THE SEAWARD WALLS.
Owing to the unique maritime position occupied by Constantinople, the
defence of the shores of the capital was a matter of secondary
importance. So long as the Empire retained the command of the sea, a
city accessible by water only through the narrow defiles of the
Hellespont and the Bosporus had little reason to apprehend a naval
attack.
This immunity was, it is true, seriously affected when the Saracens and
the Republics of Italy became great sea-powers. Still, even then, the
situation of the city rendered an assault with ships an extremely
difficult operation. The northern shore of the city could be put beyond
the reach of the enemy by a chain extended across the narrow entrance of
the Golden Horn; while the currents that swept the Marmora shore were
ready to carry a fleet out to sea, or to hurl it against the rocks.
According to Ville-Hardouin,[617] it was the dread of those currents
that, in 1204, deterred the Venetian fleet, under Dandolo, from
attacking the walls beside the Sea of Marmora, after the failure of the
attempt upon the fortifications along the Golden Horn.
Other natural allies to withstand a naval attack were, moreover, found
in the violent storms to which the waters around the city are liable.
Such a storm discomfited the great Saracen fleet in the siege of
718.[618] In 825, a tempest compelled Thomas, the rival of Michael II.,
to withdraw his ships from action;[619] while in 865 a storm destroyed
the first Russian flotilla that entered the Bosporus.[620] In the long
history of the Byzantine Empire there is only one instance of a
successful naval assault upon Constantinople, the gallant capture of the
city in 1204 by the Venetians. That victory, however, was due as much to
the feeble spirit exhibited by the defenders, notwithstanding the
advantages of their position, as to the bravery and skill of the
assailants.
But though the seaward walls did not possess the military consequence of
the land walls, they are interesting on account of their connection with
important political events, and, above all, for their intimate
association with the commercial activity of the greatest emporium of
trade during the Middle Ages.
The history of the construction of these walls has already been noticed
incidentally, when tracing the gradual expansion of the city.[621] In
the days of Byzantium they proceeded, we have seen, from the Acropolis
(Seraglio Point) to the Neorium, on the Golden Horn; and to the point
subsequently called Topi, on the Sea of Marmora. Under Constantine the
Great they were carried to the Church of St. Antony Harmatius, on the
northern side of the city; and to the Church of St. Æmilianus, on the
southern. In 439, Theodosius II. prolonged the lines to meet the
extremities of the land wall at Blachernæ, on the one hand, and the
Golden Gate, on the other.
The history of the repair of these walls from time to time is a long
one. For while comparatively secure from injury by the accidents of war,
they were liable to be rudely shaken by earthquakes, like other public
buildings of the city, while their proximity to the sea exposed them in
a special manner to damage by damp and storm.
During the earlier days of the Empire, indeed, when the Imperial navy
ruled the sea, and no hostile fleet dared approach the city, the
condition of these fortifications was often neglected; but as the
sea-power of the Empire decayed, and that of other nations grew
stronger, the defences along the shores of the city assumed greater
interest, and their maintenance in proper order became one of the
principal cares of the State.
The earthquake of 447, so ruinous to the new land wall of Anthemius,
injured also the seaward walls, especially the portion beside the Sea of
Marmora. As an inscription over Yeni Kapou[622]—the gate at the eastern
end of Vlanga Bostan—proclaimed, the damage was repaired by the Prefect
Constantine when he restored the other fortifications of the city which
had suffered from that terrible earthquake.[623]
There is no record of repairs for the next two hundred and fifty years.
But the state of these walls could not have been altogether
unsatisfactory during that period, for they were prepared to withstand
two fleets which threatened the southern side of the city in the seventh
century: first, when the ships of Heraclius came, in 610, to overthrow
the tyranny of the infamous Phocas; and again, when the Saracens
besieged Constantinople from 673-678.
With the accession of Tiberius Apsimarus the shore defences entered upon
a new era of their history. Admiral of the Imperial fleet in the Ægean
when the Saracens marched victoriously from the banks of the Nile to the
Atlantic, and alive to the power of the enemy upon the sea, as well as
upon land, he was in a position to appreciate the necessity of being
ready to repel attack at every point. Hence, upon his return to
Constantinople, he ordered the walls of the capital, which had for some
time been grossly neglected, to be put into a state of defence.[624]
Some eight years later, however, Anastasius II. found it expedient to
attend to the seaward walls again,[625] in view of the formidable
preparations made by the Saracens for their second attack upon the
capital of Eastern Christendom; and so effective was the work done,
that, in the great crisis of 718, the city defied a fleet of 1200
vessels.
In the spring of 764 an unusual occurrence shook the walls about the
point of the Acropolis. The preceding winter had been one of Arctic
severity. If the figures of Theophanes may be trusted, the sea along the
northern and western shores of the Euxine was frozen to a distance of
one hundred miles from land, and to a depth of sixty feet; and upon this
foundation of solid ice a mass of snow forty-five feet high accumulated.
As soon as the breath of spring liberated the frost-bound waters, a long
procession of ice-floes came filing down the Bosporus, on their way to
the southern seas. They came in such numbers that they packed in the
narrow channel, and formed an ice-pile at the opening into the Sea of
Marmora, extending from the Palace of Hiereia (Fener Bagtchessi) to the
city, and from Chrysopolis to Galata, and as far as Mamas at the head of
the Golden Horn.[626]
At length the ice divided again, and as its several parts swayed in the
swollen currents, one huge iceberg came dashing against the pier at the
point of the Acropolis. Another, larger, followed, and hurled itself
against the adjacent wall with a violence which shook the whole
neighbourhood. The monstrous mass was broken by the concussion in three
fragments, still so large that they overtopped the city bulwarks and
invested the apex of the promontory from the Mangana to the Port
Bosporus, overawing the city, and crushing, it would appear, the
fortifications.
Extensive repairs of these walls were commenced in the reign of Michael
II., and completed by his son Theophilus on a scale which amounted to a
work of reconstruction.[627] Under the former emperor the rebel Thomas
had besieged the city and forced the chain across the entrance of the
Golden Horn, proving, for the first time, that even the fortifications
in that quarter might be attacked by a bold enemy. The Saracens,
moreover, displaying new vigour, had taken Sicily and Crete, and in 829
defeated the Imperial fleet in the Ægean. Accordingly, it is not strange
that Theophilus ordered the old ramparts along the shores of the city to
be replaced by loftier and stronger fortifications, and that in the
execution of the undertaking he spared no labour or expense. “The gold
coins of the realm,” says the chronicler, “were spent as freely as if
worthless pebbles.”[628]
The satisfaction of Theophilus with the result was displayed in the
extraordinary number of the inscriptions which he placed upon the new
walls and towers, to commemorate his work. No other emperor has
inscribed his name upon the walls so frequently. And the fortifications
he erected endured, with but little change, to the last days of the
Empire, and bear his stamp even in their ruin.
Of the inscriptions referred to, the following are found on the walls
along the Sea of Marmora:
On the curtain-wall immediately to the north of Deïrmen Kapoussi, in one
long line of sixty feet, is the legend:
ΣΕ ΧΡΙΣΤΕ ΤΕΙΧΟΣΑΡΡ; ΑΓΕ ΣΚΕΚΤΗΜΙΕΝΟΣ ΑΝΑΖ ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟ ΣΕΥΣΕΒΗ ΣΑΥΤΟ
ΚΡΑΤΩΡΗΓΕΙΡΕ ΤΟΥΤΟΤΕΙ ΧΟΣΕΚΙΒΑΘΡΩΝΝΕΩΝ· ΟΠΕΡ ΦΥΛΑΤ ΤΕΤΩΚΡ ΑΤΕΙΣΟΥΠΑΝ
ΤΑΝΑΞΚΔΕΙΞΟ ΝΑΥΤΟΜΕ ΧΡΙΣΑΙΩΝΩΝΤΕΛΗΟΣΑΣ ΕΙΣΤΟ ΝΑΚΛΟΝΗΤΟΝΕΣ Τ
“Possessing Thee, O Christ, a Wall that cannot be broken,
Theophilus, King and pious Emperor, erected this wall upon new
foundations: which (wall), Lord of All, guard with Thy might, and
display to the end of time standing unshaken and unmoved.”
These words read like a dedication prayer for the preservation of the
whole line of the fortifications erected by Theophilus.
On the first tower to the south of Deïrmen Kapoussi are the words:
† ΠΥΡΓΟΣ ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟΥ ΠΙΣΤΟΥ ΕΝ ΧΩ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ.
ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ †
“Tower of Theophilus, faithful and great King and Emperor in
Christ.”
Above the legend is a slab, with the Cross and the battle-cry of the
Empire, “Jesus Christ conquers.”
ΙΣ | ΧΡ
———|—————
ΝΙ | ΚΑ
A similar inscription stands on the second tower south of the gate:
† ΠΥΡΓΟΣ ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟΥ ΕΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΩ ΑΥΤΟΚΑΤΟΡΟΣ †[629]
“Tower of Theophilus, Emperor in Christ.”
Fragmentary inscriptions to the same effect are seen on the third,
sixth, seventh, and ninth towers south of Deïrmen Kapoussi.
In addition to these inscriptions, copies of others which have
disappeared are preserved by Von Hammer, in the appendix to his work,
_Constantinopolis und Bosporos_.[630]
The Gate of St. Barbara (Top Kapoussi) bore the inscription:
ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟΣ ... ΕΚΑΙΝΙΣΑΣ ΠΟΛΙΝ.
“Theophilus ... having renovated the city.”
This inscription was repeated on the wall adjoining the gate. And on the
two towers which flanked the gate was the customary legend which marked
the work of Theophilus:
ΠΥΡΓΟΣ ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟΥ ΕΝ ΧΩ ΑΥΤΟΚΑΤΟΡΟΣ
According to the same author,[631] a similar inscription was found in
the vicinity of the Seven Towers, as well as an inscription in honour of
Theophilus and his son, Michael III., who, though a mere child, had been
appointed his Imperial colleague.
According to Aristarki Bey and Canon Curtis,[632] two other inscriptions
in honour of Theophilus and Michael occurred also on two towers in the
immediate vicinity of Top Kapoussi. All these inscriptions indicate the
great extent of the repairs executed by Theophilus; the last three give,
moreover, the approximate date of one portion of the work, Michael III.
being the associate of his father from 839-842.
[Illustration: Inscription in Honour of the Emperor Michael III.]
Upon the fortifications along the Golden Horn some twenty inscriptions
in honour of Theophilus have been noted, similar to those found on the
fortifications beside the Sea of Marmora, but they have for the most
part disappeared in the destruction of the walls, from time to time, in
carrying out city improvements. The most important to recall are the
legends in which the name Michael was associated with that of
Theophilus. In two instances the former name preceded the latter; while
in five instances the latter name preceded the former. The only
satisfactory explanation of this variation is that in the first case the
Michael intended was Michael II., the father of Theophilus; and that in
the second case the allusion was to Michael III., the son of Theophilus.
Hence it appears that the restoration of the seaward walls was commenced
in the reign of Michael II., soon after the appointment of Theophilus as
his colleague, in 825.
Immediately to the north of the ruins of Indjili Kiosk, beside the Sea
of Marmora, three inscribed slabs were, until recently, found built into
the city wall. As the legend was mutilated, its full meaning cannot be
determined, but it seemed to commemorate the restoration of a portion of
the wall by Michael III., under the superintendence of his maternal
uncle, the famous Bardas, the commander of the body-guard known as the
Scholai (αἱ Σχολαί, οἱ Σχολάριοι).
FIRST SLAB.
ΩΝΚΡΑΤΑΙΩΣΔΕΣΠΟΣΑΝΤΩΝΤΟΥΣ
ΠΤΩΣΜΙΧΑΗΛΟΔΕΣΠΟΤΗΣ ΔΙΑΒΑΡ
SECOND SLAB.
ΙΔΕΝΟΣΠΡΟΣΥΠΣΟΣΗΕΥΚΟΣΙΙΙΑΙΙΤΟ
ΩΝΣΧΟ ΩΝΔΩΜΕΣΤΙΚΟΥΗ ΙΡΕΤΕΡ
THIRD SLAB.
ΗΘΕΝΕΙΣΓΗΝΤΕΙΧΟΣΕΞΕΓΕΡΚΟΤΟ
ΝΟΝΩΡΑΕΙΣΜΑΤΗΠΟΛΕΙ ☩[633]
An inscription on a tower at the eastern side of the entrance to the old
harbour at Koum Kapoussi (Kontoscalion) commemorated repairs by Leo the
Wise and his brother and colleague Alexander:
† ΠΥΡΓΟΣ ΛΕΟΝΤΟΣ Κ ΑΛΕΞΑΝ †
The first tower west of Ahour Kapoussi was rebuilt by Basil II. in 1024,
after its overthrow by storms. It bears the inscription:
ΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΘΑΛΛΑΣΣΗΣ ΘΡΑΥΣΜΟΣ ΕΝ ΜΑΚΡΩ ΧΡΟΝΩ
ΚΛΥΔΩΝΙ ΠΟΛΛΩ ΚΑΙ ΣΦΟΔΡΩ ΡΗΓΝΥΜΕΝΗΣ ΠΕΣΕΙΝ
ΚΑΤΑΝΑΝΚΑΣΕ ΠΥΡΓΟΝ ΕΚ ΒΑΘΡΩΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΟΣ
ΗΓΕΙΡΕΝ ΕΥΣΕΒΗΣ ΑΝΑΞ ΕΤΟΥΣ ϚΘΛΒ
“In the year 1024, Basil, the pious Sovereign, erected from the
foundations, this tower, which the dashing of the sea, shattering it
for a long time with many and violent waves, compelled to fall.”
One of the most interesting incidents of the siege of 1453, reflecting
credit both upon the conqueror and the conquered, was associated with
“the towers of Basil, Leo, and Alexius” (τῶν πύργων τῶν λεγομένων
Βασιλείου, Λέοντος, καὶ Ἀλεξίου). Although the Turkish troops were in
command of the city, the defenders of those towers—the crew of a ship
from Crete—refused to surrender, preferring to perish rather than to be
reduced to slavery. The stand they made was reported to the Sultan, and
he was so impressed by the heroism of the men that he offered, if they
would submit, to allow them to leave the city with all the honours of
war. The generous terms were accepted, though with great reluctance, and
the brave men returned home in their own vessel, and with all their
possessions.[634] Dr. Paspates[635] suggests that the tower connected
with this incident was the tower bearing the inscription in honour of
Leo and Alexander.
The tower at the foot of the landing below Narli Kapoussi was repaired,
according to the inscription upon it, by Manuel Comnenus.
[Illustration: “Restored by Manuel Comnenus, the Christ-loving King,
Porphyrogenitus, and Emperor of the Romans, in the year 1164.”]
According to Cinnamus,[636] the Emperor Manuel Comnenus repaired the
city walls, wherever necessary.[637]
Upon the restoration of the Greek Empire in 1261 the condition of the
seaward walls became a matter of graver importance than it had been at
any previous period in the history of the city. For, until the rise of
the Ottoman power, the enemies whom Constantinople had then most reason
to fear were the maritime States of Western Europe, with their
formidable fleets.
The loss of the city by the Latins put a new strain upon the relations
between the East and the West. It provoked more intense political
antagonism, keener commercial rivalries, and a fanatical religious
hatred, which all the attempts to unite the Churches of divided
Christendom only fanned into fiercer flames. Nor was the situation
improved when Michael Palæologus established the Genoese at Galata. A
hostile power was then planted at the very gates of the capital; a
foreign fleet commanded the Golden Horn; occasions for misunderstandings
were multiplied; and selfish intriguers were at hand to foment the
domestic quarrels of the Empire, and involve it in disputes with the
rivals of Genoa. “The Roman Empire,” as Gibbon observes, “might soon
have sunk into a province of Genoa, if the Republic had not been checked
by the ruin of her freedom and naval power.”
The earliest concern of Michael Palæologus, therefore, after the
recovery of the city, was to put the fortifications in a condition to
repel the expected attempt of the Latins to regain the place.[638]
Having no time to lose, and as lime and stone were difficult to procure,
the emperor was satisfied, at first, with heightening the walls,
especially those near the sea, by the erection upon the summit, of great
wooden screens, covered with hide to render them fire-proof. In this way
he raised the walls some seven feet.[639]
But later in his reign he conceived the ambitious idea of making the
walls along the shores of the city, like the land walls, a double line
of bulwarks.[640] The new fortifications, however, cannot have been a
piece of solid work, for no traces of them have survived.[641]
[Illustration: Coat-Of-Arms of Andronicus Ii. Palæologus.[642]]
Repairs were again executed upon the seaward walls when Andronicus II.
undertook the general restoration of the fortifications of the
city.[643] Until recently a slab bearing the monogram and coat-of-arms
of that emperor, a lion rampant, crowned and holding an upright sword,
was to be seen on a tower of the wall surrounding the ancient harbour at
Koum Kapoussi.
So far, at least, as the wall beside the Sea of Marmora was concerned,
the work of Andronicus II. was soon injured. For on the very eve of his
death, on the 12th of February, 1332, a furious storm from the south
burst upon the fortifications beside that sea. The waves leaped over the
battlements, opened breaches in the wall, forced the gates, and rushed
in like a hostile army to devastate every quarter they could
overwhelm.[644]
Although the fact is not recorded, the damage done on that occasion must
have been repaired by Andronicus III.
Occasion for attending to the state of the seaward fortifications,
especially along the Golden Horn, was again given, in the course of the
conflicts between Cantacuzene and the Genoese of Galata.
In 1348 the latter made a violent assault upon the northern side of the
city, and, although failing to carry the walls, did much harm to the
shipping, timber-stores, and houses near the water.[645]
Matters assumed a more serious aspect in 1351. A powerful fleet then
sailed from Genoa, under the command of Doria, to attack Constantinople
in support of certain claims put forth by the colony at Galata, and on
its way up the Sea of Marmora, captured the fortified town of Heraclea.
The event caused the greatest consternation in the capital, and, in view
of the enemy’s approach, Cantacuzene promptly set the seaward walls in
order, repairing them where ruined, raising their height, and ordering
all houses before them to be removed.[646] He also carried the towers
higher, by erecting, in the manner usual on such occasions,
constructions of timber on their summits. And not satisfied with these
precautions, he even excavated a deep moat in front of the Harbour
Walls, all the way from the Gate Xylinè, at Aivan Serai, to the Gate of
Eugenius (Yali Kiosk Kapoussi), near the Seraglio Point.
[Illustration: Bas-Relief, On The Tower East of Djubali Kapoussi,
Representing The Three Hebrew Youths Cast Into The Fiery Furnace of
Babylon, as Described in the Book Of Daniel.[647]]
A trace of these repairs is found in a slab on the tower immediately to
the east of the gate Djubali Kapoussi,[648] bearing a lion rampant, and
the name of Manuel Phakrasè Catacuzene (MANOΥΗA ΦAKRACΗ TOU
KATAKOΥSΗNOΥ), who was Proto-strator under Cantacuzene, and
distinguished himself by his conduct in the defence of Selivria, in
1341, and in the siege of Galata, ten years later.[649]
In 1434 the Harbour Walls called for some slight repair, in consequence
of another Genoese attack upon them. An expedition which had been sent
from Genoa to take the town of Kaffa, having failed in that object,
returned to the Bosporus, and sought to compensate for defeat in the
Crimea by nothing less than the capture of Constantinople itself. The
bold attempt made with ships carrying 8000 troops, was repulsed, and the
baffled fleet returned to Italy. But the Genoese of Galata determined to
continue the struggle; and in the bombardment of the walls with cannon,
destroyed several warehouses in the city, and a tower beside the Gate
Basilikè. This attack, likewise, ended in failure, and the colony was
compelled to pay an indemnity of a thousand pieces of gold, to make good
the damage caused by the bombardment.[650]
Two inscriptions, preserved by Dr. A. D. Mordtmann[651] in his work on
the last siege of the city,[652] are noteworthy as records of repairs
made on the fortifications beside the Sea of Marmora, when
Constantinople trembled before the Ottoman power. They are also
interesting on account of the personages whom they commemorate as
restorers of the walls.
One stood, somewhere, on the wall between Ahour Kapoussi and Tchatlady
Kapou, and read:
ΛΟΥΚ
ΝΟΤΑΡΑΣ
ΔΙΕΡΜΗΝΕΥΤΟΥ
“Of Luke Notaras, the Interpreter.”
This was Lucas Notaras, who subsequently became Grand Duke, and was the
most prominent citizen of Constantinople in the catastrophe of 1453.
When he executed these repairs he held the office of interpreter, or
dragoman, under the Emperor John VII. Palæologus, in carrying on
negotiations with Sultan Murad.[653] The office had, naturally, come
into existence owing to the frequent diplomatic intercourse between the
Byzantine Government and foreigners, and was of great importance and
distinction. In the reign of Manuel Palæeologus it had been held by
Nicholas Notaras, the father of Lucas Notaras.[654]
The second inscription stood on a tower between Koum Kapoussi and Yeni
Kapou. It commemorated repairs executed in 1448 at the expense of the
celebrated George Brankovitch, Despot of Servia.
† ΑΝΕΚΕΝΙΣ
ΘΗΝ ΟΥΤΟΣ
Ο ΠΥΡΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ
ΚΟΡΤΙΝΑ Υ
ΠΟ ΓΕΩΡΓΙ
ΟΥ ΔΕΣΠΟΤΟΥ
ΣΕΡΒΙΑΣ ... +
ΕΝ ΕΤΕΙ ϚϠ ΥϚ
“This tower and curtain-wall were restored by George, Despot of
Servia; in the year 6956 (1448).”
It will be remembered that some of the funds furnished by the Servian
king were employed in repairs on the land walls.[655]
Footnote 618:
_La Conquête de Constantinople_, c. 52: “Et il y en eut assez qui
conseillièrent qu’on allât de l’autre côté de la ville, du côté où
elle n’était pas si fortifiée. Et les Vénitiens, qui connaissaient
mieux la mer, dirent que s’ils y allaient, le courant de l’eau les
emmènerait en aval du Bras; et ils ne pourraient arrêter leurs
vaisseaux.” Compare with this Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365.
Footnote 619:
Theophanes, pp. 607, 608.
Footnote 620:
Cedrenus, vol. ii p. 82.
Footnote 621:
Leo Gram., p. 241.
Footnote 622:
See Map of Byzantine Constantinople.
Footnote 623:
See below, p. 263.
Footnote 624:
Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Constantinople_, p. 21. The
inscription was in the same terms as that in honour of Constantine on
the Porta Rhousiou. See above, p. 47.
Footnote 625:
Anonymus, iii. p. 56.
Footnote 626:
Theophanes, p. 589.
Footnote 627:
Theophanes, pp. 670, 671; Nicephorus Patriarcha CP., pp. 76, 77.
Footnote 628:
Genesius, p. 75; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 107.
Footnote 629:
Manasses, 4824-4829.
Footnote 630:
See illustration facing p. 248.
Footnote 631:
Vol. i. numbers 8, 10, 19.
Footnote 632:
Von Hammer, _Constantinopolis und Bosporos_, vol. i. appendix, numbers
23, 24. These inscriptions are noted also by Tournefort, _Voyage du
Levant_, lettre xi. p. 180.
Footnote 633:
_Proceedings of the Greek Literary Syllogos of Consple._, vol. xvi.,
1885; _Archæological Supplement_, p. 31.
Footnote 634:
Cf. _Proceedings of the Greek Literary Syllogos of Consple._, vol.
xvi., 1885; _Archæological Supplement_, p. 32. The following reading
of the inscription has been suggested:
Πολλῶν κραταιῶς δεσποσάντων τοῦ σάλου
Ἀλλ᾽ οὐδενὸς πρὸς ὕψος [εἴκοσιν ποδῶν]
Τὸ βληθὲν εἰς γῆν τεῖχος ἐξηγερκότος
For the words in brackets, read instead, ἤ εὐκοσμίαν. Cf. Mordtmann,
p. 53.
Footnote 635:
Phrantzes, pp. 287, 288.
Footnote 636:
Page 101. The supposition is probable; but one or two points are not
clear. Phrantzes describes the post held by the Cretans as consisting
of more than one tower (p. 101, τῶν πύργων), and as a single tower (p.
288, τοῦ πύργου). (1) Is the plural number to be understood literally
or rhetorically? (2) Is the Basil associated by Phrantzes with Leo and
Alexius (Alexander) their father, Basil I., or does the historian
refer to Basil II. and the tower erected by that emperor? If the
former alternative be adopted, only one tower was concerned in the
matter, and the name of Basil I. must have dropped out of the
inscription of Leo and Alexander when the tower, as the reversed
position of part of the inscription proved, was injured and repaired.
If, on the other hand, the historian, in referring to the tower of
Basil, had the tower of Basil II. in view, then more than one tower
was defended by the Cretans. It should be added that Phrantzes (p.
254) speaks of the crew of a Cretan ship as defending the
fortifications near the Beautiful Gate, on the Golden Horn (see below,
pp. 221, 222), and this may be thought to imply that the tower or
towers he had in mind stood beside the harbour. But as three ships (p.
238) from Crete were present at the siege, Cretans could be found
taking part in the defence at different points. The tower of Leo and
Alexander has disappeared.
Footnote 637:
Page 274.
Footnote 638:
Two fragmentary inscriptions of doubtful import, on the walls beside
the Sea of Marmora, may be cited here.
The first is found on the seventh tower south of Deïrmen Kapoussi, and
reads:
ΟΥ ΤΟΝ ΦΗΛΩΧΡΙΣΤΟΝ ΔΕΣΠΟΤΟΝ
ΕΤΟΣ ΚΟΣΜΟΥ ΤΕΣΣΑΡΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΔΕΚΑΤΟΥ
The second is on the second tower west of Ahour Kapoussi:
ΜΒΑΙΩΝΝΘΟΜ ΤΕΙΧ ΗΝΕΟΥΡΓΕΙ ΚΑΙ ΦΥΛΑΤΕΙ
Footnote 639:
Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 186, 187.
Footnote 640:
Three pikes.
Footnote 641:
Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 364; Nicephoras Greg., v. p. 124; _Metrical
Chronicle_, pp. 657-661.
Footnote 642:
Dr. Paspates (pp. 208, 209) considered the land wall of the Seraglio
enclosure to be the work of Michael Palæologus. His argument for the
opinion that the Seraglio grounds were enclosed by walls before the
Turkish Conquest, and formed, after 1261, part of the domain attached
to the palace of the Byzantine emperors, is the statement of
Cantacuzene (iii. pp. 47, 66) that the Church of St. Demetrius stood
within the palace (τῶν βασιλείων ἐντὸς). That church Dr. Paspates
identified with the Church of St. Demetrius, near the Seraglio Point;
hence his conclusion that the territory about that point was included
in the grounds of the Byzantine palace. But Dr. Paspates must have
forgotten, for a moment, that the Church of St. Demetrius, which
formed the chapel of the emperors, was not near the Seraglio Point,
but near the Pharos and the Chrysotriclinium of the Great Palace,
buildings placed by Dr. Paspates himself at Domus-Dama, a short
distance to the east of the Hippodrome, and to the west of the
Seraglio enclosure. See his work on the Great Palace, Βυζαντινὰ
Ἀνάκτορα, p. 183. There is an English translation of this work by Mr.
Metcalfe.
Footnote 643:
From _Broken Bits of Byzantium_. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
Footnote 644:
Nicephorus Greg., vii. p. 275; Nicephorus Callistus, in the Dedication
of his _History_ to Andronicus II.
Footnote 645:
Nicephorus Greg., ix. p. 460.
Footnote 646:
Cantacuzene, iv. p. 70; Nicephorus Greg., xvii. chaps. i.-vii.
Footnote 647:
Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 212, 213; Nicephorus Greg., xxvi. pp. 83, 84.
Footnote 648:
From _Broken Bits of Byzantium_. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
The bas-relief has been removed to the Imperial Museum.
Footnote 649:
See below, p. 209.
Footnote 650:
Cantacuzene, iii. p. 585; iv. p. 196. See _Proceedings of Greek
Literary Syllogos of Consple._, 1885; _Archæological Supplement_, pp.
37, 38.
Footnote 651:
Chalcocondylas, pp. 285, 286.
Footnote 652:
The father of Dr. Mordtmann, whose work on the topography of the city
has been so often cited.
Footnote 653:
_Belagerung und Eroberung Constantinopels durch die Türken in Jahre_
1453, note 27, p. 132; Stuttgart, J. G., _Cottascher Verlag_.
Footnote 654:
Ducas, pp. 196, 275; cf. Phrantzes, p. 118.
Footnote 655:
Ducas, pp. 93, 94. See Schlumberger, _Un Empereur Byzantin au Dixième
Siècle_, pp. 48, 49, for an account of the interpreters attached to
the Varangian Guard. Ville-Hardouin (c. 39) speaks of the dragoman who
assisted Isaac Angelus in the negotiations with the envoys of the
Crusaders in 1203: “Et il (the emperor) se leva, et entra en une
chambre; et n’emmena avec lui que l’impératrice, et son chancelier, et
son drogman, et les quatre messagers” (of the Crusaders).
Footnote 656:
See above, p. 107.