Byzantine Churches in Constantinople_ Their History and Architecture Alexander Van Millingen_ Ramsay Traquair_ Walter S. George_ and Arthur E. Henderson 1683 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Byzantine Churches in
Constantinople: Their History and Architecture

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: Byzantine Churches in Constantinople: Their History and
Architecture

Author: Alexander Van Millingen
Walter S. George
Arthur E. Henderson
Ramsay Traquair

Release date: June 9, 2009 [eBook #29077]
Most recently updated: January 5, 2021

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29077

Credits: Produced by Bryan Ness, Turgut Dincer and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/Million Book Project)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BYZANTINE
CHURCHES IN CONSTANTINOPLE: THEIR HISTORY AND

ARCHITECTURE ***

Cover.

BYZANTINE CHURCHES
IN CONSTANTINOPLE

MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited

LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA

MELBOURNE

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO
DALLAS · SAN FRANCISCO

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd.
TORONTO

PLATE I.

Mediaeval Map of Constantinople by Bondelmontius.
Frontispiece.

NOTE ON THE MAP OF CONSTANTINOPLE

For the map forming the frontispiece and the following note I am greatly indebted to Mr. F. W.
Hasluck, of the British School at Athens.
The map is taken from the unpublished Insularium Henrici Martelli Germani (B.M. Add. MSS.
15,760) f. 40.
A short note on the MS., which may be dated approximately 1490, is given in the Annual of the
British School at Athens, xii. 199.
The map of Constantinople is a derivative of the Buondelmontius series, which dates from 1420, and
forms the base of all known maps prior to the Conquest. Buondelmontius' map of Constantinople has
been published from several MSS., varying considerably in legend and other details:1 the best
account of these publications is to be found in E. Oberhummer's Konstantinopel unter Suleiman dem
Grossen, pp. 18 ff. The map in B.M. Arundel, 93, has since been published in Annual B.S.A. xii. pl. i.

In the present map the legends are as follows. Those marked with a dagger do not occur on hitherto
published maps.
Reference is made below to the Paris MS. (best published by Oberhummer, loc. cit.), the Venetian
(Mordtmann, Esquisse, p. 45, Sathas, Μνημεῖα, iii., frontispiece), and the Vatican (Mordtmann, loc.
cit. p. 73).
Tracie pars—Galatha olim nvnc Pera—Pera—S. Dominicus—Arcena—Introitus Euxini Maris.
Asie minorus pars nvnc tvurchia.—Tvrchia.
Tracie pars—Porta Vlacherne—♰Ab hec (sic) porta Vlacherne usque ad portam Sancti Demetri 6
M.P. et centum et decem turres—♰Porta S. Iohannis 1—Porta Chamici 2—Porta Crescu—Porta
Crescea—♰Ab hec (sic) porta que dicitur Crescea usque ad portam Sancti Demetri septem M.
passuum et turres centum nonaginta octo. Et ad portam Vlacherne 5 M. passuum et turres nonaginta
sex—Receptaculum Conticasii 3-Porta olim palacii Imperatoris—Porta S. Dimitri—Iudee 4—Pistarie
p. 5—Messi p.—Cheone p.6—S. Andreas—S. Iohannes de Petra—Hic Constantinus genuflexus—
♰Ad S. Salvatorem—♰Columna Co(n)s?—Hic Iustinianus in equo7—Sancta Sophia—Hippodromus
—S. Demetrius—S. Georgius-S. Lazarus—Domus Pape—Domus S. Constantini—Sanctorum
Apostolorum—Porta antiquissima mire (sic) arte constructa8—S. Marta9—S. Andreas—S. Iohannes
de Studio—Perleftos.

F. W. H.

1 S. Romani?
2 Porta Camidi, Vat.
3 Receptaculum fustarum dein Condoscalli, Par.
4 Porta Judea, Par.
5 Porta Piscarii, Par.
6 Porta Lacherne, Par., delle Corne, Vat., del Chinigo (i.e. Κυνηγίου in the xvi.
cent. Venetian maps.
7 Theodosius in aequo eneo, Ven. In hoc visus imp. Teod. equo sedens, Vat.
8 Porta antiquissima pulcra, Par.
9 St. Mam (as?) Ven. Sts. Marcus, Vat.

BYZANTINE CHURCHES
IN CONSTANTINOPLE
THEIR HISTORY AND ARCHITECTURE
BY

ALEXANDER VAN MILLINGEN, M.A., D.D.
PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, ROBERT COLLEGE, CONSTANTINOPLE
AUTHOR OF 'BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE,' 'CONSTANTINOPLE'

ASSISTED BY

RAMSAY TRAQUAIR, A.R.I.B.A.
LECTURER ON ARCHITECTURE, COLLEGE OF ART, EDINBURGH

W. S. GEORGE, A.R.C.A., AND A. E. HENDERSON, F.S.A.

WITH MAPS, PLANS, AND ILLUSTRATIONS

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON
1912

PREFACE

This volume is a sequel to the work I published, several years ago, under
the title, Byzantine Constantinople: the Walls of the City, and adjoining
Historical Sites. In that work the city was viewed, mainly, as the citadel of
the Roman Empire in the East, and the bulwark of civilization for more than

a thousand years. But the city of Constantine was not only a mighty
fortress. It was, moreover, the centre of a great religious community, which
elaborated dogmas, fostered forms of piety, and controlled an ecclesiastical
administration that have left a profound impression upon the thought and
life of mankind. New Rome was a Holy City. It was crowded with
churches, hallowed, it was believed, by the remains of the apostles,
prophets, saints, and martyrs of the Catholic Church; shrines at which men
gathered to worship, from near and far, as before the gates of heaven. These
sanctuaries were, furthermore, constructed and beautified after a fashion
which marks a distinct and important period in the history of art, and have
much to interest the artist and the architect. We have, consequently, reasons
enough to justify our study of the churches of Byzantine Constantinople.
Of the immense number of the churches which once filled the city but a
small remnant survives. Earthquakes, fires, pillage, neglect, not to speak of
the facility with which a Byzantine structure could be shorn of its glory,
have swept the vast majority off the face of the earth, leaving not a rack
behind. In most cases even the sites on which they stood cannot be
identified. The places which knew them know them no more. Scarcely a
score of the old churches of the city are left to us, all with one exception
converted into mosques and sadly altered. The visitor must, therefore, be
prepared for disappointment. Age is not always a crown of glory; nor does
change of ownership and adaptation to different ideas and tastes necessarily
conduce to improvement. We are not looking at flowers in their native clime
or in full bloom, but at flowers in a herbarium so to speak, or left to wither
and decay. As we look upon them we have need of imagination to see in
faded colours the graceful forms and brilliant hues which charmed and
delighted the eyes of men in other days.
In the preparation of this work I have availed myself of the aid afforded by
previous students in the same field of research, and I have gratefully
acknowledged my debt to them whenever there has been occasion to do so.
At the same time this is a fresh study of the subject, and has been made with
the hope of confirming what is true, correcting mistakes, and gathering
additional information. Attention has been given to both the history and the
architecture of these buildings. The materials for the former are,
unfortunately, all too scanty. No continuous records of any of these
churches exist. A few incidents scattered over wide tracts of time constitute

all that can be known. Still, disconnected incidents though they be, they
give us glimpses of the characteristic thoughts and feelings of a large mass
of our humanity during a long period of history.
The student of the architecture of these churches likewise labours under
serious disadvantages. Turkish colour-wash frequently conceals what is
necessary for a complete survey; while access to the higher parts of a
building by means of scaffolding or ladders is often impossible under
present circumstances. Hence the architect cannot always speak positively,
and must leave many an interesting point in suspense.
Care has been taken to distinguish the original parts of a building from
alterations made in Byzantine days or since the Turkish conquest; while, by
the prominence given to the variety of type which the churches present, the
life and movement observable in Byzantine ecclesiastical art has been made
clear, and the common idea that it was a stereotyped art has been proved to
be without foundation.
Numerous references to the church of S. Sophia occur in the course of this
volume, but the reader will not find that great monument of Byzantine
architectural genius dealt with in the studies here offered. The obstacles in
the way of a proper treatment of that subject proved insuperable, while the
writings of Salzenberg, Lethaby, and Swainson, and especially the splendid
and exhaustive monograph of my friend Mr. E. M. Antoniadi, seemed to
make any attempt of mine in the same direction superfluous if not
presumptuous. The omission will, however, secure one advantage: the
churches actually studied will not be overshadowed by the grandeur of the
'Great Church,' but will stand clear before the view in all the light that beats
upon them.
I recall gratefully my obligations to the Sultan's Government and to the late
Sir Nicholas O'Conor, British Ambassador at Constantinople, for
permission to make a scientific examination of the churches of the city. To
the present British Ambassador, Sir Gerard Lowther, best thanks are due for
the facilities enjoyed in the study of the church of S. Irene.
I have been exceedingly fortunate in the architects who have given me the
benefit of their professional knowledge and skill in the execution of my
task, and I beg that their share in this work should be recognized and

appreciated as fully as it deserves. To the generosity of the British School at
Athens I am indebted for being able to secure the services of Mr. Ramsay
Traquair, Associate of the Royal Institute of British Architects and Lecturer
on Architecture at the College of Art in Edinburgh. Mr. Traquair spent three
months in Constantinople for the express purpose of collecting the materials
for the plans, illustrations, and notes he has contributed to this work. The
chapter on Byzantine Architecture is entirely from his pen. He has also
described the architectural features of most of the churches; but I have
occasionally introduced information from other sources, or given my own
personal observations.
I am likewise under deep obligation to Mr. A. E. Henderson, F.S.A., for the
generous kindness with which he has allowed me to reproduce his masterly
plans of the churches of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, S. Mary Panachrantos,
and many of his photographs and drawings of other churches in the city. I
am, moreover, indebted to the Byzantine Research and Publication Fund for
courteous permission to present here some of the results of the splendid
work done by Mr. W. S. George, F.S.A., under unique circumstances, in the
study of the church of S. Irene, and I thank Mr. George personally for the
cordial readiness with which he consented to allow me even to anticipate
his own monograph on that very interesting fabric. It is impossible to thank
Professor Baldwin Brown, of the University of Edinburgh, enough, for his
unfailing kindness whenever I consulted him in connection with my work.
Nor do I forget how much I owe to J. Meade Falkner, Esq., for kindly
undertaking the irksome task of revising the proofs of the book while going
through the press.
I cannot close without calling attention to the brighter day which has
dawned on the students of the antiquities of Constantinople since
constitutional government has been introduced in the Ottoman Empire.
Permission to carry on excavations in the city has been promised me. The
archaeology of New Rome only waits for wealthy patrons to enable it to
reach a position similar to that occupied by archaeological research in other
centres of ancient and mediaeval civilizations. But the monuments of the
olden time are perishable. Of the churches described by Paspates in his
Byzantine Studies, published in 1877, nine have either entirely disappeared
or lost more of their original features. It was no part of wisdom to let the
books of the cunning Sibyl become rarer and knowledge poorer by

neglecting to secure all that was obtainable when she made her first or even
her second offer.
ALEXANDER VAN MILLINGEN.
Robert College, Constantinople.

Πόλις ἐκκλησιῶν γαλουχέ, πίστεως ἀρχηγέ, ὀρθοδοξίας ποδηγέ
Nicetas Choniates.

CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER I
Byzantine Architecture 1

CHAPTER II
Church of S. John the Baptist of the Studion 35

CHAPTER III
Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus 62

CHAPTER IV
Church of S. Irene 84

CHAPTER V
Church of S. Andrew in Krisei 106

CHAPTER VI
Church of S. Mary Panachrantos 122

CHAPTER VII
Church of S. Mary Panachrantos 138

CHAPTER VIII
Church of S. Theodosia 164

CHAPTER IX
Church of S. Mary Diaconissa 183

CHAPTER X
Church of SS. Peter and Mark 191

CHAPTER XI
Church of the Myrelaion 196

CHAPTER XII
Church of S. John the Baptist in Trullo 201

CHAPTER XIII
Church of S. Thekla 207

CHAPTER XIV
Church of S. Saviour Pantepoptes 212

CHAPTER XV
Church of S. Saviour Pantokrator 219

CHAPTER XVI
Church of S. Theodore 243

CHAPTER XVII
Monastery of Manuel 253

CHAPTER XVIII

Monastery of Manuel 262

CHAPTER XIX
Balaban Aga Mesjedi 265

CHAPTER XIX
Balaban Aga Mesjedi 265

CHAPTER XX
Church of the Gastria 268

CHAPTER XXI
Church of S. Mary of the Mongols 272

CHAPTER XXII
Bogdan Serai 280

CHAPTER XXIII
Church of S. Saviour in the Chora 288

CHAPTER XXIV
Mosaics and Frescoes in the Church of S. Saviour in the Chora 321

CHAPTER XXV
Dating and Classification of the Churches 332

BIBLIOGRAPHY 337

LIST OF EMPERORS 341

INDEX 343

PLANS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

FIG. Page
1. Kasr Ibn Wardan 4
2. Deré Aghsy 6
3. Deré Aghsy (Section) 6
4. S. Nicholas, Myra 7
5. Church of the Koimesis, Nicaea 8
6. Church of the Koimesis, Nicaea (Section) 9
7. Map of Byzantine Constantinople facing 15
8. The Saucer Dome or Dome-Vault 16
9. The Dome on Pendentives 16
10. The Drum Dome 17
11. Diagram of Vaulting in Outer Narthex of S. Saviour in the Chora. 22

Church of S. John the Baptist of the Studion

12. Plan of the Church 56
13. Long Section 57
14. Cross Section, looking east 58
15. Cross Section, looking west 58
16. Elevation of the Narthex 59
17. Longitudinal Section of western portion of the Nave—Half-cross
Section of the Nave 59
18. Details of the Narthex, Colonnade, Doors, Windows 60
19. Details of Doors; Details from Church of S. Theodore; Details from
S. Saviour in the Chora 61

Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus

20. Inscription on the Frieze in the Church 74
21. Exterior View of the Dome 77
22. Brick Stamps in the Church 79
23. Ground Plan (looking up) 80
24. Gynaeceum Plan (looking up) 80
25. Plan at base of Dome (Cross Section) 81
26. Transverse Section 81
27. Section through South Aisle 81
28. Constructive Section of the Interior Arrangement, showing
Gynaeceum Floor, Vaulting, Roof, and Springing of Dome 82
29. Constructive Section of the Rear, with Gynaeceum, Floor, and Roof
removed 82
30. Sections of Mouldings 83

Church of S. Irene

31. Ground Plan of the Atrium and Church facing 104
32. Gallery Plan " 104
33. Longitudinal Section " 104
34. South Elevation " 104
35. West Elevation 105

Church of S. Andrew in Krisei

36. Plan of the Church (restored) 118
37. Plan of the Church 119
38, 39. Longitudinal Sections 120
40. Isometrical Section (restored) 121

Church of S. Mary Panachrantos

41. Details of the Shafts in East Windows of South Church 124
42. Inscription on Apse of North Church 131
43. Plan of the Church (conjectural) 135
44. Plan of the Church 136
45. Section through the North Church 137
46. Section through the South Church 137

Church of S. Mary Pammakaristos

47. Plan of the Church (conjectural) 152
48. Brick Details from the Parecclesion 154
49. Inscribed String-course on Apse of the Parecclesion 157
50. Plan of the Church—Plan of the Parecclesion—Plan of the
Gynaeceum in the Parecclesion facing 160
51. Cross Section of the Church, looking east 161
52. The Parecclesion, east end of south side 162
53. Sections in the Parecclesion—Plan of Dome in the Gynaeceum 163

Church of S. Theodosia

54. Interior of the Church, looking west 171

55. Details from the Church—Details from Church of S. Theodore—
Capital and Shaft found near Unkapan Gate 174
56. Ground Plan 179
57. Plan of the Gynaeceum 180
58. Section in the Gynaeceum 181
59. Longitudinal Section of the Church 181
60. Isometrical Section, showing scheme 182

Church of S. Mary Diaconissa

61. Plan of the Church 189
62. Longitudinal Section 190

Church of Ss. Peter and Mark

63. Font in the street to the west of the Church—A Window in S. Saviour
in the Chora 194
64. Plan of the Church 195
65. Longitudinal Section 195

Church of the Myrelaion

66. Plan of the Church 200
67. Longitudinal Section 200

Church of S. John the Baptist in Trullo
68. Details from the Church—Details from the Pammakaristos—Details
from the Pantepoptes 203
69. Details from S. Andrew in Krisei—Details from the Chora 204
70. Plan of S. John in Trullo—Longitudinal Section—Plan of the Dome 206

Church of S. Thekla

71. Plan of the Church—Cross Section 206

Church of S. Saviour Pantepoptes

72. Sketches from the Church 213

73. Plan of the Church—Longitudinal Section 217
74. Details from the Church 218

Church of S. Saviour Pantokrator

75. Details from the Church—Details from S. Saviour Pantepoptes 225
76. Inlaid Marble Pavement in the Pantokrator—Tile Pavement in the
Gallery of S. Theodosia 234
77. Plan of the Pantokrator facing 240
78. Longitudinal Section through the North Church 241
79. Longitudinal Section through through the Central Church 241
80. Longitudinal Section through through the South Church 242

Church of S. Theodore

81. Details from the Church 245
82. Plan of the Church by Texier 249
83. Part of South Elevation showing the Side Chapel by Texier 249
84. Plan of the Church 251
85. Longitudinal Section 251
86. Front Elevation—Half-Plan of Central Dome in the Narthex 252
87. South Elevation and Section through Vaulted Bay of Narthex—Half-
Plan of Central Dome 252

Monastery of Manuel

88. Plan of the Refectory 261

Monastir Mesjedi

89. Plan of the Church—Cross Section 261

Balaban Mesjedi

90. Plan of the Building 267
91. Section 267

Church of the Gastria

92. Plan of the Church 267

Church of S. Mary of the Mongols

93. Exterior View 273
94. Interior View 274
95. The Dome (Interior View) 276
96. Plan of Church 279
97. Plan of S. Nicholas Methana 279

Bogdan Serai

98. Plan of Upper Chapel—Half-Section of Apse—Half-Section of East
End—Longitudinal Section 287

Church of S. Saviour in the Chora

99. Details from the Church 305
100. Details of a Window in the Gallery 309
101. Plan of S. Sophia, Salonica 313
102. Plan of the Chora (restored) 314
103. Bay in the Chora (restored) 315
104. Plan of Church of the Archangels, Sygé 316
105. Plan of the Chora and the Parecclesion 317
106. Cross Section, looking west 318
107. Plan of Upper Gallery 318
108. Section through Church 319
109. Section through Chapel 319
110. Plan of Dome 320
111. Section through Inner Narthex 320
112. Plan of Gallery between the Church and the Parecclesion 320
113. Section of North Gallery 320
114. Plan of the Narthexes, indicating the positions of their Mosaics 321
115. Model of the Church in the Mosaic over Main Door in the Inner
Narthex 326
116. Plan of the Parecclesion, indicating positions of its Frescoes 328

PLATES

I. Mediaeval Map of Constantinople by Bondelmontius Frontispiece
facing page
II. The Myrelaion (since it was burned).
(1) From the north-west.
(2) From the south-east 20
III. (1) The Myrelaion (since it was burned). The Interior, looking east.
(2) Suleiman Aga Mesjedi 24
IV. (1) Bracket in S. Saviour in the Chora. (2) Sculptured Slab in S.
Theodore. (3) S. Mary Diaconissa. Heads of Windows in south
arm. (4) Sculptured Slab on the West Wall 28

Church of S. John of the Studion

V. The Ruined Interior, seen from the minaret of the mosque. (2) The
West Side of the Church 36
VI. (1) Façade of the Narthex. (2) The Ruined Interior, at the West End
of the North Side 40
VII. Entablature and Anta Capital in the Narthex. (2) Cornice in the
Narthex, looking up 44
VIII. The Church from the south-east 48
IX. (1) The East End of the Church. (2) East End of the North Side of the
Church 52
X. (1) The Cistern beside the Church. (2) Another View of the same 54

The Church of Ss. Sergius and Bacchus

XI. The Interior of the Church, looking north-west 62
XII. (1) A Capital in the Church. (2) A Capital in the Narthex of S. John of
the Studion 66
XIII. (1) The Church from the south-east. (2) View in the Gallery over the
Narthex 70
XIV. (1) The Interior of the Church, looking north-east. (2) Portion of the
Entablature in the Church 74
XV. The Baptistery of the Church of S. Sophia. (1) The Exterior from the
north-east. (2) The Interior of the Dome, showing Continuous
Pendentives 76

The Church of S. Irene

XVI. The Church from the south-east 84
XVII. (1) The South Side. (2) The North Side 86
XVIII. The Interior, looking east 90
XIX. (1) Vaulting at the north-western Corner of the Atrium. (2) The
Northern Arch of the Main Dome, seen from the South Gallery 92
XX. (1) Mosaic in the Soffit of an Arch. (2) Portion of the Mosaic
Inscription on the Outer Arch of the Apse 96
XXI. (1) The Interior, looking west. (2) The Door at the East End of the
North Aisle 98
XXII. (1) Vaulting over the South Aisle. (2) A Compartment of Vaulting in
South Aisle, looking up 100
XXIII. (1) A Capital in the South Arcade. (2) Base of a Column in the South
Aisle 102

The Church of S. Andrew in Krisei

XXIV. The East End of the Church 106
XXV. (1) The Church from the south-west. (2) The Interior, looking south 108
XXVI. (1) A Capital in the Inner Narthex. (2) A Capital in the Arcade under
the West Dome Arch 110
XXVII. (1) A Capital in the Outer Narthex. (2) A Capital in the Outer Narthex 112
XXVIII. (1) View in the Outer Narthex. (2) View in the Inner Narthex, looking
south 114
XXIX. (1) View in the Cloister. (2) View in the Courtyard 116
XXX. (1, 2, 3) Three Views of the Decorated Doorway in the Cloister 118

The Church of S. Mary Panachrantos

XXXI. (1) Vault of the Passage on the West of the Dome in the South
Church. (2) The Interior of the North Church, looking north 122
XXXII. (1) The North Church, looking east. (2) The North Church, looking
west 126
XXXIII. (1) The Diaconicon, looking east. (2) The Western Dome Arch in the
South Church 128
XXXIV. (1) The East Window of the South Church. (2) The Outer Narthex,
looking south 130
XXXV. (1) The East End of the South Church. (2) The East End of the North
Church 132

Church of S. Mary Pammakaristos

XXXVI. (1) The Church from the south-east. (2) The Church from the west 138

XXXVII. (1) The Inner Narthex, looking south. (2) The Dome, looking west 142
XXXVIII. The Parecclesion from the south-east 144
XXXIX. (1) The East End of the Parecclesion. (2) The West Column in the
Parecclesion 148
XL. (1) The East Column in the Parecclesion. (2) The Column flanking
the East Window in the Apse of the Parecclesion. (3) The West
Column in the Parecclesion 150
XLI. (1) Interior View of the Dome in the Parecclesion. (2) Mosaic in the
Dome of the Parecclesion 154
XLII. South Side of the Parecclesion 156

Church of S. Theodosia

XLIII. (1) The East End of the Church. (2) The Church from the south-east 164
XLIV. (1) The Interior, looking north-east. (2) The Eastern Dome Arch 168
XLV. (1) The Dome over the Stairway to the Galleries. (2) The Narthex,
looking north, and the Stairway to the Galleries 172

Church of S. Mary Diaconissa

XLVI. (1) The North-west Side, seen from the Aqueduct of Valens. (2) The
North Arm, looking east 182
XLVII. (1) The Interior, looking north-east. (2) The Interior, looking south-
east 184
XLVIII. (1) The Lower Part of the North Side of the East End. (2) The Upper
Part of the North Side of the East End 186
XLIX. (1) South Eikon Frame. (2) Detail in the South Eikon Frame 188
L. (1) The Interior, looking west. (2) A Capital on the Column at the
Entrance to the Church 190

Church of Ss. Peter and Mark

LI. (1) The Church from the south-east. (2) Font outside the Church 192
LII. (1) The Dome, looking north. (2) Looking across the Dome, from the
south-west 194

Church of the Myrelaion

LIII. (1) The South Side of the Church. (2) The Narthex, looking north 196
LIV. (1) The Interior, looking east. (2) The south-west Angle of the Cross 198
LV. 202

(1) S. John in Trullo from the south-west. (2) The Interior of Balaban
Mesjedi
LVI. The Church of S. Thekla. (1) From the north-west. (2) The East End 208

The Church of S. Saviour Pantepoptes

LVII. (1) Door leading from the Outer to the Inner Narthex. (2) The Dome,
looking west 212
LVIII. (1) Decoration in Brick on the Exterior of the South Wall. (2) Bracket
in the Parecclesion of S. Mary Pammakaristost 214

Church of S. Saviour Pantokrator

LIX. The Church from the west 220
LX. (1) The Church from the north-west. (2) Fragments of Sculptured
Marbles found in the Church 222
LXI. (1) Interior of the South Church, looking east. (2) The Southern Arm
of the Church 224
LXII. (1) Entrance from the Narthex to the South Church. (2) Interior,
looking from the South Church through into the North Church 226
LXIII. (1) The Gallery in the North Church, looking south. (2) Interior of
the North Church, looking east 228
LXIV. (1) Arch in the North Wall of the South Church, seen from the South
Church, looking north. (2) Arch in the North Wall of the South
Church, seen from the Central Church, looking south 230
LXV. (1) Narthex of the North Church, looking north. (2) Outer Narthex of
the South Church, looking north 232
LXVI. (1) South Bay in the Gallery of the South Church. (2) View in the
North Church, looking south 234
LXVII. The Pulpit in the South Church. (2) West Side of the Central Bay in
the Gallery of the South Church 236
LXVIII. (1) Interior of the East Dome in the Central Church. (2) Interior of
the Dome in the South Church, looking north 238
LXIX. (1) The East End from the south. (2) East Window of the Central
Church. (3) The East End from the north 242

Church of S. Theodore

LXX. (1) The North End of the Western Façade. (2) The Church from the
north-west 244
LXXI. (1) The Central Dome from the south. (2) The Western Façade from
the south 246

LXXII. (1) The South Cross Arm (exterior) from the south-east. (2) The East
End from the south 248
LXXIII. (1) The Capital on the Southernmost Column in the Façade. (2)
Capital in the Façade 250
LXXIV. (1) The Outer Narthex, looking north. (2) Capital on the North Side
of the Door leading from the Outer to the Inner Narthex 254
LXXV. (1) The Interior, looking east. (2) The Interior (upper part), looking
east 256

The Refectory of the Monastery of Manuel

LXXVI. (1) From the west. (2) From the south-east 258
LXXVII. Cistern of Aetius 262

Church of the Gastria

LXXVIII. (1) The Church from the east. (2) The Entrance 268
LXXIX. (1) The Church from the west. (2) The Interior 270

Bogdan Serai

LXXX. (1) The Apse in the Upper Chapel. (2) A Pendentive of the Dome. (3)
The Chapel, from the north-west 280

Church of S. Saviour in the Chora

LXXXI. (1) The Church from the west. (2) The Church from the south-east 288
LXXXII. (1) The Church from the north-east. (2) The North Side of the
Church 292
LXXXIII. (1) The Inner Narthex, looking south. (2) Another View of the same 296
LXXXIV. (1) A Capital in the Outer Narthex. (2) Another Capital in the Outer
Narthex 300
LXXXV. (1) The Interior, looking north-west. (2) The Outer Narthex,
looking south 304
LXXXVI. (1) The Eikon Frame on the South-eastern Pier. (2) The Interior,
looking east 308
LXXXVII. (1) The Cornice above the Main Door (on the Interior). (2) The
Archivolt on the North Wall of the Parecclesion. (3) Window
Heads in the Central Apse 310
LXXXVIII. (1) The East End of the Parecclesion. (2) A Capital at the Entrance
to the Parecclesion 314

LXXXIX. (1) The Parecclesion, looking south-east. (2) The Parecclesion,
looking west 316
XC. (1) Mosaic representing the Miracle of Water turned into Wine. (2)
Mosaic representing Mary caressed by her parents, and
blessed by priests seated at a banquet 322
XCI. (1) Mosaic representing the Registration of Mary and Joseph at
Bethlehem. (2) Mosaic representing Theodore Metochites
offering the Church to Christ 326
XCII. The Archivolt on the South Wall of the Parecclesion, with the
Epitaph in honour of Tornikes 330

CHAPTER I

BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE

I. Planning

At the beginning of the fifth century, which is a suitable point from which
to date the rise of Byzantine architecture, three principal types of church
plan prevailed in the Roman world:—
I. The Basilica: an oblong hall divided into nave and aisles, and roofed in
wood, as in the Italian and Salonican examples, or with stone barrel-vaults,
as in Asia Minor and Central Syria.
II. The Octagonal or Circular plan covered with a stone or brick dome, a
type which may be subdivided according as (1) the dome rests upon the
outer walls of the building, or (2) on columns or piers surrounded by an
ambulatory.
The Pantheon and the so-called Temple of Minerva Medica at Rome are
early examples of the first variety, the first circular, the second a decagon in
plan. S. George at Salonica is a later circular example. An early instance of
the second variety is found in S. Constanza at Rome, and a considerable
number of similar churches occur in Asia Minor, dating from the time of
Constantine the Great or a little later.

III. The Cross plan. Here we have a square central area covered by a dome,
from which extend four vaulted arms constituting a cross. This type also
assumes two distinct forms:
(1) Buildings in which the ground plan is cruciform, so that the cross shows
externally at the ground level. Churches of this class are usually small, and
were probably sepulchral chapels rather than churches for public worship. A
good example is the tomb of Galla Placidia at Ravenna.
(2) In the second form of the Cross church the cross is enclosed within a
square, and appears only above the roofs of the angle chambers. An
example is seen in the late Roman tomb at Kusr en Nûeijîs in Eastern
Palestine. In this instance the central square area is covered with a dome on
continuous pendentives; the four arms have barrel-vaults, and the angles of
the cross are occupied by small chambers, which bring the ground-plan to
the square. The building is assigned to the second century, and shows that
true though continuous pendentives were known at an early date10 (Fig. 8).

Another example is the Praetorium at Musmiyeh, in Syria, 11 which
probably dates from between 160 and 169 A.D. At some later time it was
altered to a church, and by a curious foreshadowing of the late Byzantine
plan the walls of the internal cross have entirely disappeared from the
ground-plan. The dome rests on four columns placed at the inner angles of
the cross, and the vaulted cross arms rest on lintels spanning the space
between the columns and the outer walls.
From these three types of building are derived the various schemes on
which the churches of the Byzantine Empire were planned.
Of the basilican form the only example in Constantinople that retains its
original plan is S. John the Baptist of the Studion (p. 56), erected c. 463
A.D.
The church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus (p. 70) and the baptistery of S.
Sophia (p. 78) represent respectively the two varieties of the octagonal plan.
In the former the dome rests on piers surrounded by an ambulatory; in the
latter the dome rests upon the outer walls of the buildings. Both are
foundations of Justinian the Great.

Of the Cross church plan showing the cross externally at the ground level
no example survives in the city. But at least one church of that form was
seen at Constantinople in the case of the church of the Holy Apostles. This
was essentially a mausoleum, built originally by Constantine the Great and
reconstructed by Justinian to contain the sarcophagi of the sovereigns and
the patriarchs of New Rome.12
The church of S. Mark at Venice was built on the plan of the Holy Apostles.
It is a cruciform church with aisles, but the galleries which might have been
expected above them are omitted. The central dome rests on four piers, and
four smaller domes cover the arms.
Professor Strzygowski gives examples of cross-planned cells in the
catacombs of Palmyra,13 and in many Eastern rock tombs.14 Such cross
plans are found also in the Roman catacombs. These subterranean chapels,
of course, do not show the external treatment, yet there can be little doubt
that the external cross plan was originally sepulchral, and owes its peculiar
system of planning to that fact. On the other hand, it was adopted in such
churches as S. Mark's at Venice and in the French examples of Périgord for
aesthetic or traditional reasons.
In passing now to a consideration of the distinct forms developed from
these pre-Byzantine types of church building, the classification adopted by
Professor Strzygowski may be followed. In his Kleinasien he has brought
forward a series of buildings which show the manner in which a dome was
fitted to the oblong basilica, producing the domed basilica (Küppelbasilica),
an evolution which he regards as Hellenistic and Eastern. In contrast to this,
Strzygowski distinguishes the domed cross church (Kreutzküppelkirche), of
which S. Theodosia in Constantinople (p. 170) is the typical example and
which is a Western development. A comparison of the two forms is of great
importance for the study of certain Constantinople churches.

Fig. 1.—Kasr Ibn Wardan (Strzygowski).

The domed basilica, as the name indicates, is a basilica with nave and
aisles, in which a square bay in the centre of the nave is covered by a dome
on pendentives. To north and south, within the arches supporting the dome,
appear the nave and gallery arcades of the basilica; and as the galleried
basilica is a usual Eastern form galleries are usual in the domed basilica. As
seen from the central area, therefore, the north and south dome arches are
filled in with arcades in two stories, and the side aisles and galleries are
covered with barrel vaults running parallel to the axis of the church. At the
west end a gallery over the narthex may unite the two side galleries. At Kasr
ibn Wardan, instanced by Strzygowski as a typical domed basilica,15 there
is such a western gallery (Fig. 1). According to Strzygowski the domed
basilica is older than the fifth century.
The domed basilica remains always an oblong building, and whilst the two
sides to north and south are symmetrical, the western end retains the
basilican characteristics—it has no gallery or arcade communicating with
the central area. The narthex communicates with the nave by doors, and if a
gallery is placed above it, both narthex and gallery are covered by barrel
vaults.
In the domed cross church (Kreutzküppelkirche) the central dome rests on
barrel vaults which extend to the outer walls of the building and form the

arms of the cross, the eastern arm forming the bema. The lighting of the
church is by windows in the gable walls which terminate the north, south,
and west cross arms. The prothesis and diaconicon open off the side arms,
and two small chambers in the western angles of the cross bring the plan
externally to the usual rectangular form.
The domed cross church may have galleries, as in S. Theodosia (p. 170), or
may be without them, as in SS. Peter and Mark (p. 193). Where galleries are
present they are placed in the cross arms and are supported by arcades at the
ground level. The vaults beneath the galleries are cross-groined. The domed
cross church is a centrally planned church, in contrast to the domed basilica,
which is oblong, and therefore we should expect that where galleries are
used they will be formed in all three arms of the cross, as is the case in S.
Theodosia.
There are a number of churches which vary from these types, but which can
generally be placed in one class or the other by the consideration of two
main characteristics: if the dome arches extend to the outer walls the
building is a domed cross church; if the galleries are screened off from the
central area by arcades the building is a domed basilica.

The church at Derè Aghsy,16 for instance, if we had only the plan to guide
us, would appear to be a typical domed basilica (Fig. 2), but on examining
the section we find that the north and south dome arches extend over the
galleries to the outer walls and form cross arms (Fig. 3). The building is, in
fact, a domed cross church with no gallery in the western arm. Above the
narthex at the west end, and separated from the western cross arm, is a
gallery of the type usual in the domed basilica, so that Derè Aghsy may be
regarded as a domed cross church with features derived from the domed
basilica. S. Sophia at Constantinople, the highest development of the domed
basilica, has a very similar western gallery.

Fig. 2.—Deré Aghsy (Rott).

The church of S. Nicholas at Myra 17 (Fig. 4) has a gallery at the west end,
but the cross arms do not appear to be carried over the galleries. The plan is
oblong and the cross-groined vault is not used. The church, therefore, takes
its place as a domed basilica.

Fig. 3.—Deré Aghsy—Section (Rott).

The church of the Koimesis at Nicaea 18 (Figs. 5 and 6) has no galleries to
the sides. The aisles open into the central area by arcades, above which are
triple windows over the aisle vaults. At the western end is a gallery above
the narthex. The aisles are barrel-vaulted, and as the church is planned on
an axis from east to west, and is not symmetrical on all three sides, it is
regarded as a domed basilica. It is such a form as might be developed from
a basilica without galleries.

Fig. 4.—S. Nicholas, Myra (Rott).

In Constantinople there are three churches which seem to constitute a type
apart, though resembling in many ways the types just considered. They are
S. Andrew in Krisei, (p. 117), S. Mary Pammakaristos (p. 150), and S. Mary
Panachrantos (p. 130). In these churches, as originally built, the central

dome is carried on four arches which rise above a one-storied aisle or
ambulatory, allowing of windows in the dome arches on three sides—the
eastern dome arch being prolonged to form the bema. The dome arches
have arcades communicating with the ambulatory on the north, south, and
west. The vaulting is executed either with barrel or with cross-groined
vaults. These churches are evidently planned from a centre, not, like the
domed basilicas, from a longitudinal axis. At the same time the absence of
any cross arms differentiates them from the domed cross churches. S.
Andrew, which still retains its western arcade, dates from at least the sixth
century, so that the type was in use during the great period of Byzantine
architecture. Indeed, we should be inclined to regard S. Andrew as a square
form of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, but without galleries. The type is a
natural development from the octagonal domed church with its surrounding
ambulatory.

Fig. 5.—The Church of the Koimesis, Nicaea (Wulf).

The typical late Byzantine church is a development from the domed cross
plan. In three examples in Constantinople, S. Theodosia (pp. 170, 172), S.
Mary Diaconissa (p. 185), and SS. Peter and Mark (p. 193), we can trace
the gradual disappearance of the galleries. S. Theodosia, as has already been
mentioned, has galleries in all three cross arms. In S. Mary Diaconissa they
are confined to the four angles between the cross arms; SS. Peter and Mark
is a simple cross plan without galleries. In later times it became customary
to build many small churches, with the result that the chambers at the
angles of the cross, of little account even in a large church, were now too
diminutive to be of any value, and the question how to provide as much
room as possible for the worshippers became paramount. Accordingly the
dome piers were reduced to mere columns connected with the outer walls of
the building by arches; and thus was produced the typical late Byzantine
plan—at the ground level a square, enclosing four columns; above, a Greek
cross with a dome on the centre.

Fig. 6.—The Church of the Koimesis, Nicaea (Rott).

From its distinguishing feature this type has been styled the 'four column'
plan. It appears in many Constantinopolitan churches, as, for example, S.
Theodore (p. 248) and S. Saviour Pantepoptes (p. 214). The cross arms are
not always equal, and may be covered with barrel vaults (p. 214 or with

cross-groined vaults (p. 198). The bema is usually a bay added to the
eastern arm. The angle chambers have either cross-groined vaults or flat
dome vaults. In general the churches of this type in Constantinople do not
differ from the numerous churches of the same class in the provinces.19
A lobed cruciform plan is found in only one church in Constantinople, that
of S. Mary of the Mongols (p. 277). Here the central dome is supported on
four piers set across the angles of the square, so that the pendentives do not
come to a point as usual, but spring from the face of the piers. Against each
side of the square a semidome is set, thus producing a quatrefoil plan at the
vaulting level.
Both trefoiled and quatrefoiled churches are not uncommon in Armenia,
such as the cathedral at Etschmiadzin; 20 trefoiled churches of a later date
are found in the western provinces, and examples have been published from
Servia,21 Salonica, 22 and Greece. 23
An unusual form of the cross plan is seen in the building known as
Sanjakdar Mesjedi (p. 267), where a cross is placed within an octagon.
Probably the building was not originally a church. It resembles the octagon
near the Pantokrator (p. 270), and may, like it, have been a library.
Single Hall Churches.—The plans hitherto considered have all been
characterised by the presence of aisles, galleries, or other spaces adjoining
the central area. The churches of the present class consist simply of an
oblong hall, terminating in an apse, and either roofed in wood, or covered
with domes placed longitudinally, and resting to north and south on wall
arches. Examples of this plan are found in Monastir Mesjedi (p. 264), S.
Thekla (p. 211), Bogdan Serai (p. 284), and in the memorial chapels
attached to the Pantokrator (p. 235), and the Chora (p. 309). In the case of
these two memorial chapels, their narrow, long-stretched plan is evidently
due to the desire to keep their eastern apses in line with the east end of the
churches they adjoin, and at the same time to bring the western end to the
narthex from which they were entered. They are covered with two domes, a
system perhaps derived from S. Irene (p. 94). Kefelé Mesjedi (p. 257),
which at first sight resembles a single hall church roofed, in wood, was a
refectory. Its plan may be compared with that of the refectory at the
monastery of S. Luke at Stiris. 24

II. Architectural Features and Details

Apses.—A fully developed Byzantine church terminated in three apses: a
large apse, with the bema or presbytery, in the centre; on the right, the apse
of the prothesis where the sacrament was prepared; on the left, the apse of
the diaconicon, where the sacred vessels were kept. Although there is proof
that the prothesis and the diaconicon were in use at a very early period, yet
many churches of the great period, as for example S. John of the Studion,
SS. Sergius and Bacchus, and S. Sophia, dispensed with these chambers as
distinct parts of the building. They were also omitted in small churches of a
late date, where they were replaced by niches on either side of the bema.
The three apses usually project from the east wall of the church, but
occasionally p. 248) the two lateral apses are sunk in the wall, and only the
central apse shows on the exterior. As a rule the apses are circular within
and polygonal without. It is rare to find them circular on both the interior
and the exterior (p. 203), and in Greece such a feature is generally an
indication of late date. An octagonal plan, in which three sides of the
octagon appear, sometimes with short returns to the wall, is the most
common; but in later churches polygons of more sides are used, especially
for the central apse, and these are often very irregularly set out. Some of the
churches of Constantinople show five, and even seven sides.
Bema.—The bema is rectangular, and sometimes has concave niches on
each side (p. 130). It is covered either with a barrel or with a cross-groined
vault, and communicates with the prothesis and the diaconicon.
Prothesis and Diaconicon.—These chambers are either square (p. 214) or
have a long limb to the east resembling a miniature bema (p. 214). They are
lower than the central apse and the cross arms, so that the cruciform figure
of the church shows clearly above them on the exterior,25 though in some
churches with galleries small chapels overlooking the bema are placed
above them at the gallery level (S. Theodosia). They have usually a niche
on three sides, and are either dome vaulted or have cross-groined vaults.
The combination of a cross-groined vault with four niches springing from
the vaulting level is particularly effective. In S. Saviour in the Chora (p.
307) these chambers are covered with drum domes, pierced with windows,
but this treatment is quite exceptional.

The Gynecaeum.—In the development of church building, the gynecaeum,
or gallery for women, tends to become less and less important. In S. Sophia,
S. Irene, and S. Theodosia, the gallery is a part of the structure. In S. Mary
Diaconissa (p. 185) it is reduced to four boxes at the angles of the cross,
while in S. Mary Pammakaristos and SS. Peter and Mark it is absent (pp.
149, 193). But though no longer a structural part of the church, a
gynecaeum appears over the narthex in the latest type of church (p. 215). It
is generally vaulted in three bays, corresponding to the three bays of the
narthex below, and opens by three arches into the centre cross arm of the
church and into the aisles.
The Narthex.—Unlike the gynecaeum, the narthex tends in later times to
become of greater importance, and to add a narthex was a favourite method
of increasing the size of a church. In basilican churches, like S. John of the
Studion, the narthex was a long hall in three bays annexed to the west side
of the building, and formed the east side of the atrium. In domed cross
churches with galleries the passage under the western gallery was used as a
narthex, being cut off from the central area by the screen arcade which
supported the gallery. Such a narthex has been styled a 'structural narthex,'
as forming an essential part of the central building. It occurs in several of
the churches of the city (p. 114).
In domed cross churches without galleries, and in churches of the 'four
column' type, neither narthex nor gallery was possible within the cross, and
accordingly the narthex was added to the west end. It is usually in three
bays and opens into the aisles and central area. Frequently the ends of the
narthex terminate in shallow niches (p. 198). In many churches a second
narthex was added (p. 166) to the first, sometimes projecting an additional
bay at each end, and communicating with halls or chapels on the north or
south, or on both sides of the church (p. 128). S. Mark's at Venice presents a
fine example of such an extension of the narthex.
When a church could not be sufficiently enlarged by additional narthexes, a
second church was built alongside the first, and both churches were joined
by a narthex which extended along the front of the two buildings. S. Mary
Panachrantos (p. 128) is a good example of how a church could be thus
enlarged from a simple square building into a maze of passages and domes.

The Interior.—The natural division, in height, of an early church, whether
basilican or domical, was into three stories—the ground level, the gallery
level, and the clearstory or vault level. In the West these structural divisions
were developed into the triple composition of nave-arcade, triforium, and
clearstory. In the East, in conjunction with the dome, these divisions survive
in many examples of the later period. Still, Byzantine architecture was more
concerned with spaces than with lines. Large surfaces for marble, painting,
or mosaic were of prime importance, and with the disappearance of the
gallery the string-course marking the level of the gallery also tended to
disappear. In churches with galleries, like S. Theodosia (p. 170) and S.
Mary Diaconissa (p. 185), the string-courses fulfil their function, the first
marking the gallery level, the second the springing of the vault. In SS. Peter
and Mark (p. 193), which has no gallery, there is only one string-course,
corresponding in level to the original gallery string-course; accordingly the
main arches are highly stilted above it. The absence of the second string-
course is a faulty development, for a string-course at the vault level would
be a functional member, whereas at the gallery level it is meaningless.
In the Panachrantos (p. 130), as well as in other churches without a gallery,
the gallery string-course is omitted by a more logical development, and the
string-course at the springing of the vault is retained. Openings which do
not cut into the vault are then frankly arched, without impost moulding of
any kind. Simple vaulted halls, narthexes, and passages have usually a
string-course at the vaulting level, broken round shallow pilasters as at the
Chora, S. Theodosia, and the Myrelaion. Sometimes the string-courses or
the pilasters or both are omitted, and their places are respectively taken by
horizontal and vertical bands. Decorative pilasters flush with the wall are
employed in the marble incrustation of S. Sophia.
In churches of the 'four column' type the full triple division is common but
with a change in purpose. A gallery in a church of this character is not
possible, for the piers between which the gallery was placed have dwindled
into single shafts. Hence the first string-course ceases to mark a gallery
level and becomes the abacus level of the dome columns, as in the north
and in the south churches of the Pantokrator. It is then carried round the
building, and forms the impost moulding of the side arches in the bema and
of the east window. Sometimes, however, it does not extend round the bema
and apse but is confined to the central part of the church, as in the

Myrelaion, S. Theodore, and the Pantepoptes. On the other hand, in at least
one case, the parecclesion of the Pammakaristos, the central part of the
chapel is designed in the usual three tiers, but the apse and bema vaults
spring from the lower or abacus string-course, leaving a lunette in the dome
arch above pierced by a large window. A corresponding lunette at the west
end opens into the gynecaeum of the chapel. In S. John in Trullo the two
string-courses coalesce and the arches connecting the columns with the
walls cut into the stilted part of the dome arches, with the result that all the
structural arches and vaults spring from the same level.

Fig. 7.

Arches.—Though the pointed arch was known and employed in cisterns, as
in the Cistern of the One Thousand and One Columns, Bin-bir-derek, the
circular arch is invariably found in work meant to be seen. The difficulty
attending this form, in which arches of unequal breadth do not rise to the

same height, was overcome, as in the West, by stilting, that is, by raising the
smaller arches on straight 'legs' to the required height. The stilted arch,
indeed, seems to have been admired for its own sake, as we find it used
almost universally both in vaulting and in decorative arches even where it
was not structurally required. In windows and in the arches connecting the
dome columns to the wall stilting is sometimes carried to extremes.
Domes.—The eastern dome of S. Irene, erected about 740 A.D., is generally
considered to be the first example of a dome built on a high drum, though S.
Sophia of Salonica, an earlier structure, has a low imperfect drum. After this
date the characteristics of the Byzantine dome are the high drum divided by
ribs or hollow segments on the interior, polygonal on the exterior, and
crowned by a cornice which is arched over the windows.26
Drumless domes are sometimes found in the later churches, as in the
narthexes of the Panachrantos and S. Andrew, the angle domes of S.
Theodosia, and in Bogdan Serai. These are ribless hemispherical domes of
the type shown in Fig. 8, and are in all cases without windows. The earlier
system of piercing windows through the dome does not occur in the later
churches, though characteristic of Turkish work.
The three diagrams (Figs. 8, 9, and 10) illustrate the development of the
dome: firstly, the low saucer dome or dome-vault in which dome and
pendentives are part of the same spherical surface; secondly, the
hemispherical dome on pendentives; and thirdly, the hemispherical dome
with a drum interposed between it and the pendentives.
Flat external cornices on the dome are not uncommon in the later churches
of Byzantine Greece, as in S. Sophia at Monemvasia.27 In Constantinople
only one dome with a flat cornice can be regarded as original, that of S.
John in Trullo, a church which is exceptional also in other respects. The
many other domes in the churches of Constantinople on high drums and
with flat cornices are Turkish either in whole or in part. The high ribless
domes of the Panachrantos, for instance, circular in plan within and
without, with square-headed windows, plain stone sill, and flat cornice in
moulded plaster, may be regarded as typical Turkish drum-domes. As will
appear in the sequel, the dome over the north church of the Pantokrator and

the domes of SS. Peter and Mark, the
Diaconissa, and S. Theodosia, are
also Turkish.

Fig. 8.—The Saucer Dome Or Dome-Vault.

It is most unfortunate that the domes
of these three domed cross churches
have been altered, especially as the
domes of S. Mary Diaconissa and S.
Theodosia are larger than any of the
later domes except the large oval
dome on the central church of the
Pantokrator which is almost of the
same size. It is therefore now
difficult to say what was the precise
form of the original domes. Most
probably they were polygonal drum-
domes, and their collapse owing to
their size may well have led to the Fig. 9.—The Dome on Pendentives.
small drum-domes of later times.
Though not strictly Byzantine these
Turkish domes are of interest as showing the development of Byzantine
forms under Turkish rule, and that reversion to the earlier drumless dome
which is so marked a feature of the imperial mosques of the city.
Domes are either eight, twelve, or sixteen sided, and usually have a window
in each side. These numbers arise naturally from setting a window at each
of the cardinal points and then placing one, two, or three windows between,
according to the size of the dome. Internally the compartments are
separated by broad, flat ribs, or are concave and form a series of ridges on
the dome which die out towards the crown. In sixteen-sided domes of the
latter type the alternate sides sometimes correspond to the piers outside, so
that the dome which has sixteen sides within shows only eight sides
without, as in the narthex of S. Theodore (p. 246). The octagonal dome of
the Myrelaion (p. 198) seems to have had only four windows from the
beginning.
The ribs of a Byzantine dome are not constructive in the same way as are
the ribs of a Gothic vault. They were built along with the rest of the dome
and of the same material, and are in no way separate from the infilling,
though they no doubt strengthened the shell of the dome by their form28. On
the outside a circular shaft with a very simple cap is often placed at the

angles of the piers, and from these
shafts the brick cornice springs in a
series of arches over the windows.
Sometimes the angle is formed by a
point between two half-shafts, as in
the domes of the narthex in S.
Theodore (p. 246).
External Treatment.—In the older
churches the exterior seems to have
been left in simple masses of
brickwork, impressive only by their
size and proportion. Probably even
this effect was not considered of
great importance. In later times a
very beautiful system of decoration Fig. 10.—The Drum Dome.
with slender shallow niches was
introduced and was applied in
particular to the east end and to the apses. The finest examples of this
system on a large scale are seen at the Pantokrator (p. 235) and S.
Theodosia (p. 173). Carefully considered or elaborate external compositions
are rare, and the only examples in Constantinople are the side chapel of the
Pammakaristos (p. 154) and the narthex of S. Theodore (p. 246).
External Marble and Mosaic.—Marble and mosaic, we have reason to
know, were occasionally used on the exterior of churches,29 though no
fragments remain. On the south side of the Pantepoptes (p. 216) the string-
course does not correspond to the line of the walls, but projects in a manner
which shows that marble must have been employed to line the large
windows. A similar projection of the string-course or cornice is not
uncommon elsewhere, though not so evident as in the Pantepoptes, and may
have been made to receive a marble or mosaic lining.
Doors and Windows.—It is a primary rule in Byzantine architecture that all
constructive openings are arched. Whatever may be the eventual form of a
door or window the opening is first built in brick with a semicircular head,
and into this opening the marble jambs and lining are fitted leaving a
semicircular lunette above. Doors are square-headed, with heavily moulded

architraves and cornice, and the lintel is mitred into the jambs instead of
having the more constructive horizontal joint used in the West.
The doors made of wood or of wood lined with bronze, swing on top and
bottom pivots which turned in bronze-lined sockets in lintel and threshold.
They closed with a rebate in the jambs and against the raised threshold.
Windows were sometimes filled in a similar manner, as in the palace of the
Porphyrogenitus and in the north gallery of S. Saviour in the Chora (Fig.
100). In the latter double windows or shutters were employed, opening
inwards in the same way as did the doors. These shutters may perhaps be
regarded as domestic, for in the churches, as is still seen in S. Sophia
though the arrangement has vanished elsewhere, the entire arched opening
was usually filled in with a pierced marble grille.
In addition to the simple round-headed windows double and triple windows
are found. Double windows were naturally formed by dividing the single
arch by a central pier. This method presented two varieties: either the pier
was continued up to the containing arch, thus giving two pointed lights, or
the two lights were covered by separate arches within the main arch. Both
methods are used in the narthex of S. Theodore (p. 247). Another variety
was produced by placing two single lights together, with a shaft between
them instead of the central pier. But as double windows are not very
satisfactory, triple windows are more common. In this case both the
methods just described of forming the windows were adopted. A large
semicircular opening divided by two piers will give an arched light between
two pointed lights, or three arched lights, as in the narthex of S. Theodore.
In the former case, if shafts are substituted for the piers, a little adjustment
will produce the beautiful form found in the side-chapels of the
Pammakaristos (p. 152), and of S. Saviour in the Chora (p. 310), where the
two side lights are covered by half-arches whose crowns abut on the
capitals of the shafts, while between and above them rises the semicircular
head of the central light.
The method of grouping three arched windows of the same height is
adopted in apse windows, each of them occupying one side of the exterior.
As the deep, narrow mullions are set radiating, the arch is narrower inside
than outside. But this difficulty was overcome, partly by lowering the inner
crowns, so that the arch is conical, partly by winding the surface. In the

Pantokrator (p. 238), instead of radiating to the centre of the apse, the side
and mullions are placed parallel to the axis of the church, thus obviating all
difficulty. Generally the centre to which the mullions radiate is considerably
beyond the apse, so that any necessary little adjustment of the arch could
easily be made.
Triple windows supported on circular columns are not infrequent in the
north and south cross arms. Sometimes the central light is larger than the
lateral lights, at other times, as in the Pantepoptes, the three lights are equal.
The lower part of these windows was probably filled in with a breastwork
of carved slabs, as in S. Sophia, while the upper part was filled by a pierced
grille. At present the existing examples of these windows have been built up
to the abaci of the capitals, but in the church of S. Mary Diaconissa (p. 186)
the columns still show the original form on the inside.
Vaulting.—All Byzantine churches of any importance are vaulted in brick.
The only exception to this rule in Constantinople is the little church known
as Monastir Mesjedi (p. 264). The different systems of Byzantine vaulting
have been so fully treated by Choisy and other authorities, that in the
absence of any large amount of new material it is not necessary to give here
more than a few notes on the application of these systems in
Constantinople. It should always be kept in view that, as these vaults were
constructed with the lightest of centering, the surfaces and curves must have
been largely determined by the mason as he built, and would not necessarily
follow any definite geometrical development. "Il serait illusoire," remarks
Choisy, "d'attribuer à toutes les voutes byzantines un trace géométrique
rigoureusement défini." 30

PLATE II.

The Myrelaion (since it was burned), from the north-west.

The Myrelaion (since it was burned), from the south-east.
(By kind permission of H. M. Dwight, Esq.)
To face page 20.

The vaults commonly found are the barrel vault, the cross-groined vault,
and the dome-vault. The first is frequently used over the cross arms and the
bema, and sometimes over the narthex in conjunction with the groined vault
(Diaconissa). It is the simplest method of covering an oblong space, but it
does not easily admit of side windows above the springing.
A very beautiful form of cross-groined vault is found in S. Sophia and in
SS. Sergius and Bacchus, in which the crown is considerably domed, and
the groins, accordingly, lose themselves in the vaulting surface. This form is
found in Greek churches of late date, but does not occur in the later
churches of Constantinople. A full description of the form and construction
is given by Choisy31 and by Lethaby and Swainson.32
The cross-groined vault as found in the Myrelaion and many other churches
of the city is level in the crown, with clearly marked groins. It is sometimes

used with transverse arches resting on pilasters, or without these adjuncts.
One of the most interesting of the vault forms is the dome-vault, a shallow
dome with continuous pendentives. It is distinguished in appearance from
the groined vault, as found in S. Sophia, by the absence of any groin line,
and is completely different in construction.
The geometrical construction is that of the pendentives of all domes. The
four supporting arches intersect a hemispherical surface whose diameter is
equal to the diagonal of the supporting square. The pendentives produce at
the crown line of the arches a circular plan which is filled in by a saucer
dome of the same radius as the pendentives, constructed of circular brick
rings, the joints of which radiate to the centre. If the space to be covered is
not square the broader arches intersect at a higher level, while the narrow
arches are not stilted, but kept down so as to receive the dome surface, and
in this case the narrow arches are not semicircular, but segmental. Where
the difference in size between the two sides was not great, the difficulty
presented was easily overcome by the Byzantine builder, who in the later
buildings, at any rate, rarely built anything within four inches of its
geometrical position. Where the difference was too great it was frankly
accepted, and we find segmental arches at the narrow ends.

Fig. 11.

The vaulting of the outer narthex of S. Saviour in the Chora illustrates this
fully (Fig. 11). Though some of the bays of that narthex are oblong and
others almost square all are covered with dome vaults. The almost square
bays, although their sides vary considerably, are covered precisely as if their
sides were exactly equal. But in two of the oblong bays, which are nearly
three times as long as they are broad, such a method could not be applied.
Longitudinal arches (AA) were accordingly thrown between the transverse
arches (CC) and made to rest on their spandrils. The oblong form of the
intervening space was thus very much reduced, and over it flat domes are
thrown. Their rings are true circles, and as the space they cover is still
somewhat oblong they descend lower, with additional segments of rings
(BB), at the ends than at the sides. In the remaining two oblong bays of the
narthex, the result of introducing the longitudinal arches is to convert a
decidedly oblong space in one direction into a slightly oblong space in the
opposite direction, an additional proof, if any were needed, that the exact
shape of plan with this form of vault was a matter of comparative
indifference to the builder.

In S. Sophia the vault springs from the intrados of the transverse arches,
that is, from the lower edge. In SS. Sergius and Bacchus it springs from a
point so slightly raised as to be hardly noticeable. In the later vaults,
however, the transverse arches, when present, are boldly shown, and the
vault springs from the extrados or outer edge (e.g. S. Saviour in the Chora,
S. Theodore).
Construction.—Most of the churches of the city are covered with thick
coats of plaster and whitewash, both within and without. Only in a few
cases, where these coatings have fallen away through neglect, or in some
remote corner of a building to which these coatings were never applied, can
the construction and the laying of the brickwork be studied. The two-storied
chapel, known as Bogdan Serai (p. 283), is almost denuded of plaster, and
is therefore of importance in this connection. The bricks of the wall arches
on which its dome rests are laid considerably flatter than the true radiating
line, leaving a triangular piece to be filled in at the crown. On the other
hand, the bricks of the transverse arches under the dome radiate to the
centre.
It has been supposed that the method followed in the wall arches was
employed in order to economise centering, since bricks could gradually be
worked out over the space, each course simply sticking to the one below.
This is undoubtedly the case in some examples. But here centering could
not have been of any service in the wall arches, and the transverse arches
are laid without flattening of the courses, though that arrangement might
have been useful in their case. It is therefore more probable that the
flattening of the courses in the wall arches is simply a piece of careless
workmanship. The pendentives, like all pendentives that could be
examined, were formed of horizontal courses corbelled out to the circle.
The dome, bema, and the barrel vault in the lower story (p. 285) seem to be
laid with true radiating joints. The springing of the barrel vault is formed of
four courses of stone laid horizontally and cut to the circle, and above them
the entire barrel is of brick. The dome arches of the Sanjakdar Mesjedi (p.
270) are formed of three distinct rings, not bonded into one another. They
radiate to the true centre, and the pendentives are, as usual, in horizontal
courses. The transverse arches of the outer narthex in S. Saviour in the
Chora are also built with true radiating courses.

The gynecaeum of the side-chapel of the Pammakaristos (p. 153) has never
been plastered, and consequently the laying of the brickwork can be seen
there to advantage. The little stair leading up to the gallery is covered with a
sloping barrel vault built in segments perpendicular to the slope of the stair
and could easily have been built without centering. The same remark
applies to the cross vault at the head of the stair, which is similarly
constructed in 'slices' parallel to each side (p. 154). The arches of the
gynecaeum itself, the vaults, and the two little domes, seem to have true
radiating joints. The ribs of the domes are formed in the brickwork, and are
not structurally separate. In these last examples, and in all door and window
openings, in which the joints invariably radiate from the centre, a certain
amount of centering was inevitable.

PLATE III.

Suleiman Aga Mesjedi, beside S. Saviour
The Myrelaion (since it was burnt). Pantokrator.
Interior, looking east.
(By kind permission of H. M. Dwight, Esq.)
To face page 24.

On the other hand a little passage in S. Saviour in the Chora between the
church and the parecclesion (p. 311), is covered with a barrel vault
evidently built without centering. The space is first narrowed by two
corbelled courses of stone and, above them, by three projecting courses of

brick. From this springs the vault, built from each end in strongly inclined
segments. These segments meet in the middle, leaving a diamond-shaped
space filled in with longitudinal courses. Like the stairs in the
Pammakaristos, this passage is very narrow, some 85 cm., yet the builders
thought it necessary to corbel out five courses before venturing to throw a
vault without centering.
Near the Pantokrator is an octagonal building, now Suleiman Aga Mesjedi
but generally regarded as a Byzantine library, which has on each side a
large wall arch strongly elliptical in form (p. 270). Two arches of somewhat
similar form and apparently original are found in the south end of the
gynecaeum of the Pantokrator (p. 237). These arches may have been built in
this manner to economise centering. Still, in the library they are wall arches
easily constructed without centering.
Failing the examination of a larger number of buildings in Constantinople
we can hardly judge of the later methods of vault and arch construction, but
one point may be further noticed. The wall internally is often set back
slightly at each spring course, so that with the projection of the course a
considerable ledge or shelf is left. On this ledge centering could easily be
supported and would have required no further framework to the ground.
Centering seems to have been used for dorm, arches, vaults, and door and
window openings. It was not used in small vaults. But it is difficult to
imagine any method of constructing such groined vaults as those found in
the narthexes of the Pantokrator without a very considerable amount of
centering.
Ties.—As a general rule tie rods or beams were used, either of iron or
wood. In the latter case they were painted with leaf or fret ornaments, and
were evidently considered as natural features. But large vaults are often
found without such ties as in the narthex of the Pantokrator. Many churches
have ties to the dome-arches, and none to the main vault; but it is difficult to
lay down a fixed rule. The enormous amount of mortar in the walls must
have made them yield to a certain degree when newly built, and some of the
larger vaults would have been the better for rods.
Abutments.—The system of abutments in the Byzantine churches of the
great period has been carefully studied by M. Choisy. 33 In early examples

the dome springs directly from the pendentives on the inside, but is
thickened externally over the haunches, producing a double curve and an
apparent drum. This is seen very clearly in SS. Sergius and Bacchus. In S.
Sophia the numerous windows are cut through this drum, so that it
resembles rather a series of small abutments. The object was to support the
crown of the dome by adding weight over the haunches. In both these
churches the thrust of the dome and its supporting arches is taken by the
two-storied galleries, which form, in fact, flying buttresses within the
buildings, and are adapted to their architectural requirements. The square
plan and the enormous size of the dome in S. Sophia demanded the great
buttresses on the sides; while in SS. Sergius and Bacchus the eight
buttresses show only on the outside of the dome and are not carried over the
aisles as they are in S. Sophia. Below the roof the arches and piers of the
galleries and aisles are arranged so as to carry the thrust to the external
walls, and following the tradition of Roman vaulting all buttressing is
internal. In S. Irene, where the true drum dome first appears, the buttresses
between the windows of the dome still remain, though much reduced in
size. A dome raised on a drum can evidently no longer exercise a thrust
against the dome-arches; its thrust must be taken by the drum, and only its
weight can rest on the arches.
The weight of the drum and dome rests on the pendentives and dome-
arches. Their thrust is neutralized by the use of ties and by the barrel vaults
of the cross arms, and these in their turn depend on the thickness of the
walls. The lower buildings attached to the church in the form of side-
chapels and the narthex also helped to stiffen and buttress the cross walls.
The system is by no means perfect in these late churches. It was apparently
found impossible to construct drum domes of any size, except at the
extreme risk of their falling in, and probably it is for this reason that many
of the larger domes in late churches, like SS. Peter and Mark, S. Theodosia,
the Chora, have fallen. No system of chainage appears to have been used
for domes in Constantinople.
Flying buttresses probably of the ninth century are used at the west end of
S. Sophia. The double-flying buttress to the apse of the Chora does not
bond with the building and is certainly not original. It may be set down as
part of the Byzantine restoration of the church in the fourteenth century. In
any case, such external flying abutments are alien to the spirit of Byzantine

architecture, and may be regarded as an importation from the West. Flying
buttresses, it may here be noted, are not uncommon in the great mosques of
the city. They are found in Sultan Bayazid, Rustem Pasha, Sultan Selim, the
Suleimanieh, and the Shahzadé. But they are generally trifling in size, and
are rather ornaments than serious attempts to buttress the dome.
Walls.—The walls of the earlier churches are built of large thin bricks laid
with mortar joints at least as thick as the bricks, and often of greater
thickness. Stone is used only in special cases, as in the main piers of S.
Sophia, but monolithic marble columns are an important part of the
structure. In the later churches stone is used in courses with the bricks to
give a banded effect, and herring-bone, diamond, and radiating patterns are
frequently introduced. The palace of the Porphyrogenitus, the parecclesion
of the Pammakaristos, and Bogdan Serai, exhibit this style of work. As
illustrations of the method adopted in the construction of walls the
following measurements may be given, the sizes being in centimetres:
Brick. Joint.
Parecclesion of the Pammakaristos .08 .04
4 courses brick, 5 joints .46 —
S. John in Trullo .03 .07 to .09
Refectory of the Monastery of Manuel .04 .04 to .06
4 course stone, 3 joints .78 —
4 courses brick, 5 joints .30 —
.0375 .052
Bogdan Serai .035 .035
.04 .04
4 courses stone, 8 joints — .55 to .60
4 courses brick, 5 joints — .43 to .47
Sanjakdar, brick .045 —

Building Procedure.—The first step in the erection of a building was to
obtain the necessary marble columns with their capitals and bases. These
seem to have been largely supplied ready made, and Constantinople was a
great centre for the manufacture and export of stock architectural features.
Then the main walls were built in brick, the columns were inserted as

required, the vaults were thrown, and the whole building was left to settle
down. Owing to the enormous amount of mortar used this settling must
have been very considerable, and explains why hardly a plumb wall exists
in Constantinople, and why so many vaults show a pronounced sinking in at
the crown or have fallen in and have been rebuilt. After the walls had set the
marble facings, mosaic, and colour were applied and could be easily
adapted to the irregular lines of the walls.
Byzantine architecture made little use of mouldings. The great extension of
flat and spacious decoration rendered unnecessary, or even objectionable,
any strong line composition. External cornices are in coursed brick, the
alternate courses being laid diagonally so as to form the characteristic
dentil. The richest form is that found in the Pammakaristos, S. Theodosia,
and S. Thekla, where the small dentil cornice is supported on long tapering
corbels, a design suggested by military machicolations.

PLATE IV.

S. Theodore.
S. Saviour in the Chora. Sculptured Marble Slab Built into the
Bracket in the Inner Narthex Minaret of the Mosque
Interior, looking east.

S. Mary Diaconissa.
S. Mary Diaconissa.
Sculptured Slab on the West Wall.
Heads of Windows in South Arm
Interior, looking east.
To face page 28.

The stone ogee, cavetto, or cavetto and bead cornice is common, but seems
in every case to be Turkish work and is very common in Turkish buildings.
Internal cornices and string-courses are in marble, and are all of the same
type, a splay and fillet. The splayed face is decorated with upright leaves or
with a guilloche band, either carved (in the Pantepoptes) or painted (in the
Chora), the carving as in classic work, serving only to emphasise the colour.
The splay is sometimes slightly hollowed, sometimes, as in the Chora,
worked to an ogee.
Doors.—Doors often have elaborately moulded architraves and cornice. In
S. John of the Studion (p. 61), the oldest example, the jamb-moulding has a
large half-round on the face, with small ogees and fillets, all on a somewhat
massive scale. The doors of S. Sophia are very similar. The later mouldings
are lighter but the half-round on the face remains a prominent feature. It is
now undercut and reduced in size, and resembles the Gothic moulding
known as the bowtell. This is combined with series of fillets, small ogees,
and cavettos into jamb-moulds of considerable richness. The cornices are
often simply splayed or are formed of a series of ogees, fillets, and cavettos.
The jamb-mouldings are cut partly on a square and partly on a steep splayed
line. In some, the portion forming the ingo seems to have been regarded as

a separated piece though cut from the solid. If in the doors of the
Pantokrator or the Pantepoptes the line of the inner jamb be continued
through the rebate, it will correspond on the outside with the bowtell
moulding, as though the inner and outer architrave had been cut from one
square-edged block, placing the bowtell at the angle and adding the rebate.
This formation is not followed in S. John of the Studion.
Carving.—Carving is slight, and is confined to capitals, string-courses, and
the slabs which filled in the lower parts of screens and windows. Fragments
of such slabs are found everywhere. They are carved with geometrical
interlacing and floral patterns, often encircling a cross or sacred monogram,
or with simply a large cross. Such slabs may be seen still in position in S.
Sophia and in the narthex of S. Theodore. In the latter they are of verd
antique, and are finely carved on both sides. In later times the embargo on
figure sculpture was considerably relaxed. Little figures are introduced in
the cornices of the eikon frames in the Diaconissa (p. 186), and both in the
parecclesion and the outer narthex of the Chora are found many small busts
of angels, saints, and warriors carved with great delicacy. The carving in the
Chora is the finest work of the kind excepting that in S. Sophia.
Capitals.—The development of the capital from the Roman form, which
was suitable only for the lintel, to the impost capital shaped to receive an
arch has been well explained by Lethaby and Swainson. According to these
authors Byzantine capitals exhibit seven types.
I. The Impost capital.—It is found in SS. Sergius and Bacchus, the outer
narthex of the Chora, the inner narthex of S. Andrew and elsewhere. A
modification of this type is used in windows. It was employed throughout
the style but especially in early times up to the sixth century, and again in
the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries.
II. The Melon type.—This is seen on the columns of the lower order in SS.
Sergius and Bacchus and on the columns of the narthex of S. Theodore,
where they have been taken from an older building. The melon capital was
probably not in use after the sixth century.
III. The Bowl capital.—This type is used in the great order of S. Sophia at
Constantinople. It has been thought peculiar to this church, but the capitals

from S. Stephen at Triglia in Bithynia resemble those of S. Sophia closely.
Only the peculiar volutes of the S. Sophia capitals are absent.34
IV. The Byzantine or 'Pseudo-Ionic.'—This is found in the upper order of
SS. Sergius and Bacchus, and in the narthex of S. Andrew. It is an early
type, not used after the sixth century, and its occurrence in S. Andrew
favours the early date assigned to that church.
V. The Bird and Basket.—Found in Constantinople, only in S. Sophia.
VI. The Byzantine Corinthian.—This is the commonest form of capital in
the later churches, and must have been in continuous use from the earliest
date. It occurs in S. John of the Studion, the Diaconissa, the Chora, and in
many other churches. Here the classic form is accurately adhered to, but, as
the curved abacus was unsuitable to the arch, a large splayed abacus or
impost block is placed above the capital. It is a general feature of the
Byzantine capital that it projects at no point beyond the impost line of the
arch, thus differing both from the classic and the Gothic forms.
VII. The Windblown Acanthus.—This is found in the churches of Salonica
and Ravenna. Three examples are mentioned as seen in Constantinople, two
near the Diaconissa, forming bases for the posts of a wooden porch to a
house; one is the cistern commonly known as the cistern of Pulcheria.
Window Capitals.—In shafted window of several lights, the impost piers
between the arches are of the full thickness of the wall, but are very narrow
from side to side. Similarly the shafts are almost slabs placed across the
wall, and sometimes, as in the Pammakaristos, are carved on their narrow
faces. The capitals are cubical, of slight projection at the sides, but
spreading widely at the ends, while the bases closely resemble capitals
turned upside down. As with columns, the joints at base and necking are
bedded in sheet lead.
Floors.—The floors are usually of thick red brick tiles, some .31 cm.
square, or, as in S. Theodore, hexagonal, .34 cm. across by 45 cm. from
point to point. Marble floors were used when possible, inlaid with patterns,
or in slabs surrounded by borders of coloured marbles, as is still seen in a
portion of the floor in the Pantokrator (Fig. 76).

Decoration.—Of the churches of Constantinople only S. Sophia, S. Mary
Diaconissa, the South Church of the Pantokrator, and the Chora, retain any
considerable part of their original decoration. The first is beyond our
present scope, but from the general tone and atmosphere which still linger
there we are able to appreciate the effect of the same style of decoration
where it survives in less complete form.
The accepted method, as may be observed in the Chora and the Diaconissa,
was to split marble slabs so as to form patterns in the veining, and then to
place them upright on the wall. It is probable that the finest slabs were first
placed in the centre points of the wall, and that other slabs or borders were
then arranged round them. The centre slabs in the Chora are of exceptional
beauty. The usual design consists of a dado of upright slabs surmounted by
panelling to the cornice level, the panels being outlined with plain or carved
beads. In the Diaconissa the notched dentil form is used for the beads; in the
Chora, a 'bead and reel.' The arches have radiating voussoirs, or, in the
Diaconissa, a zigzag embattled design, found also in S. Demetrius of
Salonica, though two hundred years must have separated the buildings. In
the Chora the arch spandrils and cornice are inlaid with scroll and
geometrical designs in black, white, and coloured marbles.
The surfaces above the cornice and the interior of the domes gleamed with
mosaic, representing, as seen in the Chora, figures on a gold background.
The mosaic cubes are small, measuring 5 mm. to 7 mm., and are closely set.
This is about the same size as the mosaic cubes in S. Sophia, but smaller
than those at Ravenna, which measure about 10 mm.
Painting.—In the majority of churches this full decoration with marble and
mosaic must have been rendered impossible by the expense, and
accordingly we find examples like the parecclesion at the Chora decorated
with painting, following exactly the tradition of marble and mosaic. This
painting is in tempera on the plaster, and is executed with a free and bold
touch.
Conclusion.—Byzantine architecture is essentially an art of spaces.
'Architectural' forms, as we are accustomed to think of them, are noticeably
absent, but as compensation, colour was an essential and inseparable part of
the architecture. The builder provided great uninterrupted spaces broken

only by such lines and features as were structurally necessary—capitals,
columns, string-courses, and over these spaces the artist spread a glittering
robe of marble or mosaic. No school has ever expressed its structure more
simply, or given fuller scope to the artist, whether architect or painter.
Byzantine architecture is not only a school of construction, it is also a
school of painting. Most of the churches of Constantinople have
unfortunately lost the latter part of their personality. They are mere ghosts,
their skeletons wrapped in a shroud of whitewash. Still the Greek artist
retained his skill to the last, and the decorative work of S. Saviour in the
Chora will stand comparison even with the similar work in S. Sophia.
In Byzantine times the greatness of S. Sophia tended to crush competition.
No other ecclesiastical building approached the 'Great Church.' But
structural ability was only latent, and displayed its old power again in the
erection of the imperial mosques of the early Turkish Sultans, for they too
are monuments of Greek architectural genius.
The origins of Byzantine architecture have been discussed at great length by
Strzygowski, Rivoira, and many other able writers. Much work still remains
to be done in the investigation of the later Roman and early Byzantine
work; nor does it seem probable that the difficult questions of the Eastern or
the Western origin of Byzantine art will ever be finally settled.
The beginnings of Byzantine architecture have never been satisfactorily
accounted for. With S. Sophia it springs almost at once into full glory; after
S. Sophia comes the long decline. It may, however, be noted that the
'endings' of Roman architecture are similarly obscure. Such buildings as the
Colosseum, in which the order is applied to an arched building, are
evidently transitional, the Roman construction and the Greek decoration,
though joined, not being merged into one perfect style. Even in the baths
and other great buildings of Imperial Rome the decoration is still Greek in
form and not yet fully adapted to the arched construction. At Spalatro, in
such parts as the Porta Aurea, a developed style seems to be on the point of
emerging, but it is not too much to say that in no great Roman building do
we find a perfect and homogeneous style.
There is nothing in either the planning or the construction of S. Sophia
which cannot be derived from the buildings of the Roman Imperial period,

with the exception of the pendentive, a feature which had to be evolved
before the dome could be used with freedom on any building plan on a
square. The great brick-concrete vaulted construction is that of the Roman
baths, and with this is united a system of decoration founded on the classic
models, but showing no trace of the Greek beam tradition which had ruled
in Rome.
S. Sophia then may be regarded as the culminating point of one great
Roman-Byzantine school, of which the art of classic Rome shows the rise,
and the later Byzantine art the decline. This view is in accord with history,
for Constantinople was New Rome, and here, if anywhere, we should
expect to find preserved the traditions of Old Rome.
The division of Western Mediaeval Architecture into the two schools of
Romanesque and Gothic presents a parallel case. It is now realised that no
logical separation can be made between the two so-called styles. Similarly
we may continue to speak of the Classic Roman style and of the Byzantine
style, although the two really belong to one great era in the history of art.
10 Eastern Palestine Memoirs, p. 172. A similar dome is given by Choisy,
L'Art de bâtir chez les Byzantins, Plate XV.
11De Vogüé, Syrie centrale, i. p. 45, Plate VII.
12 Dürm, Handbuch, Part II. vol. iii. pp. 115, 149. A restored plan is given in
Lethaby's Mediaeval Art, p. 47.
13 Orient oder Rom, p. 19.
14 Kleinasien, p. 152.
15 Kleinasien, p. 121 et seq.
16 Oskar Wulf, Die Koimesiskirche in Nikaea, p. 71.
17 H. Rott, Kleinasiensche Denkmäler, p. 329.
18 Wulf, op. cit. p. 23.
19 For local variations in late churches in Greece, see Traquair's 'Churches of
Western Mani,' Annual of British School at Athens, xv. 1908.
20 Strzygowski, 'Das Etschmiadzin Evangeliar,' Byzant. Denkmäler, i., 1891.
21 Ravanica, F. Kanitz, Serbiens byzantische Monumente, Wien, 1862.
22 Pullan and Texier, S. Elias.
23 G. Lampakis, Les Antiquités chrétiennes de la Grèce, Athens, 1902.

24 Schultz and Barnsley, The Monastery of S. Luke at Stiris, p. 13, fig. 6.
25 See, however, North Church in S. Mary, Panachrantos, p. 128.
26 Strzygowski's views as to the early date of the drum-dome are not
universally accepted. The examples he produces seem rather octagons carried
up from the ground to give a clearstory under the dome than true drums
interposed between the dome and its pendentives.
27 Annual B.S.A. xii. 1905-6. See also Schultz and Barnsley, Monastery of S.
Luke at Stiris.
28 See p. 154.
29 Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem. S. Mary Peribleptos; see Vida de Gran
Tamorlan y itinerario del Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, p. 52.
30 L'Art de bâtir chez les Byzantins, p. 57.
31 Ibid. p. 99.
32 Sancta Sophia, p. 219.
33 L'Art de bâtir chez les Byzantins, p. 135.
34 Hasluck, 'Bithynica,' Annual B.S.A. XIII. 1906-7.

CHAPTER II

THE CHURCH OF S. JOHN THE BAPTIST OF THE STUDION, EMIR
AHOR JAMISSI

The mosque Emir Ahor Jamissi, situated in the quarter of Psamathia, near
the modern Greek church of S. Constantine, and at short distance from the
Golden Gate (Yedi Koulé), is the old church of S. John the Baptist, which
was associated with the celebrated monastery of Studius, ἡ μονὴ τοῦ
Στουδίου. It may be reached by taking the train from Sirkiji Iskelessi to
Psamathia or Yedi Koulé. 35
In favour of the identification of the building, there is, first, the authority of
tradition, 36 which in the case of a church so famous may be confidently
accepted as decisive. In the next place, all indications of the character and

position of the Studion, however vague, point to Emir Ahor Jamissi as the
representative of that church. For the mosque presents the characteristic
features which belonged to the Studion as a basilica of the fifth century, and
stands where that sanctuary stood, in the district at the south-western angle
of the city,37 and on the left hand of the street leading from S. Mary
Peribleptos (Soulou Monastir) to the Golden Gate.38 Furthermore, as held
true of the Studion, the mosque is in the vicinity of the Golden Gate,39 and
readily accessible from a gate and landing (Narli Kapou) on the shore of the
Sea of Marmora.40

According to the historian Theophanes,41 the church was erected in the year
463 by the patrician Studius, after whom the church and the monastery
attached to it were named. He is described as a Roman of noble birth and
large means who devoted his wealth to the service of God,42 and may safely
be identified with Studius who held the consulship in 454 during the reign
of Marcian.43

If we may trust the Anonymus, 44 the church erected by Studius replaced a
sanctuary which stood at one time, like the Chora, outside the city. Seeing
the territory immediately beyond the Constantinian fortifications was well
peopled before its inclusion within the city limits by Theodosius II., there is
nothing improbable in the existence of such extra-mural sanctuaries, and as
most, if not all, of them would be small buildings, they would naturally
require enlargement or reconstruction when brought within the wider
bounds of the capital. According to Suidas, 45 the building was at first a
parochial church; its attachment to a monastery was an after-thought of its
founder.

PLATE V.

S. John of the Studion.
Ruined Interior, seen from the Minaret of the Mosque.

S. John of the Studion, from the west.
To face page 36.

The monastery was large and richly endowed, capable of accommodating
one thousand monks. 46 Its first inmates were taken from a fraternity known
as the Akoimeti, 'the sleepless'; so named because in successive companies
they celebrated divine service in their chapels day and night without
ceasing, like the worshippers in the courts of heaven.
'Even thus of old
Our ancestors, within the still domain
Of vast cathedral or conventual church
Their vigils kept: where tapers day and night
On the dim altar burned continually.
In token that the House was ever more
Watching to God. Religious men were they;
Nor would their reason, tutored to aspire
Above this transitory world, allow
That there should pass a moment of the year
When in their land the Almighty's service ceased.'

But this devout practice does not seem to have been long continued at the
Studion; for we never hear of it in any account of the discipline of the
House. The monks of the Studion should therefore not be identified with the
Akoimeti who took up such a determined and independent attitude in the
theological conflicts under Zeno, Basiliscus, and Justinian the Great.47
In the course of its history the church underwent noteworthy repairs on two
occasions. It was first taken in hand for that purpose, soon after the middle
of the eleventh century,48 by the Emperor Isaac Comnenus (1057-58), who
was interested in the House because he and his brother had received part of
their education in that 'illustrious and glorious school of virtue.' 49 What the
repairs then made exactly involved is unfortunately not stated. But,
according to Scylitzes, they were so extensive that 'to tell in detail what the
emperor and empress did for the embellishment of the church would
surpass the labour of Hercules.' 50 Probably they concerned chiefly the
decoration of the edifice.
The next repairs on record were made about the year 1290, in the reign of
Andronicus II., by his unfortunate brother Constantine Porphyrogenitus.
Owing to the neglect of the building during the Latin occupation the roof

had fallen in, the cells of the monks had disappeared, and sheep grazed
undisturbed on the grass which covered the grounds. Constantine, rich,
generous, fond of popularity, did all in his power to restore the former glory
of the venerated shrine. The new roof was a remarkable piece of work; large
sums were spent upon the proper accommodation of the monks, and the
grounds were enclosed within strong walls. 51
Like other monastic institutions, the Studion suffered greatly at the hands of
the iconoclast emperors. Under Constantine Copronymus, indeed, the
fraternity was scattered to the winds and practically suppressed, so that only
twelve old members of the House were able to take advantage of the
permission to return to their former home, upon the first restoration of
eikons in 787 by the Empress Irene. Under these circumstances a company
of monks, with the famous abbot Theodore at their head, were eventually
brought from the monastery of Saccudio to repeople the Studion, and with
their advent in 799 the great era in the history of the House began, the
number of the monks rising to seven hundred, if not one thousand.52
Theodore had already established a great reputation for sanctity and moral
courage. For when Constantine VI. repudiated the Empress Maria and
married Theodote, one of her maids of honour, Theodore, though the new
empress was his relative, denounced the marriage and the priest who had
celebrated it, insisting that moral principles should govern the highest and
lowest alike, and for this action he had gladly endured scourging and exile.
The Studion had, therefore, a master who feared the face of no man, and
who counted the most terrible sufferings as the small dust of the balance
when weighed against righteousness, and under him the House became
illustrious for its resistance to the tyranny of the civil power in matters
affecting faith and morals. When the Emperor Nicephorus ordered the
restoration of the priest who had celebrated the marriage of Constantine VI.
with Theodote, not only did Theodore and his brother Joseph, bishop of
Thessalonica, and their venerable uncle Plato, endure imprisonment and
exile, but every monk in the Studion defied the emperor. Summoning the
fraternity into his presence, Nicephorus bade all who would obey his order
go to the right, and all who dared to disobey him go to the left. Not a single
man went to the right. Under the very eyes of the despot all went to the left,
and in his wrath Nicephorus broke up the community and distributed the

monks among various monasteries. Upon the accession of Michael I. the
exiled monks and Theodore were allowed indeed to return to the Studion,
peace being restored by the degradation of the priest who had celebrated the
obnoxious marriage. But another storm darkened the sky, when Leo V., the
Armenian, in 813, renewed the war against eikons. Theodore threw himself
into the struggle with all the force of his being as their defender. He
challenged the right of the imperial power to interfere with religious
questions; he refused to keep silence on the subject; and on Palm Sunday, in
815, led a procession of his monks carrying eikons in their hands in triumph
round the monastery grounds. Again he was scourged and banished. But he
could not be subdued. By means of a large and active correspondence he
continued an incessant and powerful agitation against the iconoclasts of the
day. Nor would he come to terms with Michael II., who had married a nun,
and who allowed the use of eikons only outside the capital. So Theodore
retired, apparently a defeated man, to the monastery of Acritas53; and there,
'on Sunday, 11 November 826, and about noon, feeling his strength fail, he
bade them light candles and sing the 119th psalm, which seems to have
been sung at funerals. At the words: "I will never forget Thy
commandments, for with them Thou hast quickened me," he passed away.'
He was buried on the island of Prinkipo, but eighteen years later, when
eikons were finally restored in the worship of the Orthodox Church, his
body was transferred to the Studion, and laid with great ceremony in the
presence of the Empress Theodora beside the graves of his uncle Plato and
his brother Joseph, in sign that after all he had conquered.54 Tandem hic
quiescit.

Note
His remains were interred at the east end of the southern aisle, where his uncle Plato and his brother
Joseph had been buried before him, and where Naucratius and Nicholas, his successors as abbots of
the Studion, were laid to rest after him. πρὸς τῷ δεξιῷ μέρει ἐν τῷ κατ' ἀνατολὰς τοῦ Προδρομικοῦ
τεμένους πανδόξῳ καὶ ἱερῷ τῶν μαρτύρων σηκῷ, ἔνθα δὴ καὶ τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Θεοδώρου ἡ
πανευκλεὴς καὶ πανσέβαστος τιμία θήκη καθίδρυται (Vita S. Nicolai Studitae, Migne, P.G. tome
105).
There, in fact, during the recent Russian exploration of the church, three coffins were discovered: one
containing a single body, another four bodies, and another three bodies. The grave had evidently been
disturbed at some time, for some of the bodies had no head, and all the coffins lay under the same
bed of mortar. No marks were found by which to identify the persons whose remains were thus
brought to view. But there can be no doubt that five of the bodies belonged to the five persons

mentioned above. To whom the three other bodies belonged is a matter of pure conjecture. They
might be the remains of three intimate friends of Theodore, viz. Athanasius, Euthemius, Timotheus,
or more probably of the abbots, Sophronius (851-55), Achilles (858-63), Theodosius (863-64). Cf.
Itin. russes, p. 100.

It would be a mistake, however, to think of Theodore only as a
controversalist and defier of the civil authority. He was a deeply religious
man, a pastor of souls, and he revived the religious and moral life of men,
far and wide, not only in his own day, but long after his life on earth had
closed. He made the Studion the centre of a great spiritual influence, which
never wholly lost the impulse of his personality or the loftiness of his ideal.
The forms of mediæval piety have become antiquated, and they were often
empty and vain, but we must not be blind to the fact that they were
frequently filled with a passion for holy living, and gave scope for the
creation of characters which, notwithstanding their limitations, produced
great and good men.

PLATE VI.

S. John of the Studion.
Façade of the Narthex.
S. John of the Studion.
The Ruined Interior: west end of the north
side.

To face page 40.

Speaking of Eastern monks and abbots, especially during the eighth and
ninth centuries, Mr. Finlay, the historian, justly remarks that 'the manners,
the extensive charity, and the pure morality of these abbots, secured them
the love and admiration of the people, and tended to disseminate a higher
standard of morality than had previously prevailed in Constantinople. This
fact must not be overlooked in estimating the various causes which led to
the regeneration of the Eastern Empire under the iconoclast emperors.
While the Pope winked at the disorders in the palace of Charlemagne, the
monks of the East prepared the public mind for the dethronement of
Constantine VI. because he obtained an illegal divorce and formed a second
marriage. The corruption of monks and the irregularities prevalent in the
monasteries of the West contrast strongly with the condition of the Eastern
monks.' Certainly to no one is this tribute of praise due more than to the
brotherhood in the monastery of Studius.
The monks of the Studion, like most Greek monks, lived under the rules
prescribed by S. Basil for the discipline of men who aspired to reach 'the
angelic life.' Theodore, however, quickened the spirit which found
expression in those rules, and while inculcating asceticism in its extremest
form, showed greater consideration for the weakness of human nature. The
penalties he assigned for transgressions were on the whole less Draconian
than those inflicted before his time.
According to the moral ideal cherished in the monastery, the true life of
man was to regard oneself but dust and ashes, and, like the angels, to be
ever giving God thanks. If a monk repined at such a lot, he was to castigate
himself by eating only dry bread for a week and performing 500 acts of
penance. The prospect of death was always to be held in view. Often did the
corridors of the monastery resound with the cry, 'We shall die, we shall die!'
The valley of the shadow of death was considered the road to life eternal. A
monk could not call even a needle his own. Nor were the clothes he wore
his personal property. They were from time to time thrown into a heap with
the clothes of the other members of the House, and every monk then took
from the pile the garment most convenient to his hand. Female animals
were forbidden the monastery. A monk was not allowed to kiss his mother,
not even at Easter, under penalty of excommunication for fifty days. Daily
he attended seven services, and had often to keep vigil all night long. There
was only one set meal a day; anything more in the way of food consisted of

the fragments which a monk laid aside from that meal. No meat was eaten
unless by special permission for reasons of health.
If a brother ate meat without permission he went without fish, eggs, and
cheese for forty days. The ordinary food consisted of vegetables cooked in
oil. Fish, cheese, and eggs were luxuries. Two, sometimes three, cups of
wine were permitted. If a brother was so unfortunate as to break a dish, he
had to stand before the assembled monks at dinner time with covered head,
and hold the broken article in view of all in the refectory.55 It was forbidden
to a monk to feel sad. Melancholy was a sin, and was to be overcome by
prayer, one hundred and fifty genuflexions, and five hundred Kyrie Eleisons
a day. The monks were required to read regularly in the monastery library.56
The task of copying manuscripts occupied a place of honour, and was under
strict regulations. Fifty genuflexions were the penalty prescribed for not
keeping one's copy clean; one hundred and fifty such acts of penance for
omitting an accent or mark of punctuation; thirty, for losing one's temper
and breaking his pen; fasting on dry bread was the fate of the copyist guilty
of leaving out any part of the original, and three days' seclusion for daring
to trust his memory instead of following closely the text before him.57

Ignatius of Smolensk58 found Russian monks in the monastery employed in
transcribing books for circulation in Russia. Stephen of Novgorod59 met
two old friends from his town busy copying the Scriptures. A good monastic
scriptorium rendered an immense service; it did the work of the printing-
press.
Yet, notwithstanding all restrictions, men could be happy at the Studion.
One of its inmates for instance congratulates himself thus on his lot there,
'No barbarian looks upon my face; no woman hears my voice. For a
thousand years no useless (ἄπρακτος) man has entered the monastery of
Studius; none of the female sex has trodden its court. I dwell in a cell that is
like a palace; a garden, an oliveyard, and a vineyard surround me. Before
me are graceful and luxuriant cypress trees. On one hand is the city with its
market-place; on the other, the mother of churches and the empire of the
world.'60
Hymnology was likewise cultivated at the Studion, many hymns of the
Greek Church being composed by Theodore and his brother Joseph.

Two abbots of the monastery became patriarchs: Antony (975),61 and
Alexius (1025),62 the latter on the occasion when he carried the great relic
of the Studion, the head of John the Baptist, to Basil II. lying at the point of
death.63
At least as early as the reign of Alexius I. Comnenus, the abbot of the
Studion held the first place among his fellow-abbots in the city. His
precedence is distinctly recognised in a Patriarchal Act of 1381 as a right of
old standing.64
The spirit of independence which characterized the monastery did not die
with the abbot Theodore. The monks of the Studion were the most stubborn
opponents of the famous Photius who had been elevated to the patriarchal
throne directly from the ranks of the laity, and in the course of the conflict
between him and the monks during the first tenure of his office for ten
years, the abbots of the House were changed five times. Indeed, when
Photius appointed Santabarenus as the abbot, a man accused of being a
Manichaean, and who professed to be able to communicate with departed
spirits, many of the monks, if not all of them, left their home. Nor was this
the last assertion of the freedom of conscience for which this monastery
was distinguished, and which makes it memorable in history.
Like other monasteries the Studion often served as a place of correction for
offenders whom it was expedient to render harmless without recourse to the
extreme rigour of the law. Santabarenus, who has just been mentioned, was
sent in his wild youth, after narrowly escaping a sentence of death at the
hands of the Caesar Bardas, to this monastery in the hope of being reformed
in the orthodox atmosphere of the House. In the reign of Leo VI. (826-912),
an official named Mousikos was sent hither to be cured of the propensity to
accept bribes.65 In 912, Gregoras and Choirosphacta were obliged to join
the brotherhood to repent at leisure for having favoured the attempt of
Constantine Ducas, domestic of the Scholae, to usurp the throne of
Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus when seven years of age.66

PLATE VII.

S. John of the Studion.
Entablature and Anta Capital in the Narthex.

S. John of the Studion.
Cornice in the Narthex, looking up
To face page 44.

Several emperors sought the shelter of the Studion as a refuge from danger,
or as a retreat from the vanity of the world. Thither, in 1041, Michael V. and
his uncle Constantine fled from the popular fury excited by their deposition
of the Empress Zoe and the slaughter of three thousand persons in the
defence of the palace. The two fugitives made for the monastery by boat,
and betook themselves to the church for sanctuary. But as soon as the place
of their concealment became known, an angry crowd forced a way into the
building to wreak vengeance upon them, and created a scene of which
Psellus has left us a graphic account. Upon hearing the news of what was
going on, he and an officer of the imperial guard mounted horse and
galloped to the Studion. A fierce mob was madly attempting to pull down
the structure, and it was with the utmost difficulty that the two friends
managed to enter the church and make their way to the altar. The building
seemed full of wild animals, glaring with eyes on fire at their victims, and
making the air resound with the most terrible cries. Michael was on his
knees clasping the holy table; Constantine stood on the right; both were
dressed like monks, and their features were so transformed by terror as to
be almost beyond recognition. The spectacle of greatness thus brought low
was so pathetic that Psellus burst into tears and sobbed aloud. But the
crowd only grew more fierce, and drew nearer and nearer to the fugitives as
though to rend them in pieces. Only a superstitious dread restrained it from
laying hands upon them in a shrine so sacred and venerated. The uproar
lasted for hours, the mob content meanwhile with striking terror and
making flight impossible. At length, late in the afternoon, the prefect of the
city appeared upon the scene, accompanied by soldiers and followed by
large crowds of citizens. He came with instructions to bring Michael and
Constantine out of the church. In vain did he try the effect of mild words
and promises of a gentle fate. The fallen emperor and his uncle clung to the
altar more desperately. The prefect then gave orders that the two wretched
men should be dragged forth by main force. They gripped the altar yet more
tightly, and in piteous tones invoked the aid of all the eikons in the building.
The scene became so heartrending that most of the spectators interfered on
behalf of the victims of misfortune, and only by giving solemn assurance
that they would not be put to death was the prefect allowed to proceed to

their arrest. Michael and Constantine were then dragged by the feet as far as
the Sigma, above S. Mary Peribleptos (Soulou Monastir), and after having
their eyes burnt out were banished to different monasteries, to muse on the
vanity of human greatness and repent of their misdeeds.67
The Studion appears in the final rupture of the Eastern and Western
Churches.68 The immediate occasion was a letter sent by the Archbishop of
Achrida, in 1053, to the Bishop of Trani, condemning the Church of Rome
for the use of unleavened bread in the administration of the Holy
Communion, and for allowing a fast on Saturday. Nicetas Stethetos
(Pectoratus), a member of the House renowned for his asceticism, and for
his courage in reproving the scandalous connection of Constantine IX. with
Sklerena, wrote a pamphlet, in Latin, in which, in addition to the charges
against Rome made by the Archbishop of Achrida, the enforced celibacy of
the clergy was denounced. The pamphlet was widely circulated by the
Patriarch Kerularios, who wished to bring the dispute between the Churches
to an issue. But the emperor not being prepared to go so far, invited the
Pope to send three legates to Constantinople to settle the differences which
disturbed the Christian world. Cardinal Humbert, one of the legates, replied
to Nicetas in the most violent language of theological controversy, and to
bring matters to a conclusion an assembly, which was attended by the
Emperor Constantine, his court, and the Papal legates, met at the Studion on
the 24th of June 1054. A Greek translation of the pamphlet composed by
Nicetas was then read, and after the discussion of the subject, Nicetas
retracted his charges and condemned all opponents of the Roman Church.
His pamphlet was, moreover, thrown into the fire by the emperor's orders,
and on the following day he called upon the Papal legates, who were lodged
at the palace of the Pegé (Baloukli), and was received into the communion
of the Church he had lately denounced. But the patriarch was not so fickle
or pliant. He would not yield an iota, and on the 15th of July 1054 Cardinal
Humbert laid on the altar of S. Sophia the bull of excommunication against
Kerularios and all his followers, which has kept Western and Eastern
Christendom divided to this day.
When Michael VII. (1067-78) saw that the tide of popular feeling had
turned against him in favour of Nicephorus Botoniates, he meekly retired to
this House, declining to purchase a crown with cruelty by calling upon the

Varangian guards to defend his throne with their battle-axes. Michael was
appointed bishop of Ephesus, but after paying one visit to his diocese he
returned to Constantinople and took up his abode in the monastery of
Manuel(p. 257).69
To the Studion, where he had studied in his youth and which he had
embellished, the Emperor Isaac Comnenus retired, when pleurisy and the
injuries he received while boar-hunting made him realize that he had but a
short time to live. In fact, he survived his abdication for one year only, but
during that period he proved a most exemplary monk, showing the greatest
deference to his abbot, and besides performing other lowly duties acted as
keeper of the monastery gate. How thoroughly he was reconciled to the
exchange of a throne for a cell appears in the remark made to his wife, who
had meantime taken the veil at the Myrelaion, 'Acknowledge that when I
gave you the crown I made you a slave, and that when I took it away I set
you free.' His widow commemorated his death annually at the Studion, and
on the last occasion surprised the abbot by making a double offering,
saying, 'I may not live another year,' a presentiment which proved true.
According to her dying request, Aecatherina was buried in the cemetery of
the Studion, 'as a simple nun, without any sign to indicate that she was born
a Bulgarian princess and had been a Roman empress.'70
On the occasion of the triumphal entry of Michael Palaeologus into the city
in 1261, the emperor followed the eikon of the Theotokos Hodegetria, to
whom the recovery of the Empire was attributed, on foot as far as the
Studion; and there, having placed the eikon in the church, he mounted horse
to proceed to S. Sophia.71

One of the sons of Sultan Bajazet was buried at the Studion.72 The prince
had been sent by the Sultan as a hostage to the Byzantine Court, and being
very young attended school in Constantinople with John, the son of the
Emperor Manuel. There he acquired a taste for Greek letters, and became a
convert to the Christian faith; but for fear of the Sultan's displeasure he was
long refused permission to be baptized. Only when the young man lay at the
point of death, in 1417, a victim to the plague raging in the city, was the rite
administered, his schoolmate and friend acting as sponsor.

A tombstone from the cemetery of the monastery is built into the Turkish
wall at the north-eastern corner of the church. It bears an epitaph to the
following effect:—'In the month of September of the year 1387, fell asleep
the servant of God, Dionysius the Russian, on the sixth day of the month.'
The patrician Bonus, who defended the city against the Avars in 627, while
the Emperor Heraclius was absent dealing with the Persians, was buried at
the Studion.73
On the festival of the Decapitation of S. John the Baptist, the emperor
attended service at the Studion in great state. Early in the morning the
members of the senate assembled therefore at the monastery, while
dignitaries of an inferior rank took their place outside the gate (Narli
Kapou) in the city walls below the monastery, and at the pier at the foot of
the steep path that descends from that gate to the shore of the Sea of
Marmora, all awaiting the arrival of the imperial barge from the Great
Palace. Both sides of the path were lined by monks of the House, holding
lighted tapers, and as soon as the emperor disembarked, the officials at the
pier and the crowd of monks, with the abbot at their head, swinging his
silver censer of fragrant smoke, led the way up to the gate. There a halt was
made for the magistri, patricians, and omphikialioi (ὀμφικιάλιοι) to do
homage to the sovereign and join the procession, and then the long train
wended its way through the open grounds attached to the monastery (διὰ
τοῦ ἐξαέρου), and through covered passages (διὰ τῶν ἐκεῖσε διαβατικῶν),74
until it reached the south-eastern end of the narthex (εἰσέρχονται διὰ τοῦ
πρὸς ἀνατολικὴν δεξιοῦ μέρους τοῦ νάρθηκος). Before the entrance at that
point, the emperor put on richly embroidered robes, lighted tapers, and then
followed the clergy into the church, to take his stand at the east end of the
south aisle. The most important act he performed during the service was to
incense the head of John the Baptist enshrined on the right hand of the
bema. At the conclusion of the Office of the day, he was served by the
monks with refreshments under the shade of the trees in the monastery
grounds (ἀναδενδράδιον); and, after a short rest, proceeded to his barge
with the same ceremonial as attended his arrival, and returned to the palace.
75

PLATE VIII.

S. John of the Studion, from the south-east.
To face page 48.

The church was converted into a mosque in the reign of Bajazet II. (1481-
1512) by the Sultan's equerry, after whom it is now named.

Architectural Features

The church of S. John the Baptist of the Studion is a basilica, and is of
special interest because the only surviving example of that type in
Constantinople, built while the basilica was the dominant form of
ecclesiastical architecture in the Christian world. It has suffered severely
since the Turkish conquest, especially from the fire which, in 1782,
devastated the quarter in which it stands, and from the fall of its roof, a few
winters ago, under an unusual weight of snow. Still, what of it remains and
the descriptions of its earlier state given by Gyllius, Gerlach, and other
visitors, enable us to form a fair idea of its original appearance. The recent
explorations conducted by the Russian Institute at Constantinople have also
added much to our knowledge of the building.
It is the oldest church fabric in the city, and within its precincts we stand
amid the surroundings of early Christian congregations. For, partly in

original forms, partly in imitations, we still find here a basilica's
characteristic features: the atrium, or quadrangular court before the church;
on three of its sides surrounded by cloisters; in its centre, the marble phialé
or fountain, for the purification of the gathering worshippers; the narthex, a
pillared porch along the western façade, where catechumens and penitents,
unworthy to enter the sanctuary itself, stood afar off; the interior area
divided into nave and aisles by lines of columns; the semicircular apse at
the eastern extremity of the nave for altar and clergy; and galleries on the
other sides of the building to provide ample accommodation for large
assemblies of faithful people.

Note
Gyllius (De Top. Constant. l. iv. c. 9) describes the church as follows: 'Quod (monasterium) nunc non
extat; aedes extat, translata in religionem Mametanam; in cujus vestibulo sunt quatuor columnae cum
trabeatione egregie elaborata; in interiore parte aedium utrinque columnae sunt septem virides, nigris
maculis velut fragmentis alterius generis lapidum insertis distinctae, quarum perimeter est sex pedum
et sex digitorum. Denique earum ratio capitulorum, epistyliorum opere Corinthio elaborata, eadem
est quae columnarum vestibuli. Supra illas sex existunt totidem columnae in parte aedis superiore. In
area aedis Studianae est cisterna, cujus lateritias cameras sustinent viginti tres columnae excelsae
Corinthiae.'
Gerlach (Tagebuch, p. 217; cf. pp. 359, 406) describes it under the style of the church of S. Theodore,
for he confounds the monastery of Studius with that of the Peribleptos at Soulou Monastir: 'Das ist
eine sehr hohe und weite Kirche (wie die unsern); hat zwei Reyhen Marmel-steiner Säulen mit
Corinthischen Knäufen (capitellis), auff einer jeden Seiten sieben; auff deren jeden wieder ein andere
Säule stehet. Der Boden ist mit lauter buntem von Vögeln und anderen Thieren gezierten Marmel
auff das schönste gepflästert.' (This is a very lofty and broad church (like our churches). It has two
rows of marble columns with Corinthian capitals, on either side seven; over each of which stands
again another column. The floor is paved in the most beautiful fashion entirely with variegated
marble, adorned with figures of birds and other animals.)
Choiseul Gouffier (Voyage pittoresque en Grèce, ii. p. 477), French ambassador to the Sublime Porte
(1779-92), speaks of the church in the following terms: 'Dans l'intérieur sont de chaque côté sept
colonnes de vert antique, surmontées d'une frise de marbre blanc parfaitement sculptée, qui contient
un ordre plus petit et très bien proportionné avec le premier. Je ne sais de quel marbre sont ces
secondes colonnes, parce que les Turcs qui défigurent tout ont imaginé de les couvrir de chaux.'
Ph. Bruun (Constantinople, ses sanctuaires et ses reliques au commencement du XV^e siècle, Odessa,
1883) identifies with the Studion one of the churches dedicated to S. John, which Ruy Gonzalez de
Clavijo visited in Constantinople when on his way to the Court of Tamerlane. But that church was 'a
round church without corners,' 'una quadra redonda sin esquinas,' and had forty-eight columns of
verd antique, 'veinte é quatro marmoles de jaspe verde, ... é otros veinte é quatro marmoles de jaspe
verde.' What church the Spanish ambassador had in view, if his description is correct, it is impossible
to say. No other writer describes such a church in Constantinople. See the Note at the end of this
chapter for the full text of the ambassador's description.

The northern wall of the atrium is original, as the crosses in brick formed in
its brickwork show. The trees which shade the court, the Turkish
tombstones beneath them, and the fountain in the centre, combine to form a
very beautiful approach to the church, and reproduce the general features
and atmosphere of its earlier days.
The narthex is divided into three bays, separated by heavy arches. It is
covered by a modern wooden roof, but shows no signs of ever having been
vaulted. The centre bay contains in its external wall a beautiful colonnade
of four marble columns, disposed, to use a classical term, 'in antis.' They
stand on comparatively poor bases, but their Corinthian capitals are
exceptionally fine, showing the richest Byzantine form of that type of
capital. The little birds under the angles of the abaci should not be
overlooked.
The entablature above the columns, with its architrave, frieze, and cornice,
follows the classic form very closely, and is enriched in every member.
Particularly interesting are the birds, the crosses, and other figures in the
spaces between the modillions and the heavy scroll of the frieze. The drill
has been very freely used throughout, and gives a pleasant sparkle to the
work.
In the second and fourth intercolumniations there are doorways with
moulded jambs, lintels, and cornices, but only the upper parts of these
doorways are now left open to serve as windows.
The cornice of the entablature returns westwards at its northern and
southern ends, indicating that a colonnade, with a smaller cornice, ran along
the northern and southern sides of the atrium, if not also along its western
side. The cloisters behind the colonnades, were connected at their west end
with the narthex by two large and elaborately moulded doorways still in
position.
Five doors lead from the narthex into the church; three opening into the
nave, the others into the aisles.
The interior of the church, now almost a total ruin, was divided into nave
and two aisles by colonnades of seven columns of verd antique marble. But
only six of the original columns have survived the injuries which the

building has sustained; the other columns are Turkish, and are constructed
of wood with painted plaster covering.
The colonnades supported an entablature of late Corinthian type, which, as
the fall of the Turkish plaster that once covered it has revealed, had the
same moulding as the entablature in the narthex. The architrave was in three
faces, with a small bead ornament to the upper two, and finished above with
a small projecting moulding. The frieze was an ogee, bellied in the lower
part. Of the cornice only the bed mould, carved with a leaf and tongue,
remains.

Above each colonnade stood another range of seven76 columns connected,
probably, by arches. Along the northern, southern, and western sides of the
church were galleries constructed of wood. Those to the north and south
still exist in a ruined condition, and many of the stone corbels which
supported the beams remain in the walls. Only scanty vestiges of the gallery
above the narthex can be now distinguished. Its western wall, the original
outer wall of the upper part of the church, has totally disappeared. Its
eastern arcade has been replaced by the Turkish wall which constitutes the
present outer wall of that part of the church. But beyond either end of that
wall are visible, though built up, the old openings by which the gallery
communicated with its companion galleries; while to the west of the wall
project the ragged ends of the Byzantine walls which formed the gallery's
northern and southern sides. The nave rose probably to a greater height than
it does now, and had a roof at a higher level than the roofing of the aisles. It
doubtless resembled the basilican churches at Salonica, either with
clearstory windows, as in S. Demetrius, or without such windows, as in
Eski Juma Jamissi.

PLATE IX.

E. M. Antoniadi.

S. John of the Studion,
East end.

S. John of the Studion,
North side, East end.
To face page 48.

The nave terminates in a large apse, semicircular within and showing three
sides on the exterior. Only the lower part is original; the Turkish
superstructure is lower and on a smaller scale than the Byzantine portion it
has replaced. There are no side chapels. Under the bema the Russian
explorers discovered a small cruciform crypt. The large quantity of mosaic
cubes found in the church during the recent Russian excavations proves that
the church was decorated with mosaics, while the remains of iron plugs in
the western wall for holding marble slabs show that the building had the
customary marble revetment. But what is curious is to find the mortar
pressed over the face of the stones, and broad decorative joints formed by
ruled incised lines and colour. Mr. W. S. George suggests that this was a
temporary decoration executed pending some delay in the covering of the
walls with marble. He also thinks that the importance given to the joint in
late Byzantine work and in Turkish work may be a development from such
early treatment of mortar.
The floor of the church was paved with pieces of marble arranged in
beautiful patterns, in which figures of animals and scenes from classic
mythology were inlaid. Gerlach77 noticed the beauty of the pavement, and
Salzenberg78 represents a portion of it in his work on S. Sophia. But the
members of the Russian Institute of Constantinople have had the good
fortune to bring the whole pavement to light.
A noticeable feature is the number of doors to the church, as in S. Irene.
Besides the five doors already mentioned, leading into the interior from the
narthex, there is a door at the eastern end of each aisle, and close to each of
these doors is found both in the southern and northern walls of the building
an additional door surmounted by a window. The latter doors and their
windows have been walled up.
The exterior is in two stories, corresponding to the ground floor and the
galleries. It has two ranges of eight large semicircular-headed windows in
the northern and southern walls, some of them modified, others built up,
since the building became a mosque. The five windows in the gable of the

western wall are, like the wall itself, Turkish. Pilasters are placed at the
angles and at the apse.
On the south side of the church is a cistern, the roof of which rests on
twenty-three columns crowned by beautiful Corinthian capitals.

PLATE X.

S. John of the Studion.
Cistern.
To face page 54.

Note
The full text of the description given of the church of S. John, mentioned by Ruy Gonzalez de
Clavijo, reads as follows:—
É la primera parte (puerta?) de la Iglesia es muy alta é de obra rica, é delante desta puerta está un
grand corral y luego al cuerpo de la Iglesia, é el qual cuerpo es una quadra redonda sin esquinas muy
alta, é es cerrada al derredor de tres grandes naves, que son cubiertas da un cielo ellas y la quadra. É
ha en ella siete altares, é el cielo desta quadra é naves é las paredés es de obra de musayca muy
ricamente labrada, é en ello muchas historias, é la quadra está armada sobre veinte é quatro marmoles
de jaspe verde, é las dichas naves son sobradadas, é los sobrados dellas salen al cuerpo de la Iglesia, é
alli avia otros veinte é quatro marmoles de jaspe verde, é il cielo de la quadra é las paredes e de obra
musayca, é los andamios de las naves salen sobre el cuerpo de la Iglesia, é alli do avia de aver verjas
avia marmoles pequenos de jaspe.79

With the kind help of Professor Cossio of Madrid, the Spanish text may be roughly translated as
follows:—
And the first part (door?) of the church is very lofty and richly worked. And before this door is a
large court beside the body of the church; and the said body is a round hall without corners (or
angles), very lofty, and enclosed round about by three large naves, which are covered, they and the
hall, by one roof. And it (the church) has in it seven altars; and the roof of the hall and naves and the
walls are of mosaic work very richly wrought, in which are (depicted) many histories. And the (roof
of the) hall is placed on twenty-four marble columns of green jasper (verd antique). And the said
naves have galleries, and the galleries open on the body of the church, and these have other twenty-
four marble columns of green jasper; and the roof of the hall and the walls are of mosaic work. And
the elevated walks of the naves open over the body of the church,80 and where a balustrade should be
found there are small marble columns of jasper.
Outside the church, adds the ambassador, was a beautiful chapel dedicated to S. Mary, remarkable for
its mosaics.

Fig. 12.

Fig. 13.

Figs. 14. and 15.

Figs. 16. and 17.

Fig. 18.

Fig. 19.

35 The Latin thesis of Eugenius Marin, De Studio coenobio
Constantinopolitano, Paris, 1897, is a most useful work.
36 Gyllius, De top. C.P. p. 313.
37 Itinéraires russes en Orient, p. 306, traduits pour la Société de l'Orient
Latin par Mdme. B. de Khitrovo.
38 Ibid. p. 231. For all questions concerning the walls of the city I refer, once
for all, to my work, Byzantine Constantinople: the Walls and adjoining
Historical Sites, published in 1889 by John Murray, London.
39 Paschal Chronicle, p. 726.
40 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De ceremoniis, pp. 462-3.
41 P. 175. But according to Epigram 4 in the Anthologia Graeca
epigrammatum (Stadt-Mueller, 1894) Studius became consul after the erection
of the church and as a reward for its erection. Under the heading εἰς τὸν ναὸν
τοῦ Προδρόμου ἐν τοῖς Στουδίου it says τοῦτον Ἰωάννῃ, Χριστοῦ μεγάλῳ
θεράποντι, Στούδιος ἀγλαὸν οἶκον ἐδείματο. καρπαλίμως δὲ τῶν κάμων
εὕρετο μισθὸν ἑλὼν ὑπατηίδα ῥάβδον. In Suidas is a similar epigram in honour
of the erection by Studius of another church; τοῦ ἀρχιστρατηγοῦ Νακωλείας in
Phrygia.
42 Theodori Studitae vita, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, tome 99.
43 Pasch. Chron. p. 591.
44 Banduri, i. p. 54. In the recent excavations carried on in the Studion by the
Russian Archaeological Institute of Constantinople, the foundations of an
earlier building were discovered below the floor of the church. The line of the
foundations ran through the church from north-east to south-west, parallel to
the wall of the cistern to the south-west of the church. Perhaps it is too soon to
determine the character of the earlier building.
45 S.V.: ἡ τῶν Στουδιτῶν μονὴ πρότερον καὶ καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας ἦν,
ὕστερον δὲ μετῆλθεν εἰς μονήν. The reading is doubtful. A proposed
emendation is, τῶν καθολικῶν ἐκκλησία ἦν.
46 Codinus, De aed. p. 102.
47 Theophanes, pp. 187, 218; Evagrius, cc. 18, 19, 21. In the list of the abbots
who subscribed one of the documents connected with the Synod held at
Constantinople in 536, the two establishments are clearly distinguished. They
are distinguished also by Antony of Novgorod in 1200, Itin. russes, pp. 97,
100.
48 Seylitzes, p. 650.
49 Nicephorus Bryennius, p. 181.
50 Cedrenus, ii. p. 650.
51 Nicephorus Gregoras, i. p. 190; Stephen of Novgorod, who saw the church
in 1350, refers to its 'very lofty roof,' Itin. russes, p. 123.

52 Theoph. p. 747; Life of S. Theodore, Migne, P.G. tome 99.
53 The modern Touzla at the northern head of the gulf of Nicomedia. See the
articles by Mr. Siderides and Mr. Meliopoulos in the Proceedings of the Greek
Syllogos of Constantinople, vol. xxxi., 1907-8.
54 The English reader should consult the Life of Theodore of Studium, by Miss
Alice Gardner, for an excellent presentation of the man and his work.
55 According to Stephen of Novgorod (Itin. russes. p. 121) the refectory was
an unusually fine hall, situated near the sea.
56 At a short distance beyond the north-eastern end of the church are some
ruined vaults which the Turks have named Kietab Hané, the library. See Plate
III.
57 For the Constitution and Epitamia of the Studion, see Migne, P.G. tome 99.
58 Itin. russes, p. 136.
59 Ibid. p. 122 'on envoyait beaucoup de livres de ce couvent en Russie, des
règlements, des triodions et autres livres.' Many members of the Studion were
Russians.
60 Marin, De Studio, p. 11. See Marin, Les Moines de Constantinople, for the
monastic institutions of the city in general.
61 Cedren. ii. p. 147.
62 Ibid. p. 212.
63 Ibid. p. 479.
64 Acta et diplomata patriarchatus Constantinop. t. ii. p. 12 ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς τε
καὶ συνοδικαῖς συνελεύσεσι; πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ πάντων τὸν ἀρχιμανδρίτην τῶν
Στουδίου καὶ ὁ χρόνος κατέστησε καὶ τὸ δίκαιον αὐτό.]
65 Theoph. Cont. p. 362.
66 Ibid. p. 384.
67 Glycas, p. 592; Cedrenus, ii. p. 539; Psellus, pp. 87-93; Byzantine Texts,
edited by Prof. Bury; cf. Schlumberger, Épopée byzantine à la fin du dixième
siècle, p. 372.
68 See Cedrenus, ii. p. 555; Will, Commemoratio brevis, p. 150; Schlumberger,
op. cit. chapitre viii.
69 Attaliotes, pp. 304, 306; Glycas, p. 617; Scylitzes, pp. 738-39.
70 Scylitzes, pp. 649-51; Bryennius, p. 20.
71 Acropolita, p. 197.
72 Ducas, p. 99 πλησίον τοῦ ναοῦ ἐντὸς τῆς πύλης.
73 Pasch. Chron. pp. 726-27.

74 Mr. Pantchenko of the Russian Institute at Constantinople has found
evidence that cloisters stood along the east and south sides of the great cistern
to the south-west of the church.
75 Constant. Porphyr. De cer. ii. pp. 562-3.
76 Gyllius says six.
77 See passage from his Tagebuch quoted on page 50.
78 Altchristliche Baudenkmäler von Konstantinopel, Blatt iv.
79 Vida del Gran Tamorlan y itinerario, pp. 55-56 (Madrid, 1782).
80 I.e. From the elevated floors of the galleries one could look over the church.

CHAPTER III

THE CHURCH OF SS. SERGIUS AND BACCHUS, KUTCHUK AYA
SOFIA

On the level tract beside the Sea of Marmora, to the south of the
Hippodrome, and a few paces to the north-west of Tchatlady Kapou, stands
the ancient church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus. It is commonly known as
the mosque Kutchuk Aya Sofia, Little S. Sophia, to denote at once its
likeness and its unlikeness to the great church of that name. It can be
reached by either of the two streets descending from the Hippodrome to the
sea, or by taking train to Koum Kapou, and then walking eastwards for a
short distance along the railroad.
There can be no doubt in regard to its identity. For the inscription on the
entablature of the lower colonnade in the church proclaims the building to
be a sanctuary erected by the Emperor Justinian and his Empress Theodora
to the honour of the martyr Sergius. The building stands, moreover, as SS.
Sergius and Bacchus stood, close to the site of the palace and the harbour of
Hormisdas.81 When Gyllius visited the city the Greek community still
spoke of the building as the church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus—'Templum

Sergii et Bacchi adhuc superest, cujus nomen duntaxat Graeci etiam nunc
retinent.'82

PLATE XI.

SS. Sergius and Bacchus.
Interior, looking north-west
To face page 63.

The foundations of the church were laid in 527, the year of Justinian's
accession,83 and its erection must have been completed before 536, since it
is mentioned in the proceedings of the Synod held at Constantinople in that
year.84 According to the Anonymus, indeed, the church and the

neighbouring church of SS. Peter and Paul were founded after the massacre
in the Hippodrome which suppressed the Nika Riot. But the Anonymus is
not a reliable historian.85
The church did not stand alone. Beside it and united with it, Justinian built
also a church dedicated to the Apostles Peter and Paul,86 so that the two
buildings formed a double sanctuary, having a common court and a
continuous narthex. They were equal in size and in the richness of the
materials employed in their construction, and together formed one of the
chief ornaments of the palace and the city. There was, however, one striking
difference between them; SS. Sergius and Bacchus was a domical church,
while SS. Peter and Paul was a basilica. Styles of ecclesiastical architecture
destined soon to blend together in the grandeur and beauty of S. Sophia
were here seen converging towards the point of their union, like two
streams about to mingle their waters in a common tide. A similar
combination of these styles occurs at Kalat-Semân in the church of S.
Symeon Stylites, erected towards the end of the fifth century, where four
basilicas forming the arms of a cross are built on four sides of an octagonal
court.87
The saints to whom the church was dedicated were brother officers in the
Roman army, who suffered death in the reign of Maximianus,88 and
Justinian's particular veneration for them was due, it is said, to their
interposition in his behalf at a critical moment in his career. Having been
implicated, along with his uncle, afterwards Justin I., in a plot against the
Emperor Anastasius, he lay under sentence of death for high treason; but on
the eve of his execution, a formidable figure, as some authorities
maintain,89 or as others affirm, the saints Sergius and Bacchus, appeared to
the sovereign in a vision and commanded him to spare the conspirators.
Thus Justinian lived to reach the throne, and when the full significance of
his preservation from death became clear in the lustre of the imperial
diadem, he made his deliverers the object of his devout regard. Indeed, in
his devotion to them he erected other sanctuaries to their honour also in
other places of the Empire.90 Still this church, founded early in his reign,
situated beside his residence while heir-apparent, and at the gates of the
Great Palace, and withal a gem of art, must be considered as Justinian's
special thankoffering for his crown.

With the church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus was associated a large
monastery known, after the locality in which it stood, as the monastery of
Hormisdas, ἐν τοῖς Ὁρμίσδου. It was richly endowed by Justinian.91

Note

There is some obscurity in regard to the church of SS. Peter and Paul. According to Theophanes,92
the first church in Constantinople built in honour of those apostles was built at the suggestion of a
Roman senator Festus, who on visiting the eastern capital, in 499, was astonished to find no
sanctuary there dedicated to saints so eminent in Christian history, and so highly venerated by the
Church of the West. As appears from a letter addressed in 519 to Pope Hormisdas by the papal
representative at the court of Constantinople, a church of that dedication had been recently erected by
Justinian while holding the office of Comes Domesticorum under his uncle Justin I. 'Your son,' says
the writer, 'the magnificent Justinian, acting as becomes his faith, has erected a basilica of the Holy
Apostles, in which he wishes relics of the martyr S. Laurentius should be placed.' 'Filius vester
magnificus vir Justinianus, res convenientes fidei suae faciens, basilicam sanctorum Apostolorum in
qua desiderat Sancti Laurentii martyris reliquias esse, constituit.'93 We have also a letter to the Pope
from Justinian himself, in which the writer, in order to glorify the basilica which he had built in
honour of the apostles in his palace, begs for some links of the chains which had bound the apostles
Peter and Paul, and for a portion of the gridiron upon which S. Laurentius was burnt to death.94 The
request was readily granted in the same year.
The description of the basilica, as situated in the palace then occupied by Justinian, leaves no room
for doubt that the sanctuary to which the letters just quoted refer was the church of SS. Peter and Paul
which Procopius describes as near (παρά) the palace of Hormisdas. In that case the church of SS.
Peter and Paul was built before the church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, for the inscription on the
entablature in the latter church, not to mention Cedrenus, distinctly assigns the building to the time
when Justinian and Theodora occupied the throne. This agrees with the fact that Procopius95 records
the foundation of SS. Peter and Paul before that of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, and if this were all he
did the matter would be clear. But, unfortunately, this is not all Procopius has done. For after
recording the erection of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, he proceeds to say that Justinian subsequently
(ἔπειτα) joined another (ἄλλο) church,96 a basilica, to the sanctuary dedicated to those martyrs, thus
leaving upon the reader's mind the impression that the basilica was a later construction. To whom that
basilica was consecrated Procopius does not say. Was that basilica the church of SS. Peter and Paul
which Procopius mentioned before recording the erection of SS. Sergius and Bacchus? Is he speaking
of two or of three churches? The reply to this question must take into account two facts as beyond
dispute: first, that the church of SS. Peter and Paul, as the letters cited above make clear, was earlier
than the church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus; secondly, that the basilica united to the latter sanctuary
was dedicated to the two great apostles; for scenes which, according to one authority,97 occurred in S.
Peter's took place, according to another authority,98 in the church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus. In the
face of these facts, Procopius is either mistaken in regard to the relative age of the two sanctuaries, or
he has not expressed his meaning as clearly as he might have done. To suppose that two sanctuaries
dedicated to the great apostles were built by Justinian within a short time of each other in the same
district, one within the palace, the other outside the palace, is a very improbable hypothesis. The
question on which side of SS. Sergius and Bacchus the basilica of SS. Peter and Paul stood, seems
decided by the fact that there is more room for a second building on the north than on the south of
Kutchuk Agia Sofia. Furthermore, there are traces of openings in the north wall of the church which

could serve as means of communication between the two adjoining buildings. Ebersolt, however,
places SS. Peter and Paul on the south side of SS. Sergius and Bacchus.99

A remarkable scene was witnessed in the church in the course of the
controversy which raged around the writings known in ecclesiastical history
as 'The Three Chapters,' the work of three theologians tainted, it was
alleged, with the heretical opinions of Nestorius. Justinian associated
himself with the party which condemned those writings, and prevailed upon
the majority of the bishops in the East to subscribe the imperial decree to
that effect. But Vigilius, the Pope of the day, and the bishops in the West,
dissented from that judgment, because the authors of the writings in
question had been acquitted from the charge of heresy by the Council of
Chalcedon. To condemn them after that acquittal was to censure the Council
and reflect upon its authority. Under these circumstances Justinian
summoned Vigilius to Constantinople in the hope of winning him over by
the blandishments or the terrors of the court of New Rome. Vigilius reached
the city on the 25th of January 547, and was detained in the East for seven
years in connection with the settlement of the dispute. He found to his cost
that to decide an intricate theological question, and above all to assert 'the
authority of S. Peter vested in him' against an imperious sovereign and the
jealousy of Eastern Christendom, was no slight undertaking. Pope and
Emperor soon came into violent collision, and fearing the consequences
Vigilius sought sanctuary in the church of S. Peter100 as he styles it, but
which Byzantine writers101 who record the scene name S. Sergius.

PLATE XII.

SS. Sergius and Bacchus. S. John of the Studion.
Capital. Capital in the Narthex.
To face page 66.

Justinian was not the man to stand the affront. He ordered the praetor of the
city to arrest the Pope and conduct him to prison. But when that officer
appeared, Vigilius grasped the pillars of the altar and refused to surrender.
Thereupon the praetor ordered his men to drag the Pope out by main force.
Seizing Vigilius by his feet, holding him by his beard and the hair of his
head, the men pulled with all their might, but they had to deal with a
powerful man, and he clung fast to the altar with an iron grip. In this tug-of-
war the altar at length came crashing to the ground, the Pope's strong hands
still holding it tight. At this point, however, the indignation and sympathy of
the spectators could not be restrained; the assailants of the prostrate prelate
were put to flight, and he was left master of the situation. Next day a
deputation, including Belisarius and Justin, the heir-apparent, waited upon
Vigilius, and in the emperor's name assured him that resistance to the
imperial will was useless, while compliance with it would save him from
further ill-treatment. Yielding to the counsels of prudence, the Pope
returned to the palace of Placidia,102 the residence assigned to him during
his stay in the capital.
Probably at this time arose the custom of placing the churches of SS. Peter
and Paul, and SS. Sergius and Bacchus at the service of the Latin clergy in

Constantinople, especially when a representative of the Pope, or the Pope
himself, visited the city. The fact that the church was dedicated to apostles
closely associated with Rome and held in highest honour there, would make
it a sanctuary peculiarly acceptable to clergy from Western Europe. This,
however, did not confer upon Roman priests an exclusive right to the use of
the building, and the custom of allowing them to officiate there was often
more conspicuous in the breach than in the observance. Still the Roman See
always claimed the use of the church, for in the letter addressed in 880 by
Pope Julius VIII. to Basil I., that emperor is thanked for permitting Roman
clergy to officiate again in SS. Sergius and Bacchus according to ancient
custom: 'monasterium Sancti Sergii intra vestram regiam urbem
constitutum, quod sancta Romana Ecclesia jure proprio quondam retinuit,
divina inspiratione repleti pro honore Principis Apostolorum nostro
praesulatui reddidistis.'103
The most distinguished hegoumenos of the monastery was John Hylilas,
better known, on account of his learning, as the Grammarian, and
nicknamed Lecanomantis, the Basin-Diviner, because versed in the art of
divination by means of a basin of polished brass. He belonged to a noble
family of Armenian extraction, and became prominent during the reigns of
Leo V., Michael II., and Theophilus as a determined iconoclast. His enemies
styled him Jannes, after one of the magicians who withstood Moses, to
denote his character as a sorcerer and an opponent of the truth. Having
occasion, when conducting service in the imperial chapel to read the lesson
in which the prophet Isaiah taunts idolaters with the question, 'To whom
then will ye liken God, or to what likeness will ye compare him?' John, it is
said, turned to Leo V., and whispered the significant comment, 'Hearest
thou, my lord, the words of the prophet? They give thee counsel.' He was a
member of the Commission charged by that emperor to collect passages
from the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church that condemned the
use of images in worship. Prominent iconodules were interned in the
monastery of Hormisdas in the hope that he would turn them from the error
of their ways by his arguments and influence. He directed the education of
Theophilus and supported the iconoclastic policy pursued by that pupil
when upon the throne. Theophilus appointed his tutor syncellus to the
Patriarch Antony, employed him in diplomatic missions,104 and finally,
upon the death of Antony, created him patriarch. The name of John can still

be deciphered under somewhat curious circumstances, in the litany which is
inscribed on the bronze doors of the Beautiful Gate at the south end of the
inner narthex of S. Sophia. When those doors were set up in 838,
Theophilus and his empress had no son, and accordingly, in the threefold
prayer inscribed upon the doors, the name of John was associated with the
names of the sovereigns as a mark of gratitude and esteem. But in the
course of time a little prince, to be known in history as Michael III., was
born and proclaimed the colleague of his parents. It then became necessary
to insert the name of the imperial infant in the litany graven on the
Beautiful Gate of the Great Church, and to indicate the date of his
accession. To add another name to the list of names already there was,
however, impossible for lack of room; nor, even had there been room, could
the name of an emperor follow that of a subject, though that subject was a
patriarch. The only way out of the difficulty, therefore, was to erase John's
name, and to substitute the name of the little prince with the date of his
coming to the throne; the lesser light must pale before the greater. This was
done, but the bronze proved too stubborn to yield completely to the wishes
of courtiers, and underneath Michael's name has kept fast hold of the name
John to this day. The original date on the gate also remains in spite of the
attempt to obliterate it.
SS. Sergius and Bacchus was one of the sanctuaries of the city to which the
emperor paid an annual visit in state.105 Upon his arrival at the church he
proceeded to the gallery and lighted tapers at an oratory which stood in the
western part of the gallery, immediately above the Royal Gates, or principal
entrance to the church. He went next to the chapel dedicated to the
Theotokos, also in the gallery, and after attending to his private devotions
there, took his place in the parakypticon (ἐν τῷ παρακυπτικῷ τοῦ
θυσιαστηρίου), at the north-eastern or south-eastern end of the gallery,
whence he could overlook the bema and follow the public service at the
altar.106 In due course the Communion elements were brought and
administered to him in the chapel of the Theotokos; he then retired to the
metatorion (a portion of the gallery screened off with curtains), while the
members of his suite also partook of the Communion in that chapel. At the
close of the service he and his guests partook of some light refreshments,
biscuits and wine, in a part of the gallery fitted up for that purpose, and
thereafter returned to the palace.

Architectural Features

In the description of the architectural features of the church and for the
plans and most of the illustrations in this chapter I am under deep obligation
to Mr. A. E. Henderson, F.S.A. The information gained from him in my
frequent visits to the church in his company, and from his masterly article
on the church which appeared in the Builder of January 1906, has been
invaluable.
In design the church is an octagonal building roofed with a dome and
enclosed by a rectangle, with a narthex along the west side. This was a
favourite type of ecclesiastical architecture, and is seen also in another
church of the same period, San Vitale of Ravenna, in which Justinian and
Theodora were interested. There, however, the octagonal interior is placed
within an octagonal enclosure. The adoption of a rectangular exterior in the
Constantinopolitan sanctuary is a characteristic Byzantine feature.107 S.
Vitale was founded in 526, a year before SS. Sergius and Bacchus.

PLATE XIII.

E. M. Antoniadi.

SS. Sergius and Bacchus,
from the south-east.

SS. Sergius and Bacchus.
In the Gallery over the Narthex.
To face page 70.

As an examination of the plan will show, the architect's design has not been
followed with strict accuracy, and the result is that both the enclosing
square and the interior octagon are very irregular figures. Furthermore, the
two portions of the building have not the same orientation, so that the
octagon stands askew within its rectangular frame. How this lack of
symmetry should be explained, whether due to sloven work or the result of
the effort to adapt the church to the lines of the earlier church of SS. Peter
and Paul, with which it was united, is difficult to decide.
The court which stands before the Turkish portico in front of the west side
of the building represents the old atrium of the church, and to the rear of the
portico is still found the ancient narthex. At the south end of the narthex is a
stone staircase leading to the gallery. The arch at the foot of the staircase is
built of fragments from the old ciborium or eikonostasis of the church. The
great height (0.24 metre or 9 inches) of the steps is found, according to Mr.
Antoniadi, also in S. Sophia.

The exterior walls, which are mostly in brick and rubble masonry, exhibit
poor workmanship, and have undergone considerable repair, especially on
the east. On the south there are two thicknesses of walling. The outer
thickness has arched recesses at intervals along its length, corresponding to
openings in the inner thickness, and thus while buttressing the latter also
enlarges slightly the area of the church. The length of the rectangular
enclosure from west to east is 101 feet, with an average breadth of 771⁄2 feet
from north to south, excluding the recesses in the latter direction.
All the windows of the church have been altered by Turkish hands, and are
rectangular instead of showing semicircular heads.
The passage intervening between the rectangular enclosure and the octagon
is divided into two stories, thus providing the church with an ambulatory
below and a gallery above.
The domed octagon which forms the core of the building stands at a
distance of some 181⁄2 feet from the rectangle within which it is placed. It
measures 531⁄2 feet by 501⁄2 feet. The eight piers at its angles rise to a height
of 331⁄2 feet from the floor to the springing of the dome arches. The
archways thus formed, except the bema arch, are filled in with two pairs of
columns in two stories set on the outer plane of the piers. The lower
colonnade is surmounted, after the classic fashion, by a horizontal
entablature profusely carved while the upper columns are bound by arches,
thus making seven sides of the octagon a beautiful open screen of fourteen
columns and as many triple arcades, resplendent with marbles of various
hues and rich with carved work. The mass of the piers is relieved by their
polygonal form, a fluted cymatium along their summit, and a repeating
design of a flower between two broad leaves below the entablature. Though
the flower points upwards it has been mistaken for a cluster of grapes.108 At
the four diagonal points the sides of the octagon are semicircular, forming
exhedrae, an arrangement which gives variety to the lines of the figure,
widens the central area, secures more frontage for the gallery, and helps to
buttress the dome. The same feature appears in S. Sophia, whereas in San
Vitale all the sides of the octagon, excepting the eastern side, are
semicircular. The extension of the interior area of a building (square or

octagonal) by means of niches at the angles or in the sides, or both at the
angles and in the sides, was a common practice.109
There is considerable difference in the size of the piers and the dome
arches. The eastern piers stand farther apart than their companions, and
consequently the arch over them, the triumphal arch of the sanctuary, is
wider and loftier than the other arches. The bays to the north-east and the
south-east are also wider than the bays at the opposite angles. The apse is
semicircular within, and shows three sides on the exterior. As in S. Sophia
and S. Irene, there is no prothesis or diaconicon.
The pairs of columns, both below and above, are alternately verd antique
and red Synnada marble, resting on bases of the blue-veined white marble
from the island of Marmora. The capitals on the lower order are of the
beautiful type known as the 'melon capital,' a form found also in San Vitale
at Ravenna and in the porch of S. Theodore in Constantinople (p. 246). The
neckings are worked with the capitals, and enriched by 'egg-and-dart'
pointing upwards. In the centre of the capitals was carved the monogram of
Justinian or that of Theodora. Most of the monograms have been effaced,
but the name of the empress still appears on the capital of the western
column in the south bay, while that of Justinian is found on the first capital
in the south-western bay; on both capitals in the north-western bay,
accompanied by the title Basileus; and, partially, on the last capital in the
north-eastern bay.
In the soffit of the architrave are sunk panels of various patterns, the six-
armed cross occurring twice. The beadings of the fasciae are enriched with
the designs commonly known as 'rope,' 'bead-and-reel,' 'egg-and-dart,' and
again 'bead-and-reel.'
The frieze is in two heights. The lower portion is a semicircular pulvinar
adorned with acanthus leaves, deeply undercut; the upper portion is
occupied by a long inscription in raised ornamental letters to the honour of
Justinian, Theodora, and S. Sergius. The cornice is decorated with dentils,
'bead-and-reel,' projecting consols, 'egg-and-dart,' and leaves of acanthus.
The inscription (Fig. 20) may be rendered thus: Other sovereigns, indeed,
have honoured dead men whose labour was useless. But our sceptred
Justinian, fostering piety, honours with a splendid abode the servant of

Christ, Creator of all things, Sergius; whom nor the burning breath of fire,
nor the sword, nor other constraints of trials disturbed; but who endured for
the sake of God Christ to be slain, gaining by his blood heaven as his home.
May he in all things guard the rule of the ever-vigilant sovereign, and
increase the power of the God-crowned Theodora whose mind is bright
with piety, whose toil ever is unsparing efforts to nourish the destitute.
The inscription is not mere flattery to the founders of the church. Justinian
and Theodora were devout after the fashion of their day, and took a deep
interest in the poor. The empress erected an asylum for fallen women,
hostels for strangers, hospitals for the sick, and homes for the destitute. 'On
the splendid piece of tapestry embroidered in gold which formed the altar
cloth of S. Sophia, she was represented with Justinian as visiting hospitals
and churches.'110

Fig. 20.

To the rear of the southern straight side of the octagon two columns stand
under the gallery, with wide fillets worked on both sides of their bases,
shafts, and capitals, showing that a frame of stone or wood was once affixed

to them. The capitals are of the ordinary cushion type and bear on opposite
faces the monograms Justinian, Basileus.

PLATE XIV.

SS. Sergius and Bacchus.
Portion of the Entablature.

SS. Sergius and Bacchus.
The Interior, Looking north-east.
To face page 74.

Two feet above the cornice, or twenty feet from the floor of the church, the
level of the gallery is reached.111 Here the columns are smaller than those
below, and are bound together by arches instead of by an architrave. Their
capitals represent the type known as the 'Pseudo-Ionic' or cushion capital, in
view of its broad head. It appears appropriately here as the form of capital
required to carry the impost of an arch upon a capital. At one time, indeed,
that demand was met by placing upon the capital a distinct block of stone, a
fragment, so to speak, of the horizontal architrave. It is the device adopted
in San Vitale at Ravenna, S. Demetrius of Salonica, and elsewhere, but
never it would seem in Constantinople, except in the underground cisterns
of the city. It was, however, too inartistic to endure, and eventually was

superseded by capitals with a broad flattened head on which the wide
impost of an arch could rest securely.112
A free form of acanthus, deeply undercut on the face towards the central
area of the church, covers the capitals, and in the centre of that face, on all
the capitals except the eighth (counting from the north-east) is carved the
monogram of the title Basileus, or of Justinian, or of Theodora.
In the south side of the gallery stand two columns corresponding to the two
columns in the aisle below. They are poor in design and not original. The
western capital is 'Pseudo-Ionic,'113 with a plain cross on the northern face.
The eastern capital is in the basket form with roundels on the four faces.
Two additional columns are found in the western portion of the gallery.
They are of verd antique and larger than the other columns in this story of
the church, and have sunk crosses in them. The splendour of the interior
decoration has certainly been dimmed, for the walls of the edifice once
gleamed with marbles and glittered with mosaics. 'By the sheen of its
marbles,' says Procopius,114 'it was more resplendent than the sun, and
everywhere it was filled profusely with gold.' When Ferguson examined the
building, remains of frescoes or of mosaics, which have disappeared since
his time, could be distinguished in the narthex. The soffit, both of the upper
and of the lower cymatium on the piers, projects sufficiently to admit the
application of the customary marble incrustation. The proportions of the
building are marred by the boarded floor which rises seventeen centimeters
above the original pavement, disguising the real elevation of the dome and
of the columns in the lower colonnade. But notwithstanding all changes for
the worse the building is still a beautiful structure. Very effective especially
is the happy combination of the various lines and forms here brought
together—the rectilinear and the semicircular sides of the octagon, the
octagonal fabric and the round dome that crowns it, the horizontal
entablature stretched along the summit of the lower story of columns and
the arches that leap from column to column in the gallery. This harmonious
variety of form has also a historical significance. An old order in
architecture and a new order here meet and embrace before the earlier,
having served its age, passes away and the later comes triumphant to fill
another era of the world with fresh beauties. Here in the tide of time we
look before and after.

To the student of architecture the dome of this church is specially
interesting. In the application of the dome to the octagon no pendentives are
employed. The octagon is carried up to the base of the dome, which is built
in sixteen longitudinal compartments that impinge upon one another and
form groins giving to the dome its strength and sweep. On the groins is a
plaster moulding, probably Byzantine. The eight compartments directly
above the dome arches are flat, and flush with the inner face of the octagon,
and in each of them is a semicircular-headed window. They rise
perpendicular to a point a little above the windows, and then curve with a
radius to the centre of the dome.

PLATE XV.

The Baptistery, S. Sophia, from the east. The Baptistery, S. Sophia.
The Interior, looking west.
To face page 76.

Fig. 21.—View of the Exterior of the Dome of SS. Sergius and Bacchus..

On the other hand the eight compartments directly above the angles of the
octagon are narrower than the preceding compartments; they have no
windows, and, what is of special importance to note, they are deeply
concave.115 Such marked hollowness is found in later domes as a decorative
feature, but here it is primarily and supremely a constructive device. By its
means the concave compartments are set slightly back from the octagon's
inner face, leaving, at the springing line, portions of the wall-head to appear
as little flat ledges on each side of the angles. This is a most skilful
expedient, and compares favourably with the methods employed elsewhere
to apply the dome to the octagon.116 In the octagonal church of S. Lorenzo
at Milan the octagon is turned into the circle by the introduction of
squinches. In San Vitale a considerable walling is built between the line of

the octagon and the springing line of the dome, while the bed for the dome
is formed by introducing, in the space over the angles of the octagon, niches
which are worked above to the circle on plan. On the other hand, it is
interesting to compare with these methods the method employed in the
baptistery of S. Sophia, now a Sultan's Turbé, near the southern entrance to
the inner narthex. Although the walls of the building describe a square on
the exterior, they form an octagon on the interior with semicircular bays at
the diagonals, as in SS. Sergius and Bacchus. But in the application of the
dome the true pendentive is used. The baptistery was erected shortly before
S. Sophia, and in view of the erection of the great church.
The curvature of the dome of SS. Sergius and Bacchus has three zones,
which have respectively a radius of m. 8, (drawn from the centre of the
octagon), m. 31⁄4, and m. 91⁄2, (centre about m. 2, below the springing of the
dome). The first extends to a point a little above the heads of the dome
windows; the second about m. 2 higher; the third to the crown of the dome.
The groins stop short a little below the dome's apex, where they are arched
into one another, leaving a saucer-shaped crown now capped by a Turkish
finial. The dome is covered with lead, and presents an undulating surface
owing to the protuberance of its eight concave compartments.117
The system of weighting and buttressing the dome displays great skill, and
will be best understood by studying Mr. Henderson's geometrical and
constructive sections of the systems (Figs. 28, 29).

At east end of south aisle.

In the gallery.

Fig. 22.—Brick Stamps in SS. Sergius and Bacchus.
(From rubbings by Mr. A. E. Henderson.)

Fig. 23. Fig. 24.

Figs. 25, 26, 27.

Fig. 28. Fig. 29.

Fig. 30.

81 Procop. De aed. i. c. 4; Banduri, iii. p. 45.
82 De top. ii. c. 14.

83 Cedren. ii. pp. 642-43.
84 Mansi, viii. col. 1010.
85 Banduri, iii. p. 45. The church was visited by Russian pilgrims in 1200,
1350, 1393.—Itin. russes, pp. 160, 120, 164.
86 Procop. De aed. i. p. 186. S. Peter 'near the palace' is mentioned in the list
of abbots at the Synod of C.P. in 536. Mansi, viii. col. 930, col. 939. Another
document of the same Synod, col. 1010, is signed by Peter, hegoumenos of SS.
Peter and Paul and of the holy martyrs SS. Sergius and Bacchus.
87 Diehl, Manuel d'art byzantin, p. 31. Antoniadi has drawn my attention to
the junction of a basilica and a hexagonal building in a baptistery at Tivoli. See
Dehio und Bezold, Atlas, plate i. fig. 10.
88 Synax, Oct. 7.
89 Du Cange, iv. p. 135.
90 Cedren. i. p. 635; Procop. Secret History, c. 6; Procop. De aed. ii. p. 234;
Theoph. p. 339; Theoph. Cont. p. 154.
91 Cedren. i. pp. 642-43. The Synaxaria (Sirmondi) speak of three churches of
S. Sergius, in or near Constantinople; ἐν ταῖς Σοφίαις, Oct. 7; πλησίον τῆς
Αετίου κινστέρνης, Nov. 9 (near Monastery of Manuel, p. 258); πέραν ἐν
Ῥουφινιαναῖς, May 29 (near Kadikeui).
92 Page 220.
93 Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici, tom. ix. p. 253, Luccae, 1741: 'quam
basilicam eorum hic in domo nostra sub nomine praedictorum venerabilium
constructam, illustrare et illuminare large dignemini.'
94 Ibid. p. 254.
95 De aed. i. p. 186.
96 Ut supra, καὶ ἔπειτα καὶ τέμενος ἄλλο ἐκ πλαγίου τούτῳ παρακείμενον (i.e.
SS. Sergius and Bacchus).
97 Baronius, x. p. 43.
98 Theoph. p. 349; Malalas, p. 485.
99 Le Grand Palais. Epigram 8 in the Anthologia Graeca epigrammatum (vol.
i. Stadt-Mueller) celebrates the erection by Justinian of SS. Peter and Paul, εἰς
τὸν ναὸν τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων πλησίον τοῦ ἁγίου Σεργίου εἰς τὰ Ὁρμίσδου.
100 Baronius, x. p. 43 'ex domo Placidiana, ubi degebat, confugit ad ibi
proxime junctam ecclesiam S. Petri'; cf. Vigilius' letter, Ep. vii. t. i. Ep. Rom.
pont.
101 Theoph. p. 349; Malalas, p. 485.
102 Notitia. Two palaces bearing similar names stood in the First Region of the
city, the Palatium Placidianum and the Domus Placidiae Augustae. Vigilius

refers to the palace in his circular letter, giving an account of his treatment at
Constantinople. There also the legates of Pope Agatho were lodged in 680, on
the occasion of the First Council in Trullo, and there likewise Pope
Constantine in 710, when he came to the East at the command of Justinian II.,
took up his abode.—Anastasius Bibliothecarius, pp. 54, 65.
103 Epistola ccli. See Du Cange, Const. Christ. iv. p. 116.
104 'Under the microscope of modern historical criticism, ... it is not surprising
to find that the famous embassy of John the Grammarian to the court of
Baghdad must be rejected as a fiction irreconcilable with fact.'—Prof. Bury in
the English Historical Review, April 1909. But he was sent on other embassies.
105 Constant. Porphyr. pp. 87-88.
106 Similar to the parakypticon at the east end of the southern gallery in S.
Sophia. Reiske (Comment. ad Constant. Porphyr. p. 195) defines it as
'Fenestra, quae in sacrificatorium despicit e catechumeniis.' Cf. on the whole
subject, Antoniadi, Ἔκφρασις τῆς Ἁγιας Σοφίας, vol. ii. p. 291, note 101; p.
331, note 190; p. 332.
107 The plan of SS. Sergius and Bacchus is similar to that of the cathedral of
Bosra (511-12), which was also dedicated to the same saints. Fergusson,
History of Ancient and Mediaeval Architecture, vol. i. p. 432.
108 Gyllius, De Top. C.P. ii. c. 16. If the design represented vine leaves and
grapes, it surely did not allude to the god Bacchus, but to the vine in the gospel
of S. John. The small columns on the piers are Turkish.
109 Antoniadi, S. Sophia, vol. ii, pp. 7-9, draws attention to the development
of buildings with sides turned into exhedrae, from their simplest form to their
culmination in S. Sophia. He refers for illustrations to plans in Dehio und
Bezold, Die kirchliche Baukunst des Abendlandes, vol. i. pp. 23-31; Atlas, vol.
i. plate i. figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 7; plate iii. figures 1, 2, 7.
110 C. Diehl, Theodora, pp. 242, 342.
111 The ratio of the height of the gallery above the floor of the church to the
height of the summit of the dome is, according to Antoniadi, 1⁄3.5, the same as in
S. Sophia as built by Anthemius.
112 'Pulvins,' says Rivoira (Lombardic Architecture, p. 11, English translation),
'serve the purpose of providing the springers of the arches with a base
corresponding to the wall which they carry, while allowing the support beneath
to be much slighter without injuring the stability of the structure.'
113 Rivoira, ut supra, p. 62: 'The volutes in the Pseudo-Ionic capital intended
to conceal the abruptness of the transition from the square of the pulvin to the
round.'
114 De aed. i. p. 187.
115 'The centres of the radii of these concave compartments are formed by
having three points given the groins on either side and the angle of the octagon
in the centre. With these points for each compartment the radius is given, and

an arc turned giving the concavity required for each web at its springing.'—A.
E. Henderson in the Builder, January 1906, p. 4.
116 In S. George of Ezra in Syria (515), as Mr. E. M. Antoniadi informs me,
the dome overhangs or oversails the angles of the octagon.
117 'The dome stands within a polygon of sixteen sides, that rises four metres
above the springing line, keeping the dome taut and weighting the haunches.
Against this polygonal casing are set buttresses formed by the extension of the
piers of the octagon to within m. 11⁄2 from the cornice of the dome. These
buttresses are in their turn respectively strengthened, on the rear, by two small
buttresses; of which those on the north, south, east, and west sides rest on an
arch of the gynecaeum, and carry the thrust to the outer walls of the church,
while the others rest on the exhedrae and the vaulting of the gynecaeum.
Furthermore, from the summit of the buttresses formed by the piers of the
octagon a small buttress is set against the cupola itself up to the cornice.' This
marshalling of the buttresses around the dome in three tiers, while securing the
stability of the structure, is moreover strikingly artistic. See Fig. 21.

CHAPTER IV
THE CHURCH OF S. IRENE

The church of S. Irene stands at a short distance to the north-east of S.
Sophia, in the first court of the Seraglio. Its identity has never been
questioned, for the building was too much in the public eye and too near the
centre of the ecclesiastical affairs of the city to render possible any mistake
concerning its real character. It is always described as close to S. Sophia.118
According to the historian Socrates,119 it was originally one of the Christian
sanctuaries of the old town of Byzantium, a statement we may well believe,
seeing Byzantium was the seat of a bishop before the foundation of
Constantinople. The designation of the church as 'the Ancient' or 'the Old
Church,' Ecclesia Antiqua, ἡ παλαιά,120 and the special regard cherished for
the church during the earlier history of the city, are also thus best explained.
The original sanctuary was small,121 but when Byzantium became the
capital of the East the old fabric was enlarged and beautified by Constantine
the Great to harmonize with its grander surroundings, and was dedicated to
Peace, in honour of the rest and quiet which settled upon the Roman world
when the founder of the city had vanquished all his rivals after eighteen
years of civil war.122

PLATE XVI.

S. Irene, from the south-east.
To face page 84.

Note

Other churches of the same name were found in Constantinople: S. Irene in the Seventh Region,
according to the Notitia. S. Irene in Sykai (Galata), πέραν ἐν Συκαῖς; Theophanes, p. 353. S. Irene by
the Sea, πρὸς θάλασσαν; Nicetas Choniates, p. 269; Synax., Jan. 10. The last was also known as the
New, Νέα; Synax., Jan. 23. Erected in the reign of the Emperor Marcian, it was partially restored by
the Emperor Manuel Comnenus after its destruction by fire; Nicet. Chon. ut supra. It was styled
likewise 'at the Ferry,' τὸ πέραμα; Codinus, De aed. p. 89; Banduri, ii. p. 31.

Until the year 360, when the church of S. Sophia was opened to public
worship by the Emperor Constantius, S. Irene appears to have been the
cathedral of the city. Hence, probably, the name sometimes given to it, the
Patriarchate, τὸ πατριαρχεῖον.123 Nor did the church lose its primacy
altogether even after the erection of S. Sophia. On the contrary, the two
churches were regarded as forming one sanctuary; they were enclosed
within the same court, served by the same clergy, and known by the same
name, 'the Great Church,' ἡ Μεγάλη Ἐκκλησία.124 S. Irene was again the
sole cathedral building, while S. Sophia lay in ruins for eleven years after
being set on fire in 404, on the occasion of the final banishment of John
Chrysostom.

S. Irene comes prominently into view during the fierce struggle between the
adherents of the Nicene Creed and the Arians, in the half-century which
followed the inauguration of New Rome. Having been persuaded that the
point at issue between the two theological parties was not essential, and that
the agitation of the question was due to love of disputation, Constantine the
Great, who valued peace at almost any price, attempted to suppress the
controversy by his authority, and accordingly ordered the Patriarch
Alexander to admit Arius, then present in the city, to the Holy Communion.
With this order Alexander, a champion of the Nicene Creed, refused to
comply. Whereupon the followers of Arius decided to have recourse to
violence. But on the very eve of the day fixed to carry out their purpose,
Arius was taken suddenly ill in the Forum of Constantine and died on the
spot. The historian Socrates regards the event as the act of God, for when
the patriarch heard what the heretics intended to do, he retired to the church
of S. Irene, and there for many days and nights, with fasting and tears, and
with his lips pressed to the altar, implored divine succour in his terrible
extremity. 'If the opinions of Arius be true,' the patriarch prayed, 'let me die;
but if they are false let him be judged.' The tragic end of Arius was
considered the answer to that prayer.
Upon the death of Alexander in 343, at the age of ninety-eight, the two
parties came into collision in regard to the question of his successor. The
deceased prelate had recommended two persons as suitable to fill his place:
the presbyter Paul, because of his abilities; the deacon Macedonius, on
account of his age and venerable appearance. The Arians favoured
Macedonius, as more in sympathy with their opinions; the orthodox,
however, carried the election and installed Paul in S. Irene. The defeated
party seems to have submitted, but the Emperor Constantius, a violent
Arian, quashed the election, and appointed Eusebius of Nicomedia, a
prominent upholder of the views of Arius, bishop of the capital. Upon the
death of Eusebius in 346 the theological combatants again seized the
opportunity to try their strength. The orthodox recalled Paul; the Arians
consecrated Macedonius. Incensed by these proceedings, Constantius, then
at Antioch, ordered Hermogenes, the magister militum in Thrace, to
proceed to Constantinople and drive Paul from the city. But no sooner did
Hermogenes attempt to execute his instructions than the populace rose,
burnt his house to the ground, and after dragging him along the streets,

killed him. The emperor was furious. He hurried back to Constantinople,
banished Paul, and reduced by one-half the amount of free bread daily
distributed among the citizens. Nor did he fully recognize Macedonius as
bishop. Under these circumstances Paul made his way to Rome, and, having
secured the support of the Pope, reappeared in Constantinople as the
rightful bishop of the see. But the emperor, again in Syria, was not to be
baffled. More angry than ever, he sent peremptory orders to Philip, the
prefect of Constantinople, to expel Paul and to recognize Macedonius. By
skilful arrangements Paul was quietly removed from the scene. But to
install Macedonius was a more difficult undertaking. The prefect, however,
ordered his chariot, and with Macedonius seated by his side made for S.
Irene, under an escort of troops carrying drawn swords. The sharp, naked
weapons alarmed the crowds in the streets, and without distinction of sect
or class men rushed for the church, everybody trying to outstrip his
neighbour in the race to get there first. Soon all the approaches to the
building were packed to suffocation; no one stirred backwards or forwards,
and the prefect's chariot was unable to advance. What seemed a hostile
barricade of human beings welded together obstructed his path. In vain did
the soldiers brandish their swords in the hope of frightening the crowd to
disperse. The crowd stood stock still, not because it would not, but because
it could not move. The soldiers grew angry, resorted to their weapons, and
cut a way to the church through that compact mass of humanity at the cost
of 3150 lives; some of the victims being crushed to death, others killed at
the point of the sword. So was Macedonius conducted to his throne in the
temple of Peace.125 But the conflict between the opposite parties continued,
and after six years spent in efforts to recover his position, Paul was restored
to office through the intervention of the Pope of Rome, of the Emperor
Constans, and of the Synod of Sardica. It was a brief triumph. In 350 Paul
was exiled for life to Cucusus, and Macedonius ruled once more in his
stead.126 For the next thirty years S. Irene with the other churches of the
capital remained in the hands of the Arians.

PLATE XVII.

S. Irene, South Side.

S. Irene, North Side. In the Distance, S. Sophia.
To face page 86.

During that period the Nicene faith was preached by Gregory of Nazianzus
only in a small chapel, subsequently dedicated to S. Anastasia.127 But with
the accession of Theodosius the Great the adherents of the Creed of Nicaea
prevailed, and the Second General Council, held in Constantinople in 381,
adopted that creed as the true faith of the Christian Church.

According to the biographer of S. Stephen the Younger, who enumerates the
six ecumenical councils, and indicates, in most cases, where each met, that
famous Council met in the church of S. Irene.128 But Theodore Lector129
says the Council assembled in the church of Homonoia, and explains the
name of that church as commemorative of the harmony which prevailed
among the bishops who gathered there on that occasion. As a matter of fact,
one of the churches of the city bore the name Homonoia.130 Possibly the
discrepancy between the statements of the authors just mentioned may be
due to a confusion arising from a similar meaning of the names of the two
churches.

According to the Anonymus,131 the usurper Basiliscus took refuge with his
wife and children in S. Irene, when he was overthrown in 477, and the
Emperor Zeno recovered the throne. But, according to the Paschal
Chronicle,132 Basiliscus fled on that occasion to the great baptistery of S.
Sophia. As that baptistery stood between S. Irene and S. Sophia and may
have served both churches, the difference between the two statements is not
serious.
After standing for two centuries the Constantinian edifice was burnt to the
ground by the fire which the rebel factions in the Nika Riot set to the offices
of the prefect on Friday, the 16th of January 532. The building had narrowly
escaped the same fate in the fire which destroyed S. Sophia earlier in the
course of the riot, and might have survived also the conflagration in which
it actually perished, but for the strong wind which carried the flames from
the praetorium to the church, devouring on their way the bath of Alexander,
a part of the hospice of Eubulus, and the hospital of Sampson with its
patients.
The restoration of the church was included in the magnificent scheme of
Justinian the Great to build on the wilderness of ashes created by his rebel
subjects the finest monuments of his empire. And so S. Irene rose from its
ruins, the largest sanctuary in Constantinople, except S. Sophia.133 The
bricks bearing the mark 'the Great Church,' Μεγάλη Ἐκκλησία, which are
built into a raised bank against the northern wall of the atrium, afford no
indication of the date when S. Irene was rebuilt. The bank is of
comparatively recent origin.134

In the month of December 564, the thirty-seventh year of Justinian's reign,
another great fire threatened to destroy the buildings which that emperor
had erected in the quarter of the city beside S. Sophia. The hospital of
Sampson was again burnt down; the atrium of the Great Church, known as
the Garsonostasion, suffered; two monasteries close to S. Irene perished,
and, what most concerns us, the atrium and part of the narthex of S. Irene
itself were consumed.135 How soon these injuries were repaired is not
recorded.
During the 176 years that followed the reconstruction of the church by
Justinian, S. Irene does not appear in history. But in 740 it was injured by
the earthquake which shook Constantinople in the last year of the reign of
Leo III. the Isaurian.136 Theophanes137 is very precise in regard to the time
when the disaster occurred; it was on the 26th of October, the ninth
indiction, on a Wednesday, at eight o'clock. The damage done both in the
city and in the towns of Thrace and Bithynia was terrible. In Nicaea only
one church was left standing, while Constantinople deplored the ruin of
large portions of the landward fortifications and the loss of many churches,
monasteries, and public monuments. S. Irene was then shaken, and, as the
examination of the building by Mr. George has proved, sustained most
serious injuries. The Emperor Leo died about six months after the disaster,
and it is therefore uncertain whether the church was rebuilt before his death.
His first attention was naturally directed to the reconstruction of the
fortifications of the city, where his name still appears, with that of his son
and successor Constantine Copronymus, as the rebuilder of the fallen
bulwarks. But although there is no record of the precise date at which the
ruined church was repaired, we may safely assume that if the work was not
commenced while Leo III. sat upon the throne, it was undertaken soon after
the accession of Constantine Copronymus. S. Irene was too important to be
long neglected, and was probably rebuilt during the ascendancy of the
iconoclasts.
The church reappears for a moment in 857 during the dispute which raged
around the persons of Ignatius and Photius as to which of them was the
lawful patriarch. While the partisans of the latter met in the church of the
Holy Apostles to depose Ignatius, the few bishops who upheld the claims of

Ignatius assembled in S. Irene to condemn and depose Photius with equal
vehemence.138
The church comes into view once more in connection with the settlement of
the quarrel caused in 907 by the fourth marriage of Leo VI. the Wise. As the
union was uncanonical, the Patriarch Nicholas deposed the priest who had
celebrated the marriage; he, moreover, refused the Communion to the
emperor, and treated Zoe, the emperor's fourth wife, as an outcast. For such
conduct Nicholas lost his office, and a more pliant ecclesiastic was
appointed in his place. The inevitable result followed. The religious world
was torn by a schism which disturbed Church and State for fifteen years. At
length Romanus I. summoned a council of divines to compose the agitation,
and peace was restored in 921, by a decree which condemned a fourth
marriage, but allowed a third marriage under very strict limitations. So
important was this decision regarded that it was read annually, in July, from
the pulpit, and on that occasion the emperor, with the patriarch, attended
service in S. Irene, and at its close took part in a procession from S. Irene to
S. Sophia, on the way back to the Great Palace.139

PLATE XVIII.

S. Irene.
The Interior, Looking East.
(With the kind permission of Professor C. Gurlitt, from his work Die Baukunst
Konstantinopels, Berlin, E. Wasmûth.)
To face page 90.

On Good Friday the patriarch held a service for catechumens (κατήχησις) in
S. Irene, which the patricians were required to attend.140
The church of S. Irene has never been used as a mosque. After its enclosure
within the precincts of the Seraglio soon after the Turkish conquest, it was
converted into an armoury, probably because it stood in the court occupied
by the body of Janissaries who formed the palace guard, and it has served
that military purpose, in contradiction to its name, for the most part ever
since. For several years it contained the first collection of antiquities made
by the Turkish Government, and some of the objects in that collection still
remain to recall the use of the building as a museum; the most interesting of
them being the chain stretched across the mouth of the Golden Horn during
the siege of 1453, the monument to the charioteer Porphyrios, and the
pedestal of the silver statue of the Empress Eudocia, which played a fatal
part in the relations of that empress to the great bishop of Constantinople,
John Chrysostom. Since the establishment of the constitutional régime in
the Ottoman Empire the building has been turned into a Museum of Arms.

Architectural Features

Until the recent establishment of constitutional government in Turkey it was
impossible to obtain permission to study this church in a satisfactory
manner, so jealously was even entrance into the building guarded. The
nearest approach to anything like a proper examination of the building was
when Salzenberg was allowed to visit the church in 1848, while the church
of S. Sophia was undergoing repairs under the superintendence of the
Italian architect Fossati. But the liberty accorded to Salzenberg was not
complete, and, consequently, his plan of the church published in his
Altchristliche Baudenkmäler von Konstantinopel is marred by serious
mistakes. Happily the new Government of the Empire is animated by an
enlightened and liberal spirit, and at the request of His Excellency Sir
Gerard Lowther, H.B.M. Ambassador to the Sublime Porte, permission was
granted to the Byzantine Research and Publication Fund to have the church

examined as thoroughly as its condition allowed, and to make all the plans,
drawings, and photographs required in the interests of a scientific
knowledge of its architectural character. The Byzantine Research and
Publication Fund was fortunate in having as its president, Edwin Freshfield,
LL.D., so long distinguished for his devotion to Byzantine archaeology, and
it is mainly due to his generosity that the means necessary for carrying on
the study of the church were provided. The society was, moreover, most
happy in being able to secure the services of an architect in Mr. W. S.
George, who already possessed considerable experience in the investigation
of Byzantine buildings at Salonica and elsewhere. Fortunately, also, the
building was at the same time placed under repair, in view of its conversion
into a museum of arms, thus affording exceptional facilities for the erection
of scaffolding and the removal of plaster and other obstructions. Mr. George
gave nearly five months to the study of the church, and the results of his
careful investigations will appear in a monograph to be published by the
Byzantine Research and Publication Fund. But with great courtesy, in view
of the fact that I was engaged on the present work, and also because I
waived my own application for leave to study S. Irene in favour of the
application made by the Byzantine Fund, I have been allowed to anticipate
that monograph by making use of some of the results of Mr. George's
investigations. For this permission I am very grateful, as it will add much to
the value of this volume. I visited the church frequently while Mr. George
was at work upon it, and my account of its architectural features is based
entirely upon the information he then kindly supplied, and upon the notes
he has communicated to me since his return to England.

PLATE XIX.

S. Irene.
S. Irene. The Northern Arch of the Main Dome, seen
Vaulting at the North-west Corner Of The from the South Gallery
Atrium
To face page 92.

The architectural feature which gives to this building a peculiar interest, in
the study of the development of planning and construction, is the more
complete fusion of the basilican type of plan with a domical system of
roofing which it presents than is found in any other example of a similar
combination.
On the west, where the ground retains its original level, stands the old
atrium, though much modified by Turkish repairs and alterations. It had
covered arcades on the north, south, and west sides, but only the outer walls
of the northern and southern arcades, with some portions of their inner
walls, and three complete vaulted bays at the northern end of the western
arcade, are Byzantine. The walls, vaults, and piers in other parts of the
arcades are Turkish. There is no trace of the west door which, under
ordinary circumstances, would form the main entrance to the atrium, but a
Byzantine doorway, now built up, is found close to the narthex, in the outer
wall of the south arcade. The area of the atrium has been, moreover, greatly

reduced by the erection, on its four sides, of an inner range of Turkish
vaulting.
Five doors led from the atrium to the narthex, but only the central and the
northernmost of these doors are now open, the latter entrance still retaining
its original architrave and cornice of white marble, with the usual
mouldings and a cross worked on the crowning member of the cornice. The
present entrance to the church, however, is on the north side of the building,
through a porch that leads down a sloping Turkish passage to the western
end of the north aisle.
The narthex is in five bays, the two terminal bays having cross-groined
vaults, the three central, vaults of a domical character with blunt rounded
groins at the springing. The whole vaulting surface of the narthex was once
covered with mosaics exhibiting mainly a geometrical pattern.
From the narthex three tall arched openings conducted to the nave, and one
opening to each aisle. But the direct communication between the narthex
and the northern aisle is now cut off by the insertion of the Turkish entrance
to the church, although the old doorway to the aisle remains complete.
The nave is divided into two large bays of equal breadth but unequal length,
the western bay being the shorter. In the latter the arches which support its
roof are, to the east and west, semicircular, while those to north and south
are roughly elliptical, springing from the same level and rising to the same
height as the semicircular arches, but being of shorter span. These elliptical
arches extend to the outer walls of the church, thus partaking of the
character of short barrel vaults.
Upon these arches is raised what has been called an elliptical dome. But in
no part has it the character of a true ellipse, nor does it spring from its
supporting arches in the simple regular manner of a dome, but in the
complex manner of a vault built upon arches of unequal curvature. It should
therefore rather be called a domical vault. Where it shows above the roof it
has the appearance of a modified and very low cone covering an irregular
elliptical drum.
The eastern bay of the nave is square on plan, bounded by semicircular
arches, all extended so as to form short barrel vaults. The western arch is

joined to the eastern arch of the western bay, thus forming a short barrel
vault common to both bays. The vault to the east runs to the semi-dome of
the apse; whilst the vaults to north and south, like the corresponding vaults
in the western bay, extend to the outer walls and cover the eastern portions
of the aisles and galleries. Above the supporting arches regular pendentives
are formed, and above these there is a drum carrying a dome. The apse to
the east of the nave is semicircular within and covered by a semi-dome.
Between that semi-dome and the eastern barrel vault of the nave a break is
interposed, giving the bema arch two orders or faces, with their external and
internal angles rounded off, and the whole surface of the semi-dome and of
the bema arch is covered with mosaic. At one time the mosaic extended also
over the surface of the barrel vault. The decoration in the semi-dome
consists of a large cross in black outline upon a gold ground; below the
cross there are three steps set upon a double band of green that runs round
the base of the semi-dome. A geometrical border bounds the semi-dome,
and then comes the following inscription, an extract from Psalm lxv. verses
5, 6 (the lxiv. in the Septuagint version), on the inner face of the arch:
(ΔΕΥΤ ΕΙ)CΟΜΕΘΑ ΕΝ ΤΟÎC ΑΓΑΘΟÎC ΤΟΥ ΟÎΚΟΥ CΟΥ, ĀΓΙΟC Ο ΝΑΟC CΟΥ
ΘΑΥΜΑCΤΟC ΕΝ ΔΙΚΑΙΟCΥΝΗ ΕΠΑΚΟΥCΟΝ ΗΜΩΝ Ο Θ[ΕΟ]C Ο C[ΩΤ]ΗΡ ΗΜΩΝ Η
ΕΛΠΙC ΠΑΝΤΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΠΕΡΑΤΩΝ ΤΗC ΓΗC ΚΑΙ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΘΑΛΑCCΗ ΜΑΚ(ΡΑ)[Ν].
(Come we will go?) in the good things of thy house. Holy is thy temple. Thou art wonderful in
righteousness. Hear us, O God our Saviour; the hope of all the ends of the earth and of them who are
afar off upon the sea.

The letters enclosed within curved brackets and the accents141 above them
are paint only; the letters within square brackets are not in the inscription,
but are supplied where evident contractions render that course necessary.
The remaining letters are in unrestored mosaic.
Probably (Δεῦτ᾿ εἰς) όμεθα is a mistake of the restorer for the word
πλησθησόμεθα in the original text. 'We shall be filled with the goodness (or
the good things) of thy house.'
Three other geometrical patterns in mosaic succeed, after which follows a
broad wreath of foliage on the outer face of the bema arch and the words:
(Ο Ο)ΙΚΟΔΟΜΩΝ ΕΙC Τ(ΟΝ ΟΙΚΟΝ CΟΥ ΚΑΙ) ΑΝΑΒΑCΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ, ΚΑΙ ΤΗΝ ΕΠΑΝΓΕΛΙΑΝ
(ΤΟΥ ΗΑΓΙΟΥ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟC ΕΥ ΗΜΑC ΗΛΠΕΙCΑΜΕΝ ΕΙC ΤΟ Ο)ΝΟΜΑ Α(ΥΤΟΥ).

The mosaic above the crown of the semi-dome has been injured and
restored imperfectly in plaster, paint, and gilt. Hence the large black patch
in it which includes the upper arm of the cross.
The letters enclosed within curved brackets are in paint and are manifestly
the work of a restorer who has spoiled the grammatical construction of the
words and obscured the meaning of the inscription. The remaining letters
are in unrestored mosaic.
I venture to suggest that the original text was a quotation from Amos ix. 6,
with possibly some variations:
ὁ οἰκοδομῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνάβασιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς θεμελιῶν.
'He who builds his ascent up to the heaven and his command on the foundations of the earth.'

The words, ἠλπείσαμεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, 'we have hoped in his name,'
may be original (Psalm xxxii. 21; Isaiah xxvi. 8).
With these inscriptions may be compared the beautiful collect used at the
consecration of a church:
Ἀκολουθία εἰς ἐγκαίνια ναοῦ.
Ναὶ Δέσποτα Κύριε ὁ Θεὸς ὁ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, ἡ ἐλπὶς πάντων τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς, ἐπάκουσον ἡμῶν
τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν δεομένων σου καὶ κατάπεμψον τὸ πανάγιόν σου Πνεῦμα τὸ προσκυνητὸν καὶ
παντοδυνάμενον καὶ ἁγίασον τὸν οἶκον τοῦτον.
'Yea, Lord God Almighty our Saviour, the hope of all the ends of the earth, hear us sinners when we
call upon thee, and send thy Holy Spirit, the worshipful and all powerful, and sanctify this house.'

Below the windows of the apse are ranges of seats for the clergy, forming a
sloping gallery, and consisting of eleven risers and eleven treads, so that,
according to the method of seating adopted, there are five or six or eleven
rows of seats. There is no vestige of a special episcopal seat in the centre,
but the stonework has been disturbed; for some of the seats are built with
portions of the moulded base of the marble revetment of the building.
Underneath the seats runs a narrow semicircular passage originally well
lighted through openings142 in the riser of one range of seats, and having a
doorway at each end.

PLATE XX.

S. Irene.
Mosaic on Soffit of an Arch Between the Narthex and the Atrium

S. Irene.
Portion of the Mosaic Inscription on the Outer Arch of the Apse
To face page 96.

On either side of the nave, towards the eastern end of each aisle, there is an
approximately square compartment covered with a domical vault, and
having an opening communicating with the nave immediately to the west of

the bema. To the east of these compartments stands what was the original
eastern wall of the church, and in it, in the north aisle, a large doorway
retaining its architrave and cornice, is still found. Of the corresponding
doorway in the south aisle only the threshold is left. These doorways must
have communicated with the outer world to the east of the church, like the
doorways which occupy a similar position in the Studion (p. 53). The
northern compartment had an opening, which is still surmounted by
architrave and cornice, also in its north wall. There are, moreover, four
other openings or recesses in the northern wall of the church, and two in the
southern.
The main portions of the aisles are divided from the nave by light screens of
columns, the eastern and western portions being connected by passages
driven through the dome piers. In the eastern nave bay there are four
columns, giving five aisle bays on each side. The columns are very slender,
without any base moulding, and stand upon square pedestals, now framed
round with Turkish woodwork. On opening one of these frames the pedestal
was found to be a mutilated and imperfectly squared block of stone. Such
blocks may have served as the core of a marble lining, or may be damaged
material re-used.
The capitals are of the 'Pseudo-Ionic' type, with roughly cut Ionic volutes.
The sinking on their lower bed is too large for the necks of the columns.
Towards the aisles they bear the monograms of Justinian and Theodora,
identical with the monograms of these sovereigns in S. Sophia, while on the
side towards the nave they have a cross in low relief. Usually monograms
are placed in the more conspicuous position.
Above the capitals the vaulting that covers the aisles and supports the
galleries is of an uncommon type. Towards the nave the arches are narrow
and raised upon very high stilts; from each capital a semicircular arch is
thrown across to the outer wall, where is a range of windows, each of which
has an extrados at a slightly higher level than the extrados of the
corresponding nave arch; and thus a long narrow space is left between the
four arches of each vault compartment that could be filled, wholly or in
part, without the use of centering. The result is a narrow, irregularly curved
vault, shaped to the backs of each of its surrounding arches, and having, in
the main, the character of a spherical fragment.

The western portion of each aisle is divided from the nave by an irregular
arcade supported by a pier and one column, and, consequently, there are
three aisle bays to the western nave bay, and not four as shown by
Salzenburg.
The whole interior surfaces of the walls, up to the level of the springing of
the gallery vaulting, and the nave walls, up to the gallery level, were once
faced with marble. This is proved by the presence in the walls of many
marble plugs and some iron holdfasts, as well as by remains of the moulded
base of the facing.
At the eastern extremity of the aisles there are chambers formed by walls
built, as the vertical straight joints and difference of materials employed
indicate, at various periods. The chamber at the end of the northern aisle has
an archway, now built up, in its eastern wall, and seems to have served as a
vestibule. It is in these chambers that Salzenberg supposes the staircases
leading to the galleries stood, but it is evident from the character of the
walls and vaulting that no such staircases could ever have existed there.
The galleries extend over the narthex and over the whole length of the
aisles. Access to them is now obtained by a wooden staircase and landing of
Turkish construction, but how they were reached in Byzantine times is not
evident. Possibly the fragments of wall on the exterior face of the south
wall of the narthex and the traces of vaulting beside them may be the
remains of a staircase. Or a staircase may have stood to the west of the
narthex over the vaulting of the atrium, where projecting spurs of walls
appear.
The vaulting of the gallery over the narthex was originally similar to that of
the narthex itself, but only the cross-groined vaults at the corners are
Byzantine; the three central compartments are Turkish. Five windows in the
western wall looked into the atrium, and as many openings in the eastern
wall into the nave and side galleries. Below the former range is a string-
course corresponding to that which runs round the interior of the building at
gallery level.
The gallery over each aisle consists of two open portions under the dome
arches, divided from each other by the dome piers, which are pierced to
connect the different parts of the gallery with each other, and with the

gallery over the narthex. In the side walls there is a range of windows at
gallery level; five on each side of the eastern nave bay, three in the south
wall of the western nave bay, but none, at present, in its northern wall.
Above these windows are two ranges of windows in each lunette under the
dome arches, a system of five and three in the eastern bay, and of four and
two in the western bay. All these windows, now square-headed, had
originally semicircular heads. The lunette filling the western dome arch had
doubtless a similar window arrangement, though at present it has only one
window.

PLATE XXI.

S. Irene. S. Irene.
Interior, Looking North-west. Door at the East End of the North Aisle.

To face page 98.

The eastern ends of the side galleries have been formed into separate
chambers since the Turkish occupation. Of the additions beyond the original
east wall of the church, that to the north was connected with the gallery by a
tall wide arch, while that to the south was divided off from the gallery with
only a small door as a means of communication. The southern addition was
divided into two chambers as on the ground floor.

The walls above gallery level and the large vaulting surfaces of the building
are now covered with plaster, but a close examination proves that if any
mosaic or marble revetment ever existed above gallery level, none of it,
excepting the mosaic in the apse, remains.
Looking next at the exterior of the building, it is to be observed that the
ground on the north, south, and east has been raised as much as fifteen feet.
In many places the walls have undergone Turkish repair. The apse shows
three sides. The drum of the dome is pierced by twenty semicircular-headed
windows (of which only five are now open), and as their arches and the
dome spring at about the same level the heads of the windows impinge
upon the dome's surface. Two low shoulders cover the eastern pendentives.
The plan of the drum is peculiar. From the shoulders, just mentioned, to the
windows, it is a square with rounded corners, one side of the square being
joined with and buried in the drum of the western dome vault; but upon
reaching the base of the windows it becomes an accurate circle in plan, and
at the springing of the window arches is set back, leaving a portion of the
piers to appear as buttresses. The upper portion of the drum is carried well
up above the springing of the dome, leaving a large mass of material
properly disposed so as to take the thrusts produced.
The careful examination of the building by Mr. George has proved that the
fabric is not the work of one age, but consists of parts constructed at
different periods. For the full evidence on the subject we must await the
forthcoming monograph on the church. Here, only the main results of Mr.
George's survey can be presented.
Up to the level of the springing of the aisle vaults, the walls of the main
body of the building, excepting the narthex and the additions at the east end
of the church, are built of large well-squared stones laid in regular courses,
and are homogeneous throughout.
Above that level the walls are built in alternate bands of brick and stone,
five courses of brick to five courses of stone being the normal arrangement.
The stones in this portion of the walls are smaller and much more roughly
squared than those below the springing of the aisle vaults. This brick and
stone walling is, so far as could be ascertained, homogeneous right up to the
domical vault and the dome. As usual the arches and vaults are in brick. A

point to be noted is that the recesses or openings in the lower part of the
north and south walls of the church do not centre with the windows and
vaulting above them; sometimes, indeed, the head of an opening comes
immediately below a vaulting arch or rib. Again, at the north-eastern
external angle of the apse the wall up to the level of the springing of the
aisle vaulting is in stone, but above that level in brick, and the two portions
differ in the angle which they subtend. Evidently there has been rebuilding
from a level coinciding with the springing of the aisle vaulting. Projecting
above the ground at the same place is a square mass of stonework that was
left unbuilt upon when that rebuilding took place. The narthex is built of
brick, with bands of large stone at wide intervals, and is separated by
distinct joints from the upper and lower walls of the body of the church.
Furthermore, while the two eastern bays on each side of the western portion
of the nave continue and belong to the unusual system of vaulting followed
in the aisles, the bay on each side immediately adjoining the narthex
belongs to the vaulting system found in the narthex, and has, towards the
nave, an arch precisely similar to the arches between the nave and the
narthex. The division between the two systems is well marked, both in the
nave and in the aisles, and points clearly to the fact that the narthex and the
body of the church are of different dates.

PLATE XXII.

S. Irene.
Vaulting Over the South Aisle.

S. Irene.
A Compartment of South Aisle Vaulting
(looking directly upward).
To face page 100.

Thus the architectural survey of the building shows that the principal parts
of the fabric represent work done upon it on three great occasions, a
conclusion in striking accord with the information already derived from
history. For we have seen (p. 89) that after the destruction of the original
Constantinian church by fire in the Nika Riot, Justinian the Great erected a
new sanctuary upon the old foundations; that later in his reign another fire
occurred which necessitated the reconstruction of the narthex of that
sanctuary; and that some two centuries later, towards the close of the reign
of Leo the Isaurian, the church was shaken by one of the most violent
earthquakes known in Constantinople, and subsequently restored probably
by that emperor or by his son and successor Constantine Copronymus.
Accordingly, leaving minor changes out of account, it is safe to suggest that
the walls of the body of the church, up to the springing of the aisle vaults,
belong to the new church built by Justinian after the Nika Riot in 532; while
the narthex, the aisle vaults immediately adjoining it, and the upper portion
of the western end of the south wall, represent the repairs made probably by
the same emperor after the injuries to the fabric caused by the fire of 564.
The earthquake of 740 must therefore have shaken down or rendered

unstable all the upper part of the building, but left standing the narthex, the
gallery above it, and the lower part of the walls of the church.
Consequently, the upper part of the building, the apse, the dome-arches, the
dome-vault, and the dome with its drum, belong to the reconstruction of the
church after that earthquake.
The buttresses to the apse where it joins the main eastern wall are later
additions, and still later, but before Turkish times, are the short walls at the
north and south-eastern corners forming the small eastern chambers.
Of the building erected by Constantine the Great the only possible vestige is
the square projection at the north-eastern angle of the apse, but that is an
opinion upon which much stress should not be laid.
In harmony with these conclusions is the evidence afforded by the mosaics
found in the church. Those of the narthex are of the same character as the
mosaics in S. Sophia, Constantinople, and may well have been executed
under Justinian. On the other hand, the mosaics in the apse are
characteristic of the iconoclastic period, the chief decoration there being a
simple cross. For, as Finlay143 has remarked, Leo the Isaurian 'placed the
cross on the reverse of many of his gold, silver, and copper coins, and over
the gates of his palace, as a symbol for universal adoration.' A similar
iconoclastic decoration and a portion of the same verses from Psalm lxv.
formed the original decoration of the apse in S. Sophia, Salonica.
Thus also is the presence of capitals bearing the monograms of Justinian
and Theodora explained, seeing those sovereigns were intimately connected
with the church. And thus also is a reason suggested why those monograms
face the aisles instead of the nave; it was a position which would be
assigned to them by a later restorer of the church who was obliged to use
old material, and at the same time felt anxious to conceal the fact as much
as possible, lest the glory of the previous benefactors of the church should
eclipse his own renown.

PLATE XXIII.

S. Irene. S. Irene.
Capital in South Arcade, Base of Column in the South Aisle,
seen from the South Aisle.
seen from the South Aisle.

To face page 102.

The conclusion that in the present building we have parts representing
different periods solves also the problem of the elliptical domical vault. For
it is difficult to imagine that a Byzantine architect with a free hand would
choose to build such a vault. But given the supports Mr. George believes
were left standing after the earthquake of 740, and given also the narthex on
the west, the architect's liberty was limited, and he would be forced to cover
the space thus bounded in the best way the circumstances allowed.
How the western portion of the church was roofed in Justinian's time it is
impossible to say with certainty. There are buttress slips in the south wall at
gallery level and in the nave below, where the break occurs in the arcade,
that suggest the existence, in the church as originally built by Justinian, of a
narthex carrying a gallery. In that case the length of the barrel vault over the
western part of the church would be about the length of the barrel vault over
the eastern part, and the church would then show in plan a regular cross

with a dome at the centre, two lateral doors, one of which is now built up,
giving access to the ends of the narthex.
The dates here assigned to the different parts of the building simplify the
problem of the tall drum below the main dome. That this could have been
built by Justinian, as has been supposed, is difficult of belief if the large
domes which are known to have been built by him are carefully examined.
It is true that the drum dome of S. Sophia, Salonica, has also been claimed
for Justinian, but that drum is low and only partially developed, and
although its date is not known, the consensus of opinion is against its being
so early. The whole question of the development of the drum still awaits
treatment at the hands of an investigator who has thoroughly studied the
buildings themselves, and perhaps the publication of the results obtained by
Mr. George at S. Sophia, Salonica, and S. Irene, Constantinople, two crucial
examples, will throw some light on the subject. For the present the date here
given for the drum of S. Irene (i.e. towards the middle of the eighth century)
is an inherently probable one.
In the foregoing description of S. Irene there is no pretence to an exhaustive
statement of facts, or any claim that the conclusions reached are final. There
is still too much plaster on the walls to permit a complete examination of
the building. But the conclusions here suggested are those which agree best
with the evidence which has been brought to light by Mr. George under
present circumstances.

Fig. 31.

Fig. 32.

Fig. 33.

Fig. 34.

Fig. 35.

118 Socrates, ii. c. 6; Corpus juris civilis, Nov. iii. c. 3. 2; Itin. russes, p. 119.
119 Socrates, ii. c. 16. So also the author of the Vita Pauli Patr. C.P. The
Church of S. Irene, which the Anonymus (Banduri, ii. p. 31) says had once
been a heathen temple, was the church of S. Irene, τὸ πέραμα.
120 Notitia, regia secunda; Codin. De aed. p. 73.
121 Socrates, loc. cit.
122 Ibid.
123 Banduri, ii. p. 52.
124 Socrates, ii. c. 16.

125 Socrates, ii. c. 16.
126 Ibid. ii. 13, 15, 16.
127 Ibid. v. 7.
128 Vita S. Stephani Junioris, Migne, P.G. 100, col. 1144, ἡ δευτέρα εν Κπλει
ἐν τῷ ναῷ τῆς ἀγίας Εἰρήνης.
129 Theodore Lector, ed. Valesius (1748), p. 533. Eutychius afflicted by the
divine anger went ἐν τῷ εὐαγεῖ εὐκτηρίῳ ἔνθα πεπίστευται ἀναπαύεσθαι μέρος
ἱερῶν λειψάνων τῶν θεσπίων Πανταλέοντος καὶ Μαρίνου, ἐπικαλουμένου τοῦ
τόπου Ὁμόνοια ἐκ τοῦ ἐκεῖ συνελθόντας τοὺς ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα ἐπισκόπους
ἐπὶ Θεοδοσίου τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως. The passage is preserved in John
Damascene, De imaginibus, book iii.
130 Notitia, Regio nona, 'continet in se ecclesias duas, Cenopolim et
Omonaeam.'
131 Banduri, ii. p. 25.
132 Ad annum 478.
133 Procop. De aed. i. c. 2; Pasch. Chron. p. 622.
134 For this information I am indebted to Mr. W. S. George.
135 Theoph. p. 371.
136 Patr. Nicephorus, in Breviario.
137 Theoph. p. 634.
138 Mansi, xv. 211; xvi. p. 18. See Basile I. par Albert Vogt, p. 206.
139 Const. Porphyr. De cer. p. 186; Cedren. ii. pp. 265, 275, 297. Readers of
Russian are referred to D. Belaev. 'The Church of S. Irene and the Earthquake
in C.P. 28 June 1894,' Vizantisky Vreinennik, i., St. Petersburg, 1894, parts iii.-
iv. section iii. pp. 769-798, and the article by the same author on the 'Interior
and Exterior View of S. Irene' in the same periodical, 1895, parts i., ii. section
i. pp. 177-183. For the references to these articles I am indebted to Mr.
Norman E. Baynes, one of our younger Byzantine scholars.
140 Const. Porphyr. De Cer. p. 179.
141 Only some of the accents are indicated in the transcription.
142 These openings are now covered with Turkish wooden staging, and the
passage is therefore quite dark.
143 History of the Byzantine Empire, p. 34, Everyman Edition.

CHAPTER V.

THE CHURCH OF S. ANDREW IN KRISEI, HOJA MUSTAPHA PASHA
MESJEDI

That the old Byzantine church now converted into the mosque styled Hoja
Mustapha Pasha Mesjedi, in the quarter of Juma Bazaar, at a short distance
to the east of the Gate of Selivria was the church of S. Andrew in Krisei
(Μονὴ τοῦ Ἁγίου Ἀνδρέου ἐν Κρίσει)144 can be established, by the
indications which Byzantine writers have given of the site of that famous
church, and by the legend which is still associated with the mosque.
According to Stephen of Novgorod145 (c. 1350) the church dedicated to S.
Andrew of Crete, who was buried, as other authorities146 inform us, in the
district named Krisis, stood at a short distance to the north of the monastery
of the Peribleptos. It lay, therefore, to the north of the Armenian church of
S. George (Soulou Monastir) in the quarter of Psamathia, which represents
the church of S. Mary Peribleptos. The mosque Hoja Mustapha Pasha
Mesjedi lies in the same direction. Again, according to Pachymeres,147 the
church of S. Andrew in Krisei was near the monastery of Aristina. That
monastery, another authority states,148 was opposite the church of S.
Mamas. The church of S. Mamas was on the road between the Studion and
the church of S. Andrew.149 Hence the church of S. Andrew stood to the
north of the Studion, the situation occupied by Hoja Mustapha Pasha
Mesjedi. Once more, the site of the mosque corresponds to the position
assigned to the church of S. Andrew on the map of Bondelmontius (1420),
to the east of the Gate of Selivria. Finally, the old church is more definitely
identified by the legend of the judicial procedure which clings to the
building. In the picturesque courtyard of the mosque, where the colour of
the East is still rich and vivid, there stands an old cypress tree around whose
bare and withered branches a slender iron chain is entwined like the
skeleton of some extinct serpent. As tradition would have it, the chain was
once endowed with the gift of judgment, and in cases of dispute could
indicate which of the parties concerned told the truth. One day a Jew who
had borrowed money from a Turk, on being summoned to pay his debt,
replied that he had done so already. To that statement the Turk gave the lie
direct, and accordingly, debtor and creditor were brought to the chain for

the settlement of the question at issue. Before submitting to the ordeal,
however, the Jew placed a cane into the hands of the Turk, and then stood
under the cypress confident that his honour for truthfulness and honesty
would be vindicated. His expectation proved correct, for the chain touched
his head to intimate that he had returned the money he owed. Whereupon
taking back his cane he left the scene in triumph. Literally, the verdict
accorded with fact; for the cane which the Jew had handed to his creditor
was hollow and contained the sum due to the latter. But the verdict
displayed such a lack of insight, and involved so gross a miscarriage of
justice, that from that day forth the chain lost its reputation and has hung
ever since a dishonoured oracle on the dead arms of the cypress, like a
criminal on a gibbet. Although this tale cannot be traced to its Byzantine
source, it is manifestly an echo of the renown which the precincts of the
mosque once enjoyed as a throne of judgment before Turkish times, and
serves to prove that Hoja Mustapha Pasha Mesjedi is indeed the old church
of S. Andrew in Krisei.

PLATE XXIV.

S. Andrew in Krisei.
East End.
(From a Photograph by A. E. Henderson, Esq.)
To face page 106.

The earliest reference to the locality known as Krisis occurs in the narrative
of the martyrdom of S. Andrew of Crete given by Symeon Metaphrastes,150
who flourished in the latter part of the ninth century. A devoted iconodule,
S. Andrew, came from his native island to Constantinople, in the reign of
Constantine Copronymus (740-775), expressly to rebuke the emperor for
opposing the use of eikons in religious worship. As might have been
anticipated, the zeal and courage of the saint only incurred cruel and
insulting treatment, and at length a martyr's death. For, while his
persecutors were dragging him one day along the streets of the city in
derision, a half-witted fisherman stabbed him dead with a knife. So strong
was the feeling prevalent at the time against the champion of the cause of
eikons that his body was flung among the corpses of murderers and thieves;
but eventually his admirers succeeded in removing it from its foul
surroundings and buried it 'in a sacred place which was named Krisis' (εἴς
ἕνα ἱερὸν τόπον ὃ ὁποῖος ἐπωνομάζετο Κρίσις).151 It is evident from this
statement that the name Krisis was applied to the locality before the
interment of S. Andrew there; how long before, it is impossible to say, but
probably from early times. The body of the martyr was laid in or beside one
of the two churches dedicated to saints also named S. Andrew, which stood
on the Seventh Hill of the city already in the sixth century.152

PLATE XXV.

S. Andrew in Krisei, From the South-west.

S. Andrew in Krisei.
The Interior, Looking South.

To face page 109.

Note
One of these churches was dedicated to S. Andrew the Apostle, and stood 'near the column,' πλησίον
τοῦ στύλου;153 the other to S. Andrew, not otherwise identified, was near the Gate of Saturninus,
πλησίον τῆς πόρτας τοῦ Σατουρνίνου.154 It is difficult to decide which church is represented by the
mosque. For there were two columns on the Seventh Hill of the city: the Column of Constantine the
Great, which stood outside the city bounds, giving name to the extramural district of the Exokionion
now Alti Mermer; and the Column of Arcadius now Avret Tash. Nor can the position of the Gate of
Saturninus be determined more accurately than that it was an entrance in the portion of the
Constantinian Walls which traversed the Seventh Hill, the Xerolophos of Byzantine days. On the
whole, however, the indications favour the view that Hoja Mustapha Pasha Mesjedi represents the
church of S. Andrew near the Gate of Saturninus. A church in that position, though outside the
Constantinian fortification, was still so near them that it could be, very appropriately, described as
near one of the city gates. Again the Russian pilgrims155 who visited the shrines of Constantinople in
the second quarter of the fifteenth century found two churches dedicated to S. Andrew in this part of
the city, one to S. Andrew the Strategos, the other to S. Andrew 'mad with the love of God' ('God-
intoxicated'). In proceeding northwards from the church of S. Diomed, which stood near the Golden
Gate (Yedi Koulé), the Russian visitor reached first the sanctuary dedicated to S. Andrew the
Strategos, and then the church dedicated to S. Andrew the 'God-intoxicated,' which lay still farther to
the north. But this order in the positions of the two churches implies that Hoja Mustapha Pasha
Mesjedi represents the church of S. Andrew the Strategos, a martyr of the fourth century, viz. the
church which the documents of the sixth century describe as near the Gate of Saturninus, without
specifying by what title its patron saint was distinguished. This agrees, moreover, with what is known
regarding the site of the church of S. Andrew the Apostle. It stood to the west of the cistern of
Mokius,156 the large ruined Byzantine reservoir, now Tchoukour Bostan, to the north of Hoja
Mustapha Pasha Mesjedi.

The church does not appear again in history, under the designation ἐν
κρίσει, until the reign of Andronicus II. (1282-1328), when it was found,
like so many other churches which survived the Latin occupation of the
city, in a state demanding extensive repair. It was then embellished and
enlarged by the protovestiarissa Theodora,157 a lady who occupied a
prominent position in the society of the day, both as the emperor's cousin,
and on account of her accomplishments and character. In her early youth
she was married to George Muzalon,158 the favourite counsellor and trusted
friend of Theodore II. Ducas of Nicaea. What confidence Muzalon enjoyed
may be inferred from the fact that he was associated with the Patriarch
Arsenius as guardian of the emperor's son, John Lascaris, when left the heir
to the throne of Nicaea, as a child eight years old.159 Had Muzalon not met
with an untimely end he might have become the colleague of his ward, and
Theodora might have worn the imperial crown. The tragic murder of her

husband by his political opponents, while celebrating the obsequies of the
Emperor Theodore, provoked a terrible outburst of indignation and grief on
her part,160 and so vehement was her condemnation of the criminals that her
uncle, the treacherous Michael Palaeologus, threatened she would share her
husband's fate if she did not control her feelings.161 After the accession of
Michael Palaeologus to the throne, her hand was bestowed on the
protovestiarius Raoul, and hence she is generally known by his name and
title as Raoulaina the protovestiarissa (ἡ Ῥαούλαινα πρωτοβεστιάρισσα).
One of her beautiful daughters became the wife of Constantine Palaeologus,
the ill-fated brother of Andronicus II. But, as already stated, Theodora was
not only highly connected. Like many noble ladies in Byzantine society, she
cultivated learning,162 and took a deep interest in the theological
discussions and ecclesiastical affairs of her day. She was a devoted adherent
of the party attached to the person and memory of the Patriarch Arsenius;
the party that never forgave Michael Palaeologus for blinding the young
John Lascaris and robbing him of the throne, the party that opposed the
subjection of the Eastern Church to the Papal See, and which maintained
the freedom of the Church from the political interference of the emperor.
Whatever its faults, that party certainly represented the best moral life of the
period.

PLATE XXVI.

S. Andrew in Krisei. Capital in the Inner Narthex.

S. Andrew in Krisei.
Capital in the Arcade Under the West Dome Arch.
To face page 110.

To heal the schism caused by the attitude of the Arsenites 'was the serious
labour of the Church and State' for half a century. And in pursuance of the
policy of conciliation, Andronicus II. allowed the body of Arsenius to be
brought to Constantinople from the island of Proconessus, where he had
died in exile and been buried. The whole city gathered to welcome the
remains of the venerated prelate, and saw them borne in solemn and stately
procession from the landing at the Gate of Eugenius (Yali Kiosk) to the
church of S. Sophia. There, robed in pontifical vestments, the body was first
seated upon the patriarchal throne, then laid before the altar, while the
funeral service was intoned, and finally placed on the right hand of the
bema in a chest locked and sealed for safe keeping. Once a week, however,
the body was exposed to public view, and all strife seemed hushed in a
common devotion to the memory of the saint. It was soon after this event

that Theodora restored the church and monastery of S. Andrew, and upon
the completion of the work she besought the emperor to allow the remains
of Arsenius to be transferred to that shrine. The request was granted, and the
body was carried to the church of St. Andrew with as great pomp and
ceremony as attended its arrival in the capital. There it was kept until the
patriarchate of Niphon (1311-1314), when it was again taken to S. Sophia to
appear in the final conclusion of peace between the friends and foes of the
deceased.163 Standing beside the remains, Niphon pronounced, in the name
and by the authority of the dead man, a general absolution for all offences
committed in connection with the quarrels which had raged around the
name of Arsenius; and so long as S. Sophia continued to be a Christian
sanctuary the remains were counted among the great treasures of the
cathedral. 'There,' to quote the words of a devout visitor shortly before the
Turkish conquest, 'is found the body of the holy patriarch Arsenius, whose
body, still intact, performs many miracles.'164
During the closing years of her life Theodora made the monastery or
convent of S. Andrew in Krisei her home.165 To retire thus from the
troubled sea of secular life to the haven of a monastery, and there prepare
for the voyage beyond earthly scenes, was a common practice in the
fashionable world of the men and women of Byzantine days. And it was
natural for a wealthy traveller to leave at the port of call some splendid
token of devotion and gratitude. The protovestiarissa was still an inmate of
the monastery in 1289, when her friend the Patriarch Gregory, to whom she
was bound by many ties, was compelled to resign.166 He was one of the
most learned men of his time and took an active part in the efforts to
reconcile the Arsenites. It was during his tenure of office that the body of
Arsenius was brought to the capital, and subsequently transferred from S.
Sophia to the church of S. Andrew; he also opposed the union of the
Churches, and in the controversy regarding the 'Procession of the Holy
Ghost' which divided Christendom, he vigorously defended the doctrine of
the Greek Communion against Veccus, who championed the Latin Creed.
Strongly attached to her friends, and quick to resent any injustice to them,
Theodora came forward in the hour of the patriarch's disgrace and offered
him a refuge in the monastery of Aristina, which stood, as we have seen,
near the church of S. Andrew and in the immediate neighbourhood of her

own residence.167 It was a fortunate arrangement, for Gregory soon fell
seriously ill and required all the sympathy and generous kindness which
Theodora was able to extend to him. 168 Upon his death, ten short months
after his retirement, Theodora determined to show again her admiration for
the man and his work by honouring his memory with a funeral befitting the
position he had held in the Church. She was prevented from carrying out
her intention only by the peremptory and reiterated commands of the
emperor, that Gregory should be buried as a private person. 169

PLATE XXVII.

S. Andrew in Krisei. S. Andrew in Krisei.
Capital in the Outer Narthex. Capital in the Outer Narthex.
(From a Photograph by A. E. Henderson., Esq.)
To face page 112.

After the death of Theodora we have only occasional glimpses of the church
and monastery. In 1350 Stephen of Novgorod came 'to kiss' the relics of S.
Andrew of Crete, and describes the convent as 'very beautiful.' 170 Once, at
least, a sister proved too frail for her vocation; 171 sometimes a devout and
wealthy inmate, such as Theognosia, 172 would provide an endowment to
enable poor girls to become her heirs in religion; or the sisterhood was
vexed by the dishonesty of parties who had rented the lands from which the

convent derived its revenues. 173 Towards the end of its Byzantine period
another Russian pilgrim 174 came to honour the remains of S. Andrew the
Strategos, and bring the Christian history of the church to a close. It was
converted into a mosque by Mustapha Pasha, Grand Vizier in the reign of
Selim I. (1512-1520).175 The custom of illuminating the minarets of the
mosques on the eve of the Prophet's birthday was introduced first at this
mosque. 176

Architectural Features

On account of the serious changes made in the building and its
surroundings when it became a mosque, and after the earthquake of 1765,
its real character is not immediately apparent. The present entrance is in the
northern side, where a fine Turkish arcade has been erected. The mihrab is
on the south side, a greater change for the correct orientation of a mosque
than is usually necessary in the adaptation of a church to the requirements
of a sanctuary in which the worshippers turn towards Mecca. To the east a
hall has been added for the accommodation of women who attend the
services; while on the west is another hall, where the dervishes of the Teké
attached to the mosque hold their meetings. The north aisle also has been
much altered and is covered with Turkish domes.
The first impression produced by the interior of the building is that we have
here a church on the trefoil plan, similar to S. Mary of the Mongols (p. 272)
or S. Elias of Salonica, for the central area is flanked by two semi-domes,
which with the eastern apse form a lobed plan at the vaulting level. A closer
examination of the building, however, will prove that we are dealing with a
structure whose original features have been concealed by extensive Turkish
alterations, and that the trefoil form is a superficial disguise.
The arches supporting the central dome on the north and south sides are
filled in with semi-domes which rest on arches thrown diagonally across the
'aisles' on each side of the central dome. These arches are very clumsily set
to the sides of an irregular hexagon, with the central wall arch much larger
than the side arches. They have no responds, and have every appearance of
being makeshifts.

The eastern dome arch is prolonged into a barrel-vaulted bema, flanked by
shallow niches leading to the prothesis and diaconicon, and beyond the
bema is the semicircular apse. Only the diaconicon now remains, covered
by a cross-groined vault, and its apse pierced by a door leading to the hall
of the Teké. The place of the prothesis has been taken by a similar door and
a small Turkish dome.
The western dome arch is filled in with a triple arcade resting on two
marble columns with finely carved cubical capitals. Above the arcade is a
group of three windows whose heads are circular on the inside, but pointed
on the outside. To the west of this arcade is an oblong passage
corresponding to the 'inner narthex' of S. Theodosia. It is in three bays. The
central long bay is barrel-vaulted; the two outer bays open into the north
and south 'aisles'; the bay to the north is covered by a Turkish dome, while
that to the south has a cross-groined vault which seems to be original.
Beyond this to the west is the outer narthex, a fine piece of work, and, from
the character of its details, of the same period as the western dome arcade.
It is in five bays. The three central bays correspond to the 'inner narthex';
the middle bay is covered by a low saucer dome on pendentives, and is
separated from the two side bays by columns set against flat pilasters. The
latter bays are covered by groined vaults springing from the imposts of the
capitals, which are of the Byzantine Ionic type, with high carved imposts.
They resemble the capitals in the gallery of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, and
are worthy of particular notice.

PLATE XXVIII.

S. Andrew in Krisei. S. Andrew in Krisei.
Outer Narthex. Outer Narthex.

To face page 114.

The two outer bays are separated from the central compartment of three
bays by strongly projecting pilasters. They are covered by low saucer
domes similar to the dome over the central bay, and communicate on the
east with the 'aisles.' Both outer and inner narthexes are in one story, above
which rise the windows of the western dome arch and the semi-domes on
north and south.
Turning now to the exterior, the south wall is the only outer wall which is
exposed at the ground level. It is faced with finely dressed and polished
stone, with thin joints, no tiles, and a stone-moulded cornice. The windows
are covered with four centred Turkish arches and are evident insertions.
Above the stone cornice rise the low drums of the semi-domes. These, as
well as the square base of the dome and the dome itself, are faced with
polished stone alternating with courses of three bricks set in thick beds of
mortar. The angles are plain, without shafts, and the drums, dome base, and
dome are crowned with stone cornices moulded to a reversed ogee.
The north and south semi-domes are each pierced by three large windows,
which on the interior cut through the curved surface of the domes, and on
the exterior appear as dormers in the roof above the cornice. Accordingly

they are double glazed, with one glazed frame on the inside corresponding
to the curved dome surface, and a second upright glazed frame on the
outside. The roofs are covered with lead.
The central dome is circular inside, with a high drum pierced by eight
windows. On the outside it is octagonal, with a window on each side. These
have circular arched heads, but have no moulding, shaft, or inset to either
arches or sides. The dome is crowned by a moulded stone cornice of the
same type as that of the other walls.
In attempting to reconstruct the original form of the church we may first
note those features which are evidently Turkish. None of the exterior
masonry is Byzantine, as the use of polished ashlar with fine joints, of
pointed arches, and of moulded stone cornices clearly proves. The absence
of shafts at the angles of the dome drums and the unrecessed windows are
additional proofs of this fact, and we may conclude that the entire exterior
was refaced in Turkish times.
The diagonal arches under the north and south semi-domes are peculiar.
Furthermore, in lobed Byzantine churches the lateral apses project beyond
the square outer walls. Here they are contained within the walls. 177
Nor are the semi-domes themselves Byzantine in character. The large
windows in the dome surface and the lead-covered dormers placed above
the flat moulded cornice betray a Turkish hand; for windows in the dome
are universal in the great Turkish mosques, and the method of protecting
them on the exterior with wooden dormers is quite foreign to Byzantine
ideas. The form of the drums and cornices should be compared with the
minor domes of the mosque of Sultan Bayazid.
A careful examination of the building has led to the following conclusions.
The lateral semi-domes with their supporting arches are a Turkish addition.
The central dome, including the drum, is probably entirely Turkish, and
takes the place of an original ribbed dome. The two easternmost domes in
the north 'aisle' and those over the inner narthex and the prothesis are also
Turkish, and, as already stated, the exterior of the entire building. On the
other hand, the eastern apse, the dome arches, the arcade, and the windows
above it on the west side of the dome, the inner narthex with the ground
vault to the south of it, and the entire outer narthex, are parts of the original

building, dating probably from the sixth or seventh century. It should be
particularly noticed that the windows over the western dome arcade are
circular-headed inside, though they have been provided with pointed heads
on the outside in the process of refacing.

PLATE XXIX.

S. Andrew in Krisei. S. Andrew in Krisei.
In the Cloister on the south side of the The Chain on the Withered Tree in the Court On
Church, looking east. the West of the Church.

To face page 116.

If we stand in the northern lateral apse and face the mihrab the reason for
the alterations is evident. The original Christian orientation is ignored, and
the apses, in place of being lateral, are terminal. To the left is the old apse
left unaltered; to the right, the original filling of the dome arch forms a
'nave-arcade' similar to that of the mosque of Sultan Bayazid; while by
means of the additional apses the building has been converted into a
miniature imperial mosque of the S. Sophia type, a distinctly clever piece of
Turkish alteration.
In its original form the central dome was surrounded by an 'ambulatory' of
one story formed by the aisles and 'inner narthex.' Such a plan is common to
both the domed basilica type and the domed cross type, the difference
depending upon the treatment of the cross arms above. In both types,

however, the side dome arches are invariably filled in with arcades similar
to that filling in the western arch of S. Andrew. We are therefore justified in
restoring such arcades here. The type thus restored differs from the domed
cross church in that the cross arms do not extend to the outer walls, and
from the domed basilica in that the western dome arch is treated in a similar
manner to the lateral arches. To this type the term 'ambulatory church' may
be applied.
Adjoining the west end of the church is the fine cloister of the Teké of
dervishes, probably on the lines of the old monastery. All the columns
around the court are Byzantine, and one of them bears the inscription: the
(column) of, Theophane—ἡ τῆς Θεωφάνης (Fig. 69). In the south wall is
built a beautiful Byzantine doorway having jambs and lintel decorated on
the face with a broad undercut scroll of flat leaves and four-petalled
flowers, running between two rows of egg and dart, while on the intrados
are two bands of floral ornaments separated by a bead moulding. One of the
bands is clearly a vine scroll. The method employed here, of joining leaves
to a centre so as to form spiral rosettes, is found also on some of the small
capitals in S. Sophia. Similar rosettes appear in the decoration of the
doorway to the Holy Sepulchre on the ivory in the Trivulce collection at
Milan. 178

Fig. 36.

PLATE XXX.

S. Andrew in Krisei.
The Decorated Doorway in the Cloister..

To face page 118.

Fig. 37.

Fig. 38, 39.

Fig. 40.

144 Pachym. ii. pp. 35, 123.
145 Itin. russes, p. 122.
146 Synax., October 17.
147 Pachym. ii. p. 133.
148 Typicon of George Kappodokes, quoted by the late lamented Père J.
Pargoire in his masterly article on the 'Suburb and the Churches of S. Mamas,'
published in the Proceedings of the Institut archéologique russe à
Constantinople, vol. ix. fasc. 1, 32, 1904. In that article the writer demonstrates
the erroneousness of the commonly received opinion, maintained, I regret, also
in Byzantine Constantinople, pp. 89-90, that the suburb of S. Mamas was
situated near Eyoub to the west of the Blachernae quarter. Père Pargoire proves
that the suburb stood on the European shore of the Bosporus near Beshiktash.
He also shows that the church of S. Mamas, near the Gate Xylokerkou, stood
within the landward walls, somewhere between the Studion and S. Andrew in
Krisei. Cf. Itinéraires russes, p. 102.
149 The Anonymus (Banduri, iii. p. 54.) places S. Mamas, τὰ Ξυλοκέρκου,
within the city, between the monastery of Gastria and that of S. Saviour in the
Chora. The suburb of S. Mamas he places (ut supra, pp. 57-58) outside the city
between Galata and the Diplokionion (Beshiktash). This is only one proof of
the correctness of Père Pargoire's position. See Pargoire, ut supra.
150 Migne, Patr. Graec. tom. 115, Mensis Octobr. p. 1128.

151 Synax., October 17.
152 Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, viii. p. 882.
153 Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, viii. p. 906.
154 Itin. russes, p. 232.
155 Ibid.
156 Theoph. Cont. p. 323.
157 Pachym. ii. p. 85; Niceph. Greg. i. pp. 167, 178.
158 Niceph. Greg. i. pp. 167, 168.
159 Pachym. i. p. 39.
160 Ibid. pp. 55-63.
161 Ibid. i. p. 108.
162 Niceph. Greg. i. p. 178.
163 Niceph. Greg. i. p. 262.
164 Itin. russes, p. 226; cf. pp. 117, 135, 161, 201.
165 Pachym. ii. p. 132.
166 Ibid. ut supra.
167 Pachym. ii. p. 133; Niceph. Greg. p. 178. According to the latter historian,
Theodora erected a special residence for Gregory near her monastery.
168 Pachym. ut supra.
169 Pachym. ut supra, p. 152.
170 Itin. russes, p. 122.
171 Miklosich et Müller, i. p. 548, year 1371.
172 Ibid. ii. p. 353, year 1400.
173 Ibid. ii. p. 506, year 1401.
174 Itin. russes, p. 232.
175 Paspates, Βυζαντιναὶ Μελέται, p. 319.
176 Ibid. p. 320.
177 E.g. S. Elias, Salonica; Churches on Mt. Athos; S. Mary of the Mongols,
Constantinople. See plan, p. 279.
178 See figure 26 in Diehl's Manuel d'art byzantin, p. 74. That author (pp.
313-14) assigns the church of S. Andrew to the seventh century, but recognizes
in it also features of the sixth century.

CHAPTER VI

THE CHURCH OF S. MARY (PANACHRANTOS) OF LIPS, PHENERÉ
ISA MESJEDI

The old Byzantine church, now Pheneré Isa Mesjedi, in the valley of the
Lycus, to the south of the mosque of Sultan Mehemed, should be identified
as the church of the Theotokos of Lips, although the Patriarch Constantius,
179
Scarlatus Byzantius and Paspates 180 identify that church with
Demirjilar Mesjedi, a building which lay to the east of the mosque of Sultan
Mehemed, but fell in the earthquake of 1904. According to the writers just
cited, Pheneré Isa Mesjedi is the church of the Theotokos Panachrantos
which appears in connection with certain incidents in the history of the
Patriarch Veccus. In this view there is a curious mingling of truth and error.
For, as a matter of fact, Constantinople did possess a church dedicated to
the Panachrantos which had no connection with the monastery of Lips. But
that church was not the building in the valley of the Lycus; it stood in the
immediate vicinity of S. Sophia. Furthermore, while it is certain that there
was in the city a church of the Panachrantos which had nothing whatever to
do with the monastery of Lips, it is equally true that the sanctuary attached
to that monastery was also dedicated to the Theotokos under the same style.
In other words, Pheneré Isa Mesjedi was the sanctuary attached to the
monastery of Lips and was dedicated to the Theotokos Panachrantos, but
was not the church of that name with which it has been identified by the
authorities above mentioned. 181

PLATE XXXI.

S. Mary Panachrantos. S. Mary Panachrantos.
Vault of the Ambulatory Passage on the west The Interior of the North Church, looking
of the Dome in the South Church, looking north.
north.

To face page 122.

The correctness of these positions can be readily established. First, that a
monastery of the Panachrantos and the monastery of Lips were different
Houses is evident from the express statements of the pilgrim Zosimus to
that effect. For, according to that visitor to the shrines of the city, a
monastery, 'de Panakhran,' 182 stood near S. Sophia, 'non loin de Sainte
Sophie.' Stephen of Novgorod refers to the monastery of the 'Panacrante' 183
also in the same connection. And the proximity of the House to the great
cathedral may be inferred likewise from the statements of the pilgrim
Alexander 184 and of the anonymous pilgrim. 185 On the other hand,
Zosimus speaks of the monastery of Lips, 'couvent de femmes Lipesi,' 186
as situated in another part of the city. It was closely connected with the
monastery of Kyra Martha, 187 from which to S. Sophia was a far cry. The
distinction of the two monasteries is, moreover, confirmed by the historians
Pachymeres 188 and Nicephorus Gregoras, 189 who employ the terms
Panachrantos and Lips to designate two distinct monastic establishments
situated in different quarters of the capital.

Fig. 41.

In the next place, the monastery of Lips did not stand at the point marked
by Demirjilar Mesjedi. The argument urged in favour of its position at that
point is the fact that the monastery is described as near the church of the
Holy Apostles (πλησίον τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων). But while proximity to the
Holy Apostles must mark any edifice claiming to be the monastery of Lips,
that proximity alone is not sufficient to identify the building. Pheneré 190 Isa
Mesjedi satisfies that condition equally well. But what turns the balance of
evidence in its favour is that it satisfies also every other condition that held
true of the monastery of Lips. That House was closely associated with the
monastery of Kyra Martha, as Phrantzes 191 expressly declares, and as may
be inferred from the narratives of the Russian pilgrims. 192 That being so,
the position of Kyra Martha will determine likewise that of the monastery
of Lips. Now, Kyra Martha lay to the south of the Holy Apostles. For it was
reached, says the anonymous pilgrim of the fifteenth century 193 'en
descendent (du couvent) des Apôtres dans la direction du midi'; while
Stephen of Novgorod 194 reached the Holy Apostles in proceeding
northwards from the Kyra Martha. Hence the monastery of Lips lay to the
south of the Holy Apostles, as Pheneré Isa Mesjedi stands to the south of
the mosque of Sultan Mehemed, which has replaced that famous church.

With this conclusion agrees, moreover, the description given of the district
in which the monastery of Lips stood. It was a remote and quiet part of the
city, like the district in which Pheneré Isa Mesjedi is situated to-day; πρὸς
τὰ τοῦ Λίβα μέρη, τόπον ἀποκισμένον καὶ ἥσυχον. 195 Furthermore, the
monastery of Lips borrowed its name from its founder or restorer,
Constantine Lips; 196 and in harmony with that fact we find on the apse of
one of the two churches which combine to form Pheneré Isa Mesjedi an
inscription in honour of a certain Constantine. 197 Unfortunately the
inscription is mutilated, and there were many Constantines besides the one
surnamed Lips. Still, the presence of the principal name of the builder of the
monastery of Lips on a church, which we have also other reasons to believe
belonged to that monastery, adds greatly to the cumulative force of the
argument in favour of the view that Constantine Lips is the person intended.
But, if necessary, the argument can be still further strengthened. The church
attached to the monastery of Lips was dedicated to the Theotokos, as may
be inferred from the circumstance that the annual state visit of the emperor
to that shrine took place on the festival of the Nativity of the Virgin. 198 So
likewise was the sanctuary which Pheneré Isa Mesjedi represents, for the
inscription it bears invokes her blessing upon the building and its builder
(Fig. 42). Would that the identity of all the churches in Constantinople
could be as strongly established.
It remains to add in this connection that while the monastery of Lips and
that of the Panachrantos associated with Veccus were different Houses, the
churches of both monasteries were dedicated to the Theotokos under the
same attribute—Panachrantos, the Immaculate. The invocation inscribed on
Pheneré Isa Mesjedi addresses the Theotokos by that epithet. But to identify
different churches because of the same dedication is only another instance
of the liability to allow similarity of names to conceal the difference
between things.
The distinction thus established between the two monasteries is important
not only in the interests of accuracy; it also throws light on the following
historical incidents. In 1245 permission was granted for the transference of
the relics of S. Philip the Apostle from the church of the Panachrantos to
Western Europe. The document authorising that act was signed by the dean
of the church and by the treasurer of S. Sophia. 199 The intervention of the

latter official becomes more intelligible when we know that the monastery
of the Panachrantos stood near S. Sophia, and not, as Paspates maintains, at
Pheneré Isa Mesjedi. Again, the Patriarch Veccus took refuge on two
occasions in the monastery of the Panachrantos, once in 1279 and again in
1282. He could do so readily and without observation, as the case
demanded, when the shelter he sought stood in the immediate vicinity of his
cathedral and official residence. To escape to a monastery situated in the
valley of the Lycus was, under the circumstances, impracticable.

PLATE XXXII.

S. Mary Panachrantos. S. Mary Panachrantos.
The North Church, looking east. The North Church, looking west.
To face page 126.

Constantine Lips was an important personage during the reign of Leo the
Wise (886-912) and of Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus (912-956). Under
the former emperor he held the offices of protospatharius and domestic of
the household. He also went on several missions to the Prince of Taron, in
the course of which romance mingled with politics, with the result that the
daughter of Lips became engaged to the son of the prince. 200 Upon the
accession of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Lips came under a cloud, on
suspicion of being implicated in the plot to raise Constantine Ducas to the

throne, and was obliged to flee the capital. 201 Eventually he was restored to
favour, and enjoyed the dignities of patrician, proconsul, commander of the
foreign guard, and drungarius of the fleet. 202 He fell in battle in the war of
917 between the Empire and the Bulgarians under Symeon. 203
The monastery of Lips was restored in the reign of Leo the Wise; the
festival of the dedication of the church being celebrated in the year 908, in
the month of June. 204 The emperor honoured the occasion with his
presence, and attended a banquet in the refectory of the monastery. But the
happy proceedings had not gone far, when they were suddenly interrupted
by a furious south-west wind which burst upon the city and shook houses
and churches with such violence that people feared to remain under cover
and imagined that the end of the world had come, until the storm was
allayed by a heavy downpour of rain. As the south-west wind was named
Lips, it is not clear whether the historians who mention this incident intend
to explain thereby the origin of Constantine's surname, or simply point to a
curious coincidence.
Near the church Lips erected also a xenodocheion for the reception of
strangers. 205 The monastery is mentioned by the Anonymus of the eleventh
century, 206 but does not appear again until the recovery of the Empire from
the Latins in 1261. In the efforts then made to restore all things, it
underwent repairs at the instance of the Empress Theodora, 207 the consort
of Michael Palaeologus, and from that time acquired greater importance
than it had previously enjoyed. Within its precincts, on the 16th of February
1304, a cold winter day, Theodora herself was laid to rest with great pomp,
and amid the tears of the poor to whom she had been a good friend. 208
There, two years later, a splendid service was celebrated for the benefit of
the soul of her son Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 209 as some compensation
for the cruel treatment he had suffered at the hands of his jealous brother
Andronicus. There, that emperor himself became a monk two years before
his death, 210 and there he was buried on the 13th of February 1332. The
monastery contained also the tomb of the Empress Irene, 211 first wife of
Andronicus III., and the tomb of the Russian Princess Anna 212 who married
John VII. Palaeologus while crown prince, but died before she could ascend
the throne, a victim of the great plague which raged in Constantinople in

1417. The monastery appears once more as the scene of a great religious
revival, when a certain nun Thomais, who enjoyed a great reputation for
sanctity, took up her residence in the neighbourhood. So large were the
crowds of women who flocked to place themselves under her rule that 'the
monastery of Lips and Martha' was filled to overflowing. 213
The church was converted into a mosque by Pheneré Isa, who died in 1496,
and has undergone serious alterations since that time. 214

PLATE XXXIII.

S. Mary Panachrantos. S. Mary Panachrantos.
The Diaconicon, looking east. The Arch Under west side of the Central
Dome in the South Church.
To face page 128.

Architectural Features

The building comprises two churches, which, while differing in date and
type, stand side by side, and communicate with each other through an
archway in their common wall, and through a passage in the common wall
of their narthexes. As if to keep the two churches more closely together,
they are bound by an exonarthex, which, after running along their western

front, returns eastwards along the southern wall of the south church as a
closed cloister or gallery.
The North Church.—The north church is of the normal 'four column' type.
The four columns which originally supported the dome were, however,
removed when the building was converted into a mosque in Turkish times,
and have been replaced by two large pointed arches which span the entire
length of the church. But the old wall arches of the dome-columns are still
visible as arched piercings in the spandrils of the Turkish arches. A similar
Turkish 'improvement' in the substitution of an arch for the original pair of
columns is found in the north side of the parecclesion attached to the
Pammakaristos (p. 152). The dome with its eight windows is likewise
Turkish. The windows are lintelled and the cornice is of the typical Turkish
form. The bema is almost square and is covered by a barrel vault formed by
a prolongation of the eastern dome arch; the apse is lighted by a lofty triple
window. By what is an exceptional arrangement, the lateral chapels are as
lofty both on the interior and on the exterior as is the central apse, but they
are entered by low doors. In the normal arrangement, as, for instance, in the
Myrelaion, the lateral chapels are low and are entered by vaults rising to the
same height as those of the angle chambers, between which the central apse
rises higher both externally and internally.
The chapels have niches arched above the cornice on three sides, and are
covered by cross-groined vaults which combine with the semicircular heads
of the niches to produce a very beautiful effect. To the east they have long
bema arches flanked by two small semicircular niches, and are lighted by
small single windows.
The church is preceded by a narthex in three bays covered by cross-groined
vaults supported on strong transverse arches. At either end it terminates in a
large semicircular niche. The northern one is intact, but of the southern
niche only the arched head remains. The lower part of the niche has been
cut away to afford access to the narthex of the south church. This would
suggest that, at least, the narthex of the south church is of later date than the
north church.
Considered as a whole the north church is a good example of its type, lofty
and delicate in its proportions.

The South Church.—The narthex is unsymmetrical to the church and in its
present form must be the result of extensive alteration. It is in two very
dissimilar bays. That to the north is covered with a cross-groined vault of
lath and plaster, probably on the model of an original vault constructed of
brick. A door in the eastern wall leads to the north aisle of the church. The
southern bay is separated from its companion by a broad arch. It is an
oblong chamber reduced to a figure approaching a square by throwing
broad arches across its ends and setting back the wall arches from the
cornice. This arrangement allows the bay to be covered by a low drumless
dome. Two openings, separated by a pier, lead respectively to the nave and
the southern aisle of the church.
The interior of the church has undergone serious alterations since it has
become a mosque, but enough of the original building has survived to show
that the plan was that of an 'ambulatory church.'
Each side of the ambulatory is divided into three bays, covered with cross-
groined vaults whose springings to the central area correspond exactly to
the columns of such an arcade as that which occupies the west dome bay of
S. Andrew (p. 114). We may therefore safely assume that triple arcades
originally separated the ambulatory from the central area and filled in the
lower part of the dome arches. The tympana of these arches above were
pierced to north, south, and west by three windows now built up but whose
outlines are still visible beneath the whitewash which has been daubed over
them. The angles of the ambulatory are covered by cross vaults.
The pointed arches at present opening from the ambulatory to the central
area were formed to make the church more suitable for Moslem worship, as
were those of the north church. In fact we have here a repetition of the
treatment of the Pammakaristos (p. 151), when converted into a mosque.
The use of cross-groined vaults in the ambulatory is a feature which
distinguishes this church from the other ambulatory churches of
Constantinople and connects it more closely with the domed-cross church.
The vaults in the northern portion of the ambulatory have been partially
defaced in the course of Turkish repairs.

PLATE XXXIV.

S. Mary Panachrantos.
East Window of the South Church.

S. Mary Panachrantos.
The Outer Narthex, looking south.
To face page 130.

The central apse is lighted by a large triple window. It is covered by a cross-
groined vault and has on each side a tall shallow segmental niche whose
head rises above the springing cornice. Below this the niches have been
much hacked away. The passages leading to the lateral chapels are
remarkably low, not more than 1.90 m. high to the crown of the arch.
The southern chapel is similar to the central apse, and is lighted by a large
triple window. The northern chapel is very different. It is much broader;
broader indeed than the ambulatory which leads to it, and is covered by
barrel vaults. The niches in the bema only rise to a short distance above the
floor, not, as on the opposite side, to above the cornice. It is lighted by a
large triple window similar to those of the other two apses.

Fig. 42.
From love for the mother of God ... beautiful temple ... Constantine; which splendid work ... of the
shining heaven an inhabitant and citizen him show O Immaculate One; friendliness recompensing ...
the temple ... the gift.

The outer narthex on the west of the two churches and the gallery on the
south of the south church are covered with cross-groined vaults without
transverse arches. The wall of the south church, which shows in the south
gallery, formed the original external wall of the building. It is divided into
bays with arches in two and three orders of brick reveals, and with shallow
niches on the broader piers.
The exterior of the two churches is very plain. On the west are shallow wall
arcades in one order, on the south similar arcades in two orders. The
northern side is inaccessible owing to the Turkish houses built against it.
On the east all the apses project boldly. The central apse of the south church
has seven sides and shows the remains of a decoration of niches in two
stories similar to that of the Pantokrator (p. 235); the other apses present
three sides. The carved work on the window shafts is throughout good. An
inscription commemorating the erection of the northern church is cut on a
marble string-course which, when complete, ran across the whole eastern
end, following the projecting sides of the apses. The letters are sunk and
marked with drill holes.
Wulff is of opinion that the letters were originally filled in with lead, and,
from the evidence of this lead infilling, dates the church as late as the
fifteenth century. But it is equally possible that the letters were marked out
by drill holes which were then connected with the chisel, and that the
carver, pleased by the effect given by the sharp points of shadow in the drill
holes, deliberately left them. The grooves do not seem suitable for retaining
lead.
In the course of their history both churches were altered, even in Byzantine
days. The south church is the earlier structure, but shows signs of several
rebuildings. The irregular narthex and unsymmetrical eastern side chapels
are evidently not parts of an original design. In the wall between the two
churches there are indications which appear to show the character of these
alterations and the order in which the different buildings were erected.

PLATE XXXV.

S. Mary Panachrantos. S. Mary Panachrantos.
East End of the South Church. East End of the North Church.
To face page 132.

As has already been pointed out, the north side of the ambulatory in the
south church, which for two-thirds of its length is of practically the same
width as the southern and western sides, suddenly widens out at the eastern
end and opens into a side chapel broader than that on the opposite side. The
two large piers separating the ambulatory from the central part of the north
church are evidently formed by building the wall of one church against the
pre-existing wall of the other. The easternmost pier is smaller and, as can be
seen from the plan, is a continuation of the wall of the north church. Clearly
the north church was already built when the north-eastern chapel of the
south church was erected, and the existing wall was utilised. As the external
architectural style of the three apses of the south church is identical, it is
reasonable to conclude that this part of the south church also is later in date
than the north church. For if the entire south church had been built at the
same time as the apses, we should expect to find the lateral chapels similar.
But they are not. The vaulting of the central apse and of the southern lateral
chapel are similar, while that of the northern chapel is different. On the
same supposition we should also expect to find a similar use of the wall of
the north church throughout, but we have seen that two piers representing
the old wall of the south church still remain. The narthex of the south
church, however, is carried up to the line of the north church wall.

The four column type is not found previous to the tenth century. The date of
the north church was originally given on the inscription, but is now
obliterated. Kondakoff dates it in the eleventh or twelfth century. Wulff
would put it as late as the fifteenth. But if the view that this church was
attached to the monastery of Lips is correct, the building must belong to the
tenth century.
The ambulatory type appears to be early, and the examples in
Constantinople seem to date from the sixth to the ninth century. It may
therefore be concluded that, unless there is proof to the contrary, the south
church is the earlier. In that case the southernmost parts of the two large
piers which separate the two churches represent the old outer wall of the
original south church, whose eastern chapels were then symmetrical. To this
the north church was added, but at some subsequent date the apses of the
south church demanded repair and when they were rebuilt, the north-eastern
chapel was enlarged by the cutting away of the old outer wall. To this
period also belongs the present inner narthex. The fact that the head of the
terminal niche at the south end of the north narthex remains above the
communicating door shows that the south narthex is later. The outer narthex
and south gallery are a still later addition.

Fig. 43.

Fig. 44.

Fig. 45, 46.

179 Ancient and Modern C.P. pp. 70, 79.
180 Pp. 322, 325.

181 To Mühlmann and Mordtmann, Esq. top. paragraph 127, belongs the credit
of the identification of Pheneré Isa Mesjedi with the monastery of Lips. But I
have not seen any full statement of their reasons for that opinion.
182 Itin. russes, p. 202.
183 Ibid. p. 119.
184 Ibid. p. 162.
185 Ibid. p. 230.
186 Ibid. p. 205.
187 Phrantzes, pp. 141; Itin. russes, pp. 205, 122, 234.
188 i. p. 455; ii. p. 19.
189 i. p. 160.
190 Theoph. Cont. p. 371.
191 Page 141.
192 Itin. russes, pp. 205, 234.
193 Ibid. p. 234.
194 Ibid. p. 122.
195 Du Cange, iv. p. 93, quoting the Life of Nicholas of the Studion. The
district was named Μερδοσαγάρη, Leo Gramm. p. 280.
196 Theoph. Cont. p. 371.
197 See inscription, p. 131.
198 Codinus, De officiis, p. 80.
199 Du Cange, iv. p. 93.
200 Const. Porphyr. De adm. imp. c. 43.
201 Theoph. Cont. p. 384.
202 Const. Porphyr. ut supra.
203 Theoph. Cont. p. 389.
204 Ibid. p. 371.
205 Banduri, iii. p. 52.
206 Ut supra.
207 Niceph. Greg. i. p. 162.
208 Pachym. i. p. 378.
209 Ibid. p. 425.

210 Niceph. Greg. i. p. 461.
211 Cantacuz. i. p. 193.
212 Phrantzes, p. 110.
213 Ibid. p. 141.
214 Paspates, p. 325.

CHAPTER VII

THE CHURCH OF THE THEOTOKOS PAMMAKARISTOS, FETIYEH
JAMISSI

The Byzantine church, now Fetiyeh Jamissi, overlooking the Golden Horn
from the heights of the Fifth Hill, was the church of the Theotokos
Pammakaristos (the All Blessed), attached to the monastery known by that
name.
Regarding the identity of the church there can be no manner of doubt, as the
building remained in the hands of the Greek community for 138 years after
the conquest, and was during that period the patriarchal cathedral.
The questions when and by whom the church was founded cannot be so
readily determined. According to a manuscript in the library of the Greek
theological college on the island of Halki (one of the small group of islands
known as the Princes' Islands in the Sea of Marmora), an inscription in the
bema of the church ascribed the foundation of the building to John
Comnenus and his wife Anna. 215 The manuscript perished in the
earthquake which reduced the college to a heap of ruins in 1894, but the
inscription had fortunately been copied in the catalogue of the library before
that disaster occurred. It read as follows:
Ἰωάννου φρόντισμα Κομνηνοῦ τόδε
Ἄννης τε ῥίζης Δουκικῆς τῆς συζύγου.
οἷς ἀντιδοῦσα πλουσίαν, ἁγνή, χάριν
τάξαις ἐν οἴκῳ τοῦ θεοῦ μονοτρόπους. 216

PLATE XXXVI.

S. Mary Pammakaristos, from the south-east.

S. Mary Pammakaristos, from the west.
To face page 138.

The legend cannot refer to the Emperor John Comnenus (1118-1143), for
his consort was neither named Anna nor related to the family of Ducas. She
was a Hungarian princess, who, on becoming the emperor's bride, assumed
the name Irene. Mr. Siderides, therefore, suggests that the persons
mentioned in the inscription were that emperor's grandparents, the
curopalates and grand domestic John Comnenus and his wife, the celebrated
Anna Dalassena, who bore likewise the title of Ducaena. In that case, as the
curopalates and grand domestic died in 1067, the foundation of the church
cannot be much later than the middle of the eleventh century. But whether
the term φρόντισμα should be understood to mean that the church was
founded by the illustrious persons above mentioned, or was an object
already in existence upon which they bestowed their thought and care, is
not quite certain. Mr. Siderides is prepared to adopt the latter meaning, and
the architecture of the church allows us to assign the foundation of the
building to an earlier date than the age of the grandparents of the Emperor
John Comnenus. But while the connection of the church with those
personages must not be overlooked, the building underwent such extensive

repairs in the thirteenth century that the honour of being its founder was
transferred to its restorer at that period. Pachymeres 217 speaks of the
monastery as the monastery of Michael Glabas Tarchaniotes (τὴν ἰδίαν
μονήν]). While the poet Philes (1275-1346), referring to a figure portrayed
on the walls of the church, asks the spectator,
Seest thou, O stranger, this great man? He is none other than the protostrator, the builder of this
monastery, the wonder of the world, the noble Glabas.

ὁρᾷς τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν πολὺν τοῦτον, ξένε;
ἐκεῖνος οὖτός ἐστιν ὁ πρωτοστράτωρ,
ὁ δημιουργὸς τῆς μονῆς τῆς ἐνθάδε,
τὸ θαῦμα τῆς γῆς, ὁ Γλαβᾶς ὁ γεννάδας]. 218

In accordance with these statements, Gerlach 219 saw depicted on the walls
of the church two figures in archducal attire, representing the founder of the
church and his wife, with this legend beside them:
Michael Ducas Glabas Tarchaniotes, protostrator and founder; Maria Ducaena Comnena
Palaeologina Blachena,219 protostratorissa and foundress.
Μιχαὴλ Δούκας Γλαβᾶς Ταρχανιώτης, ὁ πρωτοστράτωρ καὶ κτήτωρ; Μαρία Δούκαινα Κομνηνὴ
Παλαιολογίνα Βλάκαινα, 220 ἡ πρωτοστρατόρισσα καὶ κτητώρισσα.

Michael Glabas was created protostrator in 1292, and acquired the right to
appoint the abbot of the monastery before 1295. Consequently the
completion of the repair of the church at his instance must be assigned to
the interval between these dates.
The protostrator Michael Glabas Ducas Tarchaniotes, who must not be
confounded with his namesake the protovestiarius Michael Palaeologus
Tarchaniotes, 221 enjoyed the reputation of an able general and wise
counsellor in the reign of Andronicus II., although, being a victim to gout,
he was often unable to serve his country in the former capacity. He was
noted also for his piety and his interest in the poor, as may be inferred from
his restoration of the Pammakaristos and the erection of a xenodocheion. 222
His wife was a niece of the Emperor Michael Palaeologus, and related, as
her titles imply, to other great families in the country. A pious woman, and
devoted to her husband, she proved the sincerity of her affection by erecting
to his memory, as will appear in the sequel, the beautiful chapel at the

south-east end of the church. Before her death she retired from the world
and assumed the name Martha in religion. 223
In addition to the figures of the restorers of the church, portraits in mosaic
of the Emperor Andronicus and his Empress Anna, as the legends beside the
portraits declared, stood on the right of the main entrance to the
patriarchate. 224
☩ Ἀνδρόνικος ἐν Χῷ τῷ θῷ πιστὸς βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ Ῥωμεῶν ὁ παλαιόλογος.

☩ Ἄννα ἐν Χῷ τῳ θῷ πιστὴ αὐγούστα ἡ παλαιολογίνα.

As both Andronicus II. and his grandson Andronicus III. were married to
ladies named Anna, it is not clear which of these imperial couples was here
portrayed. The fact that the consort of the former emperor died before the
restoration of the church by the protostrator Michael is certainly in favour
of the view supported by Mr. Siderides that the portraits represented the
latter emperor and empress. 225 Why these personages were thus honoured
is not explained.
Having restored the monastery, Michael Glabas entrusted the direction of its
affairs to a certain monk named Cosmas, whom he had met and learned to
admire during an official tour in the provinces. In due time Cosmas was
introduced to Andronicus II., and won the imperial esteem to such an extent
as to be appointed patriarch. 226 The new prelate was advanced in years,
modest, conciliatory, but, withal, could take a firm stand for what he
considered right. On the other hand, the piety of Andronicus was not of the
kind that adheres tenaciously to a principle or ignores worldly
considerations. Hence occasions for serious differences between the two
men on public questions were inevitable, and in the course of their disputes
the monastery of the Pammakaristos, owing to its association with Cosmas,
became the scene of conflicts between Church and State.

PLATE XXXVII.

S. Mary Pammakaristos
Inner Narthex, looking south.

S. Mary Pammakaristos.
The Dome, looking west.
To face page 142.

No act of Andronicus shocked the public sentiment or his day more
painfully than the political alliance he cemented by giving his daughter
Simonis, a mere child of six years, as a bride to the Kraal of Servia, who
was forty years her senior, and had been already married three times, not
always, it was alleged, in the most regular manner. 227 Cosmas did
everything in his power to prevent the unnatural union, and when his last
desperate effort to have an audience of the emperor on the subject was
repelled, he left the patriarchal residence and retired to his old home at the
Pammakaristos. There, during the absence of the emperor in Thessalonica,
where the objectionable marriage was celebrated, Cosmas remained for two
years, attending only to the most urgent business of the diocese. 228 Upon
the return of Andronicus to the capital, Cosmas was conspicuous by his

refusal to take part in the loyal demonstrations which welcomed the
emperor back. Andronicus might well have seized the opportunity to
remove the patriarch from office for discourtesy so marked and offensive,
but, instead of doing so, he sent a friendly message to the Pammakaristos,
asking Cosmas to forget all differences and resume his public duties.
Achilles in his tent was not to be conciliated so easily. To the imperial
request Cosmas replied by inviting Andronicus to come to the
Pammakaristos, and submit the points at issue between the emperor and
himself to a tribunal of bishops and other ecclesiastics specially convened
for the purpose. He furthermore declared that he would return to the
patriarchal residence only if the verdict of the court was in his favour,
otherwise he would resign office. The public feeling against Andronicus
was so strong that he deemed it expedient to comply with this strange
demand, going to the monastery late at night to escape notice. The tribunal
having been called to order, Cosmas produced his charges against the
emperor: the Servian marriage; oppressive taxes upon salt and other
necessaries of life, whereby a heavy burden was laid upon the poor, on one
hand, and imperial prodigality was encouraged on the other; failure to treat
the petitions addressed to him by Cosmas with the consideration which they
deserved. The defence of Andronicus was skilful. He maintained that no
marriage of the Kraal had violated Canon Law as some persons claimed. He
touched the feelings of his audience by dwelling upon the sacrifice he had
made as a father in bestowing the hand of a beloved daughter on such a man
as the Servian Prince; only reasons of State had constrained him to sanction
a union so painful to his heart. The taxes to which objection had been taken
were not imposed, he pleaded, to gratify any personal love of money, but
were demanded by the needs of the Empire. As to love of money, he had
reasons to believe that it was a weakness of which his accuser was guilty,
and to prove that statement, he there and then sent two members of the
court to the treasurer of the palace for evidence in support of the charge. In
regard to the accusation that he did not always favour the petitions
addressed to him by the patriarch, he remarked that it was not an emperor's
duty to grant all the petitions he received, but to discriminate between them
according to their merits. At the same time he expressed his readiness to be
more indulgent in the future. Moved by these explanations, as well as by the
entreaties of the emperor and the bishops present at this strange scene, held

in the dead of night in the secrecy of the monastery, Cosmas relented, and
returned next day to the patriarchate. 229
But peace between the two parties was not of long duration. Only a few
weeks later Andronicus restored to office a bishop of Ephesus who had been
canonically deposed. Cosmas protested, and when his remonstrances were
disregarded, he withdrew again to the Pammakaristos, 230 and refused to
allow his seclusion to be disturbed on any pretext. To the surprise of
everybody, however, he suddenly resumed his functions—in obedience, he
claimed, to a Voice which said to him, 'If thou lovest Me, feed My sheep.'
231
But such conduct weakened his position. His enemies brought a foul
charge against him. His demand for a thorough investigation of the libel
was refused. And in his vexation he once more sought the shelter of the
Pammakaristos, abdicated the patriarchal throne, and threw the
ecclesiastical world into a turmoil. 232 Even then there were still some,
including the emperor, who thought order and peace would be more
speedily restored by recalling Cosmas to the office he had laid down. But
the opposition to him had become too powerful, and he was compelled to
bid farewell to the retreat he loved, and to end his days in his native city of
Sozopolis, a man worsted in battle. 233

PLATE XXXVIII.

S. Mary Pammakaristos
The Parecclesion from the south-east.
To face page 144.

Of the life at the Pammakaristos during the remainder of the period before
the Turkish conquest only a few incidents are recorded. One abbot of the
monastery, Niphon, was promoted in 1397 to the bishopric of Old Patras,
and another named Theophanes was made bishop of the important See of
Heraclea. An instance of the fickleness of fortune was brought home to the
monks of the establishment by the disgrace of the logothetes Gabalas and

his confinement in one of their cells, under the following circumstances:—
In the struggle between John Cantacuzene and Apocaucus for ascendancy at
the court of the Dowager Empress Anna of Savoy and her son, John VI.
Palaeologus, Gabalas 234 had been persuaded to join the party of the latter
politician by the offer, among other inducements, of the hand of Apocaucus'
daughter in marriage. But when Gabalas urged the fulfilment of the
promise, he was informed that the young lady and her mother had meantime
taken a violent aversion to him on account of his corpulent figure.
Thereupon Gabalas, like a true lover, had recourse to a method of banting
recommended by an Italian quack. But the treatment failed to reduce the
flesh of the unfortunate suitor; it only ruined his health, and made him even
less attractive than before. Another promise by which his political support
had been gained was the hope that he would share the power which
Apocaucus should win. But this Apocaucus was unwilling to permit,
alleging as an excuse that his inconvenient partisan had become obnoxious
to the empress. The disappointment and anxiety caused by this information
wore so upon the mind of the logothetes as to alter his whole appearance.
He now became thin indeed, as if suffering from consumption, and in his
dread of the storm gathering about him he removed his valuable possessions
to safe hiding. Whereupon the wily Apocaucus drew the attention of the
empress to this strange behaviour, and aroused her suspicions that Gabalas
was engaged in some dark intrigue against her. No wonder that the
logothetes observed in consequence a marked change in the empress's
manner towards him, and in his despair he took sanctuary in S. Sophia, and
assumed the garb of a monk. The perfidy of Apocaucus might have stopped
at this point, and allowed events to follow their natural course. But though
willing to act a villain's part, he wished to act it under the mask of a friend,
to betray with a kiss. Accordingly he went to S. Sophia to express his
sympathy with Gabalas, and played the part of a man overwhelmed with
sorrow at a friend's misfortune so well that Gabalas forgot for a while his
own griefs, and undertook the task of consoling the hypocritical mourner.
Soon an imperial messenger appeared upon the scene with the order for
Gabalas to leave the church and proceed to the monastery of the
Pammakaristos. And there he remained until, on the charge of attempting to
escape, he was confined in a stronger prison.

Another person detained at the Pammakaristos was a Turkish rebel named
Zinet, who in company with a pretender to the throne of Mehemed I., had
fled in 1418 to Constantinople for protection. He was welcomed by the
Byzantine Government, which was always glad to receive refugees whom it
could use either to gratify or to embarrass the Ottoman Court, as the
varying relations between the two empires might dictate. It was a policy
that proved fatal at last, but meanwhile it often afforded some advantage to
Byzantine diplomats. On this occasion it was thought advisable to please
the Sultan, and while the pretender was confined elsewhere, Zinet, with a
suite of ten persons, was detained in the Pammakaristos. Upon the
accession of Murad II., however, the Government of Constantinople
thought proper to take the opposite course. Accordingly the pretender was
liberated, and Zinet sent to support the Turkish party which disputed
Murad's claims. But life at the Pammakaristos had not won the refugee's
heart to the cause of the Byzantines. The fanatical monks with whom he
was associated there had insulted his faith; his Greek companions in arms
did not afford him all the satisfaction he desired, and so Zinet returned at
last to his natural allegiance. The conduct of the Byzantine Government on
this occasion led to the first siege of Constantinople, in 1422, by the Turks.
The most important event in the history of the monastery occurred after the
city had fallen into Turkish hands. The church then became the cathedral of
the patriarchs of Constantinople. It is true that, in the first instance, the
conqueror had given the church of the Holy Apostles to the Patriarch
Gennadius as a substitute for the church of S. Sophia. But the native
population did not affect the central quarters of the city, preferring to reside
near the Golden Horn and the Sea of Marmora. Furthermore, the body of a
murdered Turk was discovered one morning in the court of the Holy
Apostles, and excited among his countrymen the suspicion that the murder
had been committed by a Christian hand. 235 The few Greeks settled in the
neighbourhood were therefore in danger of retaliation, and Gennadius
begged permission to withdraw to the Pammakaristos, around which a large
colony of Greeks, who came from other cities to repeople the capital, had
settled. 236 The objection that nuns occupied the monastery at that moment
was easily overcome by removing the sisterhood to the small monastery
attached to the church of S. John in Trullo (Achmed Pasha Mesjedi) in the
immediate vicinity, 237 and for 138 years thereafter the throne of seventeen

patriarchs of Constantinople stood in the church of the Pammakaristos, with
the adjoining monastery as their official residence. 238
As the chief sanctuary of the Greek community, the building was
maintained, it would appear, in good order and displayed considerable
beauty. 'Even at night,' to quote extravagant praise, 'when no lamp was
burning, it shone like the sun.' But even sober European visitors in the
sixteenth century agree in describing the interior of the church as
resplendent with eikons and imperial portraits. It was also rich in relics,
some of them brought by Gennadius from the church of the Holy Apostles
and from other sanctuaries lost to the Greeks. Among the interesting objects
shown to visitors was a small rude sarcophagus inscribed with the imperial
eagle and the name of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus. 239 It was so plain
and rough that Schweigger speaks of it as too mean to contain the dust of a
German peasant. 240 But that any sarcophagus professing to hold the
remains of Alexius Comnenus should be found at the Pammakaristos is
certainly surprising. That emperor was buried, according to the historian
Nicetas Choniates, in the church of S. Saviour the Philanthropist, 241 near
the palace of Mangana, on the east shore of the city. Nor could the body of
a Byzantine autocrator have been laid originally in a sarcophagus such as
Breüning and Schweigger describe. These difficulties in the way of
regarding the monument as genuine are met by the suggestion made by Mr.
Siderides, that when the church of Christ the Philanthropist was
appropriated by the Turks in connection with the building of the Seraglio,
some patriotic hand removed the remains of Alexius Comnenus from the
splendid coffin in which they were first entombed, and, placing them in
what proved a convenient receptacle, carried them for safe keeping to the
Pammakaristos. The statement that Anna Comnena, the celebrated daughter
of Alexius Comnenus, was also buried in this church rests upon the
misunderstanding of a passage in the work of M. Crusius, where, speaking
of that princess, the author says: 'Quae (Anna) anno Domini 1117 vixit; filia
Alexii Comneni Imp. cujus sepulchrum adhuc exstat in templo patriarchatus
Constantinopli a D. Steph. Gerlachio visum.'242
But cujus (whose) refers, not to Anna, but to Alexius. This rendering is put
beyond dispute by the statement made by Gerlach in a letter to Crusius, that

he found, in the Pammakaristos, 'sepulchrum Alexii Comneni
αὐτοκράτορος,' the tomb of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus. 243
The church was converted into a mosque under Murad III. (1574-1592), and
bears the style Fetiyeh, 'of the conqueror,' in honour of the conquest of
Georgia and Azerbaijan during his reign. According to Gerlach, the change
had been feared for some time, if for no other reason, because of the fine
position occupied by the church. But quarrels between different factions of
the Greek clergy and between them and Government officials had also
something to do with the confiscation of the building. 244 When the cross,
which glittered above the dome and gleamed far and wide, indicating the
seat of the chief prelate of the Orthodox Communion, was taken down, 'a
great sorrow befell the Christians.' 245 The humble church of S. Demetrius
Kanabou, in the district of Balat, then became the patriarchal seat until
1614, when that honour was conferred upon the church which still retains it,
the church of S. George in the quarter of Phanar.

PLATE XXXIX.

S. Mary Pammakaristos. S. Mary Pammakaristos.
East End of the Parecclesion. The west Column in the Parecclesion.
To face page 148.

Architectural Features

Owing to the numerous additions and alterations introduced into the
original fabric, both before and since the Turkish conquest, the original plan
of the building is not immediately apparent. Nor does the interior, with its
heavy piers, raised floor, and naked walls correspond to the accounts given
of its former splendour and beauty. A careful study will, however, unravel
the tangled scheme which the actual condition of the church presents, and
detect some traces of the beauty which has faded and passed away. The
building might be mistaken for a domed church with four aisles, two
narthexes, and a parecclesion. But notwithstanding all the disguises due to
the changes it has undergone, the original church was unquestionably an
'ambulatory' church. It had, moreover, at one time a third narthex, of which
now only the foundations remain on the west side of the church. The
present outer narthex is in five bays, covered by dome vaults on transverse
arches, and is paved with hexagonal tiles. The centre bay is marked by
transverse arches of greater breadth and projects slightly on the outside,
forming a plain central feature. At the north end a door led to the third
narthex, but has now been built up; at the south end is a door inserted in
Turkish times. To the south of the central bay the exterior is treated with
plain arcades in two orders of brick; to the north these are absent, probably
on account of some alterations. At the south end the narthex returns round
the church in two bays, leading to the parecclesion.
The inner narthex is in four bays covered with cross-groined vaults without
transverse arches, and is at present separated from the body of the church
by three clumsy hexagonal piers, on to which, as may be seen in the
photograph (Plate XXXVII.), the groins descend in a very irregular manner.
In the inner part of the church is a square central area covered by a lofty
drum-dome of twenty-four concave compartments, alternately pierced by
windows. The intermediate compartments correspond to the piers, and the
dome is therefore twelve-sided on the exterior with angle half columns and
arches in two orders. Internally the dome arches are recessed back from the
lower wall face and spring from a heavy string-course. They were originally
pierced on the north, south, and west sides by three windows similar to
those in the west dome arch of S. Andrew (p. 114).

The west side is now occupied by the wooden balcony of a Turkish house
built over the narthex, but there are no indications of any gallery in that
position.
Below the dome arches the central area communicates with the surrounding
ambulatory on the north, west, and south sides by large semicircular arches
corbelled slightly out from the piers.
On the east side the dome arch is open from floor to vault, and leads by a
short bema to a five-sided space covered by a dome and forming a kind of
triangular apse, on the south-eastern side of which is the mihrab. As is
clearly shown by the character of its dome windows and masonry, this
structure is a Turkish addition taking the place of the original three eastern
apses, and is a clever piece of planning to alter the orientation of the
building.
The ambulatory on the three sides of the central square is covered by barrel
vaults on the sides and with cross-groined vaults at the angles. To the east it
opened into the eastern lateral chapels, now swept away, though the passage
from the prothesis to the central apse still remains.
On the north side of the church is a passage in three bays covered by dome
vaults on transverse arches, communicating at the west end with the inner
narthex, and at the east terminating in a small chapel covered by an
octagonal drum dome. The upper part of the apse of the chapel is still
visible on the exterior, but the lower part has been destroyed and its place
taken by a Turkish window.
The floor of the eastern part of the church is raised a step above the general
level, this step being carried diagonally across the floor in the centre part so
as to line with the side of the apse containing the mihrab.

PLATE XL.

S. Mary S. Mary S. Mary
Pammakaristos. Pammakaristos. Pammakaristos.
The East Column in Column Flanking the The West Column in
the Parecclesion. East Window Of The the Parecclesion.
Apse of the
Parecclesion.
To face page 150.

In considering the original form of the church there is yet another important
point to be noted. It will be seen from the plan that at the ground level the
central area is not cruciform, but is rather an oblong from east to west with
large arches on the north and south sides. This oblong is, however, reduced
to a square at the dome level by arches thrown across the east and west
ends, and this, in conjunction with the setting back of the dome arches
already mentioned, produces a cruciform plan at the springing level. The
oblong character of the central area is characteristic of the domed basilica
and distinguishes this church from S. Andrew or S. Mary Panachrantos. The
employment of barrel vaults in the ambulatory is also a point of
resemblance to the domed basilica type, though the cross groin is used on
the angles. 246 In this feature S. Mary Pammakaristos resembles S. Andrew
and differs from S. Mary Panachrantos. We are probably justified in
restoring triple arcades in all the three lower arches similar to the triple
arcade which still remains in S. Andrew. The present arches do not fit, and
are evidently later alterations for the purpose of gaining internal space as at
the Panachrantos.
The hexagonal piers between the ambulatory and the inner narthex are not
original, as is evident from the clumsy manner in which the vaulting
descends on to them. They are the remains of the old western external wall

of the church left over when it was pierced through, probably in Turkish
times, to include the narthex in the interior area of the building. The piers
between the ambulatory and the gallery on the north side of the church also
seem to be due to openings made for a similar reason in the old northern
wall of the church when that gallery was added in Byzantine days. The
dotted lines on the plan show the original form of the piers and wall, as
shown by the outline of the vault springings above. The inner narthex is
later than the central church and is of inferior workmanship. The restored
plan shows the probable form of the church at that date. The outer narthex
was added at a subsequent period.
The Parecclesion.—The parecclesion forms a complete church of the 'four
column' type with a narthex and gynecaeum on the west. On the north side
the two columns supporting the dome arches have been removed, and their
place is taken by a large pointed Turkish arch which spans the chapel from
east to west as is done in the north church of the Panachrantos (p. 129). The
southern columns are of green marble with bases of a darker marble and
finely carved capitals both bedded in lead. One of these columns, that to the
east, has been partly built into the mihrab wall. The arms of the cross and
the western angle compartments are covered with cross-groined vaults,
while the eastern angle compartments have dome vaults. The bema and the
two lateral chapels have cross-groined vaults. As usual the apse is
semicircular within and shows to the exterior seven sides, the three centre
sides being filled with a triple window with carved oblong shafts and
cubical capitals.

Fig. 47

Internally the church is divided by string-courses at the abacus level of the
columns and at the springing level of the vaults into three stories. The
lowest story is now pierced by Turkish windows but was originally plain;
the middle story is pierced by single-light windows in each of the angle
compartments, and in the cross arm by a three-light window of two quarter
arches and a central high semicircular arch, similar to those in the narthex
of the Chora. The highest story has a single large window in the cross arm.
To the east the bema arch springs from the abacus level and all three apses
have low vaults, a somewhat unusual arrangement. This allows of an east
window in the tympanum of the dome arch above the bema.
The dome is in twelve bays, each pierced by a window and separated by flat
projecting ribs. It retains its mosaics, representing Christ in the centre
surrounded by twelve prophets. Each prophet holds in his hand a scroll

inscribed with a characteristic quotation from his writings. The drawing, for
which I am indebted to the skill and kindness of Mr. Arthur E. Henderson,
gives an excellent idea of the scheme of the mosaics.
Speaking of these mosaics, Diehl remarks that we have here, as in the
Chora, indications of the Revival of Art in the fourteenth century. The
Christ in the centre of the dome is no longer represented as the stern and
hard Pantokrator, but shows a countenance of infinite benignity and
sweetness. The twelve prophets grouped around Him in the flutings of the
dome reveal, in the variety of their expressions, in their different attitudes,
in the harmonious colours and elegant draping of their robes, an artist who
seeks to escape from traditional types and create a living work of his own.
247

The narthex is in three bays covered by cross-groined vaults without
transverse arches. The lower window is a Turkish insertion, and above it,
rising from the vaulting string-course at the level of the abacus course in the
church, is a triple window of the type already described.

Fig. 48
(For other details see Fig. 68.)

Above the narthex and approached by a narrow stair in the thickness of the
west wall is the small gynecaeum. It is in three bays, separated by strong
transverse arches resting on pilasters, each bay having a deep recess to east
and west. The centre bay is covered by a cross-groined vault, and overlooks
the church by a small window pierced in the west cross arm. Each of the
side bays is covered by a drum dome of sixteen concave bays pierced with
eight windows and externally octagonal. The plaster has fallen away from
these bays, allowing us to see that they are built in regular courses of brick
with thick mortar joints and without any special strengthening at the lines of
juncture or ribs between the compartments. Such domes, therefore, are not
strictly ribbed domes but rather domes in compartments. The 'ribs' no doubt
do, by their extra thickness, add to the strength of the vault, but here, as in
most Byzantine domes, their purpose is primarily ornamental.

PLATE XLI.

S. Mary Pammakaristos. S. Mary Pammakaristos.
Interior View of the Dome of the Parecclesion. Mosaic in the Dome of the Parecclesion.

To face page 154.

The exterior of the chapel, like the façade of S. Theodore (p. 247), presents
a carefully considered scheme of decoration, characteristic of the later
Byzantine school both here and in the later schools outside Constantinople.
The southern wall is divided externally as it is also internally, into three

stories, and forms two main compartments corresponding to the narthex and
to the cross arm. They are marked by high arches of two orders, which
enclose two triple windows in the upper story of the narthex and of the
cross arm. The clue to the composition is given by the middle story, which
contains the two large triple windows of the narthex and of the cross arm,
and the two single lights of the angle compartment, one on each side of the
cross arm triple light. These windows are enclosed in brick arches of two
orders and linked together by semicircular arched niches, of which those
flanking the narthex window are slightly larger than the rest, thus giving a
continuous arcade of a very pleasant rhythmic quality.
In the lower story the piers of the arches round the triple windows are alone
carried down through the inscribed string-course which separates the stories
and forms the window-sill. The system of niches is repeated, flat niches
being substituted for the angle compartment windows above.
The highest story contains the large single windows which light the cross
arm and the gynecaeum, the former flanked by two semicircular niches, the
latter by two brick roundels with radiating joints. Between them, above the
west angle compartment window, is a flat niche with a Turkish arch. It is
possible that there was originally a break here extending to the cornice, and
that this was filled up during Turkish repairs. The cornice has two ranges of
brick dentils and is arched over the two large windows. The domes on the
building have flat angle pilasters supporting an arched cornice.
The masonry is in stripes of brick and stone courses, with radiating joints to
the arched niches and a zigzag pattern in the spandrils of the first-story
arches. At this level are four carved stone corbels with notches on the upper
side, evidently to take a wooden beam. These must have supported the roof
of an external wood cloister. The inscribed string-course already mentioned
between the ground and first stories bears a long epitaph in honour of
Michael Glabas Tarchaniotes. 248 (Fig. 49.)
The three apses at the east end are of equal height. The side ones are much
worn but were apparently plain. The centre apse is in three stories with
alternately flat and circular niches in each side. It is crowned by a
machicolated cornice similar to that on the east end of S. Theodosia.

The general composition, as will be seen from the description, arises very
directly from the internal arrangements of the chapel and is extremely
satisfactory. The ranges of arches, varying in a manner at first irregular, but
presently seen to be perfectly symmetrical, give a rhythmic swing to the
design. The walls are now heavily plastered and the effect of the horizontal
bands of brick and stone is lost; but even in its present state the building is a
very delightful example of Byzantine external architecture.
Evidently the foundress of the chapel wished the monument she reared to
her husband's memory to be as beautiful both within and without as the
taste and skill of the times could make it.

PLATE XLII.

S. Mary Pammakaristos.
South Side of the Parecclesion
To face page 157.

What information we have in regard to the chapel is little, but clear and
definite, resting as it does on the authority of the two epitaphs which the

poet Philes composed to be inscribed on the interior and exterior walls of
the building. One of the epitaphs, if ever placed in position, has been
destroyed or lies concealed under Turkish plaster. Of the other only
fragments remain, forming part of the scheme of decoration which adorns
the south wall of the chapel. But fortunately the complete text of both
epitaphs is preserved in the extant writings of their author, and affords all
the information they were meant to record. The chapel was dedicated to
Christ as the Logos 249 and was built after the death of the protostrator by
his wife Maria, or Martha in religion, for a mausoleum in which to place his
tomb. 250 As the protostrator died about 1315, the chapel was erected soon
after that date. An interesting incident occurred in this chapel soon after the
Turkish conquest. One day when the Sultan was riding through his newly
acquired capital he came to the Pammakaristos, and upon being informed
that it was the church assigned to the Patriarch Gennadius, alighted to
honour the prelate with a visit. The meeting took place in this parecclesion,
and the conversation, of which a summary account was afterwards sent to
the Sultan, dwelt on the dogmas of the Christian Faith. 251

Fig. 49

The text of the epitaph, portions of which appear on the exterior face of the
south wall of the parecclesion of the church of the Pammakaristos (Carmina

Philae, ccxxiii. ed. Miller, vol. i. pp. 117-18) reads as follows:—
Ἄνερ, τὸ φῶς, τὸ πνεῦμα, τὸ πρόσφθεγμά μου,
καὶ τοῦτό σοι τὸ δῶρον ἐκ τῆς συζύγου·
σὺ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἄγρυπνος ἐν μάχαις λέων
ὑπνοῖς, ὑπελθὼν ἀντὶ λόχμης τὸν τάφον·
5
ἐγὼ δέ σοι τέτευχα πετραίαν στέγην,
μὴ πάλιν εὑρὼν ὁ στρατός σε συγχέῃ,
κἂν δεῦρο τὸν χοῦν ἐκτινάξας ἐκρύβης,
ἢ τοῦ πάχους ῥεύσαντος ἡρπάγης ἄνω,
πᾶν ὅπλον ἀφεὶς ἐκκρεμὲς τῷ παττάλῳ·
10
τὰς γὰρ ἐπὶ γῆς ἐβδελύξω παστάδας
ἐν εὐτελεῖ τρίβωνι φυγὼν τὸν βίον
καὶ πρὸς νοητοὺς άντετάξω σατράπας,
στεῤῥὰν μετενδὺς ἐκ θεοῦ παντευχίαν.
ὡς ὄστρεον γοῦν ὀργανῶ σοι τὸν τάφον,
15
ἢ κόχλον ἢ κάλυκα κεντρώδους βάτου·
μάργαρέ μου, πορφύρα, γῆς ἄλλης ῥόδον,
εἰ καὶ τρυγηθὲν ἐκπιέζῃ τοῖς λίθοις
ὡς καὶ σταλαγμοὺς προξενεῖν μοι δακρύων,
αὐτὸς δὲ καὶ ζῶν καὶ Θεὸν ζῶντα βλέπων
20
ὡς νοῦς καθαρὸς τῶν παθῶν τῶν ἐξ ὕλης
τὸν σὸν πάλιν θάλαμον εὐτρέπιζέ μοι·
ἡ σύζυγος πρὶν ταῦτά σοι Μάρθα γράφει,
πρωτοστράτορ κάλλιστε καὶ τεθαμμένων. 252

O my husband, my light, my breath, whom I now greet.
This gift to thee also is from thy wife.
For thou indeed who wast like a sleepless lion in battles
Sleepest, having to endure the grave, instead (of occupying) thy lair.
But I have erected for thee a dwelling of stone,
Lest the army finding thee again, should trouble thee,
Although here thou art hidden, having cast off thy (body of) clay,
Or, the gross flesh having dropped off, thou hast been transported above,
Leaving every weapon hung up on its peg.
For thou didst abhor the mansions in the world, 253
Having fled from life in the cheap cloak (of a monk),
And didst confront invisible potentates,
Having received instead (of thine own armour) a strong panoply from God.
Therefore I will construct for thee this tomb as a pearl oyster shell,
Or shell of the purple dye, or bud on a thorny brier.
O my pearl, my purple, rose of another clime,
Even though being plucked thou art pressed by the stones
So as to cause me sheddings of tears.
Yet thou thyself, both living and beholding the living God,
As a mind pure from material passions,

Prepare for me again thy home.
Martha, 254 thy wife formerly, writes these things to thee,
O protostrator, fairest also of the dead!

The following epitaph in honour of the protostrator Glabas 255 was to be
placed in the parecclesion of the church of the Pammakaristos (Carmina
Philae, ccxix., ed. Miller, vol. i. pp. 115-16):—
Ἐπίγραμμα εἰς τὸν ναὸν ὃν ᾠκοδόμησεν ἡ τοῦ πρωτοστράτορος
σύμβιος ἀποθανόντι τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς.

ἡ μὲν διὰ σοῦ πᾶσα τῶν ὄντων φύσις
οὐ δύναται χωρεῖν σε τὴν πρώτην φύσιν·
πληροῖς γὰρ αὐτὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ πλείων μένεις,
Θεοῦ Λόγε ζῶν καὶ δρακὶ τὸ πᾶν φέρων,
5
κἂν σὰρξ ἀληθὴς εὑρεθεὶς περιγράφῃ,
ψυχαῖς δὲ πισταῖς μυστικῶς ἐνιδρύῃ
μονὴν σεαυτῷ πηγνύων ἀθάνατον·
οὐκοῦν δέχου τὸν οἶκον ὃν τέτευχά σοι
δεικνύντα σαφῶς τῆς ψυχῆς μου τὴν σχέσιν·
10
τὸν σύζυγον δὲ φεῦ τελευτήσαντά μοι
καὶ τῆς χοïκῆς ἀπαναστάντα στέγης,
οἴκισον εἰς ἄφθαρτον αὐτὸς παστάδα,
κἀνταῦθα τηρῶν τὴν σορὸν τοῦ λειψάνου,
15
μή τις ἐνεχθῇ συντριβὴ τοῖς ὀστέοις.
πρωτοστράτορ καὶ ταῦτα σὴν δήπου χάριν
ἡ σύζυγος πρίν, ἀλλὰ νῦν Μάρθα γράφει.

The whole nature of existing things which thou hast made
Cannot contain Thee, the primordial nature,
For Thou fillest it, and yet remainest more than it;
O Logos of God, living and holding all in the hollow of Thy hand,
Although as true flesh Thou art circumscribed,
And dwellest, mystically, in faithful souls,
Establishing for Thyself an immortal habitation,
Yet accept the house which I have built for Thee,
Which shows clearly the disposition of my soul.
My husband who, alas! has died to me
And gone forth from his house of clay,
Do Thou Thyself settle in an incorruptible mansion,
Guarding also here the shrine of his remains,
Lest any injury should befall his bones.
O protostrator, these things, too, for thy sake I trow,
Writes she who erewhile was thy wife, but now is Martha. 256

Fig. 50.
To face page 160.

Fig. 51.

Fig. 52.

Fig. 53.

215 See the masterly articles of Mr. Siderides in the Proceedings of the Greek
Syllogos of C.P.; supplement to vols. xx.-xxii. pp. 19-32; vol. xxix. pp. 265-73.
I beg to acknowledge my great indebtedness to their learned author.
216 'This is the thoughtful deed of John Comnenus and of his consort Anna of
the family Ducas. Grant to them, O Pure One, rich grace and appoint them
dwellers in the house of God.'
217 Vol. ii, p. 183.
218 Carmina Philae, vol. i. ode 237, lines 21-23. Codex Paris, p. 241.
219 M. Crusius, Turcograecia, p. 189.
220 It should read, Βράναινα. See Siderides, in the Proceedings of the Greek
Syllogos of C.P. vol. xxix. p. 267.
221 For the protovestiarius, see Pachym. i. pp. 205, 469; ii. pp. 68, 72, 210; for
the protostrator, see Pachym. ii. pp. 12, 445. The former died in 1284, the latter
about 1315. Cf. Siderides, ut supra. See on this subject the article of A. E.
Martini in Atti della R. Academia di archeologia, lettere e belle arti, vol. xx.,
Napoli, 1900.
222 Carmina Philae, vol. i. Codex Florent. ode 95, lines 280-82.
223 See Carmina Philae, edited by E. Miller, odes 54, 57, 59, 92, 164, 165,
219, 237, for references to the protostrator, or to his wife, or to the
Pammakaristos.
224 Hans Jacob Breüning, Orientalische Reyss, chap. xvii. p. 66. He visited
Constantinople 1579-80. The portraits stood 'Im Eingang auff der rechten

Seiten,' or, as another authority has it, 'in patriarchica porta exteriore, in pariete
dextero ab ingredientibus conspiciuntur,' Turcograecia, p. 75.
225 Gerlach refers to these portraits, but without mentioning the names of the
persons they represented. The legends were communicated to M. Crusius
(Turcograecia, p. 75) by Theodosius Zygomalas, the protonotarius of the
patriarch in the time of Gerlach.
226 Pachym. ii. pp. 182-89. When Cosmas was appointed patriarch a curious
incident occurred. A monk of the monastery of the Pantepoptes protested
against the nomination, because it had been revealed to him that the person
who should fill the vacant office would bear the name John. Such was the
impression made by this prediction that matters were so arranged that
somehow Cosmas was able to claim that name also. Whereupon the monk
went on to predict how many years Cosmas would hold office, and that he
would lose that position before his death.
227 Pachym. ii. pp. 271-77.
228 Ibid. pp. 278-84.
229 Pachym. ii. pp. 292-98.
230 Pachym. ii. pp. 298-300.
231 Ibid. ii. p. 303.
232 Ibid. pp. 341-43.
233 Ibid. 347-85.
234 Cantacuzene, ii. pp. 442-48; Niceph. Greg. pp. 701, 710, 726.
235 Ducas, pp. 117-21, 134, 139-42, 148-52, 176.
236 Historia politica, p. 16.
237 Phrantzes, p. 307.
238 See Gerlach's description in Turcograecia, pp. 189-90.
239 Breüning, Orientalische Reyss, p. 68, 'zur rechten an der Mauren Imp.
Alexii Comneni monumentum von Steinwerck auffs einfältigste and
schlechteste.'
240 Salomon Schweigger, Ein newe Reyssbeschreibung auss Deutschland
nach Constantinopel pp. 119-20, Chaplain for more than three years in
Constantinople, at the Legation of the Holy Roman Empire, 1581. He gives the
inscription on the sarcophagus: Ἀλέξιος αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ῥωμαίων. There is
an eagle to the right of the legend.
241 P. 12, εἰς ἣν ἐκεῖνος ἐδείματο Χριστῷ τῷ φιλανθρώπῳ μονήν.
242 Turcograecia, p. 46, where the tomb is further described; 'est id lapideum,
non insistens 4 basibus, sed integro lapide a terra surgens, altius quam mensa,
ad parietem templi.'

243 Turcograecia, p. 189.
244 Patr. Constantius, p. 72.
245 Historia politica, p. 178.
246 A barrel vault is, however, used under the west gallery of S. Theodosia
though cross-groined vaults are used in the side 'aisles.'
247 Manuel d'art byzantin, p. 742.
248 The bands of marble on which the inscription is found were cut from
marble slabs which once formed part of a balustrade, for the upper side of the
bands is covered with carved work.
249 Carmina Philae, i. pp. 115-16, lines 4, 7.
250 Ibid. Heading to poem, and lines 10, 13-16. Second epitaph p. 117, lines 2,
5, 14.
251 Turcograecia, pp. 16, 109, ἔνδον τῆς μικρᾶς ἐκκλησίας καὶ ὡραίας τοῦ
παρεκκλησίου.
252 τεθαμμένε (Cod. Mon. fol. 102).
253 Alludes to the retirement of Glabas from the world as a monk.
254 Her name as a nun.
255 In the superscription to this epigram in the Florentine and Munich MSS.
the name Γλαβᾶς is given.
256 In these translations I have been assisted chiefly by Sir W. M. Ramsay,
Professor Bury, and Mr. E. M. Antoniadi.

CHAPTER VIII

CHURCH OF S. THEODOSIA, GUL JAMISSI

There can be no doubt that the mosque Gul Jamissi (mosque of the Rose),
that stands within the Gate Aya Kapou, near the Golden Horn, was the
Byzantine church of S. Theodosia. For Aya Kapou is the entrance styled in
Byzantine days the Gate of S. Theodosia (πύλη τῆς ἁγίας Θεοδοσίας),
because in the immediate vicinity of the church of that dedication. 257 This
was also the view current on the subject when Gyllius 258 and Gerlach 259

visited the city in the sixteenth century. The Turkish epithet of the gate
'Aya,' Holy, is thus explained. Du Cange, 260 contrary to all evidence, places
the church of S. Theodosia on the northern side of the harbour, or at its
head, ultra sinum.
The saint is celebrated in ecclesiastical history for her opposition to the
iconoclastic policy of Leo the Isaurian. For when that emperor commanded
the eikon of Christ over the Bronze Gate of the Great Palace to be removed,
Theodosia, at the head of a band of women, rushed to the spot and
overthrew the ladder up which the officer, charged with the execution of the
imperial order, was climbing to reach the image. In the fall the officer was
killed. Whereupon a rough soldier seized Theodosia, and dragging her to
the forum of the Bous (Ak Serai), struck her dead by driving a ram's horn
through her neck. Naturally, when the cause for which she sacrificed her life
triumphed, she was honoured as a martyr, and men said, 'The ram's horn, in
killing thee, O Theodosia, appeared to thee a new Horn of Amalthea.' 261

PLATE XLIII.

E. M. Antoniadi.

S. Theodosia.
The East End.

S. Theodosia, from the south-east.
To face page 164.

The remains of the martyred heroine were taken for burial to the monastery
of Dexiocrates (τὸ μοναστήριον τὸ ὀνομαζόμενον Δεξιοκράτους), so named
either after its founder or after the district in which it was situated. 262 This
explains why the Gate of S. Theodosia was also designated the Gate of
Dexiocrates (Πόρτα Δεξιοκράτους). 263 The earliest reference to the church
of S. Theodosia occurs in the account of the pilgrimage made by Anthony,
Archbishop of Novgorod, 264 to Constantinople in 1200. Alluding to that
shrine he says: 'Dans un couvent,' to quote the French translation of his
narrative, 'de femmes se trouvent les reliques de sainte Théodosie, dans une
châsse ouverte en argent.' Another Russian pilgrim from Novgorod, 265
Stephen, who was in Constantinople in 1350, refers to the convent

expressly as the convent of S. Theodosia: 'Nous allâmes vénérer la sainte
vierge Théodosie, que (pécheurs) nous baisâmes; il y a là un couvent en son
nom au bord de la mer.' The convent is again mentioned in the description
of Constantinople by the Russian pilgrim 266 who visited the city shortly
before the Turkish conquest (1424-53). 'De là (Blachernae) nous nous
dirigeâmes vers l'est et atteignîmes le couvent de Sainte Théodosie; la sainte
vierge Théodosie y repose dans une châsse découverte.'
Two other Russian pilgrims, Alexander the scribe (1395), and the deacon
Zosimus (1419-21), likewise refer to the relics of the saint, but they do so in
terms which create some difficulty. Alexander saw the relics in the church
of the Pantokrator, 267 while Zosimus found them in the convent of the
'Everghetis.' 268 The discrepancy between these statements may indeed be
explained as one of the mistakes very easily committed by strangers who
spend only a short time in a city, visit a multitude of similar objects during
that brief stay, and write the account of their travels at hurried moments, or
after returning home.

It is on this principle that Mordtmann 269 deals with the statement that the
relics of S. Theodosia were kept in the monastery of the 'Everghetis.' In his
opinion Zosimus confused the monastery of S. Saviour Euergetes 270 with
the church of S. Theodosia, 271 because of the proximity of the two
sanctuaries. Lapses of memory are of course possible, but, on the other
hand, the trustworthiness of a document must not be brushed aside too
readily.
But the differences in the statements of the Russian pilgrims, as to the
particular church in which the relics of S. Theodosia were enshrined, may
be explained without charging any of the good men with a mistake, if we
remember that relics of the same saint might be preserved in several
sanctuaries; that the calendar of the Greek church celebrates four saints
bearing the name Theodosia; 272 and, lastly, that churches of the same
dedication stood in different quarters of the city. In fact, a church dedicated
to the Theotokos Euergetes stood on the Xerolophos above the quarter of
Psamathia. 273

Stephen of Novgorod 274 makes it perfectly clear that he venerated the
relics of S. Theodosia in two different sanctuaries of the city, one of them
being a church beside the Golden Horn, the other standing on the heights
above Psamathia. So does the anonymous pilgrim. 275 The scribe Alexander
276
found the relics of S. Theodosia both in the Pantokrator and in the
church of Kirmarta, above the quarter of Psamathia. It is clear, therefore,
that Zosimus, 277 who places the relics of S. Theodosia in the monastery of
'Everghetis,' has in mind the church of the Theotokos Euergetes above
Psamathia, and not the church of S. Saviour Euergetes which stood near S.
Theodosia beside the Golden Horn.

Note
While Zosimus and Alexander agree in placing the relics of S. Theodosia in a church in the region of
Psamathia, they differ as to the name of that church, the former naming it Everghetis, while the latter
styles it Kirmarta. As appears from statements found on pages 108, 163, 205 of the Itinéraires russes,
the two sanctuaries were closely connected. But however this discrepancy should be treated, there
can be no doubt that relics of S. Theodosia were exhibited, not only in the church dedicated to her
beside the Golden Horn, but also in a church in the south-western part of the city. Nor can it be
doubted that a church in the latter quarter was dedicated to the Theotokos Euergetes.

That several churches should have claimed to possess the relics of the
heroine who championed the cause of eikons, assuming that all the Russian
pilgrims had one and the same S. Theodosia in mind, is not strange. Many
other popular saints were honoured in a similar fashion.
The shrine of S. Theodosia was famed for miraculous cures. Her horn of
plenty was filled with gifts of healing. Twice a week, on Wednesdays and
Fridays, according to Stephen of Novgorod, or on Mondays and Fridays,
according to another pilgrim, the relics of the saint were carried in
procession and laid upon sick and impotent folk. 278 Those were days of
high festival. All the approaches to the church were packed with men and
women eager to witness the wonders performed. Patients representing
almost every complaint to which human flesh is heir filled the court. Gifts
of oil and money poured into the treasury; the church was a blaze of lighted
tapers; the prayers were long; the chanting was loud. Meanwhile the
sufferers were borne one after another to the sacred relics, 'and whoever
was sick,' says the devout Stephen, 'was healed.' So profound was the

impression caused by one of these cures in 1306, that Pachymeres 279
considered it his duty, as the historian of his day, to record the wonder; and
his example may be followed to furnish an illustration of the beliefs and
usages which bulked largely in the religious life witnessed in the churches
of Byzantine Constantinople.
At the time referred to there dwelt in the city a deaf-mute, a well-known
object of charity who supported himself by petty services in benevolent
households. While thus employed by a family that resided near the church
of the Holy Apostles, the poor man one night saw S. Theodosia in a dream,
and heard her command to repair with tapers and incense to the church
dedicated to her honour. Next morning the deaf-mute made his friends
understand what had occurred during his sleep, and with their help found
his way to the designated shrine. There he was anointed with the holy oil of
the lamp before the saint's eikon, and bowed long in humble adoration at
her feet. Nothing remarkable happened at the time. But on his homeward
way the devout man felt a strange pain in his ear, and upon putting his hand
to the sore place, what seemed a winged insect flew out and vanished from
view. Wondering what this might mean, he entered the house in which he
served, and set himself to prepare the oven in which the bread for the family
was to be baked that day. But all his efforts to kindle the fire were in vain;
the wood only smoked. This went on so long that, like most persons under
the same circumstances, the much-tried man lost his temper and gave way
to the impulse to use bad language. Whereupon sonorous imprecations on
the obstinate fuel shook the air. The bystanders could not believe their ears.
They thought the sounds proceeded from some mysterious voice in the
oven. But the deaf-mute protested that he heard his friends talking, and
assured them that the words they heard were his own; S. Theodosia had
opened his ears and loosed his tongue. The news of the marvel spread far
and wide and reached even the court. Andronicus II. sent for the young
man, interrogated him, and was so deeply impressed by the recital of what
had happened that he determined to proceed to the church of S. Theodosia
in state, and went thither with the patriarch and the senate, humbly on foot,
and spent the whole night before the wonder-working shrine in prayer and
thanksgiving.

PLATE XLIV.

S. Theodosia. S. Theodosia.
Interior, looking north-east. The Eastern Dome Arch.
To face page 168.

The last scene witnessed in this church as a Christian sanctuary was
pathetic in the extreme. It was the vigil of the day sacred to the memory of
the saint, May 29, 1453. The siege of the city by the Turks had reached its
crisis. The morning light would see the Queen of Cities saved or lost. All
hearts were torn with anxiety, and the religious fervour of the population
rose to the highest pitch. Already, in the course of the previous day, a great
procession had gone through the streets of the city, invoking the aid of God
and of all His saints. The emperor and the leading personages of his court
were in S. Sophia, praying, weeping, embracing one another, forgiving one
another, all feeling oppressed by a sense of doom. In the terrible darkness
the church of S. Theodosia, ablaze with lighted tapers, gleamed like a
beacon of hope. An immense congregation, including many women, filled
the building, and prayers ascended to Heaven with unwonted earnestness—
when suddenly the tramp of soldiers and strange shouts were heard. Had the
city indeed fallen? The entrance of Turkish troops into the church removed
all doubt, and the men and women who had gathered to pray for deliverance
were carried off as prisoners of war. 280 According to the Belgic Chronicle,
the body of the saint and other relics were thrown into the mire and cast to
the dogs. 281

Architectural Features

As the building has undergone extensive repairs since it became a mosque,
care must be taken to distinguish between the original features of the fabric
and Turkish changes and restorations. The pointed dome arches rest on
pilasters built against the internal angles of the cross. The dome is
windowless, has no internal drum, and externally is octagonal with a low
drum and a flat cornice. Dome, arches, and pilasters are all evidently
Turkish reconstructions. The gable walls of the transepts and the western
wall are also Turkish. As the central apse coincided with the orientation of
the mosque, it has retained its original form and some portions of its
Byzantine walls, but it also has suffered Turkish alterations. The cross
arches in the south gallery and in the narthex are pointed, and, in their
present form, unquestionably Turkish; but as the vault above them is
Byzantine, their form may be due to cutting away in order to secure a freer
passage round the galleries for the convenience of Moslem worshippers.
The outer narthex is Turkish, but the old wall which forms its foundation
and traces of an old pavement imply the former existence of a Byzantine
narthex. In spite, however, of these serious changes the building preserves
its original characteristic features, and is a good example of a domed-cross
church, with galleries on three sides and domes over the four angle-
chambers.
The galleries rest on a triple arcade supported by square piers. On the north
and south the aisles are covered with cross-groined vaults on oblong
compartments, while the passage or narthex under the western gallery has a
barrel vault.
The chambers at the north-eastern and south-eastern angles of the cross are
thrown into the side chapels, which thus consist of two bays covered with
cross-groined vaults. Communication between the chapels and the bema
was maintained by passages opening in the ordinary fashion into the eastern
bays.
In the thickness of each of the eastern dome piers, and at a short distance
above the floor, is a small chamber. The chamber in the north-eastern pier is
lighted by a small opening looking southwards, and was reached by a door
in the east side of the passage leading from the bema to the north-eastern

chapel. The door has been walled up, and the chamber is consequently
inaccessible. The chamber in the south-eastern pier is lighted by a window
looking northwards, and has a door in the east side of the passage from the
bema to the south-eastern chapel.

Over the door is a Turkish inscription 282 in gilt letters to this effect, 'Tomb
of the Apostles, disciples of Jesus. Peace to him.' The chamber is reached
by a short spiral stairway of nine stone steps, and contains a small marble
tomb, which is covered with shawls, and has a turban around its headstone.
On a bracket in the wall is a lamp ready to be lighted in honour of the
deceased. The roof of the chamber is perforated by an opening that runs into
the floor at the east end of the southern gallery, and over the opening is an
iron grating.

Fig. 54.—S. Theodosia. The Interior, looking West.
(From a Photograph.)

Access to the galleries is gained by means of a staircase in the northern bay
of the passage under the western gallery. For some distance from the floor
of the church the staircase has wooden steps, but from the first landing,
where a door in the northern wall stands on a level with the ground outside
the church, stone steps are employed for the remainder of the way up. The
wooden steps are Turkish, but may replace Byzantine steps of the same
material. The stone steps are Byzantine, and could be reached directly from
outside the church through the door situated beside the landing from which
they start. Probably in Byzantine days the stone staircase could not be
reached from the floor of the church, and furnished the only means of
access to the galleries.
The galleries are covered by the barrel vaults of the cross arms. At the east
end of the northern and the southern gallery are chapels covered with
domes and placed above the prothesis and the diaconicon. As stated already,
the aperture in the roof of the chamber in the south-eastern dome pier opens
into the floor of the southern chapel, and probably a similar aperture in the
roof of the corresponding chamber in the north-eastern pier opened into the
floor of the chapel at the east end of the northern gallery. The presence of
chapels in such an unusual position is explained by the desire to celebrate
special services in honour of the saints whose remains were buried in the
chambers in the piers, as though in crypts.
The domes over the chapels are hemispherical and rest directly on the
pendentives. They are ribless and without drums. The arches on which they
rest are semicircular and, with their infilling of triple windows, are
Byzantine. We may safely set down all four angle domes as belonging to
the original design, though the arches by which they communicate with the
galleries are pointed, and are therefore Turkish insertions or enlargements.
On the exterior the eastern wall of the church is fairly well preserved. The
three apses project boldly; the central apse in seven sides, the lateral apses
in three sides. Although the central apse is unquestionably a piece of
Byzantine work it does not appear to be the original apse of the building,
but a substitute inserted in the course of repairs before the Turkish conquest.
This accounts for its plain appearance as compared with the lateral apses,

which are decorated with four tiers of five niches, corre- sponding to the
window height and the vaulting-level within the church. As on the apses of
the Pantokrator (p. 235) the niches are shallow segments in plan, set back in
one brick order, and without impost moulding. In the lowest tier three
arches are introduced between pilasters, with a window in the central arch.
Above the four tiers of niches is a boldly corbelled cornice, like that in the
chapel attached to the Pammakaristos. One cannot help admiring how an
effect so decidedly rich and beautiful was produced by very simple means.

PLATE XLV.

S. Theodosia.
Dome over the Staircase to the Galleries.

S. Theodosia.
The Narthex, looking north
To face page 172.

Details of the tiled floor and of several carved fragments are given in Fig.
76.

For some time after the conquest the building was used as a naval store. 283
It was converted into a mosque in the reign of Sultan Selim II. (1566-74) by
a wealthy courtier, Hassan Pasha, and was known as Hassan Pasha Mesjedi.
284
Its title, the mosque of the Rose, doubtless refers to its beauty, just as
another mosque is, for a similar reason, styled Laleli Jamissi, the mosque of
the Tulip.
Before leaving the church we may consider the claims of the tradition that
the chamber in the south-eastern dome pier contains the tomb of the last
Byzantine emperor. The tradition was first announced to the general public
by the Patriarch Constantius in a letter which he addressed in 1852 to Mr.
Scarlatus Byzantius, his fellow-student in all pertaining to the antiquities
and history of Constantinople. 285 According to the patriarch, the tradition
was accepted by the Turkish ecclesiastical authorities of the city, and was
current among the old men of the Greek community resident in the quarter
of Phanar; he himself knew the tradition even in his boyhood. Furthermore,
distinguished European visitors who inquired for Byzantine imperial tombs
were directed by Turkish officials to the church of S. Theodosia, as the
resting-place of the emperor who died with the Empire; and the inscription
over the door of the chamber referred to that champion of the Greek cause.
Strangely enough, the patriarch said nothing about this tradition when
treating of the church of S. Theodosia in his book on Ancient and Modern
Constantinople, published in 1844. In that work, indeed, he assigns the
tomb in question to some martyr who suffered during the iconoclastic
period. 286 This strange silence he explains in his letter written in 1852 as
due to prudence; he had reason then to 'put the seal of Alexander upon his
lips.'

Fig. 55.
(For other details in the church see Fig. 76.)

The tradition has recently received the honour of being supported by Mr.
Siderides, to whom students of Byzantine archaeology are so deeply
indebted. But while accepting it in general, Mr. Siderides thinks it is open to
correction on two points of detail.
In his opinion the church of S. Theodosia was not the first sanctuary to
guard the mortal remains of Constantine Palaeologus, but the second. Nor
was the body of the fallen hero, when ultimately brought to this church,
placed, as the patriarch supposed, in the chamber in the south-eastern pier,
but in the chamber in the pier to the north-east. The reasons urged in favour
of these modifications of the tradition, as reported by the Patriarch
Constantius, are substantially the following:—In the first place, the body of
the last Constantine, after its decapitation, was, at the express order of the
victorious Sultan, buried with royal honours, μετὰ βασιλικῆς τιμῆς, 287 and
therefore, so Mr. Siderides maintains, must have been interred in the church
which then enjoyed the highest rank in the Greek community of the city,
viz. the church of the Holy Apostles, the patriarchal cathedral after the
appropriation of S. Sophia by the Turks. The church of the Holy Apostles,
however, soon lost that distinction, and was torn down to make room for the
mosque which bears the name of the conqueror of the city. Under these

circumstances what more natural, asks Mr. Siderides, than that pious and
patriotic hands should remove as many objects of historical or religious
value as possible from the doomed shrine, and deposit them where men
might still do them reverence—especially when there was every facility for
the removal of such objects, owing to the fact that a Christian architect,
Christoboulos, had charge of the destruction of the church and of the
erection of the mosque.
Some of those objects were doubtless transferred to the church of the
Pammakaristos, 288 where the Patriarch Gennadius placed his throne after
abandoning the church of the Holy Apostles; but others may have been
taken elsewhere. And for proof that the church of S. Theodosia had the
honour of being entrusted with the care of some of the relics removed from
the Holy Apostles, Mr. Siderides points to the inscription over the doorway
leading to the chamber in the south-eastern dome pier. According to the
inscription that chamber is consecrated by the remains of Christ's apostles,
i.e. the relics which formed the peculiar treasure of the church of the Holy
Apostles.
This being so, Mr. Siderides argues, on the strength of the tradition under
review, that the remains of the last Constantine also were brought from the
church of the Holy Apostles to S. Theodosia under the circumstances
described.
As to the position of the imperial tomb when thus transferred to the church
of S. Theodosia, Mr. Siderides insists that it cannot be in the chamber in the
south-eastern dome pier: first, because the religious veneration cherished by
Moslems for the grave in that chamber is inconsistent with the idea that the
grave contains the ashes of the enemy who, in 1453, resisted the Sultan's
attack upon the city; secondly, because the inscription over the doorway
leading to the chamber expressly declares the chamber to be the resting-
place of Christ's apostles. Hence Mr. Siderides concludes that if the
tradition before us has any value, the tomb of the last Byzantine emperor
was placed in the chamber in the north-eastern pier, and finds confirmation
of that view in the absence of any respect for the remains deposited there.
To enter into a minute criticism of this tradition and of the arguments urged
in its support would carry us far beyond our scope. Nor does such criticism

seem necessary. The fact that the last Constantine was buried with royal
honours affords no proof whatever that he was laid to rest in the church of
the Holy Apostles. If he was ever buried in S. Theodosia, he may have been
buried there from the first. The lateness of the date when the tradition
became public makes the whole story it tells untrustworthy. Before a
statement published in the early part of the nineteenth century in regard to
the interment of the last Byzantine emperor can have any value, it must be
shown to rest on information furnished nearer the time at which the alleged
event occurred. No information of that kind has been produced. On the
contrary, the only contemporary historian of the siege of 1453 who refers to
the site of the emperor's grave informs us that the head of the last
Constantine was interred in S. Sophia, and his mutilated body in Galata. 289
The patriarchal authorities of the sixteenth century, as Mr. Siderides admits,
while professing to point out the exact spot where Constantine Palaeologus
fell, were ignorant of the place where he was buried. In his work on the
mosques of the city, written in 1620, Evlia Effendi not only knows nothing
of the tradition we are considering, but says expressly that the emperor was
buried elsewhere—in the church of the monastery of S. Mary Peribleptos,
known by the Turks as Soulou Monastir, in the quarter of Psamathia. In
1852 a story prevailed that the grave of the last Constantine was in the
quarter of Vefa Meidan. 290 From all these discrepancies it is evident that in
the confusion attending the Turkish capture of the city, the real site of the
imperial grave was soon forgotten, and that all subsequent indications of its
position are mere conjectures, the offspring of the propensity to find in
nameless graves local habitations for popular heroes.

Note
The first edition of Ancient and Modern Constantinople was published in 1824. In it there is no
mention of any tomb in the church of S. Theodosia. The second edition of that work appeared in
1844, and there the author speaks of a tomb in the church, and suggests that it was the tomb of some
martyr in the iconoclastic persecution. The patriarch's letter to Scarlatus Byzantius was written in
1852, and published by the latter in 1862. In that letter the patriarch reports for the first time the
tradition that the tomb in S. Theodosia was the tomb of Constantine Palaeologus. In 1851 a Russian
visitor to Constantinople, Andrew Mouravieff, who published an account of his travels, says that in
the church of S. Theodosia he was shown a tomb which the officials of the mosque assured him was
the tomb of the last Christian emperor of the city. 291 Lastly, but not least, in 1832 the church of S.
Theodosia underwent repairs at the Sultan's orders, and then a neglected tomb was discovered in the
church by the Christian architect who had charge of the work of restoration, Haji Stephen Gaitanaki

Maditenou (see letter of the patriarch). 292 It is difficult to resist the impression that the discovery of
the tomb at that time gave occasion for the fanciful conjectures current among Turks and Greeks in
regard to the body interred in the tomb. See the article of Mr. Siderides, who gives the facts just
mentioned, without drawing the inference I have suggested.

Fig. 56

Fig. 57

Figs. 58 and 59.

Fig. 60.

257 Phrantzes, p. 254; Pusculus, iv. 190.
258 De Bospora Thracio, vi. c. 2.
259 Türkisches Tagebuch, pp. 358, 454; Patr. Constantius, p. 13.
260 Constant. Christ. iv. 190.
261 Synax., May 29.—
Κέρας κριοῦ κτεῖνόν σε, Θεοδοσία,
ὤφθη νέον σοι τῆς Ἀμαλθείας κέρας

262 Banduri, ii. p. 34.
263 Codinus, De S. Sophia, p. 147.
264 Itin. russes, p. 104.
265 Ibid. p. 125.
266 Ibid. p. 233.
267 Ibid. p. 162.
268 Itin. russes, p. 205.

269 Esq. top. parags. 68, 69.
270 Pachym. vol. i. p. 365; Chroniques græco-romaines, pp. 96, 97.
271 Nicet. Chon. p. 752.
272 Synax. March 25, May 29 (a day sacred to two saints named Theodosia),
July 8.
273 Itin. russes, p. 205. Not far from the church and cistern of S. Mokius.
274 Ibid. cf. pp. 122, 125.
275 Ibid. pp. 233, 234.
276 Ibid. pp. 162, 163.
277 Ibid. p. 205.
278 Itin. russes, pp. 225, 233.
279 Pachym. i. p. 365.
280 Ducas, p. 293.
281 Du Cange, iv. p. 190.
282 Merkadi havariyoun eshabi Issa alaihusselam.
283 Paspates, p. 322.
284 Leunclavius, Pand. Turc. c. 128.
285 Συγγραφαὶ αἱ Ἐλάσσονες.
286 "Μελέτης," Athens, 1908: Κωνσταντίνου Παλαιολόγου θάνατος, τάφος,
καὶ σπάθη.
287 Phrantzes, pp. 290-91, καὶ προστάξει αὐτοῦ οἱ εὑρεθέντες Χριστιανοὶ
ἔθαψαν τὸ βασιλικὸν πτῶμα μετὰ βασιλικῆς τιμῆς.
288 E.g., the column at which Christ was scourged stood in the church of the
Holy Apostles before the conquest. It was found by Gerlach after the conquest
in the Pammakaristos.—Turcograecia, p. 189.
289 See the Muscovite's account in Dethier's Collection of Documents relating
to the Siege of 1453, vol. ii. p. 1117.
290 Achmed Mouktar Pasha, a recent Turkish historian of the siege of 1453,
maintains that the emperor was buried in the church of the Pegé (Baloukli),
outside the walls of the city. There is no persistency in the tradition that
associates Constantine's tomb with the church of S. Theodosia.
291 Letters from the East (in Russian), vol. ii. pp. 342-43, quoted by Mr.
Siderides.
292 Συγγραφαὶ αἱ Ἐλάσσονες.

CHAPTER IX

THE CHURCH OF S. MARY DIACONISSA, KALENDER HANEH
JAMISSI

Close to the eastern end of the aqueduct of Valens, and to the south of it, in
the quarter of the mosque Shahzadé, is a beautiful Byzantine church, now
known as Kalender Haneh Jamissi. It was visited by Gyllius, 293 who refers
to its beautiful marble revetment—vestita crustis varii marmoris—but has,
unfortunately, nothing to say concerning its dedication. Since that traveller's
time the very existence of the church was forgotten by the Greek
community of Constantinople until Paspates 294 discovered the building in
1877. But even that indefatigable explorer of the ancient remains of the city
could not get access to the interior, and it was reserved for Dr. Freshfield in
1880 to be the first European visitor since Gyllius to enter the building, and
make its interest and beauty known to the general public. 295

PLATE XLVI.

S. Mary Diaconissa.
View of the North-west Side, taken from the Aqueduct of Valens.

S. Mary Diaconissa.
The North Arm, looking east.
To face page 182.

The identity of the church is a matter of pure conjecture, for we have no
tradition or documentary evidence on that point. Paspates 296 suggests that
it may have been the sanctuary connected either with the 'monastery of
Valens and Daudatus,' or with the 'monastery near the aqueduct,'
establishments in existence before the age of Justinian the Great. 297 It
cannot be the former, because the monastery of Valens and Daudatus, which
was dedicated to S. John the Baptist, stood near the church of the Holy
Apostles close to the western end of the aqueduct of Valens. It might, so far
as the indication 'near the aqueduct' gives any clue, be the sanctuary of the
latter House, in which case the church was dedicated to S. Anastasius.298
But the architectural features of Kalender Haneh Jamissi do not belong to
the period before Justinian. Mordtmann 299 identifies the building with the

church of the Theotokos in the district of the Deaconess (ναὸς τῆς θεοτόκου
τὰ Διακονίσσης), and in favour of this view there is the fact that the site of
the mosque corresponds, speaking broadly, to the position which that
church is known to have occupied somewhere between the forum of Taurus
(now represented by the Turkish War Office) and the Philadelphium (the
area about the mosque of Shahzadé), and not far off the street leading to the
Holy Apostles. Furthermore, the rich and beautiful decoration of the church
implies its importance, so that it may very well be the church of the
Theotokos Diaconissa, at which imperial processions from the Great Palace
to the Holy Apostles stopped to allow the emperor to place a lighted taper
upon the altar of the shrine. 300

Theophanes, 301 the earliest writer to mention the church of the Diaconissa,
ascribes its foundation to the Patriarch Kyriakos (593-605) in the fourth
year of his patriarchate, during the reign of the Emperor Maurice.
According to the historical evidence at our command, that church was
therefore erected towards the close of the sixth century. Dr. Freshfield, 302
however, judging by the form of the church and the character of the dome,
thinks that Kalender Haneh Jamissi is 'not earlier than the eighth century,
and not later than the tenth.' Lethaby 303 places it in the period between
Justinian the Great and the eleventh century. 'The church, now the Kalender
mosque of Constantinople, probably belongs to the intermediate period. The
similar small cruciform church of Protaton, Mount Athos, is dated c. 950.'
Hence if Theophanes and his followers are not to clash with these
authorities on architecture, either Kalender Haneh Jamissi is not the church
of the Diaconissa, or it is a reconstruction of the original fabric of that
sanctuary. To restore an old church was not an uncommon practice in
Constantinople, and Kalender Haneh Jamissi has undoubtedly seen changes
in the course of its history. On the other hand, Diehl is of the opinion that
the building cannot be later than the seventh century and may be earlier. 304

PLATE XLVII.

S. Mary Diaconissa. S. Mary Diaconissa.
The Interior, looking north-east. The Interior, looking south-east.

To face page 184.

Architectural Features

The church belongs to the domed-cross type. The central area is cruciform,
with barrel vaults over the arms and a dome on the centre. As the arms are
not filled in with galleries this cruciform plan is very marked internally.
Four small chambers, in two stories, in the arm angles bring the building to
the square form externally. The upper stories are inaccessible except by
ladders, but the supposition that they ever formed, like the similar stories in
the dome piers of S. Sophia, portions of continuous galleries along the
northern, western, and southern walls of the church is precluded by the
character of the revetment on the walls. In the development of the domed-
cross type, the church stands logically intermediate between the varieties of
that type found respectively in the church of S. Theodosia and in that of SS.
Peter and Mark.
The lower story of the north-western pier is covered with a flat circular roof
resting on four pendentives, while the upper story is open to the timbers,
and rises higher than the roof of the church, as though it were the base of

some kind of tower. It presents no indications of pendentives or of a start in
vaulting. The original eastern wall of the church has been almost totally
torn down and replaced by a straight wall of Turkish construction. Traces of
three apses at that end of the building can, however, still be discerned; for
the points at which the curve of the central apse started are visible on either
side of the Turkish wall, and the northern apse shows on the exterior. The
northern and southern walls are lighted by large triple windows, divided by
shafts and descending to a marble parapet near the floor (Plate IV.). The
dome, which is large in proportion to the church, is a polygon of sixteen
sides. It rests directly on pendentives, but has a comparatively high external
drum above the roof. It is pierced by sixteen windows which follow the
curve of the dome. The flat, straight external cornice above them is Turkish,
and there is good reason to suspect that the dome, taken as a whole, is
Turkish work, for it strongly resembles the Turkish domes found in S.
Theodosia, SS. Peter and Mark, and S. Andrew in Krisei. The vaults,
moreover, below the dome are very much distorted; and the pointed eastern
arch like the eastern wall appears to be Turkish. When portions of the
building so closely connected with the dome have undergone Turkish
repairs, it is not strange that the dome itself should also have received
similar treatment.
In the western faces of the piers that carry the eastern arch large marble
frames of considerable beauty are inserted. The sills are carved and rest on
two short columns; two slender pilasters of verd antique form the sides; and
above them is a flat cornice enriched with overhanging leaves of acanthus
and a small bust in the centre. Within the frames is a large marble slab. Dr.
Freshfield thinks these frames formed part of the eikonostasis, but on that
view the bema would have been unusually large. The more probable
position of the eikonostasis was across the arch nearer the apse. In that case
the frames just described formed part of the general decoration of the
building, although, at the same time, they may have enclosed isolated
eikons. Eikons in a similar position are found in S. Saviour in the Chora
(Plate LXXXVI.).
The marble casing of the church is remarkably fine. Worthy of special
notice is the careful manner in which the colours and veinings of the marble
slabs are made to correspond and match. The zigzag inlaid pattern around
the arches also deserves particular attention. High up in the western wall,

and reached by the wooden stairs leading to a Turkish wooden gallery on
that side of the church, are two marble slabs with a door carved in bas-relief
upon them. They may be symbols of Christ as the door of His fold (Plate
IV.).

PLATE XLVIII.

S. Mary Diaconissa. S. Mary Diaconissa.
East End, North Side (lower part). East End, North Side (upper part).

To face page 186.

The church has a double narthex. As the ground outside the building has
been raised enormously (it rises 15-20 feet above the floor at the east end)
the actual entrance to the outer narthex is through a cutting in its vault or
through a window, and the floor is reached by a steep flight of stone steps.
The narthex is a long narrow vestibule, covered with barrel vaults, and has a
Turkish wooden ceiling at the southern end.
The esonarthex is covered with a barrel vault between two cross vaults. The
entrance into the church stands between two Corinthian columns, but they
belong to different periods, and do not correspond to any structure in the
building. In fact, both narthexes have been much altered in their day,
presenting many irregularities and containing useless pilasters.

Professor Goodyear refers to this church in support of the theory that in
Byzantine buildings there is an intentional widening of the structure from
the ground upwards. 'It will also be observed,' he says, 'that the cornice is
horizontal, whereas the marble casing above and below the cornice is cut
and fitted in oblique lines.... The outward bend on the right side of the choir
is 111⁄2 inches in 33 feet. The masonry surfaces step back above the middle
string-course. That these bends are not due to thrust is abundantly apparent
from the fact that they are continuous and uniform in inclination up to the
solid rear wall of the choir.'
But in regard to the existence of an intentional widening upwards in this
building, it should be observed: First, that as the eastern wall of the church,
'the rear wall of the choir,' is Turkish, nothing can be legitimately inferred
from the features of that wall about the character of Byzantine construction.
Secondly, the set back above the middle string-course on the other walls of
the church is an ordinary arrangement in a Byzantine church, and if this
were all 'the widening' for which Professor Goodyear contended there
would be no room for difference of opinion. The ledge formed by that set
back may have served to support scaffolding. In the next place, due weight
must be given to the distortion which would inevitably occur in Byzantine
buildings. They were fabrics of mortar with brick rather than of brick with
mortar, and consequently too elastic not to settle to a large extent in the
course of erection. Hence is it that no measurements of a Byzantine
structure, even on the ground floor, are accurate within more than 5 cm.,
while above the ground they vary to a much greater degree, rendering
minute measurements quite valueless. Lastly, as the marble panelling was
fitted after the completion of the body of the building, it had to be adapted
to any divergence that had previously occurred in the settling of the walls or
the spreading of the vaults. The marble panelling, it should also be
observed, is here cut to the diagonal at one angle, and not at the other.
Apart from the set back of the masonry at the middle string-course, this
church, therefore, supplies no evidence for an intentional widening of the
structure from the ground upwards. Any further widening than that at the
middle string-course was accidental, due to the nature of the materials
employed, not to the device of the builder, and was allowed by the architect
because unavoidable. Such irregularities are inherent in the Byzantine
methods of building.

PLATE XLIX.

S. Mary Diaconissa.
South Eikon Frame.

S. Mary Diaconissa
Detail in the South Eikon Frame
To face page 188.

Fig. 61.

Fig. 62.

PLATE L.

S. Mary Diaconissa, looking west

S. Mary Diaconissa.
Capital on Column at the Entrance to the Church.
To face page 190.
293 De top. C.P. iii. c. 6.
294 P. 351.
295 Archaeologia, vol. lv. part 2, p. 431.
296 P. 352.
297 Their names appear in the Letter addressed to Menas, by the monks of the
city, at the Synod of 536.
298 In the Epistle to Pope Agapetus the monastery 'near the aqueduct' is
described as 'Anastasii prope Agogum,' Mansi, viii. p. 907.
299 Esquisses top. p. 70.
300 Const. Porphr. De cer. i. p. 75.
301 P. 428; Banduri, i. p. 18; viii. pp. 697-98.
302 Archaeologia, vol. lv. part 2, p. 438.
303 Mediaeval Art, p. 66.
304 Manuel d'art byzantin, p. 312.

CHAPTER X

THE CHURCH OF SS. PETER AND MARK, HOJA ATIK MUSTAPHA
JAMISSI

The Byzantine church, now Hoja Atik Mustapha Jamissi, situated in the
Aivan Serai quarter, close to the Golden Horn, is commonly regarded as the
church of SS. Peter and Mark, because it stands where the church dedicated
to the chief of the apostles and his companion stood, in the district of
Blachernae (Aivan Serai) and near the Golden Horn. 305 Such indications
are too vague for a positive opinion on the subject, but perhaps the Patriarch
Constantius, who is responsible for the identification, may have relied upon
some tradition in favour of the view he has made current. 306

Note
Tafferner, chaplain to the embassy from Leopold I. of Austria to the Ottoman Court, speaking of the
patriarchal church in his day (the present patriarchal church of S. George in the Phanar quarter), says,
'Aedes haec in patriarchatum erecta est, postquam Sultan Mehemet basilicam Petri et Pauli exceptam
Graecis in moscheam defoedavit' (Caesarea legatio, p. 89, Vien. 1668). Probably by the church of
SS. Peter and Paul he means this church of SS. Peter and Mark. If so, the traditional name of the
building is carried back to the seventeenth century. The church of SS. Peter and Mark, it is true, never
served as a patriarchal church. That honour belonged to the church of S. Demetrius of Kanabos,
which is in the immediate vicinity, and has always remained a Christian sanctuary. Tafferner seems to
have confused the two churches owing to their proximity to each other. Or his language may mean
that the patriarchal seat was removed from S. Demetrius when SS. Peter and Paul was converted into
a mosque, because too near a building which had become a Moslem place of worship.

The church of SS. Peter and Mark was founded, it is said, by two patricians
of Constantinople, named Galbius and Candidus, in 458, early in the reign
of Leo I. (457-474). But the present building cannot be so old. It is a fair
question to ask whether it may not be the church of S. Anastasia referred to
in a chrysoboullon of John Palaeologus (1342), and mentioned by the
Russian pilgrim who visited Constantinople in the fifteenth century (1424-
53). 307

The church of SS. Peter and Mark was erected as a shrine for the supposed
tunic of the Theotokos, a relic which played an important part in the
fortunes of Constantinople on several occasions, as 'the palladium of the
city and the chaser away of all diseases and warlike foes.' As often
happened in the acquisition of relics, the garment had been secured by a
pious fraud—a fact which only enhanced the merit of the purloiners, and
gave to the achievement the colour of a romantic adventure. In the course of
their pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Galbius and Candidus discovered, in the
house of a devout Hebrew lady who entertained them, a small room fitted
up like a chapel, fragrant with incense, illuminated with lamps, and
crowded with worshippers. Being informed that the room was consecrated
by the presence of a chest containing the robe of the mother of their Lord,
the pious men begged leave to spend the night in prayer beside the relic,
and while thus engaged were seized by an uncontrollable longing to gain
possession of the sacred garment. Accordingly they took careful
measurements of the chest before them, and at Jerusalem ordered an exact
facsimile of it to be made. Thus equipped they lodged again, on their
homeward journey, at the house of their Galilean hostess, and once more
obtained leave to worship in its chapel. Watching their opportunity they
exchanged the chests, and forthwith despatched the chest containing the
coveted treasure straight to Constantinople. They themselves tarried behind,
as though loth to quit a spot still hallowed by the sacred robe. Upon their
return to the capital the pious thieves erected a shrine for their prize on land
which they owned in the district of Blachernae, and dedicated the building
to SS. Peter and Mark instead of to the Theotokos, as would have been
more appropriate, in the hope that they would thus conceal the precious
relic from the public eye, and retain it for their special benefit. But the
secret leaked out. Whereupon the emperor obliged the two patricians to
surrender their treasure, and, after renovating the neighbouring church of
the Theotokos of Blachernae, deposited the relic in that sanctuary as its
proper home.

PLATE LI.

SS. Peter and Mark, from the south-east.

SS. Peter and Mark.
Font outside the Church.
To face page 192.

The site of that celebrated church lies at a short distance to the west of Hoja
Atik Mustapha Jamissi, and is marked by the Holy Well which was attached
to it. The well, in whose waters emperors and empresses were wont to
bathe, is now enclosed by a modern Greek chapel, and is still the resort of
the faithful.

Architectural Features

The plan of the church presents the simplest form of the domed-cross type
without galleries. The dome, without drum, ribs, or windows, is almost
certainly a Turkish reconstruction, but the dome arches and piers are
original. The arms of the cross and the small chambers at its angles are
covered with barrel vaults, and communicate with one another through
lofty, narrow arches. In the treatment of the northern and southern walls of
the building considerable architectural elaboration was displayed. At the
floor level is a triple arcade; higher up are three windows resting on the
string-course; and still higher a window divided into three lights. The arches
in the church are enormously stilted, a feature due to the fact that the only
string-course in the building, though structurally corresponding to the
vaulting spring, has been placed at the height of what would properly be the
column string-course. The three apses, much altered by repairs, project
boldly, all of them showing three sides on the exterior. The roof and the
cornice are Turkish, and the modern wooden narthex has probably replaced
a Byzantine narthex. On the opposite side of the street lies a cruciform font
that belonged to the baptistery of the church.

Fig. 63.

From a church of this type to the later four-columned plan is but a step. The
dome piers of SS. Peter and Mark are still L-shaped, and form the internal
angles of the cross. As the arches between such piers and the external walls
increased in size, the piers became smaller, until eventually they were
reduced to the typical four columns of the late churches.

PLATE LII.

SS. Peter and Mark. SS. Peter and Mark.
Interior of the Dome, looking north. Looking across the Dome from the south-west.
To face page 194.

Figs. 64 and 65.

305 Synax., July 2.

306 Ancient and Modern Constantinople, p. 83.
307 Νεολόγου ἑβδομαδιαία ἐπιθεώρησις, January 3, 1893, p. 205; Itin. russes,
p. 233.

CHAPTER XI

THE CHURCH OF THE MYRELAION, BODROUM JAMISSI

The identification of Bodroum Jamissi as the church attached to the
monastery styled the Myrelaion rests upon the tradition current in the Greek
community when Gyllius visited the city. According to that traveller, the
church on the hill rising to the north of the eastern end of the gardens of
Vlanga, the site of the ancient harbour of Theodosius, was known as the
Myrelaion—'Supra locum hortorum Blanchae nuncupatorum, olim Portum
Theodosianum continentium, extremam partem ad ortum solis pertinentem,
clivus a Septentrione eminet, in quo est templum vulgo nominatum
Myreleos.' 308 This agrees, so far, with the statement of the Anonymus 309 of
the eleventh century, that the Myrelaion stood on the side of the city
looking towards the Sea of Marmora. There is no record of the date when
the monastery was founded. But the House must have been in existence
before the eighth century, for Constantine Copronymus (740-775), the bitter
iconoclast, displayed his contempt for monks and all their ways by
scattering the fraternity, and changing the fragrant name of the
establishment, Myrelaion, the place of myrrh-oil, into the offensive
designation, Psarelaion, the place of fish-oil. 310 The monastery was
restored by the Emperor Romanus I. Lecapenus (919-945), who devoted his
residence in this district to that object. 311 Hence the monastery was
sometimes described as 'in the palace of the Myrelaion,' 312 ἐν τοῖς
παλατίοις τοῦ Μυρελαίου, and as 'the monastery of the Emperor Romanus,'
313
Μονὴ τοῦ βασιλέως Ῥωμανοῦ. It was strictly speaking a convent, and
became noteworthy for the distinguished rank of some of its inmates, and as
the mausoleum in which the founder and many members of his family were

laid to rest. Here Romanus II. sent his sister Agatha to take the veil, when
he was obliged to dismiss her from the court to soothe the jealousy of his
beautiful but wicked consort Theophano. 314 Upon the abdication of Isaac
Comnenus, his wife Aecatherina and her daughter Maria retired to the
Myrelaion, and there learned that a crown may be a badge of slavery and
the loss of it liberty. 315 Here were buried Theodora,316 the wife of
Romanus Lecapenus, in 923, and, eight years later, his beloved son
Christopher, 317 for whom he mourned, says the historian of the event, with
a sorrow 'greater than the grievous mourning of the Egyptians.' Here also
Helena, the daughter of Romanus Lecapenus, and wife of Constantine VII.
Porphyrogenitus, was laid to rest, in 981, after an imposing funeral, in
which the body was carried to the grave on a bier of gold adorned with
pearls and other precious stones. 318 To this monastery were transferred,
from the monastery of S. Mamas, near the Gate of the Xylokerkou, the
three sarcophagi, one of them a fine piece of work, containing the ashes of
the Emperor Maurice and his children. And here also Romanus Lecapenus
himself was interred in 948, his remains being brought from the island of
Proté, where his unfilial sons, Stephen and Constantine, had obliged him to
spend the last years of his life as a monk. 319

PLATE LIII.

Myrelaion.
The South Side.

Myrelaion.
The Narthex, looking north
To face page 196.

Architectural Features

The building is on the 'four column' plan. The dome, placed on a circular
drum, is supported on four piers, and divided into eight concave
compartments, with windows in the alternate compartments. The arms of
the cross, the chambers at the angles, and the bema are all covered with
cross-groined vaults that spring, like those in the chapel of the
Pammakaristos (p. 151), from the vaulting level. The apsidal chambers have
dome vaults, a niche on the east recessed in an arch to form the apse, and a
niche both on the north and the south rising above the vaulting string-
course. In the lowest division of the south wall stood originally a triple
arcade with a door between the columns. The arcade has been built up, but

the moulded jambs and cornices of the door, and the arch above it, now
contracted into a window, still show on the exterior, while the columns
appear within the church. Above the column string-course is a range of
three windows, the central window being larger than its companions; higher
up in the gable is a single light. The interior of the church has been much
pulled about and cut away. The narthex is in three bays, separated by strong
transverse arches, and terminates at either end in a high concave niche that
shows on the outside. The central bay has a dome vault; the other bays have
cross-groined vaults. The church had no gynecaeum, although Pulgher
indicates one in his plan. A striking feature of the exterior are the large
semicircular buttresses that show beyond the walls of the church—six on
the south side, one on either side of the entrance on the west, and two on the
east, supporting the apsidal chambers. In the last case, however, where
entire buttresses would have been at once too large and too close together,
the buttresses are only half semicircles. The apses project with three sides.
The northern side of the church and the roof are modern, for the building
suffered severely in 1784 from fire. 320 The church stands on a platform,
built over a small cistern, the roof of which is supported by four columns
crowned by beautiful capitals. Hence the Turkish name of the mosque,
Bodroum, signifying a subterranean hollow. Gyllius 321 is mistaken in
associating this church with the large underground cistern situated lower
down the slope of the hill close to the bath Kyzlar Aghassi Hamam.

PLATE LIV.

Myrelaion. Myrelaion.
The Interior, looking east. The south-west cross Angle.
To face page 198.

Since the above was in print, the church has, unfortunately, been burnt in
the great fire which destroyed a large part of Stamboul on the 23rd July
1912 (see Plates II., III.).

Note
Gyllius (De top. C.P. iii. c. 8) places the Horreum, the statue of Maimas, the house of Craterus, the
Modius, and the arch bearing the two bronze hands, after passing which a criminal on the way to
punishment lost all hope of reprieve, near this church; basing that opinion on the statement of Suidas
that these buildings stood near the Myrelaion. But there was a Myrelaion also (Codinus, De aed. p.
108) in the district in which the Shahzadé mosque is situated. The buildings above mentioned were
near this second Myrelaion. On the other hand, the Chrysocamaron near the Myrelaion mentioned by
Codinus (De signis, pp. 65-66) stood near the church under our consideration, for it was close to the
church of S. Acacius in the Heptascalon. So also, doubtless, did the xenodocheion Myrelaion (Du
Cange, iv. p. 160), possibly one of the many philanthropic institutions supported by Helena (Theoph.
Cont. p. 458), the daughter of Romanus Lecapenus and wife of Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus.

Figs. 66 and 67

308 De top. C.P. iii. c. 8.
309 Banduri, iii. p. 48.

310 Ibid. ut supra.
311 Theoph. Cont. p. 402.
312 Scylitzes, in Cedrenus, ii. p. 649.
313 Theoph. Cont. p. 404.
314 Ibid. pp. 461, 757.
315 Scylitzes, ut supra, pp. 648-49.
316 Theoph. Cont. p. 402.
317 Ibid. p. 420.
318 Ibid. p. 473.
319 Ibid. pp. 403-4.
320 Chevalier, Voyage de la Propontide et du Pont Euxin, vol. i. p. 108.
321 De top. C.P. iii. c. 8, 'habens inter se cisternam, cujus camera lateritia
sustinetur columnis marmoreis circiter sexaginta'; cf. Die byzant.
Wasserbehälter, pp. 59, 222-23. The bath of Kyzlar Aghassi Hamam may
represent the bath built by the eunuch Nicetas, in the reign of Theophilus, and
was probably supplied with water from the cistern beside it (Banduri, vi. p.
133).

CHAPTER XII

THE CHURCH OF S. JOHN THE BAPTIST IN TRULLO, ACHMED
PASHA MESJEDI

The identification of the church of S. John the Baptist in Trullo (Μονὴ τοῦ
ἁγίου προφήτου προδρόμου Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἐν τῷ Τρούλλῳ) with the mosque
of Achmed Pasha Mesjedi is based on two reasons: first, because of their
common proximity to the church of the Pammakaristos, 322 now Fetiyeh
Jamissi; secondly, on the ground of the tradition current in the Greek
community on that point. The latter reason is in this case particularly strong,
seeing the church of the Pammakaristos was the patriarchal cathedral
almost immediately after the Turkish conquest, and retained that honour

until 1591. 323 The highest Greek ecclesiastical authorities were therefore in
a position to be thoroughly acquainted with the dedication of a church in
their close vicinity. In 1578 the protonotarius of the patriarch showed
Gerlach the site of the Trullus close to Achmed Pasha Mesjedi. 324

The church is mentioned in history only by Phrantzes, 325 who informs us
that when the Patriarch Gennadius transferred the patriarchal seat to the
monastery and church of the Pammakaristos, certain nuns previously
accommodated in that House were removed to the neighbouring monastery
of S. John Baptist in Trullo. Phrantzes explains the designation of the
church, 'in Trullo,' as derived from a palace named Trullus which once
stood in the vicinity to the north of the Pammakaristos. It was the palace,
adds the historian, 326 in which the Council of Constantinople, known as the
Concilium Quinisextum (Πενθέκτη), or the second Concilium Trullanum,
assembled in 692, in the reign of Justinian II. But the palace Trullus, in
which the first Concilium Trullanum met in 680, was one of the group of
buildings forming the Great Palace 327 beside the Hippodrome, and there
the second Concilium Trullanum also held its meetings. 328 Phrantzes is
therefore mistaken in associating the Council of 692 with a palace in the
vicinity of the Pammakaristos and Achmed Pasha Mesjedi. But his mistake
on that particular point does not preclude the existence of a palace named
Trullus in the neighbourhood of the Pammakaristos. In fact, the existence of
such a palace in that district is the only possible explanation of the
attachment of the style 'in Trullo' to a church on the site of Achmed Pasha
Mesjedi. Nor is it strange to find a name pertaining primarily to a building
in the Great Palace transferred to a similar building situated elsewhere. The
imperial residence at the Hebdomon, for example, was named Magnaura
after one of the halls in the Great Palace. 329 There was an Oaton or Trullus
in the palace of Blachernae, 330 and in the palace at Nicaea. 331
Consequently, a palace known as the Oaton or the Trullus might also be
situated near the Pammakaristos, to command the fine view from that point
of the city. Mordtmann, 332 indeed, maintains that the building to which
Phrantzes refers was the palace at Bogdan Serai, the subsequent residence
of the Moldavian hospodar in Turkish days, and that the church of S. John
in Trullo was not Achmed Pasha Mesjedi, but the church of S. John in Petra
(Kesmé Kaya) beside that palace. This opinion, however, is at variance with

the statements of Phrantzes and Gerlach. Furthermore, the designation 'in
Petra' was so distinctive a mark of the church of S. John near Kesmé Kaya,
that the church could scarcely have been recognised under another style.

PLATE LV.

S. John in Trullo, from the south-west

Balaban Mesjedi (page 265).
Interior View.
To face page 202.

Fig. 68.

Architectural Features

S. John in Trullo belongs to the ordinary 'four column' type of church
building, and has a narthex. Its three apses are semicircular both within and
without, presenting the only instance in Constantinople of apses
semicircular on the exterior. The central apse projects m. 3 beyond the body
of the building, and was lighted by a large but low window, divided into
three lights by two pilasters crowned with carved capitals (for details see
Fig. 68); the diaconicon has been built up to form the mihrab of the
mosque; the prothesis, to the north, has a barrel vault.

Fig. 69.

The drum dome is octagonal, with eight ribs and as many windows. It
seems large for the size of the church, and is lower than usual inside. The
windows do not cut into the exterior cornice of the dome. Originally the
dome arches rested on four piers or columns, but these have been removed
in the course of Turkish repairs, and the dome arches are now supported by
beams running across the church, under the impost of the arches.
The arms of the cross to the north and south have barrel vaults, and the
walls are pierced by triple windows. Two capitals built into the exterior face
of the northern wall, and marked with a cross, were doubtless the capitals of
the shafts which divided the northern window into three lights. The western
arm of the cross is covered by the roof of the narthex, and lighted by a small
round-headed window above it. The small narthex is in three bays, covered
with cross-groined vaults.
It is not probable that the church was converted into a mosque before 1591,
when the patriarchal seat was removed from the Pammakaristos to S.
Demetrius beside the Xyloporta. Nor could the conversion have been later
than 1598, the year in which Achmed Pasha—who converted the building

into a mosque—died. 333

Figs. 70 and 71.

322 Phrantzes, p. 307.
323 Patr. Constantius, p. 80.
324 Tagebuch, p. 456. On the way eastwards from the residence of the
Moldavian agent (Bogdan Serai), says Gerlach, 'Auf diesem Spazier-weg hat
mir Theodosius auch den Trullum auf der Seiten des Patriarchats gegen dem
Sultan Selim gewiesen. Welches vor diesen ein sehr weiter Platz gewesen, nun
aber nichts mehr da als ein rundes getäffeltes Haus, wie ein kleines Kirchlein
ist.' Cf. his statement reported by Crusius in Turcograecia, p. 189:
'Patriarchatui contiguum est monasteriolum Joannis Baptistae a Graecis
sanctimonalibus inhabitatum.'
325 Phrantzes, p. 307; cf. Turcograecia, p. 189.
326 It was also styled Ὠάτον, 'the Oval,' after the form of its roof or of the
body of the building itself (Synax., Sept. 14). Vita Stephani. For the Ὠάτον, see
Labarte, Le Palais impérial de Cons'ple, pp. 62, 121, 122, 186.
327 Vita Stephani Junioris, Migne, P.G. tom. 100, col. 1144 ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ
παλατίῳ, ἔνθα ἐπιλέγεται ὁ Τροῦλλος ὅπερ ἡμεῖς Ὠάτον καλοῦμεν.
328 Balsamon, vol. i. col. 501 ἐν τῷ Τρούλλῳ τοῦ βασιλικοῦ παλατίου.
329 Theoph. p. 541.
330 Pachym. i. p. 405.
331 Acta et diplomata Graeca, iii. p. 65; cf. Paspates, Great Palace, p. 248,
Metcalfe's translation.
332 Proceedings of Greek Syllogos of C.P., Archaeological Supplement to vol.
xvii. p. 8. His principal reason seems to be the fact that a company of nuns
occupied some of the cells in the old monastery of S. John in Petra when
Gerlach visited the city. But, according to Gerlach, another sisterhood was at
the same time accommodated in the small convent of S. John the Baptist near
the patriarchate.—Turcograecia, p. 189.
333 Cf. Paspates, p. 304.

CHAPTER XIII

THE CHURCH OF S. THEKLA, TOKLOU IBRAHIM DEDÉ MESJEDI

In the quarter of Aivan Serai, a few paces to the rear of the Heraclian Wall,
stands a small mosque known as Toklou Ibrahim Dedé Mesjedi, the

architectural features of which proclaim it at once to be an old Byzantine
chapel. There is no decisive tradition in regard to the identity of the
building. The Patriarch Constantius is uncertain whether it should be
recognised as the church of S. Nicholas or as the church of S. Thekla, two
sanctuaries situated in the quarter of Blachernae. It cannot have been the
former, inasmuch as the site of that church was near the Holy Well, still
venerated by Christians and Moslems, 334 in the area enclosed between the
Wall of Heraclius and the Wall of Leo the Armenian, now a picturesque
Turkish cemetery. One argument for regarding the building as the church of
S. Thekla, in this part of the city, is the striking similarity of its Turkish
name Toklou to the Greek name Thekla, rendering it exceedingly probable
that the former is a corruption of the latter, and a reminiscence of the
original designation of the edifice. 335 Turkish authorities, however, have
their own explanation of the name Toklou. In the Historical and
Geographical Dictionary of Achmed Rifaat Effendi, we are told that a
certain Toklou Dedé was the guardian of the tombs of the companions of
Khaled, who took part in the first siege of Constantinople (673) by the
Saracens. 'His real name was Ghazi Ismail; Dogulu was his nickname. Now
Dogh is the Persian for a drink named Airan (a mixture of curds and water),
and he was called Dogulu Dedé because during the siege his business was
to distribute that drink to the troops. At his request a Christian church near
Aivan Serai was converted into a mosque. The church was formerly named
after its founder, Isakias.' 336 Another Turkish explanation of Toklou derives
the epithet from the rare Turkish term for a yearling lamb, and accounts for
its bestowal upon Ibrahim Dedé as a pet name given in gratitude for his
services to the thirsty soldiers engaged in the siege of the city. 337 In
keeping with these stories is the tradition that the cemetery in the area
between the Walls of Heraclius and Leo V. the Armenian, is the resting-
place of Saracen warriors who fell in the siege of 673. But have we not here
the fancy-bred tales which Oriental imagination weaves to veil its ignorance
of real facts? When etymology or history fails, romance is substituted. We
may as well believe the tradition that the body of Eyoub, the standard-
bearer of Mahomet, lies buried at the head of the Golden Horn, in the
mosque of Eyoub, where the Sultan girds the sword on his accession to the
throne. No Moslem graves could have been tolerated between the lines of
the city's fortification in Byzantine days. The cemetery between the old

walls near Toklou Ibrahim Dedé Mesjedi must therefore be later than the
Turkish conquest. And as soon as Moslems were laid there, it was almost
inevitable that a church in the immediate neighbourhood should either be
destroyed or converted into a mosque. By what name that mosque would
thenceforth become known was, of course, an open question. The new name
might be purely Turkish. But when it sounds like the echo of a name which
we know belonged to a Byzantine building in this quarter of the city before
Turkish times, it is more reasonable to regard the new name as a
transformation of the earlier Greek term, than to derive it from fine-spun
etymological fancies and historical blunders. The identification, therefore,
of Toklou Ibrahim Dedé Mesjedi with the church of S. Thekla, on the
ground of the similarity of the two names, has a strong presumption in its
favour.

PLATE LVI.

S. Thekla. S. Thekla.
North Side, from the north-west. East End.
To face page 208.

NOTE ON THE CHURCH OF S. THEKLA

(Chapter XIII.)

On page 209, note 3, I have said that if the mosque Aivas Effendi (more correctly Ivaz Effendi),
which is situated behind the Tower of Isaac Angelus within the old area of the palace of Blachernae,
could be proved to stand on the site of a church, the argument in favour of the identification of the
Church of S. Thekla with Toklou Dedé Mesjedi would be weakened. Since this book went to the
press, my learned friend Mr. X. A. Siderides has shown me a passage in the historical work of
Mustapha Effendi of Salonica, published in 1865, where the mosque of Ivaz Effendi is described as a
church converted into a mosque by a certain Ivaz Effendi who died in 1586, at the age of ninety. In
that case we should have a Christian sanctuary whose position corresponded strictly with the position
occupied by the Church of S. Thekla "in the palace of Blachernae," an indication not exactly accurate
in regard to Toklou Dedé Mesjedi. In view of the late date of Mustapha Effendi's work, and the
absence, so far as I can judge, of Byzantine features in the structure of the mosque, it is difficult to
decide if the arguments in favour of the identification of the Church of S. Thekla with Toklou Dedé
Mesjedi are entirely overthrown by the statement of Mustapha Effendi.

A second consideration in support of this identification is the statement
made by Achmed Rifaat Effendi, that before the church became a mosque it
was known by the name of its founder, 'Isakias.' For it is a matter of history
that the church of S. Thekla was restored by the Emperor Isaac Comnenus
338
in the eleventh century. The association of his name with the building
was therefore perfectly natural, if the building is indeed the old church of S.
Thekla, otherwise it is difficult to account for that association.
There is, however, one objection to this identification that must not be
overlooked. According to Byzantine authorities, the church of S. Thekla
stood in the palace of Blachernae (ἐντὸς τῶν βασιλείων; ἐν τῷ παλατίῳ τῶν
Βλαχέρνων 339). That palace occupied the heights above Aivan Serai, on
which the quarter of Egri Kapou and the mosque of Aivas Effendi now
stand, within the walls that enclose the western spur of the Sixth Hill.
Toklou Ibrahim Dedé Mesjedi, however, does not stand within that
enclosure, but immediately to the north of it, on the level tract that stretches
from the foot of the Sixth Hill to the Golden Horn. If the reasons in favour
of regarding the mosque as S. Thekla were less strong, this objection would,
perhaps, be fatal. But the strip of land between the northern wall of the
palace enclosure and the sea is so narrow, and was so closely connected
with the life of the imperial residence, that a building on that tract might
with pardonable inaccuracy be described, as 'in the palace.' 340
The church is mentioned for the first time in the earlier half of the eighth
century as a chapel (εὐκτήριον) which Thekla, the eldest daughter of the
Emperor Theophilus, restored and attached to her residence at Blachernae.
341
The princess was an invalid, and doubtless retired to this part of the city

for the sake of its mild climate. To dedicate the chapel to her patron saint
was only natural. As already intimated, the church was rebuilt from the
foundations, in the eleventh century, by Isaac Comnenus, in devout
gratitude for his escape from imminent death 342 in the course of his
campaign against the barbarous tribes beside the Danube, when he was
overtaken at the foot of the Lovitz mountain by a furious tempest of rain
and snow. The plain on which his army was encamped soon became a sheet
of water, and many of his men and animals were drowned or frozen to
death. Thunder, lightning, and hurricane combined to produce an awful
scene, and there were moments when the whole world seemed on fire. The
emperor took shelter under a large oak, but, fearing the tree might be
thrown down by the furious wind, he soon made for open ground. Scarcely
had he done so when the oak was torn up by the roots and hurled to the
earth. A few moments later the emperor would have been killed. This
narrow escape occurred on the 24th September, the festival day of S.
Thekla, and, therefore, attributing his deliverance to her intervention, Isaac
rebuilt and greatly beautified the old sanctuary dedicated to her in
Blachernae, and frequently attended services there in her honour. Anna
Comnena 343 speaks of the restored church in the highest terms. According
to her it was built at great cost, displayed rare art, and was in every way
worthy of the occasion which led to its erection. Zonaras 344 is not so
complimentary. He describes the church as a monument of the niggardliness
of Isaac Comnenus. In any case, it was pulled down and rebuilt in the
following century by the Emperor John Comnenus in splendid style, and
dedicated to the Saviour. 345 As the beauty and wealth of a Byzantine
sanctuary were exhibited in the lavish adornment of the interior, it is
possible that the church of S. Thekla, though small and outwardly plain,
may have been a beautiful and rich building in its latest Christian character.
It had then the honour of seeing among the worshippers before its altar
Anna Dalassena, the mother of the Comneni. For, when charged with the
government of the Empire during the absence of Alexius Comnenus from
the capital, that able woman came often to pray in this church, 'lest she
should be immersed in merely secular affairs.' 346

Architectural Features
(For Plan see p. 206)

The building is an oblong hall, m. 13.55 by m. 5.4, divided into three
compartments. It is now covered with a wooden roof, but the arrangements
of the breaks or pilasters on the walls indicate that it had originally a dome.
At the east end is a single apse, the usual side-apses being represented by
two niches. The western compartment served as a narthex. During the
repairs of the mosque in 1890, frescoes of the eikons which once decorated
the walls were brought to view. On the exterior the apse shows three sides,
crowned with a corbelled cornice. The central side is pierced by a window
of good workmanship, divided by a shaft into two lights, and above the
window are two short blind concave niches. High blind concave niches
indent the other sides of the apse. In the northern wall are the remains of a
triple window, divided by shafts built in courses. Above this is a row of
three small windows.
334 Ancient and Modern C.P. p. 46.
335 Paspates, p. 359.
336 For this information I am indebted to Rev. H. O. Dwight, LL.D., late of
the American Board of Missions in Constantinople.
337 Paspates, p. 357, note.
338 Anna Comnena, vol. i. p. 168.
339 Scylitzes, p. 647 (Cedrenus, vol. ii.); Zonaras, iii. p. 672.
340 If the mosque Aivas Effendi could be proved to stand on the site of a
church, the argument against the identification of Toklou Dedé Mesjedi with
the church of S. Thekla would be stronger.
341 Theoph. Cont. p. 147.
342 Anna Comnena, vol. i. p. 168.
343 Ibid. vol. i. p. 168.
344 Zonaras, iii. p. 672.
345 Ibid. ut supra.
346 Anna Comnena, vol. i. p. 169.

CHAPTER XIV

THE CHURCH OF S. SAVIOUR PANTEPOPTES, ESKI IMARET
MESJEDI

The reasons which favour the identification of the mosque Eski Imaret
Mesjedi, which is situated on the heights above Aya Kapou (Gate of S.
Theodosia), with the church of S. Saviour Pantepoptes, the All-Seeing
(παντεπόπτης), are the following: first, the tradition to that effect, 347 which
in the case of a building so conspicuous can scarcely be mistaken; secondly,
the correspondence of its position to that of the Pantepoptes, on a hill
commanding an extensive view of the Golden Horn; 348 and finally, the
architectural features which mark it to be what the church of the
Pantepoptes was, a building of the Comnenian period. The church of the
Pantepoptes was founded or restored by Anna Dalassena, 349 the mother of
Alexius I. Comnenus (1081-1118), one of the most remarkable women in
Byzantine history, combining to a rare degree domestic virtues with great
political ambition and administrative ability. For twenty years she was
associated with her son in the government of the Empire, and was the
power behind the throne which he owed largely to her energy and devotion.
About the year 1100 she laid aside the cares of state, and without
renouncing altogether her royal style retired to rest in the monastery she had
built, until her death, five years later, at an advanced age. 350 There is
nothing of special importance to record in the annals of the House. Its
inmates were occasionally disturbed by the confinement among them of
some dignitary who had offended the Government, or by the theological
disputes that agitated the ecclesiastical circles of the capital. 351 But for the
most part life at Pantepoptes was quiet and peaceful. Only once does the
monastery stand out conspicuous before the eyes of the world. When the
Venetian ships under Henrico Dandolo, with the army of the Fourth
Crusade on board, lined the shore of the Golden Horn from Ispigas and the
church of S. Saviour the Benefactor to Blachernae (i.e. from Jubali
Kapoussi to Aivan Serai) on Easter Monday, 12th April 1204, the Emperor
Alexius Murtzuphlus established his headquarters beside the Pantepoptes.
There he pitched his vermilion tent, marshalled his best troops, and watched
the operations of the enemy. And thence he fled when he saw the walls on
the shore below him carried by storm, and Flemish knights mounted on
horses, which had been landed from the hostile fleet, advancing to assault

his position. So hurried was his flight that he left his tent standing, and
under its shelter Count Baldwin of Flanders and Hainault slept away the
fatigue of that day's victory. 352 During the Latin occupation the church
passed into the hands of the Venetians, and was robbed of many of its relics
for the benefit of churches in the West. 353 Upon the Turkish conquest it
served for some time as an imaret or refectory for the students and teachers
of the medressé, 354 then in course of construction beside the great mosque
of Sultan Mehemed. Hence its Turkish name. After serving that purpose it
was converted into a mosque later in the reign of the conqueror.

PLATE LVII.

S. Saviour Pantepoptes. S. Saviour Pantepoptes.
The Door Leading from the Outer to the Inner The Dome, looking west.
Narthex.
View looking north.
To face page 212.

Fig. 72.

Architectural Features

In plan the church belongs to the 'four column' type, and has two narthexes.
The dome, placed on a drum, circular within and twelve-sided without, is
carried on four piers which the Turks have reduced to an irregular octagonal
form. It is divided into twelve bays by square ribs, and is lighted by twelve
semicircular-headed windows. The cornice-string is adorned with a running
leaf spray of a pleasing and uncommon design. The arms of the cross have
barrel vaults, while the chambers at its angles are covered with cross-
groined vaults. The apsidal chambers are small, with shallow niches on the
north, south, and west, and a somewhat deeper niche on the east where the
apse stands. These niches are carried up through a vaulting string-course,

carved with a repeating leaf ornament, and combine with the groined vault
above them to produce a charming canopy. The southern transept gable,
though much built up, still displays the design which occurs so frequently in
Byzantine churches, namely, three windows in the lunette of the arch (the
central light rising higher than the sidelights), and three stilted arches below
the vaulting string-course, resting on two columns and containing three
windows which are carried down to a breastwork of carved marble slabs
between the columns. The floor of the church is paved with square red
bricks, except in the apses, where marble is employed. The gynecaeum,
above the inner narthex, is divided into three bays separated by broad
transverse arches. The central bay, which is larger than its companions, is
covered with a dome vault, and looks into the body of the church through a
fine triple arcade in the lunette of the western arm of the cross. The smaller
bays are covered with cross-groined vaults. As elsewhere, the vaulting-
string in the gynecaeum is decorated with carved work. The inner narthex,
like the gynecaeum above it, is divided into three bays covered with cross-
groined vaults, and communicates with the church, as usual, by three doors.
Its walls seem to have been formerly revetted with marble. In the northern
wall is a door, now closed, which gave access to a building beyond that side
of the church. The exonarthex is also divided in three bays, separated by
transverse arches, and communicates with the inner narthex by three doors
and with the outer world by a single door situated in the central bay. That
bay has a low dome without windows, while the lateral bays have groined
vaults. Turkish repairs show in the pilasters and the pointed arches which
support the original transverse arches. The doors throughout the building
are framed in marble jambs and lintels, adorned in most cases with a
running ornament and crosses. In the case of the doors of the exonarthex a
red marble, brèche rouge, is employed, as in the exonarthex of the
Pantokrator, another erection of the Comnenian period. On the exterior the
building is much damaged, but nevertheless preserves traces of
considerable elaboration. The walls are of brick, intermixed with courses of
stone, and on the three sides of the central apse there are remains of
patterned brickwork. On the buttresses to the southern wall are roundels
with radiating voussoirs in stone and brick, and if one may judge from the
fact that the string-course does not fit the face of the wall, parts of the
exterior of the church were incrusted with marble. The round-headed
windows of the dome cut into its cornice. Under the church is a cistern 355

which Bondelmontius deemed worthy of mention. 356 Until some twenty
years ago extensive substructures were visible on the north-east of the
church, affording homes for poor Greek families. 357 They were probably
the foundations of the lofty monastery buildings whose windows
commanded the magnificent view of the Golden Horn that doubtless
suggested the epithet Pantepoptes, under which the Saviour was worshipped
in this sanctuary.

PLATE LVIII.

S. Saviour Pantepoptes.
Exterior Decoration in Brick, on South Side

S. Mary Pammakaristos.
Bracket at the South-east Angle of the Exterior Wall of
the Parecclesion.

To face page 214.

S. Saviour Pantepoptes is the most carefully built of the later churches of
Constantinople. The little irregularities of setting out so common in the
other churches of the city are here almost entirely absent. This accuracy of
building, the carving of the string-courses, and the remains of marble
decoration both within and on the exterior, prove exceptional care.
For details see Figs. 68, 72, 75.

Fig. 73.

Fig. 74.

347 Patr. Constantius, pp. 70-80.
348 Nicet. Chon. p. 752.

349 Glycas, p. 622.
350 Ibid. For the career of this distinguished woman, see Diehl, Figures
byzantines.
351 Nicet. Chon. pp. 315-16; Pachym. i. pp. 314-15, ii. p. 185.
352 Villehardouin, La Conquête de C.P. pp. 141-44; Chroniques gréco-
romaines, pp. 96, 97.
353 Riant, Exuviae sacrae, p. 178.
354 Paspates, p. 314.
355 Die byzantinischen Wasserbehälter von K.P., von Dr. P. Forcheimer und
Dr. J. Strzygowski, pp. 106-7.
356 Librum insularum Archipelagi, 65.
357 Paspates, p. 314.

CHAPTER XV

THE CHURCH OF S. SAVIOUR PANTOKRATOR,
ZEÏREK KILISSI JAMISSI

According to the tradition current in the city when Gyllius 358 and Gerlach
359
explored the antiquities of Constantinople, the large Byzantine church,
now the mosque Zeïrek Kilissi Jamissi, overlooking the Golden Horn from
the heights above Oun Kapan, was the famous church of S. Saviour
Pantokrator. There is no reason for doubting the accuracy of this
identification. The church was so important, and so closely associated with
events which occurred late in the history of the city, that its identity could
not be forgotten by the Greek ecclesiastical authorities soon after the
Turkish conquest. Moreover, all indications of the position of the church,
although too vague to determine its precise site, are in harmony with the
tradition on the subject. For, according to Russian pilgrims to the shrines of
Constantinople, the Pantokrator could be reached most readily from the side
of the city on the Golden Horn, 360 and stood in the vicinity of the church of

the Holy Apostles 361—particulars that agree with the situation of Zeïrek
Kilissi Jamissi.

The church was founded by the Empress Irene, 362 the consort of John II.
Comnenus (1118-1143), and daughter of Ladislas, King of Hungary. She
came to Constantinople shortly before 1105 as the Princess Pyrisca, a
beautiful girl, 'a plant covered with blossoms, promising rich fruit,' to marry
John Comnenus, then heir-apparent to the crown of Alexius Comnenus, and
adorned eight years of her husband's reign by the simplicity of her tastes
and her great liberality to the poor. The monastic institutions of the city also
enjoyed her favour, and not long before her death in 1126 she assumed the
veil under the name of Xené. The foundations of the church were, probably,
laid soon after her husband's accession to the throne, and to the church she
attached a monastery capable of accommodating seven hundred monks; 363
a xenodocheion, a home for aged men, and a hospital. 364
But the pious and charitable lady had undertaken more than she could
perform, and was obliged to turn to the emperor for sympathy and
assistance. Accordingly she took him, one day, to see the edifice while in
course of erection, and falling suddenly at his feet, implored him with tears
to complete her work. The beauty of the building and the devotion of his
wife appealed so strongly to John Comnenus that he forthwith vowed to
make the church and monastery the finest in the city, and altogether worthy
of the Pantokrator to whom they were dedicated; 365 and so well did he
keep his promise, that the honour of being the founder of the church has
been bestowed on him by the historian Nicetas Choniates. 366

The imperial typicon or charter of the monastery, 367 granted in 1136, made
the monastery an autonomous institution, independent of the patriarch or
the prefect of the city, and exempt from taxes of every description. At the
same time it was provided with vineyards and richly endowed.

According to Scarlatus Byzantius 368 and the Patriarch Constantius, 369 a
mosaic in the building portrayed the Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1141-
1180) in the act of presenting the model of the church to Christ. If that was
the case the church was completed by that emperor. As will immediately
appear, Manuel certainly enriched the church with relics.

PLATE LIX.

S. Saviour Pantokrator, from the west.
To face page 220.

The history of the Pantokrator may be conveniently divided into three
periods: the period of the Comneni; the period of the Latin Empire; and the
period of the Palaeologi.
During the first the following incidents occurred: Here, as was most fitting,
the founders of the church and monastery were laid to rest, the Empress
Irene in 1126, 370 the Emperor John Comnenus 371 seventeen years later.
Here their elder son Isaac was confined, until the succession to the throne
had been settled in favour of his younger brother Manuel. That change in
the natural order of things had been decided upon by John Comnenus while
he lay dying in Cilicia from the effects of a wound inflicted by the fall of a
poisoned arrow out of his own quiver, when boar-hunting in the forests of
the Taurus Mountains, and was explained as due to Manuel's special fitness
to assume the care of the Empire, and not merely to the fact that he was a
father's favourite son. But when the appointment was made Manuel was
with his father in Cilicia, while Isaac was in Constantinople, in a position to
mount the throne as soon as the tidings of John's death reached the capital.
The prospect that Manuel would wear the crown seemed therefore very
remote. But Axuch, an intimate friend and counsellor of the dying emperor,
started for Constantinople the moment Manuel was nominated, and
travelled so fast, that he reached the city before the news of the emperor's
death and of Manuel's nomination was known there. Then, wasting no time,
Axuch made sure of the person of Isaac, removed him from the palace, and
put him in charge of the monks of the Pantokrator, who had every reason to
be loyal to the wishes of the deceased sovereign. The wily courtier then set
himself to win the leading men in the capital over to the cause of the
younger brother, and, by the time Manuel was prepared to enter
Constantinople, had secured for him a popular welcome and the surrender
of Isaac's claims. 372
In 1147, the famous eikon of S. Demetrius of Thessalonia was transferred
from the magnificent basilica dedicated to the saint in that city to the
Pantokrator. This was done by the order of Manuel Comnenus, at the
request of Joseph, then abbot of the monastery, and in accordance with the
wishes of the emperor's parents, the founders of the House. 373 It was a
great sacrifice to demand of the Macedonian shrine, and by way of
compensation a larger and more artistic eikon of S. Demetrius, in silver and

gold, was hung beside his tomb. But Constantinople rejoiced in the greater
sanctity and virtue of the earlier picture, and when tidings of its approach
were received, the whole fraternity of the Pantokrator, with the senate and
an immense crowd of devout persons, went seven miles out from the city to
hail the arrival of the image, and to bear it in triumph to its new abode, with
psalms and hymns, lighted tapers, fragrant incense, and the gleam of
soldiers' spears. Thus, it was believed, the monastery gained more beauty
and security, the dynasty of the Comneni more strength, the Roman Empire
and the Queen of cities an invisible but mighty power to keep enemies afar
off.

PLATE LX.

S. Saviour Pantokrator, from the north-west.

S. Saviour Pantokrator.
Fragments of Sculptured Marbles in the Church.
To face page 224.

In 1158 Bertha, the first wife of Manuel Comnenus, and sister-in-law of the
Emperor Conrad of Germany, was buried in the church. 374 Twenty-two
years later, Manuel Comnenus himself was laid in its heroön in a splendid
sarcophagus of black marble with a cover cut in seven protuberances. 375
Beside the tomb was placed the porphyry slab upon which the body of
Christ was supposed to have been laid after His deposition from the cross.
The slab was placed there in commemoration of the fact that when it was
brought from Ephesus to Constantinople, Manuel carried it on his broad
shoulders all the way up the hill from the harbour of the Bucoleon (at
Tchatlady Kapou), to the private chapel of the imperial residence near S.
Sophia. 376 Nicetas Choniates thought the aspect of the tomb and of its
surroundings very significant. The seven protuberances on its cover
represented the seven-hilled city which had been the emperor's throne; the
porphyry slab recalled the mighty deeds which he whose form lay so still
and silent in the grave had wrought in the days of his strength; while the
black marble told the grief evoked by his death. Robert of Clari, who saw

the tomb in 1203, extols its magnificence. 'Never,' says he, 'was born on this
earth a holy man or a holy woman who is buried in so rich and splendid a
fashion as this emperor in this abbey. There is found the marble table on
which Our Lord was laid when taken down from the cross, and there are
still seen the tears which Our Lady shed upon it.' 377
Some seven months after Manuel's death a strange spectacle was witnessed
at his tomb. His cousin, Andronicus Comnenus, the torment of his life and
one of the worst characters in Byzantine history, taking advantage of the
intrigues and disturbances which attended the minority of Manuel's son and
successor, Alexius II. Comnenus, left his place of exile in Paphlagonia and
appeared in Constantinople at the head of an army, as though the champion
of the young sovereign's cause. No sooner had he reached the city than he
proceeded to visit Manuel's tomb, to show the regard he professed to feel
for a relative and sovereign. At the sight of the dark sarcophagus
Andronicus gave way to the most violent paroxysms of grief. So deep and
prolonged, indeed, did his distress seem, that his attendants implored him to
control his feelings and leave the sad spot. But the mourner protested that
he could not quit so hastily a place hallowed by such sacred and tender
associations. Moreover, he had not yet said all he had to tell the dead.
Bending, therefore, again over the grave, Andronicus continued to address
the deceased. The words were inaudible, but they seemed a fresh
outpouring of sorrow, and deeply affected many of the spectators, for, as the
mourner had not lived on the best terms with his imperial cousin, his grief
appeared to be the victory of a man's better nature. But those who knew
Andronicus well interpreted his conduct as the performance of a
consummate actor, and understood his whispers to mean curses and vows of
vengeance upon his dead and helpless relative. Events justified this
interpretation. For Andronicus ere long usurped the throne, murdered
Alexius, insulted his remains, ordered his head to be cut off, and cast the
mutilated corpse into the Sea of Marmora to the strains of music. 378
During the Latin occupation the church was appropriated for worship
according to the ritual of the Roman Communion, and many of its relics, its
vessels of gold and silver, its jewels and vestments, were carried off to
enrich S. Mark's at Venice, and other shrines of Western Christendom. How
great a value was set upon such trophies, and by what strange methods they

were secured, is seen in the account which Guntherus, 379 a contemporary
historian, gives of the way in which some of the relics of the church were
acquired. As soon as the Crusaders captured the city in 1204 and gave it
over to pillage, a numerous band of looters made for the Pantokrator in
search of spoil, having heard that many valuables had been deposited for
safe keeping within the strong walls around the monastery. Among the
crowd hastening thither was Martin, abbot of the Cistercian Abbey of
Parisis in Alsace, who accompanied the Crusade as chaplain and chronicler.
The fever of plunder raging about him was too infectious for the good man
to escape. When everybody else was getting rich he could not consent to
remain poor. His only scruple was not to defile his holy hands with the
filthy lucre which worldlings coveted. To purloin sacred relics, however,
was lawful booty. Entering, therefore, the Pantokrator with his chaplain,
Martin accosted a venerable, white-bearded man who seemed familiar with
the building, and in stentorian tones demanded where the relics of the
church were to be found. The person addressed was, in fact, a priest, though
Martin had mistaken him for a layman on account of the strangeness of the
Greek clerical garb. The priest did not understand Latin any more than the
abbot understood Greek, and the situation became awkward, for the pitch of
Martin's voice made it evident that he was not a person to be trifled with.
The old man therefore tried what the Romance patois, which he had picked
up from foreign residents in the city, could do to establish intelligible
intercourse with the rough visitor. Fortunately the crusader also knew
something of that patois, and made the purpose of his visit sufficiently clear.
As soon as the iron safe containing the coveted relics was opened, abbot
and chaplain plunged four greedy hands into the hoard and stowed relic
after relic under the ample folds of their robes until there was no room for
more. Thus laden, the pious thieves made as fast as they could for the ship
in which they had come to Constantinople, not stopping to converse with
friends on the way, and giving to all curious inquiries the brief and
enigmatical reply, 'We have done well.' Upon reaching the ship Martin
found himself the happy possessor of no less than sixty-two relics,
including a piece of the Holy Cross, and drops of 'the blood shed for man's
redemption.' Martin wished to start immediately for Alsace, but
circumstances obliged him to remain in Constantinople for several months.
Thanks, however, to the priest of the Pantokrator, whom the abbot had
treated generously, Martin secured a small chapel where to conceal his

spoils until an opportunity to return home should occur. A fellow-
countryman, indeed, the only other person let into the secret, advised him to
secure by means of the relics an abbotship, if not a bishopric, in the Holy
Land. But Martin was above personal ambition, and notwithstanding all the
difficulties involved in the attempt to carry the relics to the West, waited
patiently till he could smuggle them out of the city. At length his chance
came; whereupon he embarked for Venice, and after a hard and tedious
journey of eight months reached home safely. Again and again on the way
he had narrowly escaped the loss of his treasures at the hands of pirates on
the sea and of brigands upon land. But all toils and dangers were forgotten
when, on the 24th of June 1205, at the head of the brotherhood of which he
was the chief, Martin placed the relics purloined from the Pantokrator of
Constantinople upon the high altar of the church of Parisis with a
conqueror's pride and joy, while the people shouted, 'Blessed be the Lord
God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things.' There is
archaeology even in morals.

PLATE LXI.

S. Saviour Pantokrator. S. Saviour Pantokrator.
Interior of the South Church, looking east. The Southern Arm of the South Church.
To face page 224.

Fig. 75.

But while called thus to deplore the removal of many of its valued relics,
the Pantokrator came during the Latin period into possession of a sacred
object which compensated the house abundantly for all losses of that kind.
The church became the shrine of the eikon of the Theotokos Hodegetria. No
relic was held in higher estimation. It was considered to be the portrait of
the mother of our Lord painted by S. Luke, and was brought from Jerusalem
to Constantinople by the Empress Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II., as a
present to her sister-in-law Pulcheria. It led the hosts of the Empire to
victory, and shared the honours of their triumphal entry into the capital.
When enemies besieged the city, the eikon was carried in procession
through the streets and around the fortifications, or was placed near the post
of danger. After the capture of the city by the Latins the picture was first
taken to S. Sophia, then the cathedral of the Venetian patriarchs of
Constantinople. But the Venetian clergy of the Pantokrator claimed the
sacred picture as their own, in virtue of a promise made to them by the
Emperor Henry; and when their claim was ignored, they persuaded the
podesta of the Venetian community to break into S. Sophia and seize the
eikon by force. In vain did the patriarch appear upon the scene with candle
and bell to excommunicate the podesta, his council, and his agents for the
sacrilegious act. The coveted prize was borne off in triumph to the
Pantokrator. In vain did the Papal Legate in the city confirm the
excommunication of the guilty parties, and lay their churches under
interdict. In vain were those penalties confirmed by the Pope himself. 380
The eikon kept its place in the Pantokrator notwithstanding all anathemas
until the fall of the Latin Empire, when it was removed from the church to
lead the procession which came through the Golden Gate on the 15th
August 1261, to celebrate the recovery of Constantinople by the Greeks. 381

PLATE LXII.

S. Saviour Pantokrator. S. Saviour Pantokrator.
Entrance From the Narthex To the South Church. The Interior, looking from the South Church
through into the North Church.

To face page 226.

Towards the close of the Latin occupation the monastery became the
residence of the Latin emperor, probably because the condition of the public
exchequer made it impossible to keep either the Great Palace or the palace
of Blachernae in proper repair. Money was not plentiful in Constantinople
when Baldwin II., the last Latin ruler of the city, was compelled to sell the
lead on the roof of his palace for a paltry sum, and to use the beams of his
outhouses for fuel, nor when he had to leave his son and heir in the hands of
the Capelli at Venice as security for a loan. Still, the selection of the
monastery for the emperor's abode, even under these trying circumstances,
implies the importance and comparative splendour of the building. Here
Baldwin was in residence when the forces of Michael Palaeologus, under
the command of Alexius Strategopoulos, approached the city, and here he
received the intelligence, early in the morning of the 25th of July 1261, that
the Greeks had entered the city by the Gate of the Pegé 382 (Selivri
Kapoussi), and set fire to the capital at four points. Baldwin's first impulse
was to make a brave stand. But his fleet and the greater part of his army
were absent from the city, engaged in the siege of Daphnusium on the coast
of the Black Sea. Meantime the fires kindled by the Greeks were spreading
and drawing nearer and nearer to the Pantokrator itself. So casting off

sword and helmet and every other mark of his station, Baldwin took ship
and led the flight of the Latin masters of Constantinople back to their homes
in the West. 383
The first incident in the history of the Pantokrator after the restoration of the
Greek Empire was not fortunate. The monastery then became the object
upon which the Genoese, who had favoured that event, and been rewarded
with the grant of Galata as a trading post, saw fit to vent the grudge they
bore against certain Venetians who, in the course of the feud between the
two republics, as competitors for the commerce of the East, had injured a
church and a tower belonging to the Genoese colony at Acre. To destroy
some building in Constantinople associated with Venice was thought to be
the best way to settle the outstanding account, and so a band of Genoese
made for the Pantokrator, over which the banner of S. Mark had recently
floated, and tore the monastery down to the ground, making it a greater ruin
than the Venetians had made of the Genoese buildings in Syria. Then, not
only to deprive the enemy of his property but to turn it also to one's own
advantage, the scattered stones were collected and shipped to Genoa for the
construction of the church of S. George in that city. 384

PLATE LXIII.

S. Saviour Pantokrator. S. Saviour Pantokrator.
Gallery of the North Church, looking south. The Interior of the North Church, looking east.
To face page 228.

In the reign of Michael Palaeologus, a member of the noble family of the
princes of the Peloponnesus became abbot of the Pantokrator, and acquired
great influence. He led, as we shall see, the mission which conducted the
emperor's daughter Maria to the Mongolian court, and when the patriarchal
seat was vacant in 1275, a strong party favoured his appointment to that
position instead of Veccus. 385
During the period of the Palaeologi the church frequently served as a
mausoleum for members of the imperial family. Here in 1317 was buried
Irene, the second wife of Andronicus II., a Spanish princess and daughter of
the Marquis of Monferrat. She came to Constantinople in 1285, when only
eleven years old, a beautiful girl, Yolande by name, distinguished for the
elegance of her manners, and for a time was the idol of the court. But what
with the desire which she developed to amass wealth, and to see her sons
share in the government of the Empire, she ultimately proved the cause of
much unhappiness to her husband. 386 She deserves to be remembered for
bequeathing the funds which enabled Andronicus II. to build the buttresses
supporting the walls of S. Sophia on the north and east. 387

Here, in 1425, Manuel II. was laid to rest after his long and troubled reign.
388
Beside him were buried his wife Irene (1450) 389 and his three sons,
Andronicus (1429), 390 Theodore (1448), 391 John VI. Palaeologus (1448).
392
Here also was placed the tomb of the Empress Maria of the house of
Trebizond, the fourth wife of John VII. Palaeologus; 393 and not far off was
the grave of Eugenia, the wife of the despot Demetrius and daughter of the
Genoese Gatulazzo, who had helped to overthrow John Cantacuzene and to
recover the throne for the Palaeologi. 394 As we follow to the grave this
procession of personages so closely associated with the fall of
Constantinople, one seems to be watching the slow ebbing away of the life-
blood of the Empire which they could not save.
In 1407 John Palaeologus, then heir-apparent, added to the endowments of
the church by giving it a share in the revenues of the imperial domains at
Cassandra. 395 It would appear that the affairs of the monastery about this
time were not in a satisfactory state, for on the advice of the historian
Phrantzes they were put for settlement into the hands of Macarius, a monk
from Mt. Athos. 396
A protosyngellos and abbot of the Pantokrator was one of the ambassadors
sent by John VII. Palaeologus to Pope Martin V. to negotiate the union of
the Churches. 397

PLATE LXIV.

S. Saviour Pantokrator. S. Saviour Pantokrator.
Arch in the North Wall of the South Arch in the North Wall of the South Church,
Church, seen from the South Church, seen from the Central Church, looking
looking northwards. southwards.

To face page 230.

The most famous inmate of the Pantokrator was George Scholarius, better
known as Gennadius, the first patriarch of Constantinople after the Turkish
conquest. On account of his learning and legal attainments he accompanied
the Emperor John VII. Palaeologus and the Patriarch Joseph to the Council
of Ferrara and Florence in 1438, to take part in the negotiations for the
union of Christendom. As submission to the Papal demands was the only
hope of obtaining the aid of the West for the Roman Empire in the East, the
emperor, with most of the Greek clergy in attendance at the council,
subscribed the decrees of that assembly, and on the 8th July 1438 the two
Churches were officially reconciled and bound to common action. But it
was a union without sufficient religious motive on the one side and without
strong political interest on the other. Instead of improving the situation it
made matters worse. But drowning men clutch even unsubstantial objects,
and accordingly the Emperor Constantine Dragases, a few years later,
implored again the assistance of the Pope, begging him to send a
commission of Roman ecclesiastics to Constantinople to confer once more
with Greek theologians with the hope of making the union more effective.
In response to that request a Commission was appointed, having at its head
Cardinal Isidore, a Greek ecclesiastic, who at the Council of Florence had

cast in his lot with the Latins and been created cardinal and titular
archbishop of Kiev. Isidore and his colleagues were welcomed with great
demonstrations of joy, and after several meetings with representatives of the
Eastern Church terms of union were once more devised. The event was
celebrated by a religious service in S. Sophia, according to Roman rite, in
the presence of the emperor, the senate, and a large body of ecclesiastics. In
the order of the prayers offered that day in the cathedral of the East the
name of the Pope was mentioned first. But these proceedings only
exasperated the opponents of the union, who had the advantage in numbers
and in passionate convictions. Seeking for a leader they flocked to the
monastery of the Pantokrator to consult Gennadius. It was a critical
moment. Gennadius retired to his cell. Then opening the door he affixed his
answer in writing upon it, and again shut himself in. The oracle had spoken:
'Wretched Romans, whither have ye strayed, and gone far from hope in God
to put your trust in the Franks? Your city and your religion will perish
together. You abandon the faith of your fathers and embrace impiety. Woe
unto you in the day of judgment.' The words spread like wild-fire and
enflamed the excited crowd within and around the monastery. Anathemas,
cursing all supporters of the union in the past, in the present, and in the
future resounded on every hand. The answer of Gennadius was carried
through the city and found an echo among all classes of the population.
Men ran to the taverns to drink undiluted wine, in derision of the Roman
practice of mixing water with the wine of the Holy Communion; they
shouted themselves hoarse with maledictions on the unionists; they drank to
the honour of the Theotokos, invoking her aid as in the days of old, when
she delivered the city out of the hands of the Persians, the Avars, and the
Saracens. Far and wide rose the cry, 'Away with the help and the worship of
the Latin eaters of unleavened bread.' 398 The two scenes witnessed, on the
12th December 1452, in S. Sophia and at the Pantokrator displayed a
discord that hastened the downfall of New Rome. That day the party with
the watchword, 'Better the turban of the Turk than the tiara of the Pope,'
gained the victory.
Upon the capture of the city, the Greek community, owing to the recent
death of the Patriarch Athanasius, found itself without an ecclesiastical
chief. The conqueror, anxious to conciliate his Greek subjects, proclaimed
complete religious toleration, and gave orders that they should forthwith

proceed to the free election of a new patriarch. Under the circumstances
there could be no question as to the right man for the place. Gennadius, who
had opposed the unprofitable Latin alliance, and saved the national Church
notwithstanding the ruin of the Empire, was unanimously chosen to be the
first guide of his people along the strange and difficult path they were now
to follow. The choice being confirmed by the Sultan, Gennadius left the
Pantokrator to do homage to the new master of the realm. Every mark of
honour was paid to the prelate. He was invited to the royal table and granted
a long audience, at which, following the practice of Byzantine emperors,
the Sultan presented him with a magnificent pastoral staff, and promised to
respect all the ancient privileges of the patriarchal see. When Gennadius
took leave, the Sultan accompanied him to the foot of the stairs of the
palace, saw him mounted on a fine and richly caparisoned horse, and
ordered the notables of the court to escort him to the church of the Holy
Apostles, which was to replace S. Sophia as the cathedral of the Greek
Communion. 399 It was certainly fortunate for the Orthodox Church at that
cruel moment in its history to find in one of the cells of the Pantokrator a
man able to win the goodwill of the Empire's conqueror. When nothing
could save the State, Gennadius saved the nation's Church, and with the
Church many forms of national life. Muralt, looking at these transactions
from another standpoint, says, 'C'est ainsi que les Grecs virent accompli
leur v[oe]u d'être délivrés de l'union avec les Latins.'400

PLATE LXV.

S. Saviour Pantokrator. S. Saviour Pantokrator.
Narthex of the North Church, looking north. Outer Narthex of the South Church, looking
north.

To face page 232.

It would appear that the Pantokrator was abandoned by its Christian owners
very soon after the conquest. The great decrease of the Greek population
that followed the downfall of the city left several quarters of Constantinople
with few if any Christian inhabitants, and so brought to an end the native
religious service in many churches of the capital. For some time thereafter
the deserted building was used by fullers and workers in leather as a
workshop and dwelling. 401 But the edifice was too grand to be allowed to
suffer permanent degradation, and some twenty years later it was
consecrated to Moslem worship by a certain Zeïrek Mehemed Effendi. 402
Its actual name, Zeïrek Kilissi Jamissi, recalls the double service the
building has rendered, and the person who diverted it from its earlier to its
later use.

Architectural Features

As it stands the Pantokrator is a combination of three churches, placed side
by side, and communicating with one another through arched openings in
their common walls. The three buildings are not of the same date, and
opinions differ in regard to their relative age. On the whole, however, the

northern church may be safely considered the earliest structure; the central
church is somewhat later; the southern church is the latest.

Fig. 76.

PLATE LXVI.

S. Saviour Pantokrator. S. Saviour Pantokrator.
South Bay in the Gallery of the South In the North Church, looking south.
Church.
To face page 234.

The Northern Church.—This is a simple and dignified building of the
domed 'four column' type, with a gynaeceum above the narthex. The
narthex is in four bays covered with cross-groined vaults on transverse
arches. Its southern bay, however, is a later extension, running about half-
way in front of the central church to give access to a door into that building.
Only two bays of the original narthex have doors opening into the north
church; the third door which once existed in the northern bay has been
partly built up. The narthex is very much out of repair, and the western wall
threatens to fall outwards. The dome, pierced by eight windows, shows so
many Turkish features that it may be pronounced as mostly, if not wholly, a
Turkish construction. The four square piers which support it are manifestly
Turkish. When Gyllius visited the church in the sixteenth century the dome
arches rested on four columns of Theban granite, 'hemispherium sustentatur
quatuor arcubus, quos fulciunt quatuor columnae marmoris Thebaici.' 403
Barrel vaults cover the arms of the cross, which, as usual in churches of this

type, appears distinctly above the roof on the exterior. The southern arm
extends to the central church and its vault is pierced by two windows,
inserted, probably, to compensate for the loss of light occasioned by the
erection of that building. These windows furnish one indication of the
earlier date of the north church. The gynaeceum, like the narthex below it,
is covered with cross-groined vaults and contains a small fireplace. The
prothesis and diaconicon have barrel vaults and apses with three sides
projecting slightly on the exterior. The main apse has a very lofty triple
window, and shows five sides. All the apses are decorated with high
shallow blind niches, a simple but effective ornament. 404
The Central Church.—The central church is an oblong hall covered by two
domes, and terminates in a large apse. It is extremely irregular in plan, and
does not lie parallel to either of the churches between which it stands. The
domes are separated by a transverse arch. The western dome, though
flattened somewhat on the four sides, is approximately circular, and divided
into sixteen shallow concave compartments, each pierced by a window.
Some of these windows must have been always blocked by the roof of the
north church. The eastern dome is a pronounced oval, notwithstanding the
attempt to form a square base for it by building a subsidiary arch both on
the south and on the north. It is divided into twenty-four concave
compartments, twelve of which have windows. The drums of the domes
adjoin each other above the transverse arch, so that the central west window
of the eastern dome is pierced through to the western dome. The two
windows on either side of that window are blind, and must always have
been so. The floor in the archway leading into the south church is paved
with inlaid marbles forming a beautiful design (Fig. 76). If the whole floor
of the church was thus decorated the effect must have been extremely rich.
On the exterior the apse shows seven sides, decorated with shallow blind
niches. Like the church it is very irregularly set out. (Plate LXIX.)
The central church probably served as a mausoleum for the tombs of the
imperial personages interred at the Pantokrator. In its form and in the
arrangement of its domes, as well as in its position on the south of the
church to which it strictly belongs, it resembles the parecclesion of S.
Saviour in the Chora (p. 310).

PLATE LXVII.

S. Saviour Pantokrator. S. Saviour Pantokrator.
The Pulpit in the South Church. West Side of the Central Bay in The Gallery
of the South Church.

To face page 236.

The South Church.—The south church is of the same plan as the north
church, but is larger and more richly decorated. It has two narthexes, which
extend to both the north and south beyond the body of the building. The
outer narthex, entered by a single door placed in the centre, is in five bays,
covered with cross-groined vaults resting on pilasters. Its floor is paved
with large slabs of Proconnesian marble surrounded by a border of red
marble. Five doors lead to the esonarthex—the three central doors being
framed in red marble, the other two in verd antique. On either side of the
central door is a window also framed in verd antique, the jambs of the
windows being cut from old columns, and retaining the circular form on
their faces. Over the central door and the windows beside it is a large arch
between two smaller arches—all three, as well as their bracket capitals, now
partially built up. There is a door framed in verd antique in each end bay of
the narthex. Like the outer narthex the esonarthex is in five bays, and was
paved with marble in a similar fashion. But while its other bays are covered
with cross-groined vaults the central bay is open to the gallery above, and is
overhung by a drum dome. The gallery was thus divided into two parts by
the open central bay, and both gallery and narthex were lighted by the

dome. The exterior of this dome is twelve-sided, with flat angle pilasters
and level moulded plaster cornice. It has evidently been repaired by the
Turks. The inside, however, preserves the Byzantine work. It is in twenty-
four concave apartments pierced by twelve windows, of which those facing
the west cross arm of the church are blind. As the original west window still
shows from the inside, though built up, it would appear that the gynecaeum
dome was added after the completion of the main church. At present the
open bay is ceiled by the woodwork that forms the floor of the tribune
occupied by the Sultan when he attends worship in the mosque. 405 A door
in the northern wall of the north bay communicates with the narthex of the
north church, while a door in the eastern wall of the bay gives access to the
central church. Two doors in similar positions in the bay at the south end of
the narthex led to buildings which have disappeared. The three doors
leading from the narthex into the church are framed in red marble, the other
doors in white marble. The main dome of the church is in sixteen
compartments, and is pierced by as many windows. Its arches rest on four
shafted columns, somewhat Gothic in character, and crowned with capitals
distinctly Turkish. These columns have replaced the columns of porphyry,
seven feet in circumference, which Gyllius saw bearing the arches of the
dome when he visited the church: 'maximum (tectum) sustentatur quatuor
columnis pyrrhopoecilis, quarum perimeter habet septem pedes.' 406 The
southern wall is lighted by a triple window in the gable and a row of three
windows below the string-course. The northern wall was treated on the
same plan, but with the modifications rendered necessary by the union of
the church with the earlier central church. The triple windows in the gable
of that wall are therefore almost blocked by the roof of the central church
against which it is built; while the three windows below the string-course
are blind and are cut short by the arch opening into the central church, as
that arch rises higher than the string-course.
As explained, the gynaeceum above the inner narthex is divided by the open
central bay of that narthex into two compartments, each consisting of two
bays. The bays to the south are narrow, with transverse arches of decidedly
elliptical form. A window divided by shafts in three lights, now built up,
stood in the bay at the extreme south, and similar windows looked down
into the open bay of the narthex from the bays on either hand. The northern

compartment of the gynaeceum connects with the gynaeceum of the north
church.
In the interior the apse retains a large portion of its revetment of variously
coloured marbles, and gives some idea of the original splendour of the
decoration. Fragments of fine carving have been built into the pulpit of the
mosque, and over it is a Byzantine canopy supported on twin columns
looped together, like the twin columns on the façade of S. Mark's at Venice.
The lateral apses are covered with cross-groined vaults, and project in three
sides externally, while the central apse shows seven sides. All are lighted by
triple windows, and decorated on the exterior with niches, like the other
apses in this group of buildings, and those of S. Theodosia.
In the brickwork found in the fabric of the Pantokrator, as Mr. W. S. George
has pointed out, two sizes of brick are employed, a larger and a smaller size
laid in alternate courses. The larger bricks look like old material used again.

PLATE LXVIII.

S. Saviour Pantokrator. S. Saviour Pantokrator.
Interior of the East Dome in the Central Interior of the Dome in the South Church,
Church. looking north.

To face page 238.

As already intimated, the monastery was autonomous, (αὐτοδέσποτος,
αὐτεξούσιος), and its abbot was elected by the brotherhood in the following
manner:—On some suitable occasion the abbot for the time being placed
secretly in a box the names of three members of the fraternity whom he
considered fit to succeed him after his death, and having sealed the box
deposited it in the sacristy of the church. Upon that abbot's death the box
was opened in the presence of the whole fraternity, and the names
recommended by the late chief were then put to the vote. If the votes were
unanimous the person thus chosen became the new abbot without further
delay. But in case of disagreement, a brother who could neither read nor
write placed the same names upon the altar of the church; there they
remained for three days; and then, after the celebration of a solemn service,
another illiterate monk drew one name off the altar, and in doing so decided
the question who should fill the vacant office. The church was served by
eighty priests and fifty assistants, who were divided into two sets,
officiating on alternate weeks.
In connection with the monastery there was a bath, capable of containing
six persons, in which the monks were required to bathe twice a month,
except during Lent, when the bath was used only in cases of illness.
The home for old men supported by the House accommodated twenty-four
persons, providing them with bread, wine, oil, cheese, fuel, medical
attendance, and small gifts of money.
The hospital had fifty beds for the poor. It was divided into five wards: a
ward of ten beds for surgical cases; another, of eight beds, for grave cases; a
third, of ten beds, for less serious complaints; the fourth ward had twelve
beds for women; the fifth contained ten beds for what seemed light cases.
Each ward was in charge of two physicians, three medical assistants, and
four servitors. A lady physician, six lady medical assistants, and two female
nurses, took charge of the female patients. The sick were visited daily by a
house doctor, who inquired whether they were satisfied with their treatment,
examined their diet, and saw to the cleanliness of the beds. The ordinary
diet consisted of bread, beans, onions, oil, and wine. 407 Throughout their
history the monasteries of Constantinople remembered the poor. (See Plate
III.)

Fig. 77.

Fig. 78, 79.

Fig. 80.

PLATE LXIX.

S. Saviour Pantokrator. S. Saviour Pantokrator.
The East End, from the south. The East Window of the Central Church.

S. Saviour Pantokrator.
The East End, from the north.
To face page 242.

358 De top. C.P. iv. c. 2, p. 283, 'in supercilio quarti collis vergente ad solis
ortum visitur templum Pantocratoris, illustre memoria recentium scriptorum.'
359 Tagebuch, p. 157.
360 Itin. russes, pp. 105, 233-34.
361 Du Cange, Const. Christ. iv. p. 81; Itin. russes, pp. 123, 203-4.
362 Synax., August 13; Cinnamus, p. 9; Phrantzes, p. 210.
363 Du Cange, C.P. Christ. iv. p. 81, quoting Anselm, bishop of Havelsberg,
who was in Constantinople as the ambassador of Lothair the Great to the
Emperor John in 1145.
364 MS. No. 85, in the Library of the Theological Seminary at Halki.
365 Synax., 13th August.

366 Pp. 66, 151.
367 MS. No. 85, in the Library of the Theological Seminary at Halki.
368 Vol. i. p. 555.
369 Ancient and Modern C.P. p. 69.
370 Cinnamus, p. 14; Guntherus Parisiensis in Riant's Exuviae sacrae, p. 105.
The sarcophagus that forms part of a Turkish fountain to the west of the church
is usually, but without any proof, considered to be the tomb of Irene. A long
flight of steps near it leads to the cistern below the church.
371 Cinnamus, p. 31.
372 Nicet. Chon. pp. 53, 56, 66.
373 Synax., October 26th.
374 Nicet. Chon. p. 151.
375 Ibid. p. 289.
376 Nicet. Chon. p. 151.
377 Riant, Exuviae sacrae, ii. p. 232.
378 Nicet. Chon. pp. 332-33, 354-55.
379 Riant, Exuviae sacrae, i. pp. 104 seq.
380 Belin, Histoire de la latinité de Constantinople, pp. 73-74, 113-14.
381 Pachym. i. p. 160; Niceph. Greg. p. 87; G. Acropolita, pp. 196-97. The last
writer says the eikon was taken from the monastery of the Hodegon, which
was its proper shrine. The eikon may have been removed from the Pantokrator
to the church of Hodegetria on the eve of the triumphal entry.
382 Niceph. Greg. i. p. 85. Cf. Canale, Nuova Storia, ii. p. 153, quoted by
Belin, Latinité de C.P. p. 22, 'ov'erano la chiesa, la loggia, il palazzo dei
Veneziani,' cf. Belin, p. 92.
383 George Acropolita, p. 195. On the contrary, Pachymeres represents
Baldwin as taking flight from the palace of Blachernae, and embarking at the
Great Palace. See vol. i. of that historian's works, pp. 132-48.
384 Belin, Histoire de la latinité de C.P. pp. 22-23, quoting Canale, Nuova
Storia, ii. p. 153; cf. Sauli, i. p. 55. According to Fanucci, the Venetians
themselves removed their national emblems from the Pantokrator and tore
down the monastery.—Belin, ut supra, pp. 88, 92.
385 Pachym. i. p. 402.
386 Ibid. ii. pp. 87-88; Niceph. Greg. i. p. 167.
387 Ibid. i. pp. 273, 233-34.
388 Phrantzes, p. 121.