THE CITY OF CONSTANTINE—ITS LIMITS—FORTIFICATIONS—INTERIOR ARRANGEMENT.
In the year 328 of our era, Constantine commenced the transformation of
Byzantium into New Rome by widening the boundaries of the ancient town
and erecting new fortifications.
On foot, spear in hand, the emperor traced the limits of the future
capital in person, and when his courtiers, surprised at the compass of
the circuit he set himself to describe, inquired how far he would
proceed, he replied, “Until He stops Who goes before me.”[40] The story
expresses a sense of the profound import of the work begun on that
memorable day. It was the inauguration of an epoch.
We shall endeavour to determine the limits assigned to the city of
Constantine. The data at our command for that purpose are, it is true,
not everything that can be desired; they are often vague; at other times
they refer to landmarks which have disappeared, and the sites of which
it is impossible now to identify; nevertheless, a careful study of these
indications yields more satisfactory results than might have been
anticipated under the circumstances.
The new land wall, we shall find, crossed the promontory[41] along a
line a short distance to the east of the Cistern of Mokius on the
Seventh Hill, (the Tchoukour Bostan, west of Avret Bazaar), and of the
Cistern of Aspar at the head of the valley between the Fourth and Sixth
Hills, (the Tchoukour Bostan on the right of the street leading from the
Mosque of Sultan Mehemet to the Adrianople Gate). The southern end of
the line reached the Sea of Marmora somewhere between the gates known
respectively, at present, as Daoud Pasha Kapoussi and Psamathia
Kapoussi, while its northern extremity abutted on the Golden Horn, in
the neighbourhood of the Stamboul head of the inner bridge. At the same
time the seaward walls of Byzantium were repaired, and prolonged to meet
the extremities of the new land wall.
That this outline of the city of Constantine is, substantially, correct,
will appear from the information which ancient writers have given on the
subject.
(_a_) According to Zosimus,[42] the land wall of the new capital was
carried fifteen stadia west of the corresponding wall of Byzantium. The
position of the latter, we have already seen, is marked, with sufficient
accuracy for our present purpose by the porphyry Column of Constantine
which stood close to the main gate of the old Greek town.[43] Proceeding
from that column fifteen stadia westwards, we come to a line within a
short distance of the reservoirs above mentioned.
(_b_) In the oldest description of Constantinople—that contained in the
_Notitia_[44]—the length of the city is put down as 14,075 Roman feet;
the breadth as 6150 Roman feet. The _Notitia_ belongs to the age of
Theodosius II., and might therefore be supposed to give the dimensions
of the city after its enlargement by that emperor. This, however, is not
the case. The size of Constantinople under Theodosius II. is well known,
seeing the ancient walls which still surround Stamboul mark, with slight
modifications, the wider limits of the city in the fifth century. But
the figures of the _Notitia_ do not correspond to the well-ascertained
dimensions of the Theodosian city; they fall far short of those
dimensions, and therefore can refer only to the length and breadth of
the original city of Constantine. To adhere thus to the original size of
the capital after it had been outgrown is certainly strange, but may be
explained as due to the force of habit. When the _Notitia_ was written,
the enlargement of the city by Theodosius was too recent an event to
alter old associations of thought and introduce new points of view. “The
City,” proper, was still what Constantine had made it.
The length of the original city was measured from the Porta Aurea on the
west to the sea on the east. Unfortunately, a serious difference of
opinion exists regarding the particular gate intended by the Porta
Aurea. There can be no doubt, however, that the sea at the eastern end
of the line of measurement was the sea at the head of the promontory;
for only by coming to that point could the full length of the city be
obtained. Consequently, if we take the head of the promontory for our
starting-point of measurement, and proceed westwards to a distance of
14,075 feet, we shall discover the extent of the city of Constantine in
that direction. This course brings us to the same result as the figures
of Zosimus—to the neighbourhood of the Cisterns of Mokius and Aspar.
Turning next to the breadth of the city, we find that the only portion
of the promontory across which a line of 6150 feet will stretch from sea
to sea lies between the district about the gate Daoud Pasha Kapoussi,
beside the Sea of Marmora on the south, and the district about the
Stamboul head of the inner bridge on the north; elsewhere the promontory
is either narrower or broader. Hence the southern and northern
extremities of the land wall of Constantine terminated respectively, as
stated above, in these districts.
From these figures we pass to the localities and structures by which
Byzantine writers have indicated the course of Constantine’s wall.
On the side of the Sea of Marmora the wall extended as far west as the
Gate of St. Æmilianus (πόρτα τοῦ ἁγίου Αἰμιλιανοῦ), and the adjoining
church of St. Mary Rhabdou (τῆς ἁγίας θεοτόκου τῆς Ῥάβδου).[45] That
gate is represented by Daoud Pasha Kapoussi, which stands immediately to
the west of Vlanga Bostan.[46]
In crossing from the Sea of Marmora to the Golden Horn, over the
Seventh, Fourth, and Fifth Hills, the line of the fortifications was
marked by the Exokionion; the Ancient Gate of the Forerunner; the
Monastery of St. Dius; the Convent of Icasia; the Cistern of Bonus; the
Church of SS. Manuel, Sabel, and Ishmael; the Church, and the Zeugma, or
Ferry, of St. Antony in the district of Harmatius, where the
fortifications reached the harbour.[47] To this list may be added the
Trojan Porticoes and the Cistern of Aspar.
[Illustration: Map of Byzantine Constantinople.]
(_a_) The Exokionion (τὸ ἐξωκιόνιον)[48] was a district immediately
outside the Constantinian Wall, and obtained its name from a column in
the district, bearing the statue of the founder of the city. Owing to a
corruption of the name, the quarter was commonly known as the
Hexakionion (τὸ ἑξακιόνιον).[49] It is celebrated in ecclesiastical
history as the extra-mural suburb in which the Arians were allowed to
hold their religious services, when Theodosius the Great, the champion
of orthodoxy, prohibited heretical worship within the city.[50] Hence
the terms Arians and Exokionitai became synonymous.[51] In later times
the quarter was one of the fashionable parts of the city, containing
many fine churches and handsome residences.[52]
Gyllius was disposed to place the Exokionion on the Fifth Hill,[53]
basing his opinion on the fact that he found, when he first visited the
city, a noble column standing on that hill, about half a mile to the
north-west of the Mosque of Sultan Mehemet.[54]
Dr. Mordtmann, on the other hand, maintains that the designation was
applied to the extra-mural territory along the whole line of the
Constantinian land fortifications.[55]
But the evidence on the subject requires us to place the Exokionion on
the Seventh Hill, and to restrict the name to that locality.
For in the account of the triumphal entry of Basil I. through the Golden
Gate of the Theodosian Walls, the Exokionion is placed between the Sigma
and the Xerolophos.[56] The Sigma appears in the history of the sedition
which overthrew Michael V., (1042), and is described as situated above
the Monastery of St. Mary Peribleptos.[57] Now, regarding the position
of that monastery there is no doubt. The establishment, founded by
Romanus Argyrus, was one of the most important monastic houses in
Constantinople. Its church survived the Turkish Conquest, and remained
in the hands of the Greeks until 1643, when Sultan Ibrahim granted it to
the Armenian community.[58] Since that time the sacred edifice has twice
been destroyed by fire, and is now rebuilt under the title of St.
George. It is popularly known as Soulou Monastir (the Water Monastery),
after its adjoining ancient cistern, and stands in the quarter of
Psamathia, low down the southern slope of the Seventh Hill.
The Xerolophos was the name of the Seventh Hill in general,[59] but was
sometimes applied, as in the case before us, to the Forum of Arcadius
(Avret Bazaar) upon the hill’s summit.[60]
This being so, the Exokionion, which was situated between the Sigma and
the Forum of Arcadius, must have occupied the upper western slope of the
Seventh Hill.
In corroboration of this conclusion two additional facts may be cited.
First, the Church of St. Mokius, the sanctuary accorded to the Arians
for their extra-mural services in the Exokionion, stood on the Seventh
Hill,[61] for it was on the road from the Sigma to the Forum of
Arcadius,[62] and gave name to the large ancient cistern, the Tchoukour
Bostan, to the north-west of the Forum.[63]
In the next place, the district on the Seventh Hill to the west of Avret
Bazaar (Forum of Arcadius) and beside the cistern of Mokius, still
retains the name Exokionion under a Turkish form, its actual name, Alti
Mermer, the district of “the Six Columns,” being, evidently, the Turkish
rendering of Hexakionion, the popular Byzantine alias of Exokionion.[64]
The Exokionion, therefore, was on the Seventh Hill. Accordingly, the
Wall of Constantine crossed that hill along a line to the east of the
quarter of Alti Mermer.
(_b_) The next landmark, the Ancient Gate of the Forerunner (Παλαιὰ
Πόρτα τοῦ Προδρόμου), elsewhere styled simply the Ancient Gate (Παλαιὰ
Πόρτα),[65] furnishes the most precise indication we have of the
position of Constantine’s wall. It was a gate which survived the
original fortifications of the city, as Temple Bar outlived the wall of
London, and became known in later days as the Ancient Gate, on account
of its great antiquity. Its fuller designation, the Ancient Gate of the
Forerunner,[66] is explained by the fact that a church dedicated to the
Baptist was built against the adjoining wall. Conversely, the church was
distinguished as the Church of the Forerunner at the Ancient Gate (τὴν
Παλαιὰν).[67] Manuel Chrysolaras places the entrance to the west of the
Forum of Arcadius, and describes it as one of the finest monuments in
the city.[68] It was so wide and lofty that a tower or a full-rigged
ship might pass through its portals. Upon the summit was a marble
portico of dazzling whiteness, and before the entrance rose a column,
once surmounted by a statue. When Bondelmontius visited the city, in
1422, the gate was still erect, and is marked on his map of
Constantinople as Antiquissima Pulchra Porta.[69] It survived the
Turkish Conquest, when it obtained the name of Isa Kapoussi (the Gate of
Jesus), and held its place as late as 1508. In that year it was
overthrown by a great earthquake. “Isa Kapoussi,” says the Turkish
historian Solak Zadè, who records the occurrence, “near Avret Bazaar,
which had been in existence for 1900 years (_sic_), fell and was
levelled to the ground.”[70] But the shadow of the name still lingers
about the site. A small mosque to the west of Avret Bazaar bears the
name Isa Kapoussi Mesdjidi,[71] while the adjoining street is called Isa
Kapoussi Sokaki. The mosque is an ancient Christian church, and probably
bore in its earlier character a name which accounts for its Turkish
appellation.
From these facts it is clear that the Wall of Constantine, in crossing
the Seventh Hill, passed very near Isa Kapoussi Mesdjidi, a conclusion
in accordance with the position already assigned to the Exokionion. The
column outside the Ancient Gate was probably that which gave name to the
district. Nowhere could a column bearing the statue of the city’s
founder stand more appropriately than before this splendid entrance.
(_c_) Another landmark of the course of the Constantinian ramparts in
this part of the city were the Trojan Porticoes (τρῳαδήσιοι
ἔμβολοι),[72] which stood so near the wall that it was sometimes named
after them, the Trojan wall (τῶν τειχῶν τῶν Τρῳαδησίων).[73]
From their situation in the Twelfth Region,[74] it is probable that they
lined the street leading from the Porta Aurea into the city. They were
evidently of some architectural importance, and are mentioned on more
than one occasion as having been damaged by fire or earthquake.[75] The
reason for their name is a matter of conjecture, and no trace of them
remains.
(_d_) Nothing definite regarding the course of the Constantinian Wall
can be inferred from the statement that it ran beside the Monastery of
St. Dius and the Convent of Icasia, seeing the situation of these
establishments cannot be determined more exactly than that they were
found near each other, somewhere on the Seventh Hill.
The former, ascribed to the time of Theodosius I., is mentioned by
Antony of Novgorod in close connection with the Church of St. Mokius and
the Church of St. Luke.[76] The Convent of Icasia was founded by the
beautiful and accomplished lady of that name,[77] whom the Emperor
Theophilus declined to choose for his bride because she disputed the
correctness of his ungracious remark that women were the source of evil.
(_e_) The Cistern of Aspar, which, according to the _Paschal
Chronicle_,[78] was situated near the ancient city wall, is the old
Byzantine reservoir (Tchoukour Bostan), on the right of the street
conducting from the Mosque of Sultan Mehemet to the Gate of Adrianople
in the Theodosian walls. This is clear from the following evidence. The
cistern in question was a very large one, and stood near the Monastery
of Manuel,[79] which was founded by the distinguished general of that
name in the reign of Theophilus. The church of the monastery is now the
Mosque Kefelè Mesdjidi in the quarter of Salmak Tombruk, and a little to
the east of it stands the Tchoukour Bostan mentioned above,[80] the only
large Byzantine reservoir in the neighbourhood.
This conclusion is again in harmony with the figures of Zosimus and the
_Notitia_, which, it will be remembered, brought the line of the
Constantinian Wall close to this point.
(_f_) The Cistern of Bonus, the next landmark to be considered, was
built by the Patrician Bonus, celebrated in Byzantine history for his
brave defence of the capital in 627 against the Avars and the Persians,
while the Emperor Heraclius was in Persia carrying war into the enemy’s
country.[81]
Where this cistern was situated is a matter of dispute which cannot be
definitely settled in our present state of knowledge. Gyllius identified
it with a large cistern, three hundred paces in length, which he found
robbed of its roof and columns, and turned into a vegetable garden, near
the ruins of the Church of St. John in Petra, on the Sixth Hill.[82] The
cistern has disappeared since that traveller’s day, but as the Wall of
Constantine never extended so far west, the identification cannot be
correct.
In Dr. Mordtmann’s opinion, the Cistern of Bonus was the large open
reservoir to the south-west of the Mosque of Sultan Selim, on the Fifth
Hill,[83] and there is much to be said in favour of this view.
The Cistern of Bonus was, in the first place, situated in one of the
coolest quarters of the city, and beside it, on that account, the
Emperor Romanus I. erected a palace,[84] styled the New Palace of
Bonus,[85] as a residence during the hot season. Nowhere in
Constantinople could a cooler spot be found in summer than the terrace
upon which the Mosque of Sultan Selim stands, not to speak of the
attractions offered by the superb view of the Golden Horn from that
point. Furthermore, the Cistern of Bonus was within a short distance
from the Church of the Holy Apostles, seeing that on the eve of the
annual service celebrated in that church in commemoration of Constantine
the Great, the Imperial Court usually repaired to the Palace of Bonus,
in order to be within easy riding distance of the sanctuary on the
morning of the festival.[86] A palace near the reservoir beside the
Mosque of Sultan Selim would be conveniently near the Church of the Holy
Apostles, to suit the emperor on such an occasion. To these
considerations can be added, first, the fact that on the way from the
Palace of Bonus to the Church of the Apostles there was an old cistern
converted into market gardens,[87] which may have been the reservoir
near the Mosque of Sultan Selim; and, secondly, the fact that the Wall
of Constantine, on its way from the Cistern of Aspar to the Golden Horn
passed near the site now occupied by the Mosque of Sultan Selim, and,
consequently, close to the old cistern adjoining that mosque. But to
this identification there is a fatal objection: the Cistern of Bonus was
roofed in,[88] whereas the reservoir beside the Mosque of Sultan Selim
appears to have always been open.
Dr. Strzygowski has suggested that the Cistern of Bonus stood near Eski
Ali Pasha Djamissi,[89] on the northern bank of the valley of the Lycus,
and to the south-west of the Mosque of Sultan Mehemet.[90] No traces of
a cistern have been found in that locality, but the conjecture satisfies
the requirements of the case so far as the proximity of that site to the
line of Constantine’s wall and to the Church of the Holy Apostles is
concerned. Why that position should have been selected for a summer
palace is, however, not apparent.
We have said that the Constantinian Wall, upon leaving the Cistern of
Aspar, turned sharply to the north-east, and made for the shore of the
Golden Horn by running obliquely across the ridge of the Fifth Hill.
This view of the case is required, first, in order to keep the breadth
of the city within the limits assigned by the _Notitia_; and, secondly,
by the statement of the same authority that the Eleventh Region—the
Region at the north-western angle of the Constantinian city—did not
extend to the shore of the Golden Horn: “Nulla parte mari sociata
est.”[91] For this statement implies that the fortifications along the
northern front of that Region stood at some distance from the water. But
the northern slope of the Fifth Hill is so precipitous, and approaches
so close to the Golden Horn that the only available ground for the
fortifications on that side of the city would be the plateau of the
Fifth Hill, where the large cistern beside the Mosque of Sultan Selim is
found.
(_g_) The church dedicated to the three martyr brothers, SS. Manual,
Sabel, and Ishmael, must likewise have been on the Fifth Hill; for it
stood where the wall began its descent (κατήρχετο)[92] towards the
Golden Horn. This agrees with the statement of the _Synaxaria_ that the
church was situated beside the land wall of Constantine, upon
precipitous ground, and near the Church of St. Elias at the Petrion.[93]
(_h_) As to the district of Harmatius, named after Harmatius, a
prominent personage in the reign of Zeno,[94] it must be sought in the
plain bounded by the Fifth, Fourth, and Third Hills, and the Golden
Horn, the plain known in later days as the Plateia, (Πλατεῖα). To that
plain the fortifications of Constantine would necessarily descend from
the Fifth Hill, in proceeding on their north-eastern course to the
Golden Horn; and there also the figures of the _Notitia_ require the
northern end of the walls to terminate. Doubtless in the time of
Constantine the bay at this point encroached upon the plain more than at
present.
A church dedicated to St. Antony was found in this part of the city by
the Archbishop of Novgorod, when he visited Constantinople at the close
of the eleventh century. He reached it after paying his devotions in the
Church of St. Theodosia, the Church of St. Isaiah, and the Church of St.
Laurentius,[95] sanctuaries situated in the plain before us; the first
being now the Mosque Gul Djami, near Aya Kapou,[96] while the two last
are represented, it is supposed, respectively, by the Mosque of Sheik
Mourad and the Mosque of Pour Kouyou, further to the south.[97] The
Archbishop places the Church of St. Antony on higher ground than the
Church of St. Laurentius, apparently a short distance up the slope of
the Fourth Hill, a position which St. Antony of Harmatius may well have
occupied.
(_i_) The locality known as the Zeugma, or Ferry of St. Antony, stood,
naturally, beside the shore. If it cannot be identified with Oun-Kapan
Kapoussi, where one of the principal ferries across the Golden Horn has
always stood, it must, at all events, have been in that neighbourhood.
(_j_) With the result thus obtained regarding the course of the
Constantinian Wall, may now be compared the statement of the _Paschal
Chronicle_ upon the subject. According to that authority the old land
wall of the city crossed the promontory from the Gate of St. Æmilianus,
upon the Sea of Marmora, to the district of the Petrion, upon the Golden
Horn.[98] This statement is of great importance, because made while the
wall was still standing; and it would on that account have been
considered sooner, but for certain questions which it raises, and which
can be answered more readily now than at a previous stage of our
inquiries. The Chronicler makes the strange mistake of supposing that
the wall which he saw stretching from sea to sea was the wall built
originally for the defence of Byzantium by Phedalia, the wife of Byzas.
Unfortunately, Byzantine archæologists were not always versed in
history.
Setting aside, therefore, the Chronicler’s historical opinions, and
attending to the facts under his personal observation, we find him
entirely agreed with the Anonymus as regards the point at which the
southern extremity of the Wall of Constantine terminated.
For the Gate of St. Æmilianus, by which the former authority marks that
extremity, stood close to the Church of St. Mary Rabdou, the indication
given by the latter.[99]
The case seems otherwise as regards the northern end of the line, for
the Petrion, mentioned in the _Paschal Chronicle_, was, strictly
speaking, the district in which the Greek Patriarchate is now situated,
the name of the district being still retained by the gate (Petri
Kapoussi) at the eastern end of the enclosure around the Patriarchal
Church and residence. But this would bring the northern end of the land
wall considerably more to the west than the point where we have reason
to believe the Church of St. Antony was found. It would also make the
city broader than the _Notitia_ allows. The discrepancy can, however, be
easily removed. For, while the Petrion was pre-eminently the district
above indicated, the designation was applied also to territory much
further to the east. The Church of St. Laurentius, for example, near
which St. Antony’s stood, is at one time described as standing in the
Plateia,[100] the plain to the east of Petri Kapoussi, while at another
time it is spoken of as in the Petrion.[101] Hence the statement of the
_Paschal Chronicle_ does not conflict with what other authorities affirm
respecting the point at which the Constantinian land fortifications
reached the Golden Horn.
(_k_) Finally, from the Church of St. Antony the wall proceeded along
the shore of the Golden Horn to the head of the promontory, thus
completing the circuit of the fortifications.
It should, however, be noted that this work of surrounding the city with
bulwarks was not executed entirely in the reign of Constantine. A
portion of the undertaking—probably the walls defending the shores of
the city—was left for his son and successor Constantius to
complete.[102]
The following gates, mentioned in Byzantine history, were found, there
is reason to believe, in the Constantinian circuit:—
Porta Polyandriou (Πόρτα Πολυανδρίου,[103] the Gate of the Cemetery)
stood in the portion of the wall near the Church of the Holy Apostles.
It is true that this was one of the names of the Gate of Adrianople in
the later Theodosian Walls, but if the name was derived from the
Imperial Cemetery beside the Church of the Holy Apostles, there is much
probability in Dr. Mordtmann’s opinion that the designation belonged
originally to the corresponding gate in the Constantinian
fortifications, which stood closer to the cemetery.[104]
Another gate was the Porta Atalou (Πόρτα Ἀτάλου).[105] It was adorned
with the statue of Constantine the Great and the statue of Atalus, after
whom the gate was named. Both monuments fell in the earthquake of 740.
The presence of the statue of the founder of the city upon the gate, the
fact that the damage which the gate sustained in 740 is mentioned in
close connection with the injuries done at the same time to the Column
of Arcadius on the Xeropholos,[106] and the lack of any proof that the
gate stood in the Theodosian Walls, are circumstances which favour the
view that it was an entrance in the Wall of Constantine. From its
association with the Xerolophos one would infer that the Gate of Atalus
was situated on the Seventh Hill, in a position corresponding to one of
the later Theodosian gates on that eminence.
That the Palaia Porta—Isa Kapoussi, beside the Mosque Isa Kapou
Mesdjidi—was a Constantinian gate is beyond dispute.[107] But a
difficult, and at the same time important, question occurs in connection
with it. Was it the Porta Aurea mentioned in the _Notitia_ as the gate
from which the length of the city was measured? What renders this a
difficult question is the fact that the Porta Aurea of the Theodosian
Walls—the celebrated Golden Gate which appears so frequently in the
history of the city, and which is now incorporated in the Turkish
fortress of the Seven Towers (Yedi Koulè), under the name Yedi Koulè
Kapoussi—was already in existence when the _Notitia_ was written.[108]
That being the case, the presumption is in favour of the opinion that
the Golden Gate at Yedi Koulè is the Porta Aurea to which the _Notitia_
refers; and this opinion has upon its side the great authority of Dr.
Strzygowski.[109] On the other hand, the distance from the Porta Aurea
to the sea, as given by the _Notitia_, does not correspond to the
distance between Yedi Koulè and the head of the promontory, the latter
distance being much greater. To suppose that this discrepancy is due to
a mistake which has crept into the figures of the _Notitia_ is possible;
but the supposition is open to more than one objection. In the first
place, such a view obliges us to assume a similar mistake in the figures
which that authority gives for the breadth of the city, seeing they do
not accord with the breadth of the city along the line of the Theodosian
Walls. But even if this objection is waived, and the possibility of a
double error admitted in the abstract, the hypothesis of a mistake in
the figures before us is attended by another difficulty, which cannot be
dismissed so easily. How comes it that figures condemned as inaccurate
because they do not accord with the size of Constantinople under
Theodosius II., prove perfectly correct when applied to the dimensions
of the city under its founder? How come these figures to agree
completely with what we learn regarding the length and breadth of the
city of Constantine from other data on that subject? This cannot be an
accident; the only satisfactory explanation is that the figures in
question belonged to the primitive text of the document in which they
are found, and never referred to anything else than the original size of
the city. Hence we are compelled to adopt the view that when the
_Notitia_ was written, two gates bearing the epithet “Golden” existed in
Constantinople, one of them in the older circuit of the city, the other
in the later fortifications of Theodosius, and that the author of the
_Notitia_ refers to the earlier entrance. There is nothing strange in
the existence of a Triumphal Gate in the Wall of Constantine, while the
duplication of such an entrance for a later line of bulwarks was
perfectly natural.
Why the _Notitia_ overlooks the second Porta Aurea is explained by the
point of view from which that work was written. Its author was concerned
with the original city. A gate in the Wall of Theodosius was only the
vestibule of the corresponding Constantinian entrance.
The existence of a Porta Aurea in the Wall of Constantine being thus
established, the identification of that gate with the Palaia Porta
offers little difficulty. The Constantinian Porta Aurea, like the
Ancient Gate, stood on the Seventh Hill, since the portion of the Via
Triumphalis leading from the Exokionion to the Forum of Arcadius was on
that eminence.[110] Like the Ancient Gate, the Porta Aurea was,
moreover, distinguished by fine architectural features, as its very
epithet implies, and, as the _Notitia_ declares, when it states that the
city wall bounding the Twelfth Region, on the Seventh Hill, was
remarkable for its monumental character—“Quam (regionem) mœnium
sublimior decorat ornatus.”[111] Gates so similar in their position and
appearance can scarcely have been different entrances.
Of the Constantinian gates along the seaboard of the city, the only one
about which anything positive can be affirmed is the Gate of St.
Æmilianus, near the Church of St. Mary Rabdou, on the Sea of Marmora. It
is now represented by Daoud Pasha Kapoussi.[112]
Dr. Mordtmann[113] suggests the existence of a gate known as the
Basilikè Porta beside the Golden Horn, where Ayasma Kapoussi stands; but
this conjecture is exceedingly doubtful.
The Wall of Constantine formed the boundary and bulwark of the city for
some eighty years, its great service being the protection of the new
capital against the Visigoths, who asserted their power in the Balkan
Peninsula during the latter part of the fourth century and the earlier
portion of the fifth. After the terrible defeat of the Roman arms at
Adrianople in 378, the Goths marched upon Constantinople, but soon
retired, in view of the hopelessness of an attack upon the
fortifications. The bold Alaric never dared to assail these walls; while
Gainas, finding he could not carry them by surprise, broke up his camp
at the Hebdomon, and withdrew to the interior of Thrace.
It is a mistake, however, to suppose that the original bulwarks of the
capital were demolished as soon as the Theodosian Walls were built.[114]
On the contrary, the old works continued for a considerable period to
form an inner line of defence. We hear of them in the reign of Justinian
the Great, when, together with the Wall of Theodosius, they were injured
by a violent earthquake.[115] They were in their place also when the
_Paschal Chronicle_ was written.[116] What their condition precisely was
in 740, when the Gate of Atalus was overthrown,[117] cannot be
determined, but evidently they had not completely disappeared.
Thereafter nothing more is heard of them, and the probability is that
they were left to waste away gradually. Remains of ancient walls
survived in the neighbourhood of Isa Kapoussi as late as the early part
of this century.[118]
Interior Arrangements of the City of Constantine.
The work of altering Byzantium to become the seat of government was
commenced in 328, and occupied some two years, materials and labourers
for the purpose being gathered from all parts of the Empire. Workmen
skilled in cutting columns and marble came even from the neighbourhood
of Naples,[119] and the forty thousand Gothic troops, known as the
Fœderati, lent their strength to push the work forward.[120]
At length, on the 11th of May, A.D. 330,[121] the city of Constantine,
destined to rank among the great capitals of the world, and to exert a
vast influence over the course of human affairs, was dedicated with
public rejoicings which lasted forty days.[122]
The internal arrangements of the city were determined mainly by the
configuration of its site, the position of the buildings taken over from
Byzantium, and the desire to reproduce some of the features of Rome.
The principal new works gathered about two nuclei—the chief Gate of
Byzantium and the Square of the Tetrastoon.
Immediately without the gate was placed the Forum, named after
Constantine.[123] It was elliptical in shape, paved with large stones,
and surrounded by a double tier of porticoes; a lofty marble archway at
each extremity of its longer axis led into this area, and in the centre
rose a porphyry column, bearing a statue of Apollo crowned with seven
rays. The figure represented the founder of the city “shining like the
sun” upon the scene of his creation. On the northern side of the Forum a
Senate House was erected.[124]
The Tetrastoon was enlarged and embellished, receiving in its new
character the name “Augustaion,” in honour of Constantine’s mother
Helena, who bore the title Augusta, and whose statue, set upon a
porphyry column, adorned the square.[125]
The Hippodrome was now completed,[126] to become “the axis of the
Byzantine world,” and there, in addition to other monuments, the Serpent
Column from Delphi was placed. The adjoining Thermæ of Zeuxippus were
improved.[127] An Imperial Palace,[128] with its main entrance on the
southern side of the Augustaion, was built to the east of the
Hippodrome, where it stood related to the race-course very much as the
Palace of the Cæsars on the Palatine was related to the Circus Maximus.
There, at the same time, it commanded the beautiful view presented by
the Sea of Marmora, the Prince’s Islands, the hilly Asiatic coast, and
the snow-capped Bythinian Olympus. Eusebius, who saw the palace in its
glory, describes it as “most magnificent;”[129] while Zosimus speaks of
it as scarcely inferior to the Imperial Residence in Rome.[130]
On the eastern side of the Augustaion rose the Basilica,[131] where the
Senate held its principal meetings. It was entered through a porch
supported by six splendid columns of marble, and the building itself was
decorated with every possible variety of the same material. There also
statues of rare workmanship were placed, such as the Group of the Muses
from Helicon, the statue of Zeus from Dodona, and that of Pallas from
Lindus.[132]
According to Eusebius, Constantine adorned the city and its suburbs with
many churches,[133] the most prominent of them being the Church of
Irene[134] and the Church of the Apostles.[135] The former was situated
a short distance to the north of the Augustaion, and there, as restored
first by Justinian the Great, and later by Leo III., it still stands
within the Seraglio enclosure, now an arsenal of Turkish arms.
The Church of the Apostles, with its roof covered with tiles of gilded
bronze, crowned the summit of the Fourth Hill, where it has been
replaced by the Mosque of the Turkish Conqueror of the city.
There, also, Constantine erected for himself a mausoleum, surrounded by
twelve pillars after the number of the Apostles;[136] and in the
porticoes and chapels beside the church most of Constantine’s successors
and their empresses, as well as the patriarchs of the city, found their
last resting-place in sarcophagi of porphyry or marble. Whether
Constantine had any part in the erection of St. Sophia is extremely
uncertain. Eusebius is silent regarding that church; Socrates ascribes
it to Constantius. Possibly Constantine laid the foundations of the
famous sanctuary.
Among other churches ascribed to the founder of the city are those
dedicated, respectively, to St. Mokius, St. Acacius, St. Agathonicus,
and to Michael the Archangel at Anaplus (Arnaoutkeui), on the
Bosporus.[137] There is no doubt that in the foundation of New Rome,
Constantine emphasized the alliance of the Empire with the Christian
Church. “Over the entrance of his palace,” says Eusebius, “he caused a
rich cross to be erected of gold and precious stones, as a protection
and a divine charm against the machinations and evil purposes of his
enemies.”[138]
Three streets running the length of the city formed the great arteries
of communication.[139]
One started from the south-western end of the palace enclosure, and
proceeded along the Sea of Marmora to the Church of St. Æmilianus, at
the southern extremity of the land wall. At that point was the Harbour
of Eleutherius,[140] on the site of Vlanga Bostan, providing the city
with what Nature had failed to supply—a harbour of refuge on the
southern coast of the promontory.
Another street commenced at the south-eastern end of the palace grounds
(Tzycanisterion), and ran first to the point of the Acropolis along the
eastern shore of the city, passing on the way the theatre and
amphitheatre of Byzantium. Near the latter Constantine built the
Mangana, or Military Arsenal.[141] The street then proceeded westwards
along the Golden Horn, past the Temples of Zeus and Poseidon, the
Stadium, the Strategion, and the principal harbours of the city, to the
Church of St. Antony in the quarter of Harmatius. In the Strategion an
equestrian statue of Constantine was placed, and a pillar bearing the
edict which bestowed upon the city the name of New Rome, as well as the
rights and privileges of the elder capital.[142]
The third street started from the main gate of the palace, and
proceeded, first, from the Augustaion to the Forum of Constantine. On
reaching the Third Hill it divided into two branches, one leading to the
Porta Aurea and the Exokionion, the other to the Church of the Holy
Apostles and the Gate of the Polyandrion. This was the main artery of
the city, and was named the Mesè (Μεσὴ) on account of its central
position. Porticoes built by Eubulus, one of the senators who
accompanied Constantine from Rome, lined both sides of the Mesè, and one
side of the two other streets, adding at once to the convenience and
beauty of the thoroughfares. The porticoes extending from the Augustaion
to the Forum of Constantine were particularly handsome.[143] Upon the
summit of all the porticoes walks or terraces were laid out, adorned
with countless statues, and commanding views of the city and of the
surrounding hills and waters. Thus, the street scenery of Constantinople
combined the attractions of Art and Nature.
The water-supply of the new capital was one of the most important
undertakings of the day.[144] While the water-works of Byzantium, as
improved by Hadrian, continued to be used, they were extended, to render
the supply of water more abundant. What exactly was done for that
purpose is, however, a matter of conjecture.[145]
To the construction of the aqueducts, porticoes, and fortifications of
New Rome sixty centenaria of gold (£2,500,000) were devoted.[146]
The health of the city was consulted by building sewers far underground,
and carrying them to the sea.[147]
With the view of drawing population to the new city, Constantine made
the wheat hitherto sent from Egypt to Rome the appanage of
Constantinople, and ordered the daily free distribution of eighty
thousand loaves.[148] The citizens were, moreover, granted the Jus
Italicus,[149] while, to attract families of distinction the emperor
erected several mansions for presentation to Roman senators.[150]
House-building was encouraged by granting estates in Pontus and Asia, on
the tenure of maintaining a residence in the new capital.[151]
Furthermore, in virtue of its new dignity, the city was relieved from
its subordination to the town of Heraclea,[152] imposed since the time
of Septimius Severus, and the members of the public council of New Rome
were constituted into a Senate, with the right to bear the title of
Clari.[153]
For municipal purposes the city was divided, like Rome, into Fourteen
Regions,[154] two of them being outside the circuit of the
fortifications, viz. the Thirteenth, which comprised Sycæ (Galata), on
the northern side of the Golden Horn, and the Fourteenth, constituting
the suburb of Blachernæ, now the quarters of Egri Kapou and Aivan Serai.
Footnote 40:
Philostorgius, ii. c. 9.
Footnote 41:
See Map of Byzantine Constantinople.
Footnote 42:
Pages 96, 97.
Footnote 43:
See above, p. 10.
Footnote 44:
_Notitia Dignitatum accedunt Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanæ et
Laterculi Provinciarum_, edidit Otto Seeck, p. 243.
The _Notitia_, so far as Constantinople is concerned, will be found in
Gyllius’ _De Topographia Constantinopoleos_.
“Habet sane longitudo urbis a porta aurea usque ad litus maris directa
linea pedum quattuordecim milia septuaginta quinque, latitudo autem
pedum sex milia centum quinquaginta.”
Footnote 45:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 494; Anonymus, i. p. 2.
Footnote 46:
See below, p. 264.
Footnote 47:
Anonymus, i. p. 2; Codinus, p. 25.
Footnote 48:
Anonymus, i. p. 20.
Footnote 49:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 501.
Footnote 50:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 561; Socrates, v. c. 7.
Footnote 51:
_Ibid._, _ut supra_.
Footnote 52:
Theophanes Continuatus, p. 196; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 173; Nicetas
Chon. p. 319.
Footnote 53:
_De Top. CP._, iv. c. 1.
Footnote 54:
On the occasion of his second visit, Gyllius saw the column removed to
the Mosque of Sultan Suleiman.
Footnote 55:
Pages 10, 72.
Footnote 56:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 501.
Footnote 57:
Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 540, Ἄνωθεν τῆς περιβλέπτου μονῆς, ἐν τῷ τοπω τῷ
καλουμένῳ Σίγματι.
Footnote 58:
Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Constantinople_, p. 86.
Footnote 59:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 579.
Footnote 60:
Socrates, vii. c. 5; Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 106.
Footnote 61:
Banduri, _Imperium Orientale_, v. p. 81; _Synaxaria_, May 11.
Footnote 62:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 55, 56.
Footnote 63:
Codinus, p. 99; Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iv. c. 8.
Footnote 64:
Cf. Paspates, p. 362.
Footnote 65:
Codinus, p. 122.
Footnote 66:
Codinus, p. 25.
Footnote 67:
Du Cange, iv. p. 102.
Footnote 68:
_Patrologia Græca_, vol. clvi. p. 54, Migne.
Footnote 69:
Another copy of the map of Bondelmontius than that forming the
Frontispiece of this work is found at the beginning of Du Cange’s
_Constantinopolis Christiana_.
Footnote 70:
For this information I am indebted to Rev. H. O. Dwight, LL.D., of the
American Board of Missions.
Footnote 71:
Cf. Paspates, pp. 361-363.
Footnote 72:
Hesychius Milesius, _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, vol. iv. p. 154.
Footnote 73:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 590.
Footnote 74:
_Notitia, ad Reg. XII._
Footnote 75:
Marcellinus Comes.
Footnote 76:
_Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 103; _Traduits pour la Société de
l’Orient Latin_, par Madame B. de Khitrovo.
Footnote 77:
Codinus, p. 123.
Footnote 78:
Page 593.
Footnote 79:
Theophanes Continuatus, p. 168.
Footnote 80:
Paspates, pp. 304-306.
Footnote 81:
Codinus, p. 99.
Footnote 82:
_De Top. CP._, iv. c. 4.
Footnote 83:
Pages 72, 73.
Footnote 84:
Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 343.
Footnote 85:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 532.
Footnote 86:
_Ibid._, _ut supra._
Footnote 87:
Constant. Porphyr., p. 532.
Footnote 88:
Anonymus, iii. p. 49, Ἐσκέπασεν αὐτὴν κυλινδρικῷ θόλῳ.
Footnote 89:
The literary form of the word is Djami’i.
Footnote 90:
_Die Byzantinischen Wasserbehälter von Konstantinopel_, p. 185.
Footnote 91:
_Ad Reg. XI._
Footnote 92:
Codinus, p. 25.
Footnote 93:
_Synaxaria_, June 17, 20; Anonymus, ii. p. 35.
Footnote 94:
Anonymus, ii. p. 36.
Footnote 95:
_Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, pp. 104, 105.
Footnote 96:
Paspates, pp. 320-322.
Footnote 97:
_Ibid._, pp. 381-383.
Footnote 98:
Page 494, Τὸ παλαιὸν τεῖχος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, τουτέστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ
καλουμένου Πετρίου ἕως τῆς πόρτας τοῦ ἁγίου Αἰμιλιανοῦ, πλησίον τῆς
καλουμένης Ῥάβδου.
Footnote 99:
See _Paschal Chron._, _ut supra_.
Footnote 100:
Anonymus, ii. pp. 39, 40.
Footnote 101:
_Bollandists_, May 30, p. 238, Ἐν μαρτυρείῳ τῆς ἁγίας Εὐφημίας τῷ ὄντι
πλησίον τοῦ ἁγίου Λαυρεντίου ἐν τῷ Πετρίῳ.
Under August 10, St. Laurentius is described as ἐν Πουλχεριαναῖς and
ἐν Πετρίῳ. See below, pp. 206, 207.
Footnote 102:
Emperor Julian, _Oratio I._
Footnote 103:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 719.
Footnote 104:
Pages 10, 28. See below, p. 85.
Footnote 105:
Theophanes, p. 634.
Footnote 106:
_Ibid._, _ut supra._
Footnote 107:
See above, pp. 21, 22.
Footnote 108:
See below, p. 62.
Footnote 109:
See below, p. 61, ref. 5.
Footnote 110:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 501.
Footnote 111:
_Ad Reg. XII._
Footnote 112:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 494; see below, p. 264.
Footnote 113:
Pages 7, 8. There is no proof for the existence of a Porta Saturnini
in the Constantinian Wall (_Esquisse Top. de CP._). The author of the
“Life of St. Isaacius,” in the _Bollandists_ (May 31, p. 256, n. 4, p.
259), says that a cell was built for that saint by Saturninus:
“Suburbanam, nec procul a civitatis muris (Constantinian) remotam
domum.” The house of Saturninus himself is described as “extra portam
Collarida” (Xerolophos). But nothing is said regarding a gate named
after him. Regarding this Basilikè Porta, see below, p. 213.
Footnote 114:
Nicephorus Callistus, xiv. c. 1.
Footnote 115:
Malalas, p. 488; Agathias, v. c. 5, 3-8.
Footnote 116:
Page 494.
Footnote 117:
Theophanes, p. 634.
Footnote 118:
Paspates, p. 363.
Footnote 119:
Lydus, _De Magistratibus_, iii. p. 266.
Footnote 120:
Jornandes, _De Rebus Get._, c. 21, “Nam et dum famosissimam et Romæ
æmulam in suo nomine conderet civitatem, Gothorum interfuit operatio,
qui fœdere inito cum imperatore XL. suorum millia illi in solatio
contra gentes varias obtulere, quorum et numerus et millia usque, in
Rep. nominantur Fœderati.”
In one brief (_Cod. Theod._, lib. 13, tit. iv. 1) Constantine
complains of the dearth of architects; in another (_Cod. Theod._, lib.
13, tit. iv. 2) he offers to free from taxes thirty-five master
artificers if they would bring up their sons in the same professions.
Footnote 121:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 529.
Footnote 122:
Banduri, _Imperium Orientale_, lib. v. p. 98.
Footnote 123:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 528; Zosimus, p. 96.
Footnote 124:
Hesychius, _Frag. Hist. Græc._, iv. p. 154; Anonymus, i. p. 13.
Footnote 125:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 529, Αὐγουσταῖον.
Footnote 126:
_Ibid._, p. 528.
Footnote 127:
_Ibid._, p. 529.
Footnote 128:
_Ibid._, p. 528.
Footnote 129:
Eusebius, _Life of Constantine_, iv. 66.
Footnote 130:
Zosimus, p. 97.
Footnote 131:
_Paschal Chron._, pp. 528, 529.
Footnote 132:
Zosimus, pp. 280, 281.
Footnote 133:
Eusebius, _Life of Constantine_, iii. 47.
Footnote 134:
Socrates, i. c. 16.
Footnote 135:
Eusebius, iv. c. 52-60.
Footnote 136:
Eusebius, iv. 60.
Footnote 137:
Hesychius Milesius, _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, p. 154; Theophanes, p. 34;
Sozomon, ii. c. 3.
Footnote 138:
_Life of Constantine_, iii. c. 48.
Footnote 139:
Anonymus, i. p. 5; Codinus, pp. 22, 23.
Footnote 140:
Anonymus, iii. p. 46. See below, p. 296.
Footnote 141:
Anonymus, ii. p. 26. See below, p. 250.
Footnote 142:
Socrates, i. c. 16.
Footnote 143:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 528; Lydus, _De Magistratibus_, iii. p. 266.
Footnote 144:
Anonymus, i. p. 5; Codinus, p. 22.
Footnote 145:
Cf. Tchihatchef, _Le Bosphore et Constantinople_, chap. ii.;
Andreossy, _Constantinople et le Bosphore de Thrace_, Livre Troisième,
“Système des Eaux.”
Footnote 146:
Anonymus, i. p. 5.
Footnote 147:
_Ibid._, _ut supra_.
Footnote 148:
Socrates, ii. c. 13; Philostorgius, ii. c. 9.
Footnote 149:
_Cod. Theod._, lib. xiv. 13; _Cod. Justin._, xi. 20.
Footnote 150:
Hesychius Milesius, _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, iv. p. 154; Zosimus, p. 97.
Footnote 151:
_Cod. Theod._, Novella 12.
Footnote 152:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 530. Because of this subordination of Byzantium
to Heraclea, the bishop of the latter city has still the right to
preside at the consecration of the patriarch of Constantinople.
Footnote 153:
Valesian Anonymus, appended to the History of Ammianus Marcellinus.
The senators of Rome were styled “Clarissimi.”
Footnote 154:
_Nolitia, ad Regiones._ On the delimitation of the Regions, see
Gyllius, _De Topographia Constantinopleos_, l. ii. c. 2, 10, 16; l.
iii. c. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9; l. iv. c. 1, 3, 7, 10, 11; and Mordtmann,
_Esquisse Topographique de Constantinople_, pp. 2-10. The point on
which these authorities differ most widely is regarding the situation
of the Seventh Region, Gyllius making it occupy the valley of the
Grand Bazaar, on the northern side of the city; while Mordtmann (pp.
6, 7) places it on the southern slope of the Second Hill, from the
Forum of Constantine to the Sea of Marmora. My view (at present) on
the subject is indicated in the Map of Byzantine Constantinople.