THE FORTIFICATIONS ON THE NORTH-WESTERN SIDE OF THE CITY, BEFORE THE
SEVENTH CENTURY.
At the Gate of the Xylokerkus, or the Kerko Porta, the Theodosian Walls
come to an abrupt termination, and the line of defence from that point
to the Golden Horn is continued by fortifications which, for the most
part, did not exist before the seventh century. Along the greater
portion of their course these bulwarks consisted of a single wall,
without a moat; but at a short distance from the water, where they stand
on level ground, they formed a double wall, which was at one time
protected by a moat and constituted a citadel at the north-western angle
of the city.
With the exception of that citadel’s outer wall, erected by Leo the
Armenian, the defences from the Kerko Porta to the Golden Horn have
usually been ascribed to the Emperor Heraclius.[448] But this opinion is
at variance both with history, and with the striking diversity in
construction exhibited by the various portions of the works. As a matter
of fact, the fortifications extending from the Kerko Porta to the Golden
Horn comprise walls that belong to, at least, three periods: the Wall of
Heraclius, the Wall of Leo, and the Wall of Manuel Comnenus.[449]
Curiously enough, the Wall of Manuel Comnenus, though latest in time,
stands first in order of position, for it intervenes between the
Theodosian Walls, on the one hand, and the Heraclian and Leonine Walls,
on the other.
Here, therefore, a question presents itself which must be answered
before proceeding to the study of the walls just mentioned. If the
various portions of the fortifications between the Kerko Porta and the
Golden Horn did not come, respectively, into existence until the
seventh, ninth, and eleventh centuries, how was the north-western side
of the city defended previous to the erection of those walls?
Two answers have been given to this important and very difficult
question. Both agree in maintaining that the city was defended on the
north-west by the prolongation of the Theodosian Walls; but they differ
as regards the precise direction in which the walls were carried down to
the Golden Horn.
One view is that the Theodosian Walls upon leaving the Kerko Porta
turned north-eastwards, to follow the _eastern_ spur of the Sixth
Hill,[450] along a line terminating somewhere in the vicinity of Balat
Kapoussi.[451] According to this view, the quarter of Blachernæ, which
until 627 lay outside the city limits,[452] was the territory situated
between the spur just mentioned and the line occupied eventually by the
Walls of Comnenus and Heraclius.
The second view on the subject is that the two Theodosian Walls were
carried northwards along the _western_ spur of the Sixth Hill, and
enclosed it on every side. On this supposition, the suburb of Blachernæ,
with its celebrated Church of the Theotokos, without the fortifications,
was the plain extending from the foot of the western spur of the Sixth
Hill to the Golden Horn, the plain occupied now by the quarter of Aivan
Serai.[453]
In support of the first opinion, there is the undoubted fact that the
Theodosian Walls, as they approach the Kerko Porta, bend
north-eastwards, so that if continued in that direction they would reach
the Golden Horn near the Greek Church of St. Demetrius, to the west of
Balat Kapoussi.
The opinion that the Theodosian Walls were carried to the foot of the
western spur of the Sixth Hill rests upon the fact that traces of old
fortifications enclosing that spur are still distinctly visible; while
the Theodosian Moat is, moreover, continued towards Aivan Serai, until
it is stopped by the Wall of Manuel, which runs transversely to it.[454]
The fortifications referred to are found mostly to the rear of the
Comnenian Wall, but portions of them are seen also to the north of it.
One line of the fortifications proceeded from the Kerko Porta along the
western flank of the spur, and joined the city walls a little to the
south of the “Tower of Isaac Angelus;” another line ran from that gate
along the eastern side of the spur to the fountain Tsinar Tchesmè in the
quarter of Londja, a short distance to the south-east of the Holy Well
which marks the site of the Church of Blachernæ; while a third wall,
facing the Golden Horn, defended the northern side of the spur, and
abutted against the city walls, very near the southern end of the Wall
of Heraclius.[455] Within the acropolis formed by these works of
defence, the Palace of Blachernæ and the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus
were in due time erected.
Both answers to the question before us have much in their favour, and
possibly the truth on the subject is to be found in their combination.
Their respective values as rival theories will, perhaps, be more easily
estimated, if we begin with the consideration of the second answer.
[Illustration: Balcony in the Southern Façade of the Palace of the
Porphyrogenitus.]
That the western spur of the Sixth Hill was a fortified position early
in the history of the city can scarcely be disputed. It must have been
so, to commence at the lowest date, before the erection of the Wall of
the Emperor Manuel in the twelfth century; for it was to get clear of
the fortifications on that spur that the Comnenian Wall describes the
remarkable detour it makes in proceeding from the court of the Palace of
the Porphyrogenitus towards the Golden Horn, running out westwards for a
considerable distance before taking a northerly course in the direction
of the harbour. Then, there is reason to believe that the spur was
fortified as early as the seventh century. This is implied in the
accounts we have of the siege of Constantinople by the Avars in 627,
when we hear of fortifications, named the Wall of Blachernæ,[456] the
Pteron[457] or Proteichisma,[458] outside of which stood the Church of
Blachernæ and the Church of St. Nicholas.[459]
[Illustration: Archway leading to the Gate of the Xylokerkus (Screen
Tower). The Palace of the Porphyrogenitus (From The West).]
For these sanctuaries were situated precisely at the foot of the western
spur of the Sixth Hill, the site of the former being marked by the Holy
Well of Blachernæ at Aivan Serai, that of the latter by the Holy Well in
the ground between the Wall of Heraclius and the Wall of Leo.
It is also in favour of the presence of fortifications on the spur in
the seventh century to find that the historians of the Avar siege are
silent as to any danger incurred by the Palace of Blachernæ, which stood
on the spur, when the Church of St. Nicholas was burnt down, and when
the Church of Blachernæ narrowly escaped the same fate. A similar
silence is observed as to any advantage derived by the palace from the
erection of the Wall of Heraclius, at the close of the war.
But the age of these fortifications may be carried back to a still
earlier date than the seventh century; for, according to the _Notitia_,
the Fourteenth Region of the city, which stood on the Sixth Hill, was
defended by a wall of its own, _proprio muro vallata_, so as to appear a
distinct town.[460] The fortifications on the Sixth Hill may therefore
claim to have originally constituted the defences of that Region, and
therefore to be as old, at least, as the reign of Theodosius II.
But although the origin of the fortifications around the western spur of
the Sixth Hill may thus be carried so far back, it is a mistake to
regard them as a structural prolongation of the Theodosian Walls. On the
contrary, they are distinct and independent constructions. They proceed
northwards, while the latter make for the north-east; so that the Wall
of Anthemius, if produced, would stand to the east of the former, while
the Wall of the Prefect Constantine under similar circumstances would
cut them transversely. Furthermore, the outer wall, north of the Kerko
Porta, is built almost at right angles against the wall of the Prefect
Constantine, with a distinct line of junction, and stands so close to
the Kerko Porta that the gate, what with the wall on one side and the
tower screening the western façade of the Palace of Porphyrogenitus[461]
upon the other, is almost crushed between them. Such a situation could
never have been assigned to the gate, if the walls on either hand
belonged to the same construction. It should also be added that the
masonry of the walls around the spur is different from that in the Walls
of Theodosius.
How the non-Theodosian character of the walls to the north of the Kerko
Porta is to be accounted for admits of more than one explanation. It may
be due to changes in works of Theodosian origin, or to the fact that
they are works of an earlier period,[462] or to the fact that they are
works of a later age. On the supposition that these fortifications
defended originally the Fourteenth Region, the second explanation is the
most probable, for the division of the city into Regions was anterior to
Theodosius II., and there is every reason to believe that the isolated
Fourteenth Region was a fortified suburb from the earliest period of its
history.[463]
Accordingly, the second answer to the question how the north-western
side of the city was defended before the erection of the Walls of
Heraclius, Leo, and Manuel Comnenus, would have more in its favour if it
maintained that the defence was effected by the junction of the
Theodosian Walls with pre-existing fortifications around the western
spur of the Sixth Hill.[464]
The chief difficulty attending this view is that the _Notitia_ speaks of
the Fourteenth Region as still an isolated suburb in the reign of
Theodosius II.[465]
As regards the opinion that the Theodosian Walls proceeded from the
Kerko Porta to the Golden Horn in a north-eastern course and reached the
water between the Church of St. Demetrius and Balat Kapoussi, it has
upon its side the patent fact that those walls, if produced according to
their trend at the Kerko Porta, would certainly follow the line
indicated. On this view, the walls around the western spur of the Sixth
Hill were either the fortifications of the Fourteenth Region (modified),
or walls built expressly to defend the Palace of Blachernæ, after the
fifth century.
The trend of the walls at the Kerko Porta affords, unquestionably, a
very strong argument for this view of the case. But the view is open to
objections. The absence of all traces of the walls along the line
indicated should, perhaps, not be pressed, as such works are apt to
disappear when superseded. A more serious objection is that the
Theodosian Moat does not follow the north-eastern course of the walls,
but proceeds northwards, for a short distance, in the direction of Aivan
Serai.
Furthermore, if the western spur of the Sixth Hill was already fortified
when the Theodosian Walls were built, it is reasonable to suppose that
the land defences of the city were completed by the simple expedient of
uniting the new works with the old. Any other proceeding appears
cumbrous and superfluous.
Still, after all is said, the information we have is so meagre, the
changes made in the walls beside the Kerko Porta have manifestly been so
numerous, that a decided judgment upon the point at issue does not seem
warranted by the evidence at our command.
Footnote 449:
Paspates, p. 19.
Footnote 450:
Dr. Mordtmann was the first to prove this. See below, p. 122.
Footnote 451:
The Sixth Hill sends three spurs towards the Golden Horn, which may be
distinguished as the eastern, middle, and western.
Footnote 452:
This is the view of Dr. Paspates, pp. 2, 3, 92.
Footnote 453:
Procopius (_De Æd._, i. c. 3), speaking of the Church of Blachernæ,
describes it as situated πρὸ τοῦ περιβόλου, ἐν χώρῳ καλουμένῳ
Βλαχέρναις. Cf. _Paschal Chron._, p. 726.
Footnote 454:
This is the view of Dr. Mordtmann, p. 11.
Footnote 455:
Previous to the erection of Manuel’s Wall, the Moat may have continued
further north, protecting the wall along the western side of the spur.
Footnote 456:
Cf. Paspates, pp. 92-99, regarding the remains of the walls around the
spur, the area they enclose, and their character. According to him,
the wall on the eastern side of the spur measures m. 157.81 in length,
and is in some parts m. 13-14 high; the wall along the northern side
of the spur is m. 180.90 long, and m. 13-14 high; the wall on the
western side of the spur is m. 35 long, and as high as the adjoining
walls of the city.
Footnote 457:
_Paschal Chron._, 724, τὸ τεῖχος Βλαχερνῶν. This was before the
erection of the Wall of Heraclius.
Footnote 458:
_Ibid._, p. 726, ἔξωθεν τοῦ καλουμένου Πτεροῦ.
Footnote 459:
Nicephorus, Patriarcha CP., p. 20, τὸ Βλαχερνῶν προτείχισμα τὸ
καλούμενον Πτερόν.
Footnote 460:
_Paschal Chron._, _ut supra_; cf. Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. 3, c. 6.
Footnote 461:
_Notitia, ad Reg._ XIV.
Footnote 462:
See above, p. 111. See also illustration facing p. 118.
Footnote 463:
With alterations made in the course of time by repairs.
Footnote 464:
_Notitia, ad Reg. XIV._ “Regio sane licet in urbis quartadecima
numeretur, tamen quia spatio interjecto divisa est, muro proprio
vallata alterius quomodo speciem civitatis ostendit.”
Dionysius Byzantius derives the name Blachernæ from a barbarian
chieftain who was settled there. If so, it is extremely probable that
the Sixth Hill was fortified, to some extent, even before the
foundation of Constantinople. See Gyllius, _De Top. C.P._, iv. c. 5.
Footnote 465:
On this view, a wall must, also, be supposed to have proceeded from
Londja to the Golden Horn, completing the circuit of the
fortifications around the city.
Footnote 466:
_Notitia, ad Reg. XIV._