THE GATES IN THE THEODOSIAN WALLS—_continued_.
The entrance between the thirteenth and fourteenth towers to the north
of the Golden Gate was the Second Military Gate, τοῦ Δευτέρου.[287] Its
identity is established by its position in the order of the gates; for
between it and the Fifth Military Gate, regarding the situation of which
there can be no doubt,[288] two military gates intervene. It must
therefore be itself the second of that series of entrances.
Hence, it follows that the quarter of the city known as the Deuteron (τὸ
Δεύτερον) was the district to the rear of this gate. This fact can be
proved also independently by the following indications. The district in
question was without the Walls of Constantine;[289] it lay to the west
of the Exokionion, the Palaia Porta, and the Cistern of Mokius;[290] it
was, on the one hand, near the last street of the city,[291] the street
leading to the Golden Gate, and, on the other, contained the Gate
Melantiados,[292] now Selivri Kapoussi.[293] Consequently, it was the
district behind the portion of the walls in which the gate before us is
situated. This in turn supports the identification of the gate as that
of the Deuteron. It is the finest and largest of the military gates, and
may sometimes have served as a public gate in the period of the Empire,
as it has since.
Of the churches in the Deuteron quarter, the most noted were the Church
of the SS. Notarii, attributed to Chrysostom,[294] and the Church of St.
Anna, a foundation of Justinian the Great.[295] Others of less
importance were dedicated respectively to St. Timothy,[296] St.
George,[297] St. Theodore,[298] and St. Paul the Patriarch.[299]
The next public entrance (Selivri Kapoussi) is situated between the
thirteenth and fourteenth towers north of the Gate of the Deuteron. Its
present name appears shortly before the Turkish Conquest (πύλη τῆς
Σηλυβρίας),[300] and alludes to the fact that the entrance is at the
head of the road to Selivria; but its earlier and more usual designation
was the Gate of the Pegè, _i.e._ the Spring (Πύλη τῆς Πηγῆς),[301]
because it led to the celebrated Holy Spring (now Baloukli), about half
a mile to the west. This name for the entrance is found in the
inscription placed on the back of the southern gateway tower, in
commemoration of repairs made in the year 1433 or 1438.[302]
The gate possessed considerable importance owing to its proximity to the
Holy Spring,[303] which, with its healing waters and shrines, its
cypress groves, meadows, and delightful air, formed one of the most
popular resorts in the neighbourhood of the city.[304] There the
emperors had a palace and hunting park, to which they often retired for
recreation, especially in the spring of the year. On the Festival of the
Ascension the emperor visited the “Life-giving Pegè” in state, sometimes
riding thither through the city, at other times proceeding in his barge
as far as the Marmora extremity of the walls, and then mounting horse
for the rest of the way.[305] But in either case, the Imperial _cortége_
came up to this gate, and was received there by the body of household
troops called the Numeri. It was on returning from such a visit to the
Pegè that the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas was mobbed and stoned, as he
rode from the Forum of Constantine to the Great Palace beside the
Hippodrome.[306]
The gate is memorable in history as the entrance through which, in 1261,
Alexius Strategopoulos, the general of Michael Palæologus, penetrated
into the city,[307] and brought the ill-starred Latin Empire of
Constantinople to an end. For greater security the Latins had built up
the entrance; but a band of the assailants, aided by friends within the
fortifications, climbed over the walls, killed the drowsy guards, broke
down the barricade, and flung the gates open for the restoration of the
Greek power. By this gate, in 1376, Andronicus entered, after besieging
the city for thirty-two days, and usurped the throne of his father, John
VI. Palæologus.[308] In the siege of 1422 Sultan Murad pitched his tent
within the grounds of the Church of the Pegè;[309] while during the
siege of 1453 a battery of three guns played against the walls in the
vicinity of this entrance.[310]
There is reason to think that the gate styled Porta Melantiados
(Μελαντιάδος)[311] and Pylè Melandesia (Μελανδησία),[312] should be
identified with the Gate of the Pegè. Hitherto, indeed, the Porta
Melantiados has been identified with the next public gate, Yeni Mevlevi
Haneh Kapoussi;[313] but that view runs counter to the fact that the
Porta Melantiados stood in the Deuteron,[314] whereas the next public
gate was, we shall find, in the quarter of the city called, after the
Third Military Gate, the Triton (τὸ Τρίτον).[315] Unless, therefore, the
Porta Melantiados is identified with the Gate of the Pegè, it cannot be
identified with any other entrance in the Theodosian Walls.
[Illustration: The Gate of the Pegè.]
That the Gate of the Pegè had originally another name is certain, since
the Holy Spring did not come into repute until the reign of Leo I.,[316]
nearly half a century after the erection of the Wall of Anthemius. And
no other name could have been so appropriate as the Porta Melantiados,
for the road issuing from the gate led to Melantiada, a town near the
Athyras[317] (Buyuk Tchekmedjè) on the road to Selivria. The town is
mentioned in the Itinerary of the Emperor Antoninus as Melantrada and
Melanciada, at the distance of nineteen miles from Byzantium; and there
on different occasions the Huns, the Goths,[318] and the Avars[319]
halted on their march towards Constantinople.
At the gate Porta Melantiados, Chrysaphius, the minister and evil genius
of Theodosius II., was killed in 450 by the son of John the Vandal, in
revenge for the execution of the latter.[320] It has been suggested that
the Mosque of Khadin Ibrahim Pasha within the gate stands on the site of
the Church of St. Anna in the Deuteron.[321] It may, however, mark the
site of the Church of the SS. Notarii, which stood near the Porta
Melantiados.
The Third Military Gate is but a short distance from the Gate of the
Pegè, being situated between the fourth and fifth towers to the north.
To the rear of the entrance was the quarter called the Triton (τὸ
Τρίτον),[322] and, more commonly, the Sigma (Σίγμα);[323] the latter
designation being derived, probably, from the curve in the line of the
walls immediately beyond the gate. What precisely was the object of the
curve is not apparent. One authority explains it as intended for the
accommodation of the courtiers and troops that assembled here on the
occasion of an Imperial visit to the Pegè.[324] But the Theodosian Walls
were built before the Pegè came into repute;[325] and the visits of the
emperors to the Holy Spring were not so frequent or so important as to
affect the construction of the walls in such a manner.
In the quarter of the Sigma stood a column, bearing the statue of
Theodosius II., erected by Chrysaphius.[326] And there, in the riot of
1042, the Emperor Michael Calaphates and his uncle Constantine were
blinded, having been dragged thither from the Monastery of Studius,
where they had sought sanctuary.[327]
The most noted churches in the quarter were dedicated respectively to
the Theotokos,[328] St. Stephen, and St. Isaacius.[329] The site of the
first is, in the opinion of Dr. Paspates, marked by the remains of an
old Byzantine cistern off the street leading from the Guard-house of
Alti Mermer to the Mosque of Yol Getchen.[330]
[Illustration: The Gate of Rhegium.]
The next public gate, Yeni Mevlevi Haneh Kapoussi, situated between the
tenth and eleventh towers north of the Third Military Gate, was known by
two names, Porta Rhegiou (Ῥηγίου),[331] the Gate of Rhegium, and Porta
Rhousiou (τοῦ Ῥουσίου),[332] the Gate of the Red Faction. That it bore
the former name is established by the fact that the inscription in
honour of Theodosius II. and the Prefect Constantine, which was placed,
according to the Anthology, on the Gate of Rhegium, is actually found on
the lintel of this entrance.[333] The name alluded to Rhegium (Kutchuk
Tchekmedjè), a town twelve miles distant, upon the Sea of Marmora,
whither the road leading westward conducted.
The title of the gate to the second name rests partly upon the
consideration that the name cannot be claimed for any other entrance in
the walls, and partly upon the fact that two circumstances connected
with the gate can thus be satisfactorily explained. In the first place,
the seven shafts employed to form the lintel, posts, and sill of the
gateway are covered with red wash, as though to mark the entrance with
the colour of the Red Faction. Secondly, on the northern face of the
southern gateway-tower is an inscription, unfortunately mutilated, such
as the Factions placed upon a structure in the erection of which they
were concerned. The legend as preserved reads thus: “The Fortune of
Constantine, our God-protected Emperor triumphs....”
† ΝΙΚΑ Η ΤΥΧΗ
ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟ
ΦΥΛΑΚΤΟΥ ΗΜΩΝ ΔΕΣΠΟΤΟΥ
† †
The missing words with which the inscription closed were at some date
intentionally effaced, but analogy makes it exceedingly probable that
they were ΚΑΙ ΡΟΥΣΙΩΝ, “and of the Reds.”[334]
The number of inscriptions about this entrance is remarkable, five being
on the gateway itself, and two on its southern tower. Of the former
those commemorating the erection of the Theodosian fortifications in 447
are of special importance and interest;[335] another records the repair
of the Outer Wall under Justin II. and his Empress Sophia.[336]
Indistinct traces of the fourth are visible on the southern side of the
gateway; while the fifth, too fragmentary to yield a meaning, is on the
tympanum, arranged on either side of a niche for Icons,[337] for the
gates of the city were, as a rule, placed under the ward of some
heavenly guardian. This gate was closed with a portcullis.
The Fourth Military Gate stood between the ninth and tenth towers to the
north of the Porta Rhousiou. The northern corbel of the outer gateway is
an inscribed stone brought from some other building erected by a certain
Georgius.[338]
[Illustration: The Gate of St. Romanus.]
[Illustration: The Gate of Charisius.]
Top Kapoussi, between the sixth and seventh towers north of the Fourth
Military Gate, is the Gate of St. Romanus (πόρτα τοῦ Ἁγίου Ρωμάνου)[339]
so named after an adjoining church of that dedication. Its identity may
be established in the following manner: According to Cananus,[340] the
Gate of St. Romanus and the Gate of Charisius stood on opposite sides of
the Lycus. The Gate of St. Romanus, therefore, must have been either Top
Kapoussi, on the southern side of that stream, or one of the two gates
on the stream’s northern bank, viz. the walled-up entrance at the foot
of that bank, or Edirnè Kapoussi upon the summit. That it was the gate
on the southern side of the Lycus is clear, from the statements of
Critobulus and Phrantzes,[341] that in the siege of 1453 the Turkish
troops which invested the walls extending from the Gate of Charisius
(Edirnè Kapoussi) to the Golden Horn were on the Sultan’s _left_, _i.e._
to the north of the position he occupied. But the tent of the Sultan was
opposite the Gate of St. Romanus.[342] Hence, the Gate of Charisius was
one of the gates to the north of the Lycus, and, consequently, the Gate
of St. Romanus stood at Top Kapoussi, to the south. In harmony with this
conclusion is the order in which the two gates are mentioned by Pusculus
and Dolfin when describing the positions occupied by the defenders of
the walls from the Sea of Marmora to the Golden Horn. Proceeding from
south to north in their account of the defence, these writers place the
Gate of St. Romanus before, _i.e._ to the south of, the Gate of
Charisius.[343]
The Church of St. Romanus must have been a very old foundation, for it
is ascribed to the Empress Helena. It claimed to possess the relics of
the prophet Daniel and of St. Nicetas.[344]
The entrance between the second and third towers north of the Lycus, or
between the thirteenth and fourteenth towers north of the Gate of St.
Romanus, is the Fifth Military Gate, the Gate of the Pempton (τοῦ
Πέμπτου).[345] It is identified by the fact that it occupies the
position which the _Paschal Chronicle_ assigns to the Gate of the
Pempton; namely, between the Gate of St. Romanus and the Gate of the
Polyandrion—one of the names, as we shall find,[346] of Edirnè Kapoussi.
Some authorities[347] have maintained, indeed, that this entrance was
the Gate of Charisius. But this opinion is refuted by the fact that the
Gate of Charisius, as its whole history proves, was not a military gate,
but one of the public gates of the city.[348] Furthermore, the author of
the _Metrical Chronicle_ and Cananus expressly distinguish the Gate of
Charisius from the gate situated beside the Lycus.[349]
To the rear of the entrance was the district of the Pempton, containing
the Church of St. Kyriakè and the meadow through which the Lycus flows
to the Sea of Marmora. The meadow appears to have been a popular resort
before the Theodosian Walls were built, if not also subsequently. Here,
about the time of Easter, 404, the Emperor Arcadius came to take
exercise on horseback, and here he found three thousand white-robed
catechumens assembled. They proved to be persons who had recently been
baptized by Chrysostom, in the Thermæ Constantianæ, near the Church of
the Holy Apostles, notwithstanding his deposition on account of his
quarrel with the Empress Eudoxia. Arcadius was extremely annoyed by the
encounter, and ordered his guards to drive the crowd off the
ground.[350]
While riding down one of the slopes of the Lycus valley, in 450,
Theodosius II. fell from his horse and sustained a spinal injury, which
caused his death a few days later. The Gate of the Pempton was probably
the entrance through which the dying emperor was carried on a litter
from the scene of the accident into the city.[351]
The next public gate, Edirnè Kapoussi, between the eighth and ninth
towers to the north of the Fifth Military Gate, was named the Gate of
Charisius (τοῦ Χαρισίου). The name, which appears in a great variety of
forms, occurs first in Peter Magister,[352] a writer of Justinian’s
reign, and was derived, according to the Anonymus, from Charisius, the
head of the Blue Faction, when the Theodosian Walls were built.[353]
While some authorities, as already intimated, have attached this name to
the Gate of the Pempton, others have supposed that it belonged to the
entrance now known as Egri Kapou.[354] This, as will be shown in the
proper place, is likewise a mistake.[355]
The grounds on which the Gate of Charisius must be identified with the
Edirnè Kapoussi are these:[356] From the statements of Cananus and
Critobulus, already considered in determining the position of the Gate
of St. Romanus,[357] it is clear that the Gate of Charisius was one of
the two gates on the northern bank of the Lycus; either the gate at the
foot of that bank or Edirnè Kapoussi upon the summit. That it was not
the former is clearly proved by the fact that Cananus and the _Metrical
Chronicle_, as already cited, distinguished the Gate of Charisius from
the entrance beside the Lycus. The Gate of Charisius was, therefore,
Edirnè Kapoussi, the gate on the summit of the bank.
Again, the Gate of Charisius was, like Edirnè Kapoussi, at the head of
the street leading to the Church of the Holy Apostles. This is evident
from the circumstance that when Justinian the Great, returning to the
city from the West, visited on his way to the palace the tomb of the
Empress Theodora at the Holy Apostles’, he entered the capital by the
Gate of Charisius instead of by the Golden Gate,[358] because the former
entrance led directly to the Imperial Cemetery near that church.
To these arguments may be added the fact that near the Gate of Charisius
was a Church of St. George,[359] the guardian of the entrance, and that
a Byzantine church dedicated to that saint stood immediately to the
south-east of Edirnè Kapoussi as late as the year 1556, when it was
appropriated by Sultan Suleiman for the construction of the Mosque of
Mihrimah. At the same time the Greek community received by way of
compensation a site for another church to the north-west of the gate,
and there the present Church of St. George was built to preserve the
traditions of other days.[360] Lastly, like Edirnè Kapoussi, the Gate of
Charisius stood at a point from which one could readily proceed to the
Church of the Chora (Kahriyeh Djamissi), the Church of St. John in Petra
(Bogdan Serai), and the Palace of Blachernæ.[361]
Another name for the Gate of Charisius was the Gate of the Polyandrion,
or the Myriandron (Πόρτα τοῦ Πολυανδρίου, τοῦ Μυριάνδρου), the Gate of
the Cemetery. This follows from the fact that whereas the respective
names of the three gates in the walls crossing the valley of the Lycus
are usually given as the Gate of Charisius, Gate of the Pempton, the
Gate of St. Romanus, we find the first name omitted in a passage of the
_Paschal Chronicle_ referring to those entrances, and the Gate of the
Polyandrion mentioned instead.[362] Evidently, the Gate of Charisius and
the Gate of the Polyandrion were different names for the same gate.
The latter designation was peculiarly appropriate to an entrance on the
direct road to the Imperial Cemetery. Probably a public cemetery stood
also outside the gate, where a large Turkish cemetery is now situated,
and that may have been another reason for the name of the gate.[363]
With the portion of the walls between the Gate of St. Romanus and the
Gate of Charisius, memorable historical events are associated which
cannot be passed over without some notice, however brief.
On account of its central position in the line of the land
fortifications, this part of the walls was named the Mesoteichion
(Μεσοτείχιον).[364] It was also known as the Myriandrion,[365] on
account of its proximity to the Gate of Polyandrion; the portion to the
south of the Lycus being further distinguished as the Murus
Bacchatareus,[366] after the Tower Baccaturea near the Gate of St.
Romanus.[367]
[Illustration: View Across the Valley of the Lycus (Looking North).]
Owing to the configuration of the ground traversed by the Mesoteichion,
it was at this point that a besieging army generally delivered the chief
attack. Here stood the gates opening upon the streets which commanded
the hills of the city; here was the weakest part of the fortifications,
the channel of the Lycus rendering a deep moat impossible, while the dip
in the line of walls, as they descended and ascended the slopes of the
valley, put the defenders below the level occupied by the besiegers.
Here, then, for Constantinople was the “Valley of Decision”—here, in the
armour of the city, the “heel of Achilles.”
In the siege of 626 by the Avars, the first siege which the Theodosian
Walls sustained, the principal attack was made from twelve towers which
the enemy built before the fortifications extending from the Gate of
Charisius to the Gate of the Pempton, and thence to the Gate of St.
Romanus.[368]
Upon the Gate of Charisius attempts were made: by Justinian II. and his
allies for the recovery of his throne in 705;[369] by Alexius Branas
against Isaac Angelus in 1185;[370] by John Cantacuzene in 1345[371] and
through it the Comneni entered in 1081, by bribing the German guards
(Nemitzi) at the gate, and wrested the sceptre from the hand of
Nicephorus Botoniates.[372]
In 1206, during the struggle in which the Latins, soon after their
capture of the city, involved themselves with Joannicus, King of
Bulgaria, a raid was made upon the Gate of St. Romanus and the adjacent
quarter by Bulgarian troops encamped near the capital.[373] In 1328 the
gate was opened to admit Andronicus III. by two partisans, who stupefied
the guards with drink, and then assisted a company of his soldiers to
scale the walls with rope ladders.[374] In 1379 John VI. Palæologus and
his son Manuel, after effecting their escape from the prison of Anemas,
and making terms with Sultan Bajazet, entered the city by this gate, and
obliged Andronicus IV. to retire from the throne he had usurped.[375]
But it was in the sieges of the city by the Turks that this portion of
the walls was attacked most fiercely, as well as defended with the
greatest heroism. Here in 1422 Sultan Murad brought cannon to bear, for
the first time, upon the fortifications of Constantinople. His fire was
directed mainly at an old half-ruined tower beside the Lycus; but the
new weapon of warfare was still too weak to break Byzantine masonry, and
seventy balls struck the tower without producing the slightest
effect.[376]
In the siege of 1453 this portion of the walls was assailed by Sultan
Mehemet himself with the bravest of his troops and his heaviest
artillery, his tent being pitched, as already stated, about half a mile
to the west of the Gate of St. Romanus.[377] At the Murus Bacchatareus
fought the Emperor Constantine, with his 400 Genoese allies, under the
command of the brave Guistiniani, who had come to perform prodigies of
valour “per benefitio de la Christiantade et per honor del mundo.” The
three brothers, Paul, Antony, and Troilus, defended the Myriandrion,
“with the courage of Horatius Cocles.”
As the struggle proceeded two towers of the Inner Wall and a large
portion of the Outer Wall were battered to pieces by the Turkish cannon.
The enemy also succeeded in filling the moat at this point with earth
and stones, to secure an unobstructed roadway into the city whenever a
breach was effected.
On the other hand, Giustiniani repaired the breach in the Outer Wall by
the erection of a palisade, covered in front with hides and strengthened
on the rear by a rampart of stones, earth, branches, and herbage of
every description, all welded together with mortar, and supported by an
embankment of earth. Between this barricade and the Inner Wall he
furthermore excavated a trench, to replace to some extent the moat which
had been rendered useless; and to maintain his communications with the
interior of the city he opened a postern in the great wall.
Against these extemporized defences assault after assault dashed in all
its strength and fury, only to be hurled back and broken. Meanwhile,
more and more of the Inner and Outer Walls fell under the Turkish fire,
and the Sultan decided to make a general attack at daybreak on the 29th
of May. The onset upon the Mesoteichion, directed by the Sultan in
person, was, however, repeatedly repelled, and the day threatened to go
against the assailants, when a Turkish missile struck Giustiniani and
forced him to leave the field. His soldiers refused to continue the
struggle, abandoned their post, and disheartened their Greek comrades.
The Sultan, perceiving the change in the situation, roused his
janissaries to make a supreme effort. They swept forward, carried the
barricade, filled the trench behind it with corpses of the defenders,
and passing over, poured into the doomed city through every available
opening. Some made their way through the breach in the great wall,
others entered by the postern which Giustiniani had opened,[378] while
others cut a path through the heap of dead bodies which blocked the Gate
of Charisius. The heroic emperor refused to survive his empire, and
found death near the Gate of St. Romanus.[379] And through that gate,
about midday, the Sultan entered, the master of the city of Constantine.
It was the close of an epoch.
The next Theodosian gate stands between the last tower in the Outer Wall
to the north of the Gate of Charisius and the old Byzantine Palace now
called Tekfour Serai. In its present condition the entrance pierces only
the Outer Wall; for the Inner Wall terminates abruptly a little to the
south of the palace, having been broken away, probably when that edifice
was erected. By way of compensation the Outer Wall was then raised
higher and built thicker, and flanked by a large tower.
According to its place in the order of the gates, this entrance should
be the Sixth Military Gate; and the smallness of its dimensions is in
keeping with this view. But as it led to a Circus built of timber beside
the Church of St. Mamas without the walls, it was styled Porta
Xylokerkou (Ξυλοκέρκου),[380] Gate of the Wooden Circus, or more
briefly, Kerko Porta (Κερκόπορτα),[381] the Gate of the Circus.
In support of this identification there is first the fact that the Gate
of the Xylokerkus, like the gate before us, was an entrance in the Walls
of Theodosius, for it bore an inscription, which has unfortunately
disappeared, in honour of that emperor and the Prefect Constantine,
similar to the legend on the Porta Rhegiou.[382] In the next place, the
Gate of the Xylokerkus, like the entrance before us, was in the vicinity
of the Gate of Charisius, and below a palace[383] (Tekfour Serai).
[Illustration: The (So-Called) Kerko Porta.]
The history of the gate has an interest of its own. When the Emperor
Frederick Barbarossa was at Philippopolis, on his way to the Holy Land
at the head of the Third Crusade, the prevalent suspicion that he had
designs upon the Byzantine Empire found expression in the prophecy of a
certain Dositheos, a monk of the Monastery of St. John Studius, that the
German emperor would capture Constantinople, and penetrate into the city
through this entrance. Thereupon, with the view of averting the calamity
and preventing the fulfilment of the prophecy, Isaac Angelus ordered the
gate to be securely built up.[384] In 1346 the partisans of John
Cantacuzene proposed to admit him into the city by breaking the gate
open, after its long close.[385]
But what gives to the Kerko Porta its chief renown is the part which,
according to Ducas, it played in the catastrophe of 1453, under the
following circumstances. A large portion of the Outer Wall, at the
Mesoteichion, having been overthrown by the Turkish cannon, the besieged
were unable to issue from the city to the peribolos without being
exposed to the enemy’s fire. In this extremity some old men, who knew
the fortifications well, informed the emperor of a secret postern long
closed up and buried underground, at the lower part of the palace, by
which communication with the peribolos might be established.[386] This
was done, to the great advantage of the Greeks. But on the last day of
the siege, while the enemy was attempting to scale the walls with
ladders at several points, a band of fifty Turkish nobles detected the
newly opened entrance, rushed in, and mounting the walls from the
interior of the city, killed or drove off the defenders on the summit.
Thus a portion of the fortifications was secured against which
scaling-ladders could be applied without any difficulty, and soon a
considerable Turkish force stood on the Inner Wall, planted their
standards on the towers, and opened a rear fire upon the Greeks, who
were fighting in the peribolos to prevent the Turks from entering at the
great breach. The cry rose that the city was taken, whereupon an
indescribable panic seized the Greeks, already disheartened by the loss
of Giustiniani, and, abandoning all further resistance, they fled into
the city through the Gate of Charisius, many being trampled to death in
the rout. The emperor fell at his post; and the Turks poured into the
city without opposition.[387] The fate of Constantinople was thus scaled
by the opening of the Kerko Porta.
But here a difficulty occurs. In one very important particular the Kerko
Porta, as described by Ducas, does not correspond to the character of
the entrance with which it has been identified. The gate which the
historian had in mind led to the peribolos, the terrace between the two
Theodosian walls, whereas the gate below Tekfour Serai opens on the
parateichion, the terrace between the Outer Wall and the Moat. This
discrepancy may, however, be removed to some extent by supposing that
under the name of the Kerko Porta. Ducas referred to the postern which
Dr. Paspates[388] found in the transverse wall built across the northern
end of the peribolos, where the Inner Wall of Theodosius terminates
abruptly a little to the south of Tekfour Serai. The postern was
discovered in 1864, after some houses which concealed it from view had
been destroyed by fire. It was 10-½ feet high by 6 feet wide, and
although the old wall in which it stood has been, for the most part,
pulled down and replaced by a new construction, the outline of the
ancient postern can still be traced. Such an entrance might be buried
out of sight, and be generally forgotten; and to open it, when recalled
to mind in 1453, was to provide the defenders of the city with a secret
passage, as they hoped, to the peribolos and the rear of the Outer Wall,
where the contest was to be maintained to the bitter end.
The suggestion of Dr. Paspates that this was the entrance at which the
incidents recorded by Ducas occurred may, therefore, be accepted. But,
from the nature of the case, an entrance in such a position could not
have been, strictly speaking, the Gate of the Circus, and to call it the
Kerko Porta was therefore not perfectly accurate. That was, properly,
the name of the gate below Tekfour Serai. Still, the mistake was not
very serious, and, under the circumstances, was not strange. Two
entrances so near each other could easily be confounded in the report of
the events in the neighbourhood, especially when the postern in the
transverse wall had no special name of its own. Dr. Mordtmann[389]
thinks that the postern near the Kerko Porta was the one which
Giustiniani, according to Critobulus,[390] opened in the Inner Wall to
facilitate communication with the peribolos. The latter postern,
however, is represented as near the position occupied by Giustiniani and
the emperor, while the former is described as far from that point.[391]
Footnote 287:
Codinus, p. 97.
Footnote 288:
See below, p. 81.
Footnote 289:
Sozomon, iv. c. 2.
Footnote 290:
Anonymus, i. p. 38.
Footnote 291:
Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. 3.
Footnote 292:
_Synaxaria_, Octob. 25.
Footnote 293:
See below, pp. 76, 77.
Footnote 294:
_Synaxaria_, Oct. 25.
Footnote 295:
Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. 3.
Footnote 296:
_Synaxaria_, June 10.
Footnote 297:
_Ibid._, April 23.
Footnote 298:
_Ibid._, April 22.
Footnote 299:
Nicephorus Callistas, xii. c. 14.
Footnote 300:
Phrantzes, p. 253.
Footnote 301:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 109.
Footnote 302:
See below, pp. 106, 107.
Footnote 303:
It is still held in great repute, and on the Friday of Greek Easter
week is visited by immense crowds of devotees, as in the olden time.
Footnote 304:
Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. 3.
Footnote 305:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 109.
Footnote 306:
Leo Diaconus, iv. p. 64.
Footnote 307:
Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 142; Niceph. Greg., iv. p. 85.
Footnote 308:
See Muralt, _Essai de Chronographie Byzantine_, vol. ii.
Footnote 309:
Ducas, p. 184.
Footnote 310:
Nicolo Barbaro, p. 733.
Footnote 311:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 590.
Footnote 312:
_Synaxaria_, Oct. 25.
Footnote 313:
Paspates, p. 47; Mordtmann, p. 15.
Footnote 314:
_Synaxaria_, Oct. 25. Ἐν τῇ Μελανδησία πόρτῃ, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ
Κωνσταντινούπολει, τοποθεσίᾳ τοῦ Δευτέρου.
Footnote 315:
See below, p. 78.
Footnote 316:
Nicephorus Callistus, xv. c. 25, c. 28.
Footnote 317:
Agathias, v. c. 14, c. 20.
Footnote 318:
Marcellinus Comes, _ad Zenonem_.
Footnote 319:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 717.
Footnote 320:
_Ibid._, p. 590.
Footnote 321:
Mordtmann, p. 78.
Footnote 322:
_Menæa_, May 30, as quoted by Du Cange, _Constantinopolis Christiana_,
ii. p. 178.
Footnote 323:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 501; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 540.
Footnote 324:
Mordtmann, pp. 14, 15.
Footnote 325:
See above, p. 77.
Footnote 326:
Codinus, p. 47.
Footnote 327:
Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 540.
Footnote 328:
Theophanes Cont., p. 323.
Footnote 329:
Codinus, p. 126.
Footnote 330:
Pages 378-389.
Footnote 331:
Banduri, _Imp. Orient._, vii. p. 150.
Footnote 332:
Theophanes, pp. 355, 358.
Footnote 333:
See above, pp. 46, 47.
Footnote 334:
The inscription is found in the C. I. G., No. 8789. Dr. Paspates
compares it with No. 8788 in that collection. ΝΙΚΑ Η ΤΥΧΗ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥ
ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΤΟΥ ΣΥΣΤΑΤΙΚΟΥ ΝΙΚΗΤΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΒΕΝΕΤΩΝ (of the Blues)
ΕΥΝΩΟΥΝΤΩΝ. See below, p. 102.
Footnote 335:
See above, p. 47.
Footnote 336:
See below, p. 97.
Footnote 337:
Choiseul-Gouffier, _Voyage pittoresque dans l’Empire Ottoman, etc._,
vol. iv. p. 17, speaking of this gate, says, “Sur le cintre de cette
porte sont les représentations de quelques saints, donc les Turcs ont
effacé le visage.” Cf. Paspates, p. 51.
Footnote 338:
Mordtmann, p. 15.
Footnote 339:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 720.
Footnote 340:
_De Constantinopoli Expugnata_, p. 462.
Footnote 341:
Critobulus, i. c. 23, c. 27 (_Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_, vol.
v.); Phrantzes, p. 237.
Footnote 342:
Critobulus; Phrantzes, _ut supra_.
Footnote 343:
Pusculus, iv. Compare lines 165 and 169. Cf. Dolfin, s. 54.
Footnote 344:
Anonymus, iii. p. 55; _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 103.
Footnote 345:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 719.
Footnote 346:
See below, p. 84.
Footnote 347:
_E.g._ Dethier, _Le Bosphore et Consple._, p. 50.
Footnote 348:
See below, p. 83.
Footnote 349:
_Metrical Chronicle_, lines 371-429; cf. statement ἐγέρθη Γεωργίου
δόμος ... πρὸς πύλην τὴν Χαρσίαν with statement πύλην ἐάσας ἀνοικτὴν
τὴν ποταμοῦ πλησίον εἰς ἥν τῆς μάρτυρος ναὸς Κυριακῆς ὁρᾶται. See
_Byzantinshe Analecten_, von Hernn Joseph Müller, “Sitzungsberichte
der K. Akademie der Wissenshaften Philosoph. Hist.,” Classe B. 9,
1852. Cf. Cananus, p. 462, ἦν γὰρ ὁ τόπος καὶ σοῦδα καὶ πύργος πλησίον
Κυριακῆς τῆς ἁγίας, μέσον Ῥωμανοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ τῆς Χαρσῆς τε τὴν
πύλην, καὶ πλησιέστηρον τούτων εἰς τὸν ποταμόν τὸν ἐπονομαζόμενον
Λύκον.
Footnote 350:
Palladius, _Dialogus de Vita J. Chrysostomi_, Migne, xlvii. p. 34. In
front of St. Irene in the Seraglio grounds, is preserved the pedestal
on which stood the porphyry column bearing the silver statue of the
Empress Eudoxia, the occasion of Chrysostom’s banishment.
Footnote 351:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 589, Εἰσῆλθεν λεκτικίῳ ἀπὸ Λευκοῦ ποταμοῦ.
Footnote 352:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, 497.
Footnote 353:
Anonymus, iii. p. 50.
Footnote 354:
Paspates, p. 68.
Footnote 355:
See below, p. 124.
Footnote 356:
Dr. Mordtmann was the first to establish the fact. For a full
statement of his view, see _Esquisse Topographique de Consple._, pp.
16-29.
Footnote 357:
See above, pp. 80, 81.
Footnote 358:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 497. In 1299, Andronicus II. also
entered the city by this entrance in great state, after an absence of
two years (Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 290).
Footnote 359:
Anna Comn., ii. pp. 124, 129; _Metrical Chronicle_, 371-429.
Footnote 360:
Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Constantinople_, p. 105.
The church possesses two ancient _Lectionaries_, one containing the
Epistles, the other the Gospels. The history of the latter is
interesting. The MS. was presented to the Church of St. Sophia, in
1438, by a monk named Arsenius, of Crete. It was taken, the same year,
by the Patriarch Joseph to Ferrara, when he proceeded to that city to
attend the council called to negotiate the union of the Western and
Eastern Churches. Upon his death in Florence the year following it was
returned to St. Sophia. Some time after the fall of Constantinople it
came into the hands of a certain Manuel, son of Constantine, by whom
it was given, in 1568, to the church in which it is now treasured.
Footnote 361:
Ducas, p. 288.
Footnote 362:
_Paschal Chron._, pp. 719, 720; cf. Anonymus, i. p. 22, with iii. p.
50.
Footnote 363:
In the foundations of one of the towers to the north of the Gate of
the Pempton, pulled down in 1868 for the sake of building material, a
large number of marble tombstones were found, some being plain slabs,
others bearing inscriptions. Among the latter, several were to the
memory of persons connected with the body of auxiliary troops, styled
the Fœderati. Such Gothic names as Walderic, Saphnas, Bertilas,
Epoktoric, occurred in the epitaphs, _e.g._—
† ΕΝΘΔΕ ΚΤΑ ... Ι Ο
ΤΗΣ ΜΑΚΑΡΙΑΣ ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΣΕΦΝΑΣ
ΔΕΣΠΟΤΙΚΟΣ ΠΙΣΤΟΣ ΦΟΙΔΕΡΑΤΟΣ ΕΤΕΛΕΥΤΗΣΕΝ
ΔΕ ΜΗ ΝΟΕΜΒΡΙΩ ΚΔ ΗΜΕΡΑ Β
ΙΝΔ Β.
See Paspates, pp. 33, 34; _Proceedings of the Greek Literary Syllogos
of Consple._, vol. xvi., 1885; _Archæological Supplement_, pp. 17-23.
Some of the stones are in the Imperial Museum.
Footnote 364:
Critobulus, i. c. 26, c. 31.
Footnote 365:
Phrantzes, p. 253; Critobulus, i. c. 26; Leonard of Scio, “In loco
arduo Miliandri, quo urbs titubabat.”
Footnote 366:
_Leonard of Scio_, Migne, vol. clix. pp. 929, 940.
Footnote 367:
Dolfin, s. 31.
Footnote 368:
_Paschal Chron._, pp. 719, 720.
Footnote 369:
Theophanes, p. 573.
Footnote 370:
Nicetas Chon., p. 493.
Footnote 371:
Cantacuzene, iii. p. 525.
Footnote 372:
Anna Comn., ii. p. 124.
Footnote 373:
Nicetas Chon., p. 824.
Footnote 374:
Cantacuzene, i. p. 291; Nicephorus Greg., ix. pp. 419, 420.
Footnote 375:
See Muralt, _Essai de Chronographie Byzantine_, vol. ii. See below,
pp. 162, 163.
Footnote 376:
Cananus, pp. 461, 462.
Footnote 377:
Compare the narratives of Phrantzes, pp. 246, 253; Critobulus, i. c.
23, 27, 31, 34, 60; Ducas, p. 275; Leonard of Scio (_Migne_, vol.
clix.).
Footnote 378:
Critobulus, i. c. 60.
Footnote 379:
Phrantzes, p. 287.
Footnote 380:
Cantacuzene, iii. p. 558; Theophanes, p. 667.
Footnote 381:
Ducas, p. 282. The Circus was known as the Circus of St. Mamas,
because of its proximity to that church, and appears frequently in
Byzantine history.
The district associated with the Church of St. Mamas (Zonaras, xvi. c.
5, ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὸ Στενὸν τοποθεσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ ἁγίου Μάμαντος καλουμένῃ)
must have occupied the valley which extends from the Golden Horn
southwards to the village of Ortakdjilar, the territory between Eyoub
(Cosmidion) and Aivan Serai at the north-western angle of the city.
The church itself, with its monastery (Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 107, 259),
stood, probably, on the high ground near Ortakdjilar. Owing to its
charming situation, the suburb was a favourite resort, and boasted of
an Imperial palace, a hippodrome, a portico, a harbour, and, possibly,
the bridge across the Golden Horn. The indications for the
determination of the site of the suburb are: (1) it stood nearer the
Golden Horn than the Gate of Charisius did; for in the military
demonstration which Constantine Copronymus made before the land walls,
against the rebel Artavasdes, by marching up and down between the Gate
of Charisius and the Golden Gate, the emperor reached St. Mamas and
encamped there, after passing the former entrance on his march
northwards (Theophanes, pp. 645, 646). (2) The Hippodrome of St. Mamas
was in Blachernæ (Ἐν Βλαχέρναις ... ἐν τῷ ἱππικῷ τοῦ ἁγίου
Μάμαντος—Theophanes, p. 667), a term which could be used to designate
even the district of the Cosmidion (_Paschal Chron._, p. 725, τὴν
ἐκκλησίαν τῶν ἁγίων Κοσμᾶ καὶ Δαμιανοῦ, ἐν Βλαχέρναις). (3) The suburb
stood near the Cosmidion; hence the facility with which the Bulgarians
under Crum were able to ravage St. Mamas from their camp near the
Church SS. Cosmas and Damianus (Theophanes Cont., pp. 613, 614). (4)
The suburb was near the water; for it had a harbour (Theophanes, p.
591). It is also described as situated on the Propontis (Genesius, p.
102), on the Euxine (Theophanes Cont., p. 197), on the Stenon, the
Bosporus (Zonaras, _ut supra_), these names being applied in a wide
sense. (5) At the same time the Church of St. Mamas stood near the
walls (Zonaras, xiv. p. 1272, πλησίον τοῦ τείχους), and near the gate
named Porta Xylokerkou (Cedrenus, i. p. 707). This does not
necessarily imply that the church was immediately outside the gate,
but it intimates that the church was at no very great distance from
the gate, and could be easily reached from it; as, for example, the
Church of the Pegè stands related to the Gate of Selivria (see above,
p. 73). Such language would be appropriate if a branch road leading to
St. Mamas and the Golden Horn left the great road, parallel to the
walls, at the point opposite the Porta Xylokerkou.
The suburb owed much to Leo the Great, who took up his residence there
for six months, after the terrible conflagration which devastated the
city in the twelfth year of his reign (_Paschal Chron._, p. 598). To
him are ascribed all the constructions for which the suburb was
celebrated; the harbour and portico (_Paschal Chron._, _ut supra_),
the church, the palace, and the hippodrome (Anonymus, iii. pp. 57, 58;
Codinus, p. 115). The Church of St. Mamas is, however, ascribed also
to an officer in the reign of Justinian the Great, and to the sister
of the Emperor Maurice (see Du Cange, _Constantinopolis Christiana_,
iv. p. 185). There Maurice and his family were buried, after their
execution by Phocas (Codinus, p. 121). The palace was frequented by
Michael III., and there he was murdered by Basil I. (Theophanes Cont.,
p. 210). To it the Empress Irene and her son Constantine VI. retired
from the city on the occasion of the severe earthquake of 790
(Theophanes, pp. 719, 720), and in it the marriage of Constantine VI.
with Theodota was celebrated (_Ibid._ p. 728). It was burnt down by
Crum of Bulgaria (_Ibid._ pp. 785, 786), but must have been rebuilt
soon, for Theophilus took up his quarters there on the eve of his
first triumphal entrance into the city (Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._,
p. 504). The hippodrome may have been, originally, the one which
Constantine the Great constructed of wood, outside the city, and in
which the adherents of Chrysostom assembled after the bishop’s
deposition (Sozomon, viii. c. 21, συνήθον πρὸ τοῦ ἄστεος εἰς τινα
χῶρον ὅν Κωνσταντίνος ὁ Βασιλεὺς, μήπω τὴν πόλιν συνοικήσας, εἰς
ἱπποδρόμου θέαν ἐκάθηρε, ξύλοις περιτειχίσας). There Michael III. took
part in chariot races (Theophanes Cont., p. 197; cf. Theophanes, p.
731). Crum carried away some of the works of Art which adorned it
(Theophanes, pp. 785, 786). The harbour of St. Mamas appears as the
station of a fleet in the struggle between Anastasius II. and
Theodosius III. (Theophanes, pp. 591, 592), and in the struggle
between Artavasdes and Constantine Copronymus (_Ibid._, pp. 645, 646).
Footnote 382:
Banduri, _Imp. Orient._, vii. p. 150, n. 428, ΘΕΥΔΟΣΙΟΣ ΤΟΔΕ ΤΕΙΧΟΣ
ΑΝΑΞ ΚΑΙ ΥΠΑΡΧΟΣ ΕΩΑΣ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΣ ΕΤΕΥΞΑΝ ΕΝ ΗΜΑΣΙΝ ΕΞΗΚΟΝΤΑ. The
gate appears in the reign of Anastasius I. (491-518), when a nun
residing near it was mobbed and killed for sharing the emperor’s
heretical opinions (Zonaras, xiv. c. 3, p. 1220, Migne). This is
another evidence of its Theodosian origin. It must have stood in the
portion of the Theodosian Walls that still remain, for it is mentioned
in the reign of John Cantacuzene.
Footnote 383:
Ducas, pp. 282-286. Cf. Anonymus, iii. p. 50.
Footnote 384:
Nicetas Chon., pp. 528, 529.
Footnote 385:
Cantacuzene, iii. p. 558.
Footnote 386:
Ducas, p. 282, Παραπόρτιον ἕν πρὸ πολλῶν χρόνων ἀσφαλῶς πεφραγμένον,
ὑπόγαιον, πρὸς τὸ κάτωθεν μέρος τοῦ παλατίου.
Footnote 387:
Ducas, pp. 282-286.
Footnote 388:
Pages 63-67. Dr. Paspates regarded the Kerko Porta and the Porta
Xylokerkou as different gates. The latter, he held, has disappeared.
Footnote 389:
Page 27.
Footnote 390:
I. c. 60.
Footnote 391:
Ducas, p. 286.