[1] To these must now be added Diehl’s beautifully illustrated work, Justinien et la civilization Byzantine au VIe siècle, Paris, 1901. The leading motive is that of art, and it is replete with interesting details, but the conception is too narrow to allow of its fully representing the age to a modern reader.
[2] Radium was unknown in 1901 when the above was written.
[3] In presenting this history to the modern reader I shall not imitate the example of those mediaeval stage-managers, who, in order to indicate the scenery of the play, were content to exhibit a placard such as “This is a street,” “This is a wood,” etc. On the contrary, on each occasion that the scene shifts in this drama of real life, I shall describe the locality of the events at a length proportionate to their importance.
[4] Schliemann found neolithic remains at Hissarlik, not far off (Ilios, p. 236, 1880).
[5] In the sixteenth century, as we are told by Gyllius (Top. CP., iv, 11), the Greeks of Stamboul were utterly oblivious of the history of their country and of the suggestiveness of the remains which lay around them. But an awakening has now taken place and the modern Greeks are among the most ardent in the pursuit of archaeological knowledge. They have even revived the language of Attica for literary purposes, and it may be said that an Athenian of the age of Pericles could read with facility the works now issued from the Greek press of Athens or of Constantinople—a unique example, I should think, in the history of philology. Through Paspates (Βυζαντινὰ Ανάκτορα, pp. 95, 140), we are made aware of the difficulties the topographical student has to encounter in the Ottoman capital, where an intruding Giaour is sure to be assailed in the more sequestered Turkish quarters with abuse and missiles on the part of men, women, and children.
[6] Alluded to by both Homer and Hesiod (Odyss., xii, 69; Theog., 992). It was one of those unknown countries which, as Plutarch remarks (Theseus, 1), were looked on as a fitting scene for mythical events.
[7] Pindar, Pythia, iv, 362; P. Mela, i, 19, etc.
[8] Of these Sinope claimed to be the eldest, and honoured the Argonauts as its founders (Strabo, xii, 3).
[9] Ibid., vii, 6.
[10] Herodotus, iv, 144.
[11] Pliny, Hist. Nat., iv, 18 [11]. Ausonius compares Lygos to the Byrsa of Carthage (De Clar. Urb., 2).
[12] Not a Greek name; most likely that of a local chief.
[13] According to the Chronicon of Eusebius, Chalcedon was founded in Olymp. 26, 4, and Byzantium in Olymp. 30, 2, or 673, 659 B.C. In modern works of reference the dates 684, 667 seem to be most generally accepted. I pass over the legends associated with this foundation—the divine birth of Byzas; the oracle telling the emigrants to build opposite the city of the blind; another, which led the Argives (who were also concerned in the early history of Byzantium) to choose the confluence of the Cydarus and Barbyses, at the extremity of the Golden Horn, whence they were directed to the right spot by birds, who flew away with parts of their sacrifice—inventions or hearsay of later times, when the real circumstances were forgotten (see Strabo, vii, 6; Hesychius Miles, De Orig. CP., and others), all authors of comparatively late date. Herodotus (iv, 144), the nearest to the events (c. 450 B.C.), makes the plain statement that the Persian general Megabyzus said the Chalcedonians must have been blind when they overlooked the site of Byzantium.
[14] The remains of a “cyclopean” wall (Paspates, Βυζαντινὰ Ανάκτορα, p. 24), built with blocks of stone (some ten feet long?) probably belonged to old Byzantium, respecting which it is only certainly known that it stood at the north-east extremity of the promontory (Zosimus, ii, 30; Codinus, p. 24; with Mordtmann’s Map, etc.). It can scarcely be doubted that the site of the Hippodrome was outside the original walls, and thus we have a limit on the land side. It may be assumed that the so-called first hill formed an acropolis, round which there was an external wall inclosing the main part of the town (Xenophon, Anabasis, vii, 1, etc.). Doubtless the citadel covered no great area, and the city walls were kept close to the water for as long a distance as possible to limit the extent of investment in a siege.
[15] Polybius, iv, 38, 45, etc. It was abolished after a war with Rhodes, 219 B.C.
[16] Tacitus, Annal., xii, 63, and commentators. Strabo, ii, 6; Pliny, Hist. Nat., ix, 20 [15]. They are mostly tunny fish, a large kind of mackerel. In the time of Gyllius, women and children caught them simply by letting down baskets into the water (De Top. CP. pref.; so also Busbecq). Grosvenor, a resident, mentions that seventy sorts of fish are found in the sea about the city (Constantinople, 1895, ii, p. 576.)
[17] Strabo proves that the gulf was called the Horn, Pliny that the Horn was Golden (the promontory in his view), Dionysius Byzant. (Gyllius, De Bosp. Thrac., i, 5), that in the second century the inlet was named Golden Horn. Hesychius (loc. cit.) and Procopius (De Aedific., i, 5) say that Ceras was from Ceroessa, mother of Byzas.
[18] Dionys. Byz. in Gyllius, De Top. CP., i, 2. The statement is vague and can only be accepted with some modification in view of other descriptions.
[19] Livy, xxxii, 33.
[20] Phylarchus in Athenaeus, vi, 101.
[21] See Müller’s Dorians, ii, 177.
[22] Hesychius, loc. cit.; Diodorus Sic., xvi, 77, etc.
[23] Polybius, iv, 46, etc.
[24] Cicero, Orat. de Prov. Consular., 3.
[25] Tacitus, loc. cit.; Pliny, Epist. to Trajan, 52.
[26] Suetonius, Vespasian, 8.
[27] Dion Cassius, 10, 14. I have combined and condensed the separate passages dealing with the subject.
[28] Herodian, iii, 1; Pausanias, iv, 31. Walls of this kind were built without cement, so that the joinings were hardly perceptible.
[29] At an earlier period it seems that there was only one harbour (Xenophon, Anabasis, vii, 1; Plutarch, Alcibiades, 31).
[30] A not uncommon acoustic phenomenon, such as occurs in the so-called “Ear [prison] of Dionysius” at Syracuse, etc. It can be credited without seeking for a mythical explanation.
[31] Suidas, sb. Severus; Herodian, iii, 7.
[32] The general details are from Dion Cassius, lxxiv, 12-14.
[33] Suidas, loc. cit.; Jn. Malala, xii, p. 291; Chron. Paschale, i, p. 495.
[34] Eustathius ad Dionys., Perieg. 804; Codinus, p. 13.
[35] Hist. August. Caracalla, 1. He is represented as a boy interceding with his father.
[36] Hist. August. Gallienus, 6, 13, etc.; Claudius, 9; Zosimus, i, 34, etc.; Aurelius Victor, De Caesar., xxxiii, etc. There is much to support the views in the text, which reconcile the somewhat discrepant statements of Dion and Herodian with those of later writers. The Goths seem to have been in possession of Byzantium—therefore it was unfortified (Zosimus, i, 34; Syncellus, i, p. 717). More than a century later, Fritigern was “at peace with stone walls” (Ammianus, xxxi, 6). I apply the description of Zosimus (ii, 30) to this wall of Gallienus (so to call it), which probably included a larger area, taking in the Hippodrome and other buildings of Severus.
[37] The tops of the various hills can now be distinguished by the presence of the following well-known buildings: 1. St. Sophia; 2. Burnt Pillar; 3. Seraskier’s Tower; 4. Mosque of Mohammed II; 5. Mosque of Selim; 6. Mosque of Mihrimah (Gate of Adrianople); 7. Seven Towers (south-west extremity). The highest point in the city is the summit of the sixth hill, 291 ft. (Grosvenor).
[38] The last reach of the Barbyses runs through a Turkish pleasure ground and is well known locally as the “Sweet Waters of Europe.”
[39] Procopius, De Aedific., i, 11.
[40] Notwithstanding the southerliness of these regions, natives of the Levant have always been well acquainted with frost and snow. Thus wintry weather is a favourite theme with Homer:
[41] His reasons for this step can only be surmised. A political motive is scarcely suggested. A second capital cannot have been required to maintain what Rome had conquered, and was soon made an excuse for dissolving the unity of the Empire. His nascent zeal for Christianity, by which he incurred unpopularity at pagan Rome, has been supposed to have prejudiced him against the old capital, and moved him to build another in which the new religion should reign supreme, but these opinions emanate only from writers actuated more or less by bigotry. Although he virtually presided at the Council of Nice and accepted baptism on his death-bed, that he was ever a Christian by conviction is altogether doubtful. For a résumé see Boissier, Revue des Deux Mondes, July, 1886; also Burchardt’s Constantine.
[42] For the founding of Constantinople see Gyllius (De Topogr. CP., i, 3), but especially Ducange (CP. Christiana, i, p. 23 et seq.), who has brought together a large number of passages from early and late writers. According to a nameless author (Muller, Frag. Hist., iv, p. 199), Constantine was at one time in the habit of exclaiming: “My Rome is Sardica.” He was born and bred in the East, and hence all his tastes would naturally lead him to settle on that side of the Empire.
[43] It may have been earlier. Petavius (in Ducange) fixes this date, Baronius makes it 325 (c. 95).
[44] Plutarch, De Defect. Orac. He explains it by the death of the daemons who managed them. These semi-divinities, though long-lived, were not immortal.
[45] See Ducange, loc. cit., p. 24.
[46] Philostorgius, ii, 9. Copied or repeated with embellishment, but not corroborated, by later writers, as Nicephorus Cal., viii, 4; Anon. (Banduri), p. 15; Codinus, p. 75. Eusebius is silent where we should expect him to be explicit. The allusion in Cod. Theod., XIII, v, 7, seems to be merely a pious expression.
[47] The result of Diocletian’s persecution must have shown every penetrating spirit that Christianity had “come to stay”: the numerous converts of the better classes were nearly all fanatics compared with Pagans of the same class, who were languid and indifferent about religion. He indulged both parties from time to time.
[48] Zosimus, ii, 30, Anon. Patria (Banduri, p. 4), and indications in Notitia Utriusque Imperii, etc., in which the length of Constantine’s city is put down at 14,705 Roman feet. From Un Kapani on the Golden Horn (near old bridge) it swept round the mosque of Mohammed II, passed that of Exi Mermer, and turned south-east so as to strike the sea near Et Jemes, north-east of Sand-gate. I am describing the imaginary line drawn by Mordtmann (Esquisses topogr. de CP., 1891), who has given us a critical map without a scale to measure it by. It was not finished till after Constantine’s death, Julian, Orat., i, p. 41, 1696.
[49] Anon. (Banduri) and Codinus passim; Eusebius, Vit. Constant., iii, 54, etc.; Jerome, Chron., viii, p. 678 (Migne).
[50] Zosimus, ii, 31.
[51] Or Florentia (blooming). Jn. Malala, xiii, p. 320, etc. Everything was done in imitation of Rome, which, as John Lydus tells us (De Mens., iv, 50), had three names, mystic, sacerdotal, and political—Amor, Flora, Rome.
[52] Cedrenus, i, p. 495; Zonaras, xiii, 3. Eusebius knows nothing of it. See Ducange’s collection of authorities (CP. Christ., i, p. 24), all late, e.g., Phrantzes, iii, 6.
[53] Anon. (Banduri), p. 5; Codinus, p. 20. The stories of these writers do not deserve much credit. Glycas, however, accepts the tale and is a sounder authority, iv, p. 463. “It is well known that the flower of your nobility was translated to the royal city of the East,” said Frederic Barbarossa, addressing the Roman Senate in 1155 (Otto Frising. Muratori, Rer. Ital. Script., vi, 721).
[54] Eunapius in Aedesius. Burchardt jeers at C. and his new citizens.
[55] Idatius, Descript. Consul. (Migne, S. L., li, 908). The accepted date.
[56] Jn. Lydus, De Mensibus, iv, 2. “A bloodless sacrifice” (Jn. Malala, p. 320). According to later writers (Anon., Banduri, etc.) the “Kyrie Eleison” was sung, a statement we can easily disbelieve.
[57] Jn. Malala, xiii, p. 321; Chron. Paschal., i, p. 529.
[58] Anon. (Banduri), p. 4. Ibid. (Papias), p. 84.
[59] In cloaks and Byzantine buskins, “chlaenis et campagis” (Κάμπαγος or κομβαῶν). For the latter see Daremberg and Saglio, Dict. Antiq., sb. voc. They covered the toe and heel, leaving the instep bare to the ground.
[60] Jn. Malala and Chron. Paschal., loc. cit., etc.
[61] M. Glycas, iv, p. 463. Eusebius does not describe the founding of CP., doubtless because he saw nothing in it pertinent to Christian piety, of which only he professes to treat (τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεοφιλῆ), Vit. Const., i, 11.
[62] The name occurs in Cod. Theod. from 323 onwards, but also as a palpable error at an earlier date. See Haenel’s Chronological Index. It is thought coins stamped CP. were issued as early as 325 (Smith, Dict. Christ. Biog., i, p. 631). Had Constantine fixed on any other place it is probable that “New Rome” would have passed into currency as easily as “New York.” But the Greeks did not call their city Constantinople till later centuries. Thus with Procopius, the chief writer of the sixth century, it is always still Byzantium.
[63] Socrates, i, 16; Sozomen, ii, 3; Cod. Theod., XIV, xiii, etc.
[64] Socrates, loc. cit.
[65] Anon. Valesii, 30.
[66] The last Roman emperor, in name only, Romulus Augustulus, abdicated in 476, but long before that date the Empire had been gradually falling to pieces. In 410 Alaric sacked Rome; by 419 the Goths had settled in the south of France and the Vandals had appropriated Spain; in 439 Genseric took possession of Africa; in 446 Britain was abandoned; in 455 Rome was again sacked (by Genseric), etc.
[67] Ciampini (De Sacr. Aedific., a C. Mag., etc., Rome, 1693), enumerates twenty-seven. Eusebius says many (Vit. C., iii, 48). It is curious, however, that the dialogue Philopatris (in Lucian) gives an impression that in or after 363 (Gesner’s date, formerly accepted) churches were so few and inconspicuous that the bulk of the population knew nothing about them. The Notitia, again, half a century later, reckons only fourteen within the city proper, including Sycae (Galata). Probably, therefore, these twenty-seven churches attributed to Constantine are mostly suppositious, for even in the reign of Arcadius it would seem that there were not many more than half that number.
[68] Socrates, i, 16. Two only, as if Constantine had built no more.
[69] Chron. Paschal., i, p. 531.
[70] Eusebius, iv, 58. Op. cit.
[71] Anon. (Banduri), p. 45; Codinus, p. 72.
[72] Hesychius, op. cit., 15 (Codinus, p. 6).
[73] Cicero (Orat. De Prov. Consul., 4) says that Byzantium was “refertissimam atque ornatissimam signis,” a statement which doubtless applies chiefly to works of art preserved in temples. The buildings would remain and be restored, notwithstanding the many vicissitudes through which the town passed. The Anon. (Banduri, p. 2) says that ruins of a temple of Zeus, columns and arches, were still seen on the Acropolis (first hill) in the twelfth century.
[74] Eunapius, loc. cit., Themistius, Orats., Paris, 1684, pp. 182, 223, “equal to Rome”; Sozomen, “more populous than Rome”; Novel lxxx forbids the crowding of provincials to CP.
[75] Cod. Theod., XV, i. 51; Socrates, vii, 1, etc.
[76] Marcellinus, Chron. (Migne, li, 927). See also Evagrius, i, 17, and Ducange, op. cit., i, p. 38.
[77] Priscus, Hist. Goth., p. 168. In 433.
[78] The work of Cyrus is not precisely defined by the Byzantine historians, but Déthier (Der Bosph. u. CP., 1873, pp. 12, 50) and Mordtmann (op. cit., p. 11) take this view. The words of one inscription, “he built a wall to a wall” (ἐδείματο τείχεϊ τεῖχος), support the theory. The walls of Theodosius were afterwards called the “new walls” (Cod. Just., I, ii, 18; Novel lix, 5, etc.).
[79] On the Porta Rhegii or Melandesia, about halfway across. See Paspates (Βυζαντιναὶ Μελέται, pp. 47, 50). They are preserved in the Anthol. Graec. (Planudes), iv. 28. The gate called Xylocercus, with its inscription, has disappeared.
[80] Marcellinus, loc. cit.; Zonaras, xiii, 22; Nicephorus Cal., xiv, 1, confuses the work of the two men. The Anon. Patria (Banduri), p. 20, says that the two factions of the circus, each containing eight thousand men, were employed on the work. Beginning at either end, they met centrally at a gate hence called “of many men” (Polyandra). Mordtmann (op. cit., p. 28) wholly rejects this tale, as it does not fit in with some of his identifications. It would, however, be well suited to the P. Rhegii, where the existing inscriptions are found. Some local knowledge must be conceded to an author of the twelfth century, who probably lived on the spot. Wall-building was a duty of the factions.
[81] Dionysius caused the Syracusans to build the wall of Epipolae, of about the same length, in twenty days (Diod. Sic., xiv, 18). The Peloponnesians built a wall across the isthmus against Xerxes in a short time (Herodotus, viii, 71, etc.). There was much extemporary wall-building at Syracuse during the siege by Nicias (Thucydides, vi, 97, etc.). The wall of Crassus against Spartacus was nearly forty miles long (Plutarch, Crassus). Except the first, however, these were more or less temporary structures. Very substantial extempore walls are frequently mentioned by both Greek and Latin historians as having been erected during sieges, etc. See especially Caesar (i, 8) and Thucydides (iii, 21, Siege of Plataea).
[82] The earliest and most reliable source is the Notitia Dignitatis utriusque Imperii, etc., which dates from the time of Arcadius. To this work is prefixed a short description of Rome and CP., which enumerates the chief buildings, the number of streets, etc., in each division of those cities. Next we have the Aedificia of Procopius, the matter of which, however, does not come within the scope of the present chapter. A gap of six centuries now occurs, which can only be filled by allusions to be found in general and church historians, patristic literature, etc. We then come to a considerable work, the Anonymous, edited by A. Banduri (Venice, 1729), a medley of semi-historical and topographical information, often erroneous, ascribed to the twelfth century. A second edition of this work, introduced by the Byzantine fragment of Hesychius of Miletus, passes under the name of Geo. Codinus, who wrote about 1460. Here we draw the line between mediaeval and modern authors, and we have next the Topography of CP., by P. Gyllius, a Frenchman, who wrote on the spot about a century after the Turkish conquest. His Thracian Bosphorus, which preserves much of the lost Dionysius of Byzantium, is also valuable. Later still comes the monumental CP. Christiana of Ducange (Paris, 1680), a mine of research, by one of those almost mediaeval scholars, who spent their lives in a library. Of contemporary treatises, which are numerous and bulky, I will only mention the following, from which I have derived most assistance: J. Labarte, Le Palais Impériale de CP., Paris, 1871; A. G. Paspates, Βυζαντιναὶ Μελέται, CP., 1877, and Βυζαντινα Ανάκτορα, Athens, 1885; W. Mordtmann, Esquisses topographiques de CP., Lille, 1891. Among books intended less for the archaeologist than for popular perusal, the only one worthy of special mention is Constantinople, Lond., 1895, by E. A. Grosvenor, a fine work, admirably illustrated, but the author relies too implicitly on Paspates, and he has emasculated his book for literary purposes by omitting references to authorities. The book also contains several absurd mistakes, e.g., “The careful historian who ... wrote under the name of Anonymos,” etc., p. 313. To the above must now be added the important, Byzantine CP., the Walls, by Van Millingen, Lond., 1899, a sound and critical work. Another beautiful work has also been recently issued, viz., Beylié, L’Habitation byzantine, Grenoble, 1902. A wealth of authentic illustrations renders it extremely valuable for the study of the subject. This chapter was begun in 1896, and in the meantime scholars have not been idle. As the Bonn Codinus gives inter-textually all the passages of the anonymous Patria which differ, as well as an appendix of anonymous archaeological tracts, I shall in future, for the sake of brevity, refer to the whole as Codinus simply in that edition.
[83] That is the pierced dome elevated to a great height on pendentives. The splendid dome of the Pantheon dates, of course, from Hadrian, but the invention of the modern cupola may fairly be assigned to the Byzantines. The conception, however, had to be completed by raising it still higher on a tour de dome, the first example of which is St. Augustine’s, Rome (1483); see Agincourt, Hist. of Art, i, 67.
[84] Procopius, De Aedific., i, 3; Nicephorus Cal., xv, 25.
[85] Κυκλόβιον or στρογγύλον; Procopius, ibid., iv, 8. Theophanes, an. 6165, p. 541, etc. Possibly it looked like the tomb of Caecilia Metella or a Martello Tower and was the prototype of the castle shown on the old maps as the “Grand Turk’s Treasure-house,” built in 1458 by Mohammed II within his fortress of the Seven Towers; Map by Caedicius, CP., 1889; Ducas, p. 317; Laonicus, x, p. 529. Most likely, however, it was a wall uniting five towers in a round. The Cyclobion is attributed to Zeno, about 480; Byzantios, Κωνσταντινούπολις, i, 312; Grosvenor, op. cit., p. 596.
[86] Grosvenor calls the existing road the remains of Justinian’s “once well-paved triumphal way,” I have found no corroboration of this assertion. From Constant. Porph. (De Cer. Aul. Byz., i, 18, 96, etc.), I conclude there was no continuous road here for many centuries afterwards. Paspates (op. cit., p. 13) thinks the last passage alludes to it as πλακωτῆ, but this is evidently the highway to Rhegium, etc. (Procop., De Aedific., iv, 8).
[87] Cod. VIII, x, 10; Procopius, De Bel. Pers., i, 25; Cinnamus, ii, 14; Anthol. (Planudes), iv, 15, etc.
[88] This fount is still extant and accessible beneath the Greek church of Baloukli (Grosvenor, op. cit., p. 485, etc.).
[89] Gyllius (Dionys. Byz.), De Bosp. Thrac., ii, 2; De Topog. CP., iv, 5.
[90] Suidas, sub Anast. Mordtmann (op. cit., p. 33), thinks the ruins existing at Tekfur Serai may represent the original Palace of Blachernae, the basement, at least. It is commonly called the palace of Constantine, etc., but Van Millingen proves it to be a late erection.
[91] Zonaras, xiii, 24; Codin., p. 95, etc.
[92] Const. Porph., De Cer. Aul. Byz., ii, 12. Still frequented (Paspates, op. cit., p. 390, etc.).
[93] To “a man’s height” (Paspates).
[94] Paspates has all the credit of solving the problem of this moat (op. cit., p. 7, etc.). It has been maintained that it was a dry moat, owing to the physical impossibility of the sea flowing into it. The words of Chrysoloras (Migne, Ser. Grk., vol. 156, etc.) are alone sufficient to dispose of this error.
[95] This space seems to have been called the παρατείχιον; Const. Porph., loc. cit.; or rather, perhaps, the πρωτείχισμα; see the Anon., Στρατηγική (Koechly, etc.), 12 (c. 550). Paspates calls it the προτείχιον, “because,” says he, “I have found no name for it in the Byzantine historians.”
[96] Ducas, 39, etc.; Paspates, op. cit., p. 6. It is, however, the usual word for the walls of a city. Μεσοτείχιον and σταύρωμα are more definite; Critobulos, i, 60. Paspates states that the ground here has been raised six feet above its ancient level.
[97] Déthier, Nouv. recherch. à CP., 1867, p. 20; cf. Vegetius, iv, 1, 2, 3, etc. These walls have much similarity to the agger of Servius Tullius, but in the latter case the great wall forms the inner boundary of the trench and the lesser wall, retaining the excavated earth, was about fifty feet behind in the city. See Middleton’s Ancient Rome, etc.
[98] Paspates, op. cit., p. 17.
[99] Ibid., Grosvenor, op. cit., p. 584.
[100] Paspates, op. cit., p. 10. See also Texier and Pullan, Architect. Byzant., Lond., 1864, pp. 24, 56, for diagrams illustrating walls of the period. Some, unlike the wall of CP., had continuous galleries in the interior. The towers were also used for quartering soldiers when troops were massed in the vicinity of the city (Cod. Theod., VII, viii, 13). There were about one hundred and two of the great, and ninety of the small ones. Owners of land through which the new wall passed had also reversionary rights to make use of the towers (Ibid., XV, i, 51).
[101] The Roman plan of filling an outer shell with rubble and concrete was adopted (Grosvenor, loc. cit.). At present the walls appear as a heterogeneous mass of stone and brick, showing that they have been repaired hurriedly numbers of times. But little is left of the fifth century structure. Some parts, better preserved, exhibit alternate courses of stone and brick, a favourite style of building with the Byzantines, but not dating further back than the seventh century (Texier and Pullan, op. cit., p. 165).
[102] Paspates (op. cit., p. 14), to whom much more than to historical indications we are indebted for our knowledge of these walls.
[103] Those who have a topographical acquaintance with Stamboul are aware that at about three-quarters of a mile from the Golden Horn the wall turns abruptly to the west and makes a circuit as if to include a supplementary area of ground. It is well understood that this part, which is single for the most part and without a moat, but by compensation on a still more colossal scale, is the work of later emperors—Heraclius, Leo Armenius, Manuel Comnenus, and Isaac Angelus (600 to 1200). All traces of the wall of Theodosius, which ran inside, have disappeared, according to Paspates, but Mordtmann thinks he can recognize certain ruined portions (op. cit., p. 11 and Map).
[104] Or from Charisius, one of the masters of the works (Codin., p. 110).
[105] It appears that Anthemius in 413 (Cod. Theod., XV, i, 51) only raised the great wall, and that in 447, when fifty-seven towers collapsed (Marcellin. Com., A.D. 447; Chron. Pasch., 447, 450 A.D.), Cyrus repaired the damage and added the lesser wall (Theophanes, an. 5937; Cedrenus, i, p. 598, and the words ἐδείματο τείχεϊ τεῖχος of the inscription). Cedrenus states virtually that he demolished the wall and replaced it by three others, alluding perhaps to the moat, but Cedrenus is often wrong. All seven (or nine) chronographists relate more or less exactly that Cyrus gained such popularity by his works that the public acclamations offended the Emperor, who forced the tonsure on him and sent him to Smyrna as bishop in the hope that the turbulent populace, who had already killed four of their bishops, would speedily add him to the number. By his ready wit, however, he diverted their evil designs and won their respect. Zonaras, xiii, 22, and Nicephorus Cal., xiv, 1, have an incorrect idea of the wall-building. According to the latter, Anthemius was the man of speed. Malala mentions Cyrus, but not the wall.
[106] The Greek verses are given in the Anthology (Planudes, iv, 28). The Latin I may reproduce here:
This epigram and its companion in Greek are still legible on the stone of the Rhegium Gate (now of Melandesia). See Paspates, op. cit., pp. 47, 50. The Porta Xylocerci has practically disappeared.