Architectural Features

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



The drum dome is octagonal, with eight ribs and as many windows. It seems large for the size of the church, and is lower than usual inside. The windows do not cut into the exterior cornice of the dome. Originally the dome arches rested on four piers or columns, but these have been removed in the course of Turkish repairs, and the dome arches are now supported by beams running across the church, under the impost of the arches.

The arms of the cross to the north and south have barrel vaults, and the walls are pierced by triple windows. Two capitals built into the exterior face of the northern wall, and marked with a cross, were doubtless the capitals of the shafts which divided the northern window into three lights. The western arm of the cross is covered by the roof of the narthex, and lighted by a small round-headed window above it. The small narthex is in three bays, covered with cross-groined vaults.

It is not probable that the church was converted into a mosque before 1591, when the patriarchal seat was removed from the Pammakaristos to S. Demetrius beside the Xyloporta. Nor could the conversion have been later than 1598, the year in which Achmed Pasha—who converted the building into a mosque—died.[333]



[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 getaeffeltes 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: Oaton], 'the Oval,' after the form of its roof or of the body of the building itself (Synax., Sept. 14). Vita Stephani. For the [Greek: Oaton], see Labarte, Le Palais imperial de Cons'ple, pp. 62, 121, 122, 186.

[327] Vita Stephani Junioris, Migne, P.G. tom. 100, col. 1144 [Greek: en to hiero palatio, entha epilegetai ho Troullos hoper hemeis Oaton kaloumen].

[328] Balsamon, vol. i. col. 501 [Greek: en to Troullo tou basilikou palatiou].

[329] Theoph. p. 541.

[330] Pachym. i. p. 405.

[331] Acta et diplomata Graeca, iii. p. 65; cf. Paspates, Great Palace, p. 248, Metcalfe's translation.

[332] Proceedings of Greek Syllogos of C.P., Archaeological Supplement to vol. xvii. p. 8. His principal reason seems to be the fact that a company of nuns occupied some of the cells in the old monastery of S. John in Petra when Gerlach visited the city. But, according to Gerlach, another sisterhood was at the same time accommodated in the small convent of S. John the Baptist near the patriarchate.—Turcograecia, p. 189.

[333] Cf. Paspates, p. 304.



CHAPTER XIII

THE CHURCH OF S. THEKLA, TOKLOU IBRAHIM DEDE MESJEDI

In the quarter of Aivan Serai, a few paces to the rear of the Heraclian Wall, stands a small mosque known as Toklou Ibrahim Dede 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 Dede 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 Dede 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 Dede 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 Dede 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 Dede Mesjedi with the church of S. Thekla, on the ground of the similarity of the two names, has a strong presumption in its favour.





NOTE ON THE CHURCH OF S. THEKLA

(CHAPTER XIII.)

On page 209, note 3, I have said that if the mosque Aivas Effendi (more correctly Ivaz Effendi), which is situated behind the Tower of Isaac Angelus within the old area of the palace of Blachernae, could be proved to stand on the site of a church, the argument in favour of the identification of the Church of S. Thekla with Toklou Dede 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 Dede 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 Dede 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 ton basileion; en to palatio ton Blachernon][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 Dede 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: eukterion]) which Thekla, the eldest daughter of the Emperor Theophilus, restored and attached to her residence at Blachernae.[341] The princess was an invalid, and doubtless retired to this part of the city for the sake of its mild climate. To dedicate the chapel to her patron saint was only natural. As already intimated, the church was rebuilt from the foundations, in the eleventh century, by Isaac Comnenus, in devout gratitude for his escape from imminent death[342] in the course of his campaign against the barbarous tribes beside the Danube, when he was overtaken at the foot of the Lovitz mountain by a furious tempest of rain and snow. The plain on which his army was encamped soon became a sheet of water, and many of his men and animals were drowned or frozen to death. Thunder, lightning, and hurricane combined to produce an awful scene, and there were moments when the whole world seemed on fire. The emperor took shelter under a large oak, but, fearing the tree might be thrown down by the furious wind, he soon made for open ground. Scarcely had he done so when the oak was torn up by the roots and hurled to the earth. A few moments later the emperor would have been killed. This narrow escape occurred on the 24th September, the festival day of S. Thekla, and, therefore, attributing his deliverance to her intervention, Isaac rebuilt and greatly beautified the old sanctuary dedicated to her in Blachernae, and frequently attended services there in her honour. Anna Comnena[343] speaks of the restored church in the highest terms. According to her it was built at great cost, displayed rare art, and was in every way worthy of the occasion which led to its erection. Zonaras[344] is not so complimentary. He describes the church as a monument of the niggardliness of Isaac Comnenus. In any case, it was pulled down and rebuilt in the following century by the Emperor John Comnenus in splendid style, and dedicated to the Saviour.[345] As the beauty and wealth of a Byzantine sanctuary were exhibited in the lavish adornment of the interior, it is possible that the church of S. Thekla, though small and outwardly plain, may have been a beautiful and rich building in its latest Christian character. It had then the honour of seeing among the worshippers before its altar Anna Dalassena, the mother of the Comneni. For, when charged with the government of the Empire during the absence of Alexius Comnenus from the capital, that able woman came often to pray in this church, 'lest she should be immersed in merely secular affairs.'[346]

Architectural Features

(For Plan see p. 206)

The building is an oblong hall, m. 13.55 by m. 5.4, divided into three compartments. It is now covered with a wooden roof, but the arrangements of the breaks or pilasters on the walls indicate that it had originally a dome. At the east end is a single apse, the usual side-apses being represented by two niches. The western compartment served as a narthex. During the repairs of the mosque in 1890, frescoes of the eikons which once decorated the walls were brought to view. On the exterior the apse shows three sides, crowned with a corbelled cornice. The central side is pierced by a window of good workmanship, divided by a shaft into two lights, and above the window are two short blind concave niches. High blind concave niches indent the other sides of the apse. In the northern wall are the remains of a triple window, divided by shafts built in courses. Above this is a row of three small windows.

[334] Ancient and Modern C.P. p. 46.

[335] Paspates, p. 359.

[336] For this information I am indebted to Rev. H. O. Dwight, LL.D., late of the American Board of Missions in Constantinople.

[337] Paspates, p. 357, note.

[338] Anna Comnena, vol. i. p. 168.

[339] Scylitzes, p. 647 (Cedrenus, vol. ii.); Zonaras, iii. p. 672.

[340] If the mosque Aivas Effendi could be proved to stand on the site of a church, the argument against the identification of Toklou Dede Mesjedi with the church of S. Thekla would be stronger.

[341] Theoph. Cont. p. 147.

[342] Anna Comnena, vol. i. p. 168.

[343] Ibid. vol. i. p. 168.

[344] Zonaras, iii. p. 672.

[345] Ibid. ut supra.

[346] Anna Comnena, vol. i. p. 169.



CHAPTER XIV

THE CHURCH OF S. SAVIOUR PANTEPOPTES, ESKI IMARET MESJEDI

The reasons which favour the identification of the mosque Eski Imaret Mesjedi, which is situated on the heights above Aya Kapou (Gate of S. Theodosia), with the church of S. Saviour Pantepoptes, the All-Seeing ([Greek: pantepoptes]), 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 medresse,[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.





To face page 212.



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, breche 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.





To face page 214.

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

For details see Figs. 68, 72, 75.





[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 Conquete de C.P. pp. 141-44; Chroniques greco-romaines, pp. 96, 97.

[353] Riant, Exuviae sacrae, p. 178.

[354] Paspates, p. 314.

[355] Die byzantinischen Wasserbehaelter von K.P., von Dr. P. Forcheimer und Dr. J. Strzygowski, pp. 106-7.

[356] Librum insularum Archipelagi, 65.

[357] Paspates, p. 314.



CHAPTER XV

THE CHURCH OF S. SAVIOUR PANTOKRATOR, ZEIREK KILISSI JAMISSI

According to the tradition current in the city when Gyllius[358] and Gerlach[359] explored the antiquities of Constantinople, the large Byzantine church, now the mosque Zeirek 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 Zeirek 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 Xene. The foundations of the church were, probably, laid soon after her husband's accession to the throne, and to the church she attached a monastery capable of accommodating seven hundred monks;[363] a xenodocheion, a home for aged men, and a hospital.[364]

But the pious and charitable lady had undertaken more than she could perform, and was obliged to turn to the emperor for sympathy and assistance. Accordingly she took him, one day, to see the edifice while in course of erection, and falling suddenly at his feet, implored him with tears to complete her work. The beauty of the building and the devotion of his wife appealed so strongly to John Comnenus that he forthwith vowed to make the church and monastery the finest in the city, and altogether worthy of the Pantokrator to whom they were dedicated;[365] and so well did he keep his promise, that the honour of being the founder of the church has been bestowed on him by the historian Nicetas Choniates.[366]

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

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



The history of the Pantokrator may be conveniently divided into three periods: the period of the Comneni; the period of the Latin Empire; and the period of the Palaeologi.

During the first the following incidents occurred: Here, as was most fitting, the founders of the church and monastery were laid to rest, the Empress Irene in 1126,[370] the Emperor John Comnenus[371] seventeen years later. Here their elder son Isaac was confined, until the succession to the throne had been settled in favour of his younger brother Manuel. That change in the natural order of things had been decided upon by John Comnenus while he lay dying in Cilicia from the effects of a wound inflicted by the fall of a poisoned arrow out of his own quiver, when boar-hunting in the forests of the Taurus Mountains, and was explained as due to Manuel's special fitness to assume the care of the Empire, and not merely to the fact that he was a father's favourite son. But when the appointment was made Manuel was with his father in Cilicia, while Isaac was in Constantinople, in a position to mount the throne as soon as the tidings of John's death reached the capital.

The prospect that Manuel would wear the crown seemed therefore very remote. But Axuch, an intimate friend and counsellor of the dying emperor, started for Constantinople the moment Manuel was nominated, and travelled so fast, that he reached the city before the news of the emperor's death and of Manuel's nomination was known there. Then, wasting no time, Axuch made sure of the person of Isaac, removed him from the palace, and put him in charge of the monks of the Pantokrator, who had every reason to be loyal to the wishes of the deceased sovereign. The wily courtier then set himself to win the leading men in the capital over to the cause of the younger brother, and, by the time Manuel was prepared to enter Constantinople, had secured for him a popular welcome and the surrender of Isaac's claims.[372]

In 1147, the famous eikon of S. Demetrius of Thessalonia was transferred from the magnificent basilica dedicated to the saint in that city to the Pantokrator. This was done by the order of Manuel Comnenus, at the request of Joseph, then abbot of the monastery, and in accordance with the wishes of the emperor's parents, the founders of the House.[373] It was a great sacrifice to demand of the Macedonian shrine, and by way of compensation a larger and more artistic eikon of S. Demetrius, in silver and gold, was hung beside his tomb. But Constantinople rejoiced in the greater sanctity and virtue of the earlier picture, and when tidings of its approach were received, the whole fraternity of the Pantokrator, with the senate and an immense crowd of devout persons, went seven miles out from the city to hail the arrival of the image, and to bear it in triumph to its new abode, with psalms and hymns, lighted tapers, fragrant incense, and the gleam of soldiers' spears. Thus, it was believed, the monastery gained more beauty and security, the dynasty of the Comneni more strength, the Roman Empire and the Queen of cities an invisible but mighty power to keep enemies afar off.

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 herooen in a splendid sarcophagus of black marble with a cover cut in seven protuberances.[375] Beside the tomb was placed the porphyry slab upon which the body of Christ was supposed to have been laid after His deposition from the cross. The slab was placed there in commemoration of the fact that when it was brought from Ephesus to Constantinople, Manuel carried it on his broad shoulders all the way up the hill from the harbour of the Bucoleon (at Tchatlady Kapou), to the private chapel of the imperial residence near S. Sophia.[376] Nicetas Choniates thought the aspect of the tomb and of its surroundings very significant. The seven protuberances on its cover represented the seven-hilled city which had been the emperor's throne; the porphyry slab recalled the mighty deeds which he whose form lay so still and silent in the grave had wrought in the days of his strength; while the black marble told the grief evoked by his death. Robert of Clari, who saw the tomb in 1203, extols its magnificence. 'Never,' says he, 'was born on this earth a holy man or a holy woman who is buried in so rich and splendid a fashion as this emperor in this abbey. There is found the marble table on which Our Lord was laid when taken down from the cross, and there are still seen the tears which Our Lady shed upon it.'[377]

Some seven months after Manuel's death a strange spectacle was witnessed at his tomb. His cousin, Andronicus Comnenus, the torment of his life and one of the worst characters in Byzantine history, taking advantage of the intrigues and disturbances which attended the minority of Manuel's son and successor, Alexius II. Comnenus, left his place of exile in Paphlagonia and appeared in Constantinople at the head of an army, as though the champion of the young sovereign's cause. No sooner had he reached the city than he proceeded to visit Manuel's tomb, to show the regard he professed to feel for a relative and sovereign. At the sight of the dark sarcophagus Andronicus gave way to the most violent paroxysms of grief. So deep and prolonged, indeed, did his distress seem, that his attendants implored him to control his feelings and leave the sad spot. But the mourner protested that he could not quit so hastily a place hallowed by such sacred and tender associations. Moreover, he had not yet said all he had to tell the dead. Bending, therefore, again over the grave, Andronicus continued to address the deceased. The words were inaudible, but they seemed a fresh outpouring of sorrow, and deeply affected many of the spectators, for, as the mourner had not lived on the best terms with his imperial cousin, his grief appeared to be the victory of a man's better nature. But those who knew Andronicus well interpreted his conduct as the performance of a consummate actor, and understood his whispers to mean curses and vows of vengeance upon his dead and helpless relative. Events justified this interpretation. For Andronicus ere long usurped the throne, murdered Alexius, insulted his remains, ordered his head to be cut off, and cast the mutilated corpse into the Sea of Marmora to the strains of music.[378]

During the Latin occupation the church was appropriated for worship according to the ritual of the Roman Communion, and many of its relics, its vessels of gold and silver, its jewels and vestments, were carried off to enrich S. Mark's at Venice, and other shrines of Western Christendom. How great a value was set upon such trophies, and by what strange methods they were secured, is seen in the account which Guntherus,[379] a contemporary historian, gives of the way in which some of the relics of the church were acquired. As soon as the Crusaders captured the city in 1204 and gave it over to pillage, a numerous band of looters made for the Pantokrator in search of spoil, having heard that many valuables had been deposited for safe keeping within the strong walls around the monastery. Among the crowd hastening thither was Martin, abbot of the Cistercian Abbey of Parisis in Alsace, who accompanied the Crusade as chaplain and chronicler. The fever of plunder raging about him was too infectious for the good man to escape. When everybody else was getting rich he could not consent to remain poor. His only scruple was not to defile his holy hands with the filthy lucre which worldlings coveted. To purloin sacred relics, however, was lawful booty. Entering, therefore, the Pantokrator with his chaplain, Martin accosted a venerable, white-bearded man who seemed familiar with the building, and in stentorian tones demanded where the relics of the church were to be found. The person addressed was, in fact, a priest, though Martin had mistaken him for a layman on account of the strangeness of the Greek clerical garb. The priest did not understand Latin any more than the abbot understood Greek, and the situation became awkward, for the pitch of Martin's voice made it evident that he was not a person to be trifled with. The old man therefore tried what the Romance patois, which he had picked up from foreign residents in the city, could do to establish intelligible intercourse with the rough visitor. Fortunately the crusader also knew something of that patois, and made the purpose of his visit sufficiently clear. As soon as the iron safe containing the coveted relics was opened, abbot and chaplain plunged four greedy hands into the hoard and stowed relic after relic under the ample folds of their robes until there was no room for more. Thus laden, the pious thieves made as fast as they could for the ship in which they had come to Constantinople, not stopping to converse with friends on the way, and giving to all curious inquiries the brief and enigmatical reply, 'We have done well.' Upon reaching the ship Martin found himself the happy possessor of no less than sixty-two relics, including a piece of the Holy Cross, and drops of 'the blood shed for man's redemption.' Martin wished to start immediately for Alsace, but circumstances obliged him to remain in Constantinople for several months. Thanks, however, to the priest of the Pantokrator, whom the abbot had treated generously, Martin secured a small chapel where to conceal his spoils until an opportunity to return home should occur. A fellow-countryman, indeed, the only other person let into the secret, advised him to secure by means of the relics an abbotship, if not a bishopric, in the Holy Land. But Martin was above personal ambition, and notwithstanding all the difficulties involved in the attempt to carry the relics to the West, waited patiently till he could smuggle them out of the city. At length his chance came; whereupon he embarked for Venice, and after a hard and tedious journey of eight months reached home safely. Again and again on the way he had narrowly escaped the loss of his treasures at the hands of pirates on the sea and of brigands upon land. But all toils and dangers were forgotten when, on the 24th of June 1205, at the head of the brotherhood of which he was the chief, Martin placed the relics purloined from the Pantokrator of Constantinople upon the high altar of the church of Parisis with a conqueror's pride and joy, while the people shouted, 'Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things.' There is archaeology even in morals.





To face page 224.



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]





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 Pege[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]





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]





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'etre delivres de l'union avec les Latins.'[400]





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 Zeirek Mehemed Effendi.[402] Its actual name, Zeirek 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.







The Northern Church.—This is a simple and dignified building of the domed 'four column' type, with a gynaeceum above the narthex. The narthex is in four bays covered with cross-groined vaults on transverse arches. Its southern bay, however, is a later extension, running about half-way in front of the central church to give access to a door into that building. Only two bays of the original narthex have doors opening into the north church; the third door which once existed in the northern bay has been partly built up. The narthex is very much out of repair, and the western wall threatens to fall outwards. The dome, pierced by eight windows, shows so many Turkish features that it may be pronounced as mostly, if not wholly, a Turkish construction. The four square piers which support it are manifestly Turkish. When Gyllius visited the church in the sixteenth century the dome arches rested on four columns of Theban granite, 'hemispherium sustentatur quatuor arcubus, quos fulciunt quatuor columnae marmoris Thebaici.'[403] Barrel vaults cover the arms of the cross, which, as usual in churches of this type, appears distinctly above the roof on the exterior. The southern arm extends to the central church and its vault is pierced by two windows, inserted, probably, to compensate for the loss of light occasioned by the erection of that building. These windows furnish one indication of the earlier date of the north church. The gynaeceum, like the narthex below it, is covered with cross-groined vaults and contains a small fireplace. The prothesis and diaconicon have barrel vaults and apses with three sides projecting slightly on the exterior. The main apse has a very lofty triple window, and shows five sides. All the apses are decorated with high shallow blind niches, a simple but effective ornament.[404]

The Central Church.—The central church is an oblong hall covered by two domes, and terminates in a large apse. It is extremely irregular in plan, and does not lie parallel to either of the churches between which it stands. The domes are separated by a transverse arch. The western dome, though flattened somewhat on the four sides, is approximately circular, and divided into sixteen shallow concave compartments, each pierced by a window. Some of these windows must have been always blocked by the roof of the north church. The eastern dome is a pronounced oval, notwithstanding the attempt to form a square base for it by building a subsidiary arch both on the south and on the north. It is divided into twenty-four concave compartments, twelve of which have windows. The drums of the domes adjoin each other above the transverse arch, so that the central west window of the eastern dome is pierced through to the western dome. The two windows on either side of that window are blind, and must always have been so. The floor in the archway leading into the south church is paved with inlaid marbles forming a beautiful design (Fig. 76). If the whole floor of the church was thus decorated the effect must have been extremely rich. On the exterior the apse shows seven sides, decorated with shallow blind niches. Like the church it is very irregularly set out. (Plate LXIX.)

The central church probably served as a mausoleum for the tombs of the imperial personages interred at the Pantokrator. In its form and in the arrangement of its domes, as well as in its position on the south of the church to which it strictly belongs, it resembles the parecclesion of S. Saviour in the Chora (p. 310).





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 facade of S. Mark's at Venice.

The lateral apses are covered with cross-groined vaults, and project in three sides externally, while the central apse shows seven sides. All are lighted by triple windows, and decorated on the exterior with niches, like the other apses in this group of buildings, and those of S. Theodosia.

In the brickwork found in the fabric of the Pantokrator, as Mr. W. S. George has pointed out, two sizes of brick are employed, a larger and a smaller size laid in alternate courses. The larger bricks look like old material used again.





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.)













[358] De top. C.P. iv. c. 2, p. 283, 'in supercilio quarti collis vergente ad solis ortum visitur templum Pantocratoris, illustre memoria recentium scriptorum.'

[359] Tagebuch, p. 157.

[360] Itin. russes, pp. 105, 233-34.

[361] Du Cange, Const. Christ. iv. p. 81; Itin. russes, pp. 123, 203-4.

[362] Synax., August 13; Cinnamus, p. 9; Phrantzes, p. 210.

[363] Du Cange, C.P. Christ. iv. p. 81, quoting Anselm, bishop of Havelsberg, who was in Constantinople as the ambassador of Lothair the Great to the Emperor John in 1145.

[364] MS. No. 85, in the Library of the Theological Seminary at Halki.

[365] Synax., 13th August.

[366] Pp. 66, 151.

[367] MS. No. 85, in the Library of the Theological Seminary at Halki.

[368] Vol. i. p. 555.

[369] Ancient and Modern C.P. p. 69.

[370] Cinnamus, p. 14; Guntherus Parisiensis in Riant's Exuviae sacrae, p. 105. The sarcophagus that forms part of a Turkish fountain to the west of the church is usually, but without any proof, considered to be the tomb of Irene. A long flight of steps near it leads to the cistern below the church.

[371] Cinnamus, p. 31.

[372] Nicet. Chon. pp. 53, 56, 66.

[373] Synax., October 26th.

[374] Nicet. Chon. p. 151.

[375] Ibid. p. 289.

[376] Nicet. Chon. p. 151.

[377] Riant, Exuviae sacrae, ii. p. 232.

[378] Nicet. Chon. pp. 332-33, 354-55.

[379] Riant, Exuviae sacrae, i. pp. 104 seq.

[380] Belin, Histoire de la latinite de Constantinople, pp. 73-74, 113-14.

[381] Pachym. i. p. 160; Niceph. Greg. p. 87; G. Acropolita, pp. 196-97. The last writer says the eikon was taken from the monastery of the Hodegon, which was its proper shrine. The eikon may have been removed from the Pantokrator to the church of Hodegetria on the eve of the triumphal entry.

[382] Niceph. Greg. i. p. 85. Cf. Canale, Nuova Storia, ii. p. 153, quoted by Belin, Latinite 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 latinite 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.



CHAPTER XVI

THE CHURCH OF S. THEODORE, KILISSI MESJEDI

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: tes 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 conquest.

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.





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. Muehlmann[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.



(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 destroyed.[422]

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 facade. 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 facade, 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 facade 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 facade 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 perfection.'





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 century.









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 LXXIV., LXXV.)









[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 Baudenkmaeler von K.P. plates 34, 35.

[424] Pulgher, Les Anciennes Eglises 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.



CHAPTER XVII

THE MONASTERY OF MANUEL, KEFELE MESJEDI

The mosque known as Kefele 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 te kisterne tou Asparos] (the large open reservoir to the east of the Gate of Adrianople), near which Kefele 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 Kefele 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 Kefele 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 Kefele 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: ten megisten 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 Manoueliou] 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 (Bagtche 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 tes sebasmias mones tou Manouel].[438] Paspates is consequently wrong in associating that pier with Kefele Mesjedi.[439]





Mordtmann[440] accepts the identification of Kefele 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 Kefele 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]





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

Kefele 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]





NOTE

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 schoene Kirche, [Greek: tes Aetiou], da vor Zeiten ein sehr gross und weites Closter gewesen seyn und viel Haeuser der Lehrer und Lernenden in sich gehabt haben solle. Jetzt wird nichts mehr davon gesehen als das zerfallene Gemaeuer 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 schoenen auff vergueldten viereckichten glaesern Taffeln kuenstlich gemahlten Figuren auss dem Alten und Neuen Testament, und mit griechischen Ueberschrifften gezieret ist, aber alte Gesichter derselben aussgekratzet sind. Die Waende dieser Umbgaenge sind mit Marmel von allerhand Farben bekleidet. Hat auch 3 oder 4 hohe Crepidines oder Absaetze mit der Propheten, Apostel und Christi Bildnuessen von Gold. Der Hauss- oder vielmehr Bau- herr oder auch der Stiffter ([Greek: ho ktetor]), 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 Kaeyserlich 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 Gebaeu (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 Waende mit Marmelstein biss auff die Helffte bekleidet sind. Der Obertheil, da die Schwibboegen (Laquearia) anheben, hat er wie auch die Schwibboegen selber die Gemaehlde. 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 fuer sich so mit Tuerckischen Deppichen (aoreis) beleget und hat nur ein Thor. Ist ein hohes Gewoelb (laquearia) und wie auch die ueberige 2 Gewoelbe (laquearia) ganz vergueldet und uebermahlet, und die Waende von unten an biss an die Schwibboegen mit dem schoensten 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 schoenen Bildnuessen mit Gold gemahlet stehen, mit einem etwas niedern als der vorige Schwibboegen (laquearia). Auss diesem gehet man in den 4ten gewoelbten auch gemahlten aber etwas finstern und viel kleine Fenster in sich haltenden Ort. Aussen an der Kirchmauren stehet diese Schrift.