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: Megale 'Ekklesia], 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]



On Good Friday the patriarch held a service for catechumens ([Greek: katechesis]) in S. Irene, which the patricians were required to attend.[140]

The church of S. Irene has never been used as a mosque. After its enclosure within the precincts of the Seraglio soon after the Turkish conquest, it was converted into an armoury, probably because it stood in the court occupied by the body of Janissaries who formed the palace guard, and it has served that military purpose, in contradiction to its name, for the most part ever since. For several years it contained the first collection of antiquities made by the Turkish Government, and some of the objects in that collection still remain to recall the use of the building as a museum; the most interesting of them being the chain stretched across the mouth of the Golden Horn during the siege of 1453, the monument to the charioteer Porphyrios, and the pedestal of the silver statue of the Empress Eudocia, which played a fatal part in the relations of that empress to the great bishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom. Since the establishment of the constitutional regime 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 Baudenkmaeler von Konstantinopel is marred by serious mistakes. Happily the new Government of the Empire is animated by an enlightened and liberal spirit, and at the request of His Excellency Sir Gerard Lowther, H.B.M. Ambassador to the Sublime Porte, permission was granted to the Byzantine Research and Publication Fund to have the church examined as thoroughly as its condition allowed, and to make all the plans, drawings, and photographs required in the interests of a scientific knowledge of its architectural character. The Byzantine Research and Publication Fund was fortunate in having as its president, Edwin Freshfield, LL.D., so long distinguished for his devotion to Byzantine archaeology, and it is mainly due to his generosity that the means necessary for carrying on the study of the church were provided. The society was, moreover, most happy in being able to secure the services of an architect in Mr. W. S. George, who already possessed considerable experience in the investigation of Byzantine buildings at Salonica and elsewhere. Fortunately, also, the building was at the same time placed under repair, in view of its conversion into a museum of arms, thus affording exceptional facilities for the erection of scaffolding and the removal of plaster and other obstructions. Mr. George gave nearly five months to the study of the church, and the results of his careful investigations will appear in a monograph to be published by the Byzantine Research and Publication Fund. But with great courtesy, in view of the fact that I was engaged on the present work, and also because I waived my own application for leave to study S. Irene in favour of the application made by the Byzantine Fund, I have been allowed to anticipate that monograph by making use of some of the results of Mr. George's investigations. For this permission I am very grateful, as it will add much to the value of this volume. I visited the church frequently while Mr. George was at work upon it, and my account of its architectural features is based entirely upon the information he then kindly supplied, and upon the notes he has communicated to me since his return to England.



The architectural feature which gives to this building a peculiar interest, in the study of the development of planning and construction, is the more complete fusion of the basilican type of plan with a domical system of roofing which it presents than is found in any other example of a similar combination.

On the west, where the ground retains its original level, stands the old atrium, though much modified by Turkish repairs and alterations. It had covered arcades on the north, south, and west sides, but only the outer walls of the northern and southern arcades, with some portions of their inner walls, and three complete vaulted bays at the northern end of the western arcade, are Byzantine. The walls, vaults, and piers in other parts of the arcades are Turkish. There is no trace of the west door which, under ordinary circumstances, would form the main entrance to the atrium, but a Byzantine doorway, now built up, is found close to the narthex, in the outer wall of the south arcade. The area of the atrium has been, moreover, greatly reduced by the erection, on its four sides, of an inner range of Turkish vaulting.

Five doors led from the atrium to the narthex, but only the central and the northernmost of these doors are now open, the latter entrance still retaining its original architrave and cornice of white marble, with the usual mouldings and a cross worked on the crowning member of the cornice. The present entrance to the church, however, is on the north side of the building, through a porch that leads down a sloping Turkish passage to the western end of the north aisle.

The narthex is in five bays, the two terminal bays having cross-groined vaults, the three central, vaults of a domical character with blunt rounded groins at the springing. The whole vaulting surface of the narthex was once covered with mosaics exhibiting mainly a geometrical pattern.

From the narthex three tall arched openings conducted to the nave, and one opening to each aisle. But the direct communication between the narthex and the northern aisle is now cut off by the insertion of the Turkish entrance to the church, although the old doorway to the aisle remains complete.

The nave is divided into two large bays of equal breadth but unequal length, the western bay being the shorter. In the latter the arches which support its roof are, to the east and west, semicircular, while those to north and south are roughly elliptical, springing from the same level and rising to the same height as the semicircular arches, but being of shorter span. These elliptical arches extend to the outer walls of the church, thus partaking of the character of short barrel vaults.

Upon these arches is raised what has been called an elliptical dome. But in no part has it the character of a true ellipse, nor does it spring from its supporting arches in the simple regular manner of a dome, but in the complex manner of a vault built upon arches of unequal curvature. It should therefore rather be called a domical vault. Where it shows above the roof it has the appearance of a modified and very low cone covering an irregular elliptical drum.

The eastern bay of the nave is square on plan, bounded by semicircular arches, all extended so as to form short barrel vaults. The western arch is joined to the eastern arch of the western bay, thus forming a short barrel vault common to both bays. The vault to the east runs to the semi-dome of the apse; whilst the vaults to north and south, like the corresponding vaults in the western bay, extend to the outer walls and cover the eastern portions of the aisles and galleries. Above the supporting arches regular pendentives are formed, and above these there is a drum carrying a dome. The apse to the east of the nave is semicircular within and covered by a semi-dome.

Between that semi-dome and the eastern barrel vault of the nave a break is interposed, giving the bema arch two orders or faces, with their external and internal angles rounded off, and the whole surface of the semi-dome and of the bema arch is covered with mosaic. At one time the mosaic extended also over the surface of the barrel vault. The decoration in the semi-dome consists of a large cross in black outline upon a gold ground; below the cross there are three steps set upon a double band of green that runs round the base of the semi-dome. A geometrical border bounds the semi-dome, and then comes the following inscription, an extract from Psalm lxv. verses 5, 6 (the lxiv. in the Septuagint version), on the inner face of the arch:

[Greek: (DEUT EI)SOMETHA EN TOIS AGATHOIS TOU OIKOU SOU, HAGIOS O NAOS SOU THAUMASTOS EN DIKAIOSYNE EPAKOUSON HEMON O TH[EO]S O S[OT]ER HEMON HE ELPIS PANTON TON PERATON TES GES KAI TON EN THALASSE MAK(RA)[N]].

(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: plesthesometha] in the original text. 'We shall be filled with the goodness (or the good things) of thy house.'

Three other geometrical patterns in mosaic succeed, after which follows a broad wreath of foliage on the outer face of the bema arch and the words:

[Greek:(HO O)IKODOMON EIS T(ON OIKON SOU KAI) ANABASIN AUTOU, KAI TEN EPANGELIAN (TOU HAGIOU PNEUMATOS EU HEMAS ELPEISAMEN EIS TO O)NOMA A(UTOU)].

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 oikodomon eis ton ouranon anabasin autou kai ten epangelian autou epi tes ges themelion].

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

The words, [Greek: elpeisamen 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 Soter hemon, he elpis panton ton peraton tes ges, epakouson hemon ton hamartolon deomenon sou kai katapempson to panagion sou Pneuma to proskyneton 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.



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.



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.



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

The buttresses to the apse where it joins the main eastern wall are later additions, and still later, but before Turkish times, are the short walls at the north and south-eastern corners forming the small eastern chambers.

Of the building erected by Constantine the Great the only possible vestige is the square projection at the north-eastern angle of the apse, but that is an opinion upon which much stress should not be laid.

In harmony with these conclusions is the evidence afforded by the mosaics found in the church. Those of the narthex are of the same character as the mosaics in S. Sophia, Constantinople, and may well have been executed under Justinian. On the other hand, the mosaics in the apse are characteristic of the iconoclastic period, the chief decoration there being a simple cross. For, as 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.



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.











[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: he deutera en Kplei en to nao tes agias Eirenes].

[129] Theodore Lector, ed. Valesius (1748), p. 533. Eutychius afflicted by the divine anger went [Greek: en to euagei eukterio entha pepisteutai anapauesthai meros hieron leipsanon ton thespesion Pantaleontos kai Marinou, epikaloumenou tou topou Homonoia ek tou ekei sunelthontas tous hekaton pentekonta episkopous epi Theodosiou tou megalou basileos]. The passage is preserved in John Damascene, De imaginibus, book iii.

[130] Notitia, Regio nona, 'continet in se ecclesias duas, Cenopolim et Omonaeam.'

[131] Banduri, ii. p. 25.

[132] Ad annum 478.

[133] Procop. De aed. i. c. 2; Pasch. Chron. p. 622.

[134] For this information I am indebted to Mr. W. S. George.

[135] Theoph. p. 371.

[136] Patr. Nicephorus, in Breviario.

[137] Theoph. p. 634.

[138] Mansi, xv. 211; xvi. p. 18. See Basile I. par Albert Vogt, p. 206.

[139] Const. Porphyr. De cer. p. 186; Cedren. ii. pp. 265, 275, 297. Readers of Russian are referred to D. Belaev. 'The Church of S. Irene and the Earthquake in C.P. 28 June 1894,' Vizantisky Vreinennik, i., St. Petersburg, 1894, parts iii.-iv. section iii. pp. 769-798, and the article by the same author on the 'Interior and Exterior View of S. Irene' in the same periodical, 1895, parts i, ii. section i. pp. 177-183. For the references to these articles I am indebted to Mr. Norman E. Baynes, one of our younger Byzantine scholars.

[140] Const. Porphyr. De Cer. p. 179.

[141] Only some of the accents are indicated in the transcription.

[142] These openings are now covered with Turkish wooden staging, and the passage is therefore quite dark.

[143] History of the Byzantine Empire, p. 34, Everyman Edition.



CHAPTER V

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

That the old Byzantine church now converted into the mosque styled Hoja Mustapha Pasha Mesjedi, in the quarter of Juma Bazaar, at a short distance to the east of the Gate of Selivria was the church of S. Andrew in Krisei ([Greek: Mone 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.



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 eponomazeto 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 century.[152]



NOTE

One of these churches was dedicated to S. Andrew the Apostle, and stood 'near the column,' [Greek: plesion tou stylou];[153] the other to S. Andrew, not otherwise identified, was near the Gate of Saturninus, [Greek: plesion tes 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 Koule), 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: he Rhaoulaina protobestiarissa]). 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.



To heal the schism caused by the attitude of the Arsenites 'was the serious labour of the Church and State' for half a century. And in pursuance of the policy of conciliation, Andronicus II. allowed the body of Arsenius to be brought to Constantinople from the island of Proconessus, where he had died in exile and been buried. The whole city gathered to welcome the remains of the venerated prelate, and saw them borne in solemn and stately procession from the landing at the Gate of Eugenius (Yali Kiosk) to the church of S. Sophia. There, robed in pontifical vestments, the body was first seated upon the patriarchal throne, then laid before the altar, while the funeral service was intoned, and finally placed on the right hand of the bema in a chest locked and sealed for safe keeping. Once a week, however, the body was exposed to public view, and all strife seemed hushed in a common devotion to the memory of the saint. It was soon after this event that Theodora restored the church and monastery of S. Andrew, and upon the completion of the work she besought the emperor to allow the remains of Arsenius to be transferred to that shrine. The request was granted, and the body was carried to the church of St. Andrew with as great pomp and ceremony as attended its arrival in the capital. There it was kept until the patriarchate of Niphon (1311-1314), when it was again taken to S. Sophia to appear in the final conclusion of peace between the friends and foes of the deceased.[163] Standing beside the remains, Niphon pronounced, in the name and by the authority of the dead man, a general absolution for all offences committed in connection with the quarrels which had raged around the name of Arsenius; and so long as S. Sophia continued to be a Christian sanctuary the remains were counted among the great treasures of the cathedral. 'There,' to quote the words of a devout visitor shortly before the Turkish conquest, 'is found the body of the holy patriarch Arsenius, whose body, still intact, performs many miracles.'[164]

During the closing years of her life Theodora made the monastery or convent of S. Andrew in Krisei her home.[165] To retire thus from the troubled sea of secular life to the haven of a monastery, and there prepare for the voyage beyond earthly scenes, was a common practice in the fashionable world of the men and women of Byzantine days. And it was natural for a wealthy traveller to leave at the port of call some splendid token of devotion and gratitude. The protovestiarissa was still an inmate of the monastery in 1289, when her friend the Patriarch Gregory, to whom she was bound by many ties, was compelled to resign.[166] He was one of the most learned men of his time and took an active part in the efforts to reconcile the Arsenites. It was during his tenure of office that the body of Arsenius was brought to the capital, and subsequently transferred from S. Sophia to the church of S. Andrew; he also opposed the union of the Churches, and in the controversy regarding the 'Procession of the Holy Ghost' which divided Christendom, he vigorously defended the doctrine of the Greek Communion against Veccus, who championed the Latin Creed.

Strongly attached to her friends, and quick to resent any injustice to them, Theodora came forward in the hour of the patriarch's disgrace and offered him a refuge in the monastery of Aristina, which stood, as we have seen, near the church of S. Andrew and in the immediate neighbourhood of her own residence.[167] It was a fortunate arrangement, for Gregory soon fell seriously ill and required all the sympathy and generous kindness which Theodora was able to extend to him.[168] Upon his death, ten short months after his retirement, Theodora determined to show again her admiration for the man and his work by honouring his memory with a funeral befitting the position he had held in the Church. She was prevented from carrying out her intention only by the peremptory and reiterated commands of the emperor, that Gregory should be buried as a private person.[169]



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 Teke 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 Teke. 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.



The two outer bays are separated from the central compartment of three bays by strongly projecting pilasters. They are covered by low saucer domes similar to the dome over the central bay, and communicate on the east with the 'aisles.' Both outer and inner narthexes are in one story, above which rise the windows of the western dome arch and the semi-domes on north and south.

Turning now to the exterior, the south wall is the only outer wall which is exposed at the ground level. It is faced with finely dressed and polished stone, with thin joints, no tiles, and a stone-moulded cornice. The windows are covered with four centred Turkish arches and are evident insertions. Above the stone cornice rise the low drums of the semi-domes. These, as well as the square base of the dome and the dome itself, are faced with polished stone alternating with courses of three bricks set in thick beds of mortar. The angles are plain, without shafts, and the drums, dome base, and dome are crowned with stone cornices moulded to a reversed ogee.

The north and south semi-domes are each pierced by three large windows, which on the interior cut through the curved surface of the domes, and on the exterior appear as dormers in the roof above the cornice. Accordingly they are double glazed, with one glazed frame on the inside corresponding to the curved dome surface, and a second upright glazed frame on the outside. The roofs are covered with lead.

The central dome is circular inside, with a high drum pierced by eight windows. On the outside it is octagonal, with a window on each side. These have circular arched heads, but have no moulding, shaft, or inset to either arches or sides. The dome is crowned by a moulded stone cornice of the same type as that of the other walls.

In attempting to reconstruct the original form of the church we may first note those features which are evidently Turkish. None of the exterior masonry is Byzantine, as the use of polished ashlar with fine joints, of pointed arches, and of moulded stone cornices clearly proves. The absence of shafts at the angles of the dome drums and the unrecessed windows are additional proofs of this fact, and we may conclude that the entire exterior was refaced in Turkish times.

The diagonal arches under the north and south semi-domes are peculiar. Furthermore, in lobed Byzantine churches the lateral apses project beyond the square outer walls. Here they are contained within the walls.[177]

Nor are the semi-domes themselves Byzantine in character. The large windows in the dome surface and the lead-covered dormers placed above the flat moulded cornice betray a Turkish hand; for windows in the dome are universal in the great Turkish mosques, and the method of protecting them on the exterior with wooden dormers is quite foreign to Byzantine ideas. The form of the drums and cornices should be compared with the minor domes of the mosque of Sultan Bayazid.

A careful examination of the building has led to the following conclusions. The lateral semi-domes with their supporting arches are a Turkish addition. The central dome, including the drum, is probably entirely Turkish, and takes the place of an original ribbed dome. The two easternmost domes in the north 'aisle' and those over the inner narthex and the prothesis are also Turkish, and, as already stated, the exterior of the entire building. On the other hand, the eastern apse, the dome arches, the arcade, and the windows above it on the west side of the dome, the inner narthex with the ground vault to the south of it, and the entire outer narthex, are parts of the original building, dating probably from the sixth or seventh century. It should be particularly noticed that the windows over the western dome arcade are circular-headed inside, though they have been provided with pointed heads on the outside in the process of refacing.



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 Teke 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: he tes Theophanes] (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]











[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 Pere J. Pargoire in his masterly article on the 'Suburb and the Churches of S. Mamas,' published in the Proceedings of the Institut archeologique russe a 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. Pere 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. Itineraires 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 Pere 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 Mueller, 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.



CHAPTER VI

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

The old Byzantine church, now Phenere 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, Phenere 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, Phenere 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]



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.



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: plesion ton hagion apostolon]). 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. Phenere[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 Apotres 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 Phenere 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 Phenere Isa Mesjedi is situated to-day; [Greek: pros ta tou Liba mere, topon apokismenon kai hesychon].[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 Phenere 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 Phenere 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 Phenere 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 Phenere 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.



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 Phenere Isa, who died in 1496, and has undergone serious alterations since that time.[214]



Architectural Features

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

The North Church.—The north church is of the normal 'four column' type. The four columns which originally supported the dome were, however, removed when the building was converted into a mosque in Turkish times, and have been replaced by two large pointed arches which span the entire length of the church. But the old wall arches of the dome-columns are still visible as arched piercings in the spandrils of the Turkish arches. A similar Turkish 'improvement' in the substitution of an arch for the original pair of columns is found in the north side of the parecclesion attached to the Pammakaristos (p. 152). The dome with its eight windows is likewise Turkish. The windows are lintelled and the cornice is of the typical Turkish form. The bema is almost square and is covered by a barrel vault formed by a prolongation of the eastern dome arch; the apse is lighted by a lofty triple window. By what is an exceptional arrangement, the lateral chapels are as lofty both on the interior and on the exterior as is the central apse, but they are entered by low doors. In the normal arrangement, as, for instance, in the Myrelaion, the lateral chapels are low and are entered by vaults rising to the same height as those of the angle chambers, between which the central apse rises higher both externally and internally.

The chapels have niches arched above the cornice on three sides, and are covered by cross-groined vaults which combine with the semicircular heads of the niches to produce a very beautiful effect. To the east they have long bema arches flanked by two small semicircular niches, and are lighted by small single windows.

The church is preceded by a narthex in three bays covered by cross-groined vaults supported on strong transverse arches. At either end it terminates in a large semicircular niche. The northern one is intact, but of the southern niche only the arched head remains. The lower part of the niche has been cut away to afford access to the narthex of the south church. This would suggest that, at least, the narthex of the south church is of later date than the north church.

Considered as a whole the north church is a good example of its type, lofty and delicate in its proportions.

The South Church.—The narthex is unsymmetrical to the church and in its present form must be the result of extensive alteration. It is in two very dissimilar bays. That to the north is covered with a cross-groined vault of lath and plaster, probably on the model of an original vault constructed of brick. A door in the eastern wall leads to the north aisle of the church. The southern bay is separated from its companion by a broad arch. It is an oblong chamber reduced to a figure approaching a square by throwing broad arches across its ends and setting back the wall arches from the cornice. This arrangement allows the bay to be covered by a low drumless dome. Two openings, separated by a pier, lead respectively to the nave and the southern aisle of the church.

The interior of the church has undergone serious alterations since it has become a mosque, but enough of the original building has survived to show that the plan was that of an 'ambulatory church.'

Each side of the ambulatory is divided into three bays, covered with cross-groined vaults whose springings to the central area correspond exactly to the columns of such an arcade as that which occupies the west dome bay of S. Andrew (p. 114). We may therefore safely assume that triple arcades originally separated the ambulatory from the central area and filled in the lower part of the dome arches. The tympana of these arches above were pierced to north, south, and west by three windows now built up but whose outlines are still visible beneath the whitewash which has been daubed over them. The angles of the ambulatory are covered by cross vaults.

The pointed arches at present opening from the ambulatory to the central area were formed to make the church more suitable for Moslem worship, as were those of the north church. In fact we have here a repetition of the treatment of the Pammakaristos (p. 151), when converted into a mosque. The use of cross-groined vaults in the ambulatory is a feature which distinguishes this church from the other ambulatory churches of Constantinople and connects it more closely with the domed-cross church. The vaults in the northern portion of the ambulatory have been partially defaced in the course of Turkish repairs.



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.



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.



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.







[179] Ancient and Modern C.P. pp. 70, 79.

[180] Pp. 322, 325.

[181] To Muehlmann and Mordtmann, Esq. top. paragraph 127, belongs the credit of the identification of Phenere 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: Merdosagare], Leo Gramm. p. 280.

[196] Theoph. Cont. p. 371.

[197] See inscription, p. 131.

[198] Codinus, De officiis, p. 80.

[199] Du Cange, iv. p. 93.

[200] Const. Porphyr. De adm. imp. c. 43.

[201] Theoph. Cont. p. 384.

[202] Const. Porphyr. ut supra.

[203] Theoph. Cont. p. 389.

[204] Ibid. p. 371.

[205] Banduri, iii. p. 52.

[206] Ut supra.

[207] Niceph. Greg. i. p. 162.

[208] Pachym. i. p. 378.

[209] Ibid. p. 425.

[210] Niceph. Greg. i. p. 461.

[211] Cantacuz. i. p. 193.

[212] Phrantzes, p. 110.

[213] Ibid. p. 141.

[214] Paspates, p. 325.



CHAPTER VII

THE CHURCH OF THE THEOTOKOS PAMMAKARISTOS, FETIYEH JAMISSI

The Byzantine church, now Fetiyeh Jamissi, overlooking the Golden Horn from the heights of the Fifth Hill, was the church of the Theotokos Pammakaristos (the All Blessed), attached to the monastery known by that name.

Regarding the identity of the church there can be no manner of doubt, as the building remained in the hands of the Greek community for 138 years after the conquest, and was during that period the patriarchal cathedral.

The questions when and by whom the church was founded cannot be so readily determined. According to a manuscript in the library of the Greek theological college on the island of Halki (one of the small group of islands known as the Princes' Islands in the Sea of Marmora), an inscription in the bema of the church ascribed the foundation of the building to John Comnenus and his wife Anna.[215] The manuscript perished in the earthquake which reduced the college to a heap of ruins in 1894, but the inscription had fortunately been copied in the catalogue of the library before that disaster occurred. It read as follows:

[Greek: Ioannou phrontisma Komnenou tode Annes te rhizes Doukikes tes syzygou. hois antidousa plousian, hagne, charin taxais en oiko tou theou monotropous].[216]



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: ten idian monen]). While the poet Philes (1275-1346), referring to a figure portrayed on the walls of the church, asks the spectator,