been employed by the Turks after the capture of Constantinople, had
probably been used by them for many centuries previously. It is true
that it had been made use of in Constantinople at an early period, and
figures on several coins of Constantine, but I doubt whether it was
used as the symbol of Constantinople in the later centuries of its
history. The Crusades are not incorrectly described as wars between
the Cross and the Crescent. The symbol is an ancient one and figures
with the star on several coins belonging to about 200 B.C. The Abassid
dynasty so used it. Professor Hilprecht considers it a remnant of
moon-worship and connects it with the subsequent cult of Ashtaroth,
Astarte, or Aphrodite.
[121] Though the Turks were a branch of the Tartar race, the Greek
authors by this time had acquired the habit of calling the nation which
Othman had formed Turks, and all others from Central Asia Tartars, and
it is convenient to follow this nomenclature.
[122] Von Hammer has shown conclusively that the story of an iron cage
is a mistake. It arises from the misinterpretation of the Turkish word
_Kafés_, which has the two significations given above. Two contemporary
authors made the blunder, Phrantzes and Arab Schah. A Bavarian, who
was made prisoner at the battle of Nicopolis, named Schildberger, and
who was present at the battle of Angora, has given a detailed account
of the massacre of the Christians, but he does not mention the cage.
(His travels between 1394 and 1427 have been translated and published
by the Hakluyt Society, 1879.) Neither do Ducas, Chalcondylas, or
Boucicaut, though they state that Bajazed died in irons, which he had
to wear every night after his attempt at escape. Six Persian authors
who wrote the history of Timour are silent about the cage. The oldest
Turkish historian recounts, upon the evidence of an eye-witness, that
Bajazed was carried about in a palanquin ‘like a Kafés,’ or in the
usual kind of grilled palanquin in which ladies of the harem travelled.
Sad-ud-din, one of the most exact of Turkish historians, states that
the story of the iron cage given by many Turkish writers is a pure
invention.
[123] I have relied for the account of the battle of Angora and the
subsequent progress of Timour, mainly upon Von Hammer (vol. ii.),
who is at his best in describing this period of Turkish history. The
authorities are carefully given by him. Zinkeisen, in his _History of
the Turks_, calls attention to the deterioration of the Ottoman armies
during the reign of Bajazed, and attributes it to the profligacy of the
sultan.
[124] Chalc. iv. p. 170. Ducas says he disappeared in Caramania; Phr.
p. 86, that he was bowstrung. There was, according to Chalcondylas,
another son of Bajazed, the youngest, also named Isa, who was baptised
and died in Constantinople in 1417. This was probably the son given
over as hostage to Manuel.
[125] Ducas, xix.
[126] Chalc. iv.; Phr. i. 29; Ducas, 19.
[127] _Official Tour in Bosnia and Herzegovina_, by J. de Asboth.
[128] i. 37.
[129] Ducas, xxiv.
[130] Phr. i. 38.
[131] In reference to this passage across the Dardanelles, Ducas (ch.
xxvii.) gives an interesting piece of information as to the size of
the Genoese vessels. There were seven large ships. Murad was in the
largest, which contained 1,300 Turkish and Frank soldiers. These ships
‘covered the sea like floating cities or islands.’
[132] Ducas mentions expressly that in the same year three Mustafas
died, first, the pretender, who claimed to be the son of Bajazed;
second, his brother, and, third, the grandson of Atin (ch. xxviii.).
[133] De la Brocquière, whose narrative was finished in 1438,
states that, when in Galata, the ambassador of the duke of Milan,
the protector of the Genoese, told him that ‘to do mischief to the
Venetians he had contributed to make them lose Salonica taken from them
by the Turks;’ and he adds, ‘Certainly in this he acted so much the
worse, for I have seen the inhabitants of that town deny Jesus Christ
and embrace the Mahometan religion.’ _Early Travels_, pp. 335–6.
[134] Halil was the one Turkish leader in 1453 friendly to the Greeks.
Even at this early date he showed a similar spirit. Chalc. 136,
Venetian edition.
[135] Phr. ii. 13, p. 180.
[136] Possibly Hungary was not mentioned, with the object of leading
the Turks to believe that the place of attack would not be nearer than
Constantinople.
[137] Callimachus, who describes the battle, took part and was wounded
in it.
[138] I have followed here the version of Ducas (xxxii.). It is
doubtful, however, whether this expedition into Caramania ought not to
be placed a year earlier. See the authorities quoted by Muralt, p. 856.
[139] Chal. vi.; Ducas, xxxii. The latter states that Hunyadi refused
either to sign or to swear.
[140] The treaty was made in June. According to Muralt, it was broken
in the same month. If so, the account of Ducas is incorrect. Murad was
informed by George of Serbia of the renewal of war and again took the
government into his own hands ‘at the beginning of summer, when the
dog-days were commencing.’ Ducas, xxxii.
[141] _Early Travels_, pp. 346–347.
[142] Lonicerus, p. 18, speaking of the cardinal, does not go so far.
He says, ‘qui Pontifici licere juramenta praesertim hostibus Christiani
nominis praestata rescindere contendebat.’ Thurocz (quoted by Von
Hammer, p. 307, vol. ii.) and Cambini, p. 13, make similar statements.
[143] _Liber Jurium_, xxii. 57, xxvi. 24, 26. Chalc. vi. Aeneas Silvius
states that Eugenius, when he was informed of the treaty, wrote to
Cardinal Julian that it was null as having been signed without the
papal sanction; that he ordered Ladislaus to disregard it, and that
he gave him absolution for so doing. At the same time, he directed
the cardinal to do his best to renew the war, in order that the great
preparations he had taken in hand might not be fruitless. The statement
may be true, but it is difficult to believe that the report of the
signature could have reached Rome and that his answer could have
arrived to the cardinal before war was declared.
[144] The Turkish accounts agree that the crossing was at the Bosporus.
Barletius, Book II. p. 38, with whom Leunclavius agrees, says: ‘Si vera
est fama,’ merchant vessels transported the army over the Bosporus,
receiving a gold coin per man. Bonfinius likewise gives this story
of payment and says it was made to the Genoese. Lonicerus, p. 18,
says the fleet crossed the Dardanelles. Ducas, whose account I have
adopted, states that the fleet only crossed with great difficulty and
against the will of the emperor. Chalcondylas makes the transit take
place at Hieron, near the Dardanelles (Chalc. 135); one writer, at
Asomaton. There is a church of the Asomatoi (the Bodiless, _i.e._ of
Angels) at Arnaoutkeui still existing. See _The Constantiade_, where
the Patriarch gives an account of it. Phrantzes identifies the position
on the Bosporus (namely, opposite Anatolia-Hissar) by saying that it
was near the narrow part of the Bosporus above the village of Asomaton
or Arnaoutkeui: κατὰ τὸ στενὸν ἐγγὺς τοῦ ἀνωτέρου μέρους τῆς τῶν
Ἀσωμάτων κώμης (Ph. ch. II. p. 223), which is conclusive as to the
locality he wishes to indicate. Ducas also in several places gives the
name of Hieron to the straits between Anatolia and Roumelia-Hissar.
It is therefore clear that two places on the Bosporus were known as
Hieron. The safest passage would be at the Hieron below the Giant’s
Mountain.
[145] Callimachus.
[146] ‘Morbo detentus,’ Lonicerus, 18. Chalc. and others also mention
his illness. He was suffering from an abscess in the thigh.
[147] On the opposite shore of the lagoon now runs the railway from
Varna to Rustchuk.
[148] _Early Travels_, 361.
[149] _Early Travels_, 366.
[150] Chalc. p. 138. The account by Phrantzes, p. 198, of the interview
between Hunyadi and the king is very well given.
[151] Bonfinius states that it was at this moment also that he unfurled
the treaty of Szegedin.
[152] Leunclavius, 256.
[153] Eton’s _Travels_, p. 332.
[154] Gibbon adopts the statement of Chalcondylas (145) that Murad
joined the dervishes after Varna, though on other matters regarding
his life he relies upon Cantemir, who by implication discredits the
story. Chalcondylas states that in the crisis of the battle of Varna,
the sultan had vowed that if he were successful he would abdicate and
join one of these religious orders. Von Hammer knows nothing of the
story, and the whole course of Murad’s life is against the belief
that ‘the lord of nations submitted to fast and pray and turn round
in endless rotations with the fanatics who mistook the giddiness of
the head for the illumination of the Spirit’ (Gibbon, VII. p. 140).
Neither Phrantzes nor Ducas mentions his having become a dervish, as
they probably would have done if the fact had been known to them.
Indeed, the one point in favour of the story was unknown to Gibbon:
namely, that some of the dervish sects are liberal or philosophical.
They are all religious or pietistic, but many claim that their tenets
are independent of Islam. Their explanation of the turning or dancing
is that they first look towards Mecca and reflect, God is there;
then they make a turn and reflect, He is there also; and so in the
complete circle. It should be noted also that there are many dervishes
who neither turn nor dance in their devotions. On the subject of the
dervishes in Turkey, two useful books are _The Dervishes_, by J. P.
Brown (London, 1868), and, better still, _Les Confréries Musulmanes_
par le R. P. Louis Petit, supérieur des Augustins de l’Assomption à
Kadikeuy (Constantinople, 1899).
[155] Kroya or Croia, now called Ak-Hissar or the White Castle, is
a few miles to the north of Durazzo and a short distance from the
Adriatic.
[156] Aeneas Sylvius gives the number at 200,000; Chalcondylas at
15,000, which Von Hammer reasonably suggests is an error for 150,000.
[157] Bonfinius makes Murad state in a letter to Corinth that eight
thousand Hungarians were left dead on the plain: a much more likely
number.
[158] Von Hammer gives the numbers I have adopted.
[159] For the siege of Belgrade see a paper in the _English Historical
Review_, 1892, by Mr. R. N. Bain.
[160] ‘Novit majestas imperatoria, Turcorum, Assyriorum, Aegyptiorum
gentem: imbelles, inermes, effaeminati sunt, neque animo neque consilio
martiales; sumenda erunt spolia sine sudore et sanguine.’ Oratio Romae
habita anno 1452 de passagio Cruce signatorum contra Mahometanos
suscipiendo. Edita apud Reynaldum [by Dr. Dethier].
[161] La Brocquière, 366.
[162] Θρῆνος, line 720.
[163] According to Scholarius and Manuel the Rhetorician, John shortly
before his death declared against the Union. In such a matter, however,
both these witnesses are suspect.
[164] La Brocquière, p. 341.
[165] _Ibid._ p. 340.
[166] La Brocquière, p. 339.
[167] Perhaps it could be contended successfully that the relaxing
climate of Constantinople had much to do with the enervation of its
population, and that every race which has possessed the city has
suffered from the same cause.
[168] Mr. D. G. Hogarth in _The Nearer East_ (London, 1902), on
pp. 280–1, speaks of the country as a ‘Debateable Land distracted
internally by a ceaseless war of influences, and only too anxious to
lean in one part or another on external aid.’... ‘Macedonia has been
torn this way and that for half a century.’ The whole chapter on ‘World
Relation’ is valuable and suggestive. The same diversity of interests
and hostility arising from differences in race and religion is well
brought out in the best recent book on _Turkey in Europe_, by Odysseus.
[169] The Turkish system of occupying conquered territories by military
colonies and driving away the original inhabitants excited great
opposition among the Serbians and led, says Von Ranke, to the struggle
which ended in 1389 on the plains of Cossovo. (_History of Serbia_,
Bohn’s edition, p. 16.)
[170] Cantacuzenus, iv. 8.
[171] The tradition of its destructiveness even in England, which it
reached in 1348, and the panic-struck words of the Statutes which
followed it, have, says J. R. Green, ‘been more than justified by
modern researches. Of the three or four millions who then formed the
population of England more than half were swept away by its repeated
visitations’ (Green’s _Short History of the English People_), p. 241.
[172] According to one contemporary writer, Murad had to relinquish
the siege of Constantinople in 1422 on account of the appearance of
plague in his army (_Historia Epirotica_). Mahomet the Second, however,
according to Critobulus, attributed the necessity of raising the siege
to hostility within his own family, doubtless alluding to the rising
already mentioned in Asia Minor. He says, in substance, ‘The city was
almost in the hands of my father, and he would certainly have taken it
by assault, if those of his own family in whom he had confidence had
not worked secretly against him.’ Crit. xxv.
[173] _Travels and Researches in Asia Minor_, by Sir Charles Fellows.
Professor Ramsay has also the same story to tell, though his own
success in identifying lost cities has been exceptionally great.
[174] La Brocquière, 340–7.
[175] _Ibid._ 337.
[176] Compare this with Villehardouin’s statement that in 1204
Constantinople had ten times as many people as there were in Paris.
[177] Phrantzes, 241.
[178] Another version says from 30,000 to 36,000 men.
[179] P. 23. The ‘not more’ is from the edition of Dethier, p. 896. The
version published in the _Chronique de Charles VII_ gives 25,000 to
30,000 armed men. Dethier’s omits ‘armed.’
[180] The Superior of the Franciscans says that 3,000 were killed on
May 29 (Dethier’s _Documents relating to the Siege_, p. 940).
[181] Bikelas, _La Grèce Byzantine et Moderne_, p. 153. His essays
express this opinion in many other places.
[182] ‘Les schismes sont chez eux [the Greeks] la conséquence du même
esprit de tous les temps; c’est la théologie soumise au contrôle
de l’intelligence pure, le dogme éprouvé par le mécanisme de leur
logique brillante et rapide. Ces discussions théologiques, appliquées
uniquement à la recherche de l’essence divine, à l’explication du
fait divin, du mystère, prennent chez eux un caractère exclusivement
scientifique.’ Montreuil, _Histoire du droit byzantin_, i. 418.
[183] Krumbacher, _Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur_, p. 219,
says: ‘Kein Volk, die Chinesen vielleicht ausgenommen, besitzt eine so
reiche historische Litteratur wie die Griechen. In ununterbrochener
Reihenfolge geht die Überlieferung von Herodot bis auf Laonikos
Chalkondylas. Die Griechen und Byzantiner haben die Chronik des Ostens
über zwei Jahrtausende mit gewissenhafter Treue fortgeführt.’
[184] Rambaud, _L’empire de Grèce_, p. 367. Bikelas and Finlay make the
same comparison.
[185] Constantine is usually called the Eleventh. Gibbon, however,
counts the son of Romanus the First as Constantine the Eighth, and thus
makes the last Emperor Constantine the Twelfth. He is often spoken
of as Constantine Dragases, because his mother, Irene, belonged to a
family of that name. She was a South Serbian princess.
[186] Phrantzes, p. 205, represents Constantine as crowned. Apparently
this ceremony was not regarded as a definite coronation, and hence
Ducas calls John the last Emperor.
[187] Constantine’s wife, Catherine Catalusio, died in 1442, after
being married about ten months.
[188] Ducas, xxxv.
[189] As they were opposed in philosophy, so also were they on the
great question before these Councils. Pletho insisted that the Union
should be effected by the submission of the Greek Church to the Latin
formula, while Scholarius endeavoured to frame a form of words which
could be accepted by both parties. Had his advice been acted upon,
it is possible that he and his companions would on their return to
the capital have been able to persuade their countrymen to accept the
Union in sincerity. For the life and writings of George Scholarius,
afterwards the Patriarch Gennadius, see Krumbacher’s _Geschichte des
Byzantinischen Litteratur_, p. 119, and works there quoted.
[190] The MS. of Critobulus was found in the Seraglio Library about
thirty-five years ago by Dr. Dethier. It was published by Karl Müller
with excellent notes. Dr. Dethier also prepared an edition with notes
and documents relating to the siege, which were printed by the Academy
of Buda-Pest but never published. Through the courtesy of the Council
and of Dr. Arminius Vambéry I have been presented with copies. They are
especially valuable for their topographical criticisms.
[191] Lonicerus, p. 22.
[192] M. Léon Cahun, in his introduction to the _History of the Turks
and Mongols_, says: ‘L’Islamisme est une règle qu’on respecte et qu’on
défend, mais qu’on ne se permettrait pas de discuter. Les Turcs ont
toujours été trop inaccessibles au sentiment religieux pour jamais
devenir hérétiques; ils sont les derniers des hommes capables de
comprendre _Oportet haereses esse_. Ils ne demandent pas mieux que de
croire, mais ils ne tiennent pas du tout à comprendre.’
[193] Phrantzes, i. 30.
[194] Von Hammer, note iii. p. 429.
[195] Ducas, p. 129; Chalcondylas says, ‘Peremit, cum, aqua infusa,
spiritum ejus interclusisset;’ Montaldo, ‘fratre obtruncato.’
[196] Von Hammer, iii. 68.
[197] Zorzo Dolfin, p. 986.
[198] Orchan was the Turkish member of the house of Othman who still
remained in Constantinople and was either the son or grandson of
Suliman, brother of Mahomet I.
[199] Chal. vii.; Ducas, xxxiv.
[200] Ducas, xxxiv.
[201] Crit. vii.
[202] Crit. viii. The account given by Ducas represents the reply of
the sultan as much more brutal. He dismissed the ambassadors with the
remark that he would not have the question reopened; he was within his
rights, and if they returned he would have them flayed alive.
[203] Phrantzes, p. 233; Ducas, xxxiv.; Crit. ix.
[204] Critobulus gives the width at seven stadia. It is really half a
nautical mile. Probably it is unwise to suppose that Critobulus had
any means of measuring it with any degree of accuracy, or the distance
given by him would be very valuable as indicating what contemporary
writers meant by a stadium. It is important, however, in reference to
other statements of distance given by Critobulus which will be noted
later.
[205] Ducas, xxxiv.
[206] Phrantzes, 234, and Barbaro, p. 2. Barbaro was a Venetian ship’s
doctor who was in the city before and during the siege and who kept a
diary which is simply invaluable, though for the part written day by
day, internal evidence shows that it was subsequently revised after the
siege. It was published in 1856.
[207] The speech of Mahomet, of which I have given the substance,
can of course only be taken as a reproduction of what Critobulus had
heard or possibly of what an intelligent writer who knew the Turks
well thought it probable Mahomet would say. As such it is valuable.
It is of course formed by Critobulus, following the example of the
Greek Byzantine historians generally, on the model of those given by
Thucydides and other classical authors.
[208] Barb. p. 14.
[209] Barb. p. 11.
[210] Barb., and Crit. ch. xxv.
[211] La Brocquière says this foss, on his visit, was two hundred paces
long.
[212] Barbaro says that the emperor employed an Italian to place the
boom in position.
[213] The present Tower of Galata was called the Tower of Christ. See
Paspates, _Meletai_, p. 180.
[214] Barb. p. 25. Tetaldi states that there were nine galleys and
thirty other ships (p. 25). The fact that the Turks soon found that it
was impossible to take possession of the chain or to drive away the
defending fleet tends to show that the Greek fleet was respectable
in number of ships. On the other hand, when it became of extreme
importance to send ships outside the chain to aid ships from Genoa
coming to the relief of the city, the fact that none were sent out is
evidence to show that no ships could be spared from the defence of
the chain or that no sufficient number of galleys, triremes, or other
vessels independent of wind for propulsion were at hand to take the
offensive. There were probably many smaller merchant ships and boats of
which no account was taken.
[215] The elder Mordtmann makes the suggestion that the Bashi-Bazouks
are in this estimate excluded, and I agree with him. The same remark
applies also to Philelphus who gives 60,000 foot and 20,000 horse.
Other writers include all those who were present with Mahomet and thus
make the number of the besiegers very much higher. Ducas’s estimate is
250,000; Montaldo’s, 240,000 (of whom 30,000 were cavalry, ch. xxvii.).
Phrantzes states that 258,000 were present; Leonard the archbishop,
with whom Critobulus and Thysellius agree, gives 300,000 men, while
Chalcondylas increases this to 400,000.
[216] Tetaldi’s _Information de la prinse de Constantinoble_, p. 21.
[217] Leonard and others say 15,000, but the smaller estimate is in
accord with many Turkish statements that the number of Janissaries was,
until the time of Suliman, limited to 12,000.
[218] The connection between the Dervish order of Bektashis and the
Janissaries endured as long as the Janissaries themselves, and when the
latter were massacred, in June 1826, with the cry of ‘Hadji Bektash’ on
their lips, the order of Bektashis was also suppressed. _Etat militaire
Ottoman_, par Djavid Bey (Constantinople, 1881), and Walsh’s _Two Years
in Constantinople_ (1828).
[219] Djevad, p. 55.
[220] Permission to marry was not granted to Janissaries till the time
of Suliman, a century later.
[221] When, contemporaneously with the murder of the Janissaries in
1826, the Order of Bektashis was suppressed, Sultan Mahmoud assigned as
a reason that jars of wine were found in the cellars of their convents
stoppered with leaves of the Koran. The statement was probably false,
but was intended to create the worst possible impression against the
Bektashis.
[222] _Early Travels in Palestine_, p. 365. La Brocquière made a
careful study of the Turkish methods of fighting and of how they might
be defeated by a combination of European troops among which he would
have placed from England a thousand men at arms and ten thousand
archers. As his visit was in 1433, it is not improbable that Agincourt
was in his mind.
[223] The Turks have rarely failed in obtaining able European soldiers.
Moltke was in the Turkish service. The first Napoleon narrowly escaped
taking a like service. (See Von Hammer.) More recently they have had in
General Von der Golz one of the ablest German soldiers.
[224] Dethier suggests that the casting of the largest gun was done at
Rhegium, the present Chemejie, about twelve miles from Constantinople,
and that the transport spoken of by Ducas was either of smaller ones or
of the brass required for the large one (p. 991; Dethier’s notes on Z.
Dolfin).
[225] Phrantzes, p. 237, gives the arrival on April 2.
[226] Critobulus, xxix., gives the description of the construction
of a cannon the barrel of which was forty spans or twenty-six feet
eight inches long. The bronze of which it was cast was eight inches in
thickness in the barrel. Throughout half the length its bore was of a
diameter of thirty inches. Throughout the other half, which contained
powder, the bore was only one third of that width. The σπιθαμὴ or
_palmus_ or span was in the Middle Ages, says Du Cange, eight inches
long. Two stone balls still existing at Top-Hana (that is, the Cannon
Khan) are forty-six inches in diameter. These would answer the
description of Tetaldi, that the ball reached to his waist. A great
Turkish cannon which is now in the Artillery Museum at Woolwich weighs
about nineteen tons. It was cast fifteen years after the siege of
Constantinople and is an excellent specimen of the great cannon of the
period (_Artillery; its Progress and Present Stage_, by Commander Lloyd
and A. G. Hadcock, R.E., p. 19).
[227] Crit. xxi.
[228] Barbaro.
[229] Barbaro gives the arrival on April 12. Dr. Dethier maintains that
Diplokionion was at Cabatash and that subsequently to the Conquest
the people and the name were transferred to Beshiktash. Barbaro says
it was two Italian miles, equal to one and a third English mile, from
the city, which is in accord with Dethier’s view, but in presence of
Bondelmonti’s map, drawn in 1422 and given in Banduri, showing the Two
Columns, and of other evidence, it is difficult to credit Dethier’s
statement.
[230] Phrantzes, p. 241; Ducas gives the total number as 300, Leonard
as 250, Critobulus as 350. The independent accounts of two men who had
been at sea, like the French soldier Tetaldi and the Venetian Barbaro,
are not far apart. The first says there were 16 to 18 galleys, the
second 12. The estimate of the long boats is 60 to 80 by Tetaldi, as
against 70 to 80 by Barbaro; while the transport barges or parandaria
are described by one as from 16 to 20, by the other as from 20 to 25.
Chalcondylas (p. 158) states that 30 triremes and 200 smaller vessels
arrived from Gallipoli. Leonard says that there were 6 triremes and 10
biremes.
[231] The following illustration shows the arrangement of the boats.
[Illustration]
A.A.A.A. represent four rowlock ports, through each of which three oars
pass, in the case of a trireme, pulled by three men on the seat marked
with circles. It will be noticed that the second man sits a little
forward of the first, and the third of the second.
[232] _Ancient Ships_, by Mr. Cecil Torr.
[233] I have been indebted to Yule’s valuable notes on Marco Polo for
his researches on the construction of ships. Unfortunately, Mr. Cecil
Torr’s monograph on _Ancient Ships_ (Cambridge, 1896) does not bring
their history so late down as the fifteenth century. For the period of
which it treats it is simply perfect.
[234] Crit. xxv.
[235] As may be seen from the note in the Appendix on the position
of the St. Romanus Gate, I believe that when Top Capou, which beyond
doubt had been known as the Gate of Saint Romanus, was closed, the
Pempton was generally spoken of as the St. Romanus Gate. The Italians,
who had the largest share in the defence in the Lycus valley, probably
ignorant of any name for the Military Gate which led from the city
into the peribolos, called it by the name of the nearest Civil Gate.
Hence I propose to speak of the Pempton as the Romanus Gate and of the
Civil Gate crowning the seventh hill by its present Turkish name of
Top Capou--that is, Cannon Gate--a name which it probably acquired by
a reversal of the process which had led the Italians to speak of the
Pempton as St. Romanus.
[236] Crit. xxvi.
[237] Crit. xxvi.
[238] The Greek πέρα = _trans_, over or beyond.
[239] It is usually stated that Stamboul or Istamboul is a corruption
of εἰς τὴν πόλιν, though Dr. Koelle disputes this derivation and
considers that it is a mere shortening of the name Constantinople by
the Turks, analogous to Skender or Iskender from Alexander. Koelle’s
_Tartar and Turk_.
[240] In 1204 the Venetians and Crusaders under Dandolo and Monferrat
entered the city by capturing the western portion of the walls on the
side of the Horn.
[241] The position of the walls and gates is fully and admirably
described in Professor Van Millingen’s _Byzantine Constantinople_, who,
however, does not suggest that the Pempton was the Romanus Gate of the
chroniclers of the siege.
[242] This was destroyed in the time of Suliman and replaced by a
mosque which is called after his daughter Miramah, though the Greeks
were allowed to build a church of St. George almost alongside it.
[243] Dr. Mordtmann is my authority for this statement. See note in the
Appendix on the position of the Romanus Gate.
[244] Paspates claims that there was always water in the foss during a
siege, though it was of no great depth. See p. 42 of his Παλιορκία τῆς
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. It is remarkable, however, that no mention is made
of water by the contemporary writers on the last siege.
[245] _Byzantine Constantinople_, p. 86.
[246] Barbaro describes it as the place ‘dove che sun la più debel
porta de tuta la tera,’ p. 21. The weakest gate he calls ‘San Romano.’
[247] Quite a considerable number of towers in the Outer Wall bear
inscriptions showing that they were repaired after the Turkish siege of
1422.
[248] P. 159.
[249] ‘Antemurale solum urbis vallumque sat videbatur tutari posse,’ p.
93. ‘Operosa autem protegendi vallum et antemurale nostris fuit cura,’
p. 95.
[250] Dethier argues that it was not. The Italians who were present in
the city complain that the Greeks showed a want of patriotism in not
being ready to give all their wealth for the defence of the empire. But
the complaint is supported by very slight evidence. The Superior of the
Franciscans (Dethier’s _Siege of Constantinople_, p. 490) says that the
city was lost through the avarice of the Greeks, because they would not
consent to pay its defenders. He instances the case of a woman who had
jewels and money of the value of 150,000 ducats, and of a man whose
wealth in moveables amounted to 80,000 ducats. Jagarus and Neophytus,
who are mentioned by Leonard, had been charged with the repairs of the
walls, for which money had been given them, but, according to him, had
misappropriated it. When the city was captured, 70,000 gold pieces were
discovered by the Turks. But it is noteworthy that Phrantzes, who was
in a better condition to know the truth in such a matter, has nothing
but praise for Jagarus (p. 225). The statement of Leonard regarding
them is examined by Dethier, who suggests that the sentence regarding
the finding of the coin is due to the incorporation of a marginal note.
Zorzo Dolfin, whose narrative is largely copied from Leonard, gives a
somewhat different version.
As stated on the preceding page, the inscriptions on the Outer Wall
still show that many towers had been repaired in the interval between
Murad’s siege and that of Mahomet, and two inscriptions at least,
which may perhaps be taken as intended to apply to all the towers so
repaired, bear the name of Jagarus himself. (Professor Van Millingen,
p. 108, and Dethier’s notes on Leonard, 593–5.)
[251] Riccherio (often quoted as Sansovino, who was the editor of
Riccherio and has written a bright account of the conquest) says, ‘La
speranza della difesa era tutta nel antimuro.’ (Dethier’s _Siege_, p.
955.)
[252] Chalcondylas, p. 95, Ven. edition.
[253] _Ibid._ p. 159.
[254] Crit. xxviii., and Barbaro.
[255] Ch. xxvii.
[256] See Note in Appendix claiming that during the siege the Pempton
was usually called the Gate of St. Romanus.
[257] Pusculus also gives these three places, but with the difference
that he mistakes the Second Military Gate for the Third.
[258] Barb. p. 21.
[259] Phr. 242–47.
[260] Dolfin, p. 994.
[261] παρὰ τὰ πλάγια.
[262] See Prof. Van Millingen, 85–92. Barbaro states that the cannon
were stationed at four places: opposite the Pegè Gate, by which he
means the Third Military Gate (Triton); opposite the Palace, by which
he probably means in the angle now occupied by the Greek cemetery
opposite the Palace of Porphyrogenitus or Tekfour Serai; opposite the
Cresu Gate, probably the Chariseus or Adrianople Gate, and opposite
the Romanus Gate. Philelphus also mentions the Pegè Gate as one of the
chief places of attack (ii. 809).
[263] Pusculus gives fourteen palms as the circumference; Phrantzes and
Critobulus, twelve; while Barbaro gives thirteen to fourteen.
[264] P. 241, κοσμικούς τε καὶ μοναχούς.
[265] See _ante_, p. 193.
[266] Crit. xxv.
[267] ὅπου καὶ ἐν ἐκείνοις τοῖς μέρεσιν ἡ πόλις ἦν ἐπικίνδυνος.
Phrantzes, p. 253.
[268] P. 1013. The _locus arduus_ of the Myriandrion is the highest
site of the city walls. Professor Van Millingen makes it identical with
the Mesoteichion (p. 85), but Critobulus distinguishes between the two
places (ch. xxvi.).
[269] Leonard; but Phrantzes says, p. 253, that Manuel, a Genoese, was
in command at the Golden Gate.
[270] See Professor Van Millingen as to position of this gate, pp.
230–234. There were probably two Imperial Gates on the Golden Horn.
[271] According to Pusculus, Trevisano was from the first at Aivan
Serai, the extreme west of the walls on the Horn and close to the
Xyloporta.
[272] Barbaro, p. 19.
[273] Phrantzes states that the reserve was under Cantacuzenus and
Nicephorus Palaeologus, and that the Grand Duke was in charge of the
region from the Petrion to the Gate of St. Theodosia.
[274] Leonard’s account hardly varies from that of Phrantzes and
others, except that, with his strong religious prejudices, he prefers
to name foreigners rather than Greeks. The distributions of the
defenders of the city given by Zorzi Dolfin and Pusculus do vary,
however, from those given by Phrantzes and Barbaro. These differences
are set out in Dr. Mordtman’s _Esquisse Topographique_, p. 23. See also
Krause’s _Eroberungen von Constantinopel_, p. 169.
[275] Dethier’s _Siege_, p. 110. Chalcondylas says that it was found
that the big gun of the Greeks did more damage to them by its recoil
than to the enemy.
[276] Crit. xvii. The word _machine_ is usually used by contemporary
writers to designate a cannon, though here, as elsewhere, it may be
employed in a general sense. What is certain is that such cannon as the
Greeks possessed were few in number and of small value.
[277] _Isidori Lamentatio_, p. 676; also Christoforo Riccherio,
Sansovin, p. 957: both in Dethier’s _Siege_.
[278] P. 369.
[279] P. 145. Boutell’s _Arms and Armour_.
[280] La Brocquière, p. 361, where five forts on the Save are described
as well furnished with artillery. He particularly notices three brass
cannon.
[281] There are still the remains of two towers in Prinkipo. I fix upon
the one near the ruined monastery opposite the island of Antirobithos
as the place of attack, with some hesitation. The account is given by
Critobulus, xxxiii.
[282] Crit. xxxiv.
[283] Ducas says four, but he is at variance with Leonard, Barbaro, and
Phrantzes, and wrote his account from hearsay years afterwards.
[284] Crit. xxxix.
[285] Phrantzes; though Ducas says from Morea.
[286] Ducas, p. 121, and Crit. xxxix.
[287] ‘Come homini volonteroxi de aver victoria contra el suo inimigod’
(p. 28).
[288] Ducas, p. 121, says, to pass τὸν Μεγαδημήτριον τὸν ἀκρόπολιν. The
tower stood near Seraglio Point; Dr. Mordtmann places it on the Golden
Horn side, while Paspates, in Τὰ Βυζαντινὰ Ἀνάκτορα, p. 37, thought
he had identified the foundations just beyond the bridge crossing the
railway line to the Imperial Treasury. To have been a conspicuous
landmark for ships steering from the Marmora to the harbour, as it is
represented to have been, the church must have been very lofty if in
the position adopted by Dr. Mordtmann.
[289] Pusculus, 385, Book iv.
[290] Barbaro says, ‘Quando queste quatro naves fo per mezo la zitade
de Constantinopli subito el vento i bonazò’ (p. 23).
[291] Pusculus iv. v. 415: ‘Deserit illic ventus eas; cecidere sinus
sub moenibus arcis.’
[292] Barbaro, p. 24.
[293] I doubt whether Greek fire was so much used as it is usually
asserted to have been. It was always dangerous to those who used it.
When employed by the Byzantine ships it caused great damage and still
greater alarm. I agree with Krause that it was very rarely employed.
See _Die Byzantiner des Mittelalters_, by J. H. Krause; Halle, 1869.
[294] Pusculus, iv. 340.
[295] Phrantzes.
[296] Gyllius mentions this foreshore as existing in his time, gives
its width, and vividly describes how it was utilised and increased
by the inhabitants of Galata (book iv. ch. 10). In digging for the
foundations of the British post office in Galata in 1895, on a site
that is now upwards of a hundred yards from the water, remains of an
old wooden jetty were discovered. Indeed, I think it highly probable
that in 1453 the whole of what is now the main street of Galata from
the bridge to Tophana was under water.
[297] Pusculus, 247.
[298] Crit. xli.
[299] Barbaro, p. 24, and Phrantzes.
[300] According to Ducas, Mahomet himself inflicted the blows: an
absurd statement.
[301] Ducas, 121; Leonard, Phrantzes, and Nicolo Barbaro.
[302] Hunyadi, according to Phrantzes (p. 327), asked that Silivria or
Mesembria, on the bay of Bourgas, should be given to him as the price
of his aid, and Phrantzes declares that the emperor ceded the latter
place, he himself having written the Golden Bull making the cession. He
adds also that the king of Catalonia stipulated for Lemnos as the price
of his aid. But no aid came from either.
[303] Barbaro, under April 21; Phrantzes, 246. The tower is called by
Leonard Bactatanea. He afterwards writes of the breach near it as being
in the Murus Bacchatureus. See, as to its situation, Professor van
Millingen’s _Byzantine Constantinople_, pp. 86, 87.
[304] As the only church in the neighbourhood of the place defended by
Justiniani was that of St Kyriakè near the Pempton, the information
is valuable as helping to fix the locality where the great gun was
stationed. The Moscovite, ch. vii.
[305] The Moscovite, ch. vii., in Dethier’s _Siege_; Barbaro, p. 27;
Crit.
[306] _Zarabotane._
[307] Barbaro, p. 27. The account of the fight given by Pusculus is
very full and spirited. See note in Appendix as to the question where
the naval fight took place.
[308] In 1203 the Crusaders and Venetians had forced
the boom tower on the Galata side and loosed the chain; but it was then
outside the city walls. In the time of Cantacuzenus, Galata had been
enlarged so that the end of the chain was quite safe unless Galata were
taken. The walls terminated, as may still be seen by the remaining
towers, near Tophana.
[309] Leonard, and Sauli’s _Colonia dei Genovesi in Galata_, p. 158.
Other similar instances are cited by contemporaries, but it is not
necessary to suppose that Mahomet had ever heard either of the fable of
Caesar’s attack upon Antony and Cleopatra or of a like feat performed
by Xerxes. The Avars had made a crossing similar to that contemplated
by Mahomet. The transport of the imperial fleet into Lake Ascanius in
order to take possession of Nicaea in 1097 might possibly have been
known to him.
[310] Λοιπὸν ὁ ἀμερᾶς τὰς τριήρεις φέρας ἐν μίᾳ νυκτί, ἐν τῷ λιμένι τῷ
πρωῒ ηὑρέθησαν: Phrantzes, 251.
[311] Dethier places them on a small plateau now occupied by the
English Memorial Church. [_Note on_ Pusculus, book iv. line 482.
Professor van Millingen (p. 231), in discussing the question of the
position of St. Theodore, suggests that the sultan’s battery stood
nearer the Bosporus than the present Italian Hospital. This suggestion
is not necessarily at variance with the position indicated by Dethier.]
[312] Philelphus, book ii. line 976: ‘Genuae tunc clara juventus
obstupuit.’ Ducas, however, states that the Genoese claimed to
have known of the proposed transport and to have allowed it out of
friendship to Mahomet.
[313] ‘Et hic quidem in superiori parte per montem navigia
transportavit ... in litore stabant milites parati propulsare hostes
bombardis, si accederent prohibituri deducere naves.’ Chalcondylas,
book viii.
[314] Crit. says 68; Barbaro, 72; Tetaldi, between 70 and 80;
Chalcondylas, 70; and Ducas, 80; Heirullah says there were only 20; the
Janissary Michael, 30; the _Anon. Expugnatio_, edited by Thyselius,
sect. 12, says not less than 80.
[315] ‘Lacertus’ is the word Leonard ingeniously uses for the Greek
πῆχυς.
[316] Crit. book iv. ch. 42. It is difficult to determine the size
of the boat selected for this overland transit. Barbaro says, ‘le
qual fusti si iera de banchi quindexe fina banchi vinti et anchi
vintido’ (page 28). This would agree fairly well with the statement
of Chalcondylas, that some had thirty and some fifty oars. Mr. Cecil
Torr calculates that a thirty-oared ship would be about seventy feet
long, a statement which appears probable (_Ancient Ships_, p. 21). The
mediaeval galleys and other large vessels propelled by oars differed
essentially from those of the sixteenth century, which were worked with
long oars. See note on p. 234. I am myself not entirely satisfied that
among the boats were not biremes and possibly triremes in the sense
of boats which had two or three tiers of oars, one above the other.
Fashions change slowly in Turkey, and I have seen a bireme with two
such tiers of oars on the Bosporus. No writer mentions the length of
the vessels which were carried across Pera Hill. A large modern fishing
caique in the Marmora, probably not differing much in shape from the
fustae then transported, and containing twelve oars, measures about
fifty feet long. When the boats are longer, two men take one oar, but
this is very unusual. Leonard speaks of the seventy vessels as biremes.
Barbaro calls them fustae. The former was probably the best Latin
word to signify the new form of vessel. Many of the ships were large,
though it may be taken as certain that none were of the length of the
two galleys recently raised in lake Nemi, near Rome, which belonged to
Caligula, each of which is 225 feet long and 60 feet beam.
[317] See note in Appendix on transport of Mahomet’s ships.
[318] Ducas, xxviii.
[319] Phrantzes, p. 327.
[320] Crit. lxxii.
[321] Barbaro says that the meeting was in St. Mary’s; but Pusculus
(iv. 578) says, in St. Peter Claviger, which Dethier places near St.
Sophia.
[322] Phrantzes, 256.
[323] Barbaro, under April 24 and 25.
[324] Pusculus, lines 585 et seq.
[325] Pusculus, iv. 610.
[326] Barbaro, 31.
[327] The account of this attempt to destroy the Turkish ships in the
harbour is best given by Barbaro, but Phrantzes and Pusculus are in
substantial agreement with him.
[328] Phrantzes (p. 248) says 260 Turkish prisoners were executed.
[329] The Moscovite, ch. vii.
[330] Crit. xliv.
[331] Dr. Mordtmann places the bridge between Cumberhana and Defterdar
Scala.
[332] Ducas gives the above dimensions. Assuming the width from centre
of each barrel, including a space between them, to be four feet, this
would give the length of the bridge as 2,000 feet, which is about the
width of the Horn at the place mentioned. Phrantzes gives its length
at a hundred fathoms and the breadth fifty fathoms. These dimensions
are clearly wrong if applied to the bridge, since the length falls far
short of the width of the gulf. Leonard says it was thirty stadia long.
Here, as elsewhere, I suspect that he uses stadium for some measure
about one ninth of a furlong in length. If this conjecture is right,
his estimate of the length of the bridge is about 2,000 feet.
[333] Phrantzes, 252.
[334] Barbaro, 36; Phrantzes, 250.
[335] The Moscovite, xv. While there are useful hints in this anonymous
author, he is generally untrustworthy. This fight, for example, is
represented as being outside the walls. It is incredible that the
Greeks should have made a sortie at this period of the siege. As an
illustration of the untrustworthy character of the writer, it may be
noted that the number of Turks killed during the siege totals up to
130,000!
[336] Leonard, the _Vallum_ and the _Antemurale_.
[337] Phrantzes, p. 244.
[338] ‘Bastion’ is the word used for a wooden tower or castle by
Barbaro and by the translator of the Moscovite. Chalcondylas calls
it _helepolis_, distinguishing it from the cannon which he names
_teleboles_. Ducas speaks of cannon usually by the word χωνείαν,
sometimes as τὰς πετροβολιμαίους χώνας or σκευαὶ πετροβόλοι or simply
as τὸ σκεῦος; Phrantzes employs the word _helepolis_ for a wooden
turret (pp. 237, 244). The latter word is used by Critobulus for a
cannon. It was an epithet applied to Helen, ‘the Taker of Cities.’ In
the Bonn edition of Phrantzes it is also employed, both in the text
and the Latin translation, for cannon; but a reference to the readings
of the Paris MS. suggests that it is an error. Phrantzes’s words for
cannons are _teleboles_ and _petroboles_.
[339] The ‘Chastel de bois’ was ‘si haut, si grand et si fort qu’il
maistrisoit le mur et dominait par-dessus’ (Tetaldi, p. 25).
[340] Barbaro states that it occupied a place called the ‘Cresca,’
possibly a copyist’s error for Cressus (= Chariseus), the name which I
believe he gave indifferently with San Romano to the Pempton. Elsewhere
he uses Cresca for the Golden Gate (_e.g._ p. 18). Possibly, however,
he is referring to another turret, which was at the Golden Gate.
Barbaro’s knowledge of places and names is not accurate. If Barbaro’s
‘bastion’ is the ‘helepole’ of which Phrantzes speaks (p. 245), then
the three writers agree that the principal turret was at the Romanus
Gate.
[341] The Moscovite, 1087; Phrantzes, 247.
[342] Leonard, p. 93: ‘Mauritius Cataneus ... inter portam Pighi, id
est fontis, usque ad Auream contra ligneum castrum, pellibus boum
contectum, oppositum accurate decertat.’ Cardinal Isidore, in the
_Lamentatio_, says, p. 676: ‘Admoventur urbi ligneae turres.’
[343] Barbaro, under dates of May 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25.
[344] As to the question whether there was water in the foss, see
Professor Van Millingen’s _Byz. Constantinople_, pp. 57–8.
[345] Crit. xxxi. Ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν ὕστερον περιττὸν ἔδοξε, καὶ ματαία
δαπάνη, τῶν μηχανῶν τὸ πᾶν κατεργασαμένων.
[346] The return, as mentioned, was on May 23, but is given by Barbaro
under the 3rd. This is one of the passages which show that his diary
was revised and added to after the siege.
[347] Crit. xlvi.; Pusculus, iv. 889, says:
Candida completo cum Phoebe surgeret orbe
Moesta prodit, fati miseri cladisque propinquae
Nuntia; nam tristis faciem velamine nubis
Tecta atrae, mediaque latens plus parte sereno
Incedit coelo.
Barbaro seems to describe an eclipse of the moon on May 22. The elder
Dr. Mordtmann states that there was no full moon and consequently no
eclipse on the 22nd, but that there was on the 24th. Dethier’s note on
The Moscovite, p. 1100. Phrantzes, p. 264, speaks of a light flashing
from the sky settling over the city, and remaining during the whole
night. See note, _post_ p. 316.
[348] Constantine was a widower, his wife, Catherine, having died in
1442, a year after her marriage. Phrantzes, 195–8.
[349] The same remark applies to The Moscovite generally. There are so
many manifest fringes to what ought to have been the correct narrative
of an eye-witness that it is impossible to distinguish truth from
falsehood.
[350] Barbaro, under May 20.
[351] Leonard, _Opere_, p. 94.
[352] Leonard, p. 92.
[353] _Ibid._ p. 95.
[354] Barbaro, under May 28.
[355] _Ep. Ang. Johannis Zacchariae Potestatis Perae_, Sec. 2, edition
revised by Edward Hopf and Dethier.
[356] Leonard, p. 94, and also Italian version given by Dethier, p. 644.
[357] Tetaldi, pp. 32–35.
[358] Crit. xlviii.
[359] See also the Moscovite, xx.
[360] Crit. lx.
[361] Barbaro, Pusculus, and Leonard agree with Critobulus in their
description of the stockade.
[362] Phrantzes, 263.
[363] _Ibid._ 326. M. Mijatovich, in his pleasant and valuable
_Constantine, last Emperor of the Greeks_, states that Mahomet received
an ambassador from Ladislaus on May 26 (p. 198); but I do not know on
what authority.
[364] Phrantzes, 325.
[365] M. Mitjatovich’s suggestion that the negotiations had probably
emanated from the wily cardinal who had been the evil spirit of
Ladislaus, or possibly from the crafty, but unpractical, mind of George
Brancovich, appears plausible.
[366] Phrantzes, 326; Ducas, xxxviii.
[367] Ducas, xxxviii.
[368] Tetaldi says: ‘Se l’armée de Venise que menoit et conduisoit
Messire Jean le Rendoul [Loredano] fut arrivé à Constantinople ung seul
jour avant que cette cité fust prinse, certes il n’y avoit aucun doute
qu’ils eussent fort secouru et fussent venus bien à point’ (p. 30).
[369] ‘Per el campo del Turco in questo zorno se fexe asai feste, de
soni, e de altra condition de alegreze, e questo perche i sentiva che
tosto i volea dare la bataia zeneral’ (p. 48, under May 24).
[370] Phrantzes, 263.
[371] Leonard, p. 95; Phrantzes, 263; Crit. xlvi.
[372] Crit. xlvii.
[373] The accounts of this light (or darkness), which alarmed both
sides, are somewhat conflicting. Perhaps here also Critobulus is the
safest guide. In chapter xlvi. he mentions the religious procession
already described, where the statue of the Virgin falls, and says it
was ‘three or four days before the attack.’ Immediately after came
torrential rains with vivid flashes of lightning. Then, ‘the next
day,’ there was a thick fog lasting till evening. Barbaro speaks of
a darkness, due, judging from his description, to an eclipse of the
moon, lasting from the first to the sixth hour after sunset, as being
on the 22nd. This alarmed the Greeks, he says, because of an ancient
prophecy which declared that Constantinople should not be lost until
the moon should give a sign in the heavens. Phrantzes (page 264) says:
φῶς ἀστράπτον καταβαῖνον ἐξ οὐρανῶν καὶ δι’ ὅλης τῆς νυκτὸς ἄνωθεν τῆς
πόλεως ἑστὸς διέσκεπεν αὐτήν. Possibly both Phrantzes and Barbaro have
the same atmospheric night effects in view: that is, that there were
frequent flashes of lightning during the night so long as the eclipse
lasted. The statement of Pusculus, who was in the city at the time,
has already been quoted. See p. 297, _ante_. The account of Critobulus
appears clear, but it does not eliminate the miraculous, for he
declares that many persons, both Romans and foreigners, declared that
they had seen the Divinity hiding Himself in the clouds.
[374] Ducas also mentions the attempt recorded by Chalcondylas,
but without mentioning the name of Ismail. Ducas thus mentions two
negotiations for peace, the first (if it ever existed) being towards
the end of April and the second nearly a month after.
[375] The Turkish historian Sad-ud-din, (p. 20) represents the emperor
as offering to surrender everything except Constantinople; to which
Mahomet’s reply was, ‘Either the city, the sword, or El-Islam.’
[376] Leonard.
[377] Leonard, Phrantzes, and Tetaldi all speak of him as friendly to
the Christians. He was, however, disliked by Mahomet, because he had
persuaded Murad to send his son to Magnesia. Tetaldi says that the
Christians in the Turkish army shot letters into the city to let the
besieged know all that went on in the council.
[378] According to Leonard, the sultan ordered Zagan to fix a day for a
general assault.
[379] Phrantzes, 623–8, and also Leonard.
[380] The narrative of Phrantzes relating the decision of the meeting
of the Turkish council concludes by stating that this was on the
27th--that is, Sunday (p. 269). It may have been, but it is difficult
to believe that the council meeting, the sending of Zagan to learn the
opinion of the soldiers, his return and the decision, together with
the subsequent proclamation, were all crowded into one day. Barbaro
gives the proclamation as being made on Monday the 28th. Leonard says
that, as a result of the meeting, a proclamation was issued for the
attack to be on Tuesday and for the three preceding days to be devoted
to prayer and one of them to fasting. If he is correct, the council
could not have been on the 27th. Tetaldi states that the council lasted
during four days. The statement appears possible, and perhaps gives the
explanation of the apparent discrepancies in the narratives.
[381] Leonard, 96, Phrant. 269; Barbaro adds that the Turks believed
that on the morrow they would have so many Christians in hand that two
slaves could be bought for a ducat: such riches that everything would
be of gold, and they could have enough hair from the heads of Christian
priests to make ropes with which to tie up their dogs.
[382] The Moscovite, xxii. This first wound is only mentioned by the
Moscovite.
[383] Phrantzes, 269.
[384] Barbaro, p. 50.
[385] Barbaro. Ducas says, from St. Eugenius to Hodegetria and as far
as Vlanga (p. 282–3), which is substantially the same position as that
given by Critobulus.
[386] Zorso Dolfin, p. 78.
[387] Sad-ud-din, p. 16. Translation by E. J. W. Gibb.
[388] τούφακας; in modern Greek the name for sporting guns is τουφέκια.
The Turks call them _Toufeng_. Ducas uses the word μολυβδοβόλοι.
[389] Crit. xlvii. to lii.
[390] According to Critobulus, the meeting of the Council was on the
27th.
[391] Phrantzes, 269–70. Was the speech as recorded by Critobulus
ever delivered? The answer I am disposed to give is that a speech
was delivered which was substantially that reported by Phrantzes and
Critobulus. The fashion followed by the Byzantine writers, and their
desire to imitate classical models, by putting all speeches in the
first person, made it necessary to invent a speech if the substance
of what was said were known. Critobulus, writing some years after the
capture and having had many opportunities of meeting with the Turkish
leaders, was in a position to learn what was said and done by them, and
hence his report, wherever it can be tested, almost invariably proves
trustworthy.
[392] Barbaro, May 28.
[393] Crit. liv.
[394] Phrantzes, 271–8; Leonard, 97.
[395] Phrantzes, 279; The Moscovite, p. 1113. The ceremony is also
mentioned in the Georgian Chronicle.
[396] _Libro d’Andrea Cambini Florentino della Origine de Turchi et
imperio delli Ottomanni._ Edition of 1529, p. 25.
[397] Phrantzes, p. 280. The closing of the gates behind the soldiers
is mentioned also by other writers.
[398] The Caligaria Gate was the present Egri Capou. For a description
of Caligaria and the neighbouring palace of Blachern see Professor
van Millingen’s _Byzantine Constantinople_, p. 128. Caligaria was the
name of a district which was in the corner made by the wall running at
right angles to the foss, where it terminates on the north just beyond
Tekfour Serai, and that which leads down the steep slope to the Golden
Horn.
[399] Phrantzes, p. 280.
[400] The question when the general attack began is very much one of
appreciation. According to Ducas, Mahomet commenced on the Sunday
evening to make a general attack and during the night the besieged
were not permitted to sleep but were harassed all night and, though in
a less active manner, until between four and five of the afternoon of
Monday. Phrantzes declares the capture to have been made on the third
day of the attack and would thus make it begin on Sunday, but his
narrative shows that the general attack began after midnight of the
28–9th. Barbaro’s statement substantially agrees with that of Phrantzes
and is that during the whole of the 27th the cannons were discharging
their stone balls: _tuto el zorno non feze mai altro che bombardar in
le puovere mure_; but on p. 51 he says that Mahomet came before the
walls to begin the general attack at three hours before day on the
29th. Critobulus makes the general attack begin on the afternoon of the
28th, when the sultan raised his great standard (Crit. lii. and lv.).
Karl Müller, in his excellent notes to Critobulus, justly remarks that
as Barbaro and Phrantzes were in the city their evidence ought to be
preferred to that of Critobulus. They both represent the final assault
as beginning very early in the morning of the 29th. The statements are
reconcilable by supposing that the dispositions for a general attack
began on the Sunday, but that the actual general assault did not take
place until the Tuesday morning. Sad-ud-din says, on the authority of
two Turkish contemporaries, that ‘the great victory was on Tuesday, the
fifty-first day from the commencement of the war’ (p. 34).
[401] Cambini, 24.
[402] P. 160.
[403] Ch. lv.
[404] P. 52.
[405] Leonard, p. 86: ‘Testis sum quod Graeci, quod Latini, quod
Germani, Panones, Boetes, ex omnium christianorum regionibus Teucris
commixti opera eorum fidemque didicerunt.’
[406] Riccherio, 958: ‘Percioche Maometh pensava, ricreando gli
stracchi col rimetter nuove genti nella zuffa, verrebbe a non dar punto
di spatio per riposarsi a Greci, di maniera che, non potendo sostener
tanta fatica per lo continuo combattimento, si sarebbono agevolmente
potuti vincere.’
[407] Crit. liv.
[408] Michael Constantinovich, a Servian who was with a contingent of
his countrymen in the Turkish army, says, ‘As far as our help went, the
Turks would never have taken the city’ (quoted by Mijatovich, p. 234).
[409] τούφακας, Crit. li.
[410] Chalc. p. 160.
[411] Barbaro (54) says, Greeks and Venetians, omitting all mention of
the Genoese.
[412] Crit. lvi.
[413] Leonard: ‘in loco arduo Myriandri.’
[414] Pusculus, iv. 173, and Zorzo Dolfin, 55.
[415] Crit. lvii.
[416] Leonard, p. 98: ‘Tenebrosa nox in lucem trahitur, nostris
vincentibus. Et dum astra cedunt, dum Phoebi praecedit Lucifer ortum,
Illalla, Illalla in martem conclamans, conglobatus in gyrum consurgit
exercitus.’
[417] Crit. lvii.
[418] Παραπόρτιον ἓν πρὸ πολλῶν χρόνων ἀσφαλῶς πεφραγμένον, ὑπόγαιον,
πρὸς τὸ κάτωθεν μέρος τοῦ παλατίου.
[419] Its complete name was Porta Xylokerkou, because it led to a
wooden circus outside the city. See the subject fully discussed by
Professor van Millingen, _Byzantine Constantinople_, pp. 89–94.
[420] I am not satisfied that the Kerkoporta was the one indicated by
Professor van Millingen. On the map published by the Greek Syllogos, as
well as in Canon Curtis’s _Broken Bits of Byzantium_, a small postern
is shown in the wall immediately south of the tower adjoining Tekfour
Serai, and my own recollection is that I saw this walled-up postern
with Dr. Paspates in 1875. The wall itself was pulled down on the
outbreak of the last Turko-Russian war and replaced by a slighter one.
Whichever view be correct, the statement in the text is not affected.
Professor van Millingen contends that the Kerkoporta strictly so
called was the small gate in the corner between Tekfour Serai and the
adjoining tower on the south. But he maintains also that the postern
to which Ducas refers was in the transverse wall, giving access from
the city to the Inner Enclosure. He remarks that if the Turks entered
by the Kerkoporta they could have mounted the great Inner Wall from
the city. As to the latter objection, it must be remembered that the
fighters were within the Enclosure defending the Outer Wall, and if the
Turks entered through the postern in the transverse wall they would
take the fighters in the rear. It would have been a better position for
attack than on the Inner Wall.
[421] Phrantzes, p. 285.
[422] Crit. lvi.
[423] Sad-ud-din gives an interesting variant of the story of Ducas.
He states that while ‘the blind-hearted emperor’ was busy resisting
the besiegers of the city at his palace to the north of the Adrianople
Gate,’ ‘suddenly he became aware that the upraisers of the most
glorious standard of “The Word of God” had found a path to within the
walls’ (Sad-ud-din, p. 30). The statement that the emperor was present
at Tekfour Serai agrees with that of Ducas; but the latter’s account
of the events immediately following the entry by the Kerkoporta varies
so much from that given by others that I suspect some sentences have
dropped out of his narrative.
[424] Crit. lviii.
[425] _Ibid._
[426] Leonard, p. 37.
[427] It is difficult to identify the gate described as having been
opened on to the stockade. Critobulus gives no further indication of
its position than that here mentioned (ch. lx.). Paspates thinks it
was a temporary postern, walled up after the siege when the Inner Wall
was repaired to prevent smuggling, but would place it not far from Top
Capou, a position which cannot be accepted if the stockade were, as I
have placed it, near the Military Gate of St. Romanus. The Podestà of
Pera, however, says that Justiniani went ‘per ipsam portam per quam
Teucri intraverunt’ (p. 648), which would indicate St. Romanus. Andrea
Cambini, the Florentine already quoted, in his _Libro della Origine de
Turchi_, published by the sons of the writer, says that Justiniani,
who had behaved so well that the salvation of the city was largely
attributed to him, was seriously wounded, and, seeing that the blood
flowed ‘in great quantity’ and being unwilling that they should fetch
a doctor, withdrew secretly from the fight ... all the gates which led
from the Antimuro [i.e. the Outer Wall] being closed, because thus the
fighters had to conquer or die (p. 25).
[428] His monument still exists in the church of S. Domenico at Chios
with an epitaph which contains the phrase ‘lethale vulnere ictus
interiit.’ Phrantzes says that Justiniani was wounded in the right
foot by an arrow; Leonard, by an arrow in the armpit; Chalcondylas,
in the hand, by a ball; Critobulus, by a ball in the chest or throat
which pierced through his breastplate. The latter statement would be
consistent with Tetaldi’s which speaks of the wound inflicted by a
culverin. Riccherio says Justiniani was wounded by one of his own men.
Barbaro (who, it must always be remembered where he is speaking of the
Genoese, was a Venetian and incapable of doing justice to a citizen of
the rival republic) does not mention any wound, but states roundly that
Justiniani decided to abandon his post and hasten to his ship, which
was stationed at the boom.
[429] Barbaro, p. 55.
[430] Philip the Armenian, who was probably present in the city, states
that Justiniani and his men deserted their stations and that thus the
city was lost (pp. 675–6). Riccherio, while speaking of the wound as
severe, declares that Justiniani promised to return, and attributes
the departure of many of his followers to the fact that the postern
gate, which he had required to be opened for his departure, suggested
the idea of flight to his men. In other words it created a panic (p.
960). The contemporaries who excuse Justiniani are Cardinal Isidore
(_Lamentatio_, p. 677: ‘Ne caeteros deterreret, remedium quaerens
clam sese pugnae subduxit’) and Leonard, who both state that he went
away secretly so as not to discourage his followers. Tetaldi further
declares that he left his command to two Genoese. Leonard and the
Podestà wrote while the impression of the fall and the sack of the city
were too recent to enable them to give a cool judgment on Justiniani’s
conduct: the latter dating his letter June 23, and the archbishop
August 16.
[431] Crit. lx.; also Leonard, 99.
[432] Cambini, p. 25.
[433] Phrantzes, 285.
[434] Crit. lx.
[435] Phrantzes, p. 285.
[436] ‘La prima sbara di barbacan,’ p. 54.
[437] Phrantzes, p. 285.
[438] Montaldo, xxiii.: ‘insigniis positis.’
[439] Montaldo (ch. xxiii.) incidentally confirms the version of Ducas.
He states that the emperor determined on death only after he had
learned that the enemy had entered the city and had occupied the palace
and other places.
[440] Leonard, p. 99. In Dethier’s edition a note states that one of
the MSS. reads eighty Latins ‘sine Graecis,’ p. 608.
[441] Leonard, 99, says that they formed a _cuneus_ or _phalanx_.
[442] Crit. lxi.; Chalc. p. 164. Ahmed Muktar Pasha’s _Conquest of
Constantinople_.
[443] Crit. lxi.; Tetaldi, p. 23, speaks of ‘deux banniers.’
[444] Crit. lxi.; Tetaldi, p. 29, ‘à l’aube du jour;’ Barbaro (p. 55)
at sunrise. Phrantzes says that possession of the city was obtained at
half past two, which by the then and present prevalent mode in the East
of reckoning time would correspond to about ten. Possession of the city
would probably be about three or four hours after the entry through
the landward walls. Leonard says: ‘Necdum Phoebus orbis perlustrat
hemisphaerium et tota urbs a paganis in praedam occupatur.’
[445] P. 647; ‘on the 29th of last month,’ ‘Qua die expectabamus cum
desiderio quia videbatur nobis habere certam victoriam.’
[446] Crit. ch. lxx. Pusculus gives a somewhat different account (iv.
1025):
Auxilium Deus ipse negavit;
In Tenedi portu nam tempestatibus actae
Stabant bis denae naves, quas Gnosia tellus,
Quae Venetum imperium Rhadamanti legibus audit
Omissis, plenas frumento et frugibus, inde
Bis quinas Veneti mittebant Marte triremes
Instructas, urbi auxilio Danaisque; sed omnes
Mensem unum adverso tenuerunt sidere portum;
Nec prius inde datum est se de statione movere
Quam Teucri capiant urbem regemque trucident.
[447] Phrantzes, p. 327.
[448] Pusc. iv. 1025.
[449] Crit. lxxii.
[450] Crit. lx.
[451] Leonard, p. 99; Polish Janissary, 332; Montaldo notes one report,
that he was trampled down in the throng, and another, that his head was
cut off. Philelphus (book ii. v. 990) says, ‘Enseque perstricto nunc
hos, nunc enecat illos, Donec vita suo dispersa est alma cruore.’
[452] See also ch. xxvii. of Montaldo, who adds that the head was sent
to the pasha of Babylon accompanied by forty youths and forty virgins,
a procession intended to make known the sultan’s great victory.
[453] The Turks show a place in the bema of St. Sophia which they
pretend to be the tomb of Constantine.
[454] Sad-ud-din also makes a Turkish soldier strike off the emperor’s
head (p. 31).
[455] Phrantzes, p. 291.
[456] Until about ten years ago a tomb was shown by local guides to
travellers at Vefa Meidan as the burial-place of Constantine. It bore
no inscription. M. Mijatovich is mistaken in stating (in _Constantine,
last Emperor of the Greeks_, p. 229), on the authority of the elder
Dr. Mordtman, that the Turkish government provides oil for the lamp
over his grave. Alongside the alleged grave of Constantine is that of
some one else, probably a dervish, and a lamp was burnt there some
years ago. Similar lamps are burnt nightly in many other places in
Constantinople. It is now entirely neglected. Dr. Paspates suggests,
and probably with truth, that the whole story grew out of the desire
for custom by the owner of a neighbouring coffee-house.
[457] ὡς καλὸν ἐντάφιον ἡ βασιλεία ἐστί. The conclusion of Theodora’s
speech as recorded by Procopius.
[458] My authority for this statement is on p. 228 of a remarkable book
in Turkish, published only in September 1902, describing the ‘Conquest
of Constantinople and the establishment of the Turks in Europe.’ Its
author is Achmed Muktar Pasha. It is especially valuable as containing
many quotations from Turkish authors who are inaccessible to Europeans.
[459] Barbaro, p. 56.
[460] Crit. lvi.
[461] Crit. lxiii.
[462] The Horaia Gate occupied the site of the present Stamboul Custom
House. The Validé Mosque, at the end of the present outer bridge, is
built on part of the Jewish quarter. See the subject fully discussed by
Professor van Millingen, p. 221 and elsewhere.
[463] Leonard, 99; Phrantzes, 287.
[464] Barbaro, pp. 55, 56.
[465] The Moscovite, xxv. The whole chapter is full of improbable
statements.
[466] Ch. lxi.
[467] Barbaro, p. 55.
[468] _Thyselii Expugnatio_, ch. xxvi.
[469] Phrantzes, p. 291.
[470] P. 57.
[471] _The Capture of Constantinople_, from the Taj-ut-Tavarikh by
Khodja Sad-ud-din. Translated by E. J. W. Gibb, p. 29.
[472] Phrantzes, 287. Professor van Millingen (p. 189) believes that
these towers were a little to the south of the present Seraglio
Lighthouse. One of them had an interesting inscription, stating that it
was built by the emperor Basil in 1024.
[473] Another version of Tetaldi’s _Informacion_ calls the galleys in
question Venetian (Dethier, p. 905).
[474] Crit. ch. lxiii.
[475] Barbaro, p. 57.
[476] οὗ ἔσωθεν τῶν ἀδύτων καὶ ἄνωθεν τῶν θυσιαστηρίων καὶ τραπέζων
ἤσθιον καὶ ἔπινον καὶ τὰς ἀσελγεῖς γνώμας καὶ ὀρέξεις αὐτῶν μετὰ
γυναικῶν καὶ παρθένων καὶ παίδων ἐπάνωθεν ἐποίουν καὶ ἔπραττον.
Phrantzes, p. 290.
[477] Crit. xlii.
[478] Ducas, xlii.: βιβλία ὑπὲρ ἀριθμόν.
[479] P. 31. Khodja Sad-ud-din, translated by E. J. W. Gibb.
[480] Report of Superior of Franciscans. He was present at the siege
and arrived at Bologna July 4, 1453.
[481] Crit. lxvii. The Superior of the Franciscans reported that three
thousand men were killed on both sides on May 29. Probably we shall not
be far wrong in saying that between three and four thousand were killed
on May 29 on the Christian side and fifty thousand made prisoners.
[482] Barbaro and Ducas.
[483] Barbaro pretends, indeed, that they were the victims of a trick
on the part of the Genoese, who wished to secure their own safety by
seizing their ships and delivering them to Mahomet. His story, like
everything else he says about the Genoese, may well be doubted.
[484] A portion of the chain which formed part of the boom is now in
the narthex of St. Irene. Its links average about eighteen inches long.
[485] Tetaldi states that the Turks captured a Genoese ship and from
thirteen to sixteen others.
[486] Ducas says five.
[487] Crit. lxvii.
[488] _Ibid._ lxiii.
[489] About three fourths of the sea-walls were taken down. The
remaining fourth was spared, and a portion of them near Azap Capou
still remains.
[490] _Angeli Johannis Zachariae Potestatis Perae Epistola._ Leonard,
p. 100. Ducas says that Mahomet had an inventory made of the property
of those who had fled, and gave the owners three months within which to
return, failing which, it would be confiscated.
[491] Zorzo Dolfin, p. 1040. See also Sauli’s _Colonia dei Genovesi in
Galata_, vol. ii. p. 172, and Von Hammer, vol. ii., where the treaty
is given in full in the appendix. Usually Dolfin’s narrative is taken
from Leonard, but the paragraphs relating to the capitulations are an
exception. Dolfin uses the word _Privilegio_. The capitulations are
called at different times by different names: grants, concessions,
privileges, capitulations, or treaties. I have already pointed out, in
the _Fall of Constantinople_, that the system of ex-territoriality,
under which, in virtue of capitulations, foreigners resident in Turkey
are always under the protection of their own laws, is the survival of
the system once general in the Roman empire. Of course it is ridiculous
to speak of the capitulations as having been wrongfully wrung from the
Turks by Western nations, and equally absurd to claim that their grant
shows the far-reaching policy of the Turks in their desire to attract
foreign trade. The Turks found the system of ex-territoriality in full
force and maintained it, being unwilling, as they still are, to allow
Christians, whether their own subjects or foreigners, to rank on an
equality with Moslems.
[492] Ducas makes the entry to Hagia Sophia on the 30th. Phrantzes and
Chalcondylas, on the 29th.
[493] Cantemir, vol. ii. p. 45 (ed. Paris, 1743). He gives the Persian
text.
[494] Report of podestà; Philip the Armenian, p. 680; also Leonard, 101.
[495] Riccherio (p. 967), whose narrative is singularly clear and
readable. See also the report of the Superior of the Franciscans.
[496] Phrantzes, 385.
[497] _Ibid._ p. 383: ἐν ᾧ δὴ χρόνῳ καὶ μηνὶ ἀνεῖλεν αὐτοχειρίᾳ τὸν
φίλτατόν μου υἱὸν Ἰωάννην ὁ ἀσεβέστατος καὶ ἀπηνέστατος ἀμηρᾶς, ὃς
δῆθεν ἐβούλετο τὴν ἀθέμιτον σοδομίαν πρᾶξαι κατὰ τοῦ παιδός.
[498] Crit. lxxiii.
[499] _Ibid._
[500] Ducas, p. 137: ἐμφάνισας αὐτὰς τῷ αἱμοβόρῳ θηρίῳ.
[501] Phrantzes, 291.
[502] Pusculus also is violently hostile to Notaras, and probably for
the same reason: because he would not accept the Union.
[503] Ducas, 137.
[504] Crit. (lxiii.) gives a different version. He states that he tried
to pass as a Turk, in which his knowledge of the Turkish language aided
him: but that he was recognised and flung himself from the walls. His
head was cut off and carried to the sultan, who had offered a great
reward for his capture dead or alive.
[505] Crit. lxiii and lxvii.
[506] _Ibid._ lxvii.
[507] Report, p. 940. The houses were empty and bore the marks of the
reckless ravages of a savage horde.
[508] Crit. lxix.
[509] Ducas, 142.
[510] Crit. bk. ii. ch. i.
[511] Von Hammer states that the walls were completely repaired in
1477, but gives no authority (_Histoire de l’empire ottoman_, iii.
209). A valuable hint is obtained from Knolles, who, writing his
history of the Turks in 1610, says that ‘the two utter walls with
the whole space between them are now but slenderly maintained by the
Turks, lying full of earth and other rubbish’ (Knolles’s _History_, p.
341, 3rd ed. 1621). The lowest of the three walls has almost entirely
disappeared except as to the lower portion, which forms one of the
sides of the foss. In the Lycus valley, and even throughout the whole
length of the landward walls, I think it is manifest to an observer
that only the Inner Wall has been repaired.
[512] Crit. lxxiii.
[513] _Ibid._ lxxiv.
[514] Crit. lxxv.
[515] Phrantzes, 304.
[516] Crit. bk. ii. ch. i.
[517] Crit. bk. ii. ch. ii.
[518] _Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs after the Conquest_, by
Athanasius Comnenos Hypsilantes, pp. 1, 2. The version of Phrantzes
agrees with that given above. He gives a full account of the usual
procedure on the appointment of a patriarch and confirms the statement
that the Church of the Apostles was assigned to Gennadius as an
official residence. Subsequently it was taken from the Greeks, was
destroyed and replaced by a mosque built in honour of the conqueror and
known as the Mahmoudieh. The former patriarch, says Phrantzes, was dead.
[519] Crit. bk. iii. ch. v.
[520] _Commentari di Theo. Spandugino Cantacusino._
[521] All these illustrations are from book ii. of Critobulus.
[522] Fallmerayer’s _Geschichte des Kaiserthums von Trapezunt_. Not
only is this work the great authority for the history of Trebizond,
but Fallmerayer himself brought to light the most valuable materials
for its history. He was the discoverer in Venice of the chronicles
of Panaretos in the library of Cardinal Bessarion. Since Fallmerayer
wrote, the MS. of Critobulus has been discovered. In book iv. a full
account is given of the capture of Trebizond and the treatment of its
emperors. Finlay’s _History of Trebizond_ is very good, but he wrote
without seeing the account of Critobulus.
[523] iii. 302.
[524] Crit. bk. iii. ch. xxi. and xxii.
[525] Von Hammer, iii. 282.
[526] i. 32.
[527] _Voyage au Levant par ordre du roy_, 1630.
[528] _Turcorum Origo_, p. 22.
[529] This was Gentile Bellini, who arrived in Constantinople in 1479
and left at the end of 1480. He was sent, at the request of the sultan,
by the Doge of Venice.
[530] Crit. bk. iv. ch. ix.
[531] _Ibid._ bk. v. ch. x.
[532] Crit. bk. v. ch. xi. It is possible that as some of the Latin
writers spoke of the Turks as Teucri, in the belief that they were
the descendants of the Trojans, Mahomet may have been under the same
illusion.
[533] _Les Sultans Ottomans_, par Halil Ganem, p. 129 (Paris, 1901).
[534] Chalcondylas.
[535] These and many other fictions of the like kind come from
Spandugino and Sansovino.
[536] Zorzo Dolfin (p. 985) says: ‘E homo non dedito a libidine,
sobrio, in tempo del ramadan non vol aldir sobrieta; a nulla volupta,
a nulla piacea e dedito saluo a gloria.’ This is in striking
contradiction with Barbaro’s account, which in describing Mahomet
says, ‘Che a un momento importantissimo alla vigilia della gran
bataglia s’inebriò col capedan pascia secondo la sua usanza.’ Barbaro’s
narrative is written immediately after the capture of the city, and, as
usual, he is careless of the accusations which he brings against the
Turks or Genoese.
[537] Zorzo Dolfin, p. 936.
[538] _Les Sultans Ottomans_, pp. 150 and 125.
[539] The fascination of the old Greek stories still continues even
among the poorest Greeks, and it is astonishing how generally they are
known. I have often heard old Greek women, unable to read or write,
tell children Greek _paramythia_ which have evidently been handed down
by oral tradition. A few years ago, in travelling among the mountains
of Bithynia, I came on Easter Monday to a Greek village, far remote
from any other, and away from all lines of communication, where they
were performing a miracle-play. The villagers, dressed in their best,
were all present as actors or spectators. The play itself was a curious
mixture of incidents in the life of Christ and of others--and these
formed the largest part--from Greek mythology. No one knew anything of
its origin, and all the information obtainable was that the play had
always been performed on Easter Monday.
[540] See Aristarchi’s (the Grand Logothete) papers on Photius in the
_Transactions of the Greek Syllogos of Constantinople_, and two volumes
edited by him of that patriarch’s sermons and homilies, published 1901.
[541] Heeren, in his _Essai sur les Croisades_, p. 413, quoted in
Hallam’s _Middle Ages_, ascribes the loss of all the authors missing
from the library of Photius to the Latin capture. Probably the
statement is too sweeping.
[542] Gibbon, vol. vii. 116.
[543] See H. F. Tozer’s article on ‘The Greek-speaking Population of
Southern Italy,’ in _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, x. p. 99.
[544] ‘Nemo est qui Graecas literas novit.’ Quoted in Hodius, _De
Graecis illustribus_, p. 8.
[545] Hodius, _De Graecis illust._
[546] Hodius, p. 28.
[547] _Philelphi Epis._ in 1451.
[548] Filelfo died in 1481. Dethier gives the letter which he wrote to
Mahomet praying for the release of his mother-in-law, a prayer which
was granted.
[549] _Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter_ (Leipzig, 1875), pp. 392 etc.
[550] Burckhardt’s _Renaissance in Italy_, p. 192.
[551] Gibbon selects some examples to show the anti-christian character
of the classical enthusiasm. (1) At the Council of Florence, Gemistos
Pletho said in familiar conversation to George of Trebizond that in a
short time mankind would unanimously renounce the Gospel and the Koran
for a religion similar to that of the Gentiles (Leo Allatius). (2)
Paul II. accused the principal members of the Roman Academy of heresy,
impiety, and paganism (Tiraboschi). I suspect the first charge of being
grossly exaggerated or invented, but the fact that such a statement
could be credited shows to what extent the classical reaction had gone.
[552] It is curious that the non-progressive party in Oxford, who
violently opposed the introduction of the new studies, called
themselves Trojans. Roper’s _Life of Sir T. More_ (ed. Hearne), p. 75.
The archbishops of Chios and Pusculus invariably describe the Turks as
Teucri.
[553] _Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae._
[554] Ducas, xliii.
[555] αἱ πλείους δὲ αὐτῶν, οὐ πρὸς ἀπόδοσιν μᾶλλον ἢ ὕβριν &c. Crit. ch.
lxii.
[556] Hodius, _De Graecis illustribus_.
[557] Aeneas Sylvius, in 1454, before the diet of Frankfort says:
‘Quid de libris dicam, qui illic erant innumerabiles, nondum Latinis
cogniti?... Nunc ergo et Homero et Pindaro et omnibus illustrioribus
poetis secunda mors erit.’
[558] One such at least still remains at Zeirek Jami.
[559] Probably more manuscripts existing as rolls (the original
_volumen_) than in book form have disappeared. The Turks, for example,
when they occupied Mount Athos during the Greek revolution, found the
rolls very convenient for making haversacks. The books have perished
mostly from neglect. The discovery by the present bishop of Ismidt
of the _Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_ (Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων)
in 1883, in the library of a monastery on the Golden Horn bound up with
other manuscripts, the first of which only was indexed, gives hope
that others of value may yet be found. The same remark applies to the
recovery, about six years ago, of the Purple MS. of the Gospels, known
technically as Codex N, and now at St. Petersburg.
[560] The influence of Byzantine art upon the West does not fall
within the limits of my task. But every one interested in the subject
is aware that during some centuries its influence was dominant. In
the composition of pictures as well as in their drawing and treatment
Western artists for a long time copied those of Constantinople. In
painting, Byzantine influence prevailed throughout Italy from Justinian
to the middle of the fourteenth century. Giotto, who died in 1336,
was, says Kugler, the first to abandon the Byzantine style. In the
intervening centuries the monasteries of Constantinople, Salonica, and
Mount Athos were the central _ateliers_ of painting, and furnished
the models for artistic activity to all Europe. The mosaics in the
church of San Vitale at Ravenna are magnificent illustrations of what
Byzantine art was in the time of Justinian. Those in Hagia Sophia,
as well as its general plan of colour-ornamentation, are still
unsurpassed. Those of the Kahrié Mosque belonging to the fourteenth
century are interesting and show a deep feeling for colour-combination
as well as accuracy of drawing. Byzantine architecture in like manner
greatly influenced the builders of churches in Western lands. The front
view of St. Mark’s in Venice in the thirteenth century placed side by
side with that of the Kahrié Mosque at the present day shows that the
plan of the earlier one was familiar to the architect of the other,
and, as has been pointed out by an architect who has made a careful
study of the two buildings, when St. Mark’s differs from the Kahrié,
the difference may be found in details reproduced from another church
in Constantinople, that of the Pantocrator. The resemblance between
St. Mark’s and the Kahrié illustrates Mr. Fergusson’s observations on
the decoration of the exteriors of Byzantine churches. He points out
that while the interior of Hagia Sophia is ‘the most perfect and most
beautiful church which has yet been erected by any Christian people,’
the exterior was never finished (Fergusson’s _History of Architecture_,
ii. 321). The Kahrié of to-day resembles St. Mark’s of the thirteenth
century before the exterior casing was added to it.
The question of the influence of Byzantine art and architecture on the
West has often been dealt with. For a list of books on the subject
see Karl Krumbacher’s _Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur_, pp.
1124–27.
[561] Hallam’s _Middle Ages_, ch. vi.
[562] _Angeli Johannis Epistola_, p. 62.
[563] See, for example, Cuspinianus, _De Turcorum Origine_; the author
was in the employ of the emperor Maximilian I. and insists again and
again on the necessity of resisting the Turk and the certainty of being
able to do so with success. Almost every European traveller in Turkey
during two centuries, beginning with La Brocquière and Tetaldi, made
similar representations.
[564] One of the best illustrations of the degraded position assigned
to woman in Mahometan countries is found in the fact that the popular
belief is that she has no soul. The influence of such a belief is
of course fatal to the progress of the race. I am well aware that
Khaireddin Pasha and other progressive Mahometans have maintained that
this belief is contrary to the teaching of the Koran, and that Mr.
Hughes and other well-informed students of the sacred writings of Islam
agree in this opinion. Still, my statement as to the popular belief is
not affected by these researches into the original teaching. It is not
alleged that the houris of Paradise are the representatives of earthly
women. The sensual rewards promised to faithful men are clear and
unmistakeable. The rewards to women in the Koran have to be searched
for and are the result of interpretation. As a confirmation of the
truth of my statement I may refer to the interesting interview given
by Sir Edward Malet in _Shifting Scenes_ (1901), p. 67. He describes
a meeting which he had with Tewfik, the Khedive of Egypt, at a very
critical moment, when indeed the latter’s life was in hourly danger. He
represents Tewfik as saying: ‘Death does not signify to me personally.
Our religion prevents us from having any fear of death; but it is
different with our women. To them, you know, life is everything: their
existence ends here; they cry and weep and implore me to save them.’
As to the custom of repudiating a wife, two learned Moslems, one
Turkish and the other Indian, and both enlightened men, assure me that
repudiation, though a general custom, is contrary to the teaching of
Islam, which only recognises divorce. Both, however, admit that the
practice is general, though they consider it irreligious or--what is
the same thing in the Sacred Law of Islam--illegal.
[565] I may add here that the great value of Christian missions from
the West in the Turkish Empire, those of the Latin Church and of the
American Protestant Churches alike, lies not only in their educational
work but still more in their holding up to the members of the Eastern
Churches higher standards of truthfulness and morality. Their
influence has been already very useful. They have kindled a desire
for instruction, and have infused new life in many of the members
of the ancient Churches. While Greeks, Bulgarians, and Armenians
look with intense distrust on any attempts to proselytise, they have
all been awakened by these missions to the necessity for education.
Considering the means at their disposal, I think it may be fairly said
that no other people during the last half-century has done so much for
education as the Greeks. The desire of every Greek who makes money
seems to be to found a school in his native place. In Constantinople
several large and excellent institutions, both for boys and girls,
exist, all of course unaided by the Government, and in other cities of
the Turkish empire like efforts have been made by patriotic Greeks.
In Bulgaria one of the first acts of the newly enfranchised state was
to establish an efficient system of education. The Armenians are not
behind either, and their efforts, perhaps to a greater extent than
those of the other two peoples mentioned, are directed to bringing
their priests into line with those of the West. In 1896 the American
missionaries in Turkey met in a ‘summer school’ on the island of Proti,
near Constantinople; the late Armenian patriarch visited them, and,
having spent a day in listening to their discussion on questions of
teaching and Biblical scholarship, declared that he would be ready to
sacrifice his life if his own priests could have the advantage of such
gatherings.
[566] ‘Pontes qui ad moenia ducunt dirumpunt.’ Pusculus iv. 137.
[567] Professor van Millingen’s _Byzantine Constantinople_, p. 96.
[568] _Esquisse Topographique_, p. 25.
[569] Critobulus, Book II. ch. i.
[570] Knolles, _History of the Turks_, p. 341 (written in 1610, edition
of 1621).
[571] P. 28.
[572] 1078, Dethier’s edition.
[573] _Byzantine Constantinople_, p. 96. In the same manner Dethier,
commenting on Pusculus, iv. line 169, says: ‘Pseudoporta Charsaca vel
Pempti omnium celeberrima et in fortificatione calx Achilles erat. Hic
enim ab utra parte, nempe a Porta Polyandrii [Adrianople Gate] et a
Porta Sancti Romani in vallem Lyci linea recta murus descendit, idque
contra omnem legem artis fortificationum.’
[574] The _Anonymous Chronicle_, in verse, of the Latin Capture (edited
by Joseph Mueller and Dethier), line 390.
[575] _Threnos_, 610–613.
[576] Dethier and the elder Mordtmann considered (in error, as the
learned son of the latter and Professor van Millingen agree) that they
had proved that the Pempton was the Chariseus. See, in addition to the
sentence just quoted from the _Threnos_, the archaeological map of the
Greek Syllogos and also Dethier’s note on Pusculus, iv. line 172.
[577] Ch. xxiii.: πρὸς ταῖς καλουμέναις πύλαις τοῦ Ῥωμανοῦ.
[578] Ahmed Muktar Pasha’s _Siege of Constantinople_ (1902).
[579] _Esquisse Topographique_, pp. 12, 21.
[580] Book i. ch. 20.
[581] _Belagerung und Eroberung Constantinopels im Jahre 1453._
[582] Πολιορκία.
[583] _Constantine, the last Emperor of the Greeks._
[584] _Les derniers Jours de Constantinople._
[585] Book iii. ch. x.
[586] 248–9.
[587] ἐκ τοῦ λιμένος τῆς χρύσης πύλης ἐκτός.
[588] _E.g._ in the ancient account of the regions of the city given
in the _Notitia utriusque Imperii_ the Aurea Porta is mentioned as in
the 12th Regio--that is, near the Seven Towers. Upon this Pancirolus
remarks ‘The Greeks call it [i.e. the Aurea Porta] Ὡραία.’ Ducas might
have been told that the fleet went to the Ὡραία πόρτα and understood it
to be the Aurea Porta or the Golden Gate.
[589] ‘Intuentibus nobis,’ p. 90.
[590] ‘Teucrorum rex ex colle Perensi proconspicit,’ p. 90. It must
be remembered that all across the Horn was Pera, and that Galata is
properly Galata of Pera.
[591] ‘Rex qui ex colle circumspicit,’ p. 90.
[592] ‘Cogitavit itaque ex colle Galatae Orientali plaga vel eas
lapidibus machinarum obruere vel a cathena repellere,’ p. 91.
[593]
‘Nec flare quievit
Structa donec statuit super aequora, Bosporus arctat
Litora ubi geminae telluris.’
Book iv. 413.
[594] ‘Deserit illic ventus eas; cecidere sinus sub moenibus arcis,’
iv. 415.
[595] ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐκ τῶν τείχων ἄνωθεν ταῦτα θεωροῦντες, p. 248.
[596] Vol. vii. p. 184.
[597] Other contemporary authors give us distances which enable us
to get an approximate length of a stadium: _e.g._ Chalcondylas says
that the walls of Constantinople were 111 stadia, or a little over
13 English miles, in circuit. Critobulus gives the total length of
walls as 126 stadia and the length of the landward walls as 48. Both
his figures are somewhat too high, unless they are intended to give
the measure of the sinuosities of the walls. But the statements
both of Chalcondylas and Critobulus as well as that of Leonard, if
his intention is to represent a measure about a ninth or tenth of a
furlong, are all pretty nearly accurate.
[598] Book iv. line 550.
[599] Book ii. line 974.
[600] _Byzantine Constantinople_, p. 234.
[601] Note to Pusculus, p. 237.
[602] P. 138.
[603] ‘Die letzten Tage von Byzanz,’ in the _Mitteilungen des deutschen
Exkursions-Klubs in Konstantinopel_.
[604] εἰς πυγάς.
[605] _Esquisse de Constantinople_, by Dr. Mordtmann, sect. 71–75.
[606] Mr. Theodore Bent, who had paid greater attention to the
archæology of the Greek Islands and to their present condition than any
other Englishman, called my attention to the fact that the churches on
the highest peaks not dedicated to St. George were usually dedicated
to St. Elias, or to the Transfiguration, and suggested that there may
have been a confusion in the minds of the islanders between Elias and
Helios, the aspirate in the latter word being silent in modern Greek.
[607] Valuable suggestions and information are given by Mr. Sathas in
reference to the survival of paganism in _Documents inédits_, Athens,
vol. i. Lord Beaconsfield in _Lothair_ shows a true insight into the
actual condition of Greek Christianity when he represents Mr. Phœbus
as describing what he proposes to do with an island which he has leased
in the Aegean. He will restore paganism, will set up the statue which
he has sculptured of the American Theodora in a grove of laurel still
much resorted to, and will have processions in the beautiful pagan
fashion. The people are still ‘performing unconsciously the religious
ceremonies of their ancestors.’ _Lothair_, ch. xxvii. and xxviii.