Produced by Turgut Dincer, David King, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This
book was produced from images made available by the
HathiTrust Digital Library.)






                        BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE

[Illustration: Map of Constantinople in 1422.]




                        BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE

          THE WALLS OF THE CITY AND ADJOINING HISTORICAL SITES

                                   BY

                     ALEXANDER VAN MILLINGEN, M.A.
          PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, ROBERT COLLEGE, CONSTANTINOPLE


                  WITH MAPS, PLANS, AND ILLUSTRATIONS

                                 LONDON
                     JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET
                                  1899

                         _All rights reserved_




    Ἐγὼ δὲ ὧς μητέρα φιλῶ καὶ γὰρ ἐγενόμην πὰρ᾽ αὐτῇ καὶ ἐτράφην ἐκεῖσε,
    καὶ οὐ δύναμαι περὶ αὐτὴν ἀγνωμονῆσαι.

    EMPEROR JULIAN, _Epistle 58_.




                                PREFACE.


In the following pages I venture to take part in the task of identifying
the historical sites of Byzantine or Roman Constantinople, with the view
of making the events of which that city was the theatre more
intelligible and vivid. The new interest now taken in all related to the
Byzantine world demands a work of this character.

The attention I have devoted, for many years, to the subject has been
sustained by the conviction that the Empire of which New Rome was the
capital defended the higher life of mankind against the attacks of
formidable antagonists, and rendered eminent service to the cause of
human welfare. This is what gives to the archæological study of the city
its dignity and importance.

Only a portion of my subject is dealt with in the present volume—the
walls of the city, which were the bulwarks of civilization for more than
a thousand years, and the adjoining sites and monuments memorable in
history.

While availing myself, as the reader will find, of the results obtained
by my predecessors in this field of research, I have endeavoured to make
my work a fresh and independent investigation of the subject, by
constant appeals to the original authorities, and by direct examination
of the localities concerned. The difficult questions which must be
decided, in order that our knowledge of the old city may be more
satisfactory, have been made prominent. Some of them, however, cannot be
answered once for all, until excavations are permitted.

By the frequent quotations and references which occur in the course of
the following discussions, the student will find himself placed in a
position to verify the statements and to weigh the arguments submitted
to his consideration. All difference of opinion leading nearer to the
truth in the case will be welcomed.

My best thanks are due to the friends and the photographers who have
enabled me to provide the book with illustrations, maps, and plans, thus
making the study of the subject clearer and more interesting. The plan
of the so-called Prisons of Anemas by Hanford W. Edson, Esq., the
sketches by Mrs. Walker, the photographs taken by Professor Ormiston,
and the maps and plans drawn by Arthur E. Henderson, Esq., are
particularly valuable. I wish to express my gratitude also to the many
friends who accompanied me on my explorations of the city, thereby
facilitating the accomplishment of my work, and associating it with
delightful memories.

ALEXANDER VAN MILLINGEN.

Robert College,
Constantinople,
_September, 1899_.




                                CONTENTS


I. THE SITE OF CONSTANTINOPLE—THE LIMITS OF BYZANTIUM 1

II. THE CITY OF CONSTANTINE—ITS LIMITS—FORTIFICATIONS—INTERIOR
ARRANGEMENT 15

III. THE THEODOSIAN WALLS 40

IV. THE GATES IN THE THEODOSIAN WALLS—THE GOLDEN GATE 59

V. THE GATES IN THE THEODOSIAN WALLS—_continued_ 74

VI. REPAIRS ON THE THEODOSIAN WALLS 95

VII. THE PALACE OF THE PORPHYROGENITUS (TEKFOUR SERAI) 109

VIII. THE FORTIFICATIONS ON THE NORTH-WESTERN SIDE OF THE CITY, BEFORE
THE SEVENTH CENTURY 115

IX. THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMNENUS 122

X. THE TOWER OF ANEMAS: THE TOWER OF ISAAC ANGELUS 131

XI. INMATES OF THE PRISON OF ANEMAS 154

XII. THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR HERACLIUS: THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR LEO THE
ARMENIAN 164

XIII. THE SEAWARD WALLS 178

XIV. THE WALLS ALONG THE GOLDEN HORN 194

XV. THE WALLS ALONG THE GOLDEN HORN—_continued_ 212

XVI. THE WALLS ALONG THE SEA OF MARMORA 248

XVII. THE HARBOURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA 268

XVIII. THE HARBOURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA—_continued_ 288

XIX. THE HEBDOMON 316

XX. THE ANASTASIAN WALL 342

TABLE OF EMPERORS 344

INDEX 349

                         LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.


MAP OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 1422. (_By Bondelmontius_) _Frontispiece_

BUST OVER THE GATE OF GYROLIMNÈ xi

INSCRIPTION FROM THE STADIUM OF BYZANTIUM _To face_ 14

MAP OF BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE “ 19

MAP OF THE LAND WALLS OF CONSTANTINOPLE “ 41

PORTION OF THE THEODOSIAN WALLS (BETWEEN THE GATE OF THE DEUTERON AND
YEDI KOULÈ KAPOUSSI) _To face_ 46

PORTION OF THE THEODOSIAN WALLS (FROM WITHIN THE CITY) “ 52

AQUEDUCT ACROSS THE MOAT OF THE THEODOSIAN WALLS “ 56

COIN OF THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS II. “ 56

PLAN OF THE GOLDEN GATE “ 60

THE GOLDEN GATE (INNER) “ 64

THE GOLDEN GATE (OUTER) “ 68

YEDI KOULÈ KAPOUSSI “ 72

THE GATE OF THE PEGÈ “ 76

THE GATE OF RHEGIUM “ 78

THE GATE OF ST. ROMANUS 80

THE GATE OF CHARISIUS 80

VIEW ACROSS THE VALLEY OF THE LYCUS (LOOKING NORTH) 86

THE (SO-CALLED) KERKO PORTA 93

INSCRIPTIONS ON THE GATE OF RHEGIUM _To face_ 96

TOWER OF THE THEODOSIAN WALLS (WITH INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE
EMPERORS LEO III. AND CONSTANTINE V.) _To face_ 98

INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPERORS LEO III. AND CONSTANTINE V. 99

MONOGRAMS ON NINTH TOWER, NORTH OF THE GATE OF PEGÈ 100

INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPERORS BASIL II. AND CONSTANTINE IX. 101

INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE IX. 102

INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPEROR ROMANUS 102

DIAGRAM SHOWING THE INTERIOR OF A TOWER IN THE THEODOSIAN WALLS _To
face_ 102

INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPEROR JOHN VII. PALÆOLOGUS 105

DIAGRAM SHOWING APPROXIMATE SECTION AND RESTORATION OF THE THEODOSIAN
WALLS _Facing_ 106

DIAGRAM SHOWING APPROXIMATE ELEVATION AND RESTORATION OF THE THEODOSIAN
WALLS _Facing_ 107

SKETCH-PLAN OF THE BLACHERNÆ QUARTER _To face_ 115

THE PALACE OF THE PORPHYROGENITUS (SOUTHERN FAÇADE) _To face_ 110 THE
PALACE OF THE PORPHYROGENITUS (NORTHERN FAÇADE) _To face_ 111

MONOGRAM OF THE PALÆOLOGI 112

THE PALACE OF THE PORPHYROGENITUS (VIEW OF INTERIOR) _To face_ 112

MONOGRAM FOUND IN THE PALACE OF THE PORPHYROGENITUS 113

PLAN OF THE PALACE OF PORPHYROGENITUS, AND ADJOINING WALLS _To face_ 115

THE PALACE OF THE PORPHYROGENITUS (FROM THE WEST) 118

BALCONY IN THE SOUTHERN FAÇADE OF THE PALACE OF THE PORPHYROGENITUS _To
face_ 118

TOWER OF THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMNENUS 122

THE PALÆOLOGIAN WALL, NORTH OF THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMNENUS
_To face_ 126

THE GATE OF GYROLIMNÈ 126

GENERAL VIEW OF THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMNENUS 128

PLAN OF THE SO-CALLED PRISON OF ANEMAS 131

THE L-SHAPED CHAMBER IN UPPER STORY OF “THE TOWER OF ANEMAS” 137

“THE TOWER OF ANEMAS” AND “THE TOWER OF ISAAC ANGELUS” (FROM THE
SOUTH-WEST) _To face_ 138

“THE TOWER OF ANEMAS” AND “THE TOWER OF ISAAC ANGELUS” (FROM THE
NORTH-WEST) _To face_ 144

VIEW OF THE INTERIOR OF “THE PRISON OF ANEMAS” (BEING THE SUB-STRUCTURES
WHICH SUPPORTED THE PALACE OF BLACHERNÆ) _To face_ 150

CHAMBER IN “THE PRISON OF ANEMAS” 156

ENTRANCE OF PASSAGE FROM THE STAIRWAY IN “THE TOWER OF ANEMAS” TO
CHAMBER D IN “THE TOWER OF ISAAC ANGELUS” _To face_ 162

CORRIDOR IN THE ORIGINAL WESTERN TERRACE WALL OF THE PALACE OF BLACHERNÆ
(LOOKING SOUTH-WEST) _To face_ 162

GENERAL VIEW OF THE WALLS OF THE CITY FROM THE HILL ON WHICH THE
CRUSADERS ENCAMPED IN 1203 _To face_ 166

INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPEROR ROMANUS 169

INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPEROR MICHAEL III. _To face_ 184

INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMNENUS 187

COAT-OF-ARMS OF ANDRONICUS II. PALÆOLOGUS 189

BAS-RELIEF, ON THE TOWER EAST OF DJUBALI KAPOUSSI, REPRESENTING THE
THREE HEBREW YOUTHS CAST INTO THE FIERY FURNACE OF BABYLON, AS DESCRIBED
IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL 191

NIKÈ (FORMERLY NEAR BALAT KAPOUSSI) _To face_ 198

PORTION OF THE CHAIN STRETCHED ACROSS THE ENTRANCE OF THE GOLDEN HORN IN
1453 _To face_ 228

INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THEODOSIUS II. AND THE PREFECT CONSTANTINE;_TO
FACE_ 248 INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPEROR THEOPHILUS; _TO FACE_ 248
INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPEROR ISAAC ANGELUS _To face_ 248

PORTION OF WALLS BESIDE THE SEA OF MARMORA 262

CHATEAU AND MARBLE TOWER NEAR THE WESTERN EXTREMITY OF THE WALLS BESIDE
THE SEA OF MARMORA _To face_ 266

MAP OF THE SHORE OF CONSTANTINOPLE BETWEEN THE SERAGLIO LIGHT-HOUSE AND
DAOUD PASHA KAPOUSSI _To face_ 269

MARBLE FIGURES OF LIONS ATTACHED TO THE BALCONY IN THE PALACE OF THE
BUCOLEON _To face_ 272

RUINS OF THE PALACE OF THE BUCOLEON 274

PORTION OF THE PALACE OF HORMISDAS 277

RUINS OF THE PALACE OF HORMISDAS _To face_ 282

TOWER GUARDING THE HARBOUR OF ELEUTHERIUS AND THEODOSIUS 297

PORTION OF THE WALL AROUND THE HARBOUR OF ELEUTHERIUS AND THEODOSIUS 299

MAP OF THE TERRITORY BETWEEN THE HEBDOMON AND THE CITY WALLS _To face_
316

TRIUMPHUS THEODOSII 330

TRIUMPHUS HERACLII 334

[Illustration: Bust Over the Gate of Gyrolimne.]




                       BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE.
                               CHAPTER I.
          THE SITE OF CONSTANTINOPLE—THE LIMITS OF BYZANTIUM.


Without attempting any elaborate description of the site occupied by
Constantinople, such as we have in Gyllius’ valuable work on the
topography of the city,[1] it is necessary to indicate to the reader,
now invited to wander among the ruins of New Rome, the most salient
features of the territory he is to explore.

The city is situated at the south-western end of the Bosporus, upon a
promontory that shoots out from the European shore of the straits, with
its apex up stream, as though to stem the waters that rush from the
Black Sea into the Sea of Marmora. To the north, the narrow bay of the
Golden Horn runs inland, between steep banks, for some six or seven
miles, and forms one of the finest harbours in the world. The Sea of
Marmora spreads southwards like a lake, its Asiatic coast bounded by
hills and mountains, and fringed with islands. Upon the shore of Asia,
facing the eastern side of the promontory, stand the historic towns of
Chrysopolis (Scutari) and Chalcedon (Kadikeui). The mainland to the west
is an undulating plain that soon meets the horizon. It offers little to
attract the eye in the way of natural beauty, but in the palmy days of
the city it, doubtless, presented a pleasing landscape of villas and
gardens.

The promontory, though strictly speaking a trapezium, is commonly
described as a triangle, on account of the comparative shortness of its
eastern side. It is about four miles long, and from one to four miles
wide, with a surface broken up into hills and plains. The higher ground,
which reaches an elevation of some 250 feet, is massed in two
divisions—a large isolated hill at the south-western corner of the
promontory, and a long ridge, divided, more or less completely, by five
cross valleys into six distinct eminences, overhanging the Golden Horn.
Thus, New Rome boasted of being enthroned upon as many hills beside the
Bosporus, as her elder sister beside the Tiber.

The two masses of elevated land just described are separated by a broad
meadow, through which the stream of the Lycus flows athwart the
promontory into the Sea of Marmora; and there is, moreover, a
considerable extent of level land along the shores of the promontory,
and in the valleys between the northern hills.

Few of the hills of Constantinople were known by special names, and
accordingly, as a convenient mode of reference, they are usually
distinguished by numerals.

The First Hill is the one nearest the promontory’s apex, having upon it
the Seraglio, St. Irene, St. Sophia, and the Hippodrome. The Second
Hill, divided from the First by the valley descending from St. Sophia to
the Golden Horn, bears upon its summit the porphyry Column of
Constantine the Great, popularly known as the Burnt Column and
Tchemberli Tash. The Third Hill is separated from the preceding by the
valley of the Grand Bazaar, and is marked by the War Office and adjacent
Fire-Signal Tower, the Mosque of Sultan Bajazet, and the Mosque of
Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. The Fourth Hill stands farther back
from the water than the five other hills beside the Golden Horn, and is
parted from the Third Hill by the valley which descends from the
aqueduct of Valens to the harbour. It is surmounted by the Mosque of
Sultan Mehemet the Conqueror. The Fifth Hill is really a long
precipitous spur of the Fourth Hill, protruding almost to the shore of
the Golden Horn in the quarter of the Phanar. Its summit is crowned by
the Mosque of Sultan Selim. Between it and the Third Hill spreads a
broad plain, bounded by the Fourth Hill on the south, and the Golden
Horn on the north. The Sixth Hill is divided from the Fifth by the
valley which ascends southwards from the Golden Horn at Balat Kapoussi
to the large Byzantine reservoir (Tchoukour Bostan), on the ridge that
runs from the Mosque of Sultan Mehemet to the Gate of Adrianople. It is
distinguished by the ruins of the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus (Tekfour
Serai) and the quarter of Egri Kapou. Nicetas Choniates styles it the
Hill of Blachernae (βουνὸς τῶν Βλαχερνῶν),[2] and upon it stood the
famous Imperial residence of that name. The Seventh Hill, occupying the
south-western angle of the city, was known, on account of its arid soil,
as the Xerolophos—the Dry Hill.[3] Upon it are found Avret Bazaar, the
pedestal of the Column of Arcadius, and the quarters of Alti Mermer and
Psamathia.

Here, then, was a situation where men could build a noble city in the
midst of some of the fairest scenery on earth.

But the history of Constantinople cannot be understood unless the
extraordinary character of the geographical position of the place is
present to the mind. No city owes so much to its site. The vitality and
power of Constantinople are rooted in a unique location. Nowhere is the
influence of geography upon history more strikingly marked. Here, to a
degree that is marvellous, the possibilities of the freest and widest
intercourse blend with the possibilities of complete isolation. No city
can be more in the world and out of the world. It is the meeting-point
of some of the most important highways on the globe, whether by sea or
land; the centre around which diverse, vast, and wealthy countries lie
within easy reach, inviting intimate commercial relations, and
permitting extended political control. Here the peninsula of Asia Minor,
stretching like a bridge across the seas that sunder Asia and Europe,
narrows the waters between the two great continents to a stream only
half a mile across. Hither the Mediterranean ascends, through the
avenues of the Ægean and the Marmora, from the regions of the south;
while the Euxine and the Azoff spread a pathway to the regions of the
north. Here is a harbour within which the largest and richest fleets can
find a perfect shelter.

But no less remarkable is the facility with which the great world, so
near at hand, can be excluded. Access to this point by sea is possible
only through the straits of the Hellespont on the one side, and through
the straits of the Bosporus on the other—defiles which, when properly
guarded, no hostile navy could penetrate. These channels, with the Sea
of Marmora between them, formed, moreover, a natural moat which
prevented an Asiatic foe from coming within striking distance of the
city; while the narrow breadth of the promontory on which the city
stands allowed the erection of fortifications, along the west, which
could be held against immense armies by a comparatively small force.

As Dean Stanley, alluding to the selection of this site for the new
capital of the Empire, has observed: “Of all the events of Constantine’s
life, this choice is the most convincing and enduring proof of his real
genius.”

Although it does not fall within the scope of this work to discuss the
topography of Byzantium before the time of Constantine, it will not be
inappropriate to glance at the circuits of the fortifications which
successively brought more and more of this historic promontory within
their widening compass, until the stronghold of a small band of
colonists from Megara became the most splendid city and the mightiest
bulwark of the Roman world.

Four such circuits demand notice.

First came the fortifications which constituted the Acropolis of
Byzantium.[4] They are represented by the walls, partly Byzantine and
partly Turkish, which cling to the steep sides of the Seraglio plateau
at the eastern extremity of the First Hill, and support the Imperial
Museum, the Kiosk of Sultan Abdul Medjid, and the Imperial Kitchens.

That the Acropolis occupied this point may be inferred from the natural
fitness of the rocky eminence at the head of the promontory to form the
kind of stronghold around which ancient cities gathered as their
nucleus. And this inference is confirmed by the allusions to the
Acropolis in Xenophon’s graphic account of the visit of the Ten Thousand
to Byzantium, on their return from Persia. According to the historian,
when those troops, after their expulsion from the city, forced their way
back through the western gates, Anaxibius, the Spartan commander of the
place, found himself obliged to seek refuge in the Acropolis from the
fury of the intruders. The soldiers of Xenophon had, however, cut off
all access to the fortress from within the city, so that Anaxibius was
compelled to reach it by taking a fishing-boat in the harbour, and
rowing round the head of the promontory to the side of the city opposite
Chalcedon. From that point also he sent to Chalcedon for
reinforcements.[5] These movements imply that the Acropolis was near the
eastern end of the promontory.

In further support of this conclusion, it may be added that during the
excavations made in 1871 for the construction of the Roumelian railroad,
an ancient wall was unearthed at a short distance south of Seraglio
Point. It ran from east to west, and was built of blocks measuring, in
some cases, 7 feet in length, 3 feet 9 inches in width, and over 2 feet
in thickness.[6] Judging from its position and character, the wall
formed part of the fortifications around the Acropolis.

The second circuit of walls around Byzantium is that described by the
Anonymus of the eleventh century and his follower Codinus.[7] Starting
from the Tower of the Acropolis at the apex of the promontory, the wall
proceeded along the Golden Horn as far west as the Tower of Eugenius,
which must have stood beside the gate of that name—the modern Yali Kiosk
Kapoussi.[8] There the wall left the shore and made for the Strategion
and the Thermæ of Achilles. The former was a level tract of ground
devoted to military exercises—the _Champ de Mars_ of Byzantium—and
occupied a portion of the plain at the foot of the Second Hill, between
Yali Kiosk Kapoussi and Sirkedji Iskelessi.[9] The Thermæ of Achilles
stood near the Strategion; and there also was a gate of the city, known
in later days as the Arch of Urbicius. The wall then ascended the slope
of the hill to the Chalcoprateia, or Brass Market, which extended from
the neighbourhood of the site now occupied by the Sublime Porte to the
vicinity of Yeri Batan Serai, the ancient Cisterna Basilica.[10]

The ridge of the promontory was reached at the Milion, the milestone
from which distances from Constantinople were measured. It stood to the
south-west of St. Sophia, and marked the site of one of the gates of
Byzantium. Thence the line of the fortifications proceeded to the
twisted columns of the Tzycalarii, which, judging from the subsequent
course of the wall, were on the plateau beside St. Irene. Then, the wall
descended to the Sea of Marmora at Topi,[11] somewhere near the present
Seraglio Lighthouse, and, turning northwards, ran along the shore to the
apex of the promontory, past the sites occupied, subsequently, by the
Thermae of Arcadius and the Mangana.

If we are to believe the Anonymus and Codinus, this was the circuit of
Byzantium from the foundation of the city by Byzas to the time of
Constantine the Great. On the latter point, however, these writers were
certainly mistaken; for the circuit of Byzantium was much larger than
the one just indicated, not only in the reign of that emperor, but as
far back as the year 196 of our era, and even before that date.[12] The
statements of the Anonymus and Codinus can therefore be correct only if
they refer to the size of the city at a very early period.

One is, indeed, strongly tempted to reject the whole account of this
wall as legendary, or as a conjecture based upon the idea that the Arch
of Urbicius and the Arch of the Milion represented gates in an old line
of bulwarks. But, on the other hand, it is more than probable that
Byzantium was not as large, originally, as it became during its most
flourishing days, and accordingly the two arches above mentioned may
have marked the course of the first walls built beyond the bounds of the
Acropolis.

We pass next to the third line of walls which guarded the city, the
walls which made Byzantium one of the great fortresses of the ancient
world. These fortifications described a circuit of thirty-five
stadia,[13] which would bring within the compass of the city most of the
territory occupied by the first two hills of the promontory. Along the
Golden Horn, the line of the walls extended from the head of the
promontory to the western side of the bay that fronts the valley between
the Second and Third Hills, the valley of the Grand Bazaar. Three ports,
more or less artificial,[14] were found in that bay for the
accommodation of the shipping that frequented the busy mart of commerce,
one of them being, unquestionably, at the Neorion.[15]

These bulwarks, renowned in antiquity for their strength, were faced
with squared blocks of hard stone, bound together with metal clamps, and
so closely fitted as to seem a wall of solid rock around the city. One
tower was named the Tower of Hercules, on account of its superior size
and strength, and seven towers were credited with the ability to echo
the slightest sound made by the movements of an enemy, and thus secure
the garrison against surprise. From the style of their construction, one
would infer that these fortifications were built soon after Pausanias
followed up his victory on the field of Platæa by the expulsion of the
Persians from Byzantium.

These splendid ramparts were torn down in 196 by Septimius Severus to
punish the city for its loyalty to the cause of his rival, Pescennius
Niger. In their ruin they presented a scene that made Herodianus[16]
hesitate whether to wonder more at the skill of their constructors, or
the strength of their destroyers. But the blunder of leaving unguarded
the water-way, along which barbarous tribes could descend from the
shores of the Euxine to ravage some of the fairest provinces of the
Empire, was too glaring not to be speedily recognized and repaired. Even
the ruthless destroyer of the city perceived his mistake, and ere long,
at the solicitation of his son Caracalla, ordered the reconstruction of
the strategic stronghold.

It is with Byzantium as restored by Severus that we are specially
concerned, for in that form the city was the immediate predecessor of
Constantinople, and affected the character of the new capital to a
considerable extent. According to Zosimus, the principal gate in the new
walls of Severus stood at the extremity of a line of porticoes erected
by that emperor for the embellishment of the city.[17] There Constantine
subsequently placed the Forum known by his name, so that from the Forum
one entered the porticoes in question, and passed beyond the limits of
Byzantium.[18] Now, the site of the Forum of Constantine is one of the
points in the topography of the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire
concerning which there can be no difference of opinion. The porphyry
column (Burnt Column) which surmounts the Second Hill was the principal
ornament of that public place. Therefore the gate of Byzantium must have
stood at a short distance from that column. According to the clearest
statements on the subject, the gate was to the east of the column, the
Forum standing immediately beyond the boundary of the old city.[19]

The language of Zosimus, taken alone, suggests, indeed, the idea that
the gate of Byzantium had occupied a site to the west of the Forum; in
other words, that the Forum was constructed to the east of the gate,
within the line of the wall of Severus. For, according to the historian,
one entered the porticoes of Severus and left the old town, after
passing through the arches (δι᾽ ὧν) which stood, respectively, at the
eastern and western extremities of the Forum of Constantine. This was
possible, however, only if these various structures, in proceeding from
east to west, came in the following order: Forum of Constantine;
porticoes of Severus; gate of Byzantium. On this view, the statement
that the Forum was “at the place where the gate had stood” would be held
to imply that the porticoes between the Forum and the gate were too
short to be taken into account in a general indication of the Forum’s
position. But to interpret Zosimus thus puts him in contradiction,
first, with Theophanes, as cited above; secondly, with Hesychius
Milesius,[20] who says that the wall of Byzantium did not go beyond the
Forum of Constantine (οὐκ ἔξω τῆς ἐπωνύμου ἀγορᾶς τοῦ βασιλέως);
thirdly, though that is of less moment, with the Anonymus[21] and
Codinus,[22] who explain the circular shape of the Forum as derived from
the shape of Constantine’s tent when he besieged the city.

Lethaby and Swainson[23] place the Forum between the porticoes of
Severus on the east and the gate of Byzantium on the west, putting the
western arch of the Forum on the site of the latter. They understand the
statement of Zosimus to mean that a person in the Forum could either
enter the porticoes _or_ leave the old town according as he proceeded
eastwards or westwards.

From that gate the wall descended the northern slope of the hill to the
Neorion, and thence went eastwards to the head of the promontory.[24] In
descending to the Golden Horn the wall kept, probably, to the eastern
bank of the valley of the Grand Bazaar, to secure a natural escarpment
which would render assault more difficult.

Upon the side towards the Sea of Marmora the wall proceeded from the
main gate of the city to the point occupied by the temple of Aphrodite,
and to the shore facing Chrysopolis.[25] The temple of the Goddess of
Beauty was one of the oldest sanctuaries in Byzantium,[26] and did not
entirely disappear until the reign of Theodosius the Great, by whom it
was converted into a carriage-house for the Prætorian Prefect.[27] It
was, consequently, a landmark that would long be remembered. Malalas[28]
places it within the ancient Acropolis of the city. Other authorities
likewise put it there, adding that it stood higher up the hill of the
Acropolis than the neighbouring temple of Poseidon,[29] where it
overlooked one of the theatres built against the Marmora side of the
citadel,[30] and faced Chrysopolis.[31] From these indications it is
clear that the temple lay to the north-east of the site of St. Sophia,
and therefore not far from the site of St. Irene on the Seraglio
plateau.

Accordingly, the wall of Severus, upon leaving the western gate of the
city, did not descend to the shore of the Sea of Marmora, but after
proceeding in that direction for some distance turned south-eastwards,
keeping well up the south-western slopes of the First Hill, until the
Seraglio plateau was reached.[32] As these slopes were for the most part
very steep, the city, when viewed from the Sea of Marmora, presented the
appearance of a great Acropolis upon a hill.

Where precisely the wall reached the Sea of Marmora opposite Chrysopolis
is not stated, but it could not have been far from the point now
occupied by the Seraglio Lighthouse, for the break in the steep
declivity of the First Hill above that point offered the easiest line of
descent from the temple of Aphrodite to the shore. Thus it appears that
the circuit of the walls erected by Severus followed, substantially, the
course of the fortifications which he had overthrown. It is a
corroboration of this conclusion to find that the ground outside the
wall constructed by Severus—the valley of the Grand Bazaar—answers to
the description of the ground outside the wall which he destroyed; a
smooth tract, sloping gently to the water: “Primus post mœnia campus
erat peninsulæ cervicis sensim descendentis ad litus, et ne urbs esset
insula prohibentis.”[33]

To this account of the successive circuits of Byzantium until the time
of Constantine, may be added a rapid survey of the internal arrangements
and public buildings of the city after its restoration by Severus.[34]

A large portion of the Hippodrome, so famous in the history of
Constantinople, was erected by Severus, who left the edifice unfinished
owing to his departure for the West. Between the northern end of the
Hippodrome and the subsequent site of St. Sophia was the Tetrastoon, a
public square surrounded by porticoes, having the Thermæ of Zeuxippus
upon its southern side.

In the Acropolis were placed, as usual, the principal sanctuaries of the
city; the Temples of Artemis, Aphrodite, Apollo, Zeus, Poseidon, and
Demeter. Against the steep eastern side of the citadel, Severus
constructed a theatre and a Kynegion for the exhibition of wild animals,
as the Theatre of Dionysius and the Odeon were built against the
Acropolis of Athens.

At a short distance from the apex of the promontory rose the column,
still found there, bearing the inscription _Fortunæ Reduci ob devictos
Gothos_, in honour of Claudius Gothicus for his victories over the
Goths. To the north of the Acropolis was the Stadium;[35] then came the
ports of the Prosphorion and the Neorion, and in their vicinity the
Strategion, the public prison,[36] and the shrine of Achilles and
Ajax.[37] The aqueduct which the Emperor Hadrian erected for Byzantium
continued to supply the city of Severus.[38]

Nor was the territory without the walls entirely unoccupied. From
statements found in Dionysius Byzantius, and from allusions which later
writers make to ruined temples in different quarters of Constantinople,
it is evident that many hamlets and public edifices existed along the
shore of the Golden Horn, and in the valleys and on the hills beyond the
city limits. Blachernæ was already established beside the Sixth Hill;
Sycæ, famous for its figs, occupied the site of Galata; and the
Xerolophos was a sacred hill, crowned with a temple of Zeus.[39]

Footnote 1:

  Petrus Gyllius, _De Topographia Constantinopoleos et De illius
  Antiquitatibus_, liber i. c. 4-18.

Footnote 2:

  Page 722. All references in this work to the Byzantine Authors, unless
  otherwise stated, are to the Bonn Edition of the _Corpus Scriptorum
  Historiæ Byzantinæ_.

Footnote 3:

  Anonymus, lib. i. p. 20, in Banduri’s _Imperium Orientale_;
  Constantine Porphyrogenitus, _De Cerimoniis Aulæ Byzantinæ_, p. 501.

Footnote 4:

  Xenophon, _Anabasis_, vii. c. 1.

Footnote 5:

  _Anabasis_, vii. c. 1.

Footnote 6:

  Paspates, Βυζαντιναὶ Μελέται, p. 103. Mordtmann, _Esquisse
  Topographique de Constantinople_, p. 5. All references to these
  writers, unless otherwise stated, are to the works here mentioned.

Footnote 7:

  Lib. i. p. 2; Codinus, pp. 24, 25. Ἤρχετο δὲ τὸ τεῖχος, καθὰ καὶ νῶν,
  ἐπὶ τοῦ Βύζαντος ἀπὸ τοῦ πύργου τῆς Ἀκροπόλεως, καὶ διήρχετο εἰς τὸν
  τοῦ Εὐγενίου πύργον, καὶ ἀνέβαινε μέχρι τοῦ Στρατηγίου, καὶ ἤρχετο εἰς
  τὸ τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως λουτρόν. Ἡ δὲ ἐκεῖσε ἁψὶς, ἡ λεγομένη τοῦ Οὐρβικίου,
  πόρτα ἦν χερσαία τῶν Βυζαντίων: καὶ ἀνέβαινεν εἰς τὰ Χαλκοπρατεῖα τὸ
  τεῖχος ἕως τοῦ λεγομένου Μιλίου· ἦν δὲ κἀκεῖσε πόρτα τῶν Βυζαντίων
  χερσαία: καὶ διήρχετο εἰς τοὺς πλεκτοὺς κίονας τῶν Τζυκαλαρίων, καὶ
  κατέβαινεν εἰς Τόπους, καὶ ἀπέκαμπτε πάλιν διὰ τῶν Μαγγάνων καὶ
  Ἀρκαδιανῶν εἰς τὴν Ἀκρόπολιν.

Footnote 8:

  See below, p. 227.

Footnote 9:

  The site of the Strategion may be determined thus: It was in the Fifth
  Region of the city (_Notitia, ad Reg. V._); therefore, either on the
  northern slope or at the foot of the Second Hill. Its character as the
  ground for military exercises required it to be on the plain at the
  foot of the hill. In the Strategion were found the granaries beside
  the harbour of the Prosphorion (Constant. Porphyr., _De Cerim_, p.
  699), near Sirkidji Iskelessi. At the same time, these granaries were
  near the Neorion (_Bagtchè Kapoussi_), for they were destroyed by a
  fire which started in the Neorion (_Paschal Chron._, p. 582).

Footnote 10:

  The Chalcoprateia was near the Basilica, or Great Law Courts, the site
  of which is marked by the Cistern of Yeri Batan Serai (Cedrenus, vol.
  i. p. 616; cf. Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, lib. ii. c. 20, 21). Zonaras,
  xiv. p. 1212 (Migne Edition), ἐν τῇ καλουμένῃ βασιλικῇ ἔγγιστα τῶν
  Χαλκοπρατείων.

Footnote 11:

  See below, p. 256.

Footnote 12:

  See below, the size of city as given by Dionysius Byzantius.

Footnote 13:

  _Anaplus_ of Dionysius Byzantius. Edition of C. Wescher, Paris, 1874.

Footnote 14:

  Dion Cassius, lxxiv. 14; Herodianus, iii. 6.

Footnote 15:

  Beside Bagtchè Kapoussi. See below, p. 220.

Footnote 16:

  I. 1.

Footnote 17:

  Page 96: Καὶ τὸ μὲν παλαιὸν εἶχε τὴν πύλην ἐν τῇ συμπληρώσει τῶν στοῶν
  ἅς Σεβῆρος ὁ βασιλεὺς ᾠκοδομήσατο.

Footnote 18:

  Zosimus, p. 96: Ἀγορὰν δὲ ἐν τῶ τόπῳ καθ᾽ ὅν ἡ πύλη τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἦν
  οἰκοδομήσας, ... ἁψίδας δύο μαρμάρου προικοννησίου μεγίστας ἀλλήλων
  ἀντίας ἀπέτυπωσε, δι᾽ ὧν ἔνεστιν εἰσιέναι εἰς τὰς Σεβῆρου στοὰς, καὶ
  τῆς πάλαι πόλεως ἐξιέναι.

Footnote 19:

  Theophanes, p. 42, speaking of the column, says it was set up ἀπὸ τοῦ
  τόπου οὗ ἤρξατο οἰκοδομεῖν τὴν πόλιν, ἐπὶ τὸ δυτικὸν μέρος τῆς ἐπὶ
  Ῥώμην ἐξιούσης πύλης.

Footnote 20:

  _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, iv. p. 49.

Footnote 21:

  I. p. 14.

Footnote 22:

  Page 41.

Footnote 23:

  _The Church of Sancta Sophia_, pp. 5, 9.

Footnote 24:

  Zosimus, p. 96, Ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ βορείου λόφου κατὰ τὸν ἴσον τρόπον, κατιὸν
  ἄχρι τοῦ λιμένος ὅ καλοῦσι νεώριον, καὶ ἐπέκεινα μέχρι θαλάσσης ἥ
  κατευθὺ κεῖται τοῦ στόματος δι᾽ οὗ πρὸς τὸν Εὔξεινον ἀνάγονται Πόντον.

Footnote 25:

  _Ibid._, Τὸ δὲ τεῖχος διὰ τοῦ λόφου καθιέμενον ἦν ἀπὸ τοῦ δυτικοῦ
  μέρους ἄχρι τοῦ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ναοῦ, καὶ θαλάσσης τῆς ἀντικρὺ
  Χρυσόπολεως.

Footnote 26:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 495.

Footnote 27:

  Malalas, p. 345.

Footnote 28:

  Page 292.

Footnote 29:

  Hesychius Milesius, _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, iv. p. 149; Codinus, p. 6.

Footnote 30:

  _Notitia, ad Reg. II._; _Paschal Chron._, p. 495.

Footnote 31:

  Zosimus, p. 96.

Footnote 32:

  As the Sphendonè of the Hippodrome was a construction of Constantine
  the Great, the wall of Severus may, near that point, have stood higher
  up the hill than is indicated on the Map of Byzantine Constantinople,
  facing page 19.

Footnote 33:

  Dionysius Byzantius. See Gyllius, _De Bosporo Thracio_, ii. c. 2; cf.
  _ibid._, _De Top. CP._, i. c. 10.

Footnote 34:

  _Paschal Chron._, pp. 494, 495; cf. Malalas, p. 345; _Notitia, ad Reg.
  II._

Footnote 35:

  _Notitia, ad Regiones, IV., V., VI._ In the first tower south of Saouk
  Tchesmè Kapoussi, in the land wall of the Seraglio, is built a stone,
  inscribed with archaic Greek letters, which probably came from the
  Stadium. See _Proceedings of the Greek Literary Syllogos of
  Constantinople_, vol. xvi., 1885, _Archæological Supplement_, p. 3.
  Ἀπομά(χων) αἰχματ(ᾶν), σταδιοδ(ρόμων), ὁ τόπος ἄ(ρχεται).

Footnote 36:

  Codinus, p. 76.

Footnote 37:

  Hesychius Milesius, _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, iv. p. 149.

Footnote 38:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 619.

Footnote 39:

  For buildings, etc., outside the limits of Byzantium, see _Anaplus_ of
  Dionysius Byzantius; Gyllius, _De Bosporo Thracio_, ii. c. 2, c. 5;
  Codinus, p. 30; Anonymus, iii. p 51.

[Illustration: Inscription from the Stadium of Byzantium. (From _Broken
Bits of Byzantium_, by kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)]




                              CHAPTER II.
THE CITY OF CONSTANTINE—ITS LIMITS—FORTIFICATIONS—INTERIOR ARRANGEMENT.


In the year 328 of our era, Constantine commenced the transformation of
Byzantium into New Rome by widening the boundaries of the ancient town
and erecting new fortifications.

On foot, spear in hand, the emperor traced the limits of the future
capital in person, and when his courtiers, surprised at the compass of
the circuit he set himself to describe, inquired how far he would
proceed, he replied, “Until He stops Who goes before me.”[40] The story
expresses a sense of the profound import of the work begun on that
memorable day. It was the inauguration of an epoch.

We shall endeavour to determine the limits assigned to the city of
Constantine. The data at our command for that purpose are, it is true,
not everything that can be desired; they are often vague; at other times
they refer to landmarks which have disappeared, and the sites of which
it is impossible now to identify; nevertheless, a careful study of these
indications yields more satisfactory results than might have been
anticipated under the circumstances.

The new land wall, we shall find, crossed the promontory[41] along a
line a short distance to the east of the Cistern of Mokius on the
Seventh Hill, (the Tchoukour Bostan, west of Avret Bazaar), and of the
Cistern of Aspar at the head of the valley between the Fourth and Sixth
Hills, (the Tchoukour Bostan on the right of the street leading from the
Mosque of Sultan Mehemet to the Adrianople Gate). The southern end of
the line reached the Sea of Marmora somewhere between the gates known
respectively, at present, as Daoud Pasha Kapoussi and Psamathia
Kapoussi, while its northern extremity abutted on the Golden Horn, in
the neighbourhood of the Stamboul head of the inner bridge. At the same
time the seaward walls of Byzantium were repaired, and prolonged to meet
the extremities of the new land wall.

That this outline of the city of Constantine is, substantially, correct,
will appear from the information which ancient writers have given on the
subject.

(_a_) According to Zosimus,[42] the land wall of the new capital was
carried fifteen stadia west of the corresponding wall of Byzantium. The
position of the latter, we have already seen, is marked, with sufficient
accuracy for our present purpose by the porphyry Column of Constantine
which stood close to the main gate of the old Greek town.[43] Proceeding
from that column fifteen stadia westwards, we come to a line within a
short distance of the reservoirs above mentioned.

(_b_) In the oldest description of Constantinople—that contained in the
_Notitia_[44]—the length of the city is put down as 14,075 Roman feet;
the breadth as 6150 Roman feet. The _Notitia_ belongs to the age of
Theodosius II., and might therefore be supposed to give the dimensions
of the city after its enlargement by that emperor. This, however, is not
the case. The size of Constantinople under Theodosius II. is well known,
seeing the ancient walls which still surround Stamboul mark, with slight
modifications, the wider limits of the city in the fifth century. But
the figures of the _Notitia_ do not correspond to the well-ascertained
dimensions of the Theodosian city; they fall far short of those
dimensions, and therefore can refer only to the length and breadth of
the original city of Constantine. To adhere thus to the original size of
the capital after it had been outgrown is certainly strange, but may be
explained as due to the force of habit. When the _Notitia_ was written,
the enlargement of the city by Theodosius was too recent an event to
alter old associations of thought and introduce new points of view. “The
City,” proper, was still what Constantine had made it.

The length of the original city was measured from the Porta Aurea on the
west to the sea on the east. Unfortunately, a serious difference of
opinion exists regarding the particular gate intended by the Porta
Aurea. There can be no doubt, however, that the sea at the eastern end
of the line of measurement was the sea at the head of the promontory;
for only by coming to that point could the full length of the city be
obtained. Consequently, if we take the head of the promontory for our
starting-point of measurement, and proceed westwards to a distance of
14,075 feet, we shall discover the extent of the city of Constantine in
that direction. This course brings us to the same result as the figures
of Zosimus—to the neighbourhood of the Cisterns of Mokius and Aspar.

Turning next to the breadth of the city, we find that the only portion
of the promontory across which a line of 6150 feet will stretch from sea
to sea lies between the district about the gate Daoud Pasha Kapoussi,
beside the Sea of Marmora on the south, and the district about the
Stamboul head of the inner bridge on the north; elsewhere the promontory
is either narrower or broader. Hence the southern and northern
extremities of the land wall of Constantine terminated respectively, as
stated above, in these districts.

From these figures we pass to the localities and structures by which
Byzantine writers have indicated the course of Constantine’s wall.

On the side of the Sea of Marmora the wall extended as far west as the
Gate of St. Æmilianus (πόρτα τοῦ ἁγίου Αἰμιλιανοῦ), and the adjoining
church of St. Mary Rhabdou (τῆς ἁγίας θεοτόκου τῆς Ῥάβδου).[45] That
gate is represented by Daoud Pasha Kapoussi, which stands immediately to
the west of Vlanga Bostan.[46]

In crossing from the Sea of Marmora to the Golden Horn, over the
Seventh, Fourth, and Fifth Hills, the line of the fortifications was
marked by the Exokionion; the Ancient Gate of the Forerunner; the
Monastery of St. Dius; the Convent of Icasia; the Cistern of Bonus; the
Church of SS. Manuel, Sabel, and Ishmael; the Church, and the Zeugma, or
Ferry, of St. Antony in the district of Harmatius, where the
fortifications reached the harbour.[47] To this list may be added the
Trojan Porticoes and the Cistern of Aspar.

[Illustration: Map of Byzantine Constantinople.]

(_a_) The Exokionion (τὸ ἐξωκιόνιον)[48] was a district immediately
outside the Constantinian Wall, and obtained its name from a column in
the district, bearing the statue of the founder of the city. Owing to a
corruption of the name, the quarter was commonly known as the
Hexakionion (τὸ ἑξακιόνιον).[49] It is celebrated in ecclesiastical
history as the extra-mural suburb in which the Arians were allowed to
hold their religious services, when Theodosius the Great, the champion
of orthodoxy, prohibited heretical worship within the city.[50] Hence
the terms Arians and Exokionitai became synonymous.[51] In later times
the quarter was one of the fashionable parts of the city, containing
many fine churches and handsome residences.[52]

Gyllius was disposed to place the Exokionion on the Fifth Hill,[53]
basing his opinion on the fact that he found, when he first visited the
city, a noble column standing on that hill, about half a mile to the
north-west of the Mosque of Sultan Mehemet.[54]

Dr. Mordtmann, on the other hand, maintains that the designation was
applied to the extra-mural territory along the whole line of the
Constantinian land fortifications.[55]

But the evidence on the subject requires us to place the Exokionion on
the Seventh Hill, and to restrict the name to that locality.

For in the account of the triumphal entry of Basil I. through the Golden
Gate of the Theodosian Walls, the Exokionion is placed between the Sigma
and the Xerolophos.[56] The Sigma appears in the history of the sedition
which overthrew Michael V., (1042), and is described as situated above
the Monastery of St. Mary Peribleptos.[57] Now, regarding the position
of that monastery there is no doubt. The establishment, founded by
Romanus Argyrus, was one of the most important monastic houses in
Constantinople. Its church survived the Turkish Conquest, and remained
in the hands of the Greeks until 1643, when Sultan Ibrahim granted it to
the Armenian community.[58] Since that time the sacred edifice has twice
been destroyed by fire, and is now rebuilt under the title of St.
George. It is popularly known as Soulou Monastir (the Water Monastery),
after its adjoining ancient cistern, and stands in the quarter of
Psamathia, low down the southern slope of the Seventh Hill.

The Xerolophos was the name of the Seventh Hill in general,[59] but was
sometimes applied, as in the case before us, to the Forum of Arcadius
(Avret Bazaar) upon the hill’s summit.[60]

This being so, the Exokionion, which was situated between the Sigma and
the Forum of Arcadius, must have occupied the upper western slope of the
Seventh Hill.

In corroboration of this conclusion two additional facts may be cited.
First, the Church of St. Mokius, the sanctuary accorded to the Arians
for their extra-mural services in the Exokionion, stood on the Seventh
Hill,[61] for it was on the road from the Sigma to the Forum of
Arcadius,[62] and gave name to the large ancient cistern, the Tchoukour
Bostan, to the north-west of the Forum.[63]

In the next place, the district on the Seventh Hill to the west of Avret
Bazaar (Forum of Arcadius) and beside the cistern of Mokius, still
retains the name Exokionion under a Turkish form, its actual name, Alti
Mermer, the district of “the Six Columns,” being, evidently, the Turkish
rendering of Hexakionion, the popular Byzantine alias of Exokionion.[64]
The Exokionion, therefore, was on the Seventh Hill. Accordingly, the
Wall of Constantine crossed that hill along a line to the east of the
quarter of Alti Mermer.

(_b_) The next landmark, the Ancient Gate of the Forerunner (Παλαιὰ
Πόρτα τοῦ Προδρόμου), elsewhere styled simply the Ancient Gate (Παλαιὰ
Πόρτα),[65] furnishes the most precise indication we have of the
position of Constantine’s wall. It was a gate which survived the
original fortifications of the city, as Temple Bar outlived the wall of
London, and became known in later days as the Ancient Gate, on account
of its great antiquity. Its fuller designation, the Ancient Gate of the
Forerunner,[66] is explained by the fact that a church dedicated to the
Baptist was built against the adjoining wall. Conversely, the church was
distinguished as the Church of the Forerunner at the Ancient Gate (τὴν
Παλαιὰν).[67] Manuel Chrysolaras places the entrance to the west of the
Forum of Arcadius, and describes it as one of the finest monuments in
the city.[68] It was so wide and lofty that a tower or a full-rigged
ship might pass through its portals. Upon the summit was a marble
portico of dazzling whiteness, and before the entrance rose a column,
once surmounted by a statue. When Bondelmontius visited the city, in
1422, the gate was still erect, and is marked on his map of
Constantinople as Antiquissima Pulchra Porta.[69] It survived the
Turkish Conquest, when it obtained the name of Isa Kapoussi (the Gate of
Jesus), and held its place as late as 1508. In that year it was
overthrown by a great earthquake. “Isa Kapoussi,” says the Turkish
historian Solak Zadè, who records the occurrence, “near Avret Bazaar,
which had been in existence for 1900 years (_sic_), fell and was
levelled to the ground.”[70] But the shadow of the name still lingers
about the site. A small mosque to the west of Avret Bazaar bears the
name Isa Kapoussi Mesdjidi,[71] while the adjoining street is called Isa
Kapoussi Sokaki. The mosque is an ancient Christian church, and probably
bore in its earlier character a name which accounts for its Turkish
appellation.

From these facts it is clear that the Wall of Constantine, in crossing
the Seventh Hill, passed very near Isa Kapoussi Mesdjidi, a conclusion
in accordance with the position already assigned to the Exokionion. The
column outside the Ancient Gate was probably that which gave name to the
district. Nowhere could a column bearing the statue of the city’s
founder stand more appropriately than before this splendid entrance.

(_c_) Another landmark of the course of the Constantinian ramparts in
this part of the city were the Trojan Porticoes (τρῳαδήσιοι
ἔμβολοι),[72] which stood so near the wall that it was sometimes named
after them, the Trojan wall (τῶν τειχῶν τῶν Τρῳαδησίων).[73]

From their situation in the Twelfth Region,[74] it is probable that they
lined the street leading from the Porta Aurea into the city. They were
evidently of some architectural importance, and are mentioned on more
than one occasion as having been damaged by fire or earthquake.[75] The
reason for their name is a matter of conjecture, and no trace of them
remains.

(_d_) Nothing definite regarding the course of the Constantinian Wall
can be inferred from the statement that it ran beside the Monastery of
St. Dius and the Convent of Icasia, seeing the situation of these
establishments cannot be determined more exactly than that they were
found near each other, somewhere on the Seventh Hill.

The former, ascribed to the time of Theodosius I., is mentioned by
Antony of Novgorod in close connection with the Church of St. Mokius and
the Church of St. Luke.[76] The Convent of Icasia was founded by the
beautiful and accomplished lady of that name,[77] whom the Emperor
Theophilus declined to choose for his bride because she disputed the
correctness of his ungracious remark that women were the source of evil.

(_e_) The Cistern of Aspar, which, according to the _Paschal
Chronicle_,[78] was situated near the ancient city wall, is the old
Byzantine reservoir (Tchoukour Bostan), on the right of the street
conducting from the Mosque of Sultan Mehemet to the Gate of Adrianople
in the Theodosian walls. This is clear from the following evidence. The
cistern in question was a very large one, and stood near the Monastery
of Manuel,[79] which was founded by the distinguished general of that
name in the reign of Theophilus. The church of the monastery is now the
Mosque Kefelè Mesdjidi in the quarter of Salmak Tombruk, and a little to
the east of it stands the Tchoukour Bostan mentioned above,[80] the only
large Byzantine reservoir in the neighbourhood.

This conclusion is again in harmony with the figures of Zosimus and the
_Notitia_, which, it will be remembered, brought the line of the
Constantinian Wall close to this point.

(_f_) The Cistern of Bonus, the next landmark to be considered, was
built by the Patrician Bonus, celebrated in Byzantine history for his
brave defence of the capital in 627 against the Avars and the Persians,
while the Emperor Heraclius was in Persia carrying war into the enemy’s
country.[81]

Where this cistern was situated is a matter of dispute which cannot be
definitely settled in our present state of knowledge. Gyllius identified
it with a large cistern, three hundred paces in length, which he found
robbed of its roof and columns, and turned into a vegetable garden, near
the ruins of the Church of St. John in Petra, on the Sixth Hill.[82] The
cistern has disappeared since that traveller’s day, but as the Wall of
Constantine never extended so far west, the identification cannot be
correct.

In Dr. Mordtmann’s opinion, the Cistern of Bonus was the large open
reservoir to the south-west of the Mosque of Sultan Selim, on the Fifth
Hill,[83] and there is much to be said in favour of this view.

The Cistern of Bonus was, in the first place, situated in one of the
coolest quarters of the city, and beside it, on that account, the
Emperor Romanus I. erected a palace,[84] styled the New Palace of
Bonus,[85] as a residence during the hot season. Nowhere in
Constantinople could a cooler spot be found in summer than the terrace
upon which the Mosque of Sultan Selim stands, not to speak of the
attractions offered by the superb view of the Golden Horn from that
point. Furthermore, the Cistern of Bonus was within a short distance
from the Church of the Holy Apostles, seeing that on the eve of the
annual service celebrated in that church in commemoration of Constantine
the Great, the Imperial Court usually repaired to the Palace of Bonus,
in order to be within easy riding distance of the sanctuary on the
morning of the festival.[86] A palace near the reservoir beside the
Mosque of Sultan Selim would be conveniently near the Church of the Holy
Apostles, to suit the emperor on such an occasion. To these
considerations can be added, first, the fact that on the way from the
Palace of Bonus to the Church of the Apostles there was an old cistern
converted into market gardens,[87] which may have been the reservoir
near the Mosque of Sultan Selim; and, secondly, the fact that the Wall
of Constantine, on its way from the Cistern of Aspar to the Golden Horn
passed near the site now occupied by the Mosque of Sultan Selim, and,
consequently, close to the old cistern adjoining that mosque. But to
this identification there is a fatal objection: the Cistern of Bonus was
roofed in,[88] whereas the reservoir beside the Mosque of Sultan Selim
appears to have always been open.

Dr. Strzygowski has suggested that the Cistern of Bonus stood near Eski
Ali Pasha Djamissi,[89] on the northern bank of the valley of the Lycus,
and to the south-west of the Mosque of Sultan Mehemet.[90] No traces of
a cistern have been found in that locality, but the conjecture satisfies
the requirements of the case so far as the proximity of that site to the
line of Constantine’s wall and to the Church of the Holy Apostles is
concerned. Why that position should have been selected for a summer
palace is, however, not apparent.

We have said that the Constantinian Wall, upon leaving the Cistern of
Aspar, turned sharply to the north-east, and made for the shore of the
Golden Horn by running obliquely across the ridge of the Fifth Hill.

This view of the case is required, first, in order to keep the breadth
of the city within the limits assigned by the _Notitia_; and, secondly,
by the statement of the same authority that the Eleventh Region—the
Region at the north-western angle of the Constantinian city—did not
extend to the shore of the Golden Horn: “Nulla parte mari sociata
est.”[91] For this statement implies that the fortifications along the
northern front of that Region stood at some distance from the water. But
the northern slope of the Fifth Hill is so precipitous, and approaches
so close to the Golden Horn that the only available ground for the
fortifications on that side of the city would be the plateau of the
Fifth Hill, where the large cistern beside the Mosque of Sultan Selim is
found.

(_g_) The church dedicated to the three martyr brothers, SS. Manual,
Sabel, and Ishmael, must likewise have been on the Fifth Hill; for it
stood where the wall began its descent (κατήρχετο)[92] towards the
Golden Horn. This agrees with the statement of the _Synaxaria_ that the
church was situated beside the land wall of Constantine, upon
precipitous ground, and near the Church of St. Elias at the Petrion.[93]

(_h_) As to the district of Harmatius, named after Harmatius, a
prominent personage in the reign of Zeno,[94] it must be sought in the
plain bounded by the Fifth, Fourth, and Third Hills, and the Golden
Horn, the plain known in later days as the Plateia, (Πλατεῖα). To that
plain the fortifications of Constantine would necessarily descend from
the Fifth Hill, in proceeding on their north-eastern course to the
Golden Horn; and there also the figures of the _Notitia_ require the
northern end of the walls to terminate. Doubtless in the time of
Constantine the bay at this point encroached upon the plain more than at
present.

A church dedicated to St. Antony was found in this part of the city by
the Archbishop of Novgorod, when he visited Constantinople at the close
of the eleventh century. He reached it after paying his devotions in the
Church of St. Theodosia, the Church of St. Isaiah, and the Church of St.
Laurentius,[95] sanctuaries situated in the plain before us; the first
being now the Mosque Gul Djami, near Aya Kapou,[96] while the two last
are represented, it is supposed, respectively, by the Mosque of Sheik
Mourad and the Mosque of Pour Kouyou, further to the south.[97] The
Archbishop places the Church of St. Antony on higher ground than the
Church of St. Laurentius, apparently a short distance up the slope of
the Fourth Hill, a position which St. Antony of Harmatius may well have
occupied.

(_i_) The locality known as the Zeugma, or Ferry of St. Antony, stood,
naturally, beside the shore. If it cannot be identified with Oun-Kapan
Kapoussi, where one of the principal ferries across the Golden Horn has
always stood, it must, at all events, have been in that neighbourhood.

(_j_) With the result thus obtained regarding the course of the
Constantinian Wall, may now be compared the statement of the _Paschal
Chronicle_ upon the subject. According to that authority the old land
wall of the city crossed the promontory from the Gate of St. Æmilianus,
upon the Sea of Marmora, to the district of the Petrion, upon the Golden
Horn.[98] This statement is of great importance, because made while the
wall was still standing; and it would on that account have been
considered sooner, but for certain questions which it raises, and which
can be answered more readily now than at a previous stage of our
inquiries. The Chronicler makes the strange mistake of supposing that
the wall which he saw stretching from sea to sea was the wall built
originally for the defence of Byzantium by Phedalia, the wife of Byzas.
Unfortunately, Byzantine archæologists were not always versed in
history.

Setting aside, therefore, the Chronicler’s historical opinions, and
attending to the facts under his personal observation, we find him
entirely agreed with the Anonymus as regards the point at which the
southern extremity of the Wall of Constantine terminated.

For the Gate of St. Æmilianus, by which the former authority marks that
extremity, stood close to the Church of St. Mary Rabdou, the indication
given by the latter.[99]

The case seems otherwise as regards the northern end of the line, for
the Petrion, mentioned in the _Paschal Chronicle_, was, strictly
speaking, the district in which the Greek Patriarchate is now situated,
the name of the district being still retained by the gate (Petri
Kapoussi) at the eastern end of the enclosure around the Patriarchal
Church and residence. But this would bring the northern end of the land
wall considerably more to the west than the point where we have reason
to believe the Church of St. Antony was found. It would also make the
city broader than the _Notitia_ allows. The discrepancy can, however, be
easily removed. For, while the Petrion was pre-eminently the district
above indicated, the designation was applied also to territory much
further to the east. The Church of St. Laurentius, for example, near
which St. Antony’s stood, is at one time described as standing in the
Plateia,[100] the plain to the east of Petri Kapoussi, while at another
time it is spoken of as in the Petrion.[101] Hence the statement of the
_Paschal Chronicle_ does not conflict with what other authorities affirm
respecting the point at which the Constantinian land fortifications
reached the Golden Horn.

(_k_) Finally, from the Church of St. Antony the wall proceeded along
the shore of the Golden Horn to the head of the promontory, thus
completing the circuit of the fortifications.

It should, however, be noted that this work of surrounding the city with
bulwarks was not executed entirely in the reign of Constantine. A
portion of the undertaking—probably the walls defending the shores of
the city—was left for his son and successor Constantius to
complete.[102]

The following gates, mentioned in Byzantine history, were found, there
is reason to believe, in the Constantinian circuit:—

Porta Polyandriou (Πόρτα Πολυανδρίου,[103] the Gate of the Cemetery)
stood in the portion of the wall near the Church of the Holy Apostles.
It is true that this was one of the names of the Gate of Adrianople in
the later Theodosian Walls, but if the name was derived from the
Imperial Cemetery beside the Church of the Holy Apostles, there is much
probability in Dr. Mordtmann’s opinion that the designation belonged
originally to the corresponding gate in the Constantinian
fortifications, which stood closer to the cemetery.[104]

Another gate was the Porta Atalou (Πόρτα Ἀτάλου).[105] It was adorned
with the statue of Constantine the Great and the statue of Atalus, after
whom the gate was named. Both monuments fell in the earthquake of 740.
The presence of the statue of the founder of the city upon the gate, the
fact that the damage which the gate sustained in 740 is mentioned in
close connection with the injuries done at the same time to the Column
of Arcadius on the Xeropholos,[106] and the lack of any proof that the
gate stood in the Theodosian Walls, are circumstances which favour the
view that it was an entrance in the Wall of Constantine. From its
association with the Xerolophos one would infer that the Gate of Atalus
was situated on the Seventh Hill, in a position corresponding to one of
the later Theodosian gates on that eminence.

That the Palaia Porta—Isa Kapoussi, beside the Mosque Isa Kapou
Mesdjidi—was a Constantinian gate is beyond dispute.[107] But a
difficult, and at the same time important, question occurs in connection
with it. Was it the Porta Aurea mentioned in the _Notitia_ as the gate
from which the length of the city was measured? What renders this a
difficult question is the fact that the Porta Aurea of the Theodosian
Walls—the celebrated Golden Gate which appears so frequently in the
history of the city, and which is now incorporated in the Turkish
fortress of the Seven Towers (Yedi Koulè), under the name Yedi Koulè
Kapoussi—was already in existence when the _Notitia_ was written.[108]
That being the case, the presumption is in favour of the opinion that
the Golden Gate at Yedi Koulè is the Porta Aurea to which the _Notitia_
refers; and this opinion has upon its side the great authority of Dr.
Strzygowski.[109] On the other hand, the distance from the Porta Aurea
to the sea, as given by the _Notitia_, does not correspond to the
distance between Yedi Koulè and the head of the promontory, the latter
distance being much greater. To suppose that this discrepancy is due to
a mistake which has crept into the figures of the _Notitia_ is possible;
but the supposition is open to more than one objection. In the first
place, such a view obliges us to assume a similar mistake in the figures
which that authority gives for the breadth of the city, seeing they do
not accord with the breadth of the city along the line of the Theodosian
Walls. But even if this objection is waived, and the possibility of a
double error admitted in the abstract, the hypothesis of a mistake in
the figures before us is attended by another difficulty, which cannot be
dismissed so easily. How comes it that figures condemned as inaccurate
because they do not accord with the size of Constantinople under
Theodosius II., prove perfectly correct when applied to the dimensions
of the city under its founder? How come these figures to agree
completely with what we learn regarding the length and breadth of the
city of Constantine from other data on that subject? This cannot be an
accident; the only satisfactory explanation is that the figures in
question belonged to the primitive text of the document in which they
are found, and never referred to anything else than the original size of
the city. Hence we are compelled to adopt the view that when the
_Notitia_ was written, two gates bearing the epithet “Golden” existed in
Constantinople, one of them in the older circuit of the city, the other
in the later fortifications of Theodosius, and that the author of the
_Notitia_ refers to the earlier entrance. There is nothing strange in
the existence of a Triumphal Gate in the Wall of Constantine, while the
duplication of such an entrance for a later line of bulwarks was
perfectly natural.

Why the _Notitia_ overlooks the second Porta Aurea is explained by the
point of view from which that work was written. Its author was concerned
with the original city. A gate in the Wall of Theodosius was only the
vestibule of the corresponding Constantinian entrance.

The existence of a Porta Aurea in the Wall of Constantine being thus
established, the identification of that gate with the Palaia Porta
offers little difficulty. The Constantinian Porta Aurea, like the
Ancient Gate, stood on the Seventh Hill, since the portion of the Via
Triumphalis leading from the Exokionion to the Forum of Arcadius was on
that eminence.[110] Like the Ancient Gate, the Porta Aurea was,
moreover, distinguished by fine architectural features, as its very
epithet implies, and, as the _Notitia_ declares, when it states that the
city wall bounding the Twelfth Region, on the Seventh Hill, was
remarkable for its monumental character—“Quam (regionem) mœnium
sublimior decorat ornatus.”[111] Gates so similar in their position and
appearance can scarcely have been different entrances.

Of the Constantinian gates along the seaboard of the city, the only one
about which anything positive can be affirmed is the Gate of St.
Æmilianus, near the Church of St. Mary Rabdou, on the Sea of Marmora. It
is now represented by Daoud Pasha Kapoussi.[112]

Dr. Mordtmann[113] suggests the existence of a gate known as the
Basilikè Porta beside the Golden Horn, where Ayasma Kapoussi stands; but
this conjecture is exceedingly doubtful.

The Wall of Constantine formed the boundary and bulwark of the city for
some eighty years, its great service being the protection of the new
capital against the Visigoths, who asserted their power in the Balkan
Peninsula during the latter part of the fourth century and the earlier
portion of the fifth. After the terrible defeat of the Roman arms at
Adrianople in 378, the Goths marched upon Constantinople, but soon
retired, in view of the hopelessness of an attack upon the
fortifications. The bold Alaric never dared to assail these walls; while
Gainas, finding he could not carry them by surprise, broke up his camp
at the Hebdomon, and withdrew to the interior of Thrace.

It is a mistake, however, to suppose that the original bulwarks of the
capital were demolished as soon as the Theodosian Walls were built.[114]
On the contrary, the old works continued for a considerable period to
form an inner line of defence. We hear of them in the reign of Justinian
the Great, when, together with the Wall of Theodosius, they were injured
by a violent earthquake.[115] They were in their place also when the
_Paschal Chronicle_ was written.[116] What their condition precisely was
in 740, when the Gate of Atalus was overthrown,[117] cannot be
determined, but evidently they had not completely disappeared.
Thereafter nothing more is heard of them, and the probability is that
they were left to waste away gradually. Remains of ancient walls
survived in the neighbourhood of Isa Kapoussi as late as the early part
of this century.[118]


           Interior Arrangements of the City of Constantine.


The work of altering Byzantium to become the seat of government was
commenced in 328, and occupied some two years, materials and labourers
for the purpose being gathered from all parts of the Empire. Workmen
skilled in cutting columns and marble came even from the neighbourhood
of Naples,[119] and the forty thousand Gothic troops, known as the
Fœderati, lent their strength to push the work forward.[120]

At length, on the 11th of May, A.D. 330,[121] the city of Constantine,
destined to rank among the great capitals of the world, and to exert a
vast influence over the course of human affairs, was dedicated with
public rejoicings which lasted forty days.[122]

The internal arrangements of the city were determined mainly by the
configuration of its site, the position of the buildings taken over from
Byzantium, and the desire to reproduce some of the features of Rome.

The principal new works gathered about two nuclei—the chief Gate of
Byzantium and the Square of the Tetrastoon.

Immediately without the gate was placed the Forum, named after
Constantine.[123] It was elliptical in shape, paved with large stones,
and surrounded by a double tier of porticoes; a lofty marble archway at
each extremity of its longer axis led into this area, and in the centre
rose a porphyry column, bearing a statue of Apollo crowned with seven
rays. The figure represented the founder of the city “shining like the
sun” upon the scene of his creation. On the northern side of the Forum a
Senate House was erected.[124]

The Tetrastoon was enlarged and embellished, receiving in its new
character the name “Augustaion,” in honour of Constantine’s mother
Helena, who bore the title Augusta, and whose statue, set upon a
porphyry column, adorned the square.[125]

The Hippodrome was now completed,[126] to become “the axis of the
Byzantine world,” and there, in addition to other monuments, the Serpent
Column from Delphi was placed. The adjoining Thermæ of Zeuxippus were
improved.[127] An Imperial Palace,[128] with its main entrance on the
southern side of the Augustaion, was built to the east of the
Hippodrome, where it stood related to the race-course very much as the
Palace of the Cæsars on the Palatine was related to the Circus Maximus.
There, at the same time, it commanded the beautiful view presented by
the Sea of Marmora, the Prince’s Islands, the hilly Asiatic coast, and
the snow-capped Bythinian Olympus. Eusebius, who saw the palace in its
glory, describes it as “most magnificent;”[129] while Zosimus speaks of
it as scarcely inferior to the Imperial Residence in Rome.[130]

On the eastern side of the Augustaion rose the Basilica,[131] where the
Senate held its principal meetings. It was entered through a porch
supported by six splendid columns of marble, and the building itself was
decorated with every possible variety of the same material. There also
statues of rare workmanship were placed, such as the Group of the Muses
from Helicon, the statue of Zeus from Dodona, and that of Pallas from
Lindus.[132]

According to Eusebius, Constantine adorned the city and its suburbs with
many churches,[133] the most prominent of them being the Church of
Irene[134] and the Church of the Apostles.[135] The former was situated
a short distance to the north of the Augustaion, and there, as restored
first by Justinian the Great, and later by Leo III., it still stands
within the Seraglio enclosure, now an arsenal of Turkish arms.

The Church of the Apostles, with its roof covered with tiles of gilded
bronze, crowned the summit of the Fourth Hill, where it has been
replaced by the Mosque of the Turkish Conqueror of the city.

There, also, Constantine erected for himself a mausoleum, surrounded by
twelve pillars after the number of the Apostles;[136] and in the
porticoes and chapels beside the church most of Constantine’s successors
and their empresses, as well as the patriarchs of the city, found their
last resting-place in sarcophagi of porphyry or marble. Whether
Constantine had any part in the erection of St. Sophia is extremely
uncertain. Eusebius is silent regarding that church; Socrates ascribes
it to Constantius. Possibly Constantine laid the foundations of the
famous sanctuary.

Among other churches ascribed to the founder of the city are those
dedicated, respectively, to St. Mokius, St. Acacius, St. Agathonicus,
and to Michael the Archangel at Anaplus (Arnaoutkeui), on the
Bosporus.[137] There is no doubt that in the foundation of New Rome,
Constantine emphasized the alliance of the Empire with the Christian
Church. “Over the entrance of his palace,” says Eusebius, “he caused a
rich cross to be erected of gold and precious stones, as a protection
and a divine charm against the machinations and evil purposes of his
enemies.”[138]

Three streets running the length of the city formed the great arteries
of communication.[139]

One started from the south-western end of the palace enclosure, and
proceeded along the Sea of Marmora to the Church of St. Æmilianus, at
the southern extremity of the land wall. At that point was the Harbour
of Eleutherius,[140] on the site of Vlanga Bostan, providing the city
with what Nature had failed to supply—a harbour of refuge on the
southern coast of the promontory.

Another street commenced at the south-eastern end of the palace grounds
(Tzycanisterion), and ran first to the point of the Acropolis along the
eastern shore of the city, passing on the way the theatre and
amphitheatre of Byzantium. Near the latter Constantine built the
Mangana, or Military Arsenal.[141] The street then proceeded westwards
along the Golden Horn, past the Temples of Zeus and Poseidon, the
Stadium, the Strategion, and the principal harbours of the city, to the
Church of St. Antony in the quarter of Harmatius. In the Strategion an
equestrian statue of Constantine was placed, and a pillar bearing the
edict which bestowed upon the city the name of New Rome, as well as the
rights and privileges of the elder capital.[142]

The third street started from the main gate of the palace, and
proceeded, first, from the Augustaion to the Forum of Constantine. On
reaching the Third Hill it divided into two branches, one leading to the
Porta Aurea and the Exokionion, the other to the Church of the Holy
Apostles and the Gate of the Polyandrion. This was the main artery of
the city, and was named the Mesè (Μεσὴ) on account of its central
position. Porticoes built by Eubulus, one of the senators who
accompanied Constantine from Rome, lined both sides of the Mesè, and one
side of the two other streets, adding at once to the convenience and
beauty of the thoroughfares. The porticoes extending from the Augustaion
to the Forum of Constantine were particularly handsome.[143] Upon the
summit of all the porticoes walks or terraces were laid out, adorned
with countless statues, and commanding views of the city and of the
surrounding hills and waters. Thus, the street scenery of Constantinople
combined the attractions of Art and Nature.

The water-supply of the new capital was one of the most important
undertakings of the day.[144] While the water-works of Byzantium, as
improved by Hadrian, continued to be used, they were extended, to render
the supply of water more abundant. What exactly was done for that
purpose is, however, a matter of conjecture.[145]

To the construction of the aqueducts, porticoes, and fortifications of
New Rome sixty centenaria of gold (£2,500,000) were devoted.[146]

The health of the city was consulted by building sewers far underground,
and carrying them to the sea.[147]

With the view of drawing population to the new city, Constantine made
the wheat hitherto sent from Egypt to Rome the appanage of
Constantinople, and ordered the daily free distribution of eighty
thousand loaves.[148] The citizens were, moreover, granted the Jus
Italicus,[149] while, to attract families of distinction the emperor
erected several mansions for presentation to Roman senators.[150]
House-building was encouraged by granting estates in Pontus and Asia, on
the tenure of maintaining a residence in the new capital.[151]

Furthermore, in virtue of its new dignity, the city was relieved from
its subordination to the town of Heraclea,[152] imposed since the time
of Septimius Severus, and the members of the public council of New Rome
were constituted into a Senate, with the right to bear the title of
Clari.[153]

For municipal purposes the city was divided, like Rome, into Fourteen
Regions,[154] two of them being outside the circuit of the
fortifications, viz. the Thirteenth, which comprised Sycæ (Galata), on
the northern side of the Golden Horn, and the Fourteenth, constituting
the suburb of Blachernæ, now the quarters of Egri Kapou and Aivan Serai.

Footnote 40:

  Philostorgius, ii. c. 9.

Footnote 41:

  See Map of Byzantine Constantinople.

Footnote 42:

  Pages 96, 97.

Footnote 43:

  See above, p. 10.

Footnote 44:

  _Notitia Dignitatum accedunt Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanæ et
  Laterculi Provinciarum_, edidit Otto Seeck, p. 243.

  The _Notitia_, so far as Constantinople is concerned, will be found in
  Gyllius’ _De Topographia Constantinopoleos_.

  “Habet sane longitudo urbis a porta aurea usque ad litus maris directa
  linea pedum quattuordecim milia septuaginta quinque, latitudo autem
  pedum sex milia centum quinquaginta.”

Footnote 45:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 494; Anonymus, i. p. 2.

Footnote 46:

  See below, p. 264.

Footnote 47:

  Anonymus, i. p. 2; Codinus, p. 25.

Footnote 48:

  Anonymus, i. p. 20.

Footnote 49:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 501.

Footnote 50:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 561; Socrates, v. c. 7.

Footnote 51:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra_.

Footnote 52:

  Theophanes Continuatus, p. 196; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 173; Nicetas
  Chon. p. 319.

Footnote 53:

  _De Top. CP._, iv. c. 1.

Footnote 54:

  On the occasion of his second visit, Gyllius saw the column removed to
  the Mosque of Sultan Suleiman.

Footnote 55:

  Pages 10, 72.

Footnote 56:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 501.

Footnote 57:

  Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 540, Ἄνωθεν τῆς περιβλέπτου μονῆς, ἐν τῷ τοπω τῷ
  καλουμένῳ Σίγματι.

Footnote 58:

  Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Constantinople_, p. 86.

Footnote 59:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 579.

Footnote 60:

  Socrates, vii. c. 5; Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 106.

Footnote 61:

  Banduri, _Imperium Orientale_, v. p. 81; _Synaxaria_, May 11.

Footnote 62:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 55, 56.

Footnote 63:

  Codinus, p. 99; Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iv. c. 8.

Footnote 64:

  Cf. Paspates, p. 362.

Footnote 65:

  Codinus, p. 122.

Footnote 66:

  Codinus, p. 25.

Footnote 67:

  Du Cange, iv. p. 102.

Footnote 68:

  _Patrologia Græca_, vol. clvi. p. 54, Migne.

Footnote 69:

  Another copy of the map of Bondelmontius than that forming the
  Frontispiece of this work is found at the beginning of Du Cange’s
  _Constantinopolis Christiana_.

Footnote 70:

  For this information I am indebted to Rev. H. O. Dwight, LL.D., of the
  American Board of Missions.

Footnote 71:

  Cf. Paspates, pp. 361-363.

Footnote 72:

  Hesychius Milesius, _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, vol. iv. p. 154.

Footnote 73:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 590.

Footnote 74:

  _Notitia, ad Reg. XII._

Footnote 75:

  Marcellinus Comes.

Footnote 76:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 103; _Traduits pour la Société de
  l’Orient Latin_, par Madame B. de Khitrovo.

Footnote 77:

  Codinus, p. 123.

Footnote 78:

  Page 593.

Footnote 79:

  Theophanes Continuatus, p. 168.

Footnote 80:

  Paspates, pp. 304-306.

Footnote 81:

  Codinus, p. 99.

Footnote 82:

  _De Top. CP._, iv. c. 4.

Footnote 83:

  Pages 72, 73.

Footnote 84:

  Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 343.

Footnote 85:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 532.

Footnote 86:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra._

Footnote 87:

  Constant. Porphyr., p. 532.

Footnote 88:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 49, Ἐσκέπασεν αὐτὴν κυλινδρικῷ θόλῳ.

Footnote 89:

  The literary form of the word is Djami’i.

Footnote 90:

  _Die Byzantinischen Wasserbehälter von Konstantinopel_, p. 185.

Footnote 91:

  _Ad Reg. XI._

Footnote 92:

  Codinus, p. 25.

Footnote 93:

  _Synaxaria_, June 17, 20; Anonymus, ii. p. 35.

Footnote 94:

  Anonymus, ii. p. 36.

Footnote 95:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, pp. 104, 105.

Footnote 96:

  Paspates, pp. 320-322.

Footnote 97:

  _Ibid._, pp. 381-383.

Footnote 98:

  Page 494, Τὸ παλαιὸν τεῖχος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, τουτέστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ
  καλουμένου Πετρίου ἕως τῆς πόρτας τοῦ ἁγίου Αἰμιλιανοῦ, πλησίον τῆς
  καλουμένης Ῥάβδου.

Footnote 99:

  See _Paschal Chron._, _ut supra_.

Footnote 100:

  Anonymus, ii. pp. 39, 40.

Footnote 101:

  _Bollandists_, May 30, p. 238, Ἐν μαρτυρείῳ τῆς ἁγίας Εὐφημίας τῷ ὄντι
  πλησίον τοῦ ἁγίου Λαυρεντίου ἐν τῷ Πετρίῳ.

  Under August 10, St. Laurentius is described as ἐν Πουλχεριαναῖς and
  ἐν Πετρίῳ. See below, pp. 206, 207.

Footnote 102:

  Emperor Julian, _Oratio I._

Footnote 103:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 719.

Footnote 104:

  Pages 10, 28. See below, p. 85.

Footnote 105:

  Theophanes, p. 634.

Footnote 106:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra._

Footnote 107:

  See above, pp. 21, 22.

Footnote 108:

  See below, p. 62.

Footnote 109:

  See below, p. 61, ref. 5.

Footnote 110:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 501.

Footnote 111:

  _Ad Reg. XII._

Footnote 112:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 494; see below, p. 264.

Footnote 113:

  Pages 7, 8. There is no proof for the existence of a Porta Saturnini
  in the Constantinian Wall (_Esquisse Top. de CP._). The author of the
  “Life of St. Isaacius,” in the _Bollandists_ (May 31, p. 256, n. 4, p.
  259), says that a cell was built for that saint by Saturninus:
  “Suburbanam, nec procul a civitatis muris (Constantinian) remotam
  domum.” The house of Saturninus himself is described as “extra portam
  Collarida” (Xerolophos). But nothing is said regarding a gate named
  after him. Regarding this Basilikè Porta, see below, p. 213.

Footnote 114:

  Nicephorus Callistus, xiv. c. 1.

Footnote 115:

  Malalas, p. 488; Agathias, v. c. 5, 3-8.

Footnote 116:

  Page 494.

Footnote 117:

  Theophanes, p. 634.

Footnote 118:

  Paspates, p. 363.

Footnote 119:

  Lydus, _De Magistratibus_, iii. p. 266.

Footnote 120:

  Jornandes, _De Rebus Get._, c. 21, “Nam et dum famosissimam et Romæ
  æmulam in suo nomine conderet civitatem, Gothorum interfuit operatio,
  qui fœdere inito cum imperatore XL. suorum millia illi in solatio
  contra gentes varias obtulere, quorum et numerus et millia usque, in
  Rep. nominantur Fœderati.”

  In one brief (_Cod. Theod._, lib. 13, tit. iv. 1) Constantine
  complains of the dearth of architects; in another (_Cod. Theod._, lib.
  13, tit. iv. 2) he offers to free from taxes thirty-five master
  artificers if they would bring up their sons in the same professions.

Footnote 121:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 529.

Footnote 122:

  Banduri, _Imperium Orientale_, lib. v. p. 98.

Footnote 123:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 528; Zosimus, p. 96.

Footnote 124:

  Hesychius, _Frag. Hist. Græc._, iv. p. 154; Anonymus, i. p. 13.

Footnote 125:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 529, Αὐγουσταῖον.

Footnote 126:

  _Ibid._, p. 528.

Footnote 127:

  _Ibid._, p. 529.

Footnote 128:

  _Ibid._, p. 528.

Footnote 129:

  Eusebius, _Life of Constantine_, iv. 66.

Footnote 130:

  Zosimus, p. 97.

Footnote 131:

  _Paschal Chron._, pp. 528, 529.

Footnote 132:

  Zosimus, pp. 280, 281.

Footnote 133:

  Eusebius, _Life of Constantine_, iii. 47.

Footnote 134:

  Socrates, i. c. 16.

Footnote 135:

  Eusebius, iv. c. 52-60.

Footnote 136:

  Eusebius, iv. 60.

Footnote 137:

  Hesychius Milesius, _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, p. 154; Theophanes, p. 34;
  Sozomon, ii. c. 3.

Footnote 138:

  _Life of Constantine_, iii. c. 48.

Footnote 139:

  Anonymus, i. p. 5; Codinus, pp. 22, 23.

Footnote 140:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 46. See below, p. 296.

Footnote 141:

  Anonymus, ii. p. 26. See below, p. 250.

Footnote 142:

  Socrates, i. c. 16.

Footnote 143:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 528; Lydus, _De Magistratibus_, iii. p. 266.

Footnote 144:

  Anonymus, i. p. 5; Codinus, p. 22.

Footnote 145:

  Cf. Tchihatchef, _Le Bosphore et Constantinople_, chap. ii.;
  Andreossy, _Constantinople et le Bosphore de Thrace_, Livre Troisième,
  “Système des Eaux.”

Footnote 146:

  Anonymus, i. p. 5.

Footnote 147:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra_.

Footnote 148:

  Socrates, ii. c. 13; Philostorgius, ii. c. 9.

Footnote 149:

  _Cod. Theod._, lib. xiv. 13; _Cod. Justin._, xi. 20.

Footnote 150:

  Hesychius Milesius, _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, iv. p. 154; Zosimus, p. 97.

Footnote 151:

  _Cod. Theod._, Novella 12.

Footnote 152:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 530. Because of this subordination of Byzantium
  to Heraclea, the bishop of the latter city has still the right to
  preside at the consecration of the patriarch of Constantinople.

Footnote 153:

  Valesian Anonymus, appended to the History of Ammianus Marcellinus.
  The senators of Rome were styled “Clarissimi.”

Footnote 154:

  _Nolitia, ad Regiones._ On the delimitation of the Regions, see
  Gyllius, _De Topographia Constantinopleos_, l. ii. c. 2, 10, 16; l.
  iii. c. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9; l. iv. c. 1, 3, 7, 10, 11; and Mordtmann,
  _Esquisse Topographique de Constantinople_, pp. 2-10. The point on
  which these authorities differ most widely is regarding the situation
  of the Seventh Region, Gyllius making it occupy the valley of the
  Grand Bazaar, on the northern side of the city; while Mordtmann (pp.
  6, 7) places it on the southern slope of the Second Hill, from the
  Forum of Constantine to the Sea of Marmora. My view (at present) on
  the subject is indicated in the Map of Byzantine Constantinople.




                              CHAPTER III.
                         THE THEODOSIAN WALLS.


The enduring character of the political reasons which had called the new
capital into being, and the commercial advantages which its unique
position commanded, favoured such an increase of population, that before
eighty-five years had elapsed, the original limits of Constantinople
proved too narrow for the crowds gathered within the walls.

So numerous were the inhabitants already in 378, that the Goths, who
then appeared before the city after the defeat of the Roman arms at
Adrianople, abandoned all hope of capturing a stronghold which could
draw upon such multitudes for its defence.[155]

[Illustration: The Land Walls of Constantinople.]

Three years later, Athanaric[156] marvelled at the variety of peoples
which poured into the city, as they have ever since, like streams from
different points into a common reservoir. Soon the corn fleets of
Alexandria, Asia, Syria, and Phœnicia, were unable to provide the city
with sufficient bread.[157] The houses were packed so closely that the
citizens, whether at home or abroad, felt confined and oppressed, while
to walk the streets was dangerous, on account of the number of the
beasts of burden that crowded the thoroughfares. Building-ground was in
such demand that portions of the sea along the shores of the city had to
be filled in, and the erections on that artificial land alone formed a
considerable town.[158] Sozomon goes so far as to affirm that
Constantinople had grown more populous than Rome.[159]

This increase of the population is explained, in part, by the
attractions which a capital, and especially one founded recently,
offered alike to rich and poor as a place of residence and occupation.
The ecclesiastical dignity of the city, when elevated to the second rank
in the hierarchy of the Church, made it, moreover, the religious centre
of the East, and drew a large body of ecclesiastics and devout persons
within its bounds. The presence and incursions of the Goths and the Huns
south of the Danube drove many of the original inhabitants of the
invaded districts for shelter behind the fortifications of the city, and
led multitudes of barbarians thither in search of employment or the
pleasures of civilized life.

Then, it must be remembered that no capital is built in a day.

To make the city worthy of its name involved great labour, and demanded
an army of workmen of every description. There were many structures
which Constantine had only commenced; the completion of the
fortifications of the city had been left to Constantius; Julian found it
necessary to construct a second harbour on the side of the Sea of
Marmora; Valens was obliged to improve the water-works of the city by
the erection of the fine aqueduct which spans the valley between the
Fourth and Fifth Hills. And how large a number of hands such works
required appears from the fact that when the aqueduct was repaired, in
the ninth century, 6000 labourers were brought from the provinces to
Constantinople for the purpose.[160]

Under the rule of the Theodosian dynasty the improvement of the city
went forward with leaps and bounds. Most of the public places and
buildings enumerated by the _Notitia_, were constructed under the
auspices of that House, and transformed the city. A vivid picture of the
change is drawn by Themistius,[161] who knew all the phases through
which Constantinople had passed, from the reign of Constantius to that
of Theodosius the Great. “No longer,” exclaims the orator, as he viewed
the altered appearance of things around him, “is the vacant ground in
the city more extensive than that occupied by buildings; nor are we
cultivating more territory within our walls than we inhabit; the beauty
of the city is not, as heretofore, scattered over it in patches, but
covers its whole area like a robe woven to the very fringe. The city
gleams with gold and porphyry. It has a (new) Forum, named after the
emperor; it owns Baths, Porticoes, Gymnasia; and its former extremity is
now its centre. Were Constantine to see the capital he founded he would
behold a glorious and splendid scene, not a bare and empty void; he
would find it fair, not with apparent, but with real beauty.” The
mansions of the rich, the orator continues, had become larger and more
sumptuous; the suburbs had expanded; the place “was full of carpenters,
builders, decorators, and artisans of every description, and might fitly
be called a work-shop of magnificence.” “Should the zeal of the emperor
to adorn the city continue,” adds Themistius, in prophetic strain, “a
wider circuit will be demanded, and the question will arise whether the
city added to Constantinople by Theodosius is not more splendid than the
city which Constantine added to Byzantium.”

The growth of the capital went on under Arcadius, with the result that
early in the reign of his son, the younger Theodosius, the enlargement
of the city limits, foreseen by Themistius, was carried into effect.

But this extension of the boundaries was not made simply to suit the
convenience of a large population. It was required also by the need of
new bulwarks. Constantinople called for more security, as well as for
more room. The barbarians were giving grave reasons for disquiet; Rome
had been captured by the Goths; the Huns had crossed the Danube, and
though repelled, still dreamed of carrying their conquests wherever the
sun shone. It was, indeed, time for the Empire to gird on its whole
armour.

Fortunately for the eastern portion of the Roman world, Anthemius, the
statesman at the head of the Government for six years during the
minority of Theodosius II., was eminently qualified for his position by
lofty character, distinguished ability, and long experience in the
public service. When appointed Prætorian Prefect of the East, in 405, by
the Emperor Arcadius, Chrysostom remarked that the appointment conferred
more honour on the office than upon Anthemius himself; and the
ecclesiastical historian Socrates extols the prefect as “one of the
wisest men of the age.”[162] Proceeding, therefore, to do all in his
power to promote the security of the State, Anthemius cleared the Balkan
Peninsula of the hostile Huns under Uldin, driving them north of the
Danube. Then, to prevent the return of the enemy, he placed a permanent
flotilla of 250 vessels on that river, and strengthened the
fortifications of the cities in Illyria; and to crown the system of
defence, he made Constantinople a mighty citadel. The enlargement and
refortification of the city was thus part of a comprehensive and
far-seeing plan to equip the Roman State in the East for the impending
desperate struggle with barbarism; and of all the services which
Anthemius rendered, the most valuable and enduring was the addition he
made to the military importance of the capital. The bounds he assigned
to the city fixed, substantially, her permanent dimensions, and behind
the bulwarks he raised—improved and often repaired, indeed, by his
successors—Constantinople acted her great part in the history of the
world.

The erection and repair of the fortifications of a city was an
undertaking which all citizens were required to assist, in one form or
another. On that point the laws were very stringent, and no rank or
privilege exempted any one from the obligation to promote the work.[163]
One-third of the annual land-tax of the city could be drawn upon to
defray the outlay, all expenses above that amount being met by
requisitions laid upon the inhabitants. The work of construction was
entrusted to the Factions, as several inscriptions on the walls testify.
In 447, when the Theodosian fortifications were repaired and extended,
the Blues and the Greens furnished, between them, sixteen thousand
labourers for the undertaking.[164]

The stone employed upon the fortifications is tertiary limestone,
brought from the neighbourhood of Makrikeui, where the hollows and
mounds formed in quarrying are still visible. The bricks used are from 1
foot 1 inch to 1 foot 2 inches square, and 2 inches thick. They are
sometimes stamped with the name of their manufacturer or donor, and
occasionally bear the name of the contemporary emperor, and the
indiction in which they were made. Mortar, mixed with powdered brick,
was employed in large quantities, lest it should dry without taking
hold,[165] and bound the masonry into a solid mass, hard as rock.

The wall of Anthemius was erected in 413,[166] the fifth year of
Theodosius II., then about twelve years of age, and is now represented
by the inner wall in the fortifications that extend along the west of
the city, from the Sea of Marmora to the ruins of the Byzantine Palace,
known as Tekfour Serai. The new city limits were thus placed at a
distance of one mile to one mile and a half west of the Wall of
Constantine.

This change in the position of the landward line of defence involved the
extension likewise of the walls along the two shores of the city; but
though that portion of the work must have been included in the plan of
Anthemius, it was not executed till after his day. As we shall find, the
new seaboard of the capital was fortified a quarter of a century later,
in 439, under the direction of the Prefect Cyrus, while Theodosius II.
was still upon the throne.

The bulwarks of Anthemius saved the city from attack by Attila. They
were too formidable for him to venture to assail them.

But they suffered soon at the hands of the power which was to inflict
more injury upon the fortifications of Constantinople than any other
foe. In 447, only thirty-four years after their construction, the
greater portion of the new walls, with fifty-seven towers, was
overthrown by a series of violent earthquakes.[167] The disaster was
particularly inopportune at the moment it occurred, for already in that
year Attila had defeated the armies of Theodosius in three successive
engagements, ravaged with fire and sword the provinces of Macedonia and
Thrace, and come as near to Constantinople as Athyras (Buyuk
Tchekmedjè). He had dictated an ignominious treaty of peace, exacting
the cession of territory south of the Danube, the payment of an
indemnity of 6000 pounds of gold, and the increase of the annual tribute
paid to him by the Eastern Empire from 700 pounds of gold to 2100.

The crisis was, however, met with splendid energy by Constantine, then
Prætorian Prefect of the East, and under his direction, as Marcellinus
Comes affirms, the walls were restored in less than three months after
their overthrow.[168] But besides restoring the shattered bulwarks of
his predecessor, Constantine seized the opportunity to render the city a
much stronger fortress than even Anthemius had made it. Accordingly,
another wall, with a broad and deep moat before it, was erected in front
of the Wall of Anthemius, to place the city behind three lines of
defence. The walls were flanked by 192 towers, while the ground between
the two walls, and that between the Outer Wall and the Moat, provided
room for the action of large bodies of troops. These five portions of
the fortifications rose tier above tier, and combined to form a
barricade 190-207 feet thick, and over 100 feet high.[169]

As an inscription[170] upon the fortifications proclaimed, this was a
wall indeed, τὸ καὶ τεῖχος ὄντως—a wall which, so long as ordinary
courage survived and the modes of ancient warfare were not superseded,
made Constantinople impregnable, and behind which civilization defied
the assaults of barbarism for a thousand years.

[Illustration: Portion of the Theodosian Walls (Between the Gate of the
Deuteron and Yedi Koulè Kapoussi).]

Three inscriptions commemorating the erection of these noble works of
defence have been discovered. Two of them are still found on the Gate
Yeni Mevlevi Haneh Kapoussi (Porta Rhousiou), one being in Greek, the
other in Latin, as both languages were then in official use. The former
reads to the effect that “In sixty days, by the order of the
sceptre-loving Emperor, Constantine the Eparch added wall to wall.”

               † ΗΜΑΣΙΝ ΕΞΗΚΟΝΤΑ ΦΙΛΟΣΚΗΠΤΡΩ ΒΑΣΙΛΗΙ †
               ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΣ ΥΠΑΡΧΟΣ ΕΔΕΙΜΑΤΟ ΤΕΙΧΕΙ ΤΕΙΧΟΣ †

The Latin legend is more boastful: “By the commands of Theodosius, in
less than two months, Constantine erected triumphantly these strong
walls. Scarcely could Pallas have built so quickly so strong a citadel.”

           THEODOSII JUSSIS GEMINO NEC MENSE PERACTO †
           CONSTANTINUS OVANS HAEC MOENIA FIRMA LOCAVIT
           TAM CITO TAM STABILEM PALLAS VIX CONDERET ARCEM †[171]

The third inscription has disappeared from its place on the Porta
Xylokerkou, but is preserved in the Greek Anthology.[172] It declared
that, “The Emperor Theodosius and Constantine the Eparch of the East
built this wall in sixty days.”

                ΘΕΟΔΟΣΙΟΣ ΤΟΔΕ ΤΕΙΧΟΣ ΑΝΑΞ ΚΑΙ ΥΠΑΡΧΟΣ ΕΩΑΣ
                ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΣ ΕΤΕΥΞΑΝ ΕΝ ΗΜΑΣΙΝ ΕΞΗΚΟΝΤΑ

The shortness of the time assigned to the execution of the work is
certainly astonishing. Perhaps the statement of the inscriptions will
appear more credible if understood to refer exclusively to the second
wall, and if we realize the terror which the Huns then inspired. The
dread of Attila, “the Scourge of God,” might well prove an incentive to
extraordinary performance, and strain every muscle to the utmost
tension.

But the question of the time occupied in the reconstruction of the walls
is not the only difficulty raised by these inscriptions. They present a
question also as regards the official under whose direction that work
was executed. For according to them, and Marcellinus Comes, the
superintendent of the work was named Constantine.[173] Theophanes and
subsequent historians, on the other hand, ascribe the undertaking to the
Prefect Cyrus.[174] This is a serious discrepancy, and authorities are
not agreed in their mode of dealing with it. Some have proposed to
remove the difficulty by the simple expedient of identifying Constantine
and Cyrus;[175] while others maintain a distinction of persons, and
reconcile the conflicting statements by understanding them to refer,
respectively, to different occasions on which the walls were
repaired.[176]

Cyrus was one of the most conspicuous figures in the history of the city
during the reign of Theodosius II.[177] On account of his talents and
integrity he held the office of Prætorian Prefect, and that of Prefect
of the City, for four years, making himself immensely popular by the
character of his administration. During his prefecture, in 439, the new
walls along the shores of the city were constructed. The fires and
earthquakes, moreover, which devastated Constantinople in the earlier
half of the fifth century, afforded him ample opportunity for carrying
out civic improvements, and he was to be seen constantly driving about
the city in his chariot to inspect the public buildings in course of
erection, and to push forward their completion. Among other works, he
restored the great Bath of Achilles, which had been destroyed in the
fire of 433.[178] To him also is ascribed the introduction of the
practice of lighting the shops and streets of the capital at night.[179]
He was, moreover, a man of literary tastes, and a poet, who counted the
Empress Eudoxia, herself a poetess, one of his admirers.[180] In the
competition between Greek and Latin for ascendency as the official
language of the Government, he took the side of the former by issuing
his decrees in Greek, a practice which made the conservative Lydus style
him ironically, “Our Demosthenes.”[181]

But in the midst of all his success, Cyrus remained self-possessed and
sober-minded. “I do not like Fortune, when she smiles much,”[182] he was
accustomed to say; and at length the tide of his prosperity turned.
Taking his seat one day in the Hippodrome, he was greeted with a storm
of applause. “Constantine,” the vast assembly shouted, “founded the
city; Cyrus restored it.” For a subject to be so popular was a crime.
Theodosius took umbrage at the ovation accorded to the renovator of the
city, and Cyrus was dismissed from office, deprived of his property,
forced to enter the Church, and sent to Smyrna to succeed four bishops
who had perished at the hands of brigands. Upon his arrival in that city
on Christmas Day he found his people ill-prepared to receive him, so
indignant were they that a man still counted a heathen and a heretic
should have been appointed the shepherd of their souls. But a short
allocution, which Cyrus delivered in honour of the festival, disarmed
the opposition to him, and he spent the last years of his life in the
diocese, undisturbed by political turmoils and unmolested by robbers.

Returning to the question of the identity of Cyrus with the Prefect
Constantine above mentioned, the strongest argument in favour of that
identity is the fact that, commencing with Theophanes, who flourished in
the latter part of the eighth century, all historians who refer to the
fortification of the city under Theodosius II. ascribe the work to
Cyrus. That they should be mistaken on this point, it may be urged, is
extremely improbable. On this view, the occurrence of the name
Constantine instead of Cyrus in the inscriptions and in Marcellinus
Comes, is explained by the supposition that the former name was the one
which Cyrus assumed, as usual under such circumstances, after his
conversion to the Christian faith.[183] But surely any name which Cyrus
acquired after his dismissal from office could not be employed as his
designation in documents anterior to his fall. Perhaps a better
explanation is that Cyrus always had both names, one used habitually,
the other rarely, and that the latter appears in the inscriptions
because more suited than the former to the versification in which they
are cast. This, however, does not explain why Marcellinus Comes prefers
the name Constantine.

On the other hand, the proposed identification of Cyrus and Constantine
is open to serious objections. In the first place, not till the eighth
century is the name of Cyrus associated with the land walls of
Constantinople. Earlier historians,[184] when speaking of Cyrus and
extolling his services, say nothing as to his having been concerned in
the fortification of the city in 447.

In the next place, the information of Theophanes and his followers does
not seem based upon a thorough investigation of the subject. These
writers ignore the fact that under Theodosius II. the land walls were
built on two occasions; they ascribe to Cyrus everything done in the
fifth century in the way of enlarging and fortifying the capital, and
are silent as regards the connection of the great Anthemius with that
work.

The only Byzantine author later than the fifth century who recalls the
services of Anthemius is Nicephorus Callistus,[185] and even he
represents Cyrus as the associate of that illustrious prefect. If such
inaccuracies do not render the testimony of Theophanes and subsequent
historians worthless, they certainly make one ask whether these writers
were not misled by the great fame of Cyrus on the ground of other
achievements, and especially on account of his share in building the
walls along the shores of the city in 439, to ascribe to him a work
which was really performed by the more obscure Constantine.


                            The Inner Wall.
             Τὸ κάστρον τὸ μέγα:[186] Τὸ μέγα τεῖχος.[187]


The Inner Wall was the main bulwark of the capital. It stood on a higher
level than the Outer Wall, and was, at the same time, loftier, thicker,
and flanked by stronger towers. In construction it was a mass of
concrete faced on both sides with blocks of limestone, squared and
carefully fitted; while six brick courses, each containing five layers
of bricks, were laid at intervals through the thickness of the wall to
bind the structure more firmly.

The wall rises some 30-½ feet above the present exterior ground-level,
and about 40 feet above the level within the city, with a thickness
varying from 15-½ feet near the base to 13-½ feet at the summit. The
summit had along its outer edge a battlement, 4 feet 8 inches high, and
was reached by flights of steps, placed generally beside the gates, and
set at right angles to the wall, upon ramps of masonry.

The ninety-six towers, now battered and ruined by weather, war, and
earthquakes, which once guarded this wall, stood from 175 to 181 feet
apart, and were from 57 to 60 feet high, with a projection of 18 to 34
feet. As many of them are reconstructions and belong to different
periods, they exhibit various forms and different styles of workmanship.
Most of them are square; others are hexagonal, or heptagonal, or
octagonal.

While their structure resembles that of the wall, they are nevertheless
distinct buildings, in compliance with the rule laid down by military
engineers, that a tower should not be bound in construction with the
curtain of the wall behind it.[188] Thus two buildings differing in
weight could settle at different rates without breaking apart along the
line of junction. As an additional precaution a relieving arch was
frequently inserted where the sides of the tower impinged on the
wall.[189]

A tower was usually divided by wooden or vaulted floors into two
chambers. Towers with three chambers, like the Tower of Basil and
Constantine at the southern extremity of the wall, and the Soulou Kaleh
beside the Lycus, were rare. The lower chamber was entered from the city
through a large archway. Occasionally, it communicated also with the
terrace between the two walls by a postern, situated as a rule, for the
sake of concealment or easier defence, at the angle formed by the tower
and the curtain-wall. Upon these entrances the chamber depended for
light and air, as its walls had few, if any, loopholes, lest the tower
should be weakened where most exposed to missiles.

Generally, the lower chamber had no means of communication with the
story above it; at other times a circular aperture, about 7-½ feet in
diameter, is found in the crown of the vaulted floor between the
chambers.

[Illustration: Portion of the Theodosian Walls (From Within the City).]

The lower portion of a tower had evidently little to do directly with
the defence of the city, but served mainly as a store-room or
guard-house. There, soldiers returning home or leaving for the field
were allowed to take up their temporary quarters.[190] The proprietors
of the ground upon which the towers stood were also allowed to use
them,[191] but this permission referred, doubtless, only to the lower
chambers, and that in time of peace.

The upper chamber was entered from the parapet-walk through an arched
gateway, and was well lighted on its three other sides by comparatively
large windows, commanding wide views, and permitting the occupants to
fire freely upon an attacking force. Flights of steps, similar to the
ramps that led to the summit of the wall, conducted to the battlemented
roof of the towers. There, the engines that hurled stones and Greek fire
upon the enemy were placed;[192] and there, sentinels watched the
western horizon, day and night, keeping themselves awake at night by
shouting to one another along the line.[193]


                           The Inner Terrace.
                           Ὁ Περίβολος.[194]


The Inner Embankment, or Terrace, between the two walls was 50 to 64
feet broad. It was named the Peribolos, and accommodated the troops
which defended the Outer Wall.


                            The Outer Wall.
    Τὸ ἔξω τεῖχος:[195] τὸ ἔξω κάστρον:[196] τὸ μικρόν τεῖχος.[197]


The Outer Wall is from 2 to 6-½ feet thick, rising some 10 feet above
the present level of the peribolos,[198] and about 27-½ feet above the
present level of the terrace between the Outer Wall and the Moat. Its
lower portion is a solid wall, which retains the embankment of the
peribolos. The upper portion is built, for the most part, in arches,
faced on the outer side with hewn blocks of stone, and is frequently
supported by a series of arches in concrete, and sometimes, even, by two
series of such arches, built against the rear. Besides strengthening the
wall, these supporting arches permitted the construction of a battlement
and parapet-walk on the summit, and, moreover, formed chambers, 8-½ feet
deep, where troops could be quartered, or remain under cover, while
engaging the enemy through the loophole in the western wall of each
chamber.

The towers which flanked this wall[199] were much smaller than those of
the inner line. They are some 30 to 35 feet high, with a projection of
about 16 feet beyond the curtain-wall. They alternate with the great
towers to the rear, thus putting both walls more completely under cover.
It would seem as if the towers of this line were intended to be
alternately square and crescent in shape, so frequently do these forms
succeed one another. That this arrangement was not always maintained is
due, probably, to changes made in the course of repairs.

Each tower had a chamber on the level of the peribolos, provided with
small windows. The lower portion of most of the towers was generally a
solid substructure; but in the case of square towers it was often a
small chamber reached from the Outer Terrace through a small postern,
and leading to a subterranean passage running towards the city. These
passages may either have permitted secret communication with different
parts of the fortifications, or formed channels in which water-pipes
were laid.

Notwithstanding the comparative inferiority of the Outer Wall, it was an
important line of defence, for it sheltered the troops which engaged the
enemy at close quarters. Both in the siege of 1422,[200] and in that of
1453,[201] the most desperate fighting occurred here.


                           The Outer Terrace.
                        Τὸ ἔξω παρατείχιον.[202]


The embankment or terrace between the Outer Wall and the Moat is some 61
feet broad. While affording room for the action of troops under cover of
the battlement upon the scarp of the Moat,[203] its chief function was
to widen the distance between the besiegers and the besieged.


                               The Moat.
                          Τάφρος: σοῦδα.[204]


The Moat is over 61 feet wide. Its original depth, which doubtless
varied with the character of the ground it traversed, cannot be
determined until excavations are allowed, for the market-gardens and
_débris_ which now occupy it have raised the level of the bed. In front
of the Golden Gate, where it was probably always deepest, on account of
the importance of that entrance, its depth is still 22 feet. The masonry
of the scarp and counterscarp is 5 feet thick, and was supported by
buttresses to withstand the pressure of the elevated ground on either
side of the Moat. The battlement upon the scarp formed a breastwork
about 6-½ feet high.

At several points along its course the Moat is crossed by low walls,
dividing it into so many sections or compartments. They are generally
opposite a tower of the Outer or Inner Wall, and taper from the base to
a sharp edge along the summit, to prevent their being used as bridges by
an enemy. On their southern side, where the ground falls away, they are
supported by buttresses.

Dr. Paspates[205] was the first to call attention to these structures,
and to him, also, belongs the credit of having thrown some light upon
their use. They were, in his opinion, aqueducts, and dams or batardeaux,
by means of which water was conveyed to the Moat, and kept in position
there. But this service, Dr. Paspates believed, was performed by them
only in case of a siege, when they were broken open, and allowed to run
into the Moat. At other times, when no hostile attack was apprehended,
they carried water across the Moat into the city, for the supply of the
ordinary needs of the population.

That many of these structures, if not all, were aqueducts admits of no
doubt, for some have been found to contain earthenware water-pipes,
while others of them still carry into the city water brought by
underground conduits from the hills on the west of the fortifications;
and that they were dams seems the only explanation of the buttresses
built against their lower side, as though to resist the pressure of
water descending from a higher level.

[Illustration: Aqueduct Across the Moat of the Theodosian Walls.]

[Illustration: Coin of the Emperor Theodosius II. (From Du Cange.)]

Certainly Dr. Paspates’ view has very much in its favour. It is,
however, not altogether free from difficulties. To begin with, the idea
that the Moat was flooded only during a siege does not agree with the
representations of Manuel Chrysolaras and Bondelmontius on that point.
The former writer, in his famous description of Constantinople, speaks
as if the Moat was always full of water. According to him, it contained
so much water that the city seemed to stand upon the sea-shore, even
when viewed from the side of the land.[206] The Italian traveller
describes the Moat as a “vallum aquarum surgentium.”[207]

Are these statements mere rhetorical flourishes? If not, then water must
have been introduced into the Moat by some other means than by the
aqueducts which traverse it, for these, as Dr. Paspates himself admits,
ordinarily took water into the city. Unfortunately, it is impossible,
under present circumstances, to examine the Moat thoroughly, or to
explore the territory without the city to discover underground conduits,
and thus settle the question at issue. One can only ask, as a matter for
future investigation, whether, on the view that the Moat was always
flooded, the water required for the purpose was not brought by
underground conduits that emptied themselves a little above the bed of
the Moat. The mouth of what appears to be such a conduit is seen in the
counterscarp of the Moat immediately below the fifth aqueduct to the
south of Top Kapoussi. If water was brought thus to the elevation of Top
Kapoussi and Edirnè Kapoussi, sufficient pressure to flood the rest of
the Moat would be obtained.

But, in the next place, it must be added that objections can be urged
against the opinion that the Moat was flooded even in time of war. The
necessary quantity of water could ill be spared by a city which required
all available water for the wants of its inhabitants, especially at the
season of the year when sieges were conducted. Then, there is the fact
that in the accounts we have of the sieges of the city, all contemporary
historians are silent as to the presence of water in the Moat,
notwithstanding frequent allusions to that part of the fortifications.

Furthermore, there are statements which imply the absence of water in
the Moat during a siege. Pusculus, for instance, giving a minute account
of the measures adopted in 1453 to place the city in a state of defence,
refers to the deepening of the Moat, but says nothing about water in it.
“Fossaque cavant, atque aggere terræ educto, muros forti munimine
cingunt.”[208] If water had been introduced into the Moat on this
occasion, Pusculus could hardly have ignored the fact.

Again, in the Slavic account of the last siege of the city we are
informed that the Greeks opened mines through the counterscarp of the
Moat, to blow up the Turks who approached the fortifications: “Les
assiégés pendant le jour combattaient les Turcs, et pendant la nuit
descendaient dans les fossés, perçaient les murailles du fossé du côté
des champs, minaient la terre sous le mur à beaucoup d’endroits, et
remplissaient les mines de poudre et de vases remplis de poudre.”[209]
If such action was possible, there could be no water in the Moat.

Footnote 155:

  Ammianus Marcellinus, xxxii. 16.

Footnote 156:

  Jornandes, xxviii.

Footnote 157:

  Eunapius, quoted by Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, i. c. 5.

Footnote 158:

  Zosimus, p. 101.

Footnote 159:

  Sozomon, ii. c. 3.

Footnote 160:

  Theophanes, p. 680.

Footnote 161:

  _Oratio_, xviii. p. 222. Edition of Petavius.

Footnote 162:

  VII. c. 1.

Footnote 163:

  _Cod. Theod._, lib. viii. tit. xxii.

Footnote 164:

  Anonymus, i. p. 22.

Footnote 165:

  See Choisy, _L’Art de Bâttir chez les Byzantins_, pp. 7-13.

Footnote 166:

  Socrates, vii. c. 1; _Cod. Theod._, “De Operibus Publicis,” lex. 51.
  The law refers to the towers of the new wall, and is addressed to
  Anthemius as Prætorian Prefect in 413: “Turres novi muri, qui ad
  munitionem splendidissimæ urbis extructus est, completo opere,
  præcipimus eorum usui deputari, per quorum terram idem murus studio ac
  provisione Tuæ Magnitudinis ex Nostræ Serenitatis arbitrio
  celebratur.”

Footnote 167:

  Marcellinus Comes, “Plurimi urbis Augustæ muri recenti adhuc
  constructi, cum LVII. turribus, corruerunt.”

Footnote 168:

  “Intra tres menses, Constantino Præfecto Prætorio opere dante, (muri)
  reædificati sunt.” Cf. Inscription on the Gate Yeni Mevlevi Haneh
  Kapoussi, p. 47.

Footnote 169:

  Measuring from the bed of the Moat.

Footnote 170:

  It stood on the Outer Wall between the fourth and fifth towers south
  of the Golden Gate (Paspates, p. 58).

Footnote 171:

  See illustrations facing pp. 78, 96, 248.

Footnote 172:

  Banduri, _Imperium Orientale_, vii. n. 428.

Footnote 173:

  See above, p. 47.

Footnote 174:

  Theophanes, pp. 148, 149; Leo Gram., pp. 108, 109.

Footnote 175:

  Patriarch Constantius, Paspates, Mordtmann, Du Cange.

Footnote 176:

  Muralt, _Essai de Chronographie Byzantine, de 395 à 1057_, pp. 54, 55.

Footnote 177:

  _Paschal Chron._, pp. 588, 589.

Footnote 178:

  _Ibid._, pp. 582, 583.

Footnote 179:

  _Ibid._, p. 588.

Footnote 180:

  Suidas, _ad vocem_ Κύρος.

Footnote 181:

  Lydus, _De Magistratibus_, iii. p. 235.

Footnote 182:

  Malalas, p. 361, Οὐκ ἀρέσκει μοι τύχη πολλά γελῶσα.

Footnote 183:

  Paspates, p. 48, quoting Skarlatus Byzantius.

Footnote 184:

  _Paschal Chron._, Malalas.

Footnote 185:

  Lib. vii. c. 1.

Footnote 186:

  Cananus, p. 476.

Footnote 187:

  Nicephorus Gregoras, xiv. p. 711.

Footnote 188:

  Philo of Byzantium. See _Veterum Mathemat. Opera_, s. ix. Edited and
  Translated by MM. de Rochat et Graux, _Revue de Philologie_, 1879.

Footnote 189:

  Choisy, _L’Art de Bâtir chez les Byzantins_, p. 112.

Footnote 190:

  _Cod. Theod._, “De Metatis,” lib. 13.

Footnote 191:

  _Cod. Theod._, “De Operibus Publicis,” lib. 51.

Footnote 192:

  Theophanes, p. 589; Phrantzes, p. 281.

Footnote 193:

  Nicephorus Gregoras, ix. p. 408.

Footnote 194:

  Ducas, p. 283.

Footnote 195:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 504.

Footnote 196:

  Cananus, p. 476.

Footnote 197:

  Critobulus, i. c. 34.

Footnote 198:

  Or “Lists, the space between the Inner and the Outer Walls of enceinte
  or enclosure” (_Violet-le-Duc on Mediæval Fortifications_; translated
  by Macdermott).

Footnote 199:

  Only seventy out of the ninety-six towers in this wall can now be
  identified.

Footnote 200:

  Cananus, p. 475.

Footnote 201:

  Ducas, pp. 266, 283, 286; Critobulus, i. c. 34; Leonard of Scio, p.
  936, thinks this was poor strategy, rendered necessary by the bad
  condition of the Inner Wall. “Operosa autem protegendi vallum et
  antemurale nostris fuit; quod contra animum meum semper fuit, qui
  suadebam in refugium muros altos non deserendos, qui si ob imbres
  negligentiamque vel scissi, vel inermes propugnaculis essent, qui non
  deserti, præsidium urbi salutis contulisset.”

Footnote 202:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 438.

Footnote 203:

  Ducas, p. 266, Ἐν τῇ τάφρῳ.

Footnote 204:

  Cananus, pp. 461, 462.

Footnote 205:

  Pages 7-13.

Footnote 206:

  Page 40, Τὸ δὲ πλῆθος τῶν ἐν αὐταῖς (τάφροις) ὑδάτων, ὥστε ᾧ μέρει
  μόνον ἐλείπετο, καὶ ταύτῃ δοκεῖν πελαγίαν τὴν πόλιν εἶναι διὰ τούτων.

Footnote 207:

  _Librum Insularum Archipelagi_, p. 121. Leipsic, 1824.

Footnote 208:

  IV. 138, 139.

Footnote 209:

  Dethier, _Sièges de Constantinople_, ii. p. 1085; cf. Mijatovich,
  _Constantine, Last Emperor of the Greeks_, pp. 185, 186. Some 24 of
  these aqueducts or dams can still be identified: 2 between the Sea of
  Marmora and the Golden Gate; 1 between that gate and the Gate of the
  Deuteron; 6 or 7 between the Gate of the Deuteron and the Gate of
  Selivria; 5 between the Gate of Selivria and the Gate Yeni Mevlevi
  Haneh Kapoussi; 5 between Yeni Mevlevi Haneh Kapoussi and Top
  Kapoussi; 2 between Top Kapoussi and the Gate of the Pempton; 3
  between the Gate of the Pempton and Edirnè Kapoussi; 2 between Edirnè
  Kapoussi and the northern end of the Moat.




                              CHAPTER IV.
                   THE GATES IN THE THEODOSIAN WALLS.


                            The Golden Gate.


The Theodosian Walls were pierced by ten gates, and by several small
posterns.

Of the former, some led only to the different parts of the
fortifications, serving exclusively the convenience of the garrison.
These may be styled Military Gates. Others connected the capital,
moreover, with the outside world by means of bridges thrown across the
Moat,[210] and constituted the Public Gates of the city. The two series
followed one another in alternate order, the military entrances being
known by numbers, the public entrances by proper names. Both were double
gateways, as they pierced the two walls. The inner gateway, being the
principal one, was guarded by two large towers, which projected far
beyond the curtain-wall to obtain a good flank fire, and to command at
the same time the outer gateway. Thus also the passage from the area
between the gateways to the peribolos, on either side, was rendered
exceedingly narrow and capable of easy defence. In view of its great
importance, the outer gateway of the Golden Gate also was defended by
two towers, projecting from the rear of the wall towards the city.

For the sake of security against surprise the posterns were few in
number, and occurred chiefly in the great wall and its towers, leading
to the peribolos. It is rare to find a postern in a tower of the Outer
Wall opening on the parateichion.

Proceeding northwards from the Sea of Marmora, there is a postern
immediately to the north of the first tower of the Inner Wall. It is an
arched entrance, with the laureated monogram “ΧΡ.” inscribed above it.

The handsome gateway between the seventh and eighth towers north of the
Sea of Marmora, Yedi Koulè Kapoussi, is the triumphal gate known, from
the gilding upon it, as the Porta Aurea. Its identity cannot be
questioned, for the site and aspect of the entrance correspond exactly
to the description given of the Golden Gate by Byzantine historians and
other authorities.

[Illustration: Plan of the Golden Gate]

It is, what the Porta Aurea was, the gateway nearest the Sea of
Marmora,[211] and at the southern extremity of the Theodosian
Walls,[212] constructed of marble, and flanked by two great marble
towers.[213] Beside its outer portal, moreover, were found the
bas-reliefs which adorned the Golden Gate, and upon it traces of an
inscription which expressly named it the Porta Aurea are still visible.
The inscription read as follows:

              HAEC LOCA THEVDOSIVS DECORAT POST FATA TYRANNI.
              AVREA SAECLA GERIT QVI PORTAM CONSTRVIT AVRO.

The history of our knowledge of this inscription is curious. There is no
mention made of the legend by any writer before 1453, unless Radulphus
de Diceto alludes to it when he states that in 1189 an old resident of
the city pointed a Templar to certain words upon the Golden Gate,
foretelling the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders.[214] And of
all the visitors to the city since the Turkish Conquest, Dallaway is the
only one who speaks of having seen the inscription in its place.[215]

The inscription is cited first by Sirmondi[216] and Du Cange,[217] the
former of whom quotes it in his annotations upon Sidonius Apollonius, as
furnishing a parallel to that poet’s mode of spelling the name
Theodosius with a _v_ instead of an _o_ for the sake of the metre. How
Sirmondi and Du Cange, neither of whom ever visited Constantinople,
became acquainted with the inscription does not appear.

Matters remained in this position until 1891, when the attention of
Professor J. Strzygowski[218] was arrested by certain holes in the
voussoirs of the central archway, both on its western and eastern faces.
The holes are such as are found on stones to which metal letters are
riveted with bolts.

Here, then, was conclusive evidence that the Porta Aurea had once borne
an inscription, and here, Professor Strzygowski divined, was also the
means by which the genuineness of the legend given by Sirmondi and Du
Cange could be verified. Accordingly, a comparison between the
arrangement of the holes on the arch and the forms of the letters in the
legend was instituted. As several of the original voussoirs of the arch
had been removed and replaced by others without holes in them, the
comparison could not be complete; but so far as it was possible to
proceed the correspondence was all that could be desired. Where H, for
example, occurred in the inscription, the holes on the archway are
arranged thus, ::; where an A stood, the holes are placed thus, ∴; where
V came, their position is ∵; and so on, to an extent which verifies the
inscription beyond dispute. Thus, also, it has been ascertained that the
letters were of metal, probably gilt bronze, and that the words “Haec
loca Thevdosivs decorat post fata Tyranni” stood on the western face of
the arch, while the words “Avrea saecla gerit qvi portam constrvit avro”
were found on the opposite side.

The preservation of the inscription is a matter of very great
importance, for it furnishes valuable and interesting information as to
the circumstances under which the Porta Aurea was erected. From the fact
that the entrance is found in the Theodosian Walls it is natural to
infer that the Porta Aurea was a contemporaneous building, and that the
emperor extolled in the inscription is Theodosius II. But that inference
is precluded by the statement that the arch was set up after the
suppression of a usurper, _post fata tyranni_. For Theodosius II. was
not called to suppress the usurpation of his imperial authority at any
time during his reign, much less in 413, when the Wall of Anthemius, in
which the Porta Aurea stands, was built. On the other hand, Theodosius
the Great crushed two serious attempts to dispute his rule, first in
388, when he defeated Maximus, and again in 395, when he put down the
rebellion of Eugenius. Hence, as Du Cange first pointed out, the Porta
Aurea is a monument erected in the reign of Theodosius the Great, in
honour of his victory over one of the rebels above mentioned. It could
not, however, have been designed to commemorate the defeat of Eugenius,
seeing that Theodosius never returned to Constantinople after that
event, and died four months later in the city of Milan. It must,
therefore, have been reared in honour of the victory over Maximus, a
success which the conqueror regarded with feelings of peculiar
satisfaction and pride, celebrating it by one triumphal entry into Rome,
in the spring of 389, and by another into Constantinople, when he
returned to the eastern capital in 391.[219] Accordingly, the Porta
Aurea was originally an Arch of Triumph, erected some time between 388
and 391, to welcome Theodosius the Great upon his return from his
successful expedition against the formidable rebellion of Maximus in the
West. It united with the Column of Theodosius in the Forum of Taurus,
and the Column of Arcadius in the Forum on the Xerolophus, and the
Obelisk in the Hippodrome,[220] in perpetuating the memory of the great
emperor’s warlike achievements.

In corroboration of the date thus assigned to the monument, it may be
added that the only Imperial statue placed over the Porta Aurea was that
of Theodosius the Great, while the group of elephants which formed one
of the ornaments of the gate was supposed to represent the elephants
attached to the car of that emperor on the occasion of his triumphal
entry into the city.[221]

There is, however, an objection to this view concerning the age of the
Porta Aurea, which, whatever its force, should not be overlooked in a
full discussion of the subject. The inscription describes the monument
as a gateway, “Qui portam construit auro.”[222] But such a designation
does not seem consistent with the fact that we have here a building
which belongs to the age of Theodosius the Great, when the city walls in
which the arch stands did not exist, as they are the work of his
grandson. How could an isolated arch be, then, styled a gateway? Can the
difficulty be removed by any other instance of a similar use of the term
“Porta”? Or is the employment of the term in the case before us
explained by the supposition that in the reign of Theodosius the Great
the city had spread beyond the Constantinian Wall, and reached the line
marked by the Porta Aurea, so that an arch at that point was practically
an entrance into the city? May not that suburban district have been
protected by some slight fortified works? Or was the Porta Aurea so
named in anticipation of the fulfilment of the prediction of Themistius,
that the growth of the city under Theodosius the Great would ere long
necessitate the erection of new walls?[223] Was it built in that
emperor’s reign to indicate to a succeeding generation the line along
which the new bulwarks of the capital should be built?

The Porta Aurea was the State Entrance into the capital,[224] and was
remarkable both for its architectural splendour and its military
strength. It was built of large squared blocks of polished marble,
fitted together without cement, and was flanked by two great towers
constructed of the same material. Like the Triumphal Arch of Severus and
that of Constantine at Rome, it had three archways, the central one
being wider and loftier than those on either side.

The gates glittered with gold,[225] and numerous statues and other
sculptured ornaments were placed at suitable points.[226]

[Illustration: The Golden Gate (Inner).]

Of these embellishments the following are mentioned: a cross, which was
blown down by a hurricane in the reign of Justinian;[227] a Victory,
which fell in an earthquake in the reign of Michael III.;[228] a crowned
female figure, representing the Fortune of the city;[229] a statue of
Theodosius the Great, overthrown by the earthquake at the close of the
reign of Leo the Isaurian;[230] a bronze group of four elephants;[231]
the gates of Mompseuesta, gilded and placed here by Nicephorus Phocas,
as a trophy of his campaign in Cilicia.[232] At the south-western angle
of the northern tower the Roman eagle still spreads its wings; the
laureated monogram “ΧΡ” appears above the central archway on the city
side of the gateway; and several crosses are scattered over the
building.

In later days, when taste had altered, the scene of the Crucifixion was
painted within one of the lateral archways, while the Scene of the Final
Judgment was represented in the other.[233] Traces of frescoes are
visible on the inner walls of the southern archway, and suggest the
possibility of its having been used as a chapel.

The whole aspect of the gateway must have been more imposing when the
parapet on the towers and on the wall over the arches was intact, and
gave the building its full elevation.

Two columns crowned with graceful capitals adorned the outer gateway,
while the wall north and south was decorated with twelve bas-reliefs,
executed with considerable skill, and representing classical subjects.
Remains of the marble cornices and of the pilasters which framed the
bas-reliefs are still found in the wall, and from the descriptions of
the slabs given by Manuel Chrysolaras, Gyllius, Sir Thomas Roe, and
others, a fair idea of the nature of the subjects treated can be
formed.[234] Six bas-reliefs were placed on either side of the entrance,
grouped in triplets, one above another, each panel being supported by
pilasters, round or rectangular.

On the northern slabs the subjects pourtrayed were: Prometheus tortured;
a youth pursuing a horse, and trying to pull off its rider; a satyr,
between a woman with a vessel of water behind her, and a savage man, or
Hercules, holding a whip; Labours of Hercules (on three slabs).

The bas-reliefs to the south were of superior workmanship, and
represented: Endymion asleep, a shepherd’s lute in his hand, with Selene
and Cupid descending towards him; Hercules leading dogs; two peasants
carrying grapes; Pegasus and three female figures, one of them
attempting to hold him back; the fall of Phaëthon; Hercules and a
stag.[235]

As the Porta Triumphalis of Constantinople, the Golden Gate was the
scene of many historical events and imposing ceremonies.

So long as the inauguration of an emperor upon his accession to the
throne was celebrated at the Hebdomon (Makrikeui), it was through the
Golden Gate that a new sovereign entered his capital on the way to the
Imperial Palace beside St. Sophia. Marcian (450),[236] Leo I.
(457),[237] Basiliscus (476),[238] Phocas (602),[239] Leo the Armenian
(813),[240] and Nicephorus Phocas (963),[241] were welcomed as emperors
by the city authorities at this portal.

Distinguished visitors to the Byzantine Court, also, were sometimes
allowed to enter the city by this gate, as a mark of special honour. The
Legates of Pope Hormisdas were met here upon their arrival on a mission
to Justin I.:[242] here, in 708, Pope Constantine was received with
great ceremony, when he came to confer with Justinian II.:[243] and
here, in the reign of Basil II., the Legates of Pope Hadrian II. were
admitted.[244] Under Romanus Lecapenus, the procession which bore
through the city to St. Sophia the Icon of Christ, brought from Edessa,
entered at the Porta Aurea.[245]

It was, however, on the return of an emperor to the city after a
victorious campaign that the Porta Aurea fulfilled its highest purpose,
and presented a brilliant spectacle of life and splendour.

Through this triumphal arch came Theodosius the Great, after his defeat
of Maximus;[246] by it Heraclius entered the capital to celebrate the
success of his Persian expeditions;[247] through it passed Constantine
Copronymus, after the defeat of the Bulgarians;[248] Theophilus, on two
occasions, after the repulse of the Saracens;[249] Basil I., after his
successes at Tephrice and Germanicia;[250] Zimisces, after his victories
over the Russians under Swiatoslaf;[251] Basil II., after the slaughter
of the Bulgarians;[252] and, for the last time, Michael Palæologus, upon
the restoration of the Greek Empire in 1261.[253]

It would seem that, in accordance with old Roman custom, victorious
generals, below Imperial rank, were not allowed to enter the city in
triumph through this gate. Belisarius,[254] Maurice,[255] Nicephorus
Phocas, before he became emperor,[256] and Leo his brother,[257]
celebrated their respective triumphs over the Vandals, Persians and
Saracens, in the Hippodrome and the great street of the city.[258]

[Illustration: The Golden Gate (Outer).]

An Imperial triumphal procession[259] was marshalled on the plain in
front of the Golden Gate,[260] and awaited there the arrival of the
emperor, either from the Hebdomon or from the Palace of Blachernæ. The
principal captives, divided into several companies, and guarded by bands
of soldiers, led the march. Next followed the standards and weapons and
other spoils of war. Then, seated on a magnificent white charger, came
the emperor himself, arrayed in robes embroidered with gold and pearls,
his crown on his head, his sceptre in his right hand, his victorious
sword by his side. Close to him rode his son, or the Cæsar of the day,
another resplendent figure of light, also on a white horse. Upon
reaching the gate the victor might, like Theophilus, dismount for a few
moments, and falling thrice upon his face, humbly acknowledge the Divine
aid to which he owed the triumph of his arms. At length the Imperial
_cortège_ passed through the great archway. The civic authorities came
forward and did homage, offering the conqueror a crown of gold and a
laurel wreath, and accepting from him a rich largess in return; the
Factions rent the air with shouts—“Glory to God, who restores our
sovereigns to us, crowned with victory! Glory to God, who has magnified
you, Emperors of the Romans! Glory to Thee, All-Holy Trinity, for we
behold our Emperors victorious! Welcome, Victors, most valiant
sovereigns!”[261] And then the glittering procession wended its way to
the Great Palace, through the dense crowds that packed the Mesè and the
principal Fora of the city, all gay with banners, flowers, and
evergreens.

Sometimes the emperor, as in the case of Heraclius,[262] rode in a
chariot instead of on horseback; or the occupant of the triumphal car
might be, as on the occasion of the triumph of Zimisces, the Icon of the
Virgin.[263] Michael Palæologus entered the city on foot, walking as far
as the Church of St. John Studius before he mounted his horse.[264] On
the occasion of the second triumph of Theophilus, the beautiful custom
was introduced of making children take part in the ceremonial with
wreaths of flowers.[265]

But besides serving as a State entrance into the city, the Porta Aurea
was one of the strongest positions in the fortifications.[266] The four
towers at its gateways, the deep moat in front, and the transverse walls
across the peribolos on either hand, guarding approach from that
direction, constituted a veritable citadel. Cantacuzene repaired it, and
speaks of it as an almost impregnable acropolis, capable of being
provisioned for three years, and strong enough to defy the whole city in
time of civil strife.[267] Hence the great difficulty he found in
persuading the Latin garrison which held it on his behalf, in 1354, to
surrender the place to his rival John VI. Palæologus.

The Golden Gate, therefore, figures also in the military annals of
Constantinople. In the reign of Anastasius I. it was the object of
special attack by Vitalianus at the head of his Huns and
Bulgarians.[268] Repeated attempts were made upon it by the Saracens in
the siege of 673-675.[269] Crum stood before it in the reign of Leo the
Armenian, and there he invoked the aid of his gods against the city, by
offering human sacrifices and by the lustration of his army with
sea-water in which he had bathed his feet.[270] His demand to plant his
spear in the gate put an end to the negotiations for peace. In 913 the
Bulgarians, under their king Simeon, were again arrayed before the
entrance.[271] Here, also, in 1347, John Cantacuzene was admitted by his
partisans.[272]

John Palæologus, upon receiving the surrender of the gate foolishly
dismantled the towers, lest they should be turned against him, in the
fickle political fortunes of the day.[273] He did not, however, carry
the work of destruction so far as to be unable to use the position as an
“acropolis” when besieged, in 1376, by his rebellious son,
Andronicus.[274] Later, when Sultan Bajazet threatened the city, an
attempt was made to restore the towers, and even to increase the
strength of this point in the fortifications.[275] With materials taken
from the churches of All Saints, the Forty Martyrs, and St. Mokius, the
towers were rebuilt, and a fortress extending to the sea was erected
within the city walls, similar to the Castle of the Seven Towers
constructed afterwards by Mehemet the Conqueror, in 1457. Upon hearing
of this action, Bajazet sent peremptory orders to John Palæologus to
pull down the new fortifications, and compelled obedience by threatening
to put out the eyes of Manuel, the heir to the throne, at that time a
hostage at Brousa. The humiliation affected the emperor, then seriously
ill, so keenly as to hasten his death. Subsequently, however, probably
after the defeat of Bajazet by Tamerlane at Angora, the defences at the
Golden Gate were restored; for the Russian pilgrim who was in
Constantinople between 1435 and 1453 speaks of visiting the Castle of
the Emperor Kalo Jean.[276]

In 1390, Manuel II., with a small body of troops, entered the city by
this gate and drove away his nephew John, who had usurped the
throne.[277] During the siege of 1453 the gate was defended by Manuel of
Liguria with 200 men, and before it the Sultan planted a cannon and
other engines of assault.[278]

Between the second and third towers to the north of the Golden Gate is
an entrance known at present, like the Porta Aurea, also by the name
Yedi Koulè Kapoussi. Dr. Paspates thinks it is of Turkish origin.[279]
It has certainly undergone repair in Turkish times, as an inscription
upon it in honour of Sultan Achmet III. testifies; but traces of
Byzantine workmanship about the gate prove that it belongs to the period
of the Empire;[280] and this conclusion is supported by the
consideration that, since the Porta Aurea was a State entrance, another
gate was required in its immediate neighbourhood for the use of the
public in this quarter of the capital. Hence the proximity of the two
gateways.

Regarding the name of the entrance opinions differ. Some authorities
regard the gate as the Porta Rhegiou (Ῥηγίου), the Gate of Rhegium,[281]
mentioned in the Greek Anthology.[282] But this identification cannot be
maintained, for the Porta Rhegiou was one of two entrances which bore an
inscription in honour of Theodosius II. and the Prefect Constantine, and
both those entrances, as will appear in the sequel, stood elsewhere in
the line of the fortifications.[283]

[Illustration: Yedi Koulè Kapoussi.]

The gate went, probably, by the designation of the Golden Gate,[284]
near which it stands, just as it now bears the name given to the latter
entrance since the Turkish Conquest. A common name for gates so near
each other was perfectly natural; and on this view certain incidents in
the history of the Golden Gate become more intelligible. For instance:
when Basil, the founder of the Macedonian dynasty, reached
Constantinople in his early youth, a homeless adventurer in search of
fortune, it is related that he entered the city about sunset through the
Golden Gate, and laid himself down to sleep on the steps of the
adjoining Monastery of St. Diomed.[285] If the only Golden Gate were the
Porta Aurea strictly so called, it is difficult to understand how the
poor wayfarer was admitted by an entrance reserved for the emperor’s
use; whereas the matter becomes clear if that name designated also an
adjoining public gate. Again, when the historian Nicetas Choniates,[286]
accompanied by his family and some friends, left the city five days
after its capture by the Crusaders in 1204, he made his way out,
according to his own statement, by the Golden Gate. In this case also,
it does not seem probable that the captors of the city would have
allowed a gate of such military importance as the Porta Aurea to be
freely used by a company of fugitives. The escape appears more feasible
if the Golden Gate to which Nicetas refers was the humbler entrance in
the neighbourhood of the Porta Aurea.

Footnote 210:

  Pusculus, iv. 137, 138, “Pontes qui ad mœnia ducunt dirumpunt.”

Footnote 211:

  Pusculus, iv. 151, “Aurea Porta datur ponto vicina sonanti.”

Footnote 212:

  Cananus, p. 460.

Footnote 213:

  Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 292, 293; Manuel Chrysolaras, p. 48.

Footnote 214:

  _Historiæ Anglicanæ Scriptores Antiqui_, p. 642. London, 1652.

Footnote 215:

  See French translation of his work, _Constantinople Ancienne et
  Moderne_, 1798, vol. i. p. 28, where, quoting the legend, he says, “On
  y lit encore ces vers.”

Footnote 216:

  _Opera Varia_, vol. i., Paris, 1696; Paneg. Maioriani, _Carmen V._,
  354.

Footnote 217:

  _Constantinopolis Christiana_, lib. i. p. 52.

Footnote 218:

  The brilliant monograph of Dr. Strzygowski on the Golden Gate is found
  in the _Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archæologischen Instituts_,
  Band viii., 1893, Erstes Heft.

Footnote 219:

  Zosimus, p. 234.

Footnote 220:

  Cf. the inscription on the pedestal of the obelisk—

                 “Difficilis quondam dominis parere serenis
                 Jussus, et extinctis palmam portare tyrannis
                 Omnia Theodosio cedunt,” etc.

Footnote 221:

  See below, pp. 64, 65.

Footnote 222:

  Malalas, p. 360, ascribes the decoration of the gate with gold to
  Theodosius II.

Footnote 223:

  See above, p. 42.

Footnote 224:

  Nicephorus, _Patriarcha CP._, p. 59; Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._,
  pp. 500, 506.

Footnote 225:

  Malalas, p. 360.

Footnote 226:

  Codinus, p. 48.

Footnote 227:

  Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 675.

Footnote 228:

  _Ibid._, ii. p. 173.

Footnote 229:

  Codinus, _ut supra_.

Footnote 230:

  Theophanes, p. 634.

Footnote 231:

  Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 567.

Footnote 232:

  _Ibid._, ii. p. 363.

Footnote 233:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 239.

Footnote 234:

  Manuel Chrys., p 48; Gyllius, _De Top CP._, iv. c. 9; Adolf Michaelis,
  _Ancient Marbles in Great Britain_, pp. 10-14, translated by C. A. M.
  Fennell. See Wheler, Grelot, Gerlach, Bulliardus, Spon, and Monograph
  of Dr. Strzygowski.

Footnote 235:

  The first two bas-reliefs to the north of the gate, and the first and
  fourth to the south, as superior in workmanship, came very near being
  removed to England, through the efforts of Sir Thomas Roe, ambassador
  to the Porte from 1621 to 1628, and of a certain Mr. Petty, who was
  sent to the East by the Earl of Arundel to procure works of Ancient
  Art. The finds were to be divided between that nobleman and the Duke
  of Buckingham. The correspondence on the subject will be found in _The
  Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe in his Embassy to the Ottoman Porte_,
  published in London, 1740 (see pp. 386, 387, 444, 445, 495, 512, 534,
  535); in Michaelis’ _Ancient Marbles in Great Britain_; and,
  partially, in Dr. Strzygowski’s _Monograph on the Golden Gate_.

  “Promise to obteyne them,” wrote Sir Thomas Roe, in May, 1625, “I
  cannot, because they stand upon the ancient gate, the most conspicuous
  of the cytte, though now mured up, beeing the entrance by the castell
  called the Seauen Towers, and neuer opened since the Greek emperors
  lost yt: to offer to steale them, no man dares to deface the cheefe
  seate of the grand signor: to procure them by fauour, is more
  impossible, such enuy they bear vnto us. There is only then one way
  left; by corruption of some churchman, to dislike them, as against
  their law; and vnder that pretence to take them downe to be brought
  into some priuat place; from whence, after the matter is cold and
  unsuspected, they may be conveyed. I haue practised for the four, and
  am offered to haue it done for 600 crownes.”

  A year later he had to write, “Those on the Porta Aurea are like to
  stand, till they fall by tyme: I haue vsed all meanes, and once bought
  them, and deposed, 3 moneths, 500 dollers. Without authority, the
  danger and impossibility were alike; therefore I dealt with the great
  treasurer, who in these tymes is greedy of any mony, and hee had
  consented to deliuer them into a boat without any hazard of my part.
  The last weeke hee rode himself to see them, and carried the
  surueigher of the citty walls with him; but the Castellano and the
  people beganne to mutine, and fell vpon a strange conceit; insomuch
  that hee was forced to retyre, and presently sent for my enterpreter,
  demanding if I had any old booke of prophesy: inferring, that those
  statues were enchanted, and that wee knew, when they should bee taken
  downe, some great alteration should befall this cytty.... In
  conclusion, hee sent to mee, to think, nor mention no more that place,
  which might cost his life, and bring mee into trouble; so that I
  despair to effect therein your graces seruice: and it is true, though
  I could not gett the stones, yet I allmost raised an insurrection in
  that part of the cytty.”

Footnote 236:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 590.

Footnote 237:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 414.

Footnote 238:

  Theophanes, p. 186.

Footnote 239:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 693.

Footnote 240:

  Theophanes, p. 784.

Footnote 241:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 438.

Footnote 242:

  Anastasius Bibliothecarius.

Footnote 243:

  _Ibid._

Footnote 244:

  Guillelmus Bibliothecarius, _in Hadriano II_.

Footnote 245:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 432.

Footnote 246:

  Zosimus, p. 234.

Footnote 247:

  See illustration facing p. 334.

Footnote 248:

  Theophanes, p. 668.

Footnote 249:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 503, 504.

Footnote 250:

  _Ibid._, p. 498.

Footnote 251:

  Leo Diaconus, p. 158.

Footnote 252:

  Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 475.

Footnote 253:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 160.

Footnote 254:

  Procopius, _De Bello Vand._, ii. c. 9; Theophanes, p. 309.

Footnote 255:

  Theophanes, p. 388.

Footnote 256:

  Leo Diaconus, p. 28.

Footnote 257:

  _Ibid._, p. 23.

Footnote 258:

  Theophanes, p. 309.

Footnote 259:

  For the descriptions of the triumphs accorded to Basil I. and
  Theophilus, see Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 498-508.

Footnote 260:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 499, Ἐν δὼ τῷ λιβαδίῳ τῷ ἔξω τῆς
  χρυσῆς πόρτας.

Footnote 261:

  On the pier to the left of the central archway are painted in red the
  words, ΠΟΛΛΑ ΤΑ ΕΤΗ ΤΩΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ; while on the pier to the right are
  the words, Ο ΘΣ ΚΑΛΩΣ ΗΝΕΝΤΕΝ ΣΕ; lingering echoes of the shouts that
  shook the gate on a day of triumph.

Footnote 262:

  See illustration facing p. 334.

Footnote 263:

  Leo Diaconus, p. 158.

Footnote 264:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 160.

Footnote 265:

  Constant. Porphyr., p. 508.

Footnote 266:

  Τὸ κατὰ τὴν χρυσῆν καλουμένην φρούριον, Cantacuzene, iv. p. 292. It
  was not, however, the fortress known as the Strongylon, Cyclobion,
  Castrum Rotundum (Procopius, _De Aed._, iv. c. 8; Theophanes, p. 541;
  Anastasius, _in Hormisda PP._; Guillelmus Biblioth. _in Hadriano
  II._). That fortress stood outside the city, near the Hebdomon
  (Makrikeui), three miles to the west of the Golden Gate (Theophanes,
  pp. 541, 608). See below, p. 326.

Footnote 267:

  Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 293, 301, 302. The southern tower projects 55
  feet 7 inches from the wall, and is 60 feet 5 inches broad; the
  corresponding dimensions of the northern tower are 55-½ feet, and 60
  feet 4 inches.

Footnote 268:

  Marcellinus Comes.

Footnote 269:

  Theophanes, p. 541.

Footnote 270:

  _Ibid._, p. 785.

Footnote 271:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 385.

Footnote 272:

  Cantacuzene, iii. pp. 606, 607.

Footnote 273:

  Cantacuzene, iv. p. 304.

Footnote 274:

  Chalcocondylas, p. 62.

Footnote 275:

  Ducas, pp. 47, 48.

Footnote 276:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 239, “Chateau de l’Empereur
  Kalojean. Il a trois entrées.”

Footnote 277:

  See Muralt, ad annum, _Essai de Chronographie Byzantine_, vol. ii.

Footnote 278:

  Phrantzes, p. 253.

Footnote 279:

  Paspates, p. 78.

Footnote 280:

  Mordtmann, p. 13. Above the gate, on the side facing the city, is a
  slab with the figure of the Roman eagle.

Footnote 281:

  Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Constantinople_, p. 19.

Footnote 282:

  Banduri, _Imp. Orient._, vii. p. 150.

Footnote 283:

  See below, pp. 78, 91.

Footnote 284:

  Mordtmann, p. 13.

Footnote 285:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 223.

Footnote 286:

  Page 779.




                               CHAPTER V.
             THE GATES IN THE THEODOSIAN WALLS—_continued_.


The entrance between the thirteenth and fourteenth towers to the north
of the Golden Gate was the Second Military Gate, τοῦ Δευτέρου.[287] Its
identity is established by its position in the order of the gates; for
between it and the Fifth Military Gate, regarding the situation of which
there can be no doubt,[288] two military gates intervene. It must
therefore be itself the second of that series of entrances.

Hence, it follows that the quarter of the city known as the Deuteron (τὸ
Δεύτερον) was the district to the rear of this gate. This fact can be
proved also independently by the following indications. The district in
question was without the Walls of Constantine;[289] it lay to the west
of the Exokionion, the Palaia Porta, and the Cistern of Mokius;[290] it
was, on the one hand, near the last street of the city,[291] the street
leading to the Golden Gate, and, on the other, contained the Gate
Melantiados,[292] now Selivri Kapoussi.[293] Consequently, it was the
district behind the portion of the walls in which the gate before us is
situated. This in turn supports the identification of the gate as that
of the Deuteron. It is the finest and largest of the military gates, and
may sometimes have served as a public gate in the period of the Empire,
as it has since.

Of the churches in the Deuteron quarter, the most noted were the Church
of the SS. Notarii, attributed to Chrysostom,[294] and the Church of St.
Anna, a foundation of Justinian the Great.[295] Others of less
importance were dedicated respectively to St. Timothy,[296] St.
George,[297] St. Theodore,[298] and St. Paul the Patriarch.[299]

The next public entrance (Selivri Kapoussi) is situated between the
thirteenth and fourteenth towers north of the Gate of the Deuteron. Its
present name appears shortly before the Turkish Conquest (πύλη τῆς
Σηλυβρίας),[300] and alludes to the fact that the entrance is at the
head of the road to Selivria; but its earlier and more usual designation
was the Gate of the Pegè, _i.e._ the Spring (Πύλη τῆς Πηγῆς),[301]
because it led to the celebrated Holy Spring (now Baloukli), about half
a mile to the west. This name for the entrance is found in the
inscription placed on the back of the southern gateway tower, in
commemoration of repairs made in the year 1433 or 1438.[302]

The gate possessed considerable importance owing to its proximity to the
Holy Spring,[303] which, with its healing waters and shrines, its
cypress groves, meadows, and delightful air, formed one of the most
popular resorts in the neighbourhood of the city.[304] There the
emperors had a palace and hunting park, to which they often retired for
recreation, especially in the spring of the year. On the Festival of the
Ascension the emperor visited the “Life-giving Pegè” in state, sometimes
riding thither through the city, at other times proceeding in his barge
as far as the Marmora extremity of the walls, and then mounting horse
for the rest of the way.[305] But in either case, the Imperial _cortége_
came up to this gate, and was received there by the body of household
troops called the Numeri. It was on returning from such a visit to the
Pegè that the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas was mobbed and stoned, as he
rode from the Forum of Constantine to the Great Palace beside the
Hippodrome.[306]

The gate is memorable in history as the entrance through which, in 1261,
Alexius Strategopoulos, the general of Michael Palæologus, penetrated
into the city,[307] and brought the ill-starred Latin Empire of
Constantinople to an end. For greater security the Latins had built up
the entrance; but a band of the assailants, aided by friends within the
fortifications, climbed over the walls, killed the drowsy guards, broke
down the barricade, and flung the gates open for the restoration of the
Greek power. By this gate, in 1376, Andronicus entered, after besieging
the city for thirty-two days, and usurped the throne of his father, John
VI. Palæologus.[308] In the siege of 1422 Sultan Murad pitched his tent
within the grounds of the Church of the Pegè;[309] while during the
siege of 1453 a battery of three guns played against the walls in the
vicinity of this entrance.[310]

There is reason to think that the gate styled Porta Melantiados
(Μελαντιάδος)[311] and Pylè Melandesia (Μελανδησία),[312] should be
identified with the Gate of the Pegè. Hitherto, indeed, the Porta
Melantiados has been identified with the next public gate, Yeni Mevlevi
Haneh Kapoussi;[313] but that view runs counter to the fact that the
Porta Melantiados stood in the Deuteron,[314] whereas the next public
gate was, we shall find, in the quarter of the city called, after the
Third Military Gate, the Triton (τὸ Τρίτον).[315] Unless, therefore, the
Porta Melantiados is identified with the Gate of the Pegè, it cannot be
identified with any other entrance in the Theodosian Walls.

[Illustration: The Gate of the Pegè.]

That the Gate of the Pegè had originally another name is certain, since
the Holy Spring did not come into repute until the reign of Leo I.,[316]
nearly half a century after the erection of the Wall of Anthemius. And
no other name could have been so appropriate as the Porta Melantiados,
for the road issuing from the gate led to Melantiada, a town near the
Athyras[317] (Buyuk Tchekmedjè) on the road to Selivria. The town is
mentioned in the Itinerary of the Emperor Antoninus as Melantrada and
Melanciada, at the distance of nineteen miles from Byzantium; and there
on different occasions the Huns, the Goths,[318] and the Avars[319]
halted on their march towards Constantinople.

At the gate Porta Melantiados, Chrysaphius, the minister and evil genius
of Theodosius II., was killed in 450 by the son of John the Vandal, in
revenge for the execution of the latter.[320] It has been suggested that
the Mosque of Khadin Ibrahim Pasha within the gate stands on the site of
the Church of St. Anna in the Deuteron.[321] It may, however, mark the
site of the Church of the SS. Notarii, which stood near the Porta
Melantiados.

The Third Military Gate is but a short distance from the Gate of the
Pegè, being situated between the fourth and fifth towers to the north.
To the rear of the entrance was the quarter called the Triton (τὸ
Τρίτον),[322] and, more commonly, the Sigma (Σίγμα);[323] the latter
designation being derived, probably, from the curve in the line of the
walls immediately beyond the gate. What precisely was the object of the
curve is not apparent. One authority explains it as intended for the
accommodation of the courtiers and troops that assembled here on the
occasion of an Imperial visit to the Pegè.[324] But the Theodosian Walls
were built before the Pegè came into repute;[325] and the visits of the
emperors to the Holy Spring were not so frequent or so important as to
affect the construction of the walls in such a manner.

In the quarter of the Sigma stood a column, bearing the statue of
Theodosius II., erected by Chrysaphius.[326] And there, in the riot of
1042, the Emperor Michael Calaphates and his uncle Constantine were
blinded, having been dragged thither from the Monastery of Studius,
where they had sought sanctuary.[327]

The most noted churches in the quarter were dedicated respectively to
the Theotokos,[328] St. Stephen, and St. Isaacius.[329] The site of the
first is, in the opinion of Dr. Paspates, marked by the remains of an
old Byzantine cistern off the street leading from the Guard-house of
Alti Mermer to the Mosque of Yol Getchen.[330]

[Illustration: The Gate of Rhegium.]

The next public gate, Yeni Mevlevi Haneh Kapoussi, situated between the
tenth and eleventh towers north of the Third Military Gate, was known by
two names, Porta Rhegiou (Ῥηγίου),[331] the Gate of Rhegium, and Porta
Rhousiou (τοῦ Ῥουσίου),[332] the Gate of the Red Faction. That it bore
the former name is established by the fact that the inscription in
honour of Theodosius II. and the Prefect Constantine, which was placed,
according to the Anthology, on the Gate of Rhegium, is actually found on
the lintel of this entrance.[333] The name alluded to Rhegium (Kutchuk
Tchekmedjè), a town twelve miles distant, upon the Sea of Marmora,
whither the road leading westward conducted.

The title of the gate to the second name rests partly upon the
consideration that the name cannot be claimed for any other entrance in
the walls, and partly upon the fact that two circumstances connected
with the gate can thus be satisfactorily explained. In the first place,
the seven shafts employed to form the lintel, posts, and sill of the
gateway are covered with red wash, as though to mark the entrance with
the colour of the Red Faction. Secondly, on the northern face of the
southern gateway-tower is an inscription, unfortunately mutilated, such
as the Factions placed upon a structure in the erection of which they
were concerned. The legend as preserved reads thus: “The Fortune of
Constantine, our God-protected Emperor triumphs....”

                           † ΝΙΚΑ Η ΤΥΧΗ
                           ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟ
                           ΦΥΛΑΚΤΟΥ ΗΜΩΝ ΔΕΣΠΟΤΟΥ
                           †   †

The missing words with which the inscription closed were at some date
intentionally effaced, but analogy makes it exceedingly probable that
they were ΚΑΙ ΡΟΥΣΙΩΝ, “and of the Reds.”[334]

The number of inscriptions about this entrance is remarkable, five being
on the gateway itself, and two on its southern tower. Of the former
those commemorating the erection of the Theodosian fortifications in 447
are of special importance and interest;[335] another records the repair
of the Outer Wall under Justin II. and his Empress Sophia.[336]
Indistinct traces of the fourth are visible on the southern side of the
gateway; while the fifth, too fragmentary to yield a meaning, is on the
tympanum, arranged on either side of a niche for Icons,[337] for the
gates of the city were, as a rule, placed under the ward of some
heavenly guardian. This gate was closed with a portcullis.

The Fourth Military Gate stood between the ninth and tenth towers to the
north of the Porta Rhousiou. The northern corbel of the outer gateway is
an inscribed stone brought from some other building erected by a certain
Georgius.[338]

[Illustration: The Gate of St. Romanus.]

[Illustration: The Gate of Charisius.]

Top Kapoussi, between the sixth and seventh towers north of the Fourth
Military Gate, is the Gate of St. Romanus (πόρτα τοῦ Ἁγίου Ρωμάνου)[339]
so named after an adjoining church of that dedication. Its identity may
be established in the following manner: According to Cananus,[340] the
Gate of St. Romanus and the Gate of Charisius stood on opposite sides of
the Lycus. The Gate of St. Romanus, therefore, must have been either Top
Kapoussi, on the southern side of that stream, or one of the two gates
on the stream’s northern bank, viz. the walled-up entrance at the foot
of that bank, or Edirnè Kapoussi upon the summit. That it was the gate
on the southern side of the Lycus is clear, from the statements of
Critobulus and Phrantzes,[341] that in the siege of 1453 the Turkish
troops which invested the walls extending from the Gate of Charisius
(Edirnè Kapoussi) to the Golden Horn were on the Sultan’s _left_, _i.e._
to the north of the position he occupied. But the tent of the Sultan was
opposite the Gate of St. Romanus.[342] Hence, the Gate of Charisius was
one of the gates to the north of the Lycus, and, consequently, the Gate
of St. Romanus stood at Top Kapoussi, to the south. In harmony with this
conclusion is the order in which the two gates are mentioned by Pusculus
and Dolfin when describing the positions occupied by the defenders of
the walls from the Sea of Marmora to the Golden Horn. Proceeding from
south to north in their account of the defence, these writers place the
Gate of St. Romanus before, _i.e._ to the south of, the Gate of
Charisius.[343]

The Church of St. Romanus must have been a very old foundation, for it
is ascribed to the Empress Helena. It claimed to possess the relics of
the prophet Daniel and of St. Nicetas.[344]

The entrance between the second and third towers north of the Lycus, or
between the thirteenth and fourteenth towers north of the Gate of St.
Romanus, is the Fifth Military Gate, the Gate of the Pempton (τοῦ
Πέμπτου).[345] It is identified by the fact that it occupies the
position which the _Paschal Chronicle_ assigns to the Gate of the
Pempton; namely, between the Gate of St. Romanus and the Gate of the
Polyandrion—one of the names, as we shall find,[346] of Edirnè Kapoussi.

Some authorities[347] have maintained, indeed, that this entrance was
the Gate of Charisius. But this opinion is refuted by the fact that the
Gate of Charisius, as its whole history proves, was not a military gate,
but one of the public gates of the city.[348] Furthermore, the author of
the _Metrical Chronicle_ and Cananus expressly distinguish the Gate of
Charisius from the gate situated beside the Lycus.[349]

To the rear of the entrance was the district of the Pempton, containing
the Church of St. Kyriakè and the meadow through which the Lycus flows
to the Sea of Marmora. The meadow appears to have been a popular resort
before the Theodosian Walls were built, if not also subsequently. Here,
about the time of Easter, 404, the Emperor Arcadius came to take
exercise on horseback, and here he found three thousand white-robed
catechumens assembled. They proved to be persons who had recently been
baptized by Chrysostom, in the Thermæ Constantianæ, near the Church of
the Holy Apostles, notwithstanding his deposition on account of his
quarrel with the Empress Eudoxia. Arcadius was extremely annoyed by the
encounter, and ordered his guards to drive the crowd off the
ground.[350]

While riding down one of the slopes of the Lycus valley, in 450,
Theodosius II. fell from his horse and sustained a spinal injury, which
caused his death a few days later. The Gate of the Pempton was probably
the entrance through which the dying emperor was carried on a litter
from the scene of the accident into the city.[351]

The next public gate, Edirnè Kapoussi, between the eighth and ninth
towers to the north of the Fifth Military Gate, was named the Gate of
Charisius (τοῦ Χαρισίου). The name, which appears in a great variety of
forms, occurs first in Peter Magister,[352] a writer of Justinian’s
reign, and was derived, according to the Anonymus, from Charisius, the
head of the Blue Faction, when the Theodosian Walls were built.[353]
While some authorities, as already intimated, have attached this name to
the Gate of the Pempton, others have supposed that it belonged to the
entrance now known as Egri Kapou.[354] This, as will be shown in the
proper place, is likewise a mistake.[355]

The grounds on which the Gate of Charisius must be identified with the
Edirnè Kapoussi are these:[356] From the statements of Cananus and
Critobulus, already considered in determining the position of the Gate
of St. Romanus,[357] it is clear that the Gate of Charisius was one of
the two gates on the northern bank of the Lycus; either the gate at the
foot of that bank or Edirnè Kapoussi upon the summit. That it was not
the former is clearly proved by the fact that Cananus and the _Metrical
Chronicle_, as already cited, distinguished the Gate of Charisius from
the entrance beside the Lycus. The Gate of Charisius was, therefore,
Edirnè Kapoussi, the gate on the summit of the bank.

Again, the Gate of Charisius was, like Edirnè Kapoussi, at the head of
the street leading to the Church of the Holy Apostles. This is evident
from the circumstance that when Justinian the Great, returning to the
city from the West, visited on his way to the palace the tomb of the
Empress Theodora at the Holy Apostles’, he entered the capital by the
Gate of Charisius instead of by the Golden Gate,[358] because the former
entrance led directly to the Imperial Cemetery near that church.

To these arguments may be added the fact that near the Gate of Charisius
was a Church of St. George,[359] the guardian of the entrance, and that
a Byzantine church dedicated to that saint stood immediately to the
south-east of Edirnè Kapoussi as late as the year 1556, when it was
appropriated by Sultan Suleiman for the construction of the Mosque of
Mihrimah. At the same time the Greek community received by way of
compensation a site for another church to the north-west of the gate,
and there the present Church of St. George was built to preserve the
traditions of other days.[360] Lastly, like Edirnè Kapoussi, the Gate of
Charisius stood at a point from which one could readily proceed to the
Church of the Chora (Kahriyeh Djamissi), the Church of St. John in Petra
(Bogdan Serai), and the Palace of Blachernæ.[361]

Another name for the Gate of Charisius was the Gate of the Polyandrion,
or the Myriandron (Πόρτα τοῦ Πολυανδρίου, τοῦ Μυριάνδρου), the Gate of
the Cemetery. This follows from the fact that whereas the respective
names of the three gates in the walls crossing the valley of the Lycus
are usually given as the Gate of Charisius, Gate of the Pempton, the
Gate of St. Romanus, we find the first name omitted in a passage of the
_Paschal Chronicle_ referring to those entrances, and the Gate of the
Polyandrion mentioned instead.[362] Evidently, the Gate of Charisius and
the Gate of the Polyandrion were different names for the same gate.

The latter designation was peculiarly appropriate to an entrance on the
direct road to the Imperial Cemetery. Probably a public cemetery stood
also outside the gate, where a large Turkish cemetery is now situated,
and that may have been another reason for the name of the gate.[363]

With the portion of the walls between the Gate of St. Romanus and the
Gate of Charisius, memorable historical events are associated which
cannot be passed over without some notice, however brief.

On account of its central position in the line of the land
fortifications, this part of the walls was named the Mesoteichion
(Μεσοτείχιον).[364] It was also known as the Myriandrion,[365] on
account of its proximity to the Gate of Polyandrion; the portion to the
south of the Lycus being further distinguished as the Murus
Bacchatareus,[366] after the Tower Baccaturea near the Gate of St.
Romanus.[367]

[Illustration: View Across the Valley of the Lycus (Looking North).]

Owing to the configuration of the ground traversed by the Mesoteichion,
it was at this point that a besieging army generally delivered the chief
attack. Here stood the gates opening upon the streets which commanded
the hills of the city; here was the weakest part of the fortifications,
the channel of the Lycus rendering a deep moat impossible, while the dip
in the line of walls, as they descended and ascended the slopes of the
valley, put the defenders below the level occupied by the besiegers.
Here, then, for Constantinople was the “Valley of Decision”—here, in the
armour of the city, the “heel of Achilles.”

In the siege of 626 by the Avars, the first siege which the Theodosian
Walls sustained, the principal attack was made from twelve towers which
the enemy built before the fortifications extending from the Gate of
Charisius to the Gate of the Pempton, and thence to the Gate of St.
Romanus.[368]

Upon the Gate of Charisius attempts were made: by Justinian II. and his
allies for the recovery of his throne in 705;[369] by Alexius Branas
against Isaac Angelus in 1185;[370] by John Cantacuzene in 1345[371] and
through it the Comneni entered in 1081, by bribing the German guards
(Nemitzi) at the gate, and wrested the sceptre from the hand of
Nicephorus Botoniates.[372]

In 1206, during the struggle in which the Latins, soon after their
capture of the city, involved themselves with Joannicus, King of
Bulgaria, a raid was made upon the Gate of St. Romanus and the adjacent
quarter by Bulgarian troops encamped near the capital.[373] In 1328 the
gate was opened to admit Andronicus III. by two partisans, who stupefied
the guards with drink, and then assisted a company of his soldiers to
scale the walls with rope ladders.[374] In 1379 John VI. Palæologus and
his son Manuel, after effecting their escape from the prison of Anemas,
and making terms with Sultan Bajazet, entered the city by this gate, and
obliged Andronicus IV. to retire from the throne he had usurped.[375]

But it was in the sieges of the city by the Turks that this portion of
the walls was attacked most fiercely, as well as defended with the
greatest heroism. Here in 1422 Sultan Murad brought cannon to bear, for
the first time, upon the fortifications of Constantinople. His fire was
directed mainly at an old half-ruined tower beside the Lycus; but the
new weapon of warfare was still too weak to break Byzantine masonry, and
seventy balls struck the tower without producing the slightest
effect.[376]

In the siege of 1453 this portion of the walls was assailed by Sultan
Mehemet himself with the bravest of his troops and his heaviest
artillery, his tent being pitched, as already stated, about half a mile
to the west of the Gate of St. Romanus.[377] At the Murus Bacchatareus
fought the Emperor Constantine, with his 400 Genoese allies, under the
command of the brave Guistiniani, who had come to perform prodigies of
valour “per benefitio de la Christiantade et per honor del mundo.” The
three brothers, Paul, Antony, and Troilus, defended the Myriandrion,
“with the courage of Horatius Cocles.”

As the struggle proceeded two towers of the Inner Wall and a large
portion of the Outer Wall were battered to pieces by the Turkish cannon.
The enemy also succeeded in filling the moat at this point with earth
and stones, to secure an unobstructed roadway into the city whenever a
breach was effected.

On the other hand, Giustiniani repaired the breach in the Outer Wall by
the erection of a palisade, covered in front with hides and strengthened
on the rear by a rampart of stones, earth, branches, and herbage of
every description, all welded together with mortar, and supported by an
embankment of earth. Between this barricade and the Inner Wall he
furthermore excavated a trench, to replace to some extent the moat which
had been rendered useless; and to maintain his communications with the
interior of the city he opened a postern in the great wall.

Against these extemporized defences assault after assault dashed in all
its strength and fury, only to be hurled back and broken. Meanwhile,
more and more of the Inner and Outer Walls fell under the Turkish fire,
and the Sultan decided to make a general attack at daybreak on the 29th
of May. The onset upon the Mesoteichion, directed by the Sultan in
person, was, however, repeatedly repelled, and the day threatened to go
against the assailants, when a Turkish missile struck Giustiniani and
forced him to leave the field. His soldiers refused to continue the
struggle, abandoned their post, and disheartened their Greek comrades.
The Sultan, perceiving the change in the situation, roused his
janissaries to make a supreme effort. They swept forward, carried the
barricade, filled the trench behind it with corpses of the defenders,
and passing over, poured into the doomed city through every available
opening. Some made their way through the breach in the great wall,
others entered by the postern which Giustiniani had opened,[378] while
others cut a path through the heap of dead bodies which blocked the Gate
of Charisius. The heroic emperor refused to survive his empire, and
found death near the Gate of St. Romanus.[379] And through that gate,
about midday, the Sultan entered, the master of the city of Constantine.
It was the close of an epoch.

The next Theodosian gate stands between the last tower in the Outer Wall
to the north of the Gate of Charisius and the old Byzantine Palace now
called Tekfour Serai. In its present condition the entrance pierces only
the Outer Wall; for the Inner Wall terminates abruptly a little to the
south of the palace, having been broken away, probably when that edifice
was erected. By way of compensation the Outer Wall was then raised
higher and built thicker, and flanked by a large tower.

According to its place in the order of the gates, this entrance should
be the Sixth Military Gate; and the smallness of its dimensions is in
keeping with this view. But as it led to a Circus built of timber beside
the Church of St. Mamas without the walls, it was styled Porta
Xylokerkou (Ξυλοκέρκου),[380] Gate of the Wooden Circus, or more
briefly, Kerko Porta (Κερκόπορτα),[381] the Gate of the Circus.

In support of this identification there is first the fact that the Gate
of the Xylokerkus, like the gate before us, was an entrance in the Walls
of Theodosius, for it bore an inscription, which has unfortunately
disappeared, in honour of that emperor and the Prefect Constantine,
similar to the legend on the Porta Rhegiou.[382] In the next place, the
Gate of the Xylokerkus, like the entrance before us, was in the vicinity
of the Gate of Charisius, and below a palace[383] (Tekfour Serai).

[Illustration: The (So-Called) Kerko Porta.]

The history of the gate has an interest of its own. When the Emperor
Frederick Barbarossa was at Philippopolis, on his way to the Holy Land
at the head of the Third Crusade, the prevalent suspicion that he had
designs upon the Byzantine Empire found expression in the prophecy of a
certain Dositheos, a monk of the Monastery of St. John Studius, that the
German emperor would capture Constantinople, and penetrate into the city
through this entrance. Thereupon, with the view of averting the calamity
and preventing the fulfilment of the prophecy, Isaac Angelus ordered the
gate to be securely built up.[384] In 1346 the partisans of John
Cantacuzene proposed to admit him into the city by breaking the gate
open, after its long close.[385]

But what gives to the Kerko Porta its chief renown is the part which,
according to Ducas, it played in the catastrophe of 1453, under the
following circumstances. A large portion of the Outer Wall, at the
Mesoteichion, having been overthrown by the Turkish cannon, the besieged
were unable to issue from the city to the peribolos without being
exposed to the enemy’s fire. In this extremity some old men, who knew
the fortifications well, informed the emperor of a secret postern long
closed up and buried underground, at the lower part of the palace, by
which communication with the peribolos might be established.[386] This
was done, to the great advantage of the Greeks. But on the last day of
the siege, while the enemy was attempting to scale the walls with
ladders at several points, a band of fifty Turkish nobles detected the
newly opened entrance, rushed in, and mounting the walls from the
interior of the city, killed or drove off the defenders on the summit.
Thus a portion of the fortifications was secured against which
scaling-ladders could be applied without any difficulty, and soon a
considerable Turkish force stood on the Inner Wall, planted their
standards on the towers, and opened a rear fire upon the Greeks, who
were fighting in the peribolos to prevent the Turks from entering at the
great breach. The cry rose that the city was taken, whereupon an
indescribable panic seized the Greeks, already disheartened by the loss
of Giustiniani, and, abandoning all further resistance, they fled into
the city through the Gate of Charisius, many being trampled to death in
the rout. The emperor fell at his post; and the Turks poured into the
city without opposition.[387] The fate of Constantinople was thus scaled
by the opening of the Kerko Porta.

But here a difficulty occurs. In one very important particular the Kerko
Porta, as described by Ducas, does not correspond to the character of
the entrance with which it has been identified. The gate which the
historian had in mind led to the peribolos, the terrace between the two
Theodosian walls, whereas the gate below Tekfour Serai opens on the
parateichion, the terrace between the Outer Wall and the Moat. This
discrepancy may, however, be removed to some extent by supposing that
under the name of the Kerko Porta. Ducas referred to the postern which
Dr. Paspates[388] found in the transverse wall built across the northern
end of the peribolos, where the Inner Wall of Theodosius terminates
abruptly a little to the south of Tekfour Serai. The postern was
discovered in 1864, after some houses which concealed it from view had
been destroyed by fire. It was 10-½ feet high by 6 feet wide, and
although the old wall in which it stood has been, for the most part,
pulled down and replaced by a new construction, the outline of the
ancient postern can still be traced. Such an entrance might be buried
out of sight, and be generally forgotten; and to open it, when recalled
to mind in 1453, was to provide the defenders of the city with a secret
passage, as they hoped, to the peribolos and the rear of the Outer Wall,
where the contest was to be maintained to the bitter end.

The suggestion of Dr. Paspates that this was the entrance at which the
incidents recorded by Ducas occurred may, therefore, be accepted. But,
from the nature of the case, an entrance in such a position could not
have been, strictly speaking, the Gate of the Circus, and to call it the
Kerko Porta was therefore not perfectly accurate. That was, properly,
the name of the gate below Tekfour Serai. Still, the mistake was not
very serious, and, under the circumstances, was not strange. Two
entrances so near each other could easily be confounded in the report of
the events in the neighbourhood, especially when the postern in the
transverse wall had no special name of its own. Dr. Mordtmann[389]
thinks that the postern near the Kerko Porta was the one which
Giustiniani, according to Critobulus,[390] opened in the Inner Wall to
facilitate communication with the peribolos. The latter postern,
however, is represented as near the position occupied by Giustiniani and
the emperor, while the former is described as far from that point.[391]

Footnote 287:

  Codinus, p. 97.

Footnote 288:

  See below, p. 81.

Footnote 289:

  Sozomon, iv. c. 2.

Footnote 290:

  Anonymus, i. p. 38.

Footnote 291:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. 3.

Footnote 292:

  _Synaxaria_, Octob. 25.

Footnote 293:

  See below, pp. 76, 77.

Footnote 294:

  _Synaxaria_, Oct. 25.

Footnote 295:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. 3.

Footnote 296:

  _Synaxaria_, June 10.

Footnote 297:

  _Ibid._, April 23.

Footnote 298:

  _Ibid._, April 22.

Footnote 299:

  Nicephorus Callistas, xii. c. 14.

Footnote 300:

  Phrantzes, p. 253.

Footnote 301:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 109.

Footnote 302:

  See below, pp. 106, 107.

Footnote 303:

  It is still held in great repute, and on the Friday of Greek Easter
  week is visited by immense crowds of devotees, as in the olden time.

Footnote 304:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. 3.

Footnote 305:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 109.

Footnote 306:

  Leo Diaconus, iv. p. 64.

Footnote 307:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 142; Niceph. Greg., iv. p. 85.

Footnote 308:

  See Muralt, _Essai de Chronographie Byzantine_, vol. ii.

Footnote 309:

  Ducas, p. 184.

Footnote 310:

  Nicolo Barbaro, p. 733.

Footnote 311:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 590.

Footnote 312:

  _Synaxaria_, Oct. 25.

Footnote 313:

  Paspates, p. 47; Mordtmann, p. 15.

Footnote 314:

  _Synaxaria_, Oct. 25. Ἐν τῇ Μελανδησία πόρτῃ, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ
  Κωνσταντινούπολει, τοποθεσίᾳ τοῦ Δευτέρου.

Footnote 315:

  See below, p. 78.

Footnote 316:

  Nicephorus Callistus, xv. c. 25, c. 28.

Footnote 317:

  Agathias, v. c. 14, c. 20.

Footnote 318:

  Marcellinus Comes, _ad Zenonem_.

Footnote 319:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 717.

Footnote 320:

  _Ibid._, p. 590.

Footnote 321:

  Mordtmann, p. 78.

Footnote 322:

  _Menæa_, May 30, as quoted by Du Cange, _Constantinopolis Christiana_,
  ii. p. 178.

Footnote 323:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 501; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 540.

Footnote 324:

  Mordtmann, pp. 14, 15.

Footnote 325:

  See above, p. 77.

Footnote 326:

  Codinus, p. 47.

Footnote 327:

  Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 540.

Footnote 328:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 323.

Footnote 329:

  Codinus, p. 126.

Footnote 330:

  Pages 378-389.

Footnote 331:

  Banduri, _Imp. Orient._, vii. p. 150.

Footnote 332:

  Theophanes, pp. 355, 358.

Footnote 333:

  See above, pp. 46, 47.

Footnote 334:

  The inscription is found in the C. I. G., No. 8789. Dr. Paspates
  compares it with No. 8788 in that collection. ΝΙΚΑ Η ΤΥΧΗ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥ
  ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΤΟΥ ΣΥΣΤΑΤΙΚΟΥ ΝΙΚΗΤΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΒΕΝΕΤΩΝ (of the Blues)
  ΕΥΝΩΟΥΝΤΩΝ. See below, p. 102.

Footnote 335:

  See above, p. 47.

Footnote 336:

  See below, p. 97.

Footnote 337:

  Choiseul-Gouffier, _Voyage pittoresque dans l’Empire Ottoman, etc._,
  vol. iv. p. 17, speaking of this gate, says, “Sur le cintre de cette
  porte sont les représentations de quelques saints, donc les Turcs ont
  effacé le visage.” Cf. Paspates, p. 51.

Footnote 338:

  Mordtmann, p. 15.

Footnote 339:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 720.

Footnote 340:

  _De Constantinopoli Expugnata_, p. 462.

Footnote 341:

  Critobulus, i. c. 23, c. 27 (_Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_, vol.
  v.); Phrantzes, p. 237.

Footnote 342:

  Critobulus; Phrantzes, _ut supra_.

Footnote 343:

  Pusculus, iv. Compare lines 165 and 169. Cf. Dolfin, s. 54.

Footnote 344:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 55; _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 103.

Footnote 345:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 719.

Footnote 346:

  See below, p. 84.

Footnote 347:

  _E.g._ Dethier, _Le Bosphore et Consple._, p. 50.

Footnote 348:

  See below, p. 83.

Footnote 349:

  _Metrical Chronicle_, lines 371-429; cf. statement ἐγέρθη Γεωργίου
  δόμος ... πρὸς πύλην τὴν Χαρσίαν with statement πύλην ἐάσας ἀνοικτὴν
  τὴν ποταμοῦ πλησίον εἰς ἥν τῆς μάρτυρος ναὸς Κυριακῆς ὁρᾶται. See
  _Byzantinshe Analecten_, von Hernn Joseph Müller, “Sitzungsberichte
  der K. Akademie der Wissenshaften Philosoph. Hist.,” Classe B. 9,
  1852. Cf. Cananus, p. 462, ἦν γὰρ ὁ τόπος καὶ σοῦδα καὶ πύργος πλησίον
  Κυριακῆς τῆς ἁγίας, μέσον Ῥωμανοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ τῆς Χαρσῆς τε τὴν
  πύλην, καὶ πλησιέστηρον τούτων εἰς τὸν ποταμόν τὸν ἐπονομαζόμενον
  Λύκον.

Footnote 350:

  Palladius, _Dialogus de Vita J. Chrysostomi_, Migne, xlvii. p. 34. In
  front of St. Irene in the Seraglio grounds, is preserved the pedestal
  on which stood the porphyry column bearing the silver statue of the
  Empress Eudoxia, the occasion of Chrysostom’s banishment.

Footnote 351:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 589, Εἰσῆλθεν λεκτικίῳ ἀπὸ Λευκοῦ ποταμοῦ.

Footnote 352:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, 497.

Footnote 353:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 50.

Footnote 354:

  Paspates, p. 68.

Footnote 355:

  See below, p. 124.

Footnote 356:

  Dr. Mordtmann was the first to establish the fact. For a full
  statement of his view, see _Esquisse Topographique de Consple._, pp.
  16-29.

Footnote 357:

  See above, pp. 80, 81.

Footnote 358:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 497. In 1299, Andronicus II. also
  entered the city by this entrance in great state, after an absence of
  two years (Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 290).

Footnote 359:

  Anna Comn., ii. pp. 124, 129; _Metrical Chronicle_, 371-429.

Footnote 360:

  Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Constantinople_, p. 105.
  The church possesses two ancient _Lectionaries_, one containing the
  Epistles, the other the Gospels. The history of the latter is
  interesting. The MS. was presented to the Church of St. Sophia, in
  1438, by a monk named Arsenius, of Crete. It was taken, the same year,
  by the Patriarch Joseph to Ferrara, when he proceeded to that city to
  attend the council called to negotiate the union of the Western and
  Eastern Churches. Upon his death in Florence the year following it was
  returned to St. Sophia. Some time after the fall of Constantinople it
  came into the hands of a certain Manuel, son of Constantine, by whom
  it was given, in 1568, to the church in which it is now treasured.

Footnote 361:

  Ducas, p. 288.

Footnote 362:

  _Paschal Chron._, pp. 719, 720; cf. Anonymus, i. p. 22, with iii. p.
  50.

Footnote 363:

  In the foundations of one of the towers to the north of the Gate of
  the Pempton, pulled down in 1868 for the sake of building material, a
  large number of marble tombstones were found, some being plain slabs,
  others bearing inscriptions. Among the latter, several were to the
  memory of persons connected with the body of auxiliary troops, styled
  the Fœderati. Such Gothic names as Walderic, Saphnas, Bertilas,
  Epoktoric, occurred in the epitaphs, _e.g._—

                   † ΕΝΘΔΕ ΚΤΑ ... Ι Ο
                   ΤΗΣ ΜΑΚΑΡΙΑΣ ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΣΕΦΝΑΣ
                   ΔΕΣΠΟΤΙΚΟΣ ΠΙΣΤΟΣ ΦΟΙΔΕΡΑΤΟΣ ΕΤΕΛΕΥΤΗΣΕΝ
                   ΔΕ ΜΗ ΝΟΕΜΒΡΙΩ ΚΔ ΗΜΕΡΑ Β
                   ΙΝΔ Β.

  See Paspates, pp. 33, 34; _Proceedings of the Greek Literary Syllogos
  of Consple._, vol. xvi., 1885; _Archæological Supplement_, pp. 17-23.
  Some of the stones are in the Imperial Museum.

Footnote 364:

  Critobulus, i. c. 26, c. 31.

Footnote 365:

  Phrantzes, p. 253; Critobulus, i. c. 26; Leonard of Scio, “In loco
  arduo Miliandri, quo urbs titubabat.”

Footnote 366:

  _Leonard of Scio_, Migne, vol. clix. pp. 929, 940.

Footnote 367:

  Dolfin, s. 31.

Footnote 368:

  _Paschal Chron._, pp. 719, 720.

Footnote 369:

  Theophanes, p. 573.

Footnote 370:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 493.

Footnote 371:

  Cantacuzene, iii. p. 525.

Footnote 372:

  Anna Comn., ii. p. 124.

Footnote 373:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 824.

Footnote 374:

  Cantacuzene, i. p. 291; Nicephorus Greg., ix. pp. 419, 420.

Footnote 375:

  See Muralt, _Essai de Chronographie Byzantine_, vol. ii. See below,
  pp. 162, 163.

Footnote 376:

  Cananus, pp. 461, 462.

Footnote 377:

  Compare the narratives of Phrantzes, pp. 246, 253; Critobulus, i. c.
  23, 27, 31, 34, 60; Ducas, p. 275; Leonard of Scio (_Migne_, vol.
  clix.).

Footnote 378:

  Critobulus, i. c. 60.

Footnote 379:

  Phrantzes, p. 287.

Footnote 380:

  Cantacuzene, iii. p. 558; Theophanes, p. 667.

Footnote 381:

  Ducas, p. 282. The Circus was known as the Circus of St. Mamas,
  because of its proximity to that church, and appears frequently in
  Byzantine history.

  The district associated with the Church of St. Mamas (Zonaras, xvi. c.
  5, ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὸ Στενὸν τοποθεσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ ἁγίου Μάμαντος καλουμένῃ)
  must have occupied the valley which extends from the Golden Horn
  southwards to the village of Ortakdjilar, the territory between Eyoub
  (Cosmidion) and Aivan Serai at the north-western angle of the city.
  The church itself, with its monastery (Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 107, 259),
  stood, probably, on the high ground near Ortakdjilar. Owing to its
  charming situation, the suburb was a favourite resort, and boasted of
  an Imperial palace, a hippodrome, a portico, a harbour, and, possibly,
  the bridge across the Golden Horn. The indications for the
  determination of the site of the suburb are: (1) it stood nearer the
  Golden Horn than the Gate of Charisius did; for in the military
  demonstration which Constantine Copronymus made before the land walls,
  against the rebel Artavasdes, by marching up and down between the Gate
  of Charisius and the Golden Gate, the emperor reached St. Mamas and
  encamped there, after passing the former entrance on his march
  northwards (Theophanes, pp. 645, 646). (2) The Hippodrome of St. Mamas
  was in Blachernæ (Ἐν Βλαχέρναις ... ἐν τῷ ἱππικῷ τοῦ ἁγίου
  Μάμαντος—Theophanes, p. 667), a term which could be used to designate
  even the district of the Cosmidion (_Paschal Chron._, p. 725, τὴν
  ἐκκλησίαν τῶν ἁγίων Κοσμᾶ καὶ Δαμιανοῦ, ἐν Βλαχέρναις). (3) The suburb
  stood near the Cosmidion; hence the facility with which the Bulgarians
  under Crum were able to ravage St. Mamas from their camp near the
  Church SS. Cosmas and Damianus (Theophanes Cont., pp. 613, 614). (4)
  The suburb was near the water; for it had a harbour (Theophanes, p.
  591). It is also described as situated on the Propontis (Genesius, p.
  102), on the Euxine (Theophanes Cont., p. 197), on the Stenon, the
  Bosporus (Zonaras, _ut supra_), these names being applied in a wide
  sense. (5) At the same time the Church of St. Mamas stood near the
  walls (Zonaras, xiv. p. 1272, πλησίον τοῦ τείχους), and near the gate
  named Porta Xylokerkou (Cedrenus, i. p. 707). This does not
  necessarily imply that the church was immediately outside the gate,
  but it intimates that the church was at no very great distance from
  the gate, and could be easily reached from it; as, for example, the
  Church of the Pegè stands related to the Gate of Selivria (see above,
  p. 73). Such language would be appropriate if a branch road leading to
  St. Mamas and the Golden Horn left the great road, parallel to the
  walls, at the point opposite the Porta Xylokerkou.

  The suburb owed much to Leo the Great, who took up his residence there
  for six months, after the terrible conflagration which devastated the
  city in the twelfth year of his reign (_Paschal Chron._, p. 598). To
  him are ascribed all the constructions for which the suburb was
  celebrated; the harbour and portico (_Paschal Chron._, _ut supra_),
  the church, the palace, and the hippodrome (Anonymus, iii. pp. 57, 58;
  Codinus, p. 115). The Church of St. Mamas is, however, ascribed also
  to an officer in the reign of Justinian the Great, and to the sister
  of the Emperor Maurice (see Du Cange, _Constantinopolis Christiana_,
  iv. p. 185). There Maurice and his family were buried, after their
  execution by Phocas (Codinus, p. 121). The palace was frequented by
  Michael III., and there he was murdered by Basil I. (Theophanes Cont.,
  p. 210). To it the Empress Irene and her son Constantine VI. retired
  from the city on the occasion of the severe earthquake of 790
  (Theophanes, pp. 719, 720), and in it the marriage of Constantine VI.
  with Theodota was celebrated (_Ibid._ p. 728). It was burnt down by
  Crum of Bulgaria (_Ibid._ pp. 785, 786), but must have been rebuilt
  soon, for Theophilus took up his quarters there on the eve of his
  first triumphal entrance into the city (Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._,
  p. 504). The hippodrome may have been, originally, the one which
  Constantine the Great constructed of wood, outside the city, and in
  which the adherents of Chrysostom assembled after the bishop’s
  deposition (Sozomon, viii. c. 21, συνήθον πρὸ τοῦ ἄστεος εἰς τινα
  χῶρον ὅν Κωνσταντίνος ὁ Βασιλεὺς, μήπω τὴν πόλιν συνοικήσας, εἰς
  ἱπποδρόμου θέαν ἐκάθηρε, ξύλοις περιτειχίσας). There Michael III. took
  part in chariot races (Theophanes Cont., p. 197; cf. Theophanes, p.
  731). Crum carried away some of the works of Art which adorned it
  (Theophanes, pp. 785, 786). The harbour of St. Mamas appears as the
  station of a fleet in the struggle between Anastasius II. and
  Theodosius III. (Theophanes, pp. 591, 592), and in the struggle
  between Artavasdes and Constantine Copronymus (_Ibid._, pp. 645, 646).

Footnote 382:

  Banduri, _Imp. Orient._, vii. p. 150, n. 428, ΘΕΥΔΟΣΙΟΣ ΤΟΔΕ ΤΕΙΧΟΣ
  ΑΝΑΞ ΚΑΙ ΥΠΑΡΧΟΣ ΕΩΑΣ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΣ ΕΤΕΥΞΑΝ ΕΝ ΗΜΑΣΙΝ ΕΞΗΚΟΝΤΑ. The
  gate appears in the reign of Anastasius I. (491-518), when a nun
  residing near it was mobbed and killed for sharing the emperor’s
  heretical opinions (Zonaras, xiv. c. 3, p. 1220, Migne). This is
  another evidence of its Theodosian origin. It must have stood in the
  portion of the Theodosian Walls that still remain, for it is mentioned
  in the reign of John Cantacuzene.

Footnote 383:

  Ducas, pp. 282-286. Cf. Anonymus, iii. p. 50.

Footnote 384:

  Nicetas Chon., pp. 528, 529.

Footnote 385:

  Cantacuzene, iii. p. 558.

Footnote 386:

  Ducas, p. 282, Παραπόρτιον ἕν πρὸ πολλῶν χρόνων ἀσφαλῶς πεφραγμένον,
  ὑπόγαιον, πρὸς τὸ κάτωθεν μέρος τοῦ παλατίου.

Footnote 387:

  Ducas, pp. 282-286.

Footnote 388:

  Pages 63-67. Dr. Paspates regarded the Kerko Porta and the Porta
  Xylokerkou as different gates. The latter, he held, has disappeared.

Footnote 389:

  Page 27.

Footnote 390:

  I. c. 60.

Footnote 391:

  Ducas, p. 286.




                              CHAPTER VI.
                    REPAIRS ON THE THEODOSIAN WALLS.


The maintenance of the bulwarks of the city in proper order was
naturally a matter of supreme importance, and although the task was
sometimes neglected when no enemy threatened, it was, on the whole,
attended to with the promptitude and fidelity which so vital a concern
demanded. There was little occasion for repairs, it is true, on account
of injuries sustained in the shock of war, for until the invention of
gunpowder the engines employed in battering the walls were either not
powerful enough, or could not be planted sufficiently near the
fortifications, to produce much effect. Most of the damage done to the
walls was due to the action of the weather, and, above all, to the
violent and frequent earthquakes which shook Constantinople in the
course of the Middle Ages.

The charge of keeping the fortifications in repair was given to special
officers, known under the titles, Domestic of the Walls (ὁ Δομέστικος
τῶν Τειχέων),[392] Governor of the Wall (Ἄρχων τοῦ Τείχους),[393] Count
of the Walls (Κόμης τῶν Τειχέων).[394]

(1) The earliest record of repairs is, probably, the Latin inscription
on the lintel of the inner gateway of the Porta of the Pempton. It
reads:

                 PORTARUM VALID † DO FIRMAVIT LIMINE MUROS
                        PUSAEUS MAGNO NON MINOR ANTHEMIO.

The age of the inscription cannot be precisely determined, but the
employment of Latin, the Gothic form of the D in the word _valido_, the
allusion to Anthemius, and the situation of the legend upon the Inner
Wall, taken together, point to an early date.

[Illustration: Inscriptions on the Gate of Rhegium.]

From the statement of the inscription it would seem that soon after the
erection of the wall by Anthemius, either this gate or all the gates in
the line of the new fortifications had to be strengthened. The only
Pusæus known in history who could have presumed to compare himself with
Anthemius was consul in 467, in the reign of Leo I.[395] There may,
however, have been an earlier personage of that name.

(2) A considerable portion of the Inner Wall (τὰ ἔσω τείχη) was injured
by an earthquake in 578, the fourth year of the reign of Zeno;[396] but
no record of the repairs executed in consequence of the disaster has
been preserved.

(3) The frequent shocks of earthquake felt in Constantinople during the
reign of Justinian the Great damaged the walls on, at least, three
occasions; in 542 and 554, when the injury done was most serious in the
neighbourhood of the Golden Gate;[397] and again in 558, when both the
Constantinian and the Theodosian Walls were rudely shaken, the latter
suffering chiefly in the portion between the Golden Gate and the Porta
Rhousiou.[398] So great was the damage sustained by the city and
vicinity on the last occasion that for thirty days the emperor refused
to wear his crown.

(4) An inscription on the Gate Rhousiou commemorates the restoration of
the Outer Wall in the reign of Justin II. Whether the work was rendered
necessary by some particular accident does not appear; but a wall so
slight in its structure would naturally need extensive repair when a
century old.

With Justin the inscription associates the Empress Sophia, noted for her
interest in the public works of the day, and also names Narses and
Stephen, as the officials who had charge of the repairs. The latter
officer is otherwise unknown. Narses, who held the offices of Spatharius
and Sacellarius, superintended also the restoration of the Harbour of
Julian in the same reign.[399] Subsequently he was sent, with large
funds, on a mission to the Avars to persuade them to raise the siege of
Sirmium. But the ship which carried the money was totally wrecked on the
way, and Narses took the misfortune so much to heart that he fell ill
and died.[400]

The inscription in honour of Justin was to the following effect:[401]

             † ΑΝΕΝΕΩΘΗ ΤΟ ΠΡΟΤΕΙΧΙΟΜΑ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΔΟΣΙΑΚΟΥ
             ΤΕΙΧΟΥΣ ΕΠΙ ΙΟΥΣΤΙΝΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΣΟΦΙΑΣ ΤΩΝ ΕΥΣΕΒΕΣΤΑΤΩΝ
             ΗΜΩΝ ΔΕΣΠΟΤΩΝ ΔΙΑ ΝΑΡΣΟΥ ΤΟΥ
             ΕΝΔΟΞΟΤΑΤΟΥ ΣΠΑΘΑΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΣΑΚΕΛΛΑΡΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ
             ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥ ΑΝΗΚΟΝΤΟΣ ΕΙΣ ΥΠΟΥΡΓΙΑΝ ΔΟΥΛΟΣ
             ΤΩΝ ΕΥΣΕΒΑΣΤΑΤΩΝ ΔΕΣΠΟΤΩΝ †

    “The Outwork of the Theodosian Wall was restored under Justin and
    Sophia, our most pious Sovereigns, by Narses, the most glorious
    Spatharius and Sacellarius, and Stephen, who belonged to the
    service, a servant of the most pious Sovereigns.”

(5) The next repairs on record were executed early in the eighth
century, in view of the formidable preparations made by the Saracens for
a second attack upon Constantinople. Anastasius II. then strengthened
the land walls, as well as the other fortifications of the city;[402]
and thus contributed to the signal repulse of the enemy in 718 by Leo
the Isaurian, at that great crisis in the history of Christendom.

(6) Repairs were again demanded in 740, in the reign of Leo the
Isaurian, owing to the injuries caused by a long series of earthquakes
during eleven months. So extensive was the work of restoration required,
that to provide the necessary funds Leo was obliged to increase the
taxes.[403]

Several inscriptions commemorating the repairs executed by that emperor,
in conjunction with his son and colleague Constantine Copronymus, have
been found upon towers of the Inner Wall.

(_a_) One stood on the seventh tower north of the Sea of Marmora:

                  † ΛΕΩΝ ΣΥΝ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΩ ΣΚΗΠΤΟΥΧΟΙ ΤΟΝΔΕ
                  ΗΓΕΙΡΑΝ ΠΥΡΓΟΝ ΤΩΝ ΒΑΘΡΩΝ ΣΥΜΠΤΩΘΕΝΤΑ †

    “Leo with Constantine, wielders of the sceptre, erected from the
    foundations this tower which had fallen.”

(_b_) Another was placed on the ninth tower north of the Golden Gate, in
letters formed of brick:

                   ΙΣ | ΧΣ
                   —--|-—-
                   ΝΙ | ΚΑ

                   ΛΕΩΝΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΗΝΟΥ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΝ
                   ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡΩΝ ΠΟΛΛΑ ΤΑ ΕΤΗ

    “Many be the years of Leo and Constantine, Great Kings and
    Emperors.”

[Illustration: Tower of the Theodosian Walls (With Inscription in Honour
of the Emperors Leo III. and Constantine V.).]

(_c_) A similar inscription was found on the third tower north of the
Second Military Gate:

               † ΛΕΟΝΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥ †
               ΜΕΓΑΛΩΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡΩΝ ΠΟΛΛΑ ΤΑ ΕΤΗ

(_d_) On the second tower north of the Gate of the Pegè was an
inscription similar to that on the seventh tower north of the Sea of
Marmora. The raised letters are beautifully cut on a band of marble:

(_e_) The ninth tower north of the same gate bore two inscriptions. The
higher was in honour, apparently, of an Emperor Constantine; the lower
reads:

              † ΝΙΚΑ Η ΤΥΧΗ ΛΕΟΝΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥ ΤΩΝ
              ΘΕΩΦΥΛΑΚΤΩΝ ΔΕΣΠΟΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΗΡΙΝΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΥΣΕΒΕΣΤΑΤΗΣ
              ΗΜΩΝ ΑΥΓΟΥΣΤΗΣ

    “The Fortune of Leo and Constantine, the God-protected Sovereigns,
    and of Irene, our most pious Augusta, triumphs.”

If this inscription belongs to the reign of Leo the Isaurian, the
Empress Irene here mentioned must be Irene, the first wife of
Constantine Copronymus. In that case Maria, the wife of Leo himself,
must have been dead[404] when the repairs which the inscription
commemorates were executed. Irene was married to Constantine in 732, and
died in 749 or 750.

It is possible, however, that the inscription should be assigned to the
reign of Leo IV. and Constantine VI., so different is it from the
inscriptions which belong undoubtedly to the time of Leo the Isaurian.
If so, the empress named is the famous Irene who blinded her son,
usurped his throne, restored the use of Icons, and gave occasion for the
revival of the Roman Empire in the West by Charlemagne.

Below the inscription several monograms are found.

[Illustration]

(_f_) There is an interesting inscription, in letters of brick,
constituting a prayer for the safety of the city, on the fourth tower
north of the Gate Rhousiou:

                ΧΡΙΣΤΕ Ω ΘΕΟΣ ΑΤΑΡΑΧΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΑΠΟΛΕΜΟΝ ΦΥΛΑΤΤΕ
                ΤΗΝ ΠΟΛΙΝ ΣΟΥ ΝΙΚΑ ΤΟ ΜΕΝΟΣ ΤΩΝ ΠΟΛΕΜΙΩΝ

    “O Christ, God, preserve Thy city undisturbed, and free from war.
    Conquer the wrath of the enemies.”

It is the utterance of the purpose embodied in the erection of the
splendid bulwarks of the city, and might have been inscribed upon them
at any period of their history. It has been assigned to Constantine IX.,
when sole ruler after the death of Basil II. (1025-1028);[405] but the
employment of brick in the construction of the letters favours the view
that the legend belongs to the reign of Leo the Isaurian.

(7) Fragments of inscriptions recording repairs by Michael II. and his
son Theophilus have been found in the neighbourhood of the Gate of
Charisius (Edirnè Kapoussi).[406] These emperors were specially
distinguished for their attention to the state of the fortifications
along the shores of the city, but it would have been strange if
sovereigns so concerned for the security of the capital had entirely
neglected the condition of the land walls.

(8) The earthquake of 975, towards the close of the reign of
Zimisces,[407] left its mark upon the walls of the city, and two
inscriptions commemorate the repairs executed in consequence by his
successors, Basil II. and Constantine IX.

One of the inscriptions is on the huge, pentagonal, three-storied tower
at the junction of the land walls with the defences along the Sea of
Marmora. The legend reads:

[Illustration.]

    “Tower of Basil and Constantine, faithful Emperors in Christ, pious
    Kings of the Romans.”

The device

                                   ΙΣ | ΧΡ
                                  ————————
                                   ΝΙ | ΚΑ

is found over two windows in the northern side of the tower.

The other inscription is on the northern gateway-tower of the Gate of
the Pegè:

                   † ΠΥΡΓΟΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥ ΕΝ
                   ΧΡΙΣΤΩ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΩΝ †

    “Tower of Basil and Constantine, Emperors in Christ.”

Possibly the two following inscriptions on the northern side of the
southern tower of the Gate Rhousiou refer to the same emperors:[408]

[Illustration: “The Fortune of Constantine, our God-protected Sovereign,
triumphs.”]

The second inscription is mutilated, but manifestly refers to repairs in
the reign of Basil:

                           † ΑΝΕΝΕΩΘΗ ΕΠΙ ΑΥ ...
                           ΤΑΤΟΥ Λ ...
                           ΤΟΡΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕ
                           ΕΝ ΙΝ ΙΑ †

(9) An inscription on the fourth tower from the Sea of Marmora records
repairs by the Emperor Romanus:

[Illustration: “Romanus, the Great Emperor of all the Romans, the Most
Great, erected this tower new from the foundations.”]

As four emperors bore the name Romanus, it is not certain to which of
them reference is here made. The fact that earthquakes occurred in the
reign of Romanus III. Argyrus, first in 1032, and again in 1033,[409] is
in favour of the view that the inscription was in his honour.

[Illustration: Diagram Showing the Interior of a Tower in the Theodosian
Walls.]

(10) During the period of the Comneni, particular attention was given to
the state of the fortifications by Manuel Comnenus,[410] and by
Andronicus I. Comnenus.[411] As will appear in the sequel, the former
was concerned mainly with the defences in the neighbourhood of the
Palace of Blachernæ, beyond the Theodosian Walls. The interest of
Andronicus in the matter was roused by fear lest the Normans, who had
captured and sacked Thessalonica in 1185, would advance upon the
capital. After making a minute inspection of the walls in person,
Andronicus ordered the immediate repair of the portions fallen into
decay, as well as the removal of all houses whose proximity to the
fortifications might facilitate escalade.

(11) Under the Palæologi, the Walls of Theodosius, after their long
service of eight centuries, demanded frequent and extensive restoration,
in view of the dangers which menaced them.

Hence, on the recovery of Constantinople from the Latins in 1261,
Michael Palæologus, fearing the Western Powers would attempt to regain
the place, took measures to put the fortifications in a proper state of
defence. His chief attention was devoted to the improvement of the
bulwarks guarding the shores of the city, as those most exposed to
attack by the maritime states of Europe, but he did not overlook the
land walls.[412]

(12) In 1317, general repairs were again undertaken by Andronicus II.
Palæologus, with money bequeathed by his wife, the Empress Irene, who
died in that year.[413] The only indication, however, of the fact is now
found beyond the Theodosian lines.[414]

(13) The Theodosian Walls were injured once more by the great earthquake
of October, 1344, during the minority of John VI. Palæologus.[415] The
disaster occurred when the struggle between Apocaucus and Cantacuzene
for the control of affairs was at its height, and the ruin of the
fortifications made the position of the former, who then held the city,
extremely critical, seeing his rival was preparing to besiege him.
Apocaucus proceeded, therefore, to reconstruct the fallen bulwarks with
the utmost despatch and thoroughness. The Inner Wall and the Outer Wall
were repaired from one end of the line to the other, and the parapet
along the Moat was raised to the height of a man;[416] proceedings which
made this the most extensive restoration of the Theodosian Walls since
447. It was completed in January 1345, before Cantacuzene appeared to
attack the capital.

(14) Mention has already been made of the repair of the Golden Gate by
Cantacuzene, and the erection of a fortress behind that entrance by John
VI. Palæologus, the prototype of the Turkish Castle of the Seven
Towers.[417]

(15) The last restoration of the Theodosian bulwarks, on an extensive
scale, was undertaken by John VII. Palæologus, (1425-1448), the Outer
Wall being the portion principally concerned in the matter.

Evidently the task proved difficult, for the numerous inscriptions which
celebrate the achievement bear dates extending from 1433-1444, and show
that the work proceeded slowly, and with frequent interruptions, due,
doubtless, to the low state of the Imperial exchequer. The letters of
the legends are incised on small marble slabs, and are filled with lead,
exhibiting poor workmanship both in form and arrangement.

One of the inscriptions was placed on the outer tower nearest the Sea of
Marmora:[418]

                                ΙΩΑΝ
                                ΧΩ ΑΥΤΟ
                                ΚΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ ΤΟΥ
                                ΠΑΛΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΥ.

    “(Tower) of John Palæologus, Emperor in Christ.”

A similar inscription is on the second outer tower north of the Golden
Gate:

[Illustration: “(Tower) of John Palæeologus, Emperor in Christ; in the
year 1444.”]

Another is on the fifth outer tower north of the Second Military Gate:

                            ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΕΝ ΧΩ
                            ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟ
                            ΡΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΛΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΥ
                            ΚΑΤΑ ΜÉΝΑ
                            ΙΟΥΝΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ
                            ΜΗ ΕΤΟΥΣ (6948).

    “(Tower) of John Palæologus, Emperor in Christ; in the month of June
    of the year 1440.”

On the twelfth tower north of the same gate is a fractured slab which
bore the legend:

                  † ΙΩ ΕΝ ΧΩ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΛΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΥ
                  ΚΑΤΑ ΜΗΝΑ ΑΠΡΙΛΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΜΒ ΕΤΟΥΣ (6942).

    “(Tower) of John Palæologus, Emperor in Christ; in the month of
    April of the year 1434.”

Traces of similar inscriptions appear on the first and second towers
north of the Gate of the Pegè; while on the third tower in that
direction are the words:

                  ΙΩΟΥ ΕΝ ΧΩ ΑΥΤΟ
                  ΚΡΟΤΟΡΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΛΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΗΝΑ ΙΑΝΟΥ
                  ΑΡΙΟΝ ΤΟΥ
                  ΜΖ ΕΤΟΥΣ (6947).

    “(Tower) of John Palæologus, Emperor in Christ; in the month of
    January of the year 1839.”

An inscription to the same effect stood on the first and the second
towers north of the Third Military Gate. On the third tower beyond the
entrance was the legend:

                           ΙΩ ΕΝ ΧΩ
                           ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑ
                           ΤΟΡΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΛΑΙ
                           ΛΟΓΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΗΝΑ ΟΚΤΟΒ
                           ΤΟΥ Μ ΕΤΟΥΣ (6946).

    “(Tower) of John Palæologus, Emperor in Christ; in the month of
    October of the year 1438.”

On the outer tower, now demolished, opposite the Porta of the Pempton,
was an inscription from which we learn the great extent of the repairs
undertaken in this reign.[419] That work comprised the whole of the
Outer Wall:

                   † ΑΝΕΚΑΙΝΙΣΕ ΤΟ ΚΑΣΤΡΟΝ ΟΛΟΝ ΙΩ ΧΩ ΑΥ
                   ΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡ Ο ΠΑΛΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΣ ΕΤΕΙ ΜΑ (6941).

    “John Palæolous, Emperor in Christ, restored the whole
    fortification; in the year 1433.”

[Illustration: Approximate Section and Restoration of The Walls of
THEODOSIVS the Second.]

In the course of the repairs made at this time, the Gate of the Pegè was
restored at the expense of Manuel Bryennius Leontari, as an inscription
high up on the back of the southern tower of the gate proclaims:[420]

                   † ΑΝΕΚΑΙΝΙΣΘΗ Η
                   ΘΕΟΣΟΣΤΟΣ ΠΥΛΗ ΑΥΤΗ
                   ΤΗΣ ΖΩΟΔΟΧΟΥ ΠΗΓΗΣ ΔΙΑ
                   ΣΥΝΔΡΟΜΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΞΟΔΟΥ ΜΑ
                   ΝΟΥΗΛ ΒΡΥΕΝΝΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΛΕ
                   ΟΝΤΑΡΙ ΕΠΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ
                   ΤΩΝ ΕΥΣΕΒΕΣΤΑΤΩΝ (or ΕΥΣΕΒΩΝ) ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ
                   ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΜΑΡΙΑΣ
                   ΤΩΝ ΠΑΛΑΙΟΛΟΓΩΝ
                   ΕΝ ΜΗΝΙ ΜΑΙ
                   ΕΝ ΕΤΕΙ Μ (or Α) (6946 or 6941).

    “This God-protected gate of the Life-giving Spring was restored with
    the co-operation and at the expense of Manuel Bryennius Leontari, in
    the reign of the most pious sovereigns John and Maria Palæologi; in
    the month of May, in the year 1438 (or 1433).”

[Illustration: Approximate Elevation and Restoration of The Walls of
THEODOSIVS the Second.]

The Empress Maria who is mentioned in the inscription was the daughter
of Alexius, Emperor of Trebizond, and the third wife of John VII.
Palæologus, from 1427-1440.[421] Manuel Bryennius Leontari was probably
the Bryennius Leontari who defended the Gate of Charisius in the siege
of 1453.[422]

To the same reign, probably, belonged the work recorded on a tower
between the Gate of Charisius and Tekfour Serai. The inscription was
fragmentary, consisting of the letters ΕΝΙΣΘΗ Η ΚΟ, evidently ΑΝΕΚΕΝΙΣΘΗ
Η ΚΟΡΤΙΝΑ[423] (“The curtain-wall was restored”). The lettering and the
form of expression resembled the style of an unmutilated inscription on
the walls near the Sea of Marmora, commemorating repairs on that side of
the city, in 1448, by George, Despot of Servia;[424] and in view of this
resemblance, it is safe to conclude that a part of the money sent by the
Servian king to fortify Constantinople against the common enemy was
spent upon the land wall.

To the period of John VII. Palæologus, probably, must be assigned the
inscription which stands on the fifth tower north of the Gate of
Charisius:[425]

                                ΝΙΚΟΛΑΟΥ
                                ΚΑΒΑΛΑΡΙΟΥ
                                ΤΟΥ ΑΓΑΛΟΝΟΣ

    “(Tower) of Nicholas Agalon, Cabalarius.”

(16) On the first outer tower north of the Golden Gate, and on the outer
tower opposite the Gate of the Pempton, the name Manuel Igari was found,
placed a little below the inscriptions on those towers in honour of John
VII. Palæologus.[426]

At first it might be supposed that we have here the name of the officer
who superintended the repair of the fortifications in the reign of that
emperor. But, according to Leonard of Scio,[427] Manuel Iagari, along
with a certain monk, Neophytus of Rhodes, had charge of such work
immediately before the final siege, while Constantine Dragoses, the last
of the Byzantine emperors, was making pathetic efforts to avert
inevitable doom. Leonard accuses Manuel and Neophytus of having, even at
that crisis, when the fate of the city hung in the balance, embezzled a
large part of the funds devoted to the restoration of the walls, thereby
leaving the fortifications in a state which made a successful defence
impossible: “Idcirco urbs prædonum incuria, in tanta tempesta periit.”
It is said that after the capture of the city the Turks discovered a
considerable portion of the stolen money concealed in a jar.

Footnote 392:

  Codinus, _De Officiis_, p. 41; Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 589.

Footnote 393:

  Theophanes, p. 616.

Footnote 394:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 6. _Ibid._, p. 295, speaks of the
  τοῦ τειχεώτου.

Footnote 395:

  _Paschal Chron._, 595.

Footnote 396:

  Theophanes, p. 195.

Footnote 397:

  _Ibid._, pp. 345, 355.

Footnote 398:

  _Ibid._, pp. 357, 358.

Footnote 399:

  Codinus, p. 86.

Footnote 400:

  _John of Ephesus_: translation by R. Payne Smith.

Footnote 401:

  See illustration facing p. 96, for copy of the inscription with its
  errors in orthography.

Footnote 402:

  Theophanes, p. 589.

Footnote 403:

  _Ibid._, pp. 634, 635. The tax was called “dikeraton,” because it was
  equal to two keratia (1_s._ ½_d._), or one-twelfth of a nomisma
  (12_s._ 6_d._). Cf. Finlay, _History of the Byzantine Empire_, i. pp.
  37, 38.

Footnote 404:

  The date of her death is not known. Muralt is mistaken in saying that
  she died in 750. The Maria who died in that year was the second wife
  of Constantine Copronymus; not the widow, as Muralt has it, of Leo
  III. Cf. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Consple., p. 73.

Footnote 405:

  _Proceedings of the Greek Literary Syllogos of Consple._, vol. xvi.,
  1885: _Archæological Supplement_, pp. 34, 35.

Footnote 406:

  _Proceedings of the Greek Literary Syllogos of Consple._, vol. xvi.,
  1885: _Archæological Supplement_, p. 30.

Footnote 407:

  Leo Diaconus, pp. 175, 176.

Footnote 408:

  Paspates, pp. 46, 47.

Footnote 409:

  Cedrenus, vol. ii. pp. 500, 503, 504.

Footnote 410:

  Cinnamus, p. 274.

Footnote 411:

  Nicetas Chon., pp. 414, 415.

Footnote 412:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 186, 187.

Footnote 413:

  Nicephorus Greg., vii. p. 275.

Footnote 414:

  See below, p. 126.

Footnote 415:

  Nicephorus Greg., xiv. pp. 694-696.

Footnote 416:

  Nicephorus Greg., xiv. p. 711.

Footnote 417:

  See above, pp. 70, 71.

Footnote 418:

  Paspates, p. 59.

Footnote 419:

  Paspates, p. 45.

Footnote 420:

  Compare Paspates, pp. 54, 55, with Mordtmann, p. 14.

Footnote 421:

  Du Cange, _Familiæ Augustæ Byzantinæ_, p. 246.

Footnote 422:

  Zorzo Dolfin, s. 54.

Footnote 423:

  _Proceedings of the Greek Literary Syllogos of Consple._, vol. xvi.,
  1885: _Archæological Supplement_, p. 38.

Footnote 424:

  Du Cange, _Familiæ Augustæ Byzantinæ; Familiæ Sclavonicæ_, ix. p. 336.

Footnote 425:

  Paspates, p. 42.

Footnote 426:

  _Ibid._, p. 45.

Footnote 427:

  _Historia Cpolitanæ Urbis a Mahumete II. Captæ, per modum Epistolæ,
  die Augusti, anno 1453, ad Nicolaum V. Rom. Pont._, Migne, vol. clix.
  p. 936.

[Illustration: Sketch Plan of the Blachernæ Quarter.]




                              CHAPTER VII.
                   THE PALACE OF THE PORPHYROGENITUS.


The ruined Byzantine palace, commonly styled Tekfour Serai, beside the
Porta Xylokerkou was the Imperial residence, known as the Palace of the
Porphyrogenitus (τὰ βασίλεια τοῦ Πορφυρογεννήτου: οἱ τοῦ Πορφυρογεννήτου
οἶκοι),[428] and formed an annex to the great Palace of Blachernæ, which
stood lower down the hill.

It is true, Gyllius supposed it to be the Palace of the Hebdomon, and
his opinion, though contrary to all the evidence on the subject, has
been generally accepted as correct. But the proof that the suburb of the
Hebdomon was situated at Makrikeui, upon the Sea of Marmora, is
overwhelming, and consequently the Palace of the Hebdomon must be sought
in that neighbourhood.[429]

The evidence for the proper Byzantine name of Tekfour Serai[430] occurs
in the passage in which Critobolus describes the positions occupied by
the various divisions of the Turkish army, during the siege of 1453.
According to that authority, the Turkish left wing extended from the
Xylo Porta (beside the Golden Horn)[431] to the Palace of the
Porphyrogenitus, which was situated upon a slope, and thence to the Gate
of Charisius (Edirnè Kapoussi).[432] The site thus assigned to the
Palace of the Porphyrogenitus corresponds exactly to that of Tekfour
Serai, which stands on the steep ascent leading from Egri Kapou to the
Gate of Adrianople.

[Illustration: The Palace of the Porphyrogenitus (Southern Façade).]

All other references to the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus are in accord
with this conclusion, so far, at least, as they imply the proximity of
that residence to the Palace of Blachernæ. When, for instance,
Andronicus III., in 1328, entered Constantinople by the Gate of St.
Romanus to wrest the government from the feeble hands of his grandfather
Andronicus II., he took up his quarters, we are told, in the Palace of
the Porphyrogenitus, to be near the palace occupied by the elder
sovereign.[433] That Andronicus II. was at the Palace of Blachernæ is
manifest from the fact that the peasants who witnessed the entrance of
the rebel grandson into the city ran and reported the event to the
guards stationed at the Gate Gyrolimnè,[434] a gate leading directly to
the Palace of Blachernæ.[435]

[Illustration: The Palace of the Porphyrogenitus (Northern Façade).]

Again, the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus was occupied by John
Cantacuzene, in 1347, while negotiating with the Dowager-Empress Anna of
Savoy to be acknowledged the colleague of her son, John Palæologus.[436]
Upon taking possession of that residence he issued strict injunctions
that no attack should be made upon the palace in which the empress and
her son were then living. But the followers of Cantacuzene, hearing that
Anna hesitated to come to terms, disobeyed his orders and seized the
fort at Blachernæ, named the Castelion, which guarded that palace.[437]
Evidently the Palace of Blachernæ and the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus
stood near each other. Seven years later, John Palæologus himself, upon
his capture of the city, made the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus his
headquarters while arranging for the abdication of Cantacuzene.[438] And
from the narrative of the events on that occasion it is, again, manifest
that the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus was in the neighbourhood of the
Castelion and the Palace of Blachernæ.

By this identification, a flood of light is shed upon the incidents of
Byzantine history to which allusion has just been made.

The palace, an oblong building in three stories, stands between the two
parallel walls which descend from the Porta Xylokerkou for a short
distance, towards the Golden Horn. Its long sides, facing respectively
north and south, are transverse to the walls, while its short western
and eastern sides rest, at the level of the second story, upon the
summit of the walls.

Its roof and two upper floors have disappeared, and nothing remains but
an empty shell. The northern façade was supported by pillars and piers,
and its whole surface was decorated with beautiful and varied patterns
in mosaic, formed of small pieces of brick and stone. The numerous
windows of the building were framed in marble, and, with the graceful
balconies on the east and south, looked out upon the superb views which
the lofty position of the palace commanded. The western façade, being
the most exposed to hostile missiles, was screened by a large tower
built on the west side of the Porta Xylokerkou, to the injury, however,
of the gate, which was thus partially blocked up.

A transverse wall erected at some distance to the north made the area
between the two walls, upon which the palace rests, a spacious court,
communicating by a gate at its north-eastern corner with the city, while
a gate in the western wall led to the parateichion.[439] The latter
entrance is, probably, the one known as the Postern of the
Porphyrogenitus, by which forty-two partisans of John Cantacuzene made
good their escape from the city in 1341.[440]

[Illustration: Monogram Of The Palæologi.]

According to Salzenberg, the palace belongs to the earlier half of the
ninth century, and was the work of the Emperor Theophilus.[441] But the
name of the building is in favour of the view that we have here an
erection of the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, and consequently a
monument of the Art of the tenth century. Constantine Porphyrogenitus
was noted for the number of palaces he erected.[442]

[Illustration: The Palace of the Porphyrogenitus (View of Interior).]

At the north-western end of the court stood another residence, the
western façade of which, pierced by spacious windows, still surmounts
the outer wall of the court. Over the second window (from the south) was
inscribed the monogram of the legend on the arms of the Palæologi;[443]
Βασιλεὺς Βασιλέων Βασιλεύων Βασιλεύουσι.

Dr. Paspates[444] regarded this building as the Monastery of the Seven
Orders of the Angels, mentioned by Cantacuzene;[445] but that monastery,
and the gate named after it, were at Thessalonica, and not at
Constantinople. The building formed part of the Palace of the
Porphyrogenitus.

Bullialdus, the annotator of Ducas,[446] speaking of the palace, says
that the double-headed eagle of the Palæologi was to be seen on the
lintel of one of the doors; that the capitals of the pillars in the
building bore the lilies of France; and that several armorial shields
were found there with the monogram—

[Illustration: Monogram.]

These ornaments may be indications of repairs made by different
occupants of the palace.[447]

Footnote 428:

  Critobolus, i. c. 27; Cantacuzene, i. p. 305.

Footnote 429:

  See below, Chap. XIX.

Footnote 430:

  Tekfour Serai means Palace of the Sovereign, from a Persian word
  signifying Wearer of the Crown, Crowned Head. Leunclavius (_Pandectes
  Historiæ Turcicæ_, s. 56, Migne, vol. clix.) says that the Turks, in
  his day, styled the emperor, Tegguires. The derivation of Tekfour from
  the Greek τοῦ κυρίου is untenable.

Footnote 431:

  See below, p. 173.

Footnote 432:

  I. c. 27. Ἀπὸ τῆς Ξυλίνης πύλης ἀνιόντι μέχρι τῶν βασιλείων τοῦ
  Πορφυρογεννήτου, καὶ φθάνοντι μέχρι τῆς λεγομένης πύλης τοῦ Χαρισοῦ.

Footnote 433:

  Cantacuzene, i. p. 305.

Footnote 434:

  Nicephorus Greg., ix. p. 420.

Footnote 435:

  See below, p. 127.

Footnote 436:

  Cantacuzene, iii. p. 607.

Footnote 437:

  Cantacuzene, iii. pp. 611, 612; Nicephorus Greg., xv. pp. 774-779.

Footnote 438:

  Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 290, 291.

Footnote 439:

  Tafferner (see below, p. 113, reference 5) speaks of a propylæum
  supported by ten fine columns as the entrance to the court of the
  palace from the city.

Footnote 440:

  Cantacuzene, iii. p. 138, Τὴν τοῦ Πορφυρογεννήτου προσαγορευομένην
  πυλίδα.

Footnote 441:

  From _Broken Bits of Byzantium_. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)

Footnote 442:

  Salzenberg, _Altchristliche Bandenkmäler von Constantinopel_, p. 125.

Footnote 443:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 450. The date of the building is by no means
  settled. Dr. Paspates (p. 65) thinks it older than the time of
  Theodosius II.; Dr. Mordtmann (p. 33) assigns it to the reign of that
  emperor. It is a question for experts in Art to determine.

Footnote 444:

  Paspates, p. 42.

Footnote 445:

  Pages 62, 63.

Footnote 446:

  Lib. i. p. 268.

Footnote 447:

  Page 612.

Footnote 448:

  Tafferner, chaplain to the Embassy sent by the Emperor Leopold I. to
  the Ottoman Court (_Cæsarea Legatio quam, mandante Augustissimo Rom.
  Imperatore Leopoldi I. ad Portam Ottomanicam, suscepit, perficitque
  Excellentissimus Dominus Walterus Comes de Leslie_, 1688), gives in
  his account of the mission (pp. 92, 93) the following description of
  the palace in his day:—“Præteriri non potuit quin inviseretur aula
  magni Constantini: Regia hæc ad Occidentem mœnibus adhæret; nobilia
  sublimibus operibus instructissimo olim colle locata: tribus
  substructionibus moles assurrexerat; altius nullum in tota urbe
  domicilium. Palatij coronis superstes marmore inciso elaborata tectum
  fulcit, ventis et imbribus pervium. Vastæ et eminentes præter sacræ
  antiquitatis ædilitatem è pario lapide fenestræ liquidò demonstrant,
  cujus palatij ornamenta fuerint, cujus aulæ etiamnum ruinæ sint.
  Propylæum decem columnæ magnitudinis et artificij dignitate conspicuæ
  sustinent: ejus in angulo desolatus, et ruderibus scatens puteus
  mœret. Pergula è centro prominens universæ urbis conspectum explicat.
  Columnis constat auro passim illitis, cujus radios color viridis
  extiamnum animat. Grandiora lapidum fragmenta, cum primis fabricæ
  ornamentis, ac fulcris cæteris in Moschèas translata sunt: sola tantæ
  molis vestigia, atque ex ungue cadaver nunc restat. Muro extimo
  meridiem versùs insertum parieti visitur Oratoriolum hominibus
  recipiendis sex opportunum: Angustia loci persuadet privatæ illud
  pietati Constantini sacrum fuisse. Squallet turpiter hæc Imperatorij
  operis majestas nunc inter arbusta, atque hederas et sive cœli
  injurias, sive immanitatem barbarorum, sive Christianorum incuriam
  accuses, non absimilem cum tempore rebus cæteris, utcunque floreant,
  internecionem minatur.”




[Illustration: Plan of the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus, And Adjoining
walls.]




                             CHAPTER VIII.
  THE FORTIFICATIONS ON THE NORTH-WESTERN SIDE OF THE CITY, BEFORE THE
                            SEVENTH CENTURY.


At the Gate of the Xylokerkus, or the Kerko Porta, the Theodosian Walls
come to an abrupt termination, and the line of defence from that point
to the Golden Horn is continued by fortifications which, for the most
part, did not exist before the seventh century. Along the greater
portion of their course these bulwarks consisted of a single wall,
without a moat; but at a short distance from the water, where they stand
on level ground, they formed a double wall, which was at one time
protected by a moat and constituted a citadel at the north-western angle
of the city.

With the exception of that citadel’s outer wall, erected by Leo the
Armenian, the defences from the Kerko Porta to the Golden Horn have
usually been ascribed to the Emperor Heraclius.[448] But this opinion is
at variance both with history, and with the striking diversity in
construction exhibited by the various portions of the works. As a matter
of fact, the fortifications extending from the Kerko Porta to the Golden
Horn comprise walls that belong to, at least, three periods: the Wall of
Heraclius, the Wall of Leo, and the Wall of Manuel Comnenus.[449]
Curiously enough, the Wall of Manuel Comnenus, though latest in time,
stands first in order of position, for it intervenes between the
Theodosian Walls, on the one hand, and the Heraclian and Leonine Walls,
on the other.

Here, therefore, a question presents itself which must be answered
before proceeding to the study of the walls just mentioned. If the
various portions of the fortifications between the Kerko Porta and the
Golden Horn did not come, respectively, into existence until the
seventh, ninth, and eleventh centuries, how was the north-western side
of the city defended previous to the erection of those walls?

Two answers have been given to this important and very difficult
question. Both agree in maintaining that the city was defended on the
north-west by the prolongation of the Theodosian Walls; but they differ
as regards the precise direction in which the walls were carried down to
the Golden Horn.

One view is that the Theodosian Walls upon leaving the Kerko Porta
turned north-eastwards, to follow the _eastern_ spur of the Sixth
Hill,[450] along a line terminating somewhere in the vicinity of Balat
Kapoussi.[451] According to this view, the quarter of Blachernæ, which
until 627 lay outside the city limits,[452] was the territory situated
between the spur just mentioned and the line occupied eventually by the
Walls of Comnenus and Heraclius.

The second view on the subject is that the two Theodosian Walls were
carried northwards along the _western_ spur of the Sixth Hill, and
enclosed it on every side. On this supposition, the suburb of Blachernæ,
with its celebrated Church of the Theotokos, without the fortifications,
was the plain extending from the foot of the western spur of the Sixth
Hill to the Golden Horn, the plain occupied now by the quarter of Aivan
Serai.[453]

In support of the first opinion, there is the undoubted fact that the
Theodosian Walls, as they approach the Kerko Porta, bend
north-eastwards, so that if continued in that direction they would reach
the Golden Horn near the Greek Church of St. Demetrius, to the west of
Balat Kapoussi.

The opinion that the Theodosian Walls were carried to the foot of the
western spur of the Sixth Hill rests upon the fact that traces of old
fortifications enclosing that spur are still distinctly visible; while
the Theodosian Moat is, moreover, continued towards Aivan Serai, until
it is stopped by the Wall of Manuel, which runs transversely to it.[454]

The fortifications referred to are found mostly to the rear of the
Comnenian Wall, but portions of them are seen also to the north of it.

One line of the fortifications proceeded from the Kerko Porta along the
western flank of the spur, and joined the city walls a little to the
south of the “Tower of Isaac Angelus;” another line ran from that gate
along the eastern side of the spur to the fountain Tsinar Tchesmè in the
quarter of Londja, a short distance to the south-east of the Holy Well
which marks the site of the Church of Blachernæ; while a third wall,
facing the Golden Horn, defended the northern side of the spur, and
abutted against the city walls, very near the southern end of the Wall
of Heraclius.[455] Within the acropolis formed by these works of
defence, the Palace of Blachernæ and the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus
were in due time erected.

Both answers to the question before us have much in their favour, and
possibly the truth on the subject is to be found in their combination.
Their respective values as rival theories will, perhaps, be more easily
estimated, if we begin with the consideration of the second answer.

[Illustration: Balcony in the Southern Façade of the Palace of the
Porphyrogenitus.]

That the western spur of the Sixth Hill was a fortified position early
in the history of the city can scarcely be disputed. It must have been
so, to commence at the lowest date, before the erection of the Wall of
the Emperor Manuel in the twelfth century; for it was to get clear of
the fortifications on that spur that the Comnenian Wall describes the
remarkable detour it makes in proceeding from the court of the Palace of
the Porphyrogenitus towards the Golden Horn, running out westwards for a
considerable distance before taking a northerly course in the direction
of the harbour. Then, there is reason to believe that the spur was
fortified as early as the seventh century. This is implied in the
accounts we have of the siege of Constantinople by the Avars in 627,
when we hear of fortifications, named the Wall of Blachernæ,[456] the
Pteron[457] or Proteichisma,[458] outside of which stood the Church of
Blachernæ and the Church of St. Nicholas.[459]

[Illustration: Archway leading to the Gate of the Xylokerkus (Screen
Tower). The Palace of the Porphyrogenitus (From The West).]

For these sanctuaries were situated precisely at the foot of the western
spur of the Sixth Hill, the site of the former being marked by the Holy
Well of Blachernæ at Aivan Serai, that of the latter by the Holy Well in
the ground between the Wall of Heraclius and the Wall of Leo.

It is also in favour of the presence of fortifications on the spur in
the seventh century to find that the historians of the Avar siege are
silent as to any danger incurred by the Palace of Blachernæ, which stood
on the spur, when the Church of St. Nicholas was burnt down, and when
the Church of Blachernæ narrowly escaped the same fate. A similar
silence is observed as to any advantage derived by the palace from the
erection of the Wall of Heraclius, at the close of the war.

But the age of these fortifications may be carried back to a still
earlier date than the seventh century; for, according to the _Notitia_,
the Fourteenth Region of the city, which stood on the Sixth Hill, was
defended by a wall of its own, _proprio muro vallata_, so as to appear a
distinct town.[460] The fortifications on the Sixth Hill may therefore
claim to have originally constituted the defences of that Region, and
therefore to be as old, at least, as the reign of Theodosius II.

But although the origin of the fortifications around the western spur of
the Sixth Hill may thus be carried so far back, it is a mistake to
regard them as a structural prolongation of the Theodosian Walls. On the
contrary, they are distinct and independent constructions. They proceed
northwards, while the latter make for the north-east; so that the Wall
of Anthemius, if produced, would stand to the east of the former, while
the Wall of the Prefect Constantine under similar circumstances would
cut them transversely. Furthermore, the outer wall, north of the Kerko
Porta, is built almost at right angles against the wall of the Prefect
Constantine, with a distinct line of junction, and stands so close to
the Kerko Porta that the gate, what with the wall on one side and the
tower screening the western façade of the Palace of Porphyrogenitus[461]
upon the other, is almost crushed between them. Such a situation could
never have been assigned to the gate, if the walls on either hand
belonged to the same construction. It should also be added that the
masonry of the walls around the spur is different from that in the Walls
of Theodosius.

How the non-Theodosian character of the walls to the north of the Kerko
Porta is to be accounted for admits of more than one explanation. It may
be due to changes in works of Theodosian origin, or to the fact that
they are works of an earlier period,[462] or to the fact that they are
works of a later age. On the supposition that these fortifications
defended originally the Fourteenth Region, the second explanation is the
most probable, for the division of the city into Regions was anterior to
Theodosius II., and there is every reason to believe that the isolated
Fourteenth Region was a fortified suburb from the earliest period of its
history.[463]

Accordingly, the second answer to the question how the north-western
side of the city was defended before the erection of the Walls of
Heraclius, Leo, and Manuel Comnenus, would have more in its favour if it
maintained that the defence was effected by the junction of the
Theodosian Walls with pre-existing fortifications around the western
spur of the Sixth Hill.[464]

The chief difficulty attending this view is that the _Notitia_ speaks of
the Fourteenth Region as still an isolated suburb in the reign of
Theodosius II.[465]

As regards the opinion that the Theodosian Walls proceeded from the
Kerko Porta to the Golden Horn in a north-eastern course and reached the
water between the Church of St. Demetrius and Balat Kapoussi, it has
upon its side the patent fact that those walls, if produced according to
their trend at the Kerko Porta, would certainly follow the line
indicated. On this view, the walls around the western spur of the Sixth
Hill were either the fortifications of the Fourteenth Region (modified),
or walls built expressly to defend the Palace of Blachernæ, after the
fifth century.

The trend of the walls at the Kerko Porta affords, unquestionably, a
very strong argument for this view of the case. But the view is open to
objections. The absence of all traces of the walls along the line
indicated should, perhaps, not be pressed, as such works are apt to
disappear when superseded. A more serious objection is that the
Theodosian Moat does not follow the north-eastern course of the walls,
but proceeds northwards, for a short distance, in the direction of Aivan
Serai.

Furthermore, if the western spur of the Sixth Hill was already fortified
when the Theodosian Walls were built, it is reasonable to suppose that
the land defences of the city were completed by the simple expedient of
uniting the new works with the old. Any other proceeding appears
cumbrous and superfluous.

Still, after all is said, the information we have is so meagre, the
changes made in the walls beside the Kerko Porta have manifestly been so
numerous, that a decided judgment upon the point at issue does not seem
warranted by the evidence at our command.

Footnote 449:

  Paspates, p. 19.

Footnote 450:

  Dr. Mordtmann was the first to prove this. See below, p. 122.

Footnote 451:

  The Sixth Hill sends three spurs towards the Golden Horn, which may be
  distinguished as the eastern, middle, and western.

Footnote 452:

  This is the view of Dr. Paspates, pp. 2, 3, 92.

Footnote 453:

  Procopius (_De Æd._, i. c. 3), speaking of the Church of Blachernæ,
  describes it as situated πρὸ τοῦ περιβόλου, ἐν χώρῳ καλουμένῳ
  Βλαχέρναις. Cf. _Paschal Chron._, p. 726.

Footnote 454:

  This is the view of Dr. Mordtmann, p. 11.

Footnote 455:

  Previous to the erection of Manuel’s Wall, the Moat may have continued
  further north, protecting the wall along the western side of the spur.

Footnote 456:

  Cf. Paspates, pp. 92-99, regarding the remains of the walls around the
  spur, the area they enclose, and their character. According to him,
  the wall on the eastern side of the spur measures m. 157.81 in length,
  and is in some parts m. 13-14 high; the wall along the northern side
  of the spur is m. 180.90 long, and m. 13-14 high; the wall on the
  western side of the spur is m. 35 long, and as high as the adjoining
  walls of the city.

Footnote 457:

  _Paschal Chron._, 724, τὸ τεῖχος Βλαχερνῶν. This was before the
  erection of the Wall of Heraclius.

Footnote 458:

  _Ibid._, p. 726, ἔξωθεν τοῦ καλουμένου Πτεροῦ.

Footnote 459:

  Nicephorus, Patriarcha CP., p. 20, τὸ Βλαχερνῶν προτείχισμα τὸ
  καλούμενον Πτερόν.

Footnote 460:

  _Paschal Chron._, _ut supra_; cf. Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. 3, c. 6.

Footnote 461:

  _Notitia, ad Reg._ XIV.

Footnote 462:

  See above, p. 111. See also illustration facing p. 118.

Footnote 463:

  With alterations made in the course of time by repairs.

Footnote 464:

  _Notitia, ad Reg. XIV._ “Regio sane licet in urbis quartadecima
  numeretur, tamen quia spatio interjecto divisa est, muro proprio
  vallata alterius quomodo speciem civitatis ostendit.”

  Dionysius Byzantius derives the name Blachernæ from a barbarian
  chieftain who was settled there. If so, it is extremely probable that
  the Sixth Hill was fortified, to some extent, even before the
  foundation of Constantinople. See Gyllius, _De Top. C.P._, iv. c. 5.

Footnote 465:

  On this view, a wall must, also, be supposed to have proceeded from
  Londja to the Golden Horn, completing the circuit of the
  fortifications around the city.

Footnote 466:

  _Notitia, ad Reg. XIV._




                              CHAPTER IX.
                THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMNENUS.


According to Nicetas Choniates,[466] a portion of the city
fortifications was erected by the Emperor Manuel Comnenus.

[Illustration: Tower of the Wall of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus.]

The historian alludes to that work when describing the site upon which
the Crusaders established their camp in 1203, and from his account of
the matter there can be no doubt regarding the portion intended. The
Latin camp, says Nicetas,[467] was pitched on the hill which faced the
western front of the Palace of Blachernæ, and which was separated from
the city walls by a strip of level ground, extending from the Golden
Horn, on the north, to the wall built by the Emperor Manuel, on the
south. This is an unmistakable description of the hill which stands to
the west of the fortifications between the Golden Horn and Egri Kapou,
and which is separated from those fortifications by a narrow plain, as
by a trench or gorge. Consequently, the wall erected by the Emperor
Manuel must be sought at the plain’s southern extremity; and there,
precisely, commences a line of wall which displays, as far as the
north-western corner of the court of the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus,
a style of workmanship perfectly distinct from any found elsewhere in
the bulwarks of the city.

The object of building this wall was to add to the security of the
Palace of Blachernæ, which became the favourite residence of the
Imperial Court in the reign of Alexius Comnenus,[468] and which Manuel
himself enlarged and beautified.[469] The new wall was not only stronger
than the earlier defences of the palace, but had also the advantage of
removing the point of attack against this part of the city to a greater
distance from the Imperial residence. At the same time, the older
fortifications were allowed to remain as a second line of defence.

In construction the wall is a series of lofty arches closed on the outer
face, and built of larger blocks of stone[470] than those generally
employed in the Walls of Theodosius. On account of the steepness of the
slope on which it, for the most part, stands, it was unprotected by a
moat, but to compensate for this lack the wall was more massive, and
flanked by stronger towers than other portions of the fortifications. At
the summit the wall measured fifteen feet in thickness. Of its nine
towers, the first six, commencing from the court of the Palace of the
Porphyrogenitus, are alternately round and octagonal; the seventh and
eighth are octagonal; the last is square.

The wall was provided with a public gate and, apparently, two posterns.

One postern, opening on the Theodosian parateicheion, was in the
curtain[471] extending from the outer wall of the court of the Palace of
the Porphyrogenitus to the first tower of Manuel’s Wall. The other
postern stood between the second and third towers, and is remarkable for
being the only entrance in the city walls furnished with a drip-stone.
Dr. Paspates[472] identified it with the Paraportion of St. Kallinikus;
but the postern of that name is mentioned in history before the erection
of Manuel’s Wall.

Between the sixth and seventh towers was the Public Gate, now styled
Egri Kapou. By some authorities, as already stated,[473] it has been
identified with the Porta Charisiou, but it is, beyond question, the
Porta Kaligaria, so conspicuous in the last siege of the city.[474] This
is clear from the following circumstances: The Porta Kaligaria pierced
the wall which protected the quarter known, owing to the manufacture of
military shoes (caliga) there, as the Kaligaria (ἐν τοῖς Καλιγαρίοις).
That wall stood near the palace of the emperor; it was a single line of
fortifications, distinguished for its strength, but without a moat.[475]
It occupied, moreover, such a position that from one of its towers the
Emperor Constantine Dragoses and his friend the historian Phrantzes were
able to reconnoitre, early in the morning of the fatal 29th of May, the
operations of the Turkish army before the Theodosian Walls, and hear the
ominous sounds of the preparations for the last assault.[476] All these
particulars hold true only of the wall in which Egri Kapou is situated;
and hence that gate must be the Porta Kaligaria.

The only inscription found on the Wall of Manuel consists of the two
words, ΥΠΕΡ ΕΥΧΗΣ, on a stone built into the left side of the entrance
which leads from within the city into the square tower above mentioned.

In the siege of 1453, this wall, on account of its proximity to the
Palace of Blachernæ, was the object of special attack; but all the
attempts of the Turkish gunners and miners failed to open a breach in
it.[477] A battery of three cannon, one of them the huge piece cast by
Orban, played against these bulwarks with such little effect that the
Sultan ordered the guns to be transferred to the battery before the Gate
of St. Romanus.[478] The skilled miners who were brought from the
district around Novobrodo, in Servia, to undermine the wall succeeded in
shaking down only part of an old tower, and all the mines they opened
were countermined by John Grant, a German engineer in the service of the
Greeks.[479]

The tower from which the emperor and Phrantzes reconnoitred the Turkish
movements was, Dr. Paspates thinks, the noble tower which stands at the
point where the wall bends to descend the slope towards the Golden
Horn.[480]

The portion of the fortifications, some 453 feet in length, extending
from the square tower in the wall just described to the fourth tower to
the north (the tower bearing an inscription in honour of Isaac
Angelus),[481] is considered by one authority to be also a part of the
Wall of Manuel Comnenus.[482] If so, it must have undergone great
alterations since that emperor’s time, for in its construction and
general appearance it is very different from the Comnenian ramparts. It
is built of smaller blocks of stone; its bricks are much slighter in
make; its arches less filled with masonry; its four towers are all
square, and glaringly inferior to the splendid towers in Manuel’s
undoubted work; while, immediately to the south of the square tower
above mentioned one can see, from within the city, a line of junction
between the wall to the south and the wall to the north of that tower,
indicating in the plainest possible manner the juxtaposition of two
perfectly distinct structures. And in point of fact, three inscriptions
recording repairs are found on the latter wall. One inscription, on the
fourth tower, belongs to the reign of Isaac Angelus[483] and bears the
date 1188. Another is seen among the Turkish repairs executed on the
city side of the second tower of the wall, and records the date, “In the
year 6824 (1317), November 4;” the year, as we have seen, in which
Irene, the empress of Andronicus II., died, leaving large sums of money,
which that emperor devoted, mainly, to the restoration of the bulwarks
of the capital.[484] The third inscription stands on the curtain between
the third and fourth towers of the wall, immediately below the parapet,
and commemorates repairs executed in 1441 by John VII. Palæologus, who
was concerned in the reconstruction of the Outer Theodosian Wall. It
reads:

                          ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ ΕΝ ΧΩ ΤΩ
                          ΘΩ ΠΙΣΤΟΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ
                          ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡ ΡΩΜΑΙΩΝ
                          Ο ΠΑΛΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΗΝΑ
                          ΑΥΓΟΥΣΤΟΥ ΤΗ Δ
                          ΤΟΥ ϚϠΜΘ ΕΤΟΥΣ (6949).

    “John Palæologus, faithful King and Emperor of the Romans, in
    Christ, God; on the second of the month of August of the year 1441.”

[Illustration: The Palæologian Wall, North of the Wall of the Emperor
Manuel Comnenus.]

To the north of the second tower in the wall before us is a gateway
which answers to the description of the Gate of Gyrolimnè (πύλη τῆς
Γυρολίμνης); for the Gate of Gyrolimnè, like this entrance, stood in the
immediate vicinity of the Palace of Blachernæ, and was so near the hill
on which the Crusaders encamped in 1203 that the Greeks stationed at the
gate and the enemy on the hill were almost within speaking
distance.[485]

[Illustration: The Gate of Gyrolimnè.]

The gate derived its name from a sheet of water called the Silver Lake
(Ἀργυρὰ Λίμνη), at the head of the Golden Horn, and beside which was an
Imperial palace.[486] The gate was at the service of the Palace of
Blachernæ, a fact which, doubtless, explains the decoration of the arch
of the entrance with three Imperial busts.[487]

Several historical reminiscences are attached to the gate. Through it,
probably, the leaders of the Fourth Crusade went to and fro in carrying
on their negotiations with Isaac Angelus.[488] By it Andronicus the
Younger went forth in hunter’s garb, with his dogs and falcons, as if to
follow the chase, but in reality to join his adherents and raise the
standard of revolt against his grandfather.[489] Hither that prince came
thrice in the course of his rebellion, and held parley with the
officials of the palace, as they stood upon the walls, regarding terms
of peace;[490] and here the intelligence that he had entered the city
was brought by the peasants who had seen him admitted early in the
morning through the Gate of St. Romanus.[491]

To this gate Cantacuzene also came at the head of his troops in 1343, to
sound the disposition of the capital during his contest with Apocaucus
and the Empress Anna.[492]


                        The Palace of Blachernæ.
                 Τὸ ἐν Βλαχέρναις Βασίλειον, Παλάτιον.


Until the site of the Palace of Blachernæ is excavated, little can be
added to the information which Du Cange[493] and Paspates[494] have
collected respecting that Imperial residence, from the statements made
on the subject by writers during the Byzantine period. If the quarter of
Egri Kapou, on the western spur of the Sixth Hill, was included in the
Fourteenth Region of the city, the Palace of Blachernæ appears first as
the palace which, according to the _Notitia_, adorned that Region.[495]
In the reign of Anastasius I. the residence was enlarged by the addition
of the Triclinus Anastasiacus (Τρίκλινος Ἀναστασιακὸς),[496] and in the
tenth century[497] it boasted, moreover, of the Triclinus of the Holy
Shrine (Τρίκλινος τῆς ἁγίας σοροῦ), named so in honour of the shrine in
which the robe and mantle of the Theotokos were kept in the Church of
Blachernæ; the Triclinus Danubius (Τρίκλινος Δανουβιὸς); and the Portico
Josephiacus (τὸν Πόρτικα Ἰωσηφιακὸν). Under Alexius I. Comnenus it was
frequently occupied by the Court, and there the emperor received the
leaders of the First Crusade, Peter the Hermit, Godfrey of Bouillon,
Bohemond, and others.[498] By Manuel Comnenus it was repaired and
embellished[499] to an extent which obtained for it the name of the New
Palace,[500] and it was one of the sights of the capital with which he
entertained Amaury, King of Jerusalem.[501] The lofty building named
after the Empress Irene,[502] and, probably, the Domus Polytimos,[503]
were the work of Manuel Comnenus. He also increased, as we have seen,
the security of the palace by the erection of new bulwarks; to which
Isaac Angelus added a tower.[504] In 1203 the palace was the scene of
the negotiations between the latter emperor and the envoys of Baldwin of
Flanders and Henrico Dandolo, the leaders of the Fourth Crusade.[505] In
1204, upon the capture of the city by the Crusaders, it surrendered to
Henry, the brother of Baldwin,[506] but the Latin emperors seem to have
preferred the Palace of the Bucoleon for their residence.

[Illustration: General View of the Wall of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus.]

Baldwin II., however, resided in the Palace of Blachernæ, and left it in
such a filthy condition that when taken possession of by the Greeks in
1261, Michael Palæologus could not occupy it until it had been
thoroughly cleaned and renovated.[507] It was the usual residence of the
Byzantine Court during the period of the Palæologi,[508] and from this
palace the last emperor who sat upon the throne of Constantinople went
forth to die “in the winding-sheet of his empire.”[509] All descriptions
of the palace agree in representing it as of extraordinary
splendour.[510] Foreign visitors could not find words in which to give
an idea of its magnificence and wealth. According to them, its exterior
appearance was incomparable in beauty, while within it was decorated
with gold, and mosaics, and colours, and marbles, and columns, and
jewels, at a cost hard to estimate, and with a skill that could be found
nowhere else in the world.[511]

The hill on which the palace stood was partly artificial, to furnish a
suitable platform or terrace for the group of buildings which composed
the residence, and to afford wide views over the harbour, the city, and
the country beyond the walls—“triplicem habitantibus jucunditatem
offerens,” as Odo de Dogilo aptly remarks, “mare, campus, urbemque,
alterius despicit.” The palace derived much of its importance from its
proximity to the venerated shrine of the Theotokos of Blachernæ. And the
ease with which the country could be reached from it, to enjoy the
pleasures of the chase, must not be overlooked in explaining the favour
with which the palace was regarded.[512] It should be added that the
palace stood within the fortified enclosure[513] around the western spur
of the Sixth Hill, the Castelion of Blachernæ (Τὸ ἐν Βλαχέρναις
φρούριον, μέρος καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦ περὶ τὰ βασίλεια φρουρίου ὂν Καστέλιον
προσαγορευόμενον).[514]

Footnote 467:

  Page 719; cf. _Ibid._, p. 500; Cinnamus, p. 274.

Footnote 468:

  _Ut supra_, Περὶ τὸ γεώλοφον ἄφ᾽ οὗπερ ὁρατὰ μὲν τὰ ἐν Βλαχέρναις
  ἀνάκτορα, ὁπόσα νένευκε πρὸς ἑσπέραν. Περὶ δὲ γε τὴν τούτου ὑπόβασιν
  ὑπτιάζει τις αὔλειος, πρὸς μεσημβρίαν μὲν ἐς τὸ τεῖχος λήγουσα ὅπερ
  ἔρυμα τῶν ἀρχείων ὁ βασιλεὺς ἀνήγειρε Μανουὴλ, κατὰ δὲ βορρᾶν ἄνεμον
  τῇ θαλάσσῃ ἐγγίζουσα.

Footnote 469:

  Anna Comn., vi. p. 275, _et passim_.

Footnote 470:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 269; Benjamin of Toledo, p. 12.

Footnote 471:

  As a rule, two to four courses of stone, alternating with six to nine
  courses of brick.

Footnote 472:

  This is a piece of Turkish repair, in which the lintel of a postern is
  found.

Footnote 473:

  Page 62.

Footnote 474:

  See above, p. 83.

Footnote 475:

  Pusculus, iv. 177.

Footnote 476:

  Nicolo Barbaro, p. 794, “Questa Calegaria si xe apresso del palazzo
  de, l’imperador;” p. 784, “Li no ve iera barbacani.” Leonard of Scio,
  “Ad partem illam murorum simplicium, qua nec fossatis, nec antemurali
  tutebatur, Calegariam dictam.” Again he says, “Murus ad Caligariam
  erat perlatus, fortisque.”

Footnote 477:

  Phrantzes, p. 280.

Footnote 478:

  Leonard of Scio, “Horribilem perinde bombardam (quamquam major alai
  quam vix bovum quinquagenta centum juga vehebant) ob partem illam ...
  lapide qui palmis meis undecim ex meis ambibat in gyro, ex ea murum
  conterebant.”

Footnote 479:

  _Ibid._

Footnote 480:

  _Ibid._; N. Barbaro, May 16, 21-25; Phrantzes, p. 244.

Footnote 481:

  Paspates, p. 22; Phrantzes, p. 280.

Footnote 482:

  See below, p. 132. The tower is marked L on Map facing p. 115.

Footnote 483:

  Mordtmann, p. 35.

Footnote 484:

  See below, p. 132.

Footnote 485:

  See above, p. 103. The inscription is now reversed, and stands a
  little above the base of the tower.

Footnote 486:

  Nicetas Chon., pp. 719, 720.

Footnote 487:

  Anna Comnena, x. p. 48; Albert Aquensis, lib. ii. c. 10, speaks of
  certain gates, versus Sanctum Argenteum; while Tudebodus Imitatus et
  Continuatus (_Auteurs Occidentaux sur les Croisades_, vol. iii. p.
  178) states that Bohemond, who, according to Anna Comnena (x. p. 61)
  and Ville-Hardouin (c. 33), lodged at the Monastery of SS. Cosmas and
  Damianus, in the Cosmidion (Eyoub), was assigned quarters—extra
  civitatem in Sancto Argenteo. The Sanctus Argenteus of these writers
  was doubtless the church dedicated to the saints above mentioned, who
  were styled the Anargyri (Without Money). The name of the bay and the
  epithet of the saints were probably connected.

Footnote 488:

  See foot of List of Illustrations.

Footnote 489:

  Ville-Hardouin, c. 39, 40, 46, 47.

Footnote 490:

  Cantacuzene, i. pp. 89, 90.

Footnote 491:

  _Ibid._, i. pp. 255, 289, 290.

Footnote 492:

  Nicephorus Greg., ix. pp. 420, 421.

Footnote 493:

  Cantacuzene, iii. p. 501.

Footnote 494:

  _Constantinopolis Christiana_, ii. pp. 130-132.

Footnote 495:

  Chap. iv.

Footnote 496:

  _Notitia, ad Reg._ XIV.

Footnote 497:

  Suidas, _Ad vocem_, _Anastasius_.

Footnote 498:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 542, 543.

Footnote 499:

  Anna Comn., x. pp. 36, 54, 63.

Footnote 500:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 269.

Footnote 501:

  William of Tyre, xx. c. 24.

Footnote 502:

  William of Tyre, _ut supra_.

Footnote 503:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 720.

Footnote 504:

  _Ibid._, p. 351.

Footnote 505:

  See below, p. 143.

Footnote 506:

  Ville-Hardouin, c. 39.

Footnote 507:

  _Ibid._, c. 55.

Footnote 508:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 144, 161.

Footnote 509:

  Cantacuzene, i. p. 305; iv. pp. 290, 291; Nicephorus Greg., ix. p.
  420, etc.

Footnote 510:

  Phrantzes, p. 280.

Footnote 511:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 269.

Footnote 512:

  See Benjamin of Toledo, and Odo de Dogilo, iv. p. 37, both of whom
  visited the palace in the reign of Manuel Comnenus.

Footnote 513:

  Cantacuzene, i. pp. 89, 90.

Footnote 514:

  See Map facing p. 115.

Footnote 515:

  Cantacuzene, iii. pp. 611, 612; Nicephorus Greg., xv. pp. 774-779.




[Illustration: Plan of the So-Called Prison of Anemas.]




                               CHAPTER X.
            THE TOWER OF ANEMAS—THE TOWER OF ISAAC ANGELUS.


The next portion of the walls to be considered, beginning at the tower
marked with an inscription in honour of Isaac Angelus,[515] and
terminating at the junction of the Wall of Heraclius with the Wall of
Leo, has undergone many changes in the course of its history, and,
consequently, presents problems which cannot be solved in the actual
state of our knowledge. After all is said on the subject, there will be
room for wide difference of opinion.

Originally, it would seem, this portion of the walls formed part of the
defences around the outlying Fourteenth Region of the city; later, it
constituted the north-western front of the enclosure around the Palace
of Blachernæ.

It is remarkable for its dimensions, rising in some places 68 feet above
the exterior ground-level, with a thickness varying from 33-¼ to 61-½
feet. Inside the city the ground reaches the level of the parapet-walk.
The wall is flanked by three towers, the second and third being built
side by side, with one of their walls in common. In the body of the wall
behind the twin towers, and for some distance to the north of them, were
three stories of twelve chambers, presenting in their ruin the most
impressive spectacle to be found in the circuit of the fortifications.

The first[516] of the three towers stands at the south-western angle of
the enclosure around the Palace of Blachernæ, where the fortifications
around the western spur of the Sixth Hill, to the rear of the Wall of
Manuel, join the wall now under consideration; the tower’s upper chamber
being on the level of the palace area. Upon the tower is the following
inscription, in honour of the Emperor Isaac Angelus:

                 ΠΡΟΣΤΑΞΙ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ ΑΝΓΕΛΟΥ ΙΑΣΑΑΚΙΟΥ
                 ΠΥΡΓΟΣ ΕΚ ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΩΣ ΔΙΜΕΗΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΟΥ ΕΤ
                     ϚϠΧΙ (6696).[517]

    “Tower, by command of the Emperor Isaac Angelus, under the
    superintendence of Basil ... (?) in the year 1188.”

The twin towers rise to a great height, and are supported along their
base by a massive buttress or counter-fort, 1 G1 G2 G3 G4, that stands
23 feet above the present ground-level, and projects from 19-½ to 26
feet beyond the towers.

The tower N, an irregular quadrilateral building in two stories,
measures 48 feet by 43 feet; the tower S, also quadrilateral, is 36 feet
by 47 feet. But although closely associated, the two buildings differ
greatly in style of construction. The masonry of N is irregular, having
a large number of pillars inserted into it; often partially, so that
many of them project like mock artillery. On the other hand, the tower S
is carefully put together with the usual alternate courses of stone and
brickwork, and is, moreover, ornamented with a string-course. A similar
diversity of style is observable in the counter-fort. The portion about
the tower N is built of small stones roughly joined, whereas the portion
about the tower S consists of splendid large blocks, regularly hewn, and
carefully fitted. Manifestly the towers are not the work of the same
period.

The tower N is commonly regarded as the tower of Isaac Angelus; while
the tower S has been considered, since Dr. Paspates propounded the
opinion, to be the Tower of Anemas,[518] which stood in the vicinity of
the Palace of Blachernæ, and is famous in the annals of Constantinople
as a prison for political offenders of high rank. The chambers in the
body of the wall, behind and to the north of the towers, Dr. Paspates
thinks, were the cells of that celebrated prison.

How far these views are correct can be determined only after the towers
and the chambers in the adjoining wall have been carefully surveyed. The
plan attached to this chapter will render the survey easier and
clearer.[519]

At _x_ was a small arched postern, by which one entered the vaulted
tunnel Z, that led through the counter-fort G´ to the gateway _l_ in the
north-eastern side of the tower S. The sill of the postern _x_ is now
nearly 10 feet above the exterior ground-level, but originally it was
higher, so that persons could pass in and out only by means of a ladder
that could be withdrawn at pleasure. The postern _x_, the tunnel Z, and
the gateway _l_ are now built up with solid masonry to the spring of the
vault, obliging the explorer to make his way on his hands and knees in a
most uncomfortable manner.[520] Judging from the carefulness of the
work, the passage was blocked before the Turkish Conquest.

By the gateway _l_ one enters the lofty vestibule _b_, now in total
darkness, so that all further exploration requires the aid of artificial
light. The original floor of the vestibule is buried below a mass of
earth which stands at the present level of Z and _l_.

In the wall to the right is a low arched niche, _i_; in the wall _g_,
directly in front of the explorer, a wide breach opens into E; while in
the wall to the left is a loophole O, now on the level of the present
floor of _b_.

Crawling first through O, one finds one’s self in a spacious vaulted
hall, some 200 feet long, and from 29 to 40 feet wide. The lower portion
of the hall is filled with _débris_ and earth, piled unevenly upon the
floor, in great mounds and deep hollows, which add indeed to the
weirdness of the scene, but, unfortunately, render a complete
exploration of the interior impossible.

Thirteen buttress-walls, pierced by three arches superposed, run
transversely across the hall, from the wall AA to the wall BB, and
divide the interior into fourteen compartments, which average nearly 10
feet in breadth, and vary in length from about 27 to 40 feet; the walls
AA and BB standing further apart, as they proceed from south-west to
north-east.

These compartments, excepting the first and last, were divided, as the
cavities for fixing joists in the buttresses prove, into three stories
of twelve chambers, the superposed arches affording continuous
communication between the chambers on the different floors. The chambers
on the ground floor, so far as appears, were totally dark, but those on
the two upper stories received light and air through the large loophole
in the wall BB, with which each of them was provided. The compartment C´
led to the chamber in the second story of the tower N, and at the same
time communicated at v with the terrace on which the Palace of Blachernæ
stood, and where the Mosque of Aivas Effendi is now erected.

The face of the wall AA is pierced by two tiers of loopholes, which are
openings in two superposed corridors or galleries constructed in the
body of the wall AA. These loopholes occur at irregular distances from
the buttress-walls, and some of them are partially closed by the latter,
while others are completely so.

As the galleries in AA are blocked with earth at various points, they
cannot be explored thoroughly. At the north-eastern end, the upper
gallery opens on the garden of a Turkish house near the Heraclian Wall.
Whether the south-western end communicated with the court of the Palace
of Blachernæ cannot be determined.

Returning to the vestibule _b_, and crawling next through the opening at
_i_, the explorer finds himself in F, a vaulted chamber over 29 feet
long, and about 17 feet wide. What the original height of the apartment
was cannot be ascertained, the floor being covered with a deep bed of
fine dark loam, but the ceiling is still some 23 feet high. Below a line
nearly 14 feet from the ceiling, as a sloping ledge at that elevation
makes evident, the north-eastern and north-western walls of the
apartment are much thicker than above that point. Over the ledge in the
north-eastern wall is a loophole.

The south-eastern wall is strengthened with two arches; while the
ceiling is pierced by a circular hole, which communicates with the room
on the higher story of the tower. When first explored by Dr. Paspates, a
well nearly 18 feet deep was found sunk in the floor.[521]

Before leaving the chamber the explorer should notice the shaft of a
pillar which protrudes from the south-western wall, like the shafts of
the pillars built into the open sides of the tower N.

Returning once more to the vestibule _b_, we proceed to the breach in
the wall _g_, and enter E. That the breach was made on a systematic plan
is clear from the half-arch _f_, which was constructed to support the
building after the wall _g_ had been weakened by the opening made in it.

E was a stairway-turret, in which an inclined plane, without steps,
winded about the newel, _e_, upwards and downwards. The turret is filled
with earth to the present level of the vestibule _b_, so that one cannot
descend the stairway below that point; but there can be no doubt
whatever that the stairway conducted to the original floor of the
vestibule _b_, and to the gateway _l_, and thence to the tunnel and
postern in the counter-fort. Whether it led also to an entrance to the
chambers C C C cannot be discovered under existing circumstances. The
object of the breach in _g_ was to establish communication between the
stairway, the vestibule _b_, and the tunnel Z, after the original means
of communication between them had been blocked by raising the floors of
the tunnel and the vestibule to their present level, in the manner
already described.

The stairway winds thirteen times about its newel, and ascends to within
a short distance of the summit of the turret. The summit was open, and
stood on the level of the court of the Palace of Blachernæ; but the
opening could be reached from the stairway only by means of a ladder
removable at the pleasure of the guardians of the palace, and was,
doubtless, closed with an iron door for the sake of greater security.

The walls of the turret were pierced by four loop-holes; two, placed one
above the other, looking towards the north-west, and two, similarly
arranged, facing the north-east. Those on the lower level are closed,
but the two higher ones have been enlarged, and admit to the fine
=L=-shaped chamber in the upper story of the tower, the chamber above F
and the vestibule _b_.

[Illustration: The =L=-Shaped Chamber in Upper Story of Tower =S=.]

The chamber measures some 39 feet by 33 feet, and was lighted by a large
square window in the north-western wall. A circular aperture in the
floor communicated with F; and a corresponding aperture in the vaulted
ceiling opened on the roof of the tower. The walls are furnished with
numerous air-passages, to prevent dampness, and are covered with a thin
coating of plaster. The vault of the ceiling, if we may judge from the
small cavities for joists below the spring of the arch, was concealed by
woodwork. Indeed, a portion of one of the cross-beams is still in its
place.

The stairway communicated, moreover, with the tower N, through narrow
vaulted passages that pierce the north-eastern wall of the tower at
three points; first, at the original level of the vestibule _b_, and
then at the level of the two tiers of loopholes. These passages are
choked with earth, but by the partial excavation of the lowest one of
them access was obtained to the small chamber D. It had no windows, but
a round aperture in the ceiling connected it with some unexplored part
of the tower.

From this survey of the buildings before us some satisfactory inferences
may certainly be drawn regarding their history and character; although
several points must remain obscure until the removal of the earth
accumulated within the ruins renders a complete exploration possible.

In the first place, the character of these walls and towers can be
understood only in the light of the fact that whatever other function
belonged to them, they were intended to support the terraced hill on
which the Palace of Blachernæ, to their rear, was constructed. The
unusual height and thickness of the walls, the extent to which
buttresses are here employed, were not demanded by purely military
considerations. Such features are explicable only upon the view that the
fortifications of the city at this point served also as a retaining
wall, whereby the Imperial residence could be built upon an elevation
beyond the reach of escalade, and where it would command a wide prospect
of the city and surrounding country. In fact, the buildings before us
resemble the immense substructures raised on the Palatine hill by
Septimius Severus and Caracalla to support the platform on which the
Ædes Severianæ were erected.[522]

[Illustration: “The Tower of Anemas” and “The Tower of Isaac Angelus”
(From The South-West).]

In the next place, there are at several points in these buildings so
many alterations; there is so much undoing of work done, either
rendering it useless or diverting it from its original purpose, that
these various constructions cannot be treated as parts of an edifice
built on a single systematic plan, but as an agglomeration of different
erections, put up at various periods to serve new requirements arising
from time to time. For instance, the loopholes in the wall AA have no
symmetrical relation to the buttress-walls that divide the compartments
C; some of them, as already stated, are partially closed by the
buttresses; others are entirely so, their existence being discoverable
only from the interior of the galleries in the body of that wall. It is
hard to believe that such inconsistent arrangements can be the work of
one mind and hand.

Again: the tower S and the tower N block the windows in four of the
compartments C. Surely the same builder would not thus go back upon his
work. Once more; the loopholes in the stairway-turret afford no light in
their present position, the lower pair being closed, the upper pair
forming entrances to the =L=-shaped chamber. This is not an original
arrangement.

In view of such peculiarities, the following conclusions regarding these
buildings seem the most reasonable, in the present state of our
knowledge:

(1) The wall AA was at one time the only erection here; and the two
galleries, constructed in the thickness of the wall formed with their
loopholes two tiers of batteries, so to speak, for the discharge of
missiles upon an enemy attacking this quarter of the city. A similar
system of defence was employed for the protection of the smaller
residence forming part of the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus,[523] and
for the protection of the Palace of the Bucoleon, situated on the city
walls near Tchatlady Kapou.[524]

When precisely the wall AA was erected cannot be determined; but,
judging from its height, and the manner in which it was equipped for
defence, the probable opinion is that this was done after the Palace of
Blachernæ had assumed considerable importance. Possibly, the work
belongs to the reign of Anastasius I.[525]

(2) At some later period the wall BB, equipped with buttresses within
and without, was erected to support the wall AA. The demand for such
support was doubtless occasioned by additions to the Palace of
Blachernæ, which already in the tenth century comprised several edifices
on the hill behind the wall AA.[526]

As BB superseded the original function of the galleries in AA, it was a
matter of little moment how many of the loopholes in the latter were
more or less masked by the buttresses built transversely between the two
walls. It would be enough to retain a few loopholes to light the
galleries. At the same time, advantage was taken of the buttresses to
construct, in the space between AA and BB, three stories of chambers,
for such purpose as the authorities of the palace might decide.

(3) The manner in which the towers S and N block the windows in four of
the compartments C is evidence that these towers were additions made
later than the age of BB. This view is corroborated by the marked
difference between the masonry of the towers and the masonry of the wall
BB, against which they are built.

(4) The towers S and N are so different in their respective styles of
construction that they cannot be contemporaneous buildings.

(5) The tower S is later than the tower N, for their common wall, H, is
strictly the north-eastern side of the tower N, as the similarity of the
masonry of H to that of the other sides of N makes perfectly plain. This
similarity is manifest not only in the general features of the work, but
also in the insertion of marble shafts into the wall H; in one instance
partially, after the odd fashion adopted so extensively in the open
sides of the tower N. Furthermore, the manner in which the walls of the
chamber F and the L-shaped chamber in the tower S impinge upon the wall
H shows that the former were built against the latter, and that they are
posterior in age.

(6) The stairway-turret E, as the loopholes in its sides prove, stood,
at one time, in the open light and air. If so, it must be older than the
apartments _b_, F, L, in the tower S, which enclose it.

(7) The passages communicating between the stairway and the chambers in
the tower N render it almost certain that the stairway-turret was
constructed at the same time as that tower. Thus, also, a short and
private way from the Palace of Blachernæ to the country beyond the city
bounds was provided; for it may be confidently assumed that at the foot
of the stairway there was a small gate, corresponding to the gate _l_,
and the postern _x_ at the mouth of the tunnel Z.

(8) When the stairway-turret was enclosed by the vestibule _b_, the
chamber F, and the =L=-shaped chamber, the lower loopholes of the turret
were built up as superfluous, while the upper ones were widened to form
entrances to the L-shaped chamber. Accordingly, the tower S is an old
stairway-turret enclosed within later constructions.

(9) In view of some great danger, access to the tower S from without the
city was blocked by building up the postern _x_, the tunnel Z, the gate
_l_, and the vestibule _b_, to their actual level. The portion of the
passage still left open was too narrow to be forced by an enemy, and yet
was convenient to be retained for the sake of ventilation, or as a way
in and out in some emergency. At the same time, a breach was made in the
wall _g_ to place the elevated floor of the vestibule into communication
with the stairway-turret E.

(10) What precise object the chambers C in the body of the city wall
were intended to serve is open to discussion. In the opinion of Dr.
Paspates, who was the first to explore them, they were prison-cells.
Possibly the lowest series of these chambers may have been employed for
that purpose; but, taken as a whole, the suite of apartments between AA
and BB do not convey the impression of being places of confinement.
Their spaciousness, their number, the free communication between them,
the size of the windows in the two upper stories, the proximity of the
windows to the floor, are not the characteristics of dungeons.

It is not impossible that these chambers were store-rooms or
barracks,[527] and that through the loopholes in the wall BB the palace
was defended as, previously, through the openings in AA.

Communication between the three stories must have been maintained by
means of wooden stairs or ladders. In the north-eastern wall of C’—the
chamber which gave access from the court of the Palace of Blachernæ at
_v_ to the second story of the tower N—there was an archway, now filled
up, opening upon the level of the highest series of chambers C. When the
archway was closed, communication was held through a breach at _h_.
Possibly the same series of chambers was entered from the north-eastern
end of the upper gallery in AA. Contrary to what might be supposed,
there was no access to the two upper series of chambers from the
stairway-turret. Whether the lowest series could be reached by a door at
the foot of the stairway cannot be ascertained, on account of the earth
in which the lower portion of the stairway lies buried. But it is
extremely improbable that such was the case, for the stairway-turret
belongs, we have seen, to a later age than the chambers in the body of
the adjoining wall.

With these points made clear, we are in a position to consider how far
the identification of the towers N and S, respectively, with the
historical towers of Isaac Angelus and Anemas can be established.

According to Nicetas Choniates, the Tower of Isaac Angelus stood at the
Palace of Blachernæ, and was built by that emperor to buttress and to
defend the palace, and to form, at the same time, a residence for his
personal use.[528] It was constructed with materials taken from ruined
churches on the neighbouring seashore, and from various public buildings
in the city, ruthlessly torn down for the purpose.[529]

This account makes it certain, in the first place, that the Tower of
Isaac Angelus was one of the three towers which flank the portion of the
city walls now under consideration, the portion which forms the
north-western side of the enclosure around the Palace of Blachernæ; for
these towers, and they only, at once defended and supported the terrace
upon which that palace stood.

This being the case, it is natural to suppose that the Tower of Isaac
Angelus is the tower which bears the inscription in his honour.[530] But
this opinion is attended with difficulties. For the tower in question
does not differ in any marked manner from an ordinary tower in the
fortifications of the city. It is not specially fitted for a residence,
nor does it possess features which render it worthy to have a place in
history among the notable buildings erected by a sovereign. Furthermore,
it is not constructed, to any striking degree, with materials drawn from
other edifices.

To all this it is possible to reply that we do not see the tower in its
original condition; that its upper story, which stood on the level of
the palace area to the rear, is gone; that the tower, as it stands,
consists largely of Turkish repairs; that the extent to which, in its
original state, it resembled, or failed to resemble, the description of
the Tower of Isaac Angelus as given by Nicetas, cannot be accurately
known, and that, consequently, the question regarding the identity of
the tower must be decided by the inscription found upon the building.
There is force in this rejoinder; and it is the conclusion we must
adopt, if there are not stronger reasons for identifying the Tower of
Isaac Angelus with one or other of the two adjoining towers, N and S.

[Illustration: “The Tower of Anemas” and “The Tower of Isaac Angelus”
(From the North-West).]

The claims of the tower N to be the Tower of Isaac Angelus rest upon its
strong resemblance to the description which Nicetas has given of the
latter building. His description seems a photograph of that tower. Like
the Tower of Isaac Angelus, the tower N, besides defending and
supporting the Palace of Blachernæ, was pre-eminently a residential
tower; and the numerous pillars employed in its construction betray
clearly the fact that it was built with materials taken from other
edifices, some of which may well have been churches. The upper story,
which was reached from the court of the palace behind it, formed a
spacious apartment 22-¼ by 27-½ feet, and about 18 feet high. Its
north-western wall was pierced by three large round-headed windows,
opening, as pillars placed below them for supports indicate, upon a
balcony which commanded a beautiful view of the country about the head
of the Golden Horn. Another window led to a small balcony on the
south-western side of the tower, while a fifth looked towards the Golden
Horn and the hills beyond. The apartment might well be styled the
Belvedere of the Palace of Blachernæ. The lower story of the tower,
which was reached by a short flight of steps descending from the palace
court to the vestibule C1, cannot be explored, being filled with earth;
but, judging from its arched entrance and the large square window in the
north-western wall, it was a commodious room, with the advantage of
affording more privacy than the apartment above it. What was the object
of the dark rooms situated below these two stories, at different levels
of the tower, and reached from the stairway-turret outside it, is open
to discussion. The stairway, as already intimated, led also to the
surrounding country. Taking all these features of the tower N into
consideration, a very strong case can be made in favour of the opinion
that it is the Tower of Isaac Angelus.

How this conclusion should affect our views regarding the inscription in
honour of that emperor found on the tower L is a point about which minds
may differ. The inscription may be in its proper place, and thereby
prove that the tower it marks was also an erection of Isaac Angelus,
although not the one to which Nicetas refers. And some countenance is
lent to this view by a certain similarity in the Byzantine masonry of
the towers L and N. But, on the hypothesis that L and N were both
erected by Isaac Angelus, it is extremely strange that the inscription
in his honour should have been placed upon the inferior tower, and not
upon the one which formed his residence and had some architectural
pretensions.

This objection can be met, indeed, either by assuming that another
inscription in honour of Isaac Angelus stood on the tower N, but has
disappeared; or, with Dr. Paspates,[531] it may be maintained that the
inscription is not in its proper place, but belonged originally to the
counter-fort supporting the tower N, and was transferred thence to the
tower L when the latter was repaired.

In favour of this alternative it may be urged that the tower L has,
manifestly, undergone repair; that some of the materials used for that
purpose may have been taken from the counter-fort G4, which has been to
a great extent stripped of its facing; and that the inscription on the
tower L is not in a symmetrical position, being too much to the left,
and somewhat too high for the size of its lettering. But to all this
there is the serious objection that the inscribed slab is found in the
Byzantine portion of the tower; while the idea that the counter-fort G4
was defaced in Byzantine days for the sake of repairing the tower L is
against all probability.

We pass next to the identification of the Tower of Anemas with the tower
S. The Tower of Anemas is first mentioned by Anna Comnena in the twelfth
century, as the prison in which a certain Anemas was confined for having
taken a leading part in a conspiracy to assassinate her father, the
Emperor Alexius Comnenus. According to the Imperial authoress, it was a
tower in the city walls in the neighbourhood of the Palace of Blachernæ,
and owed its name to the circumstance that Anemas was the first prisoner
who occupied it.[532]

Another indication of the situation of the tower is given by Leonard of
Scio,[533] when he states that the towers “Avenides” stood near the Xylo
Porta, the gate at the extremity of the land-walls beside the Golden
Horn. To this should be added the indication that the tower was one of a
group, for Phrantzes[534] and Leonard of Scio employ the plural form,
“the Anemas Towers.”

Whether the tower was an erection of Alexius Comnenus or an earlier
building is not recorded; but in either case it was in existence in the
reign of that emperor, and, consequently, was older than any work
belonging to the time of Isaac Angelus.

With these indications as the basis for a decision, can the claim that
the tower S is the Tower of Anemas be maintained? The tower answers to
the description of Anna Comnena in being a tower in the city walls close
to the Palace of Blachernæ. Nor is its situation at variance with the
statement of Leonard of Scio that it stood in the neighbourhood of the
Xylo Porta, although there are three towers between it and that gate.
Furthermore, it is one of a pair of towers that might be designated the
Towers of Anemas.

The main reason, however, which induced Dr. Paspates to identify the
tower S with the prison of Anemas was the proximity of the tower to the
chambers C in the adjoining wall, which he regarded as prison-cells.
This view of the character of those chambers is, for reasons already
intimated, extremely doubtful. But even if prison-cells, that fact alone
would not be conclusive proof that they were the prison of Anemas. For
the prison of Anemas is always described as a tower; and by no stretch
of language can that designation be applied to the chambers in the body
of the wall.[535]

The force of this objection would, indeed, be met if proof were
forthcoming that the tower S gave access to the chambers C, and formed
an integral part of a common system. But the evidence is all on the
other side. From the manner in which the tower S blocks the windows of
some of the chambers, it is clear, as already observed, that the tower S
and the adjoining chambers belong to different periods, and were built
without regard to each other. There is no trace of any means of
communication between the tower and the two upper series of chambers,
and we have no reason to think, but the reverse, that the lowest series
of chambers could be reached from it. So far as the chambers are
concerned, the tower S is an independent building, upon whose identity
they throw no light. Whether it was the prison of Anemas must be
determined by its own character. Was it suitable for a prison? Above
all, is its age compatible with the view that it was the prison of
Anemas?

In answer to the former question, it cannot be denied that the tower S
could be used as a place of confinement. The chamber F, which is
supposed to have been a cistern, may have been a dungeon. The =L=-shaped
chamber in the second story may have served for the detention of great
personages placed under arrest. Still, on the whole, the tower S seems
rather an extension of the residential tower N than a dungeon.

But the point of most importance in the whole discussion is the
comparative ages of the towers N and S. As a building in existence when
Alexius Comnenus occupied the throne of Constantinople, the Tower of
Anemas was, at least, seventy years older than the Tower of Isaac
Angelus. Hence, if the tower S is the former, it must be older than the
tower N, which Dr. Paspates identifies with the Tower of Isaac Angelus.
But the evidence which has been submitted goes to prove that the tower S
is more recent than the tower N. These towers, therefore, cannot be,
respectively, the Tower of Anemas and the Tower of Isaac Angelus.
Nothing can prove that the tower S is the Tower of Anemas, until S is
shown to be earlier than N, or the identification of the tower N with
the Tower of Isaac Angelus is abandoned as erroneous.

Dr. Paspates,[536] indeed, assigned the tower S to the reign of
Theophilus in the ninth century, on the ground that a block of stone
upon which some letters of that emperor’s name are inscribed is built
into the tower’s north-western face. But a little attention to the way
in which that stone is fitted into the masonry will make it perfectly
evident that the stone has not been placed there to bear part of an
inscription, but as ordinary material of construction, obtained from
some other edifice. Consequently, it throws no light upon the age of the
tower.

Where, then, was the Tower of Anemas? Perhaps, in our present state of
knowledge, no answer which will commend itself as perfectly satisfactory
can be given to the question.

The simplest solution of the difficult problem is that the tower L,
which bears the inscription in honour of Isaac Angelus, is, after all,
the tower erected by that emperor, though greatly altered by injuries
and repairs; and that the towers N and S together constituted the
prison-tower of Anemas, S being a later addition.

Others may prefer to hold the view that the tower N is the Tower of
Anemas, and the tower S that of Isaac Angelus, pointing in support of
this opinion to the cells in the tower N, reached from the stairway by
narrow vaulted passages. This would mean, practically, that the Tower of
Isaac Angelus was the Tower of Anemas renovated and enlarged.

Possibly, others may be disposed, notwithstanding the inscription of
Isaac Angelus upon it, to regard the tower L as the Tower of Anemas, and
the tower N, with the later addition of S, as that of Isaac Angelus.

If none of these views is acceptable, we must fall back upon the opinion
which prevailed before Dr. Paspates discovered the chambers adjoining
the tower N and S, viz. that the towers N and S together formed the
Tower of Isaac Angelus, and that the Tower of Anemas was one of the
three towers in the Heraclian Wall.

This was the view of the Patriarch Constantius,[537] who writes: “The
Tower of Anemas still exists. On its side facing the Holy Well of
Blachernæ it has a large window, with a smaller one above.”

This opinion prevailed in Constantinople also in the sixteenth century,
for Leunclavius was informed by Zygomales that the Towers of Anemas were
the Towers of the Pentapyrgion,[538] the name given to the citadel
formed by the Walls of Heraclius and Leo.

    NOTE.—For the illustrations facing respectively pp. 150, 156, and
    for the lower illustration facing p. 162, I am indebted to the
    kindness of my colleague, Professor W. Ormiston. The photographs
    were taken on the 10th of July, 1894, shortly before the occurrence
    of the severe earthquake which has made that day memorable in
    Constantinople. Our situation in the chambers at such a time was not
    enviable. But we learned that day what an earthquake meant in the
    old history of the walls of the city.

[Illustration: View of the Interior of “The Prison of Anemas” Looking
North-West (Being The Substructures Supporting The Palace of
Blachernæ).]

There is nothing in this view opposed to the fact that the Tower of
Anemas stood in the city walls near the Palace of Blachernæ; and a
strong argument in its favour may be based upon the association of the
tower with the Xylo Porta by Leonard of Scio, when he relates to Pope
Nicholas how Jerome from Italy, and Leonardo de Langasco from Genoa, at
the head of their companions-in-arms, guarded the Xylo Porta and the
towers named Avenides (clearly Anemades): “Hieronymus Italianus,
Leonardus de Langasco, Genovensis, cum multis sociis, Xylo Portam et
turres quos Avenides vocant, impensis cardinalis reparatas,
spectabant.”[539] This statement is repeated by Zorzo Dolfin.[540]

The Xylo Porta, without question, was at Aivan Serai Kapoussi, to the
north of the Wall of Heraclius, and immediately beside the Golden
Horn;[541] and the towers which would most appropriately be entrusted to
soldiers defending that entrance are the towers nearest to it, _viz._
the three towers of the Heraclian Wall. At all events, the designation,
“turres Avenides,” as used by Leonard of Scio, must include them, even
if it comprised others also.

One thing is certain; the commonly accepted view that the towers N and S
represent, respectively, the historical Towers of Isaac Angelus and of
Anemas must, in one way or another, be corrected.


                                 NOTE.


    Two or three additional passages which bear upon the question under
    discussion may be noticed, notwithstanding their vagueness.

    The statement of Phrantzes (p. 252), among others, that in the siege
    of 1453 the charge of the palace and all about it was entrusted to
    Minotto, the Baillus of the Venetian colony, might be employed in
    favour of the view that the “turres Avenides” which Leonard of Scio
    associates with the Xylo Porta, and assigns to Jerome and Leonardus
    de Langasco, could not be the towers S and N, but the towers of the
    Heraclian Wall. For the towers S and N, being attached to the Palace
    of Blachernæ, would fall under the care of Minotto. There is force
    in the argument. But it is weakened by statements of Pusculus (iv.
    173) and Zorzo Dolfin (s. 55), which imply that the palace defended
    by Minotto was the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus. For both of these
    writers place the Gate of the Palace (see above, p. 47) between the
    Gate of Charisius (Edirnè Kapoussi) and the Gate of the Kaligaria
    (Egri Kapou), and Pusculus describes the palace concerned as “Regia
    celsa,” an apt description of a building seated, like Tekfour Serai,
    upon the walls.

    The references made to the Tower of Anemas, though not under its
    name, by the Spanish ambassador Clavijo, who visited the Byzantine
    Court in 1403, should not be overlooked (see _Constantinople, ses
    Sanctuaires et ses Reliques_, translated into French by Ph. Bruun,
    Odessa). Speaking of the Church of Blachernæ (p. 15), he describes
    it as “située dans la ville près d’un châteaufort, servant de
    demeure aux empereurs; ce fort a été démoli par un empereur, parce
    qu’il y avait été enfermé par son fils.” The fact that Clavijo
    identifies the Church of Blachernæ by its vicinity to the Tower of
    Anemas may be pressed into the service of the opinion that the tower
    in question stood in the Wall of Heraclius. For there is no more
    appropriate way of indicating the situation of that church than by
    saying that it stands a little to the rear of the Heraclian Wall. So
    appropriate is that mode of identification, that the Patriarch
    Constantius has recourse to it when, conversely, he indicates the
    situation of the Tower of Anemas (which he considered to be the
    southernmost Heraclian tower): “The Tower of Anemas still exists,”
    he says. “On its side facing the Holy Well of Blachernæ it has a
    large window, with a smaller one above” (see above, p. 150). But,
    unfortunately, to describe one building as “near” another is often
    the most tantalizing aid to its discovery that can be offered. The
    towers S and N cannot be said to be far from the Church of
    Blachernæ. Perhaps some injury to one of the Heraclian towers might
    explain the statement of Clavijo, that the Tower of Anemas had been
    destroyed; but could he have mistaken the citadel formed by the
    Walls of Heraclius and Leo for an Imperial residence? Such language
    suggests rather the towers S and N.

    Again, the declaration of the Spanish envoy that the tower (“une
    prison très profonde et obscure”) had been demolished by the Emperor
    John VI. Palæologus (“_L’empereur s’empressa de démolir la tour où
    il avait été enferme_,” pp. 19, 20) might seem to imply that the
    tower has disappeared, and thus to relieve us from all the labour
    involved in the effort to identify it. But the statement of Leonard
    of Scio that the “turres Avenides” were repaired by Cardinal Isidore
    (“impensis cardinalis reparatas”), while it confirms the declaration
    of Clavijo to some extent, is opposed to the idea of the total
    destruction and disappearance of the famous prison-tower.

    Or, the statement that the Tower of Anemas was demolished, when
    combined with the statement that it was repaired, might seem to open
    a way out of the difficulties involved in regarding the tower S as
    the Tower of Anemas, although more recent than the tower N. May not
    the tower S be, in its present form, a reconstruction, after the
    reign of Isaac Angelus, of a tower originally older than that
    emperor’s day, and be thus at once more ancient and more modern than
    the tower N? But this solution of the puzzle cannot be allowed;
    there is the fatal objection that the common wall II belonged first
    to the tower N.

    Finally, in the Venetian account of the attempt made by Carlo Zen to
    liberate John VI. Palæologus from the Tower of Anemas, Zen is
    represented as reaching the foot of the tower in a boat, and
    clambering up to the window of the prison by means of a rope. This
    would exclude the claim of a Heraclian tower to be the Tower of
    Anemas, for that wall could not be reached by boat. One might
    approach the towers S and N in that way, if the moat before Leo’s
    Wall extended from the Golden Horn to the Wall of Manuel Comnenus,
    and was full of water. But this is an extremely improbable
    supposition, when we hear nothing of the sort in the history of the
    attack upon this side of the city by the Crusaders in 1203,
    notwithstanding the minute description of the territory from the pen
    of Nicetas Choniates and other historians of that time. Nor is such
    a thing mentioned in the history of the last siege, when the moat
    before the Wall of Leo was reconstructed. The whole story of Carlo
    Zen’s efforts to deliver John Palæologus savours too much of romance
    to have any topographical value. The story may be read in Le Beau’s
    _Histoire du Bas-Empire_, vol. xii. pp. 174-179.

Footnote 516:

  See below, p. 132.

Footnote 517:

  See tower L, in Map facing p. 115.

Footnote 518:

  See illustration facing p. 248.

Footnote 519:

  Pages 22-32, where Dr. Paspates gives an interesting account of his
  discovery and exploration of the chambers.

Footnote 520:

  The plan was taken by Mr. Hanford W. Edson, formerly Instructor in
  Mathematics at Robert College. It was drawn by Professor Alfred
  Hamlin, of Columbia College, and revised by Mr. Arthur E. Henderson,
  Architect.

Footnote 521:

  Since the above was written this way of entering the tower and
  chambers has been closed. One gains admittance now at the opening V,
  from the courtyard of the Mosque of Aivas Effendi.

Footnote 522:

  In the opinion of some authorities, _e.g._ Professor Strzygowski, this
  apartment was a cistern.

Footnote 523:

  Cf. Lanciani, _The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome_, pp. 178,
  179, 182.

Footnote 524:

  See the loophole windows in plan of that residence, facing p. 109.

Footnote 525:

  See below, p. 273.

Footnote 526:

  See above, p. 128.

Footnote 527:

  _Ut supra._

Footnote 528:

  Speaking of similar substructures below the Domus Gaiana in the Palace
  of the Cæsars at Rome, Lanciani remarks: “We gain by them the true
  idea of the human fourmillière of slaves, servants, freed men, and
  guards, which lived and moved and worked in the substrata of the
  Palatine, serving the court in silence and almost in darkness” (_The
  Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome_, p. 150).

Footnote 529:

  Nicetas Chon., pp. 580, 581, Προθέμενος δὲ καὶ πύργον τεκτήνασθαι κατὰ
  τὸ ἐν Βλαχέρναις παλάτιον, ἅμα μὲν εἰς ἔρυμα τῶν ἀνακτόρων, ὡς ἔφασκε,
  καὶ ὑπέρεισμα, ἅμα δὲ καὶ εἰς ἐνοίκησιν ἐαυτῷ.

Footnote 530:

  _Ibid. ut supra._

Footnote 531:

  See above, p. 132. The tower is marked L on the Map which faces p.
  115.

Footnote 532:

  Page 39.

Footnote 533:

  Anna Comn., xii. 161, 162, where the prison of Anemas, ἡ τοῦ Ἀνεμᾶ
  εἱρκτή, is described as πύργος δ᾽ ἦν εἷς τις τῶν ἀγχοῦ τῶν ἐν
  Βλαχέρναις ἀνακτόρων διακειμένων τειχῶν τῆς πόλεως: also p. 161, τὸν
  ἀγχοῦ τῶν ἀνακτόρων ᾠκοδομημένον πύργον.

Footnote 534:

  See his Epistle to Pope Nicholas V.

Footnote 535:

  Page 51, Ἐν τοῖς πύργοις τοῖς λεγομένοις Ἀδεμανίδες πλησίον Βλαχέρνων.
  The name Anemas appears first in Theophanes, p. 749, as the surname of
  a certain Bardanius, τὸ ἐπίκλην Ἀνεμᾶν, in the reign of Nicephorus I.,
  802-811.

Footnote 536:

  The Byzantine authors who refer to the Prison of Anemas in express
  terms are: Anna Comnena, xii. pp. 161, 162; Nicetas Choniates, p. 455
  (ἡ τοῦ Ἀνεμᾶ φρουρὰ); Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 378; Cantacuzene, lib.
  ii. p. 329; Phrantzes, p. 51; Ducas, p. 45. Once, Pachymeres (vol. ii.
  p. 409) speaks of ταῖς κατὰ τὰς Βλαχέρνας εἱρκταῖς, in which the
  Despot Michael and his family were confined.

Footnote 537:

  Page 31.

Footnote 538:

  _Ancient and Modern Consple._, pp. 11, 45. The patriarch supposed that
  the Palace of Blachernæ stood within the enclosure formed by the Wall
  of Heraclius and the Wall of Leo. _Ibid._, p. 44.

Footnote 539:

  _Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 206.

Footnote 540:

  See his Epistle to Pope Nicholas V.

Footnote 541:

  Dolfin, s. 64, “Hieronymo Italiano, Leonardo da Languasto Genoexe, cum
  molti compagni, la porta Chsilo et le Torre Anemande, le qual el
  cardinal a sue spese hauea reparato, diffensaua.”

Footnote 542:

  See below, p. 173.




                              CHAPTER XI.
                    INMATES OF THE PRISON OF ANEMAS.


Michael Anemas, the first to occupy the prison, and from whom it
obtained its name,[542] was a descendant of Emir Abd-el-Aziz ben Omar
ben Choaib, known in Byzantine history as Courapas, and famous as the
defender of Crete, when Nicephoras Phocas wrested that island from the
Saracens, in the reign of Romanus II.[543]

Upon the return of the victorious troops to the capital, the Emir and
his family were carried to Constantinople to grace the triumph with
which the success of Nicephorus was celebrated. And as the vanquished
chief, his wives, his eldest son Anemas, and other members of his
family, all clothed in long white robes, passed along the triumphal way
in chains, the dignity of their demeanour attracted universal attention,
and produced a most favourable impression. To the credit of the
conquerors, be it said, the Emir was, thereafter, treated with all due
regard and generosity. He received a large estate in the neighbourhood
of the capital, and was allowed to end his days in peace, surrounded by
his friends, and unmolested on account of his faith. Had he seen his way
to renounce the creed of his fathers he would have been created a
senator.

His son Anemas embraced Christianity, entered the army of the Empire,
and took part in the war against the Russians during the reign of
Zimisces, when he distinguished himself by his bravery, and fell in
battle in personal encounter with Swiatoslaf, the Russian king.

A martial spirit continued to characterize the family in subsequent
generations, and was not least conspicuous in Michael Anemas and his
three brothers, the representatives of the race under Alexius Comnenus.
But they allowed themselves to become involved in a conspiracy against
that emperor, and upon the discovery of the plot were condemned to
imprisonment and the loss of their eyes.

To accompany the infliction of punishment with every circumstance that
could humiliate the criminal, and excite popular contempt and derision
was after the heart of those times. Accordingly, Michael Anemas and his
companions, attired in sacking, with their beards plucked out, their
heads shorn and crowned with the horns and the intestines of oxen and
sheep, were led forth, mounted sideways on oxen, and in this guise,
conducted first around the court of the Great Palace, and then along the
Mesè of the city, crowded with excited spectators. But the appearance of
the guilty men excited commiseration rather than ridicule. The agony of
Michael, as he implored to be put to death rather than to suffer
blindness, touched all hearts. Even Anna Comnena, who witnessed the
scene, and whose filial sentiments might have hardened her heart against
the conspirators, was so deeply affected that she determined to do all
in her power to save Michael from the cruel loss of his eyes. Finding
her mother, Anna brought her to the harrowing spectacle, certain it
would have the desired effect. The empress was overwhelmed to tears, and
hastening back to the palace, prevailed upon Alexius to spare the
prisoners’ sight. By this time the unhappy men were approaching the
Amastrianon, a public place where stood an arch on which was a
bas-relief representing two hands pierced by a spear. Once a criminal on
his way to execution passed that point he was beyond the reach of the
Imperial clemency. A few moments more, and the messenger of mercy sent
by Alexius would have been too late. But just before the doomed men
reached the fatal point, the order for the mitigation of their sentence
was delivered, and Anemas was simply imprisoned in the tower which was
to perpetuate his name. There he remained for a considerable period; but
at length was pardoned and set free.[544]

Before Anemas was released, another notable personage was committed to
the tower, Georgius, Duke of Trebizond, who attempted, in 1107, to
establish the independence of his province; as though to anticipate the
creation of the Empire of Trebizond in the thirteenth century.

He proved a refractory prisoner, venting his rage in unceasing
imprecations upon the head of his Imperial master. With the hope of
conciliating the rebel, he was repeatedly visited by his old friend, the
Cæsar Nicephorus Bryennius, the husband of Anna Comnena. For a long
time, however, all friendly overtures proved unavailing. But at last the
tedium of protracted confinement broke the prisoner’s spirit, and
induced him to submit; upon which he was liberated, and loaded with
wealth and honours.[545]

[Illustration: Chamber in “The Prison of Anemas.”]

The next inmate of the tower was the Emperor Andronicus Comnenus, of
infamous memory, upon his capture after his flight from the insurrection
which his vices and tyranny had provoked in the capital, in 1185. To
Andronicus imprisonment was no new experience, for already, during the
reign of Manuel Comnenus, he had been imprisoned twice elsewhere. On
both these occasions, however, he had succeeded in effecting his escape.
But the prison of Anemas was to prove his last, and he quitted it, only
to die at the hands of his infuriated subjects. On the eve of his
execution he was bound with chains about the neck and feet, like some
wild animal, and dragged into the presence of his successor, Isaac
Angelus, to be subjected to every indignity. He was reviled, beaten,
struck on the mouth; he had his hair and beard plucked, his teeth
knocked out, his right hand struck off with an axe, and then was sent
back to his cell, and left there without food or water or attention of
any kind for several days. When brought forth for execution, he was
dressed like a slave, blinded of one eye, mounted upon a mangy camel,
and led in mock triumph through the streets of the city to the
Hippodrome, amidst a storm of hatred and insult, seldom, if ever,
witnessed under similar circumstances in a civilized community. At the
Hippodrome he was hung by the feet on the architrave of two short
columns which stood beside the figures of a wolf and a hyena, his
natural associates. But neither his pitiable condition, nor his quiet
endurance of pain, nor his pathetic cry, “Kyrie Eleison, Why dost Thou
break the bruised reed?” excited the slightest commiseration. Additional
and indescribable insults were heaped upon the fallen tyrant, until his
agony was brought to an end by three men who plunged their swords into
his body, to exhibit their dexterity in the use of arms.[546]

In the course of the following century a different personage figured in
the history of the prison. This was Veccus, Chartophylax of St. Sophia
at the time of his confinement, and subsequently Patriarch of
Constantinople.[547] He incurred the displeasure of Michael Palæologus
by opposing the union of the Eastern and Western Churches, through which
the emperor hoped to secure the goodwill and assistance of the Pope in
maintaining the newly recovered throne of Constantinople. Before an
assembly convened to discuss the question in the presence of Michael,
Veccus, who had been appointed the spokesman of the opponents of the
Imperial policy on account of his abilities, denounced the Latins as
heretics with whom ecclesiastical communion was simply impossible. The
emperor resented the affront, but, unwilling to make it the official
ground of proceedings against the popular champion of orthodoxy, sought
other reasons for punishing him. Accordingly, he accused Veccus of
having thwarted the marriage which had been arranged between the
Princess Anna and the second son of the Kral of Servia; another of
Michael’s measures to make his position secure.

The charge had some foundation. For upon the completion of the
negotiations for the marriage, the bride-elect had started for her
destined home under the care of Veccus and of the Patriarch of
Constantinople. But when the party reached Berœa, Veccus, acting on the
private instructions of the empress, left Anna and the patriarch, and
pushed forward to investigate the character and manners of the people
among whom the princess was to cast her lot. The primitive and boorish
ways of the Servian Court did not commend themselves to Veccus, as a
suitable environment for a lady brought up in the palaces of
Constantinople. The splendour of the tent which Veccus occupied was lost
upon the Kral; while the eunuchs in the household of the Byzantine
princess shocked the sovereign’s unsophisticated mind. Pointing to the
wife of his elder son, simply attired, and busy spinning wool, the rough
monarch exclaimed, “That is how we treat our brides!” Nor was Veccus
more favourably impressed by other experiences. The embassy which the
Kral sent to welcome the bride-elect was robbed on the journey by
brigands; and the Byzantine envoys awoke one morning to find that all
their fine horses had been stolen during the night. Under these
circumstances, Veccus thought the wisest course was to conduct Anna back
to Constantinople;[548] and for this action Michael now saw fit to
prosecute him.

But the court which was appointed to try Veccus declined to judge a
priest in the service of the patriarch without that prelate’s orders;
and as such orders were not forthcoming, the trial could not proceed. At
this juncture, Veccus had an interview with the emperor and proposed,
for the sake of peace, to resign office and emoluments, and to go into
exile. Michael did not condescend a reply. Whereupon the Chartophylax,
fearing the worst, sought asylum in the Church of St. Sophia, and there
awaited the Imperial decision. He was soon summoned to appear again
before the emperor, the order being written in vermilion ink, as a mark
of esteem and a pledge of personal safety. But on the road to the palace
he was treacherously arrested, and carried off to the prison of Anemas
under charge of the Varangian guards.

With Veccus out of the way, Michael pushed the matter of the union of
the churches more hopefully, and in furtherance of the Imperial policy
caused a list of passages favourable to the orthodox character of the
Latin Church to be compiled from the writings of theologians of repute,
and submitted to the patriarch and his clergy for consideration. The
patriarch replied by presenting a list of counter passages, and the
situation remained what it had been before Veccus was imprisoned.
Thereupon the suggestion was made that the first list should be
forwarded to the cell of the Chartophylax. Such a man, it was urged,
would never alter his views unless convinced by reason. The suggestion
was adopted, and after reading the extracts, Veccus acknowledged that
the argument for the union of the Churches was stronger than he had
hitherto believed. His mind, however, he added, could not be satisfied
on the point at issue by the perusal of isolated passages, torn from
their connection, and he therefore begged permission to study the works
from which the extracts submitted to him had been taken, pleading as an
excuse that he was more versed in the writings of classic authors than
in patristic learning. Upon this he was released, and provided with the
books necessary for the full prosecution of his inquiries.

The result was that, ere long, he found himself in agreement with the
emperor, and the scheme for the union of the Churches was pursued with
renewed ardour. Delegates proceeded from Constantinople to the Council
assembled at Lyons, and there on June 29, 1274, the two great divisions
of Christendom were formally united. On the second day of June in the
following year Veccus was elevated to the patriarchal throne.[549]

It is natural to suspect that the prison of Anemas had a share in the
conversion of Veccus. But the historian Pachymeres ascribes the change
to candour of judgment and sincere love of the truth. Certain it is that
Veccus suffered for the views he adopted, and died twenty-five years
later in the prison of the Castle of St. Gregorius, near Helenopolis
(Yalova), a martyr to his convictions.[550]

The Tower of Anemas was probably also the prison to which the Despot
Michael was committed by Andronicus II. on the charge of treason. He had
been created Despot by Michael Palæologus, and was married to the
Princess Anna, above mentioned, after the failure of the Servian
marriage to which reference has been made. Upon her death, he fell into
disgrace at the Court for marrying a daughter of the Bulgarian king
Terter, the repudiated wife of the King of Servia. To this he added
treasonable offences, and was, therefore, confined with his wife and
children in the prison attached to the Great Palace. On attempting to
escape, he was removed to the prison at Blachernæ[551] for greater
security.

Another inmate of the prison of Anemas was Syrghiannes, a political
adventurer conspicuous for his intrigues during the struggle between
Andronicus II. and Andronicus III., taking sometimes the one side and
sometimes the other.

He had been immured elsewhere for five years on the charge of conspiracy
to assassinate the elder emperor, but in 1322, at the instance of John
Cantacuzene, then Grand Domestic, he was transferred to the Tower of
Anemas as a more tolerable place of confinement, in the hope of
conciliating him; and there he was permitted to receive visits from his
mother, and even to have his wife and children with him.[552] Ultimately
he was released, but the old spirit was too strong to be vanquished by
suffering or by kindness. He returned to a life of intrigue and
rebellion, and his career was closed by the hands of assassins.

Later in the century, members of the Imperial family were once more
imprisoned in the Tower of Anemas, under circumstances which afford a
vivid picture of an empire weakened by domestic feuds, and distracted by
the rival ambitions of foreign powers that were awaiting its
dissolution, and ready to appropriate its territories.

There John VI. Palæologus imprisoned his eldest son Andronicus, and
there, upon the escape of the latter, he was himself imprisoned with his
two younger sons, Manuel and Theodore.

Andronicus had been excluded from the succession to the throne, on
account, it is said, of his indifference to the financial straits of his
father, when the latter was detained at Venice for inability to meet the
demands of creditors. The disinherited prince, seeking an opportunity
for revenge, found a kindred spirit in a son of Amurath I., Saoudji, who
was jealous of his younger brother Bajazet, because he was the Sultan’s
favourite child. The two princes, bound by a common grievance, joined
forces to supplant their respective parents on the throne, and raised
the standard of revolt. Amurath crushed the rebellion with remorseless
severity, and after putting out the eyes of his own son, called upon the
emperor to punish Andronicus in the same manner. Andronicus was
consequently committed to the Tower of Anemas, along with his wife and
his son John, a child only five years old, and there he and his little
boy underwent the operation of being blinded. The cruel deed was,
however, performed so imperfectly that Andronicus recovered the use of
one eye, while his son suffered only from a squint. Two years were thus
passed in the tower, after which the prisoners were released, either
through the intervention of the Genoese, at the price of the concession
to them of the island of Tenedos, or in compliance with the demand of
Bajazet.

[Illustration: Entrance of Passage From The Stairway in “The Tower of
Anemas” To Chamber D In “The Tower of Isaac Angelus.” (For this view I
am indebted to the late Dr. Ledyard.)]

Free to act, Andronicus made terms both with the Sultan and the Genoese,
and relying upon their favour, suddenly appeared before the capital. As
the emperor and his son Manuel happened to be staying at the Palace of
the Pegè, outside the walls, they were easily captured, and upon the
surrender of the city they were, in their turn, sent, along with
Theodore, to the Tower of Anemas, “as Zeus cast his father Chronos and
his brothers Pluto and Poseidon into the nether world.”

[Illustration: Corridor in the Original Western Terrace Wall of the
Palace of Blachernæ (Looking South-West).]

Bajazet advised Andronicus to establish his position by putting the
prisoners to death, but to that depth of inhumanity the rebellious son
would not descend. Matters remained in this condition for two years, and
then the captives managed to escape. Precisely how they found their way
out of the tower is a question upon which authorities differ. According
to Phrantzes, it was by some deception practised on their Bulgarian
guards. Ducas ascribes the escape to the skill of a certain Angelus,
surnamed Diabolus, and known by the soubriquet of Diabol-angelus; but
whether the deliverance was effected through the angelic power or the
satanic cunning of the man, the historian is unable to decide.
Chalcocondylas says that the Imperial captives broke through the walls
of their dungeon with an iron tool, furnished by the servant who brought
their food. According to Venetian authorities, two ineffectual attempts
to save the emperor were made by Carlo Zen, on the condition that the
island of Tenedos would be granted to the Republic of Venice, thus
rescinding the concession of the island to the Genoese by Andronicus.
The first attempt, it is said, failed because the emperor refused to
escape without his sons; the second, owing to the detection of the plot
to deliver him.[553] Once out of prison, John Palæologus and his son
Manuel repaired to the Court of Bajazet, prevailed upon him to espouse
their cause, and so compelled Andronicus to surrender the throne.[554]

Thus the history of the Tower of Anemas reflects the civil broils, the
tyranny, the ecclesiastical dissensions, the political feebleness, and
the inability to withstand foreign aggression, which marked the decline
and fall of the Byzantine Empire.

Footnote 543:

  Anna Comn., xii. pp. 161, 162.

Footnote 544:

  See Schlumberger, _Un Empereur Byzantin au Dixième Siècle_, chap. ii.,
  for a brilliant account of the conquest of Crete by Nicephoras Phocas
  in 962; cf. Leo Diaconus, _Historia_, lib. i. et ii.

Footnote 545:

  Anna Comn., xii. pp. 153-161.

Footnote 546:

  _Ibid._, pp. 161-164.

Footnote 547:

  Nicetas Chon., pp. 452-458.

Footnote 548:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 374-403.

Footnote 549:

  For the account of the mission to Servia, see Pachymeres, vol. i. pp.
  350-355.

Footnote 550:

  For the circumstances attending the imprisonment of Veccus, see
  Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 374-403.

Footnote 551:

  Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 270.

Footnote 552:

  Pachymeres, vol. ii. pp. 304, 396, 408, 409, where the prison is
  styled ταῖς κατὰ τὰς Βλαχέρνας εἱρκταις.

Footnote 553:

  Cantacuzene, i. pp. 171, 172; ii. pp. 329-332, 457.

Footnote 554:

  Langier, _Histoire de la République de Venise_, vol. iv. pp. 251, 253.

Footnote 555:

  The history of the imprisonment of these Imperial personages is found
  in Phrantzes, pp. 49-57: Ducas, pp. 43-46: Chalcocondylas, pp. 40-46,
  51, 60-64.




                              CHAPTER XII.
   THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR HERACLIUS: THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR LEO THE
                               ARMENIAN.


The fortifications extending from the north-western angle of the
enclosure around the Palace of Blachernæ to the Golden Horn consist of
two parallel lines, connected by transverse walls, so as to form a
citadel beside the Golden Horn. The inner wall belongs to the reign of
Heraclius; the outer is an erection of Leo V., the Armenian.

The Heraclian Wall was constructed in 627, under the following
circumstances:—[555]

Until that year the quarter of Blachernæ, at the foot of the Sixth Hill,
was a suburb immediately outside the fortifications.[556] The fact that
the suburb and its celebrated Church of the Theotokos, containing, it
was believed, the girdle of the Blessed Virgin, were thus exposed to the
attacks of an enemy did not occasion serious concern. In the opinion of
the devout citizens of Constantinople, the shrine, so far from needing
protection, formed one of the strongest bulwarks of the capital. At the
worst, when danger threatened, the treasures of the sanctuary could be
readily transported into the city, as was done in the reign of Justinian
the Great.[557]

But in 627, Constantinople learned what a siege really meant. Persia and
the Empire were then at war with each other; and while Heraclius was
carrying the campaign into the enemy’s country, a Persian army had
encamped at Chalcedon for the purpose of joining the Avars in laying
siege to the capital.[558]

As the Byzantine fleet, however, commanded the Bosporus, the allies
could not unite their forces, and the Avars were left to act alone. The
undertaking proved too difficult for the barbarians, notwithstanding the
vigour with which it was conducted, and the siege was raised. But before
retiring, a troop of Avaric horse set itself to devastate the suburbs,
and having fired the Church of SS. Cosmas and Damianus, and the Church
of St. Nicholas, dashed into the open ground beside the Church of
Blachernæ, intent upon devoting also that sacred edifice to the flames.
For some reason, that purpose was not carried into effect, and the
church escaped all injury. This marvellous deliverance enhanced, indeed,
the reputation of the Theotokos, but it likewise aroused a sense of the
danger to which her shrine was liable, and so the Government of the day
ordered the immediate erection of a wall along the western side of the
Blachernæ quarter, to place the church beyond the reach of hostile
attack in future. The wall was known, until the erection of the Wall of
Leo, as the Single Wall of Blachernæ (Μονοτείχος Βλαχερνῶν:[559] τεῖχος
τῶν Βλαχερνῶν).[560]

The wall is flanked by three fine hexagonal towers, built towards their
summit in brick, perhaps, as Dr. Paspates[561] suggests, in order to
lighten the weight of constructions erected on marshy ground. They are
among the finest towers in the circuit of the fortifications. The
interior of the southernmost tower, the only one which can be safely
examined, measures 32-½ by about 19 feet, and was in three stories. Upon
the face of the tower is an inscription, in letters formed with pieces
of marble, in honour of the Emperor Michael, probably Michael II.

Between the first and second towers is a gate, named the Gate of
Blachernæ (πόρτα τοῦ Μονοτείχους τῶν Βλαχερνῶν),[562] after the quarter
before which it stood.

[Illustration: General View of the Walls of the City From The Hill On
Which The Crusaders Encamped in 1203.]

It has been generally supposed that the Wall of Heraclius comprised not
only the portion of the city walls just indicated, but the whole line of
fortifications extending from the Kerko Porta to the Golden Horn.[563]
The evidence on the subject is, however, in favour of the opinion that
the Wall of Heraclius was only the portion of the fortifications before
us. It is the extent implied in the description of the Heraclian Wall,
as a wall erected to bring the Church of Blachernæ within the line of
the city bulwarks.[564] That is an apt description of a wall extending
from the foot of the Sixth Hill to the Golden Horn; it is a very
inadequate description of a line of bulwarks from the Kerko Porta to the
harbour. In the next place, more extensive fortifications were not
required to protect the church, seeing it was well defended on the south
by the acropolis on the western spur of the Sixth Hill. All that was
necessary for the further security of the church was a wall on the west
side of the plain on which it stood. Furthermore, the fortifications
extending from the Kerko Porta to the foot of the Sixth Hill, commonly
ascribed to Heraclius, have been proved to be the work of other hands,
the greater part being the Wall of Manuel Comnenus,[565] while the
remainder formed, originally, the defences of the Fourteenth Region.

The Wall of Leo the Armenian was erected in 813 to strengthen the
defence of this part of the capital, in view of the preparations which
the Bulgarians under Crum were making for a second attack upon
Constantinople.[566] Crum had retired from his first assault upon the
city, resolved not only to retrieve the defeat he had sustained, but
also to punish the treacherous attempt upon his life, when he was
proceeding to negotiate terms of peace with the emperor.

Arrangements had been made for holding a conference between the two
sovereigns at a short distance to the west of the Heraclian Wall, on the
explicit understanding that all persons present were to attend unarmed;
so little confidence had the two parties in each other. But in flagrant
breach of this agreement, Leo placed three bowmen in ambush near the
place of meeting, with orders to shoot at the Bulgarian king, upon a
preconcerted signal. In due time Crum arrived; but he had scarcely
dismounted from his horse when his suspicions of a plot were aroused,
and, springing into his saddle, he galloped back towards his camp. The
arrows of the soldiers in ambush flew after him, wounding him although
he escaped with his life.

The Byzantine historian who records the incident explains the failure of
the plot as a Divine punishment upon the sins of his countrymen.[567]
Crum saw the dastardly act in a different light, and, vowing vengeance,
withdrew to Bulgaria to prepare for another war. He died before he could
carry out his intention, but meanwhile Leo had put himself in readiness
for the expected attack by constructing a new wall and a broad moat in
front of the Wall of Heraclius.

The Wall of Leo stands 77 feet to the west of the Wall of Heraclius,
running parallel to it for some 260 feet, after which it turns to join
the walls along the Golden Horn. Its parapet-walk was supported upon
arches, which served at the same time to buttress the wall itself, a
comparatively slight structure about 8 feet thick. With the view of
increasing the wall’s capacity for defence, it was flanked by four small
towers, while its lower portion was pierced by numerous loopholes. Two
of the towers were on the side facing the Golden Horn, and the other two
guarded the extremities of the side looking towards the country on the
west. The latter towers projected inwards from the rear of the wall, and
between them was a gateway corresponding to the Heraclian Gate of
Blachernæ.

The citadel formed by the Walls of Heraclius and Leo was designated the
Brachionion of Blachernæ (τὸ Βραχιόνιον τῶν Βλαχερνῶν).[568] Subsequent
to the Turkish Conquest it was named after the five more conspicuous
towers which guarded the enclosure, the Pentapyrgion,[569] on the
analogy of the Heptapyrgion, or Castle of Severn Towers (Yedi Koulè) at
the southern end of the land walls.

Near the southern end of the wall, where it has evidently undergone
repair, two inscriptions are found. One is in honour of Michael II. and
Theophilus, the great Emperors:

    ΜΙΧΑΗΛ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟΥ ΜΕΤΑ ... Ν ΒΑΣΙ....

The other gives the date †ϚΤΛ† (822), which belonged to the sole reign
of the former emperor. These repairs were probably made when Thomas, the
rival of Michael for the throne, attacked the fortifications in this
quarter. It was precisely in the year 822 that the rebel general
encamped beside the Monastery of SS. Cosmas and Damianus (above Eyoub),
and then, armed with battering-rams and scaling-ladders, advanced to the
assault of the towers of Blachernæ, behind which the standard of Michael
floated over the Church of the Theotokos.[570]

The tower at the north-western corner of the enclosure was reconstructed
by the Emperor Romanus, as an inscription upon it proclaims:

[Illustration: “The Tower of St. Nicholas was restored from the
foundations, under Romanus, the Christ-loving Sovereign.”]

To which of the four emperors named Romanus the work should be assigned
is not easy to decide. The tower must have derived its name from the
Church of S. Nicholas in this vicinity, for the site of that church is
marked by the Holy Well which still flows amid the graves and trees of
the Turkish cemetery within the Brachionion of Blachernæ, an object of
veneration alike to Moslems and orthodox Greeks. The grounds on which
the opinion rests are that, previous to the erection of the Heraclian
Wall, the church is described as without the city bounds, in the
district of Blachernæ;[571] while after the erection of Leo’s Wall it is
spoken of as within the city limits, and close to the gate by which
persons proceeded from the Blachernæ quarter to the Cosmidion.[572] This
is exactly how a building beside the Holy Well between the two walls,
and near the Gate of Blachernæ which pierces them, would be described
under such circumstances.

The proximity of these walls to the Palace of Blachernæ, as well as
their comparative weakness, combined to make them the scene of many
historical events.

While the Wall of Heraclius stood alone, it was through the Gate of
Blachernæ that Apsimarus was admitted by his adherents, in 698, to
supplant Leontius;[573] by the same entrance Justinian II., in 705,
attempted to force his way into the city to dethrone Apsimarus;[574] and
through it, again, Theodosius III., in 716, entered and deposed
Anastasius II.[575] It was before the Heraclian Wall that Crum and Leo
the Armenian met to confer, under the circumstances already narrated.

This portion of the fortifications continued to be a favourite point of
attack also after the erection of Leo’s Wall. Here, as above stated, the
rebel Thomas sought to break into the city in 822;[576] here, in 924,
Simeon of Bulgaria and Romanus Lecapenus met to conclude peace,[577]
taking the greatest precautions against the repetition of the treachery
which disgraced the former meeting of a Bulgarian king with a Byzantine
emperor. In 1047, in the reign of Constantine Monomachus, the rebel
general Tornikius took up his position before these walls, and having
routed a company of raw recruits who had sallied forth against him by
the Gate of Blachernæ, would have rushed into the city with the
fugitives, had not the difficulty of crossing the moat given the
defenders of the walls time to close the entrance.[578]

Through the Gate of Blachernæ the friends of Alexius Comnenus sallied
from the city, in 1081, to join the standard of revolt against
Nicephorus Botoniates; and it was at the Imperial stables outside the
gate that they obtained horses to reach as fast as possible the
Monastery of SS. Cosmas and Damianus, baffling pursuit by having taken
the precaution to ham-string the animals they did not require.[579] In
1097, Godfrey de Bouillon encamped on the hills and plains without these
walls. While the negotiations with the crafty Alexius Comnenus were
proceeding, the envoys of the Crusaders were on one occasion detained so
long by the emperor as to arouse suspicions of treachery on his part;
whereupon a band of Crusaders rushed from the camp at the Cosmidion, and
in their attempt to enter the city and rescue their comrades set fire to
the Gate of Blachernæ.[580]

In 1203 these fortifications were attacked by the land forces of the
Fourth Crusade.[581] The Venetian fleet, bearing the banner of St. Mark,
occupied the Golden Horn, under the command of Dandolo; the army of the
expedition under Baldwin held the hill immediately to the west of the
Palace of Blachernæ. Upon the walls and towers of the citadel stood the
Varangian guards, composed mainly of Englishmen and Danes, loyal to
their trust, and the peers of the invaders in courage and strength.
Alexius III. and his courtiers watched the scene from the palace
windows. At length, on the 17th of July, the Crusaders delivered a grand
assault by sea and land; the army attacking the fortress formed by the
Walls of Heraclius and Leo; the fleet attempting the adjoining
fortifications along the harbour. With the help of ladders, fifteen
knights and sergeants scaled the outer Wall, and engaged the defenders
on the summit in a desperate struggle. It was a bold attempt, but the
odds were too great, and the assailants, leaving two of their number
prisoners, were driven off by the swords and battle-axes of the
Varangians. Many other Crusaders, also, who had advanced to support the
attack, were wounded, and the day went so hard against the Latins at
this point that Dandolo, who had captured twenty-five towers of the
harbour fortifications, was obliged to abandon the advantage he had
gained, and hastened with his ships to protect his worsted allies.

Finally, in 1453, the moat before these walls, which had been filled
with earth in the course of time, was excavated by the crews of the
Venetian galleys present at the siege under the command of Aluxio Diedo.
It was made 200 paces long and 8 feet wide, the emperor and his
courtiers being present at the work, while two sentries, stationed on
the neighbouring hill, watched the Turkish outposts.[582]

From the northern extremity of the Heraclian Wall, a short wall was
carried to the water’s edge, across the western end of the street that
runs along the shore of the Golden Horn, outside the Harbour Walls; thus
protecting the latter line of fortifications from attack by the land
forces of an enemy.

At the same time, for the convenience of traffic, the wall was pierced
by a gate, named, from its material, the Xylo Porta (Ξυλόπορτα, Ξυλίνη),
the Wooden Gate.[583] It was in its place as late as 1868, and bore an
inscription in honour of Theophilus.[584] Very probably, the wall was
erected by that emperor when he reconstructed the defences along the
harbour. In accordance with its situation, the Xylo Porta is described
sometimes as the gate at the northern extremity of the land
fortifications;[585] and sometimes as the gate at the western end of the
walls along the Golden Horn.[586]

Du Cange[587] identified the Porta Xylo Kerkou with this gate. But the
former was an entrance in the Theodosian lines;[588] it led directly
into the city, and was built up in the reign of Isaac Angelus[589]—facts
which did not hold true of the Xylo Porta. Furthermore, Ducas expressly
distinguishes the two entrances.[590] Or the facts in the case may be
stated thus: The Gate of the Xylokerkus was in existence before the
erection of the wall in which the Xylo Porta stood; the former entrance
being not later than the reign of Anastasius I., in the fifth century,
the latter not earlier than the reign of Heraclius, in the seventh
century, when the wall on the west of Blachernæ was erected. Therefore
the two entrances cannot be the same gate under different names.

In Dr. Mordtmann’s opinion,[591] the Postern of Kallinicus (τὸ τῆς
Καλλινίκου παραπόρτιον), mentioned by Byzantine writers,[592] was the
Xylo Porta under an earlier name. And what is known regarding that
postern lends support to this view. Like the Xylo Porta, the Postern of
Kallinicus stood near the Church of Blachernæ,[593] and led to the
Church of SS. Cosmas and Damianus in the Cosmidion,[594] as well as to
the bridge across the head of the Golden Horn.[595] The identity is
confirmed by the fact that the bridge to which the road issuing from the
Xylo Porta conducted was sometimes called the Bridge of St. Kallinicus,
after a church of that dedication in its neighbourhood.[596]


                   The Bridge across the Golden Horn.


The earliest mention of a bridge across the Golden Horn is found in the
_Notitia_.[597] It was situated in the Fourteenth Region, and, like the
bridge across the Tiber, was a wooden structure, “pontem sublicium.”
This was superseded by a bridge of stone,[598] which Justinian the Great
constructed in 528, “so that one might pass,” as the _Paschal
Chronicle_[599] expresses it, “from the opposite side (ἀπὸ τῆς ἀντι
πέραν) to the all-happy city.” The new building went by various names in
the course of its long history. It was known as the Bridge of Justinian
(ἡ Ἰουστινιανοῦ γέφυρα),[600] in honour of its constructor; as the
Bridge of St. Kallinicus (ἡ γέφυρα τοῦ ἁγίου Καλλινίκου),[601] after a
church dedicated to that saint near its southern end; as the Bridge of
St. Panteleemon (ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Παντελεήμονος γέφυρα),[602] after a church
of that name at its northern end; as the Bridge of Camels (ἡ τῆς Καμήλου
γέφυρα),[603] on account, probably, of its frequent use by caravans of
camels, bringing charcoal to the city; as the Bridge of Blachernæ,[604]
from the district in which it stood. Whether it was the bridge of twelve
arches near St. Mamas mentioned by the Anonymus and Codinus[605] is
uncertain, for we cannot be sure that all references to the Church of
St. Mamas allude to the church of that dedication which stood outside
the walls of the city, and overlooked the head of the Golden Horn.

The bridge crossed the Barbyses[606] (Kiat-haneh Sou, one of the streams
commonly styled “The Sweet Waters of Europe”), where that stream enters
the Golden Horn,[607] in the district of the Cosmidion[608] (Eyoub).
When Gyllius visited the city the stone piers of an ancient bridge could
be seen, in summer, when the water was low, standing opposite a point
between the northern extremity of the land walls and Aivan Serai:
“Liquet pontem illum fuisse ubi pilæ cernuntur lapideæ antiqui pontis,
sed non extra aquam eminentes nisi aliquando æstate, sitæe inter angulum
urbis Blacherneum et suburbium, quod Turci appellant Aibasarium.”[609]

In the siege of 627 the flotilla of log-boats, which the Slavonian
allies of the Avars brought to take part in the operations, was moored
behind this bridge, watching for an opportunity to descend into the
Golden Horn, and harass the northern side of the city.[610] Over it
Heraclius came to make his triumphal entrance into the city, after his
return from the Persian War. It was a circuitous road for him to take
from the Palace of the Hiereia (Fener Bagtchèssi, on the Bay of Moda,
near Kadikeui), which he occupied upon his arrival within sight of the
capital. His most direct course was to proceed from that palace to the
Golden Gate by boat across the Sea of Marmora. But the hero of seven
glorious campaigns was possessed by such an insuperable dread of the
water that, for a long time, nothing, not even a conspiracy against his
throne, could induce him to overcome his fear and cross to the city. At
length the difficulty was met in the following manner. A bridge of boats
was placed across the Bosporus, from the bay of Phedalia (Balta
Liman)[611] to the opposite Asiatic shore, the parapets of the bridge
being constructed of great branches and dense foliage, so as to hide
from view the water on either hand; and over this roadway the emperor
was persuaded to pass on horseback, as through a thicket on _terra
firma_. Once on the European side of the straits, it would have been
natural for him to take the road leading towards the city along the
shore. But rather than keep near the water, Heraclius struck inland, for
the valley at the head of the Golden Horn, to reach the side of the
harbour on which the city stood, by the bridge over the narrow stream of
the Barbyses.[612]

Near the bridge the Crusaders, under Godfrey de Bouillon, encamped in
1096.[613] Over it the Crusaders, under the Emperor Conrad, passed in
1147, to ravage the suburbs on the northern side of the harbour.[614] To
it, in 1203, the army of the Fourth Crusade marched, from Galata, in
battle array, and, finding it had been cut down by the Greeks, repaired
it, and crossed to encamp on the hill fronting the Palace of Blachernæ.
“Et là (_i.e._ au bout du port),” to quote the picturesque language of
Ville-Hardouin,[615] “il y a un fleuve qui se jette dans la mer, qu’on
ne peut pas passer sinon par un pont de pierre. Les Grecs avaient coupé
le pont; et les barons firent travailler l’armée tout le jour et toute
la nuit pour arranger le pont. Le pont fut ainsi arrangé, et les corps
de bataille armés au matin; et ils chevauchèrent l’un après l’autre,
ainsi qu’ils avaient été ordonnés. Et ils vout devant la ville.” Twice
in 1328, and once in 1345, Cantacuzene[616] encamped his troops on the
meadows beside the bridge, while he endeavoured to gain the city by
parleying with its defenders at the Gate of Gyrolimnè.

Footnote 556:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 726, Τούτῳ τῷ ἔτει ἐκτίσθη τὸ τεῖχος πέριξ τοῦ
  οἴκον τῆς δεσποίνης ἡμῶν τῆς θεοτόκου, ἔξωθεν τοῦ καλουμένου Πτεροῦ.

Footnote 557:

  _Ibid._, Procopius, _De Æd._, lib. i. c. 3; _Paschal Chron._, p. 702.

Footnote 558:

  Theophanes, p. 361.

Footnote 559:

  For account of the siege, see _Paschal Chronicle_, pp. 715-726;
  Nicephorus Patriarcha CP., pp. 20, 21.

Footnote 560:

  Theophanes, pp. 568, 592.

Footnote 561:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 618.

Footnote 562:

  Pages 37, 38.

Footnote 563:

  Theophanes, p. 592; Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 787.

Footnote 564:

  Paspates, p. 19.

Footnote 565:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 726; Nicephorus, _Patriarcha CP._, p. 21.

Footnote 566:

  See above, Chapter IX.

Footnote 567:

  Theophanes Cont., pp. 612-618; Συναθροίσας λαὸν πολὺν καὶ τεχνίτας
  ἤρξατο κτίζειν ἕτερον τεῖχος ἔξωθεν τοῦ τείχους τῶν Βλαχερνῶν, κόψας
  καὶ τὴν σούδαν πλατεῖαν.

Footnote 568:

  Theophanes, p. 785; Theophanes Cont., pp. 612-618.

Footnote 569:

  Anna Comn., ii. p. 104.

Footnote 570:

  Leunclavius, _Pand Hist. Turc._, s. 200. The Pentapyrgion mentioned by
  Constantine Porphyrogenitus was a piece of furniture in the form of a
  castle with five towers, kept in the Great Palace.

Footnote 571:

  Theophanes Cont., pp. 60, 61; Cedrenus, vol. ii. pp. 81-83.

Footnote 572:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. 6; _Paschal Chron._, pp. 724, 725.

Footnote 573:

  Anna Comn., x. p. 48; _Itinéraires Russes en Orient._, p. 124. The
  church was dedicated to SS. Priscus and Nicholas (Procopius, _ut
  supra_). The Holy Well is now regarded as that of St. Basil (Patriarch
  Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p. 44). Whether the church
  should be identified with the Church of St. Nicholas, τὰ Βασιλίδου
  (Codinus, p. 125, Paspates, p. 34), is doubtful.

  The Cosmidion, now Eyoub, obtained its name from the celebrated Church
  and Monastery of SS. Cosmas and Damianus in the district. The church
  was founded by Paulinus, the friend of Theodosius II., and the victim
  of his jealousy, and is therefore sometimes described as ἐν τοῖς
  Παυλίνου. It stood on the hill at the head of the Golden Horn,
  commanding the most beautiful view of the harbour, and constituted,
  with the walls around it, an acropolis (Procopius, _De Æd._ i. c. 6).
  It was restored by Justinian the Great, and was famed for miraculous
  cures. The two saints had been what would now be termed “medical
  missionaries,” and exercised their art gratuitously; hence, their
  epithet Ἀνάργυροι (without money). Owing to the strategical position
  of the monastery, it was frequently seized by assailants of the city,
  as, for example, by the Avars (_Paschal Chron._, p. 725), and by the
  rebel Thomas (Theophanes Cont., p. 59). It was granted to Bohemond by
  Alexius Comnenus, and was consequently known as the Castle of Bohemond
  (William of Tyre, ii. pp. 84, 85). Andronicus II. Palæologus
  dismantled the fortress, lest it should be used by the Catalans
  (Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 592).

Footnote 574:

  Theophanes, p. 568.

Footnote 575:

  _Ibid._, p. 573.

Footnote 576:

  _Ibid._, p. 592.

Footnote 577:

  Theophanes Cont., pp. 60, 61; Cedrenus, vol. ii. pp. 81-83.

Footnote 578:

  Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 304; Theophanes Cont., pp. 406-409.

Footnote 579:

  Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 563.

Footnote 580:

  Anna Comn., ii. p. 104.

Footnote 581:

  _Ibid._, x. p. 48.

Footnote 582:

  For the account of the assault, see Ville-Hardouin, _Conquête de
  Consple._, c. 35; Nicetas Chon., pp. 719-723; Count Hugo, in _Tafel et
  Thomas_, p. 309.

Footnote 583:

  Barbaro, pp. 719-722.

Footnote 584:

  Cananus, p. 460; Phrantzes, p. 237; cf. Ducas, p. 263.

Footnote 585:

  Paspates, p. 61.

Footnote 586:

  Cananus, pp. 460, 470, 472; Critobulus, i. c. 27; Phrantzes, p. 237.

Footnote 587:

  Cantacuzene, iv. p. 214: Pusculus, iv. 179.

Footnote 588:

  _Constantinopolis Christiana_, lib. i. c. 15, p. 49.

Footnote 589:

  Banduri, _Imperium Orientale_, lib. vii. p. 150.

Footnote 590:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 529.

Footnote 591:

  Ducas, p. 282.

Footnote 592:

  Page 37.

Footnote 593:

  Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 784; Theophanes, p. 583.

Footnote 594:

  Theophanes, pp. 582, 583.

Footnote 595:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra_.

Footnote 596:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 720.

Footnote 597:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 340.

Footnote 598:

  _Ad Reg. XIV._

Footnote 599:

  Ville-Hardouin, c. 33.

Footnote 600:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 618.

Footnote 601:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 340; Synaxaria, July 29.

Footnote 602:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 720.

Footnote 603:

  Attaliotes, p. 251.

Footnote 604:

  Cantacuzune, i. pp. 290, 305; iii. p. 501.

Footnote 605:

  John Tzetzes, as quoted by Gyllius and Du Cange, _ut infra_.

Footnote 606:

  III. p. 58. Page 30.

Footnote 607:

  Nicephorus Patriarcha CP., p. 30; where it is named τοῦ Βαρνύσσον:
  Theophanes Cont., p. 340, τοῦ Βαθύρσου.

Footnote 608:

  Leo Diaconus, p. 129; Cinnamus, p. 75.

Footnote 609:

  Anna Comn., x. p. 47. Nicetas Choniates, p. 719, adds that near the
  bridge stood a perforated rock, τρυπετὸν λίθον.

Footnote 610:

  De Top. CP., iv. c. 6; see, on the whole subject, Du Cange,
  _Constantinopolis Christiana_, iv. p. 179.

Footnote 611:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 720.

Footnote 612:

  Gyllius, _De Bosporo Thracio_, ii. c. 13.

Footnote 613:

  Nicephorus Patriarcha CP., pp. 28-30.

Footnote 614:

  Anna Comn., x. p. 47.

Footnote 615:

  Cinnamus, p. 75.

Footnote 616:

  Chap. 33.

Footnote 617:

  Lib. i. pp. 290, 305; iii. p. 501.




                             CHAPTER XIII.
                           THE SEAWARD WALLS.


Owing to the unique maritime position occupied by Constantinople, the
defence of the shores of the capital was a matter of secondary
importance. So long as the Empire retained the command of the sea, a
city accessible by water only through the narrow defiles of the
Hellespont and the Bosporus had little reason to apprehend a naval
attack.

This immunity was, it is true, seriously affected when the Saracens and
the Republics of Italy became great sea-powers. Still, even then, the
situation of the city rendered an assault with ships an extremely
difficult operation. The northern shore of the city could be put beyond
the reach of the enemy by a chain extended across the narrow entrance of
the Golden Horn; while the currents that swept the Marmora shore were
ready to carry a fleet out to sea, or to hurl it against the rocks.
According to Ville-Hardouin,[617] it was the dread of those currents
that, in 1204, deterred the Venetian fleet, under Dandolo, from
attacking the walls beside the Sea of Marmora, after the failure of the
attempt upon the fortifications along the Golden Horn.

Other natural allies to withstand a naval attack were, moreover, found
in the violent storms to which the waters around the city are liable.
Such a storm discomfited the great Saracen fleet in the siege of
718.[618] In 825, a tempest compelled Thomas, the rival of Michael II.,
to withdraw his ships from action;[619] while in 865 a storm destroyed
the first Russian flotilla that entered the Bosporus.[620] In the long
history of the Byzantine Empire there is only one instance of a
successful naval assault upon Constantinople, the gallant capture of the
city in 1204 by the Venetians. That victory, however, was due as much to
the feeble spirit exhibited by the defenders, notwithstanding the
advantages of their position, as to the bravery and skill of the
assailants.

But though the seaward walls did not possess the military consequence of
the land walls, they are interesting on account of their connection with
important political events, and, above all, for their intimate
association with the commercial activity of the greatest emporium of
trade during the Middle Ages.

The history of the construction of these walls has already been noticed
incidentally, when tracing the gradual expansion of the city.[621] In
the days of Byzantium they proceeded, we have seen, from the Acropolis
(Seraglio Point) to the Neorium, on the Golden Horn; and to the point
subsequently called Topi, on the Sea of Marmora. Under Constantine the
Great they were carried to the Church of St. Antony Harmatius, on the
northern side of the city; and to the Church of St. Æmilianus, on the
southern. In 439, Theodosius II. prolonged the lines to meet the
extremities of the land wall at Blachernæ, on the one hand, and the
Golden Gate, on the other.

The history of the repair of these walls from time to time is a long
one. For while comparatively secure from injury by the accidents of war,
they were liable to be rudely shaken by earthquakes, like other public
buildings of the city, while their proximity to the sea exposed them in
a special manner to damage by damp and storm.

During the earlier days of the Empire, indeed, when the Imperial navy
ruled the sea, and no hostile fleet dared approach the city, the
condition of these fortifications was often neglected; but as the
sea-power of the Empire decayed, and that of other nations grew
stronger, the defences along the shores of the city assumed greater
interest, and their maintenance in proper order became one of the
principal cares of the State.

The earthquake of 447, so ruinous to the new land wall of Anthemius,
injured also the seaward walls, especially the portion beside the Sea of
Marmora. As an inscription over Yeni Kapou[622]—the gate at the eastern
end of Vlanga Bostan—proclaimed, the damage was repaired by the Prefect
Constantine when he restored the other fortifications of the city which
had suffered from that terrible earthquake.[623]

There is no record of repairs for the next two hundred and fifty years.
But the state of these walls could not have been altogether
unsatisfactory during that period, for they were prepared to withstand
two fleets which threatened the southern side of the city in the seventh
century: first, when the ships of Heraclius came, in 610, to overthrow
the tyranny of the infamous Phocas; and again, when the Saracens
besieged Constantinople from 673-678.

With the accession of Tiberius Apsimarus the shore defences entered upon
a new era of their history. Admiral of the Imperial fleet in the Ægean
when the Saracens marched victoriously from the banks of the Nile to the
Atlantic, and alive to the power of the enemy upon the sea, as well as
upon land, he was in a position to appreciate the necessity of being
ready to repel attack at every point. Hence, upon his return to
Constantinople, he ordered the walls of the capital, which had for some
time been grossly neglected, to be put into a state of defence.[624]
Some eight years later, however, Anastasius II. found it expedient to
attend to the seaward walls again,[625] in view of the formidable
preparations made by the Saracens for their second attack upon the
capital of Eastern Christendom; and so effective was the work done,
that, in the great crisis of 718, the city defied a fleet of 1200
vessels.

In the spring of 764 an unusual occurrence shook the walls about the
point of the Acropolis. The preceding winter had been one of Arctic
severity. If the figures of Theophanes may be trusted, the sea along the
northern and western shores of the Euxine was frozen to a distance of
one hundred miles from land, and to a depth of sixty feet; and upon this
foundation of solid ice a mass of snow forty-five feet high accumulated.
As soon as the breath of spring liberated the frost-bound waters, a long
procession of ice-floes came filing down the Bosporus, on their way to
the southern seas. They came in such numbers that they packed in the
narrow channel, and formed an ice-pile at the opening into the Sea of
Marmora, extending from the Palace of Hiereia (Fener Bagtchessi) to the
city, and from Chrysopolis to Galata, and as far as Mamas at the head of
the Golden Horn.[626]

At length the ice divided again, and as its several parts swayed in the
swollen currents, one huge iceberg came dashing against the pier at the
point of the Acropolis. Another, larger, followed, and hurled itself
against the adjacent wall with a violence which shook the whole
neighbourhood. The monstrous mass was broken by the concussion in three
fragments, still so large that they overtopped the city bulwarks and
invested the apex of the promontory from the Mangana to the Port
Bosporus, overawing the city, and crushing, it would appear, the
fortifications.

Extensive repairs of these walls were commenced in the reign of Michael
II., and completed by his son Theophilus on a scale which amounted to a
work of reconstruction.[627] Under the former emperor the rebel Thomas
had besieged the city and forced the chain across the entrance of the
Golden Horn, proving, for the first time, that even the fortifications
in that quarter might be attacked by a bold enemy. The Saracens,
moreover, displaying new vigour, had taken Sicily and Crete, and in 829
defeated the Imperial fleet in the Ægean. Accordingly, it is not strange
that Theophilus ordered the old ramparts along the shores of the city to
be replaced by loftier and stronger fortifications, and that in the
execution of the undertaking he spared no labour or expense. “The gold
coins of the realm,” says the chronicler, “were spent as freely as if
worthless pebbles.”[628]

The satisfaction of Theophilus with the result was displayed in the
extraordinary number of the inscriptions which he placed upon the new
walls and towers, to commemorate his work. No other emperor has
inscribed his name upon the walls so frequently. And the fortifications
he erected endured, with but little change, to the last days of the
Empire, and bear his stamp even in their ruin.

Of the inscriptions referred to, the following are found on the walls
along the Sea of Marmora:

On the curtain-wall immediately to the north of Deïrmen Kapoussi, in one
long line of sixty feet, is the legend:

    ΣΕ ΧΡΙΣΤΕ ΤΕΙΧΟΣΑΡΡ; ΑΓΕ ΣΚΕΚΤΗΜΙΕΝΟΣ ΑΝΑΖ ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟ ΣΕΥΣΕΒΗ ΣΑΥΤΟ
    ΚΡΑΤΩΡΗΓΕΙΡΕ ΤΟΥΤΟΤΕΙ ΧΟΣΕΚΙΒΑΘΡΩΝΝΕΩΝ· ΟΠΕΡ ΦΥΛΑΤ ΤΕΤΩΚΡ ΑΤΕΙΣΟΥΠΑΝ
    ΤΑΝΑΞΚΔΕΙΞΟ ΝΑΥΤΟΜΕ ΧΡΙΣΑΙΩΝΩΝΤΕΛΗΟΣΑΣ ΕΙΣΤΟ ΝΑΚΛΟΝΗΤΟΝΕΣ Τ

    “Possessing Thee, O Christ, a Wall that cannot be broken,
    Theophilus, King and pious Emperor, erected this wall upon new
    foundations: which (wall), Lord of All, guard with Thy might, and
    display to the end of time standing unshaken and unmoved.”

These words read like a dedication prayer for the preservation of the
whole line of the fortifications erected by Theophilus.

On the first tower to the south of Deïrmen Kapoussi are the words:

              † ΠΥΡΓΟΣ ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟΥ ΠΙΣΤΟΥ ΕΝ ΧΩ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ.
              ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ †

    “Tower of Theophilus, faithful and great King and Emperor in
    Christ.”

Above the legend is a slab, with the Cross and the battle-cry of the
Empire, “Jesus Christ conquers.”

                                 ΙΣ |  ΧΡ
                                 ———|—————
                                 ΝΙ |  ΚΑ

A similar inscription stands on the second tower south of the gate:

    † ΠΥΡΓΟΣ ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟΥ ΕΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΩ ΑΥΤΟΚΑΤΟΡΟΣ †[629]

    “Tower of Theophilus, Emperor in Christ.”

Fragmentary inscriptions to the same effect are seen on the third,
sixth, seventh, and ninth towers south of Deïrmen Kapoussi.

In addition to these inscriptions, copies of others which have
disappeared are preserved by Von Hammer, in the appendix to his work,
_Constantinopolis und Bosporos_.[630]

The Gate of St. Barbara (Top Kapoussi) bore the inscription:

    ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟΣ ... ΕΚΑΙΝΙΣΑΣ ΠΟΛΙΝ.

    “Theophilus ... having renovated the city.”

This inscription was repeated on the wall adjoining the gate. And on the
two towers which flanked the gate was the customary legend which marked
the work of Theophilus:

    ΠΥΡΓΟΣ ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟΥ ΕΝ ΧΩ ΑΥΤΟΚΑΤΟΡΟΣ

According to the same author,[631] a similar inscription was found in
the vicinity of the Seven Towers, as well as an inscription in honour of
Theophilus and his son, Michael III., who, though a mere child, had been
appointed his Imperial colleague.

According to Aristarki Bey and Canon Curtis,[632] two other inscriptions
in honour of Theophilus and Michael occurred also on two towers in the
immediate vicinity of Top Kapoussi. All these inscriptions indicate the
great extent of the repairs executed by Theophilus; the last three give,
moreover, the approximate date of one portion of the work, Michael III.
being the associate of his father from 839-842.

[Illustration: Inscription in Honour of the Emperor Michael III.]

Upon the fortifications along the Golden Horn some twenty inscriptions
in honour of Theophilus have been noted, similar to those found on the
fortifications beside the Sea of Marmora, but they have for the most
part disappeared in the destruction of the walls, from time to time, in
carrying out city improvements. The most important to recall are the
legends in which the name Michael was associated with that of
Theophilus. In two instances the former name preceded the latter; while
in five instances the latter name preceded the former. The only
satisfactory explanation of this variation is that in the first case the
Michael intended was Michael II., the father of Theophilus; and that in
the second case the allusion was to Michael III., the son of Theophilus.
Hence it appears that the restoration of the seaward walls was commenced
in the reign of Michael II., soon after the appointment of Theophilus as
his colleague, in 825.

Immediately to the north of the ruins of Indjili Kiosk, beside the Sea
of Marmora, three inscribed slabs were, until recently, found built into
the city wall. As the legend was mutilated, its full meaning cannot be
determined, but it seemed to commemorate the restoration of a portion of
the wall by Michael III., under the superintendence of his maternal
uncle, the famous Bardas, the commander of the body-guard known as the
Scholai (αἱ Σχολαί, οἱ Σχολάριοι).

                       FIRST SLAB.

                       ΩΝΚΡΑΤΑΙΩΣΔΕΣΠΟΣΑΝΤΩΝΤΟΥΣ
                       ΠΤΩΣΜΙΧΑΗΛΟΔΕΣΠΟΤΗΣ ΔΙΑΒΑΡ

                       SECOND SLAB.

                       ΙΔΕΝΟΣΠΡΟΣΥΠΣΟΣΗΕΥΚΟΣΙΙΙΑΙΙΤΟ
                       ΩΝΣΧΟ ΩΝΔΩΜΕΣΤΙΚΟΥΗ ΙΡΕΤΕΡ

                       THIRD SLAB.

                       ΗΘΕΝΕΙΣΓΗΝΤΕΙΧΟΣΕΞΕΓΕΡΚΟΤΟ
                       ΝΟΝΩΡΑΕΙΣΜΑΤΗΠΟΛΕΙ ☩[633]

An inscription on a tower at the eastern side of the entrance to the old
harbour at Koum Kapoussi (Kontoscalion) commemorated repairs by Leo the
Wise and his brother and colleague Alexander:

                        † ΠΥΡΓΟΣ ΛΕΟΝΤΟΣ Κ ΑΛΕΞΑΝ †

The first tower west of Ahour Kapoussi was rebuilt by Basil II. in 1024,
after its overthrow by storms. It bears the inscription:

                 ΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΘΑΛΛΑΣΣΗΣ ΘΡΑΥΣΜΟΣ ΕΝ ΜΑΚΡΩ ΧΡΟΝΩ
                 ΚΛΥΔΩΝΙ ΠΟΛΛΩ ΚΑΙ ΣΦΟΔΡΩ ΡΗΓΝΥΜΕΝΗΣ ΠΕΣΕΙΝ
                 ΚΑΤΑΝΑΝΚΑΣΕ ΠΥΡΓΟΝ ΕΚ ΒΑΘΡΩΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΟΣ
                 ΗΓΕΙΡΕΝ ΕΥΣΕΒΗΣ ΑΝΑΞ ΕΤΟΥΣ ϚΘΛΒ

    “In the year 1024, Basil, the pious Sovereign, erected from the
    foundations, this tower, which the dashing of the sea, shattering it
    for a long time with many and violent waves, compelled to fall.”

One of the most interesting incidents of the siege of 1453, reflecting
credit both upon the conqueror and the conquered, was associated with
“the towers of Basil, Leo, and Alexius” (τῶν πύργων τῶν λεγομένων
Βασιλείου, Λέοντος, καὶ Ἀλεξίου). Although the Turkish troops were in
command of the city, the defenders of those towers—the crew of a ship
from Crete—refused to surrender, preferring to perish rather than to be
reduced to slavery. The stand they made was reported to the Sultan, and
he was so impressed by the heroism of the men that he offered, if they
would submit, to allow them to leave the city with all the honours of
war. The generous terms were accepted, though with great reluctance, and
the brave men returned home in their own vessel, and with all their
possessions.[634] Dr. Paspates[635] suggests that the tower connected
with this incident was the tower bearing the inscription in honour of
Leo and Alexander.

The tower at the foot of the landing below Narli Kapoussi was repaired,
according to the inscription upon it, by Manuel Comnenus.

[Illustration: “Restored by Manuel Comnenus, the Christ-loving King,
Porphyrogenitus, and Emperor of the Romans, in the year 1164.”]

According to Cinnamus,[636] the Emperor Manuel Comnenus repaired the
city walls, wherever necessary.[637]

Upon the restoration of the Greek Empire in 1261 the condition of the
seaward walls became a matter of graver importance than it had been at
any previous period in the history of the city. For, until the rise of
the Ottoman power, the enemies whom Constantinople had then most reason
to fear were the maritime States of Western Europe, with their
formidable fleets.

The loss of the city by the Latins put a new strain upon the relations
between the East and the West. It provoked more intense political
antagonism, keener commercial rivalries, and a fanatical religious
hatred, which all the attempts to unite the Churches of divided
Christendom only fanned into fiercer flames. Nor was the situation
improved when Michael Palæologus established the Genoese at Galata. A
hostile power was then planted at the very gates of the capital; a
foreign fleet commanded the Golden Horn; occasions for misunderstandings
were multiplied; and selfish intriguers were at hand to foment the
domestic quarrels of the Empire, and involve it in disputes with the
rivals of Genoa. “The Roman Empire,” as Gibbon observes, “might soon
have sunk into a province of Genoa, if the Republic had not been checked
by the ruin of her freedom and naval power.”

The earliest concern of Michael Palæologus, therefore, after the
recovery of the city, was to put the fortifications in a condition to
repel the expected attempt of the Latins to regain the place.[638]
Having no time to lose, and as lime and stone were difficult to procure,
the emperor was satisfied, at first, with heightening the walls,
especially those near the sea, by the erection upon the summit, of great
wooden screens, covered with hide to render them fire-proof. In this way
he raised the walls some seven feet.[639]

But later in his reign he conceived the ambitious idea of making the
walls along the shores of the city, like the land walls, a double line
of bulwarks.[640] The new fortifications, however, cannot have been a
piece of solid work, for no traces of them have survived.[641]

[Illustration: Coat-Of-Arms of Andronicus Ii. Palæologus.[642]]

Repairs were again executed upon the seaward walls when Andronicus II.
undertook the general restoration of the fortifications of the
city.[643] Until recently a slab bearing the monogram and coat-of-arms
of that emperor, a lion rampant, crowned and holding an upright sword,
was to be seen on a tower of the wall surrounding the ancient harbour at
Koum Kapoussi.

So far, at least, as the wall beside the Sea of Marmora was concerned,
the work of Andronicus II. was soon injured. For on the very eve of his
death, on the 12th of February, 1332, a furious storm from the south
burst upon the fortifications beside that sea. The waves leaped over the
battlements, opened breaches in the wall, forced the gates, and rushed
in like a hostile army to devastate every quarter they could
overwhelm.[644]

Although the fact is not recorded, the damage done on that occasion must
have been repaired by Andronicus III.

Occasion for attending to the state of the seaward fortifications,
especially along the Golden Horn, was again given, in the course of the
conflicts between Cantacuzene and the Genoese of Galata.

In 1348 the latter made a violent assault upon the northern side of the
city, and, although failing to carry the walls, did much harm to the
shipping, timber-stores, and houses near the water.[645]

Matters assumed a more serious aspect in 1351. A powerful fleet then
sailed from Genoa, under the command of Doria, to attack Constantinople
in support of certain claims put forth by the colony at Galata, and on
its way up the Sea of Marmora, captured the fortified town of Heraclea.
The event caused the greatest consternation in the capital, and, in view
of the enemy’s approach, Cantacuzene promptly set the seaward walls in
order, repairing them where ruined, raising their height, and ordering
all houses before them to be removed.[646] He also carried the towers
higher, by erecting, in the manner usual on such occasions,
constructions of timber on their summits. And not satisfied with these
precautions, he even excavated a deep moat in front of the Harbour
Walls, all the way from the Gate Xylinè, at Aivan Serai, to the Gate of
Eugenius (Yali Kiosk Kapoussi), near the Seraglio Point.

[Illustration: Bas-Relief, On The Tower East of Djubali Kapoussi,
Representing The Three Hebrew Youths Cast Into The Fiery Furnace of
Babylon, as Described in the Book Of Daniel.[647]]

A trace of these repairs is found in a slab on the tower immediately to
the east of the gate Djubali Kapoussi,[648] bearing a lion rampant, and
the name of Manuel Phakrasè Catacuzene (MANOΥΗA ΦAKRACΗ TOU
KATAKOΥSΗNOΥ), who was Proto-strator under Cantacuzene, and
distinguished himself by his conduct in the defence of Selivria, in
1341, and in the siege of Galata, ten years later.[649]

In 1434 the Harbour Walls called for some slight repair, in consequence
of another Genoese attack upon them. An expedition which had been sent
from Genoa to take the town of Kaffa, having failed in that object,
returned to the Bosporus, and sought to compensate for defeat in the
Crimea by nothing less than the capture of Constantinople itself. The
bold attempt made with ships carrying 8000 troops, was repulsed, and the
baffled fleet returned to Italy. But the Genoese of Galata determined to
continue the struggle; and in the bombardment of the walls with cannon,
destroyed several warehouses in the city, and a tower beside the Gate
Basilikè. This attack, likewise, ended in failure, and the colony was
compelled to pay an indemnity of a thousand pieces of gold, to make good
the damage caused by the bombardment.[650]

Two inscriptions, preserved by Dr. A. D. Mordtmann[651] in his work on
the last siege of the city,[652] are noteworthy as records of repairs
made on the fortifications beside the Sea of Marmora, when
Constantinople trembled before the Ottoman power. They are also
interesting on account of the personages whom they commemorate as
restorers of the walls.

One stood, somewhere, on the wall between Ahour Kapoussi and Tchatlady
Kapou, and read:

                                ΛΟΥΚ
                                ΝΟΤΑΡΑΣ
                                ΔΙΕΡΜΗΝΕΥΤΟΥ

    “Of Luke Notaras, the Interpreter.”

This was Lucas Notaras, who subsequently became Grand Duke, and was the
most prominent citizen of Constantinople in the catastrophe of 1453.
When he executed these repairs he held the office of interpreter, or
dragoman, under the Emperor John VII. Palæologus, in carrying on
negotiations with Sultan Murad.[653] The office had, naturally, come
into existence owing to the frequent diplomatic intercourse between the
Byzantine Government and foreigners, and was of great importance and
distinction. In the reign of Manuel Palæeologus it had been held by
Nicholas Notaras, the father of Lucas Notaras.[654]

The second inscription stood on a tower between Koum Kapoussi and Yeni
Kapou. It commemorated repairs executed in 1448 at the expense of the
celebrated George Brankovitch, Despot of Servia.

                               † ΑΝΕΚΕΝΙΣ
                               ΘΗΝ ΟΥΤΟΣ
                               Ο ΠΥΡΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ
                               ΚΟΡΤΙΝΑ Υ
                               ΠΟ ΓΕΩΡΓΙ
                               ΟΥ ΔΕΣΠΟΤΟΥ
                               ΣΕΡΒΙΑΣ ... +
                               ΕΝ ΕΤΕΙ ϚϠ ΥϚ

    “This tower and curtain-wall were restored by George, Despot of
    Servia; in the year 6956 (1448).”

It will be remembered that some of the funds furnished by the Servian
king were employed in repairs on the land walls.[655]

Footnote 618:

  _La Conquête de Constantinople_, c. 52: “Et il y en eut assez qui
  conseillièrent qu’on allât de l’autre côté de la ville, du côté où
  elle n’était pas si fortifiée. Et les Vénitiens, qui connaissaient
  mieux la mer, dirent que s’ils y allaient, le courant de l’eau les
  emmènerait en aval du Bras; et ils ne pourraient arrêter leurs
  vaisseaux.” Compare with this Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365.

Footnote 619:

  Theophanes, pp. 607, 608.

Footnote 620:

  Cedrenus, vol. ii p. 82.

Footnote 621:

  Leo Gram., p. 241.

Footnote 622:

  See Map of Byzantine Constantinople.

Footnote 623:

  See below, p. 263.

Footnote 624:

  Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Constantinople_, p. 21. The
  inscription was in the same terms as that in honour of Constantine on
  the Porta Rhousiou. See above, p. 47.

Footnote 625:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 56.

Footnote 626:

  Theophanes, p. 589.

Footnote 627:

  Theophanes, pp. 670, 671; Nicephorus Patriarcha CP., pp. 76, 77.

Footnote 628:

  Genesius, p. 75; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 107.

Footnote 629:

  Manasses, 4824-4829.

Footnote 630:

  See illustration facing p. 248.

Footnote 631:

  Vol. i. numbers 8, 10, 19.

Footnote 632:

  Von Hammer, _Constantinopolis und Bosporos_, vol. i. appendix, numbers
  23, 24. These inscriptions are noted also by Tournefort, _Voyage du
  Levant_, lettre xi. p. 180.

Footnote 633:

  _Proceedings of the Greek Literary Syllogos of Consple._, vol. xvi.,
  1885; _Archæological Supplement_, p. 31.

Footnote 634:

  Cf. _Proceedings of the Greek Literary Syllogos of Consple._, vol.
  xvi., 1885; _Archæological Supplement_, p. 32. The following reading
  of the inscription has been suggested:

                    Πολλῶν κραταιῶς δεσποσάντων τοῦ σάλου
                    Ἀλλ᾽ οὐδενὸς πρὸς ὕψος [εἴκοσιν ποδῶν]
                    Τὸ βληθὲν εἰς γῆν τεῖχος ἐξηγερκότος

  For the words in brackets, read instead, ἤ εὐκοσμίαν. Cf. Mordtmann,
  p. 53.

Footnote 635:

  Phrantzes, pp. 287, 288.

Footnote 636:

  Page 101. The supposition is probable; but one or two points are not
  clear. Phrantzes describes the post held by the Cretans as consisting
  of more than one tower (p. 101, τῶν πύργων), and as a single tower (p.
  288, τοῦ πύργου). (1) Is the plural number to be understood literally
  or rhetorically? (2) Is the Basil associated by Phrantzes with Leo and
  Alexius (Alexander) their father, Basil I., or does the historian
  refer to Basil II. and the tower erected by that emperor? If the
  former alternative be adopted, only one tower was concerned in the
  matter, and the name of Basil I. must have dropped out of the
  inscription of Leo and Alexander when the tower, as the reversed
  position of part of the inscription proved, was injured and repaired.
  If, on the other hand, the historian, in referring to the tower of
  Basil, had the tower of Basil II. in view, then more than one tower
  was defended by the Cretans. It should be added that Phrantzes (p.
  254) speaks of the crew of a Cretan ship as defending the
  fortifications near the Beautiful Gate, on the Golden Horn (see below,
  pp. 221, 222), and this may be thought to imply that the tower or
  towers he had in mind stood beside the harbour. But as three ships (p.
  238) from Crete were present at the siege, Cretans could be found
  taking part in the defence at different points. The tower of Leo and
  Alexander has disappeared.

Footnote 637:

  Page 274.

Footnote 638:

  Two fragmentary inscriptions of doubtful import, on the walls beside
  the Sea of Marmora, may be cited here.

  The first is found on the seventh tower south of Deïrmen Kapoussi, and
  reads:

                       ΟΥ ΤΟΝ ΦΗΛΩΧΡΙΣΤΟΝ ΔΕΣΠΟΤΟΝ
                       ΕΤΟΣ ΚΟΣΜΟΥ ΤΕΣΣΑΡΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΔΕΚΑΤΟΥ

  The second is on the second tower west of Ahour Kapoussi:

                    ΜΒΑΙΩΝΝΘΟΜ ΤΕΙΧ ΗΝΕΟΥΡΓΕΙ ΚΑΙ ΦΥΛΑΤΕΙ

Footnote 639:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 186, 187.

Footnote 640:

  Three pikes.

Footnote 641:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 364; Nicephoras Greg., v. p. 124; _Metrical
  Chronicle_, pp. 657-661.

Footnote 642:

  Dr. Paspates (pp. 208, 209) considered the land wall of the Seraglio
  enclosure to be the work of Michael Palæologus. His argument for the
  opinion that the Seraglio grounds were enclosed by walls before the
  Turkish Conquest, and formed, after 1261, part of the domain attached
  to the palace of the Byzantine emperors, is the statement of
  Cantacuzene (iii. pp. 47, 66) that the Church of St. Demetrius stood
  within the palace (τῶν βασιλείων ἐντὸς). That church Dr. Paspates
  identified with the Church of St. Demetrius, near the Seraglio Point;
  hence his conclusion that the territory about that point was included
  in the grounds of the Byzantine palace. But Dr. Paspates must have
  forgotten, for a moment, that the Church of St. Demetrius, which
  formed the chapel of the emperors, was not near the Seraglio Point,
  but near the Pharos and the Chrysotriclinium of the Great Palace,
  buildings placed by Dr. Paspates himself at Domus-Dama, a short
  distance to the east of the Hippodrome, and to the west of the
  Seraglio enclosure. See his work on the Great Palace, Βυζαντινὰ
  Ἀνάκτορα, p. 183. There is an English translation of this work by Mr.
  Metcalfe.

Footnote 643:

  From _Broken Bits of Byzantium_. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)

Footnote 644:

  Nicephorus Greg., vii. p. 275; Nicephorus Callistus, in the Dedication
  of his _History_ to Andronicus II.

Footnote 645:

  Nicephorus Greg., ix. p. 460.

Footnote 646:

  Cantacuzene, iv. p. 70; Nicephorus Greg., xvii. chaps. i.-vii.

Footnote 647:

  Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 212, 213; Nicephorus Greg., xxvi. pp. 83, 84.

Footnote 648:

  From _Broken Bits of Byzantium_. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
  The bas-relief has been removed to the Imperial Museum.

Footnote 649:

  See below, p. 209.

Footnote 650:

  Cantacuzene, iii. p. 585; iv. p. 196. See _Proceedings of Greek
  Literary Syllogos of Consple._, 1885; _Archæological Supplement_, pp.
  37, 38.

Footnote 651:

  Chalcocondylas, pp. 285, 286.

Footnote 652:

  The father of Dr. Mordtmann, whose work on the topography of the city
  has been so often cited.

Footnote 653:

  _Belagerung und Eroberung Constantinopels durch die Türken in Jahre_
  1453, note 27, p. 132; Stuttgart, J. G., _Cottascher Verlag_.

Footnote 654:

  Ducas, pp. 196, 275; cf. Phrantzes, p. 118.

Footnote 655:

  Ducas, pp. 93, 94. See Schlumberger, _Un Empereur Byzantin au Dixième
  Siècle_, pp. 48, 49, for an account of the interpreters attached to
  the Varangian Guard. Ville-Hardouin (c. 39) speaks of the dragoman who
  assisted Isaac Angelus in the negotiations with the envoys of the
  Crusaders in 1203: “Et il (the emperor) se leva, et entra en une
  chambre; et n’emmena avec lui que l’impératrice, et son chancelier, et
  son drogman, et les quatre messagers” (of the Crusaders).

Footnote 656:

  See above, p. 107.




                              CHAPTER XIV.
                    THE WALLS ALONG THE GOLDEN HORN.


The Harbour Fortifications guarded the northern side of the city, from
the Acropolis (Seraglio Point) to the terminus of the land walls at
Blachernæ, and, excepting a small portion, consisted of a single wall,
flanked, according to Bondelmontius, by a hundred and ten towers.[656]

To accommodate the commerce and traffic of the city, the wall was built,
for the most part, at a short distance from the water; but the strip of
ground thus left without the fortifications was even narrower in ancient
times than it is at present, much of the land outside the wall having
been made by recent deposits of earth and rubbish. This explains how the
Venetian fleet, in 1203 and 1204, was able to approach so near the
ramparts that troops standing on the flying bridges attached to the
ships’ yards came to close quarters with the defenders on the walls.
Indeed, in one case, at least, such a bridge spanned the distance
between ship and tower, and permitted the assailants to cross over and
seize the latter.[657] At the actual distance, however, of the wall from
the water, such a feat would be impossible, except in the vicinity of
the Seraglio Point, which was not the quarter attacked by the Venetians.


                                 Gates.


At a short distance to the east of the Xylo Porta a breach in the wall
marks the site of a gateway named by the Turks Kutchuk Aivan Serai
Kapoussi—“the Small Gate of Aivan Serai.”[658] It stands at the head of
a short street leading southwards to the site of the famous Church of
the Theotokos of Blachernaæ, while to the north is the landing of Aivan
Serai Iskelessi, which accommodates this quarter of the city. Here,
probably, was the Porta Kiliomenè (Κοιλιωμένη Πόρτα),[659] at which the
emperors—as late, at least, as the beginning of the thirteenth
century—landed and were received by the Senate, when proceeding by water
to visit the Church or the Palace of Blachernæ. Nowhere else could one
disembark so near that sanctuary and that palace.

The landing-stage before the gate must, therefore, have been the
Imperial Pier (Ἀποβάθρα τοῦ βασιλέως) mentioned by Nicetas Choniates.
Some authorities, it is true, place that landing at Balat Kapoussi. But
it could not have been there when Nicetas Choniates wrote; for that
historian[660] refers to the Apobathra of the Emperor to indicate the
position of the Wall of Leo, which was attacked by the Latins in 1203.
Now, points which could thus serve to identify each other must have been
in close proximity. But Balat Kapoussi and the Wall of Leo are too far
apart for the former to indicate the site of the latter. On the other
hand, the Wall of Leo and Aivan Serai Iskelessi are very near each
other.

Over the northern entrance to the lower chamber in the tower west of the
gateway were found, until recently, two blocks of stone, upon which the
name of St. Pantoleon was rudely carved between the figures of two
peacocks, or phœnixes, symbols of the immortality that rose from the
fires of martyrdom. Possibly, the chamber was a chapel in which persons
entering or leaving the city could perform their devotions. According to
Stephen of Novgorod, the relics of St. Pantoleon reposed in the
adjoining Church of the Theotokos of Blachernæ.[661]

In the street to the rear of the tower is the small Mosque Toklou Dedè
Mesdjidi, formerly, it is supposed, the Church of St. Thekla,[662] in
the quarter of Blachernæ.

On the east side of the street leading from the Porta Kiliomenè to the
Church of Blachernæ remains are found of a large two-storied Byzantine
edifice, with three aisles. Its original destination cannot be
determined with any degree of certainty. By some authorities[663] the
building is supposed to have been the Porticus Cariana (Καριανὸν
Ἔμβολον), which the Emperor Maurice erected, and upon the walls of which
scenes in his life, from his childhood until his accession to the
throne, were pourtrayed.[664]

The Bay of Aivan Serai was called the Bay of Blachernæ (ὁ πρὸς Βλαχέρνας
κόλπος), and had a dockyard known as the Neorion at Blachernæ (τὸ ἐν
Βλαχέρναις νεώριον).[665]

Proceeding eastwards, a few paces bring us to a breach in the wall
leading to the Mosque Atik Mustapha Pasha Djamissi, supposed to be the
Byzantine Church of SS. Peter and Mark, which was erected in 458 by two
patricians, Galbius and Candidus, upon the shore of the Golden Horn, in
the quarter of Blachernæ. The sanctuary claimed the honour of having
enshrined “the Girdle of the Blessed Virgin,” before that relic was
placed in the church specially dedicated to the Theotokos in this part
of the city.[666] In the street to the west of the mosque lies the
marble baptismal font of the church, cruciform, and having three steps
within it leading to the bottom.

In a chrysoboullon of John Palæologus dated 1342, mention is made of the
Gate of St. Anastasia (Πύλη τῆς ἁγίας Ἀναστασίας) in this part of the
city.[667] The Russian pilgrim, who visited Constantinople in the
fifteenth century (1424-1453), speaks of a chapel containing the relics
of St. Anastasia near the Church of Blachernæ.[668]

Considerable interest is attached to the Church of St. Demetrius,
situated within the walls a few paces to the east of Atik Mustapha Pasha
Djamissi; for although the present edifice dates only from the beginning
of the eighteenth century, the original building was a Byzantine
foundation, adorned with mosaics and surmounted by a dome. Its full
style was the Church of St. Demetrius of Kanabus (τοῦ Καναβοῦ), and may,
as the Patriarch Constantius suggests,[669] have been erected by a
member of the family of the Nicholas Kanabus who became emperor for a
few days, in the interval between the overthrow of the Angeli and the
usurpation of Murtzuphlus, during the troublous times of the Fourth
Crusade.[670] In 1334, the church was the property of George
Pepagomenos, a relative of Andronicus III.[671] After the Turkish
Conquest the church became, from 1597 to 1601, the cathedral of the
Greek Patriarch, when he was deprived of the use of the Church of the
Pammakaristos (Fethiyeh Djamissi).[672]

Soon after leaving the Church of St. Demetrius, and before reaching the
gate now styled Balat Kapoussi, the city wall was pierced by three large
archways, 45 to 55 paces apart, and alternating with three towers. Balat
Kapoussi being only 55 paces beyond the easternmost archway, here stood
four entrances into the city, in most unusual proximity to one another.
The first, or westernmost archway was, at one time, adorned with a
bas-relief on either side. Tafferner, chaplain to Count Walter of
Leslie, ambassador from the German Emperor Leopold I. to the Ottoman
Court in the seventeenth century, describes the archway as follows: “In
decensu clivi defluentis in Euxini brachium, porta perampla et obstructa
muro conspicitur. Fama fert limitum hunc fuisse aulæ magni Constantini.
Ad dextrum portæ latus adstat Angelus a candido et eleganti marmore
effigiatus, statura celsior, ac virilem præ se ferens, et inserto muro.
Ad lævam, Deipara visitur, proportione priore consimilis, atque ab
Angelo consulatuta.”[673]

[Illustration: Nikè (Formerly Adorning Archway Near Balat Kapoussi).]

Only the bas-relief which stood on the eastern side of the archway has
survived to our time.[674] It represents a winged female figure, attired
in a flowing robe, and holding in her left hand a palm leaf—beyond all
controversy a Nikè, not, as Tafferner imagined, the Angel of the
Annunciation, nor, as the Patriarch Constantius supposed, the Archangel
Michael.[675]

Regarding the precise object of these four entrances, and the names to
be attached to them, a serious difference of opinion prevails. Most
authorities maintain that the archway adorned with the bas-relief was
the Gate of the Kynegos, of the Hunter (τοῦ Κυνηγοῦ, τῶν Κυνηγῶν), so
frequently mentioned in the later days of the Empire; and that Balat
Kapoussi was the Pylè Basilikè (Πύλη Βασιλικὴ) referred to by writers of
the same period. On the other hand, Gyllius identified Balat Kapoussi
with the Gate of the Kynegos, and regarded the three archways above
mentioned as entrances to a small artificial port within the line of the
fortifications. His reason for the latter opinion was the existence of a
great depression in the ground to the rear of the archways, which was
occupied, in his day, by market-gardens, but which seemed to him the
basin of an old harbour: “Ultra Portam Palatinam”—to give his own
words—“progressus circiter centum viginti passus, animadverti tres
magnus arcus, astructos urbis muro, et substructos, per quos olim
Imperatores subducebant triremes in portum opere factum, nunc exiccatus
et conversus in hortos concavos, præ se gerentes speciem portus
obruti.”[676]

As appears from the passage just quoted, Gyllius styled Balat Kapoussi
not only the Gate of the Hunter, but also the Porta Palatina. Whether in
doing so he meant to identify the Gate of the Kynegos with the Basilikè
Pylè, or simply gave the Latin rendering of the name by which Balat
Kapoussi was popularly known when he visited the city, is not perfectly
clear. The latter supposition is, however, more in harmony with that
author’s usage in the case of other gates.

Stephen Gerlach and Leunclavius agree with Gyllius in regarding Balat
Kapoussi as the Gate of the Kynegos, but place the Basilikè Pylè near
the eastern extremity of the Harbour Walls, Gerlach[677] identifying it
with Yali Kiosk Kapoussi, Leunclavius[678] with Bagtchè Kapoussi.
Neither Gerlach nor Leunclavius refers to the three arches on the west
of Balat Kapoussi. The latter, however, speaks of the hollow ground to
their rear, describing it in the following terms: “Locus depressus et
concavus, ubi Patriarchion erat meæ peregrinationis tempore,” and
supposed it to have been the arena of a theatre for the exhibition of
wild animals. From that theatre, he thought, the Gate of the Kynegos
obtained its name.

The question to which gates the names Gate of the Kynegos and Basilikè
Pylè respectively belonged is the most difficult problem connected with
the history of the harbour fortifications. To discuss it satisfactorily
at this stage of our inquiries is, however, impossible; for the opinion
that the Basilikè Pylè was not at Balat Kapoussi, but near the eastern
extremity of the Harbour Walls, is a point which can be determined only
after all the facts relative to the gates near that end of the
fortifications are before us. The full discussion of the subject must
therefore be deferred,[679] and, meantime, little more can be done than
to state the conclusions which appear to have most evidence in their
favour.

There can be no doubt, in the first place, that the Gate of the Kynegos
was in this vicinity, and was either Balat Kapoussi or the archway
adorned with the bas-relief. This is established by all the indications
in regard to the situation of the entrance. The Gate of the Kynegos
stood, according to Phrantzes,[680] between the Xylo Porta and the
Petrion; according to Pusculus,[681] between the Xylo Porta and the
Porta Phani (Fener Kapoussi), and not far from the former. It was in the
neighbourhood of the emperor’s palace,[682] and the point at which
persons approaching that palace from the Golden Horn disembarked and
took horses to reach the Imperial residence.[683] Both Balat Kapoussi
and the adjoining archways answer to this description, and they are the
only entrances which can pretend to be city gates in the portion of the
walls between the Xylo Porta and the Gate of the Phanar. Therefore, one
or other of them was the Gate of the Kynegos.

It is a corroboration of this conclusion to find that the district named
after the Gate of the Kynegos occupied the level tract beside the Golden
Horn within and without the line of the walls in the vicinity of these
entrances. The Church of St. Demetrius, for instance, which stood a
short distance to the west of Balat Kapoussi and the adjoining archways,
is described as near a gate in the quarter of the Kynegon.[684] The
bridge which the Turks threw out into the harbour from Haskeui, to carry
a battery with which to bombard this part of the fortifications, was in
front of the Kynegon.[685] Nicholas Barbaro[686] applies the name even
to the territory near the Xylo Porta; for, according to him, the land
walls extended from the Golden Gate to the Kynegon: “Le mure de tera,
che jera mia sie, che sun de la Cresca per fina al Chinigo.” With this
agrees also the statement of the same author that the Kynegon was the
point where Diedo and Gabriel of Treviso landed the crews of their
galleys, to excavate the moat which the emperor asked to be constructed
before the land walls protecting his palace.[687] The quarter of the
Kynegon thus comprised the modern quarters of Balata and Aivan Serai.

In the second place, it is exceedingly doubtful whether the archway with
the Nikè, to which the name Gate of the Kynegos is commonly ascribed,
was, after all, a city gate in the ordinary sense of the term. It does
not stand alone, but is one of three archways which pierce,
respectively, the curtain-walls between three towers. And these three
openings were in close proximity to a gate (Balat Kapoussi), amply
sufficient for the requirements of public traffic in this quarter of the
capital. Such facts do not accord with the idea that any one of these
archways was a gateway. Furthermore, when their real destination could
be more accurately ascertained than at present, Gyllius found that they
formed the entrances to an artificial harbour within the line of the
fortifications. This explanation of their presence in the wall is
perfectly satisfactory, and any other is superfluous. But if Balat
Kapoussi was the only gate in this vicinity, it must have been the Gate
of the Kynegos, which certainly stood in this part of the city.

There is nothing strange in the existence of a harbour within the line
of the fortifications in the quarter of the Kynegon. It is what might be
expected when we remember how closely the quarter was connected with the
Palace of the Porphyrogenitus and the Palace of Blachernæ, and how
necessary such a harbour was for the accommodation and protection of the
boats and galleys at the service of the Court. That the harbour behind
the three archways near Balat Kapoussi was the Neorion of Blachernæ is
unlikely; the most probable situation of that Neorion being at Aivan
Serai Iskelessi. But it may very well have been the harbour on the shore
of the Kynegon at which, during the period of the Palæologi, the emperor
and visitors to the palaces in the vicinity embarked or disembarked in
moving to and fro by water. The landing at which the Spanish ambassadors
to the Byzantine Court were received is described as near the Gate of
the Kynegos: “Près de la porte de Quinigo.”[688] The galleys sent by the
Council of Basle to convey John VII. Palæologus to the West, and which
reached Constantinople fifteen days after the arrival of four Papal
galleys on a similar errand, were detained for one day at Psamathia,
until the rival parties had been prevailed upon to keep the peace, and
then came and moored at the Kynegon (εἰς τὸν Κυνηγὸν). There the emperor
embarked for Italy, under the escort of the Papal galleys; there the
galley having on board the patriarch, who was to accompany the emperor,
joined the Imperial squadron; and there the emperor disembarked upon his
return from the Councils of Ferrara and Florence.[689] During the siege
of 1453 a fire-ship, with forty young men on board, proceeded from the
Gate of the Kynegos to burn the Turkish vessels which had been conveyed
over the hills into the Golden Horn.[690] All this implies the existence
of a port somewhere on the shore of the quarter of the Kynegon.

In the third place, all discussion in regard to the proper application
of the names Basilikè Pylè, and Gate of the Kynegos must proceed upon
the indisputable fact that the epithet “Imperial,” belonged to an
entrance at the eastern extremity of the Harbour Walls. In proof of
this, it is enough to cite, meantime, the statement of Phrantzes[691]
that Gabriel of Treviso was entrusted with the defence of a tower which
guarded the entrance of the Golden Horn, and which stood opposite the
Basilikè Pylè. Unless, therefore, it can be shown that there was more
than one Basilikè Pylè in the fortifications beside the Golden Horn, the
claim of Balat Kapoussi to the Imperial epithet falls to the ground. If
the existence of two Imperial gates in the Harbour Walls can be
established, then Balat Kapoussi has the best right to be regarded as
the second entrance bearing that designation. In that case, however, the
conclusion most in harmony with the facts involved in the matter is that
the second Basilikè Pylè was only the Gate of the Kynegos under another
name.[692]

Why, precisely, the entrance was styled the Gate of the Hunter is a
matter of conjecture. Some explain the name as derived from a Kynegion,
or theatre for the exhibition of wild animals,[693] such as existed on
the side of the city facing Scutari; and in favour of this opinion is
the term “Kynegesion” (τοῦ Κυνηγεσίου), employed by Phrantzes[694] to
designate the quarter adjoining the entrance. But the ordinary style of
the name lends more countenance to the view that the gate was in some
way connected with the huntsmen attached to the Byzantine Court, hunting
being always a favourite pastime of the emperors of Constantinople.
Their head huntsman (ὁ πρωτοκυνηγὸς) was an official of some importance.
Besides directing his subordinates, it was his prerogative to hold the
stirrup when the emperor mounted horse, and the Imperial hunting-suit
was his perquisite, if stained with blood in the course of the
chase.[695]

A gate, known as the Gate of St. John the Forerunner and Baptist (Πόρτα
τοῦ ἁγίου Προδρόμου καὶ Βαπτιστοῦ), was also situated in the quarter of
the Kynegon, and near the Church of St. Demetrius.[696] That name might
readily be given to a gate in this vicinity, either in honour of the
great Church and Monastery of St. John the Baptist in Petra, on the
heights above Balat Kapoussi, or in honour of the church of the same
dedication, which, there is reason to think, stood on the site of the
Church of St. John the Baptist, found, at present, on the shore to the
north-east of that entrance. Whether the Gate of St. John has
disappeared, or was the Gate of the Kynegos under another name, is a
point upon which there may be a difference of opinion. Dr.
Mordtmann[697] identifies it with the Gate of the Kynegos, which,
according to him, was the archway adorned with the Nikè. It may be
identified with the Gate of the Kynegos, even on the view that the
latter was Balat Kapoussi. That a Church of St. John stood in the
neighbourhood of the Gate of the Kynegos is also intimated by
Pachymeres, who records a fire which, in 1308, burnt down the quarter
extending from that gate to the Monastery of the Forerunner.[698]

The gate next in order, as its Turkish name, Fener Kapoussi, proves, is
the entrance which the foreign historians of the last siege style Porta
Phani, Porta del Pharo.[699] This designation was, doubtless, the
rendering of the Byzantine name of the gate, for the adjoining quarter,
as appears first in a document dated 1351, went by its present name,
Phanari (τοποθεσία τοῦ φανάρι),[700] also before the Turkish Conquest. A
beacon light must have stood at this point of the harbour.

From the Porta Phani eastwards to Petri Kapoussi, the next gate, the
fortifications consisted of two lines of wall which enclosed a
considerable territory, the inner wall describing a great curve on the
steep northern front of the Fifth Hill. The enclosure was called the
Castron of the Petrion[701] (τὸ κάστρον τῶν Πετρίων), after Petrus,
Master of the Offices in the reign of Justinian the Great;[702] and the
surrounding district was named the Petrion (Πετρίον, τὰ Πετρία,[703]
“Regio Petri Patricii”).[704] It must be carefully distinguished from
the district of Petra (Πέτρα), at Kesmè Kaya, above Balat Kapoussi.

In the angle formed by the junction of the two walls, a little to the
west of the Porta Phani, was a small gate, Diplophanarion,[705] which
led from the Castron into the city.

Petri Kapoussi, at the eastern extremity of the Castron, and in the
outer wall, communicated with the street skirting the Golden Horn, and
retains the ancient name of the district.[706] Dr. Mordtmann[707]
identifies it with the Porta Sidhera (Σιδηρᾶ Πίλη), near the Convent of
the Petrion.[708] That the Petrion was not confined to the Castron, but
included territory on either side of the enclosure, is manifest from the
fact that whereas the wall between the Porta Phani and the Porta Petri
is without a single tower, mention is yet made of towers in the
Petrion.[709]

Of the churches in this quarter, St. Stephen of the Romans, St. Julianè,
St. Elias, and St. Euphemia, the two last were the most important. The
Church of St. Euphemia claimed to be an older foundation than
Constantinople itself, being attributed to Castinus, Bishop of
Byzantium, 230-237. It was restored by Basil I., and his daughters
entered the convent attached to the church.[710] The Convent of Petrion,
as it was called, must have been of considerable importance, for it was
on several occasions selected as the place in which ladies of high rank,
who had become politically inconvenient, were interned; as, for
instance, Zoe, the dowager-empress of Leo the Wise, for conspiracy
against Romanus Lecapenus;[711] Theodora, by her sister the Empress
Zoe;[712] and Delassaina, the mother of the Comneni, with her daughters
and daughters-in-law, by Nicephorus Botoniates.[713]

In the assaults made by foreign fleets upon the Harbour Walls, the
Petrion, or Phanar, occupied a conspicuous place.

It was before the Petrion[714] that the Venetian galleys under Dandolo
stood, July 17, 1203, and established the free end of their flying
bridges upon the summit of the walls, whereby twenty-five towers were
captured, and the city was recovered for Isaac Angelus. The Petrion was
again prominent in the assault which the Crusaders delivered on April
12, 1204, when Constantinople passed into their hands and became the
seat of a Latin Empire. Here the flying bridge of the ship _Pelerine_
lodged itself on a tower, and allowed a bold Venetian and a French
knight, André d’Urboise, to rush across, seize the tower, and clear a
way for their comrades to follow. Here ladders were then landed, the
walls scaled, three gates forced, and the city thrown open to the whole
host of the invaders.[715]

In the siege of 1453, early on the morning of the 29th of May, the
Phanar was fiercely attacked by the Turkish ships in the Golden
Horn.[716] The attack was repulsed, and the Greeks remained masters of
the situation, until the occupation of the city by the enemy’s land
forces made further resistance impossible. The memory of the struggle is
said to be preserved in the quarter by the name of the street Sandjakdar
Youcousou (the Ascent of the Standard-bearer) and by the Turkish name
for the Church of St. Mary Mougouliotissa, Kan Klissè (the Church of
Blood).[717]

The succeeding gate, Yeni Aya Kapou, was opened, it would seem, in
Turkish times, being first mentioned by Evlia Tchelebi. There is,
however, one circumstance in favour of regarding it as a small Byzantine
entrance, enlarged after the Conquest. On the right of the gate, within
the line of the walls, are the remains of a large Byzantine edifice,
which could hardly have dispensed with a postern.

Aya Kapou, the next entrance, as its Turkish name intimates, and the
order of Pusculus requires, is the Porta Divæ Theodosiæ (Πύλη τῆς Ἁγίας
Θεοδοσίας),[718] so named in honour of the adjoining Church of St.
Theodosia (now Gul Djamissi), the first martyr in the cause of Icons,
under Leo the Isaurian. The gate was also known by the name Porta
Dexiocrates, after the district of Dexiocrates in which it stood.[719]
This identification rests upon the fact that while Pachymeres[720]
affirms that the body of St. Theodosia lay in the church dedicated to
her memory, the _Synaxaristes_ declares that she was buried in the
Monastery of Dexiocrates.[721] Only by the supposition that the Church
of St. Theodosia stood in the district of Dexiocrates can these
statements be reconciled. The church is first mentioned by Antony of
Novgorod.[722] The festival of the saint, falling on May 29th, coincided
with the day on which, in 1453. the city was captured by the Turks. As
usual, a large crowd of worshippers, many of them ladies, filled the
sacred edifice, little thinking of the tragedy which would interrupt
their devotions, when suddenly Turkish troops burst into the church and
carried the congregation off into slavery.[723]

The next gate, Djubali Kapoussi, must be the entrance styled Porta Puteæ
by Pusculus,[724] and Porta del Pozzo by Zorzo Dolfin;[725] for it is
the only entrance between the Gate of St. Theodosia (Aya Kapou) and the
Porta Platea (Oun Kapan Kapoussi), the gates between which the writers
above mentioned place the Porta Puteæ. Although no Byzantine author has
mentioned the Porta Puteæ by its Greek name, there can be no doubt that
the name in vogue among foreigners was the translation, more or less
exact, of the native style of the entrance, and that consequently the
gate marks the point designated Ispigas (εἰς Πηγὰς) by the Chronista
Novgorodensis, in his account of the operations of the Venetian fleet
against the harbour fortifications on the 12th of April, 1204. The ships
of the Crusaders, says that authority, were then drawn up before the
walls, in a line extending from the Monastery of Christ the Benefactor
and Ispigas, on the east, to Blachernæ, on the west: “Cum solis ortu
steterunt, in conspectu ecclesiæ Sancti Redemptoris, quæ dicitur τοῦ
Εὐεργέτου, et Ispigarum, Blachernis tenus.”[726]

The name of the gate alluded to the suburb of Pegæ (Πηγαὶ), situated
directly opposite, on the northern shore of the harbour, and noted for
its numerous springs of water. Dionysius Byzantius, in his _Anaplus of
the Golden Horn and the Bosporus_,[727] describes the locality at
length, naming it Krenides (Κρηνίδες). on account of its flowing springs
(πηγαίων), which gave the district the character of marshy ground. The
suburb appears under the name Pegæ in the history of the siege of the
city by the Avars, when the Imperial fleet formed a cordon across the
harbour, from the Church of St. Nicholas at Blachernæ to the Church of
St. Conon and the suburb of Pegæ, to prevent the enemy’s flotilla of
boats in the streams at the head of the Golden Horn from descending into
the harbour.[728]

According to Antony of Novgorod, the suburb was situated to the west of
St. Irene of Galata; it contained several churches, and was largely
inhabited by Jews.[729] It appears again in the old Records of the
Genoese colony of Galata in the fourteenth century, under the name
Spiga, or De Spiga, to the west of that town.[730] Critobulus calls it
the Cold Waters (Ψυχρὰ Ὕδατα), placing it on the bay into which Sultan
Mehemet brought his ships over the hills from the Bosporus.[731]

As appears from the passage of the Chronista Novgorodensis, cited above,
near the Porta Puteæ stood the Monastery of Christ the Benefactor,
interesting as a conspicuous landmark in the scenes associated with the
Latin Conquest of the city.

The fire which the Venetians set near the portion of the Harbour Walls
captured in 1203, reduced to ashes the quarters extending from Blachernæ
as far east as that monastery.[732] The monastery marked also the
eastern extremity of the line of battle in which the ships of the
Crusaders delivered the final attack upon the walls on April 12,
1204;[733] while the fire which illuminated the victory of that day
started in the neighbourhood of that religious house, and raged
eastwards to the quarter of Drungarius.[734] During the Latin occupation
the Venetians established a dockyard on the shore in the vicinity of the
monastery;[735] the adjoining district, including the Church of
Pantocrator[736] (now Zeirek Klissè Djamissi) and the Church of
Pantopoptes[737] (now Eski Imaret Mesdjidi), on the Fourth Hill, being
their head-quarters.

Footnote 657:

  _Librum Insularum Archipelagi._

Footnote 658:

  Ville-Hardouin, c. xxxvi., lii., liii.

Footnote 659:

  Evlia Tchelebi. Aivan Serai means the Palace of the Porch, or
  Verandah. The name refers, probably, to the Palace of Blachernæ.

Footnote 660:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 542, cf. p. 551. In the Bonn Edition
  the term is translated, “Depressa et in humilius deducta.”

Footnote 661:

  Page 721, τὸ τεῖχος ὅ παρατείναι πρὸς θάλασσαν περὶ τόπον ὅς ἀποβάθρα
  τοῦ βασιλέως ὠνόμασται. Cf. Ville-Hardouin, c. 35: “un avant-mur ...
  près de la mer.”

Footnote 662:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 124.

Footnote 663:

  Paspates, pp. 357-360. Cf. Theophanes Cont., pp. 147, 148; Anna Comn.,
  iii. p. 166.

Footnote 664:

  Mordtmann, p. 39.

Footnote 665:

  Theophanes, p. 402. The building is ninety-eight feet long by sixty
  feet wide. The central aisle is twenty feet wide; the side aisles
  fifteen feet. The dividing walls, pierced by seven arches, are five
  feet thick.

Footnote 666:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365.

Footnote 667:

  Paspates, p. 317; Du Cange, _Constantinopolis Christiana_, iv. p. 116.

Footnote 668:

  Νεολόγου Ἑβδομαδιαία Ἐπιθεώρησις, January 3, 1893, p. 203.

Footnote 669:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 233.

Footnote 670:

  Συγγραφαὶ αἱ Ἐλάσσονες, p. 441.

Footnote 671:

  Nicetas Chon., pp. 744-746.

Footnote 672:

  _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, vol. i. p. 568.

Footnote 673:

  Gedeon, Χρονικὰ τοῦ Πατριαρχικοῦ Οἴκου καὶ τοῦ Ναοῦ, pp. 72-75.

Footnote 674:

  _Cæsarea Legatio_, pars. iii. p. 94 (Vienna, 1668).

Footnote 675:

  It is now in the Imperial Museum.

Footnote 676:

  _Ancient and Modern Constantinople_, p. 15.

Footnote 677:

  _De Top. CP._, iv. c. 4; _De Bosporo Thracio_, ii. c. 2. This
  depression was visible as late as 1852, according to Scarlatus
  Byzantius, vol. i. p. 582. It was then known as a Tchoukour Bostan,
  the usual Turkish designation for a garden in a hollow.

Footnote 678:

  _Tagebuch der Gesandschaft an die Ottomanische Pforte durch David
  Ungnad_, p. 454. All subsequent references to Gerlach are to this
  Diary of his visit to Constantinople, 1573-1578.

Footnote 679:

  _Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200.

Footnote 680:

  See below, pp. 230-240.

Footnote 681:

  Page 254.

Footnote 682:

  IV. p. 181.

Footnote 683:

  N. Barbaro, p. 789.

Footnote 684:

  Clavijo, p. 14, “Il fut décidé que les ambassadeurs retourneraient
  (from Pera) à Constantinople mercredi, par la porte nommée ‘Quinigo,’
  où ils devaient trouver le sieur Hilaire ... ainsi que des chevaux de
  monture, et qu’ils visiteraient alors la plus grande partie de la
  ville.” Cf. p. 15, “Les dits ambassadeurs passèrent à Constantinople
  et trouvèrent bientôt le dit sieur Hilaire et d’autres personnes de la
  cour, près de la porte de ‘Quinigo,’ où ils les attendaient; ils
  montèrent à cheval et partirent pour visiter une église nommée Sancta
  Maria de la Cherne (St. Mary of Blachernæ).”

Footnote 685:

  _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, i. p. 568, year 1334.

Footnote 686:

  Ducas, p. 279; cf. Barbaro, p. 789.

Footnote 687:

  Page 728.

Footnote 688:

  Page 720.

Footnote 689:

  Clavijo, _Constantinople, Ses Sanctuaires et ses Reliques_, pp. 14,
  15.

Footnote 690:

  See _History of the Council of Florence_, by Sgyropoulos, who attended
  the Council in the suite of the patriarch. The Greek original and a
  Latin translation are found in _Veræ Historia Unionis non Veræ inter
  Græcos et Latinos, sive Concilii Florentini_. The translation,
  published in 1670, is by Robert Creyghton, and was dedicated to
  Charles II. For the account of the matters referred to above, see that
  work, pp. 51, 54, 55, 67, 318. Cf. Scarlatus Byzantius, vol. i. p.
  582.

Footnote 691:

  _Historia Politica_, p. 19.

Footnote 692:

  Pages 254, 255.

Footnote 693:

  On the supposition that there was no Imperial Gate near the eastern
  extremity of the Harbour Walls, it is impossible to identify the
  Basilikè Pylè and the Gate of the Kynegos, for these names are
  sometimes employed in a way which renders it perfectly evident that
  they referred to different gates. See Phrantzes, _ut supra_; Pusculus,
  iv. 179-221; Dolfin, s. 55; Ducas, p. 275.

Footnote 694:

  Leunclavius, _Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200.

Footnote 695:

  Page 254.

Footnote 696:

  Codinus, _De Officiis CP._, p. 39.

Footnote 697:

  _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, vol. i. p. 568, year 1334: Ὁ πλησίον τῶν
  οἰκημάτων αὐτοῦ, τῶν περὶ τὴν πόρταν τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Προδρόμου
  καὶ Βαπτιστοῦ κατὰ τῶν Κυνηγῶν, διακείμενος πάνσεπτος ναὸς τοῦ ἐν
  μάρτυσι περιβοήτου, μυροβλύτου καὶ θαυματουργοῦ ἁγίου Δημητρίου.

  Beyond all reasonable doubt, this was the same gate as the Gate of St.
  John mentioned in the _Chrysoboullon of John Palæologus_, p. 203,
  cited above on p. 197. The latter, also, was a gate near the water,
  with a considerable territory outside the entrance, occupied by
  numerous buildings. See p. 203 of the Νεολόγου Ἑβδομαδιαία
  Ἐπιθεώρησις, of January 3, 1893. The identity of the two gates is
  confirmed by the reference in the _Chrysoboullon_ to Kanabus (τοῦ
  Κανάβη), the eponym of the Church of St. Demetrius.

Footnote 698:

  Page 40.

Footnote 699:

  Vol. ii. p. 582.

Footnote 700:

  Pusculus, iv. 189; Zorzo Dolfin, s. 55.

Footnote 701:

  _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, vol. i. p. 321.

Footnote 702:

  _Ibid._, p. 721.

Footnote 703:

  Anonymus, ii. p. 35; cf. i. p. 20.

Footnote 704:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 753.

Footnote 705:

  Antony of Novgorod, in _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 99.

Footnote 706:

  Leunclavius, _Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200.

Footnote 707:

  _Metrical Chronicle_, line 259.

Footnote 708:

  Page 41.

Footnote 709:

  Anna Comn., iii. p. 103; Bryennius, iii. p. 126.

Footnote 710:

  Ville-Hardouin, c. 36; Nicetas Chon., p. 722.

Footnote 711:

  Anonymus, ii. p. 39.

Footnote 712:

  Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 296.

Footnote 713:

  _Ibid._, p. 537.

Footnote 714:

  Anna Comn., ii. p. 103.

Footnote 715:

  Nicetas Chon.; Ville-Hardouin, _ut supra_.

Footnote 716:

  Nicetas Chon., pp. 753, 754; Ville-Hardouin, c. 52, 53.

Footnote 717:

  N. Barbaro, p. 818.

Footnote 718:

  Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._, pp. 85, 86. The
  church was erected or restored by Maria, the natural daughter of
  Michael Palæologus, upon her return to Constantinople, after the death
  of her husband, the Khan of the Mongols. It has remained in the
  possession of the Greek community, in virtue of a firman of Mehemet
  the Conqueror, who presented the church to Christodoulos, the
  architect of the mosque erected by the Sultan on the Fifth Hill (_Acta
  Patriarchatus CP._, vol. i. p. 321, year 1351).

Footnote 719:

  Phrantzes, p. 254; Pusculus, iv. 190.

Footnote 720:

  Codinus, _De S. Sophia_, p. 147; Anonymus, ii. p. 34.

Footnote 721:

  Vol. ii. pp. 452-455.

Footnote 722:

  _Synaxaria_, May 29.

Footnote 723:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 104.

Footnote 724:

  Ducas, p. 293.

Footnote 725:

  IV. 191.

Footnote 726:

  S. 55.

Footnote 727:

  _Chroniques Græco-Romaines_, pp. 96, 97. Dr. Mordtmann thinks that
  this point is referred to also in the Treaty of Michael Palæologus
  with the Venetians in 1265, when that emperor allowed the Venetians to
  occupy any point from the old Arsenal to Pegæ (ἀπὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς
  ἐξαρτύσις μέχρι καὶ τῶν Πηγῶν). The passage is ambiguous, for there
  was an old arsenal and a suburb Pegæ on the northern side of the
  Golden Horn, and the concession was outside the city.

Footnote 728:

  Edition of C. Weseler, Paris, 1874. Cf. Gyllius, _De Bosporo Thracio_,
  ii. c. iv.

Footnote 729:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 720, 721.

Footnote 730:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, pp. 88, 107, 108. Among its churches
  was the Church of St. Conon (_Paschal Chron._, p. 721), memorable in
  the Sedition of the Nika, as the church of the monks who rescued two
  of the seven rioters condemned to death from the hands of the clumsy
  executioner, and carried them across the Golden Horn in a boat to the
  Church of St. Laurentius for sanctuary (Malalas, p. 473).

Footnote 731:

  Desimoni, _Giornale Ligustico_, anno iii., Genoa, 1876.

Footnote 732:

  Lib. i. c. 42; cf. Mordtmann, p. 43.

Footnote 733:

  Nicetas Chon., iii. p. 722; Ville-Hardouin, c. 36.

Footnote 734:

  _Ibid._, p. 754; _Chroniques Græco-Romaines_, p. 96.

Footnote 735:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra_; Ville-Hardouin, c. 54.

Footnote 736:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365; _Tafel und Thomas_, ii. p. 284.

Footnote 737:

  _Tafel und Thomas_, ii. pp. 46, 348.

Footnote 738:

  _Ibid._, p. 423. Dr. Mordtmann (pp. 73, 74) identifies the Monastery
  of Christ the Benefactor with the ruined Byzantine church known as
  Sinan Pasha Mesdjidi, to the south of St. Theodosia (see Dr. Paspates,
  pp. 384, 385). But the prominence of the monastery suggests a position
  nearer the shore. For incidents connected with it, see Pachymeres,
  vol. ii. p. 579; Cantacuzene, iii. p. 493. A tower near the monastery
  (“ab ultima turri de Virgioti versus Wlachernam”) marked the eastern
  limit of certain fishery rights in the Golden Horn granted to the
  Monastery of St. Giorgio Majore, at Venice (_Tafel und Thomas_, ii.
  pp. 47-49).




                              CHAPTER XV.
              THE WALLS ALONG THE GOLDEN HORN—_continued_.


The next gate on the list of Pusculus and Dolfin is the Porta Platea, or
Porta ala Piazza,[738] evidently the Porta of the Platea (Πόρτα τῆς
Πλατέας) mentioned by Ducas.[739] The entrance, judging by its name, was
situated beside a wide tract of level ground, and is, consequently,
represented by Oun Kapan Kapoussi, which stands on the plain near the
Inner Bridge, at the head of the important street running across the
city from sea to sea, through the valley between the Fourth and Fifth
Hills. The district beside the gate was known as the Plateia
(Πλατεῖα),[740] and contained the churches dedicated respectively to St.
Laurentius and the Prophet Isaiah.[741] The blockade of the Harbour
Walls in 1453 by the Turkish ships in the Golden Horn extended from the
Xylo Porta to the Gate of the Platea.[742] If the legend on
Bondelmontius’ map may be trusted, this gate bore also the name Mesè,
the Central Gate, a suitable designation for an entrance at the middle
point in the line of the harbour fortifications.

The succeeding gate, Ayasma Kapoussi, was opened, it would seem, after
the Turkish Conquest. It is not mentioned by Gyllius, or Leunclavius, or
Gerlach. The conjecture that it represents a gate in the Wall of
Constantine, styled Porta Basilikè, situated near the Church of St.
Acacius ad Caream (τὸν ἅγιον Ἀκάκιον, τὴν Καρυὰν, ἐν τῇ Βασιλικῇ
Πόρτα)[743] does not appear very probable. The Church of St. Acacius,
situated in the Tenth Region,[744] was the sanctuary to which
Macedonius, the bishop of the city, removed the sarcophagus of
Constantine the Great, from the Church of the Holy Apostles on the
summit of the Fourth Hill, when the latter edifice threatened to fall
and crush the Imperial tomb.[745] The bishop’s action encountered the
violent opposition of a large class of the citizens, and led to a riot
in which much blood was shed. Under these circumstances, it is difficult
to believe that the sarcophagus of Constantine was transported from its
original resting-place to a point so distant as the neighbourhood of
Ayasma Kapoussi, especially when the removal was a temporary
arrangement, made until the repairs on the Church of the Holy Apostles
should be completed. It is more probable that St. Acacius was near the
Church of the Holy Apostles. Furthermore, we cannot be sure that the
Porta Basilikè was a gate in the Wall of Constantine. The Church of St.
Acacius stood near a palace erected by that emperor (πλησίον τῶν
οἰκημάτων τοῦ μεγάλου Κωνσταντίνου):[746] or, as described elsewhere,
was a small chapel (οἰκίσκον εὐκτήριον) near a palace named Karya,
because close to a walnut-tree on which the saint was supposed to have
suffered martyrdom by hanging.[747] The Porta Basilikè may have been a
gate leading into the court of that palace.

The three succeeding gates, Odoun Kapan Kapoussi, Zindan Kapoussi,
Balouk Bazaar Kapoussi, bore respectively the names Gate of the
Drungarii (τῶν Δρουγγαρίων); Gate of the Forerunner (Porta juxta parvum
templum Precursoris, known also as St. Johannes de Cornibus); Gate of
the Perama or Ferry (τοῦ Περάματος). They can be identified, perhaps,
most readily and clearly by the following line of argument:—

The three Byzantine gates just named were situated in the quarter
assigned to the Venetians in Constantinople by successive Imperial
grants from the time of Alexius Comnenus to the close of the Empire. The
Gate of the Drungarii marked the western extremity of the quarter;[748]
the Gate of the Perama, its eastern extremity;[749] while the gate
beside the Church of the Forerunner was between the two points. Where
the Gate of the Perama stood admits of no doubt. All students of the
topography of the city are agreed in the opinion that the entrance so
named was at Balouk Bazaar Kapoussi. Consequently, the two other gates
in the Venetian quarter lay to the west of Balouk Bazaar Kapoussi, in
the portion of the fortifications between that entrance and the Gate of
the Platea, all gates further west being out of the question. But as the
only two gates in that portion of the walls are Zindan Kapoussi and Oun
Kapan Kapoussi, they must represent, respectively, the Gate of the
Forerunner and the Gate of the Drungarii.

The Gate of the Drungarii (τῶν Δρουγγαρίων) derived its name from the
term “Drungarius,” a title given to various officials in the Byzantine
service;[750] as, for example, to the admiral of the fleet (μέγας
δρουγγάριος τοῦ θεοσώστου στόλου), and to the head of the city police,
the Drungarius Vigiliæ. (ὁ τῆς Βίγλας δρουγγάριος). In this particular
case the reference was to the latter officer, for in the neighbourhood
of the gate stood an important Vigla, or police-station, which is
sometimes mentioned instead of the Gate of the Drungarii, as the western
limit of the Venetian quarter.[751]

The street running eastwards, outside the city wall, was known as the
Via Drungariou (De Longario),[752] and the pier in front of the next
gate bore the name Scala de Drongario.[753]

The practice of storing timber on the shore without the gate has come
down from an early period in the history of the city. One of the
questions put to Justinian the Great by the Greens, during the
altercation between him and the Factions in the Hippodrome, on the eve
of the Nika riot was, “Who murdered the timber-merchant at the
Zeugma?”[754]—another name for this part of the shore. An inscription on
the gate reminded the passing crowd that to remember death is profitable
to life (Μνῆμη θανάτου χρησιμεύει τῷ βίῳ).[755]

It is in favour of the identification of Zindan Kapoussi with the Gate
near the Church of St. John (Porta juxta parvum templum Precursoris) to
find only a few yards within the entrance a Holy Well, venerated alike
by Christian and Moslem, beside which stood, until recently, the ruins
of a Byzantine chapel answering to the small Church of the Forerunner
mentioned in the Venetian charters.[756]

Leunclavius found the gate called in his day Porta Caravion, because of
the large number of ships which were moored in front of it.[757] The
landing before the gate, the old Scala de Drongario, now Yemish
Iskelessi, in front of the Dried Fruit-Market, is one of the most
important piers on the Golden Horn.

Dr. Paspates[758] and M. Heyd[759] identify this entrance with the Gate
of the Drungarii. But this opinion is inconsistent with the fact that
whereas the gate near St. John’s stood between the Gate of the Drungarii
and the Gate of the Perama, no entrance which can be identified with the
gate near St. John’s intervenes between Zindan Kapoussi and Balouk
Bazaar Kapoussi (Gate of the Perama).

M. Heyd, moreover, identifies Zindan Kapoussi with the Porta
Hebraica,[760] mentioned in the charters granted to the Venetians in the
thirteenth century. But, as will appear in the sequel, the Porta
Hebraica of that period was either the Gate of the Perama itself, or an
entrance a little to the east of it.

The Gate of the Perama (τοῦ Περάματος), as its name implies, stood where
Balouk Bazaar Kapoussi is found to-day, close to the principal ferry
between the city and the suburb of Galata; communication between the
opposite shores being maintained in ancient times by boats, for the only
bridge across the harbour was that near the head of the Golden Horn. The
Perama is first mentioned by Theophanes,[761] in recording the
dedication of the Church of St. Irene at Sycæ (Galata), after the
reconstruction of that sanctuary by Justinian the Great. Special
importance attached to the event, as the emperor attributed his recovery
from an attack of the terrible plague that raged in Constantinople, in
542, to the touch of the relics of the Forty Martyrs which had been
discovered in pulling down the old church, and which were to be
enshrined in the new building. Menas, Patriarch of Constantinople, and
Apollinarius, Patriarch of Alexandria—who was then in the capital—were
appointed to celebrate the service of the day; and the two prelates,
seated in the Imperial chariot, and bearing upon their knees the sacred
relics, drove through the city from St. Sophia to the Perama, to take
boat for Sycæ, where Justinian awaited them. The ferry was also styled
Trajectus Sycenus;[762] Transitus Sycarum, after the oldest name for
Galata. It was, moreover, known as Transitus Justinianarum,[763] from
the name Justinianopolis, given to the suburb in honour of Justinian,
who rebuilt its walls and theatre, and conferred upon it the privileges
of a city.[764] The pier at the city end of the ferry was known as the
Scala Sycena.[765]

It would seem that there was a spice-market[766] in the vicinity of the
Gate of the Perama, like the one which exists to-day to the rear of
Balouk Bazaar Kapoussi, the latter being only the continuation of the
former. According to Bondelmontius, the fish-market of Byzantine
Constantinople was held before this gate, as the practice is at present;
for upon his map he names the entrance Porta Piscaria. So fixed are the
habits of a city.

Besides bearing the name Gate of the Perama, the entrance was also
styled the Porta Hebraica. This appears from the employment of the two
names as equivalent terms in descriptions of the territory occupied by
the Venetians in Constantinople. For example, according to Anna
Comnena,[767] the quarter which her father, the Emperor Alexis Comnenus,
conceded to the Venetians, extended from the old Hebrew pier to the
Vigla. In the charter by which the Doge Faletri granted that district to
the Church of San Georgio Majore of Venice, the quarter is described in
one passage, as extending from the Vigla to the Porta Perame, as far as
the Judeca (“ad Portam Perame, usque ad Judecam”);[768] and in a
subsequent passage, as proceeding from the Vigla to the Judeca (“a
comprehenso dicto sacro Viglæ usque ad Judecam”).[769] In the grants
made to the Venetians after the Restoration of the Greek Empire in 1261,
the extreme points of the Venetian quarter are named, respectively, the
Gate of the Drungarii and the Gate of the Perama.[770]

To this identification of the Porta Hebraica with the Gate of the Perama
it may be objected that on the map of Bondelmontius these names are
applied to different gates, and this, it may further be urged, accords
with the fact that after the Turkish Conquest, also, a distinction was
maintained between the Gate of the Perama and the gate styled Tchifout
Kapoussi, the Hebrew Gate. But in reply to this objection it must be
noted that the Tchifout Kapoussi of Turkish days was the gate now known
as Bagtchè Kapoussi,[771] beside the Stamboul Custom House, while the
“Porta Judece” on the map of Bondelmontius stands close to the Seraglio
Point. Nothing, however, is more certain than that the Venetian
quarter[772] did not extend so far east as Bagtchè Kapoussi, much less
so far in that direction as the neighbourhood of the head of the
promontory. Bagtchè Kapoussi corresponds to the Byzantine Porta Neoriou
(the Gate of the Dockyard), which had no connection whatever with the
quarter assigned to the Venetian merchants in the city, but was
separated from that quarter, on the west, by the quarters which the
traders from Amalfi and Pisa occupied, while to the east of the gate was
the settlement of the Genoese. Consequently, the fact that in the age of
Bondelmontius and after the Turkish Conquest the Porta Hebraica was a
different entrance from the Gate of the Perama affords no ground for
rejecting the evidence that in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the
two names designated the same gate. It only proves that the epithet
“Hebrew” had meantime been transferred from one gate to another.[773]

At the distance of seventy-seven feet to the east of the Porta Hebraica,
or Gate of the Perama, there stood, according to a Venetian document of
1229, an entrance known as the Gate of St. Mark (Porta San Marci).[774]
It probably obtained its name during the Latin occupation, after the
patron saint of Venice, but whether it was a gate then opened for the
first time, or an old gate under a new name, cannot be determined.

Yet further east, at a point 115 pikes before reaching Bagtchè Kapoussi,
stood an entrance styled the Gate of the Hicanatissa (Πόρτα τῆς
Ἱκανατίσσης).[775] The adjoining quarter went by the same name, and
there probably stood the “Residence of the Kanatissa” (τὸν οἶκον τῆς
Κανατίσης) mentioned by Codinus.[776] The designation is best explained
as derived from the body of palace troops known as the Hicanati.[777]

Between the Gate of the Perama and that of the Hicanatissa was situated
the quarter of the merchants from Amalfi; at the latter gate the quarter
of the Pisans commenced.[778]

The Gate of the Neorion (Πόρτα τοῦ Νεωρίου),[779] the Gate of the
Dockyard, stood, as its name implies, beside the Dockyard on the shore
of the bay at Bagtchè Kapoussi, close to the site now occupied by the
Stamboul Custom House. It is first mentioned in a chrysoboullon of Isaac
Angelus, confirming the right granted to the Pisan merchants by his
predecessors, Alexius Comnenus and Manuel Comnenus, to reside in the
neighbourhood of the gate.[780] While the western limit of the quarter
thus conceded to Pisans was marked, as already intimated, by the Gate
Hicanatissa,[781] the eastern limit of the settlement extended to a
short distance beyond the Gate of the Neorion.

The Neorion dated from the time of Byzantium, when it stood at the
western extremity of the Harbour Walls of the city.[782] It was,
therefore, distinguished from all other dockyards in Constantinople as
the Ancient Neorion (τὸ Παλαιὸν Νεώριον), or the Ancient Exartesis
(Ἐξάρτησις). Nicolo Barbaro calls it “l’arsenada de l’imperador.”

Here the Imperial fleet assembled to refit or to guard the entrance of
the harbour;[783] here, until the reign of Justin II., was the Marine
Exchange;[784] and here was a factory of oars (coparia),[785] in
addition to the one mentioned in the Justinian Code, which stood
elsewhere. As might be expected, several destructive fires originated in
the Neorion.[786]

According to Gyllius,[787] Gerlach,[788] and Leunclavius,[789] this
entrance was in their day named by the Turks, Tchifout Kapoussi, and was
regarded by the Greeks as the Πύλη Ὡραία (the Beautiful Gate), mentioned
by Phrantzes[790] and Ducas[791] in the history of the last siege. The
epithet Horaia is supposed to be a corruption of the original name for
the entrance (τοῦ Νεωρίου); the Turkish designation of the gate being
explained by the fact that a Jewish community was settled in the
neighbourhood of the gate.[792]

As to the transformation of Neorion into Horaia, it seems somewhat
far-fetched; still, Greeks think it conceivable.[793] If both names,
indeed, belonged to the gate, a simpler and more probable explanation of
the fact would be that the two names had no connection with each other,
and that the epithet “Beautiful” was bestowed upon the entrance, towards
the close of the Empire, in view of embellishments made in the course of
repairs.

The identification of the Gate of the Neorion with the Horaia Pylè
involves, however, a difficulty. It makes Ducas contradict other
historians, as regards the point to which the southern end of the chain
across the Golden Horn was attached during the siege of 1453.

According to Ducas,[794] that extremity of the chain was fastened to the
Beautiful Gate. Critobulus,[795] on the other hand, affirms that it was
attached to the Gate of Eugenius (Yali Kiosk Kapoussi), the gate nearest
the head of the promontory, and his statement is supported by
Phrantzes[796] and Chalcocondylas,[797] when they, respectively, say
that the chain was at the harbour’s mouth, and fixed to the wall of the
Acropolis. Now, the correctness of the position assigned to the chain by
the three latter historians cannot be called in question. It was the
position prescribed for the chain by all the rules of strategy. To have
placed the chain at the Gate of the Neorion would have left a large
portion of the northern side of the city exposed to the enemy, and
permitted the Turkish fleet to command the Neorion and the ships
stationed before it. Hence the accuracy of Ducas can be maintained only
by the identification of the Beautiful Gate with the Gate of Eugenius
instead of with the Gate of the Neorion.

We are, therefore, confronted with the question whether the historian is
mistaken as regards the gate to which the city end of the chain was
attached, or whether the view prevalent in Constantinople in the
sixteenth century respecting the position of the Horaia Pylè should be
rejected as unfounded.

In favour of the accuracy of Ducas, it must be admitted that his
statements concerning the Horaia Pylè, in other passages of his work,
convey the impression that under that name he refers to the entrance
nearest the head of the promontory, the Gate of Eugenius (Yali Kiosk
Kapoussi). Speaking of the arrangements made for the defence of the
sea-board of the city, he describes them as extending, in the first
place, from the Xylinè Porta, at the western extremity of the Harbour
Walls, to the Horaia Pylè; and then from the Horaia Pylè to the Golden
Gate, near the western extremity of the walls along the Sea of
Marmora.[798] Again, when he describes the blockade of the shore of the
city outside the chain by the Sultan’s fleet, he represents the blockade
as commencing at the Horaia Pylè and proceeding thence past the point of
the Acropolis, the Church of St. Demetrius, the Gate of the Hodegetria,
the Great Palace, and the harbour (Kontoscalion), as far as Vlanga.[799]

Now, the gate which would naturally form the pivot, so to speak, of
these operations was the Gate of Eugenius. There the two shores of the
city divide; and that was the farthest point to which the Turkish fleet
outside the chain could advance into the Golden Horn. It would be
strange if Ducas ascribed the strategical importance of the Gate of
Eugenius to another gate. And yet, it must be also admitted that Ducas
can be inaccurate. He is inaccurate, for example, in the matter of the
gate before which the Sultan’s tent was pitched during the siege,[800]
and at which the Emperor Constantine fell,[801] for he associates these
incidents with the Gate of Charisius, instead of with the Gate of St.
Romanus; he is inaccurate, as we have seen, in his account of the entry
of the Turks through the Kerko Porta;[802] and he is inaccurate, again,
in saying that the ships which the Sultan carried across the hills from
the Bosporus to the Golden Horn were launched into the harbour at a
point opposite the Cosmidion (Eyoub),[803] instead of at Cassim Pasha.
Under these circumstances it is impossible to maintain his accuracy as
to the connection of the chain with Horaia Pylè at all hazards, and in
the face of all difficulties. His credit will depend upon the value
attached to the evidence we have, that the Horaia Pylè was another name
for the Gate of the Neorion during the last days of Byzantine
Constantinople.

The application of both names to the same gate rests upon the authority
of tradition, upon the use and wont followed in the matter by the Greek
population of the city in the sixteenth century. If this is really the
case, no evidence can be more decisive on the question at issue. Use and
wont in respect to the name of a conspicuous public gate, in a
much-frequented part of the city, constitutes an irrefutable argument,
provided that use and wont goes far enough back in the history of the
entrance. In that case, Ducas would be convicted of having mistaken the
gate to which the chain was attached, and all the importance which he
ascribes to the Horaia Pylè, in his account of the actions of friends
and foes along the shores of the city, is only the consistent following
up of that error. For any gate to which the chain was supposed, however
erroneously, to have been affixed would be represented in the narrative
of subsequent events as the point about which the assault and the
defence of the sea-board turned, although the gate was not situated
where it could, naturally, have sustained that character.

Now, according to Gyllius,[804] the gate anciently styled the Gate of
the Neorion was called in his day Tchifout Kapoussi (“Hebrew Gate”) by
the Turks, and Horaia Pylè by the Greeks, as a matter of common
practice. The brief statement of Gerlach[805] that the second gate west
of the Seraglio Point was named at once the Beautiful Gate and the
Jewish Gate implies that these were the names of the gate in current
use. Leunclavius[806] puts the facts in a somewhat different light.
According to him, the common designation of the entrance was “Huræa”
(_Ebraia_, “Hebrew Gate”), and it was only when the Greeks of the city
wished to show themselves better acquainted with the truth on the
subject that they claimed for the gate the epithet “Horaia.”

This may, perhaps, excite the suspicion that the application of the
epithet “Horaia” to the Gate of the Neorion, in the sixteenth century,
was due to the fact that it was then known also as the Hebrew Gate
(Ebraia). But, on the whole, the more probable view is that the epithet
was correctly applied, and, consequently, that Ducas, who was not
present at the siege, is mistaken in associating the chain with the
Beautiful Gate.

In the charters defining the privileges granted to the Genoese colony in
Constantinople during the twelfth century, mention is made of a “Porta
Bonu” and a “Porta Veteris Rectoris.”[807] As both were associated with
the Scala, or Pier, at the service of that colony, they were doubtless
the same gate under different names; the former appellation designating
it by the proper name of the officer connected in some way with the
entrance, the latter by his official title. Nothing is known concerning
the Rector Bonus; the name and title are at once Byzantine and Italian.
Now, the Genoese quarter in the twelfth century lay to the east of the
Gate of the Neorion, and consequently the Porta Bonu, or Porta Veteris
Rectoris, must be sought in that direction. It stood, probably, where
Sirkedji Iskelessi is now situated.

Near this gate must have been the Scala Chalcedonensis and the Portus
Prosphorianus, which the _Notitia_ places in the Fifth Region.[808] The
former, as its name implies, was the pier frequented by boats plying
between the city and Chalcedon; it is mentioned twice, as the point at
which relics were landed in solemn state to be carried thence to St.
Sophia.[809]

The Portus Prosphorianus[810] was in the bay which once indented the
shore immediately to the east of the Gate of Bonus, where the line of
the city walls described a deep curve. The name is probably derived from
the word Πρόσφορον, and denoted that the harbour was the resort of the
craft which brought products from the country to the markets of the
city.[811] The harbour was also called the Phosphorion, as though
associated with the sudden illumination of the heavens which saved the
city from capture by Philip of Macedon. But its most common designation
was τὸ Βοσπόριον, ὁ Βοόσπορος, ὁ Βόσπορος, probably because the point to
which cattle were ferried across from Asia. The cattle-market was held
here until the reign of Constantine Copronymus, who transferred it to
the Forum of Taurus;[812] here also stood warehouses for the storage of
oil, and granaries, such as the Horrea Olearia, Horrea Troadensia,
Horrea Valentiaca and Horrea Constantiaca.[813] The granaries were
inspected annually by the emperor.[814] According to Demosthenes, the
three statues erected by Byzantium and Perinthus in honour of Athens for
the aid rendered against Philip of Macedon were set up at the
Bosporus.[815] But it is not certain whether the great orator used the
name in a general sense, or with special reference to this port. The
great fire in the fifth year of Leo I. started in the market near this
harbour, through the carelessness of a woman who left a lighted candle
on a stall at which she had bought some salt fish.[816]

We reach, next, the last gate in the line of the Harbour Walls, the Gate
of Eugenius (Πόρτα τοῦ Εὐγενίου), represented now by Yali Kiosk
Kapoussi. Its identity is established by the following indications. It
marked the eastern extremity of the fortifications along the Golden
Horn,[817] as the Xylo Porta marked their western terminus. Hence, the
ditch constructed by Cantacuzene in front of those fortifications is
described as extending from the Gate of Eugenius to the Gate
Xylinè.[818] In the next place, the gate was close to the head of the
promontory, or Acropolis, for ships outward bound rounded the promontory
soon after passing the gate, while incoming ships passed the gate soon
after rounding the promontory.[819] Again, the Church of St. Paul which
stood near the gate is described, as situated in the quarter of the
Acropolis, at the opening of the harbour.[820] This is consistent with
the fact that the gate was at a point from which St. Sophia could be
easily reached.[821]

Eugenius, after whom the gate, the adjacent tower, and the neighbouring
district were named,[822] was probably a distinguished proprietor in
this part of the city. The gate bore an inscription commemorating
repairs executed by a certain Julian;[823] possibly, Julian who was
Prefect of the City in the reign of Zeno, when Constantinople was shaken
by a severe earthquake.

There is reason to believe that besides its ordinary designation this
gate bore also, at one time, the name Marmora Porta; for certain
ecclesiastical documents of the year 1399 and the year 1441 speak of an
entrance in the quarter of Eugenius, under the name Marmora Porta,
Μαρμαροπόρτα ἐν τῇ ἐνορίᾳ τοῦ Εὐγενίου.[824]

The Scala Timasii, so named after Timasius, a celebrated general in the
reign of Arcadius, was in the Fourth Region,[825] and must therefore
have been a pier near the Gate of Eugenius.

At this entrance it was customary for the bride-elect of an emperor to
land, upon reaching the capital by sea; here she was received in state
by her future consort, and having been invested with the Imperial
buskins and other insignia of her rank, was conducted on horseback to
the palace.[826] But what lends most interest to the gate is the fact
that beside it rose the tower which held the southern end of the chain
drawn across the harbour in time of war.[827] Originally, the building,
styled Kentenarion (Κεντενάριον), was a stately structure, but after its
overthrow by an earthquake, Theophilus restored it as an ordinary
tower.[828] The chain was supported in the water by wooden floats,[829]
and its northern end was made fast to a tower in the fortifications of
Galata, known as the Tower of Galata, “Le Tour de Galatas.”[830]
According to Gyllius, the gate near that tower was called Porta
Catena,[831] but, unfortunately, he does not indicate its precise
position. From the nature of the case, however, it must have been near
Kiretch Kapoussi, directly opposite the Gate of Eugenius.[832]

[Illustration: Portion of the Chain Stretched Across the Entrance of the
Golden Horn in 1453.]

The employment of a chain to bar the entrance of the Golden Horn is
mentioned for the first time in the famous siege of the city by the
Saracens in 717-718, when the Emperor Leo lowered the chain with the
hope of tempting the enemy’s ships into the narrow waters of the
harbour.[833] It appears next in the reign of Michael II., who thereby
endeavoured, but in vain, to keep out the fleet with which his rival
Thomas attacked the city.[834] It was again employed by Nicephorus
Phocas, in expectation of a Russian descent into the Bosporus.[835] The
Venetians found it obstructing their path when they stood before
Constantinople in 1203, but removed it after capturing the Tower of
Galata, to which it was secured.[836] Finally, in 1453, it proved too
strong for Sultan Mehemet to force, and drove him to devise the
expedient of carrying his ships into the Golden Horn across the hills to
Cassim Pasha.[837] A portion of the chain used on the last occasion is
preserved in the Church of St. Irene, within the Seraglio grounds.

In the district of Eugenius were some of the most noted charitable
institutions of the city, among which the great Orphanage[838] and the
Hospitia,[839] built on the site of the old Stadium of Byzantium by
Justinian the Great and Theodora, for the free accommodation of poor
strangers, were conspicuous. There, also, stood the Church of St.
Michael and the Church of St. Paul.[840]


                           The Basilikè Pylè.


Before concluding the study of the Harbour Walls we must recur to the
question which presented itself at an earlier stage of our inquiries,
but was reserved for consideration at the close of this chapter, as more
favourable to an intelligent and thorough discussion of the subject.

Where was the Basilikè Pylè which Byzantine historians, after the
Restoration of the Empire, associate with this line of the city’s
bulwarks? Was it, as some authorities maintain, at Balat Kapoussi,[841]
or, as others hold, in the neighbourhood of the Seraglio Point?[842] Or
is it possible that a gate bearing that epithet was found at both
points?

In favour of the opinion that the Imperial Gate was near the Seraglio
Point there is, first, the statement of Phrantzes, already cited, to
that effect. “To Gabriel of Treviso,” says the historian,[843] “captain
of the Venetian triremes, with fifty men under him, was entrusted the
defence of the tower, in the middle of the current, guarding the
entrance of the harbour; and he was opposite the Imperial Gate.”

What Phrantzes means by the “entrance of the harbour” (τὴν εἴσοδον τοῦ
λιμένος) admits of no dispute, for the phrase has only one
signification. But, as though to render mistake impossible, he repeats
the expression, in that sense, several times. The Greek ships, which
were moored beside the chain across the mouth of the harbour, and which
the Sultan endeavoured to sink or drive away by the fire of a battery
planted on the hill of St. Theodore, to the north-east of Galata,
Phrantzes[844] observes, were stationed “at the entrance of the harbour”
(ἐν τῇ εἰσόδῳ τοῦ λιμένος). The object of this bombardment, adds the
historian[845] in the next sentence, was not simply to force “the
entrance to the harbour” (διὰ τὴν εἴσοδον τοῦ λιμένος), but also to
injure the Genoese shipping at that point, and thus show that the Sultan
dared to act in any way he pleased, even towards the Italians of Galata.
Again, Phrantzes[846] remarks that the ships moored along the chain at
the mouth of the harbour (ἐν τῶ στόματι τοῦ λιμένος) were placed here to
render entrance into the harbour more difficult to the enemy (ὅπως
ἰσχυροτέρως κωλύσωσι τὴν εἴσοδον).

Equally decisive is the indication given regarding the tower which stood
opposite the Imperial Gate. It was “in the middle of the current.” This
statement carries the mind, at first, to the tower which stood on the
rock off Scutari (Damalis, Arcla), where the lighthouse Kiz Kalehssi has
been erected. But the idea that Phrantzes had that tower in view cannot
be entertained for more than a moment; for to have stationed Gabriel
there, with the Turkish fleet in complete command of the Bosporus and
the Sea of Marmora, was not simply useless, but impossible. The current
intended can be none other than the strong current at the head of the
Seraglio Point, where it divides in two swift streams, which Nicephorus
Gregoras[847] compares to Scylla and Charybdis, one running up the
Golden Horn, the other out into the Sea of Marmora. A tower near a point
with rushing waters on either hand might aptly be described as “in the
middle of the current.”[848] Furthermore, Phrantzes[849] mentions the
tower referred to, in close connection with what stood, unquestionably,
near the head of the promontory. He speaks of it immediately after the
Horaia Pylè, and immediately before the ships which defended the chain
across the harbour’s mouth, as though in the same vicinity.

In the second place, the view that the Imperial Gate was near the
Seraglio Point is supported by the testimony of Leonard of Scio, when he
makes the statement that Gabriel of Treviso fought bravely, with his
men, on the portion of the walls extending from the Beacon-tower as far
as the Imperial Gate, at the entrance of the bay (of the Golden Horn):
“Gabriel Trevsianus cordatissime a Turri Phani usque ad Imperialem
Portam, ante sinum, decertabat.”[850] The archbishop’s phrase “ante
sinum” corresponds to Phrantzes’ ἐν τῇ εἰσόδῳ τοῦ λιμένος.

Thirdly, it remains to add, on this side of the question, that the order
in which Pusculus mentions the gates in the Harbour Walls favours the
view that the Basilikè Pylè was not at Balat Kapoussi. Proceeding from
west to cast in his account of the defence of the fortifications along
the Golden Horn, that author refers to seven gates in the following
order: Xylina, Cynegon, Phani, Theodosia, Puteæ, Platea, Basilea,[851]
thus putting the Imperial Gate somewhere to the east of Oun Kapan
Kapoussi. Had the Basilea stood at Balat Kapoussi it should have been
mentioned immediately after Cynegon.

This is the main evidence in support of the opinion that the Basilikè
Pylè was near the Seraglio Point, and it is difficult to conceive of
evidence more clear and conclusive.

The argument countenancing the view which identifies the Imperial Gate
with Balat Kapoussi may be stated, briefly, thus: In the first place,
when Leonard of Scio declares that Gabriel of Treviso defended the walls
“a Turri Phani ad Imperialem Portam” he associates the Imperial Gate
with the quarter of the Phanar. Again, when Ducas affirms that the
Venetians assisted the Greeks in the defence of the walls from the
Imperial Gate to the Kynegon,[852] that entrance is associated with the
district so named. The Imperial Gate, therefore, must have stood at a
point between the Phanar and the Kynegon. But that is exactly the
situation of Balat Kapoussi, with the quarter of the Phanar on its east,
and the Kynegon on its west; hence the two gates were one and the same.

In the next place, the epithet “Imperial” was eminently suitable for an
entrance which stood at the foot of a hill surmounted by the Palace of
the Porphyrogenitus, and from which the Palace of Blachernæ could be
readily reached. How appropriate the epithet was is proved by the actual
name of the gate, Balat Kapoussi (the Gate of the Palace), so similar in
meaning to Basilikè Pylè.

In the third place, on the shore outside the Basilikè Pylè stood a
Church of St. John the Baptist.[853] And in keeping with this fact,
there is a Church of St. John the Baptist (the metochion of the
Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai) outside Balat Kapoussi.

These arguments are, however, open to criticism. So far as the statement
of Leonard of Scio is concerned, it should be noted that he does not
speak of the Turris Phani absolutely. Had he done so, the presumption
would certainly be in favour of the view which understands him to refer
to the district of the Phanar, half-way up the Golden Horn.[854] But his
complete statement on the subject is that the Turris Phani of which he
was speaking stood, with the Imperial Gate beside it, “ante sinum,” at
the entrance of the bay of the Golden Horn, thus making it manifest that
he had in mind another beacon-tower than the one in the district
commonly known as the Phanar. That the shore of the Golden Horn was
lighted at more than one point during the night, and especially at the
entrance of the harbour, is only what might be expected. Nor is there in
the assertion of Ducas, that the Venetians and Greeks united their
forces to defend the fortifications from the Imperial Gate to the
Kynegon, anything to determine the distance between the two points. They
might be very near, or they might be as far apart as the extremities of
the Harbour Walls; for there is no reason to think that the Venetians
defended only the small portion of the walls between Balat Kapoussi and
the three archways to the west of that gate.

The remaining arguments under consideration have more force, but are by
no means decisive. The appropriateness of the epithet “Imperial” to an
entrance in the situation of Balat Kapoussi affords, certainly, a
presumption in favour of the view that the entrance was so named,
although it cannot, alone, prove that such was the fact. The name Balat
Kapoussi appears only after the Turkish Conquest, and may or may not be
borrowed from the Byzantine designation of the gate. The strongest
argument on this side of the question is, undoubtedly, that drawn from
the presence of the Church of St. John the Baptist on the shore to the
north-east of Balat Kapoussi,[855] the possible representative of the
ancient church of that dedication “on the shore outside the Basilikè
Pylè.”[856]

But, in any case, these arguments do not refute the proof adduced for
the existence of a Basilikè Pylè near the Seraglio Point. They leave
that fact undisturbed; and can only claim to give countenance to the
idea that another Basilikè Pylè stood at Balat Kapoussi.

Two questions, accordingly, are involved in the problem before us. Which
of the gates near the Seraglio Point was styled the Basilikè Pylè? Was
that gate the only Imperial Gate in the line of the Harbour Walls, or do
some statements of Byzantine historians on the subject imply the
existence of a second Basilikè Pylè?

In the opinion of Leunclavius, the Imperial Gate is to be identified
with the Horaia Pylè (the Gate of the Neorion) at Bagtchè Kapoussi.[857]
But if the Horaia Pylè was at Bagtchè Kapoussi, the Basilikè Pylè could
not be there also. The two entrances are unmistakably distinguished by
Phrantzes, who mentions both in the same connection, the one immediately
after the other, and states that, in the defence of the fortifications
along the harbour, the Beautiful Gate was in charge of the crew of a
vessel from Crete, while the Imperial Gate was under the care of Gabriel
of Treviso.

But this is an objection which has force only against those who adopt
the view that the Horaia Pylè stood at Bagtchè Kapoussi.

A more general objection to the view of Leunclavius is that Bagtchè
Kapoussi does not occupy the situation attributed to the Imperial Gate
by Phrantzes and Leonard of Scio. It is not opposite a tower guarding
the entrance of the harbour; it is too far up the Golden Horn to be
described as “ante sinum.”

This being so there are only two gates with one or other of which the
Imperial Gate can be identified, if the indications furnished on the
subject by Phrantzes and Leonard of Scio are strictly followed. It was
either the Gate of Eugenius (Yali Kiosk Kapoussi), as Gerlach
maintains,[858] or the Gate of St. Barbara (Top Kapoussi), which stands
immediately to the south of Seraglio Point, and was, therefore, so near
the Harbour Walls that it might be included in an account of their
defence.

The description of the Imperial Gate given by the historians above
mentioned, applies equally well to both these entrances. Both stand near
the mouth of the harbour, and opposite a tower “in the middle of the
current;” both occupy a point of great strategical importance, such as
the Basilikè Pylè must have occupied, if we may judge from the fact that
it was entrusted to commanders like Gabriel of Treviso and the Duke
Notaras; both entrances were, in the course of history, associated with
the Court[859] in a way which might have earned for them the distinction
of the epithet, “Imperial.”

It is not easy to decide, directly, between conflicting claims so nicely
balanced. Judgment on the point at issue will doubtless be determined,
largely, by the views adopted on questions indirectly connected with the
matter in dispute, especially by what view is taken as regards the
situation of the Horaia Pylè. Any one who upholds the accuracy of Ducas
regarding the point to which the southern end of the chain was attached,
and identifies the Beautiful Gate with Yali Kiosk Kapoussi (the Gate of
Eugenius) will, necessarily, identify the Imperial Gate with Top
Kapoussi. On the other hand, those who accept the opinion that the
Beautiful Gate stood, as the Greeks in the sixteenth century maintained,
at Bagtchè Kapoussi, may, though still free to place the Imperial Gate
at Top Kapoussi, nevertheless prefer to place it at Yali Kiosk Kapoussi,
as, on the whole, more in accordance with the indications of its
position. If at the latter point, one can understand more readily why
the Imperial Gate should have been associated with the Harbour Walls,
and why Phrantzes mentions it immediately after the Horaia Pylè, and
before the chain and the ships at the harbour’s mouth.

Having thus indicated which of the gates near the Seraglio Point have
the strongest claim to be regarded as the Basilikè Pylè, it remains to
consider the question whether either of those gates was the only
entrance bearing that epithet, in the Harbour Walls.

Are there, in other words, any statements made by Byzantine writers in
reference to the Basilikè Pylè which cannot be applied to the Gate of
Eugenius or to the Gate of St. Barbara, and which, therefore, imply the
existence of another gate of that name? So far as the Gate of St.
Barbara is concerned, there are several such statements. The narrow quay
outside Top Kapoussi could not afford room for the Church of St. John,
the hospitium, and the other buildings, which are described as situated
on the shore outside the Basilikè Pylè.[860] Nor could a ship be moored
in front of that gate, as the ship of the Catalan chief Berenger was
moored in front of the Imperial Gate.[861] Nor was it necessary, before
that gate could be attacked by the Turkish fleet, that the chain across
the entrance of the Golden Horn should be forced, as we are told was
necessary in the case of the Basilikè Pylè to which Critobulus
alludes.[862] Hence the opinion that the Basilikè Pylè was another name
for the Gate of St. Barbara involves the view that there were two
Imperial Gates.

The claim of the Gate of Eugenius to be the sole Basilikè Pylè
encounters but one serious objection. Critobulus, it would appear,
distinguishes the two entrances. He refers to the former to indicate
where the southern end of the chain across the harbour was
attached;[863] he speaks of the latter to mark the point which the
Turkish fleet attacked on the last day of the siege, after breaking the
chain, and becoming master of the Golden Horn.[864] For as soon as the
Turkish admiral perceived that the Sultan’s troops had entered the city,
and were busily engaged in the work of plunder, he made a desperate
attempt upon the chain, cut it asunder, and forced his way into the
harbour. Then, having captured or sunk the Greek galleys found in the
port, he led his ships to the Imperial Gate (ταῖς βασιλικαῖς πόλαις) and
landed his sailors in quest of booty. The gate was, however, still held
by the Greeks, as the Turkish troops had not yet reached it from within
the city. A fierce struggle therefore ensued. But at last the gate was
burst open, its brave defenders were slain to a man, their blood pouring
through it like a stream, and the assailants rushed in to share the
spoils of victory.

What is here related might hold true of the Gate of Eugenius. Such facts
as that the Imperial Gate stood within the chain, that before attacking
it the Greek vessels in the harbour had to be disposed of, that it was
held for a considerable time after the Turkish army had entered the
city, are all consistent with the idea that the Basilikè Pylè, to which
Critobulus refers, was the Gate of Eugenius. But, on the other hand, if
the Gate of Eugenius was both the entrance to which the chain was
attached and the entrance captured by the Turkish admiral after the
chain had been broken, it comes very near defying all the laws of the
association of ideas for the historian to speak of the entrance by
different names, when the matters he records were so closely connected.
This is a very serious objection to the identification of the Imperial
Gate which Critobulus had in mind with the Gate of Eugenius. Hence, if
this objection cannot be removed by saying that he could speak of the
same gate by different names in different passages of his work, it
follows that the epithet “Basilikè” did not belong exclusively to the
Gate of Eugenius (any more than to the Gate of St. Barbara), but was
bestowed also upon a gate higher up the Golden Horn.

This being the case, there can be no hesitation where the latter was
situated. Balat Kapoussi, by the significance of its name, by its
proximity to Imperial palaces, and by the presence of a Church of St.
John, with room for other buildings, on the territory outside the gate,
establishes the best claim to be considered the second Basilikè Pylè in
the line of the harbour fortifications.[865]

Why the Turkish admiral selected it as the point at which to land his
sailors is explained by the wealthy character of the adjoining quarter
of the city.[866]


The Route taken in carrying the Turkish Ships across the Hills from the
                      Bosporus to the Golden Horn.


Owing to the conflicting statements of contemporary historians on the
subject, the precise route followed in carrying the Sultan’s ships,
across the hills, from the Bosporus to the Golden Horn, is not fully
settled. So far, indeed, as the point at which the ships reached the
Golden Horn is concerned, there can be little, if any, room for doubt,
though the historians differ even on that matter. The most reliable
testimony, however, and the configuration of the territory on the
northern side of the harbour, are in favour of the view that the Bay of
Cassim Pasha was the point in question. Critobulus[867] names the point
the Cold Waters,[868] and describes it as situated at a short distance
from Galata (Ψυχρὰ Ὕδατα, μικρὸν ἀπωτέρω τοῦ Γαλατᾶ). Nicolò
Barbaro[869] designates it as the Harbour of Pera, or Galata—“Abiando
tragetà dentro dal porto de Constantinopoli ben fuste setantado, e
redusele in porto dentro del navarchio de Pera”—and explains the
possibility of the occupation of a point so near Galata by the excellent
relations existing between the Turks and the Genoese: “E questo perchè
lor Turchi avea bona paxe con Zenovexi.” At variance with these
statements, Ducas[870] says the ships were launched into the harbour
opposite Eyoub (Cosmidion), but that is contrary to all the
probabilities of the case. Phrantzes[871] sheds no light upon the
question.

In regard to the starting-point from the Bosporus, there is general
agreement that it was somewhere on the shore between Beshiktash and Top
Haneh; Andreossy[872] being singular in supposing that the vessels left
the Bosporus at Balta Liman. Now, there are four ravines or valleys that
run inland from the shore between Beshiktash and Top Haneh towards the
ridge dividing the Bosporus and the Golden Horn: the valleys of
Beshiktash, Dolma Bagtchè, Sali Bazaar, and Top Haneh, which reach the
top of the ridge, respectively at Ferikeui, the Municipal Gardens,
Taxim, and Asmali-Medjid Sokaki. And the decision of the question which
of these valleys was the one actually selected by the Sultan will depend
partly upon our estimate of the respective merits of the historians
whose testimony has to be considered, and partly upon the comparative
suitableness of the various routes to serve the object in view.

Of the four routes indicated above, the two which proceed, respectively,
by the valley of Top Haneh and the valley of Dolma Bagtchè present, both
on the ground of history and natural fitness, the strongest claims for
consideration.

In favour of the Top Haneh route, there is, first, the fact that it was
the shortest route; and secondly, that its length corresponds to that
which Critobulus[873] assigns to the road taken by the ships across the
hills, viz. eight stadia, or one mile. Accordingly, Dr. Dethier[874] and
Dr. Paspates[875] maintain that the Sultan’s ships were transported from
the Bosporus to the Golden Horn by way of Top Haneh, Koumbaradji Sokaki,
Asmali-Medjid Sokaki, and the Petits Champs.

On the other hand, the Dolma Bagtchè route has in its favour, first, the
statement made by several historians, including Critobulus himself, that
the point on the Bosporus from which the ships started to cross the
hills was near the Diplokionion, the name for Beshiktash in Byzantine
times. Ducas[876] describes that point as situated to the east of
Galata, below the Diplokionion. Pusculus[877] speaks of it as not far
from the twin columns: “Columnis haud longè a geminis, surgunt quæ ad
sidera rectæ.” Nicolò Barbaro[878] is, if possible, even more explicit.
According to him, the levelling of the road across the hill above Pera
commenced from the shore where the columns, and the station of the
Turkish fleet, were found: “_Siando tuta la sua armada sorta a le
colone_, che sun mia de luntan de la tera, fexe che tute le zurme
muntasse in tera, e fexe spianar tuto el monte che son de sopra a zitade
de Pera, _comenzando da la marina, zae da li da le colone dove che era
armada_.” Critobulus,[879] as already intimated, styles the
starting-point of the expedition the Diplokionion. Now, the Diplokionion
was not at Top Haneh, but at Beshiktash, and the harbour of the
Diplokionion must have been the bay which formerly occupied the site of
Dolma Bagtchè.[880]

In the second place, in the Dolma Bagtchè route we have the distance
which Nicolò Barbaro[881] declares was traversed by the Turkish ships in
their overland passage, _i.e._ three miles: “Comenzando de la marina,
zae da li da le colone dove che era armada, per infino dentro dal porte
de Constantinopoli, _che son mia tre_.”

Great weight attaches to the testimony of Barbaro upon this point; for
Critobulus was not present at the siege, while Nicolò Barbaro was
surgeon of one of the Venetian galleys which took part in the defence of
the chain across the entrance to the Golden Horn, kept a diary of the
incidents of the siege, must have taken particular interest in the
movements of the Turkish fleet, and was in the way of obtaining the best
available information on the subject. Certainly, if the transport of the
Turkish ships started from a point so near the chain and the Greek and
foreign ships guarding it as the site of Top Haneh, Barbaro had every
opportunity to know the fact, and it is inexplicable how he could have
made the mistake of representing another locality as the scene of the
achievement.

With Barbaro agrees another competent witness, Jacques Tedaldi, a
Florentine merchant, who took part in the defence of the city, and who
gives the distance over which the ships were carried as from two to
three miles: “Fit porter de la mer par terre deux ou trois milles, de
soixant dix a quatre-vingts gallées que aultres fustes armées, dedans le
gouffle de Mandraquins qui est entre les deux citez, auxquieuls est le
port de Constantinople.”[882]

If, in the next place, we judge between the two routes by their
comparative fitness to facilitate the accomplishment of the Sultan’s
design, the Dolma Bagtchè route can claim the superiority in that
respect. Had the matter of distance been all the Sultan required to
consider in choosing the road for his ships, the decision would
necessarily have been in favour of the Top Haneh route. But, surely,
other matters also had to be taken into account. It was desirable, for
example, that the route should be situated where all the preparations
necessary to effect the passage could be readily made, where they would
be beyond the reach of interference on the part of the Greeks, where
they would, as the conveyance of the ships by night proves was the
Sultan’s wish, be screened from hostile observation, and result in
taking the enemy by surprise. All this was impossible at the site now
occupied by Top Haneh, which stood but a short distance outside the
chain and its guard-ships. There the Sultan’s preparations—the levelling
of the ground, the laying down of sleepers and planks along which the
cradles carrying the ships were to be drawn, the gathering of seventy to
eighty vessels, the army of men collected to draw the ships out of the
water and overland,—would be too much in the public eye to satisfy the
requirements of the case.

On the other hand, although the Dolma Bagtchè route laboured under the
disadvantage of being longer than the road from Top Haneh, the distance
it presented was not excessive, while it offered ample compensation for
the additional efforts which its greater length occasioned. It started
from the usual station of the Turkish fleet in the Bosporus, where all
requisite means for executing the Sultan’s purpose could be obtained
with the least difficulty, where no attack was to be apprehended, where
the presence of a large number of ships would excite no suspicions, and
where, it was reasonable to expect, the great secret could be kept as
long as necessary. From the point of fitness to serve the scheme
contemplated, the route from Dolma Bagtchè had most to recommend it,
taking all things into consideration.

Turkish historians do not afford any assistance to solve the problem
under discussion. Evlia Tchelebi pretends that the ships were not
brought from the Bosporus, but that some of them were constructed at
Kiathaneh, the Sweet Waters, at the head of the harbour, and others at
Levend Tchiflik (probably the Kutchuk Levend Tchiflik situated, in old
Turkish times, high up the longer arm of the Dolma Bagtchè valley, not
the Levend Tchiflik above the head of the valley of Balta Liman); and
that the latter portion of the flotilla was carried to the Golden Horn
by way of the Ok Meidan behind Haskeui, and the gardens of the Arsenal
(Tersaneh Bagtchessi). Another Turkish authority says the ships were
transported from Dolma Bagtchè to Cassim Pasha.


                                 NOTE.


    According to Leonard of Scio (p. 920), the distance over which the
    Turkish ships were conveyed was seventy stadia, “ad stadia
    septuaginta trahi biremes.” This statement involves so many
    questions which are difficult, if not impossible, to decide, that it
    affords no assistance in determining where the ships crossed the
    hills. The archbishop’s account of the Sultan’s action is given in
    the following words: “Quare ut coangustaret circumvalleratque magis
    urbem, jussit invia æquare; exque colle, suppositis lenitis vasis
    lacertorum sex, ad stadia septuaginta trahi biremes, quæ ascensu
    gravius sublatæ, posthac ex apice in declivum, in ripam sinus
    levissime introrsum vehebantur.”

    Now, if the “seventy stadia” in this passage are to be understood in
    the ordinary sense of the words, the route taken by the ships was
    over eight English miles in length. But from no point between Top
    Haneh and Beshiktash is the distance to the Golden Horn, across the
    hills, so great. Hence the language of Leonard has been variously
    interpreted, in the hope of bringing it into accord with what his
    commentators deemed the real facts in the case. Dethier, in his
    annotations to Zorzo Dolfin (_Siège de Constantinople_, No. xxii. p.
    998), maintains that the numeral seventy gives the number of the
    ships transported over the hills, and not the length of the road
    tranversed: “Non sono 70 stadia, ma 70 galere o fuste.” Charles
    Müller, the editor of Critobulus, referring to the statement of
    Leonard, expresses the same opinion as Dethier, and thinks that the
    number for the stadia has dropped out of the text of Leonard:
    “Stadiorum numerus excedisse videtur, nam septuaginta vox ad navium
    numerum, quem eundem etiam Chalcocondylas, p. 387, 8 præbet,
    referenda est” (_Fragm. Hist. Græc._ p. 87). Another possible view
    is that the number seventy is due to an error in the text. Or,
    finally, it may be supposed that Leonard employed the term “stadium”
    in a peculiar sense. One presumption in favour of this supposition
    is the fact that elsewhere in his epistle, the measurements of
    Leonard by stadia seem too gross mistakes to be made by such a man
    as the archbishop, with the ordinary idea of a stadium in his mind.
    The bridge, for example, which the Sultan built at Haskeui, to bring
    his cannon closer to the Harbour Walls, and which Phrantzes (p. 252)
    says was one hundred ortygia long, or one stadium, Leonard (p. 931)
    represents as about thirty stadia in length, _i.e._, according to
    the ordinary computation, between three and four miles in length,
    where the harbour is not half a mile wide. Again, Leonard (p. 970)
    speaks of the Turkish fleet as anchoring at a point less than one
    hundred stadia from the shore of the Propontis: “Minus ad stadia
    centum Propontidis ripa anchoras figunt”—a statement which, if it
    refers to the distance of Beshiktash from the Seraglio Point, would
    make that part of the Bosporus about ten miles broad! It should also
    be added that Charles Müller thinks that the stadium of the later
    Byzantine writers was one-third less than the Olympic stadium: “Adeo
    ut stadium tertia parte minus quam vetus stadium Olympicum subesse
    videri possit” (_Fragm. Hist. Græc._, v. p. 76). Du Cange
    (_Glossarium Med. et Infim. Latinitatis_) says, respecting the use
    of the term “stadium” by mediæval writers, “Mensuræ species, sed
    ignota prorsus.”

    Zorzo Dolfin translates the account which Leonard gives of the
    ships’ passage across the hills, as follows: “Et per coangustar, et
    circumuallar piu la terra, commando, fusse spianato le uie, et sopra
    i colli messi in terra i uasi a forza de brazze ... per 70 stadia
    che sono circa miglia ... introdusse le fuste nel mandrachio, le
    qual per ... miglia con fatica se tiranno in suxo” (Dethier, _Siège
    de Constantinople_, No. xxii. p. 997). If the number of miles had
    been given, or had not disappeared, how much discussion would have
    been spared!

Footnote 739:

  Pusculus, iv. 192; Dolfin, s. 55.

Footnote 740:

  Ducas, p. 282.

Footnote 741:

  Anonymus, ii. p. 39; _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, ii. p. 461;
  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, pp. 104, 105.

Footnote 742:

  According to Dr. Paspates (pp. 381-383), respectively, Pour Kouyou
  Mesdjidi, and Sheik Mourad Mesdjidi.

Footnote 743:

  Ducas, _ut supra_.

Footnote 744:

  Mordtmann, pp. 7, 8, 45; Du Cange, iv. ad St. Acacium. See above, p.
  32.

Footnote 745:

  _Notitia, ad Reg. X._

Footnote 746:

  Socrates, ii. c. xx.; Theophanes, p. 70.

Footnote 747:

  Du Cange, _ut supra_.

Footnote 748:

  _Ibid._, vi. c. xxi.

Footnote 749:

  _Miklosich et Muller_, iii. p. 88.

Footnote 750:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra_.

Footnote 751:

  According to Du Cange, Glossarium Mediæ et Infimæ Latinitatis, _ad
  vocem_, from Drungus, “company of soldiers.” The word is connected
  with the German “Gedrung” and the English “throng.”

Footnote 752:

  Anna Comn., vi. p. 286; cf. Luitprandus, as quoted by Du Cange, in
  _Anna Comn._, vol. ii. p. 544.

Footnote 753:

  _Tafel und Thomas_, ii. pp. 27, 28: “Via quæ dicitur De Longaria,
  extra murum civitatis CP.”

Footnote 754:

  _Ibid._, pp. 11, 60: “Scala de Drongario.”

Footnote 755:

  Theophanes, p. 281.

Footnote 756:

  Gerlach, p. 454; Smith, _Epistolæ Quatuor_, p. 88.

Footnote 757:

  Mordtmann, p. 46.

Footnote 758:

  _Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200.

Footnote 759:

  Paspates, p. 166.

Footnote 760:

  Heyd, _Histoire du Commerce du Levant_, vol. i. p. 251.

Footnote 761:

  _Ibid._, p. 251.

Footnote 762:

  Theophanes, p. 353; cf. Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. vii.

Footnote 763:

  _Notitia, ad Reg. VI._

Footnote 764:

  _Novella LIX._, c. v.

Footnote 765:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 618.

Footnote 766:

  _Notitia_, _ut supra_.

Footnote 767:

  _Ptochoprodromus_, line 113; cf. Paspates, pp. 164, 165.

Footnote 768:

  VII. p. 286.

Footnote 769:

  _Tafel und Thomas_, i. p. 50.

Footnote 770:

  _Tafel und Thomas_, i. pp. 55-63.

Footnote 771:

  _Ibid._, ii. p. 4; iii. pp. 133-149.

Footnote 772:

  Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iii. c. i.; Leunclavius, _Pand. Hist. Turc._,
  s. 200.

Footnote 773:

  On the subject of the Italian and other foreign colonies settled in
  Byzantine Constantinople, the reader may consult Paspates, pp.
  127-276; Mordtmann, pp. 46-50; Desmoni, _Giornale Ligustico_, vol. i.;
  _Sui Quartieri dei Genovesi a Constantinopoli nel Secolo XII._; Heyd,
  _Histoire du Commerce du Levant_; Sauli, _Della Colonia del Genovesi
  in Galata_; Pears, _Fall of Constantinople_, c. 6; Miklosich et
  Müller, _Acta et Diplomata Græca_; Tafel und Thomas, _Urkunden zur
  Älteren Handels und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig_.

Footnote 774:

  The Russian pilgrim, Stephen of Novgorod (_Itinéraires Russes en
  Orient_, p. 121), who visited Constantinople about 1350, found a gate
  near the sea, and beside a Church of St. Demetrius, named “Portes
  Juives,” on account of the many Jews settled in the vicinity. From the
  connection in which the fact is mentioned, it appears that the gate
  stood on the Marmora side of the city, somewhere in the neighbourhood
  of Vlanga; thus showing how the same name might belong to different
  gates at different periods in the history of the city. Nicolo Barbaro
  (p. 817) confirms the existence of a Jewish quarter on the Marmora
  shore of the city, when he says that the Turkish fleet, finding itself
  unable to force the chain across the harbour, abandoned the attempt,
  and proceeded to the side towards the Dardanelles (“de la band del
  Dardanelo”), and there landed to plunder the Jewish quarter (“muntò in
  tera de la banda de la Zudeca”). It is possible, indeed, to contend
  that the Russian pilgrim referred to a gate near the Church of St.
  Demetrius beside the Seraglio Point. This view does not affect the
  argument presented in the text.

Footnote 775:

  _Tafel und Thomas_, ii. pp. 270-272; cf. _Ibid._, pp. 4-11.

Footnote 776:

  _Miklosich et Müller_, iii. pp. 12, 16, 19; cf. _Ibid._, p. 6.

Footnote 777:

  Codinus, p. 22; cf. Paspates, p. 158.

Footnote 778:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 737.

Footnote 779:

  _Miklosich et Müller_, iii. pp. 19-21.

Footnote 780:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365; Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iii. c. i.

Footnote 781:

  _Miklosich et Müller_, iii. pp. 19, 21.

Footnote 782:

  _Ibid._, p. 19.

Footnote 783:

  See above, p. 10.

Footnote 784:

  Nicephorus Patriarcha, _CP._, p. 57; Theophanes, p. 591; Theophanes
  Cont., p. 391.

Footnote 785:

  Anonymus, ii. p. 30; Codinus, p. 52.

Footnote 786:

  _Miklosich et Müller_, iii. p. 6. Such a factory can be seen to-day at
  Keurekdjilar, in Galata.

Footnote 787:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 582; Cedrenus, vol. i. pp. 609, 610; ii. p. 529.

Footnote 788:

  _De Top. CP._, iii. c. i.; _De Bosporo Thracio_, ii. c. ii.

Footnote 789:

  Page 454.

Footnote 790:

  _Pand. Hist Turc._, s. 200.

Footnote 791:

  Phrantzes, p. 254.

Footnote 792:

  Ducas, p. 282. Phrantzes and Ducas are the only Byzantine writers who
  mention the Beautiful Gate.

Footnote 793:

  Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iii. c. i.; cf. Paspates, pp. 166, 167. The
  ground on which Yeni Validè Djamissi stands, near the Stamboul end of
  the Outer Bridge, belonged, as late as the seventeenth century, to
  Karaïte Jews, who claimed that the territory had been granted to their
  ancestors under the Byzantine Empire. In return for the seizure of the
  ground to build the mosque (1615-1655), the community received houses
  at Haskeui, and forty members of the community were exempted from
  taxation for life. As the site of the synagogue could not be sold, the
  mosque has had to pay the community an annual rent of thirty-two
  piastres.

Footnote 794:

  Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p. 12.

Footnote 795:

  Page 268.

Footnote 796:

  I. c. 18.

Footnote 797:

  Page 238.

Footnote 798:

  Page 384.

Footnote 799:

  Pages 283, 284.

Footnote 800:

  Pages 282, 283.

Footnote 801:

  Page 263.

Footnote 802:

  Page 300.

Footnote 803:

  See above, p. 93.

Footnote 804:

  Pages 270, 271.

Footnote 805:

  Gyllius’ statement (_De Top. CP._, III. c. i.) on the subject is:
  “Portum, quem vocunt Neorion, quod prope portam, quam Græci appellant
  Oraiam, corruptè quasi Neorii portam, aut non longe ab ea, fuisse
  existimo. Hodie inter mare et Portam Oraiam, quam Turci appellant
  Siphont (Tsifout), id est, Judæorum eam accolentium, spatium latum ...
  videre licet.” Cf. _De Bosporo Thracio_, II. c. i. “Pro porta quam
  vulgo vocant Oriam corruptè, quasi olim Neorii portam.”

Footnote 806:

  Page 454: “Die Prächtige, itzund die Juden-Pfort.”

Footnote 807:

  _Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200. “Porta quæ Græci quotquot vederi
  peritores volunt Porta Horæa (Ὡραία), vulgo Huræa (Ebraia) dicitur.”

Footnote 808:

  _Miklosich et Müller_, iii. pp. ix., 53; Desimoni, _Giornale
  Ligustico_, vol. i. p. 37: _Sui Quartieri dei Genovesi a
  Constantinopoli, nel secolo XII._, p. 46.

Footnote 809:

  _Notitia, ad Reg. V._

Footnote 810:

  _Paschal Chron._, ad ann. 406, 415.

Footnote 811:

  _Cod. Theod. De Calcis Coctor._, Lex V.; Stephanus Byzantius, _De
  Urbibus et Populis_, ad vocem; Evagrius, ii. c. xiii.

Footnote 812:

  Mordtmann, p. 49.

Footnote 813:

  Anonymus, ii. p. 29. The point at Scutari where cattle are embarked to
  be ferried to the city is called by the Turks “Ukooz-Limani,” the
  Ox-Port.

Footnote 814:

  _Notitia, ad Reg. V._

Footnote 815:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 699.

Footnote 816:

  _De Corona_, p. 134, Edition Didot.

Footnote 817:

  Evagrius, ii. c. xiii.

Footnote 818:

  Anonymus, i. p. 2.

Footnote 819:

  Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 213, 214.

Footnote 820:

  _Ibid._, iv. pp. 76, 232.

Footnote 821:

  Anna Comn., xv. p. 345.

Footnote 822:

  Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 175; Nicephorus Greg., vi. p. 167.

Footnote 823:

  Anonymus, i. p. 2; _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, p. 563.

Footnote 824:

  Banduri, _Imp. Orient._, vii. p. 149.

Footnote 825:

  _Miklosich et Müller_, ii. pp. 467, 564.

Footnote 826:

  _Notitia, ad Reg. IV._

Footnote 827:

  Codinus, _De Officiis_, pp. 107, 108; cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. 11.

Footnote 828:

  Critobulus, i. c. 18.

Footnote 829:

  Leo Diaconus, pp. 78, 79; Anonymus, iii. p. 56. This was probably the
  tower to which N. Barbaro (p. 733) refers when, speaking of the two
  towers, on the opposite sides of the entrance to the Golden Horn,
  which supported the chain, he says, “Etiam una tore per ladi de la
  zilade, zoè una de la banda de Constantinopoli, l’altra de la banda de
  Pera, le qual tore vignia a far defexa assai.”

Footnote 830:

  N. Barbara, pp. 722, 723.

Footnote 831:

  Ville-Hardouin, c. 32.

Footnote 832:

  Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iv. c. x. “Adhuc Galatæ porta est, quæ
  appellatur Catena, ex eo, quod ab Acropoli usque ad eam portam catena
  extenderetur.” Cf. Theophanes, p. 609.

Footnote 833:

  Dr. Paspates (Πολιορκία καὶ Ἄλωσις τῆς ΚΠ., p. 63) thinks the tower
  stood beside the Offices of the Board of Health, between the Galata
  Bridge and the Galata Custom House. He grounds this opinion on the
  existence of old ruins at that point. But the chain would never be
  placed aslant the harbour, as this view implies.

Footnote 834:

  Theophanes, p. 609.

Footnote 835:

  Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 80.

Footnote 836:

  Leo Diaconus, p. 79.

Footnote 837:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 718; cf. Ville-Hardouin, c. xxxii.

Footnote 838:

  Phrantzes, p. 251. See below, pp. 241-247, for the discussion
  regarding the precise route taken by the ships.

Footnote 839:

  _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, ii. p. 467; Anna Comn., xv. p. 345.

Footnote 840:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. xi. R.

Footnote 841:

  Nicephorus Greg., vii. p. 275.

Footnote 842:

  Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p. 15. With him
  agree Von Hammer, Paspates, Mordtmann, etc.

Footnote 843:

  Gerlach, p. 454; Leunclavius, Pand. Hist. Turc. s. 200.

Footnote 844:

  Pages 254, 255, Ἐδόθη φυλάττειν τὸν πύργον τὸν ἐν μέσω τοῦ ῥεύματος,
  τὸν φυλάσσοντα τὴν εἴσοδον τοῦ λιμένος, καὶ ἦν ἀντικρὺς τῆς πύλης τῆς
  βασιλικῆς.

Footnote 845:

  Page 259. Dr. Paspates, in his work on the siege of the city
  (Πολιορκία καὶ Ἂλωσις τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, p. 141), represents the
  Hill of St. Theodore and the battery upon it as commanding the Bay of
  Cassim Pasha. This, however, is in harmony neither with the statements
  of Phrantzes, nor with local configuration. The requirements of the
  case are met by the supposition that the Hill of St. Theodore was the
  ridge to the north-east of Top Haneh, and that the Sultan’s battery
  stood nearer the Bosporus than the present Italian Hospital. Cf. Zorzo
  Dolfin, s. 44: “Acceso el Turcho da disdegno, da i montè orientali de
  Pera penso a profondar con machine e morteri, o trar quelle de la
  cathena. Mezzo adonque le bombarde a segno dal occidente” (_i.e._
  aiming towards west), “se sforza con bombardieri profundar le naue.”

Footnote 846:

  Page 259.

Footnote 847:

  Page 238.

Footnote 848:

  XVII., p. 860; cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. 232.

Footnote 849:

  Dr. Paspates (see p. 111 of his work on the siege of the city, cited
  above) understands Phrantzes in the same way. He identifies the tower
  with one which stood, until 1817, between the Gate of St. Barbara (Top
  Kapoussi) and the Gate of Eugenius (Yali Kiosk Kapoussi). It was
  probably the tower to which Nicolo Barbaro refers (see above, p. 228).

Footnote 850:

  Pages 254, 255.

Footnote 851:

  See his Epistle to the Pope on the Capture of Constantinople.

Footnote 852:

  Pusculus, iv. pp. 179-221.

Footnote 853:

  Ducas, p. 275.

Footnote 854:

  _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, vol. ii. p. 391, year 1400; cf. pp. 297,
  487.

Footnote 855:

  Speaking of the bridge which the Sultan built out into the Golden
  Horn, and on which he placed cannon to batter the walls in the
  Kynegon, Leonard of Scio (p. 931) says the bridge was built that the
  army might advance near the wall, beside the “fanum” of the city:
  “Decurreret ad murum prope, juxta fanum urbis.” The term is ambiguous.
  Zorzo Dolfin translates it, “Appresso la giesia” (the church). But
  more probably the reference is to the Phanar quarter, although the
  bridge was not exactly opposite to it.

Footnote 856:

  How old this church is cannot be precisely determined. It is known to
  have been in existence, as a small chapel, before 1640, when it was
  burned down. It was then reconstructed, but was again destroyed by
  fire, after which it was rebuilt at the expense of the monastery on
  Mount Sinai. For some time it was the fashionable church of the
  Phanariotes. See Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._,
  pp. 104, 105. Mr. Gedeon ascribes it to the 14th century (_Proceedings
  of the Greek Syllogos of Consple._, vol. xxvi. p. 148. 1896).

Footnote 857:

  _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, ii. p. 391.

Footnote 858:

  _Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200.

Footnote 859:

  Page 454, where he styles the first gate west of the Seraglio Point
  “Die Königliche Pforte.”

Footnote 860:

  See above, p. 228; see below, p. 250.

Footnote 861:

  _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, ii. pp. 297, 391, 487.

Footnote 862:

  Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 503.

Footnote 863:

  Lib. i. c. 65.

Footnote 864:

  Lib. i. c. 18.

Footnote 865:

  Lib. i. c. 65.

Footnote 866:

  If the Basilikè Pylè could be identified with the gate which went by
  the names Porta Boni, Porta Veteris Rectoris, at Sirkedji Iskelessi,
  all statements concerning the Imperial Gate might be applied to that
  single entrance. But this would be to interpret the language of
  Phrantzes and Leonard of Scio on the subject too loosely. Nor is there
  any reason apparent for bestowing such an epithet upon that gate, or
  for regarding that gate important during the last siege.

Footnote 867:

  The Basilikè Pylè is mentioned in Byzantine history by the following
  writers:—

  Pachymeres, vol. ii. pp. 178-180.—As the starting-point of a great
  conflagration, in 1291, which extended far into the interior of the
  city, and caused immense loss of houses and merchandise.

  _Ibid._, p. 503.—As the gate to which Berenger, in 1306, took his ship
  from the harbour at Blachernæ, in order to leave Constantinople more
  readily, as soon as a favourable wind sprang up.

  _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, vol. ii. p. 297. Year 1399.—As the gate
  beside the shore on which a certain priest had his residence.

  _Ibid._, p. 391. Year 1400.—As the gate before which a Church of St.
  John the Baptist stood upon the seashore.

  _Ibid._, p. 487. Year uncertain.—As the gate before which there was a
  hospitium on the sea-shore, near the Church of St. John the Baptist.

  Ducas, pp. 184-186.—As the gate guarded by soldiers from Crete during
  the siege of 1422. At the demand of those loyal troops the Emperor
  Manuel Palæologus, who had taken up his quarters in the monastery of
  the Peribleptos (Soulou Monastir), allowed his minister Theologus to
  be tried on the charge of accepting bribes from the Turks to betray
  the city. Having been found guilty, Theologus was forthwith dragged by
  the Cretans along the street to the Basilikè Pylè, and there had his
  eyes put out, in a manner that resulted in his death three days after
  the horrible operation.

  Chalcocondylas, pp. 285, 286.—As the gate beside which stood the tower
  injured by the cannon of the Genoese in 1434.

  Ducas, pp. 275, 283, 295, 300.—As the gate defended by the Venetians,
  and by the Grand Duke Notaras, in the siege of 1453.

  Phrantzes, p. 255; Leonard of Scio, in his Letter to Pope Nicholas.—As
  the gate defended, in 1453, by Gabriel of Treviso.

  Pusculus, iv. p. 193.—As the gate defended, in 1453, by the Grand Duke
  Notaras.

  Critobulus, i. c. 65.—As the gate attacked by the Turkish fleet which
  entered the Golden Horn, after forcing the chain across the mouth of
  the harbour.

Footnote 868:

  Lib. i. c. 42.

Footnote 869:

  See above, p. 211.

Footnote 870:

  Page 753.

Footnote 871:

  Page 271.

Footnote 872:

  Page 251.

Footnote 873:

  _Constantinople et le Bosphore_, p. 364.

Footnote 874:

  Lib. i. c. 42.

Footnote 875:

  _Siège de Constantinople_; Nicolò Barbaro, _Giornale_, p. 752.

Footnote 876:

  See his work on the Siege of the City in 1453, p. 139.

Footnote 877:

  Page 270: Προστάττει τοῦ εὐθυδρομηθῆναι τὰς νάπας τὰς ὄπισθεν κειμένας
  τοῦ Γαλατᾶ, ἀπὸ τὸ μέρος τὸ πρὸς ἀνατολὴν, κάτωθεν τοῦ διπλοῦ κίονος.

Footnote 878:

  IV. 550-551.

Footnote 879:

  Page 753.

Footnote 880:

  Lib. i. c. 42. Charles Müller thinks the correct reading in the text
  of Critobulus was not “eight stadia,” but “eighteen stadia.”

Footnote 881:

  For the site of the Diplokionion, see Gyllius, _De Bosporo Thracio_,
  ii. c. 7. See also, Bondelmontius’ Map (the columns are more
  distinctly shown in the copy of that map found in Du Cange and
  Banduri, than in the copy which accompanies this work). The idea of
  Dr. Dethier, expressed in a note on Pusculus (_Siège de
  Constantinople_, p. 237), that the Diplokionion stood, in Byzantine
  days, at Cabatash, and was removed—columns and inhabitants together—to
  Beshiktash, after the Turkish Conquest, has no foundation whatever.

Footnote 882:

  Page 753.

Footnote 883:

  Dethier, _Siège de Constantinople_, No. xviii. p. 893.




                              CHAPTER XVI.
                  THE WALLS ALONG THE SEA OF MARMORA.


The fortifications extending along the Sea of Marmora[883] from the
Acropolis (Seraglio Point) to the southern extremity of the land walls
consisted of a single wall flanked, according to Bondelmontius, by 188
towers—a line of defence some five miles in length. Almost everywhere
along their course these fortifications stood close to the water’s edge,
making it almost impossible to land troops at their foot, and giving
them only the comparatively easy task of repelling an attack upon them
with ships.

[Illustration: Inscription in Honour Of Theodosius II. and the Prefect
Constantine. (_See page 46._)]

[Illustration: Inscription in Honour Of the Emperor Theophilus. (_See
page 183._)]

[Illustration: Inscription in Honour Of the Emperor Isaac Angelus. (_See
page 132._)]

What they had most reason to dread was the open sea upon whose margin
they stood, its ceaseless, unwearied sap and mine of their foundations,
and the furious assaults of its angry waves. This explains some
peculiarities noticeable in their construction. The line of their
course, for instance, was extremely irregular, turning in and out with
every bend of the shore, to present always as short and sharp a front as
possible to the waves that dashed against them. They were protected,
moreover, by a breakwater of loose boulders,[884] scattered in the sea
along their base. And the extent to which marble shafts were built, as
bonds, into the lower courses of the walls and towers was, doubtless,
another precaution adopted to maintain the stability of these
fortifications. A large portion of these walls is built in arches closed
on their outer face, and seems to be the work of a late age.

The walls had at least thirteen entrances.

The first gate, Top Kapoussi, a short distance to the south of the apex
of the promontory, was known as the Gate of St. Barbara (ἡ τῆς μάρτυρος
Βαρβάρας καλουμένη Πύλη),[885] after a church of that dedication in the
vicinity; the presence of a sanctuary consecrated to the patroness of
fire-arms at this point being explained by the fact that the Mangana, or
great military arsenal of the city, stood a little to the south of the
gate.

The gate was guarded also on the north-west, by the Church of St.
Demetrius, another military saint, and was therefore sometimes styled by
the Greeks, after the Turkish Conquest, the Gate of St. Demetrius.[886]
It was likewise known as the Eastern Gate,[887] owing to its position on
the eastern shore of the city.

Here, probably, stood one of the gates of old Byzantium; for when the
city was occupied by the Greeks under Xenophon, the Spartan admiral,
Anaxibius, escaped to the Acropolis by taking boat in the Golden Horn,
and rounding the promontory to the side facing Chalcedon.[888] The pier
in front of the gate was called the Pier of the Acropolis (ἡ τῆς
ἀκροπόλεως σκάλα);[889] and for the convenience of the boatmen and
sailors frequenting it, a chapel of St. Nicholas, their patron saint,
was attached to the Church of St. Barbara.[890]

According to the inscriptions[891] found upon the gate, it was included
in the repairs of the seaward walls in the reign of Theophilus. As
became its important position, it was a handsome portal, flanked, like
the Golden Gate, by two large towers of white marble,[892] and beside
it, if not in it, Nicephorus Phocas placed the beautiful gates which he
carried away from Tarsus as trophies of his Cilician campaigns.[893] On
two occasions it served as a triumphal entrance into the city, John
Comnenus using it for that purpose in 1126, to celebrate the capture of
Castamon;[894] and Manuel Comnenus in 1168, on his return from the
Hungarian War.[895] In 1816 the towers of the gate furnished material
for the Marble Kiosk which Sultan Mahmoud IV. erected in the
neighbourhood;[896] and in 1871 the gate disappeared during the
construction of the Roumelian railway.

Proceeding southwards from the Gate of St. Barbara, we reach the
entrance known as Deïrmen Kapoussi. It is clearly Byzantine, but its
Greek name is lost.

Between it and the Gate of St. Barbara must have stood the Mangana (τὰ
Μάγγανα),[897] or Arsenal, with its workshops, materials of war, and
library of books on military art. Its site is identified by the
statement of Nicetas Choniates,[898] that it faced the rocky islet off
the shore of Chrysopolis, on which the beacon tower Kiz Kalehssi, or
Leander’s Tower, is now built. For, according to that historian, Manuel
Comnenus, with the view of closing the Bosporus against naval attack
from the south, erected two towers between which he might suspend a
chain across the entrance of the straits; one of them, named Damalis and
Arcla (Δάμαλις, Ἄρκλα), being on the rock off Chrysopolis,[899] the
other, opposite to it, very close to the Monastery of Mangana.

The Tower of the Mangana was exceedingly strong, capable of withstanding
a siege by the whole city.[900] Hence, in the struggle between Apocaucus
and Cantacuzene, the former held it with great determination.

To the rear of Deïrmen Kapoussi a hollow, now occupied by
market-gardens, indicates the site of the Kynegion, the amphitheatre
erected by Severus when he restored Byzantium.[901] A combat of wild
animals was held here as late as the reign of Justinian the Great, in
honour of his consulship.[902] Subsequently, the Kynegion became a place
of execution for important political offenders. There, Justinian II., on
his restoration to the throne, put his rivals, Leontius and Apsimarus,
to death, after subjecting them to public humiliation in the Hippodrome,
by resting his feet upon their necks, while he viewed the games.[903]

A little to the south of the Kynegion stood the Church and Monastery of
St. George at the Mangana (Μοναστήριον κατὰ τὰ λεγόμενα Μάγγανα, ἐπ᾽
ὀνόματι τοῦ ἁγίου μεγάλου μάρτυρος Γεωργίου). It was an erection of
Constantine Monomachus,[904] and one of the most splendid and important
monasteries in the city. Its site is determined by the following
indications; the church was opposite Chrysopolis,[905] and near the
Mangana and the Kynegion;[906] it stood in the midst of meadows, and to
it were attached gardens and a hospital.[907] “There was,” says Clavijo,
the Spanish envoy, “before the entrance (of the church), a wide court
containing many gardens and houses; the church itself stood in the
middle of these gardens.”[908] Now, room for a church with such
surroundings existed only to the south of the Kynegion, where a
comparatively extensive plain is found; while the territory to the north
was contracted, and was, moreover, otherwise occupied. This conclusion
is corroborated by the statement of the Russian pilgrims that the
Monastery of the Mangana lay to the _west_ of the Church of St.
Saviour.[909] That church, we shall find, stood at Indjili Kiosk.[910]
Hence, a building to the west of that point would be on the plain above
indicated.

From the Church of St. George mediæval writers derived the name of Braz
Saint George for the Sea of Marmora and the Hellespont.[911] The Emperor
John Cantacuzene, upon his abdication, was for some time a monk in the
Monastery of Mangana, under the name Joasaph (Ἰωάσαφ), until he withdrew
to the deeper seclusion of the Monastery of Batopedi, on Mount
Athos.[912]

The next gate, Demir Kapoussi, is a Turkish erection that may have
replaced an older entrance.[913]

A little further south, arched buttresses, forming the substructures on
which the villa known as Indjili Kiosk, in the Seraglio grounds, once
stood, are seen built against the walls. Through these buttresses the
water of a Holy Spring within the city was, until recently, conducted to
the outer side of the walls, and thus rendered accessible to the
Christians of the Greek Orthodox Church, who sought the benefit of its
healing virtues. This was the Holy Spring of the Church of St. Saviour,
celebrated as a fountain of health long before the Turkish Conquest.
“Tout cet endroit ressemble la piscine de Salomon qui est à Jérusalem!”
exclaims one of the Russian pilgrims, who visited the shrine during the
period of the Palæologi.[914]

Its identity cannot be disputed. For the memory of the fact that the
Church of St. Saviour stood at this point has been preserved by the
annual pilgrimages made to the spot, on the Festival of the
Transfiguration, from the time of the Turkish Conquest until the year
1821, when the privilege of frequenting the spring was withdrawn, on
account of the political events of the day. Such popular customs afford
strong evidence.

The first writer who refers to the church and spring after 1453 is
Gyllius,[915] who, speaking of the water-gates in the walls around the
Seraglio, describes the position of Demir Kapoussi thus: “The fourth
gate (counting from Yali Kiosk Kapoussi) faces south-east (solis exortum
spectat hibernum), and is not far from the ruins of the church dedicated
to Christ, for the remains of which, found built in the wall, the Greeks
show much reverence, by visiting them in great crowds.” Thevenot[916]
and Grelot[917] give a long account of the animated scene witnessed here
on the Festival of the Transfiguration, in their day. The Sultan himself
would sometimes come to Indjili Kiosk to be entertained by the spectacle
presented on that occasion, particularly by seeing sick persons buried
up to the neck in the sand on the seashore, as a method of cure. Hammer
writes to the same effect, but supposed the spring to be the Hagiasma of
the Virgin, and thought it marked the site of the Church of the
Theotokos Hodegetria, which was in this vicinity, and to which also a
Holy Spring was attached.[918] But this opinion, adopted also by
Labarte,[919] is opposed to all the evidence upon the subject.

Finally, there is the testimony of the Patriarch Constantius, already
alluded to, that from 1453 to 1821 the Hagiasma at Indjili Kiosk was
annually frequented on the 6th of August, as the Holy Well associated
with the Church of St. Saviour: “The Greeks still revered, until a few
years ago, as a matter of tradition, the Hagiasma of the Saviour, which
was under Indjili Kiosk.”[920]

In striking agreement with this evidence since the Turkish Conquest, are
the accounts given regarding the Church of St. Saviour by writers
previous to that event. According to them, the church was in the
neighbourhood of the Church of St. George Mangana, and to the east of
that sanctuary; it stood close to the sea, immediately behind the city
walls; its Holy Spring was enclosed within the walls, and yet could be
reached from without; in front of the walls through which the sacred
stream flowed, was a beach of sand endowed with healing properties.[921]
Nothing can be more conclusive.

This identification is of the greatest importance for the topographical
reconstruction of the quarters of Byzantine Constantinople along the
eastern shore of the promontory, for, with that church as a fixed point,
it becomes comparatively easy to determine the positions of other noted
buildings in the neighbourhood.

By means of that landmark, for example, the situation of the Church of
St. George Mangana can, we have seen, be fixed.[922] It enables us also
to settle, without prolonged discussion, the question raised by the
extensive ruins discovered behind Indjili Kiosk, when the ground was
cleared, in 1871, for the construction of the Roumelian railroad. The
walls of an edifice 322 feet long by 53 feet wide, were then brought to
view, and among the _débris_ marble pillars and capitals were found in
such numbers, as to prove that the building to which they belonged had
been one of considerable importance.[923] Because some of the capitals
seemed ornamented with the heads of bulls and lions, Dr. Paspates came
to the conclusion that the ruins were the remains of the celebrated
Palace of the Bucoleon.[924] On the other hand, Dr. Mordtmann thinks
that here was the site of the Imperial residence, known as the Palace of
Mangana,[925] an erection of Basil I.[926]

That the latter opinion is the correct one may be proved by means of the
fact that the Church of St. Saviour stood at Indjili Kiosk. In the first
place, the Palace of Mangana was near the Church of St. George
Mangana—so near that the destruction of that palace by Isaac Angelus, to
obtain material for edifices of his own construction, was viewed as an
act of sacrilege committed against the property of the great saint.[927]
But the Church of St. George Mangana, we have found, lay a short
distance to the west of the Church of St. Saviour,[928] near the site of
Indjili Kiosk. Consequently the remains of a palace near that kiosk must
be those of the Palace of Mangana. This conclusion agrees, furthermore,
with the fact that the Mangana, which gave name to the palace, was in
this vicinity.[929] It is also consistent with the circumstance that the
Palace of Mangana was noted for its coolness,[930] as would be
characteristic of a residence in the position of Indjili Kiosk, which is
exposed to the north wind that sweeps down the Bosporus from the Black
Sea.

Thus, also, the site of the Church of St. Lazarus can be approximately
determined. From the order in which the churches visited by the Deacon
Zosimus[931] between St. Sophia and St. George Mangana are mentioned, it
is clear that the Church of St. Lazarus lay to the south of the Church
of St. Saviour, and consequently somewhere between Indjili Kiosk and the
Seraglio Lighthouse. The identification is important; for near the
Church of St. Lazarus was found the tier of seats, known as the Topi,
which marked the southern extremity of the walls of old Byzantium on the
side of the Sea of Marmora.[932]

Thus, also, the eastern limit of the grounds of the palace erected by
Constantine the Great is determined. “The Triclinia erected by
Constantine the Great,” says Codinus,[933] “reached to that point,”
_i.e._ the Topi. Furthermore, the Tzycanisterion, or polo-ground,
attached to the Great Palace, extended, we are told, as far as the
neighbourhood of the Church of St. Lazarus and the Topi.[934] Dr.
Paspates is therefore mistaken in making the palace grounds reach to
within a short distance of the Seraglio Point.

Near the Topi likewise stood the Thermæ Arcadianæ,[935] constructed by
the Emperor Arcadius, and one of the finest ornaments of the capital.
There, also, was a church dedicated to the Archangel Michael, ἐν
Ἀρκαδιαναῖς.[936]

In this neighbourhood, moreover, must have stood the Atrium of Justinian
the Great,[937] a favourite public resort towards sunset, when the
eastern side of the city was in shade, to admire the magnificent display
of colour then reflected on the Sea of Marmora and the Asiatic coast and
mountains. It was built of white marble and adorned with statuary, among
which the statue of the Empress Theodora, upon a pillar of porphyry, was
specially remarkable.[938]

Still further south of the Church of St. Saviour rose one of the most
venerated shrines in Constantinople, the Church of the Theotokos
Hodegetria (τῶν Ὁδηγῶν) founded by the Empress Pulcheria, and
reconstructed by Michael III.[939] It boasted of a Holy Well famed for
marvellous cures,[940] and of an Icon of the Virgin, attributed to St.
Luke, which was regarded as the palladium of the city and the leader
(Ὁδηγητρία) of the hosts of the Empire to victory. Generals on leaving
the city to engage in war paid their devotions at this shrine, and the
sacred picture had the first place of honour in a triumphal procession,
taking precedence of the emperor himself.[941] In view of the siege of
the city by Branas, in the reign of Isaac Angelus, the Icon was carried
round the fortifications;[942] while in 1453 it was placed in the Church
of the Chora, not far from the Gate of Charisius, to support the
defence. There, upon the capture of the city, it was found by the Turks,
and cut to pieces.[943]

According to the Russian pilgrims, the Church of the Hodegetria was
situated to the south of St. George Mangana, and to the east of St.
Sophia, on the right of the street conducting from the cathedral to the
sea.[944] These indications support the opinion of Dr. Mordtmann[945]
that the position of the church is marked by a neglected Hagiasma in the
large vegetable garden at the south-eastern corner of the Seraglio
grounds.

Two small gates in the city walls were respectively named after the two
churches just mentioned, one being styled the Postern of St. Lazarus
(τοῦ αγίου Λαζάρου πυλίς),[946] the other the Small Gate of the
Hodegetria (ἡ μίκρα πύλη τῆς Ὁδηγητρίας).[947] They must have stood to
the south of Indjili Kiosk; and, in fact, at the distance of some 145
paces from that point the marble frames of two small gateways are seen
built in the wall. On the lintel of the one more to the south is a
cross, and on two slabs built into the inner side of the gateway are the
words, “Open to me the gates of righteousness, that entering into them I
may worship the Lord.”[948] Two similar gates are seen still further
south, one on either side of the second tower beyond Indjili Kiosk.
These four entrances must have belonged to some of the numerous churches
which were situated, according to the Russian pilgrims, in this part of
the city. One of them, doubtless, represents the Postern of St. Lazarus,
while another may claim to be the Small Gate of the Hodegetria.

The Postern of St. Lazarus is mentioned in history on the occasion of
the sudden appearance, in 1269, of seventy-five Venetian galleys in the
offing.[949] As soon as the fleet was sighted, all the gates of the city
were closed, with the exception of this postern; and from it envoys were
despatched in a boat to ascertain the object of the expedition. The
public anxiety was relieved, when it was found that the Venetians had
come to settle disputes with the Genoese at Galata and not to molest the
capital.

According to Ducas[950] it was through the Gate of the Hodegetria that
John VI. Palæologus penetrated, in 1355, into the city to overthrow John
Cantacuzene. The voyage of the conspirators from Tenedos had been
accomplished in rough weather; and it was dark and stormy when they
arrived before Constantinople. As their force consisted of but two
galleys, with 2000 men, the assailants could hope to enter the city only
by stratagem. Approaching, therefore, the Gate of the Hodegetria, they
proceeded to hurl empty oil-jars against the walls, and to rend the air
with loud cries of distress. The startled sentinels, imagining it was a
case of shipwreck, and touched by appeals to their humanity and by
promises of a share in the rich cargo of oil reported to be on board the
galleys, opened the gate and rushed to the rescue. When they discovered
their mistake, it was too late. They were promptly overpowered and
killed, and the Italian adventurers seized the gate, mounted the
adjoining towers, and raised the cry in favour of Palæologus.

It was at the Gate of the Hodegetria, probably, that Bardas, in 866,
embarked to conduct an expedition against the Saracens in Crete, after
invoking the aid of the Virgin Hodegetria.[951] Here, the troops sent by
Alexius III. to suppress the insurrection under John the Fat landed to
gain the Great Palace, which the rebel leader was occupying.[952] The
gate appears in the last siege, as a point blockaded by the Turkish
fleet which invested the walls along the Sea of Marmora.[953]

In the recess of the shore immediately beyond the Seraglio Lighthouse,
where the coast bends westwards, are two gates, known, respectively, as
Balouk Haneh Kapoussi and Ahour Kapoussi. The former, the Gate of the
Fish House, obtained its name from the circumstance that it led to the
quarters of the fishermen in the service of the Turkish Court; the
latter was styled the Stable Gate, because it conducted to the Sultan’s
Mews.

The Patriarch Constantius[954] identified Balouk Haneh Kapoussi with the
Postern of Michael the Protovestarius, mentioned once in Byzantine
history. That was the gate by which Constantine Ducas, in 913, entered
the city to join the conspirators who sought to place him upon the
throne instead of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, then a minor under the
tutelage of his uncle and colleague, Alexander.[955] The fact that
Constantine Ducas reached the gate by sea without being immediately
discovered, and that he was then able to reach the Hippodrome quickly,
is in favour of the view that the entrance stood upon the Sea of
Marmora. But if, as seems probable, the entrance at Balouk Haneh
Kapoussi was within the limits of the Great Palace, it cannot be the
Parapylis of Michael Protovestarius; for that postern did not conduct
Ducas into the grounds of the Imperial residence, but to the private
house of his father-in-law Gregoras, without the palace precincts.
Possibly one of the small gates between the Lighthouse and Indjili Kiosk
represents the postern.

The ancient name of Ahour Kapoussi is not known. The Patriarch
Constantius,[956] it is true, identifies it with the Gate of the
Hodegetria. But the Gate of the Hodegetria was remarkable for its small
size, and stood outside the enclosure of the Great Palace; whereas Ahour
Kapoussi was within the palace grounds, and is of ordinary dimensions.

Equally erroneous is the view of Labarte[957] that the recess in the
shore at this point marks the site of the Port of the Bucoleon, the
harbour attached to the Imperial palace. Doubtless, the small bay before
Ahour Kapoussi, as its position implies, served the convenience of the
Byzantine Court, but it was not the Port of Bucoleon strictly so called.
That harbour, we shall find, lay further west at Tchatlady Kapou, the
gate next in order.

The splendid marble stables erected by Michael III. at the
Tzycanisterion[958] were in this vicinity. May this gate not have been
at their service? It would not be strange if the Sultan’s Mews were
built upon the site of the Mews of his Byzantine predecessors.

Passing next to Tchatlady Kapou (the Broken or Cracked Gate), we reach
the entrance attached, as already intimated, to the Imperial Port of the
Bucoleon. Its Byzantine name has not been preserved, but in the time of
Gyllius[959] it was called the Gate of the Lion (Porta Leonis), after
the marble figure of a lion near the entrance. Upon the maps of
Constantinople, made in the sixteenth century, it is styled “Porta liona
della riva.” Leunclavius names it the Gate of the Bears (Πόρτα ταῖς
Ἀρκούδαις), a designation derived, doubtless, from the figures of bears
which once adorned the adjoining quay.[960]

Some authorities[961] have identified the entrance with the Sidhera
Porta (the Iron Gate), which stood on this side of the city. But this is
a mistake. The Iron Gate opened on the Harbour of Sophia,[962] and was
near the Church of St. Thomas Amantiou;[963] and both these points were
to the west of Tchatlady Kapou. Therefore Tchatlady Kapou itself cannot
have been the Iron Gate.

That the Harbour of Sophia lay in that direction is unquestionable, for
it stood at Kadriga Limani,[964] which is to the west of Tchatlady
Kapou. And that the same was true of the Church of St. Thomas is clear
from the fact that this sanctuary and the Church of SS. Sergius and
Bacchus marked, respectively, the western and eastern limits of the
ravages made beside the Sea of Marmora, by the great fire in the reign
of Leo I.[965] The Church of St. Thomas lay, therefore, to the west of
SS. Sergius and Bacchus, and, consequently, as the latter stands to the
west of Tchatlady Kapou, the former, also, must have occupied a similar
position.

[Illustration: Portion of Walls Beside the Sea of Marmora.]

In the city walls, a little to the west of Tchatlady Kapou, opposite the
beautiful Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, is a small postern, opened,
doubtless, for the use of the monastery attached to that church. Its
side-posts are shafts of marble, covered with a remarkable inscription,
and were evidently brought from some other building, when the postern
was constructed or repaired.

The inscription is a cento of verses, taken, with slight modifications,
from the Prophet Habakkuk and the Psalter, to form a pæan in honour of
the triumph of some emperor over his foes.

    ΕΠΙΒΗΣΙ ΕΠΙ ΤΟΥΣ ΙΠΠΟΥΣ ΣΟΥ Κ. Η ΙΠΠΑΣΙΑ ΣΟΥ ΣΩ [ΤΗΡ] ΙΑ :[966] ΟΤΙ
    Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΗΜΩΝ ΕΛΠΙΖΙ ΕΠΙ ΚΝ. ΕΝ ΤΩ ΕΛΕΙ ΤΟ [Υ ΥΨΙΣΤΟΥ ΟΥ ΜΗ]
    SALEUΘΗ :[967] ΟΥΚ ΟΦΕΛΗΣΙ ΕΚΘΡΟΣ ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ Κ. ΥΙΟΣ ΑΝΟΜΙΑΣ ΟΥ
    ΠΡΟΣΘΗΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΚΩΣΙ ΕΑΥΤΟΝ :[968] ΑΙΝΩΝ ΕΠΙΚΑΛΙΣΕΤΟ [ΚΝ.] : ΕΚ ΤΩΝ
    ΕΚΘΡΩΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΣΩΘΗΣΕΤΕ :[969] ΕΞΟΥΔΕΝΩΤΕ ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΠΟΝΗΡΕΥΟΜΕΝΟΣ,
    ΤΟΥΣ ΔΕ ΦΟΒΟΥ [ΜΕΝΟΥΣ ΚΝ.] ΔΟΞΑΣΙ.[970]

The next entrance, the Gate of Sophia (Πόρτα τῶν Σοφιῶν),[971] as its
name implies, was attached to the Harbour of Sophia. It was known also
as the Porta Sidhera (Πόρτα Σιδηρᾶ),[972] from the material of its
construction, and after the Turkish Conquest was designated Porta
Katerga Limani,[973] the Gate of the Harbour of the Galleys, from
κάτεργον, the Greek word for a galley.

The Porta Kontoscalion (τὸ δὲ λεγόμενον Κοντοσκάλιον ἡ Πόρτα)[974]
communicated with the Harbour of the Kontoscalion,[975] and stood at
Koum Kapoussi.

Next follows the gate Yeni Kapou, in the quarter of Vlanga. The Latin
inscription which was found over the gate[976] proves it to have been a
Byzantine entrance, but its ancient name has not been preserved. The
gate was beside the Harbour of Theodosius, or Eleutherius[977] (Vlanga
Bostan). Its Turkish name must allude to repairs made after 1453.

The next gate, Daoud Pasha Kapoussi, immediately to the west of Vlanga
Bostan, is the Gate of St. Æmilianus (ἡ Πόρτα τοῦ ἁγίου
Αἰμιλιανοῦ),[978] named so after a church of that dedication in the
vicinity. It is identified by its situation. On the one hand, the Gate
of St. Æmilianus was the westernmost entrance in the line of the
Constantinian Walls beside the Sea of Marmora.[979] It must, therefore,
have been a gate to the west of the old harbour at Vlanga Bostan, which,
under the name of the Harbour of Eleutherius, stood within the city of
Constantine.[980] On the other hand, it cannot have been a gate further
west than Daoud Pasha Kapoussi, for the two gates which pierce the city
wall in that direction can be identified with other gates, and were,
moreover, beyond the original bounds of Constantinople. Near the Gate of
St. Æmilianus stood the Church of St. Mary Rhabdou, venerated as the
shrine in which the rod of Moses was kept.[981]

The next gate retains its old name, Gate of Psamathia (Πόρτα τοῦ
Ψαμαθᾶ),[982] derived from the ancient quarter Psamathia (τοῦ Ψαμαθᾶ).
The name alludes to the sand thrown up on the beach here, as at Koum
Kapoussi (the Sand Gate).

Narli Kapoussi (the Pomegranate Gate), the succeeding entrance,
accommodated the quarter around the celebrated Church and Monastery of
St. John the Baptist, known as the Studion, because founded, in 463, by
Studius, a patrician from Rome. The gate is never mentioned by name, but
is clearly referred to by Constantine Porphyrogenitus[983] in his
account of the Imperial visit paid, annually, to the Studion on the 29th
of August, in commemoration of the martyrdom of the Baptist. On that
occasion it was usual for the emperor to come from the Great Palace by
water, in his state barge, and to land at this gate, where he was
received by the abbot and monks of the monastery, and conducted to the
services of the day.

On the cliff outside the gate is an Armenian Chapel of St. John the
Baptist, which Dr. Paspates[984] thinks belonged originally to the
Studion.

The excavations made in laying out the public garden beside the city
walls west of the Gas Works at Yedi Koulè, brought to light
substructures of an ancient edifice, in the construction of which bricks
stamped with the monogram of Basil I. and with a portion of the name
Diomed were employed. The ruins marked, undoubtedly, the site of the
Church and Monastery of St. Diomed, upon whose steps Basil flung himself
to sleep the evening he entered the city, a poor homeless adventurer
from Macedonia, in search of fortune. The kindness shown to the stranger
by the abbot of the House was never forgotten; and when Basil reached
the throne he rebuilt the church and the monastery on a more extensive
scale, and enriched them with ample endowments.[985] The large number of
pillars strewn upon the adjoining beach belonged, probably, to the
church.

Somewhere in the neighbourhood was the prison, known as the Prison of
St. Diomed. In it, Pope Martin I. was detained by the Emperor Constans
in 654;[986] and there Maria, the wife of Manuel Comnenus and mother of
Alexius II., was confined by the infamous Andronicus Comnenus.[987]

The last tower in this line of fortifications, situated on a small
promontory commanding a wide view of the Sea of Marmora, is a very
striking and picturesque object. It has four stories, and is constructed
mostly of large blocks of marble. To it was attached a two-storied
building, forming, with the tower, a small château or castle at this
point. Only the foundations of the western and northern walls of the
building are left, but the eastern wall, pierced by two tiers of small
windows, and ornamented with string-courses, stands almost intact. The
castle must have been the residence of some superior military officer.
Here, some think, was the Prison of St. Diomed. In the recess of the
shore immediately beyond the tower was a small postern for the use of
the garrison at this point.

                  *       *       *       *       *

One cannot bring this account of the Walls of Constantinople to a close
without calling to mind, again, the splendid part they played in the
history of the world. To them the Queen of Cities, as her sons loved to
call her, owed her long life, and her noble opportunity to advance the
higher welfare of mankind. How great her services in that respect have
been, we are coming to recognize more clearly, through a better
acquaintance with her achievements, and a fairer judgment upon her
faults. The city which preserved Greek learning, maintained Roman
justice, sounded the depths of religious thought, and gave to Art new
forms of beauty, was no mean city, and had reason to be proud of her
record.

[Illustration: Chateau and Marble Tower Near The Western Extremity of
the Walls Beside the Sea of Marmora.]

But never was she so grand as in her attitude towards the barbarous
tribes and Oriental peoples which threatened her existence, and sought
to render European civilization impossible. Some of her foes—the Goths
and the great Slavic race—she not only fought, but also gathered within
the pale of civilized Christendom. With others, like the Huns, Persians,
Saracens, Turks, she waged a relentless warfare, often achieving signal
triumphs, sometimes worsted in the struggle, always contesting every
inch of her ground, retarding for a thousand years the day of her fall,
perishing sword in hand, and giving Western Europe, meantime, scope to
become worthy to take from her dying hands the banner of the world’s
hope. This is service similar to that which has earned for Ancient
Greece men’s eternal gratitude, and has made Marathon, Thermopylæ,
Salamis, Platæa, names which will never die.

Among the monuments brought by Constantine from various parts of the
Empire to adorn his city was the serpent column which had stood for
eight centuries before the shrine of Delphi, inscribed with the names of
the Greek States whose valour on the field of Platæa hurled the Persian
out of Greece. In placing that column in the Hippodrome of New Rome, did
he divine the mission of the new capital? It was Greece transferring to
the city founded on the banks of the Bosporus the championship of the
world’s best life. And as we look backwards upon the tremendous conflict
between barbarism and civilization, which forms the very core of
Byzantine history, we see that nowhere could that venerable monument
have been placed more appropriately, and that if the name of the City of
Constantine were inscribed upon it no dishonour would be cast upon the
names already there, and only justice would be done to the Empire which
assumed their task and emulated their renown.

But the shield of the city in that long heroic contest were the Walls
whose history we have reviewed.

Footnote 884:

  See Map of Byzantine Constantinople.

Footnote 885:

  Mentioned by the Anonymus, iii. p. 61; Nicetas Chon., p. 169;
  Cantacuzene, iv. p. 221.

Footnote 886:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 61; Cantacuzene, iv. p. 232 ; Pachymeres, vol. i. p.
  270.

Footnote 887:

  Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, i. c. xxi.

Footnote 888:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 205, ἀπὸ τῆς ἑῴας πύλης, ἥτις ἀνέῳγε κατὰ τὴν
  ἀκρόπολιν. Cf. _Ibid._, p. 26; Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 270.

Footnote 889:

  Anabasis, vii. c. i. See above, p. 5.

Footnote 890:

  Theophanes, p. 671; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 12.

Footnote 891:

  Pachymeres, _ut supra_.

Footnote 892:

  See above, p. 184.

Footnote 893:

  Nicephorus Greg., xvii. p. 860.

Footnote 894:

  Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 363.

Footnote 895:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 26.

Footnote 896:

  _Ibid._, p. 205.

Footnote 897:

  Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p. 23.

Footnote 898:

  Anonymus, ii. p. 26; Glycas, p. 468.

Footnote 899:

  Page 268, Ὁ ἀντίπορθμος οὖτος πύργος τῆς τῶν Μαγγάνων ἄγχιστα
  δεδομημένος μονῆς.

Footnote 900:

  The rock is associated with the history of Byzantium. Upon it Chares,
  admiral of the Athenian fleet, sent to aid Byzantium against Philip of
  Macedon, erected a pillar surmounted by the figure of a heifer as a
  monument to the memory of his wife, Damalis, who had accompanied him
  on the expedition, and died at Chrysopolis. Hence that suburb and the
  rock were sometimes called Damalis. A palace of the Byzantine emperors
  at Damalis was named Scutarion (Nicetas Chon., p. 280; Ville-Hardouin,
  c. lxix.). It was noted for its pleasant air and quiet. Cf. Gyllius,
  _De Bosporo Thracio_, iii. c. ix.

Footnote 901:

  Cantacuzene, iii. pp. 438, 495, 541.

Footnote 902:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 495; _Notitia, ad Reg. II._ See above, p. 13.

Footnote 903:

  Marcellinus Comes.

Footnote 904:

  Theophanes, p. 574. For other executions under Constantine Copronymus,
  see Theophanes, pp. 647, 677, 683.

Footnote 905:

  Zonaras, xvii. p. 55.

Footnote 906:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 268.

Footnote 907:

  Zonaras, _ut supra_.

Footnote 908:

  M. Attaliota, p. 48.

Footnote 909:

  _Constantinople, ses Sanctuaires el ses reliques, au commencement du
  XV. Siècle_. Traduit par Bruun, Odessa, 1883.

Footnote 910:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, pp. 162.

Footnote 911:

  See below, pp. 253, 254.

Footnote 912:

  Ville-Hardouin, cs. xxv.-xxvii.; _William of Tyre_, lib. xx. c. xxiv.

Footnote 913:

  Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 307, 308.

Footnote 914:

  Large chambers and galleries are found in the body of the portion of
  the wall between this gate and a short distance beyond Indjili Kiosk.
  One gallery measures 123-½ feet long by 21 feet wide; one of the
  chambers is 52-½ feet by 51 feet.

Footnote 915:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 119.

Footnote 916:

  Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, i. c. vii.

Footnote 917:

  _Relation d’un Voyage fait au Levant_, c. xviii. (1665).

Footnote 918:

  _Relation d’un Voyage de Constantinople_, p. 83 (1670).

Footnote 919:

  _Constantinopolis und der Bosporos_, vol. i. p. 238.

Footnote 920:

  _Le Palais Impérial de Constantinople et ses Abords_, p. 99.

Footnote 921:

  _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p. 26; cf. Scarlatus Byzantius, vol. i.
  p. 181.

Footnote 922:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, pp. 119, 202, 231.

Footnote 923:

  See above, p. 252.

Footnote 924:

  For a description of the ruins, see Dr. Paspates, pp. 106-109.

Footnote 925:

  _Ibid._, p. 107.

Footnote 926:

  Page 52. As to the opinion of Paspates that the heads on the capitals
  found among the ruins represented lions and bulls, Dr. Mordtmann
  remarks, “explication qui n’a point été admise par ses
  contradicteurs.”

Footnote 927:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 337.

Footnote 928:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 581.

Footnote 929:

  See above, p. 252.

Footnote 930:

  See above, p. 250.

Footnote 931:

  Anna Comn., xv. pp. 372, 377.

Footnote 932:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, pp. 201, 202: “Non loin de ce couvent
  (Hodegetria, proceeding towards the Seraglio Point) sont deux autres,
  celui de Lazare le Ressuscité, où ses reliques et (celles de) sa sœur
  Marie sont incrustées dans une colonne; et secondement celui de
  Lazare, évêque de Galassie.”

Footnote 933:

  Codinus, pp. 25, 79. Can the Topi have been remains of one of the
  theatres erected by Severus in Byzantium?

Footnote 934:

  Page 79.

Footnote 935:

  Leo Gram., p. 273, Εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Λάζαρον, εἰς τὸ καταβάσιον τοῦ
  Τζυκανιστηρίου: p. 274, εἰς τοὺς λεγομένους Τόπους. Cf. Theophanes
  Cont., pp. 859, 860.

Footnote 936:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. xi.

Footnote 937:

  Codinus, p. 33; Suidas, _ad vocem_ στήλη.

Footnote 938:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. xi.

Footnote 939:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra_.

Footnote 940:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 160; Codinus, p. 80.

Footnote 941:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 229.

Footnote 942:

  Genesius, iv. p. 103; Cantacuzene, iii. p. 607; Nicetas Chon., p. 26;
  Pachymeres, _ut supra_.

Footnote 943:

  Nicetas Chon., pp. 496, 497.

Footnote 944:

  Ducas, p. 288.

Footnote 945:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 230, “Au nord du couvent
  d’Odigitria, dans la direction de Mangana;” p. 229, “à l’est de Sainte
  Sophie, dans la direction de la mer, à droite, s’élève un couvent
  appelé Odigitria.”

Footnote 946:

  Page 52.

Footnote 947:

  Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 238.

Footnote 948:

  Ducas, pp. 41, 42, 283.

Footnote 949:

  Psalm cxviii. 19. † ΑΝΥΞΑΤΑΙ ΜΟΙ ΠΥΛΑΣ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΣΥΝΗΣ ΙΝΑ ΕΙΣΕΛΘΩΝ ΕΝ
  ΑΥΤΑΙΣ ΕΞΟΜΟΛΟΓΗΣΩΜΑΙ ΤΩ ΚΥΡΙΩ †. Cf. _Proceedings of Greek Literary
  Syllogos of Consple._, vol. xvi., 1885; _Archæological Supplement_,
  pp. 23, 24; cf. Mordtmann, p. 53.

Footnote 950:

  Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 238.

Footnote 951:

  Ducas, pp. 41, 42; Cantacuzene (iv. p. 284) says that John Palæologus
  took the city by surprise, entering the Harbour of the Heptascalon
  during the night.

Footnote 952:

  Genesius, iv. p. 103; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 179.

Footnote 953:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 698.

Footnote 954:

  Ducas, p. 283.

Footnote 955:

  _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p. 23.

Footnote 956:

  Leo Gramm., p. 289.

Footnote 957:

  _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p. 23.

Footnote 958:

  _Le Palais Impérial de Consple._, p. 207.

Footnote 959:

  Anonymus, ii. p. 23.

Footnote 960:

  _De Top. CP._, ii. c. xv.

Footnote 961:

  _Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200, Πόρτα ταῖς Ἀρκούδες; Itinéraires Russes
  en Orient, p. 235: “Sous la muraille au pied de la mer, se trouvent
  des ours et des aurochs en pierre.”

Footnote 962:

  Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p. 22.

Footnote 963:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 46.

Footnote 964:

  Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 250. Symeon Magister (_De Leone Basilii Filio_,
  c. i.) records a fire near the Harbour of Sophia and the Iron Gate,
  which burned the Church of St. Thomas—a proof that these points stood
  near one another.

Footnote 965:

  See below, p. 290.

Footnote 966:

  Cedrenus, vol. i. pp. 609-611; Zonaras, xiv. p. 1205.

Footnote 967:

  Habakkuk iii. 8.

Footnote 968:

  Psalm xxi. 7.

Footnote 969:

  Psalm lxxxix. 22.

Footnote 970:

  Psalm xviii. 3

Footnote 971:

  Psalm xv. 4. Possibly the inscription commemorated the triumph of
  Justinian over the Factions in 532.

Footnote 972:

  Codinus, p. 101; Anonymus, iii. p. 45.

Footnote 973:

  _Ibid._ _ut supra_; _ibid._, p. 46.

Footnote 974:

  Leunclavius, _Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200.

Footnote 975:

  Codinus, p. 109.

Footnote 976:

  See below, p. 295.

Footnote 977:

  See above, p. 180.

Footnote 978:

  See below, p. 296.

Footnote 979:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 494; Codinus, pp. 102, 103.

Footnote 980:

  Anonymus, i. p. 2; Codinus, p. 25. See above, p. 31.

Footnote 981:

  _Ibid._, iii. p. 46; _ibid._, p. 49.

Footnote 982:

  _Ibid._, iii. p. 49; _ibid._, pp. 102, 103.

Footnote 983:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 48. The name appears also under the forms Ψαμάθεα
  (Codinus, p. 109); τῶν Ὕψωμαθίων (Phrantzes, p. 253); τοῦ Ψωμαθέως
  (Constant. Porphyr., _De Administratione Imperii_, c. 43). The quarter
  boasted of a palace and gerocomion, ascribed to St. Helena (Anonymus,
  _ut supra_), a monastery (Constant. Porphyr., _ut supra_), and the
  Church of the Theotokos Peribleptos (Soulou Monastir).

Footnote 984:

  _De Cer._, pp. 562, 563.

Footnote 985:

  Page 349.

Footnote 986:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 223.

Footnote 987:

  See account of his treatment at Constantinople in his fifteenth
  Epistle.

Footnote 988:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 347.




                             CHAPTER XVII.
                  THE HARBOURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA.


The number of harbours found, at one time or other, on the southern
shore of the city formed one of the most striking features in the aspect
of Byzantine Constantinople. This was not due to any natural facilities
offered by that shore for the purpose. On the contrary, although the
outline of the coast is very irregular, it presents no bay where ships
may be moored for the convenience of commerce, or into which they can
find refuge from storms. The waves, moreover, cast up great quantities
of sand upon the beach. Hence, all the harbours on this side of the city
were, to a great measure, artificial extensions of some indentation of
the coast, and their construction and maintenance involved great labour
and expense. They ranked, in fact, among the principal public works of
the capital. But the interests of commerce with the regions around the
Sea of Marmora and with the Mediterranean were so great, and the
difficulty which vessels coming from those regions often found to make
the Golden Horn, owing to the prevalence of north winds, was so serious
as to outweigh all drawbacks or impediments, and secured for the
accommodation of the shipping frequenting this side of the city no less
than five harbours. These harbours were probably constructed in the
following chronological order: the Harbour of Eleutherius, known also as
the Harbour of Theodosius; the Harbour of the Emperor Julian, known also
as the New Harbour, and as the Harbour of Sophia; the Harbour of
Kaisarius, the same probably as the Neorion at the Heptascalon; the
Harbour of the Bucoleon; and the Kontoscalion. We shall consider them in
the order of their position on the shore, proceeding from east to west.

[Illustration: Map of the Shore of Constantinople on the Sea of Marmora
Between the Seraglio Lighthouse and Daoud Pasha Kapoussi.]


                        Harbour of the Bucoleon.


The Harbour of the Bucoleon was attached to the Great Palace[988] (τὸ
τοῦ παλατίου νεώριον ἑν τῷ Βουκολέοντι) for the convenience of the
emperor, who in a city like Constantinople would have frequent occasion
to move to and fro by water. Its name was derived from a marble group of
a Lion and a Bull upon the harbour’s quay, the lion being represented
with his left foot upon a horn of the bull, in the act of twisting his
victim’s head round to get at the throat.[989] The harbour, partly
artificial, was protected by two jetties from the violence of the winds
and waves;[990] and, in keeping with its destination, displayed
considerable architectural splendour. Its quay was paved with
marble,[991] and adorned with figures of lions, bulls, bears, and
ostriches;[992] a handsome flight of marble steps led to the water;[993]
and upon the adjoining city walls rose two Imperial villas, known as the
Palace of the Bucoleon (τὰ παλάτια τοῦ Βουκολέοντος).[994]

Strangely enough, the site of a harbour so prominent, and so fully
described, has been a point concerning which students of the topography
of the city have widely differed. Dr. Paspates[995] placed the harbour
at a distance of 104 feet to the south of Indjili Kiosk, consistently
with his opinion that the ruins discovered behind that Kiosk marked the
site of the Palace of the Bucoleon.[996] With much learning and
ingenuity, Labarte argues that the Harbour of the Bucoleon was in the
recess of the shore at Ahour Kapoussi.[997] Von Hammer wavered in his
opinion, placing the harbour at one time at Tchatlady Kapou, and at
another at Kadriga Limani.[998] And yet to Von Hammer is due the
discovery of the evidence that puts an end to all uncertainty on the
subject, by showing us that the marble group of the Lion and the Bull,
which gave the harbour its name, stood at Tchatlady Kapou.

The evidence on the subject is found in a report which Pietro Zen,
Venetian envoy to the Turkish Court, sent to his Government in 1532,
where he describes the monument at great length, as he saw it after it
had been shaken by an earthquake. In quoting this description,[999] Von
Hammer, however, not only fails to use it for the settlement of the
question at issue, but also omits portions of the report which are of
the utmost importance for determining the exact site of the famous
group. Dr. Mordtmann, citing Von Hammer, has appreciated the
significance of the passage referred to, and employs it more
successfully, but with the same omissions.[1000]

The original manuscript of the report is preserved in the Marciana
Library, among the unpublished Archives of the Venetian Republic,[1001]
and the passage with which we are concerned reads to the following
effect:

“At the gate at which animals are slaughtered (near the columns of the
Hippodrome, on the road below), which in Turkish is named Chiachadi
Capisso, which in the Frank language means ‘Gate of the Crack,’ outside
the said water-gate, and beneath the three ancient windows which have a
lion at either end (of the row); there, down beside the shore, on two
columns, is a marble block upon which is a very large bull, much larger
than life, attacked at the throat by a lion, which has mounted upon the
back of the (bull’s) neck, and thrown him down, and strikes at a horn of
the bull with great force. This lion is considerably larger than life,
all cut out of one piece of stone of very fine quality. These animals
used to stand with their heads turned towards Asia, but it seems that on
that night (the night of the catastrophe) they turned themselves with
their heads towards the city. When this was observed next morning, the
whole population of the place ran together to the spot, full of
amazement and stupefaction. And every one went about discoursing upon
the significance of the event according to his own turn of mind; a comet
also appearing for many nights.”

The original is as follows, the words in italics being omitted by Von
Hammer: “Alla porta dove si amaza animali, acosto dile colone
dilprodramo, da basso via, _e in Turcho si chiama chiachadi capisso, e
in francho vol dir para di crepido_, fuora dila dita porta de marina,
_sotto quelle tre fenestre antiquissime che hanno uno lione per banda_,
li abasso alla marina, sopra due colone, e una lastra di marmoro sopra
la qual e uno granmo tauro, maior bonamente che il vivo, acanatto de uno
lione, el qual li e montato sopra la schena, et lo ho atterato, et da
una brancha ad un corno dil tauro in un grandissimo atto; e questo leone
assai maior del vivo e tutto di una piera de una bona vena ouer miner.
Questi animali soleano esser con le teste voltate verso Anatolia, et par
che quella medema notte i se voltasseno con le teste verso Conple., il
che la matina veduto tutta questa terra li e concorsa et ha fatto stupir
e stornir tutta quest terra; et ogni uno va discorendo secondo le
passione dil animo suo, stante una cometa apparsa per molte notte,
questa cosa per il preditto rispetto ho voluto significar.”[1002]

Nothing can be more explicit or more decisive.

There is no room to doubt that the monument described by Zen was the
group of the Lion and the Bull, described, before him, by Anna Comnena
and Zonaras.[1003] His description might be a translation of the account
given of the group by those writers. Nor is there any uncertainty as to
the locality where Zen saw the monument. He indicates the site with a
redundancy which makes misunderstanding simply impossible, and for which
he may be pardoned, since minute particularity seldom distinguishes the
statements of authorities on the topography of the city. According to
the Venetian envoy, the monument stood on the quay outside the
water-gate named Tchatlady Kapou, which was a gate below the Hippodrome,
and near a slaughter-house. The group stood, he adds, beneath a row of
three windows, adorned with a lion at either end, belonging to a very
ancient building.

[Illustration: Marble Figures of Lions Attached to the Balcony in the
Palace of the Bucoleon.]

Now, the gate to which the name Tchatlady pertains is a matter of public
notoriety, and every particular by which Zen marks the entrance he had
in mind holds good of that gate. It is near the Hippodrome, and on the
level ground below the race-course. On the western headland of the
little bay in front of it, is an old slaughter-house, by which
Leunclavius, likewise, identifies the gate Tchatlady Kapou, and from
which he derived the name of the entrance;[1004] while to the east of
the gate stood, until recent times, a Byzantine palace, in the façade of
which was a row of three windows, supported at either end by the figure
of a lion. The palace is thus described by Leunclavius: “This gate
(Tchatlady Kapou) has on one side of it the marble-framed windows of an
ancient building or palace, which rests upon the city walls
themselves.”[1005] Gyllius refers to it in the following terms: “Below
the Hippodrome towards the south is the Gate of the Marble Lion, which
stands without the city among the ruins of the Palace of Leo Marcellus.
The windows of the palace are of ancient workmanship, and are in the
city wall.”[1006] Choiseul-Gouffier[1007] gives a view of the palace as
seen in his day, and so does Canon Curtis, in his _Broken Bits of
Byzantium_. The façade was torn down in 1871, and the lions have been
placed at the foot of the steps leading to the Imperial School of Art,
within the Seraglio enclosure.[1008]

With this evidence as regards the site of the group of the Lion and the
Bull, it is impossible to doubt that the Harbour of the Bucoleon was in
the little bay before Tchatlady Kapou. And with this conclusion every
statement made by Byzantine writers regarding the harbour will be found
to agree.

[Illustration: Ruins of the Palace of the Bucoleon.[1009]]

That the shore of this bay was, like the Harbour of the Bucoleon, once
richly adorned with monumental buildings, is manifest from the beautiful
pieces of sculptured marble found upon its beach and in the water.
Furthermore, the bay stands, as the Harbour of the Bucoleon stood,
within easy reach of the site of the Great Palace. Here also are found
the ruins of two Imperial villas, situated in the very position ascribed
to the Palaces of the Bucoleon; namely, upon the city walls, at the
waters edge, and one of them on a lower level than the other.[1010] Such
correspondence goes to make the site of the Harbour of the Bucoleon one
of the best authenticated localities in the topography of Byzantine
Constantinople.

Here, however, a question arises. How far is this conclusion, regarding
the site of the Harbour of the Bucoleon, compatible with the received
opinion that the palace on the bay before Tchatlady Kapou was the Palace
of Hormisdas, the residence of Justinian the Great while
heir-apparent;[1011] and that the bay itself was the Harbour of
Hormisdas (ὁ λιμὴν τὰ Ὁρμίσδου)?[1012]

In the face of all the evidence we have that the Harbour and the Palace
of the Bucoleon were in the bay to the east of Tchatlady Kapou, there is
but one answer to the question. We must either abandon the view that the
Harbour and the Palace of Hormisdas had anything to do with that bay,
and maintain that they stood elsewhere, or we must conclude that they
were the Harbour and the Palace of the Bucoleon, under an earlier
designation.

Two considerations may be urged in favour of the former alternative.
First, the Anonymus distinguishes between the two palaces in a way which
seems to imply that they were different buildings. “The Palace of the
Bucoleon,” he says, “which stands upon the fortifications, was erected
by Theodosius the Younger;”[1013] while of the Palace of Hormisdas he
remarks: “The very large buildings near St. Sergius were the residence
of Justinian when a patrician.”[1014]

In the second place, the Anonymus[1015] identifies the Harbour of
Hormisdas with that of Julian. “What is called τὰ τοῦ Ὁρμίσδου,”
observes the former writer, “was a small harbour where Justinian the
Great built a monastery and called it Sergius and Bacchus, and another
church, that of the Holy Apostles (SS. Peter and Paul), after receiving
unction at the foot of the seats (of the Hippodrome), because of the
massacre in the Hippodrome. It was named the Harbour of Julian, from its
constructor.” Codinus[1016] also identifies the two harbours, and adds,
that the Harbour of Julian had served for the accommodation of ships
before the Harbour of the Sophiôn was constructed; that it had long been
filled up; and that Justinian the Great had lived there before his
accession to the throne. But if on the ground of these statements we
identify the Harbour of Hormisdas with that of Julian, as Banduri[1017]
and Labarte[1018] maintain, then the Harbour of Hormisdas was not
situated in the bay to the east of Tchatlady Kapou, but at Kadriga
Limani, the undoubted site of the Harbour of Julian, to the west of the
gate.[1019] The Palace of Hormisdas, also, must then have been in that
direction.

In the light, however, of all our knowledge on the subject, the identity
of the two harbours just named cannot be maintained. John of
Antioch,[1020] a far more reliable authority than the Anonymus or
Codinus, makes it perfectly clear that the Harbour of Julian (which he
calls by its later name, the Harbour of Sophia) was different from any
harbour in the quarter of Hormisdas. According to him, the troops
collected by Phocas for the defence of the city against Heraclius
occupied three positions—the Harbour of Kaisarius, the Harbour of
Sophia, and the quarter of Hormisdas. At the first two points were
placed the Greens, while the third position was held by the Blues. From
this account of the matter it is evident that the Harbour of Julian was
not the harbour in the quarter of Hormisdas. It is a corroboration of
this conclusion to find that in the narrative of the same events, given
in the _Paschal Chronicle_,[1021] while no mention is made of the
Harbour of Hormisdas, the Harbour of Julian is described as situated in
another quarter, the quarter of Maurus (κατὰ τὰ λεγόμενα Μαύρου).

[Illustration: Portion of the Palace of Hormisdas.[1022]]

In favour of the alternative that the Palace and Harbour of Hormisdas
were the Palace and Harbour of the Bucoleon under another name, may be
urged all that goes to show that the former stood where the evidence
furnished by Pietro Zen has obliged us to place the latter. The bay and
palace on the east of Tchatlady Kapou stand close to what was
unquestionably the district of Hormisdas; for the Church of SS. Sergius
and Bacchus (Kutchuk Aya Sophia), a short distance to the west of the
gate, was in that district.[1023] It would be strange if a palace and
harbour so near that district were not those known by its name.

The palace at Tchatlady Kapou answers, moreover, to the description
which Procopius gives of the Palace of Hormisdas, the residence of
Justinian, as near SS. Sergius and the Great Palace.[1024] Its position
agrees also with the statement of John of Ephesus that the Palace of
Hormisdas was below the great Imperial residence.[1025] Again, the style
of the capitals and other pieces of marble, which have fallen from the
palace at Tchatlady Kapou into the water, resemble the sculptured work
in the Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, erected by Justinian. And
lastly, the palace at this point was regarded as the Palace of Justinian
when Bondelmontius visited the city in 1422. “Beyond Condoscali (Koum
Kapoussi),” says that traveller, as he proceeds eastward, along the
Marmora shore of the city, “was the very large Palace of Justinian upon
the city walls” (“Ultra fuit supra mœnia amplissimum Justiniani
Palatium”).

All this being the case, it seems unavoidable to conclude that the
Palace and Harbour of Hormisdas were the Palace and Harbour of the
Bucoleon, under an earlier name. The circumstance that the palaces are
distinguished by the Anonymus presents, after all, no serious
difficulty, but the reverse; for, as a matter of fact, there are two
palatial buildings on the bay east of Tchatlady Kapou, at a distance of
some 110 yards from each other, and on different levels. One of the
buildings, probably the lower, might be the Palace of Hormisdas; the
other, on higher ground, and nearer the gate—may be the palace to which
the Anonymus referred as the Bucoleon.

It is in keeping with this view of the subject to find that the terms
“Palace of Hormisdas,” “Port of Hormisdas,” are not employed by
Byzantine authors to designate an Imperial residence or harbour, after
the name Bucoleon came into vogue.

The earliest writer who refers to the Harbour of the Bucoleon is the
Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus,[1026] in the tenth century. Later
writers,[1027] it is true, employ the name when speaking of events which
occurred in the reign of Michael I., and in that of Theophilus, in the
course of the ninth century. But whether these writers do so because the
name was contemporary with the events narrated, or because, when the
historians wrote, it was the more familiar appellation for the scene of
those events, is uncertain. Should the former supposition be preferred,
it was early in the ninth century that the term “Bucoleon” first
appeared.

On the other hand, the last author who alludes to the Palace of
Hormisdas is the historian Theophanes, who died in 818. The passage in
which the allusion is found refers, indeed, to matters which transpired
in the seventh century, viz. to the execution of a certain David,
Chartophylax of (the Palace of) Hormisdas, in the reign of Phocas. But
the historian could hardly have described an official position in terms
not still familiar to his readers.[1028]

Accordingly, the designation “Palace of Hormisdas” disappears about the
time when the term “Bucoleon” appears, and this is consistent with the
supposition that the two names denoted the same building at different
periods of its history.[1029]

The Palace of Hormisdas was so named in honour of the Persian Prince
Hormisdas, who had been deprived of the succession to the throne of his
country by a conspiracy of nobles, and confined in a tower; but who
escaped from his prison through the ingenuity of his wife, and fled to
New Rome for protection at the hands of Constantine the Great. The royal
fugitive was received with the honour due to his rank, and this
residence was assigned to him because near the emperor’s own
palace.[1030] Later, the residence was occupied, as already intimated,
by Justinian while Crown Prince, with his consort Theodora; and after
his accession to the throne, was by his orders, improved and annexed to
the Great Palace.[1031] It appears in the reign of Justin II. as the
abode of Tiberius, upon his being appointed Cæsar.[1032] Under ordinary
circumstances, Tiberius should have occupied apartments in the Great
Palace. But the Empress Sophia was bitterly jealous of his wife Ino, and
forbade her to show herself at Court, on any pretext whatever. Obliged,
consequently, to find a home elsewhere, the Cæsar selected the Palace of
Hormisdas, because its proximity to the Great Palace would allow him to
enjoy the society of his family, and attend to his official duties. But
the jealousy of the empress was not to be allayed so readily. It
followed Ino to the Palace of Hormisdas with such intensity that the
ladies of the Court dared not visit her even there; and it compelled her
at last to leave the capital and retire to Daphnusium.

As already stated, when Heraclius appeared with a fleet, in 610, before
the city to put an end to the tyranny of Phocas, he found the quarter of
Hormisdas defended by the Faction of the Blues.[1033]

During the tenth century, the port and palace, then called Bucoleon,
received special marks of Imperial favour. Constantine Porphyrogenitus,
noted for his devotion to the Fine Arts, adorned the quay of the harbour
with figures of animals, brought from various parts of the Empire.[1034]
Possibly, the group of the Lion and the Bull was placed there by him. He
also attached a fishpond to the palace.

Later, Nicephorus Phocas added a villa, which he made his usual place of
residence.[1035] It was probably the building with the row of three
windows, supported by a lion at either end. A still more important
change was introduced by the same emperor. His austere character, and
the heavy taxes he imposed for the maintenance of the army, made him
exceedingly unpopular, notwithstanding his eminent services as the
conqueror of the Saracens. So strong did the hostile feeling against him
become, that, returning once from a visit to the Holy Spring of the
Pegè, he was mobbed at the Forum of Constantine, and narrowly escaped
being stoned to death before he could reach the palace.[1036] Rumours of
a plot to dethrone and kill him were also in circulation. He therefore
decided to convert the Great Palace into a fortress, and to provision it
with everything requisite to withstand a siege.[1037]

Accordingly, he surrounded the grounds of the Imperial residence with a
strong and lofty wall, which described a great arc from the
neighbourhood of Ahour Kapoussi on the east to Tchatlady Kapou on the
west, and thus cut off the palace from the rest of the city.[1038]
Luitprand,[1039] who saw the wall soon after its erection, says of it:
“The palace at Constantinople surpasses in beauty and strength any
fortifications that I have ever seen.” Within this wall the Palace of
Bucoleon was, of course, included.

Labarte[1040] and Schlumberger[1041] maintain, indeed, that Nicephorus
surrounded the Palace of Bucoleon with special works of defence, and
constituted it a citadel within the fortifications of the Great Palace.
But Leo Diaconus, Cedrenus and Zonaras, our authorities on the subject,
make no such statement.[1042]

[Illustration: Ruins of the Palace of Hormisdas.]

As might be expected, historical events of considerable importance
transpired at the Port and the Palace of the Bucoleon.

Here, in 919, Romanus Lecapenus, admiral of the fleet, made the naval
demonstration which compelled Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus to accept
him as a colleague, and to surrender the administration of affairs into
his hands.[1043]

It was here that the memorable conspiracy against Nicephorus Phocas was
carried out, in 969, by John Zimisces, with the connivance of the
Empress Theophano.[1044] Under cover of the night, the conspirators
embarked at Chalcedon, the residence of Zimisces at the time, and in the
teeth of a strong north wind, and with snow falling heavily, crossed to
the Bucoleon. A low whistle announced their arrival to their
accomplices, who were watching on the terrace of the palace; and in
response, a basket held fast by ropes was stealthily lowered and raised,
again and again, until one by one all in the boat were lifted to the
summit. The last to ascend was Zimisces himself. Then the traitors made
for the apartment in which they expected to find the emperor.
Nicephorus, who had received some intimation of the plot, was not in his
usual chamber, and the conspirators, fearing they had been betrayed,
were about to leap into the sea and make their escape, when a eunuch
appeared and guided them to the room in which the doomed sovereign lay
fast asleep on the floor, on a leopard’s skin, and covered with a
scarlet woollen blanket. Not to spare their victim a single pang, they
first awakened the slumberer, and then assailed him with their swords as
he prayed, “Lord, have mercy upon me.” As if to add irony to the event,
Nicephorus met his fate, it is said, on the very day on which the
fortifications around the palace were completed. After this, guards were
stationed, at night, on the quay of the Harbour of the Bucoleon, to warn
off boats that approached the shore.[1045]

From this point, Alexius Comnenus entered the Great Palace, after the
deposition of Nicephorus Botoniates; leaving his young wife and her
immediate relatives in the residence by the shore, while he himself,
with the members of his own family, proceeded to the higher palace (τὸ
ὑπερκείμενον παλάτιον).[1046] Here, also, in 1170, Amaury, King of
Jerusalem, landed on the occasion of his visit to Manuel Comnenus, to
seek the emperor’s aid against Saladin. Access to the palace by this
landing, says William of Tyre,[1047] in his account of that visit, was
reserved, as a rule, for the emperor exclusively. But it was granted to
Amaury as a special honour, and here he was welcomed by the great
officers of the palace, and then conducted through galleries and halls
of wonderful variety of style, to the palace on an eminence, where
Manuel and the great dignitaries of State awaited the arrival of the
king.

In the course of time, as the prominent position of the Palace and the
Harbour of Bucoleon rendered natural, the name Bucoleon, it would
appear, was extended to the whole collection of buildings which formed
the Great Palace, facing the Sea of Marmora. That is certainly the sense
in which Ville-Hardouin employs the term in his work on the Conquest of
Constantinople by the Crusaders. He associates “le palais de Bouchelyon”
with the Palace of Blachernæ, as one of the principal residences of the
Greek emperors. In the division of the spoils of the city, the Palace of
“Bouchelyon,” like the Palace of Blachernæ, was to belong to the prince
whom the Crusaders would elect Emperor of Constantinople;[1048] upon the
capture of the city, the Marquis of Montferrat hastened to seize the
Palace of Bucoleon, while Henry, the brother of Baldwin, secured the
surrender of the Palace of Blachernæ;[1049] the treasure found in the
former is described as equal to that in the latter: “Il n’en faut pas
parler; car il y en avait tant que c’était sans fin ni mesure.” Indeed,
the statements of Ville-Hardouin concerning the Palace of Bucoleon make
the impression that of the two Imperial residences which he names, it
was, if anything, the more important.[1050] Thither Murtzuphlus fled
when his troops were discomfited.[1051] There, the Marquis of Montferrat
found congregated for safety most of the great ladies of the Court,
including Agnes of France, wife of Alexius II., and Margaret of Hungary,
wife of Isaac Angelus.[1052] And to the Palace of Bucoleon, the richest
in the world (“el riche palais de Bochelyon, qui onques plus riches ne
fu veuz”), the Latin Emperor Baldwin proceeded in great state, after his
coronation in St. Sophia, to celebrate the festivities attending his
accession to the throne.[1053] There, also, were held the festivities in
honour of the marriage of the Emperor Henry with Agnes, the daughter of
the Marquis of Montferrat.[1054] It is not possible that the two
comparatively small buildings at Tchatlady Kapou could be the palace
which Ville-Hardouin had in mind in connection with these events. The
terms he employs, in speaking on the subject, were appropriate only to
the Great Palace as a whole.

The designation of the Palace of Bucoleon as “Chastel de
Bouchelyon”[1055] is no evidence that Ville-Hardouin used the name in
its restricted sense, as Labarte contends. For the Great Palace was
within a fortified enclosure, and could therefore be styled a castle
with perfect propriety, just as the same historian, for a similar
reason, speaks of the Palace of Blachernæ as a “chastel.” Nor does the
fact that the Marquis of Montferrat reached the Palace of Bucoleon by
riding along the shore (“chevaucha tout le long du rivage, droit vers
Bouchelion”)[1056] prove that the residence beside Tchatlady Kapou was
the one he wished specially to secure. For the grounds of the Great
Palace were thus accessible by a gate which stood at the eastern
extremity of the Tzycanisterion, on the plain beside the Sea of Marmora,
and which communicated with the quarter of the city near the head of the
promontory.

Two incidents in Byzantine history, cited by Labarte[1057] himself,
establish the existence of such a gate, beyond contradiction. When
Stephen and Constantine, the sons of the Emperor Romanus Lecapenus,
deposed their father, in 944, and sent him to a monastery on the island
of Proti,[1058] great fears were entertained in the city, that a
similar, if not a worse, fate had befallen his associate upon the
throne, the popular Constantine VII., Porphyrogenitus. The people,
therefore, crowded about the palace to ascertain the truth, and were
reassured that their favourite was safe by his appearance, with
dishevelled hair, at the iron bars of the gate which stood at the end of
the Tzycanisterion (“Ex ea parte qua Zucanistrii magnitudo portenditur,
Constantinus crines solutus per cancellos caput exposuit.”) The
existence of a gate at this point is, if possible, still clearer from
the statement of Constantine Porphyrogenitus,[1059] that the Saracen
ambassadors, after their audience of the emperor, left the palace
grounds by descending to the Tzycanisterion, and mounting horse there.
To approach the palace by that entrance evinced, therefore, no
particular intention on the part of the Marquis of Montferrat to reach
the buildings to which the name of Bucoleon strictly belonged. On the
contrary, by that entrance one would reach the principal apartments of
the Great Palace, sooner than the palaces beside the group of the Lion
and the Bull, at Tchatlady Kapou.

The Bucoleon is mentioned for the last time in Byzantine history, in
connection with the events of the final fall of the city. “To Peter
Guliano, consul of the Catalans, was entrusted,” says Phrantzes,[1060]
“the defence of the quarter of the Bucoleon, and the districts as far as
the neighbourhood of the Kontoscalion.”

Footnote 989:

  Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 292.

Footnote 990:

  Anna Comn., iii. p. 137; Zonaras, xvi. c. xxviii. p. 131.

Footnote 991:

  Bondelmontius’ Map.

Footnote 992:

  William of Tyre, xx. c. xxiii. p. 983.

Footnote 993:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 447; Anna Comn., vii. pp. 334, 335; _Itinéraires
  Russes en Orient_, p. 235.

Footnote 994:

  William of Tyre, _ut supra_.

Footnote 995:

  Anna Comn., iii. p. 137; Anonymus, i. p. 9.

Footnote 996:

  Page 118.

Footnote 997:

  See above, p. 255.

Footnote 998:

  _Le Palais Impérial de Consple._, pp. 201-210.

Footnote 999:

  _Constantinopolis und der Bosporos_, vol. i. pp. 119, 121, 124.

Footnote 1000:

  _Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman_, vol. v., note xxxv.

Footnote 1001:

  Pages 53, 54.

Footnote 1002:

  Marin Sanuto, _Diarii Autographi_, vol. lvii., Carta 158, recto, 14
  Decembrio, 1532. The document was addressed to the Doge Gritti, who
  had been in Constantinople, and knew the localities to which allusion
  was made.

Footnote 1003:

  Von Hammer (_Histoire de L’Empire Ottoman_, vol. v. note xxxv.) quotes
  also from Cornelius, the ambassador of Charles V. to Sultan Suleiman,
  who alludes to the subject in the following words: “Est mamor quoddam
  hic propere ad mare, in quo sculptus est leo ingens tenens taurum
  cornibus, tam vasta moles ut a mille hominibus moveri non possit.”

  The Venetian historian Sagrado, in his _Memorie Istoriche de Monarchi
  Ottomani,_ adds that the monument fell to the ground. “In
  Constantinopoli un Leone di pietra, il quale stava fuori della porta a
  Marina, che con una zanna afferava on toro, guardava prima verso
  Levante, si ritrovo che stava rivolto a Ponente. E perche, era situato
  sopra due colonne, precipito unitamente col toro, che si ruppe una
  coscia e cade con la testa nel fiume, in cui parea in certo modo che
  bevese” (_Libro_, iv. p. 319. Venezia, 1677).

  With the above compare the statement found in the _Spectator_ of April
  20, 1895, p. 519, when describing the effects of recent earthquakes in
  Southern Austria, Northern Italy, and Hungary: “At Fiume and Trieste
  there was also a good deal of disturbance, and at Trieste the statue
  of the Emperor Charles is reported to have twisted round on its
  pedestal and now faces opposite to where it faced before. What an omen
  that would have been considered three hundred years ago!”

Footnote 1004:

  See above, p. 269, ref. 2.

Footnote 1005:

  _Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200: “Tchatladi capsi, a mactatione
  pecudum.... Ædificium rotundum extra muros, ipso mari vicinum, ac
  vetus habet undique circumfluum nisi qua terræ jungitur, in quo
  mactantur, excoriantur et exenterantur pecudes.”

Footnote 1006:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra_: “Fenestres habet hæc porta (Tchatlady Kapou)
  marmoreas a latere, cujusdam ædificii vel palatii veteris, quod ipsis,
  muris urbanis incumbit.”

Footnote 1007:

  _De Top. CP._, lib. i. c. vii.; lib. ii. c. xv.: “Sub Hippodromo
  versus meridiem est Porta Leonis Marmorei, extra urbem siti, in
  ruderibus Palatii Leonis Marcelli; cujus fenestræ antiquo opere
  laboratæ extant in muro inclusæ.”

Footnote 1008:

  _Voyage Pittoresque dans l’Empire Ottoman, etc._, vol. iv.

Footnote 1009:

  The palace stood on a terraced platform, the area of which was some
  200 by 175 feet. See Map facing p. 269.

Footnote 1010:

  From _Broken Bits of Byzantium_. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)

Footnote 1011:

  See above, p. 269. Anna Comnena (iii. p. 137) speaks of a lower and a
  higher palace, Ἐν τῷ κάτω παλατίῳ: εἰς τὸ ὑπερκείμενον παλάτιον.

Footnote 1012:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. iv.; Bondelmontius, _Librum Insularum_, p.
  121.

Footnote 1013:

  Labarte, _Le Palais Imperial de Consple._, pp. 208-210.

Footnote 1014:

  Lib. i. p. 9.

Footnote 1015:

  Lib. iii. p. 42; cf. Codinus, p. 125.

Footnote 1016:

  Lib. iii. p. 45.

Footnote 1017:

  Codinus, p. 87.

Footnote 1018:

  _Imperium Orientale_, vol. ii. pp. 678, 679.

Footnote 1019:

  _Le Palais Imperial de Consple._, pp. 208, 209.

Footnote 1020:

  See below, p. 290.

Footnote 1021:

  _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, vol. iv. p. 107.

Footnote 1022:

  Page 700.

Footnote 1023:

  From _Broken Bits of Byzantium_. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)

Footnote 1024:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. iv.

Footnote 1025:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. iv.

Footnote 1026:

  Translation by R. Payne Smith, p. 179.

Footnote 1027:

  _De Cer._, p. 601.

Footnote 1028:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 22; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 49.

Footnote 1029:

  Theophanes, p. 456. May David, however, in opposition to the view of
  Du Cange, adopted in the text, not have been Keeper of the Archives of
  SS. Sergius and Bacchus?

Footnote 1030:

  Against this view it may be objected that the Anonymus ascribes the
  Palace of the Bucoleon to Theodosius II. But the authority of the
  Anonymus on points of history is not very great. Or, it may be held,
  that the palace was founded by Theodosius II., and that the name
  Bucoleon was given to it later.

Footnote 1031:

  Zosimus, ii. pp. 92, 93; iii. pp. 140, 158.

Footnote 1032:

  Procopius, _De Æd._ i. c. iv.

Footnote 1033:

  _John of Ephesus_, translation by R. Payne Smith, pp. 179, 180.

Footnote 1034:

  John of Antioch, _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, vol. iv. p. 107.

Footnote 1035:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 447.

Footnote 1036:

  Nicetas Chon., iii. p. 149.

Footnote 1037:

  Leo Diac., iv. p. 63-65.

Footnote 1038:

  _Ibid._, iv. p. 64; Cedrenus, vol. ii. 369, 370; Zonaras, xvi. c.
  xxvi. p. 123. The last author describes the work thus: Τῷ νῦν ὁρωμένῳ
  τείχει τὰ βασίλεια ἐστεφάνωσεν. Ἄκροπολιν δ᾽ οἱ πολίται τοῦτο καὶ
  τυραννεῖον καθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν γινόμενον ἔκρινον.

Footnote 1039:

  _Ibid._, iv. p. 64, Περίβολον ἐκ τοῦ θατέρου μέρους τοῦ πρὸς θάλατταν
  ἐπικλινοῦς τῶν ἀνακτόρων τειχίζειν ἀρξάμενος, κατὰ θάτερον πρὸς
  θάλατταν συνεπέρανε, καὶ τεῖχος, τὸ νῦν ὁρώμενον ὑψηλόν τε καὶ ὀχυρὸν
  ἐδομήσατο, καὶ τὴν βασίλειον ἑστίαν ὡς ὑπετόπαζεν, ἠσφαλίσατο. Not, as
  Schlumberger supposes, from the Golden Horn to the Sea of Marmora,
  across the promontory (_Un Empereur Byzantin au Dixième Siècle_, p.
  544).

Footnote 1040:

  Lib. v. c. ix.; Migne, _Patrologia Latina_, vol. cxxxvi.

Footnote 1041:

  _Le Palais Impérial de Consple._, p. 210.

Footnote 1042:

  _Op. cit._, p. 545.

Footnote 1043:

  Still, the Palaces of the Bucoleon may have been protected by a
  special enclosure, although the historians do not refer to it
  particularly.

  In the garden of a Turkish house to the north of the lower palace, a
  portion of a Byzantine wall, about 130 feet in length and 40 feet
  high, is found standing. It was discovered, when walls and houses in
  the neighbourhood were demolished for the construction of the
  Roumelian Railway, and was then pierced by a very large vaulted
  gateway, over 18 feet high, supported by four great marble columns.
  Gate and columns have disappeared. If produced southwards, the wall
  would join the tower at the eastern end of the lower palace; while if
  produced northwards, the wall would abut against the retaining wall of
  the terrace on which the Mosque of Sultan Achmet and its courtyards
  are built. The wall is pierced with loopholes, facing _east_, and
  behind them a passage runs along the rear of the wall, through arches
  occurring at intervals.

  Dr. Paspates (p. 120) regarded the wall as part of the Peridromi of
  Marcian (see Labarte, _Le Palais Impérial de Consple._, p. 214),
  attached to the Great Palace. But this view of its character is not
  consistent with the fact that the loopholes look eastwards. That fact
  indicates that the wall belonged to the Palaces of the Bucoleon which
  stood to the rear. The gate in the wall, likewise, shows that these
  palaces were separated from the area of the Great Palace. May the wall
  not have turned westwards, at its present northern extremity, to
  protect the Palaces of the Bucoleon along the north, and then
  southwards, to connect with the city wall at Tchatlady Kapou, and
  protect the palaces on the west? This, with the city wall along the
  southern front of the palaces, would put them within a fortified
  enclosure of their own.

Footnote 1044:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 393.

Footnote 1045:

  Leo Diaconus, v. p. 87; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 375.

Footnote 1046:

  Nicetas Chon., pp. 169, 170.

Footnote 1047:

  Anna Comn., iii. p. 137.

Footnote 1048:

  Lib. xx. c. 23.

Footnote 1049:

  _Conquête de Consple._, c. li. E.

Footnote 1050:

  _Ibid._, c. lv.

Footnote 1051:

  _Conquête de Consple._, c. li.

Footnote 1052:

  _Ibid._, c. liii.

Footnote 1053:

  _Ibid._, c. lv.

Footnote 1054:

  Ville-Hardouin, c. lviii.

Footnote 1055:

  _Ibid._, c. cvi.

Footnote 1056:

  _Ibid._, c. liii., lv.

Footnote 1057:

  _Ibid._, c. lv. The position assigned by Labarte to the Palace of
  Bucoleon, at Ahour Kapoussi, explains his interpretation of the
  statements of Ville-Hardouin.

Footnote 1058:

  _Le Palais Impérial de Consple._, p. 201. Labarte quotes Luitprandi
  Antapodosis, lib. v. s. 21, ap. Pertz., _Mon. Germ. Hist._, t. v. p.
  333.

Footnote 1059:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 393.

Footnote 1060:

  _De Cer._, p. 586.

Footnote 1061:

  Page 253.




                             CHAPTER XVIII.
            THE HARBOURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA—_continued_.


    The NEW HARBOUR[1061] (Portus Novus), known also as the HARBOUR OF
    JULIAN[1062] (Portus Divi Juliani: Λιμὴν τοῦ Ἰουλιανοῦ), and the
    HARBOUR OF SOPHIA,[1063] or the SOPHIAS[1064] (Λιμὴν τῆς Σοφίας, τῶν
    Σοφιῶν).


About 327 yards to the west of SS. Sergius and Bacchus traces are found
of an ancient harbour extending inland to the foot of the steep slope
above which the Hippodrome is situated. The Turkish name for the
locality, Kadriga Limani, “the Harbour of the Galleys,” is in itself an
indication of the presence of an old harbour at that point. When Gyllius
visited Constantinople, the port was enclosed by walls and almost filled
in, but still contained a pool of water, in which the women of the
district washed their clothes, and at the bottom of which, it was
reported, submerged triremes could sometimes be seen.[1065]

Here, as we shall immediately find, was the site of the harbour known by
the three names Portus Novus, the Harbour of Julian, the Harbour of
Sophia.

The harbour obtained its first name, when newly opened in the fourth
century, to distinguish it from the earlier harbours of the city; while
its other names were, respectively, bestowed in honour of the Emperor
Julian, the constructor of the harbour, and of the Empress Sophia, who
restored it when fallen into decay.

That these three names designated the same harbour can be proved, most
briefly and directly, by showing first the identity of the Portus Novus
with the Harbour of Sophia, and then the identity of the latter with the
Harbour of Julian.

The former point is established by the fact that the Portus Novus and
the Harbour of Sophia occupied the same position; both were situated on
the southern side of the city, and at the foot of the steep slope
descending from the Hippodrome towards the Sea of Marmora.[1066]

The evidence for the identity of the Harbour of Sophia with that of
Julian rests upon express declarations to that effect. There is, first,
the statement of Leo the Grammarian[1067] that the Emperor Justin II.
built the Palace of Sophia at the Harbour of Julian, and having cleaned
the latter, changed its name to the Harbour of Sophia. Then, we have two
passages in which Theophanes[1068] takes particular care to explain that
the Harbour of Julian went also by the name of Sophia. Furthermore, both
names are used to designate the scene of the same events, and the
position of the same buildings. For instance; whereas the _Paschal
Chronicle_[1069] states that the final action in the struggle between
Phocas and Heraclius took place in the Harbour of Julian, John of
Antioch[1070] and Cedrenus[1071] say it occurred at the Harbour of
Sophia. Again, while some authors[1072] put the Residence of Probus, the
district of Maurus, and the Palace of Sophia, beside the Harbour of
Julian, others[1073] place them beside the Harbour of Sophia.

That the harbour known under these different names was at Kadriga Limani
admits of no doubt, seeing the Portus Novus and the Harbour of Sophia
were, as already intimated, at the foot of the steep ascent below the
Hippodrome,[1074] where Kadriga Limani is found. Or the same conclusion
may be reached by another line of argument. The Portus Juliani
(identical with the Portus Novus and the Harbour of Sophia) was a large
harbour on the southern side of the city,[1075] and close to the Church
of SS. Sergius and Bacchus.[1076] It could not, however, have stood to
the east of that church, for not only are all traces of such a harbour
wanting in that direction, but no large harbour could possibly have been
constructed there, on account of the character of the coast. The Portus
Juliani, therefore, lay to the west of SS. Sergius and Bacchus. But it
could have been very near that church (the other indication of its
site), only if at Kadriga Limani.

The construction of the harbour was ordered by Julian during his stay of
ten months in Constantinople, on his way to the scene of war in
Persia.[1077] He likewise erected beside it, for the convenience of
merchants and traders frequenting the harbour, a fine crescent-shaped
portico styled, from its form, the Sigma (Σίγμα);[1078] and there, also,
his statue stood until 535, when it fell in an earthquake, and was
replaced by a cross.[1079] In promoting such public works, Julian was
actuated not only by the dictates of enlightened policy, but also by the
affection he cherished for the city of his birth.[1080]

After one hundred and fifty years, the harbour was so injured by the
accumulation of the sand thrown up on this coast as to call for
extensive repairs; and accordingly, at the order of Anastasius I., it
was, in 509, dredged, and protected by a mole.[1081]

Nevertheless, further restoration was required sixty years later, in the
reign of Justin II. The work was then executed under the superintendence
of Narses and the Protovestarius Troilus, at the urgent solicitation of
the Empress Sophia, whose sympathies had been greatly stirred by seeing,
from her palace windows, ships in distress during a violent storm on the
Sea of Marmora. It was in recognition of the empress’s interest in the
matter that the harbour received her name,[1082] and was adorned with
her statue, as well as with the statues of Justin II., her daughter
Arabia, and Narses.[1083] Owing to the improvements made on the harbour
at this time, the Marine Exchange of the city was transferred to it from
the Neorion on the Golden Horn.[1084] The port continued in use to the
end of the Empire, and also for some sixty years after the Turkish
Conquest. The entrance (now closed) was between the two large towers
immediately to the west of SS. Sergius and Bacchus.

With the harbour the following historical events are associated: Here
the body of St. Chrysostom was landed, and placed for a time in the
neighbouring Church of St. Thomas Amantiou, when brought from the land
of his exile to be entombed in the Church of the Holy Apostles.[1085] In
the riot of the Nika, the Residence of Probus, which stood beside the
harbour, was first searched for arms, and then set on fire by the
Factions.[1086] Here Phocas placed a division of the Green Faction, to
prevent the landing of troops from the fleet of Heraclius;[1087] and
hither the tyrant himself was dragged from his palace, thrown into a
boat, and taken to Heraclius, in whose presence he was put to
death.[1088] Here Leontius, upon his appointment as Governor of the
Theme of Hellas, embarked to proceed to his post; but, at the instance
of his friends, landed to head the revolution which overthrew Justinian
II.[1089]

Several of the great fires to which Constantinople was so liable reached
this harbour. Among them was the terrible conflagration in the reign of
Leo the Great, which devastated the principal quarters of the city, from
the Golden Horn to the Sea of Marmora.[1090] The equally destructive
fire of 1203, which started with the burning, by the Crusaders, of the
Saracen Mosque beside the Golden Horn, near Sirkedji Iskelessi, likewise
swept across the city to this point.[1091] Other fires of minor
importance occurred here in 561, 863, 887, and 956.

To the list of the noted buildings and districts near the Harbour of
Julian, already mentioned, may be added the Residence of Bardas, father
of Nicephorus Phocas;[1092] the Residence of Isaac Sevastocrator, which
was converted by Isaac Angelus into a khan or hostelry (Pandocheion),
with accommodation for one hundred men and as many horses;[1093] the
Churches of St. Thekla;[1094] St. Thomas, Amantiou;[1095] the Archangel
Michael, of Adda (τοῦ Ἀδδᾷ);[1096] St. Julian Perdix; and St. John the
Forerunner, near the Residence of Probus.[1097]

Close to the Harbour of Sophia stood a tower known as the Bukanon, or
the Trumpet (τὸ Βύκανον).[1098] It was so named, according to the
Anonymus,[1099] both because trumpets were kept there, and because the
tower itself, being hollow, resounded like a trumpet when struck by the
waves. Whenever the Imperial fleet, the same writer adds, sailed from
the city, it was customary for the ships to assemble before this tower
and exchange musical salutes with it; a legend, which is probably a
fanciful travesty of the simple fact that the tower was a station from
which the movements of vessels were directed by trumpet signals.

If the order in which the Anonymus mentions the tower, between the SS.
Sergius and Bacchus and the Harbour of Sophia, indicates its actual
position, the Bukanon stood on the eastern side of the harbour.


             Harbour of the Kontoscalion (τὸ Κοντοσκάλιον).


Another harbour on the Marmora side of the city was the Harbour of
Kontoscalion.

The first reference to the Kontoscalion occurs in the Anonymus,[1100] in
the eleventh century, but the harbour acquired its greatest importance
after 1261, when it was selected by Michael Palæologus to be the
dockyard and principal station of the Imperial navy. Here the emperor
thought his fleet could lie more secure from attack, and in a better
position to assail an enemy, than in any other haven of the city. For
the force of the current along this shore would soon oblige hostile
ships approaching the port to beat a hasty retreat, lest they should be
driven upon the coast, and consequently expose them, as they withdrew,
to be taken in the rear by the Imperial vessels that would then sally
forth in pursuit. Great labour was therefore expended upon the old
harbour. It was dredged and deepened to render it more commodious; and
to make it more secure, it was surrounded with immense blocks, closed
with iron gates, and protected by a mole.[1101] Subsequently, as his
coat-of-arms on the western tower of the harbour indicated, the
Kontoscalion was repaired by Andronicus II.[1102]

A Russian pilgrim who visited the city about 1350 has drawn a vivid
picture of the harbour when crowded with triremes on account of contrary
weather:—

“De l’Hippodrome on passe devant Cantoscopie; là est la superbe et très
grande porte en fer à grillage de la ville. C’est par cette porte que la
mer pénétre dans la ville. Si la mer est agitée, jusqu’a trois cents
galères y trouvent place; ces galères ont les unes deux cents et les
autres trois cents rames. Ces vaisseaux sont employés au transport des
troupes. Si le vent est contraire, ils ne peuvent avancer, et doivent
attendre le beau temps.”[1103]

The Kontoscalion is generally held to have stood in front of Koum
Kapoussi, where the traces of an old harbour, about 270 yards wide and
some 217 yards long, are still discernible in an extensive mole off the
shore, and in the great bend described by the city walls at that point
to enclose an area which, at one time, was evidently a basin of water.

There is scarcely any room for doubt that this view is correct. The
adherence of the name Kontoscalion to this quarter, apparently, ever
since the Turkish Conquest,[1104] is in favour of the opinion. So,
likewise, is the fact that thus it becomes intelligible how
Pachymeres[1105] and Bondelmontius[1106] associate the harbour with
Vlanga, on the one hand, while Nicephorus Gregoras[1107] associates it
with the Hippodrome on the other. It is also a corroboration of this
view to find on the walls of the harbour the coat-of-arms of Andronicus
II., who is declared, by one authority, to have restored the
Kontoscalion.[1108] The only objection to this identification is found
in the difference between the character of the actual enclosure around
the harbour at Koum Kapoussi and the character of the enclosure which
Michael Palæologus placed around the Kontoscalion. The former consists
of the ordinary walls of the city; the latter consisted, according to
Pachymeres,[1109] of very large blocks of stone: ὥστε γυρῶσαι μὲν
μεγίσταις πέτραις τὸν κύκλῳ τόπον. But in reply to this objection it may
be said, either (though not without some violence to the words of the
historian) that the great blocks of stone referred to were the boulders
which form the mole of the harbour; or that the work done under Michael
Palæologus was temporary, and was superseded by the improvements
executed in the reign of his son and successor Andronicus II. The
objection must not be ignored.[1110]


                 Harbour of Eleutherius and Theodosius.


According to the _Notitia_,[1111] Constantinople possessed a harbour
called Portus Theodosianus, in the Twelfth Region of the city. As that
Region comprised within its limits the shore of the Sea of Marmora at
the southern base of the Seventh Hill, the Harbour of Theodosius must
have been found at Vlanga Bostan, where the basin of a very ancient
harbour, now filled in and converted into market-gardens, is distinctly
visible.

There can be little doubt that this harbour was also the one which went
by the name Harbour of Eleutherius[1112] (ὁ λιμὴν τοῦ Ἐλευθερίου): for
the district of Eleutherius, and the palace of that name,[1113] were
situated in the valley leading from Vlanga Bostan to Ak Serai, and the
Et Meidan. The harbour at Vlanga Bostan, moreover, corresponds to the
description given of the Harbour of Eleutherius by the Anonymus,[1114]
who speaks of it as a very ancient harbour, situated to the west of that
of Sophia, and abandoned long before his time.

If this be so, then the name Harbour of Eleutherius was its earlier
designation, and the port itself was the oldest on the side of the city
towards the Sea of Marmora, its construction being ascribed to a certain
Eleutherius, who was present at the foundation of Constantinople.[1115]
Its antiquity is supported by the aspect of its remains, for the walls
enclosing it on the north are the oldest portion of the fortifications
of the city, and possibly belong to the time of Constantine the Great.
Here the statue of Eleutherius was erected, in the appropriate equipment
of an excavator, with a spade in his hand and a basket on his
back.[1116]

[Illustration: Tower Guarding the Harbour of Eleutherius and
Theodosius.[1117]]

From the fact that the harbour was called Portus Theodosianus, it is
evident that it was improved by Theodosius I., to whom the city owed so
many public works.

When precisely the harbour was filled in is a question not easily
settled. The Anonymus declares, indeed, that this was done in the reign
of Theodosius I., with the earth excavated in laying the foundations of
the column of that emperor in the Forum of Taurus.[1118] But, had that
been the case, the _Notitia_ would scarcely have mentioned an abandoned
harbour among the objects for which the Twelfth Region of the city was
remarkable. What is certain is that the harbour was destroyed some time
before the eleventh century; probably because the earth brought by the
stream of the Lycus, which flows into the harbour, and the sand cast up
by the sea, proved too troublesome for the maintenance of a sufficient
depth of water.

The harbour measured 786 yards from east to west and 218 yards from
south to north. Along its southern side, as well as along a portion of
its side towards the east, it was protected by a mole twelve feet thick,
carefully constructed of masonry, and extending from the Gate of St.
Æmilianus (Daoud Pasha Kapoussi) eastwards for about 436 yards, and then
northwards for 327 yards more.[1119] Upon the greater portion of the
mole, walls were constructed for the military defence of the harbour.

The entrance was at the north-eastern end, between the head of the mole
and the site of the Gate Yeni Kapou, the opening through which the
Roumelian Railway now runs, and was guarded by a tower built at a short
distance out in the sea.[1120]

[Illustration: Portion of the Wall Around the Harbour of Eleutherius and
Theodosius.[1121]]

As stated already, the adjacent quarter was called the quarter of
Eleutherius (τὰ τοῦ Ἐλευθερίου). It is mentioned under that name in
1203, as the farthest point reached by the great fire which then
devastated the city through the folly of the Crusaders.[1122] The
present name of the quarter, Vlanga, appears first in the eleventh
century, as the designation of the residence of Andronicus Comnenus in
this part of the city (οἶκος ὅς τοῦ Βλάγγα ἐπικέκληται),[1123] and it is
the name by which writers subsequent to the Restoration of the Greek
Empire refer to the district.[1124]

In the vicinity stood the Palace of the Empress Irene,[1125] the
unnatural mother of Constantine VI., in which Basil II. entertained the
Legates of Pope Hadrian II.[1126]

The Church of St. Panteleemon, erected by Theodora the wife of Justinian
the Great, on the site of her humble dwelling when a poor woman earning
her bread by spinning wool[1127] and the district of Narses (τὰ
Ναρσοῦ)[1128] were in this neighbourhood; so also was the district of
Canicleius (τὰ Κανικλείου), where the emperor landed when proceeding to
pay his annual visit to that church.[1129] The modern Greek church of
St. Theodore, to the south of Boudroum Djamissi (Myrelaion), marks, Dr.
Mordtmann[1130] suggests, the district of Claudius (τὰ Κλαυδίου).


                    The Harbour of the Golden Gate.


Another harbour on this side of the city was the Harbour of the Golden
Gate (ὁ λιμὴν τῆς Χρυσῆς),[1131] in the bay to the west of the entrance
of that name. This is implied in the statement of Ducas, that during the
siege of 1453 the right wing of the Turkish army extended southwards
from the Gate of St. Romanus to the Harbour of the Golden Gate.[1132]

On the occasion of a triumph celebrating a victorious campaign in Asia
Minor, the harbour presented an animated scene; for the spoils and
prisoners which were to figure in the procession, were ferried across
from Chrysopolis, and landed at this point, to be marshalled on the
plain before the Golden Gate.[1133]

It was off this point that the Turkish fleet, in 1453, waited to
intercept the five gallant ships, which brought provisions to the city
from the island of Scio, and which forced their way to the Golden Horn,
notwithstanding all the efforts of 305 vessels of the Sultan to capture
them.[1134]


      The Harbour of Kaisarius and the Neorion at the Heptascalon.


Before concluding this account of the city harbours on the Sea of
Marmora, a point of some importance remains to be settled.

Byzantine historians speak of the Harbour of Kaisarius, and of the
Neorion at the Heptascalon, on the southern shore of the city. Now, as
traces of an additional harbour to those already mentioned, on this side
of the city, may be disputed, the question presents itself: Have the
Harbour of Kaisarius and the Neorion at the Heptascalon disappeared, or
were they one or other of the harbours already identified?

The Harbour of Kaisarius (Λιμὴν τοῦ Καισαρείου) is mentioned for
the first time in the Acts of the Fifth General Council of
Constantinople,[1135] held in 553, under Justinian the Great. Near
it, we are there informed, stood the Residence of Germanus: “In
domo Germani, prope portum Cæsarii.” The harbour is mentioned for
the last time by Cedrenus,[1136] in what is manifestly a quotation
from Theophanes.[1137] Beside it stood a district,[1138] and a
palace,[1139] known respectively as the District and the Palace of
Kaisarius (ἐν τοῖς Καισαρείου: κυράτωρ τῶν Καισαρείου); the latter
being probably the residence of Germanus above mentioned.

After whom the harbour was named is uncertain. Du Cange[1140] suggests
three persons from whom the designation may have been derived:
Kaisarius, Prefect of the City under Valentinian; Kaisarius, Prætorian
Prefect under Theodosius I.; and Kaisarius, a personage of some note in
the reign of Leo I. If the choice lies between these persons, the
preference must be given to the last; for the _Notitia_, which describes
the city in the reign of Theodosius II., makes no mention of this
harbour. In all probability, therefore, the Harbour of Kaisarius was
constructed towards the close of the fifth century.

That it stood on the Sea of Marmora is evident; first, from its
association with the Harbours of Julian and of Hormisdas, as one of the
points at which the tyrant Phocas placed troops to prevent the landing
of Heraclius on the southern side of the city;[1141] and secondly, from
the fact that it was there that Constantine Pogonatus, in 673, placed
his ships, armed with the newly invented tubes for squirting Greek fire,
to await the Saracen fleet coming up against the city from the
Ægean.[1142]

Passing next to the Neorion at the Heptascalon, we find that the term
“Heptascalon” is employed by Byzantine writers only in two connections:
first, and then generally in the corrupt form Πασχάλῳ or Πασκάλῳ, it
serves to mark the site of a church dedicated to St. Acacius; the
earliest writer who uses it for that purpose being Constantine
Porphyrogenitus,[1143] in his biography of Basil I., by whom the church
was restored: secondly, Cantacuzene[1144] employs the phrase to indicate
the situation of the harbour now under discussion.

In 1351 Cantacuzene[1145] found the harbour in a very unsatisfactory
condition. Owing to the sand which had accumulated in it for many years,
it could hardly float a ship laden with cargo; and accordingly, in
pursuance of his policy to develop the naval resources of the Empire, he
caused the harbour to be dredged at much labour and expense, to the
great convenience of public business. So extensive was the work of
restoration that in one passage the harbour is styled the New
Neorion.[1146]

Du Cange,[1147] misled by the fact that a Church of St. Acacius was
found in the Tenth Region—one of the Regions on the northern side of the
city—has classed the Neorion at the Heptascalon among the harbours on
the Golden Horn. But to identify a site in Byzantine Constantinople by
means of a church alone is a precarious proceeding, for churches of the
same dedication were to be found in different quarters of the city.
This, Du Cange[1148] himself admits, was possible in the case before us;
since, besides the Church of St. Acacius at the Heptascalon, writers
speak of a Church of St. Acacius ad Caream (Ἐν τῇ Καρύᾳ), and the
identity of the two sanctuaries cannot be assumed. But the existence of
a second church dedicated to St. Acacius is not a mere possibility.
According to Antony of Novgorod,[1149] there was a church of that
dedication also on the southern side of the city, not far from the
Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus. The Neorion at the Heptascalon may,
therefore, have been on the Sea of Marmora.

And that it was there, as a matter of fact, is evident from the
statements made regarding that harbour by Cantacuzene and Nicephorus
Gregoras, in their account of the naval engagement fought in the
Bosporus in 1351, between a Genoese fleet on the one hand, and the
Greeks, supported by Venetian and Spanish ships, on the other.

Upon coming up from the Ægean to take part in the war, the Venetians and
the Spaniards, says the former historian,[1150] anchored off the
Prince’s Island, to rest their crews after the hardships of the winter.
There they remained three days. Then, quitting their moorings, the two
allies made for the Neorion at the Heptascalon, or, as it is also
styled, the Neorion of the Byzantines (τὸ Βυζαντίων νεώριον),[1151] to
join the Imperial fleet which was stationed there, all ready for action,
and awaiting their arrival. Meanwhile, the Genoese admiral, with seventy
ships, had taken up his position at Chalcedon (Kadikeui), to watch and
oppose the movements of the allied squadrons. The wind was blowing a
gale from the south, and though the Venetians and Spaniards had started
for the Heptascalon very early in the morning, it was with the utmost
difficulty, and late in the afternoon, that they succeeded in crossing
from the island to the city. Even at the last moment they narrowly
escaped destruction, by being dashed to pieces against the boulders
scattered along the foot of the walls as a breakwater.

The Byzantine admiral, encouraged by the arrival of his allies, then
sallied forth from the Heptascalon, and led the way towards the Genoese
ships at Chalcedon. The latter, finding it impossible to make head
against the wind, retired towards Galata, and skilfully entrenched
themselves among the shoals and rocks off Beshiktash, preferring to be
attacked in that advantageous situation.[1152] The allies came on, and a
desperate conflict, partly on the water, partly on the rocks, ensued,
until night parted the combatants without a decisive victory on either
side.

With this narrative of Cantacuzene in view, no one familiar with the
vicinity of Constantinople can doubt for a moment that the Neorion at
the Heptascalon was upon the Sea of Marmora. The single circumstance
that the walls in the neighbourhood of the harbour were protected by
boulders placed in the sea as a breakwater is alone sufficient to prove
the fact; for only the walls bordering the Sea of Marmora were defended
in that manner. Equally conclusive is the circumstance that the Venetian
and Spanish ships found it difficult to make the harbour from the
Prince’s Island with a strong south wind on their left. Such a wind
would drive them towards the Bosporus with a violence that would render
it almost impossible for them to put into any port on the Marmora shore
of the city. Nor is it less decisive to find, as the historian’s account
makes perfectly clear, that the harbour was so situated; that the
approach to it, and possible shipwrecks at its entrance, could be
observed by the Genoese admiral stationed off Chalcedon; that an enemy
at Chalcedon found it hard to advance towards the Heptascalon in a
strong south wind; and that vessels proceeding from the harbour to
Galata could, on the way, touch at Chalcedon. These facts hold true only
of a harbour on the Sea of Marmora.

This conclusion, based on the narrative of Cantacuzene, is corroborated
by the indications which Nicephorus Gregoras[1153] furnishes regarding
the site of the Neorion. The events which transpired, according to the
former historian, at the Neorion at the Heptascalon, or the Neorion of
the Byzantines, took place, according to the latter, in the Harbour of
the Byzantines, or, more definitely, “the Harbour of the Byzantines
facing the east” (τοῦ τῶν Βυζαντίων λιμένος, τοῦ πρὸς ἒω
βλέποντος).[1154] That the expression “facing the east” denoted the
shore of the city facing the Sea of Marmora and the Asiatic coast is
manifest, from the use which Nicephorus Gregoras makes of that
expression in other passages of his work. The Golden Gate, which stands
near the Sea of Marmora, on what would generally be described as the
southern shore of the city, stood, according to him, near the city’s
_eastern_ shore.[1155] Again, the gale from the south, which damaged the
city fortifications along the Sea of Marmora in the year 1341, assailed,
he says, the _eastern_ walls of the capital.[1156] This way of speaking,
if not strictly accurate, is justified by the fact that extensive
portions of the city beside the Sea of Marmora face east or south-east.

Nor is this all. The harbour in question, adds Nicephorus
Gregoras,[1157] stood where the walls of the city were protected by
boulders; ships issuing from it, in a south wind, could readily make the
Bosporus;[1158] while ships proceeding from the Bosporus to the harbour
passed Chalcedon on the left, and could be watched from Chalcedon, upon
their arrival at their destination.[1159]

Such facts, we repeat, hold good only of a harbour situated on the shore
of the city beside the Sea of Marmora.

It being thus proved that the Harbour of Kaisarius and the Neorion at
the Heptascalon were situated on the Marmora side of the city, we return
to the question, whether they have disappeared, or were different names
for one or other of the harbours already identified.

So far as room for harbours additional to those already identified is
concerned, such room could be found only in the level ground at the foot
of the Third Hill, extending from the Kontoscalion at Koum Kapoussi to
the Harbour of Theodosius at Vlanga, points some 910 yards apart. An
additional harbour elsewhere was impossible, owing to the character of
the coast. Accordingly, if the Harbour of Kaisarius and the Neorion at
the Heptascalon cannot be identified with one or other of the well-known
harbours on the Sea of Marmora, they must have been situated between
Koum Kapoussi and Vlanga.

So far as the Harbour of Kaisarius is concerned, it could not have been
another name for the Harbour of the Bucoleon, or the Harbour of Julian
and Sophia, or the Harbour of the Golden Gate. For, as John of
Antioch[1160] makes perfectly clear in his account of the defence of the
city by Phocas against Heraclius, the Harbour of Kaisarius was situated
in the same general district as the two former harbours, and to the west
of them. Nor can the Harbour of Kaisarius be identified with the Harbour
of Theodosius, inasmuch as the latter had been filled in and
abandoned[1161] before the reigns of Phocas and Constantine IV., in the
seventh century, when the Harbour of Kaisarius was still one of the
principal ports on the southern coast of the city.[1162]

The Harbour of Kaisarius must, therefore, have been either the
Kontoscalion, at Koum Kapoussi, or another harbour between that gate and
Vlanga. To suppose that it was the Kontoscalion, under an earlier name,
is possible, since the name Kontoscalion, we have seen,[1163] appears
for the first time in the eleventh century. Still the circumstance that
a fire which started beside the Harbour of Kaisarius extended to the
Forum of the Ox (ἕως τοῦ Βοός),[1164] situated at Ak Serai far up the
valley that runs northwards from Yeni Kapou, suggests a situation nearer
Vlanga.

Turning, next, to the Neorion at the Heptascalon, it could, obviously,
not be the Harbour of the Bucoleon, attached to the Imperial Palace; nor
the Harbour of the Golden Gate, which was beyond the city limits; nor
the Harbour of Theodosius, which had been filled in long before the
reign of Cantacuzene, and which in 1400 and 1422, dates respectively not
fifty and seventy years after that emperor’s reign, is described as a
garden.[1165] The Neorion at the Heptascalon, therefore, must have been
either the Harbour of Julian and Sophia, or the Kontoscalion, or an
additional harbour between Koum Kapoussi and Vlanga. One objection to
the first supposition is that the Harbour of Julian and Sophia was so
notoriously known under its own special name, that reference to it by
another designation is extremely improbable. Another objection is that
the indications respecting the site of St. Acacius at the Heptascalon,
however vague their character, furnish no ground for believing that the
church stood in the vicinity of the Harbour of Julian and Sophia, but
support, rather, the opinion that it stood in the neighbourhood of
Boudroum Djamissi, in the quarter of Laleli Hamam, situated to the
north-west of Koum Kapoussi.[1166]

The supposition that the Neorion at the Heptascalon was the same as the
Kontoscalion is open to objections equally, if not more, serious. The
identity of the two harbours is inconsistent with the fact that the two
names occur in the writings of the same author, Cantacuzene,[1167] in
the same section of his work, in passages not widely separated and
treating of kindred matters, without the slightest hint that under the
different names he refers to the same thing. The natural impression made
by the use of the two names in such a way is that they denote different
things. Then, there is an opposition between the respective meanings of
the two names, which makes their application to the same object
incompatible; a harbour distinguished by a short pier cannot also be a
harbour distinguished by seven piers. In the next place, the different
accounts which Cantacuzene gives of the condition of the two harbours in
his reign imply that he is not speaking of the same port. He refers to
the Kontoscalion,[1168] in 1348, without a note of disparagement, as a
harbour in which he constructed several large triremes for the increase
of his fleet; while he describes the Neorion at the Heptascalon,[1169]
only three years later, as a harbour which had long been neglected,
which was full of silt, and which he restored at great expense, for the
public advantage, on a scale which entitled it to be styled the New
Neorion.[1170]

And just as all that Cantacuzene states regarding the two harbours
implies that they were different, so does the language of Nicephorus
Gregoras. When the latter writer alludes to the Kontoscalion, he
describes it as the harbour near the Hippodrome;[1171] when he alludes
to the Neorion at the Heptascalon, he describes it as the harbour facing
the east.[1172] Different marks are generally employed to distinguish
different objects.[1173] This being so, the unavoidable conclusion is
that the Neorion at the Heptascalon was a harbour situated between Koum
Kapoussi and Yeni Kapou, the only possible situation for an additional
harbour.

We should feel obliged to insist upon this conclusion, even in the
absence of any remains of a harbour in the situation indicated. Our
task, however, is not so arduous; for manifest traces of such a harbour
have been identified. In the first place, traces of a harbour in the
district above mentioned came to view in 1819, and were then officially
noted by so competent an authority as the Patriarch Constantius.[1174]
In that year a great fire burned down a large part of the Turkish
quarter near Yeni Kapou—Tulbenkdji Djamissi—and brought to light a
portion of an ancient circular enclosure around that quarter. The
discovery excited considerable attention, and the patriarch was
specially instructed by the Turkish Government of the day to examine the
wall and report the result of his investigations. Accompanied by two
distinguished members of the Greek community, the prelate proceeded to
the scene of the conflagration, and found a wall built of huge blocks of
stone, about seven feet long, four and a half feet wide, and over a foot
thick. The stones were carefully hewn and placed in three tiers; the
blocks in the two lower tiers being the ordinary limestone found on the
banks of the Bosporus, while the blocks in the highest row were of
marble from the Island of Marmora. The territory enclosed by the wall
presented the appearance of a great hollow which had been filled in,
since the Turkish Conquest, and raised to afford ground for building.
All that the patriarch saw convinced him that he stood upon the site of
one of the ancient harbours of the city. The wall has disappeared, as
the excellent building material it provided rendered natural. But other
remains of a harbour at this point, the complement of those discovered
by the patriarch, have been recognized, and can, to some extent, be
still distinguished.

Off the shore in front of the territory enclosed by the wall described
above is a mole formed with boulders (marked “Molotrümmer” on Stolpe’s
map of the city), similar to the mole before the old harbour at Koum
Kapoussi. At a point about half-way between Koum Kapoussi and Yeni
Kapou, there is a wide gap in this mole, dividing it in two unequal
parts, and forming a passage through it. The shore[1175] opposite the
gap was, until the construction of a quay in 1870 for the Roumelian
railroad, a sandy beach extending back to the foot of the city walls.
The portion of the walls at the rear of the beach was, however, not
Byzantine; but a piece of Turkish work[1176] inserted between the
Byzantine walls on either hand to close an opening which gave admittance
to the area occupied by the quarter of Tulbenkdji Djamissi.

Here, accordingly, we have traces of all that constitutes a harbour: its
mole, its entrance, its basin and enclosure, indicating where the
Neorion at the Heptascalon, which the language of Cantacuzene and
Nicephorus Gregoras obliges us to distinguish from the Kontoscalion, was
probably situated. At this point, it seems reasonable to think, stood
also the Harbour of Kaisarius, if we may judge from the circumstance
that a fire which originated at that harbour extended up the valley from
Vlanga to Ak Serai.[1177]

In the opinion of the Patriarch Constantius,[1178] indeed, the harbour
discovered in 1819 was the Kontoscalion. The statement of
Pachymeres[1179] and Bondelmontius,[1180] that the Kontoscalion was near
Vlanga, cannot, perhaps, be held to lend much countenance to this
supposition, for in view of the short distance between Vlanga and Koum
Kapoussi, the Kontoscalion might be thus described, although situated in
front of the latter. But what presents a most serious consideration in
favour of the patriarch’s opinion is the fact that the wall which he
examined answered exactly to the description of the wall with which
Michael Palæologus enclosed the Kontoscalion.

That emperor, according to Pachymeres,[1181] surrounded the Kontoscalion
with very large stones; and closed the entrance in the stones with iron
gates (Ὥστε γυρῶσαι μὲν μεγίσταις πέτραις τὸν κύκλῳ τόπον, ... πύλας δ᾽
ἐπιθεῖναι ἀραρυίας ἐκ σιδήρου τῇ ἐν ταῖς πέτραις εἰσίθμη ἔξωθεν).

No language could describe better the enclosure of large blocks
discovered in 1819; while the expression “the entrance in the stones”
applies admirably to the gap in the mole which protected the harbour.
Nothing of the kind is found at the harbour before Koum Kapoussi, which
lay within a mole and a great curve of the ordinary city walls. This, it
must be admitted, is an exceedingly strong argument in support of the
patriarch’s contention. On the other hand, we have seen how strong also
are the arguments in favour of the view that the Kontoscalion stood at
Koum Kapoussi.[1182] Perhaps the solution of the difficulty is found in
the supposition that while the name Kontoscalion strictly belonged to
the harbour at Koum Kapoussi, it was sometimes applied also to other
harbours in the vicinity, because the name of the most important member
of the group.


Note on the Locality where the Ancient Harbour Wall, discovered in 1819,
                               was found.


    The Patriarch Constantius, our sole informant on the subject, refers
    to this discovery twice; first, in his work on _Ancient and Modern
    Constantinople_ (Κωνσταντινιὰς Παλαιὰ τε καὶ Νεωτέρα), published in
    1844; secondly, in a letter, dated April 12, 1852, which is found in
    the collection of his minor works (Συγγραφαὶ αἱ Ἐλάσσωνες), and
    which was addressed to Mr. Scarlatus Byzantius, upon the publication
    of that gentleman’s work on the history and antiquities of the city.
    In that letter the patriarch corrects several mistakes made in his
    own work on the same subject, and gives additional information on
    other points.

    The earlier reference to the discovery is brief, and when viewed in
    the light of the later statements, altogether misleading. It occurs
    in the paragraph upon Koum Kapoussi, the ancient Gate of
    Kontoscalion (English translation, p. 21; Greek original, p. 30).
    After expressing the opinion that the Neorion of the Kontoscalion
    stood at that gate, and quoting the description which Pachymeres
    gives of the wall around the harbour, the reverend author adds: “A
    portion of this circular enclosure appeared in 1819, consisting of
    three layers of very large stones placed one upon the other” (Ἕν
    μέρος δὲ τούτου τοῦ κυκλικοῦ περιφράγματος τοῦ λιμένος ἀνεφάνη τῷ
    1819 ἔτει, συνιστάμενον ἐκ τριῶν θέσεων παμμεγίστων ἀλλεπαλλήλων
    πετρῶν).

    There can be but one meaning to this language, namely, that the
    enclosure referred to stood beside the harbour at Koum Kapoussi. But
    the difficulty with this language has always been how to make it
    coincide with the facts in the case. For, as already intimated, the
    enclosure around the harbour at Koum Kapoussi is almost intact, and
    consists of the ordinary walls of the city at their usual elevation.
    There has never been room at that point for another enclosure such
    as the patriarch describes. But his later, and, fortunately, fuller
    statements (Συγγραφαὶ αἱ Ἐλάσσωνες, pp. 443, 444) make the matter
    clear, although, at the same time, they convict the patriarch of
    inaccuracy in his first statement, so far as the locality of the
    discovery is concerned. According to the patriarch’s letter, the
    locality in question was not at Koum Kapoussi, but between that gate
    and the gate Yeni Kapou of Vlanga, and nearer to the latter entrance
    than to the former. This fact is confirmed by the additional
    indication that the discovery was made in a Turkish quarter; for the
    only Turkish quarter near the shore between Kadriga Limani, on the
    east of Koum Kapoussi, and Daoud Pasha Kapoussi, on the west of
    Vlanga, is the quarter of Tulbenkdji Djamissi near Yeni Kapou. But
    to render all doubt as to the situation of the locality impossible,
    the route taken to reach it is minutely described; the patriarch and
    his friends passed first through Kadriga Limani and the parishes of
    St. Kyriakè and St. Elpis; then they went beyond Koum Kapoussi
    itself, and, keeping within the line of the walls, proceeded to the
    neighbourhood of the gate of Yeni Kapou at Vlanga, where the wall
    had come to light. These particulars are, indeed, at variance with
    the statement found in _Ancient and Modern Constantinople_, but as
    they constitute the patriarch’s clearest and fullest declarations on
    the point at issue, and are made in a letter correcting mistakes in
    his former work, they have been adopted as his most authoritative
    statements. The subject being important and the patriarch’s letter
    but little known, the passages bearing most directly upon the
    question are here appended: Περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν Προποντίδα λιμένος,
    περὶ οὗ σημειοῦμεν ἐν τῷ ἡμετέρῳ Συγγράμματι, τοῦ παρὰ Μιχαὴλ τοῦ
    Παλαιολόγου κατασκευασθέντος, αὐτὸς κεῖται ἐν τῷ μέσῳ τῆς Πύλης
    Κοντοσκαλίου (Κοὺμ-καπουσοῦ) καὶ τῆς τοῦ Γενὶ-καπουσοῦ τῆς Βλάγκας,
    καὶ ὑπῆρχε, διὰ τὸ ἀσφαλέστερον, ἔνδον τῶν παραλίων τειχῶν
    κατεσκευασμενος. ... Ἀλλ᾽ ὅλου τοῦ μέρους, ἐν ᾦ ὁ τοῦ Παλαιολόγου
    ἔκειτο, κατοικουμενου ὑπὸ Ὀθωμανῶν, κατὰ τὸ 1819 ἔτος πυρπολυθέντος,
    ἀνεφάνη τὸ τοῦ λιμένος τούτου κυκλικὸν περίφραγμα, κατὰ τὸν
    Παχυμέρην, γεγυρωμένον ἐκ τριῶν ἀλλεπαλλήλως τεθειμένων μεγάλων
    πετρῶν, εἰργασμένων ὡς πλακῶν, ἐχουσῶν μῆκος μὲν τριῶν πήχεων, εὖρος
    δὲ δύω, καὶ βάθος ἡμίσειαν, τῶν μὲν δύω κάτωθεν ἀλλεπαλλήλων πλακῶν
    ἐκ πετρῶν τοῦ Βοσπόρου, λευκομελανοχρόων, τῆς δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν τρίτης
    σειρᾶς καὶ ἀνωτέρας, ἐκ μαρμάρων ἰσομέτρων Προκονησίων. He then
    refers to the order received from the Government to investigate the
    discovery, and mentions the persons who accompanied him on that
    errand; after which he continues thus: Διήλθομεν δὲ τὸ
    Κάτεργα-λιμὰν, τὰς ἐνορίας Ἁγίας Κυριακῆς καὶ Ἐλπίδος, παρήλθομεν τὸ
    Κοὺμ-καπουσοῦ, καὶ προεχωρήσαμεν ἔχοντες ἀριστερόθεν τὰ παράλια
    τείχη ἔνδοθεν, ἐγγὺς τῆς Πύλης Γενὶ-καπουσοῦ τῆς Βλάγκας, ὅπου
    εἴδομεν τὸ ἐκ πετρῶν καὶ μαρμάρων κυκλοτερὲς περίφραγμα,
    ἐκτεινόμενον ὑποκάτω ἑνὸς τεφρωθέντος Τζαμίου, ἑνὸς μεγάλου
    Ὀθωμανικοῦ οἴκου καὶ περαιτέρω. Καὶ παραυτίκα ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι τοῦτο
    αὐτὸ ἐστι, κατὰ τὸν Παχυμέρην, τὸ πρὸς τὴν Βλάγκαν νεῦον τοῦ
    Κοντασκαλίου Νεώριον. Ὅλος ὁ τόπος ὁ περιέχων ποτὲ τὸ Νεώριον αὐτὸ,
    μετὰ τὴν ἅλωσιν ἐπληρώθη, ἐχερσώθη καὶ ὑψώθη τὸ ἔδαφος,
    κατοικούμενος ὑπὸ Ὀθωμανῶν· αἱ δὲ ἀραρυῖαι ἐκ σιδήρου πύλαι, δι᾽ ὦν
    εἰσέπλεεν ὁ στόλος ἐλλιμενιζόμενος, ἀπῳκοδομήθησαν.

Footnote 1062:

  _Notitia, ad Reg. III._

Footnote 1063:

  Theod. Cod., _De Calcis Coctor_.

Footnote 1064:

  Theophanes, p. 284.

Footnote 1065:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 585.

Footnote 1066:

  _De Top. CP._, ii. c. xv.

Footnote 1067:

  _Notitia, ad Reg. III._; Nicetas Chon., p. 585; Leo Diaconus, v. pp.
  83, 84.

Footnote 1068:

  Page 135. Cf. Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 685.

Footnote 1069:

  Pages 284, 564, Εἰς τὸν Ἰουλιανοῦ τῆς Σοφίας λεγόμενον λιμένα: ἐν τῷ
  Ἰουλιανισίῳ λιμένι τῆς Σοφίας.

Footnote 1070:

  Page 700.

Footnote 1071:

  _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, v. p. 38.

Footnote 1072:

  Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 712.

Footnote 1073:

  _Paschal Chron._, pp. 622, 700; Theophanes, pp. 284, 364, 564.

Footnote 1074:

  Leo Gramm., p. 135; Theophanes, p. 564.

Footnote 1075:

  _Notitia ad Reg. III._; Leo Diaconus, v. pp. 83, 84.

Footnote 1076:

  Zosimus, p. 139; Evagrius, ii. c. xiii.; Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 611.

Footnote 1077:

  Zonaras, xiv. c. i. p. 1205.

Footnote 1078:

  Zosimus, pp. 139, 140.

Footnote 1079:

  Zosimus, _ut supra_.

Footnote 1080:

  Malalas, p. 479.

Footnote 1081:

  See Epistle 58.

Footnote 1082:

  Marcellinus Comes, “Portus Juliani, undis suis rotalibus exhaustus
  cœno effoso purgatus est;” Suidas, ad Anastasium.

Footnote 1083:

  The plural form of the name (τῶν Σοφιῶν) may allude to the two
  divisions of the harbour. See Mordtmann, p. 55: “La configuration
  actuelle permet encore de distinguer un port intérieur et un port
  extérieur, séparés par une étroite digne.”

Footnote 1084:

  Leo Gramm., p. 135; Anonymus, iii. p. 45.

Footnote 1085:

  Anonymus, ii. p. 30.

Footnote 1086:

  _Menæa_, January 27. This point was known also as ἐν τῷ μούλῳ τοῦ
  ἁγίου Θωμᾶ (Theophanes, p. 673).

Footnote 1087:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 622.

Footnote 1088:

  _Ibid._, p. 700.

Footnote 1089:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra_.

Footnote 1090:

  Theophanes, p. 564.

Footnote 1091:

  Evagrius, ii. c. xiii.

Footnote 1092:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 733.

Footnote 1093:

  Leo Diaconus, v. pp. 83, 84.

Footnote 1094:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 585.

Footnote 1095:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. iv.

Footnote 1096:

  Theophanes, p. 385.

Footnote 1097:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 46.

Footnote 1098:

  Codinus, p. 105.

Footnote 1099:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 733; Michael Psellus (Sathas, _Bibl. Græc. Med.
  Ævi._, vol. v. p. 214).

Footnote 1100:

  Lib. iii. p. 45.

Footnote 1101:

  Lib. ii. p. 34.

Footnote 1102:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 365, 366.

Footnote 1103:

  See below, p. 295, note 5.

Footnote 1104:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, pp. 120, 121.

Footnote 1105:

  Leunclavius, _Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200, is the first writer after
  the Conquest who refers to it: “Ipsa porta (_i.e._ Contoscalion) velut
  intra sinum quemdam abscedit versus unbem, et ab altera parte proximum
  sibi portum habet, pro triremibus, in mare se porrigentem et muris
  circumdatum.” The silence of Gyllius regarding the Kontoscalion is
  strange, unless he has confounded it with Kadriga Limani.

Footnote 1106:

  Vol. i. p. 365.

Footnote 1107:

  _Liber Insularum Archipelagi_, p. 121. “Propinqua huic (Vlanga)
  Condoscali vel Arsena restat.”

Footnote 1108:

  Lib. xvii. p. 854. Cf. Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 72, 74.

Footnote 1109:

  In a copy of the Anonymus, Codex Colbertinus, made in the thirteenth
  century, the copyist, under the heading Περὶ τὸν Σοφιανῶν λιμένα, adds
  the note that the harbour εἰς τὸ Κοντοσκάλον was constructed by
  Justin, and had been deepened and surrounded by a remarkable enclosure
  in his own day by Andronicus Comnenus Palæologus. See Banduri,
  _Imperium Orientale_, vol. ii. pp. 678-680. The copyist is at fault in
  identifying the Harbour of Sophia with the Kontoscalion, which was a
  historical question, but he may be trusted in regard to the
  restoration of the Kontoscalion, which was a contemporary event.

Footnote 1110:

  Vol. i. p. 365.

Footnote 1111:

  See below, pp. 312, 313.

Footnote 1112:

  _Ad Reg. XII._

Footnote 1113:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 46.

Footnote 1114:

  _Ibid._, p. 47.

Footnote 1115:

  Lib. iii. p. 46; cf. _ibid._, p. 45.

Footnote 1116:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 46.

Footnote 1117:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 46.

Footnote 1118:

  From _Broken Bits of Byzantium_. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)

Footnote 1119:

  Lib. iii. p. 46.

Footnote 1120:

  Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iii. c. viii.; iv. c. viii. According to this
  authority the circuit of the harbour was over a mile; the mole being
  600 paces long and 12 feet broad.

Footnote 1121:

  Gyllius, _ut supra_. “Cujus ostium vergebat ad solis ortum æstivum, a
  quo moles extendebatur ad occasum æstivum, supra quam nunc muri
  adstricti existunt.”

  “In faucibus portus, adhuc navium capacibus, extra murum urbis,
  etiamnum videtur turris undique mari circumdata, et saxa, reliquæ
  ruinarum.”

  Grelot, in his _Relation Nouvelle d’un Voyage de Constantinople_, pp.
  79, 80, refers to the tower thus (to quote the quaint English
  translation of his work by J. Philips, London, 1683, p. 68): “Going by
  sea from the Seven Towers to the Seraglio, you meet with a square
  tower upon the left hand, that stands in the sea, distant from the
  city wall about twenty paces. The inhabitants of the country call it
  Belisarius Tower, affirming that it was in this tower where that great
  and famous commander, for the recompense of all those signal services
  which he had done the Emperor Justinian, in subduing his enemies, as
  well in Asia and Africa as in Europe, being despoyled of all his
  estate and honour, and reduced to the extremity of necessity, after he
  had endured putting out both his eyes, was at length shut up and
  forced for his subsistence to hang out a bag from the grate of his
  chamber, and cry to the passengers, ‘Give poor Belisarius a farthing,
  whom envy and no crime has deprived of his eyes.’ Near to the place
  where stands this tower was formerly the harbour where Theodosius,
  Arcadius, and their successors kept their galleys.”

Footnote 1122:

  From _Broken Bits of Byzantium_. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)

Footnote 1123:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 733.

Footnote 1124:

  Nicetas Chon., p. 170.

Footnote 1125:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365; _Actus Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani_,
  year 1400, p. 394, where a vivid description of the site of the old
  harbour is given: Κῆπος περὶ τὸν Βλάγκαν, ἔξω που καὶ σύνεγγυς τοῦ
  τείχους τῆς πόλεως.

Footnote 1126:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 47; Theophanes, p. 723.

Footnote 1127:

  Guillelmus Bibliothecarius.

Footnote 1128:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 47.

Footnote 1129:

  _Ibid._ p. 48.

Footnote 1130:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 560.

Footnote 1131:

  Page 59.

Footnote 1132:

  Ducas, p. 283.

Footnote 1133:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra_.

Footnote 1134:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 438, 499, 504.

Footnote 1135:

  Ducas, pp. 268, 269. The principal part of the engagement took place
  off the entrance to the Bosporus; for Leonard of Scio (p. 931) says
  that the Sultan viewed the contest from the hill of Pera; “ex Colle
  Perensi, fortunæ expectans eventum.”

Footnote 1136:

  Act II.

Footnote 1137:

  Vol. i. p. 679.

Footnote 1138:

  Page 364.

Footnote 1139:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra_.

Footnote 1140:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra_.

Footnote 1141:

  Du Cange, _Constantinopolis Christiana_, ii. p. 169.

Footnote 1142:

  John of Antioch, _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, vol. v. p. 38. Ἐπιτρέπει
  φυλάττεσθαι ἐκ τῶν Πρασίνων τὸν λιμένα τοῦ Καισαρείου καὶ τὸν Σοφίας,
  τοὺς δὲ Βενετοὺς τὰ ἐπὶ Ὁρμίσδου. Cf. _Paschal Chron._, p. 700.

Footnote 1143:

  Theophanes, p. 541, who uses the expression, Ἐν τῷ Προκλιανισίῳ τῷ
  Καισαρίου λιμένι. What does Προκλιανισίῳ mean?

Footnote 1144:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 324; _Synaxaria_, May 7, July 21.

Footnote 1145:

  Lib. iv. pp. 165, 212, 220, 284.

Footnote 1146:

  _Ibid._, p. 165.

Footnote 1147:

  _Ibid._, p. 290.

Footnote 1148:

  Constantinopolis Christiana, i. p. 56.

Footnote 1149:

  _Ibid._, iv. p. 118.

Footnote 1150:

  _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 106. Immediately after speaking of
  the Church of St. Acacius, he proceeds to say, “Au pied de la
  montagne, se trouve l’eglise des saints Serge et Bacchus.” In the
  Latin version given in Riant’s _Exuviæ CP._, ii. pp. 228, 229, the
  passage is rendered, “Ex altera parte monticuli posita est Ecclesia
  SS. Sergii et Bacchi.”

Footnote 1151:

  Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 218-234.

Footnote 1152:

  _Ibid._, p. 220.

Footnote 1153:

  But for the statement of Nicephorus Gregoras (xxvi. p. 87), one would
  suppose that the scene of this amphibious struggle was among the reefs
  and shoals off the shore between Kadikeui and Scutari. But Nicephorus
  says explicitly that the conflict took place off the Diplokionion
  (Beshiktash), ὅπη κίονες διπλοῖ σχῆμα τάφου τινὸς ἀνέχοντες ἵστανται.
  According to Gyllius, the sea off the shore between Beshiktash and
  Galata was in his day shallow and full of rocks. _De Bosporo Thracio_,
  ii. c. 8, “Alluitur mari vadoso, crebris petris supra aquam
  eminentibus inculcato.” The Turkish names of two points on this shore,
  Beshiktash, Cabatash, refer to these rocks.

Footnote 1154:

  Lib. xxvi. pp. 85-92.

Footnote 1155:

  _Ibid._, pp. 86, 90; cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. 220.

Footnote 1156:

  Lib. xiv. p. 711; cf. Theophanes Cont., p. 614.

Footnote 1157:

  Lib. ix. p. 460.

Footnote 1158:

  Lib. xxvi. p. 87.

Footnote 1159:

  Lib. xxvi. p. 87.

Footnote 1160:

  _Ibid._, p. 90.

Footnote 1161:

  _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, iv. p. 38.

Footnote 1162:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 46.

Footnote 1163:

  _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, iv. p. 38; Theophanes, p. 541.

Footnote 1164:

  See above, p. 293.

Footnote 1165:

  Theophanes, p. 364.

Footnote 1166:

  _Actus Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani_, year 1400, p. 394;
  Bondelmontius, “In quibus mœnibus est campus ab extra, et olim portus
  Vlanga.” See above, p. 300, ref. 1.

Footnote 1167:

  The indications for the site of the Church of St. Acacius are: (1) It
  was ἐν Ἑπτασκάλω (Anonymus, ii. p. 33); (2) near the Church of St.
  Metrophanes (_Synaxaria_, June 4; _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p.
  106); (3) near the Residence of Moselè (Μωσηλὲ), and the monument
  named the Christocamaron (Χριστοκάμαρον), after a gilt Icon of Christ
  upon it (Anonymus, ii. p. 38). (4) The Christocamaron, it is supposed,
  was the same as the Chrysocamaron (Χρυσοκάμαρον: Anonymus, iii. p.
  48). Supporters of that identity are Banduri (_Imp. Orient._, ii. p.
  688) and Dr. Mordtmann (p. 59). (5) The Chrysocamaron stood to the
  rear of the Myrelaion (Anonymus, iii. p. 48). (6) The Myrelaion was
  the church, now the Mosque Boudroum Djamissi (Gyllius, _De Top. CP._,
  iii. c. 8; Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p.
  75). (7) Therefore, the Church of St. Acacius was situated to the
  rear, or to the east of Boudroum Djamissi. There are two weak points
  in this chain of arguments; Codinus (pp. 107, 108) distinguishes the
  two monuments which are identified above, and speaks of two places in
  Constantinople that were named Myrelaion.

Footnote 1168:

  He refers to the Kontoscalion in the Fourth Book of his work, pp. 72,
  74; and to the Neorion at the Heptascalon in the same Book, pp. 165,
  212, 220, 284.

Footnote 1169:

  Codinus, p. 72.

Footnote 1170:

  Cantacuzene, iv. p. 165.

Footnote 1171:

  _Ibid._, p. 290. Taken in conjunction with the other arguments on the
  subject, the epithet New, bestowed upon the Neorion at the
  Heptascalon, implied not only that the harbour was no longer its old
  self, but, also, that it was to be distinguished from another and
  earlier Neorion. But the only other conspicuous Neorion during the
  reign of Cantacuzene was the Kontoscalion.

Footnote 1172:

  Lib. xvii. p. 854: Ἐς τὸ περὶ τὸν τοῦ Βυζαντίου ἱππόδρομον νεώριον.
  Cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. 72.

Footnote 1173:

  Lib. xxvi. p. 90.

Footnote 1174:

  Unger (_Quellen der Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte_, p. 264), without
  discussing the question at length, holds, as the result of his study
  of the texts, that the Kontoscalion cannot be identified with either
  the Harbour of Sophia or the Heptascalon. Scarlatus Byzantius (Ἡ
  Κωνσταντινούπολις, vol. i. pp. 268, 277) also maintains that the three
  names designated different harbours.

Footnote 1175:

  Συγγραφαὶ Ἐλάσσονες, pp. 443, 444. He was not patriarch at the time.

Footnote 1176:

  For the following information I am indebted to the Rev. H. O. Dwight,
  LL.D., who knew the quarter of Yeni Kapou in 1854, and was for many
  years a resident there.

Footnote 1177:

  It is still standing.

Footnote 1178:

  See above, p. 308.

Footnote 1179:

  _Ut supra._

Footnote 1180:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365, Τὸ πρὸς τὸν Βλάγκα Κοντοσκέλιον.

Footnote 1181:

  _Librum Insularum Archipelago_, p. 121.

Footnote 1182:

  Vol. i. p. 365.

Footnote 1183:

  See above, p. 295.




                              CHAPTER XIX.
                             THE HEBDOMON.


The Hebdomon (τὸ Ἕβδομον, “Septimum”) was a suburb of Constantinople,
situated on the Egnatian Road, at the distance of seven miles from the
centre of the city. It obtained its name, as so many villages and towns
on the great Roman highways did,[1183] from the number of the milestone
beside which it stood (ἐν τῷ Ἑβδόμῳ Μιλίῳ), and holds a noteworthy place
in history on account of its military associations and its connection
with the Court of Constantinople. Considerable interest attaches to it
also on account of the discussions which the question of its site has
occasioned.

There can be no doubt that the Hebdomon is represented by the modern
village of Makrikeui, situated on the shore of the Sea of Marmora, three
miles to the west of the Golden Gate. But the opinion which has been
generally accepted, and has had the greatest names in its favour, is
that the suburb stood at the northern extremity of the Theodosian Walls,
where the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus and the quarter of Blachernæ
were found.

[Illustration: Map of the Territory Between the City and the Hebdomon.]

Now, of all the mistakes committed by students of the topography of
Byzantine Constantinople, none is so preposterous or inexcusable as this
identification. It is a mistake made when to err seems impossible, for
it is in direct opposition to the plainest and most convincing evidence
that the famous suburb was situated elsewhere. A blind man, Valesius
exclaims in his indignation at such a baseless opinion, might see the
truth in the matter.

The blunder started with Gyllius, and was afterwards supported with all
the immense learning of Du Cange. It was soon denounced by
Valesius,[1184] and shown to be utterly inconsistent with the most
obvious facts in the case; but the reputation of the great authorities
upon its side gave it a vitality which made it the commonly received
opinion until the most recent times. Unger, however, contested the
error, once more, in his important work entitled _Quellen der
Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte_,[1185] published in 1878, and maintained
the correct view, but without discussing the question at length.
Schlumberger, also, in his monograph on the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas,
has seen the facts in their true light.[1186]

Under these circumstances one is strongly tempted to let the fallacies
with which Gyllius and Du Cange maintained their views pass into
oblivion, and to be satisfied with proving the truth on the subject. But
the great authority and eminent services of these students of the
topography of the city, and the tenacity with which the error they
countenanced has held the field demand some account of the arguments
which have been employed in support of an untenable position.

Gyllius[1187] entered upon the discussion of the subject with the fixed
idea that no locality entitled to be regarded as a suburb could be seven
miles distant from the city to which it belonged. With this conviction
rooted in his mind, he found himself called to interpret the passage in
which Sozomon relates how Theodosius the Great, upon leaving
Constantinople for Italy to suppress the rebel Eugenius, stopped at the
seventh mile from the city to invoke the Divine blessing upon the
expedition, in the Church of St. John the Baptist which the emperor had
erected at that point of the road.[1188] Gyllius knew his Greek too well
not to recognize the obvious meaning of this statement. He acknowledges
that the passage may be understood to intimate that the church above
mentioned stood at the seventh milestone from Constantinople. But while
allowing that this is a possible meaning of the historian’s words, he
contends that it cannot be his actual meaning, because the Hebdomon,
being a suburb, could not be so distant from the city as seven miles.
Hence Gyllius separates the numeral adjective “seventh” from the noun
“mile,” and treating the former as a proper name, construes the passage
to signify that the Church of St. John the Baptist, in the suburb of the
Hebdomon, was one mile from the capital. The proposed construction is so
original that it must be given in its author’s own words: “Theodosius
egressus unum milliare extra Constantinopolim, in æde Divi Joannis
Baptistæ, quam ipse construxerat in Hebdomo suburbio, a Deo precatus
est.”

Under the guidance of this strange interpretation of Sozomon’s
statement, the indefatigable explorer of the ancient sites of
Constantinople set himself to discover the precise locality which the
Hebdomon had occupied. As the suburb was in existence before the
erection of the Theodosian Walls, the specified distance of one mile had
to be measured from the original limits of the city, viz. from the Wall
of Constantine. This, Gyllius thought, would put the suburb somewhere in
the neighbourhood of the Walls of Theodosius. Searching next for more
definite indications, he found the ruins of a splendid church dedicated
to St. John the Baptist on the Sixth Hill, at Bogdan Serai near Kesmè
Kaya. But a church of St. John the Baptist, as already intimated,
adorned the Hebdomon, and so Gyllius leaped to the conclusion that the
Hebdomon was the district on the Sixth Hill: “Suburbium Hebdomon
appellatum in sexto colle fuisse, qui nunc est intra urbem, ostendit
ædes Divi Joannis Baptistæ, quam etiam nunc Græci vulgo vocant
Prodromi.”

Having adopted this conclusion, it only remained for Gyllius to explain
how a suburb only one mile from the city could have been styled the
Hebdomon. His explanation is that the extramural territory along the
Wall of Constantine had been occupied, before its enclosure within the
Theodosian lines, by a series of suburbs distinguished from one another
by numerals, and that the Hebdomon was so named because it was the
seventh suburb in the series. This explanation he supports by pointing
to the undoubted fact that one portion of that territory is frequently
named the Deuteron[1189] by Byzantine writers. And he might have added
that other portions of the territory were, respectively, styled the
Triton[1190] and the Pempton.[1191]

Du Cange[1192] was unable to accept Gyllius’s interpretation of the
phrase, Ἑβδόμῳ Μιλίῳ. He insists upon its correct and only
signification; and admits that the suburb derived its name from its
situation near the seventh milestone from the capital. Nevertheless he
is, impossible though it may seem, in substantial agreement with
Gyllius.

The fundamental thesis of Du Cange on the subject is that the term
“Hebdomon” had two meanings. Strictly speaking, he grants, it meant the
seventh mile; but it was also employed, he maintains, as the designation
of the whole district extending between the Wall of Constantine and the
seventh milestone. Hence, after the erection of the Theodosian Walls, a
considerable portion of the suburb was included within the new city
limits, so that the Hebdomon could very well be where Gyllius supposed
it stood.

Only, while supporting Gyllius on this point, Du Cange considers that
the identification of the Church of St. John at Kesmè Kaya with the
Church of St. John the Baptist at the Hebdomon is a mistake. For the
latter is described by Constantine Porphyrogenitus[1193] as without the
city walls in the tenth century, and therefore never stood, like the
Church of St. John at Kesmè Kaya, within the Theodosian lines. At the
same time, Du Cange does not concede that the church of that dedication
in the Hebdomon was near the seventh milestone. In harmony with his view
regarding the extent of the area to which the term “Hebdomon” was
applied, he holds that the church, though outside the Walls of
Theodosius, was close to them. Du Cange differs from Gyllius also in
laying great stress upon Tekfour Serai as an indication of the site of
the Hebdomon, identifying that palace with the Palace of the Magnaura,
one of the noted buildings of the suburb.[1194]

What induced Du Cange to maintain the application of the term “Hebdomon”
to the whole territory extending from the seventh mile eastwards to the
walls of the city was the opinion, that only thus could certain
statements regarding the suburb become intelligible or credible. The
statement, for instance, that the plain at the Hebdomon was “adjacent”
(ἀνακείμενον)[1195] to the city implies, he thinks, that the plain of
the Hebdomon was contiguous to the city; “quæ (vox) campus urbi
adjacuisse situ prodit.” So does, he contends, the statement that the
Avars, upon approaching to lay siege to the city, encamped “at what of
the city is named the Hebdomon.”[1196] For how could an enemy besiege a
city without coming close up to its walls? The consideration, however,
which above everything else led Du Cange to attach a wider meaning to
the term “Hebdomon” than the seventh mile, was the difficulty of
believing that the great religious processions which, on the occasion of
a severe earthquake, went on foot from the city to the Campus of the
Hebdomon to implore Divine Mercy, walked the whole distance of seven
miles on that pious errand.[1197]

Such a performance seemed to Du Cange, especially when the emperor and
the patriarch took part in the procession, incredible; and since he
could not imagine the people going to the Hebdomon, in the strict sense
of the word, he made the Hebdomon come to the people, by extending the
signification of the term.

But Du Cange forgets that the processions to which he refers were
recognized to be extraordinary performances, even in the age in which
they were undertaken; that they were acts of profoundest humiliation in
view of a most awful danger; that they were deeds of penance, whereby
men hoped to move the Almighty to spare His people. The distance of
seven miles is not too great for men to walk in order to escape a
terrible death.

At the same time, it is quite possible that the Campus of the Hebdomon
extended some distance towards the city. The plain was not a
mathematical point, and a portion of it may have been nearer the city
than the seventh milestone itself was. That must be decided by the
nature of the ground, not by subjective considerations. But to make the
plain reach to the city walls for the reason assigned is preposterous.

This brief account of the arguments with which Gyllius and Du Cange
upheld their views must suffice. For all the evidence at our command
goes to prove that the suburb occupied the site of the modern village of
Makrikeui.

In support of this proposition there are, first, express statements to
the effect that the Hebdomon, taken as a whole, was seven miles distant
from the city. That is how Theophylactus Simocatta,[1198] for instance,
indicates the situation of the suburb: “It was a place seven miles from
the city”—ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ Ἑβδόμῳ (τόπος δὲ οὗτος τοῦ ἄστεος ἀπὸ σημείων
ἑπτὰ). That is how Idatius, also, describes the suburb’s position, when
speaking of the inauguration of Valens and of Arcadius there: “Levatus
est Constantinopoli in Milliario VII.”[1199] And it is in the same terms
that Marcellinus Comes refers to the suburb, when he records the fact
that Honorius was created Cæsar in it: “Id est, septimo ab urbe regia
milliario.” To understand such expressions as denoting the whole
territory between the walls of the city and the seventh milestone is out
of the question. As employed by these writers, the term “Hebdomon” or
“Septimum” means a definite place, reached only when a person stood
seven miles from the point whence distances from Constantinople were
measured.

In the second place, not only is the Hebdomon, as a whole, described as
being seven miles from the city, but the particular objects found there
are similarly identified. The Church of St. John the Baptist in that
suburb, Sozomon,[1200] Socrates,[1201] and John of Antioch[1202] state
in express words, was seven miles from the city. The Church of St. John
the Evangelist, which stood in the suburb, is declared by Socrates[1203]
to have been at the same distance. Thus, also, the Campus of the
Hebdomon is described by Cedrenus as “the plain in front of the city,
seven miles distant.”[1204] The Imperial Tribune in that Campus was,
according to Idatius and Marcellinus Comes, at the seventh mile: “In
milliario septimo, in Tribunali;” “Septimo ab urbe regia milliario.” So,
likewise, the palace which Justinian the Great built at the
Hebdomon[1205] is described, in the subscription to several of his laws,
as at the seventh mile: “Recitata septimo milliario hujus inclytæ
civitatis, in Novo Consistorio Palatii Justiniani.”[1206] In all these
passages the Hebdomon is defined with a precision that renders any vague
and loose application of the term impossible, if language has any
meaning. So much for the distance of the Hebdomon from the city.

That the Hebdomon was situated on the shore of the Sea of Marmora is
placed beyond dispute by the fact that ships approaching Constantinople
from the south reached the Hebdomon before arriving at the city. When,
for example, Epiphanius came by ship from Cyprus to Constantinople, in
402, to attend a synod called to condemn the heresies of Origen, he
landed at the Hebdomon, and celebrated divine service there in the
Church of St. John the Baptist, before entering the capital.[1207] This
order in the stages of the bishop’s journey implies that the suburb
stood on the shore of the Sea of Marmora. Again, when the fleet of
Heraclius came up from Carthage to overthrow Phocas, in 610, the latter
proceeded to the Hebdomon to view the ships of the hostile expedition as
they stood off the suburb, and there he remained until they advanced
towards the city, when he mounted horse and hurried back to fight for
his throne.[1208] Such proceedings were possible only if the suburb
stood beside the Sea of Marmora. Yet again; the Saracen fleets which
came against Constantinople, in 673 and 717, put into the harbour of the
Hebdomon on their way to the city. On the first occasion the enemy’s
vessels anchored, says Theophanes,[1209] “off Thrace, from the
promontory of the Hebdomon, otherwise named Magnaura, to the promontory
of the Cyclobion.” The ships of the second Saracen expedition, likewise,
“anchored between the Magnaura and the Cyclobion.” There they waited for
two days, and then, taking advantage of a south wind, “they sailed
alongside the city,” some of them making the ports of Anthemius and
Eutropius (at Kadikeui), others of them reaching the Bosporus, and
dropping anchor between Galata and Klidion (Ortakeui).[1210] Manifestly,
the Hebdomon lay to the west of the city, upon the Sea of Marmora.

Let one more proof of this fact suffice. When Pope Constantine visited
Constantinople in 708, for the settlement of certain disputes between
Eastern and Western Christendom, he came all the way by sea until he
reached the Hebdomon. There the Pontiff and his retinue disembarked, and
having been welcomed with distinguished honour, mounted horses which had
been sent from the Imperial stables, and rode into the city in great
state: “A quo loco (the island Cæa) navigantes venerunt a Septimo
Milliario Constantinopolim, ubi egressus Tiberius Imperator, filius
Justiniani Augusti (Justinian II.) cum Patriciis, cum clero, et populi
multitudine, omnes lætantes, et diem festum agentes. Pontifex autem et
ejus primates, cum sellaribus imperialibus, sellis et frenis inauratis,
simul et mappulis, ingressi sunt civitatem.”[1211] On the view that the
Hebdomon was situated beside the Sea of Marmora, all this is clear.

The data for determining the situation of the Hebdomon therefore are:
that the suburb was seven miles from the city; that it stood beside the
Sea of Marmora; that it had a harbour, on the one hand, and a plain of
considerable extent, on the other.

There is little room for difference of opinion in regard to the point
from which the seven miles are to be measured. That point could not have
been in the Theodosian Walls, as the Hebdomon is mentioned before they
were in existence. For a similar reason, it could not have been in the
Wall of Constantine, seeing the Egnatian Road which led from Byzantium
to Rome was marked with the seventh milestone before the foundation of
Constantinople. It must, therefore, have been the point whence distances
from old Byzantium were measured under the Roman domination. This being
so, the choice lies between the Milion near St. Sophia, and the gate of
Byzantium near the Column of Constantine. In favour of the former is the
fact that it was the point from which distances from Constantinople were
afterwards measured; for in all probability that usage was the
continuation of the practice of the older city, any change in that
respect being not only unnecessary, but exceedingly inconvenient. Still,
the result will be substantially the same if the gate of Byzantium is
preferred, since the Milion and that gate were at a short distance from
each other. Seven miles from either point, westwards, to the Sea of
Marmora will bring us to the modern suburb of Makrikeui.

Between the promontory on which that village stands and the promontory
of Zeitin Bournou, to the east, is a bay which could serve as a harbour;
while to the north and north-east spreads a magnificent plain.
Makrikeui, therefore, satisfies all the indications regarding the site
of the Hebdomon.

As a corollary from this determination of the real site of the Hebdomon
there follows the determination of the real site of the Cyclobion; and
thus the correction of another of the mistakes into which students of
the topography of Byzantine Constantinople have fallen. The prevalent
opinion on the subject, since Du Cange[1212] propounded the opinion, has
been that the Cyclobion was a fortress attached to the Golden Gate. But
this could not have been the case, for the Cyclobion was at the
Hebdomon. It was a fortification on the eastern headland of the bay
which formed the Harbour of the Hebdomon,[1213] and, therefore, stood
some two miles and a half from the Golden Gate. This explains how
Theophanes[1214] describes the engagements between the Greeks and the
Saracens, who landed at the Hebdomon in 673, as taking place between the
Golden Gate and the Cyclobion. The fortress was so closely connected
with the suburb that the latter is sometimes referred to under the name
of the former. The Church of St. John the Evangelist at the Hebdomon,
for example, is declared by one authority[1215] to have stood in the
Cyclobion: “Ad Castrum autem Rotundum, in quo est Ecclesia, miræ
magnitudinis, Sancti Evangelistæ Johannis nomini dicata.” Again, whereas
John of Antioch[1216] represents the fleet of Heraclius as standing off
the Hebdomon, the _Paschal Chronicle_,[1217] on the other hand, says the
fleet was seen off the Round Tower. In all probability, the Cyclobion
stood at Zeitin Bournou, on the tongue of land to the east of Makrikeui.
It derived its name, Κυκλόβιον, Στρογγύλον Καστέλλιον (Castrum
Rotundum), from its circular form,[1218] and was a link in the chain of
coast fortifications defending the approach to the city. It was repaired
by Justinian the Great, who connected it by a good road with
Rhegium[1219] (Kutchuk Tchekmedjè), another military post, and drew upon
its garrison for troops to suppress the riot of the Nika.[1220] There
Constantine Copronymus died on board the ship on which he had hoped to
reach the capital from Selivria, when forced by his mortal illness to
return from an expedition against the Bulgarians.[1221]

Whether the Cyclobion was the same as the “Castle of the Theodosiani at
the Hebdomon,” mentioned by Theophanes,[1222] is not certain. On the
whole, the fact that the two names are employed by the same historian
favours the view that they designated different fortifications. The
Theodosiani were a body of troops named in honour of Theodosius the
Great.[1223]

What gave the Hebdomon its importance and explains its history was,
primarily, its favourable situation for the establishment of a large
military camp in the neighbourhood of the capital. An extensive plain,
with abundance of water, and at a convenient distance from the city,
furnished a magnificent camping-ground for the legions of New Rome.
This, in view of the military associations of the throne, especially
during the earlier period of the Empire, brought the emperors frequently
to the suburb to attend great functions of State, and thus converted it
also into an Imperial quarter, embellished with the palaces, churches,
and monuments which spring up around a Court. To these political reasons
for the prosperity of the suburb were added the natural attractions of
the place—its pleasant climate, its wide prospect over the Sea of
Marmora, and the excellent sport obtained in the surrounding country.

It was on the plain of the Hebdomon that Theodosius the Great joined the
army which he led against the usurper Eugenius in Italy.[1224] There,
the Gothic troops which Arcadius recalled from the war with Alaric took
up their quarters under the command of Gainas, and there that emperor,
accompanied by his minister Rufinus, held the memorable review of those
troops, in the course of which Rufinus was assassinated in the Imperial
tribune.[1225] It was at the Hebdomon that Gainas gathered the soldiers
with which he planned to seize the capital.[1226] There Vitalianus
encamped with more than sixty thousand men to besiege Constantinople in
the reign of Anastasius I.[1227] Thither Phocas[1228] and Leo the
Armenian[1229] brought the armies that enabled them to win the crown.
And there Avars, Saracens, Bulgarians, and, doubtless, other foes halted
to gaze upon the walls and towers they hoped to scale, or from which
they retired baffled and broken.[1230]

The plain at the Hebdomon was used, also, for military exercises and
athletic sports, and consequently appears under the name of the Campus
Martius,[1231] as though to give it the prestige of the ground devoted
to similar purposes on the banks of the Tiber. There recruits were
drilled and trained in the use of arms,[1232] and there the popular game
of polo was played.[1233]

Thither, also, on account of the wide and free space afforded by the
plain the population of the city fled, on the occasion of a violent
earthquake, to find a temporary abode, or to take part in public
supplications for the withdrawal of the calamity.[1234] Such services
were attended by the emperor and the patriarch, and it was on such an
occasion that the Emperor Maurice, a particularly devout man, and the
Patriarch Anatolius, proceeded from the city to the Campus, on
foot.[1235] It was customary, moreover, to hold religious services at
the Campus on the anniversary of a great earthquake, to avert the
recurrence of the disaster, or to celebrate the fact that it had not
been attended with loss of life.[1236] There, also, public executions
took place,[1237] or the heads of persons executed elsewhere were set up
for public gaze, as in the case of the Emperor Maurice and his five
sons.[1238]

But the chief interest of the Hebdomon belongs to it on account of the
many associations of the suburb with the life of the Byzantine Court.
There, in the early days of the Eastern Empire, while old Roman customs
prevailed and the army continued to be a great political factor, an
emperor often assumed the purple, in the presence of his legions and a
vast concourse of the citizens of the capital. At the suburb, also,
triumphal processions sometimes commenced their march to the Golden Gate
and the city. And there the emperors had a palace to which they resorted
for country air, or to escape the turbulence of the Factions, or to take
part in the State ceremonies performed on the adjoining Campus.

The earliest reference to the Hebdomon, though not by name, is in
connection with the inauguration of Valens there, in 364, as the
colleague of his brother, the Emperor Valentinian: “Valentem, in
suburbanum, universorum sententiis concinentibus (nec enim audebat
quisquam refragari) Augustum pronuntiavit; decoreque imperatorii cultus
ornatum et tempore diademate redimitum in eodem vehiculo secum
reduxit.”[1239] In commemoration of the event Valens erected a tribune,
adorned with many statues, for the accommodation of the emperors when
taking part in State functions on the Campus of the suburb.[1240] It was
known as the Tribune of the Hebdomon (ἐν τῷ Τριβουναλίῳ Ἑβδόμου).[1241]

[Illustration: Triumphus Theodosii.]

Valens also provided the Harbour of the Hebdomon with a quay, and showed
his partiality for the suburb otherwise to such an extent that
Themistius ventured to expostulate with him, and to charge him with
forgetting to improve and beautify the capital.[1242]

After Valens, the following ten emperors were invested with the purple
at the Hebdomon: Arcadius,[1243] by his father Theodosius the Great, who
also raised Honorius to the rank of Cæsar there;[1244] Theodosius
II.;[1245] Marcian;[1246] Leo the Great;[1247] Zeno;[1248]
Basiliscus;[1249] Maurice;[1250] Phocas;[1251] Leo the Armenian;[1252]
and Nicephorus Phocas.[1253] Doubtless the fatigue involved in
celebrating the ceremony so far from the heart of the city had much to
do with transferring the scene of Imperial inaugurations to the
Hippodrome.

The custom of installing an emperor thus into his office was the
continuation of an old Roman practice which testified to the power
acquired by the army in deciding the succession to the throne. We have
two accounts of the ceremonies observed on such an occasion at the
Hebdomon, given at great length and with minute details by that devoted
student and admirer of Byzantine Court etiquette, Constantine
Porphyrogenitus.[1254] They are interesting, both as an exhibition of
public life during the Later Empire, and as an illustration of the
extent to which old Roman forms, and even the old Roman spirit, survived
the profound changes which the Empire underwent after the capital was
removed to the banks of the Bosporus.

When all interested in the event of the day had assembled, the troops
present laid their standards prostrate upon the ground, to express the
desolation of the State bereft of a ruler. Meanwhile, from every point
of the Campus rose the sound of prayer, as the immense multitudes
gathered there joined in supplications that God would approve the man
who had been chosen as the new chief of the Empire. “Hear us, O God; we
beseech Thee to hear us, O God. Grant Leo life; let him reign. O God,
Lover of mankind, the public weal demands Leo; the army demands him; the
laws wait for him; the palace awaits him. So prays the army, the Senate,
the people. The world expects Leo; the army waits for him. Let Leo, our
common glory, come; let Leo, our common good, reign. Hear us, O God, we
beseech Thee.” At length the emperor-elect appeared, and ascended the
Imperial tribune. A coronet was placed upon his head by one high
military officer, an armlet upon his right arm by another. And instantly
the prostrate standards were lifted high, and the air shook with
acclamations: “Leo, Augustus, thou hast conquered; thou art Pius,
August. God gave thee, God will guard thee. Ever conquer, worshipper of
Christ. Long be thy reign. God will defend the Christian Empire.”[1255]
This was the first act in the dramatic spectacle. Next came the solemn
investiture of the emperor with the Imperial insignia. This took place
behind a shield held before him by soldiers of the household-troops
known as the Candidati, and when he had been duly robed, crowned, and
armed with shield and spear, the screen was removed, and the new
sovereign stood before the gaze of his subjects in all his
majesty.[1256]

The dignitaries of the State now approached, in the order of their rank,
and did homage to the monarch, while the crowds around made the air ring
again with every acclamation that loyalty or adulation could invent. As
soon as this scene terminated, the emperor addressed a brief allocation
to the soldiers, through a herald; claiming to reign by the will of God
and their suffrage, promising devotion to the welfare of the Empire, and
a generous donative to each of his faithful companion-in-arms,
announcements which were greeted with storms of applause. Then the sum
of money required for the promised largess was handed over by the
emperor to the officers charged with its distribution.

Upon the conclusion of this important part of the day’s proceedings, the
ceremonies assumed a religious character. The emperor now repaired, on
foot, to a camp-chapel, a tent of many colours, at a short distance from
the Imperial tribune, and, leaving his crown without, entered to bow
before the King of kings. It was a simple service conducted by ordinary
priests, as the patriarch and higher clergy had left the Campus for St.
Sophia. Upon issuing from the chapel, the emperor resumed his crown, and
proceeded on a white charger, followed by a brilliant escort of
dignitaries also on horseback, to the Church of St. John the Baptist,
the principal sanctuary of the Hebdomon. This second service may be
described as the Consecration of the Crown. For in this case, the crown,
upon being again removed from the emperor’s head, was not left in the
vestry, but was carried by a court official up to the altar, and then
placed by the emperor himself on the sacred table. There it remained
until the service closed, when the emperor handed it to the court
official, and, having presented a rich gift to the church, returned to
the vestry and assumed his diadem once more. This brought the coronation
ceremonies, so far as they concerned the Hebdomon, to an end. The stream
of life now poured into the city, the Imperial _cortége_ gathering more
and more pomp as it passed the Golden Gate, the Helenianæ,[1257] the
Forum of Constantine, and entered St. Sophia for the supreme coronation
of the emperor by the patriarch in the Great Cathedral of the
capital.[1258]

Only one triumphal procession, that of Basil I.,[1259] is expressly
described as starting from the Hebdomon, but the suburb was in all
probability[1260] the starting-point also of the processions which
celebrated the victories of Theodosius the Great, Heraclius, Constantine
Copronymus, Zimisces, and Basil II., if not of Michael Palæologus.

On the occasion of the triumph accorded to Basil I., the Senate and a
vast crowd, representing all classes of the population, and carrying
wreaths of roses and other flowers, went forth from the city to the
Hebdomon to welcome the conqueror, who had crossed to the suburb from
the palace at Hiereia (Fener Bagtchè). After the customary salutations
had been exchanged, the emperor proceeded to the Church of St. John the
Baptist to pray and light tapers at that venerated shrine. Then having
put on his “scaramangion triblation,” he and his son Constantine mounted
horse and took the road towards the Golden Gate, the Senate and people
leading the way, with banners waving in the air. A short halt was made
at the monastery of the Abramiti (τῶν Ἀβραμιτῶν), which stood between
the suburb and the gate, that Basil might offer his devotions in the
Church of the Theotokos Acheiropoietos (Ἀχειροποίητος), and then the
procession resumed its march, and entered through the Golden Gate into
the jubilant capital.[1261]

[Illustration: Trivmphvs Heraclii.]

The first writer who mentions the Hebdomon by name refers to it as an
Imperial country retreat which the emperors gladly frequented. From
the connection in which Rufinus[1262] makes this statement, it is
evident that a palace stood at the Hebdomon before the reign of
Theodosius the Great. That residence was either rebuilt or enlarged in
the reign of Justinian the Great, when mention is made of “the New
Consistorium of the Palace of Justinian, at the seventh mile from this
renowned city.”[1263] How agreeable a retreat the palace was may be
inferred from the name bestowed upon it—the Pleasance, Jucundianæ
(Ἰουκουνδιαναὶ).[1264]

In front of the palace rose the statue of Justinian, on a porphyry
column brought for the purpose from the Forum of Constantine, where it
had borne the silver statue of Theodosius I.[1265] Justinian showed his
partiality for the suburb, moreover, by the erection of porticoes, fora,
baths, churches, all built in a style worthy of the capital itself, and
by having the Harbour of the Hebdomon dredged and provided with jetties
for the better accommodation and safety of the shipping frequenting the
coast.[1266]

In the seventh and eighth centuries the palace of the Hebdomon appears
under the name of Magnaura;[1267] but whether it was the old residence
under a different designation, or a new building added to the Imperial
quarters, in the style of the Hall of the Magnaura in the Great Palace
beside the Hippodrome,[1268] it is impossible to say.

It was to the palace of the Hebdomon, probably, that Pulcheria retired
from the Court of her brother Theodosius II., while the influence of the
Empress Eudoxia had the ascendency.[1269] Basiliscus withdrew to it from
the storm of theological hatred which his opposition to the creed of
Chalcedon had excited in the capital, and thither the pillar-saint of
Anaplus (Arnaoutkeui), Daniel Stylites, went to rebuke him and foretell
the loss of the throne which had been usurped and dishonoured.[1270] As
already intimated, it was a favourite resort of Justinian the
Great,[1271] and several of his laws were promulgated during his
residence there. On the occasion of one of his visits, the Imperial
crown mysteriously disappeared and was not heard of again for eight
months, when it as strangely reappeared, without a single gem
missing.[1272] The palace was occupied also by Justin II.[1273] and
Tiberius II., the latter dying in it.[1274]

The Hebdomon enjoyed, moreover, a great religious reputation on account
of its numerous churches. The oldest sanctuary of the suburb was the
Basilica of St. John the Evangelist,[1275] which appears first in the
reign of Arcadius,[1276] but claimed to be a foundation of Constantine
the Great. It is described by the Legates of Hadrian II., after its
restoration under Basil I.,[1277] as remarkable for its size, “miræ
magnitudinis,”[1278] and continued to be a venerated shrine as late as
the Comnenian period,[1279] after which it was allowed to fall into
decay. Basil II. was interred in it, according to his dying
request,[1280] and his grave was discovered among the ruins of the
church in the thirteenth century, while Michael Palæologus was engaged
in the siege of Galata, in 1260. Some members of the Imperial household,
in the course of their exploration of the surrounding country, then
visited the Hebdomon, and found the church of St. John the Evangelist
turned into a fold for sheep and cattle. As the visitors wandered among
the ruins, admiring the traces of the building’s former beauty, they
stumbled upon the dead body of a man. It was naked, but well preserved,
and in its mouth a vulgar jester had placed a shepherd’s lute by way of
derision. As the corpse lay near a sarcophagus upon which was inscribed
an epitaph in honour of Basil II., no doubt could be entertained
regarding the identity of the body. When the discovery was reported to
Michael Palæologus, he commanded the mortal remains of his predecessor
to be conveyed in great state to the camp before Galata, to receive once
more a tribute of respect, and then sent them with solemn ceremonial to
Selivria,[1281] for interment in the monastery of St. Saviour.

Another of the sanctuaries at the Hebdomon was the church erected, in
407, by the Emperor Arcadius to enshrine the reputed remains of the
Prophet Samuel.[1282] Such importance was attached to these relics that
their conveyance from Palestine to Constantinople, by way of Asia Minor,
resembled an Imperial progress through the country. One might have
supposed the prophet himself was moving through the land, so great was
the interest and devotion displayed by the population along the
route.[1283] Nor were the relics less honoured upon their arrival at the
capital. The emperor and the highest dignitaries of Church and State did
homage to them at the Scala Chalcedonensis and carried them in
procession to the Church of St. Sophia, where the sacred remains rested
until the church built for them at the Hebdomon was completed.[1284] The
church fell in the earthquake which shook the city in the thirty-first
year of the reign of Justinian the Great.[1285]

But the most venerated church in the suburb was that dedicated to St.
John the Baptist (τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Βαπτιστοῦ Ἰωάννου),[1286] a domical
edifice, built by Theodosius the Great[1287] for the reception of the
head, it was supposed, of the heroic Forerunner of Christ. The Emperor
Valens had already sought to obtain the relic. But its possessors,
certain monks of the sect of Macedonius, who had taken it with them from
Jerusalem to Cilicia, refused to surrender the treasure, and all that
Valens succeeded in doing was to bring it as near to Constantinople as
Panticheion (Pendik), on the opposite shore of the Sea of Marmora.
There, the mules which drew the car conveying the relic refused to
proceed any further, and at that village, accordingly, in obedience to
what appeared to be an indication of the Divine will, the sacred head
was allowed to remain. When Theodosius the Great endeavoured to acquire
the relic, its custodians, a woman Matrona and a priest Vicentius, did
everything in their power to prevent the execution of the emperor’s
design. But the pressure to make them yield was such that at last they
gave their reluctant consent. In doing so, however, Matrona cherished
the secret belief that Theodosius would be hindered, like Valens, from
carrying out his purpose; while Vicentius laid down a condition which he
thought could never be fulfilled, viz. that the emperor in removing the
head should walk after the Baptist. Theodosius saw no difficulty in the
condition. He reverently wrapped the reliquary in his Imperial mantle
and, holding the sacred contents in front of him, took them to the
Church of St. John the Evangelist at the Hebdomon, and commenced the
erection of a church consecrated to the Forerunner’s name as their final
shrine. This won Vicentius over to the emperor’s side, and he followed
the head to the Hebdomon. But Matrona, with a true woman’s intensity of
feeling, maintained her protest, and would never come near the suburb
which had disappointed her faith, and purloined her treasure.[1288]

It was the possession of this relic that gave the church its great
religious repute. This explains why, as we have seen, Theodosius the
Great,[1289] Epiphanius of Cyprus,[1290] Gainas,[1291] at important
moments in their lives, performed their devotions there; and this
accounts for the association of the church with the ceremonies attending
Imperial inaugurations and triumphs.[1292]

In the course of its history the church was twice restored on a
magnificent scale; first by Justinian the Great,[1293] and again by
Basil I.[1294]

Other churches of less note at the Hebdomon were respectively dedicated
to St. Theodotè (τὸ Θεδότης ἁγίας τέμενος);[1295] SS. Menas and Menaius
(Μηνᾶς καὶ Μηναίος);[1296] SS. Benjamin and Berius (Ἁγίων Βενιαμὶν καὶ
Βηρίου);[1297] and the Holy Innocents (τῶν Νηπίων).[1298] The first two
sanctuaries owed their foundation to Justinian the Great, who did so
much for the suburb in other ways; at the last church, the Senate
welcomed an emperor upon his return to the capital by land, from the
West.

Finally, in days when travellers made the first and last stages of a
journey short, the Hebdomon enjoyed considerable importance as a
halting-place for persons leaving or approaching Constantinople; its
proximity to the city rendering it a caravansary, where a traveller
could conveniently make his final arrangements to start on his way, or
to enter the capital in a suitable manner. The suburb served that
purpose, even in the case of the emperors.[1299]

Instances of this use of the suburb, by Theodosius the Great,
Epiphanius, and Pope Constantine, have already been noticed, when
referring to other matters connected with the Hebdomon. There also the
Legates of Pope Hormisdas, in 515,[1300] and the Legates of Pope Hadrian
II., in 869,[1301] rested before entering the city. There the Emperor
Maurice halted, upon leaving Constantinople, to join the expedition
against the Avars;[1302] and there Peter, King of Bulgaria, stopped on
his return home, in 927, with the Princess Maria, the granddaughter of
the Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, as his bride.[1303]

On the last occasion, as relatives and friends, doubtless, often did
under similar circumstances, the parents of the princess accompanied her
as far as the suburb to take leave of her there. The historian has left
a vivid picture of the scene. “When the moment for their daughter’s
departure approached, father and mother burst into tears, as is natural
for parents about to part with the dearest pledge of their love. Then
having embraced their son-in-law, and entrusted their child to his care,
they returned to the Imperial city. Maria proceeded on her journey to
Bulgaria in the king’s charge, with mingled feelings of grief and
joy—sad, because carried away from beloved parents, Imperial palaces,
and the society of her relations and friends; happy, because her husband
was a king, and she was the Despina of Bulgaria. She took with her much
wealth, and an immense quantity of baggage.”

In keeping with such practices, when the Icon of St. Demetrius was
transported from Thessalonica to Constantinople, in the reign of Manuel
Comnenus, to be placed in the Church of the Pantocrator (now Zeirek
Klissè Djamissi, above Oun Kapan Kapoussi), members of the Senate and a
vast multitude of priests, monks, and laymen, went seven miles from the
capital to receive the sacred picture and escort it with great pomp to
its destination.[1304]

Footnote 1184:

  A station, eleven miles from Turin, on the line of railway between
  that city and Milan, _viâ_ Vercelli, retains in its name, Settimo, the
  reminiscence of its ancient designation, ad Septimum.

Footnote 1185:

  In his annotations to Ammianus Marcellinus. The arguments of Valesius
  were unknown to me when I adopted the correct view on the subject. It
  was startling to find, afterwards, that the truth had been established
  so long ago by substantially the same evidence as convinced my own
  mind, and that truth so well established had been ignored. My reasons
  for dissenting from the views of Gyllius and Du Cange were first
  published in the _Levant Herald_, April 12, 1891.

Footnote 1186:

  Pages 113, 114.

Footnote 1187:

  _Un Empereur Byzantin au Dixième Siècle_, p. 299.

Footnote 1188:

  See _De Top. CP._, iv. c. i. iv.

Footnote 1189:

  Sozomon, vii. c. xxiv., Λέγεται δὲ τότε τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως
  ἐκδημῶν, πρὸς τῷ Ἑβδόμῳ μιλίῳ γενόμενος, προσεύξασθαι τῷ θεῷ ἐη τῇ
  ἐνθάδε ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἥν ἐπὶ τιμῇ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Βαπτιστοῦ ἐδείματο.

Footnote 1190:

  See above, p. 74.

Footnote 1191:

  See above, pp. 77, 78.

Footnote 1192:

  See above, pp. 81, 82.

Footnote 1193:

  _Constantinopolis Christiana_, ii. pp. 172-174; and the “Excursus on
  the Hebdomon,” appended to the edition of his great work published at
  Venice.

Footnote 1194:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 340.

Footnote 1195:

  Gyllius refers to Tekfour Serai under the name of the Palace of
  Constantine, and recognizes the existence of a Palace of the Magnaura
  at the Hebdomon; but he neither identifies the two palaces, nor points
  to Tekfour Serai as an indication of the site of the Hebdomon.

Footnote 1196:

  Theophylactus Simocat., p. 339. What the historian says is, Τὸ πεδίον
  τὸ ἀνακείμενον ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ Ἑβδόμῳ, ὅν Κάμπον Ῥωμαῖοι κατονομάζουσι.

Footnote 1197:

  Nicephorus, _Patriarcha CP._, pp. 15, 16, Καὶ πρὸς τὸ τῆς πόλεως ὅ
  Ἕβδομον καλοῦσι καταλαβόντες ἱδρύσαντο. What the enemy did was to halt
  at the Hebdomon before advancing against the city.

Footnote 1198:

  See below, p. 329.

Footnote 1199:

  Page 333; cf. _Ibid._, p. 236, where the distance of the Hebdomon from
  the city is said to be one parasang and a half. Zosimus (p. 271) gives
  the distance as forty stadia.

Footnote 1200:

  Cf. _Paschal Chron._, pp. 556, 562.

Footnote 1201:

  Lib. vii. c. xxiv. See quotation of the passage on p. 318, ref. 1.

Footnote 1202:

  Lib. vi. c. vi., Ἀπέχει καὶ τοῦτο ἑπτὰ σημείοις τῆς πόλεως.

Footnote 1203:

  _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, iv. p. 611, Ὅς ζ᾽ σημείοις τῆς πόλεως
  ἀφειστήκει.

Footnote 1204:

  Lib. vi. c. xii., Ἀπέχει καὶ τοῦτο ἑπτὰ σημείοις τῆς πόλεως.

Footnote 1205:

  Vol. i. p. 641, Εἰς τὸ πρὸ τῆς πόλεως πεδίοv ἑπτὰ σημείοις ἀπέχον.

Footnote 1206:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. xi.

Footnote 1207:

  Lib. xxii., _De Sacros Eccl._

Footnote 1208:

  Socrates, vi. c. xii.; Sozomon, vii. c. xiv.

Footnote 1209:

  John of Antioch, _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, v. p. 38; cf. _Paschal Chron._,
  pp. 699, 700.

Footnote 1210:

  Page 541. Speaking of the same event, the Patriarch Nicephorus (p. 36)
  describes the Hebdomon as παραθαλάσσιον τόπον. In regard to the
  situation of the Hebdomon upon the sea, compare Synaxaria, September
  2, the Festival of St. John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople.

Footnote 1211:

  Theophanes, p. 608, Ἀπάραντες ἐκεῖθεν παρέπλευσαν τὴν πόλιν.

Footnote 1212:

  Anastasius Bibliothecarius, _De Vitis Pontificum Roman_, p. 56. Paris,
  1649.

Footnote 1213:

  _Constantinopolis Christiana_, i. p. 45. See above, p. 70, ref. 1.

Footnote 1214:

  Theophanes, p. 541.

Footnote 1215:

  Page 541.

Footnote 1216:

  Guillelmus Biblioth. in _Hadriano II._

Footnote 1217:

  _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, v. p. 38.

Footnote 1218:

  Page 699.

Footnote 1219:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, iv. c. viii.

Footnote 1220:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra_.

Footnote 1221:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 622.

Footnote 1222:

  Theophanes, p. 693.

Footnote 1223:

  Page 458, Τὸ καστέλλιν τῶν Θεοδοσιανῶν ἐν τῷ Ἑβδόμῳ.

Footnote 1224:

  _Notitia Dignitatum_, pp. 12, 14, 16, etc. Edition of Otto Seeck. Du
  Cange thinks the Castle of the Theodosiani was the Castellion built by
  Tiberius to protect his fleet against the Bulgarians (see Anonymus,
  iii. p. 57; Codinus, p. 115).

Footnote 1225:

  Sozomon, vii. c. xxiv. There, probably, Julian encamped the army with
  which he advanced from Gaul to Constantinople (Zosimus, p. 139).

Footnote 1226:

  Zosimus, pp. 255, 256.

Footnote 1227:

  _Ibid._, pp. 272, 273.

Footnote 1228:

  Marcellinus Comes, in 513.

Footnote 1229:

  Theophanes, pp. 446, 447; Theophylactus Simocat., p. 339.

Footnote 1230:

  Theophanes, p. 784.

Footnote 1231:

  Nicephorus, _Patriarcha CP._, pp. 15, 16; Theophanes Cont., p. 385.

Footnote 1232:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 414, 416.

Footnote 1233:

  Theophanes, p. 458.

Footnote 1234:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 379.

Footnote 1235:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 586; Theophanes, pp. 143, 144; Cedrenus, vol. i.
  p. 641; _Paschal Chron._, p. 702.

Footnote 1236:

  Theophanes, p. 169.

Footnote 1237:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 589; Theophanes, p. 355. The Greek Church still
  commemorates seven of the earthquakes which shook the city during the
  Byzantine period.

Footnote 1238:

  Theophanes, p. 458.

Footnote 1239:

  Theophylactus Simocat., p. 339.

Footnote 1240:

  Ammianus Marcellinus, xxvi. c. iv.; cf. Themistius, as cited below;
  _Paschal Chron._ p. 556.

Footnote 1241:

  Themistius, _Oratio VI._, p. 99. Edit. Dindorf.

Footnote 1242:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 562. The Campus is sometimes styled the Campus of
  the Tribunal, as for example by Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 707: ἐν τῷ Κάμπῳ
  τοῦ Τριβουναλίου.

Footnote 1243:

  Themistius, _Oratio VI._, p. 99. Edit. Dindorf.

Footnote 1244:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 562.

Footnote 1245:

  Marcellinus Comes.

Footnote 1246:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 568.

Footnote 1247:

  _Ibid._, p. 590.

Footnote 1248:

  _Ibid._, p. 592.

Footnote 1249:

  Victor Tunnensis.

Footnote 1250:

  Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 615.

Footnote 1251:

  Theophanes, p. 388.

Footnote 1252:

  _Ibid._, p. 447.

Footnote 1253:

  _Ibid._, p. 784.

Footnote 1254:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 438.

Footnote 1255:

  The Coronation of Leo the Great in 475, and that of Nicephorus Phocas
  in 963. See Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 410-417, 433-440.

Footnote 1256:

  The soldiers spoke in Latin at the Coronation of Anastasius I. in the
  Hippodrome. See Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 431. Probably that
  was the rule.

Footnote 1257:

  In older times the emperor was raised upon a shield at this point of
  the proceedings. _E.g._ Julian (Ammianus Marcell. xx. 4); Arcadius,
  Valens (Idatius _Fasti Consulares_); Theodosius II. (_Paschal Chron._,
  p. 568); Marcian (_Paschal Chron._, p. 590).

Footnote 1258:

  Near the Forum of Arcadius, on the Seventh Hill.

Footnote 1259:

  In the case of Phocas, for manifest reasons, the coronation by the
  patriarch took place in the Church of St. John the Baptist at the
  Hebdomon.

  So also in the case of Zeno, according to Victor Tunnensis, as quoted
  by Du Cange, ii. p. 173. “Zeno a Leone Augusto filio in Septimo contra
  consuetudinem coronatur.”

Footnote 1260:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 498.

Footnote 1261:

  The case of Basil I. is not given by Constantine Porphyrogenitus as
  exceptional, and may be considered as exemplifying the rule.

Footnote 1262:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 498-503.

Footnote 1263:

  Rufinus, _De Vitis Patrum_, iii., n. 19. “Fuit quidam nuper monachus
  in Constantinopoli, temporibus Theodosii imperatoris. Habitabat autem
  in parva cella foris civitatem prope proastium, qui vocatur in
  Septimo, ubi solent imperatores, egressi de civitate, libenter
  degere.”

Footnote 1264:

  _De Sacro Eccl._, Lex. 22. “Recitata septimo milliario inclytæ
  civitatis, in Novo Consistorio Palatii Justiniani;” cf. _Novella_,
  118.

Footnote 1265:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. xi. The name appears, also, under the form
  Secundianas: “In Septimo, in palatio quod dicitur Secundianas” (Pope
  Gregory the Great, lib. ii. epist. 1; see Du Cange, lii. p. 141; cf.
  Malalas, p. 486).

Footnote 1266:

  Lydus, p. 229. The column was overthrown by an earthquake in 577, and
  sank eight feet into the ground (Theophanes, p. 358).

Footnote 1267:

  Procopius, _ut supra_; Theophanes, p. 353.

Footnote 1268:

  Theophanes, pp. 541, 608.

Footnote 1269:

  See Labarte, _Le Palais Impérial de Consple._, pp. 185-195. It was a
  hall in the form of a basilica, divided in three aisles by two rows of
  six columns, with an apse at the eastern end, where the emperor’s
  throne stood on a platform. In it foreign princes and ambassadors were
  received, and there meetings of the great dignitaries of the State
  were held.

Footnote 1270:

  Theophanes, p. 152.

Footnote 1271:

  Symeon Metaphrastes, _Life of Daniel Stylites_, p. 1025. Patrol.
  Græca, Migne.

Footnote 1272:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. xi.

Footnote 1273:

  Theophanes, p. 351.

Footnote 1274:

  Eustachius, _Vita Eutychii Patriarchæ_, as quoted by Du Cange,
  _Constantinopolis Christiana_, iv. p. 177.

Footnote 1275:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 690.

Footnote 1276:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 56.

Footnote 1277:

  Socrates, vi. c. vi.

Footnote 1278:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 340.

Footnote 1279:

  Guillelmus Biblioth. in _Hadriano PP._

Footnote 1280:

  Anna Comn., p. 149.

Footnote 1281:

  Cinnamus, pp. 176, 177.

Footnote 1282:

  Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 124, 125. The epitaph is given by Banduri,
  _Imp. Orient._, vol. ii. vii. p. 179. It mentions the Hebdomon:

      ΙΣΤΙΜΙ ΤΥΜΒΟΝ ΕΝ ΜΕΣΩ ΓΗΣ ΕΒΔΟΜΟΥ

Footnote 1283:

  _Paschal Chron._, p. 570.

Footnote 1284:

  Jerome, _Adversus Vigilantium_, c. ii. Quoted by Du Cange, iv. p. 105.

Footnote 1285:

  _Paschal Chron._, pp. 569, 570.

Footnote 1286:

  Theophanes, p. 357.

Footnote 1287:

  Socrates, vi. c. vi.

Footnote 1288:

  Anonymus, iii. p. 56.

Footnote 1289:

  Sozomon, vii. c. xxi.

Footnote 1290:

  _Ibid._, vii. c. xxiv.

Footnote 1291:

  _Ibid._, viii. c. iv.

Footnote 1292:

  Socrates, vi. c. xii.

Footnote 1293:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 413, 499.

Footnote 1294:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. viii.

Footnote 1295:

  Theophanes Cont., p. 340. The wealthy monastery at the Hebdomon,
  mentioned in history, was probably attached to this church (John
  Scylitzes, in Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 714).

Footnote 1296:

  Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. iv.

Footnote 1297:

  _Ibid._, c. ix.

Footnote 1298:

  _Menæa_, 29 July, πλησίον τῶν παλατίων τοῦ Ἑβδόμου.

Footnote 1299:

  Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 496.

Footnote 1300:

  _Ibid._, _ut supra_.

Footnote 1301:

  Anastasius Biblioth. in _Hormisda PP_.

Footnote 1302:

  Guillelmus Biblioth. in _Hadriano PP_.

Footnote 1303:

  Theophylactus Simocat., pp. 236, 237.

Footnote 1304:

  Theophanes Cont., pp. 906, 907.

Footnote 1305:

  _Synaxaria_, 26 October.




                              CHAPTER XX.
                          THE ANASTASIAN WALL.


Some notice, however brief, may here be taken of the wall erected by the
Emperor Anastasius I. to increase the security of the capital, and at
the same time to protect from hostile incursions the suburbs and a
considerable tract of the rich and populous country, outside the
Theodosian Walls. This additional line of defence, consisting of a wall
twenty feet thick flanked by towers, stood at a distance of forty miles
to the west of the city, and was carried from the shore of the Sea of
Marmora to the shore of the Black Sea, across a territory fifty-four
miles broad, or, as Procopius measures it, what would take two days to
traverse.[1305] It was known, in view of its length, as the Long Wall
(Μακρὸν τεῖχος),[1306] the Long Walls (τὰ Μακρὰ τείχη),[1307] and, after
the emperor by whom it was erected, as the Anastasian Wall (τὸ τεῖχος τὸ
Ἀναστασιακὸν).[1308] In 559, in the reign of Justinian the Great, it
demanded extensive repairs on account of injuries due to earthquakes,
and occasion was then taken to introduce a change which, it was hoped,
would render the defence of the wall an easier task. All tower-gateways
permitting communication between the towers along the summit of the wall
were built up, so that a tower could be entered only by the gateway at
its base; the object of this arrangement being to make every tower an
independent fort, which could hold out against an enemy even after he
was in possession of the wall itself.[1309] The Anastasian Wall appears
in history in connection with the attacks of the Huns and Avars, in the
reigns of Justinian the Great,[1310] Maurice,[1311] and Heraclius.[1312]
But it cannot be said to have been of much service. The attempt to
obstruct the march of the enemy, and to join issue with him at a
distance from the city, was indeed a wise measure. It has been imitated
by the recent establishment, nearer the city, of a chain of forts across
the promontory, from Tchataldja to Derkos; a line of defence occupying a
position which makes Constantinople, in the judgment of a competent
military authority,[1313] the best-fortified capital in the world. But
the weakness of the Anastasian Wall was its great length, which required
for its proper defence a larger garrison than the Empire was able to
provide for the purpose.[1314] And, of course, it was useless against an
enemy advancing upon the capital by sea.[1315] Traces of the wall are,
it is said, visible at Koush Kaya and at Karadjakeui.

Footnote 1306:

  For a description of the wall, see Evagrius, iii. c. 38; Procopius,
  _De Æd._, iv. c. ix.

Footnote 1307:

  Theophanes, p. 361.

Footnote 1308:

  Agathias, p. 305.

Footnote 1309:

  Theophanes, p. 360.

Footnote 1310:

  Theophanes, p. 362; Procopius, _De Æd._, iv. c. ix.

Footnote 1311:

  Theophanes, p. 361.

Footnote 1312:

  Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 692.

Footnote 1313:

  _Paschal Chron._, 712.

Footnote 1314:

  Colonel F. V. Greene, United States Army, in his work, _The Russian
  Army and its Campaigns in Turkey in 1877-78_, p. 362.

Footnote 1315:

  Agathias, p. 305; Procopius, _ut supra_.

Footnote 1316:

  Theophanes, p. 460.




                           TABLE OF EMPERORS.


                     Constantine I., the    306-337
                     Great

                     Constantius II.        337-361

                     Julian                 361-363

                     Jovian                 363-364

                     Valens                 364-378

                     Theodosius I., the     378-395
                     Great

                     Arcadius               395-408

                     Theodosius II.         408-450

                     Marcian                450-457

                     Leo I.                 457-474

                     Zeno                   474-491

                     Anastasius I.          491-518

                     Justin I.              518-527

                     Justinian I., the      527-565
                     Great

                     Justin II.             565-578

                     Tiberius II.           578-582

                     Maurice                582-602

                     Phocas                 602-610

                     Heraclius              610-641

                     Heraclius              641-642
                     Constantinus and
                     Heracleonas

                     Constans II.           642-668

                     Constantine IV.        668-685

                     Justinian II.          685-695

                     Leontius               695-697

                     Tiberius III.          697-705
                     Apsimarus

                     Justinian II.          705-711
                     (restored)

                     Philippicus            711-713

                     Anastasius II.         713-715

                     Theodosius III.        715-717

                     Leo III., the          717-740
                     Isaurian

                     Constantine V.         740-775
                     Copronymus

                     Leo IV.                775-779

                     Constantine VI.        779-797

                     Irene                  797-802

                     Nicephorus I.          802-811

                     Stauricius                 811

                     Michael I. Rhangabe    811-813

                     Leo V., the Armenian   813-820

                     Michael II., the       820-829
                     Amorian

                     Theophilus             829-842

                     Michael III.           842-867

                     Basil I., the          867-886
                     Macedonian

                     Leo VI., the Wise      886-912

                     Constantine VII.       912-958
                     Porphyrogenitus

                     _Co-Emperors_—

                     Alexander              912-913

                     Romanus I. Lecapenus   919-945

                     Constantine VIII.          944
                     and Stephanus, sons
                     of Romanus I.,
                     reigned five weeks

                     Romanus II.            958-963

                     Basil II.             963-1025
                     Bulgaroktonos

                     _Co-Emperors_—

                     Nicephorus II.         963-969
                     Phocas

                     John I. Zimisces       969-976

                     Constantine IX.       976-1025

                     Constantine IX.      1025-1028

                     Romanus III. Argyrus 1028-1034

                     Michael IV., the     1034-1042
                     Paphlagonian

                     Michael V.                1042

                     Zoe and Theodora          1042

                     Constantine X.       1042-1054
                     Monomachus

                     Theodora (restored)  1054-1056

                     Michael VI.          1056-1057
                     Stratioticus

                     Isaac I. Comnenus    1057-1059

                     Constantine XI.      1059-1067
                     Ducas

                     Michael VII. Ducas   1067-1078

                     _Co-Emperor_—

                     Romanus IV. Diogenes 1067-1078

                     Nicephorus III.      1078-1081
                     Botoniates

                     Alexius I. Comnenus  1081-1118

                     John II. Comnenus    1118-1143

                     Manuel I. Comnenus   1143-1180

                     Alexius II. Comnenus 1180-1183

                     Andronicus I.        1183-1185
                     Comnenus

                     Isaac II. Angelus    1185-1195

                     Alexius III. Angelus 1195-1203

                     Isaac II. (restored) 1203-1204

                     Alexius IV. Angelus

                     Nicolas Canabus           1204

                     Alexius V. Ducas,         1204
                     Murtzuphlus


                            Latin Emperors.


                     Baldwin I.           1204-1205
                     Henry                1205-1216
                     Peter                1217-1219
                     Robert               1219-1228
                     John of Brienne      1228-1237
                     Baldwin II.          1237-1261


                            Nicæan Emperors.


                     Theodore I. Lascaris 1204-1222
                     John III. Ducas      1222-1254
                     Theodore II. Ducas   1254-1259
                     John IV. Ducas       1259-1260


                            Empire Restored.


                     Michael VIII.        1260-1282
                     Palæologus

                     Andronicus II.       1282-1328
                     Palæologus

                     _Co-Emperor_—

                     Michael IX.          1295-1320

                     Andronicus III.      1328-1341
                     Palæologus

                     John VI. Palæologus  1341-1391

                     _Co-Emperors_—

                     John V. Cantacuzene  1342-1355

                     Andronicus IV.       1376-1379
                     Palæologus (usurped
                     throne)

                     Manuel II.           1391-1425
                     Palæologus

                     John VII. Palæologus 1425-1448

                     Constantine XII.     1448-1453
                     Palæologus




                                 INDEX.


 A.

 Achilles and Ajax, Shrine of, 14.

 Achmet, Sultan, 72.

 Acropolis, 36, 179, 181, 182, 194, 222, 223, 227. _See_ Seraglio Point.

 —— at Athens, 13.

 —— of Byzantium, 5, 6, 8, 13, 249.

 Adrianople, 32, 40.

 Ædes Severianæ, 138.

 Ægean, 4, 181, 182, 302, 304.

 Agnes, 285.

 Aivan Serai, 39, 89, 117, 118, 121, 175, 191, 196, 202.

 Aivan Serai Iskelessi, 195, 203.

 Ak Serai, 296, 308, 312.

 Alaric, 32, 328.

 Alexandria, 40, 217.

 Alti Mermer, 3, 20, 21, 78.

 Amalfi, 218, 220.

 Amaury, King of Jerusalem, 128, 284.

 Amphitheatre of Byzantium, 37.

 Amurath I., Sultan, 162.

 Anaplus, Arnaout Keui, 36, 336.

 Anatolius, Patriarch, 329.

 Anaxibius, 5, 6, 249.

 André d’Urboise, 208.

 Anemas, 146, 147, 154, 155, 156. See Prison.

 Angora, 71.

 Anna, Princess, 158-161.

 Anna of Savoy, 110, 127.

 Anthemius, Prefect, 43-46, 50, 62, 96, 119, 180.

 Antony, defended the Myriandrion, 87.

 Apobathra, Pier of the Emperor, 195.

 Apocaucus, 103, 104, 127, 251.

 Apollinarius, 216.

 Aqueduct of Hadrian, 14, 37.

 —— of Valens, 3, 41.

 Arch of Constantine, at Rome, 64.

 —— of Severus, at Rome, 64.


 —— of Urbicius, 7, 8.

 Archways near Balat Kapoussi, 198-202, 234.

 Arcla, 231, 250.

 Argyra Limnè, Silver Lake, 127.

 Arians, 19, 20.

 Arsenius, of Crete, 84.

 Artavasdes, 90, 91.

 Asia, Asia Minor, 1, 38, 40, 226, 300, 338.

 Asmali-Medjid Sokaki, 242.

 Athanaric, 40.

 Athens, 226.

 Athos, 252.


 Athyras (Buyuk Tchekmedjè), 45, 77.

 Atrium of Justinian the Great, 257.

 Attila, 45, 47.

 Augusta, 34.

 Avars, 23, 77, 86, 97, 119, 165, 170, 174, 210, 321, 329, 340, 343.

 Avret Bazaar, 3, 16, 20, 21, 22. _See_ Forum of Arcadius.


 B.

 Bacchatureus, Murus, 86, 87.

 Bajazet, Sultan, 71, 87, 162, 163.

 Balata, 202.

 Baloukli, 75. _See_ Pegè.

 Balata Liman, 176, 241, 245.

 Barbyses, 175, 176.

 Bardas, 185, 259, 292.

 Basilica, Great Law Courts, 7.

 —— Senate House, 35.

 Bas-reliefs at Golden Gate, 65, 66.

 Belisarius, 68.

 Berenger, 238, 240.

 Berœa, 158.

 Beshiktash, 241-243, 246, 305.

 Blachernæ, district of, 14, 39 90, 116 164, 165, 169, 173, 179, 194,
    196, 197, 210, 211, 316.

 Black Sea, Euxine, 1, 9, 181, 256, 342.

 Board of Health, Galata, 229.

 Bodgan Serai, 84, 319.

 Bohemond, 128, 170.

 Bonus, Patrician, 23.

 —— Rector, 225.

 Bosporus, _passim_.

 Brachionion of Blachernæ, 168, 169.

 Branas, Alexius, 86, 257.

 Braz Saint George, 252.

 Bridge at St. Mamas, 175.

 ——, Byzantine, across the Golden Horn, 174-177.

 ——, Galata, 229.

 ——, inner, across the Golden Horn, 16, 18, 212.

 Brousa, 71.

 Bucanon, 293.

 Bucoleon. _See_ Palace; Harbour.

 Bulgarian, 68, 70, 87, 90, 163, 171, 327-329.

 Buyuk Tchekmedjè. _See_ Athyras.

 Byzantium, 5-15, 27, 33, 34, 37, 38, 42, 77, 179, 220, 226, 249-251,
    256, 325, 326.

 Byzas, 8, 27.


 C.

 Cabatash, 305.

 Cæa, island of, 325.

 Campus, Campus Martius, 329. _See_ Hebdomon.

 Candidati, 332.

 Candidus, 197.

 Canicleius, district of, 300.

 Carthage, 324.


 Cassim Pasha, 223, 229, 231, 241, 246.

 Castamon, 250.

 Castinus, 207.


 Castle—
   Blachernæ. 111, 130.
   Bohemond, 170.
   Bucoleon, 285.
   Cyclobion, Strongylon, Castrum Rotundum, 70, 324, 326, 327.
   Kalojean, 71.
   St. Gregorius, 160.
   Seven Towers, 71, 104, 168. _See_ Yedi Koulè.
   Theodosiani, 327, 328.

 Castron, of the Petrion, 206.

 Catalans, 170, 287.

 Cemetery, Imperial, 84, 85.

 Chain across the Golden Horn, 222-224, 228, 229, 231, 238-240.

 Chalcedon, 2, 6, 165, 226, 249, 304-307, 336.

 Chalcoprateia, 7.

 Charisius, 83. _See_ Gate.

 Chares, 250.

 Christocamaron, 309.

 Christodoulos, 208.

 Chrysaphius, 77, 78.

 Chrysocamaron, 309.

 Chrysopolis, 2, 11, 12, 181, 250, 251, 301.

 Chrysotriclinium, 189.

 Chrysostom, 43, 75, 82, 90, 291.


 Church—
   St. Acacius, in Heptascalon, 303, 304, 308, 309.
   St. Acacius, in Karya, 36, 213, 303.
   St. Æmilianus, 36, 179, 264.
   St. Agathonicus, 36.
   All Saints, 71.
   St. Anastasia, 197.
   Angels, Seven Orders of the, Monastery, 113.
   St. Anna, in the Deuteron, 75, 77.
   St. Antony, of Harmatius, 18, 26, 27, 28, 37, 179.
   Holy Apostles, 24, 25, 29, 35, 37, 82, 84, 213, 291.
   St. Barbara, 249.
   Batopedi, on Mount Athos, 252.
   SS. Benjamin and Berius, 340.
   St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, 234, 235.
   St. Conon, 210.
   SS. Cosmas and Damianus, 90, 127, 165, 169, 170, 171, 174.
   Prophet Daniel, 81.
   St. Demetrius, near the Acropolis, 189, 219, 249.
   St. Demetrius, of Kanabus, 117, 121, 197, 198, 201, 205.
   St. Demetrius, in the Great Palace, 189, 219.
   Dexiocrates, Monastery of, 209.
   St. Diomed, 73, 265.
   St. Dius, 18, 22.
   Prophet Elias, in the Petrion, 26, 207.
   St. Elpis, 314.
   St. Euphemia, in the Petrion, 207.
   Forty Martyrs, 71.
   St. George, Armenian Church (Soulon Monastir), on site of Church of
      St. Mary Peribleptos, 20.
   St. George, near the Gate of Charisius, 84.
   St. George, in the Deuteron, 75.
   St. George, at the Mangana, 251, 252, 254-256, 258.
   St. George, Patriarchal Church, 28.
   San Georgio Majore, Venice, 211, 217.
   Holy Innocents, 340.
   St. Icasia, 18, 22, 23.
   St. Irene, in the Acropolis, 2, 7, 12, 35, 82, 229.
   St. Irene, in Galata, 210, 216.
   St. Isaacius, 78.
   Prophet Isaiah, 26, 212.
   St. John the Baptist, Armenian Chapel of, 265.
   St. John the Baptist, near Balat Kapoussi, 234, 235, 240.
   St. John the Baptist, near the Basilikè Pylè, 234, 238, 240.
   St. John the Baptist, at the Hebdomon, 318-320, 323, 324, 333, 334,
      338-340.
   St. John the Baptist, near the Gate of the Kynegos, 205.
   St. John the Baptist, near the Palaia Porta, 21.
   St. John the Baptist, in Petra, 24, 84, 205, 319, 320.
   St. John the Baptist, near Residence of Probus, 293.
   St. John the Baptist, of Studius, 69, 78, 91, 265.
   St. John de Cornibus, 214, 215.
   St. John the Evangelist, at the Hebdomon, 323, 327, 337, 339.
   St. Julian, Perdix, 293.
   St. Julianè, 207.
   St. Kallinicus, 174.
   St. Kyriakè, near Koum Kapoussi, 314.
   St. Kyriakè, near the Lycus, 82.
   St. Laurentius, 26, 27, 28, 210, 212.
   St. Lazarus, 256.
   St. Luke, 23.
   St. Mamas, 89, 90, 175.
   Manuel, Monastery of, 23.
   SS. Manuel, Sabel, and Ishmael, 18, 26.
   St. Mary Acheiropoietos, of the Abramiti, 334, 335.
   St. Mary, of Blachernæ, 116, 117, 118, 119, 128, 130, 152, 164, 165,
      166, 169, 174, 195, 196, 197, 201.
   St. Mary, Hodegetria, 254, 256-258, 260.
   St. Mary, of the Mongolians, Kan Klissè, 208.
   St. Mary, Pammacaristos, 198.
   St. Mary, of the Pegè, 76, 90.
   St. Mary, Peribleptos, 19, 20, 240, 264.
   St. Mary, of the Rhabdos, 18, 28, 32, 264.
   St. Mary, in the Sigma, 78.
   SS. Menas and Menaius, 340.
   St. Metrophanes, 309.
   St. Michael, near the Acropolis, 230.
   St. Michael the Archangel, of Adda, 292.
   St. Michael the Archangel, at Anaplus, 36.
   St. Michael the Archangel, in Arcadianais, 257.
   St. Mokius, 20, 23, 36, 71.
   Myrelaion, 300, 309.
   St. Nicholas, at the Acropolis, 249.
   St. Nicholas, between the Walls of Heraclius and Leo V., 118, 119,
      165, 169, 170, 210.
   St. Nicetas, 81.
   SS. Notarii, 75, 77.
   St. Panteleemon, 174, 300.
   St. Paul the Apostle, 227, 230.
   St. Paul the Patriarch, 75.
   SS. Peter and Mark, 197.
   SS. Peter and Paul, 276.
   Petrion, Convent of, 206, 207.
   St. Priscus, 169.
   St. Romanus, 81.
   Prophet Samuel, at the Hebdomon, 338.
   St. Saviour, of the Chora, 84, 257, 258.
   St. Saviour, Euergetes, Monastery of, 210, 211.
   St. Saviour, Pantocrator, 211, 341.
   St. Saviour, Pantopoptes, 211.
   St. Saviour, Philanthropos, near Indjili Kiosk, 252-257.
   St. Saviour, at Selivria, 337.

   SS. Sergius and Bacchus, 262, 275-279, 288, 290, 291, 293, 304.
   St. Sophia, 2, 7, 12, 13, 36, 67, 84, 157, 159, 217, 226, 227, 256,
      258, 285, 326, 333, 334, 338.
   St. Stephen, of the Romans, 207.
   St. Stephen, in the Sigma, 78.
   St. Thekla, 196, 292.
   St. Theodore, of Claudius, 300.
   St. Theodore, in the Deuteron, 75.
   St. Theodore, above Galata, 231.
   St. Theodosia, 26, 208, 209, 211.
   St. Theodotè, 340.
   St. Thomas, Amantiou, 262, 291, 292.
   St. Timothy, 75.

 Cilicia, 250, 338.

 Circus Maximus, 35.

 Cistern—
   Aspar, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25.

   Basilica, 7.
   Bonus, 18, 23, 24, 25.
   Mokius, 16, 17, 74.
   Soulon Monastir, 20.
   Yeri Batan Serai. _See above_, Basilica.

 Clari, 38.

 Clarissimi, 38.

 Claudius, district of, 300.

 Cold Waters, 211, 241. _See_ Cassim Pasha.


 Column—
   Outside the Ancient Gate, 18, 21, 22.
   Arcadius, 3, 29, 63. _See_ illustration facing p. 330.
   Burnt Column. _See_ Column of Constantine the Great.
   Claudius, 13.

   Constantine the Great, 3, 10, 16, 34, 326.
   On the Fifth Hill, 19.
   Justinian the Great, at the Hebdomon, 335.
   Porphyry. _See_ Column of Constantine the Great.
   Serpent Column, 34, 267.
   Strategion, in the, 37.
   Tchemberli Tash. _See_ Column of Constantine the Great.
   Theodosius the Great, in the Forum of Taurus, 63, 298.
   Theodosius II., in the Sigma, 78.
   Twisted Columns of the Tzycalarii, 7.

 Constantine, Pope, 67, 325, 340.

 Constantine, Prefect, 46-51, 72, 79, 91, 119, 180.

 Constantine Ducas, 260.

 Contoscopie, 294.

 Convent. _See_ Church.

 Coparia, 221.


 Cosmidion, 89, 90, 127, 169, 170, 174, 175, 223, 241.

 Council of Basle, 203.

 —— of Ferrara, 84, 203.

 ——, Fifth General, 301.

 —— of Florence, 203.

 Count of the Walls, 95.

 Courapas, 154.

 Crete, Cretans, 154, 182, 186, 187, 236, 240, 260.

 Crimea, 192.

 Crum, 70, 90, 91, 167, 170.

 Crusade I., 128, 176.

 Crusade II., 176.

 Crusade III., 91.

 Crusade IV., 127, 129, 171, 176, 193, 195, 197, 207, 211.

 Crusaders, 61, 73, 122, 126, 129, 171, 172, 209, 292, 299.

 Custom House, Galata, 229.

 ——, Stamboul, 218, 220.

 Cyclobion. _See_ Castle.

 Cyprus, 324, 339.

 Cyrus, Prefect, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51.


 D.

 Damalis, 231, 250, 251.

 Dandolo, Henrico, 129, 171, 172, 178, 207.

 Daniel Stylites, 336.

 Danube, 41, 43, 45.

 Daphnusium, 280.

 David, Chartophylax of the Palace of Hormisdas, 279.

 Delassaina, 207.

 Delphi, 34, 267.

 St. Demetrius, Icon of, 341.

 Demosthenes, 49, 226.

 Derkos, 343.

 Deuteron, district of, 74, 75, 77, 319.

 Dexiocratis, district of, 209.

 Diedo, Aluxio, 172, 202.

 Diplokionion, 242, 243, 305.

 Dolma Bagtchè, 242-246.

 Domestic of the Walls, 95.

 Domos Politymos, 128.

 Domus-Dama, 189.

 Domus Gaiana, 142.

 Doria, 190.

 Dositheos, 91.

 Drungarius, 214.

 Drungarius, district of, 211.


 E.

 Edessa, 67.

 Egnatian Road, 316, 325.

 Egypt, 38.

 Egri Kapou, district of, 128.

 Eleutherius, 297.

 Eleutherius, district of, 296, 299.

 Emperor—
   Alexius I. Comnenus, 86, 123, 128, 146, 147, 148, 155, 156, 170, 171,
      214, 217, 220, 283.
   Alexius II. Comnenus, 266, 285.
   Alexius III. Angelus, 172, 260.
   Alexius V. Ducas, Murtzuphlus, 197, 285.
   Alexius, of Trebizond, 107.
   Anastasius I., 70, 91, 128, 140, 173, 291, 329, 332, 342.
   Anastasius II., 91, 98, 170, 181.
   Andronicus I. Comnenus, 103, 156, 157, 266, 299.
   Andronicus II. Palæologus, 103, 110, 126, 160, 161, 170, 189, 190,
      294-296.
   Andronicus III. Palæologus, 110, 127, 161, 190, 198.
   Andronicus IV. Palæologus, 71, 76, 87, 162, 163.
   Antoninus, 77.
   Arcadius, 42, 43, 82, 228, 257, 299, 322, 328, 331, 332, 337, 338.
   Baldwin I., 129, 171, 285.
   Baldwin II., 129.
   Basil I., 19, 68, 72, 90, 187, 207, 255, 265, 303, 334, 335, 337,
      340.
   Basil II., 67, 68, 100-102, 186, 187, 300, 334, 337.
   Basiliscus, 67, 331, 336.
   Cantacuzene, 70, 86, 91, 92, 103, 104, 110, 111, 112, 113, 127, 161,
      177, 190, 191, 227, 251, 252, 259, 303, 308, 310.
   Caracalla, 9, 138.
   Charlemagne, 100.
   Charles V., 272.
   Claudius Gothicus, 13.
   Conrad, German Emperor, 176.
   Constans II., 265.
   Constantine I., the Great, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 24,
      26, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 90, 179, 213, 256, 280, 297, 337.
   Constantine IV., 302, 308.
   Constantine V. Copronymus, 68, 90, 91, 98, 99, 100, 226, 251, 327,
      334.
   Constantine VI., 90, 100, 300.
   Constantine VII., 112, 260, 265, 279, 280, 282, 286, 303.
   Constantine VIII., 286.
   Constantine IX., 100, 101, 102.
   Constantine X. Monomachus, 171, 251.
   Constantine XII. Dragoses, 87, 92, 108, 124, 223.
   Constantius II., 29, 36, 41.
   Frederick Barbarossa, 91.
   Hadrian, 14, 37.
   Henry, 129, 284, 285.
   Heraclius, 23, 67, 69, 116, 165, 166, 173, 175, 176, 180, 276, 280,
      289, 292, 302, 307.
   Honorius, 322, 331.
   Isaac Angelus, 86, 91, 125, 126, 127, 129, 131, 132, 147, 149, 150,
      157, 173, 193, 197, 207, 220, 255, 257, 285, 292.
   John Comnenus, 250.
   John VI. Palæologus, 70, 71, 76, 87, 103, 104, 110, 111, 152, 153,
      162, 163, 197, 259.
   John VII. Palæologus, 104-108, 126, 193, 203.
   Julian, 41, 289, 290, 328, 332.
   Justin I., 67.
   Justin II., 80, 97, 220, 280, 289, 291, 295, 336.
   Justinian I., the Great, 33, 35, 64, 75, 83, 84, 90, 96, 165, 170,
      174, 206, 215-217, 229, 251, 257, 263, 276, 278, 280, 299, 300,
      301, 327, 335, 336, 338, 340, 342, 343.
   Justinian II., 67, 86, 170, 251, 292, 325.
   Kanabus, Nicholas, 197, 205.
   Leo I., 67, 77, 90, 96, 226, 262, 273, 292, 302, 331, 332.
   Leo II., 334.
   Leo III, Isaurian, 35, 65, 98, 99, 100, 209, 229.
   Leo IV., 100.
   Leo V., the Armenian, 67, 70, 115, 164, 167, 170, 329, 331.
   Leo VI. the Wise, 186, 187, 207.
   Leontius, 251, 292.
   Manuel I. Comnenus, 103, 122, 123, 128, 129, 157, 187, 220, 250, 266,
      284, 341.
   Manuel II. Palæologus, 71, 162, 163, 193, 240.
   Marcian, 67, 331, 332.
   Maurice, 68, 90, 196, 329, 330, 331, 340, 343.
   Michael I., 279.
   Michael II., 166, 168, 169, 179, 182, 185, 229.
   Michael III., 64, 90, 91, 184, 185, 257, 261.
   Michael V., 19, 78.
   Michael VIII. Palæologus, 68, 69, 76, 103, 129, 157, 158, 159, 160,
      188, 189, 208, 210, 293, 295, 296, 312-314, 334, 337.
   Nicephorus Botoniates, 86, 171, 207, 283.
   Nicephorus Phocas, 65-67, 68, 76, 154, 229, 250, 281, 282, 283, 292,
      317, 331.
   Phocas, 67, 90, 180, 276, 279, 280, 289, 292, 302, 307, 324, 329,
      331, 334.
   Romanus I., Lecapenus, 24, 67, 170, 207, 282, 286, 341.
   Romanus II., 154.
   Romanus III., Argyrus, 19, 102.
   Romanus, 169.
   Septimius Severus, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 37, 138, 251, 256.
   Stephen, 286.
   Theodosius I., the Great, 12, 19, 22, 42, 60-64, 67, 298, 299, 302,
      318, 328, 331, 334, 335, 338-340.
   Theodosius II., 17, 31, 42, 43, 45, 47-50, 62, 72, 77, 78, 82, 112,
      119, 279, 302, 331, 332, 336.
   Theodosius III., 91, 170.
   Theophilus, 23, 68, 69, 90, 101, 112, 149, 168, 173, 182-185, 228,
      250, 279.
   Tiberius II., 280, 328, 336.
   Tiberius III., Apsimarus, 170, 180, 251.
   Valens, 41, 322, 330-332, 338, 339.
   Valentinian, 302, 330.
   Zeno, 26, 96, 227, 331, 334.
   Zimisces, 68, 69, 101, 155, 283, 334.

 Epiphanius, 324, 339, 340.

 Et Meidan, 296.

 Eubulus, 37.

 Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius, 48, 82.

 Eugenius, 62, 227-229, 318, 328.

 Exartesis Palaia, 220. _See_ Harbour.


 Exokionion, 18-20, 22, 31, 37, 74.

 Exokionitai, 19.

 Eyoub, 89, 241. _See_ Cosmidion.


 F.

 Faction, Blue, 44, 83, 276, 280.

 ——, Green, 44, 215, 276, 292.


 ——, Red, 79.

 Factions, 44, 69, 215, 263, 292, 330.

 Faletri, Doge, 217.

 Fener Bagtchessi, 176.

 Ferikeui, 242.

 Ferry of St. Antony, 18, 27.

 Fœderati, 33, 85.

 Forum—
   Amastrianon, 156.

   Arcadius, 19, 20, 31, 32, 63.
   Augustaion, 34, 35, 37.
   Bous, 308.
   Constantine the Great, 10, 11, 34, 37, 39, 76, 281, 334, 335.
   Strategion, 6, 7, 14.

   Taurus, 63, 226, 298.
   Tetrastoon, 34.
   Theodosius the Great, 42. _See_ Forum of Taurus.
   Xerolophos. _See_ Forum of Arcadius.


 G.

 Gabriel, Archangel, 198.

 Gabriel, of Treviso, 202, 204, 230-233, 236, 237, 240.

 Gainas, 32, 328, 339.

 Galata, 14, 39, 176, 181, 188, 190, 192, 210, 216, 217, 228, 231, 241,
    243, 259, 305, 325, 337.

 Galbius, 197.

 Gas Works at Yedi Koulè, 265.


 Gate. _See_ also Postern.
   Adrianople, 3, 16, 23, 29, 110.

   St. Æmilianus, 18, 27, 28, 32, 264, 298.
   Ahour Kapoussi, 186, 187, 192, 260, 261, 270, 281, 285.
   Aivan Serai Kapoussi, 151, 195.
   St. Anastasia, 197.
   Ancient Gate, Porta Antiqua, Palaia Porta of the Forerunner,
      Antiquissima Pulchra Porta, 18, 21, 22, 30, 74.
   Asomaton, Seven Orders of Angels, 113.
   Atalus, 29, 33.
   Aurea, 17, 22, 30, 31, 37, 59-73. _See_ Golden Gate.

   Aya Kapou, 27. _See_ Gate of St. Theodosia.
   Ayasma Kapoussi, 32, 212, 213.
   Bagtchè Kapoussi, 7, 8, 200, 218-220, 236, 237.
   Balat Kapoussi, 3, 116, 117, 121, 195, 198-202, 204-206, 230,
      232-235, 239.
   Balouk Bazaar Kapoussi, 214, 216, 217.
   Balouk Haneh Kapoussi, 260.

   St. Barbara, 184, 232, 236, 238, 239, 249, 250.

   Basilikè, Imperial Gate, 32, 192, 199, 200, 203, 204, 213, 230-240.
   Bears, of the, 261.
   Blachernæ, 166, 168, 170, 171.

   Bonus, 225, 226, 240.
   Byzantium, 5, 7, 9-11, 16, 34, 249, 326.
   Caraviorum, 215.
   Catena, 228.

   Charisius, 80-86, 89-92, 101, 107, 110, 124, 152, 223, 257.
   Chrysè. _See_ Golden Gate.
   Daoud Pasha Kapoussi, 16, 314. _See_ Gate of St. Æmilianus.
   Deïrmen Kapoussi, 183, 187, 250, 251.
   St. Demetrius, 249.
   Demir Kapou, 252, 253.

   Deuteron, 74, 75.
   Dexiocrates, 209.
   Diplophanarion, 206.
   Djubali Kapoussi, 191. _See_ Gate Ispigas.

   Drungarii, 214-216, 218.
   Eastern Gate, 249.
   Edirnè Kapoussi, 57, 58. _See_ Gate of Charisius.
   Egri Kapou, 3, 39, 83, 110, 122, 124.

   Eugenius, 6, 191, 222, 223, 227-229, 232, 236-239.
   Fifth Military Gate. _See_ Gate of the Pempton.
   Fourth Military Gate, 80.

   Golden Gate, Porta Aurea, Chrysè Pylè, 19, 30, 55, 58, 59-73, 84, 90,
      96, 104, 176, 179, 201, 223, 250, 300, 301, 306, 316, 326, 327,
      330, 334, 335.
   Gyrolimnè, 110, 126, 127, 177.

   Hebraica, 216-219, 225.
   Hicanatissa, 219, 220.
   Hodegetria, 223, 258-260, 261.
   Horaia, Beautiful, 187, 221-225, 232, 235-237.
   Imperial. _See_ Basilikè.
   Isa Kapoussi, 21, 30, 33.

   Ispigas, 209, 210. _See_ Porta Puteæ.
   St. John, 205.

   St. John de Cornibus, 214, 216.
   Judece, 218.
   Kaligaria, 124, 152.
   Katerga Limani, 263.

   Kerko Porta, 115-117, 119-121, 166, 223. _See_ Gate of the
      Xylokerkus.
   Kiliomenè, 195, 196.
   Kiretch Kapoussi, 229.
   Kontoscalion, 263, 294, 295, 313. _See_ Koum Kapoussi.

   Koum Kapoussi, 186, 190, 193, 263, 264, 278, 294, 295, 307-314.
   Kynegos, 199-205, 233.
   St. Lazarus, 258, 259.
   Leonis, 261, 273.
   Marina, 272.
   St. Mark, 219.
   Marmora Porta, 228. _See_ Gate of Eugenius.
   Melandesia or Melantiados, 74, 76, 77.
   Mesè, 212.
   Michael Protovestarius, 260.
   Myriandron, 84.
   Narli Kapoussi, 187, 264, 265.
   Neorion, 218-222, 224, 225, 235.
   Odoun Kapan Kapoussi, 213. _See_ Gate Drungarii.
   Oun Kapan Kapoussi, 27, 341. _See_ Gate of Platea.
   Palatina, Balat Kapoussi, 199.

   Pegè, 75-77, 101, 106.

   Pempton, 58, 74, 81, 83, 85, 86, 96.
   Perama, 214, 216-220.
   Petrus, Petri Kapoussi, 28, 206, 207.
   Phanar, Phani, del Pharo, Fener
   Kapoussi, 201, 206, 207, 233.
   Piazza, ala, 212.
   Piscaria, 217.

   Platea, 209, 212, 214, 233.
   Polyandrion, 29, 37, 81, 84, 85. _See_ Gate of Charisius.
   Precursoris, Porta juxta Parvum Templum. _See_ St. John de Cornibus.
   Psamathia, 16, 264.
   Puteæ, del Pozzo, 211, 233. _See_ Gate Ispigas.
   Rectoris Veteris. _See_ Gate of Bonus.
   Regia, 152.

   Rhegium, 72, 78, 79, 91. _See_ Porta Rhousiou.

   Rhousiou, 45, 78, 79, 96, 97, 100, 102, 180. _See_ Gate of Rhegium.

   St. Romanus, 80-89, 110, 125, 127, 223, 300. _See_ Top Kapoussi.
   Saouk Tchesmè Kapoussi, 13.
   Saturninus, 32.
   Second Military Gate. _See_ Gate of the Deuteron.
   Selivria, 58, 75, 90. _See_ Gate of the Pegè.
   Sidhera, 206, 262, 263.
   Sixth Military Gate, 89.
   Sophia, 263.
   Tchatlady Kapou, 140, 192, 261, 262, 270-278, 281, 282, 285, 286.
   Tchifout Kapoussi, 224. _See_ Porta Hebraica.

   St. Theodosia, 208, 209, 233. _See_ Aya Kapou.
   Third Military Gate, 77, 78.

   Top Kapoussi, in Land Walls, 57, 58. _See_ Gate of St. Romanus.
   Top Kapoussi, at Seraglio Point, 237, 249. _See_ Gate of St. Barbara.
   Tzycanisterion, Gate at eastern end of the, 286.
   Veteris Rectoris. _See_ Gate of Bonus.
   Xylo Porta, Xylinè, 110, 147, 151, 173, 174, 191, 195, 200, 201, 212,
      223, 227, 233.

   Xylokerkus, 46, 89-94, 109, 111, 173. _See_ Kerko Porta.
   Yali Kiosk Kapoussi, 7, 191, 200, 253. _See_ Gate of Eugenius.
   Yedi Koulè Kapoussi. _See_ Golden Gate.
   Yeni Aya Kapou, 208.
   Yeni Kapou, Vlanga, 180, 193, 263, 264, 298, 308, 310-312, 314.
   Yeni Mevlevi Haneh Kapoussi, 58, 76. _See_ Gate of Rhegium.
   Zindan Kapoussi, 213-216.

 Genoa, 188, 190, 192.

 Genoese, 87, 162, 163, 188, 190, 192, 210, 219, 225, 231, 240, 241,
    259, 304-306.

 George Brankovitch, Despot of Servia, 107, 193.

 Georgius, 80, 156.

 Germanicia, 68.

 Germanus, residence of, 301, 302.

 Gerocomion, 264.

 Giustiniani, 87, 88, 92.

 Godfrey de Bouillon, 128, 171, 176.

 Golden Horn, _passim_.

 Goths Gothic, 13, 32, 33, 40, 41, 43, 77, 85, 328.

 Governor of the Wall, 95.

 Grand Bazaar, 3, 8, 11, 13, 39.

 Grant, 125.

 Gregoras, 261.

 Gritti, Doge, 270.

 Guliano, Peter, 287.


 H.

 Habakkuk, Prophet, 263.

 Hadrian II., Pope, 67, 300, 337, 340.


 Harbour—
   Ancient Neorion, 7, 8, 11, 14, 179, 220-222, 291.
   Anthemius, 324.
   Blachernæ, 196, 202, 203, 240.
   Bosporion. _See below_, Prosphorion.
   Bucoleon, 261, 269-287, 307, 308.
   Diplokionion, 243.

   Eleutherius, 36, 264, 268, 296-300.
   Eutropius, 324.
   Galata, or Pera, 241.
   Golden Gate, 300, 301, 307, 308.
   Hebdomon, 325, 326, 330, 335.
   Heptascalon, 259, 269, 301-315.
   Hormisdas, 275-279, 302.

   Julian, 41, 97, 269, 276, 277, 288-293, 302, 307, 308.
   Kadriga Limani, 262, 270, 295, 314. _See_ Harbour of Julian.
   Kaisarius, 269, 276, 301-315.
   Kontoscalion, 186, 223, 263, 269, 278, 287, 293-296, 308-315.
   Latins, 211.
   St. Mamas, 90, 91.
   New Neorion, 303, 310.
   Phosphorion. _See below_, Prosphorion.
   Portus Novus. _See_ Harbour of Julian.

   Prosphorion, 7, 14, 182, 225, 226.
   Sophia, 262, 263, 295, 296, 310. _See_ Harbour of Julian.
   Theodosius, 264, 269, 307, 308. _See_ Harbour of Eleutherius.

 Harmatius, 26.

 ——, district of, 18, 26, 37.

 Haskeui, 201, 221, 245, 246.


 Hebdomon, 32, 67, 68, 70, 109, 316-341.

 Helas, Theme of, 292.

 Helena, Empress, 34, 81, 264.

 Helenianæ, District of the, 334.

 Helenopolis, 160.

 Hellespont, 4, 178, 252.

 Heptapyrgion, 168.

 Heraclea, 38, 190.

 Hexakionion, 18, 20. _See_ Exokionion.

 Hicanati, 220.

 Hiereia. _See_ Palace.

 Hills of Constantinople, 2, 3.

 Hippodrome, 2, 12, 13, 34, 49, 63, 68, 76, 157, 189, 215, 251, 260,
    267, 271-273, 288-290, 295, 310, 331, 332, 336.

 Hippodrome at St. Mamas, 89, 90, 91.

 Holy Well of Blachernæ, 118, 150, 152.

 —— at Church of St. Nicholas, 118, 169, 170.

 —— of the Hodegetria, 254, 257, 258.

 —— of the Pegè, 75-78, 281.

 —— of St. Saviour, 252-254.

 Hormisdas, district of, 277, 280.

 Hormisdas, Pope, 67, 340.

 Hormisdas, Prince, 279, 280.

 Horrea, 226.

 Hospitia, 229.

 Huns, 41, 43, 45, 47, 77, 267, 343.


 I.

 Iagari, Manuel, 108.

 Ibrahim, Sultan, 20.

 Icon of Christ, from Edessa, 67.

 Illyria, 43.

 Indjili Kiosk, 185, 252-258, 261, 270.

 Ino, 280.

 Irene, Empress, 90, 99, 100, 103, 126, 128, 300.

 Isaac Sevastocrator, 292.

 Isa Kapoussi Sokaki, 22.

 Isidore, Cardinal, 152.

 Italian Hospital, 231.


 J.

 Jerusalem, 338.

 Jews, 210, 219, 221.

 Joannicus, King of Bulgaria, 86.

 John the Fat, 260.

 Joseph, Patriarch, 84.

 Judeca, 217, 218.

 Julian, Prefect, 227.

 Jus Italicus, 38.

 Justinian Code, 221.

 Justinianopolis, 217.


 K.

 Kadikeui, 2, 176, 304, 305, 324.

 Kaffa, 192.

 Kaisarius, 302.

 ——, district of, 302.

 Kaligaria. _See_ Gate.

 Kanatissa, residence of, 219.

 Karadjakeui, 343.

 Kesmè Kaya, 206, 319, 320.

 Khan of the Mongols, 208.

 Kiathaneh, Sweet Waters of Europe, 175, 245.

 Kiosk of Sultan Abdul Medjid, 5.

 Kitchens, Imperial, 5.

 Kiz Kalehssi. _See_ Tower.

 Klidion, 325.

 Koumbaradji Sokaki, 242.

 Koush Kaya, 343.

 Kral of Servia, 158, 159.

 Krenides, 210.

 Kutchuk Levend Tchiflik, 245.

 Kutchuk Tchekmedjè, 79. _See_ Rhegium.

 Kynegion, 12, 204, 251, 252.

 Kynegon, district of, 201-203, 205, 233, 234.


 L.

 Latins, 76, 86, 103, 122, 188.

 Leo, brother of Nicephorus Phocas, 68.

 Leontari, Manuel Bryennius, 106, 107.

 Levend Tchiflik, 245.

 Londja, 117.

 Lycus, 2, 25, 52, 80-83, 85, 86, 87, 298.


 M.

 Macedonia, 45, 265.

 Macedonius, 213, 338.

 Magnaura. _See_ Palace.

 Mahmoud IV., Sultan, 250.

 Makrikeui, 44, 67, 70, 109, 316, 322, 326, 327. _See_ Hebdomon.

 Mamas, St., suburb, 89, 90.

 Mandrahio, Cassim Pasha, 244.

 Mangana, 7, 37, 182, 249-251, 256.

 Manuel, 23.

 Manuel of Liguria, 71.

 Manuel Phakrasè, 191, 192.

 Marathon, 267.

 Marble Kiosk, 250.

 Marciana Library, 270.

 Margaret of Hungary, 285.

 Maria, 99, 107, 208, 265, 341.

 Marine Exchange, 220, 291.

 Marmora, Island of, 311.

 ——, Sea of, _passim_.

 Martin I., Pope, 265.

 Matrona, 339.

 Maurus, district of, 277, 289.

 Mausoleum at the Church of the Holy Apostles, 35.

 Maximus, 62, 63, 67.

 Megara, 5.

 Mehemet, Sultan, 71, 87-89, 125, 186, 208, 211, 223, _passim_.

 Melanciada, Melantiada, Melantrada, 77.

 Menas, Patriarch, 216.

 Mesè, 37, 68, 69, 155.

 Mesoteichion, 85-89, 92.

 Mews, Imperial, 171, 261.

 Michael, Despot, 160, 161.

 Milan, 62, 316.

 Milion, 7, 8, 326.

 Minotto, 151, 152.

 Moda, 176.

 Mole of St. Thomas, 291.

 Monferrat, Marquis of, 284-286.

 Moselè, residence of, 309.

 Mosque—
   Achmet, Sultan, 282.
   Aivas Effendi Djamissi, 133, 135.
   Atik Mustapha Pasha Djamissi, Church of SS. Peter and Mark, 196, 197.
   Aya Sofia. _See_ St. Sophia.
   Bajazet, Sultan, 3.
   Boudroum Djamissi, Myrelaion, 300, 309.
   Eski Ali Pasha Djamissi, 25.
   Eski Imaret Djamissi, Church of the Pantopoptes, 211.
   Fethiyeh Djamissi, Church of the Pammacaristos, 198.
   Gul Djamissi, Church of St. Theodosia, 27, 208.
   Isa Kapou Mesdjidi, 22, 30.
   Kahriyeh Djamissi, Church of St. Saviour in the Chora, 84.
   Kefelè Djamissi, Monastery of Manuel, 23.
   Khadin Ibrahim Pasha, 77.
   Kutchuk Aya Sofia. _See_ Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus.
   Mehemet, Sultan, 3, 16, 19, 23, 25, 35, 208.
   Mihrimah Djamissi, 84.
   Murad Mesdjidi, Sheik, 27, 212.
   Pour Kouyou Mesdjidi, 27, 212.
   Saracen, 292.
   Selim, Sultan, 3, 24-26.
   Sinan Pasha, 211.
   Suleiman, Sultan, 3, 19.
   Toklou Dedè Mesdjidi, Church of St. Thekla, 196.
   Tulbenkdji Djamissi, 311, 312, 314.
   Yeni Validè Djamissi, 221.
   Yol Getchen Mesdjidi, 78.
   Zeirek Klissè Djamissi, Church of the Pantocrator, 211, 341.

 Municipal Gardens, 242.

 Murad, Sultan, 76, 87, 193.

 Museum, Imperial, 5, 191, 198.

 Myriandrion, 85, 87.


 N.

 Naples, 33.

 Narses, 97, 291, 300.

 Nemitzi, 86.

 Neophytus of Rhodes, 108.

 Neorion. _See_ Harbour.

 Nicephorus Bryennius, 156.

 Nicholas V., Pope, 150.

 Nika, Riot of, 210, 215, 291, 327.

 Nikè, 198, 205.

 Normans, 103.

 Notaras, 192, 193, 237, 240.

 Novobrodo, 125.

 Numeri, 76.


 O.

 Obelisk, 63.

 Odeon, 13.

 Ok Meidan, 245.

 Olympus, 35.

 Orban, 125.

 Orphanage, Great, 229.

 Ortakdjilar, 89.

 Ortakeui, 325.


 P.


 Palace—
   At the Argyra Limnè, 127.
   Blachernæ, 3, 68, 103, 109-111, 118, 119, 121-123, 125-127, 130-133,
      135, 136, 138, 140-147, 150, 151, 152, 164, 170, 171, 176, 195,
      201, 202, 233, 284.
   Bonus, 24.

   Bucoleon, 129, 140, 255, 269-287.
   The Cæsars, 35, 142.
   Constantine, Great Palace, Imperial Palace, 34, 35, 67, 69, 76, 155,
      161, 168, 189, 223, 256, 260, 261, 265, 269, 274, 280-287, 308,
      336.
   Hebdomon, 109, 335.
   Hiereia, Fener Bagtchè, 176, 181.
   Hormisdas. _See_ Palace of Bucoleon.
   Irene, 300.
   Justinian. _See_ Palace of Bucoleon.
   Justinian, Jucundianæ at the Hebdomon, 323, 335.
   Kaisarius, 302.
   Karya, 213.
   Magnaura, 320, 324, 336.
   St. Mamas, 89, 90.
   Mangana, 255, 256.
   Pegè, 75, 162.

   Porphyrogenitus Tekfour Serai, 3, 45, 109-114, 118-120, 123, 139,
      152, 202, 233, 316.
   Psamathia, 264.
   Scutarion, 251.
   Secundianas, 335.

   Sophia, 289, 290.

 Palatine, 35, 138, 142.

 Palestine, 338.

 Panteleon, Saint, 196.

 Panticheion, Pendik, 338.

 Patriarchate, Greek, 28.

 Paul, defended the Myriandrion, 87.

 Paulinus, 170.

 Pausanias, 9.

 Pegæ, 210.


 Pegè. _See_ Gate; Holy Well.

 Pelerine, 207.

 Pempton, district of the, 82, 319.

 Pentapyrgion, 150, 168.

 Pepagomenes, George, 198.

 Pera, 243.

 Perama, 216, 217.

 Peridromi of Marcian, 282.

 Perinthus, 226.

 Persia, 5, 23, 165, 290.

 Persians, 9, 23, 68, 267.

 Pescennius Niger, 9.

 Peter the Hermit, 128.

 Peter, King of Bulgaria, 341.

 Petits Champs, 242.

 Petra, Petra Palaia, 206.

 Petrion, 26-28, 200, 206, 207, 208.

 Petrus, Patrician, 206.

 Petty, Mr., 66.

 Phanar, district of the, 3, 206-208, 233, 234.

 Pharos, 189.

 Phedalia, 27, 176.

 Philip of Macedon, 226, 250.

 Philippopolis, 91.

 Phœnicia, 40.

 Pisa, Pisans, 218, 220.

 Platæa, 9, 267.

 Platea, Plateia, 27, 212.

 Pontus, 38.

 Portico—
   Between Augustaion and Forum of Constantine, 37.
   Cariana, 196.
   Eubulus, 37.
   Josephiacus, 128.
   St. Mamas, 89, 90.
   Severus, 9-11.
   Troadenses, 18, 22.


 Postern—
   Giustiniani, 88, 89, 94.
   St. Kallinicus, 124, 173, 174.
   Kerko Porta, 93, 94.
   With Monogram of Christ, 60.
   Porphyrogenitus, 112.
   SS. Sergius and Bacchus, 262, 263.

 Prince’s Island, 35, 304, 305.


 Prison—
   Anemas, 87. _See_ Chapters X., XI.
   Byzantium, 14.
   St. Diomed, 265, 266.

 Probus, residence of, 289, 292, 293.

 Proteichisma, 118.

 Proti, Island of, 286.

 Psamathia, 3, 20, 264.

 Pteron, 118.

 Pulcheria, 257, 336.

 Pusæus, 96.


 R.

 Region IV., 228.

 Region V., 7, 225.

 Region VII., 39.

 Region X., 213, 303.

 Region XI., 25, 26.

 Region XII., 22, 32, 296, 298.

 Region XIII., 39.

 Region XIV., 39, 119-121, 128, 167, 174.

 Regions, Fourteen, 39, 120, 131.


 Rhegium, Kutchuk Tchekmedjè, 79, 327.

 Rhousiou. _See_ Red Faction; Gate.

 Roe, Sir Thomas, 66.

 Rome, 2, 34, 35, 37, 38, 41, 43, 63, 325.

 Roumelian Railroad, 6, 250, 255, 282, 298, 312.

 Rufinus, 328.

 Russians, 68, 155, 179, 229.


 S.

 Saladin, 284.

 Salamis, 267.

 Sali Bazaar, 242.

 St. Mamas, suburb, 89-91, 175, 181.

 Salmak Tombruk, 23.

 Sandakdjar Youkousou, 208.

 Saoudji, 162.

 Saouk Tchesmè, 13.

 Saracen, 68, 70, 98, 178-182, 229, 260, 267, 286, 302, 324, 327, 329.

 Saturninus, 32.

 Scala—
   Acropolis, 249.
   Chalcedonensis, 225, 338.
   De Drongorio, 215.
   Sycena, 217.
   Timasii, 228.

 Scholarii, 185.

 School of Arts, 274.

 Scio, 301.

 Scutari, 2, 226, 231, 305.

 Selivria, 75, 77, 192, 327, 337.

 Senate of Constantinople, 38, 195, 332, 334, 336.

 Senate House, 34, 35.

 Septimius Severus, 9, 12-14, 38, 138.

 Septimum. _See_ Hebdomon.

 Seraglio Grounds, 34, 81, 189, 229, 252, 253, 258, 274.

 Seraglio Lighthouse, 7, 13, 256, 260, 261.

 Seraglio Plateau, 2, 5, 12.


 Seraglio Point, 6, 189, 191, 194, 218, 219, 224, 230, 232, 233,
    235-237, 246, 247, 256.

 Servia, 125, 158, 159, 161, 193.

 Settimo, 316.

 Sicily, 182

 Sigma, 19, 20, 78, 290.

 Simeon, King of Bulgaria, 70, 170.

 Sirkedji Iskelessi, 7, 225, 240, 292.

 Sirmium, 97.

 Smyrna, 49.

 Sophia, Empress, 80, 97, 280, 289, 291.

 Soulou Kaleh. _See_ Tower.

 Spanish, 304, 305.

 Sphendonè, 12.

 Spigæ, De Spiga, 211. _See_ Ispigas.

 Stadium, 13, 37, 229.

 Statue—
   Apollo, 34.
   Arabia, 291.
   Atalus, 28.
   Constantine the Great, 17, 28, 33, 36.
   Eleutherius, 297.
   Eudoxia, Empress, 82.
   Fortune of the City, 64.
   Helena, Empress, 34.
   Julian, 290.
   Justin II., 291.
   Justinian the Great, 335.
   Muses of Helicon, 35.
   Narses, 291.
   Pallas of Lindus, 35.
   Sophia, Empress, 291.
   Theodosius I., 63.
   Theodosius II., 78.
   Victory, on Golden Gate, 64.
   Zeus of Dodona, 35.

 Stephen, 97.

 Strategion. 6, 7, 37.

 Strategopoulos, Alexius, 76.

 Studius, 265. _See_ Church.

 Suleiman, Sultan, 84, 272.

 Swiatoslaf, 68, 155.

 Sycæ, 13, 38, 216, 217.

 Syrghiannes, 161.

 Syria, 40.


 T.

 Tamerlane, 71.

 Tarsus, 250.

 Taxim, 242.

 Tchataldja, 343.

 Tchemberli Tash. _See_ Column.

 Tchoukour Bostan, 3, 16, 20, 23, 199.

 Tekfour Serai, 45, 89, 91, 93, 94, 107, 152, 320. _See_ Palace of the
    Porphyrogenitus.

 Templar, 60.

 Temple—
   Aphroditè, 11, 12, 13.
   Apollo, 13.
   Artemis, 13.
   Demeter, 13.
   Poseidon, 12, 13, 37.
   Zeus, 13, 14, 37.

 Temple Bar, 21.

 Tenedos, 162, 163, 259.

 Ten Thousand, 5,

 Tephrice, 68.

 Terter, King of Bulgaria, 161.

 Theatre of Byzantium, 37.

 —— of Dionysius, 13.

 Theodora, Empress of Justinian the Great, 84, 229, 257, 280, 300.

 Theodora, Empress, 207.

 Theodore, 162.

 Theodosiani, 327, 328.

 Theodota, Empress, 90.

 Theologus, 240.

 Theophano, Empress, 283.

 Thermæ—
   Achilles, 7, 47.
   Arcadianæ, 7, 257.
   Constantianæ, 82.
   Zeuxippus, 13, 34.

 Thermopylæ, 267.

 Thessalonica, 103, 113, 341.

 Thomas, 169, 170, 179, 182, 229.

 Thrace, 32, 45, 324.

 Tiber, 2, 174, 329.

 Tiberius, son of Justinian II., 325.

 Timasius, 228.

 Top Haneh, 231, 241-246.

 Topi, 7, 179, 256, 257.

 Tornikius, 171.


 Tower—
   Acropolis, 6.
   Anemas. _See_ Prison.
   Baccaturea, 86.
   Belisarius, 299.
   Eugenius, 6.
   Fire Signal, 3.
   Galata, 228, 229.
   Hercules, 9.
   Imperial Gate, near, 230-232.
   Isaac Angelus, 117, 129. _See_ Chapter X., _passim_.
   Kaligaria, 125.
   Kentenarion, 228.
   Kiz Kalessi, Leander’s Tower, 231, 250.
   Mangana, 251.
   Marble, 266.
   Pentapyrgion, 150.
   Phani, Turris, 232-234.
   Seven Towers. _See_ Yedi Koulè.
   Seven Towers of Byzantium, 9.
   Soulou Kaleh, 51.
   Virgioti, 211.

 Transitus Justinianarum, 217.

 Transitus Sycenus, Trajectus Sycarum, 217.

 Trebizond, 156.

 Tribunal, Tribune, 330. _See_ Hebdomon.

 Triclinium of Anastasius, 128.

 —— Danubius, 128.

 —— Holy Shrine, 128.

 Triton, 77, 78, 319.

 Troilus, defended the Myriandrion, 87.

 Troilus, Protovestarius, 291.

 Tsinar Tchesmè, 117.

 Turks, Ottoman, 188, 192, 195, 209, 223, 224, 240, 241, 267.

 Tzycanisterion, 36, 256, 261, 286.


 U.

 Ukooz-Limani, 226.

 Uldin, 43.

 Urbicius. _See_ Arch.


 V.

 Vandal, John the, 77.

 Vandals, 68.

 Varangians, 159, 172, 193.

 Veccus, 157-160.

 Venetian, 151-163, 171, 172, 178, 179, 194, 207, 209-211, 214-219, 229,
    230, 233, 234, 243, 259, 270, 272, 304, 305.

 Venice, 162, 163, 211, 219.

 Vercelli, 316.

 Via Drungariou, 215.

 Via Triumphalis, 31.

 Vicentius, 339.

 Vigla, 215, 217, 218.

 Visigoths, 32.

 Vitilianus, 70, 328.

 Vlanga, 219, 223, 263, 295, 299, 307, 308, 312, 314.

 Vlanga Bostan, 36, 180, 264, 296.


 W.

 War Office, 3.


 X.

 Xenophon, 5, 249.

 Xerolophos, 3, 14, 19, 20, 29.

 Xylokerkus, 88, 90. _See_ Gate.


 Y.

 Yalova, 160.


 Yedi Koulè, 30, 265.

 Yemish Iskelessi, 216.

 Yeri Batan Serai, 7.


 Z.

 Zeitin Bournou, 326, 327.

 Zen, Carlo, 152, 153, 163.

 Zeugma, 215.

 Zeugma of St. Antony, 18, 27.

 Zoe, Empress, 207.

THE END.




LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,

STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.




 ● Transcriber’s Notes:
    ○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
    ○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
    ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
      when a predominant form was found in this book.
    ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
    ○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are
      referenced.