sign in sign up
<<
Home , Hagia Sophia, Synthronon

Masarykova univerzita Filozofická fakulta

Seminář dějin umění

Katarína Kravčíková The of Hagia Eirene in Chrám Hagia Eirene v Konstantinopoli Bakalářská diplomová práce

Vedoucí práce: doc. Ivan Foletti, MA

2016

1

Prehlasujem, že som diplomovú prácu vypracovala samostatne s využitím uvedených prameňov a literatúry.

......

2

In this point, I would like to express how much indebted I am to my beloved family, friends and colleagues for their help and care. Without you, this work would not have been possible. I owe the great debt of gratitude to Veronika and Filip for their charm and readiness; to Adrien and Martin for their attentive suggestions, advice and time; to Poma and Michal for their loving support, patience and discussions and to Emrecan for the invaluable photographs and jokes. I am also very grateful to Kateřina, Matej and Zuzana for their keenness and careful corrections. I would like to thank to head of the Department Ondřej Jakubec, for his patience and goodwill to give me as much time as I needed. And finally, I would like to express my humble and sincere gratitude to Ivan Foletti. First, as to the supervisor of this thesis for his counsel and guidance, but above all, for providing me with an incredible amount of support, care and nicknames ever since we first met. Thank you.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. State of Research ...... 5 THE FIRST MODERN STUDIES...... 6 THE 20th CENTURY ...... 8 SPREADING THE INTEREST ...... 11 THE GOLDEN SIXTIES ...... 14 NEW MILLENIUM, NEW QUESTIONS ...... 17 II. Description of the Matter and Chronology ...... 19 1. AND EIRENE THE OLDEST ...... 20 2. JUSTINIAN THE GREAT AND EIRENE THE RESSURECTED ...... 22 I. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ...... 22 II. THROUGH THE TO THE ...... 24 III. THROUGH THE NARTHEX TO THE NAOS ...... 25 IV. A POSSIBLE ELEVATION ...... 26 V. FURNISHING AND DECORATION ...... 27 3. CONSTANTINE V AND EIRENE THE RENEWED ...... 32 I. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ...... 32 II. THE RECONCILIATION OF THE 6th AND 8th CENTURIES ...... 32 III. Word and Image ...... 44 IV. Light and Presence ...... 47 THE PRESENCE ...... 48 THE ABSENCE ...... 50 V. Ecclesia and Peace ...... 54 Conclusion ...... 57 Bibliography ...... 58 List of Illustrations...... 67

4

Introduction

The church of Hagia Eirene, or Aya İrini as called today in Turkish, stands on the same court of Topkapı Palace as Hagia , only 120 meters to the north-east. With its origin preceding the official foundation and of the Constantinople itself, Hagia Eirene embodies the fascinating example of an uninterrupted tradition of the sacred place. Naturally, as we are going to observe closely, the building is not preserved neither intact, nor in its original form – what we can see today is from a chronological point of view a multi–layered structure not having any corporeal connection with the very first. However, the real value of Hagia Eirene is not rooted solely in the historicity of the place or material itself – we are dealing with an object which provided a place for crucial historical events, became a model for various churches outside Constantinople, and kept its importance and liturgical function even though splendid was built just around the corner. Moreover, its plain interior crowned by the simple cross on the golden background became a hallmark of the “iconoclastic” era and its approach to religious imagery.

The aim of this thesis will be twofold. On one hand, in the introductory part, we would like to offer a synthesis of the previous research, including the remarks to now completely vanished complex of buildings amidst Hagia Eirene and Hagia Sophia. From this sphere of textual evidence alluding to the matter, we will proceed towards the object itself and scrutinize its materiality and chronology. A division of this part into the three chapters according to three benefactors of this church, that is to say Constantine the Great, and Constantine V, we have found as a most plausible solution. Within this analysis, apart the description of the architecture, we have decided to deal in a greater extent with a rather marginalized representatives of the former interior decoration, specifically, the capitals of the arcade and remnants of the former decoration. However, what we consider as the essential aspect of the interior and what is going to be stressed the most, is the unique in the . This object and his unusual materiality will lead our attention to the second part of the thesis, which will constitute of three proposed interpretations of the possible rhetoric of this sacred place. The synthronon itself and its capacities will become one of the essential arguments and focal points for the we would like to put forward.

5

I. State of Research

THE FIRST MODERN STUDIES If one would like to identify an academic junction amid historical sources referring to the church of Hagia Eirene and the modern historiography after the , the year 1552 could be considered an appropriate starting point. In this year, the fifth century Descriptio Urbis Constantinopolitanae was published as a part of the Notitia1 and informs us in a very concise form about the existence of “Ecclesia Antiqua” along with “Ecclesia Magna” in the Regio II of the .2 More than a hundred years later, in 1680, the extensive volume Constantinopolis christiana by French philologist and historian Charles Du Fresne Du Cange was published. Within, under the number XX., in chapter 7 of the 4th book, we can find merely a page dedicated to Hagia Eirene. The author offers us an austere but complete list of direct historical references, several given in full original form together with their transcription.3 After these two rather isolated summaries, we have almost no other mentions until the 19th century.

Thus, if we proceed directly to that time, the amount of new textual references will undoubtedly increase. Still, from the 1st half of the century, there is less to deal with – descriptions of Constantinople written by Byzantios,4 Dallaway5 or Konstantinias6 all mention Hagia Eirene but we learn more about the war artefacts and trophies preserved inside than about the building itself. Anyhow, in the case of Dallaway’s Constantinople ancienne et modern, even in just a few lines, the author manages to give us a rather cryptic notion about and mosaic decoration: “…elle est embellie de marbre et de mosaiques”.7 Sadly, one can only guess what the exact meaning is and how much of the interior decoration was still present and visible.

The year 1854 brings us an extensive catalogue of the city’s churches, the Alt Christliche Baudenkmale von Constantinopel, created by the German architect Wilhelm Salzenberg.8 The short chapter about Eirene is focused on descriptions of building phases and later additions only introduced with historical overview including correct proposition about the 8th century rebuilding. The author also presents a ground plan, a

1 Notitia Utraqve Cum Orientis Tum Occidentis. Basileae 1552. 2„Regio secunda, ab initio Theatri minoris per aequalitatem sui latenter molli subleuata cliuo, mox ad mare praecipitis abrupta descendit. Continet in se, Ecclesia magna, Ecclesia antiqua.“ 3 DU CANGE, Ch. Du Fresne, Constantinopolis christiana seu descriptio urbis Constantinopolitanae qualis extit sub imperatoribus christianis ex variis scriptoribus contexta et adornata libri quatuor, lib. IV, XX. 1680, pp. 147- 148. 4 BYZANTIOS, S., Hē Kōnstantinoupolis ē Perigraphē topographikē kai historikē. Athens 1851, pp. 153-155. 5 DALLAWAY, J., Constantinople ancienne et moderne et descriptions des cotes et isles de l'Archipel et de la Troade. Paris 1808, pp. 33-34. 6 KONSTANTINIAS, Palaia te kai neotera etoi perigpaphe Konstantinoupoleos. 1824, p. 84. 7 DALLAWAY 1808, p. 33. 8 SALZENBERG, W., Alt-Christliche Baudenkmale von Constantinopel vom V.-XII. Jh. Berlin 1854, pp. 33-34; Plate XXXIII. 6 longitudinal cross section and North/East views of Hagia Eirene. Since Salzenberg was not granted a full access permission necessary for taking proper measurements of the site the plans he presents are marred with few inaccuracies.9 For instance, in the westernmost part of the aisle, alternating of the pier and is not respected and there is one extra column included which actually does not exist.10 The existence of the church is also mentioned several times within Nikodim Kondakov's 1884 study Vizantiyskie Cerkvi i Pamatniki Konstantinopola, followed by a photography illustrating close proximity of two shrines constituting the body of Megale Ecclesia.11

The very first monographic study, The Church of Hagia Eirene and the Earthquake in Constantinople, was an essay published within the journal Vizantiyskiy Vremennik in 1894, by the Russian scholar Bjeljaev. Through no more than thirty pages the author offers two main layers: a sufficient synthesis of the chronology and historical sources, as well as almost journalistic sketch of his problematic access to the building the current situation of surroundings and narration of the major earthquake he had witnessed.12 In fact, hidden in this intriguing story, there is a well structuralised descriptive part. We are following the real motion of the author-observer accompanied by architectural impressions, from the westernmost part of the atrium, to the easternmost part of the church interior. This journey is crowned with a recount of the apse mosaic along with the first transcription of the words placed on two .13 Even more so, Bjeljaev correctly proposes Psalm 65:5-6, as a source of the quote displayed on the inner one.1415 Reporting the events and on

9 His brief visit was later described by Van Millingen: „(...) Salzenberg was allowed to enter the church in 1848, while Hagia Sophia was undergoing repairs under the superintendence of the Italian architect Fosatti.“ See: VAN MILLINGEN, A., Byzantine Churches in Constantinople: Their History and Architecture. 1912, p. 91. 10 VAN MILLINGEN 1912, p. 94. 11 ἡ Μεγάλη Ἐκκλησία; KONDAKOV, N., „Vizantiyskie Cerkvi i Pamatniki Konstantinopola“, in: Trudi VI, Archeologichskago Siyezda 1884. Odessa 1887, pp. 9-10, 31, 109. 12 For more information about the earthquake resistance see: CROCI, G. Gli interveni strutturali nel complesso monumentale della Santa Irene a . 2006. 13 Transcription of the outer inscription: υ οικοδομών εις τον οίκον σου καί άνάβχσιν αΰτου καΐ την επαγγελία ν του αγίου πνεύματος εις ηρΐις ήλπίσαρεν εις το ονοχα αύτοΰ. See:BJELJAEV, D., „Храмъ св. Ирины и землетрясеніе въ Константинополѣ 28 іюня 1894 года“ (The Church of Hagia Eirene and the Earthquake in Constantinople on June 28th 1894), in: Византіискш Временникъ (Vizatiyskiy Vremennik). Odessa 1894, p. 781. 14 Transcription of the inner arch as noted by Bjeljaev: Πλησθησόμεθα εν τοις άγαθοΐς του οίκου σου άγιος ό ναός σου θαυμαστός εν δικαιοσύνη.Έπάκουσον ηρον ό Θεός ό σωτηρ ηρι,ων, ή έλπίς πάντων των περάτων της γης και των εν θαλασσή μακράν. See BJELJAEV 1894, p. 781. The accuracy of the proposed source was confirmed by later analyses, see: VAN MILLINGEN 1912, p. 93; GEORGE, W. S., The Church of S. Eirene at Constantinople. London 1913, p. 47-51. However, as was later pointed out by George, Bjeljaev was not allowed to examine the mosaic closely and „does not seem to have realized the extent of the restoration.“ See: GEORGE 1913, p. 48. 15The inscription on the inner arch, transcribed by Alexander van Millingen in 1912; later restored parts in the brackets: (ΔΕΥΤ ΕΙ)CΟΜΕΘΑ ΕΝ ΤΟÎC ΑΓΑΘΟÎC ΤΟΥ ΟÎΚΟΥ CΟΥ, ĀΓΙΟC Ο ΝΑΟC CΟΥ ΘΑΥΜΑCΤΟC ΕΝ ΔΙΚΑΙΟCΥΝΗ ΕΠΑΚΟΥCΟΝ ΗΜΩΝ Ο Θ[ΕΟ]C Ο C[ΩΤ]ΗΡ ΗΜΩΝ Η ΕΛΠΙC ΠΑΝΤΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΠΕΡΑΤΩΝ ΤΗC ΓΗC ΚΑΙ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΘΑΛΑCCΗ ΜΑΚ(ΡΑ)[Ν]. See: VAN MILLINGEN 1912, pp. 94-96. 7 the state of the building after the catastrophe, unfortunately, we also get introduced with few newly acquired defects on the main and cracks in the north wall.16

The following year, 1895, brought in the same journal Bjeljaev’s second essay “External and internal view of the church of Hagia Eirene in Constantinople”. In the second part - commentary on the image of the apse –a truly innovative moment of contextualized perception is captured, when the author briefly meditates on the possible overall effect of liturgical celebration. Bjeljaev presents his vivid vision of members gathered on the synthronon, clothed in their colourful vestments with the patriarch as the “spiritual emperor” sitting on the cathedra below the central window, and all of this perceived from a certain distance above a fictitious, rather short choir barrier. 17

THE 20th CENTURY Historiography of Hagia Eirene belonging to the first two decades of the 20th century is truly fruitful and brings, at last, complete and precise monographic analyses of the matter. To start with less pivotal ones, in 1903, a study from Oskar Wulff called Die Koimesiskirche in Nicäa was published. In the third chapter, even though dealing predominantly with Hagia Sophia, we can find Eirene mentioned as a unique “transitional example” within the author's attempt to present a classification of byzantine building types.18 Four years later, in 1907, first part of the Antoniades’ three-volume of Hagia Sophia was brought to light in Athens, and offered a short sequence mentioning Hagia Eirene as well.19 Few lines more, accompanied by the ground plan, also appeared in Diehl's Manuel D'Art Byzantin. The author recalls the ingenuity of the well balanced two-domed solution, as well as existence of an inscribed cross plan on the gallery level, similar to the in Philipi. Hence, he sees Eirene as an intermediate step on the way from domed-basilical to the greek-cross type of a church building.20

However, if one would like to point a “breakthrough” moment for the studies and historiography of Hagia Eirene, the search should definitely concentrate on the years 1912-1913. At this time, among others, an extensive volume called Baukunst Konstantinopels by Cornelius Gurlitt,21 was published. Based on observations of the decorative joints previously noted down by Salzenberg,22 Gurlitt proposed that the church underwent a restoration process around the year 1800.23 Since the building was still covered

16 BJELJAEV 1894, pp. 769-798. 17 BJELJAEV, D., „Внешн1й и внутреннш видъ храма ев. Ирины въ Константинополе“ (The external and internal view of the church of Hagia Eirene in Constantinople), in: Византіискш Временникъ (Vizantiyskiy Vremennik). Odessa 1895, pp. 177-183. 18 WULFF, O., Die Koimesiskirche in Nicäa und ihre Mosaiken nebst den verwandten kirchlichen Baudenkmäler. Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Kunst im I. Jahrtausend. Strassburg 1903. 19 ANTONIADES, E., Ekphrasis tis Hagias Sophias, Vol. I. Athens 1907-1909. 20 DIEHL, Ch., Manuel D'Art Byzantin. Paris 1910, especially pp. 92-94, 137-138. 21 GURLITT, C., Die Baukunst Konstantinopels. Berlin 1912. 22 SALZENBERG 1854, p. 34. 23 GURLITT 1912, p. 17. Later confirmed in: GEORGE 1913, pp. 61-62. 8 with a plaster, an access was exceptionally problematic to obtain, and even with a permission restricted only to certain areas, some of the author’s conclusions contradict later historiography. Gurlitt dated Hagia Eirene in almost all its entirety to the 6th century except for the , which he attributed to the 8th. On the contrary, the original walls filling transverse arches on the eastern and northern side marked as later Turkish additions.

In the same year, 1912, as a sequel to the title Byzantine Constantinople: The Walls of the City and adjoining Historical Sites24 professor of history at Robert College in Istanbul Alexander van Millingen published his Byzantine Churches in Constantinople.25 In the introduction the author chronologically reflects on specific moments when the church attracted attention or became the scene for a prominent occasion. For instance, Hagia Eirene is noted as the place where the Second General Council of Constantinople was held in 381,26 or the existence of a Good Friday service for catechumens annually held in this church by patriarch.27 The second part of the text aims to describe architectural features, the knowledge of which comes from the author's collaboration with Walter Sykes George, an architect and student of the British School of Archaeology in Athens.28 Van Millingen, in concordance with George's findings, introduces several notable discrepancies. For instance, as he pointed out, capitals of the arcade are too massive for slender and newly discovered Justinian's monograms29 they carry are facing the aisles rather than the , or, there is a cathedra missing on the synthronon.30 In a similar manner as Bjeljaev few years prior, van Millingen proposed that the Book of Amos 9:6 is the source of the heavily restored quote on the outer arch.31 To conclude, the author speaks about a striking consistency between results based on the newest architectural analysis and information already derived from history. Consequently, he proposed dividing the relative chronology into three main parts: Justinian's rebuilding of Constantine's basilica after the in 532;

24 VAN MILLINGEN, A., Byzantine Constantinople: The Walls of the City and Adjoining Historical Sites. London 1899. 25 VAN MILLINGEN, A., Byzantine Churches in Constantinople: Their History and Architecture. London 1912, pp. 84-105. 26 VAN MILLINGEN 1912, p. 86. 27 VAN MILLINGEN 1912, p. 89. 28George, in 1908 granted with a scholarship from the Byzantine Research and Publication Fund so as to proceed in his studies in situ - at first in and later, in 1909 in Constantinople - was permitted to spend five months investigating thoroughly the object of our interest, in order to prepare a complete monographic study. In this very moment, Hagia Eirene was under the repair due to its planned conversion into a , thus, scaffolding was already installed and much of a later added plaster and wooden lining removed. For more see: WINFIELD, D., „The British contribution to fieldwork in in the twentieth century: an introductory survey“, in: CORMACK, R.; JEFFREYS, E. (eds), Through the Looking Glass. through British Eyes, Papers from the Twenty-ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies. London 1995, pp. 57-58. 29 The existence of these was not known until George's investigation, as it seems the access permission to the aisles was not granted to previous researchers. 30 VAN MILLINGEN 1912, p. 96. 31 Transcription of the outer arch inscription: (Ο Ο)ΙΚΟΔΟΜΩΝ ΕΙC Τ(ΟΝ ΟΙΚΟΝ CΟΥ ΚΑΙ) ΑΝΑΒΑCΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ, ΚΑΙ ΤΗΝ ΕΠΑΝΓΕΛΙΑΝ (ΤΟΥ ΗΑΓΙΟΥ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟC ΕΥ ΗΜΑC ΗΛΠΕΙCΑΜΕΝ ΕΙC ΤΟ Ο)ΝΟΜΑ Α(ΥΤΟΥ). See: VAN MILLINGEN 1912, p. 95. 9 restoration of the western part after the fire of 563/564;32 and finally, the complex reconstruction after the earthquake of 740.33

The year 1913 has brought immense results of the previously mentioned investigation financed by the Byzantine Research and Publication Fund, and specifically, by the president of the Fund, Edwin Freshfield. Now, in his own title The Church of S. Eirene at Constantinople34 with the historical notes written by Alexander van Millingen,35 Walter George offers a comprehensive survey of the structure in a logical order – from a general description of the building and its surroundings, to more specific insights directed to individual structural units, preserved decorations and materials used. With a closely examined and properly dated apse mosaic, beside other technical aspects, the unique implementation of silver tesserae into the golden background was described for the first time.36 George directed his attention to the mosaic inscriptions on the bema arches as well as asserted their formal resemblance to a .37 Nave vaults, pendetives and the main dome were likewise inspected, which confirmed that there are unfortunately no traces of the original decoration left.38 On the other hand, still present fragments of the in the narthex were placed under scrutiny, dated to the rebuilding phase after the fire of 563/439 and recorded in the image section. George also created the list of brick stamps found on different spots of the site and duly commented on their relative trustworthiness as reference points for establishing a chronology.40 Within the extensive image section41 it is possible to find an 18th century sketch based on a topographical drawing of Constantinople made by F. L. Cassas (1756-1827). This sketch, showing more or less the northern section of

32 Based on THEOPHANES. Chronographia. (Bonnae) Impensis Ed. Weberi 1839. p, 437; (A.M. 6056, A.C. 556, A.D. 563/564.) 33 VAN MILLINGEN 1912, pp. 84-89. 34 GEORGE, W.S., The Church of S. Eirene at Constantinople. London 1913. 35 This introductory part is in the main identical to the historical notice of the fourth chapter in Van Millingen's own volume Byzantine Churches in Constantinople released a year earlier. Yet, references are given full here. 36 GEORGE 1913, p. 50. 37 By Henry Jenner in George characterized as „generic term for a short composition in a kind of rhytmic prose, which either alone, or as one of a group, occurs frequently during the services of the Orthodox eastern Church.“ GEORGE 1913, p. 50. 38 As author states in the section dealing with mosaic decoration, this inspection was fueled by words of Dr. Fresfield who remembered the existence of mosaics in other places than bema. See more: GEORGE 1913, p. 55. 39 This hypothesis was later challenged and agreed to be invalid. Western part of the building could partially underwent a restoration in 563/564, yet, there is no evidence for ascribing the whole to that phase. For detailed study see: TADDEI, A., „Remarks on the Decorative Wall-mosaics of Eirene at Constantinople“, in: SAHIN, M. (ed.), 11th International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics, October 16th-20th, 2009, , . Istanbul 2011, pp. 883-896, especially p. 894. 40 As a good example could serve discovery of the fourth-century brick marked with a Diocletian's stamp, found in the upper part of the northern gallery. Therefore obviously re-used during the building campaign of Constantin V. See: GEORGE 1913, p. 60. 41 Detailed sketches, drawings and watercolours, plans and sections, but mostly photographs illustrating the text. Due to their quality, several were reused by later authors. 10

Hagia Eirene shows no substantial differences with the church’s present form aside for the absence of very late Turkish buttresses on the facade.42

In the same year, Jean Ebersolt and Adolphe Thiers published the volume Les églises de Constantinople edited by Alexander van Millingen.43 Taking into account the just recently published research by George, they do present efficient synthesis but no essential innovation. Jean Ebersolt alluded to Eirene in his previous title44 in connection with the annual peace commemorative .45 Later on, in the Sanctuaries de Byzance,46 he recalls the fact that veneration of the Holy Spear relic - ordinarily kept within the Grand Palace, had been taking place at the of Hagia Eirene.47

In 1914, Oskar Wulff published his next title in two volumes, the Altchristliche und Byzantinische Kunst.48 As he made clear in the previously mentioned study from 1903 the author sees the object as a transitional building type interposing within itself two principal constructive schemes. This statement was further expanded on with this impression that Hagia Eirene shows more “external articulation” in comparison to Hagia Sophia. Wulff also shortly meditates on the possible appearance and illumination of the interior during the 6th century phase and proposes a hypothetical design of the main dome and galleries with colonnades.

SPREADING THE INTEREST More than thirty years later, between 1945-1950, sites in close vicinity to Hagia Eirene were finally placed under scientific scrutiny. Especially, the south-west part along the atrium and western part of the church’s main wall. Archaeological investigation of this rather complex area49 was conducted by Muzaffer Ramazanoğlu and subsequently incorporated into plans by architect Mahmut Akok. The first results brought to light by the excavation were presented to the public as soon as in 1946.50 Following that, in 195151 and

42 See GEORGE 1913, p. 72. 43 EBERSOLT, J.; THIERS, A., Les églises de Constantinople. Paris 1913, pp. 55-72. 44 EBERSOLT, J., Le Grand Palais de Constantinople et le livre des Cérémonies. Paris 1910, p. 195. 45 Commemoration of the end of the schism that had divided the church for almost 15 years since 907, due to the fourth marriage of Emperor Leo VI. Roman I. summoned the council which condemned a fourth marriage and restored the peace. The composed agitation was subsequently read annually from the in Hagia Eirene, where the service was held by patriarch in the presence of the emperor. See: EBERSOLT 1910, p. 195; VAN MILLINGEN 1912, p.89. 46 EBERSOLT, J., Sanctuaries de Byzance: Recherches sur les anciens trésors des églises de Constantinople. Paris 1921, p.13. 47 The relic was translated to Hagia Eirene, placed on the altar and praised as well as kissed by the patriarch. After the veneration it was taken back to the imperial residence. 48 WULFF, O., Handbuch der Kunstwissenschaft, Altchristliche und Byzantinische Kunst, Vol. II, Berlin 1914, pp. 382-385. 49 Described already by in De Aedeficiis. 50 RAMAZANOGLU, M., L'ensemble de Ste Iréne et des diverses Ste. Sophies. Istanbul 1946. 51 RAMAZANOGLU, M., „Neue Forschungen zur Architekturgeschichte der Irenen-Kirche und des Komplexes der Sophienkirche“, in: Actes du Vie Congrès International d'Études Byzantines, 2. Paris (1948) 1951, pp. 347-357. 11

195352 Ramazanoğlu publishes two more articles based on outputs of the further soundings and presented a valuable list of structures once adjacent to the south side of Hagia Eirene or multitude of „movable“ objects53 found at the site. Yet, the conclusions derived out of the otherwise impressive findings were challenged and proclaimed as rather speculative, for instance, by Raymond Janin.54

In the same year as Ramazanoğlu's results - already presented on the conference in Paris - were published, so the Janin's article Les églises et monastéres de Constantinople byzantine.55 Two years later, in 1953, as a third part of La Géographie ecclesiastique de l´empire Byzantin a whole volume called Églises et monastéres de Constantinople56 was released. Within, Janin presented three main units: a historical overview focused on various major events which had taken place in Hagia Eirene, a list of ceremonies traditionally held in this church and finally, architectural notes. Within the last, the author asserted the apse mosaic and inscriptions on the bema arches are from the 6th century. The very last sentence, rather suprisingly and without any further reference, informs us about the presence of figurative frescoes in the interior. These are said to be: „dans une chambre située à l'extrémité de la tribune de droite on voit sur le mur une fresque représentant deux dont les visages ont été mutilés.“57 None of the authors before Janin have claimed the existence of such decoration. Even later, in the Découvertes et notes de topographie,58 Janin recalls more recent moments such as Eirene's transformation into the Museum of Antiquities between 1846 - 1874 and subsequently to the Military Museum from 1874 until 1946.59

In 1956 Eirene drew the attention of Feridun Dirimtekin – at the time serving as the director of Hagia Sophia museum. As a result, the short study L'église Sainte Irene was published, comprehensibly following

52 RAMAZANOGLU, M., „Neue Forschungen zur Architekturgeschichte der Irenen-Kirche und des Komplexes der Sophienkirche“, in: Atti di VIII congresso internazionale di studi bizantini e neoellenistici. Palermo (1951) 1953, pp. 232-235. 53 For instance, various coins datable into range of the 4th - 13th centuries; marble capital decorated with a simple cross on the globe; polychromed decorataive column; fragments of decorative pavement; ceramics and small metal objects, etc. See: RAMAZANOGLU 1953. For revised and more comprehensive results see: DIRIMTEKIN, F., „Les fouilles faites en 1946-1947 et en 1958-1960 entre Sainte-Sophie et Sainte-Irene a Istanbul“, in: Cahiers Archéologiques 13. Paris 1962, pp. 175-181. 54 Ramazanoğlu asserted that built on remains of three pagan , three churches stood on the site before 415 – by Constantine the Great enlarged Hagia Eirene, „The Great Church“ built by his son Constantius and Hagia Sophia. The inaccuracy of such statement later commented e.g. JANIN, R., „La topographie de Constantinople. Études et découvertes (1938-1980)“, in: Revue des études byzantines, tome 8 (1950). Paris 1950, pp. 197-214, especially pp. 199-201. 55 JANIN, R., „Les églises et monastéres de Constantinople byzantine“, in: Revue des études byzantines, tome 9 (1951). Paris 1951, pp. 145-147. 56 JANIN, R., La geographie ecclésiastique de l´empire Byzantin. Les églises et les monastéres. Paris 1953, pp. 108- 111. 57 JANIN 1953, p. 111. 58 JANIN, R., „Constantinople Byzantine: Découvertes et notes de topographie“, in: Revue des études byzantines, tome 21 (1963). Paris 1963, pp. 268-269. 59 JANIN 1953, p. 268. 12 characteristic structural features of the church – the nave, the dome and the mosaics.60 Within the part dealing with preserved decoration, the author spotted and briefly described a mosaic fragment61 located on the main arch between the naos and the narthex, which was not mentioned before62 and which he attributed to the 8th century. Based on extensive but considerably chaotic material which Ramazanoğlu gathered during the excavations of 1946-47, 1958-60 and enhanced by ongoing reconstructions of Hagia Sophia museum since 1959, Dirimtekin launched a new investigation of the site63 in order to revaluate previous conclusions as well as reorganize the findings.64 The outcome of this effort is a study publised in 196265 which besides the clarification of the southern area and objects found within informs us about the newly excavated circular structure on the north-east side of Hagia Eirene – identified as a skeuophylakion. In the final historical overview the author connects material findings with references from Procopius, Theophanes, or Constantine Porphyrogenitus and proposes periodization of the excavated area which in essential points matched the one of Hagia Eirene itself, as a consequence of their organic relationship.66

A different, visual kind of relationship is presented within the chapter dedicated to church decoration in 1957 Grabar's L'Iconoclasme Byzantin67, where Hagia Eirene and its mosaic are alluded along with once similarly decorated Hagia Sophia in Thessalonike68 and the Church of Dormition in Nicaea. Grabar related the simple type of depicted cross to the one visible on the imperial coinage, as well as to a cross placed on the Gate instead of an image of Christ by the emperor Leo III. The author also noted Cormack's attribution of this mosaic to the reign of Constantine V, therefore in between the years 741-775.

60 DIRIMTEKIN, F., „L'église Sainte Irene“, in: Corso di cultura sul'Arte Ravennate e Bizantina. 1956, pp. 41-45. 61 „Sur le bord de l'arcade de l'entrée principale de la nef centrale il y a des mosaiques dont les couleurs rouge et verte dominent, ces mosaiques doivent appartenir au VIIIe siècle.“ See: DIRIMTEKIN 1956, pp. 44-45. 62 This fragment was described in 2009, dated to the 6th century and well photographically documented by Alessandro Taddei. Yet, within this description author claimed that fragment was discovered „(...)by chance in 1962 after the fall of the plaster covering“ by restorer Tansug. See: TADDEI 2011, pp. 887-888. 63 Research area was even extended, investigated were especially remnants of additional spaces on the north-east side of the church. 64 In the introductory part, author comments the inaccurate method of processing excavated objects. They were left without proper labels indicating a layer, in which they were found. Therefore, the context is often blurred or completely missing and emerged conclusions are not easy to make, nor entirely trustworthy. 65 DIRIMTEKIN 1962, pp. 161-185. 66 Based on Dirimtekin's division, phases 1-3 are in concordance with reconstructions or rebuildings of Hagia Eirene, later ones are rather matter of the separate development of the excavated area only. See: DIRIMTEKIN 1962, pp. 181-185. 67 GRABAR, A., L'Iconoclasme Byzantin (Paris 1957). Paris 1996, pp. 215-218. 68 In this case, even the inscription from Psalms 64,5 flanking the conch with cross was almost identical to the one possible to find in Hagia Eirene, both remarking the House of and its sanctity. See: GRABAR 1996, p. 217. 13

THE GOLDEN SIXTIES The period of the 1960´s and 1970´s could be marked as a second focal point for the historiography of Hagia Eirene. In 1965, two essential studies, distinct in subject, were made public. published his elaborate overview, Early Christian and ,69 where, within a chapter about “standard building types” of the Justinian's age, he presents Hagia Eirene as rebuilt in 532. To this first phase, “regular domed basilica” churches of Meriamlik and Alahan Monastir are described as similar, even though the author had stated that the precise character of the Eirene's upper constructive scheme is indefinite.70 The second phase, Hagia Eirene as restored after 740, Krautheimer sees as a new reassembled design, similar to the Stag's basilica in Pirdop near Sofia or the Saint Sergius in Gaza.71 A particular resemblance was even spotted with the early 9th century church in Dere Ağzi. Both are said to be sharing „airy design“ and a „feeling for elegant proportions and light“ which are features ascribed to „Justinian's architecture in general.“72 Such an effect could be attributed - in both the cases presented - to the spacious barrel vaults over the galleries, a multitude of windows and a massive central dome.

Far more narrowly focused than Krautheimer's work, a 1965 study by Peter Grossmann, the Zum Atrium der Irenenkirche,73 brought up for the first time a different answer to the question of relative chronology of the westernmost part of the church. As was later generally accepted, the author denies that the narthex was rebuilt fully after the fire of 563/564 and suggests rather a partial repair of the original structure from 532.74 Regarding the atrium, Grossmann affirms it was heavily remodelled in the ottoman era, as recalled already by George,75 by inserting a second circle of arcades into the original one, therefore diminishing the spacious inner court to less than a half. The outer circle was identified as mainly Byzantine, belonging to the 2nd Justinianic phase, with repairs after 740. Since the western end of the atrium is not preserved the author proposed an idea of a model with three pairs of columns divided by two piers on each side of the arcade.76

69 KRAUTHEIMER, R., Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture. Baltimore 1965. This original volume was re- published and revised in 1975, 1979, 1981 and 1986. In the case of Hagia Eirene, changes were made according to the results published by Grossmann (1965) and Peschlow (1977) which proclaimed different date of western parts of the church. In the newest version for Hagia Eirene see: KRAUTHEIMER, R., Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture. New Haven – London 1986, pp. 249-253. For author's comments on his own reconsideration of Hagia Eirene’s chronology see: KRAUTHEIMER 1986, p. 490. 70 KRAUTHEIMER 1986, p. 252. 71 KRAUTHEIMER 1986, p. 252. 72 KRAUTHEIMER 1986, p. 285. 73 GROSSMANN, P., „Zum Atrium der Irenenkirche in Istanbul“, in: Istanbuler Mitteilungen 15. Tübingen 1965, pp. 186-208. 74 GROSSMANN 1965, p. 206. 75 GEORGE 1913, pp. 12-16. 76 GROSSMANN 1965, pp. 205-207. 14

The discussion about partial chronology continued into the 1970's and when in 1971 Thomas Mathews finished The Early Churches in Constantinople77 he leaned towards the opinion of George and Krautheimer.78 Mathews, on the other hand, worked in a broader sense and presented Eirene as one of the „greater foundations of Justinian“, specifically in the context of the two churches close in date but distinct in form – Hagia Sophia and the Holy Apostles. The importance of liturgical planning with these three needs to be highlighted, since „here, if anywhere, the ceremonies of the Byzantine must have been celebrated in all their purity and solemnity“ because „the liturgy of the patriarchal churches would have been not only standard but normative, for it set the example for the other churches to follow.“79 While Mathews speaks about the liturgy and space division in Early Byzantine churches, Hagia Eirene is used as a representative due to its significant longitudinal axis, multitude of entrances, large-scale atrium, U-shaped galleries accessible from the outside, synthronon and skeuophylakion. The presence of these elements is interpreted as emerging from the processional character of the early rite and its requirements.80

Two years later, in 1973, archaeologist Christine Strube contributed to the discussion with Die Westseite der Irenenkirche in Justinianischer Zeit81 focused predominantly on the narthex, therefore complementig Grossman's study dedicated to the atrium. Detailed analysis of the alternations in the masonry between the narthex and the main body of the church and an occurence of the same phenomenon in the case of Basilica B in , Saint John in Ephesus or Hagia Sophia in Constantinople leads the author to claim that such alterations could not be used as a valid argument for ascribing the two units to different eras.82

Urs Peschlow‘s Die Irenenkirche in Istanbul,83 the most comprehensive study of the church since 1913 and Walter George's Saint Irene, was published in 1977. Usefuly divided into six main parts, the title offers more than a sufficient synthesis. The book presents a brief overview of past research and history of the building, description of the church itself and an analysis of the adjacent structures, interpretations of findings, the author's conclusion and an appendix by Peter I. Kuniholm and Cecil L. Striker.84 Regarding the chronology

77 MATHEWS, T., The Early Churches in Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy. London 1971, pp. 77-88. On these pages the matter is presented in the main with the chronology and description, however, considering the method author used, if resemblance was observed elsewhere or specific architectural element discussed in particular, Hagia Eirene was brought up and used as an example. 78 MATHEWS 1971, p. 79. 79 MATHEWS 1971, p. 77. 80 MATHEWS 1971, p. 179. 81 STRUBE, Ch., Die westliche Eingangsseite der Kirchen von Konstantinopel in Justinianischer Zeit architektonische und quellenkritische Unterschungen. Wiesbaden 1973, pp. 106-117. 82 STRUBE 1973, p. 110. 83 PESCHLOW, U., Die Irenenkirche in Istanbul: Unterschungen zur Architektur. Tübingen 1977. 84 The results of detailed dendrochronological and technical analysis of the tie-beam system of the nave arcade, establishing a range of 593-740 AD for its insertion. See: KUNIHOLM, P.; STRIKER, C., „The Tie-beam System in the Nave Arcade of St. Eirene: Structure and Dendrochronology“, in: PESCHLOW, U. Die Irenenkirche in Istanbul: Unterschungen zur Architektur. Tübingen 1977, pp. 229-240. 15 of the ,85 which had in essence been settled by 1977, the author is in almost full concordance with Grossmann and Strube in the matter of the atrium and the narthex.86 Yet there is a discrepancy with Mathews,87 who ascribed the synthronon in the main into the 6th century, while Peschlow dated it into the 8th century phase88. The author also presents a possible appearance of the first Justinian's Hagia Eirene with a slightly changed disposition compared to previous attempts: the arcades of the central bay should have been carried by two, instead of four columns as was suggested by George89 and Mathews.90 A great deal of light was also sheded on remnants within the excavated area to the south, to which the following chronology was ascribed: firstly, a Justinianic phase with a large courtyard framed by a ramp, several corridors and two storied buildings later damaged in the fire of 564; subsequent remodeling and an addition of a ; insertion of the larger cistern further to the east and restoration of the ramp leading to the south gallery after the earthquake in 740; and modifications in the 11th and 12th centuries.91 As a sequel to Die Irenenkirche in Istanbul, in 1996 Peschlow again contributed to the topic with Die Baugeschichte der Irenenkirche in Istanbul neu betrachtet concerned primarily with revaluating the chronology of newly uncovered sections of the masonry. In 1977 new material findings on the south-east and north side of the church led the author to expand the promulgated hypotheses about the adjustement of the original plans. An even more complicated relative chronology for the 6th century Ecclesia Antiqua was delineated, divided into three sub-phases.92

Three years later, Robert Ousterhout made public his comprehensive title Master Builders of Byzantium.93 This book clarified architectural design and highlighted the innovative character of Constantinoplitan churches of the 9th - 15th centuries. Whilst tracking their background the author often discussed older, influential structures. Hagia Eirene, for instance, was discussed as a forerunner of the cross-domed constructive system. On one hand, Hagia Eirene after 740 was presented as a „transitional type“ already possessing the four barrel vaults bearing the centralised dome, but on the other hand, still showing the prolongated, axial and monumental tendencies characteristic for Justinian's .94

85 PESCHLOW 1977, pp. 95, 206, 210, 215. 86 As was highlighted by Taddei, there is a shift in Peschlow's understanding on what μεσίαυλον (…medii quoque… See: Note 133) has referred to – instead of the main atrium of the church, Peschlow rather suggests one of the adjacent courts on the south of the latter. In a similar manner, he sees the expression μέρος το νάρθηκος (…et narthecis ipsius... See: Note 133) as a reference to the structures on the south. Therefore, Peschlow considers atrium of the church unharmed during the fire in 563/564. See: TADDEI 2011, p. 886; PESCHLOW 1977, pp. 211- 212. 87 MATHEWS 1971, p. 85. 88 PESCHLOW 1977, pp. 94, 212. 89 GEORGE 1913, p. 75. 90 MATHEWS 1971, p. 82. 91 PESCHLOW 1977, pp. 210, 212. 92 PESCHLOW, U., „Die Baugeschichte der Irenenkirche in Istanbul neu betrachtet“, in: STRIKER, C. (ed.), Architectural Studies in Memory of Richard Krautheimer. Mainz 1996, pp. 133-136. 93 OUSTERHOUT, R., Master Builders of Byzantium. New Jersey 1999. 94 OUSTERHOUT 1999, pp. 32, 89-91. 16

NEW MILLENIUM, NEW QUESTIONS Robert Ousterhout advised in the 2001 volume The Architecture of not to think about byzantine architecture in an over-typological, over-categorizing way based on groundplans and technical parameters only. This kind of preoccupation might be misleading especially in the case of a multilayered structure from a „poorly documented period of iconoclasm.“95 Since works we alluded to until this point were predominantly concerned with the architectural aspect of the subject, the two most recent monographic studies of the matter, just on the contrary.

Despite the fact preserved interior decoration of Hagia Eirene96 - except for the illustrious mosaic in the apse - is considerably scarce and more or less invisible at first glance, there once was a beautiful mosaic decoration present at least on the narthex vaultsand arcades, as well as colorful frescoes on the vaults in the aisles.97 To this today almost vanished decorative scale, in particular to the few mosaic fragments located on the narthex vaults, Alessandro Taddei devoted his scholarly interest and as a result presented an article Remarks on the decorative wall mosaics.98 Closely connected to the question already brought up in 1965 by Grosmann and discussed until Strube‘s and Peschlow’s surveys in the 1970's, Taddei's stylistic analysis of these fragments sustained the atribution of the main parts of the narthex into the phase of 532-537. The analysis was based on the comparison of decorative patterns from the narthex of Hagia Eirene with representative samples from the first Justinianic phase found in Hagia Sophia.99 Naturally, the author claimed that at least part of the mosaic could belong to the later date after the partial restoration in 563/564, predominantly on the triple arcade towards the atrium.100 To conclude, the author presentes credible reconstruction of the decorative scheme once adorning the narthex.

95 OUSTERHOUT, R., „The architecture of Iconoclasm: The Buildings“, in: BRUBAKER, L.; HALDON, J., Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca 680-850): The Sources, An Annotated Survey. Cornwall 2001. For Hagia Eirene see especially pp. 3-8. 96 Within several previously mentioned volumes, there is possible to find remarks to the mosaics as well. See e.g.: BJELJAEV 1894; VAN MILLINGEN 1912; GEORGE 1913; PESCHLOW 1977. For more see e.g.: BRUBAKER, L.; HALDON, J., Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca 680-850): A History. Cambridge 2011, pp. 212-215, 296-298; LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE, J., „Pour le problématique de la peinture d'Église byzantine a l'époque iconoclaste“, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 41, Studies on Art and Archeology in Honor of Ernst Kitzinger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Washington, D.C. 1987, pp. 321-337; CORMACK, R., The Apse Mosaics of S. Sophia at Thessaloniki. Athens 1981, pp. 118-119; GRABAR 1996, pp. 215-218. 97 In 1962, a brief restoration report was published. See: TANSUĞ, S., „First Restoration of Mosaics in the Church of Saint Irene“, in: Ayasofya Müzesi Yıllığı 4 (1962). Istanbul 1962, pp. 66-67. For providing me with this article I am truly indebted to professor Alessandro Taddei. 98 TADDEI, A. „Remarks on the Decorative Wall-mosaics of Saint Eirene at Constantinople“, in: SAHIN, M. (ed.) 11th International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics, October 16th-20th, 2009, Bursa Turkey. Istanbul, 2011, pp. 883- 896. 99 TADDEI 2011, p. 891. 100 TADDEI 2011, p. 894. 17

Last but not least, in 2011 Jordan Pickett in his article The Splendor of Iconoclasm101 focused on the cross mosaic in the apse, underlines that back at the time102 Eirene must have been the embodiment of a wholly new vision of the byzantine church - imitation of the heavenly temple, sophistically combining theological and imperial visual language, even through the choosen type of the cross. Considering the ongoing struggle for images, according to Pickett, two main concepts are obviously interacting in front of us – the importance of the as the only true representation of Christ and the person of Constantine the V as a last re- founder of this eminent place.

101 PICKETT, J., „The Apse Mosaic of Hagia Eirene: The Splendor of Iconoclasm“, in: SÖZEN, G. (ed.), Mosaic: the Square of . Istanbul 2011. 102 Naturally, we are dealing with an era after the restorations of 740, when the main mosaic was already created. 18

II. Description of the Matter and Chronology

Before any attempt to open more specific questions Hagia Eirene surely does offer, it is by all means necessary to start from the object itself, with an examination of its „corporeality“. Firstly, besides the formal description, we must also deal with a question of chronology of the matter. What we may see today, is only a last link in a long chain. Thus, it is necessary to trace main rebuilding campaigns which the structure underwent during its existence, as well as their visible consequences on the present building. Secondly, tightly connected to the first, it is crucial to find and assign a function to particular units of the space. We need to understand not only when, but also for what purpose specific parts of the structure were originated. Least but not last, one has to concentrate on the issue of what is not present even though it should or might be, and how could we eventually explain such an absence. If the question of presence and absence or visibility and invisibility has ever had a major importance, the second half of the 8th century in Constantinople, when the church underwent last overall remodelling, would be one of the focal points.

Description is divided into three parts according to three main building campaigns.103 Since the two latter phases are joined in the body of present structure, the attention to constructive units will also be bisected. That is to say, the ground plan of the building and atrium will be dealt with primarily as an idea and construction of the 6th century, while the elevation from the gallery level above and the overall effect of the inner space as a work of the 8th.

103 The complex adjacent to the south side of the church, due to its vastness, has to be omitted completely from a detailed description. 19

1. CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND EIRENE THE OLDEST

To take a look back on the very origin of the building, we might commence with the first historical source mentioning the church several times – a 5th century treatise by Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History104 which implies that Hagia Eirene 105 pre–dates official foundation and consecration of Constantinople itself. As Socrates’ treatise demonstrates, we are dealing with an older sanctuary – one of few which the Byzantion106 as a seat of the had, enlarged and harmonized107 by Constantine the Great to fulfil its new role as a of the rapidly growing city. It is also in this very moment when a dedication to the Holy Peace,108 one of God´s attributes was chosen.

Since Socrates used only non-committal remarks “of small dimensions” for the former or “enlarged” and “beautified/adorned” for the later one, the form neither of the very first nor the subsequent church could be reconstructed precisely. Nonetheless, a simple three aisled basilica with atrium seems like the most probable proposition for the original structure, considering prevalence109 of this constructive scheme among other Constantin´s foundations110 with the similar function111. Nearby, the first Hagia Sophia was built as kindred – five aisled basilica with galleries, preceded by an atrium as well as propylaeum with a skeuophylakion on the north east side112. Even though built hundred years later, St. John Studios in Constantinople or Church of Acheiropoietos in Salonica might be roughly demonstrating the appearance Hagia Eirene may have once

104For english translations was used SOCRATES, Scholasticus. The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus. Revised, with Notes, by the Rev. A. C. Zenos, D.D. Hartford, 2016. 105 Needless to say, the dedication of this pre-constantinian shrine is uncertain. 106 Before Constantin the Great dignified Byzantion to one of his residing cities, it had been rather ordinary bishopric settlement subordinate to Heracleia. After 330 it was necessary to promote its status in church hierarchy, therefore, in 381, after the complex course of events it was when Constantinople became a Honorary . Subsequently, in 451 also the jurisdictional status of the city was affirmed. See: SCHREINER, P., Konstantinopol. Dějiny a Archeologie (Konstantinopel. Geschichte und Archäologie. München 2007). Příbram 2012, pp. 131-133. 107 „About this period emperor built the great church called Sophia, adjoining to that named Irene, which being originally of small dimensions, the emperor´s father had considerably enlarged and adorned.“ See: SOCRATES II, c. XVI, p. 91. 108 „He built also in the same city two churches, one of which he named Irene, and the other The Apostles.“ See: SOCRATES 2016, c. XVI, p. 53. 109 KRAUTHEIMER 1986, pp. 39-69, especially pp. 40-43; KRAUTHEIMER, R., „Success and Failure in Late Antique Church Planning“, in: WEITZMANN, K. (ed.), Age of Spirituality: A Symposium. New York 1980, pp. 121-139, especially pp. 125-131. 110 For an efficient synthesis and list of edifices with securely established attribution to Constantine as patron, see: ARMSTRONG, G., „Constantine´s Churches“, in: Gesta, Vol. 6 (Jan., 1967). Chicago 1967, pp. 1-9. Beside the foundations in constructed on basilical plan, in Constantinople itself, concurrently with the enlarged church of Hagia Eirene, Constantine probably began or at least planned the first church of Hagia Sophia as a part of a same complex adjacent to the palace. As well, churches of St. Acacius in Heptascalon (JANIN 1953, pp. 17-18), or St. Agathonicus (JANIN 1953, pp. 11-13) were of basilical plan. 111 Martyria, palace chapels, etc. were employing different, often centralised plans. 112 KRAUTHEIMER 1986, p. 69. 20 had.113 Still, after the most detailed and comprehensive technological survey of 1977, Peschlow claimed that traces, in a sense of inherent constructive compartments, of neither of these two consecutive structures ne are preserved within the present building.114 What we do acquire from remarks of Socrates in Ecclesiastical History is, however, a notion of importance of the temple rooted in its primacy, reflected also in the established nomenclature - Patriarchal church115. Hagia Sophia was not finished until 360,116 therefore, Eirene served as the only cathedral of the city at least to that time.117 And even after, the two were considered as one shrine, traditionally referred to as Great Church118 and assisted by a common clergy.119 This “version” of the Holy Peace church constructed presumably after the 326120 stood and served almost 200 years, until it was razed to the ground during the Nika riot, in like manner as Hagia Sophia and buildings adjacent to these two.121

113 The church of Acheiropoietos, Thessalonica, c. 450-470; Hagios Ioannes Studios, Constantinople, c. 450. The first one used arcades to divide a nave from aisles, the second one employed a collonade system. 114 However, a fragment of black and white ornamental mosaic pavement was found 45 cm under the present ground level of the nave in 1950, ascribed to the time before Justinian. Ramazanoglu attributed layer with a mosaic floor into 3rd century BC, while temple of Aphrodite should had been standing on this site. See: RAMAZANOGLU 1951, p. 235; DIRIMTEKIN 1956, p. 44; GROSSMANN 1965, p. 204; PESCHLOW 1977, pp. 21, 206. Walter George created a groundplan, published within Van Milligen´s volume Byzantine Churches, where exterior remnants of the walls projecting little above the ground level on the lowermost register of the apse were marked as „...belonging either to Justinian´s first building or to that of Constantine.“ See: VAN MILLINGEN 1912. However, when George published his own monograph in 1913, the ground plan was revised and the note completely ommited. See: GEORGE 1913, Plate 1. 115 το Πατριαρχείοv 116 VAN MILLINGEN 1912, p. 85. 117 Hagia Eirene served as the sole cathedral again for more than 10 years until 415, since Hagia Sophia was seriously damaged by the fire of 404. See: VAN MILLINGEN 1912, p. 85. 118 η Μεγάλης Εκκλησίας 119 The unity is higlighted while Socrates speaks about the exile of patriarch and the installation of Macedonius on the seat during the reign of emperor Constantius: „Thus, (...) Macedonius and the Arius grasped the supermacy in the churches. About this period emperor built the great church called Sophia, adjoining to that named Irene, which being originally of small dimensions, the emperor´s father had considerably enlarged and adorned. In the present day both are seen within one enclosure, and have but one appellation.“ See: SOCRATES II, c. XVI (SOCRATES 2016, p. 91). About the common clergy, there is a notion in Justinian´s Novelle III, c. 1: „We therefore ordain, that the reverend clergymen and and doorkeepers in the holy Great Church and in all the other holy houses up to this time, shall remain in the same manner as now. (...) But since the number of the reverend clergymen fixed (for) the holy Great Church of our imperial city was rather small, since the holy Great Church stood alone, but the venerable house of the holy, glorious Mary, mother of God, situated in the neighborhood of the holy Great Church, was thereafter built by Verina, of pious memory, and the venerable house of the holy martyr Theodorus was thereafter consecrated by Sporacius, of glorious memory, and the venerable house of the holy Irena was thereafter joined to the holy Great church, therefore, the number can in no manner be reduce to what it originally was. Nor would the small number, which was so fixed, suffice for so many churches, since none of the foregoing three houses have their own clergymen, but they (that exist) are common to the holy Great Church and to them (the three churches), and who in (a certain) order, and traveling around in a circle, as it were, all perform their services therein (...).“ 120 ARMSTRONG 1967, p. 6. 121 „The Church of Irene, which was next to the great church, and was burnt down together with it, was rebuilt on a large scale by the Emperor Justinian – a church scarcely second to any in Byzantium except that of Sophia. There was between these two churches a hospice for the of destitute persons and those in the last extremity of disease, suffering in body as well as in fortune, which was built in former times by a God-fearing man named Sampson. This also did not remain unscathed by the insurgents, but perished in the fire, together with the two 21

2. JUSTINIAN THE GREAT AND EIRENE THE RESSURECTED

I. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW The extent of damage caused by the fire on the 16th of January 532 as described by Procopius´ in De Aedifices must have been fatal, for as much as it seems, the site was completely cleared before the new construction program commenced. The ground-breaking and construction process was traditionally marked as contemporaneous122 with the one of Hagia Sophia, nevertheless, a precise date of completion is not known.123

As it seems from the newest structural analysis conducted by Urs Peschlow in 1996,124 this process could have been going on rather slowly – even until the 40´s or 50´s of the 6th century. This would definitely affect chosen constructive methods.125 Peschlow asserts that the works were shortly ceased and plans reconfigured126 at least three times since the initiation. In the light of these changes, he believes that they were not necessarily concurrent with the ones of Hagia Sophia. The outstanding velocity of the construction of the latter was most definitely enhanced by its imperial priority, which, on the contrary, might have postponed and prolonged the rebuilding of the Ecclesia Antiqua. Furthermore, simultaneously with these two, specifically, since c. 540 until 548, another considerably capacious project was under the construction and required attention – the church of Holy Apostles.127 In favour of the long term construction of Hagia Eirene, speaks also the manner, in which aforementioned alterations were introduced. While in the case of neighbouring churches. The Emperor Justinian rebuilt it in a more magnificient fashion, and with a much greater number of rooms, and he also endowed it with a great annual revenue, in order that the sufferings of more unfortunate men may be relieved in it for the future. Insatiate as he was in his love for God, he built two other hospices opposite to this, in what are called the houses of Isidorus and , being assisted in these pious works by the Empress Theodora.“ See: PROCOPIUS, „The Buildings of Justinian“, in: The Library of the Palestine Pilgrim Text Society, Vol. II. New York 1971, Book I, part II, pp. 14-15. 122 As Peschlow initially stated in 1977, during this first “Justinian´s phase” launched sometime after the 532, shortly after the ground-breaking, few minor changes were introduced to the given plan of unfinished building. The author pointed out that there was a shift in the external shape of the apse, furthermore, north and south entrances were narrowed. Peschlow himself reconsidered and extended these hypotheses in 1996. See: PESCHLOW 1977, pp. 206, 207; Plate 10; PESCHLOW 1996. 123 MATHEWS 1971, p. 79. 124 PESCHLOW, U., „Die Baugeschichte der Irenenkirche in Istanbul neu betrachtet“, in: STRIKER, C. (ed.), Architectural Studies in Memory of Richard Krautheimer. Mainz 1996. 125 Given the fact that the earthquake of 557 damaged the dome of Hagia Sophia so it must have been rebuilt in a more stabile manner, methods, materials and constructive scheme of the dome unit in Hagia Eirene would have been probably reflecting this newer version, supposing, of course, it had not been build before 557. Nevertheless, Peschlow speaks rather about „educated guesses“ we can make, concerning the looks of the original concept. 126 Three sub-phases are delineated for the 6th century, based on the material analysis and new findings in the south-eastern and northern area. The most essential changes introduced were: reinforcing, thickening of the original walls, therefore, reducing the aisles´ width by c. 80 cm; the eastern end of the church, the apse, was moved westwards on the present position. See: PESCHLOW 1996, pp. 135-136. 127 KRAUTHEIMER, R., „A Note on Justinian´s Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople (1964)“, in: ACKERMAN, J. S., et al. (ed.), Studies in Early Christian, Medieval, and Renaissance Art. New York – London 1969, p. 197. 22

Hagia Sophia, if changes were made,128 they were implemented organically in the already existing mass without a disturbance – a result of the fast construction; the corrections Hagia Eirene has undergone, seem more radical.129 It appears that building works started more or less concurrently in each point of the site,130 following the first plan. However, when planes changed, several sections of the original masonry were abandoned or completely dismantled – for instance, the section of projecting wall on the south-eastern corner. [Fig. 1]

Thus, Hagia Eirene retained on the ground level characteristics of the supposed former structure, yet, it was combined with a contrasting model of shaping the space – the central dome. The church was built again as a monumental three-aisled, domed basilica with atrium – two latter were almost identical in length and width,131 with a narthex in between as a convergent element. This 6th century ground disposition, irrespective of later subsidiary interventions, has been preserved until today.132 It should be added that some repairs were certainly needed after the fire of 563/564,133 anyhow, the precise extent of these restorations remained for many years the matter of discussion.

It was in 1913, when George formulated a hypothesis later adopted by Krautheimer and Mathews, that western part of the church – both atrium and narthex, was ruined and underwent overall redesign. The narthex, according to George, stood originally almost 8 meters further to the east, defined on each side by two western piers.134 It was said to be moved just after the fire of 564 further to the west on the present position, thus, prolonging the disposition. [Fig. 2] George suggested different chronology according to his observation of the material variety – while the naos consists mainly of stonework, the narthex and atrium are constructed predominantly out of bricks.135 This hypothesis found an opposition in later studies of Grossmann, Strube or Peschlow who presented this alteration rather as the result of an economic choice136 or common ,137 and consequently, they regarded the narthex and atrium as coherent sections of the

128 For instance, the secondary reinforcement of the static system of bearing pillars or change in the scheme of galleries. 129 PESCHLOW 1996, p. 136. 130 The atrium and narthex not excluded. 131 According to the George´s plan, measured by the central axis, the body of church including the narthex is c. 59 m long and c. 50 m excluding it, while for the atrium it is c. 55 m with and c. 46 m without the narthex. 132 It is especially the elevation of space which changed more radically after the last byzantine rebuilding in the 8th century. 133 Based on Chronographia: „Hoc anno (...) caeterum mense Decembri magnum incendium exortum est, quo Sampsonis hospitum peregrinis recipiendis destinatum omnio consumptum, aedes ad Rufi partem anteriorem, medii quoque ad magnam ecclesiam atrii aedificium, cui militum statio nomen factum, duo quoque monasteria ad sanctam Irenem posita, nec non eiusdem ad mediam aream structura, et narthecis ipsius ecclesiae bona pars flammis devastata.“ A.M. 6056, A.C. 556, A.D.563/564. 134 GEORGE 1913, pp. 75-76. 135 The narthex walls show brickwork, with thin courses of stone inserted in rather broad distance, while large- scale blocks of lime stone were used for the aisles and naos. See: GEORGE 1913, p. 64. 136 GROSSMANN 1965, p. 206; STRUBE 1973, pp. 107-108. 137 This praxis, i.e. the use of different building techniques and materials within one structure or even within one specific wall, is not an uncommon feature in the Constantinople of the 5th-6th centuries, Hagia Eirene not excluded: 23 body of church from the first Justinian´s phase.138 Preserved parts of the byzantine atrium are not particularly numerous: the north and south wall, five pillars of the south arcade and two west ones of the north arcade. These, as well as three northernmost vaulted bays of the western portico, were attributed to the period around 532.139

Considering the body of the church only, the more centralized disposition with the narthex placed further to the east is on a first glance suspiciously symmetrical. Nonetheless, in this case, the atrium would have to be unusually prolonged, therefore, the ratio between the length of the church and the atrium would seem to be rather odd.140 Also, arguments explaining decision for the hypothetical relocation of the narthex remained unspoken.

II. THROUGH THE ATRIUM TO THE NARTHEX For the more lifelike description of the 6th century Hagia Eirene, we will use a same method as Bjeljaev in 1894, and we will start with the westernmost part of the edifice, following the motion of an individual entering from the west.141 Sadly, such a sequential movement is impossible today, since the atrium, heavily rebuilt in ottoman era and blocked by new structures on its westernmost side, is closed to the public.

The main body of the U-shaped atrium was in all likelihood preceded by the portico of seven bays on the west. This portico, with a slightly irregular plan with and widening tendency towards its north-west corner,142 might have been semi-opened and approachable via seven arched entrances from its front. Its irregularity could be explained as an attempt to communicate with the adjacent complex or as a consequence of respecting a pre-existing street line or structure. Each of its terminal bays used to have an to the side as well. Yet, from the portico to the inner, circle passageway of the atrium itself, we might only enter through three doorways – one on the central axis opposite the main entrance of the church and one on each side leading to barrel vaulted corridors143.

Moving forward through the middle , we would enter the vaulted passageway of the atrium itself. These arcaded passages encircled three sides of the inner court, while on the east, three arched entrances provided

PESCHLOW 1977, p. 85. Rather, the combination of greenstone blocks with a brickwork is a pure Constantinopolitan method, characteristic for the Justinianic period. See: PESCHLOW 1996, p. 134. 138 A possibility of minor restorations was not completely refused. See: GROSSMANN 1965, p. 206; STRUBE 1973, p. 116; PESCHLOW 1977, p. 211; TADDEI 2011, p. 886. 139 STRUBE 1973, p. 111, Tafel III. 140 Measurements, including the thickness of the walls would be approximately 50 m for the church and 55 m for the atrium. 141 Possibility to enter was not restricted to the western side of the atrium only. Originally, there were multiple entrances from the each side of the complex. Two on the east facade flanking the apse, three on each north and the south side leading into the aisles and two lateral on both sides of the atrium. 142 Description of the atrium and main body of the church is based predominantly on Peschlow´s plans. See: PESCHLOW 1977, Plates 10, 11. Usage of a different reconstructive proposition will be listed in the footnotes. 143 For various solutions lateral passageways of the atrium could have adopted, including the question about the second storey, see: GROSSMANN 1965, pp. 200-204. 24 an access to the narthex.144 The court arcade was most probably of a simple triple scheme:145 on each side three couples of columns split from another couple with a pier. The scheme of piers was 5 x 4 x 5 due to the insertion of one extra span on the west, therefore, the atrium became slightly longer along the main axis. At this point, we should mention different reconstruction proposed by Strube,146 who placed the arcaded passageway parallel with the narthex, one span further to the east. [Fig. 3] Thus, in her opinion, the inner court would have been almost square shaped and western corridor widened. The north and south walls of the structure had two doorways themselves – first in the easternmost part and second approximately in the middle. Entrances of the south wall led into parallel vaulted corridor interconnected with a ramp, which proceeded upwards to the gallery level of the church.

Moving further into the narthex using the main entrance, we would find ourselves in the middle of five bays, which double-storeyed narthex still has today. Three central ones are rectangular and alike in width, likewise, two on each extremity of the narthex are identical, though, on a square plan. The central bay, as well as the two bays adjacent to it, were topped with a domical while the two terminal ones were covered with a groin vault. These corner bays of the narthex communicate equally with aisles of the church and passages of the atrium, yet neither the northern nor the southern extremity of the narthex has ever had a door leading outside.

The western half of the church complex is undoubtedly balanced. The entrance portico and the narthex were mirroring themselves materially, as well as ideologically. Thus, they were constituting two, in volume akin zones serving as two visible thresholds for an individual directing to a sacred space.

III. THROUGH THE NARTHEX TO THE NAOS Similar to the narthex, the main body of Hagia Eirene was accessible by five entrances. Three central arches led to the nave, and the two remaining ones, originally framed by marble slabs, led to aisles. The conception of the inner space could be described as a “threefold” in every way. In a horizontal sense, following the north-south axis, three compartments are the naos and two aisles on its sides. On the west-east axis, the space unfolds from the western bay terminated by massive piers, through the central zone (topped with a cupola) to the easternmost, principal area consisting of a bema and crowned by the semi-domed apse. The “threefold” scheme should also be visible on the vertical axis. Specifically, the elevation of the space which is divided into the floor level with the arcade, U shaped galleries over the narthex and aisles, and the uppermost zone with the dome on . Still, we cannot be certain of the way the interior looked like

144 Three out of five in total. Doorways were likewise in between the south / north passageway and the narthex, therefore, uninterrupted walkway connected the easternmost corner of the church with the westernmost part of the atrium. 145 PESCHLOW 1977, p. 209. 146 STRUBE 1973, p. 111. 25 in 6th century,147 since the elevation starting with the springing of aisle vaults is design of the 8th century remodelling.148

IV. A POSSIBLE ELEVATION There are however several characteristics of the interior on which scholars agreed.149 To introduce these, we will follow our sight and turn directly to the liturgical centre. Reconstructions of the easternmost area, seem to be always the same. There was an apse with a synthronon150 and three window openings in the middle. The apse was polygonal on the outside and round on the inside. Closer to the viewer, i.e. further to the west, there was a bema delineated by a short barrel vault. On each side of the apse, there were two square groin vaulted spaces151 interconnected with the bema, adjacent aisles as well as with the exterior.152 Same disposition was in all likelihood repeated on the level of galleries, including openings to the bema.

From the bema vault further to the west, we get into the zone crowned with the dome on pendentives springing from four massive pillars, probably without the tambour.153 The question of window openings in the dome, whether they were (G) or were not present (P), is unfortunately unsolvable.154 On the ground level, parts of the aisles adjacent to this central bay were divided from the naos by an arcade, constituted by two (P) or four columns (G) and probably groin vaulted.155 Yet, if we consider placement of original, now blocked side entrances156 and their hypothetical relation to the arcade, two-column solution seems to be more likely. In that case, none of the entrances would have been facing the column, and three vaulted bays in each aisle emerging from this division, would have been of the correspondent size to the western ones.157 The arches on the south and north side carrying the dome, might have been on the gallery level screened with a simple or double storey arcade, similarly as on the floor level (P; G).158 A gallery level might as well

147 MATHEWS 1971, pp. 79, 83. 148 In this case, except vaults of the narthex, which survived almost coherently from the phase of 532. 149 Description based predominantly on Peschlow´s plans, see: PESCHLOW 1977, Plate 11. For different propositions of the elevation, see: GEORGE 1913, p. 75; Fig. 37; MATHEWS 1971, p. 82; Fig. 42. 150 There is a discrepancy amidst the older historiography and Peschlow in the precise date of the synthronon´s mass itself, since the range of necessary reconstructions after the 740 is blurred. Despite this fact, its existence is securely attributed since the 6th century. See: MATHEWS 1971, pp. 66, 85; PESCHLOW 1977, pp. 92, 110. 151 These rectangular rooms were primarily intended simply as entrance spaces. See: MATHEWS 1971, p. 84. 152 In the line to the north east side of the church exterior, remnants of the small circular structure were uncovered. Recognized as skeuophylakion and placed into the 6th century disposition by Dirimtekin while in the later Peschlow’s research, the structure was left without assigning particular function and attributed as concurrent to 8th century additions and restorations. See: DIRIMTEKIN 1962, p. 11; PESCHLOW 1977, pp. 61-62. 153 PESCHLOW 1977, p. 208. 154 Abbreviations (P) for PESCHLOW 1977 and (G) for GEORGE 1913 will be used further in the text, if necessary, to distinguish to whom the hypothesis should be attributed. 155 George‘s propositions were later adopted by Mathews. 156 Namely, two on the north and one on the south side, leading to the central part of aisles. 157 Today‘s scheme of the arcades of four columns does not coincide with entrances. All three of them would had been „blocked“. Naturally, given the generous width of the aisles, such a juxtaposition would not effected a function of entrances, yet, in a visual sense, this solution could not be marked as an ideal or premeditated. 158 The design of galleries‘ screens could have been similar to those of Hagia Sophia. 26 adopt various kinds of roofing; from a simple barrel vault and flat, table roof, to transverse barrel vaults with galleries underneath, opened to the space as visible today.159 [Fig. 4]

Finally, the western bay of the church was covered with a massive barrel vault as a continuation of the central arch carrying the dome. Approximately in the middle, this vault was reinforced by a belt springing from the middle couple of piers. On the floor, as well as on the gallery level, an arched opening was present on each side of these piers, communicating with a nave.160 Within that, we got back again on the edge of the narthex. On its gallery level, the narthex by all means adopted similar scheme of a screened arcade, as used in the eastern bay. The upper storey of the narthex with its vaults and major sections of the western façade were subsequently rebuilt, either after the 740 earthquake, or even later, in the Turkish times.161

V. FURNISHING AND DECORATION Still visible remains of the former decorative program of Hagia Eirene attributed to the 6th centuryare not numerous. We could divide them into two main groups: decorative stonework and mosaics. As representatives of the first group, there are capitals and probably also shafts of arcade columns; two massive marble in the western wall of the narthex162; marble doors in the easternmost part of both aisles; traces of a subtile marble lining on the bottom of the northern pier in the nave; marble transennae on the western gallery and finally the synthronon. The marble revetment of interior walls – the essential and in extent also major part of the stone decoration is completely missing though.163 Today, only holes in the plain walls testify that Hagia Eirene was once embellished completely. The rest of indispensable church furnishings – altar, , ambo164 or choir barriers - most certainly made out of marble and decorated, are lost almost without a trace. If we consider that even golden tesserae were said to be picked out due to their supposed value, one can easily surmise the similar fate befell even the beautiful marble embellishment.165 However, during the excavations of 1974 in the east of Hagia Eirene, two marble slabs were found. One was subsequently identified as an altar base with modest measures of 92x60cm, in form

159 GEORGE 1913, p. 76. 160 Design proposed by George was quite different, determined by the narthex placed further to the east. Even though, in author‘s reconstruction, there is an extra column inserted on the each side of the westernmost part of the nave creating a short, double archway. On the contrary, a simple arch between two piers was suggested by Peschlow, for as much as it seems the adjacent bays in side aisles were covered by a single vault. 161 STRUBE 1973, pp. 108-116. 162 TADDEI 2011, p. 885. 163 In 1808 Dallaway noted the interior was „embelished with marble and mosaics.“ It is impossible to make assumptions based on this brief note, yet, we can think of a possibility that Hagia Eirene was deprived of its marble revetment as late as in the first half of 19th century, due to conversion into Military Museum. 164 In the 9th century, patriarch of Constantinople Photios, mentions ambo from Hagia Eirene in VI: „Φωτίου τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ὁμιλία τρίτη, λεχθεῖσα ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι τῆς ἁγίας Εἰρήνης τῇ ἁγίᾳ Παρασκευῇ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν τῆς κατὰ συνήθειαν κατηχήσεως.“ See: LAOURDAS, B., Ἑλληνικὰ 12, Παράρτημα. Thessalonica 1857-1866, p. 62. (Ttranslated by in: MANGO, C., The of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Cambridge 1958.) 165 GEORGE 1913, p. 56: „In the case of the trellis pattern, many of the gold tesserae had been picked out for the sake of their brightness or their supposed value, before the covering coat of plaster was put on.“ 27 rectangular with one central, squared perforation and four squared hollows, one in each corner. This kind is said to be representing the normal type of a basis, in a similar shape known from Grado, Aquileia, Ravenna or Nikaia.166 Remains of the former mosaic decoration are even scarcer than the rests of the stonework. Few small fragments of colorful geometric ornaments are visible on vaults of the nartex as well as on its main arch leading to the naos. Considering the complicated chronology of the church mass, the narhex stays, in fact, the only place where the 6th century mosaics could have been preserved.

THE STONEWORK

CAPITALS OF THE ARCADE Secondary division of the 6th century inner space in Hagia Eirene was, to some extent, different compared to the present state. As far as we have accepted Peschlow´s reconstruction, the original plan used only four columns on the lower level, thus, creating a triple arcade on each side. Although the question of the manner of screening the galleries stays open, a triple composition seems plausible as well.167 In this case, the number of preserved column capitals would be in concordance with their 6th century sum.

Today, exactly ten marble capitals are present in the church naos. At first glance, they are indistinguishable. They are of a simple, splayed cubic shape with a cushion on the top decorated with a few straight lines. At the bottom part there are two scroll-like “ionic” volutes presented and simple relief floral ornaments. One side of each capital bears a , while the other side shows a cross.168 This specific type bears a close resemblance to simple 5th - 6th century imposts, possible to be found in almost identical form in Ephesus, Salonica, Constantinople, Poreč as well as in Ravenna.169 Attribution of the capitals to the Justinian’s building phase has never been questioned, due to monograms they carry. They are possible to be determined as of four types: three presenting the emperor’s name - IOVCTINIANOV, three with Theodora’s name - ΘΕΟΔΩΡΑC, two with indistinguishable AVΓOVCTAC or AVΓOVCTOV and last two showing BACIΛΕΩC.170 [Fig. 5-7]

Even though the elementary scheme that the capitals have adopted is consistent, differences are noticeable in two main aspects. The monograms and crosses differ formaly, as well as in quality of work. Capitals of

166 See: PESCHLOW 1977, p. 190; PESCHLOW, U., „Altar und Reliquie. Form und Nutzung des frühbyzantinischen Reliquienaltars in Konstantinopel“, in: ALTRIPP, M.; NAUERTH, C. (eds), Architektur und Liturgie. Akten des Kolloquiums vom 25. bis 27. Juli 2003 in Greifswald. Wiesbaden 2006, p. 182, Abb. 4, 13. 167 Triple arcade on each side of the central bay galleries, as well as on the gallery level over the narthex. The western bay was on the ground level probably completely without columns. 168 For the useful scheme of monograms see: GEORGE 1913, p. 21; Fig. 7. 169 See: The Church of Saint John in Ephesus, c. 548-565; The Church of Acheiropoietos in Thessalonica, c. 450- 470; Basilica of Saint John in Stoudios in Constantinople, c. 450; Beyazit basilica A in Constantinople, 6th century; Ipek Bodrum cistern in Constantinople; The Euphrasian Basilica in Poreč, c. 553; The Church of San Vitale in Ravenna, c. 526-547; Sant‘Apollinare in Classe in Ravenna, c. 534-549. 170 For more see: GEORGE 1913, pp. 20-21; Plates 12, 16. Similar monograms is possible to spot in Hagia Sophia or Hagios Sergios and Bacchos in Constantinople, as well as in the Basilica of Saint Marco in Venice. 28 the south aisle (n. 6-10)171 are more balanced, they have smooth finish on all surfaces, crosses are alike and subtile decorative motifs amidst, as well as on the volutes, are preserved. [Fig. 6, 9] The north aisle offers a slightly more heterogeneous result. [Fig. 7, 8] Four out of five (n. 2-5) capitals are showing more rough maniera - decorative motifs of the lowermost part are irregular and flattened at the bottom, while splays with crosses and volutes seem unfinished. Also, parallel lines, most definitely traces from sculpting are still present on their surface. This lack of precision could have been interpreted as secondary, probably 8th century intervention. Thus, the four mentioned capitals could have originally served as imposts - upper part of composite capitals,172 of the ground level arcade, having undecorated, cubic shaped bottom and monograms only. It is possible to imagine that in an attempt to attain closest resemblance possible to the rest of later reused capitals (possibly originating from the demolished arcades of gallery level), volutes and decorative motifs were delineated and started to be sculpted at a bottom part of former imposts, nonetheless, due to indefinite reasons were partially left unfinished. These four capitals are each adorned with a different type of monogram, ergo, together they could have constituted and communicated a complete idea about imperial benefactors of Hagia Eirene.

MARBLE SLABS AND DOORFRAMES From within this least conspicuous collection of stonework, Hagia Eirene has preserved several subtly decorated marble doorframes and slabs. [Fig. 11] Seemingly intact former transenna is now embedded into the main arch of the western gallery, fragments of the marble moulded base are to be seen at the bottom of central north pier, while doorframes are located at their original position.173 During his research, Walter George managed to create and publish several sufficient sketches and sections of these marble pieces, clarifying their rather simple, linear decorative design.174 Thanks to these drawings, we are acquainted with an almost inivisible detail that the doorframes have in comon - a small relief cross present on their horizontal lintels. [Fig. 10] Marble slab or transena from the western gallery adopted similar simple design. It consists of two rectangular fields, each with an inscribed sphere. [Fig. 12] Enclosed within this circle, there is a relief cross again, formally akin to the others present in Hagia Eirene – a type with a widening tendency towards the ends of its arms.175 Last but not least, the subtle lining of the northern pier shows nicely

171 The order in which numbers are given: Column n. 1 is the one of the west end of the north aisle, proceeding eastwards alongside the north arcade until n. 5, and similarly, starting from n. 6 in the western end of the south aisle forward to n. 10 at its eastern end. 172 Similar type we can see, for instance, in Sant’Apollinare in Classe. Two fragments of such decorative capitals are present in the body of the church, reused as bases for columns n. 3 (north arcade) and n. 9 (south arcade). 173 These are: doorframes of two entrances to the kyklion, former entrance on the western end of the south wall, door of the east end of the north aisle, door in between the north aisle and narthex facing the latter and on the north side between atrium and narthex, and finally, the central door between atrium and narthex. MATHEWS 1971, Plates 65, 69; GEORGE 1913, Plate 24. 174 GEORGE 1913, Plates 13-15. 175 In the light of precision George dedicated to reproduce every detail of the lintels, the absence of a central cross motif within his drawings of the transenna is truly intriguing. Anyway, it is highly improbable that such a motif would be added to the slab after 1913. 29 rytmical rectangular motif alternated with a diamond shaped one, both in recessed relief and adorned with a floral detail in the middle. [Fig. 13] This very scheme was quite widespread since the end of the 5th century and often adopted on ambos176, transennae or window splays.177 [Fig. 14-15]

THE MOSAICS A person entering the 6th century church from the west would initially find himself in the narthex topped with splendidly ornamented vaults. Five last fragments of this decoration, last representatives of the mosaics Justinian’s Hagia Eirene once had, are concentrated on the vaults of its three middle bays and the central arch leading to the naos. Documented already in 1913 by Walter George, these fragments were found and left in a bad state of preservation.178 In 1962, Sezer Tansuğ, whilst trying to consolidate the situation, wrote a short report describing the mosaics but he was mainly focusing on the decorative freeze of the central arch.179 Today’s state of these fragments, most recently examined by Alessandro Taddei, was since Tansuğ’s restoration negatively affected by a fire of the wooden staircase in the 1980’s.180 Due to their unfortunate scarcity, it is not possible to reconstruct with certainity the overall program of mosaics. Even though, the two main formulas seems to have been present separately as well as interconnected in some sense. On one hand, geometric angular manner based on triangles, rectangulars and X shapes is represented on the main arch leading to the naos. [Fig. 17] On the other, there is a three-dimensional -like pattern with a soft shading, to the highest degree visible, swirling on one of the spandrels.181 [Fig. 18] Virtually, these two tendencies are impeccably entwined on the of the arch in southern bay of the central sector. There, on the golden background, the life-like floral garlands in green and are organically tangled into a diamond- shaped grid. 182 [Fig. 19] Somewhere amidst these two tendencies could be placed a small fragment from the northern arch soffit, showing encircled blue flower-like parasols183 alternating with simple rhombuses

176 For instance, ambo from Sant‘Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna or Beyazit Basilica A in Constantinople. See: GEORGE 1913, p. 63; Fig. 30-31; MATHEWS 1971, Plate 56. 177 On the window on the gallery level of Hagia Sophia or soffit of the collonade in the interior of Hagios in Constantinople. For more see: SHEPPARD, C., „Byzantine Carved Marble Slabs.“ in: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1969), pp. 65-71, especially p. 66; Fig. 7. 178 GEORGE 1913, pp. 55-56; Plates 18, 25. 179 TANSUĞ 1962, pp. 66-67. 180 TADDEI 2011, p. 887. 181 On the north-east spandrel in the northern bay of the central sector and northern arch of the northern bay. See: TADDEI 2011, Fig. 11, 12, 22; TADDEI, A., „Il mosaico parietale aniconico da Tessalonica a Costantinopoli“, in: LONGO, A. A.; CAVALLO, G.; GUIGLIA, A.; IACOBINI, A. (eds), La Sapienza bizantina: Un secolo di ricerche sulla civiltà di Bisanzio all’Università di Roma. Roma 2012, p. 165. 182 For painted reconstruction see GEORGE 1913, Plate 18. 183 TADDEI 2011, pp. 889, 892; GEORGE 1913, Plate 18. So called parasols enclosed within a circle with four sprouts is possible to find among decorative elements of Hagia Sophia as well, hence, used independently on the pendantive in the southern gallery. See: TADDEI, A., „La decorazione musiva aniconica della Santa Sofia di Costantinopoli da Giustiniano all’età mediobizantina. Alcune osservazioni“, in: RIGO, A.; BABUIN, A., TRIZIO, M. (eds), Vie per Bisanzio: VII Congresso Nazionale dell‘Associazione Italiana di Studi Bizantini, Venezia, 25-28 novembre 2009. Bari 2013, p. 376, Fig. 2a, 2b. 30 embedded in gold.184 [Fig. 16] The general colour scale of narthex mosaics relied on elementary tones of red, green, white, dark blue but mainly gold.185 As Taddei pointed out, according to the fragments we have, it is possible to infer that ornaments were limited to arches and soffits only. Rest of the vaults, thus, most of the surface, could have been covered in gold. 186 An attribution of these remains to the early 6th century phase, seems to be safely anchored at least on two levels. Firstly, speaking of technical aspects of materiality – tesserae themselves, the manner of their insertion as well as mortar joints do differ from the apse mosaic attributed to the 8th century. Secondly, there is a close stylistic resemblance to decorative patterns found within Hagia Sophia attributed to the phase c.532-537.187 [Fig. 20] With the question of stylistic resemblance among particular aniconic decorative elements found in both churches, as pointed out by Taddei, there is a recognizable “retrospective, late antique” sense of taste in case of acanthus and garland-on-grid fragments found in the narthex of Hagia Eirene.188 Needless to say, with Ecclesia Antiqua, it is neither the first, nor the last time we are confronted with traditionalism.

184 On the soffit of the northern arch in the northern bay of the central sector of the narthex. 185 TANSUĞ 1962, p. 67; TADDEI 2011, p. 894. 186 TADDEI 2011, p. 894. 187 GEORGE 1913, p. 56; TADDEI 2011, pp. 891-893. 188 TADDEI 2012, p. 165. 31

3. CONSTANTINE V AND EIRENE THE RENEWED

I. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW After 176 years which have elapsed since the fire of 564, there has to be another disaster - a major earthquake of 740, which broke the silence and direct attention of written sources to Hagia Eirene again. The church was seriously damaged just like other structures in Constantinople. And not only there, Nicomedia and Nicaea were affected as well.189 Immediately after this catastrophe, and that is to say 6 months before the death of emperor Leo III., revitalizing process commenced, most probably with a fortification system of the city as a priority. Ergo, remodelling of Hagia Eirene190 despite its significance might have been postponed a little, therefore, attributed to Leo’s son and successor, Constantine V.191 Depending on dendrochronological results emerging from analysis of the remnants of the wooden tie beam system in the south aisle arcade, we are dealing with a terminus post quem of 753.192 The observation of diverse techniques – invasive one used to insert tie beams into the aisle wall and non-invasive one carried on the arcade – have proved that the latter was constructed concurrently with the system while the main wall was already standing.193 The delay of such a reconstruction until the 750s could be explained by the peculiarity of that brief period – Constantine had to deal with civil war, plague and on-going military campaigns.194

II. THE RECONCILIATION OF THE 6th AND 8th CENTURIES The 8th century remodelling started with a more or less “bisected” structure, since as a consequence of the earthquake, it seems that the upper part of the building essentially vanished.195 Such damage could have

189 THEOPHANES, Confessor: „Hoc anno, qui Leonis tyranni et scelestissimi Isauri fuit vicesimus quartus, ab Hieracitis igne supposito Damasci tabernae combustae, criminisque poenas illi suspendio dederunt. Mensis Peritii die vicesimo octavo Edessam civitatem torens inundavit. Eodem etiam anno terrae motus ingens et tremendus mensis Octobris die vicesimo sexto, indictione nona, feria quarta, hora diei octava Cpoli contigit, quo ecclesiae et monasteria corruerunt, et e populo plurimi ruinis obruti. (...) ad haec Nicomedia in Bythinia, Praenetus et Nicaea, in qua ecclesia unica servata est, conciderunt. Nonullis in locis proprios limites mare deseruit, et menses duodecim motus ille terrae perseveravit.“ 190 NICEPHORUS, Patriarch, Breviarium Rerum Post Mauricium Gestarum (Bonnae), Impensis Ed. Weberi 1837, p. 66: „Dum haec agantur, imperator legatos ad Chazarum principem mittit, qui eius filiam peterent, quam Constantino filio despondit. Interiecto deinde aliquanto tempore Byzantium terrae motu concussum est, quo et aliae urbes ac loca non minore impetu quassata sunt. Ac tum aedes aliac et ecclesiae ac porticus deiectae, et ex ipsis fundamentis quaedam earum subversae; tum quae sanctae Irenes nomine dedicata erat concidit, haud longe a maiore ecclesia sita.(...)“ 191 VAN MILLINGEN, A., „Historical Notice“, in: GEORGE, W., The Church of Saint Eirene in Constantinople. London 1913, p. 6. 192 BRUBAKER, HALDON 2011, p. 212. 193 KUNIHOLM, STRIKER 1977, p. 234. Considering the technique, it is possible to conclude the tie beam system was meant to be permanent, similar to one present in Hagia Sophia. 194 PICKETT 2011, p.1. 195 Since we do not have any description of the state after the earthquake, we can only make assumptions based on the extent of restorations. These could have exceeded the actual damage in an attempt to adjust what had left from the previous, to the new constructive scheme. 32 been caused by the certain unbalance or lack of bilateral within the plan. Indeed, while the eastern and western sides of the dome were supported by wider barrel vaults, the northern and southern portions rested on weaker, thinner arches. The lower part – that is the ground disposition of the church with its almost intact atrium and the ground level of the narthex with its vaults as well as the westernmost part of the aisles – was preserved and reused as a base for this new overhaul. Remnants of demolished walls and piers were levelled into the same height, approximately to the springing point of the lost aisle vaults. It is according to these remaining elements that the building was completed with a new upper level consisting of a new vaulting system of the nave and galleries, new aisle vaults and arcades. Likewise, the semi-dome and synthronon in the apse were remodelled. Today, the material alterations are clearly visible, since interior as well as exterior are deprived of any plaster. Since from the years after the earthquake we do not have any descriptions of the actual state of preservation, assumptions we make could be based only on the extent of restorations. We cannot exclude, though, these could have exceeded the actual damage, in an attempt to adjust what had left from the previous, to the new constructive scheme. [Fig. 21]

DESCRIPTION OF THE ARCHITECTURE

THE VAULTING SYSTEM OF THE NAOS As major innovations implemented into the superstructure of Hagia Eirene after 740, we can mention the massive transverse barrel vaults added to the north and south sides of the church, two on each side.196 Thus, the second largest dome in Constantinople was erected again on a solid tambour pierced with 20 windows, resting on pendentives springing from the four, now equally wide vaults.197 These 8th century additions were coherently modelled out of bricks. [Fig. 23]

A very similar solution was applied also in the western bay, even though it lacked the symmetrical characteristics, what aroused in the eliptical pseudo-cupola or domical vault. One has to ask, why such a confounding design was chosen. After the damages of 740, the solidity of the superstructure and an increase in resistance to earthquakes was most certainly the crucial question. As it seems that the previous wide-span barrel vault did not provide the expected stability, an innovation, to some extent determined by the preexisting walls, was seeked.

Most of the historiography, if ever, alludes to this domical vault as a forced necessity.198 Considering the visual aspect only, we would say that it is possible to observe the essence of Ousterhout’s words materializing: what may seem odd represented in a ground plan, can in fact work flawlessly while perceived

196 OUSTERHOUT 1999, p. 202; OUSTERHOUT 2001, p. 8. 197 The dome has almost 15 meters in width. BRUBAKER, HALDON 2011, p. 212. 198 For instance VAN MILLINGEN 1912, p. 101: “For it is difficult to imagine that a Byzantine architect with free hand would choose to built such a vault.” 33 in situ. Regardless the irregularity and slight shallowness, the western vault does operate as a pleasant and harmonic counterpart to the central dome, creating an intermediate step in the gradation of space units. It was erected with reduced elevation, possibly in order not to interrupt a provision of light stemming from the tambour to the apse. Therefore, it is hard to believe that such a harmonic result would not have been anticipated, premeditated and chosen deliberately. Or, in the opposite , that in the case of Ecclesia Antiqua would not be possible to adjust 6th century building leftovers, if a different scheme would have been more desirable.

THE VAULTING SYSTEM OF AISLES AND GALLERIES The church galleries, now vaulted, stayed open and were presumably screened only by a short barrier.199 This openess of the new composition in fact created an inscribed cross plan on the gallery level. The mass of outer walls filling the arches was pierced with a great multitude of windows – 13 on each side of the central bay galleries and 9 in the western bay respectively.200 On the ground level, there are 5 windows on the south and 4 on the north side of the central area, corresponding to the intercolumniations of the arcade. In the apse itself, there are 3 more as well as 4 on the western facade.201 It almost looks like an attempt to open every horizontal portion of the superstructure that does not possess a static function with a window. The generosity of light, openness of the design, and the presumed highly reflective marble surfaces, must have created an exceptionally bright and aerial space. On one hand, such shining and mirroring surfaces could have felt to spectators as grandiose and created a sense of “unearthly”, on the other, they are not visually invasive. The vaulting system above the side aisles bearing the galleries has likewise adopted a new, more solid constructive scheme. From every column of the arcade springs a thick arched belt towards the main wall, thus delineating narrow bays. These short sequences in between arched thrusts are barrel vaulted, but again, in a transverse manner. It is on these vaults of the south aisle that we find the unique evidence of the 8th century fresco decoration. [Fig. 22] Spandrels of the arcade are rather elongated, what offers the arched belts enough mass to spring and make the arches of the arcade tighter themselves. The springers are resting on aforementioned reused capitals and imposts from the 6th century, decorated on the side facing the naos

199 GEORGE 1913, p. 34. 200 Hagia Eirene was used as one of the scrutinized examples during the Nesbitt’s research on light in byzantine churches an their potential vs. actual lighting area. Generally speaking, the preference or manner of illumination was since early basilicas leading to rather more obscure effect in middle byzantine churches, often compensated with an premeditated artificial lighting. Hagia Eirene after 740, represent the openness and generous illumination of the first, but already possesing architectural features characteristic for the latter. As well, author presented a fragment from a “grid shaped” window mullion of Hagia Eirene. See: NESBITT, C., „Shaping the sacred: light and the experience of worship in middle Byzantine churches“, in: Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2 (2012). Birmingham 2012, pp. 139-160, especially pp. 148, 150, 152; Fig. 2. 201 Nonetheless, the western area, especially the second storey and facade of the narthex were heavily remodelled in Ottoman era. See: STRUBE 1973, pp. 108, 115. 34 with crosses and toward the side aisles with imperial monograms.202 However, the obviously lacking consistency among column shafts and bases offers a rather puzzling impression. Hence, it is possible to presume that the arcades were remodelled once more, probably after the 1453. The original column shafts might have been extracted and substituted with the present, less appealing ones. As an argument in favor of this later intervention, we can consider the fragment of marble transena showing the monogram of Constantin V (741–775), embedded under the base of the column n.3 in the north arcade. [Fig. 24]

DESCRIPTION OF THE DECORATION

THE SYNTHRONON We might commence again from the easternmost part of Hagia Eirene, with one of the focal points of liturgical movement and drama, the synthronon.203 This structure is oscillating somewhere between an architecture and liturgical furnishings. Yet, its monumental scale confidently crosses the line of pure functionality in a favour of the visual effect. In size almost identical to the one which originally resided in Hagia Sophia, here, it certainly does offer different proportional result, taking into account the ratio between measurements of both churches and the synthronon itself.204 Also, the axial tendency of Hagia Eirene´s inner space, manifestly leads our sight - similarly as all horizontal lines - to the apse, rounded by a conch from above. And it is the synthronon what creates a converging counterpart, harmonizing the view from the bottom.

It has six steps with seven squared openings, inserted amidst the 3rd and 4th scale, providing a light to its vaulted core.205 Thus, running underneath the steps themselves, the vaulted core has a form of passage or kyklion with two entrances, one on each side. Due to perforations, the middle “scale-bench” was divided into eight shorter sequences, resembling individual seating places. [Fig. 25] The base of the synthronon is formed from stone blocks, scales themselves are shaped out of bricks. [Fig. 26] Two entrances into kyklion, show marble door frames moulded in a same manner, as those preserved in the narthex, or aisles. Thanks

202 This orientation is traditionally explained as an attempt of Constantin V to diminish the visibility of Justinian’s and Theodora’s monograms. See: VAN MILLINGEN 1912, p. 100. 203 In Constantinople, synthronons were once present also in Hagia Sophia, church of the Chalkoprateia, Hagia Euphemia, Hagios Ioannes Studios and probably Holy Apostles. See: MATHEWS 1971, pp. 27, 66, 85, 109. Especially for Hagia Euphemia see: BELTING, H.; NAUMANN, R., Die Euphemia-Kirche am Hippodrom zu Istanbul und ihre Fresken. Berlin 1966, pp. 93-94. 204 As described in 563 by Paulus Silentiarius in Descriptio Sanctae Sophiae et ambonis, verse 352: „...The middle one [conch] is girded by the priestly seats and steps ranged in a circle: the lowest part of them is drawn close together round a center on the ground, but as they rise, they widen out little by little until they reach the stalls of silver, and so in ever-increasing circles they wheel round the curved wall (kerai) that stands above them.“ The synthronon of Hagia Sophia should have been of seven steps and only 1m broader than the one in Hagia Eirene, which measures c. 11,6 m. See: SILENTIARII, Pauli. Descriptio S. Sophiae et Ambonis. (Bonnae) Impensis ed. Weberi 1887. 205 In a present time, height of individual scales is in between 0.55 - 0.6 m except the top one, which is 0.45 m. MATHEWS 1971, p. 85. 35 to the absence of traces from the marble revetment under the synthronon but present above the object,206 there is no doubt it was part of the original 6th century plan.207 Seemingly, there once was a full marble revetment present208 as well as some kind of substructure - possibly a wooden staircase - for climbing to the uppermost scale. It is supposed that only this top one was intended for sitting. Since altitude of steps is rather over the limit for comfortable ascending, such an implement was likely needed. Horizontal surfaces of the scales are now covered with marble plates. This revetement could be of a later date, considering the fact, this area was heavily restored.

Nonetheless, neither the cathedra nor any traces of its hypothetical location have been found on the site. The reason of such a non-attendance is unfortunately obscure. As one of the possible solutions could be proposed the later, modern remodelling, since its complete absence in the original plan would be rather surprising in the case of the Patriarchal Church. If we take into account Belting’s and Naumann’s reconstruction of the 6th century synthronon in Hagia Euphemia, the structure of incomparably smaller dimensions and without the “patriarchal” role,209 still, authors have presumed the episcopal present.210 The essentialy same reconstruction was proposed for the older, 5th century basilica of Saint John in Stoudios, even though only two and a half steps of the synthronon were uncovered.211 If not built-in, we can think about the cathedra as being non-inherent, separately constructed unit in a similar manner as auxiliary staircase, having the synthronon as a base on which it was placed. Then, its absence could have been interpreted equally as the scarcity of other church furnishings – natural disintegrating or intentional abolishment.212

The question of a specific function or usage of synthronoi cannot be answered in general, since various forms and broad geographic, as well as chronological range in which they have been occuring, do suggest diverse utilization customized for certain pieces on specific places.213 From a simple, single bench type, to a

206 The apse wall is homogenous (stone blocks) up to the level of windows and attributed into 6th century. 207 PESCHLOW 1977, p. 110. 208 Also, on various points right under these plates it is possible to spot patches of modern mortar. The synthronon was later used as a stage for exhibiting war trophies. For more, see: DALLEGIO D’ALLESIO, E., „Les armes croisés au musée militaire de Stamboul (Ancien dépôt de Sainte-Irène)“, in: Échos d'Orient, tome 25, n°144 (1926). Istanbul 1926. 209 It is necessary to mention that synthronoi with a cathedra are not found exclusively in episcopal churches. There are several examples found within monastic enviroment. See: MARINIS, V., Architecture and Ritual in the Churches of Constantinople: Ninth to Fifteenth Centuries. Cambridge 2014, p. 28. 210 BELTING, NAUMANN 1966, p. 93. 211 MATHEWS 1971, p. 27. 212 Given the fact the synthronon of Hagia Eirene was restored in the 8th century under Constantin V, the question of its possible function will be dealt in the conclusive part of this work, in order to prevent anachronism of the text. 213 For diverse solutions adopted in Syria, differences between Eastern and Western provinces, bema-throne, synthronon in basilica A in Resafa etc. See: LOOSLEY, E., The Architecture and Liturgy of the Bema in Fourth- to Sixth-Century Syrian Churches. Leiden – Boston 2012, pp. 48-50, 67, 73; TAFT, R. F., „Some Notes on the Bema in the East and West Syrian Traditions“ (Orientalia Christiana Periodica 34. Rome 1968), in: Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond, Variorum Collected Studies Series, Vol. 493. Aldershot 1995, pp. 326-359. 36 multi-stepped, but rather small, up to a monumental, multi-stepped structures with a passage, side niches or basins.214 Focusing on the type with kyklion, and speaking not only for Hagia Eirene, neither the particular relationship between and synthronon, nor the specific function of a passage underneath, have been sufficiently explained yet. Walter George suggested, the passage is simply a residual space consequential to the method followed in the construction. However, as he admitted, it may have been secondary used for liturgical purposes.215

Even though we should probably stay away from modern “form follows function” while analyzing a byzantine architecture, it is hard to believe, that if not liturgical as such, at least a minor or auxiliary purpose was not intended for kyklion from the beginning. Since, on one hand, if the perforations were part of the original structure, their subsequent adoption even within the 8th century redesign would suggest either simple formal repetition, or, their indispensable role due to preserved function of the passage. On the other, even if the 6th century structure did not originally possess these openings, given their addition in the 8th century, the function of the synthronon’s passage and its openings - although possibly newly acquired or changed - would be implicitly confirmed, at least for the era after c.750.

By all means, synthronon was the aim of the First Entrance in the beginning of the Liturgy of the Word.216 In this point, there was no difference between the liturgy of early christian Constantinople with all its openness and and the later rite, evolving into more introverted and private form.217 The celebrant bishop, after ascending up the synthronon, would greet the congregation with ’ words: “Peace be with you all.”218 Considering the dedication of the church, such a proclamation of the Peace, if somewhere, given from the most prominent place in Hagia Eirene, must have been exceptionally resonating.

214 Besides the Constantinopolitan examples, existence of multistepped synthronoi with a passage is attested also in (basilica in Korone; basilica in Mane; basilica of Hagios Nikon in Sparta attributed to the 7th-8th centuries). These are said to be preserving the older, early christian tradition, given the fact, the general tendency was rather to reduce measures as well as number of scales of synthronoi. See: ALTRIPP, M., „Beobachtungen zu Synthronoi und Kathedren in byzantinischen Kirchen Griechenlands“, in: Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Vol. 124. Athens 2000, pp. 377-412, especially p. 379; MATHEWS 1971, p. 179. 215 GEORGE 1913, p. 28. 216 In the first entrance the book was transferred from the altar into the nave and then back to the altar. In the early Christian period, the character was more processional and dynamic. For more see: MARINIS, V., „Some Notes on the Functional Approach in the Study of Byzantine Architecture: The Case of Constantinople“, in: BORK, R.; CLARK, W.; McGEHEE, A. (eds), New Approaches to Medieval Architecture. Farnham 2011, pp. 21-33, especially pp. 22, 30; MARINIS, V., „Defining Liturgical Space“, in: STEPHENSON, P. (ed.), The Byzantine World. London – New York 2010, pp. 285-286. 217 MARINIS 2010, pp. 285-286. 218 TAFT, R. F., „The Liturgy of the Great Church: an initial synthesis of structure and interpretation on the eve of Iconoclasm“ (Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34-35. Washington, D.C. 1980-1981), in: Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond, Variorum Collected Studies Series, Vol. 493. Aldershot 1995, p. 52, 55; DOIG, A., Liturgy and Architecture from the Early Church to the . Farnham – Burlington 2008, p. 75; See e.g.: 2Thess 3:16; Jn 14:27. 37

To get a broader frame, we could employ, as well, secondary textual allusions to the matter. For instance, the one from Synaxaristes, speaking about a translation of the remains of by Theodosius II in 427. Before their intended sepulture in the church of Holy Apostles, they were brought into Hagia Eirene, placed upon bishop´s cathedra (σινθρονον) while congregation was said to be gathered around and shouting „O Saint, recieve back thy throne!“219 Furthermore, as pointed out by Mathews, the 10th century offers a description of the celebration of Annunciation feast in the basilica of Theotokos in Chalkoprateia,220 where once resided much the same synthronon as in Hagia Eirene.221 When the liturgy ended, emperor was said to be descending from the gallery level using the inner wooden staircase, passing “through” or “under” the synthronon, yet reffered as διδασκαλειω222 and only afterwards leaving the church. Sadly, we can only guess what could have been the connotation of such an act or if it was a routine part of the Annunciation feast. Even though these questions can not be answered with certainity, it can be assumed, that besides a strictly liturgical function, the synthronon in Hagia Eirene could have been used for auxiliary liturgical acts as well.223

THE FRESCOES OF THE SOUTH AISLE Regardless their singularity in the context of Constantinople, the 8th century aniconic frescoes preserved in the south aisle of Hagia Eirene have been marginalized.224 To find out what could be the possible reason of such neglection, one does not have to look very far; the most probable answer is shimmering inside the conch of the same church, in the mosaic decoration that has attracted most of the attention. Nevertheless, last patches of colourful plaster are concentrated on the vaults and arched belts in between two piers in the western end of the south aisle, on the ceiling of the passage inside the pier itself, as well as on the vault of

219 Synaxaristes, January 20. After VAN MILINGEN in GEORGE 1913, p. 4 220 „In the tenth century the protocol for the feast of the Annunciation was the same as the standard procession for great feasts described in ch. I of the Book of Ceremonies, unless Annunciation fell on the Sunday of the third week of Lent (as it did in 865), in which case the order of events was different: the emperor paid but a short visit to St. Sophia, and heard the liturgy in the church of St. Mary Chalkoprateia.“ See: MANGO, C., The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Cambridge 1958, p. 136 (Note on Homily VII). 221 As it seems from the miracle story written by oikonomos Elias in the first half of the 9th century, the apse mosaic which originally depicted Annunciation was later replaced by a cross by Constantin V. For more see: MANGO, C., „The Chalkoprateia Annunciation and the Pre-Eternal “, in: Δελτίον XAE 17 (1993-1994), Περίοδος Δ'. Στη μνήμη της Ντούλας Μουρίκη (1934-1991). Athens 1994, pp. 165-170. 222 MATHEWS 1971, p. 31; De Ceremoniis (Bonnae.), p. 162, The word διδασκαλειω means literary „teaching“, As it seems, it was used by Theophanes as an allusion to the synthronon, the place for teaching the Word of God. Compare it with DOIG 2008, p. 77: „The semicircular synthronon represented the teaching and magisteral authority of the celebrant, standing in the place of Christ. The repeated representations in the Early of Christ teaching, seated in the semi-circle of his disciples, contained for the faithful a very specific point of comparison with the view the had every Sunday of the bishop teaching, seated in the semi-circle of his clergy.“ 223 Given the fact the structure is work of both 6th and 8th centuries, the question of a possible usage and significance will be dealt independently, within the conclusive part of this thesis and in the context of the latter only. 224 TADDEI 2011, p. 887.; PICKETT 2011, p. 3. 38 the easternmost transverse bay, around the entrance and inside the passage of the adjacent pier.225 Similarly to the mosaics in the narthex, these frescoes have adopted few repetitive formulas, dependent on the structural unit they cover.

Starting from the east, all over the barrel vault inside the passage, a homogeneous circular, carpet-like raster was delineated. There is always one smaller circle226 inserted amidst four bigger spheres, all of them circumfusing a typized flower. Since the state of preservation is rather poor, what is left offers a somewhat plain, two dimensional effect. However, after a closer look, it becomes visible that the simple dark lines delineating the pattern are actually round scrolls whirling in infinite manner. [Fig. 27] We already encountered the same formula – adopting an intermediate, “circular crossing”, inserted in between major circles – within the narthex,227 where only the floral garland was used. [Fig. 19] Considering the still preserved shades and glazes, the flowers inscribed within the circles, as well as the scrolls themselves, we can conclude that the frescoes were painted in a simple, yet three-dimensional manner. Within the 8th century attributions, it is possible to find a similar solution, yet more ornamental, adorning the vault of the church of Hagios Nikolaos at Myra.228 [Fig. 28]

Moving slightly westwards, the recessed vertical wall closely rounding the arched passageway is covered with acanthus leaves on a plain background, creating a lace-like motif. In the middle of this section, right over the arch and among the leaves, a simple medaillon is embedded with a cross, today almost invisible. [Fig. 29] This portion of the wall recalls the acanthus pattern of the small mosaic fragment we saw on the spandrel in the north bay of the narthex.229 [Fig. 18] The adjacent transverse vault is covered with almost vanished, minuscule, floral design, located in the centre and adorned again with a cross medaillon. [Fig. 31] Even though this sphere with a cross is not preserved intact, we have at a hand two more, almost identical cross medaillons repeated on the vaults of the western bay, hence allowing us to propose a liable reconstruction. The medaillons seems to be originally encircled by a wider circular frame enclosing a swirling three-dimensional ribbon, while the cross inside seems to have four diagonal rays stemming from

225 The description is based on the author’s photographic material. Much of the described details became visible only after adjusting parameters like light, colour, saturation etc. In an attempt to extract particular details, specific colours were enhanced or supressed. Therefore, the original images present neither the original colour scheme nor colours possible to distinguish today with the naked eye. 226 The smaller one, strictly speaking, is a not a circle but it is rather “flower-shaped” itself. 227 Mosaic fragment on the soffit of an arch leading to the atrium. 228 The church was a domed basilica with a multi-stepped synthronon with a kyklion, today heavily restored. Also, it has a similar chronology (6th and 8th century phases) and aniconic fresco decoration from the 8th century. Church See: ALTRIPP 2000, p. 394; OUSTERHOUT 2001, pp. 9-10; PESCHLOW, U., „Die Architektur der Nikolaokirche“, in: BORCHHART, J. (ed.), Myra. Eine lykische Metropole in antiker und byzantinischer Zeit. Berlin 1975, pp. 303-359. 229 Compare with: the marble transenna on the western gallery, two minuscule crosses on the extremities of the inscription on the inner bema arch in Hagia Eirene; the mosaic preserved on the soffit of the north, as well as south arcade tribelon in the 5th century Church of Acheiropoietos in Thessalonica. (For reproductions of the latter see: TADDEI 2012, pp. 153-182; Fig. 15a-b, 17a-b, 23a-b, 24a-b.) 39 its centre, closely resembling the shape of christogram. [Fig. 30, 33] The spheres themselves were created out of three concentric circles, most probably with a gradating intensity of colour from the centre outwards.230

Proceeding westwards through the passage inside the pier, again, with a circular raster [Fig. 32] on its ceiling, we find under the first transverse vault another cross medaillon. This one, by far the best preserved, seems to be enclosed within two decorative square-shaped frames, surrounded by smaller, equally square- shaped ornaments filled with quatrefoils. [Fig. 33] The last vault shows a cross medaillon amidst an ornament of sharp, elongated leaves of large quatrefoils, placed side-by-side, creating an effect of circles, thanks to their curvature.231 [Fig. 34]

The transverse fields with cross medaillons of the western bay are separated by arched belt. [Fig. 35] Likewise, further to the west, there is a recessed arch opening leading into the rearmost aisle bay. Soffits of these arches are each covered with a different floral pattern. The middle one shows large abstract flowers diagonally intersected one from another, with a thin garland virtually “coiling” the arch. Within every of their heart-shaped leafs is inserted a smaller one, in red colour.232 [Fig. 36] The soffit of the western arch has adopted a more innovative motif. Clambering from both spandrels upwards to the simple cross medaillon in the centre, [Fig. 38] there are fan-like plants resembling the spread-out tail of a peacock, each springing from a vase or basket with two handles.233 [Fig. 37] The last pattern, covering the soffit of the bigger western arch, recalls the geometric mosaic frieze we saw running along the central arch leading from the narthex to the naos. Large X figures, each with a circle inscribed in the centre, are placed side by side along the soffit. [Fig. 38-39] In addition – as far as we can judge out of what is left – even the colour scheme used for the fresco decoration was in concordance with its “counterpart” in the narthex. [Fig. 19] Despite their scarcity, we tried to describe the leftovers of the frescoe decoration as minutely as possible. While looking on the intermittent flashes of colour, shades and glazes captured even within the image section, one can imagine that once, the vaults and arcades of Hagia Eirene offered impressive effect accentuating the “earthly” level of the “heavenly” temple.

230 Relying on the reconstruction proposed by Jean Lassus, the 8th century chapel of the cathedral in Rusafa once had similar motif in the apse – a jewelled cross with diagonal rays inscribed into sphere, flanked by acanthus sprouts. Yet, the shape of cross as well as its frame differ slightly. The cross is framed by two semi-circles connected to the rays. Reconstruction adopted in: VELMANS, T., Byzanz: Fresken und Mosaike. Zürich – Düsseldorf 1999, p. 44; Fig. 16. For more see: ULBERT, T., Die des Hl. Kreuzes in Resafa-Sergiupolis. Mainz 1986,pp. 85-97; Fig. 52, 134. 231 Compare with the aquarel made by W. S. George showing one of the soffits from in Thessalonica, or intrados of the south niche in Rotonda of Thessalonica. (For reproduction see: TADDEI 2012, Fig. 1, 9.) 232 Similar quatrefoil was used as a crown of the floral garland decorating the window soffit in the apse of Hagia Sophia. (For reproduction in colour see: TADDEI 2011, Fig. 16.) 233 TADDEI, A., „Eclettismo e sintesi nei mosaici dell’Acheiropoietos di Tessalonika“, in: Rolsa. Rivista on line di Storia dell’Arte, Numero 12, Anno 2009. Roma 2009, Fig. 8, 9. 40

THE APSE MOSAICS A slightly pointy conch occupying the upper third of the apse of Hagia Eirene contains a mosaic decoration showing a simple cross on a pale golden background.234 [Fig. 41] The cross on a pedestal was outlined with black tesserae and filled with golden ones. The cross’ arms get slightly wider towards their ends and they have tear-drop shapes added to each corner. Even though they appear to be perfectly straight, we can observe their downward curvature when we take a closer look [Fig. 43] or see the cross from an unusual angle. Consequently, an optical illusion of a perfect orthogonality was secured for a person standing on the ground-level.235 The lowermost part of the figure, three-scaled pedestal, is embedded into a green band running on the conch’s bottom. From a distance the colour of the band looks almost homogeneous, yet, the gradation from light yellow-green to dark blue-green becomes visible from a close proximity. Starting from around the bottom line of cross’ arms towards the uppermost part of the conch, a new layer of plaster has been painted in gold. The date of such a restoration remains unfortunately uncertain.236

The semi-dome of the apse is due to its recessed placing flanked by two arches, divided with decorative bands.237 [Fig. 40, 16] The outer one is embellished with garlands, while the inner is framed by flat geometric ornament based on diamond shapes. This geometric band proceeds also along the lowermost part of the conch, over the simple marble rim. As noted already in 1884 by Bjeljaev, an inscription on the inner arch reveals the quote from Psalm 64:4-5:

We shall be filled with the good things of thy house; thy temple is holy. [Thou art] wonderful in righteousness. Harken to us, o God our saviour; the hope of all the ends of the earth, and of them [who are] afar off on the sea.238

234 In order to acquire softer, lighter effect on else unbroken areas of a pure gold, silver tesserae were inserted in random manner among the gold ones. See: GEORGE 1913, p. 47. 235 (Ο Ο)ΙΚΟΔΟΜWΝ ΕΙC Τ(ΟΝ ΟΙΚΟΝ CΟΥ ΚΑΙ) ΑΝΑΡΑC[ΙΝ] ΑΥΤΟΥ, ΚΑΙ ΤΗΝ ΕΠΑΓΓΕΛΙΑΝ (ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟC ΕΥ ΗΜΑC ΗΛΠΕΙCΑΜΕΝ ΕΙC ΤΟ Ο)ΝΟΜΑ Α(ΥΤΟΥ). GEORGE 1913, pp. 47-48; PICKETT 2011, p. 3. 236 During his research, George tried to find out approximate date of this reconstruction. „The oldest member of the staff maintains that it has been restored during his own lifetime. (...) he showed me two boxes full of tesserae which he says came from the bema mosaic, but (...) it is possible those came from the narthex.“ After disapproving the date of restoration before 1453 since the plaster seemed to author as of a newer date, George asserted as possible the year 1845, during the reign of „westernizing“ sultan Abdul Mejid; or between years 1847-8, while Fossati was engaged upon the repairs of Hagia Sophia. Also, author further states that „many tiny patches in the gold ground of the mosaic show that the cross has served as a mark in other days, and its religious significance is still so strong that Director has been obliged to cover it up with a large Turkish flag because it excited the comment of the soldiery, and provoked suspicion of the leaders of the new régime.“ GEORGE 1913, pp. 54-55. 237 This slight shift in volumes is visible even on the outside, thus affirming Wulff’s notion about „external articulation“ of Hagia Eirene. WULFF 1903. 238 (ΔΕΥΤ ΕΙ)CΟΜΕΘΑ ΕΝ ΤΟΙC ΑΓΑΘΟΙC ΤΟΥ ΟΙΚΟΥ CΟΥ, ΑΓΙΟC Ο ΝΑΟC CΟΥ, ΘΑΥΜΑCΤΟC ΕΝ ΔΙΚΑΙΟCΥΝΗ ΕΠΑΚΟΥCΟΝ ΗΜWΝ Ο Θ[ΕΟ]C Ο C[WΤ]ΗΡ ΗΜWΝ, Η ΕΛΠΙC ΠΑΝΤWΝ ΤWΝ ΠΕΡΑΤWΝ ΤΗC ΓΗC ΚΑΙ ΤWΝ ΕΝ ΘΑΛΑCCΗ ΜΑΚ(ΡΑ)[Ν]. GEORGE 1913, p. 50. Letters enclosed in round brackets are restored in plaster, letters in sqare brackets are added to comply to evident contractions. 41

The outer one reads a quote from Amos 9:6:

[It is he] that builds his ascent up to the sky, and establishes his promise/foundations on the earth; the Lord almighty is his name.239 As Van Millingen pointed out, these two inscriptions resemble the words used during the consecration ritual of a church building.240

Here, at the very end of the formal description of Hagia Eirene and its metamorphosis since c.532 up to c.750, and before we proceed to our final interpretation, it seems to be appropriate to outline, at least briefly, the context from which the most prominent decorative motif of this space – the sign of the cross – have emerged. In both East and West, a church decoration based on various aniconic motifs including crosses was, as far as we know, widely diffused. 241 As pointed out by Ernst Kitzinger in 1954, worship and proskynesis before this sign, the graphic expression of the Christ´s Passion but at the same time of the victorious army of Constantine the Great, was by the end of the 4th century considered to be a common praxis for a Christian.”242 Used as the symbol of the divinely-inspired victory, as a mark on liturgical as well as everyday objects and, since the late 6th century, as an ornament embossed on the obverse of byzantine imperial coinage,243 the figure of a cross, with its ambiguous interpretations, became very early and remained since the most prominent aspect of the Christian visual repertoire. It is the context, though, that creates a final rhetoric and directs our possible interpretations. In Constantinople, unfortunately, all the early church decoration is lost.244 However, it definitely was not, neither in the 6th nor in the 8th century. Given this continuity, when Justinian re-founded two most prominent churches of the city – Hagia Eirene and Hagia Sophia –, it is not really surprising that the latter was completely aniconic, adorned with golden mosaics depicting multiplied crosses and other geometric motifs.245 Although the early mosaics of Hagia Eirene did not survive, what has been preserved from the 6th

239 GEORGE 1913, p. 48; PICKETT 2011, p. 5. 240 “Yea, Lord God Almighty our Saviour, the hope of all the ends of the earth, hear us sinners when we call upon thee, and send thy Holy Spirit, the worshipful and all-powerful, and sanctify this house.” VAN MILLINGEN in GEORGE 1913, p. 51. 241 See: BRENK, B., The Apse, the Image and the . An Historical Perspective of the Apse as a Space for Images. Wiesbaden 2010, p. 29. The author asserted his belief that „symbolic and aniconic programs must have been much more important in the early Christian period than we tend to imagine today. I, personally, cannot believe that the great Roman churches such as the Lateran, S.Peter and S. Maria Maggiore had figural apse mosaics.“ 242 KITZINGER, E., „The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm“, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 8 (1954). Washington, D.C. 1954, pp. 85-86, 89-90. 243 BARBER, Ch., Image and Likeness. On the Limits of Representation in . Princeton – Oxford 2002, p. 85. 244 MATHEWS, T., The Clash of : A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art. Princeton 1999, p. 116. 245 By Procopious in 544 described as „The entire ceiling has been overlaid with pure gold which combines beauty with ostentation, yet the refulgence from the marble prevails, vying as it does with that of the gold.“ See: MANGO, 42 century structure itself suggests a similar decorative scheme. Later, during the 7th century, coexisting with a rich visual culture,246 the cult and veneration of the cross in Constantinople were even more enhanced thanks to the recovery of the True Cross relics from Persians to by the emperor .247 Their subsequent transfer to capital and placement in Hagia Sophia in 629/630, had given rise to the feast of Exaltation of the Cross and homilies devoted to its cult.248 The most prominent role of the cross, though, was about to be defined during the reign of Constantine V which is marked with the “struggle over images” or iconoclasm.249 The exact characteristic of this complex discourse dealing with the legitimacy of a religious imagery - that is, portraits of Christ, of the Virgin Mary or saints - is rather difficult to determine, due to lack of direct written or material testimonies. However, what we do know for certain, is an existence of the imperial initiative of Constantine V to supress the production, displaying or devotion shown to images which by the end of 7th century had taken on much more significant role. Constantine V argued that portraits of Christ are heretically dividing his two natures, while those of saints or Virgin are “insulting their memories, for they lived eternally beside the God.” Therefore, three elements became emphasized – the importance of the church as an institution and the clergy as an intermediate with the sacred, the Eucharist as the only real image of Christ and a cross as the favoured non-representational motif.250 With this in mind, one may ask what the message of this particular apsidal composition in this particular space was. Before answering this complex question, we must realize that there are several rhetoric layers waiting to be uncovered, playing their role on different levels of one’s understanding. By dividing the following interpretation into three short chapters, we are neither trying to imply a separate existence of three phenomena nor claiming to offer a sufficient explanation. On the contrary, we are trying to use this structure against the power so distinctive for an aniconic decoration, that is, to speak with many voices at the same time.

C., The Art of the , 312-1453: Sources and Documents. Englewood Cliffs 1972, p. 76; BRUBAKER 2012, p. 34. 246 Due to the lack of material traces, there is a question how much we can speak about the monumental figurative programs. BARBER 2002, p. 13. 247 It seems the Relic of the reached Constantinople in the late October of 629. For a reconsideration of precise chronology of the recovery according to the Breviarium of see: ZUCKERMAN, C., „Heraclius and the Return of the Holy Cross“, in: ZUCKERMAN, C. (ed.), Constructing the Seventh Century. Paris 2013, pp. 203, 216. 248 See: BARBER 2002, p. 86; PICKETT 2011, p. 6; KLEIN, H. A., “Constantine, Helena, and the cult of the True Cross in Constantinople”, in: DURAND, J.; FLUSIN, B. (eds), Byzance et les reliques du Christ. Paris 2004, pp. 31- 59. 249 BARBER 2002, p. 9. 250 BRUBAKER 2012, pp. 16-17, 33-34. 43

III. Word and Image

Whilst raising up from ruins the place where legacy of Constantin the Great and Justinian was essentially built within the walls, Constantin V. was offered a unique chance to partake in this continuity and inscribe himself in it. In other words, it was an opportunity to use Hagia Eirene to materialize his own convictions and memory. Unsurprisingly, he made use of it – explicitly with his monograms251 complementing those of Justinian and Theodora already present on the capitals, and implicitly through the decorative motifs chosen for the most prominent zone of the church. Focusing on the imperial rhetoric and utilization of the cross, Constantin V., as a benefactor, was proclaimed through the indirect resemblance only. In fact, one had a chance to spot a cross with the same shape on the obverse of his imperial coin.252 Besides the imperial connotation of the cross, we should also speak about its victorious connotation associated with Constantin the Great, whose legacy and era Constantin V. adored and tried to visibly incorporate into his imperial .253 As Magdalino said, “Constantine the Great was definitely in the air in the mid-8th century.”254 This victorious and imperial connotation was even enhanced since the cross became a hallmark of the Christian opposition to .255 Moreover, Constantine V. believed that the Eucharist is the only acceptable form in which Christ could be depicted truthfully. Thanks to the Life of St. and Chronographia, we know that he even did presented his beliefs publicly. More notably, according to Theophanes, people shared and supported his beliefs.256 In the 50’s of the 8th century, there are attested two types of Constantin’s public assemblies, both of which were attended by people of every age and gender in so large numbers that they were said to be almost asphyxiated. First type, by Theophanes called silention, were essentially emperor’s public which were supposed to prepare people for the council of 754. The second type was described as a kind of collective performance, following Constantin’s demands, who “had made people to swear on the Eucharist, the and the Cross, that they would not revere relics or consort with monks.” These gatherings, organized at the Hippodrome, were said to be literally overflowing with an authoritative and imperial atmosphere.257 Hence, we have the emperor presenting to people his spiritual convictions and publicly using three “cornerstones” of the present theological discourse within the authoritative/imperial context. Such

251 To be seen on the fragment embedded under the column n. 3 in the north aisle. See also: PICKETT 2011, p. 5. 252 See: BARBER 2002, pp. 89-90; Fig. 27. 253 For more see: MAGDALINO 2007, p. 20. 254 MAGDALINO 2007, p. 21. 255 BRUBAKER 2012, p. 34. 256 BRUBAKER 2012, p. 33. 257 MAGDALINO 2007, pp. 16-17. 44 acts are definitely speaking in favour of the first interpretation, within which theological and imperial are becoming one. Should the cross itself have failed to indicate this imperial self-presentation, the inscriptions above it would have made this sophisticated composition understandable. Apart from the textual information the words themselves do offer, their very presence might be considered as a sufficient and comprehensible visual testimony. Large capital letters and their prominent placement would implicitly deliver the message of the imperial importance or holiness, even to an illiterate person.258 Therefore, words materialized in a certain manner are becoming an image, with the ability to communicate a message, without any dependency on their exact textual meaning.259 The conch of Hagia Eirene, thus, speaks clearly with a voice of the pious and victorious emperor. The end of the 7th and the first half of the 8th centuries are indicating increased attention to and popularity of depictions of Christ’s passion. The Crucifixion – a representation of an actual historical event – as an iconographic theme, gained more space and evolved into various more or less elaborated forms.260 As a result of the Council in Trullo and its rejection of the usage of the symbolic Lamb, representations of the sacrifice of Christ were restricted either to pictorial, mimetic images of the historical event, or to the abbreviated form – the plain cross.261 When Charles Barber in his book Image and Likeness defined the figure of a cross as being equivalent to a verbal testimony, somehow more a word than an image,262 he emphasised a completely opposite principle to the one we have applied to inscriptions. Moving forward to more spiritual implications, the cross in the apse

258 „At the very least these devices claimed authority by asserting the monumentality of the text, its place in a cultural (and religious, social, and sometimes political) tradition, and its intended permanence. For the illiterate, as for literate who did not bother to read them, they made clear the nature and status of the text. So too did the setting of inscriptions. Both the format and location of an inscription might be said to constitute a claim to authority by association, and an assertion of conformity with the accepted norms.“ See: WOOLF, G., „Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early Empire“, in: Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 86 (1996), p. 28. Consider also: THUNØ, E., „Inscription and divine presence: golden letters in the early medieval apse mosaic“, in: Word & Image, Vol. 27, 3 (2011). 259 Even though dealing predominantly with , Hamburger’s introductory notion about the written word could be understood in a broader sense: „One does not necessarily have to be able to read a script in order to respond to it as a highly differentiated and expressive set of marks that provides one of the most immediate, recognizable physical traces of human presence, thought and activity. Within the realm of visual imagery, the written word can rise to a form of representation in its own right, prior to and independent of the complex phenomenon generally considered under the rubric of „text and image“. (...) for lack of a better term, is on what I choose to call iconicity of script, which includes its instrumental and expressive aspects as a visual medium in the Middle Ages. These extend beyond signification, let alone symbolism, to the presence and persuasiveness od lettering, at times independent of its meaning – hardly an insignificant consideration in light of an audience that, at least in the case of public monuments, was often largely illiterate.“ See: HAMBURGER, J. F., „Script as Image“, in: Corpus of Illuminated Manuscripts, Vol. 21. Leuven 2014, pp. 1-2. 260 KARTSONIS, A., „The Emancipation of the Crucifixion“, in: GUILLOU, A.; DURAND, J. (eds), Byzance et les images: cycle de conférences organisé au Musée du Louvre, Paris, par le Service culturel du 5 octobre au 7 décembre 1992. Paris 1994, pp.163-168; for more see: SHEPHERD, M. H., „Christology: A Central Problem of Early Christian Theology and Art“, in: WEITZMANN, K. (ed.), Age of Spirituality: A Symposium. New York 1980, pp. 112-113. 261 KARTSONIS 1994, pp. 176-180. 262 “We are asked to understand that the figure of a cross is an equivalent to verbal testimony and that stands in opposition to the material witness offered by images. The cross may be visual, but it operates in a manner that differs from the functioning of mere material images.” See: BARBER 2002, p. 94. 45 of Hagia Eirene is an impeccable representative of such a thought. According to Pickett, this stepped platform type was associated with the cross of the crucifixion.263 It seems that thanks to its immateriality264 and simplicity, the process of intellectual contemplation of the divine miracle of Christ´s sacrifice and his subsequent salvation is enhanced inside one’s mind.265 The Eucharist representing the substantial, yet invisible, image of Christ,266 conducted under the figure of the cross verbalizing the mystery of Passion, Sacrifice and Salvation, might have, together with a liturgical drama and words of prayer267 bring into being an ephemeral, internal narrative cycle in one’s imagination. As we have already indicated above, Constantin’s thoughts were generally known and at certain level adopted and embraced by the wider public. Also, after the of 754, the importance of the words was stressed – whether spoken or chanted –, together with the role of the clergy as the intermediaries between the sacred and humanity. This might have ensured that even less “spiritually minded” individuals could have possibly “experienced” endogenic images, because they were pre-setted, they were said what to see. Hence, the most prominent point of this sanctuary communicates in a truly ingenious manner. Balancing between the word and image, this illustrious composition addresses every individual – whether literate or illiterate – with an imperial as well as explicitly theological message, dependent on the percipient’s intellectual and spiritual capacities and ongoing rituals. To conclude with the words of Spieser, „whether manufactured or existing only in the mind, images are a very efficient means by which to adore a God. “268

263 PICKETT 2011, p. 6. 264 In this regard, we feel a minor dissention with a Pickett, who has stated that „almost paradoxically for an art of Iconoclasm, the mosaics read as a veritable, material cross, hovering in golden space above the altar. The cross seems to stand out from its gold background...“ See: PICKETT 2011, p. 2. 265 In the words of Theodore of Mopsuestia (+428), which later entered the Byzantine tradition via Germanos (+730) - and his interpretation of the dramatic reenactement of the passion of Christ: „...Every time, then, there is performed the liturgy of this awesome sacrifice, which is the clear image of the heavenly realities, we should imagine that we are in heaven. Faith enables us to picture in our minds the heavenly realities, as we remind ourselves that the same Christ who is in heaven...is now being immolated under these symbols. So when faith enables our eyes to contemplate the commemoration that now takes place, we are brought again to see his death, ressurection, and ascension, which have already taken place for our sake.“ In: TAFT, „The Liturgy of the Great Church“, 1995, pp. 62-65, especially p. 64. 266 PICKETT 2011, p. 7; BRUBAKER 2012, p. 33. 267 It would have been possible to suggest even a direct correlation with the words used during the Eucharist, yet, as Robert Taft in his study from 2006 has claimed, liturgical prayers began to be secretly recited since 5th/6th century. See: TAFT, R. F., „The Decline of in Byzantium and the Distancing of the Congregation from the Liturgical Action: Cause, Effect, or Neither?“, in: GERSTEL, S. (ed.), Tresholds of the Sacred. Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical and Theological Perspectives on Religious Screens, East and West. Washington, D.C. 2006, pp. 49-50. 268 SPIESER, J.-M., „The Representation of Christ in the of Early Christian Churches“, in: Gesta, Vol. 37, No.1 (1998). Chicago 1998, p. 67. 46

IV. Light and Presence

To describe another possible interpretation, one should make a step back and perceive the whole apsidal zone as a unique visual space. Our proposal on how it could be read emerges from observations on the exceptional materiality of the synthronon,269 and is sustained by the presence of chosen decorative patterns of the main mosaic and doxologies on the arches. We would also like to reconsider what might have been the decisive point within the iconography of the whole apsidal composition: the cathedra on the synthronon and its two possible states. That is to say, either left empty or with the patriarch sitting, used in the context of the liturgical or para-liturgical acts. Furthermore, the premeditated role of light, either daylight or artificial, we believe, might have played a crucial role as well, especially within the stationary function of the church. We believe that the apse of Hagia Eirene could have been intended and interpreted as a visual representation of iconographic themes bound by a common meaning.270

In his study dealing with the dramaturgic uses of light in Late Antique church spaces, Vladimir Ivanovici characterized the sacred space as “dynamic and symbolic”, both reflecting and regulating the human–divine relations, and “as a form of theology fixed in space, perceiving the church as a structure built according to a coherent ideological program meant to bring humanity and God together by providing a place of assembly suitable for both.”271 We find this definition of a “theology fixed in space”, the meeting point of heavenly and earthly level, especially fitting to the aniconic apsidal composition of Hagia Eirene. Considering the limits of non–representational monumental art and its restricted ways to convey meaning, the use of light and its reflexions on the curved mosaics surfaces as well as the physical attributes of other

269 As for the material traces (with exception of the Studios basilica and Theotokos Chalkoprateia, due to their unpreserved elevation, see: MATHEWS 1971, pp. 27, 38, 179) in Constantinople, in Hagia Euphemia, neither preserved fragments of the synthronon itself, nor the later reconstruction have suggested any openings for a light. For a photographic reproduction see: MATHEWS 1971, Plates 52-53. For a possible reconstruction see: BELTING, NAUMANN 1966, p. 100, Abb. 32. An existence of multistepped synthronoi with a passage attributed to the 7th-8th centuries, is attested also in Greece. For instance, in the basilica in Korone, basilica in Mane or the basilica of Hagios Nikon in Sparta. See: ALTRIPP 2000, pp. 377-412, especially p. 379. The closest resemblance outside Constantinople, the church of Hagios Nikolaos in Myra, possess much the same, 9 stepped synthronon with a passage, attributed to the 8th century. See: ALTRIPP 2000, p. 379; BRUBAKER, HALDON 2011, p. 215. None of the mentioned have mid-scale perforations for providing a light to the passage. 270 Since the beginning of the 8th century, the originally 7th century Syriac, extra-canonical narrative Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius has become widely known and reflected, especially the identification of Constantinople with Seven-Hilled City from Revelation. Peculiar character of the era, natural disasters and arab invasions were going well along with such thoughts. For a short overview see: KRAFT, A., „Constantinople in Byzantine Apocalyptic Thought“, in: Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU, Vol. 18 (2012). Budapest 2012; BRUBAKER 2012, pp. 16-17. 271 IVANOVICI, V., „Windows and Church Space in Early Medieval Byzantium and West“, in: FOLETTI, I.; FRANTOVÁ, Z. (eds), Byzantium, and . Meeting and Construction of Worlds. Opuscula Historiae Artium, Vol. 62 (2013), Supplementum. Brno 2013, p. 38. 47 materials have started to gain even greater importance than before.272 The illumination of the apse in Hagia Eirene was most definitely considered as essential, a fact that could have been one of the main reasons for the reduced height of the western dome. Moreover, as pointed out already by George in 1913, the apse mosaic of Hagia Eirene has introduced a new formula of balancing and refining the light qualities of its plain golden background. This technique, later reused also elsewhere, used a combination of gold and silver tesserae and the inclined angle of their insertion to prevent the coarse effect of unbroken gold.273 This golden hemisphere with a cross is connected to the bottom part of the apse, the six–stepped synthronon, through three large windows. What is more intriguing is that in the middle of the synthronon itself there are seven perforations, leading and providing light to the kyklion. These openings, we would like to suggest, could have possibly worked in the reverse manner as well – not only letting the light come in and illuminate the passage, but also, within the use of an artificial illumination from the inside, they could have emanated the light. This could have been secured by placing the source of light inside the passage, or else, by inserting candles into separate perforations. In that case, we would have had three possible sources of light: the exceptionally reflective golden semi dome, the light stemming windows in the middle section, and the synthronon, not only illuminated from above, but itself illuminating the altar zone, what might have created a vibrant atmospheric effect particularly during the evening celebrations [Fig. 44]. We have already mentioned the palpable vertical axis at the moment of the Eucharist between the theophanic, victorious cross and the re-enactment of Christ’s sacrifice conducted on the illuminated altar underneath. The cathedra is lying and partaking on the same axis as the other two “stages”, alluding, pointing one to another – the altar on earth, the throne on the synthronon and the base/altar/throne of the cross in heaven. As we are about to see, this vertical axis and the interchangeability of its three elements was not a mere thought, but was also present in the words.

THE PRESENCE At this point, we would like to present our first interpretation proposal of the apsidal zone of Hagia Eirene. We would like to focus especially on the First Entrance, at the specific moment when the static decoration acts jointly with the congregation and the liturgical movements as well as with the words and chants. In this part, the linguistic stimulation, we believe, could have been one of the crucial aspects triggering the comprehension. During the First Entrance, described by in the first half of the 7th century, or by Patriarch Germanos hundred years later, the procession of the clergy led by the celebrant bishop, was said to be entering the sanctuary, following the solea and heading to the altar, while carrying the Gospel,

272 DEMUS, O., Byzantine Mosaic Decoration. Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium. London 1976, pp. 50-52. 273 GEORGE 1913, p. 47. 48 processional cross,274 candles and incense.275 According to Foletti, since the beginning of the 6th century in Constantinople, when the sacred scripture was about to be placed on the altar, it was actually announced that Christ was taking his place on his throne.276 This is precisely the moment when the axis is verbalized and brought into mind. During the procession, the powerful words of the Trisagion “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Have mercy on us!”277 were chanted by all members of a congregation, three times in a row. These are the very words from the book of Revelation, the words to salute God enthroned in glory. In the beginning of the description of his vision on Patmos, John is describing the earthly encounter with the Son of a Man. He says: “Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was One like the Son of Man, dressed in a long robe, with a golden sash around his chest.” (Rev 1:12-13). Further, after the completion of the seven letters to seven churches, the vision proceeds and John’s spiritual sight is elevated into the heaven. “At once I was in the Spirit, and I saw a throne standing in heaven, with someone seated on it. The one seated there looked like jasper and carnelian, and a rainbow gleaming like an emerald encircled the throne. (…) From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings, and rolls of thunder. Before the throne burned seven torches of fire.” (Rev 4: 2-3, 5). Although in a very synthetic way, it seems that the apsidal composition of Hagia Eirene presents both sequences of John’s vision at the same time, the earthly encounter with a Son of Man as well as the vision of God in the heaven, secured by the words and joint together through the chants. To clarify this spatial iconography, we should direct our attention to the material once again. As one can see, the three-stepped pedestal, the “real” throne/altar on which the image of a cross stands is encircled with a gradating green band, maybe the emerald rainbow described in John’s vision. [Fig. 41] Of course, the conch mosaic alone could have been read as the vision of God. But it’s the combination with the rest of the apse and liturgical performance that creates a more elaborate meaning. The aim and result of the First Entrance was twofold: first, to place the Gospel on the altar, while the bishop exclaimed “God has taken his place on his throne”,278 but subsequently, the celebrant himself had ascended the synthronon, taken his place on the

274 These crosses traditionally had exactly the same shape as the cross on the mosaic. For elaborate study, see: NAGEL, H. G., Prozessionskreuze und Prozessionen in Byzanz: Kunstgeschichte im Schnittpunkt von Religions- und Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Heidelberg. Heidelberg 2012. 275 DOIG 2008, p. 75. 276 FOLETTI, I., „Sicut in caelo et in terra. Osservazioni sulla cathedra vacua della basilica sistina di Santa Maria Maggiore a Roma“ (Sicut in caelo et in terra. Observations on the empty cathedra of the Sixtine Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome), in: Iconographica, X (2011). 2011, p. 55. 277 Compare with Rev 4:8 „And each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around and within. Day and night they never stop saying: Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!“ 278 FOLETTI 2011, p. 55. 49 throne and addressed the congregation with Christ’ words “Peace be with you all.”279 Therefore, at that moment, the congregation would have witnessed the patriarch, an earthly representative of the son of man in his high-priest robe, with seven perforations under his feet as seven lampstands, greeting them with words of peace – in the same way that the son of man greeted John with “Do not be afraid!”. Meanwhile, during their chant, the congregation was glorifying the moment of entrance of the incarnate Logos placed on the altar, but in a same time essentially joining the heavenly choirs of in worshipping the Creator.280 That is to say, the theophanic moment depicted in the mosaic in the conch represents the spiritual vision of the God enthroned amidst the emerald rainbow in heaven as described by John in a purely aniconic form following the words of the Revelation. To conclude, one could say that this whole spatial composition, obviously accentuating the vertical axis we already mentioned, enhanced by the chant and clarified by the patriarch’s words, has been addressing the community with a clear message stating: “this is the place where God dwells.”

THE ABSENCE The second possible state of the bishop’s throne on the synthronon is empty. While describing the dangers of decoding and interpreting a complex message which byzantine iconography often has expressed in simple, indicative manner, Cyril Mango used the empty throne or hetoimasia as an example.281 The representation of this topos, an empty throne, which finds its roots in pagan and imperial iconography, was used both in East and West, and could be understood in various ways.282 The most important point could be our understanding of the term “empty”. While dealing with depictions, it is used in the sense “without antropomorphic figures”, not empty as such, since most of the time it is occupied by objects of symbolic value – for instance, the Gospel or a cross – therefore, serving as an effigy of enthroned Christ.283 Even among the examples drawn from the pagan context, the throne is understood as a representative of a deity, often accompanied by its attributes, whether flanking the depiction or placed onto the throne itself.284 In the context of Christian sanctuaries, these representations were frequently situated on the main arch, over the most sacred space, where the altar and the real bishop’s cathedra were standing, thus, underlining the axis or visual connection we have already described in Hagia Eirene. To borrow an example from the 7th century, the now lost bema mosaic in the Koimesis church in Nicaea, we can see the throne with a cross, scripture

279 TAFT, „The Liturgy of the Great Church“, 1995, p. 52; DOIG 2008, p. 75; See: 2Thess 3:16; Jn 14:27. 280 KARTSONIS 1994, pp. 176-177; FOLETTI, I., „Poslové, prostředníci a ochránci. Andělé v pozdní antice a raném středověku“, in: ELBELOVÁ, G. (ed.), Šumění andělských křídel. Anděl v Evropském výtvarném umění. Olomouc 2016, p. 33. 281 MANGO 1994, p. 165. 282 We have preserved examples from numerous places throughout all the ancient civilisations. For more: FOLETTI 2011, pp. 43-45. 283 FOLETTI 2011, pp. 41, 48; GRABAR, A., L' Empereur dans l'art byzantin. Recherches sur l'art officiel de l'Empire d'Orient. Paris 1936, p. 199. 284 FOLETTI 2011, p. 44. 50 and dove with a cruciform halo, which emanates seven rays of light to the sides. This composition, left intact even during the 8th century iconoclastic alterations, could be read as a metaphoric representation of the trinitarian Godhead.285 The central ray of light, made in silver tesserae286, originally rested on the halo of the Virgin holding a Child, hence, indicating and “proving” the process of the divine Incarnation, resulting in the antropomorphic depiction of the Child. We would argue that the whole apsidal zone of Hagia Eirene could be read similarly, yet, with Christ depicted during the Eucharistic moment and light not artificially created from the silver tesserae, but stemming from the windows, visually declaring the connection between the earth and heaven287 expressed during the eucharistic elevation.288 Given the fact that the synod of 754 affirmed the role of the Holy Spirit as an operative, transferring element of the holiness to the bread and thus transforming it into the true image of Christ, 289 the composition could be a spatial manifestation of such a thought. However, we would like to reconsider what could have been the rhetoric and role of the empty throne on the synthronon in this specific place, while focusing more on the para-liturgical function of the church.

Using the terms and optic of the 8th century Historia mystagogica, patriarch ’ symbolic framework in which the church building could be interpreted, the bema was generally considered as “an elevated space and the throne, on which Christ sits with his apostles; it also points to the Second Coming”.290 After the premeditated theophanic vision of the First Entrance we have briefly sketched, we saw that during the liturgy the synthronon with a seated patriarch and clergy definitely served as an allusion to the Christ seated among the apostles. But then, in a para-liturgical context, outside liturgy or in the patriarch’s absence, the golden cross – sign of the Son of God291 hovering “on the golden sky” above – coupled to a cross or scripture placed upon the cathedra’s seat, could have been understood as an allusion to the Second Coming and to Christ as Judge292, as described in Psalms 9:7-8, “But the Lord sits enthroned forever; he has established his throne for justice, and he judges the world with righteousness; he judges the people with uprightness.” Therefore, this static composition would have been on one hand a substitution to the presence

285 BARBER 2002, p. 66. 286 PENTCHEVA, B., „The Performative Icon“, in: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 88, No. 4 (Dec., 2006). 287 IVANOVICI 2013, p. 45. 288 For the complex discussion about the moment of the consecration and the role of the epiklesis, elevation etc., see: ZHELTOV, M., „The Moment of Eucharistic Consecration in Byzantine Thought“, in: JOHNSON, M. E. (ed.), Issues in Eucharistic Praying in East and West. Collegeville 2011, especially pp. 293-301. 289 BRUBAKER 2012, p. 34. 290 MARINIS, V., „The Historia Ekklesiastike kai Mystike Theoria: a symbolic understanding of the Byzantine church building“, in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/2 (2015). München 2015, pp. 753-770; „The bema is a place like a footstool (hupobathros topos) and like a throne in which Christ, the universal King, presides together with His apostles, as He saith unto them, „Ye shall sit upon a throne to judge Israel“ (Mt 19:28) It also signifies the Second Coming at which He shall come to sit upon the throne of His glory to judge the world...“ See: MANGO 1972, p. 143. 291 „Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the ribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.“ (Matt 24; 30) 292 FOLETTI 2011, p. 48. 51 of the patriarch, on the other an indication of the presence of God at this sacred place. This fact is accentuated by the quote from Psalms 64:4-5 on the inner arch saying: “We shall be filled with the good things of thy house; thy temple is holy. [Thou art] wonderful in righteousness.”

Another, more elaborate, para–liturgical usage could have occured as a part of the Constantinopolitan Triduum Services, which were – at least according to the 10th century , rather a simple “scriptural anamnesis of the Passion mysteries,”293 including the two ceremonials taking place in Hagia Eirene. The first, a continuation of the Holy Thursday evening vigil and before the Good Friday Orthos, was the para– liturgical294 veneration of the Sacred Lance295, traditionally held within Hagia Eirene. In fact, the synthronon could have functioned either directly as the place where the relic of the Sacred Lance was placed and venerated (as the body remnants of the John Chrysostom were),296 or as a complementary point on the altar–throne–altar axis, holding a sacred scripture or a cross. During such a veneration – and that is to say around 3:00am, before the Orthos had begun – the well designed, artificial illumination of the altar and synthronon as we proposed before, could have had a major atmospheric effect.

The second ceremonial was the last, pre-baptismal catechesis for the photizomenoi held in Hagia Eirene,297 following the Tritoekte of the Good Friday office.298 Although slightly later in date, we can learn some information from the Good Friday homily of Photius, patriarch of Constantinople (858-867; 877-886), that were given afer the catechism from the ambo in Hagia Eirene. In moments when passages such as “let us bear fruit lest, like that barren fig-tree, we draw the curse on ourselves and be be condemned to be cut down

293 TAFT, R. F., „In the Bridegroom’s Absence. The Paschal Triduum in the Byzantine Church“, (La celebrazione del Triduo pasquale: anamnesis e mimesis. Atti del III Congresso Internazionale di Liturgia, Roma, Pontificio Istituto Liturgico, 9-13 maggio 1988. Rome 1990.), in: Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond, Variorum Collected Studies Series, Vol. 493. Aldershot 1995, p. 91. 294 According to Robert Taft, this veneration was not integrated into any of the normal offices of the cursus. Constantinople had no Thursday night Passion nocturns, no Good Friday day hours with Passion , no adoration of the cross or its relic since the 9th century. The veneration of the True Cross relic is attested only for the second half of the 7th century, traditionally held in Hagia Sophia. See: TAFT, R. F., „A Tale of Two cities: The Byzantine Holy Week Triduum as a paradigm of liturgical history“ (ALEXANDER, J. N. (ed.), Time and Community. In Honor of Thomas Julian Talley (NPM Studies in Church Music and Liturgy). Washington, D.C. 1990), in: Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond, Variorum Collected Studies Series, Vol. 493. Aldershot 1995, pp. 25, 38. 295 De Ceremoniis mentiones also emperor’s private veneration of the relic. „Circa horam tertiam aut quartam eius diei patricii a mandato ad sanctae Irenes templum procedunt, ut patriarchae divinam catechesin in hoc templo peragenti adsint. Sciendum vero est, Imperatorem, si ante tertiam et sextam e blachernis non revertatur, primum in vestiarium ingredi, aureaque mensa et reliquis vasis, quae in aureo triclinio in renovatione adhiberi debent, inde amotis, tertiam ed sextam ibi celebrare aureamque lanceam adorare.“ See: De Ceremoniis. Ch. 34, Bonnae 1929. 296 See the chapter „Description of the Decoration. The Synthronon“ in this thesis. 297 BALDOVIN, J. F., The Urban Character of Christian Worship. The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy. Roma 1987, p. 193. 298 Trioekte, also called Trithekte, was a Constantinopolitan fast-day office, held between the 3:00-6:00 am. The order of the ooffices was as folows: Pannychis (a vigil of the Holy Thrusday evening), the Lance veneration, Orthos, Trioekte, prebaptismal catechesis. See: TAFT, „A Tale of Two Cities“, 1995, pp. 24-25, 38. 52 before a Judge who is righteous and whose judgement none gainsays” 299, alluding to the righteousness of God, or directly exclaiming “the King of kings, the Lord of lords and Creator of all”300, a strong verbalized connection must have been felt. On one hand, the homily enters in direct resonance with the words flanking the apse’s arches, on the other, with the iconographical frame we have just described.

It is worth to mention that the course of the 8th – 9th centuries was marked by the formation of the two Holy Week traditions mutually influencing one another.301 On one hand, the rather simple Constantinopolitan rite, on the other, the more elaborated rite held in Jerusalem. The Good Friday Orthos in Jerusalem had a stationary character and processional form. First, the procession led to the Mount of Olives – the place where Jesus foretold his Second Coming302 –, then proceeding back to the city and finally up to the Calvary. The cathedral service in Constantinople was by all means more static and simple than the latter. The few chants were restricted only for the Good Friday Orthos303, but in general, the Triduum rites were said to be rooted in a ceremonial metaphore with the help of light and incense.304 Such a preference, in fact, would be in concordance with the propositions we made. It is necessary to mention that neither in Jerusalem, nor in Constantinople, the 24th chapter of Matthew’s gospel, which describes the Second Coming, had been read during the Good Friday Orthos. It was the chapter 26, the establishing of the Eucharist, that was instead read. Anyhow, if we would accept the proposed allusion to the Second Coming within the apse of Hagia Eirene, the shared symbolic connotation of these two venues – the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem and Hagia Eirene in Constantinople – could have been interpreted as a premeditated decision.

To conclude, we were trying to present our proposal on how this at first glance rather simple apsidal composition could have implied the same thought in various ways, and through the activation during the liturgical or para-liturgical performance, with help of words, chants and light. As was stated at the very end of the formal description of Hagia Eirene, the capability to speak with many voices in a same space could be considered as one of the major strengths of aniconic decoration. As it seems, the voices in Hagia Eirene we tried to describe separately were unanimously proclaiming the omnipresence of God.

299 MANGO 1958, p. 127; also see: Mt 19; 21. 300 MANGO 1958, p. 125. 301 TAFT, „A Tale of Two Cities“, 1995, p. 32. 302 Mt 24:1; 29-31. 303 TAFT, „A Tale of Two Cities“, 1995, p. 25. 304 TAFT, R. F., „Cathedral vs. Monastic Liturgy in the Christian East: Vindicating a Distinction“, in: Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata III, s. 2 (2005). Rome 2005, pp. 184-185.

53

V. Ecclesia and Peace

13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14For He Himself is our Peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making Peace 16and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the Cross, by which He extinguished their hostility. 17He came and preached Peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. 19Therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens of the saints and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone. 21In Him the whole building is fitted together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in Him you too are being built together into a dwelling place for God in His Spirit.

(Eph 2, 13-22)

Since until this point we have been observing primarily the church building and its capacity to convey various meanings towards the people, now we would like to invert the perspective and reconsider how could have the gathering of people provide a meaning to the temple. Thus, the main focus of this chapter will be held within the already referred question of the congregation and its role inside the sacred space. The words of Paul’s epistle introduced in the very beginning of the chapter, the cornerstone for the dual concept of an ecclesia, are in a same time acknowledging Christ himself being, maintaining and preaching the Peace. We find the closeness of this two thoughts within the one sequence of the text - the first frequently alluded since the early Christian theologians -, as an exceptionally appealing considering the dedication of Hagia Eirene. Recognised since the beginning of the 4th century and embraced i.e. in the works of Eusebios of Cesarea (c. 263 – c. 340), the conflation of a building and an assembly was a step further from the initial refusal of the “localized sanctity” expressed by Clement of (c. 150 – c. 215), who claimed: “Now I call church not the place, but the gathering of chosen.305 It is this dualism, what was reflected in the 8th century by patriarch Germanos in his definition of what the church is.306 In the linear concept he verbalized, a congregation, the mystic body of Christ was positioned on the opposite side as the temple of God, thus, together constituting the two extremities of the same line. However, as one could have noticed there is a gradation between these two defining points. That is to say, Germanos started from the material temple, but through the accent on its sanctity and the function as the place of a prayer, the converging element between the gathering of

305 MARINIS 2015, pp. 756-757. 306 „The church is the temple of God, a holy precinct, a house of prayer, a gathering of people, the body of Christ. (...) The church is earthly heaven, where the heavenly God dwells and walks about. It represents symbolically the crucifixion and the burial and the resurrection of Christ.“ Germanos in his treatise Historia Mystagogica See: MARINIS 2015, p. 755, 756-757; MANGO 1972, pp. 141-143. 54 people and God, he terminated with the ecclesia understood as the body of Christ. The one is balancing the other. To look beyond the theological dimension, after the synod of 754 apart from the rejection of images, the importance of the church as an institution was strongly emphasized. The clergy and the words of prayer during liturgy were considered the exclusive intermediaries of the sacred, not the relics or representations of the saints and their private veneration.307 This “limited access” to the sacred, increased usage of elaborated ceremonies (both imperial and religious) 308 as the persuasive media and stressed notion of community could have been on one hand understood as endeavour of Constantine V to control newly repopulated capital, but on the other, with a same means, serving the general need to overcome traumatic occurrences of the 740’s. Given that, the airy, aniconic and marble adorned interior of Hagia Eirene, should have worked as an ideal gathering place. We have already explained it was manifesting the presence of the deity through the premeditated signs, words, rituals, light and contemplation of the Eucharist mystery, rather than representing it “realistically.” 309 Although, in a same time, it could have directed one’s reception more to his own presence and participation within the community and space which in a combination with the liturgical drama acted like a plain canvas for the creation of inner images of particular individuals. Furthermore, through the liturgical action people themselves are essentially becoming the characters of the “living decoration”, the ephemeral representation of heavenly realities. We believe, that is the essence and visual power of the aniconic space: allowing the two–directional process of image creation to emerge. The inner one in the form of imagination and external one in the form of liturgical performance. When Bissera Pentcheva in her Performative Icon analysed byzantine relief , their capacity to transcend the materiality and gave access to invisible through the synesthetic experience stimulating the creation of the inner images,310 she pointed out the Byzantine culture understood a performance as being closest to the mimesis.311 We find this thought as crucial even for the aniconic interior of Hagia Eirene with its function as the shell for the living ecclesia imitating the heavenly realm.312 For instance, during the Great Entrance procession of the gifts, with a candles and incense when the Cherubicon “We who mystically represent the Cherubim”313 was chanted by the gathered, they were literally playing the angelic choirs. This performative, mimetic, the heavenly realm mirroring actions must have been in the beautiful concordance with the

307 BRUBAKER 2012, pp. 34-35. 308 MAGDALINO 2007, pp. 14-16. 309 See: SPIESER 1998, p. 70. 310 FOLETTI 2016, p. 33. 311 PENTCHEVA 2006, p. 631. 312 WOODFIN, W., „Celestial Hierarchies and Earthly Hierarchies in the Art of the Byzantine Church“, in: STEPHENSON, P. (ed.), The Byzantine World. London - New York 2010. p. 304. 313„We who mystically represent the Cherubim and sing the thrice-holy hymn to the life-giving , let us now lay aside all worldly care to receive the King of all escorted unseen by the angelic corps. Alleluia!“ See: TAFT, „The Liturgy of the Great Church“, 1995, p. 53. 55 interior decoration of Hagia Eirene. The shimmering gold of mosaics, reflections on the marble revetment and vivid floral ornaments with jewelled crosses of the frescoes must have been notably enhancing the semblance of the heaven on earth. While describing the power of a light in a sacred space conceived as the hierotopy, as the spatial icon of the invisible God, Alexei Lidov pointed out that presence of two-dimensional figurative images might have been considered as discordant within a space, where the performative iconicity played a main role.314 In its beautiful entirety, the concept of a spatial icon results in the “image-vision” enhanced by the consciously created environment which should help to transcend the very material used for its creation. Even though his argument was built for the aniconic Hagia Sophia, we would like to suggest the same also for Hagia Eirene. Thus, while being inside the church created as to react to everything within, to reflect a light, movement and voices, one could have easily felt as being part of it and embrace, comprehend the meaning of the ecclesia. This sense of unity we have tried to underline must have been exceptionally present especially in the concluding moment of the Proscomide Prayer, when after the patriarch’s exclamation “Peace to all”, the congregation answered “Let us love one another!” and then they shared a kiss.315

314 LIDOV, A., Creating the Sacred Space. Hierotopy as a new field of cultural history. Moscow 2015, pp. 66-67. 315 TAFT, „The Liturgy of the Great Church“, 1995, p. 55. 56

Conclusion It is truly remarkable, how coherent must have been the visual language adopted by Hagia Eirene. When Pickett writes that „conceived as a whole, this was a radically new vision of the ideal Byzantine church, presented in a visual language that was at once theological and imperial, drawn from the distant past and the immediate present, “316 the author managed to emphasize all the crucial terms which we were dealing with. Either during the analysis of the matter and form of the church, or later, whilst our attempt to present various rhetoric layers. Speaking for the architecture, as we have had a chance to witness, after c. 532 rebuilding the church preserved a traditional basilical plan with the spacious atrium and the synthronon. Respectively, despite the 8th century redesign and its innovations added into the superstructure, Hagia Eirene sustained the oldest and repeated the previous. Thus, even though the central dome as the innovation of the 6th century and the western one added in the 8th are massive and have opened the composition, they are still subsidiary to the apse, which have stayed in the centre of the attention. The similar principle seems to be working for the decoration as well: we noticed a retrospective manner of the 6th century mosaic fragments in the narthex; we saw the 6th century capitals and imposts being reused and maybe adjusted after 740; as well, the 8th century frescoes which have adopted “traditional” motifs but added a certain sense for abstraction were still functioning as a flawless continuation of the pre-existent narthex mosaics. And regardless the technique, particular form or placement within the church of the remnants of the former decorative scheme we examined, the cross was used as a central motif, at once preserving the early Christian aniconic tradition, yet in a same time proclaiming the new approach to the Christian imagery. While dealing with the imperial and theological implications, if ever present, we tried to show that a divisive line between the two was around the 750 apparently completely blurred. We encountered the emperor promulgating spiritual theses on the Hippodrome, but right after, few meters aside, the mosaic over the most sacred place of Hagia Eirene was gifted with the voice of the victorious emperor. However, we were trying to open our interpretation a little more by proposing to read the whole church as unique spatial iconography emerging in the certain moments of the liturgy. Therefore, the church embellishment consisted not only of the aniconic decorative patterns, but instead, the clergy and the congregation stimulated by the words of prayer, light and incense, using the capacity of human imagination were in their mutual corroboration constituting the ephemeral decoration.

316 PICKETT 2011, p. 3. 57

Bibliography Sources MANGO, C., The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Cambridge 1958. NICEPHORUS, Patriarch, Breviarium Rerum Post Mauricium Gestarum. (Bonnae), Impensis Ed. Weberi 1837. Notitia Utraque Cum Orientis Tum Occidentis. Basileae 1552. SILENTIARII, Pauli. Descriptio S. Sophiae et Ambonis. (Bonnae) Impensis ed. Weberi 1887.

PORPHYROGENITUS, Constantinus. De Ceremoniis Aulae Byzantinae. Bonnae ed. 1829. PROCOPIUS, „The Buildings of Justinian“, in: The Library of the Palestine Pilgrim Text Society, Vol. II. New York 1971. SOCRATES, Scholasticus. The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus. Revised, with Notes, by the Rev. A. C. Zenos, D.D. Hartford 2016. THEOPHANES, Confessor. Chronographia. (Bonnae) Impensis ed. Weberi 1839. JUSTINIAN. Novellae. Translated in: SCOTT, S. P., The Civil Law, XVI. Cincinnati 1932. Literature ALTRIPP, M., „Beobachtungen zu Synthronoi und Kathedren in byzantinischen Kirchen Griechenlands“, in: Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Vol. 124. Athens 2000. ANTONIADES, E., Ekphrasis tis Hagias Sophias, Vol. I. Athens 1907-1909. ARMSTRONG, G., „Constantine´s Churches“, in: Gesta, Vol. 6 (Jan., 1967). Chicago 1967. BALDOVIN, J. F., The Urban Character of Christian Worship. The Origins, Development, and Meaning of Stational Liturgy. Roma 1987. BARBER, Ch., Image and Likeness. On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm. Princeton – Oxford 2002. BELTING, H.; NAUMANN, R., Die Euphemia-Kirche am Hippodrom zu Istanbul und ihre Fresken. Berlin 1966. BJELJAEV, D., „Храмъ св. Ирины и землетрясеніе въ Константинополѣ 28 іюня 1894 года“ (The Church of Hagia Eirene and the Earthquake in Constantinople on June 28th 1894), in: Византіискш Временникъ (Vizatiyskiy Vremennik). Odessa 1894. BJELJAEV, D., „Внешн1й и внутреннш видъ храма ев. Ирины въ Константинополе“ (The external and internal view of the church of Hagia Eirene in Constantinople), in: Византіискш Временникъ (Vizantiyskiy Vremennik). Odessa 1895. BRENK, B., The Apse, the Image and the Icon. An Historical Perspective of the Apse as a Space for Images. Wiesbaden 2010. BRUBAKER, L.; HALDON, J., Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca 680-850): A History. Cambridge 2011. BRUBAKER, L., Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm. London 2012. BYZANTIOS, S., Hē Kōnstantinoupolis ē Perigraphē topographikē kai historikē. Athens 1851. CORMACK, R., The Apse Mosaics of S. Sophia at Thessaloniki. Athens 1981.

58

DALLAWAY, J., Constantinople ancienne et moderne et descriptions des cotes et isles de l'Archipel et de la Troade. Paris 1808. DALLEGIO D’ALLESIO, E., „Les armes croisés au musée militaire de Stamboul (Ancien dépôt de Sainte- Irène)“, in: Échos d'Orient, tome 25, n°144 (1926). Istanbul 1926. DEMUS, O., Byzantine Mosaic Decoration. Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium. London 1976. DIEHL, Ch., Manuel D'Art Byzantin. Paris 1910. DIRIMTEKIN, F., „L'église Sainte Irene“, in: Corso di cultura sul'Arte Ravennate e Bizantina. Ravenna 1956. DIRIMTEKIN, F., „Les fouilles faites en 1946-1947 et en 1958-1960 entre Sainte-Sophie et Sainte-Irene a Istanbul“, in: Cahiers Archéologiques 13. Paris 1962. DOIG, A., Liturgy and Architecture from the Early Church to the Middle Ages. Farnham – Burlington 2008. DU CANGE, Ch. Du Fresne, Constantinopolis christiana seu descriptio urbis Constantinopolitanae qualis extit sub imperatoribus christianis ex variis scriptoribus contexta et adornata libri quatuor, lib. IV, XX. Paris 1680. EBERSOLT, J., Le Grand Palais de Constantinople et le livre des Cérémonies. Paris 1910. EBERSOLT, J.; THIERS, A., Les églises de Constantinople. Paris 1913. EBERSOLT, J., Sanctuaries de Byzance: Recherches sur les anciens trésors des églises de Constantinople. Paris 1921. FOLETTI, I., „Sicut in caelo et in terra. Osservazioni sulla cathedra vacua della basilica sistina di Santa Maria Maggiore a Roma“ (Sicut in caelo et in terra. Observations on the empty cathedra of the Sixtine Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome), in: Iconographica, X (2011). Florence 2011. FOLETTI, I., „Poslové, prostředníci a ochránci. Andělé v pozdní antice a raném středověku“, in: ELBELOVÁ, G. (ed.), Šumění andělských křídel. Anděl v Evropském výtvarném umění. Olomouc 2016. GEORGE, W. S., The Church of S. Eirene at Constantinople. London 1913. GRABAR, A., L' Empereur dans l'art byzantin. Recherches sur l'art officiel de l'Empire d'Orient. Paris 1936. GRABAR, A., L'Iconoclasme Byzantin (Paris 1957). Paris 1996. GROSSMANN, P., „Zum Atrium der Irenenkirche in Istanbul“, in: Istanbuler Mitteilungen 15. Tübingen 1965. GURLITT, C., Die Baukunst Konstantinopels. Berlin 1912. HAMBURGER, J. F., „Script as Image“, in: Corpus of Illuminated Manuscripts, Vol. 21. Leuven 2014. IVANOVICI, V., „Windows and Church Space in Early Medieval Byzantium and West“, in: FOLETTI, I.; FRANTOVÁ, Z. (eds), Byzantium, Russia and Europe. Meeting and Construction of Worlds. Opuscula Historiae Artium, Vol. 62 (2013), Supplementum. Brno 2013. JANIN, R., „La topographie de Constantinople. Études et découvertes (1938-1980)“, in: Revue des études byzantines, tome 8 (1950). Paris 1950. JANIN, R., „Les églises et monastéres de Constantinople byzantine“, in: Revue des études byzantines, tome 9 (1951). Paris 1951. JANIN, R., La geographie ecclésiastique de l´empire Byzantin. Les églises et les monastéres. Paris 1953. JANIN, R., „Constantinople Byzantine: Découvertes et notes de topographie“, in: Revue des études byzantines, tome 21 (1963). Paris 1963.

59

KARTSONIS, A., „The Emancipation of the Crucifixion“, in: GUILLOU, A.; DURAND, J. (eds), Byzance et les images: cycle de conférences organisé au Musée du Louvre, Paris, par le Service culturel du 5 octobre au 7 décembre 1992. Paris 1994. KITZINGER, E., „The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm“, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 8 (1954). Washington, D.C. 1954. KLEIN, H. A., “Constantine, Helena, and the cult of the True Cross in Constantinople”, in: DURAND, J.; FLUSIN, B. (eds), Byzance et les reliques du Christ. Paris 2004. KONDAKOV, N., „Vizantiyskie Cerkvi i Pamatniki Konstantinopola“, in: Trudi VI, Archeologichskago Siyezda 1884. Odessa 1887. KONSTANTINIAS, Palaia te kai neotera etoi perigpaphe Konstantinoupoleos. Venice 1824. KRAFT, A., „Constantinople in Byzantine Apocalyptic Thought“, in: Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU, Vol. 18 (2012). Budapest 2012. KRAUTHEIMER, R., Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture. Baltimore 1965. KRAUTHEIMER, R., „A Note on Justinian´s Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople (1964)“, in: ACKERMAN, J. S., et al. (ed.), Studies in Early Christian, Medieval, and Renaissance Art. New York – London 1969. KRAUTHEIMER, R., „Success and Failure in Late Antique Church Planning“, in: WEITZMANN, K. (ed.), Age of Spirituality: A Symposium. New York 1980. KRAUTHEIMER, R., Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture. New Haven – London 1986. KUNIHOLM, P.; STRIKER, C., „The Tie-beam System in the Nave Arcade of St. Eirene: Structure and Dendrochronology“, in: PESCHLOW, U. Die Irenenkirche in Istanbul: Unterschungen zur Architektur. Tübingen 1977. LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE, J., „Pour le problématique de la peinture d'Église byzantine a l'époque iconoclaste“, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 41, Studies on Art and Archeology in Honor of Ernst Kitzinger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Washington, D.C. 1987. LAOURDAS, B., Ἑλληνικὰ 12, Παράρτημα. Thessalonica 1857-1866. LIDOV, A. Creating the Sacred Space. Hierotopy as a new field of cultural history. Moscow 2015. LOOSLEY, E., The Architecture and Liturgy of the Bema in Fourth- to Sixth-Century Syrian Churches. Leiden – Boston 2012. MAGDALINO, P., „Constantine V and the middle age of Constantinople“, in: MAGDALINO, P., Studies on the History and Topography of Byzantine Constantinople. Aldershot – Burlington 2007. MANGO, C., The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1453: Sources and Documents. Englewood Cliffs 1972. MANGO, C., „The Chalkoprateia Annunciation and the Pre-Eternal Logos“, in: Δελτίον XAE 17 (1993-1994), Περίοδος Δ'. Στη μνήμη της Ντούλας Μουρίκη (1934-1991). Athens 1994. MARINIS, V., „Defining Liturgical Space“, in: STEPHENSON, P. (ed.), The Byzantine World. London – New York 2010. MARINIS, V., „Some Notes on the Functional Approach in the Study of Byzantine Architecture: The Case of Constantinople“, in: BORK, R.; CLARK, W.; McGEHEE, A. (eds), New Approaches to Medieval Architecture. Farnham 2011.

60

MARINIS, V., Architecture and Ritual in the Churches of Constantinople: Ninth to Fifteenth Centuries. Cambridge 2014. MARINIS, V., „The Historia Ekklesiastike kai Mystike Theoria: a symbolic understanding of the Byzantine church building“, in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 108/2 (2015). München 2015. MATHEWS, T., The Early Churches in Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy. London 1971. MATHEWS, T., The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art. Princeton 1999. NAGEL, H. G., Prozessionskreuze und Prozessionen in Byzanz: Kunstgeschichte im Schnittpunkt von Religions- und Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Heidelberg. Heidelberg 2012. NESBITT, C., „Shaping the sacred: light and the experience of worship in middle Byzantine churches“, in: Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2 (2012). Birmingham 2012. OUSTERHOUT, R., Master Builders of Byzantium. New Jersey 1999. OUSTERHOUT, R., „The architecture of Iconoclasm: The Buildings“, in: BRUBAKER, L.; HALDON, J., Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca 680-850): The Sources, An Annotated Survey. Cornwall 2001. OUSTERHOUT, R., „New Temples and New Solomons: The Rhetoric of Byzantine Architecture“, in: MAGDALINO, P.; NELSON, R. (eds), The Old Testament in Byzantium. Washington, D.C. 2010. PENTCHEVA, B., „The Performative Icon“, in: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 88, No. 4 (Dec., 2006). PESCHLOW, U., „Die Architektur der Nikolaokirche“, in: BORCHHART, J. (ed.), Myra. Eine lykische Metropole in antiker und byzantinischer Zeit. Berlin 1975. PESCHLOW, U., Die Irenenkirche in Istanbul: Unterschungen zur Architektur. Tübingen 1977. PESCHLOW, U., „Die Baugeschichte der Irenenkirche in Istanbul neu betrachtet“, in: STRIKER, C. (ed.), Architectural Studies in Memory of Richard Krautheimer. Mainz 1996. PESCHLOW, U., „Altar und Reliquie. Form und Nutzung des frühbyzantinischen Reliquienaltars in Konstantinopel“, in: ALTRIPP, M.; NAUERTH, C. (eds), Architektur und Liturgie. Akten des Kolloquiums vom 25. bis 27. Juli 2003 in Greifswald. Wiesbaden 2006. PICKETT, J., „The Apse Mosaic of Hagia Eirene: The Splendor of Iconoclasm“, in: SÖZEN, G. (ed.), Mosaic: the Square of Civilization. Istanbul 2011. RAMAZANOGLU, M., L'ensemble de Ste Iréne et des diverses Ste. Sophies. Istanbul 1946. RAMAZANOGLU, M., „Neue Forschungen zur Architekturgeschichte der Irenen-Kirche und des Komplexes der Sophienkirche“, in: Actes du Vie Congrès International d'Études Byzantines, 2. Paris (1948) 1951. RAMAZANOGLU, M., „Neue Forschungen zur Architekturgeschichte der Irenen-Kirche und des Komplexes der Sophienkirche“, in: Atti di VIII congresso internazionale di studi bizantini e neoellenistici. Palermo (1951) 1953. SALZENBERG, W., Alt-Christliche Baudenkmale von Constantinopel vom V.-XII. Jh. Berlin 1854. SCHREINER, P., Konstantinopol. Dějiny a Archeologie (Konstantinopel. Geschichte und Archäologie. München 2007). Příbram 2012. SHEPHERD, M. H., „Christology: A Central Problem of Early Christian Theology and Art“, in: WEITZMANN, K. (ed.), Age of Spirituality: A Symposium. New York 1980. SHEPPARD, C., „Byzantine Carved Marble Slabs.“ in: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1969).

61

SPIESER, J.-M., „The Representation of Christ in the Apses of Early Christian Churches“, in: Gesta, Vol. 37, No.1 (1998). Chicago 1998. STRUBE, Ch., Die westliche Eingangsseite der Kirchen von Konstantinopel in Justinianischer Zeit architektonische und quellenkritische Unterschungen. Wiesbaden 1973. TADDEI, A., „Eclettismo e sintesi nei mosaici dell’Acheiropoietos di Tessalonika“, in: Rolsa. Rivista on line di Storia dell’Arte, Numero 12, Anno 2009. Roma 2009. TADDEI, A., „Remarks on the Decorative Wall-mosaics of Saint Eirene at Constantinople“, in: SAHIN, M. (ed.), 11th International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics, October 16th-20th, 2009, Bursa, Turkey. Istanbul 2011. TADDEI, A., „Il mosaico parietale aniconico da Tessalonica a Costantinopoli“, in: LONGO, A. A.; CAVALLO, G.; GUIGLIA, A.; IACOBINI, A. (eds), La Sapienza bizantina: Un secolo di ricerche sulla civiltà di Bisanzio all’Università di Roma. Roma 2012. TADDEI, A., „La decorazione musiva aniconica della Santa Sofia di Costantinopoli da Giustiniano all’età mediobizantina. Alcune osservazioni“, in: RIGO, A.; BABUIN, A., TRIZIO, M. (eds), Vie per Bisanzio: VII Congresso Nazionale dell‘Associazione Italiana di Studi Bizantini, Venezia, 25-28 novembre 2009. Bari 2013. TAFT, R. F., „A Tale of Two cities: The Byzantine Holy Week Triduum as a paradigm of liturgical history“ (ALEXANDER, J. N. (ed.), Time and Community. In Honor of Thomas Julian Talley (NPM Studies in Church Music and Liturgy). Washington, D.C. 1990), in: Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond, Variorum Collected Studies Series, Vol. 493. Aldershot 1995. TAFT, R. F., „In the Bridegroom’s Absence. The Paschal Triduum in the Byzantine Church“, (La celebrazione del Triduo pasquale: anamnesis e mimesis. Atti del III Congresso Internazionale di Liturgia, Roma, Pontificio Istituto Liturgico, 9-13 maggio 1988. Rome 1990.), in: Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond, Variorum Collected Studies Series, Vol. 493. Aldershot 1995. TAFT, R. F., „Some Notes on the Bema in the East and West Syrian Traditions“ (Orientalia Christiana Periodica 34. Rome 1968), in: Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond, Variorum Collected Studies Series, Vol. 493. Aldershot 1995. TAFT, R. F., „The Liturgy of the Great Church: an initial synthesis of structure and interpretation on the eve of Iconoclasm“ (Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34-35. Washington, D.C. 1980-1981), in: Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond, Variorum Collected Studies Series, Vol. 493. Aldershot 1995. TAFT, R. F., „Cathedral vs. Monastic Liturgy in the Christian East: Vindicating a Distinction“, in: Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata III, s. 2 (2005). Rome 2005. TAFT, R. F., „The Decline of Communion in Byzantium and the Distancing of the Congregation from the Liturgical Action: Cause, Effect, or Neither?“, in: GERSTEL, S. (ed.), Tresholds of the Sacred. Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical and Theological Perspectives on Religious Screens, East and West. Washington, D.C. 2006. TANSUĞ, S., „First Restoration of Mosaics in the Church of Saint Irene“, in: Ayasofya Müzesi Yıllığı 4 (1962). Istanbul 1962. THUNØ, E., „Inscription and divine presence: golden letters in the early medieval apse mosaic“, in: Word & Image, Vol. 27, 3 (2011). TURNER, D., „The Plaque of 746-747 and Iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire“, in: The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 85 (1990). Athens 1990. ULBERT, T., Die Basilika des Hl. Kreuzes in Resafa-Sergiupolis. Mainz 1986.

62

VAN MILLINGEN, A., Byzantine Constantinople: The Walls of the City and Adjoining Historical Sites. London 1899. VAN MILLINGEN, A., Byzantine Churches in Constantinople: Their History and Architecture. London 1912. VAN MILLINGEN, A., „Historical Notice“, in: GEORGE, W., The Church of Saint Eirene in Constantinople. London 1913. VELMANS, T., Byzanz: Fresken und Mosaike. Zürich – Düsseldorf 1999. WINFIELD, D., „The British contribution to fieldwork in Byzantine studies in the twentieth century: an introductory survey“, in: CORMACK, R.; JEFFREYS, E. (eds), Through the Looking Glass. Byzantium through British Eyes, Papers from the Twenty-ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies. London 1995. WOODFIN, W., „Celestial Hierarchies and Earthly Hierarchies in the Art of the Byzantine Church“, in: STEPHENSON, P. (ed.), The Byzantine World. London - New York 2010. WOOLF, G., „Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early Empire“, in: Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 86 (1996). WULFF, O., Die Koimesiskirche in Nicäa und ihre Mosaiken nebst den verwandten kirchlichen Baudenkmäler. Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Kunst im I. Jahrtausend. Strassburg 1903. WULFF, O., Handbuch der Kunstwissenschaft, Altchristliche und Byzantinische Kunst, Vol. II, Berlin 1914. ZHELTOV, M., „The Moment of Eucharistic Consecration in Byzantine Thought“, in: JOHNSON, M. E. (ed.), Issues in Eucharistic Praying in East and West. Collegeville 2011. ZUCKERMAN, C., „Heraclius and the Return of the Holy Cross“, in: ZUCKERMAN, C. (ed.), Constructing the Seventh Century. Paris 2013.

Electronic sources CROCI, G., Gli interveni strutturali nel complesso monumentale della Santa Irene a Istanbul. 2006. http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/fineart/html/Byzantine/index.htm?http&&&www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/finea rt/html/Byzantine/11.htm Plans and photographic material. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/8545681

63

List of illustrations

Fig. 1. Ground plan reconstruction, 6th century, Hagia Eirene, Istanbul317 (Peschlow 1977).

Fig. 2. Ground plan reconstruction with the narthex placed further to the east, 6th century (George 1913).

Fig. 3. Ground plan of the atrium (Strube 1973).

Fig. 4. Reconstruction of the elevation, 6th century (Peschlow 1977).

Fig. 5. Scheme of the order of columns with monograms (George 1913).

Fig. 6. View into the north aisle with a colonnade (Photo: Emrecan Ilarslan 2016).

Fig. 7. View into the south aisle with a colonnade (Photo: Emrecan Ilarslan 2016).

Fig. 8. Details of monogram/cross reliefs on each capital, north aisle colonnade318 (Photo: Emrecan Ilarslan 2016).

Fig. 9. Details of monogram/cross reliefs on each capital, south aisle colonnade319 (Photo: Emrecan Ilarslan 2016).

Fig. 10. Scheme of the door lintels with carved crosses (George 1913).

Fig. 11. Detail of a carved cross on one of the door lintels (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 12. Transenna with medallions with inscribed crosses, western gallery (From a website gallery of Thomas Mathews, accessible via: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/fineart/html/Byzantine/index.htm?http&&&www.nyu.edu/gsa s/dept/fineart/html/Byzantine/11.htm).

Fig. 13. Decorative marble slabs, ground level of the north pier (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 14. Decorative soffit of a window, north wall of north gallery, Hagia Sophia, Istanbul (Sheppard 1969).

Fig. 15. Detail of the marble ambo, Sant’Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 16. Reconstruction of the fragments of mosaic decoration, bema arches and soffits of arches in the narthex (drawing by W. S. George, in: George 1913).

Fig. 17. Mosaic frieze, narthex, main arch to the naos (Taddei 2011).

Fig. 18. Mosaic fragments on the north-east spandrel, narthex, northern bay of the central sector (Taddei 2011).

Fig. 19. Mosaic fragment on the soffit of the arch formerly opening toward the atrium, narthex, southern bay of the central sector (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 20. Soffit mosaic, north gallery, Hagia Sophia, Istanbul (Taddei 2011).

317 If not stated otherwise, all the following figures concern the church of Hagia Eirene, Istanbul. 318 The order of the capitals follows the scheme in Fig. 5. 319 The order of the capitals follows the scheme in Fig. 5.

64

Fig. 21. Ground plan including the atrium, 8th century (Van Millingen 1912); cross section showing elevation of the space, 8th century (Peschlow 1977).

Fig. 22. Arcade and transverse barrel vaults divided by arched belts, south aisle (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 23. Entire view into the naos and on the north gallery (Peschlow 1977).

Fig. 24. Marble fragment with monogram of Constantine V, beneath the base of the column n. 3, north arcade (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 25. Scheme of the synthronon (George 1913).

Fig. 26. Views on the synthronon in a current state of preservation (Peschlow 1977; photo: Emrecan Ilarslan 2016).

Fig. 27. Decorative frescoes on the ceiling of a passage, south aisle (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 28. Decorative frescoes, Hagios Nikolaos, Myra (accessible via: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/8545681).

Fig. 29. Decorative frescoes with a cross on the frieze of an arch, entrance to the pier passage, south aisle (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 30. Reconstruction of the cross in the apse, chapel next to the cathedral, Sergiopolis (Rusafa, Syria) (Velmans 1999).

Fig. 31. Frescoes with a cross medallion, south aisle (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 32. Decorative frescoes on the barrel vault of the pier passage, south aisle (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 33. Frescoes with a cross medallion, south aisle (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 34. Frescoes with another cross medallion, south aisle (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 35. Decorative frescoes on the transverse barrel vault and arched belts, south aisle (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 36. Decorative frescoes with a floral motif, south aisle (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 37. Decorative frescoes with a floral motif resembling peacocks, “peacock” arched belt of the transverse barrel vault, south aisle (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 38. Frescoes with a cross medallion, “peacock” arched belt of the transverse barrel vault, south aisle (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 39. Decorative frescoes with a X-shaped pattern, south aisle (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 40. Detail of the mosaic inscription, frieze of the conch (Photo: the Author).

Fig. 41. Watercolour of the conch with the mosaic (drawing by W. S. George, in: George 1913).

Fig. 42. Detail of the decorative border, the conch mosaic (Photo: Emrecan Ilarslan 2016).

Fig. 43. The conch (Photo: Emrecan Ilarslan 2016).

Fig. 44. The apse (Photo: Emrecan Ilarslan 2016).

65