Chapter XV (2)

Turkish historians do not afford any assistance to solve the problem under discussion. Evlia Tchelebi pretends that the ships were not brought from the Bosporus, but that some of them were constructed at Kiathaneh, the Sweet Waters, at the head of the harbour, and others at Levend Tchiflik (probably the Kutchuk Levend Tchiflik situated, in old Turkish times, high up the longer arm of the Dolma Bagtchè valley, not the Levend Tchiflik above the head of the valley of Balta Liman); and that the latter portion of the flotilla was carried to the Golden Horn by way of the Ok Meidan behind Haskeui, and the gardens of the Arsenal (Tersaneh Bagtchessi). Another Turkish authority says the ships were transported from Dolma Bagtchè to Cassim Pasha.

NOTE.

According to Leonard of Scio (p. 920), the distance over which the
Turkish ships were conveyed was seventy stadia, “ad stadia
septuaginta trahi biremes.” This statement involves so many
questions which are difficult, if not impossible, to decide, that it
affords no assistance in determining where the ships crossed the
hills. The archbishop’s account of the Sultan’s action is given in
the following words: “Quare ut coangustaret circumvalleratque magis
urbem, jussit invia æquare; exque colle, suppositis lenitis vasis
lacertorum sex, ad stadia septuaginta trahi biremes, quæ ascensu
gravius sublatæ, posthac ex apice in declivum, in ripam sinus
levissime introrsum vehebantur.”

Now, if the “seventy stadia” in this passage are to be understood in
the ordinary sense of the words, the route taken by the ships was
over eight English miles in length. But from no point between Top
Haneh and Beshiktash is the distance to the Golden Horn, across the
hills, so great. Hence the language of Leonard has been variously
interpreted, in the hope of bringing it into accord with what his
commentators deemed the real facts in the case. Dethier, in his
annotations to Zorzo Dolfin (_Siège de Constantinople_, No. xxii. p.
998), maintains that the numeral seventy gives the number of the
ships transported over the hills, and not the length of the road
tranversed: “Non sono 70 stadia, ma 70 galere o fuste.” Charles
Müller, the editor of Critobulus, referring to the statement of
Leonard, expresses the same opinion as Dethier, and thinks that the
number for the stadia has dropped out of the text of Leonard:
“Stadiorum numerus excedisse videtur, nam septuaginta vox ad navium
numerum, quem eundem etiam Chalcocondylas, p. 387, 8 præbet,
referenda est” (_Fragm. Hist. Græc._ p. 87). Another possible view
is that the number seventy is due to an error in the text. Or,
finally, it may be supposed that Leonard employed the term “stadium”
in a peculiar sense. One presumption in favour of this supposition
is the fact that elsewhere in his epistle, the measurements of
Leonard by stadia seem too gross mistakes to be made by such a man
as the archbishop, with the ordinary idea of a stadium in his mind.
The bridge, for example, which the Sultan built at Haskeui, to bring
his cannon closer to the Harbour Walls, and which Phrantzes (p. 252)
says was one hundred ortygia long, or one stadium, Leonard (p. 931)
represents as about thirty stadia in length, _i.e._, according to
the ordinary computation, between three and four miles in length,
where the harbour is not half a mile wide. Again, Leonard (p. 970)
speaks of the Turkish fleet as anchoring at a point less than one
hundred stadia from the shore of the Propontis: “Minus ad stadia
centum Propontidis ripa anchoras figunt”—a statement which, if it
refers to the distance of Beshiktash from the Seraglio Point, would
make that part of the Bosporus about ten miles broad! It should also
be added that Charles Müller thinks that the stadium of the later
Byzantine writers was one-third less than the Olympic stadium: “Adeo
ut stadium tertia parte minus quam vetus stadium Olympicum subesse
videri possit” (_Fragm. Hist. Græc._, v. p. 76). Du Cange
(_Glossarium Med. et Infim. Latinitatis_) says, respecting the use
of the term “stadium” by mediæval writers, “Mensuræ species, sed
ignota prorsus.”

Zorzo Dolfin translates the account which Leonard gives of the
ships’ passage across the hills, as follows: “Et per coangustar, et
circumuallar piu la terra, commando, fusse spianato le uie, et sopra
i colli messi in terra i uasi a forza de brazze ... per 70 stadia
che sono circa miglia ... introdusse le fuste nel mandrachio, le
qual per ... miglia con fatica se tiranno in suxo” (Dethier, _Siège
de Constantinople_, No. xxii. p. 997). If the number of miles had
been given, or had not disappeared, how much discussion would have
been spared!

Footnote 739:

Pusculus, iv. 192; Dolfin, s. 55.

Footnote 740:

Ducas, p. 282.

Footnote 741:

Anonymus, ii. p. 39; _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, ii. p. 461;
_Itinéraires Russes en Orient_, pp. 104, 105.

Footnote 742:

According to Dr. Paspates (pp. 381-383), respectively, Pour Kouyou
Mesdjidi, and Sheik Mourad Mesdjidi.

Footnote 743:

Ducas, _ut supra_.

Footnote 744:

Mordtmann, pp. 7, 8, 45; Du Cange, iv. ad St. Acacium. See above, p.
32.

Footnote 745:

_Notitia, ad Reg. X._

Footnote 746:

Socrates, ii. c. xx.; Theophanes, p. 70.

Footnote 747:

Du Cange, _ut supra_.

Footnote 748:

_Ibid._, vi. c. xxi.

Footnote 749:

_Miklosich et Muller_, iii. p. 88.

Footnote 750:

_Ibid._, _ut supra_.

Footnote 751:

According to Du Cange, Glossarium Mediæ et Infimæ Latinitatis, _ad
vocem_, from Drungus, “company of soldiers.” The word is connected
with the German “Gedrung” and the English “throng.”

Footnote 752:

Anna Comn., vi. p. 286; cf. Luitprandus, as quoted by Du Cange, in
_Anna Comn._, vol. ii. p. 544.

Footnote 753:

_Tafel und Thomas_, ii. pp. 27, 28: “Via quæ dicitur De Longaria,
extra murum civitatis CP.”

Footnote 754:

_Ibid._, pp. 11, 60: “Scala de Drongario.”

Footnote 755:

Theophanes, p. 281.

Footnote 756:

Gerlach, p. 454; Smith, _Epistolæ Quatuor_, p. 88.

Footnote 757:

Mordtmann, p. 46.

Footnote 758:

_Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200.

Footnote 759:

Paspates, p. 166.

Footnote 760:

Heyd, _Histoire du Commerce du Levant_, vol. i. p. 251.

Footnote 761:

_Ibid._, p. 251.

Footnote 762:

Theophanes, p. 353; cf. Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. vii.

Footnote 763:

_Notitia, ad Reg. VI._

Footnote 764:

_Novella LIX._, c. v.

Footnote 765:

_Paschal Chron._, p. 618.

Footnote 766:

_Notitia_, _ut supra_.

Footnote 767:

_Ptochoprodromus_, line 113; cf. Paspates, pp. 164, 165.

Footnote 768:

VII. p. 286.

Footnote 769:

_Tafel und Thomas_, i. p. 50.

Footnote 770:

_Tafel und Thomas_, i. pp. 55-63.

Footnote 771:

_Ibid._, ii. p. 4; iii. pp. 133-149.

Footnote 772:

Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iii. c. i.; Leunclavius, _Pand. Hist. Turc._,
s. 200.

Footnote 773:

On the subject of the Italian and other foreign colonies settled in
Byzantine Constantinople, the reader may consult Paspates, pp.
127-276; Mordtmann, pp. 46-50; Desmoni, _Giornale Ligustico_, vol. i.;
_Sui Quartieri dei Genovesi a Constantinopoli nel Secolo XII._; Heyd,
_Histoire du Commerce du Levant_; Sauli, _Della Colonia del Genovesi
in Galata_; Pears, _Fall of Constantinople_, c. 6; Miklosich et
Müller, _Acta et Diplomata Græca_; Tafel und Thomas, _Urkunden zur
Älteren Handels und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig_.

Footnote 774:

The Russian pilgrim, Stephen of Novgorod (_Itinéraires Russes en
Orient_, p. 121), who visited Constantinople about 1350, found a gate
near the sea, and beside a Church of St. Demetrius, named “Portes
Juives,” on account of the many Jews settled in the vicinity. From the
connection in which the fact is mentioned, it appears that the gate
stood on the Marmora side of the city, somewhere in the neighbourhood
of Vlanga; thus showing how the same name might belong to different
gates at different periods in the history of the city. Nicolo Barbaro
(p. 817) confirms the existence of a Jewish quarter on the Marmora
shore of the city, when he says that the Turkish fleet, finding itself
unable to force the chain across the harbour, abandoned the attempt,
and proceeded to the side towards the Dardanelles (“de la band del
Dardanelo”), and there landed to plunder the Jewish quarter (“muntò in
tera de la banda de la Zudeca”). It is possible, indeed, to contend
that the Russian pilgrim referred to a gate near the Church of St.
Demetrius beside the Seraglio Point. This view does not affect the
argument presented in the text.

Footnote 775:

_Tafel und Thomas_, ii. pp. 270-272; cf. _Ibid._, pp. 4-11.

Footnote 776:

_Miklosich et Müller_, iii. pp. 12, 16, 19; cf. _Ibid._, p. 6.

Footnote 777:

Codinus, p. 22; cf. Paspates, p. 158.

Footnote 778:

Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 737.

Footnote 779:

_Miklosich et Müller_, iii. pp. 19-21.

Footnote 780:

Pachymeres, vol. i. p. 365; Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iii. c. i.

Footnote 781:

_Miklosich et Müller_, iii. pp. 19, 21.

Footnote 782:

_Ibid._, p. 19.

Footnote 783:

See above, p. 10.

Footnote 784:

Nicephorus Patriarcha, _CP._, p. 57; Theophanes, p. 591; Theophanes
Cont., p. 391.

Footnote 785:

Anonymus, ii. p. 30; Codinus, p. 52.

Footnote 786:

_Miklosich et Müller_, iii. p. 6. Such a factory can be seen to-day at
Keurekdjilar, in Galata.

Footnote 787:

_Paschal Chron._, p. 582; Cedrenus, vol. i. pp. 609, 610; ii. p. 529.

Footnote 788:

_De Top. CP._, iii. c. i.; _De Bosporo Thracio_, ii. c. ii.

Footnote 789:

Page 454.

Footnote 790:

_Pand. Hist Turc._, s. 200.

Footnote 791:

Phrantzes, p. 254.

Footnote 792:

Ducas, p. 282. Phrantzes and Ducas are the only Byzantine writers who
mention the Beautiful Gate.

Footnote 793:

Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iii. c. i.; cf. Paspates, pp. 166, 167. The
ground on which Yeni Validè Djamissi stands, near the Stamboul end of
the Outer Bridge, belonged, as late as the seventeenth century, to
Karaïte Jews, who claimed that the territory had been granted to their
ancestors under the Byzantine Empire. In return for the seizure of the
ground to build the mosque (1615-1655), the community received houses
at Haskeui, and forty members of the community were exempted from
taxation for life. As the site of the synagogue could not be sold, the
mosque has had to pay the community an annual rent of thirty-two
piastres.

Footnote 794:

Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p. 12.

Footnote 795:

Page 268.

Footnote 796:

I. c. 18.

Footnote 797:

Page 238.

Footnote 798:

Page 384.

Footnote 799:

Pages 283, 284.

Footnote 800:

Pages 282, 283.

Footnote 801:

Page 263.

Footnote 802:

Page 300.

Footnote 803:

See above, p. 93.

Footnote 804:

Pages 270, 271.

Footnote 805:

Gyllius’ statement (_De Top. CP._, III. c. i.) on the subject is:
“Portum, quem vocunt Neorion, quod prope portam, quam Græci appellant
Oraiam, corruptè quasi Neorii portam, aut non longe ab ea, fuisse
existimo. Hodie inter mare et Portam Oraiam, quam Turci appellant
Siphont (Tsifout), id est, Judæorum eam accolentium, spatium latum ...
videre licet.” Cf. _De Bosporo Thracio_, II. c. i. “Pro porta quam
vulgo vocant Oriam corruptè, quasi olim Neorii portam.”

Footnote 806:

Page 454: “Die Prächtige, itzund die Juden-Pfort.”

Footnote 807:

_Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200. “Porta quæ Græci quotquot vederi
peritores volunt Porta Horæa (Ὡραία), vulgo Huræa (Ebraia) dicitur.”

Footnote 808:

_Miklosich et Müller_, iii. pp. ix., 53; Desimoni, _Giornale
Ligustico_, vol. i. p. 37: _Sui Quartieri dei Genovesi a
Constantinopoli, nel secolo XII._, p. 46.

Footnote 809:

_Notitia, ad Reg. V._

Footnote 810:

_Paschal Chron._, ad ann. 406, 415.

Footnote 811:

_Cod. Theod. De Calcis Coctor._, Lex V.; Stephanus Byzantius, _De
Urbibus et Populis_, ad vocem; Evagrius, ii. c. xiii.

Footnote 812:

Mordtmann, p. 49.

Footnote 813:

Anonymus, ii. p. 29. The point at Scutari where cattle are embarked to
be ferried to the city is called by the Turks “Ukooz-Limani,” the
Ox-Port.

Footnote 814:

_Notitia, ad Reg. V._

Footnote 815:

Constant. Porphyr., _De Cer._, p. 699.

Footnote 816:

_De Corona_, p. 134, Edition Didot.

Footnote 817:

Evagrius, ii. c. xiii.

Footnote 818:

Anonymus, i. p. 2.

Footnote 819:

Cantacuzene, iv. pp. 213, 214.

Footnote 820:

_Ibid._, iv. pp. 76, 232.

Footnote 821:

Anna Comn., xv. p. 345.

Footnote 822:

Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 175; Nicephorus Greg., vi. p. 167.

Footnote 823:

Anonymus, i. p. 2; _Acta Patriarchatus CP._, p. 563.

Footnote 824:

Banduri, _Imp. Orient._, vii. p. 149.

Footnote 825:

_Miklosich et Müller_, ii. pp. 467, 564.

Footnote 826:

_Notitia, ad Reg. IV._

Footnote 827:

Codinus, _De Officiis_, pp. 107, 108; cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. 11.

Footnote 828:

Critobulus, i. c. 18.

Footnote 829:

Leo Diaconus, pp. 78, 79; Anonymus, iii. p. 56. This was probably the
tower to which N. Barbaro (p. 733) refers when, speaking of the two
towers, on the opposite sides of the entrance to the Golden Horn,
which supported the chain, he says, “Etiam una tore per ladi de la
zilade, zoè una de la banda de Constantinopoli, l’altra de la banda de
Pera, le qual tore vignia a far defexa assai.”

Footnote 830:

N. Barbara, pp. 722, 723.

Footnote 831:

Ville-Hardouin, c. 32.

Footnote 832:

Gyllius, _De Top. CP._, iv. c. x. “Adhuc Galatæ porta est, quæ
appellatur Catena, ex eo, quod ab Acropoli usque ad eam portam catena
extenderetur.” Cf. Theophanes, p. 609.

Footnote 833:

Dr. Paspates (Πολιορκία καὶ Ἄλωσις τῆς ΚΠ., p. 63) thinks the tower
stood beside the Offices of the Board of Health, between the Galata
Bridge and the Galata Custom House. He grounds this opinion on the
existence of old ruins at that point. But the chain would never be
placed aslant the harbour, as this view implies.

Footnote 834:

Theophanes, p. 609.

Footnote 835:

Cedrenus, vol. ii. p. 80.

Footnote 836:

Leo Diaconus, p. 79.

Footnote 837:

Nicetas Chon., p. 718; cf. Ville-Hardouin, c. xxxii.

Footnote 838:

Phrantzes, p. 251. See below, pp. 241-247, for the discussion
regarding the precise route taken by the ships.

Footnote 839:

_Acta Patriarchatus CP._, ii. p. 467; Anna Comn., xv. p. 345.

Footnote 840:

Procopius, _De Æd._, i. c. xi. R.

Footnote 841:

Nicephorus Greg., vii. p. 275.

Footnote 842:

Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._, p. 15. With him
agree Von Hammer, Paspates, Mordtmann, etc.

Footnote 843:

Gerlach, p. 454; Leunclavius, Pand. Hist. Turc. s. 200.

Footnote 844:

Pages 254, 255, Ἐδόθη φυλάττειν τὸν πύργον τὸν ἐν μέσω τοῦ ῥεύματος,
τὸν φυλάσσοντα τὴν εἴσοδον τοῦ λιμένος, καὶ ἦν ἀντικρὺς τῆς πύλης τῆς
βασιλικῆς.

Footnote 845:

Page 259. Dr. Paspates, in his work on the siege of the city
(Πολιορκία καὶ Ἂλωσις τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, p. 141), represents the
Hill of St. Theodore and the battery upon it as commanding the Bay of
Cassim Pasha. This, however, is in harmony neither with the statements
of Phrantzes, nor with local configuration. The requirements of the
case are met by the supposition that the Hill of St. Theodore was the
ridge to the north-east of Top Haneh, and that the Sultan’s battery
stood nearer the Bosporus than the present Italian Hospital. Cf. Zorzo
Dolfin, s. 44: “Acceso el Turcho da disdegno, da i montè orientali de
Pera penso a profondar con machine e morteri, o trar quelle de la
cathena. Mezzo adonque le bombarde a segno dal occidente” (_i.e._
aiming towards west), “se sforza con bombardieri profundar le naue.”

Footnote 846:

Page 259.

Footnote 847:

Page 238.

Footnote 848:

XVII., p. 860; cf. Cantacuzene, iv. p. 232.

Footnote 849:

Dr. Paspates (see p. 111 of his work on the siege of the city, cited
above) understands Phrantzes in the same way. He identifies the tower
with one which stood, until 1817, between the Gate of St. Barbara (Top
Kapoussi) and the Gate of Eugenius (Yali Kiosk Kapoussi). It was
probably the tower to which Nicolo Barbaro refers (see above, p. 228).

Footnote 850:

Pages 254, 255.

Footnote 851:

See his Epistle to the Pope on the Capture of Constantinople.

Footnote 852:

Pusculus, iv. pp. 179-221.

Footnote 853:

Ducas, p. 275.

Footnote 854:

_Acta Patriarchatus CP._, vol. ii. p. 391, year 1400; cf. pp. 297,
487.

Footnote 855:

Speaking of the bridge which the Sultan built out into the Golden
Horn, and on which he placed cannon to batter the walls in the
Kynegon, Leonard of Scio (p. 931) says the bridge was built that the
army might advance near the wall, beside the “fanum” of the city:
“Decurreret ad murum prope, juxta fanum urbis.” The term is ambiguous.
Zorzo Dolfin translates it, “Appresso la giesia” (the church). But
more probably the reference is to the Phanar quarter, although the
bridge was not exactly opposite to it.

Footnote 856:

How old this church is cannot be precisely determined. It is known to
have been in existence, as a small chapel, before 1640, when it was
burned down. It was then reconstructed, but was again destroyed by
fire, after which it was rebuilt at the expense of the monastery on
Mount Sinai. For some time it was the fashionable church of the
Phanariotes. See Patriarch Constantius, _Ancient and Modern Consple._,
pp. 104, 105. Mr. Gedeon ascribes it to the 14th century (_Proceedings
of the Greek Syllogos of Consple._, vol. xxvi. p. 148. 1896).

Footnote 857:

_Acta Patriarchatus CP._, ii. p. 391.

Footnote 858:

_Pand. Hist. Turc._, s. 200.

Footnote 859:

Page 454, where he styles the first gate west of the Seraglio Point
“Die Königliche Pforte.”

Footnote 860:

See above, p. 228; see below, p. 250.

Footnote 861:

_Acta Patriarchatus CP._, ii. pp. 297, 391, 487.

Footnote 862:

Pachymeres, vol. ii. p. 503.

Footnote 863:

Lib. i. c. 65.

Footnote 864:

Lib. i. c. 18.

Footnote 865:

Lib. i. c. 65.

Footnote 866:

If the Basilikè Pylè could be identified with the gate which went by
the names Porta Boni, Porta Veteris Rectoris, at Sirkedji Iskelessi,
all statements concerning the Imperial Gate might be applied to that
single entrance. But this would be to interpret the language of
Phrantzes and Leonard of Scio on the subject too loosely. Nor is there
any reason apparent for bestowing such an epithet upon that gate, or
for regarding that gate important during the last siege.

Footnote 867:

The Basilikè Pylè is mentioned in Byzantine history by the following
writers:—

Pachymeres, vol. ii. pp. 178-180.—As the starting-point of a great
conflagration, in 1291, which extended far into the interior of the
city, and caused immense loss of houses and merchandise.

_Ibid._, p. 503.—As the gate to which Berenger, in 1306, took his ship
from the harbour at Blachernæ, in order to leave Constantinople more
readily, as soon as a favourable wind sprang up.

_Acta Patriarchatus CP._, vol. ii. p. 297. Year 1399.—As the gate
beside the shore on which a certain priest had his residence.

_Ibid._, p. 391. Year 1400.—As the gate before which a Church of St.
John the Baptist stood upon the seashore.

_Ibid._, p. 487. Year uncertain.—As the gate before which there was a
hospitium on the sea-shore, near the Church of St. John the Baptist.

Ducas, pp. 184-186.—As the gate guarded by soldiers from Crete during
the siege of 1422. At the demand of those loyal troops the Emperor
Manuel Palæologus, who had taken up his quarters in the monastery of
the Peribleptos (Soulou Monastir), allowed his minister Theologus to
be tried on the charge of accepting bribes from the Turks to betray
the city. Having been found guilty, Theologus was forthwith dragged by
the Cretans along the street to the Basilikè Pylè, and there had his
eyes put out, in a manner that resulted in his death three days after
the horrible operation.

Chalcocondylas, pp. 285, 286.—As the gate beside which stood the tower
injured by the cannon of the Genoese in 1434.

Ducas, pp. 275, 283, 295, 300.—As the gate defended by the Venetians,
and by the Grand Duke Notaras, in the siege of 1453.

Phrantzes, p. 255; Leonard of Scio, in his Letter to Pope Nicholas.—As
the gate defended, in 1453, by Gabriel of Treviso.

Pusculus, iv. p. 193.—As the gate defended, in 1453, by the Grand Duke
Notaras.

Critobulus, i. c. 65.—As the gate attacked by the Turkish fleet which
entered the Golden Horn, after forcing the chain across the mouth of
the harbour.

Footnote 868:

Lib. i. c. 42.

Footnote 869:

See above, p. 211.

Footnote 870:

Page 753.

Footnote 871:

Page 271.

Footnote 872:

Page 251.

Footnote 873:

_Constantinople et le Bosphore_, p. 364.

Footnote 874:

Lib. i. c. 42.

Footnote 875:

_Siège de Constantinople_; Nicolò Barbaro, _Giornale_, p. 752.

Footnote 876:

See his work on the Siege of the City in 1453, p. 139.

Footnote 877:

Page 270: Προστάττει τοῦ εὐθυδρομηθῆναι τὰς νάπας τὰς ὄπισθεν κειμένας
τοῦ Γαλατᾶ, ἀπὸ τὸ μέρος τὸ πρὸς ἀνατολὴν, κάτωθεν τοῦ διπλοῦ κίονος.

Footnote 878:

IV. 550-551.

Footnote 879:

Page 753.

Footnote 880:

Lib. i. c. 42. Charles Müller thinks the correct reading in the text
of Critobulus was not “eight stadia,” but “eighteen stadia.”

Footnote 881:

For the site of the Diplokionion, see Gyllius, _De Bosporo Thracio_,
ii. c. 7. See also, Bondelmontius’ Map (the columns are more
distinctly shown in the copy of that map found in Du Cange and
Banduri, than in the copy which accompanies this work). The idea of
Dr. Dethier, expressed in a note on Pusculus (_Siège de
Constantinople_, p. 237), that the Diplokionion stood, in Byzantine
days, at Cabatash, and was removed—columns and inhabitants together—to
Beshiktash, after the Turkish Conquest, has no foundation whatever.

Footnote 882:

Page 753.

Footnote 883:

Dethier, _Siège de Constantinople_, No. xviii. p. 893.