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]
[Illustration: PLATE XXXI.
(1) S. MARY PANACHRANTOS. VAULT OF THE AMBULATORY PASSAGE ON THE WEST OF
THE DOME IN THE SOUTH CHURCH, LOOKING NORTH.
(2) S. MARY PANACHRANTOS. THE INTERIOR OF THE NORTH CHURCH, LOOKING
NORTH.
_To face page 122._]
The correctness of these positions can be readily established. First,
that a monastery of the Panachrantos and the monastery of Lips were
different Houses is evident from the express statements of the pilgrim
Zosimus to that effect. For, according to that visitor to the shrines of
the city, a monastery, 'de Panakhran,'[182] stood near S. Sophia, 'non
loin de Sainte Sophie.' Stephen of Novgorod refers to the monastery of
the 'Panacrante'[183] also in the same connection. And the proximity of
the House to the great cathedral may be inferred likewise from the
statements of the pilgrim Alexander[184] and of the anonymous
pilgrim.[185] On the other hand, Zosimus speaks of the monastery of
Lips, 'couvent de femmes Lipesi,'[186] as situated in another part of
the city. It was closely connected with the monastery of Kyra
Martha,[187] from which to S. Sophia was a far cry. The distinction of
the two monasteries is, moreover, confirmed by the historians
Pachymeres[188] and Nicephorus Gregoras,[189] who employ the terms
Panachrantos and Lips to designate two distinct monastic establishments
situated in different quarters of the capital.
[Illustration: FIG. 41. S. MARY PARACHRANTOS.
DETAILS OF THE SHAFTS IN THE EAST WINDOWS OF THE SOUTH CHURCH.]
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.
[Illustration: PLATE XXXII.
(1) S. MARY PANACHRANTOS. THE NORTH CHURCH, LOOKING EAST.
(2) S. MARY PANACHRANTOS. THE NORTH CHURCH, LOOKING WEST.
_To face page 126._]
Constantine Lips was an important personage during the reign of Leo the
Wise (886-912) and of Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus (912-956). Under
the former emperor he held the offices of protospatharius and domestic
of the household. He also went on several missions to the Prince of
Taron, in the course of which romance mingled with politics, with the
result that the daughter of Lips became engaged to the son of the
prince.[200] Upon the accession of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Lips
came under a cloud, on suspicion of being implicated in the plot to
raise Constantine Ducas to the throne, and was obliged to flee the
capital.[201] Eventually he was restored to favour, and enjoyed the
dignities of patrician, proconsul, commander of the foreign guard, and
drungarius of the fleet.[202] He fell in battle in the war of 917
between the Empire and the Bulgarians under Symeon.[203]
The monastery of Lips was restored in the reign of Leo the Wise; the
festival of the dedication of the church being celebrated in the year
908, in the month of June.[204] The emperor honoured the occasion with
his presence, and attended a banquet in the refectory of the monastery.
But the happy proceedings had not gone far, when they were suddenly
interrupted by a furious south-west wind which burst upon the city and
shook houses and churches with such violence that people feared to
remain under cover and imagined that the end of the world had come,
until the storm was allayed by a heavy downpour of rain. As the
south-west wind was named Lips, it is not clear whether the historians
who mention this incident intend to explain thereby the origin of
Constantine's surname, or simply point to a curious coincidence.
Near the church Lips erected also a xenodocheion for the reception of
strangers.[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]
[Illustration: PLATE XXXIII.
(1) S. MARY PANACHRANTOS. THE DIACONICON, LOOKING EAST.
(2) S. MARY PANACHRANTOS. THE ARCH UNDER WEST SIDE OF THE CENTRAL DOME
IN THE SOUTH CHURCH.
_To face page 128._]
_Architectural Features_
The building comprises two churches, which, while differing in date and
type, stand side by side, and communicate with each other through an
archway in their common wall, and through a passage in the common wall
of their narthexes. As if to keep the two churches more closely
together, they are bound by an exonarthex, which, after running along
their western front, returns eastwards along the southern wall of the
south church as a closed cloister or gallery.
_The North Church._--The north church is of the normal 'four column'
type. The four columns which originally supported the dome were,
however, removed when the building was converted into a mosque in
Turkish times, and have been replaced by two large pointed arches which
span the entire length of the church. But the old wall arches of the
dome-columns are still visible as arched piercings in the spandrils of
the Turkish arches. A similar Turkish 'improvement' in the substitution
of an arch for the original pair of columns is found in the north side
of the parecclesion attached to the Pammakaristos (p. 152). The dome
with its eight windows is likewise Turkish. The windows are lintelled
and the cornice is of the typical Turkish form. The bema is almost
square and is covered by a barrel vault formed by a prolongation of the
eastern dome arch; the apse is lighted by a lofty triple window. By what
is an exceptional arrangement, the lateral chapels are as lofty both on
the interior and on the exterior as is the central apse, but they are
entered by low doors. In the normal arrangement, as, for instance, in
the Myrelaion, the lateral chapels are low and are entered by vaults
rising to the same height as those of the angle chambers, between which
the central apse rises higher both externally and internally.
The chapels have niches arched above the cornice on three sides, and are
covered by cross-groined vaults which combine with the semicircular
heads of the niches to produce a very beautiful effect. To the east they
have long bema arches flanked by two small semicircular niches, and are
lighted by small single windows.
The church is preceded by a narthex in three bays covered by
cross-groined vaults supported on strong transverse arches. At either
end it terminates in a large semicircular niche. The northern one is
intact, but of the southern niche only the arched head remains. The
lower part of the niche has been cut away to afford access to the
narthex of the south church. This would suggest that, at least, the
narthex of the south church is of later date than the north church.
Considered as a whole the north church is a good example of its type,
lofty and delicate in its proportions.
_The South Church._--The narthex is unsymmetrical to the church and in
its present form must be the result of extensive alteration. It is in
two very dissimilar bays. That to the north is covered with a
cross-groined vault of lath and plaster, probably on the model of an
original vault constructed of brick. A door in the eastern wall leads to
the north aisle of the church. The southern bay is separated from its
companion by a broad arch. It is an oblong chamber reduced to a figure
approaching a square by throwing broad arches across its ends and
setting back the wall arches from the cornice. This arrangement allows
the bay to be covered by a low drumless dome. Two openings, separated by
a pier, lead respectively to the nave and the southern aisle of the
church.
The interior of the church has undergone serious alterations since it
has become a mosque, but enough of the original building has survived to
show that the plan was that of an 'ambulatory church.'
Each side of the ambulatory is divided into three bays, covered with
cross-groined vaults whose springings to the central area correspond
exactly to the columns of such an arcade as that which occupies the west
dome bay of S. Andrew (p. 114). We may therefore safely assume that
triple arcades originally separated the ambulatory from the central area
and filled in the lower part of the dome arches. The tympana of these
arches above were pierced to north, south, and west by three windows now
built up but whose outlines are still visible beneath the whitewash
which has been daubed over them. The angles of the ambulatory are
covered by cross vaults.
The pointed arches at present opening from the ambulatory to the central
area were formed to make the church more suitable for Moslem worship, as
were those of the north church. In fact we have here a repetition of the
treatment of the Pammakaristos (p. 151), when converted into a mosque.
The use of cross-groined vaults in the ambulatory is a feature which
distinguishes this church from the other ambulatory churches of
Constantinople and connects it more closely with the domed-cross church.
The vaults in the northern portion of the ambulatory have been partially
defaced in the course of Turkish repairs.
[Illustration: PLATE XXXIV.
(1) S. MARY PANACHRANTOS. EAST WINDOW OF THE SOUTH CHURCH.
(2) S. MARY PANACHRANTOS. THE OUTER NARTHEX, LOOKING SOUTH.
_To face page 130._]
The central apse is lighted by a large triple window. It is covered by
a cross-groined vault and has on each side a tall shallow segmental
niche whose head rises above the springing cornice. Below this the
niches have been much hacked away. The passages leading to the lateral
chapels are remarkably low, not more than 1.90 m. high to the crown of
the arch.
The southern chapel is similar to the central apse, and is lighted by a
large triple window. The northern chapel is very different. It is much
broader; broader indeed than the ambulatory which leads to it, and is
covered by barrel vaults. The niches in the bema only rise to a short
distance above the floor, not, as on the opposite side, to above the
cornice. It is lighted by a large triple window similar to those of the
other two apses.
[Illustration: FIG. 42. S. MARY PANACHRANTOS.
INSCRIPTION ON THE APSE OF THE NORTH CHURCH.]
From love for the mother of God ... beautiful temple ...
Constantine; which splendid work ... of the shining heaven an
inhabitant and citizen him show O Immaculate One; friendliness
recompensing ... the temple ... the gift.
The outer narthex on the west of the two churches and the gallery on
the south of the south church are covered with cross-groined vaults
without transverse arches. The wall of the south church, which shows in
the south gallery, formed the original external wall of the building. It
is divided into bays with arches in two and three orders of brick
reveals, and with shallow niches on the broader piers.
The exterior of the two churches is very plain. On the west are shallow
wall arcades in one order, on the south similar arcades in two orders.
The northern side is inaccessible owing to the Turkish houses built
against it.
On the east all the apses project boldly. The central apse of the south
church has seven sides and shows the remains of a decoration of niches
in two stories similar to that of the Pantokrator (p. 235); the other
apses present three sides. The carved work on the window shafts is
throughout good. An inscription commemorating the erection of the
northern church is cut on a marble string-course which, when complete,
ran across the whole eastern end, following the projecting sides of the
apses. The letters are sunk and marked with drill holes.
Wulff is of opinion that the letters were originally filled in with
lead, and, from the evidence of this lead infilling, dates the church as
late as the fifteenth century. But it is equally possible that the
letters were marked out by drill holes which were then connected with
the chisel, and that the carver, pleased by the effect given by the
sharp points of shadow in the drill holes, deliberately left them. The
grooves do not seem suitable for retaining lead.
In the course of their history both churches were altered, even in
Byzantine days. The south church is the earlier structure, but shows
signs of several rebuildings. The irregular narthex and unsymmetrical
eastern side chapels are evidently not parts of an original design. In
the wall between the two churches there are indications which appear to
show the character of these alterations and the order in which the
different buildings were erected.
[Illustration: PLATE XXXV.
(1) S. MARY PANACHRANTOS. EAST END OF THE SOUTH CHURCH.
(2) S. MARY PANACHRANTOS. EAST END OF THE NORTH CHURCH.
_To face page 132._]
As has already been pointed out, the north side of the ambulatory in the
south church, which for two-thirds of its length is of practically the
same width as the southern and western sides, suddenly widens out at the
eastern end and opens into a side chapel broader than that on the
opposite side. The two large piers separating the ambulatory from the
central part of the north church are evidently formed by building the
wall of one church against the pre-existing wall of the other. The
easternmost pier is smaller and, as can be seen from the plan, is a
continuation of the wall of the north church. Clearly the north church
was already built when the north-eastern chapel of the south church was
erected, and the existing wall was utilised. As the external
architectural style of the three apses of the south church is identical,
it is reasonable to conclude that this part of the south church also is
later in date than the north church. For if the entire south church had
been built at the same time as the apses, we should expect to find the
lateral chapels similar. But they are not. The vaulting of the central
apse and of the southern lateral chapel are similar, while that of the
northern chapel is different. On the same supposition we should also
expect to find a similar use of the wall of the north church throughout,
but we have seen that two piers representing the old wall of the south
church still remain. The narthex of the south church, however, is
carried up to the line of the north church wall.
The four column type is not found previous to the tenth century. The
date of the north church was originally given on the inscription, but is
now obliterated. Kondakoff dates it in the eleventh or twelfth century.
Wulff would put it as late as the fifteenth. But if the view that this
church was attached to the monastery of Lips is correct, the building
must belong to the tenth century.
The ambulatory type appears to be early, and the examples in
Constantinople seem to date from the sixth to the ninth century. It may
therefore be concluded that, unless there is proof to the contrary, the
south church is the earlier. In that case the southernmost parts of the
two large piers which separate the two churches represent the old outer
wall of the original south church, whose eastern chapels were then
symmetrical. To this the north church was added, but at some subsequent
date the apses of the south church demanded repair and when they were
rebuilt, the north-eastern chapel was enlarged by the cutting away of
the old outer wall. To this period also belongs the present inner
narthex. The fact that the head of the terminal niche at the south end
of the north narthex remains above the communicating door shows that the
south narthex is later. The outer narthex and south gallery are a still
later addition.
[Illustration: FIG. 43.]
[Illustration: FIG. 44.]
[Illustration: FIGS. 45 AND 46.]
[179] _Ancient and Modern C.P._ pp. 70, 79.
[180] Pp. 322, 325.
[181] To 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]
[Illustration: PLATE XXXVI.
(1) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS, FROM THE SOUTH-EAST.
(2) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS, FROM THE WEST.
_To face page 138._]
The legend cannot refer to the Emperor John Comnenus (1118-1143), for
his consort was neither named Anna nor related to the family of Ducas.
She was a Hungarian princess, who, on becoming the emperor's bride,
assumed the name Irene. Mr. Siderides, therefore, suggests that the
persons mentioned in the inscription were that emperor's grandparents,
the curopalates and grand domestic John Comnenus and his wife, the
celebrated Anna Dalassena, who bore likewise the title of Ducaena. In
that case, as the curopalates and grand domestic died in 1067, the
foundation of the church cannot be much later than the middle of the
eleventh century. But whether the term [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,
Seest thou, O stranger, this great man? He is none other than
the protostrator, the builder of this monastery, the wonder of the
world, the noble Glabas.
[Greek: horas ton andra ton polyn touton, xene;
ekeinos houtos estin ho protostrator,
ho demiourgos tes mones tes enthade,
to thauma tes ges, ho Glabas ho gennadas].[218]
In accordance with these statements, Gerlach[219] saw depicted on the
walls of the church two figures in archducal attire, representing the
founder of the church and his wife, with this legend beside them:
Michael Ducas Glabas Tarchaniotes, protostrator and founder;
Maria Ducaena Comnena Palaeologina Blachena,[219] protostratorissa
and foundress.
[Greek: Michael Doukas Glabas Tarchaniotes, ho protostrator kai ktetor;
Maria Doukaina Komnene Palaiologina Blakaina,[220] he protostratorissa
kai ktetorissa].
Michael Glabas was created protostrator in 1292, and acquired the right
to appoint the abbot of the monastery before 1295. Consequently the
completion of the repair of the church at his instance must be assigned
to the interval between these dates.
The protostrator Michael Glabas Ducas Tarchaniotes, who must not be
confounded with his namesake the protovestiarius Michael Palaeologus
Tarchaniotes,[221] enjoyed the reputation of an able general and wise
counsellor in the reign of Andronicus II., although, being a victim to
gout, he was often unable to serve his country in the former capacity.
He was noted also for his piety and his interest in the poor, as may be
inferred from his restoration of the Pammakaristos and the erection of a
xenodocheion.[222] His wife was a niece of the Emperor Michael
Palaeologus, and related, as her titles imply, to other great families
in the country. A pious woman, and devoted to her husband, she proved
the sincerity of her affection by erecting to his memory, as will appear
in the sequel, the beautiful chapel at the south-east end of the church.
Before her death she retired from the world and assumed the name Martha
in religion.[223]
In addition to the figures of the restorers of the church, portraits in
mosaic of the Emperor Andronicus and his Empress Anna, as the legends
beside the portraits declared, stood on the right of the main entrance
to the patriarchate.[224]
[Symbol: Cross][Greek: Andronikos en Cho to tho pistos basileus kai
autokrator Rhomeon ho palaiologos].
[Symbol: Cross][Greek: Anna en Cho to tho piste augousta he
palaiologina].
As both Andronicus II. and his grandson Andronicus III. were married to
ladies named Anna, it is not clear which of these imperial couples was
here portrayed. The fact that the consort of the former emperor died
before the restoration of the church by the protostrator Michael is
certainly in favour of the view supported by Mr. Siderides that the
portraits represented the latter emperor and empress.[224] Why these
personages were thus honoured is not explained.
Having restored the monastery, Michael Glabas entrusted the direction of
its affairs to a certain monk named Cosmas, whom he had met and learned
to admire during an official tour in the provinces. In due time Cosmas
was introduced to Andronicus II., and won the imperial esteem to such an
extent as to be appointed patriarch.[226] The new prelate was advanced
in years, modest, conciliatory, but, withal, could take a firm stand
for what he considered right. On the other hand, the piety of Andronicus
was not of the kind that adheres tenaciously to a principle or ignores
worldly considerations. Hence occasions for serious differences between
the two men on public questions were inevitable, and in the course of
their disputes the monastery of the Pammakaristos, owing to its
association with Cosmas, became the scene of conflicts between Church
and State.
[Illustration: PLATE XXXVII.
(1) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. INNER NARTHEX, LOOKING SOUTH.
(2) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. THE DOME, LOOKING WEST.
_To face page 142._]
No act of Andronicus shocked the public sentiment or his day more
painfully than the political alliance he cemented by giving his daughter
Simonis, a mere child of six years, as a bride to the Kraal of Servia,
who was forty years her senior, and had been already married three
times, not always, it was alleged, in the most regular manner.[227]
Cosmas did everything in his power to prevent the unnatural union, and
when his last desperate effort to have an audience of the emperor on the
subject was repelled, he left the patriarchal residence and retired to
his old home at the Pammakaristos. There, during the absence of the
emperor in Thessalonica, where the objectionable marriage was
celebrated, Cosmas remained for two years, attending only to the most
urgent business of the diocese.[228] Upon the return of Andronicus to
the capital, Cosmas was conspicuous by his refusal to take part in the
loyal demonstrations which welcomed the emperor back. Andronicus might
well have seized the opportunity to remove the patriarch from office for
discourtesy so marked and offensive, but, instead of doing so, he sent a
friendly message to the Pammakaristos, asking Cosmas to forget all
differences and resume his public duties. Achilles in his tent was not
to be conciliated so easily. To the imperial request Cosmas replied by
inviting Andronicus to come to the Pammakaristos, and submit the points
at issue between the emperor and himself to a tribunal of bishops and
other ecclesiastics specially convened for the purpose. He furthermore
declared that he would return to the patriarchal residence only if the
verdict of the court was in his favour, otherwise he would resign
office. The public feeling against Andronicus was so strong that he
deemed it expedient to comply with this strange demand, going to the
monastery late at night to escape notice. The tribunal having been
called to order, Cosmas produced his charges against the emperor: the
Servian marriage; oppressive taxes upon salt and other necessaries of
life, whereby a heavy burden was laid upon the poor, on one hand, and
imperial prodigality was encouraged on the other; failure to treat the
petitions addressed to him by Cosmas with the consideration which they
deserved. The defence of Andronicus was skilful. He maintained that no
marriage of the Kraal had violated Canon Law as some persons claimed. He
touched the feelings of his audience by dwelling upon the sacrifice he
had made as a father in bestowing the hand of a beloved daughter on such
a man as the Servian Prince; only reasons of State had constrained him
to sanction a union so painful to his heart. The taxes to which
objection had been taken were not imposed, he pleaded, to gratify any
personal love of money, but were demanded by the needs of the Empire. As
to love of money, he had reasons to believe that it was a weakness of
which his accuser was guilty, and to prove that statement, he there and
then sent two members of the court to the treasurer of the palace for
evidence in support of the charge. In regard to the accusation that he
did not always favour the petitions addressed to him by the patriarch,
he remarked that it was not an emperor's duty to grant all the petitions
he received, but to discriminate between them according to their merits.
At the same time he expressed his readiness to be more indulgent in the
future. Moved by these explanations, as well as by the entreaties of the
emperor and the bishops present at this strange scene, held in the dead
of night in the secrecy of the monastery, Cosmas relented, and returned
next day to the patriarchate.[229]
But peace between the two parties was not of long duration. Only a few
weeks later Andronicus restored to office a bishop of Ephesus who had
been canonically deposed. Cosmas protested, and when his remonstrances
were disregarded, he withdrew again to the Pammakaristos,[230] and
refused to allow his seclusion to be disturbed on any pretext. To the
surprise of everybody, however, he suddenly resumed his functions--in
obedience, he claimed, to a Voice which said to him, 'If thou lovest Me,
feed My sheep.'[231] But such conduct weakened his position. His enemies
brought a foul charge against him. His demand for a thorough
investigation of the libel was refused. And in his vexation he once more
sought the shelter of the Pammakaristos, abdicated the patriarchal
throne, and threw the ecclesiastical world into a turmoil.[232] Even
then there were still some, including the emperor, who thought order and
peace would be more speedily restored by recalling Cosmas to the office
he had laid down. But the opposition to him had become too powerful, and
he was compelled to bid farewell to the retreat he loved, and to end his
days in his native city of Sozopolis, a man worsted in battle.[233]
[Illustration: PLATE XXXVIII.
S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. THE PARECCLESION FROM THE SOUTH-EAST.
_To face page 144._]
Of the life at the Pammakaristos during the remainder of the period
before the Turkish conquest only a few incidents are recorded. One abbot
of the monastery, Niphon, was promoted in 1397 to the bishopric of Old
Patras, and another named Theophanes was made bishop of the important
See of Heraclea. An instance of the fickleness of fortune was brought
home to the monks of the establishment by the disgrace of the logothetes
Gabalas and his confinement in one of their cells, under the following
circumstances:--In the struggle between John Cantacuzene and Apocaucus
for ascendancy at the court of the Dowager Empress Anna of Savoy and her
son, John VI. Palaeologus, Gabalas[234] had been persuaded to join the
party of the latter politician by the offer, among other inducements, of
the hand of Apocaucus' daughter in marriage. But when Gabalas urged the
fulfilment of the promise, he was informed that the young lady and her
mother had meantime taken a violent aversion to him on account of his
corpulent figure. Thereupon Gabalas, like a true lover, had recourse
to a method of banting recommended by an Italian quack. But the
treatment failed to reduce the flesh of the unfortunate suitor; it only
ruined his health, and made him even less attractive than before.
Another promise by which his political support had been gained was the
hope that he would share the power which Apocaucus should win. But this
Apocaucus was unwilling to permit, alleging as an excuse that his
inconvenient partisan had become obnoxious to the empress. The
disappointment and anxiety caused by this information wore so upon the
mind of the logothetes as to alter his whole appearance. He now became
thin indeed, as if suffering from consumption, and in his dread of the
storm gathering about him he removed his valuable possessions to safe
hiding. Whereupon the wily Apocaucus drew the attention of the empress
to this strange behaviour, and aroused her suspicions that Gabalas was
engaged in some dark intrigue against her. No wonder that the logothetes
observed in consequence a marked change in the empress's manner towards
him, and in his despair he took sanctuary in S. Sophia, and assumed the
garb of a monk. The perfidy of Apocaucus might have stopped at this
point, and allowed events to follow their natural course. But though
willing to act a villain's part, he wished to act it under the mask of a
friend, to betray with a kiss. Accordingly he went to S. Sophia to
express his sympathy with Gabalas, and played the part of a man
overwhelmed with sorrow at a friend's misfortune so well that Gabalas
forgot for a while his own griefs, and undertook the task of consoling
the hypocritical mourner. Soon an imperial messenger appeared upon the
scene with the order for Gabalas to leave the church and proceed to the
monastery of the Pammakaristos. And there he remained until, on the
charge of attempting to escape, he was confined in a stronger prison.
Another person detained at the Pammakaristos was a Turkish rebel named
Zinet, who in company with a pretender to the throne of Mehemed I., had
fled in 1418 to Constantinople for protection. He was welcomed by the
Byzantine Government, which was always glad to receive refugees whom it
could use either to gratify or to embarrass the Ottoman Court, as the
varying relations between the two empires might dictate. It was a policy
that proved fatal at last, but meanwhile it often afforded some
advantage to Byzantine diplomats. On this occasion it was thought
advisable to please the Sultan, and while the pretender was confined
elsewhere, Zinet, with a suite of ten persons, was detained in the
Pammakaristos. Upon the accession of Murad II., however, the Government
of Constantinople thought proper to take the opposite course.
Accordingly the pretender was liberated, and Zinet sent to support the
Turkish party which disputed Murad's claims. But life at the
Pammakaristos had not won the refugee's heart to the cause of the
Byzantines. The fanatical monks with whom he was associated there had
insulted his faith; his Greek companions in arms did not afford him all
the satisfaction he desired, and so Zinet returned at last to his
natural allegiance. The conduct of the Byzantine Government on this
occasion led to the first siege of Constantinople, in 1422, by the
Turks.
The most important event in the history of the monastery occurred after
the city had fallen into Turkish hands. The church then became the
cathedral of the patriarchs of Constantinople. It is true that, in the
first instance, the conqueror had given the church of the Holy Apostles
to the Patriarch Gennadius as a substitute for the church of S. Sophia.
But the native population did not affect the central quarters of the
city, preferring to reside near the Golden Horn and the Sea of Marmora.
Furthermore, the body of a murdered Turk was discovered one morning in
the court of the Holy Apostles, and excited among his countrymen the
suspicion that the murder had been committed by a Christian hand.[235]
The few Greeks settled in the neighbourhood were therefore in danger of
retaliation, and Gennadius begged permission to withdraw to the
Pammakaristos, around which a large colony of Greeks, who came from
other cities to repeople the capital, had settled.[236] The objection
that nuns occupied the monastery at that moment was easily overcome by
removing the sisterhood to the small monastery attached to the church of
S. John in Trullo (Achmed Pasha Mesjedi) in the immediate vicinity,[237]
and for 138 years thereafter the throne of seventeen patriarchs of
Constantinople stood in the church of the Pammakaristos, with the
adjoining monastery as their official residence.[238]
As the chief sanctuary of the Greek community, the building was
maintained, it would appear, in good order and displayed considerable
beauty. 'Even at night,' to quote extravagant praise, 'when no lamp was
burning, it shone like the sun.' But even sober European visitors in the
sixteenth century agree in describing the interior of the church as
resplendent with eikons and imperial portraits. It was also rich in
relics, some of them brought by Gennadius from the church of the Holy
Apostles and from other sanctuaries lost to the Greeks. Among the
interesting objects shown to visitors was a small rude sarcophagus
inscribed with the imperial eagle and the name of the Emperor Alexius
Comnenus.[239] It was so plain and rough that Schweigger speaks of it as
too mean to contain the dust of a German peasant.[240] But that any
sarcophagus professing to hold the remains of Alexius Comnenus should be
found at the Pammakaristos is certainly surprising. That emperor was
buried, according to the historian Nicetas Choniates, in the church of
S. Saviour the Philanthropist,[241] near the palace of Mangana, on the
east shore of the city. Nor could the body of a Byzantine autocrator
have been laid originally in a sarcophagus such as Breuening and
Schweigger describe. These difficulties in the way of regarding the
monument as genuine are met by the suggestion made by Mr. Siderides,
that when the church of Christ the Philanthropist was appropriated by
the Turks in connection with the building of the Seraglio, some
patriotic hand removed the remains of Alexius Comnenus from the splendid
coffin in which they were first entombed, and, placing them in what
proved a convenient receptacle, carried them for safe keeping to the
Pammakaristos. The statement that Anna Comnena, the celebrated daughter
of Alexius Comnenus, was also buried in this church rests upon the
misunderstanding of a passage in the work of M. Crusius, where, speaking
of that princess, the author says: 'Quae (Anna) anno Domini 1117 vixit;
filia Alexii Comneni Imp. cujus sepulchrum adhuc exstat in templo
patriarchatus Constantinopli a D. Steph. Gerlachio visum.'[242]
But _cujus_ (whose) refers, not to Anna, but to Alexius. This rendering
is put beyond dispute by the statement made by Gerlach in a letter to
Crusius, that he found, in the Pammakaristos, 'sepulchrum Alexii Comneni
[Greek: autokratoros],' the tomb of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus.[243]
The church was converted into a mosque under Murad III. (1574-1592), and
bears the style Fetiyeh, 'of the conqueror,' in honour of the conquest
of Georgia and Azerbaijan during his reign. According to Gerlach, the
change had been feared for some time, if for no other reason, because of
the fine position occupied by the church. But quarrels between different
factions of the Greek clergy and between them and Government officials
had also something to do with the confiscation of the building.[244]
When the cross, which glittered above the dome and gleamed far and wide,
indicating the seat of the chief prelate of the Orthodox Communion, was
taken down, 'a great sorrow befell the Christians.'[244] The humble
church of S. Demetrius Kanabou, in the district of Balat, then became
the patriarchal seat until 1614, when that honour was conferred upon the
church which still retains it, the church of S. George in the quarter
of Phanar.
[Illustration: PLATE XXXIX.
(1) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. EAST END OF THE PARECCLESION.
(2) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. THE WEST COLUMN IN THE PARECCLESION.
_To face page 148._]
_Architectural Features_
Owing to the numerous additions and alterations introduced into the
original fabric, both before and since the Turkish conquest, the
original plan of the building is not immediately apparent. Nor does the
interior, with its heavy piers, raised floor, and naked walls correspond
to the accounts given of its former splendour and beauty. A careful
study will, however, unravel the tangled scheme which the actual
condition of the church presents, and detect some traces of the beauty
which has faded and passed away. The building might be mistaken for a
domed church with four aisles, two narthexes, and a parecclesion. But
notwithstanding all the disguises due to the changes it has undergone,
the original church was unquestionably an 'ambulatory' church. It had,
moreover, at one time a third narthex, of which now only the foundations
remain on the west side of the church. The present outer narthex is in
five bays, covered by dome vaults on transverse arches, and is paved
with hexagonal tiles. The centre bay is marked by transverse arches of
greater breadth and projects slightly on the outside, forming a plain
central feature. At the north end a door led to the third narthex, but
has now been built up; at the south end is a door inserted in Turkish
times. To the south of the central bay the exterior is treated with
plain arcades in two orders of brick; to the north these are absent,
probably on account of some alterations. At the south end the narthex
returns round the church in two bays, leading to the parecclesion.
The inner narthex is in four bays covered with cross-groined vaults
without transverse arches, and is at present separated from the body of
the church by three clumsy hexagonal piers, on to which, as may be seen
in the photograph (Plate XXXVII.), the groins descend in a very
irregular manner.
In the inner part of the church is a square central area covered by a
lofty drum-dome of twenty-four concave compartments, alternately
pierced by windows. The intermediate compartments correspond to the
piers, and the dome is therefore twelve-sided on the exterior with angle
half columns and arches in two orders. Internally the dome arches are
recessed back from the lower wall face and spring from a heavy
string-course. They were originally pierced on the north, south, and
west sides by three windows similar to those in the west dome arch of S.
Andrew (p. 114).
The west side is now occupied by the wooden balcony of a Turkish house
built over the narthex, but there are no indications of any gallery in
that position.
Below the dome arches the central area communicates with the surrounding
ambulatory on the north, west, and south sides by large semicircular
arches corbelled slightly out from the piers.
On the east side the dome arch is open from floor to vault, and leads by
a short bema to a five-sided space covered by a dome and forming a kind
of triangular apse, on the south-eastern side of which is the mihrab. As
is clearly shown by the character of its dome windows and masonry, this
structure is a Turkish addition taking the place of the original three
eastern apses, and is a clever piece of planning to alter the
orientation of the building.
The ambulatory on the three sides of the central square is covered by
barrel vaults on the sides and with cross-groined vaults at the angles.
To the east it opened into the eastern lateral chapels, now swept away,
though the passage from the prothesis to the central apse still remains.
On the north side of the church is a passage in three bays covered by
dome vaults on transverse arches, communicating at the west end with the
inner narthex, and at the east terminating in a small chapel covered by
an octagonal drum dome. The upper part of the apse of the chapel is
still visible on the exterior, but the lower part has been destroyed and
its place taken by a Turkish window.
The floor of the eastern part of the church is raised a step above the
general level, this step being carried diagonally across the floor in
the centre part so as to line with the side of the apse containing the
mihrab.
[Illustration: PLATE XL.
(1) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. THE EAST COLUMN IN THE PARECCLESION.
(2) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. COLUMN FLANKING THE EAST WINDOW OF THE APSE
OF THE PARECCLESION.
(3) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. THE WEST COLUMN IN THE PARECCLESION.
_To face page 150._]
In considering the original form of the church there is yet another
important point to be noted. It will be seen from the plan that at the
ground level the central area is not cruciform, but is rather an oblong
from east to west with large arches on the north and south sides. This
oblong is, however, reduced to a square at the dome level by arches
thrown across the east and west ends, and this, in conjunction with the
setting back of the dome arches already mentioned, produces a cruciform
plan at the springing level. The oblong character of the central area is
characteristic of the domed basilica and distinguishes this church from
S. Andrew or S. Mary Panachrantos. The employment of barrel vaults in
the ambulatory is also a point of resemblance to the domed basilica
type, though the cross groin is used on the angles.[246] In this feature
S. Mary Pammakaristos resembles S. Andrew and differs from S. Mary
Panachrantos. We are probably justified in restoring triple arcades in
all the three lower arches similar to the triple arcade which still
remains in S. Andrew. The present arches do not fit, and are evidently
later alterations for the purpose of gaining internal space as at the
Panachrantos.
The hexagonal piers between the ambulatory and the inner narthex are not
original, as is evident from the clumsy manner in which the vaulting
descends on to them. They are the remains of the old western external
wall of the church left over when it was pierced through, probably in
Turkish times, to include the narthex in the interior area of the
building. The piers between the ambulatory and the gallery on the north
side of the church also seem to be due to openings made for a similar
reason in the old northern wall of the church when that gallery was
added in Byzantine days. The dotted lines on the plan show the original
form of the piers and wall, as shown by the outline of the vault
springings above. The inner narthex is later than the central church and
is of inferior workmanship. The restored plan shows the probable form of
the church at that date. The outer narthex was added at a subsequent
period.
_The Parecclesion._--The parecclesion forms a complete church of the
'four column' type with a narthex and gynecaeum on the west. On the
north side the two columns supporting the dome arches have been removed,
and their place is taken by a large pointed Turkish arch which spans the
chapel from east to west as is done in the north church of the
Panachrantos (p. 129). The southern columns are of green marble with
bases of a darker marble and finely carved capitals both bedded in lead.
One of these columns, that to the east, has been partly built into the
mihrab wall. The arms of the cross and the western angle compartments
are covered with cross-groined vaults, while the eastern angle
compartments have dome vaults. The bema and the two lateral chapels have
cross-groined vaults. As usual the apse is semicircular within and shows
to the exterior seven sides, the three centre sides being filled with a
triple window with carved oblong shafts and cubical capitals.
[Illustration: S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS PROBABLE ORIGINAL PLAN FIG. 47.]
Internally the church is divided by string-courses at the abacus level
of the columns and at the springing level of the vaults into three
stories. The lowest story is now pierced by Turkish windows but was
originally plain; the middle story is pierced by single-light windows in
each of the angle compartments, and in the cross arm by a three-light
window of two quarter arches and a central high semicircular arch,
similar to those in the narthex of the Chora. The highest story has a
single large window in the cross arm.
To the east the bema arch springs from the abacus level and all three
apses have low vaults, a somewhat unusual arrangement. This allows of an
east window in the tympanum of the dome arch above the bema.
The dome is in twelve bays, each pierced by a window and separated by
flat projecting ribs. It retains its mosaics, representing Christ in the
centre surrounded by twelve prophets. Each prophet holds in his hand a
scroll inscribed with a characteristic quotation from his writings. The
drawing, for which I am indebted to the skill and kindness of Mr. Arthur
E. Henderson, gives an excellent idea of the scheme of the mosaics.
Speaking of these mosaics, Diehl remarks that we have here, as in the
Chora, indications of the Revival of Art in the fourteenth century. The
Christ in the centre of the dome is no longer represented as the stern
and hard Pantokrator, but shows a countenance of infinite benignity and
sweetness. The twelve prophets grouped around Him in the flutings of the
dome reveal, in the variety of their expressions, in their different
attitudes, in the harmonious colours and elegant draping of their robes,
an artist who seeks to escape from traditional types and create a living
work of his own.[247]
The narthex is in three bays covered by cross-groined vaults without
transverse arches. The lower window is a Turkish insertion, and above
it, rising from the vaulting string-course at the level of the abacus
course in the church, is a triple window of the type already described.
[Illustration: FIG. 48. (For other details see Fig. 68.)]
Above the narthex and approached by a narrow stair in the thickness of
the west wall is the small gynecaeum. It is in three bays, separated by
strong transverse arches resting on pilasters, each bay having a deep
recess to east and west. The centre bay is covered by a cross-groined
vault, and overlooks the church by a small window pierced in the west
cross arm. Each of the side bays is covered by a drum dome of sixteen
concave bays pierced with eight windows and externally octagonal. The
plaster has fallen away from these bays, allowing us to see that they
are built in regular courses of brick with thick mortar joints and
without any special strengthening at the lines of juncture or ribs
between the compartments. Such domes, therefore, are not strictly ribbed
domes but rather domes in compartments. The 'ribs' no doubt do, by their
extra thickness, add to the strength of the vault, but here, as in most
Byzantine domes, their purpose is primarily ornamental.
[Illustration: PLATE XLI.
(1) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. INTERIOR VIEW OF THE DOME OF THE
PARECCLESION.
(2) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. MOSAIC IN THE DOME OF THE PARECCLESION.
_To face page 154._]
The exterior of the chapel, like the facade of S. Theodore (p. 247),
presents a carefully considered scheme of decoration, characteristic of
the later Byzantine school both here and in the later schools outside
Constantinople. The southern wall is divided externally as it is also
internally, into three stories, and forms two main compartments
corresponding to the narthex and to the cross arm. They are marked by
high arches of two orders, which enclose two triple windows in the upper
story of the narthex and of the cross arm. The clue to the composition
is given by the middle story, which contains the two large triple
windows of the narthex and of the cross arm, and the two single lights
of the angle compartment, one on each side of the cross arm triple
light. These windows are enclosed in brick arches of two orders and
linked together by semicircular arched niches, of which those flanking
the narthex window are slightly larger than the rest, thus giving a
continuous arcade of a very pleasant rhythmic quality.
In the lower story the piers of the arches round the triple windows are
alone carried down through the inscribed string-course which separates
the stories and forms the window-sill. The system of niches is repeated,
flat niches being substituted for the angle compartment windows above.
The highest story contains the large single windows which light the
cross arm and the gynecaeum, the former flanked by two semicircular
niches, the latter by two brick roundels with radiating joints. Between
them, above the west angle compartment window, is a flat niche with a
Turkish arch. It is possible that there was originally a break here
extending to the cornice, and that this was filled up during Turkish
repairs. The cornice has two ranges of brick dentils and is arched over
the two large windows. The domes on the building have flat angle
pilasters supporting an arched cornice.
The masonry is in stripes of brick and stone courses, with radiating
joints to the arched niches and a zigzag pattern in the spandrils of the
first-story arches. At this level are four carved stone corbels with
notches on the upper side, evidently to take a wooden beam. These must
have supported the roof of an external wood cloister. The inscribed
string-course already mentioned between the ground and first stories
bears a long epitaph in honour of Michael Glabas Tarchaniotes.[248]
(Fig. 49.)
The three apses at the east end are of equal height. The side ones are
much worn but were apparently plain. The centre apse is in three stories
with alternately flat and circular niches in each side. It is crowned by
a machicolated cornice similar to that on the east end of S. Theodosia.
The general composition, as will be seen from the description, arises
very directly from the internal arrangements of the chapel and is
extremely satisfactory. The ranges of arches, varying in a manner at
first irregular, but presently seen to be perfectly symmetrical, give a
rhythmic swing to the design. The walls are now heavily plastered and
the effect of the horizontal bands of brick and stone is lost; but even
in its present state the building is a very delightful example of
Byzantine external architecture.
Evidently the foundress of the chapel wished the monument she reared to
her husband's memory to be as beautiful both within and without as the
taste and skill of the times could make it.
[Illustration: PLATE XLII.
S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. SOUTH SIDE OF THE PARECCLESION.
_To face page 156._]
What information we have in regard to the chapel is little, but clear
and definite, resting as it does on the authority of the two epitaphs
which the poet Philes composed to be inscribed on the interior and
exterior walls of the building. One of the epitaphs, if ever placed in
position, has been destroyed or lies concealed under Turkish plaster. Of
the other only fragments remain, forming part of the scheme of
decoration which adorns the south wall of the chapel. But fortunately
the complete text of both epitaphs is preserved in the extant writings
of their author, and affords all the information they were meant to
record. The chapel was dedicated to Christ as the Logos[249] and was
built after the death of the protostrator by his wife Maria, or Martha
in religion, for a mausoleum in which to place his tomb.[250] As the
protostrator died about 1315, the chapel was erected soon after that
date. An interesting incident occurred in this chapel soon after the
Turkish conquest. One day when the Sultan was riding through his newly
acquired capital he came to the Pammakaristos, and upon being informed
that it was the church assigned to the Patriarch Gennadius, alighted to
honour the prelate with a visit. The meeting took place in this
parecclesion, and the conversation, of which a summary account was
afterwards sent to the Sultan, dwelt on the dogmas of the Christian
Faith.[251]
[Illustration: FIG. 49.]
The text of the epitaph, portions of which appear on
the exterior face of the south wall of the parecclesion of
the church of the Pammakaristos (_Carmina Philae_, ccxxiii.
ed. Miller, vol. i. pp. 117-18) reads as follows:--
[Greek: Aner, to phos, to pneuma, to prosphthegma mou,
kai touto soi to doron ek tes syzygou;
sy men gar hos agrypnos en machais leon
hypnois, hypelthon anti lochmes ton taphon;
ego de soi teteucha petraian stegen, 5
me palin heuron ho stratos se synchee,
kan deuro ton choun ektinaxas ekrybes,
e tou pachous rheusantos herpages ano,
pan hoplon apheis ekkremes to pattalo;
tas gar epi ges ebdelyxo pastadas 10
en eutelei triboni phygon bion
kai pros noetous antetaxo satrapas,
sterrhan metendys ek theou panteuchian.
hos ostreon goun organo soi ton taphon,
e kochlon e kalyka kentrodous batou; 15
margare mou, porphyra, ges alles rhodon,
ei kai trygethen ekpieze tois lithois
hos kai stalagmous proxenein moi dakryon,
autos de kai zon kai Theon zonta blepon
hos nous katharos ton pathon ton ex hyles 20
ton son palin thalamon eutrepize moi;
he syzygos prin tauta soi Martha graphei,
protostrator kalliste kai tethammenon].[252]
O my husband, my light, my breath, whom I now greet.
This gift to thee also is from thy wife.
For thou indeed who wast like a sleepless lion in battles
Sleepest, having to endure the grave, instead (of occupying) thy lair.
But I have erected for thee a dwelling of stone,
Lest the army finding thee again, should trouble thee,
Although here thou art hidden, having cast off thy (body of) clay,
Or, the gross flesh having dropped off, thou hast been transported
above,
Leaving every weapon hung up on its peg.
For thou didst abhor the mansions in the world,[253]
Having fled from life in the cheap cloak (of a monk),
And didst confront invisible potentates,
Having received instead (of thine own armour) a strong panoply from
God.
Therefore I will construct for thee this tomb as a pearl oyster shell,
Or shell of the purple dye, or bud on a thorny brier.
O my pearl, my purple, rose of another clime,
Even though being plucked thou art pressed by the stones
So as to cause me sheddings of tears.
Yet thou thyself, both living and beholding the living God,
As a mind pure from material passions,
Prepare for me again thy home.
Martha,[254] thy wife formerly, writes these things to thee,
O protostrator, fairest also of the dead!
The following epitaph in honour of the protostrator Glabas[254] was to
be placed in the parecclesion of the church of the Pammakaristos
(_Carmina Philae_, ccxix., ed. Miller, vol. i. pp. 115-16):--
[Greek: Epigramma eis ton naon hon okodomesen he tou protostratoros
symbios apothanonti to andri autes.
he men dia sou pasa ton onton physis
ou dynatai chorein se ten proten physin;
plerois gar auten alla kai pleion meneis,
Theou Loge zon kai draki to pan pheron,
kan sarx alethes heuretheis perigraphe, 5
psychais de pistais mystikos enidrye
monen seauto pegnyon athanaton;
oukoun dechou ton oikon hon teteucha soi
deiknynta saphos tes psyches mou ten schesin;
ton syzygon de pheu teleutesanta moi 10
kai tes choikes apanastanta steges,
oikison eis aphtharton autos pastada,
kantautha teron ten soron tou leipsanou,
me tis enechthe syntribe tois osteois. 15
protostrator kai tauta sen depou charin
he syzygos prin, alla nyn Martha graphei.]
The whole nature of existing things which thou hast made
Cannot contain Thee, the primordial nature,
For Thou fillest it, and yet remainest more than it;
O Logos of God, living and holding all in the hollow of Thy hand,
Although as true flesh Thou art circumscribed,
And dwellest, mystically, in faithful souls,
Establishing for Thyself an immortal habitation,
Yet accept the house which I have built for Thee,
Which shows clearly the disposition of my soul.
My husband who, alas! has died to me
And gone forth from his house of clay,
Do Thou Thyself settle in an incorruptible mansion,
Guarding also here the shrine of his remains,
Lest any injury should befall his bones.
O protostrator, these things, too, for thy sake I trow,
Writes she who erewhile was thy wife, but now is Martha.[256]
[Illustration: FIG. 50.]
_To face page 160._
[Illustration: FIG. 51.]
[Illustration: FIG. 52.]
[Illustration: FIG. 53.]
[215] See the masterly articles of Mr. Siderides in the _Proceedings
of the Greek Syllogos of C.P._; supplement to vols. xx.-xxii. pp.
19-32; vol. xxix. pp. 265-73. I beg to acknowledge my great
indebtedness to their learned author.
[216] 'This is the thoughtful deed of John Comnenus and of his consort
Anna of the family Ducas. Grant to them, O Pure One, rich grace and
appoint them dwellers in the house of God.'
[217] Vol. ii, p. 183.
[218] _Carmina Philae_, vol. i. ode 237, lines 21-23. Codex Paris, p.
241.
[219] M. Crusius, _Turcograecia_, p. 189.
[220] It should read, [Greek: Branaina]. See Siderides, in the
_Proceedings of the Greek Syllogos of C.P._ vol. xxix. p. 267.
[221] For the protovestiarius, see Pachym. i. pp. 205, 469; ii. pp.
68, 72, 210; for the protostrator, see Pachym. ii. pp. 12, 445. The
former died in 1284, the latter about 1315. Cf. Siderides, _ut supra_.
See on this subject the article of A. E. Martini in _Atti della R.
Academia di archeologia, lettere e belle arti_, vol. xx., Napoli,
1900.
[222] _Carmina Philae_, vol. i. Codex Florent. ode 95, lines 280-82.
[223] See _Carmina Philae_, edited by E. Miller, odes 54, 57, 59, 92,
164, 165, 219, 237, for references to the protostrator, or to his
wife, or to the Pammakaristos.
[224] Hans Jacob Breuening, _Orientalische Reyss_, chap. xvii. p. 66.
He visited Constantinople 1579-80. The portraits stood 'Im Eingang
auff der rechten Seiten,' or, as another authority has it, 'in
patriarchica porta exteriore, in pariete dextero ab ingredientibus
conspiciuntur,' _Turcograecia_, p. 75.
[225] Gerlach refers to these portraits, but without mentioning the
names of the persons they represented. The legends were communicated
to M. Crusius (_Turcograecia_, p. 75) by Theodosius Zygomalas, the
protonotarius of the patriarch in the time of Gerlach.
[226] Pachym. ii. pp. 182-89. When Cosmas was appointed patriarch a
curious incident occurred. A monk of the monastery of the Pantepoptes
protested against the nomination, because it had been revealed to him
that the person who should fill the vacant office would bear the name
John. Such was the impression made by this prediction that matters
were so arranged that somehow Cosmas was able to claim that name also.
Whereupon the monk went on to predict how many years Cosmas would hold
office, and that he would lose that position before his death.
[227] Pachym. ii. pp. 271-77.
[228] _Ibid._ pp. 278-84.
[229] Pachym. ii. pp. 292-98.
[230] Pachym. ii. pp. 298-300.
[231] _Ibid._ ii. p. 303.
[232] _Ibid._ pp. 341-43.
[233] _Ibid._ 347-85.
[234] Cantacuzene, ii. pp. 442-48; Niceph. Greg. pp. 701, 710, 726.
[235] Ducas, pp. 117-21, 134, 139-42, 148-52, 176.
[236] _Historia politica_, p. 16.
[237] Phrantzes, p. 307.
[238] See Gerlach's description in _Turcograecia_, pp. 189-90.
[239] Breuening, _Orientalische Reyss_, p. 68, 'zur rechten an der
Mauren Imp. Alexii Comneni monumentum von Steinwerck auffs
einfaeltigste and schlechteste.'
[240] Salomon Schweigger, _Ein newe Reyssbeschreibung auss Deutschland
nach Constantinopel_ pp. 119-20, Chaplain for more than three years in
Constantinople, at the Legation of the Holy Roman Empire, 1581. He
gives the inscription on the sarcophagus: [Greek: Alexios autokrator
ton Rhomaion]. There is an eagle to the right of the legend.
[241] P. 12, [Greek: eis hen ekeinos edeimato Christo to philanthropo
monen].
[242] _Turcograecia_, p. 46, where the tomb is further described; 'est
id lapideum, non insistens 4 basibus, sed integro lapide a terra
surgens, altius quam mensa, ad parietem templi.'
[243] _Turcograecia_, p. 189.
[244] Patr. Constantius, p. 72.
[245] _Historia politica_, p. 178.
[246] A barrel vault is, however, used under the west gallery of S.
Theodosia though cross-groined vaults are used in the side 'aisles.'
[247] _Manuel d'art byzantin_, p. 742.
[248] The bands of marble on which the inscription is found were cut
from marble slabs which once formed part of a balustrade, for the
upper side of the bands is covered with carved work.
[249] _Carmina Philae_, i. pp. 115-16, lines 4, 7.
[250] _Ibid._ Heading to poem, and lines 10, 13-16. Second epitaph p.
117, lines 2, 5, 14.
[251] _Turcograecia_, pp. 16, 109, [Greek: endon tes mikras ekklesias
kai horaias tou parekklesion].
[252] [Greek: tethammene] (Cod. Mon. fol. 102).
[253] Alludes to the retirement of Glabas from the world as a monk.
[254] Her name as a nun.
[255] In the superscription to this epigram in the Florentine and
Munich MSS. the name [Greek: Glabas] is given.
[256] In these translations I have been assisted chiefly by Sir W. M.
Ramsay, Professor Bury, and Mr. E. M. Antoniadi.
CHAPTER VIII
CHURCH OF S. THEODOSIA, GUL JAMISSI
There can be no doubt that the mosque Gul Jamissi (mosque of the Rose),
that stands within the Gate Aya Kapou, near the Golden Horn, was the
Byzantine church of S. Theodosia. For Aya Kapou is the entrance styled
in Byzantine days the Gate of S. Theodosia ([Greek: pyle tes hagias
Theodosias]), because in the immediate vicinity of the church of that
dedication.[257] This was also the view current on the subject when
Gyllius[258] and Gerlach[259] visited the city in the sixteenth century.
The Turkish epithet of the gate 'Aya,' Holy, is thus explained. Du
Cange,[260] contrary to all evidence, places the church of S. Theodosia
on the northern side of the harbour, or at its head, _ultra sinum_.
The saint is celebrated in ecclesiastical history for her opposition to
the iconoclastic policy of Leo the Isaurian. For when that emperor
commanded the eikon of Christ over the Bronze Gate of the Great Palace
to be removed, Theodosia, at the head of a band of women, rushed to the
spot and overthrew the ladder up which the officer, charged with the
execution of the imperial order, was climbing to reach the image. In the
fall the officer was killed. Whereupon a rough soldier seized Theodosia,
and dragging her to the forum of the Bous (Ak Serai), struck her dead by
driving a ram's horn through her neck. Naturally, when the cause for
which she sacrificed her life triumphed, she was honoured as a martyr,
and men said, 'The ram's horn, in killing thee, O Theodosia, appeared to
thee a new Horn of Amalthea.'[261]
[Illustration: PLATE XLIII.
(1) S. THEODOSIA. THE EAST END.
(_E. M. Antoniadi._)
(2) S. THEODOSIA, FROM THE SOUTH-EAST.
_To face page 164._]
The remains of the martyred heroine were taken for burial to the
monastery of Dexiocrates ([Greek: to monasterion to onomazomenon
Dexiokratous]), so named either after its founder or after the district
in which it was situated.[262] This explains why the Gate of S.
Theodosia was also designated the Gate of Dexiocrates ([Greek: Porta
Dexiokratous]).[263] The earliest reference to the church of S.
Theodosia occurs in the account of the pilgrimage made by Anthony,
Archbishop of Novgorod,[264] to Constantinople in 1200. Alluding to that
shrine he says: 'Dans un couvent,' to quote the French translation of
his narrative, 'de femmes se trouvent les reliques de sainte Theodosie,
dans une chasse ouverte en argent.' Another Russian pilgrim from
Novgorod,[265] Stephen, who was in Constantinople in 1350, refers to the
convent expressly as the convent of S. Theodosia: 'Nous allames venerer
la sainte vierge Theodosie, que (pecheurs) nous baisames; il y a la un
couvent en son nom au bord de la mer.' The convent is again mentioned in
the description of Constantinople by the Russian pilgrim[266] who
visited the city shortly before the Turkish conquest (1424-53). 'De la
(Blachernae) nous nous dirigeames vers l'est et atteignimes le couvent
de Sainte Theodosie; la sainte vierge Theodosie y repose dans une chasse
decouverte.'
Two other Russian pilgrims, Alexander the scribe (1395), and the deacon
Zosimus (1419-21), likewise refer to the relics of the saint, but they
do so in terms which create some difficulty. Alexander saw the relics in
the church of the Pantokrator,[267] while Zosimus found them in the
convent of the 'Everghetis.'[268] The discrepancy between these
statements may indeed be explained as one of the mistakes very easily
committed by strangers who spend only a short time in a city, visit a
multitude of similar objects during that brief stay, and write the
account of their travels at hurried moments, or after returning home.
It is on this principle that Mordtmann[269] deals with the statement
that the relics of S. Theodosia were kept in the monastery of the
'Everghetis.' In his opinion Zosimus confused the monastery of S.
Saviour Euergetes[270] with the church of S. Theodosia,[271] because of
the proximity of the two sanctuaries. Lapses of memory are of course
possible, but, on the other hand, the trustworthiness of a document must
not be brushed aside too readily.
But the differences in the statements of the Russian pilgrims, as to the
particular church in which the relics of S. Theodosia were enshrined,
may be explained without charging any of the good men with a mistake, if
we remember that relics of the same saint might be preserved in several
sanctuaries; that the calendar of the Greek church celebrates four
saints bearing the name Theodosia;[272] and, lastly, that churches of
the same dedication stood in different quarters of the city. In fact, a
church dedicated to the Theotokos Euergetes stood on the Xerolophos
above the quarter of Psamathia.[273]
Stephen of Novgorod[274] makes it perfectly clear that he venerated the
relics of S. Theodosia in two different sanctuaries of the city, one of
them being a church beside the Golden Horn, the other standing on the
heights above Psamathia. So does the anonymous pilgrim.[274] The scribe
Alexander[276] found the relics of S. Theodosia both in the Pantokrator
and in the church of Kirmarta, above the quarter of Psamathia. It is
clear, therefore, that Zosimus,[277] who places the relics of S.
Theodosia in the monastery of 'Everghetis,' has in mind the church of
the Theotokos Euergetes above Psamathia, and not the church of S.
Saviour Euergetes which stood near S. Theodosia beside the Golden Horn.
NOTE
While Zosimus and Alexander agree in placing the relics of S.
Theodosia in a church in the region of Psamathia, they differ as to
the name of that church, the former naming it Everghetis, while the
latter styles it Kirmarta. As appears from statements found on pages
108, 163, 205 of the _Itineraires russes_, the two sanctuaries were
closely connected. But however this discrepancy should be treated,
there can be no doubt that relics of S. Theodosia were exhibited, not
only in the church dedicated to her beside the Golden Horn, but also
in a church in the south-western part of the city. Nor can it be
doubted that a church in the latter quarter was dedicated to the
Theotokos Euergetes.
That several churches should have claimed to possess the relics of the
heroine who championed the cause of eikons, assuming that all the
Russian pilgrims had one and the same S. Theodosia in mind, is not
strange. Many other popular saints were honoured in a similar fashion.
The shrine of S. Theodosia was famed for miraculous cures. Her horn of
plenty was filled with gifts of healing. Twice a week, on Wednesdays and
Fridays, according to Stephen of Novgorod, or on Mondays and Fridays,
according to another pilgrim, the relics of the saint were carried in
procession and laid upon sick and impotent folk.[278] Those were days of
high festival. All the approaches to the church were packed with men and
women eager to witness the wonders performed. Patients representing
almost every complaint to which human flesh is heir filled the court.
Gifts of oil and money poured into the treasury; the church was a blaze
of lighted tapers; the prayers were long; the chanting was loud.
Meanwhile the sufferers were borne one after another to the sacred
relics, 'and whoever was sick,' says the devout Stephen, 'was healed.'
So profound was the impression caused by one of these cures in 1306,
that Pachymeres[279] considered it his duty, as the historian of his
day, to record the wonder; and his example may be followed to furnish an
illustration of the beliefs and usages which bulked largely in the
religious life witnessed in the churches of Byzantine Constantinople.
At the time referred to there dwelt in the city a deaf-mute, a
well-known object of charity who supported himself by petty services in
benevolent households. While thus employed by a family that resided near
the church of the Holy Apostles, the poor man one night saw S. Theodosia
in a dream, and heard her command to repair with tapers and incense to
the church dedicated to her honour. Next morning the deaf-mute made his
friends understand what had occurred during his sleep, and with their
help found his way to the designated shrine. There he was anointed with
the holy oil of the lamp before the saint's eikon, and bowed long in
humble adoration at her feet. Nothing remarkable happened at the time.
But on his homeward way the devout man felt a strange pain in his ear,
and upon putting his hand to the sore place, what seemed a winged insect
flew out and vanished from view. Wondering what this might mean, he
entered the house in which he served, and set himself to prepare the
oven in which the bread for the family was to be baked that day. But all
his efforts to kindle the fire were in vain; the wood only smoked. This
went on so long that, like most persons under the same circumstances,
the much-tried man lost his temper and gave way to the impulse to use
bad language. Whereupon sonorous imprecations on the obstinate fuel
shook the air. The bystanders could not believe their ears. They thought
the sounds proceeded from some mysterious voice in the oven. But the
deaf-mute protested that he heard his friends talking, and assured them
that the words they heard were his own; S. Theodosia had opened his ears
and loosed his tongue. The news of the marvel spread far and wide and
reached even the court. Andronicus II. sent for the young man,
interrogated him, and was so deeply impressed by the recital of what had
happened that he determined to proceed to the church of S. Theodosia in
state, and went thither with the patriarch and the senate, humbly on
foot, and spent the whole night before the wonder-working shrine in
prayer and thanksgiving.
[Illustration: PLATE XLIV.
(1) S. THEODOSIA. INTERIOR, LOOKING NORTH-EAST.
(2) S. THEODOSIA. THE EASTERN DOME ARCH.
_To face page 168._]
The last scene witnessed in this church as a Christian sanctuary was
pathetic in the extreme. It was the vigil of the day sacred to the
memory of the saint, May 29, 1453. The siege of the city by the Turks
had reached its crisis. The morning light would see the Queen of Cities
saved or lost. All hearts were torn with anxiety, and the religious
fervour of the population rose to the highest pitch. Already, in the
course of the previous day, a great procession had gone through the
streets of the city, invoking the aid of God and of all His saints. The
emperor and the leading personages of his court were in S. Sophia,
praying, weeping, embracing one another, forgiving one another, all
feeling oppressed by a sense of doom. In the terrible darkness the
church of S. Theodosia, ablaze with lighted tapers, gleamed like a
beacon of hope. An immense congregation, including many women, filled
the building, and prayers ascended to Heaven with unwonted
earnestness--when suddenly the tramp of soldiers and strange shouts were
heard. Had the city indeed fallen? The entrance of Turkish troops into
the church removed all doubt, and the men and women who had gathered to
pray for deliverance were carried off as prisoners of war.[280]
According to the _Belgic Chronicle_, the body of the saint and other
relics were thrown into the mire and cast to the dogs.[281]
_Architectural Features_
As the building has undergone extensive repairs since it became a
mosque, care must be taken to distinguish between the original features
of the fabric and Turkish changes and restorations. The pointed dome
arches rest on pilasters built against the internal angles of the cross.
The dome is windowless, has no internal drum, and externally is
octagonal with a low drum and a flat cornice. Dome, arches, and
pilasters are all evidently Turkish reconstructions. The gable walls of
the transepts and the western wall are also Turkish. As the central apse
coincided with the orientation of the mosque, it has retained its
original form and some portions of its Byzantine walls, but it also has
suffered Turkish alterations. The cross arches in the south gallery and
in the narthex are pointed, and, in their present form, unquestionably
Turkish; but as the vault above them is Byzantine, their form may be due
to cutting away in order to secure a freer passage round the galleries
for the convenience of Moslem worshippers. The outer narthex is Turkish,
but the old wall which forms its foundation and traces of an old
pavement imply the former existence of a Byzantine narthex. In spite,
however, of these serious changes the building preserves its original
characteristic features, and is a good example of a domed-cross church,
with galleries on three sides and domes over the four angle-chambers.
The galleries rest on a triple arcade supported by square piers. On the
north and south the aisles are covered with cross-groined vaults on
oblong compartments, while the passage or narthex under the western
gallery has a barrel vault.
The chambers at the north-eastern and south-eastern angles of the cross
are thrown into the side chapels, which thus consist of two bays covered
with cross-groined vaults. Communication between the chapels and the
bema was maintained by passages opening in the ordinary fashion into the
eastern bays.
In the thickness of each of the eastern dome piers, and at a short
distance above the floor, is a small chamber. The chamber in the
north-eastern pier is lighted by a small opening looking southwards, and
was reached by a door in the east side of the passage leading from the
bema to the north-eastern chapel. The door has been walled up, and the
chamber is consequently inaccessible. The chamber in the south-eastern
pier is lighted by a window looking northwards, and has a door in the
east side of the passage from the bema to the south-eastern chapel.
Over the door is a Turkish inscription[282] in gilt letters to this
effect, 'Tomb of the Apostles, disciples of Jesus. Peace to him.' The
chamber is reached by a short spiral stairway of nine stone steps, and
contains a small marble tomb, which is covered with shawls, and has a
turban around its headstone. On a bracket in the wall is a lamp ready to
be lighted in honour of the deceased. The roof of the chamber is
perforated by an opening that runs into the floor at the east end of the
southern gallery, and over the opening is an iron grating.
[Illustration: FIG. 54.--S. THEODOSIA. THE INTERIOR, LOOKING WEST.
(From a Photograph.)]
Access to the galleries is gained by means of a staircase in the
northern bay of the passage under the western gallery. For some distance
from the floor of the church the staircase has wooden steps, but from
the first landing, where a door in the northern wall stands on a level
with the ground outside the church, stone steps are employed for the
remainder of the way up. The wooden steps are Turkish, but may replace
Byzantine steps of the same material. The stone steps are Byzantine, and
could be reached directly from outside the church through the door
situated beside the landing from which they start. Probably in Byzantine
days the stone staircase could not be reached from the floor of the
church, and furnished the only means of access to the galleries.
The galleries are covered by the barrel vaults of the cross arms. At the
east end of the northern and the southern gallery are chapels covered
with domes and placed above the prothesis and the diaconicon. As stated
already, the aperture in the roof of the chamber in the south-eastern
dome pier opens into the floor of the southern chapel, and probably a
similar aperture in the roof of the corresponding chamber in the
north-eastern pier opened into the floor of the chapel at the east end
of the northern gallery. The presence of chapels in such an unusual
position is explained by the desire to celebrate special services in
honour of the saints whose remains were buried in the chambers in the
piers, as though in crypts.
The domes over the chapels are hemispherical and rest directly on the
pendentives. They are ribless and without drums. The arches on which
they rest are semicircular and, with their infilling of triple windows,
are Byzantine. We may safely set down all four angle domes as belonging
to the original design, though the arches by which they communicate with
the galleries are pointed, and are therefore Turkish insertions or
enlargements.
On the exterior the eastern wall of the church is fairly well preserved.
The three apses project boldly; the central apse in seven sides, the
lateral apses in three sides. Although the central apse is
unquestionably a piece of Byzantine work it does not appear to be the
original apse of the building, but a substitute inserted in the course
of repairs before the Turkish conquest. This accounts for its plain
appearance as compared with the lateral apses, which are decorated with
four tiers of five niches, corresponding to the window height and the
vaulting-level within the church. As on the apses of the Pantokrator (p.
235) the niches are shallow segments in plan, set back in one brick
order, and without impost moulding. In the lowest tier three arches are
introduced between pilasters, with a window in the central arch. Above
the four tiers of niches is a boldly corbelled cornice, like that in the
chapel attached to the Pammakaristos. One cannot help admiring how an
effect so decidedly rich and beautiful was produced by very simple
means.
[Illustration: PLATE XLV.
(1) S. THEODOSIA. DOME OVER THE STAIRCASE TO THE GALLERIES.
(2) S. THEODOSIA. THE NARTHEX, LOOKING NORTH.
_To face page 172._]
Details of the tiled floor and of several carved fragments are given in
Fig. 76.
For some time after the conquest the building was used as a naval
store.[283] It was converted into a mosque in the reign of Sultan Selim
II. (1566-74) by a wealthy courtier, Hassan Pasha, and was known as
Hassan Pasha Mesjedi.[284] Its title, the mosque of the Rose, doubtless
refers to its beauty, just as another mosque is, for a similar reason,
styled Laleli Jamissi, the mosque of the Tulip.
Before leaving the church we may consider the claims of the tradition
that the chamber in the south-eastern dome pier contains the tomb of the
last Byzantine emperor. The tradition was first announced to the general
public by the Patriarch Constantius in a letter which he addressed in
1852 to Mr. Scarlatus Byzantius, his fellow-student in all pertaining to
the antiquities and history of Constantinople.[285] According to the
patriarch, the tradition was accepted by the Turkish ecclesiastical
authorities of the city, and was current among the old men of the Greek
community resident in the quarter of Phanar; he himself knew the
tradition even in his boyhood. Furthermore, distinguished European
visitors who inquired for Byzantine imperial tombs were directed by
Turkish officials to the church of S. Theodosia, as the resting-place of
the emperor who died with the Empire; and the inscription over the door
of the chamber referred to that champion of the Greek cause. Strangely
enough, the patriarch said nothing about this tradition when treating of
the church of S. Theodosia in his book on _Ancient and Modern
Constantinople_, published in 1844. In that work, indeed, he assigns the
tomb in question to some martyr who suffered during the iconoclastic
period.[286] This strange silence he explains in his letter written in
1852 as due to prudence; he had reason then to 'put the seal of
Alexander upon his lips.'
[Illustration: FIG. 55. (For other details in the church see Fig. 76.)]
The tradition has recently received the honour of being supported by Mr.
Siderides, to whom students of Byzantine archaeology are so deeply
indebted. But while accepting it in general, Mr. Siderides thinks it is
open to correction on two points of detail.
In his opinion the church of S. Theodosia was not the first sanctuary to
guard the mortal remains of Constantine Palaeologus, but the second. Nor
was the body of the fallen hero, when ultimately brought to this church,
placed, as the patriarch supposed, in the chamber in the south-eastern
pier, but in the chamber in the pier to the north-east. The reasons
urged in favour of these modifications of the tradition, as reported by
the Patriarch Constantius, are substantially the following:--In the
first place, the body of the last Constantine, after its decapitation,
was, at the express order of the victorious Sultan, buried with royal
honours, [Greek: meta basilikes times],[287] and therefore, so Mr.
Siderides maintains, must have been interred in the church which then
enjoyed the highest rank in the Greek community of the city, viz. the
church of the Holy Apostles, the patriarchal cathedral after the
appropriation of S. Sophia by the Turks. The church of the Holy
Apostles, however, soon lost that distinction, and was torn down to make
room for the mosque which bears the name of the conqueror of the city.
Under these circumstances what more natural, asks Mr. Siderides, than
that pious and patriotic hands should remove as many objects of
historical or religious value as possible from the doomed shrine, and
deposit them where men might still do them reverence--especially when
there was every facility for the removal of such objects, owing to the
fact that a Christian architect, Christoboulos, had charge of the
destruction of the church and of the erection of the mosque.
Some of those objects were doubtless transferred to the church of the
Pammakaristos,[288] where the Patriarch Gennadius placed his throne
after abandoning the church of the Holy Apostles; but others may have
been taken elsewhere. And for proof that the church of S. Theodosia had
the honour of being entrusted with the care of some of the relics
removed from the Holy Apostles, Mr. Siderides points to the inscription
over the doorway leading to the chamber in the south-eastern dome pier.
According to the inscription that chamber is consecrated by the remains
of Christ's apostles, _i.e._ the relics which formed the peculiar
treasure of the church of the Holy Apostles.
This being so, Mr. Siderides argues, on the strength of the tradition
under review, that the remains of the last Constantine also were brought
from the church of the Holy Apostles to S. Theodosia under the
circumstances described.
As to the position of the imperial tomb when thus transferred to the
church of S. Theodosia, Mr. Siderides insists that it cannot be in the
chamber in the south-eastern dome pier: first, because the religious
veneration cherished by Moslems for the grave in that chamber is
inconsistent with the idea that the grave contains the ashes of the
enemy who, in 1453, resisted the Sultan's attack upon the city;
secondly, because the inscription over the doorway leading to the
chamber expressly declares the chamber to be the resting-place of
Christ's apostles. Hence Mr. Siderides concludes that if the tradition
before us has any value, the tomb of the last Byzantine emperor was
placed in the chamber in the north-eastern pier, and finds confirmation
of that view in the absence of any respect for the remains deposited
there.
To enter into a minute criticism of this tradition and of the arguments
urged in its support would carry us far beyond our scope. Nor does such
criticism seem necessary. The fact that the last Constantine was buried
with royal honours affords no proof whatever that he was laid to rest in
the church of the Holy Apostles. If he was ever buried in S. Theodosia,
he may have been buried there from the first. The lateness of the date
when the tradition became public makes the whole story it tells
untrustworthy. Before a statement published in the early part of the
nineteenth century in regard to the interment of the last Byzantine
emperor can have any value, it must be shown to rest on information
furnished nearer the time at which the alleged event occurred. No
information of that kind has been produced. On the contrary, the only
contemporary historian of the siege of 1453 who refers to the site of
the emperor's grave informs us that the head of the last Constantine was
interred in S. Sophia, and his mutilated body in Galata.[289] The
patriarchal authorities of the sixteenth century, as Mr. Siderides
admits, while professing to point out the exact spot where Constantine
Palaeologus fell, were ignorant of the place where he was buried. In his
work on the mosques of the city, written in 1620, Evlia Effendi not only
knows nothing of the tradition we are considering, but says expressly
that the emperor was buried elsewhere--in the church of the monastery of
S. Mary Peribleptos, known by the Turks as Soulou Monastir, in the
quarter of Psamathia. In 1852 a story prevailed that the grave of the
last Constantine was in the quarter of Vefa Meidan.[290] From all these
discrepancies it is evident that in the confusion attending the Turkish
capture of the city, the real site of the imperial grave was soon
forgotten, and that all subsequent indications of its position are mere
conjectures, the offspring of the propensity to find in nameless graves
local habitations for popular heroes.
NOTE
The first edition of _Ancient and Modern Constantinople_ was published
in 1824. In it there is no mention of any tomb in the church of S.
Theodosia. The second edition of that work appeared in 1844, and there
the author speaks of a tomb in the church, and suggests that it was
the tomb of some martyr in the iconoclastic persecution. The
patriarch's letter to Scarlatus Byzantius was written in 1852, and
published by the latter in 1862. In that letter the patriarch reports
for the first time the tradition that the tomb in S. Theodosia was the
tomb of Constantine Palaeologus. In 1851 a Russian visitor to
Constantinople, Andrew Mouravieff, who published an account of his
travels, says that in the church of S. Theodosia he was shown a tomb
which the officials of the mosque assured him was the tomb of the last
Christian emperor of the city.[291] Lastly, but not least, in 1832 the
church of S. Theodosia underwent repairs at the Sultan's orders, and
then a neglected tomb was discovered in the church by the Christian
architect who had charge of the work of restoration, Haji Stephen
Gaitanaki Maditenou (see letter of the patriarch).[292] It is
difficult to resist the impression that the discovery of the tomb at
that time gave occasion for the fanciful conjectures current among
Turks and Greeks in regard to the body interred in the tomb. See the
article of Mr. Siderides, who gives the facts just mentioned, without
drawing the inference I have suggested.
[Illustration: FIG. 56.]
[Illustration: FIG. 57.]
[Illustration: FIGS. 58 AND 59.]
[Illustration: FIG. 60.]
[257] Phrantzes, p. 254; Pusculus, iv. 190.
[258] _De Bospora Thracio_, vi. c. 2.
[259] _Tuerkisches Tagebuch_, pp. 358, 454; Patr. Constantius, p. 13.
[260] Constant. Christ. iv. 190.
[261] Synax., May 29.--
[Greek: Keras kriou kteinon se, Theodosia,
ophthe neon soi tes Amaltheias keras].
[262] Banduri, ii. p. 34.
[263] Codinus, _De S. Sophia_, p. 147.
[264] _Itin. russes_, p. 104.
[265] _Ibid._ p. 125.
[266] _Ibid._ p. 233.
[267] _Ibid._ p. 162.
[268] _Itin. russes_, p. 205.
[269] _Esq. top._ parags. 68, 69.
[270] Pachym. vol. i. p. 365; _Chroniques graeco-romaines_, pp. 96, 97.
[271] Nicet. Chon. p. 752.
[272] Synax. March 25, May 29 (a day sacred to two saints named
Theodosia), July 8.
[273] _Itin. russes_, p. 205. Not far from the church and cistern of
S. Mokius.
[274] _Ibid._ cf. pp. 122, 125.
[275] _Ibid._ pp. 233, 234.
[276] _Ibid._ pp. 162, 163.
[277] _Ibid._ p. 205.
[278] _Itin. russes_, pp. 225, 233.
[279] Pachym. i. p. 365.
[280] Ducas, p. 293.
[281] Du Cange, iv. p. 190.
[282] Merkadi havariyoun eshabi Issa alaihusselam.
[283] Paspates, p. 322.
[284] Leunclavius, _Pand. Turc._ c. 128.
[285] [Greek: Syngraphai hai Elassones].
[286] "[Greek: Meletes]," Athens, 1908: [Greek: Konstantinou
Palaiologou thanatos, taphos, kai spathe].
[287] Phrantzes, pp. 290-91, [Greek: kai prostaxei autou hoi
heurethentes Christianoi ethapsan to basilikon ptoma meta basilikes
times].
[288] _E.g._, the column at which Christ was scourged stood in the
church of the Holy Apostles before the conquest. It was found by
Gerlach after the conquest in the Pammakaristos.--_Turcograecia_, p.
189.
[289] See the Muscovite's account in Dethier's _Collection of
Documents relating to the Siege of 1453_, vol. ii. p. 1117.
[290] Achmed Mouktar Pasha, a recent Turkish historian of the siege of
1453, maintains that the emperor was buried in the church of the Pege
(Baloukli), outside the walls of the city. There is no persistency in
the tradition that associates Constantine's tomb with the church of S.
Theodosia.
[291] _Letters from the East_ (in Russian), vol. ii. pp. 342-43,
quoted by Mr. Siderides.
[292] [Greek: Syngraphai hai Elassones.]
CHAPTER IX
THE CHURCH OF S. MARY DIACONISSA, KALENDER
HANEH JAMISSI
Close to the eastern end of the aqueduct of Valens, and to the south of
it, in the quarter of the mosque Shahzade, is a beautiful Byzantine
church, now known as Kalender Haneh Jamissi. It was visited by
Gyllius,[293] who refers to its beautiful marble revetment--_vestita
crustis varii marmoris_--but has, unfortunately, nothing to say
concerning its dedication. Since that traveller's time the very
existence of the church was forgotten by the Greek community of
Constantinople until Paspates[294] discovered the building in 1877. But
even that indefatigable explorer of the ancient remains of the city
could not get access to the interior, and it was reserved for Dr.
Freshfield in 1880 to be the first European visitor since Gyllius to
enter the building, and make its interest and beauty known to the
general public.[295]
[Illustration: PLATE XLVI.
(1) S. MARY DIACONISSA. VIEW OF THE NORTH-WEST SIDE, TAKEN FROM THE
AQUEDUCT OF VALENS.
(2) S. MARY DIACONISSA. THE NORTH ARM, LOOKING EAST.
_To face page 182._]
The identity of the church is a matter of pure conjecture, for we have
no tradition or documentary evidence on that point. Paspates[296]
suggests that it may have been the sanctuary connected either with the
'monastery of Valens and Daudatus,' or with the 'monastery near the
aqueduct,' establishments in existence before the age of Justinian the
Great.[297] It cannot be the former, because the monastery of Valens and
Daudatus, which was dedicated to S. John the Baptist, stood near the
church of the Holy Apostles close to the western end of the aqueduct of
Valens. It might, so far as the indication 'near the aqueduct' gives any
clue, be the sanctuary of the latter House, in which case the church was
dedicated to S. Anastasius.[298] But the architectural features of
Kalender Haneh Jamissi do not belong to the period before Justinian.
Mordtmann[299] identifies the building with the church of the Theotokos
in the district of the Deaconess ([Greek: naos tes theotokou ta
Diakonisses]), and in favour of this view there is the fact that the
site of the mosque corresponds, speaking broadly, to the position which
that church is known to have occupied somewhere between the forum of
Taurus (now represented by the Turkish War Office) and the Philadelphium
(the area about the mosque of Shahzade), and not far off the street
leading to the Holy Apostles. Furthermore, the rich and beautiful
decoration of the church implies its importance, so that it may very
well be the church of the Theotokos Diaconissa, at which imperial
processions from the Great Palace to the Holy Apostles stopped to allow
the emperor to place a lighted taper upon the altar of the shrine.[300]
Theophanes,[301] the earliest writer to mention the church of the
Diaconissa, ascribes its foundation to the Patriarch Kyriakos (593-605)
in the fourth year of his patriarchate, during the reign of the Emperor
Maurice. According to the historical evidence at our command, that
church was therefore erected towards the close of the sixth century. Dr.
Freshfield,[302] however, judging by the form of the church and the
character of the dome, thinks that Kalender Haneh Jamissi is 'not
earlier than the eighth century, and not later than the tenth.'
Lethaby[303] places it in the period between Justinian the Great and the
eleventh century. 'The church, now the Kalender mosque of
Constantinople, probably belongs to the intermediate period. The similar
small cruciform church of Protaton, Mount Athos, is dated c. 950.' Hence
if Theophanes and his followers are not to clash with these authorities
on architecture, either Kalender Haneh Jamissi is not the church of the
Diaconissa, or it is a reconstruction of the original fabric of that
sanctuary. To restore an old church was not an uncommon practice in
Constantinople, and Kalender Haneh Jamissi has undoubtedly seen changes
in the course of its history. On the other hand, Diehl is of the opinion
that the building cannot be later than the seventh century and may be
earlier.[304]
[Illustration: PLATE XLVII.
(1) S. MARY DIACONISSA. THE INTERIOR, LOOKING NORTH-EAST.
(2) S. MARY DIACONISSA. THE INTERIOR, LOOKING SOUTH-EAST.
_To face page 184._]
_Architectural Features_
The church belongs to the domed-cross type. The central area is
cruciform, with barrel vaults over the arms and a dome on the centre. As
the arms are not filled in with galleries this cruciform plan is very
marked internally. Four small chambers, in two stories, in the arm
angles bring the building to the square form externally. The upper
stories are inaccessible except by ladders, but the supposition that
they ever formed, like the similar stories in the dome piers of S.
Sophia, portions of continuous galleries along the northern, western,
and southern walls of the church is precluded by the character of the
revetment on the walls. In the development of the domed-cross type, the
church stands logically intermediate between the varieties of that type
found respectively in the church of S. Theodosia and in that of SS.
Peter and Mark.
The lower story of the north-western pier is covered with a flat
circular roof resting on four pendentives, while the upper story is open
to the timbers, and rises higher than the roof of the church, as though
it were the base of some kind of tower. It presents no indications of
pendentives or of a start in vaulting. The original eastern wall of the
church has been almost totally torn down and replaced by a straight wall
of Turkish construction. Traces of three apses at that end of the
building can, however, still be discerned; for the points at which the
curve of the central apse started are visible on either side of the
Turkish wall, and the northern apse shows on the exterior. The northern
and southern walls are lighted by large triple windows, divided by
shafts and descending to a marble parapet near the floor (Plate IV.).
The dome, which is large in proportion to the church, is a polygon of
sixteen sides. It rests directly on pendentives, but has a comparatively
high external drum above the roof. It is pierced by sixteen windows
which follow the curve of the dome. The flat, straight external cornice
above them is Turkish, and there is good reason to suspect that the
dome, taken as a whole, is Turkish work, for it strongly resembles the
Turkish domes found in S. Theodosia, SS. Peter and Mark, and S. Andrew
in Krisei. The vaults, moreover, below the dome are very much distorted;
and the pointed eastern arch like the eastern wall appears to be
Turkish. When portions of the building so closely connected with the
dome have undergone Turkish repairs, it is not strange that the dome
itself should also have received similar treatment.
In the western faces of the piers that carry the eastern arch large
marble frames of considerable beauty are inserted. The sills are carved
and rest on two short columns; two slender pilasters of verd antique
form the sides; and above them is a flat cornice enriched with
overhanging leaves of acanthus and a small bust in the centre. Within
the frames is a large marble slab. Dr. Freshfield thinks these frames
formed part of the eikonostasis, but on that view the bema would have
been unusually large. The more probable position of the eikonostasis was
across the arch nearer the apse. In that case the frames just described
formed part of the general decoration of the building, although, at the
same time, they may have enclosed isolated eikons. Eikons in a similar
position are found in S. Saviour in the Chora (Plate LXXXVI.).
The marble casing of the church is remarkably fine. Worthy of special
notice is the careful manner in which the colours and veinings of the
marble slabs are made to correspond and match. The zigzag inlaid pattern
around the arches also deserves particular attention. High up in the
western wall, and reached by the wooden stairs leading to a Turkish
wooden gallery on that side of the church, are two marble slabs with a
door carved in bas-relief upon them. They may be symbols of Christ as
the door of His fold (Plate IV.).
[Illustration: PLATE XLVIII.
(1) S. MARY DIACONISSA. EAST END, NORTH SIDE (LOWER PART).
(2) S. MARY DIACONISSA. EAST END, NORTH SIDE (UPPER PART).
_To face page 186._]
The church has a double narthex. As the ground outside the building has
been raised enormously (it rises 15-20 feet above the floor at the east
end) the actual entrance to the outer narthex is through a cutting in
its vault or through a window, and the floor is reached by a steep
flight of stone steps. The narthex is a long narrow vestibule, covered
with barrel vaults, and has a Turkish wooden ceiling at the southern
end.
The esonarthex is covered with a barrel vault between two cross vaults.
The entrance into the church stands between two Corinthian columns, but
they belong to different periods, and do not correspond to any structure
in the building. In fact, both narthexes have been much altered in their
day, presenting many irregularities and containing useless pilasters.
Professor Goodyear refers to this church in support of the theory that
in Byzantine buildings there is an intentional widening of the structure
from the ground upwards. 'It will also be observed,' he says, 'that the
cornice is horizontal, whereas the marble casing above and below the
cornice is cut and fitted in oblique lines.... The outward bend on the
right side of the choir is 11-1/2 inches in 33 feet. The masonry
surfaces step back above the middle string-course. That these bends are
not due to thrust is abundantly apparent from the fact that they are
continuous and uniform in inclination up to the solid rear wall of the
choir.'
But in regard to the existence of an intentional widening upwards in
this building, it should be observed: First, that as the eastern wall of
the church, 'the rear wall of the choir,' is Turkish, nothing can be
legitimately inferred from the features of that wall about the character
of Byzantine construction. Secondly, the set back above the middle
string-course on the other walls of the church is an ordinary
arrangement in a Byzantine church, and if this were all 'the widening'
for which Professor Goodyear contended there would be no room for
difference of opinion. The ledge formed by that set back may have served
to support scaffolding. In the next place, due weight must be given to
the distortion which would inevitably occur in Byzantine buildings. They
were fabrics of mortar with brick rather than of brick with mortar, and
consequently too elastic not to settle to a large extent in the course
of erection. Hence is it that no measurements of a Byzantine structure,
even on the ground floor, are accurate within more than 5 cm., while
above the ground they vary to a much greater degree, rendering minute
measurements quite valueless. Lastly, as the marble panelling was fitted
after the completion of the body of the building, it had to be adapted
to any divergence that had previously occurred in the settling of the
walls or the spreading of the vaults. The marble panelling, it should
also be observed, is here cut to the diagonal at one angle, and not at
the other.
Apart from the set back of the masonry at the middle string-course, this
church, therefore, supplies no evidence for an intentional widening of
the structure from the ground upwards. Any further widening than that at
the middle string-course was accidental, due to the nature of the
materials employed, not to the device of the builder, and was allowed by
the architect because unavoidable. Such irregularities are inherent in
the Byzantine methods of building.
[Illustration: PLATE XLIX.
(1) S. MARY DIACONISSA. SOUTH EIKON FRAME.
(2) S. MARY DIACONISSA. DETAIL IN THE SOUTH EIKON FRAME.
_To face page 188._]
[Illustration: FIG. 61.]
[Illustration: FIG. 62.]
[Illustration: PLATE L.
(1) S. MARY DIACONISSA, LOOKING WEST.
(2) S. MARY DIACONISSA. CAPITAL ON COLUMN AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE
CHURCH.
_To face page 190._]
[293] _De top. C.P._ iii. c. 6.
[294] P. 351.
[295] _Archaeologia_, vol. lv. part 2, p. 431.
[296] P. 352.