^{page 137 note 1} The Churches of Western Mani, B.S.A. xv 177–213Google Scholar, Pls. xi–xviii (cited below as: Traquair). Millet has made good use of Traquair's material in his École grecque and Mme. Soteriou has listed the churches in Βυζαντινὰ Μνημεῖα τῆς Λακεδαίμονοσ (Λακωνικά i, 1932) 17Google Scholar, but nothing further has been contributed by anyone with a first-hand knowledge of the buildings.

^{page 137 note 2} Traquair 183 and Pl. xvii.

^{page 137 note 3} In addition to Traquair's article and my own notes I have also had at my disposal an admirable series of photographs taken by Mr. A. L. McMullen, a student of the British School who visited Mani in 1928. I am indebted to him for permission to reproduce three of these as Pl. 20 a and d and Pl. 21 c.

^{page 138 note 1} One of a series of journeys undertaken by the author during the season 1932–1933 as a student of the school with the aid of grants from the Craven and Byzantine Research and Publication Funds.

^{page 138 note 2} Traquair 182 fig. 2, 194 and Pl. xv. Illustrations of all churches are listed on p. 162.

^{page 138 note 3} Ibid. 194.

^{page 138 note 4} H. Ioannes at Pyrgos v. infra p. 151.

^{page 139 note 1} Porph., Const.De Administrando Imperio (ed. Bonn, ) 224Google Scholar.

^{page 139 note 2} There appear to be at least seven: one in Platsa (Traquair fig. 6), four in the Metamorphosis church at Koutéphare, south of Platsa (described Traquair 203) and two in H. Demetrios to the East of the same village (mentioned Traquair 204). They probably all come from a single building in Platsa itself similar to H. Nikolaos, we may conjecture, but with arcades. Their grotesque animal and figure subjects are unique but are recalled by a Cretan well-head in Herakleion Museum (Gerola, Monumenti Veneti nell' Isola di Creta iv 57Google Scholar fig. 32, a–d). However, the more conventional subjects—‘the cross with leaves at the angles, peacocks drinking from a bowl …’ etc.—shew a close affinity with the well-known ninth-century work at Skripou and Thebes and leave little doubt as to their date.

^{page 139 note 3} Leake, Travels in the Morea i 285Google Scholar; Woodward, Taenarum and Southern Maina (B.S.A. xiii) 261Google Scholar; Traquair 191–192.

^{page 140 note 1} Usually three doors connect Narthex and Naos. But in Mani, of the eight churches which have a Narthex only two, those at Ochiá and Eremos, have the lateral openings.

^{page 140 note 2} Millet, École grecque 57–58Google Scholar. Millet's type simple covers all churches where the Bema occupies the east arm of the cross and thus includes both those where the Parabemata are screened by solid walls pierced by small doors and also those where the walls give place to ample arches carried on a column at the west; that is to say, both Vamvaka and H. Georgios near Kytta. I prefer to respect this distinction from the outset and designate them respectively simple-distyle and simple-tetrastyle.

^{page 140 note 3} E.g. H. Strategos, Ano Boularios illustrated with a section on Traquair's Pl. xv; also the churches at Gardenitsa, Glezou, Karouda, Ochiá and Eremos.

^{page 141 note 1} Found only once in Mani at Kéria (Traquair Pl. xi), a complex-tetrastyle church which in date must stand at the end of the series.

^{page 141 note 2} I noticed structural brickwork in only two other churches: Gardenitsa (pendentives) and Karouda (dome arches).

^{page 142 note 1} Traquair 187 fig. 3, Pl. xiv 1.

^{page 142 note 2} In both churches the brick dentil is freely used, while at Vamvaka as at H. Strategos and the Asomatoi church it does not occur.

^{page 142 note 3} The intermediate faces are adorned with glazed bowls. These, like the bowls in the window tympana and the semi-arches, such as survive, are of a coarse local ware. They are certainly contemporary with the building but, unlike those at Eremos, are not comparable to the known types of Byzantine pottery. Similar bowls are to be seen in other churches of the district. They are characterised by a thick cream-coloured slip which before glazing is adorned with rough daubs of colour, at best constrained to illconceived designs. In this ware incision is unknown.

^{page 142 note 4} Traquair Pl. xii 1.

^{page 142 note 5} The Ligourio dome has been re-tiled to horizontal eaves, but the arching cornice which represents the original contour is plainly visible below. No photograph of this church has been published.

^{page 142 note 6} Chron. Mid.-Byz. Churches (B.S.A. xxxii) 111Google Scholar.

^{page 143 note 1} In the Kapnikarea church, cf. Ckron. Mid.-Byz. Churches 118.

^{page 143 note 2} Ibid. 103–104.

^{page 144 note 1} However, the following interpretations for some of the patterns are probably justified: at H. Strategos Ζ, Π and the chi-rho monogram; at H. Petros Σ.

^{page 144 note 2} Pl. 19 c.

^{page 144 note 3} Cf. Chron. Mid.-Byz. Churches 110–111.

^{page 144 note 4} The inner are generally chip-cut while the outer are in the champlevé technique.

^{page 144 note 5} If we may judge by the epistyle at Magnesia ad Sipylum dated to the year 967 (Strzygowski, Wiener Studien xiv 2Google Scholar). There are early examples in Mani at the Asomatoi church and H. Strategos. At Vamvaka on the inner divisions of the south and east ties and on the east face of the west tie in the same position.

^{page 144 note 6} North tie, inner and (in champlevé) outer divisions.

^{page 144 note 7} East tie, outer divisions. Cf. the templon epistyle at H. Strategos (Traquair Pl. xvi).

^{page 144 note 8} South tie, outer divisions.

^{page 145 note 1} Traquair 184.

^{page 145 note 2} Travels in the Morea i 287Google Scholar.

^{page 145 note 3} On the fine quality of the Kytta church vide Traquair 211.

^{page 145 note 4} A single opening is regular in Mani, , v. supra p. 140¹Google Scholar.

^{page 146 note 1} Traquair supposes (179) that the similar slabs at H. Strategos represent the original roof-covering. This hypothesis, while it affords a tempting affinity with the Asomatoi church, which is in any case fairly close to it in date and where the slab roof is certainly original, will hardly support examination. Such slab coverings are found in Mani churches of all periods (e.g. H. Petros near Pyrgos and the churches at Glezou, Ochiá and Keria) and evidently were used in every case where an original tile covering of the normal type had been damaged, or removed for use elsewhere. The survival of the original tiling in the churches at Gardenitsa and Vamvaka attests its employment from the middle of the eleventh century. Further, the presence of curved fragments in the brick patterns of H. Petros and H. Strategos, the earliest churches where brick is used, indicates that the half-round roof-tile was first introduced in Mani quite as early as the plain wall-tile.

^{page 146 note 2} Traquair Pl. xiv 1, where the door is shewn in a damaged condition; it is now completely destroyed.

^{page 146 note 3} As at the Karouda church (Traquair Pl. xii 5).

^{page 146 note 4} Not invention, nor imitation of other traditions, but rather a return to favour of a feature which was early a characteristic of the Mani churches; v. supra pp. 141–2.

^{page 146 note 5} Traquair 187 fig. 3 and Pl. xiv 1.

^{page 147 note 1} As at Vamvaka (Traquair Pl. xvi).

^{page 147 note 2} An analogous tympanum panel is over the west door of the Keria church (Pl. 21 d). This is similar, but the birds are replaced by stylised foliate motifs.

^{page 147 note 3} Traquair Pl. xvi. The motif recurs in a tentative form and evidently at an earlier date in the north gable of the Gardenitsa church (Pl. 20 b).

^{page 147 note 4} The tiles used in the two churches are identical and measure 13 × 13 × 3 cms.

^{page 147 note 5} At Ochiá the tile revetment is in a damaged condition; cf. Traquair 181, ‘The church has originally had a deep brick band beneath the eaves, but this is now plastered up and the pattern, if any, is unrecognizable.’

^{page 147 note 6} Zourtsa in Triphylia and Tegea; cited by Millet, École grecque 281 and 282²Google Scholar respectively.

^{page 147 note 7} Epirus, , Lampovo, Ano (Ἐφημ. 1906, 108 ff.Google Scholar).

^{page 148 note 1} At Samari, Messenia, in the north gable and the demolished church of H. Elias at Athens in the dome, best illustrated by du Moncel, Vues pittoresques des monuments d'Athènes (Paris, 1845) pl. xivGoogle Scholar. The ornamented tiles in H. Charalampos (cemetery church) at Kalamata, cited by Millet op. cit 282², are not in their original position.

^{page 148 note 2} Hesperia II ii 324Google Scholar fig. 18 a–f.

^{page 148 note 3} Δελτίον Χριστ. ᾿Αρχ. ῾Ετ i (1924), 32 no. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 148 note 4} Byzantine Glazed Pottery 1930, 34Google Scholar.

^{page 148 note 5} Hesperia II ii 323Google Scholar.

^{page 149 note 1} Cf. Chron. Mid.-Byz. Churches 126. Of the churches there referred to, Merbaka is in this respect closest to Eremos.

^{page 149 note 2} Ibid. 112.

^{page 149 note 3} Traquair 185.

^{page 150 note 1} The Kouloumi church is of the simple-distyle type. Traquair (183) speaks of it as having been practically rebuilt and dismisses it in a few lines. I did not visit it.

^{page 150 note 2} Illustrated in A. Tarsoule Κάστρα καὶ Πολιτείες τοῦ Μοριᾶ fig. 82.

^{page 151 note 1} Cf. Chron. Mid.-Byz. Churches 122–123.

^{page 151 note 2} Used as a lintel to the west door (Traquair 190 fig. 4); a second piece serves as threshold to the same door.

^{page 151 note 3} All the details of the Vamvaka ties are here repeated and in addition only one new motif occurs—an alternating scroll of stylised acanthus. The inscriptions have been published and discussed by Dawkins (Traquair 191–192).

^{page 152 note 1} The use of ο or ω in these inscriptions is quite arbitrary.

^{page 152 note 2} The grammatical inconsistency between the Niketes and Koulouras inscriptions, in one of which the same formula is used, suggests that for the donor's inscription he had a copy to guide him, but for his own was self-dependent.

^{page 152 note 3} ‘Ειτα τὴν Δωριέων χώραν καταλανών καὶ δύο ναοὺς ἰεροὺς ἐειμάμενος καὶ πᾶσι τὴν μετάνοιαν κηρύχας πρὸς Μαϊνην παρεγένετο.’—῾Ο βίος Νίκωνος τοῦ Μετανοεῖτε (ed. Lambros, , Νέος ῾Ελληνομνήμων iii, 1906) 161Google Scholar. It should be remembered that his headquarters were at Sparta, whose importance as a centre during the tenth century must have been considerable.

^{page 153 note 1} These, which are not few in number, have rarely been recognised for what they are. Nor have they been adequately published. Largely for this reason they were not included in the Chronology of some Middle-Byzantine Churches. They stand at a crucial point in the development of church types and deserve to be better known. I hope to contribute something towards this end in the near future. In the meantime the affinity noted between them and the Asomatoi church must be taken on trust.

^{page 153 note 2} It should not on any account be confused with the later simple-distyle type, which in fact developed from it. Cf. Traquair 185.

^{page 153 note 3} Except in a single instance the model is always provided by the work of the Greek School, itself in a sense provincial, but profoundly individual; the exception is a problematical contact with the Capital (v. infra p. 155).

^{page 154 note 1} In Traquair's plan (Pl. xi) portions of the later masonry templon are wrongly incorporated with the piers on which they abut.

^{page 154 note 2} E.g. Alaï Bey (Skala), Laconia.

^{page 154 note 3} In addition to those on the apse (Pl. 19 c) there is a similar frieze across the west end, for the most part obscured by the later porch.

^{page 154 note 4} The same stone, though it early disappeared from the façade, continued to be used in the pavements of the churches.

^{page 155 note 1} In the Athenian circuit the earliest survivor of the type in its fully developed form is the dome of the H. Apostoloi, in Athens itself, a church which cannot antedate H. Petros by many years. For illustrations vide Chron. Mid.-Byz. Churches 116⁵.

^{page 155 note 2} The majority of the tenth-century domes are circular.

^{page 155 note 3} The circular dome of the Myrelaion remains, but with a level cornice which has no doubt replaced one of the arched type. In most other tenth- and eleventh-century churches in the Capital the domes have been rebuilt at a later date. Chios, however, provides important examples in the church at Pyrgi (Orlandos, Monuments byzantins de Chios Pls. 38, 40–42Google Scholar), which if not as old as Gardenitsa evidently derives from earlier prototypes.

^{page 155 note 4} H. Sophia, Peribleptos and Evangelistria. The windows of the Gardenitsa dome have been walled up at some later date. In the fillings are two fine bowls of white-ground ware painted in green and brown.

^{page 156 note 1} Corner shafts, arched cornice in marble and a window in every face. All the windows are now built up, and Traquair (191) evidently regards the filling of those on the diagonal faces as contemporary with the construction of the church. Of this I am not convinced. But if they are regarded as niches they none the less simulate windows and the dome as a whole remains a fair replica of the Athenian type.

^{page 156 note 2} Cf. Traquair 191, ‘The windows on the north and south gables were originally double; … the dentil course of the large containing arch shows their position.’ I assume this is true of the north window, of which I have no note; in the south my photograph shews a single light as at Gardenitsa (Pl. 21 a).

^{page 156 note 3} Arcade window in the north gable, that in the west is destroyed (Pl. 20 d); Traquair (202–204) does not mention the other windows.

^{page 156 note 4} The only irregularity in the masonry is in two courses of the north façade where the tiles are doubled in both horizontal and vertical joints in such a way as to give the impression of a key pattern enclosing the stone blocks in its fluctuations, an important precedent for Gastoune, where the treatment is used extensively on the south façade (Chron. Mid.-Byz. Churches Pl. 29, 2).

^{page 157 note 1} Stone door dressings are found in earlier churches but are there confined to jambs and lintels, e.g. Vamvaka (Pl. 19 a).

^{page 157 note 2} The plaster face above the arching cornice and the flat conical roof are, of course, later work.

^{page 157 note 3} South gable window (Ἐφημ. 1902, 55 fig. 3). I have elsewhere dated Kaisariane in the last years of the eleventh century.

^{page 157 note 4} Traquair Pl. xii 5.

^{page 157 note 5} First at Kaisariane, probably due to the example of Daphni, without the corner shafts; later, with shafts, at Amphissa and Ioannes Kynegos.

^{page 157 note 6} The craftsman who worked on the corbels of the porch seems to have been responsible at the same time for repairs to the west door and to the templon, to judge by the uniformity of detail which connects them.

^{page 157 note 7} Chron. Mid.-Byz. Churches, 109 fig. 3 (north façade). This Ligourio brick ornament stands in the same imitative relationship to the eleventh-century Athenian tradition as the patterns in the Gardenitsa porch do to the earlier examples of the technique in Mani.

^{page 158 note 1} Phocis (Amphissa), Elis (Gastoune) and Messenia (Samari).

^{page 158 note 2} Example at Athens in the Metamorphosis church (Εὑρετήριον I 75Google Scholar fig. 71).

^{page 158 note 3} For the fallibility of the typological criterion cf. Chron. Mid.-Byz. Churches 100.

^{page 159 note 1} Note the position at Eremos: at cill level on either side, as in the west gable at Merbaka, (A.M. 1909 Pl. x 6Google Scholar), thus reproducing the form but without fulfilling the function of the earlier examples. The latter (H. Petros and Vamvaka in Mani, in Athens the Kapnikarea Exo-narthex) are all above the springing level of the window arches and are accommodated to the outline of the gable in such a way as to leave no doubt of the origination of the motif as a filling-ornament.

^{page 159 note 2} Cf. Traquair 204, ‘The central apse has a double arched window.’ I understand a grouped window with two lights. I have not seen the church.

^{page 159 note 3} Samari in Messenia, H. Sophia at Monemvasia.

^{page 160 note 1} Cf. Millet, École grecque 55–57Google Scholar. It should be noted that several Attic churches also lack this subtlety.

^{page 160 note 2} Note in addition to Traquair's brief description (190) that the gable windows are of the two-light grouped type.

^{page 160 note 3} Tiles embedded in the mortar so as to form with their exposed edges a diaper of squares set diagonally. A technique which takes the place of and probably derives from the tile revetments of the earlier churches.

^{page 161 note 1} H. Trias at Kranidi in Argolis; published by Soteriou in ᾿Επετηρίς ῾Ετ. Βυζ.Σπουδῶν Г´, 1926, 193 ffGoogle Scholar. Plan and section of the Abysola church in Traquair, pl. xv.