The Church of Sancta Sophia, Constantinople - 1894- Illustrated Edition E-Book

W. R. Lethaby

• Herausgeber: Librorium Editions
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

Sancta Sophia is the most interesting building on the world’s surface. Like Karnak in Egypt, or the Athenian Parthenon, it is one of the four great pinnacles of architecture, but unlike them this is no ruin, nor does it belong to a past world of constructive ideas although it precedes by seven hundred years the fourth culmination of the building art in Chartres, Amiens, or Bourges, and thus must ever stand as the supreme monument of the Christian cycle. Far from being a ruin, the church is one of the best preserved of so ancient monuments, and in regard to its treatment by the Turks we can only be grateful that S. Sophia has not been situated in the more learned cities of Europe, such as Rome, Aachen, or Oxford, during “the period of revived interest in ecclesiastical antiquities.” Our first object has been to attempt some disentanglement of the history of the Church and an analysis of its design and construction; on the one hand, we have been led a step or two into the labyrinth of Constantinopolitan topography, on the other, we have thought that the great Church offers the best point of view for the observation of the Byzantine theory of building.

Leseprobe

THE CHURCH OF SANCTA SOPHIA CONSTANTINOPLE A STUDY OF BYZANTINE BUILDING BY W. R. LETHABY & HAROLD SWAINSON

1894

© 2022 Librorium Editions

ISBN : 9782383835059

PREFACE

Sancta Sophia is the most interesting building on the world’s surface. Like Karnak in Egypt, or the Athenian Parthenon, it is one of the four great pinnacles of architecture, but unlike them this is no ruin, nor does it belong to a past world of constructive ideas although it precedes by seven hundred years the fourth culmination of the building art in Chartres, Amiens, or Bourges, and thus must ever stand as the supreme monument of the Christian cycle. Far from being a ruin, the church is one of the best preserved of so ancient monuments, and in regard to its treatment by the Turks we can only be grateful that S. Sophia has not been situated in the more learned cities of Europe, such as Rome, Aachen, or Oxford, during “the period of revived interest in ecclesiastical antiquities.” Our first object has been to attempt some disentanglement of the history of the Church and an analysis of its design and construction; on the one hand, we have been led a step or two into the labyrinth of Constantinopolitan topography, on the other, we have thought that the great Church offers the best point of view for the observation of the Byzantine theory of building.

It may be well for us to state how, in the main, we have shared our work. The one of us—by the accident of the alphabet, second named—has done the larger part of the reading and the whole of the translation required. The first has undertaken more of the constructive side of the book and the whole of the illustrations. We both visited Constantinople, and wish to thank Canon Curtis for help then and since. Mr. Ambrose Poynter has read the proofs. In our text we have thought it well to incorporate so far as possible the actual words of the writers to whom we have referred. The dates when the more ancient authors wrote are given under their names in the index; so are the years of the accession of the Emperors mentioned in the text. Although we have made full use of Salzenberg’s great work in the preparation of some of our illustrations, none are mere transcripts from his book. In some instances where scales are given to details, the scales are but rough approximations.

Much remains to be observed at S. Sophia; the Baptistery, the Cisterns beneath the church, and the Circular Building to the east are practically unknown, and any fact noted in regard to them will almost certainly be new. But it is still more important that building customs, recipes, and traditions should be recorded. Byzantine art still exists not only on Mount Athos but all over the once Christian East—at Damascus the builders are still Christians, and the Greek masons of Turkey, M. Choisy says, are still the faithful representatives of the builders of the Lower Empire, and their present practice is a sure commentary on the ancient buildings.

A conviction of the necessity for finding the root of architecture once again in sound common-sense building and pleasurable craftsmanship remains as the final result of our study of S. Sophia, that marvellous work, where, as has so well been said, there is no part where the principles of rational construction are not applied with “hardiesse” and “franchise” In estimating so highly the Byzantine method of building in its greatest example, we see that its forms and results directly depended on then present circumstances, and then ordinary materials. It is evident that the style cannot be copied by our attempting to imitate Byzantine builders; only by being ourselves and free, can our work be reasonable, and if reasonable, like theirs universal.

L’ART C’EST D’ÊTRE ABSOLUMENT SOI-MÊME.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I. Byzantium. New Rome, The Acropolis, The Augusteum. First and Second Churches of S. Sophia.

CHAPTER II. Justinian’s Church. Account of Procopius. Fall of Dome and Restoration. Accounts of Agathias and Evagrius.

CHAPTER III. The Descriptive Poem of Paul the Silentiary, Parts 1 and 2.

CHAPTER IV. The Silentiary’s Account, Part 3. The Ambo. Coronations in the Ambo.

CHAPTER V. Main Divisions. Bema. Altar. Ciborium. Crowns, &c. Altar Veils. Iconostasis. Prothesis and Diakonikon. Holy Well and Metatorion. Solea. The Nave and Pavement. Font. Crosses. Miraculous Marbles, &c. Water Vessels. Images and Tombs. Hangings. Carpets. Synods. Clergy and Ritual. Adoration of the Cross. Procession to the Church.

CHAPTER VI. § 1. The True Cross and Relics of the Passion. Other Treasure. Accounts by Russian Pilgrims. § 2. The Lighting of the Church.

CHAPTER VII. § 1. Later History. Occupation of the Church by the Crusaders. Fall of Constantinople. § 2. The Anonymous Account of the Church. § 3. Legends.

CHAPTER VIII. Fossati’s Reparations. Salzenberg’s Description of Design, Materials, Construction, and Decoration.

CHAPTER IX. Precincts of the Church, &c. Palaces. Hippodrome. Augusteum. Milion. Horologium. S. Peter’s Chapel, &c. Boundaries of Church. Atrium. Phiale. Pavement. West Front. Belfry. Cisterns. Exterior generally.

CHAPTER X. § 1. Byzantine Origins. § 2. The Builders of the Church. § 3. Original Form of the Church: Dome and N. and S. Arches, Atrium, N.W. and S.W. Angles, Baptistery and Loggia. § 4. Structural System. Arch Forms. Vaulting. Dome Construction. Chainage and Walling. Mortar and Cement.

CHAPTER XI. § 1. Building Procedure. § 2. Marble Quarries and Identification of the Marbles. § 3. Application of Marble to the Walls. § 4. Marble Masonry. Seven Orders of Byzantine Capitals. Distribution and Dates of Capitals. Shafts and Bases. Responds. Cornices and Skirtings. Windows, &c. Carving.

CHAPTER XII. § 1. Bronze Doors, &c. § 2. Mosaics. Salzenberg’s Description. First Scheme. Later Scheme. Fossati’s Description. Tesserae and Fixing. § 3. Glass. Plaster. Painting. § 4. Monograms and Inscriptions.

S. SOPHIA CHAPTER I

THE CITY OF CONSTANTINE AND THE FIRST CHURCH

Byzantium.—Where the narrow swift-flowing Bosporus, which divides Asia from the most eastern part of southern Europe, flows into the Sea of Marmara, a crescent-shaped arm of the sea runs westward into the land, leaving a narrow promontory, which, like the prow of a boat in profile, puts out to the east. The point of this promontory is a mass of rock rising steeply from the sea: divided by a slight transverse depression from the rest of the land, it forms the first hill of the seven which were afterwards inclosed by the walls of Constantinople.

On this crest (by the present Seraglio Point), commanding the passage to the Euxine, was built, in the seventh century B.C., by colonists from Megara—with whom Dionysius couples the Corinthians—the Acropolis, the sacred city and citadel, and within certain limits the lines of its containing walls may still be traced. The lower city gathered about the slopes outside the Acropolis, and had other walls defining its landward limits. Dionysius, the ancient Byzantine writer, who describes the city before the siege of Severus, 196 A.D., says that this citadel of Byzantium was on the promontory of the Bosporus, above the bay called Keras (the Golden Horn). “At a little distance over the height is the altar of Athena Ecbasia—of the landing—where the colonists fought as for their own land. There is too a temple of Poseidon, an ancient one and hence quite plain, which stands over the sea.... Below the temple of Poseidon, but within the wall, on the level ground are stadia and gymnasia, and courses for the young.”[1] This Acropolis is roughly outlined in Fig. 1, the evidence being the contours of the hill, remains and records of certain walls to be mentioned later, and the boundaries between the first four regions in Constantine’s city as given in the Notitia,[2] a description of the city written in the beginning of the fifth century. The Acropolis so defined has a striking resemblance to other Greek hill cities—Tiryns, Mycenae, Acrocorinth, and the Acropolis of Athens. In Fig. 1 the cross shows the site of the present Church of S. Sophia; the arrow shows the Hippodrome, which, still existing, is the great monument of pre-Constantinian times, and forms the key for all study of the subsequent city; O shows the position of the column said to have been erected by Claudius Gothicus about 270 A.D., which stands at the north end of the Acropolis overlooking Seraglio or Demetrius Point.

Of the ancient Greek town few positive remains have come down to us, with the exception of the coins. A publication by the Greek Philological Society of Constantinople mentions as among several pre-Constantinian inscriptions a marble slab found in “the tower next to the Zouk Tsesmé gate on the left as one ascends to S. Sophia,” which refers to the stadium erected by Pausanias the General in 477 B.C., “within the walls of Byzantium and below the temple of Poseidon.”[3] The coins also go back to the fifth century B.C. The early ones show a cow standing on a dolphin, with the letters BY. In the third century we have Poseidon seated on a promontory, and later again a dolphin twined round a trident—all the types having evident reference to the sea-washed city. Another relic of ancient Byzantium is still to be seen below the curve of the Hippodrome, where a white marble capital of good Greek Doric work lies neglected on the seaward bank of the new railway.

In addition to the ancient buildings already mentioned, we learn from Dionysius that the city possessed a temple of Gé Onesidora—the fruitful earth—which consisted of “an unroofed space surrounded by a wall of polished stone.” Near by were “temples of Demeter and the Maiden (Persephone), with many pictures in them, relics of their former wealth.” This author was also shown the sites of temples to Hera and Pluto, “the former having been destroyed by Darius, and the latter by Philip of Macedon.” He also speaks of a large round tower joined to the wall of the city.

Some records or legends of the ancient city are also contained in the Paschal Chronicle.[4] After the siege Severus “built the public bath called Zeuxippus. Now in the middle of the four-porticoed[5] space stood a bronze stele of the sun, below which he wrote the name of the sun. The people of Thrace indeed call the place Helion, but the Byzantines themselves call this same public bath ‘of Zeuxippus’ after its original name, although the emperor ordered it should be called Severion. Opposite to it in the acropolis of Byzantium he built the temple of Apollo, which also faced the two other temples formerly built by Byzas—one to Artemis with the olive, and the other to Phedalian Aphrodite. And the figure of the sun was taken from the four-porticoes and placed in this temple (of Apollo). Opposite the temple of Artemis he built large kennels, and a theatre opposite the temple of Aphrodite. He bought houses and gardens from two brothers, and after pulling down the former and uprooting the latter he built the Hippodrome. Severus restored the Strategion as well. It was first named by Alexander of Macedon, who, in his campaign against Darius, reviewed his troops there before attacking the Persians.”

New Rome.—It was about 328 A.D. or the following year that Constantine decided to enlarge this city, which had long been under the domination of Rome, and to make it his capital. The work of building was pushed forward with great energy, and it was consecrated in May 330. By an edict engraved on a stone erected in the Strategium, it was called the New Rome of Constantine. In the documents of the patriarchs of the Greek Church the city is still called New Rome.

The quarries of easily wrought marble of large crystalline structure and soft white colour found in such abundance in the island of Proconnesus, only a few miles away over the sea to which it has given its name of Marmara, then as now furnished a perfect building material; while the still worked quarries of Egypt and Thessaly provided imperial purple and green. But a richer quarry was doubtless found in the porphyry and cippolino shafts of the old temples of many a declining city.

Constantine’s city does not appear to have been so completely Christian as the ecclesiastical writers would have us suppose. Zosimus tells us that Constantine erected a shrine to the Dioscuri in the Hippodrome, and he mentions the temples of Rhea and the Tyché of the city in a large four-porticoed forum. A whole population of bronze and marble statues was brought together from Greece, Asia Minor, and Sicily. The baths of Zeuxippus alone are said to have had more than sixty bronze statues,[6] a still greater number were assembled in the Augusteum and other squares, and in the Hippodrome, where, according to Zosimus,[7] Constantine placed the Pythian tripod, which had been the central object in the temple of Apollo at Delphi. On the triple coils of the bronze serpents in the At-Meidan can still be read the names of the Greek states, which, after the battle of Plataea, dedicated a tithe of the spoil to the Delphic oracle, as described by Herodotus.[8]

An extremely valuable description of ancient Byzantium and the reconstruction by Constantine is given by Zosimus, writing not much more than a century after the transformation. “Now the city lay upon the crest of a hill which forms a part of the isthmus that is made by what is called the ‘Horn’ (κέρας) and the Propontis. And formerly it had its gate (πύλη) at the end of the colonnades which Severus built.” ... “And the wall on its western part descending along with the crest reached to the temple of Aphrodite, and the sea of Chrysopolis [Scutari] which is opposite; and in the same way from the crest the wall descended northward to the harbour which is called Neorion, and from thence up to the sea which lies directly in front of the straits through which one enters the Euxine.” ... “This then was the ancient size of the city. And Constantine erected a circular forum where formerly was the gate, and surrounded it with porticoes of two storeys. He set up two very big arches of Proconnesian marble opposite each other; through them one entered the porticoes of Severus or issued from the ancient city. And wishing to make the city much larger he further continued the old wall fifteen stadia, and inclosed the city with a wall which cut off the isthmus from sea to sea.”

It is clear from this that the ancient land gate of Byzantium stood on the crest of the ridge close to the site now occupied by the Porphyry Column (which was set up by Constantine in the New Forum), and formed the end of a street of columns built by Severus (the Mese). From this gate the wall ran southwards to a temple of Aphrodite, and along the shore of the Propontis opposite Scutari. Northwards it descended to the Golden Horn at the Neorion port, and turned along the shore to Seraglio Point. Now the Neorion port was just outside the entrance to the modern Galata bridge,[9] and the account agrees perfectly with the Notitia in which we find the following: “The sixth ward at entering on it is level ground for a short distance, all the rest is upon the descent; for it extends from the Forum of Constantine to the stairs where you ferry over to Sycae [Galata]. It contains the porphyry pillar of Constantine; the Senate House in the same place, the Neorion port; the stairs of Sycae, &c.”

It is evident that the city which Constantine found had been virtually rebuilt by Severus in the style of the East. From the days when Alexandria and Antioch were planned a city had become a whole to be designed according to rule. Essential features of such cities—of which Palmyra is the best representative—were long avenues of columns forming the main streets, and a triumphal arch with a central “golden milestone.” The main street of columns at Constantinople, which we later hear of by the name of the Mese as forming the way from the Milion to the Forum of Constantine, cannot be any other than the “Porticoes of Severus” just mentioned. In the fifth century we find the Mese referred to in the building laws of Zeno. “We ordain that none shall be allowed to obstruct with buildings the numerous rows of columns which are erected in the public porticoes, such as those leading from what is called the Milion to the Capitol,” any shops or booths between the columns “must be ornamented on the outside at least with marble, that they may beautify the city and give pleasure to the passers by.”[10] Mordtmann shows that this great columned way occupied very nearly the line of the present Divan Yiulu; indeed, it is hardly possible to divert the great arteries at any stage of a city’s evolution, and the Mese itself probably followed the course of a foot-track to the gate of the Acropolis.

By building walls across the land between the Golden Horn and the sea at distances farther and farther from Seraglio Point, the city has been successively enlarged; the great land walls, within which the shrunken city now lies, are mainly the work of Theodosius II. These, the walls of the Constantinople known to the Crusaders, are still comparatively perfect; a triple line on the land side and a single line around the sea margin, some fourteen miles of walls, eight or ten to fifteen feet thick, strengthened by great towers, completely girdles the city round about. The land-wall of Constantine’s city, situated between the Acropolis and the present walls, has disappeared, but its course has been traced (see Fig. 1).

Acropolis.—The topography of ancient Constantinople has engaged the attention of generations of writers, and an approximation to true results has undoubtedly been reached. First we must mention Pierre Gilles, usually called Gyllius, who, travelling to collect MSS. for Francis I., resided in the city for many years, and died in 1555. Then Du Cange, in his great work Constantinopolis Christiana, 1680, by a careful comparison of the authorities, certainly made discoveries in a country he had never visited. The folios of Banduri[11] followed in 1711; and in 1861 Labarte published a more detailed study of the Imperial quarter, chiefly based on the ample notices in the Book of Ceremonies of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. This work, Le Palais Impérial de Constantinople et ses Abords, shows remarkable insight and critical acumen. Buzantios in Constantinopolis, 1861, and Paspates in his Byzantinae Melatae, 1877, made several further identifications. The latter followed with The Great Palace of Constantinople, recently translated by Mr. Metcalfe, which goes over the same ground as Labarte; but the excavations for the railway, which now circles Seraglio Point, had in the meantime exposed some remains, and made the examination of certain walls possible.

Although Paspates made several valuable suggestions, many of his conclusions are certainly not sustained by his reasoning; indeed, Labarte in many points of divergence was probably much nearer the facts. Paspates’ views were accepted by Mr. Bury,[12] to be followed in turn by Mr. Oman in The Byzantine Empire of the “Story of the Nations” Series. A work in Russian has recently been devoted to the study of the Palace quarter.[13] Unger’s collection of topographical references in Quellen der Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte is also of the greatest service.

Fig. 1.—Plan of Constantinople showing its development.

In 1892 appeared Dr. Mordtmann’s Esquisse, together with a large plan of the city, on which the probable identifications of the ways and buildings were laid down; this was prepared at the instance of the Comte Riant, who, in his Exuviae Constantinopolitanae, contributed the result of much research to our knowledge of Byzantine antiquities.

Fig. 2.—Plan of the Acropolis, &c., of Constantine’s city.

Dr. Mordtmann, by a study of the whole of the city area and its entire circumvallation as we have it to-day, in comparison with the written descriptions, has laid a firmer grasp on the problem. Labarte, he points out, was chiefly misled by a confusion of the buildings in the Forum of Constantine and those in the Forum Augusteum—a mistake elaborated in some respects by Paspates. Labarte thus placed the porphyry column of Constantine, which still marks the site of the former, together with other buildings that were quartered about it, all within the Augusteum, which last he rightly identified with the present open space to the south-west of S. Sophia. Texier, who in 1834 made a careful study of the ancient city, rightly distinguished the two fora.[14]

Fig. 2 will assist in making clear our views as to the transformation of the Acropolis under Constantine. The Byzantine brick walls which now inclose the old Serai Labarte regarded as of late work, and we think the style of the building would very well bear out Paspates’ opinion that they were erected by Michael Palaeologus. The excavation for the railway exposed some remains of a wall near O in our Fig. 1 which Paspates describes as “built of large stones as much as 10 feet long by 2½ broad, and 1½ thick.”[15] The rest of the seaward wall still forming the substructure of the retaining wall of the sea-front of the old Serai, and running in a direction parallel to the Hippodrome, is also of stone. This wall is probably ancient or follows the course of the ancient Acropolis inclosure which is described by Dion Cassius as “built on rising ground and projecting into the sea.... The walls are very strong, formed of large squared stones bound together with copper, and the inside is so strengthened with earth and buildings that the whole seems one thick wall.”[16]

The late Anonymous author edited by Banduri says that the wall of ancient Byzantium commenced at the Golden Horn near the gate of S. Eugenius to pass along by the Golden Milestone.[17] We place no reliance on the Anonymous for early history, but there is much to confirm Mordtmann’s view that an ancient wall occupied this position and that the Milion—which the Anonymous says was the land gate—was situated upon its course and formed indeed the entrance from the Street of Columns. This wall, which Mordtmann says passed on the land side of the old Serai in front of the modern museum (Tchenli Kiosk) where there is a high retaining wall, and continued to the west of S. Sophia not far from the narthex, we consider must be that which formed the landward inclosure of the Acropolis. The fourth region of the city, Mordtmann says, was separated from the second by the rock of the Acropolis and this wall. We are confirmed in our acceptance of the other wall described by Paspates as the seaward wall of the Acropolis, not only because it is built against the steep escarpment of the rock, but by finding that in the division of the city into the wards or regions of the Notitia the first ward exactly comprised the space between the wall and the sea; the second region contained the old Acropolis itself, with a triangle of lower ground at the north against the Golden Horn, where was probably the sea gate; while the third was divided from the fourth by the great way which left the Milion gate on the old landward wall of the Acropolis. Such pre-existing features naturally formed the boundaries of the wards.

We now give from the Notitia Dignitatum the descriptions of the first four regions of the fourteen into which Constantine’s city was divided, which will show how Constantine occupied the old areas with the royal and public quarters of his new city. Twelve regions were included within the walls, and two others were formed by the suburbs of Blachernae and Galata.

Region I.

Contains the house of Placidia Augusta; the house of most noble Marina; the Baths of Arcadius; 27 streets or alleys; 118 houses; 2 porticoes; 15 private baths; 4 public cornmills; 15 private cornmills; 4 terraces of steps. It is under one curator, who looks after the whole region; it has 1 vernaculus, a slave (or messenger) for all regions; 25 collegiati, who are selected from different Guilds (Corporati), and help at fires; and 5 street wardens, who watch the city at night.

Region II.

Gradually rises with a gentle ascent beginning from the smaller theatre, and then descends abruptly to the sea. It contains the Great Church; the Ancient Church; the Senate; the Tribunal built with porphyry steps; the Baths of Zeuxippus; the theatre; the amphitheatre; 34 streets or alleys, 98 houses; 4 large porticoes; 13 private baths; 4 private cornmills; 4 terraces of steps. It had also 1 curator, 1 vernaculus; 35 collegiati, 5 street wardens.

Region III.

Is a plane surface in its higher part, where is the Circus, but from the end of this it descends steeply to the sea. It contains the Circus Maximus; the house of Pulcheria Augusta; the new harbour; a semicircular portico, called by the Greeks Sigma; the Tribunal of the Forum of Constantine; 7 streets; 94 houses; 5 large porticoes; 11 private baths; 9 private cornmills. It had 1 curator; 1 vernaculus; it had also 21 collegiati; and 5 street wardens.

Region IV.

From the Golden Milliarium is prolonged, with hills rising to right and left in a valley leading to an open space. It contains the golden Milliarium; the Augusteum; the Basilica; the Nymphaeum; the Portico of Fanio; a marble ship—the monument of a naval victory—the church or martyrium of S. Mennas; the Stadium; the Scala Timasii; 32 streets; 375 houses; 4 large porticoes; 7 private baths; 5 private cornmills; 7 terraces of steps. It had 1 curator; 1 vernaculus; 45 collegiati; 5 street wardens.

Augusteum.—Thus Region I., occupying the land between the Acropolis wall and the sea, was partly reserved for palaces; Region II. coincided with the Acropolis, and had its south end devoted to the Forum Augusteum and the Christian Basilicas of S. Sophia (“the Great Church”) and St. Irene (“the Old Church.”). It will be observed that in the Notitia the Augusteum is given to Region IV., to which it does indeed adjoin; Mordtmann[18] considers that the Augusteum, like the buildings round it, must have belonged to Region II., but suggests that there may have been a continuation of the open space farther to the west in Region IV., and some such space as this certainly seems required by several of the references.

Gyllius first made the identification of the Augusteum with the present open space on the south of S. Sophia; in this he was followed by Labarte, and Mordtmann concurs. Paspates in making the Augusteum occupy the ground along the east side of the Hippodrome stands alone against, as it seems to us, all evidence. For example, he is compelled to shift the inscribed pedestal of the statue of the Empress Eudoxia, which we cannot but believe was found in its original position (see Mordtmann, p. 64, and Paspates, p. 105, and below, p. 13). The Mese moreover he makes the centre of his Augusteum. Mr. Bury thought it proved that the Augusteum “was also called the Forum of Constantine,” because a passage in Cedrenus speaks of the Senate House (τὸ σενάτον) as in the Forum of Constantine. It is perfectly clear however from the Notitia that there were two Senate Houses—one in the Forum mentioned in the extract we have given from the description of the sixth ward, and the other included in the second region as just quoted.[19]

In the Augusteum was erected a Senate, its front facing the west. “The Senate,” says Mordtmann, “was placed where to-day stands the Tribunal of Commerce.” That is, on the east side of the present place of S. Sophia against what must have been the eastern side of the Augusteum and the ancient Acropolis, on the seaward wall of which it was probably founded. In digging the foundations of the Tribunal of Commerce in 1847 the ancient pavement was found, at a depth of twelve feet, and the base of the celebrated statue of Eudoxia, with an inscription, marked it as the site of the Courts of Justice (Mordtmann, p. 64). The statue, Socrates[20] says, was “of silver, and it stood upon a lofty pedestal (bema), not far from the church called S. Sophia, with a road between.”

The Augusteum, following the Hippodrome, does not lie four-square with the cardinal points, but almost diagonally to them: for convenience, however, we shall speak of the directions as North, South, East, and West, calling the side towards the Mese the west. On the north side, and following the same system of alignment, is the present S. Sophia. The palace of the Patriarch probably adjoined the church, on the north side of the square.

The royal palaces mentioned in the Notitia were on the south of the Augusteum. According to the Paschal Chronicle, written about 630 A.D., Constantine the Great made a palace beside the Hippodrome, “and the ascent from the palace to the stand of the Hippodrome was by means of the stair called the spiral” (Paspates, Great Palace, p. 47). This palace does not seem to have become of great importance until Justinian’s time. The Notitia merely mentions the House of Placidia Augusta, and the House of the most noble Marina, the daughters of Arcadius, in the first ward; and the House of Pulcheria Augusta in the third; and speaks of several other royal palaces in the 9th, 10th, and 11th wards. The palace of the emperor at this time was in the 14th ward, which was outside the walls and isolated, making “the figure of a small city by itself;” this is the celebrated palace of Blachernae.

The Church.—It was in May 328 that Helena is said to have discovered the true cross and other relics at Jerusalem. And this event, which synchronizes exactly with Constantine’s choice of Byzantium as his capital, was probably not without direct relation to the foundation of the church dedicated to Christ. Socrates writes, “A portion of the cross she (Helena) inclosed in a silver chest and left in Jerusalem as a memorial, but the other part she sent to the king.”[21]

Theophanes, Cedrenus, Glycas, Paul the Deacon, Nicephorus Callistus, and other late historians agree in making Constantine the founder of the first Church dedicated to the Second Person of the Trinity as the Divine Wisdom; and Cedrenus even gives a name—Euphrates—to the architect.[22] Codinus, who wrote in the fifteenth century, alone relates that Constantine purified a previously existing temple and dedicated it to Christian uses.

There is much evidence to show that the church could not have been completed by Constantine even if he had founded it, or contemplated its foundation. In the life of the emperor, the Church of the Holy Apostles, which was built near the Forum of Constantine, and in which the emperor was buried, is described at length,[23] but it does not mention S. Sophia, although the author takes pains to enumerate the Christian objects in the city—saying that there were “many Oratories and Martyria, and by the fountains in the middle of the agorae were figures in gilt bronze of the Good Shepherd and of Daniel with the lions; in the palace was a cross wrought in gold with many coloured precious stones.”[24]

In the fifth century Notitia, as we have seen, S. Irene is called the Old Church and S. Sophia the Great Church.

The historian Socrates, probably the best authority, says that Constantine “built two churches, one he called Irene and the other the Apostles,”[25] and he attributes S. Sophia entirely to Constantius. “The King built the great church which is called Sophia and joined it to that called Irene, which the father of the king had previously increased and beautified, and now both churches were included within one wall and had one title.”

Upon its completion, it was dedicated, with magnificent ceremony, by the patriarch Eudoxius on Sunday, February 15th, 360 A.D., “in the thirty-fourth year after its foundation.”[26] This would fix its foundation in the year 326 A.D., two years after Constantine, having defeated Licinius, had begun to reign alone. Cedrenus writes, “Eudoxius consecrated a second time the Church of the Divine Wisdom, because after its first completion, and the dedication by Eusebius, it had fallen and been again restored by Constantius,”[27] and he places this event in the twenty-second year of Constantius’ reign.

Cedrenus is a late and credulous writer, and in attributing a first dedication to Eusebius—who would certainly have told us himself—he shows how untrustworthy is the whole story. Altogether we cannot do better than accept the account of Idatius and that given in the Paschal Chronicle, with perhaps a little suspicion on the part which refers to Constantine, “In this year (360) in the month Peritius was dedicated the great church of Constantinople, in the thirty-fourth year from the time when Constantine had laid the foundations. For the opening ceremony (encaenia) Constantius brought many offerings of gold, and great treasure of silver; many tissues adorned with gold thread and stones for the sanctuary; for the doors of the church different curtains (amphithuriai) of gold; and for the outside gateways (puleones) many others with gold threads.” According to the late Anonymous author (see page 129), “in the reign of Theodosius the Great († 395) and in the patriarchate of Nectarius (381-398), seventy-four years after the church was built, the roof of the church was destroyed by fire;” he probably really meant the fire of 404 in Arcadius’ reign. At that time S. John Chrysostom, incurring the dislike of the Empress Eudoxia, was banished. He was brought back at the end of two days, once more preached in S. Sophia, and was exiled again, with disastrous results, for his partisans set fire to the church and destroyed it. “This happened on the 20th of June, in the consulship of Honorius and Aristaenetus” (404).[28]

The fire was by some thought to be of supernatural origin. Palladius, the bishop’s biographer, writes, “Then a flame seemed to burst from the centre of the throne in which he used to sit, and climbed up by the chains [of lamps] to the roof ... and crept like a wriggling snake upon the back of the houses of the church.” There was also burnt the Senate, “lying many paces to the south opposite the church; and the fire spared only the little house, in which the sacred vessels were kept.”

The church was again injured by fire, restored by Theodosius II., and rededicated in 415.[29] Fresh relics were required for this rededication.[30] One fact of importance in regard to this church is related by Sozomenus of the Empress Pulcheria. “She dedicated an altar in the church of Constantinople, a most wonderful work of gold and precious stones, on behalf of her virginity and her brothers’ empire. And she wrote this on the face of the table so that it might be clear to all.”[31]

From this time until the outbreak known as the Nika sedition, in January 532, the church is not said to have been further altered. According to Cedrenus, the records and charters perished with the church.

There cannot be a doubt that the present S. Sophia occupies the site of the first church. A church once made holy by dedication and the reception of relics could not be transported. Indeed it is possible that it may occupy the site of one of the Greek temples, for there was a constant tendency to this supersession on one sacred site; and the present church stands on the very crest of the old Acropolis. If there were any sufficient reason to identify the site with that of the altar of Pallas, the dedication of the church itself would evidently be one of the many instances of a transference of title from the old worship. The Parthenon—where Hellenic rites survived to the sixth century—became a church in this way dedicated to the Holy Wisdom.[32] The axis of the church seems to point somewhere between 30° and 35° south of east, where there is a considerable sea prospect and a low horizon. This direction, either by accident or intention, must agree very closely with sunrise at the winter solstice:[33] the latitude of the church being 41° 0′ 26″. The plan will show that the ancient Hippodrome, and probably the other buildings, were set out in relation to this axis.

In comparing the early Basilicas of Constantinian date, both those that exist and those of which we have descriptions, we find that they generally, if not invariably, had their doors of entrance at the east end, and their apses towards the west, exactly the opposite of the more recent custom. Rohault De Fleury says this was usual in the East till the fifth century, and the custom continued much later in Rome. Kraus, in the best study of the subject,[34] writes: “S. Agatha at Ravenna must be mentioned as the first which had its altar at the east end: it was built in 417, and in this century the practice became general.”

Socrates († 440) says of the church of Antioch that “the altar stood not at the east but at the west,” but he speaks of this as contrary to the usual custom at the time he wrote. This church was founded by Constantine and finished by his son. The Church of the Apostles at Constantinople, built by Constantine to contain the relics of S. Luke, seems also to have been entered at the east, for S. John Chrysostom[35] speaks of the emperor being buried “in the part in front of the doors,” and an anonymous author, who wrote about the imperial sepulchres, says that Constantine’s sarcophagus was “in front towards the east.”[36]

We shall thus be following the reasonable suggestion of comparative archæology in saying that the first church of S. Sophia almost certainly had its entrance doors at the east—the sanctuary end of the present church.

The church was probably only of medium size; the length of the present church is about 250 feet, its vastness being in its width. The Paschal Chronicle speaks of “its stupendous and marvellous columns all being ἐκ τετραέντου”; but owing to a variant reading it is difficult to determine whether it means that the pillars were square, or were set in a square, or formed four bays. Glycas and Codinus, who wrote a thousand years after the foundation of the church, say that it was basilican (dromika), and had a wooden roof (xulotroullos), and the latter says that the church of Theodosius had cylindrical vaults. As it is evident from the rapid destruction by fire that the roofs of the early churches were of wood, they were probably Basilicas. Only a few minor particulars, such as the existence of an atrium, and the right of sanctuary in the bema (thusiasterion), can be gathered from the homilies of S. Chrysostom. Socrates tells us that this patriarch was wont to preach “in the ambo for the sake of being better heard.”[37] From Palladius we learn that there was a baptistery (in which the Sixth Council of Constantinople, A.D. 394,[38] appears to have met) attached to the church, and it was here Chrysostom took leave of the deaconesses at his banishment, as described in a passage difficult to interpret. “He went out of the baptistery on the east side, for there was no western (exit). The mule which he usually rode was made to stand westwards before the gate to the church, where is the porch, so that he might escape the people who were expecting him.” The passage from the same author about the waters of the font being stained with blood does not, as is sometimes supposed, necessarily refer to S. Sophia.

In applying the plan of a church of mean size so that the doors should face eastwards, we are at once struck by finding that the western hemicycle of the present church would lie about the apse; and we cannot but suggest that in this we may have the very raison d’être of the remarkable plan of the present church, which it would seem might be properly classed with those churches which have apses at both ends, like the early basilica at Orleansville near Tunis;[39] the MS. plan of S. Gall is the best known example; our own early church at Canterbury was another instance, the result of adding to a church with a western apse; France furnishes Besançon and Nevers, and Germany numerous examples.

It is indeed possible that some parts of the old structure may have given practical and positive reasons contributing to this result, and a thorough examination of the cisterns beneath the present floor of S. Sophia may yet yield full evidence of the first basilica; or if these vaults were entirely built for Justinian’s church, their material would almost certainly be derived from the earlier building.

We suggest that the circular brick building lying at the north-east angle of the present church belonged to the pre-Justinian church, and formed its baptistery. It is about forty-five feet exterior diameter, and the plan as given by Salzenberg shows great resemblance to other circular structures of the Constantinian age; such as S. Constantia in Rome, the “tomb of Helen” at Rome, and the round tomb buildings which adjoined S. Peter’s as shown in the plan of Ciampini.[40]

The entrance doorway of this building was to the east.

As to its use. In the contemporary account of Justinian’s church, the poet Paulus, describing the north aisle, says, “On the north is a door admitting the people to the founts that purify the stains of mortal life and heal every scar.” He does not mention the present south-west building, nor has he any other reference to a font. We suppose therefore that this isolated building on the north-east escaped the Nika fire, and served as the baptistery of the new church, until the square building, on the side of the church towards the Augusteum, which is spoken of in the Ceremonies as the “Great Baptistery by the Horologium,” was erected for or diverted to this purpose.

We very probably have some relics of the earlier buildings in certain capitals which Salzenberg found in the church:[41] the inscribed bricks,[42] and a Byzantine Corinthian capital now lying in the courtyard, may likewise have belonged to it. The fine bronze doors to south porch are evidently earlier than the present church, and so probably are the slabs of which the screen on south side of first floor is partly made up.

CHAPTER II

JUSTINIAN’S CHURCH

The New Church.—The pre-Justinian church was burnt on the 15th January, 532[43]—the first day of the sedition—and the work of reconstruction was begun on the 23rd of the following month.[44]

Theophanes[45] says the period employed in the construction was five years eleven months and ten days; the statements therefore of Codinus and Glycas, that it took seventeen years to build, are completely at variance with this more credible author.

The solemn dedication took place, as Marcellinus Comes describes,[46] on 26th December, 537, Indiction 15, in the eleventh year of Justinian’s reign.

A description of this dedication ceremony is given by Theophanes.[47] “The procession started from the church of Anastasia, Menas the patriarch sitting in the royal chariot, and the king walking with the people.”

In the thirty-second year of Justinian’s reign an earthquake destroyed a great portion of the newly erected church.[48]

Now Procopius, whose contemporary history of the edifices built by Justinian was, according to Krumbacher,[49] finished and published in the year 558 or the spring of 559 at latest, makes no mention of this earthquake of 558, though he describes in full how, during the building of the church, which was completed in 537, the piers of the eastern arch threatened to give way before it was finished. We may therefore conclude that he describes Justinian’s church in its first state.

The translation from Procopius here given is based on that of Mr. Aubrey Stewart, published by the Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, which has been compared with the original. We give in Fig. 3 a plan of the church as built by Justinian, so far as the evidence will allow of an approximately certain restoration.

As the several different curved portions of the plan are difficult to distinguish, we propose so far as possible to reserve certain words for separate parts. The small eastern semicircle and its vault will be called apse and apsoid respectively. Hemicycle and semidome will refer to the great semicircle at the east or west and its vault. The pairs of curved spaces forming the lateral recesses in the hemicycles we propose to name exedras and their half-domes conchs.

Fig. 3.—Plan of S. Sophia as built by Justinian.

Procopius.—“The lowest dregs of the people in Byzantium once assailed the Emperor Justinian in the rebellion called Nika, which I have clearly described in my History of the Wars. To prove that it was not merely against the emperor but no less against God that they took up arms, they ventured to burn the church of the Christians which the people of Byzantium call Sophia, a name most worthy of God. God permitted them to effect this crime, knowing how great the beauty of this church would be when restored. Thus the church was entirely reduced to ashes; but the Emperor Justinian not long afterwards adorned the new one in such a fashion, that if any one had asked the Christians in former times, if they wished their church to be destroyed and thus restored, showing them the appearance of the church which we now see, I think it probable that they would have prayed that they might so soon as possible behold their church destroyed, in order that it might be changed into its present form. The emperor, thinking not of cost of any kind, pressed on the work, and collected together workmen (technitai) from every land. Anthemius of Tralles, the most skilled in the builder’s art, not only of his own but of all former times, carried forward the king’s zealous intentions, organised the labours of the workmen, and prepared models of the future construction. Associated with him was another architect (mechanopoios) named Isidorus, a Milesian by birth, a man of intelligence, and worthy to carry out the plans of the Emperor Justinian. It is indeed a proof of the esteem with which God regarded the emperor, that He furnished him with men who would be so useful in effecting his designs, and we are compelled to admire the wisdom of the emperor, in being able to choose the most suitable of mankind to execute the noblest of his works.

“The church consequently presents a most glorious spectacle, extraordinary to those who behold it, and altogether incredible to those who are told of it. In height it rises to the very heavens, and overtops the neighbouring buildings like a ship anchored among them, appearing above the rest of the city, while it adorns and forms a part of it. One of its beauties is that being a part of and growing out of the city, it rises so high that the whole city can be seen as from a watchtower. The length and breadth are so judiciously arranged that it appears to be both long and wide without being disproportioned.

“It is distinguished by indescribable beauty, excelling both in its size, and in the harmony of its measures, having no part excessive and none deficient; being more magnificent than ordinary buildings, and much more elegant than those which are not of so just a proportion. The church is singularly full of light and sunshine; you would declare that the place is not lighted by the sun from without, but that the rays are produced within itself, such an abundance of light is poured into this church. The Apse.—Now the head (prosopon) of the church (that is to say the part towards the rising sun, where the sacred mysteries are performed in honour of God) is built as follows. The building rises from the ground not in a straight line, but setting back somewhat obliquely, it retreats in the middle into a rounded form which those who are learned in these matters call semicylindrical, rising perpendicularly. Apsoid and Semidome.—The upper part of this work ends in the fourth part of a sphere, and above it another crescent-shaped (menoeides) structure is raised upon the adjacent parts of the building, admirable for its beauty, but causing terror by the apparent weakness of its construction; for it appears not to rest upon a secure foundation, but to hang dangerously over the heads of those below, although it is really supported with especial firmness and safety. Exedras.—On each side of these parts are columns standing upon the floor, which are not placed in a straight line, but arranged with an inward curve of semicircular shape, one beyond another like the dancers in a chorus. These columns support above them a crescent-shaped structure. Opposite the east wall is built another wall, containing the entrances, and upon either side of it also stand columns, with stone-work above them, in a half-circle exactly like those previously described. Great Piers and Arches.—In the midst of the church are four masses of stone called piers (pessoi), two on the north, and two on the south sides, opposite and alike, having four columns in the space between each pair. These piers are formed of large stones fitted together, the stones being carefully selected, and cleverly jointed into one another by the masons,[50] and reaching to a great height. Looking at them, you would compare them to perpendicular cliffs. Upon them, four arches (apsides)[51] arise over a quadrilateral space. The extremities of these arches join one another in pairs, their ends resting upon the piers, while the other parts of them rise to a great height, suspended in the air. Two of these arches, that is those towards the rising and the setting of the sun, are constructed over the empty air, but the others have under them some stone-work, and small columns. Dome and Pendentives.—Now above these arches is raised a circular building of a curved form through which the light of day first shines; for the building, which I imagine overtops the whole country, has small openings left on purpose, so that the places where these intervals occur may serve for the light to come through. Thus far I imagine the building is not incapable of being described, even by a weak and feeble tongue. As the arches are arranged in a quadrangular figure, the stone-work between them takes the shape of a triangle, the lower angle of each triangle, being compressed where the arches unite, is slender, while the upper part becomes wider as it rises in the space between them, and ends against the circle which rests upon them, forming there its remaining angles. A spherical-shaped dome (tholos) standing upon this circle makes it exceedingly beautiful; from the lightness of the building, it does not appear to rest upon a solid foundation, but to cover the place beneath as though it were suspended from heaven by the fabled golden chain. All these parts surprisingly joined to one another in the air, suspended one from another, and resting only on that which is next to them, form the work into one admirably harmonious whole, which spectators do not dwell upon for long in the mass, as each individual part attracts the eye to itself. The sight causes men constantly to change their point of view, and the spectator can nowhere point to any part which he admires more than the rest. Seeing the art which appears everywhere, men contract their eyebrows as they look at each part, and are unable to comprehend such workmanship, but always depart thence, stupefied, through their incapacity. So much for this.

“The Emperor Justinian and the architects Anthemius and Isidorus used many devices to construct so lofty a church with security. One of these I will now explain, by which a man may form some opinion of the strength of the whole work; as for the others I am not able to discover them all, and find it impossible to describe them in words. It is as follows: The piers, of which I just now spoke, are not constructed in the same manner as the rest of the building; but in this fashion; they consist of quadrangular courses of stone, rough by nature, and made smooth by art; of these stones, those which make the projecting angles of the pier are cut angularly (engonios), while those which go in the middle parts of the sides are cut square (tetragonos).

“They are fastened together not with lime (titanos), called ‘unslaked’ (asbestos), not with asphaltum, the boast of Semiramis at Babylon, nor anything of the kind, but with lead, which, poured into the interstices, has sunk into the joints of the stones, and binds them together; this is how they are built.

“Let us now proceed to describe the remaining parts of the church. The entire ceiling is covered with pure gold, which adds to its glory, though the reflections of the gold upon the marble surpass it in beauty. There are two aisles one above another on each side, which do not in any way lessen the size of the church, but add to its width. In length they reach quite to the ends of the building, but in height they fall short of it; these also have domed ceilings adorned with gold. Of these two porticoes one [ground floor] is set apart for male and the other [upper floor] for female worshippers; there is no variety in them, nor do they differ in any respect from one another, but their very equality and similarity add to the beauty of the church. Who could describe these gynaeceum galleries, or the numerous porticoes (stoai) and cloistered courts (peristuloi aulai) with which the church is surrounded? Who could tell of the beauty of the columns and marbles with which the church is adorned? One would think that one had come upon a meadow full of flowers in bloom! Who would not admire the purple tints of some, and the green of others, the glowing red and the glittering white, and those too, which nature, painter-like, has marked with the strongest contrasts of colour? Whoever enters there to worship perceives at once that it is not by any human strength or skill, but by the favour of God, that this work has been perfected; the mind rises sublime to commune with God, feeling that He cannot be far off, but must especially love to dwell in the place which He has chosen; and this is felt not only when a man sees it for the first time, but it always makes the same impression upon him, as though he had never beheld it before. No one ever became weary of this spectacle, but those who are in the church delight in what they see, and, when they leave, magnify it in their talk. Moreover it is impossible accurately to describe the gold, and silver, and gems, presented by the Emperor Justinian; but by the description of one part, I leave the rest to be inferred.—That part of the church which is especially sacred, and where the priests alone are allowed to enter, which is called the Sanctuary (thusiasterion), contains forty thousand pounds’ weight of silver.

“The above is an account, written in the most abridged and cursory manner, describing in the fewest possible words the most admirable structure of the church at Constantinople, which is called the Great Church, built by the Emperor Justinian, who did not merely supply the funds for it, but assisted at its building by the labour and powers of his mind, as I will now explain. Of the two arches (apsides), which I lately mentioned—the architects (mechanopoioi) call them loroi[52]—that one which stands towards the east had been built up on each side, but had not altogether been completed in the middle, where it was still imperfect; when the piers (pessoi) upon which the building rested, unable to support the weight which was put upon them, somehow all at once split open, and seemed as though before long they would fall to pieces. Upon this Anthemius and Isidorus, terrified at what had taken place, referred the matter to the emperor, losing all confidence in their own skill. He at once, I know not by what impulse, but probably inspired by Heaven, for he is not an architect, ordered them to complete this arch; for it, said he, resting upon itself, will no longer need the piers (pessoi) below.[53] Now if this story were unsupported by witnesses, I am well assured that it would seem to be written in order to flatter, and would be quite incredible; but as there are many witnesses now alive of what then took place I shall not hesitate to finish it. The workmen performed his bidding, the arch was safely suspended, and proved by experiment the truth of his conception. So much then for this part of the building; now with regard to the other arches, those looking to the south and to the north, the following incidents took place. When the arches called loroi were raised aloft during the building of the church everything below them laboured under their weight, and the columns which are placed there shed little scales, as though they had been planed.

“Alarmed at this, the architects (mechanikoi) again referred the matter to the emperor, who devised the following scheme. He ordered the upper part of the work that was giving way to be taken down where it touched the arches for the present, and to be replaced afterwards when the damp had thoroughly left the fabric. This was done, and the building has stood safely ever since, so that the structure, as it were, bears witness to the emperor’s skill.”

Fall of Dome and Restoration.—On the 7th of May, 558, the eastern part of the dome, “built by Isaurian workmen, with the apse, was thrown down by an earthquake, destroying in its fall the holy table, the ciborium, and the ambo.”[54] Reference is made to this in the opening lines of the Silentiary’s poem (see Chapter III.). According to Theophanes “the architects attributed its fall to the fact that to save expense the piers had been made too full of openings. The emperor restored the piers and raised the dome twenty feet.” The church was again consecrated in the fifth year after the catastrophe by Eutychius in the thirty-sixth year of Justinian, on the 24th of December.[55] Theophanes[56] describes the emperor and patriarch as riding together to the church in a chariot, and bearing the gospel with them, “while the people chanted the ‘Lift up your gates.’”

The church, after its repair, is described by three contemporary authors—Paul the Silentiary, Agathias, and Evagrius. The poem of the first of these is given in the next chapter.

Agathias.—Agathias, surnamed the scholar, was born in 536 at Myrina in Asia Minor,[57]