Byzantine Churches in Constantinople Part 16

She was a Hungarian princess, who, on becoming the emperor's bride, a.s.sumed the name Irene. Mr. Siderides, therefore, suggests that the persons mentioned in the inscription were that emperor's grandparents, the curopalates and grand domestic John Comnenus and his wife, the celebrated Anna Dala.s.sena, who bore likewise the t.i.tle of Ducaena. In that case, as the curopalates and grand domestic died in 1067, the foundation of the church cannot be much later than the middle of the eleventh century. But whether the term [Greek: phrontisma] should be understood to mean that the church was founded by the ill.u.s.trious persons above mentioned, or was an object already in existence upon which they bestowed their thought and care, is not quite certain. Mr.

Siderides is prepared to adopt the latter meaning, and the architecture of the church allows us to a.s.sign the foundation of the building to an earlier date than the age of the grandparents of the Emperor John Comnenus. But while the connection of the church with those personages must not be overlooked, the building underwent such extensive repairs in the thirteenth century that the honour of being its founder was transferred to its restorer at that period. Pachymeres[217] speaks of the monastery as the monastery of Michael Glabas Tarchaniotes ([Greek: ten idian monen]). While the poet Philes (1275-1346), referring to a figure portrayed on the walls of the church, asks the spectator,

Seest thou, O stranger, this great man? He is none other than the protostrator, the builder of this monastery, the wonder of the world, the n.o.ble Glabas.

[Greek: horas ton andra ton polyn touton, xene; ekeinos houtos estin ho protostrator, ho demiourgos tes mones tes enthade, to thauma tes ges, ho Glabas ho gennadas].[218]

In accordance with these statements, Gerlach[219] saw depicted on the walls of the church two figures in archducal attire, representing the founder of the church and his wife, with this legend beside them:

Michael Ducas Glabas Tarchaniotes, protostrator and founder; Maria Ducaena Comnena Palaeologina Blachena,[219] protostratorissa and foundress.

[Greek: Michael Doukas Glabas Tarchaniotes, ho protostrator kai ktetor; Maria Doukaina Komnene Palaiologina Blakaina,[220] he protostratorissa kai ktetorissa].

Michael Glabas was created protostrator in 1292, and acquired the right to appoint the abbot of the monastery before 1295. Consequently the completion of the repair of the church at his instance must be a.s.signed to the interval between these dates.

The protostrator Michael Glabas Ducas Tarchaniotes, who must not be confounded with his namesake the protovestiarius Michael Palaeologus Tarchaniotes,[221] enjoyed the reputation of an able general and wise counsellor in the reign of Andronicus II., although, being a victim to gout, he was often unable to serve his country in the former capacity.

He was noted also for his piety and his interest in the poor, as may be inferred from his restoration of the Pammakaristos and the erection of a xenodocheion.[222] His wife was a niece of the Emperor Michael Palaeologus, and related, as her t.i.tles imply, to other great families in the country. A pious woman, and devoted to her husband, she proved the sincerity of her affection by erecting to his memory, as will appear in the sequel, the beautiful chapel at the south-east end of the church.

Before her death she retired from the world and a.s.sumed the name Martha in religion.[223]

In addition to the figures of the restorers of the church, portraits in mosaic of the Emperor Andronicus and his Empress Anna, as the legends beside the portraits declared, stood on the right of the main entrance to the patriarchate.[224]

[Symbol: Cross][Greek: Andronikos en Cho to tho pistos basileus kai autokrator Rhomeon ho palaiologos].

[Symbol: Cross][Greek: Anna en Cho to tho piste augousta he palaiologina].

As both Andronicus II. and his grandson Andronicus III. were married to ladies named Anna, it is not clear which of these imperial couples was here portrayed. The fact that the consort of the former emperor died before the restoration of the church by the protostrator Michael is certainly in favour of the view supported by Mr. Siderides that the portraits represented the latter emperor and empress.[224] Why these personages were thus honoured is not explained.

Having restored the monastery, Michael Glabas entrusted the direction of its affairs to a certain monk named Cosmas, whom he had met and learned to admire during an official tour in the provinces. In due time Cosmas was introduced to Andronicus II., and won the imperial esteem to such an extent as to be appointed patriarch.[226] The new prelate was advanced in years, modest, conciliatory, but, withal, could take a firm stand for what he considered right. On the other hand, the piety of Andronicus was not of the kind that adheres tenaciously to a principle or ignores worldly considerations. Hence occasions for serious differences between the two men on public questions were inevitable, and in the course of their disputes the monastery of the Pammakaristos, owing to its a.s.sociation with Cosmas, became the scene of conflicts between Church and State.

[Ill.u.s.tration: PLATE x.x.xVII.

(1) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. INNER NARTHEX, LOOKING SOUTH.

(2) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. THE DOME, LOOKING WEST.

_To face page 142._]

No act of Andronicus shocked the public sentiment or his day more painfully than the political alliance he cemented by giving his daughter Simonis, a mere child of six years, as a bride to the Kraal of Servia, who was forty years her senior, and had been already married three times, not always, it was alleged, in the most regular manner.[227]

Cosmas did everything in his power to prevent the unnatural union, and when his last desperate effort to have an audience of the emperor on the subject was repelled, he left the patriarchal residence and retired to his old home at the Pammakaristos. There, during the absence of the emperor in Thessalonica, where the objectionable marriage was celebrated, Cosmas remained for two years, attending only to the most urgent business of the diocese.[228] Upon the return of Andronicus to the capital, Cosmas was conspicuous by his refusal to take part in the loyal demonstrations which welcomed the emperor back. Andronicus might well have seized the opportunity to remove the patriarch from office for discourtesy so marked and offensive, but, instead of doing so, he sent a friendly message to the Pammakaristos, asking Cosmas to forget all differences and resume his public duties. Achilles in his tent was not to be conciliated so easily. To the imperial request Cosmas replied by inviting Andronicus to come to the Pammakaristos, and submit the points at issue between the emperor and himself to a tribunal of bishops and other ecclesiastics specially convened for the purpose. He furthermore declared that he would return to the patriarchal residence only if the verdict of the court was in his favour, otherwise he would resign office. The public feeling against Andronicus was so strong that he deemed it expedient to comply with this strange demand, going to the monastery late at night to escape notice. The tribunal having been called to order, Cosmas produced his charges against the emperor: the Servian marriage; oppressive taxes upon salt and other necessaries of life, whereby a heavy burden was laid upon the poor, on one hand, and imperial prodigality was encouraged on the other; failure to treat the pet.i.tions addressed to him by Cosmas with the consideration which they deserved. The defence of Andronicus was skilful. He maintained that no marriage of the Kraal had violated Canon Law as some persons claimed. He touched the feelings of his audience by dwelling upon the sacrifice he had made as a father in bestowing the hand of a beloved daughter on such a man as the Servian Prince; only reasons of State had constrained him to sanction a union so painful to his heart. The taxes to which objection had been taken were not imposed, he pleaded, to gratify any personal love of money, but were demanded by the needs of the Empire. As to love of money, he had reasons to believe that it was a weakness of which his accuser was guilty, and to prove that statement, he there and then sent two members of the court to the treasurer of the palace for evidence in support of the charge. In regard to the accusation that he did not always favour the pet.i.tions addressed to him by the patriarch, he remarked that it was not an emperor's duty to grant all the pet.i.tions he received, but to discriminate between them according to their merits.

At the same time he expressed his readiness to be more indulgent in the future. Moved by these explanations, as well as by the entreaties of the emperor and the bishops present at this strange scene, held in the dead of night in the secrecy of the monastery, Cosmas relented, and returned next day to the patriarchate.[229]

But peace between the two parties was not of long duration. Only a few weeks later Andronicus restored to office a bishop of Ephesus who had been canonically deposed. Cosmas protested, and when his remonstrances were disregarded, he withdrew again to the Pammakaristos,[230] and refused to allow his seclusion to be disturbed on any pretext. To the surprise of everybody, however, he suddenly resumed his functions--in obedience, he claimed, to a Voice which said to him, 'If thou lovest Me, feed My sheep.'[231] But such conduct weakened his position. His enemies brought a foul charge against him. His demand for a thorough investigation of the libel was refused. And in his vexation he once more sought the shelter of the Pammakaristos, abdicated the patriarchal throne, and threw the ecclesiastical world into a turmoil.[232] Even then there were still some, including the emperor, who thought order and peace would be more speedily restored by recalling Cosmas to the office he had laid down. But the opposition to him had become too powerful, and he was compelled to bid farewell to the retreat he loved, and to end his days in his native city of Sozopolis, a man worsted in battle.[233]

[Ill.u.s.tration: PLATE x.x.xVIII.

S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. THE PARECCLESION FROM THE SOUTH-EAST.

_To face page 144._]

Of the life at the Pammakaristos during the remainder of the period before the Turkish conquest only a few incidents are recorded. One abbot of the monastery, Niphon, was promoted in 1397 to the bishopric of Old Patras, and another named Theophanes was made bishop of the important See of Heraclea. An instance of the fickleness of fortune was brought home to the monks of the establishment by the disgrace of the logothetes Gabalas and his confinement in one of their cells, under the following circ.u.mstances:--In the struggle between John Cantacuzene and Apocaucus for ascendancy at the court of the Dowager Empress Anna of Savoy and her son, John VI. Palaeologus, Gabalas[234] had been persuaded to join the party of the latter politician by the offer, among other inducements, of the hand of Apocaucus' daughter in marriage. But when Gabalas urged the fulfilment of the promise, he was informed that the young lady and her mother had meantime taken a violent aversion to him on account of his corpulent figure. Thereupon Gabalas, like a true lover, had recourse to a method of banting recommended by an Italian quack. But the treatment failed to reduce the flesh of the unfortunate suitor; it only ruined his health, and made him even less attractive than before.

Another promise by which his political support had been gained was the hope that he would share the power which Apocaucus should win. But this Apocaucus was unwilling to permit, alleging as an excuse that his inconvenient partisan had become obnoxious to the empress. The disappointment and anxiety caused by this information wore so upon the mind of the logothetes as to alter his whole appearance. He now became thin indeed, as if suffering from consumption, and in his dread of the storm gathering about him he removed his valuable possessions to safe hiding. Whereupon the wily Apocaucus drew the attention of the empress to this strange behaviour, and aroused her suspicions that Gabalas was engaged in some dark intrigue against her. No wonder that the logothetes observed in consequence a marked change in the empress's manner towards him, and in his despair he took sanctuary in S. Sophia, and a.s.sumed the garb of a monk. The perfidy of Apocaucus might have stopped at this point, and allowed events to follow their natural course. But though willing to act a villain's part, he wished to act it under the mask of a friend, to betray with a kiss. Accordingly he went to S. Sophia to express his sympathy with Gabalas, and played the part of a man overwhelmed with sorrow at a friend's misfortune so well that Gabalas forgot for a while his own griefs, and undertook the task of consoling the hypocritical mourner. Soon an imperial messenger appeared upon the scene with the order for Gabalas to leave the church and proceed to the monastery of the Pammakaristos. And there he remained until, on the charge of attempting to escape, he was confined in a stronger prison.

Another person detained at the Pammakaristos was a Turkish rebel named Zinet, who in company with a pretender to the throne of Mehemed I., had fled in 1418 to Constantinople for protection. He was welcomed by the Byzantine Government, which was always glad to receive refugees whom it could use either to gratify or to embarra.s.s the Ottoman Court, as the varying relations between the two empires might dictate. It was a policy that proved fatal at last, but meanwhile it often afforded some advantage to Byzantine diplomats. On this occasion it was thought advisable to please the Sultan, and while the pretender was confined elsewhere, Zinet, with a suite of ten persons, was detained in the Pammakaristos. Upon the accession of Murad II., however, the Government of Constantinople thought proper to take the opposite course.

Accordingly the pretender was liberated, and Zinet sent to support the Turkish party which disputed Murad's claims. But life at the Pammakaristos had not won the refugee's heart to the cause of the Byzantines. The fanatical monks with whom he was a.s.sociated there had insulted his faith; his Greek companions in arms did not afford him all the satisfaction he desired, and so Zinet returned at last to his natural allegiance. The conduct of the Byzantine Government on this occasion led to the first siege of Constantinople, in 1422, by the Turks.

The most important event in the history of the monastery occurred after the city had fallen into Turkish hands. The church then became the cathedral of the patriarchs of Constantinople. It is true that, in the first instance, the conqueror had given the church of the Holy Apostles to the Patriarch Gennadius as a subst.i.tute for the church of S. Sophia.

But the native population did not affect the central quarters of the city, preferring to reside near the Golden Horn and the Sea of Marmora.

Furthermore, the body of a murdered Turk was discovered one morning in the court of the Holy Apostles, and excited among his countrymen the suspicion that the murder had been committed by a Christian hand.[235]

The few Greeks settled in the neighbourhood were therefore in danger of retaliation, and Gennadius begged permission to withdraw to the Pammakaristos, around which a large colony of Greeks, who came from other cities to repeople the capital, had settled.[236] The objection that nuns occupied the monastery at that moment was easily overcome by removing the sisterhood to the small monastery attached to the church of S. John in Trullo (Achmed Pasha Mesjedi) in the immediate vicinity,[237]

and for 138 years thereafter the throne of seventeen patriarchs of Constantinople stood in the church of the Pammakaristos, with the adjoining monastery as their official residence.[238]

As the chief sanctuary of the Greek community, the building was maintained, it would appear, in good order and displayed considerable beauty. 'Even at night,' to quote extravagant praise, 'when no lamp was burning, it shone like the sun.' But even sober European visitors in the sixteenth century agree in describing the interior of the church as resplendent with eikons and imperial portraits. It was also rich in relics, some of them brought by Gennadius from the church of the Holy Apostles and from other sanctuaries lost to the Greeks. Among the interesting objects shown to visitors was a small rude sarcophagus inscribed with the imperial eagle and the name of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus.[239] It was so plain and rough that Schweigger speaks of it as too mean to contain the dust of a German peasant.[240] But that any sarcophagus professing to hold the remains of Alexius Comnenus should be found at the Pammakaristos is certainly surprising. That emperor was buried, according to the historian Nicetas Choniates, in the church of S. Saviour the Philanthropist,[241] near the palace of Mangana, on the east sh.o.r.e of the city. Nor could the body of a Byzantine autocrator have been laid originally in a sarcophagus such as Breuning and Schweigger describe. These difficulties in the way of regarding the monument as genuine are met by the suggestion made by Mr. Siderides, that when the church of Christ the Philanthropist was appropriated by the Turks in connection with the building of the Seraglio, some patriotic hand removed the remains of Alexius Comnenus from the splendid coffin in which they were first entombed, and, placing them in what proved a convenient receptacle, carried them for safe keeping to the Pammakaristos. The statement that Anna Comnena, the celebrated daughter of Alexius Comnenus, was also buried in this church rests upon the misunderstanding of a pa.s.sage in the work of M. Crusius, where, speaking of that princess, the author says: 'Quae (Anna) anno Domini 1117 vixit; filia Alexii Comneni Imp. cujus sepulchrum adhuc exstat in templo patriarchatus Constantinopli a D. Steph. Gerlachio visum.'[242]

But _cujus_ (whose) refers, not to Anna, but to Alexius. This rendering is put beyond dispute by the statement made by Gerlach in a letter to Crusius, that he found, in the Pammakaristos, 'sepulchrum Alexii Comneni [Greek: autokratoros],' the tomb of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus.[243]

The church was converted into a mosque under Murad III. (1574-1592), and bears the style Fetiyeh, 'of the conqueror,' in honour of the conquest of Georgia and Azerbaijan during his reign. According to Gerlach, the change had been feared for some time, if for no other reason, because of the fine position occupied by the church. But quarrels between different factions of the Greek clergy and between them and Government officials had also something to do with the confiscation of the building.[244]

When the cross, which glittered above the dome and gleamed far and wide, indicating the seat of the chief prelate of the Orthodox Communion, was taken down, 'a great sorrow befell the Christians.'[244] The humble church of S. Demetrius Kanabou, in the district of Balat, then became the patriarchal seat until 1614, when that honour was conferred upon the church which still retains it, the church of S. George in the quarter of Phanar.

[Ill.u.s.tration: PLATE x.x.xIX.

(1) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. EAST END OF THE PARECCLESION.

(2) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. THE WEST COLUMN IN THE PARECCLESION.

_To face page 148._]

_Architectural Features_

Owing to the numerous additions and alterations introduced into the original fabric, both before and since the Turkish conquest, the original plan of the building is not immediately apparent. Nor does the interior, with its heavy piers, raised floor, and naked walls correspond to the accounts given of its former splendour and beauty. A careful study will, however, unravel the tangled scheme which the actual condition of the church presents, and detect some traces of the beauty which has faded and pa.s.sed away. The building might be mistaken for a domed church with four aisles, two narthexes, and a parecclesion. But notwithstanding all the disguises due to the changes it has undergone, the original church was unquestionably an 'ambulatory' church. It had, moreover, at one time a third narthex, of which now only the foundations remain on the west side of the church. The present outer narthex is in five bays, covered by dome vaults on transverse arches, and is paved with hexagonal tiles. The centre bay is marked by transverse arches of greater breadth and projects slightly on the outside, forming a plain central feature. At the north end a door led to the third narthex, but has now been built up; at the south end is a door inserted in Turkish times. To the south of the central bay the exterior is treated with plain arcades in two orders of brick; to the north these are absent, probably on account of some alterations. At the south end the narthex returns round the church in two bays, leading to the parecclesion.

The inner narthex is in four bays covered with cross-groined vaults without transverse arches, and is at present separated from the body of the church by three clumsy hexagonal piers, on to which, as may be seen in the photograph (Plate x.x.xVII.), the groins descend in a very irregular manner.

In the inner part of the church is a square central area covered by a lofty drum-dome of twenty-four concave compartments, alternately pierced by windows. The intermediate compartments correspond to the piers, and the dome is therefore twelve-sided on the exterior with angle half columns and arches in two orders. Internally the dome arches are recessed back from the lower wall face and spring from a heavy string-course. They were originally pierced on the north, south, and west sides by three windows similar to those in the west dome arch of S.

Andrew (p. 114).

The west side is now occupied by the wooden balcony of a Turkish house built over the narthex, but there are no indications of any gallery in that position.

Below the dome arches the central area communicates with the surrounding ambulatory on the north, west, and south sides by large semicircular arches corbelled slightly out from the piers.

On the east side the dome arch is open from floor to vault, and leads by a short bema to a five-sided s.p.a.ce covered by a dome and forming a kind of triangular apse, on the south-eastern side of which is the mihrab. As is clearly shown by the character of its dome windows and masonry, this structure is a Turkish addition taking the place of the original three eastern apses, and is a clever piece of planning to alter the orientation of the building.

The ambulatory on the three sides of the central square is covered by barrel vaults on the sides and with cross-groined vaults at the angles.

To the east it opened into the eastern lateral chapels, now swept away, though the pa.s.sage from the prothesis to the central apse still remains.

On the north side of the church is a pa.s.sage in three bays covered by dome vaults on transverse arches, communicating at the west end with the inner narthex, and at the east terminating in a small chapel covered by an octagonal drum dome. The upper part of the apse of the chapel is still visible on the exterior, but the lower part has been destroyed and its place taken by a Turkish window.

The floor of the eastern part of the church is raised a step above the general level, this step being carried diagonally across the floor in the centre part so as to line with the side of the apse containing the mihrab.

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

(1) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. THE EAST COLUMN IN THE PARECCLESION.

(2) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. COLUMN FLANKING THE EAST WINDOW OF THE APSE OF THE PARECCLESION.

(3) S. MARY PAMMAKARISTOS. THE WEST COLUMN IN THE PARECCLESION.

_To face page 150._]

In considering the original form of the church there is yet another important point to be noted. It will be seen from the plan that at the ground level the central area is not cruciform, but is rather an oblong from east to west with large arches on the north and south sides. This oblong is, however, reduced to a square at the dome level by arches thrown across the east and west ends, and this, in conjunction with the setting back of the dome arches already mentioned, produces a cruciform plan at the springing level. The oblong character of the central area is characteristic of the domed basilica and distinguishes this church from S. Andrew or S. Mary Panachrantos. The employment of barrel vaults in the ambulatory is also a point of resemblance to the domed basilica type, though the cross groin is used on the angles.[246] In this feature S. Mary Pammakaristos resembles S. Andrew and differs from S. Mary Panachrantos. We are probably justified in restoring triple arcades in all the three lower arches similar to the triple arcade which still remains in S. Andrew. The present arches do not fit, and are evidently later alterations for the purpose of gaining internal s.p.a.ce as at the Panachrantos.

The hexagonal piers between the ambulatory and the inner narthex are not original, as is evident from the clumsy manner in which the vaulting descends on to them. They are the remains of the old western external wall of the church left over when it was pierced through, probably in Turkish times, to include the narthex in the interior area of the building. The piers between the ambulatory and the gallery on the north side of the church also seem to be due to openings made for a similar reason in the old northern wall of the church when that gallery was added in Byzantine days. The dotted lines on the plan show the original form of the piers and wall, as shown by the outline of the vault springings above. The inner narthex is later than the central church and is of inferior workmans.h.i.+p. The restored plan shows the probable form of the church at that date. The outer narthex was added at a subsequent period.