AMONG THE CHURCHES OF THE CITY
CONSTANTINOPLE was a city of churches. Clavijo, the Spanish envoy, who
visited the city in 1403, was assured that it was hallowed by the
presence of no less than 3000 sanctuaries, counting large and small.
This was obviously an exaggeration, intended to impress the stranger's
mind with a due sense of the city's grandeur and sacredness. Ducange in
his great work, _Constantinopolis Christiana_, gives the names of some
400 churches mentioned by the Byzantine authors whose works he had
examined. But a wider acquaintance with Byzantine literature since the
time of that great student of the antiquities of Constantinople has
discovered the names of many churches not upon his list. It is therefore
impossible to reach exact figures here, and we must be content with the
vague statement that the number was so large as to form a striking
feature of the city's aspect. This was only what might be expected in a
city where the number of churches would be determined not only by the
ordinary religious needs of a devout population, but also by the demands
of the many monasteries which sought security from violence behind the
bulwarks of the capital, notwithstanding the temptations of the world,
the flesh, and the devil, encountered there. What does cause surprise,
however, is that so few of the numerous churches which once adorned the
city, and embodied the piety of its people, have left one stone standing
upon another to recall their existence. At most, thirty-five remain, and
of these several of them are so dilapidated that they only serve for the
identification of an interesting site, or to emphasise the vanity of
earthly things.
Of course all the churches of the city were never contemporaneous. In a
city which had a life of more then eleven centuries, the list of almost
any class of edifices erected in the course of that period would
necessarily be a long one, without implying the existence of numerous
edifices of that class at one and the same time. According to the
description of Constantinople which dates from the first quarter of the
fifth century, the number of churches then in the city is given as only
fourteen. Churches appeared and disappeared, and while some of them
were, for special reasons, maintained throughout the whole course of the
city's history, many came to flourish for a while and then decayed in
the ordinary course of things, bequeathing as their memorial only the
withered leaves of their names. Then we must remember the frequent and
disastrous earthquakes which shook the soil of Constantinople during the
Middle Ages, and the terrible conflagrations which again and again
reduced the wealth and glory and beauty of extensive tracts of the city
to dust and ashes. For example: the three fires associated with the
capture of the city by the Latins in 1203-1204 inflicted a blow from
which the city never recovered. One of those fires raged for a night and
a day; another for two days and two nights, with the result that almost
all the territory along the Golden Horn, as well as the territory
extending thence to the Hippodrome and the Sea of Marmora, as far away
as Vlanga, were turned into a wilderness of smoking ruins. "The fire,"
says Ville-Hardouin, a spectator of the awful scene, "was so great and
so terrible that no man could extinguish or check it. It was a sad and
pitiful spectacle for the barons of the army encamped on the other
side of the harbour to see those beautiful churches and those rich
palaces fall in and be destroyed, and great business streets burned by
the scorching flames; but they could do nothing. The fire spread beyond
the harbour across to the densest part of the city, quite close to S.
Sophia, and as far as the sea on the other side. It lasted two days and
two nights, without being ever touched by the hand of man, and the front
of the fire was fully half a league long. Of the damage done, or of the
property and wealth thus lost and consumed no estimate can be made, nor
of the number of men, women, or children who perished." It is true that
churches injured by the hand of time were often restored. There were
even periods when such renovation was carried out on an extensive scale,
as for instance under Justinian the Great and under Basil I. (867-886).
But not less frequently the old fabric was so weakened by age or shaken
by earthquake that to repair it was out of the question, and the only
thing to be done was to use its stones and bricks and marbles as
materials in the construction of other buildings. Much of the material,
for instance, employed in the erection of the Tower of Isaac Angelus, in
front of the Palace of Blachernæ, was taken from the ruins of old
churches. While for the construction of the citadel which John VI.
Palæologus (1341-1391) built near the Golden Gate, material was taken
from the remains of churches so noted in their day as the Church of All
Saints, the Church of the Forty Martyrs, and the Church of S. Mokius.
[Illustration: VIEW FROM AN OLD CEMETERY
Close to the busy thoroughfare of Pera large tracts of land lie
unoccupied save for a few mouldering old tombstones; they are the
remains of old Turkish burying-grounds.]
Upon the recovery of Constantinople from the Latins in 1261, something
indeed was done to repair the damage due to the occupation of the city,
for some fifty-seven years, by barbarous and covetous strangers. But the
last two centuries of the Empire were years of wars and civil broils,
years of decline and poverty, and at length of despair, so that
comparatively little could be undertaken to rebuild the sad ruins
inherited from the past, or to arrest the decay whose withering touch
was laid on the monuments that still survived more or less intact. Even
the Imperial Palace beside the Hippodrome was allowed to fall into such
neglect and desolation, that when the Turkish conqueror visited its
empty halls they echoed to his ear the couplet of the Persian poet: "The
spider has become the watchman of the royal abode, and has spread his
curtain over its doorway." The decay which had smitten the city
impressed every visitor during the half-century preceding the Turkish
Conquest. "Although the city is large," says the Spanish envoy already
cited, "and has a wide circuit, it is not thickly populated everywhere
for it contains many hills and valleys occupied by cultivated fields and
gardens, and where one sees houses such as are found in an outlying
suburb and all this in the heart of the city.... There are still many
very large buildings in the city, houses, churches, monasteries, but
most of them are in ruins." The great disproportion between the size of
the city and the number of the population made a similar impression on
Bondelmontius who came here from Florence in 1422. He speaks of
vineyards flourishing within the city bounds, and adds, "There are
innumerable churches and cisterns throughout the city, remarkably large
and constructed with much labour, and found in ruin." La Broquière, to
cite one witness more, who was here in 1433, observes that the open
spaces in the city were more extensive than the territory occupied by
buildings. Times had indeed changed since the days of Themistius and
Anthemius.
Constantinople was therefore far from being a rich and splendid city
when it fell into the hands of its Turkish conquerors in 1453, and the
scarcity of the monuments of its former wealth and grandeur must not be
ascribed wholly to the action of its new masters. The ravages of time,
and the vandalism of the Latin Crusaders, had left little for other rude
hands to destroy.
In his dealing with the religious rights of the Christian community the
Ottoman lord of Constantinople proved conciliatory. While appropriating
S. Sophia and several other churches for Moslem use, he allowed the
Greeks to retain a sufficient number of their former places of worship.
He, moreover, ordered the free election of a new patriarch, who should
enjoy, as far as possible under altered circumstances, the privileges
which the chief prelate of the Great Orthodox Church had formerly
possessed. Upon the election of Gennadius to the vacant post, the Sultan
received him graciously at the palace, and presented him with a valuable
pastoral cross, saying "Be patriarch and be at peace. Depend upon my
friendship so long as thou desirest it, and thou shalt enjoy all the
privileges of thy predecessors." The Church of the Holy Apostles, only
second in repute to S. Sophia, was assigned to the patriarch as a
cathedral, and he was not only allowed free access to the Seraglio,
but was even visited by the Sultan at the patriarchate. The loss of S.
Sophia was, indeed, a terrible humiliation, one from which the Greek
Church has never recovered; a humiliation which all Christendom feels to
this hour. But the preservation of the fabric is doubtless due to the
fact that it passed into the hands of the conquerors. It is difficult to
see how the Greek community could have maintained that glorious pile,
even "shorn of its beams," after 1453. At the time of the fatal siege,
the population of the city counted at most one hundred thousand souls.
When the city fell, upwards of fifty thousand of its inhabitants were
sold into captivity. Nor did the subsequent efforts of the Sultan to
attract Christians to the city meet with great success. Hence extensive
portions of the city were abandoned by the Christian population, on
account of paucity of numbers, and the dread inspired by Turkish
neighbours. Even the Patriarch Gennadius soon begged to be transferred
from the Church of the Holy Apostles to the Church of S. Mary
Pammacaristos, in a district where Greeks were more numerous. This
request was made because the dead body of a Turk had been discovered,
one morning, in the court of the Church of the Holy Apostles, and there
was reason to fear that the Turkish inhabitants of the quarter would
avenge the murder of a Moslem, by reprisals upon the few Christians in
the vicinity. Naturally, churches situated in districts abandoned by the
Christian population passed into Turkish hands, and were disposed of as
the new proprietors might find most convenient. It was thus that the
Church of the Holy Apostles itself was lost to the Greek communion, and
made way for the erection of the mosque named after the Conqueror. Other
old churches shared a similar fate, either immediately upon the fall of
the city, or later under succeeding Sultans. For, as might be expected,
extensive building operations were carried on in the early days of
Turkish rule, and every ancient edifice which could not be turned to
better account was brought into requisition to provide ready-made
material for the new structures. During the reign of the Conqueror not
less than sixty mosques rose within the city bounds. The Fortress of the
Seven Towers, built in 1457, at the Golden Gate, was largely constructed
with materials taken from old buildings, as an examination of its walls
will prove. The first palace of the Sultan, on the site now occupied by
the War Office, must have played havoc among the Byzantine buildings,
secular and sacred, in that neighbourhood. While the palace which was
erected later, in the unrivalled situation at the head of the promontory
of Stamboul, encroached upon a territory crowded with such churches as
S. Demetrius, S. George Mangana, S. Mary Hodegetria, and S. Irene. All
were swept away, with the exception of the last, which was converted
from a temple of peace into an arsenal of war.
[Illustration: MARKET IN THE COURT OF THE MOSQUE OF SULTAN AHMED I.
The courts of the mosques are often used for market-places.]
The Turkish occupation is therefore accountable for the destruction of
many ancient churches of the city. Indeed, if we may believe the
historian of the Greek Patriarchate from 1453 to 1578, there was a
moment when the Christian community was threatened with the loss of
every church, old or new, in its possession. The graphic story is too
long to be told here in all its details, but it is so characteristic of
the parties concerned, and of the prevalent method (not yet quite
obsolete), of creating and turning a difficult situation, that a summary
account of the affair may be permitted. The scene is laid either in the
reign of Selim I. or of his son Suleiman the Magnificent, when the
Patriarch Jeremiah occupied the patriarchal throne for the second time.
And the play opens with the determination of a fanatical Turkish party
to insist upon the law that the inhabitants of a city captured by force
of arms should be denied the right of worship, and should have their
churches either confiscated or levelled to the ground. The
Sheik-ul-Islam of the day had issued his fetva to that effect, and in
five days the sentence was to be carried into execution. A high Turkish
official, who was in the secret, informed a Greek notable of the storm
at hand, and the latter reported the matter immediately to his
ecclesiastical chief. After much weeping and many prayers, the patriarch
mounted his mule and hastened to the residence of the Grand Vizier, with
whom, happily, he was on the best of terms. The result of a long
interview was that the patriarch was dismissed with an invitation to
attend the Council of Ministers, and inform them that, while it was true
that Sultan Mehemet attacked the city and destroyed a portion of the
fortifications, the Greek Emperor had not carried matters to the bitter
end, but went betimes to the Sultan, surrendered the keys of the city,
and, after a friendly reception, brought him into Constantinople in a
peaceable manner. Whereupon, the patriarch, somewhat relieved, paid a
round of visits to the various Ministers of State and to other
influential personages, not forgetting to leave in each case a
suitable parting gift. An extraordinary Council of Ministers was then
summoned to consider the question, and before that assembly the
patriarch duly appeared. Meantime the news of the impending catastrophe
had spread, causing great excitement, so that an immense crowd of
Greeks, Armenians, and even Jews, collected outside the Council Chamber,
to learn as early as possible the result of the deliberations within.
The terrible fetva was solemnly read, accompanied by the announcement
that not only would it be applied to the case of Constantinople, but to
every town captured by the sword throughout the Empire. "O my lord,"
cried the patriarch in a loud voice, addressing the Grand Vizier, "as to
other cities I am not sufficiently informed, but as regards this city I
can vouch that when Sultan Mehemet came to fight against it,
Constantine, with the consent of his nobles and people, did homage to
him and surrendered the place voluntarily." "Have you," inquired the
Grand Vizier, "any Moslem witnesses who were in the army of Sultan
Mehemet when he took the city, and who can tell us how he took it?" "I
have, O my lord," was the prompt reply. "Then come to-morrow to the
Council, and meantime we shall take the Sultan's pleasure on the
subject," said the Grand Vizier. Followed through the streets by the
whole Christian population of Stamboul and Galata, the patriarch stood
next day before the Council once more, and was informed that His Majesty
would be pleased to accept Moslem testimony to the correctness of the
statement that Constantinople had capitulated and was not taken by
force. "But O my lord, the witnesses you demand are not here; they are
at Adrianople; and to send for them and to bring them will involve a
delay of twenty days," pleaded the patriarch. The delay was granted;
messengers, provided with a large sum of money and other gifts, were
forthwith despatched to Adrianople; the witnesses sought were found; and
soon they were welcomed with raptures of joy at the gates of the
patriarchate. After resting for two days, they were received in private
audience by the Grand Vizier, and were assured that they could safely
affirm whatever the patriarch might desire them to say. Accordingly, at
another meeting of the Council, the patriarch was asked to produce his
witnesses, failing which the fetva would be carried out. "They are
standing outside," he answered. Two aged men were then introduced, their
eyes running with rheum and red as raw flesh, their hands and feet
trembling beneath the burden of years, their beards white as driven
snow. Never before had the assembly beheld men so venerable with age.
[Illustration: COURT OF THE SULEIMANIYEH
Along the low wall to the left are a number of water taps for the
Moslems to perform their ablutions before going to prayer.]
"What is your name?" the first witness was asked. "Mustapha." "What was
your father's name?" "Genouze." "And (to second witness) what may your
name be?" "Pirez." "And your father's name?" "Rustem." "How long is it
since Sultan Mehemet took this city?" "Eighty-four years, to a day."
"How old were you then?" "Eighteen." "How old are you now?" "One hundred
and two years old." "Mashallah, Mashallah" (God protect you), exclaimed
the members of the Council, and stroked their long beards. "In what
capacity did you serve under Sultan Mehemet?" "As janissaries." "How was
the city taken, by fighting or by surrender?" "By surrender." Then
followed a long garrulous narrative of the circumstances of the
capitulation of the city, all of which went to prove the historical
trustworthiness of everything the patriarch had stated on that subject.
Finally, a report of these proceedings was drawn up and presented to the
Sultan, who, after expressing his surprise, natural or feigned, ordered
that the patriarch should have no further anxiety about the churches of
his communion "so long as the world standeth."
Notwithstanding that order, however, the Greek community subsequently
lost several churches in its possession at that time, including S. Mary
Pammacaristos, then the patriarchal cathedral, with the result that it
can now boast of only some six insignificant sanctuaries which were
founded in the period of the Byzantine Empire. But excepting certain
portions of S. Mary Mouchliotissa in the Phanar quarter, none of them
can claim to be ancient fabrics. There are in Turkish hands about
twenty-five Byzantine churches, and, though sadly altered, most of them
retain enough of their original features to be interesting objects of
study.