SANCTA SOPHIA
  CONSTANTINOPLE




  “A work as they report surpassing every edifice in the world.”

  _William of Malmesbury._


  “The fairest church in all the world.”

  _Sir John Mandeville._


  “A marvellous and costful temple, clept St. Sophie.”

  _Capgrave’s Chronicle._




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

                             [Illustration]

                                  1894

                 Macmillan _&_ Co. London _&_ New York




                    RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED,
                           LONDON AND BUNGAY.




_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.                        _page_ 1

  CHAPTER II. Justinian’s Church. Account of Procopius. Fall of
  Dome and Restoration. Accounts of Agathias and Evagrius.      _page_ 21

  CHAPTER III. The Descriptive Poem of Paul the Silentiary, Parts
  1 and 2.                                                      _page_ 35

  CHAPTER IV. The Silentiary’s Account, Part 3. The Ambo.
  Coronations in the Ambo.                                      _page_ 53

  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.                                     _page_ 66

  CHAPTER VI. § 1. The True Cross and Relics of the Passion.
  Other Treasure. Accounts by Russian Pilgrims. § 2. The Lighting of
  the Church.                                                   _page_ 97

  CHAPTER VII. § 1. Later History. Occupation of the Church by
  the Crusaders. Fall of Constantinople. § 2. The Anonymous Account
  of the Church. § 3. Legends.                                 _page_ 122

  CHAPTER VIII. Fossati’s Reparations. Salzenberg’s Description of
  Design, Materials, Construction, and Decoration.             _page_ 148

  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.                                _page_ 173

  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.                     _page_ 198

  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.                         _page_ 234

  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.                                            _page_ 264




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.

[Illustration: 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.

[Illustration: 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.

[Illustration: 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] studied at Alexandria, and came in 554 to
Constantinople, where he became known as a historian and a poet, and
died in 582.

Justinian, he says, restored several buildings after the earthquake,
his especial care however was the great church of S. Sophia.[58]
“Now the former church having been burnt by the angry mob, Justinian
built it up again from the foundations as big and more beautiful
and wonderful, and this most beautiful design was adorned with much
precious metal. He built it in a round form with burnt brick and lime,
it was bound together here and there with iron, but they avoided the
use of wood, so that it should no more be easily burnt. Now Anthemius
was the man who devised and worked at every part.

“And as by the earthquake the middle portion of the roof and the higher
parts had been destroyed, the king made it stronger, and raised it to
a greater height. Anthemius was then dead, but the young man Isidorus
and the other craftsmen, turning over in their minds the previous
design, and comparing what had fallen with what remained, estimated
where the error lay, and of what kind it was. They determined to leave
the eastern and western arches (_apsides_) as they were. But of the
northern and southern (arches) they brought towards the inside, that
portion of the building which was on the curve.[59] And they made these
arches wider so as to be more in harmony with the others, thus making
the equilateral symmetry more perfect. In this way they were able to
cover the measurelessness of the empty space, and to steal off some of
its extent to form an oblong design. And again they wrought that which
rose up over it in the middle, whether orb (_kuklos_), or hemisphere,
or whatever other name it may be called. And this also became more
straightforward and of a better curve, in every part agreeing with the
line; and at the same time not so wide but higher, so that it did not
frighten the spectators as formerly, but was set much stronger and
safer.”

[Illustration: FIG. 4.--Longitudinal Section, having regard to Dome as
first built.]


_Evagrius._--This historian was born in 536 A.D.[60] at Epiphania on
the Orontes. In his _Ecclesiastical History_ we learn of the suffering
caused by the invasion of Chosroes in 540. From this time all Syria was
continually disturbed, and the educated Christians fell back more and
more on Constantinople. Evagrius came to Constantinople in 589, though
he returned to Antioch afterwards. His history commences with the
Council of Ephesus in 431 and extends to the year 593. He says[61]:--

“In the city of Constantinople Justinian constructed many churches
of wonderful beauty in honour of God, and the saints--among them was
a great and incomparable work of a kind that none like it was ever
remembered--the great church of S. Sophia; which excelling in beauty,
far surpasses power of description.

“As far as I can I will explain it. The nave (_naos_) of the temple has
a dome (_tholos_) over it spreading its weight on four arches, raised
to such a height, that to those looking from below it is difficult
to see the whole hemisphere. And those who are above, however bold
they are, never dare to bend over and look on to the ground: and the
arches are open from the base up to their crown. On the right and left
however, opposite to one another, are ranged columns of Thessalian
marble. These with other neighbouring columns carry upper chambers,
which offer a place to lean forward for those who wish. Here it is that
the empress is wont to attend service on festal days.

“But the arches to east and west are left so that nothing interferes
with admiration of their size. Now the arcades of the just mentioned
upper chambers are supported from beneath by columns and small arches,
which greatly add to the work. In order that the wonder of this
building may be more easily grasped, I have here placed in feet the
measures of the length, breadth, and height; and of the arches their
diameter and height. The length then from the door opposite the holy
apse, where is offered the bloodless sacrifice, to the apse itself is
190 feet; the breadth of the nave from north to south is 115. The
height from the centre of the dome to the ground is 180 feet. And of
the arches, the width of each in feet is [no number given]. And the
length from east to west is 200 feet. The width of the opening is 75
feet.[62] There are also to the west two fine porticoes, and everywhere
open courts of wonderful beauty.”

_Paul the Silentiary._--As this author’s really detailed account of
the church is of considerable length, we have reserved it for the next
chapter, although it was written before the descriptions just given
by Agathias and Evagrius. For the little that is known of the author
we are almost entirely indebted to his friend Agathias, who says: “If
any one living perchance far from this city, wishes to know and see
everything as if present and looking on, let him read what Paulus, son
of Cyrus, son of Florus, has written in hexameter verse; he is chief
of the Royal Silentiaries, and sprung from a noble race; inheriting
ancestral wealth, yet zealously brought up in the study of letters, by
which he was the more glorious and famous. He wrote a number of other
poems worthy of memory and praise, but it seems to me that that which
he wrote on the Great Church is completed with the most skill and
labour, even as its subject is more worthy than any other. For you will
find in his poem the arrangement of the form, and the nature of the
stones explained; the beauty and purpose of the curtains; the lengths
and heights, what is curved and what straight, what projects and what
is suspended. You will learn, too, how with silver and gold the more
sacred part, intended for the divine mysteries, was adorned; as well as
whatever ornament great or small is there, which those who frequent the
church may see.”

The Silentiaries, of whom Paulus was one, were court officials.
Their office was an exalted one, as they ranked with the senators,
and were employed on all kinds of service, not unfrequently becoming
the historians of the emperor. Paulus belonged to the cultivated and
literary circle, who during Justinian’s reign interested themselves in
literature, and to him are attributed more than eighty poems in the
Anthology.[63]

The description or rather explanation of S. Sophia was most probably
written and recited as an Opening Ode at the _Encaenia_ of December
24th, 563. Körtum (in Salzenberg) conjectures that the poem was
recited in “a hall of the Imperial Palace,” but Du Cange is probably
more correct in assigning only the first eighty lines to the Palace.
The succeeding lines he says “were addressed to the clergy in the
Patriarch’s Palace,” but we believe, from the antithesis between the
Palace of the Emperor and the House of God, that the address to the
patriarch was spoken within the walls of the church itself, and that
the whole poem, which is divided into three parts, was written to be
recited in connection with the opening ceremony mentioned above.

It shows us how much architecture was esteemed by Justinian, that the
historian of his wars wrote also a history of his buildings; and the
court poet was employed to celebrate the greatest of them in verse. On
many accounts the poem is the best ancient architectural description
extant. It is exact in accuracy, most orderly in its sequence when read
with a knowledge of the building, and must have been written within its
walls. A close and careful study written when architectural ideas were
in the ascendant--the chief subject of thought in times of peace--it is
no futile attempt to explain a work of genius in terms of mechanics and
foot-rule measurements, after the manner of an architectural lecture,
but it translates the ideas of the artist into the words of the poet.
The conceit of Homeric metre and phrasing is almost a charm at this
distance of time, the poet’s enthusiasm being quite sufficient to carry
off the affectation of attempting an architectural epic. It is not
however in its form but in its stimulus to imagination that we see its
chief value.




CHAPTER III

THE SILENTIARY’S POEM--PART I


The first eighty lines of the Prelude are an eulogy on the emperor. The
succeeding lines were addressed to the clergy. “We come to you, sirs,
from the home of the emperor, to the home of the Almighty Emperor, the
Deviser of the Universe, by whose grace victory cleaves to our lord.
The august head of our state lent a kindly ear to our words, as he sat
in the hall; now we see the chief of the sacred priests. May he too
favour us, and may none of those who listen carp at our words.”

The poem itself, in long Homeric hexameters, begins by describing the
general peace throughout the Roman world at the time of the restoration
of S. Sophia. Dr. Körtum notes the following references to events
only then recently passed. The rule of the Vandals in Africa had been
destroyed by Belisarius (534), and a later insurrection quelled (545);
the reign of the Ostrogoths in the West had come to an end (554), and
peace had just been concluded with the Persians (561). There is also an
allusion to the conspiracy of this same year, when an attempt was made
on the emperor’s life.

The poet then, describing the ruin caused by the earthquake (558) at
S. Sophia, tells us that “the very foundations of the dome failed, and
thick clouds of dust darkened the midday sun. Yet the whole church did
not fall, but only the top of the eastern vault, and a portion of the
dome above. Part lay on the ground, part open to the light of day,
hung suspended in the air.” “But the emperor soon began to build again,
the Genius of New Rome by his side.”

When the emperor went to the ruins of the church he praised the skilful
craft of Anthemius; “he it was who laid the first foundations of the
church, one skilled to draw a circle or set out a plan.[64] And he gave
to the walls strength to resist the pushing arches, which were like
active demons. This time it was not merely the crown of the arch that
gave way [see above, p. 28], for the very piers were shaken to their
foundations.”

The poet now describes the building: “Whoever raises his eyes to the
beauteous firmament of the roof, scarce dares to gaze on its rounded
expanse sprinkled with the stars of heaven, but turns to the fresh
green marble below, seeming as it were to see flower-bordered streams
of Thessaly, and budding corn, and woods thick with trees; leaping
flocks too and twining olive-trees, and the vine with green tendrils,
or the deep blue peace of summer sea, broken by the plashing oars of
spray-girt ship. Whoever puts foot within the sacred fane, would live
there for ever, and his eyes well with tears of joy. Thus by Divine
counsel, while angels watched, was the temple built again.

“At last the holy morn had come, and the great door of the new-built
temple groaned on its opening hinges, inviting emperor and people to
enter; and when the inner part was seen sorrow fled from the hearts of
all, as the sun lit the glories of the temple. ’Twas for the emperor
to lead the way for his people, and on the morrow to celebrate the
birth of Christ. And when the first gleam of light rosy-armed driving
away the dark shadows, leapt from arch to arch, then all the princes
and people with one voice hymned their songs of prayer and praise; and
as they came to the sacred courts, it seemed to them as if the mighty
arches were set in heaven.

_Apse and Exedras._--“Towards the East unfold triple spaces of
semicircular form; and above, on an upright band of wall, soars aloft
the fourth part of a sphere. Even so, high over its back and triple
crest, shimmer the tail feathers of a peacock, with their countless
eyes. These crowning parts men learned in the builder’s art call
conchs; and certain it is they call them so from a shell of the sea, or
’tis a craftsman’s name.

_Apse._--“The middle apse holds the stalls (_thokoi_) and steps
(_bathra_) ranged circle-wise. Some on the level of the ground are
massed close together round the centre; and as they rise higher, with
the spaces between them, they widen out little by little, until they
come to the stalls of silver. Thus with increasing circles they ever
wheel round a fixed circle in the pavement.

_Bema._--“Now the apse is separated [from the nave] by a space between
vertical walls built on strong foundations, with an arch[65] above, not
a portion of a sphere, but in the form of a cylinder cleft in twain.

_Exedras._--“And westwards again are two conchs on columns, one on
either side; projecting as if stretching out bent arms to embrace the
people singing in the church. They are borne by columns of porphyry,
bright of bloom ranged in semicircular line, and with capitals
(_karenoi_) of gold, carrying the weight of the arches (_kukloi_)
above. These columns were once brought from the cliffs of Thebes,
which stand, like greaved warriors, by the banks of Nile. Thus, on
two columns, on either side, rise the lower parts of either exedra
(_apsis_). And for the support of each, the skilled workman has bent
from below three small semicircular arches (_apsides_); and, beneath
their springing, the tops (_kareata_) of the columns are bound with
well-wrought bronze, overlaid with gold, which drives away all fear.
Now above the porphyry columns stand others from Thessaly, splendid
flowers of fresh green. Here are the fair upper galleries for the
women. These too have arches, as may be seen from below, though they
show six Thessalian columns and not two. And one wonders at the power
of him, who bravely set six columns over two, and has not trembled to
fix their bases over empty air.[66]

[Illustration: FIG. 5.--Ground Plan.]

[Illustration: FIG. 6.--Plan of Gynaeceum Galleries. The left-hand side
of each plan shows the vaults, and the right-hand side the iron ties
and wood struts at springing of vaults.]

“Now the workman has fenced all the spaces between the Thessalian
columns, with stone closures, on which the women can lean and support
their elbows. Thus as you raise your gaze to the eastern arches
(_antuges_) a never-ending wonder appears.

_Eastern Semidome._--“And upon all of them, above the curved forms
rises yet another vault (_apsis_), borne on the air, raising its head
aloft up to the wide-reaching arch, on whose back are firmly fixed the
lowest courses of the divine head-piece (_koros_) of the centre of the
church. Thus rises on high the deep-bosomed vault, borne above triple
voids below; and through fivefold openings, pierced in its back, filled
with thin plates of glass, comes the morning light scattering sparkling
rays.


PART II

_Western End._--“And looking towards the sunset, one might see the same
as towards the dawn, though a portion differs. For there in the centre
it is not drawn round in a circle, as on the eastern boundary, where
sit the learned priests on seats of resplendent silver, but at the west
end is a vast entrance (_puleon_); not only one door, but three.

_Narthex._--“And outside of the doors (_pulai_) there stretches a long
porch (_aulon_), receiving beneath wide portals (_thuretroi_) those
that enter; and it is as long as the wondrous church is broad. In the
Greek speech this part is called the narthex. Here through the night
swells the melodious sound, pleasing to the ears of Him who giveth life
to all; when the psalms of David are sung in antiphonal strains--that
sweet-voiced David, whom the divine voice of the Almighty praised, and
whose glorious posterity conceived the sinless Son of God, who was in
Virgin’s pangs brought forth, and subjected to a Mother’s care. Now
into this porch open seven wide holy gates (_puleones_), inviting the
people to enter. One of them is on the south of the narrow porch, and
another opens to Boreas, but the others are opened on creaking hinges
by the doorkeeper (_neokoros_) in the west wall. This wall is the end
of the church.

“Whither am I carried? What breeze has driven, like a ship at sea, my
errant speech? The very centre of the famous church is all forgotten;
return, my muse, to see the wonders scarcely to be believed when seen
or heard.

_The Four Piers._--“Alongside of the eastern and western curves
(_kukloi_)--the half-circles with their pairs of columns from
Thebes--stand four strong well-built piers (_toichoi_), naked to look
on in front, but on their sides and backs they have supporting arches,
and the four rest on strong foundations of hard stones. In the joints
the workman has mixed and poured the dust of fireburnt stone, binding
all together with the builder’s art.

“Above them spring measureless curved arches like the many-coloured
bow of Iris: one opens towards the home of Zephyr, another to Boreas,
another to Notus, and yet another to the fiery Eurus. And every arch
(_antux_) has its foot at either end fixed unshaken, and joined to the
neighbouring curves. But as each rises slowly in the air in bending
line, it separates from the other to which first it was joined.

_The Pendentives._--“Now the part between these same arches (_apsides_)
is filled with wondrous skill. For where, as needs must be, the arches
bend away from one another, and would have shown empty air, a curved
wall, like a triangle, grows over, touching the rim of the arches on
either side. And the four triangles, creeping over, spread out, until
they become united above the crown of each arch. The middle portion
of the arches, as much as forms the curved rim, the builder’s skill
has formed with thin bricks (_plinthoi_), and has thus made fast the
topmost curves of the house of stone.

“Now in the joints they have put sheets of soft lead, lest the stones,
as they lie on one another, adding weight to weight, should have their
backs broken. Thus with the lead inserted, the pressure is softened,
and the stone foundation is gently burdened.

_Cornice of Dome._--“A rim (_antux_) curving round, is firmly fixed on
the backs (of the arches), where rests the base of the hemisphere[67];
this is the circle of the lowest course which they have set as a crown
on the backs of the arches (_apsides_). And just under the projecting
firmament (_kosmos_), the hanging stones form a narrow curved path, on
which the man who cares for the sacred lights can walk fearlessly, and
trim each in turn.

_The Dome._--“And above all rises into the immeasurable air the great
helmet [of the dome], which, bending over, like the radiant heavens,
embraces the church. And at the highest part, at the crown, was
depicted[68] the cross, the protector of the city. And wondrous it is
to see how the dome gradually rises, wide below, and growing less as it
reaches higher. It does not however spring upwards to a sharp point,
but is like the firmament which rests on air, though the dome is fixed
on the strong backs of the arches.”

(Here is a lacuna in the Greek text; two broken lines, 94, 95, speak of
“window openings made in the apses, through which streams the splendour
of the golden morning light.”)

“With dauntless pen I will describe what plan the emperor devised for
the broad church, and how, with builder’s skill, both the curves of the
arches and the vault of the wide-extended house were formed with thin
bricks (_plinthoi_), and raised on firm foundations. Thus the skilful
master-man, well versed in every craft, formed a ceiling to the lofty
nave. Yet he did not send to the hills of Phœnician Lebanon, nor to
search the dark woods of the Alpine crags, nor where some Assyrian
or Celtic woodman goads on the oxen in dense forests, nor did he
think to use fir (_peuke_) or pine (_elate_) to roof the house. From
neither the glades of Daphne[69] by Orontes, nor from the wooded crags
of Patara[70] came cypress wood, to form a covering for the mighty
temple. For our noble king, since nature could produce no timber great
enough, had it covered with stones (_lithoi_) laid in a round form.
Thus on the four arches (_apsides_) rose, like a beauteous helmet, the
deep-bosomed swelling roof (_kaluptra_): and it seems that the eye, as
it wanders round, gazes on the circling heavens. And beneath the two
great arches (_apsides_), to the east and to the west, you must know
that it is all open, and extended in the air.

“But towards the murmuring south wind and the cold dry north, a wall,
mighty in strength, rises to the under side of the rounded arch
(_antux_). Now this wall is made bright with eight windows, and rests
below on great props of marble. For beneath it six columns, like the
fresh green of the emerald, in union support untired the weight of
wall. And these again are borne on strong columns fixed immovable on
the ground, glittering jewels of Thessalian marble, with capitals above
them like locks of golden hair. These separate the middle portion
of the glorious nave from the neighbouring aisle (_aithousa_) that
stretches alongside. Never were such columns, blooming with a many-hued
brightness,[71] hewn from the craggy hills of sea-washed Molossis.

_North Aisle, Centre Division._--“And in the aisle itself, in the
middle space Anthemius of many crafts, and with him Isiodorus the
wise,--for both of them, acting under the will of the king, built the
mighty church--have placed two pairs of columns, and in measure they
are less than those others near them, but they are as bright with fresh
green bloom, and they came from the same quarry.

“Yet their bases are not placed in a row, one after the other, but they
stand on the pavement two facing two opposite; and above their capitals
on fourfold arches (_seireai_) rises the underside of the women’s
galleries. And close by these columns on the north side is a door,
admitting the people to the founts that purify the stains of mortal
life, and heal every deadly scar.

“Thus on four columns of beautiful Thessalian stone, in order, placed
here and there, towards the twilight and to the dawn, along the length
of the aisle (_aithousa_) there curves a weight of bending vaults
(_kulindroi_) extending to the walls, which are pierced with openings;
on the northern side they lean on the spaces that join the twin
windows,[72] but on the south, instead of windows are empty spaces like
a colonnade.

_North Aisle, East and West Divisions._--“And again towards the east
and west stand two columns from Thessaly, with lofty crests, and twin
piers (_stemones_) from famous Proconnesus, fixed close by the doors.
Towards the east there is but one door, though on the side of the cold
north they walk through twain.

_South Aisle._--“On the south you will see a long aisle as on the
north, yet made bigger. For a part is separated off from the nave by
a wall, and here the emperor takes his accustomed seat on the solemn
festivals, and listens to the reading of the sacred books.

_Gynaecea._--“And whoever mounts will find on both sides of the church
the aisles for women similar to those below, and there is yet another,
though not like those on either side, above the narthex.

_Atrium._--“Now on the western side of this divine church you will
see a great open court (_aule_) surrounded by four cloisters. One of
these joins on to the narthex, but the others spread round the sides,
where stand their several paths. In the very centre of the wide garth
stands a spacious phiale, cleft from the Iassian peaks; and from it
bubbling water gushes forth and throws a stream into the air, leaping
up from the pressure of the brazen pipe--a stream that purges away all
suffering, when the people, in the month of the golden vestments[73]
at the mystic feast of Christ, draw the unsullied waters in vessels by
night. And the water shows the power of God; for never will you find
decay on its surface, even if it remains in its vessel, and away from
the fountain for more than a year.[74]

“Everywhere the walls glitter with wondrous designs, the stone for
which came from the quarries of seagirt Proconnesus. The marbles are
cut and joined like painted patterns, and in stones formed into squares
or eight-sided figures the veins meet to form devices; and the stones
show also the forms of living creatures.

“And on either side along the flanks and outskirts (_antuges_) of the
beautiful church, you would see open courts (_aulai_). These were all
planned about the building with cunning skill, that it might be bathed
all round by the bright light of day.

_The Marbles._--“Yet who, even in the measures of Homer, shall sing the
marble pastures gathered on the lofty walls and spreading pavement of
the mighty church? These the iron with its metal tooth has gnawed--the
fresh green from Carystus, and many-coloured marble from the Phrygian
range, in which a rosy blush mingles with white, or it shines bright
with flowers of deep red and silver. There is a wealth of porphyry
too, powdered with bright stars, that has once laden the river boat on
the broad Nile. You would see an emerald green from Sparta, and the
glittering marble with wavy veins, which the tool has worked in the
deep bosom of the Iassian hills, showing slanting streaks blood-red and
livid white. From the Lydian creek came the bright stone mingled with
streaks of red. Stone too there is that the Lybian sun, warming with
his golden light, has nurtured in the deep-bosomed clefts of the hills
of the Moors, of crocus colour glittering like gold; and the product
of the Celtic crags, a wealth of crystals, like milk poured here and
there on a flesh of glittering black. There is the precious onyx, as
if gold were shining through it: and the marble that the land of Atrax
yields, not from some upland glen, but from the level plains; in parts
fresh green as the sea or emerald stone, or again like blue cornflowers
in grass, with here and there a drift of fallen snow,--a sweet mingled
contrast on the dark shining surface.

_Sectile and carved Spandrils._--“Before I come to the glitter of
the mosaic,[75] I must describe how the mason (_laotoros_), weaving
together with skill thin slabs of marble, has figured on the flat
surface of the walls intertwining curves laden with plenteous fruit,
and baskets, and flowers, and birds sitting on the twigs. And the
curved pattern of a twining vine with shoots like golden ringlets,
weaves a winding chain of clusters; little by little does it put forth
shoots, until it overshadows all the stone near with ripples like
beauteous tresses. Such ornament as this surrounds the church.

_The Capitals._--“And the lofty crest of every column, beneath the
marble abacus (_peze_), is covered with many a supple curve of waving
acanthus--a wandering chain of barbed points all golden, full of grace.
Thus the marble in bulging forms crowns the deep red columns, as wool
the distaff; the stone glittering with a beauty that charms the heart.

_The Floor._--“And gladly have the hills of Proconnesus bent their
backs to necessity, and strewed the floor with marble. In parts too
shimmers the polish of the Bosporus stone, with white streaks on black.

_The Mosaic._--“Now the vaulting is formed of many a little square
(_psephos_) of gold cemented together. And the golden stream of
glittering rays pours down and strikes the eyes of men, so that they
can scarcely bear to look. One might say that one gazed upon the midday
sun in spring, what time he gilds each mountain height.

_Iconostasis._--“Our emperor has levied from the whole earth, and
brought together the wealth of the barbarians of the west; for as he
did not deem stone a fitting adornment for the divine, eternal temple,
on which [New] Rome has centred the expectancy of joy; he has not
spared enrichments of silver, and so the ridge of Pangaeus[76] and
the height of Sunium[77] have opened all their silver veins, and many
treasure-houses of our subject kings have yielded their stores.

“For as much of the great church by the eastern arch as was set
apart for the bloodless sacrifices, no ivory, no stone, nor bronze
distinguishes, but it is all fenced with the silver metal. Not only
upon the walls, which separate the holy priests from the crowd of
singers,[78] has he placed mere plates of silver, but he has covered
all the columns themselves with the silver metal, even six sets of
twain; and the rays of light glitter far and wide. Upon them the tool
has formed dazzling circles, beautifully wrought in skilled symmetry
by the craftsman’s hand, in the centre of which is carved the symbol
of the Immaculate God, who took upon Himself the form of man. In
parts stand up an army of winged angels in pairs, with bent necks and
downcast mien (for they could not gaze upon the glory of the Godhead,
though hidden in the form of man to clear man’s flesh from sin). And
elsewhere the tool has fashioned the heralds of the way of God, even
those by whose words were noised abroad, before He took flesh upon Him,
the divine tidings of the Anointed One. Nor had the craftsman forgotten
the forms of those others, whose childhood was with the fishing-basket
and the net; but who left the mean labours of life and unholy cares to
bear witness at the bidding of a heavenly king, fishing even for men,
and forsaking the skill of casting nets to weave the beauteous seine of
eternal life. In other parts art has limned (_kategraphe_) the Mother
of Christ, the vessel of eternal Light, whose womb brought Him forth in
holy travail.

“But on the middle panels of the sacred screen, which forms the barrier
for the priests, the carver’s art has cut one letter that means many
words, for it combines the name of our king and queen. And he has also
wrought a form like a shield with a boss, showing the cross in the
middle parts. And through the triple doors the screen opens to the
priests. For on each side the skilful hand of the workman has made
small doors.

_The Ciborium._--“And above the all-holy table of gold rises in the air
a tower (_purgos_) indescribable, reared on fourfold arches of silver.
And it is borne aloft on silver columns, on whose tops every arch rests
its silver feet. And above the arches rises a figure like a cone, yet
it is not complete. For at the bottom its edge (_antux_) does not turn
round in the circular form, but has an eight-sided base, and from
a broad plan it gradually diminishes to a sharp point, having eight
sides of silver. And at the juncture of each to other is, as it were,
a long backbone (_rachis_) which seems to join with the triangular
faces of the eight-sided form, and rises to a single crest, where is
artfully wrought the form of a cup. And the edges of the cup bend over
and assume the form of leaves, and in the midst of it has been placed
a shining silver globe, and the cross surmounts it all. May it be an
omen of peace! But above the arches many a curve of acanthus twines
round the lower part of the cone, and the plant shows sharp projections
which rise up from the groundwork like the fruit of a fragrant pear,
glittering with light.

“Now where the fitted edges join the flat base are fixed and set bowls
of silver. And in each cup stands as it were a candle, though it is a
glittering symbol not made of wax, and beauty flashes from them and not
light. For they are made round of silver, brightly polished. Thus the
candle flashes a silver ray not the light of fire.

_The Altar._--“And on columns of gold is raised the all gold slab[79]
of the holy table, standing on gold foundations, and bright with the
glitter of different stones.

“Whither am I carried? whither tends my unbridled speech? Let my voice
be silent, and not lay bare what is not meet for the eyes of the people
to see.

_Altar Curtains._--“But, ye priests, as the sacred laws command you,
spread out the curtain dipped in the red dye of the Sidonian shell
and cover the sacred table. Unfold the veils (_kaluptrai_) hanging on
the four sides of silver, and show to the countless crowd a multitude
of beautiful designs in gold of skilful handiwork. On one side is
cunningly wrought the form of Christ. And this was not worked by
skilful hands plying the needle on the stuff, but by the web, the
produce of the worm[80] from distant lands, changing its coloured
threads of many shades. A garment shimmering with gold, like the rays
of rosy-fingered dawn, flashes down to the divine knees, and a chiton,
deep red from the Tyrian shell dye, covers the right shoulder beneath
its well-woven web. The veiling upper robe has slipped away, and pulled
up across the side it only covers the left shoulder, while the forearm
and the hand are bare. He seems to point the fingers of the right
hand, as if preaching the words of Life, and in the left hand He holds
the book of the divine message,--the book that tells what the Messiah
accomplished when his foot was on the earth. And the whole robe shines
with gold; for on it a thin gold thread is led through the web, as if
a fair chain was laid on the cloth in a groove or channel and bound
with silken thread by sharp needles. And on either side stand the two
messengers of God--Paul, full of divine wisdom, and also the mighty
doorkeeper of the Gates of Heaven, binding with both heavenly and
earthly chains. One holds the book pregnant with sacred words, and the
other the form of a cross on a staff of gold. And both the cunning web
has clothed in robes of silver white, and over their sacred heads rises
upward a temple of gold, with triple apses fixed on four columns of
gold.

“Now on the extreme borders of the curtain shot with gold, unspeakable
art has figured the works of mercy of our city’s kings; here one sees
hospitals for the sick, there sacred fanes, while on either side are
displayed the miracles of Christ; such is the grace and beauty of the
work.

“But on the other curtains you see the kings of the earth on one side
with their hands joined to those of the Virgin, on the other side with
those of Christ, and all is cunningly wrought by the threads of the
woof with the sheen of a golden warp. Thus is everything adorned with
splendour. Thus may you see all that fills the eyes with wonder.

_The Lighting._--“No words can describe the light at night-time; one
might say in truth that some midnight sun illumined the glories of the
temple. For the wise forethought of our king has had stretched from
the projecting rim (_antux_) of stone, on whose back is firmly planted
the temple’s air-borne dome, long twisted chains (_seirai_) of beaten
brass, linked in alternating curves with many windings. And these
chains, bending down from every part in a long course, come together
as they fall towards the ground. But before they reach the pavement,
their path from above is checked, and they finish in unison on a circle.

“And beneath each chain he has caused to be fitted silver discs,
hanging circle-wise in the air, round the space in the centre of the
church. Thus these discs, pendent from their lofty courses, form
a coronet above the heads of men. They have been pierced too by
the weapon of the skilful workman, in order that they may receive
shafts[81] of fire-wrought glass, and hold light on high for men at
night.

“And not from discs alone does the light shine at night, but in the
circles close by a disc you would see the symbol of the mighty cross,
pierced with many holes, and in its pierced back shines a vessel of
light. Thus hangs the circling chorus of bright lights. Verily you
might say that you gazed on the bright constellation of the Heavenly
Crown by the Great Bear, and the neighbouring Dragon.

“Thus through the temple wanders the evening light, brightly shining.
In the middle of a larger circle you would find a crown with
lightbearing rim; and above in the centre another noble disc spread its
light in the air, so that night is compelled to flee.

“Near the aisles too, alongside the columns, they have hung in order
single lamps (_lampter_) apart one from another; and through the whole
length of the far-stretching nave is their path. Beneath each they have
placed a silver vessel, like a balance pan, and in the centre of this
rests a cup of well-burning oil.

“There is not however one equal level for all the lamps, for you may
see some high, some low, in comely curves of light; and from twisted
chains they sweetly flash in their aerial courses, even as shines
twin-pointed Hyas fixed in the forehead of Taurus.

“One might also see ships of silver, bearing a flashing freight of
flame, and plying their lofty courses in the liquid air instead of the
sea, fearing no gale from south-west, nor from Boötes, sinking late
to rest. And above the wide floor you would see shapely beams (with
lamps), running between two-horned supports of iron, by whose light
the orders of priests, bound by the rubrics, perform their duties.

“Some there are along the floor, where the columns have their bases,
and above again others pass, by far-reaching courses, along the
crowning work of the walls. Neither is the base of the deep-bosomed
dome left without light, for along the projecting stone of the curved
cornice the skilful workman suspends single lamps to bronze stakes.
As when some handmaid binds round the neck of a royal virgin a
graceful chain shining with the glitter of fiery gold; even so has our
emperor fixed round all the cornice lights in circle-wise, companions
everywhere to those below.

“There is also on the silver columns [of the Iconostasis], above their
capitals, a narrow way of access for the lamp-lighter, glittering with
bright clusters; these one might compare to the mountain-nourished
pine, or cypress with fresh branches. From a point ever-widening
circles spread down until the last is reached, even that which curves
round the base; instead of a root, bowls of silver are placed beneath
the trees, with their flaming flowers. And in the centre of this
beauteous wood, the form of the divine cross, pierced with the prints
of the nails, shines with light for mortal eyes.

“A thousand others within the temple show their gleaming light, hanging
aloft by chains of many windings. Some are placed in the aisles, others
in the centre or to east and West, or on the crowning walls, shedding
the brightness of flame. Thus the night seems to flout the light of
day, and be itself as rosy as the dawn. And whoever gazes on the
lighted trees, with their crown of circles, feels his heart warmed with
joy; and looking on a boat[82] swathed with fire, or some single lamp,
or the symbol of the Divine Christ, all care vanishes from the mind. So
with wayfarers through a cloudless night, as they see the stars rising
from point to point; one watches sweet Hesperus, another’s attention is
fixed on Taurus, and a third contemplates Boötes, or Orion and the cold
Charles’ Wain; the whole heaven, scattered with glittering stars, opens
before them, while the night seems to smile on their way.

“Thus through the spaces of the great church come rays of light,
expelling clouds of care, and filling the mind with joy. The sacred
light cheers all: even the sailor guiding his bark on the waves,
leaving behind him the unfriendly billows of the raging Pontus, and
winding a sinuous course amidst creeks and rocks, with heart fearful
at the dangers of his nightly wanderings--perchance he has left the
Ægean and guides his ship against adverse currents in the Hellespont,
awaiting with taut forestay the onslaught of a storm from Africa--does
not guide his laden vessel by the light of Cynosure, or the circling
Bear, but by the divine light of the church itself. Yet not only does
it guide the merchant at night, like the rays from the Pharos on the
coast of Africa, but it also shows the way to the living God.”




CHAPTER IV

THE AMBO


The third part of the description of the Silentiary is devoted to the
ambo, the chief feature in Justinian’s reinstatement of the interior.
It stood far out from the bema, on the central axis of the church.
Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople from 715-740 A.D., and Simeon
of Thessalonica both speak of this as the right position for ambones;
“the most holy bema should be towards the east, with the ambo in front
of it, if there is room.”[83] The two flights of steps, by which the
ambo--the name of which is derived from the Greek for ascending--was
reached, were on the east and west sides. In the ambo the Gospel was
read, and here was recited a prayer[84] at the conclusion of the
liturgy, which seems to have been a compendium of those previously
uttered in the sanctuary; the priest left the bema, ascended the ambo
on the east side, and prayed with his face towards the west. Important
offices in coronations were also performed here.

Paulus’ description of the ambo opens with a preface of thirty iambic
lines in praise of the emperor, who has added the “one thing needful
to our all-glorious church.” The importance of this work is made an
excuse for interrupting the “usual pursuits of his hearers even for a
third time.” Twenty hexameter lines are devoted to an invocation to the
apostles and saints, and then follows the description of the ambo.

“Now in the central space of the wide temple, yet tending rather
towards the east, rises a tower (_purgos_), fair to look upon, set
apart for the reading of the sacred books. Upright it stands on steps,
reached by two flights, one of which stretches towards the west, but
the other towards the dawn. So are they opposite to one another, and
both lead to a space formed like a circle. Now one stone curves round
to form this circular space, though it is not altogether equal to a
complete curve (_tornos_), but it agrees with it except where the edge
of the stone is lengthened; for towards east and west a flight of steps
is drawn out like a neck, projecting from the circled stone.

[Illustration: FIG. 7.--Plan of the Ambo both above and below.]

“And up to the height of a man’s girdle our godlike king has formed,
with the help of silver, beauteous walls curving like crescents. He has
not bent silver right round the stone, but a silver plaque (_plax_)
is spread out in the centre, to adorn the circling wall. Thus has the
skilful workman spread out two sure crescents and opened on either side
a flight of steps.

“Nor does fear seize those descending the sacred steps, because the
sides are unfenced; for hedge walls of glittering marble have been
reared there; and they are high above the steps for the hand of a
man to hold as he mounts, grasping them to ease his way; so on each
side they grow upwards in a rising line, and stop at length with the
steps which are between them. Thus good use is made of the stone;
for they have quarried savage hill, and steep promontory, to have a
far-stretching safeguard to the long flight. And the whole is cunningly
wrought with skilful workmanship, and glitters with ever-changing
brightness. In parts it seems that whirlpools eddy over the surface,
intertwining circles winding under the wandering curves of other
circles. In parts is seen a rosy bloom, mingled with wan paleness,
or fair gleams of light, as from bright spearheads; in other places
shines a softer glory, like the radiance of boxwood, or the delightsome
bees-wax, which mortal men ofttimes lay on the unsullied cliffs, and
turn over beneath the rays of the sun, while it changes to a silver
white; yet not completely altering its substance, it still shows veins
of gold. Even so the deep-stained ivory of many a year’s growth expands
its gleaming flesh on the curved breast. At times it seems to have a
pale green hue. Yet the craftsman has not left it pallid and unadorned,
for he has fixed it in fair and cunningly wrought designs on the stone.
Thus over all in many a curve its beauty is displayed. In parts the
broad surface is tinged with the choicest tint of the pale crocus, or
appears almost without colour, like light creeping round the pointed
horns of the new-born moon.

“Now near a rocky hill stands the sacred city--Hierapolis--which gives
its name to a well-known marble; and of this is made all the fair floor
of the place where they read the divine wisdom of the holy books;
and it is fitted by the craftsmen’s skill on eight cunningly wrought
columns. Two of these are towards the north, two towards the southern
wind, two towards the east, and two towards the home of evening. Thus
is the floor raised up. And beneath there is as it were another space,
where the priests continue their sacred song. The stone is a covering
to those below, but above it is like a spreading plain, untouched by
the feet of mortals. And the underside the mason (_laotomos_) has cut
out and hollowed, so that, by the craftsmen’s skill, it rises from the
capitals, curving over like the hollow shell-back of the tortoise, or
some oxhide shield held up over the helmet, when the warrior leaps in
the mazes of the Pyrrhic dance.

“Now the rugged surface (_metopon_) of the stone they have girdled
everywhere with the silver metal; and there the skilled workman,
cutting, with the point of his iron, twining foliage and lovely
flowers, has inlaid the beauteous leaves of ivy, with its clusters and
budding shoots.

“But with all its steps and floor and the columns as well, the
artificers have formed for it a fixed foundation, and raised a base
(_krepis_), the height of a man’s foot, above the floor of the church;
and in order that they might widen the foundation of the space they
have placed on either side, round the belly (_gaster_) in the middle,
half-circles in stone, and they have surrounded the space with separate
columns arranged in semicircles. Thus the whole belly is widened by
means of four rich columns on either side, to north, and to south; and
the cave space (_speos_), like a house, is surrounded on all sides by a
fence of circling stone.

“Some of the fair columns that the masons have set up are from the
Phrygian land, towards the Mygdonian heights, hewn with strong axes:
and looking on these flowers of stone, one would say that white lilies
mingled with rose cups, or the soft petals of the shortlived anemone.
Here is abundance of red and a mere tinge of white, there thin sinews
mix with the veins which dye the columns deep red, as with drops from
the Laconian shell.

“First then at the bottom they have placed the fairly wrought plinth
(_krepis_) supporting all, made beautiful with twisting curves; and
above it they have set stone bases, firmly fixed, cut from the rich
quarries of the Bosporus. Quite white, they glitter, and in branching
veins a deep blue line wanders in the shining flesh. And the bases on
the eight sides the mason has adorned with moulded bronze rings fixed
circle-wise round each base, as round a neck. And through the space of
the whole church shines the glory of each column fixed on its polished
base, like a white cloud wrought into patterns by the ruddy rays of the
rising sun.

“Thus are ranged in half-circles the company of four, and this half
with the other four they have connected by a fair chiton of stone,
even round the well-formed hollow (_antron_); for the three spaces
between the four columns have been closed by the skilful mason with
fencestones of marble from Hierapolis, firmly fixed on the plinth
(_krepis_). And it is meet that this crown of stone on the fair floor
of the sacred fane should be called of ‘the Holy City’ (_Hierapolis_).
In the boundary is placed a door, slightly curved, through which enters
the priest, to the floor of the hollow cavern (_antron_).

“Now you must know that the curve (_spelunx_), with columns, and plinth
(_krepis_), and fence wall, is alike on either side, towards Garamas
on the south and towards Arimaspus [to the north]. But the doors the
workmen have not fixed in like places, but one is westwards and the
other eastwards--the western one inclines towards the north, but the
southern gate is towards the east. Moreover the fence-walls do not
stand the same height as the columns, but they rise above the beauteous
pavement, as much as to hide a man in the hollow space (_antron_). But
the eight columns with fair carved capitals come out above the fence
wall, and stand round it on the base with equal spaces between them,
even on the stone plinth. The capitals shine with gold, like high peaks
which the golden-rayed sun strikes with its arrows.

“And all the capitals on high are crowned above in circled order by
an embracing rim of beams (_douratea antux_), which binds the columns
together in one curve, though at the same time each column is separate
from its fellow. And fixed upon the rim you might see trees, with
clusters as of fire,--the glitter of silver boughs shining afar. Nor
does each sapling wander at will, but it is restrained in a cone-like
form of many edges, from a wide circle ever lessening to a point at the
top. Now the fair girdle (_zoster_) that forms the rim is all crowned
with golden ivy-leaves, and coloured with the sapphire dust. But
towards the home of Zephyr, and also towards the fiery-winged Eurus,
there are fixed upon the rim (_antux_) two crosses of silver, with a
curved spike (_hêlos_) above each, bending like a shepherd’s crook,
flashing a thousand lights to the eyes.

“In this manner is the shining ambo made; thus have they called it ‘the
place ascended’ (_ambatos_), by holy paths, and here the people direct
their eyes, as they gaze on the divine gospel.

“And it is to good purpose that they have placed the cut stones in
steps, on whose white surface one might descry thin veins of deep red
like the dye of the sea-shell. For the unpolished stones the mason
has hewn into a long flight (_rachis_) of steps, a strong support for
the feet of men, lest any one slipping from above and falling should
descend all unsteady to the floor; thus in order and in continuous line
one stone, as it rises above another, recedes from it, even as much as
a man ascending plants one step in turn in front of another.

“And as an island rises amidst the swelling billows, bright with
patterns of cornfields, and vineyards, and blossoming meadows, and
wooded heights, while sailors, as they steer by it, are gladdened, and
the troubles and anxieties of the sea are beguiled; so in the middle
space of the boundless temple rises upright the tower-like ambo of
stone, with its marble pastures like meadows, cunningly wrought with
the beauty of the craftsman’s art. Yet though it stands in the middle,
it is not quite cut off, like an island girdled by the sea, but is
rather like some wave-washed land, extended by a narrow isthmus through
the gray billows into the middle of the sea, and were it not for this
binding chain, it would be cut off and seen as a true island; but
though it projects into the ocean, it is still joined to the mainland
coast by the isthmus, as by a cable.

“Such is the ambo; for a long path starts from the last step of its
eastern flight, and stretches out until it comes to the space by the
twin silver doors, even striking with its lengthy plinth the fence wall
of the sacred rites; and the path is warded on both sides by walls. Now
for these fence walls they have not placed lofty slabs, but they are as
high up as the navel of a man standing by them; and here the priest, as
he holds the golden gospel, passes along, and the surging crowd strive
to touch the sacred book with their lips and hands, while moving waves
of people break around.

“Thus is this path prolonged like an isthmus, wave-washed on either
side, and it leads the priest as he descends from the distant ambo with
its lofty cliffs, to the shrine of the holy table. And the whole path
on both sides is fenced with the fresh green stone of Thessaly; and the
abundant rich meadows of the stones bring the delight of beauty to the
eyes. Now at both ends of each slab from Thessaly stand posts of equal
height, not like a cylinder in form: one skilled in figures would say
that the posts were not equal-sided, but have the shape of a lengthened
cube. And the masons (_laotoroi_) have made the joints of the Molossian
slabs, by wedging one stone into another; it is from the Phrygian
land that the stone-cutter (_laotupos_) has had these posts quarried.
And resting the wandering glance there one might see snake-like coils
twining over the fair marble, winding in beauteous paths; there white
and fiery red are set alongside of one another and a flesh colour
between both, the lines bending in alternating coils, as they roll
round in their courses. First on one side, then on another, are seen
the forms of the moon and stars.

“And on the uppermost rim of the fence wall they have fitted another
long stretching stone, quarried from the same foreland crag, so that
the Thessalian slab is fixed below on the firm foundations of the
plinth, and is bound above by another band of marble; and the edges of
the Thessalian slabs are joined together as in a chain by the square
columns, which are set upright and firm on the foundation.

“And as when one winds the gold twisted thread in and out over the
many-coloured surface of a Tyrian robe, and adds a fitting pattern
round the bottom edges, or in the fair centre of the robe, or about the
sleeve-holes for the arms while the fresh green web of the cloak shines
like a meadow in spring,--the glory of the golden warp adding beauty to
beauty, and decking it as if with flowers; even so the cunning workman
has cast on the fresh green stones of the sacred rock the glitter of
golden rays, giving a brighter beauty to them.

“But at the eastern end of the passage, by the holy fence walls of the
altar, they have cut off the isthmus, so as to form a speedier path for
those who pass from side to side.

“Such works as these has our emperor, bestowing splendid gifts, built
for God the King. For to the great bounties of his peaceful reign he
has added this much-praised temple, so that with divine foresight he
might prepare a gift for the Creator of the world, Christ, King of All.
Be thou, O glory of the eternal Trinity, thrice favourable to this city
of Rome, to our citizens, our emperor, and our much-loved temple.”

       *       *       *       *       *

In following this description we see that it begins on the raised
floor of the ambo which was rounded on two sides, the others being
open to the steps at the east and west. The breast wall on each side
was largely covered with applied silver wrought into patterns; and
the rest, together with the parapet slabs to the steps, were inlaid
in ivory, probably carved like the contemporary bishop’s throne at
Ravenna. The body of the ambo inlaid thus with ivory and silver was
upheld on eight columns, the underside of the floor stone being
hollowed into a flat dome like the fluted soffite of the still older
ambo at S. Apollinare at Ravenna. On either side, around the ambo, was
a semicircle of large columns of rosy-veined Synnada marble on white
bases with bronze annulets and gilt capitals; between the columns
breast-high slabs of Hierapolis marble inclosed a space. The circle of
columns stood on a raised step, and above they were bound together by
a carved beam, the pattern being gilt with the interspaces painted in
ultramarine. On this to east and west stood silver crosses; their upper
limbs “bent like shepherds’ crooks” doubtless formed the ΧΡ monogram.
Silver candelabra, cones of diminishing circles, stood round about on
the top of the beam. From the eastern steps a passage way ran back to
the step of the iconostasis, inclosed on both sides by marble slabs
grooved into posts, bearing a top rail. This closure of Verde antique
slabs was inlaid in white and red patterns and gold mosaic.

In this description two separate parts appear, the ambo proper reached
by the narrow inclosed way and ascended by steps; and the space entered
by two doors screened off about it by the circle of large columns and
closure slabs, “where the priests continue their sacred song.” So in
Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ _Book of the Ceremonies_[85] we read of
the “psaltae” placed in the ambo singing, “Christ is risen.”

We know little of the later history of the ambo. The Anonymous Author,
who probably wrote not earlier than the twelfth century, comparing the
mythical splendour of an earlier ambo destroyed by a fall of the dome
to another which he attributes to Justinian’s nephew, Justin, says
they made the latter of marble, with columns covered with silver, and
with silver screens going round the solea. It had no dome. Immediately
after he compares the pavement which he says was destroyed at the same
time with one that _now is_. So that we may assume that he wrote of
an ambo then existing, and that therefore in this instance he may be
trusted.[86] The work attributed to Justin by the Anonymous is really
the restoration under Justinian; he seems to have confused the nephew
of the architect who was then employed with the nephew of the emperor.
Rohault De Fleury,[87] who accepts this story, suggests that a canopied
ambo which appears in the _Menologium_ of Basil (976-1025) figures one
in S. Sophia which may have replaced the former ambo after the fall
of the dome in 975. Robert de Clari (1200) merely says, “The place
from which they read the Gospel is so rich and noble, that we do not
know how to describe the making of it.”[88] The ambo of that time was
destroyed by the Crusaders (1203).[89] Clavijo, the Spanish ambassador,
who saw S. Sophia two hundred years later, has left this description
of the covered ambo then existing. “On the floor in the centre of the
area is a pulpit placed on four columns of jasper; and the sides of it
are overlaid with panels of jasper of many colours, and this pulpit is
surmounted by a cover, which stands on eight very large jasper columns;
and here they preach and read the Gospel on feast days.”

       *       *       *       *       *

_Coronations._--We shall now quote two descriptions of the ceremonies
associated with the ambo at coronations. These are of the age of the
Palaeologi, and the first is especially interesting as describing the
_Megale Eisodos_ and the Celebration.

“And about the second hour of the same day the prince who is to be
anointed is set upon a shield;[90] the reigning emperor, who may be his
father, and the patriarch take hold of the front part of the shield,
which is also held by the officials of rank and the nobility. They
then raise it, and show the new emperor to the assembled populace.
After he has been greeted with acclamation, they attend him into the
church, where the rest of the ceremony must be completed. Now a little
edifice of wood has previously been prepared for this very purpose,
into which they lead the new emperor, and put on him the purple and
the diadem, which have been blest by the bishops. And round his head
it is customary to put only a chaplet. After this the service of the
Mass (_mustagogia_) proceeds. And near the erection just mentioned a
set of movable steps, also of wood, are prepared, and these they cover
with purple silk. And upon it are placed golden thrones, according to
the number of the princes, not like other thrones, but raised on four
or five steps; here the princes take their seats. The princesses also
ascend with them, and sit on the thrones, wearing their crowns, but
she that is about to be crowned wears a chaplet. Now before the hymn
_Trisagion_ is sung, the patriarch comes out of the bema and ascends
the ambo, and with him are the rulers of the church, all wearing their
sacred robes. He then dismisses them, and summons the princes, and
they immediately arise from their thrones and come to the ambo, while
profound silence is kept by the whole congregation. Then the patriarch
goes through the prayers appointed for the anointing, some silently by
himself, others out loud, praying for the blessing of God on him who
is about to be anointed. After this the new emperor removes from his
head whatever he is wearing, and then it is right for all, as many as
are present, to stand with bared heads. Then the patriarch with the
holy oil anoints the head of the emperor with the form of the cross,
saying with a loud voice ‘Holy’; and as soon as they hear it those
standing on the ambo pronounce it three times, and after them all the
people. After this the crown is brought by deacons from the bema where
they keep it (now it is not above the Holy Table as some say), and
taken to the ambo. If any previously crowned emperor be there, he and
the patriarch take the crown together, and place it on the head of the
prince, the patriarch saying ‘Holy’ in a loud voice. Those in the ambo
repeat it three times, and the people, as after the anointing. Then the
patriarch repeats some more prayers, and the prince descends from the
ambo, not on the side by which he ascended, but on the side which is
turned towards the solea. If he is unmarried he then ascends the steps
and reseats himself upon his throne, but if he has a wife then she also
must be crowned. She is then led, as she rises from the throne, by two
kinswomen one on either side, or if she has no relatives, eunuchs lead
her down from the steps, and stand with her before the solea. Then the
emperor descends from the ambo, and takes the crown held ready by the
kinswomen or eunuchs, and places it upon the head of his wife, and she
kneels before her husband, swearing fealty to him. And the patriarch,
standing by the solea, offers up a prayer for the emperor and empress,
and all their people. Thus the emperor crowns his own wife. And then
both ascend the steps, and sit upon their thrones, and the rest of the
mysteries are proceeded with. But at the singing of the _Trisagion_, or
at the reading from the apostolic writings, or the Gospels, they stand
up.

“And on both sides of the nave, on wooden steps made for this
purpose, are those called protopsaltae, and domestici, and others of
ecclesiastical rank who know how to sing, and who are called because
of this _kraktai_;[91] all these sing anthems especially made for the
occasion. But when the part of the mysteries which is called _The
Great Entrance_[92] is beginning, the chief of the deacons comes and
summons the emperor, and he comes with them into the prothesis, where
are set out the Holy Elements, and, standing outside the prothesis,
a golden mantle is put upon him over the diadem and the purple; and
in the right hand he holds the cross, which he usually carries when
he wears his crown, but in the left he carries the rod, which he who
is called _deputatus_ usually carries. With these in both hands the
emperor leads the sacred entrance, and on both sides of him march
the Varangi with their axes, and the sons of the nobility armed and
unarmed, about a hundred in all, follow; and immediately behind him
come the deacons in order, and the priests, carrying the vessels for
the service--and other most holy things. And after going round the
nave, as is their wont, when they come into the solea, all the others
stand outside, but the emperor alone enters the solea and finds the
patriarch standing at the sacred screen, and after bowing to one
another the patriarch goes inside, but the emperor remains without, and
then the deacon who followed immediately after the emperor, holding in
his right hand a censer, and in his left what is called the _maphorion_
of the patriarch, approaches and censes the emperor. The emperor bows
his head, while the deacon with a loud voice calls out, ‘May the Lord
be mindful of the power of thy kingdom in His universal kingdom, now
and always and for ever and ever, Amen.’ And in order the rest of
the deacons and the priests approach and say the same. And when this
is finished the emperor bows to the patriarch, takes off the mandya,
which is taken away by the refendarius. The emperor again ascends the
tribune and sits down on the throne, but he stands during the creed,
the Lord’s Prayer, and the elevation of our Lord’s body. And after the
elevation, if he is not prepared for the Communion he remains seated
till the end of the service. But if he is prepared, the deacons again
come and summon him. And with them he enters into the bema and, having
been given a censer, he censes the Holy Table, looking first of all to
the east, then north, west, and south, and having again censed towards
the east, he censes the patriarch also. The patriarch bows to him and
takes the censer, and censes the emperor in return. After this the
emperor removes the crown, and gives it into the hands of the deacons.
Then the patriarch puts into his hand a portion of our Lord’s body,
and after that he drinks of the life-giving blood, not from a spoon
like the rest of the people, but from the cup itself like the priests.
Then the emperor replaces the crown, and comes out of the bema, and
after the congregation has shared in the Communion, and he has been
blessed by the patriarch, and the priests, and has kissed their right
hands, they lead him to the part called catechumena to receive the
acclamations of the people. When this is finished, he comes down again,
and he and the empress mount on horseback, and ride back to the palace
to partake of a banquet.”[93]

Codinus Curopalata[94] has also a description, almost in the same
words, but with some additions. The future emperor is “led to the
triclinium called Thomaites, which looks on to the Augusteum, where
are standing the populace with the army. But before the emperor shows
himself, what are called epicombia are thrown to the people by one
of the senators, whom the emperor has selected. These epicombia are
made as follows. They cut pieces of cloth, and in each piece they
bind up three gold and as many silver numismata and three obols, and
then throw them to the people, and they scatter as many thousands of
these as the emperor shall arrange. Now it is customary to throw these
epicombia in the proaulion of the great church, that is in the part
called Augusteum;--he who scatters them standing above the steps of
the Augusteum.” Inside the church a wooden tribunal had been prepared
in the gynaeceum, and at the end of the ceremony “the young emperor
with his wife the empress, and the emperor, his father, and his mother,
ascend. But the golden velothyra hide the tribunal, so that they shall
not be seen. Then the psaltae sing ‘Lift up,’ and immediately the
velothyra are raised, and the princes in the gynaeceum are greeted with
acclamations by the people.”




CHAPTER V

THE RITUAL ARRANGEMENTS AND INTERIOR PARTS OF THE CHURCH


_Main Divisions._--Du Cange, in the commentary to his edition of the
Silentiary’s Poem, was the first to make a serious attempt to elucidate
the interior arrangements of S. Sophia. This appeared with the poem in
the folio of 1670,[95] but a revised edition was incorporated in his
_Historia Byzantina_, 1680.[96]

In the first his knowledge of the actual state of the church seems
to have been limited to the description of Gyllius unassisted by any
plan. Drawings of S. Sophia were desiderata at that time, and Grelot
tells us how he was induced to attempt to make them by a knowledge that
others who had been commissioned by the King of France had failed.
Before the publication of his revised edition of 1680 Du Cange had
obtained a plan. This appeared in the same year as Grelot’s work, and
divergences seem to show that the plans were, in great measure at
least, independent of one another. The main text of his commentary
however remained the same, and the alterations, although crucial, were
mostly made by the omission of a few lines here and there without any
attention being specially called to the fact.

This has been the cause of much confusion, as it has unfortunately
happened that the first edition has been reproduced without remark
in the series of Byzantine texts published at Bonn and in Migne’s
_Patrologiae Cursus Completus_. In this Du Cange placed the iconostasis
“under the great eastern arch which supports the dome,” and thus
included the whole eastern hemicycle in the bema. He devoted the whole
central square under the dome to the “priests and singers,” separating
it from the western hemicycle by “marble columns,” which were obtained
by a curious misreading of Gyllius’ description of the verde antique
columns in the western opening on the _first_ floor. In the centre
between these “marble columns” he placed the “Beautiful” or “Royal
Gate,” and the western hemicycle outside this was alone allotted to
the people. In the corrected edition of 1680 the bema is confined to
the eastern extension, the eastern hemicycle became the solea, and the
central area and western hemicycle are given to the people.

There is actually very little diversity of opinion in regard to
the main divisions of the church between Du Cange, Neale,[97] and
Salzenberg, but Rohault de Fleury has been misled into making an
engraving of the iconostasis, stretching across the whole hundred feet
of the hemicycle.

_Bema._--A church, as Simeon of Thessalonica writes, is properly
“divided into three parts, the pronaos, the naos, and the bema.”
The bema (see Plan, Fig. 5) is the raised part within the screen or
iconostasis included by the apse. This was the place set apart for the
priests, who are hence sometimes called “they of the bema.”[98] Decrees
were passed from time to time to enhance its sacred character; as that
no member of the laity should pass beyond the screen, except with the
consent of a bishop. Even the emperor was only allowed there during a
few portions of the liturgy.

The bema of S. Sophia was indifferently called the _adyta_,
_hierateion_, _thusiasterion_. The history of Michael Attaliotas also
speaks of it as the “second skene, that is, the Holy of Holies.”[99]
The apse proper is by Paulus mentioned apart from the space contained
by the straight walls, and it is possible that this is the _kuklios_
(cyclius) of Porphyrogenitus. From the poet we gather that the priests’
stalls against the wall were plated with silver. The upper part of
the curved wall is incrusted with precious marble of sombre golden
tones, beneath which the surface has been disturbed and is now covered
by plain gray slabs. When we recall the immense quantity of silver
that Procopius says was used in the sanctuary, and remember that the
iconostasis and the altar-ciborium were of silver and the Holy Table of
gold, it seems likely that the plating of the silver stalls covered the
whole of this narrow strip, which would not be more than six or eight
feet above the top seat, the level of which we suppose is marked by the
projection of the lower part of the wall. In the small oratory of the
Saviour built by Basil in the palace “the whole pavement was of massive
silver wrought by the hammer and enriched by niello, and the walls to
the right and left were covered with great plates of silver damascened
in gold and glistening with precious stones and pearls.”[100] To this
space we should refer the four panels with images in the wall mentioned
in the _Novgorod Chronicle_,[101] which we suppose were of embossed
silver or enamel. The most eastward point of the apse was occupied by
the patriarch’s throne.[102] A bishop’s chair with a canopy preserved
in the cathedral church of S. George at Constantinople, said to have
belonged to S. Sophia, is in any case quite late. It is of wood,
ornamented with inlaid work representing the two-headed eagle, which
was not adopted earlier than the tenth century.

In Fig. 8 we give an outline of a miniature in the _Menologium_ (Jan.
16) of the adoration of S. Peter’s chains, which were kept in the
chapel of S. Peter attached to the great church. We have here a bema
fully represented with the altar, ciborium, and apsidal stalls for the
clergy. We can hardly suppose that these latter could have belonged to
a small dependent chapel, and hence the miniature in the symbolic way
of these old drawings is probably intended as a view of the great apse.

_Altar._--The central object of the bema was the altar, which stood
beneath the cylindrical vault, on the under side of which the two
great watching angels are represented in the mosaic. Paulus says, “On
columns of gold is raised the all golden slab of the Holy Table; it
stands too on a base of gold, and from it gleams the brightness of
precious stones.” The doubtful Anonymous says that it was “supported
on four columns, overlaid with gold,” and again that “it was set up on
solid columns of gold, studded with precious stones;” and that beneath
the altar was a “sea” (_thalassa_) ornamented with gold and precious
stones.[103] This seems to refer to the “base of gold” beneath the
columns.

[Illustration: FIG. 8.--View of Bema from the _Menologium_.]

According to Labarte, the description by the Anonymous (see p. 138)
shows that the altar itself was decorated with the bright diversity of
enamel. This he seems to prove by passages in Suidas[104] and Cedrenus.
The last-named writes: “It is formed of gold, of silver, of every kind
of stone and metal and wood, and everything which earth, sea, or the
whole universe contains. Of all these he (Justinian) collected the
most valuable, with some small amount of commoner ones. He then melted
those that would melt, added those that were dry, and poured them
into a mould till it was filled. He wrote upon it, ‘We (Justinian and
Theodora) thy servants, O Christ, bring thee of thine own, praying that
thou wilt graciously accept it, O Son and Word of God made flesh and
crucified for us. Strengthen us in the true faith, increase and guard
this state, which thou hast intrusted to us, through the mediation of
Mary, the holy Virgin, the Mother of God.’”

However doubtful these late Greek writers are as authorities for
Justinian’s time, enamel was used in later days in the most extravagant
manner, and we cannot doubt that at the time when the Crusaders took
the church the altar was of enamel.[105] Robert de Clari,[106] writing
at this time, says, “the chief altar of the church (S. Sophia) is so
rich that one cannot value it; for the slab which forms the altar is of
gold and of precious cut stones (_esquartelées_) and pearls (_molucs_)
all thrown together.” Nicetas is even clearer; describing the capture
of Constantinople and the sack of the church, he says: “The Holy Table,
made of all kinds of precious materials, cemented together by fire,
and formed into a many-coloured harmony so as to be the wonder of all
nations, was broken in pieces and distributed by the soldiers.”[107]

It is very probable that some of the enamels added to the Pala d’Oro
at Venice after the sack of Constantinople came from the sanctuary
of S. Sophia, possibly from its altar. Sylvester Sguropulus[108] who
accompanied John Palaeologus to Venice in 1438, describes the Pala
d’Oro as “an icon which is formed out of many, and we heard that some
of these were taken from the Church of S. Sophia.” It may be only a
coincidence that one of the panels of the Pala contains the figure of
Solomon with the Greek inscription, “Wisdom hath builded her house,”
that being the usual legend for Solomon.

The altar would have been covered, like the altars shown in the mosaics
at Ravenna, and the illustrations of the _Menologium_,[109] by a cloth
reaching on all sides to the floor. These cloths bear very simple
devices--in the centre a plain cross, circle, or star, and at the four
corners _gammidae_ ⛶ which in the code of symbolism probably expressed
the four corners of that world, for which the daily sacrifice was
offered.

Others however were more richly embroidered. In the _Liber
Pontificalis_ of Agnellus[110] it is said that Maximian, the Archbishop
of Ravenna in Justinian’s time, ordered a most precious altar-cloth
(_endothis_) of byssus, on which was embroidered the whole history of
the Saviour. “It is not possible to imagine the human figures, or the
beasts and birds which are made on it.” The figure of the archbishop
was represented with the inscription, “Praise the Lord with me, for
he hath raised me from the dust.” The Continuator of Theophanes
also speaks of an altar-cloth on which “the birth of the Lord was
represented.”[111]

The general Greek name for altar-cloth was _endute_. Those at S.
Sophia are thus spoken of by the Anonymous, and we read that Michael
Palaeologus sent to the Pope “an _endute_ of the Great Church, of rose
red, with gold and pearls worked on it.”[112]

_Ciborium._--The altar stood under a canopy of silver called a
_kiborion_, as is fully described by Paulus. According to the Anonymous
it was patterned with niello or damascening (see p. 138). Such ciboria
are frequently spoken of in the _Lives of the Popes_.[113] Thus Gregory
I. made for S. Peter’s a “ciborium with four columns of pure silver,”
and Leo III. “made for the basilica of S. Paul a ciborium with large
and beautiful columns of the purest silver.” The ciborium of S.
Demetrius at Salonica, a fifth-century work described in the _Acta
Sanctorum_, was also of silver. It supported at the top “a solid sphere
of silver, with wonderful lily-leaves curved round it, and a cross
above.”[114]

An illustration[115] in an eighth-century Gospel preserved at Venice
represents a ciborium, like that at S. Sophia. We see four arches on
four columns, and from the flat top above rises an octagonal cone.
At the four corners stand bowls, and in each bowl is a candle or a
representation of one, as the Silentiary describes. Pope Leo III.
placed “above the altar of S. Peter four large cups of the purest
silver, every one having in its centre a candle of silver-gilt.”[116]

The ciborium at S. Sophia described by Paulus may have lasted till
1203; Robert de Clari, writing at this time, says: “Around the altar
there are columns of silver, which carry a canopy (_abitacle_) over the
altar, made like a tower (_clokier_), which is all of massive silver,
and so rich that one cannot estimate its value.”

_Crowns, &c._--From the first a crown and dove of gold would have
been suspended from the centre of the canopy; such doves are spoken
of as being in use in Constantinople during the Council of 536.[117]
Theophanes says: “On Easter Day Sophia, the widow of Justin II., and
Constantia, the wife of Maurice, gave the Emperor Maurice a crown of
exceeding value. When the emperor saw it, he took it to S. Sophia, and
hung it above the Holy Table by triple chains of gold and precious
stones.”[118] This, Nicephorus Callistus says, was preserved there till
the taking of the city by the Latins.[119] According to Buzantios, the
emperor Leo IV. and his wife Irene also suspended crowns here. Nicetas
speaks of the “crown of the great Constantine, which hung above the
Holy Table;” and again of one “John, surnamed Crassus, who rushed into
S. Sophia and placed on his head a small crown, one of those which hang
round the Holy Table;”[120] and it appears from the account of the
Russian pilgrim Anthony, given in the next chapter, that just before
the Crusade there were thirty crowns suspended from the ciborium--a
beautiful symbolism.

The splendid hanging crowns at Monza and in the Cluny Museum show us
that these votive crowns were broad circlets of gold incrusted with
large uncut rubies and emeralds with borders of pearls, and strings
of jewels, and other pendants hanging from the rim. A small enamelled
crown for suspension above an altar which is amongst the Constantinople
treasures at S. Mark’s is inscribed ΛΕΟΝ ΔΕϹΠ(ΟΤΗϹ); this, according to
Labarte, must be Leo VI., who died in 911.[121]

_Altar-veils._--Round the four sides of the ciborium were suspended the
curtains described in such detail by Paulus. They were all the more
wonderful at this time as being silk-woven and not embroidered.[122]
The gold thread however seems to have been “laid” on. By the later
Greeks those curtains were named tetrabela. They were often of deep
red embroidered with gold, and were usually hung on rods going from
capital to capital of the ciborium, as some of the illustrations in the
_Menologium_ show, though others seem to have been suspended from the
curves of the arches.

_The Iconostasis._--For a description of the screen in front of the
bema, with its columns, beam, panels, and doors plated with silver,
we refer to the Silentiary. A screen of this kind, from the sacred
paintings with which it is adorned, is now called the iconostasis, but
by the Byzantine writers it is usually named _herkos_, _druphrakta_,
_kinklidai_, or _kankelloi_. Such screens were generally of bronze or
marble. The Church of S. John the Evangelist, built by Galla Placidia
at Ravenna, had a screen of silver. At the Church of the Apostles
at Constantinople, built by Constantine, the iconostasis was gilded
bronze. The screen of S. Peter’s in Rome was formed by the twelve
beautiful antique columns which figure in Raphael’s tapestry, standing
in two rows.[123] Eusebius connects twelve columns which stood about
the tomb in the Sepulchre church with the number of the apostles, and
it is possible, as De Fleury suggests, that in the six pairs of pillars
forming the iconostasis at S. Sophia a reference may be seen to the
dismissal of the apostles two by two. From the narrowness of the bema
it seems certain that the coupling of the pillars was transversely to
the screen as shown on our plan, Fig. 5. Thus they easily supported the
passage way, where stood a great gemmed cross and a row of branched
silver candelabra. This was the “narrow way for the lamp-lighter above
the silver columns” described by the Silentiary.

The decoration of the silver plating of the breastwork and the beam by
figures of apostles, prophets, and angels, and with circles bearing
crosses and monograms, may have been formed in _repoussé_, like a
beautiful gilt panel with a figure of the Virgin and Greek inscription
now at Kensington Museum, which formed a part of the decoration of
the screen at Torcello, but we think it more probable that it was
damascened with gold like the silver work in Basil’s chapel.

The iconostasis probably reached up to the base of the porphyry strip
which forms the border of the marble plating of the bema; if so it was
about twenty feet high; it had three doors--“The Holy Doors”--that in
the centre being the largest.

The “gold and silver columns in the middle of the temple” seen by
Benjamin of Tudela, 1173, must refer to the iconostasis.

When the Crusaders practically sacked the church, the iconostasis,
ciborium, and altar were broken up and distributed. Nicetas says, “The
furniture of surpassing beauty, the silver, which went round the screen
of the bema, the ambo, the doors, and many ornaments, in which gold was
used, were carried away.” The _Novgorod Chronicle_[124] gives a fuller
account of the eventful morning when the doors were broken through and
S. Sophia was invaded. “They broke down the podium of the priests,
ornamented with silver, the twelve silver columns, the four panels
in the wall, decorated with images, and the Holy Table. They also
destroyed the screen walls of the altar placed between the columns, and
twelve crosses which stood above the altar; amongst these were crosses
of metal, like trees, higher than a man. All these things were made of
silver.

“They carried off also the wonderful table, with the gems and a great
pearl; so great a crime did they commit in ignorance. Moreover they
snatched away forty cups standing on the altar, and silver candelabra,
whose number was so great that it is not possible to enumerate them,
as well as the silver vessels which the Greeks use, more especially on
feast days.

“They stole a Gospel, that was used for the services, and sacred
crosses and single images and the covering which was above the altar,
and forty censers made of pure gold: they laid hands on all gold and
silver and on priceless vessels in the cupboards, walls, and other
places, in such quantity that they cannot be numbered.”

Grelot says that before the Turks altered the church the iconostasis
had figures of the Virgin and S. John Baptist between the central and
side-doors and the Twelve Apostles over.[125]

_Prothesis and Diakonikon._--Two chapels that in Byzantine churches
almost invariably occur right and left of the bema with which they
communicate directly are usually called the prothesis and diakonikon;
they were sacristies, used respectively for the preparation of the
mass and as a treasury or vestry. Du Cange in both editions placed
them in the two exedras of the eastern hemicycle, and in this he is
followed by Salzenberg. The impossibility of this arrangement is shown
by Neale, who suggests that two chambers on either side of the bema
which Du Cange thought were only supplementary were the sacristies
in question. The chapels at the east end of S. Sophia have now been
built up, but the doors that led into them still exist. We are not
however certain that these chapels were built with the church. Paulus
does not mention them, and there do not appear to have been chapels
in this position at S. Sergius. In regard to the use of the prothesis
and diakonikon, Dr. Freshfield[126] considers that the procession with
the bread and wine called the _Megale Eisodos_, described in our last
chapter, only became a part of the ritual in the reign of the successor
of Justinian, to whose time the Cherubic Hymn sung during the ceremony
is referred. The earlier liturgies, he says, contain no directions for
this ceremony, but merely speak of the deacon as moving the elements
from the prothesis table to the altar, and he concludes that the two
side-chapels found in so many churches belong to a time subsequent to
Justin II. Two narrow passages however, right and left of the bema, at
S. Sophia, S. Sergius, S. Irene, and S. Vitale seem to show that they
were intended for access to lateral portions used in connection with
the bema, even if these parts were merely screened from the aisles,
and a comparison of many early churches in Syria and Asia Minor proves
that such chapels were in frequent use if not essential long before
Justinian built his church.[127] See our figures 31 and 32, and compare
Cattaneo, page 60.

The prothesis and diakonikon of S. Sophia are very infrequently
mentioned by those names. In the catalogue of the Constantinopolitan
patriarchs we read of “relics being kept in the diaconicum.”[128]
The diakonikon is also named where Codinus speaks of the emperor
as “hearing the prayers of S. Basil near the diakonikon,” and the
prothesis is mentioned in the passage on p. 63. Certain divisions
of the church at the east end are however frequently mentioned by
Porphyrogenitus, the Anonymous, and the Russian pilgrims. Thus we have
the skeuophylakium (treasury of vessels) and other chapels referred to.
The skeuophylakium of the Anonymous seems to be the same as the “lesser
sanctuary” of Anthony, by which stood the cross which gave the exact
height of Christ. This lesser sanctuary, or skeuophylakium, is probably
the diakonikon--“the oratory in front of the metatorion”--where the
relics of the Passion were kept.[129] Again we read: “Then by the
right-hand side of the bema, they enter the oratory where stands the
silver crucifix ... after worshipping they ascend by the cochlea
[spiral stair, we suppose at south-east angle where minaret now is]
which is by the part called the Holy Well, to the eastern part of the
right-hand catechumena.” Again, “Then by the right-hand side of the
bema, they enter the oratory where stands the silver crucifix.”[130]

_The Holy Well and Metatorion._--The Holy Well, so frequently mentioned
in the _Ceremonies_, seems to have been not merely an object but a
division of the church. Labarte makes it a chamber external to the
church on the south side, but the Anonymous shows that it was to the
east, by speaking of “that part of the temple in which was the Holy
Well, the bema, and the ambo.” The author of an account of “the miracle
in the Holy Well of the Great Church” speaks of a picture of Christ
as being by the eastern gate, “where is the holy mouth of the well of
Samaria.”[131]

The Russian pilgrims generally speak of the Samaritan well, from which
flowed water from the Jordan, as “in the sanctuary:” the Anonymous
Russian says “in the chapel to the right.” At this time it was probably
in one of the eastern chapels, which, may have been identical with
the prothesis or diakonikon. Some passages of the _Ceremonies_ seem
to imply that in the tenth century the Holy Well was without the
building; thus we hear of the “embolos [portico] of the Holy Well:”
and again, “from the Holy Well, they enter by the door leading to the
church;”[132] possibly it was moved later, but probably one of the
eastern attached chapels will fulfil the conditions. In our Fig. 5
we have followed Du Cange’s ground-plan in the distribution of these
eastern chapels. It is possible that the round north-east building
was used as a great sacristy as Salzenberg suggests; Grelot calls it
so on his plan, and T. Smith says this was a tradition. The Anonymous
definitely distinguishes the Skeuophylakium, the Holy Well, and the
Chapel of S. Peter.

The Metatorion, frequently spoken of together with the Holy Well,
Labarte and Paspates place on the south side, external to the church.
We think it was probably the name of portions of the side-aisles
screened off by curtains. This would agree with Unger,[133] who
thinks that the word means a “quarter of the church” (_metatio_),
and that Du Cange was mistaken in deriving it from _mutatorium_.
In the _Ceremonies_,--“The princes go out of the right side of the
bema and enter the metatorion.” Again, the patriarch stands within
the iconostasis “on the right-hand side of the bema, towards the
metatorion.” From the metatorion a small door led to the Holy Well.
Again, “they leave the bema by the right-hand side through the small
holy door (in iconostasis) and proceed to the porphyry columns (of
exedra), and by the staircase of the metatorion they enter the
catechumena.”[134] Again, “the emperor takes off his crown in the
metatorion within the Beautiful Gate,” and “within the veil, hanging
in the metatorion at the back of the narthex door.” Metatoria in the
catechumena of S. Sophia and of S. Sergius are also referred to.[135]

_Solea._--The later writers often mention the solea of S. Sophia. Thus
Cantacuzenus speaks of the emperor passing through the solea up to the
“Holy Doors.”[136] It was immediately outside the iconostasis, and must
have closely agreed with the choir of the singers in a Western church.
Paulus does not use the word, but he describes the singers as occupying
the space in front of the Holy Doors, and embraced by the exedras. The
ambo, with its long passage of approach from the step of the Holy
Doors, divided this space in two, so it is clear that the singers stood
on either side of the ambo. The portion round about the ambo screened
by the circle of columns was reserved for the leaders of the choir,
the Protopsaltae.[137] We cannot infer from the Silentiary that there
was any other screen to the Solea, and no stalls for the singers are
mentioned.

It is possible that in the tenth century, when the _Book of the
Ceremonies_ was written, the ambo had been modified at least in
regard to the approach from the bema, and that a considerable space
was interposed between it and the Holy Doors, in front of which
there was at this time a porphyry omphalion stone (see our page 96).
Paspates[138] says this is still quite intact, somewhat oval in shape,
seven feet across, and adorned with a mosaic of marbles. It seems
probable from the Anonymous that in these later days the solea was
inclosed by a screen which he says was of silver.[139]

Paulus describes a part on the south side as being inclosed for the
emperor, and in Porphyrogenitus we read that the emperor had his
seat “near the Holy Doors on the right-hand side.” It is probable
that opposite the emperor’s throne there was another bishop’s chair,
for that in the bema might only be occupied by the bishop in his own
diocese. Grelot indeed reports that the emperor’s and bishop’s thrones
were opposite one another.

_Nave._--We now come to the central division of the church, the naos or
nave, the square space beneath the dome contained between the four main
piers: its centre was called _omphalos_, _mesomphalos_, or _mesonaos_.

The pavement, according to the poet Paul, was covered with white
Proconnesian marble and darker Bosporus stone. In the opening lines
of the description before given he seems to compare the veined marble
to flowing streams, or foam-flecked sea, and the ambo is likened to
an island rising from the sea. According to Glycas and Codinus the
first pavement was of various hues like the ocean. The Anonymous, in
comparing a pavement which he says was laid down afterwards with this
supposed earlier one, says that “messengers were sent to Proconnesus,
and marble of a green colour was worked there, as is seen now like
rivers flowing into the sea.” Codinus says, “four rivers of leek-green
marble were like the four streams which flow from Paradise to the sea.”
_As is seen now_ certainly seems to bring something definite before our
eyes, and so far as the pavement can be seen through the narrow chinks
of the matting there is much to confirm this part of the Anonymous.
Grelot tells us that the pavement is laid in compartments. It is of
whitish gray Proconnesian marble, laid in slabs about 4 × 10 feet, with
here and there strips of verde antique about 2 feet wide, which suggest
the quartering of the floor by a great cross. Moreover the square of
rich Alexandrine work still existing, and figured by Salzenberg, lies
on a diagonal, and would thus exactly occupy one of four square spaces
left in the angles (see Fig. 5). Now in the palace the floor of the
bedchamber of Basil had four rivers or streams of Thessalian-green
marble which seemed to flow away from the centre, and the quarters
were filled with mosaics of large eagles.[140] It may also be noticed
that four rivers are depicted as flowing away from the cross on the
central bronze door of narthex. Many parallel examples of pavements,
still existing, confirm the Anonymous in this respect. The mosaic
floors of Italy furnish many instances where the four rivers of Eden
are represented in the several angles as human forms pouring from urns,
waters which are inscribed with the names Gihon, Tigris, Euphrates, and
Pison. The design of the pavement of the Baptistery at Florence has
been much disturbed, but it seems to have represented flowing streams,
which led from the font in the middle to the doors like four paths. It
has been pointed out that the carpet of Chosroes, which is described
as having represented a garden with flowing streams, was a traditional
pattern of which an example showing four streams quartering the field
is in the possession of Mr. Colvin.[141] We understand that a similar
carpet is now in New York.

We give here a representation of a square of pavement at the centre of
the Western Gynaeceum; it is of Proconnesian slabs with border, and a
disc of verde antico.

[Illustration: FIG. 9.--Marble Pavement at centre of West Gallery.]

_Font._--A fine marble font formerly in the precincts of the Mosque
Zeinab Sultana at the west of S. Sophia, and now in the Imperial
Museum, is the one referred to by Paspates as being probably the font
of S. John Baptist (the Baptistery). He writes that there were only
two remaining in Constantinople, the other being a smaller font in
the precincts of the Mosque Kotza Mustapha Pasha.[142] The font in
the museum which we illustrate is 8 feet 2½ inches long, 6 feet 1½
inches wide, and 4 feet 6 inches high, wrought out of one fine block
of Proconnesian marble. The outside is carefully finished, which shows
that it stood above the floor. The inside is formed into steps, and
about the rim are several roughly sunk crosses, which we suggest
were filled by inlaid votive crosses of metal. Similar fonts are
shown in the mosaics at S. Mark’s and other places. Texier found one
in the marble quarries of Synnada with steps inside, and others are
found in Palestine, one of which, illustrated in the _Memoirs_ of the
Exploration Fund,[143] closely resembles this at Constantinople, which
we may therefore look on as a typical Byzantine font.

[Illustration: FIG. 10.--Font from Constantinople.]

_Consecration or other Crosses._--On the great verde antico columns of
the north side of the nave, about six feet above the floor, appear sunk
crosses about six inches high; on the south side shallow sunk panels
occupy similar positions, formed we may suppose by the Turks for the
purpose of destroying the crosses. Similar sunk crosses occur on some
of the marble columns in the gallery at S. Sergius and at Bethlehem; at
Sinai the nave columns bear inlaid bronze crosses. From the character
of those at S. Sophia we should suppose that they were also formerly
filled by inlaid metal; their similarity in size and the regularity
with which they are placed seem to show that they are of the nature of
consecration crosses rather than being merely votive, or rather that
they were made by the builders, just as a farmer crosses his bags of
wheat. In most of the cisterns of Constantinople one column at least
bears a large fairly wrought cross.

_Miraculous Marbles and Mosaics._--Clavijo describes a large white slab
in the right of the gallery naturally figuring “the Virgin with Christ
in her most holy arms:” beneath this was an altar in a little chapel
where they said mass. These marbles, in which accidental resemblances
to figures might be traced, were evidently much valued. Felix Fabri
describes a slab at the Holy Sepulchre in which S. Jerome and his
lion appeared. “This picture was not produced by art, but by simple
polishing alone.”

The column of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, mentioned by Anthony of Novgorod
as by the entrance and “covered with bronze plates,” may possibly be
the celebrated “sweating column,” which is the first square pillar in
the north aisle. At about five feet from the floor it is cased with
bronze, in which a hole is left over the cavities in the pillar which
are supposed to exude the dampness. The indents are smooth, and look
like natural cavities discovered in the marble when it was wrought.
Canon Curtis, who was kind enough to examine the pillar for us, says
it was perfectly dry, and the attendants assured him that water never
oozed out of the cavities, although “a few drops of water might be
easily kept in each of them.” Sweating columns are well known in the
legends of the middle ages. Benjamin of Tudela speaks of two in
Rome which sweated on the anniversary of the fall of Jerusalem, and
Mandeville mentions four pillars in the Holy Sepulchre “that always
drop water, and some men say that they weep for our Lord’s death.”
Stephen of Novgorod speaks of a mosaic of Christ in S. Sophia from
which holy water flowed from the wounds of the feet.

_Water Vessels._--At the west end of the church in the right and left
exedras stand two large white Proconnesian marble urns about seven
feet high, of beautiful gourd-like forms. They rise from the centre of
polygonal basins, and water is drawn from them through bronze taps.
It has been said that they were brought from Pergamus or Marmora
by Sultan Murad III.[144] The carving of the turban-like tops is
certainly Turkish, but the vessels seem to be of Byzantine form, and
we are disposed to agree with Grelot, who saw them in their present
position before 1680. He says they were kept full of water “to cool the
Mohammedans overheated by their devout gesticulations.” “If they are
not very ancient, they stand in the place of others, which contained
holy water for the Christians who entered the church.” He associates
with these the palindrome inscription given by Gruter (see our page
191), which he says was written on these, or similar, vessels in gold
letters.[145]

Now a beautiful cantharus in the Church of S. Peter and S. Andrew, on
the island of Murano,[146] which is almost identical with those of S.
Sophia, is stated to have been brought back thence with the Venetian
booty, and bears a Byzantine inscription:--

  ΑΝΤΛΗϹΑΤΑΙ · ΥΔΩΡ · ΜΕΤΑ · ΕΥΦΡΟϹΥΝΗϹ · ΟΤΙ · ΦΩΝΗ ·
  ΚΥ · ΕΠΙ · ΤΩΝ · ΥΔΑΤΩΝ ·

(“Draw the water with gladness, for the voice of the Lord is upon the
waters”); together with a monogram which reads ΝΙΚΟΜΕΔΟΥ. Beneath the
monogram appears a stopping where evidently a tap was fixed, in exactly
the position of those to the urns in S. Sophia. The first half of the
latter inscription is on a small vessel of lead found at Tunis, which,
from the character of the decoration, cannot be later than the fourth
or fifth century. The first mention of the vessels in S. Sophia which
we have been able to find is by an English traveller, Fynes Moryson
(1595), who says, “I did see two nuts of marble of huge bigness and
great beauty.”

We give in Fig. 11 the vessel in the south exedra at S. Sophia,
together with that of Murano, and for further comparison some beautiful
vessels from a relief of Justinian’s time on the ivory throne at
Ravenna. We have omitted the Turkish top of the former. Canon Curtis,
who has specially examined them, writes to us that between the top and
body of each vessel is a copper band which conceals the joint, if there
is a joint.

_Images and Tombs._--Very few fragments of Christian sculpture remain
in Constantinople. The Silentiary does not mention any sculpture at S.
Sophia. Probably the feeling which was mature in Leo the Isaurian was
always latent; Oriental Christians sharing in the dislike with which
Jew and Moslem regarded statues. Canon Curtis writes: “On the northern
side of the sweating column I used to see parts of a bas-relief
representing, as I thought, a procession, but it was almost concealed
by the metal plates, and now it is entirely hidden.” The wealth of
the church in icons at a late period may be gathered from incidental
references. Not until a late time do we hear of any tombs in the
church. S. Chrysostom and most of the other patriarchs were buried in
the Church of the Holy Apostles.

Pachymeres mentions “the stele of the three Germani (Patriarchs of
Constantinople) near the porphyry columns on the west.” Nicephorus
Gregoras[147] also writes that the remains of the patriarch Arsenius
were buried in the great Church of S. Sophia.

[Illustration: FIG. 11.--Water Vessels from S. Sophia and Murano.]

_Hangings._--The descriptions on several occasions mention veils and
hangings by the names of _vela_ and _velothyra_. With mosaics and
miniatures to help us it is possible to judge of the lavish way in
which these hangings were used.

The mosaics at Ravenna show veils hanging at the door of the church
through which Theodora is about to enter, and the large elevation of
the Palace of Theodoric, likewise in mosaic, shows hangings in all the
arches of the portico. Such textiles suspended at entrance doorways
are often mentioned by contemporary authors.[148] At S. Sophia the
doors entering the narthex, and those between it and the church, all
have bronze hooks, to which such “door veils” were suspended; and
embroidered Turkish hangings, which roll up from the bottom by means of
cords and pulleys, are still hung to them. In the Byzantine mosaics the
hangings are often shown raised by being gathered into a loose knot, or
by being drawn to the sides and passed once round the pillars between
which they hang.

[Illustration: FIG. 12.--Vessels of Sixth Century: from Ivory Throne,
Ravenna.]

The account of the coronation ceremony describes how the royal persons
were seated in the gynaeceum, screened by “golden velothyra,” so
that they should not be seen until the psaltae sang the “Lift up,”
when immediately the velothyra were raised. Of these hangings in the
interior we have a picture in the account given in the continuation
of Theophanes of an ambassador, Iber Curopalates, who visited
Constantinople in 923, and “was taken to the church of S. Sophia, that
he should inspect its beauty and size and precious ornaments. Now
the walls were all draped with cloth of gold before they led him in,
and he, struck with the great size of the church and its wealth of
adornment, exclaimed, ‘Truly this is the house of God,’ and returned
home.”[149] The _Ceremonies_ mention gold hangings in Catechumena above
Royal Door.[150] Nicetas tells us how the Crusaders “spared neither
the house of God nor His ministers, but stripped the great church of
all its fine ornaments and hangings, made of the richest brocades of
inestimable value.”

We have no doubt that S. Sophia was frequently adorned inside by the
arcades of both tiers having hangings suspended from the iron bars,
which cross all these arches at their springing, exactly like those
shown in the mosaic of Theodoric’s palace. Indeed Ignatius of Smolensk
(_circ._ 1395), who was present at the coronation of Manuel, says that
the women in the galleries remained behind curtains of silk so that
none might see their faces.[151]

These hangings seem either to have had simple figures such as squares
with large “gammidae” at the corners worked on them, probably in
gold, or they were patterned over with figures, animals, and flowers,
woven in the stuff like the elaborate veils of the altar described by
the Silentiary. The linen vestments found at Panopolis in Egypt show
us that the “gammidae” originated in embroidered shoulder straps,
with seal-like ends applied on either side of the neck opening. Fig.
13 shows two of the door veils represented at Ravenna; that on the
right is from the mosaic in S. Apollinare Nuovo showing the palace.
The gammidae are here exactly of the form found on the early Coptic
linen vestments, and it cannot be doubted that they were “applied” in
a similar way. The pattern on the left is the door-hanging from the
mosaic of S. Vitale; the plain squares are of gold. The designs on the
robes in this mosaic are interesting. Justinian’s chlamys is covered
with birds in circles, the border of Theodora’s robe displays the three
Magi making their offerings; one of her attendants has a robe powdered
with swimming ducks and a mantle with four petalled red roses on a gold
ground, and another robe has five pointed leaves scattered over its
field. Many examples of the figured silks are preserved in museums.
There is at South Kensington Museum a piece of pictured silk of this
kind, probably of Justinian’s time, which is covered with circles, in
each of which is figured a man and a lion. More than a century before
the time of Justinian, Asterius, Bishop of Amasius, had made these
elaborately figured stuffs a subject of satire: “When men so draped
appear in the streets the passers-by regard them like painted walls.
Their clothes are pictures which little children trace out with their
fingers. There are lions, panthers, and bears, also rocks, woods, and
hunters. The most devout carry Christ, His disciples, and His miracles.
Here we may see the marriage in Galilee and the pots of wine; there
is the paralytic carrying his bed, the penitent woman at the feet of
Jesus, or Lazarus come again to life.”[152]

[Illustration: FIG. 13.--Door Veils of the Sixth Century: Ravenna
Mosaics.]

Later the patterns became more heraldic and larger in scale, figuring
for the most part great displayed eagles, and griffons, or lions
affronted. A piece of a textile of this kind in the museum at
Düsseldorf, of which there is a full-size copy at South Kensington,
bears golden lions about two feet six inches long, and the names of
Constantine VIII. and Basil on a pallid purple ground. Frauberger[153]
compares this with another signed example of the same age and similar
design preserved at Siegburg, and a third at Autun, “all of which
were intended for church hangings.” The same writer says that after
Justinian’s introduction of silk weaving in 552 and the loss of Bosra
with its purple-dye vats to Chosroes, an imperial textile industry was
established by the Golden Horn, which existed until the fourteenth
century. Here these hangings were probably produced.

_Carpets._--Portions of the floor of S. Sophia were almost certainly
strewn with carpets. Porphyrogenitus relates of the New Church of Basil
that “woollen carpets (_nakopetai_) called prayer carpets, of wonderful
size and beauty, and resembling the bright plumage of peacocks, were
laid one over another, completely covering the mosaic pavement of
valuable stones.” The carpets and prayer-rugs of the mosques thus had
their direct parallels, if not their prototypes, in the Byzantine
churches.

_Synods._--The patriarchal registers, dating from the fourteenth
century, speak of synods sitting “in the right-hand catechumena”; this
probably refers to the south gallery, where the vault has displayed in
mosaic the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles.

Across this gallery there is at present a screen, which possibly, as
Paspates suggests, shut off the part used by the Synods. (See dotted
line on Fig. 6.) The screen is made up of two marble slabs, each
sculptured into the form of panelled double doors, with architraves
and carved panels. Above the opening left between these is a coloured
marble slab. At the top is a carved wood beam, which, being exactly
like the permanent vault ties, is evidently of Justinian’s age; but the
whole is certainly not an original assemblage of the parts. Each slab,
which imitates a pair of wood doors, has a representation of a bronze
ring handle and a lock-plate on one half, and a hasp on the other, all
exactly copied in sculptured marble. We believe that these imitation
doors are earlier than the church; the idea was common in late classic
times. De Vogüé and Dr. Merrill[154] found several tomb doors,
similarly panelled, studded with imitation nails, and having elaborate
knockers, all carved in stone. An example in marble now in the museum
at Leeds closely resembles the S. Sophia slabs.

_Clergy and Ritual._--In the time of Justinian the total number of
clergy was 525, but at the time of Heraclius this had been increased to
600.[155] They were thus divided:--

  Presbyters     80
  Deacons       150
  Deaconesses    40
  Subdeacons     70
  Readers       160
  Singers        25
  Doorkeepers    75
                ---
         Total  600

The subdeacons, according to the forty-third canon of the Council
of Laodicea, stood by the doors. Porphyrogenitus[156] speaks of the
emperor “passing through the narthex of the gynaeceum, where the
deaconesses have their usual place.” The same author also mentions[157]
“hypurgi of the narthex, readers for alternate weeks, ostiarii of
the Holy Well, a domesticus of the subdeacons, and deputati of S.
Sophia.” A series of seals of the officers of S. Sophia is given by
Schlumberger;[158] the seals are those of the klerikos, diakonos,
manglabites, ekdikos, deuteroboetes, protospatharios, and the
chartophulax. An anonymous author[159] gives a list of the officers of
the “holy and great” church which is too long to be given in full, but
we may note some of the duties mentioned.

The Oeconomus held “one of the flabella, and stood at the right hand of
the altar, when the patriarch was officiating;” while “the sacellarius,
holding a napkin, stood on the left.” The skeuophylax stood in front of
the skeuophylakium, so as to be ready to hand any vessel that might be
wanted. The chartophulax stood near the “holy doors,” and pronounced
the words of the service, “Approach, ye priests.” The castensius holds
the censer, and draws the curtain at the _Trisagion_. The refendarius
and deputati carried the orders of the patriarch to the princes and
nobles, and summoned them to his presence. When the patriarch was
officiating, the protopapas took precedence of all the other priests,
and even gave the communion to the patriarch. The protopsaltes “stood
in the middle of the church between the right and left choirs,” and led
the singing. On one occasion the number of priests was so great “that
the church of S. Sophia, though it is the greatest of all on the earth,
seemed then too small.”[160]

Up to the eleventh century, services were only performed in S. Sophia
on Sundays and Saints’ days. In the middle of the eleventh century,
Monomachus arranged that the service should be every day, and for this
extra salaries were given.[161]

Some idea of the ritual of the services may be gathered from the
offices in the _Euchologium_, edited by Goar, the Cherubic and other
hymns, together with the _Ceremonies_ of Porphyrogenitus. An account
given by Anthony of Novgorod is quoted in the next chapter. Bertrandon
Brocquière writes: “I was curious to witness the manner of the Greeks
performing divine service, and went to S. Sophia on a day when the
patriarch officiated. The emperor was present accompanied by his
wife, his mother, and his brother, the despot of the Morea. A Mystery
was represented, the subject of which was the three youths whom
Nebuchadnezzar had ordered to be thrown into the fiery furnace.”

Having in our last chapter quoted the description of the procession
and celebration of the Mass, we now give the accounts of the Adoration
of the Cross given by Arculf[162] in the seventh century, and by
Porphyrogenitus in the tenth; together with the directions for the
emperor’s procession to the great church.

_The Adoration of the Cross._--“In the northern part of the interior
of the house (S. Sophia) is shown a very large and beautiful aumbry,
where is kept a wooden chest, in which is shut up that wooden cross of
salvation on which our Saviour hung for the salvation of the world.
This notable chest, as the sainted Arculf relates, is raised with its
treasure of such preciousness upon a golden altar, on three consecutive
days after the lapse of a year. This altar also is in the same round
church, being two cubits long, and one broad. On three consecutive
days only throughout the year is the Lord’s cross raised and placed
on the altar, that is on the day of the supper of the Lord, when the
emperor and the armies enter the church, and, approaching the altar,
after that sacred chest has been opened, kiss the Cross of Salvation.
First of all the emperor of the world kisses it with bent face, then
going up one after another in the order of rank or age all kiss the
cross with honour. Then on the next day, that is on the sixth day of
the week before Easter, the queen, the matrons, and all the women of
the people approach it in the above-mentioned order, and all kiss it
with reverence. On the third day, that is on the Paschal Sabbath, the
bishop, and all the clergy after him, approach in order with fear
and trembling and all honour, kissing the Cross of Victory which is
placed in its chest. When these sacred and joyful kissings of the
sacred cross are finished, that venerable chest is closed, and with
its honoured treasure it is borne back to its aumbry. But this should
also be carefully noted, that there are not two but three short pieces
of wood in the cross, that is the cross beam and the long one which
is cut and divided into two equal parts; while from these threefold
venerated beams when the chest is opened, there arises an odour of a
wonderful fragrance,[163] as if all sorts of flowers had been collected
in it, wonderfully full of sweetness, satiating and gladdening all in
the open space before the inner walls of the church, who stand still as
they enter at that moment; for from the knots of those threefold beams
a sweet-smelling liquid distils, like pressed-out oil, which causes
all men of whatever race, who have assembled and entered the church,
to perceive the above-mentioned fragrance of so great sweetness. This
liquid is such that if even a little drop of it be laid on the sick,
they easily recover their health, whatever be the trouble or disease
they have been afflicted with.”

The passage from the _Book of the Ceremonies_[164] describing the
Exaltation of the cross on September 14th begins with the emperor
“passing through the palace Manaura, and the upper corridors, ascending
by the wooden staircase, and entering the _catechumena_[165] of the
great church.” After he has reached the catechumena and “lighted
candles, and prayed, he takes his seat in the part on the right-hand
side.” “The emperor then summons the patriarch, who remains for a
short time with the emperor, and then goes out, and comes to the small
secretum, where is kept the Holy Wood, and receives the emperor there.
And as the congregation begin the ‘Glory to God in the Highest,’ the
emperor enters, and kisses the Sacred Wood, and comes out into the
great secretum. Then the emperor, following the Cross, descends by the
great winding staircase, keeping to the left, and passes through the
Didaskalion,[166] where the paschalia are inscribed, and having gone
down the steps, he enters through the great gate of the narthex, and
reaches the royal doors and stands there. The emperor and patriarch now
pass through the middle of the nave, and on the right of the ambo into
the solea; here the emperor stands before the Holy Doors, and gives
the candle he is carrying to the praepositus. He then enters the bema,
and having kissed the Sacred Wood, and turning round, he comes out
again, and passes through the solea, then mounts the third or fourth
step of the ambo and stands there, holding the candle. The patriarch
then comes out of the bema and mounts the ambo with the Sacred Wood,
and the emperor gives his candle to the praepositus, and remains there
until the Wood has been elevated in the four quarters of the ambo. The
emperor and patriarch then descend from the ambo and enter the bema,
and the Wood being placed before them the emperor prays and kisses it,
and coming out through the side of the bema he is conducted by the
patriarch to the Holy Well, and having kissed it, he continues to the
palace.”

It would almost appear that whereas in the time of Arculph (_circa_
680) the Cross was kept in one of the north-eastern chambers by the
bema, in the time of Porphyrogenitus (tenth century) it was preserved,
during certain periods, in a secretum accessible from the gynaeceum.
Possibly the small upper chapel on the south side with mosaic ceiling,
and the additions over the south porch, both built about the tenth
century, may be the chambers in question. At the end of the ceremony
the Cross was left in the bema, and it may be that only on the
occasion of the Festival of the Cross was it taken up to the gallery,
preparatory to a procession through all parts of the church.

_Procession to the Church._--The following is an account of a pageant,
which is the first in the _Book of Ceremonies_--the order of the royal
procession to the Great Church. On the day preceding the feast, notice
was given so that the way might be adorned with flowers. The emperor
and princes carried gifts, and processional candles, and the Cross
of St. Constantine.[167] Priests were sent to receive him with the
Cross of the Lord, which was taken from the church by the Sacristan
(_skeuophulax_).

In proceeding to the church there were six “receptions.” Three were
in various parts of the palace, “and the princes come to the gate
(Chalké), and the fourth reception takes place outside the barrier of
Chalké; the fifth reception takes place in front of the Great Gate
which leads into the Augusteum; and the sixth reception is at the
Horologium of S. Sophia.”[168]

“And from thence the princes enter through the Beautiful Gate, and
have their crowns removed by the praepositi within the curtain that
hangs in the chamber, that is to say, the propylaeum of the narthex.
And the patriarch receives them at the door of the narthex with the
usual ceremony.... The lords remove their crowns, kiss the holy Gospel
carried by the archdeacon, greet the patriarch, and proceed up to the
royal doors. Bearing the candles and bowing thrice, the entrance is
made after a prayer by the patriarch; then those carrying the sceptres
and vessels stand right and left of the church; but those bearing the
banners and the books stand on either side in the solea; and the Cross
of St. Constantine is placed on the right side of the bema. And when
the lords come to the Holy Doors and to the porphyry omphalion, the
patriarch alone enters within the screen, by the holy door on the left.
The princes, after bowing thrice, enter with the candles, following
the patriarch, and coming to the holy table they kiss the holy cloth,
and they place as is usual on the holy table the two white veils, and
kiss the holy chalices, and the two discs and the holy corporal cloth,
which are handed to them by the patriarch. And then by the right-hand
side of the bema the princes enter with the patriarch the _Kuklis_,
where is placed the Holy Crucifix of gold, and again they bow with the
candles three times praising God; and the patriarch gives the censer to
the emperor and he censes the crucifix: then they kiss the patriarch,
and take leave of him and enter the oratory, which is in front of the
metatorion, and there, bowing three times and praising God, they kiss
the Holy Cross as well as all the Instruments of our Lord’s Passion,
and then enter the metatorion.”




CHAPTER VI

RELICS, TREASURE, AND THE LIGHTING OF THE CHURCH


§ 1. RELICS.

_The True Cross._--There would seem to be little doubt that a discovery
was made about 326 of what was supposed to be the true Cross. S. Cyril
of Jerusalem, writing some twenty-five years later, says that portions
of the Cross were spread all over the world. We have seen (p. 14) that
early historians relate that a portion of this precious relic was sent
to Constantinople by Helena. The principal part however remained at
Jerusalem until it was taken by Chosroes. It is described by some of
the pilgrims to the holy city as being encased in silver. Brought back
from Persia by Heraclius in 628 together with the spear and sponge,
it rested for a brief interval in S. Sophia, where it was “uplifted”;
but it was again returned to Jerusalem until 636,[169] when under the
fear of the coming troubles the larger portion at least was removed.
Rohault de Fleury, who devoted a folio volume to the Instruments of the
Passion, quotes a letter from Anseau, a priest of the Holy Sepulchre
in the twelfth century, which was sent to Paris with a portion of
the Cross. According to this account the Holy Wood was divided into
nineteen small Crosses, of which Constantinople possessed three besides
the “Cross of the Emperor,” and Jerusalem retained four. We have
positive evidence that in the century before Heraclius Constantinople
was a centre where portions of the Cross were to be obtained: thus
Radegunde, wife of Clothaire, received a fragment from Justin II. and
Sophia in 569.[170] At this time, according to John of Ephesus, there
was “a day of the adoration of the Holy Cross of our Saviour; on this
festival the Cross is brought out and set up in the Great Church, and
the senate and all the people of the city assemble to worship it.”[171]
Probably the Exaltation was celebrated concurrently at Jerusalem and at
Constantinople.

When we more definitely hear of the True Cross at S. Sophia, it is
evident, from the frequent occasions in which it is transported to
different parts of the church, and to the palace, that it was quite
small, a relic in fact.

Arculf (_circa_ 680), as we have seen, describes it as kept in a chest,
on a golden altar, which was only two cubits long by one broad. He
says: “it should be specially noticed that there are not two but three
short pieces of wood in the cross; that is, the cross beam, and the
long one divided into two equal parts.”

Now in the _Menologium_ of Basil we have a representation of the
Exaltation of the Cross, which the patriarch is uplifting in an ambo.
It is represented as a double cross made up of three pieces, not of
two. A miniature of the finding of the Cross in the National Library of
Paris shows the same form. Didron remarks that the cross with double
branches probably originated in Greece, “for it is constantly seen in
Attica, in the Morea, and on Mount Athos.” This form appears frequently
on the later coins of Constantinople, and we find that most of the
relics of the True Cross which still exist on Mount Athos and other
places are made up with double arms. A reliquary for the fragment,
said to be that which was sent to Radegunde, was preserved in the
monastery of S. Cross at Poitiers in the last century. The field was of
_cloisonné_ enamel, blue with here and there a red flower. A drawing of
this relic, of which we give an outline,[172] shows that this fragment
of the True Cross was made up in the double-armed form, which was
repeated in the relic at the Ste. Chapelle.[173] Two such relics now
at Venice are doubly interesting, for besides a cross of this form two
supporting figures are represented which are inscribed Constantine and
Helena.[174] Now Cedrenus and other late writers say that in the Kamara
of the Milion were the figures of Constantine and his mother, with the
cross between them. The same composition appears in the mosaics at
the monastery of S. Luke. The two Venice relics bear the names of the
Empresses Maria (1180) and Irene (1350).

[Illustration: FIG. 14.--Showing form of True Cross at S. Sophia.]

Fig. 14 represents the Poitiers reliquary; the True Cross as shown in
the _Menologium_; and a cross from a late coin. We cannot doubt that
the Cross at Constantinople was of this form. Was it the result of the
conjunction of three pieces as mentioned by Arculph, or did the upper
arm from the first represent the label?

With the Cross were associated the other Instruments of the
Passion--the Crown of Thorns, the Sponge and Spear, and slabs from the
Tomb.

The catalogue of relics by Nicholas Thingeyrensis (1200) says, “In S.
Sophia is the Cross of the Lord which Helena the Queen brought;”[175]
but at that time the greater part of the Cross and other relics of
the Passion seem to have been transferred to the chapel in the palace
of Boucoleon, where they were seen by Robert de Clari (1200). The
anniversary of the day on which they were moved from S. Sophia, August
14th, was kept as a holiday. According to Paspates all the relics of
the Passion were removed in 1234. Baldwin II. took the Crown of Thorns
which was acquired by S. Louis. It is evident, however, from the later
Pilgrims quoted below, and from Mandeville, that a part of the Passion
relics remained or that others were acquired.

_Other Treasure and Relics._--“Not only kings and patriarchs, but also
private individuals and monks brought to Constantinople relics of the
apostles and martyrs, ancient ikons, and all kinds of sacred objects
connected with the saints of the church. Anything of value in the
whole land of Palestine was for the most part moved to Constantinople,
and such was the reverence for relics that no church, monastery, nor
oratory was built without them.”[176] So early as 415, when S. Sophia
was rededicated, it was necessary to have fresh relics (see page 16).

A description of the relics and the treasure of Constantinople is given
in the letter supposed to have been written in 1095 by Alexius Comnenus
to Robert, Count of Flanders, in which he craves the assistance of
the West against the Turks. After enumerating the relics scattered
throughout the city, he continues, “If you do not care to fight for
these, and gold will tempt you more, you will find more of it at
Constantinople than in the whole world, for the treasures of its
basilicas alone would be sufficient to furnish all the churches of
Christendom, and all their treasures cannot together amount to those of
S. Sophia, whose riches have never been equalled even in the temple of
Solomon.”

The dispersion of the relics and treasures of S. Sophia and the other
churches at Constantinople has been exhaustively treated by Count
Riant.[177] The description by Anthony, Archbishop of Novgorod, who
visited S. Sophia in 1200, three years before the capture by the
Crusaders, furnishes the best account of the accumulated riches of the
great church. We give this in full from the French version contained in
_Itinéraires Russes en Orient_.[178]

“I, Antonius, Archbishop of Novgorod, an unworthy and humble sinner, by
the grace of God and by the help of S. Sophia, who is the Wisdom and
the Eternal Word, reached in safety the imperial city, and entered the
great Catholic and Apostolic Church. We first worshipped S. Sophia,
kissing the two slabs of the Lord’s sepulchre. Furthermore we saw the
seals, and the figure of the Mother of God, nursing Christ. This image
a Jew at Jerusalem pierced in the neck with a knife, and blood flowed
forth. The blood of the image, all dried up, we saw in the smaller
sanctuary.

“In the sanctuary of S. Sophia is the blood of the holy martyr
Pantaleon with milk,[179] placed in a reliquary like a little branch
or bough, yet without their having mixed. Besides that there is his
head, and the head of the Apostle Quadratus, and many relics of other
saints: the heads of Hermolaus and Stratonicus; the arm of Germanus,
which is laid on those who are to be ordained patriarchs; the image of
the Virgin which Germanus sent in a boat to Rome by sea; and the small
marble table on which Christ celebrated His Supper with the disciples,
as well as His swaddling clothes and the golden vessels, which the Magi
brought with their offerings.

“There is a large gold ‘disc’ for the mass, given to the patriarch by
Olga, a Russian princess, when she came to the imperial city to be
baptized.[180] In this disc there is a precious stone which displays
the image of Christ, and the seal-impressions from this are used as
charms; but on the upper side the disc is adorned with pearls.

“In the sanctuary is likewise preserved the real chariot of Constantine
and Helena, made of silver; there are gold plates, enriched with pearls
and little jewels, and numerous others of silver, which are used for
the services on Sundays and feast days: there is water also in the
sanctuary coming out of a well by pipes.

“Outside the smaller sanctuary[181] is erected the ‘Crux Mensuralis,’
which shows the height of Christ when on earth; and behind that cross
is buried Anna, who gave her house to S. Sophia, where now is the
smaller sanctuary, and she is buried near. And near this same smaller
sanctuary are the figures of the holy women and of the Virgin Mother
holding Christ, and shedding tears which fall on the eyes of Christ.
They give of the water of the sanctuary for the blessing of the world.

“In the same part is the chapel of S. Peter the Apostle, where S.
Theophania is buried. She was the guardian of the keys of S. Sophia,
which people used to kiss. There is also suspended the carpet of S.
Nicholas. The iron chains of S. Peter are kept there in a gold chest;
during the feast of ‘S. Peter’s Chains’ the emperor, the patriarch,
and all the congregation kiss them [see Fig. 8]. Near by, in another
chapel, is also shown the crystal of the ancient ambo, destroyed when
the dome fell.

“By the side of [the images of] the holy women is the tomb of the son
of S. Athenogenius.... There are no other tombs in S. Sophia except
that, and a lamp hangs in front of it, which once fell, full of oil,
without being broken. The place is inclosed by a wood screen, and the
people are not allowed to enter.

“When one turns towards the gate one sees at the side the column of
S. Gregory the Miracle-Worker, all covered with bronze plates. S.
Gregory appeared near this column, and the people kiss it, and rub
their breasts and shoulders against it to be cured of their pains;
there is also the image of S. Gregory. On his feast day the patriarch
brings his relics to this column. And there placed above a platform is
a great figure of the Saviour in mosaic; it lacks the little finger of
the right hand. When it was finished, the artist looked at it and said,
‘Lord, I have made thee as if alive.’ Then a voice coming from the
picture said, ‘When hast thou seen me?’ The artist was struck dumb and
died, and the finger was not finished, but was made in silver-gilt.

“Above the gate is depicted on a large panel the Emperor Leo the Wise,
and in front of it is a precious stone, which illuminates S. Sophia at
night-time. This same Emperor Leo took a certain writing from Babylon,
which was found in the tomb of the prophet Daniel. It was copied, and
on it were written the names of the Greek emperors. At the royal gate
is a bronze romanistum[182] or bolt by which the door is closed. Men
and women are brought to it, and if they have drunk serpent poison or
any other poison, they cannot remove the bolt from the mouth, until all
the evil of the disease has trickled away with the saliva.

“By the great altar on the left is the place where an angel of the Lord
appeared to the boy who was guarding the workmen’s tools, and said,
‘I will not leave this spot as long as S. Sophia shall remain.’ Three
figures are shown in this place, for the angels are painted there; and
a multitude of people come there to pray to God. Not far from there
is the place where they boil the holy oil, burning underneath it old
ikons, whose features one can no longer trace. With this oil they
anoint children at baptism. Above the sanctuary there rises in the air
a great hollow vault covered with gold. In the sanctuary are eighty
candelabra of silver for use on feast days, which occupy the first
place, besides numberless silver candelabra with many golden apples.

“Above the great altar in the middle is hung the crown of the Emperor
Constantine, set with precious stones and pearls. Below it is a golden
cross, which overhangs a golden dove. The crowns of the other emperors
are hung round the ciborium, which is entirely made of silver and
gold. Thus the altar pillars and the sanctuary and the bema are built
of gold and silver, ingeniously made, and very costly. From the same
ciborium hang thirty smaller crowns, as a remembrance to Christians of
the pieces of money of Judas. To the ciborium were attached curtains,
which were formerly drawn by the bishops during the services. We asked
why they did so, and they answered so that the priests should not see
the women and the people, but should serve the supreme God with a pure
heart and soul. Later the heretics,[183] when nobody could see them as
they were behind the curtains, took the body and blood of Christ, and
spat them out, and trampled on them. The Spirit warned the fathers of
this heresy, and the fathers fixed the curtains to the columns of the
ciborium, and set an archdeacon near the patriarch, metropolitan, or
bishop, so that they should worship God holily without heresy.... When
Jerusalem was taken by Titus many sacred vessels and curtains were
brought to [New] Rome with the royal treasures and given to the church
of S. Sophia. In S. Sophia also are preserved the tables of the Law, as
well as the Ark and manna. The subdeacons, when they sing ‘Alleluia’
in the ambo, hold in their hands tablets like those of Moses. During
the procession of the Holy Sacrament the eunuchs commence to sing, and
then the subdeacons, and then a monk chants alone. Then many priests
and deacons carry the Holy Sacrament in procession; at this time all
the people not only below, but also in the galleries, weep in great
humility. What then ought to be the fear and humility of the bishops,
the priests, and the deacons in this holy service?

“How magnificent are the gold and silver chalices, garnished with
precious stones and pearls! When the splendid chest, called Jerusalem,
is brought out with the flabella, there rises amongst the people a
great groaning and weeping.... But here is a wonderful miracle, which
we saw in S. Sophia. Behind the altar of the larger sanctuary is a
gold cross, higher than two men, set with precious stones and pearls.
There hangs before it another gold cross a cubit and a half long, with
three gold lamps, which hang from as many gold arms (the fourth is now
lost). These lamps, the arms or branches, and the cross, were made by
the great Emperor Justinian who built S. Sophia. By virtue of the Holy
Spirit the small cross with the lamps ascended above the big cross,
and again slowly came down again without going out. This miracle took
place after matins, before the commencement of the mass: the priests
who were in the sanctuary saw it, and all the people in the church who
saw it cried with fear and joy, ‘God in His mercy has visited us.’ ...
This great and wonderful miracle was wrought by God in the year 6708
[A.M.] on Sunday, May 21st, being the Commemoration of S. Constantine
and his mother Helena, during the reign of the Emperor Alexius and
the patriarchate of John. It was on the feast of the 318 fathers.
Iverdiatinus Ostromitza was then living at Constantinople; he was an
ambassador from the great Roman duke. Nedanus, Domagirus, Demetrius,
and Novgaro were also there.

“At S. Sophia on the right near the sanctuary is a piece of red marble,
on which they place a golden throne; on this throne the emperor is
crowned. This place was surrounded by bronze closures to prevent people
walking on it; but the people kiss it. At this place the Holy Virgin
prayed to her Son, our Lord, on behalf of all Christians; a priest who
was guarding the church at night saw her. On the same side is also
the grand icon of S. Boris and S. Glebe, which artists copy. When
officiating, the patriarch holds it high up in the tribune.

“In the chapel behind the altar are affixed to the wall the upper
slab of the Lord’s sepulchre, the hammer, the gimlet, and the saw,
with which the cross of the Lord was made; also the iron chain which
was hung to the gate of S. Peter’s prison, and the wood of the cross
which Christ’s neck touched. This is inserted in a reliquary in the
form of a cross. In this chapel above the door is painted S. Stephen,
protomartyr, and a lamp is hung before him; when any one has bad eyes,
they put round his head the rope by which this lamp is hung, and his
eyes are healed.

“There is also the figure of Christ whose neck the Jew struck,[184] and
the bronze trumpet of Joshua, who took Jericho, and the marble mouth
of the well of Samaria. Near it Christ said to the woman of Samaria,
‘Give me to drink;’ the well mouth has been cut in half, and the
Samaritans still draw water [from the other half].

“There lie also the bodies of S. Abercius, S. Gregory, and S.
Sylvester, and the heads of Cyrus and John, and many other relics.
There also is the Baptistery, upon which is painted all the history of
the baptism of Christ by John in the Jordan: and how John taught the
people, and how little children and men threw themselves in the Jordan:
all this was executed by Paul the Skilful during my lifetime, and there
is no painting like this. There are there wooden supports, upon which
the patriarch has had placed the figure of Christ, thirty cubits high;
Paul first painted the Christ with colours made of precious stones and
crushed pearls mixed with water; this image is still at S. Sophia.

“And when they sing matins at S. Sophia, they sing first before the
great doors of the church, in the narthex, then they enter and sing in
the middle of the church; then they open the paradise gates, and sing
the third time before the altar. Sundays and saints’ days the patriarch
assists at matins and at mass, then he blesses the singers from the
ambo, they stop singing and then say the _polykronia_: then they begin
to sing again, and sing as harmoniously and sweetly as the angels till
the Mass. After matins are finished, they put off their surplices
and then go out and ask the patriarch’s benediction for the mass.
After matins the prologue is read in the ambo till the mass; when the
prologue is finished, the liturgy is commenced, and, after the service
is over, the chief priest in the sanctuary recites the prayer called
‘Of the ambo,’ while the second priest recites it in the church on the
side of the ambo, away from [the sanctuary]: both, when the prayer is
finished, bless the people. In a similar way vespers are sung. There
are no bells at S. Sophia, but a little hand-bat [_hagiosidère_]
which they strike for matins, though they do not strike it for mass
and vespers, as in other churches: they follow the precepts of the
angel in having this bat; the Latins have bells.... When they built S.
Sophia, they inclosed holy relics in the walls of the sanctuary. There
are also many cisterns at S. Sophia. Above [evidently _under_] the
galleries are the cisterns and storehouses of the patriarchs and of
the Church. Vegetables of every kind [suitable for the table] of the
patriarchs, melons, apples, and pears are preserved at the bottom of
the cisterns in baskets hung by cords: when the patriarch wants to eat,
they bring them up quite fresh: and the emperor eats them also. The
bath of the patriarch is also above [under] the galleries; the water
of the fountains mounts by pipes, and the rainwater is preserved in
cisterns. On the galleries are painted all the patriarchs and emperors
of Constantinople, and those who shared their heresies. In the choirs
of the church are five heads ornamented with pearls like a silver [word
indecipherable].... Lazarus, the image painter[185] ... first painted
at Constantinople, in the sanctuary of S. Sophia, the Virgin holding
Christ and two angels.... S. Sophia has 3,000 priests; 500 share in the
benefices of the church and 1,500 have no share; when one of the 500
priests dies, his place is taken by one of the 1,500.”

       *       *       *       *       *

_Frankish Occupation and After._--Three years after the visit of
Anthony, Constantinople was taken by the Latins. One of the Crusaders,
Villehardouin, writes, “Of holy relics I need only say it contained
more than all Christendom combined; there is no estimating the quantity
of gold, silver, precious vessels, jewels, rich stuffs, silks, robes
of vair, gris, and ermine, and other valuable things--the production
of all the climates in the world. It is the belief of me, Geoffrey
Villehardouin, maréchal of Champagne, that the plunder of this city
exceeded all that has been witnessed since the creation of the world.”

Much of the accumulated wealth of six centuries--the gifts from
emperors and private individuals of “sacred vessels of gold and pearls
and precious stones”[186]--was removed by the Venetians and Franks.
Many of these precious objects are lost beyond hope of recovery; such
are the candlesticks and crosses. As some representation of these we
give a figure of a gemmed processional cross, with its _seizae_ of
jewels, from the _Menologium_ of Basil (Fig. 15).

[Illustration: FIG. 15.--Jewelled Processional Cross.]

In the treasury of S. Mark’s at Venice there is however a rich hoard of
vessels, lamps, and other objects, which were taken from the churches
of Constantinople; and many of these crystal lamps, agate cups, and
enamelled book-covers doubtless belonged to S. Sophia.

Amongst these may be mentioned an agate chalice with the name
Sisinnius. This may probably be referred to a Patriarch of
Constantinople of that name in 996; another with the name Ignatius to a
patriarch in 877; a third with the inscription “Lord help Romanus, the
Orthodox Emperor” to Romanus Lecapenus (919-944).[187] Extracts from
the Venetian historians mentioning objects brought from Constantinople
are given by Riant. Paulus Maurocenus speaks of “the many holy relics,
and small figures, and chalices and patens and other beautiful things
from the church of S. Sophia;” also, “the very same doors which now
close the church of S. Mark’s ... and two censers of gold from S.
Sophia of such grace and beauty that one cannot see them without being
astounded.” He also mentions, though it is not quite clear if he
associates this with S. Sophia, “The palla of silver-gilt with the
figures of our Lord, the Virgin, the Apostles, prophets, doctors, and
martyrs, which is now placed in the church of S. Mark.”[188]

The head of S. Pantaleon was taken by Heinrich Ulmen to the church of
the saint at Cologne.

After the interregnum, S. Sophia was visited by several other Russian
pilgrims, who have left accounts of the church which agree very
closely. Of the fullest of these, which is by an anonymous Russian
writer, 1424-1453, we give a condensed abstract, as it contains one or
two more points, shows the acquisition of other relics in the place
of those lost, and is useful for comparison with the anonymous Greek
author translated in the next chapter:--

Near the west door in the middle of the narthex are the doors of the
ark of Noah and the chain which bound the apostle Paul. Above the
door is the miraculous image of the Saviour, and a lamp is suspended
before it. In the sanctuary is the life-giving Cross on which the Jews
crucified Christ. The stone on which He sat and conversed with the
woman of Samaria is in the chapel on the right. Here is the table of
Abraham. At the bottom of the church against the wall to the right
of the altar is the bed of iron on which martyrs were burnt. Here is
a stone coffer with relics of Martyrs and the Innocents. To the left
is the tomb and the whole body of Arsenius: the doors of the ark: the
bench where Jeremiah the prophet wept, and a column by which Peter
wept. To the left are buried S. George and S. Theologos. On the left is
a little shrine beautifully built; it contains the image of the Virgin
which wept when the Franks held Constantinople. Her tears, resembling
pearls, are kept in a coffer before the image. The instruments of the
Passion are exposed from Thursday to Saturday. Beyond is the image of
Christ in marble, and the cross of S. John chained to the wall. Near
the Holy Table in the bema is the tomb of S. John Chrysostom, covered
by a plank overlaid with gold and gems. To the right on entering the
church are situated a well and large basin of marble in which the
patriarch baptizes. One leaves S. Sophia by the south door; at some
steps from the gate, to the left, is the Church of the Holy Saviour;
above the door is suspended an image which an emperor attempted to
destroy. Behind the bema of S. Sophia is the church of S. Nicholas.
Near by in front of the door which is behind the altar of S. Sophia is
the place where they bless the water, plunging in the Cross; a roof
covered with lead surmounts the basin of green marble. It is here they
baptize the emperors; four cypresses and two palms form a crescent
in this place. Some distance in front of the ambo of S. Sophia is a
pedestal of marble which supports the holy chalice; it is within a
stone inclosure, and is covered by a vault of gilt copper. From the
entrance of the church to the ambo is 66 cubits, and it is 30 beyond to
the sanctuary, which is 50 long by 100 wide. The church is 200 cubits
wide and 150 high. Above the first door is Solomon in mosaic in a
circle of azure.

That these accounts accurately relate the stories of the guardians of
S. Sophia is sufficiently proved by La Brocquière, who was told in 1433
that S. Sophia possessed “one of the robes of our Lord, the end of the
lance that pierced His side, the sponge that was offered to Him, and
the reed that was put in His hand. I can only say that behind the choir
I was shown the gridiron on which S. Lawrence was roasted [the iron
bed], and a large basin-like stone on which they say Abraham gave the
angels food when they were going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.”


§ 2. LIGHTING.

The description by the Silentiary[189] of the lamps and candelabra
which illuminated the Great Church forms one of the most fascinating
parts of the whole poem. Although the multitude of lamps which once
lit up the interior have long disappeared, the main features of the
lighting may be brought back to our imaginations by comparing the
description with illustrative examples. First then in the central
space under the great dome, chains fell from the height of the upper
cornice, where they were probably attached to strong bronze arms which
projected far out like the present metal stakes which project in the
exedras on the first-floor cornice. These chains all terminated at
some height above the floor in supporting the great sweep of a metal
circle to which were suspended flat circular discs of silver, each of
which was pierced with holes into which were dropped glass oil vases
with rims which prevented them falling through. With these discs were
associated crosses of metal which also carried lamps. These, cross and
disc together, or alternately, hanging round in a great circle made a
“circling chorus of bright lights” within which was a large corona of
other lamps and above it a large central disc.

Then along the sides of the church were rows of lamps in the forms of
silver bowls, and ships; other rows of lights were attached to beams
supported above the floor by metal standards, and to projecting metal
arms, or suspended rods. Upon the beam of the iconostasis was a row
of candelabra, each with a series of horizontal circles diminishing
upwards about the stem, like a fir-tree, issuing from a silver bowl.
Above the centre of the iconostasis was a great standard light-bearing
cross. Round about the ambo similar light trees were placed.

Light coronae, crosses, or single lamps were favourite gifts to a
church, and in these objects S. Sophia probably became much more
wealthy as time went on. Michael III., for instance, gave to the church
in 867 “a circle (_kuklos_) for lights which they call a polycandelon,
as big as any of the others but all of gold weighing sixty pounds. To
it was given the first and most holy place.”[190] “A chalice and paten
superior to all the others, as well as a polycandelon in the form of
a cross with many lamps,” are also mentioned as given by Michael. His
successor Basil I., “as there was a danger of the sacred lamps being
extinguished for want of oil,” assigned for the use of the church “the
tribute called mantea, so that the light might never be quenched.”[191]
The Anonymous doubtless exaggerates beyond belief with his 300
polycandela and 6000 lamps all of gold, but the kinds of candelabra he
speaks of must have been perfectly well known (p. 140).

[Illustration: FIG. 16.--Polycandelon or Disc, for Seventeen Lamps, in
the British Museum.]

At the end of the twelfth century, Robert de Clari, the knight of
Amiens, wrote--“Throughout the church hang one hundred candelabra, and
there is not one which does not hang from a silver chain as thick as a
man’s arm, and each candelabrum has quite twenty-five lamps or more,
and there is not a single candelabrum which is not worth two hundred
silver marks.” Benjamin of Tudela mentions “candelabra, lamps, and
lanterns, of gold and silver more than any man can name;” and Stephen
of Novgorod (1350) speaks of “a multitude immense, innumerable, of
lamps.”

Of the great brilliance of illumination obtained in the early churches
there can be no doubt. Paulinus writes that at his church at Nola the
lights were suspended in such profusion that they seemed to float in a
sea. An interesting account of the method of lighting followed at the
Lateran, illustrated by a plan of the circles, is given by Rohault de
Fleury.[192]

A Byzantine lamp-holder lately sent to the Louvre from Constantinople
is probably almost identical in general form with the “discs” of
Paulus. This polycandelon is a broad flat ring of bronze pierced with
eight holes for as many lights, and suspended by four chains. It bears
a votive inscription which reads, “Lord, remember thee of Thy servant
Abraham, son of Constantine.”[193]

In the British Museum is a much more ornate example of the same kind of
disc. This is also of bronze, about sixteen inches diameter, pierced
with seventeen holes for the lights, the interspaces being cut away
to form a radiating pattern. We give a drawing of this interesting
lamp, with which we have associated a small pierced plate for a lamp
chain in the same collection (Fig. 16). In the Archæological Museum at
Granada there is an ornamental disc closely resembling the example in
the British Museum. It came from the mosque of Elvira, and probably
belongs to the ninth century. We mention this because the bottom plate
of the modern mosque lamp with the small holes which take glass tubular
vessels eight or ten inches long and only about two inches in diameter,
continues the tradition of the Byzantine polycandela, and the oil
vessels well represent those like spear shafts mentioned by the Poet.

[Illustration: FIG. 17.--Silver Polycandelon from Lampsacus, in the
British Museum.]

In another example in the British Museum the disc is not quite flat but
of the form of a dinner plate, the holes for the lamps being around the
rim. This lamp-holder is of silver, and was brought from Lampsacus near
Gallipoli with several altar vessels inscribed with a monogram which
reads ΜΗΝΑ or ΑΜΗΝ. In Fig. 17 we have restored the oil vases. Another
bronze polycandelon has recently been brought from Egypt by Professor
Flinders Petrie: this is about eight inches across (Fig. 18[194]).

[Illustration: FIG. 18.--Coptic Polycandelon for Four Lamps.]

On Mount Athos we probably find the best existing parallel to the
circle of discs at S. Sophia in the monastery of Docheiareiu (see Fig.
19).[195] In the words of the Silentiary, “these discs form a coronet.”

The second crown of lights, which hung within the great circle of discs
at S. Sophia, would also have had a circular rim supported by chains
with lamps suspended beneath, or attached to arms projecting from the
rim. S. Bernard speaks of a church where were placed “not crowns but
wheels with precious stones and lights around them.” To these circular
candelabra ecclesiastical writers usually give the title of coronae.
Leo III. gave to the basilica of S. Andrew at Rome a “gold corona of
lamps set with gems.” Other authors call crowns with lamps of this kind
_phara_; we read in Leo Ostiensis of a “pharum or large crown of silver
with six and thirty lamps hanging from it.”[196] They are also spoken
of as _cycli_, but more generally as _polycandela_. The _Chronicon
Cassinense_ mentions “a pharos or crown of silver, weighing a hundred
librae, twenty cubits round about, with twelve towers projecting from
it, and thirty-six lamps hanging from it. This was fixed outside the
choir, before the great cross, by an iron chain adorned with seven gold
apples.”[197] The same chronicle also speaks of a “silver-gilt corona,
coloured with precious stones, with six crosses hanging from it.” The
great circles of Aix and Hildesheim are the best-known examples of the
ancient coronae. These have twelve towers like that just mentioned, and
they symbolised the New Jerusalem. R. de Fleury suggests that relics
were contained in such turrets. An extremely beautiful pharos in the
Hermitage Museum represents a basilica.

[Illustration: FIG. 19.--Corona with Lamp Discs, Mount Athos.]

The light crosses were very generally known throughout Christendom,
and the historian Socrates mentions that crosses of silver with
burning candles upon them were carried in processions in the time of
Chrysostom. According to Anastasius, at S. Peter’s there was a large
pharos “in the form of a cross which hung before the presbyterium
having 1,370 candles;” this was lighted four times a year; also “a
gold carved cross hanging before the altar with twelve candles,”
and “a cross lamp with two little ships and three fishes.” The lamp
cross hanging in S. Mark’s is the best-known example remaining. It
is possible that those at S. Sophia mentioned with the discs hung
horizontally to four chains.

[Illustration: FIG. 20.--Single Lamp with Votive Inscription.]

At S. Sophia, in addition to the discs, crosses, and circles, there
were, according to Du Cange, lamps hung from nets. The word which he
interprets in this way is that translated “skiff” (line 480), as it
means a small row-boat. How he gets his interpretation of nets it is
difficult to see. We mention it here for its intrinsic beauty only: it
was a familiar arrangement for lamps. Anastasius in his Lives of the
Popes speaks of one of the churches at Rome having “a pharos in the
form of a net,” and again of a large pharos “like a net with twenty
baskets,” and also “a bronze net with silver baskets.”

The hanging lamps in the form of ships mentioned by our poet would
have carried the oil vessels round their sides. A most interesting
example of a lamp of this kind is given in the _Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities_ (Smith and Cheetham). It represents a small vessel with
a mast and sail, containing two figures, one steering, and the other
looking out from the prow. These figures are either Peter and Paul
or more probably Christ and Peter. The symbolism of the ship for the
Church is too familiar to need comment; the mast in the centre, without
which the ship is unsafe, as S. Ambrose says, typifies the cross
without which the church is unable to stand. The galley form of lamp
was well known also in antiquity. In the Christian era it was only one
of the many beautiful and suggestive forms in which lamps were made;
some resembled birds, crystal fish, or shells, others again were bowls
of white or emerald glass.

[Illustration: FIG. 21.--Sixth-century Candlestick.]

In the sanctuary there would have been suspended large single lamps
which burnt perpetually (_Akoimetoi_). A very fine single Byzantine
lamp of this kind is shown in the fifteenth-century picture by Marco
Marziale in the National Gallery, in which the interior of S. Mark’s
figures as the temple. In Fig. 20 we give a restoration of fragments
of a beautiful early Christian bowl-shaped lamp bearing a votive
inscription figured by Rossi. On Mount Athos Dr. Covel noticed a lamp
of beaten gold set with jewels.

The treasury of S. Mark’s probably still contains lamps which hung in
S. Sophia: one of especial beauty is a glass bowl with circles cut on
the outside and attached to a metal rim on which is inscribed in Greek,
“St. Panteleon, succour thy servant Zacchariah, Archbishop of Iberia,
Amen.”[198]

In illustration of the tree-like candelabra which stood above the beam
of the iconostasis, and round the ambo, we may mention the well-known
classical examples. A lamp-bearer in the museum at Brussels is
described as “an _arbuste_ of considerable size and irregular trunk and
branches with lamps suspended from the extremities of its boughs.”
Anastasius mentions a “tree of bronze with candlesticks to the number
of fifty in which were placed wax candles, thirty-six lamps as well
hung from the boughs.” Paulinus also speaks of hanging candelabra
at Nola “with branches like a vine bearing little glass cups which
resembled burning fruit; when they were lighted it was like the sudden
burst into life of spring flowers.”

[Illustration: FIG. 22.--Candlesticks.]

Besides all these oil lamps there would have been a great number of
standing candlesticks in the sanctuary. The Anonymous speaks of some
the height of a man. One constant type is represented in Fig. 21; this
is inlaid in mother-of-pearl on the apse walls at Parenzo, and is of
Justinian’s time. Fig. 22 shows two others from the _Menologium_. Wax
candles, which are frequently mentioned, were patterned and coloured.

The miracle of the moving cross of lights mentioned by Anthony reminds
us of a remarkable custom in regard to the great coronas of lights
in Byzantine churches which is observed on Mount Athos, and also at
Sinai, and is probably ancient. A part of the great festival service
at Vatopedi consists in singing the _Polyeleos_. “When the last of the
multitude of candles had been lighted in the great coronas under the
domes, the monks fetched long poles, with which they pushed out the
candelabra to the full extent that their suspending chains permitted
and then let them go, the result being that in a few minutes the whole
church was filled with slowly swinging lights.”[199]

The method of lighting described by the Silentiary has not changed in
the unchanging East. S. Sophia is still lighted by a myriad little
lamps arranged in rows, or suspended in circles. The single lamp is a
small glass vessel of oil on which floats the wick; the two typical
forms being like a bowl or an elongated tumbler. These cups are hung
by three chains, or inserted in a ring, at the end of a metal arm,
projecting from the wall or from the rim of a suspended circle.

[Illustration: FIG. 23.--Hanging Rods for Lamps in S. Sophia until
1850.]

Up to the time of Fossati’s restoration there was an immense polygon of
probably some sixty feet diameter of iron rods suspended from the dome.
Grelot[200] described it in 1680 as a large circle of iron rods hanging
down to within eight or ten feet of the pavement and having fixed to
it “a prodigious number of lamps, ostrich eggs, and other baubles.”
In the mosque of Achmet, several rings are bound together by straight
rods, making overhead a geometrical arrangement of bars, from which
the lamps are suspended; although these are all Turkish, the system
remained from Byzantine times. Fig. 23 is re-drawn from Fossati. (_Aya
Sophia_, Constantinople, 1852.) One of the most beautiful methods is
that of suspending the lamps to long straight iron bars running the
whole length of the building as at S. John Studius.

In the mosque of Damascus, before the recent fire, there were hanging
assemblages of circles one above another somewhat similar we may
suppose to the trees of the poet. At Salonica a network of lamps
which hangs almost like a curtain before the bema of S. Demetrius may
illustrate the “nets” if nets there were. During Ramazan festoons of
lamps are hung from minaret to minaret arranged in inscriptions; in
1676 Dr. Covel of Cambridge saw illuminations before the Sultan at
Adrianople which represented “castles, mosques, peacocks, Turkish
writings, &c., extremely pleasant and wonderful to behold.” These were
formed by lamps hung to light frames; the method was probably derived
from Byzantine illuminations such as the fireworks mentioned as being
exhibited in the Hippodrome.

The four marble pillars that stand up out of the parapet at the western
gallery of S. Sophia (Fig. 41) must always have carried lights on metal
branches at the top, much as at present; and the long metal stakes with
hook ends, that project from the first cornice at the angles of the
exedras, and from which chandeliers hang, are possibly original in some
cases.

The multiplication of small lights is the most brilliant system of
illumination, for not only is there light everywhere but flame, and
hence no shadows. Whoever sees the great church lighted for the solemn
services of Ramazan, when, according to Fossati, “six thousand lamps
are suspended at various heights,” may imagine the splendour of the
lighted interior in Byzantine times. When, after one of the services,
the lamplighters walked round and extinguished the lamps with a whisk
from long fan-shaped brooms, we saw the need of the passages above the
different cornices; and leaving Constantinople one April evening, as
we slowly wound round the point, while the circle of windows in the
lighted dome seemed to hang above the city, we realised that it was no
idle saying of the poet’s that the mariner guided his laden vessel “by
the divine light of the church itself.”




CHAPTER VII

LATER HISTORY AND LEGENDS


§ 1. HISTORY.

From the date of the completion of Justinian’s restored church it has
had to withstand the frequent earthquake shocks which, as we have so
recently seen, devastate the city from time to time. Von Hammer[201]
calculates, from the accounts of the Byzantine historians, that from
the beginning of the seventh to the middle of the fifteenth century
there were twenty-three severe earthquakes, one of which, in 1033,
lasted intermittently for 140 days. In the Turkish records, from 1511
to 1765, ten earthquakes are mentioned. It is remarkable that in this
length of time the delicately poised construction of the church should
only have required restorations which are relatively unimportant.

It is difficult to say how far the church suffered during the struggles
about image worship, which raged for more than a century. The question
will be considered more fully when we deal with the mosaics of the
vaults. The restoration of images was finally accomplished in 842,[202]
by Theodora and Michael.

A belfry was built in the centre of the west front about the year
865:[203] and the eastern walk of the atrium was probably transformed
into an exonarthex at the same time. The first regular restoration
was also undertaken in the second half of the ninth century, under
Basil the Macedonian: “For the wide and lofty western arch of the great
church called S. Sophia was showing rents and threatening to fall. With
the help of the workmen he girded it round and rebuilt it, so that it
was safe and strong. And on it he figured the Virgin with her Child
on her arms, and Peter and Paul, the chief of the apostles, on either
side.”[204]

[Illustration: FIG. 24.--Plans of Additions to West End. A and C North
and South Porches; B Belfry.]

The north and south porches and great lateral stairways, which
injuriously altered the exterior, must also have been built by Michael
or Basil, as we find them mentioned in the _Book of Ceremonies._

In October 975 an earthquake caused the “hemisphere with the western
arch (_apsis_) to fall.”[205] They were restored again by the same
emperor in six years: he spent, Scylitzes says, “on the machines for
mounting for the workmen to stand on, and for raising the scaffolding,
to build what was fallen; ten centenaria of gold.”[206] According to
Glycas, Romanus Argyrus (1028) beautified the capitals; Scylitzes also
says this emperor “made bright with silver and gold both the capitals
of the great church and of our Lady of Blachernae.”[207]

The injuries wrought by the Crusaders to S. Sophia are referred to
in Chapter V. Baldwin was crowned here in 1204, and for fifty-seven
years Catholic priests read masses at its altar. On the recapture the
Byzantine emperors made an effort to restore, but the church never
recovered its former splendour. The patriarch Arsenius during the
reign of Michael Palaeologus “restored the bema and ambo and solea at
the king’s expense, besides enriching the church with vestments and
sacred vessels.”[208] In the first half of the fourteenth century,
Andronicus Palaeologus, the elder, strengthened the north and east
sides. Nicephorus Gregoras says the emperor “heard from several
experienced builders that in a short time the parts towards the
north and east would give way, and fall unless strengthened. And he
built pyramidal structures from the foundations and prevented the
threatened destruction,” but bricks and mosaic continued to fall.[209]
The pyramidal structures to the east must be the four great sloping
buttresses which stand over the low attached buildings on that side;
they are shown on Fossati’s plan. Gregoras also inveighs against the
Empress Anna as having, in the reign of Cantacuzenus, robbed the church
of furniture and ornaments, and says that tyranny and oppression were
the chief causes of the destruction of the church. Cantacuzenus, in his
own history,[210] speaks of the damage caused by an earthquake in 1346,
when about a third of the roof fell, destroying “the great stoa by the
side of the bema” (perhaps the iconostasis). This is also referred to
by Gregoras, “the easternmost of the four arches which rival heaven
fell, dragging with it the part of the house which rested on it. The
hidden beauty of the bema was destroyed as well as its ornaments of
sacred icons.”[211] The stoa and bema were restored by the Empress
Anna, the wife of Andronicus Palaeologus, Phaceolatus being prefect
of the works, but the upper parts with the roof had to wait until the
accession of Cantacuzenus in 1347. He restored the decoration both
in marble and mosaic, a work which John Palaeologus finished. Both
emperors were helped “by one Astras, in many things a clever man, but
especially in building, and by John, surnamed Peralta, one of the Latin
subjects of the emperor.”[212]

The church was necessarily much neglected in the last days of the
Empire. Clavijo, who gave a careful account of the church in 1403 (see
Chapter IX.), says “the outer gates by which the church was approached
were broken and fallen.” He notes that “the Greeks do not call
Constantinople as we name it, but speak of it as _Escomboli_.” This
clearly proves that the derivation of the Turkish name Istambul from
εἰς τὴν πόλιν, “to the city,” is correct.[213]

The Florentine Bondelmontius, who was there in 1422, says that “only
the dome of the church remained, as everything is fallen down and in
ruins.” This exaggeration is probably explained by a story given by
the Chevalier Bertrandon de la Brocquière, who visited the city eleven
years later, in the course of his remarkable ride from Damascus to
Dijon along the route of the present Oriental express. He attended
service in the church, and writes:--“There the patriarch resides, with
others of the rank of canons. It is situated near the eastern point,
is of a circular shape, and formed of three different parts, one
subterranean, another above the ground, and a third over that. Formerly
it was surrounded by cloisters, and was, it was said, three miles
in circumference.[214] It is now of smaller extent, and only three
cloisters remain, all paved and inlaid with squares of white marble,
and ornamented with large columns of various colours. The gates are
remarkable for their breadth and height, and are of bronze.”[215] The
visit of the Chevalier Bertrandon brings us within twenty years of the
fall of the great city.

The incidents of the later years of the empire, the vain efforts to
get help from Europe, and the schemes for uniting the Greek and Latin
churches, are described by Chedomil Mijatovich.[216] In the year
before the Fall the negotiations with the West had proceeded so far,
that, on the 12th of December 1452, a _Te Deum_ after the Latin rite
was sung by Cardinal Isidore in S. Sophia, but this did not meet with
favour from the populace. Ducas speaks of the church after that time as
being nothing better than a Jewish synagogue or heathen temple. Five
months later, on the 28th of May 1453, the last Christian service was
held within its walls. At the vesper service on that solemn evening,
the emperor, after praying with great fervour, left his imperial chair,
and, approaching the iconostasis, prostrated himself before the figures
of Christ and the Madonna on either side of the great central door. He
then asked for pardon from any whom he might have offended, and the
ritual proceeded.

On the morrow at the first capture of the city the Janissaries rushed
to the great church, which they conceived was filled with gold, silver,
and precious stones. They found the doors fastened, but broke them
open, and at once began to pillage. The sultan as soon as possible rode
to S. Sophia. Dismounting on the threshold, with the mystic symbolism
of an Oriental, he stooped down, and, collecting some earth, let it
fall on his turbaned head, as an act of humiliation. Then he entered
the edifice, but stopped in the doorway some moments, and gazed in
silence before him.

“He saw a Turk breaking the floor with an axe. ‘Wherefore dost thou
that?’ inquired the conqueror. ‘For the faith,’ replied the soldier.
Mahomet in an impulse of anger struck him, saying, ‘Ye have got enough
by pillaging, and enslaving the city, the buildings are mine.’”

A letter to Pope Nicholas V., written in 1453, describes how “the
profane heathen broke into the marvellous temple of S. Sophia,
unsurpassed by Solomon’s; they reverenced not the sacred images, nay,
rather broke them in pieces; they put out the eyes of the priests,
scattered the relics of the saints, and seized on the gold and
silver.”[217]

Ducas, who died eleven years after the Fall, bewails “the Great Church,
a new Sion which has now become an altar of the heathen, and is called
the house of Mahomet.” “The dogs hewed down the holy ikons, tore off
the ornaments, the chains, the napkins, and the coverings of the holy
table. Some of the lamps they destroyed, and others they carried away.
They stole the sacred vessels from the skeuophylakium. Everything made
of silver and gold or other precious materials was taken away, and the
church was left naked and desolate as it had never been before.”

With the exception of the removal of much of the treasure, the church
did not immediately suffer great harm from its new masters.

On the outside however the destruction of many of the low attached
chambers, and the addition of the minarets, have very much changed
its appearance. The first minaret, which was indeed the first in
Constantinople, was built at the south-east corner by Mahomet the
Conqueror. Selim II., who reigned from 1566 to 1574, built the second
at the north-east corner, and also restored the eastern apse which had
been again damaged by an earthquake: Amurath III. erected the last two
minarets at the western corners.[218]

“The description of the church of S. Sophia as it now appears,”
which forms one of the chapters in Gyllius’ († 1555) _Topography of
Constantinople_, describes the church before the addition of these
three last minarets. It is interesting to note that he remarks how
little the building had been altered, “and it is despoiled of nothing,
except a little of the metal work [mosaic?] which shows itself in
great abundance through the whole church. The Sanctum Sanctorum,
formerly holy and unpolluted, into which the priests only were suffered
to enter, is still standing, though there is nothing remaining of
the jewels and precious stones which adorned it, these having been
plundered by its sacrilegious enemies.” This is later supported
by Grelot,[219] who writes, “It is decorated with everything that
human industry and skill could devise to render the work absolutely
perfect.... I say nothing about the beautiful pictures, the faces of
which have been destroyed by the Turks.” It is clear from Tournefort
(1702) and Lady Mary Montagu (1717) that the mosaics were not wholly
obliterated; the latter writes, “the figures were in no other way
defaced but by the decays of time: for it is absolutely false that the
Turks defaced all the images they found in the city.” On the other
hand, an Italian MS. description of S. Sophia in the British Museum,
written in 1611, says, “The Turks took away all the beautiful work and
covered everything with whitewash.”[220] It is evident from Dr. Covel’s
MS., quoted later, that much was destroyed, defaced, and plastered
over. Dr. Walsh tells us that one of the smaller vaults fell in about
1820, scattering its mosaic over the floor.


§ 2. THE ANONYMOUS ACCOUNT.

We must now examine the description of the church by the writer
generally called the Anonymous of Combefis (otherwise of Banduri or
Lambecius). Codinus, who is believed to have died soon after the
capture of Constantinople by the Turks, has so closely copied the
Anonymous that the accounts differ only in a few minor particulars.
Combefis says that the text of the Anonymous was collated by Lambecius,
“who produced it from the royal archives” with the _Chronography of the
Logothetae_, a tenth-century work to which the same account is added
as a separate treatise. Labarte however considers that it was written
in the eleventh century: Choisy assigns it to the fourteenth, a view
with which we are inclined to agree; but in any case we cannot think it
earlier than the twelfth century.

The description by Paulus is so precisely accurate where we can--as is
so largely the case--check it by the existing work, that there cannot
be a doubt of his entire accuracy. With the Anonymous this is not so;
and it must first of all be borne in mind that he professes not to
write of the church as he saw it, but to celebrate its splendour when
first completed by Justinian; in this his account differs entirely
from the Silentiary’s, which there is no sign to show that he had
ever read. The Anonymous has been very largely used by scholars of
the ability of Labarte and Bayet, but we believe him to be entirely
unreliable where he speaks of the former state of the church. He simply
gathers the legends which had grown up, because facts were forgotten,
and enumerates the relics.

“The great church,[221] known as S. Sophia [formerly a place of heathen
worship--Codinus], was first built of an oblong (_dromica_) form,
like those of S. Andronicus and S. Acacius. On its completion it was
adorned with many statues. This building lasted seventy-four years.
But in the reign of Theodosius the Great, at the time of the second
synod of Constantinople, an Arian uproar arose, during which the roof
of the church was destroyed by fire. The most holy patriarch Nectarius
took up his office at S. Irene, a church which was also built by
Constantine. Then for two [Codinus and Glycas say sixteen] years S.
Sophia was without a roof, until Theodosius, with Rufinus as his master
workman (_magistros_), covered it with cylindrical vaults. After this
it remained unhurt for thirty-nine years, making altogether eighty-five
years (_sic_) from the time of Constantine, until the fifth year of
Justinian’s reign. This was after the massacre in the Circus, in which
thirty-five thousand men were killed, when a faction elected Hypatius
emperor. However, in the fifth year of Justinian’s reign, the Most High
God put it into his mind that he should build a temple to surpass all
that had ever been built from the time of Adam.

“He wrote therefore to the strategi, toparchs, judges, and satraps
of the different provinces, that with all zeal they should look for
materials--columns, piers, panels, and lattice-doors--everything in
fact that would be useful for building. Obeying the emperor’s letter,
they quickly sent all that could be found from the shrines of the pagan
idols, from baths, and private houses, from every province of east,
west, north, and south, and from all the islands.

“Eight porphyry columns from Rome, which, according to Plutarch,
Justinian’s secretary, a widow Marcia had received as dowry, were
transmitted to Constantinople. They had formerly stood in a temple of
the Sun built by Valerian, who surrendered himself to the Persians.
Eight others of green, of marvellous beauty, were quarried and sent
from Ephesus by the praetor Constantine. The Marcia, whom I have just
mentioned, wrote to the emperor as follows: ‘I send thee, master, eight
columns from Rome of equal length and size, and the same weight, for
the safety of my soul.’

“Of the other columns some were brought from Cyzicus, some from the
Troad, others from the Cyclades and Athens. And when sufficient was
collected for the work seven and a half years had been spent. Then in
the twelfth year of Justinian’s reign, the church built by Constantine
was destroyed with the foundations; the old materials were put aside,
as a sufficient amount of fresh had been prepared; and Justinian began
to buy up the neighbouring houses. The first of these was one belonging
to a widow named Anna, of which the price was estimated at eighty-five
librae. She was however unwilling to sell it to the emperor, and
refused to give it up under five hundred librae; nor did the emperor
gain his purpose by sending the nobles of the court to win her over.
He finally went himself and begged her to sell her house at any price.
But when she saw him as a suppliant, she fell at his feet, saying,
‘Lord and King, I can accept no moneys for my house from thee; I ask
only that I may obtain reward in the day of judgment, and that I may
be buried in a tomb near the future church, so that the memory of my
gift may live for ever.’ The emperor promised that when the church was
finished she should be buried there, for the land which she had given
up, that the memory of it might live for ever. The part which she gave
to the great church is that now occupied by the skeuophylakium, and the
chapel (_naos_) of S. Peter.

“Then the part which is occupied by the Holy Well, and all about
the thysiasterium, and the place of the ambo, and the middle of the
nave, was the house of a certain eunuch, Antiochus, which was valued
at thirty-eight librae. He was offended because the emperor had not
offered him a proper price for it. Now the emperor was much distressed,
wondering what to do. But the Magister Strategius--a guardian of the
treasures, the adopted brother of the emperor--promised that the
emperor should gain his point by a little guile, and that the other
should sell his house. Now this Antiochus was an eager frequenter
of the Circus, and especially favoured the blue faction. When the
games were about to be given, he was arrested and imprisoned in the
Praetorian prison. Then Antiochus called out from the prison that if he
could only witness the games he would do whatever the emperor wished.
He was then led by the emperor’s orders to his empty seat, and made
to sell his house before the games commenced, the Quaestor and the
whole Senate being witness. Now there used to be the custom, that as
soon as the emperor ascended to his seat the charioteers should begin,
but because they stopped then, until the eunuch had accomplished his
deed of sale, even to the present day the chariots for the races are
accustomed to enter at a slow trot.

“The whole of the right-hand part of the Gynaeceum[222] up to the
column of S. Basil, and some portion of the nave, was the house of an
eunuch, Chariton, nicknamed Chenopolus, who sold it as a favour for
double its value, which was twelve librae.

“The left part of the Gynaeceum[222] up to the column of S. Gregory
Thaumaturgus was the house of one Xenophon, a cobbler. When they wanted
to buy this house, besides asking twice the value, which was fourteen
librae, he also demanded that, on the day of the games, the four
charioteers of the four factions should do obeisance to him as well as
to the emperor. The emperor decreed that it should be done as he had
asked, but made him a laughing-stock for ever. For on the day of the
games he was set midway in the boundaries, so that the charioteers, by
way of joke, bowed to his back before beginning their courses, and so
it is still done, and the man is styled ‘Chief of those below.’ He
wears a white chlamys, woven with byssus.

“On the area of the naos, the four nartheces, the louter, and the parts
adjacent, was the house of Damianus, a noble of Seleucia, the value of
which he estimated at ninety librae, and gladly gave to the emperor.

“Now Justinian, when he had measured out the site, and found a stone
to act as centre, from the thysiasterium as far as the lower [western]
apse, laid the foundations of the great dome in circle-wise. Now from
the apses right away to the most outside narthex, the foundations
were laid in marshy and spongy ground. And when it had been begun, he
urged Eutychius the patriarch to offer up prayers to God for its safe
building, and then, taking with his own hands lime and stone, giving
thanks to God, he himself laid the first stone in its place. Now
before the church was built he constructed the oratory of S. John the
Precursor with a gilt vault, and various ornamentations of precious
stones. This is generally called the Baptistery, and is situated near
the Horologium. He built at the same time the adjacent portion of the
Metatorium, that he might frequently rest there with his court, and
refresh himself with food. Then also he built the whole of the portico,
which leads from the palace up to the Great Church, so that, as often
as he liked, he might cross over and devote his time to the building,
without being seen by any one. There were one hundred master workmen,
and each had a band of a hundred men under him, making ten thousand men
altogether. Fifty bands took one side, and fifty the other; and by the
emulation between them, the work quickly progressed.

“The form of the church was shown to the emperor in a dream by an
angel. And the first Deviser (_mechanikos_) of the builders was skilful
and full of sound wisdom, and well versed in building churches. Barley
was put into cooking pots, and its decoction, instead of water, was
mingled with unslaked lime (_asbestos_) and tiles [crushed]. The
mixture, when warm, became viscous and sticky. At the same time they
cut slips off willow trees, which were cast into the cooking pots with
the barley; they then made solid masses, having a length of over fifty
feet, and fifty feet broad, and twenty feet deep, and placed them in
the foundations. They were put there, not hot, nor yet quite cold, that
so they might bind better, and above these masses they placed large
square stones.

“When the foundations had arisen from the earth two cubits, they had
spent four hundred and fifty-two miliarisia of gold. Money was brought
daily from the palace, and placed in the Horologium, and each of those
who carried stone received a piece of silver, lest any slackness should
come upon them, or they should be tempted to complain. Some of them,
when carrying stone, gave way under the weight, and fell head foremost
and were hurt. Strategius, whom I have mentioned, distributed the
wages: he was a Count of the royal treasury, and foster-brother of
Justinian.

“Now when the piers (_pinsoi_) had been finished, and the great
columns, both those from Rome and the green ones, had been put in their
position, the emperor left his noonday sleep and devoted himself to
the work, and inspected, with Troilus, a count of the household, all
the polishers (_lithoxooi_), stonecutters (_laotomoi_), carpenters
(_tektonikoi_), and labourers (_oikodomoi_), promising them each week a
nummus more, or as much as each might ask, above their fixed wages. He
used to come to see how the work was proceeding, clad in a white linen
garment, his head covered with a kerchief, and holding a stick in his
hand.

“And when they had raised the vaults (_apsides_) of the upper floor,
those on the right and on the left, and had covered over these vaults,
the emperor decreed that no miliarisia should be carried from the
palace on Sundays. Now it was the third hour of the day, and Strategius
ordered the men to go to their dinners. As Ignatius, the first
_mechanikos_ of the builders whom I have mentioned above, came down,
he left his son on the right-hand side of the upper floor, where he
had been working, with strict orders to watch the workmen’s tools. He
was a boy of about fourteen. As he was sitting there, a eunuch, clad
in shining garments, and fair to look upon, like one sent from the
palace, appeared to him and said, ‘What is the reason why the workmen
do not quickly finish the work of God, but have left it and gone to
eat?’ To him the boy answered, ‘At the earliest hour, my lord, they
will be here.’ But he cried, ‘Go quickly and bring them.’ When the boy
said that he was not to leave, lest the tools should disappear, the
eunuch said, ‘Go quickly and summon them here, for I swear to thee, my
son, by the Holy Wisdom, whose temple is now being built, I will not
depart, since, by the command of the Word of God, I am to minister and
guard here until you return.’ When he heard this, the boy quickly set
out, leaving the angel of God as guard. And when he had got down, and
gone to his father and the rest, he related everything in order; then
the father took his son and led him to the emperor’s table. For the
emperor was then dining in the oratory of St. John the Precursor, by
the Horologium. When he heard the story, he summoned all his eunuchs,
and showed each in turn to the boy. Then the boy calling out that he
saw none like the one that had appeared, the emperor knew that it was
an angel of the Lord who had addressed the boy, and this was made more
clear, as the boy said that he was clothed in a white robe, his eyes
glittering like fire; then the emperor praised God, saying, ‘God has
accepted my temple.’ And as he had been wondering what name to call it,
he named it S. Sophia, according to interpretation ‘Word of God.’ And
the emperor took counsel with himself and said, ‘I will not allow the
boy to return, so that the angel may guard it for ever, as he promised
by his oath. For if the boy return, the angel will depart.’ Having
consulted with the principal senators and the bishops, the emperor
commanded that the boy should not be sent back to the temple, so that,
by the grace of God, it should have a guardian till the end of the
world. And then the emperor loaded the boy with gifts and honours,
and, with the consent of his father, sent him to the Cyclades. Now
the conversation of the angel with the boy happened on the right-hand
side of the pier of the upper arch, as one ascends towards the dome.
[Codinus says, “near the Syllagonum,” for this it has been suggested
to read Syllagoeum, or “the place of the council”].

“When the workmen had continued the work up to the second catechumena,
and the upper columns and arches were built, and they were roofing
the adjacent parts, the emperor began to be anxious for want of
funds. But as he was standing in the upper part of an arch, as they
were about to begin the dome, at the hour of the Sabbath just before
dinner, an eunuch appeared to him, clad in white, and said, ‘Why are
you distressed for money? To-morrow bid some of your nobles to come,
and they shall have as much gold as they wish.’ On the following day
the eunuch came and showed himself to the emperor. The emperor sent to
follow him Strategius, and Basilides the quaestor, and Theodorus the
patrician, and Colocyns who was a praefect, besides fifty servants,
twenty mules, and twenty paniers. With all these he marched out of the
Golden Gate. And when they had come to the Tribunalium, there seemed
to those who were sent to be built there palaces of stupendous beauty.
But when they had dismounted, the eunuch bade them ascend a wonderful
stair, and then, producing a splendid gold key, he opened the door of
a room, and, as Strategius says, the whole floor was heaped with gold
coins. Taking a shovel, the eunuch filled each panier with four hundred
pounds of gold, amounting altogether to eight thousand, and with these
he sent them back to the emperor; and having closed up the room with
the key, he said to them, ‘Take the gold to the emperor, and bid him
spend it on the work.’ The eunuch left them there, and they came and
showed the emperor the gold they had received. He was astonished, and
asked them where they had been, and where the eunuch dwelt. They told
him all in order, and how the wealth of gold was spread on the floor
of the room. The emperor hoped that the eunuch would return, but as
he was disappointed he sent a slave to the place. When the slave had
found the place where the palace had been, and saw that there were
no houses there, he returned, and told all to the emperor. He was
then astonished, but understanding how it was, said, ‘Truly this is a
miracle as all may see;’ and he praised God.

“Now when they were going to build the thysiasterium and let in the
light through glass windows, the Deviser (_mechanikos_) suggested
that the apsoid (_muax_) should have one light. Then he changed his
mind, and suggested that it should have two, so that it should not be
heavy, because no wooden ties (_ikriomata_) were placed there as in the
narthex, and on the sides of the church. But the rest of the craftsmen
were opposed, saying that one arch (_kamara_) would light the holy
place. Then the chief builder (_protooikodomos_) was at a loss what
to do, because the emperor said at one time that there should be one
arch (_apsis_), and at another time two. Whilst the master (_maistor_)
was thus pondering and anxious, on the fourth day, at the fifth hour,
appeared an angel of the Lord, like the emperor, with royal robes and
red shoes, and said to the craftsman, ‘I will that there be a triple
light, and that the conch be made with three windows,[223] in the
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.’ He then disappeared
quickly. Then the master, struck with wonder, rushed to the palace,
and said to the emperor, ‘You keep not to your word. Until to-day you
wanted one window, and then two, to light the bema; but now, when the
work is all but finished, you come to me and say, three windows shall
light the bema, as a symbol of the Trinity.’ Now the emperor knew that
day that he had not left the palace, and he recognised that an angel of
the Lord had spoken. He said, ‘As I have bidden thee, so do.’

“All the piers (_pessoi_) inside and outside were made strong by iron
bars (_mochloi_), so that they were bound together, and made immovable;
the joints of the piers were made with oil and _asbestos_; and upon
them was placed a plating of many marbles (_orthomarmarosis_).

“The emperor sent Troilus the Cubicular, Thedosius the Prefect, and
Basilides the Quaestor, to Rhodes to have bricks (_besala_) of Rhodian
clay, made all equal in weight and length, with the words engraved on
them, ‘God is in the midst of her, therefore shall she not be moved;
God shall help her, and that right early.’[224] And they sent bricks
of measured sizes to the emperor, twelve of them weigh one of ours;
for the clay is light, spongy, fine, and white; hence arose the common
idea that the dome is built of pumice stone (_kiserion_); but this is
not so, though it is light and of a white colour.

“Thus the four great arches were built; and when they had been raised
to the level of the dome (_troulos_), on the completion of every
twelfth course, prayers were uttered for the church, and relics of the
saints built in. Thus arose the building; it was then adorned with
marble and covered with mosaic. And into the piers, arcades, and larger
columns they placed relics of the saints. And when the marble plating
had been finished, they applied gold to the margins of the slabs, and
to the capitals of the columns. And the carved work, and the ornaments
of the upper galleries, both of the parts with two stories, and with
three (_diorophoi_ and _triorophoi_), were all covered with pure gold.
The thickness of the gold plating (_petalos_) was two inches.[225]

“But all the vaults (_orophoi_) of the upper galleries, of the parts
with two stories on the sides, and the vaulting of the nave, and of the
parts adjacent, and of the four nartheces, he gilded with glass mosaic.
He gilded even the proaulia, with their upper chambers, and columns,
and marble slabs.

“The floor of the nave was adorned with various marbles, both with
the Roman of a rue-green colour and others of a rosy red; and these
were all laid down and polished. The walls outside and all round were
covered with large and valuable stones.

“The thysiasterium was of shining silver, the barrier (_stethea_),
and its large columns, with the doors, were all of silver. All the
silver was dipped in gold. Four tables were set up in the thysiasterium
supported on columns, and these were gilt. The seven seats of the
priests, on which they sat on either side, with the throne of the
patriarch, and the four columns, were all gilded. And it was forbidden
to go up into the holy place, the _Kuklios_, also called the Holy of
Holies, which is above the steps.

“He set up also large columns of silver-gilt, and the lilies with
the ciborium. And the ciborium he made with silver and nielloed
(_arguroencauston_). Above the ciborium was a globe of solid gold,
weighing 118 pounds, and golden lilies, weighing six pounds, and above
them a golden cross, with most precious and rare stones, weighing
eighty pounds. Such was the design he made.

“And as he wished to make the holy table more beautiful than the
rest, and more precious with gold, he collected numerous craftsmen,
and consulted with them. Their opinion and advice was to cast into
the melting pot (_choneuterion_) gold, silver, stones of every kind,
and pearls, copper, electron, lead, tin, iron, glass, and every other
metallic substance. And they ground them all together and formed them
into masses (_olboi_), and poured them into the pot; and when it had
been melted, they took it from the fire and poured it out into a mould
(_tupos_). Thus the holy table was made. And it was then set up by the
emperor on solid columns of gold, studded with precious stones. And
the ‘sea’ (_thalassa_) of the holy table was ornamented with gold and
precious stones. Who can see the holy table without being astonished?
and who can gaze at it on account of the many glinting surfaces? so
that at one time it all appears of gold, from another place all of
silver, and in another of glittering sapphire; and altogether there are
eighty-two different colours of metals and stones and pearls.

“He made also, above and below, carved ivory doors overlaid with gold,
to the number of 365. In the first entrance into the louter he made
the doors of electron; doors also of electron were in the narthex,
two of them smaller than the middle one, which was much larger, and
of silver dipped in gold (_chrusembaphos_). The architraves also were
overlaid with gold. Three or the doors inside, instead of being made
of new wood, were made of wood from the Ark. He wished to make the
pavement entirely of silver [Codinus says gold], but his advisers
dissuaded him, saying that in the future poor emperors might have it
taken up. And those who persuaded him were Maximian and Hierotheus,
Athenian philosophers and astronomers, saying that in the latter days
poorer rulers would come and take it all away. And following these
counsels the thought was given up. And every day the emperor had 2,000
miliarisia put in a heap and mingled with earth; and when work was
finished, in the evening, the craftsmen dug out the mound and found the
miliarisia, and this the emperor did that they might be eager for their
work. And collecting the materials, as was said, took seven and a half
years. But the completion of the temple, even with the crowd of workmen
I have mentioned, all labouring with the greatest eagerness, took nine
years two months.

“The ambo with the solea he paved with sardonyx, and inserted precious
stones; its columns were of solid gold, with carbuncles and crystals
and sapphires; and he overlaid the upper part of the solea richly with
gold. The ambo had also a golden dome studded with pearls, lychnites,
and emeralds.

“The gold cross of the ambo weighed 100 pounds. It had also
seizae,[226] and lychnites, and was embroidered with pearls. And the
ambo above had a hat-shaped covering (_petasion_), upon[227] supports
(_stethea_).

“The top of the Holy Well was brought from Samaria. It was considered
sacred, because Christ had sat on it, and talked to the woman. And
the bronze trumpets, which stand by the Holy Well, were brought from
Jericho; they were those at whose blasts by angels the walls of Jericho
fell down. The honoured Cross, to-day in the skeuophylakium, which was
the measure of our Lord’s height, was eagerly sought for in Jerusalem
by the faithful and brought hither. And for this reason they surrounded
it with silver, and all kinds of precious stones, and overlaid it
with gold. And to this day it works healing wonders, and drives away
diseases and demons. And in every column [of the church] both above and
below is placed one sacred relic.

“He made also golden vessels for the twelve solemn feasts, according
to the sacred Gospels: basins (_cherniboxeses_), ewers (_orkioloi_),
chalices (_diskopoteria_), and patens (_diskoi_); they were all of
solid gold, set with precious stones and pearls. And the number of
the sacred vessels was 1,000; altar-cloths (_endutai_), with rows
of jewels, 300; crowns, 100. Every festal day had its own chalice
covering (_poterokalumma_). There were paten covers (_diskokalummata_)
of gold, with pearls and precious stones, to the number of 1,000;
four-and-twenty gospels, each worth two centenaria; thirty-six
censers of solid gold with precious stones; 300 lamps (_luchnitai_)
weighing forty pounds; 6,000 candelabra (_polycandela_), and clustered
lights[228] of solid gold, for the ambo, the bema, the two gynaecea,
and the narthex.

“The revenues of 365 farms in Egypt, India, and all the East and West
were devoted to the maintenance of the church. For each holy day was
set aside 1,000 measures of oil, 300 measures of wine, and 1,000
sacramental loaves. Similarly for the daily services, the clergy,
including the lowest, numbered 1,000, with 100 singers divided into
two for alternate weeks. For the clergy there were cells round the
building; for the singers there were two monasteries.

“He made five gold crosses, each weighing 100 pounds, which were
adorned with all kinds of precious stones, so that they were each
valued at eight centenaria: also two candlesticks of gold incrusted
with pearls and precious stones, valued at five centenaria, as well
as two other large carved candelabra (_manoualia_) of gold; these
had golden feet, each worth 100 pounds, to stand below the golden
candelabra. He made fifty others too, of silver, of the height of a
man, to stand by the altar. On the adornment of the ambo and solea was
spent 100,000 pounds, which was the tribute levied by Constantine on
Saroboris, King of the Persians, and on many others. The whole church
with the parts outside and around--with the exception of the vessels
and ornaments, which were given by the emperor--cost 800,000 pounds.

“Now Justinian alone began and alone finished the church with no other
helping him, or even building a part of it. Its beauty is wonderful
to behold; all kinds of pearls glitter there like the sea, and one
seems to see the ever-flowing waters of great rivers. Now the four
boundaries[229] of the church he called after the rivers that flowed
from Paradise, and he made a law that whosoever was excommunicated
should stand there for his sins. And for the phiale in the centre he
made twelve arcades, and lions belching out water for the people to
wash in. On the right side, however, of the right-hand gynaeceum, he
made a basin (_thalassa_) of one cubit for the water to come up in,
and one flight of steps (_klimax_) for the priests to cross above the
water. He placed too in the front of the basin (_dexamene_) an open
tank for the rain (_ombusia_), and carved twelve lions, twelve pards,
twelve deer, and eagles, and hares, and calves, and crows, twelve
of each, and these spouted out the water for the use of the priests
alone. The place was called the place of the lions (_leontarion_)
and metatorion, because there was a golden couch there, that the
emperor might rest on his way to the temple. But who can describe the
comeliness and beauty of the temple, overlaid with resplendent gold
from the crown to the pavement?

“When the temple and the sacred vessels had been all completed, on
the 24th of December he marched in solemn pomp from the palace to the
Gate of the Augusteum, opening into the Horologium; and he killed
1,000 oxen, 6,000 sheep, 500 deer, 1,000 pigs, 1,000 fowls, and gave
them to the poor and needy, as well as 30,000 measures of wheat. And
the distribution of these on that day took three hours, and then the
emperor entered with the cross, and the patriarch Eutychius, and at
the royal entrance he left the patriarch and walked alone to the
ambo; then, stretching out his hands to heaven, he cried, ‘Glory be
to God who has thought me worthy to finish this work. Solomon, I
have surpassed thee.’ And when the ceremony was over he distributed
largesse, and with the help of Strategius gave away three hundred
pounds of gold. But on the following day he solemnly opened the temple,
and killed even more oxen, and feasted every one for fifteen days
until the feast of Epiphany, praising God. In such a way as this was
the great work completed.

“Now the new dome which was built by Justinian, and the gorgeous and
wonderful ambo, with the solea, and the patterned pavement of the nave,
lasted seventeen years. But after the death of Justinian, his nephew
Justin succeeded, and in the second year of his reign, and the fifth
day, at the sixth hour the dome fell, and destroyed the wonderful ambo
with the golden supports, and the solea, and all the sardonyx, and
choice pearls and sapphires. But the arches, and the columns, and the
rest of the building remained unhurt. Then the emperor summoned the
skilful mastermen, and inquired what had caused the fall of the dome.
But they answered and said to the king, ‘Your uncle took away too
quickly the supports (_antinux_) for the dome, which were of wood, to
cover it with mosaic; and made it too high so that it should be seen
from everywhere, and thus the craftsmen, by destroying the scaffolding
(_skalosis_) before the foundations had been sufficiently set, caused
the fall of the dome.’ Thus spake they to the king, and they added that
if he wished to build a dome like a hollow cymbal he should follow his
uncle’s example, and send to Rhodes, and should order bricks made in
the same way and of the same weight as the previous ones. The emperor
gave the order, and bricks were brought from Rhodes, similar to the
previous ones. So once more the dome was built, with fifteen fathoms
taken from its height, and formed like a drum so that it should not
again fall. The supports were left for a year, until they knew that
the dome had become well set. But the ambo and solea, which they were
not able to build of an equal magnificence to the former ones, they
are made of marble, with columns covered with silver, and there was
a silver inclosure (_stethos_), round the solea. But the dome of the
ambo he did not build again, frightened by the expense. And for the
pavement, as he was not able to find slabs of such beauty and size
as heretofore, he sent Manasses, a Patrician and Praepositus, to
Proconnesus, and marble was worked there as is seen now, of a green
colour, like rivers flowing into a sea.

“But when they wished to cut away the scaffolding of the dome, and
to take away the timbers, they filled up the church with water to a
height of five cubits, and threw down the beams into the water, and
thus the lower parts of the walls were uninjured. And he covered it
all with mosaic. Hence there are some who say that Justin, Justinian’s
nephew, built the church, but in this they lie. Let us rather give
thanks to our God who has willed that the great structure should remain
untouched, so that we can enter it, and give the praise that is due to
Christ; for He is worthy of all glory, honour, power, and worship, now
and for ever, Amen.”


§ 3. LEGENDS.

Many of the points in this celebration of the wonders of S. Sophia seem
to be traceable to the writer’s absorbing traditions of the work of
Basil--who built like a goldsmith at his new church--into his account.
In the destructive rapacity of the Crusaders and the interregnum that
followed while they occupied S. Sophia we find such a satisfactory
cause for this half-mythical retrospect undertaken in all good faith
that we cannot think it was written until after the Frankish ascendency.

We need not suppose that the Anonymous invented even the wildest of
these stories; such stories grow up as a matter of course, and to-day
various forms of some of them are told within the walls of many other
buildings. The accounts given by the Russian pilgrims (see Chapter VI)
agree so closely in many respects with the Anonymous description that
we might think the writer had been their guide in the church. That the
stories were widely told in Constantinople at this time is proved by
the account of S. Sophia given by El Harawi, an Arab traveller, who
visited the city in the thirteenth century. “Here is also Agia Sophia,
the greatest church they have. I was told by Yakub Ibn Abd Allah that
he had entered it: within are 360 doors. And they say one of the angels
resides there; round about this place they have made fences of gold,
and the story they relate of him is very strange.”[230]

This story of the angel recalls the Wingless Victory of the Athenian
acropolis, but it is probably more closely related to the “Angels of
the Churches” in the Revelation. An interesting reference to this
thought is made by Palladius in his Life of Chrysostom. Before he left
S. Sophia for ever the patriarch entered it saying, “Come let us pray
and say farewell to the Angel of the Church;” but, adds his biographer,
“the Angel departed with him.” We give here an account of the church
from a thirteenth-century English MS., in the British Museum, _Vit.
A._ xx. 14, which refers to the more commonplace part of the story as
told by the Anonymous. “That famous city is endowed with wonderful and
inestimable wealth. In it may be seen the famous church Agia Sophia,
that is the Holy Wisdom; an angel of God appeared and taught the
workmen as they were building. Underneath the church in its cisterns
there is refreshing water, some of which is salt and some of it
rainwater. The church below is borne on one hundred and seventy-three
columns of marbles, and above on two hundred and forty-six. Round the
choir from the top to the bottom it is covered with silver gilt. And
this same choir has an altar ‘starred’ (_stellatum_) all over with
most wonderful and precious stones. In the church are lamps of the
purest silver and gold, and their number cannot be counted. The church
is opened and closed by seven hundred and fifty-two double doors, and
there are windows innumerable. There are seven hundred prebendary
priests, of which three hundred and fifty take each week in turn. Now
the Patriarch of Agia Sophia has in that city one hundred metropolitans
and archbishops, and each metropolitan has seven suffragans in the same
city.”

The idea of competition with Solomon’s Temple and the Tabernacle would
be sure to suggest itself, and, once received, it would be justified by
many assertions; indeed a tendency to imitate the biblical accounts may
be detected in the Anonymous author. For instance, we have Justinian’s
intention to cover the floor with silver, the description of the gold
vessels for the altar, and the “sea” for the priests. Justinian’s
oft-quoted speech on entering the completed church may be assigned
to this leading idea, which we find expressed as early as the sixth
century by Corippus, the poet-bishop, who says, “Praise of the temple
of Solomon is now silenced, and the Wonders of the World have to yield
the preeminence. Two shrines founded by the wisdom of God have rivalled
Heaven, one the sacred Temple, the other the splendid fane of S.
Sophia, the Vestibule of the Divine Presence.”[231] Glycas, who tells
many of the stories given by the Anonymous, continues the idea further.
Justinian, he says, set up a statue “representing Solomon as looking at
the Great Church and gnashing his teeth with envy.”[232]

In the Book of Proverbs we read, “Wisdom hath builded her house, she
hath hewn out her seven pillars.” This was also seized upon, and
Michael Psellus speaks of S. Sophia as “the very beautiful temple, the
incomparable home which the Divine Wisdom built in His own name and
which He raised on seven pillars.”[233] Modern writers, Tournefort,
Von Hammer, &c., have delighted to point out that the church has 107
columns; indeed, with a little humouring, 108 may be counted. The
symmetrical number of the workmen employed according to the Anonymous
may be matched in a legendary account of the building of S. Luke’s,
according to which there were twenty-four protomaistores, each of whom
had twenty-four workmen under him.

The story of Justinian mixing money with the earth is parallel to
the account, given by Vasari, of Brunelleschi’s scheme for building
the dome of S. Maria del Fiore in Florence. It is impossible that
the church should have been flooded with water, as described by the
Anonymous. There appears to be no basis for the supposition that the
great dome was gilt outside. In the texts of Codinus the dome is said
to be of ivy-wood (κισσηρίνος): this is evidently somebody’s misreading
for pumice-stone (κισήριον).

The stones were actually supposed to be specifics for diseases by the
Russian pilgrims and others. Clari the Knight of Amiens[234] (1200)
speaks “of the Minster (_Moustier_) of S. Sophia, and the riches which
were there.... There are vaults all round over the church, which are
carried on large columns, very rich; for there is not a column but is
of jasper, or porphyry, or some precious marble, and every column has a
medicinal quality; some keep off _Mal des rains_, some _Mal du flanc_,
and other diseases: and there is nothing in this minster such as a
hinge (_gons_) or band (_verveles_) generally of iron, which is not of
silver.”

Codinus concludes his account of the church with a story, which may be
classed with a large series, as “the gratitude of employers to their
architects;” imprisoning and blinding them, or cutting off their hands.
It is in a sense one of the truest of stories! The master workman of
the great church, “Ignatius (_sic_), owing to the great favour which
his work won for him from the people, was shut up by the emperor in
his statue in the Augusteum.” To parallel other tales this must be the
artist’s own work which is the instrument of his torture. Here he would
have died of hunger had it not been for his faithful wife, who threw to
him a rope besmeared with liquid pitch; afterwards fire destroyed all
evidence of his flight.

We have also the customary tales of statues found in the ground when
the church was begun. Gyllius, quoting from Suidas, says that Justinian
discovered more than seventy statues of the Greek deities, the figures
of the twelve signs of the zodiac, and eighty statues of Christian
princes and emperors. The travels that bear the name of Sir John
Mandeville relate that once when an emperor made a grave in S. Sophia,
“they found a body in the earth, and upon the body lay a plate of
gold, that said thus in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, ‘Jesus Christ shall
be born of the Virgin Mary, and I believe in Him.’ It was laid there
2,000 years before the birth of Christ, and is still preserved in the
treasury of the church. And they say that it was Hermogenes, the wise
man.”

The legends were not forgotten after the taking of the church. Sandys,
the English traveller, who was in Constantinople about 1610, tells
us that “one of the doors was famed to be the ark of Noe, and is
therefore left bare in some places to be kissed by the devoted people,”
and “the total number of doors was said to be as many as the days of
the year.”

When this, the church of the world, fell into the hands of the Turks,
many stories came to the West, or arose there without coming. The
poetry of the Fall required the miraculous salvation of the priest
celebrating mass, and the prophecy of his return as told by Theo.
Gautier. It also required a massacre in the church, the riding in of
the proud conqueror, and the mark of his blood-stained hand, which
indeed is still pointed out some twenty feet above the pavement!
Mijatovich, in his history of the last of the emperors, regards the
massacre as unhistorical.

An English romance almost contemporary with the Fall tells us how the
Turks took possession,

  “For to let theyr hawkys fly
   In the chirch of Saint Sofy.”




CHAPTER VIII

FOSSATI’S REPARATIONS. SALZENBERG’S DESCRIPTION.


Sancta Sophia seems really to have been in a dangerous condition when,
in 1847, the Sultan Abdul Mesjid began a much-needed work of reparation
which was carried on under the guidance of the Italian architect
Fossati, who appears to have taken great pains, and notwithstanding
some alterations and “restorations” in the worst sense he deserves
our gratitude for probably saving the building. In the preface to his
lithograph views published in London in 1852 he says, “The portions of
the building that looked most threatening were reconstructed, and the
lead roofs were repaired. The dome was relieved of four heavy buttress
arches, whose function was taken by a double ceincture of iron around
its base. Thirteen columns of the gynaeceum, which were inclining under
the thrust of the great arches that support the dome, were put straight
again.” The marble work of the interior was cleaned, and the gold
mosaic vaults were cleared of the crust of limewash which concealed
them. All representations of figures were however covered again. The
sultan’s tribune was built, Fossati says, “in the Byzantine style.” The
walls outside, after being repaired, were covered with a coating of
plaster on which red stripes were painted.

Since this time various remains of the Great Court, which existed as
late as 1873, have entirely disappeared, and the broad bare space, in
front of the exonarthex, has little now to recall the atrium with its
fountain and quadriporticus.

All study of the church in its condition at that time must be based
on the exhaustive plates and text of Salzenberg.[235] M. Texier had
in 1834 made some drawings at Constantinople, which are now preserved
in the library of the Royal Institute of Architects; and several
coincidences seem to point to Salzenberg’s having had the use of
Texier’s ground plan. In any case Texier was the first to make correct
plans including the upper floor, also the atrium, baptistery, and the
circular building at the north-east. As Salzenberg made full use of the
unique opportunity afforded by the scaffolding, when the building was
given over to the workmen, we have thought it wise to give a condensed
paraphrase of his account where it is descriptive of the structure,
even at the risk of some repetition. Our remarks in other places
where they may overlap are the result of our own observation, from
different points of view. The rest of this chapter is an abridgment of
Salzenberg’s text and descriptive of his plates, and we add nothing
unless in notes or square brackets.

_Design._--The exterior walls of the atrium, with several entrances,
were built of brick, but the inner sides had marble columns between
square brick piers, two columns to one pier. These carried semicircular
arches. The atrium walks, as remains showed, were barrel-vaulted, and
the vaults were formerly covered with mosaic. The parts for which there
was evidence remaining are shown in darker hatching in Salzenberg’s
plate vi. The outer wall on the north side, with several arched
openings; and traces of the western boundary still existed.

The long vestibule in front of the narthex has groined vaulting, and
large windows in its west wall; there are some Turkish additions to
this part. A door from each lateral cloister, and two others from the
open atrium, led into it. On either side of the two doors from the
court are strong projecting piers, connected above by a wide arch,
forming a porch-like shelter over the doors. These four piers rise
above the roof of the vestibule.[236]

Double tiers of buttress arches spring from each of these piers to the
west wall of the church. A close examination of the wall and piers
led to the conviction that they are not contemporary with the church,
but were built later, though partly of old material.[237] The upper
cornices for instance differ. [Modifications here can be explained by
removal of Bell Tower, see p. 194.] The piers were probably erected by
Byzantine builders, to strengthen the western vault.

Five doors lead to the narthex, the windows of which are above the roof
of the outer vestibule. The walls are covered with marble, and the
vaulting with mosaic; while the walls and ceiling of the exonarthex,
are quite plain. Two other doors enter the narthex at its north and
south ends, and nine lead from it into the church; the large central
entrance being the Royal Door.

The walls of the church form approximately a square, the length of
which in the interior, exclusive of the apse, is 241 feet, and the
breadth 224.[238]

The dome measures 100 feet across from the edge of the cornice, but
above the cornice the vaulted space is 104 feet across; it is 179 feet
from the floor to the vertex. The dome rises above the square area on
four huge arches, with a large semidome to the east and another to the
west, each of which embraces three smaller spans. The lateral openings
which thus pierce the east and western semidomes are covered by
_conchs_, but the middle opening in each case has a cylindrical vault,
that to the east being prolonged into the eastern apse.

At the corners of the central square of the nave rise four large piers,
which are joined by arches to four buttress piers in the northern and
southern walls behind them. The arched openings connect the three parts
into which the aisles are divided by the piers. On either side of each
of the central openings from the eastern and western hemicycles rise
other piers, which are pierced by narrow arched passages, running from
north to south. The piers, eight altogether, carry the whole vaulting
of the nave, as well as a part of that of the side aisles. Between the
middle division of each aisle and the nave are four large columns with
five arches on the ground floor, and on the first floor six smaller
columns with seven arches. Above again is a wall with windows, filling
up the great arches on the north and south sides under the dome. Each
exedra has, on the ground floor, two large columns with three arches,
and, on the floor above, six small columns with seven arches.

The vault of each division of the aisles is supported on four columns.
Those next the east and west walls of the church, eight in all, are
square, the others are round. The divisions of the galleries follow
those of the aisles underneath. The four main piers however were
pierced by additional arched openings [now filled up] between the
galleries and the nave. The part over the narthex opens to the nave by
three arches, on coupled columns. Above is the immense semicircular
window which fills up the central barrel vault at the western end.

All the openings towards the nave in the upper aisles have marble
parapets. The vaulting of the lower aisles rests on forty round columns
and eight square ones, and in the galleries on sixty round columns, not
including the coupled columns at the west; this makes in all a hundred
round columns. Possibly the eight square pillars in the aisles were
employed, so that this number should not be exceeded.

In the walls are numerous large windows, and the dome is pierced by
forty just above the cornice; thus light streams into the church from
every quarter. Much of the dome, including the central circle of mosaic
at the crown, can be seen from the Royal Door.

The greater number of the buildings which formerly surrounded the
church are either destroyed, or so altered by Turkish minarets and
buttresses that it is difficult to conjecture their original form.[239]

On the north and south of the narthex are long porches of Byzantine
workmanship, with cylindrical vaults. In the northern one is a flight
of fourteen steps leading down from outside to the narthex. The
southern porch is called by Von Hammer the Vestibule of the Warriors.
It is mentioned by Nicetas as the place where the Archangel Michael
was represented in mosaic. It was through this porch that the emperor
passed to the church, and here some of the bodyguard would remain. The
vaulting still bears the remains of mosaics which are now covered up.

On the east sides of both the northern and southern porches are
accesses to the gynaeceum, formed of a series of inclined planes. The
entrance to the northern one is from the porch, but the southern stair
is reached from a narrow passage between it and the baptistery. To the
west of the northern and southern porches, in the angles between them
and the outside walls of the atrium, are the two minarets built by
Murad III.

On the first-floor level, above the southern porch and part of the
adjacent staircase, is a series of chambers,[240] of which the purpose
is not known. The walls of the two larger chambers are covered with
marble, and their ceilings with mosaic.

Only one stairway is now extant at the east. The minaret built by
Mahomed II., which helps to buttress the south-east corner of the
church, occupies the position of a second. Salzenberg’s Plate xiv.
shows the stairway restored, but in Plate xiii. the northern one is
removed to explain the arrangement of the part of the building to the
south of it. On entering at the door of this north-eastern stairway
one can either mount the ascending planes which wind round a well for
light, or go to the left through a small lobby into the church. On the
right steps ascend to the round building adjacent. The light ‘well’
once ascended the whole height of the staircase, which seems to have
been formerly still higher, as the eastern wall of the church, which is
here prolonged northwards, rises about four feet above the present roof
of the stairway, and shows the remains of a window. These stairways may
have been built by Andronicus Palaeologus in the fourteenth century,
when he erected the buttress masses which are called pyramids by
Nicephorus Gregoras. All these stairways however were additions to the
building, probably built when the dome abutments were strengthened.
The original staircases to the gynaeceum were in the four piers by
the northern and southern walls of the church, and the steps from the
gynaeceum to the base of the dome still remain.[241]

In the eastern buttress pier on the south side is a portion of one of
the original staircases, leading _downwards_ from the gynaeceum, though
beneath on the ground floor there is now a vaulted passage.[242] In the
western buttress pier on the south side, at the ground-floor level,
is a vaulted passage adorned with mosaic, and a door leading to an
external addition. In the similar position on the gynaeceum level, the
staircase, which formerly led higher, has been destroyed, to make a way
to the upper floor of this same late annex.

The south-east porch may have been used by the emperors on non-festal
days, as it was close to the southern aisle where they sat. Three
columns are now placed on each side of this porch; the two outer ones
are of porphyry, and have capitals with a design of a basket and
doves.[243] These capitals are fine Byzantine work, although the arch
above may be Turkish. Here seven steps descend into the church. The
other porch on the north of the east end was destroyed at the last
restoration to make an entrance for the Sultan. Remains of a series
of chambers can still be traced on the east side between the porches:
their roofs must have been below the lower windows of the eastern
wall. The chambers are now built up; but their original plan may be
conjectured from the lead saddle-roofs, which have gutters that conduct
the rainwater through the outer wall. Two doors from the porches, and
two doors from the church--all four now blocked up--show the previous
communication with this row of chambers, which probably contained the
priests’ vestments, and the vessels for the altar.

Amongst the buildings that surrounded the church must be mentioned
the skeuophylakium, in which was kept the sacred furniture. Here were
placed biers for the state funerals: conspicuous amongst them was
one quite covered with gold, the gift of Studios and Stephanos. This
probably was the isolated round building at the north-east of the
church, reached by the steps previously mentioned. It now has two
floors of wood; for security there were no windows, but only twelve
niches in the wall, in one of which is the door. This building now
serves as a storehouse for the army kitchen (imareh) adjacent, and
is much injured. Windows have been made in the walls, and the door
altered.[244] The baptistery [south-west building] is square outside,
but octagonal with four niches within. It is vaulted by a dome without
ribs. On the east side is an apse, and on the west a porch. The
Anonymous says that the baptistery was formerly called the Chapel of
S. John, and that it was built by Justinian. [Entrance to this is now
obtained by a door, which has been pierced in its north-eastern angle.
The western wall has a semicircular-headed opening, of the same size as
the niches, leading to a narthex or vestibule to which there is now no
access from the outside.]

In addition to the western entrance, a door on the north, now blocked
up, led through an open porch into a small court. The large cylindrical
arch of this porch had a screen at its northern side, the columns and
door-frame[245] of which are still extant, but the marble lattice is
destroyed. Through an arch in the east wall of this porch the addition
which was made outside the south-west buttress pier could be reached,
where there was a passage into the church. Salzenberg’s plan[246] of
this addition is taken at the level of a landing reached by a staircase
from the passage through the south-west buttress pier. This landing
seems at one time to have been connected with a chamber above the
north porch of the baptistery, and from thence with the stairway at
the south-west angle of the church. Leading upwards from this landing
is the original staircase to the gynaeceum, and at this level there is
a small chapel vaulted with a cupola.[247] The vault is adorned with
mosaic; figures of angels stand in the four pendentives. Originally the
chapel was not lighted; but at the last “restoration” a hole was made
in the roof, which was filled with glass; a passage from this chapel to
the gynaeceum is probably Turkish. The chapel is supposed by the Greeks
to be the one into which the officiating priest disappeared at the
capture by the Turks.

The Turks turned the baptistery into a storeroom for the oil used in
lighting the church, but on the sudden death of the Sultan Mustapha
I. it was converted into a turbeh. Almost the whole of the church is
raised above vaulted cisterns. An opening in the south aisle[248] gives
access to the water, and there is another opening in the north-west
exedra. The depth of the water prevented a close inspection.

Of the two additions made in Byzantine times to the centre of the north
and south walls on the outside, and intended to buttress the aisles,
the southern one has been further lengthened by the Turks. To preserve
the use of the door and window in the wall of the church, each addition
was pierced by a passage. Remains of stairways and side passages have
also been found here.[249] Other remains of buildings existed on the
north and south sides of the church, but they were too insufficient to
base any conclusions on them.

_Materials._--The principal materials employed are brick, and a kind of
peperino stone. The latter is used in those parts of the building which
have to stand great pressure, such as the four large piers in the nave,
the piers to east and west, and the extra projections from the buttress
piers in the side aisles and gynaeceum. In addition a horizontal course
two feet deep runs round the whole building four feet from the floor.

The outside walls of the original building, like the vaulting, were
entirely of brick, but in the later additions they are formed of
alternate layers of brick and stone, and some of the later buttress
masses are almost entirely of stone.

The bricks are as a rule about fourteen inches long and two inches
thick; some vaulting bricks brought from the ruins by the porch on the
east measured fourteen inches square and two inches thick; on one side
of them were scratched lines probably made by the three fingers of the
maker, and on the other was an oblong label inclosing an inscription
(1); another had a different inscription (2); and a third, not from
this vault, but of the same size, was also inscribed (3).

[Illustration]

[(1) Reads Constantius or Constantine. (2) May be rendered “the
church which is being erected,” by reading a participle of ἐγείρω for
the second and third letter. (3) This is also given in the _Revue
Archéologique_, 1876, with some slight differences in second and third
lines; it is there said to have been found between SS. Sophia and
Irene. It probably reads, “Lord, help Philemon: Indiction 7.” The two
first vowels of Philemon have changed places, and the contraction form
after “ΙΝΔ” is also turned the wrong way.]

At the base of the dome the bricks are 27 × 9 inches, and two inches
thick. Some appear to be twenty-seven inches square; but at the apex
of the dome, by the hole intended for the lamp-chain, the thickness
is twenty-four inches. There was no trace of the light bricks made in
Rhodes which the Anonymous mentions; although in the pendentives a
light substance, whitish, with impressions of plants in it, was used in
irregular masses. The mortar has a red colour, and was evidently mixed
with crushed brick; the joints are from one to two inches thick.

The marble of Proconnesus, which somewhat resembles the architectural
marble of Carrara, is employed for the cornices, capitals, and bases of
the columns, and for the windows.

In Salzenberg’s plans the materials are expressed by different depths
of tint; the darkest being marble, slightly lighter is stone, and a
still lighter brickwork; the additional buildings are represented in
the lightest tones, and the Turkish buildings with strokes and dots.

_Construction._--The outside walls average a height of seventy feet:
those on the north and south have a thickness of three and a half
feet, that on the east is four and a half feet, and that on the west
between the nave and narthex five feet. Where the arches rest on the
walls there are piers which project about two feet: thus the west wall,
for instance, has in parts a thickness of seven feet. As a general
rule, the interior vaults of wide span continue through the walls, and
appear as arches on the outside face. The window and door openings are
semicircular. The marble finishings were inserted after the completion
of the walls.

The dome at first sight seems to rest upon four arches each of 100
feet span; it is, however, only on the east and west that these arches
are open. From north to south the main piers are 106 feet apart, and
their breadth in this direction is fifteen feet eight inches; but on
either side of the nave there are projections, narrowing the opening to
100 feet, and giving the open arches abutments of eighteen feet eight
inches.

Behind each of these main piers again, at a distance of twenty-nine and
a half feet from them, stands one of the buttress or staircase piers,
which, including the outside wall, is seventeen feet four inches by
twenty-four and a half feet in area. Round arches, which appear below
the vaults, transmit the thrust of the great arches from the main piers
to these buttressing piers. Above these each of the immense buttress
masses which stand right across the aisles, and rise to within eighteen
feet of the springing of the dome, bear upon two relieving arches of
different radii, so as not to load the vaulting beneath.[250]

The cylindrical arches, which, at the ground-floor aisles and the
gynaeceum, connect the great piers with the outer buttress piers, are
each reinforced by two extra arches, standing on stone additions to
the main piers, from which they project five feet.[251] These arches,
though thus strengthened, are almost all out of shape; those by the two
northern main piers have been pushed out nearly fifteen inches.

A drawing given in Salzenberg’s text shows the south arch which
supports the dome with the mosaics removed. The piers from east to west
are seventy-two feet apart, and accordingly the span of the arch is
seventy-two feet, its soffite being fifteen feet eight inches. The arch
is five feet deep, formed of two unconnected rings, and on each side
the lower part is laid in horizontal courses so that the portion with
radiating joints is only three quarters of the whole arch. The window
wall which fills the arch opening is four feet thick, and is bonded
with the horizontal courses, but a movement of the arches has caused a
fissure, which is shown in the diagram. These window walls on the south
and north sides have cracked in several places. The upper part of the
window wall on the north side is only twenty-nine inches thick. The
windows have been reduced and strengthened by inserting stone jambs.

On the north and south side are also two large arches, which project on
the inside three feet from the window wall and rest on the main piers,
having the same height and span as the arches on the east and west.
They complete the square form under the cornice of the dome, and give
the idea that the dome is carried on four arches of 100 feet span:
whereas in reality, as has just been shown, the real supporting arches
on the north and south side are concealed in the window wall, and are
not suggested in any way in the interior decoration, being only visible
on the outside.[252]

The four principal piers are very carefully built of shaped stones, the
joints, according to Procopius, being run with lead, but the Silentiary
mentions a cement as being used here.

The height from the floor to the springing of the great arches is
seventy-three feet.

The arches of seventy-two feet span have abutments of twenty-four and
a half feet, which are increased above the vaults of the gynaeceum to
twenty-nine feet.

The great arches under the springing of the dome are about four bricks,
or five feet, thick. The depth at the top, including the cornice of
the dome, is about six feet and three quarters. The centre of the
arches is two and a half feet above the springing, so that they are
more than semicircular. In the internal angles formed by them are
the four pendentives. The cornice has a projection of about two feet
nine inches. The lead mentioned by the Silentiary may be found in the
interstices of its stones.

The dome springs from the cornice on forty piers, about three feet five
inches broad on the inside, and about eight and a half feet deep in
the direction of the radius. They are connected by arches which form
windows four feet nine inches wide. On the outside the piers project
beyond the arches, and may perhaps at one time have been connected with
other arches, forming a drum for the dome: within they form part of the
ribs of the dome.

In the interior the ribs project at the springing six inches from the
surface of the dome, which is there twenty-nine inches thick, but their
projection gradually diminishes, till they are lost in the great
circle of thirty-seven and a half feet diameter in the centre. In the
interior from rib across to rib is 104 feet, so that all round on the
cornice is the passage two feet nine inches wide, which, according to
Paulus, was used by the lamp-lighter. The dome rises forty-six feet
nine inches above this gangway, so that it is considerably less than a
semicircle in section. The original dome, according to Agathias, must
have been even flatter. Theophanes states the increase in height to
have been twenty feet, and Zonaras twenty-five.[253]

The dome has now many swellings and depressions which are not visible
from the ground. At the same time we see how immovable domed vaulting
is, if only its supports remain uninjured.

At the east and west ends of the nave the two cylindrical vaults are
each forty-seven feet across. They rest on the four lesser piers, and
have an abutment of fifteen and a half feet. The four exedras are each
forty-one feet across. All the conchs and semidomes have drums outside,
which are pierced by the windows. The conchs which cover the exedras
have strong arches, where they intersect the semidomes. The weight
of the exedra conchs is chiefly supported by the columns; the upper
columns of the south-east exedra, at the time of the last restoration,
were much inclined, and had to be brought back to the vertical, by
propping the arches, cutting away the old bases, and inserting new
pieces--the columns being surrounded and supported by wooden cradling.
The thickness of the western barrel vault is four feet; the eastern
apse is about three feet thick. The western semidome received an
additional thickness at the restoration.

_Vaulting of the Aisles._--The three principal divisions of each
aisle are covered by domical vaults. The vault arches rest partly on
columns; and the spaces between these columns and the outside wall are
also vaulted. The middle division of the north and south aisles has
two domical vaults, separated by a barrel vault that opens towards
the nave arches, and to the window in the outside wall. The arches
have iron ties four inches thick, which stretch from the outer wall
to the columns of the nave, and grip them tightly. The four columns
in the aisles which carry the vault are much lower than those between
the aisles and nave, and for this reason the narrow vaulted space,
which joins the aisle vault to the nave arcade, is formed by a stilted
quadrant.

This arrangement only applies to the lower aisles: above is a stilted
cylindrical vault, running lengthways between the main gynaeceum
vaults, and the arcade towards the nave.[254] Here, besides the iron
ties, there are wooden beams.

The large arches in the aisles are twenty-nine and a half feet from
column to column. The domical vaulting of the aisles is very flat--a
combination of cross groining and a dome. For, though it starts with
angles at the four corners, it gradually merges into a dome at the
apex. The vaulting bricks are arranged in horizontal circles.[255]
A diagonal band of mosaic starts from each corner, and merges into
a central circle.[256] In the gynaeceum the vaulting is higher and
consists of spherical domes, the radii being half the diagonals of the
spaces covered. The mosaic decoration here again follows the form.[257]

_Narthex._--The narthex is covered with vaults, similar to those of
the lower aisles of the nave. Each vaulted space is separated from
the next by a segmental arch, six and a half feet wide with a span of
twenty-six and a half feet, which abuts on the west wall of the nave,
and the piers of the outer wall. The vault spaces vary from sixteen and
a half feet in the middle to thirteen and a half feet towards the ends.
The piers of the outer wall are connected together by arches above the
window openings, and the spaces below the windows are filled up with
thin ‘screen’ walls. The upper floor of the narthex is covered with a
semicircular vault, intersected by the window arches between the piers
of the outer wall. These piers are the continuation of those beneath,
and have a width of six feet, and a depth of seven. They had to bear
the thrust of the barrel vault of twenty-six and a half feet span:
the buttresses previously mentioned, springing from the piers of the
propylaeum, were subsequently added to strengthen them.

In the exonarthex there are cross groins with arches between. The
arches have a span of fourteen and a half feet and an abutment of
seven feet. This seems to be of a later construction than the rest of
the vaulting, and not improbably, as well as the piers, belongs to a
reconstruction of this porch, undertaken to strengthen the west wall of
the narthex.

All the arches of the nave which stand on columns have iron ties; and
to the three large openings of the gynaeceum at the west end of the
nave there are wooden binders as well. In the lower rows of windows
beneath the dome on both the north and south sides of the nave iron
ties can be seen, which seem to stretch across the whole width of the
large arches which support the dome.

_Roofs._--All the exterior vaults are covered with lead about a quarter
of an inch thick, which rests on a layer of wooden battens placed
immediately upon the brick vaults. There are several passages and
staircases for access to the roofs. Access to the exterior of the side
aisles and narthex is gained by the staircases in the buttress piers:
the stairs are supported on brick arches. In the north-east pier the
stair space is only four feet eight inches by six feet seven inches,
and in this are placed the flights of stairs two feet eight inches
wide, with a space of fifteen inches between.[258] At the top of each
flight spaces are hollowed out in the wall, which serve as landings
from one flight to another.

These stairs ascend above the roofs of the side aisles to the upper
part of the buttress piers, from which open passages, with breast-walls
on either side, lead above the buttress piers to the angles at the
base of the dome. There were two flights of steps leading to the
platform of the dome: one of these on the south-east, which Salzenberg
shows dotted in Plate viii., is still quite preserved, though injured
at the upper end; remains too can still be traced of the north-west
stair. A door now built up, on the north side of the south-east stair,
and remains of vaulting in the north-west stair, seem to show that
other passages must have existed.

The roof of the cylindrical vaulting at the west end of the nave is
reached by means of stairs in the small round towers, which flank it
on the outside.[259] These turrets can also be reached from the roof
of the narthex. Another passage runs along under the narthex roof at
the west (Salz., Plate ix.), which has an opening close to the upper
surface of the vaulting, and from thence any part above the nave can
be reached. Probably this was formerly used for the lighting of the
church. To reach the cornice at the foot of the dome there was an
opening in the wall under one of the dome windows.

_Decorative Work._--All the constructional forms were shown boldly on
the outside without any adornment; the west front of the narthex next
to the atrium was alone covered with slabs of Proconnesian marble,
some of which are still preserved, but the upper wall surfaces were
perfectly plain.

In the interior the whole of the walls are plated with rare variegated
marbles, and the vaults are covered with glass mosaic. Two chief
masses of colour in the nave are separated horizontally by a cornice,
and another cornice forms the springing for the vaulting. There are
also cornices at the foot of the dome, and around the walls of the
aisles. All these are of carved white marble in simple profiles. The
lower range of arch spandrils between the piers of the nave is formed
of slabs of white marble completely covered with carving: the upper
spandrils above the gynaeceum arches have sectile work of coloured
marbles. The carving is sharply cut, but conforms very closely to the
general surfaces; according to the old descriptions it was gilt, and
remains of colour still extant show some of the leaf-ornament coloured
with a dark red.[260]

_Columns._--Amongst the columns are beautiful examples of the dark
green Thessalian marble, now called _verde antico_. Of this are formed
all the round columns in the nave and ground-floor aisles, with the
exception of the eight in the four exedras, which are of dark Theban
porphyry. It could not have been always possible to find a sufficient
number of columns of the same height and diameter, and the transport of
them must have been frequently accompanied by injuries of one kind or
another. There are differences between similarly situated columns, and
in many cases mended fractures appear on the surface of the marble. In
no cases are antique capitals placed on these columns. All the capitals
and bases are of Proconnesian marble, and were wrought by Byzantine
chisels.

The greater part of the capitals are similar in design, though their
size varies in proportion to the height of the columns which support
them. Salzenberg, in Figs, 1 and 3 of his Plate xv., shows one of the
capitals of the great order. The leaf-work on them--partly acanthus
and partly palm--is very deeply undercut, and lies almost clear of the
ground underneath. In the middle of front and back are monograms.

Under the capitals are bronze rings eleven and half inches high; each
is composed of three members, with a wrought lock on the side towards
the nave, on which is repeated the monogram of each capital. At the
foot of the columns above the bases are similar rings nine inches high.
These rings occur on all the old columns, with the exception of the
two dual columns of the west gallery. They seem to be let into the
shaft, and, according to the description of the Silentiary, they were
gilded. In addition to these rings, there are on other columns--as,
for instance, the porphyry columns of the exedras--simple rings,
rectangular in section, in positions where cracks and injuries appear;
there being three or four such rings on a column at different heights.
It is possible that some of these are of Turkish origin.

The bases as a rule have much the same form as the Attic base; the
porphyry columns of the exedras have pedestals[261] below them, because
the shafts were not long enough.

Each of the great verde antique shafts has a height of twenty-five and
a half feet, and the bronze base-ring has an inside diameter of three
feet seven inches. The capital is three feet ten inches high, and the
upper part five feet eight inches wide, the whole height, including
base and capital, being thirty-three and a half feet.

The porphyry columns of the western exedras have a total height of
thirty-one feet; the shafts are twenty-two feet and three-quarters
long, and the diameter at the bottom is three feet one inch. The
capital is four feet high, and the abacus above measures towards the
nave four feet nine inches, and towards the aisles four feet eleven
inches. In the direction of the thickness of the arch the side of the
abacus measures five feet, the variation being due to the circular plan
of exedras.

The columns of the upper storey, which separate the gynaeceum and
the nave, also of verde antique, stand nearer to one another and are
smaller than those below. The total height of those in the middle
division is twenty-two feet five inches; those in the exedras are
twenty-one feet, with a diameter at the bottom of two and a quarter
feet. The capitals are three and a half feet high, and the bases,
including a six-inch bronze ring, two feet one inch.[262]

The parapet is three feet ten inches high, and of white marble.[263]
It stands between the columns, and like them is set on a stylobate one
foot six inches high, above the lower cornice. It should be noticed how
the wide vaulting of the aisles is contrived, so as not to interfere
with the view through the arched openings of the lower range of columns.

The columns in the interior of the ground-floor aisles are about
twenty-four feet seven inches high. These capitals are similar to those
already described. Those in the interior of the gynaeceum, with shafts
of Proconnesian marble, have capitals of quite another form.[264] They
are very similar to others in the church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus;
the twin columns in the gynaeceum at the west end of the nave have
similar capitals; the columns being verde antique. In these capitals,
however, the volutes are not arranged diagonally, but show “cushions”
at the side.

The capitals in the atrium resembled those of the twin columns; though
the cushion was shorter and the top had less projection, and it was
crowned with a flat egg and tongue moulding. The capitals and shafts
were of white marble. The beautiful square capitals of the eight square
white marble pillars in the aisles are shown in Salzenberg’s Plate xvi.

The arches of the great order have an elaborate leaf-ornament round
them, continuing above the capitals in a horizontal line, resembling in
fact an architrave. [In the centre above each capital is a cross, and
at the crown of the arch is a four or six-armed cross.] The spandrils
are filled with acanthus-ornament, and in the centre of each is a disc
of coloured marble-surrounded by a carved circle in the white marble.
The ornament of the intrados of the arches consists of five divisions
in the width: these are covered with a continuous pattern, seven slabs
casing the intrados of the arch. [The five bands are only carved
alternately, the centre and lateral ones being plain.] See our Fig. 50.

The respond on the main pier at each end of this arcade is a kind
of pilaster strip,[265] surmounted by a capital in low relief, and
surrounded by a notched border.

The two cornices running round the nave, which serve as galleries
for the lamplighters, have an extremely simple profile. The
slanting under-surface, divided horizontally by a row of beads, has
acanthus-leaves in the upper part forming a cymatium, and in the lower
modillions carved with ivy and acanthus, and between them, panels with
different leaf-ornaments. Beneath the aisle cornice is a frieze of
marble mosaic. The base mouldings or skirtings are worked out of thin
slabs.[266]

Salzenberg’s Plate xx. contains a collection of architectural details,
which seem to belong to different periods; Figs. 1, 2, 3 represent
one of the white marble capitals which adorn the two porphyry columns
of the south-east porch. The arch above them is Turkish, and hence it
may be questioned if this was their original position: they seem more
intended for an ornamental structure than to support a load, and they
may perhaps have belonged to a ciborium above the holy table. The two
marble capitals (Figs. 4 and 5), only three inches thick, were found
in the chamber in the north-east buttress mass, above the gynaeceum
roof, together with broken pieces from a window. They may originally
have belonged to the upper part of the building, such as the window
wall under the north arch of the dome.[267] The workmanship is very
different from that in the rest of the church, and is more closely
allied with ancient treatment. Perhaps they are fragments from the
earlier church which found a fresh application in Justinian’s building.
The parapet pillars between the twin columns of the western gynaeceum,
with tall pedestals, are each formed in one piece of verde antique.
Their capitals resemble those of the windows,[268] with the exception
that the former are rounded underneath instead of being square.

The wood ties which span different arches are adorned on the sides and
beneath with carvings.[269]

_Windows and Doors._--The lighting of the church is most brilliant;
wherever space or construction permitted, windows of considerable size
were opened, so that light floods the whole church. At the foot of the
dome the light streams in through forty windows, and each of the seven
apses has five openings. The eastern sun sends its first rays through
the six windows in the apse, and the setting sun shines through the
great west lunette. There are twenty-four windows in the two great
tympana, besides large windows in the aisles.

The windows in the conchs of the exedras are now closed up, the grouped
windows in the great tympana on the north and south are diminished to
insignificant openings, and the large arched openings at the sides
or the end divisions of the aisles seem even in Byzantine times to
have been reduced in size; at least the remains of piers, shown in
Salzenberg’s Plate xiii., indicate that there was originally an opening
with pilasters, similar to those at the eastern end of the side
aisles.[270]

It is said that Justinian gave instructions that combustible materials
should be avoided. If so, these instructions were followed even to the
windows and doors, for the lattice-work of the former is of marble, and
the panels of the latter are of bronze, or rather they are covered with
bronze.

Salzenberg[271] gives the inside elevation and section of a window on
the south side of the gynaeceum, with details on a larger scale. The
opening in the wall is brick-arched, and the framework consists of
upright posts, with a thin horizontal architrave dividing the window
into two parts. Between these posts were fitted the breast-wall and
lattice-work. The posts are narrow towards the outside, and the ends of
the architrave rest on thin pieces against the jambs.

The ‘breast-wall’ at the bottom of the opening and the ‘lattice-work’
are formed of marble, three inches thick. The openings pierced in
the slabs are about seven or eight inches high, filled with panes of
glass. Between the panes the marble has a width of three and a half
inches, slightly splayed on the inside. A second row of slabs fills the
lower part of the windows pierced with openings, surrounded by wider
margins.[272]

The great semicircular west window is divided vertically by two columns
with plain capitals and bases; the horizontal division from column
to column is similar to the crowning member of the breast-wall of
the other windows. The lower part is filled with marble slabs, which
conceal the roof of the western gynaeceum. Each panel is ornamented
with a cross upon a circle, and within the latter is a monogram.

The small windows are simply filled with marble lattice for the glass.
Inside the apse windows of the east end are other windows having
coloured glazing; but these are evidently Turkish.

Marble door jambs were placed in the openings left in the walls,
just as the posts were inserted in the windows; the middle, or Royal
Door, from the narthex to the nave, is of bronze. All the frames were
moulded, and above are fixed door-hooks, like bent forefingers; these
held rings and leather fastenings, from which were suspended the
customary door-hangings.

The lintel of the bronze door-frame bears a relief. This represents an
arch, supported by columns above a throne with the book of the Gospel
and the descent of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. On it are the
words of S. John, ‘The Lord said, I am the door of the sheep; through
me if any man enter, he shall enter and shall go out, and shall find
pasture.’ The simple bronze door-plating now remaining does not seem to
be original. [See p. 265.]

Salzenberg,[273] as an example of the marble frames, gives the east
door of north aisle. Like all Byzantine door-frames, the head does
not cut across the jamb, but mitres. This perhaps made it easier for
fixing within the openings left in the walls. Salzenberg[274] also
represents the arched opening, which stands between the Baptistery and
the small court on the south side of the church.[275] There are two
tiers of columns, with a thin architrave band between them. The door
stands between the lower columns; to avoid concealing them the frame is
made as small as possible, as the plan shows. A similar arrangement is
found in the earlier church of S. John Studius.[276]

The bronze door-plating on the exterior of the south porch entrance is
extremely interesting.[277] A wooden foundation four or five inches
thick is covered with ornamental bronze casings. The borders to the
panels are beautifully modelled, and must be ancient. The other outer
margins, with knobs and rosettes, and the four panels, which are
decorated with monograms, belong to the Byzantine school. In the more
ancient parts the metal is one-eighth to one-fourth inch in thickness,
in the latter it is three-eighths to half an inch. Antique doors must
have been enlarged and fitted with new panel plates.

_Marble Plating._--Broad horizontal bands run round the nave at
different heights, and the spaces between them are filled with single
panels and vertical sheathing. All the bands and panels have notched
fillets, 1½″ wide, of white marble as borders. The more important
panels have sculptured white marble frames, eleven inches wide with a
“pater noster” and notched-fillet borders on either side.

The spandrils of the upper arches and the bands beneath the topmost
cornices are incrusted with designs of leaves, flowers, fruits, and
birds formed of different kinds of marble.

The marble casing to the walls of the nave is arranged as follows.[278]
Above the skirting is a [3′.10″] band of verde antique, then the
notched fillet, then a [1′.5½″] yellow band [oriental alabaster]; above
this is a vertical sheeting [7′.10″] formed of Pavonazzetto marble,
alternating with a yellowish brown marble; then another horizontal band
of yellow.

Above this stretches a series of panels round the whole nave--a panel
of _rosso_, with two vertical slabs of a dark marble like _porto
venere_ on either side, each surrounded by the sculptured frames. The
space from the top of this series to the lowest cornice is adorned with
two bands of yellow [alabaster], and between them is sheathing similar
to that below.

The upper division of the nave starts above the cornice with horizontal
bands of white and verde antique; above which are vertical panels of
porphyry, set in a frame of yellow [alabaster], with slabs of the
russet marble on either side. [Then follows another horizontal band of
oriental alabaster, and above it a range of vertical slabs of verde
antique alternating with Synnadan.]

Beyond this again, and immediately below the upper cornice, is the band
made up of different marbles[279] [_opus sectile_]. A dark brown marble
forms the groundwork, the tendril ornament is white, and the rest is of
red, like rosso antico, and of green serpentine. Similar work incrusts
the spandrils of the gynaeceum arcade. The centre of each is a disc of
green marble, and the whole spandril is edged by a three-inch strip of
pale red. Above the centre of each arch in this spandril decoration are
discs containing crosses, from the arms of which hang seals.[280] The
soffites of the arches are covered with glass mosaic. The aisles are
lined with marbles similarly arranged to those in the nave.

The walls of the bema are covered with panels of inlaid marble.[281]
These panels in pairs are separated by a plain slab of porphyry. By the
side of the arched opening into the gynaeceum is a panel of porphyry
with a pattern in slight relief, and surrounded with yellow alabaster.
The arched opening into the gynaeceum is closed with a parapet of white
marble, with a carved framework above, formerly fitted, as holes show,
with a metal lattice.

The lower division of the bema walls is decorated by two rows of
panels, divided by a horizontal band of verde antique. Salzenberg’s
Plate xxii., Fig. 6, shows the frieze directly below the bema cornice,
and the top of a porphyry pilaster-strip with a capital of white
marble; a similar pilaster fills the narrow space on each side of the
apse.

The walls of the apse are shown on Salzenberg’s Plate xxi. The frieze
beneath the cornice is given in Plate xxii., Fig. 8. The porphyry
ground has an inlaid pattern which slightly projects: the serpentine
in the frieze, Fig. 6, also projects from its rosso ground. The lower
portion of the apse, formerly occupied by the seats of the priests,
is now plated with a white gray marble. This is probably Turkish. The
height of this probably gives the height of the iconostasis, as there
is no sign of any change in the decoration above.

The marble is fixed to the wall with a dark brown resin. In the
opus sectile, pieces of coloured marble about a quarter of an inch
thick were cut to the forms of the design, and then laid with their
polished faces downward at the bottom of a mould; on this was poured a
three-quarter inch backing of resin mixed with bits of stone and brick.
When set, the slabs so formed were attached to the wall with cement.
The large marble slabs are one to two inches thick, and, besides the
cement, are fastened to the walls by iron [? bronze] clamps. The
pavements of ground floor and gynaeceum are of white marble with dark
gray stripes. [Proconnesian.] In the south-east angle of the square
area under the dome is a square of marble mosaic, of which details
are given in Salzenberg’s Plate xxii., Figs. 9-15. It is formed of a
circular centrepiece of a gray brown granite, ten feet two inches in
diameter, round which are arranged coloured marble discs of various
sizes, set in a mosaic of marbles, with a little glass mosaic in the
angles.

In the centre of the west end of the gynaeceum is a square [of about
twenty-four feet] in the pavement laid with slabs of “gray cipollino”
[Proconnesian], having a border of verde antique, with a patterned
edging[282] of giallo and rosso on one side, and giallo and serpentine
on the other. [Between this and the parapet is a circular slab of verde
antique four feet seven inches in diameter.]




CHAPTER IX

THE ANCIENT PRECINCTS AND EXTERNAL PARTS OF THE CHURCH


_Palace._--Before entering on particulars of the exterior of the
church, it will be well to have a clearer view of the edifices in its
immediate neighbourhood as they appeared in the time of Justinian.

The group of buildings of which the Augusteum was the centre was
profoundly modified by the fire of the Nika Sedition, and by the
building energy of the emperor. The researches of Labarte and Paspates
have been almost entirely confined to the elucidation of the palace as
it existed in the tenth century.

A restoration of the relative position of the several parts of the
palace, unless by the discovery of remains positive evidence is
obtained, is certainly impossible; the attempt of Labarte was worth
making, but Paspates, in bringing forward another scheme, seems only to
have succeeded in showing how conjectural the whole matter is, although
he speaks of certain scraps of walls as belonging to this or that part
of the palace with as much confidence as if he had found them labelled.
His work carries internal evidence of the greatest inexactness and
confusion, and has proved most misleading, although his citations are
valuable.

It should not be assumed that wherever a palace is mentioned by the
historians the “Great Palace” is the one referred to, and it must
be remembered that the palace described in the _Ceremonies_ was the
result of gradual growth: indeed, what is required is a chronological
analysis of its history. We have seen in the first chapter that
according to the _Paschal Chronicle_ Constantine built a palace by the
hippodrome, and the _Notitia_ mentions the palaces of Placidia and
Marina in the same neighbourhood. According to Procopius the palace
was almost rebuilt by Justinian, but he only specifically mentions the
Chalké.

Remains of a palace now on the sea-wall, exactly to the south of the
curve of the hippodrome, are thought to be portions of the palace
“Hormisdas” which Justinian occupied before he came to the throne (B,
on Plan, Fig. 2). Close to the sea-wall farther to the west was the
double church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus and SS. Peter and Paul, of
which the first survives as Little Sancta Sophia (A, on Fig. 2). These
were early works of Justinian, and his monogram and that of Theodora
appear on the capitals of S. Sergius.

Procopius tells us that the church of S. Sergius was “close to the
king’s palace which was formerly called by the name of Hormisdas. This
was once his own private house,” and when he became emperor “he joined
it to the other imperial apartments.” The Great Palace was higher up
the slope, against the hippodrome and Augusteum, to which its gates
opened.

It was long after Justinian that the great palace reached its maximum
development; the Chrysotriclinum was erected by his successor Justin
II. The houses of Marina and Placidia were still in use at the end of
the sixth century, although this is mentioned by neither Labarte nor
Paspates. The wedding of the daughter of Phocas was celebrated in the
former,[283] and “the Royal palace of Placidia” is referred to by John
of Ephesus. The writer tells us that Tiberius II., the successor of
Justin II., made large additions to the palace. Before he reigned alone
the wife and daughters of Tiberius occupied the house of Hormisdas,
“as it was situated just below the palace, and he would go down and
spend the evening with them and return early in the morning to the
palace.”[284]

Justinian II. also added to the palace, and in the ninth century
Theophilus built the Triconcha. Basil the Macedonian still further
increased the assemblage of buildings.

It is clear that in the time of Justinian there were at least four more
or less separate palaces grouped together--the Great Palace, Hormisdas,
and those of Marina and Placidia.

_Hippodrome._--The information in regard to the hippodrome brought
together in the works before mentioned, and by Gyllius, cannot be
recapitulated here.[285] As the ground fell away steeply towards the
south, that end had to be raised high on vaults, and this retaining
wall, perhaps forty feet high, forming a semicircular curve, still
exists.[286] On either side rose the tiers of the marble seats. At the
north end was the royal stand, called Kathisma, from which the emperors
watched the games; this was raised above arched chambers, where the
chariots for the arena were kept. The south-west end was called
_Sphendone_--The Curve. A rough draft of Constantinople, made early
in the fifteenth century for Bondelmontius, reproduced by Mordtmann,
shows columns standing on the retaining wall around this curved end. A
clear representation of this semicircle of columns is also given in the
_Nuremberg Chronicle_. Banduri reproduces from Panvinius, who wrote in
the middle of the sixteenth century, a drawing of the hippodrome which
seems to have been made with considerable care. Beneath it is written,
“The ruins of the circus or hippodrome of Constantinople as they were
a hundred years before the capture of the city by the Turks.”[287]
But that it should have been in a ruinous state at this time is not
borne out by the accounts of writers like Clavijo and Bondelmontius,
who described it in the generation before the Fall: on the contrary,
we should suppose this to be one of the draughts for the Venice
view of the city published about 1570, with which it agrees in many
respects.[288] This bird’s-eye view shows the monuments on the Spina,
the Grand Stand and its “Podium” of vaults, and also the high external
retaining wall of the curve, above which the columns again appear, but
set back from its face, so as to leave a passage outside the columns,
the outer wall being finished with a battlement. It is true that in
the engraving it is rendered as if these columns were attached to a
wall, or rather as if a wall were built between the columns, for they
appear both inside and out; but this interpretation cannot be given
to a description of this colonnade by Gyllius.[289] “In the front of
the hippodrome facing the Propontis there was a range of seventeen
pillars of white marble standing when I first came to Constantinople,
going round that part of the hippodrome which lies between south and
west.” They stood on a low wall, about two feet six inches high towards
the hippodrome, but outside it was fifty feet to the ground. They
were of the Corinthian order, three feet five inches in diameter and
twenty-eight feet high, standing eleven feet apart on pedestals; above
them was an architrave to which rings were fixed for curtains. “Above
was another range of pillars, which were remaining some time after the
taking of the city by the Turks.” These last were only reported to
Gyllius; and if we accept such a second tier we may suppose that it
ranged with a colonnade surmounting the containing wall of the terraces
of seats. Paspates makes from this account a wonderful and impossible
arrangement; he supposes the first-mentioned columns to have been
continued along the external sides of the hippodrome, he further rears
the second range on them, and this he thinks upheld the immense mass of
the rising seats. “If we suppose,” he says, “the height of those in the
upper row to have been twenty-one feet, we have about fifty-six feet
as the height of the wall on which the seats for the spectators were
built.”

These columns probably formed an open screen through which the
spectators might see the sparkling waters of the Propontis, set with
the blue jewels of Prince’s Islands and the white peaks of Olympus
rising far away to the left--one of the most beautiful scenes in the
world. This addition of a natural spectacle behind the scene was
frequently obtained in ancient theatres: the best known is that at
Taormina. Clavijo[290] speaks of the hippodrome as being “surrounded
by white marble pillars,” but he adds “thirty-seven in number.” The
anonymous Russian who wrote about the same time says “thirty columns
and their summits are united by an architrave.” See Fig. 2. An “open
hippodrome” and a “covered hippodrome” are mentioned by the Byzantine
writers. Labarte distinguishing them, placed the latter within the
palace. Byeljayev, however, conjectures that the covered hippodrome
was a part of the Great Hippodrome. Be this as it may, the “rings for
curtains” of Gyllius suggest that portions were sheltered by a Velarium.

Bondelmontius[291] writes thus of the hippodrome: “In it those cf noble
birth joust in the presence of the people, and there are combats and
tournaments. It is 690 bracchia long and 134 wide, and it is built
above vaults, in which a cistern of the best water covers the whole of
the space mentioned. At the head of the hippodrome are high pillars [of
Kathisma] where the emperor sits with his nobles, and on both sides in
its length are seats of marble arranged in steps where the people sit
and see all the games.” On the outside towards S. Sophia there was the
church of S. Stephen, “from the galleries of which the ladies watched
their chosen champions.” On the Spina he notices a fountain where the
wounded were laid, the two obelisks, and the three serpents “with open
mouths from which, it is said, on days of jousting water, wine, and
milk used to spout.” At the end of the Spina were four small marble
columns where the emperor sat on feast days.[292]

Besides the bronze serpentine column from Delphi, there still stands
in the hippodrome an Egyptian obelisk, set up by Theodosius I. on a
pedestal sculptured with a representation of the emperor viewing the
games from the Kathisma, and a record of the methods used in erecting
the obelisk by means of ropes and winches. Nicetas in his life of S.
Ignatius says that a brazen pine-apple surmounted this obelisk. A
third monument is a large built-up obelisk of stone, pitted all over
where pins which attached bronze plates were inserted. An inscription
often quoted, records that Constantine, father of Romanus, repaired it
and added to its beauty. The casing of bronze was probably covered with
reliefs and ornament, as was the case with the pillar in the Augusteum,
and the anemodulium, which was set up by Theodosius in the Forum
Tauri. This last was an obelisk entirely cased with bronze, “having
reliefs[293] of cattle, sheep and skipping lambs; peasants labouring or
playing on their pipes, and birds; there was also represented the sea,
and sea-gods, and cupids playing at ball. On the point was a statue of
a woman which turned to the slightest breath of the wind.”

Among the statues in the hippodrome mentioned by Nicetas as having been
destroyed was the colossal bronze Hercules, and a sundial which was in
the form of an eagle with wide expanded wings trampling on a serpent.
The twelve hours were marked out beneath its wings, six on either side,
and the sun shining through a hole in each wing marked the hour or the
day. Near the eastern goal was a row of statues of charioteers, driving
their chariots and turning the goal. Besides these there were many
other statues of persons and animals; an elephant with a proboscis that
moved is mentioned, but it is not clear however that this last was in
the hippodrome.

Sigurd, King of Norway, saw the games given here in 1111; there was
a spectacle in which people appeared as if riding in the air, some
sort of fireworks, also music with playing of organs, harps, and other
instruments.[294] Benjamin of Tudela (1161) says, “lions, bears, and
leopards were shown, and all nations of the world were represented,
together with surprising feats of jugglery.” The hippodrome was used
for spectacles after the change of masters. An Italian MS. of 1582
in the British Museum describes the ambassadors and princes sitting
on staging, with a large stand for the band in the “piazza” of the
hippodrome; the Sultan and his son sat on an inclosed and covered
throne.[295]

_Augusteum._--“In front of the palace,” says Procopius, “there is a
forum surrounded with columns. The Byzantines call this forum the
Augusteum. On the eastern side stands the Senate-house.” Other writers
speak of it as the Agora of the Milion, or simply as the Milion,
from the building which adjoined it. Zonaras seems to call it the
Proaulion of the Great Church. Round its sides were peristyles, and the
buildings mentioned in the first chapter, most of which were rebuilt by
Justinian. It was laid with a marble floor of long slabs, a portion of
which was discovered many feet below the present level, together with
the inscribed base of the silver statue of Eudoxia, when Fossati built
the new government offices in 1848.

“Outside the palace the public baths of Zeuxippus and the great
porticoes and all the buildings on either hand as far as the Forum
of Constantine are the work of the emperor Justinian.”[296] Large
pillars have frequently been found which appear to have formed part
of colonnades in the Augusteum. Gyllius saw seven large Corinthian
columns, forty-six feet high over all and “twenty foot ten digits
apart.” On the shaft of one was cut the name of Constantine, with the
signal of the cross he saw in the heavens, and the inscription ΕΝ ΤΟΥΤΩ
ΝΙΚΑ. These, he seems to suggest, may have belonged to the Milion. On
this is built up a characteristic piece of restoration by Paspates,
who sees in the seven columns, standing over twenty feet apart, and
obviously in a straight line, “a square building resting on seven
columns,” to which he adds an upper range of pillars supporting a domed
chamber. Bondelmontius, who is also cited for these columns, says
there were six, and _all in a row_. They were almost certainly a part
of the nine columns seen by Clavijo[297] before the Fall, when he was
told that “a great palace used to stand on the top of them, where the
patriarch and his clergy held their meetings.”

This great square, surrounded by colonnades, contained so many statues
and other works of art that Labarte well calls it an open air museum.
To the north, opposite the south-west corner of the church, was the
colossal bronze equestrian statue of Justinian surmounting a pillar,
which, according to Procopius, stood on seven stages of steps and was
covered with bronze reliefs. The king looked to the east, and carried
the orb of the earth surmounted by a cross in his hand. The pillar
had originally been erected by Arcadius to support a silver statue of
Theodosius his father. The statue of Justinian, which replaced that
of Theodosius, was destroyed by lightning in 1492.[298] The fragments
were seen by Gyllius, and, from measurements which he gives, it seems
to have been from twice to three times natural size. Bondelmontius says
the pillar was seventy cubits high. A very good drawing of the statue,
now amongst the MSS. of the Serai library, made about the year 1340, is
reproduced by Mordtmann. This pillar and its statue is often called the
Augusteum, and it probably gave its name to the place in which it stood.

_The Milion._--It is probable that the city milestone existed before
Constantine, who may have built the structure over it. According to
Du Cange[299] the Augusteum, with which it was so closely associated,
was often called by its name; so that Codinus tells us that the church
of S. Phocas was built “in the Milion.” It appears to have formed the
western boundary and gate of this forum, or at least of its inner
part, if divided, and to have been connected with a colonnade running
north and south as well as with the _Mese_. It is spoken of as a
colonnade (_embolos_), as vaulted (_kamara_ and _phournikon_), or as
having many arches (_apsides_). Cedrenus and other writers speak of
statues in the apsis or kamara of the Milion. It can hardly be doubted
that it had four large arches facing different ways. A structure of
this kind remains at Lattaquieh, which is about ten metres square and
was surmounted by a dome. De Vogüé[300] compares it with ruins of a
similar erection found at Palmyra, the Mesomphalion of Nicaea, and the
Umbilicus of Antioch described by Dion Chrysostom, and others. This
last stood at the centre of the two great colonnaded streets that ran
east to west and north to south through the city.

The principal reference to the Milion is the description by
Nicetas[301] of the struggle with the insurgent troops in the reign of
Alexius Manuel. “As many buildings as adjoined the Great Church and
commanded the Augusteum were seized by the rebels, who scaled the large
_apsis_ which stands over the Milion, and also fortified the church
of S. Alexius, which is joined to the Augusteum. But the imperial
troops made a sally from the great palace and established themselves
in the church of S. John called Diippus; and the agora was full of men
who were injured by those on the _apsis_ of the Milion, and on the
church of S. Alexius. But fresh troops from the palace filled all the
thoroughfares and passages leading to S. Sophia. The rebels, coming out
of the temple and passing by the Augusteum, became engaged with the
others in the narrow ways, and the conflict remained uncertain, until
the imperial troops drove back from the streets those who had come out
of S. Sophia and shut them within the Augusteum. The imperial troops
broke open the gates of the Augusteum, and the rebels were forced from
the top of the Milion by the troops mounting the _apsides_, while the
rest of them, being worsted in the Augusteum, gave way; but a shower
of missiles was kept up from the part called Macron, overlooking the
Augusteum, and the neighbouring chamber of Thomais. They took refuge
in the pronaos of the church, where is the Archangel Michael in mosaic
standing with drawn sword as if on guard. The imperial troops, because
of the narrowness, were unable to follow them with advantage, nor
did the insurgents dare to trust themselves out again. The patriarch
descended into the _proskenion_ or _protekdikeion_ of the church, and
then harangued them to prevent further sacrilege.”

In the _Ceremonies_ we twice read of the emperor passing through the
nave of S. Sophia and its Royal Gate, then across the narthex, and, by
the _louter_ (fountain), reaching the steps of the _athyr_ (atrium).
“Then he passes through the Milion, and along the Mese and reaches
the Forum, where is the Chapel of S. Constantine.” Labarte, wrongly
explaining this as the Forum Augusteum, instead of that of Constantine,
makes the _louter_ the baptistery, and the _athyr_ its porch. Other
processions from the Palace to the Church through the Milion have been
given by Labarte.

The colonnades adjoining the Milion are mentioned in the account of a
fire which attacked a part of the Great Church in the reign of Isaac
Angelus. “The parts by the apsis of the Milion, and the Macron, and
the place called the Synods were burnt. The porticoes of Domninus were
reduced to ashes, as well as the two covered ways starting on both
sides of the Milion one of which reaches to the Philadelphion.”[302]
The Philadelphion was towards Constantine’s forum, and the other way
probably led from the Milion north and south to the church and the
palace gate.

We learn from Agatho the Deacon[303] that in the porticoes (_stoai_)
of the Milion were represented the seven Œcumenical Synods of
Constantinople; this is probably what is meant by Nicetas, where he
speaks of “The Synods” as quoted above (see, however, Mordtmann, p.
68). The seven synods is one of the iconographic schemes given by the
_Byzantine Manual_, and they are represented in the mosaics at the
Nativity Church at Bethlehem.

_Horologium._--In close connection both with the Milion and the church
was the court of “the time-measure”--a sundial or water-clock. At the
triumphal entry of Basil “they passed along the Mese up to the Milion,
and entered through the embolos of the Milion into the Horologium, and,
having put off their crowns in the metatorium within the Beautiful
Gate, they entered the narthex.”[304] The Horologium is constantly
spoken of as being near the baptistery, and was certainly on the south
side of the church.

_Baptistery._--In our first chapter we have given reasons for
supposing that the round building at the north-east formed part of
the earlier church and became the baptistery of Justinian’s building.
Buzantios considered that the former was the baptistery “perhaps
also used as a sacristy.” A knowledge of an earlier baptistery would
seem to be implied in the way the south-west building is spoken of
by Porphyrogenitus and later writers as the “Great Baptistery by the
Horologium.”

According to Codinus and the Anonymous the Great Baptistery was built
before the church, and Salzenberg thought the style was earlier
than that of the church. Is it possible that this was built as an
independent church and only ultimately became the baptistery? It
appears from the account of the Russian pilgrim Anthony that in the
twelfth century its dome was painted with the baptism of Christ in
Jordan, a scheme which agrees with the two baptisteries at Ravenna.

_St. Peter’s Chapel, &c._--To the east there were some detached
buildings, at least in later times. The Anonymous we have seen mentions
a chapel of St. Peter as near the skeuophylakium. Anthony speaks of
this chapel, in which St. Peter’s chains and the carpet of St. Nicholas
were preserved, as behind the altar. The anonymous Russian says a
chapel of St. Nicholas was behind the bema, and also speaks of a marble
basin covered with a lead roof, “where they baptise the emperors” as
being behind the altar, in a space set round with cypresses. Anna
Comnena also mentions “the chapel of the Hierarch Nicholas” as part
of the Great Church and a place of sanctuary.[305] The passage of St.
Nicholas is also referred to. It is possible that this chapel was
otherwise known as St. Peter’s, and either this or “the place where
they baptise the emperors” may be the present round building--the
ancient baptistery as we suppose. That St. Peter’s chapel was of some
importance and detached seems clear from the _Menologium_. On January
16 was celebrated the adoration of St. Peter’s chains. It is explained
that after Peter’s release, “the chains were found by some believers
and guarded from generation to generation until they were brought to
Constantinople by a pious emperor and placed in the church (ναὸς) of
St. Peter which is near St. Sophia.” We have given a picture of the
chains in Figure 8. A tradition of some of these buildings may be
preserved in an Italian MS. of 1611 in the British Museum. “The ancient
buildings round the church have been ruined by the Turks except a
small part of the close (_canonica_), where they have made dwellings;
there is also the sacristy and the place of the baptistery, which
had originally three vaulted ceilings, one above another. It was of
wonderful architecture and made with six angles. From the sacristy to
the base of the dome is an arquebus shot; between it and the Seraglio
lies a road.”

_Boundaries._--Probably the fullest and clearest account of the
approach to the church through the Augusteum is given by the Spanish
ambassador Clavijo, who was at Constantinople in 1405, at a time when
many of the buildings in the precincts had been destroyed. In a court
in the front of the church, he saw “nine very large columns of white
marble,” and he was told that before his time a palace had been here,
where the patriarch met the canons in chapter. “And in the same place
before the church stands a stone pillar of marvellous height, on the
top of which is a horse of copper as large as four horses put together;
on the horse was an armed knight with a great plume on his head like
a peacock’s tail. The horse has chains of iron round its body secured
to the column to prevent it from falling, or being moved by the wind.
The horse is very well made, and one fore and one hind leg is raised,
as if it were in the act of prancing. The knight, on its back, has his
right arm raised, with the hand open, while the reins are held with
the left hand. This marvellous horse is said to have been placed here
by the Emperor Justinian, who erected the column. At the entrance to
the church under an arch in front of a gate, is a place adorned with
four columns, and below is a little chapel very rich and beautiful.
And beyond this chapel is the gate to the church covered with bronze
very great and high; beyond again is a little court surrounded by high
galleries [horologium?]. Afterwards there was another gate of bronze
[the south porch]. Beyond this gate there is a ‘nave’ vast and high,
with a ceiling of wood [the exonarthex]. And on the left hand there is
a cloister very large, and beautiful [the atrium], with many stones of
jasper of infinite variety of colour. On the right hand under the said
nave-covered as I have said--and after the second gate, you arrive at
the body of the church, which has five doors, high and large, covered
with bronze, of which that in the middle is the greatest.”[306]

The present south porch we should suppose is the pronaos mentioned
by Nicetas as that where the Archangel Michael stood on guard. The
exonarthex is now vaulted, but not covered with mosaic; it is bare and
rough, and it seems possible that at one time there may have been a
ceiling of wood.

Stephen of Novgorod (1350) says that the first gate of the church was
by the column of Justinian; then there was a second, a third, fourth,
fifth and sixth and by the seventh you entered the great church. This
may be exaggeration, but Gyllius speaks of the south entrance formerly
being by six _valvae_ of brass, “now there are only three, ingeniously
worked,” so that there would appear to have been at least one more
double door in his time than the two now existing. If we consult the
careful drawings made by Grelot, which take us half way back to the
conquest, we shall see that the boundaries of the cypress garden on
the south side agree entirely with the present walls. The first of
the turbehs was built here about a hundred years after the conquest,
and we may almost safely assume that it was backed against the outer
wall, as at present. Now when we find Clavijo, some fifty years before
the conquest, in approaching the church from this side, speak of an
outer gateway and a court before the church was reached, we shall
almost certainly be justified in placing this outer gate on the present
boundary. The fountain in the south court we suppose occupies the site
of an ancient fountain. A comparison of Grelot’s plan (1680) with
Fossati’s (1850), will make clear the south boundaries of the church,
as they existed at the time of the conquest. The octagonal building
attached to the south side of the church shown in Fossati’s plan must
be Turkish, probably the library of the sultan mentioned by Pococke.

The palace of the patriarch, with the library of the Thomaites, we
would place on the ground between the south boundary and the church,
the gardens which belonged to it occupying the ground of one of the
courts. It had evidently been destroyed by the time of Clavijo’s visit,
and for what is known as to the buildings we must refer to Paspates.

The courts to the north of the church were probably occupied by the
cells of the clergy and the college called Didaskalion (see our page
49); Bondelmontius speaks of “the way of a thousand columns in pairs”
(the Mese) through which the emperor walked to S. Sophia “where the
houses of the 800 clergy were round the church.”[307]

_The Atrium._--The street lying at an angle to the west wall of the
entrance courtyard, rising steeply towards the hippodrome, is probably
ancient.

Some considerable remains of the atrium colonnade were in existence in
the present century, but they were finally destroyed in 1873.[308] The
present boundary of the western court appears to occupy the position
of the exterior west wall of the atrium. Outside it there is a level
roadway, beyond which the ground falls rapidly to the street. As the
church stands across a hill the ground had to be made up to a level,
and this, together with the position of the street, would account
for the court not having been square as was usually the case. As
excavations have shown that the pavement of the Hippodrome and the
Augusteum were eight or ten feet below the present level,[309] steps
would have been required to attain the level of the church at the west.
The _Ceremonies_ show that the royal processions entered and left the
church on the south side through the Augusteum, which served as a great
forecourt to the church on this side. Without doubt this was the
principal entrance. Clavijo and other visitors all appear to have
entered the church from the south. When Grelot’s western view was made
(before 1680) no west doors to the atrium existed, but it was entered
from the north and south only. In our plan we have therefore shown only
one door in the west wall of the atrium, possibly there was none (Fig.
3).

[Illustration: FIG. 25.--Original state of West Front as built by
Justinian.]

Outside the present south-west entrance of the court there remained
until 1869 a stone inscribed

  ✚ϹΑϹΘϹΕΝΘΑΔΕΚΑΤΟΙΚΙΜΗΔΕΙ....

Its form suggests that it was a step, or it may have been a lintel from
one of the doors into the atrium or the rim from a fountain.[310] The
words “The Holy God dwelleth here let no....” may be compared with the
inscriptions for fountains and gates given on pages 84 and 264.

This atrium court of S. Sophia was called by the Byzantine
authors _aule_, _mesaulion_, _aithria_, and by some late writer,
_garçonastasion_, which Du Cange explains as “the place where pages
wait.” The cloistered walk originally surrounded it and formed a
quadriporticus; although the eastern walk, the present exonarthex, is
inclosed and entirely different from the other colonnaded walks, the
atrium is often referred to as “Four-porticoed” (_Tetrastoon_). It
cannot therefore be doubted that the exonarthex with its great piers
replaced the original eastern walk, for the sake of greater abutment
to the church. This is equally clear from the building itself and the
description of the poet. (See Figs. 3, 24, 25, 29). The “Propylaeum”
often spoken of must either be this exonarthex, or the gateways in the
atrium.

The cloister walks were vaulted, and the walls covered with marble. One
of the capitals remained in the courtyard as lately as 1873, when it
was drawn by Canon Curtis; it resembled those in the gallery inside,
with deep sculptured dosseret and small volutes below. More than one
writer remarks on the great beauty of the marble shafts. They were
set in close order, and we may see from Salzenberg that, when we add
for their bases, they were some twenty-two feet high, and must have
made a fine portico to the west front. In 1852 two of the pillars
were represented on the plan of Fossati as still _in situ_: now every
evidence of the atrium has entirely disappeared.

_Phiale._--In the middle of the court was placed a fountain, where,
according to the Silentiary, was a “bubbling stream leaping into the
air from a bronze pipe.” The name given to such a fountain by Greek
writers was phiale or colymbethra, and, by the Latins, cantharus or
nymphaeum. At S. Sophia it was also called “The Laver of the Atrium”
(λουτὴρ μεσαυλίου).[311] The louter or loutron, with its colymbethra,
formed a sanctuary for the pursued: we read in Procopius of their
“fleeing to the church of S. Sophia, and coming to the holy loutron,
and laying hold of the colymbethra which was there.”[312]

According to the Anonymous author, on whom we place no reliance, the
phiale had twelve arcades or columns, and lions spouted out the water.
Canopied phialae it is true still exist at St. Demetrius at Salonica,
and in the monasteries of Mount Athos. The canopy of the phiale at old
St. Peter’s was of bronze; under it the great pine cone, which still
remains, threw out water in innumerable little threads. On the canopy
were probably placed the beautiful bronze peacocks, which also still
exist.[313] A very beautiful fountain of this kind, at Constantinople,
was placed before the church built by Basil in the palace. The basin
was marble, from which rose a pine cone pierced with holes. Above on
the cornice were placed cocks, stags, and rams, of cast bronze, from
which the water flowed.[314]

In the Court of the Lions at the Alhambra, the basin of the fountain
rests on lions, and the water runs away from the fountain in four open
streams to the four sides of the cloister. This work was certainly
executed under Byzantine influence, and it is curious to find more than
one small garden fountain at Constantinople in which the water issues
from the mouth of lions. On the other hand it seems probable that the
Anonymous imitated the description of the temple of Solomon and the
laver, which stood on twelve oxen. The other washing place he describes
(see page 141) with the different kinds of animals represented, seems
to be founded on the description of that of Basil’s church.

Porphyrogenitus speaks of the “cup of the phiale”; and it seems most
probable, considering the simple description of the Silentiary,
that, as in so many ancient churches, it was at first merely a bowl,
standing on a pillar rising from a polygonal basin. In the time of
Michael Palaeologus, there was such a basin on the sides of which “was
engraved on the marble the honoured form of the cross.”[315] A bowl
figured by Gruterus[316] in 1602 as “newly found at Constantinople,”
has been spoken of by Du Cange and others as having belonged to S.
Sophia, although the evidence of this is not very positive.[317] This
was a circular bowl very similar to the well-known representation of a
cantharus of Justinian’s time in the Ravenna mosaic. The inscription
around the rim read equally well in both directions.[318] This circle
being horizontal, we cannot but think, as it would necessarily be
read from outside, that Gruterus was mistaken in putting the bottom
of the letters toward the centre; we have therefore reversed this
in our figure. The words “Wash thy sins, not thy face only,” almost
certainly refer it to a phiale. Eusebius, for instance, speaking of
one of these fountains, says, “it is not meet for an unclean foot to
step on the sacred place within the temple,” and Paulinus tells us
that at Nola those who entered the church washed their hands in a
similar place.[319] Probably, so accurate a writer as Du Cange had good
reasons for referring the bowl in question to S. Sophia. Dr. Covel of
Cambridge, who was at Constantinople from 1670 to 1677, and has left
a valuable MS. now in the British Museum, which we shall have further
occasion to quote, also gives the inscription, which he says came from
the fountain of S. Sophia, but again, it is possible he derived this
from Du Cange, or from Grelot, whom he appears to have met, for some of
the Frenchman’s drawings are included in the MS.

[Illustration: FIG. 26.--Inscription on Phiale from Gruter.]

In this collection are drawings of two beautiful phiale cups, which
existed at Ephesus when visited by Dr. Covel. From the simple elegance
of their forms we suppose that these bowls cannot be later than the
sixth century.[320] See Fig. 27.

_Pavement of the Court._--When the Anonymous tells us that the four
boundaries of the church were called after the rivers that flowed from
Paradise, it is quite evident from the context that he is speaking of
the atrium; and it seems probable that immediately before, where he
speaks of “ever flowing waters of great rivers,” he is describing the
pavement of the court as figuring four streams. This certainly would
furnish a reason for the walks taking their names from the four rivers
of marble which flowed towards them, like the four real streams flow
in the court of the Alhambra. There is much to countenance this theory.
For instance, the atrium of old St. Peter’s was called Paradise:
Simeon of Thessalonica tells us the part outside the doors of a church
represented the creation, as the bema symbolised heaven; and the idea
might easily be referred to the words used in the service for blessing
the waters of the phiale.

[Illustration: FIG. 27.--Phiale Bowls from Ephesus.]

This custom of blessing the waters on the eve of Epiphany, to which
Paulus the Silentiary alludes (see page 44), was practised as early
as the end of the fourth century.[321] Goar gives the ritual.[322]
After the evening service the priest with the censer and candlestick
proceeds to the “_luter_ of the _mesaulion_,” chanting “the voice of
the Lord is upon the waters.” Part of the ceremony of blessing included
a prayer, “We beseech thee, O Almighty Father ... who fixed Paradise in
Eden and bade its quadruple spring flow far and wide ... who blessed
the waters for Jacob, and hast bidden us, through thy prophet Isaiah,
to draw water in gladness from the fountains of the Saviour.” The
account of the Anonymous may be a duplication of his description of the
interior, but outside Charlemagne’s church at Aix there is a pine cone
which formerly belonged to a phiale; the water rained from it through
little holes, and about the foot are verses referring to the rivers of
Paradise and Baptism.

_West Front._--On the east side of the atrium court, against the
west wall of the exonarthex, rise four great piers from which spring
flying arches to the west wall of the church. Salzenberg thought that
the upper arches were Turkish, and that the piers were originally
intended to support equestrian statues, which he therefore shows in
his drawings. Other writers, amongst whom is Fossati, say that the
bronze horses now on the gallery outside the west front of S. Mark’s
at Venice, taken from Constantinople in 1204, came from this position;
but there is not the least authority for this statement, and the horses
at Venice are not half the size of those that would be required to
justify the suggestion. Bondelmontius in 1422 describing the columns
of the city, speaks first of that of Justinian, “secondly of that of
the Cross, where are seen four upright porphyry columns; and on them
were placed four bronze horses which the Venetians took to S. Mark’s at
Venice, but the columns remain.” Brocquière, writing ten years later,
says that “westward [in the city] is a very high square column with
characters traced on it, and bearing on the summit an equestrian statue
of Constantine in bronze. He holds a sceptre in his left hand, with his
right extended towards Turkey in Asia and the road to Jerusalem as if
to denote that the whole of that country was under his government. Near
this column are three [_sic_] others placed in a line, and of single
pieces which bore the three gilt horses now in Venice.” Brocquière
has here certainly confused the column of Justinian, and that of
Constantine, but we may safely accept Bondelmontius. The porphyry
column of Constantine, situated in the Forum Constantine, at this time
bore a cross with the inscription “Holy, Holy, Holy.” Many modern
writers place the four horses in the hippodrome, as Nicetas speaks
of “the arched starting-places for the racers, above which are fixed
powerful horses of gilt bronze, curving their necks and facing one
another as if eager for the course” (Ed. Bonn, p. 150).

Between the four great piers of the west front there are now three
doorways. If, however, we refer to the plates of Salzenberg, we shall
find that only the two lateral ones are there shown, and that the
position of the central door is occupied by a window; this arrangement
was seen by Texier in 1834, and is shown in a MS. drawing of his,
now in the library of the Royal Institute of Architects. Referring to
the views and plan which Grelot published in 1680, we see the central
bay occupied by a belfry, with a pyramidal top rising above the roof
of the exonarthex. Now in Goar’s _Euchologium_[323] there is a note
to this effect, “The Greeks first took up the use of bells from the
time when Urso Patricio, Doge of Venice, in the year 865, sent them to
Michael the emperor, who greatly valued them, and built a tower for
them against S. Sophia.” We have already seen that large repairs were
made to the west front of the church about this time (page 123), with a
view of counteracting the thrust of the vaults. Before the belfry was
built the Semantron would have been used; this was a plate of bronze or
wood suspended in the atrium and struck like a gong (see Fig. 28). It
appears from the Russian pilgrims that the bells remained in use for
only a short time. A sixteenth century French MS. in the British Museum
speaks of the old square tower and bells. Grelot[324] says “this tower,
formerly the belfry, is now void, the Turks having exchanged the music
of bells for the noise of cannon.” It was not fifty _toises_ high, and
could not have held many bells, or large ones.[325]

[Illustration: FIG. 28.--Semantron at Constantinople, from Lenoir.]

The upper story of the narthex, Grelot tells us was supported by six
flying buttresses, and both his exterior views show three complete
piers and flying arches on each side of the tower. The bay next the
belfry on the right was occupied by a low building with a pent roof, in
which were descending steps, at the bottom of which they drew off water
from “the great cisterns under the church, from which it was said a boat
might reach the sea.” As to the doors there were three towards the west,
used when Grelot made his plan, two being those at the extreme north and
south, opposite the lateral atrium walks, and the other, which was less,
and little used, was next the belfry on the left, and is in fact the
left one of the three present doors. The arches, which cover two of the
spaces between the piers and make them into porches, are shown in the
view by Fossati of the unrestored state of the front.

[Illustration: FIG. 29.--West Front as altered in the Ninth Century.]

Comparing the drawings of Grelot and the plan given by Du Cange, both
published in 1680, with the present remains, it would appear that there
were formerly ten of these buttresses; two being merged in the central
belfry, and the two outside ones incorporated in the minarets, on the
sides of which traces of them may still be seen. Two others have either
been destroyed by the Turks, or Grelot’s drawings are wrong to this
extent, as no trace seems to remain of more than eight. Of these eight
which now in part remain, Salzenberg only reserves the four at the
centre, on which he places the horses. Our Figs. 26 and 29 represent
the original west front and the altered façade of the ninth century;
see also Plan, Fig. 24.

_Cisterns._--On the south side of the right-hand pier is a small arch
which gives access to a little recessed chamber in the buttress. From
this and from a similar recess north of the central entrance, water
from the cisterns beneath the church was probably obtained: a cross on
the wall of the little chamber would seem to show that it was a “holy
well.”[326]

Clavijo says the cisterns beneath the church would float ten galleys,
and C. Lebrun (1714) speaks of ten cisterns and forty columns standing
in the water. The only real description of the cistern we have been
able to find is in Dr. Covel’s MS. diary in the British Museum. In 1676
he writes, “We went to see the vaults under S. Sophia; they were full
of water, then 17 feet deep, and overhead, from the water up to the
top of the arch was about 2 yards and 6 inches. Every pillar is square
(4½ feet), and distant from another just 12 feet. The bricks are very
broad, thin, and well baked; [it is] not plastered within, the mortar
very hard. They say it goes under [the] At-Meidan, but we could not
enter it. The waste water of the Aqueduct enters into it, and [going]
out of it passing through the Seraglio, goes into the sea by the
dunghill. [There is] severe punishment to [those who] have houses with
offices [draining] into it; or [for those who] throw any filth into it:
the well of S. Sophia [opens] into it and many wells in the Seraglio.”
He gives a diagram plan, showing two rows of eight piers and a third
row of three, although, as no boundary is shown, it is impossible to
say if this is the whole extent (see below).[327]

_Generally._--Some of the exterior was doubtless cased with marble like
S. Mark’s; indeed some of the marble plating remained in Salzenberg’s
time. “The walls outside (the Anonymous writes) were covered with
large and valuable stones.” Where not so incrusted the narrow coursed
brickwork showed in thin red lines, almost equalled by the thick joints
of the mortar. From this brickwork the marble lattices of the windows,
each with its slab at the bottom charged with a cross, shone out fair,
and the gray lead of the many domes rose above all, curve on curve in
pearly gradation of light. The courts were doubtless closely set with
cypresses, like those which now rise about the turbehs on the south
side.

Many passages in the Byzantine authors show how much beauty of site was
regarded as essential for a fair church.[328] Procopius, describing
the Church of the Fountain at Constantinople, says, “there was a grove
of cypresses in a rich meadow of blooming flowers, a garden abounding
in fruit, with a gently bubbling spring of sweet water, everything
suggested the site of a church.”




CHAPTER X

BUILDING FORMS AND THE BUILDERS


§ 1. ORIGINS.

It may be well to say a few words on the growth of the Byzantine
architecture, of which Justinian’s church is the perfect flower. This
building is often spoken of as if it were at once the first and the
maturest essay in this great style, but this we might know would have
been impossible, even though the links that led up to it were lost,
which is not entirely the case. It is perfectly true, however, as Mr.
Morris says, that “the style leaps into sudden completeness in this
most lovely building.”

The new wants of the Church soon evolved the complete Christian
basilica, which, it has been said must have been in the mind of the
writer of the Apocalypse as the type of the entire arrangement of
the altar, the twenty-four elders, and the great congregation, in
his vision of the heavenly worship. In the time of Constantine, and
in Rome, alongside of work which was entirely classic, the churches,
with fewer ties to the past to limit development along truly rational
lines, had developed a manner which was a more direct outcome of
the necessities of building with a minimum of merely perfunctory
“architectural” forms--those conventions for the thoughtless
expenditure of the workers’ labour, which in still worse times make
architecture a burden to them instead of a delight.

This transitional style is rightly called early Christian, or
Constantinian. In the East, the vital part of the empire at this time,
a greater change was taking place that brought back life once again
to the arts of decoration; this may be expressed in a formula as the
re-orientalization of classic art--the linking of simple massive Roman
building to a new decoration, vividly alive and inventive, frank,
bright, and full of colour, and yet as rational in its choice and
application as the construction. In the modern sense the Romans may be
said to have invented building, and the Byzantine-Greeks architecture.

The Roman system of arched building, covered with brick and concrete
vaulted shells and domes, had been masked by non-functional pillars,
tablements, and pediments in what was thought the true Athenian manner;
at the same time many beautiful decorative expedients were also in use,
such as the lining of walls with large thin marble slabs, or small
pieces of glass of various forms and colours. Mosaic of gold glass
seems to have been known before the time of Constantine.[329] Gold
tesserae probably originated in an at first almost accidental use of
portions of the Roman glass vessels which are decorated by patterns in
gold leaf protected by a thin layer of glass over the surface. Parts of
such vessels are found used decoratively in the Catacombs.

Byzantine architecture was developed by the use of brick in the
frankest and fullest manner, especially in domical vaulting. Wide spans
were kept in equipoise by other smaller domes. The more concentrated
supports were marble monoliths, and the wall and vault surfaces were
covered by incrustations of marble slabs and glass mosaic. Directness,
an economy of labour relative to the results obtained, is perhaps the
most essential characteristic of the art both in construction and
decoration in the great period. This freedom and rationality mark
it out from all other styles of building, or rather make it include
all other styles, for this reaches the universal. M. Choisy rightly
insists on the fact that the Byzantine builders endeavoured to suppress
preparatory and auxiliary work, and to execute their vaults and domes
without centring. “The greater number of their vaults,” he says “rose
in space without any kind of support.... Their method is not a mere
variation of that of the West, but it is quite a distinct system, not
even derived from a Roman source, but Asiatic. Byzantine art is the
Greek spirit working on Asiatic elements.” Here we have an extreme
statement in one direction, and the word Roman must be used in a narrow
sense; for these Asiatic elements in construction, of which alone M.
Choisy seems to be speaking, whatever were their remote origins must
have been completely absorbed into the larger Rome of the Empire, and
we have no knowledge of any other system of construction in western
Asia from the first to the fourth century than “Roman,” unless we
subdivide this into Palmyrene, Herodian, or construct an imaginary
Persian style out of what went before and came afterwards. Choisy
himself shows that a large use of burnt brick was first made by the
Romans, and that the system of building vaults in sections known in
Assyria and Egypt had been adopted by Roman builders in the East in
the time of Constantine. But this was the essential germ of Byzantine
construction. It was the falling away of a dead scholasticism that
left Roman building in the East free to be shaped into Byzantine
architecture. Mr. Bury, who is extreme in the opposite direction, and
makes the same claim for the continuity of Roman art as he does for the
Empire, suggests that Romaic would be a better term than Byzantine. But
whatever name is given to the political system we must remember that
the arts are shaped by the people, and that the people were truly Greek
who, in the age of Justinian, thought out and left to the modern world
the last great gift of Hellenic genius--mediæval Greek architecture.

[Illustration: FIG. 30.--Roman Tomb in Palestine.]

While the art of building in the East, particularly in Syria and Asia
Minor, and possibly in Egypt, was still distinctly Roman, a ferment and
change may be detected which cannot be matched in Rome itself. Both in
construction and ornamentation there is much already at Palmyra and
Baalbec that belongs to the new, and repudiates the rules of merely
official art.

In Rome the dome never appears to have been finally adapted to a
composite building by being directly applied to a square plan. The dome
on pendentives, so far as we know, was invented and perfected entirely
in the East. M. Choisy figures a building from Jerash, which may be
of the third or fourth century which he considers the earliest known
dome on pendentives. This building, although it is plainly early, has
nothing characteristically Roman about it. A building of the same class
however, recently discovered by the Palestine Exploration Society at
Kusr en Nûeijîs in eastern Palestine,[330] is an ornate example of late
Roman work; Ionic pilasters and carved entablature mask the outside,
while within we have a perfected dome on pendentives covering a central
square area, counterpoised by four barrel vaults. We agree with the
Memoir that--“there can be little hesitation in ascribing this building
to the second century A.D.” This building, probably a mausoleum, in
adjustment of parts, and geometrical development might be a Byzantine
church of three hundred years later. It is a little Sancta Sophia, and
taken together with the Jerash building it makes a class invaluable
as a fixed point to work from.[331] This however like most Syrian
buildings is of stone.

A church at Koja Kalessi in Isauria,[332] Fig. 31, which there is a
great reason to suppose of early fifth century work, furnishes an
important link. We have here an approximation of the square domed
building to the columned basilica which is most interesting. This
church is substantially complete with women’s galleries opening to the
nave by a second tier of arcades just as at S. Sophia.

[Illustration: FIG. 31.--Plan of a Church in Isauria.]

[Illustration: FIG. 32.--Church of the Trinity, Ephesus.]

The next building we should place in the sequence is the church of the
Trinity at Ephesus of which Hübsch, Wood and Choisy give plans. The
former furnishes a restoration, and speaks of it as probably one of the
earliest of Christian churches, but there is no reason to suppose it
earlier than the beginning of the fifth century. Choisy speaks of it as
a curious monument of transition already Byzantine in structure. Before
seeing Hübsch’s restoration, we had placed an arcade in the lateral
arches, agreeing in every respect with his suggestions; and that this
was the original form is strongly confirmed by the next church--as it
seems to us--in the development. This is the church of S. Sophia at
Salonica, which has long been assigned to Justinian’s reign at a time
subsequent to the erection of S. Sophia, but is now thought to belong
to the fifth century. M. Petros Papageorgios in the _Hestia_[333]
of Athens for October 3rd and November 14th 1893, gives the mosaic
inscription of this church, which he thinks definitely fixes its
decoration in the year 495.[334]

[Illustration: FIG. 33.--Church of S. Sophia, Salonica. Scale about
forty-five feet to an inch, for three plans.]

The churches at Cassaba, Ancyra and Myra in Asia Minor engraved in
Texier’s _Asie Mineure_, and repeated by Salzenberg relate themselves
so closely to this chain of development that we believe they will
be found to belong rather to the fifth and sixth centuries than to
the seventh or eighth as those writers thought. The square type with
a central dome persisted independently without coalescing with the
basilica. Such was the domed church at Antioch founded by Constantine
and completed by Constantius; here the central dome was surrounded by
aisles, and formed an octagon. In the churches of St. George at Ezra,
and St. Sergius at Bosra we have domes standing over a central octagon
contained in an external square. These were built about 515, and they
furnished the type that was followed at St. Sergius at Constantinople
which was built only a few years before S. Sophia.


§ 2. THE BUILDERS OF THE CHURCH.

It is noteworthy that the architects who built S. Sophia as well as the
historians who chronicle the work, all, so far as their birth-places
are known, come from Syria and Asia Minor. The flourishing city of
Ephesus was one of the great centres of the transformation of the art
of building; and it was from the neighbouring cities of Tralles and
Miletus, that Anthemius and Isidorus came to Constantinople.

Of the two master builders who appear to have been employed together by
Justinian, it seems clear, from Procopius and the other writers, that
Anthemius was more especially concerned in the preparation of the first
draft or model, and that Isidorus, by birth a Milesian, was associated
with him in the conduct of the works.

“Anthemius,” says Paulus, “skilled in setting out a plan, laid the
foundation.” “Anthemius was the man who devised and worked at every
part,” writes Agathias, and this author gives some account of his life.
“Now this Anthemius was born at Tralles, and he was an inventor of
machines; one of those who apply designs to material, and make models
and imitations of real things. He was distinguished in this and had
reached the summit of mathematical knowledge, just as his brother
Metrodorus was distinguished in letters. Besides these there were three
other brothers, Olympus, famous for his knowledge of law, and Dioscorus
and Alexander, both skilled in medicine. Of these Dioscorus lived in
his native land and Alexander in Old Rome. But the fame of the skill
of Anthemius and Metrodorus reached the emperor, and they were invited
to Constantinople, where they spent the rest of their lives, each
presenting wonderful examples of his skill. One taught letters; the
other raised wonderful buildings throughout the city and in many other
places; these, I think, even if nothing were said about them, as long
as they remained unharmed, would be sufficient to win for him perpetual
glory.”

Stories of his mechanical ingenuity are told by Agathias one of which
is as follows. Anthemius had a quarrelsome neighbour whose room
overhung his ground. He placed here large kettles of water, with an
arrangement of leather pipes and a tube like a trumpet up to the
projecting part; and making the other parts secure, “he heated the
water so that the whole thing burst up like an earthquake.”

As to the scheme prepared by the master builders for the building, an
examination of the evidence seems to suggest the following antecedent
conditions and governing ideas. 1. The ground levels required a short
and wide church (_ante_, p. 186). 2. An old western apse possibly
suggested the western hemicycle of the new church (_ante_, p. 19). 3.
The plan, while a direct outcome of traditional forms as we have shown,
seems a synthesis of the three types which were then current; the
Basilican like S. John Studius; the square church with a dome like S.
Sergius, and the cross plan of the Church of the Apostles.

At S. Sergius, the expedient of planning columned exedras to fill out
the angles of the square beneath a domed vault had proved its utility
and beauty. For the influence of the cross type we need only turn to
the plan, and observe that the width across the “transepts” is exactly
the same as the length included by the eastern and western hemicycles.

The master builders not only designed the church, they came “and worked
at every part,” and lived with their building until their death; they
certainly graduated as workmen, and we hear nothing of their honours
or position, only of their genius.[335] In the words of M. Choisy, “In
Justinian’s time, to build was the essential _rôle_ of the architect.”

Both master builders are again mentioned as working together on the
occasion of the fortifications of Dara in Mesopotamia, having been
injured by floods. The emperor on hearing of it at Constantinople
“straightway summoned those most celebrated architects Anthemius and
Isidorus mentioned before, and inquired what might be devised.” The
scheme of Chryses, the engineer of the works at Dara, was however
adopted.[336]

The younger Isidorus who re-erected the dome of S. Sophia Procopius
mentions as having been employed by Justinian in rebuilding the city
of Zenobia in Mesopotamia with its fortifications, churches, baths
and porticoes. “All this work was done under the superintendence of
Isidorus and Joannes, of whom Johannes was a Byzantine and Isidorus
a Milesian by birth, being the nephew of that Isidorus I mentioned
before.”

To the master builders Procopius, Paulus, and Theophanes give the
names _mechanikos_, _polumechanos_, _mechanopoios_, to which other
writers add _protooikodomos_--“first of the builders,” _magistros_ and
_maistor_. The craftsmen appear to have been classed as _technitai_
with a foreman over each subdivision. The Latin names of the different
building crafts are given both in Theodosius’ code,[337] and in the
edict of Diocletian,[338] which fixed their wages. This edict is
bilingual, but unfortunately the Greek synonyms for the workmen are
wanting. In the description of the building of S. Sophia, Procopius
speaks of the _lithologos_ or “stone-layer,” who built the big piers,
Paulus and the Anonymous use _laotoros_ and _laotomos_ a “mason” and
“stone-cutter,” wherever marble workers are mentioned, to which must
also be added _lithoxos_ “stone polisher.” The general bricklayers,
&c. are comprised as _oikodomoi_. _Tektonikos_ implies a carpenter.
S. Gregory of Nyssa, in describing a church of S. Theodore, calls the
craftsman who arranged the mosaic tesserae, ὁ συνθέτης τῶν ψηφίδων.

A list of the chief classes of workmen employed in the sixth century
on a monumental building in Italy given by Cassiodorus,[339] names the
following--Instructor-parietum, sculptor-marmorum, camerarum-rotator,
gypsoplastes, and musivarius. The instructor-parietum is probably
the man who set out the work, the camerarum-rotator is he who turned
the vaults. The gypsoplastes, a literal transcription of γυψοπλάστης,
signifies a worker or modeller in stucco, corresponding to the
plastes-gypsarius of the edict of Diocletian. The musivarius is the
“putter together of tesserae” of S. Gregory. Workmen who understood the
mysteries of “vault turning” seem to have been especially appreciated,
as Theophanes tells us that Isaurian workmen were employed to build the
dome of S. Sophia.

In the humblest work the personality of the maker is often delightfully
expressed. A Byzantine brick in the British Museum is stamped “ΧΡ. made
by the most excellent Narsis,” and a late Roman glass cup bears the
legend “Ennion made this. Think of it, O buyer.”

In his inquiry as to the methods of workmanship, M. Choisy says the
Byzantine Greeks did not efface from buildings all traces of the
workman’s individuality. “The workman is no mere passive instrument,
obedient, without any regard to initiative or responsibility, to the
workshop foreman; he is treated as an intelligent power, and finds in
front of him liberty, and a field open to his imagination.”

In Roman times the system was that we call “division of labour.”
“_L’art roman est un fait d’organisation._” The workman was not an
independent citizen working at his own pleasure for his daily wants;
he was a _functionnaire_, and compulsorily a member of an association
organised by the state on the model of military service. In the East
an altogether freer system seems to have obtained. The guilds were
independent associations, and in Palestine the Carpenter’s Son and the
tentmaker followed their callings irrespective of state authority.
“In Byzantine buildings the same name occurs in turn upon columns,
capitals, or simply squared blocks of stone, and there is nothing to
show that the foreman of the works kept one man at one particular kind
of work. The East never changes; at present the absence of division of
labour in Oriental buildings is most striking. The proprietor chooses a
master workman (_protomaistor_); to this improvised architect he adds
a certain number of head workmen (_maistores_) and their companions,
and these same men will work at digging the foundations, at the masonry
of the walls, and at the carpentry of the roof; even the ironwork and
joinery is scarcely reserved for special workmen.” The terms masters
and companions suggest an arrangement which merits consideration. Like
western workmen the Greek artizans were affiliated to corporations
which have lived to our days. These associations (_sunergasiai_) had
a council, composed exclusively of those, who, by apprenticeship and
trial, had earned the title of masters (_maistores_).

Each society was presided over by a “protomaistor” helped by
secretaries (_grammateus_ and _kerux_) to summon the meetings. It was
at once a corporation of workmen, a religious brotherhood, and a mutual
aid society: and such societies engaged in mutual acts of hospitality
and assistance between one town and another.

All workers in the East seem to have been thus associated into guilds,
and municipal life was organised on the guilds. This is evident
at Constantinople as early as the _Notitia_, see p. 11 above. The
members of the guilds had to help at fires, and Lydus gives the cry
which brought them together, “_Omnes Collegiati_.” Demetrius, the
silversmith of Ephesus, called together the _Sunergasia_ when the
craft was in danger; we even hear of strikes. Even unskilled labourers
had their guilds, and Mr. Ramsay has described the Guild of Street
Porters of Smyrna in Roman times (_American Journal of Archæology_,
Vol. I.). The existence of the guilds is the most significant fact of
the social history of the middle ages. In such craft organisation of
labour, free of the financial middlemen who now rightly call themselves
“Contractors,” we see the only hope that building for service, and
ornamenting for delight, can again be made possible.

Our studies have convinced us that “shop production” went on side by
side with the building organisation. This shop production will be
at once allowed for such things as gold cups and altars, lamps and
bronze doors, but we believe that decorative marble work was largely
produced in this way, and that just as enamelled cups and damascened
doors were “ordered” in Constantinople, so also were sculptured slabs
and capitals. It would be possible to account for mere resemblance by
“influence,” but absolute likeness between the capitals and sculptured
or inlaid slabs found in contemporary buildings, at cities so far
apart as Constantinople, Salonica, Parenzo, Ravenna, and Rome show
that in the fifth and sixth centuries such works were dispersed from a
common centre. So early as the fourth century S. Gregory Nazianzenus
speaks of a priest who came to Constantinople “from Thasos bringing
with him the gold of the church wherewith to buy slabs (_plakes_) of
Proconnesian marble.”[340] These things were not only bought, but
specially commissioned; for instance, the marbles of St. Clemente,
which are almost certainly Constantinople work, bear fine monograms of
John, afterwards elected pope in 532. The great contributing cause for
this, besides the political and artistic position of Constantinople,
was doubtless its possession of an absolutely perfect material in
boundless profusion--the coarse white marble, which we may see to-day
so delightfully wrought in small shops into the tombs, each of which
has its carved tree of cypress, palm, or rose.


§ 3. ORIGINAL FORM OF THE CHURCH.

_Dome_, &c.--Agathias tells us that when Justinian rebuilt the dome it
was made higher, and that large alterations were made to the sustaining
arches on the north and south sides. Salzenberg cites Theophanes and
Zonaras who give the increase of height as twenty and twenty-five feet
respectively. If we examine the longitudinal section we shall see that
the great semidomes of the hemicycles and the apsoid of the bema show
much less of their curvature outside than the present central dome. The
windows in these do not stand above a cornice, but are pierced through
the vaults at middle height; the domical surface being unbroken by
any cornice from springing to crown. The cupola of the baptistery is
also continuous with the pendentives. A dome of this kind, however,
continuing the pendentives, would seem to be impossibly flat, and would
be some thirty feet less than the present height--see A in Fig. 4, the
existing dome rising to B. If a curve between these two be obtained
by lowering the crown of the dome about fifteen feet to C, it may be
noticed that a straight line tangential to the curve of the eastern
apsoid, and also to the great semidome would form similar contact with
the dome.

Salzenberg, understanding an account of Cedrenus as to a strengthening
of the abutments of the dome to refer to the great buttress masses
which rise above the gynaeceum roof, considers that the external
parts of these masses were additions made at the time of Justinian’s
restoration. These great vertical piles are so essential to the
structure, to the logical beauty of the design, and to the staircase
service of the building; moreover the preparation for them beneath
is so adequate, that we cannot accept this suggestion, and therefore
follow Choisy in considering them original. Now Choisy, examining the
external base of the dome where it forms a square, found that the
four angles had been increased, and that it did not originally form a
square, but rose above the piers and the lateral arches as shown in
Fig. 34, and in Fig. 37, where the first base is shown by hatching and
the additions by dotted lines, A A. “This alteration,” he writes, “is
not hypothetical. I verified the entire absence of bond between the
first base of the dome and the added work” (p. 138). These additions
were built on the lateral arches, and on the top of the piers, altering
the form shown in our Fig. 35 to the present form given by Salzenberg.
That Choisy is right, is borne out by seeing the resemblance of
treatment that there would have been between the growth of the dome on
the north and south and the semidome on the west (see Fig. 34).

[Illustration: FIG. 34.--View of Vaulted System of S. Sophia, adapted
from Choisy.]

Again, Salzenberg hardly makes it sufficiently clear that the large
arches in the walls which fill the great vertical semicircles over the
arcades on north and south sides, are in fact the inner surfaces of the
arches which pass between the pairs of piers on north and south sides
(seventy-two feet apart in this direction), and being the whole width
of those piers (fifteen feet eight inches) on soffite they form the
immense arches so well known on the outside. The semicircles of wall,
each of which contains twelve windows, are now filled in beneath these
arches, flush with their _inner faces_, and the arches therefore do not
show to the interior through the decoration (Figs. 4, 36, 38).

[Illustration: FIG. 35.--Plan of Upper Gallery as first designed.]

[Illustration: FIG. 36.--Section of Aisles and Gallery.]

Now Agathias (see page 30) says that at the restoration after the
earthquake in 558, at the north and south arches they brought towards
the inside “the portion of the building which was on the curve.” This,
we think, must refer to the filling wall, in the arches of seventy-two
feet span, which we suppose was formerly on the exterior, and thus left
an upper gallery twelve feet wide and seventy-two feet long open to the
interior. “And they made the arches wider to be in harmony with the
others, thus making the equilateral symmetry more perfect. They thus
reduced the vast space and formed an oblong design.” That is the arches
of seventy-two feet, when filled up on the inside, were no longer
visible, and the dome appeared to stand over arches of 100 feet span on
north and south, as already on east and west, the transverse dimension
of the church being lessened between these points by some twenty-four
feet. Salzenberg understanding Agathias to refer to the apparent arches
of 100 feet span on north and south is unable to offer any explanation.

[Illustration: FIG. 37.--Plan of Basis of Dome as originally designed,
with Additions A A containing stairs.]

[Illustration: FIG. 38.--Section between Great and Secondary Orders.]

The actual evidence in the church, we believe, fully bears out the
interpretation here suggested. What we have called the secondary order
of columns would pass exactly beneath the position given to this wall.
These columns on the gallery floor are very strong, and a very strong
row of arches runs along over them (see Fig. 38). Moreover the curtain
walls in every other instance throughout the church are flush with the
exterior.

That this space is not available to the interior of S. Sophia has
caused Choisy to criticise the design in this respect as “a solution
undecided, _moyen terme_, _fâcheux_; the large arches by a departure
from ordinary rule being thrown on the outside so that the space
covered by them was lost. S. Sophia Salonica redressed this error.” We
wonder that Choisy’s views as to the original base of the dome did not
cause him to take the further step we have here suggested. The present
form, in which the lateral arches support the square base of the dome,
is at least a possible one; but that the arches when they carried
nothing and thus were actually vaults (as before shown by Choisy) were
not filled with a screen but were mere arches twelve feet on soffite,
lying against the sides of the building seems inconceivable. In our
Figure 34 we have amended Choisy’s view in this respect. Looking on
these lateral arches as vaults we have filled them with a window like
the western vault, and the harmony which results between the sides
and the west end amply verifies our conclusions. One point further.
The upper surface of the base of the dome on the west side should not
be wholly level as shown in Fig. 34, the central third _curves up_
following the line of the top of semidome. In other words, the great
arch of the interior pushes itself up through the base of the dome, and
this treatment thus recurred at various heights--over large windows of
aisles, over western and lateral lunettes, as we have shown, and over
the semidome.

Originally, before the interior was narrowed in the way we have
explained, there was a much clearer suggestion of a cross plan:
barrel vaults at north and south being filled at their ends with
large lunettes like the west vault. We suppose that the failure was
mainly in the secondary order, and that the window screen and all
possible weight was entirely removed and transferred to the great
order. Salzenberg was satisfied that there had been great alterations
in this part of the building, and Choisy’s view of the window-wall,
Plate xxv., entirely confirms his opinion. If it could be shown that
the alteration spoken of by Agathias will not bear the interpretation
we put on it, there were earlier troubles at this part mentioned by
Procopius. The best proof, however, we suggest is found in the design.
It has been before pointed out that Choisy and other writers have
too hastily assumed that S. Sophia Salonica was built after the great
church of Constantinople. That it preceded it enforces the present
argument. Grelot (1680) writes that upper galleries remained in the
church in these positions, but he based his assertion on the row of
seven arched recesses just above the main cornice which he thought were
formerly open. It is clear however from an examination of the section
that the arches could only have opened to the vault of the first floor
gynaeceum. That these small arches did open to the vault of the first
floor, seems to be borne out by the fact that above the centre of the
secondary order, where its arch is low, a similar piercing is made,
through which (or the higher arches on each side) and through the seven
arches, a mysterious perspective into the immensity of the dome might
have been obtained by those in the gynaeceum (see Figs. 4, 36, 38).
Shallow arched recesses merely used decoratively seem to have been
little known to early Byzantine art, and arches on the first floor
through the great piers are blocked in a similar way. Moreover such
openings would explain why the vault between the two orders of columns
is so much stilted up into mere darkness.

_Atrium._--To explain the present confused arrangement of the exterior,
we must remember that from the time of the description of the church by
the Silentiary to its description by Gyllius was a thousand years--as
long as from the time of Alfred to the present day--and in this time we
may well expect alterations and accretions.

In Chapter IX. we have shown that the present form of the exonarthex,
with its great external piers, was an alteration, made about the time
the belfry was added in the ninth century. Before that time the atrium
was alike on all four sides--a true _quadriporticus_--one of the most
beautiful features of the ancient churches. (See Figs. 3 and 25.)

_North and South Porches._--Much of the confusion at the north-west
and south-west angles is the result of Turkish attachments, including
the western minarets, which were built in the last quarter of the
sixteenth century. The plan of gynaeceum floor furnishes the best key
to the former arrangement, for where there is Byzantine work above,
it must once have existed below. Comparing the first floor and roof
plans in Salzenberg with the ground plan, it becomes apparent that the
main block was originally finished both at north-west and south-west
angles to the general square of building. The two staircases now at
these angles were added as extra buttressing masses; the original
stairs being the four in the piers of north and south sides. The north
and south porches, with extra building above the latter on the first
floor, were also additions. Besides the irregularity and inferior
style of these buildings the following evidence should be noticed.
The actual form of the north-west angle on the gallery floor; and the
natural reading of the three plans when laid one over the other; broad
arches, which pass across the porches; the fact that the arch in south
porch (dotted in C on Figure 24, see also Fossati, Plate i.) now has
no office; and that above the door at this end of narthex, there is a
window which now merely opens into the south porch.

An examination of the exterior on the south side shows that the
south-west staircase was built before the porch, or the part above it
at least, because a straight joint in the walling, and the form of the
roofing, here clearly make evident that the apex of the gable roof was
originally over the centre of the staircase, and that the slope has
been subsequently run forward to cover the part above the porch.

In considering all the other irregularly attached buildings, together
with the historical evidence, it seems clear that the church as
designed and first built was externally a regular parallelogram,
interrupted only by the projection of the apse at the east end; which
was itself masked by a range of low chambers against the east wall,
through which there were two entrances to the church as at present,
and to which other two doors, in the east wall, still visible but now
blocked, gave access. The other external doors, besides those from
narthex, being two on the north and one in the south wall; together
with two external doors at the gynaeceum level, one of which probably
gave access to the gallery along which the emperor passed to the
church, and the other, to the north, may have led to the cells of the
clergy.

_Baptistery and Loggia._--Of early buildings detached from the church
we have the round building at the north-east, which we regard as having
descended from the earlier church, and the south-west baptistery, with
a loggia attached to its north side. The space between the church
and the baptistery on plan looks like a covered way, leading from
the church with a screen in the middle, but the part next the church
is, and always must have been, open. The part next the baptistery is
covered with a large semicylindrical vault, arched _transversely_
to the “screen,” and penetrated by a less cylinder in the direction
of the length of the loggia. Rebates (on baptistery side) round the
doorway which stands between the pair of columns show that there was a
door, and strips down the sides of the pillars, which stand above the
transom, show that pierced slabs or other closures filled the arched
front of the vault. If we add breast-high closures in the lateral
openings, as in the portico of St. John Studius, the whole becomes
an inclosed loggia against the baptistery. Salzenberg states that
there was a door in the north wall of baptistery, and Labarte places
another in the western compartment of south aisle of church, but for
the latter there does not appear to be a particle of evidence; and
consequently the court and loggia cannot have formed a direct passage
to the baptistery. 1. Salzenberg on his plan draws the transverse axis
of the baptistery, and that of the western bay of the church; these
do not agree by a foot or two, but the doorway of “screen” agrees
with _neither_, nor is it a mean between them, but varies by excess.
2. In the section (Salzenberg, Plate xi.) it is seen that the present
level of floor in this loggia is that of baptistery, and is below
that of church; but the columns have no bases, therefore the loggia
floor was beneath both church and baptistery. 3. A large arch is shown
between the church and west pier of this loggia, from which it springs
properly, while at the other end it is cut off incomplete by the wall
of the church. These reasons together lead us to suggest that the
loggia is possibly older than the church, and that it may be a part of
an arcade retained when the present church was built. The style of the
screen would readily allow of its being twenty or thirty years older
than S. Sophia. The capitals are not found elsewhere in the church,
while similar ones form the chief order at S. Sergius; and the door is
inserted between the two columns, exactly as in the portico of S. John
Studius. We do not however insist on its being earlier than the church
so much as on the evidence pointing to its being part of a continuous
arcade (see plan, Fig. 39). Doubtless it might be determined from a
careful examination whether the loggia or the baptistery was built
first.

[Illustration: FIG. 39.--Restoration of Loggia by the Baptistery. Scale
about eight feet to an inch.]

The way by which the “Great Baptistery” was reached from the bema, as
mentioned in the _Ceremonies_ was probably by this cloister, which
perhaps inclosed one of the courts on the sides of the church, spoken
of by Procopius and the Silentiary. The portion drawn by Salzenberg
still remains, although sadly plastered over and mutilated.


§ 4. STRUCTURAL SYSTEM AND VAULTING.

The geometrical scheme of this building, which in its final form
must be the result of hundreds of adjustments, modifications, and
expedients, to meet newly discovered emergencies, is withal so
seemingly simple, that it may be read as a bare mechanical solution of
the primary conditions.

The great central area, excepting only the narrow bema, is surrounded
by two stories of vaults; the thrust of the dome over the square of
about 100 feet is not only resisted by these, but by the four immense
buttressing masses (or rather chambers for they are built hollow)
which, pierced by arches, pass right across the aisles. East and
west the dome is sustained by the semidomes of the great hemicycles,
and these in turn by the vaults of the three subdivisions of the
hemicycles. The thrusts are thus distributed in a regular pyramid.
The external wall, which incloses the whole, being built out to the
extremity of the great buttress piers of the north and south sides,
and the lesser piers east and west, is thus little more than a screen,
inclosing the more active parts of the structure.

One of the most remarkable expedients of this marvellously planned
building is that by which the vaults of the side aisles,--which, having
large spans, necessarily spring comparatively low down--are received
on the secondary order of columns, standing behind the pillars of the
great order. This allows of the stately colonnade on either side of the
central space and those in the four exedras being only controlled by
the height of the upper floor, which is forty-four feet above the area
as is explained by Figs. 36, 38. These secondary pillars also transform
the spaces left by the exedras into square compartments.

_Arch Forms._--The great arches under the dome have their centres two
feet six inches above the springing line. Those in the principal arcade
appear to be semicircular. In the adjoining exedras, the porphyry
columns not being nearly so long as the green ones, they were set on
pedestals, and the arches are “horseshoe” in form, at least towards the
nave, for they are built “winding,” so as to approach a square impost
on their caps. We say approach, for there is a gradual modification;
the caps being an inch or two wider towards the aisles, the impost
increases this by a few inches more. The openings from gynaeceum at
west end are segmental, some arches to the side windows and the lateral
windows of west elevation, Fig. 25, are bluntly pointed. The transverse
arching of narthex is semielliptical, or rather three-centred, a
segment with the curve at the ends quickened to become tangential
to the wall. The pointed arch is used in the great aqueduct near
Constantinople and in one of the city cisterns: both appear to be of
the age of Justinian.[341]

_Vaulting._--The vaulting is executed with the mastery and freedom
that comes of confidence in direct methods. Certain portions are
cylindrical, and others are formed by cylindrical cross-penetrations.
The octagon of the baptistery, and the square compartments of the
gynaeceum, are covered by domes which penetrate down into the angles
with continuous pendentives. The larger compartments of the vaults of
the aisles require some explanation.

Where four semicircular arches open about a square or oblong space,
and it is desired to make the vault conform exactly to them, this may
be accomplished by a semispherical dome, the span of which is equal to
the _diagonal_ of the compartment to be covered; such a vault presents
an unbroken surface. Or two cylindrical vaults may penetrate at
right angles, when the vault is broken by the intersection into four
surfaces. At S. Sophia it was evidently desired to keep the springing
high for the sake of the monolith columns, and yet to maintain, so far
as possible, a domical surface.

[Illustration: FIG. 40.--Construction of Vaults.]

Thus in Fig. 40 the dome springing out of the angle requires the height
_a_, the radius being equal to half the diameter; but it was wished to
flatten this to _b_, and yet for the vault to rise everywhere from
the arched line _e_, _c_. Now if the vault conforms to the surfaces
generated by the revolution of the arc _d_, _f_, _b_, about the axis
_o_, _d_, intersecting with a similarly generated surface at right
angles, we get a mean between the domed and cylindrical forms--a
domical vault. The intersections, instead of being everywhere square
on plan as at _x_, _x_, and rising just to the crown of the vault, as
would be the case with cylindrical penetrations, will be obtuse as at
_i_, _i_, and not rising so high will practically leave a large concave
surface unbroken at the crown of the vault. This is the principle of
the vaults of S. Sophia; the gradations being gentle and the means less
obvious, the forms are more like those found in nature, and the result
is extremely beautiful. The forms are further softened by every edge of
arch and vault being rounded, so that the mosaic completely envelops
the whole like a vast embroidered gold tissue.

There would be no difficulty in construction, for the vault falls
everywhere on an arch in the angle _e_, _f_, _b_ that is in planes
which are radii to the arch. The vaulting of the narthex is made up of
a series of compartments, much narrower than the span, divided by plain
arched bands. To meet the requirements of such oblong spaces two gauges
would be needed. The “winding” of the lines of intersection was not to
be feared, as they were so soon lost in the more domical surface of the
upper part of the vault.

After the above was written we found the geometrical and practical
construction of these vaults explained in _L’Art de Bâtir chez les
Byzantins_, in a manner which differs from that here given. M. Choisy’s
method is first of all to design the curve of the intersection over the
diagonal of the plan as a segment of a circle: then he considers all
sections of each compartment of the vault, taken parallel to its arch,
and therefore perpendicular to its axis, to be also segments of circles
springing from a series of points on the diagonals, their centres being
on the axis of each vault.

We cannot agree with this, for, although theoretically the vault so
conceived differs immaterially from the solution we have proposed, yet
practically its erection would be full of difficulty. M. Choisy’s
method is that proposed by M. Viollet-le-Duc for the later Romanesque
vaults, in which, the materials being poor rubble, centring must have
been required. In these Viollet-le-Duc thinks that diagonal centres
were used, and then planks were placed from them to the generating
arches, and the additional height of a domical vault made up by a layer
of earth. It is to be noticed that diagonal centres in this case almost
immediately produced diagonal stone ribs.

M. Choisy in his most interesting book shows that the chief
consideration in the construction of the Byzantine vaults was to avoid
wooden centring. With this view we entirely agree, but in the system
explained in _L’Art de Bâtir_, the lines of construction would be
arrived at by an elaborate system, which required fixed axes to the
vaults and either a diagonal centre or a rod revolving in a vertical
plane over the diagonal. Then two rods, forming an angle with its apex
touching any given point in the diagonal curve and the ends resting on
the axis of the vault as a base, revolved as a trammel for that course
of the filling. This had to be repeated for a series of points.

By the method we have suggested nothing was required except a single
template to a fixed angle, the upper arm cut to the curve from the
crown of the arch to the crown of the vault; we may suppose this to
sweep round the generating arches like a trammel, but practically
testing the work with it at the crown, as it gradually grew forward,
was doubtless found sufficient (see Fig. 40). Thus the vault surfaces
gave the conditions of the problem and the intersections found
themselves.

We did not notice the curious “curve of inflection” of which M. Choisy
speaks; certainly it does not generally exist, although according to
_L’Art de Bâtir_ “S. Sophia is the most curious example which remains
of this singular conception, where the spirit of Greek logic did not
hesitate before anomalies of form” (p. 55). We believe this curve is
deduced only by the logic with which M. Choisy’s follows up his method
of geometrical projection, which certainly generates such an inflected
curve. We cannot say this without at the same time expressing our
great admiration for _L’Art de Bâtir_; its freshness of sight,
clearness, vitality, and logic are entirely delightful. Strzygowski and
Forchheimer[342] follow Choisy’s demonstration; and give an elaborate
and analytical explanation of the curve and its points of inflexion.
One of the cisterns they say showed the inflected line in the axial
sections of the vaults (p. 71).

Now the cistern vaults are roughly built and some of them may
have settled down; some indeed may have been designed so that
the axial section is horizontal for some distance from the walls
before the doming is commenced, especially in the long direction
of parallelogramic compartments. The essential points are two. Did
these vaults grow forward from the walls and the intersections find
themselves, or was the curve of intersection first designed? Are
horizontal sections through the intersection of two vault surfaces just
above the springing obtuse or acute? The vaults at S. Sophia have the
angles of intersection so obtuse that this first drew our attention to
the subject.

For a general view of the vaulted system of S. Sophia we would
especially refer to Choisy, whose remarks on the construction of these
vaults are most interesting. He clearly shows how the large flat bricks
made possible the construction of vaults without centring. The extrados
of the arches from which the vaults spring being splayed to a skew
back, the large surfaces of the thin light bricks allowed them to be
stuck up against this skew back, or any part already done, much as if
they were square sheets of cardboard (see left side of Fig. 40). Indeed
the bricks seem sometimes to have been placed quite vertically, but the
better plan seems to have been to incline the beds, the vaults were
thus built in _sections_ rather than in layers. To take the simplest
instance, a cylindrical vault, the arching would begin at one end
against the vertical wall, the rings of large thin bricks being placed
“on edge” in planes of say 60° right down the vault. In other words,
in a longitudinal section of such a vault the joints instead of being
horizontal might be vertical, or a mean between the two. This method
was known in ancient Egypt and at Khorsabad, and the immense vault at
Ctesiphon is built in this way. Although the mosaic covers most of the
vaults at S. Sophia, a vast number are exposed in the contemporary
cisterns, and Choisy seems to have found a cylindrical vault uncovered
in a chamber in one of the buttress masses (Plate ii.), he also shows
the construction of the aisle and narthex vaults (Plates ix. and xi.),
but he does not say if he had any authority for these. We agree with
him that the vaults of S. Sophia owe much of their exceptional beauty
to the fact that arches do not break up the curving expanse of the
vaulting to any appreciable degree; in the narthex the arches become
one with the vault, see Fig. 41.

[Illustration: FIG. 41.--Section of Narthex and Gallery over showing
Royal Doors. Scale twelve and a half feet to an inch (1/125).]

[Illustration: FIG. 42.--Dome Construction.]

_Domes._--In elaborating his theory of Byzantine dome construction
Choisy refers to a passage in Eton’s _Turkish Empire_[343] which
describes domes the latter saw built without any kind of centring.
The builders put a post in the middle about the height of the walls.
To this is fixed a pole reaching to the _inside_ surface of the dome,
which is _free to move in all directions_. Below is attached to the
post another pole, which reaches to the outside and describes the
outside curvature of the cupola. These give the thickness at the top
and bottom and at every intermediate point. “Where they build these
cupolas of bricks they use gypsum instead of lime, finishing one layer
all round before they begin another. Scaffolding is only required for
the workmen to close the opening at the top.” Our diagram A, Fig. 42,
represents this fascinating scheme of building: with such a rod any
point in the whole curvature is defined in a moment; it equally gauges
the horizontal courses and the rise of the dome. Choisy suggests a
second scheme which will be made clear by B. There is no reason, he
points out, why the beds of the bricks in a dome should radiate to the
centre of the curve: in the Byzantine domes the beds were flattened
so that they radiated more or less accurately to the springing of
the opposite side of the dome. The thrusts were thus minimised, and
the construction was facilitated. If rods forming a triangle revolve
about a vertical post as shown, the horizontal curvature is gauged
and the top rod will define the slope for the bed. These rods can
then be raised to another position as shown in the figure. We should
have supposed that little care would be taken with the slope of the
beds, as from the thin bricks used the construction practically became
homogeneous.

Choisy even thinks that the great dome of S. Sophia may have been built
in the air without centring. C, in Fig. 42, gives his representation of
the construction of the semidomes, which he thinks were built out some
way entirely without support. The outer arch was then built on a centre
and the filling completed “in space” (a straight joint between the arch
and the dome filling is shown in the figure in Salzenberg’s text). We
think it more likely that in all the larger domes auxiliary support was
required “to close the opening at the top,” when the space had been so
contracted that a light centring resting on the part already completed
was all that would be needed.

From the importance attached to wood ties or girdles built into the
small domes of Mount Athos, we may be certain that some system of
chaining was applied to the great dome of S. Sophia. Choisy gives an
example of the former, and also a dome constructed by interlocking
semicircular bricks, “two courses of which make a circlet absolutely
inextensible.” See B in Fig. 45. The dome of S. Vitale at Ravenna is
built of layers of earthenware pots or tapering tubes, the end of one
fitting into the next and rising in a continuous spiral course, round
and round from the bottom to the crown of the dome.

The question of dome construction without centring is of the greatest
interest, and much might doubtless be gathered of the traditional
methods still followed in modern Greece, Egypt, Persia, and S. Italy.
Our Fig. 43 represents modern domes in Persia, the upper diagram being
an ordinary type of exterior from a photograph of Koum. The dome
beneath, Fig. 44, is from a sketch made in a Persian caravanserai
by Mr. Wm. Simpson,[344] who describes it as built of burnt brick,
square below, round above. “As I was told that centring was never
used in Persia I presume this one was constructed without it.” This
beautiful form may be considered as four conical squinches penetrating
a hemisphere as at A, or as a gradual transition from square to round,
B. Ancient Persian domes of substantially the same form, in which a
hemisphere penetrates a pyramid, are shown by Dieulafoy.[345]

[Illustration: FIGS. 43 and 44.--Modern Domes built without Centring.]

_Chainage and Walling._--In the East the frequency of severe
earthquakes necessitated a manner of construction which should resist
disruption. The massive walls of stone of the Classic period are
cramped together with metal. The stone Byzantine church at Ezra has
a course of interlocking stones forming a chain around the octagon
beneath the dome (Fig. 45 a). At S. Sophia the continuous courses of
stone some feet above the floor, mentioned by Salzenberg, are almost
certainly converted into a chain by cramps; and the stone course at
the springing of the great arches probably has the same function.
In brickwork lateral cohesion was usually obtained by a system of
continuous wood ties, which is described by Choisy as built into the
wall at every five or six feet of height. According to the Greek
architect, M. Kouppas, ties of bond timbers were used in this way in
the construction of the cisterns, “laid not only along the outside
walls but also in parallel rows beneath the lines of pillars and
arches;” other rows of timber were built in either as ties or struts in
continuous lines at the springing of the vaults.

At S. Sophia there was doubtless a large use made of temporary ties of
this kind during the construction. In many places at the springing of
the gynaeceum vaults the ends of such provisional ties, which have been
sawn away, appear. Besides these there is a series of wood beams which
from the first were intended to be permanent, for they are richly carved
(C in Fig. 45); these are shown by double lines on the right-hand side
of Figs. 5 and 6, the single lines showing the iron ties. These carved
beams, as Choisy points out, are struts rather than ties. If we take one
of the columns standing in an angle in the aisles, an impost of marble
connects it with the wall to which it is nearest, and a carved wood beam
forms a strut to the other wall. The beam across the central bay of
secondary order (Fig. 5) forms a rigid strut to the two wider arches
(see Fig. 38, where, however, by oversight the beam has been omitted; it
is at the springing of narrow arch high above iron tie). Choisy asserts
that “the architect intended to preserve only the struts, all the ties
subject to extension were removed, but their suppression was disastrous,
and they had hastily to replace them by bars of iron which were fixed
with difficulty.” We do not know what reason Choisy had for supposing
the system of iron ties to be an afterthought, unless it is because in
some cases they appear directly above the ends of the removed wooden
ties. Now we believe they occur equally above the carved beams in the
openings from the gallery to the nave, and there is no sign of wood ties
having been removed from the ground-floor vaults, where the iron bars
fulfil such an important function. It is certain that the iron bars to
all the nave arches are original, for the marble casing shows no sign of
alteration, and they are evidently threaded continuously through the
imposts. The important iron ties across the aisles are shown in Fig. 45:
_d_ is the attachment to the column of great order, _e_ to impost of
secondary order behind it, _f_ is a king rod. Across the west gallery
the span is lessened by stone corbels beneath the ties _g_.

With a view of binding the vaults and walls together into a homogeneous
mass, the arched vaulting of the interior was carried through the
thickness of the walls: in some cases these arches were left open, to
be afterwards filled with a screen of windows. The walling of the sides
of the church is built independently of the great piers, as straight
joints on the exterior show, and Choisy remarks that the independence
of masonry unequally charged was a leading idea in Byzantine
construction; indeed it is obviously necessary where the quantity of
mortar is so great that the brick at times becomes secondary to the
joints.

[Illustration: FIG. 45.--Methods of Chainage.]

_Mortar and Cement._--The mortar used by the Byzantine builders
was called Keramotos, from the crushed pottery or tiles which was
used in its composition. In an article in the _Transactions_ of the
Philological Society of Constantinople M. Kouppas[346] enters fully
into the methods which have been traditionally followed in cistern
building, and describes this mortar as formed of powdered unslaked lime
(_asbestos_), crushed pottery, coarse sand, and tow or hair, fully a
third being lime, another third the crushed pottery, about a fifth the
coarse sand, and the rest or 10 per cent. of hair or tow. These were
then mixed together in water.

M. Kouppas also describes a hydraulic cement made of “coarse lime
(_titanos_) slaked by water into powder, sifted and laid in layers
with cotton shreds. This was thoroughly mixed, and then olive oil was
poured in, and the whole gradually brought to a homogeneous mass.”
Andreossy[347] describes a mixture (called _lukium_) made of a hundred
“ocques” of lime, freshly slaked in the form of powder, twenty-five
“ocques” of linseed oil of the best quality, and twenty drachms of
filaments of cotton. This was reduced to a dough, and then before using
fresh oil was added. Strzygowski[348] also speaks of a Turkish cement
“of six parts by weight linseed oil, eight parts slaked and powdered
lime, and one part of cotton.” He refers to a Roman mixture mentioned
by Pliny of “oil and quicklime.”

By far the best and earliest account of the methods used for obtaining
lime and making cement at Constantinople is contained in Dr. Covel’s
MS. in the British Museum (1670-7). The lime was burnt in a pit dug
in the ground, the stone, which was hard and black and like “Plymouth
stone,” being piled up in and above it like a beehive hut, an opening
being contrived in the side for inserting fuel, and a smaller pit
dug in the middle for the ashes; it was fired for three days. Then
he describes in detail how a cement was made which recalls what the
Anonymous says of the joints of the piers at S. Sophia being made of
unslaked lime (_asbestos_) and oil: “To make good lukium (a strong
cement as I may call it) they take the above said calx or burnt stone
and slake it with water, and so soon as it is moulded and turned into a
meal (even while it is warm) they work it with linseed oil and cotton
till it is well saturated and brought to the consistency of plaster,
and make present use of it, for it will not rest in its perfection
above one day or two at most, and if they use it immediately after it
is tempered it is certainly the best. In the works of their Bagnos so
soon as it is laid on [as a plastering, understood here] they let the
water come to it, which, by tempering the heat of the lime, hinders
it from cracking. Cotton is better to be mixed amongst it than hair,
it being more tenacious and apt to incorporate.” He again describes a
similar cement (“lukium, an excellent mortar”) used in some waterworks.
“It is made of unslaked lime and beaten brick most finely powdered and
sifted, cotton wool very thinly pulled and strewed on, and then all
slaked with linseed oil and mixed together: then they use it whilst it
is fresh made, otherwise it hardens immediately.”[349] Such a cement
must have had the hardening qualities of gesso; the oil cements or
mastics used in England some fifty years ago were closely allied in
their composition. Modern mortar has lost much by our neglecting the
tradition of using crushed brick.

Eastern builders spared neither labour nor time in preparing and
testing their materials. Tavernier tells us the waterproof terraces of
the Persian houses were formed of “a layer of lime beaten for eight
days, which became hard like marble.” The materials used in Byzantine
building were tested by long exposure, slaked lime was sealed up in
pits for one or two years; and stones, bricks, and tiles they had
found should not be used new, for, as Vitruvius says, “the only way
of ascertaining their goodness is to try them through a summer and
winter.”




CHAPTER XI

MARBLE MASONRY


§ 1. BUILDING PROCEDURE.

The method and sequence of the building operations as followed by
the Byzantines seem to have been very much as follows. After the
form of the building had been more or less decided, the first thing
necessary was to collect marble monolithic shafts. At S. Sophia the
eight verde-antique shafts match one another very closely; they are
all of one length, and vary from 7½ to 8 diameters in proportion. The
four pairs of porphyry shafts in the exedras differ much more; and,
as we have remarked, those in the western exedras seem to be made
up of separate drums. The proportions of these vary from less than
7 diameters on one side to 8½ on the other. The great monoliths are
the largest known, and of nearly normal classic proportion, so we can
readily see that it was necessary to have a certain knowledge where
such marbles might be quarried or otherwise obtained, before even the
foundations were prepared, for the columns decided the heights and
points of support of the building. These once assured, the body of
the structure was proceeded with as a brickwork shell without further
dependence on the masons, who were only required to prepare bases and
capitals, and then the cornices; everything else was completed as a
brick “carcase.”

At S. Sophia the main square piers are in fact stone, but this was only
for strength, not because they were to be seen finally, any more than
the rough brick.

The building completed in this form we must remember was made up of
vast masses of thin bricks, of which the mortar occupied probably a
half of the aggregate; this had to thoroughly settle down and dry
before the rest of the marble masonry was inserted, and the wall
casings applied. The marble work, however, was all the while being
prepared, and, the building once ready, the windows were inserted as
screens in the openings previously left; marble jambs and lintels for
the doors were placed in position also, with windows above them filling
out to the brick arches. The walls were then sheeted with their marble
covering, the vaults were overlaid with mosaic, and the pavement was
laid down. In this way, as the bricklayers had not to wait for the
masons, the carcase was completed in the shortest possible time; and
by reserving the application of the marble until the structure was dry
and solid, it was possible to bring together unyielding marble and
brickwork that must have settled down very considerably.


§ 2. MARBLE QUARRIES.

Much confusion exists as to the marbles of which the ancient writers
speak; this has been occasioned necessarily by wrong identifications
when but few ancient quarries had been recovered, and most
unnecessarily by a persistence in using antique names for modern
varieties, long after the true provenance has been discovered, when
the ancient marbles are not “in the market.” It is the Italian names
that have been corrupted in this way, and it would be a great advantage
if they were discarded in England, or better still, used only in
conjunction with the geographical names. In this case as the Italian
names are descriptive, and, as many varieties of marble are found in
the same or neighbouring quarries, we should get a safe nomenclature.
Synnadan would thus be qualified as Pavonazzetto or Fior de Persico,
and the banded varieties from Carystian, Proconnesian, or modern
quarries might without confusion be called cipollino.

In endeavouring to identify the marbles mentioned by the ancient
writer on S. Sophia, we have made use of Salzenberg’s notes to the
Poem of the Silentiary, and of the researches of Garofalo,[350]
Corsi,[351] and C. O. Müller;[352] and we have also been helped by the
practical knowledge of Mr. W. Brindley. The account of ancient marbles
easily accessible in Professor Middleton’s _Ancient Rome_, 1892, is
substantially an extract from Corsi.

_Porphyry._--The “porphyry powdered with bright stars” of the poet is
used for the columns of the exedras, and for some of the panels on
the walls. The Anonymous author states that these columns came from a
temple of the Sun, but the Silentiary says “they loaded the boats on
the bosom of the Nile,” and there seems no reason to doubt that the
columns came direct from the porphyry quarries at Mons Porphyrites in
Egypt. This porphyry mountain is at Djebel Dochan, twenty-five miles
north-east from Thebes. Lepsius[353] seems to prove that the quarries
were worked as long as the Nile canal remained open; and ships still
sailed on the canal till the appearance of Islam. Letronne[354] gives
details of the method of transit. The porphyry was brought from the
quarry to the Red Sea, and then by the Nile canal to the Lower Nile,
and hence into the Mediterranean.

On this evidence we would say that the porphyry used at Constantinople
in Justinian’s reign was quarried for the purpose, and not brought from
Roman buildings.

_Marmor Molossium._--“The marble that the land of Atrax yields,” is
called elsewhere in the poem “Thessalian,” and, from the province in
Thessaly where it was found, “Molossian.” Corsi and Garofalo both
wrongly describe Molossian as _Fior di Persico_. The marble really is
the brecciated serpentine and limestone, now called Verde Antico, the
_Lapis Atracius_ of the ancients, of which the eight great columns in
the nave and many others are formed. Here again it has been said that
these eight large columns were taken from a building at Ephesus, but
the Silentiary says, “Never were such columns hewn from sea-washed
Molossis,” and we can hardly doubt that they were quarried especially
for S. Sophia, together with the rest of the enormous quantity used in
the church. The quarries were near Atrax in Thessaly, and the marble is
best named as by French writers, Thessalian green.

_Lapis Lacedaemonius._--“The fresh green, like emerald, from Sparta,”
was probably the porphyry quarried in Mount Taygetus in Laconia. This
green porphyry, called by Corsi _serpentino_, is used in the opus
sectile of S. Sophia. As a green porphyry is obtainable in Egypt, the
former should be distinguished as Spartan.

_Proconnesium._--“The hills of Proconnesus,” according to Paulus,
“strewed the floor.” The same marble was also used for the columns
in the upper aisles, for the eight square columns below, and for the
capitals, door frames, window lattices and other structural parts;
also for the plating of the lower arcade and other parts of the
wall-surfaces, and as frames to the coloured marbles. It is a soft
white, or white with gray-banded streaks. The quarries of Marmora are
still worked. This marble was greatly prized in Classic times, and
Pliny mentions that it was used at the palace of Mausolus, where, it is
said, the method of plating brick walls with marble was first applied.
It closely resembles gray Carystian but they should not be confounded.

“The Bosporus stone with white streaks on black,” used for the floor,
was probably the ordinary limestone--black with white veins--used at
Constantinople.

_Marmor Carystium._--“The fresh green from Carystus,” is the marble now
known as cipollino; it was quarried at Carystus, at the foot of Mount
Ocha, in the island of Euboea. Its beautiful greenish white surface,
marked with broad wavy lines of green or purplish gray, was often
praised by the later classical writers. Its resemblance to the markings
of a sliced onion is the origin of its name. Modern cipollino need not
be confused with true _Carystian marble_, which the ancient material
should always be named.

_Marmor Phrygium._--“The marble hewn from the Phrygian land towards
the Mygdonian heights,” spoken of as “many-coloured,” has been
identified as the marble which came from Dokimion near Synnada in
Phrygia. The descriptions by Statius and Claudianus of the deep
red-veined marble of Synnada agree closely with the Phrygian and
Mygdonian stone as described by Paulus. It is a brecciated marble of
a rosy colour, slabs of which alternate with verde antique in the
panelling of the side aisles of S. Sophia.

The quarries at Dokimion were visited by Leake and Texier, and a
recent examination of them by M. Leonti[355] disclosed all shades of
“violet and white, yellow, and the more familiar brecciated white and
rose-red.” This beautiful material is best called Synnadan, as the
modern Italian name Pavonazzetto is also used for the streaked marble
quarried at Carrara.

_Marmor Hierapolitanum._--“The stone from the sacred city Hierapolis.”
This marble has been identified by Professor Ramsay.[356] It was found
at Thiounta about ten miles N.W. of Hierapolis in Asia Minor. It is
variegated like Synnadan, and was much used for sarcophagi; indeed
Professor Ramsay says, “On every occasion when its use is mentioned,
it was employed to make sarcophagi.” It was called by the name of the
great city which is not far distant, “and to which doubtless orders
from the outer world were sent. Similarly the marble found at Dokimion
was always called Synnadic marble from the time of Strabo, yet Dokimion
was thirty-two miles from Synnada.”

_Marmor Iassense._--The “Iassian, with slanting veins of blood-red
on livid white,” was used for the phiale. Corsi identifies this with
Porta Santa, but Porta Santa, Garofalo says, came from Chios, and this
conclusion we believe is now accepted. Garofalo thought Iassian to be
the same as the Carian marble mentioned by Porphyrogenitus in his _Life
of Basil the Macedonian_, and says it was quarried on the island quite
close to the coast of Caria. A “stone mingled with streaks of red” is
also mentioned by Paulus as brought from “the Lydian Creek.” Possibly
the port of Iassus is again intended. The ordinary Lapis Lydius was a
black touchstone. The “rosy cipollino,” in which wide bands of deep
red alternate with white, used in the panelling of the aisles does not
seem to be mentioned specifically by Paulus; unless this is the Iassian
marble to which his words would very well apply. A variety of rosy
cipollino, the splendidly figured red and white marble, is obtained in
Laconia.

_Marmor Numidicum._--“The stone, nurtured in the hills of the Moors,
crocus colour glittering like gold,” is the beautiful warm yellow
African marble from Semittu Colonia, about fifty miles from Tunis, so
highly prized by the Romans, and now called giallo antico. It is used
in S. Sophia in the sectile work.

_Marmor Celticum._--“The product of the Celtic crags, like milk poured
on a flesh of glittering black,” has been identified as the Bianco e
Nero Antico, quarried in the Pyrenees.[357] The black marble with white
streaks, which occurs in some of the panels in the nave, is probably
the one to which the poet refers.

_Onychites._--“The precious onyx” mentioned by the poet is the
alabastrites or onychites of the ancients. It is the oriental alabaster
(aragonite) used in the horizontal bands of the nave, and some of the
panels. It is a translucent, fibrous stalagmite formation, generally
of a clear honey-colour. Some of the varieties are strongly veined
with white, and others are much darker. Large ancient quarries of this
Egyptian alabaster have been discovered on the east bank of the Nile.

Paulus appears to make no mention of the dusky black with dull golden
veins used in the bema apse, which closely resembles the “Porto Venere”
quarried at Spezzia.

The marble blocks were roughly hewn into shape with picks while still
attached to the rock, and were then separated by the aid of metal
wedges. Many objects discovered show that they were sometimes completed
at the quarry, at other times the blocks were roughly brought to the
sizes and forms required. The quarries appear to have been officially
inspected. Texier found many architectural fragments and blocks at
Dokimion bearing the signs of the inspectors of the block. Professor
Ramsay writes: “The route from Dokimion to the coast is commercially
almost the most important in Asia Minor. The road along which the
enormous monolithic columns were transported passed through Synnada,
where the central office for managing the quarries was situated.”

[Illustration: FIG. 46.--Marble Slabs and Frieze in Narthex.]

Ephesus and Alexandria were most important centres for the working
and export of marble, of which such an enormous quantity was required
by the Byzantine builders. The method of slicing up the blocks into
veneer is described by an Eastern pilgrim, Nasiri Khusrau, in 1047. He
says: “In the city of Ramlah there is marble in plenty ... they cut the
marble here with a toothless saw which is worked with Mekkah sand.” This
sand he tells us came from Haifa near Acre (Pal. Pilgrims’ Text Soc.
Compare Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ xxxvi.)


§ 3. APPLICATION OF MARBLE.

At S. Sophia the application of the thin sheathing and incrustations
(the “crustae” of Pliny) of the “delectable variety” of marbles is
made in many ways. First there are the large sheets of the grayish
Proconnesian, opened out side by side “so that the veining of one
follows from the next.” Then the richer varieties are set in bands
and panels with narrow notched fillets between them, and still more
precious slabs are framed round with carved margins of white. Over the
doors entering the aisles at the west there are panels with especially
wide and rich borders of meanders growing from chalices. The large
panels are very often of two pieces with matched veining. Fig. 46 shows
one of a row of strongly veined panels from the narthex with the frieze
above. All the wall plating is arranged with delightful variety as to
size, and in the alternate placing of light against dark, so that there
is no rigidity or over-accurate “setting out.”

Besides this constant change of size, colour, and arrangement, there
is a great variety in the surface treatment. We have the shallow
channelling into continuous mouldings of the skirtings, some portion
of which has a stiff fret sunk in the surface in addition. Then there
are panels on either side of the great door, and on the faces of the
projections from the great piers in the aisles, coming just above
the eye, (Fig. 48) of plain russet-red or brown which bear severe
abstract patterns, made out by slight sinking into the surface. The
centre in some cases is overlaid with an oval or square of another
precious material such as red or green porphyry or the “onyx”; the
whole of the sunk portions may have been filled by inlays, or in some
the sinking alone may have formed the design. The upper part of the
bema is incrusted with slabs patterned in this way, and here the sunk
portions are entirely inlaid; several parts of this are represented by
Salzenberg. In this work “casements” are sunk into the rosso or other
deep coloured field, and green porphyry and other materials, set off by
yellowish-white lines and spaces are inlaid in geometrical panels, or
friezes of stiff foliage.

[Illustration: FIG. 47.--Portion of Marble Lining of Aisles. Scale
about 1/50.]

Our Fig. 47 shows the arrangement of the marble plating on the great
piers towards the middle compartment of the aisles; in this we have
shown one of the enriched panels now only sunk, as inlaid. Fig. 48
gives outlines of others of these panels. The marble used in the aisles
is as follows. First comes the moulded skirting of white Proconnesian,
then a 3′·3″ band of the streaked variety of the same marble. A band
of verde antique 2′·0″ wide follows, above which is a row of slabs
alternately verde antique and Synnadan. A second similar row of slabs
comes above a band of rosy cipollino. The frieze below the cornice is
of marble sectile work. The passages through the piers are lined with
slabs of streaked Proconnesian marble, nearly fourteen feet high.

The gynaeceum has two bands at the bottom and an upper band of rosy
cipollino; the wall space between is covered with a row of vertical
slabs of streaked Proconnesian, except the central space on north side
where the slabs are of rosy cipollino. In the spandrils of gynaeceum
arcade at the west are roundels of oriental alabaster.

[Illustration: FIG. 48.--Marble Panels with Sunk and Inlaid Panels.
Scale about 1/30.]

[Illustration: FIG. 49.--Inlaid Marble Slabs above Royal Door. Scale
about 1/50.]

Directly over the Royal Door is a very beautiful arrangement of
decorated slabs. First there is an immense upright piece of verde
antique in the middle, ten or twelve feet high, with two lateral
horizontal pieces making a great cross, in the quarters of which are
panels with sunk and inlaid designs. At the head of the cross is a
fifth panel which displays a still richer form of decoration. It
represents a vaulted recess or ciborium between the columns of which
hang curtains, looped back, and displaying a dark field. Here is the
matrix of a cross which was probably of silver; right and left of the
cross are other matrices, in which were set crowns or other objects,
not to be determined from below. The two upper lateral panels have
sunk geometrical designs. The lower pair are inlaid; their centres are
charged with circles, above and below which are pairs of dolphins.
These inlaid designs are made out in porphyry and green, which
are separated by white lines and spaces which shine out bright, and
are probably of mother of pearl like similar inlaid panels of this
date around the apse at Parenzo. These panels at Parenzo are so much
like those of S. Sophia that we do not doubt they were sent from
Constantinople. There are very similar panels in the baptistery at
Ravenna.

Finally we have the enriched surfaces of the two ranges of arcade
spandrils. The upper row being sectile work of coloured morsels put
together to form a pattern of scrolls and foliage, and the lower series
having the surface entirely sculptured with the exception of discs of
precious substance which are set in them.

This uttermost splendour is quiet and soft in its result. The surface
of course has not that mechanically even, repellently smooth, painfully
fitted appearance of modern work. The planes are waved under the hand
sawing, and the face is smooth but hardly polished. The colour in
consequence, gray and russet rising to full yellow, green and reds,
veined, waved, and flowered in all manner of gradations and lovely
combinations, _vibrates_ with a wonderful “bloom” which doubtless owes
much to age; but it is very probable that the marble was polished with
wax encaustic which was so generally used for finishing surfaces by
ancient workers. The wax deepens and mellows the colour and leaves
a dull pleasant polish. We suppose the method followed was that
recommended by Vitruvius for the encaustic polishing of coloured stucco
walls. “Lay on with a brush a coat of melted Punic wax tempered with
oil; then with a brazier of hot charcoal heat all the waxed surface,
forcing the wax to melt in an even way over the whole surface; finally
rub the wall with a wax candle and then polish it with a clean linen
cloth just in the way the nude marble statues are treated. This
practice is called γάνωσις by the Greeks.” Felix Fabri, who travelled
in Palestine at the end of the fifteenth century, describes the rows of
costly columns at Bethlehem, “and they are polished with oil so that a
man can see his face in them as in a mirror.”

In regard to the wall plating we wish especially to point out the
extremely easy way in which it is applied, without thought of disguise.
The slabs of great size are placed vertically, entirely the reverse of
solid construction; moreover the slabs of the finer panels are opened
out side by side so that the veinings appear in symmetrical patterns.
At the angles the lap shows in the most open way; while it is mitred
where restored. The best account of the actual methods of fixing the
marble slabs to walls by metal clamps which notch into the edges of
the sheet before the adjoining one is fixed, is given by Professor
Middleton, who figures an example of the second century from Rome which
might belong to S. Sophia.


§ 4. MARBLE MASONRY.

After more than a thousand years of working marble through one
complete development, Greek builders, by considering afresh the prime
necessities of material, and a rational system of craftsmanship, opened
the great quarry of ideas in constructive art which is exhaustless.
In a hundred years architecture became truly _organic_, features that
had become mere “vestiges” dropped away, and a new style was complete;
one, not perhaps so completely winning as some forms of Gothic, but the
supremely logical building art that has been.

If anywhere this vitalising had not been completed, it would have been
in the more decorative forms; but here we find no mere exercise in
applying architectural orders, everything is as real and fresh as in
the structure. Having the Corinthian and Ionic capitals before their
eyes and without forgetting or rejecting them, the Byzantine builders
invented and developed an entirely fresh group of capitals fitted in
the most perfect way for arched brick construction. As Mr. Freeman has
said (_Hist. Essays_, iii. p. 61) of the new architecture: “The problem
was to bring the arch and column into union--in other words to teach
the column to support the arch.” This was done by shaping the block
of marble which formed the capital so that a simple transition from
the square block to the circle of the column was formed. When they
were sculptured, and most of them are most elaborately sculptured,
the general form is not altered but the carving enriches the surface
only. The new “Impost capital” is found throughout the great cistern
generally known as that of Philoxenus which is usually referred to
the time of Constantine. In their study of the vaulted cisterns of
Constantinople Forchheimer and Strzygowski have contributed much
that is new to our knowledge of the architecture of the city and
show that the evidence is entirely against this theory, which was
propounded by Gyllius, whom more recent writers have been content to
copy. This cistern, known to the Turks as Bin Bir direk (thousand and
one columns), they identify with a great cistern which the _Paschal
Chronicle_ says was built by Justinian in 528. We believe with them
that the architecture of the cistern agrees entirely with what we might
expect as an outcome of the special circumstances in the time of the
great building era. “Bin Bir direk exhibits the highest development
of the art of cistern building, and it thus in its particular sphere
resembles S. Sophia; like it the boldness of its construction was
never again equalled by the Byzantines. It would be an explanation of
the bold achievement if it might be assumed that Anthemius proved his
capability in this subterranean work before he made his supreme effort
in S. Sophia. Technical features, however, make it seem probable that
the builder was an Alexandrine.”

[Illustration: FIG. 50.--Columns of Great Order.]

[Illustration: FIG. 51.--Capital now Outside Porch at S. Sophia.]

“It is of the widest significance for the history of Byzantine art that
here throughout the new ‘impost capital’ is employed in its plainest
constructive form. It seems not improbable that the daring builder of
the cistern was the first to make use of this form of capital which
completely broke with classical tradition and is in such perfect accord
with the exigencies of arch-architecture.” This is to go too far; for
if the cistern is rightly referred to 528 it is probable, as we shall
show, that the impost capital had at that time been for many years in
use.

At S. Sophia the four main varieties of the new capital are all found.
In the cistern the change of form is made by rounding away the angles
at the bottom without reference apparently to any geometrical idea;
but in other capitals which belong essentially to this type the method
seems to have been that explained in Fig. 53 which represents the form
of the caps of the lamp pillars on the front of the western gynaeceum.
They are most delicately carved with a network of ornament, but the
general form is undisturbed as we have explained. The plain capitals of
the west window and the isolated sculptured capital Salzenberg found in
the north aisle are also of this form, which we shall call the Impost
Capital type I. The profile can be made convex or inflected, we are
only speaking of the simplest method of changing the form from a circle
to a square.

[Illustration: FIG. 52.--Columns in Gallery.]

Two capitals now used as mounting blocks outside the east porch, which
we illustrate (Fig. 51), furnish us with a sculptured example of a
similar capital in two stages of development, one of them never having
been completed. We give here an outline of the blocked out capital, in
which the method of workmanship may be plainly seen. First, the block
was cut away below convexly to meet the circular shaft. In this state
it exactly resembles the capitals of the cistern. Secondly, on this
was marked a border all round the top; also centre lines running down
each of the faces, about the centre point of each of which a circle of
about seven inches diameter was drawn; and at the bottom the width for
the necking was marked off. Thirdly, the intermediate spaces were sunk
about two inches; the hollow of the abacus was formed; the necking,
and edge of the circular discs were rounded. This brings the capital
to the stage shown in the diagram, the point to be observed being that
the abacus, boss, and necking lie in one surface, first obtained, and
the rest in another face, sunk some two inches below the former. It
cannot be doubted that the style of these capitals is contemporary with
the work at S. Sophia, and the finished one bears a monogram which
appears to read ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΥ; it is, however, almost identical with that
of Theodora, which occurs on the capitals of the interior. MM. Curtis
and Aristarches,[358] who have written on these monograms, think it
belonged to a portico, restored in 409 by an eparch called Theodoros.
Work of this style was not done at that time, and these capitals
possibly belonged to some of the outer courts of the church mentioned
by Procopius. They resemble the great capitals so closely that they
might almost be preliminary studies. The strips which are left down two
sides of the capitals were customary in the capitals of a Byzantine
colonnade, especially where screens were inserted between.

[Illustration: FIG. 53.--Rudimentary Form of Capital. Type I.]

[Illustration: FIG. 54.--Rudimentary Form of Capital. Type II.]

[Illustration: FIG. 55.--Rudimentary Form of Capital.]

The two capitals in the loggia by the baptistery furnish a well-defined
variety of the impost capital. The square at the top is here wrought
into curves recalling the antique abacus. These are gathered together
into the circle of the necking in a beautiful convex form which may be
called the Melon type II., see Fig. 54.

We give in Fig. 50 an outline of the whole column of the great order in
the interior of the church, and in Fig. 56 a diagram of the blocking
out of the capital. The columns here and throughout the great church
being monoliths of fine material, the supporting area is very small
compared to the area of the arch imposts, which are of brick sheeted
with marble. It will be seen that the projection is just that required
by the impost, which springs directly from the outside edge.

[Illustration: FIG. 56.--Rudimentary Form of Capital. Type III.]

The great capitals of S. Sophia are remarkable examples of the
evolution of beautiful forms on the mason’s banker; the workman
_finding form_ in the stone block by the application of practical
methods. The lower half of the capital is circular like the shaft,
rising in a slightly swelling curve of a bowl; the upper part is square
like the impost. The basis of form is that of a bowl with a tile placed
above it, and is thus that of the Greek Doric. This type III. in which
the circle does not pass by transition into the square impost, but
changes abruptly, we may call the bowl and tile capital.

At S. Sophia the surface of the form obtained as shown in the figure is
wrought into crisp acanthus and palm foliage; and is in many places,
especially at the tips of the leafage and behind the monograms,
entirely undercut. The cutting being so sharp, and the shadows so deep,
while at the same time the general form with its broad gradation of
light and shade is so little modified by surface modelling, the effect
is almost that of inlaying black on white. The capitals of the columns
standing in the aisles, and those of the first floor ranged against
the central area, are similar to the great order, but simplified and
reduced.

The columns of the aisles on the first floor have block capitals, with
small volutes below; Fig. 57 will make the elementary form clear. This
type IV. is really a Byzantine Ionic. The dual columns of west gallery
have a capital in common, which is a variation of these, and the
capitals of atrium were also similar. One capital of the north gallery
is entirely different from all the rest, the block, not being carved
all over continuously, is broken up into several horizontal lines of
ornament.

For the capitals of the square pillars of ground floor, and others to
the windows, we must refer to Salzenberg; they are all of the simple
block form delicately sculptured.

Salzenberg also figures two capitals, now on the porphyry columns
at the east porch. These are comparatively small, and may possibly
have belonged to some position in the interior of the church, such
as Justinian’s first ambo. The form is that of a basket with four
doves perched on the rim, and crosses between. Doves associated with
crosses symbolized the Church. Now in St. Clemente at Rome there are
two capitals of this kind which belonged to the ciborium, set up as
the inscription shows while Hormisdas was pope (514-523), they are
figured by Cattaneo, Fig. 7, who says they obviously were sculptured by
Greek chisels. It is thus extremely possible that ours may have been
late additions to the pre-Justinian church, where they also may have
belonged to the ciborium. Rohault de Fleury believed that this form of
capital was intended to represent an offerings basket.

[Illustration: FIG. 57.--Rudimentary Form of Capital in Gynaeceum. Type
IV.]

To these Bird and Basket capitals, type V., may be added varieties
of the great class of derivatives from the Corinthian of which this
is in fact one. These were in general use before the block type of
capital was developed. We will here only mention two of these acanthus
capitals. Those in which the leaves are set upright on the stem of the
shaft we will call Byzantine Corinthian and type VI. Those in which the
leaves turn over and bend round the capital we will, with Mr. Ruskin,
call “Wind-blown acanthus,” and type VII.

_Distribution and Dates of Capitals._--We have referred before to our
belief that Constantinople was a marble working centre from which
sculptured marbles were dispersed to all parts of the Roman world.
Having the chief types of Byzantine capitals before us it will be
convenient to consider this more fully. We suppose that as white
marble had to be bought in any case, the custom grew up of obtaining
the capitals fully wrought. Importation was, of course, a general
antique practice in regard to figure sculpture, columns, and other
objects of marble. Proconnesian marble seems to have been the common
stone of Constantinople so that it is used for the columns and capitals
of the cisterns. We believe that careful examination of the capitals
at Ravenna, Parenzo, and other Byzantine centres will show that they
are in the main of this material. As to design the capitals lying
neglected about the city, together with those _in situ_ in the churches
and cisterns, furnish a perfect museum of the types with which others
dispersed through the whole area of the empire agree in the minutest
particulars of design and workmanship.

To take the types we have mentioned:

_Impost Capital, I._--This capital is found with the surface richly
sculptured at S. Sergius. Capitals identical in form and decoration
with the isolated capital of S. Sophia (Salz. Pl. xx., fig. 8) are
found at Parenzo and in Jerusalem. The splendid examples of this type
at S. Vitale, Ravenna, are well known; here the fretwork of sculpture
is almost entirely relieved from the ground. We found an example
absolutely similar at Constantinople. Mr. Ruskin’s “Lily Capital” which
belongs to this group is found at S. Mark’s, at S. Vitale, at Parenzo,
and at Alexandria. Another variety is covered all over with horizontal
bands of zigzag fillets; an example rests in the Tchenli-Kiosk Museum,
others are found at Athens, at Mistra, and a third now at S. Mark’s is
figured in the _Stones of Venice_. The capitals at S. Sophia, Salonica,
figured by Texier are probably the earliest of type I. to which an
approximate date can be given; it was certainly in general use at the
end of the fifth century.

_Melon Form, II._--These magnificent eight-lobed capitals form the
great order at S. Sergius, and are found at the church usually called
Agia Theotokos. Similar capitals belong to the upper order at S.
Vitale, and others are found at S. Mark’s. Some of the nave columns
of S. Demetrius at Salonica have fine capitals of this type which
although evidently derived from the last probably also originated in
the fifth century.

_Bowl Type, III._--These, the great capitals of S. Sophia, seem to have
been especially designed for the metropolitan church: the beautiful
palm foliage, however, with which they are sculptured is found again
at Parenzo and on a capital in the Ravenna museum said to have been
brought from Pomposa. The church at Parenzo was begun in 535.

_Byzantine Ionic, IV._--These occur in their perfected form of block
capital fully sculptured in S. Sergius and at the palace of Hormisdas
in Constantinople, also in the upper order at S. Sophia, Salonica.
Examples are also found at Venice.

In their earlier form of transition from the “Ionic with a plain
dosseret” an immense number are found in the subterranean structures of
Constantinople. An example has been found in Chalcis.[359]

_Bird and Basket, V._--S. Sophia furnishes two examples, but there is
no proof that they originally belonged to the building. Another example
is in Cairo. That at S. Clemente, Rome, is signed with the name of John
Mercurius; Piranesi figures a capital of this kind from the Palazzo
Mattei, bearing a monogram which is indecipherable in his plate.
Period, end of fifth century and beginning of sixth.

_Byzantine Corinthian Type, VI._--These are of great variety; we will
only mention one. In the portico of John Studius the acanthus leaves
are doubled, one leaf lying over and within another, so that a double
row of serrations is shown around the margins (see figure in Salz.).
Similar capitals are found in S. Demetrius, Salonica, and at S. Mark’s,
Venice. This particular form is probably nearly concurrent with the
last, possibly a little earlier.

_Wind-blown Acanthus, VII._, is represented at Constantinople by two
examples forming bases for the posts of a wooden porch to a house near
Gûl Jami, and another is found in the cistern usually called after
Arcadius or Pulcheria. Absolutely similar capitals are found in S.
Sophia, Salonica (circa 490) and one occurs at S. Demetrius. At Ravenna
fine examples are dated by bearing the monogram of Theodoric. Others
at S. Apollinare in Classe resemble the last so closely that we doubt
their having been made specially for the church built in 534-549. An
example was found in Chalcis with the Ionic capital just referred to
and De Vogüé figures one from Syria. Period, say 425 to 525.

The seven most typical Byzantine orders were thus being wrought
concurrently at the end of the fifth century, and it seems that the
three last did not long outlast this century. The others in their
central types probably did not continue in use much beyond the sixth
century. After this time somewhat coarse varieties of Byzantine
Corinthian, or Type I., were mostly used.

[Illustration: FIG. 58.--Bronze Annulets of Columns.]

The evidence of the original block in the fully sculptured finished
work which we find in the most characteristic examples of the Byzantine
capitals is of primary importance in all marble sculpture, and
differentiates the work of the chisel from being a mere stone model
of a clay model which is practically what most modern sculpture has
become. In many of these capitals the vertical strip shown in Fig. 55
left in the finished work furnishes a further suggestion of the block
from whence they were hewn.

_Shafts and Bases._--The usual theory that the Byzantines wrought but
few new marble shafts does not bear scrutiny. Byzantine shafts have
neckings of very slight projection, thus obviating the waste of labour
and material of Roman work.[360] The shafts of the baptistery loggia at
S. Sophia, figured by Salzenberg, furnish good examples; sometimes the
necking, as to the square marble pillars, is a simple broad fillet of
about a quarter of an inch projection. The hundred round shafts of S.
Sophia exhibit a remarkable and beautiful structural expedient by which
the necking is entirely suppressed, and bronze annulets surround the
shaft under the capital and above the base; which prevent the shafts
from sliding or splitting, and retain the lead beds from being forced
out by the weight (see Choisy, p. 15). Large monolithic shafts were the
more apt to split, as they had to be set up contrary to the direction
of the quarry strata.

[Illustration: FIG. 59.--Marble Pedestals and Skirting Slabs.]

Fig. 58 represents these bronze zones in association with the great
capitals and bases. The pedestals of the exedra columns A _a_, next
figure, are worked together with the bases in one stone. In these
profiles we again see how little the mouldings disturb the original
form.

[Illustration: FIG. 60.--Cornice Profiles.]

_Responds._--A very remarkable feature in the interior, is the way in
which the colour of the marble columns of the arcade is reflected as
it were on the responds, where the arches fall on the great square
piers. A strip of porphyry or verde antique, the width and height
of the free shafts, is inlaid into the marble casing of the piers
absolutely flush, the edge being only defined by a line of the notched
fillet. A flat sculptured slab at the top echoes the capital, and a
base slab of mouldings worked in a vertical plane ranges with the
bases of the columns. Salzenberg’s plate does not render this feature
properly, the “capital” is flat and has straight sides and instead of
the “base” he shows a portion of the wall skirting. Fig. 59 shows this
base in elevation (B), and section (C), ranging with the pedestals of
the exedra, Columns (A). The way in which the sculptured and inlaid
spandrils of the arcades stop against the plain veneering of the great
piers is also most noteworthy.

_Cornices and Skirtings._--We give here (Fig. 59, D and E) two
profiles of the skirtings where the principle of working out of thin
veneering-slabs is applied to moulded work. The parapet slabs of first
floor are worked in a very similar way; Salzenberg shows design of
front, and they bear flat lozenges between two crosses at the back. See
Fig. 61.

The cornices of the interior, which really formed walks for the
lamplighters, are made up of no regular combination of curves; they
project steeply forward, the general slanting plane being little
disturbed (A, Fig. 60); they are decorated with rows of acanthus, the
curved tips of which catch the light in bright points. The cornice of
aisle is given at B. We also give a profile of the door-head, which
shows how the mouldings conform to a plane of least labour (C). By the
jambs and heads being mitred together, the difficulty of working stop
ends was also obviated. The mouldings are not sharp and accurate, as is
suggested by Salzenberg’s engravings.

[Illustration: FIG. 61.--Closures between Pillars, Front of Gynaeceum.]

We may mention here that all the doors entering the church from the
narthex have raised marble thresholds, that of the Royal Door being a
magnificent piece of verde antique which rises some seven inches above
the level of the floor; the others are of white marble.

_Windows, &c._--The pierced lattices of the windows also furnish
examples of another beautiful method of marble slab construction. The
large windows are subdivided by marble posts, between which the pierced
lattices make a mere screen. Salzenberg, who found a store-room full of
broken fragments, gives a section of a bar. Windows over the western
entrances, and another at the foot of the south-west stair, which are
similarly pierced out of sheet marble, have a simple meander carved
on the bars (Fig. 62); this we suppose to be of the ninth or tenth
century. The lower part of the window openings going down to the floors
are filled with marble closures, some of which bear flat sculptured
devices, such as a fish in a lozenge, and on the outside a cross; above
this came a second tier of slabs pierced with square openings, which
were possibly covered by marble slabs as opening casements.

[Illustration: FIG. 62.--Marble Window Lattice.]

Some of these closures are translucent; one in the West Gallery
over narthex is the well-known “Shining Window” which is mentioned
by Grelot. These transparent slabs of “Phengites” were much used
in Byzantine architecture. The transparent marble slab windows of
S. Miniato are well known. At Ravenna there is a sculptured slab
altarfront, through which shone the light of candles placed behind.

[Illustration: FIG. 63.--Cipollino Slabs with Cross.]

Placed against the east side of the marble screen now in south
gynaeceum are slabs of cipollino, which bear large crosses standing
on circles; the relief being very slight and the edges softened these
show in the faintest way; each cross extends over two slabs, the joint
being down the middle. A similar slab with a cross is now placed in the
opening on south side of bema. These cross slabs some seven feet high
are beautiful examples of the proper use of marble. (Fig. 63.)

[Illustration: FIG. 64.--Forms on Carved Impost Moulding.]

_Carving._--Of the carved ornament we can only stay to remark on the
large use made of the drill in obtaining points and chains of sharp
shadow: and that in the design new motives and old--the acanthus and
the vine are found side by side, both equally alive. The acanthus
has been redrawn from the leaves which tracery the stones along the
shore; and even the archaic lotus, for centuries degraded into “egg and
tongue,” buds once again into leaf.




CHAPTER XII

BRONZE, MOSAICS, INSCRIPTIONS


§ 1. BRONZE WORK.

One of the most interesting facts in connection with the building is
the lavish use of bronze in construction and decoration. There is
every reason to suppose that the bronze casing of the Royal Doorway
entering the church from the narthex, was applied long subsequent to
the building of the church. We give in Fig. 65 a sketch of the bronze
cornice of this door, with its hooks for the door hangings; the left
hand shows the form towards the narthex, the right hand the interior.
The deep-splayed casing of the cornice resembling a sarcophagus may
have suggested the story quoted by Buzantios,[361] that the body of S.
Irene reposed above this doorway. By comparing it with the adjoining
marble doorways, it is apparent that the bronze must be laid over
similar marble forms, and that this deep-splayed casing simply covers
a marble cornice hacked back to one slanting face. Salzenberg gives
a detail of the panel at the centre, and the inscription has already
been quoted. Such inscriptions were general at the entering in of
ancient churches. For instance, a small church[362] in Palestine has
the legend, “This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter
in thereat,” and a similar inscription is on the lintel of the early
church at Corfu.[363] An isolated lintel at Constantinople has “Open
me the gates of righteousness, that I may enter and praise the Lord.”
Paulinus says that at the door of his church at Nola was written,
“Peace be to thee with peaceful heart and pure, who comest within the
secret place of Christ.”

[Illustration: FIG. 65.--Bronze Casing to Royal Doorway. Scale 1/60.]

In a paper on the inscriptions at S. Sophia, by C. G. Curtis and S.
Aristarchês in the _Transactions_ of the Philological Society[364] of
Constantinople the authors point out that S. Sophia was greatly injured
by earthquake on the 25th of October, 975, and restored six years
afterwards, and say that the form of the letters of the inscription
suggests that it was written at this time. Possibly an earthquake
gave a very sufficient reason for such a casing, by fracturing the
great marble lintel, but there appears to have been a whole series of
additions and alterations at this end of the church before this period,
and it might very well have been done at the same time as the mosaic
above it.

All the doors opening into or from the narthex, with one exception,
are cased in bronze on a wood foundation about five inches thick,
formed into panels. They are all hung in two leaves, and the back
edges against the frame are rounded continuing top and bottom as
pivots on which they revolve. The nine doors entering the church are
comparatively plain, each leaf being divided into three panels.

The central doors entering the narthex are two panels high, each of
which bore a large cross; these were applied separately, the upper one
under a round arch on pilasters, and the lower beneath a gable also
supported by pilasters. The lower cross is planted on a rock, from which
flow the four rivers, symbol of the Gospel preached to the ends of the
earth. Part of a verse in the mosaic of the apse at Nola as given by
Paulinus makes this symbolism clear.

                          “Christ the rock
  Of all the church, the base of rock sustains
  From which as living streams four fountains flow;
  The four evangelists, whose words are gone
  Through every land.”

The margins, framing the panel of this pair of doors, are decorated
with elliptical hollows and pairs of small rosettes alternately (see
Fig. 66).

[Illustration: FIG. 66.--Central Bronze Door entering Narthex. Scale
about three feet to an inch.]

The two doors right and left of this central door are less in size;
here each leaf is again divided into two panels. The top one has a
relief of a chalice from which rises the stem of a cross with crisp
acanthus foliage on either side. The lower panel has a large plain
cross. These reliefs are all applied to the panels, the crosses being
made up of four arms, which are separately inserted into a central
boss. The horizontal arms, and in many instances the whole crosses,
have been removed by the Mahommedans. The styles and rails of these
doors are inlaid with strap-like forms and gammidae in silver, and
engraved with a representation of a setting of gems (see Fig. 67).
These inlaid straps, with seal-like ends, exactly repeat the forms
found on door-hangings. See Fig. 13. At S. Sophia the forms have
certainly been taken from similar veils. The large simplicity of the
design of these beautiful bronze doors suggests that they may be of
Justinian’s time.

The doors still further from the centre, right and left, that is to
say the two end doors of the five entering the narthex, have each leaf
divided into three panels. The top and bottom panels are charged with
crosses; and the centre one, which is smallest, bears an annular boss;
the styles are studded with discs. The south door of narthex, and also
the end doors in the west wall of the nave are similar to these; the
others in this wall, including the great central door from the narthex,
have the big panel in the centre and two smaller ones with circular
boss top and bottom (see Fig. 68).

[Illustration: FIG. 67.--Bronze Door of Narthex. Scale about four feet
to an inch.]

The outer doors of the porch at the south end of narthex are still more
remarkable. The panel margins are made up of cast bronze decorated
with meanders, frets, and leaf mouldings, very delicately modelled
in high relief. These are evidently of antique workmanship, possibly
they may be as late as the fourth century, but they can hardly have
been wrought later. The ancient doors have been enlarged by adding
outer margins, consisting of later relief work, and flat metal studded
with little leaf ornaments which form the heads of pins. The panels
have been filled with plates of bronze, which bear an inscription
ingeniously made up of monograms, arranged on crosses in circles; these
are deeply engraved into the metal plates and filled with silver.
It is interesting to find here an example of the damascened work of
which some of the doors in Italy brought from Constantinople are such
remarkable specimens.[365] The letters are beautifully designed, and in
all cases the horizontal arm of the cross is above the centre of the
circle in which it occurs.

Good engravings of these doors are given by Salzenberg, who however
incorrectly transcribes and arranges the inscription on the panels. Of
this we here give a corrected version, Fig. 69. (The top line in the
figure is actually above the right-hand monograms.)

The inscription has been deciphered in the previously mentioned
_Transactions_ of the Greek Syllogos at Constantinople.

         [ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟΥ ΚΑΙ] ΜΙΧΑΗΛ ΝΙΚΗΤΩΝ
  ΚΥΡΙΕ ΒΟΗΘΕΙ                ΘΕΟΦΙΛΩ ΔΕϹΠΟΤΗ
  ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕ ΒΟΗΘΕΙ              ΘΕΟΔΩΡΑ ΑΥΓΟΥϹΤΗ
  ΧΡΙϹΤΕ ΒΟΗΘΕΙ               ΜΙΧΑΗΛ ΔΕϹΠΟΤΗ
  ΕΤΟΥϹ ΑΠΟ-ΚΤΙϹΕΩϹ           ΚΟϹΜΟΥ SΤΜΘ ΙΝΔ.Δ

  (of Theophilus and)         Michael Conquerors
  (1) Lord, help              (2) Theophilos Emperor
  (3) Mother of God, help     (4) Theodora Augusta
  (5) Christ, help            (6) Michael Emperor
  (7) Year from the creation  (8) of the world 6349. Ind. 4

The sixth and eighth monograms show evidence of having been altered.
The silver has been removed from the earlier form, and the grooves
having been filled up with bronze fresh letters were inlaid: the
lines stopped out however show a different colour from the original
ground, and so the palimpsest can be read. The revision was made
“after the birth of Michael the first son of Theophilus in 839 and
his coronation in the year 840.[366] Before this time the monogram of
John the patriarch, which may still be traced, occupied the position
of Michael’s monogram: and instead of 6349 Indiction 4, the date was
6347 Indiction 2, thus giving the year beginning September 838, when
John the Sixth was Patriarch of Constantinople.”[367] The inscription
“Michael Conquerors” (which is formed by piercing a bronze plate,
not by damascening, as shown by Salzenberg) occupies the top of the
right-hand leaf of the door: that on the left corresponding to it
is lost. MM. Curtis and Aristarches have restored this as above. The
existing words, it is evident, must have been added after Michael’s
birth and with the alteration of the monograms probably form a memorial
of his coronation. _Murray’s Handbook_ 1893 suggests that the word
Nikêtôn refers to the restoration of images; but the revision of the
inscription was made during the lifetime of Theophilus, who was the
last of the iconoclastic emperors. According to Muralt[368] Theophilus
died Jan. 20 A.M. 6350 (842). Just before, feeling himself to be dying,
he made the empress swear not to re-establish images, and not to depose
the patriarch John. Three weeks however after the emperor’s death,
Methodius was named patriarch. “The victory of the image-worshippers
was celebrated by the installation of the long-banished pictures in S.
Sophia on the 19th of February 842, just thirty days after the death of
Theophilus.”[369] It is almost certain that the conjectural restoration
is correct for Theophilus and Michael are thus associated in a
mural inscription[370] and Niketes was a common title from
Constantine downwards. On the panels are certain pin-holes[371] placed
symmetrically between the monograms; these must have been for the
attachment of reliefs.

[Illustration: FIG. 68.--Bronze Doors in Narthex. Scale about four feet
to an inch.]

[Illustration: FIG. 69.--Inscription Damascened in Silver on Bronze
Door.]

       *       *       *       *       *

The Anonymous author speaks of doors of “elektron” and of silver dipped
in gold, but we cannot rely on this any more than on his 365 doors of
ivory.

Electrum is incorrectly translated as amber in the last edition of
_Murray’s Guide_ (1893). Labarte pointed out that enamel forms the
right equivalent, and for this interpretation he has ample authority.
Theophilus, the Byzantine writer on the arts, continually uses the
word for glass enamels, either set as separate jewels, or fused as
translucent enamels to a metal base. A note in the English edition of
this writer explains that this use of the word was probably extended
from amber to cover other transparent bodies of similar appearance.
From the lavish way in which enamel was used about the tenth century
it is possible that some of the doors such as those in the iconostasis
might have been enamelled.

As to the “dipping” of silver or bronze with gold the Silentiary tells
us that Justinian “overlaid with gold” the bronze zones of the columns;
and the annulets of the porphyry columns at the east entrance still
show gilding. Buzantios[372] quotes from a MS. chemical treatise in
the Paris library which mentions “dipping bronze like the doors of S.
Sophia,” and Fossati says the head of the Royal Door was gilt.

Theophilus explains in detail how bronze or silver might be gilt by
fire-gilding, the process here called dipping. The copper in the bronze
had to be pure and free from lead. The gold was ground very fine and
cooked with mercury. This amalgam was then applied to the surface with
a copper bit, like that plumbers use in soldering, and polished with a
wire brush.

We have given sketches of the bronze collars which surround the
columns, at the junction of capital and shaft, and just above the
bases. The porphyry columns in the two western exedras have many
intermediate annulets at unequal heights; these in some cases were
doubtless intended to bind up longitudinal fractures in the shafts,
which show in many places; but in other instances they appear to cover
the junction of separate drums of porphyry. These are all shown in
Grelot’s interior view. The principal collars are certainly of the time
of Justinian; those under the capitals have square metal bosses or
boxes covering the point where they meet and are pinned together. These
“seals” of the great order bear the monograms of Justinian and Theodora.

The annulets at the base are made continuous at the joint, and have
the appearance of being brazed: those of the main order are now kept
brightly polished. One of the base annulets in the north gallery is
signed by a monogram as the work “of Stephen.”[373]

Besides the hooks, in the form of upturned fingers, for the hangings at
the bronze door, similar hooks occur in the marble lintels of the doors
in the narthex and the exonarthex.


§ 2. MOSAIC.

The mosaics of figures exposed at the time of Fossati’s repairs are
many of them figured by Salzenberg, although his harshly coloured
diagrams can but very inadequately represent the beauty of the
originals. We give here his descriptive text in a slightly condensed
form as a basis for our own remarks. Dethier[374] asserts that only a
part of the mosaics discovered were published by Salzenberg, and that
Fossati preserved others inedited in his portfolios.[375]

The mosaics are formed of glass of various colours cut into small
pieces and applied to the vaults with a cement. The gold mosaic was
made by laying leaf gold on the glass, which was then covered by a
thin film of glass to protect the surface. Silver mosaic was made in
the same way. The gold was used, in spite of its apparent abundance,
with great economy. For instance, in vertical spaces high up and only
visible from almost immediately beneath, the tesserae are arranged
in horizontal rows at a distance of two or three tesserae from each
other with their upper edges projecting. The projecting edge of the
lower row hides the bare space between it and the row above. There
is thus a saving of more than half the material, and great play of
light is obtained. The tympana of the aisles are covered in this way.
The coloured tesserae are set in the usual way, as the difficulties
involved by the other method in the curves of the ornament would
outweigh the saving of material.

Besides gold and silver, red, blue, and green are the principal
colours; though others are used in the heads of the figures. The
vaulting throughout was covered with a background of gold, on which are
conventional patterns that follow the forms of the construction. Some
of the spaces have representations of figures.

In the bands of ornament are gamma-crosses [_swastikas_], hearts,
leaves, and crosses, placed in circles, squares, and other figures.
There are no sharp arrises to the vaults, but patterned bands are
placed on the rounded edges.

The vault of the narthex has its wide transverse bands adorned with
gamma-crosses. In the domed portions between the transverse arches are
diagonal bands which culminate in a circle inclosing a cross.[376]

The vaults of the gynaeceum, perhaps because they were visible from
the nave, are more elaborate than those of the aisles below.[377]
Salzenberg’s Plate xxv. shows the western dome on the south side, on
which is represented the descent of the Holy Spirit: the arches have
the same ornament as those below.[378]

Details of the dome are given in Salzenberg’s Plate xxvi. The edges of
the ribs and window openings are covered with bands of ornament. The
faces of the ribs have alternate squares and crosses, which decrease in
size as they get higher. The central space has lost its figure subject,
but it is surrounded by a wide border.[379] The sides of the window
openings are lined with silver mosaic. The lower part of the dome is
not decorated, as the projecting cornice hides it from below.[380]

The edges of the exedra-conchs have bands similar to those on the great
arches, and the same pattern occurs again on the edges of the eastern
barrel vault, and the bema apse.[381] The rest of the decoration of the
surface of the apses has disappeared.

Over the centre door from the narthex to the nave is represented Christ
on a throne, holding a Gospel open at the words, “I am the Light of
the world: Peace be with you.” A monarch is prostrate before him, and
in medallions on either side are Mary the Intercessor, and Michael the
Protector.[382]

The nimbus of Christ has three rays, and His hand blesses in the Greek
manner, by which the fingers represent the initial and final letters of
Jesus Christus. The undergarment has broad gold stripes worked on it,
and the lights are given in silver; it seems to be of silk, the upper
garment appears to be of a white woollen stuff.

The great western arch has a medallion of the Virgin at the crown,
and full lengths of Peter and Paul at the sides, Peter on the south;
however, only a few remnants of these figures are now left. The border
which surrounds the medallion of the Virgin has colours of the rainbow,
the circle of her halo is red; the flesh colour is fair, and the eyes
are blue. The veil is blue, with a gold cross, and the cloak is also
blue. Under the veil is a kind of band round the head, like that which
the Spanish Jews of Constantinople wear; it is of a blue green colour
with dark stripes; the hair is not visible. Her nimbus has three silver
rays on a gold ground; her hands rest on the shoulders of the Child,
whose right hand blesses, while the left holds the book of the Gospel.

Peter’s face is dark, the nimbus is blue, the garment is bluish green,
and the gold rod, surmounted by a cross, has red and blue bands. He
thus has the same insignia as the St. Peter on the Ciborium Curtain,
and it is this which, in the mosaic, identifies the figure as Peter,
for there is no inscription. Porphyrogenitus, in his life of Basil,
mentions that when the western arch was restored the pictures of the
Virgin, and the Apostles Peter and Paul were placed there by that
emperor. The figure of Paul has an upper garment of green with silver
lights, and the undergarment is a greenish yellow. The whole figure is
about seventeen feet high, but the head is wanting.[383]

On the large semicircular walls beneath the northern and southern
dome-arches are a number of figures in mosaic. The seven arched
recesses were filled with representations of martyrs and bishops;
above, between the windows, were six smaller figures of prophets, and
a larger figure at each end. At the height of the upper row of windows
were probably the archangels, but of these only the feet remain.

The figures that now exist are the following. In the recesses on the
south side, the second from the east is Anthimos, Bishop of Nicomedia,
martyred in 311: in the third is Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, martyred in
379.[384]

The fourth recess from the east has Gregory Theologos, Patriarch of
Constantinople from 378 to 383. The next figure is Dionysius the
Areopagite; who was converted by St. Paul, and became, tradition says,
Bishop of Athens. In the sixth recess is Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, who
died in 330. This figure is partly destroyed. The seventh, is Gregory,
Bishop of Armenia, who died in 325.[385]

The figure of Isaiah, which is to the east of the row of windows,
had been covered up (when Salzenberg made his drawings), but it was
described by Fossati as having an undergarment of green with silver
lights, and over it a cloak of a white woollen stuff. The right hand
pointed towards the bema, and in the left was an open scroll with the
inscription, “Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” Under
the figure was a monogram.[386] Higher up again on the same wall was
the inscription:--

  ΑΙΓ....ΤΗϹΑΘΑΝΑΤΟΥ ϹΟΦΙΑϹ
  ΗΡΑ....ΤΟΥΚΕΑΚΗΡΑΤΩΝ....

The recesses of the north wall have no mosaics [see below, p. 287.]

At the height of the windows, the first figure beginning from the east
is Jeremiah.[387] The undergarment has stripes of blue and red, and
the upper represents a russet-coloured woollen stuff. The right hand
blesses, the left has an open roll [with the inscription shown in the
plate, “This is our God; no other shall be compared to Him.”].[388]

The figure between the first and second window is probably Jonas, as ΑϹ
still remains on the right side of the head, and there is only room for
three letters on the other side. The undergarment is a greenish blue
with silver lights, and has broad red stripes. The nimbus is blue.

Over the head of this figure is found the remnant of an inscription
ΝΤΙΔΟϹ. This may have belonged to one of the figures above, of which
a sandaled foot and edge of a garment alone remain. The foot does not
stand upon green earth, like the prophets below, and therefore probably
belonged to an angel. Only a part remains of the third prophet from the
east, which was inscribed Habakkuk.[389]

The mosaics on the soffite of the eastern arch were covered before
drawings were made. At the crown is a medallion with a white ground.
In this is a low throne of gold, with two green cushions upon it; over
them is thrown a blue cloth with a white hem, and upon that is placed
a golden book. Above is also a gold cross with three arms; the middle
one is the longest, and at its intersection with the upright member
is a circle. On the south face of this eastern arch is the figure of
John the Baptist, with long hair, and a brown shaggy garment; his right
hand blesses, and his left holds a cross with three arms. Opposite, on
the north side is the Virgin, with uplifted hands in the attitude of
prayer. She has a white undergarment, bound with a golden girdle, a red
upper garment, and a veil of a green-blue, with a gold hem. Under her
is John Palaeologus, who restored this part, and to whose time these
figures and designs certainly belong. The emperor wears a crown, with
strings of pearls on either side. He has a closely fitting undergarment
of gold, decorated with pearls and embroidery. A magnificent cloak
hangs down from the left shoulder, and round the neck and breast is
a kind of broad gorget richly embroidered. In his right hand is a
sceptre, and in his left a roll.

The archangel on the south side of the bema vault[390] has a globe in
the left hand, and a staff in the right. He is clad in white, with
imperial red shoes. The arch of the apse bears an inscription, which
ends with the letters ϹΕΙΕ ΠΑΛΙΝ.

On the conch of the apse is the Mother of God upon a throne, holding
the Child between her knees; her upper garment, which is blue, conceals
the whole figure, except that at the breast, under the arm, and above
the feet, the white and gold garment beneath is visible. The Child
has his right hand uplifted and his left against his breast. He wears
a white garment, with a gold girdle. His hair falls down freely, and
the nimbus has three streams of light. The throne is gold with red
ornaments, but is without a back, and the footstool is of green silk.

In the dome pendentives are Cherubim with six wings. Each head is four
feet two inches high. The upper feathers of the wings are a light
green, and the under feathers brown.[391] The great centre-piece of the
dome, which, according to Du Cange, represented Christ as Judge of the
World seated upon a rainbow, no longer exists.

Only one of the domes of the gynaeceum preserves its mosaic ornament
of figures. This[392] represents the descent of the Holy Spirit. Only
a part remains of the throne in the centre; on it is a green cushion,
and a blue cloth with gold patterns. Groups of spectators fill the
pendentives of the vault.

Above the doorway which leads from the western gynaeceum to the
chambers over the south porch, are remains of figures, which can no
longer be identified.[393] In the ceiling of the chamber over the
stairway is a design of green tendrils on a gold ground.[394]

The small dome in the chamber which opens out of the western buttress
of the south side on the first-floor level has four angels with
uplifted hands, supporting a medallion in the centre. This design is
similar to that in the side chapel at S. Prassede at Rome.

“The figure representations belong to the time of Justinian, though the
Silentiary, otherwise so accurate, does not describe them.”

       *       *       *       *       *

_First Scheme._--A reading of Salzenberg’s notes on the figure mosaics
will show how little ground there was for his impression that these
belonged to the time of Justinian, which the last sentence expresses.
Several of these mosaics are dated as being parts of restorations. Thus
he shows that Basil I. placed figures on the arch of the great western
hemicycle, and that those of the great eastern arch are the work of
Palaeologus.

The subject has been much obscured by insecure assumptions and inexact
assertions. Labarte, who was one of the first to doubt that Justinian
was intended by the figure of the kneeling emperor before Christ over
the Royal Door, thought that the Silentiary described figure-mosaics
as covering the interior.[395] Gerspach in _La Mosaïque_ calls the
emperor ‘Justinian’ and appears to mistake the Pentecost cupola for
the great dome. In regard to the date of the lunette containing the
emperor, Labarte suggested that it was a work of the seventh century,
and that the emperor was Heraclius.[396] Woltmann and Woermann placed
it still later and write, “There is no kind of resemblance between
the beardless portrait of Justinian at Ravenna and this bearded,
gray-headed man. It is more likely to be Basil I. the restorer of the
western apse, and this opinion is supported by the miniatures of his
time.” The pilgrim Anthony seems to refer to it as Leo the Wise, but
the Russians ascribe so many works to this emperor without reason that
this is inconclusive. The forms of the letters in the inscriptions,
however, show that the mosaic is late. Bayet,[397] who has considered
the mosaics afresh, and thinks the silence of Paulus is conclusive as
to the absence of figure-mosaics when the poem was written, about 562,
himself seems to misread some parts of the poet’s description; thus he
thinks patterns in mosaic are intended in lines 607-612. The animals of
the atrium may possibly have been of glass mosaic: but we think it more
likely that inlaid marble like the dolphins of the interior (Fig. 49)
is intended. The baskets of fruit, branches with birds, and the golden
vine in the church, spoken of in lines 668, &c. seem to refer to the
carved and gilt surfaces of the spandrils of the arcade, not to the
mosaic, as Bayet supposes.

The figure scheme, so far as it can be traced, closely agrees with the
Byzantine Manual of Painting: and the subjects and treatments can be
associated with work in other churches of the ninth and tenth centuries
which have in several cases almost identical designs. Altogether it
may be doubted if a single figure belongs to a time anterior to the
iconoclastic period of the eighth century.

We believe the original scheme of decoration is best accounted for
without figures, and even if this were not so, we can hardly believe
that in the Patriarchal Church at the door of the Palace figures
would have lasted through the reigns of the iconoclastic emperors and
patriarchs, as they may well have done in remoter churches where the
clergy were on the other side. Leo issued his first decree against
images in 726. Its purport was not, as is often stated, that pictures
should be hung higher in the churches in order that people should not
adore them by kissing: “it commanded that they should be totally
abolished.”[398]

[Illustration: FIG. 70.--Mosaic of small Vault Compartment next the
Bema.]

It is well known that a figure of Christ over the entrance to the
palace was destroyed by Leo the Isaurian. Dr. Walsh, who was chaplain
to our embassy at the Porte about 1820, writes, “There stood till very
lately in Constantinople an inscription over the gate of the palace
called Chalces. Under a large cross sculptured over the entrance to the
palace were the following words:--

“‘The emperor cannot endure that Christ should be represented
(_graphes_) a mute and lifeless image graven on earthly materials. But
Leo and his young son Constantine have at their gates engraved the
thrice-blessed representation of the cross, the glory of believing
monarchs.’”[399]

In 768 Nicetas, the patriarch under Constantine, Leo’s son, is said to
have destroyed “the images of gold mosaic and wax encaustic” in all the
churches of Constantinople.[400] And in the life of Theophilus we read,
“throughout every church the figures of the saints were destroyed, and
the forms of beasts and birds were painted in their places.”[401]

It is quite certain from Procopius and the poem of the Silentiary that
the vaults of Justinian’s church were covered with mosaic. They both
describe the brilliance of the gold glittering surface, but do not
mention any figures. In such detailed descriptions this silence goes
far to show that there was originally no storied scheme of imagery,
like that which the Poet so fully traced out on the curtains and
iconostasis. It seems equally certain that where, describing the dome
on the strong arches, overhanging the interior like the firmament which
rests on air, he says, “at the highest point was depicted (_epigraphe_)
the cross, Protector of the City,” we are to understand that a great
cross in mosaic expanded its arms on the zenith of the dome, and that
the background was strewn with stars. Now this is a well-known scheme,
and it is found at an earlier date in the chapel of Galla Placidia at
Ravenna, and later it is mentioned by Porphyrogenitus in a description
of a domed apartment in the palace. The stars on the dome are more
than once referred to in the poem (page 36), and it is probable that
the surfaces between the ribs as well as the central circle had gold
stars set in azure, the ribs being of gold; nothing less would seem to
justify “the firmament of the roof its rounded expanse sprinkled with
the stars of heaven.”

It is evident that, however easily figures and pictures might be added
here and there at various dates, the church, being once incrusted with
mosaic, would at no subsequent time have had the enormous areas of
tesserae removed to be again renewed.

It follows that the ground, and any patterns evenly distributed in
every part of the vaults, are assuredly of the first work. First among
such designs is a jewelled cross thirteen feet high, which is blazoned
on both ground floor and gallery vaults, and which must have been
repeated some twelve times twelve. We give an outline of one of the
smallest vault compartments in the church, the irregular space to the
east directly south of the bema: here three of the crosses can still
be seen through Fossati’s colouring, their interlocking arms spreading
over the whole field. This form of cross, with lobed ends, is found set
in a circle of stars, in the mosaic apsoid of S. Apollinaris in Classe.
(Fig. 70.)

A similar argument applies to other forms which occur with equal
frequency. A square panel of ornament which alternates with the
crosses, certain diapers, the bands up the edges of the aisle vaults,
and the small circles each containing the six-armed cross or monogram
at the centre of these compartments, would all seem to be parts of the
original work, and these simple elements we believe formed the first
scheme of decoration. Texier figures a mosaic from Salonica made up of
crosses. The splendid simplicity of such a scheme seems entirely in
harmony with S. Sophia, for even figures would disturb the beauty of
the expanse which at each movement glitters like a web of golden mail
swayed by a breeze.

_Later Mosaics._--For the mosaics displaying figures we refer back to
Salzenberg’s description. Much further information might have been
gathered if he had given copies of the inscriptions which exist, in
however incomplete a state. His section (Plate x.) shows that a long
inscription surrounded the arch of the apse, but in his text he only
gives the last few letters ϹΕΙΕ ΠΑΛΙΝ; this possibly belonged to
the words ἀνεστήσειε πάλιν, “Set up again,” and the whole may have
contained the name of the emperor under whom this restoration was
effected. (See below, p. 287.)

On the great lunette of the wall of the south side also, where the
tiers of saints and prophets seem a part of a scheme representing
the Church triumphant, or a _Benedicite_, two monograms occur (see
Salzenberg’s Plate ix.); only the first, which reads ΚΥΡΙΕ, is figured
in the text; it is evidently a part of the well-known invocation,
‘Lord, help,’ which requires the name of an emperor or artist to
complete it.

An inscription between these monograms is partly given in the text; and
supposing it to be correctly rendered the whole probably read “Lord,
help” (_name_ who painted this wall) “of the Immortal Wisdom” (with the
figures) “of the saints”.

The entire later scheme of the mosaics must have corresponded closely
to that in the New Church in the palace built by Basil, which is
described by Porphyrogenitus. Here, at the centre of the dome, was the
human form of Christ embracing the whole world in His regard; below
were ranges of angels. In the apse was the figure of the Virgin with
arms uplifted in prayer, “a choir of apostles, martyrs, prophets and
patriarchs filled the other spaces of the whole church.” This in turn
resembles very closely the iconography at S. Luke’s.

[Illustration: FIG. 71.--Restoration of Throne at Crown of Pentecost
Dome.]

The following instances may be given of the agreement of the mosaics at
S. Sophia with the instructions of the Painter’s Manual. For example,
it directs that over the door of entrance from the narthex Christ be
represented throned, holding the Gospel open at the words, “I am the
Door: by me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved.” At each side the
Virgin and the Prodromos are to be represented. The figure to Christ’s
left at S. Sophia, called Michael by Salzenberg, Grelot tells us was
the Prodromos and he probably followed the traditional ascription,
although the type seems to agree better with an archangel.

Again, “Inside the Sanctuary at the centre of the vaults draw the
Virgin seated on a throne holding Christ as a little child.”[402] This
exactly describes the apsoid mosaic at S. Sophia. The cupola of the
gynaeceum, representing the descent of the Holy Spirit, is also in
close agreement with the directions given in the Manual:--“The Holy
Spirit is seen in the form of a dove, twelve tongues of fire go out
from it and rest on the apostles.” This subject is treated at S. Luke’s
in a manner almost identical to that at S. Sophia, and it is also found
in a dome at S. Mark’s.

Diehl in his examination of the mosaics at S. Luke’s has pointed out
that the central circle of the Pentecost cupola at S. Sophia as shown
by Salzenberg in Plate xxxi. is quite insufficient to have contained
the figure of Christ as shown in the restoration given on Plate xxvi.,
and that consequently the Holy Spirit as a Dove really occupied this
position as at S. Luke’s. In Fig. 71 we give an amended restoration
of this centre; it will be seen from Salzenberg’s text that he had no
evidence for a figure. The two angels above the sanctuary are described
by Salzenberg as bearing lances or banner poles; these were doubtless
surmounted by Flabella bearing the words

  ΑΓΙΟϹ
  ΑΓΙΟϹ
  ΑΓΙΟϹ

as at S. Luke’s and Nicaea.[403] There is a very similar angel holding
a flabellum of this kind in the tenth century Menologium; and the words
Holy, Holy, Holy, are directed to be put on flabella in the manual.

Again the Manual says, “At the summit of these vaults (opening from the
dome) draw the holy Veil to the east and opposite to it the holy Cup.”
Now in Grelot’s view of the interior, made when many of the mosaics
were still visible, he shows a large square mosaic at the crown of the
bema vault directly over the altar, which he says was “the picture of
Christ’s face upon a napkin called Veronica.”

The representation of the throne at the centre of the soffite of the
eastern arch (see p. 277) is one of the most beautiful symbolisms of
Byzantine art. At Nicaea the same design occurs in a similar position
on the triumphal arch, and it is inscribed ΕΤΟΙΜΑϹΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΘΡΟΝΟΥ. This
“Preparation of the throne” referred to the second coming of Christ.
Our figure represents a throne of this kind which we offer as an
illustration of that at S. Sophia; it is based on a throne inscribed Η
ΕΤΗΜΑϹΙΑ which appears on the cover of a Byzantine Gospel book at S.
Mark’s.[404] The small dome of the little chapel on the first floor,
Salzenberg says, resembles a dome at S. Prassede. The latter is a work
of the ninth century.[405]

[Illustration: FIG. 72.--Restoration Throne at Crown of Great E. Arch.]

Salzenberg’s description seems to account for all the figured mosaics
mentioned by Grelot (1680) except the “Veronica over the sanctuary.”
When Grelot made his drawing there was no figure at the crown of the
dome but only the bands rising to the central wreath. Clavijo however
writes, “The vault of the square is covered with very rich mosaic work,
and in the middle of the vault high over the great altar the image
of God the Father very large is wrought in mosaics of many colours;
but it is so high up that it only looks the size of a man or a little
larger though really it is so big that it measures three palmos between
the eyes.” This must be the Pantocrator of the Manual--“draw near the
summit of the cupola a circle of different colours like a rainbow seen
on clouds in rainy weather. In the centre represent Christ with the
Gospel and this inscription, Jesus Christ, the Almighty.”

Since the above has been in type we have found a pamphlet published
by the brothers Fossati in 1890,[406] describing a collection of
drawings of S. Sophia, shown by them at Milan. From this we gather the
following additional particulars of the mosaic subjects.--Over the door
of the south porch “was a remarkable mosaic representing the Virgin
and Child, to whom Justinian presents the Church and Constantine the
City.”--A representation of Christ, the Virgin, and S. John, forming
the Trimorphion (Pantocrator, Pantochrante, Pantepopte.)--Two groups
of the Fathers of the Church, thirteen altogether: Ignatius Oneos,
Methodius, Ignatius Theophorus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, John Chrysostom,
Cyril, and Athanasius. [These must occupy the seven recesses on
the north window-wall, as the six others agree with those given by
Salzenberg on the south side].--The Pantocrator on a throne [? supposed
centre of Pentecost dome].--John Palaeologus [? with the Virgin on
north side of great east arch, p. 278].--John Comnenus and Irene with
the Virgin between them.--Constantine XI. and Zoe with Christ between
them.--Alexius Comnenus X. or XI.--Alexander, the brother of Leo [some
of these also were doubtless on the great east and west arches].--Three
Virgins.--S. John with six apostles surrounded by cherubim [? in higher
part of one of the window-walls, p. 277].--Prophets [? of window-wall,
p. 276].--A circle with colossal Pantocrator [? the destroyed centre of
the great dome].--Different emblems with Greek and Latin descriptions.
Besides these, a drawing of Cherubim “saved from the Atrium Portico”
is mentioned; and the inscription on the arch in front of the apse is
given as follows, and may be compared with Salzenberg’s Plate x.:--

  ΗΙΑΝΙΡϹΕΙΑΡ ΗΡΑΝΘΕΟΗΑΡΙΗΑΡ ΘΕϹΙϹΗΝΑΝΕΑΙϹΕΙΕ
  ΠΑΡΙΝ.

The earliest description of the mosaics entering into any particulars
is that of Dr. Covel’s MS. 1670-7 in the British Museum. “In those
cupolas [of gynaeceum] are imagery of Saints and the story of the
Bible which the Turks have in many places quite defaced and plastered
them all over; in other places only scratched out or disfigured their
faces as the cherubims in the corners under the great dome.” He then
enters into details of the pentecost dome which was the only figured
vault entire; and then describes mosaics in the western gallery not
otherwise mentioned. “In the sides of the second window [from the
south], is Christ coming up from Jordan and the Descent of the Holy
Ghost with these words, Matt. iii., 17:--ΟΥΤΟϹΕϹΤΙΝ, &c., on one side
and over against it, Christ between Moses and Elias with these words,
Matt. xvii., 5:--ΟΥΤΟϹ, &c.” The window jambs of the western gallery
are now plastered, it is probable that a series of mosaics of the life
of Christ covered them. Up to 1840 every visitor seems to have been
offered tesserae, which for better assurance were broken out before
his eyes. The Italian MS. of 1611 also in the British Museum (Harl.
3408), after saying that the walls of the church were lined with marble
adds, “the porch as well, except that this is all worked in mosaic with
growing leaves of great beauty down to the pavement of the porch.”[407]

[Illustration: FIG. 73.--Mosaic Tesserae, actual size.]

Signor Boni has noticed that some of the gold tesserae at Parenzo
are inserted at an angle of 30° to the plane of the wall, so as to
be normal to the line of vision, just as Salzenberg describes at S.
Sophia; the same thing occurs at the Dome of the Rock. This, besides
saving the material, aided in flashing the light, a property of the
gold tesserae which was much valued, as several inscriptions from the
mosaics show.[408] In S. Maria in Domnica, the apse--“_Nunc rutilat
jugiter variis decorata metallis_,” again in S. Maria in Trastevere the
vault “_divini rutilat fulgore decoris_,” and at S. Paulo fuori le
Mura the mosaic--“_fulget fulgente decore_.”

We have examined a handful of gold tesserae from S. Sophia through
the kindness of Mr. James Powell. The cubes average a quarter of an
inch in size, the glass is yellowish, slightly amethyst or dark green.
The surface layer equals stout paper in thickness. At the back of the
tesserae a dusty red appears, which under a glass proves to be of
powdered tile. This roughens and adheres to the surface of the glass,
which was evidently sanded with the powder while in a molten state, and
of course before it was broken into morsels. The first purpose of this
without doubt was to increase the hold of the cubes to the cementing
material, but the reddening--almost like a coat of vermilion paint--may
probably have assisted the gold to show out better than if the tesserae
had been fixed without it into the perfectly white stucco which forms
the bed. The cementing material was an inch or more in thickness,
formed of lime with broken reed for binding, and a considerable amount
of crushed white marble, in the part next the mosaic at least.


§ 3. GLASS, PLASTER AND PAINTING.

The Romans probably largely used coloured glass for windows. The
lattices were sometimes bronze or thin slabs of marble pierced
into a pattern.[409] Sidonius († 484), describing the basilica of
Tours, clearly mentions the patterned windows of green and sapphire
glass.[410] It has been suggested that some of the windows at S.
Sophia were filled with glass of brilliant colour. Theophilus, in his
preface to the section of his work dealing with coloured glass, says,
“I have approached the atrium of Holy Sophia, and beheld the chancel
filled with every variety of divers colours.” He proceeds to describe
windows of painted glass in which the pieces are united by leads: but
assuredly, if coloured windows did exist in the apse of S. Sophia, the
glass was inserted in pierced marble, like the plaster lattices of
the Orientals. Beautiful windows of brilliant-hued glass exist in the
mosques and turbehs. The Arab lattices show us what beautiful mosaics
of jewels may be formed in this way; the singular charm of them is the
spreading and blending of the colours, by reflection from the sides
of the thick dividing bars; lumps of crystal seem to have been used
occasionally in place of glass. Most beautiful ‘braided’ Byzantine
lattices of marble are to be found at S. Mark’s which would be well
characterised as θύραι δεδικτυομέναι which according to Lenoir was the
name of these windows. If coloured glass was used in S. Sophia, we
think it can only have been in small windows of this kind in the apse
and conchs. Labarte thought, from the descriptions of Procopius and
Paulus, that the windows were of white glass which allowed the rays of
the sun to shine through unaltered. It is hardly possible to conceive
of the great windows being of anything else than white glass.

A fragment of “ancient crystalline” glass from S. Sophia was exhibited
at the Society of Antiquaries in 1876. It is described as only
“one sixteenth of an inch thick, and nearly colourless except for
iridescence.”

Grelot remarked that the plain glazing was “of round panes set
in plaster,” but this must refer to the gradual filling round of
the panes by repairs, as may at present be seen in the baptistery
windows; although circular panes in a plaster setting were much
used in Byzantine work, the glass being spun in separate discs of
slightly varying sizes was inserted in marble or plaster slabs in
different combinations. Windows of this kind remained in the apse of
the Theotokos church twenty years ago. Dr. Covel is precise as to S.
Sophia in 1676; he says the windows were “cut out of entire stone into
quarries exactly square,” 10 by 12 or 14 inches. “In the first window
of the west gallery (coming in on the south side), are several pieces
of white transparent stone which I take to be Indian alabaster.”

       *       *       *       *       *

Modelled stucco work was much used by late Greek, Roman, and Byzantine
builders. Paulinus tells us that at Nola “a cornice of gypsum”
separated the mosaic and marble of the apse. A large number of
examples from the fourth to the sixth century are found in Rome,
Parenzo, and Ravenna. “About the middle of the fifth century Galla
Placidia built the church of S. Croce in Ravenna ‘of very precious
stones, and with stucco (gypsea) modelled with the tool’ (Agnellus.
_Lib. Pontif._ i. 283). Decorative stuccoes in the apse of S. Ambrose
at Milan were destroyed thirty years ago, as they were supposed to be
‘Baroque.’ Dartein analysed the material and found that it contained
85 per cent. of plaster (gesso), a little lime, sand and brick-dust or
pozzolana.” “The rich decoration of the Chapel of S. Maria at Cividale
(eighth to tenth century), and the Arab-Norman modelled stuccoes of
Sicily show that the traditions of this kind of ornament were not lost
at a later time.”[411] In the churches of Greece this material is
largely used, and its application in Arab work was due to Byzantine
example. At S. Sophia an ornamental plaster frieze runs along both
sides of the south porch: this is a scroll throwing out acanthus leaves
and fruits like poppy seed-vessels. The background is coloured blue.

[Illustration: FIG. 74.--Plaster Friezes of Gynaeceum.]

The flat frieze-like cornice of the first floor ornamented with two
patterns of leafage appears to us to be of stucco; we figure these
here, but we have not been able to verify the material. If of stucco,
as we suppose, it is cast or stamped in small square panels as shown:
certainly some of the Byzantine plaster-work, as for instance that
forming the cornice of the apse at S. Apollinare in Classe, was cast in
short sections and then applied.

The blue background of the plastered frieze just mentioned may remind
us of the decoration of the beam above the columns of the ambo with
gold ivy leaves on a background coloured ultramarine as described by
the poet. (The spade-like leaves which occur in several places in the
mosaic must be ivy.) This decoration of gold and “sapphire” seems
to have been general in Byzantine work. The sculptured beam of the
iconostasis at St. Luke’s has the blue background nearly intact, and
here and there the gold is visible (Diehl, p. 26).

Traces of the blue ground may also be noticed in the sculptures of Mone
tes Choras at Constantinople. The notched fillet, which separates the
marble panels in S. Sophia, is used so extensively at Venice that Mr.
Ruskin called it the Venetian dentil; the complete intention of this
fillet, he writes, is now only to be seen in pictures, “for like most
of the rest of the mouldings of Venetian buildings it was always either
gilded or painted--often both, gold being laid on the faces of the
dentils and the recesses coloured alternately red and blue.”[412] It is
clear from Paulus that at S. Sophia the sculptured capitals were all
gilt (Part II., lines 129 and 244), as apparently were also the carved
surfaces filling the spandrils of the lower arcade (line 236). The red
colouring which Salzenberg notices was probably the preparation for the
gold. It is thus almost certain that the notched fillets and carved
frames of white marble surrounding the marble wall panels were gilt, as
the Anonymous says, and coloured, thus reflecting as it were from the
wall surfaces the brighter hues of the mosaic vaults.


§ 4. MONOGRAMS AND INSCRIPTIONS.

The poet Paulus speaks of the iconostasis as bearing the names of the
emperor and empress, combined in a monogram--“one letter that means
many words.”

Such ciphers or monograms had been in use for some centuries, and at
the end of the fifth century they were used as signatures in discs left
in the capitals. They appear at Ravenna in the time of Theodoric; and,
in Constantinople, S. Sophia, S. Sergius, and S. Irene display similar
ciphers of Justinian. At S. Sophia almost every capital is charged with
two monograms which are carved on the bosses on opposite sides of the
capitals. The background is entirely hollowed away, and the monograms
show sharp and clear in the nest-like cup which is held by the serrated
edges of the acanthus leafage. There are four or five main varieties of
which Salzenberg somewhat inaccurately figures two without offering any
explanation. The first type appears on two or three of the coins of
Justinian, of which we have figured an example at large on the
title-page, and in these instances they have been deciphered by Sabatier
as the monogram of that emperor. A ceramic inscription given in the
_Revue Archéologique_ for 1876, repeats the same form. We had made out
that the second variety was probably the word _Basileos_, when, at
Constantinople, we were referred to the paper by Canon Curtis and M.
Aristarches.[413] In this article the monograms are classified according
to their main types and the whole series is figured. Although the
figures are small, this is a thoroughly good piece of work, in the
result obtaining many pairs reading Justinian, Basileos, other pairs
with Theodora Augusta, and one with a date.

[Illustration: FIG. 75.--Monograms on Capitals of Nave.]

The capitals of the sixteen great columns of the nave, the capitals of
the lower side aisles--with the exception of those on the eight square
columns,--and the thirty-six columns on the floor above, which screen
the side gynaecea from the nave, bear monograms. We were fortunately
able to examine and draw all of them, but give in Fig. 75 only those
on the back and front of the sixteen great columns of the nave. They
occur in the order in which they are placed on the illustration from
the first column on the left (north) side on entering at the west, to
the corresponding one on the south side.[414] Many of those monograms,
especially those of the galleries, bear evidence of having been
restored. We may recollect that the capitals were said to have been
restored by Romanus (p. 123). It is possible that Fossati tampered
with them; the Italian MS. of 1611 in the British Museum states that
“the Turks have destroyed some figures which were anciently carved
(_intagliarsi_) on the capitals.”

There are fifty-six examples on the capitals which Curtis and
Aristarches give as being monograms of Justinian; in all these the
letter Ν forms the main lines, to which additions are made, so that the
letters ΙΟΥϹΤΙΝΙΑΝΟΥ can be traced out. Some of these have crosses in
addition.

The next monogram is that read ΒΑϹΙΛΕΩϹ. It occurs in all on fifty-five
columns, the examples of it in our illustration are B.1, E.2, H.1, P.1,
C.2, P.1, G.2, J.2, L.2, N.2, Q.2, the remnant of K.1, shows that this
was similar. This monogram is found also on the capitals of S. Sergius
and Bacchus, and on three beautiful Basket Capitals at S. Mark’s.[415]

Several of the fifty-six, classed together as Justinian, furnish
varieties from the clearest typical form. In some a letter appears
which may be read either as Ε or Β, also an Ω and a sign of
contraction: see M.1 and O.1; possibly this is a combination of
Justinian and Basileos or only a variant spelling: this form occurs in
the church of S. Sergius as well as at S. Sophia.

On twelve capitals is carved the monogram ΘΕΟΔΩΡΑϹ. This is either
designed on the cross form as B.2 F.1, another in the side aisles, and
three in the gynaeceum above, or else as in E.2 it approximates to
Basileos. Two of this latter type also occur in S. Sergius, which shows
how early Justinian associated his wife with him in his architectural
labours.

Finally from S. Sophia, and from there only, we have twelve examples of
ΑΥΓΟΥϹΤΑϹ. Typical ones are shown in G.1, and A.1-A.2; possibly some of
these, as A.1, may have been read Augustus, if any care was taken in
their distribution. The letters on the last capital Q.1 have been read
by Curtis and Aristarches as ϜΜΒΒ. They take Ϝ to be a capital form of
the obsolete letter which is used for 6 or 6,000, Μ is as usual 40, and
Β is 2. Hence they get 6042 for the year of the world. The lower Β is
then explained as the year of an Indiction, reading it as ΙΒ, or 12.
One Indiction period of fifteen years would have ended in 522 A.D.,
and the twelfth year from that would be 534 A.D. equalling 6042 A.M.
Therefore this gives a date, two years after the church was begun, when
they suggest that this capital was put in its place. This ingenious
explanation requires too much adjustment for it to be conclusive, and
the Ϝ form is at least unusual. This monogram looks very white, as if
it had been made up in plaster; if we were assured as to how much is
ancient we might perhaps, if it proved different from the others, find
here the inserted monogram of a later emperor who made repairs.

Salzenberg gives some monogram signatures from the closures under the
great west window, which are carefully carved and entirely different
from rough masons’ marks, although some of the forms occur amongst
those. We were unable to examine them, and taking Salzenberg’s
representation, we can only suggest that they may be the signatures of
master-workers; one appears to be Phocas.

M. Choisy[416] has investigated the masons’ marks of S. Sophia; besides
the ordinary signs, he makes out a system of numbering in the pavement
slabs of the galleries.

Strzygowski[417] pursues the subject of Byzantine marks in general,
much further. He points out the same signs on the columns of S.
Vitale, of Pomposa, and of Parenzo, and in the cistern Bin-Bir-direk
at Constantinople. From this we gather that not only “the columns of
Ravenna, but also the similar architectural features of Constantinople,
Salonica, Parenzo, in fact along the whole coast of the Mediterranean”
were taken from the quarries of Proconnesus, and in the lettering
on the different members we can recognise the working signs of the
quarrymen or masons belonging to the guild, which sprang into existence
there at the founding of New Rome, and which even as early as the end
of the fourth century was exporting to the islands of the Ægean.

A few other inscriptions on the marble may be briefly noticed. On the
inner border of the marble parapet of the north gallery is scratched,
“Place of the most noble Patrician Lady Theodora,” ending with an
abbreviation that may mean S. Sophia,[418] and again on a panel of the
parapet of the north gallery at the west end is seen, “Timothy, keeper
of the vessels.” Coteler in his _Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae_ finds
mention of one Timothy, who was skeuophylax of the Great Church at the
time of the Monothelite heresies about 622.[419]

On a column in the southern gynaeceum occurs the word Teodorus, but the
fact that it is spelt with the Latin T and D proves it to have been
written during the Western supremacy, 1204-1261.

In the south gallery is a slab forming a part of the paving; “marks in
the face of which seem to suggest that a railing inclosed the space
within which a sarcophagus used to stand, supported by pillars.” This
is inscribed with the name of the blind Doge who led the Venetians
against Constantinople in 1204, and died the following year, “HENRICUS
DANDOLO.”




NOTE


The following additional inscription from the mosaics is given in
Clarke’s _Travels_ (1812). It was taken, he says, in one place, “from
the ceiling of the dome,” but in another place he seems to associate it
with the eastward semidomes:--

  ΟϹΚΑΙΧΡΥϹΟΥ
  ΠΕΝΤΗΚΟΝΤΑ
  ΤΑΛΑΝΤΑΘΕΟΚ
  ..Ν...ΟΙϹΝΕ
  .ΕΚΕΙ.....




INDEX


  A

  Abdul Mesjid, restoration by, 148

  Acacius, S., church of, 129

  Acanthus, 46, 166, 167, 254, 257, 261, 263

  Acropolis, 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17

  Additions to church, 154, 155

  Adoration of Cross, 98

  Agathias (6th c.), 30, 33, 159, 204, 212, 214

  Agatho the Deacon, 182

  Agora of Milion, 179, 181

  Aisles, 27, 43, 44, 151;
    lamps in, 51;
    marble, 171, 243;
    mosaics, 247;
    vaulting, 160, 220, 221

  Aix, 116, 192

  Akoimetoi lamps, 118

  Alexandria, 6, 249;
    capital of S. Mark’s at, 255

  Alexius, S., 181

  „ Comnenus (1081), 100, 105, 181

  Altar, 16, 29, 48, 68, 69, 100;
    cross placed on, 92;
    cloth, 71.
    See also Holy Table

  Ambo, 18, 29, 53, 57, 94, 98, 124, 130, 139, 140;
    candelabra round, 111, 118;
    singers in, 79, 104;
    coronations in, 61, 63

  Amiens, Knight of;
    see Robert de Clari

  Amurath III., 127

  Anastasia, S., church of, 21

  Anastasius, 116, 117, 119

  Ancyra, church at, 203

  Andreossy, 232

  Andronicus, S., 129

  „ Palaeologus, 124, 152

  Anemodulion, 178

  Anna Comnena (12th c.), 183, 186

  Anna, Empress, 124

  Annulets round shafts, 259, 273

  Anonymous Author (12th c. ?), 24, 26, 28, 30, 36, 43, 204, 248, 270

  Anthemius, 24, 26, 28, 30, 36, 43, 204, 248, 270

  Anthony of Novgorod;
    see Novgorod

  Antioch, 6, 17, 44, 181, 203

  _Antux_, 37, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 57

  Apollinaris, S., 258, 283

  Apostles, church of, 14, 15, 18, 74, 85, 205

  Apse, 19, 22, 24, 29, 32, 37, 67, 69, 132, 150, 216

  _Apsides_, 25, 28, 30, 41, 43, 133, 180, 182

  Apsoid, 22, 25, 209, 210

  Arcadius (395), 16, 180;
    baths of, 11;
    cistern, 257

  Arch, 210, 213;
    western restored, 123;
    forms, 220

  Architraves, marble, 138;
    bronze, 264

  Arculf (7th c.), 92, 95, 98

  Ark of Noah, 109, 138, 147

  Arrises of vaults, 244

  Arsenius, 86, 109, 124

  Asbestos, 27, 132, 136, 231

  Athos, Mt., 98, 115, 118, 119, 189, 227

  Atrax, marble, 45, 236

  Atrium, 18, 44, 122, 148, 152, 182, 185, 191, 215;
    capitals of, 166

  Attaliotas (11th c.), 67

  Augusteum, 4, 9, 10, 12, 20, 141, 146, 173, 178, 180, 184, 186;
    steps of, 65, 95

  _Aule_, 44, 45, 188


  B

  Baalbec, 201

  Baldwin, I., 124;
    II., 100

  Banduri, 7, 10, 175, 190

  Baptism of Christ, 44, 106, 183;
    of Emperors, 110, 183

  Baptistery, 18, 19, 20, 81, 106, 132, 152, 155, 183, 209, 217

  Barley in concrete, 132

  Base of dome, 210, 214

  Bases, 165, 258, 260

  Basil, S., 131, 143, 276;
    I. Emperor (867), 111, 123, 175, 182, 279;
    church built by, 68, 70, 90, 143, 189

  Basil II. (976), 89;
    see under Menologium

  Beams with lamps, 50, 111

  Beautiful Gate, 67, 95, 182

  Belfry, 122, 194, 215

  Bells, 106, 150, 194

  Bema, 18, 37, 62, 63, 65, 67, 78, 94;
    view of, 69;
    restored, 124;
    walls of, 171, 242;
    see also Thusiasterion

  Benjamin of Tudela, 83, 113, 178

  Bertrandon de la Brocquière, 92, 110, 125, 193

  Bethlehem, church of, 83, 182, 240;
    built by Justinian, 17

  Bin Bir Direk, cistern, 248

  Bishop’s throne, 68, 79

  Blachernae palace, 11, 123

  Blessing the water, 110, 192

  Bondelmontius, 125, 175, 177, 179, 186, 193

  Bosporus, stone of, 46, 56, 79, 237

  Bosra, 90, 204

  Boucoleon palace, 99

  Bricks, 155, 161, 199, 224, 226, 234;
    size of, 155;
    inscriptions on, 136, 156, 207

  Bronze, 172, 180, 189, 264, 272;
    hooks, 86, 109, 264, 273;
    panels, 168, 170, 265;
    rings, 56, 60, 164, 259;
    horses at Venice, 193

  Bruin Code (1700), 196

  Bury, 7, 12, 200

  Buttress, 150, 157, 210, 216, 219, 226

  Buzantios, 7, 183, 264

  Byeljayev, 8, 177


  C

  Camerarum rotator, 206, 207

  Candelabra, 60, 74, 80, 103, 119

  Candles on ciborium, 48, 72

  Cantacuzenus (1341), 62, 65, 124

  Canterbury, 19

  Cantharus, 84, 189

  Capitals, 37, 43, 46, 55, 137, 164, 188, 218;
    distribution of, 255;
    types, 250, 254

  Carpets, 81, 90, 102, 183

  Carystus, marble of, 45, 237

  Cassiodorus, 206

  Catechumena, 65, 90, 94, 135

  Cedrenus (11th c.), 13, 14, 16, 99, 157, 180, 210

  Cells of clergy, 140, 186, 217

  Celtic marble, 45, 237

  Cements, 231, 289

  Ceremonies, book of (10th c.), 7, 20, 60, 92, 95, 123, 173, 181, 186,
        219

  Chainage, 228

  Chains (lamp), 16, 49, 50, 51, 111;
    S. Peter’s, 68, 183

  Chalké Gate, 95, 174

  Chalices, 96, 104, 108, 110, 111, 140, 242, 267

  Chalkis, 257

  Chambers at East-End, 153, 216

  Chapels, 68, 105, 154, 155, 184

  Cherubic Hymn, 63, 92

  Cherubim in mosaic, 278, 287

  Choir;
    see Solea

  Choisy, 128, 199, 200, 207, 210, 214, 222, 224, 226

  Chosroes, 32, 90, 97

  Chrysopolis, 5

  Chrysostom (4th c.), 16, 18, 44, 85, 109, 116, 144

  Chrysotriclinium, 174

  Ciborium, 29, 47, 68, 72, 167

  Cipollino, 263;
    rosy, 241, 242

  Cisterns of Constantinople, 83, 224, 226, 248, 257;
    of S. Sophia, 19, 106, 155, 196

  Clamps, 247

  Clavijo, 61, 83, 125, 175, 177, 179, 184, 186, 188

  Clemente S., church at Rome, 209, 254, 257

  Clergy, 91, 140

  Cloister on south side, 219

  Codinus (15th c.), 14, 21, 63, 65, 79, 128, 180, 183

  Columns, 55, 56, 60, 69, 109, 137, 138, 163, 165, 234, 236;
    of S. Basil, 102, 131;
    of S. Gregory, 102, 131;
    of Hippodrome, 172

  Colymbethra, 189

  Conchs, 22, 37, 150, 168, 180

  Constantine, 4, 6, 10, 14, 15, 99, 101, 103, 105, 129, 179, 180, 193,
        198, 203;
    cross of, 95, 96;
    Forum of, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 179, 182, 193;
    VII. Porphyrogenitus (912), 178;
    VIII. (1025), 89;
    XI. (1059), in mosaic, 287

  Constantius (337), 15

  Coptic linen, 88

  Cornices, 150, 163, 260, 261;
    of dome, 41, 150, 159, 163, 166

  Corona of lights, 50, 51, 111, 115, 119

  Corippus, 145

  Corporations, 11, 208

  Corsi, 236, 238, 239

  Covel, 118, 121, 128, 191, 232, 288, 290

  Cross, the true, 14, 92, 93, 94, 96, 98, 105, 109;
    adoration of, 92;
    exaltation of, 94, 98;
    of light, 116, 117;
    votive, 82

  Crowns, 63, 64, 72, 73, 103, 140

  Crusaders, 6, 161, 70, 87, 100, 124, 143

  Crustæ, 241

  Crux Mensuralis, 102, 139

  Curtains, 33, 48, 49, 95, 103

  Curtis, 83, 85, 186

  Curve of inflection, 223


  D

  Damascening, 67

  Dara, 205

  Deacons, 63, 64, 65, 91

  Deaconesses, 18, 91

  Delphi, serpents from, 4, 177

  Demetrius, S., church of Salonica, 72, 121, 189, 202, 203, 214, 215,
        257

  Deputatus, 64, 91

  Dethier, 273

  De Vogüé, 90, 180

  Diakonikon, 102

  Didaskalion, 94, 188

  Didron, 98

  Diehl, 285

  Diocletian, edict of, 206

  Dion Cassius, 10

  Dion Chrysostom, 181

  Dionysius, 13

  Discs (lamp), 50, 111, 113

  Division of labour, 207

  Dokimion, 238

  Dome, 201, 220, 226;
    of S. Sophia, 26, 29, 35, 42, 123, 142, 150, 157, 159, 169, 209,
        210, 219;
    mosaics in, 274, 278, 286

  Domninus, porticoes of, 182

  Doors of church, 40, 57, 58, 138, 143, 147, 168, 193, 216, 267;
    Holy, 79, 94, 96

  Doorkeepers, 91

  Door veils, 88

  Drill, use of, in carving, 263

  Du Cange, 7, 34, 44, 53, 180, 186, 190;
    editions of, 66, 67;
    plan by, 78

  Ducas (15th c.), 126


  E

  Earthquakes, 21, 22, 122, 212, 228, 265

  Eastern chapels, 78

  Egypt, 4, 177, 200, 226, 228

  Elektron, 70, 138, 272

  Embolos of Milion, 180, 182

  Enamel, 68, 70, 272

  Encaenia, 15, 21, 34, 36, 141

  Endute, 71, 140

  Ephesus, 32, 130, 191, 202;
    building centre, 98;
    John of (6th c.), 98

  Equestrian statues, 149, 193

  Escomboli, 125

  Etoimasia, 286

  Euchologium, 62, 92, 194

  Eudoxia, 16;
    statue of, 12, 13, 179

  Eudoxius, 15

  Eugenius, gate of, 10

  Eusebius (4th c.), 14, 74, 190

  Eutychius, 29, 132, 141

  Exedras, of S. Sophia, 22, 25, 36, 151, 164, 168, 219, 234, 259;
    at S. Sergius, 205

  Exonarthex, 122, 148, 150, 162, 185, 188, 193, 215

  Exterior of S. Sophia, 215, 219;
    cased with marble, 197

  Evagrius (6th c.), 29, 32, 33

  Ezra, 204, 228


  F

  Fabri, Felix, 83, 246

  Fall of city, 125, 126, 147, 175, 179

  Fanio, portico of, 12

  Figure scheme in mosaics, 280, 283

  Fillet, notched, 170, 260, 292

  Flabella, 91, 104, 285

  Fonts, 19, 20, 81

  Fortunatus, 81

  Forum of Constantine, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 179, 182, 193;
    Tauri, 178

  Fossati, 84, 120, 148, 179, 185, 287

  Foundations, 132

  Fountains, 177, 185, 188


  G

  Galata, 5, 11

  Galla Placidia, 74, 282

  Galleries to S. Sophia, 212, 217

  Gammidae, 71, 88, 267

  Ganosis, 246

  Garconostasion, 188

  Garofalo, 236

  Germanus (8th c.), patriarch, 85, 100

  Giallo antico, 172, 239

  Gilding, 272

  Glass, 46, 169, 290;
    enamels, 272;
    mosaic, 172, 273

  Glycas (12th c.), 21, 79, 123, 129, 145

  Goar (17th c.), 69, 92, 122, 192, 194

  Gold, 33, 46, 48, 49, 60, 70, 199, 293

  Golden Gate, 135;
    Horn, 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 90

  Gregory, S., of Armenia, 276;
    S., of Nazianzene, 209;
    S., of Nyssa, 206, 207;
    Thaumaturgus, 83, 102, 106, 131, 276, 287

  Grelot, 66, 78, 84, 120, 127, 185, 188, 190, 193, 215, 285, 291

  Gruter, 84, 190

  Gyllius, 12, 66, 127, 146, 175, 177, 179, 185, 193, 248

  Gynaeceum, 27, 44, 65, 87, 91, 131, 140, 147, 161, 164, 242;
    accesses to, 152, 154, 157;
    domes, 222;
    doors, 210;
    pavement, 172, 215;
    windows, 168, 171

  Gypsoplastes, 206

  Gypsum, use of, 226


  H

  Habakkuk in mosaic, 277

  Haifa sand, 241

  Hangings, 86

  Helena, 14, 97, 99

  Hemicycle, 19, 22, 67, 205, 219

  Hemisphere, 30, 32, 41, 123

  Heraclius (610), 91, 97

  Hierapolis marble, 55, 57, 60, 238

  Hippodrome, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 17, 121, 174, 175, 186, 193

  Holy table, 29, 48, 63, 68, 70, 96, 138;
    see also Altar;
    well, 78, 91, 95, 105, 130, 139;
    wood, 94, 97, 105

  Hormisdas, palace of, 174, 257

  Horologium, 20, 95, 132, 141, 182

  Hypurgi of narthex, 91


  I

  Iassian marble, 44, 45, 238

  Iconoclasts, 280

  Iconostasis, 46, 51, 60, 68, 74, 126, 172;
    lamps on, 111, 118

  Icons, 71, 85, 105, 129

  Idatius (5th c.), 15

  Jerash, 201

  Jeremiah in mosaic, 277

  Jerusalem, 14, 84, 97, 104, 256

  Ignatius, 88, 108, 133, 140, 177, 287

  Images, Restoration of, 85, 122

  Indiction, 21, 269

  Inscriptions, 90, 190, 205, 264

  Instructor parietum, 206

  Instruments of Passion, 96, 97, 109

  John Studius, S., church of, 120, 218, 257

  Jonah in mosaic, 277

  Joshua, trumpets of, 105, 139

  Irene, S., 12, 129, 264;
    Empress, 287

  Iron ties, 161, 162, 230

  Isaiah in mosaic, 276

  Isauria, church in, 201, 202

  Isaurian workmen, 29, 207

  Isidorus, the elder, 24, 26, 28;
    the younger, 30, 43, 204, 206

  Justinian I. (527), 14, 20, 24, 29, 34, 61, 70, 88, 90, 104, 119,
        154, 167, 190, 198;
    figure of in mosaic, 287;
    equestrian statue, 180

  Justinian II. (685), 174

  Justin II. (565), 61, 97, 142, 174

  Ivory inlaid, 55, 60


  K

  Kamara, 99, 136, 180

  Kathisma, 175, 177, 193

  Klerikos of S. Sophia, 91

  Kouppas, 228

  Kraus, 17

  Krumbacher, 22, 30, 32

  Kuklios, Kuklis, 68, 90, 138


  L

  Labarte, 7, 9, 10, 12, 68, 128, 173, 177, 180, 217

  Lamplighter, 74, 261

  Lamps, 111, 144, 250

  Laotomos, 55, 133, 206

  Laotoros, 45, 59, 206

  Lateran, lighting at, 113

  Lattaquieh, milion at, 180

  Lattices, window, 154, 168, 197, 261, 290

  Lazarus, the painter, 107

  Lead, 27, 41, 150, 259

  Leo, Pope, 72, 115

  Leo III. (717), Emperor Edict of, 280

  Leo VI. (886), Emperor, 73, 103

  Leo the Deacon (10th c.), 123

  Lighting, 49, 52, 110

  Lithologos, 25, 206

  Lithoxooi, 133, 206

  Loggia of Baptistery, 217, 252, 258

  Louter, 132, 138, 182, 189, 192

  Lukium cement, 232

  Luke, S., monastery of, 99, 145, 284, 285

  Lybian marble, 45, 239

  Lydian marble, 45, 239

  Lydus, John (6th c.), 3, 6, 42, 208


  M

  Macron, 181, 182

  Magistros, 129, 206

  Mahomet II., 126, 127, 152

  Maistor, 136, 206, 208

  Manaura, palace of, 94

  Mandeville, 84, 146

  Manual Byzantine, 182, 284

  Manuel (1143), 181

  Marbles, 45, 170, 235;
    export of, 240;
    application of, 241, 260

  Marcellinus Comes (6th c.), 21

  Marina, House of, 11, 14, 174, 175

  Mark, S., church of, at Alexandria, 256;
    at Venice, 82, 108, 109, 193, 197, 256;
    monograms, 294

  Marmora, 84

  Mass, 62, 92, 106

  Mechanikos, 29, 132, 133, 136, 206

  Mechanopoios, 24, 28, 206

  Megale Eisodos, 62, 63

  Mekkah Sand, 240

  Menas, patriarch, 21

  Menologium, 61, 68, 98, 108, 119, 183;
    date, 71

  Mese, 5, 6, 12, 13, 180, 182, 186

  Mesomphalos, 79

  Metatorion, 77, 78, 96, 131, 141, 182

  Methodius, 287

  Michael III. (842), 111, 122, 123, 269

  Miletus, 24, 204

  Milion, 6, 10, 11, 70, 99, 180, 181, 182

  Minarets, 127, 151, 152, 215

  Molossus, marble of, 43, 59, 238

  Monograms at S. Sophia, 47, 60, 164, 169, 170, 174, 251, 268, 272, 295;
    at Ravenna, 292;
    at Venice, 294

  Mordtmann, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 175

  Mortar, 156, 231, 235

  Mosaics, 42, 46, 69, 199, 206, 282;
    figures, 273, 287;
    first scheme, 279;
    at S. Luke’s, 99;
    at S. Mark’s, 82;
    at Ravenna, 71, 86

  Mouldings, 242, 260

  Murad III., 152

  Murano, 84, 85

  Mygdonian marble, 56, 239


  N

  Naos, 32, 67, 79, 132

  Narthex, 40, 44, 106, 140, 150, 182, 216, 225;
    vaults, 137, 222, 226;
    frieze, 241;
    mosaics, 274, 287;
    propylaeum, 92, 95, 162, 188

  Nectarius, 16, 129

  Neorion Port, 56

  New church of Brazil, 90, 284

  New Rome, 4, 36, 46

  Nicaea, 181, 285

  Nicetas (13th c.), 70, 150, 177, 181

  Nicephorus Callistus (14th c.), 14

  Nicephorus Gregoras (14th c.), 86, 124, 152

  Nicholas, 102, 110, 183;
    of Myra, 276;
    Thingeyrensis, 99

  Niketes, 272

  Nola, church at, 113, 119, 190, 267, 291

  Notitia, 2, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 174, 208

  Novgorod, Anthony of, 83, 92, 100, 183;
    Stephen of, 84, 113, 185;
    Chronicle (13th c.), 68, 75

  Nuremberg Chronicle (15th c.), 175


  O

  Octagon Church, 203;
    Baptistery, 186, 220

  Officers of church, 91

  Oikodomoi, 133, 200

  Oil in cements, 136, 232, 233

  Omphalos omphalion, 89, 96

  Onyx, 239, 241

  Opus sectile, 45, 162, 171, 220, 225, 242, 246

  Orientation, 17

  Organic architecture, 247

  Original form of church, 209

  Oriental alabaster, 170, 171, 239, 242

  Ostiarii, 91


  P

  Pachymeres (13th c.), 71, 85

  Palace, 7, 13, 132, 173, 174, 175;
    of Blachernae, 11, 123;
    of Hormisdas, 174, 175;
    of Marina, 11, 14, 174;
    of Patriarch, 13, 14, 107, 179, 186;
    of Placidia, 174, 175

  Pala d’Oro, 71, 109

  Palaeologus, 61;
    Andronicus II. (1328), 124, 152;
    John I. (1356), 124, 278, 287;
    John II. (1425), 71, 190;
    Michael (1261), 10, 71, 124, 190

  Palladius (4th c.), 16, 18, 144

  Palmyra, 6, 181, 201

  Panels, marble, 68, 171, 241

  Pantocrator, mosaic, 287

  Parenzo, 209, 219, 246, 256, 257

  Paschal Chronicle (7th c.), 3, 13, 15, 174

  Paspates, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 79, 81, 84, 90, 100, 173, 176, 179, 186

  Passion, instruments of, 96, 99, 100

  Patriarch, 4, 62, 91, 95, 96, 104, 107, 125, 137, 144, 181

  Patriarchs’ tombs, 85

  Paul, S., figure of, 49, 109, 118, 123, 275

  Paul the Deacon (8th c.), 41

  Paulus Maurocenus, 108

  Paulus Silentiarius (6th c.), 20, 33, 67, 70, 79, 128, 159, 160, 204,
        206

  Paulinus (5th c.), 113, 119, 190, 267

  Pausanias, 2

  Pavement of nave, 79, 80, 137, 138, 142, 172;
    of atrium, 141, 191;
    cloisters, 125;
    gynaeceum, 81;
    Basil’s church, 68;
    Augusteum, 186

  Pavonazzetto, 170

  Pendentives, 26, 41, 201, 209

  Peperino, 155

  Peter, S., figure of, 49, 118, 123, 275;
    chains of, 68, 102, 183;
    chapel of, 68, 78, 102, 130, 183, 184;
    church of, at Rome, 72, 74, 116, 189, 192

  Pharos, 116, 117

  Phengites, 262

  Phiale, 44, 141, 189, 190, 191

  Philoxenus, cisterns of, 248

  Phrygian marble, 45, 56, 59, 237

  Piers, 22, 25, 28, 29, 41, 79, 133, 157, 159;
    of stone, 155, 234;
    of west front, 193

  Plane of least labour, 261

  Polishing marble, 246

  Pointed arches, 220

  Polycandela, 111, 112, 114, 115, 140

  Porches, 69, 70, 91, 123, 151, 183, 190, 215, 288;
    south, 185;
    doors of, 268, 270

  Porphyry, 37, 134, 236

  Porticoes of Domninus, 182;
    of mese, 6;
    of milion, 182;
    of Severus, 6

  Porto-Venere marble, 171, 239

  Pozzolana, 291

  Praepositus, 94, 95

  Priests, 47, 67, 91, 107, 140, 144

  Proaulion, 137, 179

  Procession to the church, 95

  Proconnesus, marble of, 4, 44, 46, 79, 80, 81, 156, 163, 164, 166,
        172, 209, 237, 242, 243, 256

  Procopius, (6th c.), 21, 22, 68, 159, 174, 180, 189, 197, 206, 214

  Pronaos, 67, 181, 184

  Prothesis, 63, 64, 75, 77

  Protomaistor, 145, 207

  Protooikodomos, 136, 206

  Protopapas, 91, 93

  Protospatharios, 91

  Protopsaltae, 63, 79, 92

  Psellus (11th c.), 145

  Pulcheria, 12, 16

  Purgos of ciborium, 47;
    of ambo, 54


  Q

  Quadriporticus, 215


  R

  Ramazan illuminations, 121

  Ravenna, 17, 71, 80, 88, 183, 209, 246

  Readers, 160

  Receptions on way from Palace, 95

  Refendarius, 64, 91

  Relics, 16, 97, 100, 106, 137, 139

  Resin fixes marble to walls, 172

  Restoration of image worship, 122;
    of S. Sophia, 22, 29, 123, 210, 212

  Rhodes, bricks from, 136, 142, 156

  Riant, 19, 100, 108

  Ribs of dome, 159, 275

  Robert de Clari (13th c.), 61, 70, 72, 113, 115

  Rohault de Fleury, 17, 61, 67, 74, 113, 116

  Roman system of building, 199

  Romanus Argyrus, (1028), 123, 295

  Rome, 2, 17, 123, 200, 209

  Rosso antico, 171, 242

  Round N.E. building, 78, 154, 217

  Royal Door, 67, 150, 151, 181, 204;
    slabs over, 242

  Russian Pilgrim, 65, 143, 145


  S

  Sacellarius, 91

  Sacristy, 78, 154, 184;
    see Skeuophylakium

  Salonica, see under Demetrius, also Sophia

  Salzenberg, 19, 20, 34, 42, 67, 78, 149-172, 203, 210, 213, 216, 219,
        273

  Sanctuary, 28, 68, 78, 101, 102, 105, 107, 109;
    smaller, 77, 101;
    right of in S. Sophia, 189

  Scaffolding, 123, 142, 226

  Schlumberger, 91

  Screen to solea, 79;
    in South Gallery, 90, 262

  Sculptor Marmorum, 206

  Scylitzes (11th c.), 123

  Secondary order of columns, 213, 214, 219, 230

  Selim II., 127

  Semidomes, 22, 24, 40, 150, 209, 219, 226

  Senate, 6, 11, 12, 179

  Sepulchre Holy, slab of, at S. Sophia, 101, 105;
    Church of, at Jerusalem, 41, 74, 83, 84

  Seraglio, 10, 180, 184;
    Point, 1, 2, 5, 6

  Sergius S., church of, at Bosra, 204;
    Church of, at Constantinople, 83, 166, 174, 204, 205, 218, 256,
        257, 295, 296

  Serpentine, 171, 172

  Services in S. Sophia, 92, 126

  Severus, 1, 3, 6;
    porticoes of, 5, 6

  Shop production, 208, 256

  Silver, 28, 33, 37, 40, 46, 47, 54, 56, 60, 70, 74, 75;
    in pavement, 68;
    in mosaic, 273;
    in monograms, 268

  Simeon of Thessalonica, 67, 192

  Sinai, Mt., 83, 119

  Singers, 60, 91, 140

  Skeuophylax, 91, 95, 297

  Skeuophylakium, 78, 91, 127, 130, 139, 154, 183

  Skirtings, 241, 260

  Socrates (5th c.), 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 116

  Solea, 63, 64, 67, 96, 139, 140, 142

  Solomon, 71, 100, 110, 126, 141, 144, 190

  Sophia S., church of, at Salonica, 202, 203, 214, 257

  Sozomenus (5th c.), 16

  Spandrils of arcades, 45, 163, 166, 170, 242, 260, 293

  Spartan marble, 65, 239

  Sphendone, 175

  Spina, 175, 177

  Stairways, 94, 123, 162, 210, 216

  Stalls, 37, 40, 66, 137, 172

  Strategion, 3, 4

  Stucco, 291

  Subdeacons, 91, 104

  Suidas (10th c.), 70, 146

  Sundial, 178, 182

  Sunergasia, 208

  Synnadan marble, 60, 82, 171, 238, 243

  Syria, influence of, 201, 204


  T

  Technitai, 24, 206

  Tektonikos, 133, 206

  Temples at Byzantium, 1-4

  Tesserae, 45, 274, 288

  Texier, 10, 149, 193, 203, 283

  Theodora, wife of Justinian, 70, 86, 88, 294;
    wife of Theophilus, 122, 269

  Theodoric, 86, 88, 257

  Theodosius I. (379), 16, 129, 177, 180;
    Code of, 206

  Theodosius II. (408), 6, 16

  Theophanes (9th c.), 14, 20, 29, 72, 100, 207, 209;
    Continuator (10th c.), 71, 87, 90

  Theophilus, Emperor (829), 175, 269;
    writer, 272, 290

  Thessaly, marble of, 32, 37, 40, 44, 58, 59, 130, 164, 236

  Thomaites, 65, 181, 186

  Throne, 62, 105;
    of bishop, 68;
    in mosaic, 277, 279

  Thusiasterion, 18, 28, 67, 130, 132, 136

  Tiberius (578), 174

  Titanos, 27, 232

  Tombs in S. Sophia, 102

  Tralles, 24, 204

  Transparent slabs, 262

  Trees of light, 51, 57, 118, 119

  Tribunal with porphyry steps, 11

  Triconcha, 175

  Turks capture city, 126, 127, 147

  Turrets at west end, 163


  U

  Ultramarine, 60, 291

  Undercutting in carving, 254

  Unger, 8, 78

  Urns, marble, 84


  V

  Varangi, 64

  Vaults, 69, 150, 160, 161, 199, 200, 207, 219;
    mosaic on, 274

  Vela, 65, 86, 87

  Venice, 71, 72, 99, 175, 193

  Verde antique, 67, 81, 82, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 172, 242, 260, 261

  Veronica, 286

  Villehardouin, 107

  Virgin, figure of, 83, 109, 123, 275, 278, 284

  Vitale, S., at Ravenna, 88, 227

  Von Hammer, 145, 152


  W

  Walls of church, 155, 157;
    marble casings, 285

  Wax, encaustic, 246

  Well, Holy, 78, 91, 95, 105, 130, 139

  West front, 192

  Windows, 42, 43, 158, 168, 209, 261

  Wood, Holy, 94, 95, 97, 105

  Wood tie beams, 161, 162, 168, 227, 228, 230


  Z

  Zeno, building laws of, 6

  Zenobia, city of, 206

  Zeuxippus, baths of, 3, 4, 11, 179

  Zonaras (11th c.), 29, 160, 179, 209

  Zosimus (5th c.), 4, 5

                                THE END.




FOOTNOTES


[1] Ἀνάπλους Βοσπόρου, ed. C. Wescher, 1874, p. 5.

[2] _Notitia Dignitatum_, eds. Pancirolus, Venice, 1602, and Seeck
Berlin, 1876. The date given by Seeck for the _Notitia_ is 411-413 A.D.

[3] Ἑλληνικὸς Φιλολογικὸς Σύλλογος; παράρτημα, 1885.

[4] Ed. Bonn, i., p. 494.

[5] Lydus speaks of a fire spreading from the “Forum of Zeuxippus” to
that of Constantine (p. 265). The baths of Zeuxippus are placed at the
north end of the Hippodrome by Labarte and Mordtmann.

[6] Christodorus, a fifth-century poet.--F. Baumgarten, 1891.

[7] _Hist._ ed. Bonn, p. 97.

[8] Rawlinson’s _Herodotus_, 1875, vol. iv., p. 467.

[9] Mordtmann, _Esquisse topo. de Constantinople_, p. 48 and map.

[10] _The Museum of Classic. Antiq._ 1857, p. 305. The Capitol was
beyond Forum Cons. Lydus speaks of “the porticoes that pass through
the city and lead to the Forum of Constantine, and the broad space is
screened symmetrically with great and beautiful columns. [Some of]
these porticoes are said to have been built by men from Naples and
Puteoli who came to Byzantium to please Constantine.” (Ed. Bonn, p.
266.)

[11] _Imperium Orientale_, Paris, 1711.

[12] Bury, _A History of the later Roman Empire_ (395 A.D. to 800
A.D.), vol. i., p. 57. Mr. Bury, in an excellent review of Paspates’
book in _The Scottish Review_, Ap. 1894, gives up the position assigned
to the Augusteum by that author.

[13] D. Byéljajev, _Byzantina_, St. Petersburg, 1891, reviewed in
_Byzantinische Zeitschrift_, 1892, p. 344.

[14] MSS., plans, and descriptions, in the Library of R. Inst. Brit.
Architects.

[15] Paspates, _The Great Palace_, p. 20. Mr. Metcalfe’s translation is
intended throughout.

[16] Lib. lxxiv., ch. 10.

[17] Mordtmann, _Esquisse_, pp. 4 and 5.

[18] _Esquisse Top._ p. 3.

[19] Zosimus (p. 139) and Lydus (p. 265) say that the Emperor Julian
built a Senate. So also according to Sozomen (ii. 3) and the _Paschal
Chron._ did Constantine.

[20] _Hist. eccles._ lib. vi., ch. xviii.

[21] _Ecc. Hist._ lib. i., xvii.

[22] Du Cange, _Descriptio S. Sophiae_, ed. Bonn, p. 62.

[23] Eusebius, _De Vita Cons._ lib. iv., cap. lviii-lix.

[24] _De Vita Cons._ lib. iii., cap. xlviii.-xlix.

[25] _Eccl. Hist._ ii., xvi.

[26] Du Cange, p. 63. He quotes the fifth-century author Idatius.

[27] Ed. Bonn, i., p. 523, and i., p. 530.

[28] Socrates, _Hist. Eccl._ vi., 18.

[29] Du Cange, § 3.

[30] _Pasch. Chron._ ed. Bonn, i., p. 572.

[31] _Eccl. Hist._ ix., 1.

[32] See Tozer’s note, Finlay, vol. i., 45.

[33] Justinian’s church was opened at Christmas.

[34] Art. “Orientirung” in _Real Encyklopädie der Christlichen
Alterthümer_, 1886, based on Mothes’ schedule in _Die Basilikenformen_,
1865. We hope to show on another occasion that the present church at
Bethlehem which points to the east was entirely rebuilt by Justinian.
There is no proof that S. George Salonica is older than fifth cent.

[35] _Homilies_ xxvi. and lx.

[36] _De Sepulcris Imperatorum_, Migne S. G., vol. 157, p. 726.

[37] Migne, p. 674.

[38] Bingham, _Antiquities of the Christian Church_, vol. iii., p. 120.

[39] _Revue Archéologique_, vol. iv., p. 659, and Kugler, _Geschichte
der Baukunst_, vol. i., p. 372.

[40] For similar early circular baptisteries see Martigny, _Dict.
Christ. Antiq._

[41] See Salz., plate xx., figs. 4, 5.

[42] _Ibid._ p. 19.

[43] _Chron. Pasch._ ed. Bonn, p. 622.

[44] Zonaras also gives the true date; according to the Byzantine era
the year of the world 6040. In Cedrenus it appears as 6008, a copyist’s
error in writing ηʼ for μʼ.

[45] Ed. Bonn, p. 338.

[46] Migne, _S.L._ vol. li., p. 943.

[47] Ed. Bonn, p. 378.

[48] _Theo._ p. 359.

[49] _Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur_, 1893, p. 42. Ramsay
says it could not have been completed until 560. See _Historical
Geography of Asia Minor_, p. 205.

[50] λιθολόγος--really one who picks out and lays stones.

[51] ἁψίς, “a binding together,” used for either an arch or a semidome.

[52] λωρός, “a thong” or a belt.

[53] The author seems here to mistake the piers for the temporary
support of the arch while it was being built.

[54] Theophanes, _Chronographia_, ed. Bonn, vol. i., p. 359.

[55] _Chron. Pasch._ ed. Bonn, and Zonaras.

[56] _Chron._ ed. Bonn, p. 369.

[57] Krumbacher, p. 49.

[58] Agathias, lib. v. ed. Bonn, p. 296.

[59] τὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρτώματος οἰκοδόμιαν.

[60] Krumbacher, p. 53.

[61] _Hist. Eccles._ iv., chap. 31.

[62] The dimensions appear so inaccurate that we do not attempt to
explain them.

[63] Salz. _Alt. Baud._

[64] καὶ κέντρον ἕλειν καὶ σχῆμα χαράξαι.

[65] ἄντυξ, the circular rim of a shield. Used here for the bema-arch.

[66] Column does not stand directly over column.

[67] σφαίρης ἡμιτόμοιο, the ἡμισφαίριον of Agathias and Evagrius. This
word is used by Eusebius for the dome of the Holy Sepulchre.

[68] ἔγραφε leaves no doubt that a mosaic cross on the interior is
intended, and not, as Salzenberg suggests, a cross on the outside.
The full expression for representations in mosaic was καταγράφειν
ψηφῖδι: as in Joannes Lydus († 550), De Magistratibus ii. 20, in his
description of the palace built by the Praetorian Prefect.

[69] Near Antioch.

[70] A town of Lycia.

[71] ἄνθος, a bud, sprout or flower; hence brightness and bloom
generally.

[72] θύρετρος is elsewhere a door. But “twin doors” has no meaning
here. See plan.

[73] January; the consuls then entered on their year of office, and
wore chitons of gold thread. See Du Cange, _S. Sophia_, § 22.

[74] This custom at Antioch is mentioned as early as the time of S.
John Chrysostom in a sermon on the Baptism of Christ.

[75] ψηφῖδες--pebbles. The usual word for mosaic tesserae.

[76] In Macedonia. The mines are mentioned by Herodotus.

[77] The promontory on the south of Attica. The mines were at Laurium.

[78] πολυγλώσσοιο ὁμίλου, the choir.

[79] νῶτον, a back, and hence, any wide, flat surface.

[80] μύρμηξ, the ant; here the silkworm.

[81] οὐρίαχος. Used in Homer of the butt end of a spear; hence long
narrow glass lamps. See our Fig. 17.

[82] ἐπακτρίς, a small row-boat.

[83] See Du Cange, _S. Sophia_, § 70.

[84] Called ὀπισθάμβωνος εὐχή, the “back” of the ambo.

[85] Ed. Bonn, p. 74. See also our page 79.

[86] See Nicetas also on our p. 75.

[87] _La Messe._, Art. “Ambon,” vol. iii., p. 9.

[88] Hopf, _Chroniques Gréco-Romanes_, p. 96.

[89] See our p. 75.

[90] Cantacuzenus, _Hist._ lib. i., chap. 41, ed. Bonn, p. 196.

[91] A shortened form of κεκράκται.

[92] ἡ μεγάλη εἴσοδος, when the Bread and Wine are brought from the
table of the prothesis and placed upon the Holy Table, while the
Cherubic Hymn is sung in honour of “the King of all, invisibly attended
by the spears of the Angelic Hosts.” See Dr. Freshfield’s article
in the _Archaeologia_, vol. xliv., p. 386; he translates a parallel
account from Codinus.

[93] A Russian pilgrim describing the coronation of Manuel in the
fourteenth century says, “The imperial procession advanced so slowly
that it took three hours to walk from the royal door to the thrones.”
_Soc. de l’Orient Latin, séries géog._ vol. v., p. 143.

[94] _De Officiis Palatii_, chap. xvii., ed. Bonn, p. 87.

[95] In _Nicephori Bryennii ... Pauli Silentiarii comment._

[96] _Hist. Byz. duplici commentario illustrata._

[97] Introduction to the _History of the Eastern Church_.

[98] Du Cange, _S. Sophia_, § 49.

[99] Ed. Bonn, p. 259.

[100] Cons. Porphyr. in Labarte, _Pal. Impérial_, p. 92.

[101] See our p. 75.

[102] See Anon. p. 138 below.

[103] The _Euchologium_, ed. 1647, p. 499, speaks of taking the
garments of those about to become conventuals and placing them on or
in the “little sea” (_thalassidion_) of the Holy Table. Here Goarus
interprets it as “the hollow recess of the Holy Table,” which seems to
have been beneath the table, and used for washing the vessels, like the
piscina in the later Latin church.

[104] “ἔλεκτρον or ἀλλότυπον united with glass and fine stones; such is
the material of which the Holy Table of S. Sophia is made.” _Glossary
of Suidas_ quoted by Labarte in _Recherches sur la Peinture en Email_,
p. 89.

[105] Porphyrogenitus describes the table in the chapel built by Basil
the Macedonian as “a mixture of all precious materials placed in order
and bound together by fire into a many-coloured mass of surpassing
beauty, which is the wonder of all nations.” We also read of “Holy
Tables of silver, having gold and precious stones and pearls poured
over them, forming a compact union together.”

[106] Hopf, _Chroniques Gréco-Romanes_.

[107] Nic. _Chron. Hist._, ed. Bonn, p. 758.

[108] _Vera Historia Unionis_, Hague, 1660.

[109] A MS. Greek service-book made for Basil II. (976-1025) now in the
Vatican Library. A folio was printed from it at Urbino in 1727.

[110] Migne, S. L. vol. 106, p. 610.

[111] Migne, S. L. vol. 106, p. 603.

[112] Pachymeres, _de Mich. Pal._ ed. Bonn, vol. ii., p. 385.

[113] Du Cange, _S. Sophia_, § 57.

[114] Texier, _Arch. Byz._, p. 134.

[115] De Fleury, _La Messe_, vol. ii. and plate cii.

[116] Du Cange, § 58.

[117] Bingham, _Antiq. Christ. Church_, vol. iii., p. 123, note.

[118] Ed. Bonn, vol. i., p. 433.

[119] Migne, _S. G. Tom._ 147, p. 414.

[120] Ed. Bonn., pp. 450 and 697.

[121] Figured in Ongania’s _Il Tesoro di San Marco_.

[122] Bayet, _L’Art Byzantin_.

[123] De Fleury, _La Messe_.

[124] Hopf, _Chroniques Gréco-Romanes_.

[125] Compare our p. 126.

[126] _Archaeologia_, vol. xxxiv.

[127] Paulinus, describing the church at Nola, writes: “Cum duabus
dextra laevaque conchulis intra spatiosum sui ambitum apsis sinuata
laxetur, una earum immolanti hostias jubilationis antistiti patet,
altera post sacerdotem capaci sinu receptat orantes.” Migne, _S.L._,
vol. 61, p. 337.

[128] Suicerus, _Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus verb. Diaconicum_.

[129] See p. 96.

[130] _Cer._ pp. 636 and 565.

[131] Du Cange, § 76.

[132] _Cer._ p. 27. A Holy Well is frequently found in the Prothesis.

[133] _Quellen für Byzantischer Kunstgeschichte._

[134] _Cer._ pp. 17 and 167.

[135] _Cer._ pp. 157 and 160.

[136] See account of Coronation in previous chapter and of Adoration of
Cross below.

[137] On Mount Athos; “the Kanonarches, or master of the choir, prompts
the cantors, who sing without books.” A. Riley’s _Mount Athos_.

[138] _The Great Palace_, p. 96.

[139] Compare S. Germanus; _La Messe_, iii., p. 91.

[140] _Theoph. Contin._, ed. Bonn, p. 333.

[141] Mr. Conway in _Art Journal_, 1891.

[142] _Great Palace_, pp. 120, 129.

[143] Vol. iii., p. 321.

[144] Fossati: also Paspates’ _Byzantinae Meletai_, p. 343.

[145] _Relation d’un Voyage de Constantinople_, p. 160. This idea
he may have obtained from Rosweyd’s note to Paulinus (1569), saying
fountains in front of churches were succeeded by lustral vases placed
at the vestibule of the temple. “The rim of such a one seems to be
figured in Gruter, p. 1046, with an inscription which was selected from
the Anthology, as is shown by Rigaltius. This line was [also] written
on the sepulchre of St. Diomede.”

[146] Paciaurdi 1758, _De sacris Balneis_, tab. vi.

[147] Ed. Bonn, vol. i., p. 262.

[148] E. Muntz, _Tapisserie_.

[149] Ed. Bonn, p. 402 and p. 894.

[150] _Cer._ I., p. 591.

[151] _Soc. Orient. Latin, séries Géographique_, vol. v. 1889, p. 143.

[152] See E. Muntz, _Tapisserie_, and M. F. Michel, _Recherches sur ...
des étoffes de Soie_.

[153] _Jahrbuch des Vereins von alterthumsfreunden in Rheinlande_,
1892, p. 224.

[154] _Across the Jordan._

[155] See Paspates and Salz.

[156] Ed. Bonn, vol. i., p. 182.

[157] Vol. i., p. 801.

[158] _Sigillographie de’ l’Empire Byzantin._ The seal of the church
itself represents Justinian and the Virgin or Theodora supporting the
building. _Cp._ Lenormant, _Revue Numismatique_, 1864, p. 268, pl. xii.

[159] _Explicatio Officiorum sanctae ac magnae Ecclesiae, Auctore
incerto a Bernardo Medonio edita_, 1655. A Tupikon or Ritual Book of S.
Sophia has been recently found at Patmos: _Byz. Zeit._, 1893.

[160] _Cantacuzenus_, Bonn, ii., p. 15.

[161] _Cedrenus_, vol ii., p. 609.

[162] Pal. Pil. Text. Soc.

[163] In the _Ceremonies_, book ii., we read that the three crosses
kept in the palace were anointed by the protopapas with balsam, before
being shown. Ed. Bonn, p. 549.

[164] Ed. Bonn, p. 125.

[165] κατηχούμενα, a “place for instruction,” used both of upper and
lower aisles.

[166] The college with a provost (_didaskalos_) and twelve fellows was
between S. Sophia and the Chalkoprateia (see Bury, ii., p. 433), and
therefore according to Mordtmann north of S. Sophia. Descending steps
are only found in the north porch, and this is conclusive against
Labarte and Paspates, who saw in the Didaskalion a mere passage
attached to the south side of the church. Paschalia are the tables of
Easter.

[167] At this time more than one “life-giving cross” was kept at the
palace and occasionally taken to S. Sophia. _Cerem._ 549.

[168] Ed. Bonn, p. 14.

[169] Drapeyron, _L’Empereur Heraclius_, 279.

[170] Fortunatus celebrated its acceptance by a hymn.

[171] _J. of Ephesus_, ed. R. P. Smith, 140.

[172] Figured in Molinier’s _L’Emaillerie_, Paris, 1891.

[173] Figured in Schlumberger’s _Nicephorus Phocas_.

[174] See Ongania, _Il Tesoro_, Fig. 33 and p. 102.

[175] Riant, _Ex. Sac. C.P._, vol. ii., p. 213.

[176] Paspates, _Byzantinae Meletae_, p. 285.

[177] _Des Dépouilles Religieuses enlevées à Constantinople au xiii
siècle par les Latins_, 1875, and the fuller work, _Exuviae Sacrae
Constantinopolitanae_, 1877.

[178] _Soc. Orient Latin. Séries Géog._, vol. v.

[179] Alluded to on a single page of MS. in the British Museum (_Cott.
Claud._ iv.)

[180] In the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, see _Ceremonies_,
vol. ii., ch. xv.

[181] The French translation has _Diakonikon_: Riant, in _Exuv. Sacrae,
C.P._ says “smaller sanctuary:” the Anon. says _skeuophylakium_.

[182] This must be the same as Robert de Clari’s “buhotiaous” fastened
to the ring of the great door of S. Sophia.

[183] _I.e._, the iconoclasts, of whom a number of stories are told by
the Russian pilgrims.

[184] See this story in _Golden Legend_, “Exaltation of the Cross.”

[185] Lazarus was a martyr in the cause of image-worship. See Bayet,
_L’art Byzantin_.

[186] Cedrenus, ii., p. 609. Irene gave a cross “distinguished for its
pearls”: Theo. Cont., p. 703.

[187] Ongania, _Il Tesoro di San Marco_, pp. 57, 59. Rohault de Fleury,
_La Messe_.

[188] _Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae._

[189] See our p. 49.

[190] Theoph. Contin., ed. Bonn, p. 211.

[191] _Ibid._, _Life of Basil_, ch. 79.

[192] _La Messe_, vol. vi., p. 78.

[193] See fig. in _Byz. Zeitschrift_, 1893, p. 142.

[194] In the figure 18 the attachment for the chain is shown at A, the
chain of monograms is taken from Rossi, B shows the provision for the
chains in the last example (Fig. 17), where there is a slight mistake,
the alternate piercings in the rim being crosses as here shown.

[195] Adapted from a photographic view in A. Riley’s _Mountain of the
Monks_.

[196] Du Cange.

[197] Lib. iii. This was at Milan.

[198] For this and other lamps see especially _La Messe_ and _Il
Tesoro_.

[199] A. Riley, _Mountain of the Monks_.

[200] P. 154.

[201] _Constantinopolis und aer Bosporus_, vol. i., pp. 36-44.

[202] The images were restored in S. Sophia on the 19th of February.
Pagi. Critica in _Universos Annales Baronii_, vol. iii., p. 587.

[203] Goar’s _Euchologium_, 1647, p. 560.

[204] Cons. Porph. _Life of Basil_, ch. 79.

[205] _Leo Diaconus_, ed. Bonn, p. 176.

[206] Du Cange, _S. Sophia_, § 35.

[207] Paspates, _Byzantinae Meletae_.

[208] _Pachymeres_, ed. Bonn, i., p. 172.

[209] _Hist. Byzan._, ed. Bonn, p. 273.

[210] Ed. Bonn, lib. iv., p. 29.

[211] Nicephorus Gregoras, p. 749.

[212] Cantacuz., ed. Bonn, p. 30.

[213] Compare Tozer’s _Turkey_, i. 97. He says Constantinople is still
constantly called “the City” all over the Levant.

[214] Gyllius reports a similar story.

[215] Wright’s _Early Travels in Palestine_.

[216] “Constantine, the last emperor of the Greeks.”

[217] Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6,417.

[218] Salzenberg, _Altchristliche Baudenkmale_.

[219] _Relation d’un Voyage de Constantinople_, 1680.

[220] MS. Harl., 3,408.

[221] From _Originum Rerumque Constantinopolitarium, variis auctoribus,
manipulus_, F. Franciscus Combefis, Paris, 1664. The same anonymous
description is also given by Banduri, _Imperium Orientale_, ed. 1711,
vol. i.

[222] Evidently meant for lower aisles.

[223] If this interpretation can be accepted for στοαί.

[224] Bricks stamped with long inscriptions of this kind were
frequently used: one from Sirmium is mentioned in _Byzantinische
Zeitschrift_ for 1894, p. 222: “O Lord Christ, help this city, keep off
the Avars and guard Romania and him who writes this, Amen.”

[225] This may mean the thickness of the marble wall lining in some
places gilt--if it has a meaning.

[226] σειζαὶ, a network, studded with jewels, suspended from
processional crosses, and from the sides of crowns, see Fig. 15.

[227] Reading ἐπὶ for ἀντί.

[228] βοτρυιδόν, “like bunches of grapes.”

[229] φίνες, Graecised form of the Latin _fines_.

[230] Quoted in Ibn Batuta, Orient. Trans. Socy.

[231] Du Cange, notes on Bondelmontius.

[232] Glycas, _Annalium, Pars V._, ed. Bonn, p. 498.

[233] Du Cange, _op. cit._

[234] Hopf, _Chroniques Gréco-Romanes_, Berlin, 1873, p. 67.

[235] _Altchristliche Baudenkmale von Constantinopel_, published by
the Prussian Government, Berlin 1854, with metrical version of the
Silentiary’s poem by Dr. Körtum.

[236] Salzenberg here suggests that these formerly supported equestrian
statues. See his plates ix.-xii. and compare our fig. 29.

[237] Salz. xx., figs. 9 and 10.

[238] All dimensions in this chapter are in Prussian feet, 100 of which
= 103 English.

[239] See Salz., plate vi.

[240] Salz., plate vii.

[241] Salz., plates vii., viii., and illustration of stairs in text.

[242] Salz., plate vi.

[243] _Ibid._, plate xx.

[244] Only a short time was allowed to Salzenberg for its examination.
He was convinced it was not a baptistery, but gives no reasons.

[245] Salz., plate xviii., figs. 9, 13.

[246] Salz., plate vi.

[247] Salz., plate vii.

[248] Salz., plate vi.

[249] Salz., plates vi., x.

[250] It is probable, writes Salzenberg, that originally the buttress
masses reached only up to the roof of the gynaeceum, level with the
springing of the great arches; as Cedrenus describes how Justinian, at
the restoration after the fall of the dome, made outside the building,
in the neighbourhood of the main piers, above the roof of the gynaeceum
four staircases, “cochleas” which reached up to the dome “to strengthen
the vaulting.” Theophanes also speaks of new piers which Justinian
erected to strengthen the dome. The circumstances mentioned by
Procopius seem to indicate that the abutments of the great arches were
not sufficient. See our chap. x., § 1, for another interpretation.

[251] These Salzenberg thought later additions, “for the stone
projections are not bonded to the piers, and the Silentiary says
columns stood in these positions.” We do not so interpret the lines
of the poem, and, although Choisy here follows Salzenberg, it is
impossible to see, if there were additions subsequent to the completion
of the building, how it is that the perfectly symmetrical disposition
of the marble panelling shows no disturbance, and the beautiful carved
cornice which mitres round these projections has had no additions made
to it (our Fig. 47). The straight joints, which Choisy in another place
specially notes as a method of Byzantine building, were here most
wisely applied; for on one side the great pier was of stone, and on the
other the buttress pier is of brick.

[252] Salzenberg conjectures from Agathias that these arches were
a later addition made when the dome was restored by Justinian. But
without them, as he remarks, there would not have been originally a
square base for the circle of the dome. See explanation of original
form, p. 210.

[253] Salzenberg assumes from Paulus that “the dome was surmounted by a
cross”: the cross was of mosaic inside.

[254] See Salz., plate x. The right-hand side is a section through one
of the domical vaults, and the left through the barrel-vault which
connects two domical vaults. The plans, plates vi. and vii., and the
section plate xi., show how close some of the columns stand to the
piers, to which they are joined by small barrel-vaults, intersecting
the domical vaulting.

[255] A mistake for vertical circles; the large number of cisterns
where the vaults are uncovered make this certain. See our p. 221.

[256] Salz., plate xxiv.

[257] Salz., plate xxiii.

[258] See figure in Salzenberg’s text.

[259] Salz., plate xi.

[260] Preparation for the gold.

[261] Salzenberg’s plate xv., fig. 6. The inclination of the sides of
that shown is much exaggerated, if in any case it exists.

[262] Salz., plate xvi., fig. 1, 5.

[263] Plate xvi., figs. 5, 6.

[264] Salz., plate xvii., figs. 12 and 13. Fig. 14 gives the base, fig.
2 a complete column.

[265] Salz., plate xv., figs. 7, 8.

[266] See Salz., plate xv., figs. 1, 4, 5 for lower cornice; plate
xvi., 2 and 3 for upper, figs. 3, 4 for dome cornice, fig. 9 aisle
cornice. This last, says Salzenberg, “is mended in many places with
gypsum, and comes from an earlier building.” We do not know what
earlier building could have furnished a quarter of the quantity used in
S. Sophia. Is it possible that the whole of it is of gypsum? (See our
chapter xii.) The marble skirtings are shown on plates xv. and xvi.

[267] In a note Salzenberg draws attention to Paulus speaking of eight
windows in this wall, and conjectures that instead of the five upper
windows there was one large opening here.

[268] Salz., plate xx., fig. 4. Fig. 6 is a capital that was found on
one of the four parapet posts, and removed at the “restoration”; fig.
7 was not found in S. Sophia; fig. 8 was an isolated capital in north
aisle; figs. 9-11 show upper mouldings to the piers of the propylaeum.

[269] Salz., plate xx., fig. 12 shows the underside of the beam in the
middle of the west gynaeceum; fig. 15 is the side, and fig. 16 the
underside of one in the south gynaeceum; figs. 13 and 14, one in the
north gynaeceum.

[270] Salz., plate xiv.

[271] Plate xvii., figs. 1-7.

[272] See Salz., plate xvii. Fig. 3 is the upper capital, fig. 4
the lower, figs. 5 and 6 the base, and fig. 7 the under side of the
architrave. Figs. 8, 9, 10 are details of large west window.

[273] Salz., plate xviii.

[274] Plate xviii., figs. 10-14.

[275] See plates vi. and xi.

[276] Salz., plate iii., fig. 7.

[277] Salz., plate xix.

[278] See Salz., plate ix.

[279] Salz., plate xvi., fig. 4.

[280] Salz., plate xvi.

[281] Salz., plates xxi., xxii. Plate xxii., fig. 1 shows the upper
frieze and the panels beneath.

[282] Salz., plate xxi., fig. 18, and our fig. 9.

[283] Bury, vol. ii., 202.

[284] J. of Ephesus wrote _circa_ 590, R. Payne Smith’s translation.

[285] See also Rambaud, _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Aug. 1871.

[286] See plan and view in Strzygowski und Forchheimer, _Die
Wasserbehälter von Konstantinopel_.

[287] _Imperium Orientale_, p. 664.

[288] See _Ancien Plan de Constantinople imprimé entre 1566 et 1574,
avec Notes explicatives par Caedicius_, 1890.

[289] Ed. 1562, p. 91.

[290] Hakluyt Society, 1859, p. 34.

[291] Migne, _S.G._ vol. 133, p. 695.

[292] Texier figured in the _Revue Archéologique_, 1845, a small
fountain found near the hippodrome to which it probably formerly
belonged.

[293] Nicetas, ed. Bonn, p. 857.

[294] An organ is shown on the sculptured base of the obelisk of
Theodosius.

[295] MS. Mus. Brit., Sloane 2742, xvi. c.

[296] Procopius.

[297] Hakluyt Soc., p. 36.

[298] _Nuremberg Chronicle._

[299] _Constantinopolis Christiana_, lib. i., ch. xxiv.

[300] _La Syrie Centrale_, p. 75.

[301] Ed. Bonn, p. 307 _et seq._

[302] Nicetas, p. 733.

[303] Quoted by Buzantios.

[304] _Ceremonies_, appendix _ad lib._ i., p. 502.

[305] Ed. Bonn, v., p. 266.

[306] Hakluyt Soc. series.

[307] Anna Comnena also speaks of the houses of the Great Church.

[308] See Curtis, _Broken Bits of Byzantium_, part 2.

[309] Paspates, p. 40.

[310] See Curtis, _Broken Bits of Byz._, part 2.

[311] It may be mentioned that an Italian cantharus, or font, of the
twelfth century, in the possession of Mr. Brindley, has the Latinised
form of the same word in an inscription around its rim which reads

Artificum summus cui nullus in orbe secundus Hunc luterem clarum
sollerer sculpsit aquae....

[312] Quoted by Paspates, _Byzan. Mel._ Note on p. 340.

[313] Lanciani, _Pagan and Christ. Rome_.

[314] Labarte, _Pal. Imp._

[315] _Pachymeres de Michael Palaeol._, ed. Migne, p. 703. See also Du
Cange, _S. Sophia_, § 22.

[316] _Inscriptiones Antiquae totius orbis Romani._

[317] Grelot is vague in regard to it. Banduri understood him to
mean that the inscription was on the inner water vessels. The Greek
patriarch Constantios accepts it as having belonged to the Phiale.
Buzantios wildly says baptistery.

[318] An inscrip. in Baptistery Florence, reads--

  EN GIRO TORTE SOL CICLOS ET ROTOR IGNE.


[319] See p. 84 and Kraus for other similar inscriptions.

[320] The first, he says, “stands by the entrance to an old Bagno,” it
was 4′ 3½″ in diameter. “The second stands in the midst of the cistern
in the square court of the supposed St. John’s Church.” This was 2′ 6″
in diameter.

[321] Migne, _Pat. Cur. Com. Series Graeca_, vol. i.

[322] _Euchologium_, ed. 1647, p. 463.

[323] Ed. 1647, p. 560.

[324] _Relation Nouvelle d’un Voyage de Constantinople._

[325] In Fig. 29 we have followed his drawings disregarding his
estimate of height.

[326] Curtis, _Broken Bits of Byz._, Part II.

[327]

  . . . . . . . .
  . . . . . . . .
            . . .


[328] See P. D. Kouppas, _The Building of Byzantine Churches_. Ἑλλην.
Φιλολ. Συλλ. παραρ. vol. 20-22, p. 38.

[329] For gold tesserae of second cent. see _Bull. Soc. des Ant._,
1893, p. 76.

[330] _Eastern Palestine Memoirs_, 1889, p. 172.

[331] See Fig. 30.

[332] From the Hellenic Society’s supplement to their journal.

[333] See also _Byzantinische Zeitschrift_, 1894.

[334] The inscription states that the work was done while Paul was
archbishop. And--

  ΜΗΝΙΝΟΕΜΒΡΙΩΙΝΔΙΚΤΙΟΝΙΤΕΤΑΡΤΗΕΤΟΥϹ ΑΠΟΚΤΙϹΕΩϹΚΟϹΜΟΥϲ̣

The vital numerals were defaced, but there seemed no doubt that the
last fragment was a part of S (6000) and as the writer states that
there was only room for one more letter, SΔ or 6004 (495) is the only
year that will fit the fourth indiction. “The architect Bubroff is
about to show that the church was built in the fifth century.”

[335] A book on mechanics (περὶ παραδόξων μηχανημάτων) has been
ascribed to Anthemius.

[336] Procopius in _Pal. Pilg. Text._, p. 48.

[337] Lib. xiii., tit. iv.

[338] Edit. by Waddington, p. 18.

[339] Giacomo Boni, _Il Duomo di Parenzo_, in _Archivio Storico
dell’Arte_, 1894, p. 5.

[340] _Migne_, S.G., vol. xxxvii., p. 1090.

[341] There is no doubt about these arches being truly _pointed_.
They were drawn so by Dr. Covel about 1675, they appear so in the
careful engraving in Miss Pardoe’s _Bosphorus_, and these are fully
confirmed by Strzygowski and Forchheimer, _Die Wasserbehälter von
Konstantinopel_, pp. 12 and 71. The use of the pointed arch in the east
is probably an unbroken tradition from early days in Egypt.

[342] _Die Wasserbehälter_, p. 130, &c.

[343] 1799, p. 236.

[344] _Journal of Roy. Inst. Brit. Archts._, Jan. 1893.

[345] See also p. 247, 1892, for the conditions of stability of dome of
S. Sophia.

[346] Ἑλλην. Φιλολ. Συλλ. παραρ. vol. xx., 1892.

[347] P. 485.

[348] _Die Byzantinischen Wasserbehälter_, p. 22.

[349] In another place Covel gives the following. Lukium--unslaked
lime, burnt brick (both in a fine powder), cotton wool very fine pulled
and strewed on, linseed oil. Cistern plaister--Lime, burnt brick,
cotton or flax, water [use] almost dry, smooth it and saturate with oil.

[350] _Blasii Caryophili opusculum de antiquis marmoribus_, 1743.

[351] _Trattato delle pietre antiche_, 1833.

[352] _Ancient Art._

[353] _Chronologie von Egypten_, p. 365.

[354] _Revue des deux Mondes_, 1841.

[355] In MS. notes lent by Mr. Brindley.

[356] _Histor. Geography of Asia Minor_, p. 433.

[357] See Boni, who corrects Corsi, in _La Basilica di San Marco_.

[358] Ἑλλην. Φιλ. Συλλ. παραρ. 1885, p. 10.

[359] _Mittheilungen, etc._, _Arch. Inst. Athens_, 1889, xiv. 286.

[360] Mr. Brindley has shown us a photograph of a half worked Byzantine
column with a flat necking, still attached in a horizontal position to
the rock on its underside while the upper part is rounded.

[361] Η. Κωνσταντινουπολις, p. 500.

[362] _Survey of Western Palestine_, vol. iii., p. 357.

[363] Walsh, _A Residence at Constantinople_, “Errata” to p. 80.

[364] Ἑλλην. Φιλ. Συλλ. παραρ., vol xvi., 1885, p. 34.

[365] See Bayet, _L’Art Byzantin_.

[366] A.M. 5508 of Byzantine chronology coincides with A.D. 1 up to
September 1st. Indictions were cycles of fifteen years commencing
in 312 A.D. Both the years of the world and the Indictions began on
September 1st.

[367] Ἑλλην. Φιλολ. Συλλ. παραρ., vol. xvi., p. 30.

[368] _Essai sur la Chronologie Byzantine._

[369] Finlay, vol. i., p. 165.

[370] Mordtmann, p. 36.

[371] Shown in Salzenberg’s plate.

[372] Η. Κωνσταντινουπολις, vol. i. p. 500

[373] Curtis, _Broken Bits of Byz._, part ii.

[374] _Le Bosphore et Constantinople_, 1873.

[375] See below, p. 287.

[376] See Salz., plate xxiii. Fig. 2 is one of the tympana, the centre
one has figures: fig. 3 transverse arches; fig. 5 soffite of a window.

[377] Salzenberg’s plate xxiv. gives details of the lower aisles.

[378] Fig. 2 is the barrel vault near the window; fig. 3 arches and
vault adjoining; fig. 6 the intrados of the arches opening to the nave;
fig. 7 a pattern of the west gynaeceum.

[379] Plate xxvi., fig. 6.

[380] See fig. 3 for this cornice, the band beneath, and the edges of
the great arches.

[381] Fig. 7 gives the borders of the windows in semidomes.

[382] Salz., plate xxvii.

[383] Salz. xxxii., fig. 4.

[384] Salz., plate xxviii.

[385] Salz., plate xxix.

[386] Reading ΚΥΡΙΕ.

[387] Salz., plate xxx.

[388] The figure of Jeremiah at S. Clemente, Rome, bears the same
inscription.

[389] Salz., plate xxv., fig. 3.

[390] Salz., plate xxii.

[391] Salz., plate xxxi.

[392] Salz., plate xxxi.

[393] Salz., plate xxxi., fig. 7.

[394] _Ibid._ fig 8.

[395] _Arts Industriels._

[396] _Hist. of Painting_, vol. i., p. 234.

[397] _Recherches._

[398] Bury, vol. ii. 432.

[399] R. Walsh, _Essays on Ancient Coins, &c._, 1828, gives the Greek.

[400] _American Journ. Archæol._, iv. 143.

[401] Theoph. Cont. ed. Bonn, p. 99.

[402] A composition of this kind at Parenzo appears to go up to the
sixth or seventh century.

[403] See Diehl in _Byz. Zeits._, 1893.

[404] _Il Tesoro._

[405] Pératé, _Archéol. Chrétienne_, with figure, p. 265.

[406] Relievi storico artistici sulla architettura Bizantina.

[407] See note above the index.

[408] _Il Duomo di Parenzo_, p. 26.

[409] Middleton, _Anc. Rome_, i. 31.

[410] See Labarte, _Arts Indust._, vol. iii., p. 331.

[411] Boni, _Il Duomo di Parenzo_, pp. 4, 5.

[412] _Stones of Venice_, I., xxiii., 13.

[413] Ἑλλην. Φιλ. Συλλ. παραρ., vol. xvi., 1885, p. 13.

[414] In our illustration the same capital is distinguished by a
letter, the two sides by 1 and 2, the monograms reading in the
direction of the reference to their position. Those of “N. Aisle” for
instance read from left side of page.

[415] Two varieties of monograms on capitals at S. Mark’s have been
the subject of much study which Cattaneo sums up in Boïto’s text of
the great monograph on S. Mark’s, but they have never been deciphered.
One (see Photos, vol. ii., p. 127) is a perfect example of Justinian;
three which show in capitals of the upper stage south side are perfect
examples of Basileos--if corresponding monograms probably on the hidden
sides of these capitals are examined, they too may be found to contain
the Justinian monogram. For monograms at S. Sergius see _Byz. Zeit._
for 1894.

[416] In _L’Art de Bâtir_ and _Revue Archéologique_, 1876.

[417] _Die Wasserbehälter von Konstantinopel_, p. 245.

[418] Curtis, _Broken Bits of Byzantium_, pt. ii.

[419] Ἑλλ. Φιλ. Συλλ. παραρ., vol. xvi. p. 29.




TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE


This eBook makes the following corrections to the printed text:

    Pg 8
        Quellen der Byzantinischen Kunstgeschicht
        Quellen der Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte
    Pg 9
        placed the prophyry column
        placed the porphyry column
    Pg 22 (footnote)
        Geschichte der Byzantinischer Litteratur
        Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur
    Pg 24
        that he furnished him
        that He furnished him
    Pg 32
        and the saints among them
        and the saints—among them
    Pg 35
        the restoration of S. Sophia
        the restoration of S. Sophia.
    Pg 56
        rings fixed circlewise round each base
        rings fixed circle-wise round each base
    Pg 94
        reaches the royal doors and stands there.”
        reaches the royal doors and stands there.
    Pg 109
        by Henrich Ulmen
        by Heinrich Ulmen
    Pg 118
        above the beam of the iconastasis
        above the beam of the iconostasis
    Pg 120
        running the whole longth
        running the whole length
    Pg 122
        from time to time
        from time to time.
    Pg 124
        patriarch Arsenius during the reign of Michael Palaeologos
        patriarch Arsenius during the reign of Michael Palaeologus
    Pg 124
        the wife of Andronicus Palaeologos
        the wife of Andronicus Palaeologus
    Pg 132
        is generally call the Baptistery
        is generally called the Baptistery
    Pg 135
        in order. and how the wealth
        in order, and how the wealth
    Pg 136
        said to the craftsman. ‘I will
        said to the craftsman, ‘I will
    Pg 150
        floor to the vertex,
        floor to the vertex.
    Pg 151
        immense semircircular window
        immense semicircular window
    Pg 152
        pyramids by Nicephorus Gregoras
        pyramids by Nicephorus Gregoras.
    Pg 160
        was used by the lamplighter
        was used by the lamp-lighter
    Pg 160
        and Zonoras twenty-five
        and Zonaras twenty-five
    Pg 179
        most of which were re-built by Justinian
        most of which were rebuilt by Justinian
    Pg 186 (footnote)
        See Curtis Broken Bits of Byzantium
        See Curtis, Broken Bits of Byzantium
    Pg 191 (footnote)
        This was 2′ 6″ in. diameter
        This was 2′ 6″ in diameter
    Pg 192
        Symeon of Thessalonica tells us
        Simeon of Thessalonica tells us
    Pg 204
        and St. Sergius at Bozra
        and St. Sergius at Bosra
    Pg 212
        Figs, 4, 36, 38
        Figs. 4, 36, 38
    Pg 217
        above the transome
        above the transom
    Pg 223
        Viollet-de-Duc thinks that
        Viollet-le-Duc thinks that
    Pg 232
        filaments of cotton.” This was reduced
        filaments of cotton. This was reduced
    Pg 233
        It is made of unslaked lime ...”
        “It is made of unslaked lime ...”
    Pg 268
        the horizonal arm of the cross
        the horizontal arm of the cross
    Pg 294
        ceramic inscription given in the Revue Archéoogique
        ceramic inscription given in the Revue Archéologique

    Make punctuation consistent in section headings.

    Replace Roman numerals with Arabic numerals for section headings
    in Chapter VII.

    Paspates’ book, ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΑΙ ΜΕΛΕΤΑΙ, is cited variously as Byzantinae
    Meletai, Byzantinae Melatae, and Byzantinae Meletae. These citations
    are left unchanged.

This eBook makes the following adjustments to the Byzantine inscriptions:

    Use Ω (capital omega) where the printed text used a large ω.

    Use Υ (capital upsilon) where the printed text used a
    V-shaped character.