[107] Mordtmann’s exposition of these gates is the most convincing (op. cit., p. 16, etc.). I have omitted the Gate of the Seven Towers as it has always been claimed as a Turkish innovation, a view, however, which he rejects. In any case it was but a postern—there may have been others such in the extinct section of the wall.
[108] That is an S, which at this period was formed roughly like our C.
[109] Cedrenus, ii, p. 173; or a personification of the city; Codin., p. 47.
[110] Zonaras, xv, 4.
[111] A fragment still exists on the northern tower. See Grosvenor, op. cit., p. 591.
[112] Chrysoloras, loc. cit., Gyllius, De Top. CP., iv, 9.
[113] Ibid. Gyllius would seem to have been inside when making these observations, but that would be within the fortress of Yedi Koulé, rigorously guarded at that time. Doubtless the city side was adorned, but no description of the gate as a whole is left to us. The ornaments are only mentioned incidentally when recording damage done by earthquakes (in their frequency often the best friends of the modern archaeologist) and their arrangement can only be guessed at. Most likely they were of gilded bronze, a common kind of statue among the Byzantines. See Codinus, passim. The idea that the Golden Gate opened into a fortress should be abandoned. The conception of the Seven Towers seems to have originated with the Palaeologi in 1390, but Bajazet ordered the demolition of the unfinished works (Ducas, 13), and it was left to the Turkish conqueror to carry out the idea in 1458. See p. 26. I may remark here that Mordtmann’s map has not been brought up to date as regards his own text.
[114] Cedrenus, i, p. 675.
[115] Ibid., i, p. 567; Codin., pp. 26, 47; said to have been brought from the temple of Mars at Athens.
[116] The first Golden Gate was erected, or rather transformed, by Theodosius I, as the following epigram, inscribed on the gate, shows (Corp. Inscript. Lat., Berlin, 1873, No. 735):
It was, of course, in the wall of Constantine (Codin., p. 122) and seems to have remained to a late date—Map of Buondelmonte, Ducange, CP. Christ., etc. For a probable representation see Banduri, Imp. Orient., ii, pl. xi. But Van Millingen (op. cit.), having found traces of the inscription on the remaining structure, considers there never was any other. In that case it was at first a triumphal arch outside the walls.
[117] The remarkable structure known as the Marble Tower, rising from the waters of the Marmora to the height of a hundred feet, near the junction of the sea-and land-wall is of later date, but its founder is unknown and it has no clear history in Byzantine times. See Mordtmann, op. cit., p. 13.
[118] Glycas, iv; Codin., p. 128. A legend, perhaps, owing to débris of walls ruined by earthquakes collecting there in the course of centuries.
[119] See Mordtmann, op. cit., p. 60; Codin., p. 109.
[120] Codin., p. 101. Great hulks of timber were built to float obelisks and marble columns over the Mediterranean; Ammianus, xvii, 4.
[121] Ibid., p. 102.
[122] Codin., pp. 49, 104.
[123] Notitia, Reg. 12.
[124] Codin., loc. cit.
[125] Gyllius, De Top. CP., iv, 8.
[126] Mordtmann, op. cit., p. 59.
[127] Zosimus, iii, 11; Codin., p. 87.
[128] Notitia, Reg. 3. We hear of a trumpet-tower (βύκινον, Codin., p. 86; βύκανον, Nicetas Chon., p. 733) by this harbour fitted with a “siren” formed of brass pipes, whose mouths protruding outside resounded when they caught the wind blowing off the sea. Ducange, i, p. 13, thinks a later fable has risen out of the vocal towers of Byzantium. “Sic nugas nugantur Graeculi nugigeruli,” says Banduri (ii, p. 487). There was certainly a watch-tower here, but of origin and date unknown. Mordtmann, op. cit., p. 55.
[129] Codin., loc. cit.
[130] Marcel. Com., an. 409.
[131] Suidas, sb., Anast. In a later age this port was enlarged and defended by an iron grill. Anton. Novog. in Mordtmann, op. cit., p. 55.
[132] About fifty feet above it; for a photograph of the existing ruins see Grosvenor, op. cit., p. 388. Also Van Millingen’s work and others.
[133] William of Tyre, xx, 25.
[134] Anna Comn., iii, 1.
[135] Zonaras, xv, 25, etc.; Const. Porph., i, 19, etc.
[136] Codin., p. 100, says the palace was founded by Theodosius II. The group was probably ravished from some classic site at an early period when the mania for decorating CP. was still rife. The existence of the harbour at this date may be darkly inferred from Socrates, ii, 16; Sozomen, iii, 9; Procopius, De Bel. Pers., i, 24; Theophanes, an. 6003. Τὰς πύλας τοῦ βασιλείου πανταχόθεν ἀπέκλεισεν, καἱ πλοῖα εἰς τὸ φυγεῖν, τῷ παλατίῳ παρέστησεν; Theodore Lect., ii, 26. All these passages prove the existence of a harbour approachable only from the palace, which probably was then, or afterwards became, the Boukoleon. Van Millingen (op. cit.) gives good reasons for placing the Boukoleon on this site, the only likely one (see Appendix). The name Boukoleon is not found in literature before 800; Theoph., Cont., i, 11. From ibid., vi, 15, it may be inferred that the main group of statuary had long been in position.
[137] For his story see Zosimus, ii, 27; Ammianus, xvi, 10. He was a Christian who escaped from prison to the court of Constantine; see Appendix.
[138] Nicephorus Cal., xiv, 2, etc.
[139] Ibid., Niceph. Greg., iv, 2, etc.; Codin., De Offic. CP., 12.
[140] Ἡ Ὁδηγός. The place was called Ὁδηγήτρια; Codin., p. 80.
[141] Ibid.
[142] Or a monastery for blind monks, perhaps; Niceph. Greg., xi, 9, etc.
[143] Probably the Master of the Infantry under Theodosius I; Zosimus, iv, 45, etc.
[144] It is said that those going from Byzantium to Chalcedon, at the mouth of the Bosphorus on the Asiatic side, were obliged to start from here and make a peculiar circuit to avoid adverse currents. See Gyllius, op. cit., iii, 1.
[145] That is, the fig-region, Codin. (Hesych.), p. 6. Now Galata and Pera.
[146] The Constantinopolitans generally confounded this name with the legendary Phosphoros (see p. 5), and the geographical Bosporos. The Notitia (Reg. 5) proves its real form and significance; also Evagrius, ii, 13.
[147] Codin., pp. 52, 60, 188. This ox was believed to bellow once a year to warn the city of the advent of some calamity (ibid., p. 60).
[148] Ibid., p. 113. The wall here formed another Sigma to surround the inner sweep of the port. These two harbours we may suppose to be those of Byzantium as known to Dion Cassius (see p. 7).
[149] A patrician, who came from Rome with Constantine and took a share in adorning the city (Glycas, iv, p. 463), or another, who lived under Theodosius I (Codin., p. 77).
[150] Codin., p. 114; Cedrenus, ii, p. 80; Leo Diac., p. 78. This tower was standing up to 1817; see Κωνσταντινιαδε, Venice, 1824, p. 14, by Constantius, Archbishop of CP. This appears to be the first attempt by a modern Greek to investigate the antiquities of CP. He had to disguise himself as a dervish to explore Stamboul, for which he was banished to the Prince’s Islands, and his book was publicly burnt.
[151] Leo Diac. (loc. cit.) explains how the chain was supported at intervals on piles. It seems to have been first used in 717 by Leo Isaurus; Theophanes, i, p. 609; Manuel Comn. even drew a chain across the Bosphorus from CP. to the tower called Arcula (Maiden’s T., etc.), which he constructed for the purpose (Nicetas Chon., vii, 3).
[152] Theophanes, an. 6024; Codin., p. 93. The “junction,” that of the mules to the vehicle containing the relics of St. Stephen newly arrived from Alexandria!
[153] Xenophon notices the plenty of timber on these coasts (Anab., vi, 2).
[154] Strabo, vii, 6; Gyllius, op. cit., iii, 9.
[155] Zosimus, ii, 35. This circumstance, and the fact that almost all the towers along here bear the name of Theophilus (Paspates, op. cit., p. 4), suggest that this side was not walled till the ninth century. Chron. Paschal. (an. 439) doubtless refers only to the completion of the wall on the Propontis. Grosvenor (p. 570) adopts this view, but as usual without giving reasons or references. He is wrong in saying that the chain was first broken in 1203 by the Crusaders; it was broken in 823 (Cedrenus, p. 80; Zonaras, xv, 23). I do not credit the statement of Sidonius Ap. (Laus Anthemii) that houses were raised in the Propontis on foundations formed of hydraulic cement from Puteoli. In any case, such could have been obtained much nearer, viz., across the water at Cyzicus (Pliny, Hist. Nat., xxxv, 47). The Bp. of Clermont never visited CP.
[156] Notitia, Reg. 14. There was a populous suburb at Blachernae, which had walls of its own before Theodosius included it within the city proper.
[157] Codin., pp. 30, 120; Suidas, sb. Mamante (St. Mamas, however, appears to have been outside the walls; Theophanes, an. 6304, etc.); Glycas, iv. Versions of the same story, probably. Gyllius’ memory fails him on this occasion.
[158] Ἀργυρολίμνη; see Paspates, op. cit., p. 68.
[159] Chrysoloras, loc. cit. The Notitia enumerates fifty-two, which we may understand to be pairs, before the enlargement by Theodosius.
[160] Codin., p. 22. In this account the patricians, who accompanied Constantine, are represented as undertaking many of the public buildings at their own expense. See also Nonius Marc. (in Pancirolo ad Notit.). In this case a testator wills that a portico with silver and marble statues be erected in his native town.
[161] Cod. Theod., XV, i, 44; iv; vii, 12, etc., with Godfrey’s commentary. The imperial portraits were painted in white on a blue ground; Chrysostom, 1 Cor., x, 1 (in Migne, iii, 247). “The countenance of the Emperor must be set up in courts, market-places, assemblies, theatres, and wherever business is transacted, that he may safeguard the proceedings”; Severianus, De Mund. Creat., vi, 5 (apud. Chrysost., Migne, vi, 489).
[162] Cod. Theod., loc. cit.; Philostorgius, ii, 17.
[163] Ibid., IX, xliv; Institut., i, 8. On proof the master could be compelled to sell the slave on the chance of his acquiring more congenial service, but the privilege was often abused.
[164] Ibid., XV, vii, 12.
[165] Ibid., XV, i, 52.
[166] Ibid., 53; Vitruvius, v, 11, etc.
[167] Cod., VIII, x, 12. A Greek Constitution of Zeno of considerable length, and uniquely instructive on some points. These οἰκήματα were limited to six feet of length and seven of height.
[168] Novel cxxxvi; Plato, Apol., 17, etc.
[169] Whence called emboliariae (ἰμβολος being Byzantine for portico). So say Alemannus ad Procop. (Hist. Arcan., p. 381) and his copyist Byzantios (op. cit., i, p. 113), but Pliny seems to use the word for an actress in interludes (H. N., vii, 49), an occupation not, however, very different.
[170] Theophanes, Cont., p. 417. In the severe winter of 933, Romanus Lecapenus blocked the interspaces and fitted them with windows and doors.
[171] They are, in fact, called the “narrows” in the Greek στενωποί.
[172] Παρακύπτικος, Cod., loc. cit.
[173] Texier and Pullan, op. cit., p. 4; Agincourt, Hist. of Art, i, pl. 25. Mica or talc (lapis specularis) was commonly used at Rome for windows (Pliny, H. N., xxxvi, 45). Gibbon rather carelessly says that Firmus (c. 272) had glass windows; they were vitreous squares for wall decoration (Hist. August., sb. Firmo). Half a century later Lactantius is clear enough—“fenestras lucente vitro aut speculari lapide obductas” (De Opif. Dei, 8). Pliny tells us that clear glass was most expensive, and, six centuries later, Isidore of Seville makes the same remark (Hist. Nat., xxxvi, 67; Etymologies, xvi, 16).
[174] The climate of the East requires that windows shall generally be kept open; even shutters are often dispensed with.
[175] See Cod. Theod., XV, i, De Op. Pub., passim. This legislation was initiated by Leo Thrax, probably after the great fire of 469 (Jn. Malala; Chron. Pasch., etc.).
[176] Zosimus, ii, 35.
[177] Cod., loc. cit.
[178] Agathias, v, 3.
[179] A century earlier there were 322 according to the Notitia.
[180] Zeno, Cod., loc. cit.
[181] We know little of the insulae or συνοικίαι of CP., but we can conceive of no other kind of private house requiring such an elevation. Besides, insulae are the subject of an argument in Cod., VIII, xxxviii, 15 (enacted at CP. about this time).
[182] Chrysostom, In Psal. xlviii, 8 (Migne, v, 510); Agathias, loc. cit.; Texier and Pullan, loc. cit.
[183] Niceph. Greg., viii, 5. Merely a tradition in his time; it is commonly called the column of Theodosius. Grosvenor absurdly places on it an equestrian statue of Theodosius I, with an epigram which belongs to another place; op. cit., p. 386; see infra. Founded on a rock, it has withstood the commotions of seventeen centuries.
[184] Hist. August., sb. Gallieno. Much more likely than Claudius II; everything points to its being a local civic memorial. “Pugnatum est circa Pontum, et a Byzantiis ducibus victi sunt barbari. Veneriano item duce, navali bello Gothi superati sunt, tum ipse militari periit morte” (c. 266).
[185] “Fortunae reduci ob devictos Gothos.” The Goths had been in possession of Byzantium and the adjacent country on both sides of the water; G. Syncell., i, p. 717, etc.; Zosimus, i, 34, etc. There was a temple to Gallienus at Byzantium; Codinus, p. 179. He was evidently popular here.
[186] Jn. Lydus, De Mens., iii, 48.
[187] Codin., p. 74; Glycas, iv, p. 468.
[188] Ibid.
[189] Codin., p. 31; Notitia, Reg. 2.
[190] Zosimus, ii, 31.
[191] Jn. Lydus, De Mens., iv, 86; Codinus, pp. 15, 28.
[192] See the plates in Banduri, op. cit., ii; repeated in Agincourt on a small scale, op. cit., ii, 11; i, 27. Déthier (op. cit.) throws some doubt on the accuracy of these delineations, the foundation of which the reader can see for himself in Agincourt without resorting to the athleticism imposed on himself by Déthier. The Erechtheum shows that the design could be varied, the Pantheon that the dome was in use long before this date; see Texier and Pullan, etc.
[193] Leo Gram., p. 126, etc.
[194] Codin., p. 60; Theophanes, i, p. 439.
[195] His architect was named Aetherius; Cedrenus, i, p. 563. Probably a short but wide colonnade flanked by double ranges of pillars; Anthol. (Plan.), iv. 23.
[196] Several names are given to these palatines or palace guards, but it is not always certain which are collective and which special. Procopius mentions the above; the Scholars were originally Armenians (Anecdot. 24, 26, etc.). Four distinct bodies can be collected from Const. Porph. De Cer. Aul. Codinus (p. 18) attributes the founding of their quarters to Constantine; see Cod. Theod., VI, and Cod., XII. All the household troops were termed Domestics, horse and foot; Notit. Dig.
[197] See Const. Porph., De Cer. Aul., passim, with Reiske’s note on the Candidati.
[198] Codin., p. 18; Chron. Pasch. (an. 532) calls them porticoes.
[199] See an illustration in Gori, Thesaur. Vet. Diptych.; reduced in Agincourt, op. cit., ii, 12, also another in Montfaucon containing a female figure supposed to be the Empress Placidia Galla; III, i, p. 46 (but Gori makes it a male figure!). The kiborion (a cup), also called kamelaukion (literally a sort of head covering), was sometimes fixed, in which case the columns might be of marble. Silver pillars are mentioned in Const. Porph., op. cit., i, 1; cf. Texier and Pullan, op. cit., p. 135, a cut of an elaborate silver kiborion. From Gori it may be seen that the design of these state chairs is almost always that of a seat supported at each of the front corners by a lion’s head and claw, etc.
[200] Built by Constantine; Codin., p. 18.
[201] Another foundation of Constantine, clearly enough from Chron. Pasch. (an. 328, p. 528), as Labarte remarks (op. cit., p. 137).
[202] Codin., p. 100; it had been brought from Rome. I prefer this indigenous explanation to the surmise of Reiske (Const. Porph., op. cit., ii, p. 49), that it was here that the victors in the games received their crowns of laurel (Δάφνη):
[203] Codin., p. 101; the most likely position, as a surmise.
[204] Jn. Malala, xvi; Zonaras, xiv, 3, etc.
[205] Procopius, De Bel. Pers., ii, 21, etc. “Three decurions marshalled the thirty brilliantly armed Silentiaries who paced backwards and forwards before the purple veil guarding the slumber of the sovereign”; Hodgkin, Cassiodorus, p. 88.
[206] Codin., p. 101; see the plans of Labarte and Paspates.
[207] Built by Constantine according to Codinus (p. 19) as emended by Lambecius. The original palace extended eastward to the district called Τόποι (ibid., p. 79), on the shore near the Bucoleon.
[208] The conception of the sanctity of the Emperor’s person, which originated in the adulation of the proconsuls of the eastern provinces by the Orientals and in the subservience of the Senate to Augustus, attained its height under Diocletian (c. 300), who first introduced at Court the Oriental forms of adoration and prostration (Eutropius, ix, etc.). It was probably even increased under the Christian emperors, and Theodosius I was enabled to promulgate a law that merely to doubt the correctness of the Emperor’s opinion or judgement constituted a sacrilege (Cod., IX, xxix, 3, etc.).
[209] Cod. Theod., VI, viii; Cod., XII, v.
[210] Theophanes, Cont., iv, 35; cf. Symeon, Mag., p. 681, where the invention is ascribed to Bp. Leo of Thessalonica under Theophilus. The stations by which an inroad of the Saracens was reported c. 800 are here given. Its use for signalling at this date cannot be asserted definitely, but it was a relic of old Byzantium erected as a nautical light-house; Ammianus, xxii, 8.
[211] Codin., p. 81; the particular area to which this name was applied seems to have been a polo ground; Theoph., Cont., v, 86, and Reiske’s note to Const. Porph., ii, p. 362. It was encompassed by flower gardens.
[212] Marrast has given us his notion of these gardens at some length: “Entre des haies de phyllyrea taillées de façon de figurer des lettres grecques et orientales, des sentiers dallés de marbre aboutissaient à un phialée entourée de douze dragons de bronze.... Une eau parfumée en jaillissait et ruisselait par dessus les branches des palmiers et des cedres dorés jusqu’à hauteur d’homme. Des paons de la Chine, des faisans et des ibis, volaient en liberté dans les arbres ou s’abattaient sur le sol, semé d’un sable d’or apporté d’Asie à grands frais.” La vie byzantine au VIe siècle, Paris, 1881, p. 67.
[213] Labarte gives these walls, towers, etc. Doubtless the palace was well protected from the first, but did not assume the appearance of an actual fortress till the tenth century under Nicephorus Phocas; Leo Diac., iv, 6.
[214] Codin., p. 95 (?); Const. Porph., i, 21, etc. Probably a structure like the elevated portico at Antioch mentioned by Theodoret, iv, 26.
[215] Luitprand, Antapodosis, i, 6. A legend of a later age, no doubt, which may be quietly interred with Constantine’s gift to Pope Sylvester. We hear nothing of it in connection with Arcadius, Theodosius II, etc., and it is only foreshadowed in 797 by a late writer (Cedrenus, ii, p. 27), who would assume anything. The epithet became fashionable in the tenth century. One writer thinks the name arose from a ceremonial gift of purple robes to the wives of the court dignitaries at the beginning of each winter by the empress; Theoph., Cont., iii, 44.
[216] Anna Comn., vii, 2.
[217] The archaeological student may refer to the elaborate reconstructions by Labarte and Paspates of the palace as it existed in the tenth century. Their conceptions differ considerably, the former writer being generally in close accord with the literary indications. Paspates is too Procrustean in his methods, and unduly desirous of identifying every recoverable fragment of masonry. Their works are based almost entirely on the Book of Ceremonies of Constantine VII, but even if such a manual existed for the date under consideration the historical reader would soon tire of an exposition setting forth the order and decoration of a hundred chambers.
[218] Codin., pp. 16, 130.
[219] This name is understood to refer, not to a female saint, but to the Holy Wisdom ( Ἅγια Σοφία), the Λόγος, the Word, i.e., Christ; Procopius, De Bel. Vand., i, 6, etc.
[220] Lethaby and Swainson give good reasons for supposing that this early church opened to the east; St. Sophia, etc., Lond., 1894, p. 17. It was burnt in the time of Chrysostom, but apparently repaired without alteration of design.
[221] Ambo, plainly from ἀναβαίνω, to ascend, not, as some imagine, from the double approach; Reiske, Const. Porph., ii, p. 112; Letheby and S., op. cit., p. 53.
[222] The gift of Pulcheria, presented as a token of the perpetual virginity to which she devoted herself and her sisters; Sozomen, ix, 1; Glycas, iv, p. 495. The Emperor used to sit in the Bema, but St. Ambrose vindicated its sanctity to the priestly caste by expelling Theodosius I; Sozomen, vii, 25, etc.
[223] Socrates, vi, 5; Sozomen, viii, 5.
[224] Codin., pp. 16, 64. There is no systematic description of this church, but the numerous references to it and an examination of ecclesiastical remains of the period show clearly enough what it was; see Texier and Fullan, op. cit., p. 134, etc.; Agincourt, op. cit., i, pl. iv, xvi; Eusebius, Vit. Const., iv, 46, etc. It may have been founded by Constantine, but was certainly dedicated by his son Constantius in 360; Socrates, ii, 16.
[225] Ibid.
[226] Procopius, De Aedific., i, 2, etc.
[227] Codin., p. 83; cf. Mordtmann, op. cit., p. 4.
[228] We know little of the Magnaura or Great Hall (magna aula) at this date, but its existence is certain; Chron. Paschal., an. 532. Codinus says it was built by Constantine (p. 19).
[229] Theophanes, Cont., v, 92, etc.
[230] Const. Porph., ii, 15. The author professes to draw his precepts from the ancients, but his “antiquity” sometimes does not extend backwards for more than half a century.
[231] Codin., pp. 14, 36; Zonaras, xiv, 6, etc. Zeuxippus is either a cognomen of Zeus or of the sun, or the name of a king of Megara; Chron. Paschal., an. 197, etc.; Jn. Lydus, De Magist., iii, 70.
[232] Sozomen, iii, 9.
[233] Anthology (Planudes), v.
[234] Cedrenus, i, p. 648; cf. Anthol. (Plan.), v, 61.