Byzantine Churches in Constantinople Part 11

Thus also is the presence of capitals bearing the monograms of Justinian and Theodora explained, seeing those sovereigns were intimately connected with the church. And thus also is a reason suggested why those monograms face the aisles instead of the nave; it was a position which would be a.s.signed to them by a later restorer of the church who was obliged to use old material, and at the same time felt anxious to conceal the fact as much as possible, lest the glory of the previous benefactors of the church should eclipse his own renown.

[Ill.u.s.tration: PLATE XXIII.

(1) S. IRENE. CAPITAL IN SOUTH ARCADE, SEEN FROM THE SOUTH AISLE.

(2) S. IRENE. BASE OF COLUMN IN THE SOUTH AISLE, SEEN FROM THE SOUTH AISLE.

_To face page 102._]

The conclusion that in the present building we have parts representing different periods solves also the problem of the elliptical domical vault. For it is difficult to imagine that a Byzantine architect with a free hand would choose to build such a vault. But given the supports Mr.

George believes were left standing after the earthquake of 740, and given also the narthex on the west, the architect's liberty was limited, and he would be forced to cover the s.p.a.ce thus bounded in the best way the circ.u.mstances allowed.

How the western portion of the church was roofed in Justinian's time it is impossible to say with certainty. There are b.u.t.tress slips in the south wall at gallery level and in the nave below, where the break occurs in the arcade, that suggest the existence, in the church as originally built by Justinian, of a narthex carrying a gallery. In that case the length of the barrel vault over the western part of the church would be about the length of the barrel vault over the eastern part, and the church would then show in plan a regular cross with a dome at the centre, two lateral doors, one of which is now built up, giving access to the ends of the narthex.

The dates here a.s.signed to the different parts of the building simplify the problem of the tall drum below the main dome. That this could have been built by Justinian, as has been supposed, is difficult of belief if the large domes which are known to have been built by him are carefully examined. It is true that the drum dome of S. Sophia, Salonica, has also been claimed for Justinian, but that drum is low and only partially developed, and although its date is not known, the consensus of opinion is against its being so early. The whole question of the development of the drum still awaits treatment at the hands of an investigator who has thoroughly studied the buildings themselves, and perhaps the publication of the results obtained by Mr. George at S. Sophia, Salonica, and S.

Irene, Constantinople, two crucial examples, will throw some light on the subject. For the present the date here given for the drum of S.

Irene (_i.e._ towards the middle of the eighth century) is an inherently probable one.

In the foregoing description of S. Irene there is no pretence to an exhaustive statement of facts, or any claim that the conclusions reached are final. There is still too much plaster on the walls to permit a complete examination of the building. But the conclusions here suggested are those which agree best with the evidence which has been brought to light by Mr. George under present circ.u.mstances.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 31.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 32.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 33.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 34.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 35.]

[118] Socrates, ii. c. 6; _Corpus juris civilis_, Nov. iii. c. 3. 2; _Itin. russes_, p. 119.

[119] Socrates, ii. c. 16. So also the author of the _Vita Pauli Patr.

C.P._ The Church of S. Irene, which the Anonymus (Banduri, ii. p. 31) says had once been a heathen temple, was the church of S. Irene, [Greek: to perama].

[120] _Not.i.tia, regia secunda_; Codin. _De aed._ p. 73.

[121] Socrates, _loc. cit._

[122] _Ibid._

[123] Banduri, ii. p. 52.

[124] Socrates, ii. c. 16.

[125] Socrates, ii. c. 16.

[126] _Ibid._ ii. 13, 15, 16.

[127] _Ibid._ v. 7.

[128] _Vita S. Stephani Junioris_, Migne, P.G. 100, col. 1144, [Greek: he deutera en Kplei en to nao tes agias Eirenes].

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

[130] _Not.i.tia, Regio nona_, 'continet in se ecclesias duas, Cenopolim et Omonaeam.'

[131] Banduri, ii. p. 25.

[132] _Ad annum_ 478.

[133] Procop. _De aed._ i. c. 2; _Pasch. Chron._ p. 622.

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

[135] Theoph. p. 371.

[136] Patr. Nicephorus, _in Breviario_.

[137] Theoph. p. 634.

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

206.

[139] Const. Porphyr. _De cer._ p. 186; Cedren. ii. pp. 265, 275, 297.

Readers of Russian are referred to D. Belaev. 'The Church of S. Irene and the Earthquake in C.P. 28 June 1894,' _Vizantisky Vreinennik_, i., St. Petersburg, 1894, parts iii.-iv. section iii. pp. 769-798, and the article by the same author on the 'Interior and Exterior View of S.

Irene' in the same periodical, 1895, parts i, ii. section i. pp.

177-183. For the references to these articles I am indebted to Mr.

Norman E. Baynes, one of our younger Byzantine scholars.

[140] Const. Porphyr. _De Cer._ p. 179.

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

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

[143] _History of the Byzantine Empire_, p. 34, Everyman Edition.

CHAPTER V

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

That the old Byzantine church now converted into the mosque styled Hoja Mustapha Pasha Mesjedi, in the quarter of Juma Bazaar, at a short distance to the east of the Gate of Selivria was the church of S. Andrew in Krisei ([Greek: Mone tou Hagiou Andreou en Krisei])[144] can be established, by the indications which Byzantine writers have given of the site of that famous church, and by the legend which is still a.s.sociated with the mosque. According to Stephen of Novgorod[145] (c.

1350) the church dedicated to S. Andrew of Crete, who was buried, as other authorities[146] inform us, in the district named Krisis, stood at a short distance to the north of the monastery of the Peribleptos. It lay, therefore, to the north of the Armenian church of S. George (Soulou Monastir) in the quarter of Psamathia, which represents the church of S.

Mary Peribleptos. The mosque Hoja Mustapha Pasha Mesjedi lies in the same direction. Again, according to Pachymeres,[147] the church of S.

Andrew in Krisei was near the monastery of Aristina. That monastery, another authority states,[148] was opposite the church of S. Mamas.