Byzantine Churches in Constantinople Part 9

[116] In S. George of Ezra in Syria (515), as Mr. E. M. Antoniadi informs me, the dome overhangs or oversails the angles of the octagon.

[117] 'The dome stands within a polygon of sixteen sides, that rises four metres above the springing line, keeping the dome taut and weighting the haunches. Against this polygonal casing are set b.u.t.tresses formed by the extension of the piers of the octagon to within m. 1-1/2 from the cornice of the dome. These b.u.t.tresses are in their turn respectively strengthened, on the rear, by two small b.u.t.tresses; of which those on the north, south, east, and west sides rest on an arch of the gynecaeum, and carry the thrust to the outer walls of the church, while the others rest on the exhedrae and the vaulting of the gynecaeum. Furthermore, from the summit of the b.u.t.tresses formed by the piers of the octagon a small b.u.t.tress is set against the cupola itself up to the cornice.' This marshalling of the b.u.t.tresses around the dome in three tiers, while securing the stability of the structure, is moreover strikingly artistic. See Fig.

21.

CHAPTER IV

THE CHURCH OF S. IRENE 118-143

The church of S. Irene stands at a short distance to the north-east of S. Sophia, in the first court of the Seraglio. Its ident.i.ty has never been questioned, for the building was too much in the public eye and too near the centre of the ecclesiastical affairs of the city to render possible any mistake concerning its real character. It is always described as close to S. Sophia.[118] According to the historian Socrates,[119] it was originally one of the Christian sanctuaries of the old town of Byzantium, a statement we may well believe, seeing Byzantium was the seat of a bishop before the foundation of Constantinople. The designation of the church as 'the Ancient' or 'the Old Church,' Ecclesia Antiqua, [Greek: he palaia],[120] and the special regard cherished for the church during the earlier history of the city, are also thus best explained. The original sanctuary was small,[121] but when Byzantium became the capital of the East the old fabric was enlarged and beautified by Constantine the Great to harmonize with its grander surroundings, and was dedicated to Peace, in honour of the rest and quiet which settled upon the Roman world when the founder of the city had vanquished all his rivals after eighteen years of civil war.[122]

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

_Abdullah Freres._ S. IRENE, FROM THE SOUTH-EAST.

_To face page 84._]

NOTE

Other churches of the same name were found in Constantinople: S. Irene in the Seventh Region, according to the _Not.i.tia_. S. Irene in Sykai (Galata), [Greek: peran en Sykais]; Theophanes, p. 353.

S. Irene by the Sea, [Greek: pros thala.s.san]; Nicetas Choniates, p. 269; Synax., Jan. 10. The last was also known as the New, [Greek: Nea]; Synax., Jan. 23. Erected in the reign of the Emperor Marcian, it was partially restored by the Emperor Manuel Comnenus after its destruction by fire; Nicet. Chon. _ut supra_. It was styled likewise 'at the Ferry,' [Greek: to perama]; Codinus, _De aed._ p. 89; Banduri, ii. p. 31.

Until the year 360, when the church of S. Sophia was opened to public wors.h.i.+p by the Emperor Constantius, S. Irene appears to have been the cathedral of the city. Hence, probably, the name sometimes given to it, the Patriarchate, [Greek: to patriarcheion].[123] Nor did the church lose its primacy altogether even after the erection of S. Sophia. On the contrary, the two churches were regarded as forming one sanctuary; they were enclosed within the same court, served by the same clergy, and known by the same name, 'the Great Church,' [Greek: he Megale Ekklesia].[124] S. Irene was again the sole cathedral building, while S.

Sophia lay in ruins for eleven years after being set on fire in 404, on the occasion of the final banishment of John Chrysostom.

S. Irene comes prominently into view during the fierce struggle between the adherents of the Nicene Creed and the Arians, in the half-century which followed the inauguration of New Rome. Having been persuaded that the point at issue between the two theological parties was not essential, and that the agitation of the question was due to love of disputation, Constantine the Great, who valued peace at almost any price, attempted to suppress the controversy by his authority, and accordingly ordered the Patriarch Alexander to admit Arius, then present in the city, to the Holy Communion. With this order Alexander, a champion of the Nicene Creed, refused to comply. Whereupon the followers of Arius decided to have recourse to violence. But on the very eve of the day fixed to carry out their purpose, Arius was taken suddenly ill in the Forum of Constantine and died on the spot. The historian Socrates regards the event as the act of G.o.d, for when the patriarch heard what the heretics intended to do, he retired to the church of S.

Irene, and there for many days and nights, with fasting and tears, and with his lips pressed to the altar, implored divine succour in his terrible extremity. 'If the opinions of Arius be true,' the patriarch prayed, 'let me die; but if they are false let him be judged.' The tragic end of Arius was considered the answer to that prayer.

Upon the death of Alexander in 343, at the age of ninety-eight, the two parties came into collision in regard to the question of his successor.

The deceased prelate had recommended two persons as suitable to fill his place: the presbyter Paul, because of his abilities; the deacon Macedonius, on account of his age and venerable appearance. The Arians favoured Macedonius, as more in sympathy with their opinions; the orthodox, however, carried the election and installed Paul in S. Irene.

The defeated party seems to have submitted, but the Emperor Constantius, a violent Arian, quashed the election, and appointed Eusebius of Nicomedia, a prominent upholder of the views of Arius, bishop of the capital. Upon the death of Eusebius in 346 the theological combatants again seized the opportunity to try their strength. The orthodox recalled Paul; the Arians consecrated Macedonius. Incensed by these proceedings, Constantius, then at Antioch, ordered Hermogenes, the magister militum in Thrace, to proceed to Constantinople and drive Paul from the city. But no sooner did Hermogenes attempt to execute his instructions than the populace rose, burnt his house to the ground, and after dragging him along the streets, killed him. The emperor was furious. He hurried back to Constantinople, banished Paul, and reduced by one-half the amount of free bread daily distributed among the citizens. Nor did he fully recognize Macedonius as bishop. Under these circ.u.mstances Paul made his way to Rome, and, having secured the support of the Pope, reappeared in Constantinople as the rightful bishop of the see. But the emperor, again in Syria, was not to be baffled. More angry than ever, he sent peremptory orders to Philip, the prefect of Constantinople, to expel Paul and to recognize Macedonius. By skilful arrangements Paul was quietly removed from the scene. But to install Macedonius was a more difficult undertaking. The prefect, however, ordered his chariot, and with Macedonius seated by his side made for S.

Irene, under an escort of troops carrying drawn swords. The sharp, naked weapons alarmed the crowds in the streets, and without distinction of sect or cla.s.s men rushed for the church, everybody trying to outstrip his neighbour in the race to get there first. Soon all the approaches to the building were packed to suffocation; no one stirred backwards or forwards, and the prefect's chariot was unable to advance. What seemed a hostile barricade of human beings welded together obstructed his path.

In vain did the soldiers brandish their swords in the hope of frightening the crowd to disperse. The crowd stood stock still, not because it would not, but because it could not move. The soldiers grew angry, resorted to their weapons, and cut a way to the church through that compact ma.s.s of humanity at the cost of 3150 lives; some of the victims being crushed to death, others killed at the point of the sword.

So was Macedonius conducted to his throne in the temple of Peace.[125]

But the conflict between the opposite parties continued, and after six years spent in efforts to recover his position, Paul was restored to office through the intervention of the Pope of Rome, of the Emperor Constans, and of the Synod of Sardica. It was a brief triumph. In 350 Paul was exiled for life to Cucusus, and Macedonius ruled once more in his stead.[126] For the next thirty years S. Irene with the other churches of the capital remained in the hands of the Arians.

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

(1) S. IRENE, SOUTH SIDE.

(2) S. IRENE, NORTH SIDE. IN THE DISTANCE, S. SOPHIA.

_To face page 86._]

During that period the Nicene faith was preached by Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus only in a small chapel, subsequently dedicated to S. Anastasia.[127] But with the accession of Theodosius the Great the adherents of the Creed of Nicaea prevailed, and the Second General Council, held in Constantinople in 381, adopted that creed as the true faith of the Christian Church.

According to the biographer of S. Stephen the Younger, who enumerates the six ec.u.menical councils, and indicates, in most cases, where each met, that famous Council met in the church of S. Irene.[128] But Theodore Lector[129] says the Council a.s.sembled in the church of h.o.m.onoia, and explains the name of that church as commemorative of the harmony which prevailed among the bishops who gathered there on that occasion. As a matter of fact, one of the churches of the city bore the name h.o.m.onoia.[130] Possibly the discrepancy between the statements of the authors just mentioned may be due to a confusion arising from a similar meaning of the names of the two churches.

According to the Anonymus,[131] the usurper Basiliscus took refuge with his wife and children in S. Irene, when he was overthrown in 477, and the Emperor Zeno recovered the throne. But, according to the _Paschal Chronicle_,[132] Basiliscus fled on that occasion to the great baptistery of S. Sophia. As that baptistery stood between S. Irene and S. Sophia and may have served both churches, the difference between the two statements is not serious.

After standing for two centuries the Constantinian edifice was burnt to the ground by the fire which the rebel factions in the Nika Riot set to the offices of the prefect on Friday, the 16th of January 532. The building had narrowly escaped the same fate in the fire which destroyed S. Sophia earlier in the course of the riot, and might have survived also the conflagration in which it actually perished, but for the strong wind which carried the flames from the praetorium to the church, devouring on their way the bath of Alexander, a part of the hospice of Eubulus, and the hospital of Sampson with its patients.

The restoration of the church was included in the magnificent scheme of Justinian the Great to build on the wilderness of ashes created by his rebel subjects the finest monuments of his empire. And so S. Irene rose from its ruins, the largest sanctuary in Constantinople, except S.

Sophia.[133] The bricks bearing the mark 'the Great Church,' [Greek: Megale 'Ekklesia], which are built into a raised bank against the northern wall of the atrium, afford no indication of the date when S.

Irene was rebuilt. The bank is of comparatively recent origin.[134]

In the month of December 564, the thirty-seventh year of Justinian's reign, another great fire threatened to destroy the buildings which that emperor had erected in the quarter of the city beside S. Sophia. The hospital of Sampson was again burnt down; the atrium of the Great Church, known as the Garsonostasion, suffered; two monasteries close to S. Irene perished, and, what most concerns us, the atrium and part of the narthex of S. Irene itself were consumed.[135] How soon these injuries were repaired is not recorded.

During the 176 years that followed the reconstruction of the church by Justinian, S. Irene does not appear in history. But in 740 it was injured by the earthquake which shook Constantinople in the last year of the reign of Leo III. the Isaurian.[136] Theophanes[137] is very precise in regard to the time when the disaster occurred; it was on the 26th of October, the ninth indiction, on a Wednesday, at eight o'clock. The damage done both in the city and in the towns of Thrace and Bithynia was terrible. In Nicaea only one church was left standing, while Constantinople deplored the ruin of large portions of the landward fortifications and the loss of many churches, monasteries, and public monuments. S. Irene was then shaken, and, as the examination of the building by Mr. George has proved, sustained most serious injuries. The Emperor Leo died about six months after the disaster, and it is therefore uncertain whether the church was rebuilt before his death. His first attention was naturally directed to the reconstruction of the fortifications of the city, where his name still appears, with that of his son and successor Constantine Cop.r.o.nymus, as the rebuilder of the fallen bulwarks. But although there is no record of the precise date at which the ruined church was repaired, we may safely a.s.sume that if the work was not commenced while Leo III. sat upon the throne, it was undertaken soon after the accession of Constantine Cop.r.o.nymus. S. Irene was too important to be long neglected, and was probably rebuilt during the ascendancy of the iconoclasts.

The church reappears for a moment in 857 during the dispute which raged around the persons of Ignatius and Photius as to which of them was the lawful patriarch. While the partisans of the latter met in the church of the Holy Apostles to depose Ignatius, the few bishops who upheld the claims of Ignatius a.s.sembled in S. Irene to condemn and depose Photius with equal vehemence.[138]

The church comes into view once more in connection with the settlement of the quarrel caused in 907 by the fourth marriage of Leo VI. the Wise.

As the union was uncanonical, the Patriarch Nicholas deposed the priest who had celebrated the marriage; he, moreover, refused the Communion to the emperor, and treated Zoe, the emperor's fourth wife, as an outcast.

For such conduct Nicholas lost his office, and a more pliant ecclesiastic was appointed in his place. The inevitable result followed.

The religious world was torn by a schism which disturbed Church and State for fifteen years. At length Roma.n.u.s I. summoned a council of divines to compose the agitation, and peace was restored in 921, by a decree which condemned a fourth marriage, but allowed a third marriage under very strict limitations. So important was this decision regarded that it was read annually, in July, from the pulpit, and on that occasion the emperor, with the patriarch, attended service in S. Irene, and at its close took part in a procession from S. Irene to S. Sophia, on the way back to the Great Palace.[139]

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

S. IRENE. THE INTERIOR, LOOKING EAST.

(With the kind permission of Professor C. Gurlitt, from his work _Die Baukunst Konstantinopels_, Berlin, E. Was.m.u.th.) _To face page 90._]

On Good Friday the patriarch held a service for catechumens ([Greek: katechesis]) in S. Irene, which the patricians were required to attend.[140]

The church of S. Irene has never been used as a mosque. After its enclosure within the precincts of the Seraglio soon after the Turkish conquest, it was converted into an armoury, probably because it stood in the court occupied by the body of Janissaries who formed the palace guard, and it has served that military purpose, in contradiction to its name, for the most part ever since. For several years it contained the first collection of antiquities made by the Turkish Government, and some of the objects in that collection still remain to recall the use of the building as a museum; the most interesting of them being the chain stretched across the mouth of the Golden Horn during the siege of 1453, the monument to the charioteer Porphyrios, and the pedestal of the silver statue of the Empress Eudocia, which played a fatal part in the relations of that empress to the great bishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom. Since the establishment of the const.i.tutional regime in the Ottoman Empire the building has been turned into a Museum of Arms.

_Architectural Features_

Until the recent establishment of const.i.tutional government in Turkey it was impossible to obtain permission to study this church in a satisfactory manner, so jealously was even entrance into the building guarded. The nearest approach to anything like a proper examination of the building was when Salzenberg was allowed to visit the church in 1848, while the church of S. Sophia was undergoing repairs under the superintendence of the Italian architect Fossati. But the liberty accorded to Salzenberg was not complete, and, consequently, his plan of the church published in his _Altchristliche Baudenkmaler von Konstantinopel_ is marred by serious mistakes. Happily the new Government of the Empire is animated by an enlightened and liberal spirit, and at the request of His Excellency Sir Gerard Lowther, H.B.M.

Amba.s.sador to the Sublime Porte, permission was granted to the Byzantine Research and Publication Fund to have the church examined as thoroughly as its condition allowed, and to make all the plans, drawings, and photographs required in the interests of a scientific knowledge of its architectural character. The Byzantine Research and Publication Fund was fortunate in having as its president, Edwin Freshfield, LL.D., so long distinguished for his devotion to Byzantine archaeology, and it is mainly due to his generosity that the means necessary for carrying on the study of the church were provided. The society was, moreover, most happy in being able to secure the services of an architect in Mr. W. S.

George, who already possessed considerable experience in the investigation of Byzantine buildings at Salonica and elsewhere.

Fortunately, also, the building was at the same time placed under repair, in view of its conversion into a museum of arms, thus affording exceptional facilities for the erection of scaffolding and the removal of plaster and other obstructions. Mr. George gave nearly five months to the study of the church, and the results of his careful investigations will appear in a monograph to be published by the Byzantine Research and Publication Fund. But with great courtesy, in view of the fact that I was engaged on the present work, and also because I waived my own application for leave to study S. Irene in favour of the application made by the Byzantine Fund, I have been allowed to antic.i.p.ate that monograph by making use of some of the results of Mr. George's investigations. For this permission I am very grateful, as it will add much to the value of this volume. I visited the church frequently while Mr. George was at work upon it, and my account of its architectural features is based entirely upon the information he then kindly supplied, and upon the notes he has communicated to me since his return to England.

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

(1) S. IRENE. VAULTING AT THE NORTH-WEST CORNER OF THE ATRIUM.

(2) S. IRENE. THE NORTHERN ARCH OF THE MAIN DOME, SEEN FROM THE SOUTH GALLERY.

_To face page 92._]

The architectural feature which gives to this building a peculiar interest, in the study of the development of planning and construction, is the more complete fusion of the basilican type of plan with a domical system of roofing which it presents than is found in any other example of a similar combination.

On the west, where the ground retains its original level, stands the old atrium, though much modified by Turkish repairs and alterations. It had covered arcades on the north, south, and west sides, but only the outer walls of the northern and southern arcades, with some portions of their inner walls, and three complete vaulted bays at the northern end of the western arcade, are Byzantine. The walls, vaults, and piers in other parts of the arcades are Turkish. There is no trace of the west door which, under ordinary circ.u.mstances, would form the main entrance to the atrium, but a Byzantine doorway, now built up, is found close to the narthex, in the outer wall of the south arcade. The area of the atrium has been, moreover, greatly reduced by the erection, on its four sides, of an inner range of Turkish vaulting.

Five doors led from the atrium to the narthex, but only the central and the northernmost of these doors are now open, the latter entrance still retaining its original architrave and cornice of white marble, with the usual mouldings and a cross worked on the crowning member of the cornice. The present entrance to the church, however, is on the north side of the building, through a porch that leads down a sloping Turkish pa.s.sage to the western end of the north aisle.

The narthex is in five bays, the two terminal bays having cross-groined vaults, the three central, vaults of a domical character with blunt rounded groins at the springing. The whole vaulting surface of the narthex was once covered with mosaics exhibiting mainly a geometrical pattern.

From the narthex three tall arched openings conducted to the nave, and one opening to each aisle. But the direct communication between the narthex and the northern aisle is now cut off by the insertion of the Turkish entrance to the church, although the old doorway to the aisle remains complete.

The nave is divided into two large bays of equal breadth but unequal length, the western bay being the shorter. In the latter the arches which support its roof are, to the east and west, semicircular, while those to north and south are roughly elliptical, springing from the same level and rising to the same height as the semicircular arches, but being of shorter span. These elliptical arches extend to the outer walls of the church, thus partaking of the character of short barrel vaults.