THE GATES IN THE THEODOSIAN WALLS.
The Golden Gate.
The Theodosian Walls were pierced by ten gates, and by several small
posterns.
Of the former, some led only to the different parts of the
fortifications, serving exclusively the convenience of the garrison.
These may be styled Military Gates. Others connected the capital,
moreover, with the outside world by means of bridges thrown across the
Moat,[210] and constituted the Public Gates of the city. The two series
followed one another in alternate order, the military entrances being
known by numbers, the public entrances by proper names. Both were double
gateways, as they pierced the two walls. The inner gateway, being the
principal one, was guarded by two large towers, which projected far
beyond the curtain-wall to obtain a good flank fire, and to command at
the same time the outer gateway. Thus also the passage from the area
between the gateways to the peribolos, on either side, was rendered
exceedingly narrow and capable of easy defence. In view of its great
importance, the outer gateway of the Golden Gate also was defended by
two towers, projecting from the rear of the wall towards the city.
For the sake of security against surprise the posterns were few in
number, and occurred chiefly in the great wall and its towers, leading
to the peribolos. It is rare to find a postern in a tower of the Outer
Wall opening on the parateichion.
Proceeding northwards from the Sea of Marmora, there is a postern
immediately to the north of the first tower of the Inner Wall. It is an
arched entrance, with the laureated monogram “ΧΡ.” inscribed above it.
The handsome gateway between the seventh and eighth towers north of the
Sea of Marmora, Yedi Koulè Kapoussi, is the triumphal gate known, from
the gilding upon it, as the Porta Aurea. Its identity cannot be
questioned, for the site and aspect of the entrance correspond exactly
to the description given of the Golden Gate by Byzantine historians and
other authorities.
[Illustration: Plan of the Golden Gate]
It is, what the Porta Aurea was, the gateway nearest the Sea of
Marmora,[211] and at the southern extremity of the Theodosian
Walls,[212] constructed of marble, and flanked by two great marble
towers.[213] Beside its outer portal, moreover, were found the
bas-reliefs which adorned the Golden Gate, and upon it traces of an
inscription which expressly named it the Porta Aurea are still visible.
The inscription read as follows:
HAEC LOCA THEVDOSIVS DECORAT POST FATA TYRANNI.
AVREA SAECLA GERIT QVI PORTAM CONSTRVIT AVRO.
The history of our knowledge of this inscription is curious. There is no
mention made of the legend by any writer before 1453, unless Radulphus
de Diceto alludes to it when he states that in 1189 an old resident of
the city pointed a Templar to certain words upon the Golden Gate,
foretelling the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders.[214] And of
all the visitors to the city since the Turkish Conquest, Dallaway is the
only one who speaks of having seen the inscription in its place.[215]
The inscription is cited first by Sirmondi[216] and Du Cange,[217] the
former of whom quotes it in his annotations upon Sidonius Apollonius, as
furnishing a parallel to that poet’s mode of spelling the name
Theodosius with a _v_ instead of an _o_ for the sake of the metre. How
Sirmondi and Du Cange, neither of whom ever visited Constantinople,
became acquainted with the inscription does not appear.
Matters remained in this position until 1891, when the attention of
Professor J. Strzygowski[218] was arrested by certain holes in the
voussoirs of the central archway, both on its western and eastern faces.
The holes are such as are found on stones to which metal letters are
riveted with bolts.
Here, then, was conclusive evidence that the Porta Aurea had once borne
an inscription, and here, Professor Strzygowski divined, was also the
means by which the genuineness of the legend given by Sirmondi and Du
Cange could be verified. Accordingly, a comparison between the
arrangement of the holes on the arch and the forms of the letters in the
legend was instituted. As several of the original voussoirs of the arch
had been removed and replaced by others without holes in them, the
comparison could not be complete; but so far as it was possible to
proceed the correspondence was all that could be desired. Where H, for
example, occurred in the inscription, the holes on the archway are
arranged thus, ::; where an A stood, the holes are placed thus, ∴; where
V came, their position is ∵; and so on, to an extent which verifies the
inscription beyond dispute. Thus, also, it has been ascertained that the
letters were of metal, probably gilt bronze, and that the words “Haec
loca Thevdosivs decorat post fata Tyranni” stood on the western face of
the arch, while the words “Avrea saecla gerit qvi portam constrvit avro”
were found on the opposite side.
The preservation of the inscription is a matter of very great
importance, for it furnishes valuable and interesting information as to
the circumstances under which the Porta Aurea was erected. From the fact
that the entrance is found in the Theodosian Walls it is natural to
infer that the Porta Aurea was a contemporaneous building, and that the
emperor extolled in the inscription is Theodosius II. But that inference
is precluded by the statement that the arch was set up after the
suppression of a usurper, _post fata tyranni_. For Theodosius II. was
not called to suppress the usurpation of his imperial authority at any
time during his reign, much less in 413, when the Wall of Anthemius, in
which the Porta Aurea stands, was built. On the other hand, Theodosius
the Great crushed two serious attempts to dispute his rule, first in
388, when he defeated Maximus, and again in 395, when he put down the
rebellion of Eugenius. Hence, as Du Cange first pointed out, the Porta
Aurea is a monument erected in the reign of Theodosius the Great, in
honour of his victory over one of the rebels above mentioned. It could
not, however, have been designed to commemorate the defeat of Eugenius,
seeing that Theodosius never returned to Constantinople after that
event, and died four months later in the city of Milan. It must,
therefore, have been reared in honour of the victory over Maximus, a
success which the conqueror regarded with feelings of peculiar
satisfaction and pride, celebrating it by one triumphal entry into Rome,
in the spring of 389, and by another into Constantinople, when he
returned to the eastern capital in 391.[219] Accordingly, the Porta
Aurea was originally an Arch of Triumph, erected some time between 388
and 391, to welcome Theodosius the Great upon his return from his
successful expedition against the formidable rebellion of Maximus in the
West. It united with the Column of Theodosius in the Forum of Taurus,
and the Column of Arcadius in the Forum on the Xerolophus, and the
Obelisk in the Hippodrome,[220] in perpetuating the memory of the great
emperor’s warlike achievements.
In corroboration of the date thus assigned to the monument, it may be
added that the only Imperial statue placed over the Porta Aurea was that
of Theodosius the Great, while the group of elephants which formed one
of the ornaments of the gate was supposed to represent the elephants
attached to the car of that emperor on the occasion of his triumphal
entry into the city.[221]
There is, however, an objection to this view concerning the age of the
Porta Aurea, which, whatever its force, should not be overlooked in a
full discussion of the subject. The inscription describes the monument
as a gateway, “Qui portam construit auro.”[222] But such a designation
does not seem consistent with the fact that we have here a building
which belongs to the age of Theodosius the Great, when the city walls in
which the arch stands did not exist, as they are the work of his
grandson. How could an isolated arch be, then, styled a gateway? Can the
difficulty be removed by any other instance of a similar use of the term
“Porta”? Or is the employment of the term in the case before us
explained by the supposition that in the reign of Theodosius the Great
the city had spread beyond the Constantinian Wall, and reached the line
marked by the Porta Aurea, so that an arch at that point was practically
an entrance into the city? May not that suburban district have been
protected by some slight fortified works? Or was the Porta Aurea so
named in anticipation of the fulfilment of the prediction of Themistius,
that the growth of the city under Theodosius the Great would ere long
necessitate the erection of new walls?[223] Was it built in that
emperor’s reign to indicate to a succeeding generation the line along
which the new bulwarks of the capital should be built?
The Porta Aurea was the State Entrance into the capital,[224] and was
remarkable both for its architectural splendour and its military
strength. It was built of large squared blocks of polished marble,
fitted together without cement, and was flanked by two great towers
constructed of the same material. Like the Triumphal Arch of Severus and
that of Constantine at Rome, it had three archways, the central one
being wider and loftier than those on either side.
The gates glittered with gold,[225] and numerous statues and other
sculptured ornaments were placed at suitable points.[226]
[Illustration: The Golden Gate (Inner).]
Of these embellishments the following are mentioned: a cross, which was
blown down by a hurricane in the reign of Justinian;[227] a Victory,
which fell in an earthquake in the reign of Michael III.;[228] a crowned
female figure, representing the Fortune of the city;[229] a statue of
Theodosius the Great, overthrown by the earthquake at the close of the
reign of Leo the Isaurian;[230] a bronze group of four elephants;[231]
the gates of Mompseuesta, gilded and placed here by Nicephorus Phocas,
as a trophy of his campaign in Cilicia.[232] At the south-western angle
of the northern tower the Roman eagle still spreads its wings; the
laureated monogram “ΧΡ” appears above the central archway on the city
side of the gateway; and several crosses are scattered over the
building.
In later days, when taste had altered, the scene of the Crucifixion was
painted within one of the lateral archways, while the Scene of the Final
Judgment was represented in the other.[233] Traces of frescoes are
visible on the inner walls of the southern archway, and suggest the
possibility of its having been used as a chapel.
The whole aspect of the gateway must have been more imposing when the
parapet on the towers and on the wall over the arches was intact, and
gave the building its full elevation.
Two columns crowned with graceful capitals adorned the outer gateway,
while the wall north and south was decorated with twelve bas-reliefs,
executed with considerable skill, and representing classical subjects.
Remains of the marble cornices and of the pilasters which framed the
bas-reliefs are still found in the wall, and from the descriptions of
the slabs given by Manuel Chrysolaras, Gyllius, Sir Thomas Roe, and
others, a fair idea of the nature of the subjects treated can be
formed.[234] Six bas-reliefs were placed on either side of the entrance,
grouped in triplets, one above another, each panel being supported by
pilasters, round or rectangular.
On the northern slabs the subjects pourtrayed were: Prometheus tortured;
a youth pursuing a horse, and trying to pull off its rider; a satyr,
between a woman with a vessel of water behind her, and a savage man, or
Hercules, holding a whip; Labours of Hercules (on three slabs).
The bas-reliefs to the south were of superior workmanship, and
represented: Endymion asleep, a shepherd’s lute in his hand, with Selene
and Cupid descending towards him; Hercules leading dogs; two peasants
carrying grapes; Pegasus and three female figures, one of them
attempting to hold him back; the fall of Phaëthon; Hercules and a
stag.[235]
As the Porta Triumphalis of Constantinople, the Golden Gate was the
scene of many historical events and imposing ceremonies.
So long as the inauguration of an emperor upon his accession to the
throne was celebrated at the Hebdomon (Makrikeui), it was through the
Golden Gate that a new sovereign entered his capital on the way to the
Imperial Palace beside St. Sophia. Marcian (450),[236] Leo I.
(457),[237] Basiliscus (476),[238] Phocas (602),[239] Leo the Armenian
(813),[240] and Nicephorus Phocas (963),[241] were welcomed as emperors
by the city authorities at this portal.
Distinguished visitors to the Byzantine Court, also, were sometimes
allowed to enter the city by this gate, as a mark of special honour. The
Legates of Pope Hormisdas were met here upon their arrival on a mission
to Justin I.:[242] here, in 708, Pope Constantine was received with
great ceremony, when he came to confer with Justinian II.:[243] and
here, in the reign of Basil II., the Legates of Pope Hadrian II. were
admitted.[244] Under Romanus Lecapenus, the procession which bore
through the city to St. Sophia the Icon of Christ, brought from Edessa,
entered at the Porta Aurea.[245]
It was, however, on the return of an emperor to the city after a
victorious campaign that the Porta Aurea fulfilled its highest purpose,
and presented a brilliant spectacle of life and splendour.
Through this triumphal arch came Theodosius the Great, after his defeat
of Maximus;[246] by it Heraclius entered the capital to celebrate the
success of his Persian expeditions;[247] through it passed Constantine
Copronymus, after the defeat of the Bulgarians;[248] Theophilus, on two
occasions, after the repulse of the Saracens;[249] Basil I., after his
successes at Tephrice and Germanicia;[250] Zimisces, after his victories
over the Russians under Swiatoslaf;[251] Basil II., after the slaughter
of the Bulgarians;[252] and, for the last time, Michael Palæologus, upon
the restoration of the Greek Empire in 1261.[253]
It would seem that, in accordance with old Roman custom, victorious
generals, below Imperial rank, were not allowed to enter the city in
triumph through this gate. Belisarius,[254] Maurice,[255] Nicephorus
Phocas, before he became emperor,[256] and Leo his brother,[257]
celebrated their respective triumphs over the Vandals, Persians and
Saracens, in the Hippodrome and the great street of the city.[258]
[Illustration: The Golden Gate (Outer).]
An Imperial triumphal procession[259] was marshalled on the plain in
front of the Golden Gate,[260] and awaited there the arrival of the
emperor, either from the Hebdomon or from the Palace of Blachernæ. The
principal captives, divided into several companies, and guarded by bands
of soldiers, led the march. Next followed the standards and weapons and
other spoils of war. Then, seated on a magnificent white charger, came
the emperor himself, arrayed in robes embroidered with gold and pearls,
his crown on his head, his sceptre in his right hand, his victorious
sword by his side. Close to him rode his son, or the Cæsar of the day,
another resplendent figure of light, also on a white horse. Upon
reaching the gate the victor might, like Theophilus, dismount for a few
moments, and falling thrice upon his face, humbly acknowledge the Divine
aid to which he owed the triumph of his arms. At length the Imperial
_cortège_ passed through the great archway. The civic authorities came
forward and did homage, offering the conqueror a crown of gold and a
laurel wreath, and accepting from him a rich largess in return; the
Factions rent the air with shouts—“Glory to God, who restores our
sovereigns to us, crowned with victory! Glory to God, who has magnified
you, Emperors of the Romans! Glory to Thee, All-Holy Trinity, for we
behold our Emperors victorious! Welcome, Victors, most valiant
sovereigns!”[261] And then the glittering procession wended its way to
the Great Palace, through the dense crowds that packed the Mesè and the
principal Fora of the city, all gay with banners, flowers, and
evergreens.
Sometimes the emperor, as in the case of Heraclius,[262] rode in a
chariot instead of on horseback; or the occupant of the triumphal car
might be, as on the occasion of the triumph of Zimisces, the Icon of the
Virgin.[263] Michael Palæologus entered the city on foot, walking as far
as the Church of St. John Studius before he mounted his horse.[264] On
the occasion of the second triumph of Theophilus, the beautiful custom
was introduced of making children take part in the ceremonial with
wreaths of flowers.[265]
But besides serving as a State entrance into the city, the Porta Aurea
was one of the strongest positions in the fortifications.[266] The four
towers at its gateways, the deep moat in front, and the transverse walls
across the peribolos on either hand, guarding approach from that
direction, constituted a veritable citadel. Cantacuzene repaired it, and
speaks of it as an almost impregnable acropolis, capable of being
provisioned for three years, and strong enough to defy the whole city in
time of civil strife.[267] Hence the great difficulty he found in
persuading the Latin garrison which held it on his behalf, in 1354, to
surrender the place to his rival John VI. Palæologus.
The Golden Gate, therefore, figures also in the military annals of
Constantinople. In the reign of Anastasius I. it was the object of
special attack by Vitalianus at the head of his Huns and
Bulgarians.[268] Repeated attempts were made upon it by the Saracens in
the siege of 673-675.[269] Crum stood before it in the reign of Leo the
Armenian, and there he invoked the aid of his gods against the city, by
offering human sacrifices and by the lustration of his army with
sea-water in which he had bathed his feet.[270] His demand to plant his
spear in the gate put an end to the negotiations for peace. In 913 the
Bulgarians, under their king Simeon, were again arrayed before the
entrance.[271] Here, also, in 1347, John Cantacuzene was admitted by his
partisans.[272]
John Palæologus, upon receiving the surrender of the gate foolishly
dismantled the towers, lest they should be turned against him, in the
fickle political fortunes of the day.[273] He did not, however, carry
the work of destruction so far as to be unable to use the position as an
“acropolis” when besieged, in 1376, by his rebellious son,
Andronicus.[274] Later, when Sultan Bajazet threatened the city, an
attempt was made to restore the towers, and even to increase the
strength of this point in the fortifications.[275] With materials taken
from the churches of All Saints, the Forty Martyrs, and St. Mokius, the
towers were rebuilt, and a fortress extending to the sea was erected
within the city walls, similar to the Castle of the Seven Towers
constructed afterwards by Mehemet the Conqueror, in 1457. Upon hearing
of this action, Bajazet sent peremptory orders to John Palæologus to
pull down the new fortifications, and compelled obedience by threatening
to put out the eyes of Manuel, the heir to the throne, at that time a
hostage at Brousa. The humiliation affected the emperor, then seriously
ill, so keenly as to hasten his death. Subsequently, however, probably
after the defeat of Bajazet by Tamerlane at Angora, the defences at the
Golden Gate were restored; for the Russian pilgrim who was in
Constantinople between 1435 and 1453 speaks of visiting the Castle of
the Emperor Kalo Jean.[276]
In 1390, Manuel II., with a small body of troops, entered the city by
this gate and drove away his nephew John, who had usurped the
throne.[277] During the siege of 1453 the gate was defended by Manuel of
Liguria with 200 men, and before it the Sultan planted a cannon and
other engines of assault.[278]
Between the second and third towers to the north of the Golden Gate is
an entrance known at present, like the Porta Aurea, also by the name
Yedi Koulè Kapoussi. Dr. Paspates thinks it is of Turkish origin.[279]
It has certainly undergone repair in Turkish times, as an inscription
upon it in honour of Sultan Achmet III. testifies; but traces of
Byzantine workmanship about the gate prove that it belongs to the period
of the Empire;[280] and this conclusion is supported by the
consideration that, since the Porta Aurea was a State entrance, another
gate was required in its immediate neighbourhood for the use of the
public in this quarter of the capital. Hence the proximity of the two
gateways.
Regarding the name of the entrance opinions differ. Some authorities
regard the gate as the Porta Rhegiou (Ῥηγίου), the Gate of Rhegium,[281]
mentioned in the Greek Anthology.[282] But this identification cannot be
maintained, for the Porta Rhegiou was one of two entrances which bore an
inscription in honour of Theodosius II. and the Prefect Constantine, and
both those entrances, as will appear in the sequel, stood elsewhere in
the line of the fortifications.[283]
[Illustration: Yedi Koulè Kapoussi.]
The gate went, probably, by the designation of the Golden Gate,[284]
near which it stands, just as it now bears the name given to the latter
entrance since the Turkish Conquest. A common name for gates so near
each other was perfectly natural; and on this view certain incidents in
the history of the Golden Gate become more intelligible. For instance:
when Basil, the founder of the Macedonian dynasty, reached
Constantinople in his early youth, a homeless adventurer in search of
fortune, it is related that he entered the city about sunset through the
Golden Gate, and laid himself down to sleep on the steps of the
adjoining Monastery of St. Diomed.[285] If the only Golden Gate were the
Porta Aurea strictly so called, it is difficult to understand how the
poor wayfarer was admitted by an entrance reserved for the emperor’s
use; whereas the matter becomes clear if that name designated also an
adjoining public gate. Again, when the historian Nicetas Choniates,[286]
accompanied by his family and some friends, left the city five days
after its capture by the Crusaders in 1204, he made his way out,
according to his own statement, by the Golden Gate. In this case also,
it does not seem probable that the captors of the city would have
allowed a gate of such military importance as the Porta Aurea to be
freely used by a company of fugitives. The escape appears more feasible
if the Golden Gate to which Nicetas refers was the humbler entrance in
the neighbourhood of the Porta Aurea.
Footnote 210:
Pusculus, iv. 137, 138, “Pontes qui ad mœnia ducunt dirumpunt.”
Footnote 211:
Pusculus, iv. 151, “Aurea Porta datur ponto vicina sonanti.”
Footnote 212:
Cananus, p. 460.
Footnote 213:
Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 292, 293; Manuel Chrysolaras, p. 48.
Footnote 214:
_Historiæ Anglicanæ Scriptores Antiqui_, p. 642. London, 1652.
Footnote 215:
See French translation of his work, _Constantinople Ancienne et
Moderne_, 1798, vol. i. p. 28, where, quoting the legend, he says, “On
y lit encore ces vers.”
Footnote 216:
_Opera Varia_, vol. i., Paris, 1696; Paneg. Maioriani, _Carmen V._,
354.
Footnote 217:
_Constantinopolis Christiana_, lib. i. p. 52.
Footnote 218:
The brilliant monograph of Dr. Strzygowski on the Golden Gate is found
in the _Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archæologischen Instituts_,
Band viii., 1893, Erstes Heft.
Footnote 219:
Zosimus, p. 234.
Footnote 220:
Cf. the inscription on the pedestal of the obelisk—
“Difficilis quondam dominis parere serenis
Jussus, et extinctis palmam portare tyrannis
Omnia Theodosio cedunt,” etc.
Footnote 221:
See below, pp. 64, 65.
Footnote 222:
Malalas, p. 360, ascribes the decoration of the gate with gold to
Theodosius II.
Footnote 223:
See above, p. 42.
Footnote 224:
Nicephorus, _Patriarcha CP._, p. 59; Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._,
pp. 500, 506.
Footnote 225:
Malalas, p. 360.
Footnote 226:
Codinus, p. 48.
Footnote 227:
Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 675.
Footnote 228:
_Ibid._, ii. p. 173.
Footnote 229:
Codinus, _ut supra_.
Footnote 230:
Theophanes, p. 634.
Footnote 231:
Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 567.
Footnote 232:
_Ibid._, ii. p. 363.
Footnote 233:
_Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 239.
Footnote 234:
Manuel Chrys., p 48; Gyllius, _De Top CP._, iv. c. 9; Adolf Michaelis,
_Ancient Marbles in Great Britain_, pp. 10-14, translated by C. A. M.
Fennell. See Wheler, Grelot, Gerlach, Bulliardus, Spon, and Monograph
of Dr. Strzygowski.
Footnote 235:
The first two bas-reliefs to the north of the gate, and the first and
fourth to the south, as superior in workmanship, came very near being
removed to England, through the efforts of Sir Thomas Roe, ambassador
to the Porte from 1621 to 1628, and of a certain Mr. Petty, who was
sent to the East by the Earl of Arundel to procure works of Ancient
Art. The finds were to be divided between that nobleman and the Duke
of Buckingham. The correspondence on the subject will be found in _The
Negotiations of Sir Thomas Roe in his Embassy to the Ottoman Porte_,
published in London, 1740 (see pp. 386, 387, 444, 445, 495, 512, 534,
535); in Michaelis’ _Ancient Marbles in Great Britain_; and,
partially, in Dr. Strzygowski’s _Monograph on the Golden Gate_.
“Promise to obteyne them,” wrote Sir Thomas Roe, in May, 1625, “I
cannot, because they stand upon the ancient gate, the most conspicuous
of the cytte, though now mured up, beeing the entrance by the castell
called the Seauen Towers, and neuer opened since the Greek emperors
lost yt: to offer to steale them, no man dares to deface the cheefe
seate of the grand signor: to procure them by fauour, is more
impossible, such enuy they bear vnto us. There is only then one way
left; by corruption of some churchman, to dislike them, as against
their law; and vnder that pretence to take them downe to be brought
into some priuat place; from whence, after the matter is cold and
unsuspected, they may be conveyed. I haue practised for the four, and
am offered to haue it done for 600 crownes.”
A year later he had to write, “Those on the Porta Aurea are like to
stand, till they fall by tyme: I haue vsed all meanes, and once bought
them, and deposed, 3 moneths, 500 dollers. Without authority, the
danger and impossibility were alike; therefore I dealt with the great
treasurer, who in these tymes is greedy of any mony, and hee had
consented to deliuer them into a boat without any hazard of my part.
The last weeke hee rode himself to see them, and carried the
surueigher of the citty walls with him; but the Castellano and the
people beganne to mutine, and fell vpon a strange conceit; insomuch
that hee was forced to retyre, and presently sent for my enterpreter,
demanding if I had any old booke of prophesy: inferring, that those
statues were enchanted, and that wee knew, when they should bee taken
downe, some great alteration should befall this cytty.... In
conclusion, hee sent to mee, to think, nor mention no more that place,
which might cost his life, and bring mee into trouble; so that I
despair to effect therein your graces seruice: and it is true, though
I could not gett the stones, yet I allmost raised an insurrection in
that part of the cytty.”
Footnote 236:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 590.
Footnote 237:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 414.
Footnote 238:
Theophanes, p. 186.
Footnote 239:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 693.
Footnote 240:
Theophanes, p. 784.
Footnote 241:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 438.
Footnote 242:
Anastasius Bibliothecarius.
Footnote 243:
_Ibid._
Footnote 244:
Guillelmus Bibliothecarius, _in Hadriano II_.
Footnote 245:
Theophanes Cont., p. 432.
Footnote 246:
Zosimus, p. 234.
Footnote 247:
See illustration facing p. 334.
Footnote 248:
Theophanes, p. 668.
Footnote 249:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 503, 504.
Footnote 250:
_Ibid._, p. 498.
Footnote 251:
Leo Diaconus, p. 158.
Footnote 252:
Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 475.
Footnote 253:
Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 160.
Footnote 254:
Procopius, _De Bello Vand._, ii. c. 9; Theophanes, p. 309.
Footnote 255:
Theophanes, p. 388.
Footnote 256:
Leo Diaconus, p. 28.
Footnote 257:
_Ibid._, p. 23.
Footnote 258:
Theophanes, p. 309.
Footnote 259:
For the descriptions of the triumphs accorded to Basil I. and
Theophilus, see Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 498-508.
Footnote 260:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 499, Ἐν δὼ τῷ λιβαδίῳ τῷ ἔξω τῆς
χρυσῆς πόρτας.
Footnote 261:
On the pier to the left of the central archway are painted in red the
words, ΠΟΛΛΑ ΤΑ ΕΤΗ ΤΩΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ; while on the pier to the right are
the words, Ο ΘΣ ΚΑΛΩΣ ΗΝΕΝΤΕΝ ΣΕ; lingering echoes of the shouts that
shook the gate on a day of triumph.
Footnote 262:
See illustration facing p. 334.
Footnote 263:
Leo Diaconus, p. 158.
Footnote 264:
Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 160.
Footnote 265:
Constant. Porphyr., p. 508.
Footnote 266:
Τὸ κατὰ τὴν χρυσῆν καλουμένην φρούριον, Cantacuzene, iv. p. 292. It
was not, however, the fortress known as the Strongylon, Cyclobion,
Castrum Rotundum (Procopius, _De Aed._, iv. c. 8; Theophanes, p. 541;
Anastasius, _in Hormisda PP._; Guillelmus Biblioth. _in Hadriano
II._). That fortress stood outside the city, near the Hebdomon
(Makrikeui), three miles to the west of the Golden Gate (Theophanes,
pp. 541, 608). See below, p. 326.
Footnote 267:
Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 293, 301, 302. The southern tower projects 55
feet 7 inches from the wall, and is 60 feet 5 inches broad; the
corresponding dimensions of the northern tower are 55-½ feet, and 60
feet 4 inches.
Footnote 268:
Marcellinus Comes.
Footnote 269:
Theophanes, p. 541.
Footnote 270:
_Ibid._, p. 785.
Footnote 271:
Theophanes Cont., p. 385.
Footnote 272:
Cantacuzene, iii. pp. 606, 607.
Footnote 273:
Cantacuzene, iv. p. 304.
Footnote 274:
Chalcocondylas, p. 62.
Footnote 275:
Ducas, pp. 47, 48.
Footnote 276:
_Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 239, “Chateau de l’Empereur
Kalojean. Il a trois entrées.”
Footnote 277:
See Muralt, ad annum, _Essai de Chronographie Byzantine_, vol. ii.
Footnote 278:
Phrantzes, p. 253.
Footnote 279:
Paspates, p. 78.
Footnote 280:
Mordtmann, p. 13. Above the gate, on the side facing the city, is a
slab with the figure of the Roman eagle.
Footnote 281:
Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Constantinople_, p. 19.
Footnote 282:
Banduri, _Imp. Orient._, vii. p. 150.
Footnote 283:
See below, pp. 78, 91.
Footnote 284:
Mordtmann, p. 13.
Footnote 285:
Theophanes Cont., p. 223.
Footnote 286:
Page 779.