Храм Светог Саве у Београду

( Church of Saint Sava )

The Church of Saint Sava (Serbian Cyrillic: Храм Светог Саве, romanized: Hram Svetog Save, lit. ''The Temple of Saint Sava'') is a Serbian Orthodox church which sits on the Vračar plateau in Belgrade, Serbia. It was planned as the bishopric seat and main cathedral of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The church is dedicated to Saint Sava, the founder of the Serbian Orthodox Church and an important figure in medieval Serbia. It is built on the presumed location of St. Sava's grave. His coffin had been moved from Mileševa Monastery to Belgrade. The coffin was placed on a pyre and burnt in 1595 by Ottoman Grand Vizier Sinan Pasha. Bogdan Nestorović and Aleksandar Deroko were finally chosen to be the architects in 1932 after a second revised competition in 1926–27 (for which no first award was granted, Nestorović being runner up). This sudden decision inst...Read more

The Church of Saint Sava (Serbian Cyrillic: Храм Светог Саве, romanized: Hram Svetog Save, lit. ''The Temple of Saint Sava'') is a Serbian Orthodox church which sits on the Vračar plateau in Belgrade, Serbia. It was planned as the bishopric seat and main cathedral of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The church is dedicated to Saint Sava, the founder of the Serbian Orthodox Church and an important figure in medieval Serbia. It is built on the presumed location of St. Sava's grave. His coffin had been moved from Mileševa Monastery to Belgrade. The coffin was placed on a pyre and burnt in 1595 by Ottoman Grand Vizier Sinan Pasha. Bogdan Nestorović and Aleksandar Deroko were finally chosen to be the architects in 1932 after a second revised competition in 1926–27 (for which no first award was granted, Nestorović being runner up). This sudden decision instigated an important debate in interwar Yugoslavia which centered around the temple's size, design and symbolic national function. This was accompanied by a sizeable increase in the base area of the ambitiously conceived project. The new design departed from the competition guidelines issued in 1926, and was to replicate the dimensions and architecture of Hagia Sophia.

The first stone was laid in 1935. When Yugoslavia was under occupation in 1941, the construction was approximately ten metres high. The incomplete building was used as a depot by the German army and Tito's partisans. After the war, the Orthodox Church was unsuccessful in its attempt to secure permission to complete the building. Permission was granted in 1984, and the architect Branko Pešić was commissioned to adapt the project to new construction techniques. On May 12, 1985, a liturgy was held at the temple with 100,000 people in attendance. This marked a turning point in the then-communist country; the church had reinstated its position and the communist elite had to back down from a decade-long ban prohibiting the construction of the church. In June 1989, the concrete dome of the temple, weighing 4,000 tonnes and constructed entirely on the ground, was raised to its present position. This was a landmark achievement in construction.

It is the largest Orthodox church in Serbia, one of the largest Eastern Orthodox churches and it ranks among the largest churches in the world. It is the most recognisable building in Belgrade and a landmark, as its dominating dome resembles that of the Hagia Sophia, after which it had been modelled. The church contains a rigorous symmetrical layout with a great sensitivity to light due to its large dome and four apses. Its interior cladding with 12,000 m2 (130,000 sq ft) of gold mosaics is almost complete. The initiative for the mosaic decoration inside the dome was secured by a donation of the Russian Federation, while the larger remainder of the mosaic cladding was successively financed by the Republic of Serbia.

Vladimir Putin of Russia visited the church in January 2019 and announced that the Russian state would finance parts of the remaining works in the mosaic cladding. He symbolically laid a stone in a mosaic with the presentation of the Mandylion. Putin was formally invited to attend the consecration of the church, which was then scheduled for the end of 2020 but the ceremony has not yet occurred owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Following the conversion of the Hagia Sophia to a mosque in July 2020, the Patriarch of Serbia Irinej and Serbia's president Aleksandar Vučić in August 2020 expressed their wish the Saint Sava Church would symbolically replace the Hagia Sophia, after which it was modelled, and become a "New Hagia Sophia".

In May 2021, the entire Vračar plateau which surrounds the church was declared a spatial cultural-historical unit, and placed under the state protection as the Saint Sava's Plateau. The rationale in government's decision included "symbolical, memorial, cultural-historical, architectural-urban and artistic values of the locality, which represents memory spot of two turning points in Serbian history: Burning of Saint Sava's relics and the First Serbian Uprising".

Left: Saint Sava, authentic depiction, fresco at Mileševa ca. 1235
Right: Saint Sava enlightener of schoolchildren, Uroš Prediċ, 1921
 Sava's pilgrimages to the Holy Land, Egypt and Constantinople

Saint Sava (1175–1235), the patron saint and national hero of the Serbian people, was born Rastko Nemanja in 1175, the son of Serbian Grand Župan Stephen (r. 1166–1196). Serbia was still a relatively young nation, having freed itself from the Byzantine Empire in the previous century. In 1077 Duklja became the first Serb kingdom, its founding being intimately interconnected with the establishment of the Roman Catholic Bishopric of Bar. Toward the end of the 12th century, the new state Raška, centered in what is now southern Serbia, rose as a second Serbian nation. Stephen Nemanja ruled Raška. In 1196 he, like his son Rastko before him, moved to the Eastern Orthodox monastic center on Mount Athos in Greece, where he was known as the monk Simeon. Soon afterward, he joined with his son to rebuild the ruined Monastery of Hilandar, on Mount Athos, which had been given to the Serbian people by the Byzantine emperor. Simeon died there in 1199. Sava organized after his return to Serbia the Serbian Orthodox Church and was consecrated the first archbishop of the Serbian church by Patriarch Manul I of Constantinople (r. 1216–1222), the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Sava died in 1236 after his unparalleled second pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Egypt and Mount Sinai, in Veliko Tarnovo in Bulgaria. He was later canonized and named the patron saint of Serbian schools and school-children.

In 1594, Serbs rose up against Ottoman rule in Banat, during the Long War (1591–1606)[1] which was fought at the Austrian-Ottoman border in the Balkans. The Serbian patriarchate and rebels had established relations with foreign states,[1] and had in a short time captured several towns, including Vršac, Bečkerek, Lipova, Titel and Bečej, although the uprising was quickly suppressed. The rebels had, in the character of a holy war, carried war flags with the icon of Saint Sava.[2]

The war banners had been consecrated by Patriarch John I Kantul, whom the Ottoman government later had hanged in Istanbul. Ottoman Grand Vizier Sinan Pasha ordered that the sarcophagus and relics of Saint Sava located in the Mileševa monastery be brought by military convoy to Belgrade.[1][2] Along the way, the Ottoman convoy had people killed in their path so that the rebels in the woods would hear of it.[2] The relics were publicly incinerated by the Ottomans, on 27 April 1595, as it was placed on a pyre and burnt on the Vračar plateau, and the ashes scattered.[1] According to Nikolaj Velimirović the flames were seen over the Danube.[2]

On the 300th anniversary of the burning of Saint Sava's body, a group of Serbian Orthodox believers founded the Society for the Construction of the Cathedral of Saint Sava on Vračar with the idea of building a cathedral on the site. Initially a small church was constructed and the search began to find an adequate design.

The church is widely regarded as an important symbol of the Byzantine revival architecture, that dominated church architecture from Russia to the Balkans in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In particular, it had to serve Serbs as a symbol of the afterlife of the medieval Serbian empire. Especially in the context of Yugoslavia, a Serbo-Byzantine culture was favoured both by the Yugoslav king Aleksandar I Karadjordjević and the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The adoption of a pattern that followed the prototype of the Haghia Sophia in Constantinople illustrates the idea that Serbs are legitimate heirs to imperial Byzantium. Belgrade was visioned as a new imperial center of Orthodoxy, which had a particular resonance in the context of the demise of Moscow being the communist capital when the church was planned.[3]

"Being only recently finished, the Belgrade church stands as a vivid reminder of the longevity of the Serbo-Byzantine discourse, a visual symbol of a peculiarly Serbian adaptation of the classical doctrines of renovatio and translatio, which has remained one of the sturdiest longue durée structures of Serbian national history, politics and culture

— Aleksandar Ignjatović, 2018

Date and location of the Burning of Saint Sava's relics remained disputed. Given years are 1594 and 1595, while the proposed locations, as the name Vračar was applied to the much wider territory than it occupies today, include: Crveni Krst, suggested by Gligorije Vozarović [sr] who erected reddish Vozarev Krst at the spot, which gave name to the entire neighborhood of Crveni Krst ("Red Cross"); mound of "Čupina Humka", in Tašmajdan, previously known as Little Vračar, which is the preferred location of modern historians; Vračar plateau, which attracted the widest public acceptance.[4][5][6]

In 1894, which was then celebrated as the 300th anniversary of the burning, consensus was reached to build the church on the third plateau location. In 1895 the "Society for the Construction of the Church of Saint Sava on Vračar" was founded in Belgrade. The major part of the parcel donated for the construction came from Scottish missionary Francis Mackenzie, who purchased and developed this part of the city in the late 19th century. By the 1900 ukaz of King Alexander Obrenović, the planned church was declared a "nationwide edifice".[6] A small church was built at the future place of the temple, and it was later moved so the construction of the temple could begin.

First competition

In 1906, an architectural design competition for the future church was announced. Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences was authorized to judge the project, and it rejected all five applications as insufficient. A series of wars followed (First Balkan War in 1912, Second Balkan War in 1913, World War I in 1914–1918), which stopped all construction activities.[6] After the war, in 1919, the Society was re-established.

A renewed competition was announced in 1926. Beside the church itself, it was to include buildings of the Patriarchate, Ministry of Religion, Seminary and Great Religious Court [sr]. The competition rules stipulated that the new church must be in the style of the Serbo-Byzantine architecture, from the period of Prince Lazar (late 14th century). There were 24 submissions. Though the first and third prizes were not awarded, a second-place submission was handed to the architect Bogdan Nestorović [sr].[6]

Soon, the project itself, but also the idea of the church and its proposed style became a matter of fierce public debate. In 1905, Croatian sculptor Ivan Meštrović proposed his idea of building the Vidovdan Temple. Fragments of the future building were exhibited in the pavilion of the Kingdom of Serbia at the major Rome 1911 exhibition. The full-scale model was then exhibited by Meštrović in London in 1915. The idea of Meštrović was that epics of all Yugoslav ethnicities are the same and he wanted to represent all "three tribes" (Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) in the monumental temple. He sculpted caryatides for the entrance of the future temple, which are today in the hallways of the National Museum in Belgrade. Meštrović planned to build it at Gazimestan, on Kosovo, between the rivers of Sitnica and Lab.[6]

Second competition  Patriarch Dimitrije, head of the commission 1926–27

After World War I, Serbia was integrated into the new Yugoslav State, thus the idea for the memorial church transformed into a more ambitious project. In the second competition a church with a ground area of 60 x 60 m was publicly announced. A new impetus came from the foundation of an association to build a memorial church on Vračar. The managing board was held by the patriarch Dimitrije. The church was thought to have a built area of 3000 m2, to tower 80 m and offer space to 6.000 faithful.[7] The church was to pay reference to close national building traditions and resemble edifices in late Byzantine art of the so-called "Morava style", highlighting locally built churches commissioned under the reign of Lazar of Serbia (1329-1389) and his successors. The churches from the second half of the 14th century had all a trikonchic floor-plans, a cross-in-square design and some important royal burial places and memorial monasteries were also five-domed. One specification said that only Yugoslav or Russian architects are eligible for entries in the competition.[8] It favoured especially Serbian nationals and Russian émigré architects, who were the main representatives in the neo-Byzantine movement which had graduated at the Vienna Academy of Arts, where Serbian students were lectured by Theophil von Hansen at the end of the 19th century in neo-Byzantine tendencies. They figured prominently in the competition of 1926–27.[9]

The guidelines of the competition stated that the building should be the "greatest and most monumental building in the country, and have ultimate artistic importance".[10]

With the preparation and implementation of the second International Congress of Byzantine Studies 1927 in Belgrade, tendencies of the neo-Byzantine movement culminated in Yugoslavia.[11] The clerical hierarchy sought a church in the tradition of historicism based on classical Byzantine models, more precisely on buildings in the then-called "Serbo-Byzantine Style". The competition marked a climax in neo-Byzantine tendencies in Serbia which saw also the rising of Monastery Gračanica as the ultimate achievement of the late Byzantine architecture and an acclaimed model for the building of the new church on Vračar, even so it was not requested.[12]

It was coincidental that the call for entries was listed on 3 November 1926 in Politika and the competition should be held on 30 April 1927, several months prior to the International Congress of Byzantine Studies 10–14 December 1927. Discourses in the Serbo-Byzantine movement derived not directly from the sphere of architecture, but established here from studies in humanities, which retrospectively sought to highlight the importance of the Byzantine commonwealth to the Serbian cultural tradition. The main proponents came from Russia. With an important Russian émigré community, Belgrade had become after World War I a center of this tendency. Russian émigré architects had become the main architects for public buildings during the reign of the Yugoslav king Aleksandar I, they were located atop the hierarchy and were preferably engaged for building representative government edifices.

The competition itself was not successful, no first-prize winner was announced. None of the entries sufficed the public and professional opinion. Most entries had even not fulfilled the guidelines, most proposed designs were based on models of the Gračanica Monastery as the main representative of national Serbian medieval architecture or even the Haghia Sophia. It is believed that the Jury had recommended the two models.[13] As with the Katholikon of Gračanica, its design was regarded the highpoint of the national architecture, and the competition manifested as the initial point in an evolving discourse about architecture and national identity in Serbian art.[14] Gračanica, even not belonging to the group of memorial monasteries whose royal founders build them as burial places, became a chosen inspiration for the architects. They saw it as a modern source of inspiration in the quest for a true national style.[15]

The second competition saw 22 (24?) entries from major architects in the country. All final proposals had to be submitted before May 1927. Besides Bogdan Nestorović and Aleksandar Deroko, entries came from Dragiša Brašovan, Milan Zloković, Milutin Borisavljević, Branko Krstić and Petar Krstić, Žarko Tatić, Aleksej Papkov, Miladin Prljević, Branče Marinković and Žikica Piperski, Aleksander Vasić and others.[16] The commission had Patriarch Dimitrije, Jovan Cvijić, Andra Stevanović and Bogdan Popović, Pera Popović and Momir Korunović.[17] The commission declined to name a winning entry, as none of the entries had fulfilled the tender criteria.[18] The commission criticised the minor quality of most of the entries.

Public controversy Competition
Nestorović's competition entry was based on the classic example of the Gračanica katholikon 
Nestorović's competition entry was based on the classic example of the Gračanica katholikon
Petar Arnautović painted the final Nestorović/Deroko model in 1932. As thus it was publicly presented through newspaper outlets. 
Petar Arnautović painted the final Nestorović/Deroko model in 1932. As thus it was publicly presented through newspaper outlets.
Nestorović and Deroko produced their designs in plaster models which were judged by the Commission in 1931 
Nestorović and Deroko produced their designs in plaster models which were judged by the Commission in 1931
Study of Nestorović, 1931, which was approved by the commission for further rework 
Study of Nestorović, 1931, which was approved by the commission for further rework

Five years after the second competition, 1932, and two years after the new Patriarch Patriarch Varnava took office, the Committee unexpectedly announced that the second-prize entry and the runners-up were chosen to be combined for the final project. That was followed by the similarly unexpected suggestion that the new cathedral should be reminiscent of Haghia Sophia. Bogdan Nestorović's entry 1927 was based upon the Gračanica model and had only touched some elements that resemble the plan of the Hagia Sophia, while the entry of Aleksandar Deroko even more reminiscent of Haghia Sophia was by no means a copy or anywhere close to the appearance of the imperial church. There were additional complaints about the plan to build an immense monument that was to be of national importance for Yugoslavs, given the fact that the cult of Saint Sava was a largely Serbian legacy. Despite the public debate, the realization of the Nestorović-Deroko project took shape after 1932. Vojislav Zađin was chosen as the engineer. Still, construction of the church couldn't start for several more years, in which the architects finalized their plans, as the size of the church and the dimensions grew. The decision process occurred amidst political turmoil, the Yugoslav kingdom became a royal dictatorship in 1929, the Croatian politician Stjepan Radić was killed in parliament 1928 and King Alexander was assassinated in Marseilles, France in 1934, and the idea of integral Yugoslavism died with him. Especially during the hot phase of the debate 1931–32 a paradox happened, after two years of royal dictatorship the state adopted a new constitution (3 September 1931), following a new ideological path to unitarization. At the same time, the pan-Yugoslavian theme in building the church of Saint Sava was dropped, and its function in the Serbian tradition was adopted by the Serbian clergy. By the time the church was to announce the new plans, integral Yugoslavism had been adopted as state ideology, with the parallel decision of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Saint Sava was to represent only Serbian Orthodox believers, a genuine and active counterreaction was established. This path had started immediately after Varnava took office in 1930, vocal support of Yugoslav national unity remained only declarative, as Yugoslavism was meant only in the context of Serbian supremacy and under a Serbian sign.[19]

During the debate, some even pushed for the construction of the Vidovdan Temple instead. Especially vocal was art historian Kosta Strajnić [sh]. He and his supporters opted for the "Yugoslav, not Serbian Pantheon". They also rejected the Byzantine design, as it only symbolized "one tribe". Meštrović supported Strajnić, insisting that the new "Yugoslav style" should be created, instead of the sacred architecture that would fit only one of the denominations. King Alexander Karađorđević publicly didn't support any solution, but privately pushed for the Meštrović's temple. The King was a major proponent of integral Yugoslavism and changed the state's name to Yugoslavia. Meštrović, as the most important representative of the idea of the "autochthonous Yugoslav art and architecture", was his favorite artist.[6]

 Aleksandar Deroko with floorplan on a stamp, 2019

After the 1926–27 competition had no winner, the project remained dormant for three years. The "Society for the Construction of the Church of Saint Sava on Vračar" called the University of Belgrade in 1930 to delegate "two specialists" to join the Society and Nestorović in further elaborating on the design of the church.[20] The faculty proposed two professors, Dragutin Ðorđević, from the architectural department of the Technical University, a known project engineer and Aleksandar Deroko, lecturer at the chair of Byzantine and Old Serbian Architecture. Meanwhile, only Aleksandar Deroko joined Bogdan Nestorović in the fulfilment of the task. Both architects were asked to submit separate new plans based to the new guidelines defined by the technical department of the "Society for the Construction of the Church of Saint Sava on Vračar". On 1 and 2 January 1932 their definitive plans were published for the first time by the newspaper Politika. The plans appeared as images of plaster models for the future church. Both of the new models differed from the previous competition entries of Nestorovic and Deroko in 1927. In contrast to their sketches from 1927, when their entries differed markedly in silhouette, materials, composition and general appearance, the new proposals now looked very similar. References to the national tradition had vanished, neither of the two models was based in any way in design on the "Morava"-churches or Gračanica. The visual difference to the five year older proposals was even substantiated by the information in the accompanying text, where a 33 m measuring dome, which would dominate the church, was quoted. Without doubt the two similar plans had now been drafted authoritatively through the supervision of the society. The two authors acknowledged the Haghia Sophia. The similarity to the Haghia Sophia was apparent, and it did not stem from the authors' preferences, but from authoritative requirements which they had been asked to follow. The obligation set by Patriarch Varnava in 1930, that the church should be reminiscent of Byzantium was now, two years later, fixed in the newspapers' headlines, which stated the "Style was set definitively to be Byzantine". Varnavas and the Society's decision was uncompromising as the newspaper article stated: "With the model of Mr. Nestorović and the model of Mr. Deroko, it was exactly hit what was asked for - the church has to be completely Byzantine, resembling Haghia Sophia in Constantinople".

After this revelation, the newspaper headlines alleged that the Society had deliberately and unexpectedly given "the directive, that the church of Saint Sava should resemble the Haghia Sophia in Constantinople" and that its plan was accepted as the definitive design of the church. This was never denied. Nor the two architects, who accepted their part which they were assigned to. With it, a transition from the 1926-27 guidelines had happened, as Byzantium was now the key element for the identity in which the church would be built.

The resulting final result in the design process was set in the concept of Nestorović whereto certain corrections should be made in collaboration with Alekandar Deroko, which had been decided even before their two models were presented to the public. With this combination, both architects were to make the final blueprint. Despite the publicly announced models not being the final blueprint of the church, the accompanying newspaper text had announced them as the final appearance, which caused an avalanche of negative reactions in the public and among experts. The dispute from a sequence of opinions published by the newspaper Vreme started on 23 January 1931.

After the king dropped his earlier veto on the decision to stop the further planning on the church, the opposing Club of Architects dropped its critical campaign after they were invited to the patriarch. A critical stage of further work occurred in an unstable society from 1932 to 1935. National antagonisms increased and the state saw nine different governments. Under such circumstances the planned church became even more Byzantized, it became a symbol of a political identity and not only an esthetic and stylistic predilection of its planners. The stylistic transformation of its plans to the imperialistic architectural narration is a testimony to the phenomenon which by far surpassed questioning architecture per se and is a mirror to social and political contexts of the state.[21] With it, the episode during which the church was debated, it bears conclusive witness to the drama behind the international political life of Yugoslavia.[22]

Synthetic redraft and invocation of Haghia Sophia  The interlocked geometries of the constructive structures of Haghia Sophia cover its huge framework

With the invocation of Justinian's Haghia Sophia the size of the church was even larger than that called for in the initial competition. As they developed their project, Nestoroviċ and Deroko reflected the growing enthusiasm of one part of the population that wanted Belgrade to have one of the largest Orthodox churches in the world. The size, height and weight of the dome were meant to surpass the grandeur of Haghia Sophia. From the initially planned 60 x 60 m, the church had now grown to a square of 80 x 90 m and could hold 10.000 instead of 6.000 worshippers. The diameter of the dome had much enlarged and was to compete with some of the great domed cathedrals of late antiquity, renaissance, baroque and the historicism epoch. As thus the only reference for the synthetic redraft of the Nestorović/Deroko design came from the Haghia Sophia, which possessed a dome that initially had a diameter of 33 m.[23] As it had been the cathedral of the capital city of the Byzantine Empire, its design was naturally imposed on the Belgrade Cathedral, as it was more appropriate for its urban context, than were the minor monastic churches of rural areas. With it, the idea to orient to national tradition was abandoned. This decision was highly criticised by public opinion, but not by the professional public, which didn't find many arguments for the proposal of building such a great church on the basis of the national tradition. The homogeneity of the interior space had come into consideration, which had been so successfully accomplished in the universally acclaimed Haghia Sophia. With the evolution of the model, Nestorović synthesized this with the proposal of Deroko into a final model, which resembled the dimensions of the Haghia Sophia and paraphrased several of its architectural achievements, but had created an interior space of its very own. It had a strictly centrally planned design with four apses which create a very dense, spacious and yet intimate interior. As Branko Pešić, who continued the building after the long building ban, described it in 1988:

"It will be a unique cathedral due to the experience for anyone who enters its interior. Which means, this interior space, which was planned by professor Nestorović, will be the most beautiful in religious architecture. It's not only my subjective opinion, but was stated by all who came here and even to those who had only a glimpse."

— Branko Pešić, 1988, Katedralni Hram na Savincu

The adoption of the "Haghia Sophia" was led by impulses from western academic circles and literature, above all French and German, which acknowledged the Byzantine tradition in the rationality of construction from which followed spatial clarity, shown in a logical visually apparent image of the constructive system in the building structure.

"The utilitarian argument in the choice to use for St. Sava the architectural concept applied to St. Sophia was not a result of the decision in 1931-1932 and a sudden interest for the Justinianian church from its perfect spatial ambience and the system to overarch space, but came from the long tradition of its perception as an unparalleled structure, which had been active in Serbian scientific discourse."

— Aleksandar Ignjatović, 2016, U srpsko-vizantijskom kaleidoskopu: arhitektura, nacionalizam i imperijalna imaginacija 1878-1941

Since the beginning of the development of the scholarly discipline of architectural history in Serbia, St. Sophia has been referred to as a superior realization, equivalently in the importance of its constructive solution, structure and spatial effects.[24] This was reasonably a reverberation of the global presentation of this church, whose modern life, from the beginning of the middle of the 19th century, became surprisingly dynamic and complex. The magnetic attraction of its architectural solution boosted towards the end of the 19th century and reached its highest amplitude in Serbia in the interwar years. Owing to its architectural uniqueness, St. Sophia is often regarded as a structure without examples and imitation,[25] though the Justinianian church remained an "archetype-building" - and not in the context of its place in Byzantine architecture, rather as symbol of Byzantine cultural authenticity and partly superiority - from which it gained in importance in the narratives in the relationship between the Byzantine and Serbian identities and in the parentologic metaphor of the link between Byzantium and the medieval Serbian state.

Construction  During the lengthy building ban, the fate of the church foundations erected prior to 1941 created controversy among communist leaders and church authorities. Here pictured around the late 70s.

Forty years after the initial idea, construction of the church began on 10 May 1935, 340 years after the burning of Saint Sava's remains. The cornerstone was laid by Metropolitan Gavrilo of Montenegro, (the future Serbian Patriarch Gavrilo V). The project was designed by Aleksandar Deroko and Bogdan Nestorović, aided by civil engineer Vojislav Zađina. The work lasted until Second World War Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941.

The church's foundation had been completed, and the walls erected to the height of 7 and 11 meters. After the 1941 bombing of Belgrade, work ceased altogether. The occupying German army used the unfinished church as the Wehrmacht's parking lot, while in 1944 the Red Army, and later the Yugoslav People's Army used it for the same purpose. After that, it was used for storage by various companies. The Society for Building of the Church ceased to exist and has not been revived. Children who grew up in the vicinity, including the future President of Serbia Boris Tadić, didn't know the intended purpose of the unfinished construction, so they played inside thinking it was a ruin of an old castle.[26] The granite slabs, intended for the construction of the church, were used for the building of the Tomb of People's Heroes in 1948, in the Kalemegdan section of the Belgrade Fortress.[27]

Construction ban  Columns had been preserved during the long discontinuation at the construction site

After the end of World War II, the building site was closed due to the changing political situation and the dominant ideological position of communism in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Soon after the war, the material and financial possibilities to resume construction were dim. The communist elite identified themselves as atheists and rejected the request of the Serbian Orthodox Church to build the site. The unfinished building was transformed to a playground and even various circus troupes used it for their purposes.

Despite decades of efforts by the Serbian Patriarch German to continue building (and after he made 88 requests from 1958 onwards, of which 82 were sent to the President of Yugoslavia Josip Broz Tito, to which Tito never personally replied) all of them were rejected by government authorities. Permission was finally granted in 1984 when the patriarch was invited to Dušan Čkrebić, President of Presidency of Serbia.[26]

1948 saw the closing of the association to support the building of Saint Sava, her duties were transferred to the board of the patriarchy. In 1953 all belongings of the association to build Saint Sava were confiscated by the Secretary of the Interior Ministry via the decree 2/3-11.855. Even the existing foundation walls were seized and transferred to the people's property.[28] The decree never arrived at church authorities. Despite this, the church took legal action to counter the nationalisation of its property. In 1962 they were told by the Bureau of Religious Affairs that nationalized property can not be returned to church.

After German had been named Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1958, he personally championed the issue. During his term of office it was one of his main concerns to commence with construction. He sent every month a titular bishop to the mayor of Belgrade, to request the removal of garages and all non-religious objects. After this was achieved, 88 requests were sent to various government agencies, who sent him from "pillar to post", from the lowest state agencies to regional authorities, the agencies of the city and executive organs of Serbian and Yugoslav governments.[29]

On 28 April 1966, the synod of the Serbian Orthodox church was offered by the president of the executive chamber of the Serbian government, Dragim Stamenković, to roof foundation walls and transform them into a church museum or a fresco gallery. As they were aware that no better offer would arrive, they agreed to transform it temporarily into a church museum, but rejected the fresco museum proposal. After that, the communist leader outplayed them, as the communist rulers declared that the church had consented to transfer the decision-making regarding all problems related to Saint Sava to the executive chamber of the Socialist Republic of Serbia. The church even received a changed record of their meeting, as it read that the church had agreed that the locality was to become a "museum of church antiquities" and "fresco gallery" under state supervision.[29] The church, recognising its marginalisation, withdrew its consent and repeatedly demanded to build the planned church. Émigré circles were approached for financial support, which the government dismissed. After the Serbian National Library was erected before the entrance of the building, the church was asked by the president of the Serbian Parliament Dragoslav Draža Marković to relocate its property.[29]

A sudden turn came after Dušan Čkrebić was elected president of the Serbian Collective State Presidency in May 1984. He decided to use a legal loophole. The decision to ban the construction came from the top of the Communist party, and had a status of "political stand" which no one challenged for decades. It was never published by any state, political organ, nor was printed in the State Gazette. Therefore, no changing or abolishing old decrees, or bringing a new one, was needed. He consulted numerous political figures, including President of the Assembly of Serbia Slobodan Gligorijević, secretary-general of the Serbian League of Communists Ivan Stambolić and Slobodan Milošević, then head of the city Communist organization. No one objected, except for the veteran's organization branch in Vračar.[30]

So, on 19 June 1985, Čkrebić informed German and all the members of synod the church had the full right to build Saint Sava as planned on the foreseen place,[29] saying later that he felt this was his "civilizational obligation" and "removal of shame from his generation".[30] Čkrebić suggested to not make his decision public to avoid any counter action and restart work without notifying public. Suddenly all the functionaries, even those in highest positions, which had previously rejected the church building had implicitly tolerated the decision of their younger comrades and remained supportive.[29] Naturally this decision was received as a media bomb and became a public sensation.

On 12 May 1985, 100,000 people gathered in Belgrade to celebrate with the Serbian Patriarch and twenty bishops a liturgy inside the walls of Saint Sava. Still a part of a communist country, the event marked one of the historic turning points that symbolised the fall of communism in Europe.[31] It was a turning point not only for the building of Saint Sava, but also for the demise of the political concept that lay behind the state atheism of communist Yugoslavia. The rising of the building also marked the return of religion to Yugoslavia.

Resumption of work
Left: Patriarch German tried in vain to be granted permission to finish the church
Right: Dušan Čkrebić, president of the Presidency of SR Serbia, permitted the continuation of construction in 1984
Left: Branko Pešić with church model
Right: Pešić in front of construction plans
 Composite section plan. The building was reworked by Pešić

Architect Branko Pešić was selected as the new architect of the church. He revised the original plans in order to make better use of new materials and building techniques. Construction of the building began again on 12 August 1985. The original design project proposed a structure composed of masonry and partly reinforced concrete. The state of the existing foundations was learned after detailed investigative work. The four central bell towers were founded on 532 "Simplex" piles, 6 m in depth. The massive perimeter walls are laid on strip foundation 4 m in depth. The quality of the various materials used, i.e. brick, concrete, reinforcement, marble, etc. had been established through investigative work. Detailed survey of the existing structure, the as-built outlines were determined, and served as a starting point for further design and construction work.

From the resumption of construction, the building was re-planned to use a very high level of assembling methods of all parts of the static system, although the complex geometrical shapes of the building made it necessary to use some new and unique methods. As the building was built from pre-assembled concrete slabs, a technological model had to be implemented to provide parallel works, secure quality and build economically. With innovation in the building procedure, the speed of "assembling" the building could be greatly enhanced. Construction was resumed on the level of the original design which used a combination of brick and concrete was cancelled. These lower levels were preserved with the foundation structure, which had to be repaired. The four-wing section had to be separated from the central part by way of expansion joints. Tying up of the foundations, the existing part and the new structure of forthcoming stages were achieved with reinforced concrete columns and tie-beams. Expansion joints in the wing sections were carried out along the line of intersection between the semi-domes and the main arches, and vertically down the bell towers up to the foundations.

The continued construction was designed as a fully prefabricated reinforced concrete element structure. From the geometrically complicated form in view of its structural points, the single elements had to be broken down into precast components outlined with straight lines to the greatest possible extent. Walls had been designed as hollow boxes, which, when assembled, give the building its massive appearance.

All arched shapes of the galleries and vaults were transformed into assemblies of elements curved into two dimensions, which, having been erected, formed three-dimensional shapes. The semi-domes and the dome have been linearized by designing a system of arched trusses and two layers of curved decking. The precast parts were bound into a whole by in-situ cast parts of the structure which provided the required safety and longevity of the building.

The bell towers were initially started as a combination of brick and concrete columns and were continued as concrete box-structures for providing the greatest possible resistance of the towers and the least possible weight. This part of the building was completed by applying the sliding shuttering method (slip-form), with the advantages of prefabrication.

The central part of the building includes four main arches between the bell towers and the central dome with the pendentive underneath and the dome on top. Each arch spans 24 m, which is one of the widest vault spans achieved, as most of the European great domes rest on 8 or 16 pillars. Only Hagia Sophia's dome rests on only four pillars with a span between the arches reaching 31 m. It is still the widest span between the arches of any historical sacral building and still the biggest dome which was erected on only four pillars.

It was found that the type of foundation chosen in the initial design lacked adequate strength to carry the loads imposed from the whole building. With the new materials and design methods, weight was reduced by 30-40 %. Before the lifting of the main dome the "Simplex" piles below the main tower-column had to be improved for carrying gravity and other loads. The foundation pile was partly replaced. While the initial foundation were only 6 m deep, the new ones with 1,4 m diameter reached a depth of 17 m and reached solid rock.

The structural analyses were made with dynamic calculation models using the "TABS" model from Berkely University. All the dimensioning of the elements was done in accordance with European and Yugoslav codes. For the lifting procedures, instruments were placed into the structures to compute the data collected which were analysed by computers. All relevant data was monitored live during the lifting of the heavy assembled elements of the main arches, pendentif and the main dome. Deflection, jack's strokes, leveling of supports, deformations and stresses of main elements were analysed.

Lifting of the dome Lifting of the Dome
The unique lifting of the dome by lift-slab method in 20 days in 1989 
The unique lifting of the dome by lift-slab method in 20 days in 1989
Time Lapse of the lifting 
Time Lapse of the lifting
Lifting of the dome 
Lifting of the dome

The greatest achievement of the construction process was lifting of the 4,000 ton central dome, which was built on the ground, together with the copper plate and the cross, and later lifted onto the vaulted arches. The lifting, which took 20 days with the specially constructed hydraulic machines, was finished on 26 June 1989.

Before the dome could be lifted, the four main arches had to be brought into place. The four arches are the elements linking the bell towers both physically and in terms of communication. All four pairs of arches were very successfully lifted and fixed into position between January and June 1988. On the outer arches, which belong to the wing section, the semi-domes were formed, each consisting of eight curved, reinforced concrete trusses covered with curved slab decking. The assembly of the arches was done on the ground from pre-fabricated slabs, with their weight of 4000 kN each, they were lifted with "chains" to their intended position. The lifting of heavy loads to great heights was remarkably easily achieved, which as an innovation was a completely new system especially designed for the building. The chains were tested against safety factor of overloading between 1.6 and 2.2. As the expansion-joint arch rests "hanging" from chains in the lifted position, its own columns had to be subsequently cast underneath. They were then relaxed and together with the columns, form a framed system in a "portal" configuration. As the arches are major elements in the structural safety of the dome, they were analyzed in detail in all stages of static live, both in terms of stresses and deflections. The dimensions of the arches were reduced, optimized, so that the resulting structure could become as light as possible for technological purposes, and at the same time strong enough for the lifespan of the building.

The main work was the heavy-assembly-pushing technology in the raising of the main dome. The dome, weighing 4000 tonnes, was lifted by pushing. For the, dome the main gallery, spanning 39,5 m in diameter, which bears the dome and connects to the four bell-towers was prefabricated inside the central square. It sat as a monolith on gravel embankment of 120 cm height.

As thus it could be completed in one phase with the supporting gallery, the dome and the cross and copper covering. Works began in November 1988 and assembly was finished at the end of February 1989. The main dome was assembled from 24 curved, reinforced concrete trusses with two layers of decking forming outer skins around either flanges of the trusses. The bottom decking was intended for mosaic ornament on the inner surface of the dome. The electro-hydraulic lifting equipment prescribed by KMG "Trudbenik" was designed and delivered by the Hydraulic and Pneumatic equipment and devices factory "Prva Petoletka".

The assembly-lifting of the dome structure, with completely executed copper covering works and cross, weighing 3.9 meganewtons (400 megaponds) from the ground up to the designated position at +40,09 m was done at speeds restricted to 2,5 m/day for safety reasons. With a hydraulic integral lifting power of ca. 49 meganewtons (5,000 megaponds), proportional serve-valves as well as strike and pressure pickup was done on all four reactive supports simultaneously. Computers led the unity lifting, vertical stepping of 110 mm in one step was realized by application of reinforced concrete slab-cribbing in all reactive supports by robots, which were successively placed under the jacks of the dome. Lifting to 13 m was done with supports passing by the bell-towers in order not to destroy the columns of the galleries. From there, the equipment and support steel (pi shaping) girder were moved into the slits which were left intentionally during the slip-forming of the columns. For each day, casting had to be done in situ around the cribbing slabs in order to finalize 2,5 m of columns per day. The columns were stiff enough for 2,5 m and lifting was restricted to five hours a day.

Over 280 electronic elastomers were placed throughout the dome and its elements, all hydraulic components, were supplied by measurement instruments on information about jack's stroke and jack pressure which were fed to a specially designed computer to control the automatic lifting operation. A fully independent outside electronic leveling system was attached to the computer control, which secured the exact levelling information, and could stop the lifting operation in case of mislevelling greater than 5 mm. One of two working Pc-At clones was collecting and monitoring of over 24 essential data during the performance operation which was finished without mistakes.

The last lifting operations were performed at level +39,69 m, while the top of the dome had reach approximately 80 m in elevation. With the lifting method no risky and complicated assemblies were necessary at this height. All the covering works of the copper sheet on wooden basis and the cross had been performed in March and April, while the dome was still on the ground.

After the lifting of the dome, the pendentive was assembled again at ground level underneath the main dome. It represents the transitional tie element through which the rectilinear plan of the church naos changes to the circular plan of the main dome. With the lifting of the pendentive, the central part of the church was rounded off.

The structural connection between the pendentive and the main dome supports the dome in four positions. It was done by means of hydraulic jacks capable to produce 3000 kN each (12.000 kN in total). The pendentive will suffice for later additional loads from applied mortar, mosaic cladding and marble cladding on the facade.

The pendentive was lifted again by chains. The weight of the pendentive, about 1100 Mp, spanning in perpendicular direction 24*24 m and 14 m height was lifted to 28 m beneath the main dome. This was achieved during two days at the end of January 1990. It was lifted in 36 hours, with speeds at 2,0 m/h. It reached an accuracy within the prescribed technological design with 5 cm tolerance.

With this work the structural part of the church was finished.

Interruption of works

After the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, the works were halted again. Patriarch Pavle, known for his asceticism, thought that such an expensive works are inappropriate when people are beaten and impoverished. After becoming a prime minister in 2001, Zoran Đinđić talked with patriarch and convinced him to continue the works.[26]

Final works  Mukhin at the Church of Saint Sava, 2021

As of 2017[update], the exterior of the church was complete. The bells and windows had been installed, and the façade completed. The Russian Academy of Arts under the guidance of Nikolay Aleksandrovich Mukhin is currently working on the internal decoration.[32] On 22 February 2018, during the presentation of the new internal decoration, the decorated cupola was donated to the Serbian Orthodox Church.[33]

^ a b c d Velikonja, Mitja (5 February 2003). Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Texas A&M University Press. pp. 75–. ISBN 978-1-58544-226-3. ^ a b c d Velimirović, Nikolaj (January 1989). The Life of St. Sava. St Vladimir's Seminary Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-0-88141-065-5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Academia:PDF was invoked but never defined (see the help page). ^ "Pozdrav ispod Beograda" [Greetings from beneath Belgrade] (in Serbian). 21 July 2008. ^ "Sve tajne beogradskog podzemlja" [All secrets of the Belgrade underworld] (in Serbian). 8 June 2008. ^ a b c d e f Vesić, Goran (18 October 2019). Храм Светог Саве [Saint Sava Temple]. Politika (in Serbian). p. 14. ^ Ljubomir Milanović 2012: S. 67 ^ Ljubomir Milanović 2001: Materializing Authority: The Church of Saint Sava in Belgrade and its Architectural Significance. Serbian Studies: Journal of the North American Society for Serbian Studies, Volume 24, Numbers 1-2: 63-81 (PDF) ^ Tanja Damljanovic 2005: S. 128 ^ Ljubomir Milanović 2012: S. 68. ^ Aleksandar Kadijevic: "EVOKACIJE I PARAFRAZE VIZANTIJSKOG GRADITEQSTVA U SRPSKOJ ARHITEKTURI OD 1918 DO 1941" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 30, 2011. Retrieved December 14, 2019. (PDF; 332 kB). GODINE ^ Aleksandar Kadijević 2016: Byzantine architecture as inspiration for serbian new age architects. Katalog der SANU anlässlich des Byzantinologischen Weltkongresses 2016 und der Begleitausstellung in der Galerie der Wissenschaften und Technik in der Serbischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und Künste, Serbian Committee for Byzantine Studies, Belgrade. ISBN 978-86-7025-694-1 Hier S. 53 ^ Tanja Damljanic 2005: S. 128 ^ Tanja Damljanic 2005: S. 129 ^ Tanja Damljanovic 2005: S. 129 ^ Aleksandar Deroko: 195 ^ NIN, Nr. 2696, 29. August 2002 Ta, pocnite jednom stogod ^ Ljubomir Milanović 2012: S. 69 ^ Aleksandar Ignjatovic 2016: U srpsko-vizantijskom kaleidoskopu: arhitektura, nacionalizam i imperijalna imaginacija 1878-1941. Architektonische Fakultät Belgrad, Orion Art, Belgrad. ISBN 9788663890381 See pages 266-267 ^ Aleksandar Ignjatovic 2016: U srpsko-vizantijskom kaleidoskopu: arhitektura, nacionalizam i imperijalna imaginacija 1878-1941. Architektonische Fakultät Belgrad, Orion Art, Belgrad. ISBN 9788663890381 See pages 241-334 ^ Aleksandar Ignjatovic 2016: U srpsko-vizantijskom kaleidoskopu: arhitektura, nacionalizam i imperijalna imaginacija 1878-1941. Architektonische Fakultät Belgrad, Orion Art, Belgrad. ISBN 9788663890381 See pages 268 ^ Aleksandar Ignjatovic 2016: 269 ^ Helge Svenson 2010: DAS BAUWERK ALS »AISTHETON SOMA« – EINE NEUINTERPRETATION DER HAGIA SOPHIA IM SPIEGEL ANTIKER VERMESSUNGSLEHRE UND ANGEWANDTER MATHEMATIK. In: Falko Daim · Jörg Drauschke (Hrsg.) Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter Teil 2, 1 Schauplätze, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte [1] ^ Aleksandar Ignjatovic 2016: U srpsko-vizantijskom kaleidoskopu: arhitektura, nacionalizam i imperijalna imaginacija 1878-1941. Architektonische Fakultät Belgrad, Orion Art, Belgrad. ISBN 9788663890381 See pages 274-275 ^ Jörg Lauster 2012: Warum gibt es Kirchen? Rom – Jerusalem – Konstantinopel. In: Thomas Erne 2012 (Hrsg.): Kirchenbau. 23–33, Vanderoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. ISBN 978-3-525-56852-1 ^ a b c Apostolovski, Aleksandar (27 January 2013), "Legenda o Hramu Svetog Save", Politika (in Serbian) ^ Vasiljević, Branka (10 December 2019). "Krivična prijava zbog skrnavljenja Grobnice narodnih heroja" [Criminal charges for the vandalization of the Tomb of People's Heroes]. Politika (in Serbian). p. 14. ^ NIN, 4 issues August–September 2002 on the History of the construction of Saint Sava and interview with Branko Pešić (22.08.2002, 29.08.2002, 05.09.2002, 12.09.2002 (1), (2), (3a), (3b), (4) ^ a b c d e NIN, 2697, 5. September 2002. (3a) ^ a b Ljubomir Iv. Jović (1 December 2020). "Ko je zabranio gradnju Hrama Svetog Save (excerpts from Vreme, 31 May 2012" [Who banned construction of Saint Sava's Temple]. Politika (in Serbian). ^ Cite error: The named reference criticalspatialpractice.org was invoked but never defined (see the help page). ^ "ОФОРМЛЕНИЕ ВНУТРЕННЕГО УБРАНСТВА ХРАМА СВЯТОГО САВВЫ В БЕЛГРАДЕ". rah.ru. ^ "Торжественная церемония передачи Сербской Православной церкви мозаичного убранства главного купола Храма Святого Саввы в Белграде". rah.ru.
Photographies by:
Fred Romero from Paris, France - CC BY 2.0
Fred Romero from Paris, France - CC BY 2.0
Andrija12345678 - CC BY-SA 4.0
Statistics: Position
Statistics: Rank

Add new comment

178564923Click/tap this sequence: 3113
Esta pregunta es para comprobar si usted es un visitante humano y prevenir envíos de spam automatizado.

Google street view


Where can you sleep near Church of Saint Sava ?

523.454 visits in total, 9.230 Points of interest, 405 Destinations, 151 visits today.