'Not far from here is a very beautiful church where there is said to

have been in times past a very large monastery with many houses for

teachers and scholars within its walls. Nothing of all that is to be

seen now except the ruins of a splendid gate and a dry cistern in

which the Jews spin, throw, and prepare silk. In front of the church

there is a large court surrounded by a covered passage (_porticus_),

which is adorned with beautiful figures from the Old and New

Testaments painted on gilded quadrangular glass cubes with Greek

inscriptions; but the ancient faces of these (figures) are scratched

out. The walls of this passage are covered with marble of different

colours. It has also three or four high crepidines[451] or vaulted

compartments (?) with the pictures of the prophets, of the apostles,

and of Christ in gold. The master of the house, or rather the

builder, or perhaps the founder, [Greek: ho ktetor], and his wife

are also painted there in a costume very much the same as is worn

to-day, but with a very strange head-ornament, from which we may

conclude that he was one of the most distinguished of the imperial

staff, for this ornament looks almost like a duke's biretta of silk

and fur; the belt (_cinctura_) is of different colours, such as

nowadays the Jews or Armenians wear, white and blue mixed. His wife

has a veil (_peplum_) almost like that which Greek women have. The

covered passage and the church form one building (_porticus muro

etiam templi continetur_), entered by two high gates, and comprising

four parts, or divided into four parts. 1. The covered passage

(_porticus_), the walls of which as far as half their height are

covered with marble. On the upper part, where the arches begin, and

on the arches themselves are the paintings. In this passage or hall

stand the women, and do not enter the church as they do not enter

other churches, unless they go to the Lord's supper. 2. Is the

church, as such, covered with Turkish rugs, and has only one gate.

It has a high dome, which, like the remaining two domes, is entirely

gilded and painted, and the walls up to the arches are covered with

the most beautiful marble. From this one enters 3. through a low

vaulted compartment, with a somewhat lower arch than the foresaid

arches, the third part of the church, where the founder with other

very beautiful portraits (pictures) is painted in gold. From this

one enters 4. a vaulted and also painted, but rather dark place,

with many small windows. On the outside of the walls of the church

there is this inscription[452]--

[Illustration: Monogram in Greek.]

In front of the porch, vestibulo, [Greek: propilio] of this church

Theodosius showed me the place where the last Christian emperor

Constantine, intending to flee at the Turkish conquest of the city,

is said to have fallen from his horse and to have been found dead.'

[Illustration: FIGS. 88 AND 89.]

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

p. 304.

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

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

xxviii. p. 265.

[432] _Ibid._ p. 263.

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

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

[435] _Die byzantinischen Wasserbehaelter von Konstantinopel_, von Dr.

Forscheimer und Dr. Strzygowski, pp. 62-63, 175-176.

[436] _Ut supra._

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

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

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

[440] _Esq. top._ p. 76; Archaeological Supplement to vol. xviii. of

the _Proceedings of the Greek Syllogos of C.P._ p. 9.

[441] _Tuerkisches Tagebuch_, pp. 455-56; cf. Crusius, _Turcograecia_

p. 190.

[442] The question thus raised presents serious difficulties. That

some building[A] in the neighbourhood of Kefele Mesjedi was known by

the name of Aetius[B] is undoubted. It was a cistern (Du Cange, i. p.

96), and formed one of the landmarks by which the church of S. John in

Petra, situated in this quarter of the city, was distinguished (Du

Cange, iv. p. 152 [Greek: engista tou Aetiou]). But while that is the

case, Gyllius (_De top. C.P._ iv.), who explored this part of the city

in 1550, does not mention any Byzantine church that answers at all to

Gerlach's description of the church of Aetius, unless it be the Chora.

That Gyllius should have overlooked so beautiful a monument of

Byzantine days as the church of Aetius, if different from the Chora,

is certainly very strange. But it is not less strange to find that

Gerlach does not speak of the Chora. Can the difficulty thus presented

be removed by the supposition that Gerlach refers to the Chora under

the name of Aetius? The position he assigns to the church of Aetius in

relation to the church of S. John in Petra and to the palace of

Constantine (Tekfour Serai) favours that view, for he places the

church of Aetius between S. John and the palace, exactly where the

Chora would stand in that series of buildings. Looking towards the

north-west from the windows of a house a little to the east of the

Pammakaristos, Gerlach says 'Ad Occasum, Boream versus, Prodromi

[Greek: mone] est, olim [Greek: petra]; longius inde, Aetii [Greek:

mone]; postea, Palatium Constantini' (_Turcograecia_, p. 190). On the

other hand, Gerlach's description of the church of Aetius differs in

so many particulars from what holds true of the Chora, that it is

difficult, if not impossible, to believe that in that description he

had the latter church in mind. Unless, then, we are prepared to admit

grave mistakes in Gerlach's description, we must either assume an

extraordinary failure on his part and on the part of Gyllius to notice

a most interesting Byzantine monument, directly on the path of both

explorers in this quarter of the city, or regret the disappearance of

an ancient sanctuary that rivalled the Chora in splendour.

[A] It was probably the ruined cistern with twenty-four

columns arranged in four rows of seven pillars each, near

the mosque Kassim Aga, a short distance above Kefele

Mesjedi. Gerlach associates it with the church of Aetius.

[B] _Tagebuch_, pp. 455-56; cf. Crusius, _Turcograecia_, p.

190. In the documents associated with the Synod of 536 in

Constantinople the cistern of Aetius serves to identify the

monastery of Mara (Mansi, viii. cols. 910, 930, 990). Cf.

Banduri, iii. p. 49; v. p. 106.

[443] There is some uncertainty as to the identity of Manuel. Some

authorities distinguish Manuel the general from Manuel the uncle of

Theodora, on the ground that the former is said to have died of wounds

received in battle during the reign of Theophilus (see Leo Gramm. p.

222). But it would be strange for different Manuels to reside near the

cistern of Aspar, and to convert their residences into the monastery

of Manuel in that vicinity. For other reasons for the identification

see Bury, _Eastern Roman Empire_, Appendix viii. p. 476.

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

Constantinople held under Photius.

[445] Theoph. Cont. p. 433, [Greek: mone tou Manouelou].

[446] Cedrenus, ii. p. 487.

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

[448] H. Brockhaus, _Die Kunst in den Athos-Kloestern_, p. 34; G.

Millet, _Le Monastere de Daphne_.

[449] Gerlach, _Tagebuch_, p. 337.

[450] Paspates, p. 395.

[451] In Parker's _Glossary of Architecture_, p. 506, the term is

defined 'quae vulgariter a volta dicitur' (Matt. Par. 1056). Du Cange

defines the word 'caverna ubi viae conveniunt.'

[452] According to the Patriarch Constantius (_Ancient and Modern

Constantinople_, p. 76), the monogram--

[Illustration: Monogram in Greek.]

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

CHAPTER XVIII

MONASTIR MESJEDI

At a short distance within Top Kapoussi (Gate of S. Romanus) that

pierces the landward walls of the city, and a little to the south of the

street leading to that entrance, in the quarter of Tash Mektep, Mustapha

Tchaoush, stands a lonely Byzantine chapel which now goes by the name

Monastir Mesjedi, the Chapel of the Monastery. Its present designation

tells us all that is certain in regard to the history of the edifice; it

was originally a chapel attached to a Christian monastery, and after the

Turkish conquest became a Moslem place of worshp. Paspates[453] is

disposed to identify the building with the chapel of the Theotokos

erected in this vicinity, in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, by

Phocas Maroules[454] on the site of the ancient church dedicated to the

three martyr sisters Menodora, Metrodora, and Nymphodora.[455] The

chapel built by Maroules in fact belonged to a convent, and owing to its

comparatively recent date might well be standing to this day. But the

evidence in favour of the proposed identification is slight. In a city

crowded with sanctuaries more than one small chapel could be situated

near the gate of S. Romanus. An old font, turned upside down and made to

serve as a well-head by having its bottom knocked out, lies on a vacant

lot on the same side of the street as Monastir Mesjedi, but nearer the

gate of S. Romanus, and seems to mark the site of another sanctuary. So

likewise do the four columns crowned with ancient capitals which form

the porch of the mosque Kurkju Jamissi, on the north side of the street.

[Illustration: PLATE LXXVII.

THE CISTERN OF AETIUS.

With the kind permission of Sir Benjamin Stone.

_To face page 262._]

Phocas Maroules was domestic of the imperial table under Andronicus II.

Palaeologus (1282-1328). He appears also as the commander of the guards

on the city walls that screened the palace of Blachernae, when

Andronicus III. Palaeologus, accompanied by John Cantacuzene, the

protostrator Synadenus, and an escort of thirty soldiers, stood before

the gate of Gyrolimne to parley with the elder emperor. The domestic was

the bearer of the messages exchanged between the imperial relatives on

that occasion. It was a thankless task. But what troubled the mind of

Maroules most was how to avoid giving offence to both sovereigns and

succeed in serving two masters. To salute the grandson as became his

rank and pretensions would incur the grandfather's displeasure; to treat

rudely the young prince, who had come on a friendly errand, and

addressed the domestic in gracious terms, was an impropriety which the

reputation of Maroules as a paragon of politeness would not allow him to

commit. Furthermore, fortune being fickle, he felt bound as a prudent

man to consult her caprices. Accordingly, allowing less discreet

officials beside him to insult the younger emperor as much as they

pleased, he himself refrained both from all taunts and from all

courteous speech. In response to the greetings of Andronicus III. he

said nothing, but at the same time made a respectful bow, thus

maintaining his good manners and yet guarding his interests whatever

turn the dispute between the two emperors might take. John Cantacuzene,

a kindred spirit, extols the behaviour of Maroules in this dilemma as

beyond all praise.[456]

After the death of Maroules his widow and son attempted to turn the

convent into a monastery. But the patriarchal court, before which the

case came in 1341, decided in favour of the claims of the nuns, on the

principle that the intention of the founder should in such matters be

always respected. Hence convents were not allowed to be changed into

monasteries, nor monasteries into convents.[457]

_Architectural Features_

(For Plan see p. 261.)

The building is a small oblong hall roofed in wood, and terminates at

its eastern end in three semicircular apses. It is divided into two

unequal compartments by a triple arcade placed near the western end. The

side apses are shallow recesses, scarcely separated from the central

apse, and show three sides on the exterior. The central apse projects

six sides, and is now lighted by a large Turkish window. The western

compartment, forming the narthex, is in three bays covered with

cross-groined vaults. The cushion capitals on the columns of the arcade

are decorated, on the east and west, with a rudely cut leaf; and on the

north and south with a cross in a circle. Along the exterior of the

south wall are traces of a string-course, of a cloister, and of a door

leading to the western compartment. On the same wall Paspates[458] saw,

as late as 1877, eikons painted in fresco. The western entrance stands

between two pilasters, and near it is an upright shaft, buried for the

most part in the ground, probably the vestige of a narthex. In the

drawing of the church given by Paspates,[459] three additional shafts

are shown beside the building.

[453] P. 376.

[454] Miklosich et Mueller, i. 221.

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

Metaphrastes, ii. p. 653.

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

[457] Miklosich et Mueller, i. p. 221.

[458] P. 376.

[459] _Ut supra._

CHAPTER XIX

BALABAN AGA MESJEDI

A small Byzantine building, now used for Moslem worship under the name

of Balaban Aga Mesjedi, is situated in the quarter of Shahzade, off the

south side of the street leading to the mosque of Sultan Mehemed and the

gate Edirne Kapoussi. Mordtmann[460] proposes to identify it with the

church of the Theotokos in the district of the Curator ([Greek: tou

Kouratoros]), the foundation of which is ascribed to Verina, the consort

of Leo Macellus (457-474).[461] The only reason for this conjecture is

that the church in question stood where Balaban Aga Mesjedi stands, in

the neighbourhood of the forum of Taurus,[462] now represented by the

open area beside the War Office and the mosque of Sultan Bajazet. But

the plan of the building does not correspond to the description given of

the Theotokos in the district of the Curator. The latter resembled the

Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem,[463] and was therefore circular, whereas

Balaban Aga Mesjedi is a hexagon. Indeed, it may be questioned whether

the building was ever a church, seeing it has no room for either a berm,

or an apse, or an eikonostosis. It may have been the library of a

monastic establishment.

_Architectural Features_

(For Plans see p. 267.)

Internally the building is an accurate hexagon, with a deeply arched

recess in each side. Five recesses have a window, while in the sixth

recess, instead of a window, there is a door. The cornice and wooden

ceiling are Turkish. Externally the edifice shows four sides, two

circular and two flat projecting bays, arranged in alternate order. In

each of the circular sides are two windows, while the fifth window and

the entrance are respectively in the flat sides. A Turkish narthex

fronts one-half of the building. (Plate LV.)

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

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

[461] Banduri, i. p. 18.

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

[463] Banduri, _ut supra_.

CHAPTER XX

THE CHURCH OF THE GASTRIA,

SANJAKDAR MESJEDI

This mosque is situated in the quarter of Psamathia, at a short distance

to the north of the Armenian church of S. George (Soulou Monastir),

which stands on the site of the Byzantine church of S. Mary Peribleptos.

Paspates,[464] who first recognized the Byzantine character of the

edifice, regards it as the chapel attached to the convent of the Gastria

([Greek: Mone ton Gastrion, ta Gastria], _i.e._ in the district of the

Flower-pots). His reasons for that opinion are: first, the building is

situated in the district of Psamathia, where the convent of the Gastria

stood; secondly, it is in the neighbourhood of the Studion, with which

the convent of the Gastria was closely associated during the

iconoclastic controversy; thirdly, the copious and perennial stream of

water that flows through the grounds below the mosque would favour the

existence of a flower-garden in this part of the city, and thus give

occasion for the bestowal of the name Gastria upon the locality. The

argument is by no means conclusive. A more fanciful explanation of the

name of the district is given by Byzantine etymologists after their

wont. According to them the name was due to the circumstance that the

Empress Helena, upon her return from Jerusalem with her great discovery

of the Holy Cross, disembarked at Psamathia, and having founded a

convent there, adorned its garden with the pots ([Greek: ta gastria]) of

fragrant shrubs which accompanied the sacred tree on the voyage from

Palestine.[465] More sober historians ascribe the foundation of the

convent to Euphrosyne, the step-mother of the Emperor Theophilus,[466]

or to his mother-in-law Theoctista.[467] Both ladies, it is certain,

were interested in the House, the former taking the veil there,[468]

while the latter resided in the immediate neighbourhood.[469] Probably

the convent was indebted to both those pious women for benefactions, and

it was unquestionably in their day that the monastery acquired its

greatest fame as the centre of female influence in support of the cause

of eikons. Theoctista was especially active in that cause, and through

her connection with the court not only strengthened the opposition to

the policy of her son-in-law, but also disturbed the domestic peace of

the imperial family. Whenever the daughters of Theophilus visited her

she took the opportunity to condemn their father's views, and would

press her eikons on the girls' lips for adoration. One day, after such a

visit, Pulcheria, the youngest princess, a mere child, in giving an

account of what had transpired, innocently told her father that she had

seen and kissed some very beautiful dolls at her grandmother's house.

Whereupon Theophilus, suspecting the real facts, forbade his daughter to

visit Theoctista again. On another occasion the court fool, Denderis,

surprised the Empress Theodora in her private chamber kissing eikons and

placing them over her eyes. 'What are these things?' he inquired. 'My

beautiful dolls which I love,' she replied. Not long afterwards the

jester was summoned to amuse Theophilus while sitting at table. 'What is

the latest news?' asked the emperor. 'When I last visited "mamma" (the

jester's familiar name for the empress) I saw most beautiful dolls in

her room.' Instantly the emperor rose, beside himself with rage, and

rushing to his wife's apartments violently denounced her as a heathen

and idolater. 'Not at all,' answered Theodora, in her softest accents,

'that fool of yours saw me and my maidens looking into a mirror and

mistook the faces reflected there for dolls.' The emperor did not press

the case, but a few days later the servants of Theodora caught Denderis

and gave him a sound thrashing for telling tales, dismissing him with

the advice to let dolls alone in the future. In consequence of this

experience, whenever the jester was afterwards asked whether he had seen

his 'mamma's' dolls recently, he put one hand to his mouth and the other

far down his back and whispered, 'Don't speak to me about dolls.'[470]

Such were the pleasantries that relieved the stern warfare against

eikons.

[Illustration: PLATE LXXVIII.

GASTRIA (SANJAKAR, MESJEDI). EAST END.]

[Illustration: GASTRIA (SANJAKAR, MESJEDI). THE ENTRANCE.

_To face page 268._]

On the occasion of the breach between Theodora and her son Michael III.,

on account of the murder of her friend and counsellor Theoctistos at

Michael's order, she and her four daughters, Thekla, Anastasia, Anna,

and Pulcheria, were confined in the Gastria, and there, with the

exception of Anna, they were eventually buried.[471] At the Gastria were

shown also the tombs of Theoctista, her son Petronas, Irene the daughter

of Bardas, and a small chest containing the lower jaw of Bardas[472]

himself. It is this connection with the family of Theophilus, in life

and in death, that lends chief interest to the Gastria.

_Architectural Features_

(For Plan see p. 267.)

Although the building is now almost a complete ruin, it still preserves

some architectural interest. On the exterior it is an octagonal

structure, with a large arch on each side rising to the cornice, and

thus presents a strong likeness to the Byzantine building known as Sheik

Suleiman Mesjedi, near the Pantokrator (p. 25). The northern, southern,

and western arches are pierced by windows. The entrance is in the

western arch. The interior presents the form of an equal-armed cross,

the arms being deep recesses covered with semicircular vaults. The dome

over the central area has fallen in. The apse, semicircular within and

showing five sides on the exterior, is attached to the eastern arm. Its

three central sides are occupied by a triple-shafted window. Two shallow

niches represent the usual apsidal chambers. A similar niche is found

also on both sides of the entrance and on the eastern side of the

northern arm of the cross. In the wall to the west of the southern arch

is a small chamber. The joint between the apse and the body of the

building is straight, with no bond in the masonry; nor is the masonry of

the two parts of the same character. In the former it is in alternate

courses of brick and stone, while in the latter we find many brick

courses and only an occasional stone band. Evidently the apse is a later

addition. In view of these facts, the probable conclusion is that the

building was originally not a church but a library, and that it was

transformed into a church at some subsequent period in its history to

meet some special demand.

[Illustration: PLATE LXXIX.

GASTRIA (SANJAKAR). FROM THE WEST.]

[Illustration: GASTRIA (SANJAKAR). THE INTERIOR.

_To face page 270._]

[464] P. 304.

[465] Banduri, iii. p. 54.

[466] Leo Gram. p. 214.

[467] Zonaras, iii. p. 358.

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

[469] _Ibid._ p. 90.

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

[471] _Ibid._ pp. 174, 658, 823; Codinus, p. 208. The Anonymus

(Banduri, iii. p. 52) and Codinus (_De aed._ p. 97) say that Theodora

and her daughters were confined in the convent of Euphrosyne at the

Libadia, [Greek: ta Libadia]. Their mistake is due to the fact that

the convent at Gastria and the convent at Libadia were both connected

with ladies named Euphrosyne. Cf. Codinus, p. 207.

[472] Constant. Porphyr. p. 647.

CHAPTER XXI

THE CHURCH OF S. MARY OF THE MONGOLS

The church of S. Mary of the Mongols ([Greek: ton Mongolion, ton

Mougoulion, tou Mouchliou, Mouchliotissa]), which stands on the

heights above the quarter of Phanar, a short distance to the west of

the Greek Communal School, was founded in the thirteenth century by

Maria Palaeologina, a natural daughter of the Emperor Michael

Palaeologus (1261-1282). As the church has been in Greek hands ever

since its foundation its identity cannot be disputed. The epithet

given to the Theotokos in association with this sanctuary alludes to

the fact that Maria Palaeologina married a Khan of the Mongols,[473]

and bore the title of Despoina of the Mongols ([Greek: Despoina ton

Mougoulion]).[474] The marriage was prompted by no romantic sentiment,

but formed part of the policy by which her father hoped to secure the

goodwill of the world for the newly restored Empire of Constantinople.

While endeavouring to disarm the hostility of Western Europe by

promoting the union of the Latin and Greek Churches, he sought to

conciliate the people nearer his dominion by matrimonial alliances

with their rulers. It was in this way that he courted, with greater or

less success, the friendship of Servia, Bulgaria, the Duchy of Thebes,

and the Empire of Trebizond. And by the same method he tried to win

the friendship of the formidable Mongols settled in Russia and Persia.

Accordingly he bestowed the hand of one natural daughter, Euphrosyne,

upon Nogaya,[475] who had established a Mongolian principality near

the Black Sea, while the hand of Maria was intended for Holagu, famous

in history as the destroyer in 1258 of the caliphate of Baghdad. Maria

left Constantinople for her future home in 1265 with a great retinue,

conducted by Theodosius de Villehardouin, abbot of the monastery of

the Pantokrator, who was styled the 'Prince,' because related to the

princes of Achaia and the Peloponnesus. A rich trousseau accompanied

the bride-elect, and a tent of silk for a chapel, furnished with

eikons of gold affixed to crosses, and with costly vessels for the

celebration of the Holy Sacrifice. When the mission reached Caesarea

news came that Holagu was dead, but since reasons of state inspired

the proposed marriage, the bridal party continued its journey to the

Mongolian court, and there in due time Maria was wedded to Abaga, the

son and successor of Holagu, after the bridegroom had received, it is

said, Christian baptism.[476]

[Illustration: FIG. 93.--S. MARY OF THE MONGOLS. EXTERIOR.

(From a Photograph.)]

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

In 1281 Abaga was poisoned by his brother Achmed,[477] and Maria deemed

it prudent, and doubtless welcome, after an absence of sixteen years, to

return to Constantinople. She appears again in history during the reign

of her brother Andronicus II. Palaeologus, when for the second time she

was offered as a bride to the Mongolian prince, Charbanda, who then

ruled in Persia,[478] the object of this new matrimonial alliance being

to obtain the aid of the Mongols against the Turks, who under Othman had

become a dangerous foe and were threatening Nicaea. With this purpose in

view Maria proceeded to that city, both to encourage the defence of an

important strategic position and to press forward the negotiations with

Charbanda. The Despoina of the Mongols, however, did not comprehend the

character of the enemy with whom she had to deal. Her contemptuous

demeanour towards Othman, and her threats to bring the Mongols against

him, only roused the spirit of the Turkish chieftain, and before the

Greeks could derive any advantage from the 30,000 Mongolian troops sent

to their aid, Othman stormed the fortress of Tricocca, an outpost of

Nicaea, and made it the base of his subsequent operations.[479]

The church was built for the use of a convent which the Despoina of the

Mongols, like many other ladies in Byzantine times, erected as a haven

of refuge for souls who had dedicated their lives to the service of God

([Greek: limena psychon kata theon prosthemenon bioun]). She also

endowed it with property in the immediate neighbourhood ([Greek: peri

ten topothesian tou Phanari]), as well as with other lands both within

and beyond the city, and while Maria lived the nuns had no reason for

complaint. But after her death the property of the House passed into the

hands of Isaac Palaeologus Asanes, the husband of a certain Theodora,

whom Maria had treated as a daughter, and to whom she bequeathed a share

in the convent's revenues. He, as soon as Theodora died, appropriated

the property for the benefit of his family, with the result that the

sisterhood fell into debt and was threatened with extinction. In their

distress the nuns appealed to Andronicus III. Palaeologus for

protection, and by the decision of the patriarchal court, to which the

case was referred as the proper tribunal in such disputes, the convent

in 1351 regained its rights.[480]

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

As already intimated, to this church belongs the interest of having

always preserved its original character as a sanctuary of the Greek

Orthodox Communion. This distinction it owes to the fact that the church

was given to Christoboulos, the Greek architect of the mosque of Sultan

Mehemed, as his private property, to mark the conqueror's satisfaction

with the builder's work. The grant was confirmed by Bajazet II. in

recognition of the services of the nephew of Christoboulos in the

construction of the mosque which bears that Sultan's name. Twice,

indeed, attempts were subsequently made to deprive the Greek community

of the church, once under Selim I. and again under Achmed III. But, like

the law of the Medes and Persians, a Sultan's decree altereth not, and

by presenting the hatti sheriff of Sultan Mehemed the efforts to

expropriate the building were frustrated.[481]

Among the Turks the building is known as Kan Kilisse, the church of

Blood, and the adjoining street goes by the name Sanjakdar Youkousou,

the ascent of the standard-bearer,[482] terms which refer to the

desperate struggle between Greeks and Turks at this point on the morning

of the capture of the city.[483]

_Architectural Features_

Although the building has always been in Christian hands it has suffered

alterations almost more drastic than any undergone by churches converted

into mosques. The interior has been stripped of its original decoration,

and is so blocked by eikons, chandeliers, and other ornaments as to

render a proper examination of the church extremely difficult. In plan

the church is a domed quatrefoil building, the only example of that type

found in Constantinople. The central dome rests on a cross formed by

four semi-domes, which are further enlarged below the vaulting level by

three large semicircular niches. It is placed on a drum of eight concave

compartments pierced by windows to the outside circular and crowned with

a flat cornice. Externally the semi-domes and apse are five-sided. From

the interior face of the apse and on its northern wall projects a

capital, adorned with acanthus leaves, which, as it could never have

stood free in this position, probably formed part of an eikonostasis in

stone. The narthex is in three bays, the central bay being covered by a

barrel vault, while the lateral bays have low drumless domes on

pendentives. The entrance is by a door in the central bay, and from that

bay the church is entered through a passage cut in the central niche of

the western semi-dome, and slightly wider than the niche. The end bays

open, respectively, into the northern and southern semi-domes by

passages or aisles terminating in a diagonal arch. The arches between

these aisles and the western semi-dome are pierced, and thus isolate the

western dome piers. On the south the church has been greatly altered;

for the entire southern semi-dome and the southern bay of the narthex

have been removed and replaced by three aisles of two bays each. These

bays are equal in height, and are covered by cross-groined vaults with

strong transverse pointed arches supported on square piers, the whole

forming a large hall held up by two piers, and showing the distinct

influence of Italian Gothic work. This part of the building is modern.

On the eastern wall is a large picture of the Last Judgment.

The plan of this church may be compared with that of S. Nicholas Methana

(Fig. 97).

[Illustration: FIG. 96.]

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

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

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

[475] _Ibid._ i. p. 231

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

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

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

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

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

[481] Patr. Constantius, pp. 84-86. The Greek community retains also

other churches founded before the Turkish conquest, but they are

wholly modern buildings.

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

[483] N. Barbaro, p. 818.

CHAPTER XXII

BOGDAN SERAI

In a vacant lot of ground on the eastern declivity of the hill above the

quarter of Balat, and at a short distance to the east of a mass of rock

known as Kesme Kaya, stands a Byzantine chapel to which the name Bogdan

Serai clings. Although now degraded to the uses of a cow-house it

retains considerable interest. Its name recalls the fact that the

building once formed the private chapel attached to the residence of the

envoys of the hospodars of Moldavia (in Turkish Bogdan) at the Sublime

Porte; just as the style Vlach Serai given to the church of the Virgin,

lower down the hill and nearer the Golden Horn, is derived from the

residence of the envoys of the Wallachian hospodars with which that

church was connected. According to Hypselantes,[484] the Moldavian

residence was erected early in the sixteenth century by Teutal

Longophetes, the envoy who presented the submission of his country to

Suleiman the Magnificent at Buda in 1516, when the Sultan was on his way

to the siege of Vienna. Upon the return of Suleiman to Constantinople

the hospodar of the principality came in person to the capital to pay

tribute, and to be invested in his office with the insignia of two

horse-tails, a fur coat, and the head-dress of a commander in the corps

of janissaries. Gerlach[485] gives another account of the matter.

According to his informants, the mansion belonged originally to a

certain Raoul, who had emigrated to Russia in 1518, and after his death

was purchased by Michael Cantacuzene as a home for the Moldavian

envoys. It must have been an attractive house, surrounded by large

grounds, and enjoying a superb view of the city and the Golden Horn. It

was burnt[486] in the fire which devastated the district on the 25th

June 1784, and since that catastrophe its grounds have been converted

into market gardens or left waste, and its chapel has been a desecrated

pile. But its proud name still haunts the site, calling to mind

political relations which have long ceased to exist. The chapel stood at

the north-western end of the residence and formed an integral part of

the structure. For high up in the exterior side of the south-eastern

wall are the mortises which held the beams supporting the floor of the

upper story of the residence; while lower down in the same wall is a

doorway which communicated with the residence on that level. Some of the

substructures of the residence are still visible. It is not impossible

that the house, or at least some portion of it, was an old Byzantine

mansion. Mordtmann,[487] indeed, suggests that it was the palace to

which Phrantzes refers under the name Trullus ([Greek: en to

Troulo]).[488] But that palace stood to the north of the church of the

Pammakaristos (Fetiyeh Jamissi), and had disappeared when Phrantzes

wrote. Gerlach,[489] moreover, following the opinion of his Greek

friends, distinguishes between the Trullus and the Moldavian residence,

and places the site of the former near the Byzantine chapel now

converted into Achmed Pasha Mesjedi, to the south of the church of the

Pammakaristos.[490]

[Illustration: PLATE LXXX.

BOGDAN SERAI. APSE OF THE UPPER CHAPEL.]

[Illustration: BOGDAN SERAI. A PENDENTIVE OF THE DOME.]

[Illustration: BOGDAN SERAI. THE CHAPEL FROM THE NORTH-WEST.

_To face page 280._]

Opinions differ in regard to the dedication of the chapel.

Paspates,[491] following the view current among the gardeners who

cultivated the market-gardens in the neighbourhood, maintained that the

chapel was dedicated to S. Nicholas. Hence the late Canon Curtis, of the

Crimean Memorial Church in Constantinople, believed that this was the

church of SS. Nicholas and Augustine of Canterbury, founded by a Saxon

noble who fled to Constantinople after the Norman conquest of England.

What is certain is that in the seventeenth century the chapel was

dedicated to the Theotokos. Du Cange mentions it under the name,

Ecclesia Deiparae Serai Bogdaniae.[492]

Mordtmann has proved[493] that Bogdan Serai marks the site of the

celebrated monastery and church of S. John the Baptist in Petra,--the

title 'in Petra' being derived from the neighbouring mass of rock, which

the Byzantines knew as [Greek: Palaia Petra], and which the Turks style

Kesme Kaya, the Chopped Rock.

According to a member of the monastery, who flourished in the eleventh

century, the House was founded by a monk named Bara in the reign of

Anastasius I. (491-518) near an old half-ruined chapel dedicated to S.

John the Baptist, in what was then a lonely quarter of the city, between

the Gate of S. Romanus (Top Kapoussi) and Blachernae. The monastery

becomes conspicuous in the narratives of the Russian pilgrims to the

shrines of the city, under the designation, the monastery of S. John,

Rich-in-God, because the institution was unendowed and dependent upon

the freewill offerings of the faithful, which 'by the grace of God and

the care and prayers of John' were generous. Thrice a year, on the

festivals of the Baptist and at Easter, the public was admitted to the

monastery and hospitably entertained. It seems to have suffered during

the Latin occupation, for it is described in the reign of Andronicus II.

as standing abandoned in a vineyard. But it was restored, and attracted

visitors by the beauty of its mosaics and the sanctity of its

relics.[494]

In 1381 a patriarchal decision conferred upon the abbot the titles of

archimandrite and protosyngellos, and gave him the third place in the

order of precedence among the chiefs of the monasteries of the city,

'that thus the outward honours of the house might reflect the virtue and

piety which adorned its inner life.'[495] Owing to the proximity of the

house to the landward walls, it was one of the first shrines[496] to

become the spoil of the Turks on the 29th of May 1453, and was soon used

as a quarry to furnish materials for new buildings after the conquest.

Gyllius visited the ruins, and mistaking the fabric for the church of S.

John the Baptist at the Hebdomon, gave rise to the serious error of

placing that suburb in this part of the city instead of at Makrikeui

beside the Sea of Marmora.[497] Gerlach[498] describes the church as

closed because near a mosque. Portions, however, of the monastic

buildings and of the strong wall around them still survived, and eikons

of celebrated saints still decorated the porch. On an eikon of Christ

the title of the monastery, Petra, was inscribed. Some of the old cells

were then occupied by nuns, who were maintained by the charitable gifts

of wealthy members of the Greek community.

_Architectural Features_

The building is in two stories, and may be described as a chapel over a

crypt. It points north-east, a peculiar orientation probably due to the

adaptation of the chapel to the position of the residence with which it

was associated. The masonry is very fine and regular, built in courses

of squared stone alternating with four courses of brick, all laid in

thick mortar joints, and pierced with numerous putlog holes running

through the walls. It presents a striking likeness to the masonry in the

fortifications of the city. The lower story is an oblong hall covered

with a barrel vault, and terminates in an arch and apse. In the west

side of one of the jambs of the arch is a small niche. The vault for

one-third of its height is formed by three courses of stone laid

horizontally and cut to the circle; above this it is of brick with

radiating joints. Here cows are kept.

The upper story is m. 3.75 above the present level of the ground. It is

a single hall m. 8.80 in length and m. 3.70 wide, terminating in a bema

and a circular apse in brick. Over the bema is a barrel vault. A dome,

without drum or windows, resting on two shallow flat arches in the

lateral walls and two deep transverse arches strengthened by a second

order of arches, covers the building. In the wall towards the north-west

there is a window between two low niches; and a similar arrangement is

seen in the opposite wall, except that the door which communicated with

the residence occupies the place of the window. The apsidal chambers,

usual in a church, are here represented by two niches in the bema.

Externally the apse shows five sides, and is decorated by a flat niche

pierced by a single light in the central side, and a blind concave

niche, with head of patterned brickwork, in the two adjacent sides. The

dome, apse, vaults, and transverse arches are in brick, laid in true

radiating courses. The absence of windows in the dome is an unusual

feature, which occurs also in the angle domes of S. Theodosia. The

pendentives are in horizontal courses, corbelled out to the centre, and

at each angle of the pendentives is embedded an earthenware jar, either

for the sake of lightness, or to improve, as some think, the acoustics

of the building. This story of the chapel is used as a hayloft.

A careful survey of the building shows clearly that the domical

character of the chapel is not original, and that the structure when

first erected was a simple hall covered with a wooden roof. Both the

shallow wall arches and the deep transverse arches under the dome are

insertions in the walls of an older fabric. They are not supported on

pilasters, as is the practice elsewhere, but rest on corbels, and, in

order to accommodate these corbels, the lateral niches, originally of

the same height as the central window, have been reduced in height. A

fragment of the original arch still remains, cut into by the wall arch

of the dome. The flat secondary arches crossing the chapel at each end

are similarly supported on corbels.

This view is confirmed by the examination of the plaster left upon the

walls. That plaster has four distinct coats or layers, upon all of

which eikons in tempera are painted.[499] The innermost coat is laid

between the transverse dome arches and the walls against which they are

built. Those arches, therefore, could not have formed parts of the

building when the first coat of plaster was laid, but must be later

additions.

In keeping with this fact, the second coat of painted plaster is found

laid both on the arches and on those portions of the old work which the

arches did not cover.

The secondary arches under the transverse arches at each end belong to a

yet later period, for where they have separated from the arches above

them, decorated plaster, which at one time formed part of the general

ornamentation of the building, is exposed to view. At this stage in the

history of the chapel the third coat of plaster was spread over the

walls, thus giving three coats on the oldest parts where unaltered--two

coats on the first alterations, and one coat on the second alterations.

The fourth coat of plaster is still later, marking some less serious

repair of the chapel.

The _voussoirs_ of the lateral dome arches should be noticed. They do

not radiate to the centre, but are laid flatter and radiate to a point

above the centre. This form of construction, occurring frequently in

Byzantine arches, is regarded by some authorities as a method of forming

an arch without centering. But in the case of the lateral wall arches

before us it occurs where centering could never have been required;

while the apse arch, where centering would have had structural value, is

formed with true radiating _voussoirs_. The failure of the _voussoirs_

to radiate to the centre therefore seems to be simply the result of

using untapered _voussoirs_ in which the arch form must be obtained by

wedge-shaped joints. For if these joints are carelessly formed, the

crown may very well be reached before the requisite amount of radiation

has been obtained. On the other hand, if full centering had been used,

we should expect to find marks of the centering boards on the mortar in

the enormously thick joints. But neither here nor in any instance where

the jointing was visible have such marks been found. Still, when we

consider the large amount of mortar employed in Byzantine work, it seems

impossible that greater distortions than we actually meet with in

Byzantine edifices would not have occurred, even during the building,

had no support whatever been given. It seems, therefore, safe to assume

the use of at any rate light scaffolding and centering to all Byzantine

arches.[500]

[Illustration: FIG. 98.]

[484] [Greek: Meta ten halosin], p. 61; cf. Paspates, p. 361.

[485] _Tagebuch_, p. 456.

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

[487] Archaeological Supplement to the _Proceedings of the Greek

Syllogos of C.P._ vol. xviii. p. 8.

[488] Phrantzes, p. 307.

[489] _Tagebuch_, p. 456.

[490] See Chap. XII.

[491] P. 360.

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

[493] See Archaeological Supplement to the _Proceedings of the Greek

Syllogos of C.P._ vol. xviii. p. 8.

[494] Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo in 1403, _Vida de Gran Tamorlan y

itinerario_, p. 50 (Madrid, 1782): 'San Juan del a Piedra esta cerca

del palacio del Emperador' (_i.e._ near the palace of Blachernae).

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

[496] Ducas, p. 288.

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

[498] _Tagebuch_, p. 455.

[499] When Paspates (p. 360) visited the chapel, the eikons were more

distinctly visible than at present, although they bore marks of

deliberate injury by Moslem iconoclasts.

[500] See p. 23.

CHAPTER XXIII

THE CHURCH OF S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA,

KAHRIE JAMISSI

According to the historian Nicephorus Gregoras,[501] who was long and

closely connected with the church, the Chora was founded by Justinian

the Great, and then presented the form of a basilica. But there is

reason to believe that the edifice erected by that emperor was the

reconstruction of an older shrine. The fame of a restorer often eclipsed

the memory of the founder of a sanctuary, especially when the restorer

was the superior in rank and reared a larger and more beautiful

building.

According to Symeon Metaphrastes,[502] the site of the Chora was first

consecrated by the interment of S. Babylas and his eighty-four

disciples, who were martyred in 298 during the reign of Maximianus. The

scene of their execution, indeed, was Nicomedia; but friendly hands

obtained possession of the bodies of the champions of the faith, and

taking them to Constantinople, buried them outside the walls of the

city, towards the north, in the place subsequently occupied by the

monastery of the Chora. As will appear, the relics of S. Babylas and his

disciples formed part of the treasures of the Chora in the ninth

century.[503]

[Illustration: PLATE LXXXI.

S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA, FROM THE WEST.]

[Illustration: S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA, FROM THE SOUTH-EAST.

_To face page 288._]

The settlement of the approximate date of the foundation of the church

depends, ultimately, upon the meaning to be attached to the term Chora

([Greek: Chora]). There are some writers who incline to the idea that in

this connection that term was employed from the first in a mystical

sense, to denote the attribute of Christ as the sphere of man's highest

life; and there can be no doubt that the word was used in that sense in

the fourteenth century. That is unquestionably its meaning in the

legends inscribed on mosaics which adorn the walls of the building.

[Greek:

IC XC MER THY

HE CHORA HE CHORA TOU

TON ZONTON ACHORETOU]

And it is in that sense that the term is employed by Cantacuzene[504]

and Phrantzes.[505] On this view the description of the church as 'in

the Chora' throws no light on the date of the church's foundation. Other

authorities,[506] however, maintain that the term Chora was originally

associated with the church in the obvious topographical signification of

the word, to denote territory outside the city limits, and that its

religious reference came into vogue only when changes in the boundaries

of Constantinople made the literal meaning of Chora no longer

applicable. According to this opinion the church was, therefore, founded

while its site lay beyond the city walls, and consequently before the

year 413, after which the site was included within the capital by the

erection of the Theodosian wall.

Hence, the phrase 'in the Chora' had the same signification as the style

'in the fields' which is attached to the church of S. Martin in London,

or the style _fuore le mura_ which belongs to the basilica of S. Paul

and other churches beyond the walls of Rome to this day.

It is certainly in this topographical sense that the term Chora is

understood by the Byzantine writers in whose works it first appears.

That is how the term is used by Simeon Metaphrastes[507] in his

description of the site of the monastery in his day, and that is how

the Anonymus[508] of the eleventh century and his follower Codinus[509]

understand the term; for they take special care to explain how a

building which lay within the city in their day could be styled 'Chora';

because, say they, it once stood without the walls, on territory,

therefore, called by the Byzantines, [Greek: chorion], the country. The

literal meaning of a word is earlier than its artificial and poetical

signification. And one can easily conceive how, when the style Chora was

no longer literally correct, men abandoned the sober ground of

common-sense and history to invent recondite meanings inspired by

imagination and sentiment.

This conclusion is confirmed by the history of the Chora given in the

Life of S. Theodore,[510] an abbot of the monastery, which Mr. Gedeon

discovered in the library of the Pantokrator on Mount Athos. According

to that biography, S. Theodore was a relative of Theodora, the wife of

Justinian the Great, and after serving with distinction in the Persian

wars, and winning greater renown as a monk near Antioch, came to

Constantinople about the year 530, at the invitation of his imperial

relatives, to assist in the settlement of the theological controversies

of the day. Once there he was induced to make the capital his permanent

abode by permission to build a monastery, where he could follow his high

calling as fully as in his Syrian retreat. For that purpose he selected

a site on the property of a certain Charisius, situated, as the Chora

is, on the slope of a hill, descending on the one hand steeply to the

sea, and rising, on the other, to the highest point in the line of the

Theodosian walls, the point marked by the gate named after Charisius

(now Edirne Kapoussi). The site was already hallowed, says the

biographer of S. Theodore, by the presence of a humble monastic retreat

and a small chapel.

The edifice erected by S. Theodore was, however, soon overthrown by the

severe earthquake which shook the city in 558, and all the hopes of the

good man would also have been dashed to the ground had the disaster not

called forth the sympathy and aid of Justinian. In the room of the

ruined buildings the emperor erected a magnificent establishment, with

chapels dedicated to the Theotokos, the Archangel Michael, S. Anthimus

of Nicomedia, and the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste. There also stood a

hostel for the special accommodation of Syrian monks on a visit to

Constantinople, and a hospital for diseases of the eye.[511]

In this account of the early history of the Chora, there may be, as

Schmitt[512] thinks, many inaccuracies. It was easy, even for a member

of the House who aspired to authorship, to confuse persons, to err in

the matter of dates, and to overlook the changes which the buildings

with which he was familiar had undergone before his day. But surely the

biographer of S. Theodore can be trusted where his statements are

supported by more reliable authorities, and we may therefore accept his

testimony on the following points: that the original church of the Chora

was earlier than the reign of Justinian; that under Justinian the old

sanctuary was replaced by a new and statelier building; that the Chora

maintained intimate relations with monasteries in Syria; and that with

it was associated a church dedicated to the Archangel Michael.

NOTE

The association of a church dedicated to S. Michael with the Chora,

and the fact that the Chora stood on the property of Charisius, raise

an interesting question. For among the subscriptions to the letter of

the monks to Pope Hormisdas in 518, and the subscriptions to the Acts

of the Synod held in Constantinople in 536, stands the name of the

abbot of the monastery of the Archangel Michael of Charisius.[513] Was

that monastery identical with the Chora? If it was, that fact would be

additional evidence that the Chora was earlier than Justinian's time.

On the other hand, it is always dangerous to identify buildings

because they were situated in the same quarter of the city and

dedicated to the same saint. The absence of all reference to the

monastery of S. Michael of Charisius after the reign of Justinian, and

yet the association of a church of S. Michael with the Chora after his

reign, may be due either to the ruin of that monastery in the

earthquake of 558, or to the subsequent union of the two

establishments on account of their proximity.

The next important event in the history of the House was the confinement

there of the celebrated general Priscus, Count of the Excubiti, at the

command of the Emperor Heraclius (610-641).[514] Priscus had taken a

leading part in the revolution which overthrew his father-in-law, the

infamous Phocas, and placed Heraclius upon the throne. But

notwithstanding that service, the attitude of the general towards the

new regime was not considered satisfactory, and with the cruel taunt,

'Wretch, thou didst not make a good son-in-law; how canst thou be a true

friend?' Heraclius relegated him to political nonentity by forcing him

to become a monk at the Chora. The new brother did not live long, but

his wealth furnished the fraternity with the means for the erection of a

large and beautiful church.

Schmitt, indeed, thinks that the biographer of S. Theodore, already

cited, failed to recognise the identity of the person concerning whom he

wrote, and assigned events which occurred in the time of Heraclius to

the reign of Justinian. According to Schmitt, S. Theodore is really

Priscus under his name in religion, and to him, and not to Justinian,

was the Chora indebted for its first great era of prosperity. One thing

is certain, the splendid church with which the biographer of S. Theodore

was acquainted, and the wealth and beauty of which he extols in

extravagant terms, was not the church erected by Justinian at the Chora.

The latter was a basilica;[515] while the church alluded to in the

biography of S. Theodore was a domical building.[516] Probably the fame

of Justinian veiled not only what others had done for the Chora before

him, but also the services performed by others after his day.

[Illustration: PLATE LXXXII.

S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA, FROM THE NORTH-EAST.]

[Illustration: S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. THE NORTH SIDE.

_To face page 292._]

In 712 the Patriarch Kyros was confined in the Chora by the Emperor

Philippicus for adherence to the tenets of the Sixth General Council

(680),[517] which condemned the attribution of a single will to the

person of Christ. The fidelity of the patriarch to orthodox opinion was

commemorated annually in the services held at the Chora, as well as in

S. Sophia, on the 8th of January.

The monastery was also honoured by the burial there, in 740, of the

Patriarch Germanus (714-730), famous for his piety, his learning, and

above all for his opposition to Leo the Isaurian, when that emperor

commenced the crusade against eikons. The tomb of the patriarch was

reputed to perform wonderful cures.[518] Another notable personage

buried at the Chora was the patrician Bactagius, an associate of

Artavasdos in the effort, made in 743, to drive Constantine Copronymus

from the throne. Upon the failure of that attempt Bactagius was

captured, beheaded in the Kynegion, and while his head was displayed to

public view in the Milion for three days, his mutilated body was taken

to the Chora. This might have seemed sufficient revenge. But the rebel's

offence so rankled in the emperor's memory, that even after the lapse of

some thirty years his resentment was not allayed. The widow of Bactagius

was then forced to proceed to the Chora to disinter the bones of her

husband from their resting-place in holy earth, and carry them in her

cloak to the dreary burial-ground of Pelagion, where the corpses of

persons who committed suicide were thrown.[519]

Like similar institutions the Chora suffered severely during the

iconoclastic period. Because of its connection with the Patriarch

Germanus it became the special object of the hatred of Constantine

Copronymus for monks and was almost ruined. What he left of it was

turned into a secular residence, and devoted to the confinement of

Artavasdos and his family. There also that rebel, and his nine children

and his wife, Constantine's sister, were eventually buried.[520]

With the triumph of the iconodules, in 842, under Michael III. and his

mother the Empress Theodora, happier days dawned upon the Chora. It was

then fortunate in the appointment of Michael Syncellus as its abbot, and

under his rule it rapidly recovered from poverty and desolation. The new

abbot was a Syrian monk distinguished for his ability, his sanctity, and

his devotion to eikons. He came to Constantinople in 814, to remonstrate

against the religious policy of Leo the Armenian, and, according to the

custom of monks from Palestine on a visit to the capital, lodged at the

Chora. But so far from succeeding in the object of his visit, Michael

was imprisoned and then banished to one of the monasteries on Mount

Olympus in Bithynia. Accordingly, when the cause for which he suffered

proved victorious, no honour seemed too great to bestow upon the martyr.

It was even proposed to create him patriarch, but he declined the

office, and supported the appointment of his friend Methodius to that

position. Methodius, in return, made Michael his syncellus and abbot of

the Chora.[521] Under these circumstances it is not surprising that

funds were secured for the restoration of the monastery, and that the

brotherhood soon gained great influence in the religious circles of the

capital. There is, however, no mention now of the church of the

Archangel Michael or of the church dedicated to the Theotokos. Possibly

the death of the abbot in 846 and lack of money prevented the

reconstruction of those sanctuaries. The only churches attached to the

Chora noticed in the biography of Michael Syncellus are the church of S.

Anthimus, containing the relics of S. Babylas and his eighty-four

disciples, the dependent chapel of S. Ignatius, and the church of the

Forty Martyrs.[522] Let it also be noted that there is yet no mention of

a church specially consecrated to the Saviour.

After its restoration in the 9th century the Chora does not appear again

in history until the reign of Alexius I. Comnenus (1081-1118), when,

owing to its great age, it was found in a state of almost complete

ruin.[523] If for no other reason, the proximity of the church to the

palace or Blachernae, which had become the favourite residence of the

court, brought the dilapidated pile into notice, and its restoration was

undertaken by the emperor's mother-in-law, Maria, the beautiful and

talented granddaughter of Samuel, the famous king of Bulgaria, and niece

of Aecatherina, the consort of Isaac I. Comnenus. Maria had married

Andronicus Ducas, a son of Michael VII., and the marriage of her

daughter Irene Ducaena to Alexius was designed to unite the rival

pretensions of the families of the Comneni and the Ducas to the throne.

It had been strenuously opposed by Anna Dalassena, the mother of

Alexius, and its accomplishment in 1077, notwithstanding such formidable

opposition, is no slight proof of the diplomatic skill and determination

of the mother of the bride. Nor can it be doubted that Irene's mother

acted a considerable part in persuading Alexius, when he mounted the

throne, not to repudiate his young wife, as he was tempted to do in

favour of a fairer face. Perhaps the restoration of the Chora was a

token of gratitude for the triumph of her maternal devotion.

The church was rebuilt on the plan which it presents to-day, for in the

account of the repairs made in the fourteenth century it is distinctly

stated that they concerned chiefly the outer portion of the

edifice.[524] To Alexius' mother-in-law, therefore, may be assigned the

central part of the structure, a cruciform hall; the dome, so far as it

is not Turkish, the beautiful marble incrustation upon the walls, the

mosaic eikons of the Saviour and of the Theotokos on the piers of the

eastern dome-arch, and the exquisite marble carving above the latter

eikon--all eloquent in praise of the taste and munificence that

characterised the eleventh century in Constantinople. Probably the

church was then dedicated to the Saviour, like the three other Comnenian

churches in the city, the Pantepoptes, the Pantokrator, and S. Thekla.

The mother-in-law of Alexius I. was, however, not alone in her interest

in the Chora. Her devotion to the monastery was shared also by her

grandson the sebastocrator Isaac. Tall, handsome, brave, but ambitious

and wayward, Isaac was gifted with the artistic temperament, as his

splendid manuscript of the first eight books of the Old Testament,

embellished with miniatures by his own hand, makes clear.[525] If the

inscription on the mosaic representing the Deesis found in the inner

narthex really refers to him, it proves that his influence was felt in

the decoration of the building.[526] He certainly erected a magnificent

mausoleum for himself in the church. Later in his life, indeed, he

became interested in the restoration of the monastery of Theotokos

Kosmosoteira at Viros, and ordered that mausoleum to be dismantled, and

the marbles, bronze railing, and portraits of his parents which adorned

it to be transported to Viros; but he still allowed his own portrait

'made in the days of his youthful vanity' to remain in the Chora.[527]

NOTE

Uspenski has identified Viros with Ferejik, a village situated 30

kilometres from Dedeagatch, and 20-25 kilometres from Enos, 'aux

embouchures desertees et marecageuses de la Maritza.'

The church is now the mosque of the village. It has five domes and

three apses. The central apse is pierced by a modern door. The

exonarthex has disappeared and the old principal entrance is walled

up. The plan of the church is almost identical with the plan of the

Chora. While the architectural details are poor and indicate haste,

the dimensions of the building imply considerable expense and the

wealth of the restorer. There are traces of painting on the walls of

the interior, especially in the domes (the Virgin) and in the two

lateral apses. An epitaph of seven lines in the middle of the mosque

contains the title 'despotes.' According to Uspenski, the

sebastocrator died soon after 1182, the year during which he was

engaged on the Typicon of the monastery at Viros. The monastery was

visited by the Emperor Andronicus Comnenus in 1185, by Isaac Angelus

in 1195, and by Villehardouin in 1205. Early in the fourteenth century

it was converted into a fortress, and the country round it was ravaged

in 1322 by the Bulgarians. It was attacked in vain by John

Cantucuzene, but was captured in 1355 by John VI. Palaeologus.

[Illustration: PLATE LXXXIII.

S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. THE INNER NARTHEX, LOOKING SOUTH.]

[Illustration: S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. THE INNER NARTHEX, LOOKING

SOUTH.

_To face page 296._]

Another name associated with the Chora at this period is that of the

Patriarch Cosmas, who was commemorated annually in the church on the 2nd

of January. He had occupied the patriarchal seat in days troubled by the

intrigues and conflicts which drove first Michael VII. Ducas, and then

Nicephorus Botoniates from the throne, and invested Alexius Comnenus

with the purple. They were not days most suitable to a man who, though

highly esteemed for his virtues, was without education or experience in

public affairs, and nearly ninety years old. Still, to his honour be it

said, it was at his earnest request that Botoniates finally agreed to

forego a bloody contest with the Comneni, and to withdraw quietly to the

monastery of the Peribleptos. Moreover, when it seemed uncertain whether

the victorious Alexius would remain faithful to Irene Ducaena and raise

her to the throne, Cosmas, notwithstanding all the efforts of Anna

Dalassena (who was ill-disposed towards Irene) to persuade him to lay

down his office, firmly refused to resign until he had placed the

imperial crown upon the emperor's lawful wife. Soon after that event, on

the 7th of May 1081, the festival of S. John the Evangelist, Cosmas,

having celebrated service in the church dedicated to that apostle at the

Hebdomon (Makrikeui), turned to his deacon, saying, 'Take my Psalter and

come with me; we have nothing more to do here,' and retired to the

monastery of Kallou. His strength for battle was spent.

After its restoration under the Comneni, the Chora again disappears from

view until the reign of Michael Palaeologus (1261-1282). In the interval

the fortunes of the Empire had suffered serious reverses, what with

domestic strifes and foreign wars. Bulgaria had reasserted her

independence and established the capital of a new kingdom at Tirnovo,

while Constantinople itself had been captured by the forces of the

Fourth Crusade and made the seat of a Latin kingdom. Consequently, it is

not surprising to find that the Chora, like other churches of the

ravaged city, was in a deplorable condition at the close of those

calamitous days. Nothing seemed to have been done for the repair of the

church immediately upon the recovery of the capital in 1261. The ruin

which the Latin occupants of Constantinople left behind them was too

great to be removed at once. The first reference to the Chora at this

period occurs some fourteen years after the restoration of the Byzantine

Empire, when the monastery, owing to its proximity to the palace of

Blachernae, was assigned to the Patriarch Veccus as the house in which

to lodge on the occasion of his audiences with Michael Palaeologus, on

Tuesdays, to present petitions for the exercise of imperial generosity

or justice. But the decay into which the establishment had fallen could

not be long ignored, and a wealthy, talented, and influential citizen

who resided in the neighbourhood, Theodore Metochites,[528] decided to

restore the edifice as a monument of the artistic revival of his own

day.

Theodore Metochites was one of the most remarkable men of his day. His

tall, large, well-proportioned figure, his bright countenance, commanded

attention wherever he appeared. He was, moreover, a great student of

ancient Greek literature and of the literature of later times, and

although never a master of style, became an author and attempted verse.

He was much interested in astronomy, and one of his pupils, the

historian Nicephorus Gregoras, recognised the true length of the year

and proposed the reform of the calendar centuries before Pope Gregory.

Theodore's memory was so retentive that he could converse on any topic

with which he was familiar, as if reading from a book, and there was

scarcely a subject on which he was not able to speak with the authority

of an expert. He seemed a living library, 'walking encyclopaedia.' In

fact, he belonged to the class of brilliant Greek scholars who

might have regenerated the East had not the unfortunate political

situation of their country driven them to Italy to herald and promote

the Renaissance in Western Europe. Theodore Metochites was, moreover, a

politician. He took an active part in the administration of affairs

during the reign of Andronicus II., holding the office of Grand

Logothetes of the Treasury; and such was his devotion to politics, that

when acting as a statesman it might be forgotten that he was a scholar.

The unhappy strife between Andronicus II. and Andronicus III. caused

Theodore Metochites the profoundest anxiety, and it was not his fault if

the feud between the grandfather and the grandson refused to be healed.

His efforts to bring that disgraceful and disastrous quarrel to an end

involved great self-sacrifice and wrecked his career. For the counsels

he addressed to Andronicus III. gave mortal offence, and when the young

emperor entered the capital and took up his quarters in the palace of

the Porphyrogenitus (Tekfour Serai), his troops sacked and demolished

Theodore's mansion in that vicinity. The beautiful marbles which adorned

the residence were sent as an imperial present to a Scythian prince,

while the fallen statesman was banished to Didymotica for two years.

Upon his return from exile Theodore found a shelter in the monastery

which he had restored in his prosperous days. But there also, for some

two years longer, the cup of sorrow was pressed to his lips. A malady

from which he suffered caused him excruciating pain; his sons were

implicated in a political plot and thrown into prison; Andronicus II.,

between whom and himself all communication had been forbidden, died; and

so the worn-out man assumed the habit of a monk, and lay down to die on

the 13th of March 1331, a month after his imperial friend. His one

consolation was the beautiful church he bequeathed to succeeding

generations for the worship of God.

To the renovation of the church Theodore Metochites devoted himself

heart and soul, and spent money for that object on a lavish scale. As

the central portion of the building was comparatively well

preserved,[529] it was to the outer part of the edifice that he

directed his chief attention--the two narthexes and the parecclesion.

These were to a large extent rebuilt and decorated with the marbles and

mosaics, which after six centuries, and notwithstanding the neglect and

injuries they have suffered during the greater part of that period,

still excite the admiration they awakened when fresh from the artist's

hand.

The connection of Theodore Metochites with this splendid work is

immortalised not only by historians of his day and by himself,[530] but

also by the mosaic which surmounts the main entrance to the church from

the inner narthex. There the restorer of the building, arrayed in his

official robes, and on bended knees, holds a model of the church in his

hands and offers it to the Saviour seated on a throne. Beside the

kneeling figure is the legend, [Greek: ho ktetor logothetes tou gennikou

Theodoros ho Metochites], 'The builder, Logothetes of the Treasury,

Theodore the Metochites' (Plate XCI.).

The restoration of the church must have been completed before the year

1321, for in that year Nicephorus Gregoras[531] describes it as then

recently ([Greek: arti]) renovated, and in use for the celebration of

divine service. How long before 1321 the work of repair precisely

commenced cannot be determined, but it was in process as early as 1303,

for that date is inscribed in Arabic numerals on the mosaic depicting

the miracle at Cana, which stands to the right of the figure of Christ

over the door leading from the outer to the inner narthex. But to have

reached the stage at which mosaics could be applied the work of

restoration must have been commenced sometime before 1303.

[Illustration: PLATE LXXXIV.

S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. CAPITAL IN THE OUTER NARTHEX.]

[Illustration: S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. CAPITAL IN THE OUTER NARTHEX.

_To face page 300._]

One of the most distinguished members of the Chora was the historian

Nicephorus Gregoras, who learned to know the monastery through his

friendship with Theodore Metochites. The two men met first when

Nicephorus came from his native town Heraclea on the Black Sea to

Constantinople, a youth eager to acquire the knowledge that flourished

in the capital. Being specially interested in the science of astronomy,

the student placed himself under the instruction of Theodore, then the

greatest authority on the subject, and won the esteem and confidence of

his master to a degree that ripened into the warmest friendship and the

most unreserved intellectual intercourse. In his turn, Nicephorus

Gregoras became the instructor of the children of the grand logothetes,

and was treated as a member of the family. He was also associated with

the restoration of the Chora, attending particularly to the collection

of the costly materials required for the embellishment of the church.

Thus the monastery became his home from youth to old age, and after

Theodore's death was entrusted to his care.[532] During the fierce

controversy which raged around the question whether the light beheld at

the Transfiguration formed part of the divine essence, and could be seen

again after prolonged fasting and gazing upon one's navel, as the monks

of Mount Athos and their supporters maintained, Nicephorus Gregoras, who

rejected that idea, retired from public life to defend what he deemed

the cause of truth more effectively. But to contend with a master of

legions is ever an unequal struggle. The Emperor John Cantacuzene,

taking the side of the monks, condemned their opponent to silence in the

Chora, and there for some three years Nicephorus Gregoras discovered how

scenes of happiness can be turned into a veritable hell by imperial

disfavour and theological odium. Notwithstanding his age, his physical

infirmities, his services to the monastery, his intellectual eminence,

he was treated by the fraternity in a manner so inhuman that he would

have preferred to be exposed on the mountains to wild beasts. He was

obliged to fetch water for himself from the monastery well, and when, on

one occasion, he was laid up for several days by an injury to his foot,

none of the brothers ever thought of bringing him water. In winter he

was allowed no fire, and he had often to wait till the frozen water in

his cell was melted by the sun before he could wash or drink. The vision

of the light of the Transfiguration did not transfigure the character

of its beholders.

During this trying period of his life one ray of comfort wandered into

the cell of the persecuted man. On the 13th December 1351, in the dead

of night, while the precincts of the monastery were crowded with

worshippers attending the vigil of the festival of the Conception of the

Theotokos, a strange figure climbed into the prisoner's room through an

open window. It proved to be an old friend and former pupil named

Agathangelus, who had not been seen for ten years owing to his absence

from the city. Taking advantage of the darkness and of the absorption of

the monks in the services of the festival, he had made this attempt to

visit his revered master. Eagerly and hurriedly, for the time at their

command was short, the two friends recounted the story of their lives

while separated. Rapidly Agathangelus sketched the course of affairs in

State and Church since the seclusion of Nicephorus Gregoras; and the

brief visit ended and seemed a dream. But the devoted disciple was not

satisfied with a single interview. Six months later he contrived to see

his master again, and, encouraged by success, saw him again three times,

though at long intervals, during the three years that Nicephorus

Gregoras was detained in the Chora. One great object of these visits was

to keep the prisoner informed of events in the world beyond the walls of

his cell, and on the basis of the information thus supplied Nicephorus

Gregoras wrote part of his important history. When at length, in 1354,

John Cantucuzene was driven from the throne, and John Palaeologus

reigned in his stead, Nicephorus was liberated,[533] and to the last

defended the opinions for which he had suffered.

Another name associated with the Chora at this time is that of Michael

Tornikes, Grand Constable in the reign of Andronicus II. He was related,

on his mother's side, to the emperor, and stood in high favour at court

not only on account of that kinship, but because of the talents,

character, and administrative ability which he displayed. He was,

moreover, a friend of Theodore Metochites, and his political supporter

in the efforts made to end the strife between Andronicus II. and

Andronicus III.[534] Upon his death, Tornikes was buried in the

parecclesion of the Chora, and the epitaph composed in his honour has

kept its place there to this day (Plate XCII.).

In 1342, Sabbas, a monk of the monastery of Vatopedi, who came to

Constantinople as a member of a deputation from Mount Athos to reconcile

the Regent Anna of Savoy with Cantacuzene, was confined in the Chora on

the failure of that mission.[535]

In view of its proximity to the landward walls, the Chora acquired great

importance during the fatal siege of 1453. For the inhabitants of the

beleagured capital placed their hope for deliverance more upon the

saints they worshipped than upon their own prowess; the spiritual host

enshrined in their churches was deemed mightier than the warriors who

manned the towers of the fortifications. The sanctuaries beside the

walls constituted the strongest bulwarks from which the 'God protected

city' was to be defended, not with earthly, but with heavenly weapons.

The eikon of the Theotokos Hodegetria was, therefore, taken to the Chora

to guard the post of danger.

It represented the Theotokos as the Leader of God's people in war, and

around it gathered memories of wonderful deliverances and glorious

triumphs, making it seem the banner of wingless victory. When the

Saracens besieged the city the eikon was carried round the

fortifications, and the enemy had fled. It led Zimisces in his

victorious campaign against the Russians; it was borne round the

fortifications when Branas assailed the capital in the reign of Isaac

Angelus, and the foe disappeared; and when Constantinople was recovered

from the Latins, Michael Palaeologus only expressed the general

sentiment in placing the eikon on a triumphal car, and causing it to

enter the city before him, while he humbly followed on foot as far as

the Studion. But the glory of the days of old had departed, and no

sooner did the troops of Sultan Mehemed force the Gate of Charisius

(Edirne Kapoussi) than they made for the Chora, and cut the image to

pieces. The church of S. Saviour in the Chora was the first Christian

sanctuary to fall into the hands of the Moslem masters of

Constantinople.

The building was converted into a mosque by Ali Atik Pasha, Grand

Vizier, between 1495 and 1511, in the reign of Bajazet II. Gyllius

visited the church in 1580, and expatiates upon the beauty of its marble

revetment, but makes no reference to its mosaics and frescoes.[536]

This, some authorities think, proves that these decorations were then

concealed from view, because objectionable in a place consecrated to

Moslem worship. But the silence of the traveller may be due to the

brevity of his description of the church.

There is evidence that the building has suffered much since the Turkish

conquest from earthquake and from fire, but the precise dates of these

disasters cannot be accurately determined. The mosque disappeared from

general view until 1860, when it was discovered by a Greek architect,

the late Pelopidas D. Kouppas. Mr. Carlton Cumberbatch, then the British

Consul at Constantinople, was informed of the fact and spread the news

of the fortunate find.

The building was in a pitiful condition. The principal dome and the

dome of the diaconicon had fallen in; the walls and vaults were cracked

in many places and black with smoke; wind, and rain, and snow had long

had free course to do what mischief they pleased. Happily there still

remained too much beauty to be ignored, and the Government was persuaded

to take the work of restoration in hand. The building now takes rank

with the most interesting sights of the capital, presenting one of the

finest embodiments of the ideal which inspired Byzantine art.

[Illustration: PLATE LXXXV.

S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. THE INTERIOR, LOOKING NORTH-WEST.]

[Illustration: S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. THE OUTER NARTHEX, LOOKING

SOUTH.

_To face page 304._]

_Architectural Features_

As the history of the church prepares us to expect, the building

presents a very irregular plan. The central area is a short-armed Greek

cross surmounted by a dome, and terminating to the east in a large apse

flanked by side chapels now disconnected from it. To the west are two

narthexes, on the south a parecclesion, and on the north a gallery in

two stories.

[Illustration: FIG. 99.]

As the central part of the church is the oldest and of the greatest

interest, the description will begin with the interior, and deal

afterwards with the later exterior accretions.

Only two doors lead from the inner narthex to the church, one of them in

the centre of the axis and the other to the north. The absence of the

corresponding and customary third door, for which there is space on the

south side, should be noticed, as it throws light on the original plan

of the building. The doors are beautifully treated with marble

mouldings and panelled ingoes; the door to the north recalls the

sculptured door in the south gallery of S. Sophia, but, unfortunately,

the carved work of the panels has been destroyed. Above the central

door, on the interior, is a porphyry cornice carved with peacocks

drinking at fountains (Plate LXXXVII.). Large portions of the beautiful

marble revetment on the walls of the church happily remain intact, and

nowhere else in Constantinople, except in S. Sophia, can this splendid

method of colour decoration be studied to greater advantage. Slabs of

various marbles have been split and placed on the walls so as to form

patterns in the veining. The lower part is designed as a dado in

Proconessian striped marble, with upright posts of dark red at the

angles and at intervals on the longer stretches of wall, and rests on a

moulded marble base. Above the dado are two bands, red and green,

separated from the dado and from each other by white fillets. The upper

part is filled in with large panels, especially fine slabs of brown,

green, or purple having been selected to form the centre panels. The

plainer slabs of the side panels are framed in red or green borders, and

outlined with fillets of white marble either plain or carved with the

'bead and reel.' The arches have radiating voussoirs, and the arch

spandrils and the frieze under the cornice are inlaid with scroll and

geometrical designs in black, white, and coloured marbles. The cornice

is of grey marble with a 'cyma recta' section, and is carved with an

upright leaf.[537]

On the eastern walls of the north and south cross arms, and flanking the

apse, eikon frames similar to those in the Diaconissa (p. 186) are

inserted. The northern frame encloses a mosaic figure of Christ holding

in His hands an open book, on which are the words, 'Come unto Me all ye

who labour and are heavy laden.'[538] In the corresponding frame to the

south is the figure of the Virgin, and, above it, an arch of overhanging

acanthus leaves enclosed within a square frame with half figures of

angels in the spandrils. The arch encloses a medallion bust, the head of

which is defaced, but which represented the Saviour, as is proved by the

indication of a cross on the aureola. The spaces at the sides of the

medallion are filled in with a pierced scroll showing a dark slab of

porphyry behind it, making a very beautiful arrangement. These frames

are distant from the eikonostasis, which stretched across the front of

the bema arch, nearer to the apse. On the south side are two doors

leading to the parecclesion, and on the north side above the cornice is

a small window from the north gallery.

The dome rests on a ribbed drum of sixteen concave segments, and is

pierced by eight windows corresponding to the octagonal form of the

exterior. The original crown has fallen and been replaced by the present

plain Turkish dome. The prothesis and the diaconicon are represented by

chapels to north and south of the apse. As already stated, they do not

now communicate with the bema, although the position of the old passages

between them and the bema is marked by niches in the marble revetment.

From the fact that the Byzantine marble work is continued across these

passages it is evident that the chapels were cut off from the apse in

Byzantine days. The north chapel is covered by a drum dome of eight

concave sections, and is entered from the lower story of the gallery on

the north side of the church. It should be noticed that the chapel is

not placed axially to this gallery. The south chapel is covered by a

plain drum dome, and is now entered from the parecclesion, evidently as

the result of the alterations made when the parecclesion was added.

The exterior is very simply treated. The side apses show three sides of

an octagon. The central apse has five sides of a very flat polygon, and

is decorated with hollow niches on each side of a large triple window.

It was at one time supported by a large double flying buttress, but the

lower arch has fallen in. As the buttress does not bond with the wall it

was evidently a later addition.

The inner narthex is entered from the outer narthex by a door to the

west. It is with its resplendent marble revetment and brilliant mosaics

a singularly perfect and beautiful piece of work, one of the finest gems

of Byzantine Art. It is divided into four bays, and is not

symmetrically placed to the church. The door stands opposite to the

large door of the church and is in the central axis of the building. The

bay which it occupies and that immediately to the north are covered by

dome vaults resting on strong transverse arches and shallow segmental

wall arches.[539] The northern end bay is covered with a drum dome of

sixteen hollow segments pierced by eight windows. The bay to the south

of the door is considerably larger than the other bays, and is covered

by a dome similar in character to that over the northern end bay but of

greater diameter. At the south end of the narthex a small door leads to

the return bay of the outer narthex in front of the parecclesion.

The double-storied annex or gallery on the north of the building is

entered by a door in the north bay of the inner narthex. The lower story

is covered by a barrel vault with strong transverse arches at intervals.

Its door to the outside at the west end is now built up. At the east end

a door, unsymmetrically placed, leads to the small chapel which was

originally the prothesis. This story of the gallery seems never to have

had windows. The upper story, reached by a stone stair at the west end

in the thickness of the external wall, is paved in red tiles, covered

with a barrel vault, and lighted by two small windows in the north wall

and one at the east end. These windows still show grooves and bolt holes

for casement windows or shutters opening inwards in two leaves (Figs.

19, 100). In the south wall is the little window overlooking the church.

[Illustration: PLATE LXXXVI.

S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. EIKON FRAME ON THE SOUTH-EASTERN PIER.]

[Illustration: S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. THE INTERIOR, LOOKING EAST.

_To face page 308._]

The outer narthex has a single door to the exterior, placed on the

central axial line, and is planned symmetrically. The central bay is

larger than the others, and is covered by a dome vault resting on

shallow wall arches. On each side are two bays covered by similar dome

vaults, but as the bays are oblong, the wall arches are brought forward

strongly so as to give a form more approaching the square as a base for

the dome. The transverse arches are strongly pronounced and have wooden

tie beams. At the south end two bays are returned to form an entrance

to the parecclesion. In these the transverse arches are even more

strongly marked and rest on marble columns set against shallow

pilasters. The cubical capitals are of white marble and very beautifully

carved with figures of angels and acanthus wreaths. Any marble revetment

which may once have covered the walls has disappeared, but mosaics

depicting scenes in the Saviour's life still decorate the vaulting and

the lunettes of the arches, whilst figures of saints appear upon the

soffits. The mosaics are damaged and have lost some of their brilliancy;

the background is of gold, and the mosaic cubes are small, averaging

about 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch.

[Illustration: FIG. 100.]

The parecclesion is entered from the return bays of the outer narthex

through a triple arcade, now partly built up. The capitals of the

columns are Byzantine Corinthian, and retain sufficient traces of their

former decoration in dark blue, gold, and red to give some idea of the

effect of colour on marble in Byzantine churches.

The parecclesion is in two bays. The western bay is covered by a high

twelve-sided drum dome, with windows in each side separated by flat

ribs. In the compartments are figures of the archangels in tempera, with

the legend, 'Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God.'

The eastern bay is covered by a dome vault, and terminates in an apse

semicircular within and lighted by a triple window. It has neither

prothesis nor diaconicon of its own, but communicates with the original

diaconicon of the main church. The three transverse arches in the bay

are tied with wooden tie beams carved with arabesques and retaining

traces of gilding.

On the north and south walls of the western bay are large arches

enclosed in square frames and with finely carved archivolts. Above the

south arch is a slab inscribed with the epitaph to the memory of the

celebrated general Tornikes. There are no indications of an entrance

under the arch. It may have covered a niche, now built up, intended to

receive a tomb, possibly the tomb of the sebastocrator Isaac.

The archivolt of the arch in the north wall is formed of acanthus leaves

turned over at the points; the spandrils are filled with the figures of

the archangels Michael and Gabriel, bearing appropriate emblems, and

above the crown of the arch is a small bust of Christ. In both arches

the carved work is exactly like that of the eikon frame in the

south-eastern pier of the church, and closely resembles the work on the

lintel of the eikon frames in the church of the Diaconissa. Both

archivolts were originally coloured, the background blue, the carved

ornament gilt. The use of figures in the decoration of the church is

remarkable. They are in bold relief and executed freely, but shown only

from the waist up. The windows, like those in the outer narthex, have a

central arch between two semi-circles (Fig. 63).

[Illustration: PLATE LXXXVII.

S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. INTERIOR CORNICE OVER MAIN DOOR

OF THE CHURCH.]

[Illustration: S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. ARCHIVOLT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF

THE PARECCLESION.]

[Illustration: S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. WINDOW HEADS IN THE CENTRAL

APSE.

_To face page 310._]

Two passages, which cut through the north wall, lead from the

parecclesion to the church. Off the passage to the west is a small

chamber whose use is not apparent. It may be simply a space left over

when the chapel was added. Higher up, in the thickness of the wall,

about ten feet from the floor, and a little above the springing level of

the vaulting in the parecclesion, is a long, narrow passage, lighted by

a window at the east end, and covered by a small barrel vault, corbelled

at the springing, on two courses of stone and three courses of brick

laid horizontally, thus narrowing the space to a considerable degree.

From this corbelling spring the vaulting courses, which are steeply

inclined and run from both ends to the centre, where the resultant

diamond-shaped opening is filled in with horizontal courses (Fig. 48).

On the north side of the passage is a broad opening roughly built up,

but which seems originally to have communicated with the south cross

arm. The opening is almost central to the cross-arm, and is directly

above the doors leading from the church to the parecclesion.

The exterior of the parecclesion and the outer narthex are treated with

arcades in two orders of the usual type. On the piers of the arcades are

semicircular shafts which in the parecclesion rise to the cornice, but

on the west front stop at the springing course. Here they may have

supported the wooden roof of a cloister or porch. The apse of the

parecclesion has five sides with angle shafts and niches, alternately

flat and concave in three stories. The north wall is a fine example of

simple masonry in stripes of brick and stone, and with small archings

and zigzag patterns in the spandrils of the arches.

Below the parecclesion are two long narrow cisterns having their

entrance on the outside of the apse.[540]

_The original plan of the church_ (Fig. 102). The greater part of the

alterations made in the church date from Byzantine times, and the marble

coverings then placed upon the walls have effectually covered up any

traces which might have given a clue to the original form of the

building. In consequence any attempt at restoration must be of a very

tentative character.

It is evident that there has been a serious movement in the structure

due to the weight of the dome and the thrust of the dome arches, for the

walls below the dome are bent outwards in a very pronounced manner. It

was in order to check this movement that the flying buttress was applied

to the apse, and in all probability the enormous thickness of the walls

surrounding the central cross is due to the same cause. Had the walls

originally been as thick as at present it is hard to imagine that

movement could have taken place.

The axial line from east to west, passing through the doors of both

narthexes, divides the present building into two dissimilar parts. We

know that the parecclesion is a later addition, and if it be removed and

the plan of the north side repeated to the south the resulting plan

bears a striking resemblance to S. Sophia at Salonica (Fig. 101). The

position of the prothesis and diaconicon in particular is identical in

the two churches.

Some proof that this was the original form of the building is given by

the small chamber in the wall thickness between the church and the

parecclesion. For it corresponds to the angle of the south 'aisle,' and

on its west wall is a vertical break in the masonry which may be the

jamb of the old door to the narthex.

This plan gives a narthex in five bays--the three centre ones low, the

two outer covered by domes and leading to the 'aisles.' When the

parecclesion was added, the south gallery and two bays of the inner

narthex were swept away. The third door leading into the church was

built up, and the present large domed bay added to the shortened

narthex.

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

Traces of the older structure remain in the wall between the church and

the parecclesion. The space already described, which originally opened

from the passage at the higher level to the south cross-arm, corresponds

in width both to the window above and to the space occupied by the doors

below. At S. Sophia, Salonica, the side-arms are filled in with arcades

in two stories forming an aisle and gallery. This is the normal domed

basilica construction. Here, if we regard the floor of the upper passage

(B on plan, p. 318) as the remains of the old gallery floor,--and no

other view seems to account for its existence,--the internal elevation

was in three stories, an aisle at the ground level, above it a gallery,

and above that, in the arch tympanum, a triple window. Such an

arrangement is, so far as we know, unique in a small church, but it is

the arrangement used in S. Sophia, Constantinople, and may well have

been derived from that church. The opening is only about one-half of

the space, leaving a broad pier at each side. In this it differs from S.

Sophia, Salonica, but such side piers are present in S. Sophia,

Constantinople. The diagrams show a restoration of the plan and internal

bay based on these conclusions (Figs. 102, 103).

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

The gallery on the north side is an addition. The character of the

brickwork and of the windows is later than the central church, but the

lack of windows on the ground floor suggests that the 'aisle' was

originally lighted from the body of the church. The vaulting gives no

clue, nor are there traces of an opening in the wall between the 'aisle'

and the church. The floor level is much higher than that of the passage

'B' (p. 318) on the opposite side, and seems to be a new level

introduced when the addition was made and the wall thickened.

[Illustration: PLATE LXXXVIII.

S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. EAST END OF THE PARECCLESION.]

[Illustration: S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. CAPITAL AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE

PARECCLESION.

_To face page 314._]

If these conclusions are correct the church was originally a domed

basilica resembling S. Sophia, Salonica, in plan and S. Sophia,

Constantinople, in elevation. The side dome arches had double arcades in

two stories, and above them windows in the dome arches. There are at

present no traces of a western gallery, but such may have existed below

the present west windows. Later in the history of the church came

alterations, which included the ribbed domes and the gallery on the

north side. The side aisles still communicated with the church and the

lateral chapels with the bema.

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

The filling up of the arcades, the thickening of the walls, the

isolation of the lateral chapels, the removal of the southern aisle, the

alteration of the narthex, the building of the parecclesion and outer

narthex, and most of the decoration which forms the glory of the church,

belong to the great work of restoration by Theodore Metochites early in

the fourteenth century.

The representation of the church in the mosaic panel above the large

door to the church shows a building with a central dome, a narthex

terminating in domed bays, and a window in the west dome arch. It seems

to represent the church as the artist was accustomed to see it previous

to the additions (Fig. 115).

Plain cross plans, or cross plans with only one lateral gallery, are not

unknown. The church of the Archangels, Syge,[541] shows such a plan and

is here reproduced for purposes of comparison.

[Illustration: PLATE LXXXIX.

S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. THE PARECCLESION, LOOKING SOUTH-EAST.]

[Illustration: S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. THE PARECCLESION, LOOKING WEST.

_To face page 316._]

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

[Illustration: FIG. 105.]

[Illustration: FIGS. 106 AND 107.]

[Illustration: FIGS. 108 AND 109.]

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

[501] Vol. i. p. 459.

[502] Synax., Sept. 4, [Greek: pistoi de tines eusebeis nyktos

elthontes kai ta leipsana en akatio embalontes eis to Byzantion

diakomizousi kai en to boreio merei exo teicheon en trisi larnaxi

katathentes, entha esti mone Chora eponomazomene, doxan kai

eucharistian to Theo anepempsan].

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

Supplement, p. 33.

[504] Vol. iii. p. 172.

[505] P. 36.

[506] Paspates, p. 326.

[507] Synax., Sept. 4.

[508] Banduri, iii. p. 54, [Greek: chorion en ekeise exo tou

Byzantiou.]

[509] De aed. p. 121, [Greek: eklethe de chora dioti ton Byzantion

chorion en ekei, katha kai he tou Stoudiou mone, exo tes poleos

hyperchen.]

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

[511] Supplement to vol. xxiv. of the _Proceedings of the Greek

Syllogos of C.P._ p. 23. Cf. Schmitt, p. 28.

[512] In his great monograph on Kahrie Jamissi published by the

Russian Institute of Constantinople, 1906.

[513] Mansi, _Sacrorum Conciliorum Collectio_, tomus viii. col. 906,

col. 882, [Greek: tou hagiou Michael ton Charisiou: tes epiklen ton

Charisiou].

[514] Banduri, iii. p. 54; Codinus. De aed. p. 121 [Greek: he chora

proton men eukterion en, Priskos ho eparchos kai gambros tou Phoka tou

tyrannou perioristheis ekei para tou idiou ektise tauten monen eis

kallos kai megethos, apocharisamenos kai ktemata polla].

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

[516] Schmitt, p. 28.

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

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

[519] Theoph. pp. 647-8.

[520] _Life of Michael Syncellus_, p. 31, in supplement to vol. xxiv.

of the _Proceedings of the Greek Syllogos of C.P._; cf. Schmitt, p.

251.

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

[522] See supplement to vol. xxiv. of the _Proceedings of the Greek

Syllogos of Constantinople_, p. 33; cf. Schmitt, pp. 257-8.

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

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

[525] The manuscript was discovered in the Seraglio Library by

Professor T. Uspenski, and has been photographically reproduced by the

Russian Institute of Constantinople.

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

[Symbol: cross.][Greek: ho .. os tou

pselo .. tou

... sileos ...

... xiou ...

.. ou ...]

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

[Greek: ho hyios tou hypselotatou

basileos Alexiou tou

Komnenou].

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

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

[529] Niceph. Greg. i. p. 459. [Greek: houtos habrotera chresamenos

dexia, plen tou mesaitatou neo panta kalos epeskeuase], cf. ii. p.

1045.

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

[531] Niceph. Greg. i. p. 303 [Greek: arti tou neourgein epepauto ten

tes Choras monen, hopsos ho endon etynchane kosmos].

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

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

[534] Cantacuzene, i. p. 54.

[535] Cantacuzene, ii. p. 209.

[536] _De top. C.P._ iv. c. 4:--Inter palatium Constantini et portam

urbis Adrianopolitanam extat aedes in septimo (?) colle, quae etsi jam

tot secula sit intra urbem tamen etiamnum [Greek: christos choras]

appellatur, ex eo, quod olim esset extra urbem. Ex tribus partibus, ut

mos est Graecorum aedium sacrarum, porticu cingitur. Parietes ejus

intrinsecus vestiti crustis marmoris varii quadratis, ita inter se

conjunctis ut distinguantur ab immo sursum versus modulis

astragalorum, aliorum baccatorum, aliorum ter etiam sine baccis. Supra

quadratas crustas discurrunt tres fasciae et tres velut astragali,

quorum duo teretes, supremus quadratus velut regula. Supra fasciam,

denticuli; supra denticulos, folia Corinthia. Denique marmor sic

mensulis distinguitur ut in commissuris eluceat labor Corinthicus. Sed

is plenior apparet in aede Sophiae.

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

[538] [Greek: deute pros me pantes hoi kopiontes kai pephortismenoi

kago]....--Matt. xi. 28.

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

[540] Schmitt (_op. cit._ pp. 92-94) maintains that the parecclesion

was originally the refectory of the monastery. But a refectory there

would occupy a very unusual position. Nor do the frescoes on the walls

of the parecclesion correspond to the decoration of the refectory with

representations of flowers and of Christ's miracles, as described by

Theodore Metochites: ... [Greek: kekosmeatai anthesi poikiloi i te

poulychrouoisi te baphon ... kai te diaperes apegeatai mysteria

thoymata Christou].

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

CHAPTER XXIV

THE MOSAICS IN S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA

As stated already, the mosaics on the vaults and lunettes of the

arches in the outer narthex of the church portray scenes from the life

of Christ, as recorded in the canonical and the apocryphal Gospels,

while on the faces and soffits of the arches are depicted the figures

of saints 'who desired to look into these things.' Scenes from the

Saviour's life are also portrayed in the two bays to the west of the

parecclesion, and in the domes and southern bay of the inner narthex.

Inscriptions on the mosaics explain the subjects depicted. The scenes

will be described according to the groups they form in the

compartments of the narthex.

[Illustration: FIG. 114.--PLAN OF THE NARTHEXES OF THE CHURCH,

INDICATING POSITION OF THEIR MOSAICS.]

[Illustration: PLATE XC.

(1) S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. MOSAIC REPRESENTING THE MIRACLE OF WATER

TURNED INTO WINE. THE DATE 6811 (A.D. 1303), IN ARABIC NUMERALS, IS

ABOVE THE LAST FIGURE ON THE RIGHT.

_Sebah and Joaillier._

(2) S. SAVIOUR IN THE CHORA. MOSAIC REPRESENTING THE CARESSING OF MARY

BY HER PARENTS, AND THE BLESSING OF MARY BY PRIESTS AT A BANQUET.

_To face page 322._]

OUTER NARTHEX

_First Bay (at the north end)._

1. In the northern lunette.--The angel announcing to Joseph,

in a dream, the birth of Jesus. To the right, journey of

Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Simon the son of

Joseph walks ahead, carrying a bundle. In the background,

meeting of Mary and Elizabeth.

2. In the eastern lunette.--The registration of Joseph and

Mary at Bethlehem before Cyrenius. (Said to be unique in the

East.[542])

On the arch over the eastern lunette.--Busts (in medallions)

of SS. Mardarius, Auxentius (only one letter of the name

remains), SS. Eustratius, Orestes.

3. On the western lunette.--The Holy Family on the way to

the first passover of Jesus at Jerusalem.

On the arch over the western lunette.--The busts (in

medallions) of SS. Anempodistus, Elpidephorus, Akindynus,

Aphthonius, Pegasius.

4. In the vault.--The scene has disappeared. Possibly it

represented Jesus among the doctors in the temple.

5. On the soffit of the transverse arch, between the first

and second bays.--To the east, S. Andronicus; to the west,

S. Tarachus.

_Second Bay_

6. In the eastern lunette.--The birth of Jesus. In the background, to

left, the angel appearing to the shepherds; to right, the magi

beholding the star shining over the manger in which lies the Holy

Child, while an ox and an ass feed in it. In the centre, Mary on a

couch. In the foreground, to left, two women bathing the Holy Child;

to the right, Joseph seated on the ground and gazing at the Holy

Child.

On the arch above the eastern lunette.--The busts (in medallions)

of SS. Philemon, Leukius, Kallinikus, Thyrsus, Apollonius.

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

Egypt to Nazareth.

In the arch above the western lunette.--The busts (in medallions)

of SS. Engraphus (?), Menas, Hermogenes, Laurus, Florus,

Menas, Victor, Vikentius.

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

temptation of Jesus.

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

to the west, S. Demetrius.

_The Third or Central Bay_

10. In the eastern lunette, over the door leading to the

inner narthex.--Christ in the act of benediction.

11. In the western lunette.--The Theotokos, in the attitude

of prayer, with the Holy Child, in a nimbus, on her breast;

the legend

[Greek: MR THY

HE CHORA TOU ACHORETOU]

(the country of the Infinite); on the right and left, an angel.

12. In the vault.--In the north-eastern corner, the miracle of water

turned into wine. The date 1303, in Arabic numerals, is on this

mosaic. In the south-eastern corner, the miracle of the loaves.

These mosaics, placed on either side of the figure of Christ, are

emblems of His character as the Giver of Life.

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

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

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

_The Fourth Bay_

14. In the eastern lunette.--To the left, the magi, on

horseback, guided by a star, on their way to Jerusalem; to

the right, the magi before Herod.

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

Ghourias, Samonas.

15. In the western lunette.--Elizabeth fleeing with her

child John from a soldier who pursues her with a drawn sword

in his hand.

The scenes in the vault have disappeared.

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

_The Fifth Bay_

17. In the eastern lunette.--Herod inquiring of the priests

where the Christ should be born.

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

18. In the western lunette.--Mothers at Bethlehem seated on

the ground, and mourning the death of their infant children.

The mosaics in other parts of this bay have disappeared.

_The Outer Bay fronting the parecclesion_

In the eastern pendentive.--To the left (19) the healing of

a paralytic; to the right (20) the healing of the man sick

of the dropsy.

21. In the western pendentive.--To the left, the healing of

another paralytic; to the right, Christ with the Samaritan

woman at the well of Sychar; in the lunette, the massacre

of the Innocents at Bethlehem.

22. In the southern lunette.--To the left, Herod orders the

massacre of the Innocents at Bethlehem; to the right, the

massacre of the Innocents.

The other mosaics in this bay have disappeared.

_The Inner Bay fronting the parecclesion_

23. In the vault.--In the south-western corner. Uncertain.

Possibly, the fall of the idols in Egypt at the presence of

the Holy Child; to the south of that scene, Zacchaeus on the

sycamore tree.

INNER NARTHEX

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

24. On the soffit of the first transverse arch.--To the

east, the healing of the man with a withered arm; to the

west, the healing of a leper.

_South Dome_

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

In the flutings, thirty-nine figures, arranged in two tiers,

representing the ancestors of Christ from Adam to Esrom,

Japhet, and the eleven sons of Jacob not in the line of

ancestry.

26. On the south-eastern pendentive.--The healing of the

woman with a bloody issue.

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

mother-in-law.

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

and dumb man.

29. On the north-western pendentive.--The healing of two

blind men at Jericho.

30. On the eastern wall below the dome, colossal figures of

Mary and Christ, technically named the Deesis.

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

The mosaics in the three other bays of this narthex depict

scenes in the life of Mary as described in the apocryphal

Protoevangelium of S. James and other apocryphal Gospels.[543]

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

32. In the centre.--The Theotokos; in the flutings,

twenty-seven figures arranged in two tiers representing

sixteen royal ancestors of Christ, from David to Salathiel,

and Melchisedec, Ananias, Azarias, Misael, Daniel, Joshua,

Moses, Aaron, Ur, Samuel, Job.

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

34. In the south-eastern pendentive.--S. Joachim (Mary's father) with

his sheep in the desert, praying and mourning that his offerings have

been rejected because he was childless.

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

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

37. In the eastern lunette below the dome.--The Annunciation to S.

Anna, the mother of Mary.

38. On the soffit of the transverse arch between the first and second

bays.--To the east, the meeting of S. Anna and S. Joachim; to the

west, Joseph taking leave of Mary before his home, and proceeding to

his work in another part of the country, accompanied by a servant.

_Second Bay_

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

40. In the western lunette.--Joseph receiving the rod which marks him

the successful suitor for Mary's hand, and taking her as his

bride-elect.

41. In the vault.--To the east, Mary held in the arms of S. Joachim,

receiving the blessing of three priests seated at a banquet; to the

west, the child Mary caressed by her parents. This scene shows much

feeling.