THE WALLS ALONG THE GOLDEN HORN—_continued_.
The next gate on the list of Pusculus and Dolfin is the Porta Platea, or
Porta ala Piazza,[738] evidently the Porta of the Platea (Πόρτα τῆς
Πλατέας) mentioned by Ducas.[739] The entrance, judging by its name, was
situated beside a wide tract of level ground, and is, consequently,
represented by Oun Kapan Kapoussi, which stands on the plain near the
Inner Bridge, at the head of the important street running across the
city from sea to sea, through the valley between the Fourth and Fifth
Hills. The district beside the gate was known as the Plateia
(Πλατεῖα),[740] and contained the churches dedicated respectively to St.
Laurentius and the Prophet Isaiah.[741] The blockade of the Harbour
Walls in 1453 by the Turkish ships in the Golden Horn extended from the
Xylo Porta to the Gate of the Platea.[742] If the legend on
Bondelmontius’ map may be trusted, this gate bore also the name Mesè,
the Central Gate, a suitable designation for an entrance at the middle
point in the line of the harbour fortifications.
The succeeding gate, Ayasma Kapoussi, was opened, it would seem, after
the Turkish Conquest. It is not mentioned by Gyllius, or Leunclavius, or
Gerlach. The conjecture that it represents a gate in the Wall of
Constantine, styled Porta Basilikè, situated near the Church of St.
Acacius ad Caream (τὸν ἅγιον Ἀκάκιον, τὴν Καρυὰν, ἐν τῇ Βασιλικῇ
Πόρτα)[743] does not appear very probable. The Church of St. Acacius,
situated in the Tenth Region,[744] was the sanctuary to which
Macedonius, the bishop of the city, removed the sarcophagus of
Constantine the Great, from the Church of the Holy Apostles on the
summit of the Fourth Hill, when the latter edifice threatened to fall
and crush the Imperial tomb.[745] The bishop’s action encountered the
violent opposition of a large class of the citizens, and led to a riot
in which much blood was shed. Under these circumstances, it is difficult
to believe that the sarcophagus of Constantine was transported from its
original resting-place to a point so distant as the neighbourhood of
Ayasma Kapoussi, especially when the removal was a temporary
arrangement, made until the repairs on the Church of the Holy Apostles
should be completed. It is more probable that St. Acacius was near the
Church of the Holy Apostles. Furthermore, we cannot be sure that the
Porta Basilikè was a gate in the Wall of Constantine. The Church of St.
Acacius stood near a palace erected by that emperor (πλησίον τῶν
οἰκημάτων τοῦ μεγάλου Κωνσταντίνου):[746] or, as described elsewhere,
was a small chapel (οἰκίσκον εὐκτήριον) near a palace named Karya,
because close to a walnut-tree on which the saint was supposed to have
suffered martyrdom by hanging.[747] The Porta Basilikè may have been a
gate leading into the court of that palace.
The three succeeding gates, Odoun Kapan Kapoussi, Zindan Kapoussi,
Balouk Bazaar Kapoussi, bore respectively the names Gate of the
Drungarii (τῶν Δρουγγαρίων); Gate of the Forerunner (Porta juxta parvum
templum Precursoris, known also as St. Johannes de Cornibus); Gate of
the Perama or Ferry (τοῦ Περάματος). They can be identified, perhaps,
most readily and clearly by the following line of argument:—
The three Byzantine gates just named were situated in the quarter
assigned to the Venetians in Constantinople by successive Imperial
grants from the time of Alexius Comnenus to the close of the Empire. The
Gate of the Drungarii marked the western extremity of the quarter;[748]
the Gate of the Perama, its eastern extremity;[749] while the gate
beside the Church of the Forerunner was between the two points. Where
the Gate of the Perama stood admits of no doubt. All students of the
topography of the city are agreed in the opinion that the entrance so
named was at Balouk Bazaar Kapoussi. Consequently, the two other gates
in the Venetian quarter lay to the west of Balouk Bazaar Kapoussi, in
the portion of the fortifications between that entrance and the Gate of
the Platea, all gates further west being out of the question. But as the
only two gates in that portion of the walls are Zindan Kapoussi and Oun
Kapan Kapoussi, they must represent, respectively, the Gate of the
Forerunner and the Gate of the Drungarii.
The Gate of the Drungarii (τῶν Δρουγγαρίων) derived its name from the
term “Drungarius,” a title given to various officials in the Byzantine
service;[750] as, for example, to the admiral of the fleet (μέγας
δρουγγάριος τοῦ θεοσώστου στόλου), and to the head of the city police,
the Drungarius Vigiliæ. (ὁ τῆς Βίγλας δρουγγάριος). In this particular
case the reference was to the latter officer, for in the neighbourhood
of the gate stood an important Vigla, or police-station, which is
sometimes mentioned instead of the Gate of the Drungarii, as the western
limit of the Venetian quarter.[751]
The street running eastwards, outside the city wall, was known as the
Via Drungariou (De Longario),[752] and the pier in front of the next
gate bore the name Scala de Drongario.[753]
The practice of storing timber on the shore without the gate has come
down from an early period in the history of the city. One of the
questions put to Justinian the Great by the Greens, during the
altercation between him and the Factions in the Hippodrome, on the eve
of the Nika riot was, “Who murdered the timber-merchant at the
Zeugma?”[754]—another name for this part of the shore. An inscription on
the gate reminded the passing crowd that to remember death is profitable
to life (Μνῆμη θανάτου χρησιμεύει τῷ βίῳ).[755]
It is in favour of the identification of Zindan Kapoussi with the Gate
near the Church of St. John (Porta juxta parvum templum Precursoris) to
find only a few yards within the entrance a Holy Well, venerated alike
by Christian and Moslem, beside which stood, until recently, the ruins
of a Byzantine chapel answering to the small Church of the Forerunner
mentioned in the Venetian charters.[756]
Leunclavius found the gate called in his day Porta Caravion, because of
the large number of ships which were moored in front of it.[757] The
landing before the gate, the old Scala de Drongario, now Yemish
Iskelessi, in front of the Dried Fruit-Market, is one of the most
important piers on the Golden Horn.
Dr. Paspates[758] and M. Heyd[759] identify this entrance with the Gate
of the Drungarii. But this opinion is inconsistent with the fact that
whereas the gate near St. John’s stood between the Gate of the Drungarii
and the Gate of the Perama, no entrance which can be identified with the
gate near St. John’s intervenes between Zindan Kapoussi and Balouk
Bazaar Kapoussi (Gate of the Perama).
M. Heyd, moreover, identifies Zindan Kapoussi with the Porta
Hebraica,[760] mentioned in the charters granted to the Venetians in the
thirteenth century. But, as will appear in the sequel, the Porta
Hebraica of that period was either the Gate of the Perama itself, or an
entrance a little to the east of it.
The Gate of the Perama (τοῦ Περάματος), as its name implies, stood where
Balouk Bazaar Kapoussi is found to-day, close to the principal ferry
between the city and the suburb of Galata; communication between the
opposite shores being maintained in ancient times by boats, for the only
bridge across the harbour was that near the head of the Golden Horn. The
Perama is first mentioned by Theophanes,[761] in recording the
dedication of the Church of St. Irene at Sycæ (Galata), after the
reconstruction of that sanctuary by Justinian the Great. Special
importance attached to the event, as the emperor attributed his recovery
from an attack of the terrible plague that raged in Constantinople, in
542, to the touch of the relics of the Forty Martyrs which had been
discovered in pulling down the old church, and which were to be
enshrined in the new building. Menas, Patriarch of Constantinople, and
Apollinarius, Patriarch of Alexandria—who was then in the capital—were
appointed to celebrate the service of the day; and the two prelates,
seated in the Imperial chariot, and bearing upon their knees the sacred
relics, drove through the city from St. Sophia to the Perama, to take
boat for Sycæ, where Justinian awaited them. The ferry was also styled
Trajectus Sycenus;[762] Transitus Sycarum, after the oldest name for
Galata. It was, moreover, known as Transitus Justinianarum,[763] from
the name Justinianopolis, given to the suburb in honour of Justinian,
who rebuilt its walls and theatre, and conferred upon it the privileges
of a city.[764] The pier at the city end of the ferry was known as the
Scala Sycena.[765]
It would seem that there was a spice-market[766] in the vicinity of the
Gate of the Perama, like the one which exists to-day to the rear of
Balouk Bazaar Kapoussi, the latter being only the continuation of the
former. According to Bondelmontius, the fish-market of Byzantine
Constantinople was held before this gate, as the practice is at present;
for upon his map he names the entrance Porta Piscaria. So fixed are the
habits of a city.
Besides bearing the name Gate of the Perama, the entrance was also
styled the Porta Hebraica. This appears from the employment of the two
names as equivalent terms in descriptions of the territory occupied by
the Venetians in Constantinople. For example, according to Anna
Comnena,[767] the quarter which her father, the Emperor Alexis Comnenus,
conceded to the Venetians, extended from the old Hebrew pier to the
Vigla. In the charter by which the Doge Faletri granted that district to
the Church of San Georgio Majore of Venice, the quarter is described in
one passage, as extending from the Vigla to the Porta Perame, as far as
the Judeca (“ad Portam Perame, usque ad Judecam”);[768] and in a
subsequent passage, as proceeding from the Vigla to the Judeca (“a
comprehenso dicto sacro Viglæ usque ad Judecam”).[769] In the grants
made to the Venetians after the Restoration of the Greek Empire in 1261,
the extreme points of the Venetian quarter are named, respectively, the
Gate of the Drungarii and the Gate of the Perama.[770]
To this identification of the Porta Hebraica with the Gate of the Perama
it may be objected that on the map of Bondelmontius these names are
applied to different gates, and this, it may further be urged, accords
with the fact that after the Turkish Conquest, also, a distinction was
maintained between the Gate of the Perama and the gate styled Tchifout
Kapoussi, the Hebrew Gate. But in reply to this objection it must be
noted that the Tchifout Kapoussi of Turkish days was the gate now known
as Bagtchè Kapoussi,[771] beside the Stamboul Custom House, while the
“Porta Judece” on the map of Bondelmontius stands close to the Seraglio
Point. Nothing, however, is more certain than that the Venetian
quarter[772] did not extend so far east as Bagtchè Kapoussi, much less
so far in that direction as the neighbourhood of the head of the
promontory. Bagtchè Kapoussi corresponds to the Byzantine Porta Neoriou
(the Gate of the Dockyard), which had no connection whatever with the
quarter assigned to the Venetian merchants in the city, but was
separated from that quarter, on the west, by the quarters which the
traders from Amalfi and Pisa occupied, while to the east of the gate was
the settlement of the Genoese. Consequently, the fact that in the age of
Bondelmontius and after the Turkish Conquest the Porta Hebraica was a
different entrance from the Gate of the Perama affords no ground for
rejecting the evidence that in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the
two names designated the same gate. It only proves that the epithet
“Hebrew” had meantime been transferred from one gate to another.[773]
At the distance of seventy-seven feet to the east of the Porta Hebraica,
or Gate of the Perama, there stood, according to a Venetian document of
1229, an entrance known as the Gate of St. Mark (Porta San Marci).[774]
It probably obtained its name during the Latin occupation, after the
patron saint of Venice, but whether it was a gate then opened for the
first time, or an old gate under a new name, cannot be determined.
Yet further east, at a point 115 pikes before reaching Bagtchè Kapoussi,
stood an entrance styled the Gate of the Hicanatissa (Πόρτα τῆς
Ἱκανατίσσης).[775] The adjoining quarter went by the same name, and
there probably stood the “Residence of the Kanatissa” (τὸν οἶκον τῆς
Κανατίσης) mentioned by Codinus.[776] The designation is best explained
as derived from the body of palace troops known as the Hicanati.[777]
Between the Gate of the Perama and that of the Hicanatissa was situated
the quarter of the merchants from Amalfi; at the latter gate the quarter
of the Pisans commenced.[778]
The Gate of the Neorion (Πόρτα τοῦ Νεωρίου),[779] the Gate of the
Dockyard, stood, as its name implies, beside the Dockyard on the shore
of the bay at Bagtchè Kapoussi, close to the site now occupied by the
Stamboul Custom House. It is first mentioned in a chrysoboullon of Isaac
Angelus, confirming the right granted to the Pisan merchants by his
predecessors, Alexius Comnenus and Manuel Comnenus, to reside in the
neighbourhood of the gate.[780] While the western limit of the quarter
thus conceded to Pisans was marked, as already intimated, by the Gate
Hicanatissa,[781] the eastern limit of the settlement extended to a
short distance beyond the Gate of the Neorion.
The Neorion dated from the time of Byzantium, when it stood at the
western extremity of the Harbour Walls of the city.[782] It was,
therefore, distinguished from all other dockyards in Constantinople as
the Ancient Neorion (τὸ Παλαιὸν Νεώριον), or the Ancient Exartesis
(Ἐξάρτησις). Nicolo Barbaro calls it “l’arsenada de l’imperador.”
Here the Imperial fleet assembled to refit or to guard the entrance of
the harbour;[783] here, until the reign of Justin II., was the Marine
Exchange;[784] and here was a factory of oars (coparia),[785] in
addition to the one mentioned in the Justinian Code, which stood
elsewhere. As might be expected, several destructive fires originated in
the Neorion.[786]
According to Gyllius,[787] Gerlach,[788] and Leunclavius,[789] this
entrance was in their day named by the Turks, Tchifout Kapoussi, and was
regarded by the Greeks as the Πύλη Ὡραία (the Beautiful Gate), mentioned
by Phrantzes[790] and Ducas[791] in the history of the last siege. The
epithet Horaia is supposed to be a corruption of the original name for
the entrance (τοῦ Νεωρίου); the Turkish designation of the gate being
explained by the fact that a Jewish community was settled in the
neighbourhood of the gate.[792]
As to the transformation of Neorion into Horaia, it seems somewhat
far-fetched; still, Greeks think it conceivable.[793] If both names,
indeed, belonged to the gate, a simpler and more probable explanation of
the fact would be that the two names had no connection with each other,
and that the epithet “Beautiful” was bestowed upon the entrance, towards
the close of the Empire, in view of embellishments made in the course of
repairs.
The identification of the Gate of the Neorion with the Horaia Pylè
involves, however, a difficulty. It makes Ducas contradict other
historians, as regards the point to which the southern end of the chain
across the Golden Horn was attached during the siege of 1453.
According to Ducas,[794] that extremity of the chain was fastened to the
Beautiful Gate. Critobulus,[795] on the other hand, affirms that it was
attached to the Gate of Eugenius (Yali Kiosk Kapoussi), the gate nearest
the head of the promontory, and his statement is supported by
Phrantzes[796] and Chalcocondylas,[797] when they, respectively, say
that the chain was at the harbour’s mouth, and fixed to the wall of the
Acropolis. Now, the correctness of the position assigned to the chain by
the three latter historians cannot be called in question. It was the
position prescribed for the chain by all the rules of strategy. To have
placed the chain at the Gate of the Neorion would have left a large
portion of the northern side of the city exposed to the enemy, and
permitted the Turkish fleet to command the Neorion and the ships
stationed before it. Hence the accuracy of Ducas can be maintained only
by the identification of the Beautiful Gate with the Gate of Eugenius
instead of with the Gate of the Neorion.
We are, therefore, confronted with the question whether the historian is
mistaken as regards the gate to which the city end of the chain was
attached, or whether the view prevalent in Constantinople in the
sixteenth century respecting the position of the Horaia Pylè should be
rejected as unfounded.
In favour of the accuracy of Ducas, it must be admitted that his
statements concerning the Horaia Pylè, in other passages of his work,
convey the impression that under that name he refers to the entrance
nearest the head of the promontory, the Gate of Eugenius (Yali Kiosk
Kapoussi). Speaking of the arrangements made for the defence of the
sea-board of the city, he describes them as extending, in the first
place, from the Xylinè Porta, at the western extremity of the Harbour
Walls, to the Horaia Pylè; and then from the Horaia Pylè to the Golden
Gate, near the western extremity of the walls along the Sea of
Marmora.[798] Again, when he describes the blockade of the shore of the
city outside the chain by the Sultan’s fleet, he represents the blockade
as commencing at the Horaia Pylè and proceeding thence past the point of
the Acropolis, the Church of St. Demetrius, the Gate of the Hodegetria,
the Great Palace, and the harbour (Kontoscalion), as far as Vlanga.[799]
Now, the gate which would naturally form the pivot, so to speak, of
these operations was the Gate of Eugenius. There the two shores of the
city divide; and that was the farthest point to which the Turkish fleet
outside the chain could advance into the Golden Horn. It would be
strange if Ducas ascribed the strategical importance of the Gate of
Eugenius to another gate. And yet, it must be also admitted that Ducas
can be inaccurate. He is inaccurate, for example, in the matter of the
gate before which the Sultan’s tent was pitched during the siege,[800]
and at which the Emperor Constantine fell,[801] for he associates these
incidents with the Gate of Charisius, instead of with the Gate of St.
Romanus; he is inaccurate, as we have seen, in his account of the entry
of the Turks through the Kerko Porta;[802] and he is inaccurate, again,
in saying that the ships which the Sultan carried across the hills from
the Bosporus to the Golden Horn were launched into the harbour at a
point opposite the Cosmidion (Eyoub),[803] instead of at Cassim Pasha.
Under these circumstances it is impossible to maintain his accuracy as
to the connection of the chain with Horaia Pylè at all hazards, and in
the face of all difficulties. His credit will depend upon the value
attached to the evidence we have, that the Horaia Pylè was another name
for the Gate of the Neorion during the last days of Byzantine
Constantinople.
The application of both names to the same gate rests upon the authority
of tradition, upon the use and wont followed in the matter by the Greek
population of the city in the sixteenth century. If this is really the
case, no evidence can be more decisive on the question at issue. Use and
wont in respect to the name of a conspicuous public gate, in a
much-frequented part of the city, constitutes an irrefutable argument,
provided that use and wont goes far enough back in the history of the
entrance. In that case, Ducas would be convicted of having mistaken the
gate to which the chain was attached, and all the importance which he
ascribes to the Horaia Pylè, in his account of the actions of friends
and foes along the shores of the city, is only the consistent following
up of that error. For any gate to which the chain was supposed, however
erroneously, to have been affixed would be represented in the narrative
of subsequent events as the point about which the assault and the
defence of the sea-board turned, although the gate was not situated
where it could, naturally, have sustained that character.
Now, according to Gyllius,[804] the gate anciently styled the Gate of
the Neorion was called in his day Tchifout Kapoussi (“Hebrew Gate”) by
the Turks, and Horaia Pylè by the Greeks, as a matter of common
practice. The brief statement of Gerlach[805] that the second gate west
of the Seraglio Point was named at once the Beautiful Gate and the
Jewish Gate implies that these were the names of the gate in current
use. Leunclavius[806] puts the facts in a somewhat different light.
According to him, the common designation of the entrance was “Huræa”
(_Ebraia_, “Hebrew Gate”), and it was only when the Greeks of the city
wished to show themselves better acquainted with the truth on the
subject that they claimed for the gate the epithet “Horaia.”
This may, perhaps, excite the suspicion that the application of the
epithet “Horaia” to the Gate of the Neorion, in the sixteenth century,
was due to the fact that it was then known also as the Hebrew Gate
(Ebraia). But, on the whole, the more probable view is that the epithet
was correctly applied, and, consequently, that Ducas, who was not
present at the siege, is mistaken in associating the chain with the
Beautiful Gate.
In the charters defining the privileges granted to the Genoese colony in
Constantinople during the twelfth century, mention is made of a “Porta
Bonu” and a “Porta Veteris Rectoris.”[807] As both were associated with
the Scala, or Pier, at the service of that colony, they were doubtless
the same gate under different names; the former appellation designating
it by the proper name of the officer connected in some way with the
entrance, the latter by his official title. Nothing is known concerning
the Rector Bonus; the name and title are at once Byzantine and Italian.
Now, the Genoese quarter in the twelfth century lay to the east of the
Gate of the Neorion, and consequently the Porta Bonu, or Porta Veteris
Rectoris, must be sought in that direction. It stood, probably, where
Sirkedji Iskelessi is now situated.
Near this gate must have been the Scala Chalcedonensis and the Portus
Prosphorianus, which the _Notitia_ places in the Fifth Region.[808] The
former, as its name implies, was the pier frequented by boats plying
between the city and Chalcedon; it is mentioned twice, as the point at
which relics were landed in solemn state to be carried thence to St.
Sophia.[809]
The Portus Prosphorianus[810] was in the bay which once indented the
shore immediately to the east of the Gate of Bonus, where the line of
the city walls described a deep curve. The name is probably derived from
the word Πρόσφορον, and denoted that the harbour was the resort of the
craft which brought products from the country to the markets of the
city.[811] The harbour was also called the Phosphorion, as though
associated with the sudden illumination of the heavens which saved the
city from capture by Philip of Macedon. But its most common designation
was τὸ Βοσπόριον, ὁ Βοόσπορος, ὁ Βόσπορος, probably because the point to
which cattle were ferried across from Asia. The cattle-market was held
here until the reign of Constantine Copronymus, who transferred it to
the Forum of Taurus;[812] here also stood warehouses for the storage of
oil, and granaries, such as the Horrea Olearia, Horrea Troadensia,
Horrea Valentiaca and Horrea Constantiaca.[813] The granaries were
inspected annually by the emperor.[814] According to Demosthenes, the
three statues erected by Byzantium and Perinthus in honour of Athens for
the aid rendered against Philip of Macedon were set up at the
Bosporus.[815] But it is not certain whether the great orator used the
name in a general sense, or with special reference to this port. The
great fire in the fifth year of Leo I. started in the market near this
harbour, through the carelessness of a woman who left a lighted candle
on a stall at which she had bought some salt fish.[816]
We reach, next, the last gate in the line of the Harbour Walls, the Gate
of Eugenius (Πόρτα τοῦ Εὐγενίου), represented now by Yali Kiosk
Kapoussi. Its identity is established by the following indications. It
marked the eastern extremity of the fortifications along the Golden
Horn,[817] as the Xylo Porta marked their western terminus. Hence, the
ditch constructed by Cantacuzene in front of those fortifications is
described as extending from the Gate of Eugenius to the Gate
Xylinè.[818] In the next place, the gate was close to the head of the
promontory, or Acropolis, for ships outward bound rounded the promontory
soon after passing the gate, while incoming ships passed the gate soon
after rounding the promontory.[819] Again, the Church of St. Paul which
stood near the gate is described, as situated in the quarter of the
Acropolis, at the opening of the harbour.[820] This is consistent with
the fact that the gate was at a point from which St. Sophia could be
easily reached.[821]
Eugenius, after whom the gate, the adjacent tower, and the neighbouring
district were named,[822] was probably a distinguished proprietor in
this part of the city. The gate bore an inscription commemorating
repairs executed by a certain Julian;[823] possibly, Julian who was
Prefect of the City in the reign of Zeno, when Constantinople was shaken
by a severe earthquake.
There is reason to believe that besides its ordinary designation this
gate bore also, at one time, the name Marmora Porta; for certain
ecclesiastical documents of the year 1399 and the year 1441 speak of an
entrance in the quarter of Eugenius, under the name Marmora Porta,
Μαρμαροπόρτα ἐν τῇ ἐνορίᾳ τοῦ Εὐγενίου.[824]
The Scala Timasii, so named after Timasius, a celebrated general in the
reign of Arcadius, was in the Fourth Region,[825] and must therefore
have been a pier near the Gate of Eugenius.
At this entrance it was customary for the bride-elect of an emperor to
land, upon reaching the capital by sea; here she was received in state
by her future consort, and having been invested with the Imperial
buskins and other insignia of her rank, was conducted on horseback to
the palace.[826] But what lends most interest to the gate is the fact
that beside it rose the tower which held the southern end of the chain
drawn across the harbour in time of war.[827] Originally, the building,
styled Kentenarion (Κεντενάριον), was a stately structure, but after its
overthrow by an earthquake, Theophilus restored it as an ordinary
tower.[828] The chain was supported in the water by wooden floats,[829]
and its northern end was made fast to a tower in the fortifications of
Galata, known as the Tower of Galata, “Le Tour de Galatas.”[830]
According to Gyllius, the gate near that tower was called Porta
Catena,[831] but, unfortunately, he does not indicate its precise
position. From the nature of the case, however, it must have been near
Kiretch Kapoussi, directly opposite the Gate of Eugenius.[832]
[Illustration: Portion of the Chain Stretched Across the Entrance of the
Golden Horn in 1453.]
The employment of a chain to bar the entrance of the Golden Horn is
mentioned for the first time in the famous siege of the city by the
Saracens in 717-718, when the Emperor Leo lowered the chain with the
hope of tempting the enemy’s ships into the narrow waters of the
harbour.[833] It appears next in the reign of Michael II., who thereby
endeavoured, but in vain, to keep out the fleet with which his rival
Thomas attacked the city.[834] It was again employed by Nicephorus
Phocas, in expectation of a Russian descent into the Bosporus.[835] The
Venetians found it obstructing their path when they stood before
Constantinople in 1203, but removed it after capturing the Tower of
Galata, to which it was secured.[836] Finally, in 1453, it proved too
strong for Sultan Mehemet to force, and drove him to devise the
expedient of carrying his ships into the Golden Horn across the hills to
Cassim Pasha.[837] A portion of the chain used on the last occasion is
preserved in the Church of St. Irene, within the Seraglio grounds.
In the district of Eugenius were some of the most noted charitable
institutions of the city, among which the great Orphanage[838] and the
Hospitia,[839] built on the site of the old Stadium of Byzantium by
Justinian the Great and Theodora, for the free accommodation of poor
strangers, were conspicuous. There, also, stood the Church of St.
Michael and the Church of St. Paul.[840]
The Basilikè Pylè.
Before concluding the study of the Harbour Walls we must recur to the
question which presented itself at an earlier stage of our inquiries,
but was reserved for consideration at the close of this chapter, as more
favourable to an intelligent and thorough discussion of the subject.
Where was the Basilikè Pylè which Byzantine historians, after the
Restoration of the Empire, associate with this line of the city’s
bulwarks? Was it, as some authorities maintain, at Balat Kapoussi,[841]
or, as others hold, in the neighbourhood of the Seraglio Point?[842] Or
is it possible that a gate bearing that epithet was found at both
points?
In favour of the opinion that the Imperial Gate was near the Seraglio
Point there is, first, the statement of Phrantzes, already cited, to
that effect. “To Gabriel of Treviso,” says the historian,[843] “captain
of the Venetian triremes, with fifty men under him, was entrusted the
defence of the tower, in the middle of the current, guarding the
entrance of the harbour; and he was opposite the Imperial Gate.”
What Phrantzes means by the “entrance of the harbour” (τὴν εἴσοδον τοῦ
λιμένος) admits of no dispute, for the phrase has only one
signification. But, as though to render mistake impossible, he repeats
the expression, in that sense, several times. The Greek ships, which
were moored beside the chain across the mouth of the harbour, and which
the Sultan endeavoured to sink or drive away by the fire of a battery
planted on the hill of St. Theodore, to the north-east of Galata,
Phrantzes[844] observes, were stationed “at the entrance of the harbour”
(ἐν τῇ εἰσόδῳ τοῦ λιμένος). The object of this bombardment, adds the
historian[845] in the next sentence, was not simply to force “the
entrance to the harbour” (διὰ τὴν εἴσοδον τοῦ λιμένος), but also to
injure the Genoese shipping at that point, and thus show that the Sultan
dared to act in any way he pleased, even towards the Italians of Galata.
Again, Phrantzes[846] remarks that the ships moored along the chain at
the mouth of the harbour (ἐν τῶ στόματι τοῦ λιμένος) were placed here to
render entrance into the harbour more difficult to the enemy (ὅπως
ἰσχυροτέρως κωλύσωσι τὴν εἴσοδον).
Equally decisive is the indication given regarding the tower which stood
opposite the Imperial Gate. It was “in the middle of the current.” This
statement carries the mind, at first, to the tower which stood on the
rock off Scutari (Damalis, Arcla), where the lighthouse Kiz Kalehssi has
been erected. But the idea that Phrantzes had that tower in view cannot
be entertained for more than a moment; for to have stationed Gabriel
there, with the Turkish fleet in complete command of the Bosporus and
the Sea of Marmora, was not simply useless, but impossible. The current
intended can be none other than the strong current at the head of the
Seraglio Point, where it divides in two swift streams, which Nicephorus
Gregoras[847] compares to Scylla and Charybdis, one running up the
Golden Horn, the other out into the Sea of Marmora. A tower near a point
with rushing waters on either hand might aptly be described as “in the
middle of the current.”[848] Furthermore, Phrantzes[849] mentions the
tower referred to, in close connection with what stood, unquestionably,
near the head of the promontory. He speaks of it immediately after the
Horaia Pylè, and immediately before the ships which defended the chain
across the harbour’s mouth, as though in the same vicinity.
In the second place, the view that the Imperial Gate was near the
Seraglio Point is supported by the testimony of Leonard of Scio, when he
makes the statement that Gabriel of Treviso fought bravely, with his
men, on the portion of the walls extending from the Beacon-tower as far
as the Imperial Gate, at the entrance of the bay (of the Golden Horn):
“Gabriel Trevsianus cordatissime a Turri Phani usque ad Imperialem
Portam, ante sinum, decertabat.”[850] The archbishop’s phrase “ante
sinum” corresponds to Phrantzes’ ἐν τῇ εἰσόδῳ τοῦ λιμένος.
Thirdly, it remains to add, on this side of the question, that the order
in which Pusculus mentions the gates in the Harbour Walls favours the
view that the Basilikè Pylè was not at Balat Kapoussi. Proceeding from
west to cast in his account of the defence of the fortifications along
the Golden Horn, that author refers to seven gates in the following
order: Xylina, Cynegon, Phani, Theodosia, Puteæ, Platea, Basilea,[851]
thus putting the Imperial Gate somewhere to the east of Oun Kapan
Kapoussi. Had the Basilea stood at Balat Kapoussi it should have been
mentioned immediately after Cynegon.
This is the main evidence in support of the opinion that the Basilikè
Pylè was near the Seraglio Point, and it is difficult to conceive of
evidence more clear and conclusive.
The argument countenancing the view which identifies the Imperial Gate
with Balat Kapoussi may be stated, briefly, thus: In the first place,
when Leonard of Scio declares that Gabriel of Treviso defended the walls
“a Turri Phani ad Imperialem Portam” he associates the Imperial Gate
with the quarter of the Phanar. Again, when Ducas affirms that the
Venetians assisted the Greeks in the defence of the walls from the
Imperial Gate to the Kynegon,[852] that entrance is associated with the
district so named. The Imperial Gate, therefore, must have stood at a
point between the Phanar and the Kynegon. But that is exactly the
situation of Balat Kapoussi, with the quarter of the Phanar on its east,
and the Kynegon on its west; hence the two gates were one and the same.
In the next place, the epithet “Imperial” was eminently suitable for an
entrance which stood at the foot of a hill surmounted by the Palace of
the Porphyrogenitus, and from which the Palace of Blachernæ could be
readily reached. How appropriate the epithet was is proved by the actual
name of the gate, Balat Kapoussi (the Gate of the Palace), so similar in
meaning to Basilikè Pylè.
In the third place, on the shore outside the Basilikè Pylè stood a
Church of St. John the Baptist.[853] And in keeping with this fact,
there is a Church of St. John the Baptist (the metochion of the
Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai) outside Balat Kapoussi.
These arguments are, however, open to criticism. So far as the statement
of Leonard of Scio is concerned, it should be noted that he does not
speak of the Turris Phani absolutely. Had he done so, the presumption
would certainly be in favour of the view which understands him to refer
to the district of the Phanar, half-way up the Golden Horn.[854] But his
complete statement on the subject is that the Turris Phani of which he
was speaking stood, with the Imperial Gate beside it, “ante sinum,” at
the entrance of the bay of the Golden Horn, thus making it manifest that
he had in mind another beacon-tower than the one in the district
commonly known as the Phanar. That the shore of the Golden Horn was
lighted at more than one point during the night, and especially at the
entrance of the harbour, is only what might be expected. Nor is there in
the assertion of Ducas, that the Venetians and Greeks united their
forces to defend the fortifications from the Imperial Gate to the
Kynegon, anything to determine the distance between the two points. They
might be very near, or they might be as far apart as the extremities of
the Harbour Walls; for there is no reason to think that the Venetians
defended only the small portion of the walls between Balat Kapoussi and
the three archways to the west of that gate.
The remaining arguments under consideration have more force, but are by
no means decisive. The appropriateness of the epithet “Imperial” to an
entrance in the situation of Balat Kapoussi affords, certainly, a
presumption in favour of the view that the entrance was so named,
although it cannot, alone, prove that such was the fact. The name Balat
Kapoussi appears only after the Turkish Conquest, and may or may not be
borrowed from the Byzantine designation of the gate. The strongest
argument on this side of the question is, undoubtedly, that drawn from
the presence of the Church of St. John the Baptist on the shore to the
north-east of Balat Kapoussi,[855] the possible representative of the
ancient church of that dedication “on the shore outside the Basilikè
Pylè.”[856]
But, in any case, these arguments do not refute the proof adduced for
the existence of a Basilikè Pylè near the Seraglio Point. They leave
that fact undisturbed; and can only claim to give countenance to the
idea that another Basilikè Pylè stood at Balat Kapoussi.
Two questions, accordingly, are involved in the problem before us. Which
of the gates near the Seraglio Point was styled the Basilikè Pylè? Was
that gate the only Imperial Gate in the line of the Harbour Walls, or do
some statements of Byzantine historians on the subject imply the
existence of a second Basilikè Pylè?
In the opinion of Leunclavius, the Imperial Gate is to be identified
with the Horaia Pylè (the Gate of the Neorion) at Bagtchè Kapoussi.[857]
But if the Horaia Pylè was at Bagtchè Kapoussi, the Basilikè Pylè could
not be there also. The two entrances are unmistakably distinguished by
Phrantzes, who mentions both in the same connection, the one immediately
after the other, and states that, in the defence of the fortifications
along the harbour, the Beautiful Gate was in charge of the crew of a
vessel from Crete, while the Imperial Gate was under the care of Gabriel
of Treviso.
But this is an objection which has force only against those who adopt
the view that the Horaia Pylè stood at Bagtchè Kapoussi.
A more general objection to the view of Leunclavius is that Bagtchè
Kapoussi does not occupy the situation attributed to the Imperial Gate
by Phrantzes and Leonard of Scio. It is not opposite a tower guarding
the entrance of the harbour; it is too far up the Golden Horn to be
described as “ante sinum.”
This being so there are only two gates with one or other of which the
Imperial Gate can be identified, if the indications furnished on the
subject by Phrantzes and Leonard of Scio are strictly followed. It was
either the Gate of Eugenius (Yali Kiosk Kapoussi), as Gerlach
maintains,[858] or the Gate of St. Barbara (Top Kapoussi), which stands
immediately to the south of Seraglio Point, and was, therefore, so near
the Harbour Walls that it might be included in an account of their
defence.
The description of the Imperial Gate given by the historians above
mentioned, applies equally well to both these entrances. Both stand near
the mouth of the harbour, and opposite a tower “in the middle of the
current;” both occupy a point of great strategical importance, such as
the Basilikè Pylè must have occupied, if we may judge from the fact that
it was entrusted to commanders like Gabriel of Treviso and the Duke
Notaras; both entrances were, in the course of history, associated with
the Court[859] in a way which might have earned for them the distinction
of the epithet, “Imperial.”
It is not easy to decide, directly, between conflicting claims so nicely
balanced. Judgment on the point at issue will doubtless be determined,
largely, by the views adopted on questions indirectly connected with the
matter in dispute, especially by what view is taken as regards the
situation of the Horaia Pylè. Any one who upholds the accuracy of Ducas
regarding the point to which the southern end of the chain was attached,
and identifies the Beautiful Gate with Yali Kiosk Kapoussi (the Gate of
Eugenius) will, necessarily, identify the Imperial Gate with Top
Kapoussi. On the other hand, those who accept the opinion that the
Beautiful Gate stood, as the Greeks in the sixteenth century maintained,
at Bagtchè Kapoussi, may, though still free to place the Imperial Gate
at Top Kapoussi, nevertheless prefer to place it at Yali Kiosk Kapoussi,
as, on the whole, more in accordance with the indications of its
position. If at the latter point, one can understand more readily why
the Imperial Gate should have been associated with the Harbour Walls,
and why Phrantzes mentions it immediately after the Horaia Pylè, and
before the chain and the ships at the harbour’s mouth.
Having thus indicated which of the gates near the Seraglio Point have
the strongest claim to be regarded as the Basilikè Pylè, it remains to
consider the question whether either of those gates was the only
entrance bearing that epithet, in the Harbour Walls.
Are there, in other words, any statements made by Byzantine writers in
reference to the Basilikè Pylè which cannot be applied to the Gate of
Eugenius or to the Gate of St. Barbara, and which, therefore, imply the
existence of another gate of that name? So far as the Gate of St.
Barbara is concerned, there are several such statements. The narrow quay
outside Top Kapoussi could not afford room for the Church of St. John,
the hospitium, and the other buildings, which are described as situated
on the shore outside the Basilikè Pylè.[860] Nor could a ship be moored
in front of that gate, as the ship of the Catalan chief Berenger was
moored in front of the Imperial Gate.[861] Nor was it necessary, before
that gate could be attacked by the Turkish fleet, that the chain across
the entrance of the Golden Horn should be forced, as we are told was
necessary in the case of the Basilikè Pylè to which Critobulus
alludes.[862] Hence the opinion that the Basilikè Pylè was another name
for the Gate of St. Barbara involves the view that there were two
Imperial Gates.
The claim of the Gate of Eugenius to be the sole Basilikè Pylè
encounters but one serious objection. Critobulus, it would appear,
distinguishes the two entrances. He refers to the former to indicate
where the southern end of the chain across the harbour was
attached;[863] he speaks of the latter to mark the point which the
Turkish fleet attacked on the last day of the siege, after breaking the
chain, and becoming master of the Golden Horn.[864] For as soon as the
Turkish admiral perceived that the Sultan’s troops had entered the city,
and were busily engaged in the work of plunder, he made a desperate
attempt upon the chain, cut it asunder, and forced his way into the
harbour. Then, having captured or sunk the Greek galleys found in the
port, he led his ships to the Imperial Gate (ταῖς βασιλικαῖς πόλαις) and
landed his sailors in quest of booty. The gate was, however, still held
by the Greeks, as the Turkish troops had not yet reached it from within
the city. A fierce struggle therefore ensued. But at last the gate was
burst open, its brave defenders were slain to a man, their blood pouring
through it like a stream, and the assailants rushed in to share the
spoils of victory.
What is here related might hold true of the Gate of Eugenius. Such facts
as that the Imperial Gate stood within the chain, that before attacking
it the Greek vessels in the harbour had to be disposed of, that it was
held for a considerable time after the Turkish army had entered the
city, are all consistent with the idea that the Basilikè Pylè, to which
Critobulus refers, was the Gate of Eugenius. But, on the other hand, if
the Gate of Eugenius was both the entrance to which the chain was
attached and the entrance captured by the Turkish admiral after the
chain had been broken, it comes very near defying all the laws of the
association of ideas for the historian to speak of the entrance by
different names, when the matters he records were so closely connected.
This is a very serious objection to the identification of the Imperial
Gate which Critobulus had in mind with the Gate of Eugenius. Hence, if
this objection cannot be removed by saying that he could speak of the
same gate by different names in different passages of his work, it
follows that the epithet “Basilikè” did not belong exclusively to the
Gate of Eugenius (any more than to the Gate of St. Barbara), but was
bestowed also upon a gate higher up the Golden Horn.
This being the case, there can be no hesitation where the latter was
situated. Balat Kapoussi, by the significance of its name, by its
proximity to Imperial palaces, and by the presence of a Church of St.
John, with room for other buildings, on the territory outside the gate,
establishes the best claim to be considered the second Basilikè Pylè in
the line of the harbour fortifications.[865]
Why the Turkish admiral selected it as the point at which to land his
sailors is explained by the wealthy character of the adjoining quarter
of the city.[866]
The Route taken in carrying the Turkish Ships across the Hills from the
Bosporus to the Golden Horn.
Owing to the conflicting statements of contemporary historians on the
subject, the precise route followed in carrying the Sultan’s ships,
across the hills, from the Bosporus to the Golden Horn, is not fully
settled. So far, indeed, as the point at which the ships reached the
Golden Horn is concerned, there can be little, if any, room for doubt,
though the historians differ even on that matter. The most reliable
testimony, however, and the configuration of the territory on the
northern side of the harbour, are in favour of the view that the Bay of
Cassim Pasha was the point in question. Critobulus[867] names the point
the Cold Waters,[868] and describes it as situated at a short distance
from Galata (Ψυχρὰ Ὕδατα, μικρὸν ἀπωτέρω τοῦ Γαλατᾶ). Nicolò
Barbaro[869] designates it as the Harbour of Pera, or Galata—“Abiando
tragetà dentro dal porto de Constantinopoli ben fuste setantado, e
redusele in porto dentro del navarchio de Pera”—and explains the
possibility of the occupation of a point so near Galata by the excellent
relations existing between the Turks and the Genoese: “E questo perchè
lor Turchi avea bona paxe con Zenovexi.” At variance with these
statements, Ducas[870] says the ships were launched into the harbour
opposite Eyoub (Cosmidion), but that is contrary to all the
probabilities of the case. Phrantzes[871] sheds no light upon the
question.
In regard to the starting-point from the Bosporus, there is general
agreement that it was somewhere on the shore between Beshiktash and Top
Haneh; Andreossy[872] being singular in supposing that the vessels left
the Bosporus at Balta Liman. Now, there are four ravines or valleys that
run inland from the shore between Beshiktash and Top Haneh towards the
ridge dividing the Bosporus and the Golden Horn: the valleys of
Beshiktash, Dolma Bagtchè, Sali Bazaar, and Top Haneh, which reach the
top of the ridge, respectively at Ferikeui, the Municipal Gardens,
Taxim, and Asmali-Medjid Sokaki. And the decision of the question which
of these valleys was the one actually selected by the Sultan will depend
partly upon our estimate of the respective merits of the historians
whose testimony has to be considered, and partly upon the comparative
suitableness of the various routes to serve the object in view.
Of the four routes indicated above, the two which proceed, respectively,
by the valley of Top Haneh and the valley of Dolma Bagtchè present, both
on the ground of history and natural fitness, the strongest claims for
consideration.
In favour of the Top Haneh route, there is, first, the fact that it was
the shortest route; and secondly, that its length corresponds to that
which Critobulus[873] assigns to the road taken by the ships across the
hills, viz. eight stadia, or one mile. Accordingly, Dr. Dethier[874] and
Dr. Paspates[875] maintain that the Sultan’s ships were transported from
the Bosporus to the Golden Horn by way of Top Haneh, Koumbaradji Sokaki,
Asmali-Medjid Sokaki, and the Petits Champs.
On the other hand, the Dolma Bagtchè route has in its favour, first, the
statement made by several historians, including Critobulus himself, that
the point on the Bosporus from which the ships started to cross the
hills was near the Diplokionion, the name for Beshiktash in Byzantine
times. Ducas[876] describes that point as situated to the east of
Galata, below the Diplokionion. Pusculus[877] speaks of it as not far
from the twin columns: “Columnis haud longè a geminis, surgunt quæ ad
sidera rectæ.” Nicolò Barbaro[878] is, if possible, even more explicit.
According to him, the levelling of the road across the hill above Pera
commenced from the shore where the columns, and the station of the
Turkish fleet, were found: “_Siando tuta la sua armada sorta a le
colone_, che sun mia de luntan de la tera, fexe che tute le zurme
muntasse in tera, e fexe spianar tuto el monte che son de sopra a zitade
de Pera, _comenzando da la marina, zae da li da le colone dove che era
armada_.” Critobulus,[879] as already intimated, styles the
starting-point of the expedition the Diplokionion. Now, the Diplokionion
was not at Top Haneh, but at Beshiktash, and the harbour of the
Diplokionion must have been the bay which formerly occupied the site of
Dolma Bagtchè.[880]
In the second place, in the Dolma Bagtchè route we have the distance
which Nicolò Barbaro[881] declares was traversed by the Turkish ships in
their overland passage, _i.e._ three miles: “Comenzando de la marina,
zae da li da le colone dove che era armada, per infino dentro dal porte
de Constantinopoli, _che son mia tre_.”
Great weight attaches to the testimony of Barbaro upon this point; for
Critobulus was not present at the siege, while Nicolò Barbaro was
surgeon of one of the Venetian galleys which took part in the defence of
the chain across the entrance to the Golden Horn, kept a diary of the
incidents of the siege, must have taken particular interest in the
movements of the Turkish fleet, and was in the way of obtaining the best
available information on the subject. Certainly, if the transport of the
Turkish ships started from a point so near the chain and the Greek and
foreign ships guarding it as the site of Top Haneh, Barbaro had every
opportunity to know the fact, and it is inexplicable how he could have
made the mistake of representing another locality as the scene of the
achievement.
With Barbaro agrees another competent witness, Jacques Tedaldi, a
Florentine merchant, who took part in the defence of the city, and who
gives the distance over which the ships were carried as from two to
three miles: “Fit porter de la mer par terre deux ou trois milles, de
soixant dix a quatre-vingts gallées que aultres fustes armées, dedans le
gouffle de Mandraquins qui est entre les deux citez, auxquieuls est le
port de Constantinople.”[882]
If, in the next place, we judge between the two routes by their
comparative fitness to facilitate the accomplishment of the Sultan’s
design, the Dolma Bagtchè route can claim the superiority in that
respect. Had the matter of distance been all the Sultan required to
consider in choosing the road for his ships, the decision would
necessarily have been in favour of the Top Haneh route. But, surely,
other matters also had to be taken into account. It was desirable, for
example, that the route should be situated where all the preparations
necessary to effect the passage could be readily made, where they would
be beyond the reach of interference on the part of the Greeks, where
they would, as the conveyance of the ships by night proves was the
Sultan’s wish, be screened from hostile observation, and result in
taking the enemy by surprise. All this was impossible at the site now
occupied by Top Haneh, which stood but a short distance outside the
chain and its guard-ships. There the Sultan’s preparations—the levelling
of the ground, the laying down of sleepers and planks along which the
cradles carrying the ships were to be drawn, the gathering of seventy to
eighty vessels, the army of men collected to draw the ships out of the
water and overland,—would be too much in the public eye to satisfy the
requirements of the case.
On the other hand, although the Dolma Bagtchè route laboured under the
disadvantage of being longer than the road from Top Haneh, the distance
it presented was not excessive, while it offered ample compensation for
the additional efforts which its greater length occasioned. It started
from the usual station of the Turkish fleet in the Bosporus, where all
requisite means for executing the Sultan’s purpose could be obtained
with the least difficulty, where no attack was to be apprehended, where
the presence of a large number of ships would excite no suspicions, and
where, it was reasonable to expect, the great secret could be kept as
long as necessary. From the point of fitness to serve the scheme
contemplated, the route from Dolma Bagtchè had most to recommend it,
taking all things into consideration.
Turkish historians do not afford any assistance to solve the problem
under discussion. Evlia Tchelebi pretends that the ships were not
brought from the Bosporus, but that some of them were constructed at
Kiathaneh, the Sweet Waters, at the head of the harbour, and others at
Levend Tchiflik (probably the Kutchuk Levend Tchiflik situated, in old
Turkish times, high up the longer arm of the Dolma Bagtchè valley, not
the Levend Tchiflik above the head of the valley of Balta Liman); and
that the latter portion of the flotilla was carried to the Golden Horn
by way of the Ok Meidan behind Haskeui, and the gardens of the Arsenal
(Tersaneh Bagtchessi). Another Turkish authority says the ships were
transported from Dolma Bagtchè to Cassim Pasha.
NOTE.
According to Leonard of Scio (p. 920), the distance over which the
Turkish ships were conveyed was seventy stadia, “ad stadia
septuaginta trahi biremes.” This statement involves so many
questions which are difficult, if not impossible, to decide, that it
affords no assistance in determining where the ships crossed the
hills. The archbishop’s account of the Sultan’s action is given in
the following words: “Quare ut coangustaret circumvalleratque magis
urbem, jussit invia æquare; exque colle, suppositis lenitis vasis
lacertorum sex, ad stadia septuaginta trahi biremes, quæ ascensu
gravius sublatæ, posthac ex apice in declivum, in ripam sinus
levissime introrsum vehebantur.”
Now, if the “seventy stadia” in this passage are to be understood in
the ordinary sense of the words, the route taken by the ships was
over eight English miles in length. But from no point between Top
Haneh and Beshiktash is the distance to the Golden Horn, across the
hills, so great. Hence the language of Leonard has been variously
interpreted, in the hope of bringing it into accord with what his
commentators deemed the real facts in the case. Dethier, in his
annotations to Zorzo Dolfin (_Siège de Constantinople_, No. xxii. p.
998), maintains that the numeral seventy gives the number of the
ships transported over the hills, and not the length of the road
tranversed: “Non sono 70 stadia, ma 70 galere o fuste.” Charles
Müller, the editor of Critobulus, referring to the statement of
Leonard, expresses the same opinion as Dethier, and thinks that the
number for the stadia has dropped out of the text of Leonard:
“Stadiorum numerus excedisse videtur, nam septuaginta vox ad navium
numerum, quem eundem etiam Chalcocondylas, p. 387, 8 præbet,
referenda est” (_Fragm. Hist. Græc._ p. 87). Another possible view
is that the number seventy is due to an error in the text. Or,
finally, it may be supposed that Leonard employed the term “stadium”
in a peculiar sense. One presumption in favour of this supposition
is the fact that elsewhere in his epistle, the measurements of
Leonard by stadia seem too gross mistakes to be made by such a man
as the archbishop, with the ordinary idea of a stadium in his mind.
The bridge, for example, which the Sultan built at Haskeui, to bring
his cannon closer to the Harbour Walls, and which Phrantzes (p. 252)
says was one hundred ortygia long, or one stadium, Leonard (p. 931)
represents as about thirty stadia in length, _i.e._, according to
the ordinary computation, between three and four miles in length,
where the harbour is not half a mile wide. Again, Leonard (p. 970)
speaks of the Turkish fleet as anchoring at a point less than one
hundred stadia from the shore of the Propontis: “Minus ad stadia
centum Propontidis ripa anchoras figunt”—a statement which, if it
refers to the distance of Beshiktash from the Seraglio Point, would
make that part of the Bosporus about ten miles broad! It should also
be added that Charles Müller thinks that the stadium of the later
Byzantine writers was one-third less than the Olympic stadium: “Adeo
ut stadium tertia parte minus quam vetus stadium Olympicum subesse
videri possit” (_Fragm. Hist. Græc._, v. p. 76). Du Cange
(_Glossarium Med. et Infim. Latinitatis_) says, respecting the use
of the term “stadium” by mediæval writers, “Mensuræ species, sed
ignota prorsus.”
Zorzo Dolfin translates the account which Leonard gives of the
ships’ passage across the hills, as follows: “Et per coangustar, et
circumuallar piu la terra, commando, fusse spianato le uie, et sopra
i colli messi in terra i uasi a forza de brazze ... per 70 stadia
che sono circa miglia ... introdusse le fuste nel mandrachio, le
qual per ... miglia con fatica se tiranno in suxo” (Dethier, _Siège
de Constantinople_, No. xxii. p. 997). If the number of miles had
been given, or had not disappeared, how much discussion would have
been spared!
Footnote 739:
Pusculus, iv. 192; Dolfin, s. 55.
Footnote 740:
Ducas, p. 282.
Footnote 741:
Anonymus, ii. p. 39; _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, ii. p. 461;
_Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, pp. 104, 105.
Footnote 742:
According to Dr. Paspates (pp. 381-383), respectively, Pour Kouyou
Mesdjidi, and Sheik Mourad Mesdjidi.
Footnote 743:
Ducas, _ut supra_.
Footnote 744:
Mordtmann, pp. 7, 8, 45; Du Cange, iv. ad St. Acacium. See above, p.
32.
Footnote 745:
_Notitia, ad Reg. X._
Footnote 746:
Socrates, ii. c. xx.; Theophanes, p. 70.
Footnote 747:
Du Cange, _ut supra_.
Footnote 748:
_Ibid._, vi. c. xxi.
Footnote 749:
_Miklosich et Muller_, iii. p. 88.
Footnote 750:
_Ibid._, _ut supra_.
Footnote 751:
According to Du Cange, Glossarium Mediæ et Infimæ Latinitatis, _ad
vocem_, from Drungus, “company of soldiers.” The word is connected
with the German “Gedrung” and the English “throng.”
Footnote 752:
Anna Comn., vi. p. 286; cf. Luitprandus, as quoted by Du Cange, in
_Anna Comn._, vol. ii. p. 544.
Footnote 753:
_Tafel und Thomas_, ii. pp. 27, 28: “Via quæ dicitur De Longaria,
extra murum civitatis CP.”
Footnote 754:
_Ibid._, pp. 11, 60: “Scala de Drongario.”
Footnote 755:
Theophanes, p. 281.
Footnote 756:
Gerlach, p. 454; Smith, _Epistolæ Quatuor_, p. 88.
Footnote 757:
Mordtmann, p. 46.
Footnote 758:
_Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200.
Footnote 759:
Paspates, p. 166.
Footnote 760:
Heyd, _Histoire du Commerce du Levant_, vol. i. p. 251.
Footnote 761:
_Ibid._, p. 251.
Footnote 762:
Theophanes, p. 353; cf. Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. vii.
Footnote 763:
_Notitia, ad Reg. VI._
Footnote 764:
_Novella LIX._, c. v.
Footnote 765:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 618.
Footnote 766:
_Notitia_, _ut supra_.
Footnote 767:
_Ptochoprodromus_, line 113; cf. Paspates, pp. 164, 165.
Footnote 768:
VII. p. 286.
Footnote 769:
_Tafel und Thomas_, i. p. 50.
Footnote 770:
_Tafel und Thomas_, i. pp. 55-63.
Footnote 771:
_Ibid._, ii. p. 4; iii. pp. 133-149.
Footnote 772:
Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iii. c. i.; Leunclavius, _Pand. Hist. Turc._,
s. 200.
Footnote 773:
On the subject of the Italian and other foreign colonies settled in
Byzantine Constantinople, the reader may consult Paspates, pp.
127-276; Mordtmann, pp. 46-50; Desmoni, _Giornale Ligustico_, vol. i.;
_Sui Quartieri dei Genovesi a Constantinopoli nel Secolo XII._; Heyd,
_Histoire du Commerce du Levant_; Sauli, _Della Colonia del Genovesi
in Galata_; Pears, _Fall of Constantinople_, c. 6; Miklosich et
Müller, _Acta et Diplomata Græca_; Tafel und Thomas, _Urkunden zur
Älteren Handels und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig_.
Footnote 774:
The Russian pilgrim, Stephen of Novgorod (_Itinéraires Russes en
Orient_, p. 121), who visited Constantinople about 1350, found a gate
near the sea, and beside a Church of St. Demetrius, named “Portes
Juives,” on account of the many Jews settled in the vicinity. From the
connection in which the fact is mentioned, it appears that the gate
stood on the Marmora side of the city, somewhere in the neighbourhood
of Vlanga; thus showing how the same name might belong to different
gates at different periods in the history of the city. Nicolo Barbaro
(p. 817) confirms the existence of a Jewish quarter on the Marmora
shore of the city, when he says that the Turkish fleet, finding itself
unable to force the chain across the harbour, abandoned the attempt,
and proceeded to the side towards the Dardanelles (“de la band del
Dardanelo”), and there landed to plunder the Jewish quarter (“muntò in
tera de la banda de la Zudeca”). It is possible, indeed, to contend
that the Russian pilgrim referred to a gate near the Church of St.
Demetrius beside the Seraglio Point. This view does not affect the
argument presented in the text.
Footnote 775:
_Tafel und Thomas_, ii. pp. 270-272; cf. _Ibid._, pp. 4-11.
Footnote 776:
_Miklosich et Müller_, iii. pp. 12, 16, 19; cf. _Ibid._, p. 6.
Footnote 777:
Codinus, p. 22; cf. Paspates, p. 158.
Footnote 778:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 737.
Footnote 779:
_Miklosich et Müller_, iii. pp. 19-21.
Footnote 780:
Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365; Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iii. c. i.
Footnote 781:
_Miklosich et Müller_, iii. pp. 19, 21.
Footnote 782:
_Ibid._, p. 19.
Footnote 783:
See above, p. 10.
Footnote 784:
Nicephorus Patriarcha, _CP._, p. 57; Theophanes, p. 591; Theophanes
Cont., p. 391.
Footnote 785:
Anonymus, ii. p. 30; Codinus, p. 52.
Footnote 786:
_Miklosich et Müller_, iii. p. 6. Such a factory can be seen to-day at
Keurekdjilar, in Galata.
Footnote 787:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 582; Cedrenus, vol. i. pp. 609, 610; ii. p. 529.
Footnote 788:
_De Top. CP._, iii. c. i.; _De Bosporo Thracio_, ii. c. ii.
Footnote 789:
Page 454.
Footnote 790:
_Pand. Hist Turc._, s. 200.
Footnote 791:
Phrantzes, p. 254.
Footnote 792:
Ducas, p. 282. Phrantzes and Ducas are the only Byzantine writers who
mention the Beautiful Gate.
Footnote 793:
Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iii. c. i.; cf. Paspates, pp. 166, 167. The
ground on which Yeni Validè Djamissi stands, near the Stamboul end of
the Outer Bridge, belonged, as late as the seventeenth century, to
Karaïte Jews, who claimed that the territory had been granted to their
ancestors under the Byzantine Empire. In return for the seizure of the
ground to build the mosque (1615-1655), the community received houses
at Haskeui, and forty members of the community were exempted from
taxation for life. As the site of the synagogue could not be sold, the
mosque has had to pay the community an annual rent of thirty-two
piastres.
Footnote 794:
Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p. 12.
Footnote 795:
Page 268.
Footnote 796:
I. c. 18.
Footnote 797:
Page 238.
Footnote 798:
Page 384.
Footnote 799:
Pages 283, 284.
Footnote 800:
Pages 282, 283.
Footnote 801:
Page 263.
Footnote 802:
Page 300.
Footnote 803:
See above, p. 93.
Footnote 804:
Pages 270, 271.
Footnote 805:
Gyllius’ statement (_De Top. CP._, III. c. i.) on the subject is:
“Portum, quem vocunt Neorion, quod prope portam, quam Græci appellant
Oraiam, corruptè quasi Neorii portam, aut non longe ab ea, fuisse
existimo. Hodie inter mare et Portam Oraiam, quam Turci appellant
Siphont (Tsifout), id est, Judæorum eam accolentium, spatium latum ...
videre licet.” Cf. _De Bosporo Thracio_, II. c. i. “Pro porta quam
vulgo vocant Oriam corruptè, quasi olim Neorii portam.”
Footnote 806:
Page 454: “Die Prächtige, itzund die Juden-Pfort.”
Footnote 807:
_Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200. “Porta quæ Græci quotquot vederi
peritores volunt Porta Horæa (Ὡραία), vulgo Huræa (Ebraia) dicitur.”
Footnote 808:
_Miklosich et Müller_, iii. pp. ix., 53; Desimoni, _Giornale
Ligustico_, vol. i. p. 37: _Sui Quartieri dei Genovesi a
Constantinopoli, nel secolo XII._, p. 46.
Footnote 809:
_Notitia, ad Reg. V._
Footnote 810:
_Paschal Chron._, ad ann. 406, 415.
Footnote 811:
_Cod. Theod. De Calcis Coctor._, Lex V.; Stephanus Byzantius, _De
Urbibus et Populis_, ad vocem; Evagrius, ii. c. xiii.
Footnote 812:
Mordtmann, p. 49.
Footnote 813:
Anonymus, ii. p. 29. The point at Scutari where cattle are embarked to
be ferried to the city is called by the Turks “Ukooz-Limani,” the
Ox-Port.
Footnote 814:
_Notitia, ad Reg. V._
Footnote 815:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 699.
Footnote 816:
_De Corona_, p. 134, Edition Didot.
Footnote 817:
Evagrius, ii. c. xiii.
Footnote 818:
Anonymus, i. p. 2.
Footnote 819:
Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 213, 214.
Footnote 820:
_Ibid._, iv. pp. 76, 232.
Footnote 821:
Anna Comn., xv. p. 345.
Footnote 822:
Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 175; Nicephorus Greg., vi. p. 167.
Footnote 823:
Anonymus, i. p. 2; _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, p. 563.
Footnote 824:
Banduri, _Imp. Orient._, vii. p. 149.
Footnote 825:
_Miklosich et Müller_, ii. pp. 467, 564.
Footnote 826:
_Notitia, ad Reg. IV._
Footnote 827:
Codinus, _De Officiis_, pp. 107, 108; cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. 11.
Footnote 828:
Critobulus, i. c. 18.
Footnote 829:
Leo Diaconus, pp. 78, 79; Anonymus, iii. p. 56. This was probably the
tower to which N. Barbaro (p. 733) refers when, speaking of the two
towers, on the opposite sides of the entrance to the Golden Horn,
which supported the chain, he says, “Etiam una tore per ladi de la
zilade, zoè una de la banda de Constantinopoli, l’altra de la banda de
Pera, le qual tore vignia a far defexa assai.”
Footnote 830:
N. Barbara, pp. 722, 723.
Footnote 831:
Ville-Hardouin, c. 32.
Footnote 832:
Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iv. c. x. “Adhuc Galatæ porta est, quæ
appellatur Catena, ex eo, quod ab Acropoli usque ad eam portam catena
extenderetur.” Cf. Theophanes, p. 609.
Footnote 833:
Dr. Paspates (Πολιορκία καὶ Ἄλωσις τῆς ΚΠ., p. 63) thinks the tower
stood beside the Offices of the Board of Health, between the Galata
Bridge and the Galata Custom House. He grounds this opinion on the
existence of old ruins at that point. But the chain would never be
placed aslant the harbour, as this view implies.
Footnote 834:
Theophanes, p. 609.
Footnote 835:
Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 80.
Footnote 836:
Leo Diaconus, p. 79.
Footnote 837:
Nicetas Chon., p. 718; cf. Ville-Hardouin, c. xxxii.
Footnote 838:
Phrantzes, p. 251. See below, pp. 241-247, for the discussion
regarding the precise route taken by the ships.
Footnote 839:
_Acta Patriarchatus CP._, ii. p. 467; Anna Comn., xv. p. 345.
Footnote 840:
Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. xi. R.
Footnote 841:
Nicephorus Greg., vii. p. 275.
Footnote 842:
Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p. 15. With him
agree Von Hammer, Paspates, Mordtmann, etc.
Footnote 843:
Gerlach, p. 454; Leunclavius, Pand. Hist. Turc. s. 200.
Footnote 844:
Pages 254, 255, Ἐδόθη φυλάττειν τὸν πύργον τὸν ἐν μέσω τοῦ ῥεύματος,
τὸν φυλάσσοντα τὴν εἴσοδον τοῦ λιμένος, καὶ ἦν ἀντικρὺς τῆς πύλης τῆς
βασιλικῆς.
Footnote 845:
Page 259. Dr. Paspates, in his work on the siege of the city
(Πολιορκία καὶ Ἂλωσις τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, p. 141), represents the
Hill of St. Theodore and the battery upon it as commanding the Bay of
Cassim Pasha. This, however, is in harmony neither with the statements
of Phrantzes, nor with local configuration. The requirements of the
case are met by the supposition that the Hill of St. Theodore was the
ridge to the north-east of Top Haneh, and that the Sultan’s battery
stood nearer the Bosporus than the present Italian Hospital. Cf. Zorzo
Dolfin, s. 44: “Acceso el Turcho da disdegno, da i montè orientali de
Pera penso a profondar con machine e morteri, o trar quelle de la
cathena. Mezzo adonque le bombarde a segno dal occidente” (_i.e._
aiming towards west), “se sforza con bombardieri profundar le naue.”
Footnote 846:
Page 259.
Footnote 847:
Page 238.
Footnote 848:
XVII., p. 860; cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. 232.
Footnote 849:
Dr. Paspates (see p. 111 of his work on the siege of the city, cited
above) understands Phrantzes in the same way. He identifies the tower
with one which stood, until 1817, between the Gate of St. Barbara (Top
Kapoussi) and the Gate of Eugenius (Yali Kiosk Kapoussi). It was
probably the tower to which Nicolo Barbaro refers (see above, p. 228).
Footnote 850:
Pages 254, 255.
Footnote 851:
See his Epistle to the Pope on the Capture of Constantinople.
Footnote 852:
Pusculus, iv. pp. 179-221.
Footnote 853:
Ducas, p. 275.
Footnote 854:
_Acta Patriarchatus CP._, vol. ii. p. 391, year 1400; cf. pp. 297,
487.
Footnote 855:
Speaking of the bridge which the Sultan built out into the Golden
Horn, and on which he placed cannon to batter the walls in the
Kynegon, Leonard of Scio (p. 931) says the bridge was built that the
army might advance near the wall, beside the “fanum” of the city:
“Decurreret ad murum prope, juxta fanum urbis.” The term is ambiguous.
Zorzo Dolfin translates it, “Appresso la giesia” (the church). But
more probably the reference is to the Phanar quarter, although the
bridge was not exactly opposite to it.
Footnote 856:
How old this church is cannot be precisely determined. It is known to
have been in existence, as a small chapel, before 1640, when it was
burned down. It was then reconstructed, but was again destroyed by
fire, after which it was rebuilt at the expense of the monastery on
Mount Sinai. For some time it was the fashionable church of the
Phanariotes. See Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._,
pp. 104, 105. Mr. Gedeon ascribes it to the 14th century (_Proceedings
of the Greek Syllogos of Consple._, vol. xxvi. p. 148. 1896).
Footnote 857:
_Acta Patriarchatus CP._, ii. p. 391.
Footnote 858:
_Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200.
Footnote 859:
Page 454, where he styles the first gate west of the Seraglio Point
“Die Königliche Pforte.”
Footnote 860:
See above, p. 228; see below, p. 250.
Footnote 861:
_Acta Patriarchatus CP._, ii. pp. 297, 391, 487.
Footnote 862:
Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 503.
Footnote 863:
Lib. i. c. 65.
Footnote 864:
Lib. i. c. 18.
Footnote 865:
Lib. i. c. 65.
Footnote 866:
If the Basilikè Pylè could be identified with the gate which went by
the names Porta Boni, Porta Veteris Rectoris, at Sirkedji Iskelessi,
all statements concerning the Imperial Gate might be applied to that
single entrance. But this would be to interpret the language of
Phrantzes and Leonard of Scio on the subject too loosely. Nor is there
any reason apparent for bestowing such an epithet upon that gate, or
for regarding that gate important during the last siege.
Footnote 867:
The Basilikè Pylè is mentioned in Byzantine history by the following
writers:—
Pachymeres, vol. ii. pp. 178-180.—As the starting-point of a great
conflagration, in 1291, which extended far into the interior of the
city, and caused immense loss of houses and merchandise.
_Ibid._, p. 503.—As the gate to which Berenger, in 1306, took his ship
from the harbour at Blachernæ, in order to leave Constantinople more
readily, as soon as a favourable wind sprang up.
_Acta Patriarchatus CP._, vol. ii. p. 297. Year 1399.—As the gate
beside the shore on which a certain priest had his residence.
_Ibid._, p. 391. Year 1400.—As the gate before which a Church of St.
John the Baptist stood upon the seashore.
_Ibid._, p. 487. Year uncertain.—As the gate before which there was a
hospitium on the sea-shore, near the Church of St. John the Baptist.
Ducas, pp. 184-186.—As the gate guarded by soldiers from Crete during
the siege of 1422. At the demand of those loyal troops the Emperor
Manuel Palæologus, who had taken up his quarters in the monastery of
the Peribleptos (Soulou Monastir), allowed his minister Theologus to
be tried on the charge of accepting bribes from the Turks to betray
the city. Having been found guilty, Theologus was forthwith dragged by
the Cretans along the street to the Basilikè Pylè, and there had his
eyes put out, in a manner that resulted in his death three days after
the horrible operation.
Chalcocondylas, pp. 285, 286.—As the gate beside which stood the tower
injured by the cannon of the Genoese in 1434.
Ducas, pp. 275, 283, 295, 300.—As the gate defended by the Venetians,
and by the Grand Duke Notaras, in the siege of 1453.
Phrantzes, p. 255; Leonard of Scio, in his Letter to Pope Nicholas.—As
the gate defended, in 1453, by Gabriel of Treviso.
Pusculus, iv. p. 193.—As the gate defended, in 1453, by the Grand Duke
Notaras.
Critobulus, i. c. 65.—As the gate attacked by the Turkish fleet which
entered the Golden Horn, after forcing the chain across the mouth of
the harbour.
Footnote 868:
Lib. i. c. 42.
Footnote 869:
See above, p. 211.
Footnote 870:
Page 753.
Footnote 871:
Page 271.
Footnote 872:
Page 251.
Footnote 873:
_Constantinople et le Bosphore_, p. 364.
Footnote 874:
Lib. i. c. 42.
Footnote 875:
_Siège de Constantinople_; Nicolò Barbaro, _Giornale_, p. 752.
Footnote 876:
See his work on the Siege of the City in 1453, p. 139.
Footnote 877:
Page 270: Προστάττει τοῦ εὐθυδρομηθῆναι τὰς νάπας τὰς ὄπισθεν κειμένας
τοῦ Γαλατᾶ, ἀπὸ τὸ μέρος τὸ πρὸς ἀνατολὴν, κάτωθεν τοῦ διπλοῦ κίονος.
Footnote 878:
IV. 550-551.
Footnote 879:
Page 753.
Footnote 880:
Lib. i. c. 42. Charles Müller thinks the correct reading in the text
of Critobulus was not “eight stadia,” but “eighteen stadia.”
Footnote 881:
For the site of the Diplokionion, see Gyllius, _De Bosporo Thracio_,
ii. c. 7. See also, Bondelmontius’ Map (the columns are more
distinctly shown in the copy of that map found in Du Cange and
Banduri, than in the copy which accompanies this work). The idea of
Dr. Dethier, expressed in a note on Pusculus (_Siège de
Constantinople_, p. 237), that the Diplokionion stood, in Byzantine
days, at Cabatash, and was removed—columns and inhabitants together—to
Beshiktash, after the Turkish Conquest, has no foundation whatever.
Footnote 882:
Page 753.
Footnote 883:
Dethier, _Siège de Constantinople_, No. xviii. p. 893.