1022. Page 700.
1023. From Broken Bits of Byzantium. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
1024. Procopius, De Æd., i. c. iv.
1025. Procopius, De Æd., i. c. iv.
1026. Translation by R. Payne Smith, p. 179.
1027. De Cer., p. 601.
1028. Theophanes Cont., p. 22; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 49.
1029. Theophanes, p. 456. May David, however, in opposition to the view of Du Cange, adopted in the text, not have been Keeper of the Archives of SS. Sergius and Bacchus?
1030. Against this view it may be objected that the Anonymus ascribes the Palace of the Bucoleon to Theodosius II. But the authority of the Anonymus on points of history is not very great. Or, it may be held, that the palace was founded by Theodosius II., and that the name Bucoleon was given to it later.
1031. Zosimus, ii. pp. 92, 93; iii. pp. 140, 158.
1032. Procopius, De Æd. i. c. iv.
1033. John of Ephesus, translation by R. Payne Smith, pp. 179, 180.
1034. John of Antioch, Fragm. Hist. Græc., vol. iv. p. 107.
1035. Theophanes Cont., p. 447.
1036. Nicetas Chon., iii. p. 149.
1037. Leo Diac., iv. p. 63-65.
1038. Ibid., iv. p. 64; Cedrenus, vol. ii. 369, 370; Zonaras, xvi. c. xxvi. p. 123. The last author describes the work thus: Τῷ νῦν ὁρωμένῳ τείχει τὰ βασίλεια ἐστεφάνωσεν. Ἄκροπολιν δ᾽ οἱ πολίται τοῦτο καὶ τυραννεῖον καθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν γινόμενον ἔκρινον.
1039. Ibid., iv. p. 64, Περίβολον ἐκ τοῦ θατέρου μέρους τοῦ πρὸς θάλατταν ἐπικλινοῦς τῶν ἀνακτόρων τειχίζειν ἀρξάμενος, κατὰ θάτερον πρὸς θάλατταν συνεπέρανε, καὶ τεῖχος, τὸ νῦν ὁρώμενον ὑψηλόν τε καὶ ὀχυρὸν ἐδομήσατο, καὶ τὴν βασίλειον ἑστίαν ὡς ὑπετόπαζεν, ἠσφαλίσατο. Not, as Schlumberger supposes, from the Golden Horn to the Sea of Marmora, across the promontory (Un Empereur Byzantin au Dixième Siècle, p. 544).
1040. Lib. v. c. ix.; Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. cxxxvi.
1041. Le Palais Impérial de Consple., p. 210.
1042. Op. cit., p. 545.
1043. Still, the Palaces of the Bucoleon may have been protected by a special enclosure, although the historians do not refer to it particularly.
In the garden of a Turkish house to the north of the lower palace, a portion of a Byzantine wall, about 130 feet in length and 40 feet high, is found standing. It was discovered, when walls and houses in the neighbourhood were demolished for the construction of the Roumelian Railway, and was then pierced by a very large vaulted gateway, over 18 feet high, supported by four great marble columns. Gate and columns have disappeared. If produced southwards, the wall would join the tower at the eastern end of the lower palace; while if produced northwards, the wall would abut against the retaining wall of the terrace on which the Mosque of Sultan Achmet and its courtyards are built. The wall is pierced with loopholes, facing east, and behind them a passage runs along the rear of the wall, through arches occurring at intervals.
Dr. Paspates (p. 120) regarded the wall as part of the Peridromi of Marcian (see Labarte, Le Palais Impérial de Consple., p. 214), attached to the Great Palace. But this view of its character is not consistent with the fact that the loopholes look eastwards. That fact indicates that the wall belonged to the Palaces of the Bucoleon which stood to the rear. The gate in the wall, likewise, shows that these palaces were separated from the area of the Great Palace. May the wall not have turned westwards, at its present northern extremity, to protect the Palaces of the Bucoleon along the north, and then southwards, to connect with the city wall at Tchatlady Kapou, and protect the palaces on the west? This, with the city wall along the southern front of the palaces, would put them within a fortified enclosure of their own.
1044. Theophanes Cont., p. 393.
1045. Leo Diaconus, v. p. 87; Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 375.
1046. Nicetas Chon., pp. 169, 170.
1047. Anna Comn., iii. p. 137.
1048. Lib. xx. c. 23.
1049. Conquête de Consple., c. li. E.
1050. Ibid., c. lv.
1051. Conquête de Consple., c. li.
1052. Ibid., c. liii.
1053. Ibid., c. lv.
1054. Ville-Hardouin, c. lviii.
1055. Ibid., c. cvi.
1056. Ibid., c. liii., lv.
1057. Ibid., c. lv. The position assigned by Labarte to the Palace of Bucoleon, at Ahour Kapoussi, explains his interpretation of the statements of Ville-Hardouin.
1058. Le Palais Impérial de Consple., p. 201. Labarte quotes Luitprandi Antapodosis, lib. v. s. 21, ap. Pertz., Mon. Germ. Hist., t. v. p. 333.
1059. Theophanes Cont., p. 393.
1060. De Cer., p. 586.
1061. Page 253.
1062. Notitia, ad Reg. III.
1063. Theod. Cod., De Calcis Coctor.
1064. Theophanes, p. 284.
1065. Nicetas Chon., p. 585.
1066. De Top. CP., ii. c. xv.
1067. Notitia, ad Reg. III.; Nicetas Chon., p. 585; Leo Diaconus, v. pp. 83, 84.
1068. Page 135. Cf. Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 685.
1069. Pages 284, 564, Εἰς τὸν Ἰουλιανοῦ τῆς Σοφίας λεγόμενον λιμένα: ἐν τῷ Ἰουλιανισίῳ λιμένι τῆς Σοφίας.
1070. Page 700.
1071. Fragm. Hist. Græc., v. p. 38.
1072. Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 712.
1073. Paschal Chron., pp. 622, 700; Theophanes, pp. 284, 364, 564.
1074. Leo Gramm., p. 135; Theophanes, p. 564.
1075. Notitia ad Reg. III.; Leo Diaconus, v. pp. 83, 84.
1076. Zosimus, p. 139; Evagrius, ii. c. xiii.; Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 611.
1077. Zonaras, xiv. c. i. p. 1205.
1078. Zosimus, pp. 139, 140.
1079. Zosimus, ut supra.
1080. Malalas, p. 479.
1081. See Epistle 58.
1082. Marcellinus Comes, “Portus Juliani, undis suis rotalibus exhaustus cœno effoso purgatus est;” Suidas, ad Anastasium.
1083. The plural form of the name (τῶν Σοφιῶν) may allude to the two divisions of the harbour. See Mordtmann, p. 55: “La configuration actuelle permet encore de distinguer un port intérieur et un port extérieur, séparés par une étroite digne.”
1084. Leo Gramm., p. 135; Anonymus, iii. p. 45.
1085. Anonymus, ii. p. 30.
1086. Menæa, January 27. This point was known also as ἐν τῷ μούλῳ τοῦ ἁγίου Θωμᾶ (Theophanes, p. 673).
1087. Paschal Chron., p. 622.
1088. Ibid., p. 700.
1089. Ibid., ut supra.
1090. Theophanes, p. 564.
1091. Evagrius, ii. c. xiii.
1092. Nicetas Chon., p. 733.
1093. Leo Diaconus, v. pp. 83, 84.
1094. Nicetas Chon., p. 585.
1095. Procopius, De Æd., i. c. iv.
1096. Theophanes, p. 385.
1097. Anonymus, iii. p. 46.
1098. Codinus, p. 105.
1099. Nicetas Chon., p. 733; Michael Psellus (Sathas, Bibl. Græc. Med. Ævi., vol. v. p. 214).
1100. Lib. iii. p. 45.
1101. Lib. ii. p. 34.
1102. Pachymeres, vol. i. pp. 365, 366.
1104. Itinéraires Russes en Orient, pp. 120, 121.
1105. Leunclavius, Pand. Hist. Turc., s. 200, is the first writer after the Conquest who refers to it: “Ipsa porta (i.e. Contoscalion) velut intra sinum quemdam abscedit versus unbem, et ab altera parte proximum sibi portum habet, pro triremibus, in mare se porrigentem et muris circumdatum.” The silence of Gyllius regarding the Kontoscalion is strange, unless he has confounded it with Kadriga Limani.
1106. Vol. i. p. 365.
1107. Liber Insularum Archipelagi, p. 121. “Propinqua huic (Vlanga) Condoscali vel Arsena restat.”
1108. Lib. xvii. p. 854. Cf. Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 72, 74.
1109. In a copy of the Anonymus, Codex Colbertinus, made in the thirteenth century, the copyist, under the heading Περὶ τὸν Σοφιανῶν λιμένα, adds the note that the harbour εἰς τὸ Κοντοσκάλον was constructed by Justin, and had been deepened and surrounded by a remarkable enclosure in his own day by Andronicus Comnenus Palæologus. See Banduri, Imperium Orientale, vol. ii. pp. 678-680. The copyist is at fault in identifying the Harbour of Sophia with the Kontoscalion, which was a historical question, but he may be trusted in regard to the restoration of the Kontoscalion, which was a contemporary event.
1110. Vol. i. p. 365.
1112. Ad Reg. XII.
1113. Anonymus, iii. p. 46.
1114. Ibid., p. 47.
1115. Lib. iii. p. 46; cf. ibid., p. 45.
1116. Anonymus, iii. p. 46.
1117. Anonymus, iii. p. 46.
1118. From Broken Bits of Byzantium. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
1119. Lib. iii. p. 46.
1120. Gyllius, De Top. CP., iii. c. viii.; iv. c. viii. According to this authority the circuit of the harbour was over a mile; the mole being 600 paces long and 12 feet broad.
1121. Gyllius, ut supra. “Cujus ostium vergebat ad solis ortum æstivum, a quo moles extendebatur ad occasum æstivum, supra quam nunc muri adstricti existunt.”
“In faucibus portus, adhuc navium capacibus, extra murum urbis, etiamnum videtur turris undique mari circumdata, et saxa, reliquæ ruinarum.”
Grelot, in his Relation Nouvelle d’un Voyage de Constantinople, pp. 79, 80, refers to the tower thus (to quote the quaint English translation of his work by J. Philips, London, 1683, p. 68): “Going by sea from the Seven Towers to the Seraglio, you meet with a square tower upon the left hand, that stands in the sea, distant from the city wall about twenty paces. The inhabitants of the country call it Belisarius Tower, affirming that it was in this tower where that great and famous commander, for the recompense of all those signal services which he had done the Emperor Justinian, in subduing his enemies, as well in Asia and Africa as in Europe, being despoyled of all his estate and honour, and reduced to the extremity of necessity, after he had endured putting out both his eyes, was at length shut up and forced for his subsistence to hang out a bag from the grate of his chamber, and cry to the passengers, ‘Give poor Belisarius a farthing, whom envy and no crime has deprived of his eyes.’ Near to the place where stands this tower was formerly the harbour where Theodosius, Arcadius, and their successors kept their galleys.”
1122. From Broken Bits of Byzantium. (By kind permission of Mrs. Walker.)
1123. Nicetas Chon., p. 733.
1124. Nicetas Chon., p. 170.
1125. Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365; Actus Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, year 1400, p. 394, where a vivid description of the site of the old harbour is given: Κῆπος περὶ τὸν Βλάγκαν, ἔξω που καὶ σύνεγγυς τοῦ τείχους τῆς πόλεως.
1126. Anonymus, iii. p. 47; Theophanes, p. 723.
1127. Guillelmus Bibliothecarius.
1128. Anonymus, iii. p. 47.
1129. Ibid. p. 48.
1130. Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., p. 560.
1131. Page 59.
1132. Ducas, p. 283.
1133. Ibid., ut supra.
1134. Constant. Porphyr., De Cer., pp. 438, 499, 504.
1135. Ducas, pp. 268, 269. The principal part of the engagement took place off the entrance to the Bosporus; for Leonard of Scio (p. 931) says that the Sultan viewed the contest from the hill of Pera; “ex Colle Perensi, fortunæ expectans eventum.”
1136. Act II.
1137. Vol. i. p. 679.
1138. Page 364.
1139. Ibid., ut supra.
1140. Ibid., ut supra.
1141. Du Cange, Constantinopolis Christiana, ii. p. 169.
1142. John of Antioch, Fragm. Hist. Græc., vol. v. p. 38. Ἐπιτρέπει φυλάττεσθαι ἐκ τῶν Πρασίνων τὸν λιμένα τοῦ Καισαρείου καὶ τὸν Σοφίας, τοὺς δὲ Βενετοὺς τὰ ἐπὶ Ὁρμίσδου. Cf. Paschal Chron., p. 700.
1143. Theophanes, p. 541, who uses the expression, Ἐν τῷ Προκλιανισίῳ τῷ Καισαρίου λιμένι. What does Προκλιανισίῳ mean?
1144. Theophanes Cont., p. 324; Synaxaria, May 7, July 21.
1145. Lib. iv. pp. 165, 212, 220, 284.
1146. Ibid., p. 165.
1147. Ibid., p. 290.
1148. Constantinopolis Christiana, i. p. 56.
1149. Ibid., iv. p. 118.
1150. Itinéraires Russes en Orient, p. 106. Immediately after speaking of the Church of St. Acacius, he proceeds to say, “Au pied de la montagne, se trouve l’eglise des saints Serge et Bacchus.” In the Latin version given in Riant’s Exuviæ CP., ii. pp. 228, 229, the passage is rendered, “Ex altera parte monticuli posita est Ecclesia SS. Sergii et Bacchi.”
1151. Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 218-234.
1152. Ibid., p. 220.
1153. But for the statement of Nicephorus Gregoras (xxvi. p. 87), one would suppose that the scene of this amphibious struggle was among the reefs and shoals off the shore between Kadikeui and Scutari. But Nicephorus says explicitly that the conflict took place off the Diplokionion (Beshiktash), ὅπη κίονες διπλοῖ σχῆμα τάφου τινὸς ἀνέχοντες ἵστανται. According to Gyllius, the sea off the shore between Beshiktash and Galata was in his day shallow and full of rocks. De Bosporo Thracio, ii. c. 8, “Alluitur mari vadoso, crebris petris supra aquam eminentibus inculcato.” The Turkish names of two points on this shore, Beshiktash, Cabatash, refer to these rocks.
1154. Lib. xxvi. pp. 85-92.
1155. Ibid., pp. 86, 90; cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. 220.
1156. Lib. xiv. p. 711; cf. Theophanes Cont., p. 614.
1157. Lib. ix. p. 460.
1158. Lib. xxvi. p. 87.
1159. Lib. xxvi. p. 87.
1160. Ibid., p. 90.
1161. Fragm. Hist. Græc., iv. p. 38.
1162. Anonymus, iii. p. 46.
1163. Fragm. Hist. Græc., iv. p. 38; Theophanes, p. 541.
1165. Theophanes, p. 364.
1166. Actus Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, year 1400, p. 394; Bondelmontius, “In quibus mœnibus est campus ab extra, et olim portus Vlanga.” See above, p. 300, ref. 1.
1167. The indications for the site of the Church of St. Acacius are: (1) It was ἐν Ἑπτασκάλω (Anonymus, ii. p. 33); (2) near the Church of St. Metrophanes (Synaxaria, June 4; Itinéraires Russes en Orient, p. 106); (3) near the Residence of Moselè (Μωσηλὲ), and the monument named the Christocamaron (Χριστοκάμαρον), after a gilt Icon of Christ upon it (Anonymus, ii. p. 38). (4) The Christocamaron, it is supposed, was the same as the Chrysocamaron (Χρυσοκάμαρον: Anonymus, iii. p. 48). Supporters of that identity are Banduri (Imp. Orient., ii. p. 688) and Dr. Mordtmann (p. 59). (5) The Chrysocamaron stood to the rear of the Myrelaion (Anonymus, iii. p. 48). (6) The Myrelaion was the church, now the Mosque Boudroum Djamissi (Gyllius, De Top. CP., iii. c. 8; Patriarch Constantius, Ancient and Modern Consple., p. 75). (7) Therefore, the Church of St. Acacius was situated to the rear, or to the east of Boudroum Djamissi. There are two weak points in this chain of arguments; Codinus (pp. 107, 108) distinguishes the two monuments which are identified above, and speaks of two places in Constantinople that were named Myrelaion.
1168. He refers to the Kontoscalion in the Fourth Book of his work, pp. 72, 74; and to the Neorion at the Heptascalon in the same Book, pp. 165, 212, 220, 284.
1169. Codinus, p. 72.