drawings of a dozen years later, such as that of the monastery of Docheiariou of 1744 (fig. 9.2),33 this development is evident. The first is a lavish drawing, but undated and largely without annotation, the only inscriptions being those that identify the garden of a local Russian monk and the chapel of St Anthony, and these inscriptions can only be understood when read within the general context of the description in the accompanying text. While scholars today may find it 'an invaluable source'34 for the reconstruction of the monastery's appearance before the destruction of the dome in the 1881 earthquake, they are justified in noting some of the inaccuracies.35 In the Docheiariou drawing the inscription informs us that it was drawn from the south-west in 1744, and another inscription identifies the rising sun to indicate the precise angle of view, while the text mentions that it was depicted as it appeared at midday.36 Modern scholars have commented on how the katholikon, monastic walls, chapels and towers, as well as the shore line and the general topography, have been precisely observed, and Bars'kyj's accuracy is apparent when his drawing is compared with the monument, both as it exists today and as it appears in
33 Barsukov Stranstvovaniia, 111, 274: plate 21.
34 Bouras, NeaMoni, 50.
Was this article helpful?