*** **fºtºſ，essessºseștere： sonº sesºnes …, …..…,.，.∞ √° ſ√≠√∞№ſ ſ
ºtrºſſº，******************， **************************************nºt***：en:praenaerºntºſsaeraenaerºraeaeraer
º
PLE
|TY AND
****
Eº
- …ºsse - -s. --es-º-º-º-ass=sººr scºsºsºmeºs seasºn sº sºº--see sº-
º
CITY
STORICAL SITES
DF TH
6 :
º
t
Lº
__
ſ
BYZANT N.
DNSTANTH NO
º º
#
WAL}.
É
º
§: ,
THE
ADJOHNIN
ºſaeuaes）：：
∞ ………….……… . . . . . . . . . .• • • • • • . . . … …-…………………ae，
ſº; .∞
∞~---•••••••••••■■■■■■
ſaeſº à• • •spºrºdºwºsººººººººter******（?：.*****
ſ , º
1. . . . …}， … *
3.2 ° ， ，
EON
LoN
º
（s.
=
>=
zº
sensae…………………………………ae,

- -- %zz/ // %22% % ////
/ zº - /
J/ZZ // /// / // , .
7% a %2% - ///,2,.
/
/. /*
*/ ~/…/
- Z z/ - -
./-/ / / / / / / / / / //"// f.” 7%, 4.2%,
2 , //, // , . . . /// / / / * /
%%zz,,, • 2/% 2% /…/ /. -
/. zº
/ſ2/.
3. * A Trifº Z,






Nº
Tl2 \ .
.N 2\
'Cop'ſ 2.
BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE
- - . . .
-- - -
ſae
|-
----
|-
|
\,
-
- -
º
---
|--
-
MAP OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 1422.
(By Bondelmontius.)

BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE
...--~.
THE WALLS OF THE CITY AND ADJOINING
HISTORICAL SITES
BY
ALEXANDER WAN MILLINGEN, M.A.
PROFESSOR OF HISTORY RoBERT collegE, CONSTANTINOPLE
WITH MAPS, PLANS, AND ILLUSTRATIONS
LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET
1899
All rights reserved

an ae *
‘Eyð 8? &s purépa buxº kai yüp eyevépmy trâp airfi kai
érpáºnv čkéſore, kai oë Sivapal trepi airiv dyvopovica.
EMPEROR JULIAN, Epistle 58.
LonDon : PRINTED BY william CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS,
PR EFA C E.
IN the following pages I venture to take part in the task
of identifying the historical sites of Byzantine or Roman Con-
stantinople, 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 archaeological 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
vi - AREAEA CE.
investigation of the subject, by constant appeals to the original
authorities, and by direct examination of the localities con-
Cerned. The difficult questions which must be decided, in
order that our knowledge of the old city may be more satis-
factory, 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 photo-
graphers who have enabled me to provide the book with illus-
trations, 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 WAN MILLINGEN.
ROBERT COLLEGE,
CONSTANTINOPLE,
September, 1899.
A DD ENDU M.
P. vi. The name of W. G. Campbell, Esq., has been accidentally
omitted from the list of persons to whom the author's
best thanks are due for kind assistance in illustrating
the book.
CHAPTER
CONTENTS.
-->0–
I. THE SITE OF CONSTANTINOPLE—THE LIMITS OF BYZANTIUM ...
II.
THE CITY OF CONSTANTINE–ITS LIMITS-FORTIFICATIONS—
INTERIOR ARRANGEMENT tº º º tº es e - - - tº º º
THE THEODoSIAN WALLs ... * g º tº e e • . . . . . .
THE GATES IN THE THEODOSIAN WALLs—THE GOLDEN GATE
THE GATES IN THE THEODOSIAN WALLS-continued
REPAIRs on THE THEodosian WALLs tº º tº e tº º * e º s
THE PALACE OF THE PORPHYROGENITUs (TEKFOUR SERAI) ...
THE FoRTIFICATIONs on THE North-WESTERN SIDE OF THE
CITY, BEFORE THE SEVENTH CENTURY
THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMNENUS ...
THE ToweR of ANEMAs : THE ToweR of ISAAC ANGELUs ...
INMATES OF THE PRISON OF ANEMAS - - - tº e ºs © e G
THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR HERAcLius : THE WALL
EMPEROR LEO THE ARMENIAN ... tº gº & * - - g º º
THE SEAWARD WALLS & © º ~ tº gº gº
THE WALLS ALONG THE GOLDEN HORN tº e iº tº C & e s º
THE WALLS ALONG THE GOLDEN HORN-continued ... tº e tº
THE WALLs ALONG THE SEA OF MARMORA ... as a e
THE HARBOURs on THE SEA OF MARMORA ...
THE HARBOURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA–continued
THE HEBDOMON ... e - -
THE ANASTASIAN WALL
TABLE OF EMPERORS tº - ©
INDEX tº e 9
PAGE
I5
4O
59
74
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
XIX.
XX.
95
IO9
II5
I22
I31
I54
I64
178
I94
2I2
248
268
288
316 .
344
349
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
MAP OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 1422. (By Bondelmontius) Frontispiece
DOLPHINS AND TRIDENT (DEVICE IN CHURCH of ST. SOPHIA) Vignette
BUST OVER THE GATE OF GYROLIMNE tº gº tº tº g e tº gº tº tº tº dº
INSCRIPTION FROM THE STADIUM OF ByzantiUM & e & ... To face
MAP OF BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE tº º gº tº tº &
MAP OF THE LAND WALLS OF CONSTANTINOPLE tº g tº gº º 2 3
PoRTION OF THE THEODosſa N WALLs (BETweeN THE GATE of THE
DEUTERON AND YEDI Koulie KAPOUSSI) ... tº ſº º ... Zºo face
PORTION OF THE THEODoSIAN WALLs (FROM witHIN THE CITY)
AQUEDUCT ACROSS THE MOAT OF THE THEODOSIAN WALLS ...
COIN OF THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS II. tº e a tº e ºs
PLAN OF THE GOLDEN GATE tº e ºl * tº e tº e tº
THE GOLDEN GATE (INNER) * g e © tº e
THE GOLDEN GATE (OUTER)
YEDI Kouli. KAPOUSSI tº ſº e - tº e
THE GATE OF THE PEGE tº e & © tº e tº º & tº e tº
THE GATE OF RHEGIUM tº gº º tº s & tº gº tº * & &
THE GATE OF ST. ROMANUS * * * tº go &
THE GATE OF CHARISIUS ... tº gº tº tº gº º {º gº e to º º
VIEw ACROSS THE WALLEY OF THE LYCUS (LOOKING North) ...
THE (so-cALLED) KERKO PORTA tº e e tº e e
3 9
tº º is 5 2.
tº go tº 3 3
tº e e 5 *
tº gº tº 3 *
INSCRIPTIONS ON THE GATE of RHEGIUM tº e de & gº tº ... Zo face
ToweR OF THE THEODoSIAN WALLS (WITH INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR
of THE EMPERORs LEO III. AND CONSTANTINE V.) ... Zo face
INSCRIPTION IN HoNour of THE EMPERORS LEO III. AND ConstanTINE V.
MONOGRAMs on NINTH ToweR, NORTH OF THE GATE of PEGE e tº is
INSCRIPTION IN HONou R OF THE EMPERORS BASIL II. AND CONSTANTINE IX.
INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE IX. tº gº tº
INSCRIPTION IN HONoUR OF THE EMPEROR Roman Us gº tº e tº gº º
DIAGRAM SHOWING THE INTERIOR OF A TOWER IN THE THEODOSIAN
WALLS ... tº is tº * * * te e & © Cº º tº gº tº ... Zo face
PAGE
xi
I4
I9
4I
IOO
IOI
IO2
IO2
IO2
X MAST OF IAEA, USTRA TIONS.
PAGE
INSCRIPTION IN HONoUR OF THE EMPEROR John VII. PALAEOLOGUs ... Io;
DIAGRAM SHOWING APPROXIMATE SECTION AND RESTORATION \ Facing
OF THE THEODOSIAN WALLS # gº tº tº º tº tº e tº ... each other
DIAGRAM SHOWING APPROXIMATE ELEVATION AND RESTORATION | between
OF THE THEODOSIAN WALLs tº gº tº e tº & tº e ſº tº e e IO6, Io'ſ
PLAN of THE PALACE OF THE PORPHYRogENITUs tº gº º ... To face Io9
THE PALACE OF THE PORPHYROGENITUS (SouthERN FAQADE)\ Facing each other
THE PALACE OF THE PORPHYROGENITUs (NorthERN FAQADE)) between IIo, III
MONOGRAM OF THE PALAEOLOGI º ſº e º 'º © g & tº º tº ... I I2
THE PALACE OF THE PORPHYRogFNITUs (VIEw of INTERIOR) ... Zºo face II2
MONOGRAM FOUND IN THE PALACE OF THE PORPHYROGENITUS ... • II3
SKETCH-PLAN OF THE BLACHERNAE QUARTER ... tº gº tº ... To face II5
THE PALACE OF THE PORPHYRogenitus (FROM THE WEST) ... 2 3 II.8
BALCONY IN THE SOUTHERN FAQADE OF THE PALACE of THE PORPHYRO-
GENITUS * * * tº e º tº e tº tº gº º tº º & ... To face II8
ToweR OF THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMNENUS 9 3 I22
THE PALAEoloGIAN WALL, North of THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR
MANUEL COMNENUS e g tº & e ∈ * * * tº ſº tº ... To face I26
THE GATE of GyroLIMNE ... e e G e & G. tº dº º ... 2 3 I26
GENERAL VIEW OF THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMNENUS 29 I28
PLAN OF THE SO-CALLED PRISON OF ANEMAS ... tº º º tº g tº 5 § I31
THE L-shaped CHAMBER IN UPPER STORY OF “THE ToweR OF ANEMAS ’’ I37
“THE ToweR of ANEMAS ’’ AND “THE ToweR OF ISAAC ANGELUS” (FROM
THE SouTH-WEST) tº tº ſº tº gº tº tº gº tº ſº tº º tº tº º Zºo face 138
“THE ToweR of ANEMAs”. AND “THE ToweR of ISAAC ANGELUs” (FROM
THE North-WEST) tº e > tº € tº tº º is ºn tº . ... Zo face I44
VIEW OF THE INTERIOR OF “THE PRISON OF ANEMAS ’’ (BEING THE SUB-
STRUCTUREs which SUPPORTED THE PALACE OF BLACHERNAE) To face I5o
CHAMBER IN “THE PRISON OF ANEMAS’’ ... tº ſe e tº e (s 99 I56
ENTRANCE OF PASSAGE FROM THE STAIRway IN “THE TOWER OF ANEMAS”
To CHAMBER D IN “THE ToweR of Isa Ac ANGELUs.” ... To face I62
CORRIDOR IN THE ORIGINAL WESTERN TERRACE WALL OF THE PALACE
of BLACHERNAE (LOOKING SOUTH-WEST) ... tº e º ... To face 162
GENERAL VIEw of THE WALLs of THE CITY FROM THE HILL ON WHICH
THE CRUSADERS ENCAMPED IN 1203 tº gº º tº gº tº ... Zºo face 166
INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPEROR ROMANUS tº gº tº ... I69
INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPEROR THEOPHILUS † - G ... 183
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. PALAEOLOGUs tº a e tº º ſº ... 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 tº e Q ... I9 I
LIST OF ILLUSTRATION.S.
xi
PAGE.
NIKE (FoRMERLY NEAR BALAT Kapoussi) --- --- ... Zºo face 198
Portion of THE CHAIN STREtched acRoss THE ENTRANCE of THE
GoLDEN HoRN IN 1453 ... --- --- --- ... Zºo face 228
Inscription in Honour of Theodosius II. AND THE PREFEcT Con-
sTANTINE ; INscRIPTION IN Honour of THE EMPEROR THEoPHILus;
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 THEoDosil --- --- --- -- 33o
Triumphus HeracLII --- --- --- -- 334.
BUST OVER THE GATE of Gyrolimni.

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," 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
* Petrus Gyllius, De Topographia Constantinopoleos et De illius Antiguitatibus,
liber i. c. 4–18.
B
2 A YZAAWT/AVE CONSTA WTINOPEA. [CHAP.
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 com-
parative 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 sepa-
rated 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
I.] THE SATAE OF CONSTA WT/AVOA’/A2. 3
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 (3ovvöc Töv BAaxspvá v)," 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.”
Upon it are found Avret Bazaar, the pedestal of the Column of
Arcadius, and the quarters of Alti Mermer and Psamathia.
* Page 722. All references in this work to the Byzantine Authors, unless other-
wise stated, are to the Bonn Edition of the Corpus Scriptorum. Historia Byzantina.
* Anonymus, lib. i. p. 20, in Banduri’s Imperium Orientale; Constantine Por-
phyrogenitus, De Cerimoniis Aulæ Byzantinae, p. 501.
4 A YZAAVTZAVE COMSTA WZTIAWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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
AEgean 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
I.] A YZAAVTIUM. 5
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 Con-
stantine, 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." 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
* Xenophon, Anabasis, vii. c. I.
6 A YZAAVTIAWE CONSTA WT/WOP/LA2. [CHAP.
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.” 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.” 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 de-
scribed by the Anonymus of the eleventh century and his follower
Codinus.” 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.”
There the wall left the shore and made for the Strategion and
* Anabasis, vii. c. I.
* Paspates, Bučavruval Mexérat, p. 103. Mordtmann, Esquisse Topographique
de Constantinople, p. 5. All references to these writers, unless otherwise stated, are
to the works here mentioned.
° Lib. i. p. 2; Codinus, pp. 24, 25. "Hpxero 8° to reixos, kaffä kai vov, Éri too
B A 3. * an A * >A 5\ * 8 a > W an Ei a
tſavros &nd too triſpyou täs 'AkpotróAeos, kai Štúpxero eis róv too Eiyeviov
Af * 3 / A * Af \ iſ 3. * a 3A WAé
trºpyov, kai ävé8auve pléxpt too Xtparmy(ov, Kai ºpxero eis to too AxtMAéos
* * Af Af º a
Aovrpóv. ‘H 8& ékéſore diffis, # Aeyop,évm rod Oipſłuktov, trópra jiv xeporata.
* A. º 3 * 3. *A * A a ey *
Töv Bučavrčov : kai ävégauvev eis rà XaXkorparéia Tó Teixos éos too
* * º *
Aeyouévov Mºtov ºv 88 kāketore répra rôv Bučavriov xeporata : kai Övöpxero
a f A
eis roës ºrMekroës kiovas rāv Tówka)\aptov, Kai karé(3atvey eis Tótrovs, kai.
* w * 3. Af
drékapºtre ºrd'Auv Ště rôv Mayyávov ka? 'Apkaëtavóveis Tºv AkpótroXtv.
* See below, p. 227. -
I.] A YZAAVT/UM. 7
the Thermae of Achilles. The former was a level tract of ground
devoted to military exercises—the Champ de Mars of Byzan-
tium—and occupied a portion of the plain at the foot of the
Second Hill, between Yali Kiosk Kapoussi and Sirkedji Iske-
lessi.” The Thermae 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.”
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,” 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
* The site of the Strategion may be determined thus: It was in the Fifth Region
of the city (Motitia, 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 (Bagtchê Kapoussi), for they were destroyed by a fire which started in the .
Neorion (Paschal Chron., p. 582). '
* 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), Év rà
KaNoupévu BaoruMkū āyyworta rôv XaAkorpatetov.
* See below, p. 256.
8 PYZAM7TINE CONSTAAVT/WOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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.”
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,” 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,” 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.*
* See below, the size of city as given by Dionysius Byzantius.
* Amaplus of Dionysius Byzantius. Edition of C. Wescher, Paris, 1874.
* Dion Cassius, lxxiv. I4 ; Herodianus, iii. 6.
* Beside Bagtchè Kapoussi. See below, p. 220.
I.] A YZAAV7/UM. 9
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 Plataea 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' 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.” There Constantine subsequently
* I. I.
* Page 96: Kai to pièv traXavöv etxe Tºv TóAmv čv tº avptAmpëoret rôv
orroſov is Xe/37pos é BaoruMeðs ºkočopufforaro.
Io APYZAAWTINE CONSTA/VTIAWOP/LE. [CHAP.
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." Now, the site of the Forum of Constan-
tine 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.”
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 con-
structed to the east of the gate, within the line of the wall of
Severus. For, according to the historian, one entered the por-
ticoes of Severus and left the old town, after passing through
the arches (8' &v) 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 Con-
stantine ; 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
e * * a
* Zosimus, p. 96: 'Ayopäv 8& év tá, rötte kaff Öv tróAm to dpxalov ºv
3. A. e Af a a Æ Af s Af
oikočopufforas, . . . diſtèas 8to pappudpov Tpourovvmortov preyſorras āAA#Aov
ăvrías ātérviroore, 8 &v čveo-ru, eiotéval eis rās Xegmpov orrods, kai Tàs
tröMal tróAeos éétéval. -
sº * \ * Af
* Theophanes, p. 42, speaking of the column, says it was set up diró too tétrov
* * • a * Aſ 3 \ * M A * 3 & 8 2 3. Af
of ºpčaro oikočopeſv tºw tróAuv, in rô 8vruköv pºépos tºs éri Pépºqv čvoča ms
tróMms.
I.] - A PZAAV7 IUM. II
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," who says that the wall of Byzantium did not go
beyond the Forum of Constantine (oik #30 tic Étováuov &yopäc
toū ſagi)\éwc); thirdly, though that is of less moment, with the
Anonymus * and Codinus,” 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 “place the Forum between the porti-
coes 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.” 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 pro-
ceeded from the main gate of the city to the point occupied by
the temple of Aphrodite, and to the shore facing Chrysopolis.”
The temple of the Goddess of Beauty was one of the oldest
sanctuaries in Byzantium," and did not entirely disappear until
* Fragm. Hist. Graec., iv. p. 49. * I. p. 14. * Page 41.
* The Church of Sancta Sophia, pp. 5, 9.
* Zosimus, p. 96, 'Atro 8: Too Bopetov Aébou karū rov torov rpétrov, Kartów
ãxpt too Apévos 3 kaxoãort veðptov, Kai érékelva péxpt 6a)\doorms # karevöö
Keira roi, oróparos 8 of trpos róv Eööelvov čváyovraz IIóvrov.
* Ibid., Tô 82 reixos 8-3 roi A6%ov kaffiépcevov v 3rd too 8vrukoi pºpovs
ãxpt roë rºs’Aq poètrms vaoſ, kai 6a)\doorms tºs évrukpi Xpworówoxeos.
* Paschal Chron., p. 495.

I 2 BYZANTINE CONSTA WTINOPLE. [CHAP.
the reign of Theodosius the Great, by whom it was converted
into a carriage-house for the Praetorian Prefect." It was, conse-
quently, a landmark that would long be remembered. Malalas”
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,” where it overlooked one of the theatres built
against the Marmora side of the citadel," and faced Chrysopolis.”
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.” 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
* Malalas, p. 345.
* Page 292.
* Hesychius Milesius, Fragm. Hist. Graec., iv. p. 149; Codinus, p. 6.
* Motitia, ad Reg. II. ; Paschal Chron., p. 495. * Zosimus, p. 96.
* As the Sphendone 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. -
I.] A VZAAWT/UM. I3
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 moenia campus erat peninsulae cervicis sensin
descendentis ad litus, et ne urbs esset insula prohibentis.” "
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.”
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 Hipprodrome and the subsequent site of
St. Sophia was the Tetrastoon, a public square surrounded by
porticoes, having the Thermae of Zeuxippus upon its southern
side.
In the Acropolis were placed, as usual, the principal sanc-
tuaries 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 Fortuna Reduci
off devictos Gothos, in honour of Claudius Gothicus for his victories
over the Goths. To the north of the Acropolis was the Stadium ; *
* Dionysius Byzantius. See Gyllius, De Bosporo Thracio, ii. c. 2; cf. ibid., De
Top. C.P., i. c. IO.
* Paschal Chron., pp. 494, 495 ; cf. Malalas, p. 345; Motitia, ad Reg. ZZ.
* AVotitia, ad Regiones, / V., V., VI. In the first tower south of Saouk Tchesmé
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
I4 BYZA WTINE CONSTA WZTINOPLE. [CHAP. I.
then came the ports of the Prosphorion and the Neorion, and
in their vicinity the Strategion, the public prison," and the
shrine of Achilles and Ajax.” The aqueduct which the Emperor
Hadrian erected for Byzantium continued to supply the city of
Severus.” -
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. Blachernae
was already established beside the Sixth Hill; Sycae, famous for
its figs, occupied the site of Galata ; and the Xerolophos was a
sacred hill, crowned with a temple of Zeus. *
Literary Syllogos of Constantinople, vol. xvi., 1885, Archaeological Supplement, p. 3.
'Atropºd(xov) aixpar(av), oraëtoč(pópov), 6 Tórros à(pxeral).
* Codinus, p. 76.
* Hesychius Milesius, Fragm. Hist. Graec., iv. p. 149.
* Paschal Chron., p. 619.
* For buildings, etc., outside the limits of Byzantium, see Anaplus of Dionysius
Byzantius ; Gyllius, ZXe Bosporo Zºhracio, ii. c. 2, c. 5; Codinus, p. 30 ; Anonymus,
iii. p 51.
§§§
- Aº: Ä §§§ RS
\\\\\\º ś NY
& - s *:Sºf ſ §
- .* := Nº |W
āşş § §
"...’,1: \x. e…s Šºš >
W: zº As §§§ :-
s , ºr tº -
*\º:
*ś
§§§s 3. sº §§ §
º a. § -
º
* A º
v dº tºº Nº -
| §§ º ſº º
§sº
, Wººl | º HºN §§ * §§§
,, .ºz. g §§ § §§ § §§
..º. ºº's
^y. Nº Ş. º º A § §§ §W § §§§ §§§
2. º * * sº ſºº's : §§§ jºy.” S. Nº §§ ** *
º º 'º', ; , $º º!" Aºi
& §§ §§§§ 3.
º o Sºº-S
&\ § §§ºt:
§ ſº §§
§§§º SS
Sºº Nº §§§
sº º §º
º
* WNN. ºr, §§§
§§§§ •, 4
º º §§ § G §§ Kºš K_* N 3 *
~4Å º &e. A $º Öğ rº-
**ś §§§ {& ºš
l ºn RS: º §§§ N &
§ Q - 2 - ~ º º * {
# *
4 * ~ *
*
sº gº
tºtº
W
§
º K. º:
* Wºº, , …Nº. ºº
* º
| Nº.
§
|
N
N
}\
* - - . & N 2
w * º &
* * 3M R N § º 2
Y" ºr 'N * -
§ º Vºs § º
N N & * ſº g
\\\\\\\\{ \º
. . * § - ! Sº .
$






































































- -º-ºr----- -->;-- - - , , ,---------
CHAPTER II.
THE CITY OF CONSTANTINE—ITS LIMITS.–FORTIFICATIONS-
INTERIOR ARRANGEMENT.
IN the year 328 of our era, Constantine commenced the trans-
formation 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.”" 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 antici-
pated under the circumstances.
The new land wall, we shall find, crossed the promontory”
along a line a short distance to the east of the Cistern of
* Philostorgius, ii. c. 9. * See Map of Byzantine Constantinople.
s
I6 BYZAAV7 IAVE CONSTAAV7 IAVOA’ CAE. [CHAP.
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," 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.” 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 con-
tained in the Notitia *—the length of the city is put down as
14,075 Roman feet; the breadth as 6150 Roman feet. The
* Pages 96, 97. - * See above, p. Io.
* Notitia Dignitatum accedunz Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanæ et Zaterculi
Arozinciarum, edidit Otto Seeck, p. 243.
The Motitia, so far as Constantinople is concerned, will be found in Gyllius’ De
Topographia Constantinopoleos.
“Habetsane longitudo urbis a porta aurea usque ad litus maris directa linea pedum
quattuordecim milia septuaginta quinque, latitudo autem pedum sex milia centum
quinquaginta.”
II.] TAZAZ CITY OF CONSTANTIAWE. 17
Motitia belongs to the age of Theodosius II., and might there-
fore 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 intro-
duce 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. Conse-
quently, if we take the head of the promontory for our start-
ing-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
g C
18 BYZAAWTINE CONSTANTINOPEE. [CHAP.
–F#----- → Y --rersr-
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 ex-
tremities 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 Con-
stantine's wall.
On the side of the Sea of Marmora the wall extended as
far west as the Gate of St. Æmilianus (trópra roo & Yíov Aiu-
Xiavod), and the adjoining church of St. Mary Rhabdou (ric
âytaç 0sorókov ric Pá98ov)." That gate is represented by
Daoud Pasha Kapoussi, which stands immediately to the west
of Vlanga Bostan.”
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.” To this list may be added the Trojan
Porticoes and the Cistern of Aspar.
(a) The Exokionion (ro ÉÉoklövtov) * was a district immedi-
ately 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 (ro Šćaktóvtov).” It is
* Paschal Chron., p. 494; Anonymus, i. p. 2. * See below, p. 264.
* Anonymus, i. p. 2; Codinus, p. 25. * Anonymus, i. p. 20.
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 501.
Cassiºn CHRYSOPOLIS
Scutari
Tower of Galata
(3)
Region XIII.
Galața
Sycae
of
Dy.
Ch. of S.Mary Ch.
Pammakaristós of the S Ch. of
Ch. of S.Saviour Suſan , Kºš:Theodosia
62.9%ra sjoº#umo S$293.; py. Yºu! /2/.
& A//. * ... - - - - * r * º
Mºº º, *kºnºkaya - Ch. of Ş. aurentius
Ch sº waſ, ‘. Ch. of S. John de
e & 1 3.
e’ 3.
* **
In--~.
Map of
BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE.
of Manuel" ch.of S.John in Petra
Z27. &
Gate of
Region X. *... Region VI.
e’
Ch. of Christ Paateſºptes
: Sultan Szeleiman & ""*........
< . . . . 6%, "º * * * =
Ch. of Christ Pantocrator ". *. -
Al/e/ze??zet I cºcoyateia *p
Ch. of.S. nº e
Ch. of S. * * ...”.
Jh. of thefty § yr Basilicaº,
12/.
Column of Marcian”
Region XI.
& Ch. of S.Mary Region VII. Region I
& Monastir Dj. Ch.of
gº& Ch. of S.
** a Region Ix. "“”
& Deniz Abdal
Gate of the
Region XII.
Forum of
Cistern of (Az/7′ef
Mokius
Rapoze
Mesdjidi
• gº N
** ^
Ch. of S. Anna
d
Ch. of S. Andrew
Fºodja Aſustap/ia
Monastery of Gastria
by F. R. von Hubner for and under the direction of Professor A. van Millingen.
Scale of 1:30, ooo
O
|
English Miles

II.] THE CITY OF CONSTANTINE. - I9
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, pro-
hibited heretical worship within the city.” Hence the terms
Arians and Exokionitai became synonymous.” In later times
the quarter was one of the fashionable parts of the city, contain-
ing many fine churches and handsome residences.”
Gyllius was disposed to place the Exokionion on the Fifth
Hill,” 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.”
Dr. Mordtmann, on the other hand, maintains that the desig-
nation was applied to the extra-mural territory along the whole
line of the Constantinian land fortifications.”
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." The Sigma
appears in the history of the sedition which overthrew Michael V.,
(IO42), and is described as situated above the Monastery of
St. Mary Peribleptos.” Now, regarding the position of that
monastery there is no doubt. The establishment, founded by
Romanus Argyrus, was one of the most important monastic.
* Paschal Chron., p. 561 ; Socrates, v. c. 7. * Ibid., ut supra.
* Theophanes Continuatus, p. 196; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 173; Nicetas Chon.
p. 319. -
* De Top. CP., iv. c. 1.
* On the occasion of his second visit, Gyllius saw the column removed to the
Mosque of Sultan Suleiman. -
* Pages Io, 72. * Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 501.
* Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 540, "Avoffew rºs trepuſ?Aérrow povſis, év tá, tórq tº
ka)\oupévº Xiypart.
2O A VZA WT//WE COMWSTAAWT/WO PLAE. [CHAP.
houses in Constantinople. Its church survived the Turkish Con-
quest, and remained in the hands of the Greeks until 1643, when
Sultan Ibrahim granted it to the Armenian community." 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,” big was sometimes applied, as in the case before us, to
the Forum of Arcadius (Avret Bazaar) upon the hill's summit.”
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," for it was on the road from the Sigma
to the Forum of Arcadius,” and gave name to the large ancient
cistern, the Tchoukour Bostan, to the north-west of the Forum."
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 Hexakio-
nion, the popular Byzantine alias of Exokionion." The Exokio-
nion, therefore, was on the Seventh Hill. Accordingly, the Wall
* Patriarch Constantius, Ancient and Modern Constantinople, p. 86.
* Paschal Chron., p. 579.
* Socrates, vii. c. 5; Constant. Porphyr., Ze Cer., p. 106.
* Banduri, Imperium Orientale, v. p. 81 ; Synaxaria, May II.
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., pp. 55, 56.
* Codinus, p. 99; Gyllius, De Top. C.P., iv. c. 8.
* Cf. Paspates, p. 362.
II.] THE CITY OF CONSTA WTINE. 2I
of Constantine crossed that hill along a line to the east of the
quarter of Alti Mermer.
(6) The next landmark, the Ancient Gate of the Forerunner
(IIaMaud IIópra roo IIpoëpóuov), elsewhere styled simply the Ancient
Gate (IIa)\aud IIópra)," 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 out-
lived the wall of London, and became known in later days as the
Ancient Gate, on account of its great antiquity. Its fuller desig-
nation, the Ancient Gate of the Forerunner,” 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 (rùv IIa)\atav).”
Manuel Chrysolaras places the entrance to the west of the
Forum, of Arcadius, and describes it as one of the finest monu-
ments in the city.” 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.” 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.” But the shadow of the name still
* Codinus, p. 122. * Codinus, p. 25.
* Du Cange, iv. p. IO2. * Patrologia Graeca, vol. clvi. p. 54, Migne.
* 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.
* For this information I am indebted to Rev. H. O. Dwight, LL.D., of the
American Board of Missions.
22 BYzANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
lingers about the site. A small mosque to the west of Avret
Bazaar bears the name Isa Kapoussi Mesdjidi,” 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 Mesd-
jidi, 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
(roºpačáalot #uſłoxo),” which stood so near the wall that it was
sometimes named after them, the Trojan wall (rów retxàv táv
Towa&motov).”
From their situation in the Twelfth Region,” 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.” The reason for their name is
a matter of conjecture, and no trace of them remains.
(d) Nothing definite regarding the course of the Constan-
tinian 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.
* Cf. Paspates, pp. 361-363.
* Hesychius Milesius, Fragm. Hist. Gra.c., vol. iv. p. 154.
* Paschal Chron., p. 590. * Motitia, ad Reg. XII.
* Marcellinus Comes. -
II.] THE CITY OF CONSTA WTIAWE. 23
The former, ascribed to the time of Theodosius I., is men-
tioned by Antony of Novgorod in close connection with the
Church of St. Mokius and the Church of St. Luke.” The Con-
vent of Icasia was founded by the beautiful and accomplished
lady of that name,” 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.” 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," which was
founded by the distinguished general of that name in the reign
of Theophilus. The church of the monastery is now the Mosque
Kefelé Mesdjidi in the quarter of Salmak Tombruk, and a little
to the east of it stands the Tchoukour Bostan mentioned above,”
the only large Byzantine reservoir in the neighbourhood.
This conclusion is again in harmony with the figures of
Zosimus and the AVotitia, 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."
Where this cistern was situated is a matter of dispute which
cannot be definitely settled in our present state of knowledge.
* Itinéraires Russes en Orient, p. IO3; Zºraduits pour la Société de l’Orient Latin,
par Madame B. de Khitrovo.
* Codinus, p. 123. * Page 593. * Theophanes Continuatus, p. 168.
* Paspates, pp. 304-306. * Codinus, p. 99. -
~~
24. A VZAM/7”/AVAE COMSTAAV7//VOP/CAE. [CHAP.
-erry-ºw-ºrrºr--ºr ºt
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." The cistern has dis-
appeared 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,” 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,” styled the
New Palace of Bonus,” 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.” 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
* De Top. C.P., iv. c. 4. * Pages 72, 73.
* Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 343. * Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 532.
* Zbid., ut supra.
II.] THE CITY OF CONSTAAVTIAWE. 25
to the Church of the Apostles there was an old cistern
converted into market gardens," 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 identifica-
tion there is a fatal objection : the Cistern of Bonus was roofed
in,” 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,” on the northern bank of the
valley of the Lycus, and to the south-west of the Mosque of
Sultan Mehemet.* 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 AVotitia ;
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.”" For this statement
* Constant. Porphyr., p. 532.
* Anonymus, iii. p. 49, 'Eorkétao'ev airly kvXtvöpukó 66A9.
* The literary form of the word is Djami'i.
* Die Byzantinischen Wasserbehålter von Konstantinopel, p. 185.
* Ad Reg. XI.
26 A VZAAV7 IWE CONSTA NTINOPLE. [chap.
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
(karäpxero) * 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.”
(%) As to the district of Harmatius, named after Harmatius,
a prominent personage in the reign of Zeno,” 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,
(TIAaréta). 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 AVotitia 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,” sanctuaries situated in the plain before us ; the
* Codinus, p. 25. * Synaxaria, June 17, 20; Anonymus, ii. p. 35.
* Anonymus, ii. p. 36. * /tinéraires Russes en Orient, pp. IO4, IOS.
II.] THE CITY OF CONSTAAVTIAWE. 27
first being now the Mosque Gul Djami, near Aya Kapou,”
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.” 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.
(7) 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.” 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 archaeologists were not always versed in history.
Setting aside, therefore, the Chronicler's historical opinions,
* Paspates, pp. 320–322. * Zbid., pp. 381-383.
* Page 494, T6 traXavov retxos Kovo ravruvoviróAeos, routéorw diró too
KaNoupévov IIerptov čos rās répras toū āytov Aipuxuavoſ, TAmortov ris
KaNoupévms Pā68ov.
28 A VZAAWTINE COAVSTA AWTINOPLE. [CHAP.
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. w
For the Gate of St. AEmilianus, by which the former authority
marks that extremity, stood close to the Church of St. Mary
Rabdou, the indication given by the latter."
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 AVotitia allows. The discrepancy can, how-
ever, be easily removed. For, while the Petrion was pre-emi-
nently 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,” the plain to the
east of Petri Kapoussi, while at another time it is spoken of as
in the Petrion.” 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.
(£) Finally, from the Church of St. Antony the wall proceeded
* See Paschal Chron., ut supra. * Anonymus, ii. pp. 39, 40.
* Bollandists, May 30, p. 238, ‘Ev paprupelº tús dyias Eiºmpias rig óvrt
TAmoríov too dyſov Aavpevríov čv rô IIerpt.p.
Under August 10, St. Laurentius is described as év IIovXxepuavaſs and év
IIerpiº. See below, pp. 206, 207.
II.] THE CITY OF CONSTA MVTIME. 29
along the shore of the Golden Horn to the head of the promon-
tory, 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."
The following gates, mentioned in Byzantine history, were
found, there is reason to believe, in the Constantinian circuit:—
Porta Polyandriou (IIópta IIoXvavěptov,” 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. Mordt-
mann's opinion that the designation belonged originally to the
corresponding gate in the Constantinian fortifications, which
stood closer to the cemetery.”
Another gate was the Porta Atalou (IIópra 'AráXov).” It
was adorned with the statue of Constantine the Great and the
statue of Atalus, after whom the gate was named. Both monu-
ments fell in the earthquake of 74O. The presence of the statue
of the founder of the city upon the gate, the fact that the
damage which the gate sustained in 74O is mentioned in close
connection with the injuries done at the same time to the Column
of Arcadius on the Xeropholos,” 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 Constan-
tine. From its association with the Xerolophos one would infer
that the Gate of Atalus was situated on the Seventh Hill, in a
* Emperor Julian, Oratio Z. . * Paschal Chron., p. 719.
* Pages Io, 28. See below, p. 85. * Theophanes, p. 634. * Zbid., zut supra.
30 A YZAAVT/AVE CONSTAAVT/AWOA/CAE. [CHAP.
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.
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 2 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 Koulé), under the name Yedi Koulé
Kapoussi—was already in existence when the Motitia was written.”
That being the case, the presumption is in favour of the opinion
that the Golden Gate at Yedi Koulé is the Porta Aurea to which
the AVotitia refers ; and this opinion has upon its side the great
authority of Dr. Strzygowski.” On the other hand, the distance
from the Porta Aurea to the sea, as given by the Motitia, does
not correspond to the distance between Yedi Koulé 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 suppo-
sition 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
* See above, pp. 21, 22. * See below, p. 62. * See below, p. 61, ref. 5.
II.] THE CITY OF CONSTA AWTIAWE. 3I
not accord with the size of Constantinople under Theodosius II.,
prove perfectly correct when applied to the dimensions of the
city under its founder 2 How come these figures to agree com-
pletely with what we learn regarding the length and breadth of
the city of Constantine from other data on that subject 2 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 any-
thing else than the original size of the city. Hence we are com-
pelled 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 Constan-
tine, 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 ex-
plained 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." 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
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 501.
32 A YZAAVTIAWE CONSTAAVTIAWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
Twelfth Region, on the Seventh Hill, was remarkable for its
monumental character—“Quam (regionem) moenium sublimior
decorat ornatus.” Gates so similar in their position and appear-
ance 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.”
Dr. Mordtmann “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 fortifica-
tions. 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 bul-
warks of the capital were demolished as soon as the Theodosian
Walls were built.* On the contrary, the old works continued
* Ad Reg. XII. * Paschal Chron., p. 494; see below, p. 264.
* Pages 7, 8. There is no proof for the existence of a Porta Saturnini in the
Constantinian Wall (Esquisse Zop. de C.P.). 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. -
* Nicephorus Callistus, xiv. c. I.
II.] THE CITY OF CONSTANTINE. 33
*** * * *
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." They were in their place also when the Paschal
Chronicle was written.” What their condition precisely was in
740, when the Gate of Atalus was overthrown,” cannot be deter-
mined, 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.*
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,” and the forty thousand Gothic troops, known as the
Foederati, lent their strength to push the work forward.”
At length, on the IIth of May, A.D. 330," the city of Con-
stantine, destined to rank among the great capitals of the
world, and to exert a vast influence over the course of human
* Malalas, p. 488; Agathias, v. c. 5, 3–8. * Page 494.
* Theophanes, p. 634. * Paspates, p. 363.
* Lydus, De Magistratibus, iii. p. 266.
* Jornandes, De Rebus Get., c. 21, “Nam et dum famosissimam et Romae
aemulam in suo nomine conderet civitatem, Gothorum interfuit operatio, qui foedere
inito cum imperatore XL. suorum millia illi in solatio contra gentes varias obtulere,
quorum et numerus et millia usque, in Rep. nominantur Foederati.”
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 iſ they would bring up their sons in the same professions.
* Paschal Chron., p. 529.
D
34 A YZAAVT/WE COMSTA WTINOPLE. [CHAP.
affairs, was dedicated with public rejoicings which lasted forty
days."
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 repro-
duce 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.” 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 repre-
sented 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.”
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.”
The Hippodrome was now completed,” to become “the axis
of the Byzantine world,” and there, in addition to other monu-
ments, the Serpent Column from Delphi was placed. The
adjoining Thermae of Zeuxippus were improved.” An Imperial
Palace,” 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
! Banduri, Imperium Orientale, lib. v. p. 98.
* Paschal Chron., p. 528; Zosimus, p. 96.
* Hesychius, Frag. Hist, Gra.c., iv. p. 154; Anonymus, i. p. 13.
* Paschal Chron., p. 529, Airyovo taſov. * Ibid., p. 528.
* Ibid., p. 529. * Ibid., p. 528.
II.] THE CITY OF CONSTA WTINE. 35
Caesars on the Palatine was related to the Circus Maximus.
There, at the same time, it commanded the beautiful view pre-
sented by the Sea of Marmora, the Prince's Islands, the hilly
Asiatic coast, and the snow-capped Bythinian Olympus. Euse-
bius, who saw the palace in its glory, describes it as “most
magnificent ; ”” while Zosimus speaks of it as scarcely inferior
to the Imperial Residence in Rome.” -
On the eastern side of the Augustaion rose the Basilica,”
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.*
According to Eusebius, Constantine adorned the city and
its suburbs with many churches,” the most prominent of them
being the Church of Irene" and the Church of the Apostles."
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 ; *
and in the porticoes and chapels beside the church most of
* Eusebius, Zife of Constantine, iv. 66. * Zosimus, p. 97.
* Paschal Chron., pp. 528, 529. * Zosimus, pp. 280, 28.I.
* Eusebius, Zife of Constantine, iii. 47. * Socrates, i. c. 16.
7
Eusebius, iv. c. 52–60. * Eusebius, iv. 6o.
36 A VZA WTINE CONSTA WTINOP/LA2. [CHAP.
Constantine's successors and their empresses, as well as the
patriarchs of the city, found their last resting-place in sarco-
phagi 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 (Arna-
outkeui), on the Bosporus." There is no doubt that in the foun-
dation 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.””
Three streets running the length of the city formed the great
arteries of communication.”
One started from the south-western end of the palace en-
closure, 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,” 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
* Hesychius Milesius, Fragm. Hist. Graec., p. 154; Theophanes, p. 34; Sozomon,
ii. c. 3.
* Zife of Constantine, iii. c. 48. * Anonymus, i. p. 5; Codinus, pp. 22, 23.
* Anonymus, iii. p. 46. See below, p. 296.
II.] THE CITY OF COAVSTA WT/AWE. 37
the way the theatre and amphitheatre of Byzantium. Near the
latter Constantine built the Mangana, or Military Arsenal."
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.”
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 Mesé (Msam) on account of its central
position. Porticoes built by Eubulus, one of the senators who
accompanied Constantine from Rome, lined both sides of the
Mesé, 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.” 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.” While the water-works of
Byzantium, as improved by Hadrian, continued to be used, they
* Anonymus, ii. p. 26. See below, p. 250. * Socrates, i. c. 16.
* Paschal Chron., p. 528 ; Lydus, De Magistratibus, iii. p. 266.
* Anonymus, i. p. 5; Codinus, p. 22.
\
38 ,” A VZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
were extended, to render the supply of water more abundant.
What exactly was done for that purpose is, however, a matter of
conjecture.”
To the construction of the aqueducts, porticoes, and fortifica-
tions of New Rome sixty centenaria of gold (£2,500,000) were
devoted.”
The health of the city was consulted by building sewers far
underground, and carrying them to the sea.”
With the view of drawing population to the new city, Con-
stantine made the wheat hitherto sent from Egypt to Rome the
appanage of Constantinople, and ordered the daily free distribu-
tion of eighty thousand loaves.” The citizens were, moreover,
granted the Jus Italicus,” while, to attract families of distinction
the emperor erected several mansions for presentation to Roman
senators." House-building was encouraged by granting estates
in Pontus and Asia, on the tenure of maintaining a residence in
the new capital."
Furthermore, in virtue of its new dignity, the city was
relieved from its subordination to the town of Heraclea,” im-
posed 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.”
For municipal purposes the city was divided, like Rome, into
* Cf. Tchihatchef, Le Bosphore et Constantinople, chap. ii. ; Andreossy, Com-
stantinople et le Bosphore de Thrace, Livre Troisième, “Système des Eaux.”
* Anonymus, i. p. 5. * Zbid., ut supra.
* Socrates, ii. c. 13; Philostorgius, ii. c. 9.
* Cod. Theod, lib. xiv. 13; Cod. /ustin., xi. 20.
* Hesychius Milesius, Fragm. Hist. Graec., iv. p. 154; Zosimus, p. 97.
* Cod. Zheod., Novella I2.
* 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.
* Walesian Anonymus, appended to the History of Ammianus Marcellinus. The
senators of Rome were styled “Clarissimi.”
II.] THE CITY OF CONSTAAWTINE. 39
Fourteen Regions,” two of them being outside the circuit of the
fortifications, viz. the Thirteenth, which comprised Sycae (Galata),
on the northern side of the Golden Horn, and the Fourteenth,
constituting the suburb of Blachernae, now the quarters of Egri
Kapou and Aivan Serai.
Motitia, ad Regiones. On the delimitation of the Regions, see Gyllius, De
Topographia Constantinopleos, l. ii. c. 2, Io, I6; l. iii. c. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9 ; l. iv. C.
1, 3, 7, Io, II ; and Mordtmann, Esquisse Zopographique de Constanzinople, pp. 2–
Io. 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.
4O A VZAAV7 IAVE COMSTA/VT/WOPLE. [CHAP.
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."
Three years later, Athanaric * 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 Phoenicia, were
unable to provide the city with sufficient bread.” 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
* Ammianus Marcellinus, xxxii. 16. * Jornandes, xxviii.
* Eunapius, quoted by Gyllius, De Top. CP., i. c. 5.
* or MARMORA. THE LAND WALLS
… .º- - -
-- "Aº. … GSO OF Co
~~~~. - -1025
\º • r’. Hoº A. c.976-"
*::::::::…sº tº
i t Posfer”. ...ºf
U. *wscyprio? ºf Aukologo*.
:
§urveyed and Wellpeated by coo
RJ1N
ARTHURCHe NDERSON-
or-apd upder-ºpe direcţiop of
É. De RNAN MILLINGéNo
'?scp, -
*%-7.
© -
*** Rs. No tºº. MDCCCXCVWI, 3)).
t (/S.
..º." &
º' Bype?'ºssop of the Gre ckliſerary.”
\ dº”
wº b. At BANIon THC §yllogoséjocleſy)oröNSANJINorts, P99 -
X PVCHC - ITOPTAC. length of each beñd of the Héoposan WAlë
** sº pas beepſakep-from b2 MAP published.19.
Nº'º'
No Y. O'oZ_º
sº o'-º'-9
- ©
sº
, ,\\*.cº. l
º 5CALE = 7:50
1OO 3D. O |OO. 200. 500 400 500. 6 Oc.
{-, a 1–1 || 1–1–1–1 || i. | I l I jméRé5.
**-i-º-º-º-º-º-º:
100. P ! 500. ſ | t 1999, I Sºo !--- **reer
k– owe QuARTER OF Attile ——
_1^
***
Pº
&
* x\\
gºe"
…' y" . **
*...”
º”
oyºs zº-
$oº S.6*
*ON
vº &
* , vow º'caſ.
or ºf
‘...ovº
\
\{& -
sºns"
/ twº Y "
cº, c*** Wowow )e. onsWA"
\", ...wqowº. Sºº
tweace" 40
Rowa? # * Qº. Mºsuoes. /\,. O' 14
wººl "
cºes.cº."
cºasce"T
) of .o. 45t
QArtſ's ou% W ſº. O 9 A.D
~ AeSW 9 lysºzºoyººt 9A.V.
ºve, v. e.V.A &
A34
s, A P
kot.069
sºybanº”
wº."
sº y r*). º “. *:::::: PVAC
senswººk, wanº Čaº ... & Sº ef
voy orº Sows tº servasoºd nvº.'' wºrn" rºots")
tº sº. tº Yū' Alſº Ol of Peay ºf w$9). 62 Yº. 9 \ ey Neº O ... ºut º
at 39". asse” gºes Kapº.o. 117 “”º: rite Sl
Tow?", sc, (ANY"
N ...yºpºy"Yeşii +, CO
vº ex^69*.
outa" wºoews. so. 43%
ſº.
wecº PA\-
OV
:*A* t
Tº c. 313tº: *A*
O't oeu%
...we."
e Arvo"
|T2 .
! - beśov.
\ seveney ºw. tº ſº ºf..." £º
2. Aºulºs Rºº Whº Wº...g.
* * wayot.co." "Kö'ai é ou%5\, ', %; *Jºãº
tº Gala”. \\ }\ap * - ..º.
* Jººſ. ayſ: roºvy” e. acy foºt02. Jºrgo?” -
S& i tºº * "...ot 39%.orbel.ºf
& Q !.º. profes
o 9 U
...? gon STANT186
&Q &’s A.D. 447.
--"
OCT N Gord.
| bgcr', Hopſop.To
- lower.
§2.
CRG scºrer safety: h) *.
3%
THE BUILDERS OF THE LAND WALLs
OF CONSTANTINOPLE:
* Resceny
“| |pscº
...}#% Wºerjo,
TH eO DOS] US II
- C CO
| NNGRWALL- € Rećſed BY THe frefect ANIHerºus in AD 413 Ré's c < N, rº
OUIe RWALL-e Rected BY THe Prefect (oNSIANTINetwa o 447 º -
- * Art F. f.
HéRACLJUS N AD 62.7. ſ] VA
º “. . gº...º. Ye TAP Tov
LéOW T He ArtTen AN IN AD 813. "ſt a ^3 ..."; O.Mots r
o a r"P. H. I l l J'a 2
MANUEL COMN GNUS WITHAN A.D. 1143–1181. º
15 999 ourſe; s:...” Gorba'
TWAH XAPAC) ov.
Garg of Charistus
T1WAH Po NNAN OPVON
*ary of Ywſ city & tary
carvi Kºsº"
77 Mé TR45.above-SéA
º
lºss." Pl
b
& R 45, Ce N 7
FM C & $. N k\}}
| 7 Y., ow
OW **
‘l- ©&\ s: K** * *.
2sº % A.'Q r.
9. O -
Tºjº tºº,
To, *, *, *śANoctušºv. A y 7/V
24 J3Aaº. & 9."“c
& N& Luº A.
'ps, of Th %2 AN & º:Jºº.
£ 'So- *3%
*ALL "FRNAs call 24. fºsows a AN *go,
pr. *éRAc. ºlºsºph990) Tower)of º A. D. 82.
h ; **Moon ‘º.". to M'A', 'i' ºrieſ, º:*
*** Bºok + p. º ***Mºon º " * B AAxe PNory A Sºsz;
P. ºl QN]- Rq ºr, £ of Blacy, rp aſ
_*02 Sºlac, hº ºwaw, tº *ēRA to: "*****t or saint Nicºs, as
S. Aïv. ºalſ..."4 || st (gy .9% ºf sawmri)\t bows
“recrºp Sºº- N ºf Komajūš
y Tri's ! (, / wp:.. WALL of LéO. V.
95. A S t
*7-8; ; ; %3.79ers
THE Göloſ. N HORN
















































III.] THA. THE O/DOS/4 AV WAZA.S. 4. I
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." Sozomon goes so far as to affirm
that Constantinople had grown more populous than Rome.”
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 occu-
pation. The ecclesiastical dignity of the city, when elevated to
the second rank in the hierarchy of the Church, made it, more-
over, 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.”
Under the rule of the Theodosian dynasty the improvement
* Zosimus, p. IoI. * Sozomon, ii. c. 3. * Theophanes, p. 680.
42 A VZA WT/WE CONSTAAVT/AVOA’ſ E. [CHAP.
of the city went forward with leaps and bounds. Most of the
public places and buildings enumerated by the Wotitia, were
Constructed under the auspices of that House, and transformed
the city. A vivid picture of the change is drawn by Themistius,"
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 The-
mistius, in prophetic strain, “a wider circuit will be demanded,
and the question will arise whether the city added to Constanti-
nople 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.
* Oratio, xviii. p. 222. Edition of Petavius.
III.] THAE 7THE O/OO.S./4 AV WAZA.S. 43
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
Praetorian 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.”* 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
1 VII. C. I.
44 A P2AAVT/AVA COAWSZTAAV7/AVOP/LA2. [CHAP.
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." 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.” -
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 I foot I inch to I 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,
W31S employed in large quantities, lest it should dry without
taking hold,” and bound the masonry into a solid mass, hard
as rock.
The wall of Anthemius was erected in 413, the fifth year of
* Cod. Theod, lib. viii. tit. xxii. * Anonymus, i. p. 22.
* See Choisy, Z’Art de Báttir chez les Byzantins, pp. 7–13.
* 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 Praetorian
Prefect in 413: “Turres novi muri, qui ad munitionem splendidissimae urbis extructus
III.] THE THEODOSIA W WA L/L.S. - 45
\ \ Al
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."
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 Tohekmedjè).
He had dictated an ignominious treaty of peace, exacting the
cession of territory south of the Danube, the payment of an
est, completo opere, praecipimus eorum usui deputari, per quorum terram idem murus
studio ac provisione Tuae Magnitudinis ex Nostrae Serenitatis arbitrio celebratur.”
* Marcellinus Comes, “Plurimi urbis Augustae muri recenti adhuc constructi, cum
LVII. turribus, corruerunt.”
46 A VZAAV7 IAWE COAVSTA WTVZVOPLE. [CHAP.
`
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 2 IOO.
The crisis was, however, met with splendid energy by Con-
stantine, then Praetorian Prefect of the East, and under his
direction, as Marcellinus Comes affirms, the walls were restored
in less than three months after their overthrow." 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 IQO–2O7 feet thick, and
over Ioo feet high.”
As an inscription * upon the fortifications proclaimed, this
was a wall indeed, rö kai retxoc ēvrwg—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. -
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
* “Intra tres menses, Constantino Praefecto Praetorio opere dante, (muri) reaedi-
ficati sunt.” Cf. Inscription on the Gate Yeni Mevlevi Haneh Kapoussi, p. 47.
* Measuring from the bed of the Moat.
* It stood on the Outer Wall between the fourth and fifth towers south of the
Golden Gate (Paspates, p. 58).
Portion of THE THEoDosi AN WALLs (BETWEEN THE GATE OF THE DEUTERON
AND YEdi kouli. KAPoussi).

III.] THE 7TAZAZO/DOS/AAV VVA/C/CS. s 47
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.”
f HMAOIN EEHKONTA bladokHIITPGo BACIAHI f
KøNOTANTINOC YIIAPXOO EAEIMATO TEIXEI TEDxoo f
The Latin legend is more boastful : “By the commands of
Theodosius, in less than two months, Constantine erected trium-
phantly these strong walls. Scarcely could Pallas have built so
quickly so strong a citadel.”
THEODOSII JUSSIS GEMINO NEC MENSE PERACTO f
CONSTANTINUS OVANS HAEC MOENIA FIRMA LOCAVIT
TAM CITO TAM STABILEM PALLAS VIX CONDERET ARCEM + 1
The third inscription has disappeared from its place on the
Porta Xylokerkou, but is preserved in the Greek Anthology.” It
declared that, “The Emperor Theodosius and Constantine the
Eparch of the East built this wall in sixty days.”
@EYAOCIOO TOAE TEIXOO ANAE KAI YIIAPXOO EGOAO
KGONOTANTINOO ETEYEAN EN HMAOIN EEHKONTA
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 perform-
ance, 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
* See illustrations facing pp. 78, 96, 248.
* Banduri, Imperium Orientale, vii. n. 428.
48 A VZAAV7 IWE CONSTAA/TIA/OAZAZ. [CHAP.
Constantine." Theophanes and subsequent historians, on the
other hand, ascribe the undertaking to the Prefect Cyrus.”
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 ; * 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.”
Cyrus was one of the most conspicuous figures in the
history of the city during the reign of Theodosius II.” On
account of his talents and integrity he held the office of
Praetorian 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 oppor-
tunity 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,”
To him also is ascribed the introduction of the practice of
lighting the shops and streets of the capital at night." He was,
moreover, a man of literary tastes, and a poet, who counted the
Empress Eudoxia, herself a poetess, one of his admirers.” In
* See above, p. 47.
* Theophanes, pp. I48, I49; Leo Gram., pp. Io9, Io9.
* Patriarch Constantius, Paspates, Mordtmann, Du Cange.
* Muralt, Essai de Chronographie Byzantine, de 395 & IOS7, pp. 54, 55.
* Paschal Chron., pp. 588, 589.
* Ibid., pp. 582, 583. * Zbid., p. 588. * Suidas, ad zocem Köpos.
III.] THE 7TA/A2O/DOS/AAV WAZZ.S. 49
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.””
But in the midst of all his success, Cyrus remained self-
possessed and sober-minded. “I do not like Fortune, when
she smiles much,” 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
* Lydus, De Magistratibus, iii. p. 235.
* Malalas, p. 361, Oük dpéorket plot tºxm troXXá yeXôora.
5o A YZAAV7 IAVE COA/STAAVT/AWOP/LAZ. [CHAP.
should be mistaken on this point, it may be urged, is extremely
improbable. On this view, the occurrence of the name Con-
stantine 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 cir-
cumstances, after his conversion to the Christian faith.” 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,” when speak-
ing 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,” and
even he represents Cyrus as the associate of that illustrious
* Paspates, p. 48, quoting Skarlatus Byzantius.
* Paschal Chron., Malalas. ° Lib. vii. c. I.
III.] THE THEO DOS/AAW WAZZ.S. 5 I
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.
Tô káarpov to uéya: * Tö uéya refxoc.”
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% feet above the present exterior
ground-level, and about 40 feet above the level within the
city, with a thickness varying from 15% feet near the base to
13% 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 recon-
structions and belong to different periods, they exhibit various
* Cananus, p. 476. * Nicephorus Gregoras, xiv. p. 71 I.
52 A YZAAWTINE CONSTAAVTINOPLE. [CHAP.
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."
Thus two buildings differing in weight could settle at dif-
ferent 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.”
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 con-
cealment 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 communica-
tion with the story above it ; at other times a circular aperture,
about 7% feet in diameter, is found in the crown of the vaulted
floor between the chambers.
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
* Philo of Byzantium. See Veterum Mathemat. Opera, S. ix. Edited and Trans-
lated by MM. de Rochat et Graux, Æevue de Philologie, 1879.
* Choisy, Z’Art de Bátir chez les Byzantins, p. 112.
PORTION OF THE THEODosſan walls (FRoºt witHIN THE CITY).

III.] THE THEO DOS/4 AV WA L/.S. 53
leaving for the field were allowed to take up their temporary
quarters." The proprietors of the ground upon which the towers
stood were also allowed to use them,” 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 ;” and there, sentinels watched the
western horizon, day and night, keeping themselves awake at
night by shouting to one another along the line.”
D
THE INNER TERRACE.
'O IIspí90Xoc.”
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.
To #éo reixoc :" to ÉÉo káarpov : " to ukpóv retxoc.”
The Outer Wall is from 2 to 6% feet thick, rising some Io
feet above the present level of the peribolos,” and about 27%
feet - above the present level of the terrace between the
* Cod. Theod., “De Metatis,” lib. 13.
* Cod. Theod, “De Operibus Publicis,” lib. 51.
* Theophanes, p. 589; Phrantzes, p. 281.
* Nicephorus Gregoras, ix. p. 408. * Ducas, p. 283.
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 504. * Cananus, p. 476.
* Critobulus, i. c. 34.
"Or “Lists, the space between the Inner and the Outer walls of enceinte or
enclosure” (Violet-le-Duc on Mediæval Fortifications ; translated by Macdermott).
54. A YZAAWTIAWE CONSTAAV7//VOA’ſ E. [CHAP.
.*
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 per-
mitted the construction of a battlement and parapet-walk on
the summit, and, moreover, formed chambers, 8% 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" 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 sub-
terranean 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.
* Only seventy out of the ninety-six towers in this wall can now be identified.
III.] THE THEODOSIA W WA LL.S. 55
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," and in that of 1453,” the most desperate fighting
occurred here.
THE OUTER TERRACE.
Tô #éo traparstylov.”
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,” its chief function was to widen the distance
between the besiegers and the besieged.
THE MOAT.
Táppoc : goû8a.”
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
* Cananus, p. 475. -
* 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 negligentiamgue vel scissi, vel inermes propugnaculis essent, qui
non deserti, praesidium urbi salutis contulisset.”
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 438.
* Ducas, p. 266, 'Ev tº rāqipº. * Cananus, pp. 461, 462.
56 A YZAAVT/AVE CONSTA WT/WOAZE. [CHAP.
the Moat. The battlement upon the scarp formed a breastwork
about 6% 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" was the first to call attention to these struc-
tures, and to him, also, belongs the credit of having thrown
Some light upon their use. They were, in his opinion, aque-
ducts, 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.
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
* Pages 7–13.


AQUEDUCT ACROSS THE MOAT OF THE THEODOSIAN WALLS.
Coin OF THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS II.
(From Du Cange.)


III.] THE 7THEO DOS/4 AV WAZA.S. 57
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." The Italian traveller describes
the Moat as a “vallum aquarum surgentium.””
Are these statements mere rhetorical flourishes 2 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 circum-
stances, 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 them-
selves 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 Edirne 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
* * an Af p * A
* Page 40, Tô 8& TA;60s tow év airraſs (taq pots), 586 rov, Öote º piépet
* * * º a
pévov čAetrero, kai raiſrn 8okéïv are\ayſav Tów tróAlv etva, 8va toûrov.
* Librum Insularum Archipelagi, p. 121. Leipsic, 1824.
58 BYzANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE. ſchAP. III.
*
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 fortifi-
cations.
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 I453 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 terrae educto, muros forti munimine
cingunt.”" 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 counter-
scarp 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, percaient
les murailles du fossé du cóté des champs, minaient la terre sous
le mur à beaucoup d'endroits, et remplissaient les mines de
poudre et de vases remplis de poudre.”” If such action was
possible, there could be no water in the Moat.
* IV. I38, 139.
* Dethier, Sièges de Constantinople, ii. p. Io&5 ; cf. Mijatovich, Constantine, Last
Amperor 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; I 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
Edirnē Kapoussi; 2 between Edirnē Kapoussi and the northern end of the Moat.
( 59 )
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," 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.
* Pusculus, iv. 137, 138, “Pontes qui ad menia ducunt dirumpunt.”
6o A YZAAVT/AWE CONSTA MTV/VOPLE. [CHAP.
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
“XP.” 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.
It is, what the Porta Aurea was, the gateway nearest the Sea
of Marmora,' and at the southern extremity of the Theodosian
Walls,” constructed of marble, and flanked by two great marble
towers.” 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 THEVIDOSIWS 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
I453, unless Radulphus de Diceto alludes to it when he
states that in I 189 an old resident of the city pointed a Templar
to certain words upon the Golden Gate, foretelling the capture
* Pusculus, iv. I51, “Aurea Porta datur ponto vicina sonanti.”
* Cananus, p. 460.
* Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 292, 293; Manuel Chrysolaras, p. 48.
>f.xtP.
:.
:i
:*
*
3.
*
|
s




IV.] THE GA TES ZAV 7THE THEO DOS/4 AV WAZZ.S. 6F
of Constantinople by the Crusaders." 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.”
The inscription is cited first by Sirmondi" and Du Cange,”
the former of whom quotes it in his annotations upon Sidonius
Apollonius, as furnishing a parallel to that poet's mode of spell-
ing 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 in-
Scription does not appear.
Matters remained in this position until 1891, when the atten-
tion of Professor J. Strzygowski" 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
* Historia Anglicanae Scriptores Antiqui, p. 642. London, 1652.
* See French translation of his work, Constantinople Anciemme et Moderne, 1798,
vol. i. p. 28, where, quoting the legend, he says, “On y lit encore ces vers.”
* Opera Varia, vol. i., Paris, 1696; Paneg, Maioriani, Carmen V., 354.
* Constantinopolis Christiana, lib. i. p. 52.
* The brilliant monograph of Dr. Strzygowski on the Golden Gate is found in the
Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Band viii., 1893, Erstes.
Heft.
*62 A VZAAVTIAWE CONSTA AVT/WOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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 qui portam
constryit 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 pre-
cluded by the statement that the arch was set up after the sup-
pression 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 Theo-
.dosius the Great, in honour of his victory over one of the
rebels above mentioned. It could not, however, have been de-
signed 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
IV.] THE GATES MAW THE THEO DOSIAAW WA LL.S. 63
of peculiar satisfaction and pride, celebrating it by one triumphal
entry into Rome, in the spring of 389, and by another into Con-
stantinople, when he returned to the eastern capital in 391."
Accordingly, the Porta Aurea was originally an Arch of Triumph,
erected some time between 388 and 39 I, 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,” 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.”
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.”* 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
* Zosimus, p. 234.
* Cf. the inscription on the pedestal of the obelisk—
“Difficilis quondam dominis parere serenis
Jussus, et extinctis palmam portare tyrannis
Omnia Theodosio cedunt,” etc.
* See below, pp. 64, 65.
* Malalas, p. 360, ascribes the decoration of the gate with gold to Theodosius II.
64 BYZAAVTIAWE CONSTA WT/AVOA’LAE. [CHAP.
the difficulty be removed by any other instance of a similar
use of the term “Porta” 2 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 2 Or was the
Porta Aurea so named in anticipation of the fulfilment of the
prediction of Themistius, that the growth of the city under Theo-
dosius the Great would ere long necessitate the erection of new
walls 2 * 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 2
The Porta Aurea was the State Entrance into the capital,”
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,” and numerous statues
and other sculptured ornaments were placed at suitable points."
Of these embellishments the following are mentioned : a
cross, which was blown down by a hurricane in the reign of
Justinian ;" a Victory, which fell in an earthquake in the reign
of Michael III. ;" a crowned female figure, representing the
Fortune of the city;" a statue of Theodosius the Great,
* See above, p. 42.
* Nicephorus, Patriarcha CP., p. 59 ; Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., pp. 500, 506.
* Malalas, p. 36O. * Codinus, p. 48. * Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 675.
* Ibid., ii. p. I73. * Codinus, ut supra.

IV.] THE GA 7TES ZAV THE THEO DOS/AAW WAZA.S. 65
overthrown by the earthquake at the close of the reign of Leo
the Isaurian ; * a bronze group of four elephants;” the gates of
Mompseuesta, gilded and placed here by Nicephorus Phocas,
as a trophy of his campaign in Cilicia.” At the south-western
angle of the northern tower the Roman eagle still spreads
its wings ; the laureated monogram “XP” 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 Cruci-
fixion was painted within one of the lateral archways, while the
Scene of the Final Judgment was represented in the other.”
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.” 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.
* Theophanes, p. 634. * Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 567.
* Zbid., ii. p. 363. * Itinéraires Russes en Orient, p. 239.
* Manuel Chrys., p. 48; Gyllius, De Top CP., iv. c. 9 ; Adolf Michaelis, Ancient
Marèſes in Great Britain, pp. 10–14, translated by C. A. M. Fennell. See Wheler,
Grelot, Gerlach, Bulliardus, Spon, and Monograph of Dr. Strzygowski.
F
|
66 A YZAAV7 IAVAE COMSZTAAV7'/AVOA’ CAE. [CHAP.
On the northern slabs the subjects pourtrayed were: Prome-
theus 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."
* 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 Zhe
Megotiations 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 cor-
ruption 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.
Iv.] THAE GATES MAW THE THEO DOS/AAW WA L/L.S. 67
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), Leo I. (457),” Basiliscus (476),” Phocas (602),”
Leo the Armenian (813),” and Nicephorus Phocas (963)," 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. : " here, in 708, Pope
Constantine was received with great ceremony, when he came to
confer with Justinian II. : * and here, in the reign of Basil II.,
the Legates of Pope Hadrian II. were admitted.” Under
Romanus Lecapenus, the procession which bore through the city
to St. Sophia the Icon of Christ, brought from Faessa, entered
at the Porta Aurea.”
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;* by it Heraclius entered the capital
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.”
* Paschal Chron., p. 590. * Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 4I4.
* Theophanes, p. 186. * Paschal Chron., p. 693.
* Theophanes, p. 784. * Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 438.
* Anastasius Bibliothecarius. 8 ſh;a.
* Guillelmus Bibliothecarius, in Hadriano ZZ.
* Theophanes Cont., p. 432. * Zosimus, p. 234.
68 A PZA/VT/WE CONSTAAV7'/AWO PLA2. [CHAP.
to celebrate the success of his Persian expeditions;’ through it
passed Constantine Copronymus, after the defeat of the Bul-
garians;* Theophilus, on two occasions, after the repulse of the
Saracens; * Basil I., after his successes at Tephrice and Ger-
manicia ; * Zimisces, after his victories over the Russians under
Swiatoslaf ;” Basil II., after the slaughter of the Bulgarians;"
and, for the last time, Michael Palaeologus, upon the restoration
of the Greek Empire in 1261."
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,”
Maurice,” Nicephorus Phocas, before he became emperor,” and
Leo his brother,” celebrated their respective triumphs over the
Vandals, Persians and Saracens, in the Hippodrome and the
great street of the city.” -
An Imperial triumphal procession * was marshalled on the
plain in front of the Golden Gate,” and awaited there the arrival
of the emperor, either from the Hebdomon or from the Palace of
Blachernae. 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
* See illustration facing p. 334. * Theophanes, p. 668.
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., pp. 503, 504. * Ibid., p. 498."
* Leo Diaconus, p. 158. * Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 475.
* Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 160.
* Procopius, De Bello Vand., ii. c. 9 ; Theophanes, p. 309.
* Theophanes, p. 388. * Leo Diaconus, p. 28.
* Ibid., p. 23. * Theophanes, p. 309.
* For the descriptions of the triumphs accorded to Basil I. and Theophilus, see
Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., pp. 498–508.
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 499, 'Ev 8& ré Abašíº ró Áo ris Xpworms
tróptas.
"(walno) a Lvb Naq’Top ſa HL

Iv.] THE GA TES MAV THE THEODOSIAAW WAZZ.S. 69
victorious Sword by his side. Close to him rode his son, or the
Caesar 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 cortége 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 ! Wel-
come, Victors, most valiant sovereigns !”.' And then the glitter-
ing procession wended its way to the Great Palace, through the
dense crowds that packed the Mesé and the principal Fora of
the city, all gay with banners, flowers, and evergreens.
Sometimes the emperor, as in the case of Heraclius,” 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.” Michael Palaeologus entered the city on
foot, walking as far as the Church of St. John Studius before he
mounted his horse.” 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.”
But besides serving as a State entrance into the city,
the Porta Aurea was one of the strongest positions in the
* On the pier to the left of the central archway are painted in red the words,
TIOAAA TA ETH TOUN BAOIAEGON ; while on the pier to the right are the
words, O GC KAACJC HNENTEN CE; lingering echoes of the shouts that
shook the gate on a day of triumph.
* See illustration facing p. 334. * Leo Diaconus, p. 158.
* Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 160. * Constant. Porphyr., p. 508.
7o A VZAAV7 I WAE COAVSTA AVT/AVOP/LA2. [CHAP.
fortifications." 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.” 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. Palaeologus.
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.” Repeated attempts were made upon it by the
Saracens in the siege of 673–675.” 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.” 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."
Here, also, in 1347, John Cantacuzene was admitted by his
partisans."
John Palaeologus, upon receiving the surrender of the gate
foolishly dismantled the towers, lest they should be turned
' To karū thv Xpwormv kaxoupévmv ºppoiptov, 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 Z.Z.). 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.
* 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 th
northern tower are 55% feet, and 60 feet 4 inches.
* Marcellinus Comes. * Theophanes, p. 541. * Ibid., p. 785.
* Theophanes Cont., p. 385. * Cantacuzene, iii. pp. 606, 607.
IV.] THE GA TES MAV THAE THEO DOSIAAW WAZ/C.S. 7 I
against him, in the fickle political fortunes of the day." 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.” 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.” 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 con-
structed afterwards by Mehemet the Conqueror, in 1457. Upon
hearing of this action, Bajazet sent peremptory orders to John
Palaeologus 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 Constan-
tinople between I435 and I453 speaks of visiting the Castle of
the Emperor Kalo Jean.* -
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.” 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."
Between the Second and third towers to the north of the
Golden Gate is an entrance known at present, like the Porta
* Cantacuzene, iv. p. 304. * Chalcocondylas, p. 62. * Ducas, pp. 47, 48.
* Itinéraires Russes en Orient, p. 239, “Chateau de l'Empereur Kalojean. Il
a trois entrées.”
• * See Muralt, ad annum, Essai de Chronographie Byzantine, vol. ii.
* Phrantzes, p. 253.
72 A VZAAVT/WE COAVSTA WT/WOPLE. [CHAP.
Aurea, also by the name Yedi Koulé Kapoussi. Dr. Paspates
thinks it is of Turkish origin." 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;” 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 gate-
ways.
Regarding the name of the entrance opinions differ. Some
authorities regard the gate as the Porta Rhegiou (Pnytov), the
Gate of Rhegium,” mentioned in the Greek Anthology.” 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.”
The gate went, probably, by the designation of the Golden
Gate," 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 hear 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
* Paspates, p. 78.
* Mordtmann, p. 13. Above the gate, on the side facing the city, is a slab with
the figure of the Roman eagle. -
* Patriarch Constantius, Ancient and Modern Constantinople, p. 19.
* Banduri, Imp. Orient, vii. p. 150.
* See below, pp. 78, 91. * Mordtmann, p. 13.
Iv.] T//E GA TES MAV 7"HE ZTA, E O DOS/4 N WAZZ.S. 73
laid himself down to sleep on the steps of the adjoining Monastery
of St. Diomed.” If the only Golden Gate were the Porta Aurea
strictly so called, it is difficult to understand how the poor way-
farer 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,” accompanied by his family and some friends,
left the city five days after its capture by the Crusaders in I2O4,
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.
* Theophanes Cont., p. 223. * Page 779.
74 Aº V.ZAAVTINE COAVSTA AVT//VOPLE. [CHAP.
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,
toū AEvrépov.” 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,” 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 (ro Agürepov) 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 ; * it lay to the west of the Exokionion, the Palaia
Porta, and the Cistern of Mokius;* it was, on the one hand,
near the last street of the city,” the street leading to the Golden
Gate, and, on the other, contained the Gate Melantiados," now
Selivri Kapoussi." 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
* Codinus, p. 97. * See below, p. 81. * Sozomon, iv. c. 2.
* Anonymus, i. p. 38. * Procopius, De Aed, i. c. 3.
" Synaxaria, Octob. 25. * See below, pp. 76, 77.
v.] THE GATES MAW THE THEO DOS/AN WA LL.S. 75
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,”
and the Church of St. Anna, a foundation of Justinian the
Great.” Others of less importance were dedicated respectively
to St. Timothy,” St. George,” St. Theodore,” and St. Paul the
Patriarch.6
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 (TóAm Tic >m}\vſbotag)," 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 Pegé,
i.e. the Spring (IlúXm ric IImyńc),” because it led to the cele-
brated 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 commemo-
ration of repairs made in the year 1433 or 1438.”
The gate possessed considerable importance owing to its
proximity to the Holy Spring,” 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.” 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
* Synaxaria, Oct. 25. * Procopius, De Ad., i. c. 3.
* Synaxaria, June Io. * Ibid., April 23. * Zbid., April 22.
* Nicephorus Callistus, xii. c. 14. * Phrantzes, p. 253.
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 109. * See below, pp. 106, Io'ſ. '
* 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.
" Procopius, De Zd., i. c. 3.
76 Aº P.Z.4 AVT/AWA COAVSTAAV7/WOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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." But in either case, the
Imperial cortège 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 Pegé that the Emperor
Nicephorus Phocas was mobbed and stoned, as he rode
from the Forum of Constantine to the Great Palace beside the
Hippodrome.” - - -- *
The gate is memorable in history as the entrance through
which, in 1261, Alexius Strategopoulos, the general of Michael
Palaeologus, penetrated into the city,” 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 barri-
cade, 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. Palaeologus.* In the siege of 1422 Sultan
Murad pitched his tent within the grounds of the Church of the
Pegè ;" while during the siege of 1453 a battery of three guns
played against the walls in the vicinity of this entrance.”
There is reason to think that the gate styled Porta Me-
lantiados (MEXavrić8oc)" and Pylè Melandesia (MEAavömata),”
should be identified with the Gate of the Pegé. Hitherto, indeed,
the Porta Melantiados has been identified with the next public
gate, Yeni Mevlevi Haneh Kapoussi; " but that view runs counter
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. Io9. * Leo Diaconus, iv. p. 64. cº
* Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 142; Niceph. Greg., iv. p. 85.
* See Muralt, Essai de Chronographie Byzantine, vol. ii.
* Ducas, p. 184. * Nicolo Barbaro, p. 733.
* Paschal Chron., p. 590. * Synaxaria, Oct. 25.
* Paspates, p. 47 ; Mordtmann, p. I5.
-
THE GATE OF THE PEGE.

v.] TAIAE GA. TAES WAV 7THE THEO DOS/4 AV WA. Z.Z.S. 77
to the fact that the Porta Melantiados stood in the Deuteron,"
whereas the next public gate was, we shall find, in the quarter
of the city called, after the Third Military Gate, the Triton (rö
Totrow).” 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.
That the Gate of the Pegé had originally another name is
certain, since the Holy Spring did not come into repute until
the reign of Leo I,” 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 *
(Buyuk Tohekmedjë) 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,” and the Avars” 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."
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.” 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
* Synaxaria, Oct. 25. Ev rſ, MeMavömoria trópril, év airfi tº Kovo ravruvot-
Troxet, rotroffeo'íg rod Aevrépov.
* See below, p. 78. * Nicephorus Callistus, xv. c. 25, c. 28.
* Agathias, v. c. 14, c. 20. * Marcellinus Comes, ad Zenonem.
* Paschal Chron., p. 717. " Zbud., p. 590. * Mordtmann, p. 78.
78 A YZAAVTINE COAVSTA WTINOPLE. [CHAP.
towers to the north. To the rear of the entrance was the quarter
called the Triton (ro Toírov)," and, more commonly, the Sigma
(>{yua);” 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.” But the Theodosian Walls were
built before the Pegè came into repute ; * 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
II] a 1111621.
In the quarter of the Sigma stood a column, bearing the
statue of Theodosius II., erected by Chrysaphius.” And
there, in the riot of IO42, the Emperor Michael Calaphates
and his uncle Constantine were blinded, having been dragged
thither from the Monastery of Studius, where they had sought
sanctuary." -
The most noted churches in the quarter were dedicated
respectively to the Theotokos, St. Stephen, and St. Isaacius.8
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.”
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 (Pnytov),”
the Gate of Rhegium, and Porta Rhousiou (rod Povatov),” the
* Menaea, May 30, as quoted by Du Cange, Constantinopolis Christiana, ii. p. 178.
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 501 ; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 540.
* Mordtmann, pp. I4, 15. * See above, p. 77. * Codinus, p. 47.
* Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 540. ' Theophanes Cont., p. 323. * Codinus, p. 126.
* Pages 378-389. * Banduri, Imp. Orient., vii. p. 150.
" Theophanes, pp. 355, 358.
THE GATE OF RHEGIUM.

V.] THE GATES IN THE THEODOSIAM WALZ.S. 79
Gate of the Red Faction. That it bore the former name is
established by the fact that the inscription in honour of Theo-
dosius II. and the Prefect Constantine, which was placed, accord-
ing to the Anthology, on the Gate of Rhegium, is actually found
on the lintel of this entrance." 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 circum-
stances connected with the gate can thus be satisfactorily ex-
plained. 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 gate-
way-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 Fmperor
triumphs “* *.”
f NIKA H TYXH
KGUNCTANTINOY TOY (EEO
qYYAAETOY HMGUN AEOIIOTOY
f f
The missing words with which the inscription closed were at
some date intentionally effaced, but analogy makes it exceedingly
probable, that they were KAI POYCIGoN, “and of the Reds.”
The number of inscriptions about this entrance is remarkable,
' See above, pp. 46, 47.
* The inscription is found in the C. I. G., No. 8789. Dr. Paspates Compares it
with No. 8788 in that collection. NIKA H TYXH KGONOTANTINOY
METAAOY BACIAEGUO TOY CYOTATIKOY NIKHTOY KAI
BENETCON (of the Blues) EYNGUOYNTGON. See below, p. 102.
8o tº A VZAAV7 IAWE CONSTAAWTIA/OAZAZ. [CHAP.
five being on the gateway itself, and two on its southern tower.
Of the former those commemorating the erection of the Theo-
dosian fortifications in 447 are of special importance and
interest ; * another records the repair of the Outer Wall under
Justin II. and his Empress Sophia.” 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,”
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.*
Top Kapoussi, between the sixth and seventh towers north of
the Fourth Military Gate, is the Gate of St. Romanus (trópra rod
‘Ayíou Pouávov) * so named after an adjoining church of that
dedication. Its identity may be established in the following
manner: According to Cananus,” 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 Edirnē 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," that in the
* See above, p. 47. * See below, p. 97.
* Choiseul-Gouffier, Voyage pittoresque dans l'Ampire 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.
* Mordtmann, p. 15. * Paschal Chron., p. 720.
* De Constantinopoli £xpugmata, p. 462.
* Critobulus, i. c. 23, c. 27 (Aſragmenta Historicorum Græcorum, vol. v.);
Phrantzes, p. 237.
v.] THE GA 7TES MAW 7THE THEODOSIAAW WA LZ.S. 8I
#
siege of 1453 the Turkish troops which invested the walls
extending from the Gate of Charisius (Edirnē 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.' 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.”
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.”
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 (roo ITéutrov).” 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,” of Edirnē Kapoussi. *
Some authorities" 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."
* Critobulus; Phrantzes, ut supra.
* Pusculus, iv. Compare lines 165 and 169. Cf. Dolfin, s. 54.
* Anonymus, iii. p. 55; ſtinéraires Russes en Orient, p. 103.
* Paschal Chron., p. 719. * See below, p. 84.
* E.g. Dethier, Ze Bosphore et Consple., p. 50. * See below, p. 83.
G
82 A PZAAV7 IWE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
Furthermore, the author of the Metrical Chronicle and Cananus
expressly distinguish the Gate of Charisius from the gate situated
beside the Lycus."
To the rear of the entrance was the district of the Pempton,
containing the Church of St. Kyriakë 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 cate-
chumens assembled. They proved to be persons who had
recently been baptized by Chrysostom, in the Thermae Con-
stantianae, near the Church of the Holy Apostles, notwithstand-
ing 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.”
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.”
* Metrical Chronicle, lines 371-429; cf. statement éyépôm Teopytov 8ópos . . .
Trpós trºmy rºw Xaportav with statement trómv čáo as āvoukrºv rºw rotapoi,
TAmortov eis jv Tijs paprupos vaos Kuptakſis àpāra. See Byzantinshe
Analecten, von Hernn Joseph Müller, “Situngs Berechte der K. Akademie der
Wissenshaſten Philisoph. Hist,” Classe B. 9, 1852. Cf. Cananus, p. 462, fiv yūp à
róros kai oroúða kai Túpyos TAmortov Kupuaxis rās dyſas, pºéorov Popavoi too
ăytov kai Tàs Xaparis re rºv TóAmy, kai TAmortéo-rmpov toſſrov eis rov trorapév
röv ćirovopačápºevov Aikov.
* Palladius, Dialogus de Vita /. 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.
* Paschal Chron., p. 589, Eiorſ;X6ev Aekruktºp dro Aevkov trorapot.
v.] THE GA. TAES MAV 7THE THE O/OO.S./AAW WA LZ.S. 83
The next public gate, Edirnē Kapoussi, between the eighth
and ninth towers to the north of the Fifth Military Gate, was
named the Gate of Charisius (rod Xaptortov). The name, which
appears in a great variety of forms, occurs first in Peter
Magister," a writer of Justinian's reign, and was derived, accord-
ing to the Anonymus, from Charisius, the head of the Blue
Faction, when the Theodosian Walls were built.” 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.” This, as will be
shown in the proper place, is likewise a mistake.”
The grounds on which the Gate of Charisius must be identi-
fied with the Edirnē Kapoussi are these: ” From the statements
of Cananus and Critobulus, already considered in determining
the position of the Gate of St. Romanus,” 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 Edirnē 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, Edirnē Kapoussi, the gate on the
summit of the bank.
Again, the Gate of Charisius was, like Edirnē 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
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. wi.
* Anonymus, iii. p. 50.
* Paspates, p. 68.
* See below, p. 124. *
* Dr. Mordtmann was the first to establish the fact. For a full statement of his
view, see Esquisse Topographique de Consple., pp. 16–29.
* See above, pp. 80, 81.
84 A YZAAV7'INE COAVSTA WTINOP/LE. [CHAP.
on his way to the palace the tomb of the Empress Theodora at
the Holy Apostles', he entered the capital by the Gate of Chari-
sius instead of by the Golden Gate,' 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,” the guardian of
the entrance, and that a Byzantine church dedicated to that saint
stood immediately to the South-east of Edirnē Kapoussi as late
as the year I 556, 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.” Lastly, like Edirnē 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 Blachernae.*
Another name for the Gate of Charisius was the Gate of
the Polyandrion, or the Myriandron (IIópra toû IIoxvavěptov,
toū Muptávěpov), the Gate of the Cemetery. This follows from
the fact that whereas the respective names of the three gates
* 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).
* Anna Comn., ii. pp. 124, 129; Metrical Chronicle, 371-429.
* Patriarch Constantius, Ancient and Modern Constantinople, p. 105. The church
possesses two ancient Zectionaries, 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.
* Ducas, p. 288.
v.] THE GATES IN THE THEODoSIAN WAZLS. 85
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." 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.”
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
(Megoretxtov).” It was also known as the Myriandrion,” on
* Paschal Chron., pp. 719, 720 ; cf. Anonymus, i. p. 22, with iii. p. 50.
* 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 Foederati. Such Gothic names as Walderic, Saphnas, Bertilas,
Epoktoric, occurred in the epitaphs, e.g.—
+ ENOAE KTA . . . I O
THC MAKAPIAC MNHMHO OEóNAO
AEOIIOTIKOO IIIOTOO d'OIAEPATOC ETEAEY
THOEN AE MH NOEMBPI(M) KA HMEPA. B
INA B.
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.
* Critobulus, i. c. 26, c. 31.
* Phrantzes, p. 253; Critobulus, i. c. 26; Leonard of Scio, “In loco arduo Mili-
andri, quo urbs titubabat.”
86 A YZAAVTIAWE CONSTA/VTINOPLE. [CHAP.
account of its proximity to the Gate of Polyandrion ; the
portion to the south of the Lycus being further distinguished as
the Murus Bacchatareus," after the Tower Baccaturea near the
Gate of St. Romanus.”
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.”
Upon the Gate of Charisius attempts were made : by
Justinian II. and his allies for the recovery of his throne
in 705 ; * by Alexius Branas against Isaac Angelus in I 185;"
by John Cantacuzene in 1345;" and through it the Comneni
entered in Io81, by bribing the German guards (Nemitzi) at
the gate, and wrested the sceptre from the hand of Nicephorus
Botoniates."
In I2O6, 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
* Leonard of Scio., Migne, vol. clix. pp. 929, 940. * Dolfin, s. 31.
* Paschal Chron., pp. 719,720. “Theophanes, p. 573. * Nicetas Chon., p. 493.
* Cantacuzene, iii. p. 525. * Anna Comn., ii. p. 124.
v.] THE GATES IN THE THEODOSIAM WALLS. 87
and the adjacent quarter by Bulgarian troops encamped near
the capital." 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.” In 1379 John VI. Palaeologus 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.”
But it was in the siegess 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.*
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.” At the
Murus Bacchatareus fought the Emperor Constantine, with his
4OO 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.”
* Nicetas Chon., p. 824.
* Cantacuzene, i. p. 29I ; Nicephorus Greg., ix. pp. 419, 420.
* See Muralt, Essai de Chronographie Byzantine, vol. ii. See below, pp. 162, 163.
* Cananus, pp. 461, 462.
* Compare the narratives of Phrantzes, pp. 246, 253; Critobulus, i. c. 23, 27, 31,
34, 6o; Ducas, p. 275; Leonard of Scio (Migne, vol. clix.).
88 A YZAAV7 IAVE CONSTA A/TIAWOP/A2. [CHAP.
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 ex-
cavated 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
v.] 7 HE GATES MAW THE THEODOSIA W WA/LA.S. 89
great wall, others entered by the postern which Giustiniani had
opened," 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.” 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 (EvXoképkov),” Gate of
the Wooden Circus, or more briefly, Kerko Porta (Kepkóiropra),4
the Gate of the Circus.
* Critobulus, i. c. 60. * Phrantzes, p. 287.
* Cantacuzene, iii. p. 558 ; Theophanes, p. 667.
* 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,
ev tº kard to Xrevöv totroffeoríg rm too dyſov Māpavros kaxoupévn) must have
occupied the valley which extends from the Golden Horn southwards to the village
of Ortak djilar, the territory between Eyoub (Cosmidion) and Aivan Serai at the
north-western angle of the city. The church itself, with its monastery (Can-
tacuzene, 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
90 A YZAAVT/AVE COAVSTA AVT/AVOA’A.E. [CHAP.
In support of this identification there is first the fact that the
Gate of the Xylokerkus, like the gate before us, was an entrance
bridge across the Golden Horn. The indications for the determination of the
site of the suburb are : (I) 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 Blachernae (Év BAaxépvals . . . iv tº intrurº too dyſov Mápavros—
Theophanes, p. 667), a term which could be used to designate even the district of the
Cosmidion (Paschal Chron., p. 725, Tºv čkkAmoriav róváytov Koopa kai Aapua-
voo, Év BAaxépwats). (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. IO2), on the Euxine
(Theophanes Cont., p. I97), 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, TA mortov Too tetxovs), 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 Chronz., ut supra),
the church, the palace, and the hippodrome (Anonymus, iii. pp. 57, 58; Codinus,
p. I 15). The Church of St. Mamas is, however, ascribed also to all 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
e 2 tº , e. - - - A. *A * y 2 an
bishop's deposition (Sozomon, viii. c. 21, ovvij\{}ov trpo too do reos eis Tuva Xópov
V.] THE GATES MAW THE THEO DOSIAM WA L/.S. 9I
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."
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” (Tekfour Serai).
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 avert-
ing the calamity and preventing the fulfilment of the prophecy,
Isaac Angelus ordered the gate to be securely built up.” In
I346 the partisans of John Cantacuzene proposed to admit him
into the city by breaking the gate open, after its long close.”
But what gives to the Kerko Porta its chief renown is the
part which, according to Ducas, it played in the catastrophe of
ôv Kovo ravrivos à BaoruMeys, puffro Tºv tróAw ovvoukijoras, eis in Troöpópov
6éav čkóðmpe, {{\ots repurelyioras). 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).
* Banduri, Imp. Orient., vii. p. 150, n. 428, QEYAOCIOC TOAE TEIXOC
ANAE KAI YTIAPXOO ECOAO KGONCTANTINOO ETEYEAN EN
HMACIN EEHKONTA. 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 Theo-
dosian Walls that still remain, for it is mentioned in the reign of John Cantacuzene.
* Ducas, pp. 282-286. Cf. Anonymus, iii. p. 50.
* Nicetas Chon., pp. 528, 529. * Cantacuzene, iii. p. 558.
92 BYzAA/TIME CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP. .
I453, 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." 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 forti-
fications 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 fight-
ing in the peribolos to prevent the Turks from entering at the
great breach. The cry rose that the city was taken, where-
upon an indescribable panic seized the Greeks, already dis-
heartened 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.”
The fate of Constantinople was thus sealed by the opening of
the Kerko Porta.
But here a difficulty occurs. In one very important par-
ticular the Kerko Porta, as described by Ducas, does not
* Ducas, p. 282, IIaparóptuov čv Tpo troXXów Xpóvov ČorbaNós tre+paypévov,
inröyawov, trpós ró Károffew pºépos toū traMaríov.
* Ducas, pp. 282-286.
v.] TAZA, GA TES MAW ZTA/A 7THEO DOS/4 AV WAZZ.S. 93
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 paratei-
chion, the terrace between the Outer Wall and the Moat. This
discrepancy may, however, be removed to some extent by sup-
posing that under the name of the Kerko Porta, Ducas referred
2%
~~~~.
*
2'; /*42.
THE (SO-CALLED) KERKO PORTA.'
to the postern which Dr. Paspates” 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
* From Broken Bits of Byzantium. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
* Pages 63–67. Dr. Paspates regarded the Kerko Porta and the Porta Xylokerkou
as different gates. The latter, he held, has disappeared.





94 BYZA WTAWE CONSTA WTYWOPLE. [CHAP. V.
by fire. It was Io; 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' thinks that the postern near the Kerko Porta
was the one which Giustiniani, according to Critobulus,” 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.”
* Page 27. * I. c. 6d. * 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 prompti-
tude 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 gun-
powder 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
(6 Aouéorikoç rôv Tsixéov)," Governor of the Wall ("Apxov too
Tetxouc),” Count of the Walls (Köping tôv Tetxéov).”
(1) The earliest record of repairs is, probably, the Latin
* Codinus, De Officiis, p. 41; Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 589.
* Theophanes, p. 616.
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 6. Ibid., p. 295, speaks of the too tetxe6tov.
96 PY2A/VTINE COAVSTAAV7/AWOAI.A. [CHAP.
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. -
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 Pusaeus known in history who could
have presumed to compare himself with Anthemius was consul
in 467, in the reign of Leo I.” There may, however, have
been an earlier personage of that name.
(2) A considerable portion of the Inner Wall (rá čaw retxn)
was injured by an earthquake in 578, the fourth year of the reign
of Zeno;” 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;” 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.” 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.
} Aasthal Chron., p. 595. 2 Theophanes, p. I95.
* Ibid., pp. 345, 355. * Zbid., pp. 357, 358.
*W0IÐGIH I HO GILVð GIHL NO SNOILāIXIOSNI
|
}|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||F-
||||||||||||| №
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|-
|
||||→ ·
||| №
||||||| |-----◄-）ſ-
−1））
|
ſ||||
}
|
|
ll/\\/20\\!！!!!!}\! IN301， wſłSNWAOSANI1 Nvusno)£
o Lºw N343SNBwpłRONIwłosissallisogo3Hı ſº
|
Ķ
}
*-----||||||||
→ • § →|-
*№ſae
%| ~*~， w -===Faÿ-T-№=---- . --
Z}{2}*S.|||•Å
|~\\4. NO LO LID3V7|| NO L\? LO3930| -1~^
*-------★ →}}^?!*@ſºººººººº udaouaolºool ſyſt_4HN3（OH）4a10^'^OA;/www.wolv» .%2È es----
8H4New L10AOLWIOŁOWNSAOLAOS.dwtikāſ， [FāſłouJºw Now HNOIX， 139a35/3}\o~]ſ.ºr
|→→→ → → → → → → → Jººſººººººoºº1989||HLIÐAQX11AC×1}\ºgao ºkſiköſöä jºſſaeð***** - — .--------… - - - - - - …...…ſh;–-} \~~）–
_ļſ£5õxtētieſī£ĚoĪŅĶī£ņš5oſaſunāòſſilſūtēſāči （iſišķääJ.!！!H（OOVIėXINOXH™ºnioſiºſłį.ſººſ！—→\,
•~~• ！! ！= --*=+---- , “<==__==--- → -+ +---, --~~）; ** ， †}=<º>=<！2^><！--Rºſſº---\>~~~~.| –
-3ĒĶīnī£§！=77E （№
~--~~~ !¿№ №•¡¡¡№，* ... …º
}ÊEŁ==№ſſ-ETEĚZEE）}}|}}\，}=\！<\！
Cj-–）=\º------ıtºº.” 5. TĀ-Tñ
Ē№.|-%>
?
?
%
|----=±，±，±º2»
ș_º *€.«Cº ...， ¿N
ſ.{22…+?ºÁ§ „ºſº22?2©~），§
！\！22：ýměſtº 2，%ſſſſſſſſ|}\}\\}\\<
~~~~%}\\}\\}\\N
////j \!\\ſ\\
Z-Ž}}}
~\\- ' ·.*€/////////ņſ
’,ſąº 222×%22%Z%?','//}}} }}）ſ!rºm.\}\\\\\\\^?&N
！№.4/////||||||||}||}|\\}\\}
- |×Ø%%%|||||||||}||}||\\\\\\\}\，
ź* . –）. ae’�%}，{º|||||}}ſſ | | | } \\\\\\\}\\<\\|
- --~）/, ''，ZA,%;{{!!!!!！!!!！¿\\
?}}ſſūſ\\�}}
2）=q
-----***
a-~~\
ŠE
%%%|%/}Š
~~~~i=~~~~）;{{|||||||||||||||||
�Ž~\~~~~<!--<t
<ſºaſ
*t> ·！4å
*…
« •


















vi.] A&AEAA IRS OAV 7TAZAZ THAEO DOS/4 AV WAZZ.S. 97
(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."
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.”
The inscription in honour of Justin was to the following
effect: 8 -
+ ANENECA)(3)H TO TIPOTEIXICMA TOY (B)EOAOCIAROY
TEIXOYO EIII IOYOTINOY KAI COqPIAO TODN EYOE-
BEOTATCDN HMGUN AEOIIOTCUN AIA NAPCOY TOY
ENAOEOTATOY CIIA®APIOY KAI CAKEAAAPIOY KAI
OTEq>ANOY ANHKONTOO EIC YIIOYPTIAN AOYAOC
TGON EYOEBACTATCDN AEOITOTCDN +
“The Outwork of the Theodosian Wall was restored under Justin and
Sophia, our most pious Sovereigns, by Narses, the most glorious Spa-
tharius 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
* Codinus, p. 86.
* 5%hn of Ephesus : translation by R. Payne Smith.
* See illustration facing p. 96, for copy of the inscription with its errors in
Qrthography.
H
98 A YZAMZTINE COMSTAAV7/WOAZAZ. [CHAP.
the Saracens for a second attack upon Constantinople. Anasta-
sius II. then strengthened the land walls, as well as the other
fortifications of the city;” 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.”
Several inscriptions commemorating the repairs executed by
that emperor, in conjunction with his son and colleague Con-
stantine Copronymus, have been found upon towers of the Inner
Wall.
(a) One stood on the seventh tower north of the Sea of
Marmora : *
+ AEGON CYN KGUNCTANTINCJ OKHIITOYXOI TONAE
HTEIPAN IIYPTON TOUN BAOPGUN OYMIITGOG)ENTA +
“Leo with Constantine, wielders of the sceptre, erected from the foun-
dations this tower which had fallen.”
(b) Another was placed on the ninth tower north of the
Golden Gate, in letters formed of brick:
IC XO
*-m-s-s- : *-*-*
NI KA
AEGUNTOO KAI KGUNCTANTHNOY METAAON
BAOIAEGON RAI AYTOKPATCA)PON TIOAAA TA ETH
“Many be the years of Leo and Constantine, Great Kings and Emperors.” .
* Theophanes, p. 589.
* Ibid., pp. 634, 635. The tax was called “dikeraton,” because it was equal
to two keratia (Is. 4d.), or one-twelfth of a nomisma (12s. 6d.). Cf. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire, i. pp. 37, 38.

-
==
-
*
º
º
º
-F.
TOWER OF THE THEODoSIAN walls (witH INscRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE
EMPERORs LEo III. AND constantine v.).

VI.] REPAIRS ON THE THEO DOSIAAV WAZA.S. 99
(c) A similar inscription was found on the third tower north
of the Second Military Gate:
O O
—o AEONTOC KAI KGUNCTANTINOY o——o
O O
|METAACDN BACIAEGUN KAI AYTOKPATCOPGUN IIOAA TA, ETH
O—
(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:

*AGENGYKºśīlīºsitiº
Oñºſº,
•-º- ºr-------
-*
Mºſcºſiºiº.
(e) The ninth tower north of the same gate bore two inscrip-
tions. The higher was in honour, apparently, of an Emperor
Constantine ; the lower reads: -
+ NIKA H TYXH AEONTOO KAI KøNTANTINoy TCADN
OECUdby AAKTGDN AEOIIoTøN KAI HPINHO THC EYOE-
BECTATHC HMCDN AYTOYOTHC
“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" when the repairs which the
* 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, Patri-
arch of Consple., p. 73.
IOO BYZA WT/AVE CONSTA W7 IAWOPLE. [CHAP.
:
:
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.
(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 :
XPICTE GO GEOC ATAPAXON KAI ATIOAEMON py‘AATTE
THN TIOAIN COY NIKA TO MENOO TOUN IIOAEMICUN
“O Christ, God, preserve Thy city undisturbed, and free from war. Con-
quer 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. (IO25–IO28);' but the employment of brick in the con-
struction 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
* Proceedings of the Greek Literary Syllogos of Consple., vol. xvi., 1885: Archaeo-
logical Supplement, pp. 34, 35.

v1.] AºA2A2A/RS ON THE THEO DOSIA W WAZZ.S. IOI
II. and his son Theophilus have been found in the neighbour-
hood of the Gate of Charisius (Edirnē Kapoussi). 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,” 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:
#TTV Frog ERGIſ, 370VKºköNGTANTINOV ºf CTGSNGN
3 gºûKFAE TortºvéâKößeſſeſGF&Nº)
“Tower of Basil and Constantine, faithful Emperors in Christ, pious
Rings of the Romans.”
The device
IC XP
*-*=#| || s===
NI KA
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 :
+ IIYPTOC BACIAEIOY KAI KGONOTANTINOY EN
XPIOTG) AYTOKPATOPGUN +
“Tower of Basil and Constantine, Emperors in Christ.”
* Proceedings of the Greek Ziterary Syllogos of Consple., vol. xvi., 1885: Archaeo-
logical Supplement, p. 30.
* Leo Diaconus, pp. 175, 176.

IO2 A VZAAV7/AVE COAVSTAAVT/WOAZAZ. [CHAP.
Possibly the two following inscriptions on the northern side of
the southern tower of the Gate Rhousiou refer to the same
emperors:*
# /
* * * * * *
* *-*** *-ºm
| .f- § 2) | §l 9E, {} * # :
ºf ºğr: { }
*smº.
======e-
|. * t *-* - - - a- - -
• . " <s- * --- - T 7 H 24 g
| 3 - ?' :- A ... *ſ i º, * :-}:
memº * - - # º-s----------------/- —----. sºle. • *. -
- --- -_-"" * -
zºhiº- ==~i========= ==<>==~% %;|2. #:=
* *-*t → - - - ºn - sº- *** - - - - - -- --- E- 2 * * * * T
- =; º/. "Jºe -- * 2_2^ {j *RS " - -
“The Fortune of Constantine, our God-protected Sovereign, triumphs.”
The second inscription is mutilated, but manifestly refers to
repairs in the reign of Basil:
+ ANENEG)(3)H EIII AY . . .
TATOY A. . . .
TOPOO TOY BAOIAE
EN IN IA +
(9) An inscription on the fourth tower from the Sea of
Marmora records repairs by the Emperor Romanus:
Tāsīſā0IGrºßgasºlºrslīāFEMN) .
00 NEONJITAMáriºſ) ºf NABITVFrûNEEEIGF
º ſº
2.
2
“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 earth-
quakes occurred in the reign of Romanus III. Argyrus, first
in Io:32, and again in IO33,” is in favour of the view that the
inscription was in his honour. -
(10) During the period of the Comneni, particular attention
* Paspates, pp. 46, 47. * Cedrenus, vol. ii. pp. 500, 503, 504.





J
* *
*
*
e
2
Fºl.
3.
%
2 f
< *;
7- ?
24 ****
/\\\\\\\\\\};}|#||
�}，\\\\,.*, \ \ •\|±|||
ff/, ; ; ）%|·|
gº
*-*===
*====sº -*
*===e
I.222-AAHVRéjab
- # , ,
%\$§ș •••%
ſººſ ：¿%ſ',
\\Șš§§//{{！！！\ ,W/^
%/%ſ\\ſyſ
●·%;"-' ： '///
! ?
! ?//، QI !
| 2 ș·`|
• »*
\--/ —(/：/;- ！
-}}}}%;
#ffff;7%
7：//, Â,
%%///
* *
/*\\ \，ſæ,ſºſ|| ||'
�Ķſ ：\ \|
\|- \\\,À\，À•}\,
\！
\\{）（\\*æ,\V \ -\\}}“..*
\\� }}\\}-fº';- 7 ,ſ-/%77-7/ .. ^_^}}\，\！/
\NſººſŹ, Ž.）%//……………………Ç/
�
§ 2
\，\}
' .\ēļºr---+---+----A* �� {
|\\\（\\$$$$$$ÝŇ'/ «V
<！--\\\ēš\！\\\\\！\V
ºff),\，\，\!
ŤyÝ\\（\\），\\}\\
Ñ“№w \\\\}\\}\\
*\，ſ}}}gº\\, '
\vºalºyſius:}}}}}}}}}
�}}}}}
Ģ*V; ）///<
??Í/////j $.//}
√ √ (
§§§
\
&
f
;-
��
� ! ~� ·-- Yºtae ,,”
*·ÈÈ\\
\\\\\\\！\！\,
@%%%
*/
DIAGRAM SHOWING THE INTERIOR OF A TOWER IN THE THEODOSIAN WALLS.














VI.] REPAIRS ON THE THEODOSIAM WAZZS. IO3
was given to the state of the fortifications by Manuel Comnenus,”
and by Andronicus I. Comnenus.” As will appear in the sequel,
the former was concerned mainly with the defences in the neigh-
bourhood of the Palace of Blachernae, beyond the Theodosian
Walls. The interest of Andronicus in the matter was roused
by fear lest the Normans, who had captured and sacked Thessa-
lonica in II85, 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 fortifica-
tions might facilitate escalade.
(II) Under the Palaeologi, 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
ſ 1261, Michael Palaeologus, 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.”
(12) In 1317, general repairs were again undertaken by
Andronicus II. Palaeologus, with money bequeathed by his wife,
the Empress Irene, who died in that year.” The only indication,
however, of the fact is now found beyond the Theodosian lines.”
/ſ (13) The Theodosian Walls were injured once more by the
ſ great earthquake of October, I344, during the minority of John
VI. Palaeologus.” The disaster occurred when the struggle
between Apocaucus and Cantacuzene for the control of affairs
* Cinnamus, p. 274. * Nicetas Chon., pp. 4I4, 415.
* Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 186, 187. * Nicephorus Greg., vii. p. 275.
* See below, p. 126. * Nicephorus Greg., xiv. pp. 694-696.

IO4 A YZAAVTIA/E COA.S.T.AAVT/AVOA’/LE. [CHAP.
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 pro-
ceeded, 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 ; * proceedings which made this the most extensive restora-
tion 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. Palaeologus, the prototype of
the Turkish Castle of the Seven Towers.” -
(I5) The last restoration of the Theodosian bulwarks, on an
extensive scale, was undertaken by John VII. Palaeologus,
(I425–1448), the Outer Wall being the portion principally COIl-
Cerned in the matter.
Evidently the task proved difficult, for the numerous inscrip-
tions which celebrate the achievement bear dates extending from
I433–1444, 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:*
I(L)AN
XCA) AYTO
KPATOPOC TOY
TIAAAIOAOTOY.
“(Tower) of John Palaeologus, Emperor in Christ.”
* Nicephorus Greg., xiv. p. 711. * See above, pp. 70, 71. * Paspates, p. 59.
VI.] A’AºA2A IRS OAV THAE 7THEO DOS/4 AV WAZZ.S. IO5
A similar inscription is on the second Outer tower north of
the Golden Gate :
-—a-, -—s
& --- | A
º S- Y_-” w
• * *n_r= <=º
Ž
lº-
§ y/ , yā; KF3 ºf Šiš
* % - - - º
** #º ^T. A 7. Å () % **
- m 39 ſºvº
%
º, º f
P
º
A.
i
afs
|
“(Tower) of John Palaeologus, Emperor in Christ; in the year 1444.”
Another is on the fifth outer tower north of the Second
Military Gate:
IGDANNOY EN X(1)
AYTOKPATO
POC TOY IIAAAIOAOTOY
RATA MHNA
IOYNIOY TOY S
7, MH ETOYC (6948).
“(Tower) of John Palaeologus, 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:
f IGO EN Xù) AYTOKPATOPOC TOY IIAAAIOAOTOY
KATA MHNA AIIPIAIOY TOY sn'MB ETOYC (6942).
“(Tower) of John Palaeologus, Emperor in Christ; in the month of
April of the year 1434.”

Ioé A YZAAV7 IAVAE CONSTAAWTIAVOA’ſ E. [CHAP.
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:
ICADOY EN XCD AYTO
KPOTOPOO TOY IIAAAIOAOTOY KATA MEHNA. IANOY
APION TOY
Sn MZ ETOYC (6947).
“(Tower) of John Palaeologus, 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 :
I(a) EN X(1)
AYTOKIPA
TOPOO TOY IIAAAI
AOTOY KATA MEHINA OKTOB
TOY sirms ETOYC (6946).
“(Tower) of John Palaeologus, 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.” That work
comprised the whole of the Outer Wall :
f ANEKAINICE TO KAOTPON OAON ICA) X(1) AY
TOKPATGOP O IIAAAIOAOTOO ETEI S/r/IA (6941).
“John Palaeolous, Emperor in Christ, restored the whole fortification;
in the year I433.”
In the course of the repairs made at this time, the Gate of the
Pegé 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:*
f ANEKAINIOOH H
(3)EOCOCTOO IIYAH AYTH
THC ZwoAOXOY IIHTHC AIA
* Paspates, p. 45. * Compare Paspates, pp. 54, 55, with Mordtmann, p. I4.
AſtroXMWe Seqion AND RESOR&NoN of
THe WALS OF THEODOSlVS THe Secon D
ScAle of MéIreş. .
1 + 3 + s 6.7 8. § 19, 11 li ſã 14 is 18. 1, 14. In 2011 in 13 24 is 28.11 -c.1%. 39.31
Fºr ºr ºr ºr ºl-rºl B ºfflºº - † - T = Tº set TEiºlºr- T - T. F. T. E.
EE
* éNTRNke IoTowerſ Roritiſ. CITY
ºf tº Aeneitory&iºlºvé. To's!"'Tof WALL- Jſ € NIRANÇeşTo Towers from CúY LeVeL. T.
|ill||||||||||||||ſ||||||||||||<- U P. Jºratºrs
$ UWP Artfa Hall of NNER-VALL \ ſº
Poste RN. ; sº
* NNer WAK. #
Towers ! RAMr. P of VARIovº, SHAPCŞ.
#
=
:
#:
--
l:-
#
#
|
; : ; RAFPART of £ 3: :ººmſ, ºr . . . . ou" & RT wall ... : : ; I. CNRREERs selow: : :
IIITTIIITTI-DTD FDE-ºr-El- P. ____ ſº tººlſ. Tº Tº TE T TIT T. Li-I-I-I-I-I I-I - IITI; IITITII-III Irºſiº TITI
=
fostern leaping:
To-Corridoº-
* ouTer O UVeR walk - ToweRS
Two 718th-water Pipes .. ScARP surrouniép exeRéAstworrº.
e lº T II TI T _ _ ! Tu T. If ITITUI º I DCIII I I
!-1 4–9 1–0 * , U
t- \– t— t—l !-l
BuTT RéS$és.
Fº
jº
= r.
I H; HTTH E; I++1 H IIHH FI
- ScAs of MeTRGS.
20, 15. !...i O. 2 Q.
Flow HH - H - ra -ll l—º |
sº
-ºl-
tº
Fº
s & e º 'º as a
e • * * ... = * *
º
#.
T
º
ſºil
(ounſry
Kººlſ.
* f. § *
- t
~ *-Tºr". w
#!!!eº
gº - - - - - - - - - g e e tº
:- - - •. . . . . . .”.” s sº s” ſº dº,” º ºf Tº 3. * **. * . .” ". . . :
- - *
... • * • **'. ... • * * , • * *
* * * e g º
• , , . " a e", * *-Te
- • • * * *... *- :.. • * ...?
* * * g e “. ...: * . "...”.” ge e * - - -
: ". & * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*.
tº *
.
*
!. T wº-
:::::: YALs Youſh QF TopkAFº
::::::::: tºº. --
**.
3f; 'S2 * He's
;|
f
i
i
... ſºi#
i
|
|
º
•. ; : e & 2. E.
* * * * * §: •: 2 FS2.5:
MoAT ź; º;
9 : <!-- :
z
2
ar
::::: º : 3–$#2, #: e
º- > 3; 2-2. --
Sºu
:
:#
i
$2.
& #
2 × * 2: —4
Cº.) &^ e ; , O ar
!- g *
-z ‘O ;H. : 3
: T2 .3 ... ºf *:::: 6 : :*:- :
2-5. . # § 3 ::::::::::::: & *:::
Or 5. * -> : 3, ...” 3. 3 —º :
: º CO & º; tı- 3 & #3: : O fl- -2 º is
tº 5–5. ; : :"...: O & 2: …: o : . : æ & Sº ºf ##.
< to ... ::::::::::: J O = tº ::: Sº : 5 & ºn E ºf: . . . . .-- "...
•. Q :::::::::::-z § s. : # 2- § ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
jºſ) ;:::::::::= ;C> * g. asºmº F 7: ARIAJRC HelperSon aw:
*:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ... "...: : : s & sº * * ‘....:
buT RG SSING TO DAMWA\}.
$
• *, * : * ~ * :
s *
º
e
* ***. & . . **
... • * * * ~, g is
* a • - ?e - p ... • g & g as & a £º a º * * : : - . . • * * *
* . . *, *, * * a* ~ * ... • * * * •. * * * ... • * * * . & . . . . * * "...", " ... • * * * * * : * * . . . . , , & * * * * *
* & * * * *, * * * * * * * * * e & • . . . . . . • *-* * . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * L = * . . .". - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . . .” - *
A "* ** = a f '• * * > * * * *** ** A sata a -º * 2: - at ~ : * r * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ~ * * ~ *-a-2 a e—-































































































































































ReSoRAVION OF
Aſprox|MAECEVAION AND
–||（IRLTTEſŞÈ·||||||-|||||'Iſ.};
• ’ | -..! ||º||!！!!·; '-, ）'.*）'）;
!!！! ;º#|#|| | ſāļā|||||||||h|，:::::::
|（ ）!\,THljaſiſff'; }• ’ ,• • • • • • •
;" |-, ’ſ|||T. H.}
•|1 LT}|##''|}|-|•
| .r}}|-|||||||||ſí ſíl||||||}
ET', ';' . || ſih!!!!！||||||il "Hi!". Iz I ſă, .º） .
*}-1 ， !|||||||1|jºſſ！ , Ý| 76-º:
| || (）]]]]''|''liſj|||||||||||||||||||il ºffſ,|
ſſſſſſ||• J • • •} |#}; HHP|T||lº''#ff||：
„Įºn --
|| 12Ķ
'ſn! \$
RTHUR6 HéNoerSon 1818.
->
-
ºs-
* >
-v
-
–J -a -* *
* º
—a - "
*
1 —l- – - - -
º -
-
· · ·ļņi→
！\in|
||||||||Hi]]
J
{|
-a -a -> -e, -º -º - -* * * * - - - - - 2 —º-e M º
* -* = —º
ScAle of MéIRe)
1 O. t 2 3 4 5 & 1 g 4 to 11 12. D 14. 15, 16. Il 18, 11 20, 21. 21.23. 24 25.28.21 2x. 2430.
t = -- *
-
m a. º. is f
* * *—a ſº a
THE WAS OF THCODOS/VS THE Second.
T
||}||}
|i}}|
|
\|
####
H.
|}}}| |
}} L\,
•
|�|
ſį
!
-*.
-*
º
&
§
|ſh |ſº ): L
|||||||{{Hſ||hłrfſhi
|
}，į}
§#|}|}|
! ł •|-|- ſt































































vi. A’EAA/RS OW THE THEODOS/AAV WAZZ.S. Io'7
CYNAPOMHC KAI EEOAOY MA
NOYHA BPYENNIOY TOY AE
ONTAPI EIII BACIAEIAC
TGON EYOEBECTATCON (or EYCEBGJN) BACIAEGON
I(L)ANNOY KAI MAPIAC
T(a)N TIAAAIOAOTCUN
EN MIHNI MAI
EN ETEI St.Ms (or A) (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 Palaeologi; in the
month of May, in the year 1438 (or 1433).”
The Empress Maria who is mentioned in the inscription was
the daughter of Alexius, Emperor of Trebizond, and the third
wife of John VII. Palaeologus, from 1427–1440." Manuel Bryen-
nius Leontari was probably the Bryennius Leontari who defended
the Gate of Charisius in the siege of I453.”
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 ENIC6H H
KO, evidently ANEKENICeH H KOPTINA* (“The curtain-wall
was restored”). The lettering and the form of expression re-
sembled 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; * 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. Palaeologus, probably, must be
* Du Cange, Familie Augusta Byzantina, p. 246.
* Zorzo Dolfin, s. 54. -
* Proceedings of the Greek Ziterary Syllogos of Consple., vol. xvi., 1885: Archæo-
Zogical Supplement, p. 38.
* Du Cange, Familia Augusta Byzantinae; Familia Sclazonica, ix. p. 336.
Io8 A VZAM7TWAVE CONSTANTIAWOAZAZ. [CHAP. VI.
assigned the inscription which stands on the fifth tower north of
the Gate of Charisius:*
NIKOAAOY
KABAAAPIOY
TOY ATAAONOO
“(Tower) of Nicholas Agalon, Cabalarius.”
(I6) 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. Palaeologus.”
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,”
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 praedonum 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.
* Paspates, p. 42. * Zbid., p. 45.
* Historia Cpolitana Urbis a Mahumete II. Capta, per modum AEpistola, die
Augusti, anno I453, ad AWicolaume V., A'om. Pont., Migne, vol. clix. p. 936.
-
O
i
§
fºssiºns ! Repair
§º:3:::::::ºr:
** §§ * * * * * * *s
* * * g rººfs ºesºpº
*3 ºs
+:3&:::::§:
PAN OF THE PAIACE OF He PORPHY
Tſ
BAgony.To
foºt-ºº:
: % %
AND Apjoinine walls. º
- |% ſº
G-- |falAce of IHe É
#2 Rest be Nde form, Ne PART of-THe PAL # i (ourſ º
**ºexº, Ace # | (ADolgºſor) ſº $o
% Ø Ø * = a- Q ! 2. M \{ % NS º
..º. ºn 3 º º ºgº
* *.s.º.º.B's r º, . . X- 2 % cºś
* * * * * m * - sº a; : oſteo on # &= - à º sº fº
ººm *—º" *.
tiºn, : leofºº wº. *m. mº § & over the passase. There VP O
à icº". # º : º, tº *Awardrºſotor of ToweR 2^
%2-g orſ | % £2. * ** &RAR §
㺠; º º
É § Ø $º
s?
5
*
Q l
HS' |
ſº MoAT # MoAT
H . #
~! e | B !
SČ E. : :
> $2.
(OUNTRY
1 of 1. 3 4 5 & 7 & 1 16-il-ſlf (445 1617-17-11101:1113-14151,1] it 1150.
T. C. E. T. - T - Tº - † ºn E ºn E as E. Gº = - E ſº := - ºr- " - as ſº Tº º
ScAs of MeVRes.















( Io9 )
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 (rù (3ao (Asta roo IIoppvpo-
'yevvirov : oi roo Iloppvpoysvvárov oikot)," and formed an annex
to the great Palace of Blachernae, which stood lower down the
hill.
It is true, Gyllius supposed it to be the Palace of the Heb-
domon, 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 Makri-
keui, upon the Sea of Marmora, is overwhelming, and conse-
quently the Palace of the Hebdomon must be sought in that
neighbourhood.”
The evidence for the proper Byzantine name of Tekfour Serai"
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
* Critobolus, i. c. 27 ; Cantacuzene, i. p. 305.
* See below, Chap. XIX.
* Tekfour Serai means Palace of the Sovereign, from a Persian word signifying
Wearer of the Crown, Crowned Head. Leunclavius (Pandectes Historia Turcica,
S. 56, Migne, vol. clix.) says that the Turks, in his day, styled the emperor, Tegguires.
The derivation of Tekfour from the Greek too kvptov is untenable.
I IO BYZAAV7 IAVE CONSTA WT/WOAZAZ. [CHAP.
wing extended from the Xylo Porta (beside the Golden Horn) *
to the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus, which was situated upon a
slope, and thence to the Gate of Charisius (Edirnē Kapoussi).”
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.
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 Blachernae.
When, for instance, Andronicus III., in 1328, entered Con-
stantinople by the Gate of St. Romanus to wrest the govern-
ment 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.” That Andronicus II. was at the Palace of
Blachernae is manifest from the fact that the peasants who wit-
nessed the entrance of the rebel grandson into the city ran and
reported the event to the guards stationed at the Gate Gyro-
limnē,” a gate leading directly to the Palace of Blachernae.”
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 Palaeologus." 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
* See below, p. 173.
* I. c. 27. 'Atro ris EvXívms tróAms évvóvrt péxpt rôv BaoruMetov too
IIopºupoyevvijrov, Kai #6dvovrt pºéxpt tºs Meyopévy's trøms toū Xaptoroú.
* Cantacuzene, i. p. 305. * Nicephorus Greg., ix. p. 420.
* See below, p. 127. * Cantacuzene, iii. p. 607.
INºtoo（IAHđ（od ſa H.L. do Giovriya april


(advůvº Nºiariiſion) snili Nºbowahanoa ahli do aovava ahli

v11.] THE PA LACE OF THE PORAH PROGENITU.S. III
Blachernae, named the Castelion, which guarded that palace."
Evidently the Palace of Blachernae and the Palace of the Por-
phyrogenitus stood near each other. Seven years later, John
Palaeologus himself, upon his capture of the city, made the
Palace of the Porphyrogenitus his headquarters while arranging
for the abdication of Cantacuzene.” 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 Blachernae.
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
* Cantacuzene, iii. pp. 611, 612 ; Nicephorus Greg., xv. pp. 774–779.
* Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 290, 291.
II 2 A YZAAVTIA/E CO/WSTAAV7 IWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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." 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
I34I.”
According to Salzenberg, the palace belongs to the earlier half
&\\lſ/
MONOGRAM OF THE PALAEOLOGI.”
of the ninth century, and was the work of the Emperor Theo-
philus.” But the name of the building is in favour of the view
that we have here an erection of the Emperor Constantine Por-
phyrogenitus, and consequently a monument of the Art of the
tenth century. Constantine Porphyrogenitus was noted for the
number of palaces he erected.”
1 Tafferner (see below, p. II.3, reference 5) speaks of a propylaeum supported by
ten fine columns as the entrance to the court of the palace from the city.
* Cantacuzene, iii. p. 138, Tºv too Iſopºupoyevvirov Tposayopewopévyw
Trv\ièa.
s From Brožen Bits of Byzantium. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
* Salzenberg, Altchristliche Baudenkmaeler von Constantinopel, p. 125.
* 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. -


(№ornal N1 do wa IA) snilina boſſ AHänod º H.L. do aovTvå ſihi

VII.] THE PAZACE OF THE PORPHYROGEAVITU.S. II3
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 Palaeologi; *, Baot)\sic Baot)\éov
Baot)\eſtov Baqi)\tiovot.
Dr. Paspates” regarded this building as the Monastery of the
Seven Orders of the Angels, mentioned by Cantacuzene ; * but
that monastery, and the gate named after it, were at Thessa-
lonica, and not at Constantinople. The building formed part
of the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus.
Bullialdus, the annotator of Ducas,” speaking of the palace,
says that the double-headed eagle of the Palaeologi 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—
Tºx
These ornaments may be indications of repairs made by
different occupants of the palace.”
* Paspates, p. 42. - * Pages 62, 63.
* Lib. i. p. 268. * Page 612.
* Tafferner, chaplain to the Embassy sent by the Emperor Leopold I. to the
Ottoman Court (Caesarea Zegatio quam, mandante Augustissimo Rom. Imperatore Zeo-
Aold: I. ad Portam Ottomanicam, suscepit, perficitgue 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:—“Praeteriri non potuit quin invisére-
tur aula magni Constantini : Regia haec ad Occidentem moenibus adhaeret ; nobilia
sublimibus operibus instructissimo olim colle locata: tribus substructionibus moles
assurrexerat; altius nullum in tota urbe domicilium. Palatij coronis superstes mar-
more inciso elaborata tectum fulcit, ventis et imbribus pervium. Vastae et eminentes
praeter sacrae antiquitatis aedilitatem é pario lapide fenestrae liquidô demonstrant,
cujus palatij ornamenta fuerint, cujus aulae etiamnum ruinae sint. Propylaeum decem
columnae magnitudinis et artificij dignitate conspicuae sustinent: ejus in angulo
desolatus, et ruderibus scatens puteus moeret. Pergula & centro prominens universae
I
114 A VZAAVT/WE CONSTANTIAWOAZAZ. [CHAP. VII.
urbis conspectum explicat. Columnis constat auro passim illitis, cujus radios color
viridis extiamnum animat. Grandiora lapidum fragmenta, cum primis fabricae orna-
mentis, ac fulcris caeteris in Moschèas translata sunt : sola tantae molis vestigia, atque
ex ungue cadaver nunc restat. Muro extimo meridiem versus insertum parieti visitur
Oratoriolum hominibus recipiendis sex opportunum: Angustia loci persuadet privatae
illud pietati Constantini sacrum fuisse. Squallet turpiter haec Imperatorij operis
majestas nunc inter arbusta, atque hederas et sive coeli injurias, sive immanitatem
barbarorum, sive Christianorum incuriam accuses, non absinnilem cum tempore rebus
caeteris, utcunque floreant, internecionem minatur.”
N < ,' flvap3 Sera,
W. % &S
/ N 3% S.
O' ^ •º C º %. s
@ Sº /š - º $.
*o $º º & 6.
* O
%ic § ºx. $. §§ 1* ©ºw
%t Š- 7 S Wow ºposius 60%luTade °hy.
^ſº 'SA: 7 S- © %
s: ºs ºft .” ^{43
FA yºk s
& ©y 5 3S S-
S $ 3. AST AT wº..."?" of
Ny
sº S. - wauwº-wows ºr. Pºle R
- *6 & SC Y&N y n 4.
See Plap & & Š z | (and/STWodern Church)of 3. §: º
Thºsen’s Towess, § º, ſº Z. §§§§§§ " Khojaſ)usſata'8-9a
º- THélsº ANéelps ToweR N º Ş. / %, % / -
9- ToweR L. 7. Sº, /
6. L 7 / 2' posqu of Z
%. º gº” 2 */ / / flivas €ffeydi //
º gº º 2 / 2. / / / / / / , , , , ,
& ºvº oGº % 2 ^2 , ', " , , , (, ‘2 /
**'. - %22.2%, 2.2% A, 22
^* «$X * Siſe of IHe (ASE AND
º *sº CŞ ^2 PAAce of BLACHERN4.
sº ^sy z , "," , z z an a
F. Nº ^2% 2* / / 2 // 2 ^,
º %2%. , ; 4 ° 2, 22.2%
%22% º?/ ?/ ?/ ?
| º Y / / // /.
! .º /*
sº %2% 4.2%. , ſº
2 %2 % º ż, , º ż ZZ
#. !” A 4, 2 ſº 2 z,
SU '^2 / ^ 2 / Z (2 ’’,
sº - 22 (2 / 2 /2 2.2 . (/,
6AJé of WAUGARIA ºr €3ri Capou (Crooked Gate) !” . . ^ 2 / // / /
| ^2 / / / / .
CS J. KALIG AR 1 A É%2% / % z/
º § / / / / % / %/
O . . .
º, T. z º. 2 2/
waver from P(RGOS. 2 %
º- ºr / 7 Jºe, p -
o 2 */ ŠKºch Paperssesſes
%, ’ of the
- //
lºs Ž º - r
º, 7% Z / / BLACHERNAE QUARTER
s (CA 'y $3 - -
ºs &/k. E -
# Cºy 3 §PProximaſº 5.cal2. 1:2000 or petres
Q | l 9 100 $o 80 70 60 50 40 0, 20, 10. O. 100
Jº w tº
E. F: O Qf * AE. He NDERGon
6AE o I - šº #38, Kadip.
Poºrººoºº. £
/ 3. See Pap
3° Tekfur Serai,
Cº.
.2 º' %.
*
*
7.
Ø
%
%
%
THE
GOLDEN HORN
/ - -
/
. -ºid









( II5 )
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." 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 forti-
fications 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
* Paspates, p. 19.
II6 A VZAAV7//VE CONSTAAV7 IWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
Comnenus." 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, respec-
tively, 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 2
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 Theo-
dosian 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,” along a line terminating somewhere in the
vicinity of Balat Kapoussi.” According to this view, the quarter
of Blachernae, which until 627 lay outside the city limits,” 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 Blachernae, with its celebrated Church of the
1 Dr. Mordtmann was the first to prove this. See below, p. 122.
* The Sixth Hill sends three spurs towards the Golden Horn, which may be
distinguished as the eastern, middle, and western.
* This is the view of Dr. Paspates, pp. 2, 3, 92.
* Procopius (De Ad., i. c. 3), speaking of the Church of Blachernae, describes it
as situated Tpo, too repušáMov, Šv x&pg, KaNovpévº BAaxépvals. Cf. Paschal
Chron., p. 726.
v1.11.] FORTIFICATIONS ON NORTH-WESTERN. SIDE. I 17
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."
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, con-
tinued towards Aivan Serai, until it is stopped by the Wall of
Manuel, which runs transversely to it.”
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 ; ”
line ran from that gate along the eastern side of the spur to
the fountain Tsinar Tchesmé in the quarter of Londja, a short
distance to the south-east of the Holy Well which marks the
site of the Church of Blachernae ; 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.” Within the acropolis formed by these
another
* This is the view of Dr. Mordtmann, p. II.
* 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.
* 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. I57.81 in length, and is in some parts m. 13–14 high ;
II8 PYZAAVT/AVE CONSTA MVTINOP/LE. [CHAP.
* ,
works of defence, the Palace of Blachernae 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 consider-
ation of the second answer.
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 Porphyro-
genitus 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 Blachernae, the Pteron” or Proteichisma,” outside of which
stood the Church of Blachernae and the Church of St. Nicholas.”
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 Blachernae at Aivan Serai, that of
the wall along the northern side of the spur is m. 180.90 long, and m. I3-I4 high ;
the wall on the western side of the spur is m. 35 long, and as high as the adjoining
walls of the city.
* Paschal Chron., p. 724, to reixos BAaxepvöv. This was before the erection
of the Wall of Heraclius.
* Ibid., p. 726, £offew roi, kakoupévov II repot.
* Nicephorus, Patriarcha CP., p. 20, to BAaxepvöv trporeixiopia to KaNoë-
pºevov II repóv.
* Paschal Chron., ut supra; cf. Procopius, De Ad., i. c. 3, c. 6.
v1.11.] FORTIFICATIONS ON AWORTH-WESTERN. SIDE. II9
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 Blachernae, which stood on the spur, when the Church of
St. Nicholas was burnt down, and when the Church of Blachernae
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
Motitia, 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." The fortifications
on the Sixth Hill may therefore claim to have originally con-
stituted 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
* Motitia, ad Aeg. X/V.
I 20 A YZAAV7 IAVE COMSTA WT/AWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
western façade of the Palace of Porphyrogenitus' 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,” 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.”
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-exist-
ing fortifications around the western spur of the Sixth Hill.”
The chief difficulty attending this view is that the Motitia
* See above, p. III. See also illustration facing p. 118.
* With alterations made in the course of time by repairs.
* Notitia, ad Reg. XXV. “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 Blachernae 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 Zop.
C.P., iv. c. 5.
* 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.
viii I FORTIFICATIONS ON NORTH WESTERN. SIDE. I2I
speaks of the Fourteenth Region as still an isolated suburb
in the reign of Theodosius II."
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 Blachernae, after the
fifth century.
The trend of the walls at the Kerko Porta affords, unques-
tionably, 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.
* Motitia, ad Aeg. X/ V.
H22 A PZAAVT/WE CONSTA WTIAWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
CHAPTER IX.
THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMNENUs.
ACCORDING to Nicetas Choniates," a portion of the city fortifica-
tions was erected by the Emperor Manuel Comnenus. *
The historian alludes to that work when describing the site
upon which the Crusaders established their camp in I2O3, and
from his account of the matter there can be no doubt regard-
ing the portion intended. The Latin camp, says Nicetas,” was
pitched on the hill which faced the western front of the Palace of
Blachernae, 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
* Page 719 ; cf. Zbid., p. 500 ; Cinnamus, p. 274.
* Ut supra, IIept to yet!).0%ov dº oitrep Špară pâv rà év BAaxépvals
ăvákropa, Öröora véveuke ºrpès éorrépav. IIepi 88 ye riv roſrov inró6aow
in rudget ris at Aetos, Tpós plea muffptav pºvěs to reixos Affyovoa direp pupa
róvápxeſov & Baorºsis àvijyelpe Mavov)\, kard 8& Boppav čveſtov tá 6a)\doro m .
. éyyičovora. g
TOWER OF THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL cominenus.

Ix.] WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMAWEAVU.S. 123
court of the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus, a style of workman-
ship 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 Blachernae, which became the favourite residence
of the Imperial Court in the reign of Alexius Comnenus,”
and which Manuel himself enlarged and beautified.” 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” 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 Porphy-
rogenitus, 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 * 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
* Anna Comn., vi. p. 275, et passim.
* Nicetas Chon., p. 269; Benjamin of Toledo, p. 12.
* As a rule, two to four courses of stone, alternating with six to nine courses of brick.
* This is a piece of Turkish repair, in which the lintel of a postern is found.
I24 A YZANTINE COAVSTA AWTINOPLE. [CHAP.
towers, and is remarkable for being the only entrance in the city
walls furnished with a drip-stone. Dr. Paspates' 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,”
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.” 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 (Év roſe Ka}\tyaptowg). That wall stood near the
palace of the emperor; it was a single line of fortifications, dis-
tinguished for its strength, but without a moat.* It occupied,
moreover, such a position that from one of its towers the Em-
peror 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 Theodo-
sian Walls, and hear the ominous sounds of the preparations for
the last assault.” 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, YITEP EY XHC, 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 I453, this wall, on account of its proximity to
* Page 62. * See above, p. 83. * Pusculus, iv. 177.
* Nicolo Barbaro, p. 794, “Questa Calegaria si xe apresso del palazzo de,
l'imperador;” p. 784, “Li no veiera 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.”
* Phrantzes, p. 280. *
Ix.] WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMAWENU.S. 125
the Palace of Blachernae, was the object of special attack; but
all the attempts of the Turkish gunners and miners failed to
open a breach in it." 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.”
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.”
The tower from which the emperor and Phrantzes recon-
noitred 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.”
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),” is considered by one authority to be
also a part of the Wall of Manuel Comnenus.” 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
* Leonard of Scio, “Horribilem perinde bombardam (quamguam 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.”
* Zöza. * Ibid.; N. Barbaro, May 16, 21–25; Phrantzes, p. 244.
* * Paspates, p. 22 ; Phrantzes, p. 28o.
* See below, p. 132. The tower is marked L on Map facing p. II.5.
* Mordtmann, p. 35.
I26 A PZAAV7/WE COAVSTAAV7/WOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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 juxtaposi-
tion 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' 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.” The third inscription stands on the
curtain between the third and fourth towers of the wall, imme-
diately below the parapet, and commemorates repairs executed
in 1441 by John VII. Palaeologus, who was concerned in the
reconstruction of the Outer Theodosian Wall. It reads:
IGDANNHO EN XCA) T(1)
(3)(1) IIICTOO BACIAEYO
KAI AYTOKPATCOP PGDMAICUN
O TIAAAIOAOTOC KATA MHNA
AYTOYOTOY TH A
TOY snºMO ETOYC (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.”
To the north of the second tower in the wall before us is a
gateway which answers to the description of the Gate of Gyro-
limně (tröXn Tic Tupoxtuvmc); for the Gate of Gyrolimnē, like
this entrance, stood in the immediate vicinity of the Palace of
Blachernae, and was so near the hill on which the Crusaders
* See below, p. 132.
* See above, p. 103. The inscription is now reversed, and stands a little above
the base of the tower.
Tower with inscription of Isaac Angelus.
THE PALAEOLOGIAN WALL, NORTH OF THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMNENU.S.
the GATE of GyroLimni.


ix.] WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMAWEAVU.S. 127
encamped in I2O3 that the Greeks stationed at the gate and
the enemy on the hill were almost within speaking distance."
The gate derived its name from a sheet of water called the
Silver Lake ('Apyvpā Atuvn), at the head of the Golden Horn,
and beside which was an Imperial palace.” The gate was at the
service of the Palace of Blachernae, a fact which, doubtless, ex-
plains the decoration of the arch of the entrance with three
Imperial busts.” -
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.“
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." 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;" 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."
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.”
* Nicetas Chon., pp. 719, 720.
* Anna Comnena, x. p. 48; Albert Aquensis, lib. ii. c. Io, 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.
* See foot of List of Illustrations. * Ville-Hardouin, c. 39, 40, 46, 47.
* Cantacuzene, i. pp. 89, 90. * Zötd., i. pp. 255, 289, 29O.
* Nicephorus Greg., ix. pp. 420, 421. * Cantacuzene, iii. p. 501.
I28 BYzAMTINE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
THE PALACE OF BLACHERNAE.
Tö #v BAaxépvag Baori Astov, IIa)\ártov.
Until the site of the Palace of Blachernae is excavated, little
can be added to the information which Du Cange" and Paspates”
have collected respecting that Imperial residence, from the state-
ments 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 Blachernae appears first as the palace which,
according to the Notitia, adorned that Region.” In the reign of
Anastasius I. the residence was enlarged by the addition of the
Triclinus Anastasiacus (ToíkAtvog 'Avaaraatakóc),” and in the
tenth century" it boasted, moreover, of the Triclinus of the Holy
Shrine (Tpik\tvog tåc àyiac gopot), named so in honour of the
shrine in which the robe and mantle of the Theotokos were kept
in the Church of Blachernae ; the Triclinus Danubius (Tolk\avoc
Aavowſ?tog); and the Portico Josephiacus (rov IIóptuca ’Iwamptakov).
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." By Manuel Comnenus it was repaired and embellished"
to an extent which obtained for it the name of the New Palace,”
and it was one of the sights of the capital with which he enter-
tained Amaury, King of Jerusalem.” The lofty building named
after the Empress Irene,” and, probably, the Domus Polytimos,”
* Constantinopolis Christiana, ii. pp. 130-132. * Chap. iv.
* Motitia, ad Reg. XIV. * Suidas, Ad zocem, Anastasius.
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., pp. 542, 543.
* Anna Comn., x. pp. 36, 54, 63. * Nicetas Chon., p. 269.
* William of Tyre, xx. c. 24. * William of Tyre, ut supra.
* Nicetas Chon., p. 720. * Zbid., p. 351.
º º
º
º ºr
|
i.
º
Palaeologian Repairs.
GENERAL VIEW OF THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMNENUs.

Ix.] WALL OF THE EMPEROR MANUEL COMNEWU.S. 129
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." In I2O3
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.” In 1204,
upon the capture of the city by the Crusaders, it surrendered to
Henry, the brother of Baldwin,” but the Latin emperors seem to
have preferred the Palace of the Bucoleon for their residence.
Baldwin II., however, resided in the Palace of Blachernaº, and
left it in such a filthy condition that when taken possession of
by the Greeks in 1261, Michael Palaeologus could not occupy it
until it had been thoroughly cleaned and renovated.* It was the
usual residence of the Byzantine Court during the period of the
Palaeologi,” 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.”" All descriptions of the palace agree in
representing it as of extraordinary splendour." 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.”
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
* See below, p. 143. * Ville-Hardouin, c. 39.
* Ibid., c. 55. * Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 144, 16I.
* Cantacuzene, i. p. 305; iv. pp. 290, 29I ; Nicephorus Greg., ix. p. 42O, etc.
* Phrantzes, p. 280. * Nicetas Chon., p. 269.
* See Benjamin of Toledo, and Odo de Dogilo, iv. p. 37, both of whom visited
the palace in the reign of Manuel Comnenus.
FC
I 30 P V.ZAAVTIAWE CONSTA WT/WOPLE. [CHAP. IX.
views over the harbour, the city, and the country beyond the
walls—“triplicem habitantibus jucunditatem offerens,” as Odo
de Dogilo aptly remarks, “mare, campus, urbemdue, alterius
despicit.” The palace derived much of its importance from its
proximity to the venerated shrine of the Theotokos of Blachernaº.
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." It
should be added that the palace stood within the fortified en-
closure” around the western spur of the Sixth Hill, the Castelion
of Blachernae (Tö Év BAaxépvalc ppoiptov, wēpog kai airó too trºpi
tà (3aoriMeta ſppoupiov 6v KaoréAtov trpooayopévéuevov).”
* Cantacuzene, i. pp. 89, 90. * See Map facing p. 115.
* Cantacuzene, iii. pp. 611, 612; Nicephorus Greg., xv. pp. 774–779.
|
fińN OF THE SO(Alled PRISON OF ANCMAS.
S. Q - —e- . S. 1 - —é– S O - – - - 5 0 - - - - 5 O - – - - 5 O - - - - 5 O - - - - 5 O – É. -
- a wºººººººººº..."
* º º ºn >
cº e º c *|c * c tº c C. • * * * * * * * * * * * * -
% º º | | º º º, tº 1.4.4 º ! # 4% ir
| | :* - Vautrée. (Anscº Aveº, neº 1 " . | 1 t | |
-* win wii tä a % º * * * * ...A. %
SS à % º º
3 º - | % º Alſº
%
ſº
".
- ſº 1 | %N}{4. 1.9 * 14
% - !!! % . . . º | §§ *
% % 2 4. º _**ś 7. º ***** f 3. le |
% *— — 7-1 - _j x_ –73 – -* | * HI&#H & b. . . . * $ºs
... o. – G 6 - – 17 fi 'ill'ſ tº...
|||ſº N
- | | | | |
Ž Original western KRRacewal of BLACHERNE. º |
UAte R wall AND BUTTR&sjin 6 fortune (HAMBERS.
First
Second Masonrºof offerent STYLey. ACline.
TH, RD. As BASenen'ſ AND QUNTerrorſ ToThe Towers.
EE FourTH -
WAIS of THéToweRANDSARway Marked N.
& Walls of The APDebTower Marked S.
Scale of the Treş.
- 1 S.





















( ISI )
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,” 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 Blachernae. -
It is remarkable for its dimensions, rising in some places
68 feet above the exterior ground-level, with a thickness varying
from 33% to 61% 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
* See below, p. 132.
I32 A VZA WTINE CONSTA NTINOP/CAE. [CHAP.
chambers, presenting in their ruin the most impressive spectacle”
to be found in the circuit of the fortifications.
The first" of the three towers stands at the south-western
angle of the enclosure around the Palace of Blachernae, where
the fortifications around the western spur of the Sixth Hill, to
the rear of the Wall of Manuel, join the wall now under con-
sideration ; 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 :
IIPOOTAEI AYTOKPATOPOC ATTEAOY IACAARIOY
IIYPTOC EK IIAPACTAOECDO AIMEHI BACIAEIOY ET
SnºxI (6696).”
“Tower, by command of the Emperor Isaac Angelus, under the super-
intendence of Basil . . . (?) in the year I 188.”
The twin towers rise to a great height, and are supported
along their base by a massive buttress or counter-fort," Gº Gº Gº Gº,
that stands 23 feet above the present ground-level, and projects
from 193 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 quadri-
lateral, 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 care-
fully 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
* See tower L, in Map facing p. II.5.
* See illustration facing p. 248.
X.] TO WAERS OF AME MAS AAWD ISAAC A/VGAEZ U.S. I 33
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,”
which stood in the vicinity of the Palace of Blachernae, 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.”
At a was a small arched postern, by which one entered the
vaulted tunnel Z, that led through the counter-fort G' to the
gateway / in the north-eastern side of the tower S. The sill
of the postern r is now nearly Io 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 with-
drawn at pleasure. The postern ar, the tunnel Z, and the gate-
way / 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.” Judging from the
carefulness of the work, the passage was blocked before the
Turkish Conquest.
* Pages 22–32, where Dr. Paspates gives an interesting account of his discovery
and exploration of the chambers.
* 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.
* 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.
I34 BYZANTIAWE COAVSTAAVTIAWOF/A2. [CHAP.
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 IO 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
X.] TOWERS OF ANEMAS AAWD ISAAC AAVGELUS. 135
the same time communicated at v with the terrace on which
the Palace of Blachernae stood, and where the Mosque of Aivas
Effendi is now erected.
The face of the wall AA is pierced by two tiers of loop-
holes, 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 Blachernate
cannot be determined.
Returning to the vestibule 5, 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 com-
municates 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."
* In the opinion of some authorities, e.g. Professor Strzygowski, this apartment
was a cistern.
3
I36 BYZAMT/WE CONSTA WTIAWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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 6, 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 stair-
way 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 à, 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 Blachernae; 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,
X.] TOWERS OF AAVEMAS AAWD ISAAC ANGELUS. 137
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 6.
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
%
§ $rºw ; 24 )
S. º § N
|ARøe L-shaped
& CD CHAMBER
KXX • PVO)t,
C Cl
KXXere: RºxxºSASXXXY -
KXXXXXX&T&QXX&QXXX N N
KX
C&C
XXXXX: XXXX&
ScAs of Me Trey
1. Q. 1. 2. 3. 4. S. is zo
THE L-SHAPED CHAMBER IN UPPER STORY OF TOWER S.
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.
--~%













I38 A VZA WTIAVAE COAVSTA AVT/AWOP/CAE. [CHAP.
*
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 à, and then at the level of the two tiers of loop-
holes. 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. p
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 Blachernae, 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 fortifica-
tions 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 sub-
structures raised on the Palatine hill by Septimius Severus
and Caracalla to support the platform on which the AEdes
Severianae were erected."
In the next place, there are at several points in these
* Cf. Lanciani, The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, pp. 178, 179, 182.
"(isaw-Hilnos ahi woną) „snia osv ovvsi to wºiwoi arri, anya svwº Nv Ho Hº Moi, a H.L. ,,

X.] TOWERS OF AAVE.M.A.S AAWD ISAAC A/VGAE Z U.S. I39
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 com-
partments 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 arrange-
ment.
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 em-
ployed for the protection of the smaller residence forming part
of the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus," and for the protection
* See the loophole windows in plan of that residence, facing p. 109.
I4O A VZAAVTIAWE CONSTA WTINOPLA2. [CHAP.
of the Palace of the Bucoleon, situated on the city walls near
Tchatlady Kapou.”
When precisely the wall AA was erected cannot be deter-
mined ; 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 Blachernae had assumed con-
siderable importance. Possibly, the work belongs to the reign
of Anastasius I.” .
(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 Blachernae, which already in the
tenth century comprised several edifices on the hill behind
the wall AA*
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.
* See below, p. 273. * See above, p. 128. * Ut supra.
X.] TOWERS OF AAVEMAS AAWD ISAAC AAVGEZOS. 141
(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 Blachernae
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 4 at the
mouth of the tunnel Z.
(8) When the stairway-turret was enclosed by the vestibule à,
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 a,
the tunnel Z, the gate l, and the vestibule à, to their actual level.
The portion of the passage still left open was too narrow to be
I42 P V.ZA WTINE CONSTA WT/WOP/LAE. [CHAP.
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.
(IO) 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," 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 Blachernae 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 A.
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
* Speaking of similar substructures below the Domus Gaiana in the Palace of the
Caesars at Rome, Lanciani remarks: “We gain by them the true idea of the human
fourmillière of slaves, servants, freedmen, and guards, which lived and moved and
worked in the substrata of the Palatine, serving the court in silence and almost in
darkness” (Zhe Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, p. 150).
x.] Towers of ANEMAS AND ISAAC Awarzvs. 143
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 Blachernae, 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." It was constructed with
materials taken from ruined churches on the neighbouring sea-
shore, and from various public buildings in the city, ruthlessly
torn down for the purpose.” -
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 Blachernae ; 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.” But this opinion is attended with difficulties. For
* Nicetas Chon., pp. 580, 581, IIpo6éuevos 8é kai trčpyov tekróvaoréat karū
W 3 Af A. cy \ 3. sy * s A e xy *
tö év BAaxépvals tra)\driov, Špia pºév eis pupa rôv čvakrópov, Ös épaorke, Kai
itépetopa, āpa Sê kai eis évoikmortv čavrò.
* Ibid, ut supra.
* See above, p. 132. The tower is marked L on the Map which faces p. II.5.
I44 BYZANTINE COMSTAAV7 IAWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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 re-
joinder ; 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.
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 photo-
graph of that tower. Like the Tower of Isaac Angelus, the tower
N, besides defending and Supporting the Palace of Blachernae,
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 apart-
ment 22} by 27% 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
Wall containing chambers.
“THE ToweR of ANEMAs.” AND “THE ToweR of Isaac ANGELus” (FRom THE North-west).

X.] TOWERS OF ANEMAS AAWD ISAAC AAVGELUS. 145
}
which commanded a beautiful view of the country about the
head of the Golden Horn. Another window led to a small bal-
cony 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 Blachernae.
The lower story of the tower, which was reached by a short
flight of steps descending from the palace court to the vestibule
C*, 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 inti-
mated, 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. s
This objection can be met, indeed, either by assuming
that another inscription in honour of Isaac Angelus stood on
L
I46 A VZA WT/AVE CONSTA WT/WOPLE. [CHAP.
the tower N, but has disappeared; or, with Dr. Paspates,”
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 objec-
tion 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 Blachernae,
and owed its name to the circumstance that Anemas was the
first prisoner who occupied it.”
Another indication of the situation of the tower is given by
Leonard of Scio,” when he states that the towers “Avenides"
* Page 39.
* Anna Comn., xii. 161, 162, where the prison of Anemas, # too 'Avepā eipkrij,
& gº a gº. a Z Aſ
is described as trºpyos 8 ºvels ris róv dyxov táv čv BAaxépvals àvakrópov
* * * A. 2
8takepºvov reixõv ràs tróAeos: also p. 161, röv dyxov táv čvakrópov ºkobo-
pump.évov trópyov.
* See his Epistle to Pope Nicholas V.
X.] TOWERS OF AMEAMAS AAWD /SAAC AAVGAZZ U.S. I47
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'
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 2
The tower answers to the description of Anna Comnena in
being a tower in the city walls close to the Palace of Blachernae.
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. Fur-
thermore, 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.”
* Page 51, ’Ev roſs trºpyots roſs Aeyop,évois’A8epavíðes TAmortov BAaxépvov.
The name Anemas appears first in Theophanes, p. 749, as the surname of a certain
Bardanius, to éiríkAmy Avepºv, in the reign of Nicephorus I., 802-8II.
* The Byzantine authors who refer to the Prison of Anemas in express terms
are: Anna Comnena, xii. pp, I61, 162 ; Nicetas Choniates, p. 455 (ſ Too 'Avepā
I48 BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
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 in-
dependent 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 2 Above all,
is its age compatible with the view that it was the prison of
Anemas 2
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 Con-
stantinople, the Tower of Anemas was, at least, seventy years
qpoupa); Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 378; Cantacuzene, lib. ii. p. 329; Phrantzes,
p. 51; Ducas, p. 45. Once, Pachymeres (vol. ii. p. 409) speaks of rais karū.
rås BAaxépvas eipkraſs, in which the Despot Michael and his family were
confined.
X.] TOWERS OF AME MAS AAWD ISAAC A/VGAE/. U.S. I49
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," 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 2 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,
* Page 31.
– 2-------º-º:
I 50 A VZAAVT/WE CONSTAAV7 IAVOA’A.E. [CHAP.
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 inscrip-
tion 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," who writes:
“The Tower of Anemas still exists. On its side facing the Holy
Well of Blachernae 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,” the
name given to the citadel formed by the Walls of Heraclius and
Leo.
There is nothing in this view opposed to the fact that the
Tower of Anemas stood in the city walls near the Palace of
| Ancient and Modern Consple., pp. II, 45. The patriarch supposed that the
Palace of Blachernae stood within the enclosure formed by the Wall of Heraclius
and the Wall of Leo. Ibid., p. 44. -
* Pand. Hist. Turc., s. 206.
NoTE.—For the illustrations facing respectively pp. I50, I56, and for the lower
illustration facing p. 162, I am indebted to the kindness of my dolleague, Professor
W. Ormiston. The photographs were taken on the Ioth 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.
view of THE INTERIOR of “THE PRIsox of ANEMAs.” LookING North-west (BEING
THE SUBSTRUCTUREs supporting THE PALACE of BLAcherNAE).

X.] TOWERS OF A NEMAS AAWD ISAAC A/VGAZ / U.S. I5 I
Blachernae ; 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,
”* This statement is
impensis cardinalis reparatas, spectabant.
repeated by Zorzo Dolfin.”
The Xylo Porta, without question, was at Aivan Serai
Kapoussi, to the north of the Wall of Heraclius, and imme-
diately beside the Golden Horn ; * and the towers which would
most appropriately be entrusted to soldiers defending that
entrance are the towers nearest to it, wig. 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
* See his Epistle to Pope Nicholas V.
* 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.”
* See below, p. 173.
•++
*~~
I52 BYZAAWT/WAE COAVSTAAWTIAVOA’LAE. [CHAP.
Venetian colony, might be employed in favour of the view that the “turres Avenides”
which Leonard of Sció 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 Blachernae,
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 (Edirnē 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 Blachernae (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'ily avait été enfermé par
son fils.” The fact that Clavijo identifies the Church of Blachernae 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
Blachernae 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 Blachernae. 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 P 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. Palaeologus
(“Z'empereur s'empressa de démolir la tour où il avait &té 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 cardi-
nalisreparatas”), 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 H belonged first to the tower N.
Finally, in the Venetian account of the attempt made by Carlo Zen to liberate
X.] TOWERS OF AAVE/MAS AAWD /SAAC A/VGAE Z U.S. I 53
John VI. Palaeologus 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 Palaeologus savours too much of romance to have any topo-
graphical value. The story may be read in Le Beau's Histoire du Bas-Empire,
vol. xii. pp. 174-179.
I 54 A V2AAWTVAWAE COAVSTA AVT/AVOA’/LE. [CHAP.
CHAPTER XI.
INMATES OF THE PRISON OF ANEMAS.
MICHAEL ANEMAs, the first to occupy the prison, and from
whom it obtained its name," 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.”
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
* Anna Comn., xii. pp. 161, I62.
* 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.
XI.] IAWMA 7TPS OF THE PRISOAV OA' A NEMA.S. I55
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 sub-
sequent 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 cir-
cumstance 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 Mesé 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
I56 A YZAAWTIME COAVSTAAV7 IAVOAPZAZ. [CHAP.
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 repre-
Senting 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."
Before Anemas was released, another notable personage was
committed to the tower, Georgius, Duke of Trebizond, who
attempted, in I IO7, 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 un-
ceasing imprecations upon the head of his Imperial master.
With the hope of conciliating the rebel, he was repeatedly visited
by his old friend, the Caesar Nicephorus Bryennius, the husband
of Anna Comnena. For a long time, however, all friendly
overtures proved unavailing. But at last the tedium of pro-
tracted confinement broke the prisoner's spirit, and induced
him to submit; upon which he was liberated, and loaded with
wealth and honours.” .*
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 II85. To Andronicus imprisonment was no
* Anna Comn., xii. pp. 153-161. * Zbid., pp. 161–164.
- - - --------
CHAMBER IN “THE PRISON of ANEMAS.”

XI.] INMA TES OF THE PRISOAV OF AAVEM.A.S. 157
new experience, for already, during the reign of Manuel Com-
nenus, 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 P’’ 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."
In the course of the following century a different personage
figured in the history of the prison. This was Veccus, Charto-
phylax of St. Sophia at the time of his confinement, and sub-
sequently Patriarch of Constantinople.” He incurred the
displeasure of Michael Palaeologus by opposing the union of
* Nicetas Chon., pp. 452—458. * Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 374-403.
158 BYZANTINE CONSTA WTVAWOPLE. [CHAP.
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 ortho-
doxy, 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
Beroea, 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 1" Nor was Veccus
more favourably impressed by other experiences. The embassy
XI.] IAWMATES OF THE ARRISOAV OF AAVEM.A.S. I59
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 ;”
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 pre-
late'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 situa-
tion 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
* For the account of the mission to Servia, see Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 350-355.
I6o A VZAAWTIAWE CONSTA WTINOP/LAE. [CHAP.
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."
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.”
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
Palaeologus, and was married to the Princess Anna, above
* For the circumstances attending the imprisonment of Veccus, see Pachymeres,
vol. i. pp. 374–403.
* Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 270.
XI.] IZVMA 7TES OF 7THE PRISO/W OF AAVE.M.A.S. I61
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
Blachernae' 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.”
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 circum-
stances 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 appro-
priate its territories.
* Pachymeres, vol. ii. pp. 3O4, 396, 408, 409, where the prison is styled Tais
kará tês BAaxépvas eipkrats.
* Cantacuzene, i. pp. 17 I, I 72 ; ii. pp. 329–332, 457.
I62 A YZAAV7//VAE COAVSTA NTYAVOA’A.A. [CHAP.
There John VI. Palaeologus 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 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 remorse-
less 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.
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
ENTRANCE OF PASSAGE FROM THE STAIRWAY IN
“THE ToweR of ANEMAs?” to chamber D
IN “THE TOWER of is AAC ANGELus.”
(For this view I am indebted to the late Dr. Ledyard.)
CORRIDOR IN THE ORIGINAL WESTERN TERRACE WALL OF THE PALACE OF
BLAcher NAE (LookING souTH-WEST).
(See Plan facing page 131.)


XI.] INMATES OF THE PRISON OF ANEMAS. I63
Tower of Anemas, “as Zeus cast his father Chronos and his
brothers Pluto and Poseidon into the nether world.”
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, sur-
named 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." 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.”
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.
* Langier, Histoire de la Republique de Venise, vol. iv. pp. 251, 253.
* 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.
I64 A V2A WTINE CONSTA WTINOPLE. [CHAP.
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 Blachernae 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 follow-
ing circumstances:— ”
Until that year the quarter of Blachernae, at the foot of
the Sixth Hill, was a suburb immediately outside the fortifica-
tions.” 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 pro-
tection, formed one of the strongest bulwarks of the capital.
At the worst, when danger threatened, the treasures of the
Paschal chron., p. 726, Toſrº tº &ret ékrio 6m to retxos répté too otzov
ris Segroſvns juſºv tºs 6eorákov, *čoffew toº kaxoupévov IIrepot.
* Ibid., Procopius, De Ad., lib. i. c. 3; Paschal Chron., p. 702.
XII.] WAZA, OF HAERA CZA U.S. WAZZ OAF Z.EO V. I65
sanctuary could be readily transported into the city, as was done
in the reign of Justinian the Great."
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.”
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 bar-
barians, 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
Blachernae, 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
Blachernae 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 Blachernae (Movoretxog
BXaxspv6v : * retxoc Töv BAaxsputov).”
The wall is flanked by three fine hexagonal towers, built
towards their summit in brick, perhaps, as Dr. Paspates” suggests,
in order to lighten the weight of constructions erected on marshy
* Theophanes, p. 361.
* For account of the siege, see Paschal Chronicle, pp. 715–726; Nicephorus
Patriarcha CP., pp. 20, 2I. * Theophanes, pp. 568, 592.
* Theophanes Cont., p. 618. * Pages 37, 38.
I66 A YZAAV7/AVE COAVSTA AVT/AVOA’/LE. [CHAP.
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% 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 Blachernae (trópra toû Movoretxovc Töv BXaxºpwów),
after the quarter before which it stood.
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.” 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 Blachernae within the line of the city
bulwarks.” 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,” while the
* Theophanes, p. 592 ; Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 787.
* Paspates, p. 19.
* Paschal Chron., p. 726; Nicephorus, Patriarcha CP., p. 21.
* See above, Chapter IX.
-
Wall of Heraclius. Wall containing chambers. “Tower of Anemas.” “Tower of Isaac Angelus.” . Mosque of Aivas Effendi
Wall of Leo I. on site of the Palace of Blachernae
GENERAL VIEW OF THE WALLS OF THE CITY FROM THE HILL ON WHICH THE CRUSADERS ENCAMPED IN 1203.

XII.] WALL OF HERACLIU.S. WALL OF LEO V. 167
remainder formed, originally, the defences of the Fourteenth
Region.
The Wall of Leo the Armenian was erected in 81 3 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." 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. - w
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.” 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
* Theophanes Cont., pp. 612-618; >vvaôpoto as Aaov troXiv Kai texviras
#péaro krićew repov retxos ééoffew roß retxous rôv BAaxepvöv, Kópas kai
Tjv oroúðav TAarétav.
* Theophanes, p. 785; Theophanes Cont., pp. 612-618.
I68 A YZA WT/WE CONSTA WT/AVOA’/A2. [CHAP.
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 Blachernae.
The citadel formed by the Walls of Heraclius and Leo was
designated the Brachionion of Blachernae (ro (3paxiſ vuov rôv
BXaxspvöv).” Subsequent to the Turkish Conquest it was named
after the five more conspicuous towers which guarded the
enclosure, the Pentapyrgion,” on the analogy of the Hepta-
pyrgion, or Castle of Severn Towers (Yedi Koulé) 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:
MIXAHA KAI (B)EOqblAOY META . . N BACI. . . .
The other gives the date fs'TAf (822), which belonged to the
sole reign of the former emperor. These repairs were probably
' Anna Comm., ii. p. IO4.
* Leunclavius, Panz Hist. Turc., s. 200. The Pentapyrgion mentioned by Con-
stantine Porphyrogenitus was a piece of furniture in the form of a castle with five
towers, kept in the Great Palace.

XII.] WAZZ OA' HAERA CZ/U.S. WAJCL OF LEO V. I69
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 Blachernae, behind which the standard of Michael
floated over the Church of the Theotokos."
The tower at the north-western corner of the enclosure was
reconstructed by the Emperor Romanus, as an inscription upon
it proclaims:
§
ğTNéiſºfºxtºrºžđºrđ
#From Afrº
“The Tower of St. Nicholas was restored from the foundations, under
Romanus, the Christ-loving Sovereign.”
5@NāşīſīāſīſīVNiğ
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 Blachernae, 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 Blachernae ;” 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 Blachernae
quarter to the Cosmidion.” This is exactly how a building
* Theophanes Cont., pp. 60, 61 ; Cedremus, vol. ii. pp. 81–83.
* Procopius, Pe Zd., i. c. 6; Paschal Chrom., pp. 724, 725.
* 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




17o A YZAAV7/AWE CO/WSTAAWT/AWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
beside the Holy Well between the two walls, and near the
Gate of Blachernae which pierces them, would be described
under such circumstances.
The proximity of these walls to the Palace of Blachernae, 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 Blachernae that Apsimarus was admitted by his
adherents, in 698, to supplant Leontius ; by the same entrance
Justinian II., in 705, attempted to force his way into the city
to dethrone Apsimarus; * and through it, again, Theodosius III.,
in 716, entered and deposed Anastasius II.” 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;" here, in 924, Simeon of Bulgaria and Romanus Lecapenus
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, tú BaoruMöov (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 év toſs IIav\ivov. 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 Ad. 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 'Avdpyvpot (without money). Owing to the stra-
tegical 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 (Theo-
phanes 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. Palaeologus dismantled the fortress, lest it should be used by the
Catalans (Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 592).
* Theophanes, p. 568. * Zbid., p. 573. * Zbid., p. 592.
* Theophanes Cont., pp. 60, 61 ; Cedrenus, vol. ii. pp. 81–83.
XII.] WA/C/L OF AZAZ RA C/C/U.S. WAZAL OF ZAZO V. I7 I
met to conclude peace," taking the greatest precautions against
the repetition of the treachery which disgraced the former
meeting of a Bulgarian king with a Byzantine emperor. In
IO47, 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 Blachernae, 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.”
Through the Gate of Blachernae the friends of Alexius Com-
nenus sallied from the city, in IO81, 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.” In Io97, 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 Blachernaº.4 +
In I2O3 these fortifications were attacked by the land forces
of the Fourth Crusade.” 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 Blachernae. Upon
* Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 304; Theophanes Cont., pp. 406-4O9.
* Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 563.
* Anna Comn., ii. p. 104. * Zbid., x. p. 48.
* For the account of the assault, see Ville-Hardouin, Conquête de Consºle., c. 35 ;
Nicetas Chon., pp. 719–723; Count Hugo, in Tafel et Zhomas, p. 309.
172 A YZAAV7 IAVE CONSTAAV7 IAVOA’/A2. [CHAP.
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." -
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 fortifica-
tions from attack by the land forces of an enemy.
* Barbaro, pp. 719–722.
XII.] WAZZ OA' HAERA C/C/U.S. WAZZ OF LEO V. I73
At the same time, for the convenience of traffic, the wall
was pierced by a gate, named, from its material, the Xylo Porta
(EvXóiropra, EvXivn), the Wooden Gate." It was in its place
as late as 1868, and bore an inscription in honour of Theophilus.”
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; *
and sometimes as the gate at the western end of the walls along
the Golden Horn."
Du Cange" identified the Porta Xylo Kerkou with this gate.
But the former was an entrance in the Theodosian lines;" it led
directly into the city, and was built up in the reign of Isaac
Angelus"—facts which did not hold true of the Xylo Porta.
Furthermore, Ducas expressly distinguishes the two entrances.”
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 Blachernae was erected. Therefore
the two entrances cannot be the same gate under different
Ila IIlCS.
In Dr. Mordtmann's opinion,” the Postern of Kallinicus (ro
tic Ka}\\tvíkov trapatrópriov), mentioned by Byzantine writers,”
was the Xylo Porta under an earlier name. And what is
* Cananus, p. 460 ; Phrantzes, p. 237; cf. Ducas, p. 263.
* Paspates, p. 61.
* Cananus, pp. 460, 470, 472; Critobulus, i. c. 27 ; Phrantzes, p. 237.
* Cantacuzene, iv. p. 214; Pusculus, iv. 179.
* Constantinopolis Christiana, lib. i. c. 15, p. 49.
° Banduri, Imperium Orientale, lib. vii. p. 150. -
* Nicetas Chon., p. 529. * Ducas, p. 282.
* Page 37. * Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 784; Theophanes, p. 583.
I74 A VZAAV7 IAWAE CONS 7TAAWT/AWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
known regarding that postern lends support to this view. Like
the Xylo Porta, the Postern of Kallinicus stood near the Church
of Blachernae," and led to the Church of SS. Cosmas and
Damianus in the Cosmidion,” as well as to the bridge across the
head of the Golden Horn.” 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. Kalli-
nicus, after a church of that dedication in its neighbourhood.”
THE BRIDGE ACROSS THE GOLDEN HORN.
The earliest mention of a bridge across the Golden Horn is
found in the Wotitia.” 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,"
which Justinian the Great constructed in 528, “so that one might
pass,” as the Paschal Chronicle" expresses it, “from the opposite
side (ätrö täc àvrt trépav) to the all-happy city.” The new build-
ing went by various names in the course of its long history. It
was known as the Bridge of Justinian (ā 'Iovartviavod yépupa),” in
honour of its constructor; as the Bridge of St. Kallinicus (m yeſpupa
rod aviov Ka}\\tvikov),” after a church dedicated to that saint near
its southern end ; as the Bridge of St. Panteleemon (i) too aylov
IIavrexefluovoc yépupa)," after a church of that name at its northern
end; as the Bridge of Camels (ii Tâc Kapıſıxov yépupa),” on account,
probably, of its frequent use by caravans of camels, bringing
. º pp. 582, 583. . #. . º:
(ZJC/2(? 7:07t., p. 720. eophanes Cont., p. 34O.
* Ad Reg. XIV. " Ville-Hardouin, c. 33.
* Paschal Chron., p. 618.
* Theophanes Cont., p. 340; Synaxaria, July 29.
* Paschal Chron., p. 720. * Attaliotes, p. 251.
" Cantacuzene, i. pp. 290, 305; iii. p. 501.
XII.] 7THE BAC/DG E A CROSS THE GO/C/D/E/V AIORAW. I75
charcoal to the city; as the Bridge of Blachernae," from the
district in which it stood. Whether it was the bridge of twelve
arches near St. Mamas mentioned by the Anonymus and
Codinus * is uncertain, for we cannot be sure that all references
to the Church of St. Mamas allude to the church of that dedica-
tion which stood outside the walls of the city, and overlooked
the head of the Golden Horn.
The bridge crossed the Barbyses” (Kiat-haneh Sou, one of
the streams commonly styled “The Sweet Waters of Europe”),
where that stream enters the Golden Horn,” in the district of the
Cosmidion" (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 pilae Cernuntur lapideae antiqui pontis, sed non
extra aquam eminentes nisi aliquando a state, sitae inter angulum
urbis Blacherneum et suburbium, quod Turci appellant Aiba-
sarium.” "
In the siege of 627 the flotilla of log-boats, which the
Slavonian allies of the Avars brought to take part in the opera-
tions, was moored behind this bridge, watching for an opportunity
to descend into the Golden Horn, and harass the northern side
of the city." 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
* John Tzetzes, as quoted by Gyllius and Du Cange, zef infra.
* III. p. 58. Page 3o.
* Nicephorus Patriarcha CP., p. 30 ; where it is named too Bapwiſororov :
Theophanes Cont., p. 340, too Baffiporov.
* Leo Diaconus, p. 129; Cinnamus, p. 75.
* Anna Comn., x. p. 47. Nicetas Choniates, p. 719, adds that near the bridge
stood a perforated rock, Tputerov Affov.
* De Top. CP., iv. c. 6; see, on the whole subject, Du Cange, Constantinopolis
Christiana, iv. p. 179. * Paschal Chron., p. 720.
I76 A YZAAV7/AVE COMSTAAV7 IAWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
Hiereia (Fener Bagtohèssi, 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 insuper-
able 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)" to the
opposite Asiatic shore, the parapets of the bridge being con-
structed 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.”
Near the bridge the Crusaders, under Godfrey de Bouillon,
encamped in 1096.” Over it the Crusaders, under the Emperor
Conrad, passed in II.47, to ravage the suburbs on the northern
side of the harbour.” 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 Blachernae. “Et là
(i.e. au bout du port)," to quote the picturesque language of
Ville-Hardouin,” “il y a un fleuve qui se jette dans la mer, qu'on
* Gyllius, De Bosporo Thracio, ii. c. 13.
* Nicephorus Patriarcha CP., pp. 28–30.
* Anna Comn., x. p. 47. * Cinnamus, p. 75. * Chap. 33.
XII.] THAE BR/DGAE A CROSS THAE GOZZO E/V HOR/V. 177
- r" --- -- = - z = --E- =rz ,- .. F *,-" , + - " " -- •r- • TR - - -
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 I328, and once in I345,
Cantacuzene * 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.
* Lib. i. pp. 29o, 3o5 ; iii. p. 5oI.
178 AP V.ZA/VT/AVE CONSTAAWTIAWOP/LAE. - [CHAP.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE SEAWARD WALLS.
OWING to the unique maritime position occupied by Constanti-
nople, 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," it was the dread of those currents that, in
12O4, deterred the Venetian fleet, under Dandolo, from attack-
ing the walls beside the Sea of Marmora, after the failure of the
attempt upon the fortifications along the Golden Horn.
* La Conquête de Constantinople, c. 52 : “Et il y en eut assez qui conseillièrent
qu'on allāt de l'autre côté de la ville, du cöté ou elle n'était passi 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.
XIII.] THE SEA WARD WAZA.S. I79
Other natural allies to withstand a naval attack were, more-
over, 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." In 825, a tempest compelled Thomas,
the rival of Michael II., to withdraw his ships from action ;”
while in 865 a storm destroyed the first Russian flotilla that
entered the Bosporus.” 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 I2O4
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.” 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 Blachernae, on the one hand,
and the Golden Gate, on the other. g
The history of the repair of these walls from time to time is
* Theophanes, pp. 607, 608. * Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 82.
* Leo Gram., p. 241. * See Map of Byzantine Constantinople.
18O A YZAAVTIAWAE CONSTA NTIAWOP/LAE. [CHAP.
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 I
—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.”
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 61O, 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
* See below, p. 263.
* Patriarch Constantius, Ancient and Modern Constantinople, p. 21. The in-
scription was in the same terms as that in honour of Constantine on the Porta
Rhousiou. See above, p. 47.
XIII.] THE SAE A WA RD WAZZ.S. I81
fleet in the AEgean 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." Some
eight years later, however, Anastasius II. found it expedient to
attend to the seaward walls again,” 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 I2OO 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 Bagtohessi) to the city, and from
Chrysopolis to Galata, and as far as Mamas at the head of the
Golden Horn.”
At length the ice divided again, and as its several parts
swayed in the Swollen currents, one huge iceberg came dashing
* Anonymus, iii. p. 56. * Theophanes, p. 589.
* Theophanes, pp. 670, 671 ; Nicephorus Patriarcha CP., pp. 76, 77.
I82 A YZA WT/AWE CONSTA WT/WOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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.” Under the former
emperor the rebel Thomas had besieged the city and forced the
chain across the enträfice 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 AEgean. 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
y
says the chronicler,
3 y 2
expense. “The gold coins of the realm,'
“were spent as freely as if worthless pebbles.
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 fre-
quently. 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 :
* Genesius, p. 75; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. IO7. * Manasses, 4824–4829.
XIII.] THE SEA WARD WALL.S. 183
On the curtain-wall immediately to the north of Deïrmen
Kapoussi, in one long line of sixty feet, is the legend :
JCG XPICTGTGIXOCAPPATGCKękTHMIGNOC
ÄNºðGOEINCICGVCéEHICAEWTOKPKTº HTGIPG
travtoreIXoceKEAEPENNIGGREGreºVNAT
tetºke|ATécoVHANTANAEKAeHoNAVTOMé
ICAICŞNºNTEA8CE KNCNHTONECT?
#FFrontº f{G}o.
“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 preserva-
tion of the whole line of the fortifications erected by Theophilus.
On the first tower to the south of Deirmen Kapoussi are the
words:
f IIYPTOC OEOdb|AOY IIICTOY EN XGD METAAOY BAOIAE(00.
AYTOKPATOPoo f
“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.”
IO XP
NI KA
A similar inscription stands on the second tower south of
the gate:
f IIYPTOO ©EOdb|AOY EN XPIOTG) AYTOKPATOPOC f 1
“Tower of Theophilus, Emperor in Christ.”
Fragmentary inscriptions to the same effect are seen on the
third, sixth, seventh, and ninth towers south of Deirmen Kapoussi.
* See illustration facing p. 248.




fºr- ~i=>s---was--ºr---------------------- * =~ - --------- - - -- ~~~~~ -, -r-j- - + r- w - - ~~~., -
- *
f
:
i -
184 A VZAM7INE CONSTANTINOP/A2. [CHAP.
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."
The Gate of St. Barbara (Top Kapoussi) bore the inscription:
(B)EOóIAOC . . . EKAINICAC IIOAIN.
“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 :
IIYPTOC (8)BOqPIAOY EN X(1) AYTOKPATOPOC
According to the same author,” 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,” 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 exe-
cuted by Theophilus ; the last three give, moreover, the approxi-
mate date of one portion of the work, Michael III. being the
associate of his father from 839-842.
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
* Vol. i. numbers 8, Io, I9.
* Von Hammer, Constantinopolis und Bosporos, vol. i. appendix, numbers 23,
*...* inscriptions are noted also by Tournefort, Voyage du Zezant, lettre xi.
* Proceedings of the Greek Ziterary Syllogos of Consple., vol. xvi., 1885; Archaeo-
logical Supplement, p. 31.
wae- -> .….…. < -FRF FF （№№FºĘ №： №, №ž;}
�º /. £Ź№ſſº№ſſº№;ſſſſ ºſſºžº į
Ëſ,%ſ\}\})\ }{ r（;\;\{i \\ }}{{ {{ {{！}} | }} \\}\\}\}';
* • •* AS...）！ 5ș =! ?\\}}{įſ}$ : ~º$ $';º.
?#’’,2… \\})}
\，
‘ ， , ， \, ，
ſiłº，
Ț, （Tºſſ （; , , > -
f? ¿| {({ \g,
º º, }}}· · · ·.
§
d &:
b->
£y *...
Mº-
§
ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſĀN((）)，}，\\
¿¿ {{hjiJÈ№
° W） • sſ? ',�*
& \，\！\！\！\！\"\}\\
Tj; ， \ /， º!“， }ſ }ſ<$%&' } ſ &&\ſ/, N, ;';šīſ\ 7\;\\ſ/, '\\ſ*} ſ\ſ*';fz,
#\{)}}¿Q№j()Ķ|Ģſ)};}}]
ſ'）}{（ſ）}）;§Jºviſ�/\t/）)!！!!!！!!！!
«*●
Š
،
{}^{}]）'N(ſ)}
*
* III TTIVHOIW RIORIGIÀIWGI GIHJ, JO NIQONOH NI NOILIIŅIOSNI
ŽĀTŅCĪŅĀ, ĶĪ
«№ : S\,\! jſ！！! !
$ $ $ ºlī●
·ș\!،
J'S
g ~e
tº W. Lº
.*
2_№.
！！！！！！***•w• • •
ĶĶīĒRĶī£5ĀZĒ,
{)|\}H（X||WÉ
ſſſſſſ|N/）){）}\，\！
Š |}\\?�;\v,� �\\//� • *
ſaesae
•
}
• ！ ）•
ſ',•）,
!,’



















XIII.] THE SEA WA RD WAZA.S. 185
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 satis-
factory 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 sea-
ward 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 commemo-
rate 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 (ai XXoAaſ,
of XXoAápiot).
FIRST SLAB.
(a)NKPATA1(1)CAGCTIOCANT(a)NTOVC
TITUDCMIXAHTVOAGCTIOTHC AIABAP
SECOND SLAB.
IAENOCTIPOCVYOCHEVKOCIIIAIITO
GUNCXOAGUNAGJMeCTIKOVH; #1PeTeP
THIRD SLAB.
HG) en EICTHNTEIXOCGEETEPKOTO
NONGUPAelCMATHTIONelſº ºf XY |
* Cf. Proceedings of the Greek Ziterary Syllogos of Consple., vol. xvi., 1885;
Archaeological Supplement, p. 32. The following reading of the inscription has been
Suggested:
IIoMAów Kparatós 8eo Toordvrov too ord Aov
‘AAA’ oiðevös Tpos ū!os [eikoortv Troöðv]*
Tô BAm6&v eis yºv tetxos éémyepkóros
* Read instead, h eikoopaſav. Cf. Mordtmann, p. 53.
I86 BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
An inscription on a tower at the eastern side of the entrance
to the old harbour at Koum Kapoussi (Kontoscalion) commemo-
rated repairs by Leo the Wise and his brother and colleague
Alexander: - -
f IIYPTOO AEONTOC K AAEEAN f
The first tower west of Ahour Kapoussi was rebuilt by
Basil II. in 1024, after its overthrow by storms. It bears the
inscription :
ON THC (8)AAAACCHC (3)PAYOMOC EN MAKP(I) XPONG)
KAYAGONI IIOAACo KAI Cºbo APGo PHTNYMENHO IIECEIN
KATANATEACE IIYPTON EK BAG)PGUN BACIAEIOC
HTEIPEN EYCEBHO ANAE ETOYO SOAB
“In the year 1024, Basil, the pious Sovereign, erected from the founda-
tions, 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”
(rów Trépywu Töv \eyouévov Baqi)\etov, Aéovroc, kai 'AAsšiov).
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
[Tavov) drópºrtos Mixa)\ 6 Seo Tórms
Atô Bápôa [patorſpou]* oxoMáv Šopleotikov
[Tô 8 mpe k\etvöv]* @pdetopa Tj IIó\et.
* Read instead, röv.
* Read instead, #yelpe reprwöv. Dr. Mordtmann reads EYKOCMIAN
instead of EIKOOINTIOAGON, OECMEIKOTA instead of EEETEPKOTOC,
and adds COY to the last line.
XIII.] THE SEA WARD WA/L/.S. 187
returned home in their own vessel, and with all their posses-
sions.” Dr. Paspates” 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.
*-
-...-----> **
*gy º:#tº
Hºwº
iſºſºſºlºiſſºiſſºliºſiſ
" * - 5.
- > -º-º-º-º-º:
ºr.
“Restored by Manuel Comnenus, the Christ-loving King, Porphyrogenitus,
and Emperor of the Romans, in the year II64.”
According to Cinnamus,” the Emperor Manuel Comnenus
repaired the city walls, wherever necessary.*
* Phrantzes, pp. 287, 288.
* Page IoI. 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, rôv trºpyov), and as a single tower (p. 288, too triſpyov). (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.
* Page 274. -
* 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:
OY TON d'HACA)YPIOTON AIEOIIOTON
ETOC KOCMOY TECOAPHC KAI AEKATOY
The second is on the second tower west of Ahour Kapoussi:
MBAIGONNOOM TEIX HNEOYPTEI KAI py AATEI









I88 A YZAAWTINE CONSTAAWTIAWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
Upon the restoration of the Greek Empire in 1261 the
condition of the seaward walls became a matter of graver impor-
tance 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 Palaeologus
established the Genoese at Galata. A hostile power was then
planted at the very gates of the capital; a foreign fleet com-
manded 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 Palaeologus, therefore, after
the recovery of the city, was to put the fortifications in a con-
dition to repel the expected attempt of the Latins to regain the
place." 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.” /
But later in his reign he conceived the ambitious idea of
* Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 186, 187. * Three pikes.
XIII.] THE SAE A WARD WAZA.S. 189
making the walls along the shores of the city, like the land
walls, a double line of bulwarks." The new fortifications, how-
ever, cannot have been a piece of solid work, for no traces of
them have survived.”
Repairs were again executed upon the seaward walls when
Andronicus II. undertook the general restoration of the for-
CoAT-OF-ARMS OF ANDRONICUS II. PALAEOLOGUS.*
tifications of the city." Until recently a slab bearing the
monogram and coat-of-arms of that emperor, a lion rampant,
* Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 364; Nicephoras Greg., v. p. 124; Metrical Chronicle,
pp. 657–661.
* Dr. Paspates (pp. 208, 209) considered the land wall of the Seraglio enclosure
to be the work of Michael Palaeologus. 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 (róv BaoruMetov čvrös). 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,
Bučavruvâ 'Avákropa, p. 183. There is an English translation of this work by Mr.
Metcalfe. t
* From Broken Bits of Byzantium. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
* Nicephorus Greg., vii. p. 275; Nicephorus Callistus, in the Dedication of his
Aſistory to Andronicus II.

I90 A PZAAVT/AWE COMSTA WTYWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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."
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 fortifica-
tions, 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.”
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.” He also carried the
towers higher, by erecting, in the manner usual on such occa-
sions, constructions of timber on their summits. And not
* Nicephorus Greg., ix. p. 460.
* Cantacuzene, iv. p. 70; Nicephorus Greg., xvii. chaps. i.-vii.
* Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 212, 213; Nicephorus Greg., xxvi. pp. 83, 84.
xIII.] THAZ SAE A WA R/O WA / Z.S. I91
satisfied with these precautions, he even excavated a deep
moat in front of the Harbour Walls, all the way from the Gate
Xyline, at Aivan Serai, to the Gate of Eugenius (Yali Kiosk
Kapoussi), near the Seraglio Point. -
A trace of these repairs is found in a slab on the tower
Žeznayºr? % zirzcº, ***66."
BAS-RELIEF, ON THE TOWER EAST OF DJUBALI KAPOUSSI, RE-
PRESENTING THE THREE HEBREW YOUTHS CAST INTO THE FIERY
FURNACE OF BABYLON, AS DESCRIBED IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL."
immediately to the east of the gate Djubali Kapoussi,” bearing a
lion rampant, and the name of Manuel Phakrasè Catacuzene
(MANOYHA q AKPACH TOY KATAKOYCHNOY), who was
Proto-strator under Cantacuzene, and distinguished himself by
* From Broken Bits of Byzantium. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.) The
bas-relief has been removed to the Imperial Museum.
* See below, p. 209.

I92 A YZANTIAWE CONSTA WT/WOAZAZ. [CHAP.
- -- - - - - -ºs.º. -r “w - - ºr . º- *** -i- ºr ---"Tºº-º-º-º: " " --~~~~ • * ~ *
his conduct in the defence of Selivria, in 1341, and in the siege
of Galata, ten years later."
In 1434 the Harbour Walls called for some slight repair,
in consequence of another Genoese attack upon them. An expe-
dition 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 80OO 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, like-
wise, 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.” /
Two inscriptions, preserved by Dr. A. D. Mordtmann * in his
work on the last siege of the city,” 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 :
AOYK
NOTAPAS
AIEPMHNEYTOY
“Of Luke Notaras, the Interpreter.”
* Cantacuzene, iii. p. 585; iv. p. 196. See Proceedings of Greek Ziterary Syllogos
of Consple, 1885; Archaeological Supplement, pp. 37, 38.
* Chalcocondylas, pp. 285, 286.
* The father of Dr. Mordtmann, whose work on the topography of the city has
been so often cited.
* Belagerung und Eroberung Constantinopels durch die Tirken in Şahre 1453,
note 27, p. 132; Stuttgart, J. G., Cottascher Verlag. -
-- ------HP---------
XIII.] 7THE SAEA WARD WA/C/.S. I93
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. Palaeologus, in carrying on negotiations with Sultan
Murad.* 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 Palaeologus it had been held
by Nicholas Notaras, the father of Lucas Notaras.”
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.
f ANEKENIC
(3)HN OY TOC
O IIYPTOO KAI
ROPTINA Y
ITO TECOPTI
OY AECIIOTOY
CEPBIAC . . . --
EN ETEI SNYS
“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.”
* Ducas, pp. 196, 275; cf. Phrantzes, p. I 18.
* 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).
* See above, p. 107.
I94. A VZAAV7"/AVE COMWS 7.4 MWT/AVO PM.A. [CHAP.
— —-º-º-º-º-º- — — — ——-------------------a --- ~~---------, -w-r-----…-e -- F - ~ *—rrºr-rr -— • *- ~~~~--, *, - A- * ... -- ; →r—--- = ºr
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 Blachernae, and, excepting a small portion, con-
sisted of a single wall, flanked, according to Bondelmontius, by
a hundred and ten towers."
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 leſt 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
I2O3 and I2O4, 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.” 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.
* Zăbrum Insularum Archipelagi. * Ville-Hardouin, c. xxxvi., lii., liii.
XIV.] TAHAE WAZA.S. A ZOAVG THE GO/LDEAV HORAV. I95
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
Rutchuk Aivan Serai Kapoussi—“the Small Gate of Aivan
Serai.” ". It stands at the head of a short street leading south-
wards to the site of the famous Church of the Theotokos of
Blachernae, while to the north is the landing of Aivan Serai
Iskelessi, which accommodates this quarter of the city. Here,
probably, was the Porta Kiliomenè (Kot)\touévn IIópra),” at which
the emperors—as late, at least, as the beginning of the thirteenth
century—landed and were received by the Senate, when pro-
ceeding by water to visit the Church or the Palace of Blachernae.
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 ('Atroſłó0pa roo Baat)\éoc) mentioned by
Nicetas Choniates. Some authorities, it is true, place that land-
ing at Balat Kapoussi. But it could not have been there when
Nicetas Choniates wrote ; for that historian * refers to the Apoba-
thra of the Emperor to indicate the position of the Wall of Leo,
which was attacked by the Latins in I2O3. 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.
* Evlia Tchelebi. Aivan Serai means the Palace of the Porch, or Verandah.
The name refers, probably, to the Palace of Blachermae.
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 542, cf. p. 551. In the Bonn Edition the term
is translated, “Depressa et in humilius deducta.”
* Page 721, to tetxos 6 trapareíval trpos 6d) acrorav Trept rôtrov ôs âtroſłóðpa
too Baoru)\éos divápaortat. Cf. Ville-Hardouin, c. 35: “un avant-mur . . . près
de la mer.”
196 A VZAAVTINE CONSTA MTV/VOPEE. [CHAP.
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 phoenixes,
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. Panteleon reposed in
the adjoining Church of the Theotokos of Blachernae.”
In the street to the rear of the tower is the small Mosque
Toklou Dedë Mesdjidi, formerly, it is supposed, the Church
of St. Thekla,” in the quarter of Blachernae.
On the east side of the street leading from the Porta
Kiliomenê to the Church of Blachernae 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” the building is supposed to
have been the Porticus Cariana (Kaptavöv "Euſ?oxov), 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.* w
The Bay of Aivan Serai was called the Bay of Blachernae
(ó trooc BXaxépwaç kóAtrog), and had a dockyard known as the
Neorion at Blachernae (rö Év BAaxépvac veðptov).”
Proceeding eastwards, a few paces bring us to a breach in
the wall leading to the Mosque Atik Mustapha Pasha Djamissi,
* Itinéraires Russes en Orient, p. 124.
* Paspates, pp. 357-360. Cf. Theophanes Cont., pp. I47, 148; Anna Comn.,
iii. p. 166. -
* Mordtmann, p. 39.
* 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.
* Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365.
xIV.] THE WALLS ALONG THE GOLDEN HORN. I97
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 Blachernae. 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." 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 Palaeologus dated I342, mention
is made of the Gate of St. Anastasia (IIüXm rāc àytaç 'Avaara-
ortag) in this part of the city.” 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 Blachernae.”
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 (roo Kavaſºod), and may,
as the Patriarch Constantius suggests,” 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.” In 1334, the church
* Paspates, p. 317 ; Du Cange, Constantinopolis Christiana, iv. p. II6.
* NeoMáyov Egóopačuaía Eſtuffed pmots, January 3, 1893, p. 203.
* Itinéraires Russes en Orient, p. 233.
* >vyypaſhai ai’EAdorooves, p. 441. * Nicetas Chon., pp. 744–746.
198 ByzawTINE CONSTANTINOPZE. [CHAP.
was the property of George Pepagomenos, a relative of Andro-
nicus III." 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).” -
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 aulae magni Constantini. Ad dextrum
portae latus adstat Angelus a candido et eleganti marmore effigi-
atus, statura celsior, ac virilem prae se ferens, et inserto muro.
Ad laevam, Deipara visitur, proportione priore consimilis, atque
ab Angelo consulatuta.” ” r
Only the bas-relief which stood on the eastern side of the
archway has survived to our time.” 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.”
* Acta Patriarchatus C.P., vol. i. p. 568.
* Gedeon, Xpovuka toû IIatpuapxukoč Oikov kai too Naoû, pp. 72–75.
* Caesarea Legatio, pars. iii. p. 94 (Vienna, I668).
* It is now in the Imperial Museum.
* Ancient and Modern Constantinople, p. I5.
Nikè (FoRMERLY ADoRNING ARchway NEAR Balat KAPoussi).

XIV.] ZTA/E WAZZS A LOMG THE GOZZDEAV AZOAAW. I99
Regarding the precise object of these four entrances, and the
names to be attached to them, a serious difference of opinion pre-
vails. Most authorities maintain that the archway adorned with
the bas-relief was the Gate of the Kynegos, of the Hunter (roº
Kvvmyoo, rôv Kvvmyöv), so frequently mentioned in the later days
of the Empire; and that Balat Kapoussi was the Pylè Basilikë
(IIſºm Baqi)\tkm) 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 men-
tioned 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, praese gerentes speciem portus obruti.” "
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 re-
garding Balat Kapoussi as the Gate of the Kynegos, but place the
* 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.
2OO A VZANT/WE CONSTA WT/AWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
Basilikè Pylè near the eastern extremity of the Harbour Walls,
Gerlach' identifying it with Yali Kiosk Kapoussi, Leunclavius’
with Bagtohè 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 con-
cavus, ubi Patriarchion erat meae 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, how-
ever, 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,” 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,” be-
tween the Xylo Porta and the Petrion ; according to Pusculus,”
* Tagebuch der Gesandschaft an die Ottomanische Pforte durch David Ungmad,
p. 454. All subsequent references to Gerlach are to this Diary of his visit to Con-
stantinople, 1573–1578.
* Pand. Hist. Turc., s. 200. * See below, pp. 230–240.
* Page 254. * IV. p. 181.
XIV.] THE WA L/LS A LO/WG THE GOLDEAV HORAV. 2OI
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," and the point at which persons approach-
ing that palace from the Golden Horn disembarked and took
horses to reach the Imperial residence.” 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.” 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.” Nicholas Barbaro” applies the
name even to the territory near the Xylo Porta; for, accord-
ing 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
* N. Barbaro, p. 789. -
* Clavijo, p. 14, “Il fut décidé que les ambassadeurs retourneraient (from Pera)
à Constantinople mercredi, par la porte nomée “Quinigo,' ou 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 Con-
stantinople et trouvèrent bientôt le dit sieur Hilaire et d'autres personnes de la cour,
près de la porte de “Quinigo,' ou ils les attendaient ; ils montèrent à cheval et parti-
rent pour visiter une église nommée Sancta Maria de la Cherne (St. Mary of
Blachernae).”
* Acta Patriarchatus C.P., i. p. 568, year 1334. -
* Ducas, p. 279 ; cf. Barbaro, p. 789. * Page 728.
2O2 BYZA/VT/WE COAVSTA WT/AVOA’/A2. [CHAP.
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." 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 desti-
nation could be more accurately ascertained than at present,
Gyllius found that they formed the entrances to an artificial har-
bour 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 Blachernae, 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 Blachernae is
* Page 720.
xiv.] THE WALLS Azowg THE GOLDEN HORN. 203
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 Palaeologi, 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 Kyne-
gos: “Près de la porte de Quinigo.”" The galleys sent by the
Council of Basle to convey John VII. Palaeologus 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
(sic rov Kuvnyov). 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.”
During the siege of I453 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.” 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 appli-
cation of the names Basilikè Pylè, and Gate of the Kynegos must
proceed upon the indisputable fact that the epithet “Imperial,”
* Clavijo, Constantinople, Ses Sanctuaires et ses Reliques, pp. 14, 15.
* See Aistory 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 Vera Historia Unionis non Vera inter Graecos et Zatinos, sive Concili:
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.
* Historia Politica, p. 19.
2O4 BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
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" 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.”
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,” such as existed on the side of the city facing Scutari ;
and in favour of this opinion is the term “Kynegesion ” (row
Kvvmysatov), employed by Phrantzes * 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 (6 Towrokvvmyoc) was an
official of some importance. Besides directing his subordinates,
* Pages 254, 255.
* 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.
* Leunclavius, Pand. Hist. Turc., S. 200.
* Page 254.
+ xiv.] THE WALLS A LOAVG THE GO/LDEAV HORAV. 2O5
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."
A gate, known as the Gate of St. John the Forerunner
and Baptist (IIópra toû a ytov IIpoëpóuov kai Bairrtorov), was also
situated in the quarter of the Kynegon, and near the Church
of St. Demetrius.” 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 dedi-
cation, 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” 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.”
* Codinus, De Officiis CP, p. 39.
* Acta Patriarchatus C.P., vol. i. p. 568, year 1334: "O TA mortov Tów oikmudrov
airoč, rôv repi Tºv tróptav too dyſov kai évôáčov IIpoëpópov kai Battuoroo
kará têv Kvvmyów, 8takeſpevos travorettos vaēs toū āv pºdprwort repugoñrov,
pupoſłAörov kai 6avpatovpyot dyſov Amumpſov.
Beyond all reasonable doubt, this was the same gate as the Gate of St. John
mentioned in the Chrysočoullon of John Palaeologus, 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 NeoAdyov Egoopa-
8tata Etruffed pmots, of January 3, 1893. The identity of the two gates is confirmed
by the reference in the Chrysočoulſon to Kanabus (roſ) Kavá9m), the eponym of the
Church of St. Demetrius.
* Page 40. * Vol. ii. p. 582.
206 A VZANTINE COAVSTA WT/AWOPLE. ſchar.
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." This designation was,
doubtless, the rendering of the Byzantine name of the gate, for
the adjoining quarter, as appears first in a document dated I35 I,
went by its present name, Phanari (rotroffsota toû pavápt),” 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* (rö káarpov Tów
IIerptov), after Petrus, Master of the Offices in the reign of
Justinian the Great;” and the surrounding district was named
the Petrion (IIerptov, Tă IIerpta,” “Regio Petri Patricii").” It
must be carefully distinguished from the district of Petra (IIárpa),
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,"
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.”
Dr. Mordtmann” identifies it with the Porta Sidhera (Sièmpa
IIöAm), near the Convent of the Petrion.” That the Petrion was
not confined to the Castron, but included territory on either
* Pusculus, iv. 189; Zorzo Dolfin, s. 55.
* Acta Patriarchatus C.P., vol. i. p. 32 I. -
* Ibid., p. 72.I. * Anonymus, ii. p. 35 ; cf. i. p. 20.
* Nicetas Chon., p. 753.
* Antony of Novgorod, in Itinéraires Russes en Orient, p. 99.
* Leunclavius, Pand. Hist. Zºurc., S. 200. * Metrical Chronicle, line 259.
* Page 41. * Anna Comm., iii. p. IO3; Bryennius, iii. p. 126.
XIV.] 7TP/A2 IVA Z.Z.S. A ZOAVG ZTA/E GO/LZD EAV HORAV. 2O7
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."
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.” 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;* Theodora, by her sister the
Empress Zoe ; * and Delassaina, the mother of the Comneni,
with her daughters and daughters - in-law, by Nicephorus
Botoniates.”
In the assaults made by foreign fleets upon the Harbour
Walls, the Petrion, or Phanar, occupied a conspicuous place.
It was before the Petrion" that the Venetian galleys under
Dandolo stood, July 17, I2O3, 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, I2O4, when Con-
stantinople 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
* Ville-Hardouin, c. 36; Nicetas Chon., p. 722.
* Anonymus, ii. p. 39. * Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 296. * Ibid., p. 537.
* Anna Comm., ii. p. 103. * Nicetas Chon. ; Ville-Hardouin, ut supra.
2O8 A YZAAVT/WE COA/S 7"AAV7'/AVOA’A. AE. [CHAP.
* * * * - – ---. . . . ~-- - -r º – :- -ºr - -w - & - r- - r ----- , -º - - - - -- * : * ~ * ~ * *:F. -->4, , , ... • *** -- 3:1 ºv
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."
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.” 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).”
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 Divae Theodosiae
(IIöAm Tic ‘Aytaç 0808ootag),” so named in honour of the adjoin-
ing Church of St. Theodosia (now Gul Djamissi), the first martyr
* Nicetas Chon., pp. 753, 754; Ville-Hardouin, c. 52, 53.
* N. Barbaro, p. 818.
* Patriarch Constantius, Ancient and Modern Consple., pp. 85, 86. The church
was erected or restored by Maria, the natural daughter of Michael Palaeologus,
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 Patri-
archatus CP, vol. i. p. 321, year 1351).
* Phrantzes, p. 254; Pusculus, iv. I90.
, - 'w - -a - -
XIV.] THE WAZA.S. A ZOAVG THE GO//DAZAV AſORAV. 209
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.” This identification rests upon
the fact that while Pachymeres” 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.” Only by the supposition that the Church of St.
Theodosia stood in the district of Dexiocrates can these state-
ments be reconciled. The church is first mentioned by Antony
of Novgorod.” 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 congre-
gation off into slavery.”
The next gate, Djubali Kapoussi, must be the entrance
styled Porta Putea by Pusculus,” and Porta del Pozzo by Zorzo
Dolfin ;’ 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 Putea. Although no Byzantine author has
mentioned the Porta Putea by its Greek name, there can be no
doubt that the name in vogue among foreigners was the trans-
lation, more or less exact, of the native style of the entrance,
and that consequently the gate marks the point designated
Ispigas (sic TInyàc) by the Chronista Novgorodensis, in his account
of the operations of the Venetian fleet against the harbour forti-
fications on the 12th of April, I2O4. The ships of the Crusaders,
* Codinus, De S. Sophia, p. 147; Anonymus, ii. p. 34.
* Vol. ii. pp. 452–455. * Synaxaria, May 29.
* Itinéraires Russes en Orient, p. 104. * Ducas, p. 293.
* IV. 191. * S. 55.
2 IO A YZAM7T/WE CO/WSTAAV7//VOA’ CAE. [CHAP.
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 Blachernae, on the west: “Cum solis ortu
Steterunt, in conspectu ecclesiae Sancti Redemptoris, quae dicitur
toū Eüspyérou, et Ispigarum, Blachernis tenus.” "
The name of the gate alluded to the suburb of Pegae (TInyai),
situated directly opposite, on the northern shore of the harbour,
and noted for its numerous springs of water. Dionysius Byzan-
tius, in his Amaplus of the Golden Horn and the Bosporus,”
describes the locality at length, naming it Krenides (Kpmytêsc).
on account of its flowing springs (trnyatov), which gave the
district the character of marshy ground. The suburb appears
under the name Pegae 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 Blachernae to
the Church of St. Conon and the suburb of Pegae, to prevent
the enemy's flotilla of boats in the streams at the head of the
Golden Horn from descending into the harbour.”
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.” It appears again in the
old Records of the Genoese colony of Galata in the fourteenth
* Chroniques Graeco-Romaines, pp. 96, 97. Dr. Mordtmann thinks that this point
is referred to also in the Treaty of Michael Palaeologus with the Venetians in 1265,
when that emperor allowed the Venetians to occupy any point from the old Arsenal
to Pegae (ättö täs traXavās ééapriots pºéxpt kai Tôv IImyów). The passage is
ambiguous, for there was an old arsenal and a suburb Pegae on the northern side of
the Golden Horn, and the concession was outside the city.
* Edition of C. Weseler, Paris, 1874. Cf. Gyllius, De Bosporo Zºhracio, ii. c. iv.
* Paschal Chron., p. 720, 721.
* /timeraires Russes en Orient, pp. 88, Io'ſ, IOS. 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).
XIV.] THE WA LL.S. A ZOMG THE GOLDEAV HORN. 2 I I
century, under the name Spiga, or De Spiga, to the west of
that town." Critobulus calls it the Cold Waters (Yvypô "Yèara),
placing it on the bay into which Sultan Mehemet brought
his ships over the hills from the Bosporus.”
As appears from the passage of the Chronista Novgorodensis,
cited above, near the Porta Putea 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 I2O3, reduced to ashes the quarters
extending from Blachernae as far east as that monastery.”
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, I2O4 ; * while the fire
which illuminated the victory of that day started in the neigh-
bourhood of that religious house, and raged eastwards to the
quarter of Drungarius.” During the Latin occupation the Vene-
tians established a dockyard on the shore in the vicinity of the
monastery;" the adjoining district, including the Church of
Pantocrator’ (now Zeirek Klissè Djamissi) and the Church of
Pantopoptes * (now Eski Imaret Mesdjidi), on the Fourth Hill,
being their head-quarters.
* Desimoni, Giornale Zigustico, anno iii., Genoa, 1876.
* Lib. i. c. 42 ; cf. Mordtmann, p. 43.
* Nicetas Chon., iii. p. 722 ; Ville-Hardouin, c. 36.
* Ibid., p. 754; Chroniques Graeco-Romaines, p. 96.
* Ibid., ut supra ; Ville-Hardouin, c. 54.
* Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365; Zafe/ und Zhomas, ii. p. 284.
* Taſel und Zhomas, ii. pp. 46, 348. -
* 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 (Taſel und Zhomas, ii. pp. 47–49).
2 I 2 Aº V.ZAAV7/WE COMWSTAAV7/AWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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," evidently the Porta of the Platea
(IIópra ric IIAaréac) mentioned by Ducas.” 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 (IIAarºa),” and contained
the churches dedicated respectively to St. Laurentius and the
Prophet Isaiah.” 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.” If the legend on Bondel-
montius' map may be trusted, this gate bore also the name
Mesé, 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
* Pusculus, iv. 192; Dolfin, s. 55. * Ducas, p. 282.
* Anonymus, ii. p. 39 ; Acta Patriarchatus CP., ii. p. 461 ; Itinéraires Russes
en Orient, pp. IO4, IOS.
* According to Dr. Paspates (pp. 381-383), respectively, Pour Kouyou Mesdjidi,
and Sheik Mourad Mesdjidi. -
* Ducas, ut supra.
XV.] THE WA. Z.A.S A/COMG ZTAZAZ GO/L/O EAV HORAV. 2I3
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 (rov
ăytov 'Akáktov, Tāv Kapuāv, Šv Tà Baqi)\tkº IIápra)' does not appear
very probable. The Church of St. Acacius, situated in the
Tenth Region,” 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.” 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 Basilikë
was a gate in the Wall of Constantine. The Church of St. Acacius
stood near a palace erected by that emperor (TAmatov rôv
oikmuárov too ugyáAov Kovaravrívov): * or, as described elsewhere,
was a small chapel (oiktokov sinkráptov) near a palace named
Karya, because close to a walnut-tree on which the saint
was supposed to have suffered martyrdom by hanging." The
Porta Basilikè may have been a gate leading into the court of
that palace.
The three succeeding gates, Odoun Kapan Kapoussi, Zindan
* Mordtmann, pp. 7, 8, 45; Du Cange, iv. ad St. Acacium. See above, p. 32.
* Motitia, ad Reg. X. * Socrates, ii. c. xx. ; Theophanes, p. 70.
* Du Cange, ut supra. * /özd., vi. c. xxi.
2I4 A VZAAV7/AVE CONSTA WTVAWOPLE. [CHAP.
Kapoussi, Balouk Bazaar Kapoussi, bore respectively the names
Gate of the Drungarii (rów Apovyyaptov); Gate of the Forerunner
(Porta juxta parvum templum Precursoris, known also as St.
Johannes de Cornibus); Gate of the Perama or Ferry (roß
IIspáuaroc). 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 succes-
sive 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;" the Gate of the Perama,
its eastern extremity;” 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. Conse-
quently, 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 (rów Apovyyaptov) derived its
name from the term “Drungarius,” a title given to various officials
in the Byzantine service; * as, for example, to the admiral of the
fleet (uéyac 8povyyáptocroi, fleogóorov aróAov), and to the head of
the city police, the Drungarius Vigiliae (ö täc Bty)\ac 8povyyāptoc).
* Miklosich et Muller, iii. p. 88. * Zbid., 1st supra.
* According to Du Cange, Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis, ad zocem,
from Drungus, “company of soldiers.” The word is connected with the German
“Gedrung” and the English “throng.”
xv.] THE WALLs ALONG THE GOLDEN HORN. 215
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."
The street running eastwards, outside the city wall, was
known as the Via Drungariou (De Longario),” and the pier in
front of the next gate bore the name Scala de Drongario.”
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 2 * *—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 (Mvſium
6avárov xpmatusist rig (3tºp).”
It is in favour of the identification of Zindan Kapoussi
with the Gate near the Church of St. John (Porta juxta par-
vum 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." •
Leunclavius found the gate called in his day Porta Cara-
vion, because of the large number of ships which were moored
in front of it.’ The landing before the gate, the old Scala de
* Anna Comn., vi. p. 286 ; cf. Luitprandus, as quoted by Du Cange, in 4nna
Comm., vol. ii. p. 544.
* Tafel und Zhomas, ii. pp. 27, 28: “Via quae dicitur De Longaria, extra
murum civitatis CP.”
* Zbid., pp. II, 60 : “Scala de Drongario.” 4 Theophanes, p. 28I.
* Gerlach, p. 454; Smith, Epistolae Quatuor, p. 88.
* Mordtmann, p. 46. * Pand. Hist. Zºurc., S. 200.
2 I6 BYzAATINE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
--— — . ~- mºr---- ------------ = --→ ---->
Drongario, now Yemish Iskelessi, in front of the Dried Fruit-
Market, is one of the most important piers on the Golden Horn.
Dr. Paspates” and M. Heyd” 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,” mentioned in the charters granted to the Vene-
tians 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 (rod IIspáuaroc), as its name im-
plies, 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,” in recording the
dedication of the Church of St. Irene at Sycae (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
Paspates, p. 166.
Heyd, Histoire du Commerce du Cezant, vol. i. p. 25.I. * Ibid., p. 251.
Theophanes, p. 353; cf. Procopius, De Ad., i. C. vii.
xv.] TA/A2 WA/LA.S. A ZOAVG ZTHE GOLDEAV HORAV. 217
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 Sycae, where Justinian awaited them. The
ferry was also styled Trajectus Sycenus;* Transitus Sycarum,
after the oldest name for Galata. It was, moreover, known as
Transitus Justinianarum,” 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.” The pier
at the city end of the ferry was known as the Scala Sycena.”
It would seem that there was a spice-market" 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 descrip-
tions of the territory occupied by the Venetians in Constanti-
nople. For example, according to Anna Comnena,” 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”);’
* Notitia, ad Reg. VI. * AVozella Z/X., c. v.
* Paschal Chrom., p. 618. * Motitia, ut supra.
* Pºochoprodromus, line II3; cf. Paspates, pp. 164, 165.
* VII. p. 286. * Tafel und Zhomas, i. p. 50.
218 BYZA/V7/AVE COMSTA NTIAWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
and in a subsequent passage, as proceeding from the Vigla to the
Judeca (“a comprehenso dicto sacro Viglaé usque ad Judecam”).”
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.”
To this identification of the Porta Hebraica with the Gate
of the Perama it may be objected that on the map of Bondel-
montius 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,” 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 * did not extend so far east as Bagtchê
Kapoussi, much less so far in that direction as the neighbour-
hood of the head of the promontory. Bagtchê Kapoussi cor-
responds to the Byzantine Porta Neoriou (the Gate of the Dock-
yard), 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
* Zafel und 7% omas, i. pp. 55–63.
* Ibid., ii. p. 4; iii. pp. 133-I49.
* Gyllius, De Top. CP., iii. c. i. ; Leunclavius, Pand. Hist. Turc., s. 200.
* 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 Constanti-
mopoli nel Secolo XII.; Heyd, Histoire du Commerce du Levant; Sauli, Della Colonia
dei Genovesi in Galata ; Pears, A'all of Constantinople, c. 6; Miklosich et Müller,
Acta et Diplomata Gra'ca ; Tafel und Thomas, Urkunden zur Alteren Handels-und
Staatsgesichte der Republié Venedig.
xv.] THE WAZ ZS ALO/WG THE GOLDEAV HORAW. 219
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."
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).” 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 II 5 pikes before reaching Bagtchê
Kapoussi, stood an entrance styled the Gate of the Hicanatissa
(IIópta rāg ‘Ikavartoranc).” The adjoining quarter went by the
same name, and there probably stood the “Residence of the
Kanatissa’ (röv oikov tic Kavartanc) mentioned by Codinus.“
* The Russian pilgrim, Stephen of Novgorod (7tinéraires 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 Dar-
danelo”), and there landed to plunder the Jewish quarter (“muntô 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.
* Zafel und Zhomas, ii. pp. 270–272; cf. Ibid., pp. 4-11.
* Miklosich et Müller, iii. pp. 12, 16, 19; cf. Ibid., p. 6.
* Codinus, p. 22 ; cf. Paspates, p. 158.
22O ByzawTINE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
The designation is best explained as derived from the body of
palace troops known as the Hicanati."
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.”
The Gate of the Neorion (IIópta toû Newptov),” the Gate of
the Dockyard, stood, as its name implies, beside the Dock-
yard on the shore of the bay at Bagtohè Kapoussi, close to
the site now occupied by the Stamboul Custom House. It is
first mentioned in a chrysoboullon of Isaac Angelus, confirm-
ing the right granted to the Pisan merchants by his pre-
decessors, Alexius Comnenus and Manuel Comnenus, to reside
in the neighbourhood of the gate.” While the western limit
of the quarter thus conceded to Pisans was marked, as
already intimated, by the Gate Hicanatissa,” 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.”
It was, therefore, distinguished from all other dockyards in
Constantinople as the Ancient Neorion (ro IIa)\atov Nečptov),
or the Ancient Exartesis (’Eádormouc). Nicolo Barbaro calls it
“l'arsenada de l'imperador.” -
Here the Imperial fleet assembled to refit or to guard the
entrance of the harbour ; * here, until the reign of Justin II.,
was the Marine Exchange ; " and here was a factory of oars
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 737.
* Målosich et Müller, iii. pp. I9–2I.
* Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365; Gyllius, De Zop, CP, iii. c. i.
* Miklosich et Müller, iii. pp. 19, 2I. * Ibid., p. 19.
* See above, p. Io. * Pachymeres, ut supra; Miklosich et Müller, p. 72.
* Nicephorus Patriarcha, CP, p. 57; Theophanes, p. 591 ; Theophanes Cont-,
p. 391.
* Anonymus, ii. p. 30 ; Codinus, p. 52.
xv.] THE WAAA.S. A ZOAVG THE GOLDEAV HORAV. 221
(coparia)," in addition to the one mentioned in the Justinian
Code, which stood elsewhere. As might be expected, several
destructive fires originated in the Neorion.”
According to Gyllius,” Gerlach,” and Leunclavius,” this
entrance was in their day named by the Turks, Tchifout
Kapoussi, and was regarded by the Greeks as the IIóXm 'Opata
(the Beautiful Gate), mentioned by Phrantzes" and Ducas' in the
history of the last siege. The epithet Horaia is supposed to be
a corruption of the original name for the entrance (rod Neoptov);
the Turkish designation of the gate being explained by the fact
that a Jewish community was settled in the neighbourhood of
the gate.”
As to the transformation of Neorion into Horaia, it seems
somewhat far-fetched; still, Greeks think it conceivable.” 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 con-
nection 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
* Miklosich et Müller, iii. p. 6. Such a factory can be seen to-day at Keurekdjilar,
in Galata.
* Paschal Chron., p. 582; Cedrenus, vol. i. pp. 609, 610 ; ii. p. 529.
* De Zoff. CP., iii. c. i. ; De Bosporo Zºhracio, ii. c. ii.
* Page 454. * Pand. Hist Zºurc., s. 200.
* Phrantzes, p. 254.
* Ducas, p. 282. Phrantzes and Ducas are the only Byzantine writers who
mention the Beautiful Gate.
* 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 Karaite 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.
* Patriarch Constantius, Ancient and Modern Consple., p. 12.
222 A PZAAV7//VE COMSTAAWTIA/OA/CAE. [CHAP.
Pyle 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,” that extremity of the chain was fastened
to the Beautiful Gate. Critobulus,” 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 * and Chalcocondylas," 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 per-
mitted the Turkish fleet to command the Neorion and the ships
stationed before it. Hence the accuracy of Ducas can be main-
tained 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 Con-
stantinople 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 arrange-
ments made for the defence of the sea-board of the city, he
* Page 268. * I. c. 18. * Page 238. * Page 384.
xv.] THE WAZZ.S. A ZOAVG 7THE GO/L/DEAV AIORAV. 223
describes them as extending, in the first place, from the Xyliné
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." 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. Deme-
trius, the Gate of the Hodegetria, the Great Palace, and the
harbour (Kontoscalion), as far as Vlanga.”
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,” and at
which the Emperor Constantine fell,” 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; *
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),” 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
' Pages 283, 284. * Pages 282, 283. * Page 263.
* Page 300. * See above, p. 93. * Pages 270, 271.
224 APYZAAVT/WE CONSTA WTINOP/LAE. [CHAP.
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," 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”
that the second gate west of the Seraglio Point was named
at once the Beautiful Gate and the Jewish Gate implies that
* 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, Judaeorum eam accolentium,
spatium latum . . . videre licet.” Cf. De Bosporo Zhracio, II. c. i. “Pro porta
quam vulgo vocant Oriam corruptè, quasi olim Neorii portam.”
* Page 454: “Die Prächtige, itzund die Juden-Pfort.”
xv.] THE WAZZ.S. A ZOMG THE GOLDEAV HORAV. 225
.*
these were the names of the gate in current use. Leunclavius 1
puts the facts in a somewhat different light. According to
him, the common designation of the entrance was “Huraea"
(Eöraia, “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.””
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 Wotitia places in the Fifth
* Pand. Hist. Turc., s. 200. “Porta quae Graeci quotguot vederi peritores volunt
Porta Horaea (Opata), vulgo Huraea (Ebraia) dicitur.”
* Miklosich et Müller, iii. pp. ix., 53; Desimoni, Giornale Zigustico, vol. i. p. 37;
Sui Quartieri dei Genovesi a Constantinopoli, nel secolo XII., p. 46.
Q
:
:
.
Q
3.
:
:
;
‘.~,
!|
|
--—
.
-*.
:
gº
~gº
226 A VZAAV7 IAWE COMSTA WT/AWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
Region.” 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.”
The Portus Prosphorianus” 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 IIpóa popov, and denoted that
the harbour was the resort of the craft which brought products
from the country to the markets of the city.” 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
Tô Boatróptov, , Boögtropoc, 6 Bootropoc, 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;" here also stood
warehouses for the storage of oil, and granaries, such as the
Horrea Olearia, Horrea Troadensia, Horrea Valentiaca and
Horrea Constantiaca." The granaries were inspected annually
by the emperor.” 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.” 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
* Motitia, ad Reg. V. * Paschal Chron., ad ann. 406, 415.
* Cod. Zheod. De Calcis Coctor., Lex V. ; Stephanus Byzantius, De Urbiöus et
Populis, ad vocem; Evagrius, ii. c. xiii.
* Mordtmann, p. 49.
* 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.
* AVotitia, ad Reg. V. * Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 699.
* De Corona, p. 134, Edition Didot.
º
tº e & * *
*
XV.] THE WAZA.S. A ZOAVG THAE GO / DEAV HORAV. 227
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."
We reach, next, the last gate in the line of the Harbour
Walls, the Gate of Eugenius (IIdpra toû Eüysvtov), 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,” as the Xylo Porta marked
their western terminus. Hence, the ditch constructed by Can-
tacuzene in front of those fortifications is described as extending
from the Gate of Eugenius to the Gate Xyline.” 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.” 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.”
This is consistent with the fact that the gate was at a point from
which St. Sophia could be easily reached."
Eugenius, after whom the gate, the adjacent tower, and the
neighbouring district were named," was probably a distinguished
proprietor in this part of the city. The gate bore an inscrip-
tion commemorating repairs executed by a certain Julian ;”
possibly, Julian who was Prefect of the City in the reign of
Zeno, when Constantinople was shaken by a severe earth-
quake.
There is reason to believe that besides its ordinary designation
Evagrius, ii. c. xiii. * Anonymus, i. p. 2.
Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 213, 2I4. * /oid, iv. pp. 76, 232.
Anna Comm., xv. p. 345.
Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 175; Nicephorus Greg., vi. p. 167.
Anonymus, i. p. 2; Acta Patriarchatus C.P., p. 563.
* Banduri, Zmp. Orient., vii. p. 149.
76531
228 A YZANTINE COMSTA WTYWO PLAE. [CHAP.
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, Mappapotrópta év tº Évopſg rod
Eiryavtov."
The Scala Timasii, so named after Timasius, a celebrated
general in the reign of Arcadius, was in the Fourth Region,”
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.” 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.” Originally, the building, styled Kentenarion
(Kevreváptov), was a stately structure, but after its overthrow by
an earthquake, Theophilus restored it as an ordinary tower.”
The chain was supported in the water by wooden floats," and
its northern end was made fast to a tower in the fortifica-
tions of Galata, known as the Tower of Galata, “Le Tour de
Galatas.” According to Gyllius, the gate near that tower was
called Porta Catena,” but, unfortunately, he does not indicate
Miklosich et Müller, ii. pp. 467, 564. * Motitia, ad Reg. I V.
Codinus, De Officiis, pp. IOT, Io& ; cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. II.
Critobulus, i. c. 18.
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, zoë una de la banda de Constantinopoli,
l'altra de la banda de Pera, le qual tore vignia a far defexa assai.”
° N. Barbaro, pp. 722, 723. * Ville-Hardouin, c. 32. 2
* Gyllius, De Zop. CP., iv. c. x. “Adhuc Galatae porta est, quae appellatur Caténa,
ex eo, quod ab Acropoli usque ad eam portam catena extenderetur.” Cf. Theophanes,
p. 609.
I
3
4
5
PORTION OF THE CHAIN STRETCHED ACROSS THE ENTRANCE OF THE GOLDEN HORN IN 1453.

XV.] THE WALLS AZONG THE GOLDEN HORN. 229
its precise position. From the nature of the case, however, it
must have been near Kiretch Kapoussi, directly opposite the
Gate of Eugenius."
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.” 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.” It was again employed by Nice-
phorus Phocas, in expectation of a Russian descent into the
Bosporus.* The Venetians found it obstructing their path when
they stood before Constantinople in I2O3, but removed it after
capturing the Tower of Galata, to which it was secured.”
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."
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’ and the Hospitia,” built on the site of the old
Stadium of Byzantium by Justinian the Great and Theodora,
* Dr. Paspates (IIoMopkia kai"AMooris Tºs KII., 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.
* Theophanes, p. 609. * Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 80. * Leo Diaconus, p. 79.
* Nicetas Chon., p. 718 ; cf. Ville-Hardouin, c. xxxii.
* Phrantzes, p. 251. See below, pp. 241–247, for the discussion regarding the
precise route taken by the ships.
* Acta Patriarchatus CP., ii. p. 467; Anna Comn., xv. p. 345.
* Procopius, De Zd., i. c. xi.
230 AP VZAAV7'IAVE COMSTA MTV/VOA’A.A. [CHAP.
for the free accommodation of poor strangers, were conspicuous.
There, also, stood the Church of St. Michael and the Church of
St. Paul.1
THE BASILIKE PYLE.
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 Basilike Pyle which Byzantine historians,
after the Restoration of the Empire, associate with this line of
the city's bulwarks 2 Was it, as some authorities maintain, at
Balat Kapoussi,” or, as others hold, in the neighbourhood of
the Seraglio Point ** 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,”
“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” (rùv
storošov rod Aquévog) admits of no dispute, for the phrase has only
one signification. But, as though to render mistake impossible,
* Nicephorus Greg., vii. p. 275.
* Patriarch Constantius, Ancient and Modern Consple., p. 15. With him agree
Von Hammer, Paspates, Mordtmann, etc.
* Gerlach, p. 454; Leunclavius, Pand. Hist. Turc. S. 200.
a * Af
* Pages 254, 255, Eö60m huàdrrew Tov triſpyov tow év påorº too fleiſuaros,
* Af *A * w * gº
röv $vXóororovta rºw etoročov too Apačvos, kai fiv divrukpts tºs Tóms rºs
Baoru Mukňs.
xv.] TA/A2 WAZZS AZOAVG THE GO / DEAV HORAV. 23 I
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' observes, were
stationed “at the entrance of the harbour” (Év tº siadèq roſ,
Auévoc). The object of this bombardment, adds the historian” in
the next sentence, was not simply to force “the entrance to the
harbour” (Suá ràv stoočov too Aquévoc), 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 * remarks that the ships moored
along the chain at the mouth of the harbour (Év rô arðuart
rod Xuévoc) were placed here to render entrance into the
harbour more difficult to the enemy (§moc ioxuporépog kay}\fforwat
Tiv čloočov).
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
* Page 259. Dr. Paspates, in his work on the siege of the city (IIoMopkia
kai. "AAoots Tºs Kovo tavruvoviróAeos, 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 montë 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.”
* Page 259. * Page 238.
232 A VZA WZZAVE CONS 7TA AVT/WOAZAZ. [CHAP.
#
|
i
H. : :
arz--~ --, -
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' 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.”* Furthermore, Phrantzes” 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 de-
fended 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, antes inum, decertabat.” “ The archbishop's
phrase “ante sinum ” corresponds to Phrantzes' év tº siadèq) rot,
Xuévoc. -
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
i
* XVII., p. 860; cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. 232.
* Dr. Paspates (see p. III of his work on the siege of the city, cited above) under-
stands 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).
* Pages 254, 255.
* See his Epistle to the Pope on the Capture of Constantinople.

XV.] THE WA/C/LS 4 LOAVG THAZ GOZZOAAW HOA'AV. 233
Kapoussi. Proceeding from west to east 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, Putea, Platea, Basilea," 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 Im-
perial Gate to the Kynegon,” 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 Sur-
mounted by the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus, and from which
the Palace of Blachernae could be readily reached. How ap-
propriate 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
* Pusculus, iv. pp. 179–221. * Ducas, p. 275.
234. A YZAAVT/AWE CONSTAAVT/WOP/LA. [CHAP.
stood a Church of St. John the Baptist." 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.” 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.
* Acta Patriarchatus CP, vol. ii. p. 391, year 1400; cf. pp. 297, 487.
* 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.
xv.] THE WALL.S. A ZOAVG THE GO/LDEAV HORAW. 235
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, un-
doubtedly, that drawn from the presence of the Church of St.
John the Baptist on the shore to the north-east of Balat
Kapoussi," the possible representative of the ancient church of
that dedication “on the shore outside the Basilikè Pylè.””
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 2 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 2
In the opinion of Leunclavius, the Imperial Gate is to be
identified with the Horaia Pylè (the Gate of the Neorion) at
* 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. IO4, IOS. Mr. Gedeon ascribes it to the 14th century (Proceedings of
the Greek Syllogos of Consple., vol. xxvi. p. 148. 1896).
* Acta Patriarchatus CP, ii. p. 391.
236 B VZA WTIAWE CONSTA WT/WOAZAZ. [CHAP.
Bagtohè Kapoussi." But if the Horaia Pylè was at Bagtchê
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 fortifi-
cations 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 Bagtchê
Kapoussi. -
A more general objection to the view of Leunclavius is that
Bagtohè 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,” 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
* Pand. Hist. Turc., s. 200.
* Page 454, where he styles the first gate west of the Seraglio Point “Die König-
liche Pforte.”
xv.] THE WAZZS AZOAVG THE GO/C/DEAV HORAV. 237
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" 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 Bagtchê
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 indi-
cations of its position. If at the latter point, one can under-
stand 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 Basilikë
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
* See above, p. 228 ; see below, p. 250.
238 BYZAAV7 IWE CONSTAAVTINOP/LA2. [CHAP.
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 2 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." 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.” 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.” Hence the
opinion that the Basilikè Pyle 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 Basilikë
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; * 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.” 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
* Acta Patriarchatus C.P., ii. pp. 297, 391, 487.
* Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 503. ° Lib. i. c. 65.
* Lib. i. c. 18. ° Lib. i. c. 65.
xv.] THE WALLS ALONG THE GOLDEN HORN. 239
in the port, he led his ships to the Imperial Gate (raic (3aot)\lkatc
tröXatc) 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 con-
sistent 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 his—
torian 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
24O BYzANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
of a Church of St. John, with room for other buildings, on the
territory outside the gate, establishes the best claim to be con-
sidered the second Basilikè Pylè in the line of the harbour
fortifications."
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.”
* 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.
* 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.
Abid., p. 503.−As the gate to which Berenger, in 1306, took his ship from the
harbour at Blachernae, 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. -
Abid., 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 Palaeologus,
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 I434.
Ducas, pp. 275, 283, 295, 300.-As the gate defended by the Venetians, and by
the Grand Duke Notaras, in the siege of I453. + -
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 I453, 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.
º: - - - - -->
xv.] A&O UTE TAA EAW B Y TURATISH SHIPS. 24. I
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 * names the point the
Cold Waters,” and describes it as situated at a short distance
from Galata (Pvxpå "Yèara, ukpov atrotépa toû Taxatā). Nicolò
Barbaro* 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 *
says the ships were launched into the harbour opposite Eyoub
(Cosmidion), but that is contrary to all the probabilities of the
case. Phrantzes" 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" being singular in
supposing that the vessels left the Bosporus at Balta Liman.
* Lib. i. c. 42. * See above, p. 211. * Page 753.
* Page 271. * Page 251. * Constantinople et le Bosphore, p. 364.
R
242 Aº V.ZAAWTINE CONSTAAV7 IAVOA’I.A. [CHAP.
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 Bagtohè, 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 Bagtohè 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 * assigns to the road taken
by the ships across the hills, viz. eight stadia, or one mile.
Accordingly, Dr. Dethier” and Dr. Paspates * 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 Bagtohè 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 * describes
* Lib. i. c. 42. &
* Siège de Constantinople ; Nicolò Barbaro, Giornale, p. 752.
* See his work on the Siege of the City in 1453, p. 139.
* * V A * sy A
* Page 270: IIpoorrárret rod eiðvöpopºmºval tas vôwas rās 3rtorffew kelp vas
* A a 3 M * Af & * 3. A \ * {} a 8 A a Af
rob Taxatä, ärö rô pºépos to Tpós divaroMºv, Kätoffew tow out&ot kiovos.
xv.] A’OUTE TAA EAV BY TURRTISH SHIPS. 243
that point as situated to the east of Galata, below the Diplo-
kionion. Pusculus * speaks of it as not far from the twin
columns: “Columnis haud longè a geminis, surgunt quae ad sidera
rectae.” Nicolò Barbaro” 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 : “Stando 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, comen2ando da la marina, gae
da li da le colone dove che era armada.” Critobulus,” as already
intimated, styles the starting-point of the expedition the Diplo-
kionion. 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 Bagtohè.*
In the second place, in the Dolma Bagtohè route we have
the distance which Nicolò Barbaro" 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
mza 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
* IV. 550–551. * Page 753.
° Lib. i. c. 42. Charles Müller thinks the correct reading in the text of Critobulus
was not “eight stadia,” but “eighteen stadia.”
* For the site of the Diplokionion, see Gyllius, De Bosporo 7%racio, 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.
* Page 753.
244 A VZAAV7 IAVE CONSTAAVT/WOP/LAE. [CHAP.
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-vingfs
gallées que aultres fustes armées, dedans le gouffle de Mandra-
quins qui est entre les deux citez, auxquieuls est le port de
Constantinople.”"
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
* Dethier, Siège de Constantinople, No. xviii. p. 893.
xv.] A’O UTE TAKEAV B V TURA /SAT SAIZA'.S. , 245
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 Bagtohè 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 Bagtohè 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 Bagtohè 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,
246 A VZAAVTIAWE CONSTAAVT/WOPLE. [CHAP.
and the gardens of the Arsenal (Tersaneh Bagtchessi). Another
Turkish authority says the ships were transported from Dolma
-Bagtchè to Cassim Pasha.
INOTE.
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 circumvalleratºue magis urbem, jussit invia aequare ; exque colle,
suppositis lenitis vasis lacertorum sex, ad stadia septuaginta trahi biremes, quae ascensu
gravius sublatae, 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 com-
mentators 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 7o 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 praebet, referenda
est” (Fragm. Hist. Graec., v. 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 em-
ployed 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. Gratc., v. p. 76). Du Cange (Glossarium Med. et Infim.
XV.] A OUTE TAR EAV B V TURA ISA SAVIA 'S. 247
ILatinitatis) says, respecting the use of the term “ stadium” by mediaeval writers,
“ “ Mensurae 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, com-
mando, fusse spianato le uie, et sopra i colli messi in terra i uasi a forza de brazze
. . . per 7o stadia che sono circa miglia . . . introdusse le fuste nel mandrachio, le
qual per . . . miglia con fatica se tiranno in suko” (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 !
.
248 A VZAAV7'INE COMSTA WT/AWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
*~
.A.
CHAPTER XVI.
THE WALLS ALONG THE SEA OF MARMORA.
THE fortifications extending along the Sea of Marmora from
the Acropolis (Seraglio Point) to the southern extremity of the
land walls consisted of a single wall flanked, according to Bondel-
montius, 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.
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 break-
water of loose boulders,” 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
* See Map of Byzantine Constantinople.
* Mentioned by the Anonymus, iii. p. 61 ; Nicetas Chon., p. 169; Cantacuzene,
iv. p. 221. *.
INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THEODOSIUS II. AND THE PREFECT constanTINE.
(See Aage 46.)
ſº -
- º -
ºº::
ºl. -
INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPEROR THEOPHILUs.
(See Aage 183.)
ºfºº
-
INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF THE EMPEROR ISAAC ANGELUS,
(See page 132 )




xvi.] THE WALLS ALONG THE SEA OF MARMORA. 249
precaution adopted to maintain the stability of these fortifica-
tions. 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.
TThe 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. Bar-
bara (ii răc uáprwpoc Bapſ3ápac ka)\oupévn IIöXm)," 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 some-
times styled by the Greeks, after the Turkish Conquest, the Gate
of St. Demetrius.” It was likewise known as the Eastern Gate,”
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.* The pier in front of the gate was
called the Pier of the Acropolis (ii răç &kpotróXeoc alcáXa);" 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."
According to the inscriptions’ found upon the gate, it was
included in the repairs of the seaward walls in the reign of
* Anonymus, iii. p. 61 ; Cantacuzene, iv. p. 232; Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 270.
* Gyllius, De Zop. CP, i. c. xxi.
* Nicetas Chon., p. 205, 3rd tâs ééas TúAms, #ris àvéºye Karā tīv čkpó-
troMºv. Cf. Zbid., p. 26; Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 270.
* Anabasis, vii. c. i. See above, p. 5.
* Theophanes, p. 671 ; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 12.
* Pachymeres, ut supra. * * See above, p. 184.
& ++- * ** W tº vie “ecº- º ºf
sº | -
25O A YZAAWTINE CONSTA WTIAWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
Theophilus. As became its important position, it was a hand-
some portal, flanked, like the Golden Gate, by two large towers
of white marble," 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.” On two occasions it
served as a triumphal entrance into the city, John Comnenus
using it for that purpose in II 26, to celebrate the capture of
Castamon ; * and Manuel Comnenus in 1168, on his return from
the Hungarian War.” In 1816 the towers of the gate
furnished material for the Marble Kiosk which Sultan Mahmoud
IV. erected in the neighbourhood;" 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 (ra Máyyava),” 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,’ 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 (AáuaXic, "ApkAa), being on the rock off Chrysopolis,”
* Nicephorus Greg., xvii. p. 860. * Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 363.
* Nicetas Chon., p. 26. * Zbid., p. 205.
* Patriarch Constantius, Ancient and Modern Consple., p. 23.
* Anonymus, ii. p. 26; Glycas, p. 468.
* Page 268, ‘O &vrítopôpos otros Túpyos Tſis tow Mayyávov dyxworra
ôeóopºmpēvos povăs.
* 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
XVI.] THE WALLS AZOAVG THE SEA OF MARMORA. 251
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." 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 amphi-
theatre erected by Severus when he restored Byzantium.” A
Combat of wild animals was held here as late as the reign
of Justinian the Great, in honour of his consulship.” Subse-
quently, 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.”
A little to the south of the Kynegion stood the Church and
Monastery of St. George at the Mangana (Movaariptov kará
td. Xeyóueva Máyyava, it' ováuart rod anytov usyáAov uáprwpoc
Tewpytov). It was an erection of Constantine Monomachus,” 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," and near the Mangana and the
Kynegion ;’ it stood in the midst of meadows, and to it were
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. 28o ; Ville-
Hardouin, c. lxix.). It was noted for its pleasant air and quiet. Cf. Gyllius, De
Bosporo Zhracio, iii. c. ix.
* Cantacuzene, iii. pp. 438,495, 541.
* Paschal Chron., p. 495; AVotitia, ad Reg. ZZ. See above, p. 13.
* Marcellinus Comes.
* Theophanes, p. 574. For other executions under Constantine Copronymus,
see Theophanes, pp. 647, 677, 683.
* Zonaras, xvii. p. 55. * Nicetas Chon., p. 268. * Zonaras, ut supra.
252 A PTZAAVT//VE COAVSTA WTIAWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
attached gardens and a hospital." “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.”* 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, more-
over, 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.”
That church, we shall find, stood at Indjili Kiosk.” Hence, a
building to the west of that point would be on the plain above
indicated.
From the Church of St. George mediaeval writers derived the
name of Braz Saint George for the Sea of Marmora and the
Hellespont.” The Emperor John Cantacuzene, upon his abdica-
tion, was for some time a monk in the Monastery of Mangana,
under the name Joasaph ('Iwógap), until he withdrew to the deeper
seclusion of the Monastery of Batopedi, on Mount Athos."
The next gate, Demir Kapoussi, is a Turkish erection that
may have replaced an older entrance.” +
A little further south, arched buttresses, forming the sub-
structures 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
* M. Attaliota, p. 48.
* Constantinople, ses Sanctuaires et ses reliques, au commencement du XV Siècle.
Traduit par Bruun, Odessa, 1883.
* Itinéraires Russes en Orient, pp. 162.
* See below, pp. 253, 254.
* Ville-Hardouin, cs. xxv.–xxvii.; William of Zyre, lib. xx. c. xxiv.
* Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 307, 308.
* 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
1233 feet long by 21 feet wide; one of the chambers is 52% feet by 51 feet.
XVI.] THE WALLS ALONG THE SEA OF MARMORA. 253
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, cele-
brated as a fountain of health long before the Turkish Conquest.
“Tout cet endroit ressemble la piscine de Salomon qui est à
Jérusalem l’ exclaims one of the Russian pilgrims, who visited
the shrine during the period of the Palaeologi."
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,” 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 rever-
ence, by visiting them in great crowds.” Thevenot” and Grelot *
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 sea-
shore, as a method of cure. Hammer writes to the same effect,
* Itinéraires Russes en Orient, p. 119.
* Gyllius, De Top. C.P., i. c. vii.
* A'elation d'un Voyage fait au Zevant, c. xviii. (1665).
* Relation d'un Voyage de Constantinople, p. 83 (1670).
254 A VZAAVTIAWE CONSTA WTYWOALE. [CHAP.
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." But this opinion, adopted also by
Labarte,” 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.”
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.* Nothing can
be more conclusive.
This identification is of the greatest importance for the
topographical reconstruction of the quarters of Byzantine Con-
stantinople 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 neigh-
bourhood.
By means of that landmark, for example, the situation of
* Constantinopolis und der Bosporos, vol. i. p. 238.
* Ze Palais Impérial de Constantinople et ses Abords, p. 99.
* Ancient and Modern Consple., p. 26; cf. Scarlatus Byzantius, vol. i. p. 181.
* ZZinéraires Russes en Orient, pp. 119, 202, 231.
xvi.] THE WALLS ALONG THE SEA OF MARMORA. 255
the Church of St. George Mangana can, we have seen, be fixed."
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.” 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.” On the other hand,
Dr. Mordtmann thinks that here was the site of the Imperial
residence, known as the Palace of Mangana," an erection of
Basil I.”
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 com-
mitted against the property of the great Saint.” But the Church
of St. George Mangana, we have found, lay a short distance to
the west of the Church of St. Saviour," 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
See above, p. 252.
For a description of the ruins, see Dr. Paspates, pp. 106–109.
Abid., p. IO7.
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 parses contradicteurs.”
* Theophanes Cont., p. 337.
* Nicetas Chon., p. 581. * See above, p. 252.
.
256 BYZANTIAWE CONSTANTINOP/LAE. [CHAP.
agrees, furthermore, with the fact that the Mangana, which gave
name to the palace, was in this vicinity." It is also consistent
with the circumstance that the Palace of Mangana was noted
for its coolness,” 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 * 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.”
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,” “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.” Dr. Paspates is therefore mistaken in making the
palace grounds reach to within a short distance of the Seraglio
Point.
* See above, p. 250. * Anna Comn., xv. pp. 372, 377.
* 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 Soeur Marie sont incrustees dans une
colonne; et secondement celui de Lazare, évêque de Galassie.” *
* Codinus, pp. 25, 79. Can the Topi have been remains of one of the theatres
erected by Severus in Byzantium ?
* Page 79.
" Leo Gram., p. 273, Eis rôv čywov Adžapov, eis to kata/3dorwov too Tºukavi-
ormptov : p. 274, eis toūs Aeyouévous Tótrovs. Cf. Theophanes Cont., pp. 859, 860.
xvi.] THE WALLS ALONG THE SEA OF MARMORA. 257
Near the Topi likewise stood the Thermae Arcadianae," con-
structed by the Emperor Arcadius, and one of the finest ornaments
of the capital. There, also, was a church dedicated to the Arch-
angel Michael, év "Apkaëtavatc.”
In this neighbourhood, moreover, must have stood the Atrium
of Justinian the Great,” 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.*
Still further south of the Church of St. Saviour rose one of
the most venerated shrines in Constantinople, the Church of the
Theotokos Hodegetria (rów ‘O8myöv) founded by the Empress
Pulcheria, and reconstructed by Michael III.” It boasted of a
Holy Well famed for marvellous cures,” and of an Icon of the
Virgin, attributed to St. Luke, which was regarded as the
palladium of the city and the leader (O&nymrpta) 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.” In view of the siege of the
city by Branas, in the reign of Isaac Angelus, the Icon was
carried round the fortifications;* while in 1453 it was placed
in the Church of the Chora, not far from the Gate of Charisius,
* Procopius, De Ad., i. c. xi.
* Codinus, p. 33; Suidas, ad vocem orrij}\m.
* Procopius, De Zd., i. c. xi. * Ibid., ut supra.
* Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 160 ; Codinus, p. 80.
* Itinéraires Russes en Orient, p. 229.
* Genesius, iv. p. 103; Cantacuzene, iii. p. 607; Nicetas Chon., p. 26; Pachy-
meres, at supra.
* Nicetas Chon., pp. 496, 497.
258 A YZAAV7/AVE COAVSTA A/ZTINOP/LA2. [CHAP.
====--garº, =::sº as -ºº-º-ºzº" - –2-x-x-x-xx-ser-H -- ~~r-º-º-º------z-v-
to support the defence. There, upon the capture of the city,
it was found by the Turks, and cut to pieces.”
According to the Russian pilgrims, the Church of the Hode-
getria 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.” These indications support the
opinion of Dr. Mordtmann * 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 (roi, a ytov Aa34pov tru)\tc),” the
other the Small Gate of the Hodegetria (ii uikpa trij)\m ric
‘O8mymrpfaç).” 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.”" 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
* Ducas, p. 288.
* Itinéraires Russes en Orient, p. 230, “Au nord du couvent d'Odigitria, dans
la direction de Mangana; ” p. 229, “a l'est de Sainte Sophie, dans la direction de la
mer, à droite, s'élève uncouvent appelé Odigitria.”
* Page 52. * Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 238.
* Ducas, pp. 41, 42, 283.
• Psalm czviii. 19. f ANYEATAI MOI IIYAAC AIKAIGUCYNHC
INA EICEAG)(a)N EN AYTAIC EEOMOAOTHCOMAI TG) KYPI(M) f.
Cf. Proceedings of Greek Literary Syllogos of Consple., vol. xvi., 1885; Archaeo-
!ogical Supplement, pp. 23, 24; cf. Mordtmann, p. 53.
xvi.] THE WALLS ALONG THE SEA OF MARMORA. 259
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 I269, of seventy-five
Venetian galleys in the offing." 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” it was through the Gate of the Hode-
getria that John VI. Palaeologus penetrated, in I355, 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 Palaeologus.
It was at the Gate of the Hodegetria, probably, that Bardas,
* Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 238.
* Ducas, pp. 4I, 42 ; Cantacuzene (iv. p. 284) says that John Palaeologus took
the city by surprise, entering the Harbour of the Heptascalon during the night.
26o A VZAAV7 IAWE COAVSTA WT/WOAZAZ. [CHAP.
in 866, embarked to conduct an expedition against the Saracens
in Crete, after invoking the aid of the Virgin Hodegetria."
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.” The gate appears in the last siege,
as a point blockaded by the Turkish fleet which invested the
walls along the Sea of Marmora.”
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 * 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.” 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
* Genesius, iv. p. Io9 ; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 179.
* Nicetas Chon., p. 698. * Ducas, p. 283.
* Ancient and Modern Consple., p. 23. * Leo Gramm., p. 289.
xvi.] THE WALLS ALONG THE SEA OF MARMORA. 261
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, 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” 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. Doubt-
less, 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 * 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 * 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 (IIópta
* Ancient and Modern Consple., p. 23.
* Ze Palais Zmpérial de Consple., p. 207.
* Anonymus, ii. p. 23. * De Zop. CP., ii. c. xv.
262 A YZAAV7 IAVAE COAVSTA A/7”/AVOA’/A2. [CHAP.
Taic’Apkoúðats), a designation derived, doubtless, from the figures
of bears which once adorned the adjoining quay.”
Some authorities” 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,” and was near the Church of St. Thomas Amantiou; *
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 un-
questionable, for it stood at Kadriga Limani,” 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.” 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.
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,
* Pand. Hist. Zurc., s. 200, IIópta taſs'Apkočöes; Itinéraires Russes en Orient,
p. 235 : “Sous la muraille au pied de la mer, se trouvent des ours et des aurochs en
pierre.”
* Patriarch Constantius, Ancient and Modern Consple., p. 22.
* Anonymus, iii. p. 46.
* Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 250. Symeon Magister (De Zeone 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.
* See below, p. 290.
° Cedrenus, vol. i. pp. 609-61 I ; Zonaras, xiv. p. I2O5.
Postern with inscribed posts.
SS. Sergius and Bacchus.
PORTION OF WALLS BESIDE THE
Mosque of Sultan Achmet.
SEA OF MARMORA.

xvi.] THE WALLS ALONG THE SEA OF MARMORA. 263
covered with a remarkable inscription, and were evidently
brought from some other building, when the postern was con-
structed or repaired.
The inscription is a cento of verses, taken, with slight
modifications, from the Prophet Habakkuk and the Psalter, to
form a paean in honour of the triumph of some emperor over
his foes.
EIIIBHCI EIII TOYO IIITIOYO COY K. H IIITIAOIA
COY Cºo [THP1 IA: OTI O BACIAEYC HMøN EAIIIZI
EIII KN. EN Tao EAEI TO [Y YVICTOY oy MH]
CAAEYOH : * OYK OqbFAHCI EKG)POC EN AYTG) K. YIOO
ANOMIAO OY TIPOOOHCH TOY KAKGJOI EAYTON : 8
AINGON EIIIKAAICETO [KN.]: EK TøN EKOPCON AYTOY
CCD(@HOETE: * EEOYAENGOTE ENGUIIION AyTOY IIONH-
PEYOMENOC, TOYO AE poBOY [MENOYO KN.] AOEACI."
The next entrance, the Gate of Sophia (IIópra rôv >optóv),"
as its name implies, was attached to the Harbour of Sophia. It
was known also as the Porta Sidhera (Tlöpra Xuèmpâ),’ from the
material of its construction, and after the Turkish Conquest was
designated Porta Katerga Limani,” the Gate of the Harbour of
the Galleys, from kärspyov, the Greek word for a galley.
The Porta Kontoscalion (rö 8: Asyóuevov KovrookáAtov ii
IIöpra)” communicated with the Harbour of the Kontoscalion,”
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” proves it to
have been a Byzantine entrance, but its ancient name has not been
* Habakkuk iii. 8. * Psalm xxi. 7.
* Psalm lxxxix. 22. * Psalm xviii. 3.
* Psalm xv. 4. Possibly the inscription commemorated the triumph of Justinian
over the Factions in 532.
* Codinus, p. IOI ; Anonymus, iii. p. 45. * Zbid, ut supra; ibid., p. 46.
* Leunclavius, Pand. Hist. Zºurc., S. 200.
* Codinus, p. Io9. * See below, p. 295. * See above, p. 180.
====--------------------
* -
mº- + ------ <-------------------' s - ---
264 A VZA/VTIAVE CONSTA WTINOP/A2. [CHAP.
preserved. The gate was beside the Harbour of Theodosius,
or Eleutherius" (Vlanga Bostan). Its Turkish name must allude
to repairs made after I453. -
The next gate, Daoud Pasha Kapoussi, immediately to the
west of Vlanga Bostan, is the Gate of St. Æmilianus (à IIápra
toū āytov AiuſXavoi),” 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 Mar-
mora.” 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.”
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.”
The next gate retains its old name, Gate of Psamathia (IIópra
toū Yauaffā),” derived from the ancient quarter Psamathia (roſ)
Yauaôā). 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
* See below, p. 296. * Aaschal Chrone., p. 494; Codinus, pp. IO2, Io9.
* Anonymus, i. p. 2; Codinus, p. 25. See above, p. 31.
“Ibid., iii. p. 46; ibid., p. 49. * Ibid., iii. p. 49 ; ibid., pp. IO2, Io9.
* Anonymus, iii. p. 48. The name appears also under the forms Wapwd.6ea
(Codinus, p. 109); Tôv Yilopafftov (Phrantzes, p. 253); Too Wopagéos (Constant.
Porphyr., De Administratione Imperii, c. 43). The quarter boasted of a palace and
gerocomion, ascribed to St. Helena (Anonymus, zut supra), a monastery (Constant.
Porphyr., at supra), and the Church of the Theotokos Peribleptos (Soulou
Monastir).
xvi.] THE WALLS ALONG THE SEA OF MARMORA. 265
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 * 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” 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 Koulé, 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 endow-
ments.” 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 ; * and there Maria, the wife of
* Ze Cer., pp. 562, 563. * Page 349. * Theophanes Cont., p. 223.
* See account of his treatment at Constantinople in his fifteenth Epistle.
266 A YZAAWTVZVE CONSTAAVT/AVOA’A.A. [CHAP.
Manuel Comnenus and mother of Alexius II., was confined by
the infamous Andronicus Comnenus."
The last tower in this line of fortifications, situated on a
small promontory commanding a wide view of the Sea of Mar-
mora, 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.
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.
* Nicetas Chon., p. 347.
CHATEAU AND MARBLE TOWER NEAR THE WESTERN ExTREMITY OF THE WALLS BESIDE THE
SEA OF MARMORA.

xvi.] THE WALLS ALONG THE SEA OF MARMORA. 267
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, Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea,
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 Plataea 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 2 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 appro-
priately, 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.
268 A VZAAV7 IAVE COAVSTA AWTIAWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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 diffi-
Culty 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 chrono-
logical order: the Harbour of Eleutherius, known also as the
*::=> -----~- - - -
~gº rvion;fragºveyºry
& 67e. ºveraglio L.
"e
& we
*
º
*
\
*
*
*
e
's
THE SHOREOFCONSTANTINOPLG
ON THE SEA OF NAARNAORA
gºod?.
Jägfa'eep the Šeraglio Lighthouse ayd:
º: k $h"). 2
apoussiº.
Made for Tºofessor A VAN MILL 1N Geneº
9). he basis of the 5urvey by rhe cos
Qātrins oe FéRO ReNTAX w.rbg. posses.
-sion of”). GREer(LITERARY Syll-ocos of
ConstaWTinople- f
ARIAUREHENDéRSoN S18.
º a 4-INScrifyioſ of BASIVADºo?4.
& *
t **
• Sº
* sº
*
`
- - - - - - - - -– – -- “... --- *-*cºrror-frasweytary –
1 º
§cale. 7&Go. •.
100 Q 100 400 7. 590. 400 Sºo MCTRéS.
tºo. 2 100 48° 38° tº 53°YAros .
tºº, º + 3 + 5°o / 1999 || | | | |0°. FécT. ‘. .
— — Orlé QUART G R of A *11 Le –
THIS Porſion of Tºle for FIGNONs,
WAS or GINALLYéRéCléo BY
CoNSTANTINE THe GReāT.
IT was ReconsſøCIED BY
THEOPHll US AND UNDeRWéNT
NuMeRous Repal RSAN VARyous PéR1ODS.
.
Mosque of Paſſ.: OU D. LIGHT HOuse. Vowe
kºa & *c. - - R
J * ,
US ”WA W s
&
Cºuncil of ſo :
$5:SéRGusano Bacchus %)y
Now the Mosque-Kºu'ſ
Aya'5ofº. sy :
#
: Portúš Kovus
Portus Ju L, AN º
AIM HN TOV OVA-1ANOv :
, Atri Hn THC-coºl Ac
. Aſ M HN TG)N COq>10N
"...Flav bowºśćop? 3.
.
•
º *Off. Inscription of rºw cobwore Leo
! 404 ALCKANDe R.A. D. 586 - 912.
~’ §: 9
tr; -- e.
| 3
#:
3 . . O
- O ,
to Aéro Me Now (9 N TO CRAA 10N ſlo PTA. \ 3-#:
Gaz of the Koxboºk Aylon 5–- £3; -r
ſy Koury. Kapoussi 2 *:
— 43 f
—& §:
- # K
#:
------- - - --> - - - , , ; # * - - - - --> --~~~~
£3 g Zd
§ #3;
* #3 IZ
º
Pn) em) at # º?
#2%. $. .*5. 20
Caſbcdral # *
3. >
~ º
• O
9.S.-----.
3 :Fºº Jº
t- § 3. * > S
§ # g; * :
t 2 : , º, øſ
#2 2 #:##
C * ~ *
3 & 2-3%.
S. ºr - 28 &
* g -s: *kee
t; Sºg °urs
#4 #
3 & 5
t-sº
=}
º >
Uh
:- § w)
* % *course
º:
º
*z,
º
&
S*
º a º
tº Yº e
•. *
i
i
#.
. A.T Tio PTA Tov Aſ I C V At ſº tº UNNOV
.. Gate of £ANT AirAll ANUs.
I) apud Fasha Kapows:
#
*
º#
--s, -----
+-w
-----, - ºr -- * ~ *-* - ~~~~ *tºl
~ **** *-* *.* *-**º




















xvi.I.] THE HARBOUR'S OW THE SEA OF MARMORA. 269
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.
HARBOUR OF THE BUCOLEON.
The Harbour of the Bucoleon was attached to the Great Palace 1
(rö roo traXartov vsøptov čv tº Bovko).éovri) 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.” The harbour, partly artificial, was protected
by two jetties from the violence of the winds and waves;” and,
in keeping with its destination, displayed considerable archi-
tectural splendour. Its quay was paved with marble,” and
adorned with figures of lions, bulls, bears, and ostriches;" a
handsome flight of marble steps led to the water;" and upon
the adjoining city walls rose two Imperial villas, known as the
Palace of the Bucoleon (rd traXárta rod Bovkoxéovrog).7
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”
* Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 292.
* Anna Comm., iii. p. 137; Zonaras, xvi. c. xxviii. p. 131.
* Bondelmontius' Map. * William of Tyre, xx. c. xxiii. p. 983.
* Theophanes Cont., p. 447; Anna Comm., vii. pp. 334, 335; Itinéraires Russes
en Orient, p. 235.
* William of Tyre, ut supra.
* Anna Comm., iii. p. 137 ; Anonymus, i. p. 9. * Page 118.

27o A VZAAVTIAVE CONSTAAWTIAVOA’ZAZ. [CHAP.
placed the harbour at a distance of IO4 feet to the south of
Indjili Kiosk, consistently with his opinion that the ruins dis-
covered behind that Kiosk marked the site of the Palace of
the Bucoleon." With much learning and ingenuity, Labarte
argues that the Harbour of the Bucoleon was in the recess of
the shore at Ahour Kapoussi.” Von Hammer wavered in his
opinion, placing the harbour at one time at Tchatlady Kapou,
and at another at Kadriga Limani.” 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 I 532, where he describes the monument at
great length, as he saw it after it had been shaken by an
earthquake. In quoting this description," Von Hammer, how- -
ever, 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.”
The original manuscript of the report is preserved in the
Marciana Library, among the unpublished Archives of the
Venetian Republic,” and the passage with which we are concerned
reads to the following effect:
* See above, p. 255. * Le Palais Impérial de Consple., pp. 201–2 Io.
* Constantinopolis und der Bosporos, vol. i. pp. II9, I21, 124.
* Histoire de l'Ampire Ottoman, vol. v., note xxxv. * Pages 53, 54.
* Marin Sanuto, Diarii Autographi, vol. lvii., Carta I58, recto, I4 Decembrio,
1532. The document was addressed to the Doge Gritti, who had been in Con-
stantinople, and knew the localities to which allusion was made.

xvi.I.] THE HARBOURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 271
“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, c in Turcho si chiama
chiachadi capisso, c in francho vol dir para di crepido, fuora dila
dita porta de marina, sotto quelle tre fenestre antiquissème che
/anno uno Zione 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
272 A YZAAV7/WE CONSTA WT/AVOP/LA2. [CHAP.
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 stupire 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.””
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.” 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 re-
dundancy which makes misunderstanding simply impossible,
and for which he may be pardoned, since minute particularity
seldom distinguishes the statements of authorities on the topo-
graphy 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
* Von Hammer (Histoire de Z'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 /storiche de Monarch? Offomami,
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 l’’
* See above, p. 269, ref. 2.
*-
MARBLE FIGUREs of Lions ATTACHED to THE BALcony IN THE PALACE OF THE BUCOLEON.

xvii.] THE HARBOUR'S ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 273
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.
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 ; * 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.”* 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.”* Choiseul-Gouffier * 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
* Aand. Hist. Zurc., S. 200 : “Tchatladi capsi, a mactatione pecudum. . . .
AEdificium rotundum extra muros, ipso mari vicinum, ac vetus habet undique cir-
cumfluum nisi qua terræ jungitur, in quo mactantur, excoriantur et exenterantur
pecudes.”
* Zºd, ut supra: “Fenestres habet haec porta (Tchatlady Kapou) marmoreas
a latere, cujusdam aedificii vel palatii veteris, quod ipsis, muris urbanis incumbit.”
* Ze Zoº. 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 fenestrae antiquo opere laboratae extant in muro inclusae.”
* Poyage Pittoresque dams PAEmpire Ottoman, etc., vol. iv.
274 A VZANTINE CONSTA WTIAWOPLE. [CHAP.
leading to the Imperial School of Art, within the Seraglio
enclosure."
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.
That the shore of this bay was, like the Harbour of the
† :
# iſ
|gºiſ |
º #E
º
• * lift Iº. º º: |
º |gº
E.
º
º,
RUINs of THE PALACE OF THE BUCOLEON.”
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
* The palace stood on a terraced platform, the area of which was some 200 by
175 feet. See Map facing p. 269.
* From Broken Bits of Byzantium. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)


xvii.] THE HARBOUR'S OW THE SEA OF MARMORA. 275
Palaces of the Bucoleon ; namely, upon the city walls, at the
water's edge, and one of them on a lower level than the other."
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 ; * and that the bay
itself was the Harbour of Hormisdas (6 Auñv rā ‘Oputo Sov) 2*
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 ; ” “while of the Palace of Hormisdas he remarks:
“The very large buildings near St. Sergius were the residence
of Justinian when a patrician.” "
In the second place, the Anonymus" identifies the Harbour
* See above, p. 269. Anna Comnena (iii. p. 137) speaks of a lower and a higher
palace, Ev Tó Káro Traxatiº : eis rô inrepkeiuevov traXártov. w
* Procopius, De Zd., i. c. iv.; Bondelmontius, Zibrum Znsularum, p. 121.
* Labarte, Ze Palais Imperial de Consple., pp. 208–210. * Lib. i. p. 9.
° Lib. iii. p. 42 ; cf. Codinus, p. 125. ° Lib. iii. p. 45.
276 A VZANZCZAWE COAVSTAAWTINOP/LA. [CHAP.
of Hormisdas with that of Julian. “What is called rà roß
‘Oputabov,” 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’ also identifies the two harbours, and
adds, that the Harbour of Julian had served for the accommoda-
tion of ships before the Harbour of the Sophión 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” and Labarte * 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.” 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,” 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. Accord-
ing to him, the troops collected by Phocas for the defence of
the city against Heraclius occupied three positions—the Har-
bour 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
* Codinus, p. 87. * Imperium Orientale, vol. ii. pp. 678, 679.
* Ze Palais Imperial de Consple., pp. 208, 209. * See below, p. 290.
* Fragm. Hist. Graec., vol. iv. p. 107.
xvi.I.] THE HARBOUR'S ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 277
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," 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
(karū td. Xeyóueva Mañpov).
In favour of the alternative that the Palace and Harbour of
Hormisdas were the Palace and Harbour of the Bucoleon under
- at
2. ' |
--> Aº
- - - - - -ºº-ºº:
* * º
:^0 2 N
Jºãº-S
Hº-Lº-Yº
~$ºrºs = -
PORTION OF THE PALACE OF HORMISDAS.”
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.” It would be strange if a palace
and harbour so near that district were not those known by
its name.
* Page 7oo.
* From Broken Bits of Byzantium. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
* Procopius, De Zd., i. c. iv.
f




278 A V2A AWTIAWE COAVSTA NT/AWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
:
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." Its position agrees also with the statement of John
of Ephesus that the Palace of Hormisdas was below the great
Imperial residence.” 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
moenia 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 circum-
stance 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 IIo 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 resi-
dence or harbour, after the name Bucoleon came into vogue.
The earliest writer who refers to the Harbour of the Bucoleon
* Procopius, De Ad., i. c. iv. * Translation by R. Payne Smith, p. 179.
xvii.] THE HARROUR'S ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 279
is the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus," in the tenth
century. Later writers,” 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 suppo-
sition 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.”
Accordingly, the designation “Palace of Hormisdas" dis-
appears 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.*
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
* ZXe Cer., p. 601. * Theophanes Cont., p. 22 ; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 49.
* 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?
* 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.
28O A VZANTIAWE COMSTA AWTIAVOA’A. E. [CHAP.
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." 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.” It appears
in the reign of Justin II. as the abode of Tiberius, upon
his being appointed Caesar.” 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
Caesar 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.”
During the tenth century, the port and palace, then called
Bucoleon, received special marks of Imperial favour. Constan-
tine 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.” Possibly, the group of the
* Zosimus, ii. pp. 92, 93; iii. pp. I40, 158. 2 Procopius, ZXe Afd., i. c. iv.
* John of Ephesus, translation by R. Payne Smith, pp. 179, 180.
* John of Antioch, Fragm. Hist. Grac., vol. iv. p. 107.
* Theophanes Cont., p. 447.
xvii.] THE HARBOUR'S ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 281
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." 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.” 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.”
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.” Luitprand,” who saw the wall soon after its
erection, says of it: “The palace at Constantinople surpasses
* Nicetas Chon., iii. p. 149. * Leo Diac., iv. p. 63–65.
* Zbid., iv. p. 64; Cedrenus, vol. ii. 369, 370; Zonaras, xvi. c. xxvi. p. 123.
The last author describes the work thus : Tó vöv Špopévº reixei tā Baori Aeta
éo req\dvoorev. "AkpotroXw 8 of troAtra toûto kai Tupavvetov kaff Šavrów
ywópºevov exptyov.
“Ibid., iv. p. 64, IIepifloxov čk too 6arépou pépous toū Tpós 64Marrow
a ans a a a Af • -
étruk\ivods róv čvakrópov text{ew dpčápºevos, karū 6&repov Tpès 64Marrow
ovverépave, kai réxos, to vöv Špºpevov ibn Möv Te Kai Öxupèv čopio aro, Kai
tºv BaoriMetov čottav Ós interóiračev, jogha)\torato. Not, as Schlumberger
supposes, from the Golden Horn to the Sea of Marmora, across the promontory
(Un Zmpereur Byzantin au Dixième Siècle, p. 544).
* Lib. v. c. ix. ; Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. cxxxvi.
282 S BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
in beauty and strength any fortifications that I have ever
seen.” Within this wall the Palace of Bucoleon was, of course,
included.
Labarte * and Schlumberger” maintain, indeed, that Nice-
phorus surrounded the Palace of Bucoleon with special works
of defence, and constituted it a citadel within the fortifi-
cations of the Great Palace. But Leo Diaconus, Cedrenus
and Zonaras, our authorities on the subject, make no such
statement.”
As might be expected, historical events of considerable im-
portance 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. Por-
phyrogenitus to accept him as a colleague, and to surrender the
administration of affairs into his hands.”
* Ze Palais Impérial de Consple., p. 2 Io. * Op. cit., p. 545.
* 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. I2O) regarded the wall as part of the Peridromi of Marcian (see
Labarte, Ze Palais Zmpérial 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 east-
wards. 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.
* Theophanes Cont., p. 393.

xvii.] THE HARBOURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 283
It was here that the memorable conspiracy against Nice-
phorus Phocas was carried out, in 969, by John Zimisces, with
the connivance of the Empress Theophano." 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.”
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
* Leo Diaconus, v. p. 87; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 375.
* Nicetas Chon., pp. 169, 17o.
284 BYZANTINE CONSTA MVTIAWOP/CAE. [CHAP.
family, proceeded to the higher palace (rö inspicetusvov traXá-
rtov)." Here, also, in I 170, 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,” 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 Blachernae, 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 Blachernae, was
to belong to the prince whom the Crusaders would elect Emperor
of Constantinople ; * 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 Blachernae ; * 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 Buco-
leon make the impression that of the two Imperial residences
* Anna Comn., iii. p. I37. * Lib. xx. c. 23.
* Conquête de Consple., c. li. * Ibid., c. lv.
xvii.] THE HARBOUR'S OW THE SEA OF MARMORA. 285
—,
which he names, it was, if anything, the more important.”
Thither Murtzuphlus fled when his troops were discomfited.”
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.” 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.” There, also, were held
the festivities in honour of the marriage of the Emperor Henry
with Agnes, the daughter of the Marquis of Montferrat." 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"" 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 there-
fore be styled a castle with perfect propriety, just as the same
historian, for a similar reason, speaks of the Palace of Blachernae
as a “chastel.” Nor does the fact that the Marquis of Mont-
ferrat reached the Palace of Bucoleon by riding along the shore
(“chevaucha tout le long du rivage, droit vers Bouchelion”)”
prove that the residence beside Tchatlady Kapou was the one
he wished specially to secure. For the grounds of the Great
* Conquête de Consple., c. li. * Ibid., c. liii. * Ibid., c. lv.
* Ville-Hardouin, c. lviii. * Ibid., c. cvi. * Zbid., c. liii., lv.
* Zbid., c. lv. The position assigned by Labarte to the Palace of
Bucoleon, at Ahour Kapoussi, explains his interpretation of the statements of Ville-
Hardouin.
286 APYZA WT/WE COMSTA NZTIAWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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'
himself, establish the existence of such a gate, beyond contra-
diction. 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,” great fears were enter-
tained 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,”
that the Saracen ambassadors, after their audience of the
emperor, left the palace grounds by descending to the Tzycani-
sterion, 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
* Le Palais Impérial de Consple., p. 201. Labarte quotes Luitprandi Anta-
podosis, lib. v. s. 21, ap. Pertz, Mon. Germ. Hist, t. v. p. 333.
* Theophanes Cont., p. 393. * De Cer., p. 586.
xvi.I.] THE HARBOUR'S OW THE SEA OF MARMORA. 287
history, in connection with the events of the final fall of the
city. “To Peter Guliano, consul of the Catalans, was en-
trusted,” says Phrantzes," “the defence of the quarter of the
Bucoleon, and the districts as far as the neighbourhood of the
Kontoscalion.” w *.
* Page 253.
288 A YZAAVT/WE CONSTA WTINOPLE. [CHAP.
wº-y--- -----------, --> ------------------------------ ~~~~-----------------ºrrº-ev-º-º-º-º-ºxºtrºpºrea-3:Nºssºsrºw
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE HARBOURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA–continued.
The NEw HARBOUR' (Portus Novus), known also as the HARBOUR OF
JULIAN’ (Portus Divi Juliani: Apºv too 'IovXavoſ), and the HARBOUR
OF SOPHIA,” or the SOPHIAS “(Apºv tís Sobias, Tóv >0%tºv).
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.”
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
* Wotitia, ad Reg. III. * Theod. Cod., De Calcis Coctor.
* Theophanes, p. 284. * Nicetas Chon., p. 585.
* De Zop. CP., ii. c. xv.
--~~--—- -- ~~~~
*~... * * +
xvi.II.] THE HARBOUR'S ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 289
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 Hipprodrome towards the
Sea of Marmora."
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” 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” 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” states that the final action in the struggle
between Phocas and Heraclius took place in the Harbour of
Julian, John of Antioch " and Cedrenus * say it occurred at
the Harbour of Sophia. Again, while some authors’ put the
Residence of Probus, the district of Maurus, and the Palace of
* Aotitia, ad Reg. III., Nicetas Chon., p. 585; Leo Diaconus, v. pp. 83, 84.
* Page 135. Cf. Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 685.
* Pages 284, 564, Eis rôv 'IovXtavoid tâs Xoºpias Aeyópevov Apºva : év rø
'IovXavioriº Apév tás Xothias.
* Page 7oo. * Fragm. Hist. Graec., v. p. 38. * Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 712.
' A'aschal Chron., pp. 622, 700 ; Theophanes, pp. 284,364,564.
U
290 A VZAAV7/WE CO/WSTA WTIAWOP/LA2. [CHAP.
Sophia, beside the Harbour of Julian, others' place them beside
the Harbour of Sophia.
That the harbour known under these different names was at
Radriga 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,” 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,” and close to the Church of SS.
Sergius and Bacchus.* 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.” . 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
(>typia);" and there, also, his statue stood until 535, when it
fell in an earthquake, and was replaced by a cross." In pro-
moting 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.”
* Leo Gramm., p. 135; Theophanes, p. 564.
* AVotitia ad Reg. ZZZ. ; Leo Diaconus, v. pp. 83, 84.
* Zosimus, p. 139; Evagrius, ii. c. xiii.; Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 611.
* Zonaras, xiv. c. i. p. 1205. * Zosimus, pp. 139, 140.
* Zosimus, ut supra. * Malalas, p. 479. * See Epistle 58.
xviii.] THE HARBOUR'S OW THE SEA OF MARMORA. 291
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." *
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,” and was adorned with her statue, as well as
with the statues of Justin II., her daughter Arabia, and Narses.”
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." 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 asso-
ciated : 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.” In the riot of the Nika, the
* Marcellinus Comes, “Portus Juliani, undis suis rotalibus exhaustus coeno effoso
purgatus est;” Suidas, ad Anastasium.
* The plural form of the name (rów Xoptôv) 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.”
* Leo Gramm., p. 135; Anonymus, iii. p. 45. * Anonymus, ii. p. 30.
* Menaea, January 27. This point was known also as év tá pošA9 row dyſov
G}opa (Theophanes, p. 673).
292 A VZAAWTINE CONSTAA/TIAWOPLE. [CHAP.
Residence of Probus, which stood beside the harbour, was first
searched for arms, and then set on fire by the Factions." Here
Phocas placed a division of the Green Faction, to prevent the
landing of troops from the fleet of Heraclius ; * 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.”
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.”
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 devas-
tated the principal quarters of the city, from the Golden Horn
to the Sea of Marmora.” The equally destructive fire of
I2O3, 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." 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 Resi-
dence of Bardas, father of Nicephorus Phocas ; * 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;" the Churches of St. Thekla;10
St. Thomas, Amantiou ;” the Archangel Michael, of Adda (roſ)
* Paschal Chron., p. 622. * Ibid., p. 7oo.
* Ibid., ut supra. * Theophanes, p. 564.
* Evagrius, ii. c. xiii. * Nicetas Chon., p. 733.
* Theophanes, p. 364; Nicet. Paphl. (Unger, Quellen der Byzantinischen Kunst-
geschicte, p. 89); Cedrenus, vol. ii. 250 ; Theophanes Cont., p. 462.
* Leo Diaconus, v. pp. 83, 84. * Nicetas Chon., p. 585.
* Procopius, De Ad., i. c. iv. * Theophanes, p. 385.
xvi.II.] THE HARBOUR'S ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 293
'A886); 1 St. Julian Perdix ; and St. John the Forerunner, near
the Residence of Probus.”
Close to the Harbour of Sophia stood a tower known as the
Bukanon, or the Trumpet (ro Būkavov).” It was so named,
according to the Anonymus,” 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 ex-
change 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 (ro KovrookáAtov).
Another harbour on the Marmora side of the city was the
Harbour of Kontoscalion.
The first reference to the Kontoscalion occurs in the
Anonymus,” in the eleventh century, but the harbour acquired
its greatest importance after 1261, when it was selected by
Michael Palaeologus 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
* Anonymus, iii. p. 46. * Codinus, p. IOS.
* Nicetas Chon., p. 733; Michael Psellus (Sathas, Bibl. Graec. Med. Zvi.,
vol. v. p. 214).
* Lib. iii. p. 45. * Lib. ii. p. 34.
294 A VZAAVTIAWE COAVSTA AVT/AVOP/LA. [CHAP.
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." Subsequently, as his coat-of-arms on
the western tower of the harbour indicated, the Kontoscalion
was repaired by Andronicus II.”
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; la est la
superbe et très grande porte en fer a 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.”” -
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.
* Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 365, 366. * See below, p. 295, note 5.
* Itinéraires Russes en Orient, pp. 120, 121.
xvi.II.] THE HARBOUR'S ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 295
The adherence of the name Kontoscalion to this quarter, appa-
rently, ever since the Turkish Conquest," is in favour of the
opinion. So, likewise, is the fact that thus it becomes intelligible
how Pachymeres” and Bondelmontius” associate the harbour
with Vlanga, on the one hand, while Nicephorus Gregoras *
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.” The only objec-
tion 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
Palaeologus placed around the Kontoscalion. The former consists
of the ordinary walls of the city; the latter consisted, according
to Pachymeres," of very large blocks of stone: ºars yupôoat pºv
Heyto raig Trétpatc töv kūkX4, T6trov. 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
* 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
Rontoscalion is strange, unless he has confounded it with Kadriga Limani.
* Vol. i. p. 365.
* Ziber Insularum Archipelagi, p. 121. “Propinqua huic (Vlanga) Condoscali
vel Arsena restat.”
* Lib. xvii. p. 854. Cf. Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 72, 74.
* In a copy of the Anonymus, Codex Colbertinus, made in the thirteenth century,
the copyist, under the heading IIept tow Xoquaviov \p&va, adds the note that the
harbour eis to KovroorkóAov was constructed by Justin, and had been deepened
and surrounded by a remarkable enclosure in his own day by Andronicus Comnenus
Palaeologus. 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.
* Vol. i. p. 365.
296 A YZAAWTIAWE COMSTAAVT/AWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
that the work done under Michael Palaeologus 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."
HARBOUR OF ELEUTHERIUS AND THEODOSIUS.
According to the Notitia,” 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” (6 Aupºv rod
*EXEv0sotov): for the district of Eleutherius, and the palace of that
name,” 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,” 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.” Its antiquity is supported
* See below, pp. 312, 313. * Ad Reg. XII.
* Anonymus, iii. p. 46. * Ibid., p. 47.
° Lib. iii. p. 46; cf. ibid., p. 45. * Anonymus, iii. p. 46.
xviii.] THE HARBOURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 297
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."
- .*. **'. • * * e
- 2- \ . 2
* SQ..º.º.S. * /.g'." Jº -º W
} : Y Š, º, .
ToweR GUARDING THE HARBOUR OF ELEUTHERIUS AND THEoDOSIUS.”
From the fact that the harbour was called Portus Theo-
dosianus, it is evident that it was improved by Theodosius I.,
to whom the city owed so many public works.
* Anonymus, iii. p. 46.
* From Broken Bits of Byzantium. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)

298 A VZAAVTIAVE CONSTA WT/AVO PAEA2. [CHAP.
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." 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 re-
markable. 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 Ka-
poussi) eastwards for about 436 yards, and then northwards
for 327 yards more.” 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.”
* Lib. iii. p. 46.
* Gyllius, De Top. C.P., 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
I2 feet broad.
* Gyllius, ut supra. “Cujus ostium vergebat ad solis ortum aestivum, a quo
moles extendebatur ad occasum aestivum, supra quam nunc muri adstricti existunt.”
xviii.] THE HARBOUR'S ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 299
As stated already, the adjacent quarter was called the
quarter of Eleutherius (ra toû EXsuffspíov). It is mentioned
under that name in I2O3, as the farthest point reached by the
great fire which then devastated the city through the folly of the
Crusaders." The present name of the quarter, Vlanga, appears
2
z
*
g
à
PORTION of THE wall AROUND THE HARBOUR OF ELEUTHERIUS AND THEODOSIUS.”
first in the eleventh century, as the designation of the residence
of Andronicus Comnenus in this part of the city (oikoç Ög rod
BAáyya iristºra)' and it is the name by which writers
“In faucibus portus, adhuc navium capacibus, extra murum urbis, etiamnum
videtur turris undique mari circumdata, et saxa, reliquae ruinarum.”
Grelot, in his Relation Mouzelle 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 Aſrica 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.”
* Nicetas Chon., p. 733.
* From Broken Bits of Byzantium. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
* Nicetas Chon., p. 170.

3OO A VZAAWTVAWE CONSTA AWTINOP/CAE. [CHAP.
subsequent to the Restoration of the Greek Empire refer to
the district."
In the vicinity stood the Palace of the Empress Irene,” the
unnatural mother of Constantine VI., in which Basil II. enter-
tained the Legates of Pope Hadrian II.”
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," and
the district of Narses (ra Napooj)" were in this neighbourhood ;
so also was the district of Canicleius (rd Kavuk)\etov), where the
emperor landed when proceeding to pay his annual visit to that
church." The modern Greek church of St. Theodore, to the
south of Boudroum Djamissi (Myrelaion), marks, Dr. Mordtmann"
suggests, the district of Claudius (rd KXavētou).
THE HARBOUR OF THE GOLDEN GATE.
Another harbour on this side of the city was the Harbour
of the Golden Gate (ö Alpiñv ris Xpwaſic),” in the bay to the
west of the entrance of that name. This is implied in the state-
ment 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.”
On the occasion of a triumph celebrating a victorious
campaign in Asia Minor, the harbour presented an animated
* 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 : Kºtros
trepi rôv BAdykav, *čo Trov kai o ºveyyus toū Teixous ris tróAeos.
* Anonymus, iii. p. 47; Theophanes, p. 723.
* Guillelmus Bibliothecarius. * Anonymus, iii. p. 47.
* Zbid., p. 48. * Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 560.
* Page 59. * Ducas, p. 283. * Ibid., ut supra.
xviii.] THE HARBOURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 301
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.”
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.”
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 (Auńv rod Kalaapstov) is mentioned
for the first time in the Acts of the Fifth General Council of
Constantinople,” held in 553, under Justinian the Great. Near
it, we are there informed, stood the Residence of Germanus :
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., pp. 438, 499, 504. -
* 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, fortunae expectans eventum.”
* Act II.
3O2 BYZANTINE CONSTA WT/WOPLE. [CHAP.
“In domo Germani, prope portum Caesarii.” The harbour is
mentioned for the last time by Cedrenus,” in what is mani-
festly a quotation from Theophanes.” Beside it stood a district,”
and a palace," known respectively as the District and the Palace
of Kaisarius (Év roic Kataapsiov : kvpártop tſºv Katoapstow); the
latter being probably the residence of Germanus above men-
tioned.
After whom the harbour was named is uncertain. Du Cange”
suggests three persons from whom the designation may have
been derived : Kaisarius, Prefect of the City under Valentinian ;
Kaisarius, Praetorian 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;" and secondly, from the fact that it was there that Con-
stantine 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 AEgean."
Passing next to the Neorion at the Heptascalon, we find that
* Vol. i. p. 679. * Page 364. * Ibid., ut supra.
* Ibid., ut supra. * Du Cange, Constantinopolis Christiana, ii. p. I69.
• John of Antioch, Fragm. Hist. Grac., vol. v. p. 38. Etutpéret ºvXàt-
reoréat ex têv IIpagrívov táv Alpéva toû Kato apetov Kai Tov Xobias, toys
8è Beveroës to émi Oppio Sov. Cf. Paschal Chron., p. 7oo.
7 Theophanes, p. 541, who uses the expression, Ev tº IIpok\lavuote tº Kai-
oraptov Apévi. What does IIpok\tavioríº mean 2
xvi.II.] THE HARBOUR'S ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 3O3
the term “Heptascalon" is employed by Byzantine writers only
in two connections: first, and then generally in the corrupt form
IIaoxá\p or IIaokáX4, 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," in his biography of
Basil I., by whom the church was restored: secondly, Cantacuzene.”
employs the phrase to indicate the situation of the harbour
now under discussion.
In 1351 Cantacuzene" found the harbour in a very unsatis-
factory 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.*
Du Cange,” 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"
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 (Év tº Kapūq), 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.
* Theophanes Cont., p. 324; Synaxaria, May 7, July 21.
* Lib. iv. pp. 165, 212, 220, 284.
* Ibid., p. 165. * Ibid., p. 29O.
* Constantinopolis Christiana, i. p. 56. * Ibid., iv. p. I 18.
3O4 A YZANTIAWE CONSTAAV7 IAWOF/A2. [CHAP.
According to Antony of Novgorod," 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 AEgean to take part in the war,
the Venetians and the Spaniards, says the former historian,”
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 (to Bučavríov veðptov),” 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 after-
noon, that they succeeded in crossing from the island to the city.
Even at the last moment they narrowly escaped destruction, by
&
! 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 Exuviae CP., ii.
pp. 228, 229, the passage is rendered, “Ex altera parte monticuli posita est Ecclesia
SS. Sergii et Bacchi.” •
* Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 218–234. * Ibid., p. 22O.
xviii.] THE HARBOURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 305
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." 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
* 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), &tim kioves 8ttàof oxºpla
Tábov twos évéxovres to ravral. 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.
X
306 A YZAAWTIAWAE CONSTA WTIAWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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'
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”
(rod Tāv Bučavríov Aluévoc, rot Toog #w (3)\étrov'roc).” 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.” 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.”
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,” stood where the walls of the city were protected by
' Lib. xxvi. pp. 85–92. * Ibid., pp. 86, 90 ; cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. 220.
° Lib. xiv. p. 711 ; cf. Theophanes Cont., p. 614.
* Lib. ix. p. 460. * Lib. xxvi. p. 87.
xvi.II.] THE HARBOUR'S ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 307
boulders; ships issuing from it, in a south wind, could readily
make the Bosporus;" 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.”
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” 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
* Lib. xxvi. p. 87. - * Zbid., p. 90.
* Fragm. Hist, Grac., iv. p. 38.
308 BYZAAWTIAWE COMWSTANTIAWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
been filled in and abandoned 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.”
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,” 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 (£og too
Boöc),” situated at Ak Serai far up the valley that runs north-
wards 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 14OO and I422, dates respectively not fifty and
seventy years after that emperor's reign, is described as a garden.”
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 ex-
tremely improbable. Another objection is that the indications
respecting the site of St. Acacius at the Heptascalon, however
' Anonymus, iii. p. 46.
* Fragm. Hist. Graec., iv. p. 38; Theophanes, p. 54I.
* See above, p. 293. * Theophanes, p. 364.
* Actus Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, year I400, p. 394 ; Bondelmontius,
“In quibus moenibus est campus ab extra, et olim portus Vlanga.”
See above,
p. 300, ref. I.
xviii.] THE HARROURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 309
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 neighbour-
hood of Boudroum Djamissi, in the quarter of Laleli Hamam,
situated to the north-west of Koum Kapoussi."
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,” 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 dis-
tinguished 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
* The indications for the site of the Church of St. Acacius are : (1) It was
év EirraokóA® (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
Moselë (Moorºe), and the monument named the Christocamaron (Xptoſtokápapov),
after a gilt Icon of Christ upon it (Anonymus, ii. p. 38). (4) The Christocamaron, it
is supposed, was the same as the Chrysocamaron (Xpvookápopov : 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 argu-
ments; Codinus (pp. Ioſ, Io&) distinguishes the two monuments which are identified
above, and speaks of two places in Constantinople that were named Myrelaion.
* 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.
3IO A VZAAV7 IAVE CONSTA WT/AVOA’ZAZ. [CHAP.
to the Kontoscalion," 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,” 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.”
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 Hippo-
drome; * when he alludes to the Neorion at the Heptascalon, he
describes it as the harbour facing the east.” Different marks are
generally employed to distinguish different objects.” This being
so, the unavoidable conclusion is that the Neorion at the Hep-
tascalon 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
* Codinus, p. 72. * Cantacuzene, iv. p. 165.
* Zbid., 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.
* Lib. xvii. p. 854: 'Es to trepi rov too Bučavriou intróðpopov veðptov.
Cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. 72.
° Lib. xxvi. p. 90.
* 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 Kontos-
calion cannot be identified with either the Harbour of Sophia or the Heptascalon.
Scarlatus Byzantius (H. KovortavruvoiſiroMs, vol. i. pp. 268, 277) also maintains
that the three names designated different harbours.
xvi.II.] . THE HARBOUR'S OW THE SEA OF MARMORA. 311
to view in 1819, and were then officially noted by so competent
an authority as the Patriarch Constantius." In that year a
great fire burned down a large part of the Turkish quarter near
Yeni Kapou—Tulbenkoji Djamissi—and brought to light a por-
tion 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 com
munity, 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
“Molotrimmer” 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
l >vyypadai EX60 oroves, pp. 443, 444. He was not patriarch at the time.
3I2 A VZAAWTIAWE COAVSTA WZTWAVOA’ſ E. [CHAP.
*
parts, and forming a passage through it. The shore * 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” inserted between the Byzantine walls on either hand to
close an opening which gave admittance to the area occupied by
the quarter of Tulbenkoji Djamissi.
Here, accordingly, we have traces of all that constitutes a
harbour: its mole, its entrance, its basin and enclosure, indi-
cating where the Neorion at the Heptascalon, which the lan-
guage 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.”
In the opinion of the Patriarch Constantius,” indeed, the
harbour discovered in 1819 was the Kontoscalion. The state-
ment of Pachymeres” and Bondelmontius," that the Kontos-
calion 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 Palaeologus enclosed the Kontoscalion.
* 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.
* It is still standing. * See above, p. 308. * Ut supra.
* Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365, Tô Tpès rêv BX4)Ka KovrookéAtov.
° Librum Insularum Archipelago, p. 12I.
xvi.II.] THE HARBOURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 313
That emperor, according to Pachymeres,’ surrounded the
Kontoscalion with very large stones; and closed the entrance
in the stones with iron gates ("Qars yupôoat uév usy to raig irárpatc
töv kūk)\p rôtrov, . . . trāXac 8 triffsivat āpapviac ëk atóñpov tº
Šv raic trérpac sigiffum &offev).
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.” 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, DIscover ED
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 (Kovorray-
Tuvuòs IIa)\avă te kai Neotépa), published in 1844; secondly, in a letter, dated
April 12, 1852, which is found in the collection of his minor works (>vyypashai
ai EX6'ooroves), 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
* Vol. i. p. 365. * See above, p. 295.
3I4. BVZA WTINE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
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” ("Ev pépos 3& rotºrov too kvkAtkoo treptºppáypatos toū Apévos évébávn
ró 1819 &ret, ovvuotapevov čk tptov 6éoreov trappeytotov 3XXerox\ffMov
trerpóv).
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 (Xvy)paghai ai
‘EAdororoves, 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 con-
firmed 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. Kyriakë 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 : IIept too karū Tºv IIpotrovtiba
Apévos, rept of a muetoopºev čv tá, ºperépº Xvyypéppatt, too trapd MixañA
toū IIa)\atoxáyou karaokevao 66vros, airós Keiral év tº pièorg Tās II&ms
Kovrooka)\tov (Koop-karovo'où) kai tºs toū Tevi-kairovood tâs B.Adykas, kai
titſipxe, 8wd tò do boxéo repov, evöov Tów Trapaxtov tetxàv Karegkevao pºvos.
. . . 'AAA' 3Aov too pºépous, év (; 6 rod IIaxatoxóyou keiro, karoukoupévov
e A 3 a A *A - y a > A * an A
Jiro 'O60pavów, kard to 1819 &ros truptroXuffévros, diveſhavn to too Xip.évos
toūrov kvkAurov repúbpaypa, karū tow IIaxupépmv, Yeyupopévov čk tpiów
ăAAetraXXij\os refleipävov peyd'Aov Terpów, eipyaopévov dis TAaków, exovorów
pjkos pév rptów Trixeov, etpos 88 800, kai Bá60s jutorelay, táv pºv čáo
Károffey &AAetraXXij\ov TAaków k Terpóv too Boortrópov, Nevkopekavoxpóov,
ris à én' airów Tpirms orepās kai dvorépas, ék pappadpov io'opérpov IIpo-
Kovnorſov. 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
xvi.II.] THE HARBOUR'S ON THE SEA OF MARMORA. 31.5
which he continues thus: Alix60pſev 8& rô Kárepya-Alpêv, tºs évopias ‘Ayías
anº *A º a A * * an \ z
Kupuakºs kai EXtriðos, trapſi\6opew rô Koëp-karovo'où, kai Tpoexopjorapaev
sy 3. A A &\ ſyn vöoffev. čvyös tºs IIºns Tevi *
éxovres àpto-repô6ev rā trapáXua Teixm évôoffev, yyūs tºs IIij}\ms Tevi-karovood
* aº w
tis BAéykas, Štrov etőoplew to ék Terpov kai pappudpov kvk\otepès repúbpaypa,
2 Af e z e M A. a e M. A 2 *
ékretvápºevov jirokáro èvös teºpo6évros TKapuſov, Évês PeyāNov 'O6opavukoi,
oikov kai Trepairépo. Kai trapavrika čyvökapev 3rt todro airó £orru karū
töv IIaxupépy, rô trpès rêv B\dykav vetov too Kovrooka)\ſov Nečptov.
"OAos é Tóiros 6 treptéxov troté to Neóptov airó, perä rºv &\oortv čn Ampá0m,
éxeporóðm kai jºd,0m rò 8a;bos, karoukočuevos ūtrö 'O6opavóvº ai 8é àpapulat
ék orw8ñpov tróAal, 8 &v eiorén Aeev 5 oróAos éAApevičápºevos, drºpkobopºmorov.
316 A YZAAVTIAWE CONSTA WTINOP/LE. [CHAP.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE HEBDOMON.
THE Hebdomon (ro *E38ouov, “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,"
from the number of the milestone beside which it stood (év tº
‘EGööuq, MiX(w), 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 Blachernae were
found.
Now, of all the mistakes committed by students of the
topography of Byzantine Constantinople, none is so preposterous
* A station, eleven miles from Turin, on the line of railway between that city and
Milan, vić Vercelli, retains in its name, Settimo, the reminiscence of its ancient
designation, ad Septimum.
\? /.
Ķſ，dºvq.
'º n \!,! º No fT}− do 3-i\, s
}##Q�
�33&lºv. „ȚŲodbiodoſoſti'Oo Q !obºoffsoff,•}; }3oºvºg
NOWOCIgÐH9HL•� · Læſſ|}}>
C) N \/YYYHOWNYIŃ W JO W99aerºſ||
！ -��\\\\\\\lly,\\|%}*
K-L|Qnoá„noqº'!ºzaeº si<?\\\\'||\}）$$$$$$\\
3\{ 1, N33 ^^JL99ÞTÍŘőſ：§§§$ſ%%%%%%È}}|&#3}};"
{y_aeſēā（№J/•§§
º£ągÈS`S`\\\\\\
KNOL!!! Mºl. BHLJO 3–|—）¿№é||ŅĀ\
ا<sses）：ĢĒ<§NY\\\（2`aud4==
！¿№ſſº/
CIVYYN}% #ź%\\\\]';
%//№%%\
//%í №ſſº;;;.Ņ\\}
////：}ģ}}
N
§//SNS\\|
\|
\
%
^
////
\
）
ſſſſ||
ſ
3 1 \/e) N3O^\O O�\jŹź№W'Nóv'，pg.gÐ//
！¿№|°′
Đſ-A JA A O%%
//22 Ş}}}}&}}.\\
//ſaeſae ：）
/// ±ź«»
(Pºg
· · · -ģķaiņš|//||||||////
ff（N）|×
Ņ（)|//%
||||
%@!'i,Ņ.） :
ſae
§
N
£g iſ
■=--~~~~
\;'||
ſæ-ſº:©
Ē№È\
\
NÀN
。|Š（）\\|
Ņ::::::}:}:$$$$$$$$ſae|
ſae22a= ==><';\，j}ș\\
//@2ãĒ}}Ņ}}}
////、。}}%|
:::::::::::::::::::::}}§§N
sº
§:
§
3.
s 3%
#;
N
|||}}#：N
ź@ff;;Ķ````�ŠĶĒģ||ìĒĢĒĒøºšķº （SÈS
}}`
■
�
�
N
ºlqºq ?§3ę3}\\№::：:：:：:::：:::::::://¿№sººf ſº ``S`SN
•|§§№|//?·§§* ;§§ĒĒĒĒĒĖÈ$\\
*…ºff{&#$§\" - t.º.}},∞
ffffff;№
śffff;&#\ššN•
%，
ſaes`rº， №. ！-
.« /rºw:SSN<~
%%22% №§Ē
ø.(/ /|，{{}}ŅNSS`S`
N
Ş
¿№šŠŅ\N||
?）¿№!\， ^\\"]?)$, O L C \，
Ņ
Ģţ§§}}
;:Ř\||||||||||№ŘŮ.
§§\，|||||||W
//|（-）.N（Sº-SQ*///// /
?>№ſſaeſae
*-
|
!N
！//
§¶√∞
%



































XIX.] THAE HEAEPDOMOAV. 317
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 Sup-
ported with all the immense learning of Du Cange. It was soon
denounced by Valesius," 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,” pub-
lished 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.” *
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 * entered upon the discussion of the subject with the
* In his annotations to Ammianus Marcellinus. The arguments of Walesius 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.
* Pages 113, 114. * Un Empereur Byzantin au Dixième Siècle, p. 299.
“See De Zoº. CP., iv. c. i. iv.
318 A VZAAV7/AVE COMSTAAVT/AWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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 Theo-
dosius 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." Gyllius knew his Greek too well not to
recognize the obvious meaning of this statement. He acknow-
ledges 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 aede Divi Joannis Bap-
tistas, 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
* Sozomon, vii. c. xxiv., Aéyétat 8& Tóre tºs Kovo TavruvoviróAeos ékömpöv,
Trpos tº ‘E/386pºp pu)\tº Yevópºevos, Tpoorečaoréat tº 66% v Tij čv6áðe
* a º
ēkk\marig, #v éti Tupi, Iodvvov too Battuorrow éðelpato.
XIX.] THE HEAEDOMON. 3I9
|
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 Constan-
tine. 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 Heb-
domon, and so Gyllius leaped to the conclusion that the Hebdo-
mon was the district on the Sixth Hill : “Suburbium Hebdomon
appellatum in sexto colle fuisse, qui nunc est intra urbem,
Ostendit aedes Divi Joannis Baptista, quam etiam nunc Graeci
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 extra-
mural 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 " by Byzantine writers. And he might have
added that other portions of the territory were, respectively,
styled the Triton” and the Pempton.”
Du Cange * was unable to accept Gyllius's interpretation of
the phrase, "Eſºčáuſp MiXiq). He insists upon its correct and only
signification ; and admits that the suburb derived its name from
* See above, p. 74. * See above, pp. 77, 78. * See above, pp. 81, 82.
* Constantinopolis Christiana, ii. pp. 172–174; and the “Excursus on the
Hebdomon,” appended to the edition of his great work published at Venice.
32O A VZA WTINE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
its situation near the seventh milestone from the capital. Never-
theless 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 consider-
able 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" 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 mile-
stone. 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.”
I Theophanes Cont., p. 340.
* 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.
****, *-
XIX.] THE AIEB/DOMOAV. 32I
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”
(āvakaſugvov) * to the city implies, he thinks, that the plain of
the Hebdomon was contiguous to the city; “quas (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.””
For how could an enemy besiege a city without coming close up
to its walls 2 The consideration, however, which above every-
thing 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.”
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 Heb-
domon, 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
* Theophylactus Simocat., p. 339. What the historian says is, Tô trečíov to
âvakeſpevov čv tº Aeyop,évº Egöópºp, Öv Kápºtov Popalot katovopºdſovort.
* Nicephorus, Patriarcha CP., pp. 15, 16, Kai Tpós to tºs tróAeos 6
"E88opov Kaxočot kataAagóvres ièpſo avro. What the enemy did was to halt
at the Hebdomon before advancing against the city.
* See below, p. 329.
322 B VZA/VTINE CONSTA WTIAWOPLE. [CHAP.
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 Theophy-
lactus Simocatta,” for instance, indicates the situation of the
suburb : “It was a place seven miles from the city”—év tº
Aeyouévº Eſł8óuq' (róiroc & otroc tow dorsog ātrö a mustwy Śtră).
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.”* And
it is in the same terms that Marcellinus Comes refers to the
suburb, when he records the fact that Honorius was created
Caesar in it: “Id est, septimo ab urbe regia milliario.” To
* 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.
* Cf. Paschal Chron., pp. 556, 562.
XIX.] THE HEAEPDOMOW. 323
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," Socrates,” and
John of Antioch” 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 * to have been
at the same distance. Thus, also, the Campus of the Heb-
domon is described by Cedrenus as “the plain in front of
the city, seven miles distant.”" 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" is described,
in the subscription to several of his laws, as at the seventh
mile : “Recitata septimo milliario hujus inclytae civitatis, in
Novo Consistorio Palatii Justiniani.” ". 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.
* Lib. vii. c. xxiv. See quotation of the passage on p. 318, ref. 1.
* Lib. vi. c. vi., 'Atréxel kai rooro èrrà a muetois rās tróAeos.
tº e * Af
* Fragm. Hist. Grac., iv. p. 611, "Os &’ or muetows tºs tróAegos dºpetotijket.
4. e e s & 2 / * * e * Af * A
Lib. vi. c. xii., Atréxel kai Tooto Éirtà ormuetous rºs tróNews.
* Vol. i. p. 641, Eis to Tpó ris TóAeos Teótov ćirrà a muetots àtéxov.
" Procopius, De A.d., i. c. xi. * Lib. xxii., De Sacros Eccl.
324 A PZAAVTIAWE CONSTAA/TNAVOA’LAE. [CHAP.
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 Heb-
domon before arriving at the city. When, for example, Epi-
phanius 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.’
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.” 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,” “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
* Socrates, vi. c. xii.; Sozomon, vii. c. xiv.
* John of Antioch, Fragm. Hist. Grac., v. p. 38; cf. Paschal Chron., pp. 699, 7oo.
* Page 541. Speaking of the same event, the Patriarch Nicephorus (p. 36)
describes the Hebdomon as trapaffaxdorovov tátov. 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.
XIX.] THE A/ASA/DOMOAV. 325
dropping anchor between Galata and Klidion (Ortakeui)."
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 Con-
stantine 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 Caea) navigantes venerunt a
Septimo Milliario Constantinopolim, ubi egressus Tiberius
Imperator, filius Justiniani Augusti (Justinian II.) cum Patriciis,
cum clero, et populi multitudine, omnes laetantes, et diem festum
agentes. Pontifex autem et ejus primates, cum Sellaribus im-
perialibus, sellis et frenis inauratis, simul et mappulis, ingressi
sunt civitatem.” ” 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, See-
ing the Egnatian Road which led from Byzantium to Rome was
marked with the seventh milestone before the foundation of
* Theophanes, p. 608, 'Atrápavres ékéï6ev trapérèevoav Tóv tróAw.
* Anastasius Bibliothecarius, De Vitis Pontificum Roman, p. 56. Paris, 1649.
-
-
|
326 PY2AAWT/AVE COAVSTA NTVAVOA’/LAE. [CHAP.
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 after-
wards 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 incon-
venient. 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 indi-
cations 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 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,” and, therefore, stood some
two miles and a half from the Golden Gate. This explains how
* Constantinopolis Christiana, i. p. 45. See above, p. 70, ref. I.
* Theophanes, p. 541. -
XIX.] THE HAEAPDOMOAV. 327
Theophanes' 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 some-
times 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” to have stood in the Cyclobion: “Ad Castrum
autem Rotundum, in quo est Ecclesia, mirae magnitudinis, Sancti
Evangelistae Johannis nomini dicata.” Again, whereas John of
Antioch” represents the fleet of Heraclius as standing off the
Hebdomon, the Paschal Chronicle,“ 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, Kvk\ó9tov,
Srpoy)6Aov KaoréAAtov (Castrum Rotundum), from its circular
form,” and was a link in the chain of coast fortifications defend-
ing the approach to the city. It was repaired by Justinian
the Great, who connected it by a good road with Rhegium"
(Kutchuk Tchekmedjë), another military post, and drew upon
its garrison for troops to suppress the riot of the Nika." 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.”
Whether the Cyclobion was the same as the “Castle of the
Theodosiani at the Hebdomon,” mentioned by Theophanes,” is
not certain. On the whole, the fact that the two names are em-
ployed by the same historian favours the view that they designated
* Page 541. * Guillelmus Biblioth. in Åadriano II.
* Fragm. Hist. Graec., v. p. 38. * Page 699.
* Procopius, De Zd., iv. c. viii. * Ibid., ut supra.
* Paschal Chron., p. 622. * Theophanes, p. 693.
* Page 458, Tô KaoréAAw tºw @eoôoorwavów év tá, ‘Egöópºp.
328 BYZAWTINE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
mºr- -
different fortifications. The Theodosiani were a body of troops
named in honour of Theodosius the Great."
What gave the Hebdomon its importance and explains its
history was, primarily, its favourable situation for the establish-
ment of a large military camp in the neighbourhood of the capital.
An extensive plain, with abundance of water, and at a con-
venient 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.” 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.” It was at the Hebdomon that Gainas
gathered the soldiers with which he planned to seize the capital.”
There Vitalianus encamped with more than sixty thousand men
* Motitia 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).
* Sozomon, vii. c. xxiv. There, probably, Julian encamped the army with which
he advanced from Gaul to Constantinople (Zosimus, p. 139).
* Zosimus, pp. 255, 256. * Ibid., pp. 272, 273.
XIX.] THE HEBDOMOAV. 329
to besiege Constantinople in the reign of Anastasius I." Thither
Phocas” and Leo the Armenian” 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.”
The plain at the Hebdomon was used, also, for military
exercises and athletic sports, and consequently appears under .*
the name of the Campus Martius,” 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,” and there the popular game of polo was played."
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.” 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.” 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.”
* Marcellinus Comes, in 513.
* Theophanes, pp. 446, 447 ; Theophylactus Simocat., p. 339.
* Theophanes, p. 784.
* Nicephorus, Patriarcha C.P., pp. 15, 16; Theophanes Cont., p. 385.
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., pp. 414, 416.
* Theophanes, p. 458. * Theophanes Cont., p. 379.
* Paschal Chron., p. 586 ; Theophanes, pp. 143, 144; Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 641 ;
Paschal Chron., p. 702.
* Theophanes, p. 169.
* Paschal Chron., p. 589; Theophanes, p. 355. The Greek Church still com-
memorates seven of the earthquakes which shook the city during the Byzantine
period.
330 A VZAAV7 IAVE CONSTA WT/AVOA’A. E. [CHAP.
There, also, public executions took place,' 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.”
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 con-
tinued 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 EmperorValentinian: “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.” “ 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.” It was known as the
Tribune of the Hebdomon (Év rá, Towſºovva»tº roo Eſł8öuov).”
Valens also provided the Harbour of the Hebdomon with a
* Theophanes, p. 458. * Theophylactus Simocat., p. 339.
* Ammianus Marcellinus, xxvi. c. iv.; cf. Themistius, as cited below ; Paschal
Chron., p. 556.
* Themistius, Oratio VI., p. 99. Edit. Dindorf.
* Paschal Chron., p. 562. The Campus is sometimes styled the Campus of the
Tribunal, as for example by Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 707 : év tá, Kāpirº too Totòovvaxtov.
º: &
.
…- : -
ãº
º
º
...
Lº:
º
sº
R
|
º º
º
º
.
.
.
sº sº
*:
sº Z
- º ::/ º
º S º
| - * - & rº º
*sºs i {
x zº =º-ºº: { º
- / tº: ** iss º
ſº tº º
Ç º
| i - *ç : sº
* * * \ *-* ſº º
* * W SS
#
lº
i.
tº
se--->
Sººyººſ
º ">s, ºS
E. ye 5.ºf º s º
|
; § |Tºº
;
º -
|iſiº
*:
º
º º
º a. * * **, * * * * * * . . . .
º º :: *. - wº-
tº e- T. . . .”
à gº
sº
sº R_i
bºrº * * *
- & ſº
* - Cº.
*ś
lºssº Fº
#
º
§
§
sº Wh
lº |E.'ſ ſ
ºzzº, 2:24: *
3 . 3. *
% # = %
% % %lſº
2
º
º : 3 3.
º z 2:
2 º -
&
*
As º ... "
2 - %
* ..., & 2. º, , …” &
=t
arryrºzºror ºr º |
\;
fºllº.
., |

XIX.] - THE HEBDOMOM. 33 I
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."
After Valens, the following ten emperors were invested with
the purple at the Hebdomon : Arcadius,” by his father Theo-
dosius the Great, who also raised Honorius to the rank of Caesar
there; * Theodosius II. ; * Marcian ; * Leo the Great ;6 Zeno; 7
Basiliscus;* Maurice ; 9 Phocas ; " Leo the Armenian ; * and
Nicephorus Phocas.” Doubtless the fatigue involved in cele-
brating 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.” 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
* Themistius, Oratio VI., p. 99. Edit. Dindorf. * Paschal Chron., p. 562.
* Marcellinus Comes. * Paschal Chron., p. 568. * Ibid., p. 590.
* Zbid., p. 592. * Victor Tunnensis. * Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 615.
* Theophanes, p. 388. * Ibid., p. 447. * Ibid., p. 784.
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 438.
* 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.
332 A VZAAWT/WE COMSTAAVT/AWOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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.”" 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.”
* The soldiers spoke in Latin at the Coronation of Anastasius I. in the Hippo.
drome. See Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 431. Probably that was the rule.
* In older times the emperor was raised upon a shield at this point of the pro-
ceedings. E.g. Julian (Ammianus Marcell. xx. 4); Arcadius, Valens (Idatius
Fasti Consulares); Theodosius II. (Paschal Chron., p. 568); Marcian (Paschal
Chron., p. 590).
XIX.] THE HEAEPDOMOAV. 333
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 termi-
nated, 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
334 A YZAAV7'/WE CONSTA WT/WOAZAZ. [CHAP.
concerned the Hebdomon, to an end. The stream of life now
poured into the city, the Imperial cortège gathering more
and more pomp as it passed the Golden Gate, the Helenianae,”
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.”
Only one triumphal procession, that of Basil I.,” is expressly
described as starting from the Hebdomon, but the suburb was in
all probability “ the starting-point also of the processions which
celebrated the victories of Theodosius the Great, Heraclius, Con-
stantine Copronymus, Zimisces, and Basil II., if not of Michael
Palaeologus.
On the occasion of the triumph accorded to Basil I., the
Senate and a vast crowd, representing all classes of the popula-
tion, 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
Bagtohè). 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 Con-
stantine 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 (rùv 'A3papurtov), which stood between the suburb
* Near the Forum of Arcadius, on the Seventh Hill.
* 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.”
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 498.
* The case of Basil I. is not given by Constantine Porphyrogenitus as exceptional,
and may be considered as exemplifying the rule.
eM €T B.
SSFlp asſesgº
**-
Atº
§§ &
WiMA05 ACNVWPICTOICXYT Y
ſº Mºrác &
fºllºš ºnTAACKAIHAevoepy
vº
ſh-s sº
& º
ſº §
&= \º
* *º
§3%
*
(From Du Cange.)























XIX.] THE AMEBZ)OMOM. 335
and the gate, that Basil might offer his devotions in the Church
of the Theotokos Acheiropoietos (Axelporoimroc), and then the
procession resumed its march, and entered through the Golden
Gate into the jubilant capital."
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” 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.” ”
How agreeable a retreat the palace was may be inferred from the
name bestowed upon it—the Pleasance, Jucundianae ('Iovkovv-
8tavai)."
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.”
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."
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., pp. 498–503.
* Rufinus, De Vitis Patrum, iii., n. 19. “Fuit quidam nuper monachus in Con-
stantinopoli, temporibus Theodosii imperatoris. Habitabat autem in parva cella foris
civitatem prope proastium, qui vocatur in Septimo, ubi solent imperatores, egressi de
civitate, libenter degere.” f
* De Sacro Eccl., Lex. 22. “Recitata septimo milliario inclytae civitatis, in Novo
Consistorio Palatii Justiniani; ” cf. AVozella, 118.
* Procopius, De Ad., 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. I ; see Du Cange, lii. p. 141 ; cf. Malalas, p. 486).
* Lydus, p. 229. The column was overthrown by an earthquake in 577, and
sank eight feet into the ground (Theophanes, p. 358).
* Procopius, ut supra; Theophanes, p. 353.
336 A VZAAWTVZVE CONSTA WTINOPLE. [CHAP.
In the seventh and eighth centuries the palace of the Heb-
domon appears under the name of Magnaura ;' 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,” 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.”
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 (Arnaout-
keui), Daniel Stylites, went to rebuke him and foretell the loss
of the throne which had been usurped and dishonoured.* As
already intimated, it was a favourite resort of Justinian the
Great,” 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, with-
out a single gem missing." The palace was occupied also by
Justin II." and Tiberius II., the latter dying in it.”
The Hebdomon enjoyed, moreover, a great religious reputa-
tion on account of its numerous churches. The oldest sanctuary
* Theophanes, pp. 541, 608.
* See Labarte, Ze Palais Impérial de Consp/e., 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.
* Theophanes, p. 152.
* Symeon Metaphrastes, Zife of Daniel Stylites, p. 1025. Patrol. Graeca, Migne.
* Procopius, De Zd., i. c. xi. * Theophanes, p. 351.
* Eustachius, Vita Eutychii Patriarchae, as quoted by Du Cange, Constantinopolis
Christiana, iv. p. 177.
* Paschal Chron., p. 690.
XIX.] THE A/EB/DOMOAV. 337
of the suburb was the Basilica of St. John the Evangelist,"
which appears first in the reign of Arcadius,” 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.,” as
”* and continued to
be a venerated shrine as late as the Comnenian period,” after
which it was allowed to fall into decay. Basil II. was interred
remarkable for its size, “mirae magnitudinis,
in it, according to his dying request," and his grave was
discovered among the ruins of the church in the thirteenth
century, while Michael Palaeologus 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 Palaeologus, he com-
manded 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," for interment in the monastery of
St. Saviour.
* Anonymus, iii. p. 56. * Socrates, vi. c. vi.
* Theophanes Cont., p. 340. * Guillelmus Biblioth. in Hadriano PP.
* Anna Comn., p. 149. * Cinnamus, pp. 176, 177.
* Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 124, 125. The epitaph is given by Banduri, Imp.
Orient., vol. ii. vii. p. 179. It mentions the Hebdomon:
ICTIMI TYMBON EN MECOU THO EBAOMOY
338 A YZA WZTIAWE CONSTA WT/WOAZAZ. [CHAP.
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." Such importance was attached
to these relics that their conveyance from Palestine to Constanti-
nople, 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.” 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.” The church fell in the earthquake which shook
the city in the thirty-first year of the reign of Justinian the
Great.* *
But the most venerated church in the suburb was that
dedicated to St. John the Baptist (ro uapráptov too Barriorod
'Ioãvvov),” a domical edifice, built by Theodosius the Great" 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
* Paschal Chron., p. 570.
* Jerome, Adversus Vigilantium, c. ii. Quoted by Du Cange, iv. p. 105.
* Paschal Chron., pp. 569, 570. * Theophanes, p. 357.
* Socrates, vi. c. vi. * Anonymus, iii. p. 56.
XIX.] THE A/A2A/DOMOAV. 339
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 Heb-
domon, 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."
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,” Epiphanius of Cyprus,” Gainas,” 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.” r -
In the course of its history the church was twice restored on
* Sozomon, vii. c. xxi. * Ibid., vii. c. xxiv.
* Ibid., viii. c. iv. * Socrates, vi. c. xii.
- * Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., pp. 413, 499.
34O APYZA/VTIWE CO/WSTANTINOP/LA2. [CHAP.
a magnificent scale; first by Justinian the Great," and again
by Basil I.”
Other churches of less note at the Hebdomon were respec-
tively dedicated to St. Theodotě (rö 98086 rmg &ytaç réuswoc);”
SS. Menas and Menaius (Mnvåg kai Mnvatog); * SS. Benjamin
and Berius (Aytov Beviauiv kai Bmptov);" and the Holy Innocents
(rów Nmirlov).” 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 impor-
tance 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."
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,” and the
Legates of Pope Hadrian II., in 869,” rested before entering the
city. There the Emperor Maurice halted, upon leaving Con-
stantinople, to join the expedition against the Avars;” and
* Procopius, De Zd., i. c. viii.
* Theophanes Cont., p. 340. The wealthy monastery at the Hebdomon, men-
tioned in history, was probably attached to this church (John Scylitzes, in Cedrenus,
vol. ii. p. 714).
* Procopius, De Zd., i. c. iv. * Ibid., c. ix.
* Menaa, 29 July, TAmortov táv traXartov too ‘E38ópov.
* Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 496. * Ibid., ut supra.
* Anastasius Biblioth. in Hormisda A'P.
* Guillelmus Biblioth. in Hadriano PP.
* Theophylactus Simocat., pp. 236, 237.
XIX.] - THAE AIAEAE ZOOMOAV. 34I
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."
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 em-
braced 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. Deme-
trius 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.”
* Theophanes Cont., pp. 906, 907. * Synaxaria, 26 October.
342 Byza wr/NE CONSTANTINOPLE. [CHAP.
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 incur-
Sions 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." It was known, in view of its length, as the Long Wall
(Makpov rºxog),” the Long Walls (ra Makpa retxm),” and, after
the emperor by whom it was erected, as the Anastasian Wall (ro
retxoc to 'Avaaraataków).” 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,
* For a description of the wall, see Evagrius, iii. c. 38; Procopius, De Ad., iv.
c. ix. *
* Theophanes, p. 361. * Agathias, p. 305. * Theophanes, p. 360.
XX.] THE AAVA.S.T.A.S/AAW WA. Z.Z. 343
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.” The Anastasian
Wall appears in history in connection with the attacks of the
Huns and Avars, in the reigns of Justinian the Great,” Maurice,”
and Heraclius." 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,” 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.” And, of course,
it was useless against an enemy advancing upon the capital by
sea." Traces of the wall are, it is said, visible at Koush Kaya
and at Karadjakeui.
* Theophanes, p. 362; Procopius, De Zd., iv. c. ix.
* Theophanes, p. 361. * Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 692. * Paschal Chron., p. 712.
5 Colonel F. V. Greene, United States Army, in his work, The Russian Army
and its Campaigns in Zurkey in 1877–78, p. 362.
* Agathias, p. 305; Procopius, 24t suffra. * Theophanes, p. 460.

TABLE OF EMPERORS.
–Cºxe-
Constantine I., the Great
Constantius II.
Julian
Jovian
Valens s tº © & e
Theodosius I., the Great
Arcadius . . . "
Theodosius II.
Marcian
Leo I.
Zeno
Anastasius I.
Justin I.
Justinian I., the Great
Justin II.
, Tiberius II.
Maurice
Phocas
Heraclius - e ºs © a tº
Heraclius Constantinus and Heracleonas
Constans II.
Constantine IV.
Justinian II.
306–337
337–361
361-363
363-364
364–378
378–395
395–408
408–450
450–457
457-474
474-49 I
491–518
518–527
527–565
565–578
578–582
582–602
6O2–6IO
6IO–64I
641–642
642–668
668–685
685–695

TA BALE of A. MAERORS. 345
Constantine IX.
Leontius tº e & 695-697
Tiberius III. Apsimarus 697–705
Justinian II. (restored) 705–71 I
Philippicus 7II–713
Anastasius II. 7I3–715
Theodosius III. 715–717
Leo III., the Isaurian 717–74O
Constantine V. Copronymus 740–775
Leo IV. . 775–779
!Constantine VI. 779-797
Irene 797–802
Nicephorus I. ... 8O2–81 I
Stauricius 6 º' e 8II
Michael I. Rhangabe 8II–813
Leo V., the Armenian 813–82O
Michael II., the Amorian 820–829
Theophilus 829–842
Michael III. 842—867
Basil I., the Macedonian 867–886
Leo VI., the Wise tº ſº tº 886–912
Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus 912–958
Co-Emperors—
Alexander 9I2–913
Romanus I. Lecapenus ... tº º º - 919–945
Constantine VIII. and Stephanus, sons of
Romanus I., reigned five weeks 944
Romanus II. tº q & * 958–963
Basil II. Bulgaroktonos 963—IO25
Co-Emperors—
Nicephorus II. Phocas 963–969
John I. Zimisces 969–976
... 976–IO25
346 7TA ARZAE OAF Æ MARZERO Ä€S.
Constantine IX. •
Romanus III. Argyrus
Michael IV., the Paphlagonian
Michael V.
Zoe and Theodora
Constantine X. Monomachus
Theodora (restored)
Michael VI. Stratioticus ...
Isaac I. Comnenus
Constantine XI. Ducas
Michael VII. Ducas ...
Co-Emperor—
Romanus IV. Diogenes
Nicephorus III. Botoniates
Alexius I. Comnenus
John II. Comnenus ...
Manuel I. Comnenus
Alexius II. Comnenus
Andronicus I. Comnenus ...
Isaac II. Angelus
Alexius III. Angelus
Isaac II. (restored)
Alexius IV. Σ-
Nicolas Canabus *-* e s-*
Alexius V. Ducas, Murtzuphlus
LATIN EMPERORS.
Baldwin I.
Henry
Peter
Io25—Io28
Io28—IO34
IO34—IO42
IO42
IO42
IO42—IO54
IO54—IO56
Io56—Io57
. IO57—IO59
IO59—IO67
Io67—Io78
Io67—Io78
Io78—Io8I
IO8I—I I I8
I I I8—II43
I I43—II8O
I I8o—I I83
I I83—I I85
I I85—I I95
I I95—I2O3
I2O3— I2O4
I2O4
I2O4
I2O4—I2O5
I2o5—I2I6
I2I7—I2I9
7TA ARZAE O Æ Æ MAJEÆOÄRS. 347
Pobert I2I9—I 228
John of Brienne I228—I237 .
Baldwin II. I237—126I
NICÆAN EMPERORS.
Theodore I. Lascaris I2O4—I222
John III. Ducas I222— I 254
Theodore II. Ducas 1254-I259
John IV. Ducas 12 59—I26O
EMPIRE RESTORED.
Michael VIII. Palæologus I26O-I282
Andronicus II. Palæologus I282— I 328
Co-Emperor—
Michael IX. 1295-132o
Andronicus III. Palæologus I 328—I34I
John VI. Palæologus I34I—I 39 I
Co-Emperors—
John V. Cantacuzene ■ - • ... I 342— I 355
Andronicus IV. Palæologus (usurped throne) I 376—I 379
Manuel II. Palæologus I39 I—I425
John VII. Palæologus I425-I448
Constantine XII. Palæologus I448-I453
I N D E X.
A.
Achilles and Ajax, Shrine of, I4.
Achmet, Sultan, 72.
Acropolis, 36, 179, 181, 182, 194, 222,
223, 227. See Seraglio Point.
at Athens, I3.
of Byzantium, 5, 6, 8, 13, 249.
Adrianople, 32, 40.
AEdes Severianae, 138.
AEgean, 4, 181, 182, 302, 3O4.
Agnes, 285.
Aivan Serai, 39, 89, II 7, II8, I21, 175,
I91, 196, 202.
Aivan Serai Iskelessi, I95, 203.
Ak Serai, 296, 308, 312.
Alaric, 32, 328.
Alexandria, 4O, 217.
Alti Mermer, 3, 20, 2I, 78.
Amalfi, 218, 22O. *
Amaury, King of Jerusalem, 128, 284.
Amphitheatre of Byzantium, 37.
Amurath I., Sultan, I62.
Anaplus, Arnaout Keui, 36, 336.
Anatolius, Patriarch, 329.
Anaxibius, 5, 6, 249.
André d’Urboise, 208.
Anemas, I46, I47, I54, 155, I56. See
Prison.
Angora, 7I.
Anna, Princess, I58-16I.
Anna of Savoy, IIo, I27.
Anthemius, Prefect, 43–46, 50, 62, 96,
II9, 180.
Antony, defended the Myriandrion, 87.
Apobathra, Pier of the Emperor, 195.
Apocaucus, Io9, IO4, I27, 25 I.
Apollinarius, 2 I6.
Aqueduct of Hadrian, I4, 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 Limnē, Silver Lake, 127.
Arians, I9, 20.
Arsenius, of Crete, 84.
Artavasdes, 90, 91.
Asia, * Minor, I, 38, 40, 226, 300,
33ö.
Asmali-Medjid Sokaki, 242.
Athanaric, 40.
Athens, 226.
Athos, 252.
Athyras (Buyuk Tchekmedjë), 45, 77.
Atrium of Justinian the Great, 257.
Attila, 45, 47.
Augusta, 34.
Avars, 23, 77, 86, 97, II9, 165, I70, 174,
2IO, 32 I, 329, 340, 343.
Avret Bazaar, 3, 16, 20, 2I, 22. See
Forum of Arcadius.
B.
Bacchatureus, Murus, 86, 87.
Bajazet, Sultan, 71, 87, 162, 163.
Balata, 202.
Baloukli, 75. See Pegè.
Balta Liman, I76, 24I, 245.
Barbyses, 175, I76.
Bardas, I85, 259, 292.
Basilica, Great Law Courts, 7.
Senate House, 35.
Bas-reliefs at Golden Gate, 65, 66.
Belisarius, 68.
Berenger, 238, 240.
Beroea, I58.
Beshiktash, 241-243, 246, 305.
Blachernae, district of, I4, 39, 90, II6,
164, 165, 169, 173, 179, 194, 196,
I97, 2IO, 2II, 3I6.
Black Sea, Euxine, I, 9, 181, 256, 342.
35O
AVZ) AX.
Bucoleon.
Board of Health, Galata, 229.
Bodgan Serai, 84, 319.
Bohemond, 128, 17o.
Bonus, Patrician, 23.
Rector, 225.
Bosporus, passim.
Brachionion of Blachernae, 168, 169.
Branas, Alexius, 86, 257.
Braz Saint George, 252.
Bridge at St. Mamas, 175.
—, Byzantine, across the Golden Horn,
I74–177.
—, Galata, 229.
—, inner, across the Golden Horn, 16,
18, 212.
Brousa, 71.
Bucanon, 293.
See Palace ; Harbour.
Bulgarian, 68, 70, 87, 90, 163, I71, 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.
Charisius, 83. See Gate.
Chares, 250.
Christocamaron, 309.
Christodoulos, 208.
Chrysaphius, 77, 78.
Chrysocamaron, 309.
Chrysopolis, 2, II, 12, 181, 250, 251,
3OI. -
Chrysotriclinium, 189.
Chrysostom, 43, 75, 82, 90, 291.
hurch—
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. j
St. Anastasia, I97.
Angels, Seven Orders of the, Monastery,
II.3.
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, 2IO.
SS. Cosmas and Damianus, 9o, 127,
I65, 169, 170, 171, 174.
Prophet Daniel, 81.
St. Demetrius, near the Acropolis,
189, 219, 249.
St. Demetrius, of Kanabus, 117, 121,
I97, 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,
4.
Cabatash, 305.
Caea, island of, 325.
Campus, Campus Martius, 329. See
Hebdomon.
Candidati, 332.
Candidus, IQ7.
Canicleius, district of, 3OO.
Carthage, 324.
Cassim Pasha, 223, 229, 231, 24I, 246.
Castamon, 250.
Castinus, 2O7.
Castle—
Blachernae, III, I3O.
Bohemond, I70.
Bucoleon, 285.
Cyclobion, Strongylon, Castrum
Rotundum, 70, 324, 326, 327.
Kalojean, 71.
St. Gregorius, I60.
Seven Towers, 71,
Yedi Koulé.
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.
chalººn, 2, 6, 165, 226, 249, 304-307,
IO4, 168. See
330. . .
Chalcoprateia, 7.
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.
AAWDAX. - 35 I
Church—conta.
St. Irene, in the Acropolis, 2, 7, 12,
35, 82, 229.
St. Irene, in Galata, 2IO, 216.
St. Isaacius, 78.
Prophet Isaiah, 26, 2I2.
St. John the Baptist, Armenian Chapel
of, 265.
St. John the Baptist, near Balat Ka-
poussi, 234, 235, 240.
St. John the Baptist, near the Basilikë
Pyle, 234, 238, 240.
St. John the Baptist, at the Hebdomon,
318–320, 323, 324, 333, 334, 338–
34O.
St. John the Baptist, near the Gate of
the Kynegos, 2O5.
St. John the Baptist, near the Palaia
Porta, 2I.
St. John the Baptist, in Petra, 24, 84,
2O5, 319, 32O.
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 Heb-
domon, 323, 327, 337, 339.
St. Julian, Perdix, 293.
St. Julianè, 207.
St. Kallinicus, I74.
St. Kyriakè, near Koum Kapoussi,
3I4.
St. Kyriakè, near the Lycus, 82.
St. Laurentius, 26, 27, 28, 2IO, 212.
St. Lazarus, 256.
St. Luke, 23.
St. Mamas, 89, 9o, I75.
Manuel, Monastery of, 23.
ss. Manuel, Sabel, and Ishmael, 18,
2
St. Mary Acheiropoietos, of the
Abramiti, 334, 335.
St. Mary, of Blachernae, II6, II?, 118,
II9, 128, 130, 152, I64, 165, 166,
I69, I74, 195, 196, 197, 20I.
St. º, Hodegetria, 254, 256-258,
200.
Church—contal.
St. Michael the Archangel, of Adda,
--&
St._Mary, of the Mongolians, Kan Cilicia, 250, 338.
Klissè, 208.' Circus Maximus, 35.
St. Mary, Pammacaristos, 198. Cistern—
St. Mary, of the Pegè, 76, 90. Aspar, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25.
St. Mary, Peribleptos, 19, 20, 240, 264. Basilica, 7.
St. May, of the Rhabdos, 18, 28, 32,
204.
St. Mary, in the Sigma, 78.
SS. Menas and Menaius, 340. !
St. Metrophanes, 309.
St. Michael, near the Acropolis, 230.
292.
St. Michael the Archangel, at Ana-
plus, 36.
St. Michael the Archangel, in Arcadi-
anais, 257.
St. Mokius, 20, 23, 36, 7I.
Myrelaion, 300, 309.
St. Nicholas, at the Acropolis, 249.
St. Nicholas, between the Walls of
Heraclius and Leo V., II8, I 19, 165,
I69, 17O, 2IO.
St. Nicetas, 81.
SS. Notarii, 75, 77.
St. Panteleemon, I74, 30O.
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,
2IO, 2II.
St. Saviour, Pantocrator, 2II, 34I.
St. Saviour, Pantopoptes, 2II.
St. Saviour, Philanthropos, near Indjili
Kiosk, 252-257.
St. Saviour, at Selivria, 337.
SS. Sergius and Bacchus, 262, 275–
279, 288, 290, 29I, 293, 3O4.
St. Sophia, 2, 7, 12, 13, 36, 67, 84,
I57, 159, 217, 226, 227, 256, 258,
285, 326, 333, 334, 338.
St. Stephen, of the Romans, 2O7.
St. Stephen, in the Sigma, 78.
St. Thekla, I96, 292.
St. Theodore, of Claudius, 3OO.
St. Theodore, in the Deuteron, 75.
St. Theodore, above Galata, 23.I.
St. Theodosia, 26, 208, 209, 2II.
St. Theodoté, 340.
St. Thomas, Amantiou, 262, 29I, 292.
St. Timothy, 75.
Bonus, 18, 23, 24, 25.
Mokius, I6, 17, 74.
Soulon Monastir, 20. g &
Yeri Batan Serai. See above, Basilica.
Clari, 38.
Clarissimi, 38.
352 IAWDE.Y.
|
Claudius, district of, 3OO.
Cold Waters, 2II, 24.I. 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 Con-
stantine the Great.
Claudius, I3.
Constantine the Great, 3, Io, I6, 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,
II9, 18O.
Constantine Ducas, 26O.
Contoscopie, 294.
Convent. See Church.
Coparia, 22I.
Cosmidion, 89, 90, I27, 169, I70, 174,
I75, 223, 24.I.
Council of Basle, 203.
of Ferrara, 84, 203.
—, Fifth General, 301.
of Florence, 203.
Count of the Walls, 95.
Courapas, I54.
Crete, Cretans, I54, 182, 186, 187, 236,
240, 260.
Crimea, 192.
Crum, 70, 9o, 91, 167, I70.
Crusade I., I28, 176.
Crusade II., I76.
Crusade III., 91.
Crusade IV., I27, 129, 171, 176, 193,
I95, I97, 207, 2II.
Crusaders, 61, 73, 122, 126, 129, 171,
I72, 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,
2O7.
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, 2O9.
#: Aluxio, I72, 202.
1plokionion, 242, 243, 305.
Dolma Bagtchè, #. 5
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,
I46, I47, I48, I55, 156, 170, 171,
2I4, 217, 220, 283.
Alexius II. Comnenus, 266, 285.
Alexius III. Angelus, 172, 26o.
Alº V. Ducas, Murtzuphlus, 197,
285.
Alexius, of Trebizond, Ioz.
Anastasius I., 70, 91, 128, 140, 173,
29I, 329, 332, 342.
Anastasius II., 91, 98, 170, 181.
Andronicus I. Comnenus, 103, 156,
I57, 266, 299.
Andronicus, II. Palaeologus, IoS, IIo,
: I60, 161, 170, 189, 190, 294–
200.
Andronicus III. Palaeologus, IIo, 127,
I61, 190, 198.
Andronicus IV. Palaeologus, 71, 76,
87, 162, 163.
//VDÆ X.
Emperor—comtd.
Antoninus, 77.
Arcadius, 42, 43, 82, 228, 257, 299,
322, 323, 331, 332, 337, 338.
Baldwin I., I29, I7I, 285.
Baldwin II., I29.
Basil I., I9, 68, 72, 90, 187, 207, 255,
265, 3o3, 334,335, 337, 349.
Basil. II., 67, 68, Ioo-io2, 186, 187,
3OO, 334, 337.
Basiliscus, 67, 331, 336.
Cantacuzene, 7o, 86, 91, 92, Io3, IO4,
IIo, III, II2, I I3, I27, I6I, I77,
I9O, I9I, 227, 25 I, 252, 259, 3o3,
, 3IO.
Caracalla, 9, 138.
Charlemagne, IOO.
Charles V., 272.
Claudius Gothicus, I3.
Conrad, German Emperor, I76.
Constans II., 265.
Constantine I., the Great, 2, 5, 8, 9,
Io, II, I2, I3, 15, 17, 24, 26, 29, 34,
35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 9o, I79, 213, 256,
28o, 297, 337.
Constantine IV., 3o2, 3o8.
Constantine V. Copronymus, 68, 9o,
9I, 98,99, Igo, 226, 25I, 327, 334.
Constantine VI., 9o, Ioo, 3oo.
Constantine VII., II2, 26o, 265, 279,
28o, 282, 286, 3o3.
Constantine VIII., 286.
Constantine IX., Ioo, IoI, Io2.
Constantine X. Monomachus, I7I,
25I.
Constantine XII. Dragoses, 87, 92,
Io8, 124, 223.
Constantius II., 29, 36, 4I.
Erederick Barbarossa, 9I.
Hadrian, 14, 37.
Henry, I29, 284, 285.
Heraclius, 23, 67, 69, I 16, I65, 166,
173, 175, 176, 18o, 276, 28o, 289,
292, 302, 3O7.
Honorius, 322, 33I.
Isaac Angelus, 86, 9 I, 125, 126, 127,
I29, I3I, 132, I47, I49, 15o, 157,
I73, I93, I97, 2O7, 22o, 255, 257,
285, 292.
John Comnenus, 25o.
John VI. Palæologus, 7o, 71, 76, 87,
Io3, io4, 1 Io, 1 1 1, 152, 153, 162, |
I63, 197, 259.
John VII. Palæologus, Io4-Io8, 126,
393, 2o3.
Julian, 41, 289, 290, 328, 332.
Justin I., 67.
Justin II., 8o, 97, 22o, 28o, 289, 291,
295, 336.
353
Emperor—comtd.
Justinian I., the Great, 33, 35, 64, 75,
83, 84, 90, 96, 165, 17o, 174, 2o6,
2I5-2I7, 229, 25 I, 257, 263, 276,
278, 28o, 299, 3oo, 3oI, 327, 335,
336, 338, 340, 342, 343.
Justinian II., 67, 86, I7o, 25 I, 292,
325.
Kanabus, Nicholas, I97, 2o5.
Leo I., 67, 77, 90, 96, 226, 262, 273,
292, 302, 33 I, 332.
Leo II., 334.
Leo III. Isauriam, 35, 65, 98, 99, IOO,
2O9, 229.
Leo IV., Ioo.
Leo V., the Armeniam, 67, 7o, II 5,
164, 167, 17o, 329, 33I.
Leo VI. the Wise, 186, 187, 2o7.
Leontius, 251, 292.
Manuel I. Comnenus, Io3, I22, I23,
I28, I29, 157, 187, 22o, 25o, 266,
284, 34I.
Manuel II. Palæologus, 7 I, I62, I63,
I93, 24O.
Marcian, 67, 331, 332.
Maurice, 68, 9o, 196, 329, 33o, 331,
340, 343.
Michael I., 279.
Michael II., 166, 168, 169, 179, 182,
185, 229.
Mjsi III., 64, 9o, 9I, 184, 185, 257,
20 I.
Michael V., 19, 78.
Michael VIII. Palæologus, 68, 69, 76,
Io3, I29, 157, 158, 159, I6o, 188,
I89, 208, 2IO, 293, 295, 296, 312-
3I43 334, 337. .
Nigorus Botoniates, 86, 17 I, 207,
283.
Nicephorus Phocas, 65—67, 68, 76, I 54,
229, 25o, 28I, 282, 283, 292, 317,
33 I.
Phocas, 67, 90, I8o, 276, 279, 28o, 289,
292, 302, 3O7, 324, 329, 33 I, 334.
Romanus I., Lecapenus, 24, 67, I7o,
207, 282, 286, 34 I.
Romanus II., I54.
Romanus III., Argyrus, I9, Io2.
Romanus, I69.
Septimius Severus, 9, II, I2, I3, I4,
37, 138, 251, 256.
Stephen, 286.
Theodosius I., the Great, I2, 19, 22,
2, 6o-64, 67, 298, 299, 3o2, 318,
328, 331, 334, 335, 338—34o.
Theodosius II., 17, 31, 42, 43, 45,
47—5o, 62, 72, 77, 78, 82, I 12,
I 19, 279, 392, 331, 332, 336.
Theodosius III., 9 I, I7o.
2 A
354. JAVOAZ X.
*
Emperor—contal.
Theophilus, 23, 68, 69, 90, IoI, 112,
I49, I68, 173, 182–185, 228, 250,
279.
Tiberius II., 280, 328,336.
Tiberius III., Apsimarus, 170, 180,
25I.
Valens, 41, 322, 330–332, 338, 339.
Valentinian, 302,330.
Zeno, 26, 96,227,331, 334.
Eß. 68, 69, IoI, 155, 283, 334.
PIPhanlu.S, 324, 339, 34O.
Et #. 339, 34
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.
Foederati, 33, 85.
Forum—
Amastrianon, I56.
Arcadius, I9, 20, 31, 32, 63.
Augustaion, 34, 35, 37.
Bous, 308.
Constantine the Great, Io, II, 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, I4, 39, 176, 181, 188, 190, 192,
2IO, 216, 217, 228, 231, 241, 243,
259, 305, 325, 337.
Galbius, I97.
Gas Works at Yedi Koulé, 265.
Gate. See also Postern.
Adrianople, 3, 16, 23, 29, IIo.
St. Æmilianus, 18, 27, 28, 32, 264,
298.
Ahour Kapoussi, 186, 187, 192, 260,
261, 270, 281, 285.
Aivan Serai Kapoussi, I51, 195.
St. Anastasia, I97.
Ancient Gate, Porta Antiqua, Palaia
Porta of the Forerunner, Anti-
quissima Pulchra Porta, 18, 21, 22,
30, 74.
Asomaton, Seven Orders of Angels,
II.3.
Atalus, 29, 33.
Aurea, I7, 22, 30, 31, 37, 59-73.
See Golden Gate. t
Aya Kapou, 27. See Gate of St.
Theodosia.
Ayasma Kapoussi, 32, 212, 213.
Bagtehé Kapoussi, 7, 8, 200, 218–220,
236, 237.
Balat Kapoussi, 3, II6, II 7, 121, 195,
I98–202, 204–206, 230, 232–235,
239.
Balouk Bazaar Kapoussi, 2I4, 216, 217.
Balouk Haneh Kapoussi, 260.
St. Barbara, I84, 232, 236, 238, 239,
249, 25O.
Basilikë, Inmperial Gate, 32, 192, 199,
2OO, 203, 204, 2I3, 230–24O.
Bears, of the, 261.
Blachernae, I66, 168, 170, 171.
Bonus, 225, 226, 240.
Byzantium, 5, 7, 9-II, I6, 34, 249, 326.
Caraviorum, 215.
Catena, 228.
Charisius, 80–86, 89–92, IoI, Ioy,
IIO, I24, I52, 223, 257.
Chrysé. See Golden Gate.
Daoud Pasha Kapoussi, I6, 3I4. See
Gate of St. Æmilianus.
Deirmen Kapoussi, 183, 187, 250, 25I.
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.
Edirnē Kapoussi, 57, 58. See Gate of
Charisius.
Egri Kapou, 3, 39, 83, IIo, I22, 124.
Eugenius, 6, 191, 222, 223, 227–229,
232, 236-239.
Fifth Military Gate. See Gate of the
Pempton.
IAWD E.X. 355
Gate—conta. Gate—conta.
Fourth Military Gate, 80. Precursoris, Porta juxta Parvum
Golden Gate, Porta Aurea, Chrysé
Pylè, 19, 30, 55, 58, 59-73, 84,
90, 96, IO4, 176, 179, 20I, 223, 250,
300, 301, 306, 316, 326, 327, 330,
334, 335.
Gyrolimnē, IIo, I26, 127, 177.
Hebraica, 216–219, 225.
Hicanatissa, 219, 22O.
Hodegetria, 223, 258-26o, 26.I.
Horaia, Beautiful, 187, 221-225, 232,
235–237. e ‘º e < * *
Imperial. See Basilikè.
Isa Kapoussi, 21, 30, 33.
Ispigas, 209, 2IO. See Porta Putea’.
St. John, 205.
St. John de Cornibus, 214, 216.
Judece, 218.
Kaligaria, I24, I52.
Katerga Limani, 263.
Kerko Porta, II5-II 7, II9–12 I, I66,
223. See Gate of the Xylokerkus.
Kiliomenê, 195, 196.
Kiretch Kapoussi, 229.
Kontoscalion, 263, 294, 295, 313. See
Koum Kapoussi.
Koum Kapoussi, I86, 190, 193, 263,
264, 278, 294, 295, 307-314.
Kynegos, I99-205, 233.
St. Lazarus, 258, 259.
Leonis, 261, 273.
Marina, 272.
St. Mark, 219.
Marmora Porta, 228.
Eugenius.
Melandesia or Melantiados, 74, 76,
See Gate of
77.
Mesé, 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, IQ9.
Pegè, 75–77, IOI, Ioč.
Pempton, 58, 74, 81, 83, 85, 86, 96.
Perama, 2I4, 216–22O.
Petrus, Petri Kapoussi, 28, 206, 207.
Phanar, Phani, del Pharo, Fener
Kapoussi, 201, 206, 207, 233.
Piazza, ala, 212.
Piscaria, 217.
Platea, 209, 212, 2I4, 233.
Polyandrion, 29, 37, 81, 84, 85. See
Gate of Charisius.
Templum. See St. John de Cornibus.
Psamathia, 16, 264.
Putea', del Pozzo, 2II, 233. See Gate
Ispigas.
Rectoris Veteris.
Regia, I52.
Rhegium, 72, 78, 79, 91.
Rhousiou.
Rhousiou, 45, 78, 79, 96, 97, IOO, IO2,
180. See Gate of Rhegium.
St. Romanus, 80–89, IIo, I25, 127,
223, 300. See Top Kapoussi.
Saouk. Tchesmé Kapoussi, 13.
Saturninus, 32.
Second Military Gate.
the Deuteron.
Selivria, 58, 75, 90. See Gate of the
Pegè.
Sidhera, 206, 262, 263.
Sixth Military Gate, 89.
Sophia, 263.
Tchatlady Kapou, I40, I92, 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, Xyliné, IIo, 147, 151,
I73, I 74, I91, 195, 200, 20I, 2I2,
223, 227, 233.
Xylokerkus, 46, 89–94, Io9, III, 173.
See Kerko Porta.
Yali Kiosk Kapoussi, 7, 191, 200, 253.
See Gate of Eugenius.
Yedi Koulé Kapoussi.
Gate.
Yeni Aya Kapou, 208.
Yeni Kapou, Vlanga, 18O, 193, .263,
264, 298, 308, 31O-312, 314.
Yeni Mevlevi Haneh Kapoussi, 58, 76.
See Gate of Rhegium.
Zindan Kapoussi, 213–216.
Genoa, I88, 190, 192.
Genoese, 87, 162, 163, 188, 190, 192,
2IO, 219, 225, 23.I, 24O, 24I, 259,
3O4–306.
George Brankovitch, Despot of Servia,
IO7, IQ3.
Georgius, 80, 156.
See Gate of Bonus.
See Porta
See Gate of
See Golden
356
JAVADEX.
Germanicia, 68.
Germanus, residence of, 3OI, 302.
Gerocomion, 264.
Giustiniani, 87, 88, 92.
Godfrey de Bouillon, 128, 171, 176.
Golden Horn, passim.
Goths, Gothic, I3, 32, 33, 40, 41, 43, 77,
85, 328.
Governor of the Wall, 95.
Grand Bazaar, 3, 8, II, 13, 39.
Grant, I25.
Gregoras, 261.
Gritti, Doge, 270.
Guliano, Peter, 287.
II.
Habakkuk, Prophet, 263.
Hadrian II., Pope, 67, 3OO, 337, 340.
Harbour—
Ancient Neorion, 7, 8, II, I4, 179,
220–222, 29 I.
Anthemius, 324.
Blachernae, I96, 202, 203, 240.
Bosporion. See below, Prosphorion.
Bucoleon, 261, 269-287, 307, 3O8.
Diplokionion, 243.
Eleutherius, 36, 264, 268, 296–300.
Eutropius, 324.
Galata, or Pera, 24.I.
Golden Gate, 300, 3OI, 307, 3O8.
Hebdomon, 325, 326, 330, 335.
Heptascalon, 259, 269, 3OI-315.
Hormisdas, 275-279, 302.
Julian, 41, 97,269, 276, 277, 288-293,
302, 307, 308.
Kadriga Limani, 262, 270, 295, 3I4.
See Harbour of Julian.
Kaisarius, 269, 276, 3OI-315.
Kontoscalion, 186, 223, 263, 269, 278,
287, 293–296, 308-315.
Latins, 2II.
St. Mamas, 90, 91.
New Neorion, 303, 3IO.
Phosphorion. Seebelow, Prosphorion.
Portus Novus. See Harbour of
Julian.
Prosphorion, 7, 14, 182, 225, 226.
Sophia, 262, 263,295, 296, 3IO. 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, 7o, Io9, 316–
34I.
Helas, Theme of, 292.
Helena, Empress, 34, 81, 264.
Helenianae, District of the, 334.
Helenopolis, 16o.
Hellespont, 4, 178,252.
Heptapyrgion, 168.
Heraclea, 38, 190.
Hexakionion, 18, 20.
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,
27I-273, 288–290, 295, 3IO, 331,
. 332, 336.
Hippodrome at St. Mamas, 89, 92, 91.
Holy Well of Blachernae, 118, 150, 152.
— at Church of St. Nicholas, I 18, 169,
I7O.
— of the Hodegetria, 254, 257, 258.
— of the Pegè, 75–78, 281.
— of St. Saviour, 252-254.
Hormisdas, district of, 277, 28O.
Hormisdas, Pope, 67, 340.
Hormisdas, Prince, 279, 280.
Horrea, 226.
Hospitia, 229.
Huns, 41, 43, 45, 47, 77, 267, 343.
See Exokionion.
I.
Iagari, Manuel, IoS.
Ibrahim, Sultan, 20.
Icon of Christ, from Edessa, 67.
Illyria, 43.
Indjili Kiosk, 185, 252-258, 261, 270.
Ino, 28O.
Irene, Empress, 90, 99, Ioo, IoS, 126,
I28, 3OO.
Isaac Sevastocrator, 292.
Isa Kapoussi Sokaki, 22.
Isidore, Cardinal, I52.
Italian Hospital, 231.
J.
Jerusalem, 338.
Jews, 2IO, 219, 22I.
Joannicus, King of Bulgaria, 86.
John the Fat, 260.
Joseph, Patriarch, 84.
Judeca, 217, 218.
Julian, Prefect, 227.
Jus Italicus, 38.
Justinian Code, 22I.
Justinianopolis, 217.
K.
Kadikeui, 2, 176, 3O4, 305, 324.
AVDEX.
357
Kaffa, I92.
Kaisarius, 3O2.
, district of, 302.
Raligaria. See Gate.
Kanatissa, residence of, 219.
Karadjakeui, 343.
Kesmè Kaya, 206, 319, 320.
Khan of the Mongols, 208.
Kiathaneh, Sweet Waters of Europe, 175,
24.5.
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, 2Io.
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, Io9, 122, 188.
Leo, brother of Nicephorus Phocas, 68.
Leontari, Manuel Bryennius, Ioë, Ioy.
Levend Tchiflik, 245.
Londja, II?.
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, Io9, 316, 322,
326, 327. See Hebdomon.
Mamas, St., suburb, 89, 90.
Mandrahio, Cassim Pasha, 244.
Mangana, 7, 37, 182, 249–25i, 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, Ioy, 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, 2II, 223, passim.
Melanciada, Melantiada, Melantrada, 77.
Menas, Patriarch, 216.
Mese, 37, 68, 69, I55.
Mesoteichion, 85–89, 92.
Mews, Imperial, I71, 261.
Michael, Despot, I60, 161.
Milan, 62, 316.
Milion, 7, 8, 326.
Minotto, I5I, I52.
Moda, 176.
Mole of St. Thomas, .291.
Monferrat, Marquis of, 284–286.
Moselë, 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, 2II.
Fethiyeh Djamissi, Church of the Pam-
macaristos, 198.
Gul Djamissi, Church of St. Theodosia,
27, 208.
Isa Kapou Mesdjidi, 22, 30.
Rahriyeh Djamissi, Church of St.
Saviour in the Chora, 84. -
Kefelê 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, 2II.
Suleiman, Sultan, 3, 19. -
Toklou Dedë Mesdjidi, Church of St.
Thekla, 196.
Tulbenkdji Djamissi, 3II, 312, 3I4.
Yeni Validè Djamissi, 221.
Yol Getchen Mesdjidi, 78.
Zeirek Klissè Djamissi, Church of
the Pantocrator, 2II, 34I.
2 A 3
358
# /AVD EX.
Municipal Gardens, 242.
Murad, Sultan, 76, 87, 193.
Museum, Imperial, 5, 191, 198.
Myriandrion, 85, 87.
N.
Naples, 33.
Narses, 97, 291, 3OO.
Memitzi, 86 *
Neophytus of Rhodes, IoS.
Neorion. See Harbour.
Nicephorus Bryennius, 156.
Nicholas V., Pope, 150.
Nika, Riot of, 2Io, 215, 291, 327.
Nikè, 198, 205.
Normans, IO3.
Notaras, 192, 193, 237, 240.
Novobrodo, 125.
Numeri, 76.
Obelisk, 63.
Odeon, I3.
Ok Meidan, 245.
Olympus, 35.
Orban, 125.
Orphanage, Great, 229
Ortakdjilar, 89.
Ortakeui, 325.
P.
Palace—
At the Argyra Limnē, 127.
Blachernae, 3, 68, IO3, Io9-III, 118,
II9, 12 I-I23, 125-Iz7, 130–133,
I35, 136, 138, 140–147, 150, 151,
I52, I64, I7O, I7I, I76, I95, 201,
2O2, 233,284.
Bonus, 24.
Bucoleon, I29, 140, 255, 269–287.
The Caesars, 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, Io9, 335.
Hiereia, Fener Bagtchè, 176, 181.
Hormisdas. See Palace of Bucoleon.
Irene, 3OO.
Justinian. See Palace of Bucoleon.
Justinian, Jucundianae at the Hebdo-
mon, 323, 335.
Kaisarius, 302.
Karya, 213.
Magnaura, 320, 324, 336.
Palace—contal.
St. Mamas, 89, 90.
Mangana, 255, 256.
Pege, 75, 162.
Porphyrogenitus Tekfour Serai, 3, 45,
Io9-II4, IIS-120, 123, 139, 152,
2O2, 233, 316.
Psamathia, 264.
Scutarion, 251.
Secundianas, 335.
Sophia, 289, 29O.
Palatine, 35, 138, 142.
Palestine, 338.
Panteleon, Saint, 196.
Panticheion, Pendik, 338.
Patriarchate, Greek, 28.
Paul, defended the Myriandrion, 87.
Paulinus, 170.
Pausanias, 9.
Pegae, 2IO.
Pegé. 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, 29O.
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.
Phoenicia, 40.
Pisa, Pisans, 218, 220.
Plataea, 9, 267.
Platea, Plateia, 27, 2I2.
Pontus, 38.
Portico—
Between Augustaion
Constantine, 37.
Cariana, I96.
Eubulus, 37.
Josephiacus, 128.
St. Mamas, 89, 90.
Severus, 9–II.
Troadenses, 18, 22.
and Forum of
IAWDA.X.
359

Postern—
Giustiniani, 88, 89, 94.
St. Kallinicus, 124, 173, I74.
Kerko Porta, 93, 94.
With Monogram of Christ, 60.
Porphyrogenitus, II2.
SS. Sergius and Bacchus, 262, 263.
Prince's Island, 35, 3O4, 305.
Prison— t
Anemas, 87. See Chapters X, XI.
Byzantium, I4.
St. Diomed, 265, 266.
Probus, residence of, 289, 292, 293.
Proteichisma, I 18.
Proti, Island of, 286.
Psamathia, 3, 20, 264.
Pteron, II8.
Pulcheria, 257, 336.
Pusaeus, 96.
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, II9–12 I, 128, 167, 174.
Regions, Fourteen, 39, I2O, I31.
Rhegium, Kutchuk Tchékmedjè, 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, I55, 179, 229.
S.
Saladin, 284.
Salamis, 267.
Sali Bazaar, 242.
St. Mamas, suburb, 89–91, 175, 181.
Salmak Tombruk, 23.
Sandakdjar Youkousou, 208.
Saoudji, I62.
Saouk. Tchesme, 13.
Saracen, 68, 7o, 98, 178–182, 229, 260,
267, 286, 302, 324, 327, 329.
Saturninus, 32.
Scala—
Acropolis, 249.
Chalcedonensis, 225, 338.
De Drongorio, 215.
Scala—conta.
Sycena, 217.
Timasii, 228.
Scholarii, 185.
School of Arts, 274.
Scio, 3OI.
Scutari, 2, 226, 231, 305.
Selivria, 75, 77, I92, 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, I2.
Seraglio Point, 6, 189, 191, 194, 218,
2 I9, 224, 23O, 232, 233, 235–237,
246, 247, 256.
Servia, 125, I58, I59, 161, 193.
Settimo, 316.
Sicily, 182.
Sigma, 19, 20, 78, 29O.
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, 3O4, 305.
Sphendoné, 12.
Spigae, De Spiga, 2II.
Stadium, 13, 37, 229.
See Ispigas.
Statue— ,
Apollo, 34.
Arabia, 29I.
Atalus, 28.
Constantine the Great, 17, 28, 33, 36.
Eleutherius, 297.
Eudoxia, Empress, 82.
Fortune of the City, 64.
Helena, Empress, 34.
Julian, 29O.
Justin II., 29I.
Justinian the Great, 335.
Muses of Helicon, 35.
Narses, 29 I.
Pallas of Lindus, 35.
Sophia, Empress, 29I.
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.
360
AND EX.
Swiatoslaf, 68, 155.
Sycae, I3, 38, 216, 217.
Syrghiannes, 161.
Syria, 40.
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, Ioy,
I52, 32O. See Palace of the Por-
phyrogenitus.
Templar, 60.
Temple—
Aphroditë, II, I2, 13.
Apollo, I3.
Artemis, 13.
Demeter, 13.
Poseidon, I2, I3, 37.
Zeus, I3, I4, 37.
Temple Bar, 21.
Tenedos, 162, I63, 259.
Ten Thousand, 5.
Tephrice, 68. -
Terter, King of Bulgaria, I61.
Theatre of Byzantium, 37.
of Dionysius, I3. -
Theodora, Empress of Justinian the Great,
84, 229, 257, 280, 300.
Theodora, Empress, 207.
Theodore, I62.
Theodosiani, 327, 328.
Theodota, Empress, 90.
Theologus, 240.
Theophano, Empress, 283.
. Thermae—
Achilles, 7, 47.
Arcadianae, 7, 257.
Constantianae, 82.
Zeuxippus, I 3, 34.
Thermopylae, 267.
Thessalonica, IO3, II3, 34I.
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.
Tower—contal.
Belisarius, 299.
Eugenius, 6.
Fire Signal, 3.
Galata, 228, 229.
Hercules, 9.
Imperial Gate, near, 230–232.
Isaac Angelus, II?, I29. See Chapter
X., passim. •.
Kaligaria, I25.
Kentenarion, 228.
Kiz Kalessi, Leander's Tower, 231,
250.
Mangana, 251.
Marble, 266.
Pentapyrgion, I5O.
Phani, Turris, 232–234.
Seven Towers. See Yedi Koulé.
Seven Towers of Byzantium, 9.
Soulou Kaleh, 51.
Virgioti, 2II.
Transitus Justinianarum, 217.
Transitus Sycenus, Trajectus Sycarum,
2I7.
Trebizond, I56.
Tribunal, Tribune, 330.
IſlCIl.
Triclinium of Anastasius, I28.
Danubius, I28.
Holy Shrine, 128.
Triton, 77, 78, 319.
Troilus, defended the Myriandrion, 87.
Troilus, Protovestarius, 29I.
Tsinar Tchesmē, II 7.
Turks, Ottoman, 188, I92, 195, 209, 223,
224, 240, 24I, 267.
Tzycanisterion, 36, 256, 261, 286.
See Hebdo-
U.
Ukooz-Limani, 226.
Uldin, 43.
Urbicius. See Arch.
V.
Vandal, John the, 77.
Vandals, 68.
Varangians, I59, 172, 193.
Veccus, 157–16O. -
Venetian, 151-163, 171, 172, 178, 179,
I94, 207, 209-2II, 2I4–219, 229,
230, 233, 234, 243, 259, 27O, 272,
3O4, 305.
Venice, I62, 163, 2II, 219.
Vercelli, 316.
JAVIDEX.
361
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,
3I2, 3I4.
Vlanga Bostan, 36, 18o, 264, 296.
W.
War Office, 13. .
X.
Xenophon, 5, 249.
Xerolophos, 3, 14, 19, 20, 29.
Xylokerkus, 88, 90. See Gate.
Y.
Yalova, 160.
Yedi Koulé, 30, 265.
Yemish Iskelessi, 216.
Yeri Batan Serai, 7.
Z.
Zeitin Bournou, 326, 327.
Zen, Carlo, I52, I53, 163.
Zeugma, 215.
Zeugma of St. Antony, 18, 27.
Zoe, Empress, 207.
THE END.
LONDON : PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
STAM FORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.
*
|
|
694
|
|
|
|
LO
！==
CD
OD
|||
|
}
***~~~~）…...…...*****.*）
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTIILATE CARD

*.*.*.*.* * *.*.
--> *...:... .
* - * : * ~ * = ...*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
rº" = *...*.*.*. * * * . . . * * : *
is sº & .* * * * * * . . . w
º ---." < * *.*.*.* * * ,
* * * * * * * *
§: º º 3.
* * * *.*.*
, is . . a zºº
"...'." - " -
* -*.*.* * * * - - - sº.”.
* * * : * * : * > *-* '--
* * * *
* * * * * *
* : * ~ * * = * * * * * * *
a ...'...." < *.*
* * * * * *
. … * *
* ...”.” ". .
* * * * * : -
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
* * ~.
* . . . . . .”.
> * * * *
- * *.*.*.
* @
*::::"...º.º.º.
º .*. .*.*.*.*
.*.*.*, * * * * * * * =
& 5 ºr * º-º-º-º-º-º-º: -
º ". … º.º. * ...".
sº º * * *
'-º'-ºxº "...º.º. º.
* : * * *
*.*.*.* º: ...” **
*...*.*.*.*.
* * * *
sº
º
sº º ſº
# º ºr
*.*.*.*.*
* …” .*.*. º E. sº tº º-w º:
~ * * * * *-* º º-º-º: 6. * * * * * * *
*::, , º, º sº, ſº * * * * * º
gº * Fºg º:* * * *.*.*.*.*, *.*.*.*
-º-º:... is ºf . ***, º: *.*.*.*.*.*... .".
.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.* :, ºr . º & sº
-> * Q
º º º
& sº s º * * * *
.*º-ºº.”. º-º
** * * ******* ºf a
*.*.*.*.*.*.*. * * * ſ
* * * * * * * º
Rºº.º.º.º.º.
ºº:
ºr sº a sº- “e
-ºs.”. * * = -
Cº-
- :*.* º
**.*.*:::..”.”
* * * * .*
sº ºr º º
*... º.º.º. ººs
ºr ſº.º.º.º.º.
C. ~ *.*.*, *.*.*.*.*.** *.* E.
sº". . . w *.*.*.*.*.*.*.
.*.* tº as * * g.
* * * * * : * * * : *
* * * * * ºr
-*.*.*.*.*.*.
* * * , s: ,
*.*.*.*.*.*.*, sº
ºssº.
*.*.*.* ºs
*_*.*, * * *, *
& 5
< ... º ºr * : * s
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.* tº
*a*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
g
º C & & ºr
º
º
*. E . ;
º º
**.*.*.*.*
*...* - sº a -
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*. º
*...*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*. º 'º & • '..." ",". * * * *
= ~ *** *.*.*.* -> * ... .º.º. º. 3 &
gº w * , ºº & tº , º,
*
º
:
*
*
º: ..."," ºr
sº sº: .
&^ = ºr
* * * * * *
e = . . . . . *","... . . .
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*..
.." ", , ºr .".’....","."
º º -
. . . .º.ºs
**.*.*.*. -* - 5:
tº a º
º
sº. 3 & -->
sº. *.*.*.* * * *
** * *.*.* s” . *
º'-'. ...º.º.º. & & s' sº ºsº
.*.*.* º º * *.*.*.*.*
2-3 º: º : fº sº a
sº. . *sº
* * * ,
* * * *...* , -
* * : * * . . . ." . . . . . . . . . . . .”.
-** * º f : - } -- ?-º
--- *... . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * *.*.*.*. . .". º
º º * : * *...* . . . .';*.*.*. - *.*.*. 3 *
* : * *- *** saw . . . a-3 w
º *** * * ,
*s ºr
º, º a * > g. *
* * * * * * -
z cº-s
* * *
as tººs
g
tº a
.*.*
“... ºn s : *
sºs º ºs
* * gºº' s **º
* * * *
* : -
*.*.*.*.* * *
* * * .
º:
o- - º g sº -º 5.
º-º-º-º-º-º:
** * * ºtº G
º *.*.*ś
* * : * ~ ſº º g & . . ;- * * : :
tº º sº
***.*.*.*
* = cers a sºlº sººººº..”.”
.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.º sº
* * * a snº º ºr s
* e º sº sº tº º
ºs
º, sº F-
ºf a -ºs, sº
*_* * * ~ * º º º
& Cº. z w - E. : * ~ *- :
º > * : * . . . . . . . *.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*'s a . . . . . . . .
.* *.*.*.*.*.* tº a º • *... s , . . . ." "
* … ... "...º.º.º.º. *...*.* * * * ~ *.*.*.*.*.*
. . s. .”. .” - .*.*.* * * **.*
- * * º * : * * * *
* *-* *.*.*.*.*.*.
*...*.*.*.*.*.*.*.* ºr eºs .
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
*...*.*.* * *.*.*.* * * *
*.*.*.*, *, . . . sº sº...",".
* T & 2.
* * * *
.*.*.*.
• * * *
sº
-*. ...sº ſº sº. . & º
. . . .".º.º. - • *.* .*.*.*.* º
5×. º º: > * * * * * * * * * * *
ºw a º º * * > ... .º.º.
Tº º a 4.
* †
ºf .
*.*.*.*.*
- a. º.º.”
gº.
sº. -->
º
- ... : , , ", º
º
** * * * * *
... ". . . . * * * * -
* * * * * * * * * ºr sº ---.
º, sº. * * * .