THE TOWER OF ANEMAS—THE TOWER OF ISAAC ANGELUS.
The next portion of the walls to be considered, beginning at the tower
marked with an inscription in honour of Isaac Angelus,[515] and
terminating at the junction of the Wall of Heraclius with the Wall of
Leo, has undergone many changes in the course of its history, and,
consequently, presents problems which cannot be solved in the actual
state of our knowledge. After all is said on the subject, there will be
room for wide difference of opinion.
Originally, it would seem, this portion of the walls formed part of the
defences around the outlying Fourteenth Region of the city; later, it
constituted the north-western front of the enclosure around the Palace
of Blachernæ.
It is remarkable for its dimensions, rising in some places 68 feet above
the exterior ground-level, with a thickness varying from 33-¼ to 61-½
feet. Inside the city the ground reaches the level of the parapet-walk.
The wall is flanked by three towers, the second and third being built
side by side, with one of their walls in common. In the body of the wall
behind the twin towers, and for some distance to the north of them, were
three stories of twelve chambers, presenting in their ruin the most
impressive spectacle to be found in the circuit of the fortifications.
The first[516] of the three towers stands at the south-western angle of
the enclosure around the Palace of Blachernæ, where the fortifications
around the western spur of the Sixth Hill, to the rear of the Wall of
Manuel, join the wall now under consideration; the tower’s upper chamber
being on the level of the palace area. Upon the tower is the following
inscription, in honour of the Emperor Isaac Angelus:
ΠΡΟΣΤΑΞΙ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ ΑΝΓΕΛΟΥ ΙΑΣΑΑΚΙΟΥ
ΠΥΡΓΟΣ ΕΚ ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΣΕΩΣ ΔΙΜΕΗΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΟΥ ΕΤ
ϚϠΧΙ (6696).[517]
“Tower, by command of the Emperor Isaac Angelus, under the
superintendence of Basil ... (?) in the year 1188.”
The twin towers rise to a great height, and are supported along their
base by a massive buttress or counter-fort, 1 G1 G2 G3 G4, that stands
23 feet above the present ground-level, and projects from 19-½ to 26
feet beyond the towers.
The tower N, an irregular quadrilateral building in two stories,
measures 48 feet by 43 feet; the tower S, also quadrilateral, is 36 feet
by 47 feet. But although closely associated, the two buildings differ
greatly in style of construction. The masonry of N is irregular, having
a large number of pillars inserted into it; often partially, so that
many of them project like mock artillery. On the other hand, the tower S
is carefully put together with the usual alternate courses of stone and
brickwork, and is, moreover, ornamented with a string-course. A similar
diversity of style is observable in the counter-fort. The portion about
the tower N is built of small stones roughly joined, whereas the portion
about the tower S consists of splendid large blocks, regularly hewn, and
carefully fitted. Manifestly the towers are not the work of the same
period.
The tower N is commonly regarded as the tower of Isaac Angelus; while
the tower S has been considered, since Dr. Paspates propounded the
opinion, to be the Tower of Anemas,[518] which stood in the vicinity of
the Palace of Blachernæ, and is famous in the annals of Constantinople
as a prison for political offenders of high rank. The chambers in the
body of the wall, behind and to the north of the towers, Dr. Paspates
thinks, were the cells of that celebrated prison.
How far these views are correct can be determined only after the towers
and the chambers in the adjoining wall have been carefully surveyed. The
plan attached to this chapter will render the survey easier and
clearer.[519]
At _x_ was a small arched postern, by which one entered the vaulted
tunnel Z, that led through the counter-fort G´ to the gateway _l_ in the
north-eastern side of the tower S. The sill of the postern _x_ is now
nearly 10 feet above the exterior ground-level, but originally it was
higher, so that persons could pass in and out only by means of a ladder
that could be withdrawn at pleasure. The postern _x_, the tunnel Z, and
the gateway _l_ are now built up with solid masonry to the spring of the
vault, obliging the explorer to make his way on his hands and knees in a
most uncomfortable manner.[520] Judging from the carefulness of the
work, the passage was blocked before the Turkish Conquest.
By the gateway _l_ one enters the lofty vestibule _b_, now in total
darkness, so that all further exploration requires the aid of artificial
light. The original floor of the vestibule is buried below a mass of
earth which stands at the present level of Z and _l_.
In the wall to the right is a low arched niche, _i_; in the wall _g_,
directly in front of the explorer, a wide breach opens into E; while in
the wall to the left is a loophole O, now on the level of the present
floor of _b_.
Crawling first through O, one finds one’s self in a spacious vaulted
hall, some 200 feet long, and from 29 to 40 feet wide. The lower portion
of the hall is filled with _débris_ and earth, piled unevenly upon the
floor, in great mounds and deep hollows, which add indeed to the
weirdness of the scene, but, unfortunately, render a complete
exploration of the interior impossible.
Thirteen buttress-walls, pierced by three arches superposed, run
transversely across the hall, from the wall AA to the wall BB, and
divide the interior into fourteen compartments, which average nearly 10
feet in breadth, and vary in length from about 27 to 40 feet; the walls
AA and BB standing further apart, as they proceed from south-west to
north-east.
These compartments, excepting the first and last, were divided, as the
cavities for fixing joists in the buttresses prove, into three stories
of twelve chambers, the superposed arches affording continuous
communication between the chambers on the different floors. The chambers
on the ground floor, so far as appears, were totally dark, but those on
the two upper stories received light and air through the large loophole
in the wall BB, with which each of them was provided. The compartment C´
led to the chamber in the second story of the tower N, and at the same
time communicated at v with the terrace on which the Palace of Blachernæ
stood, and where the Mosque of Aivas Effendi is now erected.
The face of the wall AA is pierced by two tiers of loopholes, which are
openings in two superposed corridors or galleries constructed in the
body of the wall AA. These loopholes occur at irregular distances from
the buttress-walls, and some of them are partially closed by the latter,
while others are completely so.
As the galleries in AA are blocked with earth at various points, they
cannot be explored thoroughly. At the north-eastern end, the upper
gallery opens on the garden of a Turkish house near the Heraclian Wall.
Whether the south-western end communicated with the court of the Palace
of Blachernæ cannot be determined.
Returning to the vestibule _b_, and crawling next through the opening at
_i_, the explorer finds himself in F, a vaulted chamber over 29 feet
long, and about 17 feet wide. What the original height of the apartment
was cannot be ascertained, the floor being covered with a deep bed of
fine dark loam, but the ceiling is still some 23 feet high. Below a line
nearly 14 feet from the ceiling, as a sloping ledge at that elevation
makes evident, the north-eastern and north-western walls of the
apartment are much thicker than above that point. Over the ledge in the
north-eastern wall is a loophole.
The south-eastern wall is strengthened with two arches; while the
ceiling is pierced by a circular hole, which communicates with the room
on the higher story of the tower. When first explored by Dr. Paspates, a
well nearly 18 feet deep was found sunk in the floor.[521]
Before leaving the chamber the explorer should notice the shaft of a
pillar which protrudes from the south-western wall, like the shafts of
the pillars built into the open sides of the tower N.
Returning once more to the vestibule _b_, we proceed to the breach in
the wall _g_, and enter E. That the breach was made on a systematic plan
is clear from the half-arch _f_, which was constructed to support the
building after the wall _g_ had been weakened by the opening made in it.
E was a stairway-turret, in which an inclined plane, without steps,
winded about the newel, _e_, upwards and downwards. The turret is filled
with earth to the present level of the vestibule _b_, so that one cannot
descend the stairway below that point; but there can be no doubt
whatever that the stairway conducted to the original floor of the
vestibule _b_, and to the gateway _l_, and thence to the tunnel and
postern in the counter-fort. Whether it led also to an entrance to the
chambers C C C cannot be discovered under existing circumstances. The
object of the breach in _g_ was to establish communication between the
stairway, the vestibule _b_, and the tunnel Z, after the original means
of communication between them had been blocked by raising the floors of
the tunnel and the vestibule to their present level, in the manner
already described.
The stairway winds thirteen times about its newel, and ascends to within
a short distance of the summit of the turret. The summit was open, and
stood on the level of the court of the Palace of Blachernæ; but the
opening could be reached from the stairway only by means of a ladder
removable at the pleasure of the guardians of the palace, and was,
doubtless, closed with an iron door for the sake of greater security.
The walls of the turret were pierced by four loop-holes; two, placed one
above the other, looking towards the north-west, and two, similarly
arranged, facing the north-east. Those on the lower level are closed,
but the two higher ones have been enlarged, and admit to the fine
=L=-shaped chamber in the upper story of the tower, the chamber above F
and the vestibule _b_.
[Illustration: The =L=-Shaped Chamber in Upper Story of Tower =S=.]
The chamber measures some 39 feet by 33 feet, and was lighted by a large
square window in the north-western wall. A circular aperture in the
floor communicated with F; and a corresponding aperture in the vaulted
ceiling opened on the roof of the tower. The walls are furnished with
numerous air-passages, to prevent dampness, and are covered with a thin
coating of plaster. The vault of the ceiling, if we may judge from the
small cavities for joists below the spring of the arch, was concealed by
woodwork. Indeed, a portion of one of the cross-beams is still in its
place.
The stairway communicated, moreover, with the tower N, through narrow
vaulted passages that pierce the north-eastern wall of the tower at
three points; first, at the original level of the vestibule _b_, and
then at the level of the two tiers of loopholes. These passages are
choked with earth, but by the partial excavation of the lowest one of
them access was obtained to the small chamber D. It had no windows, but
a round aperture in the ceiling connected it with some unexplored part
of the tower.
From this survey of the buildings before us some satisfactory inferences
may certainly be drawn regarding their history and character; although
several points must remain obscure until the removal of the earth
accumulated within the ruins renders a complete exploration possible.
In the first place, the character of these walls and towers can be
understood only in the light of the fact that whatever other function
belonged to them, they were intended to support the terraced hill on
which the Palace of Blachernæ, to their rear, was constructed. The
unusual height and thickness of the walls, the extent to which
buttresses are here employed, were not demanded by purely military
considerations. Such features are explicable only upon the view that the
fortifications of the city at this point served also as a retaining
wall, whereby the Imperial residence could be built upon an elevation
beyond the reach of escalade, and where it would command a wide prospect
of the city and surrounding country. In fact, the buildings before us
resemble the immense substructures raised on the Palatine hill by
Septimius Severus and Caracalla to support the platform on which the
Ædes Severianæ were erected.[522]
[Illustration: “The Tower of Anemas” and “The Tower of Isaac Angelus”
(From The South-West).]
In the next place, there are at several points in these buildings so
many alterations; there is so much undoing of work done, either
rendering it useless or diverting it from its original purpose, that
these various constructions cannot be treated as parts of an edifice
built on a single systematic plan, but as an agglomeration of different
erections, put up at various periods to serve new requirements arising
from time to time. For instance, the loopholes in the wall AA have no
symmetrical relation to the buttress-walls that divide the compartments
C; some of them, as already stated, are partially closed by the
buttresses; others are entirely so, their existence being discoverable
only from the interior of the galleries in the body of that wall. It is
hard to believe that such inconsistent arrangements can be the work of
one mind and hand.
Again: the tower S and the tower N block the windows in four of the
compartments C. Surely the same builder would not thus go back upon his
work. Once more; the loopholes in the stairway-turret afford no light in
their present position, the lower pair being closed, the upper pair
forming entrances to the =L=-shaped chamber. This is not an original
arrangement.
In view of such peculiarities, the following conclusions regarding these
buildings seem the most reasonable, in the present state of our
knowledge:
(1) The wall AA was at one time the only erection here; and the two
galleries, constructed in the thickness of the wall formed with their
loopholes two tiers of batteries, so to speak, for the discharge of
missiles upon an enemy attacking this quarter of the city. A similar
system of defence was employed for the protection of the smaller
residence forming part of the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus,[523] and
for the protection of the Palace of the Bucoleon, situated on the city
walls near Tchatlady Kapou.[524]
When precisely the wall AA was erected cannot be determined; but,
judging from its height, and the manner in which it was equipped for
defence, the probable opinion is that this was done after the Palace of
Blachernæ had assumed considerable importance. Possibly, the work
belongs to the reign of Anastasius I.[525]
(2) At some later period the wall BB, equipped with buttresses within
and without, was erected to support the wall AA. The demand for such
support was doubtless occasioned by additions to the Palace of
Blachernæ, which already in the tenth century comprised several edifices
on the hill behind the wall AA.[526]
As BB superseded the original function of the galleries in AA, it was a
matter of little moment how many of the loopholes in the latter were
more or less masked by the buttresses built transversely between the two
walls. It would be enough to retain a few loopholes to light the
galleries. At the same time, advantage was taken of the buttresses to
construct, in the space between AA and BB, three stories of chambers,
for such purpose as the authorities of the palace might decide.
(3) The manner in which the towers S and N block the windows in four of
the compartments C is evidence that these towers were additions made
later than the age of BB. This view is corroborated by the marked
difference between the masonry of the towers and the masonry of the wall
BB, against which they are built.
(4) The towers S and N are so different in their respective styles of
construction that they cannot be contemporaneous buildings.
(5) The tower S is later than the tower N, for their common wall, H, is
strictly the north-eastern side of the tower N, as the similarity of the
masonry of H to that of the other sides of N makes perfectly plain. This
similarity is manifest not only in the general features of the work, but
also in the insertion of marble shafts into the wall H; in one instance
partially, after the odd fashion adopted so extensively in the open
sides of the tower N. Furthermore, the manner in which the walls of the
chamber F and the L-shaped chamber in the tower S impinge upon the wall
H shows that the former were built against the latter, and that they are
posterior in age.
(6) The stairway-turret E, as the loopholes in its sides prove, stood,
at one time, in the open light and air. If so, it must be older than the
apartments _b_, F, L, in the tower S, which enclose it.
(7) The passages communicating between the stairway and the chambers in
the tower N render it almost certain that the stairway-turret was
constructed at the same time as that tower. Thus, also, a short and
private way from the Palace of Blachernæ to the country beyond the city
bounds was provided; for it may be confidently assumed that at the foot
of the stairway there was a small gate, corresponding to the gate _l_,
and the postern _x_ at the mouth of the tunnel Z.
(8) When the stairway-turret was enclosed by the vestibule _b_, the
chamber F, and the =L=-shaped chamber, the lower loopholes of the turret
were built up as superfluous, while the upper ones were widened to form
entrances to the L-shaped chamber. Accordingly, the tower S is an old
stairway-turret enclosed within later constructions.
(9) In view of some great danger, access to the tower S from without the
city was blocked by building up the postern _x_, the tunnel Z, the gate
_l_, and the vestibule _b_, to their actual level. The portion of the
passage still left open was too narrow to be forced by an enemy, and yet
was convenient to be retained for the sake of ventilation, or as a way
in and out in some emergency. At the same time, a breach was made in the
wall _g_ to place the elevated floor of the vestibule into communication
with the stairway-turret E.
(10) What precise object the chambers C in the body of the city wall
were intended to serve is open to discussion. In the opinion of Dr.
Paspates, who was the first to explore them, they were prison-cells.
Possibly the lowest series of these chambers may have been employed for
that purpose; but, taken as a whole, the suite of apartments between AA
and BB do not convey the impression of being places of confinement.
Their spaciousness, their number, the free communication between them,
the size of the windows in the two upper stories, the proximity of the
windows to the floor, are not the characteristics of dungeons.
It is not impossible that these chambers were store-rooms or
barracks,[527] and that through the loopholes in the wall BB the palace
was defended as, previously, through the openings in AA.
Communication between the three stories must have been maintained by
means of wooden stairs or ladders. In the north-eastern wall of C’—the
chamber which gave access from the court of the Palace of Blachernæ at
_v_ to the second story of the tower N—there was an archway, now filled
up, opening upon the level of the highest series of chambers C. When the
archway was closed, communication was held through a breach at _h_.
Possibly the same series of chambers was entered from the north-eastern
end of the upper gallery in AA. Contrary to what might be supposed,
there was no access to the two upper series of chambers from the
stairway-turret. Whether the lowest series could be reached by a door at
the foot of the stairway cannot be ascertained, on account of the earth
in which the lower portion of the stairway lies buried. But it is
extremely improbable that such was the case, for the stairway-turret
belongs, we have seen, to a later age than the chambers in the body of
the adjoining wall.
With these points made clear, we are in a position to consider how far
the identification of the towers N and S, respectively, with the
historical towers of Isaac Angelus and Anemas can be established.
According to Nicetas Choniates, the Tower of Isaac Angelus stood at the
Palace of Blachernæ, and was built by that emperor to buttress and to
defend the palace, and to form, at the same time, a residence for his
personal use.[528] It was constructed with materials taken from ruined
churches on the neighbouring seashore, and from various public buildings
in the city, ruthlessly torn down for the purpose.[529]
This account makes it certain, in the first place, that the Tower of
Isaac Angelus was one of the three towers which flank the portion of the
city walls now under consideration, the portion which forms the
north-western side of the enclosure around the Palace of Blachernæ; for
these towers, and they only, at once defended and supported the terrace
upon which that palace stood.
This being the case, it is natural to suppose that the Tower of Isaac
Angelus is the tower which bears the inscription in his honour.[530] But
this opinion is attended with difficulties. For the tower in question
does not differ in any marked manner from an ordinary tower in the
fortifications of the city. It is not specially fitted for a residence,
nor does it possess features which render it worthy to have a place in
history among the notable buildings erected by a sovereign. Furthermore,
it is not constructed, to any striking degree, with materials drawn from
other edifices.
To all this it is possible to reply that we do not see the tower in its
original condition; that its upper story, which stood on the level of
the palace area to the rear, is gone; that the tower, as it stands,
consists largely of Turkish repairs; that the extent to which, in its
original state, it resembled, or failed to resemble, the description of
the Tower of Isaac Angelus as given by Nicetas, cannot be accurately
known, and that, consequently, the question regarding the identity of
the tower must be decided by the inscription found upon the building.
There is force in this rejoinder; and it is the conclusion we must
adopt, if there are not stronger reasons for identifying the Tower of
Isaac Angelus with one or other of the two adjoining towers, N and S.
[Illustration: “The Tower of Anemas” and “The Tower of Isaac Angelus”
(From the North-West).]
The claims of the tower N to be the Tower of Isaac Angelus rest upon its
strong resemblance to the description which Nicetas has given of the
latter building. His description seems a photograph of that tower. Like
the Tower of Isaac Angelus, the tower N, besides defending and
supporting the Palace of Blachernæ, was pre-eminently a residential
tower; and the numerous pillars employed in its construction betray
clearly the fact that it was built with materials taken from other
edifices, some of which may well have been churches. The upper story,
which was reached from the court of the palace behind it, formed a
spacious apartment 22-¼ by 27-½ feet, and about 18 feet high. Its
north-western wall was pierced by three large round-headed windows,
opening, as pillars placed below them for supports indicate, upon a
balcony which commanded a beautiful view of the country about the head
of the Golden Horn. Another window led to a small balcony on the
south-western side of the tower, while a fifth looked towards the Golden
Horn and the hills beyond. The apartment might well be styled the
Belvedere of the Palace of Blachernæ. The lower story of the tower,
which was reached by a short flight of steps descending from the palace
court to the vestibule C1, cannot be explored, being filled with earth;
but, judging from its arched entrance and the large square window in the
north-western wall, it was a commodious room, with the advantage of
affording more privacy than the apartment above it. What was the object
of the dark rooms situated below these two stories, at different levels
of the tower, and reached from the stairway-turret outside it, is open
to discussion. The stairway, as already intimated, led also to the
surrounding country. Taking all these features of the tower N into
consideration, a very strong case can be made in favour of the opinion
that it is the Tower of Isaac Angelus.
How this conclusion should affect our views regarding the inscription in
honour of that emperor found on the tower L is a point about which minds
may differ. The inscription may be in its proper place, and thereby
prove that the tower it marks was also an erection of Isaac Angelus,
although not the one to which Nicetas refers. And some countenance is
lent to this view by a certain similarity in the Byzantine masonry of
the towers L and N. But, on the hypothesis that L and N were both
erected by Isaac Angelus, it is extremely strange that the inscription
in his honour should have been placed upon the inferior tower, and not
upon the one which formed his residence and had some architectural
pretensions.
This objection can be met, indeed, either by assuming that another
inscription in honour of Isaac Angelus stood on the tower N, but has
disappeared; or, with Dr. Paspates,[531] it may be maintained that the
inscription is not in its proper place, but belonged originally to the
counter-fort supporting the tower N, and was transferred thence to the
tower L when the latter was repaired.
In favour of this alternative it may be urged that the tower L has,
manifestly, undergone repair; that some of the materials used for that
purpose may have been taken from the counter-fort G4, which has been to
a great extent stripped of its facing; and that the inscription on the
tower L is not in a symmetrical position, being too much to the left,
and somewhat too high for the size of its lettering. But to all this
there is the serious objection that the inscribed slab is found in the
Byzantine portion of the tower; while the idea that the counter-fort G4
was defaced in Byzantine days for the sake of repairing the tower L is
against all probability.
We pass next to the identification of the Tower of Anemas with the tower
S. The Tower of Anemas is first mentioned by Anna Comnena in the twelfth
century, as the prison in which a certain Anemas was confined for having
taken a leading part in a conspiracy to assassinate her father, the
Emperor Alexius Comnenus. According to the Imperial authoress, it was a
tower in the city walls in the neighbourhood of the Palace of Blachernæ,
and owed its name to the circumstance that Anemas was the first prisoner
who occupied it.[532]
Another indication of the situation of the tower is given by Leonard of
Scio,[533] when he states that the towers “Avenides” stood near the Xylo
Porta, the gate at the extremity of the land-walls beside the Golden
Horn. To this should be added the indication that the tower was one of a
group, for Phrantzes[534] and Leonard of Scio employ the plural form,
“the Anemas Towers.”
Whether the tower was an erection of Alexius Comnenus or an earlier
building is not recorded; but in either case it was in existence in the
reign of that emperor, and, consequently, was older than any work
belonging to the time of Isaac Angelus.
With these indications as the basis for a decision, can the claim that
the tower S is the Tower of Anemas be maintained? The tower answers to
the description of Anna Comnena in being a tower in the city walls close
to the Palace of Blachernæ. Nor is its situation at variance with the
statement of Leonard of Scio that it stood in the neighbourhood of the
Xylo Porta, although there are three towers between it and that gate.
Furthermore, it is one of a pair of towers that might be designated the
Towers of Anemas.
The main reason, however, which induced Dr. Paspates to identify the
tower S with the prison of Anemas was the proximity of the tower to the
chambers C in the adjoining wall, which he regarded as prison-cells.
This view of the character of those chambers is, for reasons already
intimated, extremely doubtful. But even if prison-cells, that fact alone
would not be conclusive proof that they were the prison of Anemas. For
the prison of Anemas is always described as a tower; and by no stretch
of language can that designation be applied to the chambers in the body
of the wall.[535]
The force of this objection would, indeed, be met if proof were
forthcoming that the tower S gave access to the chambers C, and formed
an integral part of a common system. But the evidence is all on the
other side. From the manner in which the tower S blocks the windows of
some of the chambers, it is clear, as already observed, that the tower S
and the adjoining chambers belong to different periods, and were built
without regard to each other. There is no trace of any means of
communication between the tower and the two upper series of chambers,
and we have no reason to think, but the reverse, that the lowest series
of chambers could be reached from it. So far as the chambers are
concerned, the tower S is an independent building, upon whose identity
they throw no light. Whether it was the prison of Anemas must be
determined by its own character. Was it suitable for a prison? Above
all, is its age compatible with the view that it was the prison of
Anemas?
In answer to the former question, it cannot be denied that the tower S
could be used as a place of confinement. The chamber F, which is
supposed to have been a cistern, may have been a dungeon. The =L=-shaped
chamber in the second story may have served for the detention of great
personages placed under arrest. Still, on the whole, the tower S seems
rather an extension of the residential tower N than a dungeon.
But the point of most importance in the whole discussion is the
comparative ages of the towers N and S. As a building in existence when
Alexius Comnenus occupied the throne of Constantinople, the Tower of
Anemas was, at least, seventy years older than the Tower of Isaac
Angelus. Hence, if the tower S is the former, it must be older than the
tower N, which Dr. Paspates identifies with the Tower of Isaac Angelus.
But the evidence which has been submitted goes to prove that the tower S
is more recent than the tower N. These towers, therefore, cannot be,
respectively, the Tower of Anemas and the Tower of Isaac Angelus.
Nothing can prove that the tower S is the Tower of Anemas, until S is
shown to be earlier than N, or the identification of the tower N with
the Tower of Isaac Angelus is abandoned as erroneous.
Dr. Paspates,[536] indeed, assigned the tower S to the reign of
Theophilus in the ninth century, on the ground that a block of stone
upon which some letters of that emperor’s name are inscribed is built
into the tower’s north-western face. But a little attention to the way
in which that stone is fitted into the masonry will make it perfectly
evident that the stone has not been placed there to bear part of an
inscription, but as ordinary material of construction, obtained from
some other edifice. Consequently, it throws no light upon the age of the
tower.
Where, then, was the Tower of Anemas? Perhaps, in our present state of
knowledge, no answer which will commend itself as perfectly satisfactory
can be given to the question.
The simplest solution of the difficult problem is that the tower L,
which bears the inscription in honour of Isaac Angelus, is, after all,
the tower erected by that emperor, though greatly altered by injuries
and repairs; and that the towers N and S together constituted the
prison-tower of Anemas, S being a later addition.
Others may prefer to hold the view that the tower N is the Tower of
Anemas, and the tower S that of Isaac Angelus, pointing in support of
this opinion to the cells in the tower N, reached from the stairway by
narrow vaulted passages. This would mean, practically, that the Tower of
Isaac Angelus was the Tower of Anemas renovated and enlarged.
Possibly, others may be disposed, notwithstanding the inscription of
Isaac Angelus upon it, to regard the tower L as the Tower of Anemas, and
the tower N, with the later addition of S, as that of Isaac Angelus.
If none of these views is acceptable, we must fall back upon the opinion
which prevailed before Dr. Paspates discovered the chambers adjoining
the tower N and S, viz. that the towers N and S together formed the
Tower of Isaac Angelus, and that the Tower of Anemas was one of the
three towers in the Heraclian Wall.
This was the view of the Patriarch Constantius,[537] who writes: “The
Tower of Anemas still exists. On its side facing the Holy Well of
Blachernæ it has a large window, with a smaller one above.”
This opinion prevailed in Constantinople also in the sixteenth century,
for Leunclavius was informed by Zygomales that the Towers of Anemas were
the Towers of the Pentapyrgion,[538] the name given to the citadel
formed by the Walls of Heraclius and Leo.
NOTE.—For the illustrations facing respectively pp. 150, 156, and
for the lower illustration facing p. 162, I am indebted to the
kindness of my colleague, Professor W. Ormiston. The photographs
were taken on the 10th of July, 1894, shortly before the occurrence
of the severe earthquake which has made that day memorable in
Constantinople. Our situation in the chambers at such a time was not
enviable. But we learned that day what an earthquake meant in the
old history of the walls of the city.
[Illustration: View of the Interior of “The Prison of Anemas” Looking
North-West (Being The Substructures Supporting The Palace of
Blachernæ).]
There is nothing in this view opposed to the fact that the Tower of
Anemas stood in the city walls near the Palace of Blachernæ; and a
strong argument in its favour may be based upon the association of the
tower with the Xylo Porta by Leonard of Scio, when he relates to Pope
Nicholas how Jerome from Italy, and Leonardo de Langasco from Genoa, at
the head of their companions-in-arms, guarded the Xylo Porta and the
towers named Avenides (clearly Anemades): “Hieronymus Italianus,
Leonardus de Langasco, Genovensis, cum multis sociis, Xylo Portam et
turres quos Avenides vocant, impensis cardinalis reparatas,
spectabant.”[539] This statement is repeated by Zorzo Dolfin.[540]
The Xylo Porta, without question, was at Aivan Serai Kapoussi, to the
north of the Wall of Heraclius, and immediately beside the Golden
Horn;[541] and the towers which would most appropriately be entrusted to
soldiers defending that entrance are the towers nearest to it, _viz._
the three towers of the Heraclian Wall. At all events, the designation,
“turres Avenides,” as used by Leonard of Scio, must include them, even
if it comprised others also.
One thing is certain; the commonly accepted view that the towers N and S
represent, respectively, the historical Towers of Isaac Angelus and of
Anemas must, in one way or another, be corrected.
NOTE.
Two or three additional passages which bear upon the question under
discussion may be noticed, notwithstanding their vagueness.
The statement of Phrantzes (p. 252), among others, that in the siege
of 1453 the charge of the palace and all about it was entrusted to
Minotto, the Baillus of the Venetian colony, might be employed in
favour of the view that the “turres Avenides” which Leonard of Scio
associates with the Xylo Porta, and assigns to Jerome and Leonardus
de Langasco, could not be the towers S and N, but the towers of the
Heraclian Wall. For the towers S and N, being attached to the Palace
of Blachernæ, would fall under the care of Minotto. There is force
in the argument. But it is weakened by statements of Pusculus (iv.
173) and Zorzo Dolfin (s. 55), which imply that the palace defended
by Minotto was the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus. For both of these
writers place the Gate of the Palace (see above, p. 47) between the
Gate of Charisius (Edirnè Kapoussi) and the Gate of the Kaligaria
(Egri Kapou), and Pusculus describes the palace concerned as “Regia
celsa,” an apt description of a building seated, like Tekfour Serai,
upon the walls.
The references made to the Tower of Anemas, though not under its
name, by the Spanish ambassador Clavijo, who visited the Byzantine
Court in 1403, should not be overlooked (see _Constantinople, ses
Sanctuaires et ses Reliques_, translated into French by Ph. Bruun,
Odessa). Speaking of the Church of Blachernæ (p. 15), he describes
it as “située dans la ville près d’un châteaufort, servant de
demeure aux empereurs; ce fort a été démoli par un empereur, parce
qu’il y avait été enfermé par son fils.” The fact that Clavijo
identifies the Church of Blachernæ by its vicinity to the Tower of
Anemas may be pressed into the service of the opinion that the tower
in question stood in the Wall of Heraclius. For there is no more
appropriate way of indicating the situation of that church than by
saying that it stands a little to the rear of the Heraclian Wall. So
appropriate is that mode of identification, that the Patriarch
Constantius has recourse to it when, conversely, he indicates the
situation of the Tower of Anemas (which he considered to be the
southernmost Heraclian tower): “The Tower of Anemas still exists,”
he says. “On its side facing the Holy Well of Blachernæ it has a
large window, with a smaller one above” (see above, p. 150). But,
unfortunately, to describe one building as “near” another is often
the most tantalizing aid to its discovery that can be offered. The
towers S and N cannot be said to be far from the Church of
Blachernæ. Perhaps some injury to one of the Heraclian towers might
explain the statement of Clavijo, that the Tower of Anemas had been
destroyed; but could he have mistaken the citadel formed by the
Walls of Heraclius and Leo for an Imperial residence? Such language
suggests rather the towers S and N.
Again, the declaration of the Spanish envoy that the tower (“une
prison très profonde et obscure”) had been demolished by the Emperor
John VI. Palæologus (“_L’empereur s’empressa de démolir la tour où
il avait été enferme_,” pp. 19, 20) might seem to imply that the
tower has disappeared, and thus to relieve us from all the labour
involved in the effort to identify it. But the statement of Leonard
of Scio that the “turres Avenides” were repaired by Cardinal Isidore
(“impensis cardinalis reparatas”), while it confirms the declaration
of Clavijo to some extent, is opposed to the idea of the total
destruction and disappearance of the famous prison-tower.
Or, the statement that the Tower of Anemas was demolished, when
combined with the statement that it was repaired, might seem to open
a way out of the difficulties involved in regarding the tower S as
the Tower of Anemas, although more recent than the tower N. May not
the tower S be, in its present form, a reconstruction, after the
reign of Isaac Angelus, of a tower originally older than that
emperor’s day, and be thus at once more ancient and more modern than
the tower N? But this solution of the puzzle cannot be allowed;
there is the fatal objection that the common wall II belonged first
to the tower N.
Finally, in the Venetian account of the attempt made by Carlo Zen to
liberate John VI. Palæologus from the Tower of Anemas, Zen is
represented as reaching the foot of the tower in a boat, and
clambering up to the window of the prison by means of a rope. This
would exclude the claim of a Heraclian tower to be the Tower of
Anemas, for that wall could not be reached by boat. One might
approach the towers S and N in that way, if the moat before Leo’s
Wall extended from the Golden Horn to the Wall of Manuel Comnenus,
and was full of water. But this is an extremely improbable
supposition, when we hear nothing of the sort in the history of the
attack upon this side of the city by the Crusaders in 1203,
notwithstanding the minute description of the territory from the pen
of Nicetas Choniates and other historians of that time. Nor is such
a thing mentioned in the history of the last siege, when the moat
before the Wall of Leo was reconstructed. The whole story of Carlo
Zen’s efforts to deliver John Palæologus savours too much of romance
to have any topographical value. The story may be read in Le Beau’s
_Histoire du Bas-Empire_, vol. xii. pp. 174-179.
Footnote 516:
See below, p. 132.
Footnote 517:
See tower L, in Map facing p. 115.
Footnote 518:
See illustration facing p. 248.
Footnote 519:
Pages 22-32, where Dr. Paspates gives an interesting account of his
discovery and exploration of the chambers.
Footnote 520:
The plan was taken by Mr. Hanford W. Edson, formerly Instructor in
Mathematics at Robert College. It was drawn by Professor Alfred
Hamlin, of Columbia College, and revised by Mr. Arthur E. Henderson,
Architect.
Footnote 521:
Since the above was written this way of entering the tower and
chambers has been closed. One gains admittance now at the opening V,
from the courtyard of the Mosque of Aivas Effendi.
Footnote 522:
In the opinion of some authorities, _e.g._ Professor Strzygowski, this
apartment was a cistern.
Footnote 523:
Cf. Lanciani, _The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome_, pp. 178,
179, 182.
Footnote 524:
See the loophole windows in plan of that residence, facing p. 109.
Footnote 525:
See below, p. 273.
Footnote 526:
See above, p. 128.
Footnote 527:
_Ut supra._
Footnote 528:
Speaking of similar substructures below the Domus Gaiana in the Palace
of the Cæsars at Rome, Lanciani remarks: “We gain by them the true
idea of the human fourmillière of slaves, servants, freed men, and
guards, which lived and moved and worked in the substrata of the
Palatine, serving the court in silence and almost in darkness” (_The
Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome_, p. 150).
Footnote 529:
Nicetas Chon., pp. 580, 581, Προθέμενος δὲ καὶ πύργον τεκτήνασθαι κατὰ
τὸ ἐν Βλαχέρναις παλάτιον, ἅμα μὲν εἰς ἔρυμα τῶν ἀνακτόρων, ὡς ἔφασκε,
καὶ ὑπέρεισμα, ἅμα δὲ καὶ εἰς ἐνοίκησιν ἐαυτῷ.
Footnote 530:
_Ibid. ut supra._
Footnote 531:
See above, p. 132. The tower is marked L on the Map which faces p.
115.
Footnote 532:
Page 39.
Footnote 533:
Anna Comn., xii. 161, 162, where the prison of Anemas, ἡ τοῦ Ἀνεμᾶ
εἱρκτή, is described as πύργος δ᾽ ἦν εἷς τις τῶν ἀγχοῦ τῶν ἐν
Βλαχέρναις ἀνακτόρων διακειμένων τειχῶν τῆς πόλεως: also p. 161, τὸν
ἀγχοῦ τῶν ἀνακτόρων ᾠκοδομημένον πύργον.
Footnote 534:
See his Epistle to Pope Nicholas V.
Footnote 535:
Page 51, Ἐν τοῖς πύργοις τοῖς λεγομένοις Ἀδεμανίδες πλησίον Βλαχέρνων.
The name Anemas appears first in Theophanes, p. 749, as the surname of
a certain Bardanius, τὸ ἐπίκλην Ἀνεμᾶν, in the reign of Nicephorus I.,
802-811.
Footnote 536:
The Byzantine authors who refer to the Prison of Anemas in express
terms are: Anna Comnena, xii. pp. 161, 162; Nicetas Choniates, p. 455
(ἡ τοῦ Ἀνεμᾶ φρουρὰ); Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 378; Cantacuzene, lib.
ii. p. 329; Phrantzes, p. 51; Ducas, p. 45. Once, Pachymeres (vol. ii.
p. 409) speaks of ταῖς κατὰ τὰς Βλαχέρνας εἱρκταῖς, in which the
Despot Michael and his family were confined.
Footnote 537:
Page 31.
Footnote 538:
_Ancient and Modern Consple._, pp. 11, 45. The patriarch supposed that
the Palace of Blachernæ stood within the enclosure formed by the Wall
of Heraclius and the Wall of Leo. _Ibid._, p. 44.
Footnote 539:
_Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 206.
Footnote 540:
See his Epistle to Pope Nicholas V.
Footnote 541:
Dolfin, s. 64, “Hieronymo Italiano, Leonardo da Languasto Genoexe, cum
molti compagni, la porta Chsilo et le Torre Anemande, le qual el
cardinal a sue spese hauea reparato, diffensaua.”
Footnote 542:
See below, p. 173.