THE HARBOURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA.
The number of harbours found, at one time or other, on the southern
shore of the city formed one of the most striking features in the aspect
of Byzantine Constantinople. This was not due to any natural facilities
offered by that shore for the purpose. On the contrary, although the
outline of the coast is very irregular, it presents no bay where ships
may be moored for the convenience of commerce, or into which they can
find refuge from storms. The waves, moreover, cast up great quantities
of sand upon the beach. Hence, all the harbours on this side of the city
were, to a great measure, artificial extensions of some indentation of
the coast, and their construction and maintenance involved great labour
and expense. They ranked, in fact, among the principal public works of
the capital. But the interests of commerce with the regions around the
Sea of Marmora and with the Mediterranean were so great, and the
difficulty which vessels coming from those regions often found to make
the Golden Horn, owing to the prevalence of north winds, was so serious
as to outweigh all drawbacks or impediments, and secured for the
accommodation of the shipping frequenting this side of the city no less
than five harbours. These harbours were probably constructed in the
following chronological order: the Harbour of Eleutherius, known also as
the Harbour of Theodosius; the Harbour of the Emperor Julian, known also
as the New Harbour, and as the Harbour of Sophia; the Harbour of
Kaisarius, the same probably as the Neorion at the Heptascalon; the
Harbour of the Bucoleon; and the Kontoscalion. We shall consider them in
the order of their position on the shore, proceeding from east to west.
[Illustration: Map of the Shore of Constantinople on the Sea of Marmora
Between the Seraglio Lighthouse and Daoud Pasha Kapoussi.]
Harbour of the Bucoleon.
The Harbour of the Bucoleon was attached to the Great Palace[988] (τὸ
τοῦ παλατίου νεώριον ἑν τῷ Βουκολέοντι) for the convenience of the
emperor, who in a city like Constantinople would have frequent occasion
to move to and fro by water. Its name was derived from a marble group of
a Lion and a Bull upon the harbour’s quay, the lion being represented
with his left foot upon a horn of the bull, in the act of twisting his
victim’s head round to get at the throat.[989] The harbour, partly
artificial, was protected by two jetties from the violence of the winds
and waves;[990] and, in keeping with its destination, displayed
considerable architectural splendour. Its quay was paved with
marble,[991] and adorned with figures of lions, bulls, bears, and
ostriches;[992] a handsome flight of marble steps led to the water;[993]
and upon the adjoining city walls rose two Imperial villas, known as the
Palace of the Bucoleon (τὰ παλάτια τοῦ Βουκολέοντος).[994]
Strangely enough, the site of a harbour so prominent, and so fully
described, has been a point concerning which students of the topography
of the city have widely differed. Dr. Paspates[995] placed the harbour
at a distance of 104 feet to the south of Indjili Kiosk, consistently
with his opinion that the ruins discovered behind that Kiosk marked the
site of the Palace of the Bucoleon.[996] With much learning and
ingenuity, Labarte argues that the Harbour of the Bucoleon was in the
recess of the shore at Ahour Kapoussi.[997] Von Hammer wavered in his
opinion, placing the harbour at one time at Tchatlady Kapou, and at
another at Kadriga Limani.[998] And yet to Von Hammer is due the
discovery of the evidence that puts an end to all uncertainty on the
subject, by showing us that the marble group of the Lion and the Bull,
which gave the harbour its name, stood at Tchatlady Kapou.
The evidence on the subject is found in a report which Pietro Zen,
Venetian envoy to the Turkish Court, sent to his Government in 1532,
where he describes the monument at great length, as he saw it after it
had been shaken by an earthquake. In quoting this description,[999] Von
Hammer, however, not only fails to use it for the settlement of the
question at issue, but also omits portions of the report which are of
the utmost importance for determining the exact site of the famous
group. Dr. Mordtmann, citing Von Hammer, has appreciated the
significance of the passage referred to, and employs it more
successfully, but with the same omissions.[1000]
The original manuscript of the report is preserved in the Marciana
Library, among the unpublished Archives of the Venetian Republic,[1001]
and the passage with which we are concerned reads to the following
effect:
“At the gate at which animals are slaughtered (near the columns of the
Hippodrome, on the road below), which in Turkish is named Chiachadi
Capisso, which in the Frank language means ‘Gate of the Crack,’ outside
the said water-gate, and beneath the three ancient windows which have a
lion at either end (of the row); there, down beside the shore, on two
columns, is a marble block upon which is a very large bull, much larger
than life, attacked at the throat by a lion, which has mounted upon the
back of the (bull’s) neck, and thrown him down, and strikes at a horn of
the bull with great force. This lion is considerably larger than life,
all cut out of one piece of stone of very fine quality. These animals
used to stand with their heads turned towards Asia, but it seems that on
that night (the night of the catastrophe) they turned themselves with
their heads towards the city. When this was observed next morning, the
whole population of the place ran together to the spot, full of
amazement and stupefaction. And every one went about discoursing upon
the significance of the event according to his own turn of mind; a comet
also appearing for many nights.”
The original is as follows, the words in italics being omitted by Von
Hammer: “Alla porta dove si amaza animali, acosto dile colone
dilprodramo, da basso via, _e in Turcho si chiama chiachadi capisso, e
in francho vol dir para di crepido_, fuora dila dita porta de marina,
_sotto quelle tre fenestre antiquissime che hanno uno lione per banda_,
li abasso alla marina, sopra due colone, e una lastra di marmoro sopra
la qual e uno granmo tauro, maior bonamente che il vivo, acanatto de uno
lione, el qual li e montato sopra la schena, et lo ho atterato, et da
una brancha ad un corno dil tauro in un grandissimo atto; e questo leone
assai maior del vivo e tutto di una piera de una bona vena ouer miner.
Questi animali soleano esser con le teste voltate verso Anatolia, et par
che quella medema notte i se voltasseno con le teste verso Conple., il
che la matina veduto tutta questa terra li e concorsa et ha fatto stupir
e stornir tutta quest terra; et ogni uno va discorendo secondo le
passione dil animo suo, stante una cometa apparsa per molte notte,
questa cosa per il preditto rispetto ho voluto significar.”[1002]
Nothing can be more explicit or more decisive.
There is no room to doubt that the monument described by Zen was the
group of the Lion and the Bull, described, before him, by Anna Comnena
and Zonaras.[1003] His description might be a translation of the account
given of the group by those writers. Nor is there any uncertainty as to
the locality where Zen saw the monument. He indicates the site with a
redundancy which makes misunderstanding simply impossible, and for which
he may be pardoned, since minute particularity seldom distinguishes the
statements of authorities on the topography of the city. According to
the Venetian envoy, the monument stood on the quay outside the
water-gate named Tchatlady Kapou, which was a gate below the Hippodrome,
and near a slaughter-house. The group stood, he adds, beneath a row of
three windows, adorned with a lion at either end, belonging to a very
ancient building.
[Illustration: Marble Figures of Lions Attached to the Balcony in the
Palace of the Bucoleon.]
Now, the gate to which the name Tchatlady pertains is a matter of public
notoriety, and every particular by which Zen marks the entrance he had
in mind holds good of that gate. It is near the Hippodrome, and on the
level ground below the race-course. On the western headland of the
little bay in front of it, is an old slaughter-house, by which
Leunclavius, likewise, identifies the gate Tchatlady Kapou, and from
which he derived the name of the entrance;[1004] while to the east of
the gate stood, until recent times, a Byzantine palace, in the façade of
which was a row of three windows, supported at either end by the figure
of a lion. The palace is thus described by Leunclavius: “This gate
(Tchatlady Kapou) has on one side of it the marble-framed windows of an
ancient building or palace, which rests upon the city walls
themselves.”[1005] Gyllius refers to it in the following terms: “Below
the Hippodrome towards the south is the Gate of the Marble Lion, which
stands without the city among the ruins of the Palace of Leo Marcellus.
The windows of the palace are of ancient workmanship, and are in the
city wall.”[1006] Choiseul-Gouffier[1007] gives a view of the palace as
seen in his day, and so does Canon Curtis, in his _Broken Bits of
Byzantium_. The façade was torn down in 1871, and the lions have been
placed at the foot of the steps leading to the Imperial School of Art,
within the Seraglio enclosure.[1008]
With this evidence as regards the site of the group of the Lion and the
Bull, it is impossible to doubt that the Harbour of the Bucoleon was in
the little bay before Tchatlady Kapou. And with this conclusion every
statement made by Byzantine writers regarding the harbour will be found
to agree.
[Illustration: Ruins of the Palace of the Bucoleon.[1009]]
That the shore of this bay was, like the Harbour of the Bucoleon, once
richly adorned with monumental buildings, is manifest from the beautiful
pieces of sculptured marble found upon its beach and in the water.
Furthermore, the bay stands, as the Harbour of the Bucoleon stood,
within easy reach of the site of the Great Palace. Here also are found
the ruins of two Imperial villas, situated in the very position ascribed
to the Palaces of the Bucoleon; namely, upon the city walls, at the
waters edge, and one of them on a lower level than the other.[1010] Such
correspondence goes to make the site of the Harbour of the Bucoleon one
of the best authenticated localities in the topography of Byzantine
Constantinople.
Here, however, a question arises. How far is this conclusion, regarding
the site of the Harbour of the Bucoleon, compatible with the received
opinion that the palace on the bay before Tchatlady Kapou was the Palace
of Hormisdas, the residence of Justinian the Great while
heir-apparent;[1011] and that the bay itself was the Harbour of
Hormisdas (ὁ λιμὴν τὰ Ὁρμίσδου)?[1012]
In the face of all the evidence we have that the Harbour and the Palace
of the Bucoleon were in the bay to the east of Tchatlady Kapou, there is
but one answer to the question. We must either abandon the view that the
Harbour and the Palace of Hormisdas had anything to do with that bay,
and maintain that they stood elsewhere, or we must conclude that they
were the Harbour and the Palace of the Bucoleon, under an earlier
designation.
Two considerations may be urged in favour of the former alternative.
First, the Anonymus distinguishes between the two palaces in a way which
seems to imply that they were different buildings. “The Palace of the
Bucoleon,” he says, “which stands upon the fortifications, was erected
by Theodosius the Younger;”[1013] while of the Palace of Hormisdas he
remarks: “The very large buildings near St. Sergius were the residence
of Justinian when a patrician.”[1014]
In the second place, the Anonymus[1015] identifies the Harbour of
Hormisdas with that of Julian. “What is called τὰ τοῦ Ὁρμίσδου,”
observes the former writer, “was a small harbour where Justinian the
Great built a monastery and called it Sergius and Bacchus, and another
church, that of the Holy Apostles (SS. Peter and Paul), after receiving
unction at the foot of the seats (of the Hippodrome), because of the
massacre in the Hippodrome. It was named the Harbour of Julian, from its
constructor.” Codinus[1016] also identifies the two harbours, and adds,
that the Harbour of Julian had served for the accommodation of ships
before the Harbour of the Sophiôn was constructed; that it had long been
filled up; and that Justinian the Great had lived there before his
accession to the throne. But if on the ground of these statements we
identify the Harbour of Hormisdas with that of Julian, as Banduri[1017]
and Labarte[1018] maintain, then the Harbour of Hormisdas was not
situated in the bay to the east of Tchatlady Kapou, but at Kadriga
Limani, the undoubted site of the Harbour of Julian, to the west of the
gate.[1019] The Palace of Hormisdas, also, must then have been in that
direction.
In the light, however, of all our knowledge on the subject, the identity
of the two harbours just named cannot be maintained. John of
Antioch,[1020] a far more reliable authority than the Anonymus or
Codinus, makes it perfectly clear that the Harbour of Julian (which he
calls by its later name, the Harbour of Sophia) was different from any
harbour in the quarter of Hormisdas. According to him, the troops
collected by Phocas for the defence of the city against Heraclius
occupied three positions—the Harbour of Kaisarius, the Harbour of
Sophia, and the quarter of Hormisdas. At the first two points were
placed the Greens, while the third position was held by the Blues. From
this account of the matter it is evident that the Harbour of Julian was
not the harbour in the quarter of Hormisdas. It is a corroboration of
this conclusion to find that in the narrative of the same events, given
in the _Paschal Chronicle_,[1021] while no mention is made of the
Harbour of Hormisdas, the Harbour of Julian is described as situated in
another quarter, the quarter of Maurus (κατὰ τὰ λεγόμενα Μαύρου).
[Illustration: Portion of the Palace of Hormisdas.[1022]]
In favour of the alternative that the Palace and Harbour of Hormisdas
were the Palace and Harbour of the Bucoleon under another name, may be
urged all that goes to show that the former stood where the evidence
furnished by Pietro Zen has obliged us to place the latter. The bay and
palace on the east of Tchatlady Kapou stand close to what was
unquestionably the district of Hormisdas; for the Church of SS. Sergius
and Bacchus (Kutchuk Aya Sophia), a short distance to the west of the
gate, was in that district.[1023] It would be strange if a palace and
harbour so near that district were not those known by its name.
The palace at Tchatlady Kapou answers, moreover, to the description
which Procopius gives of the Palace of Hormisdas, the residence of
Justinian, as near SS. Sergius and the Great Palace.[1024] Its position
agrees also with the statement of John of Ephesus that the Palace of
Hormisdas was below the great Imperial residence.[1025] Again, the style
of the capitals and other pieces of marble, which have fallen from the
palace at Tchatlady Kapou into the water, resemble the sculptured work
in the Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, erected by Justinian. And
lastly, the palace at this point was regarded as the Palace of Justinian
when Bondelmontius visited the city in 1422. “Beyond Condoscali (Koum
Kapoussi),” says that traveller, as he proceeds eastward, along the
Marmora shore of the city, “was the very large Palace of Justinian upon
the city walls” (“Ultra fuit supra mœnia amplissimum Justiniani
Palatium”).
All this being the case, it seems unavoidable to conclude that the
Palace and Harbour of Hormisdas were the Palace and Harbour of the
Bucoleon, under an earlier name. The circumstance that the palaces are
distinguished by the Anonymus presents, after all, no serious
difficulty, but the reverse; for, as a matter of fact, there are two
palatial buildings on the bay east of Tchatlady Kapou, at a distance of
some 110 yards from each other, and on different levels. One of the
buildings, probably the lower, might be the Palace of Hormisdas; the
other, on higher ground, and nearer the gate—may be the palace to which
the Anonymus referred as the Bucoleon.
It is in keeping with this view of the subject to find that the terms
“Palace of Hormisdas,” “Port of Hormisdas,” are not employed by
Byzantine authors to designate an Imperial residence or harbour, after
the name Bucoleon came into vogue.
The earliest writer who refers to the Harbour of the Bucoleon is the
Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus,[1026] in the tenth century. Later
writers,[1027] it is true, employ the name when speaking of events which
occurred in the reign of Michael I., and in that of Theophilus, in the
course of the ninth century. But whether these writers do so because the
name was contemporary with the events narrated, or because, when the
historians wrote, it was the more familiar appellation for the scene of
those events, is uncertain. Should the former supposition be preferred,
it was early in the ninth century that the term “Bucoleon” first
appeared.
On the other hand, the last author who alludes to the Palace of
Hormisdas is the historian Theophanes, who died in 818. The passage in
which the allusion is found refers, indeed, to matters which transpired
in the seventh century, viz. to the execution of a certain David,
Chartophylax of (the Palace of) Hormisdas, in the reign of Phocas. But
the historian could hardly have described an official position in terms
not still familiar to his readers.[1028]
Accordingly, the designation “Palace of Hormisdas” disappears about the
time when the term “Bucoleon” appears, and this is consistent with the
supposition that the two names denoted the same building at different
periods of its history.[1029]
The Palace of Hormisdas was so named in honour of the Persian Prince
Hormisdas, who had been deprived of the succession to the throne of his
country by a conspiracy of nobles, and confined in a tower; but who
escaped from his prison through the ingenuity of his wife, and fled to
New Rome for protection at the hands of Constantine the Great. The royal
fugitive was received with the honour due to his rank, and this
residence was assigned to him because near the emperor’s own
palace.[1030] Later, the residence was occupied, as already intimated,
by Justinian while Crown Prince, with his consort Theodora; and after
his accession to the throne, was by his orders, improved and annexed to
the Great Palace.[1031] It appears in the reign of Justin II. as the
abode of Tiberius, upon his being appointed Cæsar.[1032] Under ordinary
circumstances, Tiberius should have occupied apartments in the Great
Palace. But the Empress Sophia was bitterly jealous of his wife Ino, and
forbade her to show herself at Court, on any pretext whatever. Obliged,
consequently, to find a home elsewhere, the Cæsar selected the Palace of
Hormisdas, because its proximity to the Great Palace would allow him to
enjoy the society of his family, and attend to his official duties. But
the jealousy of the empress was not to be allayed so readily. It
followed Ino to the Palace of Hormisdas with such intensity that the
ladies of the Court dared not visit her even there; and it compelled her
at last to leave the capital and retire to Daphnusium.
As already stated, when Heraclius appeared with a fleet, in 610, before
the city to put an end to the tyranny of Phocas, he found the quarter of
Hormisdas defended by the Faction of the Blues.[1033]
During the tenth century, the port and palace, then called Bucoleon,
received special marks of Imperial favour. Constantine Porphyrogenitus,
noted for his devotion to the Fine Arts, adorned the quay of the harbour
with figures of animals, brought from various parts of the Empire.[1034]
Possibly, the group of the Lion and the Bull was placed there by him. He
also attached a fishpond to the palace.
Later, Nicephorus Phocas added a villa, which he made his usual place of
residence.[1035] It was probably the building with the row of three
windows, supported by a lion at either end. A still more important
change was introduced by the same emperor. His austere character, and
the heavy taxes he imposed for the maintenance of the army, made him
exceedingly unpopular, notwithstanding his eminent services as the
conqueror of the Saracens. So strong did the hostile feeling against him
become, that, returning once from a visit to the Holy Spring of the
Pegè, he was mobbed at the Forum of Constantine, and narrowly escaped
being stoned to death before he could reach the palace.[1036] Rumours of
a plot to dethrone and kill him were also in circulation. He therefore
decided to convert the Great Palace into a fortress, and to provision it
with everything requisite to withstand a siege.[1037]
Accordingly, he surrounded the grounds of the Imperial residence with a
strong and lofty wall, which described a great arc from the
neighbourhood of Ahour Kapoussi on the east to Tchatlady Kapou on the
west, and thus cut off the palace from the rest of the city.[1038]
Luitprand,[1039] who saw the wall soon after its erection, says of it:
“The palace at Constantinople surpasses in beauty and strength any
fortifications that I have ever seen.” Within this wall the Palace of
Bucoleon was, of course, included.
Labarte[1040] and Schlumberger[1041] maintain, indeed, that Nicephorus
surrounded the Palace of Bucoleon with special works of defence, and
constituted it a citadel within the fortifications of the Great Palace.
But Leo Diaconus, Cedrenus and Zonaras, our authorities on the subject,
make no such statement.[1042]
[Illustration: Ruins of the Palace of Hormisdas.]
As might be expected, historical events of considerable importance
transpired at the Port and the Palace of the Bucoleon.
Here, in 919, Romanus Lecapenus, admiral of the fleet, made the naval
demonstration which compelled Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus to accept
him as a colleague, and to surrender the administration of affairs into
his hands.[1043]
It was here that the memorable conspiracy against Nicephorus Phocas was
carried out, in 969, by John Zimisces, with the connivance of the
Empress Theophano.[1044] Under cover of the night, the conspirators
embarked at Chalcedon, the residence of Zimisces at the time, and in the
teeth of a strong north wind, and with snow falling heavily, crossed to
the Bucoleon. A low whistle announced their arrival to their
accomplices, who were watching on the terrace of the palace; and in
response, a basket held fast by ropes was stealthily lowered and raised,
again and again, until one by one all in the boat were lifted to the
summit. The last to ascend was Zimisces himself. Then the traitors made
for the apartment in which they expected to find the emperor.
Nicephorus, who had received some intimation of the plot, was not in his
usual chamber, and the conspirators, fearing they had been betrayed,
were about to leap into the sea and make their escape, when a eunuch
appeared and guided them to the room in which the doomed sovereign lay
fast asleep on the floor, on a leopard’s skin, and covered with a
scarlet woollen blanket. Not to spare their victim a single pang, they
first awakened the slumberer, and then assailed him with their swords as
he prayed, “Lord, have mercy upon me.” As if to add irony to the event,
Nicephorus met his fate, it is said, on the very day on which the
fortifications around the palace were completed. After this, guards were
stationed, at night, on the quay of the Harbour of the Bucoleon, to warn
off boats that approached the shore.[1045]
From this point, Alexius Comnenus entered the Great Palace, after the
deposition of Nicephorus Botoniates; leaving his young wife and her
immediate relatives in the residence by the shore, while he himself,
with the members of his own family, proceeded to the higher palace (τὸ
ὑπερκείμενον παλάτιον).[1046] Here, also, in 1170, Amaury, King of
Jerusalem, landed on the occasion of his visit to Manuel Comnenus, to
seek the emperor’s aid against Saladin. Access to the palace by this
landing, says William of Tyre,[1047] in his account of that visit, was
reserved, as a rule, for the emperor exclusively. But it was granted to
Amaury as a special honour, and here he was welcomed by the great
officers of the palace, and then conducted through galleries and halls
of wonderful variety of style, to the palace on an eminence, where
Manuel and the great dignitaries of State awaited the arrival of the
king.
In the course of time, as the prominent position of the Palace and the
Harbour of Bucoleon rendered natural, the name Bucoleon, it would
appear, was extended to the whole collection of buildings which formed
the Great Palace, facing the Sea of Marmora. That is certainly the sense
in which Ville-Hardouin employs the term in his work on the Conquest of
Constantinople by the Crusaders. He associates “le palais de Bouchelyon”
with the Palace of Blachernæ, as one of the principal residences of the
Greek emperors. In the division of the spoils of the city, the Palace of
“Bouchelyon,” like the Palace of Blachernæ, was to belong to the prince
whom the Crusaders would elect Emperor of Constantinople;[1048] upon the
capture of the city, the Marquis of Montferrat hastened to seize the
Palace of Bucoleon, while Henry, the brother of Baldwin, secured the
surrender of the Palace of Blachernæ;[1049] the treasure found in the
former is described as equal to that in the latter: “Il n’en faut pas
parler; car il y en avait tant que c’était sans fin ni mesure.” Indeed,
the statements of Ville-Hardouin concerning the Palace of Bucoleon make
the impression that of the two Imperial residences which he names, it
was, if anything, the more important.[1050] Thither Murtzuphlus fled
when his troops were discomfited.[1051] There, the Marquis of Montferrat
found congregated for safety most of the great ladies of the Court,
including Agnes of France, wife of Alexius II., and Margaret of Hungary,
wife of Isaac Angelus.[1052] And to the Palace of Bucoleon, the richest
in the world (“el riche palais de Bochelyon, qui onques plus riches ne
fu veuz”), the Latin Emperor Baldwin proceeded in great state, after his
coronation in St. Sophia, to celebrate the festivities attending his
accession to the throne.[1053] There, also, were held the festivities in
honour of the marriage of the Emperor Henry with Agnes, the daughter of
the Marquis of Montferrat.[1054] It is not possible that the two
comparatively small buildings at Tchatlady Kapou could be the palace
which Ville-Hardouin had in mind in connection with these events. The
terms he employs, in speaking on the subject, were appropriate only to
the Great Palace as a whole.
The designation of the Palace of Bucoleon as “Chastel de
Bouchelyon”[1055] is no evidence that Ville-Hardouin used the name in
its restricted sense, as Labarte contends. For the Great Palace was
within a fortified enclosure, and could therefore be styled a castle
with perfect propriety, just as the same historian, for a similar
reason, speaks of the Palace of Blachernæ as a “chastel.” Nor does the
fact that the Marquis of Montferrat reached the Palace of Bucoleon by
riding along the shore (“chevaucha tout le long du rivage, droit vers
Bouchelion”)[1056] prove that the residence beside Tchatlady Kapou was
the one he wished specially to secure. For the grounds of the Great
Palace were thus accessible by a gate which stood at the eastern
extremity of the Tzycanisterion, on the plain beside the Sea of Marmora,
and which communicated with the quarter of the city near the head of the
promontory.
Two incidents in Byzantine history, cited by Labarte[1057] himself,
establish the existence of such a gate, beyond contradiction. When
Stephen and Constantine, the sons of the Emperor Romanus Lecapenus,
deposed their father, in 944, and sent him to a monastery on the island
of Proti,[1058] great fears were entertained in the city, that a
similar, if not a worse, fate had befallen his associate upon the
throne, the popular Constantine VII., Porphyrogenitus. The people,
therefore, crowded about the palace to ascertain the truth, and were
reassured that their favourite was safe by his appearance, with
dishevelled hair, at the iron bars of the gate which stood at the end of
the Tzycanisterion (“Ex ea parte qua Zucanistrii magnitudo portenditur,
Constantinus crines solutus per cancellos caput exposuit.”) The
existence of a gate at this point is, if possible, still clearer from
the statement of Constantine Porphyrogenitus,[1059] that the Saracen
ambassadors, after their audience of the emperor, left the palace
grounds by descending to the Tzycanisterion, and mounting horse there.
To approach the palace by that entrance evinced, therefore, no
particular intention on the part of the Marquis of Montferrat to reach
the buildings to which the name of Bucoleon strictly belonged. On the
contrary, by that entrance one would reach the principal apartments of
the Great Palace, sooner than the palaces beside the group of the Lion
and the Bull, at Tchatlady Kapou.
The Bucoleon is mentioned for the last time in Byzantine history, in
connection with the events of the final fall of the city. “To Peter
Guliano, consul of the Catalans, was entrusted,” says Phrantzes,[1060]
“the defence of the quarter of the Bucoleon, and the districts as far as
the neighbourhood of the Kontoscalion.”
Footnote 989:
Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 292.
Footnote 990:
Anna Comn., iii. p. 137; Zonaras, xvi. c. xxviii. p. 131.
Footnote 991:
Bondelmontius’ Map.
Footnote 992:
William of Tyre, xx. c. xxiii. p. 983.
Footnote 993:
Theophanes Cont., p. 447; Anna Comn., vii. pp. 334, 335; _Itinéraires
Russes en Orient_, p. 235.
Footnote 994:
William of Tyre, _ut supra_.
Footnote 995:
Anna Comn., iii. p. 137; Anonymus, i. p. 9.
Footnote 996:
Page 118.
Footnote 997:
See above, p. 255.
Footnote 998:
_Le Palais Impérial de Consple._, pp. 201-210.
Footnote 999:
_Constantinopolis und der Bosporos_, vol. i. pp. 119, 121, 124.
Footnote 1000:
_Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman_, vol. v., note xxxv.
Footnote 1001:
Pages 53, 54.
Footnote 1002:
Marin Sanuto, _Diarii Autographi_, vol. lvii., Carta 158, recto, 14
Decembrio, 1532. The document was addressed to the Doge Gritti, who
had been in Constantinople, and knew the localities to which allusion
was made.
Footnote 1003:
Von Hammer (_Histoire de L’Empire Ottoman_, vol. v. note xxxv.) quotes
also from Cornelius, the ambassador of Charles V. to Sultan Suleiman,
who alludes to the subject in the following words: “Est mamor quoddam
hic propere ad mare, in quo sculptus est leo ingens tenens taurum
cornibus, tam vasta moles ut a mille hominibus moveri non possit.”
The Venetian historian Sagrado, in his _Memorie Istoriche de Monarchi
Ottomani,_ adds that the monument fell to the ground. “In
Constantinopoli un Leone di pietra, il quale stava fuori della porta a
Marina, che con una zanna afferava on toro, guardava prima verso
Levante, si ritrovo che stava rivolto a Ponente. E perche, era situato
sopra due colonne, precipito unitamente col toro, che si ruppe una
coscia e cade con la testa nel fiume, in cui parea in certo modo che
bevese” (_Libro_, iv. p. 319. Venezia, 1677).
With the above compare the statement found in the _Spectator_ of April
20, 1895, p. 519, when describing the effects of recent earthquakes in
Southern Austria, Northern Italy, and Hungary: “At Fiume and Trieste
there was also a good deal of disturbance, and at Trieste the statue
of the Emperor Charles is reported to have twisted round on its
pedestal and now faces opposite to where it faced before. What an omen
that would have been considered three hundred years ago!”
Footnote 1004:
See above, p. 269, ref. 2.
Footnote 1005:
_Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200: “Tchatladi capsi, a mactatione
pecudum.... Ædificium rotundum extra muros, ipso mari vicinum, ac
vetus habet undique circumfluum nisi qua terræ jungitur, in quo
mactantur, excoriantur et exenterantur pecudes.”
Footnote 1006:
_Ibid._, _ut supra_: “Fenestres habet hæc porta (Tchatlady Kapou)
marmoreas a latere, cujusdam ædificii vel palatii veteris, quod ipsis,
muris urbanis incumbit.”
Footnote 1007:
_De Top. CP._, lib. i. c. vii.; lib. ii. c. xv.: “Sub Hippodromo
versus meridiem est Porta Leonis Marmorei, extra urbem siti, in
ruderibus Palatii Leonis Marcelli; cujus fenestræ antiquo opere
laboratæ extant in muro inclusæ.”
Footnote 1008:
_Voyage Pittoresque dans l’Empire Ottoman, etc._, vol. iv.
Footnote 1009:
The palace stood on a terraced platform, the area of which was some
200 by 175 feet. See Map facing p. 269.
Footnote 1010:
From _Broken Bits of Byzantium_. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
Footnote 1011:
See above, p. 269. Anna Comnena (iii. p. 137) speaks of a lower and a
higher palace, Ἐν τῷ κάτω παλατίῳ: εἰς τὸ ὑπερκείμενον παλάτιον.
Footnote 1012:
Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. iv.; Bondelmontius, _Librum Insularum_, p.
121.
Footnote 1013:
Labarte, _Le Palais Imperial de Consple._, pp. 208-210.
Footnote 1014:
Lib. i. p. 9.
Footnote 1015:
Lib. iii. p. 42; cf. Codinus, p. 125.
Footnote 1016:
Lib. iii. p. 45.
Footnote 1017:
Codinus, p. 87.
Footnote 1018:
_Imperium Orientale_, vol. ii. pp. 678, 679.
Footnote 1019:
_Le Palais Imperial de Consple._, pp. 208, 209.
Footnote 1020:
See below, p. 290.
Footnote 1021:
_Fragm. Hist. Græc._, vol. iv. p. 107.
Footnote 1022:
Page 700.
Footnote 1023:
From _Broken Bits of Byzantium_. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
Footnote 1024:
Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. iv.
Footnote 1025:
Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. iv.
Footnote 1026:
Translation by R. Payne Smith, p. 179.
Footnote 1027:
_De Cer._, p. 601.
Footnote 1028:
Theophanes Cont., p. 22; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 49.
Footnote 1029:
Theophanes, p. 456. May David, however, in opposition to the view of
Du Cange, adopted in the text, not have been Keeper of the Archives of
SS. Sergius and Bacchus?
Footnote 1030:
Against this view it may be objected that the Anonymus ascribes the
Palace of the Bucoleon to Theodosius II. But the authority of the
Anonymus on points of history is not very great. Or, it may be held,
that the palace was founded by Theodosius II., and that the name
Bucoleon was given to it later.
Footnote 1031:
Zosimus, ii. pp. 92, 93; iii. pp. 140, 158.
Footnote 1032:
Procopius, _De Æd._ i. c. iv.
Footnote 1033:
_John of Ephesus_, translation by R. Payne Smith, pp. 179, 180.
Footnote 1034:
John of Antioch, _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, vol. iv. p. 107.
Footnote 1035:
Theophanes Cont., p. 447.
Footnote 1036:
Nicetas Chon., iii. p. 149.
Footnote 1037:
Leo Diac., iv. p. 63-65.
Footnote 1038:
_Ibid._, iv. p. 64; Cedrenus, vol. ii. 369, 370; Zonaras, xvi. c.
xxvi. p. 123. The last author describes the work thus: Τῷ νῦν ὁρωμένῳ
τείχει τὰ βασίλεια ἐστεφάνωσεν. Ἄκροπολιν δ᾽ οἱ πολίται τοῦτο καὶ
τυραννεῖον καθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν γινόμενον ἔκρινον.
Footnote 1039:
_Ibid._, iv. p. 64, Περίβολον ἐκ τοῦ θατέρου μέρους τοῦ πρὸς θάλατταν
ἐπικλινοῦς τῶν ἀνακτόρων τειχίζειν ἀρξάμενος, κατὰ θάτερον πρὸς
θάλατταν συνεπέρανε, καὶ τεῖχος, τὸ νῦν ὁρώμενον ὑψηλόν τε καὶ ὀχυρὸν
ἐδομήσατο, καὶ τὴν βασίλειον ἑστίαν ὡς ὑπετόπαζεν, ἠσφαλίσατο. Not, as
Schlumberger supposes, from the Golden Horn to the Sea of Marmora,
across the promontory (_Un Empereur Byzantin au Dixième Siècle_, p.
544).
Footnote 1040:
Lib. v. c. ix.; Migne, _Patrologia Latina_, vol. cxxxvi.
Footnote 1041:
_Le Palais Impérial de Consple._, p. 210.
Footnote 1042:
_Op. cit._, p. 545.
Footnote 1043:
Still, the Palaces of the Bucoleon may have been protected by a
special enclosure, although the historians do not refer to it
particularly.
In the garden of a Turkish house to the north of the lower palace, a
portion of a Byzantine wall, about 130 feet in length and 40 feet
high, is found standing. It was discovered, when walls and houses in
the neighbourhood were demolished for the construction of the
Roumelian Railway, and was then pierced by a very large vaulted
gateway, over 18 feet high, supported by four great marble columns.
Gate and columns have disappeared. If produced southwards, the wall
would join the tower at the eastern end of the lower palace; while if
produced northwards, the wall would abut against the retaining wall of
the terrace on which the Mosque of Sultan Achmet and its courtyards
are built. The wall is pierced with loopholes, facing _east_, and
behind them a passage runs along the rear of the wall, through arches
occurring at intervals.
Dr. Paspates (p. 120) regarded the wall as part of the Peridromi of
Marcian (see Labarte, _Le Palais Impérial de Consple._, p. 214),
attached to the Great Palace. But this view of its character is not
consistent with the fact that the loopholes look eastwards. That fact
indicates that the wall belonged to the Palaces of the Bucoleon which
stood to the rear. The gate in the wall, likewise, shows that these
palaces were separated from the area of the Great Palace. May the wall
not have turned westwards, at its present northern extremity, to
protect the Palaces of the Bucoleon along the north, and then
southwards, to connect with the city wall at Tchatlady Kapou, and
protect the palaces on the west? This, with the city wall along the
southern front of the palaces, would put them within a fortified
enclosure of their own.
Footnote 1044:
Theophanes Cont., p. 393.
Footnote 1045:
Leo Diaconus, v. p. 87; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 375.
Footnote 1046:
Nicetas Chon., pp. 169, 170.
Footnote 1047:
Anna Comn., iii. p. 137.
Footnote 1048:
Lib. xx. c. 23.
Footnote 1049:
_Conquête de Consple._, c. li. E.
Footnote 1050:
_Ibid._, c. lv.
Footnote 1051:
_Conquête de Consple._, c. li.
Footnote 1052:
_Ibid._, c. liii.
Footnote 1053:
_Ibid._, c. lv.
Footnote 1054:
Ville-Hardouin, c. lviii.
Footnote 1055:
_Ibid._, c. cvi.
Footnote 1056:
_Ibid._, c. liii., lv.
Footnote 1057:
_Ibid._, c. lv. The position assigned by Labarte to the Palace of
Bucoleon, at Ahour Kapoussi, explains his interpretation of the
statements of Ville-Hardouin.
Footnote 1058:
_Le Palais Impérial de Consple._, p. 201. Labarte quotes Luitprandi
Antapodosis, lib. v. s. 21, ap. Pertz., _Mon. Germ. Hist._, t. v. p.
333.
Footnote 1059:
Theophanes Cont., p. 393.
Footnote 1060:
_De Cer._, p. 586.
Footnote 1061:
Page 253.