Gyllius and the First Post-1453 Account
The first writer who mentions the church and the holy spring after the year 1453 is Pierre Gyllius. While describing the water-gates in the walls surrounding the Seraglio, he gives a clear indication of the position of Demir Kapoussi. According to Gyllius, this gate was the fourth gate, counting from Yalı Köşk Kapoussi, and it faced south-east, toward the winter sunrise.
Gyllius adds an important detail. He notes that the gate stood not far from the ruins of a church dedicated to Christ. Parts of this ruined church had been built directly into the city wall. These remains, he says, were treated with great respect by the Greek population, who visited them in large crowds. This description strongly supports the identification of the site with the Church of the Holy Saviour and its associated spring The Identification of the Palace of Mangana.
The Festival of the Transfiguration
Later travelers provide vivid descriptions of the scene at this location during the Festival of the Transfiguration, celebrated on the 6th of August. Both Thevenot and Grelot, writing in the seventeenth century, describe the lively and emotional gatherings they witnessed on that day.
Large numbers of people came to the shore near İncili Köşk, hoping to receive healing from the holy water. The atmosphere was full of movement, prayer, and expectation. One of the most striking practices described by these writers was the custom of burying sick persons in the sand up to their necks along the seashore. This unusual method was believed to cure illness when combined with prayer and contact with the sacred spring.
The Sultan’s Interest in the Ceremony
The festival was so remarkable that the Sultan himself sometimes came to İncili Köşk to observe the spectacle. He watched with curiosity as crowds gathered and as the sick underwent their strange and hopeful treatment. This royal interest shows how famous the shrine had become, even under Ottoman rule, and how deeply rooted the tradition remained among the Christian population.
Conflicting Interpretations of the Holy Spring
The historian Hammer also refers to this holy spring, but he made an important mistake. He believed that the spring was dedicated to the Virgin Mary and identified it as the Hagiasma of the Theotokos. He further thought that the site marked the location of the Church of the Theotokos Hodegetria, which was known to have existed in the same general area and also possessed a holy spring.
This interpretation was later accepted by Labarte, but it does not agree with the available evidence. The continuous tradition connecting the spring with the Church of the Holy Saviour, rather than with the Virgin, stands firmly against this view.
Testimony of Patriarch Constantius
The strongest confirmation comes from Patriarch Constantius, whose testimony is especially valuable. He states clearly that from 1453 until 1821, the Hagiasma at İncili Köşk was visited every year on August 6 as the holy spring of the Church of the Saviour Private Tours Bulgaria.
He emphasizes that the Greeks continued to revere this place as a matter of tradition, even when the church itself had long since disappeared. Until only a few years before his writing, the Hagiasma of the Saviour beneath İncili Köşk was still remembered and honored by the faithful.
Taken together, the accounts of Gyllius, later travelers, and Patriarch Constantius provide strong and consistent evidence. They show that the holy spring near Demir Kapoussi and İncili Köşk was widely known, continuously visited, and firmly associated with the Church of the Holy Saviour, not with any other sanctuary. Popular devotion, repeated year after year for centuries, preserved the memory of this sacred site long after its buildings had vanished.
