THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR HERACLIUS: THE WALL OF THE EMPEROR LEO THE
ARMENIAN.
The fortifications extending from the north-western angle of the
enclosure around the Palace of Blachernæ to the Golden Horn consist of
two parallel lines, connected by transverse walls, so as to form a
citadel beside the Golden Horn. The inner wall belongs to the reign of
Heraclius; the outer is an erection of Leo V., the Armenian.
The Heraclian Wall was constructed in 627, under the following
circumstances:—[555]
Until that year the quarter of Blachernæ, at the foot of the Sixth Hill,
was a suburb immediately outside the fortifications.[556] The fact that
the suburb and its celebrated Church of the Theotokos, containing, it
was believed, the girdle of the Blessed Virgin, were thus exposed to the
attacks of an enemy did not occasion serious concern. In the opinion of
the devout citizens of Constantinople, the shrine, so far from needing
protection, formed one of the strongest bulwarks of the capital. At the
worst, when danger threatened, the treasures of the sanctuary could be
readily transported into the city, as was done in the reign of Justinian
the Great.[557]
But in 627, Constantinople learned what a siege really meant. Persia and
the Empire were then at war with each other; and while Heraclius was
carrying the campaign into the enemy’s country, a Persian army had
encamped at Chalcedon for the purpose of joining the Avars in laying
siege to the capital.[558]
As the Byzantine fleet, however, commanded the Bosporus, the allies
could not unite their forces, and the Avars were left to act alone. The
undertaking proved too difficult for the barbarians, notwithstanding the
vigour with which it was conducted, and the siege was raised. But before
retiring, a troop of Avaric horse set itself to devastate the suburbs,
and having fired the Church of SS. Cosmas and Damianus, and the Church
of St. Nicholas, dashed into the open ground beside the Church of
Blachernæ, intent upon devoting also that sacred edifice to the flames.
For some reason, that purpose was not carried into effect, and the
church escaped all injury. This marvellous deliverance enhanced, indeed,
the reputation of the Theotokos, but it likewise aroused a sense of the
danger to which her shrine was liable, and so the Government of the day
ordered the immediate erection of a wall along the western side of the
Blachernæ quarter, to place the church beyond the reach of hostile
attack in future. The wall was known, until the erection of the Wall of
Leo, as the Single Wall of Blachernæ (Μονοτείχος Βλαχερνῶν:[559] τεῖχος
τῶν Βλαχερνῶν).[560]
The wall is flanked by three fine hexagonal towers, built towards their
summit in brick, perhaps, as Dr. Paspates[561] suggests, in order to
lighten the weight of constructions erected on marshy ground. They are
among the finest towers in the circuit of the fortifications. The
interior of the southernmost tower, the only one which can be safely
examined, measures 32-½ by about 19 feet, and was in three stories. Upon
the face of the tower is an inscription, in letters formed with pieces
of marble, in honour of the Emperor Michael, probably Michael II.
Between the first and second towers is a gate, named the Gate of
Blachernæ (πόρτα τοῦ Μονοτείχους τῶν Βλαχερνῶν),[562] after the quarter
before which it stood.
[Illustration: General View of the Walls of the City From The Hill On
Which The Crusaders Encamped in 1203.]
It has been generally supposed that the Wall of Heraclius comprised not
only the portion of the city walls just indicated, but the whole line of
fortifications extending from the Kerko Porta to the Golden Horn.[563]
The evidence on the subject is, however, in favour of the opinion that
the Wall of Heraclius was only the portion of the fortifications before
us. It is the extent implied in the description of the Heraclian Wall,
as a wall erected to bring the Church of Blachernæ within the line of
the city bulwarks.[564] That is an apt description of a wall extending
from the foot of the Sixth Hill to the Golden Horn; it is a very
inadequate description of a line of bulwarks from the Kerko Porta to the
harbour. In the next place, more extensive fortifications were not
required to protect the church, seeing it was well defended on the south
by the acropolis on the western spur of the Sixth Hill. All that was
necessary for the further security of the church was a wall on the west
side of the plain on which it stood. Furthermore, the fortifications
extending from the Kerko Porta to the foot of the Sixth Hill, commonly
ascribed to Heraclius, have been proved to be the work of other hands,
the greater part being the Wall of Manuel Comnenus,[565] while the
remainder formed, originally, the defences of the Fourteenth Region.
The Wall of Leo the Armenian was erected in 813 to strengthen the
defence of this part of the capital, in view of the preparations which
the Bulgarians under Crum were making for a second attack upon
Constantinople.[566] Crum had retired from his first assault upon the
city, resolved not only to retrieve the defeat he had sustained, but
also to punish the treacherous attempt upon his life, when he was
proceeding to negotiate terms of peace with the emperor.
Arrangements had been made for holding a conference between the two
sovereigns at a short distance to the west of the Heraclian Wall, on the
explicit understanding that all persons present were to attend unarmed;
so little confidence had the two parties in each other. But in flagrant
breach of this agreement, Leo placed three bowmen in ambush near the
place of meeting, with orders to shoot at the Bulgarian king, upon a
preconcerted signal. In due time Crum arrived; but he had scarcely
dismounted from his horse when his suspicions of a plot were aroused,
and, springing into his saddle, he galloped back towards his camp. The
arrows of the soldiers in ambush flew after him, wounding him although
he escaped with his life.
The Byzantine historian who records the incident explains the failure of
the plot as a Divine punishment upon the sins of his countrymen.[567]
Crum saw the dastardly act in a different light, and, vowing vengeance,
withdrew to Bulgaria to prepare for another war. He died before he could
carry out his intention, but meanwhile Leo had put himself in readiness
for the expected attack by constructing a new wall and a broad moat in
front of the Wall of Heraclius.
The Wall of Leo stands 77 feet to the west of the Wall of Heraclius,
running parallel to it for some 260 feet, after which it turns to join
the walls along the Golden Horn. Its parapet-walk was supported upon
arches, which served at the same time to buttress the wall itself, a
comparatively slight structure about 8 feet thick. With the view of
increasing the wall’s capacity for defence, it was flanked by four small
towers, while its lower portion was pierced by numerous loopholes. Two
of the towers were on the side facing the Golden Horn, and the other two
guarded the extremities of the side looking towards the country on the
west. The latter towers projected inwards from the rear of the wall, and
between them was a gateway corresponding to the Heraclian Gate of
Blachernæ.
The citadel formed by the Walls of Heraclius and Leo was designated the
Brachionion of Blachernæ (τὸ Βραχιόνιον τῶν Βλαχερνῶν).[568] Subsequent
to the Turkish Conquest it was named after the five more conspicuous
towers which guarded the enclosure, the Pentapyrgion,[569] on the
analogy of the Heptapyrgion, or Castle of Severn Towers (Yedi Koulè) at
the southern end of the land walls.
Near the southern end of the wall, where it has evidently undergone
repair, two inscriptions are found. One is in honour of Michael II. and
Theophilus, the great Emperors:
ΜΙΧΑΗΛ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟΥ ΜΕΤΑ ... Ν ΒΑΣΙ....
The other gives the date †ϚΤΛ† (822), which belonged to the sole reign
of the former emperor. These repairs were probably made when Thomas, the
rival of Michael for the throne, attacked the fortifications in this
quarter. It was precisely in the year 822 that the rebel general
encamped beside the Monastery of SS. Cosmas and Damianus (above Eyoub),
and then, armed with battering-rams and scaling-ladders, advanced to the
assault of the towers of Blachernæ, behind which the standard of Michael
floated over the Church of the Theotokos.[570]
The tower at the north-western corner of the enclosure was reconstructed
by the Emperor Romanus, as an inscription upon it proclaims:
[Illustration: “The Tower of St. Nicholas was restored from the
foundations, under Romanus, the Christ-loving Sovereign.”]
To which of the four emperors named Romanus the work should be assigned
is not easy to decide. The tower must have derived its name from the
Church of S. Nicholas in this vicinity, for the site of that church is
marked by the Holy Well which still flows amid the graves and trees of
the Turkish cemetery within the Brachionion of Blachernæ, an object of
veneration alike to Moslems and orthodox Greeks. The grounds on which
the opinion rests are that, previous to the erection of the Heraclian
Wall, the church is described as without the city bounds, in the
district of Blachernæ;[571] while after the erection of Leo’s Wall it is
spoken of as within the city limits, and close to the gate by which
persons proceeded from the Blachernæ quarter to the Cosmidion.[572] This
is exactly how a building beside the Holy Well between the two walls,
and near the Gate of Blachernæ which pierces them, would be described
under such circumstances.
The proximity of these walls to the Palace of Blachernæ, as well as
their comparative weakness, combined to make them the scene of many
historical events.
While the Wall of Heraclius stood alone, it was through the Gate of
Blachernæ that Apsimarus was admitted by his adherents, in 698, to
supplant Leontius;[573] by the same entrance Justinian II., in 705,
attempted to force his way into the city to dethrone Apsimarus;[574] and
through it, again, Theodosius III., in 716, entered and deposed
Anastasius II.[575] It was before the Heraclian Wall that Crum and Leo
the Armenian met to confer, under the circumstances already narrated.
This portion of the fortifications continued to be a favourite point of
attack also after the erection of Leo’s Wall. Here, as above stated, the
rebel Thomas sought to break into the city in 822;[576] here, in 924,
Simeon of Bulgaria and Romanus Lecapenus met to conclude peace,[577]
taking the greatest precautions against the repetition of the treachery
which disgraced the former meeting of a Bulgarian king with a Byzantine
emperor. In 1047, in the reign of Constantine Monomachus, the rebel
general Tornikius took up his position before these walls, and having
routed a company of raw recruits who had sallied forth against him by
the Gate of Blachernæ, would have rushed into the city with the
fugitives, had not the difficulty of crossing the moat given the
defenders of the walls time to close the entrance.[578]
Through the Gate of Blachernæ the friends of Alexius Comnenus sallied
from the city, in 1081, to join the standard of revolt against
Nicephorus Botoniates; and it was at the Imperial stables outside the
gate that they obtained horses to reach as fast as possible the
Monastery of SS. Cosmas and Damianus, baffling pursuit by having taken
the precaution to ham-string the animals they did not require.[579] In
1097, Godfrey de Bouillon encamped on the hills and plains without these
walls. While the negotiations with the crafty Alexius Comnenus were
proceeding, the envoys of the Crusaders were on one occasion detained so
long by the emperor as to arouse suspicions of treachery on his part;
whereupon a band of Crusaders rushed from the camp at the Cosmidion, and
in their attempt to enter the city and rescue their comrades set fire to
the Gate of Blachernæ.[580]
In 1203 these fortifications were attacked by the land forces of the
Fourth Crusade.[581] The Venetian fleet, bearing the banner of St. Mark,
occupied the Golden Horn, under the command of Dandolo; the army of the
expedition under Baldwin held the hill immediately to the west of the
Palace of Blachernæ. Upon the walls and towers of the citadel stood the
Varangian guards, composed mainly of Englishmen and Danes, loyal to
their trust, and the peers of the invaders in courage and strength.
Alexius III. and his courtiers watched the scene from the palace
windows. At length, on the 17th of July, the Crusaders delivered a grand
assault by sea and land; the army attacking the fortress formed by the
Walls of Heraclius and Leo; the fleet attempting the adjoining
fortifications along the harbour. With the help of ladders, fifteen
knights and sergeants scaled the outer Wall, and engaged the defenders
on the summit in a desperate struggle. It was a bold attempt, but the
odds were too great, and the assailants, leaving two of their number
prisoners, were driven off by the swords and battle-axes of the
Varangians. Many other Crusaders, also, who had advanced to support the
attack, were wounded, and the day went so hard against the Latins at
this point that Dandolo, who had captured twenty-five towers of the
harbour fortifications, was obliged to abandon the advantage he had
gained, and hastened with his ships to protect his worsted allies.
Finally, in 1453, the moat before these walls, which had been filled
with earth in the course of time, was excavated by the crews of the
Venetian galleys present at the siege under the command of Aluxio Diedo.
It was made 200 paces long and 8 feet wide, the emperor and his
courtiers being present at the work, while two sentries, stationed on
the neighbouring hill, watched the Turkish outposts.[582]
From the northern extremity of the Heraclian Wall, a short wall was
carried to the water’s edge, across the western end of the street that
runs along the shore of the Golden Horn, outside the Harbour Walls; thus
protecting the latter line of fortifications from attack by the land
forces of an enemy.
At the same time, for the convenience of traffic, the wall was pierced
by a gate, named, from its material, the Xylo Porta (Ξυλόπορτα, Ξυλίνη),
the Wooden Gate.[583] It was in its place as late as 1868, and bore an
inscription in honour of Theophilus.[584] Very probably, the wall was
erected by that emperor when he reconstructed the defences along the
harbour. In accordance with its situation, the Xylo Porta is described
sometimes as the gate at the northern extremity of the land
fortifications;[585] and sometimes as the gate at the western end of the
walls along the Golden Horn.[586]
Du Cange[587] identified the Porta Xylo Kerkou with this gate. But the
former was an entrance in the Theodosian lines;[588] it led directly
into the city, and was built up in the reign of Isaac Angelus[589]—facts
which did not hold true of the Xylo Porta. Furthermore, Ducas expressly
distinguishes the two entrances.[590] Or the facts in the case may be
stated thus: The Gate of the Xylokerkus was in existence before the
erection of the wall in which the Xylo Porta stood; the former entrance
being not later than the reign of Anastasius I., in the fifth century,
the latter not earlier than the reign of Heraclius, in the seventh
century, when the wall on the west of Blachernæ was erected. Therefore
the two entrances cannot be the same gate under different names.
In Dr. Mordtmann’s opinion,[591] the Postern of Kallinicus (τὸ τῆς
Καλλινίκου παραπόρτιον), mentioned by Byzantine writers,[592] was the
Xylo Porta under an earlier name. And what is known regarding that
postern lends support to this view. Like the Xylo Porta, the Postern of
Kallinicus stood near the Church of Blachernæ,[593] and led to the
Church of SS. Cosmas and Damianus in the Cosmidion,[594] as well as to
the bridge across the head of the Golden Horn.[595] The identity is
confirmed by the fact that the bridge to which the road issuing from the
Xylo Porta conducted was sometimes called the Bridge of St. Kallinicus,
after a church of that dedication in its neighbourhood.[596]
The Bridge across the Golden Horn.
The earliest mention of a bridge across the Golden Horn is found in the
_Notitia_.[597] It was situated in the Fourteenth Region, and, like the
bridge across the Tiber, was a wooden structure, “pontem sublicium.”
This was superseded by a bridge of stone,[598] which Justinian the Great
constructed in 528, “so that one might pass,” as the _Paschal
Chronicle_[599] expresses it, “from the opposite side (ἀπὸ τῆς ἀντι
πέραν) to the all-happy city.” The new building went by various names in
the course of its long history. It was known as the Bridge of Justinian
(ἡ Ἰουστινιανοῦ γέφυρα),[600] in honour of its constructor; as the
Bridge of St. Kallinicus (ἡ γέφυρα τοῦ ἁγίου Καλλινίκου),[601] after a
church dedicated to that saint near its southern end; as the Bridge of
St. Panteleemon (ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Παντελεήμονος γέφυρα),[602] after a church
of that name at its northern end; as the Bridge of Camels (ἡ τῆς Καμήλου
γέφυρα),[603] on account, probably, of its frequent use by caravans of
camels, bringing charcoal to the city; as the Bridge of Blachernæ,[604]
from the district in which it stood. Whether it was the bridge of twelve
arches near St. Mamas mentioned by the Anonymus and Codinus[605] is
uncertain, for we cannot be sure that all references to the Church of
St. Mamas allude to the church of that dedication which stood outside
the walls of the city, and overlooked the head of the Golden Horn.
The bridge crossed the Barbyses[606] (Kiat-haneh Sou, one of the streams
commonly styled “The Sweet Waters of Europe”), where that stream enters
the Golden Horn,[607] in the district of the Cosmidion[608] (Eyoub).
When Gyllius visited the city the stone piers of an ancient bridge could
be seen, in summer, when the water was low, standing opposite a point
between the northern extremity of the land walls and Aivan Serai:
“Liquet pontem illum fuisse ubi pilæ cernuntur lapideæ antiqui pontis,
sed non extra aquam eminentes nisi aliquando æstate, sitæe inter angulum
urbis Blacherneum et suburbium, quod Turci appellant Aibasarium.”[609]
In the siege of 627 the flotilla of log-boats, which the Slavonian
allies of the Avars brought to take part in the operations, was moored
behind this bridge, watching for an opportunity to descend into the
Golden Horn, and harass the northern side of the city.[610] Over it
Heraclius came to make his triumphal entrance into the city, after his
return from the Persian War. It was a circuitous road for him to take
from the Palace of the Hiereia (Fener Bagtchèssi, on the Bay of Moda,
near Kadikeui), which he occupied upon his arrival within sight of the
capital. His most direct course was to proceed from that palace to the
Golden Gate by boat across the Sea of Marmora. But the hero of seven
glorious campaigns was possessed by such an insuperable dread of the
water that, for a long time, nothing, not even a conspiracy against his
throne, could induce him to overcome his fear and cross to the city. At
length the difficulty was met in the following manner. A bridge of boats
was placed across the Bosporus, from the bay of Phedalia (Balta
Liman)[611] to the opposite Asiatic shore, the parapets of the bridge
being constructed of great branches and dense foliage, so as to hide
from view the water on either hand; and over this roadway the emperor
was persuaded to pass on horseback, as through a thicket on _terra
firma_. Once on the European side of the straits, it would have been
natural for him to take the road leading towards the city along the
shore. But rather than keep near the water, Heraclius struck inland, for
the valley at the head of the Golden Horn, to reach the side of the
harbour on which the city stood, by the bridge over the narrow stream of
the Barbyses.[612]
Near the bridge the Crusaders, under Godfrey de Bouillon, encamped in
1096.[613] Over it the Crusaders, under the Emperor Conrad, passed in
1147, to ravage the suburbs on the northern side of the harbour.[614] To
it, in 1203, the army of the Fourth Crusade marched, from Galata, in
battle array, and, finding it had been cut down by the Greeks, repaired
it, and crossed to encamp on the hill fronting the Palace of Blachernæ.
“Et là (_i.e._ au bout du port),” to quote the picturesque language of
Ville-Hardouin,[615] “il y a un fleuve qui se jette dans la mer, qu’on
ne peut pas passer sinon par un pont de pierre. Les Grecs avaient coupé
le pont; et les barons firent travailler l’armée tout le jour et toute
la nuit pour arranger le pont. Le pont fut ainsi arrangé, et les corps
de bataille armés au matin; et ils chevauchèrent l’un après l’autre,
ainsi qu’ils avaient été ordonnés. Et ils vout devant la ville.” Twice
in 1328, and once in 1345, Cantacuzene[616] encamped his troops on the
meadows beside the bridge, while he endeavoured to gain the city by
parleying with its defenders at the Gate of Gyrolimnè.
Footnote 556:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 726, Τούτῳ τῷ ἔτει ἐκτίσθη τὸ τεῖχος πέριξ τοῦ
οἴκον τῆς δεσποίνης ἡμῶν τῆς θεοτόκου, ἔξωθεν τοῦ καλουμένου Πτεροῦ.
Footnote 557:
_Ibid._, Procopius, _De Æd._, lib. i. c. 3; _Paschal Chron._, p. 702.
Footnote 558:
Theophanes, p. 361.
Footnote 559:
For account of the siege, see _Paschal Chronicle_, pp. 715-726;
Nicephorus Patriarcha CP., pp. 20, 21.
Footnote 560:
Theophanes, pp. 568, 592.
Footnote 561:
Theophanes Cont., p. 618.
Footnote 562:
Pages 37, 38.
Footnote 563:
Theophanes, p. 592; Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 787.
Footnote 564:
Paspates, p. 19.
Footnote 565:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 726; Nicephorus, _Patriarcha CP._, p. 21.
Footnote 566:
See above, Chapter IX.
Footnote 567:
Theophanes Cont., pp. 612-618; Συναθροίσας λαὸν πολὺν καὶ τεχνίτας
ἤρξατο κτίζειν ἕτερον τεῖχος ἔξωθεν τοῦ τείχους τῶν Βλαχερνῶν, κόψας
καὶ τὴν σούδαν πλατεῖαν.
Footnote 568:
Theophanes, p. 785; Theophanes Cont., pp. 612-618.
Footnote 569:
Anna Comn., ii. p. 104.
Footnote 570:
Leunclavius, _Pand Hist. Turc._, s. 200. The Pentapyrgion mentioned by
Constantine Porphyrogenitus was a piece of furniture in the form of a
castle with five towers, kept in the Great Palace.
Footnote 571:
Theophanes Cont., pp. 60, 61; Cedrenus, vol. ii. pp. 81-83.
Footnote 572:
Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. 6; _Paschal Chron._, pp. 724, 725.
Footnote 573:
Anna Comn., x. p. 48; _Itinéraires Russes en Orient._, p. 124. The
church was dedicated to SS. Priscus and Nicholas (Procopius, _ut
supra_). The Holy Well is now regarded as that of St. Basil (Patriarch
Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p. 44). Whether the church
should be identified with the Church of St. Nicholas, τὰ Βασιλίδου
(Codinus, p. 125, Paspates, p. 34), is doubtful.
The Cosmidion, now Eyoub, obtained its name from the celebrated Church
and Monastery of SS. Cosmas and Damianus in the district. The church
was founded by Paulinus, the friend of Theodosius II., and the victim
of his jealousy, and is therefore sometimes described as ἐν τοῖς
Παυλίνου. It stood on the hill at the head of the Golden Horn,
commanding the most beautiful view of the harbour, and constituted,
with the walls around it, an acropolis (Procopius, _De Æd._ i. c. 6).
It was restored by Justinian the Great, and was famed for miraculous
cures. The two saints had been what would now be termed “medical
missionaries,” and exercised their art gratuitously; hence, their
epithet Ἀνάργυροι (without money). Owing to the strategical position
of the monastery, it was frequently seized by assailants of the city,
as, for example, by the Avars (_Paschal Chron._, p. 725), and by the
rebel Thomas (Theophanes Cont., p. 59). It was granted to Bohemond by
Alexius Comnenus, and was consequently known as the Castle of Bohemond
(William of Tyre, ii. pp. 84, 85). Andronicus II. Palæologus
dismantled the fortress, lest it should be used by the Catalans
(Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 592).
Footnote 574:
Theophanes, p. 568.
Footnote 575:
_Ibid._, p. 573.
Footnote 576:
_Ibid._, p. 592.
Footnote 577:
Theophanes Cont., pp. 60, 61; Cedrenus, vol. ii. pp. 81-83.
Footnote 578:
Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 304; Theophanes Cont., pp. 406-409.
Footnote 579:
Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 563.
Footnote 580:
Anna Comn., ii. p. 104.
Footnote 581:
_Ibid._, x. p. 48.
Footnote 582:
For the account of the assault, see Ville-Hardouin, _Conquête de
Consple._, c. 35; Nicetas Chon., pp. 719-723; Count Hugo, in _Tafel et
Thomas_, p. 309.
Footnote 583:
Barbaro, pp. 719-722.
Footnote 584:
Cananus, p. 460; Phrantzes, p. 237; cf. Ducas, p. 263.
Footnote 585:
Paspates, p. 61.
Footnote 586:
Cananus, pp. 460, 470, 472; Critobulus, i. c. 27; Phrantzes, p. 237.
Footnote 587:
Cantacuzene, iv. p. 214: Pusculus, iv. 179.
Footnote 588:
_Constantinopolis Christiana_, lib. i. c. 15, p. 49.
Footnote 589:
Banduri, _Imperium Orientale_, lib. vii. p. 150.
Footnote 590:
Nicetas Chon., p. 529.
Footnote 591:
Ducas, p. 282.
Footnote 592:
Page 37.
Footnote 593:
Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 784; Theophanes, p. 583.
Footnote 594:
Theophanes, pp. 582, 583.
Footnote 595:
_Ibid._, _ut supra_.
Footnote 596:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 720.
Footnote 597:
Theophanes Cont., p. 340.
Footnote 598:
_Ad Reg. XIV._
Footnote 599:
Ville-Hardouin, c. 33.
Footnote 600:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 618.
Footnote 601:
Theophanes Cont., p. 340; Synaxaria, July 29.
Footnote 602:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 720.
Footnote 603:
Attaliotes, p. 251.
Footnote 604:
Cantacuzune, i. pp. 290, 305; iii. p. 501.
Footnote 605:
John Tzetzes, as quoted by Gyllius and Du Cange, _ut infra_.
Footnote 606:
III. p. 58. Page 30.
Footnote 607:
Nicephorus Patriarcha CP., p. 30; where it is named τοῦ Βαρνύσσον:
Theophanes Cont., p. 340, τοῦ Βαθύρσου.
Footnote 608:
Leo Diaconus, p. 129; Cinnamus, p. 75.
Footnote 609:
Anna Comn., x. p. 47. Nicetas Choniates, p. 719, adds that near the
bridge stood a perforated rock, τρυπετὸν λίθον.
Footnote 610:
De Top. CP., iv. c. 6; see, on the whole subject, Du Cange,
_Constantinopolis Christiana_, iv. p. 179.
Footnote 611:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 720.
Footnote 612:
Gyllius, _De Bosporo Thracio_, ii. c. 13.
Footnote 613:
Nicephorus Patriarcha CP., pp. 28-30.
Footnote 614:
Anna Comn., x. p. 47.
Footnote 615:
Cinnamus, p. 75.
Footnote 616:
Chap. 33.
Footnote 617:
Lib. i. pp. 290, 305; iii. p. 501.