By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Byzantine Churches in Constantinople - Their History and Architecture
Author: Van Millingen, Alexander, 1840-1915, Traquair, Ramsay, 1874-1952, George, Walter S., Henderson, Arthur E. (Arthur Edward), 1870-
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Byzantine Churches in Constantinople - Their History and Architecture" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

                        BYZANTINE CHURCHES
                        IN CONSTANTINOPLE

                    MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED

                    LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA

                      THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

                   NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO
                     DALLAS · SAN FRANCISCO



  [Illustration: PLATE I.


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  The map is taken from the unpublished _Insularium Henrici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,
[Greek: Mnêmeia], iii., frontispiece), and the Vatican (Mordtmann, _loc.
cit._ p. 73).

  Dominicus--Arcena--Introitus Euxini Maris.


  Tracie pars--Porta Vlacherne--[Symbol: cross] Ab hec (_sic_)
  porta Vlacherne usque ad portam Sancti Demetri 6 M.P. et
  centum et decem turres--[Symbol: cross] Porta S.
  Iohannis[1]--Porta Chamici[2]--Porta Crescu--Porta
  Crescea--[Symbol: cross] 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--[Symbol: cross] Ad S. Salvatorem--[Symbol:
  cross] Columna Co(n)s?--Hic Iustinianus in equo[7]--Sancta
  Sophia--Hippodromus--S. Demetrius--S. Georgius-S.
  Lazarus--Domus Pape--Domus S. Constantini--Sanctorum
  Apostolorum--Porta antiquissima mire (_sic_) arte
  constructa[8]--S. Marta[9]--S. Andreas--S. Iohannes de

  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.
[Greek: Kynêgiou]) 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. Ma[=m] (as?) _Ven._ Sts. Marcus, _Vat._

                         BYZANTINE CHURCHES
                         IN CONSTANTINOPLE



                 ALEXANDER VAN MILLINGEN, M.A., D.D.


                             ASSISTED BY

                     RAMSAY TRAQUAIR, A.R.I.B.A.


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


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




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

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.



[Greek: Polis ekklêsiôn galouche, pisteôs archêge, orthodoxias podêge.]




  BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE                                     1




  CHURCH OF SS. SERGIUS AND BACCHUS                         62


  CHURCH OF S. IRENE                                        84


  CHURCH OF S. ANDREW IN KRISEI                            106


  CHURCH OF S. MARY PANACHRANTOS                           122


  CHURCH OF S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS                          138


  CHURCH OF S. THEODOSIA                                   164


  CHURCH OF S. MARY DIACONISSA                             183


  CHURCH OF SS. PETER AND MARK                             191


  CHURCH OF THE MYRELAION                                  196


  CHURCH OF S. JOHN THE BAPTIST IN TRULLO                  201


  CHURCH OF S. THEKLA                                      207


  CHURCH OF S. SAVIOUR PANTEPOPTES                         212


  CHURCH OF S. SAVIOUR PANTOKRATOR                         219


  CHURCH OF S. THEODORE                                    243


  MONASTERY OF MANUEL                                      253


  MONASTIR MESJEDI                                         262


  BALABAN AGA MESJEDI                                      265


  CHURCH OF THE GASTRIA                                    268


  CHURCH OF S. MARY OF THE MONGOLS                         272


  BOGDAN SERAI                                             280


  CHURCH OF S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA                        288


    THE CHORA                                              321



  BIBLIOGRAPHY                                             337

  LIST OF EMPERORS                                         341

  INDEX                                                    343


  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


  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


  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


  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


  36. Plan of the Church (restored)                        118

  37. Plan of the Church                                   119

  38, 39. Longitudinal Sections                            120

  40. Isometrical Section (restored)                       121


  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                                   135

  45. Section through the North Church                     135

  46. Section through the South Church                     135


  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


  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


  61. Plan of the Church                                   189

  62. Longitudinal Section                                 190


  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


  66. Plan of the Church                                   200

  67. Longitudinal Section                                 200


  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


  71. Plan of the Church--Cross Section                    206


  72. Sketches from the Church                             213

  73. Plan of the Church--Longitudinal Section             217

  74. Details from the Church                              218


  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 the Central Church      241

  80. Longitudinal Section through the South Church        242


  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


  88. Plan of the Refectory                                261


  89. Plan of the Church--Cross Section                    261


  90. Plan of the Building                                 267

  91. Section                                              267


  92. Plan of the Church                                   267


  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


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


  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


        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
           (4) Sculptured Slab on the West Wall                    28


        V. (1) The Ruined Interior, seen from the minaret of the
           (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. (1) 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


       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


      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
           (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


     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


     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


    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


     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


      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
            (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


        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


      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. (1) S. John in Trullo from the south-west.
            (2) The Interior of Balaban Mesjedi                   202

       LVI. The Church of S. Thekla.
            (1) From the north-west.
            (2) The East End                                      208


      LVII. (1) Door leading from the Outer to the Inner
            (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 Pammakaristos                              214


       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. (1) 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
            (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


       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


     LXXVI. (1) From the west.
            (2) From the south-east                               258

    LXXVII. Cistern of Aetius                                     262


   LXXVIII. (1) The Church from the east.
            (2) The Entrance                                      268

     LXXIX. (1) The Church from the west. (2) The Interior        270


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


     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
            (2) The Archivolt on the North Wall of the
            (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




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

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 date[10] (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
(_Kuppelbasilica_), an evolution which he regards as Hellenistic and
Eastern. In contrast to this, Strzygowski distinguishes the domed cross
church (_Kreuzkuppelkirche_), 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.

  [Illustration: 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

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.

  [Illustration: 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.

  [Illustration: 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.

  [Illustration: 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.

  [Illustration: 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

  [Illustration: 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 semi-dome 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

_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]


_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

_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.

  [Illustration: FIG. 7. (Map of BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE)]

_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.

  [Illustration: FIG. 8.--THE SAUCER DOME OR DOME-VAULT.]

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.

  [Illustration: FIG. 9.--THE DOME ON PENDENTIVES.]

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 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.

  [Illustration: FIG. 10.--THE DRUM DOME.]

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 form[28]. 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 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

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

  [Illustration: PLATE II.
  (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 Choisy[31] 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

  [Illustration: 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

  [Illustration: PLATE III.
  (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

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

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

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.

  [Illustration: PLATE IV.
  _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.

_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

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.

[11] De 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.

[20] Strzygowski, 'Das Etschmiadzin Evangeliar,' _Byzant. Denkmäler_,
i., 1891.

[21] Ravanica, F. Kanitz, _Serbiens byzantische Monumente_, Wien,

[22] Pullan and Texier, _S. Elias._

[23] G. Lampakis, _Les Antiquités chrétiennes de la Grèce_, Athens,

[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.



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, [Greek: hê
monê tou Stoudiou]. 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.

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.

  [Illustration: PLATE V.
  _To face page 36._]

          '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

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

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

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 Acritas[53]; 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._


  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. [Greek: pros tô dexiô merei
  en tô kat' anatolas tou Prodromikou temenous pandoxô kai hierô tôn
  martyrôn sêkô, entha dê kai tou hosiou patros hêmôn Theodôrou hê
  paneukleês kai   pansebastos timia thêkê kathidrytai] (_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.

  [Illustration: PLATE VI.
  _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 Smolensk[58] found Russian monks in the monastery employed
in transcribing books for circulation in Russia. Stephen of Novgorod[59]
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

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 ([Greek: apraktos]) 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

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]

  [Illustration: PLATE VII.
  _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 ([Greek: omphikialioi]) 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 ([Greek: dia tou exaerou]), and
through covered passages ([Greek: dia tôn ekeise diabatikôn]),[74] until
it reached the south-eastern end of the narthex ([Greek: eiserchontai
dia tou pros anatolikên dexiou merous tou narthêkos]). 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 ([Greek: anadendradion]); and,
after a short rest, proceeded to his barge with the same ceremonial as
attended his arrival, and returned to the palace.[75]

  [Illustration: PLATE VIII.
  _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.


  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 XVe 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

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 seven[76] 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

  [Illustration: PLATE IX.
  _E. M. Antoniadi._
  _To face page 52._]

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. Gerlach[77] noticed the beauty of the pavement,
and Salzenberg[78] 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.


  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.

  [Illustration: PLATE X.
  _To face page 51._]

  [Illustration: FIG. 12.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 13.]

  [Illustration: FIGS. 14. AND 15.]

  [Illustration: FIGS. 16 AND 17.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 18.]

  [Illustration: 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 [Greek: eis ton naon tou Prodromou en tois Stoudiou] it says
[Greek: touton Iôannê, Christou megalô theraponti, Stoudios aglaon
oikon edeimato. karpalimôs de tôn kamôn heureto misthon helôn
hypatêida rhabdon.] In Suidas is a similar epigram in honour of the
erection by Studius of another church; [Greek: tou archistratêgou
Nakôleias] 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.: [Greek: hê tôn Stouditôn monê proteron kai katholikês
ekklêsias ên, hysteron de metêlthen eis monên.] The reading is
doubtful. A proposed emendation is, [Greek: tôn katholikôn ekklêsia

[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.

[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.,

[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
[Greek: en tais hierais te kai synodikais syneleusesi; prôton men gar
pantôn ton archimandritên tôn Stoudiou kai ho chronos katestêse kai to
dikaion auto.]

[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 [Greek: plêsion tou naou entos tês pylês].

[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.



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]

  [Illustration: PLATE XI.
  _To face page 62._]

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, [Greek: en tois Hormisdou]. It was richly endowed
by Justinian.[91]


  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 ([Greek: para]) 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
  Procopius[95] 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
  ([Greek: epeita]) joined another ([Greek: allo]) 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. Peter[100] as he styles
it, but which Byzantine writers[101] who record the scene name S.

  [Illustration: PLATE XII.
  _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

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 ([Greek: en tô parakyptikô tou thysiastêriou)], 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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XIII.
  _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 772-1/2 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 18-1/2 feet from the rectangle within which it is
placed. It measures 53-1/2 feet by 50-1/2 feet. The eight piers at its
angles rise to a height of 33-1/2 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]

  [Illustration: FIG. 20. INSCRIPTION ON THE FRIEZE.]

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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XIV.
  _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

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

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

  [Illustration: PLATE XV.
  _To face page 76._]


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. 3-1/4, and m. 9-1/2, (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).

  (From rubbings by Mr. A. E. Henderson.)
  _At east end of south aisle._
  _In the gallery._]

  [Illustration: FIG. 23.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 24.]

  [Illustration: FIGS. 25, 26, AND 27.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 28.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 29.]

  [Illustration: 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; [Greek: en tais
Sophiais], Oct. 7; [Greek: plêsion tês Aetiou kinsternês, Nov. 9 (near
Monastery of Manuel, p. 258); [Greek: peran en Rhouphinianais], 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_, [Greek: kai epeita kai temenos allo ek plagiou toutô
parakeimenon] (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, [Greek: eis ton naon tôn hagiôn
apostolôn plêsion tou hagiou Sergiou eis ta Hormisdou].

[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, [Greek: Ekphrasis
tês Hagias Sophias], vol. ii. p. 291, note 101; p. 331, note 190; p.

[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. 1-1/2 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.



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, [Greek: hê palaia],[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]

  [Illustration: PLATE XVI.
  _Abdullah Frères._
  _To face page 84._]


  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), [Greek: peran en Sykais]; Theophanes, p. 353.
  S. Irene by the Sea, [Greek: pros thalassan]; Nicetas Choniates,
  p. 269; Synax., Jan. 10. The last was also known as the New,
  [Greek: Nea]; 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,' [Greek: to perama]; 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, [Greek: to patriarcheion].[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,' [Greek: hê Megalê
Ekklêsia].[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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XVII.
  _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 Lector[129] 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,' [Greek:
Megalê 'Ekklêsia], 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] Theophanes[137] 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]

  [Illustration: PLATE XVIII.
  (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 ([Greek:
katêchêsis]) in S. Irene, which the patricians were required to

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

  [Illustration: PLATE XIX.
  _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

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:


  (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 accents[141] 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 [Greek:(Deut ei) sometha] is a mistake of the restorer for the
word [Greek: plêsthêsometha] 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


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:

  [Greek: ho oikodomôn eis ton ouranon anabasin autou kai tên
  epangelian autou epi tês gês themeliôn].

  'He who builds his ascent up to the heaven and his command
  on the foundations of the earth.'

The words, [Greek: êlpeisamen eis to onoma autou], '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:

  [Greek: Akolouthia eis enkainia naou.

  Nai Despota Kyrie ho Theos ho Sôtêr hêmôn, hê elpis pantôn tôn
  peratôn tês gês, epakouson hêmôn tôn hamartôlôn deomenôn sou kai
  katapempson to panagion sou Pneuma to proskynêton kai pantodynamenon
  kai hagiason ton oikon touton].

  '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 openings[142] in
the riser of one range of seats, and having a doorway at each end.

  [Illustration: PLATE XX.
  _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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XXI.
  _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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XXII.
  _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

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 Finlay[143] 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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XXIII.
  _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.

  [Illustration: FIG. 31.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 32.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 33.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 34.]

  [Illustration: 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,
[Greek: to perama].

[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, [Greek:
hê deutera en Kplei en tô naô tês agias Eirênês].

[129] Theodore Lector, ed. Valesius (1748), p. 533. Eutychius
afflicted by the divine anger went [Greek: en tô euagei euktêriô entha
pepisteutai anapauesthai meros hierôn leipsanôn tôn thespesiôn
Pantaleontos kai Marinou, epikaloumenou tou topou Homonoia ek tou ekei
sunelthontas tous hekaton pentêkonta episkopous epi Theodosiou tou
megalou basileôs]. 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.

[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.



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 ([Greek: Monê tou Hagiou Andreou en Krisei])[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 Novgorod[145] (c.
1350) the church dedicated to S. Andrew of Crete, who was buried, as
other authorities[146] 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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XXIV.
  (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' ([Greek: eis hena hieron
topon ho hopoios epônomazeto Krisis]).[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

  [Illustration: PLATE XXV.
  _To face page 108._]


  One of these churches was dedicated to S. Andrew the Apostle, and
  stood 'near the column,' [Greek: plêsion tou stylou];[153] the other
  to S. Andrew, not otherwise identified, was near the Gate of
  Saturninus, [Greek: plêsion tês portas tou Satourninou].[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 extra-mural 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 pilgrims[155] 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
[Greek: en krisei], 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
([Greek: hê Rhaoulaina prôtobestiarissa]). 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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XXVI.
  _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

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]

  [Illustration: PLATE XXVII.
  (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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XXVIII.
  _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

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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XXIX.
  _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--[Greek: hê tês Theôphanês] (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]


  [Illustration: PLATE XXX.
  _To face page 118._]

  [Illustration: FIG. 37.]

  [Illustration: FIGS. 38 AND 39.]

  [Illustration: 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, [Greek: ta
Xylokerkou], 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, [Greek: Byzantinai Meletai], 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.



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]

  [Illustration: PLATE XXXI.
  _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.

  [Illustration: FIG. 41. S. MARY PARACHRANTOS.

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 ([Greek: plêsion tôn hagiôn
apostolôn]). 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; [Greek: pros ta tou Liba merê, topon apokismenon kai
hêsychon].[194] 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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XXXII.
  _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.[204] 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]

  [Illustration: PLATE XXXIII.
  _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

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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XXXIV.
  _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.

  [Illustration: FIG. 42. S. MARY PANACHRANTOS.

  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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XXXV.
  _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.

  [Illustration: FIG. 43.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 44.]

  [Illustration: FIGS. 45 AND 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 [Greek: Merdosagarê], Leo Gramm. p.

[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.



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

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

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

  [Greek: Iôannou phrontisma Komnênou tode
  Annês te rhizês Doukikês tês syzygou.
  hois antidousa plousian, hagnê, charin
  taxais en oikô tou theou monotropous].[216]

  [Illustration: PLATE XXXVI.
  _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 [Greek: phrontisma] 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 ([Greek:
tên idian monên]). 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.

  [Greek: horas ton andra ton polyn touton, xene;
  ekeinos houtos estin ho prôtostratôr,
  ho dêmiourgos tês monês tês enthade,
  to thauma tês gês, ho Glabas ho gennadas].[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.

  [Greek: Michaêl Doukas Glabas Tarchaniôtês, ho prôtostratôr kai ktêtôr;
  Maria Doukaina Komnênê Palaiologina Blakaina,[220] hê prôtostratorissa
  kai ktêtôrissa].

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]

  [Symbol: Cross][Greek: Andronikos en Chô tô thô pistos basileus kai
    autokratôr Rhômeôn ho palaiologos].

  [Symbol: Cross][Greek: Anna en Chô tô thô pistê augousta hê

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.[224] 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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XXXVII.
  _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]

  [Illustration: PLATE XXXVIII.
  _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

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
[Greek: autokratoros],' 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.'[244] 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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XXXIX.
  _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

  [Illustration: PLATE XL.
  _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

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

_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.


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.

  [Illustration: 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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XLI.
  _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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XLII.
  _To face page 156._]

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

  [Illustration: 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:--

  [Greek: Aner, to phôs, to pneuma, to prosphthegma mou,
  kai touto soi to dôron ek tês syzygou;
  sy men gar hôs agrypnos en machais leôn
  hypnois, hypelthôn anti lochmês ton taphon;
  egô de soi teteucha petraian stegên,            5
  mê palin heurôn ho stratos se syncheê,
  kan deuro ton choun ektinaxas ekrybês,
  ê tou pachous rheusantos hêrpagês anô,
  pan hoplon apheis ekkremes tô pattalô;
  tas gar epi gês ebdelyxô pastadas              10
  en eutelei tribôni phygôn bion
  kai pros noêtous antetaxô satrapas,
  sterrhan metendys ek theou panteuchian.
  hôs ostreon goun organô soi ton taphon,
  ê kochlon ê kalyka kentrôdous batou;           15
  margare mou, porphyra, gês allês rhodon,
  ei kai trygêthen ekpiezê tois lithois
  hôs kai stalagmous proxenein moi dakryôn,
  autos de kai zôn kai Theon zônta blepôn
  hôs nous katharos tôn pathôn tôn ex hylês      20
  ton son palin thalamon eutrepize moi;
  hê syzygos prin tauta soi Martha graphei,
  prôtostrator kalliste kai tethammenôn].[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
  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
  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[254] was to
be placed in the parecclesion of the church of the Pammakaristos
(_Carmina Philae_, ccxix., ed. Miller, vol. i. pp. 115-16):--

  [Greek: Epigramma eis ton naon hon ôkodomêsen hê tou prôtostratoros
  symbios apothanonti tô andri autês.

  hê men dia sou pasa tôn ontôn physis
  ou dynatai chôrein se tên prôtên physin;
  plêrois gar autên alla kai pleiôn meneis,
  Theou Loge zôn kai draki to pan pherôn,
  kan sarx alêthês heuretheis perigraphê,            5
  psychais de pistais mystikôs enidryê
  monên seautô pêgnyôn athanaton;
  oukoun dechou ton oikon hon teteucha soi
  deiknynta saphôs tês psychês mou tên schesin;
  ton syzygon de pheu teleutêsanta moi             10
  kai tês choikês apanastanta stegês,
  oikison eis aphtharton autos pastada,
  kantautha têrôn tên soron tou leipsanou,
  mê tis enechthê syntribê tois osteois.           15
  prôtostrator kai tauta sên dêpou charin
  hê syzygos prin, alla nyn Martha graphei.]

  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]

  [Illustration: FIG. 50.]

  _To face page 160._

  [Illustration: FIG. 51.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 52.]

  [Illustration: 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.

[219] M. Crusius, _Turcograecia_, p. 189.

[220] It should read, [Greek: Branaina]. 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,

[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: [Greek: Alexios autokratôr
tôn Rhômaiôn]. There is an eagle to the right of the legend.

[241] P. 12, [Greek: eis hên ekeinos edeimato Christô tô philanthrôpô

[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, [Greek: endon tês mikras ekklêsias
kai hôraias tou parekklêsion].

[252] [Greek: tethammene] (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 [Greek: Glabas] is given.

[256] In these translations I have been assisted chiefly by Sir W. M.
Ramsay, Professor Bury, and Mr. E. M. Antoniadi.



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 ([Greek: pylê tês hagias
Theodosias]), 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]

  [Illustration: PLATE XLIII.
  (_E. M. Antoniadi._)
  _To face page 164._]

The remains of the martyred heroine were taken for burial to the
monastery of Dexiocrates ([Greek: to monastêrion to onomazomenon
Dexiokratous]), 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 ([Greek: Porta
Dexiokratous]).[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

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.[274] 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.


  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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XLIV.
  _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.

  (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

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, corresponding 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

  [Illustration: PLATE XLV.
  _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.'

  [Illustration: 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, [Greek: meta basilikês timês],[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

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.


  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.

  [Illustration: FIG. 56.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 57.]

  [Illustration: FIGS. 58 AND 59.]

  [Illustration: 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.--

  [Greek: Keras kriou kteinon se, Theodosia,
          ôphthê neon soi tes Amaltheias keras].

[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] [Greek: Syngraphai hai Elassones].

[286] "[Greek: Meletês]," Athens, 1908: [Greek: Kônstantinou
Palaiologou thanatos, taphos, kai spathê].

[287] Phrantzes, pp. 290-91, [Greek: kai prostaxei autou hoi
heurethentes Christianoi ethapsan to basilikon ptôma meta basilikês

[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.

[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.

[291] _Letters from the East_ (in Russian), vol. ii. pp. 342-43,
quoted by Mr. Siderides.

[292] [Greek: Syngraphai hai Elassones.]



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]

  [Illustration: PLATE XLVI.
  _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 ([Greek: naos tês theotokou ta
Diakonissês]), 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

  [Illustration: PLATE XLVII.
  _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.).

  [Illustration: PLATE XLVIII.
  _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

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 11-1/2 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

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.

  [Illustration: PLATE XLIX.
  _To face page 188._]

  [Illustration: FIG. 61.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 62.]

  [Illustration: PLATE L.
  _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.

[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.



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]


  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.

  [Illustration: PLATE LI.
  _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.

  [Illustration: 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 [Symbol: 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.

  [Illustration: PLATE LII.
  _To face page 194._]

  [Illustration: FIGS. 64 AND 65.]

[305] Synax., July 2.

[306] _Ancient and Modern Constantinople_, p. 83.

[307] [Greek: Neologou hebdomadiaia epitheôrêsis], January 3, 1893, p.
205; _Itin. russes_, p. 233.



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] [Greek: en tois palatiois tou Myrelaiou], and as 'the
monastery of the Emperor Romanus,'[313] [Greek: Monê tou basileôs
Rhômanou]. 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]

  [Illustration: PLATE LIII.

  _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 semi-circles. 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.

  [Illustration: PLATE LIV.

  _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.).


  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.

  [Illustration: 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).



The identification of the church of S. John the Baptist in Trullo
([Greek: Monê tou hagiou prophêtou prodromou Iôannou tou en tô
Troullô]) 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 ([Greek:
Penthektê]), 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.

  [Illustration: PLATE LV.

  [Illustration: BALABAN MESJEDI (page 265). INTERIOR VIEW.
  _To face page 202._]

  [Illustration: 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

  [Illustration: 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

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]

  [Illustration: 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 [Greek: Ôaton], 'the Oval,' after the form of
its roof or of the body of the building itself (Synax., Sept. 14).
_Vita Stephani._ For the [Greek: Ôaton], see Labarte, _Le Palais
impérial de Cons'ple_, pp. 62, 121, 122, 186.

[327] _Vita Stephani Junioris_, Migne, _P.G._ tom. 100, col. 1144
[Greek: en tô hierô palatiô, entha epilegetai ho Troullos hoper hêmeis
Ôaton kaloumen].

[328] Balsamon, vol. i. col. 501 [Greek: en tô Troullô tou basilikou

[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.



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.

  [Illustration: PLATE LVI.

  [Illustration: S. THEKLA. EAST END.
  _To face page 208._]



  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 ([Greek: entos tôn basileiôn; en tô
palatiô tôn Blachernôn][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 ([Greek: euktêrion]) 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

_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.



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
([Greek: pantepoptês]), 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.

  [Illustration: PLATE LVII.


  _To face page 212._

  [Illustration: 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.

  [Illustration: PLATE LVIII.


  _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

For details see Figs. 68, 72, 75.

  [Illustration: FIG. 73.]

  [Illustration: 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.



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

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.

  [Illustration: PLATE LIX.
  _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

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.

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

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

  [Illustration: PLATE LXI.


  _To face page 224._

  [Illustration: 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]

  [Illustration: PLATE LXII.

  _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]

  [Illustration: PLATE LXIII.

  _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]

  [Illustration: PLATE LXIV.

  _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 wildfire 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 voeu d'être délivrés de l'union avec les

  [Illustration: PLATE LXV.

  _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.

  [Illustration: FIG. 76.]

  [Illustration: PLATE LXVI.

  _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

_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).

  [Illustration: PLATE LXVII.

  _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.

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.

  [Illustration: PLATE LXVIII.

  _To face page 238._]

As already intimated, the monastery was autonomous ([Greek;
autodespotos, autexousios]), 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.)

  [Illustration: FIG. 77.]

  [Illustration: FIGS. 78 AND 79.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 80.]

  [Illustration: PLATE LXIX.


  _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,

[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,

[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.

[389] _Ibid._ p. 210.

[390] _Ibid._ p. 134.

[391] _Ibid._ p. 203.

[392] _Ibid._ p. 203.

[393] _Ibid._ p. 191.

[394] _Ibid._ p. 191.

[395] Muralt, ad annum.

[396] Phrantzes, p. 156.

[397] _Ibid._ p. 156.

[398] Ducas, pp. 252-60.

[399] Phrantzes, pp. 304-7.

[400] _Essai de chronographie byzantine_, ii. p. 889.

[401] Ducas, p. 318.

[402] Chadekat, vol. i. p. 118, quoted by Paspates, p. 312.

[403] _De top. C.P._ iv. c. 2.

[404] 'The breaking of wall surfaces by pilasters and blind niches is
a custom immemorial in Oriental brickwork.'--_The Thousand and One
Churches_, by Sir W. Ramsay and Miss Lothian Bell, p. 448.

[405] It is reached by an inclined plane built against the exterior of
the south wall of the church.

[406] _De top. C.P._ iv. c. 2.

[407] For these particulars we are indebted to MS. 85, formerly in the
library of the theological seminary at Halki. According to the same
authority, near the Pantokrator stood a church dedicated to the
Theotokos Eleousa, and between the two buildings was the chapel of S.
Michael that contained the tombs of the Emperor John Comnenus and the
Empress Irene. But according to Cinnamus (pp. 14, 31), as we have seen
(p. 221), those tombs were in the Pantokrator. Is it possible that of
the three buildings commonly styled the church of the Pantokrator, one
of the lateral churches was dedicated specially to the Theotokos
Eleousa, and that the central building which served as a mausoleum was
dedicated to the archangel Michael? The parecclesion of the Chora
where Tornikes was buried (p. 310) was associated, as the frescoes in
its western dome prove, with the angelic host.



High up the western slope of the Third Hill, in a quiet Turkish quarter
reached by a narrow street leading off Vefa Meidan, stands a small but
graceful Byzantine church, known since its use as a mosque by the style
Kilissi Mesjedi. Authorities differ in regard to its dedication.
Gyllius[408] was told that the church had been dedicated to S. Theodore.
On the other hand, Le Noir, on the strength of information furnished by
Greek friends, and after him Bayet, Fergusson, Salzenberg, claim it as
the church of the Theotokos of Lips. But the church of that dedication
was certainly elsewhere (p. 123). Mordtmann[409] suggests that we have
here the church of S. Anastasia Pharmacolytria ([Greek: tês
pharmakolytrias]),[410] and supports his view by the following argument.
In the first place the church of S. Theodore the Tiro was situated in
the quarter of Sphorakius,[411] which was in the immediate vicinity of
S. Sophia,[412] and therefore not near Vefa Meidan. Secondly, the
indications given by Antony of Novgorod and by the Anonymus of the
eleventh century respecting the position of S. Anastasia point to the
site of Kilissi Mesjedi. The fact that the church was ever supposed to
be dedicated to S. Theodore is, in Mordtmann's opinion, a mistake
occasioned by the circumstance that both S. Theodore and S. Anastasia
were credited with the power of exposing sorcery and frauds, so that a
church associated with one of these saints might readily be transferred
to the other, especially in the confusion which followed the Turkish

In reply to this line of argument, it may be urged, first, that the
presence of a church of S. Theodore in the district of Sphorakius does
not prevent the existence of a church with a similar dedication in
another part of the city. S. Theodore was a popular saint. There was a
church named after him in the district of Claudius ([Greek: ta
Klaudiou]);[413] another church built in his honour stood in the
district Carbounaria ([Greek: ta Karbounaria]);[414] the private chapel
of the emperors in the Great Palace was dedicated to S. Theodore;[415]
and according to Phrantzes,[416] a church dedicated at once to S.
Theodore the Tiro and S. Theodore the General, as at Athens, was erected
in Constantinople in his day. As to the indications supposed to favour
the view that the church of S. Anastasia stood at Kilissi Mesjedi, they
are, to say the least, exceedingly vague and inconclusive. According to
Antony of Novgorod[417] the shrine of S. Anastasia was found near the
church of the Pantokrator, on the Fourth Hill, whereas Kilissi Mesjedi
stands on the Third Hill. Furthermore, the order in which the
Anonymus[418] refers to the church of S. Anastasia Pharmacolytria,
immediately before the Leomacellum, which Mordtmann identifies with the
Et Meidan, would allow us to place S. Anastasia in the valley of the
Lycus. Under these circumstances it is wiser to accept the information
given to Gyllius as correct; for while the Greeks of his day were not
infallible in their identification of the buildings of the city, there
is no evidence that they were mistaken in this particular case.

  [Illustration: PLATE LXX.

  _To face page 244._]

Paspates[419] agrees so far with this view, but maintains, at the same
time, that the building was the church of S. Theodore 'in the district
of Sphorakius.' That identification is inadmissible, for beyond all
dispute the district of Sphorakius stood close to S. Sophia and not at
Vefa Meidan. Mühlmann[420] likewise regards Kilissi Mesjedi as a
church of S. Theodore, and identifies it with the church dedicated to
that saint in the district of Carbounaria. This is possible, although
the Anonymus[421] mentions the Carbounaria before the Anemodoulion and
the forum of Taurus (the region of the Turkish War Office), and
consequently suggests a position for the Carbounaria much farther to the
east than Vefa Meidan. Still the order in which the Anonymus mentions
places and monuments cannot be confidently appealed to as coincident
with their relative positions.

  [Illustration: FIG. 81.]

(For other details see Figs. 19, 54.)

To which of the many saints named Theodore in the Greek Calendar this
church was actually dedicated is a point open to discussion, but we
cannot go far wrong in ascribing it to one of the two most prominent
saints of that name, or, as sometimes was the case, to both of them, S.
Theodore the Tiro and S. Theodore the General. The former was a young
soldier in the Roman army who was tortured and put to death in 306 for
not taking part in the persecution of Christians under Maximian. The
latter was a general in the army of Licinius, and won the martyr's crown
for refusing to sacrifice to false gods, and for breaking their images
in pieces. He was the titular saint of the great church in Venice before
that honour was bestowed upon S. Mark the Evangelist. His relics were
carried to Venice from Constantinople in 1260, and his figure still
stands on one of the columns in the Piazzetta of S. Mark, with the
attribute of a dragon or a crocodile, symbolic of the false gods he

_Architectural Features_

The church is a good example of the 'four column' type, with an outer
and an inner narthex. The former is in five bays, and extends to the
north and south, by one bay, beyond the inner narthex and the body of
the church. The terminal bays, it would seem, led to cloisters built
against the exterior of the northern and southern sides of the building.
Le Noir and Salzenberg[423] show a cloister along the south side of the
church, with four columns and an apse at its end. The central bay and
the two terminal bays are covered with domes on high drums, without
windows. The dome of the central bay has sixteen lobed bays, while its
companions have each eight flat ribs. All traces of the mosaics which
Salzenberg saw in the central dome have disappeared. On the exterior the
three domes are octagonal, decorated with flat niches and angle shafts
supporting an arched cornice. The exonarthex deserves special attentions
on account of its façade. It is a fine composition of two triple
arcades, separated by a solid piece of masonry containing the door. On
either side of the door, and on the piers at each end of the façade, are
slender flat niches, similar to those which occur in S. Mark's, Venice.
The finely carved capitals of the columns differ in type, the two
northern being a variant of the 'melon type,' the pair to the south
being Corinthian. They are probably old capitals re-used. Throughout
the building are traces of stones from some older building recut or
adapted to the present church. Between the columns is a breastwork of
carved marble slabs similar in style to those seen in S. Mark's and in
S. Fosca, Torcello.[424] The upper part of the façade does not
correspond to the composition below it, but follows the divisions of the
internal vaulting. It is in five circular-arched bays, each containing
an arched window. The infilling is of brick in various patterns. The
cornice looks Turkish. While the masonry of the lower portion of the
arcade is in alternate courses of one stone and two bricks, that of the
upper portion has alternate courses of one stone and three bricks.
Moreover, while the design of the upper portion is determined by the
vaulting of the narthex, the lower portion takes a more independent
line. These differences may indicate different periods of construction,
but we find a similar type of design in other Byzantine buildings, as,
for example, in the walls of the palace of the Porphyrogenitus, where
the different stories are distinct in design, and do not closely
correspond to one another. The outer narthex of S. Theodore may have
been built entirely at one time, or its upper story, vaults, and domes
may have been added to an already existing lower story. But in any case,
notwithstanding all possible adverse criticism, the total effect
produced by the façade is pleasing. It presents a noteworthy and
successful attempt to relieve the ordinary plainness and heaviness of a
Byzantine church exterior, and to give that exterior some grace and
beauty. The effect is the more impressive because the narthex is raised
considerably above the level of the ground and reached by a flight of
steps. 'Taking it altogether,' says Fergusson,[425] 'it is perhaps the
most complete and elegant church of its class now known to exist in or
near the capital, and many of its details are of great beauty and

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXI.

  _To face page 246._]

The esonarthex is in three bays covered with barrel vaults, and
terminates at both ends in a shallow niche. The outer arches spring from
square buttresses. From each bay a door conducts into the church, the
central door being set in a marble frame and flanked by two Corinthian
columns, which support a bold wall arcade.

The drum of the dome is a polygon of twelve sides, and was lighted by
the same number of windows. It rests on four columns, which were
originally square, but now have large champs at the angles, dying out at
top and bottom. Barrel vaults cover the arms of the cross, and dome
vaults surmount the chambers at its angles. As in the Pantokrator (p.
235), the eastern arm is pierced by two windows in the vaulting surface.
The central apse is lighted by a triple window, having oblong shafts,
circular on their inner and outer faces, and bearing capitals now badly
injured. A niche indents the northern, eastern, and southern interior
walls of the apsidal chapels. The windows in the northern and southern
walls of the church have been built up almost to their full height,
leaving only small openings for light at the top. There can be little
doubt that they were triple windows with a parapet of carved marble
slabs between the shafts. On the exterior the apse shows five sides, and
is decorated by an arcade of five arches and an upper tier of five
niches. The lateral apses do not project beyond the face of the eastern
wall, but are slightly marked out by cutting back the sides and forming
angular grooves. Bayet[426] assigns the church to the ninth or tenth
century, the age of Leo the Wise and Constantine Porphyrogenitus.
Fergusson[427] is of the same opinion so far as the earlier portions of
the building are concerned. But that date is based on the mistaken view
that the building is the church of the Theotokos erected by Constantine
Lips. Diehl[428] assigns the church to the second half of the eleventh

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXII.

  _To face page 248._]

  [Illustration: FIG. 82.--S. THEODORE. PLAN AS GIVEN BY TEXIER.]


In the library of the Royal Institute of British Architects, in London,
are four volumes of Texier's sketches and drawings of buildings in or
near Constantinople. In that collection is found a complete set of
drawings of this church, showing a chapel on both the north and south
sides of the building, and even giving measurements on the south
side. Texier's drawings are unfortunately very inaccurate, so that
little trust can be placed in any of them. In addition to the plan of
the church an elevation is given, and two sketches covered with
indications of elaborate decoration, but evidently quite imaginary. The
chapel on the north side is noticed by no other writer, and was probably
added by Texier for the sake of symmetry. That on the south side, as
shown by him, differs in some respects from Salzenberg. The only thing
certain is that a side chapel did exist here.

This church presents a good example of the greater interest taken during
the later Byzantine period in the external appearance of a church. To
the exterior of the walls and the apses some decoration is now applied.
The dome is raised on a polygonal drum, with shafts at its angles, and
an arched cornice over its windows; the roof gains more diversity of
form and elevation by the multiplication of domes, by the protrusion of
the vaults of the cross arms and of the apses, thus making the outward
garb, so to speak, of the building correspond more closely to the figure
and proportions of its inner body. In all this we have not yet reached
the animation and grace of a Gothic cathedral, nor the stateliness that
crowns an imperial mosque; but there is, at all events, a decided
advance towards a fuller expression of artistic feeling. (See Plates

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXIII.

  _To face page 250._]

  [Illustration: FIGS. 84 AND 85.]

  [Illustration: FIGS. 86 AND 87.]

[408] _De top. C.P._ iii. c. 6.

[409] _Esq. top._ paragraphs 110, 114, 124, 125.

[410] Banduri, ii. p. 38.

[411] _Ibid._ i. p. 10.

[412] Const. Porphyr, _De cer._ p. 623.

[413] Banduri, iii. pp. 16, 48.

[414] _Ibid._ i. p. 17.

[415] Const. Porphyr, _De cer._ p. 640.

[416] P. 140.

[417] _Itin. russes_, pp. 105-6.

[418] Banduri, i. p. 16; ii. p. 38.

[419] P. 314.

[420] See his paper in the _Mitteilungen des deutschen Excursions-Club,
Konstantinopel_, Erstes Heft, 1888.

[421] Banduri, p. 16.

[422] See _The Monastery of St. Luke of Stiris_, p. 61.

[423] _Altchristliche Baudenkmäler von K.P._ plates 34, 35.

[424] Pulgher, _Les Anciennes Églises de C.P._ p. 23.

[425] _History of Architecture_, i. 458.

[426] _L'Art byzantin_, p. 126.

[427] _History of Architecture_, vol. i. p. 458.

[428] _Manuel d'art byzantin_, p. 414.



The mosque known as Kefelé Mesjedi, in the quarter of Salma Tomruk, is
commonly supposed to represent the monastery founded by Manuel,[429] a
distinguished general in the wars with the Saracens during the reign of
Theophilus (823-842). This opinion is doubtless based upon the
circumstance that the monastery in question stood in the vicinity of the
cistern of Aspar,[430] [Greek: synengys tê kisternê tou Asparos] (the
large open reservoir to the east of the Gate of Adrianople), near which
Kefelé Mesjedi is also situated. But that circumstance alone cannot be
regarded as sufficient ground for the identification of the two
buildings. There are at least five other monasteries mentioned in
Byzantine history, all distinguished by the mark of their proximity to
the cistern of Aspar.[431] And at a short distance to the west of Kefelé
Mesjedi, and nearer to the cistern of Aspar, we find the remains of an
old church, now Odalar Mesjedi, which might with equal force claim to
represent the monastery of Manuel. The commonly received identification
may, however, be correct as a happy conjecture. Mr. Siderides,[432]
indeed, considers the identification of the monastery of Manuel with
Kefelé Mesjedi a mistake. According to him, that monastery was a
reconstruction or enlargement of the ancient monastery of SS. Manuel,
Sabel, and Ishmael, which stood on the heights above the Phanar, now
crowned by the mosque of Sultan Selim. To the objection that there it
would not be near the cistern of Aspar, Mr. Siderides replies by denying
the correctness of the identification of that cistern with the open
reservoir (Tchoukour Bostan) to the east of the gate of Adrianople, and
in the vicinity of Kefelé Mesjedi. In Mr. Siderides' opinion the cistern
of Aspar is the beautiful covered cistern, generally known as the
cistern of Puicheria, to the south-west of the mosque of Sultan
Selim.[433] But the dimensions of the cistern ascribed to the famous
sister of Theodosius II. do not accord with the size of the cistern of
Aspar. The latter was 'a very large cistern,' [Greek: tên megistên
kinsternan],[434] while the former is only m. 29.1 long by m. 18 wide,
with a roof supported on four rows of seven columns[435]--not a large
cistern as works of that class went in Constantinople. But if the
cistern of Aspar was not situated in the district now marked by the
mosque of Sultan Selim, neither could the monastery of Manuel have been
there. Mr. Siderides,[436] moreover, identifies the monastery of Manuel
with that of Manoueliou [Greek: tou Manouêliou] which appears in the
Proceedings of the Synod held at Constantinople in 536 under
Justinian.[437] This, however, does not agree with the statement that
the monastery of Manuel was originally the private residence of the
well-known general of that name in the ninth century. Furthermore, it is
always dangerous to assume that the same name could not belong to
different buildings, especially when the name occurs at distant
intervals in the history of the city. Many mistakes in the topography of
Constantinople are due to this false method of identification. As a
matter of fact, the monastery of Manuel near the cistern of Aspar was
not the only House of that name in the capital of the East. Another
monastery of Manuel stood beside the Golden Horn, in the Genoese
quarter, between the gate of the Neorion (Bagtché Kapoussi) and the gate
of Eugenius (Yali Kiosk Kapoussi). It had a pier, known as the pier of
the venerable monastery of Manuel, [Greek: skala tês sebasmias monês
tou Manouêl].[438] Paspates is consequently wrong in associating
that pier with Kefelé Mesjedi.[439]

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXIV.

  _To face page 254._]

Mordtmann[440] accepts the identification of Kefelé Mesjedi with the
monastery of Manuel as correct, but he identifies it also with the
church and monastery which Gerlach found in this neighbourhood, and
describes under the name of Aetius ([Greek: tou Aetiou]).[441] When
visited by Gerlach in 1573, the church had been converted into a mosque,
and was a beautiful building in excellent preservation. If all that
remains of it is the bare structure of Kefelé Mesjedi, the city has to
mourn a great loss.[442] (Plate LXXVII.)

Manuel, the founder of the monastery, was the uncle of the Empress
Theodora, wife of the Emperor Theophilus, and proved a loyal and devoted
servant of the imperial family. Twice at the peril of his own life he
saved the emperor from capture, if not from death, during the wars with
the Saracens. Nevertheless, being accused of treason he fled to the
court of Baghdad and took service under the Caliph Mutasim, until
assured that Constantinople would welcome him back.

He was one of the three counsellors appointed by Theophilus to assist
Theodora during the minority of Michael III., and so highly was he
esteemed, that he was acclaimed emperor by the populace in the
Hippodrome, and might have worn the crown but for his fidelity to the
little prince. Silencing the shouts raised in his favour, he exclaimed,
'You have an emperor; my duty and highest honour is to defend his
infancy and to secure for him, even at the price of my blood, the
heritage of his father.' In the iconoclastic controversy Manuel
supported the policy of Theophilus, and therefore found himself in a
difficult position when Theodora decided to restore the use of eikons.
The story is, that while he lay dangerously ill at the time, monks of
the Studion assured him that recovery was certain if he vowed to uphold
the orthodox cause. The vow was taken, and upon his restoration to
health Manuel favoured the measures of Theodora. Probably he felt that
the current of public feeling on the subject was too strong for him to
oppose. But the task of working in harmony with his colleagues in the
regency, Theoctistus and Bardas, was soon found impossible, and rumours
of a plot to blind him and remove him from the administration of affairs
led him to retire to his house near the cistern of Aspar. For some time,
indeed, he continued to appear occasionally at the palace, but at last
he quitted for ever that scene of intrigue, and converted his residence
into a monastery, where he might spend the closing days of his life in
peace and finally be laid in a quiet grave.[443]

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXV.

  _To face page 256._]

The building which Manuel bequeathed was reconstructed almost from the
foundations, a large and beautiful edifice, by the celebrated Patriarch
Photius.[444] It underwent extensive restoration again at the command of
the Emperor Romanus Lecapenus (919-945),[445] in token of his friendship
for Sergius, the abbot of the monastery, a nephew of Photius, and
eventually an occupant of the patriarchal throne for twenty years
(999-1019). In it the Emperor Romanus Argyrus (1028-1034) confined
Prussianus, a relative of the Bulgarian royal family, on a charge of
treason;[446] and there Michael VII., nicknamed Parapinakes (the
peck-filcher), because he sold wheat at one-fourth of its proper weight,
and then at an exorbitant price, ultimately retired after his
deposition.[447] The connection of so many prominent persons with the
monastery implies the importance of the House.

_Architectural Features_

Kefelé Mesjedi is a large oblong hall, m. 22.6 long by m. 7.22 wide,
with walls constructed in alternate courses of four bricks and four
stones, and covered with a lofty timber roof. It terminates to the north
in an arch and a semicircular apse in brick. Two niches, with a window
between them, indent the walls of the apse, and there is a niche in each
pier of the arch. The building is entered by a door situated in the
middle of the western wall. Originally the eastern and western walls,
which form the long sides of the building, were lighted by two ranges of
round-headed windows, somewhat irregularly spaced. The upper range is
situated a little below the ceiling, and forms a sort of clearstory of
ten lights; the lower range has five windows, except in the western
wall, where the place of one window is occupied by the entrance. The
southern wall is also lighted by two ranges of windows, the lower
windows being much larger than the higher. At some time buttresses were
built against the eastern wall. Under the west side is a cistern, the
roof of which rests on three columns. In view of all these features it
is impossible to believe that the building was a church. Its
orientation, the absence of lateral apses in a structure of such
dimensions, the position of the entrance, are all incompatible with that
character. We have here, undoubtedly, the refectory and not the
sanctuary of the monastic establishment. It resembles the refectory of
the Laura on Mt. Athos,[448] and that of Daphni near Athens. It recalls
the 'long and lofty building,' adorned with pictures of saints, which
formed the refectory of the Peribleptos at Psamathia.[449]

There is a tradition that the use of the building was granted at the
conquest to the Armenian colony which was brought from Kaffa in 1475 to
repeople the capital, Hence the Turkish name of the building.[450]

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXVI.

  _To face page 258._]


  As Gerlach's work is rare, the reader may wish to see his
  description of the church of Aetius in the original (_Tagebuch_, pp.
  455-56):--Nicht weit hiervon [the church of S. John in Petra] ist
  eine sehr schöne Kirche, [Greek: tês Aetiou], da vor Zeiten ein sehr
  gross und weites Closter gewesen seyn und viel Häuser der Lehrer und
  Lernenden in sich gehabt haben solle. Jetzt wird nichts mehr davon
  gesehen als das zerfallene Gemäuer einer herrlichen Pforten und eine
  trockene Ziternen, darinnen die Juden die Seiden spinnen, zwirnen
  und bereiten (_serica nectunt fila_). Vor der Kirchen ist ein weiter
  Hoff, rings aber umb denselbe herumb ein bedeckter Gang
  (_porticus_), welcher mit schönen auff vergüldten viereckichten
  gläsern Taffeln künstlich gemahlten Figuren auss dem Alten und Neuen
  Testament, und mit griechischen Überschrifften gezieret ist, aber
  alte Gesichter derselben aussgekratzet sind. Die Wände dieser
  Umbgänge sind mit Marmel von allerhand Farben bekleidet. Hat auch 3
  oder 4 hohe Crepidines oder Absätze mit der Propheten, Apostel und
  Christi Bildnüssen von Gold. Der Hauss- oder vielmehr Bau- herr oder
  auch der Stiffter ([Greek: ho ktêtôr]), und sein Weib, sind da auch
  gemahlet in einem Habit, fast wie man heut zu Tage gehet, aber mit
  einer ganz fremden Hauptzierde (_capellitii genere_), class man
  darauss abnehmen kan, er sey einer aus den vornehmsten Käyserlich
  Bedienten gewesen, dann diese Zierde siehet auss fast wie ein
  Hertzogs Bareht von Seiden and Beltzwerck, der Bund oder das
  Umgewundene (_cinctura_) von mancherley Farben, wie heut zu Tage die
  Juden und Armenier weiss und blau durcheinander tragen. Sein Weib
  hat einen Schleyer (_peplum_) fast wie die Griechinnen. Der bedecte
  Gang und die Kirche sind ein Gebäu (_porticus muro etiam templi
  continetur_), und gehet man durch zwey hohe Pforten hinein, welche 4
  Theil in sich begreifft, oder in 4 Theil abgetheilet ist. 1. der
  bedeckte (_Porticus_) Gang, dessen Wände mit Marmelstein biss auff
  die Helffte bekleidet sind. Der Obertheil, da die Schwibbögen
  (_Laquearia_) anheben, hat er wie auch die Schwibbögen selber die
  Gemählde. In diesem Gang oder Halle (_porticu_) stehen die Weiber,
  und kommen nicht in die Kirchen hinein, wie auch in andere Kirchen
  nicht, als wann sie zum Abendmahl gehen. 2. ist die Kirche für sich
  so mit Türckischen Deppichen (_aoreis_) beleget und hat nur ein
  Thor. Ist ein hohes Gewölb (_laquearia_) und wie auch die überige 2
  Gewölbe (_laquearia_) ganz vergüldet und übermahlet, und die Wände
  von unten an biss an die Schwibbögen mit dem schönsten Marmelstein
  bekleidet. Auss diesem gehet man 3. durch einen niedern Crepidinem
  in dem dritten Theil der Kirchen, da der Bauherr oder Stiffter mit
  andern sehr schönen Bildnüssen mit Gold gemahlet stehen, mit einem
  etwas niedern als der vorige Schwibbögen (_laquearia_). Auss diesem
  gehet man in den 4ten gewölbten auch gemahlten aber etwas finstern
  und viel kleine Fenster in sich haltenden Ort. Aussen an der
  Kirchmauren stehet diese Schrift.

  [Illustration: Monogram in Greek.]

  Vor dem Vorhoff (_vestibulo_, [Greek: propiliô]) dieser Kirchen
  [Greek: tês 'Aetiou] zeigte mir Theodosius den Ort, da der letzte
  Christliche Käyser Constantinus als er bey der Türckischen Eroberung
  der Stadt fliehen wollen, von Pferde gestürtzet, und tod gefunden
  seyn solle.

  'Not far from here is a very beautiful church where there is said to
  have been in times past a very large monastery with many houses for
  teachers and scholars within its walls. Nothing of all that is to be
  seen now except the ruins of a splendid gate and a dry cistern in
  which the Jews spin, throw, and prepare silk. In front of the church
  there is a large court surrounded by a covered passage (_porticus_),
  which is adorned with beautiful figures from the Old and New
  Testaments painted on gilded quadrangular glass cubes with Greek
  inscriptions; but the ancient faces of these (figures) are scratched
  out. The walls of this passage are covered with marble of different
  colours. It has also three or four high crepidines[451] or vaulted
  compartments (?) with the pictures of the prophets, of the apostles,
  and of Christ in gold. The master of the house, or rather the
  builder, or perhaps the founder, [Greek: ho ktêtôr], and his wife
  are also painted there in a costume very much the same as is worn
  to-day, but with a very strange head-ornament, from which we may
  conclude that he was one of the most distinguished of the imperial
  staff, for this ornament looks almost like a duke's biretta of silk
  and fur; the belt (_cinctura_) is of different colours, such as
  nowadays the Jews or Armenians wear, white and blue mixed. His wife
  has a veil (_peplum_) almost like that which Greek women have. The
  covered passage and the church form one building (_porticus muro
  etiam templi continetur_), entered by two high gates, and comprising
  four parts, or divided into four parts. 1. The covered passage
  (_porticus_), the walls of which as far as half their height are
  covered with marble. On the upper part, where the arches begin, and
  on the arches themselves are the paintings. In this passage or hall
  stand the women, and do not enter the church as they do not enter
  other churches, unless they go to the Lord's supper. 2. Is the
  church, as such, covered with Turkish rugs, and has only one gate.
  It has a high dome, which, like the remaining two domes, is entirely
  gilded and painted, and the walls up to the arches are covered with
  the most beautiful marble. From this one enters 3. through a low
  vaulted compartment, with a somewhat lower arch than the foresaid
  arches, the third part of the church, where the founder with other
  very beautiful portraits (pictures) is painted in gold. From this
  one enters 4. a vaulted and also painted, but rather dark place,
  with many small windows. On the outside of the walls of the church
  there is this inscription[452]--

  [Illustration: Monogram in Greek.]

  In front of the porch, vestibulo, [Greek: propiliô] of this church
  Theodosius showed me the place where the last Christian emperor
  Constantine, intending to flee at the Turkish conquest of the city,
  is said to have fallen from his horse and to have been found dead.'

  [Illustration: FIGS. 88 AND 89.]

[429] Scarlatus Byzantius, p. 369; Patr. Constantius, p. 81; Paspates,
p. 304.

[430] Leo Gramm. pp. 218, 222.

[431] Siderides, in _Proceedings of the Greek Syllogos of C.P._ vol.
xxviii. p. 265.

[432] _Ibid._ p. 263.

[433] _Proceedings of the Greek Syllogos of C.P._, _ut supra_, p. 258.

[434] _Pasch. Chron._ p. 593.

[435] _Die byzantinischen Wasserbehälter von Konstantinopel_, von Dr.
Forscheimer und Dr. Strzygowski, pp. 62-63, 175-176.

[436] _Ut supra._

[437] Mansi, viii. col. 990, col. 1054.

[438] Miklosich et Müller, pp. 28, 50, 53, 54.

[439] P. 305. On p. 163 he places the pier in its proper position.

[440] _Esq. top._ p. 76; Archaeological Supplement to vol. xviii. of
the _Proceedings of the Greek Syllogos of C.P._ p. 9.

[441] _Türkisches Tagebuch_, pp. 455-56; cf. Crusius, _Turcograecia_
p. 190.

[442] The question thus raised presents serious difficulties. That
some building[A] in the neighbourhood of Kefelé Mesjedi was known by
the name of Aetius[B] is undoubted. It was a cistern (Du Cange, i. p.
96), and formed one of the landmarks by which the church of S. John in
Petra, situated in this quarter of the city, was distinguished (Du
Cange, iv. p. 152 [Greek: engista tou Aetiou]). But while that is the
case, Gyllius (_De top. C.P._ iv.), who explored this part of the city
in 1550, does not mention any Byzantine church that answers at all to
Gerlach's description of the church of Aetius, unless it be the Chora.
That Gyllius should have overlooked so beautiful a monument of
Byzantine days as the church of Aetius, if different from the Chora,
is certainly very strange. But it is not less strange to find that
Gerlach does not speak of the Chora. Can the difficulty thus presented
be removed by the supposition that Gerlach refers to the Chora under
the name of Aetius? The position he assigns to the church of Aetius in
relation to the church of S. John in Petra and to the palace of
Constantine (Tekfour Serai) favours that view, for he places the
church of Aetius between S. John and the palace, exactly where the
Chora would stand in that series of buildings. Looking towards the
north-west from the windows of a house a little to the east of the
Pammakaristos, Gerlach says 'Ad Occasum, Boream versus, Prodromi
[Greek: monê] est, olim [Greek: petra]; longius inde, Aetii [Greek:
monê]; postea, Palatium Constantini' (_Turcograecia_, p. 190). On the
other hand, Gerlach's description of the church of Aetius differs in
so many particulars from what holds true of the Chora, that it is
difficult, if not impossible, to believe that in that description he
had the latter church in mind. Unless, then, we are prepared to admit
grave mistakes in Gerlach's description, we must either assume an
extraordinary failure on his part and on the part of Gyllius to notice
a most interesting Byzantine monument, directly on the path of both
explorers in this quarter of the city, or regret the disappearance of
an ancient sanctuary that rivalled the Chora in splendour.

     [A] It was probably the ruined cistern with twenty-four
     columns arranged in four rows of seven pillars each, near
     the mosque Kassim Aga, a short distance above Kefelé
     Mesjedi. Gerlach associates it with the church of Aetius.

     [B] _Tagebuch_, pp. 455-56; cf. Crusius, _Turcograecia_, p.
     190. In the documents associated with the Synod of 536 in
     Constantinople the cistern of Aetius serves to identify the
     monastery of Mara (Mansi, viii. cols. 910, 930, 990). Cf.
     Banduri, iii. p. 49; v. p. 106.

[443] There is some uncertainty as to the identity of Manuel. Some
authorities distinguish Manuel the general from Manuel the uncle of
Theodora, on the ground that the former is said to have died of wounds
received in battle during the reign of Theophilus (see Leo Gramm. p.
222). But it would be strange for different Manuels to reside near the
cistern of Aspar, and to convert their residences into the monastery
of Manuel in that vicinity. For other reasons for the identification
see Bury, _Eastern Roman Empire_, Appendix viii. p. 476.

[444] Theodore Balsamon, vol. i. p. 1041; Canon VII. of the Synod of
Constantinople held under Photius.

[445] Theoph. Cont. p. 433, [Greek: monê tou Manouêlou].

[446] Cedrenus, ii. p. 487.

[447] Scylitzes, in Cedrenus, ii, p. 738.

[448] H. Brockhaus, _Die Kunst in den Athos-Klöstern_, p. 34; G.
Millet, _Le Monastère de Daphné_.

[449] Gerlach, _Tagebuch_, p. 337.

[450] Paspates, p. 395.

[451] In Parker's _Glossary of Architecture_, p. 506, the term is
defined 'quae vulgariter a volta dicitur' (Matt. Par. 1056). Du Cange
defines the word 'caverna ubi viae conveniunt.'

[452] According to the Patriarch Constantius (_Ancient and Modern
Constantinople_, p. 76), the monogram--

  [Illustration: Monogram in Greek.]

was to be seen in his day on the exterior western wall of the Chora.



At a short distance within Top Kapoussi (Gate of S. Romanus) that
pierces the landward walls of the city, and a little to the south of the
street leading to that entrance, in the quarter of Tash Mektep, Mustapha
Tchaoush, stands a lonely Byzantine chapel which now goes by the name
Monastir Mesjedi, the Chapel of the Monastery. Its present designation
tells us all that is certain in regard to the history of the edifice; it
was originally a chapel attached to a Christian monastery, and after the
Turkish conquest became a Moslem place of worshp. Paspates[453] is
disposed to identify the building with the chapel of the Theotokos
erected in this vicinity, in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, by
Phocas Maroules[454] on the site of the ancient church dedicated to the
three martyr sisters Menodora, Metrodora, and Nymphodora.[455] The
chapel built by Maroules in fact belonged to a convent, and owing to its
comparatively recent date might well be standing to this day. But the
evidence in favour of the proposed identification is slight. In a city
crowded with sanctuaries more than one small chapel could be situated
near the gate of S. Romanus. An old font, turned upside down and made to
serve as a well-head by having its bottom knocked out, lies on a vacant
lot on the same side of the street as Monastir Mesjedi, but nearer the
gate of S. Romanus, and seems to mark the site of another sanctuary. So
likewise do the four columns crowned with ancient capitals which form
the porch of the mosque Kurkju Jamissi, on the north side of the street.

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXVII.
  With the kind permission of Sir Benjamin Stone.
  _To face page 262._]

Phocas Maroules was domestic of the imperial table under Andronicus II.
Palaeologus (1282-1328). He appears also as the commander of the guards
on the city walls that screened the palace of Blachernae, when
Andronicus III. Palaeologus, accompanied by John Cantacuzene, the
protostrator Synadenus, and an escort of thirty soldiers, stood before
the gate of Gyrolimné to parley with the elder emperor. The domestic was
the bearer of the messages exchanged between the imperial relatives on
that occasion. It was a thankless task. But what troubled the mind of
Maroules most was how to avoid giving offence to both sovereigns and
succeed in serving two masters. To salute the grandson as became his
rank and pretensions would incur the grandfather's displeasure; to treat
rudely the young prince, who had come on a friendly errand, and
addressed the domestic in gracious terms, was an impropriety which the
reputation of Maroules as a paragon of politeness would not allow him to
commit. Furthermore, fortune being fickle, he felt bound as a prudent
man to consult her caprices. Accordingly, allowing less discreet
officials beside him to insult the younger emperor as much as they
pleased, he himself refrained both from all taunts and from all
courteous speech. In response to the greetings of Andronicus III. he
said nothing, but at the same time made a respectful bow, thus
maintaining his good manners and yet guarding his interests whatever
turn the dispute between the two emperors might take. John Cantacuzene,
a kindred spirit, extols the behaviour of Maroules in this dilemma as
beyond all praise.[456]

After the death of Maroules his widow and son attempted to turn the
convent into a monastery. But the patriarchal court, before which the
case came in 1341, decided in favour of the claims of the nuns, on the
principle that the intention of the founder should in such matters be
always respected. Hence convents were not allowed to be changed into
monasteries, nor monasteries into convents.[457]

_Architectural Features_

(For Plan see p. 261.)

The building is a small oblong hall roofed in wood, and terminates at
its eastern end in three semicircular apses. It is divided into two
unequal compartments by a triple arcade placed near the western end. The
side apses are shallow recesses, scarcely separated from the central
apse, and show three sides on the exterior. The central apse projects
six sides, and is now lighted by a large Turkish window. The western
compartment, forming the narthex, is in three bays covered with
cross-groined vaults. The cushion capitals on the columns of the arcade
are decorated, on the east and west, with a rudely cut leaf; and on the
north and south with a cross in a circle. Along the exterior of the
south wall are traces of a string-course, of a cloister, and of a door
leading to the western compartment. On the same wall Paspates[458] saw,
as late as 1877, eikons painted in fresco. The western entrance stands
between two pilasters, and near it is an upright shaft, buried for the
most part in the ground, probably the vestige of a narthex. In the
drawing of the church given by Paspates,[459] three additional shafts
are shown beside the building.

[453] P. 376.

[454] Miklosich et Müller, i. 221.

[455] For lives of these saints, see Synax., September 10; Symeon
Metaphrastes, ii. p. 653.

[456] Cantacuzene, i. p. 255; Niceph. Greg. ix. pp. 407, 409.

[457] Miklosich et Müller, i. p. 221.

[458] P. 376.

[459] _Ut supra._



A small Byzantine building, now used for Moslem worship under the name
of Balaban Aga Mesjedi, is situated in the quarter of Shahzadé, off the
south side of the street leading to the mosque of Sultan Mehemed and the
gate Edirne Kapoussi. Mordtmann[460] proposes to identify it with the
church of the Theotokos in the district of the Curator ([Greek: tou
Kouratoros]), the foundation of which is ascribed to Verina, the consort
of Leo Macellus (457-474).[461] The only reason for this conjecture is
that the church in question stood where Balaban Aga Mesjedi stands, in
the neighbourhood of the forum of Taurus,[462] now represented by the
open area beside the War Office and the mosque of Sultan Bajazet. But
the plan of the building does not correspond to the description given of
the Theotokos in the district of the Curator. The latter resembled the
Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem,[463] and was therefore circular, whereas
Balaban Aga Mesjedi is a hexagon. Indeed, it may be questioned whether
the building was ever a church, seeing it has no room for either a berm,
or an apse, or an eikonostosis. It may have been the library of a
monastic establishment.

_Architectural Features_

(For Plans see p. 267.)

Internally the building is an accurate hexagon, with a deeply arched
recess in each side. Five recesses have a window, while in the sixth
recess, instead of a window, there is a door. The cornice and wooden
ceiling are Turkish. Externally the edifice shows four sides, two
circular and two flat projecting bays, arranged in alternate order. In
each of the circular sides are two windows, while the fifth window and
the entrance are respectively in the flat sides. A Turkish narthex
fronts one-half of the building. (Plate LV.)

  [Illustration: FIGS. 90, 91, AND 92.]

[460] _Esq. top._ p. 70.

[461] Banduri, i. p. 18.

[462] Synax., July 22nd, December 7th.

[463] Banduri, _ut supra_.



This mosque is situated in the quarter of Psamathia, at a short distance
to the north of the Armenian church of S. George (Soulou Monastir),
which stands on the site of the Byzantine church of S. Mary Peribleptos.
Paspates,[464] who first recognized the Byzantine character of the
edifice, regards it as the chapel attached to the convent of the Gastria
([Greek: Monê tôn Gastriôn, ta Gastria], _i.e._ in the district of the
Flower-pots). His reasons for that opinion are: first, the building is
situated in the district of Psamathia, where the convent of the Gastria
stood; secondly, it is in the neighbourhood of the Studion, with which
the convent of the Gastria was closely associated during the
iconoclastic controversy; thirdly, the copious and perennial stream of
water that flows through the grounds below the mosque would favour the
existence of a flower-garden in this part of the city, and thus give
occasion for the bestowal of the name Gastria upon the locality. The
argument is by no means conclusive. A more fanciful explanation of the
name of the district is given by Byzantine etymologists after their
wont. According to them the name was due to the circumstance that the
Empress Helena, upon her return from Jerusalem with her great discovery
of the Holy Cross, disembarked at Psamathia, and having founded a
convent there, adorned its garden with the pots ([Greek: ta gastria]) of
fragrant shrubs which accompanied the sacred tree on the voyage from
Palestine.[465] More sober historians ascribe the foundation of the
convent to Euphrosyne, the step-mother of the Emperor Theophilus,[466]
or to his mother-in-law Theoctista.[467] Both ladies, it is certain,
were interested in the House, the former taking the veil there,[468]
while the latter resided in the immediate neighbourhood.[469] Probably
the convent was indebted to both those pious women for benefactions, and
it was unquestionably in their day that the monastery acquired its
greatest fame as the centre of female influence in support of the cause
of eikons. Theoctista was especially active in that cause, and through
her connection with the court not only strengthened the opposition to
the policy of her son-in-law, but also disturbed the domestic peace of
the imperial family. Whenever the daughters of Theophilus visited her
she took the opportunity to condemn their father's views, and would
press her eikons on the girls' lips for adoration. One day, after such a
visit, Pulcheria, the youngest princess, a mere child, in giving an
account of what had transpired, innocently told her father that she had
seen and kissed some very beautiful dolls at her grandmother's house.
Whereupon Theophilus, suspecting the real facts, forbade his daughter to
visit Theoctista again. On another occasion the court fool, Denderis,
surprised the Empress Theodora in her private chamber kissing eikons and
placing them over her eyes. 'What are these things?' he inquired. 'My
beautiful dolls which I love,' she replied. Not long afterwards the
jester was summoned to amuse Theophilus while sitting at table. 'What is
the latest news?' asked the emperor. 'When I last visited "mamma" (the
jester's familiar name for the empress) I saw most beautiful dolls in
her room.' Instantly the emperor rose, beside himself with rage, and
rushing to his wife's apartments violently denounced her as a heathen
and idolater. 'Not at all,' answered Theodora, in her softest accents,
'that fool of yours saw me and my maidens looking into a mirror and
mistook the faces reflected there for dolls.' The emperor did not press
the case, but a few days later the servants of Theodora caught Denderis
and gave him a sound thrashing for telling tales, dismissing him with
the advice to let dolls alone in the future. In consequence of this
experience, whenever the jester was afterwards asked whether he had seen
his 'mamma's' dolls recently, he put one hand to his mouth and the other
far down his back and whispered, 'Don't speak to me about dolls.'[470]
Such were the pleasantries that relieved the stern warfare against

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXVIII.

  _To face page 268._]

On the occasion of the breach between Theodora and her son Michael III.,
on account of the murder of her friend and counsellor Theoctistos at
Michael's order, she and her four daughters, Thekla, Anastasia, Anna,
and Pulcheria, were confined in the Gastria, and there, with the
exception of Anna, they were eventually buried.[471] At the Gastria were
shown also the tombs of Theoctista, her son Petronas, Irene the daughter
of Bardas, and a small chest containing the lower jaw of Bardas[472]
himself. It is this connection with the family of Theophilus, in life
and in death, that lends chief interest to the Gastria.

_Architectural Features_

(For Plan see p. 267.)

Although the building is now almost a complete ruin, it still preserves
some architectural interest. On the exterior it is an octagonal
structure, with a large arch on each side rising to the cornice, and
thus presents a strong likeness to the Byzantine building known as Sheik
Suleiman Mesjedi, near the Pantokrator (p. 25). The northern, southern,
and western arches are pierced by windows. The entrance is in the
western arch. The interior presents the form of an equal-armed cross,
the arms being deep recesses covered with semicircular vaults. The dome
over the central area has fallen in. The apse, semicircular within and
showing five sides on the exterior, is attached to the eastern arm. Its
three central sides are occupied by a triple-shafted window. Two shallow
niches represent the usual apsidal chambers. A similar niche is found
also on both sides of the entrance and on the eastern side of the
northern arm of the cross. In the wall to the west of the southern arch
is a small chamber. The joint between the apse and the body of the
building is straight, with no bond in the masonry; nor is the masonry of
the two parts of the same character. In the former it is in alternate
courses of brick and stone, while in the latter we find many brick
courses and only an occasional stone band. Evidently the apse is a later
addition. In view of these facts, the probable conclusion is that the
building was originally not a church but a library, and that it was
transformed into a church at some subsequent period in its history to
meet some special demand.

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXIX.

  _To face page 270._]

[464] P. 304.

[465] Banduri, iii. p. 54.

[466] Leo Gram. p. 214.

[467] Zonaras, iii. p. 358.

[468] Theoph. Cont. pp. 625, 628, 790.

[469] _Ibid._ p. 90.

[470] Theoph. Cont. pp. 91-92.

[471] _Ibid._ pp. 174, 658, 823; Codinus, p. 208. The Anonymus
(Banduri, iii. p. 52) and Codinus (_De aed._ p. 97) say that Theodora
and her daughters were confined in the convent of Euphrosyne at the
Libadia, [Greek: ta Libadia]. Their mistake is due to the fact that
the convent at Gastria and the convent at Libadia were both connected
with ladies named Euphrosyne. Cf. Codinus, p. 207.

[472] Constant. Porphyr. p. 647.



The church of S. Mary of the Mongols ([Greek: tôn Mongoliôn, tôn
Mougouliôn, tou Mouchliou, Mouchliôtissa]), which stands on the
heights above the quarter of Phanar, a short distance to the west of
the Greek Communal School, was founded in the thirteenth century by
Maria Palaeologina, a natural daughter of the Emperor Michael
Palaeologus (1261-1282). As the church has been in Greek hands ever
since its foundation its identity cannot be disputed. The epithet
given to the Theotokos in association with this sanctuary alludes to
the fact that Maria Palaeologina married a Khan of the Mongols,[473]
and bore the title of Despoina of the Mongols ([Greek: Despoina tôn
Mougouliôn]).[474] The marriage was prompted by no romantic sentiment,
but formed part of the policy by which her father hoped to secure the
goodwill of the world for the newly restored Empire of Constantinople.
While endeavouring to disarm the hostility of Western Europe by
promoting the union of the Latin and Greek Churches, he sought to
conciliate the people nearer his dominion by matrimonial alliances
with their rulers. It was in this way that he courted, with greater or
less success, the friendship of Servia, Bulgaria, the Duchy of Thebes,
and the Empire of Trebizond. And by the same method he tried to win
the friendship of the formidable Mongols settled in Russia and Persia.
Accordingly he bestowed the hand of one natural daughter, Euphrosyne,
upon Nogaya,[475] who had established a Mongolian principality near
the Black Sea, while the hand of Maria was intended for Holagu, famous
in history as the destroyer in 1258 of the caliphate of Baghdad. Maria
left Constantinople for her future home in 1265 with a great retinue,
conducted by Theodosius de Villehardouin, abbot of the monastery of
the Pantokrator, who was styled the 'Prince,' because related to the
princes of Achaia and the Peloponnesus. A rich trousseau accompanied
the bride-elect, and a tent of silk for a chapel, furnished with
eikons of gold affixed to crosses, and with costly vessels for the
celebration of the Holy Sacrifice. When the mission reached Caesarea
news came that Holagu was dead, but since reasons of state inspired
the proposed marriage, the bridal party continued its journey to the
Mongolian court, and there in due time Maria was wedded to Abaga, the
son and successor of Holagu, after the bridegroom had received, it is
said, Christian baptism.[476]

  [Illustration: FIG. 93.--S. MARY OF THE MONGOLS. EXTERIOR.
  (From a Photograph.)]

  [Illustration: FIG. 94.--S. MARY OF THE MONGOLS. INTERIOR.]

In 1281 Abaga was poisoned by his brother Achmed,[477] and Maria deemed
it prudent, and doubtless welcome, after an absence of sixteen years, to
return to Constantinople. She appears again in history during the reign
of her brother Andronicus II. Palaeologus, when for the second time she
was offered as a bride to the Mongolian prince, Charbanda, who then
ruled in Persia,[478] the object of this new matrimonial alliance being
to obtain the aid of the Mongols against the Turks, who under Othman had
become a dangerous foe and were threatening Nicaea. With this purpose in
view Maria proceeded to that city, both to encourage the defence of an
important strategic position and to press forward the negotiations with
Charbanda. The Despoina of the Mongols, however, did not comprehend the
character of the enemy with whom she had to deal. Her contemptuous
demeanour towards Othman, and her threats to bring the Mongols against
him, only roused the spirit of the Turkish chieftain, and before the
Greeks could derive any advantage from the 30,000 Mongolian troops sent
to their aid, Othman stormed the fortress of Tricocca, an outpost of
Nicaea, and made it the base of his subsequent operations.[479]

The church was built for the use of a convent which the Despoina of the
Mongols, like many other ladies in Byzantine times, erected as a haven
of refuge for souls who had dedicated their lives to the service of God
([Greek: limena psychôn kata theon prosthemenôn bioun]). She also
endowed it with property in the immediate neighbourhood ([Greek: peri
tên topothesian tou Phanari]), as well as with other lands both within
and beyond the city, and while Maria lived the nuns had no reason for
complaint. But after her death the property of the House passed into the
hands of Isaac Palaeologus Asanes, the husband of a certain Theodora,
whom Maria had treated as a daughter, and to whom she bequeathed a share
in the convent's revenues. He, as soon as Theodora died, appropriated
the property for the benefit of his family, with the result that the
sisterhood fell into debt and was threatened with extinction. In their
distress the nuns appealed to Andronicus III. Palaeologus for
protection, and by the decision of the patriarchal court, to which the
case was referred as the proper tribunal in such disputes, the convent
in 1351 regained its rights.[480]

  [Illustration: FIG. 95.--S. MARY OF THE MONGOLS. THE DOME.]

As already intimated, to this church belongs the interest of having
always preserved its original character as a sanctuary of the Greek
Orthodox Communion. This distinction it owes to the fact that the church
was given to Christoboulos, the Greek architect of the mosque of Sultan
Mehemed, as his private property, to mark the conqueror's satisfaction
with the builder's work. The grant was confirmed by Bajazet II. in
recognition of the services of the nephew of Christoboulos in the
construction of the mosque which bears that Sultan's name. Twice,
indeed, attempts were subsequently made to deprive the Greek community
of the church, once under Selim I. and again under Achmed III. But, like
the law of the Medes and Persians, a Sultan's decree altereth not, and
by presenting the hatti sheriff of Sultan Mehemed the efforts to
expropriate the building were frustrated.[481]

Among the Turks the building is known as Kan Kilisse, the church of
Blood, and the adjoining street goes by the name Sanjakdar Youkousou,
the ascent of the standard-bearer,[482] terms which refer to the
desperate struggle between Greeks and Turks at this point on the morning
of the capture of the city.[483]

_Architectural Features_

Although the building has always been in Christian hands it has suffered
alterations almost more drastic than any undergone by churches converted
into mosques. The interior has been stripped of its original decoration,
and is so blocked by eikons, chandeliers, and other ornaments as to
render a proper examination of the church extremely difficult. In plan
the church is a domed quatrefoil building, the only example of that type
found in Constantinople. The central dome rests on a cross formed by
four semi-domes, which are further enlarged below the vaulting level by
three large semicircular niches. It is placed on a drum of eight concave
compartments pierced by windows to the outside circular and crowned with
a flat cornice. Externally the semi-domes and apse are five-sided. From
the interior face of the apse and on its northern wall projects a
capital, adorned with acanthus leaves, which, as it could never have
stood free in this position, probably formed part of an eikonostasis in
stone. The narthex is in three bays, the central bay being covered by a
barrel vault, while the lateral bays have low drumless domes on
pendentives. The entrance is by a door in the central bay, and from that
bay the church is entered through a passage cut in the central niche of
the western semi-dome, and slightly wider than the niche. The end bays
open, respectively, into the northern and southern semi-domes by
passages or aisles terminating in a diagonal arch. The arches between
these aisles and the western semi-dome are pierced, and thus isolate the
western dome piers. On the south the church has been greatly altered;
for the entire southern semi-dome and the southern bay of the narthex
have been removed and replaced by three aisles of two bays each. These
bays are equal in height, and are covered by cross-groined vaults with
strong transverse pointed arches supported on square piers, the whole
forming a large hall held up by two piers, and showing the distinct
influence of Italian Gothic work. This part of the building is modern.
On the eastern wall is a large picture of the Last Judgment.

The plan of this church may be compared with that of S. Nicholas Methana
(Fig. 97).

  [Illustration: FIG. 96.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 97. S. NICHOLAS METHANA (Lampakes).]

[473] Pachym. i. pp. 174-75.

[474] _Ibid._ ii. pp. 620-37.

[475] _Ibid._ i. p. 231

[476] Pachym. ii. pp. 174-75.

[477] Muralt, _Essai de chronographie byzantine_, vol. ii. ad annum.

[478] Pachym. ii. pp. 620-21.

[479] _Ibid._ pp. 637-38.

[480] Miklosich et Müller, i. pp. 312, 317.

[481] Patr. Constantius, pp. 84-86. The Greek community retains also
other churches founded before the Turkish conquest, but they are
wholly modern buildings.

[482] _Ibid._ pp. 85-86.

[483] N. Barbaro, p. 818.



In a vacant lot of ground on the eastern declivity of the hill above the
quarter of Balat, and at a short distance to the east of a mass of rock
known as Kesmé Kaya, stands a Byzantine chapel to which the name Bogdan
Serai clings. Although now degraded to the uses of a cow-house it
retains considerable interest. Its name recalls the fact that the
building once formed the private chapel attached to the residence of the
envoys of the hospodars of Moldavia (in Turkish Bogdan) at the Sublime
Porte; just as the style Vlach Serai given to the church of the Virgin,
lower down the hill and nearer the Golden Horn, is derived from the
residence of the envoys of the Wallachian hospodars with which that
church was connected. According to Hypselantes,[484] the Moldavian
residence was erected early in the sixteenth century by Teutal
Longophetes, the envoy who presented the submission of his country to
Suleiman the Magnificent at Buda in 1516, when the Sultan was on his way
to the siege of Vienna. Upon the return of Suleiman to Constantinople
the hospodar of the principality came in person to the capital to pay
tribute, and to be invested in his office with the insignia of two
horse-tails, a fur coat, and the head-dress of a commander in the corps
of janissaries. Gerlach[485] gives another account of the matter.
According to his informants, the mansion belonged originally to a
certain Raoul, who had emigrated to Russia in 1518, and after his death
was purchased by Michael Cantacuzene as a home for the Moldavian
envoys. It must have been an attractive house, surrounded by large
grounds, and enjoying a superb view of the city and the Golden Horn. It
was burnt[486] in the fire which devastated the district on the 25th
June 1784, and since that catastrophe its grounds have been converted
into market gardens or left waste, and its chapel has been a desecrated
pile. But its proud name still haunts the site, calling to mind
political relations which have long ceased to exist. The chapel stood at
the north-western end of the residence and formed an integral part of
the structure. For high up in the exterior side of the south-eastern
wall are the mortises which held the beams supporting the floor of the
upper story of the residence; while lower down in the same wall is a
doorway which communicated with the residence on that level. Some of the
substructures of the residence are still visible. It is not impossible
that the house, or at least some portion of it, was an old Byzantine
mansion. Mordtmann,[487] indeed, suggests that it was the palace to
which Phrantzes refers under the name Trullus ([Greek: en tô
Troulô]).[488] But that palace stood to the north of the church of the
Pammakaristos (Fetiyeh Jamissi), and had disappeared when Phrantzes
wrote. Gerlach,[489] moreover, following the opinion of his Greek
friends, distinguishes between the Trullus and the Moldavian residence,
and places the site of the former near the Byzantine chapel now
converted into Achmed Pasha Mesjedi, to the south of the church of the

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXX.


  _To face page 280._]

Opinions differ in regard to the dedication of the chapel.
Paspates,[491] following the view current among the gardeners who
cultivated the market-gardens in the neighbourhood, maintained that the
chapel was dedicated to S. Nicholas. Hence the late Canon Curtis, of the
Crimean Memorial Church in Constantinople, believed that this was the
church of SS. Nicholas and Augustine of Canterbury, founded by a Saxon
noble who fled to Constantinople after the Norman conquest of England.
What is certain is that in the seventeenth century the chapel was
dedicated to the Theotokos. Du Cange mentions it under the name,
Ecclesia Deiparae Serai Bogdaniae.[492]

Mordtmann has proved[493] that Bogdan Serai marks the site of the
celebrated monastery and church of S. John the Baptist in Petra,--the
title 'in Petra' being derived from the neighbouring mass of rock, which
the Byzantines knew as [Greek: Palaia Petra], and which the Turks style
Kesmé Kaya, the Chopped Rock.

According to a member of the monastery, who flourished in the eleventh
century, the House was founded by a monk named Bara in the reign of
Anastasius I. (491-518) near an old half-ruined chapel dedicated to S.
John the Baptist, in what was then a lonely quarter of the city, between
the Gate of S. Romanus (Top Kapoussi) and Blachernae. The monastery
becomes conspicuous in the narratives of the Russian pilgrims to the
shrines of the city, under the designation, the monastery of S. John,
Rich-in-God, because the institution was unendowed and dependent upon
the freewill offerings of the faithful, which 'by the grace of God and
the care and prayers of John' were generous. Thrice a year, on the
festivals of the Baptist and at Easter, the public was admitted to the
monastery and hospitably entertained. It seems to have suffered during
the Latin occupation, for it is described in the reign of Andronicus II.
as standing abandoned in a vineyard. But it was restored, and attracted
visitors by the beauty of its mosaics and the sanctity of its

In 1381 a patriarchal decision conferred upon the abbot the titles of
archimandrite and protosyngellos, and gave him the third place in the
order of precedence among the chiefs of the monasteries of the city,
'that thus the outward honours of the house might reflect the virtue and
piety which adorned its inner life.'[495] Owing to the proximity of the
house to the landward walls, it was one of the first shrines[496] to
become the spoil of the Turks on the 29th of May 1453, and was soon used
as a quarry to furnish materials for new buildings after the conquest.
Gyllius visited the ruins, and mistaking the fabric for the church of S.
John the Baptist at the Hebdomon, gave rise to the serious error of
placing that suburb in this part of the city instead of at Makrikeui
beside the Sea of Marmora.[497] Gerlach[498] describes the church as
closed because near a mosque. Portions, however, of the monastic
buildings and of the strong wall around them still survived, and eikons
of celebrated saints still decorated the porch. On an eikon of Christ
the title of the monastery, Petra, was inscribed. Some of the old cells
were then occupied by nuns, who were maintained by the charitable gifts
of wealthy members of the Greek community.

_Architectural Features_

The building is in two stories, and may be described as a chapel over a
crypt. It points north-east, a peculiar orientation probably due to the
adaptation of the chapel to the position of the residence with which it
was associated. The masonry is very fine and regular, built in courses
of squared stone alternating with four courses of brick, all laid in
thick mortar joints, and pierced with numerous putlog holes running
through the walls. It presents a striking likeness to the masonry in the
fortifications of the city. The lower story is an oblong hall covered
with a barrel vault, and terminates in an arch and apse. In the west
side of one of the jambs of the arch is a small niche. The vault for
one-third of its height is formed by three courses of stone laid
horizontally and cut to the circle; above this it is of brick with
radiating joints. Here cows are kept.

The upper story is m. 3.75 above the present level of the ground. It is
a single hall m. 8.80 in length and m. 3.70 wide, terminating in a bema
and a circular apse in brick. Over the bema is a barrel vault. A dome,
without drum or windows, resting on two shallow flat arches in the
lateral walls and two deep transverse arches strengthened by a second
order of arches, covers the building. In the wall towards the north-west
there is a window between two low niches; and a similar arrangement is
seen in the opposite wall, except that the door which communicated with
the residence occupies the place of the window. The apsidal chambers,
usual in a church, are here represented by two niches in the bema.
Externally the apse shows five sides, and is decorated by a flat niche
pierced by a single light in the central side, and a blind concave
niche, with head of patterned brickwork, in the two adjacent sides. The
dome, apse, vaults, and transverse arches are in brick, laid in true
radiating courses. The absence of windows in the dome is an unusual
feature, which occurs also in the angle domes of S. Theodosia. The
pendentives are in horizontal courses, corbelled out to the centre, and
at each angle of the pendentives is embedded an earthenware jar, either
for the sake of lightness, or to improve, as some think, the acoustics
of the building. This story of the chapel is used as a hayloft.

A careful survey of the building shows clearly that the domical
character of the chapel is not original, and that the structure when
first erected was a simple hall covered with a wooden roof. Both the
shallow wall arches and the deep transverse arches under the dome are
insertions in the walls of an older fabric. They are not supported on
pilasters, as is the practice elsewhere, but rest on corbels, and, in
order to accommodate these corbels, the lateral niches, originally of
the same height as the central window, have been reduced in height. A
fragment of the original arch still remains, cut into by the wall arch
of the dome. The flat secondary arches crossing the chapel at each end
are similarly supported on corbels.

This view is confirmed by the examination of the plaster left upon the
walls. That plaster has four distinct coats or layers, upon all of
which eikons in tempera are painted.[499] The innermost coat is laid
between the transverse dome arches and the walls against which they are
built. Those arches, therefore, could not have formed parts of the
building when the first coat of plaster was laid, but must be later

In keeping with this fact, the second coat of painted plaster is found
laid both on the arches and on those portions of the old work which the
arches did not cover.

The secondary arches under the transverse arches at each end belong to a
yet later period, for where they have separated from the arches above
them, decorated plaster, which at one time formed part of the general
ornamentation of the building, is exposed to view. At this stage in the
history of the chapel the third coat of plaster was spread over the
walls, thus giving three coats on the oldest parts where unaltered--two
coats on the first alterations, and one coat on the second alterations.
The fourth coat of plaster is still later, marking some less serious
repair of the chapel.

The _voussoirs_ of the lateral dome arches should be noticed. They do
not radiate to the centre, but are laid flatter and radiate to a point
above the centre. This form of construction, occurring frequently in
Byzantine arches, is regarded by some authorities as a method of forming
an arch without centering. But in the case of the lateral wall arches
before us it occurs where centering could never have been required;
while the apse arch, where centering would have had structural value, is
formed with true radiating _voussoirs_. The failure of the _voussoirs_
to radiate to the centre therefore seems to be simply the result of
using untapered _voussoirs_ in which the arch form must be obtained by
wedge-shaped joints. For if these joints are carelessly formed, the
crown may very well be reached before the requisite amount of radiation
has been obtained. On the other hand, if full centering had been used,
we should expect to find marks of the centering boards on the mortar in
the enormously thick joints. But neither here nor in any instance where
the jointing was visible have such marks been found. Still, when we
consider the large amount of mortar employed in Byzantine work, it seems
impossible that greater distortions than we actually meet with in
Byzantine edifices would not have occurred, even during the building,
had no support whatever been given. It seems, therefore, safe to assume
the use of at any rate light scaffolding and centering to all Byzantine

  [Illustration: FIG. 98.]

[484] [Greek: Meta tên halôsin], p. 61; cf. Paspates, p. 361.

[485] _Tagebuch_, p. 456.

[486] Hypselantes, _ut supra_, p. 638.

[487] Archaeological Supplement to the _Proceedings of the Greek
Syllogos of C.P._ vol. xviii. p. 8.

[488] Phrantzes, p. 307.

[489] _Tagebuch_, p. 456.

[490] See Chap. XII.

[491] P. 360.

[492] Constant. Christ. iv. p. 162.

[493] See Archaeological Supplement to the _Proceedings of the Greek
Syllogos of C.P._ vol. xviii. p. 8.

[494] Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo in 1403, _Vida de Gran Tamorlan y
itinerario_, p. 50 (Madrid, 1782): 'San Juan del a Piedra está cerca
del palacio del Emperador' (_i.e._ near the palace of Blachernae).

[495] Miklosich et Müller, i. ii. pp. 21-23.

[496] Ducas, p. 288.

[497] _De top. C.P._ iv. c. 4.

[498] _Tagebuch_, p. 455.

[499] When Paspates (p. 360) visited the chapel, the eikons were more
distinctly visible than at present, although they bore marks of
deliberate injury by Moslem iconoclasts.

[500] See p. 23.



According to the historian Nicephorus Gregoras,[501] who was long and
closely connected with the church, the Chora was founded by Justinian
the Great, and then presented the form of a basilica. But there is
reason to believe that the edifice erected by that emperor was the
reconstruction of an older shrine. The fame of a restorer often eclipsed
the memory of the founder of a sanctuary, especially when the restorer
was the superior in rank and reared a larger and more beautiful

According to Symeon Metaphrastes,[502] the site of the Chora was first
consecrated by the interment of S. Babylas and his eighty-four
disciples, who were martyred in 298 during the reign of Maximianus. The
scene of their execution, indeed, was Nicomedia; but friendly hands
obtained possession of the bodies of the champions of the faith, and
taking them to Constantinople, buried them outside the walls of the
city, towards the north, in the place subsequently occupied by the
monastery of the Chora. As will appear, the relics of S. Babylas and his
disciples formed part of the treasures of the Chora in the ninth

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXXI.

  _To face page 288._]

The settlement of the approximate date of the foundation of the church
depends, ultimately, upon the meaning to be attached to the term Chora
([Greek: Chôra]). There are some writers who incline to the idea that in
this connection that term was employed from the first in a mystical
sense, to denote the attribute of Christ as the sphere of man's highest
life; and there can be no doubt that the word was used in that sense in
the fourteenth century. That is unquestionably its meaning in the
legends inscribed on mosaics which adorn the walls of the building.

    IC XC         MÊR THY

And it is in that sense that the term is employed by Cantacuzene[504]
and Phrantzes.[505] On this view the description of the church as 'in
the Chora' throws no light on the date of the church's foundation. Other
authorities,[506] however, maintain that the term Chora was originally
associated with the church in the obvious topographical signification of
the word, to denote territory outside the city limits, and that its
religious reference came into vogue only when changes in the boundaries
of Constantinople made the literal meaning of Chora no longer
applicable. According to this opinion the church was, therefore, founded
while its site lay beyond the city walls, and consequently before the
year 413, after which the site was included within the capital by the
erection of the Theodosian wall.

Hence, the phrase 'in the Chora' had the same signification as the style
'in the fields' which is attached to the church of S. Martin in London,
or the style _fuore le mura_ which belongs to the basilica of S. Paul
and other churches beyond the walls of Rome to this day.

It is certainly in this topographical sense that the term Chora is
understood by the Byzantine writers in whose works it first appears.
That is how the term is used by Simeon Metaphrastes[507] in his
description of the site of the monastery in his day, and that is how
the Anonymus[508] of the eleventh century and his follower Codinus[509]
understand the term; for they take special care to explain how a
building which lay within the city in their day could be styled 'Chora';
because, say they, it once stood without the walls, on territory,
therefore, called by the Byzantines, [Greek: chôrion], the country. The
literal meaning of a word is earlier than its artificial and poetical
signification. And one can easily conceive how, when the style Chora was
no longer literally correct, men abandoned the sober ground of
common-sense and history to invent recondite meanings inspired by
imagination and sentiment.

This conclusion is confirmed by the history of the Chora given in the
Life of S. Theodore,[510] an abbot of the monastery, which Mr. Gedeon
discovered in the library of the Pantokrator on Mount Athos. According
to that biography, S. Theodore was a relative of Theodora, the wife of
Justinian the Great, and after serving with distinction in the Persian
wars, and winning greater renown as a monk near Antioch, came to
Constantinople about the year 530, at the invitation of his imperial
relatives, to assist in the settlement of the theological controversies
of the day. Once there he was induced to make the capital his permanent
abode by permission to build a monastery, where he could follow his high
calling as fully as in his Syrian retreat. For that purpose he selected
a site on the property of a certain Charisius, situated, as the Chora
is, on the slope of a hill, descending on the one hand steeply to the
sea, and rising, on the other, to the highest point in the line of the
Theodosian walls, the point marked by the gate named after Charisius
(now Edirné Kapoussi). The site was already hallowed, says the
biographer of S. Theodore, by the presence of a humble monastic retreat
and a small chapel.

The edifice erected by S. Theodore was, however, soon overthrown by the
severe earthquake which shook the city in 558, and all the hopes of the
good man would also have been dashed to the ground had the disaster not
called forth the sympathy and aid of Justinian. In the room of the
ruined buildings the emperor erected a magnificent establishment, with
chapels dedicated to the Theotokos, the Archangel Michael, S. Anthimus
of Nicomedia, and the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste. There also stood a
hostel for the special accommodation of Syrian monks on a visit to
Constantinople, and a hospital for diseases of the eye.[511]

In this account of the early history of the Chora, there may be, as
Schmitt[512] thinks, many inaccuracies. It was easy, even for a member
of the House who aspired to authorship, to confuse persons, to err in
the matter of dates, and to overlook the changes which the buildings
with which he was familiar had undergone before his day. But surely the
biographer of S. Theodore can be trusted where his statements are
supported by more reliable authorities, and we may therefore accept his
testimony on the following points: that the original church of the Chora
was earlier than the reign of Justinian; that under Justinian the old
sanctuary was replaced by a new and statelier building; that the Chora
maintained intimate relations with monasteries in Syria; and that with
it was associated a church dedicated to the Archangel Michael.


  The association of a church dedicated to S. Michael with the Chora,
  and the fact that the Chora stood on the property of Charisius, raise
  an interesting question. For among the subscriptions to the letter of
  the monks to Pope Hormisdas in 518, and the subscriptions to the Acts
  of the Synod held in Constantinople in 536, stands the name of the
  abbot of the monastery of the Archangel Michael of Charisius.[513] Was
  that monastery identical with the Chora? If it was, that fact would be
  additional evidence that the Chora was earlier than Justinian's time.
  On the other hand, it is always dangerous to identify buildings
  because they were situated in the same quarter of the city and
  dedicated to the same saint. The absence of all reference to the
  monastery of S. Michael of Charisius after the reign of Justinian, and
  yet the association of a church of S. Michael with the Chora after his
  reign, may be due either to the ruin of that monastery in the
  earthquake of 558, or to the subsequent union of the two
  establishments on account of their proximity.

The next important event in the history of the House was the confinement
there of the celebrated general Priscus, Count of the Excubiti, at the
command of the Emperor Heraclius (610-641).[514] Priscus had taken a
leading part in the revolution which overthrew his father-in-law, the
infamous Phocas, and placed Heraclius upon the throne. But
notwithstanding that service, the attitude of the general towards the
new régime was not considered satisfactory, and with the cruel taunt,
'Wretch, thou didst not make a good son-in-law; how canst thou be a true
friend?' Heraclius relegated him to political nonentity by forcing him
to become a monk at the Chora. The new brother did not live long, but
his wealth furnished the fraternity with the means for the erection of a
large and beautiful church.

Schmitt, indeed, thinks that the biographer of S. Theodore, already
cited, failed to recognise the identity of the person concerning whom he
wrote, and assigned events which occurred in the time of Heraclius to
the reign of Justinian. According to Schmitt, S. Theodore is really
Priscus under his name in religion, and to him, and not to Justinian,
was the Chora indebted for its first great era of prosperity. One thing
is certain, the splendid church with which the biographer of S. Theodore
was acquainted, and the wealth and beauty of which he extols in
extravagant terms, was not the church erected by Justinian at the Chora.
The latter was a basilica;[515] while the church alluded to in the
biography of S. Theodore was a domical building.[516] Probably the fame
of Justinian veiled not only what others had done for the Chora before
him, but also the services performed by others after his day.

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXXII.

  _To face page 292._]

In 712 the Patriarch Kyros was confined in the Chora by the Emperor
Philippicus for adherence to the tenets of the Sixth General Council
(680),[517] which condemned the attribution of a single will to the
person of Christ. The fidelity of the patriarch to orthodox opinion was
commemorated annually in the services held at the Chora, as well as in
S. Sophia, on the 8th of January.

The monastery was also honoured by the burial there, in 740, of the
Patriarch Germanus (714-730), famous for his piety, his learning, and
above all for his opposition to Leo the Isaurian, when that emperor
commenced the crusade against eikons. The tomb of the patriarch was
reputed to perform wonderful cures.[518] Another notable personage
buried at the Chora was the patrician Bactagius, an associate of
Artavasdos in the effort, made in 743, to drive Constantine Copronymus
from the throne. Upon the failure of that attempt Bactagius was
captured, beheaded in the Kynegion, and while his head was displayed to
public view in the Milion for three days, his mutilated body was taken
to the Chora. This might have seemed sufficient revenge. But the rebel's
offence so rankled in the emperor's memory, that even after the lapse of
some thirty years his resentment was not allayed. The widow of Bactagius
was then forced to proceed to the Chora to disinter the bones of her
husband from their resting-place in holy earth, and carry them in her
cloak to the dreary burial-ground of Pelagion, where the corpses of
persons who committed suicide were thrown.[519]

Like similar institutions the Chora suffered severely during the
iconoclastic period. Because of its connection with the Patriarch
Germanus it became the special object of the hatred of Constantine
Copronymus for monks and was almost ruined. What he left of it was
turned into a secular residence, and devoted to the confinement of
Artavasdos and his family. There also that rebel, and his nine children
and his wife, Constantine's sister, were eventually buried.[520]

With the triumph of the iconodules, in 842, under Michael III. and his
mother the Empress Theodora, happier days dawned upon the Chora. It was
then fortunate in the appointment of Michael Syncellus as its abbot, and
under his rule it rapidly recovered from poverty and desolation. The new
abbot was a Syrian monk distinguished for his ability, his sanctity, and
his devotion to eikons. He came to Constantinople in 814, to remonstrate
against the religious policy of Leo the Armenian, and, according to the
custom of monks from Palestine on a visit to the capital, lodged at the
Chora. But so far from succeeding in the object of his visit, Michael
was imprisoned and then banished to one of the monasteries on Mount
Olympus in Bithynia. Accordingly, when the cause for which he suffered
proved victorious, no honour seemed too great to bestow upon the martyr.
It was even proposed to create him patriarch, but he declined the
office, and supported the appointment of his friend Methodius to that
position. Methodius, in return, made Michael his syncellus and abbot of
the Chora.[521] Under these circumstances it is not surprising that
funds were secured for the restoration of the monastery, and that the
brotherhood soon gained great influence in the religious circles of the
capital. There is, however, no mention now of the church of the
Archangel Michael or of the church dedicated to the Theotokos. Possibly
the death of the abbot in 846 and lack of money prevented the
reconstruction of those sanctuaries. The only churches attached to the
Chora noticed in the biography of Michael Syncellus are the church of S.
Anthimus, containing the relics of S. Babylas and his eighty-four
disciples, the dependent chapel of S. Ignatius, and the church of the
Forty Martyrs.[522] Let it also be noted that there is yet no mention of
a church specially consecrated to the Saviour.

After its restoration in the 9th century the Chora does not appear again
in history until the reign of Alexius I. Comnenus (1081-1118), when,
owing to its great age, it was found in a state of almost complete
ruin.[523] If for no other reason, the proximity of the church to the
palace or Blachernae, which had become the favourite residence of the
court, brought the dilapidated pile into notice, and its restoration was
undertaken by the emperor's mother-in-law, Maria, the beautiful and
talented granddaughter of Samuel, the famous king of Bulgaria, and niece
of Aecatherina, the consort of Isaac I. Comnenus. Maria had married
Andronicus Ducas, a son of Michael VII., and the marriage of her
daughter Irene Ducaena to Alexius was designed to unite the rival
pretensions of the families of the Comneni and the Ducas to the throne.
It had been strenuously opposed by Anna Dalassena, the mother of
Alexius, and its accomplishment in 1077, notwithstanding such formidable
opposition, is no slight proof of the diplomatic skill and determination
of the mother of the bride. Nor can it be doubted that Irene's mother
acted a considerable part in persuading Alexius, when he mounted the
throne, not to repudiate his young wife, as he was tempted to do in
favour of a fairer face. Perhaps the restoration of the Chora was a
token of gratitude for the triumph of her maternal devotion.

The church was rebuilt on the plan which it presents to-day, for in the
account of the repairs made in the fourteenth century it is distinctly
stated that they concerned chiefly the outer portion of the
edifice.[524] To Alexius' mother-in-law, therefore, may be assigned the
central part of the structure, a cruciform hall; the dome, so far as it
is not Turkish, the beautiful marble incrustation upon the walls, the
mosaic eikons of the Saviour and of the Theotokos on the piers of the
eastern dome-arch, and the exquisite marble carving above the latter
eikon--all eloquent in praise of the taste and munificence that
characterised the eleventh century in Constantinople. Probably the
church was then dedicated to the Saviour, like the three other Comnenian
churches in the city, the Pantepoptes, the Pantokrator, and S. Thekla.

The mother-in-law of Alexius I. was, however, not alone in her interest
in the Chora. Her devotion to the monastery was shared also by her
grandson the sebastocrator Isaac. Tall, handsome, brave, but ambitious
and wayward, Isaac was gifted with the artistic temperament, as his
splendid manuscript of the first eight books of the Old Testament,
embellished with miniatures by his own hand, makes clear.[525] If the
inscription on the mosaic representing the Deesis found in the inner
narthex really refers to him, it proves that his influence was felt in
the decoration of the building.[526] He certainly erected a magnificent
mausoleum for himself in the church. Later in his life, indeed, he
became interested in the restoration of the monastery of Theotokos
Kosmosoteira at Viros, and ordered that mausoleum to be dismantled, and
the marbles, bronze railing, and portraits of his parents which adorned
it to be transported to Viros; but he still allowed his own portrait
'made in the days of his youthful vanity' to remain in the Chora.[527]


  Uspenski has identified Viros with Ferejik, a village situated 30
  kilometres from Dedeagatch, and 20-25 kilometres from Enos, 'aux
  embouchures désertées et marécageuses de la Maritza.'

  The church is now the mosque of the village. It has five domes and
  three apses. The central apse is pierced by a modern door. The
  exonarthex has disappeared and the old principal entrance is walled
  up. The plan of the church is almost identical with the plan of the
  Chora. While the architectural details are poor and indicate haste,
  the dimensions of the building imply considerable expense and the
  wealth of the restorer. There are traces of painting on the walls of
  the interior, especially in the domes (the Virgin) and in the two
  lateral apses. An epitaph of seven lines in the middle of the mosque
  contains the title 'despotes.' According to Uspenski, the
  sebastocrator died soon after 1182, the year during which he was
  engaged on the Typicon of the monastery at Viros. The monastery was
  visited by the Emperor Andronicus Comnenus in 1185, by Isaac Angelus
  in 1195, and by Villehardouin in 1205. Early in the fourteenth century
  it was converted into a fortress, and the country round it was ravaged
  in 1322 by the Bulgarians. It was attacked in vain by John
  Cantucuzene, but was captured in 1355 by John VI. Palaeologus.

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXXIII.

  _To face page 296._]

Another name associated with the Chora at this period is that of the
Patriarch Cosmas, who was commemorated annually in the church on the 2nd
of January. He had occupied the patriarchal seat in days troubled by the
intrigues and conflicts which drove first Michael VII. Ducas, and then
Nicephorus Botoniates from the throne, and invested Alexius Comnenus
with the purple. They were not days most suitable to a man who, though
highly esteemed for his virtues, was without education or experience in
public affairs, and nearly ninety years old. Still, to his honour be it
said, it was at his earnest request that Botoniates finally agreed to
forego a bloody contest with the Comneni, and to withdraw quietly to the
monastery of the Peribleptos. Moreover, when it seemed uncertain whether
the victorious Alexius would remain faithful to Irene Ducaena and raise
her to the throne, Cosmas, notwithstanding all the efforts of Anna
Dalassena (who was ill-disposed towards Irene) to persuade him to lay
down his office, firmly refused to resign until he had placed the
imperial crown upon the emperor's lawful wife. Soon after that event, on
the 7th of May 1081, the festival of S. John the Evangelist, Cosmas,
having celebrated service in the church dedicated to that apostle at the
Hebdomon (Makrikeui), turned to his deacon, saying, 'Take my Psalter and
come with me; we have nothing more to do here,' and retired to the
monastery of Kallou. His strength for battle was spent.

After its restoration under the Comneni, the Chora again disappears from
view until the reign of Michael Palaeologus (1261-1282). In the interval
the fortunes of the Empire had suffered serious reverses, what with
domestic strifes and foreign wars. Bulgaria had reasserted her
independence and established the capital of a new kingdom at Tirnovo,
while Constantinople itself had been captured by the forces of the
Fourth Crusade and made the seat of a Latin kingdom. Consequently, it is
not surprising to find that the Chora, like other churches of the
ravaged city, was in a deplorable condition at the close of those
calamitous days. Nothing seemed to have been done for the repair of the
church immediately upon the recovery of the capital in 1261. The ruin
which the Latin occupants of Constantinople left behind them was too
great to be removed at once. The first reference to the Chora at this
period occurs some fourteen years after the restoration of the Byzantine
Empire, when the monastery, owing to its proximity to the palace of
Blachernae, was assigned to the Patriarch Veccus as the house in which
to lodge on the occasion of his audiences with Michael Palaeologus, on
Tuesdays, to present petitions for the exercise of imperial generosity
or justice. But the decay into which the establishment had fallen could
not be long ignored, and a wealthy, talented, and influential citizen
who resided in the neighbourhood, Theodore Metochites,[528] decided to
restore the edifice as a monument of the artistic revival of his own

Theodore Metochites was one of the most remarkable men of his day. His
tall, large, well-proportioned figure, his bright countenance, commanded
attention wherever he appeared. He was, moreover, a great student of
ancient Greek literature and of the literature of later times, and
although never a master of style, became an author and attempted verse.
He was much interested in astronomy, and one of his pupils, the
historian Nicephorus Gregoras, recognised the true length of the year
and proposed the reform of the calendar centuries before Pope Gregory.
Theodore's memory was so retentive that he could converse on any topic
with which he was familiar, as if reading from a book, and there was
scarcely a subject on which he was not able to speak with the authority
of an expert. He seemed a living library, 'walking encyclopaedia.' In
fact, he belonged to the class of brilliant Greek scholars who
might have regenerated the East had not the unfortunate political
situation of their country driven them to Italy to herald and promote
the Renaissance in Western Europe. Theodore Metochites was, moreover, a
politician. He took an active part in the administration of affairs
during the reign of Andronicus II., holding the office of Grand
Logothetes of the Treasury; and such was his devotion to politics, that
when acting as a statesman it might be forgotten that he was a scholar.
The unhappy strife between Andronicus II. and Andronicus III. caused
Theodore Metochites the profoundest anxiety, and it was not his fault if
the feud between the grandfather and the grandson refused to be healed.
His efforts to bring that disgraceful and disastrous quarrel to an end
involved great self-sacrifice and wrecked his career. For the counsels
he addressed to Andronicus III. gave mortal offence, and when the young
emperor entered the capital and took up his quarters in the palace of
the Porphyrogenitus (Tekfour Serai), his troops sacked and demolished
Theodore's mansion in that vicinity. The beautiful marbles which adorned
the residence were sent as an imperial present to a Scythian prince,
while the fallen statesman was banished to Didymotica for two years.
Upon his return from exile Theodore found a shelter in the monastery
which he had restored in his prosperous days. But there also, for some
two years longer, the cup of sorrow was pressed to his lips. A malady
from which he suffered caused him excruciating pain; his sons were
implicated in a political plot and thrown into prison; Andronicus II.,
between whom and himself all communication had been forbidden, died; and
so the worn-out man assumed the habit of a monk, and lay down to die on
the 13th of March 1331, a month after his imperial friend. His one
consolation was the beautiful church he bequeathed to succeeding
generations for the worship of God.

To the renovation of the church Theodore Metochites devoted himself
heart and soul, and spent money for that object on a lavish scale. As
the central portion of the building was comparatively well
preserved,[529] it was to the outer part of the edifice that he
directed his chief attention--the two narthexes and the parecclesion.
These were to a large extent rebuilt and decorated with the marbles and
mosaics, which after six centuries, and notwithstanding the neglect and
injuries they have suffered during the greater part of that period,
still excite the admiration they awakened when fresh from the artist's

The connection of Theodore Metochites with this splendid work is
immortalised not only by historians of his day and by himself,[530] but
also by the mosaic which surmounts the main entrance to the church from
the inner narthex. There the restorer of the building, arrayed in his
official robes, and on bended knees, holds a model of the church in his
hands and offers it to the Saviour seated on a throne. Beside the
kneeling figure is the legend, [Greek: ho ktêtôr logothetês tou gennikou
Theodôros ho Metochitês], 'The builder, Logothetes of the Treasury,
Theodore the Metochites' (Plate XCI.).

The restoration of the church must have been completed before the year
1321, for in that year Nicephorus Gregoras[531] describes it as then
recently ([Greek: arti]) renovated, and in use for the celebration of
divine service. How long before 1321 the work of repair precisely
commenced cannot be determined, but it was in process as early as 1303,
for that date is inscribed in Arabic numerals on the mosaic depicting
the miracle at Cana, which stands to the right of the figure of Christ
over the door leading from the outer to the inner narthex. But to have
reached the stage at which mosaics could be applied the work of
restoration must have been commenced sometime before 1303.

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXXIV.

  _To face page 300._]

One of the most distinguished members of the Chora was the historian
Nicephorus Gregoras, who learned to know the monastery through his
friendship with Theodore Metochites. The two men met first when
Nicephorus came from his native town Heraclea on the Black Sea to
Constantinople, a youth eager to acquire the knowledge that flourished
in the capital. Being specially interested in the science of astronomy,
the student placed himself under the instruction of Theodore, then the
greatest authority on the subject, and won the esteem and confidence of
his master to a degree that ripened into the warmest friendship and the
most unreserved intellectual intercourse. In his turn, Nicephorus
Gregoras became the instructor of the children of the grand logothetes,
and was treated as a member of the family. He was also associated with
the restoration of the Chora, attending particularly to the collection
of the costly materials required for the embellishment of the church.
Thus the monastery became his home from youth to old age, and after
Theodore's death was entrusted to his care.[532] During the fierce
controversy which raged around the question whether the light beheld at
the Transfiguration formed part of the divine essence, and could be seen
again after prolonged fasting and gazing upon one's navel, as the monks
of Mount Athos and their supporters maintained, Nicephorus Gregoras, who
rejected that idea, retired from public life to defend what he deemed
the cause of truth more effectively. But to contend with a master of
legions is ever an unequal struggle. The Emperor John Cantacuzene,
taking the side of the monks, condemned their opponent to silence in the
Chora, and there for some three years Nicephorus Gregoras discovered how
scenes of happiness can be turned into a veritable hell by imperial
disfavour and theological odium. Notwithstanding his age, his physical
infirmities, his services to the monastery, his intellectual eminence,
he was treated by the fraternity in a manner so inhuman that he would
have preferred to be exposed on the mountains to wild beasts. He was
obliged to fetch water for himself from the monastery well, and when, on
one occasion, he was laid up for several days by an injury to his foot,
none of the brothers ever thought of bringing him water. In winter he
was allowed no fire, and he had often to wait till the frozen water in
his cell was melted by the sun before he could wash or drink. The vision
of the light of the Transfiguration did not transfigure the character
of its beholders.

During this trying period of his life one ray of comfort wandered into
the cell of the persecuted man. On the 13th December 1351, in the dead
of night, while the precincts of the monastery were crowded with
worshippers attending the vigil of the festival of the Conception of the
Theotokos, a strange figure climbed into the prisoner's room through an
open window. It proved to be an old friend and former pupil named
Agathangelus, who had not been seen for ten years owing to his absence
from the city. Taking advantage of the darkness and of the absorption of
the monks in the services of the festival, he had made this attempt to
visit his revered master. Eagerly and hurriedly, for the time at their
command was short, the two friends recounted the story of their lives
while separated. Rapidly Agathangelus sketched the course of affairs in
State and Church since the seclusion of Nicephorus Gregoras; and the
brief visit ended and seemed a dream. But the devoted disciple was not
satisfied with a single interview. Six months later he contrived to see
his master again, and, encouraged by success, saw him again three times,
though at long intervals, during the three years that Nicephorus
Gregoras was detained in the Chora. One great object of these visits was
to keep the prisoner informed of events in the world beyond the walls of
his cell, and on the basis of the information thus supplied Nicephorus
Gregoras wrote part of his important history. When at length, in 1354,
John Cantucuzene was driven from the throne, and John Palaeologus
reigned in his stead, Nicephorus was liberated,[533] and to the last
defended the opinions for which he had suffered.

Another name associated with the Chora at this time is that of Michael
Tornikes, Grand Constable in the reign of Andronicus II. He was related,
on his mother's side, to the emperor, and stood in high favour at court
not only on account of that kinship, but because of the talents,
character, and administrative ability which he displayed. He was,
moreover, a friend of Theodore Metochites, and his political supporter
in the efforts made to end the strife between Andronicus II. and
Andronicus III.[534] Upon his death, Tornikes was buried in the
parecclesion of the Chora, and the epitaph composed in his honour has
kept its place there to this day (Plate XCII.).

In 1342, Sabbas, a monk of the monastery of Vatopedi, who came to
Constantinople as a member of a deputation from Mount Athos to reconcile
the Regent Anna of Savoy with Cantacuzene, was confined in the Chora on
the failure of that mission.[535]

In view of its proximity to the landward walls, the Chora acquired great
importance during the fatal siege of 1453. For the inhabitants of the
beleagured capital placed their hope for deliverance more upon the
saints they worshipped than upon their own prowess; the spiritual host
enshrined in their churches was deemed mightier than the warriors who
manned the towers of the fortifications. The sanctuaries beside the
walls constituted the strongest bulwarks from which the 'God protected
city' was to be defended, not with earthly, but with heavenly weapons.
The eikon of the Theotokos Hodegetria was, therefore, taken to the Chora
to guard the post of danger.

It represented the Theotokos as the Leader of God's people in war, and
around it gathered memories of wonderful deliverances and glorious
triumphs, making it seem the banner of wingless victory. When the
Saracens besieged the city the eikon was carried round the
fortifications, and the enemy had fled. It led Zimisces in his
victorious campaign against the Russians; it was borne round the
fortifications when Branas assailed the capital in the reign of Isaac
Angelus, and the foe disappeared; and when Constantinople was recovered
from the Latins, Michael Palaeologus only expressed the general
sentiment in placing the eikon on a triumphal car, and causing it to
enter the city before him, while he humbly followed on foot as far as
the Studion. But the glory of the days of old had departed, and no
sooner did the troops of Sultan Mehemed force the Gate of Charisius
(Edirné Kapoussi) than they made for the Chora, and cut the image to
pieces. The church of S. Saviour in the Chora was the first Christian
sanctuary to fall into the hands of the Moslem masters of

The building was converted into a mosque by Ali Atik Pasha, Grand
Vizier, between 1495 and 1511, in the reign of Bajazet II. Gyllius
visited the church in 1580, and expatiates upon the beauty of its marble
revetment, but makes no reference to its mosaics and frescoes.[536]
This, some authorities think, proves that these decorations were then
concealed from view, because objectionable in a place consecrated to
Moslem worship. But the silence of the traveller may be due to the
brevity of his description of the church.

There is evidence that the building has suffered much since the Turkish
conquest from earthquake and from fire, but the precise dates of these
disasters cannot be accurately determined. The mosque disappeared from
general view until 1860, when it was discovered by a Greek architect,
the late Pelopidas D. Kouppas. Mr. Carlton Cumberbatch, then the British
Consul at Constantinople, was informed of the fact and spread the news
of the fortunate find.

The building was in a pitiful condition. The principal dome and the
dome of the diaconicon had fallen in; the walls and vaults were cracked
in many places and black with smoke; wind, and rain, and snow had long
had free course to do what mischief they pleased. Happily there still
remained too much beauty to be ignored, and the Government was persuaded
to take the work of restoration in hand. The building now takes rank
with the most interesting sights of the capital, presenting one of the
finest embodiments of the ideal which inspired Byzantine art.

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXXV.

  _To face page 304._]

_Architectural Features_

As the history of the church prepares us to expect, the building
presents a very irregular plan. The central area is a short-armed Greek
cross surmounted by a dome, and terminating to the east in a large apse
flanked by side chapels now disconnected from it. To the west are two
narthexes, on the south a parecclesion, and on the north a gallery in
two stories.

  [Illustration: FIG. 99.]

As the central part of the church is the oldest and of the greatest
interest, the description will begin with the interior, and deal
afterwards with the later exterior accretions.

Only two doors lead from the inner narthex to the church, one of them in
the centre of the axis and the other to the north. The absence of the
corresponding and customary third door, for which there is space on the
south side, should be noticed, as it throws light on the original plan
of the building. The doors are beautifully treated with marble
mouldings and panelled ingoes; the door to the north recalls the
sculptured door in the south gallery of S. Sophia, but, unfortunately,
the carved work of the panels has been destroyed. Above the central
door, on the interior, is a porphyry cornice carved with peacocks
drinking at fountains (Plate LXXXVII.). Large portions of the beautiful
marble revetment on the walls of the church happily remain intact, and
nowhere else in Constantinople, except in S. Sophia, can this splendid
method of colour decoration be studied to greater advantage. Slabs of
various marbles have been split and placed on the walls so as to form
patterns in the veining. The lower part is designed as a dado in
Proconessian striped marble, with upright posts of dark red at the
angles and at intervals on the longer stretches of wall, and rests on a
moulded marble base. Above the dado are two bands, red and green,
separated from the dado and from each other by white fillets. The upper
part is filled in with large panels, especially fine slabs of brown,
green, or purple having been selected to form the centre panels. The
plainer slabs of the side panels are framed in red or green borders, and
outlined with fillets of white marble either plain or carved with the
'bead and reel.' The arches have radiating voussoirs, and the arch
spandrils and the frieze under the cornice are inlaid with scroll and
geometrical designs in black, white, and coloured marbles. The cornice
is of grey marble with a 'cyma recta' section, and is carved with an
upright leaf.[537]

On the eastern walls of the north and south cross arms, and flanking the
apse, eikon frames similar to those in the Diaconissa (p. 186) are
inserted. The northern frame encloses a mosaic figure of Christ holding
in His hands an open book, on which are the words, 'Come unto Me all ye
who labour and are heavy laden.'[538] In the corresponding frame to the
south is the figure of the Virgin, and, above it, an arch of overhanging
acanthus leaves enclosed within a square frame with half figures of
angels in the spandrils. The arch encloses a medallion bust, the head of
which is defaced, but which represented the Saviour, as is proved by the
indication of a cross on the aureola. The spaces at the sides of the
medallion are filled in with a pierced scroll showing a dark slab of
porphyry behind it, making a very beautiful arrangement. These frames
are distant from the eikonostasis, which stretched across the front of
the bema arch, nearer to the apse. On the south side are two doors
leading to the parecclesion, and on the north side above the cornice is
a small window from the north gallery.

The dome rests on a ribbed drum of sixteen concave segments, and is
pierced by eight windows corresponding to the octagonal form of the
exterior. The original crown has fallen and been replaced by the present
plain Turkish dome. The prothesis and the diaconicon are represented by
chapels to north and south of the apse. As already stated, they do not
now communicate with the bema, although the position of the old passages
between them and the bema is marked by niches in the marble revetment.
From the fact that the Byzantine marble work is continued across these
passages it is evident that the chapels were cut off from the apse in
Byzantine days. The north chapel is covered by a drum dome of eight
concave sections, and is entered from the lower story of the gallery on
the north side of the church. It should be noticed that the chapel is
not placed axially to this gallery. The south chapel is covered by a
plain drum dome, and is now entered from the parecclesion, evidently as
the result of the alterations made when the parecclesion was added.

The exterior is very simply treated. The side apses show three sides of
an octagon. The central apse has five sides of a very flat polygon, and
is decorated with hollow niches on each side of a large triple window.
It was at one time supported by a large double flying buttress, but the
lower arch has fallen in. As the buttress does not bond with the wall it
was evidently a later addition.

The inner narthex is entered from the outer narthex by a door to the
west. It is with its resplendent marble revetment and brilliant mosaics
a singularly perfect and beautiful piece of work, one of the finest gems
of Byzantine Art. It is divided into four bays, and is not
symmetrically placed to the church. The door stands opposite to the
large door of the church and is in the central axis of the building. The
bay which it occupies and that immediately to the north are covered by
dome vaults resting on strong transverse arches and shallow segmental
wall arches.[539] The northern end bay is covered with a drum dome of
sixteen hollow segments pierced by eight windows. The bay to the south
of the door is considerably larger than the other bays, and is covered
by a dome similar in character to that over the northern end bay but of
greater diameter. At the south end of the narthex a small door leads to
the return bay of the outer narthex in front of the parecclesion.

The double-storied annex or gallery on the north of the building is
entered by a door in the north bay of the inner narthex. The lower story
is covered by a barrel vault with strong transverse arches at intervals.
Its door to the outside at the west end is now built up. At the east end
a door, unsymmetrically placed, leads to the small chapel which was
originally the prothesis. This story of the gallery seems never to have
had windows. The upper story, reached by a stone stair at the west end
in the thickness of the external wall, is paved in red tiles, covered
with a barrel vault, and lighted by two small windows in the north wall
and one at the east end. These windows still show grooves and bolt holes
for casement windows or shutters opening inwards in two leaves (Figs.
19, 100). In the south wall is the little window overlooking the church.

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXXVI.

  _To face page 308._]

The outer narthex has a single door to the exterior, placed on the
central axial line, and is planned symmetrically. The central bay is
larger than the others, and is covered by a dome vault resting on
shallow wall arches. On each side are two bays covered by similar dome
vaults, but as the bays are oblong, the wall arches are brought forward
strongly so as to give a form more approaching the square as a base for
the dome. The transverse arches are strongly pronounced and have wooden
tie beams. At the south end two bays are returned to form an entrance
to the parecclesion. In these the transverse arches are even more
strongly marked and rest on marble columns set against shallow
pilasters. The cubical capitals are of white marble and very beautifully
carved with figures of angels and acanthus wreaths. Any marble revetment
which may once have covered the walls has disappeared, but mosaics
depicting scenes in the Saviour's life still decorate the vaulting and
the lunettes of the arches, whilst figures of saints appear upon the
soffits. The mosaics are damaged and have lost some of their brilliancy;
the background is of gold, and the mosaic cubes are small, averaging
about 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch.

  [Illustration: FIG. 100.]

The parecclesion is entered from the return bays of the outer narthex
through a triple arcade, now partly built up. The capitals of the
columns are Byzantine Corinthian, and retain sufficient traces of their
former decoration in dark blue, gold, and red to give some idea of the
effect of colour on marble in Byzantine churches.

The parecclesion is in two bays. The western bay is covered by a high
twelve-sided drum dome, with windows in each side separated by flat
ribs. In the compartments are figures of the archangels in tempera, with
the legend, 'Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God.'

The eastern bay is covered by a dome vault, and terminates in an apse
semicircular within and lighted by a triple window. It has neither
prothesis nor diaconicon of its own, but communicates with the original
diaconicon of the main church. The three transverse arches in the bay
are tied with wooden tie beams carved with arabesques and retaining
traces of gilding.

On the north and south walls of the western bay are large arches
enclosed in square frames and with finely carved archivolts. Above the
south arch is a slab inscribed with the epitaph to the memory of the
celebrated general Tornikes. There are no indications of an entrance
under the arch. It may have covered a niche, now built up, intended to
receive a tomb, possibly the tomb of the sebastocrator Isaac.

The archivolt of the arch in the north wall is formed of acanthus leaves
turned over at the points; the spandrils are filled with the figures of
the archangels Michael and Gabriel, bearing appropriate emblems, and
above the crown of the arch is a small bust of Christ. In both arches
the carved work is exactly like that of the eikon frame in the
south-eastern pier of the church, and closely resembles the work on the
lintel of the eikon frames in the church of the Diaconissa. Both
archivolts were originally coloured, the background blue, the carved
ornament gilt. The use of figures in the decoration of the church is
remarkable. They are in bold relief and executed freely, but shown only
from the waist up. The windows, like those in the outer narthex, have a
central arch between two semi-circles (Fig. 63).

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXXVII.


  _To face page 310._]

Two passages, which cut through the north wall, lead from the
parecclesion to the church. Off the passage to the west is a small
chamber whose use is not apparent. It may be simply a space left over
when the chapel was added. Higher up, in the thickness of the wall,
about ten feet from the floor, and a little above the springing level of
the vaulting in the parecclesion, is a long, narrow passage, lighted by
a window at the east end, and covered by a small barrel vault, corbelled
at the springing, on two courses of stone and three courses of brick
laid horizontally, thus narrowing the space to a considerable degree.
From this corbelling spring the vaulting courses, which are steeply
inclined and run from both ends to the centre, where the resultant
diamond-shaped opening is filled in with horizontal courses (Fig. 48).
On the north side of the passage is a broad opening roughly built up,
but which seems originally to have communicated with the south cross
arm. The opening is almost central to the cross-arm, and is directly
above the doors leading from the church to the parecclesion.

The exterior of the parecclesion and the outer narthex are treated with
arcades in two orders of the usual type. On the piers of the arcades are
semicircular shafts which in the parecclesion rise to the cornice, but
on the west front stop at the springing course. Here they may have
supported the wooden roof of a cloister or porch. The apse of the
parecclesion has five sides with angle shafts and niches, alternately
flat and concave in three stories. The north wall is a fine example of
simple masonry in stripes of brick and stone, and with small archings
and zigzag patterns in the spandrils of the arches.

Below the parecclesion are two long narrow cisterns having their
entrance on the outside of the apse.[540]

_The original plan of the church_ (Fig. 102). The greater part of the
alterations made in the church date from Byzantine times, and the marble
coverings then placed upon the walls have effectually covered up any
traces which might have given a clue to the original form of the
building. In consequence any attempt at restoration must be of a very
tentative character.

It is evident that there has been a serious movement in the structure
due to the weight of the dome and the thrust of the dome arches, for the
walls below the dome are bent outwards in a very pronounced manner. It
was in order to check this movement that the flying buttress was applied
to the apse, and in all probability the enormous thickness of the walls
surrounding the central cross is due to the same cause. Had the walls
originally been as thick as at present it is hard to imagine that
movement could have taken place.

The axial line from east to west, passing through the doors of both
narthexes, divides the present building into two dissimilar parts. We
know that the parecclesion is a later addition, and if it be removed and
the plan of the north side repeated to the south the resulting plan
bears a striking resemblance to S. Sophia at Salonica (Fig. 101). The
position of the prothesis and diaconicon in particular is identical in
the two churches.

Some proof that this was the original form of the building is given by
the small chamber in the wall thickness between the church and the
parecclesion. For it corresponds to the angle of the south 'aisle,' and
on its west wall is a vertical break in the masonry which may be the
jamb of the old door to the narthex.

This plan gives a narthex in five bays--the three centre ones low, the
two outer covered by domes and leading to the 'aisles.' When the
parecclesion was added, the south gallery and two bays of the inner
narthex were swept away. The third door leading into the church was
built up, and the present large domed bay added to the shortened

  [Illustration: FIG. 101.--S. SOPHIA, SALONICA.]

Traces of the older structure remain in the wall between the church and
the parecclesion. The space already described, which originally opened
from the passage at the higher level to the south cross-arm, corresponds
in width both to the window above and to the space occupied by the doors
below. At S. Sophia, Salonica, the side-arms are filled in with arcades
in two stories forming an aisle and gallery. This is the normal domed
basilica construction. Here, if we regard the floor of the upper passage
(B on plan, p. 318) as the remains of the old gallery floor,--and no
other view seems to account for its existence,--the internal elevation
was in three stories, an aisle at the ground level, above it a gallery,
and above that, in the arch tympanum, a triple window. Such an
arrangement is, so far as we know, unique in a small church, but it is
the arrangement used in S. Sophia, Constantinople, and may well have
been derived from that church. The opening is only about one-half of
the space, leaving a broad pier at each side. In this it differs from S.
Sophia, Salonica, but such side piers are present in S. Sophia,
Constantinople. The diagrams show a restoration of the plan and internal
bay based on these conclusions (Figs. 102, 103).

  [Illustration: FIG. 102.--S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA (restored plan).]

The gallery on the north side is an addition. The character of the
brickwork and of the windows is later than the central church, but the
lack of windows on the ground floor suggests that the 'aisle' was
originally lighted from the body of the church. The vaulting gives no
clue, nor are there traces of an opening in the wall between the 'aisle'
and the church. The floor level is much higher than that of the passage
'B' (p. 318) on the opposite side, and seems to be a new level
introduced when the addition was made and the wall thickened.

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXXVIII.

  _To face page 314._]

If these conclusions are correct the church was originally a domed
basilica resembling S. Sophia, Salonica, in plan and S. Sophia,
Constantinople, in elevation. The side dome arches had double arcades in
two stories, and above them windows in the dome arches. There are at
present no traces of a western gallery, but such may have existed below
the present west windows. Later in the history of the church came
alterations, which included the ribbed domes and the gallery on the
north side. The side aisles still communicated with the church and the
lateral chapels with the bema.

  [Illustration: FIG. 103.--S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA (restored bay).]

The filling up of the arcades, the thickening of the walls, the
isolation of the lateral chapels, the removal of the southern aisle, the
alteration of the narthex, the building of the parecclesion and outer
narthex, and most of the decoration which forms the glory of the church,
belong to the great work of restoration by Theodore Metochites early in
the fourteenth century.

The representation of the church in the mosaic panel above the large
door to the church shows a building with a central dome, a narthex
terminating in domed bays, and a window in the west dome arch. It seems
to represent the church as the artist was accustomed to see it previous
to the additions (Fig. 115).

Plain cross plans, or cross plans with only one lateral gallery, are not
unknown. The church of the Archangels, Sygé,[541] shows such a plan and
is here reproduced for purposes of comparison.

  [Illustration: PLATE LXXXIX.

  _To face page 316._]

  [Illustration: FIG. 104.--CHURCH OF THE ARCHANGELS AT SYGÉ.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 105.]

  [Illustration: FIGS. 106 AND 107.]

  [Illustration: FIGS. 108 AND 109.]

  [Illustration: FIGS. 110, 111, 112, AND 113.]

[501] Vol. i. p. 459.

[502] Synax., Sept. 4, [Greek: pistoi de tines eusebeis nyktos
elthontes kai ta leipsana en akatiô embalontes eis to Byzantion
diakomizousi kai en tô boreiô merei exô teicheôn en trisi larnaxi
katathentes, entha esti monê Chôra eponomazomenê, doxan kai
eucharistian tô Theô anepempsan].

[503] _Proceedings of the Greek Syllogos_ of C.P. vol. xxiv., 1896,
Supplement, p. 33.

[504] Vol. iii. p. 172.

[505] P. 36.

[506] Paspates, p. 326.

[507] Synax., Sept. 4.

[508] Banduri, iii. p. 54, [Greek: chôrion ên ekeise exô tou

[509] De aed. p. 121, [Greek: eklêthê de chôra dioti tôn Byzantiôn
chôrion ên ekei, katha kai hê tou Stoudiou monê, exô tês poleôs

[510] Written in the second quarter of the ninth century.

[511] Supplement to vol. xxiv. of the _Proceedings of the Greek
Syllogos of C.P._ p. 23. Cf. Schmitt, p. 28.

[512] In his great monograph on Kahrié Jamissi published by the
Russian Institute of Constantinople, 1906.

[513] Mansi, _Sacrorum Conciliorum Collectio_, tomus viii. col. 906,
col. 882, [Greek: tou hagiou Michaêl tôn Charisiou: tês epiklên tôn

[514] Banduri, iii. p. 54; Codinus. De aed. p. 121 [Greek: hê chôra
prôton men euktêrion ên, Priskos ho eparchos kai gambros tou Phôka tou
tyrannou perioristheis ekei para tou idiou ektise tautên monên eis
kallos kai megethos, apocharisamenos kai ktêmata polla].

[515] Niceph. Greg. iii. p. 459.

[516] Schmitt, p. 28.

[517] Theoph. pp. 554, 556; Synax. _ad diem_; Cedrenus, i. p. 784.

[518] Theoph. pp. 626-680; Synax., May 12.

[519] Theoph. pp. 647-8.

[520] _Life of Michael Syncellus_, p. 31, in supplement to vol. xxiv.
of the _Proceedings of the Greek Syllogos of C.P._; cf. Schmitt, p.

[521] _Life of Michael Syncellus_, _ut supra_, pp. 30, 31.

[522] See supplement to vol. xxiv. of the _Proceedings of the Greek
Syllogos of Constantinople_, p. 33; cf. Schmitt, pp. 257-8.

[523] Niceph. Greg. iii. p. 459.

[524] _Ibid._ i. p. 459.

[525] The manuscript was discovered in the Seraglio Library by
Professor T. Uspenski, and has been photographically reproduced by the
Russian Institute of Constantinople.

[526] The inscription has been injured. It now reads:--

  [Symbol: cross.][Greek: ho .. os tou
                          psêlo .. tou
                        ... sileôs ...
                          ... xiou ...
                             .. ou ...]

See Schmitt, pp. 38-39, who restores the inscription thus:

  [Greek: ho hyios tou hypsêlotatou
   basileôs Alexiou tou

[527] See Schmitt, pp. 39-40.

[528] Niceph. Greg. i. p. 459.

[529] Niceph. Greg. i. p. 459. [Greek: houtos habrotera chrêsamenos
dexia, plên tou mesaitatou neô panta kalôs epeskeuase], cf. ii. p.

[530] _Theodori Metochitae carmina_, ed. Treu. A 1004, _et passim_.

[531] Niceph. Greg. i. p. 303 [Greek: arti tou neourgein epepauto tên
tês Chôras monên, hopsos ho endon etynchane kosmos].

[532] Niceph. Greg. ii. pp. 1045-6.

[533] Niceph. Greg. iii. p. 243.

[534] Cantacuzene, i. p. 54.

[535] Cantacuzene, ii. p. 209.

[536] _De top. C.P._ iv. c. 4:--Inter palatium Constantini et portam
urbis Adrianopolitanam extat ædes in septimo (?) colle, quæ etsi jam
tot secula sit intra urbem tamen etiamnum [Greek: christos chôras]
appellatur, ex eo, quod olim esset extra urbem. Ex tribus partibus, ut
mos est Græcorum ædium sacrarum, porticu cingitur. Parietes ejus
intrinsecus vestiti crustis marmoris varii quadratis, ita inter se
conjunctis ut distinguantur ab immo sursum versus modulis
astragalorum, aliorum baccatorum, aliorum ter etiam sine baccis. Supra
quadratas crustas discurrunt tres fasciæ et tres velut astragali,
quorum duo teretes, supremus quadratus velut regula. Supra fasciam,
denticuli; supra denticulos, folia Corinthia. Denique marmor sic
mensulis distinguitur ut in commissuris eluceat labor Corinthicus. Sed
is plenior apparet in æde Sophiæ.

[537] Cf. description by Gyllius, _De top. C.P._ iv. c. 4.

[538] [Greek: deute pros me pantes hoi kopiôntes kai pephortismenoi
kagô]....--Matt. xi. 28.

[539] For the description of these vaults see p. 22.

[540] Schmitt (_op. cit._ pp. 92-94) maintains that the parecclesion
was originally the refectory of the monastery. But a refectory there
would occupy a very unusual position. Nor do the frescoes on the walls
of the parecclesion correspond to the decoration of the refectory with
representations of flowers and of Christ's miracles, as described by
Theodore Metochites: ... [Greek: kekosmêatai anthesi poikiloi i te
poulychrouoisi te baphôn ... kai te diaperes apêgeatai mystêria
thôymata Christou].

[541] F. W. Hasluck. Bithynica, _B.S.A. Annual XIII._, 1906-7.



As stated already, the mosaics on the vaults and lunettes of the
arches in the outer narthex of the church portray scenes from the life
of Christ, as recorded in the canonical and the apocryphal Gospels,
while on the faces and soffits of the arches are depicted the figures
of saints 'who desired to look into these things.' Scenes from the
Saviour's life are also portrayed in the two bays to the west of the
parecclesion, and in the domes and southern bay of the inner narthex.
Inscriptions on the mosaics explain the subjects depicted. The scenes
will be described according to the groups they form in the
compartments of the narthex.


  [Illustration: PLATE XC.
  _Sebah and Joaillier._
  _To face page 322._]


_First Bay (at the north end)._

1. In the northern lunette.--The angel announcing to Joseph,
in a dream, the birth of Jesus. To the right, journey of
Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Simon the son of
Joseph walks ahead, carrying a bundle. In the background,
meeting of Mary and Elizabeth.

2. In the eastern lunette.--The registration of Joseph and
Mary at Bethlehem before Cyrenius. (Said to be unique in the

On the arch over the eastern lunette.--Busts (in medallions)
of SS. Mardarius, Auxentius (only one letter of the name
remains), SS. Eustratius, Orestes.

3. On the western lunette.--The Holy Family on the way to
the first passover of Jesus at Jerusalem.

On the arch over the western lunette.--The busts (in
medallions) of SS. Anempodistus, Elpidephorus, Akindynus,
Aphthonius, Pegasius.

4. In the vault.--The scene has disappeared. Possibly it
represented Jesus among the doctors in the temple.

5. On the soffit of the transverse arch, between the first
and second bays.--To the east, S. Andronicus; to the west,
S. Tarachus.

_Second Bay_

6. In the eastern lunette.--The birth of Jesus. In the background, to
left, the angel appearing to the shepherds; to right, the magi
beholding the star shining over the manger in which lies the Holy
Child, while an ox and an ass feed in it. In the centre, Mary on a
couch. In the foreground, to left, two women bathing the Holy Child;
to the right, Joseph seated on the ground and gazing at the Holy

On the arch above the eastern lunette.--The busts (in medallions)
of SS. Philemon, Leukius, Kallinikus, Thyrsus, Apollonius.

7. In the western lunette.--Return of the Holy Family from
Egypt to Nazareth.

In the arch above the western lunette.--The busts (in medallions)
of SS. Engraphus (?), Menas, Hermogenes, Laurus, Florus,
Menas, Victor, Vikentius.

8. In the vault.--The baptism of Jesus; the scenes in the
temptation of Jesus.

9. On the second transverse arch.--To the east, S. George;
to the west, S. Demetrius.

_The Third or Central Bay_

10. In the eastern lunette, over the door leading to the
inner narthex.--Christ in the act of benediction.

11. In the western lunette.--The Theotokos, in the attitude
of prayer, with the Holy Child, in a nimbus, on her breast;
the legend

  [Greek: MR      THY
  (the country of the Infinite); on the right and left, an angel.

12. In the vault.--In the north-eastern corner, the miracle of water
turned into wine. The date 1303, in Arabic numerals, is on this
mosaic. In the south-eastern corner, the miracle of the loaves.

These mosaics, placed on either side of the figure of Christ, are
emblems of His character as the Giver of Life.

In the north-western corner.--The sacrifice of a white bullock.

In the south-eastern corner.--The second miracle of the loaves.

13. On the third transverse arch.--Two saints, not named.

_The Fourth Bay_

14. In the eastern lunette.--To the left, the magi, on
horseback, guided by a star, on their way to Jerusalem; to
the right, the magi before Herod.

On the arch above.--The busts (in medallions) of SS. Abibus,
Ghourias, Samonas.

15. In the western lunette.--Elizabeth fleeing with her
child John from a soldier who pursues her with a drawn sword
in his hand.

  The scenes in the vault have disappeared.

16. On the fourth transverse arch.--Two saints, not named.

_The Fifth Bay_

17. In the eastern lunette.--Herod inquiring of the priests
where the Christ should be born.

  The busts of three saints on the arch above have disappeared.

18. In the western lunette.--Mothers at Bethlehem seated on
the ground, and mourning the death of their infant children.

  The mosaics in other parts of this bay have disappeared.

_The Outer Bay fronting the parecclesion_

In the eastern pendentive.--To the left (19) the healing of
a paralytic; to the right (20) the healing of the man sick
of the dropsy.

21. In the western pendentive.--To the left, the healing of
another paralytic; to the right, Christ with the Samaritan
woman at the well of Sychar; in the lunette, the massacre
of the Innocents at Bethlehem.

22. In the southern lunette.--To the left, Herod orders the
massacre of the Innocents at Bethlehem; to the right, the
massacre of the Innocents.

  The other mosaics in this bay have disappeared.

_The Inner Bay fronting the parecclesion_

23. In the vault.--In the south-western corner. Uncertain.
Possibly, the fall of the idols in Egypt at the presence of
the Holy Child; to the south of that scene, Zacchaeus on the
sycamore tree.


_First Bay (at the south end of the narthex)_

24. On the soffit of the first transverse arch.--To the
east, the healing of the man with a withered arm; to the
west, the healing of a leper.

_South Dome_

25. In the crown.--Christ the Pantokrator.

In the flutings, thirty-nine figures, arranged in two tiers,
representing the ancestors of Christ from Adam to Esrom,
Japhet, and the eleven sons of Jacob not in the line of

26. On the south-eastern pendentive.--The healing of the
woman with a bloody issue.

27. On the north-eastern pendentive.--The healing of Peter's

28. On the south-western pendentive.--The healing of a deaf
and dumb man.

29. On the north-western pendentive.--The healing of two
blind men at Jericho.

30. On the eastern wall below the dome, colossal figures of
Mary and Christ, technically named the Deësis.

31. On the opposite wall.--Christ healing divers diseases.

  The mosaics in the three other bays of this narthex depict
  scenes in the life of Mary as described in the apocryphal
  Protoevangelium of S. James and other apocryphal Gospels.[543]

_First Bay (at northern end).--The North Dome_

32. In the centre.--The Theotokos; in the flutings,
twenty-seven figures arranged in two tiers representing
sixteen royal ancestors of Christ, from David to Salathiel,
and Melchisedec, Ananias, Azarias, Misael, Daniel, Joshua,
Moses, Aaron, Ur, Samuel, Job.

33. In the north-eastern pendentive.--The scene has disappeared.

34. In the south-eastern pendentive.--S. Joachim (Mary's father) with
his sheep in the desert, praying and mourning that his offerings have
been rejected because he was childless.

35. In the north-western pendentive.--The High Priest judging Mary.

36. In the south-western pendentive.--The Annunciation to Mary.

37. In the eastern lunette below the dome.--The Annunciation to S.
Anna, the mother of Mary.

38. On the soffit of the transverse arch between the first and second
bays.--To the east, the meeting of S. Anna and S. Joachim; to the
west, Joseph taking leave of Mary before his home, and proceeding to
his work in another part of the country, accompanied by a servant.

_Second Bay_

39. In the eastern lunette.--The birth of Mary.

40. In the western lunette.--Joseph receiving the rod which marks him
the successful suitor for Mary's hand, and taking her as his

41. In the vault.--To the east, Mary held in the arms of S. Joachim,
receiving the blessing of three priests seated at a banquet; to the
west, the child Mary caressed by her parents. This scene shows much

42. On the soffit of the transverse arch.--To the east, Mary taking
her first seven steps [Greek: hê heptabêmatizousa]; to the west, the
high priest praying before the rods, one of which, by blossoming, will
designate the future husband of Mary.

43. On the eastern wall, to the north of the main entrance into the
church.--The Apostle Peter with the keys in his hand.

_The Third Bay_

44. In the lunette over the main entrance to the church.--Theodore
Metochites on his knees offering the church to Christ seated on a
throne. The legend [Greek: ho ktêtôr logothetês tou gennikou Theodôros
ho Metochitês].[544]

  [Illustration: PLATE XCI.
  _Sebah and Joaillier._
  _Sebah and Joaillier._
  _To face page 326._]

45. In the western lunette.--Mary receiving purple and
scarlet wool to weave in the veil of the temple.

46. In the vault.--On the east, Mary admitted to the Holy of
Holies when three years of age, lest she should go back to
the world; on the west, the procession of maidens escorting
Mary to the temple.

47. The third transverse arch.--To the east, Mary in the
temple receiving bread from the archangel Gabriel; to the
west, Mary in the temple receiving instruction.

48. On the eastern wall, to the south side of the main
entrance to the church.--The Apostle Paul.


The scenes represented on these mosaics are not peculiar to this church,
but are a selection from cycles of subjects which from the eleventh
century became favourite themes for pictorial treatment on the walls of
important churches in the Byzantine world. Several of these scenes are
found portrayed also at Daphni, Mistra, S. Sophia at Kiev, in the
churches of Mt. Athos, on diptychs and manuscripts,[545] as well as in
the chapel of the arena at Padua. The cycle of subjects taken from the
life of Mary was developed mainly in Syria, and Schmitt[546] goes so far
as to maintain that the mosaics of the Chora are copies of Syrian
mosaics executed by a Syrian artist, when the church was restored in the
ninth century by Michael Syncellus, who, it will be remembered, came
from Syria.

Kondakoff assigns most of the mosaics to the Comnenian restoration of
the church by Maria Ducaena in the eleventh or twelfth century. One of
them at least, the Deësis, has survived; and there may be others of that
period, for, as that mosaic proves, the narthex of the church was
decorated when the church was restored by that benefactress of the
Chora. But the testimony of Nicephorus Gregoras,[547] of Theodore
Metochites,[548] and the date marked on the scene representing the
miracle of the wine at Cana, on the right of the figure of Christ over
the door leading from the outer to the inner narthex, prove these
mosaics to be as a whole the production of the fourteenth century. And
this conclusion is confirmed by their unlikeness to mosaic work in the
twelfth century, and by their affinity to other work of the same
character done in the fourteenth century.[549]

In fact, the mosaics in the Chora represent a remarkable revival in the
history of Byzantine art. They are characterised by a comparative
freedom from tradition, by closer approximation to reality and nature,
by a charm and a sympathetic quality, and by a scheme of colour that
indicate the coming of a new age and spirit. Curiously enough, they are
contemporary with the frescoes of Giotto at Padua (1303-1306). But
whatever points of similarity may be detected between them and the work
of the Italian artist, or between them and the Italian school before
Giotto, should be explained as due to a common stock of traditions and
to the simultaneous awakening of a new intellectual and artistic life in
the East and the West, rather than to any direct influence of one school
of art upon another. The mosaics of the Chora are thoroughly

The Frescoes in the Parecclesion:--

1. Round the apse: Six Fathers of the Church (only one
figure remains, and that badly damaged. No names are

2. In the vault of the apse: a full-length figure of Christ
in a vesica dotted with stars. On either side are groups of

3. In the crown of the apse-arch: an angel in a medallion.

4. In the northern wall, next the apse: Christ with two
attendants; in the background a walled city.

The Eastern Bay.

On the northern wall:

5. Above the arched recess: two medallion heads of SS.
Sergius and Bacchus.

6. Portions of the figure of a warrior.

7. In the arch above Nos. 5 and 6: the Gate of Paradise.

8. In the centre, one of the cherubims on a pillar. On the
left hand, a multitude, painted on black background outside
Paradise; on the right, Paradise, a garden full of trees on
a white background. Here also are John the Baptist and a
figure, probably the Virgin and Child, on a throne, attended
by two angels.


On the southern wall:

8. A portion of the figure of an armed angel.

   Above No. 8 and at the side of the window:

9. Two men carrying a bier or platform. In front of them a
third person giving directions.

10. In the arched recess: full-length figures of Andronicus
II. and his family. In the soffit of the arch, the head of
Christ in a medallion, with rays issuing from behind the

11. and 12. In the spandrils above the recess: two heads in

13. In the dome vault: the Last Judgment. Christ in judgment
fills the centre; behind Him are the twenty-four elders
seated on a long throne; farther back is gathered the
heavenly host.

  [Illustration: PLATE XCII.
  _To face page 330._]

14. On the north-eastern pendentive: the Virgin and Child
in a Paradise, with trees on a white background.

15. On the south-eastern pendentive: the Mouth of Hell.

16. On the south pilaster of the dome: an armed angel.

17. Above that angel, on the arch: a man bearing the
Seven-Branched Candlestick, and beside him another man
bearing with both hands some object above his head, perhaps
the Table of Shew Bread.

18. On the northern pilaster: a warrior.

19. In the centre of the arch: the Head of Christ in a

The Western Bay.

20. At the south-western corner where the wall is much
damaged, a saint.

21. Above No. 20, to the west of the window: Christ
appearing to His disciples.

22. To the east of the window, an indistinct scene, perhaps
the Entombment.

23. At the north-western corner: S. Samona.

24. A saint, not named.

25. Over the door two saints, one of whom holds a cross.

26. The northern archway: In the centre is the door to the
narrow passage between the parecclesion and the church. To
the left, Jacob's Ladder; to the right, Moses at the Burning
Bush. In the bush is a medallion of the Virgin and Child,
and from the bush an angel addresses Moses, who holds his
veil in his hand.

27, 28, 29, 30. In the pendentives of the dome: the Four
Evangelists sitting at desks.

31. The dome is divided into twelve segments by ribs, and is
pierced by twelve windows. Above each window is an angel
holding a spear, and below him is the legend 'Holy.' In the
crown are the Virgin and Child in a medallion.

32. A saint holding a small cross; below, in the south wall,
the archivolt with the epitaph to Tornikes above it.

33. A warrior saint with his sword and shield.

34. Above Nos. 32 and 33 on the arch, a figure, clad in a
white mantle and blue robe with a scroll in his hand, points
to an angel, who holds his drawn sword in the right hand and
the scabbard in the left hand, and seems to be attacking
several persons in the right-hand corner. Behind him is a
walled and fortified city, probably Jericho.

35. On the north wall: S. Eutadius.

36. The Adoration by the magi.

37, 38. On the west wall: the figures of two saints, not

Epitaph in honour of Tornikes:--

  [Greek: hosous an hathroizoi tis enthade krotous
  nekrous ho tapheis exelenxei Tornikês,
  ho tris aristeus ê konstaulos megas,
  hôsper mimous, beltiste, pithêkous leon.
  hos, basilikôn apotechtheis haimatôn,            5
  pareschen autois prosphyê kai ton tropon.
  poion gar ouk ên aretês eidos pherôn,
  hôs ho prepôn hekaston ezêtei chronos?
  boulêphoros d' oun, kai pro tês hêlikias
  kai dêmagôgos, kai kritês ên anchinous.         10
  kai pros men echthrous taktikên epnei phloga,
  keraunos ôn aphyktos autois athroois,
  tê de stratia patrikôs epestatei,
  phrourôn ta koina, mê klapê to sympheron.
  kêdous de tychôn eugenous kai kosmiou           15
  kai basilikon proslabôn authis genos
  kai lampron hypodeigma pareis ton bion,
  keitai monastês eutelês en osteois.
  hêlie kai gê kai teleutaioi krotoi.
  penthei de mikrou pan to Rhômaiôn genos,        20
  hoson per auton agnooun ou tynchanei.
  all' ô mone, zôn kai methistôn tas physeis,
  ei pou ti kai peprachen autô mê prepon
  lysin paraschôn tên Eden klêron didou.]

In line 7 the inscription reads *[Greek: phcrôn]* instead of [Greek:
pherôn]; in line 23 *[Greek: propon]* for [Greek: prepon].

  Good Friend! However many dead applauses (celebrities)
  One may collect here,
  The entombed Tornikes, who was thrice a foremost man or Grand
  Will put them to shame as a lion will put to shame mimicking apes.
  He who was by birth of royal blood,
  Presented also a manner of life conformed to that descent.
  For what form of virtue did he not possess
  Such as the fitting occasion demanded each?
  Therefore he was a councillor before the usual age,
  And a popular leader and an acute judge,
  And upon enemies he breathed a strategic flame (such as military rules
  And was an irresistible thunderbolt upon their serried ranks.
  He presided over the army like a father,
  Guarding the commonweal lest any advantage to it should be stolen.
  Contracting a highly-born and seemly marriage connection,
  And securing thus again royal affinity,[551]
  And leaving his life as a splendid example,
  He lies a poor monk among bones!
  O sun, O earth, O final applauses!
  Well-nigh the whole Roman race laments him,
  As much of it as is not ignorant of him.
  But O only living One and transformer of natures,
  If perchance he did aught that was not fitting for him,
  Granting him pardon, give him Eden as his inheritance.[552]

[542] Diehl, _Études byzantines: Les mosaïques de Kahrié Djami_.

[543] An English translation of the Protoevangelium is found in the
Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. xvi.

[544] The remarkable head-dress he wears was given him as a special
distinction by the Emperor Andronicus II. Palaeologus. The poet Philes
(ode 41 in the appendix to vol. ii. of his works, lines 117-19) says
[Greek: phorounta chrysên erythran tên kalyptran hên dôron autô
synanechonti kratos Anax ho lampros Andronikos paresche].

[545] A work reproducing, under the Pope's authority, the eighty-two
miniatures illustrating the _Life of the Madonna_, which was composed
by a monk James in the twelfth century (_Cod. Vatic. Gr._ 1162), is
announced (Danesi, Editore, Roma, 1911), with a preface and
descriptions of the miniatures by Cosimo Stornajolo. The miniatures
are said to rival those of the Greek Codex 1028 in the National
Library in Paris.

[546] _Op. cit._ pp. 134-41.

[547] i. p. 303.

[548] _Carmina_ (ed. Treu), A. 1004, 1039-1042; B. 322-334.

[549] Diehl, _Études byzantines: Les mosaïques de Kahrié Djami_.

[550] See on the whole subject, C. Diehl, in the Gazette des
Beaux-Arts, troisième période, tome 33, and in his _Manuel d'art
byzantin_, pp. 732-41; Schmitt in his monograph on the Chora;
Mühlmann, _Archiv für christliche Kunst_, 1886-87.

[551] Alludes to his marriage with a relative of the imperial family.

[552] In the translation I have been assisted by Sir W. M. Ramsay,
Professor Bury, and Mr. E. M. Antoniadi. The meaning of [Greek:
teleutaioi krotoi] is not clear. Various interpretations have been
suggested; to read [Greek: brotoi], mortals, instead of [Greek:
krotoi], and to construe [Greek: teleutaioi] adverbially, 'finally, O
mortals!'; to understand a reference to the judgment day, 'O applauses
given at the final judgment'; to take the phrase as equivalent to, 'O
celebrities at (or to) the very end of time'; to understand it as
signifying the eulogies actually given to the deceased by the poet.
Professor Tendès, of Athens, whom I thank for his courtesy in this
connection, suggests that the meaning is similar to that of the phrase
[Greek: ta teleutaia] in the modern Greek form of eulogy, [Greek:
ekame polla, alla ta teleutaia tou].... 'He did many things, but his
last performances!' (surpassed all his previous deeds). Here the
meaning would therefore be, 'O grandest achievements that men praise!'



The dating of the Constantinople churches is a problem of great
difficulty, and, in the absence of documentary evidence, we must often
be contented with very indefinite suggestions. Many churches are known
to have been founded at dates which are evidently earlier than the
existing buildings, and have apparently been rebuilt at some later date
of which the record has been lost. Other churches are known to have been
'repaired,' and here the question of how far 'repair' means 'rebuilding'
is sometimes insoluble. Repair may mean simply a fresh coat of paint.

The architectural characteristics afford a certain clue, and the
following chronological scheme has been drawn up by their guidance:--

The pre-Justinian period is characterised by simple construction and
detail of a late Roman type. Of this we have one example--the basilica
of S. John of the Studion, founded about 463. The existing building
appears to be original.

The Justinian period commences with the beginning of the sixth century.
It is characterised by the development of the drumless dome on
pendentives. The plan is complicated, and the buildings are large in
comparison with those of later date. To this period belong SS. Sergius
and Bacchus (527 A.D.), the baptistery of S. Sophia, and the 'Great
Church' of S. Sophia itself. S. Andrew in Krisei and S. Saviour in the
Chora probably date from this period. The carved detail of the former
closely resembles that of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, and the plan of the
latter connects it with S. Sophia, Salonica (sixth century).

The Justinian period roughly includes the seventh century, and is
followed by a long decline, marked by the great iconoclastic controversy
which lasted almost until the middle of the ninth century. To this
period belongs S. Irene (740 A.D.). In plan it is a double-domed cross
church. In the arrangement of the dome-arches and galleries it resembles
S. Theodosia, whilst in the presence of a western gallery over the
narthex and in the number of columns in the 'nave arcade' it is like S.

The accession of Basil the Macedonian (867 A.D.) marks the beginning of
the second great period--the 'Basilian Renaissance.' We know that this
was a period of great religious activity, and though we have,
unfortunately, no known dates to guide us, the development of plan leads
us to place a group of churches in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh
centuries. These are S. Mary Pammakaristos, S. Mary Panachrantos, S.
Theodosia, S. Mary Diaconissa, and SS. Peter and Mark.

They are all churches of considerable size; S. Mary Diaconissa and S.
Theodosia being indeed large. They are characterised by the use of the
ambulatory and domed cross plans. The carving is coarse and the capitals
are of the clumsy Byzantine Corinthian type. The dome is raised on a
high drum in S. Mary Pammakaristos and S. Mary Panachrantos, though this
may be a later addition. The domes of the other three churches seem to
be Turkish. S. Mary Pammakaristos and the south church in S. Mary
Panachrantos are identical in plan with S. Andrew in Krisei, and it
would be possible to date them earlier had we any evidence whatsoever.
Unfortunately both have been very much altered.

S. Theodosia, S. Mary Diaconissa, and SS. Peter and Mark, taken in this
order, form a series showing the gradual disappearance of the galleries
and the evolution of the domed cross church into the 'four columned'
church of the next period.

The Myrelaion (919-945), if the present church is of that date, is an
unusually early example of this four-columned type. It is generally
considered that this plan type dates at the earliest from the eleventh
century. There is, however, no reason to believe that the church was
rebuilt later; it is a perfectly normal example of its class, and
nowhere is an early example more probable than in Constantinople. The
Myrelaion may accordingly be taken as marking the commencement of the
late Byzantine period in Constantinople.

The churches are now smaller; the gynecaeum, where present, is placed
over the narthex; the use of patterning in the brickwork of the
exterior, which occurs in some of the Basilian churches (_e.g._ the
cornice of S. Theodosia), now becomes important, and alternate coursing
in brick and stone is used with great effect. From this time onwards
narthexes were frequently added to the existing churches.

S. Saviour Pantokrator (1118-1143 A.D.) is the largest late church in
Constantinople, and is an unusually large church of its type. S. Saviour
Pantepoptes (1081-1118), S. Theodore, and S. John in Trullo, belong to
the same class. The last, with its circular dome and apse, is probably
the latest of the three. S. Thekla (1057-1059) and Bogdan Serai are
examples of hall churches of the same period.

The monastery of Manuel was founded in 829-842 A.D., but the building
believed to be the refectory is probably much later. As part of the
monastery it might, of course, have been built at any date subsequent to
the foundation of the House.

The architecture of the Sanjakdar does not correspond to the date of the
foundation of the monastery of the Gastria in the ninth century. The
building is certainly of late date, subsequent to the eleventh century.
Of the Balaban Mesjedi it is impossible to say anything. It is the
remnant of some Byzantine structure.

From 1204 to 1261, during the Latin Empire, we need not look for much
building in the Greek Church. Soon after the fall of that empire comes
the erection of S. Mary of the Mongols (1261-1282) and Monastir Jamissi
(1282-1328). In both cases the architectural character is what we should
expect. Following on this we have, in the fourteenth century, the
alterations made in S. Saviour in the Chora (_c._ 1300), and the
parecclesion of the Pammakaristos (_c._ 1315).

This was the last effort of pure Byzantine architecture in
Constantinople. During the hundred years preceding the Turkish conquest
in 1453 the gradually increasing pressure from the East put a stop to
all architectural schemes; the craftsmen and artists fled to Italy, and
there took their part in the great revival known as 'The Renaissance.'



     V. S. John of the Studion, 463.

    VI. SS. Sergius and Bacchus, 527-36.
        S. Sophia, 532-37.
        S. Saviour in the Chora (the Justinian foundation).
        S. Andrew in Krisei.

  VIII. S. Irene, 740.
        S. Mary Panachrantos (South Church); possibly earlier.
        S. Mary Pammakaristos; possibly earlier.

    IX. S. Theodosia.
        S. Mary Diaconissa.
        SS. Peter and Mark.

     X. The Myrelaion.
        S. Mary Panachrantos (South Church).

    XI. S. Thekla.
        S. Saviour in the Chora (restoration in the reign of Alexius I.
        S. Saviour Pantepoptes.
        S. Saviour Pantokrator.

   XII. S. Theodore.
        S. John in Trullo.
        Refectory of the monastery of Manuel?
        Bogdan Serai?

  XIII. S. Mary of the Mongols.
        Monastir Jamissi.

   XIV. S. Saviour in the Chora, 1306. Final restoration by Theodore
           Metochites. Parecclesion of the church of S. Mary
           Pammakaristos, _c._ 1315. Sanjakdar Mesjedi (Gastria)?
           Balaban Mesjedi?


  _Basilica._--S. John of the Studion.

  _Octagon._--SS. Sergius and Bacchus.

  _Domed Basilica._--S. Saviour in the Chora.

  _Ambulatory._--S. Andrew in Krisei; S. Mary Panachrantos (South
     Church); S. Mary Pammakaristos.

  _Domed Cross Church._--S. Irene; S. Theodosia; S. Mary Diaconissa;
     SS. Peter and Mark.

  _Four Column Church._--Myrelaion; S. Saviour Pantepoptes; S. Saviour
     Pantokrator; S. John in Trullo; S. Mary Panachrantos (North Church);
     Parecclesion of S. Mary Pammakaristos.

  _Foiled Plan._--S. Mary of the Mongols.

  _Halls._--Bogdan Serai; Central Church of the Pantokrator; Monastir
     Mesjedi; Refectory of the monastery of Manuel; Parecclesion of
     S. Saviour in the Chora; S. Thekla.

  _Irregular._--Sanjakdar Mesjedi; Balaban Mesjedi.


  Ante-Nicene Christian Library.

  Anthologia Graeca epigrammatum, Stadt-Mueller, 1894.

  ANTONIADI, E. M. [Greek: Ekphrasis tês Hagias Sophias].

  BANDURI, ANSELMI. Imperium Orientale, sive Antiquitates
    Constantinopolitanae. Paris, 1711.

  BARONIUS. Annales ecclesiastici. Luccae, 1741.

  BELIN, M. A. Histoire de la Latinité de Constantinople. 2me édition.

  BELL, Miss LOTHIAN. Notes on a Journey through Cilicia and Lycaonia.

  BONDELMONTIUS. Librum insularum Archipelagi.

  BROCKHAUS. Die Kunst in den Athosklöstern. Leipzig, 1891.

  BRUNN, PH. Constantinople, ses sanctuaires et ses réliques au
    commencement du XV siècle. Odessa, 1883.

  BUTLER. Architecture and other Arts, II. Syria. New York, 1903.

  CHEVALIER, J. B. Voyage de la Propontide et du Pont-Euxin. Paris, 1800.

  CHOISY. L'Art de bâtir chez les Byzantins. Paris, 1883.

  CHOISEUL-GOUFFIER. Voyage pittoresque en Grèce.

  CLAVIJO, RUY GONZALEZ DE. Vida de Gran Tamorlan y itinerario. Madrid,

  CONSTANTIUS, Patriarch. [Greek: Konstantinias Palaia te kai Neôtera],
    Ancient and Modern Constantinople, Translation by J. P. Brown. London,
    1868; [Greek: Syngraphai hai Elassones. Kônstantinoupolis], 1866.

  Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae. Bonn.

  CRUSIUS, M. Turcograecia.

  DEHIO und Bezold. Die kirchliche Baukunst des Abendlandes.

  DETHIER, PH. A. Siège de Constantinople.

  DIDRON. Christian Iconography (Translation from the French). London,

  DIEHL, C. Manuel d'art byzantin; Figures byzantines.

  DU CANGE, C. Historia Byzantina, Pars II. Constantinopolis Christiana.
    Paris, 1680.[poss. typo for 1860?]

  DÜRM. Handbuch.

  Eastern Palestine Memoirs.

  EBERSOLT. Le Grand Palais de Constantinople.

  FERGUSSON, JAMES. History of Ancient and Mediaeval Architecture.

  FINLAY, G. History of the Byzantine Empire.

  FRESHFIELD, EDWIN. Archaeologia.

  GARDNER, MISS ALICE. Theodore of Studium.

  GERLACH. Tagebuch der Gesandtshaft an die Ottomanische Pforte durch David
    Ungnad, 1573-78.

  GOODYEAR, W. H. Catalogue of an Exhibition of Architectural Refinements.
    Edinburgh, 1905.

  GYLLIUS, P. De Constantinopoleos Topographia. Elzevir ed. 1632.

     "        De Bosporo Thracio. Elzevir ed. 1632.

  HASLUCK, F. W. Bithynica.

  HENDERSON, A. E. Builder, January 1906.

  KANITZ. Serbiens byzantinische Monumente.

  KHITROVO, Madame de. Itinéraires russes (Translation from Russian).

  LABARTE, JULES. Le Palais impérial de Constantinople.

  LAMPAKIS, Professor. Les Antiquités chrétiennes de la Grèce. Athens,

  LENOIR. Architecture monastique au moyen âge.

  LETHABY. Mediaeval Art.

  LETHABY and Swainson. Sancta Sophia.

  LEUNCLAVIUS. Pandectes historiae Turcicae. (Migne, vol. clix.)

  MANSI. Sacrorum Conciliorum collectio.

  MARIN, Abbé. Les Moines de Constantinople.

  MIGNE. Patrologia Graeca.

  MIKLOSICH et MÜLLER. Acta et diplomata Graeca. Vienna, 1865.

  MILLINGEN, A. VAN. Byzantine Constantinople.

  MORDTMANN. Esquisse topographique de Constantinople.

  MÜHLMANN. Archiv für christliche Kunst, 1886-87.

  MURALT, ÉDOUARD DE. Essai de chronographie byzantine. Geneva, 1873.


  PARGOIRE, Père J. Les Mamas de Constantinople.

  PARKER. Glossary of Architecture.

  PASPATES, A. [Greek: Meletai Byzantinai].

     "         The Great Palace. Translation from the Greek by
                 Mr. Metcalfe.

  PHILES. Carmina.

  PULGHER, D. Les Églises byzantines de Constantinople. Vienna, 1878.

  RAMSAY, Sir William, and Miss Lothian Bell. The Thousand and One

  RIANT, Conte de. Exuviae sacrae.

  RIVOIRA, T. G. Lombardic Architecture. (Translation from Italian.)
    London, 1910.

  ROTT, H. Kleinasiatische Denkmäler. Leipzig, 1908.

  SALZENBERG. Altchristliche Baudenkmäler Constantinopels.

  SCARLATUS BYZANTIUS. [Greek: Hê Kônstantinoupolis]. Athens, 1862.

  SCHLUMBERGER, G. L'Épopée byzantine à la fin du sixième siècle.

  SCHMITT, F. G. Kahrié Djamissi.

  SCHULTZ and Barnsley. The Monastery of S. Luke of Stiris. London, 1901.

  SCHWEIGGER, SOLOMON. Ein neue Reyssbeschreibung auss Deutschland nach
    Constantinopel, 1581.

  SIDERIDES. Articles in the _Proceedings of the Greek Syllogos of

  SOCRATES. Ecclesiastical History.

  STRZYGOWSKI, J. Orient oder Rom. Leipzig, 1901.

       "          Kleinasien, Die byzantinischen Wasserbehälter von.
                    Dr. P. Forcheimer and Dr. J. Strzygowski.

  TEXIER. Four volumes of Sketches in the Library of the Royal Institute
    of British Architects. London.

  TEXIER AND PULLAN. Byzantine Architecture.

  USPENSKI, T. Articles in the _Journal of the Russian Institute at

  VILLEHARDOUIN. La Conquête de Constantinople.

  VOGÜÉ DE. La Syrie centrale.

  WULFF, O. Die Koimisiskirche in Nikaia. Strasburg, 1903.


  Atti della R. Accademia di archeologia, lettere, e belle arte, vol. xx.
    Napoli, 1900.

  Revue Archéologique.

  Byzantinische Zeitschrift.

  Bulletin de correspondance hellénique.

  Annual of the British School at Athens.

  Proceedings of the Greek Syllogos of Constantinople.

  Mitteilungen des Deutschen Excursions-Club, Konstantinopel.

  English Historical Review.


  Constantine I. the Great                 306-337

  Constantius II.                          337-361

  Julian                                   361-363

  Jovian                                   363-364

  Valens                                   364-378

  Theodosius I. the Great                  378-395

  Arcadius                                 395-408

  Theodosius II.                           408-450

  Marcian                                  450-457

  Leo I.                                   457-474

  Leo II.                                  474-474

  Zeno                                     474-491

  Anastasius I.                            491-518

  Justin I.                                518-527

  Justinian I. the Great                   527-565

  Justin II.                               565-578

  Tiberius                                 578-582

  Maurice                                  582-602

  Phocas                                   602-610

  Heraclius                                610-641

  Heraclius Constantine III.
    and Heracleonas                        641-642

  Constans II.                             642-668

  Constantine IV.                          668-685

  Justinian II.                            685-695

  Leontius                                 695-697

  Tiberius III.                            697-705

  Justinian II. (restored)                 705-711

  Philippicus                              711-713

  Anastasius II.                           713-715

  Theodosius III.                          715-717

  Leo III. the Isaurian                    717-740

  Constantine V. Copronymus                740-775

  Leo IV.                                  775-779

  Constantine VI.                          779-797

  Irene                                    797-802

  Nicephorus I.                            802-811

  Stauracius                               811

  Michael I. Rhangabe                      811-813

  Leo V. the Armenian                      813-820

  Michael II. the Amorian                  820-829

  Theophilus                               829-842

  Michael III.                             842-867

  Basil I.                                 867-886

  Leo VI. the Wise                         886-912

  Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus         912-958
      Alexander                            912-913
      Romanus I. Lecapenus                 919-945
      Constantine VIII. and Stephanus,
        sons of Romanus I. reigned
        five weeks in                      944

  Romanus II.                              958-963

  Basil II. Bulgaroktonos                  963-1025
      Nicephorus II. Phocas                 965-969
      John I. Zimisces                      969-976
      Constantine IX.                      976-1025

  Constantine IX. (sole Emperor)          1025-1028

  Romanus III. Argyrus                    1028-1034

  Michael IV.                             1034-1042

  Michael V.                              1042

  Zoe and Theodora                        1042

  Constantine X. Monomachus               1042-1054

  Theodora (restored)                     1054-1056

  Michael VI. Stratioticus                1056-1057

  Isaac I. Comnenus                       1057-1059

  Constantine XI. Ducas                   1059-1067

  Michael VII. Ducas                      1067-1078
      Romanus IV. Diogenes                1067-1078

  Nicephorus III. Botoniates              1078-1081

  Alexius I. Comnenus                     1081-1118

  John II. Comnenus                       1118-1143

  Manuel I. Comnenus                      1143-1180

  Alexius II. Comnenus                    1180-1183

  Andronicus I. Comnenus                  1183-1185

  Isaac II. Angelus                       1185-1195

  Alexius III. Angelus                    1195-1203

  Isaac II. Angelus (restored),
    Alexius IV. Angelus                   1203-1204

  Nicolas Canabus                         1204

  Alexius V. Ducas Murtzuphlus            1204


  Baldwin I.                              1204-1205

  Henry                                   1205-1216

  Peter                                   1217-1219

  Robert                                  1219-1228

  John of Brienne                         1228-1237

  Baldwin II.                             1227-1361


  Theodore I. Lascaris                    1204-1222

  John III. Ducas                         1222-1254

  Theodore II. Ducas                      1254-1259

  John IV. Ducas                          1259-1260


  Michael VIII. Palaeologus               1260-1282

  Andronicus II. Palaeologus              1282-1328
    Co-Emperor Michael IX.                1295-1320

  Andronicus III. Palaeologus             1328-1341

  John V. Palaeologus                     1341-1391
    Co-Emperor John VI. Cantacuzene       1341-1355

  Manuel II. Palaeologus                  1391-1425

  John VII. Palaeologus                   1425-1448

  Constantine XII. Palaeologus            1448-1453


  Abaga, 274

  Achaia, 273

  Achilles, Abbot of the Studion, 40

  Achmed, Mongolian Khan, 274

  Achmed Pasha, 205

  Achmed III., Sultan, 276

  Achrida, 46

  Acre, 228

  Acritas, 39

  Adrianople. _See_ Gate

  Aecatherina, Empress, 47, 197, 295

  Aetius. _See_ Church, Cistern

  Agapetus, Pope, 184

  Agatha, 197

  Agathangelus, 302

  Agatho, Pope, 67

  Aivan Serai, 191, 207, 208, 209, 213

  Akoimeti, 36, 37

  Ak Serai. _See_ Forum of the Bous

  Alexander, bath of, 88

  Alexander, Patriarch, 85, 86

  Alexius, Patriarch, 43

  Alexius Strategopoulos, 228

  Ali Atik Mustapha Pasha, 304

  Alsace, 224, 226

  Alti Mermer. _See_ Exokionion

  Anastasia, daughter of Emperor Theophilus, 270

  Andrew of Crete, 108

  Andronicus Ducas, 295

  Andronicus, son of Manuel II., 229

  Anemodoulion, 245

  Anna Comnena, 147

  Anna Dalassena, 138, 139, 211, 212, 295, 297

  Anna, wife of Andronicus II., 141

  Anna of Savoy, wife of Andronicus III., 144, 303

  Anna, wife of John VII. Palaeologus, 128

  Anna, daughter of Emperor Theophilus, 270

  Anselm, Bishop of Havalsberg, 220

  Anthemius, 74

  Anthimus, Saint, 291, 294

  Antioch, 86, 290

  Antony, Patriarch, 43, 69

  Apocaucus, 144, 145

  Aqueduct of Valens, 183, 184.

  Arian, Arius, 85, 86

  Armenia, Armenian, 10, 39, 258, 268

  Arsenius, Patriarch, 110, 111, 112

  Artavasdos, 293

  Asia Minor, 1

  Aspar. _See_ Cistern

  Athanasius, Patriarch, 232

  Athens, 258

  Athos, Mount, 116, 185, 230, 258, 290, 301, 303, 326

  Avars, 48, 232

  Avret Tash. _See_ Column of Arcadius

  Axuch, 221

  Azerbaijan, 148

  Babylas, Saint, 288, 294

  Bactagius, 293

  Baghdad, 69, 255, 272

  Bagtché Kapoussi. _See_ Gate of the Neorion

  Bajazet I., Sultan, 47

  Bajazet II., Sultan, 49, 276, 304. _See_ Mosque

  Balat, 148, 280

  Baldwin, Count, 214

  Baloukli. _See_ Pegé

  Baptistery of S. Sophia, 2, 78, 332

  Bara, monk, 282

  Bardas, Caesar, 44, 256, 270

  Basil, Saint, 41

  Belisarius, 67

  Bertha, wife of Manuel I. Comnenus,   222

  Beshiktash, 107

  Bithynia, 30, 89, 294

  Blachernae, district of, 106, 165, 191, 193, 209, 210, 213, 282.
   _See_ Palace

  Black Sea, 228, 272, 300

  Bogdan Serai. _See_ Church

  Bonus, 48

  Branas, 303

  Bucoleon. _See_ Harbour, Palace

  Buda, 280

  Bulgaria, Bulgarian, 257, 272, 295,   297

  Byzantium, 84

  Caesarea, 273

  Cana, 327

  Candidus, 192

  Cantacuzene, Michael, 280

  Capelli, 228

  Carbounaria, district of, 244, 245

  Cassandra, 230

  Chalcedon. _See_ Council

  Charabanda, 275

  Charisius, 290, 291. _See_ Gate

  Choirosphacta, 44

  Christoboulos, 276

  Christopher, son of Romanus I., 197

  Chrysocameron, 199

  Chrysostom, S. John, 91

  Church, Chapel, Monastery, of--

  _Note._--Under this head the references indicate only the passages in
  which a church is mentioned outside the special chapter devoted to it.

    S. Acacius, 199
    Acritas, 40
    Aetius, 255, 256, 259
    S. Anastasia Pharmacolytria, 243
    S. Anastasius, 184
    S. Andrew the Apostle, 109
    S. Andrew, near the Gate of Saturninus, 109
    S. Andrew 'God-Intoxicated,' 109
    S. Andrew in Krisei, 7, 8, 15, 30, 130, 150, 151, 186, 332, 333, 335,
    S. Andrew Strategos, 109
    S. Anthimus, 291, 294
    Apostles, Holy, 3, 64, 90, 123, 124, 146, 147, 168, 175, 176, 184, 219,
    Archangels, Sygè, 316
    S. Aristina, 106, 112
    Balaban Aga Mesjedi, 334, 335, 336
    Bogdan Serai, 10, 15, 23, 27, 28, 201, 282, 334, 335, 336
    Bosra, 70
    Cenopolis, 88
    Crimean Memorial Church, 281
    S. Constantine, 35
    S. Constanza, 1
    Daudatus, 183
    S. Demetrius, Salonica, 32, 53, 75, 222
    S. Demetrius, Kanabou, 148, 191, 192, 205
    Deré Aghsy, 5
    Dexiocrates, 165
    S. Diomed, 109
    S. Elias, Salonica, 10, 114, 116
    Etschmiadzin, 10
    Euphrosynè, Libadia, 270
    Forty Martyrs of Sebasté, 291, 294
    S. Fosca, Torcello, 247
    Gastria (Sanjakdar Mesjedi), 10, 24, 28, 107, 334, 335, 336
    S. George, Ezra, 78
    S. George, Genoa, 229
    S. George, Phanar, 149, 191
    S. George, Psamathia (Soulou Monastir), 106, 177, 268
    S. George, Salonica, 1
    Homonia, 88
    Hormisdas, 64, 68
    S. Ignatius, 294
    S. Irene, 11, 12, 15, 26, 53, 72, 84, 85, 333, 335, 336
    S. John the Baptist, Hebdomon, 283
    S. John the Baptist in Petra, 203, 255, 282
    S. John Baptist of the Studion, 2, 11, 12, 29, 31, 107, 256, 258, 268,
       303, 332, 335, 336
    S. John the Baptist in Trullo, 15, 16, 28, 147, 281, 334, 335, 336
    S. John Evangelist, Hebdomon, 297
    Kallou, 297
    Kefelé Mesjedi. _See_ Manuel
    S. Lorenzo, Milan, 78
    S. Luke, Stiris, 11, 16
    S. Mamas, 106, 107, 197
    Manoueliou, 254
    Manuel, 11, 28, 47, 64, 254, 334, 335
    SS. Manuel, Sabel, Ishmael, 253
    Mara, 255
    S. Mark's, Venice, 3, 13, 224, 238, 246, 247
    Kyra Martha, 123, 124, 128, 166, 167
    S. Martin's, London, 289
    S. Mary (Theotokos) of Blachernae, 193
    S. Mary, Curator, 265
    S. Mary Diaconissa, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 26, 30, 31, 32, 306, 310,
       333, 335, 336
    S. Mary Eleoussa, 240
    S. Mary Euergetes, 164, 165, 166, 167
    S. Mary Hodegetria, 227. _See_ Eikon
    S. Mary Koimesis, Nicaea, 7
    S. Mary Kosmosoteria, 296
    S. Mary of the Mongols, 10, 114, 116, 334, 335, 336
    S. Mary Pammakaristos, 7, 12, 14, 18, 20, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 129, 130,
       173, 175, 198, 201, 202, 205, 255, 281, 333, 335, 336
    S. Mary Panachrantos, of Lips, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 151, 152, 243,
       248, 333, 335, 336
    S. Mary Panachrantos, near S. Sophia, 123, 125, 126
    S. Mary, Pegé, 177
    S. Mary Peribleptos, 18, 35, 45, 50, 106, 177, 258, 268, 297
    S. Mary of Vlach Serai, 280
    S. Mary, Chapel, in SS. Sergius and Bacchus, 69, 70
    S. Mary, 55
    S. Michael the Archangel, 239, 291, 292, 294
    S. Mokius, 166
    Monastir Mesjedi, 10, 20, 262, 334, 335
    Myrelaion, 14, 17, 47, 129, 333, 334, 335, 336
    S. Nicholas, 207
    SS. Nicholas and Augustine, 281
    S. Nicholas, Methana, 278
    S. Nicholas, Myra, 6
    S. Paul, Rome, 289
    SS. Peter and Mark, 5, 9, 12, 13, 16, 27, 185, 186, 333, 335, 336
    SS. Peter and Paul, 63, 64, 65, 66, 191, 192
    Protaton, Mt. Athos, 185
    Saccudio, 38
    Sanjakdar Mesjedi. _See_ Gastria
    S. Saviour in the Chora, 10, 12, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31,
       32, 33, 36, 107, 153, 186, 236, 240, 255, 256, 332, 335, 336
    S. Saviour Euergetes, 1, 166, 167, 213
    S. Saviour Pantepoptes, 9, 14, 18, 29, 141, 295, 334, 335, 336
    S. Saviour Pantokrator, Mt. Athos, 290
    S. Saviour Pantokrator, Constantinople, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 25, 26,
       29, 31, 132, 153, 165, 166, 173, 215, 219, 244, 247, 270, 273, 295,
       334, 335, 336
    S. Saviour Philanthropos, 147, 148
    Sepulchre, Holy, 118, 265
    SS. Sergius and Bacchus, 2, 8, 11, 21, 23, 26, 30, 115, 332, 333, 335,
    S. Sophia, Constantinople, 2, 5, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27,
       29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 46, 47, 62, 63, 69, 71, 72, 74, 78, 84, 85,
       88, 89, 90, 91, 97, 102, 111, 112, 117, 118, 122, 123, 126, 145,
       146, 169, 175, 176, 185, 223, 227, 229, 231, 233, 243, 244, 293,
       305, 306, 313, 314, 315, 332, 333, 335
    S. Sophia, Kiev, 326
    S. Sophia, Monemvasia, 18
    S. Sophia, Salonica, 15, 102, 103, 310, 314, 315, 333
    Soulou Monastir. _See_ S. George, Psamathia
    S. Stephen, Triglia, 30
    S. Symeon Stylites, 63
    S. Thekla, 10, 28, 295, 334, 335, 336
    S. Theodore, Athens, 244
    S. Theodore the General, 244
    S. Theodore (Vefa Meidan), 9, 14, 17, 19, 29, 31, 50, 73, 155, 334, 335
    S. Theodore, Carbounaria, 244
    S. Theodore, district of Claudius, 244
    S. Theodore, in the Great Palace, 244
    S. Theodore, district of Sphorakius, 244
    S. Theodosia, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 27, 28, 30, 114,
       151, 156, 185, 186, 238, 283, 333, 334, 335, 336
    Valens and Daudatus, 183
    Vatopedi, 303
    S. Vitale, 70, 72, 73, 75, 78

  Cilicia, 221

  Cistercian Abbey, 224

    Aetius, 64, 255. _See_ Plate LXXVII. facing p. 262
    Aspar, 253, 254, 256, 257
    Bin-bin-derek (One Thousand and One Columns), 15
    Mokius, 109, 166
    Pulcheria, 131, 254
    Studion, 48, 50, 54. _See_ Plate X. facing p. 54

  Claudius, district of, 244

  Colosseum, 33

  Column of--
    Arcadius, 109
    Constantine the Great (Exokionion), 109

  Constantine Ducas, 44, 126

  Constantine Lips, 125, 126, 127

  Constantine, Nobilissimus, 44, 45

  Constantine Porphyrogenitus (son of Michael VIII.), 38, 110, 127

  Constantine, son of Romanus I., 197

  Constantine, Pope, 67

  Cosmas, Patriarchs, 140, 141, 142, 143, 297

    The Second Council, 87
    Chalcedon, 66
    Ferrara, 230
    Florence, 230
    First Concilium Trullanum, 67, 202, 293
    Second Concilium Trullanum (Quinisextum), 202

  Craterus, House of, 199

  Crete, 108

  Crusade, Fourth, 213, 224, 298

  Cucusus, 87

  Curator, district of, 264

  Dandolo, Henrico, 213

  Danube, 209

  Daphni, 258, 326

  Daphnusium, 228

  Dedeagatch, 296

  S. Demetrius, Eikon of, 222

  Denderis, 269

  Derè Aghsy, 4

  Dexiocrates, district of, 165

  Didymotica, 299

  Dionysius, Monk, 48

  Diplokionion, 107

  Edirnè Kapoussi. _See_ Gate of Charisius

  Egri Kapou, district of, 209

    Alexius I. Comnenus, 43, 146, 147, 211, 212, 220, 294, 295, 297, 335
    Alexius II. Comnenus, 223, 224
    Alexius V. Ducas Murtzuphlus, 213
    Anastasius I., 63, 282
    Andronicus I. Comnenus, 223, 224, 297
    Andronicus II. Palaeologus, 37, 109, 110, 111, 128, 140, 141, 142, 143,
      168, 230, 263, 275, 282, 299, 302, 303, 324
    Andronicus III. Palaeologus, 128, 141, 263, 275, 299, 303
    Baldwin I., 214
    Baldwin II., 227, 228
    Basil I., 68, 335
    Basil II., 43
    Basiliscus, 37, 88
    Charlemagne, 41
    Conrad of Germany, 222
    Constans, 87
    Constantine the Great, 1, 3, 84, 85, 101
    Constantine V. Copronymus, 38, 90, 101, 108, 196, 293
    Constantine VI., 38, 39, 41
    Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus, 44, 126, 197, 199, 247
    Constantine IX., 46
    Constantine Palaeologus or Dragases, 174, 176, 177, 230, 259, 260
    Constantius II., 85, 86
    Henry, 227
    Heraclius, 48, 292
    Isaac II. Angelus, 297, 303
    Isaac I. Comnenus, 37, 47, 197, 209, 210, 295
    John I. Zimisces, 303
    John II. Comnenus, 138, 210, 219, 220, 221, 239
    John V. Cantacuzene, 144, 229, 263, 297, 301, 302, 303
    John VI. Palaeologus, 144, 192, 229, 297, 302
    John VII. Palaeologus, 47, 128, 229, 230
    Justin I., 63, 64, 67
    Justinian I., the Great, 3, 37, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 73, 74, 75,
      89, 97, 101, 102, 103, 184, 254, 288, 290, 291, 292, 332, 333
    Justinian II., 67
    Leo I. Macellus, 265
    Leo III., the Isaurian, 89, 90, 101, 102, 164, 293
    Leo V., the Armenian, 39, 68, 294
    Leo VI., the Wise, 44, 90, 126, 247
    Leopold I. of Austria, 191
    Licinius, 246
    Lothair the Great, 220
    Manuel I. Comnenus, 85, 221, 222, 223
    Manuel II. Palaeologus, 47, 229
    Marcian, 36, 85
    Maurice, 184, 197
    Maximianus, 63, 246, 288
    Michael I., 39
    Michael II., 39, 68
    Michael III., 69, 256, 269, 294
    Michael V., 44, 45
    Michael VII., 46, 47, 257, 295, 297
    Michael VIII. Palaeologus, 47, 110, 127, 140, 228, 229, 272, 297, 298,
    Nicephorus Botoniates, 46, 297
    Nicephorus I., 39
    Philippicus, 293
    Phocas, 292
    Romanus I. Lecapenus, 90, 196, 197, 199, 257
    Romanus II., 197
    Romanus III. Argyrus, 257
    Theodore II. of Nicaea, 110
    Theodosius I., the Great, 87, 196
    Theodosius II., 36, 226
    Theophilus, 68, 69, 199, 209, 253, 255, 256, 257, 269, 270
    Valens, 183, 184
    Zeno, 37, 88

  Enos, 296

  Ephesus, 47, 143, 222

  Et Meidan, 244

  Etschmiadzin, 10

  Eubulus Hospice, 88

  Eudocia, 91, 227

  Eugenia, 230

  Euphrosyné, daughter of Michael VIII. Palaeologus, 272

  Euphrosyné, step-mother of Emperor Theophilus, 269

  Euphrosyné, 270

  Eusebius, Patriarch, 86

  Excubiti, 292

  Exokionion, 109

  Eyoub, 106, 208

  Ezra, 78

  Factions, 88

  Ferejik, 296

  Ferrara, 230

  Festus, 64

  Fifth Hill, 137

  Florence, 230

  Forum of--
    Bous, 164
    Constantine the Great, 85
    Philadelphium, 184
    Tarus, 184, 245, 265

  Fourth Hill, 244

  Gabalas, 144, 145

  Galata, 85, 107, 176, 228

  Galbius, 192

  Galla Placidia, 2

  Garsonostasion, 89

    Adrianople (Edirné Kapoussi), 253, 254
    Aurea. _See_ Golden Gate
    Aurea, Porta, Spalato, 33
    Aya Kapou. _See_ Gate of S. Theodosia
    Beautiful Gate of S. Sophia, 69
    Chalké (Bronze Gate), 164
    Charisius, 265, 290, 304, 305
    Dexiocrates, 165
    Edirné Kapoussi. _See_ Gate of Charisius
    Egri Kapou, 209
    Eugenius, 111, 254
    Golden Gate, 35, 109, 227
    Gyrolimné, 263
    Ispigas, 213
    Jubali Kapoussi, 213
    Koum Kapoussi, 62
    Narli Kapoussi, 36, 48
    Neorion, 254
    Pegé (Selivri Kapoussi), 106, 107, 228
    Royal Gates of S. Sophia, 69
    S. Romanus (Top Kapoussi), 262, 282
    Saturninus, 109
    Selivria. _See_ Pegé
    S. Theodosia (Aya Kapou), 164, 165, 212
    Tchatlady Kapou, 62, 223
    Xylokerkou, 107, 197
    Xyloporta, 205
    Yali Kiosk Kapoussi. _See_ Gate of Eugenius

  Gatulazzo, 229

  Gennadius, Patriarch, 146, 147, 158, 175, 201, 230, 231, 232

  Genoa, Genoese, 228, 254

  George Scholarius. _See_ Gennadius

  Georgia, 148

  Germanus, Patriarch, 293

  Giotto, 327

  Golden Horn, 91, 138, 146, 164, 166, 167, 191, 208, 209, 212, 213, 216,
    219, 254, 280, 281

  Goths, Gothic, 18, 29, 31, 34

  Grammarian. _See_ John the Grammarian

  Greece, 10, 11, 16

  Gregoras, 44

  Gregory of Nazianzus, 87

  Gregory, Patriarch, 112, 113

  Gregory, Pope, 298

  Halki, Island of, 138, 220, 240

    Bucoleon, 223
    Heptascalon, 199
    Hormisdas, 62

  Hassan Pasha, 173

  Hebdomon, 297

  Helena, Empress, 268

  Helena, wife of Constantine VII., 197

  Heraclea, 144, 300

  Hermogenes, 86

  Hippodrome, 62, 63, 256

  Hodegetria, Eikon of, 47, 227, 303

  Holagu, 273, 274

  Holy Well of Blachernae, 193

  Holy Well of S. Nicholas, 207

  Hormisdas, district of, 62. _See_ Harbour

  Hormisdas, Pope, 64, 291

  Horreum, 199

  Humbert, Cardinal, 46

  Hylilas, John. _See_ John the Grammarian

  Ignatius, Patriarch, 90

  Irene, Empress (mother of Constantine VI.), 38

  Irene, daughter of Bardas, 270

  Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I. Comnenus, 295, 297

  Irene, wife of John II. Comnenus, 139, 219, 221, 239

  Irene, wife of Andronicus II., 229

  Irene, wife of Andronicus III., 128

  Irene, wife of Manuel II., 230

  Isaac, son of John II. Comnenus, 221

  Isaac Sebastocrator, 295, 296, 297, 310

  Isaac Palaeologus Asanes, 275

  Isidore, Cardinal, 231

  Ispigas. _See_ Gate

  Janissaries, 91

  Jannes, 68

  Jerusalem, 265, 268

  John Comnenus, Curopalates and Grand Domestic, 138, 139

  John the Grammarian, Patriarch, 68, 69

  Joseph, Abbot of S. Saviour Pantokrator, 222

  Joseph, Bishop of Thessalonica, 39, 40, 43

  Joseph, Patriarch, 230

  Jubali Kapoussi. _See_ Gate

  Julius VIII., Pope, 68

  Juma Bazaar, 106

  Kadikeui, 64

  Kaffa, 258

  Kalat-Semân, 63

  Kan Kilissi. _See_ Church of S. Mary of the Mongols

  Kasr ibn Wardan, 4

  Kerularios, Patriarch, 46

  Kesmé Kaya, 203, 280, 282

  Khaled, 207

  Kiev, 231, 326

  Kraal of Servia, 142, 143

  Krisis, district, 6, 108

  Kusr en Nûeijîs, 2

  Kynegion, 293

  Kyriakos, Patriarch, 184

  Kyros, Patriarch, 293

  Kyzlar Aghassi Hamam, Bath of, 199

  Ladislas, King of Hungary, 219

  Lascaris, John, 110

  Latin, 38

  Laura, Mount Athos, 258

  S. Laurentius, 65

  Lecanomantis, 68

  Leomacellum, 244

  Libadia, 270

  Longophetes, Teutal, 280

  Lovitz, 210

  S. Luke, 227

  Lycus, 122, 126, 244

  Macarius, 230

  Macedonius, Patriarch, 86, 87

  Mahomet, 208

  Maimas, 199

  Makrikeui, 283, 297

  S. Mamas, suburb of. _See_ Church

  Manuel, General, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257

  Maria, wife of Constantine VI., 38

  Maria, wife of John VII. Palaeologus, 230

  Maria Despoina of the Mongols, 229, 272, 273, 274, 275

  Maria Ducaena, 295, 326

  Maria Palaeologina, wife of Michael Ducas Glabas Tarchaniotes, 140

  Maria, daughter of Isaac I. Comnenus, 197

  Maritza, 296

  S. Mark, Evangelist, 246

  Marmora, Island of, 73

  Marmora, Sea of, 36, 48, 62, 138, 146, 196, 224, 283

  Maroulas, Phocas, 262, 263

  Martin V., Pope, 230

  Martin, Abbot, 224, 225, 226

  Mecca, 113

  Mehemed I., Sultan, 145

  Mehemed the Conqueror, Sultan, 158, 175, 214, 232, 276, 277, 304

  Menodora, 262

  Methodius, Patriarch, 294

  Metrodora, 262

  Michael Glabas Tarchaniotes, 139, 140, 141, 155, 156, 157, 158

  Michael Palaeologus Tarchaniotes, 140

  Michael, Syncellus, 294, 326

  Milan, 78, 118

  Milion, 293

  Minerva Medica, Temple, 1

  Mistra, 326

  Modius, 199

  Moldavia, 203, 280, 281

  Monemvasia, 16

  Monferrat, Marquis of, 229

  Mongols, Mongolian, 272, 274, 275, 334, 335

  Moses, 68

  Mosque, Achmed Pasha Mesjedi. _See_ S. John in Trullo
    Aivas Effendi, 209

  Mosque, Atik Mustapha Pasha Jamissi. _See_ S. Andrew in Krisei
    Atik Mustapha Pasha. _See_ Church of SS. Peter and Mark
    Balaban Aga Mesjedi. _See_ Church
    Boudrom Jamissi. _See_ Myrelaion
    Demirjilar Mesjedi, 122
    Emir Ahor Jamissi. _See_ Studion
    Eski Imaret Jamissi. _See_ Church of the Pantepoptes
    Eski Jumah, Salonica, 53
    Eyoub, 208
    Fetiyeh. _See_ Church of the Pammakaristos
    Gul Jamissi. _See_ Church of S. Theodosia
    Hassan Pasha Mesjedi. _See_ Church of S. Theodosia
    Hoja Mustapha Pasha Mesjedi. _See_ Church of S. Andrew in Krisei
    Kalender Haneh Jamissi. _See_ S. Mary Diaconissa
    Kahriyeh Jamissi. _See_ Church of S. Saviour in the Chora
    Kassim Aga Mesjedi, 255
    Kefelé Mesjedi. _See_ Monastery of Manuel
    Kurku Jamissi, 263
    Kutchuk Aya Sofia. _See_ Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus
    Laleli Jamissi, 173
    Monastir Mesjedi. _See_ Church
    Odalar Mesjedi, 253
    Pheneré Isa Mesjedi. _See_ S. Mary Panachrantos
    Rustem Pasha Jamissi, 27
    Sanjakdar Mesjedi. _See_ Gastria
    Shahzadé Jamissi, 27, 183, 184, 199, 265
    Sultan Bajazid, 27, 116, 117, 265
    Sultan Mehemed the Conqueror, 122, 125, 265
    Sultan Selim I., 27, 253, 254
    Sultan Suleiman, 27
    Sheik Suleiman Aga Mesjedi, 25, 270
    Toklou Dedè. _See_ Church of S. Thekla
    Zeirek Kilissi Jamissi. _See_ Church of the Pantokrator

  Mousikos, 44

  Murad II., Sultan, 146

  Murad III., Sultan, 148

  Musmiyeh, 2

  Mustapha Pasha, 113

  Mustapha Tchaoush, 262

  Mutasim, Caliph, 256

  Myra, 6

  Muzalon, 110

  Naucratius, Abbot of the Studion, 40

  Nestorius, Patriarch, 66

  Nicaea, 7, 89, 110, 275

  Nicene Creed, 85, 87

  Nicephoras Gregoras, historian, 300, 301, 302

  Nicetas, Eunuch, 199

  Nicetas Stethetos, 46

  Nicholas, Abbot of the Studion, 40

  Nicholas, Patriarch, 90

  Nicomedia, 86, 288, 291

  Nika Riot, 63, 88, 101

  Niphon, Bishop of Old Patras, 144

  Niphon, Patriarch, 111

  Nogaya, 272

  Nymphodora, 262

  Oaton, 202

  Olympus, Mount, 294

  Othman, 275

  Oun Kapan, 219

  Padua, 326, 327

  Palace of--
    Blachernae, 202, 209, 227, 228, 263, 282, 295, 298
    Bogdan Serai, 203
    Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 19, 27, 247, 256, 299, 305
    Great Palace, 48, 64, 90, 164, 184, 201, 227, 228, 244
    Hebdomon, 202
    Hormisdas, 62, 65
    Magnaura, 202
    Mangana, 147
    Myrelaion, 196
    Nicaea, 202
    Pegé, 46
    Placidiae Augustae, 67
    Placidianum, 67
    Tekfour Serai. _See_ Palace of Constantine Porphyrogenitus
    Trullus, 202, 281

  Palestine, 2, 268, 294

  Palmyra, 3

  Pantheon, 1

  Parisis, 224, 226

  Paphlagonia, 223

  Patras, Old, 144

  Paul, Patriarch, 86, 87

  Pegé, 46, 177

  Pelagion, 293

  Peloponessus, 229, 273

  Perama, 85

  Perigord, 3

  Persia, Persians, 48, 232, 272, 275, 290

  Petra, Palaia Petra, 282, 283

  Petronas, 270

  Phanar, 149, 173, 191, 253, 272

  Philip, the Apostle, 126

  Philip, Prefect, 87

  Phocas Maroules, 262, 263

  Photius, Patriarch, 43, 44, 90, 257

  Piazzetta of S. Mark, 246

  Plato, Abbot, 39, 40

  Porphyrius, charioteer, 91

  Praetorium, at Musmiyeh, 2

  Praetorium, 88

  Prince's Islands, 138

  Prinkipo, 39

  Priscus, 292

  Proconessus, Island of, 111

  Proté, Island of, 197

  Prussianus, 257

  Psamathia, 35, 106, 166, 167, 177, 258, 268

  Pulcheria, Empress, 227

  Pulcheria, daughter of Emperor Theophilus, 269, 270

  Pulcheria. _See_ Cistern

  Pyrisca, 220

  Raoul, Protovestarius, 110

  Raoulaina, Protovestiarissa, 110. _See_ Theodora

  Raoul, 280

  Ravenna, 2, 31, 32, 73, 75

  Region I., 67

  Region VII., 85

  Rome, 1, 33, 34, 289

  Rufinianai, 64

  Russia, Russian, 40, 42, 48, 53, 272, 280, 303

  Sabbas, 303

  Salma Tomruk, district of, 253

  Salonica, 1, 10, 15, 31, 32, 39, 53, 75, 92, 114, 116, 142, 312, 313,
    314, 315, 333

  Sampson, hospital of, 88, 89

  Samuel, King of Bulgaria, 295

  Sanjakdar Youkoussou, 277

  Santabarenus, 44

  Saracens, 207, 208, 232, 253, 255, 303

  Saturninus. _See_ Gate

  Scholarius. _See_ Gennadius

  Scythicus, 299

  Sebasté, 291

  Selim I., Sultan, 113, 276

  Selim II., Sultan, 173

  Seraglio, 84, 91, 148, 296

  Sergius, Patriarch, 257

  Servia, 10, 272

  Seventh Hill. _See_ Xerolophos

  Sigma, 45

  Simonis, daughter of Andronicus II., 142

  Sirkiji Iskelessi, 35

  Sixth Hill, 209

  Sklerena, 46

  Sophiai, 64

  Sophronius, Abbot of the Studion, 40

  Soulou Monastir. _See_ S. Mary Peribleptos

  Sozopolis, 144

  Spalato, 33

  Sphorakius, 243, 244

  Stephen, son of Romanus I., 197

  Strategopoulos, Alexius, 228

  Stiris, 11, 16

  Studius, 35, 36

  Suleiman, Sultan, 280

  Sygé, 316

  Sykai, 85

  Symeon, King of Bulgaria, 127

  Synadenus, 263

  Synnada, 72

  Synod of Constantinople (in 536), 291

  Synod of Constantinople (under Photius), 257

  Synod of Sardica (in 347), 87

  Syria, Syrian, 1, 2, 86, 290, 291, 326

  Tamerlane, 51

  Tarchaniotes. _See_ Michael

  Taron, Prince of, 126

  Tash Mektep, 262

  Taurus Mountains, 221

  Tchoukour Bostan, 109, 254

  Tekfour Sarai. _See_ Palace

  Teutal Lougophetes, 280

  Thebes, Duchy of, 272

  Thekla, daughter of Emperor Theophilus, 209, 270

  Theoctista, 269, 270

  Theoctistos, 256, 270

    Empress   of Justinian the Great, 62, 70, 73, 74, 75, 97, 102, 290
    Empress of Emperor Theophilus, 40, 69, 255, 256, 269, 270, 294
    Empress of Michael VIII. Palaeologus, 127
    wife of Romanus I. Lecapenus, 197
    Protovestiarissa, 110, 111, 112, 113
    nun, 275

    Abbot of S. Saviour in the Chora, 290, 291, 292
    Abbot of the Studion, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43
    son of Manuel II., 229

  Theodore Metochites, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301

  Theodosia, Saint, 164

  Theodosius, Abbot of the Studion, 40

  Theodosius de Villehardouin, Abbot of the Pantokrator, 229, 273

  Theodote, 38, 39

  Theognosia, 113

  Theophane, 117

  Theophanes, Bishop of Heraclea, 144

  Theophano, wife of Romanus II. and Nicephorus Phocas, 197

  Third Hill, 243, 244

  Thomais, nun, 128

  Thrace, 86, 89

  Timotheus, 40

  Timovo, 298

  Tivoli, 63

  Toklou Dedè. _See_ Church of S. Thekla

  Top Kapou. _See_ Gate S. Romanus

  Torcello, 247

  Tornikes, 239, 302, 303, 310, 330

  Trani, 46

  Trebizond, 229, 272

  Tricocca, 275

  Triglia, 30

  Trivulce, 118

  Trullus. _See_ Council, Palace

  Turks, 275, 283

  Varangians, 46

  Vatopedi, 303

  Veecus, Patriarch, 112, 122, 125, 126, 229, 297

  Vefa Meidan, 177, 243, 244, 245

  Venetian, 213, 214, 227, 228

  Venice, 3, 224, 226, 227, 228, 238, 246

  Verina, Empress, 265

  Vienna, 280

  Vigilius, Pope, 66, 67

  Villehardouin, 297

  Viros, 296, 297

  Vlach Serai, 280

  Vlanga, 196

  Wallachian, 280

  Wall of Constantine, 109

  Wall of Heraclius, 207, 208

  Wall of Leo, 207, 208

  Walls of Theodosius II., 289, 290

  War Office, 244, 265

  Xené, 220

  Xerolophos, 108, 109

  Yali Kiosk Kapoussi. _See_ Gate of Eugenius

  Yedi Koulé. _See_ Golden Gate

  Yolande, 229

  Zeirek Mehemed Effendi, 233

  Zinet, 144, 145

    Empress of Leo VI., 90
    Empress, daughter of Constantine VIII., 44


_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, Limited, _Edinburgh_.

[Transcriber's note: * is used around words to mark bold text.]

*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Byzantine Churches in Constantinople - Their History and Architecture" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.