan of Ra{ka — Prizren, Dionisije, who died on Dec. 5, 1900. In accordancewith his own wishes, he was buried in the very arcosolium identified as the ‘temporaryburial place’ of Prince Lazar. The rising importance of the cult of the Saintly PrinceLazar around 1900 provides the background for this historical fabrication whose con-struction was actually made up of several disparate elements, each marked by a degreeof historical accuracy in its own right, thus collectively contributing to its generalrelevance.

The church of the Dormition of the Mother of God at Gra~anica Monastery hasbeen a subject of numerous studies.1 Its history, architecture and art, as a result havebeen thoroughly studied and are well documented. Even so, an aspect of its later his-tory deserving attention has escaped previous notice. The episode of Gra~anica’s his-tory in question is also linked with the growing importance of the cult ofSaint-Prince Lazar in the course of the nineteenth century and as such is of double

Zbornik radova Vizantolo{kog instituta HßÇç, 2007.Recueil des travaux de l’Institut d’etudes byzantines XßIV, 2007.

1 S. ]ur~i}, Gra~anica. Istorija i arhitektura, Beograd i Pri{tina 1988 ‰also in English: Gra~anica.King Milutin’s Church and Its Place in Late Byzantine Architecture, University Park and London 1979Š;B. Todi}, Gra~anica. Slikarstvo, Beograd — Pri{tina 1988, are the most recent comprehensive mono-graphs on the history of the church, its architecture and art.

interest for the students of Serbian history and art. The study that follows relies onseveral inscriptions — some of which no longer preserved — that offer insights be-yond their original intentions.2

Having survived the darkest moments of its history toward the end of the eigh-teenth century, Gra~anica began to receive its first foreign visitors during the firsthalf of the nineteenth century.3 Its fortunes, despite the fact that it remained on theterritory of the Ottoman Empire, continued slowly to improve during the second halfof the century. It was during this period of time that the first efforts at church resto-ration took place with the financial aid received from the Serbian government inBelgrade.4 Between 1887 and 1900, Gra~anica underwent very extensive ‘restora-tion’ under the auspices of Archimandrite Gedeon Mari}.5 The work, according to aninscription above the church portal was begun on August 20, 1897, when the churchwas covered with a new lead roof. This was followed by plastering of the facadeswith mortar and painting them with designs that emulated the actual building tech-nique.6 Archimandrite Gedeon Mari} had also envisioned an extensive ‘restoration’of the church interior. Only a part of this plan was implemented before the contem-plated re-painting of the entire interior was brought to a halt at the order of the Ser-bian consul in Pri{tina and following the intervention of a teacher, Josif Popovi}from Mitrovica.7

Among the executed interventions in the church before the suspension of workwere the repairs of damaged areas of the frescoes in the main dome and the painting ofthe arcosolium in the south wall of the church. The repairs on the frescoes in the maindome were relatively limited in scope.8 They were confined to the filling of small ar-eas where fresco mortar had fallen, the largest of these being on the breast of thePantokrator image including a corner of the book that he is depicted holding in his lefthand. (Fig. 1) The filling and the missing corner of the book, re-painted at the time,were removed in 1971 and replaced by unpainted mortar filling still visible today.9

The work in the main dome gave the nineteenth-century artist-restorer an opportunityto sign his name and date his work. His name MIX‰AHŠL and the date 1898 appear in

466 Slobodan ]ur~i}

2 As such, the topic is perceived as an appropriate offering to Academician Gojko Suboti}, theunsurpassed master of ‘reading history’ from ignored or unobserved inscriptional evidence found onwalls of scores of medieval churches throughout the Balkans.

3 ]ur~i}, Gra~anica, op. cit., 32–33.4 V. Stojan~evi}, Jedna pomo} srpske vlade manastiru Gra~anici 1856. i 1857. godine, Starine

Kosova i Metohije 4–5 (1968–71), 227–31.5 J. Popovi}, Manastir Gra~anica, Beograd 1927, 46.6 Parts of this external plastering and painting had been preserved, especially on the exonarthex,

but were removed in their entirety during the restoration of the church carried out between 1963 and1967. For the photographs showing the state of the church facades prior to the 1963–67 restoration cf.]ur~i}, op. cit., figs. 37–39.

7 Popovi}, Manastir. op. cit., 46.8 A. Grguri, Slikarsko-konzervatorski radovi u manastiru Gra~anici izvedeni 1971. godine, Sta-

rine Kosova 6–7 (1972–73) 191–97.9 Ibid. 192–93, where the exact nature of the intervention is described in detail.

unusual places — within the two capital letters C — within the two-part monumentalinscription IC XC framing the head of the Pantokrator (Fig. 2).10

The same artist was also responsible for the repainting of the cornice at thebase of the main dome drum. Executed relatively crudely, this painting consisting ofa vine scroll depicted against a white background was removed during the 1971 con-servation with the exception of a 0.5m-long section on which another signature ofthe painter Michael has been preserved.11 (Fig. 3) Here, his full name — MihailIurokosk Debrel — appears flanked by his initials and the date 1898. The name ofthis artist may eventually appear in another context, though at the present he remainsan enigmatic figure.

The same Mihail may have been involved in another intervention in Gra~anicathat is of prime interest in our context — the re-painting of the arcosolium in thesouth wall of the church. (Fig. 4) The elaborate re-decoration of this arcosoliumtomb was apparently done by the same hand as the work in the main dome and prob-ably at the same time, in 1898.12 Unsigned and undated in this case, the decorationbore unmistakable similarities both in the stylistic characteristics of the painted flo-ral elements and in the use of a distinctive cobalt blue color with the restored parts inthe main dome. The entire painting of the arcosolium tomb as executed at this timewas removed and destroyed during the restoration of the church in the 1960s. Belowthe removed re-decoration came to light the remains of its original fourteenth-cen-tury fresco decoration. (Fig. 5) It is immediately apparent that the artist repaintingthe arcosolium in 1898 (?) followed closely the original decorative scheme. This in-volved the monumental double cross in the middle of the composition with elaboratefloral branches symmetrically framing the cross. As important as the fourteenth-cen-tury fresco may be for the understanding of the original arcosolium and its intendedfunction, our attention here will be turned to its nineteenth-century refurbishing. Be-

Gra~anica and the cult of the Saintly Prince Lazar 467

Fig. 1. Gra~anica. Main dome, Pantokrator, inscription (drawing author)

10 These added inscriptions were not removed during the said 1971 interventions.11 Grguri, Slikarsko-konzervatorski, op. cit., 195.12 I owe the information on the decoration of the arcosolium tomb in question to the late Profes-

sor Branislav Vulovi}, in charge of the restoration of Gra~anica from 1963–67, who in 1971 kindly put atmy disposal his unpublished drawings, notes, and a photograph of this tomb along with other material re-lated to his restoration work, at the time when I was beginning my own research on Gra~anica as a sub-ject of my doctoral dissertation. In his unpublished notes, Vulovi} gives the date of 1897 for the refur-bishing of the arcosolium in question, tough without any explanation on what this information was based.

cause of the loss of the nineteenth-century original, the only surviving evidence wehave is the information recorded by Professor Vulovi} prior to its removal.

The nineteenth-century decoration involved, in addition to the monumentalfloral double cross, also four smaller floral double crosses on the soffit of thearcosolium arch. While all of the mentioned elements repeat those from the four-teenth-century decoration, the new scheme also included two bands bearing alengthy inscription. The two bands — the top one red, and the bottom one blue —were arranged to fit the arched profile of the back wall of the arcosolium, their col-ors clearly based on those of the Serbian national flag. The inscription appearing onthe two bands read as follows:

(first band) “Po predanju narodnom, ovde je 1389. go‰dineŠ. saranjen.Sv. Velikomu~en‰iŠk. knez. i car. srpski Lazar. i dve. go‰dineŠ. po~ivaopa posle” (second band) “dalje. odne{en.=gde i sada njegove Sv. Mo{tipo~ivaju=u Vrdnik te Ravanicu u Sremu. Fru{koi Gori +” 13

The inscription, despite several historical inaccuracies that it contains, is of consid-erable interest for a number of different reasons that are worth exploring. SerbianPrince Lazar, as is well known, died during the Battle on the Field of Kosovo be-tween the Serbian and the Ottoman armies, on June 28, 1389.14 His remains, as isalso well known, were interred in the Church of the Ascension (Vaznesenje) inPri{tina.15 A year or two later, they were ceremonially transferred to his own foun-dation, the monastery church of Ravanica, from where they were taken at the end ofthe seventeenth century to a new, safer location, the monastery of Vrdnik, subse-quently renamed Ravanica, on Fru{ka Gora in Srem. The apocryphal account givenin the Gra~anica arcosolium inscription introduces several mistaken notions. In thefirst place, the temporary resting place of Prince Lazar was in the Church of the As-cension in Pri{tina, and not at Gra~anica. Secondly, form his temporary resting placeLazar’s remains were transferred to his mausoleum church at Ravanica monastery incentral Serbia and not to Vrdnik (subsequently re-named Ravanica) on Fru{ka Gora.The ‘folk tradition’ that the inscription invokes was obviously created long after 1389,and the events it purportedly records.16 What matters here, is not to prove that the in-

468 Slobodan ]ur~i}

13 (first band) “According to a folk tradition, in 1389 here was buried St. and Great Martyr, Ser-bian Prince and Tsar Lazar ‰whoŠ rested here two year and afterwards” (second band) “(was) taken fur-ther = where his saintly relics are still resting = to Vrdnik later Ravanica in Srem, on Fru{ka Gora +”. TheEnglish translation is the author’s.

14 S. ]irkovi}, The Field of Kosovo, 15 June 1389, ed. D. Srejovi}, Bitka na Kosovu 1389.godine, Beograd 1989, 80–90

15 D. Popovi}, Pod okriljem svetosti. Kult svetih vladara i relikvija u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji,Beograd 2006, 251–52, who cites relevant older literature.

16 The ‘folk tradition’ was evidently in circulation throughout the nineteenth century, for it wasrecorded by B. Dj. Nu{i}, Kosovo. Opis zemlje i naroda, Beograd 1986, 228–30, as well as a number oftravelers (A. F. Gil’ferding, as well as G. Muir Mackenzie and P. Irbi); cf. B. Todi}, Mitropolija u Pri{tini— prva grobna crkva kneza Lazara, Sveti knez Lazar. Spomenica o {estoj godi{njici Kosovskog boja,1389–1989, Beograd 1989, 164; it should be noted that at the time of writing his text (1989) Todi} wasunaware of the 19th-century arcosolium decoration, removed during the restoration of the church in the1960s : ¼U Gra~anici, me|utim, ne postoji bilo kakav trag da je tu nekada po~ivalo kne`evo telo…½ .

scription is wrong, but actually to demonstrate why the decision was made to place itin this location. What may have been the real motives for the invention of this ficti-tious ‘locus sanctum’? It seems that several different factors may have contributed sig-nificantly to its making. In the first place, it should be noted that at least one, and pos-sibly the oldest hagiographical text — the so-called “Prolo{ko `itije” — does mentionthat Lazar’s body was temporarily deposited at Gra~anica.17 Equally important musthave been the fact that the Church of the Ascension in Pri{tina must have been de-stroyed, thus eliminating the physical evidence of the actual ‘locus sanctum’ by thetime the ‘folk tradition’ recorded in the inscription had come into being.18

The arcosolium adapted as the “temporary tomb of Prince Lazar” was actuallybuilt as an integral part of the fourteenth-century church. Frescoes discovered withinthe arcosolium following the removal of the nineteenth-century paintings did not re-veal whether it may have contained a tomb, nor who the occupant may have been. Thearcosolium in question is one of three such arcosolia built integrally with the church,clearly indicating that the building was planned with the idea of accommodation ofimportant burials in mind. The larger problem of the original intended function ofGra~anica in relationship to the role of its patron, king Milutin, has been discussed byme at length.19 The argument need not be repeated again, except to remind the reader,that the placement of tombs in the south-western part of churches in medieval Serbiawas a privilege reserved for ruler-patrons in their own mausoleum churches.20 It musthave been this factor, above all, that must have lead to the selection of this arcosoliumin Gra~anica as the alleged location of Prince Lazar’s original tomb.

The time when this particular episode took place also has a great deal to dowith the decisions that were made. In the first place, the entire nineteenth centurysaw a growing importance of the cult of the Saintly Prince Lazar. Equally importantand directly related to the rising importance of Prince Lazar’s cult must have beenthe realization that the original place of his burial, the Church of the Ascension inPri{tina was no more. Thus Gra~anica must have emerged as an appropriate surro-gate that could claim this ‘historical role’. Not unimportant in the construction ofthis legend may have been another historically dubious tradition, that related to therelics of Apostle Luke whose fifteenth-century translation from Rogos to Smederevomay have included Gra~anica as one of the intermediate resting stations.21 The

Gra~anica and the cult of the Saintly Prince Lazar 469

17 L. Pavlovi}, Kultovi lica kod Srba i Makedonaca, Smederevo 1965, op. cit., 117. This piece ofevidence clearly carries little weight in view of the fact that numerous other sources unequivocally sug-gest that Lazar was initially buried in the Church of the Ascension in Pri{tina.

18 Todi}, Mitropolija, op. cit., 163–69.19 ]ur~i}, Gra~anica, op. cit. esp. 154–56.20 Ibid. 144–46; also M. Popovi}, Les funerailles du ktitor: Aspect archeologique, Proceedings of

the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies London, 21–26 August 2006, vol. I, 99–130, esp.105 ff. Of considerable relevance here is the most recent, as yet unpublished, discovery of the tomb ofDespot Stefan Lazarevi} in the south-west corner of his mausoleum church at the monastery of Manasija.

21 On the cult of St. Luke, its general importance and its spread in Serbia, see V. Milanovi}, Kulti ikonografija svetog Luke u pravoslavlju do sredine XV veka, Crkva svetog Luke kroz vjekove. Nau~niskup povodom 800-godi{njice crkve svetog Luke u Kotoru, Kotor 1997, 73–103. On the translation ofthe relics of Apostle Luke from Rogos to Smederevo now see D. Popovi}, Mo{ti svetog Luke — srpska

so-called “Brankovi} Chronicle” (Brankovi}ev letopis) is the only source that makesthis reference, but gives no mention either as to where in the church St. Luke’s relicsmay have been displayed, or how long they remained at Gra~anica. The episode isnonetheless of interest, for it would have given the church an aura of a ‘martyrium’,even if only of a temporary variety. It would not be too difficult to imagine the twoseparate episodes — involving the relics of St. Luke and Prince Lazar — as havingbeen conflated. To put it differently, it is possible that the recorded episode of St.Luke’s relics having rested at Gra~anica, may have much later inspired the makingof the story of Prince Lazar having been temporarily buried at Gra~anica.

Another element that must be considered in the making of this ‘tradition’ is thefact that Metropolitan of Ra{ka — Prizren Dionisije, who died on Dec. 5, 1900, and“in accordance with his own wishes” was buried in the very arcosolium tomb identi-fied as the temporary tomb of Prince Lazar.22 The actual tomb has not been archaeo-logically explored, adding yet another unknown piece to an already complicated puz-zle. If Metropolitan Dionisije was indeed interred in the arcosolium tomb “in accor-dance with his own wishes” it seems highly likely that he may have been the master-mind behind the refurbishing of the arcosolium tomb in question. By doing so, hewould have been the direct beneficiary of having been buried within the ‘locus sanc-tum’, itself having been ‘sanctified’ by a ‘temporary burial’ of the illustrious martyr.

In conclusion it is necessary to stress that any number of scenarios explainingthe origins and the implementation of the fictitious ‘tradition’ placing Prince Lazar’soriginal tomb in Gra~anica seem plausible within the particular historical frameworkof the period in question. The entire nineteenth century may be characterized as thecentury of the formation of Serbia’s modern statehood. Starting with the First Ser-bian Uprising in 1804 and ending with the Balkan Wars of 1912–13, witnessed Ser-bia’s gradual reclaiming of its territories lost to the Ottomans in the fifteenth century.The process was driven by an intensive re-awakening of national consciousness. Sub-stantially spurred by the Serbian Orthodox Church, this national re-awakening wasmarked not only by the rebirth of historical consciousness, but also by the growth ofthe cults of national ruler-saints, above all by that of the Saintly Prince Lazar.23 Nu-merous myths and historical fabrications also sprung during this time as corollaries ofexcessive enthusiasm and national zeal. Among these is the well known introductionof the title “car” (tsar) alongside Lazar’s name. Lazar only held the title of knez(Prince). In the case of the inscription at Gra~anica, he was declared both — “knez icar” (Prince and Tsar) Lazar. This, along other such quasi-historical claims strength-ened in the people’s minds the notion of the legitimacy of his succession to theSerbian throne. The choice of Gra~anica, and of the arcosolium in its south wall asthe specific place of Prince Lazar’s ‘temporary burial’ may have had yet another di-mension in this context. If the arcosolium in question was originally planned as a

470 Slobodan ]ur~i}

epizoda, in Popovi}, Pod okriljem svetosti, op. cit., 295–317. For the Gra~anica episode in this contextsee ibid., 303; and also ]ur~i}, Gra~anica, op. cit., 26.

22 J. Popovi}, @ivot Srba na Kosovu, 1812–1912, Beograd 1987, 169–70.23 R. Mihalj~i}, The Battle of Kosovo in History and in Popular Tradition, Belgrade, 1989,

52–62; also 190–231.

burial place for the patron of the church King Milutin, who may also have contem-plated retiring in Gra~anica as a monk, the ‘burial’ of Prince Lazar in this locationwould have linked him in yet another way with the Nemanji} dynastic tradition.24

The last element that may be invoked in this discussion introduces yet anotherassociation that may not be irrelevant for understanding the thinking that went intothe creation of the ‘legend’ regarding Prince Lazar’s ‘initial burial’ may be the typo-logical similarity between Gra~anica and Prince Lazar’s own mausoleum church atRavanica Monastery. We do not know what the Church of the Ascension at Pri{tina— Prince Lazar’s actual place of original burial — may have looked like. In the after-math of its destruction, the choice of Gra~anica as its ‘surrogate’ may have been in-formed — among other ’legitimate’ factors — also by its formal similarities withRavanica.

Modern historians of Serbia’s medieval history have substantially succeeded inseparating mythical aspects of Prince Lazar’s reign from those that are historicallyverifiable.25 Nonetheless, some vestiges of Romantic constructions still remain, andwill continue being uncovered. As the above lines illustrate, history of Serbian artand architecture no less than other historical disciplines can make its own contribu-tions to this important process.26

Gra~anica and the cult of the Saintly Prince Lazar 471

24 It is well known that King Milutin never became a monk and that he was buried in the Churchof St. Stefan at Banjska monastery. What we do not know is whether the aging king may at some pointhad other ideas related to these matters. The relative position of the arcosolium in question and the factthat it was built as an integral part of the royal foundation should not be dismissed too lightly as unimpor-tant elements in this context.

25 R. Mihalj~i}, Lazar Hrebeljanovi}. Istorija, kult, predanje, Beograd, 1984; also two collectionsof important articles on the subject: eds. I. Bo`i} and V.J. Djuri}, O knezu Lazaru, Beograd 1975, andeds. Episkop ra{ko-prizrenski Pavle, et al., Sveti knez Lazar. Spomenica o {estoj stogodi{njici Kosovskogboja, 1389–1989, Beograd 1989,

26 The problem as it relates to ‘historical portraits’, for example, has recently been illuminated byD. Vojvodi}, Ktitorski portreti i predstave, ed. G. Suboti}, Manastir Hilandar, Beograd 1998, 260–61. Fora comparable effort related to architecture see S. ]ur~i}, The Exonarthex of Hilandar, ed. V. Kora},Osam vekova Hilandara. Istorija, duhovni `ivot, knji`evnost, umetnost i arhitektura, Beograd 2000,477–86.

Slobodan ]ur~i}

GRA^ANICA I KULT SVETOG KNEZA LAZARA

Ciq ovog ~lanka je da osvetli jednu gotovo nepoznatu epizodu u novijojistoriji manastira Gra~anice. U `i`i istra`ivawa je restauratorska inter-vencija sprovedena u manastirskoj crkvi krajem devetnaestog veka. Weni osta-ci su jo{ bili vidqivi u toku konzervatorskih radova izvedenih {ezdesetih iranih sedamdesetih godina pro{log veka. Tom prilikom su restauratorske in-tervencije iz devetnaestog veka bile samo delimi~no zabele`ene, dok su drugeuklowene i zauvek izgubqene. Restauratorske intervencije na freskama bilesu u 19. veku poverene slikaru, ~iji se potpis — Mihail Iurokosk Debrel, za-jedno sa godinom 1898 — sa~uvao u centralnoj kupoli manastirske crkve. Va-`nije od ovih bile su slikarske intervencije, verovatno istog Mihaila, u ar-kosolijumu u ju`nom zidu crkve, od kojih je sa~uvana fotografija napravqenaneposredno pre wihovog uni{tewa. Arkosolijum o kome je re~ bio je u toku ra-dova krajem 19. veka u potpunosti oslikan i obele`en natpisom, prema kome suposmrtni ostaci kneza Lazara, posle wegove smrti (u Kosovskom boju 1389. g.)bili privremeno polo`eni u ovaj grob, a potom preneti u manastir Vrdnik —Ravanicu na Fru{koj Gori. Mada je neosporno da sadr`aj ovog natpisa ne odgo-vara istorijskim ~iwenicama, on ipak nagove{tava da natpis nije u potpuno-sti bez zna~aja. Sa~iwen u jeku uspona srpske nacionalne svesti, krajem devet-naestog veka, natpis o kome je re~ ukazuje na to da ja sastavqen uz poznavawe od-re|enog ~iweni~nog materijala vezanog za lokalnu istoriju i istoriju mana-stira Gra~anice. Autor ovog natpisa bio je najverovatnije mitropolit ra-{ko-prizrenski, Dionisije, koji je preminuo 5. decembra 1900. g. Iz drugih iz-vora je poznato da je mitropolit Dionisije po sopstvenoj `eqi bio sahrawen ugrobu u kome je ’nekada privremeno le`ao i knez Lazar’. Kult svetog kneza La-zara, u zna~ajnom usponu oko 1900. g., predstavqa kqu~nu komponentu u stvara-wu ovog mita, ~ija se konstrukcija sastojala od vi{e pojedina~nih elemenata,od kojih svaki, ponaosob sadr`i trunku istorijske istine. Wihov zajedni~kidoprinos stoga nije zanemarqiv. U razlu~ivawu istorijskih ~iwenica od po-pularne mitologije vezane za kult svetog kneza Lazara, srpska istorijska naukaje napravila ogroman napredak u posledwih nekoliko decenija. Istra`ivawa uovom domenu se nastavqaju uz doprinos {irokog dijapazona nau~nih discipli-na me|u kojima istorija umetnosti i arhitekture, kao {to se vidi iz ovog pri-loga, imaju svoju ulogu.

472 Slobodan ]ur~i}

Fig

.2.G

ra~a

nica

.Mai

ndo

me,

fres

coof

the

Pan

tokr

ator

(pho

to:a

utho

r)

Fig

.3.G

ra~a

nica

.Mai

ndo

me

drum

base

.Ins

crip

tion

wit

hna

me

ofpa

inte

rM

ihai

l(ph

oto:

auth

or)

Fig

.4.G

ra~a

nica

:Arc

osol

ium

inS

.wal

l;la

te19

thc.

refu

rbis

hing

befo

rere

mov

al(p

hoto

:B.V

ulov

i})

Fig

.5.G

ra~a

nica

.Arc

osol

ium

inS

.wal

l;re

mai

nsof

14th

c.fr

esco

es,p

rese

ntst

ate

(pho

to:a

utho

r)