BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE
Map of Constantinople in 1422.
BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE
THE WALLS OF THE CITY AND ADJOINING HISTORICAL SITES
BY
ALEXANDER VAN MILLINGEN, M.A.
PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, ROBERT COLLEGE, CONSTANTINOPLE
WITH MAPS, PLANS, AND ILLUSTRATIONS
LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET
1899
All rights reserved
Ἐγὼ δὲ ὧς μητέρα φιλῶ καὶ γὰρ ἐγενόμην πὰρ᾽ αὐτῇ καὶ ἐτράφην ἐκεῖσε, καὶ οὐ δύναμαι περὶ αὐτὴν ἀγνωμονῆσαι.
Emperor Julian, Epistle 58.
PREFACE.
In the following pages I venture to take part in the task of identifying the historical sites of Byzantine or Roman Constantinople, with the view of making the events of which that city was the theatre more intelligible and vivid. The new interest now taken in all related to the Byzantine world demands a work of this character.
The attention I have devoted, for many years, to the subject has been sustained by the conviction that the Empire of which New Rome was the capital defended the higher life of mankind against the attacks of formidable antagonists, and rendered eminent service to the cause of human welfare. This is what gives to the archæological study of the city its dignity and importance.
Only a portion of my subject is dealt with in the present volume—the walls of the city, which were the bulwarks of civilization for more than a thousand years, and the adjoining sites and monuments memorable in history.
While availing myself, as the reader will find, of the results obtained by my predecessors in this field of research, I have endeavoured to make my work a fresh and independent investigation of the subject, by constant appeals to the original authorities, and by direct examination of the localities concerned. The difficult questions which must be decided, in order that our knowledge of the old city may be more satisfactory, have been made prominent. Some of them, however, cannot be answered once for all, until excavations are permitted.
By the frequent quotations and references which occur in the course of the following discussions, the student will find himself placed in a position to verify the statements and to weigh the arguments submitted to his consideration. All difference of opinion leading nearer to the truth in the case will be welcomed.
My best thanks are due to the friends and the photographers who have enabled me to provide the book with illustrations, maps, and plans, thus making the study of the subject clearer and more interesting. The plan of the so-called Prisons of Anemas by Hanford W. Edson, Esq., the sketches by Mrs. Walker, the photographs taken by Professor Ormiston, and the maps and plans drawn by Arthur E. Henderson, Esq., are particularly valuable. I wish to express my gratitude also to the many friends who accompanied me on my explorations of the city, thereby facilitating the accomplishment of my work, and associating it with delightful memories.
ALEXANDER VAN MILLINGEN.
Robert College,
Constantinople,
September, 1899.
CONTENTS
I. The Site of Constantinople—The Limits of Byzantium [1]
II. The City of Constantine—Its Limits—Fortifications—Interior Arrangement [15]
III. The Theodosian Walls [40]
IV. The Gates in the Theodosian Walls—The Golden Gate [59]
V. The Gates in the Theodosian Walls—continued [74]
VI. Repairs on the Theodosian Walls [95]
VII. The Palace of the Porphyrogenitus (Tekfour Serai) [109]
VIII. The Fortifications on the North-Western Side of the City, before the Seventh Century [115]
IX. The Wall of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus [122]
X. The Tower of Anemas: The Tower of Isaac Angelus [131]
XI. Inmates of the Prison of Anemas [154]
XII. The Wall of the Emperor Heraclius: The Wall of the Emperor Leo the Armenian [164]
XIII. The Seaward Walls [178]
XIV. The Walls along the Golden Horn [194]
XV. The Walls along the Golden Horn—continued [212]
XVI. The Walls along the Sea of Marmora [248]
XVII. The Harbours on the Sea of Marmora [268]
XVIII. The Harbours on the Sea of Marmora—continued [288]
XIX. The Hebdomon [316]
XX. The Anastasian Wall [342]
Table of Emperors [344]
Index [349]
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Map of Constantinople in 1422. (By Bondelmontius) [Frontispiece]
Bust over the Gate of Gyrolimnè [xi]
Inscription from the Stadium of Byzantium [To face 14]
Map of Byzantine Constantinople “ [19]
Map of the Land Walls of Constantinople “ [41]
Portion of the Theodosian Walls (between the Gate of the Deuteron and Yedi Koulè Kapoussi) [To face 46]
Portion of the Theodosian Walls (from within the City) “ [52]
Aqueduct across the Moat of the Theodosian Walls “ [56]
Coin of the Emperor Theodosius II. “ [56]
Plan of the Golden Gate “ [60]
The Golden Gate (Inner) “ [64]
The Golden Gate (Outer) “ [68]
Yedi Koulè Kapoussi “ [72]
The Gate of the Pegè “ [76]
The Gate of Rhegium “ [78]
The Gate of St. Romanus [80]
The Gate of Charisius [80]
View across the Valley of the Lycus (looking North) [86]
The (so-called) Kerko Porta [93]
Inscriptions on the Gate of Rhegium [To face 96]
Tower of the Theodosian Walls (with Inscription in Honour of the Emperors Leo III. and Constantine V.) [To face 98]
Inscription in Honour of the Emperors Leo III. and Constantine V. [99]
Monograms on Ninth Tower, North of the Gate of Pegè [100]
Inscription in Honour of the Emperors Basil II. and Constantine IX. [101]
Inscription in Honour of the Emperor Constantine IX. [102]
Inscription in Honour of the Emperor Romanus [102]
Diagram showing the Interior of a Tower in the Theodosian Walls To face [102]
Inscription in Honour of the Emperor John VII. Palæologus [105]
Diagram showing Approximate Section and Restoration of the Theodosian Walls Facing [106]
Diagram showing Approximate Elevation and Restoration of the Theodosian Walls Facing [107]
Sketch-plan of the Blachernæ Quarter [To face 115]
The Palace of the Porphyrogenitus (Southern Façade) [To face 110] The Palace of the Porphyrogenitus (Northern Façade) [To face 111]
Monogram of the Palæologi [112]
The Palace of the Porphyrogenitus (View of Interior) [To face 112]
Monogram found in the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus [113]
Plan of the Palace of Porphyrogenitus, and Adjoining Walls [To face 115]
The Palace of the Porphyrogenitus (from the West) [118]
Balcony in the Southern Façade of the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus [To face 118]
Tower of the Wall of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus [122]
The Palæologian Wall, North of the Wall of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus [To face 126]
The Gate of Gyrolimnè [126]
General View of the Wall of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus [128]
Plan of the so-called Prison of Anemas [131]
The L-shaped Chamber in Upper Story of “The Tower of Anemas” [137]
“The Tower of Anemas” and “The Tower of Isaac Angelus” (from the South-West) [To face 138]
“The Tower of Anemas” and “The Tower of Isaac Angelus” (from the North-West) [To face 144]
View of the Interior of “The Prison of Anemas” (being the Sub-structures which supported the Palace of Blachernæ) [To face 150]
Chamber in “The Prison of Anemas” [156]
Entrance of Passage from the Stairway in “The Tower of Anemas” to Chamber D in “The Tower of Isaac Angelus” [To face 162]
Corridor in the Original Western Terrace Wall of the Palace of Blachernæ (looking South-West) [To face 162]
General View of the Walls of the City from the Hill on which the Crusaders encamped in 1203 [To face 166]
Inscription in Honour of the Emperor Romanus [169]
Inscription in Honour of the Emperor Michael III. [To face 184]
Inscription in Honour of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus [187]
Coat-of-arms of Andronicus II. Palæologus [189]
Bas-relief, on the Tower East of Djubali Kapoussi, representing the Three Hebrew Youths cast into the Fiery Furnace of Babylon, as described in the Book of Daniel [191]
Nikè (formerly near Balat Kapoussi) [To face 198]
Portion of the Chain stretched across the Entrance of the Golden Horn in 1453 [To face 228]
Inscription in Honour of Theodosius II. and the Prefect Constantine;[To face 248] Inscription in Honour of the Emperor Theophilus; [To face 248] Inscription in Honour of the Emperor Isaac Angelus [To face 248]
Portion of Walls beside the Sea of Marmora [262]
Chateau and Marble Tower near the Western Extremity of the Walls beside the Sea of Marmora [To face 266]
Map of the Shore of Constantinople between the Seraglio Light-house and Daoud Pasha Kapoussi [To face 269]
Marble Figures of Lions attached to the Balcony in the Palace of the Bucoleon [To face 272]
Ruins of the Palace of the Bucoleon [274]
Portion of the Palace of Hormisdas [277]
Ruins of the Palace of Hormisdas [To face 282]
Tower guarding the Harbour of Eleutherius and Theodosius [297]
Portion of the Wall around the Harbour of Eleutherius and Theodosius [299]
Map of the Territory between the Hebdomon and the City Walls [To face 316]
Triumphus Theodosii [330]
Triumphus Heraclii [334]
Bust Over the Gate of Gyrolimne.
BYZANTINE CONSTANTINOPLE.
CHAPTER I.
THE SITE OF CONSTANTINOPLE—THE LIMITS OF BYZANTIUM.
Without attempting any elaborate description of the site occupied by Constantinople, such as we have in Gyllius’ valuable work on the topography of the city,[[1]] it is necessary to indicate to the reader, now invited to wander among the ruins of New Rome, the most salient features of the territory he is to explore.
The city is situated at the south-western end of the Bosporus, upon a promontory that shoots out from the European shore of the straits, with its apex up stream, as though to stem the waters that rush from the Black Sea into the Sea of Marmora. To the north, the narrow bay of the Golden Horn runs inland, between steep banks, for some six or seven miles, and forms one of the finest harbours in the world. The Sea of Marmora spreads southwards like a lake, its Asiatic coast bounded by hills and mountains, and fringed with islands. Upon the shore of Asia, facing the eastern side of the promontory, stand the historic towns of Chrysopolis (Scutari) and Chalcedon (Kadikeui). The mainland to the west is an undulating plain that soon meets the horizon. It offers little to attract the eye in the way of natural beauty, but in the palmy days of the city it, doubtless, presented a pleasing landscape of villas and gardens.
The promontory, though strictly speaking a trapezium, is commonly described as a triangle, on account of the comparative shortness of its eastern side. It is about four miles long, and from one to four miles wide, with a surface broken up into hills and plains. The higher ground, which reaches an elevation of some 250 feet, is massed in two divisions—a large isolated hill at the south-western corner of the promontory, and a long ridge, divided, more or less completely, by five cross valleys into six distinct eminences, overhanging the Golden Horn. Thus, New Rome boasted of being enthroned upon as many hills beside the Bosporus, as her elder sister beside the Tiber.
The two masses of elevated land just described are separated by a broad meadow, through which the stream of the Lycus flows athwart the promontory into the Sea of Marmora; and there is, moreover, a considerable extent of level land along the shores of the promontory, and in the valleys between the northern hills.
Few of the hills of Constantinople were known by special names, and accordingly, as a convenient mode of reference, they are usually distinguished by numerals.
The First Hill is the one nearest the promontory’s apex, having upon it the Seraglio, St. Irene, St. Sophia, and the Hippodrome. The Second Hill, divided from the First by the valley descending from St. Sophia to the Golden Horn, bears upon its summit the porphyry Column of Constantine the Great, popularly known as the Burnt Column and Tchemberli Tash. The Third Hill is separated from the preceding by the valley of the Grand Bazaar, and is marked by the War Office and adjacent Fire-Signal Tower, the Mosque of Sultan Bajazet, and the Mosque of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. The Fourth Hill stands farther back from the water than the five other hills beside the Golden Horn, and is parted from the Third Hill by the valley which descends from the aqueduct of Valens to the harbour. It is surmounted by the Mosque of Sultan Mehemet the Conqueror. The Fifth Hill is really a long precipitous spur of the Fourth Hill, protruding almost to the shore of the Golden Horn in the quarter of the Phanar. Its summit is crowned by the Mosque of Sultan Selim. Between it and the Third Hill spreads a broad plain, bounded by the Fourth Hill on the south, and the Golden Horn on the north. The Sixth Hill is divided from the Fifth by the valley which ascends southwards from the Golden Horn at Balat Kapoussi to the large Byzantine reservoir (Tchoukour Bostan), on the ridge that runs from the Mosque of Sultan Mehemet to the Gate of Adrianople. It is distinguished by the ruins of the Palace of the Porphyrogenitus (Tekfour Serai) and the quarter of Egri Kapou. Nicetas Choniates styles it the Hill of Blachernae (βουνὸς τῶν Βλαχερνῶν),[[2]] and upon it stood the famous Imperial residence of that name. The Seventh Hill, occupying the south-western angle of the city, was known, on account of its arid soil, as the Xerolophos—the Dry Hill.[[3]] Upon it are found Avret Bazaar, the pedestal of the Column of Arcadius, and the quarters of Alti Mermer and Psamathia.
Here, then, was a situation where men could build a noble city in the midst of some of the fairest scenery on earth.
But the history of Constantinople cannot be understood unless the extraordinary character of the geographical position of the place is present to the mind. No city owes so much to its site. The vitality and power of Constantinople are rooted in a unique location. Nowhere is the influence of geography upon history more strikingly marked. Here, to a degree that is marvellous, the possibilities of the freest and widest intercourse blend with the possibilities of complete isolation. No city can be more in the world and out of the world. It is the meeting-point of some of the most important highways on the globe, whether by sea or land; the centre around which diverse, vast, and wealthy countries lie within easy reach, inviting intimate commercial relations, and permitting extended political control. Here the peninsula of Asia Minor, stretching like a bridge across the seas that sunder Asia and Europe, narrows the waters between the two great continents to a stream only half a mile across. Hither the Mediterranean ascends, through the avenues of the Ægean and the Marmora, from the regions of the south; while the Euxine and the Azoff spread a pathway to the regions of the north. Here is a harbour within which the largest and richest fleets can find a perfect shelter.
But no less remarkable is the facility with which the great world, so near at hand, can be excluded. Access to this point by sea is possible only through the straits of the Hellespont on the one side, and through the straits of the Bosporus on the other—defiles which, when properly guarded, no hostile navy could penetrate. These channels, with the Sea of Marmora between them, formed, moreover, a natural moat which prevented an Asiatic foe from coming within striking distance of the city; while the narrow breadth of the promontory on which the city stands allowed the erection of fortifications, along the west, which could be held against immense armies by a comparatively small force.
As Dean Stanley, alluding to the selection of this site for the new capital of the Empire, has observed: “Of all the events of Constantine’s life, this choice is the most convincing and enduring proof of his real genius.”
Although it does not fall within the scope of this work to discuss the topography of Byzantium before the time of Constantine, it will not be inappropriate to glance at the circuits of the fortifications which successively brought more and more of this historic promontory within their widening compass, until the stronghold of a small band of colonists from Megara became the most splendid city and the mightiest bulwark of the Roman world.
Four such circuits demand notice.
First came the fortifications which constituted the Acropolis of Byzantium.[[4]] They are represented by the walls, partly Byzantine and partly Turkish, which cling to the steep sides of the Seraglio plateau at the eastern extremity of the First Hill, and support the Imperial Museum, the Kiosk of Sultan Abdul Medjid, and the Imperial Kitchens.
That the Acropolis occupied this point may be inferred from the natural fitness of the rocky eminence at the head of the promontory to form the kind of stronghold around which ancient cities gathered as their nucleus. And this inference is confirmed by the allusions to the Acropolis in Xenophon’s graphic account of the visit of the Ten Thousand to Byzantium, on their return from Persia. According to the historian, when those troops, after their expulsion from the city, forced their way back through the western gates, Anaxibius, the Spartan commander of the place, found himself obliged to seek refuge in the Acropolis from the fury of the intruders. The soldiers of Xenophon had, however, cut off all access to the fortress from within the city, so that Anaxibius was compelled to reach it by taking a fishing-boat in the harbour, and rowing round the head of the promontory to the side of the city opposite Chalcedon. From that point also he sent to Chalcedon for reinforcements.[[5]] These movements imply that the Acropolis was near the eastern end of the promontory.
In further support of this conclusion, it may be added that during the excavations made in 1871 for the construction of the Roumelian railroad, an ancient wall was unearthed at a short distance south of Seraglio Point. It ran from east to west, and was built of blocks measuring, in some cases, 7 feet in length, 3 feet 9 inches in width, and over 2 feet in thickness.[[6]] Judging from its position and character, the wall formed part of the fortifications around the Acropolis.
The second circuit of walls around Byzantium is that described by the Anonymus of the eleventh century and his follower Codinus.[[7]] Starting from the Tower of the Acropolis at the apex of the promontory, the wall proceeded along the Golden Horn as far west as the Tower of Eugenius, which must have stood beside the gate of that name—the modern Yali Kiosk Kapoussi.[[8]] There the wall left the shore and made for the Strategion and the Thermæ of Achilles. The former was a level tract of ground devoted to military exercises—the Champ de Mars of Byzantium—and occupied a portion of the plain at the foot of the Second Hill, between Yali Kiosk Kapoussi and Sirkedji Iskelessi.[[9]] The Thermæ of Achilles stood near the Strategion; and there also was a gate of the city, known in later days as the Arch of Urbicius. The wall then ascended the slope of the hill to the Chalcoprateia, or Brass Market, which extended from the neighbourhood of the site now occupied by the Sublime Porte to the vicinity of Yeri Batan Serai, the ancient Cisterna Basilica.[[10]]
The ridge of the promontory was reached at the Milion, the milestone from which distances from Constantinople were measured. It stood to the south-west of St. Sophia, and marked the site of one of the gates of Byzantium. Thence the line of the fortifications proceeded to the twisted columns of the Tzycalarii, which, judging from the subsequent course of the wall, were on the plateau beside St. Irene. Then, the wall descended to the Sea of Marmora at Topi,[[11]] somewhere near the present Seraglio Lighthouse, and, turning northwards, ran along the shore to the apex of the promontory, past the sites occupied, subsequently, by the Thermae of Arcadius and the Mangana.
If we are to believe the Anonymus and Codinus, this was the circuit of Byzantium from the foundation of the city by Byzas to the time of Constantine the Great. On the latter point, however, these writers were certainly mistaken; for the circuit of Byzantium was much larger than the one just indicated, not only in the reign of that emperor, but as far back as the year 196 of our era, and even before that date.[[12]] The statements of the Anonymus and Codinus can therefore be correct only if they refer to the size of the city at a very early period.
One is, indeed, strongly tempted to reject the whole account of this wall as legendary, or as a conjecture based upon the idea that the Arch of Urbicius and the Arch of the Milion represented gates in an old line of bulwarks. But, on the other hand, it is more than probable that Byzantium was not as large, originally, as it became during its most flourishing days, and accordingly the two arches above mentioned may have marked the course of the first walls built beyond the bounds of the Acropolis.
We pass next to the third line of walls which guarded the city, the walls which made Byzantium one of the great fortresses of the ancient world. These fortifications described a circuit of thirty-five stadia,[[13]] which would bring within the compass of the city most of the territory occupied by the first two hills of the promontory. Along the Golden Horn, the line of the walls extended from the head of the promontory to the western side of the bay that fronts the valley between the Second and Third Hills, the valley of the Grand Bazaar. Three ports, more or less artificial,[[14]] were found in that bay for the accommodation of the shipping that frequented the busy mart of commerce, one of them being, unquestionably, at the Neorion.[[15]]
These bulwarks, renowned in antiquity for their strength, were faced with squared blocks of hard stone, bound together with metal clamps, and so closely fitted as to seem a wall of solid rock around the city. One tower was named the Tower of Hercules, on account of its superior size and strength, and seven towers were credited with the ability to echo the slightest sound made by the movements of an enemy, and thus secure the garrison against surprise. From the style of their construction, one would infer that these fortifications were built soon after Pausanias followed up his victory on the field of Platæa by the expulsion of the Persians from Byzantium.
These splendid ramparts were torn down in 196 by Septimius Severus to punish the city for its loyalty to the cause of his rival, Pescennius Niger. In their ruin they presented a scene that made Herodianus[[16]] hesitate whether to wonder more at the skill of their constructors, or the strength of their destroyers. But the blunder of leaving unguarded the water-way, along which barbarous tribes could descend from the shores of the Euxine to ravage some of the fairest provinces of the Empire, was too glaring not to be speedily recognized and repaired. Even the ruthless destroyer of the city perceived his mistake, and ere long, at the solicitation of his son Caracalla, ordered the reconstruction of the strategic stronghold.
It is with Byzantium as restored by Severus that we are specially concerned, for in that form the city was the immediate predecessor of Constantinople, and affected the character of the new capital to a considerable extent. According to Zosimus, the principal gate in the new walls of Severus stood at the extremity of a line of porticoes erected by that emperor for the embellishment of the city.[[17]] There Constantine subsequently placed the Forum known by his name, so that from the Forum one entered the porticoes in question, and passed beyond the limits of Byzantium.[[18]] Now, the site of the Forum of Constantine is one of the points in the topography of the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire concerning which there can be no difference of opinion. The porphyry column (Burnt Column) which surmounts the Second Hill was the principal ornament of that public place. Therefore the gate of Byzantium must have stood at a short distance from that column. According to the clearest statements on the subject, the gate was to the east of the column, the Forum standing immediately beyond the boundary of the old city.[[19]]
The language of Zosimus, taken alone, suggests, indeed, the idea that the gate of Byzantium had occupied a site to the west of the Forum; in other words, that the Forum was constructed to the east of the gate, within the line of the wall of Severus. For, according to the historian, one entered the porticoes of Severus and left the old town, after passing through the arches (δι᾽ ὧν) which stood, respectively, at the eastern and western extremities of the Forum of Constantine. This was possible, however, only if these various structures, in proceeding from east to west, came in the following order: Forum of Constantine; porticoes of Severus; gate of Byzantium. On this view, the statement that the Forum was “at the place where the gate had stood” would be held to imply that the porticoes between the Forum and the gate were too short to be taken into account in a general indication of the Forum’s position. But to interpret Zosimus thus puts him in contradiction, first, with Theophanes, as cited above; secondly, with Hesychius Milesius,[[20]] who says that the wall of Byzantium did not go beyond the Forum of Constantine (οὐκ ἔξω τῆς ἐπωνύμου ἀγορᾶς τοῦ βασιλέως); thirdly, though that is of less moment, with the Anonymus[[21]] and Codinus,[[22]] who explain the circular shape of the Forum as derived from the shape of Constantine’s tent when he besieged the city.
Lethaby and Swainson[[23]] place the Forum between the porticoes of Severus on the east and the gate of Byzantium on the west, putting the western arch of the Forum on the site of the latter. They understand the statement of Zosimus to mean that a person in the Forum could either enter the porticoes or leave the old town according as he proceeded eastwards or westwards.
From that gate the wall descended the northern slope of the hill to the Neorion, and thence went eastwards to the head of the promontory.[[24]] In descending to the Golden Horn the wall kept, probably, to the eastern bank of the valley of the Grand Bazaar, to secure a natural escarpment which would render assault more difficult.
Upon the side towards the Sea of Marmora the wall proceeded from the main gate of the city to the point occupied by the temple of Aphrodite, and to the shore facing Chrysopolis.[[25]] The temple of the Goddess of Beauty was one of the oldest sanctuaries in Byzantium,[[26]] and did not entirely disappear until the reign of Theodosius the Great, by whom it was converted into a carriage-house for the Prætorian Prefect.[[27]] It was, consequently, a landmark that would long be remembered. Malalas[[28]] places it within the ancient Acropolis of the city. Other authorities likewise put it there, adding that it stood higher up the hill of the Acropolis than the neighbouring temple of Poseidon,[[29]] where it overlooked one of the theatres built against the Marmora side of the citadel,[[30]] and faced Chrysopolis.[[31]] From these indications it is clear that the temple lay to the north-east of the site of St. Sophia, and therefore not far from the site of St. Irene on the Seraglio plateau.
Accordingly, the wall of Severus, upon leaving the western gate of the city, did not descend to the shore of the Sea of Marmora, but after proceeding in that direction for some distance turned south-eastwards, keeping well up the south-western slopes of the First Hill, until the Seraglio plateau was reached.[[32]] As these slopes were for the most part very steep, the city, when viewed from the Sea of Marmora, presented the appearance of a great Acropolis upon a hill.
Where precisely the wall reached the Sea of Marmora opposite Chrysopolis is not stated, but it could not have been far from the point now occupied by the Seraglio Lighthouse, for the break in the steep declivity of the First Hill above that point offered the easiest line of descent from the temple of Aphrodite to the shore. Thus it appears that the circuit of the walls erected by Severus followed, substantially, the course of the fortifications which he had overthrown. It is a corroboration of this conclusion to find that the ground outside the wall constructed by Severus—the valley of the Grand Bazaar—answers to the description of the ground outside the wall which he destroyed; a smooth tract, sloping gently to the water: “Primus post mœnia campus erat peninsulæ cervicis sensim descendentis ad litus, et ne urbs esset insula prohibentis.”[[33]]
To this account of the successive circuits of Byzantium until the time of Constantine, may be added a rapid survey of the internal arrangements and public buildings of the city after its restoration by Severus.[[34]]
A large portion of the Hippodrome, so famous in the history of Constantinople, was erected by Severus, who left the edifice unfinished owing to his departure for the West. Between the northern end of the Hippodrome and the subsequent site of St. Sophia was the Tetrastoon, a public square surrounded by porticoes, having the Thermæ of Zeuxippus upon its southern side.
In the Acropolis were placed, as usual, the principal sanctuaries of the city; the Temples of Artemis, Aphrodite, Apollo, Zeus, Poseidon, and Demeter. Against the steep eastern side of the citadel, Severus constructed a theatre and a Kynegion for the exhibition of wild animals, as the Theatre of Dionysius and the Odeon were built against the Acropolis of Athens.
At a short distance from the apex of the promontory rose the column, still found there, bearing the inscription Fortunæ Reduci ob devictos Gothos, in honour of Claudius Gothicus for his victories over the Goths. To the north of the Acropolis was the Stadium;[[35]] then came the ports of the Prosphorion and the Neorion, and in their vicinity the Strategion, the public prison,[[36]] and the shrine of Achilles and Ajax.[[37]] The aqueduct which the Emperor Hadrian erected for Byzantium continued to supply the city of Severus.[[38]]
Nor was the territory without the walls entirely unoccupied. From statements found in Dionysius Byzantius, and from allusions which later writers make to ruined temples in different quarters of Constantinople, it is evident that many hamlets and public edifices existed along the shore of the Golden Horn, and in the valleys and on the hills beyond the city limits. Blachernæ was already established beside the Sixth Hill; Sycæ, famous for its figs, occupied the site of Galata; and the Xerolophos was a sacred hill, crowned with a temple of Zeus.[[39]]
Inscription from the Stadium of Byzantium. (From Broken Bits of Byzantium, by kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
CHAPTER II.
THE CITY OF CONSTANTINE—ITS LIMITS—FORTIFICATIONS—INTERIOR ARRANGEMENT.
In the year 328 of our era, Constantine commenced the transformation of Byzantium into New Rome by widening the boundaries of the ancient town and erecting new fortifications.
On foot, spear in hand, the emperor traced the limits of the future capital in person, and when his courtiers, surprised at the compass of the circuit he set himself to describe, inquired how far he would proceed, he replied, “Until He stops Who goes before me.”[[40]] The story expresses a sense of the profound import of the work begun on that memorable day. It was the inauguration of an epoch.
We shall endeavour to determine the limits assigned to the city of Constantine. The data at our command for that purpose are, it is true, not everything that can be desired; they are often vague; at other times they refer to landmarks which have disappeared, and the sites of which it is impossible now to identify; nevertheless, a careful study of these indications yields more satisfactory results than might have been anticipated under the circumstances.
The new land wall, we shall find, crossed the promontory[[41]] along a line a short distance to the east of the Cistern of Mokius on the Seventh Hill, (the Tchoukour Bostan, west of Avret Bazaar), and of the Cistern of Aspar at the head of the valley between the Fourth and Sixth Hills, (the Tchoukour Bostan on the right of the street leading from the Mosque of Sultan Mehemet to the Adrianople Gate). The southern end of the line reached the Sea of Marmora somewhere between the gates known respectively, at present, as Daoud Pasha Kapoussi and Psamathia Kapoussi, while its northern extremity abutted on the Golden Horn, in the neighbourhood of the Stamboul head of the inner bridge. At the same time the seaward walls of Byzantium were repaired, and prolonged to meet the extremities of the new land wall.
That this outline of the city of Constantine is, substantially, correct, will appear from the information which ancient writers have given on the subject.
(a) According to Zosimus,[[42]] the land wall of the new capital was carried fifteen stadia west of the corresponding wall of Byzantium. The position of the latter, we have already seen, is marked, with sufficient accuracy for our present purpose by the porphyry Column of Constantine which stood close to the main gate of the old Greek town.[[43]] Proceeding from that column fifteen stadia westwards, we come to a line within a short distance of the reservoirs above mentioned.
(b) In the oldest description of Constantinople—that contained in the Notitia[[44]]—the length of the city is put down as 14,075 Roman feet; the breadth as 6150 Roman feet. The Notitia belongs to the age of Theodosius II., and might therefore be supposed to give the dimensions of the city after its enlargement by that emperor. This, however, is not the case. The size of Constantinople under Theodosius II. is well known, seeing the ancient walls which still surround Stamboul mark, with slight modifications, the wider limits of the city in the fifth century. But the figures of the Notitia do not correspond to the well-ascertained dimensions of the Theodosian city; they fall far short of those dimensions, and therefore can refer only to the length and breadth of the original city of Constantine. To adhere thus to the original size of the capital after it had been outgrown is certainly strange, but may be explained as due to the force of habit. When the Notitia was written, the enlargement of the city by Theodosius was too recent an event to alter old associations of thought and introduce new points of view. “The City,” proper, was still what Constantine had made it.
The length of the original city was measured from the Porta Aurea on the west to the sea on the east. Unfortunately, a serious difference of opinion exists regarding the particular gate intended by the Porta Aurea. There can be no doubt, however, that the sea at the eastern end of the line of measurement was the sea at the head of the promontory; for only by coming to that point could the full length of the city be obtained. Consequently, if we take the head of the promontory for our starting-point of measurement, and proceed westwards to a distance of 14,075 feet, we shall discover the extent of the city of Constantine in that direction. This course brings us to the same result as the figures of Zosimus—to the neighbourhood of the Cisterns of Mokius and Aspar.
Turning next to the breadth of the city, we find that the only portion of the promontory across which a line of 6150 feet will stretch from sea to sea lies between the district about the gate Daoud Pasha Kapoussi, beside the Sea of Marmora on the south, and the district about the Stamboul head of the inner bridge on the north; elsewhere the promontory is either narrower or broader. Hence the southern and northern extremities of the land wall of Constantine terminated respectively, as stated above, in these districts.
From these figures we pass to the localities and structures by which Byzantine writers have indicated the course of Constantine’s wall.
On the side of the Sea of Marmora the wall extended as far west as the Gate of St. Æmilianus (πόρτα τοῦ ἁγίου Αἰμιλιανοῦ), and the adjoining church of St. Mary Rhabdou (τῆς ἁγίας θεοτόκου τῆς Ῥάβδου).[[45]] That gate is represented by Daoud Pasha Kapoussi, which stands immediately to the west of Vlanga Bostan.[[46]]
In crossing from the Sea of Marmora to the Golden Horn, over the Seventh, Fourth, and Fifth Hills, the line of the fortifications was marked by the Exokionion; the Ancient Gate of the Forerunner; the Monastery of St. Dius; the Convent of Icasia; the Cistern of Bonus; the Church of SS. Manuel, Sabel, and Ishmael; the Church, and the Zeugma, or Ferry, of St. Antony in the district of Harmatius, where the fortifications reached the harbour.[[47]] To this list may be added the Trojan Porticoes and the Cistern of Aspar.
Map of Byzantine Constantinople. Drawn by F. R. von Hubner for and under the direction of Professor A. van Millingen.
(a) The Exokionion (τὸ ἐξωκιόνιον)[[48]] was a district immediately outside the Constantinian Wall, and obtained its name from a column in the district, bearing the statue of the founder of the city. Owing to a corruption of the name, the quarter was commonly known as the Hexakionion (τὸ ἑξακιόνιον).[[49]] It is celebrated in ecclesiastical history as the extra-mural suburb in which the Arians were allowed to hold their religious services, when Theodosius the Great, the champion of orthodoxy, prohibited heretical worship within the city.[[50]] Hence the terms Arians and Exokionitai became synonymous.[[51]] In later times the quarter was one of the fashionable parts of the city, containing many fine churches and handsome residences.[[52]]
Gyllius was disposed to place the Exokionion on the Fifth Hill,[[53]] basing his opinion on the fact that he found, when he first visited the city, a noble column standing on that hill, about half a mile to the north-west of the Mosque of Sultan Mehemet.[[54]]
Dr. Mordtmann, on the other hand, maintains that the designation was applied to the extra-mural territory along the whole line of the Constantinian land fortifications.[[55]]
But the evidence on the subject requires us to place the Exokionion on the Seventh Hill, and to restrict the name to that locality.
For in the account of the triumphal entry of Basil I. through the Golden Gate of the Theodosian Walls, the Exokionion is placed between the Sigma and the Xerolophos.[[56]] The Sigma appears in the history of the sedition which overthrew Michael V., (1042), and is described as situated above the Monastery of St. Mary Peribleptos.[[57]] Now, regarding the position of that monastery there is no doubt. The establishment, founded by Romanus Argyrus, was one of the most important monastic houses in Constantinople. Its church survived the Turkish Conquest, and remained in the hands of the Greeks until 1643, when Sultan Ibrahim granted it to the Armenian community.[[58]] Since that time the sacred edifice has twice been destroyed by fire, and is now rebuilt under the title of St. George. It is popularly known as Soulou Monastir (the Water Monastery), after its adjoining ancient cistern, and stands in the quarter of Psamathia, low down the southern slope of the Seventh Hill.
The Xerolophos was the name of the Seventh Hill in general,[[59]] but was sometimes applied, as in the case before us, to the Forum of Arcadius (Avret Bazaar) upon the hill’s summit.[[60]]
This being so, the Exokionion, which was situated between the Sigma and the Forum of Arcadius, must have occupied the upper western slope of the Seventh Hill.
In corroboration of this conclusion two additional facts may be cited. First, the Church of St. Mokius, the sanctuary accorded to the Arians for their extra-mural services in the Exokionion, stood on the Seventh Hill,[[61]] for it was on the road from the Sigma to the Forum of Arcadius,[[62]] and gave name to the large ancient cistern, the Tchoukour Bostan, to the north-west of the Forum.[[63]]
In the next place, the district on the Seventh Hill to the west of Avret Bazaar (Forum of Arcadius) and beside the cistern of Mokius, still retains the name Exokionion under a Turkish form, its actual name, Alti Mermer, the district of “the Six Columns,” being, evidently, the Turkish rendering of Hexakionion, the popular Byzantine alias of Exokionion.[[64]] The Exokionion, therefore, was on the Seventh Hill. Accordingly, the Wall of Constantine crossed that hill along a line to the east of the quarter of Alti Mermer.
(b) The next landmark, the Ancient Gate of the Forerunner (Παλαιὰ Πόρτα τοῦ Προδρόμου), elsewhere styled simply the Ancient Gate (Παλαιὰ Πόρτα),[[65]] furnishes the most precise indication we have of the position of Constantine’s wall. It was a gate which survived the original fortifications of the city, as Temple Bar outlived the wall of London, and became known in later days as the Ancient Gate, on account of its great antiquity. Its fuller designation, the Ancient Gate of the Forerunner,[[66]] is explained by the fact that a church dedicated to the Baptist was built against the adjoining wall. Conversely, the church was distinguished as the Church of the Forerunner at the Ancient Gate (τὴν Παλαιὰν).[[67]] Manuel Chrysolaras places the entrance to the west of the Forum of Arcadius, and describes it as one of the finest monuments in the city.[[68]] It was so wide and lofty that a tower or a full-rigged ship might pass through its portals. Upon the summit was a marble portico of dazzling whiteness, and before the entrance rose a column, once surmounted by a statue. When Bondelmontius visited the city, in 1422, the gate was still erect, and is marked on his map of Constantinople as Antiquissima Pulchra Porta.[[69]] It survived the Turkish Conquest, when it obtained the name of Isa Kapoussi (the Gate of Jesus), and held its place as late as 1508. In that year it was overthrown by a great earthquake. “Isa Kapoussi,” says the Turkish historian Solak Zadè, who records the occurrence, “near Avret Bazaar, which had been in existence for 1900 years (sic), fell and was levelled to the ground.”[[70]] But the shadow of the name still lingers about the site. A small mosque to the west of Avret Bazaar bears the name Isa Kapoussi Mesdjidi,[[71]] while the adjoining street is called Isa Kapoussi Sokaki. The mosque is an ancient Christian church, and probably bore in its earlier character a name which accounts for its Turkish appellation.
From these facts it is clear that the Wall of Constantine, in crossing the Seventh Hill, passed very near Isa Kapoussi Mesdjidi, a conclusion in accordance with the position already assigned to the Exokionion. The column outside the Ancient Gate was probably that which gave name to the district. Nowhere could a column bearing the statue of the city’s founder stand more appropriately than before this splendid entrance.
(c) Another landmark of the course of the Constantinian ramparts in this part of the city were the Trojan Porticoes (τρῳαδήσιοι ἔμβολοι),[[72]] which stood so near the wall that it was sometimes named after them, the Trojan wall (τῶν τειχῶν τῶν Τρῳαδησίων).[[73]]
From their situation in the Twelfth Region,[[74]] it is probable that they lined the street leading from the Porta Aurea into the city. They were evidently of some architectural importance, and are mentioned on more than one occasion as having been damaged by fire or earthquake.[[75]] The reason for their name is a matter of conjecture, and no trace of them remains.
(d) Nothing definite regarding the course of the Constantinian Wall can be inferred from the statement that it ran beside the Monastery of St. Dius and the Convent of Icasia, seeing the situation of these establishments cannot be determined more exactly than that they were found near each other, somewhere on the Seventh Hill.
The former, ascribed to the time of Theodosius I., is mentioned by Antony of Novgorod in close connection with the Church of St. Mokius and the Church of St. Luke.[[76]] The Convent of Icasia was founded by the beautiful and accomplished lady of that name,[[77]] whom the Emperor Theophilus declined to choose for his bride because she disputed the correctness of his ungracious remark that women were the source of evil.
(e) The Cistern of Aspar, which, according to the Paschal Chronicle,[[78]] was situated near the ancient city wall, is the old Byzantine reservoir (Tchoukour Bostan), on the right of the street conducting from the Mosque of Sultan Mehemet to the Gate of Adrianople in the Theodosian walls. This is clear from the following evidence. The cistern in question was a very large one, and stood near the Monastery of Manuel,[[79]] which was founded by the distinguished general of that name in the reign of Theophilus. The church of the monastery is now the Mosque Kefelè Mesdjidi in the quarter of Salmak Tombruk, and a little to the east of it stands the Tchoukour Bostan mentioned above,[[80]] the only large Byzantine reservoir in the neighbourhood.
This conclusion is again in harmony with the figures of Zosimus and the Notitia, which, it will be remembered, brought the line of the Constantinian Wall close to this point.
(f) The Cistern of Bonus, the next landmark to be considered, was built by the Patrician Bonus, celebrated in Byzantine history for his brave defence of the capital in 627 against the Avars and the Persians, while the Emperor Heraclius was in Persia carrying war into the enemy’s country.[[81]]
Where this cistern was situated is a matter of dispute which cannot be definitely settled in our present state of knowledge. Gyllius identified it with a large cistern, three hundred paces in length, which he found robbed of its roof and columns, and turned into a vegetable garden, near the ruins of the Church of St. John in Petra, on the Sixth Hill.[[82]] The cistern has disappeared since that traveller’s day, but as the Wall of Constantine never extended so far west, the identification cannot be correct.
In Dr. Mordtmann’s opinion, the Cistern of Bonus was the large open reservoir to the south-west of the Mosque of Sultan Selim, on the Fifth Hill,[[83]] and there is much to be said in favour of this view.
The Cistern of Bonus was, in the first place, situated in one of the coolest quarters of the city, and beside it, on that account, the Emperor Romanus I. erected a palace,[[84]] styled the New Palace of Bonus,[[85]] as a residence during the hot season. Nowhere in Constantinople could a cooler spot be found in summer than the terrace upon which the Mosque of Sultan Selim stands, not to speak of the attractions offered by the superb view of the Golden Horn from that point. Furthermore, the Cistern of Bonus was within a short distance from the Church of the Holy Apostles, seeing that on the eve of the annual service celebrated in that church in commemoration of Constantine the Great, the Imperial Court usually repaired to the Palace of Bonus, in order to be within easy riding distance of the sanctuary on the morning of the festival.[[86]] A palace near the reservoir beside the Mosque of Sultan Selim would be conveniently near the Church of the Holy Apostles, to suit the emperor on such an occasion. To these considerations can be added, first, the fact that on the way from the Palace of Bonus to the Church of the Apostles there was an old cistern converted into market gardens,[[87]] which may have been the reservoir near the Mosque of Sultan Selim; and, secondly, the fact that the Wall of Constantine, on its way from the Cistern of Aspar to the Golden Horn passed near the site now occupied by the Mosque of Sultan Selim, and, consequently, close to the old cistern adjoining that mosque. But to this identification there is a fatal objection: the Cistern of Bonus was roofed in,[[88]] whereas the reservoir beside the Mosque of Sultan Selim appears to have always been open.
Dr. Strzygowski has suggested that the Cistern of Bonus stood near Eski Ali Pasha Djamissi,[[89]] on the northern bank of the valley of the Lycus, and to the south-west of the Mosque of Sultan Mehemet.[[90]] No traces of a cistern have been found in that locality, but the conjecture satisfies the requirements of the case so far as the proximity of that site to the line of Constantine’s wall and to the Church of the Holy Apostles is concerned. Why that position should have been selected for a summer palace is, however, not apparent.
We have said that the Constantinian Wall, upon leaving the Cistern of Aspar, turned sharply to the north-east, and made for the shore of the Golden Horn by running obliquely across the ridge of the Fifth Hill.
This view of the case is required, first, in order to keep the breadth of the city within the limits assigned by the Notitia; and, secondly, by the statement of the same authority that the Eleventh Region—the Region at the north-western angle of the Constantinian city—did not extend to the shore of the Golden Horn: “Nulla parte mari sociata est.”[[91]] For this statement implies that the fortifications along the northern front of that Region stood at some distance from the water. But the northern slope of the Fifth Hill is so precipitous, and approaches so close to the Golden Horn that the only available ground for the fortifications on that side of the city would be the plateau of the Fifth Hill, where the large cistern beside the Mosque of Sultan Selim is found.
(g) The church dedicated to the three martyr brothers, SS. Manual, Sabel, and Ishmael, must likewise have been on the Fifth Hill; for it stood where the wall began its descent (κατήρχετο)[[92]] towards the Golden Horn. This agrees with the statement of the Synaxaria that the church was situated beside the land wall of Constantine, upon precipitous ground, and near the Church of St. Elias at the Petrion.[[93]]
(h) As to the district of Harmatius, named after Harmatius, a prominent personage in the reign of Zeno,[[94]] it must be sought in the plain bounded by the Fifth, Fourth, and Third Hills, and the Golden Horn, the plain known in later days as the Plateia, (Πλατεῖα). To that plain the fortifications of Constantine would necessarily descend from the Fifth Hill, in proceeding on their north-eastern course to the Golden Horn; and there also the figures of the Notitia require the northern end of the walls to terminate. Doubtless in the time of Constantine the bay at this point encroached upon the plain more than at present.
A church dedicated to St. Antony was found in this part of the city by the Archbishop of Novgorod, when he visited Constantinople at the close of the eleventh century. He reached it after paying his devotions in the Church of St. Theodosia, the Church of St. Isaiah, and the Church of St. Laurentius,[[95]] sanctuaries situated in the plain before us; the first being now the Mosque Gul Djami, near Aya Kapou,[[96]] while the two last are represented, it is supposed, respectively, by the Mosque of Sheik Mourad and the Mosque of Pour Kouyou, further to the south.[[97]] The Archbishop places the Church of St. Antony on higher ground than the Church of St. Laurentius, apparently a short distance up the slope of the Fourth Hill, a position which St. Antony of Harmatius may well have occupied.
(i) The locality known as the Zeugma, or Ferry of St. Antony, stood, naturally, beside the shore. If it cannot be identified with Oun-Kapan Kapoussi, where one of the principal ferries across the Golden Horn has always stood, it must, at all events, have been in that neighbourhood.
(j) With the result thus obtained regarding the course of the Constantinian Wall, may now be compared the statement of the Paschal Chronicle upon the subject. According to that authority the old land wall of the city crossed the promontory from the Gate of St. Æmilianus, upon the Sea of Marmora, to the district of the Petrion, upon the Golden Horn.[[98]] This statement is of great importance, because made while the wall was still standing; and it would on that account have been considered sooner, but for certain questions which it raises, and which can be answered more readily now than at a previous stage of our inquiries. The Chronicler makes the strange mistake of supposing that the wall which he saw stretching from sea to sea was the wall built originally for the defence of Byzantium by Phedalia, the wife of Byzas. Unfortunately, Byzantine archæologists were not always versed in history.
Setting aside, therefore, the Chronicler’s historical opinions, and attending to the facts under his personal observation, we find him entirely agreed with the Anonymus as regards the point at which the southern extremity of the Wall of Constantine terminated.
For the Gate of St. Æmilianus, by which the former authority marks that extremity, stood close to the Church of St. Mary Rabdou, the indication given by the latter.[[99]]
The case seems otherwise as regards the northern end of the line, for the Petrion, mentioned in the Paschal Chronicle, was, strictly speaking, the district in which the Greek Patriarchate is now situated, the name of the district being still retained by the gate (Petri Kapoussi) at the eastern end of the enclosure around the Patriarchal Church and residence. But this would bring the northern end of the land wall considerably more to the west than the point where we have reason to believe the Church of St. Antony was found. It would also make the city broader than the Notitia allows. The discrepancy can, however, be easily removed. For, while the Petrion was pre-eminently the district above indicated, the designation was applied also to territory much further to the east. The Church of St. Laurentius, for example, near which St. Antony’s stood, is at one time described as standing in the Plateia,[[100]] the plain to the east of Petri Kapoussi, while at another time it is spoken of as in the Petrion.[[101]] Hence the statement of the Paschal Chronicle does not conflict with what other authorities affirm respecting the point at which the Constantinian land fortifications reached the Golden Horn.
(k) Finally, from the Church of St. Antony the wall proceeded along the shore of the Golden Horn to the head of the promontory, thus completing the circuit of the fortifications.
It should, however, be noted that this work of surrounding the city with bulwarks was not executed entirely in the reign of Constantine. A portion of the undertaking—probably the walls defending the shores of the city—was left for his son and successor Constantius to complete.[[102]]
The following gates, mentioned in Byzantine history, were found, there is reason to believe, in the Constantinian circuit:—
Porta Polyandriou (Πόρτα Πολυανδρίου,[[103]] the Gate of the Cemetery) stood in the portion of the wall near the Church of the Holy Apostles. It is true that this was one of the names of the Gate of Adrianople in the later Theodosian Walls, but if the name was derived from the Imperial Cemetery beside the Church of the Holy Apostles, there is much probability in Dr. Mordtmann’s opinion that the designation belonged originally to the corresponding gate in the Constantinian fortifications, which stood closer to the cemetery.[[104]]
Another gate was the Porta Atalou (Πόρτα Ἀτάλου).[[105]] It was adorned with the statue of Constantine the Great and the statue of Atalus, after whom the gate was named. Both monuments fell in the earthquake of 740. The presence of the statue of the founder of the city upon the gate, the fact that the damage which the gate sustained in 740 is mentioned in close connection with the injuries done at the same time to the Column of Arcadius on the Xeropholos,[[106]] and the lack of any proof that the gate stood in the Theodosian Walls, are circumstances which favour the view that it was an entrance in the Wall of Constantine. From its association with the Xerolophos one would infer that the Gate of Atalus was situated on the Seventh Hill, in a position corresponding to one of the later Theodosian gates on that eminence.
That the Palaia Porta—Isa Kapoussi, beside the Mosque Isa Kapou Mesdjidi—was a Constantinian gate is beyond dispute.[[107]] But a difficult, and at the same time important, question occurs in connection with it. Was it the Porta Aurea mentioned in the Notitia as the gate from which the length of the city was measured? What renders this a difficult question is the fact that the Porta Aurea of the Theodosian Walls—the celebrated Golden Gate which appears so frequently in the history of the city, and which is now incorporated in the Turkish fortress of the Seven Towers (Yedi Koulè), under the name Yedi Koulè Kapoussi—was already in existence when the Notitia was written.[[108]] That being the case, the presumption is in favour of the opinion that the Golden Gate at Yedi Koulè is the Porta Aurea to which the Notitia refers; and this opinion has upon its side the great authority of Dr. Strzygowski.[[109]] On the other hand, the distance from the Porta Aurea to the sea, as given by the Notitia, does not correspond to the distance between Yedi Koulè and the head of the promontory, the latter distance being much greater. To suppose that this discrepancy is due to a mistake which has crept into the figures of the Notitia is possible; but the supposition is open to more than one objection. In the first place, such a view obliges us to assume a similar mistake in the figures which that authority gives for the breadth of the city, seeing they do not accord with the breadth of the city along the line of the Theodosian Walls. But even if this objection is waived, and the possibility of a double error admitted in the abstract, the hypothesis of a mistake in the figures before us is attended by another difficulty, which cannot be dismissed so easily. How comes it that figures condemned as inaccurate because they do not accord with the size of Constantinople under Theodosius II., prove perfectly correct when applied to the dimensions of the city under its founder? How come these figures to agree completely with what we learn regarding the length and breadth of the city of Constantine from other data on that subject? This cannot be an accident; the only satisfactory explanation is that the figures in question belonged to the primitive text of the document in which they are found, and never referred to anything else than the original size of the city. Hence we are compelled to adopt the view that when the Notitia was written, two gates bearing the epithet “Golden” existed in Constantinople, one of them in the older circuit of the city, the other in the later fortifications of Theodosius, and that the author of the Notitia refers to the earlier entrance. There is nothing strange in the existence of a Triumphal Gate in the Wall of Constantine, while the duplication of such an entrance for a later line of bulwarks was perfectly natural.
Why the Notitia overlooks the second Porta Aurea is explained by the point of view from which that work was written. Its author was concerned with the original city. A gate in the Wall of Theodosius was only the vestibule of the corresponding Constantinian entrance.
The existence of a Porta Aurea in the Wall of Constantine being thus established, the identification of that gate with the Palaia Porta offers little difficulty. The Constantinian Porta Aurea, like the Ancient Gate, stood on the Seventh Hill, since the portion of the Via Triumphalis leading from the Exokionion to the Forum of Arcadius was on that eminence.[[110]] Like the Ancient Gate, the Porta Aurea was, moreover, distinguished by fine architectural features, as its very epithet implies, and, as the Notitia declares, when it states that the city wall bounding the Twelfth Region, on the Seventh Hill, was remarkable for its monumental character—“Quam (regionem) mœnium sublimior decorat ornatus.”[[111]] Gates so similar in their position and appearance can scarcely have been different entrances.
Of the Constantinian gates along the seaboard of the city, the only one about which anything positive can be affirmed is the Gate of St. Æmilianus, near the Church of St. Mary Rabdou, on the Sea of Marmora. It is now represented by Daoud Pasha Kapoussi.[[112]]
Dr. Mordtmann[[113]] suggests the existence of a gate known as the Basilikè Porta beside the Golden Horn, where Ayasma Kapoussi stands; but this conjecture is exceedingly doubtful.
The Wall of Constantine formed the boundary and bulwark of the city for some eighty years, its great service being the protection of the new capital against the Visigoths, who asserted their power in the Balkan Peninsula during the latter part of the fourth century and the earlier portion of the fifth. After the terrible defeat of the Roman arms at Adrianople in 378, the Goths marched upon Constantinople, but soon retired, in view of the hopelessness of an attack upon the fortifications. The bold Alaric never dared to assail these walls; while Gainas, finding he could not carry them by surprise, broke up his camp at the Hebdomon, and withdrew to the interior of Thrace.
It is a mistake, however, to suppose that the original bulwarks of the capital were demolished as soon as the Theodosian Walls were built.[[114]] On the contrary, the old works continued for a considerable period to form an inner line of defence. We hear of them in the reign of Justinian the Great, when, together with the Wall of Theodosius, they were injured by a violent earthquake.[[115]] They were in their place also when the Paschal Chronicle was written.[[116]] What their condition precisely was in 740, when the Gate of Atalus was overthrown,[[117]] cannot be determined, but evidently they had not completely disappeared. Thereafter nothing more is heard of them, and the probability is that they were left to waste away gradually. Remains of ancient walls survived in the neighbourhood of Isa Kapoussi as late as the early part of this century.[[118]]
Interior Arrangements of the City of Constantine.
The work of altering Byzantium to become the seat of government was commenced in 328, and occupied some two years, materials and labourers for the purpose being gathered from all parts of the Empire. Workmen skilled in cutting columns and marble came even from the neighbourhood of Naples,[[119]] and the forty thousand Gothic troops, known as the Fœderati, lent their strength to push the work forward.[[120]]
At length, on the 11th of May, A.D. 330,[[121]] the city of Constantine, destined to rank among the great capitals of the world, and to exert a vast influence over the course of human affairs, was dedicated with public rejoicings which lasted forty days.[[122]]
The internal arrangements of the city were determined mainly by the configuration of its site, the position of the buildings taken over from Byzantium, and the desire to reproduce some of the features of Rome.
The principal new works gathered about two nuclei—the chief Gate of Byzantium and the Square of the Tetrastoon.
Immediately without the gate was placed the Forum, named after Constantine.[[123]] It was elliptical in shape, paved with large stones, and surrounded by a double tier of porticoes; a lofty marble archway at each extremity of its longer axis led into this area, and in the centre rose a porphyry column, bearing a statue of Apollo crowned with seven rays. The figure represented the founder of the city “shining like the sun” upon the scene of his creation. On the northern side of the Forum a Senate House was erected.[[124]]
The Tetrastoon was enlarged and embellished, receiving in its new character the name “Augustaion,” in honour of Constantine’s mother Helena, who bore the title Augusta, and whose statue, set upon a porphyry column, adorned the square.[[125]]
The Hippodrome was now completed,[[126]] to become “the axis of the Byzantine world,” and there, in addition to other monuments, the Serpent Column from Delphi was placed. The adjoining Thermæ of Zeuxippus were improved.[[127]] An Imperial Palace,[[128]] with its main entrance on the southern side of the Augustaion, was built to the east of the Hippodrome, where it stood related to the race-course very much as the Palace of the Cæsars on the Palatine was related to the Circus Maximus. There, at the same time, it commanded the beautiful view presented by the Sea of Marmora, the Prince’s Islands, the hilly Asiatic coast, and the snow-capped Bythinian Olympus. Eusebius, who saw the palace in its glory, describes it as “most magnificent;”[[129]] while Zosimus speaks of it as scarcely inferior to the Imperial Residence in Rome.[[130]]
On the eastern side of the Augustaion rose the Basilica,[[131]] where the Senate held its principal meetings. It was entered through a porch supported by six splendid columns of marble, and the building itself was decorated with every possible variety of the same material. There also statues of rare workmanship were placed, such as the Group of the Muses from Helicon, the statue of Zeus from Dodona, and that of Pallas from Lindus.[[132]]
According to Eusebius, Constantine adorned the city and its suburbs with many churches,[[133]] the most prominent of them being the Church of Irene[[134]] and the Church of the Apostles.[[135]] The former was situated a short distance to the north of the Augustaion, and there, as restored first by Justinian the Great, and later by Leo III., it still stands within the Seraglio enclosure, now an arsenal of Turkish arms.
The Church of the Apostles, with its roof covered with tiles of gilded bronze, crowned the summit of the Fourth Hill, where it has been replaced by the Mosque of the Turkish Conqueror of the city.
There, also, Constantine erected for himself a mausoleum, surrounded by twelve pillars after the number of the Apostles;[[136]] and in the porticoes and chapels beside the church most of Constantine’s successors and their empresses, as well as the patriarchs of the city, found their last resting-place in sarcophagi of porphyry or marble. Whether Constantine had any part in the erection of St. Sophia is extremely uncertain. Eusebius is silent regarding that church; Socrates ascribes it to Constantius. Possibly Constantine laid the foundations of the famous sanctuary.
Among other churches ascribed to the founder of the city are those dedicated, respectively, to St. Mokius, St. Acacius, St. Agathonicus, and to Michael the Archangel at Anaplus (Arnaoutkeui), on the Bosporus.[[137]] There is no doubt that in the foundation of New Rome, Constantine emphasized the alliance of the Empire with the Christian Church. “Over the entrance of his palace,” says Eusebius, “he caused a rich cross to be erected of gold and precious stones, as a protection and a divine charm against the machinations and evil purposes of his enemies.”[[138]]
Three streets running the length of the city formed the great arteries of communication.[[139]]
One started from the south-western end of the palace enclosure, and proceeded along the Sea of Marmora to the Church of St. Æmilianus, at the southern extremity of the land wall. At that point was the Harbour of Eleutherius,[[140]] on the site of Vlanga Bostan, providing the city with what Nature had failed to supply—a harbour of refuge on the southern coast of the promontory.
Another street commenced at the south-eastern end of the palace grounds (Tzycanisterion), and ran first to the point of the Acropolis along the eastern shore of the city, passing on the way the theatre and amphitheatre of Byzantium. Near the latter Constantine built the Mangana, or Military Arsenal.[[141]] The street then proceeded westwards along the Golden Horn, past the Temples of Zeus and Poseidon, the Stadium, the Strategion, and the principal harbours of the city, to the Church of St. Antony in the quarter of Harmatius. In the Strategion an equestrian statue of Constantine was placed, and a pillar bearing the edict which bestowed upon the city the name of New Rome, as well as the rights and privileges of the elder capital.[[142]]
The third street started from the main gate of the palace, and proceeded, first, from the Augustaion to the Forum of Constantine. On reaching the Third Hill it divided into two branches, one leading to the Porta Aurea and the Exokionion, the other to the Church of the Holy Apostles and the Gate of the Polyandrion. This was the main artery of the city, and was named the Mesè (Μεσὴ) on account of its central position. Porticoes built by Eubulus, one of the senators who accompanied Constantine from Rome, lined both sides of the Mesè, and one side of the two other streets, adding at once to the convenience and beauty of the thoroughfares. The porticoes extending from the Augustaion to the Forum of Constantine were particularly handsome.[[143]] Upon the summit of all the porticoes walks or terraces were laid out, adorned with countless statues, and commanding views of the city and of the surrounding hills and waters. Thus, the street scenery of Constantinople combined the attractions of Art and Nature.
The water-supply of the new capital was one of the most important undertakings of the day.[[144]] While the water-works of Byzantium, as improved by Hadrian, continued to be used, they were extended, to render the supply of water more abundant. What exactly was done for that purpose is, however, a matter of conjecture.[[145]]
To the construction of the aqueducts, porticoes, and fortifications of New Rome sixty centenaria of gold (£2,500,000) were devoted.[[146]]
The health of the city was consulted by building sewers far underground, and carrying them to the sea.[[147]]
With the view of drawing population to the new city, Constantine made the wheat hitherto sent from Egypt to Rome the appanage of Constantinople, and ordered the daily free distribution of eighty thousand loaves.[[148]] The citizens were, moreover, granted the Jus Italicus,[[149]] while, to attract families of distinction the emperor erected several mansions for presentation to Roman senators.[[150]] House-building was encouraged by granting estates in Pontus and Asia, on the tenure of maintaining a residence in the new capital.[[151]]
Furthermore, in virtue of its new dignity, the city was relieved from its subordination to the town of Heraclea,[[152]] imposed since the time of Septimius Severus, and the members of the public council of New Rome were constituted into a Senate, with the right to bear the title of Clari.[[153]]
For municipal purposes the city was divided, like Rome, into Fourteen Regions,[[154]] two of them being outside the circuit of the fortifications, viz. the Thirteenth, which comprised Sycæ (Galata), on the northern side of the Golden Horn, and the Fourteenth, constituting the suburb of Blachernæ, now the quarters of Egri Kapou and Aivan Serai.
CHAPTER III.
THE THEODOSIAN WALLS.
The enduring character of the political reasons which had called the new capital into being, and the commercial advantages which its unique position commanded, favoured such an increase of population, that before eighty-five years had elapsed, the original limits of Constantinople proved too narrow for the crowds gathered within the walls.
So numerous were the inhabitants already in 378, that the Goths, who then appeared before the city after the defeat of the Roman arms at Adrianople, abandoned all hope of capturing a stronghold which could draw upon such multitudes for its defence.[[155]]
The Land Walls of Constantinople.
Three years later, Athanaric[[156]] marvelled at the variety of peoples which poured into the city, as they have ever since, like streams from different points into a common reservoir. Soon the corn fleets of Alexandria, Asia, Syria, and Phœnicia, were unable to provide the city with sufficient bread.[[157]] The houses were packed so closely that the citizens, whether at home or abroad, felt confined and oppressed, while to walk the streets was dangerous, on account of the number of the beasts of burden that crowded the thoroughfares. Building-ground was in such demand that portions of the sea along the shores of the city had to be filled in, and the erections on that artificial land alone formed a considerable town.[[158]] Sozomon goes so far as to affirm that Constantinople had grown more populous than Rome.[[159]]
This increase of the population is explained, in part, by the attractions which a capital, and especially one founded recently, offered alike to rich and poor as a place of residence and occupation. The ecclesiastical dignity of the city, when elevated to the second rank in the hierarchy of the Church, made it, moreover, the religious centre of the East, and drew a large body of ecclesiastics and devout persons within its bounds. The presence and incursions of the Goths and the Huns south of the Danube drove many of the original inhabitants of the invaded districts for shelter behind the fortifications of the city, and led multitudes of barbarians thither in search of employment or the pleasures of civilized life.
Then, it must be remembered that no capital is built in a day.
To make the city worthy of its name involved great labour, and demanded an army of workmen of every description. There were many structures which Constantine had only commenced; the completion of the fortifications of the city had been left to Constantius; Julian found it necessary to construct a second harbour on the side of the Sea of Marmora; Valens was obliged to improve the water-works of the city by the erection of the fine aqueduct which spans the valley between the Fourth and Fifth Hills. And how large a number of hands such works required appears from the fact that when the aqueduct was repaired, in the ninth century, 6000 labourers were brought from the provinces to Constantinople for the purpose.[[160]]
Under the rule of the Theodosian dynasty the improvement of the city went forward with leaps and bounds. Most of the public places and buildings enumerated by the Notitia, were constructed under the auspices of that House, and transformed the city. A vivid picture of the change is drawn by Themistius,[[161]] who knew all the phases through which Constantinople had passed, from the reign of Constantius to that of Theodosius the Great. “No longer,” exclaims the orator, as he viewed the altered appearance of things around him, “is the vacant ground in the city more extensive than that occupied by buildings; nor are we cultivating more territory within our walls than we inhabit; the beauty of the city is not, as heretofore, scattered over it in patches, but covers its whole area like a robe woven to the very fringe. The city gleams with gold and porphyry. It has a (new) Forum, named after the emperor; it owns Baths, Porticoes, Gymnasia; and its former extremity is now its centre. Were Constantine to see the capital he founded he would behold a glorious and splendid scene, not a bare and empty void; he would find it fair, not with apparent, but with real beauty.” The mansions of the rich, the orator continues, had become larger and more sumptuous; the suburbs had expanded; the place “was full of carpenters, builders, decorators, and artisans of every description, and might fitly be called a work-shop of magnificence.” “Should the zeal of the emperor to adorn the city continue,” adds Themistius, in prophetic strain, “a wider circuit will be demanded, and the question will arise whether the city added to Constantinople by Theodosius is not more splendid than the city which Constantine added to Byzantium.”
The growth of the capital went on under Arcadius, with the result that early in the reign of his son, the younger Theodosius, the enlargement of the city limits, foreseen by Themistius, was carried into effect.
But this extension of the boundaries was not made simply to suit the convenience of a large population. It was required also by the need of new bulwarks. Constantinople called for more security, as well as for more room. The barbarians were giving grave reasons for disquiet; Rome had been captured by the Goths; the Huns had crossed the Danube, and though repelled, still dreamed of carrying their conquests wherever the sun shone. It was, indeed, time for the Empire to gird on its whole armour.
Fortunately for the eastern portion of the Roman world, Anthemius, the statesman at the head of the Government for six years during the minority of Theodosius II., was eminently qualified for his position by lofty character, distinguished ability, and long experience in the public service. When appointed Prætorian Prefect of the East, in 405, by the Emperor Arcadius, Chrysostom remarked that the appointment conferred more honour on the office than upon Anthemius himself; and the ecclesiastical historian Socrates extols the prefect as “one of the wisest men of the age.”[[162]] Proceeding, therefore, to do all in his power to promote the security of the State, Anthemius cleared the Balkan Peninsula of the hostile Huns under Uldin, driving them north of the Danube. Then, to prevent the return of the enemy, he placed a permanent flotilla of 250 vessels on that river, and strengthened the fortifications of the cities in Illyria; and to crown the system of defence, he made Constantinople a mighty citadel. The enlargement and refortification of the city was thus part of a comprehensive and far-seeing plan to equip the Roman State in the East for the impending desperate struggle with barbarism; and of all the services which Anthemius rendered, the most valuable and enduring was the addition he made to the military importance of the capital. The bounds he assigned to the city fixed, substantially, her permanent dimensions, and behind the bulwarks he raised—improved and often repaired, indeed, by his successors—Constantinople acted her great part in the history of the world.
The erection and repair of the fortifications of a city was an undertaking which all citizens were required to assist, in one form or another. On that point the laws were very stringent, and no rank or privilege exempted any one from the obligation to promote the work.[[163]] One-third of the annual land-tax of the city could be drawn upon to defray the outlay, all expenses above that amount being met by requisitions laid upon the inhabitants. The work of construction was entrusted to the Factions, as several inscriptions on the walls testify. In 447, when the Theodosian fortifications were repaired and extended, the Blues and the Greens furnished, between them, sixteen thousand labourers for the undertaking.[[164]]
The stone employed upon the fortifications is tertiary limestone, brought from the neighbourhood of Makrikeui, where the hollows and mounds formed in quarrying are still visible. The bricks used are from 1 foot 1 inch to 1 foot 2 inches square, and 2 inches thick. They are sometimes stamped with the name of their manufacturer or donor, and occasionally bear the name of the contemporary emperor, and the indiction in which they were made. Mortar, mixed with powdered brick, was employed in large quantities, lest it should dry without taking hold,[[165]] and bound the masonry into a solid mass, hard as rock.
The wall of Anthemius was erected in 413,[[166]] the fifth year of Theodosius II., then about twelve years of age, and is now represented by the inner wall in the fortifications that extend along the west of the city, from the Sea of Marmora to the ruins of the Byzantine Palace, known as Tekfour Serai. The new city limits were thus placed at a distance of one mile to one mile and a half west of the Wall of Constantine.
This change in the position of the landward line of defence involved the extension likewise of the walls along the two shores of the city; but though that portion of the work must have been included in the plan of Anthemius, it was not executed till after his day. As we shall find, the new seaboard of the capital was fortified a quarter of a century later, in 439, under the direction of the Prefect Cyrus, while Theodosius II. was still upon the throne.
The bulwarks of Anthemius saved the city from attack by Attila. They were too formidable for him to venture to assail them.
But they suffered soon at the hands of the power which was to inflict more injury upon the fortifications of Constantinople than any other foe. In 447, only thirty-four years after their construction, the greater portion of the new walls, with fifty-seven towers, was overthrown by a series of violent earthquakes.[[167]] The disaster was particularly inopportune at the moment it occurred, for already in that year Attila had defeated the armies of Theodosius in three successive engagements, ravaged with fire and sword the provinces of Macedonia and Thrace, and come as near to Constantinople as Athyras (Buyuk Tchekmedjè). He had dictated an ignominious treaty of peace, exacting the cession of territory south of the Danube, the payment of an indemnity of 6000 pounds of gold, and the increase of the annual tribute paid to him by the Eastern Empire from 700 pounds of gold to 2100.
The crisis was, however, met with splendid energy by Constantine, then Prætorian Prefect of the East, and under his direction, as Marcellinus Comes affirms, the walls were restored in less than three months after their overthrow.[[168]] But besides restoring the shattered bulwarks of his predecessor, Constantine seized the opportunity to render the city a much stronger fortress than even Anthemius had made it. Accordingly, another wall, with a broad and deep moat before it, was erected in front of the Wall of Anthemius, to place the city behind three lines of defence. The walls were flanked by 192 towers, while the ground between the two walls, and that between the Outer Wall and the Moat, provided room for the action of large bodies of troops. These five portions of the fortifications rose tier above tier, and combined to form a barricade 190-207 feet thick, and over 100 feet high.[[169]]
As an inscription[[170]] upon the fortifications proclaimed, this was a wall indeed, τὸ καὶ τεῖχος ὄντως—a wall which, so long as ordinary courage survived and the modes of ancient warfare were not superseded, made Constantinople impregnable, and behind which civilization defied the assaults of barbarism for a thousand years.
Portion of the Theodosian Walls (Between the Gate of the Deuteron and Yedi Koulè Kapoussi).
Three inscriptions commemorating the erection of these noble works of defence have been discovered. Two of them are still found on the Gate Yeni Mevlevi Haneh Kapoussi (Porta Rhousiou), one being in Greek, the other in Latin, as both languages were then in official use. The former reads to the effect that “In sixty days, by the order of the sceptre-loving Emperor, Constantine the Eparch added wall to wall.”
† ΗΜΑΣΙΝ ΕΞΗΚΟΝΤΑ ΦΙΛΟΣΚΗΠΤΡΩ ΒΑΣΙΛΗΙ †
ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΣ ΥΠΑΡΧΟΣ ΕΔΕΙΜΑΤΟ ΤΕΙΧΕΙ ΤΕΙΧΟΣ †
The Latin legend is more boastful: “By the commands of Theodosius, in less than two months, Constantine erected triumphantly these strong walls. Scarcely could Pallas have built so quickly so strong a citadel.”
THEODOSII JUSSIS GEMINO NEC MENSE PERACTO †
CONSTANTINUS OVANS HAEC MOENIA FIRMA LOCAVIT
TAM CITO TAM STABILEM PALLAS VIX CONDERET ARCEM †[[171]]
The third inscription has disappeared from its place on the Porta Xylokerkou, but is preserved in the Greek Anthology.[[172]] It declared that, “The Emperor Theodosius and Constantine the Eparch of the East built this wall in sixty days.”
ΘΕΟΔΟΣΙΟΣ ΤΟΔΕ ΤΕΙΧΟΣ ΑΝΑΞ ΚΑΙ ΥΠΑΡΧΟΣ ΕΩΑΣ
ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΣ ΕΤΕΥΞΑΝ ΕΝ ΗΜΑΣΙΝ ΕΞΗΚΟΝΤΑ
The shortness of the time assigned to the execution of the work is certainly astonishing. Perhaps the statement of the inscriptions will appear more credible if understood to refer exclusively to the second wall, and if we realize the terror which the Huns then inspired. The dread of Attila, “the Scourge of God,” might well prove an incentive to extraordinary performance, and strain every muscle to the utmost tension.
But the question of the time occupied in the reconstruction of the walls is not the only difficulty raised by these inscriptions. They present a question also as regards the official under whose direction that work was executed. For according to them, and Marcellinus Comes, the superintendent of the work was named Constantine.[[173]] Theophanes and subsequent historians, on the other hand, ascribe the undertaking to the Prefect Cyrus.[[174]] This is a serious discrepancy, and authorities are not agreed in their mode of dealing with it. Some have proposed to remove the difficulty by the simple expedient of identifying Constantine and Cyrus;[[175]] while others maintain a distinction of persons, and reconcile the conflicting statements by understanding them to refer, respectively, to different occasions on which the walls were repaired.[[176]]
Cyrus was one of the most conspicuous figures in the history of the city during the reign of Theodosius II.[[177]] On account of his talents and integrity he held the office of Prætorian Prefect, and that of Prefect of the City, for four years, making himself immensely popular by the character of his administration. During his prefecture, in 439, the new walls along the shores of the city were constructed. The fires and earthquakes, moreover, which devastated Constantinople in the earlier half of the fifth century, afforded him ample opportunity for carrying out civic improvements, and he was to be seen constantly driving about the city in his chariot to inspect the public buildings in course of erection, and to push forward their completion. Among other works, he restored the great Bath of Achilles, which had been destroyed in the fire of 433.[[178]] To him also is ascribed the introduction of the practice of lighting the shops and streets of the capital at night.[[179]] He was, moreover, a man of literary tastes, and a poet, who counted the Empress Eudoxia, herself a poetess, one of his admirers.[[180]] In the competition between Greek and Latin for ascendency as the official language of the Government, he took the side of the former by issuing his decrees in Greek, a practice which made the conservative Lydus style him ironically, “Our Demosthenes.”[[181]]
But in the midst of all his success, Cyrus remained self-possessed and sober-minded. “I do not like Fortune, when she smiles much,”[[182]] he was accustomed to say; and at length the tide of his prosperity turned. Taking his seat one day in the Hippodrome, he was greeted with a storm of applause. “Constantine,” the vast assembly shouted, “founded the city; Cyrus restored it.” For a subject to be so popular was a crime. Theodosius took umbrage at the ovation accorded to the renovator of the city, and Cyrus was dismissed from office, deprived of his property, forced to enter the Church, and sent to Smyrna to succeed four bishops who had perished at the hands of brigands. Upon his arrival in that city on Christmas Day he found his people ill-prepared to receive him, so indignant were they that a man still counted a heathen and a heretic should have been appointed the shepherd of their souls. But a short allocution, which Cyrus delivered in honour of the festival, disarmed the opposition to him, and he spent the last years of his life in the diocese, undisturbed by political turmoils and unmolested by robbers.
Returning to the question of the identity of Cyrus with the Prefect Constantine above mentioned, the strongest argument in favour of that identity is the fact that, commencing with Theophanes, who flourished in the latter part of the eighth century, all historians who refer to the fortification of the city under Theodosius II. ascribe the work to Cyrus. That they should be mistaken on this point, it may be urged, is extremely improbable. On this view, the occurrence of the name Constantine instead of Cyrus in the inscriptions and in Marcellinus Comes, is explained by the supposition that the former name was the one which Cyrus assumed, as usual under such circumstances, after his conversion to the Christian faith.[[183]] But surely any name which Cyrus acquired after his dismissal from office could not be employed as his designation in documents anterior to his fall. Perhaps a better explanation is that Cyrus always had both names, one used habitually, the other rarely, and that the latter appears in the inscriptions because more suited than the former to the versification in which they are cast. This, however, does not explain why Marcellinus Comes prefers the name Constantine.
On the other hand, the proposed identification of Cyrus and Constantine is open to serious objections. In the first place, not till the eighth century is the name of Cyrus associated with the land walls of Constantinople. Earlier historians,[[184]] when speaking of Cyrus and extolling his services, say nothing as to his having been concerned in the fortification of the city in 447.
In the next place, the information of Theophanes and his followers does not seem based upon a thorough investigation of the subject. These writers ignore the fact that under Theodosius II. the land walls were built on two occasions; they ascribe to Cyrus everything done in the fifth century in the way of enlarging and fortifying the capital, and are silent as regards the connection of the great Anthemius with that work.
The only Byzantine author later than the fifth century who recalls the services of Anthemius is Nicephorus Callistus,[[185]] and even he represents Cyrus as the associate of that illustrious prefect. If such inaccuracies do not render the testimony of Theophanes and subsequent historians worthless, they certainly make one ask whether these writers were not misled by the great fame of Cyrus on the ground of other achievements, and especially on account of his share in building the walls along the shores of the city in 439, to ascribe to him a work which was really performed by the more obscure Constantine.
The Inner Wall.
Τὸ κάστρον τὸ μέγα:[[186]] Τὸ μέγα τεῖχος.[[187]]
The Inner Wall was the main bulwark of the capital. It stood on a higher level than the Outer Wall, and was, at the same time, loftier, thicker, and flanked by stronger towers. In construction it was a mass of concrete faced on both sides with blocks of limestone, squared and carefully fitted; while six brick courses, each containing five layers of bricks, were laid at intervals through the thickness of the wall to bind the structure more firmly.
The wall rises some 30-½ feet above the present exterior ground-level, and about 40 feet above the level within the city, with a thickness varying from 15-½ feet near the base to 13-½ feet at the summit. The summit had along its outer edge a battlement, 4 feet 8 inches high, and was reached by flights of steps, placed generally beside the gates, and set at right angles to the wall, upon ramps of masonry.
The ninety-six towers, now battered and ruined by weather, war, and earthquakes, which once guarded this wall, stood from 175 to 181 feet apart, and were from 57 to 60 feet high, with a projection of 18 to 34 feet. As many of them are reconstructions and belong to different periods, they exhibit various forms and different styles of workmanship. Most of them are square; others are hexagonal, or heptagonal, or octagonal.
While their structure resembles that of the wall, they are nevertheless distinct buildings, in compliance with the rule laid down by military engineers, that a tower should not be bound in construction with the curtain of the wall behind it.[[188]] Thus two buildings differing in weight could settle at different rates without breaking apart along the line of junction. As an additional precaution a relieving arch was frequently inserted where the sides of the tower impinged on the wall.[[189]]
A tower was usually divided by wooden or vaulted floors into two chambers. Towers with three chambers, like the Tower of Basil and Constantine at the southern extremity of the wall, and the Soulou Kaleh beside the Lycus, were rare. The lower chamber was entered from the city through a large archway. Occasionally, it communicated also with the terrace between the two walls by a postern, situated as a rule, for the sake of concealment or easier defence, at the angle formed by the tower and the curtain-wall. Upon these entrances the chamber depended for light and air, as its walls had few, if any, loopholes, lest the tower should be weakened where most exposed to missiles.
Generally, the lower chamber had no means of communication with the story above it; at other times a circular aperture, about 7-½ feet in diameter, is found in the crown of the vaulted floor between the chambers.
Portion of the Theodosian Walls (From Within the City).
The lower portion of a tower had evidently little to do directly with the defence of the city, but served mainly as a store-room or guard-house. There, soldiers returning home or leaving for the field were allowed to take up their temporary quarters.[[190]] The proprietors of the ground upon which the towers stood were also allowed to use them,[[191]] but this permission referred, doubtless, only to the lower chambers, and that in time of peace.
The upper chamber was entered from the parapet-walk through an arched gateway, and was well lighted on its three other sides by comparatively large windows, commanding wide views, and permitting the occupants to fire freely upon an attacking force. Flights of steps, similar to the ramps that led to the summit of the wall, conducted to the battlemented roof of the towers. There, the engines that hurled stones and Greek fire upon the enemy were placed;[[192]] and there, sentinels watched the western horizon, day and night, keeping themselves awake at night by shouting to one another along the line.[[193]]
The Inner Terrace.
Ὁ Περίβολος.[[194]]
The Inner Embankment, or Terrace, between the two walls was 50 to 64 feet broad. It was named the Peribolos, and accommodated the troops which defended the Outer Wall.
The Outer Wall.
Τὸ ἔξω τεῖχος:[[195]] τὸ ἔξω κάστρον:[[196]] τὸ μικρόν τεῖχος.[[197]]
The Outer Wall is from 2 to 6-½ feet thick, rising some 10 feet above the present level of the peribolos,[[198]] and about 27-½ feet above the present level of the terrace between the Outer Wall and the Moat. Its lower portion is a solid wall, which retains the embankment of the peribolos. The upper portion is built, for the most part, in arches, faced on the outer side with hewn blocks of stone, and is frequently supported by a series of arches in concrete, and sometimes, even, by two series of such arches, built against the rear. Besides strengthening the wall, these supporting arches permitted the construction of a battlement and parapet-walk on the summit, and, moreover, formed chambers, 8-½ feet deep, where troops could be quartered, or remain under cover, while engaging the enemy through the loophole in the western wall of each chamber.
The towers which flanked this wall[[199]] were much smaller than those of the inner line. They are some 30 to 35 feet high, with a projection of about 16 feet beyond the curtain-wall. They alternate with the great towers to the rear, thus putting both walls more completely under cover. It would seem as if the towers of this line were intended to be alternately square and crescent in shape, so frequently do these forms succeed one another. That this arrangement was not always maintained is due, probably, to changes made in the course of repairs.
Each tower had a chamber on the level of the peribolos, provided with small windows. The lower portion of most of the towers was generally a solid substructure; but in the case of square towers it was often a small chamber reached from the Outer Terrace through a small postern, and leading to a subterranean passage running towards the city. These passages may either have permitted secret communication with different parts of the fortifications, or formed channels in which water-pipes were laid.
Notwithstanding the comparative inferiority of the Outer Wall, it was an important line of defence, for it sheltered the troops which engaged the enemy at close quarters. Both in the siege of 1422,[[200]] and in that of 1453,[[201]] the most desperate fighting occurred here.