THE WALLS ALONG THE GOLDEN HORN.
The Harbour Fortifications guarded the northern side of the city, from
the Acropolis (Seraglio Point) to the terminus of the land walls at
Blachernæ, and, excepting a small portion, consisted of a single wall,
flanked, according to Bondelmontius, by a hundred and ten towers.[656]
To accommodate the commerce and traffic of the city, the wall was built,
for the most part, at a short distance from the water; but the strip of
ground thus left without the fortifications was even narrower in ancient
times than it is at present, much of the land outside the wall having
been made by recent deposits of earth and rubbish. This explains how the
Venetian fleet, in 1203 and 1204, was able to approach so near the
ramparts that troops standing on the flying bridges attached to the
ships’ yards came to close quarters with the defenders on the walls.
Indeed, in one case, at least, such a bridge spanned the distance
between ship and tower, and permitted the assailants to cross over and
seize the latter.[657] At the actual distance, however, of the wall from
the water, such a feat would be impossible, except in the vicinity of
the Seraglio Point, which was not the quarter attacked by the Venetians.
Gates.
At a short distance to the east of the Xylo Porta a breach in the wall
marks the site of a gateway named by the Turks Kutchuk Aivan Serai
Kapoussi—“the Small Gate of Aivan Serai.”[658] It stands at the head of
a short street leading southwards to the site of the famous Church of
the Theotokos of Blachernaæ, while to the north is the landing of Aivan
Serai Iskelessi, which accommodates this quarter of the city. Here,
probably, was the Porta Kiliomenè (Κοιλιωμένη Πόρτα),[659] at which the
emperors—as late, at least, as the beginning of the thirteenth
century—landed and were received by the Senate, when proceeding by water
to visit the Church or the Palace of Blachernæ. Nowhere else could one
disembark so near that sanctuary and that palace.
The landing-stage before the gate must, therefore, have been the
Imperial Pier (Ἀποβάθρα τοῦ βασιλέως) mentioned by Nicetas Choniates.
Some authorities, it is true, place that landing at Balat Kapoussi. But
it could not have been there when Nicetas Choniates wrote; for that
historian[660] refers to the Apobathra of the Emperor to indicate the
position of the Wall of Leo, which was attacked by the Latins in 1203.
Now, points which could thus serve to identify each other must have been
in close proximity. But Balat Kapoussi and the Wall of Leo are too far
apart for the former to indicate the site of the latter. On the other
hand, the Wall of Leo and Aivan Serai Iskelessi are very near each
other.
Over the northern entrance to the lower chamber in the tower west of the
gateway were found, until recently, two blocks of stone, upon which the
name of St. Pantoleon was rudely carved between the figures of two
peacocks, or phœnixes, symbols of the immortality that rose from the
fires of martyrdom. Possibly, the chamber was a chapel in which persons
entering or leaving the city could perform their devotions. According to
Stephen of Novgorod, the relics of St. Pantoleon reposed in the
adjoining Church of the Theotokos of Blachernæ.[661]
In the street to the rear of the tower is the small Mosque Toklou Dedè
Mesdjidi, formerly, it is supposed, the Church of St. Thekla,[662] in
the quarter of Blachernæ.
On the east side of the street leading from the Porta Kiliomenè to the
Church of Blachernæ remains are found of a large two-storied Byzantine
edifice, with three aisles. Its original destination cannot be
determined with any degree of certainty. By some authorities[663] the
building is supposed to have been the Porticus Cariana (Καριανὸν
Ἔμβολον), which the Emperor Maurice erected, and upon the walls of which
scenes in his life, from his childhood until his accession to the
throne, were pourtrayed.[664]
The Bay of Aivan Serai was called the Bay of Blachernæ (ὁ πρὸς Βλαχέρνας
κόλπος), and had a dockyard known as the Neorion at Blachernæ (τὸ ἐν
Βλαχέρναις νεώριον).[665]
Proceeding eastwards, a few paces bring us to a breach in the wall
leading to the Mosque Atik Mustapha Pasha Djamissi, supposed to be the
Byzantine Church of SS. Peter and Mark, which was erected in 458 by two
patricians, Galbius and Candidus, upon the shore of the Golden Horn, in
the quarter of Blachernæ. The sanctuary claimed the honour of having
enshrined “the Girdle of the Blessed Virgin,” before that relic was
placed in the church specially dedicated to the Theotokos in this part
of the city.[666] In the street to the west of the mosque lies the
marble baptismal font of the church, cruciform, and having three steps
within it leading to the bottom.
In a chrysoboullon of John Palæologus dated 1342, mention is made of the
Gate of St. Anastasia (Πύλη τῆς ἁγίας Ἀναστασίας) in this part of the
city.[667] The Russian pilgrim, who visited Constantinople in the
fifteenth century (1424-1453), speaks of a chapel containing the relics
of St. Anastasia near the Church of Blachernæ.[668]
Considerable interest is attached to the Church of St. Demetrius,
situated within the walls a few paces to the east of Atik Mustapha Pasha
Djamissi; for although the present edifice dates only from the beginning
of the eighteenth century, the original building was a Byzantine
foundation, adorned with mosaics and surmounted by a dome. Its full
style was the Church of St. Demetrius of Kanabus (τοῦ Καναβοῦ), and may,
as the Patriarch Constantius suggests,[669] have been erected by a
member of the family of the Nicholas Kanabus who became emperor for a
few days, in the interval between the overthrow of the Angeli and the
usurpation of Murtzuphlus, during the troublous times of the Fourth
Crusade.[670] In 1334, the church was the property of George
Pepagomenos, a relative of Andronicus III.[671] After the Turkish
Conquest the church became, from 1597 to 1601, the cathedral of the
Greek Patriarch, when he was deprived of the use of the Church of the
Pammakaristos (Fethiyeh Djamissi).[672]
Soon after leaving the Church of St. Demetrius, and before reaching the
gate now styled Balat Kapoussi, the city wall was pierced by three large
archways, 45 to 55 paces apart, and alternating with three towers. Balat
Kapoussi being only 55 paces beyond the easternmost archway, here stood
four entrances into the city, in most unusual proximity to one another.
The first, or westernmost archway was, at one time, adorned with a
bas-relief on either side. Tafferner, chaplain to Count Walter of
Leslie, ambassador from the German Emperor Leopold I. to the Ottoman
Court in the seventeenth century, describes the archway as follows: “In
decensu clivi defluentis in Euxini brachium, porta perampla et obstructa
muro conspicitur. Fama fert limitum hunc fuisse aulæ magni Constantini.
Ad dextrum portæ latus adstat Angelus a candido et eleganti marmore
effigiatus, statura celsior, ac virilem præ se ferens, et inserto muro.
Ad lævam, Deipara visitur, proportione priore consimilis, atque ab
Angelo consulatuta.”[673]
[Illustration: Nikè (Formerly Adorning Archway Near Balat Kapoussi).]
Only the bas-relief which stood on the eastern side of the archway has
survived to our time.[674] It represents a winged female figure, attired
in a flowing robe, and holding in her left hand a palm leaf—beyond all
controversy a Nikè, not, as Tafferner imagined, the Angel of the
Annunciation, nor, as the Patriarch Constantius supposed, the Archangel
Michael.[675]
Regarding the precise object of these four entrances, and the names to
be attached to them, a serious difference of opinion prevails. Most
authorities maintain that the archway adorned with the bas-relief was
the Gate of the Kynegos, of the Hunter (τοῦ Κυνηγοῦ, τῶν Κυνηγῶν), so
frequently mentioned in the later days of the Empire; and that Balat
Kapoussi was the Pylè Basilikè (Πύλη Βασιλικὴ) referred to by writers of
the same period. On the other hand, Gyllius identified Balat Kapoussi
with the Gate of the Kynegos, and regarded the three archways above
mentioned as entrances to a small artificial port within the line of the
fortifications. His reason for the latter opinion was the existence of a
great depression in the ground to the rear of the archways, which was
occupied, in his day, by market-gardens, but which seemed to him the
basin of an old harbour: “Ultra Portam Palatinam”—to give his own
words—“progressus circiter centum viginti passus, animadverti tres
magnus arcus, astructos urbis muro, et substructos, per quos olim
Imperatores subducebant triremes in portum opere factum, nunc exiccatus
et conversus in hortos concavos, præ se gerentes speciem portus
obruti.”[676]
As appears from the passage just quoted, Gyllius styled Balat Kapoussi
not only the Gate of the Hunter, but also the Porta Palatina. Whether in
doing so he meant to identify the Gate of the Kynegos with the Basilikè
Pylè, or simply gave the Latin rendering of the name by which Balat
Kapoussi was popularly known when he visited the city, is not perfectly
clear. The latter supposition is, however, more in harmony with that
author’s usage in the case of other gates.
Stephen Gerlach and Leunclavius agree with Gyllius in regarding Balat
Kapoussi as the Gate of the Kynegos, but place the Basilikè Pylè near
the eastern extremity of the Harbour Walls, Gerlach[677] identifying it
with Yali Kiosk Kapoussi, Leunclavius[678] with Bagtchè Kapoussi.
Neither Gerlach nor Leunclavius refers to the three arches on the west
of Balat Kapoussi. The latter, however, speaks of the hollow ground to
their rear, describing it in the following terms: “Locus depressus et
concavus, ubi Patriarchion erat meæ peregrinationis tempore,” and
supposed it to have been the arena of a theatre for the exhibition of
wild animals. From that theatre, he thought, the Gate of the Kynegos
obtained its name.
The question to which gates the names Gate of the Kynegos and Basilikè
Pylè respectively belonged is the most difficult problem connected with
the history of the harbour fortifications. To discuss it satisfactorily
at this stage of our inquiries is, however, impossible; for the opinion
that the Basilikè Pylè was not at Balat Kapoussi, but near the eastern
extremity of the Harbour Walls, is a point which can be determined only
after all the facts relative to the gates near that end of the
fortifications are before us. The full discussion of the subject must
therefore be deferred,[679] and, meantime, little more can be done than
to state the conclusions which appear to have most evidence in their
favour.
There can be no doubt, in the first place, that the Gate of the Kynegos
was in this vicinity, and was either Balat Kapoussi or the archway
adorned with the bas-relief. This is established by all the indications
in regard to the situation of the entrance. The Gate of the Kynegos
stood, according to Phrantzes,[680] between the Xylo Porta and the
Petrion; according to Pusculus,[681] between the Xylo Porta and the
Porta Phani (Fener Kapoussi), and not far from the former. It was in the
neighbourhood of the emperor’s palace,[682] and the point at which
persons approaching that palace from the Golden Horn disembarked and
took horses to reach the Imperial residence.[683] Both Balat Kapoussi
and the adjoining archways answer to this description, and they are the
only entrances which can pretend to be city gates in the portion of the
walls between the Xylo Porta and the Gate of the Phanar. Therefore, one
or other of them was the Gate of the Kynegos.
It is a corroboration of this conclusion to find that the district named
after the Gate of the Kynegos occupied the level tract beside the Golden
Horn within and without the line of the walls in the vicinity of these
entrances. The Church of St. Demetrius, for instance, which stood a
short distance to the west of Balat Kapoussi and the adjoining archways,
is described as near a gate in the quarter of the Kynegon.[684] The
bridge which the Turks threw out into the harbour from Haskeui, to carry
a battery with which to bombard this part of the fortifications, was in
front of the Kynegon.[685] Nicholas Barbaro[686] applies the name even
to the territory near the Xylo Porta; for, according to him, the land
walls extended from the Golden Gate to the Kynegon: “Le mure de tera,
che jera mia sie, che sun de la Cresca per fina al Chinigo.” With this
agrees also the statement of the same author that the Kynegon was the
point where Diedo and Gabriel of Treviso landed the crews of their
galleys, to excavate the moat which the emperor asked to be constructed
before the land walls protecting his palace.[687] The quarter of the
Kynegon thus comprised the modern quarters of Balata and Aivan Serai.
In the second place, it is exceedingly doubtful whether the archway with
the Nikè, to which the name Gate of the Kynegos is commonly ascribed,
was, after all, a city gate in the ordinary sense of the term. It does
not stand alone, but is one of three archways which pierce,
respectively, the curtain-walls between three towers. And these three
openings were in close proximity to a gate (Balat Kapoussi), amply
sufficient for the requirements of public traffic in this quarter of the
capital. Such facts do not accord with the idea that any one of these
archways was a gateway. Furthermore, when their real destination could
be more accurately ascertained than at present, Gyllius found that they
formed the entrances to an artificial harbour within the line of the
fortifications. This explanation of their presence in the wall is
perfectly satisfactory, and any other is superfluous. But if Balat
Kapoussi was the only gate in this vicinity, it must have been the Gate
of the Kynegos, which certainly stood in this part of the city.
There is nothing strange in the existence of a harbour within the line
of the fortifications in the quarter of the Kynegon. It is what might be
expected when we remember how closely the quarter was connected with the
Palace of the Porphyrogenitus and the Palace of Blachernæ, and how
necessary such a harbour was for the accommodation and protection of the
boats and galleys at the service of the Court. That the harbour behind
the three archways near Balat Kapoussi was the Neorion of Blachernæ is
unlikely; the most probable situation of that Neorion being at Aivan
Serai Iskelessi. But it may very well have been the harbour on the shore
of the Kynegon at which, during the period of the Palæologi, the emperor
and visitors to the palaces in the vicinity embarked or disembarked in
moving to and fro by water. The landing at which the Spanish ambassadors
to the Byzantine Court were received is described as near the Gate of
the Kynegos: “Près de la porte de Quinigo.”[688] The galleys sent by the
Council of Basle to convey John VII. Palæologus to the West, and which
reached Constantinople fifteen days after the arrival of four Papal
galleys on a similar errand, were detained for one day at Psamathia,
until the rival parties had been prevailed upon to keep the peace, and
then came and moored at the Kynegon (εἰς τὸν Κυνηγὸν). There the emperor
embarked for Italy, under the escort of the Papal galleys; there the
galley having on board the patriarch, who was to accompany the emperor,
joined the Imperial squadron; and there the emperor disembarked upon his
return from the Councils of Ferrara and Florence.[689] During the siege
of 1453 a fire-ship, with forty young men on board, proceeded from the
Gate of the Kynegos to burn the Turkish vessels which had been conveyed
over the hills into the Golden Horn.[690] All this implies the existence
of a port somewhere on the shore of the quarter of the Kynegon.
In the third place, all discussion in regard to the proper application
of the names Basilikè Pylè, and Gate of the Kynegos must proceed upon
the indisputable fact that the epithet “Imperial,” belonged to an
entrance at the eastern extremity of the Harbour Walls. In proof of
this, it is enough to cite, meantime, the statement of Phrantzes[691]
that Gabriel of Treviso was entrusted with the defence of a tower which
guarded the entrance of the Golden Horn, and which stood opposite the
Basilikè Pylè. Unless, therefore, it can be shown that there was more
than one Basilikè Pylè in the fortifications beside the Golden Horn, the
claim of Balat Kapoussi to the Imperial epithet falls to the ground. If
the existence of two Imperial gates in the Harbour Walls can be
established, then Balat Kapoussi has the best right to be regarded as
the second entrance bearing that designation. In that case, however, the
conclusion most in harmony with the facts involved in the matter is that
the second Basilikè Pylè was only the Gate of the Kynegos under another
name.[692]
Why, precisely, the entrance was styled the Gate of the Hunter is a
matter of conjecture. Some explain the name as derived from a Kynegion,
or theatre for the exhibition of wild animals,[693] such as existed on
the side of the city facing Scutari; and in favour of this opinion is
the term “Kynegesion” (τοῦ Κυνηγεσίου), employed by Phrantzes[694] to
designate the quarter adjoining the entrance. But the ordinary style of
the name lends more countenance to the view that the gate was in some
way connected with the huntsmen attached to the Byzantine Court, hunting
being always a favourite pastime of the emperors of Constantinople.
Their head huntsman (ὁ πρωτοκυνηγὸς) was an official of some importance.
Besides directing his subordinates, it was his prerogative to hold the
stirrup when the emperor mounted horse, and the Imperial hunting-suit
was his perquisite, if stained with blood in the course of the
chase.[695]
A gate, known as the Gate of St. John the Forerunner and Baptist (Πόρτα
τοῦ ἁγίου Προδρόμου καὶ Βαπτιστοῦ), was also situated in the quarter of
the Kynegon, and near the Church of St. Demetrius.[696] That name might
readily be given to a gate in this vicinity, either in honour of the
great Church and Monastery of St. John the Baptist in Petra, on the
heights above Balat Kapoussi, or in honour of the church of the same
dedication, which, there is reason to think, stood on the site of the
Church of St. John the Baptist, found, at present, on the shore to the
north-east of that entrance. Whether the Gate of St. John has
disappeared, or was the Gate of the Kynegos under another name, is a
point upon which there may be a difference of opinion. Dr.
Mordtmann[697] identifies it with the Gate of the Kynegos, which,
according to him, was the archway adorned with the Nikè. It may be
identified with the Gate of the Kynegos, even on the view that the
latter was Balat Kapoussi. That a Church of St. John stood in the
neighbourhood of the Gate of the Kynegos is also intimated by
Pachymeres, who records a fire which, in 1308, burnt down the quarter
extending from that gate to the Monastery of the Forerunner.[698]
The gate next in order, as its Turkish name, Fener Kapoussi, proves, is
the entrance which the foreign historians of the last siege style Porta
Phani, Porta del Pharo.[699] This designation was, doubtless, the
rendering of the Byzantine name of the gate, for the adjoining quarter,
as appears first in a document dated 1351, went by its present name,
Phanari (τοποθεσία τοῦ φανάρι),[700] also before the Turkish Conquest. A
beacon light must have stood at this point of the harbour.
From the Porta Phani eastwards to Petri Kapoussi, the next gate, the
fortifications consisted of two lines of wall which enclosed a
considerable territory, the inner wall describing a great curve on the
steep northern front of the Fifth Hill. The enclosure was called the
Castron of the Petrion[701] (τὸ κάστρον τῶν Πετρίων), after Petrus,
Master of the Offices in the reign of Justinian the Great;[702] and the
surrounding district was named the Petrion (Πετρίον, τὰ Πετρία,[703]
“Regio Petri Patricii”).[704] It must be carefully distinguished from
the district of Petra (Πέτρα), at Kesmè Kaya, above Balat Kapoussi.
In the angle formed by the junction of the two walls, a little to the
west of the Porta Phani, was a small gate, Diplophanarion,[705] which
led from the Castron into the city.
Petri Kapoussi, at the eastern extremity of the Castron, and in the
outer wall, communicated with the street skirting the Golden Horn, and
retains the ancient name of the district.[706] Dr. Mordtmann[707]
identifies it with the Porta Sidhera (Σιδηρᾶ Πίλη), near the Convent of
the Petrion.[708] That the Petrion was not confined to the Castron, but
included territory on either side of the enclosure, is manifest from the
fact that whereas the wall between the Porta Phani and the Porta Petri
is without a single tower, mention is yet made of towers in the
Petrion.[709]
Of the churches in this quarter, St. Stephen of the Romans, St. Julianè,
St. Elias, and St. Euphemia, the two last were the most important. The
Church of St. Euphemia claimed to be an older foundation than
Constantinople itself, being attributed to Castinus, Bishop of
Byzantium, 230-237. It was restored by Basil I., and his daughters
entered the convent attached to the church.[710] The Convent of Petrion,
as it was called, must have been of considerable importance, for it was
on several occasions selected as the place in which ladies of high rank,
who had become politically inconvenient, were interned; as, for
instance, Zoe, the dowager-empress of Leo the Wise, for conspiracy
against Romanus Lecapenus;[711] Theodora, by her sister the Empress
Zoe;[712] and Delassaina, the mother of the Comneni, with her daughters
and daughters-in-law, by Nicephorus Botoniates.[713]
In the assaults made by foreign fleets upon the Harbour Walls, the
Petrion, or Phanar, occupied a conspicuous place.
It was before the Petrion[714] that the Venetian galleys under Dandolo
stood, July 17, 1203, and established the free end of their flying
bridges upon the summit of the walls, whereby twenty-five towers were
captured, and the city was recovered for Isaac Angelus. The Petrion was
again prominent in the assault which the Crusaders delivered on April
12, 1204, when Constantinople passed into their hands and became the
seat of a Latin Empire. Here the flying bridge of the ship _Pelerine_
lodged itself on a tower, and allowed a bold Venetian and a French
knight, André d’Urboise, to rush across, seize the tower, and clear a
way for their comrades to follow. Here ladders were then landed, the
walls scaled, three gates forced, and the city thrown open to the whole
host of the invaders.[715]
In the siege of 1453, early on the morning of the 29th of May, the
Phanar was fiercely attacked by the Turkish ships in the Golden
Horn.[716] The attack was repulsed, and the Greeks remained masters of
the situation, until the occupation of the city by the enemy’s land
forces made further resistance impossible. The memory of the struggle is
said to be preserved in the quarter by the name of the street Sandjakdar
Youcousou (the Ascent of the Standard-bearer) and by the Turkish name
for the Church of St. Mary Mougouliotissa, Kan Klissè (the Church of
Blood).[717]
The succeeding gate, Yeni Aya Kapou, was opened, it would seem, in
Turkish times, being first mentioned by Evlia Tchelebi. There is,
however, one circumstance in favour of regarding it as a small Byzantine
entrance, enlarged after the Conquest. On the right of the gate, within
the line of the walls, are the remains of a large Byzantine edifice,
which could hardly have dispensed with a postern.
Aya Kapou, the next entrance, as its Turkish name intimates, and the
order of Pusculus requires, is the Porta Divæ Theodosiæ (Πύλη τῆς Ἁγίας
Θεοδοσίας),[718] so named in honour of the adjoining Church of St.
Theodosia (now Gul Djamissi), the first martyr in the cause of Icons,
under Leo the Isaurian. The gate was also known by the name Porta
Dexiocrates, after the district of Dexiocrates in which it stood.[719]
This identification rests upon the fact that while Pachymeres[720]
affirms that the body of St. Theodosia lay in the church dedicated to
her memory, the _Synaxaristes_ declares that she was buried in the
Monastery of Dexiocrates.[721] Only by the supposition that the Church
of St. Theodosia stood in the district of Dexiocrates can these
statements be reconciled. The church is first mentioned by Antony of
Novgorod.[722] The festival of the saint, falling on May 29th, coincided
with the day on which, in 1453. the city was captured by the Turks. As
usual, a large crowd of worshippers, many of them ladies, filled the
sacred edifice, little thinking of the tragedy which would interrupt
their devotions, when suddenly Turkish troops burst into the church and
carried the congregation off into slavery.[723]
The next gate, Djubali Kapoussi, must be the entrance styled Porta Puteæ
by Pusculus,[724] and Porta del Pozzo by Zorzo Dolfin;[725] for it is
the only entrance between the Gate of St. Theodosia (Aya Kapou) and the
Porta Platea (Oun Kapan Kapoussi), the gates between which the writers
above mentioned place the Porta Puteæ. Although no Byzantine author has
mentioned the Porta Puteæ by its Greek name, there can be no doubt that
the name in vogue among foreigners was the translation, more or less
exact, of the native style of the entrance, and that consequently the
gate marks the point designated Ispigas (εἰς Πηγὰς) by the Chronista
Novgorodensis, in his account of the operations of the Venetian fleet
against the harbour fortifications on the 12th of April, 1204. The ships
of the Crusaders, says that authority, were then drawn up before the
walls, in a line extending from the Monastery of Christ the Benefactor
and Ispigas, on the east, to Blachernæ, on the west: “Cum solis ortu
steterunt, in conspectu ecclesiæ Sancti Redemptoris, quæ dicitur τοῦ
Εὐεργέτου, et Ispigarum, Blachernis tenus.”[726]
The name of the gate alluded to the suburb of Pegæ (Πηγαὶ), situated
directly opposite, on the northern shore of the harbour, and noted for
its numerous springs of water. Dionysius Byzantius, in his _Anaplus of
the Golden Horn and the Bosporus_,[727] describes the locality at
length, naming it Krenides (Κρηνίδες). on account of its flowing springs
(πηγαίων), which gave the district the character of marshy ground. The
suburb appears under the name Pegæ in the history of the siege of the
city by the Avars, when the Imperial fleet formed a cordon across the
harbour, from the Church of St. Nicholas at Blachernæ to the Church of
St. Conon and the suburb of Pegæ, to prevent the enemy’s flotilla of
boats in the streams at the head of the Golden Horn from descending into
the harbour.[728]
According to Antony of Novgorod, the suburb was situated to the west of
St. Irene of Galata; it contained several churches, and was largely
inhabited by Jews.[729] It appears again in the old Records of the
Genoese colony of Galata in the fourteenth century, under the name
Spiga, or De Spiga, to the west of that town.[730] Critobulus calls it
the Cold Waters (Ψυχρὰ Ὕδατα), placing it on the bay into which Sultan
Mehemet brought his ships over the hills from the Bosporus.[731]
As appears from the passage of the Chronista Novgorodensis, cited above,
near the Porta Puteæ stood the Monastery of Christ the Benefactor,
interesting as a conspicuous landmark in the scenes associated with the
Latin Conquest of the city.
The fire which the Venetians set near the portion of the Harbour Walls
captured in 1203, reduced to ashes the quarters extending from Blachernæ
as far east as that monastery.[732] The monastery marked also the
eastern extremity of the line of battle in which the ships of the
Crusaders delivered the final attack upon the walls on April 12,
1204;[733] while the fire which illuminated the victory of that day
started in the neighbourhood of that religious house, and raged
eastwards to the quarter of Drungarius.[734] During the Latin occupation
the Venetians established a dockyard on the shore in the vicinity of the
monastery;[735] the adjoining district, including the Church of
Pantocrator[736] (now Zeirek Klissè Djamissi) and the Church of
Pantopoptes[737] (now Eski Imaret Mesdjidi), on the Fourth Hill, being
their head-quarters.
Footnote 657:
_Librum Insularum Archipelagi._
Footnote 658:
Ville-Hardouin, c. xxxvi., lii., liii.
Footnote 659:
Evlia Tchelebi. Aivan Serai means the Palace of the Porch, or
Verandah. The name refers, probably, to the Palace of Blachernæ.
Footnote 660:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 542, cf. p. 551. In the Bonn Edition
the term is translated, “Depressa et in humilius deducta.”
Footnote 661:
Page 721, τὸ τεῖχος ὅ παρατείναι πρὸς θάλασσαν περὶ τόπον ὅς ἀποβάθρα
τοῦ βασιλέως ὠνόμασται. Cf. Ville-Hardouin, c. 35: “un avant-mur ...
près de la mer.”
Footnote 662:
_Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 124.
Footnote 663:
Paspates, pp. 357-360. Cf. Theophanes Cont., pp. 147, 148; Anna Comn.,
iii. p. 166.
Footnote 664:
Mordtmann, p. 39.
Footnote 665:
Theophanes, p. 402. The building is ninety-eight feet long by sixty
feet wide. The central aisle is twenty feet wide; the side aisles
fifteen feet. The dividing walls, pierced by seven arches, are five
feet thick.
Footnote 666:
Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365.
Footnote 667:
Paspates, p. 317; Du Cange, _Constantinopolis Christiana_, iv. p. 116.
Footnote 668:
Νεολόγου Ἑβδομαδιαία Ἐπιθεώρησις, January 3, 1893, p. 203.
Footnote 669:
_Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 233.
Footnote 670:
Συγγραφαὶ αἱ Ἐλάσσονες, p. 441.
Footnote 671:
Nicetas Chon., pp. 744-746.
Footnote 672:
_Acta Patriarchatus CP._, vol. i. p. 568.
Footnote 673:
Gedeon, Χρονικὰ τοῦ Πατριαρχικοῦ Οἴκου καὶ τοῦ Ναοῦ, pp. 72-75.
Footnote 674:
_Cæsarea Legatio_, pars. iii. p. 94 (Vienna, 1668).
Footnote 675:
It is now in the Imperial Museum.
Footnote 676:
_Ancient and Modern Constantinople_, p. 15.
Footnote 677:
_De Top. CP._, iv. c. 4; _De Bosporo Thracio_, ii. c. 2. This
depression was visible as late as 1852, according to Scarlatus
Byzantius, vol. i. p. 582. It was then known as a Tchoukour Bostan,
the usual Turkish designation for a garden in a hollow.
Footnote 678:
_Tagebuch der Gesandschaft an die Ottomanische Pforte durch David
Ungnad_, p. 454. All subsequent references to Gerlach are to this
Diary of his visit to Constantinople, 1573-1578.
Footnote 679:
_Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200.
Footnote 680:
See below, pp. 230-240.
Footnote 681:
Page 254.
Footnote 682:
IV. p. 181.
Footnote 683:
N. Barbaro, p. 789.
Footnote 684:
Clavijo, p. 14, “Il fut décidé que les ambassadeurs retourneraient
(from Pera) à Constantinople mercredi, par la porte nommée ‘Quinigo,’
où ils devaient trouver le sieur Hilaire ... ainsi que des chevaux de
monture, et qu’ils visiteraient alors la plus grande partie de la
ville.” Cf. p. 15, “Les dits ambassadeurs passèrent à Constantinople
et trouvèrent bientôt le dit sieur Hilaire et d’autres personnes de la
cour, près de la porte de ‘Quinigo,’ où ils les attendaient; ils
montèrent à cheval et partirent pour visiter une église nommée Sancta
Maria de la Cherne (St. Mary of Blachernæ).”
Footnote 685:
_Acta Patriarchatus CP._, i. p. 568, year 1334.
Footnote 686:
Ducas, p. 279; cf. Barbaro, p. 789.
Footnote 687:
Page 728.
Footnote 688:
Page 720.
Footnote 689:
Clavijo, _Constantinople, Ses Sanctuaires et ses Reliques_, pp. 14,
15.
Footnote 690:
See _History of the Council of Florence_, by Sgyropoulos, who attended
the Council in the suite of the patriarch. The Greek original and a
Latin translation are found in _Veræ Historia Unionis non Veræ inter
Græcos et Latinos, sive Concilii Florentini_. The translation,
published in 1670, is by Robert Creyghton, and was dedicated to
Charles II. For the account of the matters referred to above, see that
work, pp. 51, 54, 55, 67, 318. Cf. Scarlatus Byzantius, vol. i. p.
582.
Footnote 691:
_Historia Politica_, p. 19.
Footnote 692:
Pages 254, 255.
Footnote 693:
On the supposition that there was no Imperial Gate near the eastern
extremity of the Harbour Walls, it is impossible to identify the
Basilikè Pylè and the Gate of the Kynegos, for these names are
sometimes employed in a way which renders it perfectly evident that
they referred to different gates. See Phrantzes, _ut supra_; Pusculus,
iv. 179-221; Dolfin, s. 55; Ducas, p. 275.
Footnote 694:
Leunclavius, _Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200.
Footnote 695:
Page 254.
Footnote 696:
Codinus, _De Officiis CP._, p. 39.
Footnote 697:
_Acta Patriarchatus CP._, vol. i. p. 568, year 1334: Ὁ πλησίον τῶν
οἰκημάτων αὐτοῦ, τῶν περὶ τὴν πόρταν τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Προδρόμου
καὶ Βαπτιστοῦ κατὰ τῶν Κυνηγῶν, διακείμενος πάνσεπτος ναὸς τοῦ ἐν
μάρτυσι περιβοήτου, μυροβλύτου καὶ θαυματουργοῦ ἁγίου Δημητρίου.
Beyond all reasonable doubt, this was the same gate as the Gate of St.
John mentioned in the _Chrysoboullon of John Palæologus_, p. 203,
cited above on p. 197. The latter, also, was a gate near the water,
with a considerable territory outside the entrance, occupied by
numerous buildings. See p. 203 of the Νεολόγου Ἑβδομαδιαία
Ἐπιθεώρησις, of January 3, 1893. The identity of the two gates is
confirmed by the reference in the _Chrysoboullon_ to Kanabus (τοῦ
Κανάβη), the eponym of the Church of St. Demetrius.
Footnote 698:
Page 40.
Footnote 699:
Vol. ii. p. 582.
Footnote 700:
Pusculus, iv. 189; Zorzo Dolfin, s. 55.
Footnote 701:
_Acta Patriarchatus CP._, vol. i. p. 321.
Footnote 702:
_Ibid._, p. 721.
Footnote 703:
Anonymus, ii. p. 35; cf. i. p. 20.
Footnote 704:
Nicetas Chon., p. 753.
Footnote 705:
Antony of Novgorod, in _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 99.
Footnote 706:
Leunclavius, _Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200.
Footnote 707:
_Metrical Chronicle_, line 259.
Footnote 708:
Page 41.
Footnote 709:
Anna Comn., iii. p. 103; Bryennius, iii. p. 126.
Footnote 710:
Ville-Hardouin, c. 36; Nicetas Chon., p. 722.
Footnote 711:
Anonymus, ii. p. 39.
Footnote 712:
Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 296.
Footnote 713:
_Ibid._, p. 537.
Footnote 714:
Anna Comn., ii. p. 103.
Footnote 715:
Nicetas Chon.; Ville-Hardouin, _ut supra_.
Footnote 716:
Nicetas Chon., pp. 753, 754; Ville-Hardouin, c. 52, 53.
Footnote 717:
N. Barbaro, p. 818.
Footnote 718:
Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._, pp. 85, 86. The
church was erected or restored by Maria, the natural daughter of
Michael Palæologus, upon her return to Constantinople, after the death
of her husband, the Khan of the Mongols. It has remained in the
possession of the Greek community, in virtue of a firman of Mehemet
the Conqueror, who presented the church to Christodoulos, the
architect of the mosque erected by the Sultan on the Fifth Hill (_Acta
Patriarchatus CP._, vol. i. p. 321, year 1351).
Footnote 719:
Phrantzes, p. 254; Pusculus, iv. 190.
Footnote 720:
Codinus, _De S. Sophia_, p. 147; Anonymus, ii. p. 34.
Footnote 721:
Vol. ii. pp. 452-455.
Footnote 722:
_Synaxaria_, May 29.
Footnote 723:
_Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 104.
Footnote 724:
Ducas, p. 293.
Footnote 725:
IV. 191.
Footnote 726:
S. 55.
Footnote 727:
_Chroniques Græco-Romaines_, pp. 96, 97. Dr. Mordtmann thinks that
this point is referred to also in the Treaty of Michael Palæologus
with the Venetians in 1265, when that emperor allowed the Venetians to
occupy any point from the old Arsenal to Pegæ (ἀπὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς
ἐξαρτύσις μέχρι καὶ τῶν Πηγῶν). The passage is ambiguous, for there
was an old arsenal and a suburb Pegæ on the northern side of the
Golden Horn, and the concession was outside the city.
Footnote 728:
Edition of C. Weseler, Paris, 1874. Cf. Gyllius, _De Bosporo Thracio_,
ii. c. iv.
Footnote 729:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 720, 721.
Footnote 730:
_Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, pp. 88, 107, 108. Among its churches
was the Church of St. Conon (_Paschal Chron._, p. 721), memorable in
the Sedition of the Nika, as the church of the monks who rescued two
of the seven rioters condemned to death from the hands of the clumsy
executioner, and carried them across the Golden Horn in a boat to the
Church of St. Laurentius for sanctuary (Malalas, p. 473).
Footnote 731:
Desimoni, _Giornale Ligustico_, anno iii., Genoa, 1876.
Footnote 732:
Lib. i. c. 42; cf. Mordtmann, p. 43.
Footnote 733:
Nicetas Chon., iii. p. 722; Ville-Hardouin, c. 36.
Footnote 734:
_Ibid._, p. 754; _Chroniques Græco-Romaines_, p. 96.
Footnote 735:
_Ibid._, _ut supra_; Ville-Hardouin, c. 54.
Footnote 736:
Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365; _Tafel und Thomas_, ii. p. 284.
Footnote 737:
_Tafel und Thomas_, ii. pp. 46, 348.
Footnote 738:
_Ibid._, p. 423. Dr. Mordtmann (pp. 73, 74) identifies the Monastery
of Christ the Benefactor with the ruined Byzantine church known as
Sinan Pasha Mesdjidi, to the south of St. Theodosia (see Dr. Paspates,
pp. 384, 385). But the prominence of the monastery suggests a position
nearer the shore. For incidents connected with it, see Pachymeres,
vol. ii. p. 579; Cantacuzene, iii. p. 493. A tower near the monastery
(“ab ultima turri de Virgioti versus Wlachernam”) marked the eastern
limit of certain fishery rights in the Golden Horn granted to the
Monastery of St. Giorgio Majore, at Venice (_Tafel und Thomas_, ii.
pp. 47-49).