THE HARBOURS ON THE SEA OF MARMORA—_continued_.
The NEW HARBOUR[1061] (Portus Novus), known also as the HARBOUR OF
JULIAN[1062] (Portus Divi Juliani: Λιμὴν τοῦ Ἰουλιανοῦ), and the
HARBOUR OF SOPHIA,[1063] or the SOPHIAS[1064] (Λιμὴν τῆς Σοφίας, τῶν
Σοφιῶν).
About 327 yards to the west of SS. Sergius and Bacchus traces are found
of an ancient harbour extending inland to the foot of the steep slope
above which the Hippodrome is situated. The Turkish name for the
locality, Kadriga Limani, “the Harbour of the Galleys,” is in itself an
indication of the presence of an old harbour at that point. When Gyllius
visited Constantinople, the port was enclosed by walls and almost filled
in, but still contained a pool of water, in which the women of the
district washed their clothes, and at the bottom of which, it was
reported, submerged triremes could sometimes be seen.[1065]
Here, as we shall immediately find, was the site of the harbour known by
the three names Portus Novus, the Harbour of Julian, the Harbour of
Sophia.
The harbour obtained its first name, when newly opened in the fourth
century, to distinguish it from the earlier harbours of the city; while
its other names were, respectively, bestowed in honour of the Emperor
Julian, the constructor of the harbour, and of the Empress Sophia, who
restored it when fallen into decay.
That these three names designated the same harbour can be proved, most
briefly and directly, by showing first the identity of the Portus Novus
with the Harbour of Sophia, and then the identity of the latter with the
Harbour of Julian.
The former point is established by the fact that the Portus Novus and
the Harbour of Sophia occupied the same position; both were situated on
the southern side of the city, and at the foot of the steep slope
descending from the Hippodrome towards the Sea of Marmora.[1066]
The evidence for the identity of the Harbour of Sophia with that of
Julian rests upon express declarations to that effect. There is, first,
the statement of Leo the Grammarian[1067] that the Emperor Justin II.
built the Palace of Sophia at the Harbour of Julian, and having cleaned
the latter, changed its name to the Harbour of Sophia. Then, we have two
passages in which Theophanes[1068] takes particular care to explain that
the Harbour of Julian went also by the name of Sophia. Furthermore, both
names are used to designate the scene of the same events, and the
position of the same buildings. For instance; whereas the _Paschal
Chronicle_[1069] states that the final action in the struggle between
Phocas and Heraclius took place in the Harbour of Julian, John of
Antioch[1070] and Cedrenus[1071] say it occurred at the Harbour of
Sophia. Again, while some authors[1072] put the Residence of Probus, the
district of Maurus, and the Palace of Sophia, beside the Harbour of
Julian, others[1073] place them beside the Harbour of Sophia.
That the harbour known under these different names was at Kadriga Limani
admits of no doubt, seeing the Portus Novus and the Harbour of Sophia
were, as already intimated, at the foot of the steep ascent below the
Hippodrome,[1074] where Kadriga Limani is found. Or the same conclusion
may be reached by another line of argument. The Portus Juliani
(identical with the Portus Novus and the Harbour of Sophia) was a large
harbour on the southern side of the city,[1075] and close to the Church
of SS. Sergius and Bacchus.[1076] It could not, however, have stood to
the east of that church, for not only are all traces of such a harbour
wanting in that direction, but no large harbour could possibly have been
constructed there, on account of the character of the coast. The Portus
Juliani, therefore, lay to the west of SS. Sergius and Bacchus. But it
could have been very near that church (the other indication of its
site), only if at Kadriga Limani.
The construction of the harbour was ordered by Julian during his stay of
ten months in Constantinople, on his way to the scene of war in
Persia.[1077] He likewise erected beside it, for the convenience of
merchants and traders frequenting the harbour, a fine crescent-shaped
portico styled, from its form, the Sigma (Σίγμα);[1078] and there, also,
his statue stood until 535, when it fell in an earthquake, and was
replaced by a cross.[1079] In promoting such public works, Julian was
actuated not only by the dictates of enlightened policy, but also by the
affection he cherished for the city of his birth.[1080]
After one hundred and fifty years, the harbour was so injured by the
accumulation of the sand thrown up on this coast as to call for
extensive repairs; and accordingly, at the order of Anastasius I., it
was, in 509, dredged, and protected by a mole.[1081]
Nevertheless, further restoration was required sixty years later, in the
reign of Justin II. The work was then executed under the superintendence
of Narses and the Protovestarius Troilus, at the urgent solicitation of
the Empress Sophia, whose sympathies had been greatly stirred by seeing,
from her palace windows, ships in distress during a violent storm on the
Sea of Marmora. It was in recognition of the empress’s interest in the
matter that the harbour received her name,[1082] and was adorned with
her statue, as well as with the statues of Justin II., her daughter
Arabia, and Narses.[1083] Owing to the improvements made on the harbour
at this time, the Marine Exchange of the city was transferred to it from
the Neorion on the Golden Horn.[1084] The port continued in use to the
end of the Empire, and also for some sixty years after the Turkish
Conquest. The entrance (now closed) was between the two large towers
immediately to the west of SS. Sergius and Bacchus.
With the harbour the following historical events are associated: Here
the body of St. Chrysostom was landed, and placed for a time in the
neighbouring Church of St. Thomas Amantiou, when brought from the land
of his exile to be entombed in the Church of the Holy Apostles.[1085] In
the riot of the Nika, the Residence of Probus, which stood beside the
harbour, was first searched for arms, and then set on fire by the
Factions.[1086] Here Phocas placed a division of the Green Faction, to
prevent the landing of troops from the fleet of Heraclius;[1087] and
hither the tyrant himself was dragged from his palace, thrown into a
boat, and taken to Heraclius, in whose presence he was put to
death.[1088] Here Leontius, upon his appointment as Governor of the
Theme of Hellas, embarked to proceed to his post; but, at the instance
of his friends, landed to head the revolution which overthrew Justinian
II.[1089]
Several of the great fires to which Constantinople was so liable reached
this harbour. Among them was the terrible conflagration in the reign of
Leo the Great, which devastated the principal quarters of the city, from
the Golden Horn to the Sea of Marmora.[1090] The equally destructive
fire of 1203, which started with the burning, by the Crusaders, of the
Saracen Mosque beside the Golden Horn, near Sirkedji Iskelessi, likewise
swept across the city to this point.[1091] Other fires of minor
importance occurred here in 561, 863, 887, and 956.
To the list of the noted buildings and districts near the Harbour of
Julian, already mentioned, may be added the Residence of Bardas, father
of Nicephorus Phocas;[1092] the Residence of Isaac Sevastocrator, which
was converted by Isaac Angelus into a khan or hostelry (Pandocheion),
with accommodation for one hundred men and as many horses;[1093] the
Churches of St. Thekla;[1094] St. Thomas, Amantiou;[1095] the Archangel
Michael, of Adda (τοῦ Ἀδδᾷ);[1096] St. Julian Perdix; and St. John the
Forerunner, near the Residence of Probus.[1097]
Close to the Harbour of Sophia stood a tower known as the Bukanon, or
the Trumpet (τὸ Βύκανον).[1098] It was so named, according to the
Anonymus,[1099] both because trumpets were kept there, and because the
tower itself, being hollow, resounded like a trumpet when struck by the
waves. Whenever the Imperial fleet, the same writer adds, sailed from
the city, it was customary for the ships to assemble before this tower
and exchange musical salutes with it; a legend, which is probably a
fanciful travesty of the simple fact that the tower was a station from
which the movements of vessels were directed by trumpet signals.
If the order in which the Anonymus mentions the tower, between the SS.
Sergius and Bacchus and the Harbour of Sophia, indicates its actual
position, the Bukanon stood on the eastern side of the harbour.
Harbour of the Kontoscalion (τὸ Κοντοσκάλιον).
Another harbour on the Marmora side of the city was the Harbour of
Kontoscalion.
The first reference to the Kontoscalion occurs in the Anonymus,[1100] in
the eleventh century, but the harbour acquired its greatest importance
after 1261, when it was selected by Michael Palæologus to be the
dockyard and principal station of the Imperial navy. Here the emperor
thought his fleet could lie more secure from attack, and in a better
position to assail an enemy, than in any other haven of the city. For
the force of the current along this shore would soon oblige hostile
ships approaching the port to beat a hasty retreat, lest they should be
driven upon the coast, and consequently expose them, as they withdrew,
to be taken in the rear by the Imperial vessels that would then sally
forth in pursuit. Great labour was therefore expended upon the old
harbour. It was dredged and deepened to render it more commodious; and
to make it more secure, it was surrounded with immense blocks, closed
with iron gates, and protected by a mole.[1101] Subsequently, as his
coat-of-arms on the western tower of the harbour indicated, the
Kontoscalion was repaired by Andronicus II.[1102]
A Russian pilgrim who visited the city about 1350 has drawn a vivid
picture of the harbour when crowded with triremes on account of contrary
weather:—
“De l’Hippodrome on passe devant Cantoscopie; là est la superbe et très
grande porte en fer à grillage de la ville. C’est par cette porte que la
mer pénétre dans la ville. Si la mer est agitée, jusqu’a trois cents
galères y trouvent place; ces galères ont les unes deux cents et les
autres trois cents rames. Ces vaisseaux sont employés au transport des
troupes. Si le vent est contraire, ils ne peuvent avancer, et doivent
attendre le beau temps.”[1103]
The Kontoscalion is generally held to have stood in front of Koum
Kapoussi, where the traces of an old harbour, about 270 yards wide and
some 217 yards long, are still discernible in an extensive mole off the
shore, and in the great bend described by the city walls at that point
to enclose an area which, at one time, was evidently a basin of water.
There is scarcely any room for doubt that this view is correct. The
adherence of the name Kontoscalion to this quarter, apparently, ever
since the Turkish Conquest,[1104] is in favour of the opinion. So,
likewise, is the fact that thus it becomes intelligible how
Pachymeres[1105] and Bondelmontius[1106] associate the harbour with
Vlanga, on the one hand, while Nicephorus Gregoras[1107] associates it
with the Hippodrome on the other. It is also a corroboration of this
view to find on the walls of the harbour the coat-of-arms of Andronicus
II., who is declared, by one authority, to have restored the
Kontoscalion.[1108] The only objection to this identification is found
in the difference between the character of the actual enclosure around
the harbour at Koum Kapoussi and the character of the enclosure which
Michael Palæologus placed around the Kontoscalion. The former consists
of the ordinary walls of the city; the latter consisted, according to
Pachymeres,[1109] of very large blocks of stone: ὥστε γυρῶσαι μὲν
μεγίσταις πέτραις τὸν κύκλῳ τόπον. But in reply to this objection it may
be said, either (though not without some violence to the words of the
historian) that the great blocks of stone referred to were the boulders
which form the mole of the harbour; or that the work done under Michael
Palæologus was temporary, and was superseded by the improvements
executed in the reign of his son and successor Andronicus II. The
objection must not be ignored.[1110]
Harbour of Eleutherius and Theodosius.
According to the _Notitia_,[1111] Constantinople possessed a harbour
called Portus Theodosianus, in the Twelfth Region of the city. As that
Region comprised within its limits the shore of the Sea of Marmora at
the southern base of the Seventh Hill, the Harbour of Theodosius must
have been found at Vlanga Bostan, where the basin of a very ancient
harbour, now filled in and converted into market-gardens, is distinctly
visible.
There can be little doubt that this harbour was also the one which went
by the name Harbour of Eleutherius[1112] (ὁ λιμὴν τοῦ Ἐλευθερίου): for
the district of Eleutherius, and the palace of that name,[1113] were
situated in the valley leading from Vlanga Bostan to Ak Serai, and the
Et Meidan. The harbour at Vlanga Bostan, moreover, corresponds to the
description given of the Harbour of Eleutherius by the Anonymus,[1114]
who speaks of it as a very ancient harbour, situated to the west of that
of Sophia, and abandoned long before his time.
If this be so, then the name Harbour of Eleutherius was its earlier
designation, and the port itself was the oldest on the side of the city
towards the Sea of Marmora, its construction being ascribed to a certain
Eleutherius, who was present at the foundation of Constantinople.[1115]
Its antiquity is supported by the aspect of its remains, for the walls
enclosing it on the north are the oldest portion of the fortifications
of the city, and possibly belong to the time of Constantine the Great.
Here the statue of Eleutherius was erected, in the appropriate equipment
of an excavator, with a spade in his hand and a basket on his
back.[1116]
[Illustration: Tower Guarding the Harbour of Eleutherius and
Theodosius.[1117]]
From the fact that the harbour was called Portus Theodosianus, it is
evident that it was improved by Theodosius I., to whom the city owed so
many public works.
When precisely the harbour was filled in is a question not easily
settled. The Anonymus declares, indeed, that this was done in the reign
of Theodosius I., with the earth excavated in laying the foundations of
the column of that emperor in the Forum of Taurus.[1118] But, had that
been the case, the _Notitia_ would scarcely have mentioned an abandoned
harbour among the objects for which the Twelfth Region of the city was
remarkable. What is certain is that the harbour was destroyed some time
before the eleventh century; probably because the earth brought by the
stream of the Lycus, which flows into the harbour, and the sand cast up
by the sea, proved too troublesome for the maintenance of a sufficient
depth of water.
The harbour measured 786 yards from east to west and 218 yards from
south to north. Along its southern side, as well as along a portion of
its side towards the east, it was protected by a mole twelve feet thick,
carefully constructed of masonry, and extending from the Gate of St.
Æmilianus (Daoud Pasha Kapoussi) eastwards for about 436 yards, and then
northwards for 327 yards more.[1119] Upon the greater portion of the
mole, walls were constructed for the military defence of the harbour.
The entrance was at the north-eastern end, between the head of the mole
and the site of the Gate Yeni Kapou, the opening through which the
Roumelian Railway now runs, and was guarded by a tower built at a short
distance out in the sea.[1120]
[Illustration: Portion of the Wall Around the Harbour of Eleutherius and
Theodosius.[1121]]
As stated already, the adjacent quarter was called the quarter of
Eleutherius (τὰ τοῦ Ἐλευθερίου). It is mentioned under that name in
1203, as the farthest point reached by the great fire which then
devastated the city through the folly of the Crusaders.[1122] The
present name of the quarter, Vlanga, appears first in the eleventh
century, as the designation of the residence of Andronicus Comnenus in
this part of the city (οἶκος ὅς τοῦ Βλάγγα ἐπικέκληται),[1123] and it is
the name by which writers subsequent to the Restoration of the Greek
Empire refer to the district.[1124]
In the vicinity stood the Palace of the Empress Irene,[1125] the
unnatural mother of Constantine VI., in which Basil II. entertained the
Legates of Pope Hadrian II.[1126]
The Church of St. Panteleemon, erected by Theodora the wife of Justinian
the Great, on the site of her humble dwelling when a poor woman earning
her bread by spinning wool[1127] and the district of Narses (τὰ
Ναρσοῦ)[1128] were in this neighbourhood; so also was the district of
Canicleius (τὰ Κανικλείου), where the emperor landed when proceeding to
pay his annual visit to that church.[1129] The modern Greek church of
St. Theodore, to the south of Boudroum Djamissi (Myrelaion), marks, Dr.
Mordtmann[1130] suggests, the district of Claudius (τὰ Κλαυδίου).
The Harbour of the Golden Gate.
Another harbour on this side of the city was the Harbour of the Golden
Gate (ὁ λιμὴν τῆς Χρυσῆς),[1131] in the bay to the west of the entrance
of that name. This is implied in the statement of Ducas, that during the
siege of 1453 the right wing of the Turkish army extended southwards
from the Gate of St. Romanus to the Harbour of the Golden Gate.[1132]
On the occasion of a triumph celebrating a victorious campaign in Asia
Minor, the harbour presented an animated scene; for the spoils and
prisoners which were to figure in the procession, were ferried across
from Chrysopolis, and landed at this point, to be marshalled on the
plain before the Golden Gate.[1133]
It was off this point that the Turkish fleet, in 1453, waited to
intercept the five gallant ships, which brought provisions to the city
from the island of Scio, and which forced their way to the Golden Horn,
notwithstanding all the efforts of 305 vessels of the Sultan to capture
them.[1134]
The Harbour of Kaisarius and the Neorion at the Heptascalon.
Before concluding this account of the city harbours on the Sea of
Marmora, a point of some importance remains to be settled.
Byzantine historians speak of the Harbour of Kaisarius, and of the
Neorion at the Heptascalon, on the southern shore of the city. Now, as
traces of an additional harbour to those already mentioned, on this side
of the city, may be disputed, the question presents itself: Have the
Harbour of Kaisarius and the Neorion at the Heptascalon disappeared, or
were they one or other of the harbours already identified?
The Harbour of Kaisarius (Λιμὴν τοῦ Καισαρείου) is mentioned for
the first time in the Acts of the Fifth General Council of
Constantinople,[1135] held in 553, under Justinian the Great. Near
it, we are there informed, stood the Residence of Germanus: “In
domo Germani, prope portum Cæsarii.” The harbour is mentioned for
the last time by Cedrenus,[1136] in what is manifestly a quotation
from Theophanes.[1137] Beside it stood a district,[1138] and a
palace,[1139] known respectively as the District and the Palace of
Kaisarius (ἐν τοῖς Καισαρείου: κυράτωρ τῶν Καισαρείου); the latter
being probably the residence of Germanus above mentioned.
After whom the harbour was named is uncertain. Du Cange[1140] suggests
three persons from whom the designation may have been derived:
Kaisarius, Prefect of the City under Valentinian; Kaisarius, Prætorian
Prefect under Theodosius I.; and Kaisarius, a personage of some note in
the reign of Leo I. If the choice lies between these persons, the
preference must be given to the last; for the _Notitia_, which describes
the city in the reign of Theodosius II., makes no mention of this
harbour. In all probability, therefore, the Harbour of Kaisarius was
constructed towards the close of the fifth century.
That it stood on the Sea of Marmora is evident; first, from its
association with the Harbours of Julian and of Hormisdas, as one of the
points at which the tyrant Phocas placed troops to prevent the landing
of Heraclius on the southern side of the city;[1141] and secondly, from
the fact that it was there that Constantine Pogonatus, in 673, placed
his ships, armed with the newly invented tubes for squirting Greek fire,
to await the Saracen fleet coming up against the city from the
Ægean.[1142]
Passing next to the Neorion at the Heptascalon, we find that the term
“Heptascalon” is employed by Byzantine writers only in two connections:
first, and then generally in the corrupt form Πασχάλῳ or Πασκάλῳ, it
serves to mark the site of a church dedicated to St. Acacius; the
earliest writer who uses it for that purpose being Constantine
Porphyrogenitus,[1143] in his biography of Basil I., by whom the church
was restored: secondly, Cantacuzene[1144] employs the phrase to indicate
the situation of the harbour now under discussion.
In 1351 Cantacuzene[1145] found the harbour in a very unsatisfactory
condition. Owing to the sand which had accumulated in it for many years,
it could hardly float a ship laden with cargo; and accordingly, in
pursuance of his policy to develop the naval resources of the Empire, he
caused the harbour to be dredged at much labour and expense, to the
great convenience of public business. So extensive was the work of
restoration that in one passage the harbour is styled the New
Neorion.[1146]
Du Cange,[1147] misled by the fact that a Church of St. Acacius was
found in the Tenth Region—one of the Regions on the northern side of the
city—has classed the Neorion at the Heptascalon among the harbours on
the Golden Horn. But to identify a site in Byzantine Constantinople by
means of a church alone is a precarious proceeding, for churches of the
same dedication were to be found in different quarters of the city.
This, Du Cange[1148] himself admits, was possible in the case before us;
since, besides the Church of St. Acacius at the Heptascalon, writers
speak of a Church of St. Acacius ad Caream (Ἐν τῇ Καρύᾳ), and the
identity of the two sanctuaries cannot be assumed. But the existence of
a second church dedicated to St. Acacius is not a mere possibility.
According to Antony of Novgorod,[1149] there was a church of that
dedication also on the southern side of the city, not far from the
Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus. The Neorion at the Heptascalon may,
therefore, have been on the Sea of Marmora.
And that it was there, as a matter of fact, is evident from the
statements made regarding that harbour by Cantacuzene and Nicephorus
Gregoras, in their account of the naval engagement fought in the
Bosporus in 1351, between a Genoese fleet on the one hand, and the
Greeks, supported by Venetian and Spanish ships, on the other.
Upon coming up from the Ægean to take part in the war, the Venetians and
the Spaniards, says the former historian,[1150] anchored off the
Prince’s Island, to rest their crews after the hardships of the winter.
There they remained three days. Then, quitting their moorings, the two
allies made for the Neorion at the Heptascalon, or, as it is also
styled, the Neorion of the Byzantines (τὸ Βυζαντίων νεώριον),[1151] to
join the Imperial fleet which was stationed there, all ready for action,
and awaiting their arrival. Meanwhile, the Genoese admiral, with seventy
ships, had taken up his position at Chalcedon (Kadikeui), to watch and
oppose the movements of the allied squadrons. The wind was blowing a
gale from the south, and though the Venetians and Spaniards had started
for the Heptascalon very early in the morning, it was with the utmost
difficulty, and late in the afternoon, that they succeeded in crossing
from the island to the city. Even at the last moment they narrowly
escaped destruction, by being dashed to pieces against the boulders
scattered along the foot of the walls as a breakwater.
The Byzantine admiral, encouraged by the arrival of his allies, then
sallied forth from the Heptascalon, and led the way towards the Genoese
ships at Chalcedon. The latter, finding it impossible to make head
against the wind, retired towards Galata, and skilfully entrenched
themselves among the shoals and rocks off Beshiktash, preferring to be
attacked in that advantageous situation.[1152] The allies came on, and a
desperate conflict, partly on the water, partly on the rocks, ensued,
until night parted the combatants without a decisive victory on either
side.
With this narrative of Cantacuzene in view, no one familiar with the
vicinity of Constantinople can doubt for a moment that the Neorion at
the Heptascalon was upon the Sea of Marmora. The single circumstance
that the walls in the neighbourhood of the harbour were protected by
boulders placed in the sea as a breakwater is alone sufficient to prove
the fact; for only the walls bordering the Sea of Marmora were defended
in that manner. Equally conclusive is the circumstance that the Venetian
and Spanish ships found it difficult to make the harbour from the
Prince’s Island with a strong south wind on their left. Such a wind
would drive them towards the Bosporus with a violence that would render
it almost impossible for them to put into any port on the Marmora shore
of the city. Nor is it less decisive to find, as the historian’s account
makes perfectly clear, that the harbour was so situated; that the
approach to it, and possible shipwrecks at its entrance, could be
observed by the Genoese admiral stationed off Chalcedon; that an enemy
at Chalcedon found it hard to advance towards the Heptascalon in a
strong south wind; and that vessels proceeding from the harbour to
Galata could, on the way, touch at Chalcedon. These facts hold true only
of a harbour on the Sea of Marmora.
This conclusion, based on the narrative of Cantacuzene, is corroborated
by the indications which Nicephorus Gregoras[1153] furnishes regarding
the site of the Neorion. The events which transpired, according to the
former historian, at the Neorion at the Heptascalon, or the Neorion of
the Byzantines, took place, according to the latter, in the Harbour of
the Byzantines, or, more definitely, “the Harbour of the Byzantines
facing the east” (τοῦ τῶν Βυζαντίων λιμένος, τοῦ πρὸς ἒω
βλέποντος).[1154] That the expression “facing the east” denoted the
shore of the city facing the Sea of Marmora and the Asiatic coast is
manifest, from the use which Nicephorus Gregoras makes of that
expression in other passages of his work. The Golden Gate, which stands
near the Sea of Marmora, on what would generally be described as the
southern shore of the city, stood, according to him, near the city’s
_eastern_ shore.[1155] Again, the gale from the south, which damaged the
city fortifications along the Sea of Marmora in the year 1341, assailed,
he says, the _eastern_ walls of the capital.[1156] This way of speaking,
if not strictly accurate, is justified by the fact that extensive
portions of the city beside the Sea of Marmora face east or south-east.
Nor is this all. The harbour in question, adds Nicephorus
Gregoras,[1157] stood where the walls of the city were protected by
boulders; ships issuing from it, in a south wind, could readily make the
Bosporus;[1158] while ships proceeding from the Bosporus to the harbour
passed Chalcedon on the left, and could be watched from Chalcedon, upon
their arrival at their destination.[1159]
Such facts, we repeat, hold good only of a harbour situated on the shore
of the city beside the Sea of Marmora.
It being thus proved that the Harbour of Kaisarius and the Neorion at
the Heptascalon were situated on the Marmora side of the city, we return
to the question, whether they have disappeared, or were different names
for one or other of the harbours already identified.
So far as room for harbours additional to those already identified is
concerned, such room could be found only in the level ground at the foot
of the Third Hill, extending from the Kontoscalion at Koum Kapoussi to
the Harbour of Theodosius at Vlanga, points some 910 yards apart. An
additional harbour elsewhere was impossible, owing to the character of
the coast. Accordingly, if the Harbour of Kaisarius and the Neorion at
the Heptascalon cannot be identified with one or other of the well-known
harbours on the Sea of Marmora, they must have been situated between
Koum Kapoussi and Vlanga.
So far as the Harbour of Kaisarius is concerned, it could not have been
another name for the Harbour of the Bucoleon, or the Harbour of Julian
and Sophia, or the Harbour of the Golden Gate. For, as John of
Antioch[1160] makes perfectly clear in his account of the defence of the
city by Phocas against Heraclius, the Harbour of Kaisarius was situated
in the same general district as the two former harbours, and to the west
of them. Nor can the Harbour of Kaisarius be identified with the Harbour
of Theodosius, inasmuch as the latter had been filled in and
abandoned[1161] before the reigns of Phocas and Constantine IV., in the
seventh century, when the Harbour of Kaisarius was still one of the
principal ports on the southern coast of the city.[1162]
The Harbour of Kaisarius must, therefore, have been either the
Kontoscalion, at Koum Kapoussi, or another harbour between that gate and
Vlanga. To suppose that it was the Kontoscalion, under an earlier name,
is possible, since the name Kontoscalion, we have seen,[1163] appears
for the first time in the eleventh century. Still the circumstance that
a fire which started beside the Harbour of Kaisarius extended to the
Forum of the Ox (ἕως τοῦ Βοός),[1164] situated at Ak Serai far up the
valley that runs northwards from Yeni Kapou, suggests a situation nearer
Vlanga.
Turning, next, to the Neorion at the Heptascalon, it could, obviously,
not be the Harbour of the Bucoleon, attached to the Imperial Palace; nor
the Harbour of the Golden Gate, which was beyond the city limits; nor
the Harbour of Theodosius, which had been filled in long before the
reign of Cantacuzene, and which in 1400 and 1422, dates respectively not
fifty and seventy years after that emperor’s reign, is described as a
garden.[1165] The Neorion at the Heptascalon, therefore, must have been
either the Harbour of Julian and Sophia, or the Kontoscalion, or an
additional harbour between Koum Kapoussi and Vlanga. One objection to
the first supposition is that the Harbour of Julian and Sophia was so
notoriously known under its own special name, that reference to it by
another designation is extremely improbable. Another objection is that
the indications respecting the site of St. Acacius at the Heptascalon,
however vague their character, furnish no ground for believing that the
church stood in the vicinity of the Harbour of Julian and Sophia, but
support, rather, the opinion that it stood in the neighbourhood of
Boudroum Djamissi, in the quarter of Laleli Hamam, situated to the
north-west of Koum Kapoussi.[1166]
The supposition that the Neorion at the Heptascalon was the same as the
Kontoscalion is open to objections equally, if not more, serious. The
identity of the two harbours is inconsistent with the fact that the two
names occur in the writings of the same author, Cantacuzene,[1167] in
the same section of his work, in passages not widely separated and
treating of kindred matters, without the slightest hint that under the
different names he refers to the same thing. The natural impression made
by the use of the two names in such a way is that they denote different
things. Then, there is an opposition between the respective meanings of
the two names, which makes their application to the same object
incompatible; a harbour distinguished by a short pier cannot also be a
harbour distinguished by seven piers. In the next place, the different
accounts which Cantacuzene gives of the condition of the two harbours in
his reign imply that he is not speaking of the same port. He refers to
the Kontoscalion,[1168] in 1348, without a note of disparagement, as a
harbour in which he constructed several large triremes for the increase
of his fleet; while he describes the Neorion at the Heptascalon,[1169]
only three years later, as a harbour which had long been neglected,
which was full of silt, and which he restored at great expense, for the
public advantage, on a scale which entitled it to be styled the New
Neorion.[1170]
And just as all that Cantacuzene states regarding the two harbours
implies that they were different, so does the language of Nicephorus
Gregoras. When the latter writer alludes to the Kontoscalion, he
describes it as the harbour near the Hippodrome;[1171] when he alludes
to the Neorion at the Heptascalon, he describes it as the harbour facing
the east.[1172] Different marks are generally employed to distinguish
different objects.[1173] This being so, the unavoidable conclusion is
that the Neorion at the Heptascalon was a harbour situated between Koum
Kapoussi and Yeni Kapou, the only possible situation for an additional
harbour.
We should feel obliged to insist upon this conclusion, even in the
absence of any remains of a harbour in the situation indicated. Our
task, however, is not so arduous; for manifest traces of such a harbour
have been identified. In the first place, traces of a harbour in the
district above mentioned came to view in 1819, and were then officially
noted by so competent an authority as the Patriarch Constantius.[1174]
In that year a great fire burned down a large part of the Turkish
quarter near Yeni Kapou—Tulbenkdji Djamissi—and brought to light a
portion of an ancient circular enclosure around that quarter. The
discovery excited considerable attention, and the patriarch was
specially instructed by the Turkish Government of the day to examine the
wall and report the result of his investigations. Accompanied by two
distinguished members of the Greek community, the prelate proceeded to
the scene of the conflagration, and found a wall built of huge blocks of
stone, about seven feet long, four and a half feet wide, and over a foot
thick. The stones were carefully hewn and placed in three tiers; the
blocks in the two lower tiers being the ordinary limestone found on the
banks of the Bosporus, while the blocks in the highest row were of
marble from the Island of Marmora. The territory enclosed by the wall
presented the appearance of a great hollow which had been filled in,
since the Turkish Conquest, and raised to afford ground for building.
All that the patriarch saw convinced him that he stood upon the site of
one of the ancient harbours of the city. The wall has disappeared, as
the excellent building material it provided rendered natural. But other
remains of a harbour at this point, the complement of those discovered
by the patriarch, have been recognized, and can, to some extent, be
still distinguished.
Off the shore in front of the territory enclosed by the wall described
above is a mole formed with boulders (marked “Molotrümmer” on Stolpe’s
map of the city), similar to the mole before the old harbour at Koum
Kapoussi. At a point about half-way between Koum Kapoussi and Yeni
Kapou, there is a wide gap in this mole, dividing it in two unequal
parts, and forming a passage through it. The shore[1175] opposite the
gap was, until the construction of a quay in 1870 for the Roumelian
railroad, a sandy beach extending back to the foot of the city walls.
The portion of the walls at the rear of the beach was, however, not
Byzantine; but a piece of Turkish work[1176] inserted between the
Byzantine walls on either hand to close an opening which gave admittance
to the area occupied by the quarter of Tulbenkdji Djamissi.
Here, accordingly, we have traces of all that constitutes a harbour: its
mole, its entrance, its basin and enclosure, indicating where the
Neorion at the Heptascalon, which the language of Cantacuzene and
Nicephorus Gregoras obliges us to distinguish from the Kontoscalion, was
probably situated. At this point, it seems reasonable to think, stood
also the Harbour of Kaisarius, if we may judge from the circumstance
that a fire which originated at that harbour extended up the valley from
Vlanga to Ak Serai.[1177]
In the opinion of the Patriarch Constantius,[1178] indeed, the harbour
discovered in 1819 was the Kontoscalion. The statement of
Pachymeres[1179] and Bondelmontius,[1180] that the Kontoscalion was near
Vlanga, cannot, perhaps, be held to lend much countenance to this
supposition, for in view of the short distance between Vlanga and Koum
Kapoussi, the Kontoscalion might be thus described, although situated in
front of the latter. But what presents a most serious consideration in
favour of the patriarch’s opinion is the fact that the wall which he
examined answered exactly to the description of the wall with which
Michael Palæologus enclosed the Kontoscalion.
That emperor, according to Pachymeres,[1181] surrounded the Kontoscalion
with very large stones; and closed the entrance in the stones with iron
gates (Ὥστε γυρῶσαι μὲν μεγίσταις πέτραις τὸν κύκλῳ τόπον, ... πύλας δ᾽
ἐπιθεῖναι ἀραρυίας ἐκ σιδήρου τῇ ἐν ταῖς πέτραις εἰσίθμη ἔξωθεν).
No language could describe better the enclosure of large blocks
discovered in 1819; while the expression “the entrance in the stones”
applies admirably to the gap in the mole which protected the harbour.
Nothing of the kind is found at the harbour before Koum Kapoussi, which
lay within a mole and a great curve of the ordinary city walls. This, it
must be admitted, is an exceedingly strong argument in support of the
patriarch’s contention. On the other hand, we have seen how strong also
are the arguments in favour of the view that the Kontoscalion stood at
Koum Kapoussi.[1182] Perhaps the solution of the difficulty is found in
the supposition that while the name Kontoscalion strictly belonged to
the harbour at Koum Kapoussi, it was sometimes applied also to other
harbours in the vicinity, because the name of the most important member
of the group.
Note on the Locality where the Ancient Harbour Wall, discovered in 1819,
was found.
The Patriarch Constantius, our sole informant on the subject, refers
to this discovery twice; first, in his work on _Ancient and Modern
Constantinople_ (Κωνσταντινιὰς Παλαιὰ τε καὶ Νεωτέρα), published in
1844; secondly, in a letter, dated April 12, 1852, which is found in
the collection of his minor works (Συγγραφαὶ αἱ Ἐλάσσωνες), and
which was addressed to Mr. Scarlatus Byzantius, upon the publication
of that gentleman’s work on the history and antiquities of the city.
In that letter the patriarch corrects several mistakes made in his
own work on the same subject, and gives additional information on
other points.
The earlier reference to the discovery is brief, and when viewed in
the light of the later statements, altogether misleading. It occurs
in the paragraph upon Koum Kapoussi, the ancient Gate of
Kontoscalion (English translation, p. 21; Greek original, p. 30).
After expressing the opinion that the Neorion of the Kontoscalion
stood at that gate, and quoting the description which Pachymeres
gives of the wall around the harbour, the reverend author adds: “A
portion of this circular enclosure appeared in 1819, consisting of
three layers of very large stones placed one upon the other” (Ἕν
μέρος δὲ τούτου τοῦ κυκλικοῦ περιφράγματος τοῦ λιμένος ἀνεφάνη τῷ
1819 ἔτει, συνιστάμενον ἐκ τριῶν θέσεων παμμεγίστων ἀλλεπαλλήλων
πετρῶν).
There can be but one meaning to this language, namely, that the
enclosure referred to stood beside the harbour at Koum Kapoussi. But
the difficulty with this language has always been how to make it
coincide with the facts in the case. For, as already intimated, the
enclosure around the harbour at Koum Kapoussi is almost intact, and
consists of the ordinary walls of the city at their usual elevation.
There has never been room at that point for another enclosure such
as the patriarch describes. But his later, and, fortunately, fuller
statements (Συγγραφαὶ αἱ Ἐλάσσωνες, pp. 443, 444) make the matter
clear, although, at the same time, they convict the patriarch of
inaccuracy in his first statement, so far as the locality of the
discovery is concerned. According to the patriarch’s letter, the
locality in question was not at Koum Kapoussi, but between that gate
and the gate Yeni Kapou of Vlanga, and nearer to the latter entrance
than to the former. This fact is confirmed by the additional
indication that the discovery was made in a Turkish quarter; for the
only Turkish quarter near the shore between Kadriga Limani, on the
east of Koum Kapoussi, and Daoud Pasha Kapoussi, on the west of
Vlanga, is the quarter of Tulbenkdji Djamissi near Yeni Kapou. But
to render all doubt as to the situation of the locality impossible,
the route taken to reach it is minutely described; the patriarch and
his friends passed first through Kadriga Limani and the parishes of
St. Kyriakè and St. Elpis; then they went beyond Koum Kapoussi
itself, and, keeping within the line of the walls, proceeded to the
neighbourhood of the gate of Yeni Kapou at Vlanga, where the wall
had come to light. These particulars are, indeed, at variance with
the statement found in _Ancient and Modern Constantinople_, but as
they constitute the patriarch’s clearest and fullest declarations on
the point at issue, and are made in a letter correcting mistakes in
his former work, they have been adopted as his most authoritative
statements. The subject being important and the patriarch’s letter
but little known, the passages bearing most directly upon the
question are here appended: Περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν Προποντίδα λιμένος,
περὶ οὗ σημειοῦμεν ἐν τῷ ἡμετέρῳ Συγγράμματι, τοῦ παρὰ Μιχαὴλ τοῦ
Παλαιολόγου κατασκευασθέντος, αὐτὸς κεῖται ἐν τῷ μέσῳ τῆς Πύλης
Κοντοσκαλίου (Κοὺμ-καπουσοῦ) καὶ τῆς τοῦ Γενὶ-καπουσοῦ τῆς Βλάγκας,
καὶ ὑπῆρχε, διὰ τὸ ἀσφαλέστερον, ἔνδον τῶν παραλίων τειχῶν
κατεσκευασμενος. ... Ἀλλ᾽ ὅλου τοῦ μέρους, ἐν ᾦ ὁ τοῦ Παλαιολόγου
ἔκειτο, κατοικουμενου ὑπὸ Ὀθωμανῶν, κατὰ τὸ 1819 ἔτος πυρπολυθέντος,
ἀνεφάνη τὸ τοῦ λιμένος τούτου κυκλικὸν περίφραγμα, κατὰ τὸν
Παχυμέρην, γεγυρωμένον ἐκ τριῶν ἀλλεπαλλήλως τεθειμένων μεγάλων
πετρῶν, εἰργασμένων ὡς πλακῶν, ἐχουσῶν μῆκος μὲν τριῶν πήχεων, εὖρος
δὲ δύω, καὶ βάθος ἡμίσειαν, τῶν μὲν δύω κάτωθεν ἀλλεπαλλήλων πλακῶν
ἐκ πετρῶν τοῦ Βοσπόρου, λευκομελανοχρόων, τῆς δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν τρίτης
σειρᾶς καὶ ἀνωτέρας, ἐκ μαρμάρων ἰσομέτρων Προκονησίων. He then
refers to the order received from the Government to investigate the
discovery, and mentions the persons who accompanied him on that
errand; after which he continues thus: Διήλθομεν δὲ τὸ
Κάτεργα-λιμὰν, τὰς ἐνορίας Ἁγίας Κυριακῆς καὶ Ἐλπίδος, παρήλθομεν τὸ
Κοὺμ-καπουσοῦ, καὶ προεχωρήσαμεν ἔχοντες ἀριστερόθεν τὰ παράλια
τείχη ἔνδοθεν, ἐγγὺς τῆς Πύλης Γενὶ-καπουσοῦ τῆς Βλάγκας, ὅπου
εἴδομεν τὸ ἐκ πετρῶν καὶ μαρμάρων κυκλοτερὲς περίφραγμα,
ἐκτεινόμενον ὑποκάτω ἑνὸς τεφρωθέντος Τζαμίου, ἑνὸς μεγάλου
Ὀθωμανικοῦ οἴκου καὶ περαιτέρω. Καὶ παραυτίκα ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι τοῦτο
αὐτὸ ἐστι, κατὰ τὸν Παχυμέρην, τὸ πρὸς τὴν Βλάγκαν νεῦον τοῦ
Κοντασκαλίου Νεώριον. Ὅλος ὁ τόπος ὁ περιέχων ποτὲ τὸ Νεώριον αὐτὸ,
μετὰ τὴν ἅλωσιν ἐπληρώθη, ἐχερσώθη καὶ ὑψώθη τὸ ἔδαφος,
κατοικούμενος ὑπὸ Ὀθωμανῶν· αἱ δὲ ἀραρυῖαι ἐκ σιδήρου πύλαι, δι᾽ ὦν
εἰσέπλεεν ὁ στόλος ἐλλιμενιζόμενος, ἀπῳκοδομήθησαν.
Footnote 1062:
_Notitia, ad Reg. III._
Footnote 1063:
Theod. Cod., _De Calcis Coctor_.
Footnote 1064:
Theophanes, p. 284.
Footnote 1065:
Nicetas Chon., p. 585.
Footnote 1066:
_De Top. CP._, ii. c. xv.
Footnote 1067:
_Notitia, ad Reg. III._; Nicetas Chon., p. 585; Leo Diaconus, v. pp.
83, 84.
Footnote 1068:
Page 135. Cf. Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 685.
Footnote 1069:
Pages 284, 564, Εἰς τὸν Ἰουλιανοῦ τῆς Σοφίας λεγόμενον λιμένα: ἐν τῷ
Ἰουλιανισίῳ λιμένι τῆς Σοφίας.
Footnote 1070:
Page 700.
Footnote 1071:
_Fragm. Hist. Græc._, v. p. 38.
Footnote 1072:
Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 712.
Footnote 1073:
_Paschal Chron._, pp. 622, 700; Theophanes, pp. 284, 364, 564.
Footnote 1074:
Leo Gramm., p. 135; Theophanes, p. 564.
Footnote 1075:
_Notitia ad Reg. III._; Leo Diaconus, v. pp. 83, 84.
Footnote 1076:
Zosimus, p. 139; Evagrius, ii. c. xiii.; Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 611.
Footnote 1077:
Zonaras, xiv. c. i. p. 1205.
Footnote 1078:
Zosimus, pp. 139, 140.
Footnote 1079:
Zosimus, _ut supra_.
Footnote 1080:
Malalas, p. 479.
Footnote 1081:
See Epistle 58.
Footnote 1082:
Marcellinus Comes, “Portus Juliani, undis suis rotalibus exhaustus
cœno effoso purgatus est;” Suidas, ad Anastasium.
Footnote 1083:
The plural form of the name (τῶν Σοφιῶν) may allude to the two
divisions of the harbour. See Mordtmann, p. 55: “La configuration
actuelle permet encore de distinguer un port intérieur et un port
extérieur, séparés par une étroite digne.”
Footnote 1084:
Leo Gramm., p. 135; Anonymus, iii. p. 45.
Footnote 1085:
Anonymus, ii. p. 30.
Footnote 1086:
_Menæa_, January 27. This point was known also as ἐν τῷ μούλῳ τοῦ
ἁγίου Θωμᾶ (Theophanes, p. 673).
Footnote 1087:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 622.
Footnote 1088:
_Ibid._, p. 700.
Footnote 1089:
_Ibid._, _ut supra_.
Footnote 1090:
Theophanes, p. 564.
Footnote 1091:
Evagrius, ii. c. xiii.
Footnote 1092:
Nicetas Chon., p. 733.
Footnote 1093:
Leo Diaconus, v. pp. 83, 84.
Footnote 1094:
Nicetas Chon., p. 585.
Footnote 1095:
Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. iv.
Footnote 1096:
Theophanes, p. 385.
Footnote 1097:
Anonymus, iii. p. 46.
Footnote 1098:
Codinus, p. 105.
Footnote 1099:
Nicetas Chon., p. 733; Michael Psellus (Sathas, _Bibl. Græc. Med.
Ævi._, vol. v. p. 214).
Footnote 1100:
Lib. iii. p. 45.
Footnote 1101:
Lib. ii. p. 34.
Footnote 1102:
Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 365, 366.
Footnote 1103:
See below, p. 295, note 5.
Footnote 1104:
_Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, pp. 120, 121.
Footnote 1105:
Leunclavius, _Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200, is the first writer after
the Conquest who refers to it: “Ipsa porta (_i.e._ Contoscalion) velut
intra sinum quemdam abscedit versus unbem, et ab altera parte proximum
sibi portum habet, pro triremibus, in mare se porrigentem et muris
circumdatum.” The silence of Gyllius regarding the Kontoscalion is
strange, unless he has confounded it with Kadriga Limani.
Footnote 1106:
Vol. i. p. 365.
Footnote 1107:
_Liber Insularum Archipelagi_, p. 121. “Propinqua huic (Vlanga)
Condoscali vel Arsena restat.”
Footnote 1108:
Lib. xvii. p. 854. Cf. Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 72, 74.
Footnote 1109:
In a copy of the Anonymus, Codex Colbertinus, made in the thirteenth
century, the copyist, under the heading Περὶ τὸν Σοφιανῶν λιμένα, adds
the note that the harbour εἰς τὸ Κοντοσκάλον was constructed by
Justin, and had been deepened and surrounded by a remarkable enclosure
in his own day by Andronicus Comnenus Palæologus. See Banduri,
_Imperium Orientale_, vol. ii. pp. 678-680. The copyist is at fault in
identifying the Harbour of Sophia with the Kontoscalion, which was a
historical question, but he may be trusted in regard to the
restoration of the Kontoscalion, which was a contemporary event.
Footnote 1110:
Vol. i. p. 365.
Footnote 1111:
See below, pp. 312, 313.
Footnote 1112:
_Ad Reg. XII._
Footnote 1113:
Anonymus, iii. p. 46.
Footnote 1114:
_Ibid._, p. 47.
Footnote 1115:
Lib. iii. p. 46; cf. _ibid._, p. 45.
Footnote 1116:
Anonymus, iii. p. 46.
Footnote 1117:
Anonymus, iii. p. 46.
Footnote 1118:
From _Broken Bits of Byzantium_. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
Footnote 1119:
Lib. iii. p. 46.
Footnote 1120:
Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iii. c. viii.; iv. c. viii. According to this
authority the circuit of the harbour was over a mile; the mole being
600 paces long and 12 feet broad.
Footnote 1121:
Gyllius, _ut supra_. “Cujus ostium vergebat ad solis ortum æstivum, a
quo moles extendebatur ad occasum æstivum, supra quam nunc muri
adstricti existunt.”
“In faucibus portus, adhuc navium capacibus, extra murum urbis,
etiamnum videtur turris undique mari circumdata, et saxa, reliquæ
ruinarum.”
Grelot, in his _Relation Nouvelle d’un Voyage de Constantinople_, pp.
79, 80, refers to the tower thus (to quote the quaint English
translation of his work by J. Philips, London, 1683, p. 68): “Going by
sea from the Seven Towers to the Seraglio, you meet with a square
tower upon the left hand, that stands in the sea, distant from the
city wall about twenty paces. The inhabitants of the country call it
Belisarius Tower, affirming that it was in this tower where that great
and famous commander, for the recompense of all those signal services
which he had done the Emperor Justinian, in subduing his enemies, as
well in Asia and Africa as in Europe, being despoyled of all his
estate and honour, and reduced to the extremity of necessity, after he
had endured putting out both his eyes, was at length shut up and
forced for his subsistence to hang out a bag from the grate of his
chamber, and cry to the passengers, ‘Give poor Belisarius a farthing,
whom envy and no crime has deprived of his eyes.’ Near to the place
where stands this tower was formerly the harbour where Theodosius,
Arcadius, and their successors kept their galleys.”
Footnote 1122:
From _Broken Bits of Byzantium_. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
Footnote 1123:
Nicetas Chon., p. 733.
Footnote 1124:
Nicetas Chon., p. 170.
Footnote 1125:
Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365; _Actus Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani_,
year 1400, p. 394, where a vivid description of the site of the old
harbour is given: Κῆπος περὶ τὸν Βλάγκαν, ἔξω που καὶ σύνεγγυς τοῦ
τείχους τῆς πόλεως.
Footnote 1126:
Anonymus, iii. p. 47; Theophanes, p. 723.
Footnote 1127:
Guillelmus Bibliothecarius.
Footnote 1128:
Anonymus, iii. p. 47.
Footnote 1129:
_Ibid._ p. 48.
Footnote 1130:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 560.
Footnote 1131:
Page 59.
Footnote 1132:
Ducas, p. 283.
Footnote 1133:
_Ibid._, _ut supra_.
Footnote 1134:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 438, 499, 504.
Footnote 1135:
Ducas, pp. 268, 269. The principal part of the engagement took place
off the entrance to the Bosporus; for Leonard of Scio (p. 931) says
that the Sultan viewed the contest from the hill of Pera; “ex Colle
Perensi, fortunæ expectans eventum.”
Footnote 1136:
Act II.
Footnote 1137:
Vol. i. p. 679.
Footnote 1138:
Page 364.
Footnote 1139:
_Ibid._, _ut supra_.
Footnote 1140:
_Ibid._, _ut supra_.
Footnote 1141:
Du Cange, _Constantinopolis Christiana_, ii. p. 169.
Footnote 1142:
John of Antioch, _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, vol. v. p. 38. Ἐπιτρέπει
φυλάττεσθαι ἐκ τῶν Πρασίνων τὸν λιμένα τοῦ Καισαρείου καὶ τὸν Σοφίας,
τοὺς δὲ Βενετοὺς τὰ ἐπὶ Ὁρμίσδου. Cf. _Paschal Chron._, p. 700.
Footnote 1143:
Theophanes, p. 541, who uses the expression, Ἐν τῷ Προκλιανισίῳ τῷ
Καισαρίου λιμένι. What does Προκλιανισίῳ mean?
Footnote 1144:
Theophanes Cont., p. 324; _Synaxaria_, May 7, July 21.
Footnote 1145:
Lib. iv. pp. 165, 212, 220, 284.
Footnote 1146:
_Ibid._, p. 165.
Footnote 1147:
_Ibid._, p. 290.
Footnote 1148:
Constantinopolis Christiana, i. p. 56.
Footnote 1149:
_Ibid._, iv. p. 118.
Footnote 1150:
_Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p. 106. Immediately after speaking of
the Church of St. Acacius, he proceeds to say, “Au pied de la
montagne, se trouve l’eglise des saints Serge et Bacchus.” In the
Latin version given in Riant’s _Exuviæ CP._, ii. pp. 228, 229, the
passage is rendered, “Ex altera parte monticuli posita est Ecclesia
SS. Sergii et Bacchi.”
Footnote 1151:
Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 218-234.
Footnote 1152:
_Ibid._, p. 220.
Footnote 1153:
But for the statement of Nicephorus Gregoras (xxvi. p. 87), one would
suppose that the scene of this amphibious struggle was among the reefs
and shoals off the shore between Kadikeui and Scutari. But Nicephorus
says explicitly that the conflict took place off the Diplokionion
(Beshiktash), ὅπη κίονες διπλοῖ σχῆμα τάφου τινὸς ἀνέχοντες ἵστανται.
According to Gyllius, the sea off the shore between Beshiktash and
Galata was in his day shallow and full of rocks. _De Bosporo Thracio_,
ii. c. 8, “Alluitur mari vadoso, crebris petris supra aquam
eminentibus inculcato.” The Turkish names of two points on this shore,
Beshiktash, Cabatash, refer to these rocks.
Footnote 1154:
Lib. xxvi. pp. 85-92.
Footnote 1155:
_Ibid._, pp. 86, 90; cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. 220.
Footnote 1156:
Lib. xiv. p. 711; cf. Theophanes Cont., p. 614.
Footnote 1157:
Lib. ix. p. 460.
Footnote 1158:
Lib. xxvi. p. 87.
Footnote 1159:
Lib. xxvi. p. 87.
Footnote 1160:
_Ibid._, p. 90.
Footnote 1161:
_Fragm. Hist. Græc._, iv. p. 38.
Footnote 1162:
Anonymus, iii. p. 46.
Footnote 1163:
_Fragm. Hist. Græc._, iv. p. 38; Theophanes, p. 541.
Footnote 1164:
See above, p. 293.
Footnote 1165:
Theophanes, p. 364.
Footnote 1166:
_Actus Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani_, year 1400, p. 394;
Bondelmontius, “In quibus mœnibus est campus ab extra, et olim portus
Vlanga.” See above, p. 300, ref. 1.
Footnote 1167:
The indications for the site of the Church of St. Acacius are: (1) It
was ἐν Ἑπτασκάλω (Anonymus, ii. p. 33); (2) near the Church of St.
Metrophanes (_Synaxaria_, June 4; _Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, p.
106); (3) near the Residence of Moselè (Μωσηλὲ), and the monument
named the Christocamaron (Χριστοκάμαρον), after a gilt Icon of Christ
upon it (Anonymus, ii. p. 38). (4) The Christocamaron, it is supposed,
was the same as the Chrysocamaron (Χρυσοκάμαρον: Anonymus, iii. p.
48). Supporters of that identity are Banduri (_Imp. Orient._, ii. p.
688) and Dr. Mordtmann (p. 59). (5) The Chrysocamaron stood to the
rear of the Myrelaion (Anonymus, iii. p. 48). (6) The Myrelaion was
the church, now the Mosque Boudroum Djamissi (Gyllius, _De Top. CP._,
iii. c. 8; Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p.
75). (7) Therefore, the Church of St. Acacius was situated to the
rear, or to the east of Boudroum Djamissi. There are two weak points
in this chain of arguments; Codinus (pp. 107, 108) distinguishes the
two monuments which are identified above, and speaks of two places in
Constantinople that were named Myrelaion.
Footnote 1168:
He refers to the Kontoscalion in the Fourth Book of his work, pp. 72,
74; and to the Neorion at the Heptascalon in the same Book, pp. 165,
212, 220, 284.
Footnote 1169:
Codinus, p. 72.
Footnote 1170:
Cantacuzene, iv. p. 165.
Footnote 1171:
_Ibid._, p. 290. Taken in conjunction with the other arguments on the
subject, the epithet New, bestowed upon the Neorion at the
Heptascalon, implied not only that the harbour was no longer its old
self, but, also, that it was to be distinguished from another and
earlier Neorion. But the only other conspicuous Neorion during the
reign of Cantacuzene was the Kontoscalion.
Footnote 1172:
Lib. xvii. p. 854: Ἐς τὸ περὶ τὸν τοῦ Βυζαντίου ἱππόδρομον νεώριον.
Cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. 72.
Footnote 1173:
Lib. xxvi. p. 90.
Footnote 1174:
Unger (_Quellen der Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte_, p. 264), without
discussing the question at length, holds, as the result of his study
of the texts, that the Kontoscalion cannot be identified with either
the Harbour of Sophia or the Heptascalon. Scarlatus Byzantius (Ἡ
Κωνσταντινούπολις, vol. i. pp. 268, 277) also maintains that the three
names designated different harbours.
Footnote 1175:
Συγγραφαὶ Ἐλάσσονες, pp. 443, 444. He was not patriarch at the time.
Footnote 1176:
For the following information I am indebted to the Rev. H. O. Dwight,
LL.D., who knew the quarter of Yeni Kapou in 1854, and was for many
years a resident there.
Footnote 1177:
It is still standing.
Footnote 1178:
See above, p. 308.
Footnote 1179:
_Ut supra._
Footnote 1180:
Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365, Τὸ πρὸς τὸν Βλάγκα Κοντοσκέλιον.
Footnote 1181:
_Librum Insularum Archipelago_, p. 121.
Footnote 1182:
Vol. i. p. 365.
Footnote 1183:
See above, p. 295.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE HEBDOMON.
The Hebdomon (τὸ Ἕβδομον, “Septimum”) was a suburb of Constantinople,
situated on the Egnatian Road, at the distance of seven miles from the
centre of the city. It obtained its name, as so many villages and towns
on the great Roman highways did,[1183] from the number of the milestone
beside which it stood (ἐν τῷ Ἑβδόμῳ Μιλίῳ), and holds a noteworthy place
in history on account of its military associations and its connection
with the Court of Constantinople. Considerable interest attaches to it
also on account of the discussions which the question of its site has
occasioned.
There can be no doubt that the Hebdomon is represented by the modern
village of Makrikeui, situated on the shore of the Sea of Marmora, three
miles to the west of the Golden Gate. But the opinion which has been
generally accepted, and has had the greatest names in its favour, is
that the suburb stood at the northern extremity of the Theodosian Walls,
where the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus and the quarter of Blachernæ
were found.
[Illustration: Map of the Territory Between the City and the Hebdomon.]
Now, of all the mistakes committed by students of the topography of
Byzantine Constantinople, none is so preposterous or inexcusable as this
identification. It is a mistake made when to err seems impossible, for
it is in direct opposition to the plainest and most convincing evidence
that the famous suburb was situated elsewhere. A blind man, Valesius
exclaims in his indignation at such a baseless opinion, might see the
truth in the matter.
The blunder started with Gyllius, and was afterwards supported with all
the immense learning of Du Cange. It was soon denounced by
Valesius,[1184] and shown to be utterly inconsistent with the most
obvious facts in the case; but the reputation of the great authorities
upon its side gave it a vitality which made it the commonly received
opinion until the most recent times. Unger, however, contested the
error, once more, in his important work entitled _Quellen der
Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte_,[1185] published in 1878, and maintained
the correct view, but without discussing the question at length.
Schlumberger, also, in his monograph on the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas,
has seen the facts in their true light.[1186]
Under these circumstances one is strongly tempted to let the fallacies
with which Gyllius and Du Cange maintained their views pass into
oblivion, and to be satisfied with proving the truth on the subject. But
the great authority and eminent services of these students of the
topography of the city, and the tenacity with which the error they
countenanced has held the field demand some account of the arguments
which have been employed in support of an untenable position.
Gyllius[1187] entered upon the discussion of the subject with the fixed
idea that no locality entitled to be regarded as a suburb could be seven
miles distant from the city to which it belonged. With this conviction
rooted in his mind, he found himself called to interpret the passage in
which Sozomon relates how Theodosius the Great, upon leaving
Constantinople for Italy to suppress the rebel Eugenius, stopped at the
seventh mile from the city to invoke the Divine blessing upon the
expedition, in the Church of St. John the Baptist which the emperor had
erected at that point of the road.[1188] Gyllius knew his Greek too well
not to recognize the obvious meaning of this statement. He acknowledges
that the passage may be understood to intimate that the church above
mentioned stood at the seventh milestone from Constantinople. But while
allowing that this is a possible meaning of the historian’s words, he
contends that it cannot be his actual meaning, because the Hebdomon,
being a suburb, could not be so distant from the city as seven miles.
Hence Gyllius separates the numeral adjective “seventh” from the noun
“mile,” and treating the former as a proper name, construes the passage
to signify that the Church of St. John the Baptist, in the suburb of the
Hebdomon, was one mile from the capital. The proposed construction is so
original that it must be given in its author’s own words: “Theodosius
egressus unum milliare extra Constantinopolim, in æde Divi Joannis
Baptistæ, quam ipse construxerat in Hebdomo suburbio, a Deo precatus
est.”
Under the guidance of this strange interpretation of Sozomon’s
statement, the indefatigable explorer of the ancient sites of
Constantinople set himself to discover the precise locality which the
Hebdomon had occupied. As the suburb was in existence before the
erection of the Theodosian Walls, the specified distance of one mile had
to be measured from the original limits of the city, viz. from the Wall
of Constantine. This, Gyllius thought, would put the suburb somewhere in
the neighbourhood of the Walls of Theodosius. Searching next for more
definite indications, he found the ruins of a splendid church dedicated
to St. John the Baptist on the Sixth Hill, at Bogdan Serai near Kesmè
Kaya. But a church of St. John the Baptist, as already intimated,
adorned the Hebdomon, and so Gyllius leaped to the conclusion that the
Hebdomon was the district on the Sixth Hill: “Suburbium Hebdomon
appellatum in sexto colle fuisse, qui nunc est intra urbem, ostendit
ædes Divi Joannis Baptistæ, quam etiam nunc Græci vulgo vocant
Prodromi.”
Having adopted this conclusion, it only remained for Gyllius to explain
how a suburb only one mile from the city could have been styled the
Hebdomon. His explanation is that the extramural territory along the
Wall of Constantine had been occupied, before its enclosure within the
Theodosian lines, by a series of suburbs distinguished from one another
by numerals, and that the Hebdomon was so named because it was the
seventh suburb in the series. This explanation he supports by pointing
to the undoubted fact that one portion of that territory is frequently
named the Deuteron[1189] by Byzantine writers. And he might have added
that other portions of the territory were, respectively, styled the
Triton[1190] and the Pempton.[1191]
Du Cange[1192] was unable to accept Gyllius’s interpretation of the
phrase, Ἑβδόμῳ Μιλίῳ. He insists upon its correct and only
signification; and admits that the suburb derived its name from its
situation near the seventh milestone from the capital. Nevertheless he
is, impossible though it may seem, in substantial agreement with
Gyllius.
The fundamental thesis of Du Cange on the subject is that the term
“Hebdomon” had two meanings. Strictly speaking, he grants, it meant the
seventh mile; but it was also employed, he maintains, as the designation
of the whole district extending between the Wall of Constantine and the
seventh milestone. Hence, after the erection of the Theodosian Walls, a
considerable portion of the suburb was included within the new city
limits, so that the Hebdomon could very well be where Gyllius supposed
it stood.
Only, while supporting Gyllius on this point, Du Cange considers that
the identification of the Church of St. John at Kesmè Kaya with the
Church of St. John the Baptist at the Hebdomon is a mistake. For the
latter is described by Constantine Porphyrogenitus[1193] as without the
city walls in the tenth century, and therefore never stood, like the
Church of St. John at Kesmè Kaya, within the Theodosian lines. At the
same time, Du Cange does not concede that the church of that dedication
in the Hebdomon was near the seventh milestone. In harmony with his view
regarding the extent of the area to which the term “Hebdomon” was
applied, he holds that the church, though outside the Walls of
Theodosius, was close to them. Du Cange differs from Gyllius also in
laying great stress upon Tekfour Serai as an indication of the site of
the Hebdomon, identifying that palace with the Palace of the Magnaura,
one of the noted buildings of the suburb.[1194]
What induced Du Cange to maintain the application of the term “Hebdomon”
to the whole territory extending from the seventh mile eastwards to the
walls of the city was the opinion, that only thus could certain
statements regarding the suburb become intelligible or credible. The
statement, for instance, that the plain at the Hebdomon was “adjacent”
(ἀνακείμενον)[1195] to the city implies, he thinks, that the plain of
the Hebdomon was contiguous to the city; “quæ (vox) campus urbi
adjacuisse situ prodit.” So does, he contends, the statement that the
Avars, upon approaching to lay siege to the city, encamped “at what of
the city is named the Hebdomon.”[1196] For how could an enemy besiege a
city without coming close up to its walls? The consideration, however,
which above everything else led Du Cange to attach a wider meaning to
the term “Hebdomon” than the seventh mile, was the difficulty of
believing that the great religious processions which, on the occasion of
a severe earthquake, went on foot from the city to the Campus of the
Hebdomon to implore Divine Mercy, walked the whole distance of seven
miles on that pious errand.[1197]
Such a performance seemed to Du Cange, especially when the emperor and
the patriarch took part in the procession, incredible; and since he
could not imagine the people going to the Hebdomon, in the strict sense
of the word, he made the Hebdomon come to the people, by extending the
signification of the term.
But Du Cange forgets that the processions to which he refers were
recognized to be extraordinary performances, even in the age in which
they were undertaken; that they were acts of profoundest humiliation in
view of a most awful danger; that they were deeds of penance, whereby
men hoped to move the Almighty to spare His people. The distance of
seven miles is not too great for men to walk in order to escape a
terrible death.
At the same time, it is quite possible that the Campus of the Hebdomon
extended some distance towards the city. The plain was not a
mathematical point, and a portion of it may have been nearer the city
than the seventh milestone itself was. That must be decided by the
nature of the ground, not by subjective considerations. But to make the
plain reach to the city walls for the reason assigned is preposterous.
This brief account of the arguments with which Gyllius and Du Cange
upheld their views must suffice. For all the evidence at our command
goes to prove that the suburb occupied the site of the modern village of
Makrikeui.
In support of this proposition there are, first, express statements to
the effect that the Hebdomon, taken as a whole, was seven miles distant
from the city. That is how Theophylactus Simocatta,[1198] for instance,
indicates the situation of the suburb: “It was a place seven miles from
the city”—ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ Ἑβδόμῳ (τόπος δὲ οὗτος τοῦ ἄστεος ἀπὸ σημείων
ἑπτὰ). That is how Idatius, also, describes the suburb’s position, when
speaking of the inauguration of Valens and of Arcadius there: “Levatus
est Constantinopoli in Milliario VII.”[1199] And it is in the same terms
that Marcellinus Comes refers to the suburb, when he records the fact
that Honorius was created Cæsar in it: “Id est, septimo ab urbe regia
milliario.” To understand such expressions as denoting the whole
territory between the walls of the city and the seventh milestone is out
of the question. As employed by these writers, the term “Hebdomon” or
“Septimum” means a definite place, reached only when a person stood
seven miles from the point whence distances from Constantinople were
measured.
In the second place, not only is the Hebdomon, as a whole, described as
being seven miles from the city, but the particular objects found there
are similarly identified. The Church of St. John the Baptist in that
suburb, Sozomon,[1200] Socrates,[1201] and John of Antioch[1202] state
in express words, was seven miles from the city. The Church of St. John
the Evangelist, which stood in the suburb, is declared by Socrates[1203]
to have been at the same distance. Thus, also, the Campus of the
Hebdomon is described by Cedrenus as “the plain in front of the city,
seven miles distant.”[1204] The Imperial Tribune in that Campus was,
according to Idatius and Marcellinus Comes, at the seventh mile: “In
milliario septimo, in Tribunali;” “Septimo ab urbe regia milliario.” So,
likewise, the palace which Justinian the Great built at the
Hebdomon[1205] is described, in the subscription to several of his laws,
as at the seventh mile: “Recitata septimo milliario hujus inclytæ
civitatis, in Novo Consistorio Palatii Justiniani.”[1206] In all these
passages the Hebdomon is defined with a precision that renders any vague
and loose application of the term impossible, if language has any
meaning. So much for the distance of the Hebdomon from the city.
That the Hebdomon was situated on the shore of the Sea of Marmora is
placed beyond dispute by the fact that ships approaching Constantinople
from the south reached the Hebdomon before arriving at the city. When,
for example, Epiphanius came by ship from Cyprus to Constantinople, in
402, to attend a synod called to condemn the heresies of Origen, he
landed at the Hebdomon, and celebrated divine service there in the
Church of St. John the Baptist, before entering the capital.[1207] This
order in the stages of the bishop’s journey implies that the suburb
stood on the shore of the Sea of Marmora. Again, when the fleet of
Heraclius came up from Carthage to overthrow Phocas, in 610, the latter
proceeded to the Hebdomon to view the ships of the hostile expedition as
they stood off the suburb, and there he remained until they advanced
towards the city, when he mounted horse and hurried back to fight for
his throne.[1208] Such proceedings were possible only if the suburb
stood beside the Sea of Marmora. Yet again; the Saracen fleets which
came against Constantinople, in 673 and 717, put into the harbour of the
Hebdomon on their way to the city. On the first occasion the enemy’s
vessels anchored, says Theophanes,[1209] “off Thrace, from the
promontory of the Hebdomon, otherwise named Magnaura, to the promontory
of the Cyclobion.” The ships of the second Saracen expedition, likewise,
“anchored between the Magnaura and the Cyclobion.” There they waited for
two days, and then, taking advantage of a south wind, “they sailed
alongside the city,” some of them making the ports of Anthemius and
Eutropius (at Kadikeui), others of them reaching the Bosporus, and
dropping anchor between Galata and Klidion (Ortakeui).[1210] Manifestly,
the Hebdomon lay to the west of the city, upon the Sea of Marmora.
Let one more proof of this fact suffice. When Pope Constantine visited
Constantinople in 708, for the settlement of certain disputes between
Eastern and Western Christendom, he came all the way by sea until he
reached the Hebdomon. There the Pontiff and his retinue disembarked, and
having been welcomed with distinguished honour, mounted horses which had
been sent from the Imperial stables, and rode into the city in great
state: “A quo loco (the island Cæa) navigantes venerunt a Septimo
Milliario Constantinopolim, ubi egressus Tiberius Imperator, filius
Justiniani Augusti (Justinian II.) cum Patriciis, cum clero, et populi
multitudine, omnes lætantes, et diem festum agentes. Pontifex autem et
ejus primates, cum sellaribus imperialibus, sellis et frenis inauratis,
simul et mappulis, ingressi sunt civitatem.”[1211] On the view that the
Hebdomon was situated beside the Sea of Marmora, all this is clear.
The data for determining the situation of the Hebdomon therefore are:
that the suburb was seven miles from the city; that it stood beside the
Sea of Marmora; that it had a harbour, on the one hand, and a plain of
considerable extent, on the other.
There is little room for difference of opinion in regard to the point
from which the seven miles are to be measured. That point could not have
been in the Theodosian Walls, as the Hebdomon is mentioned before they
were in existence. For a similar reason, it could not have been in the
Wall of Constantine, seeing the Egnatian Road which led from Byzantium
to Rome was marked with the seventh milestone before the foundation of
Constantinople. It must, therefore, have been the point whence distances
from old Byzantium were measured under the Roman domination. This being
so, the choice lies between the Milion near St. Sophia, and the gate of
Byzantium near the Column of Constantine. In favour of the former is the
fact that it was the point from which distances from Constantinople were
afterwards measured; for in all probability that usage was the
continuation of the practice of the older city, any change in that
respect being not only unnecessary, but exceedingly inconvenient. Still,
the result will be substantially the same if the gate of Byzantium is
preferred, since the Milion and that gate were at a short distance from
each other. Seven miles from either point, westwards, to the Sea of
Marmora will bring us to the modern suburb of Makrikeui.
Between the promontory on which that village stands and the promontory
of Zeitin Bournou, to the east, is a bay which could serve as a harbour;
while to the north and north-east spreads a magnificent plain.
Makrikeui, therefore, satisfies all the indications regarding the site
of the Hebdomon.
As a corollary from this determination of the real site of the Hebdomon
there follows the determination of the real site of the Cyclobion; and
thus the correction of another of the mistakes into which students of
the topography of Byzantine Constantinople have fallen. The prevalent
opinion on the subject, since Du Cange[1212] propounded the opinion, has
been that the Cyclobion was a fortress attached to the Golden Gate. But
this could not have been the case, for the Cyclobion was at the
Hebdomon. It was a fortification on the eastern headland of the bay
which formed the Harbour of the Hebdomon,[1213] and, therefore, stood
some two miles and a half from the Golden Gate. This explains how
Theophanes[1214] describes the engagements between the Greeks and the
Saracens, who landed at the Hebdomon in 673, as taking place between the
Golden Gate and the Cyclobion. The fortress was so closely connected
with the suburb that the latter is sometimes referred to under the name
of the former. The Church of St. John the Evangelist at the Hebdomon,
for example, is declared by one authority[1215] to have stood in the
Cyclobion: “Ad Castrum autem Rotundum, in quo est Ecclesia, miræ
magnitudinis, Sancti Evangelistæ Johannis nomini dicata.” Again, whereas
John of Antioch[1216] represents the fleet of Heraclius as standing off
the Hebdomon, the _Paschal Chronicle_,[1217] on the other hand, says the
fleet was seen off the Round Tower. In all probability, the Cyclobion
stood at Zeitin Bournou, on the tongue of land to the east of Makrikeui.
It derived its name, Κυκλόβιον, Στρογγύλον Καστέλλιον (Castrum
Rotundum), from its circular form,[1218] and was a link in the chain of
coast fortifications defending the approach to the city. It was repaired
by Justinian the Great, who connected it by a good road with
Rhegium[1219] (Kutchuk Tchekmedjè), another military post, and drew upon
its garrison for troops to suppress the riot of the Nika.[1220] There
Constantine Copronymus died on board the ship on which he had hoped to
reach the capital from Selivria, when forced by his mortal illness to
return from an expedition against the Bulgarians.[1221]
Whether the Cyclobion was the same as the “Castle of the Theodosiani at
the Hebdomon,” mentioned by Theophanes,[1222] is not certain. On the
whole, the fact that the two names are employed by the same historian
favours the view that they designated different fortifications. The
Theodosiani were a body of troops named in honour of Theodosius the
Great.[1223]
What gave the Hebdomon its importance and explains its history was,
primarily, its favourable situation for the establishment of a large
military camp in the neighbourhood of the capital. An extensive plain,
with abundance of water, and at a convenient distance from the city,
furnished a magnificent camping-ground for the legions of New Rome.
This, in view of the military associations of the throne, especially
during the earlier period of the Empire, brought the emperors frequently
to the suburb to attend great functions of State, and thus converted it
also into an Imperial quarter, embellished with the palaces, churches,
and monuments which spring up around a Court. To these political reasons
for the prosperity of the suburb were added the natural attractions of
the place—its pleasant climate, its wide prospect over the Sea of
Marmora, and the excellent sport obtained in the surrounding country.
It was on the plain of the Hebdomon that Theodosius the Great joined the
army which he led against the usurper Eugenius in Italy.[1224] There,
the Gothic troops which Arcadius recalled from the war with Alaric took
up their quarters under the command of Gainas, and there that emperor,
accompanied by his minister Rufinus, held the memorable review of those
troops, in the course of which Rufinus was assassinated in the Imperial
tribune.[1225] It was at the Hebdomon that Gainas gathered the soldiers
with which he planned to seize the capital.[1226] There Vitalianus
encamped with more than sixty thousand men to besiege Constantinople in
the reign of Anastasius I.[1227] Thither Phocas[1228] and Leo the
Armenian[1229] brought the armies that enabled them to win the crown.
And there Avars, Saracens, Bulgarians, and, doubtless, other foes halted
to gaze upon the walls and towers they hoped to scale, or from which
they retired baffled and broken.[1230]
The plain at the Hebdomon was used, also, for military exercises and
athletic sports, and consequently appears under the name of the Campus
Martius,[1231] as though to give it the prestige of the ground devoted
to similar purposes on the banks of the Tiber. There recruits were
drilled and trained in the use of arms,[1232] and there the popular game
of polo was played.[1233]
Thither, also, on account of the wide and free space afforded by the
plain the population of the city fled, on the occasion of a violent
earthquake, to find a temporary abode, or to take part in public
supplications for the withdrawal of the calamity.[1234] Such services
were attended by the emperor and the patriarch, and it was on such an
occasion that the Emperor Maurice, a particularly devout man, and the
Patriarch Anatolius, proceeded from the city to the Campus, on
foot.[1235] It was customary, moreover, to hold religious services at
the Campus on the anniversary of a great earthquake, to avert the
recurrence of the disaster, or to celebrate the fact that it had not
been attended with loss of life.[1236] There, also, public executions
took place,[1237] or the heads of persons executed elsewhere were set up
for public gaze, as in the case of the Emperor Maurice and his five
sons.[1238]
But the chief interest of the Hebdomon belongs to it on account of the
many associations of the suburb with the life of the Byzantine Court.
There, in the early days of the Eastern Empire, while old Roman customs
prevailed and the army continued to be a great political factor, an
emperor often assumed the purple, in the presence of his legions and a
vast concourse of the citizens of the capital. At the suburb, also,
triumphal processions sometimes commenced their march to the Golden Gate
and the city. And there the emperors had a palace to which they resorted
for country air, or to escape the turbulence of the Factions, or to take
part in the State ceremonies performed on the adjoining Campus.
The earliest reference to the Hebdomon, though not by name, is in
connection with the inauguration of Valens there, in 364, as the
colleague of his brother, the Emperor Valentinian: “Valentem, in
suburbanum, universorum sententiis concinentibus (nec enim audebat
quisquam refragari) Augustum pronuntiavit; decoreque imperatorii cultus
ornatum et tempore diademate redimitum in eodem vehiculo secum
reduxit.”[1239] In commemoration of the event Valens erected a tribune,
adorned with many statues, for the accommodation of the emperors when
taking part in State functions on the Campus of the suburb.[1240] It was
known as the Tribune of the Hebdomon (ἐν τῷ Τριβουναλίῳ Ἑβδόμου).[1241]
[Illustration: Triumphus Theodosii.]
Valens also provided the Harbour of the Hebdomon with a quay, and showed
his partiality for the suburb otherwise to such an extent that
Themistius ventured to expostulate with him, and to charge him with
forgetting to improve and beautify the capital.[1242]
After Valens, the following ten emperors were invested with the purple
at the Hebdomon: Arcadius,[1243] by his father Theodosius the Great, who
also raised Honorius to the rank of Cæsar there;[1244] Theodosius
II.;[1245] Marcian;[1246] Leo the Great;[1247] Zeno;[1248]
Basiliscus;[1249] Maurice;[1250] Phocas;[1251] Leo the Armenian;[1252]
and Nicephorus Phocas.[1253] Doubtless the fatigue involved in
celebrating the ceremony so far from the heart of the city had much to
do with transferring the scene of Imperial inaugurations to the
Hippodrome.
The custom of installing an emperor thus into his office was the
continuation of an old Roman practice which testified to the power
acquired by the army in deciding the succession to the throne. We have
two accounts of the ceremonies observed on such an occasion at the
Hebdomon, given at great length and with minute details by that devoted
student and admirer of Byzantine Court etiquette, Constantine
Porphyrogenitus.[1254] They are interesting, both as an exhibition of
public life during the Later Empire, and as an illustration of the
extent to which old Roman forms, and even the old Roman spirit, survived
the profound changes which the Empire underwent after the capital was
removed to the banks of the Bosporus.
When all interested in the event of the day had assembled, the troops
present laid their standards prostrate upon the ground, to express the
desolation of the State bereft of a ruler. Meanwhile, from every point
of the Campus rose the sound of prayer, as the immense multitudes
gathered there joined in supplications that God would approve the man
who had been chosen as the new chief of the Empire. “Hear us, O God; we
beseech Thee to hear us, O God. Grant Leo life; let him reign. O God,
Lover of mankind, the public weal demands Leo; the army demands him; the
laws wait for him; the palace awaits him. So prays the army, the Senate,
the people. The world expects Leo; the army waits for him. Let Leo, our
common glory, come; let Leo, our common good, reign. Hear us, O God, we
beseech Thee.” At length the emperor-elect appeared, and ascended the
Imperial tribune. A coronet was placed upon his head by one high
military officer, an armlet upon his right arm by another. And instantly
the prostrate standards were lifted high, and the air shook with
acclamations: “Leo, Augustus, thou hast conquered; thou art Pius,
August. God gave thee, God will guard thee. Ever conquer, worshipper of
Christ. Long be thy reign. God will defend the Christian Empire.”[1255]
This was the first act in the dramatic spectacle. Next came the solemn
investiture of the emperor with the Imperial insignia. This took place
behind a shield held before him by soldiers of the household-troops
known as the Candidati, and when he had been duly robed, crowned, and
armed with shield and spear, the screen was removed, and the new
sovereign stood before the gaze of his subjects in all his
majesty.[1256]
The dignitaries of the State now approached, in the order of their rank,
and did homage to the monarch, while the crowds around made the air ring
again with every acclamation that loyalty or adulation could invent. As
soon as this scene terminated, the emperor addressed a brief allocation
to the soldiers, through a herald; claiming to reign by the will of God
and their suffrage, promising devotion to the welfare of the Empire, and
a generous donative to each of his faithful companion-in-arms,
announcements which were greeted with storms of applause. Then the sum
of money required for the promised largess was handed over by the
emperor to the officers charged with its distribution.
Upon the conclusion of this important part of the day’s proceedings, the
ceremonies assumed a religious character. The emperor now repaired, on
foot, to a camp-chapel, a tent of many colours, at a short distance from
the Imperial tribune, and, leaving his crown without, entered to bow
before the King of kings. It was a simple service conducted by ordinary
priests, as the patriarch and higher clergy had left the Campus for St.
Sophia. Upon issuing from the chapel, the emperor resumed his crown, and
proceeded on a white charger, followed by a brilliant escort of
dignitaries also on horseback, to the Church of St. John the Baptist,
the principal sanctuary of the Hebdomon. This second service may be
described as the Consecration of the Crown. For in this case, the crown,
upon being again removed from the emperor’s head, was not left in the
vestry, but was carried by a court official up to the altar, and then
placed by the emperor himself on the sacred table. There it remained
until the service closed, when the emperor handed it to the court
official, and, having presented a rich gift to the church, returned to
the vestry and assumed his diadem once more. This brought the coronation
ceremonies, so far as they concerned the Hebdomon, to an end. The stream
of life now poured into the city, the Imperial _cortége_ gathering more
and more pomp as it passed the Golden Gate, the Helenianæ,[1257] the
Forum of Constantine, and entered St. Sophia for the supreme coronation
of the emperor by the patriarch in the Great Cathedral of the
capital.[1258]
Only one triumphal procession, that of Basil I.,[1259] is expressly
described as starting from the Hebdomon, but the suburb was in all
probability[1260] the starting-point also of the processions which
celebrated the victories of Theodosius the Great, Heraclius, Constantine
Copronymus, Zimisces, and Basil II., if not of Michael Palæologus.
On the occasion of the triumph accorded to Basil I., the Senate and a
vast crowd, representing all classes of the population, and carrying
wreaths of roses and other flowers, went forth from the city to the
Hebdomon to welcome the conqueror, who had crossed to the suburb from
the palace at Hiereia (Fener Bagtchè). After the customary salutations
had been exchanged, the emperor proceeded to the Church of St. John the
Baptist to pray and light tapers at that venerated shrine. Then having
put on his “scaramangion triblation,” he and his son Constantine mounted
horse and took the road towards the Golden Gate, the Senate and people
leading the way, with banners waving in the air. A short halt was made
at the monastery of the Abramiti (τῶν Ἀβραμιτῶν), which stood between
the suburb and the gate, that Basil might offer his devotions in the
Church of the Theotokos Acheiropoietos (Ἀχειροποίητος), and then the
procession resumed its march, and entered through the Golden Gate into
the jubilant capital.[1261]
[Illustration: Trivmphvs Heraclii.]
The first writer who mentions the Hebdomon by name refers to it as an
Imperial country retreat which the emperors gladly frequented. From
the connection in which Rufinus[1262] makes this statement, it is
evident that a palace stood at the Hebdomon before the reign of
Theodosius the Great. That residence was either rebuilt or enlarged in
the reign of Justinian the Great, when mention is made of “the New
Consistorium of the Palace of Justinian, at the seventh mile from this
renowned city.”[1263] How agreeable a retreat the palace was may be
inferred from the name bestowed upon it—the Pleasance, Jucundianæ
(Ἰουκουνδιαναὶ).[1264]
In front of the palace rose the statue of Justinian, on a porphyry
column brought for the purpose from the Forum of Constantine, where it
had borne the silver statue of Theodosius I.[1265] Justinian showed his
partiality for the suburb, moreover, by the erection of porticoes, fora,
baths, churches, all built in a style worthy of the capital itself, and
by having the Harbour of the Hebdomon dredged and provided with jetties
for the better accommodation and safety of the shipping frequenting the
coast.[1266]
In the seventh and eighth centuries the palace of the Hebdomon appears
under the name of Magnaura;[1267] but whether it was the old residence
under a different designation, or a new building added to the Imperial
quarters, in the style of the Hall of the Magnaura in the Great Palace
beside the Hippodrome,[1268] it is impossible to say.
It was to the palace of the Hebdomon, probably, that Pulcheria retired
from the Court of her brother Theodosius II., while the influence of the
Empress Eudoxia had the ascendency.[1269] Basiliscus withdrew to it from
the storm of theological hatred which his opposition to the creed of
Chalcedon had excited in the capital, and thither the pillar-saint of
Anaplus (Arnaoutkeui), Daniel Stylites, went to rebuke him and foretell
the loss of the throne which had been usurped and dishonoured.[1270] As
already intimated, it was a favourite resort of Justinian the
Great,[1271] and several of his laws were promulgated during his
residence there. On the occasion of one of his visits, the Imperial
crown mysteriously disappeared and was not heard of again for eight
months, when it as strangely reappeared, without a single gem
missing.[1272] The palace was occupied also by Justin II.[1273] and
Tiberius II., the latter dying in it.[1274]
The Hebdomon enjoyed, moreover, a great religious reputation on account
of its numerous churches. The oldest sanctuary of the suburb was the
Basilica of St. John the Evangelist,[1275] which appears first in the
reign of Arcadius,[1276] but claimed to be a foundation of Constantine
the Great. It is described by the Legates of Hadrian II., after its
restoration under Basil I.,[1277] as remarkable for its size, “miræ
magnitudinis,”[1278] and continued to be a venerated shrine as late as
the Comnenian period,[1279] after which it was allowed to fall into
decay. Basil II. was interred in it, according to his dying
request,[1280] and his grave was discovered among the ruins of the
church in the thirteenth century, while Michael Palæologus was engaged
in the siege of Galata, in 1260. Some members of the Imperial household,
in the course of their exploration of the surrounding country, then
visited the Hebdomon, and found the church of St. John the Evangelist
turned into a fold for sheep and cattle. As the visitors wandered among
the ruins, admiring the traces of the building’s former beauty, they
stumbled upon the dead body of a man. It was naked, but well preserved,
and in its mouth a vulgar jester had placed a shepherd’s lute by way of
derision. As the corpse lay near a sarcophagus upon which was inscribed
an epitaph in honour of Basil II., no doubt could be entertained
regarding the identity of the body. When the discovery was reported to
Michael Palæologus, he commanded the mortal remains of his predecessor
to be conveyed in great state to the camp before Galata, to receive once
more a tribute of respect, and then sent them with solemn ceremonial to
Selivria,[1281] for interment in the monastery of St. Saviour.
Another of the sanctuaries at the Hebdomon was the church erected, in
407, by the Emperor Arcadius to enshrine the reputed remains of the
Prophet Samuel.[1282] Such importance was attached to these relics that
their conveyance from Palestine to Constantinople, by way of Asia Minor,
resembled an Imperial progress through the country. One might have
supposed the prophet himself was moving through the land, so great was
the interest and devotion displayed by the population along the
route.[1283] Nor were the relics less honoured upon their arrival at the
capital. The emperor and the highest dignitaries of Church and State did
homage to them at the Scala Chalcedonensis and carried them in
procession to the Church of St. Sophia, where the sacred remains rested
until the church built for them at the Hebdomon was completed.[1284] The
church fell in the earthquake which shook the city in the thirty-first
year of the reign of Justinian the Great.[1285]
But the most venerated church in the suburb was that dedicated to St.
John the Baptist (τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Βαπτιστοῦ Ἰωάννου),[1286] a domical
edifice, built by Theodosius the Great[1287] for the reception of the
head, it was supposed, of the heroic Forerunner of Christ. The Emperor
Valens had already sought to obtain the relic. But its possessors,
certain monks of the sect of Macedonius, who had taken it with them from
Jerusalem to Cilicia, refused to surrender the treasure, and all that
Valens succeeded in doing was to bring it as near to Constantinople as
Panticheion (Pendik), on the opposite shore of the Sea of Marmora.
There, the mules which drew the car conveying the relic refused to
proceed any further, and at that village, accordingly, in obedience to
what appeared to be an indication of the Divine will, the sacred head
was allowed to remain. When Theodosius the Great endeavoured to acquire
the relic, its custodians, a woman Matrona and a priest Vicentius, did
everything in their power to prevent the execution of the emperor’s
design. But the pressure to make them yield was such that at last they
gave their reluctant consent. In doing so, however, Matrona cherished
the secret belief that Theodosius would be hindered, like Valens, from
carrying out his purpose; while Vicentius laid down a condition which he
thought could never be fulfilled, viz. that the emperor in removing the
head should walk after the Baptist. Theodosius saw no difficulty in the
condition. He reverently wrapped the reliquary in his Imperial mantle
and, holding the sacred contents in front of him, took them to the
Church of St. John the Evangelist at the Hebdomon, and commenced the
erection of a church consecrated to the Forerunner’s name as their final
shrine. This won Vicentius over to the emperor’s side, and he followed
the head to the Hebdomon. But Matrona, with a true woman’s intensity of
feeling, maintained her protest, and would never come near the suburb
which had disappointed her faith, and purloined her treasure.[1288]
It was the possession of this relic that gave the church its great
religious repute. This explains why, as we have seen, Theodosius the
Great,[1289] Epiphanius of Cyprus,[1290] Gainas,[1291] at important
moments in their lives, performed their devotions there; and this
accounts for the association of the church with the ceremonies attending
Imperial inaugurations and triumphs.[1292]
In the course of its history the church was twice restored on a
magnificent scale; first by Justinian the Great,[1293] and again by
Basil I.[1294]
Other churches of less note at the Hebdomon were respectively dedicated
to St. Theodotè (τὸ Θεδότης ἁγίας τέμενος);[1295] SS. Menas and Menaius
(Μηνᾶς καὶ Μηναίος);[1296] SS. Benjamin and Berius (Ἁγίων Βενιαμὶν καὶ
Βηρίου);[1297] and the Holy Innocents (τῶν Νηπίων).[1298] The first two
sanctuaries owed their foundation to Justinian the Great, who did so
much for the suburb in other ways; at the last church, the Senate
welcomed an emperor upon his return to the capital by land, from the
West.
Finally, in days when travellers made the first and last stages of a
journey short, the Hebdomon enjoyed considerable importance as a
halting-place for persons leaving or approaching Constantinople; its
proximity to the city rendering it a caravansary, where a traveller
could conveniently make his final arrangements to start on his way, or
to enter the capital in a suitable manner. The suburb served that
purpose, even in the case of the emperors.[1299]
Instances of this use of the suburb, by Theodosius the Great,
Epiphanius, and Pope Constantine, have already been noticed, when
referring to other matters connected with the Hebdomon. There also the
Legates of Pope Hormisdas, in 515,[1300] and the Legates of Pope Hadrian
II., in 869,[1301] rested before entering the city. There the Emperor
Maurice halted, upon leaving Constantinople, to join the expedition
against the Avars;[1302] and there Peter, King of Bulgaria, stopped on
his return home, in 927, with the Princess Maria, the granddaughter of
the Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, as his bride.[1303]
On the last occasion, as relatives and friends, doubtless, often did
under similar circumstances, the parents of the princess accompanied her
as far as the suburb to take leave of her there. The historian has left
a vivid picture of the scene. “When the moment for their daughter’s
departure approached, father and mother burst into tears, as is natural
for parents about to part with the dearest pledge of their love. Then
having embraced their son-in-law, and entrusted their child to his care,
they returned to the Imperial city. Maria proceeded on her journey to
Bulgaria in the king’s charge, with mingled feelings of grief and
joy—sad, because carried away from beloved parents, Imperial palaces,
and the society of her relations and friends; happy, because her husband
was a king, and she was the Despina of Bulgaria. She took with her much
wealth, and an immense quantity of baggage.”
In keeping with such practices, when the Icon of St. Demetrius was
transported from Thessalonica to Constantinople, in the reign of Manuel
Comnenus, to be placed in the Church of the Pantocrator (now Zeirek
Klissè Djamissi, above Oun Kapan Kapoussi), members of the Senate and a
vast multitude of priests, monks, and laymen, went seven miles from the
capital to receive the sacred picture and escort it with great pomp to
its destination.[1304]
Footnote 1184:
A station, eleven miles from Turin, on the line of railway between
that city and Milan, _viâ_ Vercelli, retains in its name, Settimo, the
reminiscence of its ancient designation, ad Septimum.
Footnote 1185:
In his annotations to Ammianus Marcellinus. The arguments of Valesius
were unknown to me when I adopted the correct view on the subject. It
was startling to find, afterwards, that the truth had been established
so long ago by substantially the same evidence as convinced my own
mind, and that truth so well established had been ignored. My reasons
for dissenting from the views of Gyllius and Du Cange were first
published in the _Levant Herald_, April 12, 1891.
Footnote 1186:
Pages 113, 114.
Footnote 1187:
_Un Empereur Byzantin au Dixième Siècle_, p. 299.
Footnote 1188:
See _De Top. CP._, iv. c. i. iv.
Footnote 1189:
Sozomon, vii. c. xxiv., Λέγεται δὲ τότε τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως
ἐκδημῶν, πρὸς τῷ Ἑβδόμῳ μιλίῳ γενόμενος, προσεύξασθαι τῷ θεῷ ἐη τῇ
ἐνθάδε ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἥν ἐπὶ τιμῇ Ἰωάννου τοῦ Βαπτιστοῦ ἐδείματο.
Footnote 1190:
See above, p. 74.
Footnote 1191:
See above, pp. 77, 78.
Footnote 1192:
See above, pp. 81, 82.
Footnote 1193:
_Constantinopolis Christiana_, ii. pp. 172-174; and the “Excursus on
the Hebdomon,” appended to the edition of his great work published at
Venice.
Footnote 1194:
Theophanes Cont., p. 340.
Footnote 1195:
Gyllius refers to Tekfour Serai under the name of the Palace of
Constantine, and recognizes the existence of a Palace of the Magnaura
at the Hebdomon; but he neither identifies the two palaces, nor points
to Tekfour Serai as an indication of the site of the Hebdomon.
Footnote 1196:
Theophylactus Simocat., p. 339. What the historian says is, Τὸ πεδίον
τὸ ἀνακείμενον ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ Ἑβδόμῳ, ὅν Κάμπον Ῥωμαῖοι κατονομάζουσι.
Footnote 1197:
Nicephorus, _Patriarcha CP._, pp. 15, 16, Καὶ πρὸς τὸ τῆς πόλεως ὅ
Ἕβδομον καλοῦσι καταλαβόντες ἱδρύσαντο. What the enemy did was to halt
at the Hebdomon before advancing against the city.
Footnote 1198:
See below, p. 329.
Footnote 1199:
Page 333; cf. _Ibid._, p. 236, where the distance of the Hebdomon from
the city is said to be one parasang and a half. Zosimus (p. 271) gives
the distance as forty stadia.
Footnote 1200:
Cf. _Paschal Chron._, pp. 556, 562.
Footnote 1201:
Lib. vii. c. xxiv. See quotation of the passage on p. 318, ref. 1.
Footnote 1202:
Lib. vi. c. vi., Ἀπέχει καὶ τοῦτο ἑπτὰ σημείοις τῆς πόλεως.
Footnote 1203:
_Fragm. Hist. Græc._, iv. p. 611, Ὅς ζ᾽ σημείοις τῆς πόλεως
ἀφειστήκει.
Footnote 1204:
Lib. vi. c. xii., Ἀπέχει καὶ τοῦτο ἑπτὰ σημείοις τῆς πόλεως.
Footnote 1205:
Vol. i. p. 641, Εἰς τὸ πρὸ τῆς πόλεως πεδίοv ἑπτὰ σημείοις ἀπέχον.
Footnote 1206:
Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. xi.
Footnote 1207:
Lib. xxii., _De Sacros Eccl._
Footnote 1208:
Socrates, vi. c. xii.; Sozomon, vii. c. xiv.
Footnote 1209:
John of Antioch, _Fragm. Hist. Græc._, v. p. 38; cf. _Paschal Chron._,
pp. 699, 700.
Footnote 1210:
Page 541. Speaking of the same event, the Patriarch Nicephorus (p. 36)
describes the Hebdomon as παραθαλάσσιον τόπον. In regard to the
situation of the Hebdomon upon the sea, compare Synaxaria, September
2, the Festival of St. John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople.
Footnote 1211:
Theophanes, p. 608, Ἀπάραντες ἐκεῖθεν παρέπλευσαν τὴν πόλιν.
Footnote 1212:
Anastasius Bibliothecarius, _De Vitis Pontificum Roman_, p. 56. Paris,
1649.
Footnote 1213:
_Constantinopolis Christiana_, i. p. 45. See above, p. 70, ref. 1.
Footnote 1214:
Theophanes, p. 541.
Footnote 1215:
Page 541.
Footnote 1216:
Guillelmus Biblioth. in _Hadriano II._
Footnote 1217:
_Fragm. Hist. Græc._, v. p. 38.
Footnote 1218:
Page 699.
Footnote 1219:
Procopius, _De Æd._, iv. c. viii.
Footnote 1220:
_Ibid._, _ut supra_.
Footnote 1221:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 622.
Footnote 1222:
Theophanes, p. 693.
Footnote 1223:
Page 458, Τὸ καστέλλιν τῶν Θεοδοσιανῶν ἐν τῷ Ἑβδόμῳ.
Footnote 1224:
_Notitia Dignitatum_, pp. 12, 14, 16, etc. Edition of Otto Seeck. Du
Cange thinks the Castle of the Theodosiani was the Castellion built by
Tiberius to protect his fleet against the Bulgarians (see Anonymus,
iii. p. 57; Codinus, p. 115).
Footnote 1225:
Sozomon, vii. c. xxiv. There, probably, Julian encamped the army with
which he advanced from Gaul to Constantinople (Zosimus, p. 139).
Footnote 1226:
Zosimus, pp. 255, 256.
Footnote 1227:
_Ibid._, pp. 272, 273.
Footnote 1228:
Marcellinus Comes, in 513.
Footnote 1229:
Theophanes, pp. 446, 447; Theophylactus Simocat., p. 339.
Footnote 1230:
Theophanes, p. 784.
Footnote 1231:
Nicephorus, _Patriarcha CP._, pp. 15, 16; Theophanes Cont., p. 385.
Footnote 1232:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 414, 416.
Footnote 1233:
Theophanes, p. 458.
Footnote 1234:
Theophanes Cont., p. 379.
Footnote 1235:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 586; Theophanes, pp. 143, 144; Cedrenus, vol. i.
p. 641; _Paschal Chron._, p. 702.
Footnote 1236:
Theophanes, p. 169.
Footnote 1237:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 589; Theophanes, p. 355. The Greek Church still
commemorates seven of the earthquakes which shook the city during the
Byzantine period.
Footnote 1238:
Theophanes, p. 458.
Footnote 1239:
Theophylactus Simocat., p. 339.
Footnote 1240:
Ammianus Marcellinus, xxvi. c. iv.; cf. Themistius, as cited below;
_Paschal Chron._ p. 556.
Footnote 1241:
Themistius, _Oratio VI._, p. 99. Edit. Dindorf.
Footnote 1242:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 562. The Campus is sometimes styled the Campus of
the Tribunal, as for example by Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 707: ἐν τῷ Κάμπῳ
τοῦ Τριβουναλίου.
Footnote 1243:
Themistius, _Oratio VI._, p. 99. Edit. Dindorf.
Footnote 1244:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 562.
Footnote 1245:
Marcellinus Comes.
Footnote 1246:
_Paschal Chron._, p. 568.
Footnote 1247:
_Ibid._, p. 590.
Footnote 1248:
_Ibid._, p. 592.
Footnote 1249:
Victor Tunnensis.
Footnote 1250:
Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 615.
Footnote 1251:
Theophanes, p. 388.
Footnote 1252:
_Ibid._, p. 447.
Footnote 1253:
_Ibid._, p. 784.
Footnote 1254:
Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 438.
Footnote 1255:
The Coronation of Leo the Great in 475, and that of Nicephorus Phocas
in 963. See Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, pp. 410-417, 433-440.
Footnote 1256:
The soldiers spoke in Latin at the Coronation of Anastasius I. in the
Hippodrome. See Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 431. Probably that
was the rule.
Footnote 1257:
In older times the emperor was raised upon a shield at this point of
the proceedings. _E.g._ Julian (Ammianus Marcell. xx. 4); Arcadius,
Valens (Idatius _Fasti Consulares_); Theodosius II. (_Paschal Chron._,
p. 568); Marcian (_Paschal Chron._, p. 590).
Footnote 1258:
Near the Forum of Arcadius, on the Seventh Hill.
Footnote 1259: